Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/
~~
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAN D-BOOK
TO
THE EPISTLES
TIMOTHY AND TITUS,
BY
JOH. ED. HUTHER, Tx.D.,
PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN BEI SCHWERIN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
DAVID HUNTER, B.A,
AND TO
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS,
BY
Dr. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN,
PROFESSOR IN THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
Rev. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A.
WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY
TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PROFESSOR OF SACKED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE.
NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERs, .
10 aND 12 Dry SrReEet.
1885.
Union siete “ecu nary
NE ea ld y
PRESEwteo py
Mn». (i{lbert Yoer ah Auranan
na \ 7? 1917
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
Fu
M ble
s
158892
Ie +
@)
PREFACE
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
THE present volume of Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Hand-book
to the New Testament contains the Commentaries on the Pastoral
Epistles, by Dr. Huther, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Dr.
Lunemann. In the work of preparing these Commentaries for pub-
lication in the American edition, I have followed the same general plan
with that which was adopted in the volume on the Epistles to the Col-
ossians, Philippians, and Thessalonians, issued within the present year.
The limits imposed upon me have made it impossible to discuss all the
points of interest or importance, which the Epistles offer for consider-
ation, as fully as might have been desired. But I have endeavored to
follow the course of the chapters and verses, and, in some sense, to give
a continous series of annotations on the several Epistles. These anno-
tations cover more than one hundred and twenty pages, and I trust that
they will prove to be not otherwise than suggestive and helpful to the
student. ,
The question as to the Pauline authorship of these Epistles is dis-
cussed with much learning, ability and fairness by Drs. Liinemann
and Huther. I would commend the careful reading of what they have
written to all who may use the volume. With the general conclusions
which they reach, I would here express my agreement, believing, as I
do, that Paul may probably be regarded as the writer of the Pastoral
Epistles, but not of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the reason, how-
ever, which was mentioned in my preface to the volume on “ Phil-
ippians,” etc., I have refrained from entering upon an independent
examination of this question, and have confined myself wholly to anno-
tations explanatory of the meaning and thought of the epistles. In the
course of these annotations, indeed, I have considered the plan of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and have pointed out its un-Pauline character ;
but this matter was so intimately connected with the primary purpose
of my notes that it could not be passed over altogether. What I have
been led, thus incidentally, to set forth respecting this point is submit-
ted to the candid consideration of the reader.
lll
lV PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
As in former volumes, the references to pages in Winer’s and Butt-
mann’s Grammars of the New Testament, are given both to the German
and American editions of those works—the American edition being
designated by the letters E.T. In my own notes, the pages of the
American translation only are indicated. The abbreviations of the
names of commentators, in my annotations, will be readily understood
by the reader. For other abbreviations, reference may be made to
page xxiv. of the volume on the Epistle to the Romans.
As in the case of the two other volumes of this Commentary, which
have passed under my editorial care, I dedicate my portion of the |
present volume to the Students and Graduates of the Divinity School
of Yale College. It is a pleasure to me to unite my name, once more,
with theirs, in a book whose object is to aid all honest students of the
New Tcstament writings in an impartial investigation of their meaning.
TIMOTHY DWIGHT.
New HAvEN, Oct. 22d, 1885.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
In publishing the fourth edition of my Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles, I recall with painful feeling the man who began and conducted
the work in which I count it a special honor to take part. When the
third edition of my Commentary on the Epistle of James appeared in
the year 1870, he was still busy with undiminished mental vigor in
conducting his work nearer to that goal of completion, which he had
kept before him from the first. At that time I did not anticipate that
in a few years he would.be called away from his work. Through his
death Science has sustained a heavy loss, but she has this comfort, that
if he himself has departed from her, the work to which he devoted the:
labor of a lifetime still remains, a brilliant example of the most
thorough and unbiassed exegesis, of an exegesis which, holding itself
free from all subjective caprice, “devotes itself soberly, faithfully, sub-
missively, to the service of the Divine Word.” The works of Meyer
testify that he himself adhered to the law which he set down for the ex-
positors of the holy Word, viz. that “they must interpret its pure con-
tents as historical facts in a manner simple, true, and clear, without bias
and independent of dogmatic prejudice, neither adding nor taking away
anything, and abstaining from all conjectures of their own” (Preface
to the fifth edition of the Commentary on 1 Cor.).—Since he invited me
to take part in the work, it has been my constant endeavor to imitate
his example; and it shall always be so with me, so long as I am spared
to go on with it. Of what use is it, either to theological science or to
the Church, if the expounder of the holy Scriptures uses his acuteness
in endeavoring to confirm from them his own preconceived opinions,
instead of faithfully interpreting and presenting the thoughts actually
contained in them ?—The same endeavor has guided me in this new
revision, as will be shown, I hope, by the revision itself. In addition
to the scrutiny to which I have subjected my earlier work, I have also
carefully considered and examined the writings on the Pastoral Epis-
tles, published since 1866, when the third edition of this Commentary
appeared. Above all, I have examined the third edition of van Ooster-
zee’s Commentary, the practical exposition by Plitt, and Hofmann’s
Commentary. While fully acknowledging the acuteness displayed in
Vv
vi AUTHOR’S PREFACE.
Hofmann’s exposition, I have but seldom been able to agree with it;
for the most part, I have felt myself bound to refute it. However con-
vincing it may frequently appear at the first glance, as frequently it
will not bear an unbiassed, scrutinizing consideration. While it cer-
tainly does not yield itself to exuberant fancies, it still follows a mode
of exegesis, in which the chief purpose is to put forth new and striking
explanations, and then to support them with all kinds of ingenious
arguments.—Nevertheless I feel myself bound to express my thanks to
it, because it has incited me to examine the thought of the holy text all
the more carefully and thoroughly. )
The disfavor with which the Pastoral Epistles used often to be re-
garded has gradually disappeared, and rightly; for the more deeply
we enter into the spirit of their contents, the more they appear worthy
of the apostle whose name they bear. Excellent service in presenting
their fulness of thought has been done by Stirm, a deacon in Reutlin-
gen, in his treatise published in the Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie
(vol. xviii. No. 1, 1872), and called “ Hints for Pastoral Theology con-
tained in the Pastoral Epistles.’ ‘The more they who are entrusted
with the clerical office make use of the contents of these epistles as their
guiding star, the richer in blessing will their labors be-—To that same
end may the Lord of the Church bless this my new work!
JOH. ED. HUTHER.
WITTENFORDEN, November, 1875.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
No list of works connected with the Pastoral Epistles—under the title
“Exegetical Literature”—is given in the English edition. The names of a few
of the more valuable or recent commentaries are presented here, for the benefit
of theological students and others.
ALFORD (Henry): Vol. III. of his Greek Testament. Fifth Ed. 1872.
Beck (J. T.): Erklirung der zwei Briefe Pauli an Timotheus. Herausgegeben
von J. Lindenmeyer. 1879.
DE WETTE (W. M.L.): In his Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament. Second Ed. 1847. Third edition edited by Mdller. 1865.
Dykes (J. Oswald), London: Commentary on Titus, in Schaff’s Popular Commen-
tary.
Exuicorr (Chas. J.): Vol. II. of his Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles in the
Ed. published by W. F. Draper, 1868,—also printed separately: “The
Pastoral Epistles.”
FAIRBAIRN (Patrick) Principal of Free Church College, Glasgow: The Pas-
toral Epistles. The Greek Text and Translation, with Introduction,
Expository Notes, and Dissertations. Edinburgh, 1874.
Fatt (Johann Friedrich von): Vorlesungen tiber die Briefe Pauli an Timotheus
and Titus, nebst einer allgemeinen Einleitung iiber die Briefe Pauli.
Nach seinem Tode herausgegeben, mit Anmerkungen, u. 8. w., von Chr.
Fr. Kling. 1831.
HEYDENREICH (Aug. Ludw. Chr.): Die Pastoralbriefe Pauli erliutert. 1826.
HormMann (J. Chr. K. von), Professorin Erlangen: Die-heilige Schrift neuen
Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht. Sechster Theil: Die Briefe
Pauli an Titus and Timotheus. Nordlingen, 1874.
HoLtTzMann (Heinrich Julius), Professor in Strassburg: Die Pastoralbriefe,
kritisch und exegetisch behandelt. Leipzig, 1880.
Lxo (Gottlieb E.): Epistola prima ad Timotheum Graece cum commentario per-
petuo, 1837. Epistola altera ad Tim. ete. 1850.
Mack (Martin Joseph), Professor in Theology: Commentar iiber die Pastoral-
briefe des Apostels Paulus. Tiibingen, 1841.
Mawnovry (A. F.): Commentaire sur les épitres de Saint Paul a Timothée, a
Tite, 4 Philémon, aux Hébreux. Paris, 1882.
Marrutes (Cour. Stephan), Professor at Greifswald: Erklirung der Pastoralbriefe,
mit besonderer Beziehung auf Authentie und Ort und Zeit der Abfas-
sung derselben. Greifswald, 1840.
vii
Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
Puitr (Theodor.): Die Pastoralbriefe. Praktisch ausgelegt. 1872.
PLUMPTRE (Edward Hayes), Kings College, London: Commentary on Ist and 2d
Timothy. In Vol. III. of Schaff’s Popular Commentary.
SPEAKER’s (Bible) Commentary: Timothy and Titus, Introduction by Rev. H.
Wace, Professor in Kings College, London; Commentary by the Lord
Bishop of London.
SPENCE (Canon H. D. M.): Commentary on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus,
in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers.
Van OosTERZEE (J. J.), Professor in Utrecht: Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles, in Lange’s Commentary. Translated in Schaff’s Edition by
Drs. Washburn, Harwood and Day. New York, 1868.
WEGSCHEIDER (T. A.): Der erste Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. 1810.
WIESINGER (J. C. Augustus): The Pastoral Epistles explained. In Olshausen’s
Commentary. The American Edition was edited by Prof. A. C. Ken-
drick. New York, 1858.
The attention of students may also be called to the following works:
BaHNSEN: Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe erklirt. I. Theil. Erklarung, nebst
einer allgemeinen Einleitung zu den Paulinischen Briefen itiberhaupt.
1872.
BAUMGARTEN: Die Echtheit der Pastoralbriefe, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf
den neuesten Angriff von Herrn Baur. 1837.
Baur: Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus, aufs Neue kritisch
untersucht. 1835.
Baur: Paulus, Der Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe
und seine Lehre. 1845.
Bout: Ueber die Zeit der Abfassung und den Paulinischen Charakter der Briefe
an Timotheus und Titus. Ein Beitrag zum Erweise ihrer Echtheit. 1829.
Dvsois: Etude Critique sur Authenticité des Epitres. 1856.
GINELLA: De Authentia Epistolarum S. Pauli Pastoralium. 1865.
Goop: Authenticité des Epitres Pastorales. 1848,
HavsraTH: Der Apostel Paulus. 1865.
Herzoa, E.: Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Pastoralbriefe. 1872.
KoEuuinc: Der erste Brief Pauli an Timotheus, aufs Neue untersucht und
ausgelegt. Erster Theil. Die allgemeinen Fragen. 1882.
Lemme: Das echte Ermahnungschreiben des Apostel Paulus an Timotheus [2
Tim. i. 1—ii. 10, iv. 6-22]. Ein Beitrag zur Lesgebung des Problems der
Pastoralbriefe. 1882.
MANGOLD: Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe. 1856.
MARKER: Die Stellung der drei Pastoralbriefe in dem Leben des Apostels Paulus.
1861.
MAYERHOFF: Der Brief an die Colosser mit vornehmlicher Beriicksichtigung
der drei Pastoralbriefe kritisch gepriift. 1888.
Orro: Die geschichtlichen Verhiiltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. 1860.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 1X
PLANCK: Bemerkungen iiber den ersten Paulinischen Brief an den Timotheus
in Beziehung auf das kritische Sendschreiben von Schleiermacher. 1808
Revss: Les Epitres Pauliniennes. 1878.
Rupow: Dissertatio de Argumentis Historicis, quibus recenter Epistolarum
Pastoralium origo Paulina impugnata est. 1853.
RvuFFeEt: St. Paul, sa double captivité. 1860.
ScHARLING: Die neuesten Untersuchungen tiber die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe.
1846.
ScCHLEIERMACHER: Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den
Timotheus: Ein Sendschreiben an Gass. 1807.
Wo tr: Dissertatio Exegetico-Critica de altera Pauli Apostoli captivitate. 1821.
The Introductions to the New Testament by Bleek, Davidson, Guericke, Hil-
genfeld, and others, the History of the New Testament by Reuss, and Dr. Gloag’s
Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, may also be referred to.
Digitized by Google
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
INTRODUCTION.
SECTION 1—TIMOTHY AND TITUS.
IMOTHY.—He was the son of a Christian Jewess (yvvacxdc
’"lovdaiag meotgc, Acts xvi. 1) named Eunice (2 Tim.i. 5), and
of a Greek. We cannot determine for certain his place of
2} birth. The passage in Acts xx. 4 does not prove that he was
born in Derbe, since the position of xaé forbids the connection of Trudfeoe
with Aepfaioc.1 From Acts xvi. 1, we might possibly take Lystra to be his
birthplace. If this be right, we may from it explain why in Acts xx. 4,
T:ué0eoc, without more precise description, is named along with Caius
of Derbe, since Lystra lies in the neighborhood of Derbe.?
his mother and his grandmother, called Lois, he had enjoyed a pious
education; and he had early been made acquainted with the holy
scriptures of the Jews (2 Tim. i. 5, i. 14,15). When Paul on his second
missionary journey came into closer connection with him, he was
already a Christian (ua6yrfc), and possessed a good reputation among the
believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul calls him his réavov (1 Tim. i. 2, 18;
2 Tim. i. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 17), from which it would appear that he had been
converted by the preaching of the apostle, probably during the apostle’s
first stay in Lystra (Acts xiv. 6, 7); and, according to the reading: apa
tivey, in the passage 2 Tim. ili. 14, by means of his mother and grand-
From
mother.
the district to be a Gentile,® adopted him as his assistant in the apostleship.
Paul, after circumcising him, because his father was known in
1 Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, p.
25) argues that Aep8atos should go with Tepd-
@cos. He points out that in xix. 29, Taios is
called a Macedonian along with Aristarchus,
and that xx. 4 would agree with this if «a
I'dios were joined to @eccadoma«éwy. But in
this construction «ai before Zexovrsos is super-
fluous. The Gaius here named is not to be
held identical with the one mentioned in xix.
29; see Meyer on Acts xx. 4.
2 According to Otto, the %» does not denote
Timothy's abode, but only his temporary so-
journ occasioned by the presence of Paul—an
assertion which the context flatly contradicts.
’From the expression: dre °EAAny usnpxey
(Acts xvi. 3), Otto wishes to infer that the
1
o THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
From that time forward, Timothy was one of those who served the apostle
(cig trav diaxovobvtwy aiz@, Acts xix. 22), his ovvepyéc. The service (d:axovia)
consisted in helping the apostle in the duties of his office, and was there-
fore not identical with the office of those called evangelists (this against
Wiesinger). See on 2 Tim. iv. 5—Timothy accompanied the apostle
through Asia Minor to Philippi; but when Paul and Silas left that city
(Acts xvi. 40), he seems to have remained behind there for some time,
along with some other companions of the apostle. At Berea they were
again together. When Paul afterwards traveled to Athens, Timothy
remained behind (with Silas) at Berea; but Paul sent a message for him
to come soon (Acts xvii. 14, 15). From Athens, Paul sent him to Thessa-
lonica, to inquire into the condition of the church there and to strengthen
it (1 Thess. iii. 1-5). After completing this task, Timothy joined Paul
again in Corinth (Acts xviil.5; 1 Thess. iii.6). Thetwo epistles which Paul
wrote from that place to the Thessalonians were written in Timothy’s
name also (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1)2 When Paul on his third
missionary journey remained for some considerable time in Ephesus,
Timothy was with him; where he was in the interval is unknown.
Before the tumult occasioned by Demetrius, Paul sent him from Ephesus
to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). Immediately afterwards the apostle wrote
what is called the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which it would
appear that Timothy had been commissioned to go to Corinth, but that
the apostle expected him to arrive there after the epistle (1 Cor. iv.‘\17,
xvi. 10,11). Matthies asserts without proof that Timothy did not carry
out this journey.—When Paul wrote from Macedonia the Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, Timothy was again with him;* for Paul composed
that epistle also in Timothy’s name, a very natural act if Timothy had
shortly before been in Corinth—He next traveled with the apostle to
Corinth; his presence there is proved by the greeting which Paul sent
from him to the church in Rome (Rom. xvi. 21).—When Paul after three
father was “properly a Hellene, but that not “his first attempts at the xypvyya tov Adcyou (2
much of a Gentile nature was to be seen in
him,” because Uxdpxecy, in contrast to daivec-
@a, is = “to be fundamentally ” (1).
1 There is no tenable ground for Otto's asser-
tion that Silas remained at Berea, and that
Timothy, after completing the apostle’s com-
mission in Thessalonica, joined Silas again
at Berea on the return journey, from which
place the two traveled together to Corinth.
$ Otto asserts that in Corinth Timothy made
Cor. i. 19),” which is in manifest contradiction
with 1 Thess. iii. 1-5. Zrnpigeew and wapaxadciy
wepi rhs miorews neceszarily include the «ypuc-
ge Toy Adyov, and are not to be regarded
merely as the fulfillment of a “messenger’s
duty, demanding no particular experience
nor ability.”
8 Wieseler assumes that Timothy joined
Pau! again while still in Ephesus (0. ¢. pp. 57
f.), but his proofs are not decisive.
INTRODUCTION. 3
months left Greece, Timothy, besides others of the apostle’s assistants,
was in his company. He traveled with him dyp: rij¢ ’Asiag, t. e. as fur as
Philippi, from which the passage across to Asia Minor was usually made.
From there Timothy and some others went before the apostle to Troas,
where they remained till the apostle also arrived (Acts xx. 3-6). At this
point there is a considerable: blank in Timothy’s history, since he is not
mentioned again until the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome.' He was
with the apostle at that time, because Paul put his name also to the
Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. This fact
is at the same time a proof that no other of his assistants in the apostle-
ship stood in such close relations with him as Timothy.—When Paul wrote
the last epistle, he intended to send him as soon as possible to Philippi, in
order to obtain by him exact intelligence regarding the circumstances of
the churches there (Phil. ii. 19 {f.).
From our two Epistles to Timothy we learn also the following facts
regarding the circumstances of his life :—
According to 1 Tim. i. 8, Paul on a journey to Macedonia left him
behind in Ephesus, that he might counteract the false doctrine which
was spreading there more and more. Perhaps on this occasion—if not
even earlier—Timothy was solemnly ordained to his office by the laying on
of hands on the part of the apostle and the presbytery. At this ordination
the fairest hopes of him were expressed in prophetic language (comp. 1
Tim. i. 18, iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), and he made a good confession (1 Tim. vi.
12).—Paul at that time, however, hoped soon to come to him again.—As
to the period of Paul’s apostolic labors into which this falls, see 3 3.—Later
on, Paul was a prisoner in Rome. When he was expecting his death as
near at hand, he wrote to Timothy to come to him soon, before the
approach of winter, and to bring him Mark, together with certain belong-
ings left behind in Troas (2 Tim. iv. 9, 11, 18, 21).—Regarding this impris-
onment of Paul, see 2 3.
Timothy is only once mentioned elsewhere in the N. T., and that is
in Heb. xiii. 23. It is very improbable that the Timothy there mentioned
is another person; and from the passage we learn that when the epistle
Was written, he was again freed from an imprisonment, and that its
author, as soon as he came, wished, along with him, to visit those to whom
the epistle was directed.
According to the tradition of the church, Timothy was the first bishop
1In this it is presupposed that thetwo Epis- and the Epistle to Philemon, were written in
tles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, Rome, and not,as Meyer assumes, in Cesarea.
4 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
of Ephesus. Chrysostom, indeed, merely says: djAov, dre éxxAnciav Aourdv
qv memiorevpévog 6 Teuddeoc, Kai Ebvog b2dKAnpov 7rd Tig 'Aciac (Homil. 15, on 1
Tim.); but Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4), says directly: TeudOeoe rie év
"Eg¢éow mapotxiag ioropeitae mpatog tH Srickoae etAngévat. Comp. also Const.
Apost. i. 7, ch. 46; Photit Bibl. 254—From the First Epistle only this
much is clear, that the apostle gave to him a right of superintending the
church at Ephesus, similar to that which the apostles exercised over the
churches. It was a position from which afterwards the specially episcopal
office might spring, but it cannot be considered as identical with the
latter.
Titus—Regarding the circumstances of his life, we possess still less
information than regarding those of Timothy. He was also one of Paul’s
assistants, and is first mentioned as such in Gal. iil. 1, where Paul tells us
that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the journey undertaken
fourteen years after his conversion or after his first stay in Jerusalem.
Though Titus was of Gentile origin, Paul did not circumcise him, that
there might be no yielding to his opponents.—When Paul wrote the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, he sent Titus to Corinth, that a report might
be brought to him of the state of matters there. Paul was disappointed
in his hope of finding him again at Troas (2 Cor. ii. 13), but afterwards
joined him in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). The news brought by Titus led
him to compose the Second Epistle. With this he sent Titusa second time
to Corinth, where he was at the same time to complete the collection for
the poor of the church in Jerusalem, which he had already on a previous
occasion begun (2 Cor. viii. 6, 16, 23)—When Paul, from his imprisonment
in Rome, wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, Titus was not with him,
but had gone to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10). On this point we do not
possess more exact information.
From the Epistle to Titus itself, we learn that he had assisted the
apostle in his missionary labors in Crete, and had been left behind there
in order to make the further arrangements necessary for forming a church
(Tit. i.5). By the epistle he is summoned to come to Nicopolis, where
Paul wished to spend the winter (Tit. iii. 12)—Paul calls him his yvforov
réxvov kata xowvyv riorty, from which it appears that he had been converted
to Christianity by Paul.
According to the tradition of the church, Titus was installed by Paul as
the first bishop of Crete. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4): Tiud0ed¢ ye ppv ric
év 'Egéow napocxiac loropeitat mpatog tiv Excoxonny eiAnyzévar’ Og Kal Tiroc tev eri
Kpfrne éxxAnoiav; comp. Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles.; Theodoret on 1 Tim.
INTRODUCTION. 5
iii; Theophylact, Proem. ad Tit.; Const. Apost. vii. 46. He is said to have
died and been buried in Crete in his ninety-fourth year.
SECTION 2.—CONTENTS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
First Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with a reminder that the
apostle had left Timothy behind in Ephesus in order to counteract the
heresies of certain teachers. These heresies are described in detail, and
the evangelic principle of life is placed in opposition to them (i. 8-10) by
directing attention to the gcspel as it had been entrusted to the apostle.
This furnishes an opportunity for expressing his thanks for the grace
shown to him in it (11-17), to which is added an exhortation to Timothy
to act rightly in regard to it (18-20). Then follow particular directions, first
as to public intercessions and the behavior of the men and women in
the meetings of the church (ii. 1-15), and then as to the qualities
necessary in a bishop and a deacon (iii. 1-13). After briefly pointing out
the essential truth of the gospel (14-16), the apostle goes on to speak
further regarding the heretics, and confutes their arbitrary rules (iv. 1-6).
After this we have further exhortations to Timothy,—first as to his
behavior towards the heresy (7-11), then as to his official labors (12-16),
and lastly in reference to his attitude towards the individual members of
the church. Under this last head are given more detailed instructions
about widows and presbyters (v. 1-25), to which are added some special
remarks regarding slaves (vi. 1, 2).—After another attack on the heretics
(3-10), there follow again exhortations to Timothy to be true to his calling,
which are interrupted by an allusion to the rich (11-22).
Second Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with the apostle’s assurance
to Timothy that, full of desire to see him again, he remembered him always
in prayer, and was convinced of his unfeigned faith (i. 8-5). This is
followed by an exhortation to stir up the gift of the Spirit imparted to him,
and not be ashamed of the gospel, but to be ready to suffer for it (6-8);
his attention also is directed to the grace of God revealed in the gospel,
and to the apostle’s example (9-12). Then follow further exhortations to
Timothy to hold fast the doctrine he had received, and to preserve the
good thing entrusted to him, the apostle also reminding him of the con-
duct of the Asiatics who had turned away from him, and of the fidelity
of Onesiphorus (13-18).—The doctrine received from the apostle he is to
deliver to other tried men, but he himself is to suffer as a good soldier of
Jesus Christ, and to remember the Risen One; just as he, the apostle,
suffers for Christ’s sake, that the elect may become partakers of blessed-
6 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
ness (ii. 1-13). Then follow warnings against the heresy, which may
exercise On many a corrupting influence, but cannot destroy the building
founded by God (14-19). Instructions are also given how Timothy is to
conduct himself towards this heresy, and towards those who give them-
selves up to it (20-26). With prophetic spirit the apostle points next
to the moral ruin which threatens to appear in the future in the most
varied forms. He pictures the conduct of the heretics, and exhorts
Timothy on the contrary—in faithful imitation of his exemplar as
before—to hold fast by that which he knows to be the truth (iii. 1-17).
In reference to the threatening general apostasy from the pure doctrine
' of the gospel, the apostle exhorts Timothy to perform faithfully. the
evangelic duties of his office, especially as he himself was already at the
end of his apostolic career (iv. 1-8). Then follow various special com-
missions, items of news, greetings, the repeated summons to come to him
soon before the approach of winter, and finally the Christian benediction
with which the epistle closes. |
The Epistle to Titus.—After a somewhat elaborate preface, Paul reminds
Titus that he had left him behind in Crete for the purpose of ordaining
presbyters in the churches there. The qualities are named which the
presbyter ought to possess, and Paul points out the upholding of the pure
gospel as the most important requisite of all, that the presbyter may be
able to withstand the continually growing influence of the heretics. The
mention of the heretics in Crete gives the apostle an opportunity of
quoting a saying of Epimenides, which describes the character of the
Cretans, while at the same time he sketches the heretics, with their
arbitrary commands and their hypocritical life, and vindicates against
them the principle of life in the gospel (i. 5-16). Then follow rules of
conduct for the various members of the church, for old and young, men
and women, together with an exhortation to Titus to show a good
example in work and doctrine, and especially to call upon the slaves to
be faithful to their masters. These exhortations are supported by pointing
to the moral character of God’s grace (ii. 1-15).—Then follows the injunc-
tion that Titus is to urge the Christians to obedience towards the higher
powers, and to a peaceful behavior towards all men. The latter point is
enforced by pointing to the undeserved grace of God which has been
bestowed on Christians (ili. 1-7). To this are added warnings against
heresy, and directions how Titus is to deal with a heretic (8-11). The
epistle closes with an injunction to come to the apostle at Nicopolis, some
commissions, greetings, and the benediction.
INTRODUCTION. 7
The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are letters on
business, both occasioned by the apostle’s desire to impart to his colleagues
definite instructions for their work in Ephesus and in Crete respectively.
The Epistle to Titus has at the same time the purpose of enjoining him,
after the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus, to come to Paul at Nicopolis.—
The Second Epistle to Timothy is a letter “purely personal” (Wiesinger),
occasioned by the wish of the apostle to see him as soon as possible
in Rome. It was written, too, for the purpose of encouraging him to
faithfulness in his calling as a Christian, and particularly in his official
labors. The apostle felt all the greater need for writing, that he perceived
in his colleague a certain shrinking from suffering.—The instructions in
the First Epistle to Timothy refer to the meetings of the church, to
prayer and the behavior of the women in the meetings, to the qualifica-
tions of bishops and deacons, to widows, to the relation of slaves to their
masters, but at the same time also to Timothy’s conduct in general as
well as in special cases.—In the Epistle to Titus the apostle instructs
him regarding the ordination of bishops, the conduct of individual mem-
bers of the church, both in particular according to their age, sex, and
position, and also in their general relation to the higher powers and to
non-Christians. In all three epistles, besides the more general exhorta-
tions to faithfulness in word and act, there is a conspicuous reference to
heretics who threaten to. disturb the church. The apostle exhorts his
fellow-workers not only to hold themselves free from the influence of such
men, but also to counteract the heresy by preaching the pure doctrine of
the gospel, and to warn the church against the temptations of such heresy.
He imparts also rules for proper conduct towards the heretics.
The three epistles are closely related in contents, and also in the expres-
sion and the form in which the thoughts are developed. They have thus
received a definite impress, which distinguishes them from the apostle’s
other epistles. All Paul’s epistles contain expressions peculiar to him
alone, and this is certainly the case with every one of these three. But
there is also in them a not inconsiderable number of expressions peculiar
to them all, or even to two of them, and often repeated in them, but
occurring only seldom or not at all in the other epistles of the N.T. The
nature of the Christian life is denoted specially by evoéBeca. 1 Tim. ii. 2,
iii. 16, etc.; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1 (evoeBéw, 1 Tim. v. 4; evoeBic, 2 Tim. iii.
12; Tit. ii.12). The following virtues are specially extolled as Christian :—
oeuvérnc, 1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 4; Tit. ii. 7 (ceuvdc, 1 Tim. iii. 8,11; Tit. ii, 2);
cuppooivg, 1 Tim. ii. 9,15 (cd¢pur, 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8, ii. 2,5; ouppdvur,
8 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
Tit. ii. 12; cugpovéw, Tit. ii. 6; owgppovife, Tit. ii. 4; cwppowopude, 2 Tim. i. 7).
The same or very similar words, which occur seldom or nowhere else, are
used to denote the doctrine of the gospel; e.g. the word didacxadia, espe-
cially in connection with tycacvovea, 1 Tim. i. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit.i. 9, ii. 1.
The use of iy:aivw and iyi¢ in general is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles:
Aéyot bytaivovtec, 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. 1.13; Adyog tye, Tit. 11. 8. We may
also note: 9 xar’ evoéBecav didaoxadia, 1 Tim. vi. 3, and 9 aAjbeca 7 Kar’ evoé Berar,
Tit. i. 1; 4 xaAy didacxadia, 1 Tim. iv. 6 (xa%6¢ is also a word which occurs
very often in all three epistles). Even in describing the heresy there is a
great agreement in all three. Its substance is denoted in a more general
way by pio, 1 Tim. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 4; Tit. 1. 14; more specially by yeve-
atoyia, 1 Tim.i.4; Tit. ii. 9. Frequently it is reproached with occasion-
ing foolish investigations (uwpai Cyt#oec), as in 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2 Tim. il. 23;
Tit. 1.9. In 1 Tim.i.6 it is on this account called parasoAoyia, and in
accordance with this the heretics are called in Tit. 1.10 parasadsyo. In
1 Tim. vi. 4 the blame of Acyouayia is given to it, and in 2 Tim. ii. 14 there
is © warning against Aoyouayeiv. The same reproach is contained in ai
BéBnAoe xevogwrviat, Which is found in 1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. ii. 16.—But
also in other respects there is a striking agreement in these epistles.
Among the points of agreement are the formula, mioré¢ 6 Adyoc, 1 Tim. 1. 15,
iii. 1,iv. 9; 2 Tim. i). 11; Tit. iii. 8; the word apvéoua:, 1 Tim. v. 8; 2 Tim.
ii. 12, 13, iii. 5; Tit. 1. 16, 11. 12; the formula of assurance, dtazapripecbat
évdriov (rov Geov wai xvpiov "I. Xp.), 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1; the figu-
rative expression, 4} mayic rov diaBdAov, 1 Tim. iii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 26; the
phrase, 9vadocecv tiv rapabjxyy, 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14; further, the
words, xar’ éxtray7v, 1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. 1.35 bropeuvqjonecv, 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit.
iii. 1; de fy airiav, 2 Tim. 1. 6, 12; Tit. 1.13; 7 éripdveca (rov xvpiov), used of |
the future return of Christ, 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Tit. ii. 18;
deaonérnc (instead of xipioc, Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22), 1 Tim. vi. 1; 2 Tim. ii.
21; Tit. 11.9; wapacreioGa:, 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii. 10;
diaBeBacovoba repi tevoc, 1 Tim. i. 7; Tit. iii. 8, etec.—Wherever in the three
epistles the same subject is spoken of, substantially the same expressions
and turns of expression are used, though with some modifications. Thus
the benedictions in the inscription agree: xdpic, éAeoc, cipqvy (Tit. i. 4 should,
however, perhaps have the reading: ydpcc xai eipfvy). In reference to the
redemption by Christ we have in 1 Tim. ii. 6: 6 doig éavrév avridutpov urip
ravrov; and Tit. il. 14: &¢ éduxev éavtov trip quov, iva Avtpdoyrat juac; in ref-
erence to his office Paul says in 1 Tim. ii. 7: eig & (rd paprtpiov) éréOny eyo
xipv& Kal amdotoaog . . . diddoxadog é6vOv; and so also in 2 Tim.i.11. The
INTRODUCTION. 9
necessary qualities of the bishop are mentioned in the same way in 1 Tim.
ili. 2 ff. and Tit. 1.6: peag yuvacxig avgp, cdppur, gAdEevoc, iy Tapotvoc, pI) TAHKT YS.
The general exhortations to Timothy in 1 Tim. vi. 11 and 2 Tim. ii. 22
agree with each other almost to the very letter.
In the other Pauline epistles the fullness of the apostle’s thought strug-
gles with the expression, and causes peculiar difficulties in exposition.
The thoughts slide into one another, and are so fntertwined in many
forms that not seldom the new thought begins before a correct expression
has been giver to the thought that preceded. Of this confusion there is
no example in the Pastoral Epistles. Even in such passages as come
nearest to this confused style, such as the beginning of the First and
Second Epistles to Timothy (Tit. ii. 11 ff, iii. 4 ff), the connection of ideas
is still, on the whole, simple. It is peculiar that, as De Wette has shown,
the transition from the special to a general truth is often made suddenly—
thus 1 Tim. 1. 15, ii. 46, iv. 8-10; 2 Tim. i. 9 ff, ii. 11-13, iil. 12; Tit. ii.
11-14, iii. 4-7; and that after such general thoughts a resting-point is
often sought in an exhortation or instruction addressed to the receivers of
the epistle, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6, 11, vi. 2; 2 Tim. il. 14, 1. 5; Tit. ii. 15, iii. 8.
SECTION 3—TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
1. First Epistle to Timothy.—Regarding the time of the composition of this
epistle, different views from an early period have been put forward, since
the indications contained in the epistle itself leave a difficulty in assigning
to it its proper place in the events of the apostle’s life. According to
these indications, Paul had becn for some time with Timothy in Ephesus,
and had traveled from there to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind in
Ephesus to take his place. Probably the epistle was written by Paul from
Macedonia, to remind Timothy of his charge, and to give him suitable
instructions; for, although Paul hoped to return to Ephesus soon, still a
delay was regarded as possible (chap. iii. 14, 15).— According to Acts, Paul
was twice in Ephesus. The first occasion was on his second missionary
journey from Antioch, when he was returning from Corinth to Antioch
(Acts xviii. 19). On this first occasion he stayed there only a short time,
as he wished to be in Jerusalem in time for the near-approaching festival.
The composition cannot be assigned to that occasion, since there was at
that time no Christian church in Ephesus, and Paul was not traveling to
Macedonia.—On his third missiqnary journey Paul was in Ephesus a
second time. This time he stayed for two or three years, and then, after
10 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
the riot caused by Demetrius, traveled to Macedonia and Greece (Acts xx.
1, 2). Theodoret, and after him many other expositors, assume that Paul
wrote the epistle on this journey to Macedonia, or in Macedonia. But to
this the following circumstances are opposed :—{1) According to Acts xix.
22, Paul, before his own departure from Ephesus, had already sent Tim-
othy to Macedonia; we are not told that Timothy, after being commis-
sioned to go to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), returned to Ephesus again before
the apostle’s departure, as the apostle certainly had expected (according
to 1 Cor. xvi. 11). (2) When Paul undertook that journey, he did not
intend to return soon to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 6, 7), which decidedly was
his intention at the time of the composition of the epistle (1 Tim. i. 14);
and on his return journey from Greece he sailed from Troas past Ephesus
for the express purpose of avoiding any stay there (Acts xx. 16). (8) Ac-
cording to 2 Cor. i. 1, Timothy was in Macedonia with Paul when he
wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and, according to Acts xx. 4,
he accompanied the apostle on his journey frum Corinth to Philippi.
Timothy therefore must also have left Ephesus after the apostle’s depart-
ure, although the apostle had charged him to remain there till his own
return (1 Tim. iv. 13), and this we can hardly suppose to have been the
case. All these reasons prove that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to
Macedonia, mentioned in Acts xx. 1, cannot be the same with that of
which he speaks in 1 Tim. 1. 3. .
Some expositors (Bertholdt, Matthies), alluding to Acts xx. 3-5, suppose
that Timothy set out from Corinth before the apostle, and then went to
Ephesus, where he received the epistle. The supposition is, however,
contradicted by opevéuevog cig Maxedoviav. This objection Bertholdt can
get rid of only by the most arbitrary combinations, Matthies only by
most unwarrantably explaining ropevéuevoc to be equivalent to opevduevov.
Besides, Luke’s historical narrative is against the whole hypothesis, unless,
as Bertholdt actually does, we charge it with an inaccuracy which distorts
the facts of the case.—If the composition of the epistle is to be inserted
among the incidents in the apostle’s life known to us, the only hypothesis
left is, that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, which is
mentioned in 1 Tim. 1. 3, and during which Timothy was left behind by
him in Ephesus, falls into the period of his sojourn for two or three years
in Ephesus, but is not mentioned by Luke. This is the supposition of
Wiescler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters), who follows Mosheim and
Schrader. It is not only admitted, on the whole, that the apostle may
possibly have made a journey which Luke lIcaves unnoticed, but there are
INTRODUCTION. ll
also several passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 17;
2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2) which put it beyond doubt that Paul had
been in Corinth not once but twice before their composition, but that the
second time he had stayed there only a short time. For this journey, of
which Luke tells us nothing, we can find no place in the apostle’s history,
unless during his stay at Ephesus; see Wieseler, l.c. pp. 232, ff. It is
natural, therefore, to identify this journey with the one to Macedonia
mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, and to suppose that the epistle was written on
this journey from Macedonia. There are still, however, several consider-
ations against this view. One is that both the church organization pre-
supposed in the epistle, and the requirement that the érioxoro¢ should not
be vedguroc, indicate that the church had already been some time in exist-
ence. To this Wieseler, indeed, replies that the journey was undertaken
shortly before the end of the apostle’s stay in Corinth, so that the church
had then been long enough in existence to justify the presupposition and
the requirement. But still there is against this hypothesis the considera-
tion that it supposes the apostle to have been in Corinth himself, shortly
before the composition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, so that he
could not therefore have any sufficient occasion for writing to the church
there. Besides, the passage in Acts xx. 29, 30 is against Wieseler’s view.
According to the epistle, the heresy had already made its way into the
church at Ephesus, but, according to that passage, Paul mentions the
heresy as something to be expected in the future. Supposing even that
the words é tue airdv do not refer to the church, but only to the presby-
ters assembled at Miletus, still et¢ diuag in ver. 29 must be taken to refer
generally to the Christians in Ephesus. Surely Paul, in his address to the
presbyters, would not have passed over the presence of heretics in
Ephesus, if he knew the church to be so much threatened by the danger
that he thought it necessary, even before this, to give Timothy solemn
instructions regarding it, as he does in his epistle-—Further, the view
implies that Paul had only for a short time been separated from Timothy,
and that he must have sent him away immediately after his own return.
But how does the whole character of the epistle agree with this? The
instructions which Paul gives to Timothy indicate that the latter was to
labor in the church for some time; and the greater the danger threatened
it by the heresy, the more inconsistent it seems that Paul, after giving
these instructions, should have taken Timothy away so soon from his
labors in the church.—The views mentioned hitherto proceed from a pre-
supposed interpretation of 1 Tim. i. 3, viz. that Paul commissioned Tim-
12 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
=
othy to remain in Ephesus, and that the commission was given when
Paul departed from Ephesus to Macedonia. This presupposition, how-
ever, has been declared erroneous by several expositors, who refer
mopevouevog ei¢ Maxedoviay not to the apostle, but to Timothy. Paulus
explains mpocpeivac as = “ abide by a thing,” joins mopevduevoc cig Maxed. to
iva mwapayyeiAnc, and takes the latter imperatively, so that the sense is: “As
I have exhorted thee to abide in Ephesus, and warn them against false
doctrine, so do thou travel now to Macedonia, and exhort certain people
there to abstain from false doctrine.” The opinion of Paulus is therefore
that Paul wrote the epistle during his imprisonment at Cxesarea.—Schneck-
enburger and Bottger try to help the matter by conjecture, wishing both
to read, instead of mpoopeiva:, the participle zpoopeivac. The former then
assumes that the epistle was composed at the time denoted in Acts xxi.
26; the latter, that it was written in Patara (Acts xxi. 1), or in Miletus
(Acts xx.17). These obviously are arbitrary suppositions. If the journey
to Macedonia, mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, is not to be understood as one
made by the apostle, but as made by Timothy, then it is much more
natural to suppose with Otto that this is the journey of Timothy which is
mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and that Paul wrote the epistle in Ephesus.
This is the view which Otto has sought to establish in the first book of
his work of research, Die geschichtlichen Verhiiltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. But
this, too, is wrecked on the right explanation of 1 Tim. 1. 3, which refers
mopevépevog ei¢ Max. to the subject contained in srapexddeca; see on this point
the exposition of the passage.
The Epistle to Titus.—The following are the historical circumstances to
which this epistle itself points. After Paul had labored in Crete, he left
Titus behind there. Then he wrote to the latter this epistle, instructing
him, so soon as Artemas and Tychicus had been sent to him, to come
with all haste to Nicopolis, where the apostle had resolved to pass the
winter.—The epistle, indeed, contains nothing definite regarding the first
beginning of Christianity in Crete, nothing regarding the duration and
extent of the apostle’s labors there, nothing regarding the length of time
which intervened between the apostle’s departure from Crete and the
composition of the epistle; but it is probable that when Paul came to
Crete he found Christianity already existing there, and that he himself
remained there only a short time; for on the one hand there were
already Christian churches there in the chief places, at least in several
towns of the island, at the time of composing the epistle, while on the
other hand they were still unorganized. It is probable that the epistle
INTRODUCTION. 13
was written by Paul not long after his departure, for it is not to be sup-
posed that Paul would leave his substitute in the apostleship long without
written instructions. Itis probable also that Paul gave Titus these instruc-
tions some time before the beginning of winter, for it would have been
meaningless to give instructions, unless Paul intended Titus to labor in
Crete for some considerable time.
If we set out with the presupposition that the composition of the epistle
is to be placed in that period of the Apostle Paul’s life which is described
in Acts, we may thus state more definitely the question regarding the
apostle’s stay in Crete, and the composition of the epistle. Did both take
place before, or after, or during the two or three years’ stay in Ephesus
(Acts xix.)? Each of these suppositions has its supporters among exposi-
tors and critics. Those who place the two events in the period before the
stay at Ephesus, assume as a fixed date etther the time during which Paul
was first in Corinth (Acts xviii. 1-18) (Michaelis), or the time during
which he was traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19) (Hug,
Hemsen), or, /astly, the time after he had passed through Galatia and
Phrygia in the beginning of his third missionary journey, and before he
went from there to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23) (Credner, Neudecker). °
To all these views alike, however, there is this objection, that Apollos
could not be the apostle’s assistant before the (second) arrival in Corinth
(Acts xviii. 24-xix. 1), whereas he is so named in this epistle. We would
then have to suppose that another Apollos was meant here—which would
be altogether arbitrary. There are, besides, special objections to these
three views. Against the first, according to which Paul had made the
journey from Corinth to Crete, and from there to Nicopolis in Epirus (iii.
12), and had then returned to Corinth, it may be urged that the apostle’s
second stay in Corinth, alluded to in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 1, etc., did not
take place then, but later. Against the second, we might object not only
that the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem was undertaken with some
haste, so as to leave no room for labors in Crete, but also that it takes
Nicopolis to be the town in Cilicia, without giving any reason why Paul
should pass the winter there and not in Antioch. As to the third view,
which is, that Paul for this third missionary journey had chosen Ephesus
mainly as his goal (Acts xviii. 21), and that his labors, therefore, on the
journey thither consisted only in confirming those who already believed
(Acts xvili. 23: émornpifev xdvrac roi¢ pafytds), how are we to reconcile
with it the facts that Paul, instead of going at once to Ephesus from Phrygia,
went to Crete and Corinth, that he there resolved to pass the winter in
14 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
Nicopolis (by which Credner in his Einl. in d. N. T. understands the town
in Cilicia), and that then only did he go to Ephesus?—There is still less
justification for the opinion of some expositors, that Paul traveled to
Crete at the date defined by Acts xv. 41, and wrote the epistle later during
his two or three years’ stay in Ephesus. The former part of this is con-
tradicted by the route (comp. xv. 41 and xvi. 1) furnished by the apostle
himself; the latter, by the circumstance that almost the whole of the |
apostle’s second, and a part of his third, missionary Journey lay between
the beginning of Titus’ independent labors in Crete and the despatch of
the epistle to him.
The second supposition is, that both events are to be placed in the time
after the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, ¢.e. in the period mentioned in Acts
xx. 1-3. Its representatives, as before, differ as to the details. Some
suppose that Paul, on the journey from Ephesus to Greece, went from
Macedonia (vv. 1, 2) to Crete; others, that he undertook this journey
during his three months’ stay in Greece (ver. 3). According to the former
opinion, we should have to suppose that Titus, after completing his
second mission to Corinth, returned again to the apostle in Macedonia;
that Paul then made the journey with him to Crete, and from there
returned to Macedonia alone; that he then wrote the epistle from
Macedonia, and afterwards went to Corinth. In this way, therefore, Paul
after composing the Second Epistle to the Corinthians would have twice
journeyed past Greece, whereas it must have been of great importance to
him, after the last news he had received from Corinth, not to put off his
journey thither—The latter opinion, supported particularly by Matthies,
refutes itself, in so far as the three months which Paul spent in Hellas
were winter months, in which traveling to and fro to Crete was hardly
possible. Besides, it was when Paul returned from Crete that he formed
his plan of passing the winter at Nicopolis. He then informed Titus of
it, with the remark that he was to come to him in that place, after he had
first waited for the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus. Wiesinger is right in
saying: “ Unless we exercise ingenuity, we must take the xéxp:xa mapayet-
péoa (chap. iii. 12) to have been written before the approach of winter.”
The third supposition is, that Paul undertook the journey to Crete from
Ephesus before his departure to Macedonia, and also wrote the Epistle to
Titus from there. Wieseler defends it with great acuteness. It puts the
case in this way. After Paul had stayed over two years in Ephesus, he
made by way of Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3) a journey (the second, not men-
tioned in Acts) to Corinth. On this journey, which was but short, he was
INTRODUCTION. | 15
accompanied by Titus, who also went with him to Crete. On departing
from Crete, he left Titus behind there, returned to Ephesus, and from
Ephesus wrote the Epistle to Titus. Then he sent Timothy to Macedonia,
instructing him to go to Corinth, and wrote afterwards our First Epistle to
the Corinthians. He next sent Tychicus and Artemas to Crete, and bade
Titus return to him. Titus was sent afterwards to Corinth. Paul went on
the journey to Macedonia, hoping to meet Titus at Troas. They did not
meet, however, at Troas, but in Macedonia, when Titus was a second time
sent away to Corinth. After the apostle had written our Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, he went through Macedonia to Nicopolis in Epirus,
where he spent the first months of winter, going afterwards to Corinth—
However Well all this seems to go together, there are still the following
reasons against the hypothesis :—{1) If Paul made the second journey to
Corinth at the time here mentioned, he can have employed only a short
time in it. How, then, can we conceive that he used this short time for
missionary labors in Crete? (2) Paul wrote to Titus that he was to remain
in Crete till Tychicus and Artemas were sent to him, and that then he was
to come to Nicopolis. This hypothesis would make out that he had
changed his mind, for according to it he bade Titus come to him at
Ephesus. Besides, we cannot think that, just after he had assigned to
Titus an important task in Crete, he should take him so quickly away |
from it again. (8) It is improbable also that Paul should have chosen for
his winter residence a town in which he had not been before, and where,
therefore, he could not know how he would be received. His resolution
seems rather to presuppose that he had labored before in Nicopolis.’ (4) In
1 Cor. xvi.6 Paul writes to the Corinthians: apoc tac d2 tuxydv rapauevo, #
nal wapaxeudow. According to Wieseler, this wpd¢ tude is not to be referred
to the Corinthians alone, but generally to the Christians in Achaia, to
whom (according to i. 2) the epistle is addressed. As Nicopolis in Epirus,
on the authority of Tacitus,? was counted as belonging to Achaia, Wiese-
1 Otto objects to this, that Paul might very
well spend a winter in a town in which he
had not before preached; but that is not the
point. The point is that Paul should have
formed a resolution to remain for the winter
in a town, even before he knew whether
his preaching would be received there or
not.
Tacitus, Ann. fl. 63: “Sed eum honorem
Germanicus iniit apud urbem Achajae Nico-
polim.” Pliny also, Nat. Hist. iv. 2, assigns
Nicopolis to Acarnania, while Strabo, xvii. p.
840, describes, according to the arrangement
of the Emperor Augustus, the province in
these words: ‘EB3déuny 8 ‘Axaiay uéxpe Ger-
tarias cat Airwiey cai ‘Axapvdavey cai Tivey
"Heraperixwy ver, dca Ty Maxedovig wpoce-
ptoro.” (Wieseler, |. c. p. 353.) In opposition
to Wieseler's assertion, Otto (pp. 362-366)
seeks to prove that Nicopolis itself was not
counted in Achaia, but only the suburb of the
town situated on the Acarnanian side.
16 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
ler is of opinion that by spending the winter in Nicopolis the apostle kept
the promise given in that passage. But although the epistle was not
directed merely to the church in Corinth, it has a special reference to that
church, so that its readers could surely understand the words only of an
intended stay in Corinth, and not in a place so far distant from Corinth.
Paul could not possibly be thinking then of Nicopolis, as is obvious from
the fact that at that time, as Wieseler himself maintains, he had not been
there; he did not preach the gospel in Nicopolis till later. Paul, how-
ever, in the epistle regarded his readers as Christians only, not as those
who were afterwards to be converted to Christianity. Lastly, although
Augustus extended the name of Achaia to Epirus, it does not follow that
in common life Nicopolis was considered to be in Achaia. It should be
added, too, that Paul, in Wieseler’s representation, had not at all fulfilled
the promise given in Tit. i11. 18, for he supposes that the apostle remained
in Nicppolis only two months of winter, and therefore went to Corinth in
the middle of winter—There may be, too, some accessory circumstances
which are favorable to Wieseler’s view, and give it an air of probability ;
such circumstances as the following :—that Apollos was along with Paul
in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 12; Tit. iii. 18); that Tychicus as an Asiatic (Acts
xx. 4) probably became acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, and that the
mention of him in Tit. 1ii. 13 agrees with the composition of the epistle
in Ephesus; that by the two brothers who accompanied Titus to Corinth
we may understand Tychicus and Trophimus—make the theory probable,
but cannot completely establish its correctness. Like Wiescler, Reuss
(Gesch. d. heil. Schriften d. N. T., 2d ed. 18538, 3 87, pp. 73 f.) connects the
apostle’s journey to Crete with his second (see Meyer on 2 Cor., Introd. @ 2,
Rem.) journey to Corinth during the three years’ stay at Ephesus; but he
differs from Wieseler in supposing that Paul journeyed first to Crete and
then to Corinth, that from the latter place he wrote the epistle, that he
then went farther to the north to Illyricum, where trace of him is lost,
and returned to Ephesus towards the end of winter. To all this we must
say that not only is it inconceivable that Paul should have interrupted his
three years’ stay by various missionary journeys, occupying so much time,
and to districts so remote, but also that Acts xx. 31 contradicts sucha
theory. Otto, too, refutes the theory of the apostle’s journey to Crete, and
the composition of the epistle during the three years’ stay at Ephesus.
In his opinion, Paul made from Ephesus an excursion to Crete,—not
mentioned in Acts by Luke,—and on that occasion visited Corinth é
napédy (1 Cor. xvi. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2). Then in Ephesus,
INTRODUCTION. 17
after he had written the lost epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), he
addressed a letter to Titus whom he had left in Crete—The passages
quoted put it beyond doubt that Paul from Ephesus made a visit to
Corinth év sapédy before composing what is called his First Epistle to the
Corinthians. Not only, however, is there no indication that Crete was at
that time the goal of his journey, but it is also improbable. The theory
makes the journey in any case a short one, and Paul could not well
choose for its goal a country in which he could not beforehand determine
the length of his stay, as he had not been there before. Otto recognizes
fully the objections arising from the contents of the epistle, which are
against placing the date of composition in the three years’ stay ; but he
thinks to overcome them by supposing that the dates in it rest on a plan
of the journey, afterwards altered by the apostle. It is certainly clear
from 2 Cor.i. 15, 16, 23, that Paul, on account of circumstances in Corinth,
did indeed alter the plan of the journey he had previously formed; but
that he ever intended to goto Nicopolis in order to spend the winter
there, is a fiction contradicted by what he says himself in the passages
quoted. According to these, his original plan was to come from Ephesus
direct to Corinth, to pass from there to Macedonia, and to return from
Macedonia to Corinth again in order to set out for Judea. There is no
trace in the apostle’s plans of a journey to Epirus and a winter residence
in Nicopolis. The latter he could not even think of, for the reason
quoted above.
2. Second Epistle to Timothy.—The historical circumstances alluded to in
the epistle prove that it was written by the apostle in imprisonment
in Rome; comp. i. 8, 12, 16, 17, etc.—This imprisonment has been
held to be the same as that mentioned by Luke in the Acts, and a
different date has therefore been assigned to the composition of the epistle.
Wieseler, following Hemsen, Kling, and others, supposes that the epistle
belongs to the time following the deria, mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, and
was therefore composed after the Epistle to the Philippians. He rests his
supposition on two grounds—(1) That while in his Epistle to the Philip-
pians the apostle was still able to cherish the hope of being soon set free,
in this epistle he expresses definite anticipations of death. (2) That in
Phil. ii. 19-24 the apostle expresses his intention of sending Timothy to
Philippi, and that at the time of composing this epistle Timothy was
actually in those regions, viz. at Ephesus. Against this second ground
Otto rightly maintains that “ Timothy would not have served the apostle
as a child his father,” if after being expected to bring (Phil. ii. 19) comfort
2
18 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
to the imprisoned apostle by the news from Philippi, he did not return at
once to Rome, but proceeded instead to Ephesus, and there remained till
the apostle ‘“ by a solemn apostolic message compelled him to return.”
Besides, Otto insists that, as Wieseler’s interpretaton of 2 Tim. iv. 16 is
that “the apostle is telling Timothy of his first arodoyia,” the latter
according to this was sent away before the first judicial hearing, i.e. before
he could know how the case would end; whereas according to Phil. ti. 23,
24, “he makes the despatch of Timothy depend on his expectation of a
favorable conclusion of the trial.” —On these grounds Otto rejects Wieseler’s
hypothesis, but at the same time he himself—agreeing with Schrader,
Matthies, and others—supposes that the epistle was written in the begin-
ning of the dceria mentioned, and therefore before the composition of the
Epistle to the Philippians. But, as Wieseler and Wiesinger rightly
observe, “the whole position of the apostle as represented in the epistle ”
is against this view. According to the apostle’s utterances in the Epistle
to the Philippians, he was uncertain about the fate hanging over him,
but circumstances have so shaped themselves that the expectation of being
freed from imprisonment decidedly prevailed with him, and hence he
wrote: réroa év kupip, btt . . . Taxlwe édeboouar. In this epistle there is
no trace of any such expectation. The apostle rather sees his end close
approaching, chap. iv. 6-8; and although in the first arodoyia he had been
rescued, as he says, éx orduarog Agovroc, and now expresses the hope that
the Lord would rescue him amd ravrég épyov rovnpod, he is thinking not of
a release from imprisonment, but of a rescue ei¢ tiv Baoweiay avrov tiv
ézovpavov. Otto indeed maintains that the apostle’s expressions in chap.
iv. 6-8 do not refer to the end of his life, but to the end appointed to him
of his missionary labors in the apostleship, and that in the Second Epistle
to Timothy there is no trace whatever of anticipations or expectations of
death ; but this assertion is based on an exposition which, however acute,
is anything but tenable. See on this the commentary on the passages in
question.—Besides, several of the special notices made by the apostle
weigh against the composition of the epistle during the imprisonment
mentioned by Luke. Of special weight are the remarks regarding Erastus
and Trophimus. Of the former Paul says that he remained in Corinth;
of the latter, that he was left behind in Miletus sick. This presupposes a
journey made by the apostle to Rome by way of Corinth and Miletus.
But on the voyage which Paul made from Caesarea to Rome as a prisoner, .
he did not touch at these places. Hence we cannot but suppose that the
reference in both cases is to the apostle’s previous journey to Jerusalem;
INTRODUCTION. 19
but against this there is the inconceivability of his still mentioning those
circumstances after a lapse of several years. Besides, according to Acts
xxi. 29, Trophimus was with the apostle in Jerusalem. Wieseler can only
get over this by the following artificial combination: ‘The ship in which
Paul as a prisoner embarked at Caesarea in order to be brought to Rome,
went to Adramyttium in the neighborhood of Troas. With it Paul went
as far as Myrain Lycia. There he embarked in another ship which sailed
direct for Italy. Trophimus accompanied the apostle to Myra; there he
stayed behind on account of his illness, in order to go on with the ship
from Adramyttium as far as Miletus, which was probably his place of
residence, and where he wished to stay.” This arrangement, artificial to
begin with, is contradicted by the apostle’s expression in chap. iv. 20.
Besides, all this could not but have been long known to Timothy, who
was with Paul in the interval, known all the more if, as Wieseler thinks,
the apostle had intended’ to take Trophimus with him to Rome as a
witness against his Jewish accusers. It is an unsatisfactory device to
maintain that the emphasis is laid on Tpégiuov dé and on dobevoivra, and
that Paul by this remark wished to remind Timothy only of the feeble
health of Trophimus, which might even prevent him from coming to
Rome. The sentence has anything but the form of such a reminder.—
Otto attacks the point in a different way, by questioning the presence of
Trophimus in Jerusalem at the time when the apostle was put in prison.
He asserts that yoav mpoewpaxérec in Acts xxi. 29 must be referred to the
apostle’s presence in Jerusalem four years previously, since according to
Acts xx.4 Trophimus accompanied the apostle on his return from his
third missionary journey only into Asia and no farther. Against this,
however, it is to be noted that the apostle’s companions there named did
really go farther, as is plain from Acts xxi. 12; for by the queic Luke
cannot have meant himself alone, but himself and the companions who
had accompanied the apostle on his journey to Macedonia. ‘Axpe TH¢ ‘Aolag
in Acts xx. 4 simply means that these companions of the apostle remained
with him till he had come to the place where the passage across to Asia
was made. There they left him, crossing over to Troas without him;
but later on, Paul again came to them here, and then they continued
their journey in company. No hint is given by Luke that they remained
at Miletus after the apostle’s departure. There is therefore no ground for
assuming that Trophimus was not in Jerusalem when the apostle was put
in prison. Rather the opposite. It is inconceivable that the Asiatic Jews
should after so long a time have used a suspicion formed four years beforeas
20 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
a ground of complaint against the apostle. We do not see why they should
not have brought it forward when it was formed. Besides, according to
Otto’s hypothesis, these same Asiatic Jews must be regarded as having
been present in Jerusalem on both occasions.—In regard to the mention
of Erastus, Wieseler is of opinion that he too was important to the
apostle as a witness, and that the apostle had summoned him to Rome
either through Timothy himself or through Onesiphorus, but that he
stayed on nevertheless at Corinth, and that this is what Paul now com-
municates to Timothy. But there is nowhere the slightest trace of such
asummons. Further, the order in which ver. 20 occurs, by no means
makes it probable that it referred to judicial matters. Something was
said of these in vv. 16 and 17, and these verses could not but have been |
connected with ver. 20 if the reference in them had been the same; they
are, however, separated from it by the greetings in ver. 19. On the other
hand, they are immediately attached to the apostle’s summons to Timothy
to come to him xpd yecuavoc. It is more than probable that vv. 20 and 21
stand in a similar relation to each other as dovv.9 and 10. In the latter,
Timothy knew that Demas, Crescens, and Titus were with Paul in Rome,
and so Paul announces that they had left him; in the former, Timothy
was in the belief that Erastus and Trophimus had accompanied Paul to
Rome, and so Paul now announces that this was not the case. In this way
everything stands in a simple, natural connection.—Otto’s explanation,
too, is unsatisfactory. According to Acts xix. 22, Paul during his stay in
Ephesus sent Erastus along with Timothy to Macedonia. Otto now’
supposes that both were to make this journey by way of Corinth, and
there await the apostle. But afterwards. Paul changed the plan of his
journey; he himself proceeding to Macedonia without touching at Corinth,
and sending for Timothy to come thither, while Erastus remained at that
time in Corinth, to which fact allusion is now made in "Epaorog Euevev év
Kopivfy. This, however, is inconceivable. If the case were as Otto thinks,
Timothy himself could not but know very well that Erastus, with whom
he had made the journey to Corinth, had been left behind in Corinth.
And what purpose was the allusion to serve, since the stay of Erastus in
Corinth some years before could in no way furnish a reason for his not
being with Paul in Rome after the lapse of these years ?—Further, if we
suppose that the epistle was composed during the apostle’s imprisonment
in Rome, which is known to us, the charge given to Timothy in chap. iv.
13 is very strange. According to Otto, Paul left behind the articles here
mentioned when he set out from Troas, as is mentioned in Acts xx. 18,
INTRODUCTION. 21
because they were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, and he intended
to return into those parts later. But according to Acts xx. 22-25, the
apostle at that time cherished no such intention; and if those articles
were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, his companions might have
taken them on board ship.—Finally, it is worth noting that in the epistle
no mention whatever is made of Aristarchus, who had accompanied the
apostle to Rome. Otto tries to explain this by saying that Paul had only
to mention his actual fellow-laborers in the gospel, and that Aristarchus
was not one of these, but simply looked after the apostle’s bodily main-
tenance. This, however, is one of Otto’s many assertions, which are only
too deficient in actual as well as apparent foundation. The result of
unbiassed investigation is that the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in
Rome, during which he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, is not the
imprisonment mentioned by Luke, during which he wrote the Epistles to
the Philippians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon.
REMARK.—Otto has attempted, not only to weaken the strength of the argu-
ments against the composition of the epistle during that imprisonment, but also
to give some as positive proofs that the epistle could have been written only at that
time. One such argument is that, if the epistle is to belong to a second imprison-
ment of the apostle in Rome, the situation of the apostle during it must have
been the same as during the first imprisonment. He argues that this is altogether
incredible, since the apostle’s favorable situation during the former had its ground
only in an éveocg quite unusual and produced by peculiar circumstances, an dveoig
which was much more considerable than that granted to him in Caesarea. The
latter consisted only in this, that it was permitted to him to be attended by his
own followers—whether kinsmen or servants; it was not permitted to have per-
sonal intercourse with his helpers in the apostleship, as was granted to him in
Rome. This assertion rests, however, on an unjustifiable interpretation of the
passage in Acts xxiv. 23, where Otto leaves the concluding words: 4 zpooépyeo-
Ga: avr, altogether out of consideration. Certainly the apostle’s custodia militaris
in Rome had a mild form; but there is no proof that it may not have been so
during his second imprisonment, all the less that its occasion and special circum-
stances are wholly unknown to us. Otto further asserts that about 63 there
prevailed at the imperial court, through the influence of Poppaea, a feeling
favorable to the Jews, that this feeling caused the apostle’s confinement to be
made more severe after lasting two years, and that this is even clearly indicated
by Luke in the word axwAitwc, Acts xxviii. 31. But Otto himself makes this
friendly disposition to the Jews active even in 61: how then is it credible that
not till 63 had it any influence in aggravating the apostle’s situation? The asser-
tion is erroneous that Luke’s axwAtruc indicates any such thing.—If it were the
case that Nero was influenced by Poppaea’s favorable inclination to the Jews to
cast the blame of the fire in 64 on the Christians, it does not follow from this that
Paul was not set free in the spring of 63, though this favorable disposition of
the court towards the Jews might explain his condemnation in 64 after a brief
22 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
imprisonment.— Wieseler thinks that “the chief judicial process against Paul and
his *por7 azodoyia before the emperor and his council took place only after the
two first years of his imprisonment in Rome;” against which Otto maintains that
by the 7pér7 a7odoyia in 2 Tim. iv. 16 we are to understand the process before
Festus, mentioned in Acts xxv. 6-12. If Otto were right in this assertion, the
Second Epistle to Timothy must have been written during the first imprisonment
at Rome. But in order to confirm this assertion, Otto sees himself compelled not
only to give an unwarrantable interpretation of the expressions in 2 Tim. iv. 16,
17 (see on this the exposition of the passage), but also to assume that Acts xxiv.
1-21 mentions only the preliminary process—the nominis delatio, not the actio.
For the proof of this, Otto appeals to the use of amexpify te 6 TlatvAog instead of
avedoyjoato in Acts xxiv. 10. This, however, manifestly proves nothing, since
Paul himself distinctly called his speech an amodoyia (ver. 10: 76 mepi Euavrov
aroAoyovuat). The whole process before Felix wears so decidedly, from beginning
to end, the character of the actio, that it cannot in any sense be considered simply
a nominis delatio. Otto, too, falls into contradiction with himself by saying else-
where that the nominis delatio took place in Jerusalem when Festus went there
after entering on his office—In defence of his opinion that the epistle was written
in the beginning of the first Roman imprisonment, Otto appeals further to the *
peculiarities which are already apparent in the first seven verses, and insists that
these peculiarities can only be explained from the circumstances of that period of
the apostle’s life. As peculiarities of this nature, Otto mentions: (1) The
emphasis laid on holding fast by the promise and faith of the fathers, both on the
part of the apostle and on that of Timothy; (2) The apostle’s allusion to the
earliest circumstances of Timothy’s life and ministry ; (3) Timothy’s irresolution
in regard to ministering as a missionary ; and (4) the repeated mention and dis-
cussion of imprisonment on the apostle’s part. Taking up these points in succes-
sion, we may note the following :—(1) Not only at the time indicated, but from
the very beginning of his apostolic labors, the apostle “had to consider, regarding
the gospel, whether it was compatible with the faith inherited from the fathers,
or involved a departure therefrom.” It would be strange if the apostle had first
been led to such consideration by the accusations of the Jews before Felix and
Festus. (2) It is quite natural that the apostle should make less mention of the
circumstances of Timothy’s previous life and ministry in the First Epistle than in
the Second. The former is more official in character, the latter more personal.
If that allusion to Timothy's earliest circumstances is to be inexplicable after
Timothy had already given proof of himself in the apostle’s imprisonment in
Rome, then it must be quite as inexplicable that Paul, in the beginning of his
imprisonment, says not a syllable to Timothy to remind him of the fidelity which
he had shown to the apostle on his third missionary journey. (3) The Second
Epistle does, indeed, presuppose that Timothy had slackened in his zeal to labor
and suffer for the gospel; but this might have happened later quite as much
as earlier. Besides, the decline of zeal was not to such an extent as Otto in
exaggeration says, “that he had almost abandoned his office through anxiety
and timidity.” (4) In the other epistles, written during his imprisonment, the
apostle makes mention of it not less than in this. There is, however, no reason
for saying that in this one he designedly explains the significance of his
imprisonment in a way which suits only the beginning of the imprisonment in
Rome.
INTRODUCTION. 23
From the survey we have made, it is clear that the composition of all
three epistles does not fall into that period of Paul’s life described in Acts,
and that there is nothing in the same period to account for their origin.
In spite of these opposing difficulties, it might be held as not absolutely
impossible that one or other of them was written at some time during that
period ; but there are two considerations of special weight against this—
(1) There is the same difficulty with all three in finding a place in the
period specified for the epistle, and in each case combinations more or
less improbable, and of a very ingenious nature, have to be used. (2)
The very events and circumstances in the life of the apostle which are
pre-supposed in these epistles must be regarded as omitted in Acts, which
- is not the case to the same extent with auy other of the Pauline Epistles.
And even apart from all this, there are other weighty reasons against
assigning their composition to that period—reasons contained in the
structure of the epistles themselves. As to their contents, there runs
alike through the three Epistles, as before remarked, a polemic against
certain heretics. These heretics are of quite another kind than those
with whom Paul has to do in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the
Romans. They are similar to those against whom he contended in the
Epistle to the Colossians—heretics, of such a nature as could only have
arisen at a later time, and whose appearance in the church is indicated as
something future in Paul’s address to the Ephesian presbyters at Miletus.
Christianity must have already become an aggressive power, before such
a mixture of Christian with heathen-Jewish speculation could be formed
as we find in these heretics.—Then as to the form of the epistles, 7. e. the
diction peculiar to them, it has manifestly another coloring than in the
other Pauline Epistles, so much so that we cannot explain the difference
from the fact “that these epistles were written to the apostle’s pupils and
assistants, the others to churches and members of churches” (Otto). It is
inconceivable that the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus
should have been written almost at the same time with the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, in the period between the composition of the Epistle
to the Galatians and that of the Epistle to the Romans; and it is equally
inconceivable that the Second Epistle to Timothy should have been
written at a time so much later than those two with which it stands in
every way so closely connected. The hypothesis brings together things
different in kind, and sunders those that are like one another.
REMARK.—Otto’s attempt to prove the close relationship between the First
Epistle to Timothy and the First Epistle to the Corinthians—both of which he
24 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,
refers to the same church and assigns to the same period—must be considered
entirely unsuccessful. The contrasts of the epistles compel Otto himself to take
some precautions in order to blunt the edge of certain objections to his assertion.
His precautionary remarks are—(1) That the image of the condition of the
Corinthian church, which was in his mind when writing the Epistle to Timothy,
had become different when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians; and (2)
that the apostle “had to write in one fashion to the church, and in another
fashion to his deputies.” There are, indeed, in the epistles some points of agree-
ment, which, however, may be satisfactorily explained by their common authorship;
in both, attention is directed to heretics, and both refer more specially to the
inner circumstances of the church than the apostle’s other epistles. Otto has only
succeeded in making it probable that the heretics in the two epistles were the
same. He arbitrarily constructs for himself, out of the apostle’s theses in the
Epistles to the Corinthians, an image of the antitheses of the heretics, and
unjustifiably refers to the latter trains of thought which are quite unsuitable.
Nevertheless, he has not succeeded in proving that the heresy spoken of in the
Pastoral Epistles, the nature of which may be gathered from the expressions:
pvdot, yeveadoyias, etc., was also the doctrine of the heretics in Corinth.
The result of an unbiassed investigation is—{1) That all three epistles
belong to one and the same period of the apostle’s life, and (2) that this
period does not fall into that portion of the apostle’s life with which we
are more closely acquainted through Acts and the other Pauline Epistles.
Their composition must accordingly belong to a later time in the apostle’s
life; and this is possible only if Paul was released from the imprisonment
at Rome mentioned by Luke, and was afterwards a second time imprisoned
there.
The narrative in Acts cannot be used to disprove the historical truth of
such a release and renewed imprisonment on the apostle’s part,! since, so
far as it is concerned, the apostle’s martyrdom at the close of the impris-
onment there described is as much an hypothesis as the release. It
depends on the notices of the elder Fathers. In this respect, however, we
must not overlook the fact that in general their communications regarding
the apostle are only scanty. In their writings they are not so much con-
cerned for historical truth as for exhortation and dogma; their writings
serve the present, and cast only an occasional glance on the facts of the
past. Hence we are not surprised that they give but little information
regarding the events of Paul’s life, and that little only by allusions.—The
first clear and distinct notice of Paul’s release from the imprisonment
mentioned by Luke is found in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 22): rére pév (i.e.
10tto came forward in 1860 as a decided Saint Paul; sa double captivité a Rome, étude
opponent of this conjecture, andinthe same _ historique, par L. Ruffet.
year there appeared in its defence the work,
INTRODUCTION, 25
after the lapse of the two years, Acts xxvill. 30) otv arodoynoduevov avOig ert
tv tou Kxnpbypatog diaxoviav Adyog Exet oreiAacbac tov andotoAov, debrepov a’
émiBavra TH avTg wéAet TQ Kat’ avrov (7. e. Nero) reAewOjvac paptupiy’ év @ deopoig
Exduevog tiv mpocg Tipddeov devtépav emiotoAny ovvtdtret, duov onuaivey thy Te
apétepay auto yevouéyyy arodoyiay xal ri waparddac tedeiwor. This testimony
of Eusebius has, however, not been left unquestioned. It has been
declared invalid, (1) because Eusebius himself does not appeal to reliable
authorities, but only to tradition (Aéyoc); and (2) because his conviction of
the accuracy of this tradition rests only on the Second Epistle to Timothy
itself, and particularly on his explanation of 2 Tim. iv.16,17. But, on
the other hand, it is to be observed that the formula Aédyo¢ Eee (for which
there also occur the expressions: Aédyoc xaréyer, wapecAfgapuev, ioropeirat,
Eyvoper, EuavOdvouev, 7 mapddoou wepiéxer) does not, in the mouth of Eusebius,
quite mean “as the story goes” (Otto), but is used by him when he wishes
to quote tradition as such, without intending’ to mark it as erroneous.
Hence his testimony proves this, if nothing more, that in his time the
opinion prevailed that Paul was released again from that imprisonment.
Then it is to be noted that Eusebius does indeed explain the quoted
passage incorrectly, by understanding the words: épptoO7v éx oardpuarog
Afovroc, of the release from the first imprisonment, but that this incorrect
explanation arose from his conviction agreeing with the tradition, and not
the tradition from the explanation, as Rudow thinks (in his prize treatise,
De argumentis histor, quibus . . epistolarum pastoral. origo Paulina
impugnata est, Gottingen 1852): in illam sententiam adductus est interpre-
tatione falsa . . . verborum éppto@yy x.r.A., quae quum ad Neronem referret,
putavit, apostolum jam semel saevo ... Neronis judicio evasisse.—
Though it may seem, strange that Eusebius quotes no definite testimony
from an older writer in support of the correctness of the tradition, still
this proves nothing against it, all the less that he mentions no testimony
which contradicts it. For the truth of that tradition some earlier docu-
ments seem also to speak. In the first place, the passage in Clemens
Rom., 1 Epist. ad Corinth. chap. v. The Codex Alex. is the only MS. of it
preserved,? and its text, as amended by the conjectures of the editor
Junius, runs thus: 6:4 (7Aov [6] IetAog vropovge BpaBeiov [érecxy lev . .
1It is clear that Busebius by this formula
does not mean to denote simply a vague re-
port, for he not only directly recognizes the
accuracy of the Adéyos under discussion, but
also confirms it by his interpretation.
3 Tyranslator’s Note—Another wms.. fortu-
nately unmutilated, was discovered in the
library of the Holy Sepulchre, at Fanari in
Constantinople, and was published in 1875 by
Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae. Later
still, a Syriac ms., purchased for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, has been found to contain
26 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
xhové [yevd]uevog év tH avatoAm nai év [rH] Shoes, tov yevvaiov tHe Tictewe abrot
KAfog EAaBev’ dixacootvyy diddéag bAov tov xéopov x[ai evi] rd répua THE Shoews
éABdv Kal paptuphoag éxi Tav Ayoupevwv, ovTW¢ amnAAdyn Tov Kéopov.! If the
expression: 10 répya tie diceuc, Means the limits of the west, we can
only understand it to be Spain, and in that case this passage favors the
theory that the apostle was released from the first Roman imprisonment.
The reasons urged against this by Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Epistle
to the Romans, are not sufficient. Meyer makes appeal to the following
facts :—(1) That Clement’s words in general bear a strong impress of
oratorical hyperbole; but this is seen at most in the expression: 6/0»
tov xéozov, Which, however, is sufficiently explained by the previous:
éy TH avaroAy x. év t. doe. (2) That Clement speaks from Paul’s point
of view; but dvaroa4 and dbo are simple geographical designations,
just like our expressions east and west. (3) That, if Spain were meant,
the papruphoag éxi rev 7youn. would transport us to the scene of a trial in
Spain; but that is not the case, since o/ 7yobuevo: (note the defin. article)
can only be understood as denoting the highest officials of the empire,
and besides, in Clement's time it was known generally that Paul had
suffered martyrdom in Rome. (4) That Clement otherwise would indi-
cate by the otrurs that Paul’s death took place in Spain; but otrwe does
nothing but bring together the preceding facts.? The meaning is: in this
way, viz. after he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and come
to the limits of the west and “borne testimony before those in power”. . .;
odrwe ig used in the very same way here as shortly before in the passage
about Peter: ovy éva, ovd2 dbo, GAAd mAeiovag tahveyxey mévouc, Kai odTw
paptuphaag EropetOy sig Tov ogerAduevov rémov t7¢ déEn¢.—That Clement did not
mean Rome by this expression, is shown by the fact that he was himself
in Rome, and would therefore hardly speak of that city as the répyua r.
dtoewc, and also by the very emphatic position of those words. If Clement
had not wished to point to some place beyond Rome, he would have been
content with the expressions previously used, since they would have been
perfectly sufficient to denote the apostle’s labors in the west, and therefore
in Rome. Several expositors, however, deny the proposed interpretation
a translation of Clement's two epistles—See various readings of the different revisions of
Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. the... text make no material difference in
I. p. 557. regard to this question.”
1The text, according to Dressel and others, 2Hofmann (D. heil. Sehr. Thi. V. p. 8)
runs somewhat differently. Seeonthis point wrongly refers ovrws only to d&a ¢nAov; but
Meyer’s Comment. iiber den Brief andie Romer, _ the wide interval between ovrws and da ¢HAoy
Sth ed. p. 15. Meyer remarks: “Still the is decisive against this.
INTRODUCTION. 27
of the word répya as equivalent to mits. The explanation given by
Schrader and Hilgenfeld: “the boundary limits,” and that by Matthies:
“‘ the centre of the west,” are altogether arbitrary. Otto’s explanation seems
to have more justification. Following Baur and Schenkel, Otto seeks to
prove, on “ philological grounds which they have not supplied,” that by
rd tépya tie Stoewe We are to understand “the goal in the west appointed to
the apostle.” He wishes, in the secondary use of the word, to maintain
the original meaning, according to which 76 répza denotes “ the goal-point,
the goal-pillar, in the hippodrome and the stadium.”’ He supplies with ra
réppa the genitive of the rpéyov, who in this place is Paul, and takes the
genitive r7¢ dicewe as the genitive of the stadium. But the very last quo-
tations which Otto brings forward from the classics to support his assertion,
show his error. In the passage, Eurip. Alc. 646: émi répy’ Feov Biov, the
pronoun is not to be supplied with répyza, but with Biov; it does not mean
“come to his goal of life,” but “come to the goal of his life.” So also
with the passage in Suppl. 369, where we have: éi répua éudv xaxdv ixdpevog,
and not évi répua éudv xaxov. Accordingly, in the present passage, if the
third personal pronoun were to be supplied, it should be with décews and
not with répza; but that would be meaningless. But, further, it is
arbitrary here, where there is no hint of a figure taken from running a
race, to supply with 1é répua the notion of the apostolic ministry, sepa-
rating t7¢ dtoewc from its close connection with ré répua, and taking it as
equivalent to év r9 décec; all the more that, when so understood, the words
are a somewhat superfluous addition. Besides, it is improper to consider
the dbaews as the stadium, and then to place the répua not at the end of it,
but somewhere in the middle. If répua in the secondary application is to
retain its original meaning, 10 répya ry dbcewe is either to be explained:
“the goal to which the dione extends,” or, more naturally : “the goal which
is reached by passing through the déoc.”” This may be the ocean which
bounds the dior, but quite as well the extreme land of the west. If the
text is rightly restored by Junius, appeal may also be made to this passage
for the apostle’s journey to Spain, but certainly not for successful labors
there, which rather appears to be excluded by the use of the simple éA0d».
Wieseler, however, has his doubts about the correctness of the restoration,
as he believes that the original text was not xai ém2 rd répua x.7.2., but wat
iad 7d tépua. This he translates: “after he had taught righteousness to
the whole world, and had appeared before the highest power of the west, and
had borne witness before the first,” etc. His explanation, however, is
contrary to the meaning of the word, for répua does sometimes occur—
28 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,
only in connection with éyec»—in the sense of “‘the highest power or decision,”
but it never denotes “the supreme government.” Besides, this conjecture
and its explanation would designate the supreme imperial government
simply as that of the west, while its authority extended equally over the
east. Least of all would Clement, who, according to Wieseler’s own
expression, “is obviously tuning a panegyric on Paul,” have used any
limited description for that supreme authority. If he had understood 70
répua in that sense, he would surely have added to the word not simply
Still less
can Rudow’s opinion (in the work quoted, p. 7) be justified, that we should
not read ézi, but dc, and explain it as equivalent to “ paene ad finem imperil
ti¢ dtaewc, but—as was the actual fact—r7e¢ avaroage Kai tig dicews.)
occidentalis; ” for on the one hand this gives to é¢ an impossible significa-
tion, and on the other it attributes to Clement a very commonplace
thought.?
The second passage is found in the Muratorian Canon, composed about
A.D. 170. It runs thus: Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro
scribta sunt. Lucas obtime Theophile comprindit, quia sub praecsentia
ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter
declarat, sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.
From these words, in themselves unintelligible, this much at least is
clear, that Paul’s journey to Spain was the subject of tradition in the
author’s time. Even if, as Wieseler thinks, the word “ omitti#” has been
dropped after proficiscentis, the words do not say that the journey did not
take place, or that it was doubtful and disputed, but only that Luke did
not mention it.—Otto conjectures that in the author’s time some began,
for ecclesiastical purposes, to maintain the journey into Spain to be an
historical fact. This conjecture, as well as the other, that the original
text of the Canon afterwards received many interpolatory additions, is a
mere makeshift in order to confirm, against the testimony of the Canon,
the hypothesis that Paul did not make the journey to Spain.®
1 Wieseler’s other opinion is arbitrary, that
in the words “ waprupyaas eri trav nyoundvwv”’
the nyovpevos are the principes who composed
the concilium which the emperor was wont to
consult in his judgments.
2It is strange that Rudow, in his conjecture
and its explanation, does not understand
Spain by réppa +r. 8ue., but Rome (rd réppa 7.
évo., non ad Hispaniam sed ad Romam rcfer-
endum puto), which would make the mean-
ing to be that Paul had come almost to Rome.
8 Tt will be sufficient here to quote some of
the conjectures proposed. Otto thinks that
for sicuti and sed, sic uti and sic ct should be
read. Laurent (Neutest, Studien, p. 109) makes
the conjecture: sicuti et semota passione
Petri evidenter declarat et profectione Pauli
ab Urbe Spaniam proficiscentis. Many have
tried to make the passage clear by retrans-
lating it into Greek. Schott (Der erste Brief
Petri, p. 353) translates it: xaOaws cai, wapeis
paprupiay méy Thy Tou Llérpov davepas azoory-
INTRODUCTION. 29
From this passage it follows that tradition preserved the report of a
journey made to Spain by the apostle, but not of successful /abors there.’
This (confirmed by the formula in Eusebius: Adyog éyer) agrees with the
release of the apostle from the imprisonment in Rome, mentioned by
Luke, since the journey could only have taken place if Paul were again
at liberty—As nothing can be shown to be decidedly inaccurate in this
tradition so as to prove its impossibility, or even its improbability,? we
are justified in using this result in determining the date at which our
epistles were composed. If we can find no suitable date for any one of
them in the apostle’s life, down to his first imprisonment in Rome; if, at
the same time, the composition of all three necessarily belongs to one and
the same period of the apostle’s life, and the contents of the epistles point
to a later period,—then we are surely justified in assuming that they were
written after the imprisonment recorded in Acts, the First Epistle to
Timothy and the Epistle to Titus in the period between this first and a
second imprisonment at Rome, and the Second Epistle to Timothy during
the second. This view—if we take for granted the genuineness of the
epistles—is the only one tenable after the investigation we have made, and
hence also more recently it has been accepted by the defenders of their
authenticity (even by Bleek, who, however, disputes the authenticity of
the First Epistle to Timothy), with the exception of Matthies, Wieseler,
and Otto.2—The answer to the question, What date is to be assigned to
the second imprisonment? depends on the date fixed for the first; and for
this the year of Festus’ entry on office furnishes a fixed point, since Paul
aive, ropeiay 8 thy rov IlavAov amd tis wé-
Hofmann
(D. kh. Sehr. pp. 9 f.): xaOws nat wapeis To TOU
Ilétpov wd@os cadws SydAot, MavAov Se thy
woptiay eis thy Zraviay wopevozevov. Comp.
Meyer’s Rimerbrief, 5th ed. pp. 17 f.
1 When this is observed, it may be explained
also how Innocent 1. (a.p. 416) could write:
manifestam in omnem Italiam, Gallias, His-
panias, Africam atque Siciliam ... nullum
Aews eis Thy Lraviav wopevopevov.
instituisse ecclesias, nisi eas, quas venera-
bilis ap. Petrus aut ejus successores con-
stituerint sacerdotes.
2 The words of Origen in Euseb. iji.1: ri 8e¢
wept TlavAov Aéyecy awd ‘lepovooAnw wéxpt Tov
*TAAvpixoy wewAnpwxdros TO evayyéAtoy Tov
Xpiorov nat torepoy év tH ‘Pwun ent Népwvos
mepaprupnacros, do not exclude the journey to
Spain (against Meyer), but any apostolic
labors there. On the whole, however, too
much should not be inferred from these brief
summaries, for otherwise it might be con-
cluded from these words that Paul had
preached only from Jerusalem to Illyria, and
not in Rome.—It is of still less importance
that there is no mention of any release of the
apostle in the Hist. apostolica of pseudo-Ab-
dias.
3 Kolbe, too (in a review of Hofmann’s com-
mentary, Zeitschr. f. die luth. Theol. u. K. 1875,
No. 3), will acknowledge no second imprison-
ment of the apostle, which he holds to be an
unnecessary hypothesis, “ not necessary after
Wieseler in so natural a manner (!) had
assigned to the Pastoral Epistles their proper
place in the apostle's life.”
30 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
arrived at Rome in the spring of the following year.—If, with Anger,
Wieseler, Hofmann, we suppose that Festus entered on office in the year
60, then Paul was released from the first imprisonment in 63, and the
second imprisonment took place either after or before the burning cof Rome
and the consequent persecution of the Christians (in the summer of 64).
The first supposition seems to be opposed by the fact that in the Pastoral
Epistles there is not the slightest allusion to this persecution, while the
second gives, from the spring of 63 to the summer of 64, too short time
for the events to which the Pastoral Epistles bear witness. It is true that
the objection to the first supposition may be weakened by dating the
apostle’s martyrdom as late as possible, say in 67 or 68. For this we have
the support of the old tradition; but on the one hand the tradition is very
uncertain,’ and on the other we would have the apostle laboring for so
many years after his first imprisonment, that it would be inexplicable
why not a scrap of information has been preserved regarding it. The
objection to the second supposition is of less importance, for, even if the
time allowed be short, it is not too short. The events would be placed in
the following order :—lIn the spring of 63, Paul leaves Rome; he lands at
Crete, where he spends a short time only, and, leaving Titus behind,
proceeds to Ephesus, where he mieets Timothy. Soon after he crosses to
Macedonia, and from there writes the Epistle to Timothy; then somewhat
later, after resolving to pass the winter in Nicopolis in Epirus, he writes
the Epistle to Titus. Towards the end of winter he returns to Ephesus by
way of Troas, and then proceeds, without halting there, by Miletus, where
he leaves Trophimus behind sick, and by Corinth, where Erastus does not
join him as he wished, to Spain; and from there (perhaps as a prisoner)
to Rome. In this way he might still arrive at Rome some time before the
burning, and undergo his first trial, after which he wrote the Second
Epistle to Timothy? Shortly before the burning, or in the persecution
1In Jerome (Catal. c. 15) it runs: Decimo
quarto Neronis anno eodem die quo Petrus
Romae pro Christo capite truncatus sepul-
tusque est in via Ostiensi.
2Against this reckoning, Otto raises two
points in particular—(1) the shortness of the
period indicated, and (2) the apostle’s sum-
mons in 2 Tim. iv. 9 and 21. As to the first
point, Otto grants that about five months
might be sufficient for the Journeys from
Rome to Nicopolis, but thinks that the time
from March to the middle of July 64 is too
short for the journey to Spain and Rome,
since the apostle “must have preached in
Spain, been taken prisoner, undergone a pro-
cess before the provincial court, and again
made appeal to Caesar.” But these preaup-
positions are not to he considered as at all
necessary, since the actual course of events
may have been quite different. As to the
second point, Otto maintains that Timothy
could get from Ephesus to Rome in one
month, and that if the same time is to be
given for forwarding the Epistle, Paul could
INTRODUCTION. 31
occasioned by it, the apostle suffered martyrdom, and by the sword,
according to the testimony of tradition. Wiesinger grants, indeed, that
in this view the favorable treatment of the imprisoned apostle is more
natural than by supposing that he was imprisoned after the burning ; but
still he thinks that he cannot agree toit. Hus chief grounds against it
are—(1) that the Second Epistle to Timothy is brought too close to the
first; (2) that the apostle, according to 1 Tim. iii. 14 ff, did not stay so
short a time in Ephesus; (3) that it is inconceivable how the Asiatics (2
Tim. i. 15-18) should be still in Rome during the time of the apostle’s
imprisonment, and how Timothy had already been informed of their
conduct. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed (1) that there is no
hint of the Second Epistle being written a long time after the First, the
agreement between them rather testifying against this; (2) that from 1
Tim. iii. 14 ff. no conclusion can be drawn of a long stay made by the
apostle in Ephesus; (3) that the verb areorpdgyoav in 2 Tim. 1. 15 does not
imply the presence of the Asiatics in Rome. Ruffet agrees in the repre-
sentation here given, but remarks: Huther fait mourir Paul en 64, pendant
la grande persécution. [I est difficile, dans ce cas, d’expliquer le procés de
Paul. He gives 66 as the year of the apostle’s death. Against him it
must be maintained that there is no ground for assuming that the process
was carried out formally, and that it is arbitrary to assign 66 as the year
of the apostle’s death.
REMARK.—Meyer (Apgesch. 3d ed. 1861, Introd. sect. 4) has sought on two
grounds to prove, against Wieseler, that the retirement of Felix from office did
not take place in the year 60, but in 61. His first ground is, that it follows from
Josephus, Vita, 3 3, that in the year 63 Josephus went to Rome in order to obtain
the release of some priests who had been imprisoned by Felix, and sent thither.
Now, if Felix retired from office in 60, Josephus would have put off his journey
too long. But, on the other hand, before undertaking this journey, Josephus had
to await the result of the complaint (Antig. xx. 8, 10) made to the emperor against
Felix by the Jews; and when Felix was acquitted, it could only appear to Josephus
to be unfavorable to his purpose. He would hardly, therefore, undertake his
journey immediately after he had received news of it. Meyer’s second ground
is, that from Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8.11, it is clear that Poppaea was already Nero’s
wife at the time when Festus entered on office, and she became so in May 62. But
the passage in question does not at all prove that. What Josephus says is this.
not write in the beginning of July, but only _— the letter by the shortest route, and supposed
in the middle or end of August, that Timothy that Timothy would and could choose the
was to make haste to come to him before shortest route for his journey. Besides, it is
winter! But even this assertion has onlyan to be observed that raxéws and xpd xermovos
apparent justification, since it rests on the are not immediately connected with one
unproved presupposition that Paul forwarded another.
32 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
About the time when a great impostor was destroyed with his followers by the
troops which Festus, on entering office, sent against him, Agrippa built in Jeru-
salem the great house from which he could see into the temple. The Jews built
a wall to prevent his looking into the temple, and, after vainly negotiating on the
matter with Festus, they brought the case before Nero by means of ambassadors.
Nero gave them a favorable answer, 79 yuvvaixl Tloxmyig inép trav ‘lovdaiew den-
Geion yaptsduevoc. Josephus does not say how much time was taken up in building
the house, in erecting the wall, in negotiating with Festus, in sending the ambas-
sadors, in awaiting Nero’s answer; but it is more than probable that some years
must have passed while these things were going on. Besides, it is least question-
able whether the use of yvv7 implies that Poppaea was then Nero’s wife.—If
Meyer’s reckoning were still to be correct, the apostle’s release would have taken
place shortly before the fire. The fact that there is no allusion to Nero’s perse-
cution in the epistles would have to be explained in this way, that the apostle was
already made acquainted with it when he was with Timothy in Ephesus.—Dr. H.
Lehmann (Chronologische Bestimmung der in der Apgesch. Kap. 13-28, erzahlten
Begebenheiten, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, No. 2, pp. 312-319) gives the date of
Festus’ entry on office quite differently from Wieseler and Meyer. According to
Lehmann’s investigation, the year 58 is both the earliest and the latest possible
date for the recall of Felix. He believes that Felix was not recalled after the
year 58, because Felix was acquitted from the charge raised against him by the
Jews through the intercession of his brother Pallas, who, according to the express
statement of Josephus, was then in high favor with Nero. But Pallas was in favor
with Nero only till 59; his influence was very closely connected with that of
Nero’s mother, Agrippina, so that her downfall and murder in 59 would necessa-
rily deprive Pallas of Nero’s favor, just as some years later (in 62) he was
poisoned by Nero, who coveted his treasures.—Lehmann is of opinion also that
Felix was not recalled before 58, because the revolt of the Egyptians (Acts xxi.
38) cannot have taken place before 56.—According to this, Paul would therefore
be at liberty again in the spring of 61, which certainly would be a result very
favorable to dating the composition of the Pastoral Epistles before Nero’s
persecution.
As to the place of composition, Paul wrote the First Epistle to Timothy
after his departure from Ephesus, probably in Macedonia, or at least in
the neighborhood of that country, while Timothy was in Ephesus. In
accordance with this, the subscription in Auct. Synops. runs: a7d paxedoviac,
while in the Coptic and Erpenian versions Athens is set down quite arbi-
trarily as the place of composition. In several mss., on the other hand,
we find the subscription which has passed into the Received Text: a7é
Aaodixeiag, rig eott untpdérohic Spvyiag tHe Tlaxateavge; in Cod. A simply ard
Aaodixeiag. This place is assigned to it also in the Peschito, the Aethiopic
version, in Oecumenius, Theophylact, etc. The addition ry Maxarcavic
points to a division which arose in the fourth century. The opinion that
the epistle was written in Laodicea is probably grounded on the fact that
this epistle was regarded as identical with the érioroA) éx Aaodueiag men-
INTRODUCTION. 33
tioned in Col. iv. 16. Theophylact says: ric d2 fv 9 éx Aaodixelac; 4 mpde
Tiud0cov mpotn, atty yap éx Aaodixeiag éypdon.
The place in which the Epistle to Titus was written can only be so far
determined, that it was on the apostle’s journey from Crete to Nicopolis.
The subscription in the Received Text runs: mpd¢ Titov rig Kpyrav éxxAne
ciag mpatov éxioxonov yetpotovnbévta typddy amd NixomédAews tio Maxedoviac.
This has, however, arisen out of a misconception of chap. iii. 12, where
the word éxei proves that Paul, at the time of composing the epistle, was
not yet in Nicopolis.—If the epistle was written on the apostle’s journey,
between the first and second imprisonment at Rome, we cannot, with
Guericke, assume that it was composed in Ephesus; for if Paul had
already in Ephesus the intention of passing the winter at Nicopolis, he
could not, after leaving Ephesus and arriving in Macedonia, write to
Timothy that he thought of coming again to him soon, 1 Tim. iii. 14. The
Epistle to Titus can therefore have been written only after the First
Epistle to Timothy. While composing the latter, he was, indeed, thinking
of a speedy return to Ephesus, but he considered it possible then that his
return might be delayed (1 Tim. iii. 15). This actually took place when
he resolved to pass the winter at Nicopolis, after which resolution he
wrote to Titus.
As to the Second Epistle to Timothy, there can be no doubt that it was
written in Rome, as many subscriptions say. Only Bottger (Beitrage, etc.,
part 2) supposes that Paul wrote it in his imprisonment at Caesarea—
which, however, rests on the utterly incorrect presupposition that Paul
was only five days a prisoner in Rome.
SECTION 4.—THE HERETICS IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
All three epistles contain warnings against heretics. These are described
as follows:
First Epistle to Timothy—They have left the path of faith and of a good
conscience (i. 5: dy (t.e. xaBapag xapdiag nat ovvedfoeug ayadic Kal ricrews
Gvuroxpitov) aoroxfoarrec; 1.19: WW (.¢, ayadiy ovveidnav) tivec amaoduevoe epi
tiv wiotiy bvavdynoav; vi. 21: rept tiv ricrw joréxznoav). They are estranged
from the truth (vi. 5: doorepyytvo: ric GAnfeiac), and do not abide by the
sound doctrine of the gospel (vi. 8). Morally corrupt (vi. 5: dcegOappévor
rv vow), they have an evil conscience (iv. 3: xexavrypeacptvo: tiv idiav
ovvetdnorv). Beclouded with self-conceit (vi. 4: rerigwra:), they boast of a
special knowledge (vi. 20: ric pevduvbyov ywdceuc), which they seek to spread
by teaching (i. 3: érepodidacxadeiv). Their doctrine is a meaningless, empty,
3
34 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
profane babble (i. 6: paracodoyia; vi. 20; BéByAot xevogovia), a doctrine of
the devil (iv. 2: didacxadiac dayoviwv). Its contents are made up of pro-
fane and silly myths (i. 4, iv. 7: BéByAot wad ypaddec pifor) and genealogies
(i. 4: yeveadoyias arxépavror), which only furnish points of controversy and
arouse contests of words (i. 4, vi. 4), in which they take a special delight
(vi. 4: vooay mept Cyrhoe Kat Aoyouaxziac). Without knowing the meaning
of the law, they wish to be teachers of it (i. 7: OéAovreg eiva: vouodiddoxador),
and add to it arbitrary commands forbidding marriage and the enjoyment
of many kinds of food (iv. 3; kwAbovrec yapeiv, anéxeotat Bpupdtuv); by their
ascetic life they seek to gain the reputation of piety in order to make.
worldly gain by it (vi. 5: vouifovres, ropiopov elvar tiv eioéBerar).
The Epistle to Titus.—The heretics (i. 9: of avriAéyovrec) belong especially
to Judaism (i. 10: pédora of éx meprtouge). While boasting of their special
knowledge of God, they lead a godless life (i. 16), condemned by their
own conscience (ili. 11: abroxardxperoc), What they bring forward are
Jewish myths (i. 14: rpootxovreg "Iovdaixoi¢ pbbou), genealogies, points of
controversy about the law (iii. 9), and mere commands of men (i. 14:
évrodai avpénuv anoorpepouivuv adfbecav), They are idle babblers (i. 10:
para:édoyor), Who with their shameful doctrine (i. 11: diddéoxovre¢ & py de’)
seduce hearts (i. 10: gpevardra:), cause divisions in the church (iii. 10:
alpetixot dvOpwrot), and draw whole families into destruction (i. 11: dAor¢
olxove avatpérove:); and all this—for the sake of shameful gain (i. 11:
aicxpov Képdove apr).
Second Epistle to Timothy.—Here, just as in the First Epistle, the here-
tics are denoted as people who have fallen away from the faith, who are
striving against the truth (ii. 18: epi rH aAjbecay noréynoay ; ili. 8: avOioravrac
TH GAnrSeia . . . Adbnspoe wept Thy wiotw; il. 25: ol avridcatéuevor), Who are
morally corrupt (iii. 8: dvOpwrro: xatepPapuévoe rdv vovv; lil. 13; movypot
év@pwror), who are in the snare of the devil (ii. 25), so that there already
exist among them that godlessness and hypocrisy which, the Spirit
declares, will characterize mankind in the last days. They seek to extend
their doctrine, which is nothing but an unholy babble of empty myths,
and contains nothing but points of controversy ; and this they do by
sneaking into houses, and by knowing especially how to befool women
(iii. 6), just like the Egyptian sorcerers who were opposed to the truth
(ili. 8).—Contrary to the truth, they teach that the resurrection has
already taken place (ii. 18: Aéyovree tiv avdoracw fbn yeyovtva:).
Have the Pastoral Epistles to do with one or with several different
classes of heretics? Credner (Kinleitung in d. N. T.) assumes four differ-
INTRODUCTION. 35
ent classes. He takes the heretics of the Epistle to Titus to be non-
Christians, and those of the two Epistles to Timothy to be apostatized
Christians, while he divides the former—in consequence of the pdédora,
chap. i. 10.—into Jews, more precisely Essenes, and into Gentiles who are
not further described, the latter into heretics of the present and heretics of
the future (1 Tim. iv. 1 ff.; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff.)—These distinctions are, how-
ever, not justifiable, for the expression ol é« meprtouge does not necessarily
denote Jews who are not Christians (comp. Acts xi. 2; Gal. ii. 12).
Further, zé4o7a does not establish a difference in regard to the heretics,
but only indicates that some were added who were not éx mep:touge.
Lastly, in 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. and 2 Tim. i. 2 ff. the future is certainly spoken
of; but there is no hint in either of the passages that a heresy would
appear different from the present one.—Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung,
etc., pp. 236 f. and 273 f.) divides the heretics into three groups—{1) Juda-
ists, 7. e. Judaizing teachers of the law to whom there still clung the spirit
of Pharisaism ; (2) some spiritualistic Gnostics who had suffered ship-
wreck in the faith; (3) impostors. He supposes that the first are men-
tioned in the Epistle to Titus and in some passages of the First Epistle to
Timothy, the second in the First and Second Epistles to Timothy, the last
in 2 Tim. i. But apostasy from the faith is charged not only against
those mentioned in 1 Tim.1i. 19, but also against those in 1 Tim. i. 3 ff,,
and in the Second Epistle to Timothy the same characteristics are attri-
buted to the heretics as in the Epistle to Titus; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and
Tit. iii. 9. As to the impostors, they are not at all distinguished from the
other heretics as a special class—Wiesinger confesses, indeed, that the
errors placed before us in the three epistles are substantially the same; but
he thinks that on the one hand “more general errors’ are to be distin-
guished from those of individuals, and on the other hand phenomena of
the present from those which are designated as future. Hofmann’s view
is allied to this. He thinks also that those against whom Paul had a
gpecial polemic (Tit. i. 9, 10, iii. 9; 1 Tim. 1.3 ff, etc.) are distinct from
those to whom Hymenaeus and Philetus belonged (2 Tim. ii. 17), and
from those mentioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 ff.; and further, that those charac-
terized in 1 Tim. iv. 1-4 are to be regarded as people of the future, and
not of the present. Against this, however, it is to be maintained that
such a distinction of different classes is not marked in any way by the
apostle, and that the men of the future mentioned by him are character-
ized in substantially the same way as the men of the present against whom .
he directs his polemic. Mangold (Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe) rightly
36 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
maintains that the polemic of the Pastoral Epistles is not directed against
different forms of heresy, but against one and the same heresy; but he
agrees with Credner in thinking that the heretics mentioned in the Epis-
tle to Titus stood quite outside of the Christian church, since it is not said
of them that they had fallen away from the faith. But against this it is
to be observed that the polemic in the N. T. is everywhere directed only
against those who, as members of the church, sought to disturb the true
faith, and not against non-Christians who assailed the Christian faith from
without.! It is arbitrary also to distinguish the alpetixot mentioned in
chap. ili. 10 as corrupted Christians from those named in chap. i. 10 as
non-Christians.
The second question is, Of what nature was the heretical tendency
against which the Pastoral Epistles contend? The views on this point
differ widely from one another. The heretics have been held to be—{1)
Gnostics, either “ forerunners of the Gnostics of the second century ” (so
most expositors), or “ Cerinthians” (Mayerhoff in his work, der Brief an
die Colosser, 1838; Neander in the first edition of his apostol. Zeitalter), or
Gnostics of the second century, in particular Marcionites (Baur); (2) Cab-
balists (Grotius, Baumgarten); (3) Pharisaic Judaists (Chrysostom, Jerome,
partly also Thiersch); (4) Essenes (Michaelis, Heinrichs, Wegscheider,
Mangold, partly also Credner), or Therupeutae (Ritschl); and lastly, (5)
Jewish Christians. These last either had a preference for allegorical inter-
pretations of the Jewish genealogies (pedigrees), which in itself was inno-
cent and not delusive, but which might easily lead to apostasy from the faith
10tto decides quite differently by roundly
calling the heretics Jews, and remarking: “I
have found no passage in the two epistles,
not even in all the Pauline Epistles, which
compelled me to suppose that the heretics
were members of the church.” But should
not this assertion be at once refuted by the
fact that Paul, when speaking of non-Chris-
tians, always denotes them as such, Gentiles
as Gentiles, Jews as Jews; whereas of the
heretics, against whom he contends, he no-
where says that they stand outside of the
Christian church? And would not both his
polemic and his warnings have quite another
character if the heretics did not belong ex-
ternally to the church?—Otto grants that
many members of the church had been led
astray by those non-Christian heretics; but
would not those betrayed have sought to
spread their opinions among their fellow-
members, and thus become false teachers
themselves? Besides, Otto can support his
opinion only by an artificial interpretation of
the single passages in question, as is the case
among others with 1 Tim. i. 3 (see the expo-
sition of the passage) and with 2 Cor. xi. 13,
23. 1 Cor. iii. 15 alone causes him some
scruples; but he overcomes them by refer-
ring the pronoun airés to 0 OepéAcos, altogether
omitting to observe that Paul in this passage
is not thinking of heretics at all—Whether
the vives in Acts xv. l were also Jews—and
not Christians—Otto does not say; if he were
consistent in his opinions, he would be bound
to maintain the former.
INTRODUCTION. 3f
(Wiesinger, who, however, remarks that in some are found the germs of
the later gnosis), or they were busying themselves with investigations
regarding the legal and historical contents of the Thora, to which they
ascribed a special importance for the religious life (Hofmann). The second
and third views have already received a sufficient refutation. The words:
OéAovrec eivat vouodtddoxadc (1 Tim. i. 7), are the only argument in favor of
the opinion that these opponents resembled those against whom Paul
contended in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the first part of the Epis-
tle to the Romans. From 1 Tim. iv. 3, Tit.i. 14, it is clear that their zeal
for the law did not at all agree with the pharisaically-inclined Jewish-Chris-
tians, as they did not maintain the necessity for circumcision.—Cabbalists
they cannot be called, although there existed earlier among the orthodox
Jews many elements from which was developed the cabbalistic system
afterwards imprinted on the books of Jezira and Sohar; these were secret
doctrines, and it cannot be proved that these heretics had the same views.
For that matter, there are even some points here, such as forbidding to
marry, the spiritualistic doctrine of the resurrection, which are foreign to
Cabbala. There is only one kindred point in the phenomena of the two:
they both consisted in combination of revealed religion with speculation
originally heathen.
The view that the heretics were Essenes has found in Mangold a de-
fender both thoroughgoing and acute; but he has been able to prove the
identity of the two only by a somewhat bold assertion. Proceeding from
the opinion “ that Essenism was only an attempt to carry out practically
the Alexandrine-Jewish philosophy in the definite arrangements of a
sect,” he deduces from this the unjustifiable canon: “If, therefore, any
trait in the picture of the heretics should find a direct parallel, though
only in such a passage of Philo as gives quite general characteristics of
the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, we ought nat to hesitate in explain-
ing this trait to be Essenic, provided only it does not stand in contradic-
tion with the definite information given by Philo and Josephus regarding
this sect.” Mangold tries to trace back to Essenism not only the yeveadoyiaz,
but also the other traits in the picture of the heretics, especially the pbfoz,
the Cyrfoec, the yrao pevddvupoc, the asceticism, the doctrine of the resur-
rection, the view of the person and work of Christ, not indeed expressed,
but indicated, the greed, the hypocrisy, the comparison with the Egyptian
sorcerers, etc. But if he had not the aid of the canon quoted, and of an
interpretation sometimes very forced, the result would simply be this,
that in the heretics of the epistles there existed some traits which belonged
88 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
also to Essenism. On the other hand, the heretics had many peculiarities
not found among the Essenes, and the Essenes again had distinct char-
acteristics of which there is no mention here (comp. Uhlhorn’s criticism
of Mangold’s book in the Gott. gel. Anz. 1857, No. 179).—The fact that
Mangold could only justify his assertion that the heretics were Essenes by
identifying the general Jewish-Alexandrine speculation with Philonism
and Essenism, is a sufficient proof that his assertion has no firm and sure
ground.—Against Ritschl’s view that the heretics were Therapeutae, Uhl-
horn’s remarks (in the criticism quoted) are sufficient: “ They have no
hesitation in assuming a quite close connection with the Jewish-Alexan-
drine philosphy, nor would they make any difficulty of importing into it
the principles of Philo. But then new difficulties appear. If it is already
hazardous to imagine Essenes in Ephesus and Crete, it might become
much harder tosuppose that there were Therapeutae in those regions. Their
whole nature is so thoroughly Egyptian, that we can hardly venture on
the hypothesis of the sect being transplanted and extended into Asia
Minor and Crete. Yet that would be the smallest difficulty. The main
point is that the picture of the heretics applies to the Therapeutae much
less than to the Essenes ; not only because the most striking characteristics
of the Therapeutae are wanting, but also because there are features which
do not suit the Therapeutae at all. Thus, e.g., the busy activity men-
tioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 stands in glaring contrast with their habits of con-
templation.”
The view which is by far the most prevalent is, that the heresy was
Gnosticism, either “a rough elementary form of gnosis,” or one of the
cultivated systems. Baur, as is well known, declares himself for the
latter with great decision. His judgment (Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap.
Paulus, 1835, p. 10) runs thus: “ We have before us in the heretics of the
Pastoral Epistles the Gnostics of the second century, especially the
Marcionites.” For the Marcionitism Baur appeals—{1) to the Antinom-
lanism denoted in 1 Tim. i. 6-11; (2) to the ascetic aréyeofa: Bpwydrtwr,
1 Tim. iv. 8, which was founded on «a certain opposition and dislike to
God’s creation—as to something unclean, and therefore on a decidedly
dualistic view of the universe (such as Marcion in particular held); (3) to
the doctrine of the resurrection, mentioned in 2 Tim. ii. 18; (4) to the
express mention of the Marcionite antithesis, 1 Tim. vi. 20.—Of these
reasons we must at once strike out the first and the last, as resting on an
arbitrary and quite unjustifiable interpretation. As to the second, the
opposition made to the asceticism of the heretics in Tit. i. 15 and 1 Tim.
INTRODUCTION. 39
iv. 3,4, by no means points to a decided form of dualism; and with
regard to the third ground, it is to be observed that the doctrine of the
resurrection had no more connection with Gnosticism than with other
speculative systems.—For the Gnosticism of the heretics, Baur produces
the following grounds :—({1) The myths and genealogies by which the
Valentinian series of aeons and the whole fantastic history of the pleroma
were denoted. This, he says, is apparent from the adjective ypaodyc,
which was chosen because the Sophia-Achamoth was denoted as an old
mother. (2) The emphasis laid in the epistles on the universality of the
divine grace, by which is expressed the opposition to the Gnostic distinc-
tion between pneumatic and other men. But even these grounds furnish
no proof that the heresy belonged to the second century, for series of
emanations and particularism were not phenomena of cultivated Gnosti-
cism alone. The interpretation of the word ypadd7¢, however, certainly
needs no serious refutation. Baur further declares that even the author of
the epistles was infected with Marcionitism, as appears especially from the
- opposition in which the dv@puroc of 1 Tim. ii. 5 stands to é¢avepo6n év capxi in
1 Tim. iii. 16, also from the passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, where two sets of clauses
are opposed, the one more Gnostic, the other more anti-Gnostic; lastly, from
the use of doxologies that have a Gnostic sound. But apart altogether from
single pieces of arbitrary conjecture, of which Baur is guilty in his proof,
how curious in itself the opinion is, that the assailant of Marcionitism
should himself have been half a Marcionite, without having any suspicion
of his self-contradiction! In his work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi,
1845, Baur brought forward yet another new and peculiar proof of his
assertion that the Gnosticism of the heretics belonged to the second
century. He finds it in the express statement of Hegesippus (Eusebius,
H. E. iii. 32), that the pevddvepoe yrdou did not appear openly till there
were none of the apostolic circle left. From this Baur draws two infer-
ences—{1) that Gnosticism belonged only to the post-apostolic age ; and (2)
that the author of the Pastoral Epistles borrowed the expression #
wevdavupog yvooe from Hegesippus. But against the first inference it is to
be noted that in this passage it is not only not denied, but it is even
expressly stated that there had existed earlier such as “ corrupt the sound
rule of wholesome preaching,” and that it is simply remarked that the
érepodiddoxa7oc ventured only after the death of the apostles to preach their
heresy quite openly and freely. Against the second inference we must
maintain that the passage in Eusebius (as Thiersch in his Versuch zur Her-
stellung, etc., pp. 301 ff., and following him Wiesinger and Mangold, have
40 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
proved) is not a simple quotation from Hegesippus, but that the thought
only was expressed by Hegesippus, while its elaboration and form are
due to Eusebius; and that “although the Ebionite Hegesippus would
hardly have used the Pastoral Epistles for expressing his own views, yet
there is no reason why these expressions in Eusebius should not be traced
back to the Pastoral Epistles as their source” (comp. Mangold, pp. 108-
112).!. Thus the theory that the heretics in question were Marcionites, or
other Gnostics of the second century, has no real foundation; for which
reason, as Mangold says, “all exegetes and writers on Introduction who
have studied the question are unanimous against Baur’s view ” (Mangold,
p. 14).—Quite as little support has been given also to the theory that the
heretics were Cerinthians; and rightly so, since it cannot be proved that
they held the doctrine of Cerinthus regarding the Demiurge, or his
Docetism or the Chiliasm ascribed to him by Caius and Dionysius.—The
answer to the question whether Paul’s opponents were Gnostics (so far, of
course, only followers of a gnosis still undeveloped) or not, depends to a
large extent, if not wholly, on the meaning to be given to yeveadoyia.”
Irenaeus and Tertullian, whom many later expositors have followed,
understood by it, “ Gnostic series of emanations.” In more recent times
an attempt has been made to maintain that we are to understand by it
actual genealogies. Dahne (Stud. u. Krit. 1833, No. 4), supported by Man-
gold and Otto, makes it more definite, and says that by it are meant the
genealogies of the Pentateuch, along with its historical sections, the
former of which Philo interprefs in his rpéro: ri¢ puy7c. But there is not
the slightest indication in the Pastoral Epistles that the heretics here
mentioned made any such interpretation themselves. Wiesinger has let
this more definite statement drop, and explains the yeveadoyia: to be simply
Jewish genealogies. Hofmann, on the contrary, going back again to Philo,
considers them to be not genealogies proper, but “the whole historical
contents of the Thora.”? Both these expositors do not wish to regard
Paul’s opponents here as heretics in the proper sense. Wiesinger, as he
developes this point, contradicts himself. For, when he grants that they
11f Hegesippus did use the expression 4
Pevdurupos yrwors, it is in any case more pro-
bable that he should have borrowed it from
the First Epistle to Timothy, than that the
author of the epistle should have taken it
from Hegesippus.
2This explanation Hofmann justifies by re-
ferring to Philo’s division of the historical
contents of the Thora {nto two parts: rd wepi
Ths Tov kécpov yevédcews and 1d yeveadoyixey.
But though Philo uses the name 7d yeveada-
oycxcw for the part after the history of the
creation, because it begins with a genealogy,
it does not follow, as a matter of fact, that the
single historical events are designated by the
word yeveadoyias.
INTRODUCTION. 41
cultivated an arbitrary asceticism,—that they strove after a higher holi-
ness as well as a higher knowledge than the gospel presents, and that they
sought to attain this by an allegorical interpretation of the genealogies,'
—he is manifestly describing them as heretics in the proper sense of the
term. Hofmann does not indeed fall into this contradiction, but with his
view it remains wholly unexplained how they could give to the study of
the historical contents of the Thora a special importance for the religious
life, if they still did not seek to get from it knowledge transcending the
gospel. The following points are against both these explanations :—(1)
The sentence of condemnation pronounced in the epistles is so sharp,
that it points to something quite different from mere unprofitable specu-
lation. Although Paul, as these argue, calls their reasonings para:odcyta
and xevogwvia, he describes this empty babble of theirs not merely asa
useless, foolish, old woman’s chatter, but also as something unholy, 2. e.
profane (é87A0¢, comp. Heb. xii. 16), and the reasoners as those who,
fallen away from the faith, contradict the truth, and are morally corrupt
in thought. (2) Paul defines the yeveaAoyia: more precisely by the adjec-
tive axépavro, which gives, not, as it has been wrongly explained, the
nature of the investigations regarding the yeveaAoyia: (as those ‘‘ which spin
on ad infinitum,” Wiesinger; or “the end of which is never reached,”
Hofmann), but the nature of the yeveadoyia themselves. Since neither the
Jewish genealogies nor the facts given in the Thora are unlimited, we can
hardly understand the yeveadoyia: to be anything else than “Gnostic series
of emanations,” which have no necessary termination in themselves, and
can therefore be regarded as unlimited.—Besides the expression yeveadoyia:
arépayrot, there are other features in the apostle’s polemic pointing to the
Gnostic tendencies of his adversaries here, who boasted of a special know-
ledge, called by Paul yao pevddveuoc; still their Gnosticism is quite dis-
tinct from Gnosticism proper, é.e. from the Gnosticism which spread so
widely in the church in the second century. The soil of the latter was
Gentile Christianity; the soil of the former was Judaism, or Jewish
Christianity mingled with Gentile speculation. An appeal to the Mosaic
law was quite out of place in Gnosticism proper, but these heretics wished to
be vopodiddoxato. The asceticism of the Gnostics was based on dualism; the
ascetic precepts of these heretics proceeded from the distinction—con-
tained also in the law of Moses—between clean and unclean; and although
1 Wiesinger has not observed that allegor- knowledge obtained in other ways makes
ical interpretation is not to be regarded as __ use of allegorical interpretation for its own
the source of any special knowledge, but that confirmation.
42 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
they inconsistently spiritualized the contrast between spirit and matter,
there is nothing to show that they adopted dualism proper, though we
may take it for granted that they were so inclined. Gnosticism distin-
guishes between the Demiurge and the highest God—a distinction not
known to these heretics. Finally, while Gnosticism is substantially
Docetic in its view of the Redeemer’s person, it is nowhere said that these
heretics were Docetic; it rather appears on the whole as if the idea of
redemption had not with them the central importance which it had in
Gnosticism.—All these details prove that, although the heresy in question
was in many respects akin to Gnosticism, its nature was still distinct.
Peculiar to both is the mingling of revealed religion with Gentile specu-
lation; but in the one case—in Gnosticism—Christianity itself was invaded
and penetrated by heathen philosophy; while here, on the other hand,
Judaism first underwent that process. This Judaism, modified by specu-
lation and united with Christianity, assumed, indeed, new elements, and
suffered thereby many alterations. Still there was no substantial change
of form, the Christian element in this form of Jewish Christianity being
always overpowered by the Jewish. From it there arose such phenomena
as are presented in the Ebionite, the Clementine, the Elkesaitic, and other
heresies which are distinguished from systems strictly Gnostic, by pre-
serving as much as possible a monotheistic character. To this speculative
Jewish Christianity belongs also the heresy mentioned and combated in
the Pastoral Epistles. It does not follow, however, that it was one single
system definitely developed; the apostle rather keeps in view the general
tendency which embraced manifold distinctions, so that all the individual
features dwelt on by him were not necessarily characteristic of all these
heretics. The general judgment refers to all. All who have yielded to
this tendency stand opposed to the doctrine of the gospel as well as
to Christian morality ; but all did not give direct utterance to the principle
that the resurrection had already taken place, or that marriage was to be
avoided, and we are not bound to regard them all as impostors, or as men
who put on the appearance of piety only from motives of greed. One
point might be more prominent in one, another in another; they are all,
however, governed by one spirit, which could only exercise a disturbing
influence on true Christianity.—This tendency is substantially the same
as that combated in the Epistle to the Colossians. The distinction is
simply this, that at the time of composing the Pastoral Epistles the same
heresy was found in a stage of higher development. The doctrine of
angels had already assumed the form of an emanation theory; the con-
-
INTRODUCTION. 43
trast between spirit and matter had been made wider, and the self-seeking
motives in its followers had become more distinct.!
SECTION 5.—AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
Eusebius reckons the Pastoral Epistles among the homologumena, as
there existed not the smallest doubt of their genuineness in the catholic
church. They not only stand as Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian Canon
and the Peschito, but they are also repeatedly quoted as such by Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Clemens Alex. Though they are not specially quoted by
earlier ecclesiastical writers, yet many expressions and sentences occur
showing that they were not less known than the other Pauline Epistles,
such expressions appearing as quotations, or at least as reminiscences.”
Clemens Rom. not only makes use of the expression evaéfBera, 80 often
used in the Pastoral Epistles to denote Christian piety, but also in Ep. I.
ad Corinth. chap. 2, we have a phrase almost agreeing with Tit. iii. 1:
Erotuot ei¢ wav Epyov ayadév, and in chap. 29 there is an echo of the words in
1 Tim. ii. 8 which can hardly be denied: wpoceAOayev aire év dctoryte rye,
Gyvag kal auidvrove xeipac aipovrec mpo¢ avtév.—In the Epistles of Ignatius, the
passage in the Ep. ad Magnes. chap. 8: pu) wiavaobe raic érepodogiasc, unde
prOebpact toig wadaoig avugedAéoty obow, reminds one of 1 Tim. i. 4 and Tit. iil.
9.—Still more striking is the agreement between some passages of the
Epistle of Polycarp and corresponding passages in the Pastoral Epistles.
Thus in particular chap. 4: apy) wdvruv yarerdv gidapyrpia® eidéreg viv, bre
ovdév eionvéyxapev eig tov xéopov GAA’ ovdd Ekeveyxeiv te Exouev, érAcdpeba Toi¢
brAou tHe Stuxatootvns, With 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10,—an agreement which even de
Wette can only explain by supposing Polycarp to have been acquainted
with this epistle——In Justin Martyr the expressions @eocéBera and evoéBera
frequently occur. In his Dialog. c. Tryph. chap. 47, we have: i Xpnororns
Kai 4 ptAavOpwria tov Ocov, as in Tit. ili. 4.5 In the Ep. ad Diogn. chap. 4,
there isthe expression : avrév OeoaeBeiag pvothpiov pH mpocdoxgone «.7.A., Which,
compared with 1 Tim. iii. 16, is not to be overlooked.—Hegesippus (Euseb.
H. E. iii. 32), in agreement with 1 Tim. vi. 20, calls the heresies yvaorr
pevddvepoc, provided that Eusebius is quoting him verbally, and not simply
1To the view expressed here, Zéckler (in
Vilmar’s Past.-theol. Bldtter, 1865, p. 67) has
given his adherence.
2Comp. especially Otto's thorough inves-
tigation in the excarsus, “The External Tes-
timonies to the Authenticity of the Pastoral
Epistles,” appended to his work, Ueber die
geschichtl. Verhdltnisse der Pastoralbriefe.
3The appeal to Euseb. H. E. iii. 26, who
quotes words from a work of Justin's, is out
of place, since the expression: rd wéye ths
OeoveBetas pvoripov, occurring there, does
not belong to the quoted passage.
44 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
giving the substance of his thought; see p. 48.—Theophilus of Antioch
says, ad Autolyc. iii. 14, clearly alluding to 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2: gre pay kai zepi
Tov vrordccecbar apxaic nal éfovoiarc, nal ebyeotar trip avrav, neAebet tuiv Ociog
Adbyoc, Swe Hpeyov Kai yobvyiov Biov didywuev.! In Athenagoras, also, there are
several allusions to passages in our epistles; thus, Leg. pro Christ. pp. 37,
39, etc.—It might indeed be thought strange, that when the older ecclesi-
astical writers are dealing with the same subjects as occur in the Pastoral
pistes, or subjects akin to them, there is not some more definite allusion
to these epistles; but this is quite natural, when we take into account
their relative independence.—According to the testimonies quoted, it is a
point beyond dispute that the Pastoral Epistles from an early time were
regarded in the catholic church as genuine Pauline Epistles. It is differ-
ent, indeed, with the Gnostic heretics? In Marcion’s Canon all three are
wanting, and Tatian acknowledged only the Epistle to Titus as genuine.
We cannot infer, from the absence of the epistles in his Canon, that
Marcion did not know them. Jerome, in his introduction to the Com-
mentary on the Epistle to Titus,’ reproaches him as well as other heretics
with rejecting the epistles willfully. It is well known what liberties
Marcion ventured to take with many N. T. writings recognized by him-
self as genuine; and it 1s quite in keeping with his usual method, that he
should without further ado omit from the Canon epistles containing so
decided a polemic against Gnostic tendencies. The striking fact, however,
that Tatian acknowledges the Epistle to Titus as genuine, may arise from
his being more easily reconciled to it than to the Epistles to Timothy,
because in it the heretics are more distinctly called Jewish heretics than
in the latter; comp. i. 10, 14, 111.9. But however that may be, the oppo-
1 We should also note Theoph. Ant.ad Aut. = evrivov xpdvovs éwtrouai, nsually appended to
i. 2: Swws ff xai rovro eis Setypa, rou péAAccy
AapBavew rTovs avOpwwous peravotay Kai adeccy
Gpaprusy &’ vsaros Kai AovTpov wadAtyyevecias
wavTas Tovs mpociovras TH aAnOeiq ai avayer-
youdvous; comp. with Tit. iii. 5.
2 Nevertheless, in the fragments of some
Gnostics, preserved to us by the Fathers,
there are some passages which point back to
the Pastoral Epistles. Thus in Herakleon
(Clem. Al. Strom. Book iv. p. 502) the phrase:
apyvigac@a. éavrdy ov dvvara, is to be com-
pared with 2 Tim. ii. 13; and in the extracts
from Valentinian sources which are contained
in the work: ’Ex« ray Geoddrov xai TH avaro-
Acans KaAdouueyns ScdacnaAdias xara Tous OvaAd-
the writings of Clem. Al., we have the expres-
sion ¢ws axpoo:roy, with which comp. 1 Tim.
vi. 16. See on this, Otto, 0. ¢.
8Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem pri-
mam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem ltoquor et
Basilidem et omnes haereticos, qui V. laniant
Test., tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si
saltem in Novo continerent manus suas... .
Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus
quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant
eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas
crediderunt, ad Timotheum videlicet utram-
que, ad Hebraeos et ad Titum. .. . Sed Tati-
anus, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas
repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, h. e. ad Titum,
INTRODUCTION. 45
sition of these heretics, when the genuineness of the epistles is recognized
by the Fathers, can furnish no reason for doubt, all the less that Tertullian
even expresses his wonder how Marcion could have left them out of his
Canon.—After Tatian, their genuineness remained uncontested till the
beginning of this century ; only the more recent criticism has attempted
to make it doubtful. At first the assault was directed against the First
Epistle to Timothy. After J. E. C. Schmidt, in his Introduction, had
expressed some doubts, its authenticity was disputed in the most decided
manner by Schleiermacher in his letter to Gass, 1807. Schleiermacher
acknowledged the authenticity of the two other epistles, and tried to
explain the origin of the First by saying that the others had been used
and imitated. He was at once opposed by Planck, Wegscheider, Beck-
haus, who stoutly defended the epistle attacked by him; but the contro-
versy was by no means settled by them. Criticism went farther on the
way once opened, directing its weapons against the presupposition from
which Schleiermacher set out in his polemic. From the inner relation-
ship of all three epistles, it was impossible to deny that many grounds
which Schleiermacher urged against the authenticity of the one epistle
were not less strong against that of the others. Eichhorn therefore
attacked the authenticity of all three, and was followed by de Wette (in
his Einleitung ins N. T. 1826), but with some uncertainty. For although
de Wette declared them to be historically inconceivable, and combined
Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to Timothy arose from a
compilation of the other two, with Eichhorn’s theory, that not one of the
three was Pauline, he still confessed that the critical doubts were not
sufficient to overturn the opinion cherished for centuries regarding these
epistles, which did indeed contain much Pauline matter, and that the
doubts therefore only affected their historical interpretation —De Wette’s
theory, 80 wavering in itself, was besides only of a negative character.
Eichhorn, on the other hand, had already tried to reach some positive
result, by expressing the opinion that the epistles were written by a pupil
of Paul in order to give a summary of his verbal instructions regarding
the organization of churches. In this he was supported by Schott (Isagoge,
1830), who, in a very arbitrary fashion, ascribed the authorship to Luke.—
Again, there was no lack of defenders of the epistles assailed. Hug,
Bertholdt, Veilmoser, Guericke, Béhl, Curtius, Kling, and others! took
Apostoli pronuntiandam credidit; parvipen- 1 Neander, also, in his Gesch. der Pflanzung
dens Marcionis et alioruam quicumeoinhac ... der Kirche, 1832; confessing, however,
parte consentiunt, assertionem. that he had not the same confident conviction
46 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,
up the defence, partly in writings of a general character, partly in special
treatises. Heydenreich and Mack also made a point of refuting the
charges in their commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles——Eichhorn’s pos-
itive result had remained very uncertain, a mere suggestion without any
tenable grounds. So long as no firmer and better supported theory was
brought forward, the defence also had no sure basis. Baur was right
(Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P. aufs neue kritisch untersucht, 1835) in say-
ing that “there was no sufficient basis for a critical judgment so long as it
was known only that the epistles could not be Pauline; that some positive
data must also be established by which they could be transferred from the
time of the apostle to some other.” The theory which Baur had formed
of the relations of Christian antiquity, together with the peculiar char-
acter of the Pastoral Epistles, led him to believe that they had been
written while Marcionite errors were current, and written by an author
who, without being able to get rid of Gnostic views himself, had in the
interests of the Pauline party put his polemic against Gnostic doctrines in
the mouth of the Apostle Paul. In this way Baur thought he had found
a firm positive foundation for criticism, and thereby brought it to a con-
clusion. But his opimion did not stand uncontested. Baumgarten, Bottger,
and Matthies, in particular, appeared against it, and it is only the later
Tiibingen school that has given adherence to it. Even de Wette, in his
commentary, 1844 (though he was more decided than ever in disputing
the authenticity), declared himself against it, though in a somewhat
uncertain fashion. His words are: “Since the references to Marcion are
not at all certain, and the testimonies to the existence of the Pastoral
Epistles cannot be got over, we must apparently assume an earlier date
for their composition, say at the end of the first century.”—Credner, in his
Einleitung ins N. T. 1836, advanced a peculiar hypothesis, viz., that, of the
three epistles, only the one to Titus is genuinely Pauline, with the excep-
tion of the first four verses; that the Second Epistle to Timothy is made
up of two Pauline Epistles, the one written during the first, the other
during the second imprisonment at Rome, and is interwoven with some
pieces of the forger’s own; lastly, that the First Epistle to Timothy is a
pure invention. As a matter of course this ingenious hypothesis found no
adherents, and, later, Credner himself (das N. T. nach Zweck, Ursprung,
Inhalt fiir denkende Leser der Bibel, 1841-1848, chap. ii. pp. 98 f.) withdrew
it, and declared all three letters to be not genuine.—Soon after the appear-
of the genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy as of the direct Pauline origin of all the
other Pauline Epistles.
INTRODUCTION. 47
ance of this commentary, Wiesinger, in his commentary, 1850, declared
himself for the genuineness of all three epistles, and made a thorough-
going defence of them. Later, however, Schleiermacher’s hypothesis
found a supporter in Rudow (in the work already quoted, 1850).—Reuss,
in the second edition of his Gesch..der heil. Schriften, 1853, is not quite
certain of the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the First Epistle
to Timothy, but is quite confident that the Second Epistle to Timothy is
genuine. On the other hand, Meyer, after declaring in the first edition
of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1836, the genuineness of
the Second Epistle to Timothy to be beyond doubt, in the second edition
of the same commentary, 1854, acknowledges that the three epistles stand
or fall with each other; and that if they were written by Paul, it could
only have been after the first imprisonment in Rome, the one mentioned
by Luke. At the same time, he disputes the reality of a release and a
second imprisonment, and therefore cannot admit the genuineness of all
three epistles. His remarks amount to this, that the more precarious the
proof of the second imprisonment, the greater justification there is for
the doubts of the genuineness, doubts arising from the epistles them-
selves.—About the same time, Guericke, in his Newéest. Isagogik, 1854,
re-stated his conviction of the genuineness of all three epistles. Mangold
(in his work, Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, 1856) admits, on the contrary,
that neither the heresy mentioned in the epistles, nor the precepts con-
tained in them regarding church matters, militate against their origin in
the time of Paul. At the same time, he remarks that their authenticity
is dependent on the solution of a whole series of other questions, and that
the weight of these compels him to take the side of the exegetes who do
not acknowledge their Pauline origin—Bleek (Kinleitung ins N. T. 1866)
defends the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the Second Epistle
to Timothy. Regarding the First Epistle to Timothy, he thinks that it
presents difficulties so considerable that we may suppose it to have been
written in Paul’s name by an author somewhat later, but within the
orthodox church. Hausrath (Der Apostel Paulus, 1872) considers the
epistles to be not genuine, but conjectures that the Second Epistle to
Timothy is based “on a short letter addressed to Timothy by the apostle
from his imprisonment in Rome.” Plitt thinks them Pauline in contents,
but supposes that “they have been worked up afterwards by the addition
of one or two utterances from oral tradition, which has given a somewhat
different color to them.” As the latest decided defenders of the genuine-
ness besides Otto (1860), we may name specially, L. Ruffet (1860), van
Oosterzee (1861, ’74), and Hofmann (1874).
48 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
The reasons which chiefly awaken doubt regarding the genuineness of
the epistles are the following three :—{1) the difficulty of conceiving his-
torically that Paul composed them; (2) allusions and discussions which
point to a later time than that of the apostles; and (3) their peculiarity
in development of thought and mode of expression, departing in many
respects from the epistles which are recognized to be genuine.
As to the firet reason, the difficulty exists only when we presuppose that
the apostle was not released from the Roman imprisonment mentioned
in Acts, and that therefore the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle
to Titus must have been composed before, the Second Epistle to Timothy
during that imprisonment, if they are to be considered genuine at all.
But this presupposition, as already shown, has no sufficient grounds, and
with it disappears one reason for disputing the authenticity of the epistles.
In regard to the second reason, there are especially three points to be
considered—{1) the heretics against whom all the three epistles contend ;
(2) the church-organization presupposed in the First Epistle to Timothy
and in the Epistle to Titus; and (3) the institution of widows, mentioned
in the First Epistle to Timothy.
1. In regard to the heretics, comp. 34, Only by taking a false view of
their nature can these be adduced as testifying against the authenticity. of
the epistles. In what the author says of them, there is nothing which
compels us to assign them to the post-apostolic age.
2. The church-organization.—Those who dispute the genuineness of the
Pastoral Epistles, especially Baur and de Wette, reproach their author
with hierarchical tendencies, and maintain that the establishment and
improvement of the hierarchy, as intended by the hints given in these
epistles, could not have been to Paul’s advantage. While de Wette con-
tents himself with this general remark, Baur goes more into detail. In
the earlier work on the Pastoral Epistles, he remarks that in the genuine
Pauline Epistles there is no trace of distinct officers for superintending
churches (comp. on the contrary, Rom. xii. 8: 6 rpoiorduevoc; 1 Cor. xii. 28:
xuBepvhoec), Whereas, according to these epistles, the churches were already
so organized that érioxoro, tpecBbrepor, and didxove: have a significant promi-
nence. In this he assumes that the plural mpeoBtbrepo: denotes collectively
the presidents who, each with the name of ézioxoroc, superintended the
individual churches. In the later work on Paul, Baur asserts that the
Gnostics, as the first heretics’ proper, gave the first impulse to the estab-
lishment of the episcopal system. Granted that such was the case, that very
fact would be a reason for dating the composition of the epistles earlier
INTRODUCTION. 7 49
than the time of Gnosticism, since there is no trace in them of a regular
episcopal system. Even if Baur’s view regarding the relation of the.
expressions mpeofirepo and érioxorog were correct, the meaning of éicxoro¢
here would be substantially different from that which it had later in the
true episcopal system.—In our epistles we still find the simplest form of
church-organization. The institution of the deacons had already arisen
in the beginning of the apostolic age, and although tradition does not
record at what time the presbytery began or how it was introduced, it
must, apart from all the evidence in Acts, have arisen very early, as we
cannot conceive a church without some superintendence. But all the
instructions given in our epistles regarding the presbyters and deacons
have clearly no other purpose than to say that only such men should be
taken as are worthy of the confidence of the church, and are likely to
have a blessed influence.—Where in this is there anything hierarchical?
How different the Epistles of Ignatius are on this point! Had the Pastoral
Epistles arisen at a later time, whether at the end of the first or in the
middle of the second century, the ecclesiastical offices would have been
spoken of in quite another way. Wlesinger is right in insisting on the
identity between bishop and presbyter which prevails in the epistles, on
the entire want of any special distinctions given to individuals, and also
on the absence of the diaconate in the Epistle to Titus. “On the whole,”
says Wiesinger, “there is clearly revealed the primitive character of the
apostolic church-organization ” (comp. also Zéckler, /.c. p. 68). Wiesinger
is also right when he points to optyeofat éxoxoric, to the vedguroc, and to the
didaxtixéc as signs that the epistles were composed in the later period of
Paul’s labors. It may be thought strange, however, that while such «indi-
cations are not contained in the epistles recognized to be genuine, they
are given here; but it must, on the other hand, be observed that it must
have been the apostle’s chief concern in the later period of his life, all the
more that he saw the church threatened by heretics, to instruct the men
who had to take his place in setting up and maintaining the arrangements
for the life of the church.’ There is no ground whatever for asserting that.
Paul had not the least interest in ecclesiastical institutions, and that this
want had its deep ground in the spirit and character of the Pauline
1The charge, that the system is insisted on
too strongly, is in any case exaggerated. In
the Second Epistle to Timothy nothing is
said of it at all, and in the two others it is dis-
cussed only in a few single passages, and in
sach simple fashion that nothing more is said
4 ;
than is absolutely necessary. In particular,
the divine origin of the episcopal office is
nowhere named, much less emphasized.
Even Clement of Rome insists on the signifi-
cance of the office quite differently from
what is done here,
~
00 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
Christianity. Besides, all this is in most striking contrast with the infor-
mation given us in Acts regarding the nature of the apostle’s labors.’
3. The institution of widows.—Schleiermacher quoted what is said in 1
Tim. v. 9 ff. regarding the yfpa, as a proof of the later origin of this
epistle. At the same time, he did not, like many other expositors, under-
stand ver. 9 to refer to their being placed on the list of those whom the
church supported, but to their admission as deaconesses; and he thinks
that such a regulation, ordaining that deaconesses shall promise perpetual
widowhood, that they shall not marry a second time, and that their chil-
dren shall be grown up, is not conceivable in the apostolic age (Ueber den
1 Br. an Tim. pp. 215-218). While Schleiermacher thus takes y#pa to be a
name for the deaconesses, Baur gives a different explanation of the word
as used in ver. 9. He thinks that this expression denoted, in the ecclesi-
astical language of the second century, those women who devoted them-
selves to an ascetic mode of life, and who in this capacity formed an
ecclesiastical grade very closely connected with the grade of éicxoroz,
tpeoBbrepot, and didxovor, on Which account the name of deaconesses was
given to them. It seems, says Baur further, that they were not real
widows, but bore that name. Asa proof of this, Baur quotes in particu-
lar the passage of Ignatius, Ep. ad Smyrn. chap. 13, where he greets rovs
oixoue TOV adeAgav atv yuvatkl Kal réxvoic, Kai Tag mapOkvove, Tag Aeyouévac xApac.
But that passage only proves that in the second century there were virgins
who, of course for ascetic reasons, remained in that condition, led a
retired life, and, as solitaries, were named y7pa:.2 It cannot, however, be
in the least inferred from this that the y7pac named in the First Epistle of
Timothy were such zap6éveo.; on the contrary, everything here said of the
xhpac shows that actual widows are meant. It is true that in verse 9 only
those widows are spoken of who can be called church-widows; but Baur’s
assertion, that at the time of the composition of the epistle, according to
ver. 11, virgins also were received into the number, is an erroneous
opinion, which can only be supported by a wrong interpretation of the
verse. On the whole, however, it is very questionable whether we should
1 Only this much is correct, that Paulin his _ this respect forms an interesting parallel.
apostolic labors could not begin with regula-
tions for the church, and could not expect
salvation from church-organization. But
later, when there had developed a manifold
life in the churches, he kept organization
more in mind—a fact which does not conflict
with his peculiar spirit. Luther's conduct in
‘21t is incorrect to interpret, as do Bottger
and Wiesinger, wap@dvovs of real widows, and
to take the addition ras Aeyouévas xnpas as &
more precise explanation of the expression
wapOévovs. In that case Ignatius could not
but have said: ras xypas, ras Acyoudvas wap-
Odvovs.
INTRODUCTION. 51
think of deaconesses at all in the passage. This view was disputed
formerly by Mosheim and recently by de Wette. Mosheim supposes that
the z7pa:, as ecclesiastical personages, are to be kept distinct from the
deaconesses, and that Tertullian, de vel. virg. chap. ix., speaks of those
who are also called zpecfirides, presbyterae, presbyterissae. (The other
proof-passages to which Mosheim appeals are: Palladii vita Chrysostomi,
p. 47; Hermae, Pastor, Vision II. p. 791, ed. Fabricii—Lucianus, de morte
Peregrini, Works, vol. iii. p. 835, ed. Reitzian.; particularly also the eleventh
canon of the Council of Laodicea, which in the translation of Dionysius
Exiguus runs thus: mulieres, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur,
apud nos autem viduae seniores, univirae et matriculariae nominantur,
in ecclesia tanquam ordinatas constitui non debere.) The distinction,
according to Mosheim, lay in this, that the deaconesses acted as attendants,
observed what went on among the women, and did not venture to sit
down among the clergy; while the spiritual widows occupied an honorable
place in the congregation, had a kind of superintendence over other
women, and were employed in instructing and educating the orphans who
Were maintained by the love of the churches. If Mosheim’s view is
correct (see on this the exposition of 1 Tim. v. 9 ff.), we can see no reason
why such a grade of widows should not have arisen in the apostolic age.
Even de Wette thinks it probable that, from the very first, pious widows’
had an ecclesiastical position, and his only objection 1s that in this place
it is presupposed to be a position defined by law and resting on a formal
election. But xaradcyéo%w in ver. 9 by no means presupposes an election
in the proper sense. The demand that the widow should be évoc dvdpac
yuri has caused much difficulty; this difficulty, however, vanishes when
the expression is rightly explained (see the exposition).
Besides the points mentioned, many others are quoted in proof by the
opponents of the authenticity ; all these, however, fall to the ground when
the passages are explained. There is no doubt that the attacks often pro-
ceed from nothing but a groundless view of the relations of the apostolic
age, and not seldom rest on the wrong presupposition that usages and
views met with in authors of the second century were formed only in their
time, and were not rather propagated from the preceding age. We can
only discuss one more point here, and that is the assumed veéryc of
Timothy. It has been thought strange that in both Epistles to Timothy
he should be spoken of as still a young man; that, as de Wette says, the
author “places him on a low-footing, reminding him, as a beginner whose
faith is weak and doctrine hesitating, of his pious education, of the
52 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
instruction received from Paul, of the use of the Holy Scriptures, ques-
tioning his ability to understand a parable, and exhorting him, as a
coward, to brave devotion to the cause of the gospel.” We need hardly
remark how much exaggeration there is in this description. But as to
Timothy’s youth, de Wette assumes that at the time of the apostle’s
Roman imprisonment he had already been about ten years in the
ministry of the gospel, and was then at least thirty-five years of age. This
reckoning, however, is very uncertain. The manner in which he is spoken
of in Acts xvi. 1 ff, on his first acquaintance with the apostle, would
rather suggest that he was then a good deal younger than twenty-five. It
is to be observed that Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, also
feels himself compelled to remark regarding Timothy : pj tig avtov éfovbe-
vyoy, Which remark was certainly caused by his youth; see Meyer on the
passage.—Besides, we must take into consideration both the difference
between his age and that of the apostle, and also the relation of his age
to the position which the apostle had assigned to him shortly before the
composition of the epistle, and which gave him the superintendence over
the church with the oldest in it, etc.’ Further, we do not see what should
have moved a forger to represent Timothy as younger than he could have
been according to historical facts.—It is not right to say that the pressing
exhortations imparted to him in the epistles place him on too low a foot-
ing, since Paul had had many sad experiences in the last period of his life,
and he is far from refusing to put any confidence in his pupil.
As to the third reason, we have already remarked that the Pastoral
Epistles have much that is peculiar in expression and in development of
thought. The only question is, whether the peculiarity is great enough to
be an argument against their apostolic origin. The number of drag
Aeyéueva occurring in them is obviously not decisive, since every one of
Paul’s epistles contains less or more of such expressions peculiar to itself;
thus the Epistle to the Galatians has over fifty; the Epistles to the Ephe-
sians and the Colossians have together over 140.—The use of some of these
expressions in later authors (e. g. év@pwroc rot Ocov in Ignatius, Hp. ad Rom.
chap. 6; didacxadiag dacuoviey in Tertullian, De praescr. haer. chap. 7) is
clearly no proof that they belong only to post-apostolic times. It would
be otherwise if such expressions could be shown to have arisen from some
1 Bleek takes objection to pyseis cov rie commissions.” It is, however, to be observed,
vedTnros xarappoveira, because “though Tim- that Paul in the epistle is giving him a
othy was not yet at the time exactly old, he position in the church such as he had never.
had been Paul’s trusted helper for many _ before occupied.
years, and had received the most weighty
INTRODUCTION. 53
view or custom which was formed only in a later age; but that is not the
case. The statements that the expression pud¢ yuvaixdg avfp presupposes an
unapostolic view of marriage, that the plural BaoAei¢ points to a period
when, in consequence of the custom of adoption, introduced since
Hadrian, there were co-emperors besides the emperor proper, and other
similar statements, made by Baur, are arbitrary and without proof. On
the other hand, the peculiar circumstances of these epistles made peculiar
expressions necessary. Apart from the reference to the circumstances of
the church here discussed, and to the position of the receivers of the
epistles as assisting the apostle in his ministry, there is especially the
heretical tendency, which could not but exercise a distinct influence on
the expression. This would happen not merely in passages directly
polemical, but also in the sections containing more general exhortations
connected by the author in any way with the heretical errors. Wiesinger
is right in remarking: “Considering all the circumstances, that the
epistles are aimed at new phenomena, that they are addressed to fellow-
teachers, that they are kindred in contents, and were composed at the
same time, the peculiar vocabulary is conceivable, and, in comparison
with Paul’s other epistles, presents no special difficulty.”—The epistles are
peculiar, not only in individual expressions, but also in the entire manner
of their thought and composition, and from this some have tried to prove
that they are not genuine. But even this phenomenon is sufficiently
explained by the peculiar circumstances, in so far as they are in some sort
business letters, for the express purpose of conveying to their receivers
short and simple directions on certain points. In this way the lack of the
dialectic, which elsewhere is so characteristic of Paul, is not surprising.
Nothing is proved against their authenticity, when de Wette notes the
peculiarity that “there is an inclination to turn away from the proper
subject of the epistle to general truths, and then commonly a return is
made, or a conclusion and resting-point found, in some exhortation or
direction to the readers.” Such rapid transitions to general sentences are
found often enough in Paul; comp. Rom. xiii. 10, xiv. 9,17; 1 Cor. iv. 20,
vii. 10, etc. Apart from the form of presenting the subject, the mental
attitude indicated in the epistles is said to testify against the Pauline
authorship. De Wette directs attention to the following points as un-
Pauline :—the prevailing moral view of life, the frequent injunction and
commendation of good works, of the domestic virtues among others, the
advocacy of moral desert which almost (?) contradicts the Pauline doctrine
of grace, the defence of the law in which a moral use of it is granted.
54 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
But, on the one hand, emphasis is laid most strongly on the ethical char-
acter of Christianity in all Paul’s epistles; and, on the other, there is
nothing in these epistles to advocate moral desert to the prejudice of
divine grace. De Wette acknowledges the universalism in 1 Tim. ii. 4, iv.
10, Tit. ii. 11, to be Pauline, but he thinks that it has a different polemical
bearing from that usual with Paul. The natural reason for this is, that
Paul has not to do with Judaizing opposition here, as in his other
Epistles.—De Wette’s chief complaint is, that the injunctions given to
Titus and Timothy are too general and brief. But why could the apostle
not have contented himself with giving the chief points of view from
which they were to deal with the various cascs? Besides, if they are
really so brief, how comes it that the church has always found in them a
rich treasure of pointed and pregnant instruction? Nor has the church
erred in this respect, as may be seen from Stirm’s excellent treatise among
others: “Die pastoraltheologischen Winke der Pastoralbricfe,” in the
Jahrb. fur deutsche Theologie, 1872, No. 1.
It would certainly awaken justifiable scruples, if it could be proved that
other Pauline epistles had been used in composing these three. The pas-
sages on which this charge is founded are as follow:—From the First
Epistle to Timothy, i. 12-14 compared with 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10; ii. 11, 12, with
1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35. From the Second Epistle to Timothy, i. 3-5 compared
with Rpm. i. 8 ff.; ii. 5 with 1 Cor. ix. 24; ii.6 with 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff.; 1. 8
with Rom. i.3; ii. 11 with Rom. vi. 8; ii. 20 with Rom. ix. 21; iii. 2 ff.
with Rom. i. 29 ff.; iv. 6 with Phil. ii. 17. From the Epistle to Titus, 1.
1-4 compared with Rom.i.1 ff. Certainly the partial agreement is too
great to be considered purely accidental. But it is as natural to suppose
that the same author, when led to deal with the same thoughts, em-
ployed a similar form of expression, as that a forger made use of some
passages in the genuine epistles of Paul in order to give his work a
Pauline coloring. -
As a whole, therefore, the diction and thought peculiar to the Pastoral
Epistles cannot be regarded as testifying against their genuineness. But
as each of the epistles may bear special traces of non-Pauline origin,
we must further consider the criticisms made against them singly.
The First Epistle to Timothy.—According to Schleiermacher, it arose out
of a compilation of the two other epistles. As proof of this, Schleier-
macher mentions several facts, viz., that many expressions standing in @
right connection in them, are here uscd unsuitably; that resemblances
and agreements are found which amount to an appearance of plagiarism ;
INTRODUCTION. 55
and that this appearance is made an undeniable truth by misunderstand-
ings and by difficulties, only to be explained by‘the hypothesis of their
being imported from the one epistle into the other. The expressions to
which Schleiermacher thus directs attention are as follow :—i. 1: owrhp
and xar’ émraygy (Tit. i. 3); ver. 2: yunoip réavy év riorer (Tit. i. 4); ver. 4:
pidor (Tit. i. 14); mpootxecv, yeveadoyiac (Tit. iii. 9); Carhoec (idem); ver. 6:
aoroxpoavrec (2 Tim. ii. 18); ver. 7: diaBeBaovodac (Tit. iii. 8); ver. 10:
tytaivovoa didaoxadia; ver. 16: trorimwae; ii. 7 compared with 2 Tim. i. 11;
ll. 2: vpgddcov (Tit. ii. 2); ver. 3: duayov (Tit. iii. 2); ver. 4: ceuvdrne (Tit.
li. 7); ver. 9: év naOapg ovvedqoec (2 Tim. i. 8); ver. 11: pa deaBdrouc (Tit.
li. 3); iv. 6: mapyxodobGjxac (2 Tim. iii. 10); ver. 7: BeBAAoue (2 Tim. ii. 16);
ver. 9: miorég 6 Adyog (2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8). But when considered
impartially, these expressions are by no means unsuitably used in the
First Epistle to Timothy ; it cannot therefore be proved that they are bor-
rowed, and borrowed unskilfully. The agreement of the Pastoral Epis-
tles in their mode of expression is sufficiently explained by the fact that
they were written with no long interval between them. Comp. with this
the general agreement between the Epistles to the Colossians and to the
Ephesians.—Besides this, however, Schleiermacher charges the epistle not
only with want of internal connection, launching out often from one sub-
ject to another, but also with containing many thoughts foreign to Paul
(i. 8, ii. 14, 15, ii. 5, etc.). But on the former point it is to be noted that
the epistle is not a work on doctrine, but a business letter, in which sub-
jects of various kinds are treated according to circumstances; and on the
latter point, that the thoughts mentioned are not at all in contradiction with
Paul’s views.—De Wette, too, has no grounds for asserting that the execu-
tion does not correspond with the aims proposed in the epistle. The pas-
sage in i. 3, for example, does not justify any one in expecting an elaborate
polemic against the heretics; it is sufficient for the purpose to give some
of their characteristics. As a rule, Paul enters on a thorough polemic
only against those opponents who disputed his gospel from presupposi-
tions recognized by himself; this, however, was not the case with these
heretics.—The charges, that the directions for managing the church are
too general and insignificant, and that the exhortations given to Timothy
(i. 18 f., iv. 7 ff., 12 ff, v. 23, vi. 11 ff.) are not suitable to his character and
position, are not to the point; and the same may be said of the assertion,
that a business letter addressed to Timothy ought to discuss the apostle’s
special relations with the church at Ephesus, which was so dear to him.
As to other points, de Wette holds that Schleiermacher goes too far in his
56 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,
unfavorable judgment, and does not agree with the theory of a compila-
tion. Still he, too, places this epistle after the other two, and considers it
the last written, though he assigns all three to the same author. All this
makes it inconceivable how the forger did not express in one epistle what
he wished to write in the apostle’s name.—Mangold agrees with de Wette
_ in regarding the First Epistle to Timothy as the last written. The chief
ground for this view is the advanced stage of heresy shown in the epistle.
When the Epistle to Titus was written, the heretics, according to this
theory, still stood outside the church as purely Jewish Essenes, and had
had some trifling success only in Crete. When the Second Epistle to
Timothy was composed, they had found a more favorable soilin Ephesus;
by fusing their dogmas with Christian ideas they had won over notable
members of the church, so that there was a danger of this heresy eating
into it like a cancer. The author was not deceived in this respect, but saw
“the introduction of Essene dogmas into Christianity completed,” and
the heretical transformation of the fundamental ideas of Christianity into
Essenism carried out to its ultimate consequences; hence he wrote
another Third Epistle. In the earlier epistle, however, “he had chosen
the situation in Paul’s imprisonment just before his death,” and thus
“he had now to select some earlier period in the apostle’s life for writing
anew.” The hypothesis is clever enough, but on the one hand there is no
ground for presupposing that the heresy is more advanced in the First
Epistle than in the Second, and on the other hand the forger would have
acted most foolishly in placing the later stage of the heresy in an earlier
period. Altogether, apart from the necessary explanation which these hypo-
theses give of some points, they leave many other points quite untouched.
Mangold, in agreement with de Wette, gives one more proof for this
theory of later composition—viz. that the Hymenaeus, mentioned in the
Second Epistle as a member of the church, had already been excommuni-
cated in the First. But, granting the identity of the persons, why could
Paul not bring forward later as a heretic a man who had been excommu-
nicated for his heresy? Besides, in the manner in which the man is men-
tioned in 2 Tim. ii. 17, there is no indication that Timothy had known
anything of him before. Bleek (Hinleitung in das N. T.) has anew sought
to prove the correctness of Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to
Timothy is the only one not genuine. The chiefground on which he relies
is the entire want of allusion to personal relations in the church; but this
want is sufficieatly explained by the motive of the epistle. Bleek thinks
it strange that in the instructions regarding the bishopric no mention is
INTRODUCTION. 57
made of any particular person in Ephesus fitted for the office; but we
must remember that those instructions were given to Timothy not for the
Ephesian Church alone. Stress is laid on the absence of any greetings
from Paul to the church or to individual members of it, and from the
Macedonian Christians to Timothy ; but greetings were not at all neces-
sary, and there are other epistles in which they are altogether wanting or
very subordinate. All the other reasons advanced by Bleek, he himself
declares to be secondary. When impartially considered, they are seen to
have no weight—especially for one who, like Bleek, acknowledges that
the epistle contains nothing un-Pauline.
The Epistle to Titus —The criticisms made on this epistle by de Wette
are, that it neither agrees with the state of things mentioned in it, nor
corresponds with its purpose and the relation of the writer to the reader.
As to the first point, it rests chiefly on the erroneous theory, that the
epistle was written soon after the gospel was first preached in Crete. If
Christianity had already spread to Crete and in the island before the apos-
tle arrived there, there would be nothing strange in mentioning the multi-
tude of heretics, nor in the blame given to the Cretans in spite of their
readiness to receive Christianity, nor in the instructions which presuppose
that Christianity had been some time in existence there. With regard to
the second and third charge, we must note, on the one hand, that de Wette
arbitrarily defines the purpose of the epistle to be, “to give to Titus instruc-
tions about the choice of presbyters, and about contending with heretics,”
which certainly makes the greatest part of the epistle appear to bea
digression from its purpose; and, on the other hand, that the weight and
importance of the general instructions and exhortations for the develop-
ment of the Christian life have received too little recognition.—Reuss
(Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften des N. T., 2d ed. 1853) shows greater caution
than de Wette in his opinion: “The somewhat solemn tone may excite
surprise, not less so that Paul apparently found it necessary in a special
letter to say things to Titus which were self-evident. This surprise may,
however, give way before the consideration that Paul did not consider it
necessary to deliver to his substitute a kind of official instruction and author-
ization as his certificate in the churches. More simply and surely it may
give way, when it is remembered that the apostle wrote for special reasons
and that an important matter could never appear to him to be too strongly
enjoined.” —As to other points, even de Wette acknowledges that the epistle,
“though not written with the Pauline power, liveliness, and fullness of
thought, has still the apostle’s clearness, good connection, and vocabulary.”
58 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,
The Second Epistle to Timothy.—In this epistle, apart from the historical
inconceivability which it seems to him to share with the other two, de
Wette takes exception to the following points, viz.: that, as already
remarked, Timothy is not treated in a proper fashion, and that many
exhortations (especially ii. 2, 14-16, ili. 14-iv. 2), as well as the prophetic
outbursts (iii. 1-5, iv. 3) and the polemic attacks (11. 16-21, 23, iii. 6-9, 18),
do not accord with the purpose of inviting him to come to Rome.—But as
to the first accusation, the apostle’s exhortations do not by any means pre-
suppose such a feebleness of faith and faintness of heart in Timothy, as de
Wette in too harsh a fashion represents; besides, a forger would hardly
have sketched a picture of Timothy in contradiction with the reality.
The second accusation is based solely onde Wette’s inability to distinguish
between the occasion and purpose of an epistle. De Wette further finds
fault with the epistle, that here and there it is written with no good gram-
matical and logical connection, and without proper tact (for which he
appeals to iil. 11, iv. 8!); but these are subjective judgments which decide
nothing.—Schleiermacher declared the process of thought both in this
epistle and in that to Titus to be faultless; and Reuss pronounces the
following judgment on them: “ Among all the Pauline Epistles assailed
by criticism, no one (except the one to Philemon) bears so clearly the
stamp of genuineness as this epistle, unless it be considered without any
perception of the state of things presented in it. The personal references
are almost more numerous than anywhere else, always natural, for the
most part new, in part extremely insignificant; the tone is at once pater-
nal, loving, and confidential, as to a colleague; the doctrine brief and
hastily repeated, not as to one ignorant and weak, but as from one dying
who writes for his own peace.—The reference to the apostolic office is the
chief point from beginning to end, and there is no trace of hierarchical
ambition or any other later tendencies.” Bleek is decided in maintaining
the authenticity both of the Epistle to Titus and of this epistle.
The following are the results of an investigation which takes the actual
circumstances into careful consideration :—1. The external testimonies
are decidedly in favor of the authenticity of the epistles. 2. The difficulty
of bringing them into any period of the apostle’s life disappears when we
assume a second imprisonment at Rome. 3. The internal peculiarity of
the epistles, both in regard to the matter discussed in them and in regard
to the process of thought and mode of expression, presents much that is
strange, but nothing to testify against the authenticity. 4. “There is no
sufficient resting-place for the critical judgment of rejection, so long as we
INTRODUCTION. 59
only know that the epistles cannot be Pauline; everything depends on
proving positively that they arose at a later date.” Such is Baur’s opinion.
But this positive proof entirely breaks down. Baur’s attempt has no evi-
dence to support it; de Wette makes an uncertain conjecture; and Man-
gold, who sees Essenism in the heresy, himself admits that this is no
reason for assigning the epistles to the post-apostolic age.
difficulties in vindicating the Pauline authorship, it is still more difficult
to prove in whole or in part how a forger could manufacture three such
If there are
epistles as these are, in form and contents, and foist them on the Apostle
Paul.—Since, therefore, there is no sufficient proof of the post-apostolic
origin of the epistles, we may further (as Wiesinger also has completely
shown) maintain their nght to a place in the Canon as Pauline writings,
all the more that the Pauline spirit is not contradicted in them, and that,
in comparison with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, they show a
decided superiority in their whole tenor.?
!
1Guericke: “The Pastoral Epistles are
certainly not written in so fresh and lively a
mahner, nor do they enter as thoroughly into
details, as do Paul’s earlier epistles. They
show us the great apostle as a grey-haired
man, bent with age, with persecution, with
anxiety (?). His hate is especially sharpened
against the enemies of the kingdom of God;
but he is at the same time filled with a sad-
ness all the more deep, as he beholds the
kingdom of Antichrist develop now and
threaten the future. Thus the fragile (?)
covering reveals all the more nobly the spirit
of faith and love which dwelt within him.”
60 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Tlabdov xpos Tipd8eov extaorody xporn.
A, al. have the shorter inscription apd¢ Tcué60eov a, which in D E F G is pre-
ceded by the word dpyera:.
CHAPTER I.
VER. 1. éxcrayfvy] ® reads instead érayyeAlav, a reading not found elsewhere,
and not confirmed by its meaning; it may have arisen inadvertently from 2 Tim.
i, 1.—Oecov owrijpos juav.] In the later mss. there is great variety in the reading,
partly by arranging the words differently, partly by adding the article to one or
other of them, partly by inserting the word tarpéc¢; tov owripoc judy Oeod, 73,
80, 116, 213, al., Arm.—rov owripog Geov juav, 37.—Ocov marpd¢ Kai owripo¢ judv,
38, 48, 72, al., codd.—xai xvupiov "Inco Xpioroi] xai is omitted by various cursives,
or placed before owr7poc¢; the latter in the Mss. just named, as well as in Ambros.,
who has Geov xal owrjpog yuav; the former in Ar. pol., which has Qeot owripos
judy, kupiov. In many cursives xai is omitted along with «vpiov following it;
Geov owripog fuav, in 17, 31, al. ; Tov owrjpoc judy, 43, and in those above men-.
tioned, 38, 48, 72, and in Ambros.—Cod. 118 has rev owrypog fuay I. X. Kai xvpiov'I.
X.—xvpiov is wanting in the most important authorities, A D* F G, many cursives
and translations (Syr. both, Copt. Sahid. Aeth., etc.); hence it is omitted by
Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., while Matthaei has retained it with the
remark: ita omnes omnino mei.—Instead of 'Ij7cov Xpiorov, the most important
Mss., etc., have the reading Xpiorot 'Incov, which is therefore adopted by Griesb.
wx has the same reading as the Rec.: xal xvpiov "Ino. Xp.—Ver. 2 jpav after
matpé¢ is wanting in A B D* F G 17, 23, al., Copt. (not Sahid.) Arm. Slav., etc.,
and is therefore to be deleted; the interpolation is easily explained from a com-
parison with the other Pauline Epistles—Ver. 4. For yeveadoylaic, xevoAoyias
occurs as a conjecture.—Instead of Cyr@oecc, x, A and some cursives have éx{nrfoec,
which is adopted by Tisch. 8. This reading may be the original one, which as a
anag Aeyou. in the N. T. was changed into the usual (yrfoec¢; the meaning is the
same.—Oixodouiav (Rec.) is found perhaps in no Greek ms. According to Tisch.,
D*** has it; but this is denied by Reiche (Comme. crit. in N. T. IT. p. 356). It
is, according to Reiche: “nil nisi error typothetarum Erasmi, aut conjectura
Erasmi ipsius;” the latter he considers more probable. By far the most have
oixovoyzlay ; only D* and Iren. gr. ap. Epiph. have otxodoufy (aedificationem : Lyr.
Erp. Syr. p. in m. Vulg. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast.). The reading otxovoyiay is
supported by authorities so important, that we cannot doubt its correctness.
Matthaei says: otxovoyziay ita omnes omnino mei, ac ii quidem, qui scholia habent,
etiam in scholiis, uti quoque interpretes editi, oxodouiay nihil nisi error est typo-
thetarum Erasmi, 5d cum » confuso, nisi Erasmus deliberato ita correxerit ad
Latinum aedificationem.—Ver. 8. Instead of xp7ra:, Lachm. reads ypyorzat, after A
73, Clem. The common reading is more natural, and is to be considered right, as the
cHAP. I. 1, 2. 61
other has not sufficient testimony.—Ver.9. Instead of the regular forms warpaAsaic
and pytpadaas, A D F G 48, 72, 93, al. have warpoAgsacc and pytpoAdsaic, which
Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted; several cursives have warpadoiacg and pytpa-
Aviatc.—Ver. 11. In D* and several versions there stands before xard the art. r9;
a manifest interpolation in order to connect «ata «.7.A. with the foregoing
didacxahiga.— Ver. 12, xai xdpw éxw] The most important authorities, A F G
17, 31, 67** 71, al, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., etc., also x, are against «ai, which
seems to have been added in order to join this verse more closely with the previous
one. In Matthaei «ai stands without dispute. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 left it out;
Tisch. 7, with Wiesinger, had retained it, following D K L, several versions, and
Fathers.—évdvvaydoarri ye] x has the pres, évdvvayovvri, and omits me; a reading
supported by no other authority.—Ver. 13. rdv mpérepov dvta] A D* F G x» 17,
67*** 71, 80, al., Dial. c. Marc. have ré instead of rév. The latter is a correction
in order to join the partic. and the following subst. more closely with the previous
ve. Lachm. and Tisch. adopted 7é. Matthaei, on the other hand, reads rév,
with the remark: 7d zp. in nullo meorum inveni, nisi in uno Chrysostomi @ qui
fortasse voluit, tov rd mpérepov. Muralto likewise reads rév.—After dvra, A 73
have ye, which is also adopted by Lachm. It disturbs, however, the natural
connection, and the authorities for it are not sufficient ; hence it is not adopted by
Tisch.—Ver. 15. x omits rév before xéoyzov.—Ver. 16. Lachm. and Tisch. 7,
following A D, etc. read Xp. ’Inc.; Tisch. 8, following x» K L P, reads 'Iyo.
Xp.—Instead of tacav according to D K L, Tisch. rightly adopted azacay from
A F G, ete—Ver. 17. Instead of a¢$apry, D* has the reading a@avdry, and F G
have this word inserted after “6vy.—The word oo¢@ is rightly rejected by Griesb.
Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. and others, since A D* F G x 37, 179, 73, the
Syr. Copt. Arm. and other versions testify against it. It was probably an inter-
polation from Rom. xvi. 27; Matthaei retained it, remarking: Vulgatum habet
et repetit Chrys. xi. 569, 570; item i. 464, c. v. 393, e. Ath. ii. 425, 453. Attamen
oo@ abest ap. Cyrill. v., a. 295, haud dubie casu ac per errorem. Ex omnibus
omnino Codd. omittunt soli A D F G 37. Reiche (Comment. crit. in N. T. II.
pp. 360-363) maintains that oo0¢ cannot be an interpolation from Rom. xvi. 27,
because the doxology there is not genuine. See, on the other hand, Meyer in his
critical remarks on the passage; he holds oo0¢ to be genuine, on internal grounds,
viz.: (1) Because Paul had no reason for emphasizing the unity of God against
the heretics; and (2) because the reading uévy cog Oc is the more difficult
one. But these internal grounds are insufficient against the weight of the author-
ities—Ver. 18. Instead of orparety, x has orpareboy.
Vv.1,2. (On Vv. 1, 2, see Note I., pages 86, 87.] As in most of his
other epistles, Paul here calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the
narrower sense of the term, according to which it was applied only to
those immediately called by Christ to the ministry of the gospel. He
directs attention to the immediate nature of the call by adding the words
Kar’ émctayny Oeov ourypoc judy «.7.A. In 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim., &é
GeAfparo¢g Oeov is used for a like purpose. The expression kar’ éxcrayiyv x.7.A. 18
found elsewhere in the inscription only in Tit. 1.3, where, however, it is not
placed in such close connection with amécrodos as here (comp. besides
Rom. xvi. 26, also 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8). The @éAyjua is the source
62 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
of the ém:rayf, by which we are to understand the commission given to
the apostle. By this addition the apostle expresses his “ assured con-
sciousness of the divine origin and worth of his apostleship” (Matthies).
It is not, however, an “involuntary” expression. The apostle deliberately
insists on his apostolic authority, for the very sufficient reason that he
was laying down in his epistle rules for church life. Heydenreich’s sug-
gestion, that Paul meant at the same time to confirm Timothy’s position,
is very far-fetched.—Oe0v owripog judév] This collocation of the words is
only found elsewhere in the N. T. in Jude 25; in all passages of the Pas-
toral Epistles it usually runs: 6 cwr)p judy Orde. In this passage owryp
juov is added as in adjectival apposition to Ocov; while in Luke i. 47 it is
marked as a substantive by the article. In the Pastoral Epistles cwrfp is
used both of God (so frequently in O. T.; comp. LXX. Ps. xxiv. 5; Isa. xii.
2, xlv. 15, 31; Wisd. Sol. xvi. 7; Ecclus. li. 1) and of Christ; in the other
Pauline Epistles (e.g. Eph. v. 23; Phil. iil. 20), as well as in John iv. 42,
Acts v. 31, etc., it serves to denote Christ. Heydenreich is right in
remarking that God does not bear this name as preserver and benefactor
of men in general, but on account of the means He has instituted for
saving and blessing us through Christ.—xai Xpicrov 'Ijcov] These words are
added on account of the apostle’s Christology ; so also in Gal. i. 1.—rie¢
éAridog nudv| Christ is so named because He is both “the ground of our
hope ”’ (Wiesinger) and the object of it. He is hoped for, because by Him
the cwrnpia is brought to completion (Calvin: in eo solo residet tota salutis
nostrae materia); comp. the expression in Col. 1. 27: 4 éAmi¢ rij¢ dofHg.—
Tipobiw yaoi téxvy év wioter| Paul calls Timothy his child; he was not so
kata odpxa but év wiore:, since he was converted to the faith by Paul, as we
learn from 1 Cor. iv. 14-17. Paul usually calls himself the father of those
who had been led to the faith by him (comp. Gal. iv. 19). The idea of
téxvov is strengthened by yfowc, perhaps by way of contrast with the
heretics. The opposite of yvjowc is vé0¢ or obx dbyTwo Sv (comp. Plato,
Rep. 293). This addition also gives prominence to the fact that Timothy
was his son in the faith, not in appearance but in truth; hence Paul calls
him also in 1 Cor. iv. 17 his récvov ayargrév nai miordév év xupiy.—év riorec]
“in the sphere of faith,” is not to be connected with yyciy but with réxvy,
as defined more closely by yyciv; comp. Tit. i. 4, and see Winer, p. 130
[E. T. p. 187].—wyépec, tAcoc, eipfvn] This collocation occurs only in the
Pastoral Epistles and in 2 John 3; in the other Pauline Epistles it runs:
dpc tiv kai eipfyy. In Gal. vi. 16, however, eipfvy and éeog are connected
with one another. In Jude 2 we have: éeog ipiv nai eiphvy wai aydrn. The
three expressions manifestly do not indicate three different gifts of grace,
but only one. The distinction is, that yap¢ points more to the soil from
which the gift comes, and eipfvy denotes its nature, while the éAco¢
(standing between the two others in the Pastoral Epistles) lays stress on
the element of compassionate love in yépec.1 Otto arbitrarily finds in
1 Wiesinger is right in not agreeing with to the apostle’s position asa prisoner. Van
Olshausen, who wishes to see in the expres- Oosterzee aptly remarks: “Grace may be
sions cwrip, éAwis, éAcos, a special reference called the greatest benefaction for the guilty,
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 63.
Bieog “a reference to the official position,” appealing to such passages as
1 Tim. i. 18, 16; 1 Cor. vii. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 1. Paul does also acknowledge
that his call to the ministry of the word came from God’s éieo¢; but it
does not follow from this that the word é4coc is used only in reference to
the official position; comp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18.—azd @cod marpoc
kai x.7.2.] Even with the reading ja the genitive Xpiorot "Iyoov cannot
be made to depend on @eoi. Next to the Father, Paul names Christ as
the source from which the blessing comes, because all the Father's gifts
of blessing come through the Son.
Vy. 3, 4. [On Vv. 3, 4,see Note II., pages 87-89.] The apostle reminds
Timothy, in the first place, of a previous exhortation, obviously for the
purpose of impressing it more deeply on him.—The most natural con-
struction of the sentence appears to be, to take it as an anacolouthon, to
connect éy ’Egéow with mpoopeivar, to refer ropevéuevog to the subject of
swapexaddeoa, and to make iva dependent on mapexédecd oe x.t.A. This con-
struction is held by most expositors to be the only admissible one. The
missing apodosis cannot, however, be supplied before iva, because iva is
closely connected with what precedes; we may insert with Erasmus “ ita
facito,” or with Beza “ vide,” or with most expositors “ oitw xai viv rapa-
xaae”’ (Winer, p. 530 [E. T. p. 570]). The peculiarity in such an involun-
tary (Buttm. p. 331 [E. T. 386]) anacolouthon is, that the grammatical
connection is not established by inserting the omitted apodosis. The
most simple course is to suppose that the apostle had “otrw xai viv mapa-
Kaa” or “obzw moiec”’ in mind, but the place for it was lost in the abund-
ance of the thoughts that streamed in on him.—Several expositors depart
from the construction commonly accepted. Matthies takes Tpoopetvar As
“stay,” not as “remain behind,” refers ropevduevog not to the subject of
mapexadeca, but to oe (making an unjustifiable appeal to Eph. iii. 17, 18, iv.
i. 2; Col. iii. 161), and explains the whole thus:‘When Timothy was
intending to travel to Macedonia, Paul had charged him to stop at Ephesus
and remain there. Schneckenburger (see his Beitrage z. Finl. pp. 182 ff.)
arbitrarily changes the infin. zpooyeiva: into the partic. mpoopeivac, and
refers wopevduevoc to the following clause: iva mapayyelayc. Otto treats
wopevduevoc in the same way, at the same time connecting év ’Egéow with
wapexddeca, taking zpooveivac in an absolute sense, making the apodosis
begin with iva, and translating: “Just as I exhorted you to stand firm in
Ephesus, so shalt thou on the journey to Macedonia command the people
not to give attention to strange teachers, nor to hold them in esteem,” etc.
compassion for the suffering, peace for the
contending (?) disciple of the Lord.” Hof-
mann is right in his remark on 1 Tim. i.1,
that xdpis with awe does not denote God’s
thoughts, but “that in which His thoughts
are shown, the grace which man receives.”
In his explanation of 1 Tim. i. 2: “ xdpes is that
which is imparted to man by God, who wishes
him well,” the idea of xdpes 58 made far too
general.
1In the passages quoted, Paul adds the
participles to the previous clauses in the
nom., and these participial clauses thus
acquire the independence due to them
according to the context. But in these pas-
sages the relation of the participial clause to
the preceding main clause is quite different
from what it is here, where there is no reason
whatever for departing from the regular con-
struction.
64 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
This construction is, however, so artificial, that it is obviously incorrect to
every one who is not blinded by the desire of placing the date of the com-
position of the epistle in a period of the apostle’s life known to us.
REMARK.—In order to justify his view of the sentence, Otto tries to prove the
incorrectness of the usual construction, and to get rid of the objections to his own.
The hypothesis of an ellipsis he rejects on account of the rule that the emphatic
word can never be omitted, and that if we supply the apodosis by “otrw kal viv
Tapaxaa®,” the emphatic words are kai viv. But these words are not by any
means the most emphatic. The apostle might be using them not specially of the
contrast between past and present, but only to give point to his former exhorta-
tion; hence he might easily omit the apodosis. Otto further maintains, that in
the usual construction «adc, which always denotes a material, actual correspond-
ence, even to identity of motives, and further, of material contents, does not get
its full force. On this point we indeed grant that the peculiar meaning of xadc
(as distinguished from o¢) is not distinctly marked by the expositors; but it is
not at all necessary in the usual interpretation to weaken arbitrarily the force of
xafec, since the apostle’s former exhortation could not but be his guide in the
present one. Still less difficulty, however, is presented by xaOdc, if we choose to
supply oirw zoiet (as Hofmann does), since the meaning then is, that Timothy’s
conduct is to be conformed to the exhortation already given by the apostle.—Otto
tries further to show that in the usual explanation the participle ropevdéyevog is
not in its proper place. The rules which Otto lays down on the subject of partici-
pial clauses in order to support his assertion are, on the whole, not incorrect. The
passages he quotes from the N. T. certainly show that the participle following a
finite verb mostly defines it more precisely ; that it either explains more precisely
the verbal notion, or gives the accompanying circumstances of the verb. But
Otto has overlooked the departures from this rule which occur in the N. T.;
comp. Luke iv. 40 with Mark i. 31; Matt. xii. 49 with Acts xxvi.1; Matt. xxii.
15 with Matt. xii. 14; further, Luke xxiv. 17.' It cannot be denied that the par-
ticiple following sometimes gives simply the time in which the action of the finite
verb takes place; that here, therefore, the topevéueveg may simply denote the
time of the former exhortation.* Otto quotes the passage in Acts xii. 25 as sup-
porting the rule that the participle following should serve to explain the verbal
notion, and justifies this by saying that the participle wAypéoavrec tiv dtaxoviav
gives the motive of the return. But to give the motive is no explanation. In this
passage, however, the position of the participle after the finite verb is justified in
this way, that it gives the motive for the action expressed by the finite verb. So,
too, in the passage here there is nothing to be said against the connection of
mopevouevoce with wapexddcoa, so soon as we suppose that the journey was the occasion
10tto tries to weaken the force of this
passage against him by assuming a rhet-
orical inversion, because, he says, it is de-
clared “that taking a walk and holding
solemn dispute are inconsistent with one
another” (I).
2In his groundless denial of this, Otto
thinks that if ropevé,evos be joined to wapexd-
Acoa. it must be assumed to be a circumstance
accompanying the wapexdAeca, but that this
assumption is impossible, since a continuing
fact (part. pres.) cannot be regarded as the
accompanying circumstance of a concluded
fact (part. aor.). But Otto overlooks the fact
that wopevépevos in this connection is not to
be understood in the sense of continuing a
journey, but in the sense of beginning one,
of setting out.
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 65
for Paul giving Timothy the exhortation in question. Lastly, Otto attacks the
usual construction from the notion of mpooyeiva:, because this word is explained
in the construction to be equivalent to “remain, stay ;” whereas, when not con-
nected with a dative (or with a participial clause representing a dative), but
standing absolutely, it has the meaning: “to maintain the position hitherto
possessed, to stand firm.” Hence, if any definition of place is added, it is not as a
completion of the verbal notion, but only indicates where the standing firm takes
place. Otto infers from this: “accordingly év 'Egéow here does not complete
npoopeivar, but rather mpooueiva: is absolute, and év 'Epéow gives the place at
which the whole sentence, viz. tapexddeod ce mpoopeivat, took place.” This infer-
ence is obviously incorrect, since from Otto’s premises it only follows that, if év
"Egéow belongs to tpoomeivat, the place is thus given where Timothy is to stand
fast,—in particular against the heretics,—it does not follow that é ’E¢éow may be
connected with mpooyeivac. Besides, from Acts xviii. 18, it is clear beyond dispute
that mpocuéverv does occur in the N. T. in the weakened sense of “remain,
stay.”1 Otto does not disguise the objections to his view, but he thinks that when
thoroughly weighed they are more apparent than real. In this, too, he is wrong.
It is indeed right to say that in the N. T. a sentence often begins with iva without
any verb preceding on which it depends,—and this not. only in cases where the
governing verbal notion is easily supplied from what precedes, as in John i. 8, ix.
3, xiii. 18, 2 Cor. viii. 7, but also when that is not the case, so that the clause
beginning with tva stands as an imperative clause, as in Eph. v. 33; Mark v. 23
(comp. Buttm. pp. 207 f.). But in all passages where iva is used elliptically,
this is shown clearly and distinctly by the form of the sentence, which is
not the case here. It is right also to say that emphatic parts of the clause con-
strued with iva are often placed before iva, so that opevduevoc, therefore, might
very well be connected with the clause following iva; but this, too, is always
indicated clearly by the form of the sentence. Wherever words standing before
iva are to be referred to what follows iva, these words cannot possibly be con-
nected with what precedes them, and the part of the sentence following iva is
incomplete in itself, so that it has to be taken along with the part before iva. It
is wrong to maintain that the participial clause opevdéuevog cig Maxed. becomes
emphatic by contrast with év ’Egéow, inasmuch as what took place in Ephesus is
now to take place also on the journey to Macedonia ; for—the two things are not at
all the same. In Ephesus (according to Otto’s view), Paul exhorted Timothy to
stand firm; but on the journey to Macedonia, Timothy is to encounter those who
had been led astray. Lastly, it is right to assume that the sender of a letter, if he
has anything to say of the place from which the letter is sent, may speak of it by
1In this passage, also, Otto claims for mpoo-
pévecy, a8 a VOX Militaris, the meaning: “keep
one’s ground,” remarking, “for the circum-
stances in Corinth were such that they might
well have induced Paul to cease his labors
and depart.” But this assertion is in contra-
diction with Luke’s statement, that the
attack attempted by the Jews through Gallio
was decisively warded off. Otto’s explana-
tion, too, becomes all the more unsuitable,
since, according to it, Luke would charge
the apostle with not holding his ground
5
more, and with abandoning his post.—
Further, Otto seems to hesitate whether to
take mpocueivas in the present passage as
really absolute, or whether to supply with it
the dative ¢€uot. After finally deciding for
the former, he then explains mpocueiva: as
“keeping ground along with the leader
appointed by God in the struggle against all
the attacks of the heretic,” and thus in self-
contradiction returns to the latter, since this
leader is the Apostle Paul
66 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
name, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, so that, év "E¢fow might convey to us that Paul
was himself in Ephesus while writing; but we must take into consideration the
speciul circumstances of the case. According to Otto, our epistle isa paper of
instructions which the apostle put into Timothy's hands in Ephesus, where he
wrote it before setting out for Macedonia. In that case it was improper to men-
tion the place by name. We cannot understand, then, why Paul in such a
paper of instructions should have laid special stress on the exhortation he had
imparted to Timothy in the very place where he put that paper into his hands.
Some expositors take the whole section vv. 5-17 to be a parenthesis,
and ver. 18 to be the apodosis corresponding to xafoc. The awkwardness
of this construction is obvious; but Plitt thinks that, though itis not with-
out its difficulties, most may be said for it. He is wrong, however, since
Tavtyy tiv wapayyediav, in ver. 18, does not resume the zapexddecd oe —If we
avoid all subtleties, we cannot but explain it: Even as I erhorted thee to
remain in Ephesus when I set out for Macedonia, that thou mightst command
certain men not to teach false doctrine . . . even 30 do (or: even so I exhort
thee also now).' Regarding the meaning of xa6é¢ and mpoopeiva:, see the
above remark.—rapexddeca|] Chrys.: dxove 1d mpoonvéc, mag ov didaoKGAov
xéypytat pupa, Gad’ oixérou cxedév" ov yap eivev éxéragta, ovdé Exé2Zevoa, ovde mapyf-
veoa, aAdd ti; mapexddcod oe. Towards Titus, however, Paul uses the expres-
sion deragéuny (Tit. 1. 5), although he was not less friendly towards him
than towards Timothy.—ropevéyevoc cig Maxedoviav] “when I went away,
from Ephesus to Macedonia; ” mopevéoa: has in itself the general meaning
of going, but it is also used of going away from a place, both absolutely
(Matt. xi. 7) and connected with a7zé6 (Matt. xxiv. 1, xxv. 41, xix. 15:
éxeifev; Luke xiii. 31: évrebfev). Otto explains it: ‘on the way to Mace-
donia,” which is grammatically correct, but opposed to the connection of
ideas. There is no ground whatever for thinking that Paul, in this ex-
pression, had in mind one particular place on the way to Macedonia, viz.
Corinth. We can see no reason why Paul should have expressed himself
indefinitely. Otto, indeed, is of opinion that Timothy could not have
been uncertain about the meaning of the expression; and that the apostle
chose it in order to spare the feelings of the Corinthians, and that he
might not confess to the heretics how they had provoked his apostolic
opposition to an exceptional degree. But the first reason proves too
much, since Paul, if he refrained from the definite expression because
Timothy knew his wishes without it, would also have refrained from the
indefinite expression. The other two reasons are weak, because if Tim-
othy was to labor successfully against the heretics, he must necessarily
appeal to the authority of the apostle in whose name he was to labor.
Besides, such playing at hide-and-scek as Otto imputes to the apostle, is
in entire contradiction with Paul’s frank character.—iva trapayyeiang x.1.A.]
gives the purpose for which Timothy was to remain in Ephesus. The
1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that Paul, writer was the subject, but only an exhortation
when he wrote xa@ws (not ws), could not have as to what Timothy was to do.”
had in mind “any expression of which the
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 67
theory that this gives at the same time the purpose of the whole epistle
(Matthies), which opinion de Wette brings furward as proving the epistle
not to be genuine, is wrong.—apayyeiAye ] does not necessarily involve the
suggestion of publicity which Matthies finds in it.—7z:o.] The same indeti-
nite term is used for the heretics also in vv. 6, 19, iv. 1, v. 15, ete.: “ cer-
tain people whom the apostle is unwilling to designate further; Timothy
already knows them” (Wiesinger).—y7 érepod:dacxaeiv] [IT 6.] The word,
which is not made up of érepog and didackéAew (= diddoxe), but is derived
from érepodiddoxadoc, occurs in the N. T. only here and in vi. 3 (comp.
érepoluyeiv in 2 Cor. vi. 14). In érepog there is not seldom the notion of
different in kind, strange, something not agreeing with something else, but
opposed to it. Accordingly, in the apostle’s use of the word, a érepod:ddo-
xaZoc is a teacher who teaches other things than he should teach, who puts
forward doctrines in opposition to the gospel; and érepod:dacxadeiv here
means nothing else than to teach something opposed to the gospel (Heb.
Kill. 9: didayaicg mocxidag nal Efvacg wy mapagpépecbe); Comp. 2 Cor. x1. 4; Gal.
i. 6: evayyéQov érepov. Wiesinger, in order to favor his theory that heresy
proper is not spoken of, weakens the meaning into “ teach otherwise,” so
that according to him it signifies “teaching things which lie apart from
} xar’ evoéBecav didaoxadia.”’ This is incorrect, for in that case some more
precise definition would have been given.—Even in classic Greek, érepoc,
in composition, often has the meaning alleged by us; thus érepodogeiv =
diversae opinionis esse; comp. Plato, Theae. p. 190 E: dééav elvac pevdq
To érepodofeiv. According to Otto, érepodidacxadciv means: “to have another
teacher, to follow another teacher.’’ Otto wrongly appeals for this to
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 32, where érepodiddoxadoe does not mean false
teachers, but “such members of the church as had abandoned the teach-
ing of the apostles and become attached to strange teachers;” and also
to Ignat. ad Polycarp. chap. 3, where érepod:dackadotvrec has the same mean-
ing.’ Otto also makes appeal to the Greek usage, according to which, in
composite nouns, the concluding word, if it be a noun, does not contain
the subject of the fundamental thought in such composite words, but the
nearer or more distant object. But this rule is only valid with adjectival
forms. In composite subsfantives, on the contrary, the concluding word
(if it be an unaltered substantive) may also denote the subject, which is
only defined more precisely by the word that precedes.2—There is no
1The first passage runs: tyvcxavra (viz. after
the apostle’s death) ris a@éov wAduns apxnv
dAduBavey H ovotacts ba THs THY érepodiSac-
KdAwy anwdrys, Ol Kat... yunypn Aordoy Hoy
nepadn Te THS aAnOelas Kypvyuare Thy Pevdu-
VULOV yywouy avricnpUTTey érexeipour. The
relative clause shows most clearly that the
word érepodSdonador means nothing else than
false teachers.—The second passage is: ot
Soxcouvres afidmrroe elvas nai érepodidacxad-
ovyres py oe xatanAnocérwoav; in which,
also, false teachers, heretics, are meant, as is
evident from the injunction: wy ce «.7.A., a8
well as from the exhortation that follows.
*The adj. érepéwovs certainly does not
denote “a halting foot,” but “one who has a
halting foot.” On the contrary, xaxé5ov)os is
not “one who has a bad slave,” but “a bad
slave.” Comp. also pexpoBacirers, pevdduar
ws, and others; in the N. T., especially the
expressions: Pevdodcddanados (Wevsorpopirns,
Wevdsuaptup, pevdarécrodAos), 2 Pet. ii. 1, and
xadodidacxados, Tit. ii. 3. It is to be noted,
also, that in Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Rhet. 42,
xaxoéidao xadety does not mean “to have a bad
teacher,” but “ to teach what is bad.”
68 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ground whatever for Schleiermacher’s opinion, that the verb suggests the
idea of a hierarchy.—To pz érepodidacxadciv there is added a second point:
pndé mpockyev x.t.A., Which Timothy is to forbid to revec.1 Except in the
Pastoral Epistles, tpooéyerv does not occur in Paul. Here, as in Tit. i. 14,
it includes the notion of agreement; so also in Acts vill. 6.—pi6orce xai
yeveadoyiay | The xai is to be taken epexegetically ; we can neither join the
two expressions us an hendiadys (fabulosae genealogiae, Heumann), nor
regard them as denoting different things. The notion of pio has been
limited too narrowly by many expositors,—as by Theodoret, who under-
stands by it the traditional supplements to the law; or by others, who take
it as denoting the allegorical system of interpretation, or the Jewish
stories of miracles (such as occur in the pseudo-epigrapha or the Apoc-
rypha), or even the Gentile mythologies. Leo is wrong in agreeing with
Theodoret’s exposition, appealing to Ignatius (Hp. ad Magnes. chap. 8),
and alluding to ver. 7. From that verse it is certainly clear that heretics
had peculiar views regarding the law, which were in contradiction with
the gospel; but it is a mere assertion to say that pio here refers to these
views, all the more that the word stands closely connected with yeveadoyiat.
De Wette limits the meaning of the word in another fashion, inferring
from 2 Pet. 1. 16: cecopicpévor por, that the pitloc here meant, formed the
definite element in an artificial system; the notion of something artificial
is obviously imported. Other expositors take the expression quite gen-
erally in the sense of “false doctrine,” as Suidas explains the word:
piOog" Adyog wevdhe, eixoviCuy tv aAfbecav; this is too indefinite. Paul rather
employs it because it was used to denote false ideas regarding the nature
of the Godhead. The word that follows defines the nature of these piOo«
more precisely.—On the yeveadoyiat amépavro, see Introd. sect. 4. Wies-
inger’s view, that they denote the genealogies in the O. T., as well as that
of Hofmann, that they are the historical facts in the Thora, are both to be
rejected. Credner’s view, that the genealogies of Christ are meant, is
quite arbitrary. So, too, with Chrysostom’s explanation: ola: cai ’ EAAqvac
avurov évravOa aivitreaba:, brav Akyy piOog nal yeveadoyia, do Tovg Yeov’e av’Tav
xaradeyévrev. It is very far-fetched to refer to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth.
The application of the expression to the Essenic doctrine of angels
(Michaelis), is contradicted by the fact that theorics of emanations cannot
be proved to have existed among the Essenes. The view upheld by most
expositors, that the apostle was thinking of the series of emanations in
the speculation of the heretics, must be considered the right one. It is
confirmed by the addition of the adjective azépavra. The genealogies are
“unlimited,” since there was no necessity for them to stop at any point
whatever. The conclusion was altogether arbitrary : hence, in the various
systems, the genealogies of the aeons differ from one another in all sorts
of ways.—aircvec] is not simply an attributive relative; it gives at the same
time the reason of the foregoing exhortation y) mpootyew “as those
1 Without grounds in usage or in fact, Hof- _— therefore the érepoé. was to be applied to some,
mann asserts that “wpocdyew revi is not an and the spogéxew «.7.A. to others.”
expression applicable to a teacher, and that
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 69
which.” —Zrhoewe rapéxovo: paAAov f) oixovouiav Oeov] [II c.] Both notions:
Cnrjoee and oixovoy. Ocov, may be taken either subjectively or objectively. If
Cnrpoece be taken objectively it is “points of controversy, questions of dis-
pute;” if subjectively it is “investigations, controversies, disputations ”
(“each one trying to maintain his arbitrary fictions,’ Matthies). If
oikovonia Osov is taken objectively, it is “the salvation of God” (“the salva- ~
tion grounded historically in Christ and ‘publicly preached by means of
His apostles,” Matthies; or according to others, “the ministry of the
gospel ;” or, lastly, ‘‘the divine gift of grace,” t.e. the divine influence on
individuals by which they are brought to the faith). If it is taken subjec-
tively, it is “the work of man as an oixovduog Ocov;”” de Wette: “the work
of a steward of God in the faith (to be awakened or to be furthered).”
This latter may be taken, in a general sense, as meaning, “the Christian
activity, the Christian exercise of the divine gifts of grace,”? or, more
narrowly: “the maintaining, the strengthening in Christianity, the nourish-
ment in the faith by the spiritual food of Christianity, which the teachers
as stewards of God distribute,” Zachariae. The meaning of zapézovc is
also modified according to the interpretation of these two notions. If they
are interpreted objectively, rapéyew is “reach forth, present;” if subjec-
tively, it is “ cause, bring about” (so Gal. vi. 17; also frequently in classic
Greek and in the Apocrypha of the O. T.)§ Zyryo¢ is not identical with
Carnua; oixovouia is indeed used in the sense of “office of steward,” but
oixovozia Ocov denotes “ the preparation, the arrangement made by God”’
(comp. Eph. i. 10, iii. 9), and never “the divine salvation.” Hence the
subjective interpretation (Hofmann) is to be preferred to the objective (as
formerly in this commentary; also Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee). In any
case, Matthies is wrong in taking ¢yr7ce¢ subjectively and olxovoyia Oeot
objectively, and then assuming that vapézerv is used in a zeugma. Otto’s
explanation is purely arbitrary. He explains (yrfoec¢ by ‘“ speculations,”
and oixovouiay Oecd ri év miore: by “a system of divine order in the universe
(sc. creation and government), resting on faith, grounded in faith,—the
cosmogony and physics of the Jewish gnosis.” Of the latter phrase, he
says that Paul “adopts the hypocritical name which the voyuodiddoxarac
claimed for their system, so that the Cyr#oec form the real, the oixov. 4 év
xioret, on the contrary, the pretended contents of the pido: and yeveadoyiat.”
By the addition of rw év riore, the labor of the oixévouog Geod is defined
more precisely as one in the sphere of faith (not “causing faith,” Hof-
mann).—yuaAdov 4] a8 in several passages of the N. T., John iii. 19, Acta
xxvii. 11, 2 Tim. iii. 4, stands here in the sense of denying the thought
contained in the following member, so that (with Suidas) it is equivalent
to «ai ob.“—With the reading oixodouia (or oixodouf) Oect, we must interpret,
1Comp. Soph. Oecd. R. 1184; Pape, Handwort- 8Comp. Wahl, Clav. libr. V. T. apoeryph.,
erbuch der griech Spr. See the word de7ts. under the word.
2Thus Reiche: ista commenta. . . non ex- *Hofmann wrongly applies this form of
hibent, praebent, efficiunt dispensationem § expression in order to dispute the reference
(distributionem) bonorum quae Deus Christo of yeveaAoyiac to the series of aeons, say-
misso in nos contulit. ing: “How could it occur to the apostle to
70 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
“the edifying in the faith as decreed by God” (Luther, inaccurately: “ the
improvement towards God in the faith ”).
Ver. 5. [On vv. 5-11, see Note III., pages 89, 90.] Td 62 réAo¢g rij¢ wapayye-
Aiac éoriv x.7.A.] It cannot be denied that in rapayyeAiag we have an echo of
mapayyeiAgs in ver. 3; but it does not follow that we are to understand by it
the command which the apostle gave to Timothy not to teach falsely (so
Bengel: praecepti quod Ephesi urgere debes). It rather stands here in
contrast with the érepod:dacxadia just mentioned, and denotes the command
which is serviceable to the oixovuia Oeov (ver. 4). It is equivalent to the
évroay in vi. 14, the evangelic law which forms the external rule for the
conduct of Christians (Hofmann). The apostle alludes to this because he
is about to pass to the doctrine of the heretics regarding the law.—It is
wrong to understand by mapayyeAia the Mosaic law (Calvin, Beza, and
others), from which there would arise a thought foreign to the context;
and it is unsatisfactory to take it in a general sense as “ practical exhorta-
tion” (de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee), for in that case the impera-
tive should have been used instead of gor. It is a peculiarity of the N.
T. usage to take expressions which of themselves have a more general
signification, and to mark them off with the definite article as ideas spe-
cifically Christian ; thus 1d evayyé/cov, 7 dog (often in Acts), rd xf@pvyua, and
others.—réAoc] is neither “ fulfillment” nor “chief sum ” (Luther, Eras-
mus: quod universam legis mosaicae vim compendio complectitur ac
praestat est caritas), but “goal, scopus ad quem tendit tapayyeria” (Koppe,
Wegscheider, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others').—While the érepod:dackaaia
only causes Cyrfoec, which serve to engender divisions (yevraar pa yac, 2
Tim. ii. 23), the aim of the command of the gospel 1s love.—ayaz7 éx xaflapag
napdiag x.7.A.] [III 6.] The gospel proclaims to the believer one divine act,
the reconciliation through Christ grounded in God’s love, and it demands
also one human act, viz. love, for tAfpwua vduov 4 ayazy (Rom. xiil. 10).
Leo and Matthies wrongly explain ayda77 here of love to God and to one’s
neighbor. Here and elsewhere in the N. T., where no other genitive of
the object is added, we should understand by it love to one’s neighbor.
The words following declare of what nature this love should be.—éx
xalapa¢ xapdiac]| xapdia denotes the inward centre of human life, especially
as the seat of emotions and desires. Hence in regard to love it is often
remarked that it must come from the xandia (comp. Matt. xii. 37), and
from a heart that is pure, i.e. free from all self-seeking; 1 Pet. 1.22: &
naBapa¢ Kapdiag GAAnhove ayathoare éxrevog; comp. 1 Cor. xili. 5: 4 aydiy
. ov Cnret ra éavtg¢o—The two additions that follow: xat ovvedhaoews
ayabi¢ Kat miorews avvroxpirov (as is clear from 1 Tim. i. 19, iii. 9, iv. 2), are
added with special reference to the heretics, who are reproached with
having both an evil conscience and a pretended faith.—ovveidyaig ayabA
(ver. 19; 1 Pet. ili. 16; «aA, Heb. xiii. 18; xa6apé, 1 Tim. iii. 9; 2 Tim.1.
treat the question only as a possible one, possibility is not indicated by paAAoyr 7.
whether these follies of their own invention 1Arriani dissertt. Epict. Book I. chap. 20:
could not in some measure be useful to réAos dori ro treat Oeois.
what he calls oixovoyiay @eov? Such a
CHAP. I. 6, 7. 71
8) is not “ the conscience pure from the guilt of sin” (de Wette), nor “ the
conscience reconciled with God” (van Oosterzee, Plitt), nor “the con-
sciousness of peace with God” (Hofmann). Although “a conscience not
reconciled with God and one’s neighbors cannot love purely,” there is no
hint here of the element of reconciliation. It is simply the consciousness
of cherishing no impure, wicked purposes.'—ziori¢] is not confidence
towards one’s neighbor, as it might be here when placed in connection with
the idea of love; but, in accordance with the contents of the epistle, is
“ faith,” which in Gal. v. 6 also is denoted as the ground of love.—avumé-
xptrog (also in Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6; 1 Pet. i. 22, connected with the
idea of love) denotes truth and uprightness in opposition to all flattery.
It is used here not without allusion to the heretics who conducted them-
selves as believers in order to gain a more easy admission for their
heresies.
Vv. 6, 7. At ver. 6 the apostle passes to the heretics.—ov] refers to the
ideas immediately preceding: é xafapa¢ xapdiag «.7.A., not—as Wiesinger
rightly remarks—to aydry direct, “since ei¢ paracodoyiay manifestly denotes
a false goal in contrast with the true goal, which is éyé77.” *—aoroxjoavrec |
This verb occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, in this passage and also in
1 Tim. vi. 21 and 2 Tim. ii. 18 (where it is joined with epi and the accusa-
tive). Here-it stands in its original sense: a scopo sive meta aberrare,’
which corresponds to the réAog mentioned in ver. 5, and gives us to under-
stand that the heretics had at first been on the way which leads to the
goal, but had not remained in it. In this way Schleiermacher’s criticism
{p. 90), that the word here is far from clear, loses its force.—éferpazyoav] é&
has its full force (Josephus, Antig. xiii. 18: éxrpérecbar rig ddov Sixaiac) in
this verb, which, except in Heb. xii. 13, only occurs in the Epistles to
Timothy. The goal to which they have come after turning from the
téAog THC Mapayyediag 18 watatodoyia. This word (only found here; Tit. 1.10:
patawddyor) characterizes the heresy as empty in nature, contributing
nothing to the furtherance of the Christian life. It consists on the one
hand of pio nat yeveadoyias, on the other of such definitions regarding
the law as were opposed to evangelic doctrine. This latter reference is
proved by the close connection of the verse with what follows.—#éAovrec ]
The participle does not express contrast: “although;” it gives rather a
more precise definition of the previous verb éferpéryjcav. Some expositors
(de Wette: wish to be, without being so in reality; Bengel has temere ; so also
Plitt) rightly urge that 0éAev expresses an allegation of their own; Hofmann,
10tto on 2 Tim. i. 3 (pp. 302 f.) explains the
expression ca8apa avvecdnors rightly (follow-
ing Matthies) as “the self-consciousness of
pure thoughts and endeavors;” but, on the
other hand, he is wrong in regard to 1 Tim.
i. 19, where he interprets aya0n ovvad. as
“the conscience innocent and expectant of
all salvation,” “the consciousness of divine
grace supporting itself by daily putting to
death the old nature.”
* Hofmann is wrong in disputing the reason
given by Wiesinger, and maintaining that
wapayyeAta and not réAos tis mapayyeAias is
opposed to pataodAoyia. There is no ground
also for his assertion that acroxeiy has here
the general sense of “to leave uncared for.”
The egerparyoay clearly shows that acroxety
is to be taken in its own proper sense.
8Comp. Plut. de Defect. Oracul. chap. 10.
72 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
on the other hand, wrongly takes it in the sense of “arbitrary assump-
tion.” —voyod:déoxador] Luther’s translation is, “ masters of the Scripture”
(and similar explanations are given; Heinrichs has “ teachers ”’); but this
does not give the full force of véuzoc. By véuoc we must of course understand
the Mosaic law, though it does not follow that the heretics here were
Judaizers such as those against whom Paul contends in the Epistles to
the Romans and to the Galatians: they might rather be men who acquired
the name by laying down arbitrary commands in their interpretations of
the law, and calling these the right knowledge of the law. Baur’s theory,
that Paul gave this name to the heretics because of their antinomianism,
is quite arbitrary, and contrary to the natural meaning of the words. De
Wette rightly disproves this by referring to Tit.i.14, from which it is
abundantly clear that the heretics made it their business to lay down arbi-
trary commands. Baur’s appeal to ver. 8, according to which he thinks
the heretics must have declared that the law was not good, must decidedly
be rejected, since the idea is only an arbitrary importation into ver. 8.2—
py voovvrec] This participle expresses contrast (Leo : quamquam ignorant),
“without, however, understanding.” The object of vootyres is given in a
sentence of two clauses: ware... pare. The first: ware Gd Aéyovor, is clear
in itself; the second: ufre wepi rivev diaBeBacovvra, has been variously ex-
plained. Most find the difference between the clauses to lie in this, that
the one refers to the utterances themselves, the other to things of which
the utterance was made, i.e. to the subject-matter of the doctrine (so
Raphelius, Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee, Hofmann). De
Wette, again, thinks that this explanation rests on a grammatical error,
and that “epi rivev does not refer to the things of which corroboratory
assertions were made, but to these assertions themselves ”’ (Luther: what
they say or what they swppose). In support of this opinion de Wette wrongly
appeals to Tit. iii. 8.5 He is wrong, too, in translating d:aBeZ. by “ cor-
roborate ;” it means rather: “give full assurance.” Hofmann says, “to
express oneself with confidence regarling anything.” The expression is
quite general, and Mack seems to be arbitrary in limiting the thought by
explaining how 4 Aey. refers to expressions in the law brought forward as
proofs of assertions with which they had no real connection, and zwepi riv.
BeB. to those assertions for which proofs out of the law were given, and
which in themselves had no meaning. Paul merely says that the voyud:dé-
oxado possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they
made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves.
1 Hofmann’s reason for this explanation is,
that “ vopodiddoxador, who make the law of
Israel the subject of their instruction, have
no business in the church of the gospel.”
This is altogether wrong, as may be seen when,
further on, Pau! appears as a vopodidaonados.
2Contrary to the train of thought, van Oos-
terzee remarks on vopodcdacxadAan: “notin a
good, rather in a bad, non-evangelical mean-
ing of this word; men who mixed up law and
gospel.” In this explanation he overlooks
the OéAovres elva.
®The classical usage is against de Wette’s
explanation; comp. Plutarch, Fabii Vita,
chap. 14: &aPeBacovueros wepi rwr mpayuarwy;
Polyb. xii. 12. 6: dcopigopevos xai S&scaBeBarovpe-
vos Wepi ToUTeY.
4On the conjunction of the relative and in-
terrogative pronouns a... Tivywy, see Winer,
p. 159 [E. T. p. 169].
CHAP. I. 8-10. 73
Ver. 8. In contrast with the heretics’ advocacy of the law, the apostle,
in what follows, states its real value. [III c, d.]—Oidapev 6é, ore x.7.A.] Baur
wrongly infers from these words that the heretics, as Antinomians, had no
desire to vindicate the law as good. It is not these first words, but the
words édy Tuc x.r.A., that are directed against the heretics. In spite of Hof-
mann’s denial, oidavev dé stands in a concessive sense, (Wiesinger), as in
Rom. vii. 14, 1 Cor. viii. 1, the apostle making an acknowledgment which
is restricted by édv tig x.7.4.; still we cannot translate it simply by concedi-
mus, as Heinrichs does.—xaizog 6 vdéuoc] By véuoc we must understand,
neither the Christian-moral law, nor a single part of the Mosaic law, but
the latter as a whole. It is of the entire Mosaic law in its existing form as
a revelation of the divine will given in a system of written commands—it
is of this that Paul uses xadéc as a suitable epithet. It is not enough
to take xadéc as equivalent to wgédAiuog (Theodoret), though the idea
of usefulness is included in it; xadé¢ denotes generally the internal
excellence of the law, just as the same is set forth in still more signifi-
cant expressions in Rom. vii. 12,14. But the good and excellent quali-
ties of the law depend on its being applied according to its nature
and signification: when applied otherwise, it ceases to be xadés. Hence
Paul, in opposition to the heretics, adds: éav tig avt@ vopinwe yp7ta. The
vouiuwc, Which is clearly a play on words with véuoc, only expresses the
formal relation; we can only infer from the thoughts that follow what
is meant by the lawful use of law.1 De Wette rightly remarks: ‘“ There
is in this passage nothing but what the words really say, that the Chris-
tian teacher must not uphold the law as binding on the dixatoc.” While
nearly all expositors understand by re the Christian as such, Bengel .
remarks: Paulus hoc loco non de auditore legis, sed de doctore loquitur ;
in this he is right, as is acknowledged also by de Wette, Wiesinger, van
Oosterzee, Hofmann. Paul says nothing here as to how the law is to
be obeyed, but rather he tells us how it is to be made use of by Christian
teachers.
Vv. 9, 10. Eida¢ rovro] is not to be referred to oidayev, but to re, i. €. to
the teacher of the church. The use of the same verb is against the con-
struction with oidavev. As to the meaning of the word, it is to be observed
that here, as in many other passages of the N. T., it expresses not only the
idea of knowing, but also that of “weighing, considering.” De Wette
says, “as he knows and considers.” The law is rightly used only when
it is considered that, etc.—ére dixaiy véuo¢ ob xeirac] [III e.] We may, with
Hofmann, take this sentence quite generally, so as to understand by
véuoc not any special law, but law in general, and by dixasog any one who
does rightly, gice., and not for the law’s sake.2_ In that case we would
have the same thought here as in Antiph. ad Stobaeum, 9: 6 pndév adixav
3 Most expositors have on this passage told _— place, since there is no ground for them in
us wherein consisted the material advantage _— the apostle’s words.
of the law; but however correct their state- *Theophylact: d¢ &' avrd 7d caddy Thy Te
ments in themselves may be, they are out of wovnpiay micet Kai Thy aperhy wepirriocercs.
V4 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ovdevd¢ deirac véuov..—The sentence, however, may also be taken in such a
way us to make véyo¢ the Mosaic law (notwithstanding the omission of the
article; comp. Rom. ii. 12, 14, 23, al.), and dixawe the righteous man in
the specially Christian sense, 7. e. the man who, in faith as a child of God,
fulfills the divine will in the free obedience of the spirit. In that case we
have here the thought which forms the fundamental idea of Paul’s view
regarding the relations of the Christian to the law (comp. Rom. vi. 14;
Gal. v. 18, al.). As Paul in ver. 11 appeals to the gospel entrusted
to him for confirmation of the thought expressed in this verse, the con-
nection of ideas decidedly favors the latter view, which is adopted also by
Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, et al.—xeira:] has not, as
Heydenreich thinks probable, the additional notion of an oppressive bur-
den ; véuog xeirac simply means, according to a usage current even in pro-
fane writings: “the law is given, exists.” Otto rightly remarks: “the
vouoc xeiuevog ig One which has not only been given, but is still valid.”
The collocation does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; comp., however,
Luke i. 34 (Phil. i. 16); 1 Thess. iii. 8; especially also 2 Macc. iv. 11.—If
the law was not given for the dixatos (as the heretics falsely maintained),
then it is valid only for the é&dxog. This thought Paul emphasizes by
pointing out the nature of the dd:xor in various aspects, mentioning them
at first in pairs.—avduor 62 kat avurordxroic] These two ideas, which express
the most decided contrast, are rightly placed first. "Avoyoc, in 1 Cor. ix. 21,
means the heathen (Rom. ii. 14: évy 1a py} vduov Eyovra); but here it means
those who withstand the law, who do not serve the law, but their own
pleasure; comp. Mark xv. 28.—To this corresponds the following avuré6-
raxrot (only here and in Tit. 1. 6,10; comp. Heb. ii. 8), as a designation of
those who submit themselves to no higher will, no higher order. It is
quite arbitrary, with Tittmann and Leo, to refer avou. to divine, and avr.
to human ordinances.—dceBior xai auaptwdoic] These ideas (found together
also in 1 Pet. iv. 18 and in Wisd. xli. 5) are distinguished from the fore-
going by a more definite reference to God ; acef%e (used by Paul only here
and in Rom. iv. 5, v. 6) is the man who does not stand in awe, who hasno
holy awe of God in his heart.—avogiorg kat BeSjdroue] give prominence to the
opposition to what is holy. 'Avéorog (again in 2 Tim. iii. 2), when joined
with aoeBye in the classical usage, refers to the injury of human rights?
This distinction, however, cannot here be pressed. é8nA0¢, which occurs
only in the Epistles to Timothy and in Heb. xii. 16 (the verb Be8744w in
Matt. x1i.5; Acts xxiv. 6), is synonymous with avéozo¢. In these first three
pairs the ddcxo: are characterized as those who stand opposed to what is
divine, recognizing no divine law, and having no awe of God, and whose
life is not consecrated by communion with God.—The ideas that follow
refer, on the other hand, to our relations with our neighbor.—arpadgsai¢ nat
pntpadgacc] only here in N. T.: parricides and matricides. Hesychius
explains them: 6 rév marépa ariudélar, torte, } xteivev; and similarly Mat-
1Comp. also the expression of Socrates in Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 13: aveBeardpovs
Clemens Alex. Stromata, iv. 678; yéuov dvexey = wepi Geovs, cai avomwwrédpous wepi ovyyevets.
ayabwy ovx av yevdoGas.
CHAP. IL. ll. 75
thies: “those who actually assault father and mother.” As the word
occurs in this wider sense in Demosth. 732, 14; Lys. 348, ult.; Plato,
Phaed. chap. 62, it may be so taken here. At least we cannot, with de
Wette, quote the following avdpogévorg as a cogent reason against it.—
ardpogovorc] 2 Macc. ix. 28; amag Aeyéu. in N. T.; the compound is selected
to correspond with the previous words.—répvor, apoevoxoitas}] refer to
unchastity, the one towards the female, the other towards the male sex;
for this latter, comp. Rom. i. 27; 1 Cor. vi. 9.—davdparod:oraic] The Scho-
liast on Aristoph. Plut. v. 521, says: eipyra: avdparodiorig mapa 1d advdpa
arodidocGa, tovréott mudeiv. This crime is often mentioned in Greek
authors; but also in Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7.—etoraic, émidpxotg] stand
both in opposition to truthfulness ; éziopxoe is one who wantonly breaks
an oath, as well as one who swears something false.—We cannot help see-
ing that in enumerating these various classes of the décxo:, the apostle has
had the Decalogue in mind, not adhering to it strictly, but partly extend-—
ing, partly limiting it, still without departing from its order.—In order to
describe the adia as a whole, the apostle adds: kai el re érepov rH bytawvotvog
didacxanrig avrixecraz.—The expression 7 tyaiv, didaocx. is one of those which
only occur in the Pastoral Epistles, and help to give them a peculiar
impress; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. ii. 1, 1. 9.—In 1 Tim. vi. 3 and in 2 Tim.
i. 18, we have vytaivovres Adyor; in Tit. 11. 8, Adyog byi~e. In these epistles
vy:aivew is even used figuratively in another connection ; thus Tit. i. 18, ii.
2 (voceiv in Opposite sense, 1 Tim. vi. 4); elsewhere in the N. T. it occurs
only in its proper meaning. The expression didackadia is particularly
frequent in these epistles, sometimes denoting “the doctrine” (so here) in
the objective sense, sometimes subjectively, “the teaching” (comp. chap.
iv. 1, 6, 13, 16, al. ; 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 3; Tit. 1. 9 ff.).—He lays emphasis on
sound doctrine, as opposed to the pazaodoyia of the heretics. Luther
translates ty:aivovea inaccurately by “ wholesome;” the wholesomeness is
only the result of the soundness. By 7 tyaiv. dd. is here meant the pure
gospel, free from all foreign admixture, having nothing unclean or sickly
in it. The apostle here is certainly thinking chiefly of the ethical side of
the didacx.; still Leo is wrong in translating it “sound morality.” By the
form ei . . . avrixecrac Paul gives us to understand that there are indeed
other forms and shapes of unrighteousness, incompatible with the pure
doctrine of the gospel. The neuter form 1? érepov is strange. In expla-
nation, we might appeal to passages like 1 Cor. i. 17, Heb. vii. 7, and
others, where the neuter denotes persons; but the use of the verb
avrixecrat is against this. ‘It is better to regard it as a transition from per-
sons to things.!
Ver. 11. Kara 1d ebayyédov x.7.A.] may be joined with avrixe:ra:, so far as
the grammar goes; but the thought is against this, since the ty:aiv. didaok.
is simply the doctrine of the gospel, and the whole of the added clause
would be very slipshod. There is gs little ground for joining it with
1As Wiesinger rightly remarks, vv. 9 and such as consider the law a means of attaining
10 show that the apostle is not contending toastill higher moral perfection.”
here against actual Judaizers, but “against
76 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
d:dackadia, as was done by Theophylact (ra ty. did., ry obey xara 1d evayy.) and
approved by many later expositors. The only right construction is to
refer this addition to the whole of the preceding thought (Wiesinger, Platt,
van Oosterzee, Hofmann), so as to bring the thought to a concluding
point. Similarly in Rom. ii. 16, xara rd evayy. is Joined with what precedes.
The apostle asserts thereby that his doctrine regarding the law is not
founded on his own private opinion, but on the gospel entrusted to him.
In order to make its authority plainer as a rule of life, he describes it
as TO evayyéAov tig déEn¢ Tov paxapiov Oeov (de Wette, Matthies)—The
genitive r7¢ dé&y¢ is not to be interpreted by the adjective évdosoc, and
then joined with 1d evayy. (= 76 evayy. évdogov; Luther: “according to
the glorious gospel’), or even with Qed (Heinrichs: = rov paxapiov xat
évddgov Oeov); the genitive should rather be allowed to retain its special
meaning. ‘H dda rov Geov may be the glory of the Christians, which is given
them by God.! It is more natural, however, to understand the expres-
sion here, as in 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6, Rom. ix. 23, etc., of the glory dwelling in
God, peculiar to Him, “ revealed to the world in Jesus Christ ” (Wiesinger).
The relation of the genitive rig dééy¢ to 7d evayyéAuov is not to be taken to
mean that the déa was declared to be the ground of the gospel (the
gospel proceeding from the glory of God); the défa is rather contained
in the gospel (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt), so that it is thereby
revealed and communicated to men.—God’s nature is here described
more precisely by the adjective zaxapiov, by which still greater emphasis
is laid on God’s défa, manifesting itself in the gospel in its peculiar power.
Though the word is not foreign to the N. T., it is used only here and in
vi. 15 as an attribute of God. It is not improbable that the apostle uses
it with some reference to the heretics. If, in ver. 4, we are to understand
by the genealogies, series of aeons emanating from God, he might readily
use paxdpiog of God in order to mark the divine unity, for holiness excludes
all division of nature. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that God is here
called pyaxdpeoc, not only because He has 76 paxépiov in His nature 6a ric
arperrérnroc, but also because out of His grace He imparts it to us? The
words that follow declare that the gospel was entrusted to the apostle:
8 émcoretOny éyo (Tit. 1.3). Regarding the construction of these words, cf.
Buttmann, Gr. Gram. 3121.7; Winer, p. 244 [E. T. p. 260]. The same
construction is found in Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Cor. ix.
17. It is to be observed that this construction of the verb moretrofu., apart
1Comp. Rom.v. 2. Wegscheider: “accord-
ing to the gladdening doctrine of the salva-
tion which the blessed God imparts to us;”
Theodoret: evayy. S6€ns Td xypuvypa xéxAnxev,
éraéay thy pédAdovcay S0fav éwayyéAAcras Tos
morevovor, and Theophylact.
2Otto takes the reference otherwise. He
refers the word to the heretics, inasmuch as
they taught the eternal continuance of the
law: “The eternal continuance of the law
presupposes a godlessness that cannot be
amended. And these vouodiédédoxado: teach a
blessed God? God is not blessed if He is for
ever afflicted with those opposed to Himself,
with the avopos «.7.A. I teach that God ‘got
rid of this oppnsition by reconciling the world
to Himself, and that we have indeed a blessed
God.” Hofmann refers paxapiov to this, that
the heretics “make the law the subject of their
instruction in the place where there should
only be preached the thingr by which God
has glorified His blessedness.” In any case,
Pau! chose the attribute, because the heresy
stood in contradiction to God's blessedness.
CHAP. I. 12. 7 7
from the Pastoral Epistles, occurs only in the epistles of Paul, and only
where he speaks of the gospel, or the office given him to hold.!
Ver. 12. [On Vv. 12-17,see Note IV., pages 90, 91.] After pointing in these
last words to his personal relation to the gospel, the apostle, down to ver.
17, describes the grace experienced by him, not merely “to let it be seen
what assurance he had for his gospel ” (Wiesinger), but also to prove by
his own example (xpd¢ imorbrwow x.7.A. ver. 16) the glory of the gospel
entrusted to him as the etayy. rig dbEn¢ tov paxapiov cov. There is therefore
no ground for de Wette’s criticism, “that the self-styled apostle lets fall
here the thread of his meaning, that he may not have to take it up
again.” This section is in the closest connection with the preceding one,
since it shows how deep is the contrast between the heresy and the gospel.
The heresy, on the one hand, takes up unfruitful speculations, and, when-
ever it wishes to become practical, it places the Christian in bondage to
the law. The one thing which is all-important, the forgiveness of sins,
it does not assure, and hence it does not know the compassion of the
Lord. On the contrary, it is of the very essence of the gospel to reveal this
compassion; and in proof of this, Paul appeals to his own experience.
[IV a, b.]—xzdépev éxw] We have the same expression in 2 Tim. i. 3 (comp.
also Luke xvii. 9; Heb. xii. 28); and in the other Pauline Epistles we
have instead : evyapioré.—r@ évdvvapdcarri ve] must not be limited to the
strength granted for enduring afflictions and sufferings; it is rather to be
applied to his whole work as an apostle. The proper reason of thanks-
giving is only furnished by the clause that follows érc «.7.4.; but an additional
reason is given in this participle.2—Xpcor@ ’ Ijooi x.r.A.] is not to be explained,
according to some older expositors: “qui me potentem reddidit Christo,”
Jor Christ, but as a dative closely belonging to the verb.—ér: wordy pe
iyytoaro| [IV c.] moré¢ corresponds with the following d:axovia. The reason
of his thanksgiving is Christ’s confidence in him that he would become a
faithful dcdxovoc.2 This confidence the Lord has shown by committing to
him the ministry of the gospel, hence he adds: @éuevog cig dtaxoviav, which
is either “ placing me in the ministry ” (Heydenreich, van Oosterzee, Hof-
mann), or “setting me apart for the ministry ” (de Wette, Plitt, Winer).
The latter seems to be more in accordance with the usage of the N. T;
comp. 1 Thess. v.9. De Wette rightly remarks that the participle does not
stand for o¢ rifeoOai ye, nor is it to be taken as a pluperfect; it is simply the
proof of merév ye py.; see also Winer, p. 326 [E.T. p. 348].—If the apostle’s
thanks are due to the Lord on the general ground of His confidence, they
are all the more due that he had been before an opponent of the gospel ;
to this the next verse points.
1 We need not be surprised that here, and
somewhat frequently in the Pastoral Epistles,
Paal directs attention to himself and his office,
if only we reflect that the apostle was fully con-
scious of his position towards the development
of God's kingdom, and that he was bound,
therefore, to vindicate fully the principle of
the Christian life which he had enounced.
According to the reading of N: évdvva-
povurre Without ne is to be taken asa simple at-
tribute: “ Christ Jesus who bestows strength.”
3Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 25; yrouny 52 di8wue ws nAen-
udvos Urd xupiou motos elvac. Paul gives the
nature of this &axovia in Acta xx. 24: 7 dcaxo-
via hv éAaBoy wapa Tov xvpiov ‘Ingo, dcapap-
TVpacOa Td evayydAcow THs xaptTos TOU @eov.
78 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Ver. 13. Td mpdérepov bvra BAdopnpov x.7.A] rd mpdrepov is equivalent to the
adverb zpérepov, just as, in Matt. xxvi. 45, rd Aowrdy ig equivalent to Aourdy.
The participle stands here in the relation of contrast to what precedes:
“though [ was before,” or “I who was nevertheless.” —BAdognuov] only here
as a substantive; comp. on this Acts xxvi.11. For the most part, the
idea of SAacgnuia is used in reference to what is divine (Suidas: 7 cig Gedy
UBpec).—xai didoxryv] Leosays: “ Paulus non dictis tantum sed etiam factis
furuerat in Christianos;” the word occurs only here in the N. T.; on the
subject-matter, comp. Acts xxii. 4; Gal. 1. 13.—xai tSpeor#v] also in Rom.
i. 30. Luther translates “reviler,” but Wegscheider: “one who does
violence.” Neither translation expresses the full meaning as it is given in
Tittmann’s (Syn. p. 74) explanation: “qui prae superbia non solum con-
temnit alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractat, et injuriis afficit.” ‘Y3pilew
denotes the arrogant conduct of another, whether in words or in actions.
—The context leads us to think of Christ’s work, or Christ Himself, as the
object of the apostle’s blasphemy.—Having judged his former conduct in
straightforward fashion, Paul goes on to contrast with it the grace of the
Lord: aA’ nAehOnv, adding, however, by way of explanation: ore ayvodv
éxoinoa év aniotig. De Wette is not correct in supposing that the intended
aim of these words is to furnish some excuse for himself.\—7Ae#6] (Luther:
“to my lot did compassion fall’’) is not to be limited to the pardon of his
persecuting fury (Matthies: ‘to me was my mad eagerness in persecu-
tion most graciously forgiven”), but should be taken more generally of
the grace imparted to the apostle.?—ayvoav] (comp. Rom. x. 2: ZAov coi
Exuv, GAA’ ob Kar’ éxiyvwor'), t. e. Without knowing how grievously I sinned
therein. The reason of this unconsciousness was év amorig. Mack is
wrong in inverting the relation, as if the apostle added év amorig to explain
his dyvoca. How far the azcoria was one to be blamed, Paul does not here
say: the idea is to be taken in its purely negative form. It was not this,
but the éyvoa grounded on it. which lessened his guilt.
Ver. 14. The last words might be"so explained as to weaken seemingly
the divine grace; and therefore the apostle feels bound to set forth its
abundant riches.—tmeperAcévace dé 4 yxapic x.t.A.] The verb brepriAcovdfev
only occurs here in the N. T., and is not current in classical Greek. The
simple mAcovdfev, with the classic writers, means: “to be more, #. e. than
the measure demands, therefore to go beyond the measure;” but in
several passages of the N. T. it has clearly the meaning: “become more,
therefore increase, grow larger.” Comp. 2 Thess. i. 3 (synon. with
irepavédverv); Rom. v. 20, vi. 1 (Meyer: accumulate); so also Phil. iv. 17
and 2 Cor. iv. 15 (Meyer has there: “become abundant .. . increase,” and
1 Wiesinger: “The words are not intended
to exculpate his acts, but to explain wherein
the power of divine grace began to work on
him.” Similarly Plitt, van Oosterzee, and
others.
20Otto wrongly finds in HAe7jFyv a special
reference to the fact that Paul “was entrusted
with the ministry of the word.”—What pre-
cedes in ver. 12 might seem to support this,
but what follows is entirely against such a
lirnitation of the thought.
% Hofmann wrongly takes é€v amoria as in
pure apposition to the participle ayvowr, and
maintains that ayvoeiy is not always an igno-
rance which simply does not even know, but
a misconception of something which it should
CHAP. I. 13, 14. 79
here: “be increased’). The prefix irep serves, with Paul, to strengthen
the idea with which it is joined; thus trepavéaver, 2 Thess.i.3; trepexrepicood,
Eph. ili. 20; trepaiav, 2 Cor. xi. 5, al, In Rom. v. 20, ireperepiocevoev seems
to mean that the éxAedvacev 1) duapria was surpassed by the xépic (so Meyer;
Hofmann differs). If we assume here this reference of surpassing, we
cannot regard 7Ae7yv as the thing surpassed. For ydpec cannot be
regarded as something surpassing éAeo¢ ;! but iep in that case would have
to be referred to 1d mpérepov bvra BAdognyov x.7.A. Hence the apostle’s
meaning in treperAcévacev would be that grace was manifested to him in
abundant measure, far surpassing his enmity (so in a former edition of
this commentary); but in that case a2Ad 7Aenfyy x.7.A. would be parenthet-
ical. It is more correct not to assume such a reference here, but to
explain treprAcovdfecv: “to go (abundantly) beyond the measure” (Plitt,
van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle added trepera. 4 xdpic to HAcifny,
because the latter expression did not seem enough to his mind, which was
penetrated by the unbounded greatness of the grace he had experienced.
“Tt is as though he wrestles with speech in order to find some sufficient
expression for the feeling which quite overpowers him” (van Oosterzee).
The particle dé belongs to the relation of climax existing between the two
clauses, as in Heb. xii. 6; it corresponds to the English yea or aye in a
climax.2—yera ricrewg xai aydrnc] [IV d.] The preposition yeré with the
genitive serves to connect the fact with the points that accompany it.
Miorcg and aydézy therefore are, properly speaking, not mentioned as results
of the ydpic, but as blessings immediately connected with ydpec. They
form, as de Wette says, the subjective side of the condition of grace. Leo
is right, therefore, in saying: “verbis pera «7.2. indicatur, 7. «. ay. quasi
comites fuisse illius yépitoc” (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee); but he is
wrong, if he means that Paul added these words to tell in what the grace
was manifested as irepriAcovafovca.—By mioric x. ay. 4 év Xp.’I. we are not
to understand God's faithfulness and love in Christ, nor the apostle’s
endeavor to bring others to faith and love; nor, again, is év to be explained
by dd or by etc. The words ric év Xp. ’I. are added to ri¢ aydrnc, and mark
the love as one “ that has its ground and middle-point in Christ” (Matthies);
cf. 2 Tim. 1.13. It is doubtful whether the addition is to be referred also
to wicrewc (for this Matthies, Plitt, van Oosterzee; against it, Hofmann) ;
since tioctews does not properly require it, it might be better to limit the
reference to aydé7¢5 “In contrasting his former amoria with his present
have known. But this more precise refer-
ence is clearly not contained inthe words
themselves.
1Chrysostom : ov« éripmpyOny’ yAenOny yap,
ap’ oty Trouro sovoy, cai wéxpt ToUvTou O éAcos,
tov wy Sovvar ripwpiay; ovdaums’ adda Kai
érepa wodAAGd xat peydAa, da rovto Snciv’ uTe-
pexaA: » xapts, SnAwy, ore UrrepéByn nai row éAcov
ta S#pa° tavta yap oun éAcourtdéds éativ, aAAd
@irAouvros cai oddspa ayaravros. Similarly
Leo. In this view the force of nAcHOny is
arbitrarily weakened.
2Hofmann explains &€ as ranking another
fact with the one already mentioned; but in
nAenOny and vmepera. y xdpts we have not two
different facts, but one and the same fact—
though expressed in two different ways.
3’Hofmann alleges against the connection
with miorews, that “ev would have a different
meaning when Joined with wiorews; accord-
ing to Eph. i. 15; Col. 1. 4;” but his reason is
without force, as this other reference is here
cut off by the intervening ayamns.
80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
increasing ior x. ay.” (Heydenreich), Paul does not lose sight of the
heresy which did not effect oixovouia Oecd év rio-e (ver. 4), and had not the
ayarn (ver. 5) as its goal.
Ver. 15. Tord¢ 6 Adyog «.7.4.] [ITV e.] With this formula, which is pecu-
liar to the Pastoral Epistles (found besides here in iii. 1, iv.9; 2 Tim. il.
11; Tit. ili. 8; only in Rev. is there a similar formula: otros of Adyoe meoroi
kai GAnOvoi eiot, xxi. 5, xxii. 6), the apostle introduces the general thought
whose truth he had himself expertenced.—xai rwaone arodoxi¢ a&oc] This
addition is also in iv. 9; the word arodox7 occurs nowhere else in the N. T.
(comp. amddextos, ii. 3, v. 4). AS Raphelius has shown by many proofs
from Polybius, it is synonymous in later Greek with ior: the verb
amodéxecba (“receive believing’’) is used in the same sense in Acts ii. 41.
The adjective done describes the arodoxy# of which the word is worthy, as
one complete and excluding all doubt.—érc Xp. "Io. 720ev cig tov xéopov]
This expression, found especially in John, may be explained from the
saying of Christ: &7A60v mapa rov marpd¢ nai éAndAvOa cic tov xéouov, John
Xvi. 28, xéouoc having here a physical, not an ethical meaning: “the
earthly world.”—'AuaprwAct stands here in a general sense, and is not
with Stolz to be limited to the opponents of Christianity, nor with
Michaelis to the heathen. As little can the idea of céca: be limited in the
one direction or the other. After this general thought, that the aim of
Christ’s coming is none other than the ouwrgpia of sinners, the apostle
returns to his own case, adding, in consciousness of his guilt (ver. 13): ov
mpardés time éyd, ‘of whom Iam first.” [IV f.] Paul says this, conscious
of his former determined hostility to Christ when he was a BAdadnpog x.7.A.
(ver. 13), and considering himself at the same time as standing at the
head of sinners. It is inaccurate to translate mpdro¢ without qualification
by “the foremost” (in opposition to Wiesinger and others). Even in Mark
xil. 28, 29, mpdry mévruv évroAgW is the commandment which stands at the
head of all, 1s first in the list, and devzépa is the one following. In order
to qualify the thought, Flatt wishes to translate zporoc by ‘one of the
foremost,” which he thinks he can justify by the absence of the article.
Wegscheider, again, wishes not to refer dv to duaptwioic, but to supply
owouévwv OF cecwouévuv; and similarly Mack explains ov by “of which
saved sinners.” All these expositions are, however, to be rejected as picces
of ingenuity. The thought needs no qualification—at least not for any
one who can sympathize with the apostle’s strong feeling. The apostle
does not overstep the bounds of humility in what he says in 1 Cor. xv. 9
and Eph. iii. 8; neither does he overstep them here.
Ver. 16. After calling himself the first of sinners, Paul gives the reason
why he, this foremost sinner, found grace. He begins with aad, since it
must appear strange that grace was imparted to him.—déé rovro 7Aepbyv]
De Wette says: “therefor (to this end) did I receive grace.”—iva év éuol
mpoty évdeiEnrat Xp. "I. tiv aracav paxpoOvuiav.—év eu. mp.] stands first for
the sake of emphasis; év is not equivalent to “ by means of,” but to “in
the case of” (comp. Rom. vii. 19). To supply duaproap with rpory (first
ed. of this commentary, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others) is arbitrary.
CHAP. IL 15-17. 81
There is no need to supply anything. The thought is: “in my case,
Christ first showed His entire paxpofuyia.”! Paul says this, meaning that
the entire fullness of Christ’s uaxpofvuia (Buttmann, p. 105 [E. T. 120))
could not be shown to those who before had received grace, because they
had -not cherished such decided enmity to Christ as he. The zpérw there-
fore has adracav corresponding with it; the greater the guilt, the greater
the manifestation of paxpofvzia. Bengel says: “cunctam longanimitatem :
quum minores peccatores etiam mensura quasi minor possit restituere.”
It is not necessary to give the word paxpotypia the meaning here of “ mag-
nanimity”). (Heydenreich, Matthies: “long-suffering or magnanimity”).
The apostle here regards the love of the Lord as not causing judgment to
follow straight on condemnation, but as patient, and granting space for
conversion. In this Paul has given the purpose of his pardon; but he
states it still more definitely in the words that follow: zpé¢ trotirwow trav
peAAdvtuy miorevery én’ avtg. The expression vrorirworc, “likeness, image,”
occurs elsewhere only in 2 Tim. i. 13; it is synonymous with trédeyyua in
2 Pet. ii. 6, and other passages. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we
find rizog (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. x. 6,11; Phil. 111.17). Leo, without sufficient
grounds, explains the word by institutio. The idea of type is not contained
in the word itself, but is here transferred to it from the yedAAdvrev.—smorebew
éx’ avt@] This construction of the word zvoretecv is found in the N. T. only
here and in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, 1 Pet. i1.6; but in all these passages it
occurs in words quoted from Isa. xxviil. 16, where the LXX. has simply
6 motebuv. It may be explained in this way, that faith has confidence as
its substance and basis. Matthies rightly says: “éz’ avrg, not so much in
Him as the object of faith, but rather trusting in faith on Him as the
absolute basis of our salvation.”—el¢ fav aidviov] These words are not to
be joined to the distant trorbrwow (Bengel), but to the zoreteww immediately
preceding. They present the goal towards which the morebewy ex’ av7@ 18
directed (Wiesinger). As Paul usually sets forth his conduct to others as
a type, so here he gives to his experience a typical meaning for future
believers? This may be explained from the peculiar and important
position which he held for the development of God’s kingdom on earth,
and of which he was distinctly conscious.
Ver. 17. “Ex sensu gratiae fluit doxologia” (Bengel). With this
doxology the apostle closes the digression begun in ver. 11, and returns
again to the proper epistolary style.—r@ d2 Baowet tov aidver) [IV g.]
This designation for God is not found elsewhere in the N. T. (even the use
of Baoirei¢ of God only occurs elsewhere in chap. vi. 15 and Matt. v. 35),
but it is found in the Apocrypha of thé O. T.in Tob. xiii. 6, 10. (Ecclesias-
ticus xxxvi. 19: 6 Ged¢ rév aidvev.) Ol aidves means either “the world,” as
1Hofmann: “If spearop before had the
meaning of locality, here rpwry has the
meaning of time as opposed to ray pedAAdvrwy
morrevery.”
2 Hofmann, without grounds, disputes this
view, and gives the apostle’s thought in this
6
way: “The aim is to give a type, not tothem,
but of them; they were to know that they
had to expect such conversions as his, the
conversions of revilers and persecutors.”
But there is no hint whatever of revilers and
persecutors only in of wéAAovres mictavay.
82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
in Heb. i. 2, xi. 3 (see Delitzsch and Liinemann on this passage), or “ the
times.” [IV A.] The former meaning is adopted by Chrysostom, Leo,
etc.!; the latter, by Matthies: “the ruler of all times, so that all generations
are at the same time concretely included.” In asimilar way, Heydenreich
has “‘ the supreme ruler of time, and of all that takes place in its course.”
This latter explanation is supported as correct both by the preceding
pedAdvruy (van Oosterzce), and also by the agécpty following, and by eic¢
Tove ai@vacg tev aidvwy farther on.? It is incorrect to take aidvec as equiva-
lent to “eternity,” and translate: ‘to the king eternal” (de Wette, but
tentatively; Hofmann: “the king who is for ever and without end ”’),’ for
aiaveg never has that meaning in itself. Only in the formulas azo rév
aidvev and ei¢ trove aiavac does the meaning of the word approach that
idea. Besides, the apostle would surely have expressed that adjectival
idea by an adjective. It is quite erroneous to take the word here in the
Gnostic sense of series of emanations, synonymous with yeveadoyia: in
ver. 4; for, on the one hand, no proof is given that this expression had
been already used by the heretics alluded to in this epistle; and, on the
other, the apostle considered the whole theory of genealogies as belonging
to the sphere of myths. It was impossible, therefore, for him in his
doxology to speak of God as the king of things which were to Him nothing
but the inventions of fancy.—ag@ap7w] is only used of God elsewhere in
Rom. i. 23 (Plut. adv. St. 31; Wisd. of Sol. xii. 1). Matthies: “ God is the
Imperishable One, because His nature is unchanging and based on itself,”
equivalent to 6 pévog Eyuv abavaciay, chap. vi. 16.—aopétw] comp. Heb. xi.
27 (without 6ed¢), Rom. i. 20, and Col. i. 15 (with 6eéc); equivalent to by eidev
ovdeig avfpdoruv, ovd2 ideiy divara:, chap. vi. 16; comp. also John i. 18.—
povy Oeg@] chap. vi. 15: pévo¢g duvvacrf¢ ; comp. also John v. 44, xvil. 3; Rom.
Xvi. 27: pévy coop Ged. The words adGdprw . . . Oe@ are to be taken as in
apposition to r@ Baodei. But it 1s doubtful whether Oe¢ is to be joined
with yévy only, or also with a¢6épry and dopdty, as is commonly done.
De Wette is wrong in asserting that all these predicates are used of God
superfluously : they manifestly express the absolute exaltation of God
above all conditioned finite being, and are occasioned naturally (which
Hofmann disputes) by the contrast with the heresy which denied the
absoluteness of the divine existence.—riz) nai désa] The two words are
united also in Rom. 11. 7, 10; Heb. ii. 7; but only here and in the Apoca-
lypse do they occur in doxologies. Paul elsewhere uses only dééa, and
always with the article.—ei¢ rove aidva¢g tév aidvwv] a very common con-
clusion in doxologies, and found in Paul’s other epistles. It is not to be
overlooked that this doxology has a peculiar character distinct from those
usually occurring in Paul, both in the mode of connection (elsewhere a
pronoun connects them with what precedes) and also in the designation
for God and the expressions used.
1 Leo appealing to Eusebius, de Laud. Con- Bacre:2 wdvrev Trev aisver xai } Secroreia
stant. chap. vi. p. 431, ed. Heinrichs: rayx péyary = wou év wdon yeveg Kai yeveq.
TOU cUpwavTos aidvos Bactréa. ®Wiesinger explains it: “Heis a king of
8Comp. Ps. cxlv. 13, LXX.: ) Baoweia cov the aeons, which together give the idea of
CHAP. I. 18. 83
Ver. 18. [On Vv. 18-20, see Note V. pages 91, 92.] Paul again addresses
himself to Timothy direct.—rairyy rv mapayyeadiav] [V a.] cannot be
referred back to iva rapayyeiAne in ver. 3 (Otto), because there he was
speaking of a wapayyedia which Timothy was to receive, here he is speak-
ing of a wapayyedia to which Timothy was to give heed. Nor can it be
referred to xaflac mapexddeod oe (Plitt), since that denotes only a special
commission, to which there is here no allusion. Some have therefore
joined zaityv immediately with the following iva, and taken iva as intro-
ducing the object. This construction, however, is opposed by the order
of the words; after the verb and the parenthesis xara ra¢ x«.7.4., we no
longer expect an expansion of the thought contained in ratrqy +r. rap?
The only course remaining is to agree with Hofmann in referring rai. +.
mapayy. back to tae mapayyediag in ver. 5; not, however, agreeing with him
in interpreting the word here, “the Christian teaching,” but taking it in
the same sense in both places.—apari@ezai oor] comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2. The
verb is here explained by most expositors, against usage, as equivalent to
“lay to heart” (Luther: “order,” in the sense of “ recommend to”).
Otto, and following him Hofmann, took it in the sense of “give some-
thing into one’s charge,” which meaning is possible, but not imperative.
In itself the word means “bring something before one,” and is defined
more precisely by its context, z.e. the purpose of bringing before is not con-
tained in the word itself. Tapari@ecOac mapayyediav may therefore quite
well mean: propose a command to one, viz. that he may act in accordance
with it.2—réxvov Tiu.] see ver. 1.—xard ra¢ mpoayoboac éxi of mpogyreiac]
[V 6.] Before giving the command itself, Paul inserts these words to add
force to his exhortation ; for they are not (as some expositors, Oecumenius,
Heumann, Flatt, wish) to be placed after iva in sense, but to be joined
with maparideyat.—xara, “in conformity with,” not “ justified and occasioned
by.”—spoayotcac stands here quite absolutely, with the same meaning as
in Heb. vii. 18: aérnowg . . . yiverat mpoayoton¢g évroajc, “the law that pre-
ceded ;’’* the zpoay. zpody7. are accordingly “the promises that preceded.”
Matthies is wrong in explaining zpodyovoa in connection with é7i of, as
eternity, just as His kingdom is an everlast-
ing kingaom.”
1So Chrysostom and Theophylact, Mat-
thies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ;
also in this commentary; comp. Winer, pp.
314 f. (E. T. p. 334 f]).
2 Hofmann wrongly maintains that this con-
atruction iz impossible in point of language
and in point of fact: “in point of language,
because wapari:Oec8ac does not mean lay to
heart, but propose, and a command is not pro-
posed (why not?); in point of fact, because
what he calls ras mspoayovcas émi oe cannot
furnish any standard for the apostle’s injunc-
tion to Timothy to discharge his office well”
(why not?).
3In Matt. xifi. 24, 31, it is joined with wapa-
BoAny; it is used of setting forth a doctrine in
Acts xvii. 3; it is chiefly used of setting forth
food, as in the N. T. Mark viii. 7; Luke ix.
16, x. 8, xi. 6; it has the sense of “committing
to the care of” in Luke xii. 48.
*Comp. Linemann and Delitzsch on the
passage. Otto is wrong in asserting that
mpoayew is never used of priority of time.
While it occurs more frequently in the sense
of “precede some one,” it has in other pas-
sages of the N. T. (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark
vi. 45) the meaning practically of “go before
some one in any direction whatever,” the
notion of space manifestly passing into that
of time. In the passage in Hebrews, Otto
thinks that mwpodyovea onght to mean:
“driving forward from one election of high
priest to another” (!).
84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
equivalent to “leading towards thee,” ¢.e. “pointing or aiming towards
thee.” This meaning zpodyerv never has; as a transitive verb it certainly
means: “lead forward to any one;”’ but this is manifestly a different idea
from that which Matthies ascribes to it. Otto explains it: “the prophecies
that guide to thee,” making appeal to Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 1, in which
passage Kiihner paraphrases mpodyew by viam monstrare. In this case we
should have to understand it: those among the prophecies that showed
others the way leading to Timothy, a statement clearly without meaning.
It is, however, altogether arbitrary when Otto defines the prophecies more
precisely as those that led to Timothy’s ordination, or occasioned it.—ézi
cé] is not to be connected with zpoayotcacs, but with mpog7reiac, as Luther
rightly translates it : “ according to the former prophecies regarding thee; ”
or de Wette: “in accordance with the preceding prophecies on thee ” (so,
too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). On the other hand, the
translation: “ vaticinia olim de te praenuntiata ” (Heydenreich), is inac-
curate. Al éxl o@ mpog. are: the prophecies (expressed) over thee (the
peculiar meaning of évi as descending to something should not be over-
looked); while zpoay. describes these as preceding Timothy’s apostleship.!
—rpogyteias| Chrysostom: 1d rio didaoxadiag nai iepwotvyg akivua, pbya bv,
Ti¢ tov Oeov deirae wWhpov ... dia Td wadaidy axd TH¢ mpodnTeiag yivovrat ol
lepeic, tovtéote amd mvetpatog dyiov. Ovtwo 6 Te. xpé6y7. This is wrong,
simply because Timothy’s office was not a priestly one. It is quite arbi-
trary to translate mpogyreiac by: “doctrines, exhortations,” or “ hopes,” or
“good testimonies” (Heinrichs: “by means of the good hope and expec-
tation which every one cherished regarding thee”’). Ilpog7reia: here, as
always, are utterances proceeding from the Holy Spirit, whatever be their
contents or their occasion; here it is most natural to think of prophecies
made when the éiBeowe tév yxe—pov tov mpecBurepiov (chap. iv. 14) was
imparted to Timothy and made regarding his worthy discharge of the
office (Wiesinger).’—iva otpateby év avtaig tH Kadqv otpateiav] [V c.] Pur-
pose of the aparifeuai oot. Erpateta (elsewhere only in 2 Cor. x. 4) is
frequently translated inaccurately by “fight;’” Luther is more correct:
“that thou mayest exercise in it a good knighthood.” <rpareia denotes the
entire warfare ; the only thing wrong in Luther’s translation is the indefi-
nite article. Though the Christian calling is not seldom described ‘as a
warfare, yet here the word is used specially of Timothy’s office, in which
he had to contend against the érepod:dacxadotvrec (vv. 3 ff.).2 De Wette
inaccurately explains it: “that thou conduct thyself worthily and bravely
1JIn taking the words thus: ai éwi oé@ mpo-
@yreca, there is not, as Otto maintains, a
change of order not occurring in Greek;
comp. 2 Cor. vili. 2: 9 cara Badovs wrwxeia
avtwy. It is also wrong to say that the prepo-
sitional clause must flow from the substan-
tive, and that wepi, therefore, should stand
here for éwi. In the passage quoted, xara
manifestly does not flow from the idea of the
substantive mrwyxela.
2According to Hofmann, they were pro-
phecies “which had promised to Paul that
Timothy would be a true servant of the
gospel, and had confirmed him in his choice
when he assumed Timothy as his colleague
in the apostleship.”
3 Manifestly Paul here returns to vv. 3 ff.,and
80 far gives reason for saying that here “we
have not in form but in substance ” the apod-
osis which was wanting before (Wiesinger).
CHAP. I. 19, 20. 85
in the discharge of thy evangelic duty;” as if the words were: iva xadac
otpar, tiv otpareiav. The chief accent rests on év atraic, not on xadgv; the
otpareia assigned to Timothy is in itself xa24, quite apart from his behavior
in it.—év avraig] According to Matthies, Winer (p. 362 [E. T. p. 387)),
Wiesinger, Otto, and others, Paul conceives the zpogyreiae as an armor
round Timothy: “as though equipped with them;” it might, however,
be more natural to translate: “within them,” i.e. in their limits, not
exceeding them. The interpretation: in accordance with them (van Ooster-
zee, Hofmann: “the prophecies are to be regarded as a rule of conduct”),
is against the usage of the N. T.
Ver. 19. The manner in which Timothy is to discharge his office, is
given still more precisely in the words fyuv rioriv xal ayabjv ovveldnow. It
is difficult to bring éywv into direct connection with the preceding figure
orpateia (Matthies: “ hold fast the faith which elsewhere, in Eph. vi. 16, is
called a shield, a weapon of defence in our warfare;” Otto thinks that Paul
conceives iori¢ and ay. ovveidnog as “the contending power which the
general commands, i.e. as his troops!”). It is simply “ holding, main-
taining” (de Wette), i.e. not denying. The reason for the collocation
peculiar to this epistle of wiore and aya ovveidyorc, and for the strong
emphasis laid on the latter idea (comp. ver. 5, iv. 2, etc.), is, that the
apostle regards the denial of the ay. ovveid. as the source of the heresy.
This is proved by the words that follow, in which Paul returns to the
mention of the heretics: qv (viz. aya6jv ovveidyaty) tec (comp. ver. 6) [V d.]
—az7wodpevor] This expression, not strange (de Wette) but suitable, denotes
the “ wantonness ” (de Wette) with which the heretics sacrificed the good
conscience to their selfish purposes.'—zepi tiv miotw évavdyyjoav] vavayeiv
occurs only here in a figurative sense. Tepi gives the matter in which
they had made shipwreck, i.e. suffered loss. Tepi with the accusative,
equivalent to quod attinet ad, is found in the N. T. only in the Pastoral
Epistles; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4,21; 2 Tim. ii. 18, iii. 8; Tit. ii. 7; see Winer,
p. 379 [E. T. p. 406].
Ver. 20. "Qv éoriv 'Yuévaiog xai ’AALEavdpoc] In 2 Tim. ii. 17, the apostle
names two false teachers whose words eat like a cancer—Hymenaeus and
Philetus. There is no ground for distinguishing between the Hymenaeus
there and the one here mentioned. No difficulty is caused even by the
fact that “the one here is mentioned as a man cast out from the church,
and the other merely as an example of error” (de Wette) ; for Hymenaeus
and Philetus are not so tenderly dealt with in the other passages as de
Wette seems to think. As to Alexander, we must leave it unsettled
whether he is the same as the one mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 14. The
reasons are not decisive which seem to tell against the identity, viz. that
in the other passage the surname 6 yadxetc is added, and that “he is
1Van Oosterzee remarks on dya@ny cvveidsn- = mann’s opinion, that the good conscience is
ow “as a troublesome reminder,” which is compered to “the ballast which gives the
not uppropriate, because ay. cvved’. is not the necessary stability to a ship,” is wrong, since
conscience exhorting to good and punishing aww@eic@a. does not mean “to cast over-
evil, but of willing and doing good.—Hof- board.”
86 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
mentioned there not as excommunicated, but rather as still coming in
contact with the apostle; not as a heretic, but as an opponent” (de
Wette). It is, however, quite arbitrary to regard the Alexander (Acts xix.
33) who took part in the uproar at Ephesus as identical with the one men-
tioned here (see Meyer on the passage).'—ots mapéduxa 7Q carava] [V e.]
the same excommunication of which the apostle speaks in 1 Cor. v. 5
(comp. Meyer on the passage). Itis not simply excommunication from
the church, but with the purpose of ensuring, through Satan’s means,
572A pog tHG capxég to the one excommunicated. This is shown not only by
the formula itself, but also by the solemnity with which Paul there
expresses himself. The added clause, iva radevOdow «.7.A., makes it clear
that here also the apostle had in mind ei¢ dAefpov r. capx., for that clause
at the same time gives the purpose of the zapéduxa, which is the reforma-
tion (iva rd mvetpa ow9, 1 Cor. v. 5), or at least the preservation, of the
excommunicated man from #?ac¢queiv.2—radetew] in classical Greek
equivalent to “educate, especially by instruction,” so also Acts vii. 22,
xxii. 3, has elsewhere in the N. T. the meaning of “ punish in order to
reform,” i.e. chastise; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9,
especially Heb. xii. 5-11. In Rev. iii. 19 it stands connected with éAéyyew
(in Luke xxiii. 16, 22, the purpose of reformation falls quite into the back-
ground).—The 6dAeOpo¢ rij¢ capxéce is intended by the apostle to be a chas-
tisement to the one named, that he may be kept from further reviling.
The expression BAacgnueiv shows that they had not only suffered ship-
wreck in faith, but in their unbelief were on the point of proceeding
actually to revile the Lord.
Notes By AMERICAN EDpITor.
I. Vv. 1, 2.
The opening salutations of the Pastoral Epistles have some peculiarities which
distinguish them from those of the other Pauline Epistles, and some which dis-
tinguish them from each other. The reader finds himself passing in these letters,
even at the beginning, into a new sphere of language to some extent, and the
question which meets him is whether the change is so great as to indicate a differ-
ence in the authorship. In the decision of this question two facts, which are
noticeable everywhere in Paul’s writings, must be borne in mind :—namely, the
freedom which characterizes his style, even where he uses phraseology of the same
10tto (pp. 98-112) gives a very vivid and
detailed picture of the tumult at Ephesus in
which a certain Alexander took part, in order
to prove the identity of the two Alexanders,
and confirm his view regarding the date of
the composition of this epistle. But even if
the course of that tumult was as Otto de-
scribes it, with the aid of many arbitrary
suppositions, still we car by no means infer
the identity he maintains. In order to prove
it, Otto does not despise many strange
assumptions, such as, that the designation
xaAxeus (2 Tim. iv. 14) was given to Alexander
because he was one of those who manufac-
tured the miniature silver temples; further,
that he, deceived by the soothsayers, had
made no objection to the union of the worship
of Jehovah with heathen idolatry.
2In opposition to Hofmann's opinion, that
neither here nor in the passage of Corin-
thians we are to think of an excommunication
from the church, comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 5.
NOTES. 87
general character, and the readiness with which he adopts new expressions, as he
moves from one section of his epistles to another, according as the subjects of dis-
cussion or the errors which threaten the churches become new.
Though addressed to individuals who had long been closely related to himself,
it is evident that the Apostle, in these letters, has reference to the churches which
were, and were to be, under their general superintendence. The letters, accord-
ingly, have a double character, and they can only be properly explained as this
peculiarity is observed. It is in this way, undoubtedly, that the use of the word
amdorodog in all the three letters is to be accounted for, as contrasted with the
simple déoucog of the Epistle to Philemon, the only other letter addressed to an
individual. Possibly, the combination of the two elements may be seen in Tit. i.
1, where the words dovAog and améorodog are both used. With respect to the use
of the phrase kar’ émcray7jv Geov, it may be noticed: (1) that it occurs in Tit. i. 3
in connection with the more definite statement that the Apostle was intrusted with
the matter of proclaiming the gospel; (2) that in this employment of the phrase
we find a close resemblance to its use in Rom. xvi. 26; (3) that in 2 Tim. i. 1 the
common Pauline phrase da GeAjparoc Geov is substituted for it; (4) that in the
last mentioned passage: the words «a7 émayyediav Cwij¢ are added, with which we
may compare xara miorw «,7.A.... éw éAridt Cwij¢ aiwviov of Tit. i. 1f., (see
tH¢ éAridog nuov, 1 Tim.i. 1), The similarity and, at the same time, variety of
thought and expression are, thus, so characteristic of Paul, that the mere fact of
the non-occurrence of the phrase xar’ éiray. beov elsewhere (except in Tit. i. 3,
and Rom. xvi. 26) can hardly be regarded as showing the words to be un-Pauline.
The same, in substance, may be said of the word owryp as applied to God the
Father. This application of the word in the Pastoral Epistles, however, is a
point worthy of consideration with reference to the view presented in them of the
relation of Christ to the Father. It will be noticed that cuwr#p is connected with
Geov in this salutation of 1 Tim., while in the opening verses of Tit. it is joined
both with Geov (ver. 3) and with Xp. ’Ijcot (ver. 4) and in 2 Tim. i. 1, 2 it is not
found. The addition of the word éAco¢ to the ordinary ydpt¢ nai etpivy of the
Pauline salutations is peculiar, but can hardly be considered as a matter of diffi-
culty—especially as, according to the larger part of the oldest authorities, it does
not occur in the Epistle to Titus. Tisch. Treg., W. & H., Alf, R. V., EIL,
Huther, and others omit the word in Titus. The greater fullness of expression in
the salutation of the last-named Epistle, by reason of which it reaches twice the
length of those in the letters to Timothy, is to be explained in connection with
the double character of all these epistles already alluded to.
IT. Vv. 3, 4.
(a) On the construction of vv. 3, 4, nothing need be added to what is said by
Huther in his note. The apodosis to be supplied is ovtw xai viv rapaxado. With
this construction, the sentence implies a condition which is apparently inconsist-
ent with the placing of the Epistle within that portion of Paul’s history which is
included in the narrative of the Acts. The same thing is indicated by other con-
siderations connected with this and the other two Epistles. The allusion to the
fables and endless genealogies points to a later date for the letter than that at
which the Epp. to the Ephesians and Colossians were written.—(b) The word
érepodidackaieiv seems to be a sort of negative to pooé yey x.T.A. as a positive. The
88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
former may be regarded as describing in its opposition to the gospel, what the
latter sets forth in its own character. This view is not only made probable by
the construction of the two parallel clauses, but also by vi. 3, the only other
passage in which érepod:d. occurs. In that passage it is contrasted with “ consent-
ing to sound words ” and “ the doctrine which is according to godliness.” Though
a word not used elsewhere, and perhaps, as some hold, coined by this writer, it is
a word which is so easily formed and which, in the idea suggested by it, is so
nearly kindred to undoubtedly genuine Pauline expressions (comp. Gal. i. 6 f. etc.)
that no objection can be made to it, as if it could not be employed by the Apostle.
As to the other words in the corresponding clause—pifoe and yeveadoyiaw,—the
former is found in iv. 7, where the adjectives profane and old wives’ are joined with
it, in 2 Tim. iv. 4, where the zifoc are contrasted with the truth, and in Tit. i. 14,
where they are called Jewish, and are connected with commandments of men who
‘turn away from the truth. The latter word, on the other hand, occurs only once
elsewhere—Tit. iii. 9, where it is used in connection with foolish questioning,
sirifes, and fightings about the law. There can be little doubt, as the two words are
carefully considered, that the doctrines or views which the writer has in mind
are Jewish. They are distinctly called Jewish in Tit. i. 14, and are so described
in other passages as related to the law, that there can scarcely be any question
respecting this point. Indeed, vv. 7 ff. of the present chapter make this evident.
The words themselves, however, are such as manifestly could not be used of the
Judaistic doctrine referred to in Gal., and they seem to indicate something more
than is hinted at in Eph. or Col. This further growth and development may be
more distinctly noticed in the many otherstatements made in these epistles respect-
ing the errors. They show that, on the moral side, there was a movement
towards license rather than asceticism, and, on the intellectual side, a progress in
the general line of the Gnostic ideas. That the tendency to asceticism is still mani-
fest, however, is clear from 1 Tim. iv. 3; and the terms and descriptions, in gen-
eral, which are employed do not indicate any such marked remove from the
state of things presented before us in Col., as to prove a much later date for the
Pastoral Epistles. In the rapid movement of thought which we may believe to
have characterized that early period of the history of the church, it is not diffi-
cult to suppose that the change which occurred between the time of writing to
the Romans and that of addressing the Colossians may have been followed by a
change between the time of the epistle to the latter and the Epistles to Timothy
and Titus, such as appears in the descriptions of errors which they contain, even
if these last mentioned letters were separated from Col. by but four or five years.
—(c) The word ¢yr7oec is, strictly, of the active form and to be understood in an
active sense. But, as it seems to border in its idea both upon the active and
passive sense, and as oixovoyiav, when connected with Oecd, has apparently else-
where the objective meaning, it may be regarded as somewhat more probable-that
both words are here to be taken objectively, than subjectively, as Huther in his
last edition prefers. Grimm Lex. N. T. takes them objectively, so Ell., Alf,
Wiesinger, and others. Grimm says, “quae materiem disceptationum potius quam
dispensationem rerum, quibus deus christianam salutem praeparavit et parartt, quae fide
amplectenda est (cognoscendam) praebent.” Ell. says, “The fables and genealogies
supplied questions of a controversial nature, but not the essence and principles of
the divine dispensation.” The question between the two explanations’ of the
words is one of much uncertainty, and the most that can be affirmed, on either
NOTES. 89
side, is a probability. With either interpretation of oixovoziav, the added words
év miotet denote the sphere within which the dispensation or stewardship moves.
—(d) airweg may mean since they, or suchas. W. and H., with ®& A 17, read
éxtytyoers, So also Treg. and Tisch. 8th ed. and the text adopted by R. V. This
form occurs nowhere else.
Ill. Vv. 5-11.
(a) That there is a close connection between tapayyediag of ver. 5 and the cor-
responding verb in ver. 4 can hardly be doubted; but, as the verb, as here used,
adds to itself the idea expressed in 7 érepodidackadeiv, it is probable that the noun
extends itself, also, to the same thing, and thus the “charge ” contains that which
belongs in and with “the healthful teaching.” The end and aim of this is love.
Love here means love to one’s neighbor, as Huther remarks, and from the con-
nection with what follows seems to stand in contrast to that which the r:véc were
promoting.—(b) The contrast of ayd7y, although in the form of expression with
paratoAoyiav, must be in reality with that to which the araiod, leads. This does
not seem to be merely the strifes which attend upon, or are likely to be produced
by, the éx¢yrycece (comp. Tit. iii. 9), but all tnat which, in these Epp., is indicated
as the result of the doctrine of these men. Having swerved from a pure con-
science, heart, etc., they had turned aside—these words and the following point
apparently to such a turning from the true teaching of the gospel towards the law,
as not indeed, like the Galatian Judaizers, merely to make the latter essential to
justification, but rather to misconceive the purpose of the law and even direct it
to wrong ends. Alf.says: The Apostle was dealing “ with men who corrupted the
material enactments of the moral law, and founded on Judaism not assertions of
its obligation, but idle fables and allegories, letting in latitude of morals and un-
holiness of life. It is against this abuse of the law that his arguments are
directed ; these men struck, by their interpretation, at the root of all divine law
itself, and therefore at that root itself does he meet and grapple with them.”—
(c) That the law here referred to is the Mosaic Law is proved both by the 6 véuo¢
of ver. 8 and the fact that the fables, etc., are called Jewish (Tit. i.14). This
being the case, there can be little doubt that voyodtddoxado: means teachers of this
particular Jaw, and it is highly probable that réuo¢ of ver. 9 has the same refer-
ence. This law is the only one, apparently, of which the Apostle speaks, or which
he has in mind, in any passage in these epistles—(d) The relation of the persons
spoken of to the law is suggested by the clause éév ri¢ attg¢ vouisws ypzrar. This
expression points to what is said by Alford, as quoted above, and would scarcely
have been used by the Apostle of the Galatian teachers.—(e) The exact meaning
of the word dcxaiy of ver. 9 is somewhat doubtful. The contrast with avdyoce, etc.,
and the not improbable connection in thought, in the use of these words, with the
prohibitions of the Decalogue, point to the ordinary sense of dixasog. The refer-
ence, on the other hand, to the Pauline gospel in ver. 11, and the fact that here,
as elsewhere in his Epistles, the Apostle apparently contends against those who
oppose his own doctrine, suggest that he has in mind righteousness in the
peculiarly Christian sense. Not improbably, there may be a certain union of the
two elements in the word, as connected with the fact that these teachers of the
law were pressing their opposing views even to the point of lawlessness and laxity
in morals.—(f) The connection of «ard rd evay. which Huther favors is that which
90 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
most of the recent commeniators adopt. This phrase, accordingly, refers to all
that has been said about the law. Adsy¢ is an objective genitive, and probably has
reference to the revelution of the Divine glory which the gospel makes, as con-
trasted with the erroneous and empty doctrines of the false teachers.
IV. Vv. 12-17.
(a) With regard to the connection between this passage and what precedes, two
remarks miay be made: (1) that, as the letter isone having both a personal anda
general or public aim, itis not strange that the writer should at times turn, even
somewhat abruptly, to a matter related to his own experience or his individual
reminiscences. Such transitions from the general to the individual are, in such a
letter, no indication of weakness of style or thought; and (2) that, if such a
transition is allowed to the author here, the thought moves on in a suitable pro-
gress from the verses which precede to the end of this passage. If these letters
were written by Paul, they belong to the latest period of his life. His impulse
towards dwelling upon his own personal history is observable in all his Epistles,
even those of earliest date. That, in later years, this impulse should have become
stronger, is only what might be reasonably expected. Advancing life and its
many trials and successes made him recall, with ever fresh interest, what he had
gone through, and, especially, the wonder of the Divine grace in his case. Pas-
sages like the present, therefore, so far from being a ground of objection to the
Pauline authorship of the Epistle, are, on the contrary, entirely consistent with
it.—(b) It is to be observed, also, that, in the case of this particular passage, no
just objection can be made to the Pauline authorship on the ground that one who
was so familiar with Timothy as the Apostle was, and had long been, could not be
expected to make to him such detailed statements respecting himself and his own
history. Whatever may be said of other cases, there is nothing here which is
inconsistent with what a man like Paul might have said in grateful remembrance
of his past life—(c) The meaning of corde in ver. 15, where it is used of a thing
(Adyoc), is, apparently, worthy of credit. Probably, the adjective has a similar mean-
ing, trustworthy, to be relied upon, worthy of credit, in 1 Cor. vii. 25; possibly, also, in
2 Tim. ii. 2. The correspondence of ver. 12 with the verse mentioned in 1 Cor.,
in its general thought (comp. 7Aczyv ver. 13, 7Aenuévoc «.7.A. in 1 Cor.), and the
fact that the Divine choice of Paul for the ministry was made before the question
- of actual faithfulness in service could arise, favor giving to the adjective the sense
of trustworthy in this verse. It is commonly, however, rendered faithful. So
Huther, Alf., Ell, R. V., Bib. Com., and others, (“He knew me to be such an
one, in His foresight, as would prove faithful to the great trust,” Alf.)—(d) Love
and faith in ver. 14, are immediately connected with 4 ydapc¢ Tob Kupiov ju, and
thus are here viewed as divine gifts. They are suggested, probably, by the thought
of vv. 4, 5, where these words occur as the end and sphere of the divine tapayyedia
and otxovouia. The closeness of the thought here to that of the earlier verses
is thus manifest—(e) Ver. 15. The phrase tiord¢ 6 Adyoc, which occurs several
times in these Epistles, refers here, and perhaps in all cases, to what follows. The
word Adyo¢ seems to have the sense of common or fixed-saying,—something of the
character of a proverbial sentence. The introduction of the words with this for-
mula is to be accounted for in connection with the public character of the latter,
while the preceding and following words have a more individual reference. This
NOTES. 91
intermingling of the two is a part of the semi-official style in which the Epistle
is written. It cannot be regarded as an Epistle written simply for the private
reading of Timothy.—(f/) The statement that Christ Jesus came into the world
to save sinners is intended, apparently, to contrast the gospel with the doctrine of
the errorists, in that the great distinguishing characteristic of the gospel is its
design of saving sinners. The errorists gave themselves to a vain discoursing
about the law and legal righteousness, which moved in the outward region and
even tended to laxness in true morality; but the teaching of the gospel was a
teaching of forgiveness, and, then, of inward sanctification. To no better illustra-
tion of the power of this Christian doctrine, or its transforming effect, could the
Apostle refer than his own life, and so he at once turns again to his own case—
declaring himself to be sprog among sinners, and the one in whom, as zpéroc, the
long-suffering of Christ was shown as an example for all who should follow in
after times. mparoc of ver. 15 almost certainly means first, in the sense of chie/;
awpwty of ver. 16 has primarily, if not exclusively, the sense of first, as related to
Tov weAAévtwy—it is possible, however, that in pry, also, there may be combined
with first in time, or succession, the idea of chief—(g) The peculiarities of the
doxology in ver. 17 are (1) the introduction of the words with a substantive form
in the dative, instead of a relative pronoun as in all other cases in Paul’s writings
where a dative opens a doxological clause; (2) the use of Baoidete asa designa-
tion of God, which does not occur in the other Pauline Epistles; (3) the expres-
sion Bac, tov aiovwy, This expression is not found elsewhere in the N. T. On
the other hand, a¢Gaprdc is applied to God by Paul in Rom. i. 23; adparog, in Col.
i. 15; yévoc, in Rom. xvi. 27. dda and riz are used in connection with each
other by Paul, but not in a doxology. In the variety of the Pauline expressions,
which include even several of the words here used, we may easily find a place for
a doxology of this character, although one precisely like it, in all respects, may
not be discovered. The turn to the doxology, like that to the expression of
thanks in ver. 12, is somewhat abrupt—more so than is ordinarily the case in the
Pauline doxologies. The connection in the thought is, possibly, though not very
probably, in the words aiéviov—aidvwv, The suggestion of the ascription of praise
to (sod comes undoubtedly, {rom the thought of the divine mercy and grace which
had been manifested in his case.—(h) That tv aimvwv here means the ages, and
not the world, is rendered probable both by the aiavov which precedes and the
ai@vac aiovwy which follows, and by the fact that the relation of God to the world
does not seem to be naturally suggested in this place. The ages are, apparently,
all the ages of duration, and so, although the word is not equivalent to the adjec-
tive eternal, the idea of eternal existence is suggested in connection with it. The
connection of apédprw and dopdtw with 6eg@—the King of the ages, the incorrupt-
ible, invisible, only God—is probably to be preferred to that which seems to be
adopted by R. V.: the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the only God.
V. Vv. 18-20.
(a) Vv. 12-17 are, evidently, in one sense—so far as they express the writer's
thankfulness and refer to his own experience—a digression or parenthesis. In
another sense—so far as there is a reference to the doctrine of the gospel—they
set forth what is in the line of the preceding verses. While, therefore, it may be
questioned whether tapayyediay of ver. 18 is to be immediately connected with the
92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
same word in ver. 5, it is probable that, in the general thought, the Apostle goes
back to that verse, and that, in this word, he refers tothe comprehensive charge
appertaining to the Christian teaching. This charge he commits—deposits, as it
were, in his hands—to Timothiy, in accordance with the prophecies, etc. As these
prophecies assigned to Timothy the work of a preacher and missionary, the ful-
fillment of the general charge of the gospel in his case would be accomplished by
his “warring in the sphere of them the good warfare.” The charge is, therefore,
committed to him by the Apostle, in order that he may war, etc. This explana-
tion of the word tapayyeAiav, and of the construction, seems, on the whole, the
simplest and best—making iva x.r.A. denote the end in view of wapari@eua:, rather
than finding in that clause the explanation of what is meant by the wapayyeXay,
This view is confirmed by the correspondence of wiorr and ayabyy ovveidyow of
this verse with the same words in ver. 5, and in the general similarity of their
relation to the main thought in the two cases.—(b) R. V. renders ra¢ tpoayovoag
K.T.A, which went before on thee, in the text, and led the way to thee, in the margin. A. R.
V. substitutes this marginal rendering for the text. This rendering of A. R. V.
is favored by the position of the words é7i oé, but as mpoay. in Heb. vii. 18 has the
sense of foregoing, former, and as there seems little occasion here to introuuce the idea
of led the way to thee, itis probably better, with Huther and many of the best recent
comm., to give the participle the meaning former or preceding, and to make é7i oé
qualify mpodyteiag, (So Alf., Ell., Fairbairn, Holtzm., Grimm, and others).—(c)
Alf., Ell., Plumptre, Bib. Com., as well as the writers mentioned by Huther,
regard év avtai¢ as carrying in it the figure of armor. This seems, however, so
doubtful, that it is safer to take év more generally, in the sense of in the sphere of.
It was in the sphere of what these prophecies suggested, that the warfare, in
Timothy’s case, could be rightly carried fotward. With 17 «az orparciav we
may compare the kindred, and yet different, phrase Tov xaAdv ayova, 2 Tim. iv. 7.
—(d) That 7 of ver. 19 refers to ay. cvveidnow only is indicated both by the sing-
ular number and by the fact that it was by wilfully thrusting from themselves
that which is indicated by 7, that they made shipwreck concerning ziorts¢, That
Tyv TioTw is, in a certain sense, objective here is evident; but that it means the
faith, as a system of doctrine, is doubtful, or even improbable. The use of ziore¢
in the latter sense, in the Pauline Epistles, is questionable-——(e) The expression
mapidwxa TH Laravg (ver. 20) is found elsewhere only in 1 Cor. v. 5. In that
passage it seems to indicate something additional to, and different from, excom-
munication. While the latter was the act of the church, this was a thing, appar-
ently, which appertained to the apostolic office aione. Not improbably, it may
have been attended by some bodily evil in the person thus delivered; but this
cannot be confidently affirmed. From the final clauses added both in 1 Cor. and
here, it seems probable that the design of it was reformatory (comp. especially iva
TO mvevpa why Ev TH Huepg Tov Kupiov 1 Cor. v.5). That the result was always
reformation is not certain. Apparently this was the result in the case mentioned
in 1 Cor., as we may infer from what the Apostle says in 2 Cor. il. 5 ff.,—if, indeed
this penalty was there finally inflicted.
CHAP, II 93
CHAPTER ITI.
VER. 1. tapaxadd] Instead of this, D* F G, Sahid. Clar. Boern. Hilar. Ambro-
siast. ed. Cassiod. (alicubi) Or. (ter ut Rec.) have the imperative tapaxade, which
is manifestly a conjecture for the purpose of giving to the words the form of a
commission to Timothy.—dvrwv] is omitted in some codd. (G, G, Boern. Or.
[semel]); it might easily be overlooked as merely strengthening the mparov.—
Ver. 3. In A 17, 67** &, Cop. Sahid. ydp is wanting, and is therefore omitted by
Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8; it is retained in Matthaei and Tisch. 7.—Ver. 6. 76
Hapriptov xatpoic idiocg] Some codd. have the reading ov 7d papr. x. id, €6607 (D*
F G, Clar. Boern. Harl.* Ambrosiast.; while some cursives have the reading ov,
but without éd647). This reading has only arisen out of a desire to connect the
words more closely with what precedes. The omission of the words 76 uapripiov
in A is to be considered merely an error in copying. Lachm. in his large edition
(so also Buttm.) left them out; in the small edition he retained them. W& has the
reading xai for té6.—Ver. 7. The words év Xpior® were rejected from the text
even by Griesb. (so also Scholz, Lachm., and others), because they are wanting in
the most important authorities, in A D* F G 3, 6, 23* 31, al., Syr. utr. Arr.
Copt. etc.; on the other hand, they are found in % Matthaei, however, has
retained them with the remark : adhuc maneo in ea sententia, ut credam, ab Praxa-
postolis et Euchologiis exclusum esse in fine lectionis. If they are compared with
Rom. ix. 1, it is easy to explain how they came into the text.—Instead of év
miorel, % has év yyooet. Buttm., following A, reads év mvetiyart.—Ver. 8. Instead
of the singular d:adoyopov, F G 17, 47, 67** al., Syr. utr. Boern. Or. (ter sed ter
ut Rec.) Eus., etc., have the plural dtadoyouav (Tisch. 7); Matthaei remarks on
this: hujusmodi lectiones plerumque placent viris graece doctis ; verum in N. T.
contraria ferenda est sententia. Most authorities, including &. have the singular
(Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). The plural is with Reiche to be considered a mere
correction, all the more that the singular of the word does not occur elsewhere in
the N. T. (except in Luke ix. 46, 47) ; comp. especially Phil. ii. 14.—Ver. 9. «at
Ta¢] are wanting in A 71; «ai alone is wanting in &, and td¢ alone is wanting
in D* F G 67** 73, al, Or. Lachm. and Buttm. omitted both words, Tisch. only
ta¢.—7 xypvop] Instead of the Rec. 7 (in D*** K L, etc.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.
rightly adopted «ai, following A D* F G, etc. Tisch. retained the Rec. xpvoq,
following D K L, etc.; Lachm. and Buttm., on the other hand, read ypvoiv
following A F G, etc. As both forms are used in the N. T., we can hardly decide
which is right here.—Ver. 10. The reading o¢ instead of 5, found in some cur-
sives, Arm. and Cypr., is manifestly a correction to facilitate the interpretation.—
Ver. 12. Instead of yuvant 62 diddoxerv (Tisch. 7), we should follow A D F GR,
al., Arm. Vulg. It. Cypr. Jer. Ambrosiast., and read d:ddoxerv d@ yuvaxi, which
has been received into the text by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. Hofm., for the sake
of his exposition, prefers the Rec—Ver 14. Instead of the Ree. arar73eica, Lachm.
Buttm. Tisch. read the compound éfa7ar7eioa, on the testimony of A D* F G@
94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
17 28, al., Mt. K., Bas. Chrys. If the compound had not such weighty authorities
in its favor, we should be inclined to account for it out of Rom. vii. 11 and 2 Cor.
xi. 3.—Ver. 15. On the reading ydp for dé, found in some co:Jd., Matthaei rightly
remarks: ita centies istae particulae ... praesertim in principio pro arbitrio
mutantur.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note VI., pages 109-111.] After directing Timo-
thy’s attention generally to the orpareia to which he had been appointed,
Paul proceeds to mention in detail the things for which, in his otfice, he
had to care. This connection of thought is marked by the particle of
transition odv (Wicsinger), which therefore does not stand (as de Wette,
following Schleiermacher, thinks) without any logical connection.! [VI a.]
—patov ravtuv] is not to be taken with soveiofa:, as Luther does: ‘‘ to do
before everything else,” but with srapaxadé (Heydenreich, Matthies, de
Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee).—zroveiobar dejoete «.7.2.] [VI b.] The apos-
tle herewith begins to give “instructions regarding public prayer” (Wies-
inger). The idea of prayer is here expressed by four words. Aéjor and
mpocevy# are connected in other passages as synonyms—in Eph. vi. 18,
Phil. iv. 6; the difference between them is this, that déyore can be used
only of petitionary prayer, tpocevyg of every kind of prayer. Not less
general in meaning is évrevéc, from évrvyydvecy tivi incidere in aliquem,
adire aliquem, and in reference to God: pray (Wisd. viil. 21, xvi. 28). The
reference to another is not contained in the word itself, but in the prepo-
sition connected with it, asin Rom. xi. 2: xara rewocg; and Rom. viii. 34;
Heb. vii. 25: trép ros. Accordingly, the substantive évrevéic, which
occurs only here and in chap. iv. 5, does not in itself possess the meaning
of intercession for others, but denotes simply prayer as an address to God
(Wicsinger)? The three words, accordingly, are thus distinguished: in
the first, the element of insufficiency is prominent; in the second, that of
devotion; and in the third, that of child-like confidence (prayer—the
heart’s converse with God). Calvin is right in his remark, that Paul
joined these three words together here “ut precandi studium et assidui-
tatem magis commendet ac vehementius urgeat.” '—eiyapioriac] “ prayers
1Hofmann’s reference of ot» toi. 15 and the
conclusion of ver. 16 is far-fetched: “If Christ
came into the world to save sinners, and if
the long-suffering of God towards the man
whom He made His apostle from being a re-
viler, was to be a prophecy regarding the con-
version of those who were afterwards made
to believe on Him, it becomes Christians not,
in sectarian fashion, to limit ita command to
its sphere at that time, but to extend it to all
men.”
2Comp. Plutarch, Vita Numae, chap. 14: nh
wovecoOat Tas mpos Td Oecow dvTevfers ev agxo-
Atq Kat wapépyws.
3In regard to the more precise definition
of the word, there is much that is arbitrary
in expositors older and more recent. Thus
8enors is understood to be prayer for averting
the punishment of sin; rpocevy7, prayer for
the bestowal of benefits; evrevéis. prayer for
the punishment of the unrighteous (Theodo-
ret: dénois eoriy, Urép amadAayis Tivwy AuENpwY
ixeteia wmpoodepouérn’ mpovevxy €otiv airnois
ayabwr’ evrevéis €or. xarnyopia Tay adixovvTwr;
80, too, Theophylact and Oecumenius). Pho-
tius (ad Amphil. qu. 193) explains éyrvxia in
the same way: évrvxia (oTay Tis cata Tw abe-
KovUvTwy évTuyxayy Te Gee, mpooKadovmevos
avrov eis éxdixnowy); hut the other two words
differently: Sénow wey Adyerat, Stay tis Oedy
afioc ei¢ mpayua’ mpocevxy 8t, oray Uw roy
Gedy. Origen (repe evxis, ¢ 44) finds a climax
in the succession of the words, and dis-
tinguishes mpomevyxai from Sejoecs in this way,
that the former are prayers joined with a d0fo-
Aoyia, made for greater things and peyado-
CHAP. 11. 1, 2. 95
of thanksgiving,” the apostle adds, because in Christian prayer the giving
of thanks should never be wanting; comp. Phil. iv. 6: é ravri rg zpocevyy
Kai Ty deyoet peTa evyaplioTiag Ta aiThuata buov yrupifectas mpoc Tov Ordv.—
trép ravrwyv aviporur]| is not to be referred merely to eizapioria, but also
to the preceding words (Wiesinger). The prayer of the Christian com-’
munity (for this and not private prayer is here spoken of) is—in petition
and thanksgiving—to embrace all mankind. [VI c.]
Ver. 2. ‘Yrép Baotéwv] Baorreig are not merely the Roman emperors, the
apostle using the plural because of the emperor’s colleagues (Baur) ; the word
is to be taken, in a more general sense, as denoting the highest authorities in
the state.—xai révrwv tov év izepox® bvTwv] not only denoting the governors
in the provinces, but all who hold the office of magistrate anywhere. The
expression is synonymous with é&ovcia: iwepéyovoa: in Rom. xili. 1; comp.
2 Macc. il. 11: avjp év irepoyh xeiuevoc. Josephus calls the magistrates
simply ai trepoyai (Antig. vi. 4, 3). In the old liturgies we find, in express
accordance with this passage, the déjo1g urép Baodtwy kai tov év brepoxs,
uxep THC etpiyns Tov oburavrog Kéozov. The purpose for which intercession is
specially to be made for all men in authority is given in the words that
follow: iva jpepov xat jobywov Biov diayouev, Which, as de Wette rightly re-
marks, denotes the objective and not the subjective purpose. Paul does not
mean here to direct attention to the value which intercession has for our
own inner life, and by means of this for outward peace, as Heydenreich
(“Christians are to pray also for heathen rulers, that by this prayer they
may keep alive within themselves the quiet submissive spirit of citizens’’),
Matthies (‘animated with loving thoughts towards the representatives of
the government, they are to be blameless in their walk, and to strive after
the undisturbed enjoyment of outward peace”), and others think; but
the apostle is speaking of the still, quiet life as a blessing which the
church obtains by prayer to God for the rulers. The prayer is directed,
as Wiesinger rightly remarks, not for the conversion of the heathen
dvdorepoy, while évrevéecg are the prayers of
one who has wsappnciay tid wAciova.—still
more arbitrary is Kling’s explanation, that
Seqoecs are prayers in reference tothe circum-
stances of all mankind; wpocevyai, prayers
for some benefit; évrevgecs, prayers for the
aversion of evil. Matthies is partly right,
partly wrong when he says: Sénos is the
prayer made with a feeling of the need of
God, so that the inner side of the need and of
eprightness (7?) is particularly prominent;
spocevyy, prayer, in the act of devotional
address to the Godhead, therefore with refer-
ence to the outward exercise (7); evrevgecs, in-
tercession, made not so much for ourselves
as on behalf of others (?).—There is no ground
whatever for the opinion of Heydenreich,
that the first two expressions are used of
prayer (S¢nous = petition ; spocevyy — thanks-
giving) for the whole Christian community,
while the other two (evrevéis = petition ; evxa-
ptoria = thanksgiving) are used of prayer for
the whole of mankind. Lastly, we may note
the peculiar view of Augustine (Fp. 59),
according to which the four expressions are
to be understood of prayers used at the cele-
bration of the Lord’s Supper, Sejoes being
the precationes before consecration; mpocev-
xai, the orationes at the benediction, con-
secration, and breaking of bread; evrevgecs,
the interpellationes at the benediction of the
congregation; and evxapioria, the gratiarum
actio at the close of the communion. Plitt so
far agrees with this view of Augustine, that
he thinks the apostle's various expressions
denote the varfous liturgical prayers, as they
were defined even in ancient times at the
celebration of the Eucharist (?).
1 Hofmann maintains, without grounds, that
iva «.7.A. does not give the purpose of the
prayer for all men and for rulers, but “the
purpose for which rulers exist ” (!).
96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
rulers, but for the divine blessing necessary to them in the discharge of
their office (Rom. xiii. 14).—The ad}. 7peuo¢ occurs only here? in the N.T.,
and yoivxzeo¢g only here and in 1 Pet. ili. 4 (synonymous with zpatc). The
expression #iov didyewv also occurs only here; in Tit. iii. 3, didyecv is used
without Biov—No exact distinction can be established between jpeyo¢g and
jovzioc. Olshausen (in Wies'nger) says, without reason, that the former
means: “not disquieted from without;” the latter, “from within.” ’Hpéua
denotes, in classic Greek at any rate, “still, tranquil existence;” but
hobxto¢c (jovzoc) has the same meaning, and also denotes that there is no
disturbance from without. The collocation of the two words serves to give
more force to the thought; a jp. «. goby. Bio is a life led without dis-
turbance from without, with no excitement of fear, etc.—iov didyew]
“spend life, more than dye” (Wiesinger); the same expression is often
found in classical writers.—év wdoq evorBeig xai ceuvdrytc]. Not on this, but
on 7p. kai yoby. is the chief emphasis of the sentence laid (Plitt); the
words only add a more precise definition. Evoéfea, a word foreign to the
other Pauline Epistles, and (with evoe3ic, evaeBac, evorBéw) occurring only
in the Pastoral Epistles, in Acts, and in 2 Pet., denotes the godliness of
the heart; soeuvdézn¢, also peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (ceuzvds, only here
and in Phil. iv. 8), denotes the becoming conduct of the Christian in all
the relations of life. Hofmann is arbitrary in separating this addition
from what immediately precedes, and joining it with roveiofae defoere x.7.2..,
as “denoting the manner in which the prayer commended is to be made.”
Ver. 8. [VI d.] This verse points back to what was said in ver. 1; not,
however, in such a way as to make ver. 2 a parenthesis (so in a former
edition of this commentary), but rather so as to include the points men-
tioned in it.—rovro] does not refer to the thoughts immediately preceding,
but to the zovetoBa: dejoetg . . . trép rdvtev avOpdruv x.7.1.—The highest
motive of the Christian to such prayer is the good pleasure of God.—xaddv
kai arddextov] amddextog (like azodox#) occurs only in this First Epistle to
Timothy; it is synonymous with evdpecro¢g in Col. iii. 20 (rovro yap eidpeardv
éoriv év Kupiv).—évdriov Tov owripog uGv Oeov] is referred only to amddexrov by
several expositors, who either take xaAév absolutely (de Wette: “good in
itself;”’ so also van Oosterzee, Matthies: ‘xa’. denotes the endeavor
recommended in its inner worth and contents”), or, as Leo, supply with
it évoriov trav avOpdruv: “which is praiseworthy, sc. before men.” The
latter is clearly quite arbitrary; but even for the former there is not
sufficient ground, all the more when we compare 2 Cor. viii. 21: xpovoodpev
yap Kada ob pdvov évariov Kupiov, GAAd Kai éevOriov avOpdazuv.2? On ourfp, see i. 1.
—Paul uses this name for God here because he has already in mind the
thought that follows (Wiesinger).
1Nor is the positive jnpexos used in the
Greek classics. As yet it has been found
only in the Inseript. Olbiopot. n. 2059, v. 24, by
Lobeck; see Winer, p. 68 [E. T. p. 70]; Butt-
mann, p. 24 [E. T. 28].—The substantives
yovxia and jpeyia are frequently found to-
gether in the classics; e.g. Demosth. de Com
tributione, 98; Bekk. 8. Dorville, On Chariton,
p. 411.
2Heydenreich’s opinion is utterly erro-
neous, that Paul calls prayer for all caddy,
because it is not only right and good, but
CHAP. II. 3-5. 97
Ver. 4. Ground of the previous thought. The general intercession is
xa2, x. a76d. before God, because He, etc. It is not unusual to give in a
relative clause the grounds of a previous statement. ‘Oc rdvta¢ avOpdrove
OéAet owSyvac (comp. Tit. ii. 11)] [VI e.] The chief accent is laid on révrac
(corresponding with vurép mavrev, ver. 1), which is therefore placed first.
God’s purpose of salvation extends to all, and therefore the prayer of
Christians must include all. Wiesinger, however, is right in remarking
that “the apostle in é¢ «7.4. does not mean specially to give a reason
for prayer for the conversion of all men, but for prayer generally
as a duty of universal love to men.” Chrysostom puts it differently :
pipou tov Ocdv’ et wdvtag avOpwrovg GéAec owHijvar, Bide nai ob ei dé Béhecc,
ebyov' Tov yap TowvtTey (Tov OeAdvTwv) Eott Td ebyecOac.—The true con-
nection of thought is obscured if we supply the intermediate thought, that
prayer for all, and specially for kings, serves to maintain the peace without
which the spread of Christianity would be hindered.'—nai cig émiyvwow
aAneiac éAfeiv] The same connection of words is found elsewhere only in 2
Tim. iii. 7; on the meaning of ériywworc, see my Commentary on Colossians,
pp. 74 f., Remark.—The connection of the two expressions cw6jvac and ei¢
éxiyv. aa, éMeiv may be regarded differently. Hofmann takes them to be
in substance identical; Heydenreich takes the latter as an explanation of
the former, “showing how and by what means God wishes to efféct the
salvation of all;” he therefore regards the ériyvwor 7. ad. as the means of
the surmpia. So, too, Winer (p. 514 [E. T. p. 553]): “at first the general
purpose is mentioned («ai, and in pursuance of this), then the immediate
purpose (as a means of attaining the other).”” Itis explained in the same
way by Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. But it seems more natural
to regard the ériyvworr ti7¢ adnOeiag as the goal to which the rescue (cwfyvar)
leads (so, too, Plitt).?
Ver. 5. Eig yap Oed¢] [VI f.] The particle yap connects this verse with
the thought immediately preceding (Wiesinger), and not, as Leo and
Mack think, with the exhortation to pray for all.2 The apostle wishes by
it to confirm the idea of the universality of the divine purpose of salva-
tion as true and necessary : he does this first by pointing to the unity of
God. There is a quite similar connection of ideas in Rom. iii. 30
(emphasis is laid on God’s unity in another connection in 1 Cor. viii. 6,
and, in a third connection, in Eph. iv. 6). From the unity of God, it
necessarily follows that there is only one purpose regarding all; for if
“brings a benefit to the Christians, by recom-
mending them to their rulers.”
1Mosheim (Jnstit. Hist. Eecles. maj. I. 36):
Id sanctus homo tradit: nisi pax in orbe
terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut
volantati divinae, quae omnium hominum
salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum fla-
grantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi,
secure ad omnes populos proficisci. _
3In this verse the idea of the universality
of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and
distinctly expressed. Calvin, in order to save
7
his theory of predestination, has to take
refuge in an exposition more than ingenious:
de hominum generibus, non singulis per-
sonis, sermo est; nihil enim aliud intendit,
quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc
numero includere.
3Van Oosterzee confuses the two refer.
ences: “God’s universal purpose of salvation
is here established in such a way that at the
same time there is to a certain extent (!) an
indication of a third motive for performing
Christian intercessions.”
98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
there were various purposes for various individuals, the Godhead
would be divided in its nature. As there is one God, however, so
also there is one Mediator.—eic¢ xat peoirye @Oeov xat avOpotuv] The
word peoiry¢' occurs elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles only in Gal.
iil. 19, 20, where the name is given to Moses, because through him
God revealed the law to the people. Elsewhere in the N. T. the word is
found only in Heb. vii. 6, 1x. 15, xii. 24, and in connection with dsabyxy¢,
from which, however, it cannot (with Schleiermacher and de Wette) be
concluded that the idea mediator refers necessarily to the corresponding
idea covenant. Christ is here named the peoirys Oecd Kai avOpdzur, because
He is inter Deum et homines constitutus (Tertullian). He is the Mediator
for both, in so far as only through Him does God accomplish His purpose
of salvation (His 6éAev) regarding men, and in so far as only through
Him can men reach the goal appointed them by God (cujvac kai cig
éxiyv. aa. éASeiv). Hofmann says: “He is the means of bringing about
the relation in which God wishes to stand towards men, and in which
men ought tq stand towards God.” As with the unity of God, so also is
the unity of the Mediator a surety for the truth of the thought expressed
in ver. 4, that God’s 6éAe refers to all men.—To define it more precisely,
Paul adds: advOpwrog Xpiord¢ "Incoitc. This addition may not, as Otto and
others assume, have been occasioned by opposition to the docetism
of the heretics. In other epistles of the N. T. special emphasis is
laid on Christ’s humanity, with no such opposition to suggest it; thus
Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 16,17. Inthis passage the
reason for it is contained first in the designation of Christ as the peairye ;?
and further, in the manner in which Christ carried out His work of
mediation, 4.¢., as the next verse informs us, by giving Himself up to
death.§
Ver. 6. '0 dovg éavrdv avridutpov trép mavtwv}] The word avridvrpov, which
occurs only here, is synonymous with avrdjdaypa in Matt. xvi. 26; it is
distinguished from the simple Aérpov, as Matthies rightly remarks, only in
this, that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more emphatic.
According to the usage of the N. T., there can be no doubt that the apos-
tle here alludes to Christ’s reconciling death ; comp., besides Tit. ii. 14,
Matt. xx. 28, etc., especially 1 Pet. 1.18, 19, where the riucov aiva is men-
tioned as the means by which we are redeemed. The expression Jdoi¢
éavrév has here—where avridvrpov is added by way of apposition to éavrdéy
1 Regarding the use of the word in classical
Greek, comp. Cremer, s.v.—There is no
wrought only by a man. Only a man could
reconcile men with God; only, indeed, the
necessity for Cremer's opinion, that peoirns
in the passages of Hebrews does not so much
mean “mediator” as “surety.”
2Theodoret: avOpwwov 5¢ roy Xpiotoy wvd-
pagev, erecdn pecitny «xddecer’ évavOpwrycas
yap eueoirevoer.
8The arOpwrwyv suggested the drOpwrios all
the more naturally, that in the apostle’s con-
sciousness the owrypia of men could be
man of whom it was said os édavepwOy év capai
(chap. iii. 16). Hofmann supposes that Christ
Jesus is here called av@pwrros, “in order to
say that, as He became man to be mediator,
He is therefore the mediator and saviour not
of this or of that man, but of all men without
distinction.” This thought, however, is more
the ground of the els, for even the mediator
“of this or that man” might also be a man.
CHAP. I. 6. 99
(as in Matt. xx. 28, Airpov is in apposition to ry wy airov)—the emphatic
meaning of self-surrender to death, as in Tit. ii. 14, Gal. i. 4 (comp. also in
John vi. 51, 4 [rv odpxa pov] doow, which, indeed, is uncertain critically),
where dove éavrév has the same meaning as tapadovc éavréy in Gal. ii. 20;
Eph. v. 25 (comp., too, Rom. viii. 32). He gave Himself as a ransom by
giving Himself up to death. The thought on which it is based is this:
men were held év rg éfovcig tov oxdrove (Col.i. 18); from this they could not
free themselves (ri décec dv¥pwrog avrdAAayua tao Wuyye abrov, Matt. xvi.
26); Christ therefore gave the avridurpov necessary to free them; this ran-
som is Himself (dove éavrév), i.e. His life: rv wuynv abrov, Matt. xx. 28; 80
that by this, owr”pia is purchased for them. This, however, was done for
the benetit not of some, but of all. Hence Paul adds expressly irép
(equivalent to: in commodum!) zédytrwv, which is emphatic, and with
which he returns to the beginning of ver. 4. In this, as at i. 15, the apos-
tle revealed the substance of the tyaivovea didacxadia, only that here he
defines his former expression more precisely. [VI g, h.]—In order, how-
ever, that this act of love on the Lord’s part may bring forth its fruit, it
must be proclaimed to the world; this is indicated in the words that fol-
low.—76 paptipiov Kaipoig idiowg] 7d papripsov is not to be taken as in apposi-
tion to avridAvrpov, and explained of the death of Christ (Chrysostom :
Haptipiov 76 wafoc); it is to be regarded as in apposition to the thought
contained in the previous words of this verse (not “to the whole of what
was previously said,” Hofmann). This does not mean, however, that 16
papripiov denotes Christ’s gift of Himself as a ransom (or “ Christ’s sacri-
fice ’’), to be “the witness of salvation set forth at the appointed time, the
historical fact that the divine purpose of salvation is realized ” (Matthies) ;?
for papripiov is not the deed itself, but the attestation, the proclamation of
the deed ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 6, ii. 1. Nor does it mean that by papripiov we
are to understand the testimonium, quod Deus per Christi vitam, doc-
trinam et mortem protulit, vera esse ea omnia et rata, quae V. T. pro-
phetae fore divinaverant (Heinrichs), for there is nothing to indicate an
allusion to O. T. prophecy. The act of Christ already mentioned is called
Td papripuov, in so far as this was its meaning and purpose. Bengel: 7é
papripeov acc. absol. ut évdecyua, 2 Thess. i. 5, innuitur testimonium redem-
tionis universalis.5 The reason why the preaching of the gospel is called
papri-prov, is that its subject is an historical fact, the importance of which
becomes known only by individual experience.—xazpoi¢ idiouc] “is to be con-
nected with rd paprtpeoy, just as if it were connected with rd paprupobpevov ”
1Van Oosterzee asserts, without reason, that
wrép here is to be taken in the sense of sub-
stitution.
2 Leo’s explanation is substantially the same
as this: Quae Christus, inquit apostolus, ad
homines servandos fecit, ea sunt ipsius Dei
testimonium. Quid vere testatus est Deus
eo, quod Jesum Christum mori passus est?
Quid aliud, quam amorem suum in genus
humanum plane incomparabilem ?
8 Van Oosterzee believes that papripioy here
must be taken as in apposition to ayriAurpor,
the apostle calling the Lord’s surrender of
Himself the great paprvpcov, with special
reference to the truth mentioned in ver. 4.
But against this it is to be remarked, that
this explanation does not give a right defini-
tion of the relation of apposition, nor of the
meaning and purpose of the paprupcov.
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
(Hofmann); the same expression is found in vi. 15; Tit. 1.3; also Gal.
vi. 9 (Acts xvi. 26: Katpot tporerayuévot) ; Chrysostom : toi¢g tpoonxover Katpoic.
Ver. 7. This verse defines more precisely the previous yapripiov, it was
for proclaiming the wapripiov that the apostle received the office entrusted
tohim. The chief emphasis rests on the universality ; the subject of the -
paptipiov is the fact that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all.—eic 6 érébyv
éy@ Kppvé kai améaroAo¢] Comp. on this, Eph. ii. 1-12; Col. 1. 25-28; 2 Tim.
1. 9-11.—eic 6: for which (uapripiov), viz. “ for prociaiming which.” éré@yv
is to be taken in close connection with «fpvé x.r.A.—xypvé, it is true, only
occurs here and in 2 Tim. i. 11 as a name for the preacher of the gospel
(in 2 Pet. ii. 5, Noah is called a xgpvé dixatocivnc) ; ‘but xypiacewv is used very
frequently of the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Cor. i. 21, xjpvyua is iden-
tical with ebayyéacov. In order to direct attention to his pecuhar apostolic
authority, Paul adds to the general idea of x#pvf, the more specific expres-
sion azéotoAo¢. By the addition of aAjberav Aéyu, ov etdoua:, the truth of
the cic 5 is confirmed ;} he explains himself sufficiently on account of the
heretics who wished that Paul should not be considered an apostle by the
appointment of God. [VI ¢.]—The further definition: diddcxadoc evar, is
to be taken in apposition to xfpvE x. amdéotodoc. It was added to make
clearer the reference to the heathen already indicated in ei 6, not, as
Hofmann thinks, to form an apposition to the subject of aAjfeav Ayo;
had that been so, we should have had an emphatic éyé. The connected
words év wiotes kai aAndeig do not form the object of dd. (Heydenreich
takes it as “equivalent to év 1 wiores rH GAndiv9, a teacher of the Gentiles
who is to instruct them in the true religion”); they are loosely added,
according to a common usage of the N. T., and denote here the sphere in
which he was appointed to discharge his office as teacher of the Gentiles.
The peculiar point of view must not be lost by arbitrarily changing the
words into év rg wiore: tr. aAnOivy, Or, aS Leo does, into miard¢ Kai aAniives. It
is wrong also to render zioti¢ here by ‘‘ faithfulness,” and 426. by
“verity ” (Hofmann: év ricrez, equivalent to “ faithfully,” and év adnbeia
to “in verity ”). [Mer is faith, the subjective relation, and @Anéeia is truth,
the objective benefit, appropriated in faith (so alsg Plitt and van Oosterzee).?
1 Wiesinger less suitably refers the addition
to the &&8. «@vay, which in that case should
have been preceded by a cai. Otto (p. 117)
unjustifiably uses this asseveration of the
apostle to confirm his assertion that the
epistle was written during the apostle's stay
at Ephesus, insisting that Paul, after he was
put in prison in Jerusalem, was acknowl-
edged an apostle in all Christian churches,
and from that time, therefore, had no occa-
sion for this asseveration. Apart from other
points, Otto errs in referring the words
aAyOevay x.7.A. only to the expression arooro-
Aos, whereas they apply to the entire thought
in cig 6 «.7.A. Paul does not make assevera-
tion that he was appointed an apostle, but
that he was appointed an apostle of the pap-
Tvpioy, the subject of which he had already
mentioned. Comp. on this the passages
quoted above.
3? Bengel seems to take the words in a sense
corresponding to the formula of asseveration,
adnO. Aéyw «.t.A. He says in regard to this
formula: “ pertinet haec affirmatio ad comma
praecedens; nam subsequenti additur paral-
lela: év w. nai adné.;” a view for which there
is no justification.—Matthies expresses him-
self somewhat obscurely; for while he in the
first place mentions faith and truth not only
as the elements, but also as the aims of the
teaching, he rays atthe end of the discussion:
“The apostle is teacher of the Gentiles in such
a’ way that he knows himself to be impreg-
nably established thereby in faith and truth.”
CHAP. II. 7, 8. 101
Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-10, see Note VII., pages 111, 112.] After giving, in the
digression of vv. 3-7, the grounds of his exhortation to prayer for all, Paul
returns to the exhortation itself in such a way as to define it more precisely
in regard to thuse who are to offer the prayer.—fotAoua: obv mpoceiyeotat
roic avdpag év mavri téxy] “Hoc verbo (fotAoua) exprimitur auctoritas
apostolica,” Bengel; comp. v. 14; Tit. ni. 18: “J ordain.” [VII a.J—viv]
Bengel’s explanation: “ particula ergo reassumit versum 1,” is not quite
accurate ; the particle connects with ver. 1 in order to carry on the thought
there expressed.—rpocevyeo6ac] [VII b.] Bengel: “sermo de precibus pub-
licis, ubi sermonem orantis subsequitur multitudinis cor.” Matthies
wrongly disputes the opinion that rpocetyecfac here is used of “ prayer in
the congregations.” The whole context shows beyond doubt that the
apostle is here speaking of congregations.—rot¢ dévdpac] opposed to ra¢
yvvaixac, ver. 9. Paul assigns to each part its proper share in the assem-
blies for worship; “he has something different to say to the men and to
the women ” (Wiesinger).—év avr? rérw] does not stand here in opposi-
tion to the Jewish limitation to the temple (Chrysostom and others):
“not once found” (de Wette), nor to the synagogue (Wolf), nor in refer-
ence to the various places of Christian worship in Ephesus (van Oosterzee),
nor to the neighboring congregations belonging to Timothy’s diocese
(Heydenreich) ; it is to be taken generally, not in the sense of every place,
“where the religious mood, custom, or duty cherishes it” (Matthies), but
to all places where Christian congregations assemble (Wiesinger).—As to
the construction, é mavri réry does not belong to mpocebyecbac alone, but
“to the whole clause” (Wiesinger, Matthies, van Oosterzee, Hofmann).
The apostle means to lay stress not on this, that men are to pray, but on
how they are to pray; the chief emphasis, therefore, rests on ézaipovra¢
K.T.2.—étaipoyras daiove yeipac| The Jews lifted up their hands not only in
swearing an oath, Gen. xiv. 22 (Rev. x. 5), and in blessing, Lev. ix. 22
(Luke xxiv. 50), but also in prayer, Ps. xxviil. 2, xliv. 21, lxiii. 5, etc. This
passage is a proof that the same custom was observed in the Christian
church. It is true that in the N. T. it is. nowhere else mentioned, but in
Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians we have at chap. xxix. an
evident allusion to this passage: tpocéAOwpev atte év dotdryte puyxne, dyvac
Kai auiavrovg xeipac aipovres mpd¢ aité6v.—Regarding the form éeiove for éciag,
see Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 68]..—The hands are holy which have not been
given over to the deeds of wicked lust; the opposite is given by wapai,
Bé3n0e yxeipec, 2 Macc. v. 16; comp. on the expression, Job xvii. 9, Ps.
xxiv. 4, and in the N. T. Jas. iv. 8 especially: xa@apicate yeipag Kai dyvicarte
xapdiac, Hofmann is ingenious is defining daiove yeipes more precisely by
what follows: “The hands of the one praying are doc: only when he is
inwardly saturated with the consecration without which his praying does
not deserve the name of prayer.”—ywpic opyi¢ Kal diadoyiopov| Bengel is
more pregnant than exact when he says: “ira, quae contraria amori et
mater dubitationis; dubitatio, quae adversatur fidei. Fide et amore constat
1It would be very forced to connect oeievs with éwaipoyras as a masculine, which Winer
considers at least possible.
102 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
christianismus, gratiam et veritatem amplectens. Gratia fidem alit; veri-
tas amorem Eph. iv.5;” for dtatoysouds is not to be rendered by “doubt,” !
which never is its signification. The rendering “ contention ” is also inac-
curate; diaAoy:oude is equivalent to consideration, deliberation, cogitatio.
In the N. T. the singular occurs only here and in Luke ix. 46, 47; itis
usually in the plural. The word is in itself a vor media, but it is mostly
used where evil or perverted thoughts are spoken of; comp. Matt. xv. 19;
Mark vii. 21; Luke v. 22, vi. 8, xxiv. 38. That it is to be taken here malo
sensu, 18 shown by the close connection with opy4, which indicates that it
is applied to deliberation towards one’s neighbor; comp. Meyer on Phil.
ii. 14, and especially Reiche, Comment. Crit. in N. T., on this passage. In
the Pastoral Epistles, special stress is laid on peaceableness as a Christian
virtue, 111. 3; Tit. ili. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 24.
Vv. 9, 10. ‘Qoatrug yuvaixag «.7.A.] After speaking of the men, Paul turns
to the women, and gives some precepts regarding their behavior in
church assemblies.—As to the construction, it is obvious that the verse
depends on Bobdova: in ver. 8. Several expositors, however, connect it
not only with Bobdoua:, but also with BotAouac mpocei:zecbac: “I will that
the men pray .. . so also the women ;” they then take what follows: é»v
KaTaoToAy Koopiw x.T.A., aS Corresponding to éxaipovrag x.7.A., ver. 8, and as
defining more precisely the manner in which the women are to pray.
The infinitive xooueiv, however, is against this construction. De Wette,
indeed, thinks that it is added to the infinitive mpoceiyeota: by asyndeton;
but although the connection of several infinitives with one another asyndet-
ically frequently occurs (v. 14, vi. 18; Tit. ili. 1, 2), there is no example of
two infinitives being thus connected.2,7 Hofmann is forced to assume that
xooueiv “ig a consequence dependent on peta aidove Kat ougpooivys;” but
how can self-adorning be considered a consequence of “ modesty and
good sense’? Though sometimes the infinitive does stand connected in
such loose fashion with what precedes, it would be difficult to find an
instance of such a connection as Hofmann here assumes.—Against that
construction there is also this point: since in ver. 8 mpocebyeotlaa means
prayer made by the men aloud in the church, here in ver. 9 it would have
to be taken in a weakened sense; and it is so rendered by de Wette and
Hofmann: “taking part in prayer.’’—According to this, the verse cannot
be dependent on fotAopar mpocebyeofar, but on BobAouac alone, so that év
kataoToAy x«.7.A. merely states how the women are to adorn themselves (so,
too, Plitt). De Wette, indeed, thinks that objection may be made to this
construction because the affirmative év xar. x.r.A. is followed not only by a
negative pu) év mA. x.t.A., but also by a second affirmative in ver. 10. This
accumulation of clauses, however, cannot be urged, since we have a simi-
180 Bengel, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, could have been no doubt regarding it. Then
Theodoret, Luther, and many others. he asks: “Have we not elsewhere examples
2 Wiesinger unites the xoouety with the enough ofa similar change of construction ™
mpocevxecOa, and defends it with the remark, To this we must answer, “ No,” unless “simi-
that if instead of the asyndeton of the in- lar” be taken in too wide a sense.
finitive xoouetwy we had the participle, there
CHAP. Ul. 9, 10. 103
lar accumulation in wv. 11,12. Nor is the particle doatru¢g an argument
against us, since it stands in other places where the same predicates are
not used (comp. ili. 8; Tit. ii. 3). ‘Qeatrwe may be used wherever the
members to be connected contain something not exactly alike, but of a
kindred nature, as is the case here with doiove . . . diadoyiopot and ev
KatacTo,7 . . . owspocivnc.! Nothing is to take place in the church, neither
among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual
dignity.—év xaraocroag xoouiy| [VII c.] xaracroAy may, according to Greek
usage, denote “ sedateness of nature.”? Hence it is that some expositors
(de Wette among others) take it here as equivalent to habitus xardoryjya
(Tit. ii. 3); but it never occurs in that sense. The words that follow: yA
év mwAéyuaow .. . luatioup modAvredci, show that the word is to be understood
of clothing. True, it does not originally mean this, but the letting down,
e.g., of the mepe30aW (Plutarch, Pericl. 5). This meaning, however, might
easily pass into that of “the garment hanging down,” and then further,
into that of “clothing in general.” This is the explanation given here by
most expositors (also by Plitt and Hofmann ; van Oosterzee translates it:
“bearing,” but explains it afterwards: ‘ xaracroAy = évduua”’). Some take
it quite generally ; others, again, understand it of the garment enveloping
the whole body (Chrysostom: 4 aumeydévy ravrofev mepioréAdovea Kaha, pL)
nepépywc). This last explanation has no sufficient support in the etymol-
ogy, nor in the ordinary usage.—xéoyso¢] does not mean “ delicately ”
(Luther), but “ modestly, honorably” (comp. iil. 2); beyond these passages,
it is not found in the N. T.— era aidov¢ cai cwppoobvnc] The outward modesty
which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward
purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account.
While aidé¢ denotes the inward shrinking from everything immodest,
swopocivn expresses the control of the desires ; 7d xpareiv jdovav nai éxiBvpion
(Luther): “with modesty and propriety.” *—It is to be noted that cuwgpootvy
(apart from Acts xxvi. 25: owgpocivne phuata arogbéyyouat, in opposition to
aivouat) occurs only here and in ver. 15, and that all words kindred to it
(except ougpovetv in Rom. xii. 3, opposed to trepgpoveiv in 2 Cor. v. 18,
denoting the opposite of the ecstatic state; also in Mark v.15; Luke viii.
1It is necessary therefore to do, as van
Oosterzee does, supply the participle spoc-
evyounévas with yvvaixcas because of the ag-
G@vres.
2In this rense the word is found, e.g. in
Arrian (Epiet. ii. 10), joined with aiddés and
qneporys.—In the passage of Josephus, B. J.
if. 8&4: catagtoAy 8¢ Kai TxA TwMATOS GMoLoy
Tos meta Hofov watdaywyouudvars wacoiv, Which
is commonly quoted as a proof of the mean-
ing “clothing,” the meaning is doubtful.
Salmasius explains it: sedatus animus et
remissus, elato et superbo tumentique oppo-
situs, in contrast with dpyns, ver. 8; but in
that case the added adjective «écpios is super-
gsucur.
3The two words are also placed together
elsewhere as feminine virtues. See Raphe-
lius, who quotes, among others, the passage
from Epictetus (Enchir. chap. 62): mulieres
in ornatu spem collocant omnem; quare
operae pretium est, dare operam, ut sentiant,
sibi non ob aliud honorem haberi, 7 tq «xoo-
pia daiverOa, cai aidjpoves ev swhpocvry.
Although in the Cyropaedia (Book viii.) the
two words are thus distinguished: Scypec (se.
Cyrus) 8@ aidm xai cudpocimny tpde, ws Tove
peey aisoupdvous, Ta ev Te havepw aigxpa Hev-
yortas, Tous 5¢ cwdpovas, kat Ta ev TY adavei,
the distinction cannot be regarded as always
valid.—Aristotle ( Rhet. i.9) explains cwhporvvyn
in the following fashion: cwdpoaury apern, 6’
hy wpos tas noovas Tov cwpmaros oVTWS ExOVEE,
ws 0 vomos KeAeve.
_
104 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
30; 1 Pet. iv. 7), such as ocudpoviferv, owppovicusc, cHgpwv, owdpdvec, are found
: only in the Pastoral Epistles.—pq év waéypaow x.7.A.] Instead of 72éypaTa,
we have éumioxh [rpixav] (Isa. iii. 24: mW) in 1 Pet. 111.3, which is partic-
ularly to be compared with this passage ; it denotes “ the artificial plaits
of hair.” —xai ypvoiw] The xai divides the ornament into two parts, 72éyyara
belonging to the body itself, and what follows being the things put on the
body. In 1 Pet. iii. 3, we have mepiGeote ypvoiwvy (comp. Rev. xvii. 4).—It
is wrong to connect ypvoiy with the previous wAéyy. as a hendiadys for
niéypa xpvowov (Heinrichs).—7 papyapizaic] The gems are not named in
Peter, and instead of iuarcopog modvreA?ge We have there évdvarg imatioy; the
adjective woAvreAne (Matt.: puadaxd iudria) 18 contrasted with xéoj0¢.—aAr’
8 mpérec x.7.2.) Most expositors? refer dv’ épywv ayafév to xooueiv, and take
GecooéBecav as a parenthesis.2 But there are three points
against this, viz., that the ornament of the women is already named in év
kataoto.. x.7.A., that the preposition d:4 does not suit with xooueiv (which
is construed previously with év), and that “ good works ” would be unsuit-
ably described as ornament here, where he is speaking of the conduct of
the women in the assemblies of the church, unless we arbitrarily limit the
general idea to offerings for the poor, as is done by Heydenreich and van
Oosterzee. Theodoret rightly joins d? épy. ay. with the immediately pre-
ceding érayye/A. Oeoae3. (“ evaé3ecav émayyéAAeoOe, wai tHv dt’ Epywy aperqv’’).4
The comma before é:4, which is found in the editions, must therefore be
deleted. [VII d.] Hofmann connects the words with what follows, taking
d:é in the sense of accompanying; but é:4 never has such a simple copu-
lative meaning.’—The relative 4 stands here either for é roirw 4, for
which Matthies appeals, but wrongly, to Rom. vi. 21 and x. 14; or more
probably for xa? 6. So far asthe meaning goes, the various reading d¢
(xaQéc, Eph. v. 3) is correct. Hofmann wishes to refer 6 to xooyeiv éaurd¢
in such a way that “the latter is mentioned as a thing .. . seemly for
women.” The intervening aAAd, however, manifestly makes this con-
struction impossible.—ézayyeAAopuevare Geoaé Berar] ErayyéAAcobac usually means
in the N. T. “promise.” Matthies accordingly renders the word here by
“ vive information, show;”’ so, too, Luther: “who therein manifest blessed-
ness.” But it is more correct here to take the word in the sense in which
profitert artem is used, so that @eocéBeca 18 regarded as an art ora handi-
craft. De Wette rightly says: ‘who make profession of blessedness ;” so,
too, vi. 21; comp. Xenophon, Memor. 1. 2,7: apeziy éxayye7Aduevoc (Ignatius,
ad Ephes. chap. 14: ovbdeig miativ érayyeAAbuevoc duaptdver).—leoot sera] only
here in the N. T. (LXX. Gen. xx. 11; more frequently in the Apocrypha;
6 mpivee...
1Clemens Alex. Paedag. iii. 11: weptwAoxas
éTaipixkai Tay TpLXwv.
2 Among them Wegscheider, Flatt, Heyden-
reich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Ooster-
zee, also Winer, p. 149, note 1 [E. T. p. 158,
note 1).
8Van Oosterzee explains it as “a causal
periphrasis to show why precisely this orna-
ment is extolled by the apostie.”
#So, too, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, etc.;
and among more recent names, Mack, Mat-
thies, and Ptitt.
6 Hofmann thus paraphrases the thought:
“They are to do what is good, and to learn in
still seclusion. The former is that which is ©
to be accompanied by the latter.” He appeals
to 2 Cor. ii. 4. He does not prove, however,
that that passage justifies such a paraphrase.
CHAP. It. 11, 12. 105
Geooe Sng, John ix. 31; LXX. Ex. xviii. 21), is equivalent to evoéBeca.—dr
Epyuv ayabov|] must not be limited to works of benevolence alone.
The addition of these words is fully explained by a comparison with
2 Tim. i. 5.)
Vv. 11,12. [On Vv. 11-15, see Note VIII., pages 112, 113.] Further injunc-
tions for women.—yw7 ev jovyig pavbavéitw) év jovyig, “without speaking
herself; yav@davery denotes here, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 31, attention to the word
in order to learn from it what is necessary for advancing and building up
the Christian life. [VIII a, b.J—év wdoy trorayy] “in complete subordination,”
i.e. without contradiction —The thought here expressed is to be filled up
by what Paul says in 1 Cor. xiv. 35 (which passage should be particularly
compared with this*): ei dé re uabeiv GéAovotv, év oikw Tove idiove avdpag émepu-
tatwow.— Spiritual receptivity and activity in domestic life were recog-
nized as the appropriate destiny of women, and therefore the female sex
was excluded from the public discussion of religious subjects ” (Neander).®
Though in Christ there is no distinction, yet Christianity does not put an
end to the natural distinctions ordained by God; it recognizes them in
order to inform them with its higher life.—d:ddoxew 62 yvvaini obx émitpérw]
Ad. stands first in emphatic opposition to pavOdvew; in the parallel passage
(1 Cor. xiv.) 6d. stands instead of the more general word Aadciv.—ovde
avierteiv avdpdc] Leo: “ atvevreiv et avdévtnc apud seriores tantum scriptores
ita occurrit, ut dominii notionem involvat; melioribus scriptoribus est
aitévtnc idem quod avréyep.”4 Luther has rightly: “that she be master
of her husband;” whereas in the translation: “to assume to herself
respect or mastery’ (Heydenreich, de Wette, van Oosterzee), the notion
of assumption is Imported. Hofmann, too, is wrong when he says that
aiferreiv in conjunction with the genitive of the person should mean: “to
act independently of this person, 7.e. as one’s own master’’ (!)—Many
expositors (Matthies, and earlier, Estius, Calovius, and others) assume in
this word a reference to domestic relations; whereas Heydenreich, de
Wette, Wiesinger, and others, limit even this command to behavior in
the assemblies for divine worship. This last is correct, as is shown by
a/2’ eivat év Hovxia, corresponding to év jovyia in ver. 11. Yet obdé avOevreiv
tr. avdp. puts the prohibition to teach under a more general point of view,
and at the same time confirms it. Nor can it be denied that women are
The relation between writing and tears is
obviously quite different from that between
churches. Hence there is nothing strange
in his urging it on Timothy's attention at a
learning in stillness and good works.
1Calvin gives the connection with the pre-
ceding words rightly: si operibus testanda
est pietas, in vestitu etiam casto apparere
hace professio debet.
2Otto quotes the agreement of these pas-
sages with one another as a proof that the
letters are contemporaneous. It is, however,
to be observed that Paul himself, in the
words: ws ¢y wdaas Tats exxAnoias Tay aylwy
(1 Cor. xi. 33), describes the maxim as one
which he was seeking to establish in all the
later period, just as he had urged it before on
the Corinthians.
8 Geschichte der Pflanzung der Kirche durch
die Apost., Part I. p. 125.
4See Valckennaer, Diatr. in Eurip. rell. chap.
xviii. pp. 188 tf. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 120.
6’ Hofmann, in opposition to these two views,
maintains that the apostle here spenks of the
“ Christian life in general,” “of all action for
which there was occasion in ordinary life ;”
but the context gives no ground for his asser-
tion.
106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
- not avfevreiv r. avdp. in the assemblies, because in the apostle’s opinion that
does not beseem them at any time. The reason why not, is given in the
verses that follow.—It is to be observed, further, that ver. 12 corresponds
exactly with ver. 11: yur) . . . yuvaui; parOavitw . . . diddonew obx éxitpéru;
év waoy brotayy . . . ovdé avdevreiv Tov avdp.; év povyxia . . . GAA’ elvac év jovyia.
This parallelism is clear proof that the same thing is spoken of in ver. 12
as in ver. 11, which Hofmann denies. Still ver. 12 is not therefore super-
fluous, since it both emphasizes and more precisely defines the particular
ideas in ver. 11.—4AA' elva: év jovyig] The same construction is found in 1
Cor. xiv. 34. The infinitive is dependent on a BotAoua: to be supplied from
ovK éxitpéxw—an abbreviated construction which occurs also in classic
Greek.—De Wette rightly directs attention to these points, that we must
not by arbitrary interpretations take away the clear definite meaning from
the commands here laid down, in order to make them universal in appli-
cation; and, on the other hand, that they are not to be considered as local
and temporal ordinances: they are rather injunctions to be still held valid
as applying to public assemblies.!
Ver. 13. First reason for the previous prohibition, taken from the history
of the creation. [VIII c.J—Ver. 14. The second reason, taken from the
history of the fall. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find proofs that
the historical facts of the O. T. are to the apostle full of meaning as
symbols of higher, universal truths. So here, the facts that Adam was
first created, and that Eve, not Adam, was tempted by the serpent, are to
him prototypes and proofs that it is becoming for the wife not aiGevreiv
avdpéc, but to be meekly subordinate to the husband. Hence he says:
"Ada yap mpatog érAdobn, eira Eva. The verb rAdooew occurs in the N. T.
only here and in Rom. ix. 20, both times in its original meaning. The
meaning “ create,” here appropriate to the word, is, however, found in the
LXX. Gen. ii. 7, from which passage the apostle here has drawn (comp.
also 2 Mace. vii. 23: 6 wAdoacg avOpdrov yéveowv). Compare 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff,
where the apostle says that the husband is eixwy nai dda Geov, and the wife
déga avdpéc, because the husband is not é yvvacxdc, but the wife é avdpdc.
De Wette, without reason, thinks that the author of this Epistle to Timothy
had that passage in mind. _
Ver. 14. xat ’Addu ovx xarfOy] In order to justify this expression, the
1Compare with this apostolic expression,
Const. Apost. iii. 6: ovx éwirpémopev yuvatxas
Siddonewy ev exxAnaig, adAAa povoy mpocevxerOat
kai trav SiacxdAwy éenmaxovery. Tertull. De
Virg. Vel.: non permittitur mulieri in eccle-
sia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec
ullius virilis muneris, nedum _ sacerdotalis
officii sortem sibi vindicare. It is curious
that in the Apost. Const. it is permitted to
women spocevxeoGa in church, while here it
is granted only to men todo so. But, on the
one hand, mpocevxec@ac in the Constitutions
does not mean exactly prayer aloud ; and, on
the other hand, this passage here does not
plainly and directly forbid spocevxecOar to
women; it only forbids distinctly 8&dacxew
on their part.—There is the same apparent
contradiction between 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and 1
Cor. xi. 5, 13. While in the former passage
Aadety is forbidden to women, in the latter
wpocevxer@ar and even spodntevery are pre-
supposed as things done by women, and the
apostle does not rebuke it.—The solution is,
that Paul wishes everything in church to be
done evoxnudrws xai xara tafiw; while, on
the other hand, he holds by the principle:
“rd wrevpa py oBévwvre” (1 Thess. v. 19).
Meyer on 1 Cor. xi. 5 differs.
CHAP. It. 13-15. 107
expositors have sought to define it more precisely, mostly by supplying
mparo¢. So Theodoret; Tertullian, too (De Hab. Mul.), says, perhaps
alluding to this passage: tu divinae legis prima es desertrix. Others,
again, supply id rov dgewc (Matthies: “As the apostle remembers the O. T.
story of the fall, there comes into his thoughts the cunning serpent by
which Eve, not Adam, let herself be ensnared”). De Wette thinks that
the author is insisting on the notion be charmed, betrayed (by sinful desire),
as opposed to some other motive to sin. Hofmann arbitrarily supplies
with ’Adauz ovx gratin the thought: “so long as he was alone.”’—The
apparent difficulty is solved when we remember the peculiarity of alle-
gorical interpretation, which lays stress on the definite expression as such.
This here is the word azar@v (or éfararév).* On this word the whole
emphasis is laid, as is clearly shown by the very repetition of it. This
word, however, in the Mosaic account of the fall, is used only of the
woman, not of the man, for in Gen. iii. 13 the woman expressly says:
6 ddic yarnoé we; the man, however, uses no such expression. And in the
story there is no indication that as the woman was deceived or betrayed
through the promises of the serpent, so was the man through the woman.
—Adam did certainly also transgress the command, but not, as the woman,
influenced by azér7. Paul, remembering this, says: ’Aday ovx yratHOn, 4 dé
yuy ékaxarybeica. Bengel: serpens mulierem decepit, mulier virum non
decepit, sed ei persuasit. To supply anything whatever, only serves there-
fore to conceal the apostle’s real meaning.—# dé yur) éfararnfeica Ev mapa-
Bacet yéyove) This betrayal of the woman by the serpent is mentioned by
Paul also in 2 Cor. xi. 3, where he employs the same word: égazargv.—
The emphasis, as is apparent from what precedes, is not on the last words,
but on éfazarnbcioa; hence it is not right to supply tpéry with év map. yey.
Tlepa3acc here, as elsewhere (od ov« gore vdpoc, ovd2 mapdBacc, Rom. iv. 15),
is used in regard to a definite law.—The construction yeyovéva: év occurs
frequently in the N. T. in order to denote the entrance into a certain con-
dition, a certain existence. De Wette: “fell into transgression.” Luther
wrongly: “and brought in transgression.”—As to the thought itself,
expositors find the force of this second reason to lie in the fact that in the
fall the weakness of the woman, her proneness to temptation, was mani-
fested, and that consequently it is not seemly for the woman to have
mastery over the man. But did the man resist the temptation more
stoutly than the woman? Paul nowhere gives any hint of that. The
significant part of the Mosaic'narrative to him is rather this, that the
judgment of God was passed upon the woman because she had let herself
be betrayed by the serpent, and it is in accordance with this judgment that
the husband is made lord over the wife.!
Ver. 15. Ladpoera: d2? dia rio rexvoyoviac] owhfoerae dé is in opposition to
the previous év wapaBdoe: yéyove. Still this sentence is not intended merely
The right interpretation of this passage but then he fs thinking of the man as the
does not even in appearance contradict Rom. image of God, of the woman as the image of
v.12 In the latter, Paul does not mention the man.
the woman, but the man, as the origin of sin;
108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
to moderate the judgment pronounced in ver. 14 (Matthies); after the
apostle has forbidden to the woman any activity in church assemblics as
unbecoming to her, he now points to the destiny assigned her by God, the
fulfillment of which brings salvation to her. The subject of ow6#eerTa: is
yurf, to be supplied from the preceding words; but, of course, it applies
collectively to the whole sex, while referring specially to Eve.’—ow6jcera
is to be taken here in the sense which it continually has in the N. T. (not
then equivalent to “ she will win for herself merit and reward,” de Wette).
Every reason to the contrary falls to the ground, if only we consider that
rexvoyovia is regarded as the destiny assigned to the woman by God, and
that to the woman our7pia is assured by it under the condition given in
the words following: éav «.r.4. It is to be noted also, that though faith 1s
the only source of salvation, the believer must not fail in fulfilling his
duties in faith, if he is to partake in the owrnpia.—dié is taken by several
expositors (also Wiesinger) in the sense of “in;”? but this is wrong, for
either this signification “in” passes over into the signification “ by means
of,” or it has much the same force as “ notwithstanding, in spite of ” (Rom.
ii. 27; see Meyer on the passage); d:¢, however, cannot be used in this
sense, since rexvoyovia would in that case have been regarded as a hin-
drance to the attainment of the owrpia. This militates also against Hof-
mann’s view, “that aZeo%ar dd tivoe has the same meaning here as in 1
Cor iii. 15, to be saved as through something;” this explanation also
makes the rexvoyovia appear to be something through which the woman’s
owvecdae is endangered.’—rexvoyovia, a word which occurs only here in the
N. T. (as also rexvoyovéw only in chap. v. 14, and rexvorpogéw only in chap. v.
10), can have here nothing but its etymological meaning. [VIII d.]
Some, quite wrongly, have taken it as a term for the marriage state, and
others have made it synonymous with rexvorpogia. This latter view 1s
found in the oldest expositors.“—The question, how the rexvoyovia contrib-
utes to the owrypia, is answered by most by supplying ® with the one or
1Even Theophylact declared against the
curious view, that Mary is to be taken here
as subject. Clearly also Eve cannot here be
meant.
2 Van Oosterzee translates da by “ by means
of,” and then says: “it simply indicates a
condition in which the woman becomes a par-
taker of blessedness,” leaving it uncertain in
what relation the apostle places rexvoyoria to
owser Oa.
%Hofmann says in explanation: “If it is
appointed to the woman to bear children in
pain, she might succumb under such a
burden of life;” but, in reply, it is to be
observed that rexvoyovia does not mean “to
bear children with pain.”
*Thus Theophylact remarks, not without
wit: ov yerynoat wdvoy Set, aAAG xai wmadevca’
ToUTO yap OyTws Texvoyoria, et Sé OV, OVK eoTt
Texvoyovia, adAa TexvoPOopia grat tais yuvarki.
5 Most think of the faithful fulfillment of
maternal duty in the education of children.
Chrysostom: trexvoyoviay, dna, Td Hy “OvoY
Texeiy, aAAa Kal Kata @edy avayayerv.—Accord-
ing to Heinrichs, Paul means here to say:
mulier jam hoe in mundo peccatorum poenas
luit, dea trys Texvoy. 60, quod cum dolore par-
turit, adeoque haec rexvoy. eam quasi qu¢ew
putanda est, et ipsa gweecOar Sa THs Texvoyo-
vies. The passage quoted by Heinrichs, Gen.
iii. 16, does not denote the rexvoyovia as such,
but the pains connected with it as a punish-
ment of transgression. According to Plitt,
the rexvoy. serves to further the woman's
owrmpia; on the one hand, because by the
fulfillment of her wish gratitude is aroused
within her; on the other hand, because of
her care for her children she is preserved
from many frivolities.
NOTES. 109
the other something of which there is no hint in the words of the apostle,
and by which the thought is more or less altered. This much may be
granted, that Paul, by laying stress on the rexvoyevia (the occasion for
which was probably the cwAiwv yaveiv on the part of the heretics, chap. iv.
3), assigns to the woman, who has to conduct herself as passive in the
assemblies, the domestic life as the sphere in which—especially in regard
to the children—she has to exercise her activity (comp. v. 14).—In order
not to be misunderstood, as if he had said that the rexvoyovia as a purely
external fact affects curnpia, he adds the following words: éa@v peivwow év
wiorec x.t.A. The subject of ueivwor is the collective idea yurf (see Winer,
pp. 481, 586 [E. T. pp. 516, 631]), and not, as many older (Chrysostom and
others) and later (Schleiermacher, Mack, Leo, Plitt) expositors think:
“the children.” This latter might indeed be supplied from rexvoyovia, but
it would give a wrong idea.—lIt is quite arbitrary, with Heydenreich, to
supply “ man and wife.”—Paul uses the expressions év miore: x.7.2. to denote
the Christian life in its various aspects. They are not to be limited to the
relation of married life, ziorcc denoting conjugal fidelity; aydr7, conjugal
love; dycacués, conjugal chastity; and cw¢poctv, living in regular mar-
riage. Zwdpoctvy; is named along with the preceding cardinal virtues of the
Christian life, because it peculiarly becomes the thoughts of a woman
(comp. ver. 9), not because “a woman is apt to lose control of herself
through her excitable temperament” (Hofmann). There is in the con-
text no hint of a reference to female weakness.
Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR.
VI. Vv. 1-7.
(a) The connection of the particle otv of ver. 1, which has occasioned difficulty
in the minds of some writers on this Epistle, is probably to be explained by the
fact, already referred to, that the letter is an official, as well as a personal one.
The official character is indicated at the beginning (i. 3), and is to be regarded as
carried over to this chapter through i. 18, although the latter verse is not to be
limited in its application simply to Timothy’s official duties—(5) Alf. regards
moteiofa: as in the middle voice because of the position in the sentence, which
would, he thinks, throw too much emphasis on it if taken asa passive. It would
seem, however, to be the simpler construction in such a sentence to make the
prayers, etc., the subject of the infinitive as a passive verb, and so R. V. and the
great majouity of the best comm. explain it.—(c) Considering the official charac-
ter of the letter, it can hardly be doubted that the Apostle refers in this passage to
public, not private prayers. This reference to public service and meetings of the
church is apparent, also, in the closing verses of the chapter, (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff,
1De Wette asserts too much when he says
that this passage is in contradiction with 1
Cor. vii 7 ff., 25 ff., 38 ff. The truth is rather
that the matter is regarded from various
points of view. In 1 Corinthians the apostle
is delivering his judgment, while he con-
siders the difficult position of Christians amid
the hostility of the world, without for a mo-
ment denying that rexvoyovia is an ordinance
of God. Here, however, he is considering
only the latter point, without entering into
every detail.
110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
xiv. 34 ff.). The argument for the same reference in the intermediate verses
is, accordingly, a very strong one. This especial reference to public religious ser-
vice is natural in a letter which, of course, could not, in such exhortations, be
intended for the individual himself who was addressed, but miust be designed to
guide him in his oversight of the churches. The great prominence given to
prayers for kings and those in authority (in high place, R. V.) is doubtless to be
explained in connection with the peculiarities of the age, and with the tendencies
of the Pauline doctrine of Christian liberty and equality to lead some to excess,
so that they became disposed to carry the application of it unduly into the sphere
of civil and social relations. It may be questioned whether, in the changed con-
dition of the present, such peculiar prominence would be given to this subject,—
the exhortation to pray for magistrates being placed as the “ first of all” exhorta-
tions. The peculiar necessity for such a state of mind and feeling towards the
existing authorities as would induce Christians to make public supplications for
them, and the evil or danger of the opposite state of mind, are indicated by the
iva clause, which gives the end in view of the exhortation.—The same thing may,
no doubt, be said, mutatis mutandis, of the directions and statements with regard
to the women, as also those respecting servants or slaves, in these and the other
Epistles of Paul. Practical exhortations or rules of this character must vary in
some degree, in respect to the prominence and force given to them, with the
changes in circumstances and the progress of public sentiment, which are the
result of the working of Christianity in the history of the world. “The political
duty of men in a Christian state,” says Dr. Washburn in Schaff’s ed. of Lange's
Comm., “cannot be the same with that of the primitive church under a Nero.”—
(d) The connection of ver. 3 with vv. 1, 2, is evidently that of a ground or reason
for the fulfillment of the duty to which he exhorts them. The connection of ver.
4 with ver. 3 is that of proof or evidence that God would have all men attain sal-
vation. The immediate connection in both verses, accordingly, is with the idea
of “all men,” which is suggested at the opening of ver. 1. We must believe,
however, that there is a reference in the author’s mind to that which he had made
80 prominent—the prayers for kings and persons in authority,—and that his sug-
gestion is founded upon some hesitation on the part of many Christian believers
to offer such prayers. As Dr. Plumptre says (Schaff’s Pop. Com.), “Men were
tempted to draw a line of demarcation in their prayers, and could hardly bring
themselves to pray for a Nero ora Tigellinus. St. Paul’s argument is that such
prayers are acceptable with God because they coincide with that will which,
though men in the exercise of the fatal gift of freedom may frustrate it, is yet
itself unchangeable.”—(e) OéAec of ver. 4, as distinguished from BotAoua:, denotes
the desire or gracious will of God, what He would have, but not that purpose
which will necessarily be carried out. The doctrine of an unlimited atonement is
implied in this passage, but not that of universal salvation. The universality
of the provision for all is set forth in different places in Paul’s writings. Univer-
sality of realization of the offered blessing is not declared. It is made dependent
on the action of man in accepting or rejecting the offer. Comp. iv. 10, in connec-
tion with this verse, as indicating the Apostle’s view so far as it is given in this
Epistle—(f) The unity of God (ver. 5) is presented here, not for its own sake,
but as bearing upon the statement of ver. 4. This verse, therefore, cannot pro-
perly be urged as an argument against the divinity of Christ. The fact that there
is one God and one mediator is a ground of confidence that there is a common
NOTES. 111
salvation forall. The demands of the thought, accordingly, occasion the presen-
tation of God and Christ in their separateness, rather than their oneness with
each other, and also cause the setting forth of Christ as avtpwoc, rather than ede.
R. V. brings out the force of the anarthrous ap. by the words “ himself man.”
The rendering of A. V., the man Christ Jesus, is misleading. 4avfp is added, appar-
ently, as indicating the community of nature between the mediator and those for
whom he acts. Comp. Heb. ii. 10 ff—(g) The connection in thought between the
first clause of ver. 6 and i. 15,and the “healthful teaching” spoken of in i. 10,
which Huther points out,is evident, and the fact of this connection places the true
construction of 76 papripioy substantially beyond doubt. sapripiov is the testi-
mony which consists in the proclamation of the great truth of the gospel just
mentioned, 6 dot¢ «.r.A. That the writers thought moves on without any break
of connection from i. 3 to this point, is shown by the striking correspondence be-
tween vv. 6, 7, and the verses of chap. i. which have just been referred to. The
want of logical connection which de Wette and some others find in ovr of ver. 1
cannot, therefore, have been apparent to, or intended by, the writer.—(A) In Matt.
xx. 28, Mk. x. 45, we find the expression Aérpov avti roAAdv, with the words dovvae
tiv yvxiv avtov, These passages show that the reference here is to Christ’s giving
up Iis life. It is worthy of notice that the preposition @vri occurs, in such phrases,
only in the two cited verses of Matt. and Mk. Elsewhere the prep. is either
vxép, as here, or wepi. The force of avri is here, however, possibly suggested by
the compound avtidvrpov.—(i) The introduction of the words adsflecav 2éyw, ob
yerdouas (ver. 7) must be regarded as intended for the church and other readers,
rather than Timothy himself. The tendency to the repetition of expressions such
as muke up this verse—independently of these particular words,—which we
observe in this Epistle, must be admitted to be singular; but it cannot be urged
as a very weighty argument against the Pauline authorship, when it is remem-
bered that the Apostle was always disposed to speak of himself and his own ex-
periences; that he had now for years seen errors developing, and assaults of differ-
ent kinds made upon the doctrine which he preached; and that he was moving
onward, at this time, into his later life. Instances of an increasing tendency of
this character among prominent men of our own day, who are not far from the
age of the Apostle when he wrote this letter, could be easily pointed out.
VIL. Vv. 8-10.
(a) BovAoua is regarded by Huther as equivalent to “I ordain.” It expresses
more than 6éAw and seems to carry with it here, and in Tit. iil. 8, the force of
wapayyéAAw, which we find in other Epistles. Holtzm. (Tit. iii. 8) says it is an
expression of apostolic authority, which is not connected with the word as used
by Paul in his undoubtedly genuine writings—(b) The position of zpoosvyeodat
in the sentence is, probably, due to the connection (ovv) with the idea of prayer
as presented in ver. 1. Thecontrast of rovc avdpac with yuvaixac (ver. 9), together
with what is said respecting women in vv. 11 ff, makes it probable that a certain
emphasis was, also, intended to be placed on rovg avdpac, so that, in ver. 9, Koopeiv
alone, and not this verb in connection with zpooebyeodat, is the object of BovAouac
as related to that verse. In the modifving participial clause, lifting up holy hands,
etc., the word dciovc is the one on which the emphasis is to be placed, and then
the words yepi¢ «.7.A. are added in further explanation. On diadoy:opav comp.
112 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
note by Am. Ed. on Phil. ii. 14.—(c) Ell. agrees with de W. and some others in
making karacroAy of ver. 9 substantially, though Ell. says not exactly, equivalent
to xaraornuare of Tit. ii. 3. He would translate here in seemly guise—the prevail-
ing idea here being, as he suggests in his note on Tit. il. 3, “ outward deportment
as enhanced by what is purely external, dress, etc.,” while in Tit. it is “ outward
deportment as dependent on something more internal, e.g. manner, gesture, etc.”
L.& S., Grimm, Rob., Alf., Fairb., Plumptre, R. V., and others agree with
Huther, and this view seems, on the whole, the best. Holtzm. gives both views,
but apparently is disposed to favor that of Huther. He calls attention to the fact
that the suggestions of the verse have reference to the meetings of the church for
worship, and adds that there is no prohibition of all adornment of dress on the
part of women on other occasions.—(d) The view of Huther, that 6c’ pywv ayabav
is to be taken as qualifying éray)eAAouévacc, is not favored by most commentators.
The objections which he urges are certainly worthy of serious consideration; but
the use of 6, in such a sentence, for év roi7w 6 or for xad’ 6 seems quite improb-
able, and the natural contrast would appear to be between one kind of adornment
(uy Ev wAéyuaory x.7.4.) and another (d’ épy. ay.). The reference of the sentence
is to public assemblies, but this does not seem necessarily, as Huther apparently
supposes, to limit the épy. ay. to offerings for the poor, 7.e. things done in the
meetings. The women are to appear inthe meetings with the adornment, not of
dress, but of their general good works.
VIII. Vv. 11-15.
(a) The views of Paul with reference to the speaking of women in the public
assemblies are found expressed in 1 Cor. xi. 2 f,, xiv. 34 ff, and in this passage.
In 1 Cor. xi., there is but little on the subject, but, as the thing which the Apostle
disapproves of is praying and prophesying by the women without a veil, it seems
not improbable that such prophesying or prayer, provided the veil is worn, is,
under some circumstances, allowed. In 1 Cor. xiv., there is a more full statement,
and one which corresponds very closely with that which is contained in these verses.
The phrase év jovyie here is equivalent to ocydrwoav of 1 Cor. xiv. 34; Aadeiv of
that verse is substantially equivalent to d:ddoxev of this; while the words vavJd-
vecv, uToracoeoVa or its kindred noun, and é7:rpérw are used in both alike. The
grounds of the prohibition, etc., however, are somewhat different in the two cases.
The two grounds here given are, (1) the fact that the man was created before the
woman, (2) that the woman fell into transgression through being deceived. The
first of these points is suggested, in a slightly different form of expression, in 1
Cor. xi. 8,9, but neither of them appears in 1 Cor. xiv. In that passage, on the
other hand, the reason given why the woman should not speak is, that it is
aio xpév for her to do so, and the reason for her subjection is, that the law requires
it. As to the matter of speaking, the objection, in both 1 Cor. xi. and xiv., seems
to lie more exclusively in the region of propriety and what is becoming. Here,
it is connected with arguments derived from the story of Adam and Eve.—(d) If
the expressions of the Apostle are interpreted naturally, and according to legiti-
mate rules of interpretation, there would seem to be no question as to what his views
were ;—namely, that, in the condition of things in the particular churches to which
he was writing, at least, (or in all the churches of his time, perhaps, comp. 1 Cor. xi.
16, xiv. 36), the speaking or teaching of women in the church meetings should
NOTES. 113
not be permitted. A possible exception is, perhaps, made in 1 Cor. xi., in case a
woman was inspired by the gift of prophecy. Even then, however, she was to
have a symbol of subordination on her head.—(c) The arguments which are set
forth in the passage in the epistle before us are not such as would, probably, be
brought forward by writers at the present time, and the aicypérys, or indecency,
of such an act on the part of a woman would not be felt by the ordinary Chris-
tian mind of to-day as keenly, as the Apostle apparently felt it at that time. The
change is, doubtless, owing to the influence which Christianity has had upon the
condition of woman, and upon the estimate placed by man upon her. As to the
perpetual force of the prohibition here gifen, it will depend, in part at least, on
the question how far, in practical matters of this character, directions are to be
looked for in the Scriptures, or indeed are possible, which shall be equally adapted
to all circumstances—even to opposite conditions.—(d) The reference of t7¢ rexvo-
yoviac (ver. 15) to “the relation in which woman stood to the Messiah ”—the child
bearing—which Ell. favors, and which is also advocated by Hammond and Words,
and adopted by the English Revisers in the text of R. V., is rejected by other
comm.,and even passed,.almost or altogether, without notice by some of high
authority. Alf. says, it is “a rendering which needs no refutation.” Plumptre,
with somewhat less positiveness, says, “It is scarcely credible that St. Paul, if he
meant this, would have expressed it so obscurely.” Huther, de W., Holtz., and
others, make only the slightest allusion to it. A.R. V., on the other hand, while
not allowing it a place in the text, inserts it in the margin. The position taken
by the American Revisers is, perhaps, to be accepted, but the explanation given
by Huther as to this and the other words of this verse is, more probably, the cor-
rect one.
114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
CHAPTER III.
VER. 1. rwioréc} Instead of this, D has avSpdérivoc, and some Latin Fathers
have humanus. “ Haec lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. Quod si vero vetustior
Hieronymo, vetustior quoque est nostris codicibus omnibus. Nemo tamen ita
temerarius est, ut eam probaret,”’ Matthaei.—Ver. 2. Instead of vpddcov, Griesb.,
following the weightiest authorities, accepted the form v7g¢dAcov; so, too, Scholz,
Matthaei, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch—Ver. 3. The words 4) aicxzpoxepdy7 are left out
in A DFG 5, 6, 17, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. etc. Griesb. is right, therefore, in strik-
ing them out; they were probably interpolated from Tit.i.7. De Wette’s sug-
gestion, that they may have been omitted intentionally as superfluous, since
ag:Adpyupoy follows, is very improbable; comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. on this
passage.— Ver. 4. For mpoiordéyevov, % has the form mpotoravduevov, occurring only
in later authors—Ver. 6. Several cursives have the reading «ai zayida after
d:aBdAov, which, however, is manifestly taken from the next verse.—Ver. 7. dei dé
avtév] So Griesb. and Scholz, following the Rec.; Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. left
out avréy, because it is not found in A F G H 17, Copt. Boern.; in Matthaei it
stands without dispute. The insertion is more easily explained than the omis-
sion.— Ver. 9. For é» xdape ovverdjoet, §& has the singular reading: xai xadapac¢
ovvecdgoew~—which can only be explained from an oversight occasioned by the
genitive before—Ver. 14. r4q10v] Lachm. and Buttm. read év rézer, following A
C D* 17, 71, 73, al. (rayeiov and tayxéue are also found). The Rec., which has the
testimony of D*¥** F G K L, al., Chr. Theodoret, al., and is retained by Tisch., is
the more difficult reading; besides, in the other passages of the N. T. where the
word occurs, the comparative form can be easily explained; év rdyee seems tu be an
explanatory correction.—In ver. 15, D* Arm. Vulg. Clar. Or. Ambrosiast. have
inserted after det.— Ver. 16. For the Rec. 6e6¢, the most important authorities have
the reading o¢, as A C F G* 817, 73, 181. Further, the Copt. Sahid. and Gothic
versions, also the Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm., have the relative. Orig., Theod. Mops.,
Epiph., Cyr., Al., Jerome, Eutherius, beyond doubt, found the latter reading in
their mss, ; with several others it is at least probable. The Rec. Oeé¢ is found, on
the other hand, in D*** K L, in nearly all cursives, in the edd. Arab. p. Slav.
ms., and besides in Greg. Nyss. (who seems once, however, to have read 5¢) Chrys.
Theodoret, Didym. (De Trinitate, p. 83) Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. In Ignatius
(Ep. ad Ephes. 3 19) we find Ged¢ avdpurivug gavepotpevoc; in the Aposl. constitt. :
Ocdg Kipee Oo Emipavetg guiv év oapxi; in Hippol.: Oed¢ év cduate éEyavepody , in
Gregor. Thaum. (see pot. Apollin. in Photius): Oed¢ év oapxi garepwei¢—all
which passages seem to testify in favor of @cé¢.—In the ms. gr. D* is found the
reading 6. The It. and Vulg. have- mysterium s. sacramentum, quod manifes-
10n the point that in A and C there was vol. II. pp. 66-76; further, Tisch. Prolegg. ad
originally written not @Z but O2, comp. Cod. Ephr. sec. vii. p. 39, excursus on 1 Tim.
Griesb. in Symb ervt. vol. I. pp. viii-liv.,and ii. 16,
CHAP. II. 1, 2. 115
tatum est, and in this they are followed by the Latin Fathers, excepting Jerome
himself. This translation does not, however, point necessurily to the reading 6;
it might also be taken: from 6¢, which was referred to uvoripiov. Till Wetstein,
the reading o¢ was generally held to be the right one,—later also by Matthaei,
Tittm. Scholz, Hahn, Heydenr, Linck, Mack ; the reading 6 is specially defended
by Wetstein and Schulthess. Almost all later critics and expositors, both on
external and internal grounds, have rightly preferred the reading 6¢, which is
accepted also by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Comp. the thorough investigation by
Reiche, Comment. crit. ii. on the passage.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note IX. pages 133-135.] After speaking of the
behavior of men and women in the church-assemblies, Paul goes on to
give instructions regarding the proper qualifications of office-bearers in
the church. He begins emphatically with the introductory words: moré¢
6 Adyoc, which here, as in i. 15, do not refer to what precedes (Chrysostom,
Erasmus, and others), but to what follows. [IX a.J—ei rig émtoxoras
épéyrraz] Since érwxorh corresponds with éxicxoros in ver. 2, the word does
not denote here generally “ the office of one who is set over others” (Hof-
mann), but specially “the office of a bishop ;” for only in this way can the
inferences in vv. 2 f. be drawn from what is said here. Why the previous
words mord¢ 6 Adyog should not be in agreement with this, we cannot
understand.—’Emoxor# has a similar meaning in Acts i. 20, where it de-
notes the office of apostle; comp. Meyer on the passage. In the N. T.
the word usually means “the visitation.”—dpéyera: does not necessarily
imply here, as de Wette thinks, the notion of ambitious striving; comp.
Heb. xi. 16.—The ground of the épéyeoGac may indeed be ambition, but it
may also be the zeal of faith and love. The apostle does not blame the
épéyecOac in itself; he merely asks us to consider that the éroxorg is a
xadiov épyov, and that not every one therefore may assume it.—xadod Epyov
éxidupe:] Leo and others take épyov here in the sense of ri; but it seems
more correct to hold by the meaning: “ work, business” (Luther, Mat-
thies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others); comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5;
épyov Toinoov evayyeAcorov; 1 Thess. v. 18, where the church is exhorted da
To Epyov avrov to the love of the mpoiorduevor. It is, however, very doubtful,
to say the least, that the word is chosen to lay stress on the thought that
the éxixory is an Office of work and not of enjoyment (Jerome: “ opus,
non dignitatem, non delicias;” Bengel: “negotium, non otium”).—
xafov, 8ee 1.18; 2 Tim. iv. 7.
Ver. 2. Mei obv rdv érioxorov averiAnrrov eivat x.7.A.] Tov éxioxorov, a8 & name
for the superintendent of the congregation, only occurs in the Pastoral
Epistles (here and at Tit. i. 7), and in Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1 (the verb
éxcoxoreiv 18 found in 1 Pet. v. 2). There can be no doubt that in the N.
T. the éxioxoro: and the zpecBirepo: denote the same persons. [IX b.] The
question why these different names should be given to the same persons
has been differently answered.
RemMARK.—Baur supposes that every single town had originally one superin-
tendent, who in his relation to the congregation was called érloxoro¢, but that
116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY,
when several éricxovo. over single congregations were taken together, they were
for the must part designated by the co-ordinate name of tpeoZitepor, He finds the
chief support for his opinion in the passages, Tit. i. 5: iva xataorjoy¢e xata mod
npeoBurépove, and Acts xiv. 23: yetporovycavres . . . mpeaBuTépove nar’ ExxAnoiav;
but the form of expression here used does not necessarily imply that every single
town (or congregation) received or was to receive only one presbyter. Since xara
mwédy (éxxAnociav) means: by cities, 1. e. in every city, and the plural (tpea,3urépouc)
is herewith joined with it, it may be taken in Baur’s sense, but it may also be as
well taken to mean that the plural refers to each single city. The passage in
Acts xv. 21, to which Baur appeals, proves nothing for his view, since it is well
known that there were several synagogues in each city of the Jewish country.—
According to the view of Kist,' the Christians in any one place formed originally
several house-congregations, each of which had its particular superintendent.
The college of presbyters then consisted of the superintendents of those house-
congregations in one city, which, taken together, were regarded as a congregation.
The passage in Epiphanius, Haer. |xix. 1,? shows that in later times such an
arrangement did exist; but there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that that was
the original arrangement. In the N. T. the presbyters are always named as the
superintendents of one congregation, and there is nowhere any hint that each
house-congregation had its special superintendent. Even when James (v. 14)
enjoins that a sick man is to summon rove mpeoBurépoug tig ExxAnoias,—and not
the presbyter of the house-congregation of which he was a member,—his words
are clearly against Kist’s view.—The most probable theory is, that originally the
superintendents of the single congregations—according to the analogy of Jewish
custom—bore the name of tpeoBurepor, but, that, in so far as they were ét1oxoTovv-
te¢ in reference to the congregation, they were called évioxoro:; comp. Acts. xx.
17 and 28.—There are, however, two striking facts to be noticed. In the first
place, Paul in his epistles (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) makes use of the word
éxioxorog only in Phil. i.1, and of the word zpecfurepor not at all. Nay, he almost
never mentions the superintendents of the congregation except in Eph. iv. 11,
where he calls them topzéveg xai d:ddoxado, and 1 Thess. v. 12, where he mentions
them as tpoiotauevor tyav (comp. also Rom. xii. 8: 6 mpoicrduevoc) ; comp., how-
ever, the passages quoted ahove from Acts. From this it is clear that at first his
attention was directed to the congregation only in its indivisible unity, and only
by degrees does he give more prominence to its leaders. We cannot, however,
conclude from this, either that the congregations in‘the earlier period had no
leaders, for it lay in the very nature of a congregation to have some kind of
leading ; or that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, for why in the
later period of his career should circumstances not so have shaped themselves
that he thought it necessary to give the leaders more prominence ?—The second
striking fact is, that both in this passage and in Tit. i. 7 the singular éioxo7og and
not the plural ézioxoro: is used, though in the latter passage the plural tpeoBbrepos
immediately precedes, and here at ver. 8 we have the plural dudxovor (comp. also
v.17: ol xadacg mpocotares mpcoBitepa). Is there any reason for this in the
nature of the episcopate? The fact certainly might be interpreted to favor
‘Illgen’s Zeitechrift f. hist. Theol. II. 2, pp. '‘Adrcfav8pecqa vwd eva apxiewioxowory obcat, cai
47 ff. xar’ idtay ravracs émireraypévon eici mpecBvtee
8’ Ova éxxAynoia Tis caboArKHns exxAncias «wy por dia Tas éxxAnoragTiaas xpeiag TeY CixHTOper.
CHAP. III. 2. 117
Kist’s view; but it may more simply and naturally be explained from the fact that
both times a r:¢ precedes, and this almost by necessity compels the use of the
plural after it.
Oiv] is not simply a particle of transition. From the fact that the
éxioxory iS & Kadov épyov, the apostle deduces the necessity of a blameless
character on the part of the éioxoro¢; Bengel: bonum negotium bonis :
committendum.—averidnrrov elva:] In enumerating the qualities which an
éricxorog must possess, the apostle begins appropriately with a general
idea; so also Tit. i. 7: averiAnrroc, equivalent to yy mapéxuv xatryopiag apopuhy,
Schol. Thucyd. v.17. It is important that they who stand at the head of
the church should lead an irreproachable life in the opinion both of Chris-
tians and of non-Christians.—yca¢ yvvaixds dvdpa] [LX c.] This expression
cannot here be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy
might at that time be still found among the civilized heathen, and even
among the Jews,’ it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an
argument against such an interpretation in the phrase évo¢ avdpoc yuv4, v.
9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which abso-
lutely never occurred.—Most recent expositors? take the expression as
referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heyden-
reich quotes many testimonies from the earlier Fathers to justify this
view. The results which these give are the following: Firstly, Many held
marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athena-
goras® calls second marriage a evrpev#¢ pocxeia; and Tertullian repudiates
it utterly, asdo the Montanists. Secondly, This was, however, by no means
the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but
even opponents of the view regard‘ abstinence from a second marriage
as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas® and the later
Fathers, as Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, all write in this strain.
—Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, iii. p. 461) says, that he who marries
a second time does not commit sin. Thirdly, As to those who held office
in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a
second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in
the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages:
adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, uit solos qui sunt in
Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit (de Monogamia, chap. 12). Origen’s
words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus
non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque enim episcopus, nec
presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami.—On the other
1Comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph.;
Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Antig.
wii. 2
2Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wies-
inger, van Oosterzee, Plitt.
3 Leq. pro Christo, p. 37, edit. Colon.
4Still there are exceptions, such as Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom
of thought in arguing most decidedly against
this view; see Theodori ep. Mops. in N. T.
commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed.
O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150-152.
5 Past. mandat. iv. chap. iv: dic, Domine, si
vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit
aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit,
non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum
sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum.
Sov yap cexwAvrar mpds Tov vépou' ov wANpOs
8 ris kara Td evayyéAcov wodtreias Thy cat’
éwitagciy reAeiornra.
118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier
expusitors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome,
Oecumentius) do not share in this view,' though the practice prevailing in
their day must have made the interpretation to them an obvious one.
Besides, nowhere else in the N. T. is there the slightest trace of any ordi-
nance against second marriages; nay, in Rom. vii. 2, 3, and also in 1 Cor.
vii. 39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1 Cor.
vii. 8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this
epistle, v. 14, he says: BobAopa: vewrépac (xfpac) yauetv. It would certainly
be more than strange if the apostle should urge the younger widows to a
step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class
of church-widows (see on chap. v. 9).—Appeal has been made to the facts
that the nuptiae secundae were held to be unseemly for women even among
the heathen?; but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was con-
sidered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of
his wife, and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is
no ground for Heydenreich’s opinion, that the priests highest in rank, e. g.
‘the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither
Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the
churches were married a second time, and Paul would have laid down a
maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided oppo-
sition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the
post-apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non-Pauline
direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the
apostle’s words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit. i. 6, stands in
the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the
bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good
ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an
immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a
bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse
with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies,
Hofmann’). Thus interpreted, the apostle’s injunction is amply justified,
not only in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of
living in his day, and it is in full harmony with the other injunctions.
The expression under discussion might also be possibly referred to
successive polygamy, te. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its
terms are too general to make such a reference certuin.*—v7¢drov] only
the widow (chap. v. 9) no other husbands in
addition to her own husband.” Soalso in his
1 Chrysostom places the two views together:
Ov vonoOeTey TOUTO OyGiv, we pH iva ef>v avev
rovTov (yuvaxos) y(ver@ac’ adAAa Thy apetpian
xwAdvwy, éwecdh ewi Trev “lovdaiwy éfny, xai dev-
Tépors OpsAciy yaposs, cai 8v0 éxe.w Kata TavToy
yuvatxas.
2Comp. Rein, Das rémische Privatrecht, pp.
211, 212, and the Latin word wunivira.
®Hofmann (Schriftbew. Il. 2, p. 421) says:
“The injunction is, that the husband have no
other wives in addition to his own wife, and
comment. on Tit. i. 6.
#As a matter of course, Paul did not, as
Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to
command the bishop to marry; but, on the
other hand, there is at bottom a presuppo-
sition that it is better for a bishop to be
married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5).—
We should note also as an exegetical curiosity,
that some Catholic ex positors, in the interests
CHAP. III. 3. 119
here and in ver. 11 (Tit. ii. 2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to
p) olvy woAAG mpocétyovra, Ver. 8; but it is also used in a kindred sense
(like the Latin sobrius) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated
by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. ‘This is
the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with cd¢gpova,
and where the original sense follows in the word zdpocvoc, ver. 3. Even
the root-word v74w occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1
Thess. v. 6, 8, where it is joined with yprzyopeiv, and stands in opposition to
the spiritual xaGetderv and pefierv; and in 1 Pet. iv.7, where it is also connected
With cugpoveiv.—sagpova, xéaju0ov| see ii. 9.—Bengel: quod od¢pwy est intus,
id xéoju0¢ est extra. Theodoret: xéopeoc’ nai pOéypate nai oxfpart xai BAéupare
kat Sadiouatt Gore cal dia tov aduaroc galveciar tiv tHe Wye owdpoobv7y.—
¢:AéEevov] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren ;
comp. 1 Pet. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 2; Rom. xii. 18.—d:daxrixév] “ able to teach ”
(Luther); “good at teaching’ (van Oosterzee). Acdaxtixéde is one who pos-
sesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination
(Plitt: “inclined to teach”) or the “ willingness” (Hofmann). Hofmann is
wrong in specializing it into “a moral quality.” That is justified neither
by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly-formed mpaxriéc, ypa-
guxdc, etc.) nor by the position in which it stands here or in 2 Tim. ii. 24.
The word is found elsewhere only in Philo, De Praem. e Virt. 4, not in
classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that
of the d:daoxadia and that of the mpogyreia, 1 Cor. xii.—xiv.) was permitted
to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the yépcoya, still the
éxioxorog in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing
the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting
heretics (see Tit. 1.9); hence Paul, in Eph. iv. 11, calls the zoiuevec of the
church, d:ddoxaAos.
Ver. 3. The positive characteristics are now followed by two that are
negative (or three, according to the Rec.): yu mdporvov] This word occurs
only here and in Tit. i.7. Though it is used (comp. rapowéw, LX X. Isa.
xli. 12) also in the wider sense, as equivalent to contumeliosus (Josephus,
Antiq. vi. 10, where it stands opposed to the word cuw¢poveiv), yet there is
here no sufficient ground for departing from its original sense. It is true
that, as Bengel indicates, the GAA’ éxvecxq afterwards seems to be in favor of
the wider meaning here, without special reference to drunkenness; but
the contrast is the same in the other case, if we only remember that wdpo:-
voc does not mean simply “drunken” but “impudent, arrogant in intoxi-
cation.” '—n9 rAgxryv] This word also may be taken in a narrower and a
wider sense. Here, as in Tit. i. 7, it denotes the passionate man who is in-
clined to come to blows at once over anything. With these two ideas there
are three placed in contrast; not, however, in exact correspondence, for in
of celibacy, have explained the word yur} of _— refutation which is accorded to it by Winer,
the charch—The strange opinion of Bret- pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 117 f].
echneider, that pwras is here the indefinite 1 Comp. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 981, where
article, and that Paul meanta bishop should the acholiast explains it wéOvoos cai vBproris ;
be married, hardly needed the elaborate see Pape on the word.
120 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
that case the reading of the Rec., 47 aicypoxepd7, would be indispensable, and
for this reading there is too little testimony; but in such a way that the
conduct denoted in the one case is opposed to thatin the other.—aAW’ émiecy,
duayov, agiddpyvpov] In Tit. iii. 2, as here, the first two expressions stand
together. “Ayayoc does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. 'Emecxge does not
mean “ yielding,” for it does not come from eixw, but from eixés (gorxa).—The
nearest meaning is “ beseeming.” As used, however, it has mostly the
sense of moderateness and gentleness (in Plutarch, Pyrrh. 23.—érwudéc is
used along with mpguc). Luther rightly: “mild.” "Auayog is equivalent to
peaceful; Luther: “not quarrelsome.”—ag:Adpyvpov (only here and in
Heb. xiii. 5; g:Adpyvpoc, 2 Tim. ili. 2 and Luke xvi. 14; the substantive
¢cAapyvpia, 1 Tim. vi. 10) lays stress on a point of which no hint was given
before. It is joined with dyayzor, since avarice necessarily brings strife
with it. |
Ver. 4. In the second verse, the apostle touched on the subject of mar-
riage-life; here, he directs how the bishop is to conduct himself in his
own house.—rov idiov olxov add mpoiorduevov] Though idco¢ is used at times
in the N. T. instead of the simple possessive pronoun, it is here emphatic,
in contrast with éxxAyoia Oeov, ver. 5.—olxog here, as elsewhere, denotes the
entire household, including slaves. It is above all important that he
should act properly in regard to the children; hence the apostle adds:
réxva Exovta év troray® peta mdone cepvérntoc] [IX d.] From a comparison
with the corresponding passage in Tit. i. 6, it is clear that he is speaking
here, not of the father’s disposition, but of that of the children (in oppo-
sition to Hofmann). The éyovra év trorayg corresponds in sense with
Hi). . . avunéraxta in the other passage, and in construction with éyovra
. . . fH &v xatyyopig acuwriag. The bishop is to preside over his house in
such a way that the children shall not be wanting in submissiveness. The
words pera wdong cepvétytog are to be connected with what immediately
precedes, and not with spoicrdyevov (Hofmann). If it be right to refer
them to the fathers (Heydenrich, Matthies, van Oosterzee), éyecv must be
explained as equivalent either to tenere (Matthies: “holding the children
in obedience”’) or to xaréyev (van Oosterzee). That, however, is arbitrary;
besides, the parallel passage in Tit. 1.6, where dowria is the opposite of
ceuvétyc, 18 against it. Leo, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, are right there-
fore in referring the words to the children. The idea of ceurdrn¢ does not
forbid this reference, if only we avoid thinking of little children; comp.,
by way of contrast, the conduct of the children of the high priest Eli, in
the O. T.
Ver. 5 in a parenthesis gives the reason why a bishop ought to know
how to govern his house properly.—ei dé tig tov idiov oixov mpootyvat ovK
olde] dé shows that the confirmatory clause is adversative; the conclusion
is made a minori ad majus. Bengel: plus est regere ecclesiam, quam
familiam.’—é¢ éxxAnoiag Ocotd émtuedAfoetar] The contrast here made be-
comes still more forcible when it is observed that in ver. 15 Paul calls the
1Theodoret: 6 ra cyustxpa oixovopecy ovx eidws, was Svvaras THY KPELTTOVEY Kal Geiwy mioTeVvOnvas
Thy éwiudrAcay.
°
CHAP. lr. 4—6. 121
éxxAnoia the oixog Osov.—émipeAnoera:] The future here, as often with the
Greeks, expresses the capability; see Bernhardy’s Syntaz, p. 377. The
verb éxiueréouae has not only the more genera] meaning of “take care of
something ” (Luke x. 34, 35), but also more definitely, “fill an office, be
overseer over something,” in which sense it is used here.—For a right
understanding of the connection of this verse with what precedes, it is to
be observed that the first requisite for a successful superintendence is
obedience (ioray7) from the church towards its superintendent. It is the
bishop’s duty so to conduct himself that the members of the church may
be obedient to him, not as servants to a master, but as children to a father,
that they may show him obedience in love.
Ver. 6. My vedgvrov] depending on dei . . . elvac in ver. 2, is attached to
the previous accusatives, ver. 5 being a parenthesis. Nedégurog is rightly
explained by Chrysostom: ot rév vedrepov évtavOa Aéfyet, a22a Tdv veoKaTi-
xytrov; comp. 1 Cor. il. 6,7. Heinrichs is wrong if he thinks that, on
account of what follows, the explanation rejected by Chrysostom is really
the nght one; for the rapid promotion to the episcopate of one newly
admitted into the church, might easily have consequences to be dreaded
by the apostle—The reason why a “novice” (Luther) should not be
bishop is given in the words that follow: iva pi repwheig cig xpiua iurtog
Tov dta3d2ov. TudwGeic: [IX e.] “lest he being beclouded with conceit (of foolish
pride).” The verb (which occurs only here and in vi. 4 and 2 Tim. iii. 4)
comes from ri¢goc, which in the figurative sense especially denotes darkness,
as beclouding man’s mind so that he does not know himself, so that the
consciousness of his own weakness is hidden from him; in 2 Tim. iii. 4 it
is appropriately joined with pydév éxiozduevoc (comp. Athenaeus, vi. 238d).
TupHeic describes the conduct of the vedgurog which brings on him the
Kpiua tov dia3ds0v.—ei¢ xpiva éuréon tov dta3dA0v] Nearly all expositors take
6 duaoz0¢ here and in ver. 7 to be the devil. Some, again, explain it as
“the libellous fellow.”! Against this latter view, however, there are three
decisive arguments—({1) According to the constant usage of the N. T., the
subetantive 6 dié8od0¢ always denotes the devil (it is otherwise in the LXX.,
but only in Esth. vii. 4, viii. 1). (2) The singular has the definite article,
which seems to mark out one definite individual, for the collective use of
the singular can always be inferred from the context (as in Matt. xii. 35;
Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 18; Jas. 11.6; this, indeed, is less the case in Jas.
v. 6); besides, here the idea of “libeller’”’ is too indefinite for the train of
thought; hence Hofmann is forced to define it arbitrarily: ‘“‘ whoever
makes it his business to speak evil of Christianity.” (3) If, in the ex-
preseion 9 tov diafdAov rayic, at 2 Tim. 11. 26, rov daBéAov cannot mean
anything else than the devil, it is arbitrary to render it otherwise when
used in the same expression at ver. 7.—«piva is not equivalent to “ charge,
accusation ” (Matthies), but “the judgment,” especially “the judgment of
1Moeheim,Wegscheider, Hofmann;Luther: ii. 26 and in Eph. vi. 11, even Hofmann takes
“the slanderer.” it to be the devil); but, on the other hand,
Paul uses the word only here and in ver. _ both here and in Eph. iv. 17 he takes it to be
7; 2 Tim. ii 26; Eph. iv.17, vill. In? Tim. the human slanderer.
122 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
condemnation.” —rov diaBdAov is mostly (even by Wiesinger and van Ooster-
zee) taken to be the genitivus objecti (comp. especially Rev. xvii. 1), equiva-
lent to “ the judgment which is executed on the devil” (van Oosterzee),
because xpivecy is not the devil’s business; Bengel: diabolus potest oppro-
brium inferre (ver. 7), judicium inferre non potest, non enim judicat, sed
judicatur.' But the notion that the devil is delivered to condemnation
because of self-conceit, cannot be scripturally proved. For this reason,
and also because roi d:afdAov in ver.7 is manifestly the subjective genitive,
it is preferable to take it in the same way here (so, too, Plitt).2_ Of course
the «piva of the devil cannot mean a trial which the devil holds, but the
judgment which serves to give him foundation for accusing man with God
(comp. the name for the devil, xar#yup, in Rev. xii. 10)?
Ver. 7. Agi dé xat paprupiay, Kadi éxetv ard tov éwOev] Aci dé (which does not
present something opposed to ver.6) adds a new requirement to those
already given in vy. 2-6, a requirement needed for the sake of those who
are not Christians. Thus det here becomes connected with the dei in ver.
2.—aprupia occurs in the Pauline Epistles only here and in Tit. i. 138.—
and tov ewhev] of éwHev (for which Paul commonly uses oi éw) are those
outside the church ; e7é is equivalent not to “among,” but to “from,” the
testimony comes from those who are not Christians. In the choice of a
bishop, care is to be taken that he is a man who has led an irreproachable
life even in the eyes of those who are not Christians. The reason is added
just as in ver. 6: iva pi cic dvedioudv éuTtécn Kai rayida Tov diaBdAov] dvecdiopdv
may be taken absolutely (Wiesinger, Plitt), or joined with rov diaB. (van
Oosterzee). The former view is supported by the fact that éuzéoy separates
évecd. from mayida; the latter, by the fact that the preposition is not repeated
before mrayida. The passage in vv. 14, 15, when compared with this, sup-
ports the former view, which is further established as correct by the
consideration that we cannot well suppose dvecdi{ew to be an act of the
devil. Since dvecdsoude is not defined more precisely, it must be taken as
quite general in meaning.—xa? rayida roi dcaBéAov] the same expression in
2 Tim. ii. 26; in 1 Tim. vi. 9 it stands without rod d:af., and there, too, it
is joined with metpacués (elsewhere only in Rom. xi. 9, which follows Ps.
Ixix. 23). It is a figurative name for the lying in wait of the devil, who is
represented asa hunter. The idea of its association with dvecdiopzéc is this,
that the disgrace incurred by one who has not a good testimony from the
non-Christians, 1s used by the devil as a snare, not only to tempt him, but
also to seduce him into apostasy from the gospel.‘
1 It is out of place to appeal to2 Pet.fi.4and something like this: tva wh xpivyra civ te
Jude 6 (Wiesinger), since in these passages
mention is made, not of the judgment which
will be passed on the devil, but of the judg-
ment which will be passed on a number of
wicked angels. .
Had the apostle been thinking of the
judgment which will be passed on the devil
(Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xx. 10 (14, 15]), he would
have expressed himself more clearly, with
8caBodg.
3Hofmann asserts that it is irrational to
speak of a judgment which the devil pro
nounces; but we may ask, on the other
hand, whether it is not irrational to speak of
a devil without judgment. .
4In explaining rov é:a8éAov Hofmann ex-
plains éurdon (cis) way. Tr. b:a8. to mean, that
the slanderer tries to ensnare such g one in
CHAP. Ill. (9. 123
Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-18, see Note X. page 135.] From this to ver. 13 we
have instructions regarding the deacons. [-X u.]—dtaxdvoug wcabitug cepvor¢
«.7.4.] The deacons, as at first instituted in the church at Jerusalem, were
originally almoners of the poor (Acts vi. 1-6). They are mentioned again
only in Phil. i. 1. In Rom. xvi. 1, Paul calls Phoebe a didkovog of the
church at Cenchrea. There are some other passages which allude to the
diaconate—Rom. xil. 7; 1 Cor. xil. 28 (avrcAgpec); 1 Pet. iv. 11. It is
known that this office in the church was afterwards not confined to its
original object, but there is nothing to indicate how far it was developed
in the apostolic age. Many of the duties assigned to the deacons in later
times, can only be arbitrarily connected with the office in the apostolic
age. Only it is to be observed that both here and in Phil. 1. 1, the deacons
are named after the bishops.—doairuc] marks here, as in ii. 9, the transi-
tion to ordinances in regard to another class of persons, indicating at the
same time their similarity to those preceding.—veyvoic] The accusative is
dependent on dei elva:, which is to be supplied; regarding the idea con-
tained in the word, see ii. 2.—y7 d:Adyouc] the word didoyoc only here. In
Prov. xi. 18, LX-X.; in Ecclus. v. 9, 14, vi. 1, xxviii. 18, we have the similar
word: diyawoooc' (comp. also dipvxoe in Jas. iv. 8); Theophylact: aaa
gpovotvreg xal GAAa Aéyovrec, nai GAAa Totrog Kal GAAa Exeivor¢.—u oivw TOAAD
xpoot xovrac] mpooéxew here, as in iv. 13 and Heb. vii. 13: “be addicted to ;”
Tit. 1. 3: pp oivy roAAD dedovAwptvac.—p7 aioxpoxepdeic} only here and in Tit.
1.7; comp. 1 Pet. v. 2: érioxowobvresg . . . unde aicxpoxepdis, GAAG mpoIipus ;
and Tit. ii. 11, where it is said of the heretics that they by unseemly doc-
trine destroy houses aioxpoi xépdove xdépv. These passages show that we
are not to think here of gain from “dishonorable dealing” (Luther,
Theodoret: ex mpaypdruv aicxzpav xai Aiev aréxuv), but rather of using the
spiritual office for a material advantage (comp. vi. 5).
Ver. 9. "Exovrag 7d pvoripiov rig twioTews év Kaflapg ovverdfoe:] The emphasis
is not on ézovrac, as if it meant “holding fast,” but on év xadapé ovvecdtoes
(Wiesinger).—7d pvoripiov ri¢ wiotewc ] This collocation occurs nowhere else.
Ilior'¢ ig not the doctrine of faith (Heumann), but subjective faith (de
Wette). Mvorfpiov is the subject-matter of faith, te. the divine truth,
which is a secret not only in so far as it was hidden from the world until
it was revealed at the appointed time (Rom. xvi. 25) and remains hidden
to every man till the knowledge of it is wrought in him by the Spirit
of God (1 Cor. ii. 7-10, 14), but also in so far as it is even to the believer
trepBaddovoa ri¢ yvoceug (Wiesinger). The expression is synonymous
with that in ver. 16: 1d r7¢ evoeBeiag prvorfpiov.—év xabape ovverdgoe:}] Comp.
1.5, 19. The clause is to be joined closely with éyovras, and is to be under-
. stood neither specially of occupying the office, nor quite generally of the
virtuous life, or “the moral disposition” (Hofmann), but of purity and
uprightness in regard to the mystery of the faith. It stands in contrast
with the impurity of the heretics, who had their conscience stained by
the mingling of truth with errors; comp. iv. 2.
the sense of “ showing him as an evidence of selects such a man as {ts head” (1).
the state of morality in an association which 1 Theogn. v. 91: 56 wey yAuooy Six” ¢xa
124 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Ver. 10. Kat otro: 62 doxeualécfwoav mpotov] The particles cai . . . dé mean
and also, xai being purely copulative; dé, however, opposing and empha-
sizing' something new. Since this new thing, which is necessarily em-
phatic, always stands between «ai and dé, otro, as van Oosterzee has rightly
seen, must be opposed to those before named, ¢.e. to the presbyters; it is
to be explained: “and these too, zt. e. not only the presbyters, but also the
deacons, are first to be proved.” It is wrong, therefore, to make doxiual-
éofucav emphatic, and to explain otra without reference to those before
named (“and these are further to be proved ”’), as was done in the former
editions of this commentary.? Had he wished to say that, the apostle
could not but have written «ai dox:palécOwoav dé ovrox; comp. John viii. 16.
It is true that nothing has been said hitherto about an examination in
regard to the office of presbyter; but, of course, such an examination
must have preceded the election. The examination for the office of
deacon would certainly refer to the life and stedfastness in the faith. He
does not say who was to undertake the examination, but it is natural to
suppose that it was to be undertaken by those who elected. At the first
institution of the diaconate the election was made by the church, the instal-
lation to the office by the apostles. It is not known how it was managed
later in the apostolic age. Heydenreich makes the examination too for-
mal when he says: “ They are to be examined first by Timothy, with the
aid of the presbytery; the votes of the members of the church are to be
taken concerning his worthiness,” etc. On the other hand, the force of
doxizaliotwcay must not be weakened by such explanations as: “ Paul
wishes only those to be made didxovoe regarding whom a definite opinion
had already been formed in the church”’ (so in the second edition of this
commentary); or: “itis the moral testing which naturally took place
when they lived for some time under the eyes of the church and its
leader;” or: “it is in substance the same thing as py vedgvrov, used
regarding the choice of presbyters ” (Hofmann).—It is quite wrong, with
Luther (‘‘ and these are first to be tried’’) and others, to understand the
words as if they meant that candidates were first to be tried in the affairs
of the diaconate.—eira dtaxoveirwoav, avéyxAnto: bvtec] The participle ex-
presses the condition under which they are to be admitted to the office
of deacon. Araxoveiv, as applied definitely to the office of deacon, occurs
only here, at ver. 14, and in 1 Pet. iv. 11.
Ver. 11. Tvvaixag doatrug ceuvac x.7.A.] [X b.] No further hint is given
as to what women he is here speaking of; only it is to be observed that
these instructions regarding them are inserted amongst the rules for the
diaconate, since ver. 12 continues to speak of the latter. They must
therefore, at all events, be regarded as women who stand in close relation
to the deacons—either the wives of the deacons or the deaconesses.
Mack’s supposition, that they are the wives of the deacons and of the
bishops, is quite arbitrary. The second view is found as early as in Chrys-
1Comp. Meyer on John vi. 51; Hartung, 2 Wiesinger, too, seems to take it in this
Lehre von den Partik. d. gr. Spr. 1. pp. 181 f£; way: “These, however, alsu are tirst to be
Buttmann, p. 312 [E. T. 364], proved, then they may serve.”
CHAP. 11K. 10-13. 125
ostom (ywaixa¢g duaxévore ¢yci), Theophylact, Oecumenius, Grotius, and
others; de Wette, Wiesinger, and Hofmann also think it correct. The
principal grounds for it are—(1) the word doabrec, which indicates that the
apostle here passes (see ver. 8) to a new class of ecclesiastical persons
(Wiesinger); and (2) the fact that the instructions given in this whole
section are rather directions for election than exhortations to the persons
named. On the other hand, the omission of atrév (de Wette, Wiesinger)
and the expression mwra¢ év mao, usually understood, as de Wette
wrongly thinks, of conjugal fidelity, are of no weight.—Against this view,
however, there are two circumstances which should be considered, viz., that
the instruction regarding the deaconesses is inserted among those given to
the deacons, and also that the apostle calls them quite generally yvvaixec,
instead of using the definite ai d:dxovo: (comp. Rom. xvi. 1). This makes
it probable that by the ywaixes we should understand the deacons’ wives
(so, too, Plitt). The reason of the special exhortation would then be, not,
as Heydenreich says, that even the domestic life of the deacons should
be considered, but that the office of the deacons, consisting in the care of
the poor and the sick, was of a kind in which their wives had to lend a
helping hand. Hence we can explain why the wives of the bishops are
not specially mentioned.'—y7 diaBddovc] diuéBoroc, as an adjective: “slan-
derous,” occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, here and at 2 Tim. iii. 3;
Tit. ii. 3—v7Ga2iove] is not equivalent to py? oivp 76AAw mpocexobcac, ver. 8;
it is to be taken in the same sense as in ver. 2 (in opposition to Wiesinger,
van Oosterzee).—aora¢ év nacw] “ faithful in all things ;” é rao forbids
us to limit the command of fidelity to any one sphere; it is not merely
faithfulness at home nor in the duties of the church that is meant.
Ver. 12. The apostle returns to the deacons, and gives regarding their
domestic life the same‘instructions as he gave in vv. 2-4 in regard to the
bishops.
Ver. 13. To these instructions he adds in this verse a reason: ol yap
kati, dtaxovpoavres (dtaxoveiv is here and in ver. 10 used in the official sense)
Baduav éavroig naddv mepiroovvras.? The word Baéuéc, [X ¢.] which occurs
only here, denotes, like gradus, in the figurative sense, a degree of honor.
As to what is to be understood by this, expositors are not agreed; but we
may reject at once all explanations in which a comparative is put in place
of the positive xaaév. This objection applies to the view that Badyédc denotes
here the higher ecclesiastical office, the office of bishop,’ which view,
moreover, presupposes a regulation of rank altogether foreign to the
1Van Oosterzee’s view is arbitrary, that
those deacons’ wives are meant who at the
same time held the office of deaconess.
4 Hofmann thinks that ver. 13 is connected
only with ver. 12; because a man might fill
the office of deacon well, though he lacked »
the qualities named in vv. 8-10, but not if
his house were badly managed. But that
is not the case. Those qualities, not less
than the one given ia ver. 12, are the neces-
sary conditions for filling the office of deacon
well.
% Jerome: “bonum hie pro gradu majori
posuit; sunt enim minores [diaconi] ;" Ben-
gel: “gradum ab humilitate diaconiae ad
majora munera, in ecclesia. Qui in minore
gradu fidelis est, ad majora promovetur;” so,
too, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius,
Heumann, Heydenreich, Baur, Plitt, and
others.
126 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
apostolic age. The same objection applies to the view that Babpude xarde is
a higher stage of the life of faith, ¢.e. an increase in Christian perfection.
The expositors who hold by the positive xaAéc, interpret the idea, some of
the future, others of the present life. The former understand by it “a
higher stage of blessedness ;””' the dutter explain the expression as applying
to “respect in the church.” ?—Heinrich, de Wette, and Wiesinger agree
with the view of the former, only modifying it to mean nota stage of
holiness, but “the expectancy of it.” This modification is, however,
unwarrantable, since the idea of “expectancy or claim” is imported.
Babués means a stage; it cannot at the same time mean the claim toa
stage; and if Bafuéds must mean the claim to something, then there is
nothing to indicate what the claim refers to.—The decision between the
two interpretations depends on the explanation of the words that follow:
Kai ToAAny mappyciay év mioree TH Ev Xptot@~ 'Incov] mappyoia Means, in the
first place, candor in speech; then more generally, bold courage in action,
synonymous with dade (Hesychius); and lastly, firm confidence in some-
thing; thus in reference to men, 2 Cor. vii. 4 (70249 pot wappyaia mpoc bua),
or to God, viz. the confidence which the Christian in faith has in the saving
grace of God; so in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the First Epistle of
John? If Bafuée is to be referred to future blessedness, then rappyoia here,
as in 1 John iti. 21, Heb. iv. 16, is confidence towards God. But in 1 John
ili. 21 we have mpd¢ rav Ocdv along with wappyoia, and in Heb. iv. 16 pera
sappyoiag is added to define more precisely the clause: mpocepydpeba rH
Opévy THO xdpitoc; as to the parallel passage in vi. 19, to which de Wette
likewise appeals, the reference to the future life is distinctly expressed by
the words ei¢ rd wéAAov. Of all this there is nothing here; there is nothing,
either here or with xaAdv Bafudv, to direct us to the future life, nothing to
indicate that with rappycia we should supply mpé¢ rév Oedv, or the like.
Hence it is more natural to refer these ideas to the sphere in which
the dcaxoveiv takes place, and to understand by aude, respect in the
church ;* by rappyoia, confidence in their official labors. These two things
stand in closest relation to one another, since only he can possess right
confidence in his office who is open to no just reproach, who is honored
for conducting himself well in the matters with which his office is
concerned. Wlesinger, against this view, maintains that “the aorist
(dtaxovgoavres) makes the fBabusv éavr. xad. reper. appear to be the final
result of the official labor;”® but if that were the case, the present
aepietoovvrae Should not have been used, but the perfect; for the acquisi-
tion does not take place ajter the official labor, but during it.—Certainly
180 Theodoret (rdv ripcoy rovroy Babuoy év
Te péAAovte Ajworrat Biy), Flatt, and others.
the spiritual life, and also of eternal blessed-
ness.”
280 Calvin, Planck, Wegscheider, Leo, Mat-
thies, and others.
3 Regarding Luther's translation of rappnota
by “joyfulness,” see my Comment. on the
Epistles of John. 3d ed., on 1 John iv. 17.
Van Oosterzee’s opinion is manifestly
wrong, that BaOuds is “a beautiful stage of
6The other grounds apply only to the ex-
position of Matthies, who understands by
BaOpds xadds “the influential post;” by
wappyoia, “the free play of thought and
gpeech,a wide open field of spiritual activity.”
In this he certainly exceeds the meaning
which may be assigned to these words.
CHAP. III. 14, 15. 127
the aorist is somewhat strange; but it may mean that the BaOpdc «.7.A. 18
always the result of good service.'"—The verb rep:roceiobar, in the N. T.
only here and in Acts xx. 28, has even in classical writers the meaning
“gain for oneself.” The dative éavroic is ad‘led to show clearly that he is
speaking of the gain to the deacons themselves, and not to the congrega-
tion.—év mioree rH Ev Xptovg ‘Iqcoi] is not to be joined with Babuéy and
nappyciay (van Oosterzee), but only with wappyciav.2 Itis not the sphere
in which, nor the object in regard to which, there is zappyoia (Heumann :
“the boldness to teach the Christian faith even in public;'’ Wegscheider :
“free activity for Christianity, or a greater sphere for the spread of Chris-
tianity ’’); but it denotes the wappycia as Christian, as rooted in Christian
‘faith. The construction of rior with é following it, is found also in 2
Tim. iii. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4 (only that in these passages
there is no article before év, while there is one before ziore ; on the other
hand, comp. Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18). This construction may be explained
to mean that Christ is the object of faith already apprehended; the
believer not only has Christ before him, but he lives in communion
with Him.
Vv. 14,15. [On Vv. 14-16, see Note XI., pages 135-137.] The apostle has
come here to a resting-point, since he has brought to an end his instructions
regarding some of the chief points to. be noticed in the affairs of the
church ; but, before passing to any new matter, he casts a glance back on
the instructions he has given, and tells what was the occasion of his giving
them.—rairré co: ypagw] Bengel’s explanation: “ravra, i.e. totam episto-
lam,” in which Hofmann agrees,’ is so far right, that raira refers rather
to the instructions that precede (from ii. 1 onward).—éArifwv éAfeiv mpde ce
raxtov]| éArifwv does not give the real (“ hoping,” Matthies), but the adver-
sative ground (Leo: Part. éAri{ev per xairep seu similem particulam esse
resolvendum, nexus orationis docet; so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee,
Plitt). The real ground is given by the following ia. Hofmann asserts,
but does not prove, that this view does not accord with the following 4é.
Hofmann finds that éArif{wv only expresses an accompaniment of the act
of writing, and that it was added “lest Timothy should infer from the
sending of an epistle that the apostle meant to leave him for some time
in Ephesus;” but in this he imports a motive of which the context
furnishes no hint.—réyiov [XI a.] (comp. on this form, Winer, p. 67 [E.
T. p. 69]; Buttmann, p. 24 [E. T. 27]) is here taken by most expositors as
a pure positive “soon;’ the comparative sense (according to Winer, pp.
1Hofmann’s explanation of Babpdés and
wappycia agrees in substance with that given ©
here. He is wrong, however, in asserting
that the deacons do not acquire both during,
but only after their tenure of office. If the
latter were the case, the means by which it
takes place would not be given.
2 Hofmann, indeed, holds even this connec-
tion of ideas to be unsuitable; but we do not
see why the wrappncia may not be marked as
Christian, as rooted in faith in Christ. To
connect it with what follows, would be to
suppose that the apostle lays emphasis on a
point, which to Timothy would be self-evident.
3 Hofmann’s agsertion, that the reference
of ravra to what precedes is forbidden by the
present ypda¢w (for which we should have had
€ypada), is contradicted by 1 Cor. iv. 14, xiv.
87; 2 Cor. xiii. 10; Gal. i. 20; also by 1 John
ii, 1.
128 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
227 f. [E. T. p. 243]), though in the background, has not wholly disap-
peared: “sooner” (not “‘than the arrival of this letter,’ or “than thou
wilt have need of these instructions,” Winer) “than is or was to be
expected.”—In spite of this hope, the apostle’s arrival might possibly be
longer delayed, and this possibility had induced him to impart his instruc-
tions by writing, lest Timothy should be without them.—édv dé Bpadive
(the verb only here and at 2 Pet. iil. 9), iva eidj¢ moe dei év oixp Ooi ava-
orpégecba:| mag dei avacrpégecOat, refers not so much to the Christian life in
general, as to behavior in church life, viz. in divine service and in church
arrangements. This limitation is clearly indicated by the connection
with what precedes, the ravra referring us back (in opposition to Hof-
mann). Its subject is either Timothy, in which case oé is to be supplied
(Luther: “how thou shouldst walk; ” so, too, Wiesinger), or no definite
subject should be supplied: “ how one should walk.”! Both explanations
are possible in language and in fact; but the second may be preferred,
because Paul in the preceding part (to which raira refers) did not say
what Timothy was to do, but what arrangements were to prevail in the
church; Hofmann thinks differently, as he understands ravra of the
whole epistle. The expression olxog @ecy denotes properly the temple at
Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 13), then also the O. T. people as the church in
which God had His dwelling (Heb. iii. 2, 5); in Christian usage it is the
N. T. people in whom the dwelling of God has been fully realized; Heb.
iil. 6 (Heb. x. 21); 1 Pet. iv. 17; synonymous with it are the expressions:
KatouxnTypiov Oeov, Eph. ii. 22; vad¢ Ocov, 1 Cor. ili. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16.—To
elucidate the symbolic expression, Paul adds: #ri¢ éoriv éxxAncia Oeov Cdvroc]
The pronoun #re (= “seeing it”) makes the explanatory sentence
emphatic, by indicating why there should be such behavior in the house
of God as Paul had prescribed (which Hofmann denies); and the reason
is not simply that it is an éxxAnoia, t.e. a church, and as such has necessae
rily certain definite ordinances, but still more definitely because it isa
church of God, of the living God, who as such esteems highly His ordi-
nances in His church.—There follow in simple apposition the words:
orbAoc xai édpaiwpa rig aAnbeiac] [XI b.] These words are in apposition to
éxxAnoia 8. ¢., and as such are rightly explained by the older? and most of
the recent commentators.’ Some Protestant commentators, however, in-
1The impersonal 8: is usually joined with
the accusative and infinitive, the infinitive
denoting the thing, the accusative the person
who must do the action expressed by the
verb. More frequently the person is not
named, but is easily supplied from the con-
text, ase.g.in Matt. xxiii. 23, where vpas,in .
Luke xii. 12, where again vpas, and in Luke
xv. 32, where oé is to be supplied. Hofmann
is therefore wrong in asserting that there is
no linguistic justification for supplying od
here, where eidjs precedes. Sometimes,
however, Se: refers to no particular person;
so John iv. 20: Swov spocxvreiy Se; Acta Y.
29: werOapxecw Set Oeq; XV. 5: Set weprréuvery
avrovcs; Tit. i. 11: obs Set émcoroudgerw; the Set
in that case corresponds to the English “one
must.” lt is arbitrary, with Hofmann, to
supply rea here, and understand-sy it one
who “ has to govern a house of God.”
2Theodore of M. rightly says: éxxcAngias ov
TOUS OiKoUS Adyes TOUS EUKTHPLOUS KaTa THY TwY
ToOAAwY curyOecay, aAAa TaY mioTwY TOY TVA-
Aoyor, S0ev cai orvdAov avrny cai édparwpa T.
GA. éxdAecey, ws ay ey avty THs GAnOeias THY
ovoracw ¢xovons.
% Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Mack,
Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann;
CHAP. Il. 16. 129
fluenced by their polemic against the Catholic idea of the church, have
taken these words as the beginning of the following sentence.’ The
reasons against this construction are—({1) That the new thought would be
taken up ina very abrupt and sudden manner, while by connecting it
with the previous words, the train of thought is suitable and natural ; (2)
That “grammatically the third defining term, simply adjectival, éoA.
péya, cannot well be placed in co-ordination with two predicates like
orvdAoc and édpaiwua”’ (Wiesinger, following Schleiermacher); and (3) That,
whereas 76 ry¢ evoeBelac pvorypiwov is nothing else than the aA#Gea, this con-
struction would make the former designate the latter as ortdAo¢ nai édp.,
which would clearly be unsuitable. There is manifestly nothing to be
said for the opinion of some commentators,’ that by or. «. édp. we are to
understand Timothy.2—orido¢ in the figurative sense occurs only here and
at Gal. ii. 9; Rev. ii.12. The oixog Ocov is called oriAog rig aAnbciac, inas-
much as the pillar supports and bears the roof resting on it (see Meyer on
Gal. ii. 9), but not “inasmuch as it serves to elevate something and make
it manifest” (Hofmann). The same idea is expressed by the second word:
édpaiwua, the base, foundation (similarly 6euéAroc, 2 Tim. 11. 19), a word which
is only used here in the N. T. The thought that the divine truth is supported
and borne by the church, has nothing startling when we remember that
the church, as the olxoc @cov, has the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of
truth; the Spirit of truth, therefore, is its indwelling, all-penetrating prin-
ciple of life, by which it stands in closest communion with its head.‘ But
if the church is set up to be the preserver of divine truth, it is all the
more important that all should be well-ordered in it. These words stand,
therefore, in close connection with what precedes; but, at the same time,
they make the transition to what follows, where the apostle in a few brief
characteristics gives the nature of the truth, that he may from this point
return to his polemic against the heretics, and continue it further.
Ver. 16. Ka? duodoyoupévug péya éotl rd tic evoeBeiag pvotipiov] xai connects
what follows with the preceding words, and in such a way as to empha-
size the following predicate.—éyodoyoupévuc] which only occurs here,
means neither “manifestly ” (Luther), nor “according to the song of
praise” (Mack), nor even “correspondingly ” (Hofmann 5); but: “as és
now, too, by van Oosterzee, 3d ed. Van Oos-
terzee is, however, inclined to conjecture
that “there is here a corruption of the text
which cannot now be restored with certainty.”
1 First, in the edition of the N. T. at Basel,
1540, 1545; later, Bengel, Mosheim, Heyden-
reich, Flatt; formerly also van Oosterzee.
2Gregory of Nyssa (de Vita Mosis): ov uovow
Tlérpos xai ‘IdxewBos cai 'lwavyns orvAo Tis
dxadgoias cige ... 6 Oeios awdarodos xai Tov
TemoOecowy orvdAoy Kaddy érexrivatro, roijoas
avroy, caus noi ry idie wry, orvAov cai
Bpaiwepa THs éxxAngias
8Though Chrysostom construes rightly, he
yet inverts the meaning of the sentence: ovx
@s éxeivos 5 “lovdasxds olxos 0., rovTo yép one
9
1 cuvdxoyv Thy wiorty Kat Td Kipvyua’ H yap
GAjOed é€ore ths dxxAngias Kat orvAos «at
éeSpatwpa,
4Wiesinger rightly calls attention to the
distinction which should be made between
“the truth as it is in itself, and the truth as
it is acknowledged in the world,” and then
says: “in the former respect it needs no
support, but bears itself; in the latter, it
needs the church as its support, as its bearer
and preserver.” If the Catholic Church has
drawn wrong conclusions from the apostle’s
words, it has itself to blame, and not the
apostle.
5 Hofmann, without reason, takes objection
to the sense given to the apostle’s remark,
130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
acknowledged” comp. 4 Macc. vi. 31, vii. 16, xvi. 1; Josephus, Anfig. i. 10.
2, 11.9. 6).—éya] comp. Eph. v. 32 (kai rd pvorgpiov rovro utya éoriv), has the
sense of “important, significant.”—The subject of the sentence: 7d ric
evoeBeiac uvotipiov, is a paraphrase of the aaffeca in the preceding verse. It
is so called by the apostle, because, as the substance of the Christian fear
of God, or piety, it is hidden from the world: the sense is the same, there-
fore, as that of rd puorgpuov tig wiorews in ver. 9. It is wrong to translate it,
as Luther does: “the blessed secret,” or to explain it: “the doctrine
which leads to godliness.” Wiesinger is incorrect in explaining it: “a
secret accessible only to godliness ;” and Hofmann in saying: “the truth
which is of such a nature as to produce godliness where it finds accept-
ance.”—The purport—i. e. the christological purport—is now given in the
next clauses, Paul laying stress on it on account of the polemical ten-
dency of the epistle against the heretics (chap. iv.), whose theology and
Christology were in contradiction with the gospel.—As to the construction
of these clauses, there would be no difficulty with the reading Oeéc.
[XI c, d.] Ifé be read, it must relate to pvorgpiov, which also might be the
construction with é. According to the Vulgate (sacramentum quod
manifestatum est), the latter is the construction adopted by the Latin
Fathers who understood Christ to be the svorfpiov,.—an interpretation
quite unjustifiable and unsuitable to the general train of thought. Several
expositors (Mangold, Hofmann, and others) assume the first clause:
bc . . . capxi, to be the subject, and the other five clauses to form the
predicate; but “on account of the parallelism, that is not advisable”
(Winer, p. 547 [E. T. p. 588]). It is much more natural from their simi-
lar form to regard all six clauses as co-ordinate. Then the subject to
which é¢ relates isnot named ; but, according to the purport of the various
clauses, it can be none other than Christ. [XI e.] This curious omission
may be thus accounted for; the sentence has been taken from a formula
of confession, or better, from an old Christian hymn, as its metrical and
euphonious character seems to indicate.*_ This view is also adopted by
Heydenreich, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt—The
opinion of Matthies is untenable, that the apostle does not name Christ
expressly, in order to maintain the character of rd pvorfpiov (in the sense:
Acknowledged great, etc., . . . he who is revealed, etc.), and that this
absolute use of the relative pronoun is found elsewhere inthe N.T. In
the passages quoted by him, Rom. ii. 23, 1 Cor. vii. 87, John i. 46, iii. 34,
1 John i. 8, the pronoun has not the absolute meaning alleged by him.
The first clause runs: égavepdOn év capxi] édavepobn is often used of Christ’s
appearance on earth, of His becoming man, 1 John i. 2, iii. 5; it presup-
that believers acknowledged the secret of quotes this passage (uvorypror, ds épavepwOn)
godliness to be great. But if this thought is
meaningless here, not less is the one he sub-
stitutes: “to the greatness of the house of
God corresponds the greatness of the mystery
of piety.”
1Even Buttmann is of this opinion, as he
under the rule (p. 242) [E. T. p. 282], that the
relative agrees with the natural gender of
the preceding substantive.
Comp. Rambach’s Anthologie christl. Ge-
sdinge aus allen Jahrh. d. Kirche, I. 33, and
Winer, p. 594 [E. T. p. 639 f.}.
CHAP. Ul. 16. 131
poses a previous concealment,’ and consequently the pre-existence of
Christ as the eternal Logos.—Ev capxi] (comp. 1 John iv. 2: éAndvOac tv
oapxi: Rom. vili. 3; év duouspare capxd¢g auapriac) denotes the human nature
in which Christ appeared; John i. 14: 6 Aéyoc cdpé éyévero—With this first
clause the second stands in contrast: édcxaidOy7 év mvetyat:] means (as in
Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 35): to be shown to be such a one as He is in
nature; here, therefore, the sense is: He was shown in His divine glory
(as the Logos or eternal Son of God), which was veiled by the odpé. “Ev
wvevpare is contrasted with év capxi, the latter denoting the earthly, human
manner of His appearing, the former the inner principle which formed
the basis of His life. Though é with mvebuarc has not entirely lost its
proper meaning, yet it shades off into the idea of the means used, in so
far as the spirit revealed in Him was the means of showing His true
nature.? It would be wrong to separate here the rvetua from His person,
and to understand by it the spirit proceeding from Him and imparted to
His own ; it is rather the living spiritual principle dwelling in Him and
working out from Him (so, too, Plitt)—Chrysostom diverges from this
exposition, and explains éd:xacd67 by: déAov obk éxoinaer, drep 6 mpogarne Aéyet.
é¢ duapriav obx éroince ; and Bengel takes the meaning of the expression to be
that Christ bore the sins of the world (peccata peccatorum tulit . . . et
justitiam aeternam sibi suisque asseruit); but both views import ideas
which are here out of place. The expression éy mvebyare has also found
very varying interpretations. Instead of zvevya being taken in its real
sense, particular elements of it in the life of Christ, or particular modes
of revealing the zveiuza, have been fixed upon, or zveiya has been taken
simply of the divine nature of Christ.\—a9@y ayyéAoc] The right meaning
of this third clause also can only be got from a faithful consideration of
the words. The word ¢@7 is in the N. T. frequently joined with the dative,
Matt. xvil. 3; Luke i. 11; Acts vil. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8; Heb. ix. 28, ete. In
all these passages it is not the simple “ was seen,” but “was revealed ” or
“appeared ;” it always presupposes the activity of the thing seen.—From
the analogy of these passages, we must think here of Christ going to those
to whom He became visible, so that all explanations which take &¢6y
merely as “ was seen ”’ are to be rejected.—In the N. T. ayyedo is especially
applied to angels ; in itself the word may also denote human messengers
(comp. Jas. ii. 25). To take it here in this latter sense (which Hofmann
1Hence the same word is used also of the
resurrection and second coming of Christ.
2 Baur is wrong in explaining éy wvevpare
“as spirit.” This cannot be justified by exe-
gesix, and hence Baur contents himself with
the mere assertion that it is so.
8The older expositors take rvevya to denote
particularly Christ’s miracles (Theodoret:
awedeiyOn Sa tev Cavuater cai axepavOn, ote
@cos adnOns cai Seow vids). Others apply it
to the Spirit imparted to Him in baptism ;
others, to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pen-
tecost; others, to Christ's resurrection as the
most glorious work of the Spirit (so Heyden-
reich in particular). Akin to this view is
that of Hofmann, who says that rvevpa is
“that which quickens, makes alive,” and
deduces from this “that spirit changed the
existence of Christ in the flesh... into
something that had its nature from the
Spirit,” and explains ¢edic. év wv. as relating
to the justification He received through His
resurrection. All these explanations fall to
the ground when it is observed that the con-
text contains no reference to any such special
fact. Glassius explains it thus: Justus de-
132 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
does), as denoting the apostles to whom Christ appeared after His resur-
rection, is impossible, because nothing, not even the article, is used here
to point to them in particular. If, then, dyyeao can only mean angels, it
is most natural to take 967 ayyéAo¢e of the ascension, by which Christ—as
the Glorified One—was made manifest to angels (so, too, Plitt). Still there
is nothing here to lay stress on the ascension (as is done in the sixth
clause); the point is, that He who was justified é» mvetyare presented Him-
self to the angels in His glory.— Baur, indeed, in gnostic fashion interprets
the passage of Christ as passing through the various series of aeons, but it
is clear that the words neither demand nor even Justify such a view. No less
arbitrary is de Wette’s opinion, that probably the og6jva: ayyéAoe relates to
@ supernatural scene differing from the ascension, and forming the anti-
thesis to the descent into hell.—The very form of the expression shows
that we are not to think of appearances of angels at various moments in
the earthly life of Christ, as some expositors suppose. More noteworthy
is an explanation given by Chrysostom and approved by some later
expositors, especially by Matthies and Wiesinger.! Matthies appeals to
passages which he thinks are elucidated by the words, passages where
Christ is said to have been manifested as . . . head to all things in heaven
and on earth, Eph. i. 20 ff, iii 10, iv. 8 ff.; Col. i. 15 ff., ii. 10, 15; Heb. 1.6
ff. But, though Christ’s lordship over all is spoken of in such passages,
it is not said that Christ was made manifest to the angels only by means
of His incarnation. The only passage which might be quoted here is
Eph. iii. 10, which, however, rather declares that to the angels the eternal
decree of the divine love or of God’s wisdom was to be made known dé
tic éxxAnoiac. But such cannot possibly be the meaning of &¢@7 ayyéAou.
Wiesinger simply explains it: “the angels saw the capxw6évra on earth;”
but obviously the sentence is meant to express something which befell not
men, but angels.—éxnpiydn év ESveow] for éexnpbxdn, comp. Phil. i. 15; and
for év éSveccv, Matt. xxvii. 19. There is no good reason for taking é29v7
here as relating not to the nations in general, but, as Hofmann thinks, to
the heathen exclusive of the Jews.2—énioretdy tv xdouy]} excorebdyn is not,
with some expositors, to be explained by éd:xacddy: “ He has been testi-
fied ” (viz. by the miracles of the apostles), or by “ fidem sibi fecit”’ (“he
gained belief for Himself”); it is to be taken in its proper meaning. The
word «éopzog has the same general meaning as the preceding é6v7; van
Oosterzee is wrong in thinking that it ought to be taken here in an eth-
ical sense.—“ Jesus is personally the subject-matter of preaching and of
faith ” (Hofmann).—averjgdy tv 6&7] Mark xvi. 19; Acts i.11 (Acts x. 16),
where the same verb joined with ei¢ ovpavdéy is used of Christ’s ascension.
This supports the opinion of most expositors, that the same fact is men-
claratus est et filius Dei comprobatus in still more pointed: rnw yap adparoy ris
Spiritu i. e. per deitatem suam, cujus vi
miracula fecit.
1 Chrysostom says: w66y ayydAos* ore Kai
dyyeAor <0 nuep el8ov roy vidy Tov @eov, wpo-
Tepoy ovx dpwwres. Theodoret’s expression is
Gedrnros pioww ovdé exetvor ewpwy, capxwhdyTa
bé eOedcarto.
2 We cannot, in any case, see how “the sen-
tence is emptied of its meaning” by regard-
ing Israel as included in the idea of ¢6vy.
NOTES, 133
tioned here.—év 647] may be taken as an adverbial adjunct equivalent to
évddfuc (similarly 2 Cor. ii. 8; Col. iii. 4); but in that case the expression
of this sixth clause would be quite out of keeping with the others. Wahl
takes the expression per attractionem pro: aved. eig défav Kai éoriv év d6Ey,
which is the only right exposition. The apostle did not write ei¢ dééap,
but éy dééy, to show that Christ not only entered into glory, but abides for
ever in it (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Still we cannot go so far as
Matthies, who says that the result rather than the act of the transition is
here mentioned; the expression with forcible brevity includes both points.
De Wette's assertion, too, is quite arbitrary, that Paul is speaking here
not of the historical ascension, but of a heavenly occurrence.—In what
relation now do these six clauses stand towards each other ?—We cannot
help seeing that there is a definite order in their succession. It is beyond
doubt chronological, since the second clause does not relate to the out-
pouring of the Holy Spirit, and the last points more to Christ’s life in
glory than to the historical ascension. But, at the same time, we can
recognize a close relation between the clauses. Matthies, de Wette,
Wiesinger, and Hofmann have adopted three groups, each containing two
clauses; but, though ayyéAoe and 2@veow are contrasted, still this arrange-
ment would separate between the fourth and fifth clauses, whose connec-
tion Theodoret rightly points out: ov« éxypbyIn pévov, aAAd nal éemoretdn.
Besides, in order to make the correspondence complete, éxypiy07 év
29vecw should have come hefore &¢97 ayyéAore. It is more correct, there-
fore, to divide the whole into two parts, each with three clauses, the two
first in each case referring to what took place on earth, the third to what
took place in heaven (so, too, Plitt *).
Norges By AMERICAN Eprror.
IX. Vv. 1-7.
(a) W. and H. connect the words zord¢ 6 Aédyoe with the closing words of the
preceding chapter. The great majority of comm., as well as Tisch., Treg., Lachm.,
connect them with what follows. The latter connection seems more probable,
because it makes the transition to chap. iii. less abrupt, and because the phrase is
better adapted to the following than the preceding statement.—(b) The identity
of the oflice of éxioxoroc¢ and mpecBurepoc, at the date of these epistles, is now 80
generally admitted by the ablest and most candid scholars, that further discussion
of the question is hardly necessary. The absence of the word tpecBitepog from
the earlier Pauline Epistles, to which Huther calls attention, is noticeable, but is,
doubtless, to be accounted for by the fact that those epistles were occupied with
subjects quite remote from the constitution and offices of the church, and espe-
1Strange to say, Hofmann disputes this, on
the ground that Jesus “ was not received into
glory, but into the celestial sphere.” He
appeals for this to Heb. i. 3, which is utterly
from the point.
3 Baur maintains that in these six clauses
every two form a contrast, the one being
more gnostic, the other more anti-gnostic.
But in that case the author of the epistle
would, in the second part, have very strangely
given up the order observable in the first.
Besides, of all the clauses, the third has by
far the most resemblance to Gnosticism.
134 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
cially by the fact that that constitution was in the earlier apostolic times of the
simplest sort, and the official character of the leaders had little of the prom-
inence which was subsequently given to it. In the only instance in which Paul
speaks of éioxoro:, in his epistles which were written before the three to Timo-
thy and Titus, (Phil. i. 1), he evidently presents them as secondary to the church.
The development of church organization which is indicated even in these three
epistles is seen, so soon as the matter is carefully examined, to be very moderate.
There are only two officers mentioned—presbyters and deacons, who are, also,
alluded to as early as Acts vi. and xi.—(c) that the words ucac yuvaixdg avdpa do
not have reference to contemporaneous polygamy, is evident from the reasons
indicated by Huther, especially from the fact that the corresponding phrase in v.
9, évdg avdpdc yuv7, cannot be interpreted in this way. They must either be un-
derstood as opposed to a second marriage after the death of the first wife—succes-
sive polygamy, as it is sometimes called,—or to an immoral life in the way of
concubinage. The former of these views is held, in addition to the writers men-
tioned in Huther’s note, by Ell., Alf., Holtzm., Bib. Com. [the writer in this
com., however, includes marriages after divorce], and others. Plumptre (so Conyb.,
Bloomf 9th ed.) favors the reference to a second marriage after divorce, but
this is justly objected to on the ground that there is no distinct mention of divorce.
Fairbairn holds that the apostle “simply required that when one was called to
office in the Christian church, there should be but one living woman to whom he
stood related as husband.” Hofmann and Matthies agree with Huther in suppos-
ing the meaning to be, “that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives, nor has
lived, in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is
married.” The subject is briefly considered by Dr. Woolsey in his work on Divorce
and Divorce Legislation. It is, also, discussed in an extended note (Appendix B.)
in Fairbairn’s Com. on the Past. Epp. Comp., also, the comm. generally.
The natural interpretation of the words, as affected by the corresponding phrase
used with regard to widows, the absence of any reference to divorce, the indica-
tions in early writers that second marriages were not approved, or that abstaining
from them was commended, and the propriety of special self-restraint on the part
of officials in the churches, which might, not improbably, have been felt by Chris-
tians at that time, strongly favor the explanation which makes the apostle refer to
second marriages. On the other hand, it is clear that Paul allows widows to re-
marry, in 1 Cor. vii. 39, and that his whole treatment of the subject of the mar-
riage relation, as, indeed, that which we find throughout the N. T., considers its
obligations as ceasing with the death of either party. In the case of the younger
widows, he even recommends second marriage in this epistle (v. 14). This recom-
mendation in their case, however, can hardly be regarded as inconsistent with a
statement opposing re-marriage in the case of presbyters.—(d) The words pera
maone oeuvéryroc (ver. 4) are probably, though not certainly, to be connected with
éxovra «.t.A, and referred to the children—ceyzv. here denoting propriety and
becoming modesty in deportment, gravity. So Huther and most comm.—(e) The
word rupudelc (ver. 6) apparently refers to the puffed-up or conceited state of
mind, which might naturally be connected with the elevation of a recent convert
to such a position as that of a presbyter. The dignity of the position is implied
by the word, but there does not seem to be anything in it, or in the word vedguroe,
which is inconsistent with the Pauline authorship of the letter, or which demands
for it a later date. The word d:aféAov undoubtedly, as Huther clearly proves,
NOTES. 135
means the devil. This word, in ver. 7, is a subjective genitive. Huther takes it
in the same way in ver. 6. But «piva isa word which naturally suggests the idea
of divine judgment, in such a case; the N. T. conception of judgment as related
to the devil is that of judgment passed upon him; it is necessary, if Huther’s.
view be adopted, tomake xpiza mean (as he holds) “the judgment which serves to
give the devil foundation for accusing man with God,” or (as Holtzm. holds) “the
judgment of the devil speaking through the heathen,” or to give it some other
and improbable meaning. For these reasons, the genitive in ver. 6 must be
regarded as objective.
X. Vv. 8-13.
(a) It is noticeable that the qualifications for the office of deacon are mainly
the same in substance with those for the office of évioxo7o¢, and that, in both
cases, they are mainly in the line of general moral character. Both classes of
officials were to be selected from among those members of the churches who had
such virtues, and were in such a degree free from immoral and evil habits or ten-
dencies, that they would have the respect both of the church and of those outside
of it. The absence of any emphatic presentation of other points may naturally
indicate an earlier, rather than a later date for the Epistles, and thus point to
their authorship as within the life-time of Paul. There is certainly no special
development of ecclesiasticism, and no special alarm indicated as to dangers of
heresy, in these specified qualifications. Nor is there much to be discovered in
them, as showing a growth in the character or functions of the offices from the time
of the earliest notices which we have of them.—(b) That ywvaixag (ver. 11) refers
to the wives of the deacons, and not to a special order of deaconesses, is rendered
probable by the considerations mentioned in Huther’s note,—especially, by the
fact that the writer returns immediately, in ver. 12, to the subject of the deacons.
This view is taken by A. V., Conyb., Wieseler, Mack, and others. De W., Alf,,
Ell, Plumptre, Hofmann, and others understand the reference to be to deacon-
esses. The grounds for this view are, that there is no avrav referring to the dea-
cons, that there were deaconesses in the churches, that eoatrur indicates a similar
official character in these women to that of the deacons (comp. wcatrue of ver. 8
connecting the deacons with the bishops), and that 7ora¢ év aor is appropriate
to official position. The absence of avray, however, is less remarkable than the
absence of the designation as deaconesses ; the evidence as to the existence of
deaconesses in the churches generally, at the date of these ‘letters, is uncertain;
eoatruc is easily explicable on either view; tord¢ év Gov is a phrase which does
not require a reference to an office, but may be equally applicable to those not in
official station.—(c) The word fadyév (ver. 13) is rendered in R. V. by standing.
This rendering seems better than degree, of A. V., and the meaning, though quite
uncertain, is probably a@ good standing—an honorable position as connected with
the office which they hold. The force of év riorec is that of the sphere in which
the confidence moves, and perhaps, also, that on which it is grounded. sapprola
can hardly be limited, with Huther, to confidence in their official labors.
XI. Vv. 14-16.
(a) W. and H., Treg., and R. V. read, with Lachm. and Buttm., 4 réyec in
place of raxcov. The latter reading, which is adopted by Tisch., has the support
136 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
of ®, in addition to the authorities mentioned by Huther. The fact that Paul
was hoping soon to return to Ephesus, when taken in connection with the fact that
he had left that city not long before the date of the Epistle, and that he had,
apparently, passed some time there with Timothy before his departure, makes it
somewhat surprising that he should add to the suggestions of the earlier verses of
this chapter such a passage as this which now follows—a passage, which gives a
solemn and formal declaration of the great Christian truth and of the relation of
the church to it. Like other peculiarities in the Epistle, which have a more or
less similar character, it indicates that the Apostle was writing for the churches,
as well as for his younger companion and friend. In connection with this more
general design, the explanation which Huther gives of avaorpég¢eoVa: as having an
indefinite subject, how one should behave, conduct oneself, may not improbably be the
correct one.—(6) The common view of the construction of ortAoc xai édpaiwna,
that they are in apposition with éxxAyoia, is that which, on the whole, best accords
with the position of the words and the general indications of the sentence. The
assertion of Huther, however, that there is manifestly nothing to be said for the
opinion of some commentators, that by or. x. édp. we are to understand Timothy, is
hardly founded in fact. This reference of the words is in accordance with the
possibilities of the sentence ; it harmonizes with the reference of o7vAo¢ to individ-
uals in Gal. ii. 9, the only other passage where Paul uses the word (comp. also
Rev. iii. 12); it avoids the mingling of figures, which the other explanation
involves; and it closely connects the whole statement with the suggestions to Tim-
othy in a moet natural way. If referred to Timothy, however, of must be under-
stood as the subject of avacrpigeoda:, The absence of of; the fact that or. x. édp.
follows, instead of preceding the words referring to the church; and perhaps the
somewhat easier connection of ver. 16 with ver. 15, if the other view is taken,
favor the uniting of the words with éxxAyjoia, Holtzm. suggests a connection with
Veov Cavros, after the manner of Mk. vii. 19; Jas. iii. 8; Rev. iii. 12. This, how-
ever, seems quite improbable in a sentence like the present.—(c) The reading 6¢,
instead of ede, in ver. 16, is now almost universally admitted to be the genuine
text. So Griesb., Tisch., Treg., Lachm., Buttm., W. and H.; Green, Alf., Words.
Ell., de W., Holtzm., Fairbairn, Plumptre, Bib. Com., v. Oost. in Lange, R. V,,
and substantially all recent critics and scholars of note. Dr. Scrivener says, in
his second edition, 1874, “We must consider it highly probable (indeed, if we
were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials [referring especially to A and
C), we might regard it as certain) that... Jed of the more recent many [must]
yield to 5¢ of the ancient few.” In his third edition, 1883, he repeats this state-
ment, but adds: “ Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains
untouched,” and closes by saying: “I dare not pronounce %edé¢ a corruption.” He
thus seems to feel the great difficulty of accepting Sed, but to be, of late, some-
what more inclined to hesitate in rejecting it. Dean Burgon, in his volume
entitled “The Revision Revised,” makes a characteristic assault on the reading
dc, and a defence of #2é¢, even claiming for the latter reading the Alex. MS., in
regard to which Alford, twenty years ago, said: “It is to to be hoped that A will
never again be cited on the side of the received text.” The discussion by Dean
Burgon in favor of $eéc, and that by Dr. William Hayes Ward (Bib. Sac. Jan.
1865), in favor of 5¢, will give the student a full presentation of the case, as
viewed at present on both sides. Dean Burgon is, probably, the latest scholar of
much eminence, who will appear in the annals of the defence of the reading Sede,
NOTES. 137
and his work, in this section of it, as well as in its other parts, will gain the atten-
tion of interested students on this account, when the views which it advocates
have ceased to be supported by learned men.—(d) The result of all the most care-
ful examinations of the MSS. A and C, which have been made by different
scholars, and under the most favorable circumstances now possible—although two
or three among these scholars have doubts—must be regarded, it is believed, as
decisive, that the original reading of those MSS. was é¢. This was, undoubtedly,
the original text of ®, and as the reading®é in D is, in all probability, a corruption
of 5¢, and B does not include the Past. Epp., the earliest manuscript evidence is
unanimous against ded¢. This evidence is supported by the Syriac and Egyptian
versions; and by the Latin versions also, which, however, read quod.—(e) If 6¢ is
adopted as the text, R. V. has probably the correct rendering, making 6¢ the subject
of each of the verbs: who was manifested, was justified, etc. The pvorfpcor is, thus, de-
fined to be Christ. The question as to whether Paul believed or taught the divinity
of Christ does not depend on the textual reading of this verse. If the correct read-
ing is ede, there is a special declaration respecting it here, in that the name 6edé¢
is given to Him, but the support of the doctrine does not lie in this statement.
138 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
CHAPTER IV.
VER. 1. 7Advoic] For this, many cursives and Fathers have tAdvyc, which, how-
ever, is only a correction, perhaps after 1 John iv.6.—Ver. 2. Instead of the
form xexavtypacuévwy (Rec. Tisch.), we should probably, after A Ly, read Kexavo-
typtacpévwy (Lachm. smaller ed., Buttm.).—For tdiav ovveidyow, which is sup-
ported by the weightiest authorities, D* has (in Matthaei, E) ovveidjow éavrav.—
Ver. 6. For ’Ijcov Xpiorov, so many important authorities (A D F G, many cur-
sives, etc.) have Xpcorov 'I7ood, that the latter must be held the right reading.—
Ti¢ KaAn¢ dtdacxadiac] for which some cursives, etc., have 7H «aq d:daoxadia,
-which may have arisen from a belief that these words are co-ordinate with roi¢
Aédyorc.—For the Rec. 9 wapyxodovdyxac (Tisch.), Lachm. smaller ed., and Buttm.,
following A 80, have adopted the gen. 7¢ ~ap7x., an attraction seldom occurring,
but not without examples; see Winer, p. 154 f. [E. T. p. 163. f.].—Ver. 8. In 8 the
preposition zpé¢ is wanting before oAfyov; possibly mpd¢ oAiyov may have been
formed on the analogy of the zpé¢ wavra.—For the Rec. érayyediav, which is found
in the weightiest authorities, and is received by nearly all critics and editors, K¥,
many cursives have the plural ézayyeAiac. This is defended by Matthaei and
Rinck as the original reading, but is disputed by Reiche (Comment. crit. I. pp.
389 f.). It is at least possible that the singular found its way into the text as a
correction — Ver. 10. nal xom:@uev, Rec, supported by F G K, most cursives, ete.
(Tisch. 7); in A C D® 17, 47, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. etc., xai is want-
ing, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8. Its genuineness is
very doubtful_—Instead of the Rec. ovecd:(éueSa (supported by D L, most versions,
Theodoret, etc., Tisch. 7), ACF G KR, al, have the reading aywr{éueda, which
has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. The authorities give a preference
to the latter reading, yet it may have arisen from Col. i. 29. Reiche defends the
Ree. ; we cannot decide with certainty which is original ; see further in the expo-
sition of the verse—Ver. 12. Between év ayary and év wiore: the Rec. has ev
avetuatt; rightly withdrawn from the text as not genuine by Griesb. Scholz,
Lachm. Tisch., following the weightiest authorities (A C D F G 31, 47, 70, 71,
al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Clemens, Chrys. etc.); comp. Reiche (Comment. crit.
I. p. 392).—Ver. 15. For év raocv, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly adopted
maou (without év), after A C D F G® 17, 31, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. ete., Clem. Chrys.
etc. It is defended, too, by Reiche as the original reading; é appears to have
been inserted from the analogy of Rom. i. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 19.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-5, see Note XII., page 153.] In the first five verses
of this chapter, Paul speaks of the heretics, directing special attention in
ver. 3 to one point in their doctrine.—rd 62 mvevua pytoc Atyec] [XII 5.)
The dé connects this verse with the beginning of iii. 16, and connects it by
way of contrast. Td mvevya is the Holy Spirit, as the source of prophecy.
CHAP. IV. l. 139
To explain the expression by of mvevyarixoi (Heydenreich) is inaccurate.
Paul goes back here to the fundamental basis of all prophecy.—pyré¢
(aag Aey.) means: “in express words,” and is used particularly with quota-
tions... Heydenreich is inaccurate in explaining it as equivalent to caddéc,
gavepoc; Luther: “distinctly.” The apostle, then, appeals here to a
prophecy of the Spirit expressly worded. Such a prophecy of the future
apostasy lay before him in many utterances, both of Christ and of others;
besides, the Spirit declared them to the apostle himself.—Leo is wrong:
animus mihi praesagit.—&re év toréporg Katpoig aroorgoovrai tives tie hoTewc |
We might readily take torepo: xatpoi here as equivalent to éoyaror xa:poi .?
but we must not overlook the difference between the two expressions. The
former points simply to the future, the latter to the last time of the future,
immediately preceding the completion of God’s kingdom and the second
coming of Christ (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). Itis unsuitable to press
xa:péc here in the sense of “ the fitting time,” and totranslate it with Matthies:
“in the fitting time hereafter.”—Tivec are not the heretics, but those who
are led away from the faith by the heretics. The apostasy belonged to
the future, but the heresy to the present. Hofmann thinks differently,
assigning the heresy also to the future, though the apostle’s expression
does not warrant this.» We must not, however, with Otto, infer that in
the apostle’s time the heretics were still outside the church.—azoor#oovra
T#¢ mistewc | “ This sentence forms the antithesis to what has preceded, iii.
15, 16” (Wiesinger) ; for the expression, comp. Luke viii. 18; Heb. iii. 12;
Wisd. iii. 10; 1 Macc. i. 15, and other passages.—rpocétzovrec}] comp. i. 4;
the partic. tells how the apostasy is brought about.—vebpacr radvoc] the
mvevpata TAéva are in-contrast with the mveiya in ver.1; and the former
are as little to be identified with the heretics, as the latter with the prophets
(Wolf: spirituales seductores, ¢. e. doctores seducentes). The mvetyarta are
rather the active spiritual powers hidden in the heretics, the tools and ser-
vants of the devil. As the truth is one, so also is its principle one: rd
wvevpa THe GAyOeiag. Error on the other hand is manifold, and is supported
by a plurality of spirita, who may, however, be regarded as a unity: 1d
xvevua THC wAaync, 1 John iv. 6.—These mvetyara are called Ada, because
they seduce man from the truth to falsehood; comp. 2 John ver. 7.—xai
didacxadriac datpoviwy] dapoviwy is not the objective,‘ but the subjective geni-
tive. The da:uéua are the source of the doctrines which are opposed to
the truth, of the cogia daiponddne (Jas. ili. 15); comp. Col. 11. 22, It is wrong
to suppose that the dacuévea are the heretics themselves. As with mveiua
in ver. 1, Paul goes back here to the inner grounds; the dé:dacxatia: pro-
1(Huther must mean that pyras is drag Aey.
in the N.T.; for it is found in Sext. Empir.
adv. Log. i. 8: 5 Hevoday pyres dyoiv; also in
Strabo, i. p. 4 B, and Polybius, fi. 23. 5.—Tkr.}
2Comp. 2 Tim. ifi. 1: érxaras yudpar; 1 Pet.
L 5: watpds écxaros; 2 Pet. iii. 3; Jude, ver.
18; in Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.; éoxaror
RaLpos.
§ Plitt is not wrong in observing that “the
errors now dercribed by the author were no
longer matters purely of the future; they
were already appearing.”
4Heydenreich: “doctrines regarding dem-
ons, a characteristic of Easene-gnostic here-
tics who spoke so much of the higher world
of spirits, of aeons,” ete.
§ Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Winer, p. 176
[E. T. p. 187).
140 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ceeding from these form the opposite of the didacxadia 4 Tob owrijpo¢ yuav
Gcov.)
Ver. 2. ’Ev troxpice: pevdoAdywv] Leo: “errarunt sine dubio, qui geni-
tivos, qui sequuntur, pevdoAdyuy, xexavtypracpévur, xwAvévtwr, lege appositionis,
junctos esse dicebant cum voc. da:zoviey;’’ but we must also reject Leo's
opinion, that év troxp. pevd. was added to the previous statement as a
second characteristic of the heretics, meaning: eadem simulantes, quae
simulare solent homines pevdodAdya, etc.; pevdod., xexautnp., kwAvévrwy denote
the heretics themselves, and not those whom they imitated. To regard
the genitive pevdoAdyov as dependent on didacxadiar, and év troxpice: as
defining more precisely the substantive following it (Estius: doctrinis,
inquam, hominum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium), would make a
double difficulty of construction. Nor can Luther’s translation be de-
fended: “by means of such as are speakers of lies in hypocrisy.” ‘Ev
troxpice: i8 either to be taken with azoorjoovra (so Bengel: Constr. cum
deficient ; hypocrisis ea, quae est falsiloquorum, illos auferet; revec aliqui,
illi, sunt seducti; falsiloqui, seductores; falsiloquorum, genitivus, unice
pendet ab hypocrisi), or, still better, with mpooéyovrec (Wiesinger, van
Oosterzee, Plitt). The objection of Matthies, which agrees with Leo’s
explanation, that in that case we should have had instead of é either &é
or évexa with the article, is contradicted by the usage of the N. T. In the
N. T. év is not seldom used with the instrument, and in regard to the
article there prevails a greater freedom of use than in classic Greek.
Hofmann strangely combines da:poviuy év troxpice: pevdoAdywy into one idea,
explaining dacyoviay to be an adjective with pevdoAdyov, and év toxpice: also
as a qualification of pevdoAdywr in the sense of “ hypocritical.” *—The hypoc-
risy of the heretics consisted in giving themselves, in obedience to a false
spiritualism (see ver. 3), the appearance of a spiritually-inspired life.—
The word pevdoadyo: (“ liars,’ Luther) occurs only here in the N. T. In
sense it is equivalent to wevdod:ddoxaros, 2 Pet. ii. 1, and pevdorpodytys, 1
John iv. 1 (comp. parasoAdyo:, Tit. i. 10).—xexavrnpiacptver rv idiav ovveidyaty
On the grammatical structure, comp. vi. 5 (dtepOappévor &vOpwro: Tov vorv;
the more precise definition is not infrequently added in the accusative, see
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 229]), “ branded, as to their conscience’? (Wahl:
kexautypiacpevay Exovrec Tv id. ovveidyowv).—It is to be noted that the xaurnpidfecv
(cauterio notare) was not only done on slaves “ut facilius possent dis-
cerni”’ (Leo), but was also a form of punishment for marking criminals as
such (comp. Meyer on Gal. vi. 17). As these bore the brand on their
forehead,—that is the figurative expression.—so do the heretics bear it on
their conscience, ¢. e. they bear in their conscience the knowledge of their
1The expression 8acudma occurs often in
the synoptic Gospels; in John only in the
singular. Paul has it only here and in 1 Cor.
x. Otto uses this last fact as a proof that the
two epistles were contemporaneous, but he is
wrong; the reference is different in the two
cases; in the passage of 1 Cor. it is not the
“ gnostic” heresy that is spoken of.
?Hofmann opposes the view here put for-
ward that dy vmroxpice is to be taken with
spogéxovres, and makes the curious remark
that ¢» “can only introduce that which is of
use to me for doing something, not that
which makes me do a thing only in so far
as it is of use to another to determine me
to do it” (1).
CHAP. Iv. 2, 3. 141
guilt.!. Theodoret (followed by Heumann) wrongly understands the apos-
tle’s expression to denote moral deadness.2- The apostle does not blame
the heretics for having a conscience completely blunted, but for acting
against their conscience; comp. Tit. ili. 11: avroxardxpiroc.—On idiav, de
Wette remarks that it is not emphatic here; butit is not improbable that
the apostle had some such side-thought in mind as Bengel suggests : dum
alios tamen urgent (so, too, Wiesinger).
Ver. 3. Further description of the heretics. [XII c, d.J—Kwudvévruy
yaueiv] Since even the Exsenes and Therapeutae made abstinence from
marriage a necessary condition of a holy life, there is no ground whatever
for supposing that this description proves the heretics to have been fol-
lowers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to
Baur).—aréyeo8ar Bpwyatwy] similar construction in ii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 34;
the infinitive is dependent on the xedevévrev implied in xnwdvdvruv (==xedev-
évruv uy); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 622]; Buttmann, p. 343 [E. T. 401.].
Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects anéyeodar into avréyecda:. In
the Epistle to the Romans (chap. xiv.) the apostle speaks of weak breth-
ren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics
combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbid-
ding the enjoyment of certain meats; but neither here nor in these passages
is it said what kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Tit. i. 14,
15). It is, however, not improbable—if we follow the analogy of later
gnostics—that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col. ii. 6: év Bpdoec
év xéoet), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition
was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that
the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic dis-
tinction between clean and unclean (comp. Tit. i. 15); so also Wie-
singer.“—In the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 22) the apostle indicates the
perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also
here.—a 6 Oed¢ éxrioev ei¢ weTdAmv x.t.A.] Different answers have been given
to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted.
It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from mar-
riage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on
all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in
manifest contradiction with the divine order of creation, whereas the pro-
hibition of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its
analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses ” (Hofmann). Besides,
the apostle has already indicated in ii. 15 the opposition of the gospel to
this prohibition to marry.—The word perdampc occurs only here, though
in Acts xxvii. 33 we find peradaBetv rpop7c.—The apostle does not content
himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at
1Theophylact rightly: éwei cuvvicagiy édav- 8 Hofmann, with no good reason, declares,
Tos axaBapgiay woAAny, da TOVTO Td guverdds on the other hand, that attention is directed
avrwy aveforeimrovs Exes Tovs KxavTnpas tov here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to
pumapou fiov. the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle
2yéxpewors mai awoBoAh wdons aicgOjcews, tothe Romans, as well as to the heretics at
éoxarn avadyyoia’ 6 yap Tov xavrnpos toros Colosse.
vecpwbeis Thy mpdétepay aicOnow awoPdAAc.
142 : THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.: pera evyapcoriag
(comp. on this 1 Cor. x. 31). He then limits the general thought by a
special reference to believers: toi¢ miotoig nai émeyvwxdot tiv adgdeav, as
those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus
totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam
vocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by
adding “‘also”’ before roi¢ moroic, as is done by some expositors.—Heyden-
reich rightly says that the words are equivalent to iva of miotoi xai oi
ereyvuxdres THY aAnO. peTadaBoow avTov pera evyapioriag. Hofmann unjusti-
fiably takes exception to this, and—in spite of 67 beginning a new sen-
tence—sceks to connect roi¢ moroic not with what goes before, but with
what follows (!). The added words: roi¢ moroic¢ x.7.4., show most clearly
the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to
believers of all people. Tlvoroi are “ believers,” and not ‘“ those convinced
that enjoyment is permitted to them ;” éreyy. r. 4470. also does not denote
a special class of the moray: “ the Christians who have come to the true
gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the z:oroi themselves, as
those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognized the truth, z.¢. the
divine truth. Kai is epexegetical; comp. ii. 4.
Ver. 4. “Ore wav xrisua Ocot xaAdv} This verse gives the ground of the
preceding thought, which Hofmann denies. Bengel wrongly takes it to
he in apposition to aA73eav.—a«tioua, which does not occur elsewhere in
Paul, means here of course the creatures of God destined for nourishment.
On the principle here expressed, comp. Rom. xiv. 14: ovdéy xoevov &’ avrod,
and ver. 20: mavra xa¥apéd; Acts x. 15: & 6 Oed¢ éxaddpioe, ob px) Koivov.—xai
ovdév atdBAnrov] comp. Iliad, iii. 65: obros amréBAnr’ éori Ocdv épixvdéa dpa;
and the scholiast’s remark : aréfAnra’ aroBodie dkca’® ta bd Gedv, gyoi, didSdpueva
dapa ovx tore uév GpvicacVa. Here the thought stands in contrast with the
idea of defilement caused by partaking of certain meats. Going back to
the pera evyaproriac in ver. 3, the apostle defines it more precisely, though
not by mentioning an accessory point merely : vera evyapioriag AauBavouevov
(Eph. v. 20: edyapiorovvtes mévrote trip mavrwv), because God wishes His
gifts to be enjoyed with thankful heart, and the purpose of creation is
therefore fulfilled only by him who partakes with thankfulness.
Ver. 5 serves to elucidate the thought expressed in ver. 4, that every
meat taken with thanksgiving is good, and not to be rejected.—'Ayiacerae
yap dia Adyov Geod Kai évrev&ewc] dyidleev is not “declare to be clean and
permissible,” but “make something holy.” In itself the meat is not
something holy, for, as a purely material thing, it can be called neither
holy nor unholy (so also van Oosterzee). It is less suitable to say, with
Wiesinger, that “the «rio being burdened with a curse, is subject to
patadérnc and the dovdeia ri¢ gSopac;” but it is made holy for those who
enjoy it by the Adyoc Geov. Wahl and Leo take Geot to be the objective
genitive, and interpret it as “oratio ad Deum facta,” which makes the
expression synonymous with évrevée¢ following it; but Adyo¢ Ocod never
occurs in this sense. Other expositors have supposed that reference is
made to some particular passage of the Scriptures, either to Gen. i. 31 or
CHAP. Iv. 4-6. 143
Acts x. 15; but de Wette rightly remarks that the words in that case go
quite beyond ver. 4, and touch on the question whether certain meats are
clean orunclean. For the same reason, Adyoc Gcov cannot mean generally
“the expressions of the divine doctrine, the principles of Christianity ”
(Heydenreich). Since the expression points back to pera eiyapioriag in
ver. 4, and is closely connected with évrevéc, it can only mean the word
of God occurring in the prayer of thanksgiving (de Wette, Wiesinger, van
Oosterzee), either in this sense, that the word of thanks itself is called the
Word of God, inasmuch as it is the expression of God’s indwelling Spirit,
or because the prayer is supposed to consist of the words of Scripture.’—
Regarding évrevgic, see ii. 1.
Ver.6. [On Vv.6-10, see Note XIII., pages 153-155.] After describing the
heretics, the apostle turns again to Timothy, exhorting him, in the first
place, with special regard to the matters last under discussion, and then
more generally in regard to the duties of his office.—raira troriPépevog
toic adeAgoic] ravta [XIII a.], does not, as Heydenreich supposes, pass over
all intermediate matter and go back to the christological doctrines ex-
pressed in iii. 16. It is more correct, with Hofmann, to refer it to the
whole section from iii. 16 to iv. 5 (so Chrysostom); but possibly also Paul
had in view only the prohibitions of the heretics (Wiesinger ; van Oosterzee
doubtfully).—iorideoda: (the middle only here, the act.in Rom. xvi. 4), prop-
erly: “ put under the hand or foot,” may also mean “ instruct ” (Josephus,
Antiq. i. 14), as much as “ advise” or “command” (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii.
8.7); here it stands more in the latter sense; Luther: “point out.”—
Hofmann wrongly explains it as equivalent to “take as a theme,” and—
against the natural structure of the sentence—connects it with what fol-
lows, though in this way it becomes tolerably superfluous.—xaic éoy
diéxovog Xpistov 'Ijoov}] Paul here uses didxovog, inasmuch as Timothy was
formally appointed to serve in the work of Christ; it has the same
meaning as “so wilt thou well occupy the office committed to thee (d:axovia,
2 Tim. iv. 5).” To this is attached the participial clause: évtpegduevog roi¢
Adyorc THC TiaTEws x.t.A.] The present participle does not stand for the per-
fect participle, but brings out how Timothy is to behave at all times, in
order to fulfill his commission as a xaAdc didxovog ’I. Xp. It declares that
he is to be one who makes the words of faith his nourishment. It is
inaccurate, therefore, to translate évrpepéuevoc by innutritus (Bengel?), or
“reared ” (Luther).2 The Adyo: rye miorews are the words in which faith
1In the Apostolic Constitutions, vil. 49, there
stands the following grace before meat: evAo-
yntos el, Kupse, 6 rpddeow pe dx vedrnros pov, d
&c80vs tpodny wacyn capai, mA¥pecoy xapas Kai
evdpocuvns tas xapdias nua, iva WayToTe Tagay
aUTapceray €xovTES, WeptowevwpeY cig Way Epyor
ayaboy év Xp. "Incov, re Kupiy yuo, 8° of coi
Scfa, Timm Kai KpaTos eis TOVS aiwvas, aut.
-2Bengel, however, did not overlook the
signification of the present altogether, since
he explains thus: Praesens cum respectu
praeteriti, innutritus; nutrimentum per
petuum. Chrysostom remarks: rd écynvexes
ths eis Ta ToravTa mpocoxis SyAwy. Winer
says: “éyrpeddpuevos shown that the Adyor ris
wiorews are to Timothy a permanent means
of nourishment and culture.”
8 As to the meaning of the word évrpépecOar
(in N. T. aawo€ Aey.), see Philo, Leg. ad Cuj.:
dverpadns Tots iepots ypdéumacv, and Plato,
Leg. vii. 7984: ots yap ay évrpadwoe vdpors.
144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
expresses itself. The added words: xa? rio xadje didacxadiac (see i. 10),
make the contrast with the heretics more decided, and the further clause:
9 (4) mapnKxoAobdnxac, shows that Timothy had hitherto been faithful to
pure doctrine. This latter perfect stands in apt contrast with the present
participle évrpegéuevoc. The original meaning of the verb: “follow near
any one,” furnishes naturally for the present context the meaning:
“which thou hast faithfully followed, to which thou hast remained faithful.”
The translation : “according to which thou hast formed thyself,” is inac-
curate; the word occurs in the 'N. T. only here and in 2 Tim. iii. 10, as
well as in Luke i. 3 and Mark xvi. 17.
Ver. 7. The exhortation to Timothy in the previous verse, that he
should continue faithful to sound doctrine, is followed by an injunction
to keep from heresy.—roig d2 BeSiAove wat ypadderg pibove mapaitov} raparrov'
Tv Tedeiav aropvyyy aivirreraz, Chrysostom: “have nothing to do with.”
Here, as in i. 4, the apostle calls the heresies ni6o, in reference to the
fictions they contained; but at the same time he describes them more
precisely by the adjectives BéBnAo. and ypaddecc. On the former, comp. i.
9 (Luther: “unspiritual”’). It is in contrast with 6é00¢, and would be
manifestly too strong, if the p60 were only “things which bear no moral
fruit,” which “have an innocent aspect,” and only “possibly lead to
apostasy ” (against Wiesinger).! T'padédé7¢ (occurring only here) is equiva-
lent to “‘ old-wifish ” (Luther), 7. e. antiquated ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 28. Otto
regards “the pvfoe ypadderg on the formal side as myths, such as are told
to children by old fathers ;” but the passages quoted by him from Plato?
do not support his opinion. These merely say that nurses, mothers, and
more generally old wives, are to tell myths to the children, from which
we can infer neither that ypaéde refers merely to the form of the story,
nor that Paul had any thought of a reference to children.—The apostle’s
exhortation does not touch so much on Timothy’s teaching as on his own
personal conduct; but correctness of conduct is all the more necessary
that it is a condition of the right fulfillment of his dcaxovia.—yipvale dé
oeavTov mpdc evoéBecav] [XIII 6.] After telling Timothy what he is not to
do, viz. that he is not to give himself up to the p60 BeBydoic, he tells
him now what—in contrast to these things—he is to do. The dé indicates
not only the transition to a new thought (Hofmann), but also the contrast
to what has preceded. The figurative expression yuurdfew is used also in
classic Greek of every straining exercise. This meaning is to be main-
tained here.*—rpé¢ indicat finem, ad quem illa yuzvacia vergat (Leo); this
goal is evoéBeca, ¢.e. Christian piety rooted in faith. Comp. on this verse,
2 Tim. ii. 22, 23.
Ver. 8. The reason for the previous exhortation is given by contrasting
1 Hofmann is right in saying that BéByAos
does not properly mean “ wicked” or “god-
less,” but “unholy.” He, however, overlooks
the fact that it denotes not simply the nega-
tion, but also the opposite of what is holy.
He is wrong, therefore, in maintaining: “the
apostle cannot, however, truly describe in
this way the doctrines of devilish liars.”
2 Republic, i. 350 E; ii. 377 C, and 378 D.
8Theodoret: yuuragias dpa xpeia xai wévwy
Sinvexwv’ 6 yap yupvatduevos Kai aywvos mi
-Ovros aywriCeras ispwros axpt.
CHAP. Iv. 7, 8. 145
the owparix) yuuvacia with the yvuvacia mpdc evoéBecav, [XIII c.]—} yap
Owpatix?) yvuvacia mpo¢. dAiyov éotiv apéAcuoc] Regarding the meaning of
owuat. yuuv., there are two opinions which need no refutation: the one is
that it means the ceremonial law;' the other is that of Chrysostom, who
understands by it disputation with the heretics.? It is a question whether
Paul makes use of the word with or without reference to the heretics.
Many expositors® adopt the former view, and explain the cwparix? yunvasia
to mean the practice prevailing among the heretics of abstaining from
marriage and from certain meats. The connection of ideas is against this
view, since in the words immediately preceding he was not speaking of
rules of abstinence, but of the myths of the heretics; the sense is also
against it, for Paul could not possibly say of the heretics’ mode of life,
which before he had called devilish, that it was mpd¢ dAtyov agéduuog x.7.A.
Wiesinger thinks the apostle had in mind, not that degenerate form of
asceticism which was to appear in the future, as he described in ver. 3, but
“the phenomena of the present,” viz. an asceticism to which even Timo-
thy (v. 23) had some inclination. But since, in Wiesinger’s opinion, even
this asceticism is to be regarded as an error, we cannot well refer to it the
words mpd¢ oAiyoy éoriv wpéAiuoc—Hofmann understands the cwpariky yup-
vacia to be a discipline such as the apostle practiced on himself in abstain-
ing from things permitted ; not, however, as if the self-denial were any-
thing in itself, but only lest he should be hindered by the needs of the
body from attaining the goal. For this Hofmann quotes 1 Cor. ix. 27.
But the discipline which Paul practiced on himself was by no means a
purely bodily one; it was rather a yupvacia mpd¢ evaéBecav, since the faithful
fulfillment of official duty formed part of the eicéBea. The expression is
therefore to be explained simply from itself, and we must understand by
it the exercise of the body in general.‘—The reason why Paul here speaks
of bodily exercise is contained in the previous exhortation : yipzvage cé mpde¢
evofBecav. This he wishes to make emphatic by contrasting with it the
yuuratew practiced so carefully among the Greeks, though only zpd¢ d2iyov
wgéAuov. The connection of ideas is by no means, as de Wette thinks, a
mere “lexical allusion,” nor is the idea itself superfluous.—=rpé¢ oAiyov is
in Jas. iv. 14 used of time: “for a short time.” In this sense many have
taken it here; but the contrasted mpd¢ révra is against this. It is inac-
curate also to regard, as Heumann does, mpé¢ odiyov as equivalent to odiyp
(Luther: “ of little use’); it means “for little.” Paul does not mean to
say that the cup. yurvacia is of no use, but that its use extends to little,
only to some relations of the present, earthly life. Itis different with
1 Braun, Selecta sacra, i. 10, 3 156. (of those more recent, Mack, de Wette, and
2Chrysoat.: unde cis yupvaciay wore xarabes
GeavrTov, Siadrcyduevos wpds éxeivovs’ ov yap ¢ore
wpds tovs Sucotpappdvous paxdpmevoy byacas
vl word.
8Of the older, Ambrosius, Thomas; of the
more recent, Calvin, Grotius; also Heyden-
reich, Leo, Matthies.
4As Theodoret, Pelagius, Wolf, and others
10
van Oosterzee) have rightly explained it.
SIf dAcyow (without wpés), the reading of &,
is correct, then the meaning is that which
Luther has expressed. Still oAcyow might be
taken also as a milder expression for the
absolute negation: of little use, i. e. properly
speaking, of no use, viz. for the calling of a
Christian. But even this view does not
146 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
that to which Timothy is exhorted: # dé evoéBera mpdg mévra OptAuude éori]
A more exact contrast would have been presented by 7 d& yuurvacia 4 mpd¢
evoéBecav; but Paul could here speak at once of the use of evoéBeca in order
to strengthen the previous exhortation. IIpdc zdvra is here opposed to
mpos daiyov. The general reference thus given must not be arbitrarily
limited. There is nothing, no active occupation, no condition, no human
relation, on which the eveésera does not exercise an influence for good.—
Erayyediav éxovoa Cuie tho viv Kai THE peAdotonc] This participial clause
gives a reason for the words immediately preceding, and confirms them.
De Wette, and following him Wiesinger, explain (by appealing to passages
such as Ex. xx. 12; Deut. iv. 40; Matt. vi. 33; Eph. vi. 2, and others) (9
} viv as equivalent to “a long and happy life.” But f04 with 9 viv cannot
have a meaning different from that which it has with 7} peAdoioa. It is
incorrect also to understand by (wf “eternal life, life in the full and true
sense of the word” (Hofmann),! for it is arbitrary to maintain that ri voy
kal tio weAdzobone Was added to Cwy¢ only as an after-thought. This con-
trast forbids us to understand (w4 as anything else than simply “ life; ”
Su? 7} viv is the present, [a7 7 ueAAovoa is the future life which follows the
earthly. The genitive is to be taken as a more remote objective genitive,—
“promise for the present and the future life ” (so, too, van Oosterzee and
Plitt). [XIII d.] The thing promised is not indeed named, but it can be
easily supplied.
Ver. 9 [XIII e.] serves to strengthen the expression immediately pre-
ceding (not the thought in iii. 16, against Heinrichs), whereas in 1. 15
(comp. also iii. 1) the same words refer to what follows. The ydp in ver.
10 prevents us from connecting them with what comes next. Itis no less
unsuitable to refer them, as Hofmann docs, to the 4rz following, and to
regard cic rovro ... as a parenthesis. This connection is opposed not
only by the harshness of the construction, but also by the consideration
that, as a matter of fact, the conduct of the Christian, viz. qAm«évace x.7.2.,
necded for Timothy no such confirmation as is given in these words.”
Ver. 10. Eig rotro yap komiduev nai dvedifdueba x.7.A.] The particle ydp
[XIII f.] shows that this verse is to serve as a reason or confirmation of
the preceding thought that godliness is profitable for all things, having
promise of this and the future life. Ei¢ rovro is by expositors either
referred directly to this thought (de Wette, van Oosterzee), or is joined
with the érz following (Wiesinger); in the latter case the 7Aqixauev points
only to the thought in ver. 8. The former construction deserves the pref-
erence, not only because it is more natural to refer the rotvro to the thought
of ver. 8 so purposely confirmed by ver. 9; and also because ei¢ rovro
cannot be taken as equivalent to dad rovro (by which Theodoret para-
phrases it), id circo (Beza). Eic always points to a goal (and not to the
justify the interpretation of yupvagia which 2This difficulty is concealed in Hofmann
we have rejected above. by laying the emphasis on Ge» gwrri, so that
1 It is clear that ¢w7 is not the “ blessed life” | mcards o Adyos «.1.A. is to refer to the thought
- (Matthies), since evodBea itself denotes the that God is a living God.
blessed life.
CHAP. Iv. 9, 10. 147
reason of something.) ’HAm«évac, however, as an already existing condi-
tion, cannot be regarded as the goal to which the xomay is directed ; hence
Luther’s translation: “to this end we labor also ... that we... have
hoped,” cannot be justified. The meaning therefore is: In regard to this,
that godliness has promise, viz. in order that this promise may be fulfilled
in us, we labor.—With the Rec. kai xomi@pev nai dvediCoueba, nai. . . Kai 18
either equivalent to “both . . . and,” or the first «ai is equivalent to “yea
also,” and the second «ai is simply “and.” In the former case the two ideas
xoriav and ovedifeoOac are more widely separated ; in the latter, they are
more closely connected. The second view seems to be more natural. There
is very weighty authority for the reading: xomid@pev nai aywviféueba, which
also gives a thoroughly appropriate meaning; but still the Rec., for which,
too, almost all expositors! have decided, might be preferred. The change
of ovecdi3bueba into aywufduefa may be easily explained from the following
facts, that in Col. i. 29 xoméy is joined with aywvifeofa, that dvediZerv does
not occur elsewhere in Paul (except at Rom. xv. 3 in an O. T. quotation),
that the passive dved:{éue6a does not seem suitable, whereas aywufdueba
agrees well with the figure in ver. 8. On the other hand, the change of
ayuvtoueba into ovecdifdueba is scarcely explicable. The plural xomdépev
is not to be limited to the apostle, or to him and Timothy; it expresses
the general Christian consciousness. The verb, often joined with
another verb which has in it the idea of active exertion (1 Cor. iv. 12;
Eph. iv. 28; Col. i. 29), does not denote simple labor, but labor with
trouble and suffering : “to toil and moil” (Heydenreich); kai oved:féue9a
again points to the reproach which the Christian bears from the world.
'OverdiZoueda is a “concise expression for we endure to be slandered ”
(Wiesinger).—ore 7Amixapev éxt Og Cov7e] If etc rovro refers to what pre-
cedes, 572 is equivalent to “‘because;” the meaning in that case is: in
regard to the promise given to eiséBera, we take trouble and reproach
upon ourselves, because we have set our hope on the living God, and are
certain, therefore, that that promise does not remain unfulfilled. ‘Ore
refers to both the preceding verbs, and does not merely stand “in close
connection with the latter,” as van Oosterzee without reason thinks. The
perfect 7Arixauev as here: 1 Cor. xv. 19; 2 Cor. i. 10.—God is here called
the ving God, inasmuch as He fulfills what He has promised.—EAmiZew
is construed with éi and the dative, because the living God is regarded as
the ground on which the hope rests. The construction is only found here
at vi. 17, and at Rom. xv. 12in an O. T. quotation. Elsewhere éA7ifew is
construed with év, or eis, or éri and the accusative—The relative clause
be gore curip Tavtev avdpdruv, pddoTra TuTOy serves asa seal of the hope
grounded in God. Since God is the ourfp, this hope, too, cannot be vain;
de Wette is wrong, therefore, in asserting that this clause is “out of all
keeping.” —The first words are explained by ii. 4: a¢ mdévracg av8pdrovg SéAet
oudivat. By uéduota moréy it is indicated that the will of God unto
salvation is realized only in the case of believers. Mdé’:ora does not stand
1De Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, and others.
148 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
here “unsuitably ” (de Wette); it rather gives suitable expression to the
thought that God is and continues to be the owrp for all, whether they
desire owrypia Or not; but in the proper and special sense the owrypia is
only for believers who really desire it.
Ver. 11. [XIII g.] Mapdyyeare ravra nai didacxe} Timothy is to proclaim
to the community that which Paul has enjoined to him. Taira refers not
only to what is in ver. 10 (according to Hofmann: “to God’s living power
and willingness to help ”), but to everything that has been said previously
in regard to evoéBeca. The two verbs mrapayyéArew and diddoxew tell how
he is to proclaim these things. They are not distinguished from cach
other as referring, the one to private, the other to public instruction, nor
as expressing, the one, generally public proclamation, the other, more
especially exact instruction, explanation, information (Matthies); but
mapayyéAdecv, Which in the N. T. has constantly the sense of “ command,”
indicates that Timothy is to hold up these things (raira) to the community
as the standard of their conduct.
Ver. 12. [On Vv. 12-16, see Note XIV., pages 155, 156.] From this
verse on to the end of the chapter, Paul instructs Timothy how he is to
behave towards the community that his wapayyéAAew kai diddoxew (ver. 11)
may not bein vain. [XIV a.J—yydei¢c cov zie vedtytog natagpoveitu] [XIV b.]
cov is dependent on ri¢ vedryroc, which is the object of xatagpov. Wahl, on the
contrary (followed by Leo and Matthies), construes cov directly with xara¢p.,
and takes r#¢ vedr. as a genitive defining the substantive more precisely
(= pndcig dtd tiv vedtyta Katagpovfoy cov, Chrysostom), so that xaragp. here
(like xaryyopeiv) would be connected with a double genitive (comp. Buttm.
p. 143 [E. T. 165]). This construction, however, is more forced than the
former, and xatagp. occurs nowhere else with it.—According to the form
of the sentence, the command is directed to the community, but in sense
to Timothy. Timothy is not to permit the authority entrusted to him as
representative of the apostle, to be limited on account of his youth:
“ permit no one to despise thy youth.” The asa, however, attached to this
injunction shows that he is to effect this especially by his Christian
conduct; most expositors find here only this last thought.—That he may
retain respect, he is to make himself anexampletoall: aaad rizog yivov trav
movav. A comma is not unsuitably placed after wcrav, giving the clause
greater independence, and making the qualifications that follow: é Adyp
x.t.A.. more emphatic. On the exhortation rizo¢g yivov, comp. besides Tit.
ii. 7; Phil. ili. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 9; 1 Pet. v. 3. Tivov does not mean
“ become,” as if Timothy had not been so hitherto, but “be.” The next
five words: év Ady «.7.4., tell wherein Timothy is to be an example to
believers. We cannot but observe that there is a certain order in the
succession of the words. First we have éy Ady» and év avactrpogy. Adyog
includes every kind of speaking (not merely doctrine), i. e. teaching, exhort-
ing, warning, comforting, etc., both in public assemblies and in private
intercourse. ‘Avaorpogy is the life as embodied in deeds. Word and life
are the two forms of revealing the inner hidden disposition. To this inner
life we are directed by the next words: év ayéry, év wiore:, which denote
CHAP. Iv. 11-14. 149
the powers that give motion to the Christian life. The last word: é dyveig,
gives, finally, the nature of the life that is rooted in faith and love. The
word does not denote here specially chastity in the relation of sex, but
generally “purity of moral behavior” (Hofmann); comp. dyvéc, v. 22; 2
Cor. vil. 11; Jas. ili. 17; dyvéryc, 2 Cor. vi. 6; ayvivev, Jas iv. 8; 1 Pet. i. 22;
1 John iii. 3.
Ver. 13. “Eu Epxouzat] comp. iii. 14. De Wette says in explanation: “so
long as thou in my absence dost preside over the church at Ephesus.”
This does not agree with the circumstances, inasmuch as Timothy had
not been installed as the regular superintendent of the church. That was
an office held more by presbyters.—7péocye (i. 4, 1. 8, iv. 1): “curam et
studium nava;” de Wette: “ wait.” —rj avayvaoet, ti TapaKkAgoel, Ty didacKania}
Bengel rightly says: “lectioni Scripturae sacrae in ecclesia; huic adjun- -
guntur duo praecipua genera, adhortatio, quae ad agendum et doctrina,
quae ad cognoscendum pertinet.”—avdyvworr in Acts xiii. 15, 2 Cor. iii. 14,
is used of the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue; this
custom was continued in Christian congregations—The two expressions
mapaxAnoe and didaoxadia are found elsewhere in connection with one
another (Rom. xii. 7,8; comp. also wapdyyeAde nai didacxe above). Chry-
sostom is wrong in his explanation: mwapdkAnoi’ mpd¢g GAAhAove, diWacKaria’
mpo¢ wavrac. With as little ground do others understand by d:daox. private
instruction, and by zapdaxA. public preaching; or also by the former, in-
struction for catechumens, and by the latter, instruction for the church.!
Ver. 14. Mi apuéder rov & ool yapioparoc] [XIV c.] Timothy is not to let the
xX4ptoua lie unused; he is to apply it diligently and faithfully to the pur-
pose for which it was imparted to him. This exhortation does not imply
blame, nor does that given in 2 Tim. i. 6—The word ydpicpa may be
applied to every gift of God bestowed on man by God’s yzépic. In the
N. T. it denotes both generally the new spiritual life wrought in the
believer by the Holy Spirit, and also specially every faculty imparted for
special Christian work (ixavéryc, comp. 2 Cor. iii. 5). Here, where he is
speaking of Timothy’s official work, it can only mean the faculty given
him for the office (not simply “ the gift of teaching,” as Hofmann thinks),
in regard both to the xuBépvyore and specially to the wapdéxAnowe and d:dao-
xadia (not, however, as Chrysostom explains it, the didacxadia itself). It is
not to be taken as denoting the office itself; the év coi is against this, and
nowhere in the N. T. has the word this meaning.2—8 6687 coc] not as
1Van Oosterzee’s remark is also wrong:
“The former was necessary for individuals
in special circumstances, the latter for all
every day;” because all need continually
both the &8agcaAia as well as the rapaxAnacs.
20Otto granta, indeed, that xdproua never
stands exactly for office, but thinks that
xépiona may be used as a predicate of the idea,
office, which is certainly right. Otto, how-
ever, does not wish to take xydproua here as
the office generally speaking, but (dis-
tinguishing in the office—(1) the rights of
office; (2) the occupations of office) as the
rights of office: “ A position of power working
out from within.” To év he assigns the
meaning “resting upon some one;”" but,
whatever Otto may say against it, the avagwrv-
pecy (2 Tim. i. 6) does not accord with that
idea. So long as any one holds the office, the
rights of office remain to him undiminished;
for these lie not in the person, but in the
office, in the person only as holding the office.
150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Heinrichs says: a me, Apostolo, but, as a matter of course, by the Holy
Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 4).—did spogyreiag pera érlkcewe trav xeipav Tov mpeaBvtepior |
d:a4 is here “by means of,” so that the mpogyreia is to be regarded as the
means through which the ydpioua was given to Timothy (by the Holy
Spirit). It is arbitrary to weaken this, the proper meaning of the prepo-
sition, as Beza dues when he explains it: per prophetiam i.e. ita jubente
per os prophetarum spiritu sancto;! and as Otto also does, when he finds.
here the thought that the ordination was occasioned by the mpodgyreia.
Though Hofmann in his Schriftbeweis (II. 2, pp. 278 f.) had explained it:
“The word of prophecy pointed out Timothy as the one to be appointed
the apostle’s colleague,” he now says: “dia zpoonteiag does not mean by
means of prophecy, but in consequence of prophecies.” This latter expla-
nation, however, agrees with the one which he disputes, since the expres-
sion “in consequence of” gives not merely the relation of time, but also
the relation of cause. We must reject even the qualification of the mean-
ing which Matthies demands: “The fundamental meaning of the prepo-
sition dé, which may be shortly defined as means, may be so moditied
in many cases as to give the manner in which something is done, or the
intermediating form under which something comes into life.” We must
reject this, because, as de Wette rightly remarks, there would othcrwise
be no indication of a relation of cause. Besides, such passages as Acts
viii. 17, 18, ix. 17, xix. 6, 2 Tim. i. 6, prove that we must keep by the
proper meaning of dia. The zpogyreia is mentioned as the means, but in
close connection with ériGeorg trav yepov. Ulpogyzeia (i. 18) is not equivalent
to “foretelling,” but is more generally the word proceeding immediately
from the Holy Spirit—whether the word of promise, or of exhortation, or
of prayer. This word was spcken at the time (werd) when the presbytery
laid their hands on Timothy and appointed him to his ministry. Mera
émlécewe tT. x.i8 to be taken in close connection with dia rpogyreiac; the
laying on of hands is to be regarded as part of the means; comp. 2 Tim.
1.6.2 Otto wrongly says: “The laying on of hands is not a coefficient of
the ordination, but an act connected with the ceremony of ordination ;
the ydpiova was imparted to Timothy along with the laying on of hands,
not by means of the laying on of hands.” Wherein, then, did the ccre-
mony of ordination consist? Itis curious that Hofmann, influenced by
2 Tim. 1. 6, says regarding werd, that “it was of course the apostle’s busi-
ness to impart the gift to Timothy by laying on of hands,” but then grants
that “the presbytery of Timothy’s home-church took part in the laying
on of hands,” without telling us what then signified the presbytery’s lay-
ing on of hands. The hands were imposed by the presbytery, but Paul
For such a meaning of ev, Otto has produced donum exprimat apostolus.”
some passages from classic Greek, but none
from the N. T.
1Beza goes still farther wrong when he
continues: “ Potest tamen etiam sic accipi,
ut idem valeat eis spodntecay, i. e. ad prophet-
andum; vel é» wpodyreig, ita ut quod sit hoc
™.,
2De Wette rightly: “The mspod. is only
named as a part of the whole act of conse-
cration by which the yap. was imparted, and
the preposition &a@ is not to be referred in
strictness only to rpo¢., but also to the next
words.”
CHAP. Iv. 14. 151
does not say who uttered the zpogyreita. Leo remarks: “adfuerunt for-
tassis, quum manus imponebantur Timotheo, prophetae Christiani, qui
praesagiebant faustissima quaevis, et dignum eum fore dicebant ecclesiae
doctorem ” (similarly Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others). It is, how-
ever, most probable to assume that they who uttered the mpogyreia were
the same as they who laid their hands on Timothy,’ so that we cannot
think here of prophets, in the narrower sense of the word, as present at
the ordination.—The éi@eotg tév yepov is Well known as a symbolic action
of the early Christians ; it was the symbol and means not only of impart-
ing the Holy Spirit in general (Acts viii. 17, xix. 6; Heb. vi. 2), but also
of bestowing the inward equipment for a special Christian ministry (Acts
vi. 6, xiii. 3; comp. also Acts xiv. 23). By the presbytery, we must under-
stand the college of presbyters belonging to the church in which the
hands were imposed. What church this was, we are not told. Ecclesi-
astical tradition, followed by Mack, makes it the church at Ephesus;
Matthies, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others think it more probable
that the ordination took place at Lystra, where Paul assumed Timothy as
his companion, and that the ordination was held for this very purpose.”
To this latter view we must object, that there is no passage in the N. T.
to prove that the reception into the number of the colleagues of the
apostles was made with such a solemn ceremony. It is more natural to
suppose that such a reception took a freer form, and that a regular ordi-
nation was only held after a more independent position had been assigned
to the colleague, a position not merely of carrying out certain instructions,
but of representing the apostle in a more complete way, viz. in a particular
church, such as Timothy now held. Perhaps, therefore, this ordination
of Timothy had taken place when Paul on his departure for Macedonia
left Timothy behind him in Ephesus as his substitute (i. 3); still it is also
possible that it had been done on some earlier occasion.2—It is strange
that in 2 Tim. i.’6 the laying on of hands is mentioned only as the act of
the apostle. Paul might certainly be speaking there of some other occa-
sion than here, for the consecration by laying on of hands might be
imparted on different occasions to the same man. It is more probable,
however, that he is speaking of the same occasion in both passages,
and “that Paul imposed hands along with the elders, but as the first”
(de Wette).—It is further to be remarked that the word mpecSvrépiov occurs
elsewhere in the N. T. only as a name for the Jewish Sanhedrim (Luke
xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5), and that it is used here only of the college of the
Christian presbyters of a church.
1Bengel is wrong: “Constr. prophetiam
presbyterii, nam manus imposuit Paulus
Timotheo; impositio manus proprie fit per
unam personam et quidem digniorem; pro-
phetia vero fiebat etiam per aequales, per
plures.”
230 also Hofmann, in whose opinion the
“precedent” here alluded to (which, how-
ever, he is not willing to recognize as an
ordination) must have taken place in Tim-
othy’s “ home-church.”
8 Otto, in accordance with his whole view,
places Timothy's ordination in the last period
of _Paul’s three years at Ephesus. The
reasons by which he seeks to establish this
period as the one most exactly correspond-
ing in Timothy's life, are anything but suffi-
cient.
152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Ver. 15. In order that Timothy may rightly lay to heart the exhorta-
tions just given, Paul continues: raira pedéra, év rovrorg id] ravra refer-
endum ad omnia ea, quae a ver. 12, usque ad ver. 14, praeceperat Paulus
Timotheo, Leo.—yedergyv occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only at Mark xiii.
11 and Acts iv. 25, where it means “think, consider, reflect on some-
thing,” equivalent to meditari. The more original meaning, however, is
“exercere, carry on something with care;’’ this is to be maintained here,
where it is a matter of putting recommendations into practice. De
Wette: “let this be thy care.”’—év roirag iod:] added to strengthen the
preceding words; it is equivalent in meaning to the Latin omnis (totus) in
hoc sis.'—iva oov 4 mpoxor? gavepa 9 mao. | With rpoxory (only elsewhere in
Phil. i. 12, 18), “ progress,” not “ progressiveness’”’ (Hofmann), we may
either supply “in filling thy office’? (Heydenreich; de Wette: to the
perfection of the God-man, 2 Tim. ii. 17), or more generally, “in the
Christian life.” The purpose of this lay in the fact that Timothy was to
be a rixog trav rioror, .
Ver. 16. Cumulat sane h. 1. Paulus adhortationes, unde ejus amorem
in Timotheum et in Christianos Timotheo subditos intelligas, Leo.—éreye
aeavTy] “ take heed to thyself,” refers to ver. 12; xai rm didacxadie refers to
ver. 13. Heinrichs wrongly combines the two together as an hendiadys
(“pro ceavr® ut possis tradere bonam didacxadiav”’). On the other hand,
however, we must not understand the ddacxadia to mean the doctrine of
others (Heydenreich: take heed, that nothing is neglected in the instruc-
tion of Christians by the teachers placed under thy oversight).—ézipeve
avtoic¢] avroi¢ is not masculine, as Grotius and Bengel think, the one
understanding it of the Ephesians, the other of the audientes. Itis neuter,
and as such it is to be referred not only to what immediately preceded
(=“ in this attention to thyself and to the doctrine ”’), but, glancing back
to rottoc, tavra in ver. 15 (Wiesinger), it is to be referred also to all the
precepts from ver. 12 onward. Hofmann is wrong in connecting rg d:dao-
xadig With éziveve, and explaining avroi¢ as the dativus commodi; for,
on the one hand, no subject precedes to which aitroic could be referred ;
and, on the other, there is nothing to show that airoic is the dat. com-
modi.—The exhortations close with words confirming them: robro yap
noiav] “if thou doest this” (regarding the form of the clause, comp. ver.
6); xai ceavrdv odcere Kai Tove axovovrdg aov] [XIV d.] Without reason,
de Wette thinks that cdécee has in Timothy’s case a different meaning
from that which it has in the case of others; that in his case it is to be
understood of the higher (!) owrnpia, in theirs simply of the ournpia.
Léferv means originally “save;” but in the N. T. it has in connection with
Christian doctrine not only a negative, but also a positive meaning. Hence
we cannot, with Mack, take it here as signifying merely, protecting from
heresy and its effects. Luther translates it rightly: “thou shalt make
blessed,” etc.—. e. thou shalt further thine own salvation as well as the sal-
vation of those who hear thee, i. e. of the church assigned to thee. [XIV e.]
1 Hor. Ep. i. 1, 11, quid verum atque decens curo .. . et omnis in hoc sum.
NOTES. 153
NotTes By AMERICAN EDITOR.
XII. 1-5.
(a) The reference here made to heresies or erroneous teachings seems not to be
introduced because the writer would discuss them as an independent matter; but,
on the other hand, the teachings are spoken of as connected with the duty of
Timothy respecting them. The point of these verses is thus found in the open-
ing words of ver. 6.—(b) The prophetic declaration is one which, not improbably,
the Apostle may have himself received from the Holy Spirit, but it may also, as
Alf. holds, include the general prophetic testimony which the Spirit bore through-
out the church. These introductory words are, apparently, a part of what Paul
would have Timothy call to the minds of the Christians in Ephesus. By the
mention of this declaration of the Spirit, he would warn them against the errors
and show them that they were d:dacxadia: daiwoviwy.—(c) The characteristics of the
erroneous doctrines which are set forth are twofold, as indicated by KwAvdévtwy
yapueiv and aréyeodat Bpwydtwv (ver. 3). The latter point is closely connected,
both in the statement of it and in the accompanying words which follow in vv. 4 4,
5, with what is said of the Judaistic party in the earlier epistles. Comp. Rom.
xiv. 1-6; 1 Cor. viii, x. The former point is not alluded to elsewhere, but is
very probably connected with the Essenic tendency of which we find indications,
though in another line, in the Ep. to the Colossians. There is nothing here
which suggests any further progress in error than might easily have taken place
before the death of Paul. The passage is interesting, as showing how the A postle’s
view on the subject of meats remained precisely the same through the successive
periods of his life—(d) The persons who teach these doctrines and who lead
astray the rivé¢ are described as characterized by falsehood and hypocrisy, and as
having their conscience branded with the mark of their own guilt. These points,
especially if they are to be further explained by what is said in such passages as
2 Tim. iii. 1 ff, Tit. 1.10 f, indicate a degree of conscious wickedness in these
teachers, which was beyond what appears in the earlier epistles, and, in some
degree, beyond what is suggested even in those of latest date previous to the
Past. Epp. The steady movement along the Jewish line, and outward from it, is,
however, strikingly manifest as the letters ‘pass on from one period to another,
and the links which unite the following to the preceding ones, in each case, are
evident. That pevdoddyuv is dependent on izoxpice: and refers to the teachers,
not to the daiuéva, is admitted by most commentators.
XIII. Vv. 6-10.
(a) The simplest and most natural reference of ravra in ver. 6 is to the first
five verses of the chapter. By this reference this entire passage is made to cor-
respond with those which precede and follow, as bearing upon Timothy’s official
action and as written especially from the standpoint of suggestions tohim. The let-
ter was for him primarfly ; its lessons or directions or warnings for the church were
only through him and the method of his working. By suggesting to the brethren
these things (vroriéuevoc is rendered by R. V. putting in mind ; it possibly means
teaching or setting forth (Ell.) or commanding (Holtzm., comp. Huther), Timothy
would be a good minister of Christ Jesus, i.e. one who, so far forth as this matter
154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
was concerned, faithfully performed the duties of his office. The following parti-
cipial clause presents the subjective condition which will accompany the bearing
in his own mind, and suggesting to the brethren, the things referred to—that is,
which will accompany the faithful discharge of duty. He will himself be in a
state of continual nourishment in and by the words of faith and of the good teach-
ing. The good teaching, which is the healthful teaching of i. 10, is here opposed to
the errors referred toin vv. 1-5. It is opposed, also, to the profane and old
wives’ fables of ver. 7, which, quite clearly, are the same with those mentioned
ini. 4. It is thus evident that the errors alluded to ini. 4 and iv. 1-5 are the
same, the latter verses giving certain characteristics of them. Indeed, there can
be little doubt, as the nuvor, etc., are spoken of in different places in the three
epistles, that all the descriptive phrases marking the errors and errorists are to be
taken together as giving the comprehensive idea of what the heresies were.—(b)
Ver. 7.—While refusing and having nothing to do with the fables, Timothy was
to exercise himself as an athlete—this strong word seems to be used as a complete
Oppusite to maparov—with a view to evoéBera, This last word, although not
equivalent to pvor#piov evoeB, of iii. 16, can hardly, when its contrast to the pivoz
is noticed, be altogether unconnected in thought with it. Asa teacher of others,
and called to preside over the churches after the manner of the apostles, this
friend of Paul was to make earnest effort in the sphere of the «az d:dacxadia—
the very central truth of which (the “vor. evoeBeiac) was b¢ epavepOdy x,t.A—to the
end of that piety whose final issue was to be eternal salvation.—(c) ydp of ver. 8
evidently gives a reason for the exhortation yiyvate. The thought of this yap
clause is, however, undoubtedly suggested, as are similar figures elsewhere, e. g. 1
Cor. ix, 24 ff, by the Greek athletic exercises and contests, with which both the
writer and the person addressed had now been long familiar. The other explan-
ations mentioned by Huther, which give the word a special reference to abstain-
ing from meats and from marriage, or a more general one to asceticism, are to be
rejected. Ell. argues for the latter explanation, that the context seems to require
a contrast between external observances and inward holiness, and that ascetic
practices formed a very distinctive feature of the current Jewish theosophy. But
it cannot be justly affirmed that the context requires this contrast which EIl.
speaks of. If it were so, we might even expect the author to have expressed the
thought cf ver. 7a in words more exactly adapted toset it forth, using the yuyva-
Cecv form there. Moreover, as Huther and other commentators say, the Apostle
could not admit that the erroneous doctrines or practices, to which he had just
referred as teachings of demons, were profitable for a little. The answer which
Ell. attempts to give to this objection to his view, that Paul is speaking, not of
the more extreme development of asceticism referred to in vv. 2, 3, which belonged
to the torepo: xacpoi, but of a more innocent asceticism of the time then present,
is quite inadequate, because the only subject to which allusion has been made is
the asceticism described in vv. 2, 3, and, if there is any close connection between
ver. 7 and the preceding verses, such as the contrast which Ell. supposes requires,
the allusion here must be to those two verses—(d) The best explanation of ¢w7e¢ is
that which regards it (with Huther) as a more remote objective genitive, or (with
Alford) as a possessive genitive—(e) The connection of mcord¢ 6 Adyo¢ (ver. 9) is
(as Huther takes it) with what precedes. This is made probable, though not cer-
tain, by the yép which follows. In 2 Tim. ii. 11, notwithstanding the following
yap, the phrase, in all probability, points to what is found in the succeeding clause.
NOTES. 155
The decision, in each case, depends on the character of the sentences in the con-
text. Here the preceding eentence is the one which has the character of a gen-
eral or well-known saying, such as is required by the formula moré¢ x.7.A. In 2
Tim. ii. 11, the following clause has this character—(f) ydp of ver. 10, whatever
view is taken of mor. 6, Aéy.,is to be connected with the clause which precedes
those words. The determination of the reference of the words ei¢ rovro is more
difficult. Probably, however, Huther is correct in referring them to the state-
ment that godliness is profitable, etc., and in giving to 6r: the sense of because.—
(g) Ver. 11 is made the beginning of a paragraph by Tisch., Treg., W. and H., and
others, but as raira evidently refers to what precedes, and there is a turn in the
thought in vv. 12-16 to what concerns Timothy himself more directly, it may be
questioned whether the new paragraph should not open with the 12th verse.
XIV. Vv. 12-16.
(a) These verses present before us exhortations or suggestions, which would
seem adapted rather to a young man who was beginning or had recently begun
his work as a preacher, than to one who, like Timothy, may, not improbably, have
been at this time from thirty-six to forty years of age, and who had been for many
years an associate in missionary labors with the Apostle. Possibly, they were
designed to have a bearing upon other preachers whom Timothy might appoint,
as well as upon himself, and may have been governed in their form of expression,
in some degree, by this fact. Possibly they may be accounted for by the fact that
the Apostle was now becoming advanced in years, and thus was disposed to look
upon his vounger companion as even younger than he really was. But the expres-
sions of this character which are found here, and in some other places in the epis-
tles to Timothy, must be regarded as somewhat peculiar and as difficult of expla-
nation in an entirely satisfactory way. The difficulty is not such, however, as to
overbalance very weighty arguments which support the Pauline authorship of
the epistles. Dr. Plumptre thinks that Timothy may not have been more than
from twenty-eight to thirty-three at this time; but, when it is remembered that
he was old enough, at his first appearance in the history recorded in the Acts, tq have
already gained the favorable opinion of the churches both in Lystra and Iconium,
and to make Paul desirous of associating him with himself as an assistant in his
missionary work, it is almost impossible to suppose that he was under the age of
twenty-one at that time, and, not improbably, he was above that age. It is more
reasonable, therefore, with Bp. Ellicott, to place his age, at the time when this
epistle was written, at thirty-eight to forty. He could hardly have been less than
thirty-five, and probably not so young as this. He had been, for fourteen
years or more, an intimate and most trusted companion of the Apostle.—(5) The
exhortations here given, as well as those of the earlier part of the chapter, havea
certain reference to Timothy’s public life and relations. It was his action and
conduct as related to the church, which Paul had in mind. But evidently it is his
own personal action, as connected with his own personal living in and before the
church, which is now made prominent.—(c) The gift alluded to in ver. 14 is that
which belonged to Timothy as a preacher—the trapdéxAnoig and didacxadia, etc.,—
and the recognition of it, and perhaps its special impartation, is pointed out by
the accompanying words as having taken place in connection with a public setting
apart for his work. This gift is said here to have been bestowed by means of pro-
156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
phecy. Apparently there was in the case of Timothy something kindred to what
is recorded in Acts xiii. 1 ff. in connection with the setting apart of Paul and
Barnabas for their missionary work. The laying on of hands was also added in
the case of Paul and Barnabas. With reference to Timothy this imposition of
hands is said here to have been by the body of elders; in 2 Tim. i. 6, by the
Apostle himself. The relation of prophecy to the end in view was that of Divine
indication or direction that Timothy was to be thus set apart; that of the imposi-
tion of hands was symbolic. The true relation of the two seems to be indicated
here by the use of the preposition dia with mpogyreiag and mera with emidicews, In
2 Tim. i. 6, dia is, by a less strict use, connected with the latter word. Huther
seems disposed to believe that this ordination took place when Paul left Timothy
at Ephesus on his own departure for Macedonia. But there is no sufficient reason
to reject the view that it was earlier than this, and the word avaswzupeiv of 2 Tim.
i. 6 rather favors that view than otherwise. Whichever of these views is correct,
the ordination was by the elders, Paul uniting with them (unless 2 Tim. i. 6
refers to another occasion, which is quite improbable), and nothing in the matter
of ordination beyond this can be inferred from the passage—(d) The last clause
of the 16th verse combines the results of the exhortations given, as affecting both
his own future and that of those over whom he presided or to whom he preached.
This result will be salvation. The prominent thought in the writer's mind, in
accordance with all that has preceded, is, probably, that, through such action as
would tend to his own salvation, Timothy would secure the salvation of his
hearers. A certain special emphasis is thus laid upon «ai rob¢ axotorrdg cov.—(e)
It has been quite commonly supposed that Timothy had a certain timidity of
character, which led the Apostle to give him such exhortations as that which is
found at the beginning of ver. 12. There is, apparently, no evidence of this,
except that which the exhortations suggest. They would seem, in themselves, to
suggest youthfulness or inexperience rather than timidity, but may possibly be ©
accounted for in a measure, if not indeed wholly, by the latter. The interweav-
ing in the epistle of personal counsel with directions which were to affect others,
or the churches, is so remarkable, that it must everywhere be borne in mind
in case of questions or difficulties which arise.
CHAP. V. 157
CHAPTER V.
Ver. 4, pavOavérwoav] The reading pavfavérw, which is found in some cur-
sives, 3, 35, and many others, as well as in Vulg. Clar. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast.
Pel., is to be regarded as a correction, tic y#pa being supposed to be the subject of
the verb. As to the correctness of this supposition, see the exposition.—
azédextov] The words xadév xai, which precede in the Rec., are rightly omitted
from the text by Griesb., who follows all uncials, very many cursives, versions,
etc.; thev are beyond doubt taken from ii. 3— Ver. 5. Instead of évi rév Oedv, &
and some other authorities have the reading é7i xipiov.— Ver. 8. rév otxeiwv] The
article is wanting in A D* F GX; probably not genuine; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.
8 omitted it.—For the active mpovoet (Tisch. 7), D* F G KX, al., have the mid-
dle xpovoeira: (Tisch. 8), which, however, may be a correction after Rom. xii. 17;
in 2 Cor. viii. 21 the reading is doubtful_—Ver. 10. érexvorpégncev] The reading
erexvogipecev in F G, gr. is strange, since the word occurs nowhere else.— Ver. 1L
For xazvaorpyvidowot (Rec. Lachm. ed. maj., Tisch. 7, following C DK L®, most
others), A F G 31 have the reading xaraorpyyidcovery (Lachm. ed. min., Buttm.
Tisch. 7). The infrequency of the construction of 45rav with the indic. pres.,
which occurs only a few times in the N. T. (compare especially Rev. iv. 9), might
be an argument for the originality of the latter reading; but most authorities are
against it.—Ver. 14. Before vewrépac there stands in D* and some cursives the
article ra¢; some other cursives, as well as Slav. Chrys. Theodor. etc., have y#pac
after- vewrfpac; clearly an explanatory correction.—Ver. 15. It is doubtful
whether revec was originally placed before or after éferpazyoav. For the former
position (Rec. Tisch. 8) we have the authority of §C D K LP, al. ; for the latter
(Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7), that of A F G, al—Ver. 16. The Rec. miorog } mior7
is found in D K L, nearly all cursives, some versions, and in Ath. contra Arr.
Tisch. 7 retained the Rec. ; on the other hand, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 omitted
mioto¢ 7. The expositors (also Reiche) have declared for the Rec. It is to be
noted further, that in Vulg. ed. Ambros. Aug. Pel. the words 7 toT# are omitted,
and algo that in Boern. Vulg. ms. the translation st quis fideles habet viduas is
found. For further remarks, see the exposition of the verse.—Instead of érapxeitw
(Rec. Tisch. 7, following C D K L P, al.), A F GW have the middle ézapxcio6w
(Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8), which is indeed the original reading, the change being
occasioned by the ér7pxecev in ver. 10, and the érapxéoy in ver. 16.—Ver. 18. For
Botv advarra ov giudoerc, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of AC P 37, 57,
78, 80, al., Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. etc., read ov giudoeg Bovv adowyra, which,
however, might be a correction after 1 Cor. ix. 9. Tisch. has the common read-
ing.— Ver. 20. After roic, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D* Clar.
Theoph. Ambros. Jerome, read dé, which in F G, Boern. Vulg. ms. is found after
duaprévovrac. This variety in the position of dé makes it suspicious in any case.—
Ver. 21. Xpeorod "Inoov (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Reiche, etc.), instead of
the usual reading xvpiov "Inoov Xpiorov, Against xupiov we have the testimony of
158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
A D* FG 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Basil. etc., and for Xpiotot 'Tyoct
we have that of A D* G 17, 31, 73, al., versions, even the Sahidic and Fathers.—
For zpéoxdow (Rec., with the authority of F G K, many others, It. Vulg. etc.) it
is too rash, with Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D L 10, 31, al., Ath.
Bas. etc., to read tpdéoxAnow; because, notwithstanding the testimony of the oldest
Mss., the sense almost imperatively demands zpéoxjiccv, This is a case where
Tisch.’s words (see the article “ Bibeltext des N.'T.” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopadie,
II. pp. 183 f.) apply : “In spite of the great preference to be given to our oldest
Greek Mss., we must not overlook the fact that sometimes those opposed to them,
and centuries later, have at the same time the authority of much older versions
and Fathers.” Tisch. retained the Rec. ; he explains (J. c. p. 164) mpéoxAnow as
an itacism occasioned by the dictation of the text; similarly Reiche on the pas-
sage.— Ver. 23. Rec. oréuaxév oov (Tisch. 7, after D F G K L, al.); the cov is
wanting in A D* P& (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8); in any case, the later addition is
easier to explain than the omission—Ver. 25. After ocattwr, Lachm., on the
authority of A F G g., inserted dé; it is possible that dé was struck out by a
copyist on the analogy of ii. 9.—ra@ xada épya] Instead of this reading, A D FG
¥ 37, 116, al., Vulg. Clar. Boern. Theophyl. Aug. Ambros. Pelag. are decisive for
ta épya ta xada (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.).—Instead of the Rec. éore after mpddnda,
there stands in D F G P17, 67* 93, al., etcocv; in A 8 67** it is omitted (Lachm.
Buttm. Tisch.).—divarac] Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. read the plur. divavraz,
on the authority of A D® 17, 44, 67, 71, al., plur. edd. Theodoret.
Vv. 1, 2. Directions regarding Timothy’s behavior towards elder and
younger church-members of both sexes.—zpeoPurépy pa éximAnty¢] Chrys-
ostom rightly remarks: dpa ro afiwpa viv gnoiv; ovK oluas’ aAAd wepi mavrd¢
yeynpaxétog. Otherwise we could not but take vedrepo as equivalent to
didxovor, and understand by vedrepac the deaconessess, which, however,
would be arbitrary. There is, besides, no ground for Mack’s opinion, that
the of vedrepo: mentioned in Acts v. 6 (ver. 10: of veavioxos) were “church
servants.” By far the greater number of expositors rightly agree with
Chrysostom.—émirAjocerv] only occurring here, properly “strike upon,”
then “scold, make violent reproaches.” The opposite: Gal. vi. 1, xarap-
tive év mvebpate mpaétytoc. It is presupposed in this and the next exhor-
tations that the church-members named had been guilty of some
transgression or other.—aAAd mapaxddec o¢ marépa x.7.A.] It is not to be
forgotten that Timothy was still a veds. As such he is in his office to deal
in childlike respect with the elder men and women, if they had rendered
themselves liable to his correction.—vewrépove d¢ adeApoic] supply only
mapaxaAe; still Bengel is mght in meaning when he remarks on ,#?
éxeranénc: hoc pertinet etiam ad ea, quae sequuntur. By d¢ adeAgotc and
wg adeAgde it is implied that Timothy was not to exalt himself over those
who were of the same age as himself or younger, but that he was to deal
with them in brotherly love as his equals—The addition év rdoy dyveia,
which follows &¢ adeAgécs, may grammatically be referred to all the mem-
bers; but Chrysostom! and most expositors since, connect it closely with
‘Chrysostom: pH Mol, dyot, Thy Tis wifews uovory eiwys amaptiay, aAAd unde Vwoplay, duet,
CHAP. v. 1-4. 159
the words immediately preceding. Rightly; since, even when taken in
the more general sense of “ purity of morals” (iv. 12), it cannot rightly be
referred to the preceding relations; but it is very appropriate to the last,
all the more if it be taken in the more special sense of “modesty,
chastity.’”’!
Ver. 3. [On Vv. 3-16, see Note XV., pages 178-181.] From this to ver. 16
we have instructions regarding the widows of the church. [XV a.]—yapa¢
riua}] Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, and most recent expositors, among
others, de Wette and Wiesinger, refer riua to the support of the widows
by money. De Wette explains rive directly as “ care for them, support them,”
adding, “he is speaking of support from the church-purse.” Wiesinger,
on the other hand, remarks: ‘We do not say that t:uéw means ‘support’
exactly, but it means an honoring which was to manifest itself in support-
ing them.” In proof of this view, appeal is made to the passages in Acts
vi. 1, xxvili.10; Matt. xv.4-6; but wrongly. In the two last passages the
meaning “support with money” can only arbitrarily be given to riuav
(see Meyer on Acts xxvili. 10); and though the widows were supported by
the church, as we learn from Acts vi. 1,? we cannot from that draw any
inference as to the meaning of riu¢év. But even the context does not
necessitate us to specialize the meaning. Granted that all that follows
referred only to money-support to be given to the widows, why should not
these special exhortations be introduced by one of a more general nature?
Besides, the support mentioned being the business of the church, and not
of Timothy alone, the apostle—according to the analogy of xaradeytoOu
(ver. 9)—would not have written riza, but xfpae riyzdcOwcav. Hence, with
several old and some recent commentators, such as Matthies, van Ooster-
zee, Plitt, Hofmann, we should retain the usual meaning of rivav. Their
support by the church is simply a consequence and proof of the riuév.—
Ta¢ bvtwc yhpac] is added to define more precisely what widows Paul was
thinking of, viz. those who are widows in the true and proper sense of the
word (Luther: right widows). "Ovrwe is used as an adjective only here in
the N. T3 What kind of widows are meant thereby, we are to infer from
what follows.
Vv. 4-8. [XV b.] There are two opposing views regarding the explana-
tion of this section. (1) The view upheld by the majority of recent com-
mentators, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, which is as follows.
Paul is giving Timothy instructions to support the “real” widows. From
these he distinguishes (ver. 4 being in contrast with ver. 3) the widow who
has children or grandchildren, because they are able and ought to care for
her. With yavdavérwcay we should supply as subject réxva } Exyova, and
Ses: ewe 18H yap ai mpds Trdg vewrdpas yerduevar
OmcAtat BvoKdAws Stadpevyovow vwopiay, Sei 52
yiverOar, wapa Tob émioxérov xai rovro, &a
Touro, év don ayveiq wpooriOyor.—On the
words ws aéeAdds, Bengel briefly and aptly
says: hic respectus egregie adjuvat castitatem.
1Comp. Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. p. 36:
cad’ yAcciay Tots pey viois nat Ovyardpas
vooupey, tovs b¢ adeAhovs Exoney cai abeAdas:
kai ths mwpoBeByxdct Thy twv wardpwy Kai
pyrépwey Tiny awrovdponev.
2Comp. also Ignatius, ad Polycarp. chap. iv.;
Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. 67.
3 Plato, Phaedr. 260a: ra Syrws ayabd.
160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
we should understand by rév idiov olxov and roi¢ mpoyévorg the widowed
mother or grandmother. Ver. 5 contrasts again with ver. 4; xai peyovepévy
explains the signification of 7 dvrus yypa. The predicate fArue «.1.A.
denotes the life-work which the “right,” ¢.e. the forsaken, widow has to
fulfill, her fulfillment of it being a necessary condition of receiving support.
Ver. 6 declares negatively what conduct the apostle expects from an
bvrug x7pa, and to such conduct Timothy (ver. 7) is to exhort them. At
ver. 8, Paul returns to ver. 4, rc referring to the widows’ relations, and
tov idiev Kai pddota [rér] oixeiov to the widows themselves.—(2) The view
upheld by most older and some recent commentators, especially Matthies
and Hofmann, which is as follows. After enjoining on Timothy to honor
the “real” widows, Paul first directs the widows who have children or
grandchildren (still uncared for), to show these all loving care, and
thereby recompense the love shown to themselves by their parents. The
subject of uavSavétwoar is tic xApa (as a collective idea); rd» idcov oixov are
the children or grandchildren, and of mpéyovo: the dead parents of the
widow. Ver. 5 describes the “real” widow as one who in her loneliness
leads a life pious and consecrated to God; and asa contrast to this we
have the picture of a wanton widow in ver. 6. In ver. 8, again (ver. 4),
widows who have relations needing their care are again reminded of the
duty of this care.-—-Each of these views has its difficulties. Against
the second view, the supporters of the first maintain the following points:
—(1) that as ver. 4s in contrast with ver. 3, and ver. 5 in contrast again
with ver. 4 (dé), the y7pa spoken of in ver. 4 cannot be regarded as
belonging to the dvruc yhpacc; and (2) that as evoeBeiv (ver. 4) applies
more naturally to the conduct of children towards their mother (or
grandmother) than vice versa, and as the thought: the widow is by her
care for her children to make recompense for the care shown to herself
by her parents, is ‘somewhat far-fetched” (de Wette), the dvrwc yipa can
only mean the widow with no relations for whom it is her duty to care.—
But the first view has also its difficulties. If we adopt it, we find it strange
that the apostle should not have written simply atr@ for réov idiov olxov,
and avrg for roi¢ rpoyévoc, all the more that ol mpéyovor is a name for
“progenitors.” Further, tpérov, which Wiesinger translates inaccurately
by “before all,” does not get its full force. It is arbitrary to understand
by réxva # éxyova, grown-up children, especially as the expression réxva
yew makes the children appear dependent on the mother (comp. li. 4;
Tit. i.6). De Wette says regarding ver. 5: The author would have more
clearly said: ‘‘Remind a true and forsaken widow to whom thou dost
give support, that it falls upon her to show an example of confidence in
God and of continual prayer ;” but we can hardly think that the apostle
would have expressed this thought in such an uncertain way. Even the
three repetitions of the same thought in wv. 4, 8, and 16, is at least very
strange. Finally, the idea of money-support, on which this view lays all
1 Hofmann, however, takes these verses they are here interpreted by most expositors ;
(5-8) in a different way from that in which _ eee farther on.
CHAP. v. 4-8. 161
stress, is purely imported. These difficulties are too considerable for us to
regard the first view as right in spite of them.'—De Wette and Wiesinger
are certainly right in regarding ver. 4 as contrasted with ver. 3, and ver. 5
with ver. 4, as well asin thinking that the word sevovwuévy sets forth the
apostle’s mark of the d’rec yapa; but they are not justified in inferring
that in ver. 4 he is speaking of a widow with relations who can take care
of her. Why, in that case, should the apostle in ver. 5 have said regard-
ing the évrwe y7pa, that she was to mpoopévery raicg defoect nai taig mpocevyxaic,
and to do so vukrd¢ nai juépac, for all this is in no way opposed to what
is said in ver.4? The poopuévery leads us to suppose that the apostle was
thinking of a widow who had not to care for relations—The right view
will accordingly be this. After exhorting Timothy to honor the “ real ”
widows (see on ver. 3), Paul distinguishes from these évrw¢s yfpacc, in the
first place, the one who is not forsaken, but has children or. grandchildren
(not grown up); and he lays it on her as a duty not to neglect them.
Then he describes the conduct of the “ real” or forsaken widow, who has
therefore no idtov olxov, showing what beseems her in her position in life
as a Christian widow; so that he is contrasting the widow who works
diligently for her own, and the lone widow who continues day and night
in prayer. As opposed to the latter (or even to both), he mentions in ver.
6 the xy#pa oxaraddoa, who is, however, to be considered as dead, because
her conduct is in entire contradiction with her widowed state. Then
there is a natural transition to the exhortation in ver. 7, which gives the
apostle an opportunity for uttering, in ver. 8, a general maxim in order to
impress once more on the widow with relations to care for, the exhorta-
tion in ver. 4.—Ver. 4. réxva 7 Exyova] éxyova here (in connection with
téxva) means the “grandchildren ” (zéxva réxvwv, Hesychius).? In classical
usage, 6 éxyovog is usually the son (# é«yovoc, the daughter), but also the
grandson ; ra éxyova denotes properly posterity .2—yardavéirwoav}] The subject
for this verb might be taken from the object in the protasis; but the form-
ation of the sentence is more correct, if we take the subject of the protasis
(rt¢ xypa) to be the subject here also. Tic xy7pa is then a collective idea,
and takes the plural. Winer, too (p. 586 [E. T. p. 631]), supports this
opinion.—pérorv] viz., before they give themselves up to the care of the
church for them, with special reference to what follows: y4pa xaradeyécdo,
ver. 9, or better perhaps: “ before she makes work for herself outside the
house ” (Hofmann).—rdv idcov olxov evceBeiv] The term oixov likewise shows
that he is speaking not of the things which the children are to do for
their widowed mother (or grandmother), but of the things which the
widows as mothers are to do for the children; because the mother or
1Van Oosterzee, in agreeing with the first # Luther translates it “ Neffen” (nephew),
view, thinks it puzzling thatthis commentary which in Old German usage has the meaning
gives the preference tothe second. But he “descendant, grandchild; comp. Gen. xxi.
does not by this furnish anything towards 23; Job xviii. 19; Isa. xiv. 22.
the solution of the question, all the less that 8Comp. Wisd. xl. 15, xliv. 11, xlv. 13, xlvib
he has neglected toenterinany way uponthe 22; synonymous with ro owepyua.
difficulties surrounding the view he adopts.
11
162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
grandmother does not necessarily belong to the oixog of a grown-up son
or grandson, whereas the children not grown up necessarily belong to the
olxog Of the widowed mother. The meaning therefore is: they are not to
forsake their house, i.e. their children or grandchildren. The term
evocBeiv is used to show that the house is a temple to whose service they
are to devote themselves. Matthies inaccurately translates: “ practice
piety in regard to one’s own house.” Oixov is not the accusative of refer-
ence, but purely an objective accusative; comp. Acts xvii. 23, and Meyer
on the passage. “To honor one’s house” is therefore equivalent to
serving it with pious heart ;! Luther’s translation: “rule divinely,” is not
to the point.—x«ai auorBa¢ arodiddvat roi¢g zpoyévorg] According to the context,
the meaning is this: the widows by the eicefeiv of their house, é.e. by
their pious care for their children and grandchildren, are to recompense
the love shown to themselves by their parents? Though this thought is
peculiar, it is neither ingenious (de Wette) nor far-fetched (Wiesinger).—
auor87, in the N. T. drag Acyéu2—ol rpéyovor, in contrast with the previous
ta éxyova: the progenitors; in the N. T. only here and 2 Tim. i. 3. It
would be against usage to understand by it the (widowed) mother or
grandmother who is still alive.—roiro ydp éore anddextov «.t.A.] comp. i. 3.
Ver. 5 [XV c.] defines more precisely what widows the apostle specially
exhorts Timothy to “ honor.’’—7# 62 dvtw¢ xapa Kai pepovwpévg) nai pepovapevy
is an epexegetical addition, defining 7 dytwe y#pa as one with no relatives
who take care of her, or of whom she takes care.—jAmixev int tov Ocdv]
The distinction between éAmiuxévac éxi with the dative (iv. 10) and éAme. émi
with accusative, is that in the former case the object furnishes the ground
on which the hope rests; in the latter, the goal towards which it is directed.
—xai mpoopéver (strengthened form of pévec; 1 mpooevya mpooxaprepeiv, Rom.
xii. 12; Col. iv. 2) raic¢ dejoeot x. raig mpvoevzaic (comp. ii. 1) vuxrdg x. gutpag
(1 Thess. ii. 9). With this we may compare what Luke (il. 37) says of
Anna the prophetess. Matthies rightly remarks: “The idea of the
genuine widow is explained not abstractly, but in concrete form, in actual
realization, for which reason we have the indicative used instead of the
imperative or optative, as if a single representative of the whole class
were described in living, personal form.” Hofmann will not allow this
natural explanation to stand, because “the predicate which names a moral
behavior does not accord with a subject denoting an outward state.”
Taking 7 dé as a relative pronoun, he connects it with #Amm«ev éxi 6., and
regards xai rpoopevet (for zpoopéver) as the apodosis, dytwe yApa Kai pepovw-
pévy forming an affix to 7 dé. Apart from the objection that the meaning
1It is certainly correct that evoeBecy is used
properly of conduct towards God, and then
of conduct towards parents and persons of
higher position; but itis not restricted to
such use. In Euripides, Alcestis, 1151, it is
used, e.g. of fevor.. Hofmann well says: “If
a widow turns her back on the house of her
dead husband and of her relations, she
neglects her nearest duty, and sins against
the holiness of family ties.”
SChrysostom: anrndAGov execvor (oi xpdyovor):
ove ndvvnOns avroce amwosovvat Thy apnouBny: év
Tos exyovots apetBou amodisov ro dhecAnna
dca tov waidwr.
SauoeB. aroécSovat, Euripides, Orestes, 467.
4Jerome (Ep. ad Gerontiam): quibus deus
spes est, et omne opus oratio.
CHAP. Vv. 5-8. 163
advanced by Hofmann would have been expressed much more naturally
by 9 dé dvruc xhpa x. pe., f PAmiumev Exit Ocdv, cal mpoopevei, the meaning
would be far from appropriate here. Besides, it gives no characteristic
mark of the widow, for the hope which results in continual prayer is not
peculiar to widows. Hofmann in his polemics does not observe that, in
the apostle’s presupposition, she whose outward condition is more
definitely described is a believing widow. When this is observed, we
cannot deny the appropriateness of the reference (in Wiesinger) to 1 Cor.
vii. 32 ff.
Ver. 6. ‘H 62 oraratéica] The opposite of the dvtwe x#pa who has dedi-
cated her life to piety. Zaraddv, “revel, be wanton,” occurs elsewhere
only in Jas. v. 5 (Wisd. xxi. 15). There is nothing to show that the apos-
tle was here thinking of the squandering of the support received.—éca
ré9vyxe] These words have been taken as exhorting Timothy to consider
the wanton widow as dead, and not to support her; but this takes away
all point from the words. The right meaning is obtained by comparing
such passages as Eph. iv. 18, Rev. iii. 1, and others similar. While the
widow who conducts herself as a widow should, lives in God, the wanton
widow leads a life given up to the desires of the world, a life only in
appearance, the very opposite of the true life. Theophylact: «av doxei
Civ xara tiv atodntpy, tédvyxe Kata rvevpma.
Ver. 7. After describing briefly the conduct of the two classes of
widows, the apostle continues: xai ratra wapdyyeAde] ravra refers to what
was said regarding widows. ‘Timothy is, by way of exhortation, to
announce to the church, therefore to the widows, what the apostle has —
written to him; mapdyyeAte, comp. iv. 11.—iva averiAgrra dow] iva here
gives the purpose (at 2 Thess. iii. 12 it stands after mapayyéAAew x. mapaxadeiv
in a different sense). The subject of the clause is not the dependants
(réxva nai éxyova, ver. 4) of the widows, much less they along with the
widows (Heydenreich), or men and women (Grotius), but the widows
spoken of in the preceding verses.
Ver. 8. [XV d.] Ei dé rig trav idiuy nad pddota [rév] oixeiwy od mpovoei]
“ But uf any one does not take care for his relatives, and especially for those of
his household ;” ri¢ is here quite general in meaning, and this generality
must in the first place be maintained.—rév idiwy and [rév] oixeiwy are not
neuters, but masculines. In the N. T., as a rule, of idto: are those in close
fellowship and community with another. For instance, in John xiii. 1
the relation of Christ to His disciples is thus named. i ido: is here
wider in meaning than ol oixeio., which is “those properly of the house-
hold.” Hofmann thinks that, if the reading without the article be
adopted, uadiora does not belong to the verb, but to oixetwv = oixecordtar.
It is well known that in classic Greek the superlative is sometimes
expressed by pdé/sora before the positive. But this usage is never found in
the N. T.; and besides, here, where oixeiog refers to rév idiov oixov (ver. 4),
and is therefore equivalent to “member ofthe household or family,” the
superlative oixeératoc is meaningless. To paraphrase it into “nearest
kinsman of all” is purely arbitrary. At any rate, the article is by no
164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
means necessary before oixeiwy, since the Idi: and the oixeioe belong to one
class; the intervening yddcra makes no difference, although it lays
special emphasis on the latter.—rjy miorw jpvyra:] inasmuch as he does
not do that to which faith, if it be a living faith, incites him; fides enim
non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat, Bengel.—xai gore aricrov
xeipuv] "Amorog here is not (as at 2 Cor. iv. 4; Tit. i. 15) “an enemy of
Christ,” but “one who is not a Christian,” one who as such is incited by
natural law to love his own children (comp. Matt. v. 46, 47).!. The refer-
ence of this general thought varies according to the various interpreta-
tions of ver.4. If rékva nat éxyova be taken there as the subject of
pavdavétwoay, then it refers to the relation of these to the widowed mother
or grandmother ; if the proper subject be a! y#pa, it refers naturally to
the conduct of the widows. There is nothing to show that the apostle
here was thinking of the mutual relation between the widows and their
dependants (Matthies). Still less correct is it, with Hofmann, to wrench
ver. 8 away from ver. 4, and to understand by ric “the father of a family,”
“who at his death leaves wife and child unprovided for, when he might
well have provided for them.”’ Such a sudden transition from what hith-
erto has been the subject of discussion would be exceedingly strange ; nor
is there any hint of it given by the verb zpovoeiv, which denotes care in
general terms, not “care for those left behind at death.” Paul has hitherto
been speaking of the conduct of widows, and only to that same subject
can this verse be referred.
Vv. 9 ff. From this point the apostle takes up a special class of widows,
viz. those who had been placed by the church on a formal list, and who
accordingly possessed a certain position of honor in the church. From
ver. 16 it is to be inferred that it was the duty of the church to care for
them so long as they lived, while from ver. 10 it appears that they had to
perform for the church certain labors of love suited to them. The various
views regarding them have already been given in the Introduction, 3 5;
each has its special difficulties. Still Mosheim’s view is the most proba-
ble,? only what the apostle says of these widows does not Justify us in
transplanting into the apostolic age the ecclesiastical institution of the
Xipat (xpecBirepat, mpecBirides) in the same form as it had at a later date.
We have here only the tendencies from which the institution was gradu-
ally developed. Though the apostle takes it for granted that the church
takes care of these widows, we cannot conclude that, as the older exposi-
tors assume,® he means by the xaradteyéo0w their reception into the number
1Calvin saya on this: quod duabus de
causis verum est, nam quo plus quisque in
cognitione Dei profecit, eo minus habet ex-
cusationis; . . . deinde hoc genus officil est,
quod natura ipsa dictat, sunt enim oropyai
duvoixai.
£With his view de Wette and Wiesinger
agree; also Hofmann in substance. Even
van Oosterzee refers us to Mosheim; but he
wrongly identifies the widows here men-
tioned with the deaconesrses, whereas Mos-
heim clearly distinguishes between them.
8Chrysostom in his commentary explains
this passage as meaning, receiving in order
to care for. In his Hom. 31, in div. N. T. loc.,
however, he interprets it of receiving into an
ecclesiastical office, saying: xa@arep eit wap-
Odvwy xopoi, ovTw Kai xnNpwy Td wadatoy Hoav
Xopoi, xai ove ctnv abrais awdus eis Tas xnpas
eyypadecOat.
CHAP. V. 9. 165
of the widows to be supported by the church. Poor widows, like poor
persons generally, would surely be supported by the church without being
placed in the special class of the yjpac here meant.—Vv. 9, 10. xa
xatadeytodu] [XV e.] xaradéyerv (ar. Aey. in N. T.), properly “select,” then
“place upon a list,” used especially of the citizens chosen for service in
war. x#pa is not the subject, but the predicate; Winer, p. 549[E.T. p. ©
590]: ‘as widow let her be registered (enrolled) who is not under sixty ”’
(so, too, Wiesinger, Hofmann). The common translation is: “let a
widow be chosen” (so de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt.).— éAarrov éirav
é€jxovra yeyovuvia} Leo and some others connect yeyovvia with what follows
(Vulgate: quae fuerit unius viri uxor; so Luther). A comparison with
iii. 2 shows that this is incorrect; besides, the construction itself demands
the connection with what precedes. The genitive does not depend on
yeyouvia (as Luke ii. 42: ore éyévero érav dédexa), but on éAarroy, and is
equivalent to # érn éfqxovra.*—évig avdpdc yurf, after the explanation given
at iii.2 of the corresponding expression: dg yvvacxd¢g avip, denotes the
widow who has lived in sexual intercourse with no one but her lawfully
wedded husband.—év épyoig xadoic paprupovpévy] paprepeiv in the N. T. has
often the meaning: give one a good testimony; hence the passive is:
possess a good testimony (uaptrpiay xadjv tye, iii. 7). ‘Ev here (as elsewhere
in connection with verbs of similar meaning, see Wahl, 8.v. év H. a.) gives
the ground (of the good testimony) ; comp. Heb. xi. 2, for which in Heb.
xi. 39 we have &:¢.—The épya xadd (comp. ver. 25, vi. 18, and other pas-
sages in the Pastoral Epistles) are not only works of benevolence, although
to these chief attention is directed, but generally “good works.”—e
érexvotpdgnoev] et cannot be joined immediately with xaradcyéodu, since the
sense forbids us to consider this and the following clauses as co-ordinate
with what precedes. It is rather attached to the év épy. nad. paprupovpévn,
not, however, in such a way (as Heydenreich thinks) as to stand for dre
(which is also not the case in Acts »xvi. 22, 23), but in such a way as to
distribute the preceding idea into its single parts, and connect them with
it in free fashion, “tf namely.” Luther: “and who has a testimony of
good works, as she has brought up children.”—On_ érexvorpdgyoev (am. Acy.)
Theodoret remarks: ov Opéwat pévov amarei, GAZa nai 1d evoeBdc Optpat.
Wrong; the verb, not “rear” (van Oosterzee), but “nurse” (Luther),
refers to the attention of love, as do the verbs that follow ; compare Acts
Xxil. 3: avaredpaypévoc distinguished from emadevuévog. There is no reason
for thinking here of strange children, since it may rightly be called a
xadov épyov, if a mother does not entrust the rearing of her children to
others, but takes care of them herself (in opposition to Leo and Wie-
singer); the apostle is not thinking of the distinction between strange
children and one’s own. Heydenreich, de Wette, and others think that
Paul bases this exhortation on the ground that the rexvorgogia was part of
the official duties of a y#pa, and that she must have practised them before;
1Comp. Aristophanes, Acharn. 1629, Lysist. £Comp. Demosthenes, in Timocrat. p. 4813
14 6. ydyova ovx éAarroy # TpLaxovTa éTn.
166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
but they are wrong, because in that case we could not but consider the
§evodoxeiv x.t.A. as also the special duties of such widows.—ei éevoddynoev]
comp. iii. 2; Tit. 1. 8 (gcAdEevoc); Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2. The word
Eevodoxeiv (Euripides, Alc. 555) 1s in the N. T. ama Acy.—ei dytuv médac
Evpev] comp. John xii. 5 ff.; also Luke vil. 44. Wahl: pedum lotio
(apud Judaeos) opus erat servile eademque apud eos in primis humani-
tatis officiis hospiti praestandis ponebatur. The feet-washing is meant
literally, and not merely as “a symbolic expression for the manifestations
of self-denving love ” (first ed.); although Paul might at the same time be
thinking of other services of lowly love..—The ayo: are not merely the
ێvo (in opposition to Wiesinger), but the Christians in general who came
into the house as guests.—ei OA:Bopuévoue éxipxecev] Bengel arbitrarily limits
the meaning of 0A:Béuevoc, wishing to interpret it only of the poor; it is to
be taken more generally as equivalent to “those in distress.” ‘Emapxeiv in
the N. T. only here and at ver. 16.—After naming several works of love in
detail, the apostle adds more generally, in order to exhaust the év épy. «aA.
paprupeioda: ei mavTi Epyp ayade éEmyxodobdnoe.2 Hence we must not here
think of works of benevolence only, but take wav épyov in its entire mean-
ing.—éraxodovdeiv (in the N. T. only here at ver. 24, at Mark xvi. 20,
where it is absolute, and at 1 Pet. ii. 21, where it is joined with roi¢ iyvec:)
is mostly referred to persons; but we cannot therefore, with Schleier-
macher, supply here airoic, t.e. OAcBouéyour.® It stands here in the same
sense as dioxecv, Vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 15; Heb. xii. 14. Luther: “who has
followed every good work.” 4
Ver. 11. Newrépac dé xipacg wapattov] [XV ‘f.] vewrépac is not here strictly
comparative in reference to ver. 9 (Wiesinger: ‘“ widows under sixty
years”); it is rather a positive, as in vv. I, 2 (so, too, van Oosterzee).—
maparov] in opposition to xaradeyéo¥u, ver. 9 (and in opposition to riva in
ver. 3); yet in such a way that, according to the analogy of the passages,
iv. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 28, Tit. iii. 10, Heb. xii, 25, it denotes not only that they are
to be omitted from the xaradéyecda:, but also that they are to be
avoided personally. Luther: “the young widows, however, get rid
of.’®> The reason for this injunction is given by the apostle in the next
fulfilled the duties of a motherand a Christian
housewife.” But the enumeration of all these
duties indicates that as a church-widow she
1Theophylact: ei ras éoxdras Umnpecias
Trois aylows averatoxuvTws efeTéACoEe.
2This Hofmann wrongly disputes, wishing
to lay the emphasis not on ravi épy. ayaé., but
OD érnxodovOnee: “if there was any good to be
done, she was to follow after it with all diligence,
she was to make it her business.”
3 Bengel gives a peculiar reference to the
word, which cannot be justified, saying:
antistitum et virorum est bonis operibus
praecire Tit. iii. 8, 14, mulierum, subsequl,
adjuvando pro sua parte.
4 Hofmann is indeed not wrong in contend-
ing against the view that ver. 15 points to the
services which the widows here mentioned
are to perform for the church. He says that
this verse only tells that “she must have
must be practised in the exercise of many
services of love.
6 Baur at an earlier period (Die Sog. Pastoral-
bricfe, p. 47) construed vewrepac xjpat gramma-
tically together, and only—very arbitrarily, it
is true—maintained that these ynpac are dis-
tinguished from those in ver. 9 by being only
virgins (and not dovrws xnpat) bearing the
name of xjpat. Later (Paulus, d. Ap. J. Chr.
p. 497) he expressed the opinion that vewrépas
and x%pas are not to be taken together, that
the one is the subject rather, the other the
predicate, and that the words accordingly
have the sense: “Younger persons of the
CHAP, V. LI. 167
words : drav yap xataorpyyidows: Tod Xpiotov yapeiv 9éAovow] The meaning of
the verb is variously given by expositors. Several take it as equivalent to
“be voluptuous, lust after,” and so refer it to sexual relation, appealing to
Rev. xviii. 9, where orpyav is used along with zopvevev. But this col-
location does not prove that the verbs are related in sense, all the less that
in the passage wopvebecv is not used literally. Even in Rev. xviii. 3, orpivo¢
has not the meaning of sexual desire, but more generally of “ wantonness.”
- There is no justification, therefore, for de Wette’s translation: “ to feel
sexual desire,” and that of Jerome :! quae fornicatae sunt. Others main-
tain here the more general meaning of the word luxuriari (Wiesinger ;
van Oosterzee also translates: “if they have become luxurious,” but ex-
plains it of voluptuous desire, of the pruritus libidinosus). Since the word
orpivog also occurs in the sense of violent desire for something,? Plitt
explains orpyvgv as equivalent to “go in pursuit of the satisfaction of
one’s desires,” but without saying what desires are here meant. In Pape,
the word is explained as equivalent to “be insolent” (orp#vog = “ inso-
lence”’).5 It will be most correct to adhere to the meaning “be luxuri-
ous.” In all these various explanations the prefix xara is taken in the
sense of hostile opposition, and the genitive rov Xpiorov regarded as the
object to which those widows are opposed by their orpyvg@v. This refer-
ence of xara is in entire accordance with Greek usage; comp. in the
N. T. the words: xaradvvacretw, xataxavydouat, xatavapkdw, Katacopi Comat.
Hofmann’s explanation completely diverges from these: “ After such
widows have let the Saviour have their whole desire, after they have
delighted in Him, they wish to marry.” For this interpretation of xara-
otpyviav Xpiorov, Hofmann appeals to Ps. xxxvii. 4, where the Hebrew
min-by aN (“rejoice in God, delight in God”) is translated in the
LXX. by xaracrpupav rov xvpiov. But to this there are three objections—
(1) This interpretation of xaraorpvgav in a good sense is quite singular in
nature; (2) xaraorpygév cannot without proof be considered identical with
xataotpyuay ; and (8) dray is explained simply by “after that,” whereas it
properly means: “in case that, so soon as.” “Oruy may indeed be some-
times rendered by “after that;” but whereas the latter only expresses
the relation of time, érav is only used in such cases of an inner relation.
In the present case it shows that the SéAeu yayety is something which has
its ground or presupposed condition in the xaraorpyugv of the widows. But
how can it be imagined that delight in the Lord gives any ground what-
ever for the desire of marriage ?—Besides, the whole context compels us
to take xaraorp. in a bad sense.‘—yayeiv JéAovory] We must not overlook
female sex do not receive into the list of the
xnpas.” This only adds to the arbitrariness
solentius et lascivius me gero adversum);
similarly Theophylact: cadvrepndaveverdar.
of the historian, the arbitrariness of the exe-
gete.
1 Ep. 123, al. 11, ad Agerochiam al. Geron-
tiam.
3 Lycophr. 438, see Pape, 5, 8. v.
8So, too, in Stephanus (xaracrpnyniaw ==> in-
4Even earlier expositors rejected the
strange opinion which Heydenreich adopts,
that “orpyxgy in its root-signification and
origin mapa re otepeivy Kat amoorgy Tas Hnvias
means, cast off the reins, be or become
unbridled.”—Quite as wrong is the inversion
168 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
the fact that Paul does not say simply yayoto.v; he wishes here to bring
out the direction in which their thoughts turn. If a widow received the
honorable distinction of xaraAéyeoSac, she had to recognize it as her duty
to devote her life henceforth to her office, to her works of love for the
church. These she must regard as her life-vocation. But in young wid-
ows the worldly desire was roused only too easily, so that they put aside
their life-vocation, and sought only their own satisfaction in forming a
new marriage, thereby withdrawing themselves from the work for the
church. Their thoughts were therefore turned to something else than the
things to which their position in the church directed them.
Ver. 12. "Eyovoat xpiva, 671] Almost all expositors take ér: as introducing
the object, so that what follows describes the xpiza which the widows
have to suffer. There is variance only in the more precise definition of
xpiua, whether it is to be understood as the judgment of God (Wiesinger,
van Oosterzee), orthe judgment of men (Wegscheider: “ they draw blame
on themselves; ” Plitt: “they meet with reproof”), or the judgment of
their own conscience (so in this commentary ; comp. iv. 2: xexavrypracpévor
Ti idiav ovveidnowv). Hofmann takes dr: as ‘“‘ because,” as there is no article
with xpiza: “they are lable to condemnation;” but this makes the
meaning of xpiza éxyecv too vague. Since the use of the article in the N.
T. is so wavering, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. Plitt's
explanation may be taken as the most natural.—ér tiv mpdrav riot
noétnoav] tiv niotw adereivin Polybius (who often uses aéereiv by itself) is
“fidem fallere, break a pledge.” This meaning has rightly been main-
tained here by most.2, We cannot infer from this expression that any
formal oath not to marry again was demanded when they were received
into the number of church-widows; but it certainly does follow that the
reception pledged the widows to devote their lives only to the service of
the Lord. To this pledge they were unfaithful so soon as they began the
behavior described in ver. 11. It is out of place here to appeal to such
passages in the Fathers as testify that in later times the deaconesses had
to vow that they would not marry. Wpérw does not stand for zpérepay,
but is used by the apostle because the vow (tacit or expressed) to serve the
Lord was taken at the beginning of their new position in life. Calvin
wrongly takes the mpary rioree as the fides in baptismo data, referring the
unfaithfulness to the desire to marry, which is defined more precisely by
brav Karaotpyuidowo Tt. Xp.
Ver. 13. [XV g.] “Aya dé xal apyat pavOavover mepepyouevar tae oixiag] By
far the greater number of expositors connect pavOdvove: immediately with
repsepyoueva, “they learn to run about in houses” (Luther; so, too, de
of thought which Heinrichs takes up, saying:
clarius mentem expressisset Ap. inverso or-
dine: oray yap yauetv OdAworty, catacrpnyings
rou Xptorov; for yauery OéAoveww is a con-
sequence of the caraorpnygy, not vice versa.
1]It is to be noted that Paul does not speak
of the @éAcy yauecy on the part of the widows
as necessarily a xaragrpyyiqgy roy Xprgrov.
He is not uttering any general principle; he
is dealing only with the actual circumstances
which were occurring among the widows
under discussion.
£So Chrysostom: wrapéBncav ras ovvbyxae;
Augustine on Ps. Ixxv.: primam fidem irri-
tam feoerunt; voverunt et non reddiderunt.
CHAP. V. 12—14. 169
Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). But uevOdvew with the partic. does not
mean learn; it is “ observe, perceive, remark ;” paviaverv, in the sense of
learn (“accustom oneself”’), has always the infinitive (comp. ver. 4). Leo
therefore takes it here as “be wont to:” but this sense only occurs in the
preterite. Winer (pp. 325 f. [E. T. p. 347]) thinks it probable that apyai
pavidvove: are to be taken together, “‘ they arn idleness” (or “they learn
to be lazy;’’ so in the second edition of this commentary; so, too, Hof-
mann). It is in favor of this construction that the chief emphasis is laid
on apyai; but no passage can be found confirming it.’ Besides, the posi-
tion of apyai shows that it belongs to the subject. Bengel had taken
refuge in supplying something explaining it : discunt quae domos obeundo
discuntur, i. e. statum familiarum curiose explorant. Buttmann (pp. 260
f. [E. T. 303 f.]) agrees with this explanation, only that he regards the
supplied words; statum, etc., as too arbitrary and sweeping ; he observes :
“what they learn mepeepydueva: r. oix. is sufficiently indicated, not indeed
grammatically, but in sense, by dpyai, gAvapoi, repeEpyot, AaAovoa Ta uy déovra.”
But if, as Buttmann thinks, we are to assume here an anacolouthon, it
would be more natural to find the hint of what is to be supplied in the
menepyouevae T. oix., 80 that the meaning would be: they learn zepeepydpevar
this very zepépyeofaz.—On the construction mepiepydpuevac tag oixiac, Comp.
Matt. iv. 23: mepipyev bAnv riv Taddalav.—ot édvov dé apyal. aArd Kat gAtapac
K.T.A.] gAbapor, “ talkative” (Luther), only occurs here; the verb ¢@vapéw in
8 John 10. Theophylact: mepcodetovoa: ra¢ oixiac, ovdév GAA’ f ra ratte etg Exeivav
gépovot, kai Ta Exeivyg ig rabryv. Calvin: ex otio nascebatur curiositas, quae ipsa
garrulitatis est mater.—«xal mepiepyo, “inquisitive,” Luther (likewise az.
Aey.; but in 2 Thess. iii. 11: pndév épyalopuévorc, GAAG mepiepyafouévorc), forms
a peculiar contrast to the preceding apyai; Chrysostom: 6 ydp ra éavroi pu?
peptuvov Ta éErépov pepyuvioet wavTwe.—Aadovoat ta yy déovra] added to define
further what precedes.—In these two verses Paul sets forth the danger of
receiving young widows into the class of church-widows. It is not improb-
able that there were definite instances, and these caused the apostle to
speak in this general way.
Ver. 14. Positive instructions regarding young widows.—fobJopa: ody]
BotAopac does not express a wish merely (de Wette: ‘I hold it to be advis-
able, desirable ’’), but a definite command ; comp. 11. 8.—otv shows that this
thought is a deduction from the one previous; Leo: quae quum ita sint.
—veutéipas, sc. x#pac, not the virgins, as Baur thinks.—yapeiv] [XV h.] used
also in 1 Cor. vii. 39 of the re-marriage of widows.—rexvoyoveiv (Gr. Aey.,
the substantive in ii. 15) does not include, according to the notion peculiar
to himself, the rearing of children (van Oosterzee.) The apostle mentions
single points; every one can supply the appropriate details for himself.
Leo rightly says that the idea of rearing children is included rather in the
1 Winer, indeed, quotes two passages, one Buttmann remarks on the first, that the
from Plato, Euthyd. 2760: of auabeis dpa copoit = addition codoi (which is quite meaningless)
peravove:, and the other from Dio Chr. 55. _is rejected on us. authority, and on the other
658: & Zewxpdrys Sri pev mais oy dudvOave that it is of quite a different nature. In both
Aogsos THy red watpds Téxynv, axyxéayey. cases he is clearly right.
170 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
next word.—osixodeororeiv (ar. Aey.; the substantive often occurs in the N.
T.) denotes properly the work of the husband, and is equivalent to reo
oixov mpoicraabaz, iii. 4,12; here it is used of the wife, who necessarily has
her share in ruling the household.—ydeuiav agopyyy didévar tH avrixeiévn
Aodopias zap] The last words : Aodopiag xépev, are not to be taken with
BobAouae (Mack: “I will... for the sake of the reproach which would
otherwise be cast upon the church; ” the meaning is obviously the reverse
of this, so soon as these words are placed in thought after yayeiv, since
xépw never loses the sense of “for the sake of,” nor with 1@ avrixepévy
(Leo: “inimica ad calumniandum parato”). They are to be connected
With dg¢opujy didévaz, but notin such a way as to form a supplement to that
phrase (de Wette, with the remark that this is indeed a strange construc-
tion; also Wiesinger) ; the supplement should have been in the genitive,
see 2 Cor. v.12. Inshort, Aodop. yap. only defines agopypy didévac more
precisely. A definite object is not to be supplied (Leo: occasionem sc.
ipsas seducendi praebere ; 80, too, van Oosterzee, and inthis commentary),
but the interpretation is: “ they are to afford the enemy no opportunity for
slandering,” i.e. they are to abstain from everything which the enemy may
use for slandering the church (not merely the widows); so, too, Hofmann
on the whole. By the avrixeiuevoc is meant either the devil (80 most of the
older commentators,' also Leo and Matthies; van Oosterzee uncertain) or
the human enemy, the Jew and Gentile (so de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt,
Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong, however, in asserting that rov carava in
ver. 15 is decisive against the first explanation, for avrvi would have been
used.—De Wette joins the last part of the clause to what precedes, in such
a way as to supply: “and in this way.” But there is no hint of this limit-
ation. If we add it simply to what precedes, it is more natural to refer
it to the whole conduct of the widows.
Ver. 15. Reason for the injunction given: 769 yép riveg éferpdrnoav orlow
tov catava.—rivéc, viz. “widows;” é&erpdrnoav x.t.A.; comp. i. 6; odziav,
comp. Acts v. 37, xx. 30: they have turned away, viz. from the Christian
path of life, and have followed Satan. This does not necessarily mean a
formal apostasy from Christianity, or a connection with the heretics; it
may also mean yielding oneself up to an un-Christian, carnal life (Wiesin-
ger). This arose from their not living in accordance with the rule laid
down by the apostle.-—On #é7, Bengel rightly remarks: particula provo-
candi ad experientiam. De Wette is quite unjustified in asserting that
Paul could not yet have had such an experience.
Ver. 16. According to Heydenreich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oos-
terzee, and other expositors, this verse is in substance a repetition of what
was already said in vv. 4 and 8; but if a right view of those verses be taken,
there is not so much repetition ——Hofmann wishes to separate ver. 16 from
what precedes it, as he separates ver. 8 from the preceding words: “If in
ver. 16 the apostle comes to speak of the case in which the support of a
1Comp. Constit. Apost. fii. 2: vewrépars 8:aBddAov émégwor, cai wayi8as woAAds, xai
(x¥pacs) 82 eta THY TOU wpwrov TeAcuTHY Gvy- dmiOuulas voRToUES.
KexwpycOw cai o Sevrepos, iva uy eis xpiza rou
CHAP. Vv. 15-17.
171
widow is not to fall a burden on the church, this has no reference to the
honoring of widows.” There is as little ground for the one separation as
for the other; for it is not to be supposed that xaratéyeoOa in ver. 9 does
not refer to the church’s support.—ei rig miord¢ } morn Exee xnpac] [XV i.]s80
runs the Rec. (Tisch. 7). But the weightiest MSS. have the reading: <i rig
nioty Exec xhpac (Tisch. 8), which is decidedly to be preferred. The other
is only a pointless correction, arising from the idea that the husband
should be named along with the wife, and without considering that 7 is by
no means suitable to the mention of both together, and that rig reor7 must
in any case be a Christian spouse. The reason why the wife and not the
husband is named is, that on her was laid the duty of caring for the wid-
ows belonging to the house. The éye expresses the close connection of
the widows with the particular family, a connection which may most
naturally be supposed to be one of kin.’ Erasmus translates it: si qua
mater habet filiam viduam ; and de Wette, too, supposes that by widow
here we are to understand the daughter, niece, etc., not the mother, aunt,
etc. This limitation, however, is not contained in the expression itself.
Had Paul thought of the relationship in this definite way, he would have
expressed himself accordingly.—xai 47) Bapeichw 7 éxxAncia] let not a charge
or burden be laid on the church by undertaking the support of such wid-
ows2—The next words give the reason: iva raig bvtw¢ xfpaic x.7.A.—On the
train of thought in this section dealing with widows, Matthies rightly says:
‘Complaints are made from the most various quarters regarding difficul-
ties and inequalities, regarding want of order and clearness, regarding rep-
etition and confusion in this section; but all this is, for the most part,
founded on presuppositions which have no basis in fact.” We cannot but
see that the train of thought is simple and natural, so soon as we observe
that the chief point in the apostle’s mind in this section is the injunction
regarding the xaradéyeo¥a: of the widows, and that in ver. 4 he is not speak-
ing as in ver. 16 of widows to be cared for, but of those who have to care
for the children or grandchildren belonging to them.
Ver. 17. [On Vv. 17-20, see Note XVI., page 181.] In this and the
following verses Paul instructs Timothy as to his behavior towards the
presbyters.2—ol xadd¢ mpoeordrec mpeaBirepor SimrAge teune a€cobodwow| On Karo
mporotatec, comp. iii. 4. The contrast to the elders “who superintend
well,” is formed by of dyuaprdvovrec, ver. 20, not merely, as van Oosterzee
thinks, “those who distinguish themselves less in their office; ”’ xaé¢ does
not denote a special distinction, but conduct worthy of the office.—Chrys-
ostom explained riuzh by Yeparela nai tov avayxaluv xopyyia; de Wette trans-
1 Hofmann thinks that “here the case is
' gupposed of a Christian woman having widows
in her house who, for g long or short period,
are serviceable, helpful to her.” But, as a
matter of course, such widows receive hire
from those in whose service they work, and
their support can therefore not be laid as a
burden on the church.
£The verb belongs to later Greek for the
common faptvey; only the form BeBdpynuas
is Attic; comp. Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. II. p. 88.
3Strange to say, Hofmann asserts that in
ver. 17 rpeoBvrepo. are not the presbyters, but
“the men of advanced years, from whom the
superintendents were chosen, and out of these
the apostle exalts those who occupy this office
worthily.” Only in ver. 19 does he think that
mwpeoBvrepos is used in the official sense.
172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
lates it directly by “reward.” True, tyu4 does occur in-classic use in the
sense of “ present, reward ”; but the context by no medns demands that
meaning here (in opposition to de Wette). We must keep here to the
general meaning of riu4, “ honor,”—as in vi. 1 (comp. also zizér, ver. 3),
—although we may grant that the apostle was thinking particularly of the
honor which the church was bound to show to their elders by presenting
them with the means necessary for their support. It is quite erroneous
to interpret riuq of a maintenance definitely fixed. The adjective dimije
is taken by most expositors in the wider sense; but though in the use of
ditAéocg it is not necessary to urge an accurate measure, still it is never
equivalent to wieiwv. It is certainly wrong to refer (see de Wette on the
passage) the dirAfc here to the heavenly and earthly honor (Ambrosius),
or to the distinction between respect and reward (Matthies), or to the
double portion of the first-born (Grotius), or to the double portion which,
according to the Const. A post. ii. 28, the presbyter received in the oblations
(Heydenreich and Baur); all these references are arbitrary. The double
honor here is that which comes to the presbyter on account of his office
(not, as Hofmann thinks, on account of his age’), and that which he
obtains by filling his office well.— pddora of xomi@vres tv Abyw Kai didacxarig |}
[XVI a.] On xomévres, comp. iv. 10. Wiesinger says rightly: “we need
not seek any special emphasis in xomévreg: those who toil and moil in op-
position to those who do not; xomdo is used, as elsewhere, of the teacher’s
arduous vocation.’’—The preposition év denotes that Adyog «. d. isthe sphere
in which the work takes place (van Oosterzee).—Adyw nai didacxadig is not
to be taken as an hendiadys. Aédyoc is more general, dedacxa2ia More spe-
cial. Special stress is laid here on the latter, because activity in teaching
was of special importance asa bulwark against heresies. This addition
does not prove that at the time when this epistle was composed there was
a clear distinction between ruling and teaching presbyters (in opposition
to de Wette and Baur). The apostle might quite well have used the
same expressions, although the individual superintendents labored accord-
ing to their gifts and free determination, not according to fixed rules.
Ver. 18 furnishes the reason for the instruction given in ver. 16, a reason
which attaches itself to the idea of xomidvrec. (XVI b.]—Abyee yap 4 ypagy
Bowv adoavra ov giudoes] This expression is found in Deut. xxv. 4. giudu,
though often used figuratively in the N. T., stands here in its literal
meaning. The whole passage, however, is taken figuratively, Just as at
1 Cor. ix. 9, where Paul handles it at greater length.2—To these words of
Scripture the apostle further adds: kai d£fso¢ 4 épydrn¢ tov peadov airov]
These words are not quoted from the O. T., for the passages to which
attention has been directed at Lev. xix. 13 and Deut. xxiv. 14 run differ-
ently ; but they are found in the N. T. at Luke x.7 (similarly Matt. x. 10).
Hence Baur and Plitt maintain that they are quoted from Luke——The
Aéyet ) ypadh does not, however, compel us so to refer the words; the
1It might even be a younger man who filled stay dAdyaw 6 vdpmos, GAN’ Umép Tey vouy mai
the office of a presbyter. Adyoy éxévrey.
3Even Philo says (De Sacrif.): ov yap. vartp
CHAP. Vv. 18—20. 173
apostle simply adds to the words of Scripture a proverb (Christ, too, in
the passage quoted seems to use the phrase as proverbial). So Calvin,
also Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann.—The two sentences, according
to the apostle’s meaning, express the same thought; hence it is not
improbable that the second was added as an interpretation of the first.
Ver. 19. The apostle now defines the proper conduct on Timothy’s part
towards the presbyters who do not superintend the church xaAéc, but
expose themselves to blame, thereby doing hurt to their official influence.
—Kara mpeoButépov xaryyopiav pi mapadéxov] Chrysostom wrongly remarks
On mpeoBurépov: obi rd akiwpa, AAG ri jAxiav. Timothy is not to receive
an accusation (xarzyopia, Luke vi.7; John xviii. 29) in order to decide
regarding it, éxrd¢g et pe éxi dbo 9 tptsv papripuy. On the pleonasm, éxré¢
et uf, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5, xv. 2. Paul is
here referring manifestly to the Mosaic law, Deut. xix. 15 (LXX.: ém
orduatoc dio paptipwy Kal él orduatog tpiiv papripwy orhoerar wav papa);
comp. Deut. xvii. 6 (éri duct pdprvow @ éxi tprot wdprvo). It is a question
whether he does so in the sense—corresponding with the law—of ordain-
ing that Timothy is only to receive an accusation against a presbyter
when supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses (so de Wette,!
Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and in general most expositors); or whether
here, as in Matt. xviii. 16, there is only a somewhat general reference to
the law, and it is merely said that Timothy is to receive the accusation
only when brought before him in presence of two or three witnesses? (so
Hofmann; comp., too, Winer, p. 351 [E, T. p. 375]; Buttmann, p. 289
[E. T. 336]; éri papripwv occurs also in the classics in the sense of “before
witnesses’). As he is not speaking here of a decision, but only of the
reception of an accusation (in order that a decision may be made), and as
the construction also is irregular, the second view may be adopted as the
more probable one (different in the third edition of this commentary).
Reference to the law is made in the N. T. also at Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor.
xiii. 1, and Heb. x. 28; comp., too, John viii. 17.
Ver. 20 contains a further instruction regarding his conduct toward the
presbyters.—rov¢e duaprdvovrac} does not refer to the members of the
church in general (de Wette, Wiesinger), but to the presbyters (van Oos-
terzee, Plitt, Hofmann),—those presbyters who, in their official work or
general walk, do not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their
office. In such cases it does not matter whether a charge against them is
brought before Timothy or not3—évémiov mdvruv tAeyxe] The most natural
reference of rdvre¢ also is to the presbyters. [XVI ¢.] It would clearly be
too much to expect that Timothy should punish all sinners before the
1De Wette’s question, whether Timothy
was not to observe this precept of justice in
the case of accusations against others, is not
to the point. Timothy was not appointed
judge over all matters of private dispute.
£The suitability of such a precept is mani-
fest when we consider the position which
Timothy had to take up towards the presby-
ters; comp. on this Hofmann.
3 Neither the present (auaprdvorras) nor the
lack of 8 disproves this view. The aorist
(anapricaryras) would have pointed to some
earlier incident, and &¢€ would be necessary
only if the apostle had had clearly in mind
the contrast to the xaAas spocorwres xpecBu-
repo. Mentioned in ver. 17.
174 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
whole church (comp. Matt. xviii. 15-17); that would be unsuitable, even
in the case of presbyters who had sinned. On édéyzeu, “ censure,” comp.
Luke iii. 19; Tit. i. 13, it. 15.—iva kai of Aowroi g6fov Exwor} “oi Aourol May
be only the rest of the same class to which the dyaprdvorres belong,”
Hofmann.
Ver. 21. [On Vv. 21-25, see Note XVII., pages 181, 182.] The apostle
concludes the section, on the proper conduct towards the presbyters, with
a solemn adjuration to observe the precepts given.—dcayapripopar évdriov tov
Ocov xal Xpictov 'Incov nai tov ExAextov ayyéAwy] In the N. T. the verb
Stayapripecda: means “testify” (so Acts viii. 25, x. 42, xviii. 5, etc.) and
“ adjure,” and in the latter sense often serves to strengthen an exhortation
(Luke xvi. 28; Acts ii. 40; 1 Thess. iv. 6; 2 Tim. ii. 14, etc.); so, too, here.
The addition xai taév éxdexraév ayyéawy is explained from the idea that the
throne of God is surrounded by angels as His servants. The reference to
the last judgment is wrong, as in Bengel (with whom Wiesinger and van
Oosterzee agree): repraesentat Timotheo judicium extremum, in quo
Deus revelabitur et Christus cum angelis coram conspicietur. Paul is
appealing, not to something future, but to something present.—The éxdexrav
cannot be taken as a genitive dependent on rav ayyéAuy (= “before the
angels of the elect, ¢. e. believers,” so Hofmann); éxAexrév, as its position
between the article and the substantive shows, is an adjective belonging
to ayyédwr.' It does not distinguish higher angels from lower,? nor the good
from the bad, nor the guardian angels of Timothy and the Ephesian
church (Mosheim) from all others, nor the angels in general from earthly
beings; it is to be taken simply as an epitheton ornans. The angels as
such are éxAexroi Ocov, Whom God has chosen as the objects of His love;
comp. 1 Pet. ii. 4, where éxAexréc 1g synonymous with éyriwoc. Wiesinger
rightly remarks that éxAexroi is to be taken as a general epithet of all
angels, like aycot ayy., dyy. gw7és, and the like. It is added in order to give
greater solemnity to the form of adjuration*®—iva ravra gvAdEnc] [XVII a.]
ravra does not refer to “ everything that has been said to Timothy regarding
his conduct towards each class” (Hofmann), but to what was said in vy. 17-
20 regarding the presbyters. The solemn adjuration is due to the import-
ance which the office of presbyter had for the church. De Wette, Wiesinger,
van Oosterzee refer it only to ver. 20; but this is contradicted by the close
connection of the verse with what precedes.—Xwpi¢ mpoxpiparoc, under x.7.A.]
mpoxpiua, “ prejudice,’ in @ favorable as well as an unfavorable sense.
1Cases occur in which the genitive of a
substantive is governed by a substantive like-
wise in the genitive (e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 4); cases,
too, in which the dependent genitive pre-
cedes the substantive governing it (e.g. Rom.
xi. 13); but none in which the genitive of a
substantive—in form adjectival—governed by
a substantive in the genitive, stands between
it and the article belonging to it.
?Baur explains the expression from the
gnostic idea of angels who stand in special
connection with the Redeemer. Irenaeus, i.
4.5: ot nAcwxdres avrov (rod Swripos) ayyeAot,
Vil. 1: of wept roy Lwrnpa ayyeAor; iv. 5: 06
GyyeAor of wet’ avrov oi Sopvddpor.—But apart
from other reasons, the expression here used
is much too indefinite to be referred to that
idea. Van Oosterzee takes éxAexroi to denote
the highest orders of angels, but does not
prove that the word is used in such a way.
3Comp. with it the form in Josephus, where
(Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 14) in Agrippa’s address to
the Jews we have: papripona &’ é¢yw per
Umey Ta ayta Kai Tovs i€pous ayyéAous TOU Geod.
CHAP. V. 21, 22. 175
Several expositors take it here in an unfavorable sense, so that the next
words : yndév roy xara mpdoxAcow, form a contrast to xwpic mpoxpisartog (SO
in this commentary). But as there is nothing to indicate a contrast, it is
better to take the second member as defining the first more precisely :
“without prejudice, doing nothing by favor.”—Hofmann translates mpéxpiua
by “ preference ” (so Leo); but Wiesinger has already remarked that this
meaning cannot be proved. If zpéxanow were to be taken as the original
reading, it would have to be explained as Theophylact explains it: mpooxa-
Aeitai ce rd bv pepog cig Td Bondeiv aut pH Tolivuy momjons Kata TH Exeivou mpbo-
KAyotv, which nevertheless is still an artificial interpretation.
Ver. 22. The exhortation in this verse: yeipag rayéug pndevi éxitider, 18
not defined further. [XVII 6.] In the N. T. the laying on of hands is
mentioned on various occasions; thus specially in healing the sick
(whether by Christ or His disciples), in bestowing the divine blessing
(Matt. xix. 18, 15), in imparting the Holy Spirit (Acts viii. 17), in appoint-
ing to a definite ecclesiastical office (Acts vi. 6), in setting apart for special
church work (Acts xiii. 3). It has been thought that Paul has here in
mind the laying on of hands which was done at the readmission of
excommunicated persons (de Wette, Wiesinger); but there is no trace in
the N. T. of the existence of this custom in apostolic times. It is more
natural to refer it to the ordination, whether of a presbyter or deacon
(besides the older expositors, Mosheim, Otto, van Oosterzee,’ Plitt, and
others); but in that case ver. 22 should have come before ver. 21. Hof-
mann thinks that it is used of the appointment to a church office; but of
this there is no hint in the context. It will be most correct to take the
exhortation quite generally, so that the meaning is, Timothy is to lay hands
tayéwe, t.e. “in over-hasty fashion,’ on no one—whatever the occasion
may be. The reason why not, is given in the next words: pndé xocvdvec
duapriae GAAotpiarc. The adadorpiac duapriac are not, as Hofmann thinks, the
sins of those who are hasty in the laying on of hands, but the sins of
those on whom hands are too hastily laid. He who thoughtlessly lays
hands on the unworthy, thereby declaring them worthy of the divine
blessing, makes himself a sharer in their sins. Against this Timothy is to
guard; he is rather to observe what Paul expresses by saying: ceavrév
dyvov type. This exhortation is in itself quite general, but it stands here
in close relation to the foregoing warning. Timothy is to keep himself
pure (dyvéc ag in iv. 12, not in the special meaning “ chaste”), particularly
in not making himself a partaker of others’ sins by laying hands on them
too hastily. This reference, declared by van Oosterzee to be the only one
possible, is wrongly denied by de Wette and Wiesinger. Heinrichs and
others err in regarding the apostle’s exhortation as “a prohibition against
intercourse with wicked men.” [XVII c.]
1Reiche is wrong in saying: Huther et
Matthies, quin lectionem hanc (xpécnAnocv)
absurdam Lachmanni auctoritate sequantur,
parum abesse videntur. The reading spdéc-
«ovr is distinctly enough preferred by Mat-
thies, as well as in this commentary, in spite
of the weight allowed to the important
authorities that testify for the other reading.
Van Oosterzee wrongly thinks that vv. 24,
25, are in favor of this explanation; there is
176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Ver. 23. [XVII d.] Myxére idporére «.7.A.] Of course the apostle does
not mean to forbid Timothy to drink water at all, but only urges him not
to avoid wine altogether. ddpozoreiv does not exactly mean “drink water,”
but: “ be a water-drinker,” and is only used of a man who makes water his
special and exclusive drink; see Winer, p. 464 [E. T. p. 498]. The reason
of Timothy’s abstinence from wine is not that he, after the fashion of the
Essenes, regarded its enjoyment as something not permitted to him, nor
that he subjected himself to an asceticism wrong in nature (Wiesinger) ;
but that, in his zeal for moderation (which is a part of the dyveia), and in
order to set an example against excess, he avoided wine, whereby, how-
ever, he might appear to favor a false asceticism (so, too, van Oosterzec).
If this be kept in view, we cannot overlook the connection of the verse
with what precedes. De Wette rightly remarks (following Estius, Grotius,
and others) that this exhortation contains a limitation of the previous
exhortation, and at the same time a contrast to exaggerated asceticism.
As areason for Timothy’s enjoying some wine, Paul adduces his sickliness.
It does not, however, follow, as Matthies thinks, that the apostle made
this exhortation only out of concern for Timothy’s health. Had that been
the case, we cannot but hold, with Schleiermacher, that the apostle here
descends to particulars which strangely interrupt the train of thought,
since ver. 24 is clearly attached again to ver. 22.
Ver. 24. [XVII e.] This and the following verse, in close relation to one
another, as dcatrus shows, express a truth quite general, which the context
defines more precisely.—r.way avOpdruv al duapria: tpddyAol ctor] mpddndug
does not mean “ formerly manifest,”! but “ manifest before all eyes.’?
Comp. Heb. vii. 14 (see Delitzsch, comment. on the passage); Judith viii.
29; 2 Mace. iii. 17, xiv. 39.2—spodyovea: cig xpiow is here, as often, intransi-
tive (Opp. axoAovdeiv, comp. Matt. xxi. 9), equivalent to “precede.” Accord-
ing to the sense, we must supply as the dative of more prccise definition :
“those who have committed the sins.”—ei¢ xpiocv, equivalent to “to judg-
ment.” The meaning therefore is: some men are in such a condition
that their sins are not only made manifest by the «piouc, but they are already
notorious beforehand; they precede to judgment those who have practiced
them, and thus show in anticipation the result of the judgment.—The
next clause forms the contrast to this thought: riot 62 kat éraxodovdovarv]
étaxoAovtety corresponds to the mpodyev, and addy naturally suggests
itself in contrast with mpédyA0n. The meaning is: Some men are in such
a condition that—in regard to the xpio«e—their sins follow them, 7.e. that
their sins are only made manifest by their coming to judgment; the
judgment alone makes their sins manifest—Mack imports arbitrary
references by his interpretation : “they follow hard on their heels, so that
they cannot remain unknown, except to those hasty and careless in observ-
ing.”—De Wette is right in his explanation: “with some they are only
in them no hint of any reference to ordina- 2Chrysostom, Thendoret, de Wette, Wies-
tion. inger, Hofmann, and others.
1Calvin, Beza, Leo, Mack, Matthies, and 3So also in the classics (comp. the Latin
others. propalam.)
CHAP. V. 23-25. 177
known afterwards;” but he is wrong in his additional remark: “when
they have gone on a longer or shorter distance;” on this point there is
clearly nothing said here.—As the verse has the appearance of an aphorism,
xpiowy 18 to be taken quite generally; but since the apostie utters this
general sentence in reference to ver. 22, it is to warn Timothy that he is
to lay hands on no man rashly, etc., without a «pio t.e. without subject-
ing him to a judgment whereby sins, usually hidden, may become mani-
fest.—As there is no good ground for interpreting ver. 22 of ordination, it
is wrong to take xpictc here as identical with doxydlecv, iii. 10. For de
Wette’s explanation also: “the ecclesiastical decision of the moral censor,”
there is no sufficient ground. There is as little ground for the opinion of
some expositors (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann) who interpret the
kpiowe of the judgment of God, and find the thought expressed that in the
divine judgment all sins alike, whether manifest before or hidden, shall
come to light. Wiesinger further assumes that thereby the exhortation
to Timothy to beware of others’ sins as of his own, is strengthened. But,
on the one hand, it is arbitrary to supply Ocot with xpiowe:* on the other
hand, the apostle is not discussing various sins, but the sins of various
men. Further, it is wrong to obscure the meaning of éraxoAovSoverw, and
to put in its place the thought, “they are hidden.” Besides, we cannot
see how the thought thus taken could serve Timothy as a standard for his
conduct, for those sins which are only made manifest by the last judgment
must remain hidden to Timothy, in which case he could not be reproved
for laying hands on thoge who had committed such sins?’ To the opinion
that Paul wished to strengthen his exhortation to Timothy by alluding to
the last judgment there is this objection, that the only reason for drawing
a distinction between manifest and hidden sins, would have been a suspi-
cion on Paul’s part that Timothy was guilty of secret sins. But how
could he have such a suspicion, and how can this interpretation agree
with revév av8pdruv and ri dé?—The xpiore here mentioned is thercfore
not the divine judgment, but a trial which Timothy must hold, lest the
thing of which he is warned in ver. 22 should happen (so, too, Plitt).
Ver. 25 supplements ver. 24, the distinction between manifest and
hidden being applied to good works.—dcatruc kat ra Epya ta nada mpddnral
It may be supposed from what precedes that rwév arv¥pdrouv is to be
supplied here. But it is improbable that Paul was thinking definitely of
this, otherwise the clause following would have received another form. Hof-
mann maintains that the Rec. rpdédy14 éovw is the original reading, taking:
the words dcabruc . . . xaAéd as a complete clause, and explaining mpdédnA4.
éorw by: “there are manifest (ones).” This purely arbitrary view needs.
no refutation. The assertion that the apostle could not say that the good
1It is certainly correct to say that xpicts, 2This objection does not affect Hofmann’s
even without @eov, sometimes in the N. T. interpretation, for he—unjustifiably—sepa-
denotes the judgment of God; but this only rates vv. 24, 25 from what precedes, and
takes place when the context gives clear in- wishes to regard them as introductory to
dication of it, as in Jas. ii. 13, which is not what follows.
the case here.
12
178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
works were manifest, is contradicted by the addition of the necessary
restriction in the next words.—x«xai ra dAAwe Zyovra is not to be referred to
kata, but to mpédy4a: the good works with which it is different, ¢.e. which
are not zpéd7Aa.—xpuBqvat ob divayra| “can, however, not remain contin-
ually hidden;” they will likewise become manifest on a careful xpioce.
Ver. 24 was a warning against showing favor too hastily; this verse is a
Warning against condemning too hastily.
Notes By AMERICAN EDIror.
XV. Vv. 3-16.
(a) After the general directions respecting the treatment of older and younger
members of the churches, both men and women, special suggestions are given
with reference to widows. The primary object of these suggestions seems to be
to determine what widows shall be supported by the church. It will be observed
that this is the first and main point which is presented. The widows who are
really such (é6vtw¢) are those who have no children or grandchildren to provide for
them, who are pe“ovwytvaz, who are sixty years of age and, therefore, are not likely
to marry again. Unless they are in such circumstances, their own friends are to
support them, that the church’may be able to give all its help to those who pecu-
liarly need it. It will, also, be observed that the other points specified have
reference to character and conduct in past life, or in their present widowhood,
which have rendered them worthy objects of the church’s care. Comp. what is
found in ver. 9, and ver. 5. Nothing is said of any official duties or official char-
acter as appertaining to these widows. The word xaradeyéo3w simply means to
be entered upon a list, and its meaning is fully answered by the recording on a
list of persons who should be supported by the congregation out of the common
funds. Is it certain, even, that the verb must have so definite a meaning as this?
The arguments urged in favor of a certain official character as belonging to them
are the following: (1) that it is required that they should be sixty years of age.
If it were a mere matter of support, it is said that widows under this age might be
destitute. But it is of permanent pensionaries of the church that the Apostle js here
speaking, and that such a limit of age should be required for them is not surprising.
(2) That such a widow, it is said, must have been the wife of only one hus-
band, i.e. should not have been twice married. This, it is claimed, could hardly
be made an essential condition to her being supported by the church. This argu-
ment will, of course, be worthy of consideration, only in case the meaning of the
phrase is the one mentioned. If, on the other hand, the words mean that there
must have been no violation, in any degree, of the marriage relation, the condi-
tion might well be deemed a necessary one. But even if the former sense is correct
—as, in all probability, it is—there might easily have been, at that period, sufficient
reasons for making a second marriage a disqualification for admission into the
number of those who were to be permanent pensionaries of the church; as there
were for making it such in the case of persons who might be thought of, on other
grounds, as candidates for the office of éxioxoroc. Such a condition would be as
unlikely to be mentioned, at the present day, with reference to the latter position
as the former. (3) That ver. 10 implies that the persons had been in possession
of property; and, accordingly, that persons of this class, not those who had been
NOTES. 179
always poor, would by this understanding of the passage, be allowed support.
This argument, however, depends on inferences from ver. 10, which are not at all
necessary. (4) That ver. 12 implies a pledge to remain a widow, and this indi-
cates an order or official class. This is the strongest of the points urged. But it
is to be observed: 1, that siorc does not necessarily mean a pledge; 2, that the
words connected with the ziory clause involve something more than the mere dis-
position to marry a second time ;—xaTaorp7vidows: can scarcely havé less force than
oraradoca of ver. 6, which denotes wantonness, living riotously (Ell.), giving one-
self to pleasure (R. V.) ;—it is something which causes one to be dead while still
living; 3, that immediately after the allusion to these younger widows who thus
become wanton against Christ, the writer refers to the point that widows, who
have friends to aid them, should not be supported by the church, precisely as he
makes the same statement after alluding to the elder widows who give themselves
to pleasure ;—the question of support by the church isthe prominent question in
mind, and everything apparently turns upon this point; 4, that, as it is declared,
in ver. 8, that the person who does not provide for his family denies the faith, it
is not strange if it is here declared, that those who marry through becoming
wanton against Christ, reject their first faith. The evidence in this passage of an
ecclesiastical order of widows, with vows of perpetual widowhood, is, to say the
least, very uncertain, and an argument against the Pauline authorship of the epis-
tle as connected with any late development of such an institution rests on very
precarious foundations.
(6) The question as to what is the subject of pavSavérwoay (ver. 4)—whether
the widows or the children—is much disputed. But the following considerations
seem decisive in favor of the latter: 1, The 16th verse, the correspondence of
which with vv. 4, 8 can hardly be doubtful, clearly refers to the supporting of
_ widows by relatives. 2. The only natural interpretation of a@uouBa¢ arodidévar roi¢
mpoyévorc of ver. 4, is that which understands the words as requiring of children
that they should make return to their parents for what the parents had done for
them. 3. The connection of ver. 5 with ver. 4 indicates that yeuovwuévn refers to
a bereft or solitary state in which the widow is left without help and care from
others, rather than to a condition in which she has no one as the object of her
care. 4. The contrast between the widows mentioned in ver. 4 and the “ widows
indeed ” of ver. 3, as connected with the similar contrast which evidently relates
to the matter of support in ver. 16, renders it altogether probable that that which
(to the Apostle’s thought as here presented) made the widow an byrw¢ xyfpa, was
the fact that she had no children to support her. 5. It may be added that, while
ti¢ yfpa may be regarded as a collective idea, and thus may be taken as a plural
subject, the use of the plural verb pavSavérwoav points more naturally to the plural
nouns téxva and éxyova, The objections to this view, which are presented by
Huther, are not of special weight. He urges the use of rév Id:ov olxov and roic
apoyévots instead of air#v and airy. But this is accounted for very simply and
easily, by the desire of the writer to put the sentence in a general form; comp.
ver. 8. He urges, secondly, that o: xpéyovo: means progenitors, and thus seems
inappropriate as referring to parents. But its use may be explained as suggested
by éxyova, and, as Alf. says, it was the only word which would include both mother
and grandmother. He argues, thirdly, that the expression réxva éyecv makes the
children dependent on the mother (iii. 4; Tit. i. 6), and that it is an arbitrary sup-
position to suppose that grown-up children only are here alluded to. This argu-
180 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ment has no force, if the indications of the context show that the writer has in
mind mature children, who can care for their parents. What the age of the
children is, and whether they are regarded as independent of parents or depend-
ent on them, must be determined, in all such cases, by the thought of the author
at the time. Finally, the objection which he finds in tp@rov seems to have no
foundation, for, in such a sentence, first is often used as denoting before proceeding to
take another course,—here, before leaving her to the care of the church. De W.,
Wies., Ell., Alf., Fairb., Plumptre, Bib. Comm., v. Oost., and others regard the
children as the subject of puavdavérwoav, Luther, Calv., Holtzm., Hofm., and
some others agree with Huther in making the widows the subject—(c) Ver. 5 is
sometimes taken as indicating duties which belonged to the ecclesiastical widow.
The. verse, however, is not put in the form which would directly point to this, and
it may be satisfactorily and more simply explained as designating the general
characteristics of the widow who is “eyovwuévy, and who is to be honored as dvTw¢
xipa. The words raira wapayyeAde of ver. 7 probably refer to vv. 5, 6.—(d) Ver.
8, which is expressed in a general form, favors the reference of the pav¥avérwoav
of ver. 4 tothe children and grandchildren—independently of other considera-
tions—for the reason that cases were not unlikely to occur in which they would be
disposed to neglect the widow and leave her to the care of the church, whereas cases
in which a widowed mother would leave her young children, that she might be-
come an ecclesiastical widow, were less likely to suggest themselves to the writer's
mind. The meaning of avicrov is unbeliever (R. V.), not infidel (A. V.). The per-
son thus neglecting his own family was worse than the ordinary heathen, whom
natural affection impelled to provide for his own.—(e) xfpa of ver. 9 is regarded
by Winer and most commentators as a predicate, and not improbably it isso. So
R. V. That this must necessarily be the case, however, may be questioned.—( / )
The rejection of the younger widows (ver. 11) is evidently founded on the fact
that they are likely to desire to marry, and liable to do so because of a disposition
to turn away from Christ to the pleasures and worldliness of an unspiritual life.
That persons who had been placed among the number of those who were to
receive support from the church as permanent pensionaries, on the ground of their
solitary and bereft condition, should be thus turning aside, was likely to be a cause
of scandal and evil, and the danger of it was to be avoided. It involved a rejec-
tion or abandonment of their first faith—comp. above, hath denied the faith—or of a
pledge which they had given. If the latter meaning is to be assigned to wiorcv, the
conclusion does not necessarily follow (as Huther also affirms), that there was any
formal vow not to marry again. It is to be observed, also, as [luther says in his
footnote, that Paul does not represent the desire to marry, in the case of the
younger widows, as necessarily a karaorpyuav rov Xpiorov., If there was any
“order” of widows, everything in the passage shows that it had as little as possi-
ble of ecclesiastical development.—(g) The construction of ver. 13 is difficult, but,
on the whole, the supplying of «lva:, and making apyai predicate to this infinitive,
seems to be the least objectionable way of explaining the sentence. The explan-
ation given by Holtzm. (comp. Words.) which takes avd. absolutely, and contrasts
learning by going about from house to house with learning from their husbands
at home (ii. 11), must be regarded as quite improbable.—(h) The ground of the
direction given that the younger widows should marry, is one which is in the gen-
eral line of thought in the passage ;—Aocdopiac is the reproach which conduct such
as that indicated in the preceding verses might occasion, and éetpdryoav «,1.A,
NOTES. 181
corresponds closely with xaracrpyvidowowy x.7.A, of ver. 11—(i) That morf, and not
mtoTog i) ToT, is the true text in ver. 16 is to be believed, because it is given by the
best authorities and because it is the more difficult reading. The use of the fem-
inine is connected, possibly, with the fact that, since ver. 8, the discourse has been
wholly about women—possibly, however, with the fact alluded to by Huther, that
the duty specified would fall especially upon the woman. The reading with both
masc. and fem. would have seemed antecedently more natural.
XVI. Vv. 17-20.
(a) The indications of ver. 17 are that there were presbyters who, in addition
to the work of presiding, devoted themselves to teaching and preaching. But
that there was a marked division between two classes of elders—ruling and teach-
ing elders—is neither stated, nor rendered probable, by this verse. The words
of Rom. xii. 7 ff. and 1 Cor. xii. 28 may, probably, point to a combination of
these gifts as often belonging to preachers and teachers, but, neither there nor
here, is there anything to show established ecclesiastical orders. The so-called
ruling elders, or presiding elders, of different modern branches of the church
have certainly no connection with what the Apostle is here speaking of. The
persons to whom he alludes were neither lay-elders, nor presbyters presiding over
a district or over a body of presbyters or churches in a district. They were
presiding and teaching presbyters of single churches, ézioxoro in the N. T.
sense of that word.—(b) The 18th verse makes it evident that, if the word true
(ver. 17) does not distinctly mean reward or remuneration, this idea was prominent
in the Apostle’s mind as connected with the honor of which these presbyters
were to be accounted worthy. The quotation from the O. T. in the first clause
as united with the words afco¢ «.t.A. of the second, and as used and applied in
1 Cor. ix. 9, scarcely admits of any other explanation. The second clause of the
verse is not found in the O. T., and nothing sufficiently near to it in form of ex-
pression is there discoverable to justify the application to this clause of 9 ypad7
Aéyet in the ordinary N. T. sense of that phrase. It is found, however, in Luke
x.7. Does the union of the two clauses by xai prove that ypad¢# is here used by
the writer as covering the N. T., as well as the O. T.? The most that can be
fairly affirmed is, that it may indicate such a use, but not that it cannot be
otherwise. This verse does not, therefore, afford a decisive argument to prove
a later date for the epistle than the end of Paul’s life; nor can it be regarded as
an argument overbalancing strong evidences which may be discovered on the
other side. The explanation given by Huther is a possible, and even a not
improbable one; and this notwithstanding the fact, which Holtzm. alleges, that it
is not in accordance with N. T. usage to unite a Scriptural and a mere proverbial
statement in this way.—(c) avtwv of ver. 20 is explained by Huther as referring
tothe presbyters. This reference, however, is certainly not necessary, and it seems
quite doubtful, since the dvrwv has no limiting word added to it. Ell. would, for
a similar reason, give a general sense to tov¢ auaprdvoyrac; but the sequence of
the verses more naturally suggests the supply zpecfurépove with this participle,
as also the understanding of ol Aocroi as meaning the rest of the presbyters.
XVII. Vv. 21-25.
(a) The reference of tavra gvAdin¢ of ver. 21 may be to vv. 17-20, as Huther
supposes, but is more probably to be limited to vv. 19,20. The explanation given
182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
by Huther of tpoxpiuarog, on the other hand, is better than that of other writers,
who give it an unfavorable sense; because the word, in itself, does not necessarily
have that sense, and because it seems improbable that the two opposite sides
would be presented without some separating particle or, at least, a xai. The
second phrase follows the first as if explanatory.—(b) The question as to what
imposition of hands is referred to in ver. 22 cannot be confidently answered. The
indefinite and general expression, in itself, is favorable to Huther’s view. On
the whole, however, the connection must be regarded as favoring the application
of the words to the ordaining of presbyters. Ell. agrees with de W. and Wiesin-
ger in referring the words to the laying on of hands at the absolution of penitents
and their re-admission to church-fellowship.—(c) The second and third clauses
of ver. 22 are thought by Ell. and de W., to imply too much of evil in candidates
for ordination and presbyters, provided the xe¢po¥ecia of ordination is to be under-
stood as referred to. But the general form of the statement does not, in such
cases, affirm, necessarily, that what is spoken of is of frequent occurrence.—(d)
The meaning of ver. 23, so far as the words of the verse are concerned, is suffi-
ciently clear, but the question as to its connection with the context is one of much
difficulty, and has given rise to various explanations. Among the most singular
of these is that of Plumptre, who is one of the very recent writers on this epistle.
His view is, that the preceding verse refers especially to cases of trials where
offences against purity were to be considered. “All experience shows,” says
Plumptre, “that it is the weakened, bloodless brain that can least control its
thoughts and is most open in its thoughts to impure imaginations.” Paul there-
fore, probably under the advice of Luke, his medical adviser, suggests to Timothy
that he should get his brain “into a state of healthy equilibrium” in preparation
for such trials by “a moderate use of the stimulant which he had hitherto denied
himself.” A recommendation to bishops and judges to guard themselves against
the polluting influence of ecclesiastical cases of the sort indicated by a moderate
use of stimulants, is certainly somewhat remarkable. Alford thinks that Timothy
had a timidity and feebleness which prevented such keen sighted judgment and
vigorous action as a bishop should show in estimating the characters of candidates
for the ministry. Stimulants, taken with moderation, might overcome this feeble
condition. This is hardly more probable than the suggestion of Plumptre. Some
‘ have supposed that it is a mere suggestion bearing upon Timothy’s health, with
no reference to the preceding verse. The insertion of a recommendation of this
kind, respecting the bodily health of the person addressed, is, however, in such a
context, so improbable that this view must be rejected. The true explanation is
suggested by the connection, and by the fact that the thought passes on in the
same line, but to a more general statement, as the sentences move from ver. 22
to ver. 24. There can be little doubt, therefore, that ver 23 is a limitation of
the last clause of ver. 22 in such a way as to indicate that what is mentioned in ver.
22 b., is not to be carried to the extent of extreme asceticism.—(e) The words of
vv. 24, 25 contain the statement of a general truth, but, in the connection, they
must be regarded as having a more or less particular application to the subject
which is especially under consideration. The word «piow is to be taken in a
wide and general sense, and the application will be determined by the matter
which happens to be under discussion. The reference, so far as questions respect-
ing presbyter- are concerned, must naturally be to the judgment or trial of those
questions.
CHAP. VI. 183
CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 1. The reading dobAcv (F G) is to be regarded asa correction ; 80, too,
with the reading dovdsiac (73, Sahid.).—Ver. 2. In ® the words érc adeAgoi eiow
are omitted, probably through an oversight. Instead of the curious evepyeciag
here, F G, gr. 46, and some other cursives have the reading evoeBeiac; 45 has
épyacias.—Ver. 3. Instead of mpocépyera: (Rec. with the support of nearly all MSS. ;
Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7),*has the reading mpooéfyerac (in Latin: acquiescit),
which Tisch. 8 adopted. This form occurs nowhere else in the N. T.—Ver. 4.
Tisch. 7 read épecc, after D F G L, etc.; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, épe¢ (Rec. with
the support of A K ® etc.; so, too, Lachm. Buttm.). It can hardly be decided
which is the original reading; the meaning is substantially the same in either
case; possibly the singular was changed into the plural on account of the other
plurals.—Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. tapadtarpifai, Griesb. rightly adopted dcara-
pavpiBai, on the weightiest authority: A D FG ®, al., 10, 17, 23, etc., Clem. Basil.
Chrys. etc. In one MS. dtarapad:arprfai is found; others have dcarp:Bai; others,
maparptBai; and one 6i @ maparpiBai, which Reiche approves.—The words a¢gio-
Taco Grd Tov ToLobTwY are, according to A D* F G ¥& 17, 67** 93, al., Copt. Sahid.
Aeth. Vulg. It., probably to be considered an addition not genuine, although they
are found in K L, nearly all cursives, and the Fathers, Ambros. Pel. Chrys. ete. ;
Griesb. marked them as very much to be suspected; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.
omitted them; Reiche, on the other hand, defended them as genuine.—Ver. 7.
djAov] is wanting in several of the weightiest authorities, in particular A F G &
17, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. etc., on which account it was also struck out by Lachm.
Buttm. Tisch. 8. But as it is almost indispensable for the sense, its omission may per-
haps be only an oversight, unless 6rz, as Buttm. p. 308 [E. T. 358], thinks, be elliptical
for d7A0v 671.—Ver. 8. Instead of dtarpopds, D F G and several cursives have the
common singular form dcarpog#; and instead of apxeodnodueda, there is found in
30, 117, 219, al., Vulg. Chrys. etc., the form apxeoSnodueba ; see on this, Winer, p.
72 [E. T. p. 75].—Ver. 9. After zayida, D* F G, several cursives, Fathers, and
versions have Tov d:aféAov, which, however, is to be regarded as an insertion from
iii. 7—Ver. 11. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, omitted the article tot before Gcov; it
is wanting in A ® 17.—In ® the word evoéBecav is wanting.—p¢géryra] This read-
ing stands only in later MSS.; A F G®& 71, Ignat. Petr. Alex. Ephr. Hesych.
have tpairaGecav, which is therefore rightly adopted by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm.
Tisch.—Ver. 12. cig 7v] The Ree. is cic fv wal. The xai was rightly omitted by
Griesb., on the authority of all uncials, many cursives, Syr. Arr. Copt. etc., Chrys.
Theodor. etc.—Ver. 13. The oo: after tapayyéAdAw (Rec. supported by the most
important authorities, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7) was omitted by Tisch. 8, on the
authority of F G 17, etc.; so, too, with the article rot before Oecd, after ®,
though it stands in nearly all authorities. Instead of (worootvto¢e (Rec. K L®,
al.), A D F G 17, ete., Ath. Cyr. etc., have Cwoyovoivroc, which deserves preference
as the more unusual word. Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. adopted it into the text;
184 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY,
Reiche, on the other hand, defends the Rec., especially on the ground that Paul
uses the word (wozoreiv continually of the futura hominum mortuorum ad vitam
restitutio, quacum rerum universarum instauratio conjuncta erit.—Ver. 17. év r¢
vov aiavt] is changed in D E, Syr. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. etc. into rot viv aidvoc, Por
aia, ® has yarpp; and for vypyAogpoveiv, vpndAd gpoveiv, which Tisch. 8 adopted.
—év T@ Oc@] For the preposition év (Rec. D*** K L, Tisch. 7, Reiche), A D* F
G &, several cursives, etc., have é7i(Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). This reading
seems, however, to have arisen from a correction in order to make this clause sym-
metrical with the one previous. Thearticle r@ (Rec. A D*** E K L, etc.; Lachm.
Buttm. Tisch. 7) is wanting in D* F G ®&, al. (Tisch. 8).—r» Garr] omitted by
Lachm. and Tisch., after A G 17, 23, 47, al., many versions, is to be regarded as
not genuine. It may have been inserted from a recollection of iv. 10.—7dvra
mAovaiwc] adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. for m2ovciwg zavra, after D E17, 44,
46, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. etc., Basil. Chrys. Theodoret, etc. Lachm. and
Buttm. read, on the authority of A 17, 37, 57, al., ra mavra miovoieg, which might
deserve preference as the more difficult reading—Ver. 19. The Ree. aiwviov is
manifestly a correction of the original éytwe (in A D* EF GR® 17, 23, 31, 57, al,
Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Constitut. Clem. Orig. Basil. etc.), which Griesb. rightly
received into the text.—Ver. 20. tapadyxqv] rightly adopted by Griesb. for
mapaxatadyx7y, on the authority of A D EF G ® 31, 37, 44, al., Sahid. Syr. Clem.
Ignat. al. ; comp. 2 Tim. i. 12,14. The reading xacvodwriag (for xevog.), in F G
73, It. Vulg. (profanas vocum novitates) and the Latin Fathers, is an oversight
arising from the similarity of a¢ and ¢ in sound.—Ver. 22. 7 vdpi¢ peta cov] For
cov, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, after A F G 17, al., adopted ew’ vey, perhaps a cor-
rection from 2 Tim. iv. 22 and Tit. iii. 15. Tisch. 7 had the Rec. cov, after D E
K L, most cursives, several versions, ete—The Rec. auf at the end (after D**
K L) is to be regarded as not genuine, on the authority of A D* F GX, etc.
Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XVIII., page 198.] Precept regard-
ing the conduct of Christian slaves. [XVIII a.]—éoo sioiv id Cuydv dovdor]
dovAot is added to explain eiotv iwd ¢. Paul does not say simply décor
eiolv dovAm, because he wishes to mark the oppressive circumstances of
the condition of a slave. fvyé¢is not used elsewhere in the N. T. of the
yoke of slavery (in Herodotus: doiAcov ¢vyév), The expression is not to be
limited to those slaves who were oppressed more than usual by their mas-
ters, as Heydenreich thinks, quoting 1 Pet. ii. 18. Itis clear from the
clause iva «.r.4., as well as from the contrast in ver. 2, that Paul is think-
ing here of the slaves who had heathen masters.—rovg¢ idiove deordrac | idiove
is so far emphatic, that it directs attention to the circumstance of the per-
sonal relation more than would be done by the usual pronoun.—rdon¢
tune (¢. e. of all honor which is due to them as masters) afioug fyeicbworv (f.
afwiv, v.17); comp. the exhortations in Tit. 11.9; Eph. vi. 5-8; Col. iii.
22-25; 1 Pet. 11. 18.—In confirmation, Paul adds iva pA 76 bvoue x.7.A. ;
comp. Tit. 11. 10.\—ré dvoza rov Sect] comp. Rom. ii. 24.—7} didacxaria]} the
gospel, as the doctrine prevailing among Christians.—Ver. 2. oi dé microv¢
1The meaning is correctly given by Chry- qyuyoee wodAdats ws oraccy éumoroiy Td Sdypa"
sostom: o dmoros av pev ibn tovs SovAous oray &¢ idp weOouevovs, wadAov wecoOncerat,
éta THhv mori avOdbdws mpopepomevous, BAag- paddAov mpord£ec trois Acyoudvoce.
CHAP. VI. 1, 2. 18d
Eyovrec deawérac] The adversative dé shows that the apostle is here speak-
ing of other slaves than in ver. 1, viz., as he himself says, of those whose
masters are moroi, not keeping their slaves as ord Cvyév, but treating them
kindly and gently because of their xiorce. This last point is, indeed, not
formally expressed here, but it is presupposed in py KaTagpoveitwoav.—
xtorove is either to be joined with deorérac as an adjective, or to be taken as
a substantive, deorérac defining it more precisely : “who have believers as
masters.” The order of the words might give the preference to the latter
view.—) xaragpovelrwoar’] xatagpoveivy denotes here conduct towards masters
in which the honor due to them is not given.—érr adeAgoi ciow] These words
are not the ground of the previous exhortation; they are the ground on
which the dovAc might be led to think their masters of little worth; not
the slaves, but the masters, form the subject (de Wette, Wiesinger, van
Oosterzee, and others).—aAd paAAov dovievérucav] uaddov, equivalent to “ all
the more.” —ore mooi eiot kai ayaryroi, of x.t.A.] With ayamyroi we must sup-
ply Gcot (Rom. i. 7; comp. Rom. xi. 28); “beloved of God;” this is sup-
ported by the close connection with woroi.—The subject is formed not by
the slaves (Wetstein: intelligo non de dominis, sed de servis, qui dant
Operam, ut dominis beneficiant et bene de iis mereantur), still less by both
slaves and masters (Matthies), but by the masters only. The only possible -
construction is this, that of . . . avriAauBavéuevoe forms the subject, zioroi
... ayarytot the predicate [XVIII 6.]; for the article shows that the
words oi rij¢ «.7.4. do not give a more precise definition of what precedes.
Most recent expositors (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, also
hitherto in this commentary) understand by 7 evepyecia the kindness which
the slaves show to their masters by faithful service, and explain avriAau-
Baveodac as equivalent to “ receive, accept ;” but this explanation cannot
be justified by usage.! In the N. T. the word occurs only in Luke i. 54
and Acts xx. 35, in the sense of “accept of some one.” This sense it has
also in classic Greek, when it refers to persons; in reference to things, it
means: “carry on something eagerly,” also: “make oneself master of a
thing.” Hofmann accordingly is not incorrect in translating: “devote
themselves to kindness, making it their business.” If we keep strictly to
this meaning, as indeed we must, then the words ol 1. etepy. avriAau3avduevor
apply to the Christian masters in regard to their conduct towards their
slaves, so that the meaning of the exhortation is: “Serve (your masters)
all the more, that they, devoting themselves to kindness towards you, are
believers and beloved (of God).”? De Wette, against this explanation, main-
tains that “it makes the predicate ‘believing’ somewhat superfluous,
1De Wette wrongly seeks to justify this
meaning by saying that ayr:rAapBavedOar also
means: “ perceive with the senses,” and that
in Porphyrias, De Abstin. i. 46, it means: pyre
écOiwy rAadvev nSorwry avriAnperar. Though
the Vulg. translates it; “qui beneficii par-
ticipes sunt,” and Luther: “and are partakers
of the benefit,” the word is taken in a sense
foreign to it. The same is true of Heyden-
reich's explanation: “avyxotvwvot ths xdpe-
tos” (Phil. i. 7), wherein he also arbitrarily
takes evepyecia as equivalent to xdpis.
So rightly Theophylact: ot ris evepyecias
avriAapBavouevror, touréori: ot Seomdrat ot
dporrigovres Tov evepyereiy Tovs 8ovAovs; 80,
too, Chrysostom, Grotius, Wegscheider, Leo,
and others.
186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
because the masters, being kindly towards their slaves, are already show-
ing their Christian faith in action.” He is wrong; for, on the one hand,
evepyeoia towards slaves might be true even of heathen; and, on the other,
Paul wishes to insist on the Christian belief of the masters as a motive
for careful and faithful service. Hofmann is wrong in thinking that «ai
. avriAau3. does not depend on é7, but forms an independent clause in
this sense, that the slaves who serve their masters willingly in distribut-
ing their alms, are beloved (viz. by their fellow-Christians). This view is
opposed not only by the «ai (for to what previous sentence is it to be
attached ?), but also by this, that whereas the avriAauavduevor are the slaves,
tov deorétuv is arbitrarily supplied with evepyeciac.—The apostle concludes
the exhortations given in regard to the slaves with the words: ratra didacxe
kat wapaxade, Which Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. wrongly refer to what fol-
lows; comp. iv. 11, v. 7; the mght construction is given by de Wette,
Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others.
Vv. 3-5. [On Vv. 3-10, see Note XIX., pages 198-200.] Description of
the heretics. [XIX a, b.]—ei rig érepodidacxa2e:] On érepodidackadeiv, comp.
1.3; el tug often occurs in the epistle for dorc¢ or the like; comp. iii. 5, v.
8; the thought is given in its most comprehensive form.—xai 7) rpootpyerae
x.t.A.] [XIX ¢.] defines érepodidacxateiv more exactly, characterizing it as
opposed to the pure doctrine of the gospel, [XIX d.] asa preaching there-
fore of heresy (not merely “of a doctrine which has not the quality of
being pious” (!), Hofmann).—posépyecbac is used of mental agreement,
and is equivalent to “agree with” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) ; !
On tyaivovor Adyoc, comp. i. 10. Hofmann arbitrarily explains the word
by: “devote oneself to a thing; employ one’s pains on it.” If mpooézerat
is the correct reading, then it is to be explained: “and does not hold fast
by sound words.” The genitive rov xvpiov jy. 'I. Xp. gives the source from
which the Adyoe proceed. Kail r@ xar’ eboéBerav didackadig] an epexegctic
addition to what preceded. The expression is not, with Leo and Wiesinger,
to be explained by: doctrina ad pietatem ducens; «ard rather expresses
the relation of correspondence, suitability (van Oosterzee). By evoéBeca is
meant Christian piety—Ver. 4. rerédurac] comp. iii. 6.2 With this word
begins the apodosis, which Wegscheider, Mack, and others find expressed
only in agisracso axd t. totobrwv, which words we can hardly consider gen-
uine. pydév éxiotduevog (comp. i. 7), the participle is not to be resolved
into “although;” all the more that reridwra: conveys a suggestion of
dumbness. Their knowledge, on which they presume, is limited to fables,
and does not penetrate into the truth.—aAAa voodv mepi Cyrnoeg Kai Aoyoua-
ziac] voody, in contrast with tyraivovos Adyorg in ver. 3.—Tlepi Cythoeg x.7.A.
‘gives the sickness of which he is ill. Luther, not clear: “diseased in
1Comp. Philo, de Gigantt. p. 289: pnderi
spocdpyeOar yrwun Tov cipnudvor.
2 Hofmann thinks that rervdwra: does not
here, as in iii. 6, contain the idea of darkness,
since “ Paul means to express regarding the
schismatics an opinion, not in regard to their
moral, but in regard to their spiritual con-
dition.” This opinion is contradicted by the
fact that in what follows voowy x.7.A. mani-
festly denotes a moral fault.
3Comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 288: 6 vooay epi
Aéywv axojy; Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 406].
CHAP. VI. 3-5. 187
questions ;” Stier, correct: “diseased with.”—On Cyrfoec, comp. i. 4; the
addition of Aoyoucziac denotes more exactly the nature of the Cyrhoecc.
Calvin: Aoyouayiag nominat contentiosas disputationes de verbis magis,
quam de rebus, vel (ut vulgo loquuntur) sine materia aut subjecto. The
word (occurring only in later Greek) is az. Aey., the verb Aoyouayeiv, 2 Tim.
ii, 14—Hitherto he has described the “condition of soul among the
érepodidacxaAowrec ” (Wiesinger) ; the consequences of their ¢7r. and Acyoz.,
particularly the destructive tendencies, are given in what follows: 2& ov
yiveras x.7.A.] gOdvoc, epic! BAaognuiac, form a climax. [XIX e.] BAaognpia
and trévora rovypai are wrongly understood by Chrysostom of conduct
towards God. On the latter expression, equivalent to “ wicked suspicion ”
(Luther), see Wisd. iii. 24; the word is az. Aey. in the N. T. Hofmann
wishes to separate wovypai from imévorat, and to connect it with the next
word, “ because trovoeiv in itself means suspecting evil.” But, on the one
hand, érovoeiy has often the simple meaning “conjecture” (e.g. Acts xiii.
25; also in classic Greek); and, on the other hand, “the suspicion of
something evil,” and “the evil, wicked suspicion,” are by no means
identical things.—Ver. 5. d:araparp:Bai] This word and mapadarpiBai (ac-
cording to the usual reading) are not equivalent, as Heydenreich thinks;
see Winer, p. 96 [E. T. p. 102]. The distinction between raparp:87 and
dtatpiB4 is to be maintained. Acarps84 means, in regard to time: “its con-
sumption, pastime, occupation; ” with the prefix wapa there is added the
idea of idle, useless, so that mapadcarp:84 denotes the useless occupation of
time. The word raparp:7 (only in later Greek) means: “ wrangling, dis-
pute;” da serves to intensify the meaning, hence dé:amaparpi37 is equiva-
lent to “continuous or violent wrangling” (de Wette). Luther translated
it: “scholastic disputes.” As the idea of strife has been given already by
épic, We might be inclined to consider the Rec. to be the original reading,
were the evidence for it not too weak. The same may be said of the
reading d:arp:Bai, which Hofmann, without sufficient ground, maintains to
be “what was originally written.” At any rate, the idea “continual
wrangling” is not so identical with that of “strife” (és) as to prevent
them from being used together. Reiche paraphrases the reading 6? 4
napatpiBai as equivalent to per quae, nempe vitia morbosque animi vs 4,
exoriuntur rixae et certamina, etc. ; but d’ 4 is not equivalent to per quae,
and the previous é dév is against this construction.—die¢Oapytvuv avOpdrur
tov vovv] Regarding this accus., see Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 229]; comp. 2
Tim. i. 8:* “whose understanding is destroyed.’—kxai areotepnuévwv tic
adnbeiac | “who have been robbed of the truth.” This and the previous par-
ticipial clauses indicate that formerly the heretics had their understanding
1Clemens Al. Stromata, vii. p. 759: vwd &0-
focodias erppudvor épigovres meAovan.
?Oecumenius explains the expression ard
Kerapopas rer wpartdwy xpoBdarwy, and Chry-
sostom says likewise: caOdwep ra Wwpadda Trav
wpoBarwy waparpiBéuera vécov Kai Ta Vytai-
vovta éumiuwAnocy, oUTe Kai obro. of rovnpot
avdpes.—The meaning “ provocations ” (Mack),
and this other: “wicked and hurtful meet-
ings or clubs” (Heinrichs), can be assigned
neither to wapad:arpifai nor to 8&araparpi Bai.
3 Xenophon, De Exped, Cyri, iv. 259; dceh@ap-
pedvos rous OfOadpovs.
188 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
sound, and were in possession of the truth, but that they had lost both these
jewels, according to iv. 1, by the influence of demons. It should never
have been denied that they who are thus described were actual heretics.
—The next clause adds another peculiar characteristic, which proves the
Stegbapuévev «.7.A.: vouldvtwy topiopoy elvae tyv evoéBecav] ropioudc (only here
and at ver.6; comp. Ecclus. xiii. 19, xiv. 2) is equivalent to “means of
gain,” i.e. a business bringing gain; Luther: “ trade.”—Wegscheider
wrongly explains evoéBera ag equivalent to 4 Kar’ ciofBerav didackadia. The
idea is to be kept in its proper meaning; although that which the heretics
made to appear evoéBera was not evoéBeca, but only the appearance of it (2
Tim. iii. 5: péppwow evoeBeiac), by means of which they sought to make
earthly gain (Tit. i. 11).—As to the construction, it seems most natural to
make the substantive at the beginning of the verse dependent on é ov
yivera., ver. 4, along with the substantives before it. Hofmann, on the con-
trary, thinks it curious, “that besides the bad things already mentioned,
there should also be named those with whom they occur;” and he wishes
rather to regard wovypat dtatp:Bai (which he reads) as in apposition to
Cnrhoerg Kai Aoyouayiac, just as in Jas. ili. 8, where the nominative stands in
apposition to the previous accusative as a kind of exclamation. This
construction is possible, but it is by no means necessary, and from the
structure of the sentence not even probable.—The last remark furnishes
the apostle with an opportunity for a digression on Christian contentment.!
Ver. 6. "Eor: 62 x«.7.A.] Calvin: eleganter et non sine ironica correctione
in contrarium sensum eadem verba retorquet. The meaning is: piety is
certainly a mopouéc, but in another and higher sense than the heretics
suppose; gore is Opposed to vouSévrwv (ver. 5), Wiesinger.—ropiopig péyac
x.t.A.] [XIX f.] wopiouéds has here the same meaning as before; Luther
wrongly says: “it 1s, however, a great gain, one that is blessed,” etc.—#
eval Bera peta abtapxeiac| “Piety when united with contentment,” which certainly
belongs of necessity to true piety. The gain of which the apostle is here
thinking is not the heavenly, eternal blessings (Theodoret: ry yap aidmov
nuiv ropiver Cwhv; Calvin, Heydenreich, Matthies, and others), but the gain
to which we are directed in the next verses, 7-10. Several expositors hold
the gain to be the atrdpxea itself (so Chrysostom, Bengel: nam affert
avtdpxecav ; de Wette, and others*); but this reference is not indicated in
the added words: pera avrapxeiag. On avrdépxeca, comp. Phil. iv. 11: syd
Euabov év oig ete avtdapKy¢ elvat.
Ver. 7 begins the confirmation of the principle that godliness with con-
tentment is a great ropiopuéc. The apostle here places two clauses together,
each of which contains a well-known and undoubted truth: “ We brought
nothing into the world,” and “ We can take nothing out of it.”® The question
1 Hofmann’s opinion, that the deductions
following are not occasioned by the conduct
of the heretics, but by Timothy’s conduct,
are not warranted by the exhortation in ver.
ll: ravra devye.
3 Van Oosterzee; “ In one short, compressed
sentence, the apostle expresses two chief
ideas, that true piety of itself makes content,
and that by doing so it brings great gain.”
%The same two thoughts are found else-
where in collocation; so Job i. 21; Eccies. v.
14; also in tho profane writers, e. g. Seneca,
CHAP. VI. 6—9. 189
is only, in what relation do they stand to one another? According to the
common view, the first thought serves to confirm the second: “As we
brought nothing in, it is manifest that we will take nothing out.” Against
this, Hofmann maintains that the second thought is in no way a conse-
quence of the first. He therefore takes djAov 6re as an adverbial:
“ clearly,” standing at the end of the sentence, but belonging to both
clauses; and he explains: “Clearly we have brought nothing in, and can
also take nothing out.” He is certainly right that the first does not strictly
prove the second; but then the apostle did not intend that it should; he:
simply placed the two sentences together, the second corresponding to
the first in such @ way as to be confirmed by it in popular opinion.
Hence it is not nght to connect—contrary to the order of the words—
djAov étz with the first sentence. As to the lack of d7A0v before dr: (see
the critical remarks), de Wette observes: “that in popular logic the con-
sequence is often quoted with ér: as the reason, e.g. Homer, Il. xvi. 35,
Od. xxii. 36.” This, however, is not to the point here; in the two passages
quoted, 5r: simply denotes the logical ground of knowledge.
Ver. 8. "Eyorrec dé] De Wette thinks that for dé weshould have had ot». This
is certainly right; still the bearing of this verse on the previous one would
have been different from what itis now. The apostle used dé because he
had in mind the contrast to those striving after earthly gain.—darpodac kat
oxerdouata] The same collocation in Sextus Empiricus, Book ix.1; the two
expressions only occur here in the N. T. (d:arpogf, 1 Mace. vi. 49). Sxéraoua,
the covering, hence both clothing and dwelling. Here it is to be taken in
the former sense ; de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others include
both senses in it; but it is more than improbable that one word should be
used to denote two different objects.!. In food and clothing the necessary
wants of life are also elsewhere summed up; comp. Matt. vi. 25; Jas. ii.
15; Gen. xxviii. 20.—robrowe apxecOnodueha] “we will be content with them.”
Hofmann’s explanation is wrong: ‘so will we have enough of them.” The
passive dpxeiofac occurs as a personal verb only in the sense of “ be content
with ;”’ comp. Luke ii. 14; Heb. xiii. 5; 8 John 10; 2 Macc. v. 16; 4
Macc. vi. 22; so, too, continually in profane writers; comp. Pape, 3.v.—
The future is here taken imperatively by several expositors. It is well
known that the imperative is often expressed by the future, but there is
no passage which exactly corresponds with this (comp. Buttmann, p. 221
[E. T. 259]). Itis better, therefore, to take the future here in the sense
of sure expectation (so de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt; comp.
Winer, p. 296 [E. T. p. 315 f.]).
Ver. 9. Ol d2 BovAduevoe rAovreiv] [XIX g.] dé expresses opposition to
what immediately preceded. sAovreiv is properly not “become rich,” but
“ be rich.” —éuninrovow (cf. iii. 7) ei¢ retpacpdy nai rayida] De Wette explains
it inaccurately : “to whom enticing opportunities present themselves for
unrighteous gain.” In éyrirrecy is contained the indication of the power
Ep. 102: non licet plus efferre, quam intul- 1Chrysostom: roravra audidvyveba, & oxe-
eris. For the second thought, comp. Job sdcoat pévoy nuas dpeiAac cai meptoreiAa THY
xxvii. 19; Ps, xlix. 12. yUpyeccy.
190 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
which the epacude (“the temptation to enrich oneself unrighteously ’’)
exercises over them.—By rayida, the repacude is defined to be a power fet-
tering and taking prisoner.—«ai ém:Ouylag modAdc avohroug Kai BAaBepdc] This
is the consequence immediately connected with what precedes: by falling
into re:pacuds, they fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts, 7. e. these lusts
are not only excited in them, but gain power over them. Thus the seduc-
tive power of the me:pacuéc can be recognized in the ériOupiate. These are
also avénro, because instead of the gain which was expected to come from
satisfying them, they bring hurt only.—siriveg (explanatory: “such as”)
BudiCovoe cig dAeSpov nai arddAccav] Buvdifev; in the literal sense at Luke v. 7 ;
2 Macc. xii. 4—Destruction is likewise the deep into which they are
plunged by their desires. The expression is strengthened by bringing
together the two synonymous ideas. There is no ground for van Ooster-
zee’s conjecture that 4A¢9po¢ denotes the destruction of the body, a7éAca
the destruction of the soul. De Wette incorrectly explains the words of
“moral ruin,” against which Wiesinger justly observes: “they are in that
already.” dAe3po¢ stands here as in 1 Thess. v. 3,2 Thess. i. 9 (dAe0po¢
aidvioc) ; amdAeca, a8 in Phil. i. 28 (opp. 4 cwrnpia), iii. 19, and other passages.
—There is no good ground (with Olshausen in Wiesinger) for understand-
ing dAe9po¢ exclusively of temporal destruction.
Ver. 10 gives a reason for the thought in ver. 9.—ifa yap révrwv rdv Kaxov
éoriv 1 giAapyvpia] It is to be abserved that Paul does not mean to say,
whence all xaxé whatever proceed, but what proceeds from ¢:Aapyvpia.
Hence there is no article with pi{a. Hence, too, de Wette’s correcting
remark, that ambition, too, may entirely destroy man, does not affect the
author of the epistle—By ra xaxé may be understood both physical and
moral evils (wickedness) ; here the latter idea is uppermost.! ¢:Aapyvpia only
here in the N. T. (Jer. viii. 10, LX X.).— ie rivéc opeydpevor] dpéyecdae does
not mean deditum esse, but it is to be acknowledged that the manner of
connection is not exact, since ¢Aapyvpia, as de Wette rightly says, is itself
an dpeftc. Hofmann’s interpretation is artificial. He makes dptyecda: de-
note here “ the grasping of a man after something out of his way,” and
“the thing after which he reaches sideways is said to be the plant which
afterwards proves to be to him a root of all evils,” so that 7¢ does not refer
to gitapyupia, but to pila wdvrwv tov Kaxiv.—arerAavfSyoav ard Tie TisTEws |
The reason of this is the inner connection between faith and blessedness.
The denial of the one necessarily implies the denial of the other. The
aorist passive has a neuter sense ; Luther rightly: “have gone astray from
the faith.” The compound only here and at Mark xiii. 22; the a7é added
serves to intensify the meaning.—xai éavrov¢e mepiémerpay odbvag roAAaic]
nepirretpecv am. Aey. “ pierce through,” not “ sting all round, wound in every
part” (Matthies). The ddvva: woAdai, here regarded as a sword with which
they have pierced themselves through, are not the outward pains which
they have drawn on themselves by avarice, but the stings of conscience
(“the precursors of the future aréAea,” Wiesinger) which they have pre-
1 Otherwise in Polycarp, Ep.4: apxi rdvrev xarerwv dirAdapyupila.
CHAP. vi. 10-12. 191
pared for themselves by apostasy from the faith. To this his own exper-
ience the apostle here directs attention, that he may thereby present more
vividly the destructiveness of the g:Aapyupia.
Ver. 11. [On Vv. 11-21, see Note XX. pages 200, 201.] The apostle
again turns to Timothy, exhorting him to a faithful fulfillment of his
Christian and evangelical vocation.—oi 6é] opposed to rivéc ver. 10. [XX
a.|—é avdpwre [tov] Oeov] The expression may be taken in a more gen-
eral or a more special sense; so, too, in 2 Pet. 1. 21. It does not, however,
follow “that Paul thus names Timothy here because of his evangelic
office;’”’ the exhortations following rather show that the apostle was
thinking of Timothy’s position as a Christian; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 17.—
tauta gevye| tavra refers to the g:Aapyvpia and that which is connected with
it (de Wette, Wiesinger, and others); not to everything that has been said
in vv. 3-10, because “vv. 17 ff. show that the author is keeping in view
the subject of riches,” de Wette. ¢ebyecv vitare; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 22; 1
Cor. vi. 18. Hofmann wrongly deduces from this exhortation that Timo-
thy had some inclination to ¢:Aapyvpia ; one might as well deduce from the
next exhortation that Timothy had no inclination to dcxaoobvy x.r.2. tis
to be observed that it is not said getye azé or éx tobray; comp., besides, the
passages quoted.—dioxe 62 rv dixacootyyy] dtdxev here as in Deut. xvi. 20,
LXX.; Rom. xii. 18, and other passages of the N. T.! Paul names six
Christian virtues which Timothy is to cultivate, the six being arranged in
pairs. The two most general in meaning are placed first: d:xavoivyy
(righteousness) and cioéBecav (comp. Tit. ii. 12). Then follow ziorw (not
‘‘ faithfulness or conscientiousness,” but “ faith ”) and aya as the ground
principle of the Christian life. Last come tropovfy and mpairdédecav [XX b.]
(az. Aey.) Philo, de Abrah. p. 379), which denote the Christian conduct
proper in regard to the hostility of the world against the gospel, the
former being opposed to submission, the latter to exasperation.
Ver. 12. 'Aywvifov rav xaddv ayava tig riorews] [XX c.] Here, as in i. 18
(rv xadqv orpareiavy), We must not overlook the definite article. The strug-
gle to which Timothy is summoned is the struggle (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 25) of
the faith appointed to Christians; on this comp. 2 Tim. iv. 7.—ém:AaBov ric
aiwviov Cuno] éxtAapBéveww (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24 and Phil. iii. 12, where the
apostle uses the expressions AauPdvey and xaradapuBdverv) denotes the actual
grasping, aidvoc Cuf being regarded as the fpafeiov; not, however, accord-
ing to Winer’s remark (p. 293 [E. T. p. 312]), “ as result of the struggle, but
as object of the striving.” It is not improbable that Paul is here speaking
figuratively. It is different, however, with the next words: el¢ fv éAndne,
by which eternal life is pointed out as the goal of Timothy’s vocation;
comp. 1 Pet. v. 10.—xai duoAdynoag rv xadjy opodoyiay] Heinrichs incorrectly
takes xai for xai yép: “forthou hast also.” Commonly this clause is made
to depend still on ei¢ w (Leo: eic # pertinet non solum ad éAgd7c, sed
etiam ad apoAdyyoac). De Wette,on the contrary (Wiesinger and van Oos-
1 Neque exteris scriptoribus infrequens est § Cyropaedia, viii. 1. 30; Thucydides, fi. 63;
haec hujus verbi notio; see Xenophon, Leo.
192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
terzee agree with him), rightly regards it as simply co-ordinate with ei¢ fv
ex2idn¢. So, too, Hofmann: “the relative clause, as is not seldom the case
in Greek, passes into a clause independent of the relative.” Still the two
clauses must be taken as standing in close connection ; Timothy’s xaAj
ouodoyia is the answer which he gave to the «Agoue proclaimed to him (so,
too, Hofmann).—r7 cad opodoyiav] [XX d.] In this phrase, too, exposi-
tors have not observed the definite article. Paul does not say that Timo-
thy confessed a confession good “in its contents and in the enthusiasm of
its utterance,” de Wette; but that he confessed the good confession, 7. e.
the definite confession of Christ to which the disciples of the Lord are
appointed. Hence it is quite wrong to think of d6yodoyia as a vow or the
like; that contradicts the constant usage of the N. T.; comp. © Cor. ix.
13; Heb. ii. 1, 4,14, x. 23.—Paul is clearly referring here to a definite fact
in Timothy’s life, but what it was he does not say. Chrysostom says:
avapipuvioKet Tie KaTnxhoews avTév, and thinks therefore of the confession of
Timothy at his baptism. Others, on account of ver. 18, understand it of
a confession which Timothy had confessed during a persecution. Accord-
ing to most, Paul is here thinking of the same act as that to which iv. 14
refers. Since in this whole section, vv. 11-16, there is nothing to direct
the attention to Timothy’s official position, and since the dvodoyia is closely
joined with the é«A7dnc, the view first given is to be considered the right
one (Hofmann).
Vv. 18, 14. MapayyéA%w oot} Matthies regards ri xadjv dpuodroyiav as the
subject belonging to this; but against this construction there is both the
meaning of the verb and the rapjoai ce following.’ Leo justly says: quo
Magis ad finem vergit epistola, eo gravior existit apostoli oratio. To give
his exhortation greater force, Paul adds to mwapayyéAAw (comp. i. 3) the
words of adjuration : évémov tov Ccov x.7.A.—Tod Cwoyovotvrog ta mdvra] Cwoyo-
veiv in the classic usage, equivalent to “bring forth alive, make alive,”
serves in the LXX. for translating the Piel and Hiphil of 7" in the double
signification: “ maintain in life,” Ex. 1.17; Judg. viii.19, and other pas-
sages; and “make alive,’ 1 Sam. ui. 6 (comp. 2 Kings v. 7). In the N. T.
it occurs here and at Luke xvii. 38, Acts vii. 19, in the sense of “maintain
in life.’ When connected with ra mévra, Cwoy. is not to be understood
specially of the resurrection (de Wette, van Oosterzee), but either “of God’s
might that upholds everything ” (Wiesinger, Hofmann), or, still better, of “ His
power that quickens everything” (Plitt), in the same sense as it is said of God
in Neh. ix. 6: ot Cworoeig ra wdvra. God is therefore mentioned here as the
source of life for the universe (ra wévra), there being a special reference to
ver. 12: ériAaBot rig aiwviov Cun¢.—Kai Xp.’Ine. rot paptuphoavrog éxt Tovriov
TlcAdrov trav Kady duodoyiav] tiv x. duodoyiav is not dependent on zapayyéAAw
(Matthies: “I make known to thee . . . the good confession’), but on
paptuphoavtoc. It is open to question, however, whether the «aA? duodoyia
is the confession of the Christian which Timothy too has made (Wiesin-
1The objections made by Matthies against _‘ this, that he considers the definite article rij»
the correct construction are only founded on __ to be unsuitable before caAny dpodoyiay.
CHAP. vi. 13, 14. 193
ger, Plitt, Hofmann), or the confession which Christ made (Leo, van Oos-
terzee). In the former case, uaprepeiv is much the same as “ testify, 7. e.
confirm, declare for truth; ” in the latter it is kindred in meaning with
duodoyeiv. Wiesinger asserts that uaprupeiv never has the latter meaning,
but unjustly ; because in John v. 32 we have paprvupiay paprupeiv, and in John
iii. 11 we have 4 oldapev Aahovuev nai 6 éwpdxapev paprvporpev (1 John i. 2;
Rev. i. 2). On the contrary, there is no passage to be found where paprupeiv
with the accus. means so much as “ confirm the truth of an utterance by
a testimony in regard to it.”! The first view, therefore, is to be rejected
as contrary to usage. Besides, the confession made by Jesus, and Timo-
thy’s confession mentioned in ver. 12, are not in contents different from
one another. De Wette thinks that yaprupeiv “is used here in the well-
known ecclesiastical signification, consequently that Christ is represented
as the first martyr,” and that the meaning is: “ Christ confirmed the con-
fession of the truth by His suffering and death.” This is not only against
the usage of the N. T., but fails also by generalizing in an arbitrary way
the idea of 7 xaAy duodoyia.—If 7 x. duoA. is the confession which Christ
witnessed of Himself, éxi Movr. cA. cannot mean: “under Pontius Pilate”
(de Wette), but only: “before Pontius Pilate.” ’Exi stands here as
in Matt. xxvili. 14, Acts xxv. 9, xxvi. 2, and other passages.—As
the words added with rov Orv point back to ry aiwv. Cugc, so do those
added here with Xp. ’Iyc. point back to «ai dpoddynoag x.1.A.—rnpioai
ce TH EvroAyy Goridov, averiAnrrov| These words, depending on mrapayyéAdu,
give the purpose of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. Typeiv, joined with
évroA# in many passages of the N. T., means “keep, observe,” as in chap.
v. 22 (de Wette and most expositors ; Wiesinger differs).—Tv évroAgy is not
asingle moral or official law given specially to Timothy ; it 1s synonymous
with 4 rapayyedia in 1. 5 (so, too, Hofmann), pointing out the law of the
gospel as the divine standard, according to which the Christian has to
regulate his life.2—domAoyv and averiAnrrov must, from their position, be
referred to évroagv,’ and not tooe.* Expositors take domaAov and averiAnrrov
as two co-ordinate adjectives, so that for the sense «ai has to be supplied
between them (so hitherto in this commentary). This, however, is against
usage; «ai is dropped only when more than two attributes are reckoned,
comp. e.g. iii. 2 ff., or when the one adjective forms one idea with the sub-
stantive, so that the other adjective defines the compound idea more pre-
cisely (comp. e.g. 1 Cor. x.4; see Winer, pp. 488f. [E. T. p. 525]). It is
1Had Paul wished to express the thought
that Christ had confirmed, by word or deed,
the truth of the Christian confession, he
would have written the dative ry xcaAq dp0A0-
y‘g.—The expression paprupiay paprvpecy, also
occurring in classic Greek, does not mean:
“confirm the truth of a testimony,” but
simply: “testify, %¢ make a testimony.”—
The old expositors justly directed attention
to Matt. xxvii. 11 and John xviii. 26 f. in re-
gard to 4 KaAn dpodoyia.
2The special reference to ver. 12 (van Oos-
13
terzee) is arbitrary. Still it might perhaps
be said that Paul sums up in rh evtoAnyv the
commands which he gave to Timothy in vv.
11, 12. In this command, however, there is
also contained the sum of the whole Christian
law.
8 With de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hof-
mann, and others.
4As Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, and most
suppose. Wiesinger thinks that dow. and
averiaA. denote the result of rnpnaat thy évToAry.
But how can this be justified grammatically?
194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
more correct, therefore, to connect domAcy closely with évrodf, and to take
averiAgrrov in such a way that it declares how Timothy is to keep this
évtoAy Gomdocg: he is to keep the commandment which is in itself spotless,
and to keep it so as to expose it to no blame.—pé ype rig Exigaveiag T. Kupiov hu.
"Ino. Xp.] [XX e.] } éxipdveca is the second coming of Christ. The word
occurs outside of the Pastoral Epistles only in 2 Thess. ii. 18 (2 Tim. iv. 1, 8;
Tit. ii. 18; in 2 Tim. i. 10, it is used to denote Christ’s first coming in the
flesh). For the second coming we usually have amoxéAvyc (1 Cor. i. 7) or
napovcia. The word ém@aveca brings into prominence the element of visi-
bility in the zapovoia; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 8 (Wiesinger). Chrysostom’s
explanation is wrong: péypc tio of¢ TeAevt#¢.—Bengel : fideles in praxi sua
proponebant sibi diem Christi, ut appropinquantem, nos solemus nobis
horam mortis proponere.
Vv. 15, 16. The apostle concludes with a doxology, which is attached to
the previous words by means of the relative clause fv . . . del&ee «.1.4.—fw
xaipoic idiowg dei~ec] On xatpoic id., comp. ii. 6; Tit. i. 8; also Gal vi. 9.—
deitec] Bengel: ostendi dicitur, quod jam ante erat, Acts iii. 20. The verb
does not mean “ effect;” nor is it, with Heydenreich, to be translated:
“which He will show in is majesty, will cause to follow and present in
visible glory,” but simply: “which He will make visible, cause to appear.”
The expression is used by the apostle in reference to Christ’s present hid-
denness. The hope of the near return of Christ did not lead the apostle
to fix arbitrarily the hour when that would take place.—Instead of the
simple Oeéc, there follows, as subject to deffe, a series of designations for
God, by which Paul represents God as the blessed, the only potentate, the
immortal, the invisible—in one word, the absolute (comp. with this i. 17).
This he does not simply for the purpose “ of giving to his words a more
solemn conclusion” (de Wette), but to satisfy the inward impulse of nam-
ing the chief features of the idea of God as rooted in the Christian con-
sciousness—specially in opposition to the fictions of the heretics (accord-
ing to Wiesinger, ‘in antithetic reference to the striving after earthly
riches, rebuked in the preceding verses’’).—é paxdpioc] comp. 1. 11;
paxdpw¢ is to be taken as an adjective, as is clear from the omission of the
article before puévoc.—Kai pévoc duvdorns] To God alone as the Almighty is
the predicate dvvéorn¢ due in the absolute sense; hence the addition of
udvoc. The supreme power contained in duvéern¢ (comp. 2 Macc. xii. 15;
8 Macc. v. 51) is made still more prominent by the next words: 6 Bao:reic
rav Bacidevévrun x.7.A.; comp. i. 17; Rev. xvii. 14; Deut. x. 17; Ps. cxxxvi.
8.—Ver. 16. 6 uévog Exwv adavaciav] comp.i.17. ’AVavacia is synonymous
with ag¢Sapoia, 1 Cor. xv. 53.\—ga¢ oixav ampéotrov] This idea that God, who
is Himself called light (1 John i. 5), dwells in light, is found nowhere else
in the N. T.; but we may compare with it Ps. civ.2; Ezek. 1. 26 ff.*—The
1jJustin Martyr (Quaest. et Respons. ad 8Chrysostom remaries on this: ovcovy «cai
Orthod. 61): udvos éxwy tyv aOavaciay A¢yeras réwp eumepeiAnetas; admwaye ovx iva TovTO
& @eds, Sr ove dx OedAparos GAAov TavTHY Exar, woHTwLEY, GAA’ iva Td axaTdAnwToy Ths Geias
xaOdwep of Aotwoi wavres aBdvaror, dAA' éx TRS §=—oVoews wapacricn, gas abrov oixeiy elwey
Oixelas evcias. ampéccroy, oltre Seodroyncas, ws hv avre Svvaréy.
CHAP. VI. 15-17. 195
verb oixeiv is found only here in the N. T. with an accusative; the con-
struction is often found in the classics, also 2 Macc. v. 17, vi. 2.—ampécrro¢
is dr. Aey. in Holy Scripture. This participial clause does not serve a3 a
reason for the one previous (Hofmann: “by dwelling in light unap-
proachable ’’), but adds to it a new definition of the divine nature.—To the
idea that God is surrounded by an unapproachable majesty of light, there
is attached the corresponding thought: dv eldev ovdeig avd pdrur, ovdé ideiv
divaraz; on which comp. John i. 18; 1 John iv. 12; Matt. xi. 27. The fol-
lowing two sentences may serve as explanation : Theophilus (ad Awol. p.
71): 1d eidog tov Ocod . . . BA Suvduevoy ooVarpoig capxivorg dpadqvar; and
Dionysius Areop. (De Divin. Nom. ch. i. p. 376, I. ed. Corder): mdcacc
Stavoiare adiavégrév éore Td Urép didvorav Ev.—y Tip Kal Kpdro¢ aidvov] comp.
i. 17.
Ver. 17. The apostle might have stopped at ver. 16; but, glancing back
to vv. 9 ff., he adds another injunction in regard to the rich.2~—toi¢ rAoveiorg
évy tO viv aid] [XX f.] Chrysostom: eioi yap «at dAdo mAobown tv te
péAdovr:. Still we cannot press the contrast so far as to make the earthly
riches necessarily exclude the heavenly (wealth in God, Luke xii. 21).—
mapayyeAze un typndogpoveiv] tyndoppovetv only here and at Rom. xi. 20
(Rom. xii. 16: ra tynda gpoveiv): “ exalt themselves haughtily over others
because of their possessions.” —p7d2 pAmuévat evi wAobrou adnAéryti] adnAdryc
(ar. Aey.), from dd6740¢, which is equivalent to “not manifest, hidden,’ is
properly “ hiddenness,” then “ uncertainty.” The word indicates that it is
uncertain whether or not riches continue to him who possesses them
(comp. 1 Cor. ix. 26: ad7A4uc). Instead of the substantive, we might have
had the adjective: éxi r@ rAobrw rg ad74y (Luther: “on uncertain riches ’’) ;
still the form of expression here makes the idea of uncertainty more
prominent (see Winer, p. 221 [E. T. p. 236]), and that is all the more
appropriate here that it points out more forcibly the folly of the hope.
Hofmann explains adyAér7¢ unsuitably by “ hiddenness,” in the sense of
“the rich man having put his riches safely away,” as if riches would be
put safely away by being hidden.—aaa’ év r@ Oep] The construction of
éArifecy with év is in the N. T. the more uncommon one, but comp. Eph.
i. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 19.—The truth that all hope must rest on God is con-
firmed by adding the words: 16 wapéyovre quiv ra révra (i.e. all that we
possess) mAovoiug ei¢ amdAavaw] cic adAavory (comp. iv. 3: ei¢ perdAnynv) is
not added by way of opposition to a wrong abstinence, but in opposition
to the typnAogpovety and 7Amixévas Ext rAobty. The apostle means to say that
God does not give us earthly blessings that we may possess them and be
1There is no good ground for deriving,
with Hofmann, all these names for God from
His relations “ to other potentates who meet
with trouble, whom death does not permit to
abide, who are not unapproachable and in-
visible.” And there is as little ground for
saying that this doxology was added, because
the apostle intended to describe “God who
will grant to see the appearance of Jesus as
judge with reward or punishment, to describe
Him as a potentate who is infinitely more
and higher than all earthly kings and lords,”
and did so because Timothy “ was in danger
of injuring his position as a Christian, and
his calling as a teacher for the sake of gain" (1).
3“ There Paul had spoken of the dangers
of those who wish to become rich; now he
turns to those who are rich” (van Oosterzee).
196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
proud over them, but that we may enjoy them,—according to His will,—
and therefore use them rightly.
Ver. 18. The negative ideas of the previous verse are followed by four
positive, joined two and two.—ayavdoepyeiv, tAovreiv év Epyoe xadoic] These
ideas are synonymous, the second, however, being stronger than the first. It
is not probable that we are to think only of the practice of benevolence;
that is brought out in the next two expressions. On dyadoepyeiv, comp.
Acts xiv. 17, where, however, the Rec. has aya¥oraav; the word ayavoraeiv
in Num. x. 82, LXX.; 1 Macc. xi. 33.—rAovreiv év épy. ay. hints at roi¢
wrovoiac év tr. viv aiave (Wiesinger).—eiperadérovg eivat, xocvercxobc] The two
expressions occur only here in the N. T.: peradidwje is, however, used
specially of giving to the poor in Luke iii. 11; Rom. xii. 8; Eph. iv. 28.
Some expositors wrongly find in xo:wwxobs an express contrast to ty7Ao-
¢poveiv ; Chrysostom : = ducAnrexoi, rpoonveic. It stands here like xo:wwveiv,
Gal. vi. 6; xo:vwvia (joined with evroda), Heb. xiii. 16.
Ver. 19. ’AroSnoavpifovrag éavtoig OeuéAtov xadév} The participle tells what
the rich desire by the conduct already mentioned; it is not to be ex-
changed with the infinitive: ’Arof7c. and @euéA.ov are not exactly euitable
to one another. This, however, is not to be corrected by conjecturing
(with Clericus) xeez4Acov or (with Lamb, Bos) @éua Aiay xaddv, nor by explain-
ing Oeuécov as equivalent to déua (Tob. iv. 9; Leo: “and gather for them-
selves a good fund for the future’), nor even by taking érodyo. as absolute
and @evéXcov as in apposition. Wolf: ita . . . ut divites thesauros sibi
ipsis colligere jubeantur, qui sint fundamento alicui olim inservituri ;
Luther: “ gather treasures, to themselves a good ground for the future.” —
arodnoavpifey] “lay something aside for the purpose of preserving, and
therefore collect.” It is unnecessary to give the word here the more
general signification of “acquire.” The apostle’s thought is, that the
rich, by giving away their @7oavpoic in sympathetic love, are gathering for
themselves a treasure, and are also laying a good foundation on which
their future salvation is built.—eig rd péAAov is not to be connected with
xa? év, but with the verb: “for the future.”—iva ériAdBuvrat ric dvtwe Gwe]
iva does not express the consequence, “so that,” but the purpose, “in
order that.” 'EmAdBwvra:, comp. ver. 12; de Wette, rightly: “in order
that they (at the same time planting their feet on this basis) may seize; ”
rig évtac Cugc, Comp. V. 3.
Vv. 20, 21. Final exhortation and benediction to Timothy. The apostle
begins fervently and impressively with: & Tcuédee (Matthies).—rj xapa-
Oyxnv gidagov] [XX g.] comp. 2 Tim. i. 12, 14; rapadfny is a “ possession
entrusted ;” Paul does not say what kind of possession. Even in these
parallel passages a more precise definition is not given, except that at
ver. 12 he denotes by pov that it is entrusted to him, and in ver. 14 adds ©
the adjective cadqv. In any case there is meant by it here a gift entrusted
to Timothy by God, which gift he is to preserve (¢/Aafov) from every hurt.
As the apostle puts its preservation (¢v4decerv) in close connection with
the éxrpéreada: of the heretics, we may understand by it either Timothy’s
dtaxovia (de Wette, Otto), or the gospel, “sound doctrine ” (Wiesinger, van
CHAP. VI. 19-21. 197
Oosterzee, Hofmann).—As the chief purpose of the epistle is to instruct
Timothy regarding his conduct in the ministry committed to him, it
seems right to understand by zapad7«x7 a possession entrusted, not to all
Christians, but to Timothy in particular. Thus—in spite of the absence
of cov—the first view deserves the preference, all the more that in the
other passages quoted this meaning of the word is the most suitable. The
next word, éxrperduevoc, shows that Timothy would injure his office by
entering upon the BéByAc xevoduvia. Plitt arbitrarily takes wapadyjxy as
equivalent to “ eternal life.”—éxrpemduevocg rag BeBAroue xevopwriac] exrpéreaPas,
properly: “turn away from anything; ” then with the accusative (as in 2
Tim. iii. 5: dmorpérecdac): “avoid,” synonymous with apareioVar.—
xevoguvia] synonymous With paraodoyia, i.6; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 16: “empty
talk without anything in it.’ —This talk is still more precisely defined by the
next words: kat avridéoece Ho Wevduvipov yvdceuc] It is to be observed that
avridéoec 18 closely connected with the previous xevodwriac, the article ra¢
belonging to both words and the genitive rye pevd. yvdcews referring to both
alike. Hence avriécecg must here express some thought corresponding
with xevogwriac. It is not therefore advisable to understand by it in general
terms “the statutes of the heretics against the gospel” (Matthies, Wies-
inger), or ‘the controversial theses of the heretics directed against the
gospel” (so before in this commentary'); it is much more correct to
understand it of the theses which the heretics sought to maintain against
one another (Hofmann). Thus understood, the word corresponds to
Aoyouayia: in ver. 4. It is possible that these had the character of dialectic
proofs (Conybeare and Howson, quoted in van Oosterzee), but the word
itself does not show this. Baur’s assertion is purely arbitrary, that the
contrariae oppositiones are here meant which Marcion exerted himself to
establish between the law and the gospel.—ryc pevdurbuov yrvdcews] The
expression is easily explained by the fact that the heretics boasted of
possessing a knowledge, a ¢:Aocogia (Col. ii. 8), in which there was a more
perfect science of divine things than that presented by the gospel.—Paul
was also acquainted with a yao, which, however, was rooted in faith,
and was effected by the rvetuza Xpiorod. But the yvaore of the heretics did
not deserve this name, and hence Paul called it pevddvupnoc (occurring only
here in the N. T.); on which Chrysostom aptly remarks: drav yap riotic ym)
ei, yvoots ovx gore. Baur, without just ground, seeks to draw from the use
of this word a proof for his hypothesis that the epistle was composed at.
the date of the heresy of Marcion.—Ver. 21. q ties érayyedArdpevor]
érayyéAdeoda: stands here in the same sense asin ii. 10; Luther inexactly :
“which some allege.”—repi rj riot jotéynoav] The same construction
in 2 Tim. 11. 18; with the genitive, 1.6. The ézayyfAdeoSar ry pevd. 72.
includes (comp. i. 6) the acroyeiv rept r. rior, “erring in regard to the
faith.” This Wiesinger wrongly denies, with the remark that “the apostle
did not consider the mere occupation with such things to be apostasy, but
1 Against these explanations there is also containing anti-evangelic doctrines had de-
the relative clause f» «.7.A. attached to yww- _— parted from the faith.
oews, since, of course, the followers of a yrwors
198 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
only a possible occasion for apostasy? 'Erayy. manifestly denotes more
than merely being occupied with a thing. By rive¢ here, as in i. 3, 6
(vi. 3), we must understand the heretics.
Ver. 22. The benediction, as in the other Pauline Epistles. If tuédv is
the right reading, we can only infer from it that Paul intends the bene-
diction for the whole church, not that he addresses the epistle to the
whole church along with Timothy.
NOTES BY AMERICAN Eprror.
XVIII. Vv. 1, 2.
(a) It is somewhat remarkable that the exhortation to slaves should be the only
one having reference to civil or social relations, which is given here. Comp. Eph.
v. 22-vi. 9; Col. iii. 18-iv. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 18-iii. 7., where other relations are men-
tioned. The distinction made here between slaves having heathen and those hav-
ing Christian masters, is not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. These two facts,
as well as the words addressed to the slaves, may indicate the danger, in the case
of this considerable section of the early believers, that the doctrine of Christian
liberty which the Apostle preached might be carried to excess in other lines than
those which were in the sphere of the distinctly Christian life. The evil to the
cause of the gospel in all such undue pressing of liberty and equality, which was
at that time especially to be apprehended, is indicated, in this passage, at the end
of ver. 1. It was, that scandal and offense would be occasioned—that the name
of God and the Christian teaching would be spoken ill of and blasphemed. The
word karag¢poveirwoay is somewhat surprising, and seems to show how far the feel-
ing of the slaves, that Christianity destroyed all former distinctions, was sometimes
carried. In the other passages referring to slaves, even in Tit. ii, 9 f., obedience, re-
fraining from gainsaying and purloining, serving heartily and not with mere eye-
service, etc., are the things spoken of.—(b) The explanation of of avr:AauBavduevor as
the subject of the clause in which it stands, is the simplest and most natural one.
This clause thus becomes parallel with the preceding 6r¢ clause—the slaves are
not to despise the masters on the ground that the latter are brethren, but are to
perform the duties of slaves to them because of this fact. In the word evepyeocac,
however, the Apostle seems to give a hint of the feeling which the master should
have towards the slave. He should regard the slave’s service as a evepyecia, a
benefit or good deed rendered. Huther, Holtzm., and some others refer the evepy.
to the masters, and make the words mean “ those who devote themselves to kind-
ness towards you.” This is in accordance with the use of avriAuuZ. in most, if
not all, cases of similar construction and reference in the classics. Wiesinger
thinks Paul may have used the compound verb in a sense derived from its two
component parts: receive in return, and that there may thus be a reference toa
reciprocal relation between the master and the slave.
XIX. Vv. 3-10.
(a) W. and H., and Treg., like Tisch., Lachm., and Buttm., connect raira ...
mapaxdAe with the following paragraph. R. V., on the other hand, unites these
2Hofmann, coinciding with Wiesinger’s science, brought them unawares on the
view, says: “The occupation with that which wrong track ;” but the “unawares” is purely
claimed, but did not deserve, the name of imported into the verse.
NOTES. 199
words, as does Huther, with what precedes. Ell, Alf, Fairb., Holtzm., agree
with R. V. and Huther, and this is, perhaps, the more correct view.—(b) The
following passage is declarative, not hortatory. The Apostle turns—quite abruptly,
if tavra x.t.A, is to be joined to the previous verses—to the subject of the errors
and heresies once more. He here presents certain further characteristics of the
false teachers, bringing out especially their avariciousness, It was not unnatural
for the Apostle to close the epistle with this matter, with which he had opened it
—making further statements respecting it, and urging Timothy to avoid the errors,
and to give himself to the true doctrine and to the good fight of the faith—(c)
The verb wpocépxzerac (for which Tisch. 8th ed. alone among the textual editors
reads mpooéyera:, following ® ), from the original sense of the word to come to—
thus fo come to, tn order to visit to surrender, etc., passes, apparently, here to the
meaning consent to, or agree with; mpootyetat, in the middle voice, means to cling
to, or, as Huther says, hold fast to. The latter has so little support that it can
hardly be adopted, but it would seem to be the word which the Apostle would, in
this connection, have been more likely to use.—(d) In the word érepod:dacxadei
the Apostle returns to the érepodidacxadia of i. 3. Comp. also, v;caotoy
d:daoxaii¢ i. 10, with by. Ady. These two correspondences, together with the fact
that this subject mainly occupies the remainder of this chapter, make it probable
that it was his design to close the letter with the same admonition and exhortation
with which he had begun it, and thus to give a double emphasis to his words.
The expression Ty xar’ evofBeray didaox, is, through the phrase pvorfpwwy ciceB. of
iii. 16, which contains the great central truth of the Christian doctrine, easily con-
nected with the suggestion, which is found in i. 10, of the accordance of the
healthful teaching with the gospel. The similarity in the expressions “7 émord-
pevoc and 7 voovvrec of i. 7, may, also, be noticed. Zyrhoeg and Aoyouayiac, also,
unquestionably correspond with ¢yrqoec of i. 4. The clause beginning with é€
ov merely sets forth the results in feeling, disputation, wrangling, etc., which
naturally follow from such ¢77. xai Aoy. The added words vouuCévrwy «.7.A., accord-
ingly, describe the peculiar characteristic of the erroneous teachers which is here
made prominent, as distinct from and beyond what has been mentioned before.
These words indicate avariciousness or, at least, that the persons spoken of
regarded piety simply as a means of advancing themselves in worldly good; “a
new business, an investment, a means of getting on in life,’ Plumptre, “a gain-
ful trade,’’ Conybeare. In Tit. i. 11 similar teachers are referred to as teaching for
the sake of base gain, an expression which seems to point to avariciousness on
their part. The same thing would appear to be indicated here, by the fact that
the Apostle goes on, in ver. 9 f,, to speak of the desire to be rich and the love of
money.—(e) With regard to particular words in vv. 4, 5, there can be little doubt
that Huther’'s explanation of BAacgypia, vrdvocas rov,, and dcaraparp:Bai is correct.
Envy and strife were the first results, and these led to the other things which are
mentioned. The words rerigurat and voooy mepi Cyrhoe xai Aoy. are strikingly
descriptive of skeptics, especially of intellectual skeptics, of all ages—(f) The
gain mentioned in ver. 6, which appertains to piety when united with content-
ment, is apparently the blessing in peace of mind, happiness, etc., which, when
the man is sufficient for, and in, himself, in the sense of being independent of the
riches, etc., of the world, he has through his piety. Tép of ver. 7 gives the
ground of the necessity and reasonableness of the adding of contentment to piety,
when speaking of the latter as a source of great gain. The word d7Aov of this
200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
verse must, apparently, be rejected by reason of the great weight of manuscript
evidence against it. The sentence becomes, with this omission, quite difficult.
The suggestion of Buttm. (E. T. p. 358) that 6r¢ alone may be equivalent to d7Aov
ért seems doubtful. The expl. of de W. mentioned in Huther, with which R. V.
perhaps agrees, is also a questionable one, both because of the use of ér: and the
antecedent improbability that the writer would bring out the thought in this
way; but it is, probably, the best one that can be offered.—(g) The contrast of
ver. 9 with ver. 8, and the use of Bovaduevor, “are minded to be rich,” as well as
the word ¢Aapyvpia of ver. 10, show that the writer is referring to those who give
. themselves wholly, and to the entire exclusion of the avrdpxe:a just mentioned, to
the work of acquiring riches. It is such ¢:Aapyvpia, which is a root of all evils.
That fifa necessarily means a root, as distinguished from the root, cannot be affirmed,
because the article may disappear by reason of the fact that the word is in the
predicate. That it, in all probability, has this meaning, however, can hardly be
questioned, and it is not to be doubted that R. V. expresses the right idea of the
sentence by rendering tdvrwy tév kaxav by all kinds of evil. Alf. insists that pi¢a
means the root. Most of the recent commentators agree with R. V.
XX. Vv. 11-21.
(a) That of is contrasted with tevé¢ of ver. 10, and that ratra refers to the
love of money, etc., just mentioned, is indicated by all the considerations which
the passage suggests. That the expression “man of God” is not applied to
Timothy as an official term, is rendered probable by the use of the same expres-
. sion in 2 Tim. iii. 17, where it clearly refers to the believer as a man of God. The
fact that Timothy was a man of God should keep him from the course which was
followed by these men who had gone astray, and should lead him to pursue that
line of life to which God calls.—(b) vrouovg and xpairdSea are, apparently,
intended to be connected together—stedfast endurance, pressing on in spite of all
trials or persecutions, was to be accompanied by gentleness of temper as related to
the trials or to the authors of them. mpairdJea is nearly equivalent to tpaérne,
and may mean meekness or gentleness. Here it may, not improbably, include both.
—(c) Tov xadév ayéva (ver. 12): Timothy is exhorted to do what, in 2 Tim. iv. 7,
Paul declares himself, by the use of the same words, to have done. The Chris-
tian course, which is called orpareiav in i. 18, is here called aydva, a contest in the
sense of the Greek games (comp. dpéuov, 2 Tim. iv.7). mioreg does not here,
or indeed in any place in the Past. Epp., as, also, it does not elsewhere in Paul’s
writings, mean the system of faith, the doctrine believed by Christians. It
always refers to subjective faith, though sometimes this is viewed subjectively, and
sometimes in a more objective way.—(d) The good confession which Timothy is
said to have confessed (probably—by reason of the close connection with éxAgdn¢
(as Huther also says)—at the time of his baptism) was not in form, or precisely,
the same with that made by Christ before Pilate. Indeed, Christ can scarcely be
said, in the strict sense, to have confeased the good confession. This was what
Timothy did; but Christ’s witnessing or confessing was through His acts and His
general declarations made when He was on trial at Pilate’s tribunal. Huther is
apparently correct, however, in making aprupeiv here substantially equivalent to
ouodoyciv, as against the view of Ell. Alf., Grimm, and others, that it means
attest, bear witness to, by His sufferings and death. Holtzm. agrees with Huther.
NOTES. 201
If Huther’s view is correct, é7i means before ; but if the view of Ell. is adopted,
it may be rendered by under,—which meaning is given by him and de W. Alf,
however, holds that, even with this latter explanation of zaprvpeiv, the preposition
means before.—(e) Typjoar . . . expe THE Eripaveiag points towards (though it may
possibly be explained otherwise) an expectation that the emi@dveca would soon
take place. The setting forth of this “ appearance” as made visible by the power
of God the Father is very distinct and emphatic in these verses, and the state-.
ments seem to represent it as a glorious manifestation in which both God and
Christ have part, though the manifestation itself is here, as everywhere else, the
éripavera Tou Xpiorov.
(f) Ver.17. The aitd&v ovrog seems to be alluded to, here, in contrast to the
éxcpdveca os the beginning of the aidv uéAAwr, It is spoken of however, primarily,
in its contrast, as related to the character of its works, with the good works of the
Christian life. The “éAAwv idea is brought out distinctly in ver. 19. In connec-
tion with, and through these good works, they were to lay up for themselves, as a
treasure, a good foundation on which to rest, that they might be able to lay hold
upon that real life which belongs to the aidv néAAwv, The doctrine of good works
as a ground of reward, but not as a ground of justification, is here indicated.
(g) Whether rapad ji (ver. 20) refers to the d:axovia or the d:dackaiia tytaivovea
is uncertain ; but, as the contrast throughout the epistle seems to be between the
latter and the erroneous teaching, it may be regarded as more probable that it is
this which the Apostle means. The use of yvdorc here belongs to the later period
of the life of Paul, rather than the earlier, but does not seem to carry us far
beyond the time of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians.
202 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Habhov 4 xpos Trpddcov éxtotodn seurépa.
A, al. have the shorter superscription: rpd¢ Tiud8eov B’; 80, too, D E F G,
but with dpyera: preceding.
CHAPTER I.
VER. 1. Tisch., on the authority of DE F G K P &, al., several versions, and
Fathers, adopted Xpcorov '"Ijoov instead of the Rec. 'Iyoot Xpotot (A L, pl
etc., Lachm. and Buttm.). For the singular éxayyeAiay, ® has the plural évay-
yediag.—Ver. 3. To tO cg there is added yvov in D* E 17, Sahid. Vulg. ed.
Sixtin. Demidor. Clar. Germ. Or. Ambrosiast. etc. Imitation of Rom. i. 8.—Ver.
4. The reading éxezo64 (G, Boern. utrumq. Chrys.) seems only to have arisen
from an endeavor to simplify the structure of the sentence.—Ver. 5. For AauBavev
(Ree. with D E K L, al., Chrys. Theodoret, etc.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read
AaBewv, on the authority of A C F G 17,31. This latter deserves preference as
the more difficult reading, all the more that it is preceded by the present éirodar,
—lInstead of Awid:, some ss. have Aoid:, others Awidy, and one Aaié:; still the
Ree. is too strongly suported to leave doubts of its correctness. For Etvixy, several
cursives have E’veixy.—Ver. 7. decAiac] The reading dovdciacg (in 238, Aeth.
Didym. Chrys.) has clearly arisen from Rom. viii. 15.—Ver. 11. é6vdv (Tisch. 8
omits) may possibly have been inserted on the analogy of 1 Tim. ii. 7 ; but since
it is wanting only in A &, and some cursives, it is safer to regard it as the original
reading, all the more that it is necessary for the meaning.—Ver. 12. In &, «ai is
wanting before ravra; all other mss., however, support its genuineness.—For
mapaxarabyxnv (Rec.), we must read here and at ver. 14, rapatjx7v, just as in 1
Tim. vi. 20.—The pov that follows is wanting in D* E and some cursives; it was
probably omitted because in those two other passages no pronoun stands with the
word.—Ver. 15. The mode of writing the name byeAAo¢ varies very much; the
best supported is @iyeAoc, which Lachm. and Tisch. adopted.—For ‘Eppoyévye,
Tisch. has adopted 'Epyoyévyc, with the remark: testatur antiquissimus accentuum
testis D*** etc.—Ver. 16. For expoyiv6n (Rec.), all uncials, except K, several cur-
sives, also Basil. Oec. Theodoret, have éxaoyviv67 (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.) ; comp.
Winer, p. 70 [E. T. p. 73].—Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 retained the Rec. orovdacérepay,
with D*** E K L, al. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 adopted ovovdaiwc, on the authority
of C D* F GX, al.; Buttm. read crovdaorépocs, on the authority of A. This
last reading seems to be only a correction of the Ree. Which of the two others
is the original one, cannot be decided. The positive may be considered a correc-
tion of the comparative; but, on the other hand, the latter is more usual with
Paul than the former, which occurs with him only in Tit. iii. 13. Besides, the
comparative is often found in Paul where we might except the positive (comp.
1 Tim. iii. 14). :
CHAP. I. 1-3. 203
Vv.1,2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XXI., pages 218, 219.] Ard 6eAgparocg] comp.
on 1 Tim. i. 1. [X°XTI a.]—The words of this address are peculiar: «ar’ éray-
yediav Cume tig ev XptoTr@ 'Inoov; they are not to be joined with OeAjuaroc,
nor with the following Tivodéy, but with arécrodog x.7.A. ’Emayyedia in the
N. T. constantly means “the promise ;” it is incorrect to translate it here
by “preaching;” comp. 1 Tim. iv. 8. Its object is the (w4, the blessed
life which “exists objectively, and is presented in Christ” (Wiesinger).
The preposition «aré shows that Paul’s apostleship stands in connection
with this promise. Matthies defines this connection more precisely
by saying that «aré denotes the harmony between the plan of salvation,
of which that érayyedia is the chief element, and the apostleship. But it
is more natural, and more in accordance with the passage in Tit. 1. 2, to
explain it, as does Theodoret, followed by de Wette and Wiesinger: azdée-
ToAdv pe wpoeBadeTo 6 Oed¢ Gote pe tiv EmayyeAbeicay aidviov Cun Toic avOpdrorg
xnpbéat, 830 that «ard directs attention to the purpose; see Winer, p. 376
[E. T. p. 402]. Otto contends that xard means “for the purpose,” and
that x7ptSac should be supplied. He explains it more generally: “in the
matter of, in regard to,” with the remark: “ Paul means to say that his
apostolic office . .. in its entire work is defined by that promise.” This
explanation, however, comes back substantially to the former one, since
the work of the apostolic office is specially the xyptocev, Hofmann
explains «ard as equivalent to “in consequence of,” in the sense, viz., that
the promise of life forms the presupposition of Paul’s apostleship; but for
this there is no support in usage; besides, it is self-evident that without
that promise of life there would be no apostleship.—Ver. 2. Tipodéy ayarnre
téxvy] ayarytg, [X XI 6.] in distinction from yaciv, 1 Tim. i. 2 and Tit.
i. 4, does not indicate a greater confidence, nor even blame, as if Timothy,
by showing a want of courageous faith, no longer deserved the name
(Mack).
Ver. 3. [On Vv. 3-5, see Note XXII., pages 219, 220.] Xdpiw éxyw rH Oep]
[XXII a.] Asin several other epistles, Paul begins here with a thanks-
giving to God,—only he usually says evyaprd or ebdoyyrdg 5 Oedc. The
expression is only in1 Tim. i. 12 (elsewhere in the N. T. Luke xvii. 9;
Heb. xii. 28). To r@ Oep there is next attached the relative clause: »
Aarpeiw amd tpoyévuv év xabapa ovverdioe:, Which is added because the apostle
wishes to remind Timothy of his zpéyove, viz. his grandmother and
mother,—not to bring into prominence a relationship different from the
apostle’s own (Hofmann), but one corresponding with his own.—a7d mpoyévev
[XXII 6.] is not equivalent to ad Bpfouc, iii. 15; it means that the
apostle serves God ‘‘in the manner handed down by his progenitors, as
they had done ” (Buttm., p. 277 [E. T. 322]), or that the service of the mpéyo-
vot, t.e. not the ancestors of the Jewish people (Heydenr. and others), but
the progenitors of the apostle himself (so most expositors), is continued
in him, and denotes therefore “the continuity of the true honoring of
God by Judaism ” (de Wette). Otto says that the expression is not to be
referred to the education (Flatt) or disposition (Winer, p. 349 [E. T. p.
372]; van Oosterzee, Wiesinger), but to the ancestral mode of worship;
204 "THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
but, in reply, it is to be observed, that on account of év xaapg ovvedfeoet
the reference to disposition is by no means to be considered as excluded.!
The apostle, by his conversion to Christianity, did not interrupt his con-
nection with the Aarpetew of his ancestors, because it was a necessary
condition of the new faith to honor the God of revelation whom the Jews
served. This utterance regarding the apostle himself, and particularly
the words év xaSapé ovved., are not in contradiction with 1 Tim. i. 13 and
similar passages, since the apostle, even while he was zealous for the law,
served the God of his fathers év xa#. ovvedd., as little then as afterwards
falsifying the revealed word with arbitrary fictions, which was done by
the heretics; comp. Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 14 ff Hofmann is wrong in
breaking up the inner relation of these words, referring Aatpeiw only to
azé mpoyévuv, and not also év xa8. ovvecdgoe:, which he refers only to the
apostle. This he does, although the structure of the sentence is most
decidedly against such a distribution of the references.—On év xa@. ovvedd.,
comp. 1 Tim. 1. 5.2—d¢ adidAecrrov «.7.A.] [XXII c.] o¢ doesnot give the reason
of thanksgiving, as Chrysostom explains it: ebyapioré rq Oe@, Ste usuvynpai cov,
gyoiv, ovrw o& g:Ad, and as Luther translates: “that I,” etc. Aguinst this
there is not only the word cc, but also the sense. The apostle, in his
giving of thanks to God, often indeed recalls his pveia of those to whom
he writes (Rom.i.9; Phil. i.3; 1 Thess. i.2; Philem. 4), but he never
points them out as the ground of his thanksgiving. Otto, while granting
that there are objections to it, wishes to take o> as the same as dr, and to
regard it as a particle of the reason, equivalent to dre oitwc, which, how-
ever, cannot be justified from usage.® Just as little should we take oc
adverbially with aécaA. Mack: “I thank God, etc. ...I keep right
continually,” etc-—A subordinate clause begins with &:, which, however,
does not mean: “since, quippe, siquidem ” (Heydenreich, Flatt, Matthies :
“in so far”), “so often ” (Calvin: “ quoties tui recordor in precibus meis,
id autem facio continenter, simul etiam de te gratias ago”), but expresses
the parallel relation of the subordinate clause to the principal one, and
should be translated by “as” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) ; in Gal. vi. 10,
1 Had the apostle not been conscious that
his ancestors had served God év «a8. cuvacsd.,
he would not have expressed himself as he
does here.
20tto rightly: “With Paul cuveidnors is
purely the self-consciousness of the subject.
The consciousness is pure, when it is con-
scious of no impure strivings. Impurity
appears whenever any one, under the pre-
tence of serving God, follows aftor his own
selfish purposes.” There is no ground for
Hofmann’s assertion, that the «a0. cvvet(dyors
is only “a conscience free from conscious-
ness of guilt, such as only that man can have
who is conscious of the forgiveness of his
sins.”
8The particle ws does sometimes occur in
classic Greek in such a way that it is resolv-
able into ore ovrws; but, as is shown in the
very nature of the word, only in cases when
the sentence beginning with ws expresses
something surprising, something exciting
astonishment, in particular, therefore, after
the verb @avyd¢gw. It follows, as Pape says,
s.v., that “in such cases we may translate it
with the simple how.” That such is the case,
is proved by all the quotations brought
together by Otto (p. 301) from the Greek
classics, It is therefore entirely erroneous for
Otto to say quite generally that “it is in the
manner of genuine Greek to contract the.
causal or. with the following ovrws into the
adverbial pronoun os.” Only if the ad:dAerrroy
éxw Tiv wepi gov pveiay occurred to the apos-
tle as something strange, astonishing, could
#s be explained here by or: otrws.—Besides,
CHAP. I. 4. 205
é¢ has a very similar meaning. The sense accordingly is: “ I thank God,
as Tam continually mindful of thee in my prayers,” so that already in the
subordinate clause it is indicated that the thanksgiving to God refers to
Timothy. In Rom. i. 9, é¢ stands in quite another connection, which
makes de Wette’s objection all the less justifiable, that here it has been
taken from that passage.—ad:dderrov Exw rv epi cov pveiav] De Wette
arbitrarily maintains that Paul would have said: ad:adcimrwe pveiay cov
mowiuat. Though Paul does so express himself in Rom. i. 9 (and simi-
larly Eph. i. 16), it does not, however, follow that he might not use
another form of expression in another epistle, especially since the con-
nection of pveiav with éyev is by no means unusual with him; comp.
1 Thess. ili. 6.—ad:dAecrrov stands first for emphasis. There is nothing
strange here in pveia being joined with epi, since pvacoPac takes that con-
struction even in the classics.—év rai¢ defoeol pov vuxrd¢g Kai Hueépac) raic is
not to be supplied before vuxréc, since the last words are not to be taken
with dejoeo:, but either with ada. éyw x.7.2. (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee)
or with what follows (Matthies, Plitt, Hofmann). The first construction
is preferable, because the chief emphasis is laid on the preceding thought,
the éxiroddv being made subsidiary ; besides, the apostle had no particu-
lar reason for directing attention to the uninterrupted duration of his
longing for Timothy as the source of his unceasing prayer. The assertion,
that vuxro¢ kai Auépac is superfluous on account of the previous ad:dAerrov,
is not to the point; comp. Acts xxvi. 7, where the same words are added
with év éxreveig.
Ver. 4. As in Rom. i. 11, Phil. i. 8, and other passages, Paul also
expresses here his longing to see the person to whom the epistle is
addressed. The participle ér:ro9dév is subordinate to the previous éyw; to
it, in turn, the next participle peprnpévoc is subordinated. The longing for
Timothy causes him to be continually remembered in the apostle’s prayers,
and the remembrance is nourished by thinking of his tears.—cov roy
daxpiwr] [XXII d.] By these are meant—as the verb peuvnpévoc shows—
not tears which “ Timothy shed”’ when at a distance from the apostle
(Wiesinger), and of which he knew only through a letter (which Timothy
therefore “shed by letter,” Hofmann); but the tears of which he himself
had been witness, the tears which Timothy shed probably on his departure
from him (van Oosterzee, Plitt). These were, to the apostle, a proof of
Timothy’s love to him, and produced in him the desire of seeing Timothy
again, that he might thereby be filled with joy. In this connection of the
clauses with one another, the apostle has not yet given the object of
thanks appropriate to the yépw ty; he does not do so till ver. 5.2—
it is inaccurate for Otto to ascribe to as a
causal signification, and then call the clause
beginning with it an objective clause.
1Comp. Herod. {. 36; Plato, Lach. p. 181 A;
Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 12; 80, too, with prnpo-
yevery, Heb. xi. 22,
3 Against this view it cannot be maintained
that it makes a subordinate participle pepwn-
udvos depend on the subordinate participle
émcxoOwy, for that is not in itself impossible;
nor can it be said “that the insertion of a
clause pepynudvos between iseciy oe and iva
is intolerable,” since the chief stress is not
On pepyypevos, but on ériw0Gev x.r.A. Farther,
206 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
According to Hofmann, the reason of the thanks is already given in the
participial clause peuvypévoc. But the idea that Paul thanks God for
Timothy’s tears, is out of all analogy with the other epistles of the apostle.
Even the iva yapag rAnpwd6 is against this view, for the apostle could not
possibly say that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be
filled with joy.
Ver. 5. ‘Yxdpuvnow AaBow rie «.7.A.] [XXII e.] This participial clause is to
be taken neither with peyvnyévoc nor with éxitodav (de Wette, Leo); the
sense forbids us to subordinate it to one of these ideas, and the want of
the copula «ai to co-ordinate it with them. Otto joins it with iva yapac
rAnowid: “that I may be filled with joy, as I (sc. by thy personal presence
in Rome) receive a renewal of my remembrance of thy unfeigned faith.”
Against this construction, however, there are the following reasons :—(1)
That to supply “by thy presence ” is not only arbitrary, but does not suit
with the idea tréuvyow AapBdvev, since the impression made on us by
anything before the eyes cannot be described as reminding us of that
thing. (2) That, if the remembrance of Timothy’s constancy in the faith
ig sO unceasing with the apostle that he thanks God for it, it is quite incon-
ceivable how he could still wish to receive a iréuvnouw of it. (3) That we
see ourselves forced by it to prefer the reading AayzBdvur (which Tisch.
adopted) to Aafov.—The only remaining course is to connect tour. Aa.
with ydpw iyo tH Oeg (30 Wicsinger, Plitt, and others). It does stand at
some distance from it, but that cannot be considered a good reason against
the construction. The construction in Phil. i. 3-5 is similar. Nor can we
make objection that “ Paul according to this view would not thank God he-
cause Timothy stands in such faith, but because he has been brought to his
recollection ” (Hofmann), for the participial clause does not give the reason
of the thanksgiving directly, but only hints at it. It is the same here as at
Eph. 1.15 and Col.i.3, where, too, the subject of thanksgiving is not the axotecy,
but that which the apostle had heard.—imduvnow AaBdv is not equivalent
to “recordans, as I remember” (de Wette: “retaining the remem-
brance ’’), for iméurnoi in the N. T. (comp. 2 Pet. i. 18, iii. 1; also Ecclus.
xvi. 11; 2 Macc. vi. 17) has an active signification ; it is equivalent, there-
fore, to “since I have received remembrance,” 2. e. “‘ since I have been
reminded” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is not said what
had reminded the apostle of Timothy’s faith. Bengel supposes that it
was externa quaedam occasio, or a nuntius a Timotheo ; Wiesinger, that it
was Onesimus. But it suits better with the context to regard the tears
just mentioned as causing the recollection, inasmuch as they were to the
apostle a proof of his unfeigned faith. It is unnecessary to derive the
ixéuvyorg from some inner working of the apostle’s soul (so formerly in
this commentary); there is no hint of any such thing. The present
Aap Bavov is not against this interpretation, since these tears came so vividly
before the apostle’s soul that he was thereby reminded more and more of
it cannot provoke objection that Timothy’s see him again, since these were a proof of his
tears nourished in the apostle the longing to love—and of his faith.
CHAP. I. 5, 6. 207
Timothy's faith.—rij¢ év col dvuroxpitov rioteug] see 1 Tim. 1.5; this, now,
is the subject of the thanksgiving.—As Paul is conscious that the God
whom he serves was the God also of his ancestors, he can remind Timothy
of the fact that the faith which dwells in him was before the possession
of his grandmother and mother.’—#rig évSkyoe mporov] évoxeiv as in ver.
14; Rom. viii. 11; 2 Cor. vi. 16. The word is chosen here “to denote
faith on its objective side as a possession coming from God ” (Wiesinger),
and it declares that “it has not become a merely transient feeling, but an
abiding principle of life dwelling in them ” (van Oosterzee).—zpérov is
not, with Luther, to be translated by “before,” but to be taken in its proper
meaning, in reference to the mpéyovoa of Timothy. The point brought out
is, that Timothy was not the first of his family to be a believer, but we
cannot press the point so far as to suppose that a, distinction is drawn
between the apostle whose ancestors served God as Jews, while Timothy’s
ancestors were heathen (so Hofmann).—év r@ pdypy cov x.7.A.] Regarding
pouun, see Wahl on the passage.—This grandmother of Timothy is not
mentioned elsewhere. Of the mother, it is said in Acts xvi. 1 ff. that she
WAS a yur? "Iovdaia miotf; her name is given only here. The mention of
the two is not to be regarded as a superfluous—or even surprising—after-
thought. Paul might repose in Timothy all the greater confidence, that
he, brought up by a pious mother, had before him her example and that
of his grandmother.—This confidence the apostle expresses still more
definitely in the next words: mémewpa: 62, 6tt Kai év ool, with which Hey-
denreich wrongly supplies évocfoe: instead of évorxei.
Ver. 6. [On Vv. 6-14, see Note XXIII., pages 220-222.] A? 4 airiav avayi-
pvgoKw oe x.t.A.] This verse contains the chief thought of the whole chap-
ter. By 6d? fy airtay (a formula which occurs in Paul only here, at ver. 12,
and at Tit. 1.18; airia not at all in the other Pauline epistles), the apostle
connects his exhortation with the previous mémewpa: x«.r.4., since his con-
viction of Timothy’s faith was the occasion of his giving the exhortation.
There is no ground for the objection raised by Otto against this connec-
tion of thought, that airia “never expresses anything but the external
objective occasion ;” he is no less wrong in wishing to refer 6’ 4y atriav
not to avayepvfone, but to avafwrupeiv. In that case the apostle would have
written d:’ fv airiav avalwrbper x.7.A. (as Otto explains the expression). The
verb avauipvijoxerv, properly, “remind of something,” contains in itself the
idea of exhorting; the apostle finely interprets the word so as to make
Timothy appear himself conscious of the duty which was urged on him;
iroummvfoxey 18 Often used exactly in this way.—dvalwrvpeiv rd yépioua Tov
18ince Timothy’s avvrdéepiros sions is
Christian faith, faith in Jesus Christ, it is
manifestly wrong to regard the sioss of the
grandmother and mother as only faith in the
O. T. promise (Otto); the relative #715 shows
that the two are identical. From Paul's
ascription to himself of a Aarpeviey axd wpo-
yovwy, we cannot infer, with Otto, that the
“ matter of faith on the part of Timothy's sxpe-
yovo. cannot be taken further than on the
part of the apostle’s xpéyovo.” The apostle
does not at all boast of the sions of his
ancestors, but says merely that he serves the
same God as they had served. Timothy's
faith could only mean something to him, if it
was not only faith in the promise, but also
faith in Him who had appeared according to
the promise.
208 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Gcov] [XXIII a.] avalurvpeiv: an. Acy.: “fan into life again.”* By yépiova
rt. 6. i8 meant here, as in 1 Tim. iv. 14, the fitness (ixavér7¢) bestowed by
God on Timothy for discharging the épyov evayyedorod (iv. 5), which fitness
includes both the capacity and also (though Hofmann denies this) zeal
-and spirit for official labors. The context shows that the courage of a
Christian martyr is here specially meant. This sappycia is not the work
of man, but the gift of God’s grace to man. It can only be kept alive
unceasingly by the labor of man? Bengel is not incorrect in remarking
on this exhortation: videtur Timotheus, Paulo diu carens, nonnihil
remisisse ; certe nunc ad majora stimulatur. His former zeal seems to
have been weakened, particularly by the apostle’s suffering (ver. 8), 80
that it needed to be quickened again.2 Otto here, too, understands by
xzapioua, the “ right of office;’’ but this does not accord with the verb ava-
Cwrvpeiv, since the right did not need to be revived. However Timothy
might conduct himself in regard to the right imparted to him, it remained
always the same; if he did not exercise it as he should have done, he
himself or his activity needed the avafwrupeiv, but not the right which had
been delivered to him with the office.* On the next words: 4 éorw é ooi
dia tie émibécews THY yeipov pov, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 14. There can be no reason
for doubting that the same act is meant in both passages. As to the diffi-
culty that, whereas in the former passage it was the presbytery, here
it is Paul who is said to have imposed hands, see the remark on that pas-
sage. The reason for this lies both in the character of the epistle, “ which
has for its foundation and in part for its subject the personal relation
between the apostle and Timothy,” as well as in Paul’s exhortation to
Timothy in ver. 8, “to make the gift an effective agent for him through
whom the gift was received ” (Wiesinger).
Ver. 7. The exhortation in ver. 6, Paul confirms by pointing to the
spirit which God.has given to His own people: ov yap éduxev juiv 6 Oed¢
rvevua deAiac| [XXIII 6.] By jpziv, Otto understands not Christians in gen-
eral, but the apostle and Timothy in particular as office-bearers. The
context, however, does not demand such special reference, since the
apostle, in order to confirm his exhortation to Timothy, might very well
1Comp. Jamblichus, De Vit. Pyth. chap.
Xvi.: dve(wrupe: Td Oecoy ey avTy.
$Chrysostom: 8 gov mpoOupias pds Td
xépioua tov @eod:... €v nucw yap eori Kai
oBécat, cai avawat Tovro: Urd mey yap paduuias
cat axngias oBévyvrat, urd 8e migees Kal mpoc-
oxns dceyecperac.
2It has been already remarked (Introd. @
3, p. 27) that Otto is not Justified in accusing
Timothy of having almost laid down his office
through anxiety and timidity. It isa part of
this accusation that Otto here finds it said
that “Timothy was to resume the duties de-
livered to him by the apostolic laying on of
hands."—The meaning of avagerupety is mis-
taken by van Oosterzee and Plitt, if they
think that we cannot infer from it that there
had been an actual decrease of Timothy's
official zeal.
4 Otto contends, that “along with the office,
when the hands were laid on him, Timothy
received the understanding, the personal
gifts for filling it.” Against this it is to be
remarked—(1) That the natural talents are
not bestowed along with the office, but the
conscious and intentional concentration and
employment of them in the office, otherwise
the receiver of the office is only a dead
machine in it; and (2) that the apostle, in
laying on hands, acted as the instrument of
the Holy Spirit; and of this Timothy was also
aware.
CHAP. I. 7. 209
appeal to a fact which had been experienced by Christians in general as
well as by himself. Besides, the gua¢ in ver. 9 is against Otto’s view.
Ilveiua here is eitther—{1) the objective spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ben-
gel, Heydenreich, Otto), of whom it is first said negatively that itis not a
spirit of decAia, t.e. not a spirit producing decAia in man, and then positively
that it is a spirit of divayi x.7.4., i.e. &@ Spirit imparting dévauic to man; or
(2) zveiua is the subjective condition of man, the spiritual life wrought in
him by the Spirit of God (Mack, Matthies, Leo, similarly, too, Hofmann‘),
which is then described more precisely as a spirit, not of deAia, but of
Sivautc x.t.A. The context in which the similar passage in Romans stands,
and especially the passage corresponding to this in Gal. iv. 6, make the
first view preferable.—decAia denotes timidity in the struggle for the king-
dom of God; comp. John xiv. 27; Rev. xxi. 7, 8.—The ideas divayic, ayérn,
and oudpoviouds are closely related to each other. That the Christian, as a
warrior of God, may rightly wage the warfare to which he is appointed,
he needs first divauic, 7. €. power, not only to withstand the attacks of the
world, but also to gain an increasing victory over the world. He has
need next of ayary, which never suffers him to lose sight of the goal of the
struggle, 7. e. the salvation of his brethren, and urges him to labor towards
it with all self-denial. Lastly, he has need of cugpovopuss. While Chry-
sostom and Theophylact leave it uncertain whether this word is to be
taken intransitively, reflectively, or transitively,? later expositors (Hof-
mann too: “ discretion ’’) have taken it as synonymous with cw¢poctrn ; *
de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt make it reflective, “ self-control”’
(properly, therefore, “the ouwgpéviore directed towards oneself’). Neither
explanation, however, can be justified by usage. Etymology and usage
are decidedly in favor of the transitive meaning, which therefore must be
maintained, with Otto, unless we attribute to the apostle a mistake in the
use of the word. In itself the Holy Spirit might be called rvetya oudpo-
viopov in the other sense, since the cugpoviferv is His characteristic, He prac-
tises it; but, as the preceding genitives denote effects, and not qualities,
of the spirit, the genitive owgpovcuov would stand to mvedya in a relation
differing from that of the other genitives. The Holy Spirit can therefore
receive such a designation here, only in so far as He produces the ouwgpovi-
fev (comp. Tit. ii. 4) in the Christian, z. e. impels him not to remain inac-.
tive when others go wrong, but to correct them that they may desist.
Thus taken, the idea of sw¢porepé¢ appropriately includes that of ayézn,
part of which is to be active in amending the unhappy circumstances of
the church,—here all the more appropriately because the thought which
is true of all Christians is specially applied here to Timothy.‘
1 Hofmann, to a certain extent, combines
the two, saying: “The spirit which we have
received is, looking to its source, the Spirit
of God; but, looking to what we become
through it, it becomes in us the spirit of our
life thus created.”
2Theophylact: # tva cuadpoves mers... ®
iva cudponcpoy éxwuey Td wveUpa, KaY TLS
14
weipagpos nuiv dmcyévytat, mpds cwdpovic nor
toutov SexwpeBa: 7% iva Kai GAAS Spey cwdpo-
VeoTai. |
*Thus Augustine, ad Bonif. iv. chap. 5: con-
tinentia; Vulgate: sobrietas; Beza: sanitas
animi; Leo: temperantia.
4The explanation here given of cwdpovcpds
is in substantial agreement with that pro-
210 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Ver. 8. Mz oiv (deduction from what has preceded: since God has given
us the spirit of divaye x.7.4., then, etc.) éracayurPi¢ Td papripiov tov xupiov
fuav | [XXIII c.] On the construction, comp. Rom. i. 16: ob éracyivoua rd
evayyéAtov.—paptipiov, like paprupety in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does not denote the
martyrdom of Christ, nor even specially the testimony regarding the
martyr-death of Christ (Chrysostom : yi? aloyivov, bre Tov éotavpwpévov xnpto-
cecc), but more generally the testimony regarding Christ, which certainly
includes the other special meaning. Kvpiov is not the subjective genitive,!
but the objective—The connection between this and the preceding
thought is brought out by Bengel’s words: timorem pudor comitatur;
victo timore, fugit pudor malus.—yydé éué rdv décpeov airov] Paul places
himself in immediate connection with the gospel, as he was a prisoner
because of his witness of Christ; and the reason of the special mention of
himself lies in the summons to Timothy to come to him at Rome? Paul
calls himself déopso¢ Xpeorovd here and at Eph. iii. 1, Philem. 9, because he
bore his bonds for Christ’s sake; or better, because “ Christ (Christ’s cause)
had brought him into imprisonment and was keeping him there ”’ (Winer,
p. 178 [E. T. p.189]; Meyer on Eph. iii. 1; Wiesinger). The expression in
Philem. 18: decpot rod eivayyesiov, forbids the explanation: “a prisoner
belonging to Christ.” Hofmann is inaccurate: “a prisoner whose bonds
are part of his relation to Christ.”—aA2a ovyxaxordOnaov tH evayyediy] “ but
suffer with (sc. me) for the gospel ;” the verb, occurring only here and per-
haps at 1.3 (the simple form at ii. 9, iv. 5; Jas. v. 18), is limited more
precisely by the reference to the previous éué. Luther (“suffer with the
gospel, as I do”) refers the ovv to the dative following; but against this
there is the unsuitable collocation of person and thing.* The dative r¢
evayy.is to be taken as dativus commodi,' as in Phil. i. 27 : cvvaOAowvres r7
miore: Tow evayyediov; in Heb. xi. 25: ovyxaxovyeciobar r@ Aap, the dative has
another meaning.—«aré divayzev Ocov] [XXIII d.] These words do not be-
long, as Heinrichs thinks possible, to r@ evayyeAly, in the sense: doctrina
cul inest divauic Oeov, but to the preceding verb. The meaning, however,
is not: “strengthened through God’s aid ” (Heydenreich), but «aré denotes
the suitability : “in accordance with the power of God which is effectual
in thee,” or “which will not fail thee” (Hofmann). Aivayc Oecd is not
here “the power produced by God,” nor is it “God’s own power ” (Wies-
inger), in the sense of an abstract idea apart from its actual working in
the believer.
posed by Otto, except that Otto regards the
gwdporowes as a work, official in kind.
1Wahl: testimonium quod dixit Jesus de
rebus divinis quas audivit a Patre; Hof-
mann: “the truth of salvation witnessed by
Christ.” Hofmann for this explanation
appeals wrongly to 1 Cor. i. 6, ii. 1; besides,
paprupcoy does not mean “ truth of salvation,”
unless it is 80 defined.
2 De Wette, Wiesinger.
?Wiesinger: “Here the twofold contents
of the epistle are set forth as the theme; for
the contents of the epistle are simply the gen-
eral duties laid on Timothy as a preacher of
the gospel, and the particular service of love
which he was to render to the imprisoned
apostle.”
¢Chrysostom rightly says: ovyxaxowaénooyr,
Ono, TE evayyeAiy, OVX wE TOD evayyeAto”
xaxowaSovrros, aAAa Tov pabyrny sieye(per
vwép rov evayyeAiov wacxetr.
5 Mack, Matthies, Wiesinger, van Ooster-
zee, Plitt, Hofmann.
CHAP. I. 8, 9. 211
Ver. 9. In the series of participial and relative clauses which here fol-
low each other in the Pauline manner, the apostle details the saving
works of God’s grace, not so much “ to bring into prominence the divayic
@cov ”’ (Wiesinger), as to strengthen the exhortation in ver. 8.—rot sdcavro¢
huac Kal Kazéoavrug KAgoes ayig] This thought is closely related to the one
preceding, since the mention of the divine act of love serves to give
strength in working and suffering for the gospel—The «xaieiv is placed
after the odfev, because the salvation of God, the owrnpia, is imparted to
man by God through the call. The thought is to be taken generally of
all Christians, and not merely to be referred to Paul and Timothy, as
several expositors think, at the same time explaining «joie of the special
call to the oflice of Christian teacher (Heydenreich).—KAjore in the N. T.
constantly denotes the call to partake in the kingdom of God, the call
being made outwardly by the preaching of the gospel, inwardly by the
influence of the spirit working through the word. KAjgoie and xadeiv are
similarly joined in Eph. iv. 1—The added dyia defines the xAjorc more pre-
cisely in its nature, not in its working (de Wette, “ hallowing ”).—In order
to denote the odfew! and xadeiv as purely acts of God’s grace, and thus set
the love of God in clearer light, Paul adds the words: ot xara ra Epya juav,
GAia x.t.A. The first clause is negative, declaring that our works were not
the standard (xard) of that divine activity (comp. Tit. iii. 5). The second
clause is positive, setting forth the principle by which alone God has
guided himself. De Wette is inaccurate in explaining xaré as giving the
motive; that is not given by xaré, but by é; comp. Rom. ix.11. The
only rule for God in the work of redemption is God’s idia pé0eor¢; comp.
on this Rom. viii. 28 f.; Eph. i. 11; Tit. iii. 5: xara rdv avrov Eeov. "Idc0¢
is here emphatic, in order to show that this his purpose has its ground in
himself alone.?—xai ydpiv ri dobeicay juiv év Xptor@ "Inood mpd xpdvuv alwvivy]
[XXIII e.] By this addition still greater emphasis is laid on the thought
contained in the previous words, since the idia mpé@ecr¢ is called a xdpis
which has been already given us in Christ 7p ypévuv aiwviov. It is natural
to take mpd xpév. aiwy. as identical with pd rév aidéver, 1 Cor. ii. 7 (Eph. i. 4:
™po KataBodage xéopov), 4. e. to regard it as a term for eternity, since the ypdvoe
aiévo are the times beginning with the creation (so hitherto in this com-
mentary). Heydenreich and others with this view explain didova: as
equivalent to “destinare, appoint;” but as the word does not possess this
Meaning, it is better to adhere to the idea of giving, but in an ideal signifi-
cation, “in so far as that which God resolves in eternity is already as good
as realized in time” (de Wette). ’Ev Xpiord "Inootv, which is attached 1m-
mediately to dofeicav, denotes Christ Jesus as the mediator through whom
grace is imparted to us, but in such a way that Christ’s mediatorship is
regarded as one provided by God before time was. But the expression
1De Wette’s assertion, that with Paul God “purpose;” see Rom. i. 13; Eph. 1. 9, 11.
is never the Saviour, is contradicted by 1 3 Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 232, puts
Cor. i. 21. forward the explanation: “It is the eternal
2 Iipé@eors, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, is conduct of God the Father to the Son, in
not equivalent to “foreordination,” but to which and with which there is given to us
212 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
mpd xpév. aiwv, may be otherwise taken. In Tit.i. 2, it clearly has a weaker
signification, viz. “from time immemorial” (similarly Luke i. 70: a7’
aiavoc). Ifthe expression be taken in that way here, dofeicav may be ex-
plained in the sense that to us the yada is already given in the promise
(Tit. i. 2 also refers to God’s promise); so Hofmann. In that case, how-
ever, év Xpior@ 'Iyood is not to be taken in the sense of mediation, which
does not agree with the addition of ’Ijoov to Xpiorg, but as Hofmann ex-
plains it: “rv dod. ju. ev Xpwor@ "Inoot denotes that the grace given us was
given that Christ Jesus might be given us; He, however, has been given
us from the beginning of time, when God promised the Saviour who was
to appear in the person of Jesus.” This view (especially on account of
Tit. 1. 2) might be preferred to the one previously mentioned. As con-
trasted with xara ra épya #uay, stress is to be laid on mpd ypdver aiwviov. If
the imparting of the grace is eternal (resting on the eternal counsel of
God), it is all the less dependent on the works of man.
Ver. 10. davepwhcicav dé viv] These words form a contrast with riv
dofeicav . . . ™pd xpdv. aiwr., the grace being concealed which was bestowed
on Christians in Christ before the ages. It is to be observed that the idea
of the gavépworg does not refer here to the decree, but to the grace of God;
Heydenreich is therefore inaccurate in saying that “the gavepovv here de-
notes the execution of the divine decree which was made from eternity,
and has now come forth from its concealment.” The. means by which
the ¢gavépwore of the divine grace has been made, the apostle calls the
évipdvera Tov owtijpoc tuiv Xptorov 'Iyoov. ’Emipdveca is used only here to
denote the appearance of Christ in the flesh. Asa matter of course (so,
too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, and others), it denotes not only the birth of
Christ, but also His whole presence on the earth up to His ascension.
There is added rot owrgpoc judy in reference to rot odcavrog ua, ver. 9, in
order to make it clear that the grace eternally given to us was made mani-
fest by the appearance of Christ Jesus, because He appeared as our curip
(see on 1 Tim. i. 1). The means by which He showed Himself to be this,
and by which He revealed that grace, are told us in the two participial
clauses: xarapyfoavtog pév Tov Oavarov, gwricavrog dé Cuny kai agBapciay dia Tov
evayyediov. [XXIII f.]—xarapyeiv, properly, “make ineffectual,” means here,
as in 1 Cor. xv. 26, Heb. ii. 14, “ bring to nought.” Odvarog is death, as the
power to which man is, for his sins, made subject, both for time and for
eternity. It is not the “prince of the realm of the dead,” as Heydenreich
thinks (also in Heb. ii. 14 there is a distinction between 6@dvarog and
d:dBodoc). Still less to the point is the hypothesis of de Wette, that the
xatapyeiv tov Odvarov is spoken “ with subjective reference to the power of
death over the mind, or the fear of death ;” the discussion here is not of
subjective states of feeling, but of objective powers. The question whether
who are in Christ the grace of God eternally ;” and that every position of the individual is
but he has since withdrawn it—Wiesinger grounded on this eternal grace presented to
remarks that the wpé@ecrs is not to be under- _— the world in Christ; but this limitation is in
stood of a purpose in reference to individuals, no way indicated by the context.
but of the purpose in reference to the world,
CHAP. I. 10-12. 213
64varog means here physical or eternal death, may be answered in this
way, that the apostle regards the two as one in their inner relation to one
another.! The second clause: gwricavrog dé x.7.A., corresponds with the
first: xatapy. «.7.A. wrifecy has usually the intransitive signification:
“shine,” Rev. xxli.5; but it occurs also as transitive, both in the literal and
derivative sense, Rev. xxi. 23, John i. 9. In 1 Cor. iv. 5, it is synonymous
with gavepovv: “bring to light from concealment ;” so, too, in Ecclus. xxiv.
30, and in this sense it is used here. The expression is all the more
pointed that 6dvaroc is “a power of darkness” (Wiesinger); comp. Luke
i. 79.—Heydenreich’s explanation : “ Christ raised the hope of immor-
tality to fullest certainty,” weakens the apostle’s meaning. (w7 denotes
the blessed life of the children of God, which is further described as
eternal, ever-during, by the epexegetical «ai ap@apcia (Wiesinger). This
life was originally hid in God, but Christ brought it to light out of conceal-
ment, and brought it d:a tov evayyeAiov. These added words are to be re-
ferred only to the second clause, for the annihilation of death was not
effected by the gospel, but by Christ’s death and resurrection.—On the
other hand, the revelation of life was made by the preaching of the gospel,
inasmuch as Christ thereby places before us the fw xal a¢Gapoia as the in-
heritance assigned us in Him.—It is incorrect, with Wiesinger, to separate
dia tov evayyediov from the nearest verb to which it is thoroughly suited if
taken in a natural sense, and to connect it with the more distant gavepwHci-
cay, the means of which, moreover, is already given in dia rife émipaveiag.
Plitt wrongly thinks that the construction here is somewhat careless, and
that dia 7. evayy. is to be co-ordinated with dia rye émipaveiac, giving a still
more precise definition to gavepuScicay.
Ver. 11. Eig 8 éré7v x.7.A.] With these words the apostle turns to his
office and his suffering in his office, in correspondence with pdé éué 7. déop.
avrov, ver. 8. The relative 6 does not refer to the thoughts expressed in
the previous verses, but to ciayyeAiov: “for which,” t.e.in order to preach
it. Comp. the parallel passages in 1 Tim. ii. 7.
Ver. 12. Ae #v airiay (see on ver. 6) refers to what immediately precedes:
“therefore, because I am appointed apostle.” [XXIII g.J—«ai raira
méazw] goes back to ver. 8. Kai expresses the relation corresponding to
what was said in ver. 11.—aA2’ obx éxaoxbvopac] viz. of the sufferings; said
in reference to pH obv éxacozufje in ver. 8. Imprisonment is to me not a
disgrace, but a xabynua; comp. Rom. v. 8; Col.i.24. The apostle thereby
declares that his suffering does not prevent him from preaching the
tapripiov Tov xvpiou (ver. 8) as a xfpvé x.7.A. The reason is given in the next
words; oida yap » wewiareuxa. Heydenreich inaccurately: “I know Him on
whom I have trusted ;” de Wette rightly : “I know on whom I have set
my trust.”—This is defined more precisely by: xa? rémesoyat, bre dvvarée
fore «.7.2., Which words are closely connected with those previous, in the
sense: I know, that He in whom I trust is mighty, etc—The confidence
1 Wiesinger: “Death as the power towhich makes the bodily death the precursor of
the whole man, both body and soul, has fallen death eternal.”
& prey in consequence of sin, and which
214 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
that God can keep His mapa6yxn, is the reason of his ov« éxacytvecbat,
With oida . . . nai wémewspar, comp. Rom. xiv. 14; with dr duv, éorc, comp.
Rom. xi. 23, xiv. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 8—On the meaning of ri rapabyx
[XXIII A.J (Ree. tapaxarabfxny) pov, expositors have spoken very arbitrarily.!
—The same substantive occurs again at ver. 13; so, too, at 1 Tim. vi. 20.—
It is hardly possible to imagine that Paul in ver. 14 should have meant
something else by zapafjxn than he means here; all the less that he con-
nects the same verb with it in both passages. Though here we have pov,
and God is the subject, still the supposition is not thereby justified. The
genitive ov may either be subjective or objective. In the former case, #
mapaf, nov is something which Paul has entrusted or commended to God;
in the latter, something which God has entrusted to Paul, or laid aside for
him (a deposit destined for him). With the former view Hofmann under-
stands by zapayxy the apostle’s soul which he has commended to God;
but there is nothing in the context to indicate this. Hofmann appeals to
Ps, xxxi. 6; but against this it is to be observed that nothing can justify
him in supplying the idea of “soul” with the simple word zapafjxy.—
With the latter view of the genitive, Wiesinger understands by it the (a9
kai agOapaia (iv. 8: 6 dtxasootvnc otépavoc) already mentioned; so, too, Plitt;
van Oosterzee, too, agrees with this view, though he, without good grounds,
explains ov as a subjective genitive. Against this interpretation there is
the fact that with the sentence eic¢ 4 éré@7v the apostle’s thought has already
turned from the {7 xai ag@apoia to his dtaxovia. The following interpreta-
tion suits best with the context: for what other reason could there be for
the apostle’s ove éxaicxivoua than the confidence that God would keep the
d:axovia in which, or for whose sake, he had to suffer, would keep it so
that it would not be injured by his suffering.—It is less suitable to under-
stand by the rapafjxn the gospel, because the yov, pointing to something
entrusted to the apostle personally, does not agree with this. By adding
ei¢ Exeivyy tTHv Huépav, the apostle sets forth that the rapa@fxy is not only
kept “dill that day ” (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, Otto *), but “for that day,”
1Theodoret says: wapaxarafyjxny, Thy
motw dno. cat Td Kypvypa, } TOUS moTOUs,
obs mapeBero autre 6 Xproros H obs avros wapéd-
Oero TH Kupiy, H wapaxatrabixny Aéyer THY
ayTipcobiary.
2 Wiesinger adduces three counter-reasons
—(1) in ver. 14 @vAacoey 1s represented as
Timothy’s business, here as God's; (2) in ver.
14 wapabyjxy refers to the doctrine, here it is
represented as a personal possession; (3) in
ver. 14 he is discussing the right behavior
for Timothy, here the confidence in the right
behavior. But against the first reason, it is
to be observed that dvAdccew of every gift of
grace is the business both of God and of the
man to whom it is entrusted; in ver. 11 it is
expreasly raid, dca mvevparos ayiov. Against
the second reason, it may be urged that to in-
terpret wapaéyxy of doctrine in ver. 14 is at
least doubtful; but even if it were correct,
still the gospel, too, might be regarded as
something given personally to the apostle;
comp. 1 Tim. i. 11: 7d evayyéAcov . . . 0 éma-
TevOny éyw; Rom. ii. 16: Tro evayyéAcéy pov.
Against the third reason, it may be said that
no one can really keep the blessing entrusted
to him without having confidence that God
keeps it for him, and no one can have this
confidence without himself preserving the
blessing (8a wv. ayov).
8 Otto wrongly uses this passage to support
his assertion that in this epistle “there is no-
trace to be found of forebodings and expecta-
tions of death.” He says: “ If Paul has con-
fidence in the Lord, that he can maintain for
him the wapa@yey till the rapovaoia, he must
also have hoped that his official work would
not be interrupted by his bodily death, since
CHAP. I. 13, 14. 215
7. e. that it may be then manifested in its uninjured splendor. The
phrase éxeivy } juépa is equivalent to 4 qyuépa tov Xpiorov, “the day of
Christ’s second coming”; it is found also in ver. 18, iv. 8, 2 Thess. i. 10,
and more frequently in the Gospels. On the meaning of the preposition
eic, comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 10.
Ver. 138. Exhortation to Timothy.—trorbruow eye tyawdvrev Adyur, dv
x.7.A.] For trorbruoce here, as in 1 Tim. i. 16, “type” is to be retained.
There is no reason for explaining the word here by “sketch” (Flatt),
or docendi forma et ratio (Beza), or a written sketch given by the apostle
to Timothy (Herder). Timothy is to carry with him the words he had
heard from Paul as a type, z.¢. in order to direct his ministry according to
it. Luther translates trortrwor by “ pattern” (so, too, de Wette, Wie-
singer, and others), but the reference thus given is not in the words them-
selves. The verb éyew stands here in the sense of xaréyerv.! It is incor-
rect, with Hofmann, to take tor. tyaw. Adyov as the predicate of the
object, and to assume accordingly that it is a contracted form for trortre-
ow Exe vytavévtwv Adywv THY trorhbtwow Tov Adywy dv x.t.A. Such a contrac-
tion is inconceivable, nor does Hofmann give any instance to prove its
possibility. The words év rg qiore: xai ayary ty «.t.4., which are neither
to be joined with jxoveac, nor, with Hofmann, referred to what follows, show
that the Zyev does not take place externally, but is an effort of memory.
"Ev is not equivalent to “with” (Heydenreich); the zior and aydz7 are
rather regarded as the vessel, in which Timothy is to keep that type.
The adced words: ry éy Xpiotg "Inoov, which go only with aydzy (de Wette,
Wiesinger, Hofmann), mark the Christian character of the love which
Paul desires from Timothy: “the love grounded in Jesus Christ; ’’ comp.
1 Tim. i. 14. On the expression Aoy. ty., comp. 1 Tim.i.10. The article
is wanting, “ because this expression had become quite current (like véjo¢
and others) with the author” (de Wette, Wiesinger).—Why this exhorta-
tion, as de Wette thinks, gives Timothy a low place, we cannot under-
stand; every appearance of such a thing disappears when it is remembered
that the apostle, grey-headed and near his end, is speaking to his pupil
and colleague after enduring painful experience of the unfaithfulness of
others, to which unfaithfulness he returns afterwards.—Even de Wette
wrongly asserts that this verse has no connection with the one preceding ;
for Paul has been speaking of himself and of the gospel entrusted to him,
with the desire that Timothy should always keep in mind his example.
Ver. 14. The exhortation in this verse is most closely connected with
that in ver. 13, for tapadjxn here, as in ver. 12, is the ministry of the gos-
pel.—riv xadrjv rapadixny pbaagkov] 7 nad} wapadixn is, like } xady didacxaiia,
1 Tim. iv. 6; 6 nade ayov «.7.4., to be taken in a general objective sense.
There is no sufficient reason for interpreting zapad%xy otherwise than in
ver. 12—whether, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, as equivalent to “the
the apostle in it does not in any way express does not mean “ maintain."
the hope that God would maintain for him his 1Bengel rightly: vult Paulus ea, quae
official work till the day of Christ." The“ for | Timotheus seme! audierat, semper animo
him” is arbitrarily imported, and ¢vAdccey ejus observari et Impressa manere.
216 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
sound doctrine,” or, with van Oosterzee, as equivalent to 1d yépropa.
Since all that the apostle has enjoined on Timothy from ver. 6 onward
has special reference to the discharge of his office, we may surely under-
stand sapad7xy to have the same meaning here as in ver. 12; besides, as
already remarked, it is not conceivable that Paul, in two sentences so
closely connected, should have used the same word with different mean-
ings. It need not excite wonder that in ver. 12 Paul looks to God for the
preservation of the rapad7x7, while here he lays it on Timothy as a duty;
God’s working does not exclude the activity of man. vAdocerv here, as in
ver. 12, is: “to keep from harm uninjured,” and from the tendency of the
whole epistle it 1s clear that this exhortation referred to the heresy which
perverted the gospel.—c:a rveiparog ayiov.}' Timothy is not to employ any
human means for preserving the rapadx7; the only means is to be the
Holy Spirit, ze. he is to let the Spirit work in him free and unconfined,
and only do that to which the Spirit impels him. The Spirit, however, is
not something distant from him, as is shown by the words: row évo:xowvro¢
év quiv, On évocxotvroc, comp. ver. 5. ’Ev juiv denotes the Spirit as the
one principle of the new life, working in all believers. ‘Hyiv, here as in
ver. 6, must not be referred simply to Paul and Timothy; nor isit to be
overlooked that Paul does not say év oi.
Ver. 15. [On Vv. 15-18, see Note XXIV., page 222.] The apostle
reminds Timothy of those who had deserted him. [XXIV a.] This isdone
to incite Timothy to come to Rome with the greater speed, and also
not to be ashamed of Paul, the prisoner of Christ, as the others
had been (ver. 8).—vidag rovvo] expresses not the probability merely (as
Matthies says), but the certainty that he knows.—ér: ameorpdgyodv pe} The
aorist passive has here the force of the middle voice; for the same con-
struction, comp. Tit. i. 14; Heb. xii. 25; see Wahl on the passage, and
Buttmann, p. 166 [E. T. 192]. The word does not denote the departure
of any one, but is equivalent to aversari, properly, “turn one’s counte-
nance away from any one,” and so “throw off inwardly the acquaintance
of any one.”’? Without reason, de Wette denies that it has this meaning
here. There is therefore in the verb no ground for the common opinion
that the zdvre¢ of év ry ’Aoig had been with Paul in Rome, and had again
returned to Asia (Matthies, de Wette, Wiecsinger). Nor is there more
ground in the term used for the subject; wdvre¢ of év rp 'Aoig are “ all who
are in (proconsular) Asia;” but, as a matter of course, that cannot mean
all the Christians there. Perhaps Paul was thinking only of his colleagues
who were then residing in Asia (Otto); but in that case he would surely
have designated them more precisely. It is possible that the construc-
tion has its explanation in the addition ov éorw iyeArog nat ‘Eppoyévyc,
viz.: “all the Asiatics, to whom belong Phygellus and Hermogenes.” In
any case, these two are named because they were the most conspicuous
in their unfaithfulness to the apostle. Paul gives no hint of it, and we
1Chrysostom: ov yap écriv avOpwrivns puxns 2So in the N. T., inthe LXX., the Apocry-
ovdé Suvduews, rovaita éumiotevOdvra apxéoac pha of the O. T., and the classical writers;
mpos trv dvAaxyy. comp. Otto, p. 283.
CHAP. I. 15-18. 217
can hardly think it probable that they were heretics, and that the other
Asiatics had also fallen away from the truth (Otto).
Vv. 16-18. With these unfaithful Asiatics, Paul contrasts the faithful-
ness of Onesiphorus, probably that he might place an example before
Timothy.—dd7 teog 6 xipcog TH ’Ovyoipdpov oixw] [XXIV b.] didévac éAeog does
not occur elsewhere in the N. T. Regarding the form 47, proper to
later Greek, see Buttmann, Ausfuhrl. Gramm. 3 107, Rem. 9; Winer, pp.
75 f. [E. T. p. 78]. By 6 xipsop we must understand Christ, according to
the usage of the N. T. Onesiphorus is named only here and at iv. 19.
Many expositors (also Hofmann) think that his household only is in both
passages mentioned, because he was no longer in life. This opinion is
confirmed by the way in which mercy is wished for him in ver. 18 (de
Wette).—Paul expressed such a wish because of the love that had been
shown him; re woAdAduicg pe avéprvée] avapbyew, properly, “cool,” then
“refresh, enliven ” (Od. iv. 568: grop), occurring only here in the N. T.
(more frequently in the LXX.; avayv£&c, Acts iii. 19), is not to be derived
from yy7 (Beza), but from piyw. De Wette, without ground, thinks that
a bodily refreshment of meat and drink only is meant; it should rather
be referred more generally to all proofs of love on the part of Onesiphorus.
These were all the more precious to the apostle that they were given to
him in his imprisonment, and proved that Onesiphorus was not ashamed
of his bonds (vv. 8, 12); this is expressed in the words that follow. On
dAvorv, comp. Eph. vi. 20.—Ver. 17. 4444] in opposition to the preceding
ovx.— yevdouevoc tv 'Pouy]| (comp. Matt. xxvi.6; Acts xiii. 5). Itis not said
what moved him to journey to Rome; it is mere conjecture to suppose
that it was business matters.—ozovdarérepov (Rec. Tisch. 8: orrovdaiws) élnrnaé
pe} The comparative is the right reading, and is to be explained by refer-
ring to r. dAvoiv pov ovx énacoxzivdn, “all the more eagerly” (Wiesinger,
Hofmann).—The ¢7reiv stands in sharp contrast with azeorpdgyody pe, ver.
15.—The addition of xai etipe brings out that Onesiphorus had sought him
till he found him.—Paul at first wished mercy only to the house of Onesi-
phorus; he now does the same to Onesiphorus himself.—Ver. 18. Mat-
thies, Wiesinger, Hofmann think that eipety ieo¢ is a play on words with
the preceding ecipe; but this is at least doubtful.—The repetition of xtépzo¢
is striking: 6 xipiog . .. mapa xvpiov. We can hardly take these to refer to
two different subjects (according to de Wette, the first being God, the
second Christ; according to Wiesinger and Hofmann, the very oppo-
site).—d xipioc here is in any case Christ, as in ver. 16, iv. 18 (certainly
not: “the world-ruling, divine principle,” Matthies). The apostle in what
follows might simply have said eipeiv gAeog év éx. tr. juépa; but in his men-
tal vision of the judgment, secing Christ as judge, he writes down mapa
xupiov Just as it occurs to him, without being anxious to remember that he
had begun with d¢57 aire 6 xiptog.1 The phrase ecipionew édscog tapa with
genitive does not occur elsewhere; only in the Song of the Three Chil-
dren, ver. 14, have we etpeiv Beo¢; in 2 John 8: éorac . . . eheog . . . rapa
1Van Oosterzee: “An inartistic form of expression, in which the second xvpos may be
taken for the reflective pronoun.” ;
218 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Gcov. As to the expression, we should compare especially Heb. iv. 16:
iva AdBupev EAeog nai ydpev edtpwyev (etpiox. yap, Luke i. 30; Acts vil. 46,
and often in the LXX. and the Apocrypha of the O. T.). On év éxeivg rg
nuépg, comp. ver. 12. This wish the apostle utters not only because of
the love Onesiphorus had shown him in Rome, but also because of what
he had done in Ephesus, of which, however, he does not wish here to
speak further, as it is well known to Timothy.—xai dca év 'Egéow dinxdvyce]
Heydenreich, Hofmann,! and some others supply poi, others roi¢ dyiosg ;
both are unnecessary. Even without supplying anything, we can of
course understand that he is speaking of services rendered in the church.
On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that Onesiphorus was
actually a didxovoc of the church.—éAriov od ywdoxerco] The adverb BéArcov
only here; the comparative does not simply stand for the positive, see
Winer, pp. 227 f. [E. T. p. 242]. There is a comparison implied here:
“than I could tell thee,” or the like.?
Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXIJ. Vv. 1, 2.
(a) The expression which is peculiar to the salutation of this Epistle, as com-
pared with any other, is xar’ éwayyediav Cwij¢. The preposition here is taken by
Grimm, Rob., and most of the recent commentators in the sense of purpose, object
or intention—to make known the promise of life. That it ordiparily in the N. T.
has, in such constructions, the sense of according to cannot be doubted. The ex-
amples quoted by Winer and others in support of the former meaning hardly seem
to be, in the full sense, parallel with the case here presented. They either suggest
the idea of motion, or, like one which Winer cites—xar ariuiav Aéyw—have the
preposition in the sense of by way of, or have some kindred peculiarity. It can-
not be denied, however, that the use of xaré as denoting direction towards an
object or purpose is a known use in Greek writers. The phrase xara viorvy in Tit.
i, 1 is a stronger case than the present one, as favoring this meaning in the
phrase améotodo¢ xara followed by an accusative. It may be said as to both cases,
that the presumption from Pauline and N. T. usage is strongly against this sense ;
that, in the verse before us, there is no special difficulty in explaining the words
with the ordinary sense of xara in such phrases—the promise of life is the funda-
mental thing, in conformity with which all offices in the church and all commis-
sions to preachers and messengers are given of God; and that, even in the case
of Tit. i. 1f, it is not impossible to assign to the preposition the same meaning,
because of the connection of faith with the eternal life promised by God, which
is there presented as being close and immediate. Still it must be admitted, that
it is much less probable that Paul would speak of himself as being an Apostle in
. accordance with the faith of men, than as being such in accordance with the will or
1 Hofmann supposes that those services are 20tto supposes that Onesiphorus was the
meant which Onesiphorus, after his return _ first to seek Paul out in his imprisonment,
from Rome to Ephesus, rendered tothe apos- _=and that he brought the news spoken of from
tle for the purpose of disarming the charges Ephesus; but these are conjectures which
that had brought him into prison. This, can hardly be called probable, as there is no
however, is a mere conjecture. ground on which to rest them.
NOTES. 219
command of God. Noyes translates by according toin 2 Tim. i. 1 and for in Tit.
i. 1, and this seems, not improbably, the best rendering. R. V., like A. V., has
according to in both cases.—(b) The discussions of some of the commentators as to
whether ayary7r@ (ver. 2) is not purposely used as indicating that Timothy, having
lacked in courage or faith since the first epistle, could not now be called yvfacos,
or (as Alf. presents it ina milder way) as showing more of love on Paul’s part,
indeed, but less of confidence, must be regarded as without any reasonable ground.
Paul must be allowed to have written his letters with the freedom with which men
of his free, ardent spirit write in all ages. He wrote yvfovo¢ twice in these three
epistles and ayamyré¢ once, instead of writing yvfowc three times, because he was
alive in the region of thought and affection, and not mechanically obedient to
grammarians and critics.
XXII. Vv. 3-5.
(a) The same freedom of a living writer is shown in the expression of thanks
in vv. 3 f. There are certain correspondences between this passage and the
thanksgiving at the beginning of the Ep. tothe Romans, but, when taken in con-
nection with the marked differences, they are not such as characterize an imitator
trying to pass off his work under the name of another, but a writer precisely like
the Apostle Paul, whose combination of similarities and dissimilarities in this way
is a most marked, and even inimitable, feature of his style—(b) Of the two ex-
planations which Huther allows for the meaning of a7d mpoyévwy, and which he
quotes from Buttmann and de Wette, the latter is the more probable: “The ser-
vice of the Apostle’s progenitors is continued in him.” With év xadapé ovvedd,
we may compare év TQ mvebuati wov of Rom. i. 9, though the meaning of the
phrases is not precisely the same.—(c) The explanation of the quite difficult and
involved sentence beginning with dev éyw and ending with the fifth verse, which
is given by Huther, Ellicott, and Wiesinger, is the one which commends itself.
This explanation makes the passage accord with the general expressions of thanks
which are found at the opening of different epistles, (1) in that it gives a ground
for the thankfulness in something which the Apostle hears or knows of the person
or persons addressed (here: since I have been reminded of the unfeigned faith
that is in thee); (2) in that it places the mentioning of the person addressed in
the writer’s prayers in just that relation to the thought and sentence, which it
ordinarily has in such passages; (3) in that it gives due subordination to the
secondary clauses éximodav x,17.A., weuv, x.T.A.; (4) in that it assigns to o¢ the
meaning as, instead of how which is far less natural. Had the Apostle intended
to refer to his unceasing remembrance, etc., as the ground of his thankfulness, he
would have used ér:, or have said how unceasingly I have, or how unceasing is ; (5)
in that it makes that which is evidently the thing for the bringing out of which
the sentence was written—the faith of Timothy, handed down to him, as it were,
from the previous generations—the cause of the feeling whose expression has the
first and prominent place in the sentence.—(d) The words peuynp, cov tov daxptuv
(ver. 4) are parenthetical as related to the clauses preceding and following, and
tva yapag tAnpwdd is to be connected with ézito0av oe ideiv, Tisch. 8th ed. unites
iva «7.4, with peuv. o. 7. daxp, W. and H. place a comma between these words and
daxptwv, but do not place one between them and tréuvyowv, Treg. places a comma
both before and after the iva clause. The text adopted by R. V. places a comma
before the clause, and a colon after it. The punctuation of Treg. is correct, if the
220 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
view of the construction just given is to be accepted. Against that given by Tisch.
mav be urged the naturalness and fitness of connecting iva with érizodav «.7.2.,
and the improbability (not to say, with Huther, impossibility) of the Apostle’s say-
ing, that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be filled with joy.
Against that of W. and H., the arguments presented by Huther in his note on ver. 5,
in opposition to Otto’s view, or the last two of them, are of so much force as to
make it quite improbable. That of R. V. is exposed to the objections which are
involved in the reasons given above for connecting t7éu, AaBov with éxw yapi.—
(e) AaZov (ver. 5), thus gives the ground of Paul’s thankfulness, and, being an
aor. part., refers to what he had already received. It seems better to suppose
that the reminding referred to had come to him through some messenger, or other
external means. It is much less probable that the remembrance of Timothy’s
tears (which were shed, we may believe, at the time of Paul’s parting from him,
and which therefore may have been in his recollection ever since), was the cause,
as Huther holds. Both the word tréuvqor¢ and the aor. part., as Holtzm. also says,
point to an outward, rather than an inward occasion. Alford, who with some
other writers, is disposed to find evidences everywhere that Timothy’s character
had much of weakness and timidity, supposes that there is an evidence of the
same thing here—the remembrance being of the past, and the present existence
_of the faith being only introduced, somewhat later, as a confident hope. The
baselessness of this view, so far as this passage is concerned, is shown by almost
every word in the sentence, which is full of affection and commendation ; by the
fact that the whole record of Timothy’s career, so far as the N. T. gives it, pre-
sents him as Paul’s most trusted associate and helper ; and by the correspondence
of this expression of thankfulness with the expressions of the same feeling in
other epistles—especially with that in Phil., which is the most affectionate letter
of all those which Paul addressed to the churches.
XXII. Vv. 6-14.
(a) The ydpioua of ver. 6 is that which was connected with his office asa
preacher. This is proved by the clause which follows, since that clause evidently
refers to Timothy’s ordination. This gift of the Holy Spirit the Apostle exhorts
him to stir up—avalwrupeiv meaning either to kindle up or kindle afresh, but, in
either case, not necessarily implying that the flame had died away or been extin-
guished. The entire exhortation of this passage can be accounted for as the
expression of the urgent desire which, in the circumstances in which he himself
was at the time, Paul may have felt that his younger friend should be earnest and
faithful in all the emergencies of his work. The appreciation of the trial which
would come upon his faithful helpers and companions, in case of his death, must
have been in his mind in view of the threatening possibilities of the future, and
he may, most naturally, have been impelled to urge them not to be ashamed of
the gospel, as he had not been, but, on the other hand, to stir up afresh the divine
gift which had been imparted to them, and to be ready to suffer hardship for the
gospel. That avatw7. does not imply that Timothy’s faith had failed, is indicated
by the words 6¢ fv alriav, which connect it immediately with the expression of
his confidence that the faith was still existing and with the allusion to the remind-
ing of it which he had received.—(b) yap (ver. 7) evidently introduces a reason
—which belongs to the very foundation of the Christian life—for the exhortation
NOTES. 221
of ver. 6. This reason is expressed on the positive and negative side. The word
juiv refers, probably, to all Christians, not to preachers only ; comp. Rom. viii. 15.
mvevua, in such phrases as this, is best taken as referring to the Holy Spirit
(though it cannot be affirmed that this is certainly the meaning), and the geni-
tives are characteristic gen. These words in the genitive, however, decAiac, duva-
peux, x.T.A., indicate the results which come (or, as detAiag, do not come) from the
Spirit,—that is, the Spirit is so characterized because He produces these results.
—(c) With éraoxuvdi¢ x.7.A. (ver. 8) comp. Rom. i. 16. With some of the words
of vv. 9,10, comp. Eph. i.11; ii. 7,9; Rom. xv. 16, xvi. 25 f., and other passages.
Whether there is a special reference here to the desired coming of Timothy to
Rome, or whether the meaning is more general, is doubtful. But, as there is no
distinct allusion to a visit to Rome and no apparent necessity of limiting the words
in their application, it is better to adopt the latter view. If the reference is gen-
eral, cvyxaxoradyoov must be understood in a similar way. This suffering of evil
was to be for the gospel, and with Paul (ctv), but not merely by sharing in his
work or trials in Rome.—(d) xara dvvayev is best explained in connection with the
following words, and thus as denoting God’s power in salvation. So Ell, Alf,
Fairb., Bib. Com., Wiesinger and others. Holtzm., de W.,.and others agree with
Huther. The addition of the full description of the divaycs as displayed in sal-
vation is apparently for the purpose of enforcing the exhortation p) évaawy. x.7.A,
Vv. 9. 10, accordingly, both “ bring into prominence the div. Seov”” (Wiesinger),
and “strengthen the exhortation of ver. 8” (Huther).—(e) pd xpdévuv aiwviuy
(ver. 9). The similarity between the expressions here and in Rom. xvi. 26 f.
makes it almost certain, that, in this phrase, the Apostle refers to the purpose of
God, in eternity past, to bestow grace in Christ. In the sense of being thus pur-
posed and determined, the grace was already given. But it was not yet mani-
fested. The manifestation and real bestowment of it took place when Christ
uppeared. The word excgdveca is, as Huther remarks, found in this place only as
referring to the appearance of Christ in the flesh. But the corresponding verb
occurs, with a similar reference, in Tit. ii. 1. Comp. also Tit. iii. 4, 5, in which
verses there are further points of similarity with this passage—(f) The use of
xatapyioavtoc with Trav 9évarov (ver. 10), a8 compared with 1 Cor. xv. 26, indicates
a reference to death as a power or enemy of the kingdom of God and His people.
The use of the word gwricavrog in the contrasted clause implies a revelation of
something unknown to their minds. The two words together seem to suggest 2
destruction of the power of death through this revelation, and thus a removal of
that power, not only in itself as in 1 Cor. xv., but also in its influence and terror
for the Christian believer. The word Sdvarog here has, primarily and of itself, the
sense of physical death, but, in its connection with the following words, it suggests
that which attends upon physical death as a consequence in the future.
(g) The reference in dv’ fv airiav (ver. 12) is not to éréSnv éy@ x.7.A. considered
in itself alone, but to the fact that Paul’s appointment as a preacher was related
to the proclamation of such a glorious truth so wonderfully exhibiting the power
of God. In this way, the connection of the entire passage iv.8 ff becomes clearly
manifest.—(h) The meaning of wapadfx7v of ver. 12, if determined by the pre-
ceding context, would seem, most naturally, to be the dtaxovia or ydptopa which had
been bestowed upon the Apostle. If determined by the fact that pov is added
here, and not in other places where the word occurs; that the adjective xaA#v, on the
other hand, is not here added, as it is elsewhere; and that God is spoken of in this
222 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
verse, as He is not in the other passages, as guarding (¢vAdfar) the wapadyxny
“against that day” (in the other cases Timothy is exhorted to guard it), the word
would seem to mean something committed by Paul to God, rather than something
committed by God to Paul. If, finally, it is to be determined by the rapadjop of
ver. 14, and that word by the corresponding word in 1 Tim. vi. 20 (see note XX g.
above), the meaning will be the truth which is preached—that which appertains to
the gospel. The considerations suggested in connection with the second way of
explaining the word strongly support that explanation.—(z) It will be observed
that the allusion to the tyaivovreg Adyot in this passage occurs only in ver. 13.
The fact that it does occur in this verse makes it altogether probable that apa-
Oqx7v of ver. 14 corresponds in meaning exactly with tapad4x7 of 1 Tim. vi. 20.
The fact, on the other hand, that these words do not occur until ver. 13 may easily
account for a difference in the application of tapad4xyv of ver. 12 from that which
is made in ver. 14. The objection suggested by Huther and some others against
giving mapa’. a different reference in the two verses of this chapter is thus
removed.
XXIV. Vv. 15-18.
(a) The abandonment of Paul by the persons alluded to in these verses, and
the grateful mention of the friend who had aided and comforted him in his
imprisonment, are inserted here as matters personal to himself, of which he might
easily and naturally write in a personal, friendly letter. Perhaps the reason
of their insertion may be partly, also, the desire to give emphasis to his urgent
request to Timothy which is presented in the preceding part of the chapter.
That the latter object was in the Apostle’s mind is, possibly, indicated by the
opening verses of the second chapter.—(b) That Onesiphorus was dead at the
time of the writing of this letter is not improbable, but it is by no means certain.
The indication of anything like praying for the dead, in the doctrinal sense of that
phrase, must be admitted to be very questionable. Whether there is any such
indication depends on whether Onesiphorus had already died, which cannot be
proved, and whether, if he had died, this expression of a wish must be under-
stood as, strictly speaking, a prayer for the dead, which also cannot be proved.
The doctrine, therefore, is weak in both of its foundations, and it cannot be rested
upon this passage. Onesiphorus probably had been, or, if still living, was, a resi-
dent of Ephesus; but even if living, he was now absent from his home, comp.
iv. 19.
CHAP. II. 223
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 3. In place of ov obv kaxordtyncov, we should read cvyxaxoré6yoov, which
is supported by the weightiest authorities, and adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.
It is found in A C* D* E* FG RB 17, 31, al., Vulg. It. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. (zil-
das. The Rec. is found apart from K L only in the altered text of C D E, and
especially in the Greek Fathers, for which reason Reiche regards it as the origi-
nal reading. Probably the beginning of ver. 1 gaveoccasion to the alteration,
which was also recommended by the lack of any word to which the prefixed pre-
position refers. Even the occurrence in some Mss. of the reading ovvorpariarys
for otpatcdrne is a proof that ovyxaxor. is original.'—For 'Ijoov Xprorod we should
read Xprorov 'Inoov, following the weightiest authorities—Ver. 4. The words To
Geg added to orparevéuevog in some Mss., etc., have arisen from a misapprehen-
sion; the apostle is speaking not of God’s foes, but of foes in general.—Ver. 6.
The reading zpérepov in ® for tpazov seems to be a mere correction.—Ver. 7. 4
Aéyw] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly read 6 Afyw, after AC F G, 17, al., Chrys.; 4
is a correction, in order to bring out a reference to the three previous sentences.—
ddcer] for déy, after A C* D E F GB 17, al., Copt. Arm. etc., Ambrosiast. Pel.
etc.; dy is explained from i. 17, 18.—Ver. 12. For apvotyeba we find in A C sev-
eral cursives, translations, and Fathers, the future apvyodue$a, which Lachm.
Buttm. and Tisch. adopted; the presents (i7opuévopev; amcorovuev) seem to be in
favor of our adopting the present here; but the very same reason might have
suggested the alteration of the future into the present.—Ver. 13. After apvycao3a
we should read ydp, according to the weightiest authorities, and this Griesb.
adopted into the text.—Ver. 14. roi xupiov] Instead of this, C F G & 37, al., Copt.
Arm. etc., Chrys. Theoph. etc., have tov Ocov (Tisch. 8); but rov xupiov is the
original reading ; the correction may be explained from 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. iv.
1.—Instead of the infinitive Aoyouayeiv (C*** DE F G K L®, the cursives, several
versions, etc., Tisch.), we find Aoyoud ye: in A C* Aeth. Vulg. etc. (Lachm. Buttm.).
According to the former reading, the verb Aoyou. is dependent on dazaprupduevog ;
according to the latter, dtauapr. is connected with what precedes, and Aoyoud yee
begins a new imperative clause. For the decision on the point, see the explana-
tion of the verse.—Ei¢ ovdév] A C, 17, al., have én’ ovdév (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.) ;
F GR (first hand), Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pelag. etc., é’ ovdevi yap. Of these
various readings, least can be said for é7’ ovdev? yap; it seems to have arisen from
an endeavor to form these words in the same way as those that follow; even the
yép is only an insertion by way of explanation. Of the two others, é7’ ovdév is to
be preferred as the less usual form; et¢ ovdév occurs elsewhere in the N. T., and
ebypnotos, especially in iv. 11, is construed with ci¢.—Ver. 19. ® has évrac before
tovg bvrac, probably a later addition.—xvpiov for Xpiorov was rightly adopted by
1To Reiche’s remark: Quomodo in unius __ be replied that the scribe was probably in-
Codicis D lectione cuvetparwrys lIectionis duced by the previous cvyxax. to prefix ovy
ovyxaxom. praesidium sit, non video, it may also before the word orparwrns.
224 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Griesb.—Ver. 21. jy:acpévov, ebxpyotov, instead of jy:acpy. nal etyp., after A C#*
D* E* F G, etc.—Ver. 22. Between era and rév there is found tdvrwy (Lachm.
Buttm.) in A C F G 17, 28, al., Aeth. Slav. ete., Chrys. Theodoret, etc.; F G fur-
ther omit the article 7év. Since zdvre¢ stands in the same expression at Rom.
xi. 12, 1 Cor. i. 2, it seems to have been inserted from these passages. Tisch.
omits tévrwy, on the authority of DEK L, al, Vulg. Copt. Syr. ete.—Ver. 25.
For 69, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly read dq’y, after A C D* FG ® (first
hand), 31, al., Ephr. Chrys. ms, Isidor.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note XXV., pages 241-243.] After interrupting
his exhortations by an allusion to the unfaithful Asiatics and to the faith-
ful Onesiphorus, Paul with cot resumes his exhortations to Timothy, at the
same time connecting them by otv with those already given. [XXV a.]
In the first place, he now appeals to him : évduvayod év rp xd pite TH Ev Xp. 'I70.]
[XXV b.] évdvvayoveSa: does not mean : “ feel oneself strong,” nor : “ depend
on something ” (Heydenreich) ; but: “ become strong, grow strong” (see
Eph. vi. 10). The active voice is found in iv. 17 and 1 Tim. i. 12. As the
apostle sees the end of his labors draw nearer, he is the more anxious
that Timothy, for whom he has the warmest paternal love (réxvov pov),
should become a stronger and bolder champion for the Lord.—é» ra yépir:)
may either be a completion of the idea of évdvvayov (Wiesinger), or define
it more precisely (van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). The second view is
the correct one: Timothy is to become strong by the yépe 7 év Xp., that
he may be capable of discharging faithfully the office entrusted to him;
comp. the passage in Eph. vi. 10.—} yxdprc 4 év Xp. I.) is not the office of
teacher (Calovius and others), nor is it equivalent to ydpoua, i.6; on the
other hand, it is not “the life imparted by divine grace,” nor “ the redemp-
tion” of the Christian (Wiesinger) ; it is objectively the grace dwelling in
Christ, the grace of Jesus Christ, or better: “the grace obtained for us in
the person of Christ ’’ (Hofmann).—é» is explained by Chrysostom and
others as equivalent to 6:4; this is not incorrect, only that é indicates a
more internal relation than dé. The believer lives tn the grace which is
in Christ; the strengthening to which Timothy is exhorted can only be
effected by his abiding in this grace.
Ver. 2. While ver. 3 corresponds with the first verse, ver. 2 seems to con-
tain a thought foreign to this connection. But as the contest to which
Paul is exhorting Timothy, consists substantially in the undaunted preach-
ing of the pure gospel and in the rejection of all heresy, it was natural for
him to exhort Timothy to see that others were armed with the word for
which he was to strive. The true warrior must care also for his compan-
ions in the fight.—xai & fKxovea¢g wap’ Euot | (comp. 1.18: dia roAAdy papripur).
These words belong immediately to jxoveac ; Heydenreich is wrong in sup-
plying paprupotueva or BeBacobyeva. According to Clemens Alexandrinus,
Hypotyp. i. 7, Oecumenius, Grotius, and others, uéprupes is equivalent to
vouo¢ Kat mpogyrai, for which there is as little justification as for the opinion
that the other apostles are meant. The preposition dé is explained by
Winer, p. 354 [E. T. p. 378]: “ intervenientibus multis testibus, with tnter-
CHAP. II. 1-3. 225
vention, i.e. here in presence of many witnesses’ (so, too, the more recent
expositors). Right; but d:é4 is not equivalent to évémwy (1 Tim. vi. 12). Acé
intimates that the witnesses were present to confirm the apostle’s word,
or, as Wiesinger says, “ that their presence was an integral element of that
act to which the apostle is alluding.’”—According to Matthies, van Ooster-
zee, Hofmann, the apostle is thinking here of his public discourses on
doctrine ; but the whole character of the expression, particularly also the
otherwise superfluous addition of dca roAAdév waprbpwr, make it more prob-
able that the words refer to a definite fact, the fact spoken of in 1 Tim. iv.
14; 2 Tim. i. 6(Wiesinger). In that case, the pdprupec are the presbyters
and other members of the church who were present at Timothy’s ordina-
tion. Mack rightly directs attention to 1 Tim. iv. 14; but he is wrong in
explaining dia papt. by bia mpogyreiac, “in consequence of many testimo-
nies.”—ravra rapddouv miotoig avdparoc] [XXV c.] Heydenreich: “ this
doctrine commit to faithful keeping and further communication as a
legacy, as a precious jewel” (comp. Herod. ix. 45: rapadgxnv ipiv ré rea
tade tidenat); but the expression 4 7xovea¢ does not refer so much to the
whole of evangelic doctrine as to the instructions given to Timothy for
the discharge of his office.—zcotoi¢ av9 proc} not “ believing,” but “ faith-
ful, trustworthy ” men.—viriveg ixavoi goovrat nai érépove didaéac] Heydenreich
thinks that this denotes a second quality of those to be instructed by
Timothy, a quality in addition to their “honest sense,” viz. their capacity
for teaching ; but oirzvec, which, as contrasted with the simple relative pro-
noun, refers to a subject undefined, but in various ways definablce,' points
back to moroic, 80 that the meaning is: “who as such,” etc. The future
éoovra: does not stand in the same sense as the present, but denotes their
capacity as one depending on the tradition to be imparted to them (“as
the consequence of the raparideada,’”’ Wiesinger). The xai before érépove
is not to be overlooked; “ others too,” ze. “others in turn.” Who are
the érepo.? According to the common presupposition, with which van
Oosterzee also agrees, the érepor are the church, or more generally the
hearers of the preaching of the gospel. But in this view the xai, which
does not belong to érépoue diddfac (Hofmann), but to érépove, 18 inexplicable ;
itis more probable that Paul means other moroi dv3pura (de Wette, Wies-
inger). Paul gathered round him pupils to whom he gave instructions in
regard to their office; they, too, are todo the same; those chosen by them
the same in their turn, etc., that in the church there may abide a stock
of apostolic men who will see to the propagation of pure doctrine.—The
words dia roAAGy papripwv show that there is no thought of a secret doc-
trine; nor is he speaking of the regular employment of teachers who, in
the absence of Timothy, are to take his place in the church at Ephesus,
“ne sine episcopo vaga oberret ecclesia ” (Heinreichs).
Ver. 3. Svyxaxoré@ycov] [XXV d.] Timothy is not to shun a community
of suffering with the apostle, i. 8, 12, 16.—d¢ xado¢ orparidrns "Incov Xpiorov]
orpariorne stands elsewhere in the N. T. only in its proper sense, but, as is
1See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 387.
15
226 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
well known, the kindred words orpareia, orpareiecOa:, are often used of the
Christian life. Here, however, the apostle is speaking not generally of
Timothy’s work as a Christian, but more specially of his work in the office
committed to him, viz. of his struggle against the opponents of evangelic
truth and the toils connected therewith. [XX V°-e.]
Ver. 4. “ Hoc versu commendatur ré abstine; accedit versu seq. ré sus-
tine ” (Bengel).—oideic orparevéuevoc] alludes to orpariorn¢: “no one serving
as a soldier” (de Wette); comp. 1 Tim. 1. 18.—éymAéxerar raig rov Biov mpay-
pateiac'] éurdéxeobac elsewhere only in 2 Pet. ii. 20.—payyareia:] occurs
only here in the N. T. (the verb rpayyaretecba:, Luke xix. 13); ai roi Biov
mpayu. are the occupations which form means of livelihood; Heydenreich:
“the occupations of the working class as opposed to those of the soldier
class.’—From these the orparevéuevoc abstains iva 1@ otpatoAoyhoavte aptoy]
orparodoynoac (only here), from oroarodoyeiv: “ gather an army, raise troops,”
is a term for a general.—Only that soldier who gives himself up entirely
to military service, and does not permit himself to be distracted by other
things, only he fulfills the general’s will. The application to the orpartiarne
"Ino. Xp. is self-evident; he, too, is to devote himself entirely to his service,
and not to involve himself in other matters which might hinder him in
his proper calling. The literal interpretation, according to which the
apostle or preacher should take no concern whatever in: civil affairs, is
contradicted by Paul’s own example; according to the precept here
given, he is to avoid them only when they are a hindrance to the duties
of his office.
Ver. 5. A new thought is added, that the contender who wishes to be
crowned must contend vopipwe.—éar 62 nai a0A% Tic} xai connects this thought
with what precedes: “if one, too, does not permit himself to be kept
from the struggle by other occupations; ”? but the figure here is different
from that we had in ver. 4, a0Aciv (ar. Acy. in the N. T.) denoting the con-
test in running, to which the Christian calling is often compared; comp.
iv. 7, 8; 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25.—od oredavovrat, av ) vouipywe alAjoy|] The runner,
in order to gain the prize, must in the contest adhere to its definite rules.
Theodoret : kai 4 aOAnriny véuovc Exe Tivac, KaP ob¢ mpoohner tov abAntrac aywvl-
Seatac’ 6 dé mapa totrove radaluy, tov oteddvur diayaptévet. In this, too, accord-
ing to 1 Cor. ix. 25, éyxparebecfa: should be observed.® The word vopluorc
occurs only here and in 1 Tim. i. 8—The thought contained in it is this,
that Timothy, in order to share in the reward, must conduct himself in
his evangelic warfare according to the laws of his evangelic office.
Ver. 6. To the two foregoing sentences Paul adds still another, expressed
figuratively : rév xomiavra yewpydv det mpatov x.t.A. Many expositors assume
1 Ambros, de Offie. i. 1: ia, qui imperatori
militat, a susceptionibus litium, actu nego-
tiorum forensium, venditione mercium pro-
hibetur humanis legibus.—Athan. Dict. et
Interpr. Parab. S. Ev. qu. 119: ei yap émcyecp
BaciArAet O eAAwy otpareverGar ovx apdoa, day
Ba adijon sdvas ras Tov Biov ppovridas, réoy
waGAAOY pdAAwy oTpaTevOjvas Te érovpari
Bacwret ;5x
Hofmann denies this connection of
thought, maintaining wrongly that «ai could
only have this meaning if the apostle had
continued to use the same figure.
8Comp. Galen, Comm. in Hippoer. i. 15: of
CHAP. II. 4-6. 227
that there is here an inversion of phrase, and explain the words as equiva-
lent to rév yewpydv, Komi@vTa mparov, del Tov Kaprav perad., or as Wahl and
Winer (in the earlier editions of his Grammar) put it, rév yewpyov, tov GéAovTa
TOV KapTaov pertad., dei mpaTov KoTidv, SO that mparoy is attached to xomgy in
meaning, and the sentence contains an exhortation; Beza: necesse est
agricolam, ut fructus percipiat, prius laborare. Heinrichs, on the other
hand, remarks: nihil attinet, mutare quidquam, aut transponere, dum-
modo rpoérov cum Grotio adverbialiter pro ita demum dictum putemus,
emphasinque ponamus in rév xomvra. But this explanation of mpéarov
cannot be justified. Matthies, de Wette, and others reject the supposition
of any inversion, and explain zpdroy as “ first before all others,” so that
the meaning would be: “as the husbandman first enjoys the fruits of the
field, so, too, has the servant of the gospel a notable reward to expect for
his work ” (de Wette); but this thought diverges entirely from that con-
tained in vv. 4, 5, and neglects, besides, the emphasis laid on xomévra.—
It is accordingly to be explained: Not every one, but that husbandman
who toils hard at his work, is first to enjoy the fruits; Wiesinger: “the
working farmer has the right of first enjoying the fruits, not he who does
not work; therefore, if thou dost wish to enjoy the fruits, work.” So, too,
van Oosterzee. Hofmann, against this explanation, upholds the meaning
of det, which does not express what ought to happen, but what must happen,
in so far as it lies in the nature of things. Ae certainly has this meaning
of necessity (not that of duty); but if xomé»ra be regarded as furnishing
the condition under which the husbandman tilling the ground must,
before all others, be partaker of the fruits of the ground tilled, then dei
in the former explanation presents no difficulty ; in this case it cannot be
said, with Hofmann, that the zpérov is meaningless. It is to be observed
that xom:évra does not contrast the husbandman who works with the hus-
bandman who does not work, but the husbandman who works hard with
the husbandman who carries on his work Jazily—Hofmann, in interpret-
ing the sentence as declaring that Timothy must bear everything, whether
good or bad, that arises from his work, departs from the figure, which
clearly does not say that the husbandman must content himself alike
with good fruit and with weeds, but rather that in the nature of things
the husbandman should before all others enjoy the fruit for which he has
labored. It is incorrect, with Theodoret and Oecumenius, to understand
nparov of the preference over the pupil which is the teacher’s due; or to
find in the words of the apostle the thought that the teacher must appro-
priate to himself the fruits of the spirit which he wishes to impart to
others. Even Chrysostom rightly rejected the opinion,’ that here the
yupvactai cei ot voulpes abAdovrres éwi pey
Tov apiotov toy aprow povoy egGiovar, eri be
Trou Seiwvov ro xpdas.
1This opinion is also brought forward by
Otto, who refers all three sentences to anxiety
regarding bodily wants, as if Timothy had
become careless in his office through fear of
suffering want in it. This, however, is a re-
proof which cannot be justified. Van Ooster-
vee rightly says: It is undoubtedly a Pauline
principle that the teacher has a right to
suitable support from the church; but this is
not the principle taught here.
228 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
apostle is speaking of the bodily support due to the teacher; but he
himself gives the words a wrong subsidiary sense when he thinks that
Paul wishes to console Timothy regarding the preference shown in the
reward.
Ver. 7. [XXV /f.] As he has been expressing his exhortations in figura-
tive gnomes, Paul thus continues: vée 6 Aéyw}] which does not refer imme-
diately to the thoughts expressed, as Heydenreich, Matthies, and others
think, but to the form of expression. It does not mean, therefore: “lay
these exhortations to heart,” but: “mark or understand what I say” (de
Wette); comp. Matt. xxiv. 15; Eph. iii. 4, 20; so, too, Hofmann, only
that he for no sufficient reason refers the words merely to the last sen-
tence. Plitt is of opinion that the apostle is intending thereby to give a
quite general warning against misconceptions; but this would be an
arbitrary disturbance of the connection of ideas.—To this exhortation
Paul confidently adds that God will not fail to bestow on Timothy under-
standing in this and all other points; ydp here, as elsewhere, is a particle
of explanation.—év maot belongs to this verse, and not, as Sam. Battier
thinks, to the following one.
Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-13, see Note XXVI., page 243.] Munudveve 'Iycobv
Xptorév] pvnpovebe is usually followed by the genitive; but the accusative
is found both here and at 1 Thess. ii. 9. Timothy is to remember Jesus
Christ, that he may gain the proper strength for discharging his official
duties—to remember especially His resurrection, in which He triumphed
over sufferings and death, and in which is contained for the believer the
seal of his victory;' hence Paul adds: éyzyepuévov éx vexpav, “as one who
rose from the dead.” [XXVI a.]—The added asyndeton: é omépparog
Aafid, does not denote the humiliation, but the Messianic dignity of
Christ.2/ The antithetical relation between the two clauses is here the
same as in Rom. i. 3, 4 (é« or. AaBid . . . && avacrdoewe vexpov), where it is
distinctly marked by xaré odpxa .. . xataé mvevya. Hofmann incorrectly
makes both é« orépy. A. and éx vexpov depend on éy7zyepyévov; in that case
the verb would have to be taken in two different senses; besides, é« r.
oxépu. is nowhere found in connection with éyeipecfaz. There is nothing
to indicate (Wiesinger) that éx orépu. AaBid is an antithesis “to the docetic
error of the heretics” (van Oosterzee). Heydenreich rightly rejected the
secondary references which many expositors give to these words, such as:
that they indicate a similarity between the vicissitudes of Christ’s life and
those of David; or that they are to serve as a proof of the certainty of
Christ’s resurrection (Michaelis); or that they denote the whole state of
1 Hofmann wrongly maintains that “the
remembrance of Jesus Christ was not to be a
pledge to Timothy of his victory over all he
had to encounter for Christ's sake, but only
to make him willing to endure.” Such wil-
lingness could only have come to him from
the conviction that the victory of Christ was
a pledge of victory to the believer.
3Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 118 f.):
“Timothy being disinclined to suffer for the
gospel’s sake, the apostle reminda him that
through death Jesus attained to the heavenly
glory, to which He had a right through His
descent from the line of David.”—Van Oos-
terzee incorrectly assumes that é« owdpu. A.
simply denotes the human origin of Jesus.
The apostle clearly goes beyond this in men-
tioning David oy name.
CHAP. 1. 7-10. 229
Christ’s humiliation (Mosheim), and so on.—The added words: xara ré
evayyédidy pov, may be referred either to pvqpydveve x.r.A. (Hofmann), or to the
attributes of 'Ijc. Xpiordv. The latter reference is the more probable one;
Paul, as a rule, does not use the formula xara@ 1d evayy. to denote the rule
for the believer’s conduct, but to confirm a truth he has expressed (comp.
Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 1 Tim.i.11). To refer it only to é omépy. A. is arbi-
trary. Still more arbitrary is Jerome’s opinion, that Paul by ré evayy. pov
means the gospel of Luke (Baur).
Ver. 9. In this verse Paul again, as before, points to his own example,
in order to encourage Timothy to the ovyxaxorafeiy r@ evayyeriy, i. 8, ii. 3.
—iv »] [X XVI 0.] according to Paul’s manner, refers to evayyé™ov imme-
diately preceding, and not to the more distant 'I7cotv Xpuordv. The prepo-
sition év is not equivalent to dé, Col. iv. 8 (Heydenreich). Matthies
presses the original signification too far when he gives the interpretation :
“‘the gospel is, as it were, the ground and soil in which his present lot is
rooted.” Beza rightly gives the meaning thus: cujus annuntiandi munere
defungens; de Wette says: “in preaching which.” Comp. Phil. iv. 3;
1 Thess. ii. 2. Hofmann incorrectly explains év by “‘in consequence of,”
which év never does mean, not even in 1 Tim. i. 18.—xaxoza9@] is an allu-
sion to ver. 3.—éxpe deouov} comp. Phil. ii. 8: wéyxpe Savdrov.— Qe xaxoip-
yoc directs attention to the criminal aspect of Paul’s bonds, and thereby
strengthens the xaxora¥a péxpe deopav.' The word xaxovpyog occurs only
here and in Luke’s gospel; it is synonymous with xaxozotds, 1 Pet. iv. 14.
—aAr’ é Adyog Tov Geov ov déderac] [X XVI c.] Chrysostom explains it:
decpovvrar pév ai yeipes, GAN’ ovy 4 yAarra; comp. Phil. i. 12. The meaning
according to this would be: ‘the bonds do not, however, hinder me from
freely preaching the gospel.” But this limitation is not contained in the
words themselves; they have rather the more general meaning: “though
I (to whom the gospel is entrusted) am bound, the gospel itself is not
thereby fettered, but goes freely forth into the world and works unfettered ”
(2 Thess. iii. 1: 6 Adyog rov xvpiov tpéyer). This 1s the very reason of
the apostle’s joy in his bonds, that Christ is preached; comp. Phil. i.
18. This connection of ideas does not, however, compel us to take da
rovro with these words (Hofmann). If so connected, dia rovro would
rather appear to be a modification added loosely ; besides, Paul never
places it at the end of a sentence—Some have wrongly understood by
é Ady. r. 8. here, the divine promises, and have taken ov déderac to mean
that these do not remain unfulfilled.
Ver. 10. Aca rovro] Bengel: “ quia me vincto evangelium currit.” Hey-
denreich wrongly refers it at the same time to the reward to which ver. 8
alludes. The knowledge that the gospel is unfettered in its influence
enables Paul to endure all things for the sake of the éxAexroi. Ad rovre
cannot be referred to what follows (Wiesinger), because of the d:a roic
éxAccrotc ; it would be another thing if wa «.7.A. were joined immediately
1 Otto, opposed to Wieseler, rightly remarks as to an increase in the severity of his
that these words do not justify any inference imprisonment.
230 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
With tropévw; but even in that case the “ abrupt transition ” would still be
an objection.—rdvra imopévw] bmouévecy does not denote suffering pure and
simple, but the willing, stedfast endurance of it.—By adding to rdvra
imopéva the words dia roic¢ éxdentotc, explained by the succeeding
clause, Pay declares that he patiently endured everything for the sake of
the éxAexroi, because he knows that the gospel is not bound—is not made
ineffectual—by his bonds. Were it otherwise, were the gospel hindered
in its influence by his suffering, then he would not endure for the sake of
the éxdexroi. Hofmann has no grounds, therefore, for thinking that the
connection of da rovro with the sentence following it would give an
impossible sense. It is wrong to supply «at before did r. é«a. (Heyden-
reich), as if these words furnished an additional reason to that contained
in da Tovro.—vi éxAexroi] This name is given to believers, inasmuch as the
deepest ground of their faith is the free choice of God (i. 9). Heydenreich
leaves it indefinite whether “ Christians already converted” are meant
here, or “ those elected to be future confessors of Christianity ; ” so, too,
Matthies; de Wette, on the other hand, understands only the latter,
whereas Grotius and Flatt think only of the former. The words them-
selves do not prove that Paul had any such distinction in mind; xa? abroi
does not necessarily imply a contrast with present believers (de Wette),
but may be quite well used in relation to the apostle himself, who was con-
scious of the owrrpia attained in Christ (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Comp.
especially Col. i. 24, where the apostle places his suffering in relation to
the éxxAycia, as the capa tov Xpiorov of which the éxdexroi are members.'
In how far the apostle bears his afflictions dé rove éxA., is told by the
words: iva xai avroi owrnpiac trhywor tio év Xp. "Incov. The question how
the apostle might expect this result from his wévra bropévery, cannot be
answered by saying, with Heinrichs: “as he hoped to be freed from his
sufferings; ” the result was to be effected not by a release, but by the
patient endurance of the suffering, inasmuch as this bore testimony to
the genuineness and strength of his faith, not, as van Oosterzee thinks,
because the apostle stedfastly continued to preach. The apostle’s suffer-
ing for the gospel was itself a preaching of the gospel. We must, of
course, reject the notion that Paul regarded his sufferings as making
atonement for sin, like those of Christ—The addition pera déén¢ aiwviov
points to the future completion of the salvation. It directs special atten-
tion to an element contained in the cuwrnpia, and does not contrast the
positive with the negative conception (Heydenreich).
Vv. 11-13. In order to arouse the courage of faith, Paul has been direct-
ing attention to the resurrection of Christ and to His own example; he
now proceeds, in a series of short antithetical clauses, to set forth the rela-
tion between our conduct here and our condition hereafter. This he
introduces with the words morég 6 Adyoe. [XXVId.] The yép following
1Hofmann rightly remarks: “The apostle sponsibility, if he did not help those destined
names those towards whom he has to fulfill for salvation to that for which God ordained
hia calling, for the elect’s sake, because this them.”
designation denotes the heaviness of his re-
CHAP. I. 11-13. 231
seems, indeed, to make the words a confirmation of the thought previ-
ously expressed, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt); but Paul only uses this formula to con-
firm a general thought. There is, however, no general thought in the
preceding words, where Paul is speaking only of his own personal cir-
cumstances. Hence the formula must, as in 1 Tim. 1. 15, iii. 1, be referred
here to what follows, and yép explained by “namely” (so, too, van
Oosterzee)—We cannot say for certain whether the sentences following
are really strophes from a Christian hymn! or not; still it is not improba-
ble that they are, all the more that the same may be said of 1 Tim. iii. 16.
The first sentence runs: ei ovvareddvopev Kai ovvjoouev| ovv refers to Christ,
expressing fellowship, and not merely similarity. De Wette points us to
Rom. vi. 8 for an explanation of the thought; but the context shows that
he is not speaking here of spiritual dying, the dying of the old man,
which is the negative element of regeneration (against van Oosterzee), but
of the actual (not merely ideal) dying with Christ. In other words, he is
speaking of sharing in the same sufferings which Christ endured (so also
Hofmann), and whose highest point is to undergo death. The meaning
therefore is: “if we in the faith of Christ are slain for His sake ;” comp.
Phil. iii. 10; also Rom. viii. 17; Matt. v.11; John xv. 20, and other pas-
sages. The aorist ovvareddvopuev is either to be taken: “if we have entered
into the fellowship of His death,” or it denotes the actual termination:
“if are are dead with Him, we shall also live with Him.”—ovfjoopev, cor-
responding to ovvareSdvouev, is not used of the present life in faith, but of
the future participation in Christ’s glorified life (so, too, Hofmann) ; comp.
1 Thess. v. 10.—Ver. 12. The second sentence runs: e tropévouev, kai
ovpBaciretoouev| This sentence corresponds with the previous one in both
members; comp. Rom. vill. 17, where ovuprdoye and ovvdofacdapuev are
opposed to one another. On ovufac., comp. Rom. v. 17 (év Cw BaccAeboovor) ;
it denotes participation in the reign of the glorified Messiah.? Like death
and life, so are enduring and reigning placed in contrast.—The third sen-
tence is a contrast with the two preceding: e dpyyadueda, 8c. Xpirdv]
comp. Matt. x. 33; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4; used here specially of the verbal
denial of Christ, made through fear of suffering. «xaxeivog dpvjoerae judg :
“he will not recognize us as His own,” the result of which will be that we
remain in a state without grace and without blessing. The meaning of
this sentence is confirmed by ver. 13.—ei amorovpev, éxeivog morc pévec|
amoreiv does not mean here: “ not believe, be unbelieving ’”’® (Mark xvi.
11,16; Acts xxviii. 24), but—in correspondence with apveioda:—“ be un-
faithful,” which certainly implies lack of that genuine faith from which
the faithful confession cannot be separated. In Rom. iii. 3 also, unbelief
'MOGnter, Ueber die dlteste christliche Poesie,
p. 29, and Paulus, Memorahilia, i. 109.
The cv¢nyv begins for the believer imme-
diately after his death (Phil. i. 23; comp.
also Luke xxiii. 43); the cupBacrevery not
till after Christ's sapevoia; comp. Hofmann.
3Such is the explanation of Chrysostom,
who gives Christ's resurrection as the sub-
ject of unbelief: «i amorovper, bre avéotn,
ovdéwy amd ftovrov BAdrrerac éxeivos, and
assigns to apyicacba yap éaur. ov buy. the
strange signification of ov« éxec dice wh elvat,
232 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
and unfaithfulness go together, since the people of Israel, to whom the
Aéyta Gcov were given, showed themselves unfaithful to God by rejecting
the promised Messiah, and this after God had chosen them for His
people.—éxeivog miordg péver] meoréds can only mean “ faithful.” The faith-
fulness of the Lord is shown in the realization of His decree—both in
acknowledging and in rejecting; the context preceding shows that the
latter reference predominates.—The next words confirm this truth:
Gpvfcac9ar yap éavrdv ov divara, which declare the amoria of the Lord to
be an impossibility, since it involves a contradiction of Himself, of His
nature.
Ver. 14. [On Vv. 14-21, see Note XXVII., pages 248-245.] In this verse
the apostle goes on to set before Timothy how he is to conduct himself in
regard to the heresy appearing in the church.—raita tropipvyoxe]
[XX VII a.] ravra refers to the thoughts just expressed and introduced by
the formula mori 6 Adyop; of these thoughts Timothy is to remind the
church, not future teachers in particular (Heydenreich). The apostle
BAYS Urouuvgoxerv, because these thoughts were known to the church;
comp. 2 Pet. 1. 12 (oix ayeAfow . .. tac tropipvgoxew . . . xaimep eiddrac).—
Stapaprupsuevog évOriov tov xupiov} iv. 1; 1Tim.v.21. With the reading
Aoyoudxet (see the critical remarks) these words belong to what precedes,
a new section beginning with pu?) Aoyoudyec; on the other hand, with the
Rec. p13) Aoyouayeiv, the infinitive depends on d:azapr. Hofmann wishes to
take the Rec. imperatively ; but to give an imperative force to an infini-
tive standing among several imperatives, would be something unheard
of—lIt can hardly be decided which is the right reading. De Wette and
Wiesinger have declared themselves for the Rec., because “the verb
diauapt. is commonly used by Paul for introducing exhortations, and is
not in keeping with the weak appeal ravra iopluvyoxe.” These reasons,
however, are not sufficient, since d:azapr. may quite as well be connected
with what precedes as with what follows, although it does not occur else-
where in the N. T. in such a connection; and ratra trou. is not used by
the apostle in so weak a sense that he could not strengthen it by such a
form of adjuration. Nor can it be maintained that the exhortation
Aoyoudyer i8 unsuitable for Timothy, since there is again at ver. 16 an
exhortation quite similar in nature; comp. also ver. 23. There is more
force in Reiche’s observation : supervacaneum .. . fuisset, Timotheo, uno
quasi halitu bis fere idem imperare, yu) Aoyoudyet, and ver. 16, rac d?. . .
xevoguviag wepiioraco ;; but, on the other hand, yp? Aoyoud yer is a suitable addi-
tion to the exhortation : ratra bropipzvyoxe. On the whole, seeing that the
transition from the one exhortation to the other is somewhat abrupt, and
that the authorities are mostly on the side of the Rec., this reading should
be preferred.—On the conception of Aoyouayeiv, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4.—eic¢
[éx’] ovdév yprouuov] Regarding this appended clause in apposition, see
Winer, p. 497 [E. T. p. 533]. xpioeuoe is a word which only occurs here;
in Tit. iii. 9 the Cyrqoece of the heretics are called avugedeic nal pataiot.—eri
KatacTpogy Tav axovévruv] “ which is useful for nothing, (serving rather) to the
perversion of the hearers ;”” Chrysostom : ob pévoy ovdév ix rovrov xéndoc, Gada
CHAP. 11. 14, 15. 233
xal BAGBy 170AAG.\—xaraotpogy (opposed to rH oixodov@) here and in 2 Pet. ii.
16, where it has its proper meaning; it is synonymous with xa¥aipectc in
2 Cor. xiii 10. ’Ei here does not express the aim (Gal. v. 18; Eph. ii.
10), but the result (Wiesinger). Xenophon, Memor. ii.19: éxi BAdBp.
Ver. 15. [X XVII 6.] Continuation of the exhortation to Timothy.—
omotdacov ceavrov dékiuov mapactyoat TH Oe] omovddfewy expresses the eager
striving, as in Eph. iv. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 17, etc., and has a suggestion of mak-
ing haste, iv. 9, 21; Tit. ili. 12—dé«ezov, equivalent to probatus, tried, is
absolute, and should not to be taken with épyér7v (Luther, Mack). A more
precise limitation is given in the next words: wapacrjoae ro G&G; Comp.
Rom. vi. 18, 16, and other passages in the Pauline epistles; here it has
the additional meaning: “for the service of.” Hofmann gives an unsuit-
able construction by joining rg @eg—in spite of rapacrjoar—with déxcyov
(= “approved by one”), separating épydtyv averalcxuvrov from one
another, and connecting épydryv with déxuov, so that averaicxuvrov forms a
second predicate to épydr7y, opforopotvra x.7.A. being added as a third. All
this not only assigns to déx:zoc @ meaning which it never has in the N. T.
(not even in Rom. xiv. 18; comp. Meyer on the passage), but separates
napactjoa from the 76 Oeg standing next to it, although Paul almost never
uses the word without adding a dative of the person (comp. in particular,
Rom. vi. 13, xii. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 27).—épydrnv averai-
oxuvtov] épyétns specially de opere rustico; used, besides, of the work in
the field of God’s kingdom (2 Cor. xi. 18; Phil. iii. 2).—daveraioyuvrog; in
the N. T. a drag Aey., and in classic Greek used only in Sp. as an adverb
with the signification: “immodestly, shamelessly.” It is synonymous
with avaicyuvtoc, which in classic Greek is used only in a bad sense: “ one
who is not ashamed when he ought to be.” It cannot, of course, have
this meaning here. The most reliable interpretation is to keep by the
fundamental meaning of the word taken in a good sense: “who is not
ashamed, because he has nothing to be ashamed of.” Bengel: cui tua
ipsius conscientia nullum pudorem incutiat; de Wette, Wiesinger, van
Oosterzee, Plitt translate it simply: “ who has nothing to be ashamed of.”
Hofmann arbitrarily explains it as equivalent to: “of whom God is not
ashamed,” a meaning suitable to the context only if déxczoc be taken in
the sense he maintains. The next words make the definition still more
precise: dpHorouovvra Tov Adyov rig GAnVeiac] SpYoropetv, drag Aey., is rightly
explained by most as recte tractare (which is the actual translation of the
Vulgate); but there is very great variety in the derivation of the notion.
Melanchthon, Beza, and others derive the expression ab illa legali victi-
marum sectione ac distributione Lev. i. 6; Vitringa, from the business
Tov oixovduov, Cui competat panem cibosque frangere, distribuere filiis fami-
lias; Pricaeus, a lapicidis; Lamb. Bos, from the ploughers, qui arantes
réuvey THY yy, oxilev et éxuzilerv apovpac dicuntur, yet in such a way that it
1The harm of Acyozaxety consists not so contention” (Hofmann), as in this, that those
much in this, “that its tendency with thone who give ear to it are led away from the
who listen to it is to make the Christian doc- fundamental principles of Christianity.
trine seem uncertain, since it produces such
234 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
is committed to those qui rectas vias insistunt. De Wette (Wiesinger
agreeing with him) maintains the latter; recte secare viam, Adyov being
put for ddév. Certainly réuvecv is often joined with ddéc, néAevSoc ; but it
does not follow that in ép¥cropeiv by itself there is contained a reference to
the way.’ As little can we say that any other of the references is con-
tained in it. The word in itself means: “ cut rightly,” or, according to
Pape: “cut straight, in straight direction; ” then, the notion of réuvey fall-
ing into the background, as is often the case with xa:voroyeiv, it has the
more general signification: “deal rightly with something so as not to
falsify it.’”"*—Hofmann’s explanation is curious: “cut straight through
the word of truth, 1. e. cut it, so that it is a straight cut, passing into the
heart of it, whereas a slanting cut would not reach the inner part of the
word of God, but only touch the outwork.” This explanation—apart
from other reasons—is refuted by the fact that dpVorouveiv has not the signi-
fication: “cut through the middle point.” The Gloss. ordinar. explains
it: secundum competentiam singulorum, ut: altis spiritualia, lac distri-
buere parvulis, so that Paul is directing Timothy to preach the word
according to his hearers’ capacity of understanding. This is the meaning
also according to Luther’s translation: “who rightly parts the word of
truth ;” but the thought is entirely foreign to the context.’—Chrysostom
explains it by réuvew ra vé9a xai ta Taavta éxxéatecv; 80, too, Oecumenius;
but this is unsuitable, for there is nothing false in the Adyo¢ rio aAnO., and
therefore nothing to be separated from it.—The expositors are quite wrong
who refer the expression to a life in accordance with God’s word==xaré rd
evayyédsov opOérara Biovv.—The right interpretation makes it the simple
opposite of xarndAciew rev Adyov Tov Geov, 2 Cor. ii. 17.4
Ver. 16. Tag d& BeByAoue Kevopwrviag (comp. 1 Tim. vi, 20), mepstoraco}
“avoid” (comp. Tit. ii. 9, synonymous with éxrpéreofa:, 1 Tim. vi. 20);
properly: “go out of the way.” Beza is wrong: cohibe, i.e. observa et
velut obside, nempe ne in ecclesiam irrepant.—The reason for the exhorta-
tion follows in the next words: é7i mAziov yap zpoxépovow aceBeiag| mpoxdrrety
here is intransitive (comp. iii. 9, 13), and aceBeiag is the genitive depend-
ing on émi rdciov,® not the accusative, as if mpox. had here the transitive
1De Wette, indeed, appeals to LXX. Prov.
iii. 6, xi.5; but in these passages oé6y appears,
and the verb, like the Vw, has the transitive
signification: “ make straight, smooth.”—Nor
does the passage in Eurip. Rhes. v. 422: evOecay
Adywv réupvwv xédrAevbov, justify de Wette'’a ex-
planation. The possibility of substituting
Adyoy for oder is not proved simply by remark-
ing that “the word is away.” We certainly
do speak of “ walking in the path of the divine
word, of virtue,” etc., but not of “walking in
the divine word, in virtue.”
3 Perhaps the expression may be explained
in this way, that the imparting of the Adyos
THS aAnOeias makes it necessary to part it,
since only a part of it can be delivered each
time; it therefore amounts to saying that this
parting is to be done rightly, so that the Acyos
THs adnOeias May receive no injury.
8In Beza’s explanation: nihil praetermit-
tere, quod dicendum sit, nil adjicere de suo,
nil mutilare, discerpere, torquere, deinde
diligenter spectare, quid ferat sauditorum
captus, the first part alone is to the point.
4In the Fathers the word op@oroxia is some-
times found synonymous with dpéogogia.
Clemens Alex. Stromata, vii. p. 762: ry aro-
orodiany éxacaAnovacrixny cwcwy opboromiay Twy
8oynaTwy; but this usage took its rise from
the above passage.
$8In Diod. Sicul. there occurs: é1i rAetoy
xaxias mpoBaiveyr; see Bengel on the passage.
CHAP. II. 16~18. "935
meaning “to further.” The subject is formed by the heretics whom the
apostle has in mind, not the xevogwvia, as 6 Adyog avrav shows. Hence
Luther's translation is incorrect: “it (evil talking) helps much to ungodly
character ;” besides, it puts the present for the future. Bengel: Futu-
rum, proprie; est enim praedictio, ut ée, ver. 17 ; comp. iii. 3 ff.,6. Hof-
mann wishes a distinction to be made between those who deal in ef.
xevogwriat and those to whose number Hymenaeus and Philetus belong;
and according to him, the subject should be taken from the dy éot: «.7.2.,
so as to mean the followers of these two heretics. We cannot, however,
understand why Paul should not have included among the Bef. xevopwriarc
the heresy that the resurrection had already taken place, unless this ex-
pression be greatly weakened, as Hofmann indeed does, to favor his view
of the heresy at Ephesus (see Introduction, 34). In any case, it is a mis-
take to take the subject for zpoxépovow only from what follows, since such
subject does not present itself naturally; and there is least ground of all
for supposing that it must be of wepi ‘Yuévacov nai dcAnré6v.—The ydp, which —
refers only to the sentence immediately preceding, makes the increasing
godlessness of the heretics the reason why Timothy should not meddle
further with the xevogwriac, but simply oppose to them the word of truth.
Ver. 17. The increase of the aoéfeca is closely connected with the fur-
ther spread of the heresy. On this point the apostle says: xai 6 Adyos avrév
&¢ ydyypawa vouyy éec] yéyypava, [X XVII c.] an eating ulcer, like cancer,
called in Galen the cold burn (o¢dxedoc) ; vougyy eye==veéuew (Acts iv. 17:
ext mAciov diavéuecbar), ‘‘ eat into the flesh, spread ;”’ comp. Polybius (ed. 2,
Tauchnitz), i. 4, vili. 5: 4 rov mupdc voug is equivalent to the spreading of
fire; i. 81, 6, used of an ulcer (Pape, 8.v. vouz)—Jerome, Ep. ad Galat.:
doctrina perversa, ab uno incipiens, vix duos aut tres primum in exordio
auditores reperit, sed paulatim cancer serpit in corpore. The body on
which the gangrene is found, and in which it spreads ever wider, is the
church. He is therefore speaking here not so much of the intensive in-
crease of the evil (Mack, Wiesinger) in those attacked by it, as of its exten-
sive diffusion (so most expositors), thinking, at the same time, of the ever
deepening mark which it is making on the inner life of the church.
Chrysostom rightly says: 1d av Avuaivera:; but his further explanation is
not apposite: évraiGa 7d adidpfwrov avradv dnAoi, for the apostle does not say
here that the heretics are beyond amendment.—Of these heretics Paul
mentions two: Hymenaeus and Philetus, of whom nothing further is
known, except that the former is possibly the same as the one named in
1 Tim. i. 20 (see on that passage).
Ver. 18. More precise description of the heretics, in the first place gen-
erally, as men who “have erred in regard to the truth” (de Wette).—repi._ ri
aAjbecav noréynoav] see 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21. The chief point in their heresy
is given thus: Afyovres r#v avéoracey Hbn yeyovévat.—Both Irenaeus and Ter-
tullian mention Gnostics, who denied the resurrection in its literal sense.!
1Comp. Tertullian, De Resurr. chap. asseverantes ipsam etiam mortem aspirit-
xix.: resurrectionem mortuorum distorquent ualiter intelligendam ... resurrectionem
236 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
There is no ground for Baur’s assertion, that there is allusion here to
Marcion. The passage in 1 Cor. xv. 12 proves that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead had even in the apostolic age become a stumbling-
block to many in the church.—The denial of these heretics was closely
related to views which made a false contrast between flesh and spirit.—
They had already exercised an injurious influence on others, as the next
words declare: «ai avarpérovor tiv tidy rior] not: “whereby they make
many err in their persuasion :” ior is the Christian faith which includes
the certainty of the future resurrection, and avarpémew (see Tit. 1. 11)
means “‘ evertere, destroy.”’
Ver. 19. As a contrast to the unsettling action of the heretics, we have
6 pévroe aotepedc OeuéArog tov Ceov éarnxev] Oeuédsog (properly an adjective,
supply Ai6oc) is originally the foundation-stone of a building; if that signi-
fication be retained here, the building can only mean the church of
Christ. The question then arises, what is its foundation-stone? and to
this various answers have been given. Ambrosius understands it to be
God’s promises; Bengel, the fides Dei immota; Heinrichs, the Christian
religion ; Ernesti, the doctrine of the resurrection (ver. 18); Calvin, the
election of grace. All this is arbitrary. The 6euzéAoc must be something
which, according to the next verse, can also be regarded as oixia, [XX VIT
d.] viz. as Heydenreich says: éxxAnoia reOeveriwopévy td Ccov (similarly de
Wette and Wiesinger). Paul, however, calls it @euéAoc, not because that
word denotes a building, which is not the case, but because the church, as
it was originally set by God in the world, only forms the foundation of the
building which is to be perfected gradually (so, too, van Oosterzee). Chry-
sostom’s explanation is inapposite: al orepeal puyai éorhxact memnyviat Kai
axivyto; for Paul is not thinking here of individual believers, but of the
church of which they are members. Possibly the @euéAwce does not mean
anything definite, and the apostle ff merely intends to say that the church
is firmly founded” (Hofmann); but that is not probable, especially as the
attribute orepedc and the verb éornxev point to a definite, concrete concep-
tion in the apostle’s mind.—crepeédg and éorqxev form a contrast to avarpé-
movet. Though the faith of some may be destroyed, the foundation of
God, t.e. which God has laid, still stands firm, unwavering.—The mark
of this is given in the next words: éywv tiv odpayida tatty] ogpayic, “the
seal,”’ is partly a means of keeping safe, partly a sign of relevancy,
partly a form of declaration whereby a document or the like is proved to
be valid. Here itis the inscription! on the OeuéAc, according to Wies-
inger, “asa guarantee that the éxxAyaia ind rod Ocod reOeuedopevy has an
existence not to be shaken; ”: or, better still, as God’s testimony to the
peculiar nature of the structure (similarly Hofmann: “because through
it God so acknowledges the structure as to declare of what nature He
means it to be when thus founded”); van Oosterzee combines the two
eam vindicandam, qua quis addita veritate 1The figure is founded on the custom of
redanimatus et revivifactus Deo, ignorantiae placing inscriptions on the door-posts as well
morte decussa, velut de sepulcro veteris as on the foundation-stones; comp. Deut. vi
hominis eruperit. 9, xi. 20; Rev. xxi 14.
CHAP. 11. 19, 20. 237
interpretations.—Paul mentions two inscriptions. The first, with allusion
to Num. xvi. 5 (the LXX. puts YT! for YT), is éyvw kbpwog rove bvtag
avrov. Haec sententia ...a parte Dei (Wolf)—éyw] Bengel: novit
amanter, nec nosse desinit, sed perpetuo servat suos: a word of comfort
for the believers exposed to the destroying influence of the heretics in the
church. The other inscription (with which we may compare Num. xvi.
26; Isa. lii. 11) runs: aroorgrw and adixiag wag 6 dvoudtuv 7d dbvoua Kvpiov]
Haec sententia . . . a parte hominum (Wolf). ’Adi«ia is the sum total of
everything opposed to God, including heresy.—évopdlew rd bv. Tr. Kup.,
according to Wahl, is equivalent to 77; 0Y3 *1P, nomen Dei invocare.
This is incorrect; it corresponds rather to the phrase: émixadciofar Td dSvop.
xupiov (rév xbpeov, ver. 22). Bengel correctly says: quisquis nominat
nomen Christi, ut domini sui.—This second inscription is an exhortation
to believers to abstain from all unrighteousness notwithstanding the
seductive influence of the heretics—Heydenreich: two truths must like-
wise characterize the indestructible temple of God, the church, and these
denote the comfort and hope, but also the duty and responsibility of the
true worshipers of Jesus.'
Ver. 20. To the church as the GeuéAcog rov Gcov only those belong whom
the Lord acknowledges as His, and who abstain from every kind of adcxia.
This thought is contained in ver. 19. But there were also in the church
adixor, opposing the gospel by word and deed. This strange fact Paul now
explains by a figure: év peyéAy 62 oixig] The Greek expositors understand
by oixia “the world,” to which Calvin rightly objects: ac contextus quidem
huc potius nos ducit, ut de ecclesia intelligamus ; neque enim de extraneis
disputat Paulus, sed de ipsa Dei familia. Itis different with the similar
passage in Rom. ix. 21 ff.—ovix lor, pévov oxeby xpvod Kal apyvpa, aad xal
fbAiva xat dorpdxiva] By the former articles are meant the worthy, genuine
members of the church; by the latter, those not genuine (not: those less
good, Estius, Mosheim, and others): “each class, however, contains degrees
within itself; comp. Matt. xiii. 23” (Wiesinger). The apostle’s distinction
is given more precisely in the next words, which cannot be referred alike
to each of the two classes named, but express the same antithesis: xai 4
pev cic tyuhv, viz. the oxen yp. x. apy.; & dé ec atimiav, viz. the oxebn EvA. x.
dorpéx. [X XVII e.] To this Hofmann objects, that the material of the
veasels does not determine their purpose and use, and that the second
clause, therefore, does not correspond with the first; “ the first antithesis
rather declares that in the house of God there are members of rich gifts
and spiritual attainments, and members whose gifts are few and who
spiritually are of no consideration.” But in this way there is manifestly
imported an antithesis of which there is no hint in the context. It is
indeed true that vessels even of wood and clay may be applied to honor-
able uses; but undue pressure is laid on the apostle’s words when they are
1Chrysostom understands @epéAcos of in- xery éwi rwr xpayudrwy, ard Tov yrwpifer Oar
dividual helievers,and isthereforecompelled vwd rov @eov cai uh cvpwapardAAvoba, amd
to give this thought an incorrect reference: srov agiordva: awd aédixias, ravTa Ta yrwpic-
w0Oey SnrAai ciciv; awd rou Ta ypaupatatavTa) =— rata Tov Oepediov.
238 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
interpreted in accordance with such a possibility.—ei¢ riufv and el¢ aripiav
do not refer to the house, nor to their passessor, on whom they bring
honor or shame (Matthies), but to the vessels themselves (de Wette, Wies-
inger, van QOosterzee). To some honor is given, to others shame, ¢. e. in
the various uses to which they are applied by their possessors. The inser-
tion of érozacpzéva Would give an unsuitable thought; see Meyer and de
Wette on Rom. ix. 21.
Ver. 21. Without explaining the figure, the apostle carries it on, but in
such a way as to show to the members of the church how each one may
become a vessel to honor.—édv ovv tig éxxabdpy éavtdv ard tobtur] Exxabaiperv,
according to classic Greek (also 1 Cor. v. 7), is an intensive form of xa6ai-
pew (N. T. xadapifev).' The opinion (formerly expressed in this commen-
tary) was incorrect, that é« only foreshadows the azé rotrwv. The transla-
tion is inaccurate: “if one keeps himself pure ” (Heydenreich, equivalent
to xafapdv, ayvov éavrdv rypeiv); Luther rightly: “ purifies himself.” The
word indicates the departure from impure companionship ; comp. ver. 19,
arootirw, and 1 Tim. vi. 5 (according to Rec.) agicraco ard trav Ttoobtwr.?
Wiesinger makes the construction pregnant: “separate oneself from
these by self-purification;” it is more correct, however, to regard the
separation itself as the purification.—azé robrey] cannot according to the
context be taken as a collective neuter: “from such things,” ad rav
eipnuévwv, yyovv adixiac, ateiac, Or even ard Tov BEBiAwy Kevogover, ver. 16;
it refers rather to 4 dé ei¢ arcwiav. Luther: “from such people;” comp.
the passage quoted, 1 Tim. vi.5. Hofmann is altogether mistaken in his
curious idea that ad robrwy means “ from that time forward,” and is to be
connected with what follows. This reference is nowhere in the N. T.
expressed by a7d robrwv (comp. Matt, xxvi. 29: an’ dpr:); besides, this
more precise definition of écra is quite superfluous, whereas éxxaépy
éavrév without more precise definition is too general.—éoraz oxevog eig Trippy,
yycaozévov] Lachmann has wrongly deleted the comma between riz. and
yywou. Ei¢c does not depend on #y., but ox. cig riz. forms here, like 4 pév
ei¢ teugv in ver. 20, one idea to which various attributes, #y:aopuévoyv being
the first, are added in order to describe the nature of such a ox. ei¢ rip.—
qytacuévov| is not =oxevog éxdoyzc, Acts ix. 15 (Heydenreich), but: “ sanc-
tified,” as belonging to the Lord. Eiypyoerov =“ good for using ;” 1@ deoréry,
“ the master of the house ;” cig wav Epyov ayalov yromuaocpuévoy (comp. Rev. ix.
7), “prepared for every good work.” While all expositors join 1@ deoréry
with eypyorov, Hofmann prefers to refer it to what follows, without giving
any reason for so doing. Elsewhere in the N. T. ebypyorog occurs only in
connection with the dative of more precise definition (iv. 11; Philem. 11).
Ver. 22. [On Vv. 22-26, see Note XXVIII., page 245.] Timothy is
exhorted to Christian behavior; it is impossible to overlook the connec-
1Chrysostom rightly says: ovx ele: xaOdpy, the doctrine of predestination: Volumus et
GAA’ dxxadapyn, Tovréott, mavreAws xaddpy. efficimus, sed per eum qui gratis et in soli-
2 Bengel remarks: Activumcum pronomine dum efficit in nobis bonam et efficacem vo-
reciproco indicat liberrimam facultatem fide- luntatem, tum quod ad 8:d6eq.y, tum quod ad
lium.—Beza seeks, on the other hand, to save évépyecay attinet.
CHAP, Ir. 21-24. 239
tion with what precedes.—ré¢ 62 vewrepixdg érbvutac) [XXVIII a.] véwre-
pixai ig az. Aey., juveniles, quibus juvenes indulgent, not cupiditates rerum
novarum. Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly remark that the meaning
is not to be limited too closely to wopveiac.' Hofmann supposes that the
desires are meant which are found in younger members in contrast with
those advanced in years, e.g. the desire for brilliant gifts and offices; but
neither the context nor the expression supports his interpretation. This
reference is rather a pure importation into the text, and is adopted by
Hofmann that it may agree with his erroneous view of ver. 20; it is
opposed, finally, by the diwxe dixawotvy x.t.A.—diwxe dé dixacoobvay x.7.A.]
very similar to 1 Tim. vi. 11.—eip#um, “i. e. inner fellowship and harmony ”
(de Wette).—wyeréd should not be construed with dioxe, but with eipyrav;
comp. Heb. xii. 14.—yera wévruv 1. érixadovpévar tdav xipiov] This expression
occurs somewhat frequently as a name for Christians; comp. Acts ii. 21,
ix. 14; Rom. x.12. The passage in 1 Cor. i. 2 shows that Christ is meant
by xbpiog.—éx xaBapa¢ xapdiac| belonging not to diwxe but to émxadovpévur,
stands here in special contrast to the heretics who did also call Christ their
Lord, but not from a pure heart. Chrysostom’s remark: pera rav addwy
od} xp) mpgov elvac, goes too far, since in ver. 25 there is an express appeal
for mpaérnc towards the avridiariBéuevoe; still the believer can only keep
peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart, the others he
must oppose. Eip#v7 is mentioned last, because the apostle is thinking of
it specially ; comp. the next verses.
Ver. 23 is in contrast (dé) with ver. 22. As in 1 Tim. i. 4, vi. 4, Cnrfoeee
are brought forward as the characteristic of heresy. Paul calls them
pwpai xai araidevro:] pwpai, Tit. ili. 9—araidevro, properly, “ uninstructed ;”
in N.T. az. Aey.; more frequently found in LXX. and Apocrypha, but
only in reference to persons. It is synonymous with pupdc (7°03); even
here, where it refers to things, it is synonymous with pupéc (= ineptus).
There is no just ground for Hofmann’s supposition, that it is to be derived
here not from adcteofa:, but from adetecr, and hence that it means
“unsuited for educating spiritually” (Mosheim, Heydenreich, Mack,
Matthies) —On sapa:rov, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11.—eidws does not give the
reason why Timothy should follow the exhortation (equivalent to “ since,
or because, you know”’); it forms part of the exhortation in the sense:
“as you know (consider);” comp. Tit. ili. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 58; Col. iii. 24,
Iv. 1.—ére yervior pdyzac] udyat, Jas. iv. 1, synonymous with réAeuoc ; opposed
to sipfvn, ver. 22. :
Vv. 24-26. In regard to the last thoughts, Paul gives a sketch of the
conduct which beseems the dovAog xupiov. AobAog xvpiov is here, as often, one
who has been charged with the office of preaching the gospel.—0v dei pa y-
eofac} [XXVIII 6.] Luther is inaccurate: “must not be disputatious;” it
does not denote so much the disposition as the act, and is in close relation
with the preceding péyac; it furnishes the reason, therefore, why he
should not devote himself to foolish investigations, which only give rise
1Theodoret: rpvdiv, yéAwros apetpiay, &dfay xevny Kat Ta TOVTALS MpoTdpoLa.
240 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
to contentions.—aA2’ #riov elvat mpd¢ wévrac] #rw0¢, here and at 1 Thess. ii. 7,
“amiable, friendly ;”’ properly, “addressing in a friendly manner;” it
forms a pointed antithesis to ud yeoPa:.—didaxrixdv (1 Tim. iii. 2). Hoc non
solum soliditatem et facilitatem in docendo, sed vel maxime patientiam
et assiduitatem significat, Bengel. According to the context here, the
word expresses not only the ability, but also the willingness to teach.—
Gvetixaxov] am. Aey. (avetixaxia, Ecclus. ii. 19, kindred in meaning with émet-
xeca), denotes the opposite of irritability : “ patient, submissive” in regard to
contradiction (perhaps slanderous).—Ver. 25. év mpgéry7 is wrongly joined
by Luther with avegixaxov : ‘ who can endure the wicked with gentleness ; ”’
it belongs rather to what follows, and describes the manner of radebew.—
nadevey is here equivalent not to erudire, but to corripere. Luther:
“punish,” set right, see 1 Tim. i. 20.—rov¢ avridiariBepévouc] am. Aey., sSynony-
mous with avriAéyovrec, Tit. i. 9, and denoting all opposed to the word
of truth preached by the dowvAoc xvpiov. The context compels us to inter-
pret it not as “the unbelievers” (Hofmann), but specially the heretics.
The name, however, is not given to them because they are “weak in
faith ’’ (Wiesinger). Luther’s translation is too strong: “ contumacious;”’
comp. with this passage Tit. i. 9,13. The rule here laid down is not in
contradiction with the cyye airoig aordéuuc, Tit. i. 18, not because the
avridcarOéwevoe here are different from the ayriAtyovrec of Tit. i. 9, as Hof-
mann maintains, but because even with the éAéyyecv amoréuuwc there should
also be the év rpeéryre ratdevecv. The purpose which should guide the servant
of the Lord in his conduct towards the avrid:aribéuevor is given in the next
words.—yfrore ddn avtoic 6 Oed¢ petdvocav] piprore, “ whether it may not be,”
is joined with the conjunctive and the optative; comp. Buttmann, p. 220
[E.T. 256]. The perdvora is here supposed to be necessary because the ground
of opposition 18 adxia; perdvora is the change of thought which is necessary
eic Exiyvwowy GAnbciac.—Ver. 26. nai avaviypwow éx Teo Tov diaBdAov rayidoc] In
the verb avavfgev, the ava may express motion from beneath, as in other
verbs thus compounded (e.g. avaféw), so that it is equivalent to ‘‘ become
sober,” i.e. “ come up out of the stupefaction which holds them down”
(Hofmann '); but the usual meaning of the word in classic Greek is, how-
ever, “ become sober again.” If the word has this -meaning here, then
the avrdcariBéuevor must be the heretics. The error into which they had
fallen is to be compared with the intoxication which beclouds men’s wits ;
the verb is az. Aey. In 1 Cor. xv. 34 we have éxv@gecv.—The figure zayi¢ is
certainly not in harmony with this verb; but a collocation of various figu-
rative expressions is not infrequent; here it 1s more easy to justify it, as
an intermediate thought like xai Avo#jow (Heydenreich) may be at once
supplied. The collocation may indeed be altogether avoided, if, with
Michaelis and Hofmann, we connect éx ry... mayidog with éwypnuévor
following; but against this there is the signification of this word, which
does not mean being saved, but being taken captive.—elwypnyévor vn’ avrow
tig Td Exeivov OéAnua] [XXVIII c.] Cwypeiv has here the same meaning as in
1 Hofmann appeals to avagqy, Rom. vii. 9, for this signification; but comp. Meyer on that
passage.
NOTES. 241
Luke v.10: “catch,” the notion “alive” being allowed to fall into the
background. It is questionable whether the devil or the dovdog xvpiov (ver.
24) is to be regarded as the fwypay. Several expositors, Wetstein, Bengel,
Mack, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others, have declared themselves in
favor of the second view. But against this there is the perfect, since the
avavfgery does not take place until they have been caught by the dovéoc Oecd ; *
besides, the meaning thus obtained would be open to the reproach of
being too artificial.2—With the first view (Matthies, de Wette, van Ooster-
zee, Plitt) é{wyp7uévoe may be joined in a natural sense with the preceding
nayidoc; Luther is therefore right: “ by whom they are caught at his will.”
The last words: cic » . . O6Aqua, are by Beza joined with avavppuwo: ad
illius, nempe Dei, voluntatem, videlicet praestandam ; hunc enim locum
sic esse accipiendum mihi videtur utriusque illius relativi pronominis
(avrov . . . éxeivov) proprietas et ipsa constructio postulare. But éxeivov
may very easily refer to the same subject as avrov.3—As with Beza’s inter-
pretation, wyp. im. abrov, “would be made too bare” (de Wette), the
additional clause under discussion is to be joined with éwypnyévor, as in-
deed it ought to be, according to its position.—Aretius takes the correct
view of éwyp., but wrongly explains the words ei¢ «.7.A. ag equivalent to
“according to God’s will, i.e.80 long as God pleases.” Heinrichs, too,
though he refers éxeivov rightly, wrongly says it is equivalent to ex suo
arbitrio, pro suo lubitu. Eic¢ stands here rather as in 2 Cor. x. 5; the
GéAnua Tov diafddov is regarded ‘as a local sphere” into which they
have been taken; see Meyer on the passage quoted.
Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXV. Vv. 1-7.
(a) The emphatic ot of ver. 1 can only be explained by a reference to the
persons alluded to in i. 15 f.—probably by way of contrast to ol év rf ’Aoig. The
words which follow, however, clearly indicate a connection with what precedes
those verses. The particle ovv, accordingly, must be regarded as including all
the previous context in itself—(b) The word évduvauov is connected in thought
with ovyxaxorddyoov of ver. 3 (comp. i. 6, 7 and i. 8). These verses relate to
Timothy’s own condition and action. The second verse refers to what he is to
do in respect to other teachers. With ver. 2 may be compared 1 Tim. i. 3 and
Tit. i. 5, though here the exhortation may perhaps bear upon a succession of
teachers who were to follow afterwards, while, in the other epistles, the reference
is to those who were teaching errors, or to the appointment of presbyters in the
1 Hofmann does not acknowledge the val-
idity of the objection : “The perfect partic. ex-
presses nothing else than a condition abiding
thenceforward ;” but this “thenceforward”
is quite unsuitable here, for in the connec-
tion of e¢wypynudvo: with avarjwyeo: that per-
fect does not show the position into which
they enter only by avavyderx—and which re-
mains thenceforward, but to the position in
16
which they were when the avarndew took
place.
*This is valid also against Theophylact’s
explanation: éy wAdyy wyjxovrat adAAa Cwypr-
Odvres Uwd @eod .. . avavnywou ard tay vidTwy
THS wAaYys.
3See the passage cited by de Wette; Plato,
Cratylus, p. 430 E: defar abrp ay wey rixn,
éxeivov cixova; comp. also Kihner, 2 629, A 3.
242 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
churches. The insertion of ver. 2 in this place is somewhat strange, and the
connection is somewhat loose. Yet it was not altogether out of place, in the set-
ting forth of what Timothy was to be and do as a faithful worker in the Church,
now that the Apostle was in prison and in danger df death, to call his attention,
to the duty of seeing that the truth was committed to other faithful men who
might unite with or follow him in the same great work.—(c) Tuoroi¢ avOpdzroce
(ver. 2)—The question whether a succession of teachers is here alluded to, is one of
some uncertainty. Huther and a considerable number of the recent commentators
maintain that such a succ&sion was in the writers mind. The points on which
the question turns are the following:—1. Whether «aj belongs to érépove or to
diddEaz érépove. 2. What is the intended reference of érépove, 3. Who are meant
by toAAay papripwr. The third of these points bears only indirectly upon the
decision. But it may, nevertheless, huve a certain influence, which may prop-
erly be considered. As to xai, there seems to be no special ground for affirming
with Huther, against Hofmann, that it qualifies érépovg only. Paul may easily
be supposed to have desired Timothy to commit the word to trustworthy persons,
who had, in addition to other things, the particular quality of aptness to teach,
and to have expressed this by «ai. It must be admitted, however, that érepo: seems
somewhat better adapted to designate other teachers, than simply other persons, i.e.
the ordinary hearers of the gospel. That érepoc may denote the latter cannot be
denied, but the use of the word can be more readily accounted for, if the former
meaning is given. The bearing of 6:4 7roAA, wapt. on the subject is connected with
the question as to whether these words refer to the presbyters who participated
in Timothy’s ordination. If they do, there is a certain probability, arising from
this fact, that the Apostle’s mind was ,dwelling, throughout the passage, only on
the committing of the truth to teachers and preachers. The reference to Timo-
thy’s ordination is favored by many of the recent commentators. It is, however,
to say the least, very doubtful. The most that can be affirmed, therefore, is that
there is a slight probability that a succession of teachers is intended by érépovy.
_ That there is anything in the words which necessarily implies the transmission
of doctrine or truth independent of the common Scripture revelation, cannot be
affirmed.—(d) ovyxaxord@yoov (ver. 8) is undoubtedly parallel with the same
verb in i. 8, and has the same meaning. R. V., however, renders in i. 8,
suffer hardship with the gospel—making TQ evayyeAi» depend on oiv—while here
it renders, in the text, suffer hardship with me, and, in the margin, take thy part
in suffering hardship. The recent commentators are disposed to supply with
me in i. 8, and to make 7@ evay. mean for the gospel, as Huther and Note XXIII. c-
above.—(e) The thought seems to pass, through the last clause of ver. 3, which
suggests the readiness of the soldier to suffer, from ovyxaxomd@joov to the more
general ideas, which are unconnected with that verb, in vv. 4-7. These verses
set forth the call upon the Christian preacher, to give himself wholly and faith-
fully to his work—a thought which is presented under three figures:—l. that of
the soldier, who does not involve himself in the matters which belong to civil
life; 2. that of the athlete, who contends in the games with hope of success only
as he acts in accordance with the rules of the contest—giving up all things for,
and subordinating all things to the attainment of the end, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24 ff;
and 3. that of the husbandman, who partakes of the fruits only as he works hard
for them. The same idea lies at the foundation of all the figures, and this
explanation which regards them as a threefold presentation of a single thought,
NOTES. 243
is the simplest and most satisfactory one.—(f) The object of ver. 7 seems to be to
call Timothy’s especial attention to the thought suggested by these illustrative
references, as bearing upon his own official life and work. yap, which Huther
regards as a particle of explanation, can be understood, as Ell. and de W. take it,
as cuusal. The demand in vée: may well be made, and it can be fulfilled, for, etc.
The causal force of yép is so nearly universal in the N. T., that the presumption
is strongly in favor of this sense.
XXVI. Vv. 8-13.
(a) The relation of ver. 8 to what precedes is indicated by the fact that
xaxo7vra0@ is found in the first clause of ver. 9. This verb is connected in thought,
evidently, with ovyxaxor. of ver. 3. The remembrance of Jesus Christ as risen
from the dead is suggested as a means of strengthening Timothy (évduvayov) in
the line of the endurance of suffering. The encouragement derived from this
remembrance, however, is not founded on the fact that Christ suffered death, but
that He had the victory over it. Accordingly, as Wiesinger remarks, the words
éx oréppartocg Aaveid do not refer at all to Christ’s humiliation. They “mark, as
at Rom. i. 3, only His outward, visible nature in distinction from the invisible;
and in both relations, here as there, He appears exalted and glorified; since,
according to the flesh, the promise given to the house of David is fulfilled in Him,
and as risen from the dead, He is declared the Son of God in power kara rvevya
ay. Rom. i. 4.” Thus in this verse, as in Rom., Paul “comprises in these two
predicates the substance of the gospel,” and “the clause ‘according to my gospel’
becomes perfectly intelligible.’—(b) The antecedent of » at the beginning of ver.
9 is evayyéA:oy, 1. e. in the sphere of his work as a preacher of the gospel. Comp.
Phil. i. The reference to his own suffering in the word xaxo7vaG@, is an indication
that the civ in ovyxaxoz. of ver. 3 is to be taken with a pot to be supplied.—(c)
The “not binding” of the word of God is evidently contrasted with the “binding”
of the Apostle (ov dédeta:—deouov), and thus refers to the fact that the preaching
of the gospel is not prevented by his imprisonment, and cannot be. For this
reason he stedfastly endures, etc. The use of the word éxAexrotc, as designating
Christians, here, is probably connected with that of ov déderac—both expressions
suggesting the idea of the Divine power, or purpose, as not to be overcome by any-
thing that human opposition can do.—(d) Ver. 11—That mord¢ 6 Adyo¢ refers
here to what follows, is indicated by the fact that the following words are of the
character which is suited to that phrase, while the preceding words are not 80,
either in themselves, or as they stand here in dependence on iva. The yap, which
introduces the following clauses apparently goes back in its force to the thoughts
of the 9th and 10th verses. It thus passes over the phrase tor. 6 Ady. Huther,
here as in ver. 7, takes yap in the sense of namely; but see note on that verse,
above. As connected with vv. 9, 10, these successive clauses form a ground of
encouragement and of warning.
XXVII. Vv. 14-21.
(a) The reference in ratra of ver. 14 is to vv. 12, 18, or perhaps to vv. 8-13.
The things spoken of in the following verses‘are among those which appertain to
a denying of Him and a proving unfaithful to Him. The principal reference is
to the erroneous teachings and doctrines, which are alluded to in all the Past.
244 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ée
Epp.; but there are, also, exhortations addressed to Timothy to guard himself
against evils and dangers. The heresies are here described by the words 40) opuax-
etv (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4), BeB7Aove (comp. 1 Tim. i. 9, iv. 7, vi. 20), Kevopwriac
(comp. 1 Tim. vi. 20), 7oréy70av (comp. 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21), wwpag Cyr7joete (comp.
Tit. iii. 9), yevvoor uayac (comp. Tit iii. 9). They are, moreover, additionally set
forth here, in their injurious and destructive influence, as to no profit, subverting
those who hear, eating as doth a gangrene, overthrowing faith, being ignorant
questions; and their teachers are described as vessels unto dishonor, and taken
captive by the devil (but see, on this last phrase, Note XXVIII c). Though in
some of these additional points the statements are kindred to those found else-
where, the description, as a whole, is the most full and detailed which the Apostle
gives. There seems, however, to be nothing, in these verses, which marks any
special growth or development as compared with the other two epistles.—(6) Ver.
15 sets forth the course to be pursued by Timothy with reference to his own office
and work, as ver. 14 has pointed out what he should do in the way of reminding
and charging the members of the church. In contrast with ver. 16, on the other
hand, ver. 15 gives that which may be called the positive side of Timothy’s duty,
while ver. 16 gives the negative side. In ver. 15 épydaryv aver. serves to define
déxcuov more particularly, and the clause opforouovrvra x,7.A, defines, still more par-
ticularly, the words épy av. The real point of the verse is thus found in opéor.
x.t.A. This phrase is rendered by R. V. (1) in the text, by handling aright the
word of truth, (2) in the margin, by holding a straight course in the, etc., (3) also in
the margin, by rightly dividing the, etc., which last rendering is that of A. V. text.
The translation of R. V. text is the one approved by Huther, who says the word
in itself means to cut rightly, indeed, or cut straight (as Pape), but that the notion
of réuve falls into the background, and so the sense is to deal rightly with some-
thing, so as not to falsify it. Alf. agrees with Huther. So Fairb. and others. Ell.
de W. and others connect the word more directly with the idea of cutting a way, or
road, straight. Plumptre thinks the figure is connected with the accuracy of cut-
ting essential in surgery. The view of R. V. text is, perhaps, the most satisfac-
tory.—(c) That o¢ yayypacva voy éfet of ver. 17 is to be understood in an ex-
tensive, rather than an intensive meaning, is shown by the fact that the thing
which thus eats is 0 Adyog avrév, i.e. the teachings of the errorists which over-
throw the faith of those who hear them, and by the general indication, in ver. 14,
that the writer has the church, and the effect of true and false teaching upon the.
church, in mind. The marginal rendering of R. V., spread, accordingly, gives
the sense in which eat is here used. It spreads like an eating ulcer.—(d) The
Geuédsog of ver. 19 must (as Huther says) be something which can be explained
consistently with the use of oixia in ver. 20. It must, also, be something which
can effectually stand against, and resist, all the teachers and doctrines which turn
aside from the truth. And it must be something on which the inscriptions men-
tioned can be conceived of as written. That these conditions may be fulfilled,
and that the statement respecting the vessels in the house may be satisfactorily
met, it would seem that the apostle must have in mind here the church. The
church is, however, viewed under the figure of a building, and, in a certain sense,
apart from its members. Not that the members do not compose the house, and
make its foundation as well as the superstructure. But the figure pictures it as
containing the members, and in it are vessels of different sorts. On the foundation
of the building are inscribed two Divine declarations :—the first indicating that
NOTES. 245
the true disciples are safe in His care, “The Lord knoweth them that are His;”
and the second calling them to their duty, “ Let every one that nameth the name
of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.” The contrast of the church in its true
discipleship to its adversaries, within as well as without, and its security against
them—its firmness and perpetuity—are thus set forth ; and, at the same time, al]
within it are admonished to be in the truest and complete sense disciples.—(e)
The question whether Paul means by “the vessels unto honor” the same that he
means by “ the vessels of gold and silver,”—and so, in each case, there is a corres-
ponding idea presented in two different phrases,—or whether, on the other hand,
the vessels to honor and dishonor are different from those of gold, etc., and of
wood, etc., cannot be determined with certainty. All that can be said is that the
individual member of the church, whoever he may be, can become, not only a
vessel to honor, but both good for the Master’s use and prepared for every good
work.
XXVIII. Vv. 22-26.
(a) The comparison of ver. 22 with 1 Tim. vi. 9-11 makes it altogether probable
that éx¢3vuia has its ordinary sense of evil desires or lusts, and does not mean
either “ cupiditates rerum novarum,” or desires for brilliant gifts, or desires in the
line of the false yw@orpy. The reference is to those éxiuuiae (1 Tim. vi.) which
appertain to the moral debasement of the false teachers, and which are contrasted
with righteousness, etc. These were the same é7c0., in their larger development,
as those to which persons might be exposed in youthful life—(b) The word
paxzeodat of ver. 24 is determined in its meaning mainly, if not wholly, by “aya¢
of ver. 23. The dovAog xvpiov, who is here the official servant or preacher, is for-
bidden to contend after the manner of the false teachers. They were prone to
angry controversy. He must be mild, speaking in a gentle way, patient, apt to
teach, etc. The dovdo: xvpiov in recent years, as well as in earlier times, seem to
have been more ready to obey the Apostle’s injunctions in some other lines, than
in this—(c) The question as to the meaning of avrov and éxeivov, in ver. 26, is one
of much difficulty. If, however, éxetvov can be referred to the same person with
avtov, there can be little doubt that the explanation which regards them as both
used of the devil, is that which best meets the demands of the sentence. This
interpretation accords most fully with the perfect tense in the participle éCwypy-
#évot, with the verb avavippworv as suggesting the idea of recovery, and with the
natural connection of avrov with d:af62ov, It avoids the difficulty of making the
capture by the devil to be designed to the end of accomplishing the Lord’s will that
deliverance should take place, which is required if avvov is referred to da3déAov and
éxeivov to the Lord. It also avoids the unnaturalness of mingling the idea of recov-
ery of men (or of awaking them to sobriety) out of a snare with that of being taken
captive by a person who rescues or awakes them, which is necessary if avrov is re-
ferred to the Lord’s servant. Instances are cited by Kiihner, and referred to by
Huther and Alf., (Plato Cratyl. p. 430 E. and Lysias c. Eratosth. p. 429), which may,
to say the least, justify the application of the two pronouns to the same person.
If, however, such an application can ever be allowed, the present sentence is one in
which it may easily be believed, that a special emphasis was designed to be
placed upon the agency of the devil in carrying out his own will. R. V. text
has having been taken captive by the Lord’s servant unto the will of God. The two
other possible renderings are placed in the margin. A. R. V. places in the text
the explanation favored in this note: having been taken captive by him unto his will.
246 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
CHAPTER III.
VER. 1. yivwoxe] For this, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A F G 238;
al., Aeth. Boern. Aug., adopted yivdoxere. Tisch., on the authority of C D E K
L &, most cursives, versions, etc., retained the Rec., of which reading nearly all
expositors, even Reiche, have declared themselves to be in favor. Still the plur.
might be the original reading, since there was no occasion for changing the sing.
into the plur.—Ver. 2. x omits of before dv0pwra; a mere alteration, because the
art. seemed to present a difficulty in meaning.—Ver. 3. »% omits dcropyor.—Ver. 6.
Gizuadurifuvres, for aiyuadwretovres, was adopted even by Griesb., on the
authority of A C D* E F G x, many cursives, versions, and Fathers.—Before
yuvaxdpia the Rec. has the art. ré, which, however, was deleted by Griesb., on the
authority of AC DE F G x, etc.—Ver. 8. The two names are differently written
by some mss.; for, Iavvjc, C* has "Iwdvyn’; Vulg. Cypr. etc. have Jamnes; for
"Tau Bpzc, F G, Vulg. It., many Fathers, also the Talmudists, have Map{pic.
Matthaei thinks that this change was made arbitrarily by Origen, who had a
fashion of altering proper names, partim propter ineptas allegorias, partim prop-
ter ineptas etymologias suas.—Ver. 9. The reading in A, drdvoca for dvora, must
be regarded as an arbitrary alteration.—Ver. 10. rapyxo2otOyKxac] Ree. Tisch. 7;
for this, A C F G x 17, al., have the aorist tap7xoAotfyoac, which was adopted by
Lachm. and Tisch. 8; F and G have the simple 7xoAovfyoac, The perf. seems to
be a correction made after the analogy of 1 Tim. iv. 6.—Instead of the difficult
Ty aywy%, there is found in D* gr. r# ayémy, a manifest correction.—Ver. 11. For
éyéveto, Lachm. and Buttm. read éyévovro, after A 38, al.; but there is not suffi-
cient testimony to establish its genuineness.—Ver. 12. Tisch. 7: evoeBa¢ Civ, Rec.
supported by a large majority of authorities; on the other hand, Tisch. 8: ¢7
evoeBac (Lachm. Buttm.), after A P x, ete.—Ver. 14. rivoc] The reading rivay,
which has the testimony of A C F G 17, 71, al., Slav. It. Ambrosiast., and was
adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., deserves to be preferred to the usual rivoc, for
this reason, that the latter may easily be explained to have arisen from thinking
here of Paul only. De Wette is undecided, but Reiche is in favor of the Rec.—
Ver. 15. The art. ra before Jepd is placed in brackets by Lachm. and omitted by
Tisch. 8; it is wanting in C** D* F G ».— Ver. 16. As xai seems to disturb the
construction, it is omitted in several versions and Fathers; Origen even has
once: @edrvevorog ovoa, apiAiuds éotrt.—For éAcyxov, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch.
adopted éAeyuéy, on the authority of A C F G x, 31, 71, 80, al.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-9, see Note XXIX., page 258.] Consequent on the
previous exhortations we have a foreshadowing of the evil state of things
in the future.—rovro 62 yivwoxe] Even if the plural yevdoxere be the correct
reading, it does not follow that the epistle was directed to others beside
Timothy; when an exhortation is general in nature, there is nothing
strange in an extension of the point of view.—ér: év éoydrae hukpasc |
CHAP. 111. 1-5. 247
[X XTX a.] comp. 1 Tim. iv. 1; Grotius wrongly translates: posthac. It
denotes a definite period, not, however (asin Acts ii. 17; Heb. i. 1), the pre-
sent, the time between the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His second
coming to judgment (Heydenreich), nor the time in which the errors
shall come to an end (Mack), but the time immediately preceding Christ’s
~sapovoia, in which time, according to apostolic prophecy, the might of the
wicked one shall be fully revealed in order to be completely overcome;
comp. 2 Pet. iii. 3; Jude 18.—évorfoovra:] éviornu:, as an intransitive verb,
has the sense of “ be near at hand,” but in such a way that it passes over
into the sense of “be present;” thus in Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22,
éveorota and péAdovra stand in sharp antithesis as “things present” and
“things future.” Bengel therefore is correct: aderunt. The same is the
case with the Latin instare; hence there is no ground for finding fault
with the Vulg. “instabunt” (de Wette), since in the future something
future was denoted. Luther is not quite exact: “will come.”—xacpo?
xareroi] de Wette: “critical times; ” xaspéc is not simply the time, but
the state of things at the time.—The next verses show in what way these
xa:poi Will show themselves to be yaderoi.
Vv. 2-5. "Esovra: yap ot dvOpwra) [X XIX 6.] The article o! is not to be
overlooked. Luther is inaccurate: there will be men; Nouveau Test. &
Mons: il y aura des hommes. The article points to the generality, but,
as Matthies rightly observes, not exactly “all without exception, rather
taking the average, as a general rule.”—Bengel : majore gradu et numero
tales, quam unquam, in ecclesia.—Mack is incorrect: “the people of
whom I am speaking.”—#idavra (am. Aey.). It may be explained from
Arist. ad Nicom. ix. 8: roig giAabrovg éy aicxp > aroxdédover. . Heinrichs, on
the analogy of 1 Cor. x. 24, says: (yrév rd éavrod, u Ta Tov érépov.—PuAdpyvpor |
only elsewhere in Luke xvi. 14; the substantive occurs in 1 Tim. vi. 10.—
aAdlovec, trepfgavo:] Rom. i. 30; the first expresses boastfulness without
intending contempt for others; the second, pride and haughtiness with
contempt for others; see Meyer on that passage. Hofmann’s explana-
tion of aAéfuv is not appropriate: “he who attributes to himself an honor
which is not his.”—,Adognyor] “ slanderous;’’ not quite “ blasphemous ”
(Matthies). In 1 Tim. i. 13 a definite reference to divine things is given
by the context.—yovedow areBeic] Rom. i. 830.—ayépioto] elsewhere only in
Luke vi. 35 (Ecclus. xvi. 29; Wisd. xxix. 17).—avéovr.] 1 Tim.i.9. Beza:
quibus nullum jus est nec fas.—Ver. 3. doropyo:] Rom. i. 31, especially of
the natural affection between parents and children: caritate a natura ipsa
nobis insita orbati, Heinrichs.—dorovda:] Rom. i. 31; both those who
make no covenant (Luther: “ irreconcilable”) and those who do not
keep a covenant made, “ covenant-breaking.” Hofmann says: “ one who
is destitute of moral sense of justice ;” but that does not give the reference
peculiar to the word.—0é:éfoao.] 1 Tim. iii. 11.—axpareic (az. Aey.), “having
no control over one’s passions;” 1 Cor. vii. 5: axpacia; the opposite is
éyxparhe, Tit. i. 8.—avfyepo| (am. Aey.). Oecumenius makes it equivalent
to Goi, axdévfpwro; synonymous with aveAefuovec, Rom. 1. 81.—agiAdyabor
(ar. Aey.); the opposite: g:Adyafo:, Tit. i. 8. Theophylact: éx@poi wavro¢
248 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ayafov. Luther wrongly: “ unkindly.”—Ver. 4. mpodéra:] Luke vi. 16;
Acts vii. 52; here: “men among whom there is no fidelity ’ (Wiesinger).
—nporereic ] (Acts xix. 36), qui praecipites sunt in agendo (Bengel), “ fool-
hardy.” Hofmann’s is too weak: “inconsiderate.” —rervgwuévor] 1 Tim.
iii. 6, vi. 4, “‘ puffed up,” not merely “made stupid ” (Hofmann).—¢i2-4dor01
HGAAoy % gAdbexr (both words am. Aey. Philo, de Agricult.: g:Agdovov xar
gidoraby uaAa2ov h giAdpetov Kai giAdfeov épydfecOar); such paronomiasia are
often found in the N. T.; see Wilke’s Hermeneutik, vol. II. p. 846: “rather
hunting after pleasure than seeking after God.” '—Ver. 5. Eyovree pdpdworv
evoeBeiac] uédpgworc, Rom. ii. 20, in a different meaning from here; see
Meyer on that passage. We must not, like Beza, upderstand it to be
vera forma et effigies pietatis, sicut in lege proponitur; it rather denotes
the erternal form in general. But as Paul contrasts it here with dtévayic, it
acquires the signification of mere appearance in distinction from true
nature.—rnv dé divauw abrig gpvnutévor] divauec in contrast with udpdwore:
“the living, powerful nature of genuine blessedness” (Heydenreich).—
qpvnuévor] 1 Tim. v. 8; Tit. i. 16, 11.12: “they show that they do not pos-
sess the divaucc, and do not wish to possess it.”—This ends the enumera-
tion of the characteristics which Paul uses to describe the men in the
last times——Rom. i. 30, 31 is similar to this passage; Wiesinger (fol-
lowing Olshausen) aptly remarks: “it is a new heathendom under a
Christian name which the apostle is here describing.”—A definite con-
nection between the ideas cannot be established,? but in both passages
kindred ideas are placed together. Thus the two first are compounded
with ¢iAo¢; then follow three expressions denoting arrogance; to yovevorr
anabeig there is added aydporo; this word begins a longer series of words
beginning with a privative, and the series is interrupted by d:dfoA0; the
next expressions: mpodérat, mporereic, seem to form a paronomasia; to
xporereic there is added the kindred notion rerugwpuévor ; some more general
notions close the list. But this very confusion brings out more vividly
the varied manifestations of the evil one. It is to be observed, however,
that the list begins with ¢iAavra, that accordingly only such qualities are
enumerated as have their root in ¢:Aevria, and that hypocrisy is the last
mentioned, as the means by which the selfish man seeks to conceal his
selfishness by a show of piety —Heydenreich wrongly tries to establish in
the particular expressions a special reference to the peculiar nature of the
heretics.—As the closing word, Paul adds the exhortation: kai rotrove
Grotpézov] amotpérov, am. Aey. (1 Tim. vi. 20: éxrpéreo6ar), is kindred in
meaning with zapa:rov, ii. 23: “ from these things turn away, these things
1Theod. v. Mopsu.: ¢iAautoi eiow ot mavra = RaTepyagecOac =pdxny, axpareis HTTovs Twr
mpos Thy €avTwy wpéAccay movovvTes, adacoves
Kavxwuevor Exery & mH Exovaty, UTepydavot pe-
yada gpovourvtes emi Tois ovo, BAdcodyuos
KaTyyopiats xatpovTes, avdc.ot emepéAccay TOU
Stxaiov my morovmevot, acropyo. mepi ovdéva
cxéow éxortes, agrovdo. ov BéBaror mepe Tas
Alas, ovde adnOcis repi A cuvTidevrar, dcaBodos
TauTa Te éxel, exeiva évTavOa AdyorTes emi TH
wabwv, avnipepor ovdeutas xpnoToryros éwipedov-
pevot, TeTUPwWuEvOL peydAa Hpovovvres Eri ToIs
“nN Bpogover.
2 Hofmann does indeed seek to establish an
order in accordance with definite points of
view, but he does not accomplish this without
much ingenuity and many inaccurate inter.
pretations.
CHAP. III. 6. 249
avoid.”—This exhortation shows that Paul in single phenomena of the
day already recognized the approach of the xapoi zxateroi which were to
come fully in the future.
Ver. 6. In this verse the apostle passes on to definite facts in the pres-
ent. We cannot but see that he is thinking of the heretics on whose
aoéBeca he lays stress also in other passages; comp. ver. 8 (ii. 16). Hof-
mann says that “ Paul was thinking of people who wished to be consid-
ered, and pretended to be, on good terms with Timothy ;” but there is no
hint of this in the context. By similarity of disposition they belong
already to the number of the godless men of the future ; hence Paul says:
éx totruv yap eiaw | yap gives the reason of the previous exhortation, as the
apostle means to declare that men such as he has described already
exist.—oi évdivovtec ei¢ rac oixiacg] évdiverv here, “ enter, press into,” with a sug-
gestion of secrecy; Luther: “who slip into houses here and there;”
Bengel: irrepentes clanculum; in this sense the word is araf Aey.1 The
form of expression of évdivovres shows that this évdive is a characteristic
of those of whom the apostle is speaking.—The purpose of this secret
entering is given in the next words: kal alyuadwrifovre¢ yuvatkdpia «.7.A.]
[XXIX c¢.] aiypuadurifev, a verb belonging to later Greek: ‘“ make a pris-
oner of war; ” it denotes here, getting complete possession of; the word
is thoroughly apposite for describing the conduct of the founders of hereti-
cal sects.2—yvvaixdpia] az. Aey., the diminutive with a suggestion of con-
tempt; “the contemptuous epithet indicates their weakness and prone-
ness fo temptation” (van Oosterzee)—The nature of these yvvacdpia is
described in the following three participial clauses: ceowpevuéva dpapriac]
owpetecv (Rom. xii. 20), “ gather, heap up,” corresponds to the Latin cumu-
lare: “cumulatae peccatis.”—aydueva émedupiaig roidarg (Rom. viii. 14;
Gal. v. 18, dyeo¥ac rveiyar:). Luther is inaccurate: “who go on with
manifold lusts.” Their internal motive and spring of action are their
manifold lusts.2—Comp. Tit. iii.3.—Ver. 7. révrore uavddvovra] Bengel adds
the adverb: curiose. The incentive of their pav9dver was not the search
after truth, but mere desire for entertainment, a longing for intellectual
pastime (comp. the description of the Athenians, Acts xvii. 21); this long-
ing makes them the prey of teachers who promise new wisdom. - Hence
it goes On: Kal pndérore cig éExiyvwow aAnVeiag EAVeiv duvdyueva] pydérore i8 az.
Aey.; duvvaueva is emphatic; they cannof attain to the truth, because the
necessary conditions do not exist in their inner life.—Mosheim thinks
that the three participial clauses describe the three different classes of the
yuvacxapia: (1) sinners, (2) seekers after happiness, (3) devotees; they
rather denote various traits in the same persons, and “the very union of
/
1Chrysoat: eldes, rd avaicxuvroy rus edjAwoe
Sia tov eimeiv; dvduvorres? 1d driyov, Thy
amatTny, Thy KoAaxciay.
*#The word occurs in Ignatius (Ep. ad Phila-
delph. chap. ii.) in the same sense as here:
wodAoi Avcot asiomioras R8ory Kaxy aixunareri-
Gover rovs Seodpduous.
3Chrysostom: ri éore wotxiAas; évravda
wodAd nvigaro, Thy Tpydny, THY agxnuocvryny,
my Aayveiay.
4Chrysostom: éwecd) éaurds xaréxwoar Tai¢s
éwcOvuiats exeivats Kal Tors apaprypyacey,
dwwpwOy avTray » Scdvoca, ‘
250 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
such traits is characteristic ” (de Wette).—It is no matter of surprise that
the heretics, to win more followers, turned their attentions to the fair
sex ; that has been done by heretics in all ages. It is a charge brought
specially against the Gnostics by various writers.!. This, however, cannot
be taken as a proof of the later composition of the epistle, all the less that
many expressions in the descriptions of the Fathers show that they had
this description in their thoughts.
Ver. 8. Further description of the heretics: év rpérov d? "Iai kai
"lauBpic avréotycav Mwicei| Paul here compares the heretics to the Egyp-
tian Magi who are mentioned in Ex. vii. but not named. Origen (Tract.
35 in Mait.) thinks that the apostle extracted them from a liber secretus
which bore the title “‘Jamnes et Mambres.” That is, however, doubtful ;
Theodoret’s supposition is more probable: ra pévro: tobrwy dvéuata ovK éx
tig Oeiag ypagyc pepadynev 6 Deiog amébcrodoc, aA’ éx tHe aypdgov tov ‘Iovdaiwy
didacxadiag. The names were a part of Jewish tradition from which they
passed into the Talmudic and other Jewish writings; see Targum Jona-
than, Ex. vii. 11, xxii. 22. Even the Pythagorean Numenius in the second
century mentioned them, as Origen (Contra Celsum, iv.) and Eusebius
(Praep. Evangel. ix. chap. 8) inform us. “ According to Jewish tradition,
they are said to have been the sons of Balaam, and at first the teachers of
Moses, but afterwards his chief opponents, and to have perished at last with
the Egyptian army in the Red Sea;” see Heydenreich and Wetstein on this
passage.—The correlation of vy rpérov . . . obrw does not necessarily
place emphasis on the similarity of the manner of the act, but often only
on the similarity of the act itself (comp. Matt. xxiii. 87; Acts vii. 28).
Possibly, therefore, the heretics are compared with these sorcerers only
because they both withstood the truth (so Plitt)—Possibly, also, it is
because the resemblance lay in the heretics preaching the same thing as
Timothy, just as the sorcerers did the same thing as Moses, the heretics
and the sorcerers having the same purpose of striving against the truth
(so Hofmann). Still the mention of the sorcerers at all is strange; hence
we may suppose that the heretics by some more characteristic trait sug-
gested the resemblance to the apostle’s mind, and that this trait was their
use of magic arts, to which there is allusion made also in yéyrec, ver. 13
(de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee’). The dé not only marks the transi-
tion to a new thought, but also introduces something in contrast to what
1 Irenaeus, i. 13. 3, says of Marcus the Val-
entinian Gnostic: paAtora wept yuvaixas acxo-
Aecrat; and Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi.,expressly
upbraids the Gnostics with éumaigew ois
yuvatxapios and with amargy ro avrois weiO0-
smevoy yuvaixeiov yévos; see Baur, p. 36. The
passage, quoted by Mack from Jerome (Ep.
ad Ctesiphontem), is very descriptive: Simon
Magnus haeresin condidit adjutus auxilio He-
lenae meretricis; Nicolaus Antiochenus
omnium immunditiarum conditor choros
duxit foemineos; Marcion quoque Romam
praemisit mulierem ad majorem lasciviam ;
Apelles Philemonem comitem habuit; Mon-
tanus Priscam et Maximillam primum auro
corrupit, deinde haeresi polluit; Arius ut
orbem deciperet, sororem principis ante
decepit. Donatus Lucillae opibus adjutus
est; Elpidium caecum Agape caeca duxit;
Prisciliano juncta fuit Galla.
Van Oosterzee here makes an apposite
allusion to Simon Magus, to Elymas, to the
itinerating devil-exorcisers among the Jews,
and to the magic arts practised from time
immemorial at Ephesus, comp. Acts xix. 19.
CHAP. Im. 8-11. 251
preceded: what they did they did with an appearance of piety, but in
truth they were opposing the truth.—xarepOappévoe tov vovv] The verb
katagOcipw (ar. Aey.; in 2 Pet. ii 12 it is the reading of the Rec., but there
is more testimony for the simple verb) is synonymous with d:apVeipe, 1
Tim. yi. 5.—adéxiyoe epi tiv riorcv] Luther’s translation: “incapable of
believing,” is inaccurate; nor is Beza’s explanation suitable: rejectanei,
i.e. falsae et adulterinae doctrinae doctores, quos oporteat ab ommibus
rejici. ’Addx:uoc is one who does not stand proof, and in connection with
mepi tiv wiotty One Who does not stand proof in regard to faith: “ not stand-
ing proof in respect of faith”’ (Matthies, de Wette); comp. 1 Tim.i. 19.
The description here given of the heretics is the same as in 1 Tim. vi. 5:
dtegSappuévor Tov vow Kal ameorepnutvar tig aAmSelac.
Ver. 9. A ground of comfort.—a2” ob mpoxdpovow ext mieiov] This ap-
pears to stand in contradiction with ver. 138 and ii. 16, 17. Bengel
remarks: non proficient amplius: non ita, ut alios seducant ; quaamquam
ipsi et eorum similes proficient in pejus ver. 138. Saepe malitia, quum
late non potest, profundius proficit. This, however, is not a satisfactory
explanation, since voujy ééer, ii. 17, and mrAavévres, ver. 13, point to the
increasing extent of the heresy. Chrysostom, however, says rightly: «av
mporepov avdjnon Ta THO TAdvys, Eig TEAoG ob diauévee. The contradiction exists
only when the apostle’s words are wrongly pressed so as to contain a
denial of every further extension of the heresy. For the present their
influence is extending ; but later it will come to an end; this does not
contradict the apostle’s prophecy in vv. 1-5, since Paul does not say that
the demoralization of men will be brought about by the heretics of whom
he is thinking here. Hofmann sees no apparent contradiction, as he
supposes that Paul in the passages mentioned is not speaking of the same
people; but in this he is wrong, since both the context and the expression
show that those mentioned in ver. 13 are the same as those in vv. 6-9.—
The apostle confirms the thought expressed by adding the words: # yap
dvora abtév Exdndog Eotae mao] The dvoa (= “want of judgment, sense-
lessness ’’) of the heretics does not refer so much to their doctrines opposed
to the truth, as to their conduct described in ver. 6.—éxdnAog (am. Aey.) . ..
i Kai % éxeivwv éyévero] “ as they were put to shame before Moses,” Ex. viii.
18 f., ix. 11 (de Wette).
Vv. 10, 11. [On Vv. 10-17, see Note XXX., pages 258, 259.] As a contrast
to the heresy, the apostle now describes Timothy’s former conduct, for the
purpose of inciting him to show a like fidelity still. [XXX a.J]—od 8
mapnxosot3dnoac] The verb denotes neither that he was an actual witness
(Chrysostom: rotrwy ob pdptvc; 80, too, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Eras-
mus, and others;—this exposition is unsuitable, since these events, ver.
11, in the apostle’s life had taken place before Timothy’s conversion), nor
even that the knowledge was gained through others (Luther: “thou hast
come to know”). TapaxoAov3eivy means “ follow,” either theoretically, as
in Luke i. 3 (“ of intellectual following after, by which the knowledge of a
thing is gained,” Meyer on the passage), or practically, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6.
Here it can only have the latter meaning. Here, however, as in 1 Tim.
‘N
252 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
iv. 6, it is not equivalent to imitari, follow as a pattern (de Wette), for that
does not agree with dwypoi¢ (ver. 11), but the apostle’s didacxadia, aywy7
«.7.A. are regarded as guides by which Timothy is to steer his course
through life (so also van Oosterzee, Hofmann, Otto’). Wiesinger explains
it: ‘thou hast let thyself be moved by my d:dackadia x.7.A. to join thyself
to me.” But this explanation unjustifiably limits the zapaxodovdeiv to
“the act by which Timothy first joined himself to the apostle ;” further,
this notion of joining himself is imported; and finally, it would seem
superfluous to enumerate the particular points if they are only to be
understood as motives for Timothy’s joining himself to the apostle-—The
aorist says that Timothy followed the apostle before; there is no indica-
tion whether he did so later. This earlier period was, of course, the time
when he was the apostle’s ovvepyéc. The perfect would have meant that
Timothy continued to do so.—pov ry didackxadig] [XXX b.] comp. 1 Tim.
iv. 6.—ry aywyi] With this and the following words ov is to be supplied.
Mack wrongly says that ov is not to be supplied, and that aywyf and the
terms following do not refer to Paul, but to Timothy: “thou hast followed
my doctrine in behavior,” etc. Apart from the unnatural construction,
this view is decidedly opposed by ver. 11, for it is quite untenable to sup-
pose that Timothy in the places named suffered persecution just as Paul
did.—ayuy4 (ar. Aey.) in classic Greek is both transitive, “the guidance,”
and intransitive, “ mode of life,” ratio vivendi. The latter meaning (see
Esth. 11. 20) should here be retained; the word cannot of itself mean
guidance of the church, as some interpret it. Luther says well: “my
manner.”—r9 mpodéoe] cf. Acts xi. 23, “the purpose on which the mode
of life is founded.” —rq ziorec] not “ fidelity in office,” nor “ conscientious-
ness,” but “faith.”"—rg paxpodvpia x.r.4.] The difference between saxpo-
Suuia and irouovf is, that the former is applied to one who is not irritated,
the latter to one who is not discouraged.—Ver. 11. roi¢ dtwypoic, roig madjyu-
ao] The transition to these is formed by trouovg. The idea of dwypoi¢ is
expanded by adding ra¥fuacv. The apostle is thinking specially of his
persecutions, and his reason is that Timothy shrank to a certain extent
from suffering; comp. i. 6-8.—vid pos éyévovro (éyévero)] ota is distinguished
from the relative a, inasmuch as it points to the nature of the radfpara;
& would have limited zad3fuaow to what the apostle had to endure in
Antioch, etc.; but ota indicates that he means by ra¥quaow all sufferings
of the same nature as those endured in Antioch, etc. This is the case also
with oiove farther on. The sufferings endured in Antioch, etc., are men-
tioned because they took place at the time when Timothy was adopted
by Paul as his colleague.—In the next words: olovg dwypove iriveyxa, the
10tto: “wapaxoAovéeiv is to be taken in its
most literal sense, not comprobari, amplecti,
or even imitari, but fullow after. Timothy of
his own accord not only followed after his
doctrine, but also his sufferings; for that
these lay in the path of an apostle was shown
clearly enough by events in Antioch, Ico-
nium, and Lystra. Hence, however, he is
not to be surprised if he finds on his way the
very thing he had willingly followed after."—
Hofmann explains it: “ Timothy as scholar
followed that in which Paul had preceded
him as teacher, so that Christianity taught
him what Christianity was.”
CHAP. m1. 12, 13. 253
verb is emphatic; it was important, when directing Timothy to the ex-
ample given him, to remind him that the persecutions had been borne
undauntedly—and then that the Lord had granted rescue from them all;
hence he continues: xai éx mdvrwv pe épicaro 6 xipwc. Erasmus, Flatt,
Mack, Heydenreich unnecessarily take the sentence: oiove . . . imfveyxa,
as a touching appeal; Hofmann, both this sentence and the preceding
one: old pot éyévero x.t.A. This would only be an unsuitable interruption
of the quiet train of thought.'—irogépery denotes persevering, stedfast
endurance, 1 Cor. x. 13; 1 Pet. 11. 17.—xai éx wévrov pe x.7.2.2]| He men-
tions his sufferings, and his rescue from them, that he may encourage
Timothy to be ready to suffer for Christ’s sake. Itis to be observed that
ye épvoaro refers not only to rescue from bodily danger, but also to rescue
from the danger of being unfaithful to his calling, so that out of his suffer-
ings he had issued without hurt to body or soul ; comp. iv. 17.
Ver. 12. The principle here laid down is intehded, like the mention of
Timothy’s conduct in ver. 11, to incite Timothy to willing endurance of
suffering.—xal wavrec dé] nai . . . dé, see 1 Tim. ili. 10.—oi OéAovrec] is here
emphatic: “they whose thoughts are thus directed.”—<7 ciaeBac] the
‘adverb ebaeBac only here and in Tit. ii. 12—év Xpcor 'Iyoov] denotes the
pious life as Christian in its nature; but it is to be observed that, accord-
ing to the apostolic view, true eveé8ea is possible only in communion with
Christ Hofmann unsuitably remarks that the emphasis should not be
on év Xp. 'Inc., but on evoeBac, for Civ evasBdc év Xp. ‘Ino. forms only one
idea: that of the Christian life of piety —d.wz6joovra:] expresses the cer-
tainty: Christian piety cannot continue without persecution, because the
world is hostile to the kingdom of God; comp. John xv. 19, 20; Matt. x.
22, 38, and other passages. Wiesinger rightly remarks: ‘“ Not to comfort
himself does the apostle say this, but to show that his experience was a
universal one, as something necessarily bound up with evoeBa C7,” and, it
should be added, to give encouragement to Timothy.
Ver. 13. Matthies (with whom Wiesinger agrees) thus states the con-
nection between this and the preceding verses: “ Quite different is it with
evil men, who, instead of suffering for the truth, proceed always farther
in their wickedness ;’’ but there is no real opposition in the two thoughts
thus opposed.‘ The apostle here continues the description of the heretics
which was interrupted at ver. 10; in contrast with ol 6éAovre¢ evoeBac S7v, he
1 Hofmann maintains that if the sentences
beginning with ofa and oiovs were to be rela-
tive sentences, the apostle would have writ-
ten: rots Sceypois, otovs UIrjveyca, Tois waly}-
magty, ola wo éyévero; but this would make
too wide a separation between the cognate
ideas 8imypois and wafyjpaory, and the second
sentence; ola «.7.A., would be only a weak
appendage.—The objection, that the relative
sentence with Siwypuois is quite superfluous,
is quite removed if the emphasis he placed
On usjveyxa. Nor can it be said that “dimy-
movs is unskilfully introduced,” since this in-
troduction was necessary, if the apostle
wished to express his thought in a relative
clause.
2Chrysostom: ayddérepa wapaxAjcews, Ste
Kai dyw mpoOvuiay maperxouny yevvaiay, Kai OvK
éycareAcipOny.
3Bengel: extra Jesum Christum nulla
pietas.
4 Wiesinger argues, on the other hand, that
“suffering for the sake of holiness, and
advance in wickedness with outward success,”
do form a contrast; but the idea “with out-
ward success” is entirely imported.
256 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ood. ei¢ owrnpiav only denotes an instruction, “ giving complete acquaintance
with salvation ;” for “in order that Timothy might remain in what he had
learnt, it was only necessary for the Scripture to teach what he knew.”
But what any one already knows does not require still to be taught to
him; and instruction leading on to knowledge ever more complete, does
not hinder him from abiding in what he has already learnt. Accord-
ing to Hofmann, 6:4 ricrewe is to be joined with ourypiav, because—as
he strangely enough asserts—“ instruction by means of faith is a
chimera ”’ (!).
Ver. 16. Reason given for the last thought.—raca ypad) Oedmvevoros
kai woé2.uog mpdc K.7.A.] [XXX d.] waca ypagy, not: “the whole of Scrip-
ture ” (Beza: tota scriptura, i.e. Canon Hebraeorum), but ‘every Scrip-
ture;” or, still better, “all Scripture.” —fleémvevoroc] am. Aey.; the explana-
tion of this word, which also in classic Greek is applied to seers and poets,
is specially aided by the passage in 2 Pet. i. 21: id rveiparog dyiov gepdbpevor
éAdAnoav ol aytoe Oeov GvOpwro.—In various old versions (Syr. Vulg.; so also
in Clement, Origen, Tertullian, etc.) xai is wanting; and Luther did not
express it in his translation; in that case 6eédrv. is clearly an attribute
belonging to the subject; Luther: “all Scripture inspired by God is.”
With the correct reading, however, 6eérv. may be a predicate; so Bengel:
est haec pars non subjecti (quam enim scripturam dicat Paulus, per se
patet), sed praedicati; so, too, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Ooster-
zee, and others. Other expositors, again, such as Grotius, Rosenmiiller,
Heinrichs, Plitt, Hofmann, take @eéveveroc as an attribute of the subject,
even with this reading, and explain xai as “also.” This construction is
the right one. On the one hand, it is ungrammatical to explain waca
ypagn by “the whole of Scripture.” Wiesinger argues against this by
appealing to Eph. ii. 21 and to Heb. iii. 3; see Meyer on the one passage
and Delitzsch on the other, where, too, Liinemann translates: “every
house.” ? Wiesinger argues also that ypad4 is regarded as a proper name,
which he tries to prove by 2 Pet. i. 20 and John vii. 15; but, though a sub-
stantive is used once without an article, it does not follow that it has the
signification of a proper name (on John vii. 15, comp. Meyer). On the
other hand, this sentence does not properly give a reason for the preced-
ing thought (Wiesinger), but rather confirms it, and hence there was no
reason for directing attention to the fact that the whole of Scripture is
Oeérvevoroc, There was no doubt on that point (viz. that the whole of Scrip-
ture and not a part of it was inspired by God), but on the point whether
the Scriptures as Oeérvevoro: are also (kai serves to confirm) &¢éApor. There
is no ground for asserting that, with this view, there could not have been
an ellipse of éorw (Wiesinger).—po¢ didacxadiav x.r.A.] Heydenreich thinks
that the apostle is not speaking here of the profitableness of Scripture in
general and for all Christians, but of its utility to teachers of religion. So
also Hofmann: “ The sentence does not say of what service Holy Scrip-
1Not less inappropriate is van Oosterzee’s passage,and Winer, pp. 105 f. [E. T. p. 111}
appeal to Eph. iii. 15 (comp. Meyer on the and tol Pet. i. 16.
CHAP. Ill. 16, 17. 257
ture is to him who reads it, but what use can be made of it by him who
teaches.” This view, however, is wrong; neither in ver. 14 nor ver. 15is
there anything said regarding Timothy’s work in teaching ; the apostle does
not pass on to this point till the next chapter, ver. 17 notwithstanding.—
mpoc didaox.; Holy Scripture is profitable for teaching by advancing us in
knowledge ; zpé¢ éAeyzou (or éAeyu6v), by convincing us of sin and rebuking
us on account of sin.!’ Chrysostom understands it only of the conviction
of error; so, too, Bengel: convincit etiam in errore et praejudicio versan-
tes; Heydenreich, too, refers it, like d:dacxadia, only to what is theoretical.
"RAéyxew certainly does occur in this sense, Tit. i. 9, 18, but it is more fre-
quently used of what is practical, 1 Tim. v. 20; Tit. 11. 15.—zpéc érrarépOworv
by working amendment in us.?—éravop6. (ar. Aey.) 18 Synonymous with
vodecia, 1 Cor. x. 11.—rpé¢ raideiav tiv év dixacootvy] by advancing us in the
further development of the Christian life. Luther is not wrong in trans-
lating wadeia by “ correction,” inasmuch as in N. T. usage it is applied to
the education which not only develops the existing good, but also counter-
acts existing evil. dixasoobvy : “the Christian life of piety.”—Theodoret :
Exmratdeber Nuac Ta eldy tH¢ apeT7¢.—There is an obvious climax in the series of
these thoughts.
Ver. 17. “Iva declares the purpose which Scripture is to serve.—dpruo¢ 9 6
tov Ocov avOpwroc] aprio¢ (literally, “adapted ”) is a dm. Acy., equivalent to
rédewoc, Col. i. 28, “ perfect;” according to Hofmann: “in suitable condi-
tion,” which, however, agrees with the notion of perfection.—é rov Oeod
éxpuro¢] [XXX e.] is mostly understood by expositors to denote those
entrusted with the office of evangelist, and is referred specially to Timo-
thy. The latter point is clearly wrong, since ver. 16 is general in sense ;
the apostle speaks here not of Timothy only, but of every one who is an
GvOp. tr. Ocov. Even although Timothy is so named in 1 Tim. vi. 11 with
reference to his office, it does not follow that here, where the thought
is quite general, itis a name for the office; every believing Christian by
his relation to God (van Oosterzee: “he who by the Holy Spirit is born of
God and is related to God”) may receive the same name.—rpéc av épyov
ayabov éEnptiopévoc| & more precise definition of aéprwc.—rav Epy. ay. is also,
for the most part, understood to have an official reference. Bengel: gen-
era tallum operum enumerantur ver. 16; nam homo Dei debet docere,
convincere, corrigere, instituere iv. 2. But this is wrong; it is rather to be
taken quite generally (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ; de Wette differs). Ver.
16 does not tell for what purpose Scripture may be used with others, but
what is its influence on one who occupies himself with it; and though iv.
2 does deal with Timothy’s official work, that does not prove that av épy.
ay. is only to be limited to this special thought.—éfypriopévoc] equipped,
Luther: “skilled.”—The same word occurs in Acts xxi. 5, but in another
connection (see Meyer on the passage); corresponding to it we find xarnp-
tiopévoc in Luke vi. 40 and other passages. |
1Theodoret: dAdyxas ydp yuey roy wapd- 2Theodoret: wapaxadtet xai rovs maparpa-
vouoy ior. wévras éwaveAGety eis Thy evOelav ddr.
17
258 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Nores BY AMERICAN EpITor.
XXIX. Vv. 1-9.
(a) The use of the word éo74racc, as distinguished from torépore (1 Tim. iv. 1),
shows that the reference here is to what are especially called “the last days,” that
is, the time just preceding the second coming of the Lord. This is indicated,
also, by the future of tle verb as connected with xapoi—the grievous times are
not present, but future, belonging to the last period. The 5th verse, however,
can hardly be explained, without finding in its words an intimation, that what
thus belonged to the future was already beginning. According to the most natural
interpretation of these verses, therefore, they would seem to point to the Parousia
as, to the writer's view, not very remote. Yet the time of its coming was uncer-
tain, and it is evident from iv. 6, that he did not himself now expect to live to
see it.—(b) The description of the men of these coming times is, in several par-
ticulars, somewhat strikingly similar to that which is given of the heathen
nations in Rom. i. 28 ff. At the same time, it is evident that it goes beyond what
is there found, and we may believe that the Apostle bases his representation of
their character on that of the erroneous teachers whom he sees already at work,
and that he carries into the descriptive words the force which results from them.
The words, accordingly, have a deeper meaning and they represent a depraved
moral condition which is, in the sense that it comes from a wilful rejection of the
truth, worse than that depicted in the earlier epistle—(c) Fairbairn supposes the
persons alluded in ver. 6 as taking captive, etc., to be not teachers, but “of the class
called sorcerers or magicians, men of bloated consciences and reprobate minds,
who for merely selfish ends, played upon the weakness and credulity of mankind,
and pre-eminently upon certain portions of the female section of them.” The
general reference to teachers, however, which is manifest in all the other passages
in which the errors are spoken of, renders it probable that a similar reference is
to be found here. The action of these teachers was of the insinuating, selfish and
misleading character, which Fairbairn suggests. He thinks the women here re-
ferred to were “the frivolous and worldly-minded, who lived, for the most part,
in fullness and pleasure, but were visited at times with recoils of feeling, guilty
compunctions, fears of a judgment to come.”
XXX. Vv. 10-17.
(a) In this passage Paul sets forth the past course of Timothy, in contrast to
the course of the false teachers, and then urges him to continue in the same.
Writers who, like Alford, regard Timothy as having grown weak and become
fearful, find in the aorist tense, tap7xoAov6yoac, as distinguished from the perfect,
an intimation of this change. This seems unnecessary. The aorist refers to the
time past, when Timothy had been in association with the Apostle as a fellow-
laborer, and the standpoint of time which divides the past from the future is
taken, as so frequently in Paul’s writings. Had there been any such special
change, or falling back from faithfulness, in Timothy, it could hardly fail to have
been brought out with greater clearness and definiteness.—(b) The reference to
the Apostle’s own history and experience, which is made in these verses, is strik-
ingly in accordance with his ordinary manner of alluding to himself in his earlier
NOTES. 259
epistles. The particular references here given are introduced, as explained by
Huther, because the things mentioned took place when Timothy became his com-
panion. The statement of the deliverance which had been granted to himeelf,
and the declaration of ver. 12, are doubtless designed to strengthen and encourage
Timothy to meet the sufferings which he might be called to undergo.—(c) The
reading rivwy (ver. 14) is preferred by Huther, as also by Tisch. 8th ed., Treg., W.
& H., Alf, and others. So also R. V. This reading has the best manuscript
authority, and may easily have been changed by copyists to tivoc, in order to
connect the instruction of Timothy with Paul. If rivwy is adopted, it refers, in
all probability, to the grandmother and mother (comp. i. 5). That an allusion
to them would be natural here, is indicated by the fact of the previous allusion in
the first chapter, and that they are the persons whom the Apostle has in mind is
rendered probable, if not certain, by the words a7d Bpégouc of ver. 15.—(d) The
construction of ver. 16 adopted by R. V., which makes Geémvevorog a part of the
subject and gives to xai the meaning also, is probably correct. The decision re-
specting this point depends mainly on the connection of thought with the preced-
ing verse. That verse assumes the ‘epéd character of the ypduyara, and predicates
of them that they are able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. It is exactly in
accordance with this to regard ver. 16 as assuming the Yeory. character of every
Scripture, and as affirming that it is useful for the particular ends mentioned,
which are all connected with the wisdom unto salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus. The formal statement, that Scripture is inspired, is not demanded by the
context, or, apparently, by anything in Timothy’s condition, and it seems ante-
cedently improbable that it would be made to him in such a passage as this, which
relates to other subjects more immediately. Paul is not making an emphatic
contrast here between the truth and the false teaching, considered in themselves
or as to the source from which they come. He is, on the other hand, speaking
only of the perfecting of the man of God and the furnishing him thoroughly for
every good work.—The determination of the question as to the relation of Seon.
to the sentence does not necessarily affect the teaching of the verse as to inspira-
tion. If the adjective belongs to the subject, it is to be observed, that, according
to the suggestion of the preceding verse, where /epd is a descriptive adjective, it
most naturally qualifies aca ypag¢q as an attributive word. It covers taca ypagh,
accordingly, and does not mark or distinguish one ypa¢f in the lepa yp. from
another. The doctrine of the verse is thus, probably, the same—so far as inspira-
tion is concerned—whichever construction is adopted. The doctrine is distinctly
declared, if Geory. is a predicate; it is assumed and implied, if Yeorv is part of the
subject. Questions of dynamical or mechanical or minute verbal inspiration are,
as Bp. Ellicott remarks, not determined by this verse. These questions must find
their answer and solution in the various statements and phenomena of the Old
and New Testaments, which have a bearing upon the subject.—(e) The phrase
6 tov Yeov dvipwroc, (ver. 17), if determined in its meaning by the 16th verse, is
to be taken in a general sense and with reference to every Christian. This must,
probably, be regarded as the meaning intended by the writer; but it is not impos-
sible that, in applying the general truth to Timothy, he thought of him more
particularly with reference to his official life, which was, indeed, the life within
which the good works appointed for him to do would mainly fall.
260 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1, dcauaprbpoza}] The words otv éyé following this in the Ree. were
omitted from the text by Griesb., on the authority of A C D* EF G LR 17,
al., Syr. Erp. Copt. etc.—The same is the case with the words rot xvpiov, against
which there is the testimony of A C D* F G8 31, 37, al—For xpivey the
aorist xpiva: is found in F G, several cursives, Theodoret, and Theoph.; this
construction does occur sometimes in the N. T. (also in classic Greek), but there
is not sufficient authority for it here.—xard ry émipavercav] For xara (Ree. after
D*** EF K L, etc.), xai is the reading of A C D* F G x 17, al., Copt. Vulg.
ms. It. Harl. etc. This reading, as it implies a change of construction in the verb,
and even then makes the connection difficult, is of a kind which would easily give
occasion for correction; the easiest correction was into «ard. Chrysostom in his
commentary reads: év rH éxigaveig, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly adopted xa/,
which is approved also by Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, and van Oosterzee.
Reiche, on the other hand, because of the difficulty of the reading, xai, regards
the Rec. as the original reading, while he connects xaré with péAAovrac xpivery as
a preposition of time.—Ver. 2. Tisch. 7 reads éxcriuyoov, mapaxddecov, with the
majority of the authorities ; whereas Tisch. 8 reads tapaxdAecov, éririunoov, The
placing of ézcriunoov first may be a correction, because this word is related in
meaning to the previous éAeyfov.— Ver. 3. tag idiag Extfypiac] adopted by Griesb.
in place of rd¢ éxBuulacg tag idiac, on the authority of A C DE FG RX 38, 37,
al., Arm. Vulg. ete—Ver. 6. Instead of rT7¢ éuqj¢ avadtcewc, which is the Rec.
supported by D E K L, al. (Tisch. 7), it is more correct, with Lachm. Buttm.
and Tisch. 8, to read rj¢ avaAicedc pov, on the authority of A C F G RX, al.—
Ver. 7. For trav ayava rév xadéy (Tisch. 7), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the
authority of A C F G 8, al, adopted rév xadév ayova, which is certainly in
harmony with the usage of the Pastoral Epistles, but for that very reason may bea
correction.— Ver. 10. For the Rec. éyxarédimev (D* K X, etc.), Tisch. 7 adopted
the imperfect éyxaréAecrev, on the authority of A C D** and ** E FG L,
etc.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec., which is supported by D* K x, etc—In C 8,
several cursives, and Fathers, I'ad‘av is found instead of the Rec. Tadariav ;
Epiph. Haer. 57, dis. says: ov yap év Tadarig, d¢ tiveg rAavatlvteg vopifovorr,
adja év ry Tadia; of this reading Reiche says: est utique notatu digna; .. . me
cum Bengelio in hanc Jectionem inclinare sentio. But the Mss. almost all support
the Rec. ; and it cannot be inferred from the name Kpfoxn¢ (Crescens) that this -
man was sent more probably to Gaul, where Latin was in use, than to Galatia,
where Greek was spoken (Reiche) ; it is too rash, therefore, to regard this as the
original reading. Tisch. 8, however, adopted it, whereas Tisch. 7 does not even
mention it; Hofmann thinks it the correct reading.—Ver. 11. For dye, Lachm.
Buttm. and Tisch. 7 read the form dyaye, which, however, does not seem to have
sufficient testimony in A 31, 58, etc.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec., with the support.
of almost all authorities.—Ver. 13. For ¢eAévyyv are found also the forms ¢a:Advny,
cHAP. Iv. 1, 2. 261
garévyy, geddvav; but ¢eAév7 is best supported. While Tisch. 7 adopted the
imperfect a7éAecrov, on the authority of A C F G, etc., Tisch. 8 read the aorist
arélirov (Rec.), on the authority of D E K X, al.; so, too, Lachm. and Buttm.
—Ver. 14. azoddce] This is rightly read by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on
the authority of A C D* gr. E F G 8 6, 17, al., Copt. Arm. ete., Chrys, Theo-
doret, instead of arod&y, which has the support of D*** E** K L, etc., Tisch.
7, Reiche—Ver. 15. av6éoryxe] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 rightly read avréor7, on
the authority of A C D* F GX, al.; Tisch. 7 read av@éoryxev, on the authority
of D*** E K L, ete.—Ver. 16. ovumapeyévero] Following A C F G 8 17, al,
Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 adopted the simple tapeyévero ;—no doubt the compound
oununapey, (Tisch. 7) occurs seldom in the N. T., being found elsewhere only in
Luke xxiii. 48; but it seems nevertheless to be a correction made on account of
pot, Here, too, the readings vary between the imperfect éyxaréAecrov (Rec.) and
the aorist éyxatédwov; Tisch. 7 has the former, Tisch. 8 the latter; comp. vv. 10
and 13.—Ver. 17. Instead of the singular axotcy, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch.
rightly read the plural axotowot, supported by A C D EF G ew 17, 39, al.—Ver.
18. Kai at the beginning of the verse was rightly omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and
Tisch., on the authority of A C D* & 31, al., versions, Fathers; it was inserted
to connect this verse with the preceding one.—Ver. 20. M:Ajrw] For this A has
MyAwrp, and Arab. Mediry.—Ver. 22. For the Rec. 6 xbpuo¢ *Inooig Xpiotdg (C
D E K L), Lachm. and Buttm. have 6 xbpsog "Inoot¢ (A 31), Tisch. only 6 xbpro¢
(F G 17, etc.). Lachmann’s reading should perhaps have the preference, as
it is the one most open to correction.—ayu4v was omitted by Griesb. as a later
addition.
Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1-8, see Note XXXI., pages 275-277.] Exhortation to
faithful performance of official duty, enforced by the introductory formula:
dtapaptipopat évGriov tov Oecd x.t.A.] comp. il. 14; 1 Tim. v. 21.—rod péAAor-
tog xpivey ¢. x. vexp.] Theophylact rightly expounds it: (dvra¢ xai vexpoidc
Atyet tovc 40n aneAfbvrac, nat trove tére xatarerpOyoopévovg Covtac; comp. 1
Thess. iv. 16, 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. Christ is called judge of the dead and
the living, also in Acts x. 42; 1 Pet. iv. 5; itis quite wrong to suppose
that the spiritually dead and living are meant. The allusion to the last
judgment gives special strength to the exhortation.—xal ri éinipévecav
avrov] Most expositors adopt xaré, the usual reading, as the correct one,
and then take it asa preposition of time (Matt. xxvii. 15; Acts xiii. 27;
Heb. iii. 8), belonging to xpivew. With the correct reading, ri émig. x.7.A.
depends on dcapzapripoua: as the accusative of the oath (so, too, van Oos-
terzee and Plitt). [XX XI a.] It is, however, to be noted that in the N. T.
dtauapripesbac does not mean “swear” by itself, but only in connection
with évoriwv tov Oeov (only in the Pastoral Epistles), and therefore only in
this connection does it, like other verbs of swearing, govern the accusative,
as Hofmann rightly remarks. Hence it follows that xai does not connect
éxigdvecay with the previous évémov, but belongs to the following «ai:
“both ... and” (Hofmann). De Wette, appealing to Deut. iv. 26, incor-
rectly expoundsit: “TI call his appearance, etc.,to witness;” present things
may be summoned as witnesses, but not future events like the érigaveca of
Christ.—The Vulg. has: per adventum, without «ai: probably a transla-
262 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
/tion of xaré, which is taken as xaré with the genitive, Matt. xxvi. 63.—
éripavera, see 1 Tim. vi. 14.—xai riv Baordeiay abrov] Several expositors join
the two expressions as an hendiadys (Bengel: épdvera est revelatio et
exortus regni) = rt#v émid. tho Baodeiag avrov; but the avrev with én. is
against this. The two things are considered separately (Wiesinger: “the
repetition of airod is rhetorical; each element is intended to be taken
independently, and considered in its full significance”); the BaocAcia avrov
is the regnum gloriae which begins with the return of Christ.—The reason
for adding these words lies in the xpivew (. x. v.; Paul says he has Christ’s
second coming and kingdom in his thoughts, that he may give greater
importance to his exhortation —Ver. 2. x«gpvfov rdv Adyov] In 1 Tim. v. 21,
d:auz. is followed by iva with the conjunctive ; but here we have the simple
imperative, which makes the appeal all the more urgent (Wiesinger).—rév
Adyov, sc. Tov Oeov] This more precise definition is wanting here, because
the emphasis lies chiefly on the verb, Paul indicating to Timothy the work
to be done.—érior7& evxaipuc axaipwc] [XX XI b.] Most expositors join these
words closely with x#pvfov in sense. Heydenreich : ériornh, sc. ro xnpbocerv.
Theodoret: ovy drAae xal de Ervyev airy xypbrrew rapeyyva, aAAa wdavTa Katpov
énirfdecov mpd¢ tovto vouiferv, Vulg.: “insta;” Luther: “ persist;” so also
van Oosterzee ; similarly Wiesinger, who, in harmony with éiyeve avroic,
1 Tim. iv. 16, expounds it: “ keep one’s attention or activity directed to a
thing.” But this is not the usual meaning of the verb; it means rather
“ step towards or draw near ”’ (Hofmann is less precise: “approach, appear”’),
comp. Luke ii. 8, 38, and other passages. The word is defined more pre-
cisely by xfpvgov rov Adyov: draw near with the preaching of the word.
Who are the persons to whom Timothy is to draw near, may easily be
supplied from the context, viz. to those to whom he has to preach the
word. It is incorrect to think only of the whole church (Bretschneider:
accede ad coetus christianos, so also de Wette), or only of the individual
members (so before in this commentary). Plitt is correct: “draw near
(to men), viz. with the word.” —evxaipwc axaipuc!] Chrysostom : pu xarpov Exe
Opiopévov, aet col xarpd¢ éotw. The further definition given by Chrysostom :
Kav év Toig xevdbvorc, Kav év decopwtnpiy ge x.t.A., or by Theodoret: «ai év deopu-
typi, Kai TAoiy Kal wapaxecuevyc tpaxéCnc, and others similar by other exposi-
tors, are wrong, since we ought to think here not so much of the circum-
stances in which Timothy (or more generally the preacher of the word)
may be, but of the circumstances of the hearers: ‘“ whether the time
seems to thee seasonable or unseasonable for it” (de Wette, Wiesinger,
van QOosterzee). Hofmann is wrong: “whether he comes seasonably or
not to those whom he approaches with the word;” for there was no need
to tell Timothy that the preacher was not bound to inquire into his
hearers’ opinion and act accordingly. For the truth, the occasion is
always seasonable. He who desires to wait until the occasion seem com-
1Similar collocations without any particle ates;. watdaywye éuBprOet eorxws, evxaipws
of union or separation are not found in the ax«aipws éméwAnrrev. Julian: eropetero éxi
N. T., but occur in Greek and Latin classics; ras twy girdwy oixias axAnros KexAnuévos.
see Bengel on this passage. Nicetas Choni- Virgil: digna indigna pati.
CHAP. Iv. 3, 4. 263
pletely favorable for his work, will never find it. This is particularly true
of the exercise of the evangelic office——Note, finally, Beza’s remark :
nempe quod ad carnis prudentiam pertinet; nam alioqui requiritur
sanctae prudentiae spiritus, captans occasiones ad aedificationem oppor-
tunas.—é72yfov] should be restricted neither to heresies nor to moral
transgressions; it includes blame of everything blameworthy.—ém:riugoor]
stronger than éAeyfov: “blame with decided manifestation of dislike; ”
often in the Gospels, also in Jude 9.—apaxé2ecov] Blame and exhortation
should be joined in order to cause edification; blame by itself embitters,
exhortation by itself is ineffectual_—év mdoy paxpoOupia nat didaxypi] An
appendix to mapaxddcoov, or, according to the reading of Tisch. 8, to
érctiunoov, With which, however, it seems less appropriate. On paxpo@upia,
comp. iii. 10.—é:day#] The exhortation is to be of a kind that will instruct;
the purpose, as Heydenreich aptly remarks, is not to produce momentary
emotion and violent tumult of feeling. Acéayf# is instruction, and is not
equivalent to studium alios vera docendi. It is wrong, too, to make it an
hendiadys, as if it were év wéoy didaxqe paxpoOvyig.—Note the connection
of this verse with iii. 16. The preacher of the divine word has not to
perform the work of teaching, of reproving, etc., without placing himself
under the teaching, the reproof, etc., of the divine word.
Vv. 8, 4. Ground of the previous exhortation, éorac yap xatpoc, bre]
[XX XI ¢.]} see ii. 16, 17, iii. 1 ff.—The éora: shows that he is speaking not
of the present (Heinrichs), but of the future; comp. iii. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 1.—
tHS by:awvobtong didacKkadiag] see 1 Tim. i. 10.—oi« avéfovrac] [XX XI d.]
comp. Acts xvili. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 4. De Wette: “find intolerable, because
not consistent with their desires.”—a/2d xara tag idiag éxibvyiac] “ accord-
ing to wilful, selfish lusts;” the accent is on idiac—a contrast to obedience
under the divine will.—éavroi¢ értowpevoover didaoxdAovc] émiowpebery (am. Aey.,
the simple form in iii. 6), “heap up, procure in abundance.” Heyden-
reich’s conjecture is groundless, that the word here has the suggestion of:
they will set him up for a burden to themselves (Luther: ‘“ burden them-
selves”) for their own hurt; on the other hand, Chrysostom is right: rd
adidxpitov wARO0g Sia Tov émiowpeboover, Ed7Awoe. We cannot but see that the
word here is meant to indicate the contemptible part of their conduct.
The éxi does not compel us to follow Hofmann in his exposition: “in
addition to those who represent sound doctrine;” what follows rather
shows that they turn away from all such.—The reason is given in the
words: xvyfduevor tiv axonv. Kvifw (ar. dey.), tickle, cause to itch; xvn66-
pevoe tiv axon, “be tickled in the ear,” é.e. feel a tickling in the ear (nw
axoqv being the accusative of more precise definition). This tickling is
usually taken to mean a pleasant sensation;' so Hesychius: (yrowre¢ ri
axovoa: xa? Adov7v, and almost all expositors. But this view, before adopted
in this commentary, is opposed by the fact that Cyrovrrec is purely imported.
The present participle cannot mean: “that they wish to feel a tickling in
the ear, but only that they do feel it.” Hofmann is therefore right in
1Plutarch (De Superst. p. 167): povoixny avOpwmos ov spuds «vexa xai xyicews wtev
S0Onvas.
264 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
explaining this tickling of the ear to mean the desire of hearing some-
thing different from what they had heard before; “because they feel a
tickling in the ear, they procure for themselves teachers after their own
_lusts.”—Ver. 4. nai amd pév rig aa. x.1.A.] tie aAnOciag = THe by. didaoxadiac.
—ini d& rovg pibovc] see 1 Tim. i. 4.—éxrpargoovra] see 1 Tim. i. 6.
Ver. 5. A general exhortation summing up the particulars already
mentioned.—si dé] see ili. 10.—rqde ev mao] vege, synonymous with
ypnyopeiv, 1 Thess. v. 6, and cugpoveiv, 1 Pet. iv. 7, opposite of “be intoxi-
cated ;”’ it denotes the clear prudence in thought and action which it is
all the more necessary for Timothy to show, because there is impending
what the apostle in vv. 3, 4 has described.—év rac] “in all parts.”—
xaxomd@noov] [XX XI e.] see i. 8, ii. 8.—épyov roinoov evayyediotov] According
to Eph. iv. 11, there were special evangelists, who were distinct both from
the apostles and from the pastors and teachers. Theodoret characterizes
them in the well-known words: sepclovreg éxjputtov. They did not belong
to a particular church like the roipévec, but traveled about like the apostles,
preaching the Gospel to the Jews or heathen. They could lay no claim
to authority in their office, since, as Otto rightly remarks,! they labored
not in consequence of an office committed to them, but by means of a
xapiona imparted to them, as did also the mpogqra. It is incorrect to
identify them with the assistant apostles. Philip was an evangelist (Acts
xxi. 8), but not an assistant apostle. Timothy, Titus, and others were
assistant apostles, and as such, evangelists only in the same sense in which
the apostles themselves were evangelists ; standing in closer relation to
the apostles, they were their ovvepyo? in all official duties, and all they did
belonged to their dcaxovia (so, too, Plitt).? As the evayyesiveobac was Tim-
othy’s chief vocation (as with the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. i. 17), the apostle
exhorts him: épyov roincov evayyediorov, adding the further exhortation :
tiv dtaxoviay cov wAnpodépyjoov. This latter is not to be taken as a mere
repetition of the preceding one, or as “only laying emphasis on the
same thought by the use of mAnpogépyoov”’ (Wiesinger), since, as the
whole of the first epistle testifies, his d:axovia included more than the
evayyedivecdae (which Hofmann wrongly denies *).—7Aypogopeiv] synony-
mous here with wAypovv, which is even the reading of some mss. Luther
rightly: “execute;” see Col. iv.17; Acts xii. 25. Though zAnpogopeiy in
1Comp. too, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, pp.
272 f.
2 Wiesinger is wrong in thinking that Timo-
thy’s office was only that of an evangelist, and
therefore quite the same as Philip had, and
that his labors beyond that in Ephesus did
not belong to hix dcaxovia, It is certain that
his labors were done on the special commis-
sion of Paul; but it is incorrect to suppose
that Paul commissioned him to do anything
beyond his office.—Otto’s remark on the re-
lation of the evangelists to the assistant
apostles agrees in substance with what has
been said above, only it might be more than
doubtful that their preaching, as he thinks,
was confined to an account of Christ's words
and works, that they were therefore only
“heralds of the gospel history.”—Otto rightly
says that the assistant apostles “ represented
the apostle in the entire range of his work.”
8 Hofmann, without reason, supposes that
at the time when Paul wrote this epistle, and
even before, Timothy was no longer an
assistant to Paul in the apostleship. There
is no hint of this anywhere; on the contrary,
the contents of the second epistle are de-
cidedly against the supposition.
CHAP. Iv. 5, 6. 265
this sense is a7. Aey., still it is well employed “to indicate the full measure
of activity, in which not the least point may fail” (van Oosterzee). Beza’s
exposition is too ingenious: ministerii tui plenam fidem facito, i.e. veris
argumentis comproba te germanum esse dei ministrum. .
Ver. 6. Paul points to his approaching death in order to strengthen his
exhortation to Timothy to fulfill his duties faithfully. [XX XI/f] As he
himself cannot any longer contend against the increasing disorder, Timo-
thy must be all the more careful to prove himself faithful—éyo yap #7
orévdoua}] éyé is emphatic by position, being in contrast with of, ver. 5.—
#67] not “soon,” but “already;” it denotes present time; his sufferings
form already the beginning of the orévdec8a:.—orévdopuar] Wahl wrongly
takes the verb here in the middle voice: sanguinem meum libo, i. e. vires
et vitam impendo. But it is impossible thus to supply the object; the
verb is passive. It does not, however, stand for xaraorévdopa: “I am
besprinkled,” 7. e. I am consecrated for the sacrificial death (Heydenreich
and others); the proper meaning is to be retained: “ I am made a libation,
poured out as drink-offering”’ (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hof-
mann). The meaning is, dropping the figure, already is my blood shed ;
comp. Phil. ii. 17. De Wette maintains that the form of expression is
incorrect without ézi rH @voig «.7.A.; but why, it is difficult to see. Hein-
richs wrongly lets the idea of sacrifice drop out of the word, and explains
it quite generally as effundere, #. e. viribus defici, “ my end is already near,
itis all over with me.” Luther translates it inexactly, but rightly enough
in meaning: “I am already offered.”—Paul does not use @ioua:, but orév-
douat, not because he means to declare that he is fully and completely
offered for God’s cause (Oecumenius: ty pév Ovoiag pépog ti pdvov C&G
ei¢ Ouuiaua aguepovto’ 4 dé onovd?) Graca avr adgiépwra), but because the
shedding of blood is analogous to the pouring out of the drink-offering ;
and as the libation formed the conclusion of the sacrifice, the apostle’s
martyrdom closed his apostolic service, which to him was the same as a
service of sacrifice (Rom. x. 16; Phil. ii. 17).—The idea contained in the
figurative expression that his death was near, is again expressed by Paul
in the next words: xai é xatpd¢ tHe avadioedc you éEgéornxe] The verb avariecw
means “unloose what was tied,” so that avdAvoce might be equivalent to
“unloosing,” dissolutio (Vulgate, Matthies); but it is more correct to
return to the usage by which in nautical language avaiiec with or without
ayxupav means “ weigh anchor, depart,” or even of an army, “strike tents,
set out on the march.” Hence avdivore is equivalent to “departure, set-
ting out,” and ought to be explained as the departure from this life; see
Phil. i. 23.1. Elsner and Wolf think that there is here a special reference
to rising from table, and that the word is used in very close connection
with ozevdovac: moris olim erat, ut, qui de conviviis discederent, diis liba-
rent; discedentes autem dicebantur avadbovrec et libantes (Wolf), and
10tto objects, that in Phil. i. 23 avadtoac tion is made still less forcible by the fact
does not of itself mean the departure from that this meaning of the word is clearly in-
the flesh, but only when connected with the dicated, not only by the preceding owdrdouan,
co-ordinate avy Xporg elvas. But his objec- but also by vv. 7, 8
266 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
\
that Paul means to say: se ex hac vita molestiisque exsatiatum abiturum,
libato non vino, sed sanguine suo (Elsner). But, on the one hand, the
allusion to orévdoyva is not to heathen, but to Jewish ritual; and, on the
other hand, there is no hint of the figure of a feast. Not less arbitrary is
Beza’s explanation, that avdavore refers specially to the departure from
battle.—égéorjxe] “is near at hand;” Luther incorrectly: “is ready.”
REMARK.—<According to the exposition which has been given here, and which,
in substance, is generally accepted, this passage decidedly contradicts the hy pothe-
sis that Paul wrote this epistle at the heginning of the imprisonment mentioned
by Luke. Otto, therefore, to favor this hypothesis, finds himself compelled to
give ovévdouac another signification. This he tries to obtain from a searching con-
sideration of the passage in Phil. ii. 17. He tries to prove that the apostle in
that passage could only have used o7évdoya: in the sense of “devotion to his mis-
sionary labors.” His proof is based on the assertion—apparently to the point,
but in reality erroneous—that when the particles «i xai are joined together, “the
kai resumes the statement made under e the conditional particle, at the same
time marking it as an actual fact.” This assertion is apparently to the point, since
et xai is used often where an actual fact is under discussion; and in this way, e. g.,
the passage at 2 Cor. iv. 16 may be explained: “if our outward man is destroyed,
—and it is actually being destroyed,—then,” etc. But the assertion is erroneous, be-
cause ei kai is also used in passages where no actual fact is under discussion. This,
€. g., is the case in the passage 1 Cor. vii. 21, where, clearly, the explanation can-
not be given: “if thou canst become free—and thou canst indeed become free.” Otto
has quite overlooked the fact that ei xai with the indicative cannot be different
from the simple ¢ with the indicative, and this does not declare the fact to be act-
ual, but only supposes it to be actual, whether actual or not; the fact may be actual,
but it may quite as well not be actual, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, where both cases
stand close to one another. Hence it is not the case that orévdeofa: must denote
something which, as the apostle said it of himself, did actually take place; it can-
not therefore be understood to mean the apostle’s martyrdom, because, according
to Phil. i. 25, he was expecting to be freed from imprisonment, but must mean
simply the cessation of his missionary labors.—As for the evidence by which Otto
seeks to obtain this meaning for ozévdeo¥a., it must be held erroneous, since there
is no justification whatever for the assertions on which it rests—viz. (1) that by
the éy® contained in o7évdoya: (standing here in opposition to ot) the apostle
- meant his “apostolic labors;” and (2) that in Acts xxiii. 11, by the word of the
Lord “ Rome was appointed to the apostle as the goal of his apostolic calling, be-
yond which he was not to preach the gospel.” Though it may be said that “the
apostle’s ego lived and wrought only in one thing, and that, to preach the gospel
to the heathen,” it by no means follows that when he is speaking of himself, he
does not mean himself, his person, but his apostolic calling. And though, accord-
ing to Phil. i. 25, 26, the apostle expects to continue his labors after the Roman
imprisonment, it is a pure fiction to suppose that these labors were to be episcopal
rather than apostolic.——As a result of this interpretation of orévdoya:, Otto can-
1 Weiss (Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 588) rightly slightest hint that he is to advance with his
says: “If it be said to the apostle that he is = preaching only so far as Rome.”
to testify also in Rome, there is not the
CHAP. Iv. 7, 8. 267
not understand avdédAvoce to mean the departure from this life; it is quite consistent
for him, therefore, to say : “avdAvoig can only be the discessus, abitus from the
place in which Paul then was, this place being the répua of his apostolic career.”
This exposition presupposes an erroneous view of Acts xxiii. 11, and its unsuit-
ability becomes all the clearer when Otto continues: “when the messenger has
come to his destination, and executed his commission, he must return to him by
whom he was sent; Paul was sent by Christ, to Christ he must return; this is
what the apostle says: the time of my return home is near, for I am at the goal,
and have discharged my commission.” And then Otto still thinks that the apos-
tle might with this cherish the expectation of being able to labor among the
Philippians /or a longer period, since é¢éornxev does not mean “is near,” but sim-
ply “is impending’ (!). Finally, there is nowhere the slightest trace that the
apostle thought at any time before his death of ceasing to be the apostle of the
Lord.
Ver. 7. In the prospect of his approaching end, Paul expresses the con-
sciousness of having been faithful in the career appointed to him, and the
hope of the heavenly reward.—There is no ground whatever for de Wette’s
assertion, that this expression is opposed to Christian humility.—rév xaddv -
ayova 7yéviouac| Luther inaccurately : ‘I have fought a good fight.” The
definite article must not be overlooked; see 1 Tim. vi. 12. The perfect
nyovouat shows that the apostle now stood at the end of the fight to which
he was called as the apostle of the Lord,' and that he had fought tnrough
it faithfully —Baur, quite arbitrarily, isof opinion that Phil. i. 30 was here
made use of; as little was the passage at Phil. iil. 12 ff. used (de Wette).
—rov dpduov teréAnxa] The same thought is expressed by the more definite
figure of a race. The point chiefly brought out is that the apostle, after
continuing it without stopping, now stands at the goal. Compare with
this passage Acts xx. 24; the same figure is used also in 1 Cor. ix. 24, and
is indicated in Phil. iii. 12 ff—rqv rior rerfpnxa] “ I have keptthe faith,” viz.
against all inducements to deny it. Heydenreich wrongly takes this
expression also as a figurative one, and expounds ricr¢ to mean fidelity
in observing the laws of battle and rules of the race; comp. against this,
1 Tim. vi. 12.—rév xaddv ayéva rie rictews] Bengel: res bis per metaphoram
expressa nunc tertio loco exprimitur proprie.
Ver. 8. Aoxév] Wahl interprets it by 767 (jam, already), but this mean-
ing is very doubtful. Other expositors take it to be equivalent to rd
Aorév: “for the future ;” Heydenreich: “one day, after course and fight
are finished.” But the present aréxecra: is against this; it cannot be
“future in sense’ (Hofmann), for the signification of the word forbids it.
Beza’s interpretation suits the context best: “in reliquum;” and with
this de Wette and Wiesinger agree. At the end of his life-course, when
he has faithfully played out his part, there remains nothing more for the
apostle—than to receive the reward which is already prepared for him.—
aréxecral wor] comp. Col. i. 5 (see my Commentary, p. 57).—6 rij¢ dixatocivng
1Hofmann wrongly maintains that the Christiancalling. The context clearly points
apostle is not speaking here of hislabors in _to the former.
the calling of an apostle, but generally of his
@
268 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
orégavoc} Continuation of the figure from ver. 7.—< orégavog is used for the
prize of victory in 1 Cor. ix. 25. The genitive ri¢ diaasootv7e, like rae Gunes
in Jas.i. 12, Rev. ii. 10, and ra dééy¢ in 1 Pet. v. 4, may be taken most
naturally as the genitivus appositionis, and d:xacooivy as the perfect state,
granted at the judgment to the believer by the sentence that justifies him
(so, too, van Oosterzee). Accaocfvy does not denote the act of justifying so
much as the state of justification. [XX -XI g.]|—Two other interpretations
are found in Heinrichs: o7veg. dixacoc., 4. e. corona, vel quae ducaive dabitur
ei, qui ea dignus est, a dixaiy xpirg (“the crown of just recompense,” Hey-
denreich, Matthies, and others; but dcxavocbvy never means recompense),
vel quae mihi ob dcxacoofvm debetur. This last interpretation is found in
Chrysostom : dixacootuny évraifia ri KxabdAov gyoiv aperqv; also in de Wette,
Wiesinger, Plitt. Itis indeed possible, but improbable, because in that
case we would not be told of what the crown of victory consists. Besides,
the analogy of the passages quoted is against this interpretation.'—It is
manifestly quite out of place to understand dixacootvy here, as Calovius
and Mosheim do, of the imputed righteousness of Christ.—év azodécec
(often used to denote the divine recompense on the day of judgment,
Matt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6) pot 6 xiptog (4. e. Christ) év éxeivy 19 qpuépe, 6 dixasoc
xpithe (see ver. 1), in apposition to 6 xbpic. There is nothing strange in
laying stress on the righteousness of the judge, since that forms the main
element in the divine judgment. God’s ydpec does not take away His
dtxatootvy, and the gospel does not deny, but confirms, the truth that for
the believer the judgment will take place xara ra Epya avrov, or kata tiv mpakev
airov. - To this truth Paul often directs attention, not only for exhortation,
but also for comfort; see 2 Thess. i. 5.2—While Paul expresses for himself
the hope of the reward of victory, he knows that he is not claiming some-
thing special for himself alone. Hence he adds: ov pévoy dé éuoi (se. azo-
ddcet x.7.A4.), GAA xal mace Toic yarnxécr| the perfect in the sense of the pre-
sent: “who have fixed their love on,’’z. e. “who love” (comp. Winer, p.
256 [E. T. p. 273]). But if we proceed from the standpoint of arodéce,
the perfect may also be understood to mean: “ to those who in this mortal
life have longed for the appearing of the Lord ” (Hofmann),.—r?v émigavecav
avrov] is not to be understood of the first appearance of the Lord in the
flesh, i. 10, but, according to the context, and in harmony with ver. 1, of
1 Hofmann disputes the interpretation given
above, because “Life, glory is a blessing,
whereas righteousness is a condition which
is rewarded ;” but righteousness, taken as it
is taken here, is a blessing. On the other
hand, Hofmann disputes Wiesinger’s inter-
pretation, at the same time giving one of his
own which is far from clear: “he who
obtains the orégdavos adjudged to him, is
thereby acknowledged to be a righteous
man.”
2De Wette is wrong in his assertion, that
this passage is incompatible with Paul’s view
of gracc, and that from a subjective stand-
point God’s righteousness can only be feared
if we are rightly humble and have knowledge
of self. If it is not denied that in the Pauline
passages, Rom. il. 5 ff., 2 Thess. i. 5, a reward
is expected from God’s righteousness, we can-
not see why Paul could not possibly have
claimed it for himself. Was the conscious-
ness of his fidelity in the service of the Lord,
which, moreover, he expresses elsewhere,
altogether incompatible with his utterance
of humility in Phil. iii. 12?—The contrast of
objective and subjective point of view—to
which contrast de Wette makes appeal—does ~
not exist for the Christian consciousness.
CHAP. Iv. 9-11. 269
the second coming. The verb vyarnxéo: is not opposed to this, for it is
used elsewhere to denote the desire for something future ; see 1 Pet. iii. 10.
Matthies: “to all who in love for Him wait longingly for His second
coming.”
Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-22, see Note XXXII., pages 277, 278.] From this
verse to the end we have detached commissions and items of news. “ This
forms the second chief section of the epistle. The apostle,- with his usual
habit of keeping the more personal matter for the end, places it after the
exhortations given to Timothy about his office” (Wiesinger).—orotdacov
éAfeiv mpoc pe tazxéwc] [XXXII a.] Here the apostle’s wish that Timothy
should come to him, hinted already in 1. 3, 8, isdistinctly expressed. Even
if it were the proximate cause of his writing, it is arbitrary to regard this
as the chief purpose of the epistle, as de Wette does.'—The apostle wished
him to come, because those who had assisted him hitherto had left him.
Ver. 10. Anydc yap pe éyxaréAirev] [XXXII b.] éyxaradeirew is equivalent
to “leave in the lurch.” It is wrong to interpret this either of a depart-
ure from the place merely, or of an entire apostasy from the gospel.
Demas is mentioned also in Col. iv. 14 and Philem. 24 as a ovvepyéc of the
apostle.—ayaryoac rov viv aidva] The reason why Demas had left him;
ayanioac, not “having fixed his love on” (Matthies), but “because he
loved.” —rév viv aiéva] the present world, as opposed to the future, 7. e. the
earthly, visible blessings of life. In the desire for these things, Demas
had left the apostle and gone to Thessalonica, xai éropetOn eig Oecoadovixm,
perhaps “for the sake of trade,” as some conjecture, or because it was his
native place.*—Kopgoxne cig Tatariav, sc. txopetOn; but without ayargoag rov
vov aidva. Crescens is mentioned only here. Nothing further is known
of him, nor do we know why he had set out for Galatia, and Titus for
Dalmatia. The verb ézopet6y is against the suggestion of Matthies, that
they had been sent thither by Paul.
Ver. 11. Aovxdg éor? pévog per’ éuov] There is no reason for doubting that
this Luke was the apostle’s well-known assistant. He accompanied Paul
on his second missionary journey from Troas, Acts xvi. 10, then on his
third journey, Acts xx. 5-xxi. 18. He was with Paul both in his impris-
onment at Caesarea and in the first imprisonment at Rome, Acts xxvil.;
Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24.—Mépxov avadaBav adyaye (or common reading:
dye) peta ceavrov] Mark, too, is the young apostle with whom we are
acquainted from the Book of Acts. According to Col. iv. 10, Philem. 18,
he was likewise with Paul in his first Roman imprisonment; avadtaBdv,
see Acts xx. 14. It is not known where Mark was at this time. The
reason why Paul wished to have him is given in the words: for: yép pot
1 Hofmann’s remark is purely hypothetical,
that owov8agoy «.7.A. is not an invitation, but
refers to Timothy's willingness to come,
which he had expressed to Paul in a
letter.
SChrysostom: rips avdécews epagGeis, rov
axtrSuvou Kai Trov agdhadots, padAoy ciAcro
oixos tTpvdqy, % mer’ euov radartwpeicPar Kas
ovvdtabdpery poe rovs mapévras xivduvous.
8 Hofmann, taking Tada» to be the original
reading, supposes that Crescens and Titus
had left the apoetle in order to work for the
gospel in places to which Paul himself had
not come.
270 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
ebypyotoc eig dtaxoviav] ebypnotog, ii. 21. Acaxovia here is to be understood
of the apostolic office! (according to Wiesinger: ‘“ of Mark’s personal ser-
vices, but certainly in the apostle’s vocation ”’).
Ver. 12. Thyixov d2 aréoreAa etc "Egecov] Tychicus wasin Greece with
Paul on the third missionary journey, and preceded him to Troas, Acts
xx. 4,5. According to Col. iv. 7 and Eph. vi. 21, Paul sent him from
Rome to Asia Minor. Otto thinks that this was the occasion mentioned
here, and tries to prove it particularly by an interpretation of the passages
quoted from the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians. There are,
however, well-founded objections to his theory. The facts are such, the
two occasions on which he was sent can obviously not be identical.—ei¢
*Egeoov] Paul here mentions Ephesus as the place to which he had sent
Tychicus ; but we cannot infer from this, as Theodoret and de Wette infer,
that Timothy had not at that time lived in Ephesus.—The reason why he
was sent is not given. Possibly it was to convey this epistle (Wieseler) ;
but not probably, for in such a case Paul would have certainly written
mpocg of (Tit. 111. 12; Wiesinger).
Ver. 13. Timothy is commissioned to bring with him certain belong-
ings. The first named is rdv geAdvyv. On the various spellings of this
word, see the Greek lexicons. Regarding the meaning, Chrysostom said :
geddvay Evravba Td inatiov Aéyet’ Tivég dé gat Td yAwoodxouor, éEvfa Ta BiBAia ExecTo ;
and the most recent expositors are still at variance. Matthies takes it in
the second meaning: “ cloak-bag, covering for books,”’ because it is improb-
able that Paul should have left his traveling cloak behind him. De Wette
adopts the first meaning, for the reason given by Bengel: theca non seor-
sum a libris appellaretur. This is the more probable view; there is little
force in the objection, that we cannot see what use Paul would have for
the mantle when he was expecting death so soon.—év arédjurov év Tpwade
mapa Képzw] From this it is clear that Paul had been in Troas before he
came to Rome, but the time is not stated. In any case, it is very improb-
able (see Introd. p. 25) that this sojourn was the one mentioned in Acts
xx. 6. He did not, however, touch at Troas on his voyage from Caesarea
to Rome.—Carpus is mentioned only here.—xai rad BiBdia, uddAcora Tac peL-
Bpavac}] Since Paul says nothing further about them, it is idle conjecture
to define more precisely the contents of the books written on papyrus,
and of the more valuable rolls of parchment.
Vv. 14, 15. Warning against a certain Alexander. 'AAéfavdpog 6 yadxebc]
see on 1 Tim. i. 20.—70A24 woe xaxd évedei~aro] The words point to a per-
sonal injury which he had inflicted on the apostle. This must, however,
be added to an attitude of opposition to his words, as is shown in the
words: Aiav yap avréoty roi iuertpoug Adyore] It is doubtful where this was
1 What Otto (pp. 257 ff.) on this passage
adduces regarding the relation of Mark to
Paul are groundless suppositions. It is a
purely arbitrary assumption that Mark, after
abstaining for some time from work among
the heathen, had again offered his services
to Paul through Timothy. And it is equally
an assumption to say, that from the words
evxpnoros «7.A. it would appear that Mark
could not have hitherto given Paul his
services, because 1n that case Paul would not
have “censufed him regarding his useful-
ness for the ministry” (!).
CHAP. Iv. 12-17. 271
done, and where Alexander was at the time of the composition of this
epistle. Further, the warning: 68y xai od ¢vAdoocov, may refer both “to
Timothy’s presence in Ephesus and to his future stay in Rome” (de
Wette). Wiesinger conjectures that this Alexander, a native of Ephesus,
had come from there to Rome to give testimony against the apostle (at
his rpéty azodoyia, ver. 16), and had afterwards returned to Ephesus.
This conjecture obtains some probability from the fact that in the very
next verse Paul speaks of the arodoyia ; but this fact cannot be regarded as
making the matter certain. The words preceding this warning, if we read
arodwcet avT@ 6 Kiptog Kata Tad Epya avrov, present no difficulty. [XXXII ¢.]
Even with the reading arodé, they cannot form a reason for reproaching
the apostle with a desire for vengeance; Christian love does not extinguish
the feeling of justice; besides, the apostle does not speak the words because
of the personal injury, but because of Alexander’s hostility to the truth.’
Vv. 16,17. Information regarding the apostle’s present condition, év rj
ampoty pov amodoyig] amodoyia: the public appearance before the court;
comp. Phil. i. 7. ’Ev rg mpéry shows that there was a second appearance
in order to bring the case to an end. On the time when the first trial took
place, see the Introduction, where, too, there is a discussion of Otto’s
hypothesis, that it means the proceedings before Festus, as recounted in
Acts xxv. 6-12.—videig pos mapeyévero] “no one stood on my side, was
present with me,” viz. as patronus® (defender). It is the negative expres-
sion of the thought which in the next words is given positively: aaAa
mavrec pe éyxatéAcrov, [XXXII d.] As to the reason why they had left the
apostle, Theodoret says rightly : ov xaxoySetac qv, GAAd detdiag 4 broxdpnore.
{XXXII e.]—However much this want of evangelic spirit may have
pained the apostle, he says no word in anger: ju) avroig Aoyw ein: ‘ may
it not be reckoned to them, but pardoned.”—Ver. 17. 6 62 Kipid¢ peor
napéory | said in sharp antithesis to the previous thought. The presence
of the Lord manifested itself to the apostle in the courage which he had
to testify freely and openly regarding Him; hence ka? évedvvdépwoé pe]
Chrysostom: wappysiav éxapicato; comp. 1 Tim. 1. 12; Phil. iv. 18. Ac-
cording to Otto, this expression means simply that the Lord “‘ maintained
the apostle’s cause against his accusers,” which is clearly an unjustifiable
paraphrase of the word, as the apostle is speaking not of his cause, but of
himself. Even if évedvvduwce be used in a forensic sense, its signification
cannot be altered; it applies to the strengthening which enabled the
1 Hofmann supposes that this Alexander
was the same as the one mentioned in Acts
8 Justin (quaest. 125, ad Orthod.) says of these
words: mpémovea avdpi amogréAw wn exdcxovrTe
xix., and that he had given testimony against
the apostle in Ephesus. The opinion is
manifestly too far-fetched, that Luke would
not have mentioned him in the Acts, if the
Roman Theophilus, for whom in the first
place he wrote the Acts, “had not known
Alexander from some other source, in the
manner in which we make acquaintance with
him in the passage before us.”
€auTov, adda SidovTe témov tH Opyp; Comp.
Rom. xii. 19; 1 Pet. if. 23.
8 Wolf: verb. oupmapayiverOar indicat pa-
tronos et amicos, qui alios, ad causam dicen-
dam vocatos, nunc praesentia sua, nunc etiam
oratione adjuvare solebant. Graeci dicunt
nunc wapayivec@ar, NUNC wapecvar, NUNC cup-
sapecvat.—See further, in Rein, Rém. Privat-
recht, p. 425; Schémann, Attisch. Recht. p. 708.
272 —C«, THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
apostle so to speak as to ward off sentence against him. The purpose of this
strengthening was: iva d’ éuov 1d Kfpvypa mAnpogopy94] According to the
meaning suitable to the word zAypogopetv in Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5, Beza trans-
lates: “ut per me praeconio evangelii fides fieret.”” Heydenreich, too,
thinks that 7A7pog. refers to the confirmation of the gospel or testimony
to it, either through the proofs delivered by Paul or through the joy he
exhibited. But it is safer to take 7wAypog. in the same sense here as in
ver. 5, some of the Mss. even reading rAnpwia for tAnpodopydy. It is, how-
ever, inaccurate to take the expression in the sense of: “that I might be
enabled to preach the gospel” (de Wette). In this interpretation full
force is not given to Anpogopeiv. These words must be taken in very close
connection with «al axotey xdvra ra é6vn, and referred to the apostle’s
being called to preach the gospel to the heathen. The xfpvyua, sc. tov
evayyediov, was fulfilled by Paul, inasmuch as it was done openly before all
people (Wiescler, Wiesinger) in the metropolis of the world (was delivered
before the corona populi, before the court). Hofmann, regarding this
interpretation of the apostle’s words as forced, understands iva «.r.A. in
this way: “If courage and strength had failed the apostle before the
heathen tribunal of the metropolis of the world . . . his confident belief
that the heathen world was called to become the church of Christ would
have been shattered.” But the words d¢ éuod . . . wAnpogop7dq distinctly
say that the preaching had been carried out by the apostle himself, and
not simply that the preaching to be done by others would not be hin-
dered by him, 7. e. by his conduct.—The iva was fulfilled by the apostle’s
speech in the rpéry dzodoyia. Otto, on the contrary, asserts that the first
arodoyia and the preaching in Rome took place at different times, and
that iva refers to what was to be done afterwards in Rome by the apostle.
This is wrong, since in that case iva ought not to stand before, but after
Eppiadnv.—ai épptodnv éx orduatog Afovroc] second proof of the help and
presence of the Lord.—oréua Agovrog has been very variously explained.
The expression is not to be taken literally (Mosheim), but figuratively, and
is to be referred to the punishment of being thrown to the lions.—Chrys-
ostom and many after him take Nero to be the Aéov; Pearson again takes
Helius Ceasareanus, since Nero at the time had departed for Greece.
Wahl thinks Aéwy a metaphor for tyrannus crudelis, while Wolf explains
it to be omnis illa hostium caterva, quorum conatus in prima apologia
tunc facta eluserit.’ All these interpretations are inappropriate. In the
first place, the metaphor is not in Aéwy alone, but in oréua Aéovrog (80, too,
van Oosterzee, Hofmann); and, secondly, this expression can hardly be
referred simply to the danger that threatened the apostle from men, but
also to the danger prepared for him by the might of Satan, which was
opposed to Christ. Hence the interpretation “deadly danger” (so
de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) is not sufficient.? Paul escaped from
10tto adopts an explanation to suit his itthe apostle was delivered when he appealed
opinion that this aroAoyta took place in Caes- to ¢he emperor, and Festus received the
area before Festus: “Judaism was the lion appeal.
that panted for the apostle’s blood,” and from 3 Hofmann ; “ His danger was a greater one,
CHAP. Iv. 18, 19. 273
the danger impending over him, unhurt in body and soul (see on iii. 11),
’ escaped as a conqueror in the eyes of the Lord, and hence he says:
epptodnv éx orduatocg Agovros.
Ver. 18. In the assured confidence of faith, the apostle adds to épptodnv
the word of hope: pboeral pe 6 xbpiog ard mévtog Epyov rovnpod, for he knows
that the Lord—even if it be through death (ver. 6)}—will bring him into
His kingdom. [XXXII f.]. épyov rovnpév is not equivalent to evil, as
Luther translates it and Matthies explains it: from every evil circum-
stance.” Taken in this sense, the thought would be quite irreconcilable
with the apostle’s conviction in ver. 6. Besides, in the N. T. rovypéy never
refers to merely external affliction; it denotes rather what is morally evil.
Still it cannot here mean the evil work which the apostle might do
(Chrysostom : wav dudprjua; Grotius: liberabit me, ne quid agam Chris-
tiano, ne quid Apostolo indignum ; de Wette: “ from all evil work which
I might do through want of stedfastness, through apostasy, and the like; ”
so, too, Beza, Heydenreich, and others). It must be interpreted of the
wicked works of the enemies of the divine word; only with this view is
the verb jicera: appropriate, especially when combined with odce (Wies-
inger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle was still exposed to the
attacks of the evil one, but he expresses the hope that the Lord would
save him from them, so that they would do him no harm. Not, indeed,
that he would not suffer the martyrdom he expected, but that through
this he would come into the heavenly kingdom of the Lord, where there
was prepared for him orégavoc rig dixacocbyn¢ (ver. 8).—xai odoe ei¢ rv
Baotdciav airov rv érovpdviov] odcee ei¢ is a pregnant construction: he will
gave me and bring me into = odfuw afee pe et¢ (Heydenreich).—The expres-
sion 7 Baodeia 1 érovpdvioc does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; but the
idea is thoroughly apostolic and Pauline. For though Paul often calls
Christ’s kingdom a future one, Christ is also present to him as Baoieic ev
toi¢ évoupaviorc, Whose Baoeia, therefore, is also a present one.’ The con-
text points to this meaning here. In Phil. i. 23, Paul expresses the long-
ing to come to Christ through death ; here he expresses the hope that the
Lord would remove him into His kingdom éx smavrd¢ Epyou rovnpov.—A8 a
suitable and natural utterance of awakened feeling, there follows a dox-
ology which in this place cannot surprise us, though commonly his
doxologies refer to God and not to Christ specially.”
Ver. 19. Paul sends greetings to Prisca and Aquila.—Paul had become
acquainted with them in Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), from which they accom-
panied him to Syria (ver. 18). When Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ro-
mans they were in Rome (Rom. xvi. 13), but they were in Corinth at the
time of his writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 19).—
nat Tov ’Ovnopépov olxov, see on 1. 16.
to lose . . . before the tribunal hiscourage in dom of the Lord, “in contrast with the earthly
confessing Christ. That he had escaped it, dominion of the present” (Hofmann).
he owes thanks to God’s help.” 8In Rom. xvi. 27, ix. 5, Heb. xiii. 21, the
!There is nothing to indicate that the reference is at the very least doubtful.
apostle is here alluding to the heavenly king-
18
274 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
f
Ver. 20. "Epacrog éiyewev év Kopiv0y] While on his third journey, the
apostlesent forward a certain Erastus from Ephesus to Macedonia along with
Timothy (Acts xix. 22). It can hardly be doubted that it is the same man
who is mentioned here. It is more uncertain if the one alluded to in
Rom. xvi. 23 is also the same (as Otto thinks); still it does favor the iden-
tity that the latter dwelt in Corinth as 6 oixovéuog tHe wéAewc, and that the
Erastus here mentioned remained in Corinth. Meyer, however (see on
Rom. xvi. 23), and Wiesinger think it improbable. Hofmann holds that
the Erastus mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and the city chamberlain in Rom.
xvi. 23, are two different men, and that the one mentioned here is identi-
cal with the latter —éuecve] ¢. e. “he remained in Corinth, viz. when [I left
it;’’ the tense favors this view. Paul notices the fact because he thought
that Timothy believed that Erastus had left Corinth with the apostle.
Hug explains it: “ Erastus, whom I expected in Rome, remained behind
in Corinth;” but this would suit better with the perfect. Besides, there
is nothing to indicate such an expectation.—Tpdguov d2 arédurov tv MiAjry
aotevovvra] Trophimus, an Asiatic, accompanied Paul on his third journey,
and went before him from Greece to Troas (Acts xx. 4). His presence in
Jerusalem was the occasion of the tumult against Paul (Acts xxi. 29)—
From this passage it would appear that Trophimus had wished to accom-
pany the apostle on his journey, but had been left behind at Miletus sick.
The apostle cannot have been in Miletus with Trophimus before the first
imprisonment in Rome; hence the expositors who deny that Paul was
twice imprisoned in Rome, and admit the genuineness of the epistle, are
driven to great straits in interpreting this passage. Thus Hug, Hemsen,
and Kling hold aéj:rov to be the third person plural. Wieseler does not
give the proper force to aréA:rov, which—as de Wette rightly remarks—
presupposes that they had been previously together in Miletus. Regard-
ing the views of Wieseler and Otto, comp. Introduction, 23, pp. 17 ff. It
is altogether arbitrary to read év MeAirg, or to suppose that Miletus in
Crete is meant.—The reason for speaking about Erastus and Trophimus
appears in ver. 21; comp. vv. 9, 10. He did not mention them in ver. 10,
because “ there he was speaking only of those who had already been with
him in Rome and had left him” (Wiesinger). Hofmann thinks that Paul
mentions them in reply to a question from Timothy regarding the two
who might serve as witnesses for his defence; but this is mere conjecture,
for which no good grounds can be given.!
Ver. 21. Enobdacov mpd yxetpivoc éAbeiv] see ver. 9, taxyfuc. Even if mpo
xetuavog is to be connected with rayéwr, it does not follow that the epistle
was written just before winter; comp. Introd. 3 3. Xecué» may indeed
mean the “ winter-storm” (Wieseler), but it is more natural here to under-
stand it of the season of the year (Wiesinger). Timothy is to come to the
1 Hofmann regards them as suitable wit- | presentin Corinth on the occasion mentioned
nesses for the defence, assuming that the in Acts xviii. 12,and Trophimus when Paul
charge against the apostle rested on this, was made a prisoner at Jerusalem. Both
that his preaching of the gospel was contrary might therefore testify that Paul was not to
to the constitution of the state. Erastus was blame for these tumults.
NOTES. 275
apostle before winter, that the winter might not prevent him from coming
soon.—Finally, Paul sent greetings from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and
Claudia, who are mentioned only here and from all the Christians in
Rome. These are named specially, not as the apostle’s civepyo, but proba-
bly because they were personally acquainted with Timothy. Linus is
probably the one whom the Fathers name as the first bishop of Rome.
Ver. 22. Benediction. This is peculiar in its nature. Only at the end
of the First Epistle to the Corinthians do we find, as here, a double bene-
diction, and there it runs differently. For 6 xipirg ... and # yépic . . .
the form elsewhere is always 4 xdpiu tov xvpiov.—perd tov mvetpards cov]
comp. Gal. vi. 18; Philem. 25.—} ydpep pe? iuov] comp. 1 Tim. vi. 22.
Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR.
— ~XXXI. Vv. 1-8.
(a) The view of Huther with respect to d:ayaprbpoua: x.7.A, seems to be the
correct one—namely, that xai before émigévecav means both, and that the true ren-
dering is, I adjure thee in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus, both by His
appearance and His kingdom. There is no satisfactory ground of objection to this
view, and it avoids the difficulty of joining the simple accusative after a verb of
swearing in a parallelism with the év@mov construction. The allusion to the appear-
ance and kingdom, as well as to the dead and living—that is, those who at the time
of the judgment (the Parousia) shall have already died and those who shall then
be still alive—is an indication (additional to the others already noticed in the two
Epp. to Timothy) of the impressiveness of the thought of the Parousia to the
Apostle’s mind. It had an emphasis, and living power, to his apprehension such
as to Christians in our own day it does not have, and such as may,—not improbably,
to say the least,—find its explanation in the thought that it was near. The “king-
dom,” cannot here have the same sense, precisely as in 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff, but must
refer to that consummated and victorious state of things which is introduced by
the Parousia.—(b) The explanation given of éxior73: by Huther, with whom
de Wette, Holtzmann and some others substantially agree, has in its favor the
more common meaning of the verb. It does not seem perfectly clear that it has
the precise sense be instant, in a sentence of this character. Yet the supply of
a dative from the preceding verb «fpvgov is not difficult, and, with such a supply
there can be little doubt that the verb may mean give attention to, fix the mind upon,
be alientive to. On the other hand the use of the mere verb draw near, as equiva-
lent to draw near to men with the word, in such a series of exhortations as we find
here, must be regarded as in a high degree improbable. The question is one
which cannot be decided confidently in favor of either meaning as against the
other, but the objection to the rendering be instant of R. V., A. V., (so in substance,
if not exactly, many commentators including Ell., Alf., van Oost., Fairb., Plumptre
and others), is, on the whole, less serious than that which lies against Huther’s
rendering.—Plumptre explains evxalpu¢ axaipuc as meaning “ with or without what
seems to men a special opportunity.” Not improbably, however, there is a some-
what stronger force in the latter word, such that it means “even when men think
it unseasonable.” That the action of the preacher, in this matter, is not to be
carried beyond due limits is indicated by the reasonableness which directs in the
276 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
application of all Christian rules of such a character, and is even suggested by
Matt. vii. 6—(c) The future referred to in éorac xacpd¢ (ver. 3), in connection with
similar passages already noticed, is best explained as the time of development of
error previous to the Parousia, which, in its beginnings and foreshadowings, gave
signs of its coming even at the date of the latter. It is evident, in all these pas-
sages, that Paul describes the future errors in terms corresponding very nearly to
those in which he sets forth the false doctrines of the present. His conception
seems to be only that of a further and natural growth in the same line. Timothy
is to be faithful and earnest in his work, in order that the growth may be arrested,
or its injurious consequences may be averted, as far as possible. And this is
especially urged upon him, because the Apostle now feels that his own time for
working draws near to its end.—(d) The subject of avéfovra: is probably persons in
the church, as it is of such persons that the writer speaks in the several passages
where the healthful teaching and its opposite are alluded to. The errors are
those of professed Christians, which, starting from a Jewish origin, developed
under the influence of Greek or Oriental thought intermingling with Judaistic
ideas. The use of the article with pv@ovg in ver. 4 can hardly be satisfactorily
accounted for, except as some connection is given to these fables with those men-
tioned in 1 Tim. i. 4 and elsewhere.—(e) The repetition of the word xaxoradnoov
(ver. 5) in this new exhortation to Timothy to fulfill the duties of his ministry, in
contrast to a yielding to errors or the erroneous teachers, shows how important an
element in the life before him the Apostle thought such hardship and suffering
would be, and how essential the stedfast enduring of such evil, in-the times then
present and té come, was to his apprehension. The word evangelist, as here used,
refers to Timothy’s work as a preacher going about from place to place in his
missionary labors. In a similar sense, all Paul’s assistants, and even Paul him-
self, though an Apostle, had been evangelists from the beginning. sAnpogdpyaov
(ver. 5) has the sense of fulfill, rather than make full proof of (omnem in partem
ministerio satisfacio, Grimm, Lex. N. T.). Alf. says, “fill up in every point, leaving
nothing undone in.”—(f) The contrast between the Apostle’s expression in Phil.
ii. 17 and that in ver. 6 of this chapter is noticeable. There, he merely supposes
the case, ei xat orévdouat, saying that he will rejoice if the result of his trial
should even prove to be death, but adding, immediately afterwards, his strong
hope in the Lord that it will not be so. Here, on the other hand, he realizes the
certainty of the future, and speaks of himself as if already dying or being offered.
His work is done, and the reward will be given at the day of the appearing. The
cause is to be committed to his younger associates, who should keep the command-
ment and fulfill the ministry until that appearing (1 Tim. i. 14). The word avadv-
og, which is here used in the clause following o7évdoua:, is also found, in the
verbal form, in Phil. i. 23. It is interesting to observe, in connection with this
word, that while the Apostle, at the time when there was an uncertainty as to his
fate, and a possibility, yet only a possibility, that he might be put to death,
declares that he has a desire to depart, and that it is far better. He now declares,
when the certainty has come, his satisfaction in review of the past, and his
undoubting confidence for the future—(g) dixatoobvy¢ of ver. 8 is best taken, as
Huther takes it, as gen. of apposition. So also Holtzm., and others. Ell., Plumptre,
and others, prefer to make it a sort of gen. possess. Ell. places at the foundation
an objective notion, “the crown for which (so to speak) dex, has a claim,” but says
it is “in fact a sort of proleptic gen. possess.” Alf. with something of the same
NOTES. 277
objective idea perhaps, says “the bestowal of which is conditional on the substan-
tiation and recognition of righteousness.” dixatoovvy has here, apparently (as gen.
appos.), the ordinary, not the peculiar Pauline (forensic) sense. (So Grimm, de W.,
* and others.)
XXXII. Vv. 9-22.
(a) The request made in ver. 9 connects itself, in some sense, with what is said
in vv. 6-8—thus tayéwe may be partly, or possibly wholly, accounted for. But
the main connection is with ver. 10. The thought turns here, at the close of the
epistle, to more personal matters, as was natural in view of the Apostle’s own con-
dition and his friendly relations with Timothy. The verb ovovddecv carries with
it the idea of earnest endeavor, as well as of haste (ovetdev). Timothy is thus
urged to make every effort to hasten his departure from Ephesus, and his arrival
at Rome. In ver. 21, the limit of time is more definitely indicated, before winter.
As the winter season would begin as early as November, and about three or four
months must be allowed for the passing of the letter from Rome to Ephesus, for
Timothy’s necessary preparations, and for the journey from Ephesus to Rome, the
date of the Epistle must be placed as early in the year as June or July. Vv. 6-8,
therefure, cannot be understood as meaning that the Apostle regarded his death
as certuinly to take place in the most immediate future. He must have thought
that his life might be spared for a few months, but he evidently looked for the
end—as he did not in Phil. i. ii—as a thing to be confidently anticipated, and
that at an early time.—(b) Of the persons here mentioned, Demas, Luke, Mark and
Tychicus are alluded to in Col., and the first three of them in Philem. The desertion
of Demas had evidently occurred since the date of those letters, and apparently
after the arrival of Paul in Rome, on his second visit to that city. Whether
Demas had abandoned the Christian faith is not distinctly stated. It is stated,
however, that he had forsaken the Apostle (left him in the lurch, uther) because
he loved the present aiév, An unchristian motive for his action is, therefore,
affirmed.—(c) The true reading in ver. 14, as proved by the weight of manuscript
evidence, is azoddéoe:, The statement is, accordingly, that the Lord will reward
him according to his works, and all questions as to the propriety or probability of
an expression of a desire on Paul’s part that he should be thus rewarded are set
aside by the fact that no such desire is expressed.—(d) The use of the word
éyxaréAecrov in ver. 16 favors the view that the same word in ver. 10 does not
imply an absolute defection from the faith. The argument from this verse is not
decisive, however, for the word may be modified as to its force, in each case, by
the sentence in which it stands. In the present case, Paul prays that their
abandoning him may not be laid by God to the charge of the persons alluded to.
The language is milder than that used respecting Alexander, even if the reading
arodace: be the right one in the verse which refers to him, and certainly so, if
arodwy is there the correct text.—(e) The “ first defence,” which is mentioned in
ver. 16, is supposed by some of the best recent commentators who think that Paul
was twice in Rome, to havt been connected with a first hearing or trial within the
time of the second imprisonment. This view is favored by the fact that, during the
period of the first imprisonment, Timothy had been with Paul in Rome previous
to the date of the Ep. to the Philippians, and would scarcely need information as
to what happened at or near that date. The general indications of that Epistle
would seem, also, to suggest such a condition of things, and such prospects as to
278 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
the issue of the trial, as to make it unlikely that all his friends would desert him
at that time. If the reference is, thus, to the time of the second imprisonment,
the iva clause of ver. 17 must refer to his defence, and not to subsequent mission-
ary labors, and this is indicated, also, by the insertion of this clause between the
éveduvvaywoe and the éppbod vy clause, both of which relate to the defence or trial.
The lion is probably to be understood as meaning either the devil, as the power
that brought the danger upon him and thereby a temptation to sin, or Nero, as
the one before whose tribunal he stood. The expression may, however, simply
denote “deadly danger ””—a figurative way of setting forth this idea. This seems
less probable. Ver. 18 may, perhaps, be regarded as favoring the reference of
Aéovrog to Satan. Evidently we must conclude from vv. 6-8, that the Apostle
does not mean by ver. 18 deliverance from imprisonment or death.—(/) That
6 xipwoc of ver. 18 refers to Christ is made clear by the words t7v BacrAciay avrod,
and, if so, the verse contains a doxology to Christ.
CHAP, I. 279
Habdov tod adxoarédov 4 xpdg Tirov éxtorody.
In A, al. the inscription begins with dpzera:; in D E F G it runs simply spd¢
Tirov,
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. For 'Ijoot Xpiorot, Buttm. and Tisch. 7, following A, al., adopted
Xpicrov ’Inoov; but the majority of the most important Mss. (D** EF G HJ K
L x) support the Rec. (Lachm. Tisch. 8).—Ver. 4. ydpic xai eipfvy] So Scholz,
Tisch., following C* DE F G J xy 73, al., Syr. Copt. Chrys. Aug. al—Lachm.
and Buttm. retained the usual reading: ydpic, éAeoc, eip7vn; it is found in A C*#*
K L, etc., but seems nevertheless to be a correction from the analogy of 1 Tim. i. 2;
2 Tim. i. 2.—Tittmann’s reading: ydpcc, 2Ae0¢, nal eipfvn, is quite arbitrary.—Mat-
thaie: 2Aeo¢ nullus meorum omittit, nec ex quinque iis, quos postea consului. Reiche
decided for the reading of Tisch.—«a? xupiov "Inco Xpicrov] For this Lachm.
Buttm. Tisch. read xai Xpcorov 'Inoov, on the authority of A C D* al, Vulg.
Copt. Arm. Theodoret, etc.—Ver. 5. So far as internal evidence goes, we cannot
decide whether the Rec. xatéA:rov or the reading améA:wov (Lachm. Tisch.) is the
original one; both may be corrections, the latter on the analogy of 2 Tim. iv. 20,
the former on the analogy of Acts xviii. 19, xxiv. 27. Hofmann prefers «aradei-
wetv, because it means: “leaving some one behind in going away;” but the sim-
ple verb is in no way unsuitable in the passage. The external evidence (A C D*
F G, al., Or. Basil. ms.) is in favor of avéAzrov, It is uncertain, too, whether the
aor. anéditov (Rec. supported by D E K x, al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8)
or the imperf. azéAearov (A C F G J L, al, Tisch. 7) is the original reading.
Hofmann prefers the imperf. “because it was part of the purpose for which Paul
at that time left Titus behind;” but this would not prevent the apostle from
writing the aor.—The authorities waver between the middle ém:d:opfdoq (Rec.
Tisch.) and the act. ér:dtopSjone (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm.). Since in classic Greek
the middle is more current than the active, it may be supposed that the middle
was a correction. It cun hardly be supposed that the copyists did not know the
middle form (Hofmann).—Ver. 10. In A C J x, many cursives, etc., xai is want-
ing between woAAoi and avuméraxro, for which reason it was omitted by Lachm.
and Tisch. 8. Tisch. 7 retained it, on the authority of DE FG K L, several
cursives, ete. The xai was perhaps added to be in accordance with classical
usage.—In several mss. (F G 67* 73, al.), as well as in some versions, Oecum.
Hilar., a xai was inserted after avuméraxror.—Ver. 15. The pév following mdvra
in the Rec. is to be deleted, on the authority of A C D* E* F G x 17, al, Vulg.
It. Or. Tert. ete—For pemiacuévorg, peusauusvore ig found in A C K L x, many
cursives, etc. and was adopted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. (see Winer, p. 84
[E. T. p. 88]). D* has pepcavpévoce.
280 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XX XIII., pages 290-292.] TatAog dovAoc
cov] [XX XIILa.] This designation, which indicates generally the official
position (Wiesinger: “ dovAog Ocov here in the same sense as in Acts xvi.
17, Rev. i. 1, xv. 3, etc., not as in 1 Pet. 11. 16, Rev. vi. 3,” etc.), is not
usually found in the inscriptions of the Pauline Epistles. In the Epistle
of James we have: @Qeov xail xupicv 'I. Xp. dovAoc, and in writing to the
Romans and Philippians Paul says dovAog I. Xp.—arédorodoc d2 "I. Xp.] dé
indicates here not so much a contrast (as Mack thinks) as a further defini-
tion (Matthies: a more distinct description); comp. Jude 1. With this
double designation comp. Rom. i. 1: dotAog ’I. Xp., KAnrag améaroAoc.—xara
wiorw éxdextov Oeov] card is explained by Matthies to mean: “ according
to faith, so that the apostleship is described in its normal state, in its
evangelic character ;” but it is altogether opposed to the apostolic spirit
to make appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith
of the elect. Kard rather expresses here the general relation of reference
to something: “in regard to faith ;” the more precise definition must be
supplied. This, however, can be nothing else than that which in Rom. 1.
5 is expressed by eic¢ (cic wraxony miotews év mac tT. &Oveorv). It is on ac-
count of the rior éxA. Oeov that he is a dovA. Oecod and ardor. Xp., and to
this his office is related, see 2 Tim.i.1. This general relation is limited
too precisely by the common exposition: “for producing faith,” etc.
Hofmann thinks the apostle uses xara mor. éxA. to describe faith as that
which is presupposed in his apostleship, as that without which he would
not be an apostle; but, on the one hand, we should in that case have had
pov; and, on the other hand, xard does not express a presupposition or
condition.—The expression éxAexroi Oeov is taken by de Wette in a pro-
leptic sense, to mean those who, by the free counsel of God, are predesti-
nated to faith; and xaré wiorw éxA. @., according to. him, declares the
faith of these elect to be the aim of the apostolic office. Wiesinger, on
the contrary, thinks the expression éxAexrot Ocov quite abstract, leaving it
uncertain “ whether the xAjore has already taken place in their case or
not;” but he agrees with de Wette in taking the éxAexroi to be the object
of the apostolic labors, so that the meaning is: in order to produce or
further faith in the elect. But in the N. T. the expression éxAexrot Ocov is
always used of those who have already become believers, never of those
who have not yet received the xAjow. Since it cannot be said that the
purpose of the apostolic office is to produce faith in the éxAexroi (Plitt:
“ that the elect may believe ’’), who as such already possess faith, nor that
it is to further their faith, wiotig exAexrov must be taken as one thought,
the genitive serving to define more precisely the faith to which Paul’s
apostolic office is dedicated. We have therefore here a contrast between
the true faith and the false rior, of which the heretics boasted.—xai é7i-
1There is no doubt that in classic Greek ... addAno@e, xara Aida. But the relation
«cara sometimes denotes the aim of exertion; here is quite different, being active. Kara
see Kihner, # 607.—Herod. ii. 152: cara thy maior would therefore mean “in order to
Aninv éxmAwoarres. Thucydides, vi. 31: xara believe,” which would give no sense,
Oéay hxev. Odyssey, iii, 106: § rs xara mpngiy
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 281
youow aAnieiag rig nar’ eciotBeav] In genuine faith the knowledge of the
truth is a substantial element; and Paul here lays stress on this element
to point the contrast with the heretics. The ériyyworr is the subjective
aspect, as the aAjOea is the objective—rjc car evofBecav [X XXIII 0.)
serves to define aAj#ea more precisely... De Wette, Wiesinger, van
Oosterzee, Plitt interpret 4 xar evoéBecav: “leading to holiness,” thus, in-
deed, naming a right element in truth, but one rather indicated than
expressed by «ard; it is merely said that here a truth is under discussion
which is in nature akin to evcéBea. Hofmann translates it “ piously,”
asserting that «ar’ evoéBecav without the article stands for an adjective;
but had Paul used the clause as an adjective, he would certainly have
written: ri¢ nar’ evoéBecav adnbeiag (as in Rom. 1x. 11: 9 Kar’ éxdoyiv mpdée-
ac). Besides, the translation “piously ” is not sufficiently clear.
Ver. 2. ’En’ éAmidt Cue aiwviov] [X XXIII c.] én’ éavids, “in hope”
(comp. Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21; 1 Cor. ix.10). It is not to be taken with
éviyvwote aAnfeiac (“ the knowledge of the truth which gives hope of an
eternal life,’ Heydenreich, but with hesitation; Wiesinger: “it is a
knowledge whose content is that aA#Geca, and whose ground and condi-
tion is the hope of eternal life, by which hope it is supported and
guided ”’), nor is it to be taken with evcéBea (‘a holiness the possessor of
which is justified in hoping for eternal life,” which Heydenreich likewise
considers possible), nor with ry¢ xar’ evoéBecav (Matthies: “truth and holi-
ness in their inner relationship are founded evangelically on the hope of
eternal life”), nor even with the two ideas closely connected: rior and
ériyywow ad. (so Plitt: “the rior and the émiyvwor rest on the éAric¢”’);
but it is to be joined with amécrodoc x.7.A. Paul by this declares that the
éAric CwH¢ aiwviov is the basis on which he stands as an amdorodog 'Incov
Xpictov xara rior «.t.A2 Van Oosterzee: “ Paul in ver. 4 says he fulfills
his task with or in hope of eternal life” (so, too, Hofmann).—The believer,
it is true, possesses the (wu aidvoc in the present; but its perfection will
only be granted to him inthe future (comp. Col. iii. 3,4); here it
is to be considered as a future blessing, which is indicated by ér’
éAridt.—hv ennyyeidato 6 apevrdng Oed¢ mpd yxpdveyv alovioev] [X XXIII d.] w
relates to (u7¢ aiwviov, and not, as some expositors (Flatt, Mack, and
others) think, to 4A40cca.—ér7yyeidato, viz. dia Tév mpogytav, comp. Rom. i.
2.—6 apevdi¢ Oedc] This epithet occurs only here; apevdfe is equivalent to
moréc, adnOg¢ in regard to the divine promises, comp. Heb. vi. 18: adivaroy
yeboacha Oedv; 1 Cor. i. 9; Rom. iii. 4.—mpd zpévuv aiwviow here is not
equivalent in meaning to mpd xataBoAz¢ xécpov or similar expressions ; for
in that case ér7yyeiAaro must have meant promittere decrevit, or the like,
as Chrysostom expounds it: dvwev ratra mpodpioto, which is impossible.
It is equivalent to az’ aidvoc, Luke i. 70: “before eternity, ¢.e. before the
tAs Chrysostom says: éori ydp aAjOaa daxdorodos «.t.A., the objection of Wiesinger
' $payunatey, addr’ ov xar’ evaodBecav, olow rd is overcome, viz. that in connecting it with
eidévas Ta yewpytxa, TO eidévar Téxvas, aAnOws amxdcrodos there should be a é¢ or something
doviv ciSdvas’ GAA’ alry car’ evodBecay 7 aAjOeca. similar to indicate the co-ordinate position
3Ifés’ édxids be in this way connected with of éwi and card.
282 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
earliest times ” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann), comp. 2 Tim.
i. 9.1 De Wette rightly remarks that apparently the opposite is declared
in pvorhpiov xpbvoig aluviow ceotynpévov, Rom. xvi. 25.
Ver. 8. [X XXIII ¢.] "Egavépwoe d2 xaspoic¢ idiot tov Adbyov abrod} epavépwoe
forms an antithesis to éxyyyeiAatro. True, the promise is a revelation, but
only a revelation in which the point under consideration still remains
hidden. The object of é¢avépwoe is not the same as that to which éxzyy.
relates, viz. 7, 1.€. T9v Cup aiéviov; Beza: quam promiserat Deus .. .
manifestam autem fecit ... The object is rév Adyov avrov, which is not
to be taken as in apposition to 7 (or as Heinrichs even thinks, to éArida
Cwic), though it is strange that égav. should begin a new sentence. This
is one of the cases where—as Buttmann, p. 328 [E. T. 383], remarks—a
relative sentence passes almost imperceptibly into a principal sentence,
without such continuation changing the actual principal sentence into
one subordinate.—rdv Adyov avrov] is, of course, not a name for Christ
(scholiasts in Matthaei), but the gospel, which contains the azoxdAvyic
pvornptov, Rom. xvi. 26, or, as is said here, ro Cage aiwviov.*-—xaipoi¢ idiot |
comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6. How this gavépwore of the divine word took place, is
told in the next words: év xypbypare & émiorebOyy iyo) xhpvypa (see 2 Tim.
iv. 17) is not quite “the general preaching of the gospel by the apostles”
(Matthies, Wiesinger), the thought being limited by the words following;
cppvyza is to be taken as forming one thought with what follows: “the
preaching entrusted to me.” Paul had some reason for describing his
preaching as the means by which this revelation was made, since he recog-
nized the depth of the divine decree as no other apostle had recognized it,
and by him it was proclaimed “to all peoples” (see 2 Tim. iv. 17).—8
éxcotetOnv eyo] see 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Tim. 1. 11—To
define and emphasize the thought that the «#pvyya was not according to
his own pleasure, Paul adds: kar’ émcrayjv tov owripoc fudv Geov] comp. 1
Tim. i.1. Hofmann construes differently, connecting together xara rior
and én éArid: as well as éy xnpiyyar:, and then joining kar émtay# 1m-
mediately with arécrodoc. But this construction not only makes rév Adyov
avtov (which, according to Hofmann, is in apposition to qv) quite super-
fluous, but separates ideas closely attached to each other, «#pvyyza and
Abyoc, ExcorebOny and kar’ émirayhy.
Ver. 4. Tire yoqoip téxvy xata noi rior] [XXXII f.] On yroiy rérvy,
see 1 Tim. 1.2. Kardé nowy riorw gives the point of view from which Titus
can be considered the genuine son of the apostle. Beza: i.e. fidei
respectu qua quidem et Paulo patri et Tito filio communis erat. There
is nothing to indicate that in using xowfv Paul was thinking of an origi-
nal difference between them, he being a Jewish Christian, Titus a Gentile
1Calvin rightly says: hic, quia de promis- _the apostle changes its object, or rather its
sione tractat, non omnia saecula compre- name; eternal life is in its appearance still
hendit, ut nos adducat extra mundi creatioe something future, revealed only as Aéyos.
nem,sed docet, muita saecula praeteriisse,ex Hence, too, it is plain that the dah aiwnos is
quo salus fuit promissa. here to be regarded as the content of this
3 Wiesinger rightly: “Any one can see why i Adyos in specie.”
CHAP. I. 3-6. 283
Christian.—yépec [EAe0¢], eipfva «.r.A.] see on 1 Tim. i. 3-—The designation
appended to Xpucrov, viz. tov owripog juav, is peculiar to this epistle.
[XXXIII g.]
Ver. 5. [On Vv. 5-9, see Note XX XIV., pages 292, 293] 1 The epistle be-
gins by the apostle reminding Titus of the commission already given him
by word of mouth. [XXXIV a.]—rotrov yépw axéindy oe & Kory]
{XXXIV b.] Regarding the time when this happened, see the Introduc-
tion ; as to the reading, see the critical remarks.—iva rd Aeirovra émidtop-
O@don¢] Ta Aeivovra: quae ego per temporis brevitatem non potui coram
expedire (Bengel).—ém:diop6éoy5] The preposition é7i does not serve here
to strengthen the meaning (=omni cura corrigere, Wahl) but conveys
the notion of something additional: “ stjll further bring into order.”—ra
Aeizovra |] means “ that which is wanting,” ¢. e. here that which was want-
ing for the complete organization of the church. The apostle himself
had already done something, but in many respects the churches were not
organized as they ought to be; presbyters had still to be appointed to
gather single believers into a firmly-established church. This Titus was
now to do,' as the next words say: xai xatraorjoye xata mékw mpeoBurépove.
[XXXIV c.]—xara rédv] For the expression, comp. Luke viii. 1; Acts xv.
21, xx. 23; and for the fact, Acts xiv. 23. Baur wrongly assumes that
each wédAce was to receive only one presbyter, see Meyer on Acts xiv. 23.—
Os éy® oot dueragdéuyv] “ relates both to the fact and to the manner of it,
the latter being set forth more fully in mentioning the qualities of those
to be chosen” (de Wette). Hofmann, without sufficient ground, wishes
mpeoBurépove to be regarded not as the object proper, but as something
predicated of the object, which object is found by the words é re¢ «.r.A.
This view is refuted by the addition of xara wéAw?
Ver. 6. Ei reo éoriv] [XXXIV d.] This form is not, as Heinrichs and
Heydenreich think, selected to express a doubt whether such men could
be found among the corrupt Cretans. The meaning is rather : “ only such
an one as.” —avéyxAntoc] see 1 Tim. iii. 10; averidyrrog is used in 1 Tim. iii.
2. The objection which de Wette raises on the ground that Titus is in
the first place to have regard to external blamelessness, has been proved
by Wiesinger to have no foundation whatever.—:é¢ yur. avfp] see 1 Tim.
iii. 2.—réxva Exov wiord|] comp. 1 Tim. iii. 4,5; mord, in contrast to those
that were not Christian, or were Christian only in name.—z év xar7yopia
Gouriac] “qui non sunt obnoxii crimini luxus ” (Wolf); aowria is a de-
bauched, sensual mode of life (1 Pet. iv.4; Eph. v. 18).3— avuréraxra]
see 1 Tim. iii. 5. Comp. the picture of the sons of Eli in 1 Sam. ii. 12 ff.
As the bishop is to be an example to the church, his own house must be
well conducted.
1Theod. v. Mops.: 3 ydp ris evoeBeias Adyos
wapescboro zac wap’ avrov, éActwero 82 oixo-
wennga Ta cata TOS WemioTEVKGTAS Kai Ci¢
éppovier avrovs xaTtactageas Tais éxcAyoiagTes
aax &carvrecedt.
SHofmann rightly remarks, that (accord-
ing to the apostle’s injunction) “Titus was to
appoint the superintendents according to his
own choice, and was not to cause them to be
elected by the Christians who were still to be
organized into a community.”
3Chrysostom: ovx elwe nig awAas dowros,
GAAa wnde BiaBodAny Exew roravTyy, unde worE-
pas civas 80fns.
284 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
Ver. 7. Aet yép] The statements of ver.6 are now confirmed by alluding
to the higher moral necessity ; “ dei is the emphatic word ” (Wiesinger).—
Tov ériox. avéyxAntov elvac] avéyxA. is resumed from ver. 6, that the thought
may be further developed. It is to be noted that the name ézisxomoc
appears here; it is given to the presbyter as superintendent of the church.
As such “he must not be liable to any reproach, if he is to guide the
church ” (Wiesinger).—d¢ @eot oixovduov] is added to give the reason for
that higher necessity of the avéyxa. elvac; Heydenreich wrongly turns it to
mean simply that he must know how to superintend his house well.—
ws = “as,” i.e. “ since he is.",—Oeov oixovduoe is the bishop in so far as there
is committed to him by God authority in the éxxAyoia as the oixog Gcot (1
Tim. iii. 15). Mack is not wrong in proving from this expression that the
éxioxorot are not merely “ ministers and plenipotentiaries of the church.”
Even if they are elected by the church, they bear their office as divine,
not exercising it according to the changing pleasure of those by whom
they are elected, but according to the will of God.—y7 ai9ady} occurs only
here and in 2 Pet. ii. 10. It is compounded of airéce and dééw, and
synonymous with avrdpecxocg (2 Tim. iii. 2: gidavroc), “who in everything
behaves arrogantly and regardlessly as seems good in his own eyes;”
Luther: “ willful.”—p7 épyidov] am. dey. “passionate;” of dpyido rayxéw¢
épyilovrat.—py maporvov] see 1 Tim. iii. 3—pa 2AgKryy] see also 1 Tim. ili.
8.—p) aicxpoxepd;|) see 1 Tim. iii. 8; perhaps with special reference to the
opportunities which the bishop had in his office of acquiring gain.—These
five negative qualifications are opposed to arrogance, anger, and avarice;
several positive qualifications follow.
Ver. 8. ’AAAa piAscevor } see 1 Tim. ili. 2.—gcAdyafov] am. Aey. (the oppo-
site in 2 Tim. iii. 3), loving either the good or what is good. Chrysostom
is inaccurate: 7a avrov mavra Toi¢ deouévorg mpoiéuevog ; and Luther: “kindly.”
—vdgpova] see 1 Tim. iil. 2.—vixacov, d0v0v] These two ideas are frequently
placed together. —dixa:op is one who does no wrong to his neighbor;
bowog is one who keeps himself free from that which stains him in the
eyes of God; synonymous With dxaxoc, aviavroc, Heb. vii. 26.—éyxpary] az.
dey" There is no ground for limiting the word to the relation of the
sexes; besides, éyxpéreca and éyxparebeofac in the N. T. hardly convey any-
thing more than the general idea of self-control. The three last qualifica-
tions are closely related to each other, describing the conduct of the man
towards his neighbor, towards God, towards himself; comp. ii. 12.—The
positive qualifications in this verse are not direct antitheses to the negative
qualifications in the preceding verse; still there is a certain antithesis of
cognate ideas. This is the case with yp? aviddy and ¢Adgevor, peAdyabov; with
pH opyidov, wu mapowvor, yp TAgKTyY, and cddpova; pH alcxpoxspdy and dixaiov,
Savor, éyxpary. Still these epithets, though corresponding to one another,
‘are not quite the same in the extent of their application.
1Comp. 1 Thess. fi. 10; Eph. iv. 24; Plato xovra axpérrww Sixas’ Gy mpdrros, wepi
(Gorg. 507 B) thus distinguishes between @covs dcra.
them; «at pny wepi per avOpwrous Ta mpoo- 2Chrysostom: roy rdfovs xparovysa, Toy Kas
CHAP. I. 7-9. 285
Ver. 9. To these requisites, somewhat general in nature, Paul adds
another with special bearing on the official duties of a bishop: avrexépevor
Tov kata Ti didayny mioTov Adyov] The exposition given by most of the com-
pound idea rov . . . Adyov is inaccurate and confused. Heydenreich
divides the expression into two parts: (1) 6 mwrd¢ Adyoc, “the true doc-
trine of the gospel;” and (2) 6 Adyoc xara ti didaxtv, “the doctrine in
which the bishop is instructed,” and gives the following translation:
“holding firmly, as instructed, by the word which is certain (to reliable
doctrine).” But manifestly this translation arbitrarily inverts the mean-
ing. The words xara ry didaxfv are not dependent on morov, but on
Adyov, defined by miorov, so that rod x, r. did. mioTod Ady. is equivalent to rod
mioTou Adyou, Tov Kata Ty didayxhy. ‘'O miotd¢ Adyog does not occur elsewhere in
our epistles, but there is no doubt that Paul means thereby the pure, whole-
some word (Adyor tycalvovrec, 1 Tim. vi. 3; of Adyoe rH¢ wiotews, 1 Tim. iv. 8)
of the gospel, in contrast to the false doctrine of the heretics. He uses
the epithet xoré¢ because it is not treacherous, it can be relied on: “the
sure, reliable word.” This sure word is defined more precisely by xara ri
didaxty| didaxf is not active (Luther: ‘“ that which can teach ”’), but means,
as it often does in the N. T., “ doctrine.’ Here it denotes “the Christian
doctrine,” which is none other than that preached by Christ Himself and
by His apostles; so Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Hofmann. It is less
appropriate to explain d:daz4 to be “the instruction imparted” (so van
Oosterzee, and formerly in this commentary);! comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6; 2
Thess. ii. 15.—avréyeo6a: (in Matt. vi. 24, synonymous with ayara@y, opposed
to xarag¢poveiv ; used in a similar sense, 1 Thess. v. 14) occurs often in
Polybius (see Raphelius on the passage) in the sense of: adhaerere,
studiosum esse (avréxeofa: r7¢ aAnOeiac). Here, too, it has this meaning, as
in Phil. 11. 16: éréyew ; 2 Thess. ii. 15: xpareiv, “adhere to.’ Luther: “he
holds by the word.”’—Heydenreich rightly remarks that this does not
indicate the zeal the teacher was to show in speaking of divine doctrine,
but his own internal adherence, etc.—iva «.r.4.] This adherence to the
word is necessary for the bishop that he may discharge the duties of his
office. It is further defined more precisely in two ways: Iva duvarig 9
cat... xai: “both ...and.” The first is: wapaxaciv év ry didacxaiia ry
tytarvotoy, which refers to believers. apaxadeiv] encourage, exhort ; viz. to
remain in the way on which they have entered, and to advance ever
further in it, év being here instrumental: “through, by means of.” Mat-
thies is incorrect: “to edify in sound doctrine;” comp. 1 Thess. iv. 18.—
4 dcdaax. 4 bycacv.] see 1 Tim. i. 10.—The second is: rove avrcAéyourag éAtyzetv]
“ By correction and reproof to refute those who contradict” (viz. the
pure doctrine of the gospel), by which are meant the heretics—Even
in classic Greek, the two conceptions “ refute” and “ reprove” are some-
yAwrrys, Kai xerpds, xal df6adpow axoldorwy 815: of card rhy wapdxAnoty Acyot, and accord-
rouro yap dativ dyxpdreca, Te uyseri twootper- ing to this d cara Thy 88axHnv Adyos would be
Oas wade. the word whose content is doctrine. But the
18everal expositors cite, in explanation of attribute morés makes this explanation
this expression, the passage from Polyb. p. unsuitable.
286 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
times combined in éAéyyerv ; see Pape, s.v.—This verse leads on to further
description of the heretics.
Ver. 10. [On Vv. 10-16, see Note XXXV., pages 293, 294.] Eio? yép} yép
shows that this verse serves to explain the preceding words. [XX XV a.]—
moAdoi [xai] avuréraxro:] If xai be read, the phrase should be explained by
the usage common in Greek of joining woAdoi with an adjective following
it (see Matthiae, 3 444, 4, p. 830), and avuréraxra: taken as an adjective. If
xai be omitted, avuréraxros may be taken as a substantive. The heretics
are so named because they set themselves in opposition to the gospel and
refuse obedience to it; the word is found also in 1 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i1.6.—
The heretics are further styled para:éAcya:] see 1 Tim. i. 6, and ¢pevardraz
(ar. Aey.; the verb in Gal. vi. 3), “ misleaders,” almost synonymous with
yénrec, 2 Tim. ili. 18.—pddcora of éx mepitouzc] A name for the Jewish-
Christians, as in Gal. ii. 12.—yd4ora indicates that the preachers of heresy
in Crete were chiefly Jewish Christians, but that they had also found fol-
lowers among the Gentile Christians. These appended words do not com-
pel us to take avuréraxro: as the predicate, and the Christians of Crete as
the unexpressed subject of city (in opposition to Hofmann). Of course
Paul by eiciv yap. x.r.A. means to say that Crete is the place where such
chatterers are to be found.
Ver. 11. Ob¢ det émcoropifev] goes back to the end of ver. 9.—érioroutfew
(am. Aey.) is from émioréusov, which denotes both the bridle-bit and the
muzzle, and is equivalent either to freno compescere, coercere (synony-
mous With rove yativoi¢ eig ta orduata BaAAev, Jas. iii. 3), or to os obturare
(= ¢ovv, Matt. xxii. 34). The latter signification is more usual (see
Elsner, p. 332): “put to silence.” —vir:ves (= quippe qui, and giving the
reason for ob¢ dei) dove oixove avarpérover} The chief emphasis is laid on dAovg:
not merely individuals, but also whole families are misled by them into un-
belief—'Avarpérecv] see 2 Tim. ii. 18; “the figure is here used in keeping
with oixoue”” (Wiesinger).—d:ddoxovrec & pu? dei] “ teaching what should not
be taught; ” this shows the means by which they exercise so destructive
an influence; @ 7 dei, equivalent to rd up déovra, 1 Tim. v. 13.2~—This
refers to paradAoyo, just as avarpérover does to ¢pevardraz.—The purpose is
briefly set forth by aicxpov xépdove zap. The disgrace of their gain con-
gists in the means they employ for acquiring it. The apostle adds these
words to point out the selfish conduct of the heretics, who work only for
their own profit.
Ver. 12. Paul quotes the saying of a Cretan poet as a testimony
regarding the Cretans.—elzé rig é& abrév Idiog aitaév mpogtrnc] && avrov 18
by most expositors referred to the preceding soAAoi or to ol éx mepirouge ;
but such a reference is unsuitable; the apostle is rather thinking of Cre-
tans in general.—The Id:o¢ airav declares still more strongly that the say-
'1Theophylact: éAdyxecy chodpmHs, Sore dwo- ception what the latter denotes objectively.
wAreley avrois Ta oTdpara, We cannot, however, go as far as Hofmann,
2The distinction between & nh Set and Aov whosays: “sy indicates that they who thus
8 is rightly given by Winer, p.448[E.T.p. _ teach are conscious they ought not to do 80,
480]. The former expresses asa moral con- and teach in this way nevertheless.”
CHAP. I. 10-13. 287
ing proceeds from a Cretan and not from a stranger, see Winer, p. 146 [E.
T. p. 154].—pog#rn¢] According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Epiphanius,
Jerome, it is Epimenides who is meant. [XXXV b.] This Epimenides
was a contemporary of the seven wise men, and by some was even reck-
oned as one of them in place of Periander; he was born in the sixth
century B.c. The saying quoted by Paul, which forms a complete hex-
ameter, is said to have been in his lost work rept ypyopav. Theodoret, on
the other hand, ascribes the saying to Callimachus, who, however, was a
Cyrenian in the third century B.c.;"besides, it is only the first words that
occur in his Hymn. ad Jov. ver. 8. Epiphanius and Jerome think that
Callimachus took the words from Epimenides. Paul does not call Epi-
menides 2a mpop#rn¢ because poets and philosophers were often called
prophets in ancient times, but because the saying of Epimenides described
beforehand the character of the Cretans as it was in the apostle’s time.
Still it is to be noted that this very Epimenides was famed among the
Greeks for his gift of wisdom, so that even Cicero (De Divinat. xviii.)
places him among those vaticinantes per furorem.’—Kop7re¢ aet pevorac]
Chrysostom refers these words chiefly to the pretence of the Cretans that
Jupiter lay buried among them; to this, at any rate, the verse of Calli-
machus refers ;* but the Cretans in ancient times were notorious for false-
hood, so that, according to Hesychius, xpyrifew is synonymous with
petdeobar xai avarév; for proofs of this, see in Wetstein.—xaxé Onpia] denot-
ing their wild, unruly character; some expositors refer this name
specially to the greed of the Cretans, as Polybius, book vi., specially men-
tions ‘their aicypoxepdia nai rAcovegia ; but it is more than improbable that
Epimenides had this meaning in his words.—yaorépe¢ apyai] synonymous
with Phil. iii. 19: dv 6 @ed¢ 4 xocdia (comp. Rom. xvi. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13,
14); this denotes the Cretans as men given to sensuality. Plato, too (De
Legg. i.), reproaches them with lust and immodesty.—The apostle’s pur-
pose in quoting this saying of Epimenides is indicated in the next verse.
The national character of the Cretans was such that they were easily per-
suaded to listen to the heretics, and hence it was all the more necessary
to oppose the latter firmly.
Ver. 13. In confirmation of the verse quoted, Paul says: 4 uaprupia
aityn éotiv adAnc, and attaches to it an exhortation to Titus.2 Bertholdt,
without reason, holds this verse to be a later interpolation.—é’ fy airiav]
1Comp. Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philos. p.
81, ed. Henr. Steph.
time. But in spite of the character here de-
scribed, there might still be many individuals
2This verse runs:
Kpijres acai Wevoras.
Kpires érextijvavro*
cai yap radoy, & ava, geilo
ov 88 ov Baves* éoti yap acé.
8 De Wette thinks this confirmation by Paul
himself hard and unjust, since the gospel] had
been received in Crete in such a way that
several churches were formed in a short
ready to receive the gospel; and yet because
of that peculiarity there was ground for
anxiety lest they should be easily misled into
unfaithfulness. De Wette is also wrong in
thinking that the expression regarding the
Cretans in vv. 12 f. does not harmonize with
the apostle’s prudence in teaching.—But how
bitterly Luther expresses himself regarding
the Germans, calling them, e.g., animals and
mad beasts! Was Luther on that account
deficient in prudence in his teaching?
288 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
see 2 Tim. i. 6. Chrysostom: did rovro* ted) 960g atroig tory iraudv xal
doAcpov xai axdédaocrov; it refers to the picture of the Cretan character
given in the testimony.—éAcyye abroig aroréuwc] tAeyxe, asin ver.9; “the
apostle here drops all reference to the bishops to be appointed, and assigns
to Titus himself the duty of applying a remedy ” (Wiesinger).—avroic]}
not so much the heretics as the Cretans, who were exposed to their mis-
leading influence. These latter needed the éAéyzerv, because they were
not resisting the heretics as they ought, but (as oirive¢ bA0ug oixovg avarpé-
movot shows) were yielding to them easily.—azoréuuc] “sharply, strictly ;”
elsewhere only in 2 Cor. xiii. 10; the substantive arorozia in Rom. Xi.
22.— iva tyaivwow év rH miore| “that they may be sound in the faith.” De
Wette takes this as the immediate contents of the éAéyyeev, just as iva
occurs with rapaxadeiv, but without good grounds. ‘Ev here is not instru-
mental (Heinrichs: per religionem), but ior is the subject in which
they are to be sound.
Ver. 14. One especial requisite for the tyaiverv tv 19 wiore: is given by
Paul in the participial clause: pu) mpootyovres "Iovdaixoig piorg nai évrodaic
«.7.4.| mpootyovrec, see 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 1. Here, as in the epistles to Timo-
thy, the heresies are called xi6o:, from the theories they contained; see
on 1 Tim.i.4. Here, however, they are further defined by the epithet
"Iovdaixoi, as they were peculiar to Jewish speculation, though their sub-
stance was derived from Gentile modes of thought. The description, too,
in the First Epistle to Timothy shows that to the speculative part of the
heresy there was added a legal element founded on an arbitrary interpre-
tation of the Mosaic law. The érvrodai of the heretics are here called évro-
Aai avOporuv aroorpegoutvuy tiv a2fberav: “ commands of men which depart
from the truth,” because they were founded not on Christianity, but on the
arbitrary wills of men estranged from Christianity. These évrodai con-
sisted not so much of moral precepts, as of prohibitions of food and the
like, see 1 Tim. iv. 3. Hofmann refers the adjective ‘Iovdaixoic, and the
defining words avOpéruv x.t.A., to both substantives,—a possible construc-
tion, but not necessary. His reasons are far from sufficient.—azoorpego-
pévov] see 2 Tim.i.15. [XXXVc.]
Ver. 15. The apostle, bearing in mind the prohibitions of the heretics,
opposes to them a general principle which shows their worthlessness.—
xdvra Ka0apa toi¢ xafapoic| mavra quite generally: all things in themselves,
with which a man may simply have to do, but not a man’s actions, nor,
as Heydenreich thinks, the errors of the heretics. The usual explanation
which limits the bearing of the words to the arbitrary rules of the heretics
regarding food and other things, is only so far right that Paul lays down
his general principle with special reference to these rules; but mévra
itself should be taken quite generally. Even the exposition of Matthies:
“all that falls into the sphere of the individual wants of life,” places an
unsuitable limitation on the meaning. Chrysostom rightly: otdév 6 Ocd¢
axdQaptov éroinoev.—xafapé as the predicate of wévra is to be connected
with it by supplying éori: “ all is pure,” viz. roig xaBapoic. Bengel: omnia
externa iis, qui intus sunt mundi, munda sunt. Many expositors wrongly
CHAP, I, 14, 15. 289
refer the conception of xafapot to knowledge.' It should rather be taken
as referring to disposition : to those who have a pure heart everything is
pure (not: “to them everything passes for pure”), i.e. as to the pure,
things outside of them have no power to render them impure? On xafa-
pois, van Oosterzee remarks: “ By nature no one is pure; those here
called xa@apoi are those who have purified their heart by faith, Acts xv.
9.” This is right, except that Paul is not thinking here of the means by
which the man becomes «aapéc; the indication of this point is given
afterwards in aricro. The apostle purposely makes the sentence very
emphatic, because it was with the distinction between pure and impure
that the heretics occupied themselves so much.—The contrast to the first
sentence is given in the words: roig” dé pepiayptvorg Kai ariotorg ovdév Kabapdv.
Regarding the form peycappévoc, see Winer, p. 84 [E. T. p. 88]. The
verb forms a simple contrast with xafapoic, and stands here not jn a Levit-
ical (John xviii. 28), but in an ethical sense, as in Heb. xii. 15; Jude 8.
Kai arioroe is not an epexegesis of peycaupu., but adds a new point to it,
viz. the attitude of the heretics towards the saving truths of the gospel.
The two words do not denote two different classes of men, as the article
roi¢ is only used once. To these impure men nothing is pure, 7. e. every
external thing serves only to awaken within them impure lust.—adda
peuiavrat avtav xai 6 vov¢ Kal 4 ovveidnotg] This sentence expresses posi-
tively what oidéy xafapév expressed negatively, at the same time furnish-
ing the reason for the preceding thought. De Wette’s opinion therefore
is not correct, that “for a44a there should properly have been ydp; the
author, however, makes moral character equivalent to moral action.” The
relation of the two sentences is pretty much the same as if, e.g., we were
to say: he is not rich, but his father has disinherited him. If Paul had
used yép, the sentence would simply have furnished the reason for what
preceded ; 244d, on the other hand, indicates the contrast. Still we must
not conclude, with Hofmann, that the second sentence merely says the
same thing as the first. It should be interpreted: “but to them every-
thing is impure, because their votc and their ovveidnoe are defiled.” —Noi¢
and ovveidjore do not here denote the inner nature of man on the two
sides of knowledge and will (so Hofmann). Nois is the spiritual faculty
of man acting in both directions; in N. T. usage the reference to action
prevails, vove being equivalent to the practical reason. Zvveidyoic, on the
other hand, is the human consciousness connected with action, and ex-
pressing itself regarding the moral value of action; it corresponds to
“ conscience ” (see on 1 Tim. i.3).4 The two conceptions are distinguished
1As Jerome: qui sciunt omnem creaturam
honam esse, or as Beza: quibus notum est
libertatis per Christum partae beneficium.
2From the same point of view we have in
the Testam. XII. Patriarch. test. Benjam. chap.
vili.: & €xav Stdvoray xabapay éy ayawy, ovx
dpg yuvaixa ei¢ wopyeiay’ ov yap éxe: miacpoy
éy ty xapdiqg. Kindred thoughts are found in
19
Matt. xxiii. 26; Luke xi. 41; comp. also the
similar expression in Rom. xiv. 20.
8 Also Veitch, Irregular Greek Verbs, 8. v.
4De Wette asserts, without reason, that
ovveidnors is the “consciousness that follows,”
since the consciousness of the deed may pre-
cede as well as accompany and follow it.—
Wiesinger explains vovs inaccurately by: “the
290 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
from each other by «ai... «ai, and at the same time closely connected.
By this, however, no special emphasis is laid on the second word (formerly
in this commentary). In iii. 11 (abroxardxpiroc) and 1 Tim. iv. 2, the
apostle again says as much as that the conscience of the heretics was
defiled. Though the thought contained in this verse is quite general in
character, Paul wrote it with special reference to the heretics, and is there-
fore able to attach to it a further description of them.
Ver. 16. Gcdv duodoyovoww eidévac] not: “they pretend” (Matthies), but
“they loudly and publicly confess,”’ that they know God. Paul leaves it
undecided whether their confession is correct or not. He does not grant
to them, as de Wette thinks, that “they have the theoretical knowledge
of God, and in a practical aspect,” nor does he deny this to them. His
purpose here is to declare that, in spite of this their confession, their
actions are of such a nature as to argue that they had no knowledge of
God: roig d& Epyotg apvotvra:] apvovvraz, Opposed to duodoyovo.v, see 1 Tim.
v. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 5. Supply Ody eidévar (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann).
—pdeAvxroi dvteg Kai ameeig] BdeAuetéc (a7. Acy.), equivalent to abomina-
bilis, detestable (comp. Luke xvi. 15); Luther: “whom God holds in
abomination.”—The word is joined with axd@apro¢ in Proy. xvii. 15, LXX.
Paul does not apply this epithet to the heretics, because they were defil-
ing themselves with actual worship of idols, which especially was re-
garded by the Jews as #déAvyya, but in order to describe their moral
depravity.—xai amebeic] “and disobedient,” synonymous with avuréraxros
in ver. 10; this indicates why they are {deAvxroi.—xai mpocg wav épyov aya-
Giv adéxyor}] “the result of the preceding characteristics” (Wiesinger) ;
adéxiuoc, a8 2 Tim. iii. 8.
Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR.
AXXITI. Vv. 1-4.
(a) With respect to several of the points in these verses which contain the
salutation of this Epistle, the reader is referred to Notes Il. and XXI., above. A
few words as to some of them may be added here:—1. That xara riorw can be
explained, with R. V. and A. V., as meaning according to, is denied by Alf., who
says “it is inadmissible.’ The objection made to this explanation is substantially
that which Huther presents, “that it is opposed to the apostolic spirit to make
appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith of the elect.”
But if the faith of the elect is here spoken of, as it may be, in its relation to the
great truth towards which the faith goes out, and on which it rests, this objection
falls away. It must be admitted, however, as already remarked in Note XXI,,
entire spiritual habitus” (van Oosterzee still
more inaccurately by: “the tendency of the
man, the direction of his entire disposition’),
but ocvveisyous quite accurately by : “the moral
consciousness of my thinking and action in
their relation to the law.”
1 Hofmann asserts that this explanation is
contrary to the meaning of the word, and that
opodoyety here must be taken in its most gen-
eral signification as = “declare, affirm ;” but
we cannot see why. It is to be noted that
OpodAoyetvy in the N. T. always indicates an
utterance more or less emphatic; also Matt.
vii. 23 (comp. Meyer on the passage).
NOTES. 291
that this sense of the preposition is less probable here than in the case of xar’
érayyediav of 2 Tim. i. 2, and that, with this sense, the expression becomes a quite
peculiar one, to which we find nothing fully corresponding elsewhere in Paul’s
declarations as to his apostleship. The meaning given by Huther, “in regard to
faith,” or the more definite one expressing purpose, “for faith,” Ell., Alf, or
“for producing faith,” Dykes and others, is, on the whole, to be preferred.
Holtzmann says according to, secundum fidem catholcam. He urges, and the argu-
ment must undoubtedly be regarded as having force, that the same preposition in
the phrase car’ evoéBecav, and also in the phrase, in ver. 4, card xotva riotiv, and
it might be added, in xar’ éxerayfy (ver. 3), has this signification. Still the gen-
eral thought of Paul—that his office was given according to Divine appointment,
but for the purpose of producing faith on the part of men—might easily suggest to
the reader the different uses of the preposition as intended here.—2. As to the
relation of éxAexrav to miorcy, the view of Huther, with whom EIl., Alf., and
some others agree, is to be adopted, because of the reason which Huther presents,
and also because, if the meaning were the producing of faith and knowledge in
the elect, the exAexrot would probably be mentioned after both of the nouns sioriv
and éziyvworv, and the expression would more naturally be év roi¢ éxAexroi¢ than
éxAext@v.—(b) Ell, and de W. give to xar’ evoéBecay the same sense, so far as the
preposition is concerned, as to xara wiorcv. But it is much more in accordance
with the analogy of ordinary usage, in such cases, to make it define the truth
spoken of as that which corresponds with evoéBeva—(c) ém’ éAridc «.7.A. is most
naturally connected, not with azécrodo¢ as Huther takes it, but with iors and all
that follows as far as evoéfecav, The faith and knowledge, etc., rest upon hope of -
eternal life. When all these words are taken together, and especially when they
are taken in connection with what follows, we may notice how nearly they ap-
proach, in the main idea, to the émayyedlav Cue of 2 Tim. i. 2, and how possible
it is to regard them, though primarily referring to what is subjective to the Chris-
tian mind, as suggesting also the objective truth which is at the foundation of the
belief and knowledge—the truth and promise appertaining to the eternal life.
The possibility of giving to «ard, even in the phrase xara zioriv, the sense of
according to is clearly not to be rejected altogether, and without hesitation, as
Alford rejects it. The question is one of probabilities only, and the most that
can be affirmed as to the other sense—/or, or in relation to, or to produce—is that it
has somewhat greater probability in its favor—(d) The correspondence in phrase-
ology of yv. 2, 3 with 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 is worthy of remark. Except for the word
cearynuévov, there is a noticeable correspondence with Rom. xvi. 25. In regard to
this word, the suggestion of Alford is a just one, that there is a mingling, in both
of the passages in the Past. Epp., of the two ideas of the actual promise, made in
time, and of the purpose fixed from eternity, as the result of which the promise
came. The purpose was kept in silence (ceovy.) through eternal times, but has
now been made manifest to all by the prophetic writings and by the apostolic pro-
clamation.—(e) Tisch. places a comma after aiwviuy of ver. 2, and thus makes
Aéyov depend on é¢avépwoev. So R. V., Huther, Alf., Ell., and many others. On
the other hand, W. and H. omit the comma following aiwiwy and insert one
after idiocc, They accordingly seem to regard rdv Adyov as in apposition with 7.
This construction is much less simple, for, though the other involves a change from
a relative to an independent clause, such a change is not so singular, in a writer
like Paul, as the introduction of such a peculiar apposition as Adyov following 7
292 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
would be in the present sentence.—(f) xara xowv# rior (ver. 4) qualifies yr7oip
téxvy, Titus was the genuine son of Paul only in accordance with the faith, which
was common to the two and to all Christians.—(g) The application of the word
owrhp both to Sede (ver. 3) and Xprord¢ "Inoove (ver. 4) is noticeable. The omission
of éAeo¢ is to be allowed, on the authority of the best manuscripts and versions.
XXXIV. Vv. 5-9.
(a) The epistle opens, like 1 Tim., with the statement as to the purpose with
which the Apostle had left his friend and assistant in the place where he had
himself been working on behalf of the Church. The indications of the passage,
and of the epistle, are such that we must suppose, even as in the case of Ephesus
as alluded to in 1 Tim., that the Church in Crete had not now been just established,
but that it had been founded at an earlier time, and had been in existence for a
considerable period. During a recent visit, however, Paul had evidently done
something in the way of strengthening and more permanently organizing the
believers, and now, as he is himself called to move on to other regions, he leaves Titus
to complete the work. The striking correspondences between this letter and 1
Tim., both in the matters referred to and in language and style, show clearly that
the two epistles belong to the same period of the Apostle’s life. Their date must
be after the close of the history as given in the Acts, and the one must have been
separated from the other by an interval of only a few months or a year.—(6) The
phrase tobrov xépw occurs in Eph. iii. 1. 14, in both of which verses it refers to
what precedes. Here it undoubtedly refers to what follows, and rovrov is explained
by the iva clause. &7:dtopfaon is to be understood as Huther interprets it—the pre-
position “ conveying the notion of something additional,” and thus answering to
Ta Aeixovra, Kai adds the particular thing which follows with a certain emphasis,
showing that this was a matter of special importance as accomplishing the end in
view.—(c) The fact that the tpec3irepo: and the éricxowo: were the same is plainly
set forth in this passage. As to the manner in which the presbyters were to be
appointed, Huther quotes approvingly the remark of Hofmann, that the appoint-
ment was to be made by Titus himself, according to his own choice, and not in
connection with an election by the Christians, who were as yet not organized into
& community. Dykes, on the other hand, says “it was part of the apostolic
function to institute church officers. But the word ordain (used of deacons in Acts
vi. 3) tells nothing of how the elders were selected or appointed.” Wiesinger
also remarks that “the expression throws no light on the question whether this
appointment of presbyters was to be with or without the co-operation of the
church. In Acts vi. 3, xadcoréva: expresses an action common to the apostle and
the church. In Acts xiv. 23, we read yetporovicavres atroig mpeoBurtpouc, which,
compared with 2 Cor. viii. 16, represents the idea of a co-operation on the part of
the church as more probable, although it dues not necessitate such a supposition,
comp. Acts x. 41.” The view of Wiesinger is probably correct. That the church
took action in matters of its own government, and generally, if not always, in the
selection of its officers, is indicated in several places in the N. T., and cannot
reasonably be questioned, as these indications are observed. That in the case of
newly organized bodies of believers such appointments were made, with the consent
of the church, by Paul or his associates is not impossible or improbable. But
there is no satisfactory evidence, that these officers were imposed on the churches
Ba 8
NOTES, 293
without such consent.—(d) The qualifications for the office of bishop or presbyter,
which are given here, are substantially the same with those mentioned in 1 Tim.
The slight differences in the words and in the order of arrangement, and the
addition in ver. 9 of what is found in another connection in 1 Tim., are charac-
teristic of the style of Paul in different epistles belonging to the same period of
time. The thing required of the bishop in ver. 9 is, in substance, the same as
that which is urged upon Timothy in relation to hisown personal work, in 1 Tim.
i.3 ff. The force of avrexéuevov (ver. 9) is given by Grimm as firmiter adhaerere,
holding firmly to. The construction of the following words is that which Huther
favors. The Apostle, accordingly, demands of the ézicxoroc, that he should hold
fast to the “ faithful” (i.e. trustworthy, to be relied upon) “word,” which is in
accordance with the Christian doctrine (the instruction which has been given
him), in order that, etc. The two things which are referred to in the iva clause
are things which are needful in all ages, but there is no doubt that they are
introduced, here, in a special connection with the demands of the particular time
and region in which these two friends of the Apostle, Timothy and Titus, were now
carrying forward their work. May it not be the fact, also, that, in the case of
some of the more general words which precede those of ver. 9, points are mentioned
with respect to the qualifications of the presbyter-bishops, which are suggested by
opposite characteristics in the erroneous teachers of the day ?
XXXV. Vv. 10-16.
(a) Ver. 10 introduces the statement of the existence of such errorists as the
ground for the necessity of the qualification just mentioned (ver. 9) in the person
who is to be appointed a presbyter. Vv. 10, 11 set forth the fact that they are
mainly Jewish Christians, and add two other points which are also mentioned in
1 Tim. vi. 5 ff, and 2 Tim. iii. 6,7, though not in precisely the same terms—
namely, avariciousness and the subverting of whole houses, which latter expres-
sion seems to refer to a perverting them from the faith. The point indicated by
patatodéyo: is found, also, in the corresponding passage 1 Tim. i. 6, and that
indicated by d:dacx, 4 uy dei, in 1 Tim. v.13. The heretics, thus, are evidently
the same class of persons in the two epistles—(b) The quotation in ver. 12,
and one or two other quotations occurring in other places (Acts xvii. 28, 1 Cor. xv.
33), have been supposed to indicate a wide acquaintance on the part of the Apostle
with Greek literature. But the evidence for this is very slight, and the inference
which may be drawn is, rather, on the other side—namely, that the very small
number of allusions in his epistles to anything in the writings of Greek authors
shows him to have had little knowledge of them. The characteristics here
mentioned as belonging to the Cretans, and the words which follow, make it probable
that the persons to whom the sharp reproof was to be given, were the members of
the church, whom the heretical teachers were leading astray, rather than the
teachers themselves. The verb 2Acyyve conveys the idea of confuting, and not
simply of reproving or rebuking—(c) The heretics are further described in the
words following av3péruv of ver. 14, but in a manner which, in general, corres-
ponds with what we find in the epistles to Timothy (1 Tim. vi. and 2 Tim. iii. iv.).
Here the foundation of the whole is placed in the fact that they are not xaSapol.
The reader, who carefully and candidly examines the false doctrines against which
Paul contends in his various epistles, and the characteristics of the false teachers
294 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
as he gives them—tracing the matter in the chronological succession of the
letters,—may convince himself of two things: 1. that the Jewish element, which
was the original one, and was, at first, unmingled with any other, continued even
to the end, only that, as time moved on, it became united with, and greatly affected
by, Greek or Oriental philosophizing ; and 2. that the development of error was
in the exact line in which it might naturally have been expected to take place,
and neither more rapid nor greater than the possibilities of the period of Paul’s
life-time allowed.
CHAP. IL 295
CHAPTER II.
VER. 3. & xataorjatc] For this F G, without reason, have xaraoyfuart.—
Some mss. (C H** al.) have the reading ‘epompevei; Vulg.: in habitu sancto,
which gives a good enough meaning, but must, however, be regarded as a mere
correction ; see Reiche on the passage.—y7 oivp] A Cy 73, al., have the reading
pndé for uy.—Ver. 4. For the Rec. owppovifworv, supported by C D E K L, swdpovi- ©
Covey is read by A F G H x, al. (Lachm. Tisch.). The conjunctive seems to be a
correction, because the indicative contradicts the force of the iva; but also in 1 Cor.
iv. 6, Gal. iv. 17, it stands after iva. In these passages, however, Meyer explains
iva as equivalent to ubi; comp. Winer, pp. 272 f. [E. T. p. 290], and Buttm. p.
202 [E. T. 235]. As in later post-apostolic times, the construction with the indic.
was not unusual, cwppovilovery is possibly to be ascribed to a later copyist.—Ver.
5. Instead of the word oixovpoi¢ (Rec. supported by D*¥** H J K, the cursives,
Fathers, and versions), which occurs frequently in classic Greek, AC D* EF G
x» have the word oixeupyotg (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), which is not used elsewhere.
Matthaei declares this to be a lectio vitiosa et inepta; so Reiche. De Wette
thinks it an error in copying, as the word does not occur elsewhere. This cer-
tainly is possible, and yet it is strange that it should have such weighty testimony.
Matthaei thinks that the scribae istorum sex codicum were so very barbari that
the word oixovpé¢ was unknown to them; but that is hardly conceivable.—Ver.
7. The Ree. adtapSopiav (D*** E** L, al., Chrys.) is to be exchanged for the read-
ing agdopiay (A C D* E* K x, al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), though Reiche seeks
to prove from the meaning of two substantives not used elsewhere that the Rec.
should be preferred. As the adj. ad:dgdopo¢ frequently occurs, and a¢Vopo¢ but
seldom, we may readily suppose that the Rec. was a correction in keeping with
the more usual adjective—After ceyvéryra, D** E, gr. 23, 44, and many other
cursives, etc., have the word ag¥apoiav; but the weightiest authorities are against
its genuineness, A C D* (E apud Mill) F G 47, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Vulg.
It. etc—Ver. 8. wept jucav] so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., supported by C DE FG
K L P 317, 23, al., many versions and Fathers. Lachm. retained the common
reading.—Both readings give a good sense, but the testimony assigns the prefer-
ence to 70”. Matthies wrongly says that A C D E F G have the reading tyév.
—Ver. 9. Instead of idioe dsomérace (Tisch. 8, on the authority of CF G K Ly),
Lachm. (so, too, Tisch. 7) reads deoréraie idiocc, on the authority of A D E 27,
al., Vulg. It. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al.—Ver. 10. For 4, the correction pndé is
found in D F G, al, 17.—zGoav xiorw] for riorw racav (Tisch. 7). This is
read by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A C D E x 31, 37, al., Vulg.
Clar. Germ. Jerome, Ambrosiast.—After didacxadiav Griesb. inserted 17, with
the support of the weightiest authorities, A C D E F G I x, al, Chrys. Theodor.
—Ver. 11. Instead of 4 owrijpio¢ (Tisch. 7), owrfptoc, without the article, has been
adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A* C* D x, Svyr. utr.
296 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
The reading: Tov owr#poc juayv, found in F G, Copt. Aeth. al., must have arisen
from ver. 10; still x has cwrjpoc.—Ver. 13. Tisch. 7 reads ’I7oov Xpiorov, with
the support of most Mss.; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 reads Xpicrov Inoov. ©
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-8, see Note XX XVI., pages 305, 306.] Instructions
to Titus how he is to exhort the various members of families, down to
ver. 10. [XXXVI a.]—oi dé] see 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 5. A contrast with the
heretics, not, however, as Chrysostom puts it: avroi eiow axdOaproc’ aAAd ph
rovrwv évexev oryfogs. It is with regard to their unseemly doctrine that
Paul says: ob dé Adda & mpéree tH bya. didacxadig. In contrast with
their zivdo. and évrodai av3péruv, Titus is to speak things in harmony with
sound doctrine, by which are meant not so much the doctrines of the
gospel themselves, as the commands founded on them, vv. 3 ff. (Wiesin-
ger). On rg ty. d., seei.9. [XXXVI d.]
Ver. 2. The members of the family are distinguished according to age
and sex. First, we have mpeoirac, which is not equivalent to tpecBurépove,
the official name, but denotes age simply : senes aetate; Philem. 9; Luke
i. 18.—vngariove elvac] The accusative does not depend on a word under-
stood such as zapaxdéie:, but is an object accusative to the verb preceding
Adaee & mpérer: “viz. that the old men be vy¢dA10c.”—vnpadiove] see 1 Tim.
iil. 2.—-exvoic] see 1 Tim. ii. 2.—odégpovac] i. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 2.—bycaivovrag
Th wioret, TH ayaty, TH trouovg] On the use of the dative here, for which in
i. 13 there stands the preposition é, see Winer, p. 204 [E. T. p. 217]; it
is to be explained as equivalent to “in respect of, in regard to.”—To miory
and aydzy, the cardinal virtues of the Christian life, érozov7 (quasi utrius-
que condimentum, Calvin) is added, the stedfastness which no sufferings
can shake. All three conceptions are found together also in 1 Thess. i. 3
(7 trouovn Tio éAridoc); trou. and rioreg in 2 Thess. i. 4; ay. xai trou., 2
Thess. iii. 5; comp. also 1 Tim. vi. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10.
Ver. 3. IIpeaBitidag (“ the aged women ”= zpeoBirepac in 1 Tim. v. 2)
woabrus (see 1 Tim. 11.9) év xaracrqpare ispompereicg] [XXXVI c.] xatrdornua
is taken in too narrow a sense, only of the clothing (Oecumenius: ré
nepi3ddaa). Itdenotes the entire external deportment; Jerome: ut ipse
earum incessus et motus, vultus, sermo, silentium, quandam decoris sacri
praeferant dignitatem. Heydenreich, on the other hand, makes the con-
ception too wide, when he includes under it the temper of mind.—iepo-
mpereic] (ai. Aey.) is equivalent to xaOac zpéree dyiow, Eph. v. 3; comp. also
1 Tim. ii. 10. Luther rightly: “ that they bchave themselves as becometh
saints.”—y7 d:aBdaovg] see 1 Tim. iii. 11.—p7 oivw roAAG dedovAwutvac is
equivalent to pi oiv. *. xpocéyovrag in 1 Tim. iii. 8.—xadod:daoxdAove] (ar.
dey.) Beza: “honestatis magistrae; agitur hic de domestica disciplina; ”
but not so much by example as by exhortation and teaching, as appears
from what follows.
Vv. 4,5. “Iva swppovifwot tag véag «.7.A.] Since cuwdpovivecv must necessarily
have an object, rd¢ véac «.7.A. should not, like rpeoBbra¢ vydariove elvar, ver.
2, and pecBiridac, ver. 8, be joined with Ade, ver. 1 (Hofmann), but with
ougpovisovacv, 80 that the exhortations given to the young women are to pro-
CHAP. I. 1-6. 297
ceed from the older women.’—ougpovifev] (a7. Aey.) is properly “ bring
some one to cwdpoctv7,” then “amend,” viz. by punishment; it also occurs
in the sense of “ punish, chastise ;” it is synonymous with vov6ereiv.2 Ac-
cording to Beza, it expresses opposition to the juvenilis lascivia et alia ejus
aetatis ac sexus vitia.—The aim of the owgpovifey is given in the next
words: giAdvdpovg (an. Aey.) elvar, piroréxvouc (am. Aey.). These two ideas are
suitably placed first, as pointing to the first and most obvious circum-
stances of the véaz.—Ver. 5. osdpovac dyvdc] The latter is to be taken here
not in the general sense of “ blameless,” but in the more special sense of
“chaste” (Wiesinger).—vixoupots (Rec.); Wahl rightly: “ex olxog et otpos
custos: custos domus, de feminis, quae domi se continent neque zepiépx-
ovrat, 1 Tim. v.13.” Vulgate: domus curam habentes; Luther: “ domes-
tic.’ The word oixovpyoic [XXXVI d.] (read by Tischendorf, see critical
remarks) does not occur elsewhere; if it be genuine, it must mean
“working in the house” (Alford: “workers at home”), which, indeed, does
not agree with the formation of the word. The word oixovpyeiv occurring
in later Greek means: “ make a house;” see Pape, 8. v. —daya0dc] is rightly
taken by almost all as an independent epithet : “kindly.” Some expositors,
however, connect it with oixovpot¢ (so Theophylact, Oecumenius); but this
is wrong, since otxovpods is itself an adjective. Hofmann joins it with oixovp-
yovc, and translates it “good housewives” (so Buttmann, in his edition
of the N. T., has no comma between the two words); but where are the
grounds for explaining olxovpyots to mean “ housewives” ?—iroraccopévag roi¢
idiot Gvdpdoww] On toig idiow avdp., comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2. The thought that
wives are to be subject to their husbands is often expressed in the N. T.
in the same words, comp. Eph. v. 22; Col. i1i.18; 1 Pet iii. 1. It is to be
noted that the apostle adds this troraccopévac after using gcAdvdpovs. The
one thing does not put an end to the other; on the contrary, neither
quality is of the right kind unless it includes the other. How much
weight was laid by the apostle on the tordocecbac may be seen from the
words: iva p79 6 Adyog row Ozov BAaodnuATa, Which are closely connected with
ivoracoouévag x.7.A.; comp. ver. 10, where the same thought is expressed
positively, and1 Tim.vi. 1. The apostolic preaching of freedom and
equality in Christ might easily be applied in a fleshly sense for removing
all natural subordination, and thus disgrace be brought on the word of
God; hence the express warning.‘
Ver. 6. Tots vewrépouc] “the younger men;
+P)
not, as Matthies supposes,
10f course there might be circumstances tion is expressly given, or can be easily
in which cwdporigey could stand without an
object, as ¢.g. wapaxadecy in 2 Tim. iv. 2 (to
which Hofmann appeals); but here a definite
object was needed to tell to whom the cwdpov.
of the older women had reference, it being
impossible to assign it to them without some
limitation. It is to be noted that in the pas-
sage—in which wapexdAecey is joined with
another transitive verb—the object is very
easily supplied, and that in the N. T., when
mwapaxadaiy is used, the more precise limita-
supplied from the context.
8 Dio Cassius, lv. p. 650: Set rovs wey Adyos
vou@erety, rovs 5¢ awetAais cwhpoviger.
3Chrysostom: % oixoupds yuvn cai caodpev
€orat’ Oixovpo¢ Kai oixovouixy’ ovTe epi
Tpvgny, ovre wepi efodovs axaipovs, ovTe mepe
GAAwy Twv ToLOvTwWY acxoAnOnceTat.
#The remark of Chrysostom: et ovpBatp
yvvaixa moryny axioty cuvoixovaay, mn elvar
evaperoy, 7 BAacdynuia ém Tov Gedy Sc:aBacvecy
eiwGev, is unsatisfactory, because the apostie’s
298 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
the younger members of the church, without distinction of sex.'—dcat-
twc] here, as in ver. 3, on account of the similarity of the exhortation. —
mapaxdAe ouppoveiv] equivalent to oddpovag elvar, opposed to omnibus immod-
eratis atfectibus (Beza). Hofmann: “The whole purport of the apostle’s
exhortations is included by the apostle in the one word oudgpoveiv, which
therefore contains everything in which the moral influence of Christian-
ity may be displayed.”
Vv. 7, 8. The exhortation by word is to be accompanied by the exhor-
tation of example. [XXXVI e.]—zepi révra] does not belong to what
precedes, but begins a new sentence, and is put first for emphasis. ITldvra
is not masculine: ‘“ towards every one,” but neuter: “in regard to all
things, in all points.”—seavrév rape xdpuevog tiTtov xadav Epywv] On the use of
the middle wapéyeo6ac with the pronoun éauréy, “ show himself,” see Winer,
p. 249 [E. T. p. 267].2—rizov, “type,” is in the N. T. only found here with
the genitive of the thing.—xa4a épya] 1 Tim. v.10; an expression often
occurring in the Pastoral Epistles.—év r@ didacxadia agfopiav] This and the
following accusatives are dependent on mepexduevoc; see Col. iv. 1. Luther
inaccurately : “ with unadulterated doctrine, with sobriety,” etc. ; Jerome:
in doctrina, in integritate et castitate—agéopia, only in later Greek, is from
agdopoc,* which is equivalent to “chaste,” and therefore means “unstained
chastity.” ‘Ad:tagdopia (Rec.) is of more general signification; it is also
used of virgin chastity,‘ but denotes in general soundness, also especially
incorruptibility. Older as well as more recent expositors (Heydenreich,
Mack, Wiesinger) refer the word here to the disposition: “ purity of dis-
position ;”® but it is more in accordance with the context to understand
by it something immediately connected with the d:dacxadia, to which cepuvd-
tyra also refers. Matthies, de Wette, and others refer it (as does Luther
also) to the subject-matter of the doctrine; de Wette: “incorruptness in
doctrine, 7. e. unadulterated doctrine.” But in that case it would mean
the same thing as the following Aéyov ty:7; there isno justification for Ben-
gel’s interpreting év didacxatig to mean public addresses, and Aédyov the talk
of daily intercourse. According to its original meaning, ag¥opia is most
suitably taken to mean chastity in doctrine, which avoids everything not
in harmony with its true subject and aim, and it has a special reference to
the form (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, 3). So, too, van Oosterzee: ‘‘ the form of the
doctrine which Titus preaches is to be pure, chaste, free from everything
that conflicts with the nature of the gospel.” —veyvéryra, on the other hand,
words are thereby arbitrarily restricted to a
relation which is quite special.
1 Hofmann remarks that the transition to
the younger men makes it clear “that he was
to exhort the younger women also himself,
and not merely by means of the older ones ;”
but in that case Paul would simply have
written: rovs vewrdépovs cowhpovery, and further,
in that case it would have been more natural
for him to mention the vewrepo: first and then
the véas.
2Comp. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 1.39: wapa-
Secyua ... Trotovde eavroy rapetxero.
8In Artemidorus, ver. 95: de virginibus
puerisque intactis et illibatis legitur; Reiche;
Esth. ii. 2: copagta apOopa cada Tr aides.
#Artac. 26, Diodorus Siculus, i. 59.
5 Reiche, who prefers the reading aécago-
ptay, agrees with the exposition of Erasmus;
integritas animi nullis cupiditatibus corrupti,
non ira non ambitione non avaritia.
CHAP. 11. 7-10. 299
denotes dignity in the style of delivery. Both these things, the ag¥opia
and the ceuvéryc, were injured by the heretics in their Aoyouayiacc.'\—Adyov
vyiy axatdyvworov (ar. Aey.) refers to the subject-matter of the doctrine:
“ sound, unblamable word,” 1s opposition to the corruptions made by the
heretics.—The purpose is thus given: iva 6é& évavriac évrpawq] 6 é€ évavriag
(a7. Aey.), qui ex adverso est; according to Chrysostom: 6 diafodo¢ nai
mac 6 éxeivy dcaxovobpevoc; but the next words are against this interpreta-
tion. According to ver.5 and 1 Tim. vi. 1, it means the non-Christian
opponent of the gospel, and not the Christian heretic (Heydenreich, Wies-
inger).—évtparg, “be ashamed, take shame to oneself;” 1 Cor. iv. 14; 2
Thess. 1ii. 14. The reason for the shame is contained in the words: padév
Eyuv rept quar (or tudv) Aye gavaAor] “ having nothing wicked to say of us.”—
If wepi judv be the correct reading, it is not to be limited to Titus and
Payl, but should be taken more generally. With the reading tudv, on the
other hand, the apostle’s words refer to Titus and the churches that follow
his example. |
Vv. 9,10. [On Vv. 9-15, see Note XXXVII., pages 306-311.] Exhor-
tation in regard to slaves.—dobAoue idiotg deororaic (or decroraig idiots) tmorda-
oeoda:|] [XX XVII a.] The construction shows that Paul is continuing the
instructions which he gives to Timothy in regard to the various members
of families, so that vv. 7 and 8 are parenthetical ; rapaxdAe 1s to be supplied
from ver. 6. Heydenreich and Matthies wrongly make this verse depend-
ent on ver1. The harder the lot of the slaves, and the more unendur-
able this might appear to the Christian slave conscious of his Christian
dignity, the more necessary was it to impress upon him the trordosecVa.
Even this is not sufficient, and so Paul further adds: év rao. evapéorove
elvac, ’Ev maou, equivalent to “in all points” (ver. 7: wept mdvra; Col. iii.
20, 22: xara mdvra), is usually joined with evaptorove elvae; Hofmann, on
the contrary, wishes to connect it with érordscecdar. Both constructions
are possible; still the usual one is to be preferred, because the very posi-
tion of the slaves made it a matter of course that the irordoceoar should
be evinced in its full extent, whereas the same could not be said of evd-
peoroe elvac, since that goes beyond the duty of trordocecdar. The word
evapeorog occurs frequently in the Pauline Epistles, but only in speaking
of the relation to God. The two first exhortations refer to general con-
duct; to these the apostle adds two special points: pu? avriAéyovrag and pp
voogifouévove. Hofmann is wrong in saying that 4) avritéyovrac is the anti-
thesis of evapéorove. The conduct of slaves, which is well-pleasing to mas-
ters, includes more than refraining from contradiction. Van Oosterzee
says not incorrectly: “It is not contradiction in particular instances, but
the habitus that is here indicated.” Luther: “not contradicting.” The
verb voogifeodac is found only here and in Acts v. 2, 8: “not pilfering,
defrauding.’—The next words: aaad wacav riorw évdevypévove ayadiv
(Luther : “ but showing all good fidelity’), is in the first place opposed to
1Hofmann wishes to refer both words to in that case Paul does not specially name the
the subject-matter and form alike; and so, _latter.
also, with Aéyor vysn; but we cannot see why
300 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
pz? voog:Louévove, but includes more than merely to abstain from defrauding
(in opposition to Hofmann). As in ver. 5, 80, too, here, where the main-
tenance of the natural duties of subordinates is under discussion, the apos-
tle adds iva ri didacxadiav x.7.A., except that the expression is now positive,
whereas before it was negative; the thought is substantially the same.
—# Sidacxaiia is equivalent to 6 Adyo¢, rd evayyéAtov.—rov authpog iu. Ocov] see
1 Tim. i. 1; not, assome expositors (Calvin, Wolf) think, Christ, but God.—
xoopaci| “do honor to.”—év mao] ver. 9, “in all points,” not“ with all, in
the eyes of all” (Hofmann).—Chrysostom : ot yap amé déyparog déypuara, aAd’
awd mpayydtwy xai Biov ta déypara xpivoverw ol “EAAnves’ éotwoayv év avroi¢ xal
yuvaixes Kai dovAos diddonado: 51a THE oiKeiag avaoTpod7¢.
Vv. 11-14. [XX XVII 0.] Foundation for the moral precepts given from
the nature of Christianity: eximium ex evangelil medulla motivum
inseritur (Bengel).—Chrysostom ! and others refer ver. 11 (y4p) only to the
exhortation to slaves which immediately precedes. It is more correct,
however, to refer it to the whole sum of moral precepts, given from ver.
1 onwards (so, too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann).—ézegavn yap } ydpic tod
Ocov] éreddvy (see iii. 4) is used of the sun in Acts xxvii. 20. Possibly
Paul is speaking here with this figure in mind (comp. Isa. ix. 2, lx. 1;
Luke i. 79), as Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee suppose; but pos-
sibly, also, the expression simply means that the ydpic rov Gcov, formerly
hidden in God, has come forth from concealment and become manifest
and visible.—7 ydpi¢ tov Gcov] The old writers on dogma give to this
expression, which denotes the absolute ground of the work of redemp-
tion, too special a reference to Christ’s incarnation.? It need hardly be
said that he is speaking here not simply of a revelation of the divine
grace by teaching, but also of its appearance in act, viz. in the act of redemp-
tion.—To define the ydép:e more accurately, there is added: ourgpio¢ mactw
avOporoic] not: “as bringing salvation ” (de Wette, van Oosterzee). This
would make swrffpiog here the main point, which from the context it can-
not be; the main point is not given till madeiovea. Lwrfpic is rather an
adjective qualifying the substantive ydpic: “ there appeared the grace
bringing salvation to all men.” With the Rec. 7 owr#piog this construction
is beyond doubt.— raow avOpdroc}] does not depend on éedavy, but on
owripiog, Matthies is not intelligible in regarding it as dependent on both?
—The emphasis laid on the universality of the salvation, as in 1 Tim. ii.
4 and other passages of the Pastoral Epistles, is purely Pauline.
Ver. 12. Hadetovea judas, tva «.7.A.] On this the chief emphasis is laid.
By adetovea the apostle makes it clear that “the grace of God has a
paedagogic purpose” (Heydenreich). Here, as also elsewhere in the N.
T., wadevev does not simply mean “educate,” but “educate by disci-
ITToAAnHY rapa Tov oixetwY axatTicas Thy 8 Wicsinger translates: “for there appeared
apeTnv, amaye. cai Thy aitiay Scxaiay, &' fy the grace of God which brings salvation to all
OpetAover Torovror evar of oixéras. men;” and on the construction of sac
2Oecumenius: mera capxds eménuia; avOpwros he afterwards says: “according to
Theodoret: rovrov xapiy évnvOpwancev 6 wo- the context, it can only be construed with
voyerns Tov Oeov vids iva «.7.A, curry pros.”
‘ CHAP, II, 11-13. 301
plinary correction.”” -Hence Luther is not incorrect in translating: ‘and
chastises us.” This reference is to be noted here, as is shown by the next
words: dpryodéuevor x.7.A. “Iva does not indicate the purpose here, but the
object to be supplied, for rad. is not subjective, but objective; the sentence
beginning with iva might also have been expressed by the infinitive; comp.
1 Tim. i. 20; not therefore “in order that we,” but “that we.” On this use
of iva, see Winer, pp. 314 ff. [E. T. pp. 334 ff.]'—dpryoduevor] see 1.16:
“denying,” z.e. renouncing, abandoning.—ri acéBecav] is not equivalent
to etdwrodarpeiay xai ta wovypa déyuata (Theophylact), but is the opposite of
evoé3ecav: the behavior of man, ungodly, estranged from God, of which
idolatry is only one side.—xai rag xoopixdg émOvpiag] xoopixds Only here
and in Heb. ix. 1, but there in another connection. The xoop. émcBupiac
are not “desires or lusts referring to the earthly, transient world ”’ (first
edition of this commentary ; so, too, Wiesinger), but “ the lusts belonging
to the kécpos, 7.e. to the world estranged from God,” which, indeed, is the
same thing (so, too, van Oosterzee). Kindred conceptions are found
éxtOupia capxés, Gal. v. 15; Eph. ii. 3; avOpdérev émibvpia, 1 Pet. iv. 2—
ougpdvug Kat dixaiwg Kai evosBic Chowuev] see i. 8 (cddpova, dixatov, dccov). This
denotes the life of Christian morality in three directions. Immediately
after éx@vuiae we have the opposing conception cw¢pdvec, which expresses
self-control. Acxaiwe denotes generally right conduct such as the divine
law demands, having special reference here, as ini. 8, to duty towards
one’s neighbor. EvseBé¢ (opposite of acéBecav) denotes holiness in thought
and act.—Even the older expositors find in the collocation of these three
ideas an expression for the whole sum of duties. Wolf: optime illi res
instituunt, qui per 1d ebcefd¢ officia adversus Deum, per 70 dixaiwg officia
adv. proximum, per 1d cw¢pévec vero illa adv. hominem ipsum indicari
existimant; still it might be doubtful whether Paul regarded the idcas as
so sharply distinct from each other.—év 1 viv aid] Paul adds this to
remind Titus that for the Christian there is another and future life towards
which his glance is directed even in this;—still these words cannot be
construed with zpoode yéuevor.
Ver. 18. Ipoodexéuevoe tiv paxapiav éArida] The strange collocation of
mpoodex. and éArida is found also in Acts xxiv. 15: éAmida tyuv . . . fv xa
avToi ovToe mpoodéxovta; 80, too, in Gal. v. 5: éAmida . . . amexdexdueba. The
reason of it is that éAric not only denotes actively the hope, but also
passively the thing hoped for, the subject of the hope; comp. Col. i.5: 7
éAric 4 amoxeuévn ev 7. ovpavoic¢; comp., too, Rom. viii. 24.—paxapiav] Paul
thus describes the éArida in so far as the expectation of it blesses the
believer. Wolf wrongly interprets 7 pax. éAvig as equivalent to 9 éAmfo-
névyn paxapiétys.—This éAvig is further defined by the epexegesis: kai émigé-
vecav tie d6&q¢ Tov peyddov Oecd Kal ouwrhpog nudov ’I. Xpicrov] [XX XVII c.
pages 307-311.] According to Hofmann, the adjective paxapiav as well as
1 Wiesinger translates: “educating us,that proper signification, however, tva does not
we ... live holily,” but thinks thativaisto give the aim, but the purpose. If it be taken
be retained in its proper signification as in this sense here, we cannot but translate it
denoting the aim of the waisevya. In its “in order that.”
302 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
the genitive ri¢ dééq¢ x.7.A. belongs to both substantives, to éArida and to
éxigavecav, because, as he thinks, 4 paxapia éAric is not a conception com-
plete in itself. But Rom. xv. 4 shows this to be wrong. The genitive
could only be construed with the two substantives by giving it a different
reference in each case. Hofmann, indeed, maintains that this presents
no difficulty, as it occurs elsewhere; but he is wrong in his appeal to
Rom. xv. 4 (comp. Meyer on the passage) and to 1 Pet. i. 2 and 2 Pet. iii.
11 (comp. my commentary on the passages).—Beyond doubt, the émgavera
tHe déén¢ x.t.A. denotes Christ’s second coming (1 Tim. vi. 14); it may,
however, be asked whether peyé2ov Ocov is an independent subject or an
attribute of ’I7c. Xp. The older expositors are of the latter opinion ; the
orthodox even appealed to this passage against the Arians. Ambrosius,
however, distinguishes here between Christus and Deus Pater.' Erasmus,
too, says: simul cum Patre apparebit eadem gloria conspicuus Dominus
ac Servator noster J. Chr.; and Bengel says of Ocot simply: referri potest
ad Christum. Among more recent expositors, Flatt, Mack, Matthies,
Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, adopt the former view; while de
Wette, Plitt, Winer, pp. 123 f. [E. T. p. 130], adopt the latter. Heyden-
reich leaves the question undecided? It cannot be decided on purely
grammatical grounds, for yey. Ocod and owrypoc ju. may be two attributes
referring to ’Iyo. Xpiotov; still it may be also that ourjp. judy "Ino. Xp. i8 &
subject distinct from yey. Oeov, even although only one article is used.®
The question can only be answered by an appeal to N. T. usage, both for
this passage and others like it: 2 Pet. i.1; Jude 4: 2 Thess.1.12. In
2 Pet. i. 11, iii. 18, the unity of the subject is beyond doubt. The following
points may be urged in favor of distinguishing two subjects :—(1) In no single
passage is Oeéd¢ connected directly with 'Ijcove Xporés as an attribute (see
my commentary on 2 Pet. i. 1); t.e. there never occurs in the N. T. the
simple construction 6 Oed¢ judy ‘Ino. Xp., or 6 Oed¢ "Incove Xp., or "Ino. Xp.
6 Ocd¢ qudv, whereas xbpiog and owrfp are often enough construed in this
1The words of Ambrosius are: hanc esse
dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspect-
ant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod reve-
lar{ habet judice Christo, in quo Dei patris
videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suse
praemium consequantur. Ad hoc enim rede-
mit nos Christus, ut, puram vitam sectantes,
subjects standing under one article only, and
we cannot see why these instances should not
be quoted here. Itcannot indeed be said that
awrnpos nuwy "I. Xp. needs no article; for,
although caryp as well as xvpios may be con-
strued with ‘I. Xp. without the article, still
there is no instance of xvptos nuwy being
repleti bonis operibus, regni Dei haeredes
esse possimus.
4Heydenreich wrongly supposes that 8&dga
here is the glory which God and Christ will
give to believers.
’Hofmann wrongly asserts that because
guTnpos yuwy stands before 'Incov Xpicrov,
and with weydAov @eod under one and the
same article, therefore nuwy must belong to
MeyadAou @eov as much as to cwripos, and me-
yadou to owrypos as much aa to @eov, and both
together to "Iycov Xpiorov as predicate.
There are instances enough of two distinct
without the article when construed with ’I.
Xp. But the article hefore pey. @eov may,
according to N. T. usage, be also referred to
awrnpos "I. Xp. without making it necessary
to assume a unity of subject; comp. Buttm.
pp. 84 ff. [E. T. 97, 100); Winer, pp. 118 ff, [E.
T. p. 124 ff.). Hofmann is no less wrong in
what he says regarding the necessity of the
referonce of weyaAov and of yuwy. Paul, in-
deed, might have written: rov wey. @eov xai
"Inc. Xp. rov cwrnpos vuwy, but he could also
express the same thought in the way he has
written it.
CHAP. II. 13. 303
way. (2) The collocation of God (6eés) and Christ as two subjects is
quite current, not only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. i. 1, 2, v. 21, vi. 18;
2 Tim. i. 2, iv. 1; Tit. i. 4), but also in all the epistles of the N. T., Pauline
or not, so much so, that when in some few passages the turn of the expres-
sion is such as to make @edé¢ refer grammatically to Christ also, these
passages have to be explained in accordance with the almost invariable
meaning of the expression. (3) The addition of the adjective peyddov
indicates that Ocod is to be taken as an independent subject, especially
when it is observed how Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy uses similar
epithets to exalt God’s glory ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 17, iv. 10, vi. 15, 16, especially
i. 11; 4 déga rov paxapiov Gcov. It is true the expression 6 péyac Ode is
not found in the N. T., except in the Rec. of Rev. xix. 17, but it occurs
frequently in the O. T.: Deut. vi. 21, x. 17; Neh. ix. 32; Dan. ii. 45, ix. 4.
—For the unity of the subject only one reason can be urged with any
show of force, viz. that elsewhere the word émigéveca is only used in refer-
ence to Christ; but Erasmus long ago pointed out that it does not stand
here ézip. tov Ocov, but ri¢ déEn¢ tov Ccov. Wiesinger, too, has to admit
“that, according to passages like Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38, Christ
appears in the glory of the Father and at the same time in His own glory
(Matt. xxv. 31), and His appearance may therefore be called the appear-
ance both of God’s glory and of His own.” Wiesinger, indeed, tries to
weaken this admission by remarking that in reality it is Christ Himself
who will appear éy dé rov mérpoc, and not God, that therefore dé5a would
be construed with the genitives in quite different relations, and that on
grammatico-logical principles it must mean either é ourypt judy Ino.
Xpior@, OF Tov owrHpoc judy év tH OdEQ Tow peydAov Oeov (Matthies). But his
remark is wrong. Even if the subjects be distinct, the genitive rod pey.
Ocov stands in the same relation to r7¢ déy¢ as docs the genitive owrjpog
nu. I. Xp. Nor is the form of expression necessary on which Matthies
insists, because in the N. T. God and Christ are often enough connected
simply by xai without marking their mutual relations. Wioesinger further
remarks that no reason whatever can be found in the context for connect-
ing Oeé¢ here as well as Christ with the ézgdveca, but he has manifestly
overlooked the relation of mpoodeyduevoe tiv éemipdverav tig d6EnG Tov pey.
Ocov to Exeddvy 1) xapi¢ Tov Ocov.A—Chrysostom rightly says: die deikvvow
evtavda emipaveiag’ Kai yap eioe dio’ 1) pév mpdtepa yxdpttoc, 9 dé devtépa avtamo-
décewe. The yzapic of God has already appeared; the dééa of God appears
only at the day of completion, when Christ is made manifest In His dé€e,
which is the défa of God. Though not so directly as it would have been.
if the subjects were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favor of
1Usteri (Paul. Lehrb. 5th ed. p. 326) says:
“God the Father did not need the extolling
epithet péyas;” to which it may be replied:
“ Did Christ need such an epithet?”—If Hof-
“mann be right in remarking that Christ is
not 6 @eds, which is the subject-name of the
Father, then it is very questionable that Paul
would call Him 6 wéyas eds.
2Van Oosterzee has advanced nothing new
in support of the view disputed above. The
appeal to 2 Pet. i. 11 is of no use, unless it be
proved in pussages beyond dispute that Geos,
like xvpros, is Joined with "Incous Xptords as
an attribute, -
004 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
the truth of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity..—Matthies suggests that in
the expression rov pweyddov Geov there is an allusion to the great Zeus wor-
shiped in Crete, but that is more than improbable.—The genitive cwrfpo¢
is not dependent on émgdévecav, but on ri¢ dégqye. In 1 Pet. iv. 13 also
Christ’s second coming is called the revelation of His dé£éa.
Ver. 14. The thought in this verse is very closely related to ver. 12:
madevovoa nuac, iva x.7.4., as it shows how far the appearance of the grace
of God exhorts us to deny aoéBea x«.r.A. In construction, however, it is
connected with owrjpocg nu. I. Xp.—t¢ Eduwxev éavrév] comp. Gal. i. 4, equiv-
alent to wapéduxev gavrév, Eph. v. 25. The conception of the voluntary
submission to death is not contained in éav7év (Heydenreich) so much as
in the whole expression.—izép juov] is not equivalent to dvi fudv, but:
“for us, on our behalf;” the notion of avri, however, is not excluded
(Matt. xx. 28). The purpose of this submission is given in the next words:
iva Autpdonrat Huac] Avtpotcba: “ set free by means of a ransom.” In Luke
xxiv. 21 (comp. too, 1 Macc. iv. 11, and other passages in the Apocrypha)
the reference to ransom falls quite into the background; but in 1 Pet. i.
18, 19, where, as here, the redemption through Christ is spoken of, the
tiuov aiza of Christ is called the ransom. The same reference is indicated
here by the previous éduxev éavrév, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6. The middle form
includes the reference which in the next clause is expressed by éavrg.—
axé méon¢ avouiac] “from all unlawfulness.” ‘Avoyia is regarded as the
power from which Christ has redeemed us; it is opposed to cugpdvwe xai
dikaiwe Kal evoeBoc Cav: “the unrighteousness in which the law of God is
unheeded.” It is wrong to understand by avouia “not only the sin, but
also the punishment incurred by sin” (Heydenreich), or only the latter ;
comp. Rom. vi. 19, 2 Cor. vi. 14, and especially 1 John 111. 4: 9 duapria éoriv
} avouia.—xai xafapicg éavt@ Aadv mepioiciov| positive expression of the
thought which was expressed negatively in the previous clause. De
Wette and Wiesinger without reason supply judas as the object of xa@apion;
the object is Aadv meproborov.—repioboiog (am. Aey. in N. T.). Chrysostom
wrongly interprets it by éeAeyuévoc, oidév Eywv Kody mpc rot¢ Aosrobc ;
Theodoret more correctly by oixeiog ; 80, too, Beza: peculiaris, and Luther:
“a people for a possession.” The phrase Aadc repiotctog belongs to the O.
T., and is a translation of the Hebrew map Oy, Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6,
xiv. 2, xxvi. 18, LXX.; in the church of the N. T. the promise made to
the people of Israel is fulfilled; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9: Aade sig meperoinow.—
éaur@ corresponds with Avrpdéoyrac axé6. The sentence is pregnantly
expressed, and its meaning is: “ that He by the purifying power of His
death might acquire for Himself (éav76) a people for a possession.” —The
moral character of the 2adc mwepioic. is declared by the words in apposi-
tion, (nAwriy Kaddv Epywv: accensum studio bonorum operum.—De Wette
is inaccurate in saying that the apostle is speaking here not of reconcilia-
1Calvin: Verum breviusetcertiusrepellere gloriae revelationem, ac si diceret, ubi
licet Arianos, quia Paulus, de revelatione Christus apparuerit, tunc patefactum nobis
magni Dei locutus, mox Christum adjunxit, iri divinae gloriae magnitudinem.
ut sciremus, in hujus persona fore illam
NOTES. 305
tion, but only of moral purification. Wiesinger rightly asks: “What else
are we to understand by éduxev éavrdv txép judv than the reconciling
death?” But de Wette is so far. right, that reconciliation is not made the
chief point here, but rather, as often in the N. T., e.g. 1 Pet. i. 17, 18, the
design is mentioned for which Christ suffered the death of reconciliation ;
comp. Luther’s exposition of the second article of faith.
Ver. 15. Tatra (viz. these moral precepts, see ver. 1, with the reasons
given for them, vv. 11-14) AdAe nai mapaxdde wai teyxe|] The distinction
between these words is correctly given by Heydenreich. Aadeiv denotes
simple teaching, srapaxéA. pressing exhortation, éAéyxy. solemn admonition
to those who neglect these duties. ‘The theoretic, the paraenetic-practi-
cal, and the polemic aspects of the preaching of the gospel are combined ”
(Matthies).—yerad done éxcrayj¢] According to 1 Cor. vii. 6, ovyyvdéun is the
opposite of ér:rayf; this clause therefore enjoins that Titus is not to leave
it to the free choice of the church whether his exhortations shall be
obeyed or not, but to deliver them as commands. De Wette translates:
“with all recommendation,” which is right in sense; still éx:rayf is not
properly recommendation but command, and it is therefore better to say,
“with entire full command.”—With this the final words are closely con-
nected: pydeig dov mepippoveitw] repippoveiv (am. Aey.); properly: “ consider
something on all sides;” then: “think beyond, despise,” equivalent to
xatagpoveiy; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 12. Luther is nght in sense: “let no man
despise thee,” viz. by not receiving thy teachings, exhortations, and
admonitions as commands, and by thinking lightly of them. There is
nothing to suggest that Titus is to conduct himself so that no one may be
right in despising him.
Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXXVI. Vv. 1-8.
(a) The passage which now follows, and which has reference to the exhortations
and instructions to be given by Titus to men and women, according as they were
older or younger—Huther says, to the members of families, but the words may be
regarded as more general in their application,—is opened by a direction addressed
to him to speak the things befitting “ the healthful teaching.” As related to what
goes before, this direction forms a contrast to the course pursued by the false
teachers (dé). As related to what follows, it finds its special application in the
several lines which are mentioned. Evidently, as thus applied, the practical
bearing of the d:daoxadia, is what the Apostle has in mind. Very probably it may
be because of this fact, that the peculiar expression @ mpéree 19 vy. dtd. is used.—
(6) In suggesting the exhortations which Titus should give to the older men and
the older women in general, it is noticeable that Paul bids him urge upon all of
them such: actions, and the possession of such qualities, in the main, as in 1 Tim.
he sets forth as proper to be required in presbyters and in the class of widows to
whom he specially refers. Thus, in 1 Tim., the presbyter-bishop is to be vypadzoc,
odgpwv, and, in Tit. i. 8, 9, holding fast to and able to exhort in the tyzacy, didaox,
The women, on the other hand, who are alluded to—the wives of the deacons or,
20
306 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
if it be so, the deaconesses—are called upon to be 4 d:dBodo, cenvai, vnddAco, and
those widows who are to receive support from the church (1 Tim. iv. 3 f£) are
required to have exhibited virtues in their past career, which are preparatory in
their nature to those demanded of the older women here. These facts tend to
show how completely the Apostle’s mind, in all the suggestions as to the officials of
the church, or those in any more public station among the body of believers, was
upon the moral and Christian qualifications which were needed, and how very
slight, as yet, was the develupment of the idea of government, authority or office
in the churches. The latest epistles of Paul have scarcely anything, if indeed
anything, more in the line of the latter idea, than the earlier ones, It is worthy
of notice, also, that, in 1 Tim., where he brings out these moral qualifications, etc.,
as necessary for bishops and deacons, and for widows who were to be placed upon
the list of widows, he simp!y says, with respect to the older and younger men and
women, that Timothy should treat them as he would treat parents, or as he would
treat brothers and sisters; but here, on the contrary, not dwelling so largely on the
case of persons holding public station, he deals fully with the demands of the
Christian teaching on ali men and women, according as they are old or young.
This, again, is suggestive as to how widely removed the Apoetle’s thoughts were
from the notions of office and authority, which arose in later times.—(c) On the
word xaraorhyart (ver. 3) see Note VII. c, above, 1 Tim. ii. 9. The thing required
of all women in the church-meetings, in that passage, is in this place demanded—
80 far as xaraorjyar: here corresponds with xatacroag there—of the elder women at
all times. «ardorjua has, however, a somewhat more internal reference, as we
mav not improbably hold, and perhaps a more extended meaning, than xaracro7.4—
(d) The reading oixovpyot¢ (ver. 5), workers at home, is so largely supported by the
best authorities, that it must be adopted as the true text. Tisch., Lachm., Treg.,
W.&H., Alf. adopt it. With either reading, oixovpyoi¢ or oixoupoic (keepers at home),
the contrast with mepiepydépuevac ta¢ oixiac of 1 Tim. v. 13 can hardly be mistaken.
The iva clause which follows is one indication, among many, that the evil-speak-
ing on the part of those outside of the Church, in case the Christian women
violated the sentiment of the age and country in regard to the proper position of
their sex, was a chief reason for the A postle’s urgency in his exhortations as to this
matter. The exhortation to the younger men is comprehended in the word
owdpoveiv, but this seems here to be, in connection with the various other terms of
the preceding verses, 8 word which is intended to be comprehensive in its mean-
ing.—(e) To the end of adding the greatest force to his exhortations to others,
Titus is urged in vv. 7, 8 to exhibit the characteristics, in his own living, which
he asks them, according to their position, to manifest in theirs; and the same thing
is urged to the end that those who were adversaries, whether Jewish or Gentile,
may not be able to say anything evil of the life or action of the believers, and
thus may be put toshame. The emphasis in the position of r7 d:dacxadig (ver. 7)
is, not improbably, that of contrast to py, but it may also be connected with the
general prominence which is given in the Past. Epp. to the healthful teaching, as
opposed to the present and threatening errors.
XXXVI. Vv. 9-15.
(a) The exhortation to slaves, which in 1 Tim. is given by itself (vi. 1, 2), is
here placed at the end of a series of exhortations to different classes, as it is in
NOTES. 307
some of the other epistles. But it is thrown into an especial prominence by the
fact that the closing words of it—the iva clause of ver. 10—are made the intro-
duction to the very important declaration of the fundamental Christian truth
which is set forth in the following verses. These verses, in their immediate
grammatical connection (yép), and by reason of the word owrypio¢g (ver. 12) as
related to swrypoc (ver. 10), are to be joined with what is said about the slaves.
But, in their wider application, as a reason for the course of life and conduct indi-
cated, they extend in their force over all the verses from the beginning of the
chapter; and, in themselves, they contain an independent and comprehensive
statemént. Tisch. and several of the leading commentators make a paragraph at
ver. 11, joining vv. 9, 10 with vv. 1-8. W.& H. make a half-paragraph at this
point. Not improbably, this is the correct division of the passage. Treg., how-
ever, unites vv. 9, 10 with the following verses, beginning the new paragraph
with ver. 9, and R. V. unites all the verses, from ver. 1 to ver. 14 inclusive, in
one paragraph.—(b) In the passage vv. 11-14, as proved by the ydp and its con-
nection with what precedes, the chief idea, as related to the context, is to be
found in the iva clauses—primarily, in the first iva clause, apvyodpuevor .. . Chowpev
iv T@ viv aia, and secondarily, in the second iva clause, Aurpdoyra.. . Epywr.
The emphasis, however, which is given to these ideas is, that the very object of
the manifestation of the grace of God, and of the gift which, as the result of that
grace, Christ made of Himself, was that the ends thus indicated might be realized.
That which lay at the foundation of the purpose and work of God, which Chris-
tianity proclaims; that, also, for which Christianity takes its followers under its
educating and disciplinary influence, and bids them look forward to the hope and
glory of the future, is that they may become a peculiar people zealous of good
works. The beginning and the ending of the whole doctrine of Christianity, thus,
is the divine life in the soul; and, because it is so, the exhortations given to every
believer, according to his own particular station, age, duty, office, is to let that life-
principle work out into his character and conduct. This it is which makes the
grace of God owrfpu¢ and gives to God Himself and Christ the title of owrnp jpyav,
(c) Ver. 13. The question as to the construction of the words tov peydAov Geov
kal owrijpo¢ nuav 'Incov Xpiorov (T. R.), or Xpicrov "Inoot (Tisch. 8, W. & H.
text), has been much discussed. According to R. V. marg., A. R. V. text, and
many commentators, these words should be rendered of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ; according to R. V. text, A.R. V. marg., and many com-
mentators, on the other hand, they should be rendered of our great God and
Saviour Jesus Christ. In the latter case, the name 6ed¢ is given to Christ; in the
former, it is not thus given. The limits of this note will only allow a very brief
presentation of the arguments, on both sides, which seem to be especially worthy
of being considered.
A. The grounds on which the latter view of the construction and meaning is
maintained are as follows:—I. The general rule that where two appellative words
are united by xai under a common article, they belong to one subject. As both
6ed¢ and owr%p are, in themselves and originally, appellative words, as they are
thus united under one article, and as they are followed by I. Xp., with which, if used
as appellatives, they would naturally be connected, it must be inferred that it was
the writer’s intention thus to connect them.—1. To this argument it is answered,
frst, that the words 6eov and owrjpoc, as here used, are not appellatives, but proper
names, i.e., nouns which, though originally common nouns, had become by usage
308 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
quasi-proper names, and that, like proper nouns generally, they may be joined under
one article whenever the two persons are conceived of as standing in a common
relation to the matter under consideration. They are thus conceived of here, it is
claimed. This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for, though owrfp ap-
parently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a later time, it cannot
be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it. A careful examination of the
subject, some years ago, convinced the writer of this note that there is no N.T.
passage which will support such an affirmation, and he is glad to find himself sus-
tained in this opinion by the late Prof. Ezra Abbot, a scholar as fair-minded as he
was eminent, who(though holding, on other grounds, that 6eov is not to be referred
to Christ) says, ‘I find no sufficient proof of his [ Alford’s] statement that owrfp had
become in the N. T. ‘a quasi proper name.’ ”’—2. To this argument it is answered,
secondly, that %u6v which is joined with owr7po¢ serves the purpose of defining the
latter word, and thus renders the repetition of the article unnecessary. An ex-
amination of all the passages in which the word owr#p is used in the N. T. will, it is
believed, show that the article is added wherever owrfp is found with 767, unless
some other and sufficient reason for its omission is apparent. In other words, cw7}p
nay does not seem to occur, as Tpdowrov avrov may occur (instead of rd tpdowr. aur.),
because the person cannot be supposed to have more than one face. It is, also, to be
observed that such an omission of the article, on such a ground, is less naturally
to be expected in a compound phrase of the character which we find here, than in
simple phrases, like ded¢ owr7p yuav. The kindred expression in 2 Pet.i.1, where
the words are rov Geov judy Kai owrijpoc I. Xp.. and owr7jpo¢ has, accordingly, no
ov connected with it, may, also, have its due weight as bearing upon this point.—
3. To this argument it is answered, thirdly, that the omission of the article is owing
to the fact that the appositional word precedes the proper name. It is believed
that, with reference to this point as well as to those already mentioned, the
passages in which owr#p is used in the N. T., if examined, will show that there is
no justification for this position, and especially none as bearing against the general
rule in such a compound phrase.—4. To this argument it is answered, fourthly, that
the article may be omitted in this case, as in Phil. iti. 20, because the writer
wishes to “fix attention on the quality, or character, or peculiar relation expressed
by the appellative.” As in Phil. iii. 20 Paul says, “we wait for a Saviour, the
Lord Jesus Christ,” cwrijpa amexdexéusa xipiov I. Xp., 80 here he may intend to
say, “of the great God and a Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.’ The want of parallelism
between the two cases, however, will be observed, it is believed, by the careful reader,
and the writer of this note can scarcely doubt that it will be generally admitted,
not only that the cases are different from each other, but also that the proposed
rendering of the present passage is contrary to the analogy of all passages in the
N. T., which are similar to it, and to all the probabilities which such a compound
phrase suggests.—5. It is answered to this argument, finally, that language is not
bound by absolute laws, which admit of no deviation from their utmost strictness;
that the only object of the article is to give definiteness, and, where this is evident
enough without it, a writer may trust to the intelligence of his readers; and that
we find such expressions in the N. T. as rove wwAowrac Kai ayopalovrec (Matt. xxi.
12), where the persons described as buying and selling are manifestly not the
same. This is, no doubt, to be admitted; but the phrase now in question is not
parallel with that in Matt. xxi. 12, or similar ones. The N.T. writers do not
speak of God and Christ in this way, except where the words @eé¢ and Xpcords are
NOTES. 309
proper names (as e.g. Paul and Barnabas, Acts xv. 22, are spoken of in a united
capacity by the use of the words T¢ THaiAy xai Bapvdfe, as contrasted with Acts
-xv. 2, where they are mentioned in a more individual relation, and r@ II. xai rp B.
is the expression employed), and in the phrase Tot Geov xai xupiov ’I. Xp., in respect
to which it may be noticed that xvpco¢ is often used as a proper name, while owr#p
is not.
II. The fact that the relative pronoun in ver. 14 is in the singular number, and
manifestly refers to Christ, shows that there is only one person—namely Jesus
Christ—spoken of in ver. 13.—It is said in reply to this argument, that, after
alluding to two persons, it is perfectly allowable for a writer to add a relative
clause which refers only to the latter. Gal. i. 3, 4 is cited as a parallel case,
where rov dévrog x.7.A, follows the words “ from God the Father and our Lord
Jesus Christ,” but evidently belongs only with "I7o. Xp. 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6 is, also,
referred to. In the latter passage, however, the words are cig yap Gedc, cic Kak
pecitns .... Xp. "Inoovc, 6 dob éavrév avridvrpov, and the construction of the
sentence varies from that of the verses before us in just that particular («ai coming
after, not before, the second cic, and meaning also), which makes it perfectly clear
that 6 dot¢ must refer to Xp. ’I only. In the former case, the two are plainly
distinguished by the word tarpécg added to @eov; the sentence is one in which
xupiov is used, which is a quasi-proper name, as owr7p is not; and there is no
allusion to anything (such as év:¢dvera of the present passage) which may, by any
possibility, be regarded as having an exclusive reference to Christ.
III. The word ézidaveca is one which is always used of Christ in the N. T., and never
of God the Father.—To this argument it is answered, that the expression here
used is not érupdveca, but émipdveca rig défn¢; that the coming of Christ is repre-
sented in Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38 (comp. Luke ix. 26) as being év rH défy rot —
matpo¢ aurov; that in 1 Tim. vi. 14-16 God is spoken of as “showing” the
éxipavera of Christ, and words setting forth the glory of God are added; that
Jewish writers often called any extraordinary display of divine power an éipaveia
of God, and that it was very natural in these sentences, and in the development of
the thought expressed in them, to speak of the ércpaveca of the glory of God as the end
of that great plan which, in its beginning, was an émigdvera of His grace (éregavg
xaptc Tov Geov).—That the future éripdveca denotes an appearing of Christ, accord-
ing to the N. T. writers, cannot be questioned. There is, no doubt, a certain
probability arising from this fact that the reference of this word is in all cases,
and so in this passage, wholly to Him, and this probability may, perhaps, be
regarded as somewhat strengthened. in the verses before us, by the fact that the
following relative clause is descriptive of Him only. But the candid scholar will
be disposed to admit that this argument has been pressed too strongly by many
writers, and that its force is greatly weakened, if not, indeed, entirely set aside, by
the considerations mentioned:
IV. Arguments derived (z) from the addition of the adjective ueyéAov to Geo, no
instance of which occurs elsewhere in the N. T.—that its use would be unnecessary
and antecedently improbable, if applied to God the Father, or that, as an adjective,
it must most naturally be understood as belonging to @ect and owr7poc, and thus,
like the article, as uniting the two as appellatives of Christ; or (y) from the fact
that Aady epioboioy properly, and according to the O. T. conception, means the
people of God, God’s peculiar possession—that the use of this expression, therefore,
carries with it the implication that the relative 4¢ must include in its antecedent Ged,
310 - THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
and that Christ must, accordingly, be here called God,—must be regarded as of
comparatively little weight. The use of adjectives as descriptive of God is some-
what characteristic of the Past. Epp., and, although this particular adjective, uéyac,
does not occur in connection with Gedg elsewhere in Paul's writings, or in the N.
T., it is found frequently in the O. T., e.g. Deut. x. 17; Neh. ix. 32. For
adjectives and descriptive words used with Ged¢ in the Past. Epp., comp. 1 Tim. i.
11, iv. 10, Tit. i. 2, 1 Tim. i. 1, Tit. ii, 3. As for the expression Aaév zep., on the
other hand, the relation of Christ to the Church, in the N. T., is such, that the
transference of such a phrase from its O. T. reference to the people of God to this new
and peculiar reference could hardly be considered strange, even on the part of an
author who might always be disposed to distinguish God and Christ by the names
Ged¢ and Xprordc, and never to apply the former name to our Lord.
B. The grounds on which the interpretation of the words which make them
distinguish between Christ and God—“ the great God, and our Saviour Jesus
Christ ’—is maintained, are the following:—I. The fact that, though Paul uses
the word 6c6¢ more than five hundred times, he never employs it as descriptive of
Christ.—On this point, the reader is referred to note cii. by the present writer,
page 396 ff. of Meyer’s Com. on Romans, Am. ed., and an article by the same, in
the Journal of the Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis for 1881.
II. The fact mentioned by Huther, that we do not find the word 4eé¢ connected
directly with ‘I. Xp. as an attribute—in such a phrase, for example, as 6 Bede "I. Xp,
—These two arguments must, both of them, be regarded as worthy of very serious
consideration. It is to be remarked, however, that it was altogether in accordance
with what might naturally be expected of the apostolic writers, that they should
prevailingly speak of Christ as man, Saviour, Lord, etc. and only rarely as God.
Even John speaks of Him as God only twice in his Gospel, and, possibly, once in
his first Epistle. It was only in harmony with this general usage, also, that they
should be indisposed to employ such phrases as 4 Bed uav 'I. Xp., and that, in case
of referring to the deity of Christ at all, they should make use of expressions like
the present, in which His relation to men as their Saviour is added, or like that
in Rom. ix. 5, where the declaration that He is @cd¢ is associated with a statement
of what He was xara odpxa. It cannot be too emphatically insisted upon, or too
carefully borne in mind, that the belief of the apostles that Christ was Ged need
not necessarily have led them to declare it, often, in their writings, or even to
state it anywhere in the particular form 6 Ged¢ "Inoove Xpiorde.
III. The frequency with which God and Christ in their distinction from each
other, are brought together in the N. T., and by Paul in his Epistles, as having a
common relation to men in the way of grace and the plan of salvation, makes it
probable that the same sort of union of the two is intended here, and not a pre-
sentation of Christ as Himself @eé¢. The force of this argument, it is claimed, is
increased by the fact, that such a uniting of God and Christ, as two subjects, occurs
in several places in the Past. Epistles, and—in connection with the repeated pre-
sentation of the idea of God as working through Christ—may be regarded as even
somewhat peculiarly characteristic of them. Especially, it is urged that there is
a very striking correspondence between 1 Tim. ii. 5 f. and this passage.—The answer
to this argument must be found in the consideration that the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ, when it affirms that He is called 4é¢, only affirms that He is
called thus in some passages. It claims, not that He is gencrally described by
this name, or that He is not distinguished from God the Father by giving the
NOTES. 31l
name @eé¢ to the Father, and «xipos to Him, in most places where they are both
referred to. All that it asserts is that, as Christ in the view of the N. T. writers
is God, it is natural that they should sometimes speak of Him as 6eéc, and that,
this being both possible and natural, the several passages should be interpreted
according to grammatical rules and the suggestions of the context.
IV. The evident reference of the word Oeov in ver. 11 to God the Father, it is
claimed, makes it altogether improbable that @eov in ver. 13 has any other
reference.— Undoubtedly, this position would be the true one in most sentences.
The phenomena of the present sentence, however, it is answered, remove this
improbability, and render it apparent to the reader that the word Geov, which
denotes the Father in the former verse, denotes Christ in the latter.
The acceptance or rejection of the doctrine that Christ is divine will, almost
necessarily, affect the mind of the student, in some degree, with respect to the
weight which he gives to the several considerations mentioned and the readiness
with which he will admit, or refuse to admit, that Qcot here is an appellative word.
The question, however, isone which properly lies within the region of interpreta-
tion, and is to be determined by grammatical and linguistic probabilities. It is a
question, as it appears to the writer of this note, which is nearly evenly balanced—
the strong arguments, on the one side, Leing those which are connected with the
article and the probability that ém:¢dveca must limit the whole expression to Christ;
the strongest argument, on the other, being the fact that Paul, confessedly on the
part of all, very rarely applies the word Geé¢ to Christ—some writers even maintain-
ing that he never does so. Of the two arguments which are thus mentioned as
favoring the application to Christ, the force of the first has, in the judgment of
the writer of this note, been too little regarded by many of the recent commen-
tators, and that of the second has been given greater weight by Bp. Ellicott and
others than it justly merits. On the other hand, the argument pressed upon the
other side in respect to the use of G«6¢ by Paul—when emphasized by the presen-
tation of numbers, as five hundred compared with two or three—is made to carry
with it a weight which the mere numbers do not warrant.
The tendency of recent writers is, apparently, somewhat strongly towards the
rendering of A. R. V. text, which is also the rendering of A. V. Huther, whe
adopts it, says that “though not so directly as it would have been if the subjects
were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favor of the truth of the doctrine
of Christ’s divinity.” Alford, who also adopts this rendering, takes even a stronger
position, and says, “whichever way taken, the passage is just as important a
testimony to the divinity of our Saviour.” It is evident that the doctrine does
not depend on this verse, and is at most only supported by it. The doctrine is
inwoven in the N. T. teaching as a whole.
312 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
CHAPTER ITI.
VER. 1. apyaic xai éfovciacc] In A C D* E* FG yx 17, 31, al, Damase. xai is
wanting, and was therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. It can hardly
be done without; but, asthe «ai is wanting also between the next two words, it
seems to have been wanting here originally, and to have been inserted later. F
G have a «af inserted between the verbs. —Ver. 2. For padéva, F G have 44;
but the former is supported alike by suitability to the context and by the weighti-
est testimony.—Instead of mpgéyra (Rec.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., on the authority
of A C, etc., adopted here and elsewhere the form patryra.— has, instead of
évdecxvuuevovg mpatryta, the reading évdeixvvoGa orovd4v.—Ver. 5. ov) For this
we should probably read 4, as is done by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, on the authority
of A C* D* F Gx 17, al. Clem. Cyr. The ov, which Tisch. 7 retained, seems
to be a correction from the analogy of classic Greek.—For tov avrov éeov,
Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch., on the authority of A D* E F G 31, al. Clem. Max.
al., read 17d avrov éAeops; D EF G Ambr. Aug. etc., put avrov after tAcoc.— Before
Aovrpov, Lachm. and Buttm. put rov, on the authority of A.—After avaxawvéceur,
D* E* F G, Ambr. Aug. etc., have the reading 6:4, which is manifestly an inter-
pretation.—Ver. 7. yevoueda}] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly read yevdouev, on
the authority of A C D* F G, 17, al., Chrys. Ath.—Ver. 8. r@ Ge] According to
all uncials, the 7@ should be deleted; so, too, with ré before xaAd.—Ver. 9. For
Epece (Tisch. 7) there is found in D E F G x the singular épiv (Tisch. 8), which
‘is indeed the original reading altered on account of the plurals around it.—Ver.
10. The Rec, pera piav xai devréipav vovdeciav (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) is sup-
ported by A C K L xy, all cursives, Vulg. etc. ; Tisch. 7 adopted instead of it:
peta pilav voudeciav wal devrépav, on the authority of D E F G, several Fathers,
etc. Reiche rightly prefers the Rec.—Ver. 13. Tisch. 7 reads ’A70A26, while
Tisch. 8 gives ’AtToAAév; some mss. have ’A7zoAAéva.—While Tisch. 7, with the
support of most authorities, read city (so, too, Lachm. and Buttm.), Tisch. 8
adopted Aimy, on the authority of ~ D* etc.—Ver. 15. In D** and D** E F G
H K L, al., several versions, etc., the word eu forms the close; but it is want-
ing in A C D* 17, etc. Tisch. and Buttm. omitted it; Lachm. enclosed it in
brackets.
Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note XX XVIIL., pages 322, 323.] Instructions
to give exhortations regarding conduct towards the authorities and
towards all men.—troyiyrnoxe abvrobc] [XX XVIII a.]} (see 2 Tim. ii. 14)
presupposes that they are aware of the duties regarding which the exhor-
tation is given. It is not so certain that Paul is alluding to definite pre-
cepts already expressed by him.—airotc] viz. the members of the church.
—apyxaic (kai) eovoiac timordccecba} [XX XVIII b.] apyai x. sowie asa
name for human authorities is used also in Luke xii. 11 (comp. too, Luke
CHAP. lI. 1-3. 313
xx. 20; éfovcia: alone, in Rom. xiii. 1). The two words are joined together
in order to give fuller expression to the notion of authority. It cannot,
howevcr, be shown that the one denotes the higher, the other the lower
authorities (Heydenreich). It is at least doubtful whether this inculca-
tion of obedience to the authorities had its justification in the rebellious
character of the Cretans nationally (Matthies and others). Similar pre-
cepts also occur in other epistles of the N. T.; and here the exhortation
harmonizes with the injunctions given in chap. ii. The Christians needed
the exhortation all the more that the authorities were heathen.—re:Bap-
xeiv] here in its original signification: “ obey the superior.’ Its meaning
in Acts xxvii. 21 is more general. The zeGapyeiv is the result and actual
proof of the trordocecfa:. The want of «ai does not prove, as de Wette
thinks, that it does not belong to the datives’ apyai¢ (x.) é&. Kai would
have been out of place here, since the following words also are to be con-
strued with that dative.—rpoc¢ wav Epyov ayabdy éroipovg elvac] [XX XVIII c.]
not to be taken generally, but in very close connection with apyaic: “for
the authorities prepared to every good work” (so, too, Wiesinger and van
Oosterzee). The aya6év is not without significance, as it points to the
limits within which they are to be ready to obey the will of the authori-
ties..—Ver. 2. undéva BAaognueiv] The new object yzdéva shows that from
this point he is no longer speaking of special duties towards superiors,
but of general duties towards one’s neighbor. BaAacgnyeiv is used specially
in referencé to what is higher, but it occurs also in the more general sense
of “revile.” Theodoret: pydéva dyopebew xaxdc.—apdyzove elvat, ériecxeig] see
1 Tim. iii. 3; the first expresses negatively what the second exprcsses
positively —mdoav évdecnvupévore (see ii. 10) xpatryta mpd¢ mavrac avOpwrovc |
Chrysostom : xa? "Iovdaiovg xai “EAAnvac, woxGhpovg x. tovnpobc.—It is 1mpossi-
ble not to see that the apostle is thinking specially of conduct towards
those who are not Christian.
Ver. 3. [XX XVIII d.] "Huev yép] yép shows that the thought following
it is to give a reason for the previous exhortation. But the reason does
not lie in this verse taken by itself (Chrysostom: ovxovy pndevi dverdiong,
enol TovovTog yap 4 Kai ob; sO, too, Hofmann), but in this verse when con-
nected with the verse following. The meaning therefore is: As we were
in the state in which they are now, but were rescued by the kindness of
God, it becomes us to show kindness and gentleness towards those whom
we were atone time like. 'Hyev stands first as emphatic; zoré, “‘at one
time,” viz. before we became believers. Wiesinger: “The contrast to
moré is given by dre dé in ver. 4; we have here the well-known contrast
between roré and viv; comp. Rom. xi. 80; Eph. ii. 2, 11, 18, v.8; Col. 1.
21, iii. 7,8; they are the two hinges of the Pauline system.”—xai jyeic]
“we too ;” queic includes all believing Christians. It is to be noted that
even here Paul makes no distinction between Jewish and Gentile Chris-
tians (otherwise in Eph. ii. 3).—évé7ro:] is equivalent to éoxoriopévo: tH
1Theodoret: ov8¢ yap eig Gwavra Sei Tos = veneer tim’ ei 82 dvoceBeiv KeActoaey, arti
Epxover weiOapyeiv, aAAd roy wey B8acudy cai =s_ eps avriAdyeey; comp. Acts iv. 19.
Tov ddpor cioddpery, kai TRY Spocy}xovcay azo-
314 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
diavoig, Eph. iv. 18; without understanding, viz. in reference to divine
things; not simply: “blinded regarding our true destiny ”’ (Matthies), or:
“without knowing what is right’ (Hofmann). Heinrichs refers this and
mAavepevo: to idol-worship, but the apostle is not speaking here of Gentile
Christians alone.—azeieic] disobedient to divine law ; Heydenreich wrongly
refers it to the relations with the authorities.—rAavépevor] (see 2 Tim. iil.
13) stands here not in a neuter, but in a passive sense: “led astray,” pro-
ceeding on a wrong path, not merely “in regard to knowledge,” but more
generally. Wiesinger: “sc. ad to GA7Seiac, aAgdea being regarded not
as abstract truth, but as the sum total of moral yvod ;” comp. Jas. v. 19;
Heb. v. 2.—doviebovres éxidupuiaie nai pdovaic motidasc (see 2 Tim. iii. 6) #doval,
as Jas. iv. 1,3. He who follows his lusts is a slave to them, hence dovaet-
ovtes; see Rom. vi. 6, 12. Michaelis gives it too narrow a meaning by
referring it to sins of lust.—év xaxig xai ¢9é6vy didyovrec] xaxia is not “ vile-
ness,” but “ wickedness;” comp. Col. iii. 8; Eph. iv. 31; otherwise in 1
‘Cor. v. 8 and other passages, where it is synonymous with rovypia.—
dtdyovtes] connected with Biov only here and in 1 Tim. ii. 2.—orvyyroi (ar.
dey.) is equivalent to pvoyroi (Hesychius), “ detested and detestable ;”’ it is
wanting in Luther’s translation.—coovvres adAfAove ] comp. Rom. i. 29.
Vv. 46. [On Vv. 46, see, Note XXXIX., pages 323-325.] ‘Ore d2 9
xpnorérys Kal } giAavdpwria x.7.A.] [XXXIX a.] xzprorérn¢ as a human qual-
ity; 2 Cor. vi.6; Gal. v. 22; Col. iii. 12; used of God, Rom. ii. 4, xi. 22
(often in the LX X.); with special reference to God’s redemptive work in
Christ, Eph. ii. 7.—g:Aav3pwria}] elsewhere only in Acts xxviii. 1 (2 Mace.
vi. 22, xiv. 9) asa human quality. De Wette remarks on it: “ unusual
for the idea of xéprc.””, The reason why Paul makes use of the word here
is contained in ver. 2, where he exhorts to mpgtra¢ mpocg mavtag avd perove.
Xpyorérys corresponds in conception to mpgérac (both words stand closely
connected in Gal. v. 22 and Col. ili. 12); and in allusion to mpé¢ 7. avdp.,
Paul adds g:Aav3pwria. The goodness and love of God to man, on which
our salvation 1s based, should lead us to show benevolence and gentleness
toall men. At the same time, the yoryorérng and ¢giAavdpwria of God form
a contrast with the conduct of men as it is described in ver. 8in the
words: év xaxia ... ptcobvrec adAjiovp. Hofmann rightly remarks that as
giAavdpwria has the article, it is made independent and emphatic by the
side of the yprorérns; it does not, however, follow from this that yproréra¢
here denotes “ the goodness of God in general towards His creatures.”—
éregavy] just asin il. 11.—robd ourgpog judy Ocov] see 1 Tim. i. 1.—Ver. 5.
[XX X1X b.] The apodosis begins here and not at 2/e0¢, 80 that the words ov«
. . . édeog modify Zowsev ; 80 more recent expositors, even Hofmann.—oix
&& Epywv tov ev dixaocivy & erxahoauev jueic}] On 2, comp. Rom. iii. 20. Mat
thies wrongly : “not from works appearing in the form of righteousness
which we accomplished, ¢.e. not from our works produced with the appear-
ance of righteousness.” "Epya ra év dixatoobvy are rather: “works which are
done in righteousness.” ’Ev denotes the condition of lifein which the works
are accomplished (de Wette, Wiesinger). Azxacootvy here is not justification
(van Oosterzee: justitia coram Deo), but righteousness, integrity ; so, too,
CHAP. 11. 4-6. 315
Hofmann.—é érothoayev jueic] yueic is added emphatically to make the
contrast all the stronger (Wiesinger). Paul is not speaking of works
which may have been done by us, but denies that we have done such
works of righteousness. Bengel rightly: Negativa pertinet ad totum ser-
monem: non fueramus in justitia: non feceramus opera in justitia: non
habebamus opera, per quae possemus salvari..—The thought here ex-
pressed is not, as de Wette thinks, unsuitable to the context. In its neg-
ative form it rather serves to give emphasis to a//4 xara (by means of) rd
avrov éAcoc, and hence to the conception of the divine ypyoréryc and ¢g:Aay-
Qpwria. Wiesinger: “The apostle even by the contrast of the ov« wishes
to make it quite clearly understood that saving grace is quite free and
undeserved.” ?—On xara 1d ait. éAcoc, comp. 1 Pet. i. 8—owoev puadc] sc. 6
Gedc. ASdre .. . éxegdvy does not mean: “when or after it had appeared,”
but: “when it appeared,” the saving is here represented as simultaneous
with the appearance of the divine ypyoréry¢ «.7.4., although did refers
fowoev to its application to individuals, which is different in time from the
ére x.t.A. above. But Paul could rightly put these two things togcther,
because the goodness of God which appeared in Jesus Christ comes to
perfection in the saving of individuals by the Aourpov madcyyeveciac; the
former is the efficient cause of the other.—7jya¢ is not to be referred to all
mankind, but to believers. The means by which the saving is effected
are set forth in the words: dd (rov) Aovrpov madyyeveciag Kai avaxaiwdoews
mvebvuarocs ayiov] The expression : rd Aourpdv radtyyeveciac, has been very arbi-
trarily interpreted by some expositors, some taking Zourpéy as a figurative
name for the regeneratio itself, or for the predicatio evangelii, or for the
Holy Spirit, or for the abundant imparting of the Spirit. From Eph. v.
26 it is clear that it can mean nothing else than baptism; comp. too, Heb.
x. 23; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Acts xxii. 16.—radcyyevesia] occurs also in Matt. xix.
28, but in quite a different connection, viz. in reference to the renovation
of things at Christ’s second coming ; comp. however, 1 Pet. 1. 3, 23, avayer-
vaw, and John iii. 3 ff., yevy7d7var GvwSev.—According to the context, Paul
calls baptism the bath of the new birth, not meaning that it pledges us to
the new birth (“to complete the process of moral purification,’of expia-
tion and sanctification,” Matthies), nor that it is a visibleimage of the new
birth (de Wette), for neither in the one sense nor in the other could it be
regarded as a means of saving (éowcev uae dé). Paul uses that name for
it as the bath by means of which God actually brings about the new birth.®
1Similarly Theophylact: écwcey nuds ove sentence belongs to raw éy dixacoovyp. But
éf épywr, Gy éwocjoaper, avTi TOU’ ovTE éwotnoa-
wey épya Sucacogvyns, ovre cowOnper ex TOUTHY,
aAAa Td wav H ayaborns avTov éroince.
2 Hofmann ts not correct in analysing épyar
tev év dicacocvvy into two statements. He
says that ef épywy is “in the first place to be
conceived by itself,” and that rev éy dcx.
further “denies that we have done what we
should have done in order to deserve to be
saved.” He then maintains that the relative
épya ta év Stxasoovyy forms one conception,
and on this the relative sentence depends.
$It is certainly right to say that haptism
carries with it a pledge to continue the pro-
cess of purification, and that, from its outward
form, it bears in itself a symbolic character;
only these are not the reasons for which the
apostle calls it the Aourpdy waAtyyevecias.—In
the first edition of this commentary I re-
marked: “ Baptism is regarded as the inner
316 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
Comp. with this the apostle’s expressions elsewhere regarding baptism,
especially Rom. vi. 3 ff., Gal. ili. 27, Col. ii. 12, which all alike assign this
real signification to baptism.—xai avaxawdcewg nveiparog dyiov] The genit.
xv. ay. is the genit. of the efficient cause: “the renewal wrought by the
Holy Spirit ” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). This may be taken as
the continuing influence of the Spirit working in the regenerated Chris-
tian, or as the single act of inward change by which the man became a
wavy xtiocg (2 Cor. v. 17), a réxvov Geov. Here the word is to be taken in the
latter signification, asis clear from its connection with égowser jude ;' other-
wise in Rom. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 22-24. According to some expositors, the
genit. avaxacvdcewc is dependent on 6:4; Bengel: duae res commemoran-
tur: lavacrum regenerationis, quae baptismi in Christum periphrasis et
renovatio Spiritus sancti. According to others, it depends on Aovrpov, and
is co-ordinate with wadyyeveciag; Vulgate: per lavacrum regenerationis et
renovationis (de Wette, Wiesinger). The latter is the right view, for
“ what else could avaxairwore wv, ay. be than the new birth denoted by zazy-
yevecia?” (Wiesinger). In this way avax. rv. dy. is added epexegetically to
the previous conception madryyevecia, explaining it, but not adding any new
force to it2. Heinrichs quite wrongly thinks that 7. ay. here is the m.
hominis ipsius, which (quatenus antea fuit puyixdv, capixdv, éxiyevov) be-
comes holy by the davaxaiv.—Ver. 6. ob éféxeev tg’ hud mAovciwc] ov is not
dependent on rot Aovrpov, but on zveiuaroc dyiov. The genit. od is in accord-
ance with the common Greek usage. Heydenreich explains it wrongly
by supposing é€ or 4g’ to have been omitted: “ from which he abundantly,
of which he poured out an abundant measure.’ —éééyeev ég’ fuac] an ex-
pression which has passed from the O. T. (Joel iii. 1; Zech. xii. 10) into
the N. T. It is used to describe the gift of the Holy Spirit; see Acts ii.
17, 33, x. 45. The rich abundance of this gift is indicated by rAovoiug*§—
ég’ nua} goes back to jude in ver. 5. Christians are saved by God pouring
upon them, at baptism, the Holy Spirit, which renews them. The apostle
is not speaking here of the gift of the Spirit which was made at Pentecost,
but of the gift made to individuals, and made after the outpouring at Pen-
new birth manifesting itself in the external
act of the bath.” This is not apposite, since
3 Hofmann indeed disputes our remark that
avaxayy. 7. wv. ig added epexegetically to
baptism is not the new birth itself, but the
means for producing it.
1 These words, waAcyyeveota and avaxaivwars,
do not occur in classic Greek. In the former
word, which Hofmann translates awkwardly
enough by “resurrection,” the prefix wdAcy
points to the former sinless condition of man,
into which he is restored from his corrup-
tion. Thus wadcyyeveoia, in Matt. xix. 28,
corresponds in conception to aroxcardgracs.
It is doubtful whether the same reference is
adapted to avaxaivworws (which only occurs
here and in Rom. xii. 2); the ava does not
make such reference necessary. Expositors
tacitly avoid this question; comp. Cremer,
Worterd. d. neut. Grde.
wadtyy.; because, as he says, radAtyyevecia is
“an incident of the resurrection,” whereas
avaxaivwous is “a work of the Holy Spirit.”
But is not this renewing work of the Holy
Spirit an incident for him on whom it is
wrought? He further maintains that it might
be said: doewcev nuas 5c’ avaxatywoews wvev-
patos ayiov, but not éowoer nuas bia wadty-
yeveoias; but this we cannot admit. The
latter may be said quite as much as the
former.
SIt is 46 @eés here who imparts the Holy
Spirit, whereas in Acts ii. 33 the gift is ascribed
to Christ; see John xiv. 16 comp. with John
xy. 2. The explanation of this is contained
in the 8&4.
CHAP. III. 7. 317
tecost.—d:é Ino. Xp. tov owrgpoc judy] This does not belong to fowcev, which
is already defined by da rot Aovrpod «.r.A. It goes with éééyeev, so that
Christ here, as elsewhere in the N. T., is represented as the medium by
which the Holy Spirit is sent.!. In order to understand the train of
thought properly, we must note that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is
not a consequence, but the substantial inward fact in baptism, which is
the bath of the new birth.
REMARK.—The question why the apostle here speaks of baptism is rightly
answered by Wiesinger in this way. Baptism, as the bath of the zadcyyevecia,
“is the basis on which rests all further growth in the lifeof the Spirit,” inasmuch
as by it the believer is removed from the elvac év capxi into the elvac év rveipart or
év Xpior®, 7. e. into the condition in which it is possible for him to live no longer
kata odpka, but xard mvevua. On the other hand, the apostle does not mention
faith here as a medium of the saving love of God, because he is looking away
entirely from the human aspect of the matter, and considering only the divine
work in the saving of men. Leaving faith out of consideration, baptism is to the
apostle what he says of it here, viz. the means of the new birth or renewal by the
Holy Spirit, and also, according to ver. 7, of the completion of the dcxaotota ;
and baptism does not become this to him by means of faith. Hence the apostle’s
expression cannot be rectified conjecturally by supplying this point, viz. faith. It
is true that in other passages of the N. T. rior denotes that which brings about
the new birth, the receiving of the Holy Spirit, justification; and the one expres-
sion should not be neglected for the sake of the other. There is here a problem
which it is the task of Biblical Theology and of Dogmatics to solve; here, how-
ever, as the passage before us presents no handle for the discussion, it can only be
indicated without solving it. This much only may by said, that according to
these sayings of the Scriptures, man only becomes a réAetog év Xptor@ when he is
justified and regenerated both by baptism and by faith (the faith, viz., which is
miorec &€ axog¢, Rom. x. 17).
Ver. 7. “Iva declares the purpose, not the consequence. It is doubtful
whether it belongs to égéyeev (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee,
Plitt, Hofmann) or to gowsev as defined by dia rot Aourpod . . . Tov owrypog
juav (Bengel, de Wette, and others). The thought is substantially the
same with both constructions, since the owrypia is necessarily brought
about by the outpouring of the Spirit. Still the structure of the sentence
is in favor of the reference to égéyeev. Wiesinger rightly considers the
other view “ to be unnecessarily harsh, ignoring the explanatory relation
of vv. 6 and 7 to ver. 5, and depriving é&éveev of its necessary definition.” —
dixawévrec] not “found righteous” (Matthies), still less “sanctified,” but
“justified,” 4. e. “acquitted of the guilt, and with it, of the punishment.”
Hofmann rightly says that this justification means the same thing as in
Rom. iii. 24; that it does not mean the change of our conduct towards
1Matthies remarks, by adding the words _is out of place, as Paul is not in the least dis-
&a "l. Xp., faith is at the same time assumed _— cussing subjective conditions.
as the subjective condition; but the remark
318 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
God, but of our relations to Him.'—rg éxeivov ydpir:] does not belong to
what follows, but to what precedes. Justification is an act of grace.
’Exeivov does not refer to God as the subject of égéyeev (van Oosterzee, Plitt,
and formerly in this commentary), but to 'Iycov Xpiorov (Hofmann),
according to the usage of the N. T., for which see Acts ili. 13; John vii. 45.
Comp. Winer, p. 148[E. T. p. 157]; Buttmann, p.91. [E.T.104]. Heydenreich
and Wiesinger are wrong in referring it to mvetyaroc; for, on the one hand,
this would involve the wrong conception that justification is a work of the
Spirit ; and, on the other hand, there is no mention in the N. T. of a yapu
tov mvelpatoc.—TH xzdépire points us back to ovx && épywv.2—xAnpovduot
yevplouev [yevoueda] war tArida Cane atwviov] [XX XIX ¢.] nar éArida can-
not, as Heydenreich thinks probable, be construed with (uf aiuwviov as one
conception, so as to be equivalent to fae aiwviov éArlouévnc. On the other
hand, it is also unsuitable to take car’ éAr. ¢€. aiwy. together: “in accord-
ance with the hope of eternal life’ (Matthies), because in that case «Anp.
would not be defined. Kar éArida should rather be joined with «Amp.
yevn)., and then the genit. (w#¢ aiwviov belongs to the latter. Chrysostom
has two interpretations: xar’ éArida, rovréore’ naddo nAricaper, obTwe aroAat-
couev, f, Ste Hdn Kai KAnpovduoe toré. According to the former view, the
words would have to be translated: “in order that we, in proportion to
our hope (#. e. as we hope), may become heirs of eternal life;’ according
to the latter, it would be: “that we, according to hope, might become
heirs of eternal life.” The latter view is the correct one. The apostle is
speaking not of the future, but of the present condition of believers. They
are heirs of eternal life; but they are so in hope, not yet in actual posses-
sion; for («7 aidévo¢g in its full meaning is something future, Rom. vi. 22,
23.—xar éArida stands here as rq éAvidc in Rom. viii. 24; see Meyer on
the passage.®
Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-11, see Note XL. page 325.] IWcorde 6 Adyoo] [XL a.]
refers, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9, to what precedes, but not to the last sentence
merely.‘ It refers to the entire thought expressed in vv. 4~7.—xai mepi
robtwy BobAouai ce diaBeBawiada] Regarding the construction of the verb
d:aBeB.. see on 1 Tim.i.7. Vulgate rightly: de his volo te confirmare;
Wiesinger: “and on these points I wish you to be strongly assured ;” Beza,
1The apostle says nothing here regarding
*Chrysostom: wdAcw xapire, ovx dean.
the relation of justification to the avaxaivwoars
8This passage, vv. 4-7, is substantially
wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is wrong at
any rate to regard the latter as the ground
of the former, so that God justifies man
because he is renewed. Nor, on the other
hand, can the renewing be regarded as a
later consequence of the justification, in the
sense that God imparts to man the Holy Spirit
after man has been justified. The two things
are very closely connected. Justification is
to be regarded as the ground of renewing,
while renewing is the actual completion of jus-
tification. God justifies man so as to renew
him, to make him His child born of the Spirit.
different from that in ii. 11-14. While in the
latter the chief point is the paedagogic aim
of the work of redemption, and the apostle
atcordingly is thinking how Christians are
pledged to a holy life, in the former the chief
point is the undeserved love of God made
manifest in the work of redemption. Hence
in this passage also much emphasis is laid on
the idea of regeneration, which is granted to
the Christian by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
4So Chrysostom: éwedy wepi pedrAAcrvrer dca-
A€xOn cai cbwe wapévTwr, émpyaye Td dbuémio~
Toy.
CHAP. III. 8, 9. 319
on the contrary: haec volo te asseverare. De Wette also maintains that
rept tovrwv is the immediate object, but without proving it.—iva gpovrifwor
Kadav épywv mpoloracdar of memcorevxétes [r@] Oey] In harmony with the
train of thought in vv. 2, 3 ff, Paul here gives a practical purpose as his
motive. The subject of remorevxéres Oe@ are Christians generally; the
designation is used because the Cretan Christians had before been heathen.
Luther translates it rightly: “those who have become believers in God ;”
while Wiesinger is wrong in explaining it: “those who have put faith in
God, i. 2. in His gospel.” The phrase morebey Ocp expresses the relation
to God Himself, not merely to His word; comp. Acts xvi. 34. Oc is used
here as r@ xvpiy often is, comp. Acts xvili. 8, xvi. 15; it is synonymous
with ericg rov Ocdv, John xiv. 1; comp. morebew tO ovduare "I. Xp., 1 John
iii. 23, and x. eic tr. dv., John i.12. Hofmann is altogether mistaken in
construing 69 with what follows. If 6p were to be opposed to avdpdrac,
the latter would have been put before ogé2.ua; besides, ratra clearly forms
the beginning of a new clause.—gpovrifew (a7. Acy., often in the Apocrypha
of the O. T.,also in the LXX.), “ reflect on something, take an interest in
something ;” here, as often in the classics, with a suggestion of anxiety
(comp. 1 Sam. ix. 5, LXX.).—xadtév épywr] depends on mpoloracda; it is
quite general, and should not be restricted to the services to be rendered
to the church (Michaelis), nor to official duties! (Grotius), nor to deeds of
charity (Chrysostom).—7poicracda: here and in ver. 14 is used in the same
sense as when it is joined with réyv7c? being equivalent to exercere, “ carry
on, practise an art;” properly, it is “present oneself before.” The Vul-
gate translates it: bonis operibus praeesse, which, however, is obscure;
Beza incorrectly: bene agendo praecedere, which he explains in a pecu-
liar fashion by sanctae et rectae vitae antistites. Wolf thinks that zpotor.
denotes not only the studium, but also the patrocinium of good works;
comp. Rom. xii. 17: mpovoeiodar xadd.—raird tore [ra] nada nad OpfAiua rr.
avd pairoc} see 1 Tim. ii. 3. Tatra does not refer to caddy Epywv (Heinrichs,
Wiesinger), for the apostle certainly did not need to say that «add épya are
xa7é for men; nor does it resume epi robrav (de Wette, Hofmann). It
should be referred either to ¢povri{ew naa. Epy. tpotoracdac (Heydenreich,
Matthies) or to diaBeBaovova. The latter reference might be preferred—
as confirming the exhortation made to Timothy. On the reference of
ravra to one subject, see Winer, p. 153 [E. T. p. 162].
Ver. 9. Contrast to the last words.—pwpa¢ 62 Cyrhcete nat yeveadoytac x.7.A.]
Cnrhoec, see 1 Tim. i. 4; connected with pupdéc also in 2 Tim. ii. 23; xai
yeveadoyiac, see i. 4; the latter refers to the contents, the former to the
form.—xai Epw [éperg] wal udyac vouexdc] epic, like the other words, serves to
describe the behavior of the heretics; it is not therefore épe rag mpodc
aiper:xots, as Chrysostom interprets it, but quarrels such as take place
1 Hofmann, too (Schriffbew. II. 2), restricts terpretation, however, he seems to have
nad. épy. mpoter. to “honest exertion,” by given up, as he does not mention it in his
which “each one may support himself and commentary.
contribute to the needs of others, or to the *Synesius, Hp. 2; Athenagoras, xiii. 612a.
purposes of Christian church-life.” This in-
320 . THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
among the heretics. The puéyar vousxai are disputes about the law and the
individual precepts of the law; see 1 Tim. i. 7 and Tit. i. 14—Heyden-
reich wrongly refers the adjective voyxde also to épecc. Hofmann even refers
it to all the preceding conceptions, arbitrarily explaining voyexai of the
contents of the Pentateuch, t.e. of the Thora; with him, therefore, the
Cathoers vouccai are “discussions in which all disputed questions in the
Thora are taken up,” and the yeveadoyia: voucxal are “ investigations into
the historical contents of the Thora.”’—repiioraco] see 2 Tim. ii. 16.—With
these fables and quarrels that go on among the heretics Titus is to have
nothing to do.—Eisi yap avagedei¢ xad pdracoc) contrast with ravré fort nada
k.T.A.—paravoc, like éoro¢, 1 Tim. ii. 8, is used as an adjective of two
terminations.
Vv. 10, 11. An injunction regarding behavior towards the heretics.—
Aiperixév Gvdpwrov] [XL b.] alpetixés (Gz. Aey.) is not equivalent to conten-
tiosus, but is, according to Calvin: quisquis sua protervia unitatem
ecclesiae abrumpit, any one who causes departure from the pure sound
doctrine of the gospel. With this Wiesinger agrees, only that he wishes
to consider the divisions as not brought about by heresies, but by “ eccen-
tricities and perversities.” The word aipécec is often used by Paul
of ecclesiastical divisions, 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20. So, too, in 2 Pet. i. 1,
where it expressly refers to heresies.'—yerd yiav xal devrépav vovde_ciav
rapaitov] Vitringa (De Vet. Synag. iil. 1.10) understands tapa:trov to mean the
formal excommunication, and vovdecia the excommunicatio privata, as
these were appointed among the Jews for certain cases. But he is wrong ;
Paul is not speaking here of excommunication proper. Novecia (1 Cor.
x. 11; Eph. vi. 4) is equivalent to “ reprimand,” including both blame and
exhortation. This is not to be employed once, but several times: “after
one or two.”—rapa:rov] 1 Tim. iv. 7. Bengel: monere desine, quid enim
juvat? laterem lavares.—Ver. 11. etdé¢] see 2 Tim. ii. 23.—bére éféorparra
6 toovroc] “that such an one is perverse;’”’ comp. Deut. xxxii. 20: dre
yeved teorpaypévy tore, PNDNA V7; it shows the total perversion of
thought and endeavor. Baur says arbitrarily and wrongly: “he has
turned away from us, and departed out of the communion of believers.” —
kai duaptaver dv avroxardxpitoc] defines the preceding words more precisely.
“Qv avroxardkptrog is connected with duaprave:, but not with é&éorparra: also
(Hofmann). The perversity shows itself in the fact that he sins condemn-
ing himself. Avroxaréxp:toc ig equivalent to xexavrypiacpévog ri idiav ovvei-
dnovv, 1 Tim. iv. 2, qui suopte judicio est condemnatus. The meaning is:
he sins with the consciousness of his guilt and of his own condemnation,
so that there is no hope of his return.
Ver. 12. Invitation from the apostle to Titus to come to him at Nico-
polis so soon as he had sent Artemas or Tychicus. Artemas is not men-
tioned elsewhere; regarding Tychicus, see 2 Tim. iv.12. The object in
sending them is not told. Had the apostle’s purpose been that Artemas
1Comp. also Rom. xvi. 17: wapaxaA® vuas apd thy &daxny fy vmets eudOere wocovrras
gxowew Tovs Tas dtxooTagias ai Ta oxdvdada = =s_ Kal. exAivate ax’ avTwv.
CHAP. 111. 10—14. 321
or Tychicus should continue the work begun by Titus, he would surely
have given some hint of it, and not contented himself with the simple
npoc sé. It is more probable that the apostle wished to have Titus brought
by one of them, as he could not yet determine the exact time when he
was to come (Hofmann). Nicopolis is a name borne by several cities, one
in Epirus, built by Augustus as a memorial of his victory at Actium;
another built by Trajan in Thrace; and another in Cilicia. Inthe sub-
scription of the epistle there stands: amd NexoréAewe tH¢ Maxedoviac, which
may mean either the city in Thrace or that in Epirus. It does not
appear from his words that Paul wrote the epistle there; on the con-
trary, the éxei rather shows that Paul himself was not there when he
wrote the epistle. His purpose was to pass the winter there; comp.
Introd. 2 3.
Ver. 13. Zyvav rdv vouixdv] Zenas is otherwise unknown. The epithet
rov vou. shows either that he had been formerly a Jew learned in the
Scriptures, a ypayparetc (Matt. xxii. 35, and other passages), or—as is more
probable—that he was one skilled in law, a jurisconsultus.'\—xai ’AvoAA0]
He is known from Acts and 1 Corinthians; but it is not known when he
went to Crete.2—orovdaiug mpdreupov] “equip carefully for departure ;”’ on
nporéurev, comp. 3 John 6. Wiesinger translates orovdaiwg by “ hastily,”
unsuitably, as the words iva «7.4. show. In ozovdaiwe the prevailing con-
ception is zeal; orovdaiug éxerv is equivalent to “be zealous for a thing.”
Luther: “ take ready with diligence.” —iva pydév avtoig Acizg] Hofmann’s
opinion, that “this is an imperative sentence in itself,” is all the more
arbitrary that iva manifestly refers to orovdaiug; comp. besides what was
said on 1 Tim. i. 3.
Ver. 14. Mav8avétwcav dé kai ol “dutrepoi] ol érepor are the Christian
brethren in Crete, not, as Grotius thought, Zenas and Apollos. Kai stands
with reference not merely to the Jews (Hofmann), but to non-Christians
in general. As non-Christians provide for the needs of their own, so
ought Christians, and not refrain through their anxiety for heavenly
things.—xaddv épywv mpoicracdac] in the same general sense as in ver. 8,
but the words following give the phrase a more special reference to works
of benevolence ; ¢i¢ rac avayxaiag ypeiac, “in regard to the necessary wants.” —
iva wu} Gov dxapra] The subject is ol yuérepox. Hofmann construes the
words eig tag avayxaiacg xpeiag with the clause of purpose following them.
He says that “the particle of purpose is placed after the emphatic part.
of the clause,” a thing which frequently occurs in the N. T., and for this he
appeals to Winer, p. 522 [E. T. p. 561]. In this he is entirely wrong.
Such a construction seldom occurs, and of all the passages there quoted
by Winer, that from 2 Cor. xii. 7 alone is to the point; the rest are of
quite another kind. It is quite clear from what was said on iva in 1 Tim.
1Strabo, 12, p. 539: éfnynrins rev voueyv,xada- ceed by Crete to Alexandria, which was Apol-
wep oF mapa ‘Pwpaios voucxot. los’ native place, and that Paul gave them
* Hofmann suggests that Zenas and Apollos _ this epistle to Titus to serve them also as a
set out from the place where Paul was atthe letter of recommendation. These are mere
time of writing the epistle,in order to pro- conjectures, for which there is no foundation.
21
322 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
i. 8,1 that such a construction is not to be admitted here. The exhorta-
tion in the passage does not refer simply to the present case of equipping
Zenas and Apollos, which indeed occasioned it, but is in general terms,
and is applicable to all cases where the necessary wants of others have
to be considered (van Oosterzee).
Ver. 15. End.—domdfovrai oe of per’ éuov mavrec] is not to be understood
generally of believers, but of the apostle’s fellow-workers.—doraca: rove
giAovvrag nua év wiore:] giAciv marks the inner, personal relation. The
distinction between ayax@v and ¢:Aeiv is plain from a comparison of John
ili. 16, yyatn0ev 6 Ocd¢ tov éouov, With John xvi. 17, 6 rargp girei tpac; also
Matt. x. 37. ‘Huds, 7.e. the apostle—H ydpic peta ravrev tpav] “with you
all,” ¢.e. “ with thee and all Cretan believers.” The form of the benedic-
tion does not imply that Titus was to communicate the epistle to the
churches in Crete.
Nores BY AMERICAN EDITor.
XXXVIII. Vv. 1-3.
(a) The word avrotc, following, as it does, after the specification of various
classes of persons who make up the entire membership of the church, and after
ii. 15, which, by its ratra AdAec x.r.A., as well as its undeic, suggests a general refer-
ence, must be understood as meaning the Christians in Crete universally. Comp.
2 Tim. ii. 14, where, though the word avroi¢ is not found, there is, in connection
with vrouiuvnoxe, the same suggestion of admonition to all. The first of the things
which Titus is urged to put them in mind of, is obedience to magistrates. This
duty is thus put in a parallelism, here, with that of slaves to their masters, as the
latter is, elsewhere, joined with similar suggestions as to the relation of wives to
their husbands. These three things, as already noticed in other epistles, were
likely to be lost sight of, by reason of the doctrine of Christian equality and of the
new position which the Christian believers regarded themselves as having at-
tained, and hence it is not strange that they are pressed in the same way, or on
the same grounds, in different epistles—(b) The xai between apyai¢ and éovoiore
which is found in T. R. is to be rejected, as Tisch., W. & H., Treg., Alf, Ell,
Huther and others hold. TecSapyeiv is best taken independently, and as having
its fundamental meaning; to obey one in authority. The connection of apy., éfove.
with mecSapy., making this verb the result and proof of ttoracc., which is favored
by Huther, involves so peculiar and uncommon a construction as to render it
much less probable. The double expression, however, is somewhat strange, what-
ever explanation of it may be attempted. Ell. thinks that wec«Sapy. may, possibly,
have the sense here of coactus obsequi, and troracc. that of lubens et sponte submittere,
which Tittmann assigns to the two verbs in their distinction from each other.
This, however, seems doubtful, and, if it were intended, the reverse order would be
more natural.—(c) The clause mpd¢ av épy. «.7.A. is taken by Huther and some
others in immediate connection with apyaic, and thus as referring to the duties
of citizens or subjects of government. This connection is supposed by some to be
indicated or favored by Rom. xiii. 3. Huther and some others think that the ayadév
1To say that with the common construction mann), is not to the point, since it can easily
the clause of purpose is too general (Hof- be defined from what precedes.
NOTES. | 323
points to good works as those in respect to which alone they were to be ready to
obey the magistrates. Wiesinger, on the other hand, says, that, while it is im-
plied that the magistrate requires good works, the idea that obedience is not to be
rendered to what is evil is not intended to be distinctly expressed, and that it does
not belong to the context to suggest any thought on this point. When we con-
sider (1) the fact that the exhortation certainly turns from duties to magistrates to
what is more general, in the next clause, if not here; 2. the independent form of
this clause, and its parallelism, in this respect, with that which precedes and
those which follow; 3. the very general character of kindred expressions in 1 Tim.
v.10; 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 17; Tit. i. 16; and 4. the apparent improbability that, if
a limitation to duties towards rulers were intended, there would be no word re-
ferring to them in the clause, there seems to be much reason to question whether
any such special reference was in the mind of the writer. The connection with
Rom. xiii. 3, certainly, seems very remote.—(d) The reason for the exhortation
which now follows in vv. 3-6, is similar, in one aspect of it, to that which is
given, in ii. 11 ff, for the exhortations of that chapter—namely, that the very ob-
ject and purpose of the divine work of redemption was to accomplish that to
which the exhortation points. This point is even brought out with an especial
emphasis, by presenting the contrast between what the Christians were before con-
version (ver. 3) and what belongs to the new life upon which they have entered
(ver. 2). But there is another aspect in which the matter is here set forth. In
this view of the words, the reason given is different from that in the verses men-
tioned, and the emphatic jyuev and 7ueic, as well as the xpyoréryc and ¢:Aav3 puria,
indicate that the force of the thought is to be found herein—namely, in that,
having been rescued from the state in which unconverted and heathen men are
living, by the kindness of God and His love towards man, the Christian ought to
manifest a similar spirit towards his fellow-men. A combination of the two
thoughts, with a certain emphasis upon the latter, is, apparently, to be discovered
in the verses, and was, probably, in the mind of the Apostle. The emphasis re-
ferred to indicates something corresponding in vv. 1,2. We may believe that,
while the writer’s expressions in those verses are universal and are to be allowed
a universal application, he intends to give a special prominence to the feeling and
actions of the members of the church towards those who are outside of it and are
unbelievers. The characteristics mentioned in ver. 3 are those which are espe-
cially descriptive of the heathen, as we see in Eph. and Rom. The word quei¢ may
include all, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, but the former class are so far
in his thought as, of themselves, to suggest the words in their fullness of meaning.
XXXIX. Vv. 4-7.
(a) The word 6re is contrasted here with the orf which precedes, and marks
the transition from the old to the new condition of things. It is evident, how-
ever, that the matter of salvation is spoken of especially from the divine side of it.
This is indicated by the words xpyorér7¢ and ¢cAavbp., also by éAeoc, by the reference
to the gift of the Spirit, by rj éxeivov ydprt:, and even by éowoey as here used. The
fact that the kindness of God and His love towards men have been manifested to
those who had previously been avéyrot, areBeig «.7.A., is that on which the special
emphasis is laid. The manifestation, as in ii. 11, was through the appearance of
Christ in the world.—(b) In connection with this setting forth of the kindness
324 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
and love of God, Paul takes occasion to give a statement of the means by which
God accomplishes the end, which His love has in view—namely salvation. This
statement was not essential to the main thought of the passage, indeed, but was
very naturally suggested by it, just as a similar statement—though not, indeed,
in all its details, which, as here, are modified by the context—was suggested and
introduced in Rom. iii. 23-26. The Pauline doctrine of justification and salvation
is set forth, first, negatively—it is not as the result of works which we had done
in the sphere of our own righteousness (emphatic 7ueic); and then, positively.
On the positive side, we have presented before us: 1. the originating cause of
justification and salvation, the mercy and grace of God; 2. an allusion to the
objective means in the offering of Christ; 3. the means by which the provision
made by God is applied and rendered effectual in the individual man, baptism and
the gift of the Spirit; 4. the final object and purpose of the provision: that the
believer may become an heir of eternal life. The especial peculiarity of the
passage, as compared with the one in Rom. iii., to which reference has just been
made, is in the prominence given to baptism and the impartation of the Spirit,
rather than the work of Christ and faith. This peculiarity may, perhaps, be
accounted for, so far as the reference to the Spirit is concerned, by the fact that
the contrast in the character and conduct between the present and past life of
the qjueic (vv. 1, 2, comp. with ver. 3) was in the writer’s mind. With respect to
the matter of baptism as here spoken of, the following points may be noticed :—1.
There is nothing in the passage which expresses with definiteness the precise
relation, which, according to the author’s conception of the matter, baptism has
to regeneration or salvation. He simply says, by means of the washing (or laver,
bath) of regeneration God saved us. But how it was by means of this, he does
not declare by any more detailed statement. The preposition d:¢ is one the
limits of whose meaning and application (within the general sense of means) are
widely extended. 2. There is no passage in the N. T. which, fairly interpreted,
necessarily ascribes saving efficacy to baptism, considered in itself. All the
passages which relate to the subject are either as little, or even less, definite in
their statements than the one now before us. 3. The uniform representation with
regard to baptism and the work of the Spirit is that the latter is internal, trans-
forming and renewing, the former external. The internal, according to the N.
T. everywhere, is the essential; the external is not so. 4. The symbolic idea of
baptism, as the outward sign of the inward change, will meet the demands of all
the N. T. passages, and of this passage in particular. Nothing more than this can
be proved, either from the 6:4 of this passage or from the genitive ta:yyeveciag—
for the Aoutpér is a Aout, wadcyy., if baptism is the outward symbol and seal, and
dca denotes means, if this outward symbol is looked upon as that which accom-
panies or follows upon the act of faith, and as that which marks the convert asa
believer.—(c) The construction of the genitive (w7¢ aiwviov of ver. 7—whether it
depends on éArida, or on xAyjpovéyo.—is doubtful. The immediate connection of
the words with éArida, while they are separated from xAypovéuor, and the phrase
én’ eAmidt Cope aiwy. in i. 1 favor the view that they depend on éA7z. The im-
probability that the writer would use «Aypovéuo: without some such defining word,
may be urged in support of the construction which unites the genitive with that
noun. Alford claims that «Aypov, stands alone in every place where Paul uses it
in a spiritual sense, and cites Rom. iv. 14, viii. 17; Gal. iii. 29,iv.1,7. But in
all these passages the context suggests the defining genitive immediately, or more
NOTES, — - 325
clearly than it does here, and they can hardly, be considered as parallel cases.
Huther urges in favor of his view of the meaning that the Apostle is speaking not
of the future, but of the present condition of believers. But may it not be, that
he is carrying forward the thought of the work of saving us even to its end? The
use of xar’ éArida, in the sense of ty éAmidc of Rom. viii. 24, “in hope, as con-
trasted with actual possession,” is not demanded by the context here, as it is in
Rom. R. V. text makes (uj depend on éArida, R. V. marg. joins it with xAypovéuor.
Not improbably, this is the correct presentation of the matter.
AL. Vv. 811.
(a) With the solemn formula mord¢ 6 Adyog referring to the declaration of the
Christian truth in vv. 4-7, the Apostle now brings his letter to a close,—taking
occasion, at the end, to say once more what he had in substance said before: that
his desire and command was, that Titus should confidently affirm this truth, and,
on the other hand, should avoid the questionings, genealogies and strifes to which
the false teachers and their disciples gave themselves—the object of all, both the
affirmation of the truth and the avoidance of the error, being that the believers
might be careful to maintain good works. This last phrase, xaAav épywy zpoloracda,
in rendered in the margin of R. V., profess honest occupations. But as the idea of
good works, as belonging to and to be cultivated by the Christians, is so prominent
in this Epistle, and as the verb can be used in the sense of carrying on or practicing
an art, or in the sense of curam gerere, operam dare, (Grimm), there can be little
doubt that the other meaning is the one here intended.—(b) The word aiperixdv
(ver. 10) is, quite probably, to be rendered by factious. This accords with the
sense in which aipeoce is to be understood generally in the N. T. The aip, avdp,
is one who causes divisions.
Digitized by Google
COMMENTARY
ON THE
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
BY
DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVEBSITY OF GOTTINGEN,
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
Rev. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A.
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES BY
TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PROFESSOR OF GACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE,
Digitized by Google
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
THE idea and aim contemplated in the Meyer series of commentaries,
as also the general plan laid down for the work of translation, has
been already explained by Dr. Dickson in his Preface to the Epistle
to the Romans, and elsewhere. The merits, also, of Dr. Liinemann as
a coadjutor of Meyer, have been sufficiently discussed by Dr. Gloag in
connection with his translation of the Epistles to the Thessalonians.
It only remains to add, that the aim in the translation of this commen-
tary has been to give a faithful and intelligible rendering of Lune-
mann’s words, and in general to produce a worthy companion volume
to those of the series already issued. It is hoped that a comparison
with the German original will show that the work has not suffered in the
process of transferring to our own soil.
It will be admitted that the commentary of Luinemann on the
Hebrews—of which the first edition appeared in 18955, the second in
1861, the third in 1867, and the fourth, enlarged and greatly improved,
in 1874—has claims of a very high order in a grammatical and lexi-
cographical respect. He threads his way with a nice discrimination
amidst a multitude of conflicting interpretations, and generally carries
conviction with him when he finally gives his own view, or that in
which he concurs. Even where, as in the case of some three or four
‘controverted explanations, he may not have weighed the whole argu-
ment in favor of an opposite view, he has at least revealed to us the
process by which his own conclusion is reached, thereby contributing
to place the reader in a position for forming an independent judgment
for himself.
The opinions of Dr. Liinemann, as regards the position occupied by
the writer of our Epistle towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
have been expressed with great candor. Unfortunately no one seems
to have made the questions here raised a matter for any very prolonged
and detailed examination since the time of John Owen. With the
eventual answer which shall be given to these questions will stand or
fall the claim of Barnabas to the authorship of the Epistle, and many
other things besides.
It is, however, by his grammatico-critical and purely exegetical
329
@
330 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
labors that Liimemann has rendered the greatest service to the cause
of sacred literature. The judicious use of his commentary can hardly
fail to lead to a more intimate acquaintance with the letter and spirit of
this apostolic writing, well styled by the Helmstadt professor Walther
a “beyond all measure profound epistle.”
Of the very abundant exegetical literature pertaining to the Epistle
to the Hebrews, our space admits of the mention of but a very few
writings. Nor was it needful to give an account even of all that have
been collated in preparing this translation. Most of the German com-
mentaries published after the middle of the eighteenth century were
entirely overshadowed by the appearing of the great work of Bleek,
and those of subsequent writers. For many particulars concerning
the authors specified in the following list, more especially of those who
flourished about the time of the Reformation, I am indebted to the
kindness of the Rev. James Kennedy, B. D., librarian of New College,
Edinburgh. To the list of works enumerated might be fittingly added
the suggestive translation of the New Testament made by Sebastian
Castellio (1542-1550), mostly during the time of his retirement in
Basle.
M. J. E.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,
FOR THE GREEK FATHERS.
CRAMER (J. A.), S. T. P.: Catena Graecorum Patrum. Tomus vii.
8vo, Oxonii, 1844.
ON THE VULGATE TEXT.
JUSTINIAN (Benedict), ¢ 1622: Explanationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas.
Lugd. 1612.
FRANCISCO DE RIBERA: Commentary. 8vo, Col. Agr. 1600.
Cuario (Isidore) [Clarius]: Novum Testamentum Latiné, adjectis scholiis.
Authore Isidoro Clario. 8vo, Ant. 1544.
Lupovicus DE TENA: Commentary. folio, Toleti, 1611.
“Lond. 1661.
Primasivs, Bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century: Commentary on the Epis-
tles of Paul. That on the Hebrews is by some attributed to Haymo,
Bishop of Halberstadt, f 853.
ON THE GREEK TEXT.
ABRESCH (Peter), Professor at Groningen, f 1812: Paraphrasis et Annota-
tiones. Leyden, 1786-90.
[Continued by Vitringa to end of chap. vii. 1817.]
Awncts (Joseph), Professor in Regents Park College, London: Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews. In Schaff’s Popular Comnientary.
New York, 1882.
BAUMGARTEN (S. J.), ¢ 1757, and SEMLER: Erklirung des Briefes. Halle, 1763.
BIESENTHAL (J. H. R.): Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos, cum rabbinico commentario.
Berol. 1857.
Bispina (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen des Ap. Paulus [vol. iii.].
Miinster, 1855-63.
BLEEK (Franz), ¢ 1859: Der Brief an die Hebrier. Berlin, 1828-40. Der
Hebrierbrief erklairt. Edited by Windrath. Elberfeld, 1868.
BULLINGER (Heinrychus), ¢ 1575: In omnes Apostolicas Epistolas, Divi videlicet
Pauli xiiii. etc. Commentarii. [P. 639-731.] fol. Tiguri, 1549.
CAMERON (John), Professor at Saumur, { 1625: Annotationes in N.T. Edited
by Lewis Cappel. 1628.
331
332 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
CAPPEL (Jacques), ¢ 1624: Observationes in Epistolam ad Hebraeos.
8vo, Sedan, 1624.
Carpzov (J. B.), Professor at Helmstadt, 1803: Sacrae Exercitationes . . . ex
Philone Alexandrino. 8vo, Helmst. 1750.
CRAMER (Johann Andreas), Professor at Kiel, ¢ 1788: Erklarung des Briefes an
die Hebrier, 2 parts. Copenh. 1757.
DE WETTE (W. M. L.), ¢ 1849: Kurze Erklirung, etc.
Die Briefe an Tit. Tim. und Heb. [vol. ii. part 5]. Leipz. 18-44, al.
DE.LITzscH : Commentar zum Brief a. d. Hebr. : Leipz. 1857.
[Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1863.]
Dickson (David), f 1662: Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
[See also RoMANs. ] 8vo, Aberdeen, 1649,
D’OuTREIN (Jan.): Zendbrief...aan de Ebreen, ontleidet, uitgebreed en
verklaard. 1711.
EBRARD (H. A.), Professor at Erlangen: Commentar iiber den Hebriierbrief.
Konigsberg, 1850.
[Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1853. Revised, with additional notes, by
Prof. A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1858.]
EWwaALp (G. H. A.), Professor at Gottingen, | 1876: Sendschreiben an die Hebriier.
Gotting. 1870.
GERHARD (John), ¢ 1637: Commentarius super Epist. ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Jenae,
1661.
GoMAR (Francis), Professor at Leyden, ¢ 1641: Analysis Epistolae Pauli ad
Hebraeos. Opera [pp. 285-380]. Amstel. 1644.
GouGE (W.), D. D., ¢ 1653: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols.
[Reprinted 1866, 1867.] fol. Lond. 1655.
GvErs (E.): Etude sur l’Epitre aux Hébreux. Genéve et Paris, 1862.
Hormann (J.C. K. von), f 1877: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments. Vol. v.
8vo, Nordlingen, 1873.
HOLZHEUER (Otto): Der Brief an die Ebrier ausgelegt. Berlin, 1883.
Hyperrus (Andreas), ¢ 1564: Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad
Hebraeos. fol. Tiguri, 1584.
Jones (W.), D.D.: Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon, Hebrews, and
the First and Second Epistles of John. fol. Lond. 1636.
Kay (William), D.D., Rector of Great Leghs: Commentary on the Epistle to
the Hebrews. In the Bible (Speaker's) Commentary.
London and New York.
KLEE (H.): Auslegung des Hebrierbriefs. Mainz, 1833.
KuuGE: Der Hebrierbrief, Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu.-Ruppin, 1863.
Kurtz (J. H.), Professor at Dorpat: Der Hebrierbrief exklirt. 1869.
Lawson (George), Rector of More, Shropshire: Exposition of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. fol. Lond. 1662.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 333
M’Cavt (J. B.), Canon of Rochester: A Paraphrastic Commentary, etc.
Lond. 1871.
MANCHESTER (George Montagu, Duke of): Horae Hebraicae [Heb. i—iv. 11].
Lond. 1835.
Manovury (A. F.): See Pastoral Epistles.
MENKEN (Gottfried), | 1831: Homilien tiber das 9% und 10% Kap., nebst einem
Anhange etlicher Homilien tiber Stellen des 12%" Kap. Bremen, 1831.
Motu (C. B.): Der Brief an die Hebriier [Lange’s series]. Bielefeld, 1861.
[Translated by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1871.]
OECOLAMPADIUS (Joannes), ¢ 1531: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos J. O. explanationes.
4to, Argentorati, 1524.
[From notes taken by some of the hearers. ]
OwEN (John), D. D., f 1683: Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4 vols.
fol. London, 1668-74, al.
PELLICAN (Conrad), f 1556: Commentaria Bibliorum. 9 vols.
fol. Tiguri, 1532-42.
[ Vol. ix. “in omnes Epistolas.’’]
PiscaTtoR (John), Professor at Herborn, t 1626: Analysis Logica Epistolae
Pauli ad Hebraeos.
[Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 3d ed. fol. p. 674-718.
Herbornae, 1638.]
REICHE (J. G.): Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum. 3 vols.
4to, Gottingen, 1853-62.
[ Vol. iii. In Hebraeos et Catholicas Epistolas. ]
Reuss (Ed.): L’Epftre aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction nouvelle, accom-
pagné d’un commentaire théologique. Strasbourg, 1862.
REHM (E. C. A.): Lehrbegriff des Hebriéerbriefs. Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859.
Ro.Liock (Robert), Principal of the University of Edinburgh, ¢ 1598: Analysis
Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accessit brevis et utilis Tractatus
de Justificatione. 8vo, Edinburgi, 1605.
[Rollock carried the work only to xi. 6, the rest was finished and edited
by Robert Charteris, at Rollock’s request. ]
ScHLIcHTING (Jonas), ¢ 1664, and JoHN CRELL, ¢ 1633: In Epistolam ad
Hebraeos Commentarius. 8vo, Racoviae, 1634.
Scumip (Chr. Fr.), ¢ 1778: Observationes . . . historicae, criticae, theologicae
super Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Lips. 1766.
ScHMID (Erasmus), ¢ 1637: Notae in Novum Testamentum. 1658.
ScHMIDT (Sebastian), ¢ 1696: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 1690.
STEWARD (George): Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, Edin. 1872.
STIeR (Rudolf), ¢ 1862: Der Brief an die Hebraer, in 36 Betrachtungen ausge-
legt. 2 parts. 1842,
Stuart (Moses), Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover, t 1852: Commen-
tary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, 1828, al.
THOLUcK (Andreas), Professor at Halle, { 1877: Kommentar zum Briefe an die
Hebraer. 8vo [1836], 3d ed. Hamburg, 1850
334. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,
VALCKENAER (Lewis Casp.), Professor of Greek at Leyden, t 1785: Selecta e
Scholiis. Edited by Wassenbergh. Tom. ii. Amst. 1817.
WALTHER (Michael), Professor at Helmstiidt, ¢ 1662: Griindliche, erdeutliche
und ausfiihrliche Erlauterung der ... Ep. St. Pauli an die Hebriier.
fol. Niirnberg, 1646.
WIESELER (Karl), Professor at Greifswald: Untersuchung itiber den Hebrierbrief,
namentlich seinen Verfasser und seine Leser. 8vo, Kiel, 1861.
WirticuH (Christoph), Professor at Leyden, t 1687: Commentarius in Epistolam
ad Hebraeos. Edited by David Hassel. 1692.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1—THE AUTHOR.
HE Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of an unknown writer.
The question, by whom it was composed, was already vari-
ously answered in ancient times, and has not to the present
day been solved in a way which has found general assent.
The supposition that the Apostle Paul was its author has
obtained the widest currency and the most lasting acceptance. And in
reality this supposition must most readily suggest itself, since an unmis-
takeably Pauline spirit pervades the epistle, and single notices therein,
such as the mention of Timothy as a man standing in very close con-
nection with the author (xili. 23), might appear as indications pointing to
Paul. Nevertheless, there is found nothing which could have the force
of a constraining proof in favor of this view, and, on the contrary, much
which is in most manifest opposition thereto." For—
(1) The testimonies of Christian antiquity in favor of Paul as the author
of the epistle are neither so general nor so confident as we must expect,
if the epistle had been from the beginning handed down as a work of the
Apostle Paul.—Not unfavorable to the claim of Paul, but yet by no means
decisive, are the judgments of the early Alexandrian Church. Pantaenus,
president of the school of catechetes in Alexandria about the middle of
the second century, the first from whom an express statement as to the
name of the author has come down to us, certainly assigned the epistle
to the Apostle Paul. But yet it is to be observed that even he felt called
to set aside an objection, which seemed to lie against the justice of this
view, namely: that, contrary to the custom: of Paul, the author has not,
even in an address prefixed to the epistle, mentioned himself by name;
whether it was that this difficulty first arose in the mind of Pantaenus
1Comp. J. H. Thayer, “Authorship and the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxiv., Andov. 1867,
Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in _— pp. 681 ff.
335
336 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
himself, or that, in opposition to others who had raised it, he wished to
show the invalid nature thereof. (Comp. the notice of Clemens Alexan-
drinus on Pantaenus, in Eusebius, Hist. Eecles. vi. 14: "Hd7 dé, o¢ 6 wakaptog
éxeye wpeapitepos, émei b Kbpioc, axéoToAog Gv Tov TavToKpaTopoC, aTEGTAAY TpPOS
'‘E3paiorg, dia petpiétytra 6 Tlavaog, o¢ av etg ta édvn areotaduévoc, ovK Eyypaget
éavtov ‘ESpaiwy axdatodoy dia te tH mpdc TOV Kipiov Timyy ba TE TO EK TEpLlovaiag
Kai toi¢ ‘E3paiorg excoréAAecv, ESvav Kppvxa bvta Kal axdorodov.)—Clemens Alex-
andrinus, too, the disciple of Pantaenus (end of the second and beginning
of the third century), makes repeated mention of the epistle as a work of
the Apostle Paul (Strom. ii. p. 420, iv. p. 514 sq., ed. Sylburg, Colon. 1688,
al.). But yet he does not venture to ascribe it in its present form imme-
diately to Paul. Not only is for him, too, the same objection, which his
teacher already had undertaken to set aside, still of sufficient weight for
him to attempt its removal in a new, though, it is true, equally unsatis-
factory manner; but also the un-Pauline character of the language in the
epistle does not escape his glance. Rather to Luke than to Paul does the
garb of the letter seem to him to point. On this account he assumes that
a Hebrew (Aramaic) original writing of Paul forms the substratum of the
epistle, but that our present epistle is only a version or adaptation of that
original writing by Luke, designed for Hellenes. (Comp. Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. vi. 14: Kai rv rpog 'ESpaiovg dé éxioroaAny TMataov pév eivai ono, yeypag-
Vat dé 'E3paiog 'E3paixh guvyg, Aovxay dé giAotiuws av7iv uEedepunvetcavta Exdovvac
toig “EAAnowv' OSev cov avrov ypaoTa Evpioxeadat Kata Tyv Epunveiav TavTng TE THES
émiatoAn¢g Kai Tov mpagewv’ pun mpoyeypagdar dé 7d TlavAog aéorodAoc, eikdzwe.
'E3paiorg yap, onoiv, EmioréAAwy mpdAnyey etAangdot kat’ avrov Kal Uromretovety atTov
ouverag wavu obk év apxh aréotpewev abrov¢ Td dvoua Geic.}—Equally does Origen
(¢ 254) make the Epistle to the Hebrews stand, it is true, in some relation
to the Apostle Paul, as he accordingly more than once cites passages
therefrom as sayings of Paul (e.g. Exhort. ad Martyr. 44, in Joh., ed. Huet.
t. li. p. 56; abid. t. i. p. 64, t. x. p. 162, al.). But not only is he aware
that in point of fact deniers of the composition of the epistle by Paul have
arisen (oi averovvrec tiv ExtaToAny oc ov TlabAw yeypaupévyv, Epist. ad African.
c.9. Comp. also in Matt. xxii. 27 sq.: Sed pone aliquem abdicare episto-
lam ad Hebraeos, quasi non Pauli); he too, for his own part, is not able
to bring himself to recognize the epistle as a work of Paul in the narrower
sense. Only the thoughts of the epistle does he ascribe to Paul; the dic-
tion and composition, on the other hand, he denies to be his. Since he
admits withal that the contents of the epistle are Pauline, he regards the
ancient tradition, which traces it back to Paul, as not unfounded; he has.
INTRODUCTION. 337
’ therefore no fault to find if a church looks upon the epistle as the work
of Paul. By whom, however, it was in reality composed is, he thinks,
known only to God. Tradition, he tells us, speaks sometimes of the
Roman bishop Clement, sometimes of Luke, as the author. (Comp. the
two fragments of the lost homilies of Origen on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25: “Ore 6 yapaxrip tic
AéEews THO Tpd¢ ‘EBpaiove éexcyeypampé vag ExtatoAge ov‘ Eyee Td Ev Ady idtwrikdy Tov
arooréAov, duodoyfoavrog éavrév iWidtyy eivae TH Ady, TovTéoT: TH Ppdoet, GAAG
goTiv 7 ETLoTOAR ovvdéoet TIg AéFews EAAnViKwré pa, Tac 6 emtordpevoc Kpivery opdoewy
dtagopas duodoyhoat av’ wads te ad bri Ta vohuaTa THE ExtoTOARS Oavudotd éott Kai ov
| debrepa TOY aooToAiKav dpodoyoupévuy ypaupmdtuv, Kul TovTo av ovudhoat elvac
GAndic wag 6 mpooéyuv TH avayvdoe TH arootoAug. .. . ’Eyw dé arogavduevog
elroy’ dv, bre Ta ev vohuata Tov arooréAov EoTiv, 7 dé Ppdore kal 4 obv¥Ete aTrouvy-
povetoavrdéc Tivog Ta aTooTOAKa Kai Worepel oyodoypaghoavtés tivog Ta eipnuéva
tro Tov didackdAov. Ei reg ovv éxxAnoia tye tratryy tiv ExioroAny o¢ TlatAov, airy
evdonipelta kai émi robrm’ ov yap eixg of apyaio: dvdpes O¢ MatAov airy rapadedé-
nace Tic dé dO ypdwpac! ravérmcoroAhy, Td piv adnvdéc Oed¢ oldev' y dé lc Hua
¢@doaca icropia bré Tivwy pév AeydvTwr, bre KAgune 6 yevduevog Exioxorog 'Puyaiwv
Eypare tiv extoroAgy, b6 riven dé, bre Aovxas 6 ypapac 7d evayyé ov Kai Tag rpaserc.)
—Only subsequently to the time of Origen, accordingly, was the epistle
universally regarded within the Alexandrian Church, as within the Egyp-
tian Church in general, as a writing which proceeded immediately from
the Apostle Paul. Declarations thereof are appealed to, as simply the
1That 6 ypawas denotes the actual author,
and not, as Olshausen (“De auctore ep. ad
Hebr.,” in his Opusce. Theol., Berol. 1834, p.
100), Stenglein (Historische Zeugnisse der vier
ersten Jahrhunderte tiber den Verf. des Br. an
die Hebr., Bamb. 1835, p. 35), and Delitzsch
(“ Ueber Verf. und Leser des Hebrierbr.,” in
Rudelsbach u. Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die Luth.
Theol. 1849, p. 259), assert, with the assent of
Davidson (Introduction to the Study of the New
Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p. 228 f.), the
mere “scriba” or “ penman,” is shown even
by the analogy of the closing words: Aov«as
& ypapas Td evayydAtoy Kat tas mpdfes.
Wrongly does Delitzsch (in his Kommentar,
p. xvii.) object that Origen, indeed, concedes
to the apostle a part [in its composition], and
that Luke also, in the Gospel and the Acts,
was working up a material not of his own in-
vention, but one ready to his hand. For the
22
part which Origen assigns to Paul is not an
active, but a passive one; that Paul exerted
an immediate influence on the writing of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, or was directly
occupied with the same—of this Origen says
nothing; the dependence upon Paul is limit-
ed in his estimation to the fact that the epistle
was composed by a disciple of Paul, and in
the spirit of Paul. By the consideration,
however, that Luke in his two works was.
using a material “ready to his hand,” his
authorship in reference to these works is not
annulled; for the notion of authorship is not
destroyed by the mode in which it is exer-
cised. Besides, if Origen had wished to
denote the particular way in which the
writings of Luke arose, he would have put,
not o ypapas, but 6 ovvrafduevos, or some-
thing similar.
338 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
words of Paul, by the Alexandrian bishops, Dionysius, about the middle
of the third century (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 41); Alexander, about
312 (in Theodoret, H. E. i. 3, Opp. ed. Schulze, tom. iii. p. 736, and in
Socrat. H. E. i. 6, ed. Vales., Paris 1686, p. 11); Athanasius (+ 378), in his
thirty-ninth epistola festalis, and elsewhere; Didymus, the president of the
Alexandrian school of catechetes (+ 395), the Egyptian monks, Macarius
the elder, and Marcus Ascetes (c. 400), and others.
In the ancient Syrian Church the epistle, it is true, was held very early
in ecclesiastical repute. For it is already received into the Peshito, be-
longing to the end of the second century. But that it was so soon as this
held to be a work of Paul, does not follow from this reception. On the
contrary, the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews has been placed in the
Peshito not already after the letters of Paul addressed to churches, but
only after those of his letters addressed to private persons, might rather
be interpreted as a sign that this letter, only on account of its similar
character, had been attached, as it were, by way of appendix to the
Pauline Epistles, while not assigned to Paul himself. Yet the later church
of North-Eastern Syria seems to have ascribed this writing to the Apostle
Paul. For while Jacob, bishop of Nisibis (c. 325), cites declarations of the
Epistle to the Hebrews only in general as utterances of an apostle (Gal-
land. Bibl. Patr. v. pp.'xvi. lxii. al.), and this indefinite mode of citation
is also the prevalent one with Jacob’s disciple Ephraem Syrus (t+ 378);
yet the latter, at any rate, seems not to have doubted the composition by
Paul, since (Opp. Graec. tom. i1., Rom. 1748, fol. p. 203) he joins together
the passages Rom. 11. 16, Eph. v. 15, Heb. x. 31, by the common introduc-
tory formula: Iepi trabry¢ tH¢ fuépac Bod xat Iaivdoc 6 ardorodoc, and then
abruptly separates from further citations by the words: Bo@ dé xai o
uakxaptog Tlétpoc.—In like manner in Western (Grecian) Syria, after the
middle of the third century, the epistle was probably assigned to the
Apostle Paul; since, in the letter issued by the Antiochian Synod (c. 264)
to Paul of Samosata, Heb. xi. 26 and sentences out of the two Epistles to
the Corinthians are connected together as sayings of the same apostle
(comp. Mansi, Collect. Concil. t. i. p. 1088).
Elsewhere, too, in the Eastern Church, the opinion that Paul was the
author became in subsequent times more and more general. Neverthe-
less, doubts as yet by no means ceased to be heard. Thus Eusebius of
Caesarea (in the first half of the fourth century) often, indeed, quotes the
Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of Paul, and without doubt reckons
it, since he expressly accepts fourteen Pauline Epistles (Hist. Eccles. iii.
INTRODUCTION. 309
3),in the chief passage on the New Testament canon (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25),
—as a constituent part of the epistles of Paul, which are mentioned only
in general,—to belong to the Homologumena. But yet he regards the
epistle only as a version from a Hebrew original of Paul (Hist. Eccles. iii.
38), and can tell of Greeks who, in reliance upon the adverse judgment
of the Roman Church, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle in any
sense (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3). Nay,in another place (Hist Eccles. vi. 13), him-
self even reckons the epistle among the avriAeyéuevae ypagai;! inasmuch as
he places it in one line with the Wisdom of Solomon, that of Jesus Sirach,
and the epistles of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and Jude! On the other
hand, the epistle is acknowledged as directly the work of Paul, in. the
sixtieth canon of the Council at Laodicea after the middle of the fourth
century, by Titus of Bostra (+ c. 371), by Basil the Great (f 379), and his
brother Gregory of Nyssa; by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (f{ 386); by
Gregory of Nazianzus (+ 389), in the Jambi ad Seleucum, where, neverthe-
less, the remark has been inserted: revéc dé dace rv mpdc ‘ESpaiovg vddov;
by Epiphanius (+ 402), Chrysostom (t+ 407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (tf ¢.
428), and others. Yet Theodoret in his Prooemium to the epistle (comp.
also Epiphanius, Haer. 69. 37) is still engaged in polemics against those
of Arian sentiments, who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews as 66o¢,
denying its Pauline authorship.
While thus the testimonies of the East in general are favorable indeed
to a Pauline origin of the epistle, an immediate composition thereof by
Paul, however, was for the most part asserted only in later times, whereas
in the earlier period more generally only a mediate authorship was main-
tained ; the West, on the other hand, during the first centuries, does not
acknowledge an authorship of Paul in any sense.—A voucher for this
statement is Tertullian, belonging to the North African Church, at the
end of the second century and the beginning of the third. Only on a
single occasion does he make express mention of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in order to cite from it the words vi. 4-8, and it is here evidently
his endeavor to rate as highly as possible the authority of the writing
cited by him. Of a composition thereof by the Apostle Paul, however, he
knows nothing; instead of Paul he names Barnabas as its author, and
that not in the form of a conjecture, but simply and without qualification,
1 According to Delitzach, indeed (Komment. tats awd trav avtTideyoudvary ypaday
p. xvii. f.), this supposition rests upon a mis- maprupiats, ris re Acyomerns ZadAopwrros codias
understanding of the words of Eusebius. xai rps ‘Incot gov Sipax cai rys wpods
But Eusebius’ words are surely clearenough. ‘EBpactouvs éwmtaroAns, THs te BapyaBa
They are as follows: xéxpyra: 8 gy avrois cai = kai: KAnjmevros cai ‘lovéa.
340 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
in such wise that he manifestly proceeds upon a supposition universally
current in the churches of his native land. (Comp. de Pudicitia, c. 20:
Volo tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimo-
nium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam
magistrorum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, a Deo satis —
auctoritati viri,! ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae
tenore: “aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potesta-
tem?” Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocry-
pho Pastore moechorum. .. . Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum
apostolis docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poenitentiam
promissam ab apostolis norat.)—Also, in the time immediately following,
the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot in Proconsular Africa have been
regarded as a writing of the Apostle Paul. This is proved on the author-
ity of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (+ 258), who, with the single exception
of the short Epistle to Philemon, makes citations from all the letters of
Paul, and yet nowhere quotes passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews,
but asserts, on the other hand, that Paul wrote only to seven churches
(comp. Testim. adv. Jud. i. 20; De Exhortat. Martyrii, c. 11).
But as the early Church of North Africa, so also the early Roman
Church knew nothing of an appertaining of the Epistle to the Hebrews
to the Pauline collection of letters. This is the more noteworthy, inas-
much as within the Roman Church the earliest trace is met with of the
existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For a series of characteristic
expressions of the latter is taken up by Clemens Romanus (towards the
end of the first century) in his Epistle to the Corinthians (comp. specially
cap. 36 with Heb. vi. 4, 1. 3, 4, 5, 7, 13; cap. 17 with Heb. xi. 37; and in
general, Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, Part ii. vol. i., Lond.
1748, p. 62 ff.; Bohme, p. Ixxv. sq.). These derived expressions, however,
are not introduced as citations, but are blended with his own discourse.
They prove, therefore, only that Clement was acquainted with the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and highly prized it, but afford no information on the
question as to whom he regarded as the author. That, however, Clement
believed the Apostle Paul to be the author is rendered extremely improb-
able by the position which the Roman Church of the subsequent period
assumed towards this epistle. In the fragment on the canon of the
Roman Church, discovered by Muratori, belonging to the close of the
second century, it is stated that Paul wrote to seven churches; upon
1Thus we have to read, with Oehler (Tertull. Opp. tom. 1., Lips. 1853, p. 839), in place of
adeo satis auctorttate viri.
-
INTRODUCTION. 341
which follows an enumeration of our present thirteen Pauline Epistles.
Besides these, two other letters are then named, which have been forged
as coming from Paul; but of the Epistle to the Hebrews not even mention
is made. It cannot thus in the Roman Church of that time have been
invested with any canonical authority, much less have been looked upon
as a writing of the Apostle Paul—In like manner Caius, presbyter at
Rome at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, recog-
nized, in express opposition to the wepi rd ovvrdrrecy natva¢g ypagas
' wpomérecd te nal réapa, only thirteen epistles as the work of the
Apostle Paul, to the exclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 20).—Even as late as about the middle of the
third century the Epistle to the Hebrews was not in the Roman Church
esteemed to be a work of Paul, nor indeed regarded as a canonical writing.
This is evident from the fact that Novatian, in his dissertations, De Trinitate
- and De Oibis Judaicis (in Gallandi, Biblioth. Patr. t. iii. p. 287 sqq.), although
these abound in Biblical citations, and although their subject might natur-
ally suggest the employment of the Epistle to the Hebrews, nowhere so
much as makes mention of the same; an omission which, supposing its
recognition as a canonical writing, and one proceeding from Paul, would
be the more inexplicable, inasmuch as Novatian could hardly have urged
any passage of Scripture in favor of his severer view with regard to the
receiving again into the communion of the church of those who had
lapsed, with greater appearance of justification than this very text of Heb.
vi. 4-6.—So likewise Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 20) expressly observes with
respect to his age (first half of the fourth century): «a2 ei¢ detpo mapa
"Pwyaiuy ticity vv vouileras tov arooréAov tvyyavev.—Of Irenaeus, moreover,
the representative of the Church of Southern Gaul at the end of the
second century and beginning of the third, Stephanus Gobarus relates, in
Photius, Bibl. Cod. 232 (ed. Hoeschel, Rothomagi 1653, fol. p. 903), that he,
equally as Hippolytus, denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews was com-
posed by Paul. In harmony with this statement is the fact that Irenaeus,
in his great work Advers. Haereses, often as he had occasion to cite this
epistle, and frequently as he otherwise adduces proof passages from the
epistles of Paul, yet nowhere appeals to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In
the lost writing BeBriov diaréEewv diagépwrv, he did indeed, according to a
notice in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v. 26), cite some passages from the Epistle
to the Hebrews (just as he did from the Wisdom of Solomon); but that
Irenaeus regarded the Apostle Paul as its author is not said by Eusebius
either.
342 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Only after the middle of the fourth century did the opinion that Paul
was its author gradually find acceptance in the West—a change of views
which, without doubt, is to be traced to the preponderating influence of
the Greek Church upon the Latin. As a work of Paul it is cited by
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (+ 368); Lucifer of Cagliari ({ 371); his contem-
porary, Fabius Marius Victorinus ; Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (+ c. 387);
Ambrose, bishop of Milan ({ 397); Rufinus of Aquileia (+c. 411); Jerome
(+ 420); Augustine (tf 430), and others. That change of views comes out
with special distinctness in the African synods at the end of the fourth
century and the beginning of the fifth. In the thirty-sixth canon of the
synod at Hippo (393), as in the forty-seventh canon of the third synod at
Carthage (397), in the determination of those books of the New Testa-
ment to be held as canonical, the number of the epistles of Paul is
declared to be altogether thirteen; and then is added: by the same, the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Pauli apostoli epistolae tredecim; ejusdem ad
Hebraeos una). This separate mention shows that at this time they did
not yet venture to concede to the Epistle to the Hebrews a perfectly equal
rank with that of the thirteen universally recognized letters of Paul.
Presently after, however, in the twenty-ninth canon of the fifth Cartha-
ginian synod (419), it is said, on the occasion of a similar enumeration :
epistolarum Pauli apostoli numero quatuordecim. Yet, spite of this
revolution of the judgments in general, doubts as to the canonicity and
Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews were not entirely reduced to
silence, even in this late period. Philastrius still remarks that the same
was only rarely read in church among the Latins (Haeres. 89); and in
Haeres. 88 mentions, among the books which, according to the appoint-
ment of the apostles and their successors, were alone to be publicly read
in the assemblies, only thirteen Pauline Epistles. The commentary of
Hilary (Ambrosiaster), moreover, covers indeed the whole thirteen Pauline
Epistles, but not the Epistle to the Hebrews; and even Rufinus adds, on
a mention of the epistle (Invectiva in Hieronymum 1, Opp. Hieronymi, ed.
Martianay, t. v. p. 279), the words: si quis tamen eam receperit. With
like wavering does Jerome also often express himself (e.g. on Tit. i. 5,
Opp. ed. Vallars, 2, t. vii. P. 1, p. 695: Si quis vult recipere eam. cpistolam,
quae sub nomine Pauli ad Hebraeos scripta est.—J bid. on ii. 2, p. 714:
Relege ad Hebraeos epistolam Pauli, sive cujuscunque alterius eam esse
putas), and observes expressly, e.g. Epist. 125 ad Evagrium (ed. Martianay,
t. ili. p. 571): Epistola ad Hebraeos, quam omnes Graeci recipiunt et
nonnulli Latinorum.—Comment. on Matt. xxvi. 8, 9 (ed. Vallars, t. vii. P. 1,
INTRODUCTION. 343
p. 212): Paulus, in epistola sua, quae scribitur ad Hebraeos, licet de ea
multi Latinorum dubitent.—Calalog. c. 59 (ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 117):
sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur; and
similarly elsewhere. In like manner Augustine also observes (De Pecca-
torum meritis et remissione, 1. 27, Opp. ed. Bened. t. x., Antw. 1700, p. 18)
that the Epistle to the Hebrews is nonnullis incerta, although he himself is
decided in his judgment by the auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, among
whom this writing also is held in canonical repute.
But as we are not able to appeal, in support of the hypothesis that Paul
is the author of this epistle, to the decided and unanimous tradition of
antiquity, so also—
(2) The hints afforded by the epistle itself, with regard to the person
and historic situation of its author, do not lead us to think of the Apostle
Paul. The passage ii. 3 is absolutely decisive against Paul. For here the
author reckons himself among the number of those who have received
their knowledge of the gospel not immediately from the Lord Himself,
but only through the medium of the first disciples and ear-witnesses. He
claims thus no. equal rank with the twelve apostles, but takes his place at
the standpoint of Luke (Luke i. 2). That is, however, the direct opposite
of the manner in which Paul expresses himself, when he sets forth,
whether polemically or without any secondary aim, how he obtained his
acquaintance with the gospel: he denies expressly that he had acquired
his knowledge of the gospel from the teaching of men; it was communi-
cated to him immediately, by revelation, from the Lord Himself, and on
that account he stands upon a complete equality of apostolic dignity with
the twelve original apostles (Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, 15, 16, ii. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xi.
23; Eph. ili. 2, 3.}—Indications of a Pauline origin, it has been thought,
may be discovered in x. 34, xiii. 18 f., 23, 24. But altogether without
reason. The first passage would favor a reference to Paul only in the case
that the lectio recepta roig decpoig pov were correct. It is, however, deci-
dedly false; instead thereof we have to read rote decpiows. The second passage
likewise affords no sufficient ground for thinking of Paul. For the state-
ment that the author was a prisoner is not at all to be found in it; since
the concluding words of xiii. 23 plainly show that the author, at the time
of inditing his epistle, was in a position of entire freedom.’ Further, from
1That the author of the Epistle tothe He- MHilgenfeld’s Zischr. f. wiss. Theol. 1864, H. 4,
brews was in a state of captivity, and was _— p. 357 f.) has nevertheless felt bound to deduce
begging of the church for intercession with from the form of the text in the Codex Sin-
God in his @Aiyus, Tobler (“Studien nachdem __ aiticus: mpocevxeabe mepi nuwy ott Kadn. Oa
Codex Sinaiticus uber den Hebraerbrief,” in yap ore xadny cuvidnory éxomey ev wacty Kadws
344 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the third passage we may certainly conclude that the author was on terms
of friendship with Timothy, the well-known assistant of Paul. But this
fact could be regarded as a sign indicative of Paul himself only if Timo-
thy were characterized as a person who occupied a subordinate position
towards the author, which is not the case. As the words read, the
passage is appropriate to any disciple of Paul as the writer. To this the
consideration must be added, that in the passage in question the deliver-
ance of Timothy out of his captivity is announced: the readers must thus
have had a knowledge of the imprisonment itself; it could not therefore
have been either insignificant or of short duration. Of an imprisonment
of Timothy, however, so long as he was the assistant of Paul, there is not
found the slightest trace, either in the epistles of the latter or in the Acts
of the Apostles! Much more probable is it, therefore, that this notice
refers to an imprisonment suffered by Timothy only after the death of the
Apostle Paul. The fourth passage, finally, is supposed to show that the
epistle was written from Rome, and on that account probably by Paul.
But from of azé rig *Iradiacg the author could send salutations only if he
were somewhere outside of Italy. If he had himself been present in
Italy, with the Italian Christians from whom the salutations come, at the
time of the composition of the epistle, he must have indicated them as ol
Oddovres avagtpépecOar. According to Tobler,
xadj. @a is to be derived from xadeiv, and in-
deed is to be regarded as an earlier contrac-
tion for eaAewueba, in which the quantity of
the crasis has remained resting on the former
vowel (!); 80 that cadecoGar, in this connec-
tion, would correspond to the Latin in jus
vocari, citari, Acts iv. 18, xxiv. 2, and the sense
would result: ‘‘ Pray for us, for we are sum-
moned before the tribunal, must plead in our
own defence; that we may have a good con-
science, a cheerful spirit, to give an account;
for in all things, and in this case too, we wish
to walk rightly.”
the erroneousness of such a mode of argu-
But in order to perceive
ment, a glance at the codex itself may suffice.
This presents Heb. xiii. 18 in the following
arrangement:
wpowevyerOe we |
pt yuwy ore Kady.
0a yap ote KxaAny
ouvidyou «.T.A.
Evidently caAj. is nothing else than the caAny
following in the next line, inasmuch as a
stroke at the end of a line is very often placed
in the Cod.,Sin. instead of an end letter; so
that by a mere error of transcribing, of which
there are very many in the Cod. Sin., ort xaAny,
which belonged only to the third line, was
wrongly placed in the second, and here
pushed out the three first syllables of the
mevOoueba, which the copyist had before him
in the text given him for copying. That the
copyist really had mecOoue6a—for which,
moreover, the fourth hand has put wrewocBapev
by way of correction—before him for copying
is clearly shown, as well by the 6a, as also by
the yap of the third line. Comp. against
Tobler also Volkmar, in Hilgenfeld’s Zéschr.
f. wiss. Theol. 1865, H. 1, p. 108 ff.
1That Ebrard (p. 417 ff.) is very much in-
clined to bring out of the construction of
Phil. ii. 19, 23 an imprisonment of Timothy at
Rome, at the time when Paul was held cap-
tive there, deserves to be mentioned only as
a curiosity.
INTRODUCTION. 345
év rH "Iradia (comp. 1 Pet. v.13). At most, we could only assume that
the author had meant by oi ard ry 'Iradiag Roman Christians out of the
province, in opposition to a év ‘Pouy, the Christians of the Roman capital.
Then he would certainly have been dwelling in Rome. But how would it
be explicable, in that case, that he should neglect to convey a salutation
from these Christians of the capital? While, on the other hand, if the
author was writing outside of Italy, the isolated expression of greeting
from oi ad tHe "Iradiac is simply explained on the supposition, that in
the place of his dwelling for the time being, a Christian church from
which he could likewise send salutations did not yet at all exist.
Against Paul as the author argue—
(8) The style and manner of presentation characteristic of the epistle.
Origen has already observed (vid. supra, p. 331), that every one who is a
judge of the diversities of language must admit that this writing is
ovviices tig Aésews éAAnvixwrépa than the letters of Paul; and the same fact,
even before his time, drew the attention of Clemens Alexandrinus (vid.
supra, p. 2), as in general the widespread belief of antiquity in a Hebrew
original of the epistle is based upon such divergency. But the epistle is
distinguished not merely by a purer Greek,—with which are found mingled
Hebraisms, for the most part only in the citations borrowed from the Old
Testament,—it is also more perfectly rounded off into periods, and more
rhetorical. Whereas Paul wrestles with the language in order to express
in words the abundance of thoughts pouring in upon him, and irregular-
ities of grammar, variations of structure, and anacoluthias are nothing
rare with him, the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews always flows
on in smooth facility. The harmonious symmetry of the sentences is
preserved uninterrupted, even where parentheses of considerable extent
are inserted (comp. vii. 20-22); nay, parenthesis is enclosed within paren-
thesis, and yet the writer steadily returns to complete the construction
begun (comp. xii. 8-24). The greatest care is bestowed throughout upon
euphony and musical cadence (comp. e.g. i. 1-4, vil. 1-3), upon the effective
grouping of words (comp. e.g. vii. 4), and even the use of particles and
participles betrays throughout an acquaintance with the art of composi-
tion and a learned rhetoric. While the Apostle Paul is everywhere con-
cerned only about the matter itself which he is presenting, never troubles
himself about a fair form of its clothing in language, and with him even
the most affecting outbursts of natural eloquence are never anything but
the immediate product of the moment,—in the Epistle to the Hebrews
the endeavor after euphony and adornment of style extends even to the
346 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
details of expression and the turns of the discourse. Where, for instance,
the plain and simple suo6éc, of which Paul regularly makes use, might
have been placed without any difference of sense, the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews chooses just as regularly the fuller sounding
pucOarodocia (ii. 2, x. 35, xi. 26), and in accordance therewith makes use of
dpxwpocia (vii. 20, 21, 28), aivarexyvoia (ix. 22), and other sonorous com-
pounds. Whilst, further, e.g., the sitting of Christ at the right hand of
God is indicated by Paul simply by éy deé@ rov Beov xaPhuevoe (Col. iii. 1;
comp. also Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20), in the Epistle to the Hebrews the
majestic formulas: éxa@oev év defi tho peyadwoivac Ev indoig (i. 8), ExdOiev
Ev deta tov Opdvov ree peyadwotync év toi¢ ovpavoic (Vili. 1), év deka tov Opdvov
Tov feov xexdOcxev (xii. 2), serve to express the same thought. Further, that
which Paul predicates of Christ, in describing Him simply as eixov rov
6eov (2 Cor. iv. 4), or a8 eixdv Tov Oeov tov dopdrov (Col, i. 15), or as év popdy
Geotd ttépyuv (Phil. ii. 6), is expressed by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews in more carefully chosen language by means of the character-
istic Sv azatyaoua tH¢ déén¢ Kat yapaxtnp tH¢ UrooTdcEewe Tov Geov.,—As, how-
ever, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews surpasses the Apostle Paul
in respect of this external side of the diction, and of all writers of the
New Testament comes nearest to a classical perfection,—in such wise that
only some portions in Luke bear comparison therewith,—yet, on the
other hand, he falls considerably behind the Apostle Paul in respect of
the inner character of his mode of presentation. There is wanting to his
argumentation that dialectic acuteness (comp. e. g. xii. 25), to his sequence
of thought that severe and firm connectedness (comp. e.g. iv. 14), to his
expression that precision and definiteness (comp. e. g. vii. 27), which are
characteristic of the Apostle Paul.
(4) Deviations from Paul are shown, further, in the doctrinal subject-
matter of the epistle. Certainly in the main, and regarded as a whole, its
fundamental doctrinal conception is the same as in the Pauline Epistles,
as also in details it affords manifold notes of accord with the doctrinal
presentation of the latter? Nevertheless, this dogmatic harmony is not
1 Many further differences of language in
details, in part connected with the fact that
in the Epistle to the Hebrews the language
is preponderantly rhetorical, with Paul pre-
ponderantly dialectic, see in Schulz, Der
Brief an die Hebr., Breslau 1818, p. 135 ff.;
Seyffarth, De ep. quae dicitur ad Hebr. indole
mazxime peculiari, Lips. 1821, p. 25 sqq.
8Comparisons of points of coincidence,
which, however, stand in need of critical
sifting, see in Fr. Spanhemius, De auctore
epistolae ad Hebraeos (Opp. t. ii., Lugd. Bat.
1703, fol. p. 171 sqq.); Cramer, p. Ixix. sqq.,
Ixxx. sqq.; Petr. Hofstede de Groot, Dis-
putatio, qua epistolaad Hebraeos cum Paulinis
epistolis comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826, 8.
INTRODUCTION. 347
without peculiar, individual, independent coloring in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.! The Apostle Paul regards as the most important fact in the
history of salvation, the resurrection of Christ; by this did the work of
salvation first receive the divine sanction and attestation; by it was Chfist
first by a divine deed proved to be the Son of God. Of the death of
Christ, therefore, Paul speaks almost always in connection with the resur-
rection. This importance, however, the resurrection of Christ has not -
for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Only incidentally, in the
invocation xili. 20, is it mentioned by him ; in the body of the epistle, on
the contrary, stress is laid exclusively upon the death of Christ and the
heavenly high-priesthood, of which office the Saviour Christ, exalted to
the right hand of God, is the occupant and fulfiller. In addition to this,
the notion of rior is different with our author from what it is with
Paul.
and the épya véyuov, and has its object in particular in Christ, the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, understands thereby in
general the believing, humble confiding in God’s grace and promises, in
opposition to the seeing of their realization,—a phase of the conception
which but rarely (comp. 2 Cor. v. 7)is met with in Paul. It is, moreover,
a remarkable fact that no reference is made to the participation of the
Gentiles in the Messianic kingdom,—although the author must have
entertained the same views as Paul on this point, inasmuch as he regards
Judaism only as an imperfect preparatory stage to Christianity, and
demands a coming forth from the former, in order to become partakers of
the blessings of the latter—whence it seems to follow that the author
found his life’s task not so much in the conversion of the Gentiles, as in
the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen. Peculiar to this epistle is, further,
the prevailing fondness for a typico-symbolic mode of contemplation,?
Whereas with Paul the zioz:¢ involves an opposition to the vduo¢
1Yet on account of this independence to
regard the epistle, with Riehm (Lehrbegrif
des Hebrderbriefs, Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859, II. p.
861 ff.), after the example of R. Kostlin (Theol.
Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 463
ff.), also Ritschl (Entstehung der altkathol.
Kirche, 2 Aufl., Bonn 1857, p. 159 ff.) and Weiss
(Studien u. Kritiken, 1859, H. 1, p. 142 ff.), as
not the work of a writer of the Pauline school,
but to discover in it a later stage of develop-
ment of the primitive apostolic Judaeo-
Christianity, is a proceeding not warranted
by any sufficient ground. There is the leas
reason for such judgment, inasmuch as a very
close personal connection of the author of
the epistle with Paul and his disciples and
fellow-laborers is conceded; in the doctrinal
conception of the epistle not only no con-
tradiction of Paul is discovered, but, on the
contrary, a higher agreement with him on all
essential points; and it is, moreover, taken
for granted that the epistle arose through the
incitement and under the influence of Paul-
inism.
1Comp. de Wette, “ Ueber die symbolisch-
typische Lehrart des Briefes an die Hebr.”
348 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
which is met with indeed in Paul’s writings (e.g. Gal. iv. 21 ff; 1 Cor. x.
1 ff.), but yet only in isolated instances; and other peculiarities besides.
Comp. Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. I. p. 221 ff., 385 ff, II. p. 6382 ff, 821
ff.; Davidson, Introduction, I. p. 241 ff.
(5) Decisive against Paul are, further, the citations from the Old Testa-
ment. While Paul not merely makes use of the LXX.., but is also at home
in the original Hebrew text, and often independently translates this for him-
self, for the most part also cites with more or less freedom and from mem-
ory ; the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the LXX. exclusively,
and generally with great exactness. He even bases an argument upon
its inaccurate renderings (comp. specially x. 5-7), in such wise that he
can have possessed no knowledge of the Hebrew, or at any rate but a very
unsatisfactory knowledge,—a fact which even in early times was not over-
looked by the opponents of the Pauline origin of the epistle (comp.
Jerome on Isa. vi. 9, Opp. ed. Martianay, t. ili. p. 64: Pauli quoque idcirco
ad Hebraeos epistolae contradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur
testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur). The references
in detail see in Bleek, Abtheil. 1, p. 388-369.
(6) The author describes, ix. 1-5, the arrangement of the Jewish sanc-
tuary, and presupposes (ver. 6) that this still continues in its original form
in the Jewish temple of his time. In so doing, however, he falls into
divers historic errors (comp. the exposition), such as would have been
impossible with Paul, who had lived a considerable time in Jerusalem.
(7) If Paul were the author, he would not have deviated from his con-
stant practice of mentioning his name in an address prefixed to the epis-
tle. For a tenable ground for such deviation is not to be discovered.
Comp. Bleek, Abth. 1, p. 295 ff. |
(8) Regarded in general, it is very improbable that Paul should have
written an epistle to purely Judaeo-Christian congregations, to whom the
epistle is, however, addressed (see sec. 2). For he would thereby have
been untrue to his fundamental principle of not intruding into another
man’s sphere of labor (Rom. xv. 20; Gal. ii. 9).
The arguments enumerated are in their totality of such constraining
force that we can feel no surprise if, upon every revival of the critico-
scientific spirit in the church, doubts, too, with regard to the Pauline
origin of the epistle should always be excited afresh, after they had long
seemed to have died out. At the time of the Reformation, Cajetan and
(in the Theologische Zettschrift of Schleiermacher, de Wette, and Lucke, Heft 3, Berlin
1822, p. 1 ff.).
INTRODUCTION. 349
Erasmus within the Catholic Church declared themselves against the claim
of Paul to the authorship of the epistle. The former was on that account
assailed by Ambrosius Catharinus; the latter was compelled to defend
himself against the Sorbonne, and the Council of Trent suppressed all
further expression of a freer judgment, in decreeing the epistle to be the
fourteenth epistle of Paul. Yet more decidedly was the Pauline author-
ship of the epistle denied by the Reformers. Luther separated the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews from the letters of Paul in his editions of the New
Testament, and placed it, with the Epistles of James and Jude and the
Apocalypse, after “the right certain main books of the New Testament,”
since those four books “ of old time (vorzeiten) had another estimation put
upon them.” “ First of all,” he says (see Walch, Thi. 14, p. 146 f.), “that
this Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul’s or any other apostle’s, is
shown thereby, that it stands in chap. ii. 3 thus: this doctrine has come
down to us through those who themselves have heard it of the Lord. By
this it is made clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom
such doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after. For St.
Paul, Gal. i. 1, powerfully attests that he has his gospel from no man, nor
by man, but from God Himself. Besides this, it has a hard knot, in that
it in chap. vi. and x. straightway denies and refuses repentance to sinners
after baptism, and in xii. 17 says Esau sought repentance and yet did not
find it. The which, as it sounds, seemeth to be against all gospels and
epistles of St. Paul. And although one may make a gloss thereon, yet
the words after all sound so clear, that I know not whether it will suffice.
To me it seems that this isan epistle put together out of several parts, and
not in regular order treating of one and the same thing. However this
may be, it certainly is a wondrously fine epistle, which speaks in a mas-
terly and solid way of the priesthood of Christ out of the Scriptures, and,
moreover, finely and fully expounds the Old Testament. This is clear,
that it comes from an excellent learned man, who was a disciple of the
apostles, had learned much of them, and was firmly experienced in the
faith and exercised in the Scripture. And though he, indeed, lays not the
foundation of the faith, as he himself testifieth, chap. vi. 1, that which is
the office of the apostles,—yet he builds thereon fine gold, silver, precious
stones, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. iii. 12. On that account we shall not be
troubled if perchance a little wood, straw, or hay be therewith mingled,
but receive such fine teaching with all honor, without being able to equal .
1Fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546: Tes- Pauli apostol!, ad Romanos. , . ad Philemo-
tamenti Novi... quatuordecim epistolae nem, ad Hebraeos.
350 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
it in all respects to the apostolic epistles. Who wrote it, however, is un-
known, and will indeed remain unknown for awhile yet; but that is no
matter. The doctrine shall content us, since this is so firmly based on
and in the Scripture, and likewise shows a right fine grasp and measure
for reading and handling the word of Scripture.” As Luther, so also Mel-
anchthon, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Lucas Osiander, Balduin, Hunnius,
and others, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle; and of the Reformed
Church, Calvin, Beza, Jos. Scaliger, Dan. Heinsius, cum multis aliis.!
Later, however, even in the Protestant Church the supposition that Paul
was the author became gradually again more general, and was after the
beginning of the seventeenth century the ecclesiastically accepted opinion,
from which only the Arminians and Socinians ventured to depart. A
freer research was first set going again by Semler and Michaelis; it has
almost universally decided unfavorably to Paul. Yet the theory of a
directly Pauline origin has still found defenders in Storr, Hug, G. W.
Meyer (in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal der neuesten theol. Literat.,
Bd. ii. St. 3, p. 225 ff), Heinreichs (but comp. the preface to the second
edition), Hofstede de Groot (Disputatio, qua ep. ad Hebr. cum Paulinis epp.
comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826), Moses Stuart, Gelpke ( Vindiciae originis
Paulinae ad Hebraeos epistolae, nova ratione® tentatae, Lugduni Batav. 1832,
8.), Paulus, Stein, Bloomfield (Greek Testament, 9th ed. vol. ii., Lond. 1855,
p. 572 ff.), Biesenthal (Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos cum rabbinico Commen-
tario, Berol. 1857; Zischr. f. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616), J.
Chr. K. v. Hofmann (Der Schriftbeweis, II. 2,2 Aufli., Nordling. 1860, p.
105, 378; Die heil. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhangend untersucht, Thl.
5, Nordl. 1873, p. 520 ff.), Robbins (in Park and Taylor’s Bibliotheca Sacra,
vol. xviii., Andover 1861, July, p. 469 ff.), W. Volck (in the Dorpat Zéschr.
fur Theol. u. Kirche, Jahrg. 1869, Bd. i. H. 4, p. 504 fF), J. B. M‘Caul (The
Epistle to the Hebrews in a Paraphrastic Commentary, with Illustrations from
Philo, the Targums, the Mishna and Gemara, the later Rabbinical Writers,
etc., Lond. 1871, p. 4, 329), Joh. Wichelhaus (Akadem. Vorless. uber. das N.
1Yet, while the Lutheran Church preserved
in its symbols a freer position towards the
canon, the Reformed Church in the Confessio
Belgica (cap. iv. p. 171 sq., ed. Augusti. Comp.
also the Helvetica of 1566, cap. xi. p. 25 8q.,
xvi. p. 43, and the Bohemica of 1535, art. iv. p.
281, vi. p. 286, xx. p. 323) adopted the decision
that Paul wrote fourteen epistles.
3The nova ratio consists in the circumstan-
tial demonstration that the Epistle to the He-
brews betrays an affinity to the writings of
Seneca (!), mainly to his little book de Provi-
dentia, which reaches so deeply that it cannot
have arisen by accident. It is thus in all
probability due to a personal intercourse of
the writer of the epistle with Seneca,—a fact
which is applicable only in the case of Paul,
who, according to a_ trustworthy early
tradition, was brought into communication
with Seneca.
INTRODUCTION. 351
T., herausgeg. v. A. Zahn, Halle 1875, p. 3 f.), and Jatho (Blicke in die
Bedeutung des mosaischen Cultus, Hildesh. 1876, p.1 ff.); while Woerner
(Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebraer,, Ludwigsb. 1876, p. 253 f.) expresses
himself with hesitation, and Guericke (Kinleitung in das N. T. p. 441),
Delitzsch (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zéschr. f. d. Luth. Theol. 1849, p.
266, and in the commentary), Ebrard, and some others seek at least to
trace back the epistle indirectly to Paul, inasmuch as they suppose it to
have been written by his direction and under his oversight. But that this
last modification also is an untenable and unjustified one,is evident. For,
of a fact of this kind there must of necessity be some indication found in
the epistle itself; whereas this writing everywhere gives the impression of
an independent work of an independent Christian teacher. So likewise,
inasmuch as then, too, Paul would surely be the only representative of
the subject-matter of the epistle, the meaning of such expressions as ii. 3
and others would become more absolutely inexplicable.
If the Epistle to the Hebrews can thus be neither directly nor indirectly
a work of the Apostle Paul, the question further arises, whether the true
author is still to be discovered with any degree of probability. The
decision of some has been in favor of Barnabas, others of Luke, others of
Clemens Romanus, others again of Silvanus, and others, finally, of
Apollos.
Barnabas has been looked upon as the author by J. E. Chr. Schmidt
(Histor.-Krit. Einleit. in’s N. T., Abth.1, p. 289 ff.), Twesten (Dogmaiik. Bd. 1,
4 Aufl. p. 95), Thiersch (De Epistola ad Hebr. commentatio historica, Marb.
1848, p. 1"), Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Gotting, 1848,
p. 504 ff.; Untersuchung uber den Hebraerbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser
u. seine Leser, 1 Hiilfte [Schriften der Universitat zu Kiel aus dem Jahre,
1860, 4, Bd. VII.; also printed separately, Kiel 1861, 8]), Adalb. Maier
(Comment. ub. d. Br. an d. Hebr., Freib. im Br. 1861, p. 18 ff), Ritschl
(Theol. Studd. wu. Kritt. 1866, H.1, p. 89), and Renan (L’Antechrist, Paris
18738, p. xvi. f. 210 f.).2. According to Wieseler, of all the claims to the
1Yet Thiersch—and similarly Maier— vero Paulus sua manu adjecerit atque: ita,
assigns also a part in the composition of the
epistle to the Apostle Paul. Thiersch says,
tc: “Barnabam igitur, qui et ipse gentium
fuit apostolus, et Paulum communi consilio
et conjuncta opera literas illas elaborasse
existimo. Ita quidem ut in maxima parte
Barnabas, vir ille dono prophetiae et fervore
wapaxdjocews insignis agnoscatur, epilogum
concedente Barnaba, suam fecerit epistolam.”
Comp. also Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostol.
Zeitalter, Frankf. and Erlangen 1852, p.
197 ff.
2Joh. Cameron is also named as a repre-
sentative ef this view. Bleek (Abth. 1, p. 261,
note 364) refers to Cameron’s Quaestio ii. in
Ep. ad Hebr., and Ullmann (p. 389, note) to his
352 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
authorship, that of Barnabas is best vouched for by the tradition of an-
tiquity. But in reality there remains only the single testimony (certainly
a very definite one) of Tertullian (vide supra, p. 333 f.) in favor of Barnabas.
For that it was also held in the majority of churches of the East to be a
work of Barnabas, cannot be inferred, with Wieseler (comp. already Ull-
mann, p. 391), from the words of Jerome (Epist. 129, ad Dardan., Opp. ed.
Martianay, t. ii. p. 608): Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, quae
inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis orientis sed ab omnibus
retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli apostoli sus-
cipi; licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur, et nihil
interesse, cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum
lectione celebretur. To supply a nostrorum to the plerique, with Tholuck
and Delitzsch, out of the preceding nostris, is indeed impossible; plerique
can receive its more precise definition only either from the last member
of the sentence beginning with ab, or else from the two such members.
But it is in an equal degree unjustifiable, in connection with the latter
supposition, to assign vel Barnabae, in distinct separation, to the ecclesiae
orientis, and vel Clementis to the Graeci sermonis scriptores, and then to
help out the verdict thus gained—to wit, that the majority in the East
traced the epistle indeed to Paul, but derived its present Greek form from
Barnabas—with the conjecture “ that the original tradition of those Eastern
churches pointed to the sole authorship of Barnabas.” Rather is Jerome’s
manner of expressing himself in the fore-cited passage in more than one
respect inaccurate; inasmuch as he is, moreover, acquainted with Luke,
asa third person who might be mentioned in. the same category with
Barnabas and Clement, and elsewhere is able to adduce only a single
early authority in favor of the opinion that Barnabas composed the epistle,
and this authority belonging not to the Eastern church, but to that of the
West. The passage finds its corrective in the words of the Catalogus
Scriptorum, c. 5 (Opp. ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 103 sq.): Epistola autem,
quae fertur ad Hebracos, non ejus creditur propter stili sermonisque dis-
tantiam, sed vel Barnabae juxta Tertullianum, vel Lucae evangelistae,
juxta quosdam, vel Clementis Romanae ecclesiae episcopi, quem ajunt
ipsi adjunctum sententias Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone,—
according to which Jerome was acquainted only with Tertullian as the
representative of the view that Barnabas wrote the epistle. If, further,
Myrothecum Evangelicum. But in the latter of the author as Apostolus, but certainly dis-
work, at any rate, there is found no statement _tinguishes him from the Apostle Paul. Comp.
of this kind. Inthis Cameron usually speaks e.g. on Heb. vii. 18, ed. Salmur., 1677, 4, p. 270.
INTRODUCTION. RII%s}
Philastrius, Haer. 89, observes: Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad
Hebraeos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli,
aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, it is likewise entirely unprovable
that the aut Barnabae did not refer merely to Tertullian. In like manner
it does not, of course, at all follow, from the fact that the Epistle to the
Hebrews is placed after the Pastoral Epistles in the Peshito, that the carly
Syrian Church regarded the epistle as the work of none other than Barna-
bas. It is, in the last place, a mere assertion when we are told that in the
Versus scribturarum sanctarum—an ancient stichometric catalogue of the
sacred writings of the O. and N. T., which is preserved to us, inserted in the
Codex Claromontanus between the Epistle to Philemon and that to the
Hebrews (comp. Cod. Claromontanus, ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1852, 4, p. 468
sq.)—the Epistle to the Hebrews bears the name of an Epistola Barnabae.
(So first Credner in the Theol. Jahrbb. 1857, p. 307 ff.; Gesch. «des Neutest.
Kanon., Ber]. 1850, p. 178 ff.) That catalogue presents only the words:
Barnabae epist. ver. DCCCL; it simply mentions, therefore, the Epistle of
Barnabas, and adds how many verses or lines (stichoi) it contains. The
supposition is thus only natural, that the same writing is meant which
elsewhere in the early church bears the name of the Epistle of Barnabas,
and in the Codex Sinaiticus is bound up with the canonical books of the
New Testament. Nay, this supposition is raised entirely beyond doubt
by the fact that, in addition to the “ Barnabae epist.,” and on the same
level therewith, the Pustor, the Actus Pauli, and the Revelautio Petri, thus
writings which in later time were just as little reckoned among the
canonical books (the “ sanctae scribturae ” of the catalogue) as the Epistle
of Barnabas, are likewise enumcrated and stichometrically defined in this
catalogue. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews, if this had been
thought of in connection with the “ Barnabae epist.,”” must at least have
been denoted by the reading Barnabae ad Hebraeos epist.; as also Ter-
tullian (comp. p. 7) did not deem the addition ad Hebraeos, for the desig-
nation of our Epistle to the Hebrews, redundant. It is true the assertion
has been made, that the number of lines mentioned points to the Epistle
to the Hebrews. But we should be permitted to make a deduction from
this number of lines, only in case the number of lines for the several books
of the New Testament were a fixed one in the mss. It is, however, an
altogether wavering and changing one. Thus the accounts of the lines
for the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. Tischendorf, N. T. ed. 7, P. ii. p.
596) vary between the numbers 703 and 830. Not one of these numbers
reaches the sum of 850 mentioned in the catalogue. If, therefore, we are
23
304 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
to make any deduction at all from these data, we must rather suppose
that the number 850 is much more favorable to the epistle otherwise
known as the Epistle of Barnabas than to our Epistle to the Hebrews,
since the former exceeds the latter in extent by about a third. (In the
Godex Sinaiticus the Epistle of Barnabas occupies 533 columns, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews 403.) It is asserted, further, that the Barnabae
epist. of the catalogue must be regarded as the Epistle to the Hebrews,
because it has obtained a place in the enumeration before the Revelation
of John and the Acts of the Apostles, and so by the intervention of the
two latter writings is separated from the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the
Revelatio Petri. But this order of enumeration does not warrant such con-
clusion, any more than a special mark of design is to be discovered in
the unusual order of mentioning the Epistles to the Colossians and Phile-
mon only after the Pastoral Epistles, which is observed in the same cata-
logue. The consideration that, if our view be correct, the Epistle to the
Hebrews has been entirely passed over without mention in the catalogue,
can present no difficulty. We need not even suppose that the mention
thereof has been overlooked in consequence of a mere blunder in copy-
ing. This is indeed possible, since the Epistles to the Thessalonians and
that to the Philippians have for a like reason been passed over unmen-
tioned, and otherwise the negligence of the copyist displays itself in the
catalogue, in the fact that the two Epistles of Peter, e.g., bear therein the
appellations ad Petrum I. and ad Petrum II. The non-mention of the
Epistle to the Hebrews is rather to be explained simply from the fact,
well known from other sources, that this epistle was not invested with any
canonical authority in the early church of the West, from which this cata-
logue comes down to us.—Favorable to the claim of Barnabas might
appear the historic incident of his receiving this his name (vid¢ mapa-
KAfeewc), according to Acts iv. 36, on account of his gifts of prophetic or
spiritual utterance, with which the eloquent language of the Epistle to the
Hebrews might be shown to accord. Nor would there be anything directly
opposed to such view in the circumstance that in Acts xiii. 9 ff.,16 ff, xiv.
9 ff, not Barnabas but Paul is described as the chief speaker, and that
consequently the former is in Acts xiv. 12 compared to Zeus ; the latter, on
the other hand, to Hermes. For although the Epistle to the Hebrews is
superior in point of diction to the Pauline Epistles, a greater facility of
graceful writing does not of necessity argue a greater facility of oral dis-
course. In favor of Barnabas, might, further, his birth in Cyprus be sup-
posed to plead, and consequently—since Cyprus was in various ways
INTRODUCTION. 355
connected with Alexandria—the Alexandrian type of thought which
appears in the epistle would not be inappropriate to him. But absolutely
decisive against Barnabas is the fact that, according to Acts iv. 36, 37, he
was a Levite, and must have long time dwelt in Jerusalem, since he even
possessed land there. He must therefore have been more accurately
informed with regard to the inner arrangements of the temple in Jerusa-
lem at that time than was the case with the author of our epistle.! For
the temple at Jerusalem is meant (see sec. 2), and not that at Leon-
topolis in Egypt, as Wieseler supposes.
Luke has been frequently regarded even in early times as at least the
translator or the penman of the epistle; and a share in the work of its
composition has been ascribed to him by Hug (in the later editions of his
" Binleit. in’s N. T.), and more recently Delitzsch (in Rudelb. and Guericke’s
Zeischr. fur. die Luth. Theol. 1849, H. 2, p. 272 ff., and in the Kommentar
zum Hebr -Br. p. 704) and Ebrard, as also J. v. Ddéllinger (Christenthum
u. Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 86), inasmuch as
the first-named attributes to him the linguistic garb of the epistle, and the
others assign to him the elaboration of the thoughts furnished to him by
the Apostle Paul. As the independent composer, on the other hand, Luke
has been regarded by Grotius and S. Crell (in the pseudonymous writing,
Artemonii initium ev. Joannis ex antiquitate ecclesiastica restitutum, P. 1, 1726,
8, p. 98); and Delitzsch also (comp. his commentary on the Ep. p. 707)
now holds this view to be at least possible. To the Pauline Christian
Luke, certainly the self-characterizing of Heb. ii. 3 is appropriate (comp.
Luke i. 2), as well as the purer Greek and the more skillful formation of
periods. There are also to be discovered certain peculiarities in the
phraseology—to which Grotius already calls attention—which are met
with only in the writings of Luke and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Nevertheless, these points of contact are only of a subordinate nature,
whilst side by side with them a thorough diversity of style and presenta-
tion is to be observed. In Luke, where he writes independently, there is
displayed a mere smoothness in the flow of the language; in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, on the other hand, a self-conscious majesty of rhetoric
reveals itself. Moreover, there is nothing in Luke to correspond to the
Alexandrian—Jewish spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The proof
which Delitzsch has recently sought to establish in his commentary—
lIf the so-called Epistle of Barnabas were against the claim of Barnabas. But the gen-
genuine, the diversity of character between uineness of that epistle is, to say the least,
that and the Epistle to the Hebrews would doubtful.
likewise form a decisive counter-argument
356 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
namely, that the most decided similarity as regards the choice of words
and the construction of the sentences connects the Epistle to the Hebrews
with the writings of Luke, nay, that even in characteristic points of doc-
trine a striking coincidence is to be observed between the respective writ-
ings—was therefore predestined to failure. The evidence for his assertion
has been scattered by Delitzsch through his whole commentary; and it
almost seems as though this, for the reader and critic highly inconvenient
mode of proceeding, had been chosen under the unconscious feeling that
the evidence was not in a position to admit of synoptical classification,
without in such case at once being laid bare in all its weakness. For, so
soon as we Critically sift that which has been uncritically piled togcther
by Delitzsch ; so soon as we separate therefrom that which is not exclu-
sively peculiar to Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews; sosoon as we
also put out of the account that which Luke has only taken up out of the
sources employed by him, aud cease to lay any weight upon isolated
expressions and turns of discourse which were the common property
either of the Greek language in general, or of the later Greek in particular,
and are only accidentally present in Luke and the Epistle to the He-
brews,—there is nothing whatever left of an actual affinity, such as must
of necessity admit of being traced out between works of the same author.
That, namely, on which Delitzsch founds his argument is the following :—
The particle re, i. 3, and frequently, is but rarcly found in the N. T. save
in the writings of Paul, and more especially of Luke.—The middle rozeio-
Gaz, i. 3, is a favorite one with Paul, and particularly so with Luke. It is
here similarly used, as e.g. in defoeg moeicda, Luke v. 33; Phil. i. 4; 1
Tim. ii. 1; xowerdv roeicba:, Acts vill. 2; avaBoany undepiav rovioda, Acts
xxv. 17.—zxapa, after the comparative, i. 4, is also not foreign to Luke
(Luke iii. 13).—¢ é, i. 18, in the third place, as Luke xv. 17; Acts xxvii. 14;
Gal]. iii. 23.—rpocétyxecv revi, ii. 1, like rpookyew roig Aarovuévorc, Acts XVI.
14.—1ra axovaodévra, ii. 1,is the word of salvation, which inthe Epistle to
the Hebrews is nowhere called ciayyédcov, as also Luke in his writings (with
the exception of Acta xv. 7, xx. 24) loves to express the idea of evayyéAu»
by various forms of periphrasis.—ovve ripaprupeiv, ii. 4, is formed after
the manner of ovwemrideoba, Acts xxiv. 9.—wrorxiAac duvdépece, 1. 4, has
its analogon in Acts ii. 22 (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9).—drtapaprtpectar, ii. 6,
is specially frequent in Luke, e.g. Acts xx. 23, xxiii. 11.—The construction
év yap ro «.r.2,, ii. 8, corresponds entirely to that of Acts xi. 15.—apynyée,
ii. 10, xii. 2, is the name which Jesus bears also in Acts iii. 15, v. 81.—
carapyeiv, ii. 14, a favorite word with Paul, is found besides in the N. T.
INTRODUCTION. RYY f
only in Luke xiii. 7—dé47 ov, ii. 16, occurs, it is true, only here in the N.
T.; but yet dj, which also is rare in the N. T., occurs with the greatest
comparative frequency in Luke ii. 7. The coloring of the expression is
thoroughly Lucan. The 68e», which is met with six times in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, is foreign to the letters of Paul, but occurs Acts xxvi. 19.
‘Opotwdqjvac is employed exactly as Acts xiv. 11 in the cry of the men of
Lystra. ‘IAdoxneodac has in Luke xviil. 13 its single parallel in the N.
T. Kara révra is, Acts xvii. 22, certainly to no less extent Lucan than
Pauline. Ta rpd¢ &eé6y occurs, indeed, elsewhere only v.1 and Rom.
xv. 17; but at Luke xiv. 32, xix. 42, Acts xxviii. 10 (comp. also Luke xiv.
28, Acts xxiii. 80, according to the tertus receptus), ré mpéc is likewise
found as a current form of expression.—divacdaz, ii. 18, here, as with
few exceptions throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, construed with the
infinitive aorist, just as in Luke i. 20, 22, iii. 8, v. 12, and often.—z érov dev
recpaoveic, ii. 18, has again its parallels in Luke; inasmuch as, accord-
ing to Acts xx. 19, sufferings, as such, are 7etpacyoi; and according to
Luke xxii. 28, the sufferings of the Lord in particular were so.—yéro yor,
iii. 1, vi. 4, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Luke v. 7.—xaravoei»,
iii. 1, x. 24, is a favorite word with Luke, e. g. xii. 24, 27, and often ; comp.
especially Acts xi. 6.—The ydp, iii. 16, accentuating the question, is equally
Lucan, Acts xix. 35, viii. 31, as Pauline, 1 Cor. xi. 22.—@AA’ od, iii. 16, is
placed as in Luke xvii. 7 f.; comp. aada ri, Matt. xi. 7-9.—érayyeAta, in
the signification of assurance, promise, iv. 1, 1s of most frequent occurrence
with Luke and Paul; and the combination with the bare infinitive, instead
of rov eioeADeiv, which recurs xi. 15, is like that of Acta xiv. 5.—eiay ye-
AifecBar, iv. 2, used passively of the persons to whom glad tidings nre
proclaimed, is common to the Epistle to the Hebrews with Luke vii. 22,
Xvi. 16.—xairoz, iv. 3, is a particle, attested also Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 27, as
well as xalrorye and xaiye.—a7d xaraBodAge xécpor, iv. 3, ix. 26, is not met
with in the LXX., but is found in Luke xi. 50, and often elsewhere in the
N. T.—With Cav dAdyo¢g rov Beow, iv. 12, we may compare, in addition
to 1 Pet. i. 23, also Acts vii. 88 (Aéya Cévra); and roperepos vr ép, iv.12,
is construed as Luke xvi. 8.—évdupfoece, iv. 12, occurs elsewhere only
Acts xvii. 29; Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25.—xpareiv, iv. 14, vi. 18, with the geni-
tive, as Luke viii. 54.—Of dodiverat, iv. 15, mention is made in Luke v. 15
and other places; comp. Matt. vili. 17.—repixeiadal ri, v. 2, is found
elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xxviii. 20.—The construction édéfacev
yevn 9qvat, v. 5, issimilar to that of Luke ii.1; Acts xi. 25, xv. 10; Col.
iv. 6—xado¢ nai tv érépy, v. 6, is similar to the reading of Acts xiii.
358 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
30.—peta xkpavync ioxupac xai daxptwy, v. 7, reproduces the most
salient features with which precisely Luke (xxii. 39-46) describes the
agony of prayer in the garden, as these now force themselves upon the
mind.—In the use of evAd Bera, v. 7, and evaAaBeioda:, the Epistle to
the Hebrews coincides in a characteristic way with the usage of Luke
(apart from Acts xxiii. 10)—a746, v. 7, is employed exactly asin Luke xix.
3, xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11.—On aircog, v. 9, we have to com-
pare apxyryéc, 11. 10; Acts ili. 15, v. 31—pépecdas, vi. 1, expresses the
idea of external impulse and forward pressing urgency, as Acts ii. 2.—é
Aédyosg Tov Xpcaroi, iv. 1, a8 6 Adyog Tov xupiou OF Tod Yeov= Td evayyéAtov, MOSt
frequently in the writings of Luke, who hardly ever uses evayyéAcov.—The
construction perdvoca ad, vi. 1, is Lucan, Acts viii. 22; moreover, :6-
rebecy tri tov Sedyv or Tov xipcov, which is not entirely foreign to Paul’s
writings, Rom. iv. 5, 24, is found with Luke, as well as meorebev eic, at least
‘more ordinarily than with any other N. T. writer, Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, xvi.
31, xxii. 19; and as to the thing intended, Acts xx. 21 is similar to Heb.
vi.1, inasmuch as in the former place rq eicg Dedv perdvocav is employed
with as little apparent significance, and as really deep significance, as in
the latter place: riorews éxi Sedv.— With reference to the delineation of the
sin against the Holy Ghost, chap. vi. and x., the Epistle to the Hebrews
has its immediate parallel in Luke xii. 8-10.—é7i with a genitive, after a
verb of motion, vi. 7, as Acts x. 11, and frequently.—etderoc, vi. 7, is in
the N. T. a word of Luke's, xiv. 395, 1x. 62.—In vi. 9 also we hear the lan-
guage of Luke. For as 7 éyouévy, Luke xiii. 33, Acts xx. 15, xxi. 26, xiii.
44, denotes the day immediately following, so too éyéueva cut nplag, that
which stands in immediate connection with the salvation, which has refer-
ence to the salvation.—The classic 2 yee v with a following infinitive, vi. 13,
is Lucan, Luke vii. 42, xii. 4; Acts iv. 14, xxv. 26. Considering the Lucan
form of the expression, it is doubly noteworthy that allusion is made pre-
cisely in Luke’s writings, as well Luke i. 73 as Acts vii.17, to the solemn
confirmation of the promise by an oath, Gen. xxii. 16 (comp. xxiv. 7).—«at
ovrwc, vi. 15, is used as Acts vii. 8, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 14, and also frequently
with Paul.—The pé» solitarium, vi. 16, belongs to the number of the not
rare anacoluths, as well of Luke, e.g. Acts i. 1,as of Paul, e.g. Rom. xi. 13
f.—Bovdf#, vi. 17, of God’s gracious will, is an expression current with
Luke, vii. 30, Acts ii. 28, and frequently. With Paul, only Eph. i.11.—On
xp dy para, vi. 18, we have to compare zpdyyzara, Luke i. 1.—xaragetyecy,
vi. 18, is found also Acts xiv. 6.—rarpcdpyne¢ is a Hellenistic word, and
in the N. T. Lucan; it occurs elsewhere only Acts ii. 29, vii. 8, 9.—iepa-
INTRODUCTION. 359
reia, vii. 5, the epistle has in common with Luke i. 9 (comp. i. 8: iepa-
reverv).—Tovr é~orev, x.7.A. vii. 5,18 a Hebraistic mode of expression, as
Acts ii. 30.—zaprupecio tas, vii. 8, xi. 2, is a favorite expression as well in
the Acts, vi. 3, x. 22, xvi. 2, xxii. 12, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It
is found, besides, only once with Paul and once with John.—¢aviora-
o@az, vii. 11, to be set up by God upon the theatre of history, as Acts iii. 22,
vii. 37; and according to the ordinary interpretation, also Acts xiii. 832.—
mpocéy ecv revi, vil. 13, as 1 Tim. iv. 18, comp. Acts xx. 28.— eic, vii. 14,
as Actsii. 25; Eph. v. 32.—ei¢ rd rwavredée, vii. 25, is found again in the
N. T. only Luke xiii. 11.—The avéyxny éyew conjoined with the infinitive,
vii. 27,is Lucan, Luke xiv. 18, xxii. 17; while Luke in the Gospel and
Acts employs, instead of avagépecv in the sense of offering, the expres-
sion poogépecv, likewise usual in our epistle—ad7divéc, viii. 2, the
epistle has in common with Luke xvi. 11 and the three Johannine writ-
ings, and besides these only 1 Thess. i. 9.—Aarpetecy, viii. 5, is specially
frequent in the writings of Luke.—The passive use of ypnyarifleac@a:,
viii. 5, is found also in Acts x. 22, Luke ii. 26, and twice in Matt.—To the
passage of Scripture cited, vill. 5, Stephen refers in Acts vii. 44. This is
again to be noted as a Lucan parallel—ijpepurroc, viii. 7, passively, as
Luke i. 6, and everywhere in the N. T.—The mode of expression, { 7reiv
rémov, vill. 7 (comp. rérov edpioxev, xii. 17), is similar to that of rérov
Aap Pévev, Acts xxv. 16; rérov diddva, Rom. xil. 19.—émixeio Sac, ix. 10,
with the subsidiary idea of pressing and burdening, as Acts xv. 10, 28.—
With péxpe xatpov dtopGdceus, ix. 10, we have to compare Acts xxiv. 8,
where the text wavers between diopOouérov and xabophupdtuv.—n apayiyvec-
6ac, ix. 11, is the usual word for historic self-presentation and presence,
Luke xii. 51; Matt. ii. 1; 1 Macc. iv. 46.—obd yecpororgrov, ix. 11, 24,isa
word of Luke’s in like connection, Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24.—To 16 idcov aipa,
ix. 12, xiii. 12, a parallel is presented in Acts xx. 28.—Atrpwace, ix. 12, is,
along with aroAirpwos, a word of Luke’s, Luke i. 68, ii. 38; comp. azoat-
rpworc, Luke xxi. 28 (in the usage of Paul the only word) ; Avrpotvefa:, Luke
xxiv. 21; Avrpwrzc, Acts vii. 35.—d:4, ix. 14, of the inner principle, just as
Acts 1.2, xi. 28, xxi. 4—The mode of expression, 2aBeiv r#v émayyeAalay,
ix. 15, xi. 13, in the sense of the taking to oneself the very blessing pro-
mised, the epistle has in common with Acts ii. 33.—As to ix. 15, the most
apt N. T. linguistic parallel is Acts xiii. 38 f.,8so also in expression and
thought everything is Lucan. To be compared is Actsiii. 25; Luke xxii.
29 f.—On rovro rd aiya, ix. 20, which, as seems probable, consciously or
involuntarily refers to the words of the Supper, we have to observe that
360 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
in these the éoriv is wanting only with Luke, xxii. 20; although they read
similarly in Matt.and Mark.—o ved6v, 1x. 22, occurs only twice besides in
the N. T., and precisely with Luke, Acts xiii. 44, xix. 26. On each occa-
sion it stands in immediate connection with mwac.—agecre, sc. duapriav, ix.
22, commonly met with in Luke’s writings.—To aizarex x vola, ix. 22, 1d
trip ipav éxxuvéuevov, Luke xxii. 20 (comp. xi. 50), forms verbally and really
the most natural parallel._—ipgavifecv, ix. 24, xi. 14, is a word common
to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and especially Luke, who employs it as
weil in the signification ‘“ make known,” Acts xxiii. 22, as “ present one-
self, appear,” Acts xxiv. 1 (= éugaviferv revi éavrév= éupaiveoOa:).— ar oxeio-
@ac, ix. 27, isin the N. T. common to Luke xix. 20; with Paul, Col. i. 5;
2 Tim. iv. 8—éx« devrépov, ix, 28, as Acts x. 15, xi. 9, and elsewhere.—
The construction of zateofa: with the participle, x. 2, for the rest the usual
one, is the same as Acts v. 42, ovx ératovro diddoxovrec.—avapeiv, X.9, is &
favorite word with Luke.—mepcredeiv, x. 11, as Acts xxvii. 20, repenpeiro
naoa éAric.c—rapofvopudc, x. 24, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts
xv. 39, there in a good sense, and here in a bad sense.—ripuwpia, x. 29, is
found only here in the N. T.; to be compared, however, is Acts xxii. 5,
Xxvi. 11.— 7a brdp yovra, x. 34, with the genitive, as e.g. Luke xi. 21
(with the dative, e.g. Luke viii. 8).—- poodéxeadas, x. 34, of willing re-
ception, as e.g. Luke xv. 2..—imapéic, x. 34, is a word of Luke’s, Acts ii.
45.—elvac rivde, x. 89, with personal subject and genitive of the property,
as Luke ix. 55 (Rec.); Acta ix. 2.—The infinitive with rod, xi. 5, a not un-
classic form of expression, is in the N. T. specially peculiar to Luke.—
éxCnreiv, xi. 6, as Acts xv. 17; Rom. iii. 11.—The construction of rot
with the indicative, xi. 8, is as Acts xx. 18, x. 18, xv. 36, and frequently
elsewhere.— apSxyoev, xi. 9,18 equivalent to raponeiv 7Afev, of which
the style of Luke presents not a few examples. Apart from the most
similar passage, Luke xxiv. 18, rapocei¢ cig ‘lepovoadgu, where this reading
is too ill attested, we have to compare Acts vii. 4, cig fv ipeic viv xarorxeire ;
xii. 19, ei¢ r#v Kaodpecav deérpeBev; Luke xi.7; Acts viii. 40, and xviii. 21,
xix. 22, Rec.—ri¢ émayyediac tH¢ avrg, xi. 9, is written instead of ri
avrg Ezayy., a8 elsewhere only Luke ii. 8—Corresponding to the «ai ara
Zdppa, xi. 11, there is found also in Luke «ai airée¢ in like position with
proper names, Luke xx. 42, xa? avrdg Aavid; xxiv. 15, xai avrd¢ "Inoots ; comp.
Acts vill. 18, Eiuev nat airéc.— For the combination divayie eig, xi. 11,
only Luke v. 17, divapig xvpiov ww tic rd idoGae abrote.—The 62d «ai, xi. 12,
xiii. 12, bringing cause and effect, means and end, reason and consequence
into very close reciprocal relation, is equally Lucan (Luke i. 35; Acts x.
INTRODUCTION. 361
29, xiii. 35) as Pauline.—aroOvgon err, xi. 21, to lie a-dying, as Luke viii.
42.—aoreiov, xi. 23, comp. aoreiov rp Gep, Acts vii. 20.—é7i, xi. 30, of the
space of time, as Luke iv.25; Acts xiii. 31, xix. 10.—The mode of expres-
sion épydCecOac dixatoctyyy, xi. 33, recurs also Acts x. 35 (comp. Jas. i.
20).—The phrase orépa payaipas, xi. 34, is Lucan, Luke xxi. 24.—To
the iva xpeitrovog avacrdceus rhyuworr, xi. 35, & parallel is presented
by rvyydvew avaordcews, Luke xx. 35.—The heightening ére dé, xi. 36, is
met with also Luke xiv. 26; Acts ii. 26.—itcrepotpevor, xi. 37, is used
absolutely, as in Luke xv. 14; Phil. iv. 12, al—We are reminded as well
by wapéxanots as by dradéyeraz, xii. 5, of Luke in the Acts. There
‘we meet With mapdxAnocc of apostolic address, going to the heart, Acts
xiii. 15, xv. 31 (comp. also 1 Tim. iv. 13); there also d:aAtyeofaz, ini the
inchoative sense: “to open a conversation, to enter upon it,” is the con-
stant word for the standing up of Paul among the Jews, Acts xvii. 2, 17,
xviii. 4, and often besides.—On gri¢ deadéyerac, xii. 5, we have to com-
pare Luke xi. 49: 9 cogia rov Geov eimev.—perradapBavecv, xii. 10, is (be-
sides 2 Tim. ii. G) the word common to the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
Acts for “to become possessed of,” i.e. to come into the enjoyment or pos-
session of a thing.—d2 waAdAov, xii. 18, as Luke x. 20 (Rec.).—The combi-
nation pila wixpiag, xii. 15, comp. yorp mexpiac, Acts viii. 23; and the
verb évoydAeiv, Luke vi. 18 -(according to A B L, al.), comp. oxdeiv, Acts
v.16; and wapevoxrciv, Acta xv. 19, is Lucan.—The accus. cum infin. »9
mpooreOyvar avtoicg Adyoyr, xii. 19, governed by the rapyrgcavro, em-
ployed, as ver. 25, Acts xxv. 11, in the sense of “ bezging off from, declin-
ing with entreaty ” (pure Greek, with y7 in the infinitive clause), resembles
Luke xx. 27.—é vrpopog, xii. 21, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts
vil. 32, xvi. 29.—"Ie povoaAgu, xii. 22, is the form of the name with Luke,
Paul, and in the Apocalypse.—a woyeypappéivuwr év ovpavoig, xil. 23, has
its parallel in Luke x. 20: ra ovduara ipav éypddn év roig otpavoic; and the
verb aroypagecOar, in Lukeii. 1, 3,5.—Aéyuy, xii. 26, the Hebrew TER,
is employed as in Luke i. 63, and frequently in the N. T., specially with
Luke.—The neuter plural of the subject, ra 4) cadrevépueva, xii. 27, is
combined with the singular of the predicate peivy, as Acts i. 18, xxvi. 24;
and the perfect is followed by the subjunctive (conjunctive) aorist, as e.g.
Acts ix. 17.—#yerv ydpcev, xii. 28, to cherish and manifest gratitude, as
Luke xvii. 9; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 3—The conception in the exhorta-
tion, xili. 7, is outand out Lucan. For 7yobuevor is the Lucan apellative
of the leaders of the congregation, Acts xv. 22, comp. Luke xxii. 25, else-
where only Heb. xiii. 17,24. Paul says similarly, mpoicrdyevor, 1 Thess.
362 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
v.12. Then Aadeiv rdy Adyov row Seow isthe ordinary Lucanic expres-
sion for the preaching of the gospel, Acts iv. 31, viii. 25, xiii. 46, and often.
The verb ava@ewpeiv, of continued penetrating contemplation, occurs
again, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, only Acts xvii. 23. And for
Ex Baocg (1 Cor. x. 18), of the end of life, or as it is here designedly termed,
of the walk, Luke has at least the synonymous expressions éfodorc, Luke
ix. 31, and d¢cFee, Acts xx. 29.—dAvorre2é¢, xiii. 17, does not occur else-
where in the N. T., but AvorreAci ig found Luke xvii. 2.—me:@dpe0a, xiii.
18, is Lucan, according to Acts xxvi. 26.—évdémiov rot Oeod, xiii. 21, is
with Luke, much more than with Paul, a favorite expression, and to the
preface to the wish (ver. 20) there is no more fitting parallel than Acts xx.
28, where the church of the Lord is, as here, designated as a flock which
He has purchased by His own blood.—xiii. 22 is altogether Lucan: dvé-
xec0at, to give a patient, willing hearing, Acts xviii. 14, comp. 1 Cor. xi.
4; Adyoe wapaxAgfceus, Acts xii. 15; ércoréAAecy (like mittere), to write
a letter, elsewhere only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25.—The arodAtecyv, not occurring
with Paul, is employed in the style of Luke, as well of release from custody
or prison (apart from Luke xxii. 68, xxiii. 16 ff, e.g. Acts iii. 18, iv. 21), as
of official delegation, Acts xiii. 3, xv. 30 (for which Paul nas réurew; e.g.
2 Thess. iii. 2); solemn dismission, Acts xv. 33; and in general, dismissal,
Acts xix. 41, xxili. 22—ol ard rao ’"Iradiag, xiii. 24, denotes the Italiotes,
according to the usage of Luke, Acts x. 23, 38, xii. 1, xvii. 18, xxi. 27.
That which Delitzsch adduces besides (in the commentary, p. 705 f.) in
favor of Luke as the penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in favor
of a joint-participation of the Apostle Paul in the composition thereof,
namely—(1) that the worldly calling of Luke as a physician (Col. iv. 14)
is in striking keeping with the conformation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
inasmuch as this, so to speak, contains an anatomic (iv. 12 f.), a dietetic
(v. 12-14), and a therapeutic passage (xii. 12 f.), and much besides which
would seem appropriate to the pen of a physician; as, e.g., the use of
vobpdc, V. 11, vi. 12; Bpduara xai réuara (as with Hippocrates, ed. Littré, 1.
622, iv. 380), in connection with which it might perhaps be observed that
éxcxecpeiv, as employed Luke i. 1, is a favorite word of Hippocrates; (2):
that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to
its earliest location, followed immediately upon the Epistle to Philemon,
among the last words of which occurs the name of Luke; (8) that it is.
hardly accidental, that just where the author of the Acts begins to relate
with “we” (xvi. 10), the account of the association of Timothy with Paul
has preceded; and, finally, (4) that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle:
INTRODUCTION. 363
to the Hebrews begins in a manner so strongly alliterating on the name
IIAYAOS,—all these are arguments which ought not to have been found
at all, in a work which lays claim to a scientific character.
Fully decisive against Luke is the consideration that he, according to
Col. iv. 14 as compared with Col. iv. 11, was a Gentile-Christian,' whereas,
as is universally admitted, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews can
only have been a born Jew. That this counter-moment is not to be set
aside by the shift of Delitzsch (in the dissertation, p. 274), to the effect that
Luke, as is made manifest in his other writings, had “enough lived him-
self into that which was Jewish and Christian ” to be able to compose the
epistle “in accordance with the hints” of Paul, is self-evident.
The claim of Clemens Romanus to the authorship has been favored by
some among the moderns. Erasmus was inclined to regard him as such;
and, finally, Bisping, following the example of Reithmayr (Finleit. in die
kanon. BB. des N. T., Regensb. 1852, p. 681 ff.), has decided in favor of
Clement. In order, however, not to approach the declaration of the
Council of Trent too nearly, Bisping assumes that Clement prepared the
epistle independently as a sort of homily, only as far as xiii. 17, to which
xiii. 18 ff. was then added as a brief supplement by the Apostle Paul, in
order thereby to adopt the whole letter as his own. But—apart from the
fact that xiii. 18 ff. can proceed from no other author than that of the
whole preceding letter, inasmuch as a change of the speaking subject is
1If J. N. Tiele (in the Theol. Studien und
Kritiken, 1858, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) has sought to
prove from the many Hebraisms in the
writings of Luke that he must have been a
Jew by birth, that is altogether wide of the
truth, since those Hebraisms in Luke are to
be set down only to the account of the sources
from which he draws.—Delitzsch also (in the
commentary, p. 705) now holds that the deduc-
tion of Luke's Gentile origin, made from Col.
iv. 11, 14, is by no means certain (yet without
advancing his reasons for this judgment);
and Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 2, 2 Aufi.,
NGrdl. 1860, p. 99 f., directly disputes the
soundness thereof. But neither do passages
like Acts xx. 6, xxvii. 9, point toa born Jew
as the author of this work, as is supposed by
Hofmann; nor can, in Col. iv. 10, 11, the sense
be found, with Hofmann, that while, on the
one hand, Aristarchus had come to Rome
with Paul and belonged to his well-known
surroundings; of the number of Jewish-
Christians, on the other hand, beyond those
of his own company, who were teaching the
word of the gospel in Rome, only Marcus and
Jesus united with him in harmonious work-
ing. For of such diversity of character in
the relations of the three persons mentioned,
towards each other and towards Paul, neither
© cuvatxudAwros pov, ver. 10,—which, as is
evident from ver. 23 of the contem poraneous
Epistle to Philemon, can only be understood
figuratively—nor any other expression
affords a hint; of ovtes dx wepiromiis’ otros
movoe «.t.A. (ver. 11) cannot therefore be re-
ferred back simply to Map«os and ‘Iygovs,
but must at the same time be referred to
*Apiorapxos, unless that which naturally be-
longs to one whole is to be unnaturally dislo-
cated and rent asunder. The demonstrative
force of Col. iv. 11, 14 continues accordingly
to assert itself in undiminished vigor.
364 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
nowhere indicated, but, on the contrary, the opposite clearly presupposed
in ver. 22—the sentences in the first, indisputably genuine, Epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians, which in point of contents and composition
remind of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vid. supra, p. 7 f.), have evidently
only been taken over by him from this epistle, in consequence of a use
and imitation thereof. For, as regards originality and grasp of mind, the
Epistle of Clement is far inferior to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In other
respects, the character of the respective writings is too greatly diverse for
them to be able to proceed from one and the same author. Of the Alex-
andrian speculative mind, and the oratorical flight of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, not a trace is found in the Epistle of Clement.
Of Silvanus have Béhme and Mynster (Kleine theol. Schrifien, Copenha-
gen 1825, p. 91 ff., and Studien u. Kritiken, 1829, H. 2) thought; and Riehm
also (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. IT. p. 893) regards this supposition as possi-
ble. But Silvanus was, according to Acts xv. 22, originally a member of
the Christian congregation at Jerusalem. He, too, must thus have had a
more exact acquaintance with the temple of that day, than is displayed
by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The opinion that Apollos was the author of this epistle was first
broached by Luther. Comp. on Gen. xlviii. 20 (ed. Witeberg. 1561, t. vi.
p. 710): autor epistolae ad Hebraeos, quisquis est, sive Paulus, sive, ut
ego arbitror, Apollo.—Sermon von den Sekten, 1 Cor. iii. 4 ff. (with Walch,
Th. xii. p. 1996): “ This Apollo was a highly intelligent man ; the Epistle
Hebraeorum is of a truth his.”—Epist. am Christtag., Heb. i. 1 ff. (with
Walch, Th. xii. p. 204): “That is a stout, powerful, and lofty epistle,
which soars high, and treats of the sublime article of faith in the Godhead
of Christ; and it is a credible opinion that it is not St. Paul’s, for the rea-
son that it maintains a more ornate discourse than is the wont of St. Paul
in other places. Some think it is St. Luke’s, some St. Apollo’s, whom St.
Luke extols as having been mighty in the Scriptures against the Jews,
Acts xviii. 24. It is indeed true that no epistle wields the Scripture with
such force as this; that it was an excellent apostolic man, be he whoso-
ever he may.” Luther’s conjecture has been accepted by Lucas Osiander,
Clericus, Heumann (Schediasma de Libris anonymis ac pseudonymis, Jenae
1711, 8, p. 88 sqq.), Lorenz Miller (Dissertatt. de eloquentia Apollinis, viri
apostolici, Schleus. 1717), Semler (in his “ Contributions to a more accu-
rate understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” prefixed to Baumgar-
ten’s commentary, p. 15 f.; yet he expresses himself with hesitation),
Ziegler (Volistand. Einleit. in den Br. an die Hebr., Gotting. 1791, 8, p. 255
INTRODUCTION. 365
ff.), Dindorf (on Ernesti lectt. p. 1180); and recently by Bleek, Thceluck,
Credner, Reuss, Bunsen (Hippolytus und seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p.
865), Henry Alford (Greek Testament, vol. iv. P. 1, Lond. 1859, Prolegg. p.
58 ff.), Riehm (Lehrdegr. des Hebruerbr. II. p. 894), which last, however,
only claims the same degree of probabi-ity in favor of Apollos as of Silva-
nus; Biumlein (Commentar ub. d. Ev. des Joh., Stuttg. 1863, p. 26), Samuel
Davidson (Introduction, p. 255 ff.), J. H. Kurtz (der Br. an die Hebr. erkl.,
Mitau 1869, p. 55 f.), Hilgenfeld (fHist.-krit. Einl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875,
p. 306, 386 ff.), and others, even by the Catholics Feilmoser (Kini. in’s N.
T. p. 359 ff.) and Lutterbeck (Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, Bd. IL.,
Mainz 1852, p. 101 ff). It is, moreover, the only correct one. The men-
tal portrait which we are compelled to form to ourselves of Apollos, in
harmony with the notices of the Acts (xviii. 24 ff.) and the First Epistle
to the Corinthians (chap. i-iv., xvi. 12), harmonizes exactly with the
traits in which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has unconsciously
depicted himself. This agreement is so striking and reaches so deeply,
that as azainst it, seeing the lack of a definite tradition coming down from
the apostolic age, the circumstance becomes of no moment, that among
the conjectures of the ancients not one has lighted upon Apollos as the
author of the epistle. Apollos was no immediate disciple of the Lord,
but belonged to a second generation of Christians. By friends of Paul he
was more deeply instructed in Christianity, and lived on terms of inti-
macy with Paul himself. He was, however, as a Christian teacher, too
original and prominent for standing merely in the relation of an apostolic
helper. He was a Jew by birth, and his labors as a Christian teacher
were directed by preference to the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen; on
which account the personal acquaintance of the author of the epistle with
the Pulestinian Jewish-Christians, presupposed Heb. xiii. 19, can least of
all surprise us in the case of Apollos. He was a native of Alexandria,
versed in the Scriptures, and qualified for expounding and applying the
same, and for deducing therefrom the proof that Jesus is the Messiah.
' Appropriate to him as an Alexandrian is the preponderantly typico-sym-
bolic mode of teaching in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the endeavor to
point out under the veil of the letter a deeper spiritual meaning. He
was above all distinguished by the gift of brilliant eloquence. In him,
finally, as an Alexandrian Jew, the exclusive use of the L.XX., as well as
According to Lutterbeck, however, the Luke, Clement, and others of the Pauline
Apostle Paul must have added the last nine _— school, have issued the epistle.
verses, and Apollos, in communion with
366 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the want of acquaintance with the internal arrangement of the temple in
Jerusalem at that time, need cause no surprise.
That, if we are to fix upon a particular person as the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, this can be no other than Apollos, because con-
tents and form of the epistle are so admirably fitting to no other Christian
teacher of the apostolic age as to this, is admitted also by W. Grimm
(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 74 ff.). He finds, however, an instance of
decisive counter-evidence against Apollos in the passage Heb. 1. 3 as
compared with Acts xviii. 24-28. For, according to Heb. ii. 3, the mes-
sage of salvation had come to the author of the epistle, equally with his
readers, by the instrumentality of those who had heard the Lord Him-
self; whereas, according to the Acts, Apollos, as a disciple of John, had
been only in the vestibule of Christianity, and had been first introduced
into the sanctuary thereof by means of the Christians Aquila and Pris-
cilla, who were converts of Paul’s. But apart from the fact that—as
Grimm himself acknowledges—the narrative of Acts xviii. 24 ff. is so far
obscure and not free from self-contradiction, as it represents Apollos,
although he knew only the baptism of John, nevertheless as xaryynpuévo¢g
tiv oddv Tov xupiov, and an axpiBdc¢ diddoxew ta nepit tov ’Inoow is attri-
buted to him (ver. 25),—we must remember that at Heb. ii.3 recipients
and author of the epistle are characterized only as belonging to a second
generation of Christendom. Not that every single one of the persons
mentioned ver. 8 had received the word of salvation at the mouth of im-
mediate ear-witnesses, or were by these specially received into instruction,
is expressed ; but only that the message of salvation was handed down in a
certain and trustworthy way from the original ear-witnesses to the totality
of the Christian circle which is formed by the jeic, and thus came to the
knowledge of each single one of this totality. Even, therefore, if Apollos
had not been directly brought into any intercourse with the dxotcavreg,
yet the passages Acts xviii. 24 ff. and Heb. ii. 3 would not be irreconcil-
able the one with the other. But is it at all conceivable that such a
leading Christian teacher as Apollos, who continued in such intimate
association with the Apostle Paul, should come into no personal contact
whatever with the original apostles?—To the further objections brought
by Grimm against the Apollos-theory, he himself attaches no decisive
weight. They are the following :—(1) In connection with a former disci-
ple of John, it must appear exceedingly strange that he makes no men-
tion, i. 1, of the distinguished position occupied by John the Baptist, as
the greatest prophet (Luke vii. 28, Matt. xi. 11) and forerunner of the
INTRODUCTION. 367
Lord, towards the kingdom of God; (2) Clemens Romanus, although
making frequent use of the epistle, could hardly have known it as a work
of Apollos, since it would otherwise have only been natural that he
should, in the 47th chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians, have re-
minded the Corinthian Christians of our epistle as a work of Apollos.
But that Clement must necessarily have so acted cannot be maintained.
For a reference to John the Baptist, however, Heb. i. 1 offered no occasion
whatever; because it was with the author only a question of contrasting
with each other the revelations of the Old Testament and that of the New
Testament as such.
SEC. 2—THE PERSONS ADDRESSED.'
That the epistle was designed for a Jewish-Christian circle of readers is
not only universally acknowledged, but also becomes so palpably certain
from contents and aim (comp. sec. 3), that Roeth’s supposition of the
opposite (Epistolam vulgo “ad Hebr.” inscriptam non ad Hebr., i.e. Chris-
tianos genere Judaeos, sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidem ad Ephesios, da-
tam esse, Francof. ad Moen. 1836, 8) can only be regarded as a manifest error.
But likewise the view represented by Braun, Lightfoot (Harmony of the
New Testament, I. p. 340), Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Stenglein (lc. p. 61, note,
p. 90), and Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 304), that the
epistle was addressed, without respect to any particular locality, to all
Jewish-Christians in general, is one which is characterized a priori as abso-
lutely untenable. For everywhere throughout the epistle are individual
wants of the readers presupposed, such as were by no means common to
all Jewish-Christians ; and even the personal references, v. 12, vi. 10-12,
x. 32 ff., xii. 4, xili. 7, 19, 23, 24, suffice to show that the author had before
him a definite, locally-bounded circle of readers. How could the author,
among other things, promise his readers a speedy visit (xiii. 23), if he had
thought of them as the Jewish-Christians scattered in all lands?
The Jewish-Christians in all Asia Minor, or at least in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia proconsularis, have been regarded as the
original recipients of the epistle by Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid (Observatt. super
ep. ad Hebr. p. 16 sq.), and Cramer; those in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and
Greece, by W. Wall (Brief Critical Notes, etc., Lond. 1730, p. 318) and
Wolf; the Laodiceans, by Stein (Komment. eu dem Ev. des Lucas, Halle
1830, p. 289 ff.); the Galatians, by Storr and Mynster (Kleine theol. Schrif-
1Comp. my Whitsuntide Programm: De literarum, quae ad Hebraecos inscribuntur, primis
lectoribus, Gott. 1853.
3068 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
ten, Copenhag. 1825, p. 91 ff.); the Lycaonians, by Credner (Ejnl. in d. ¥-
T., Th. 1, Abth. 2, Halle 1836, p. 564); the Antiochians, by Bohme and
Hofinann (Die h. Schr. N. T., Th. 5, p. 531); the Cyprians, by Ullmann
(Studien u. Kriliken, 1828, p. 397); those in one of the numerous Greek
cities on the coast of Asia Minor, or of Syria and Palestine, by Grimm
(Theolog. Literat.-Bl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p.
660; but not decidedly); the Macedonians, specially those of Thessa-
lonica, by Semler (in Baumgarten, p. 37 ff.) and Noésselt (Opuscc. ad inter-
pretalionem sacrarum scripturarum, Fasc. I., Halae 1785, p. 269 sqq.); those
of Corinth, by Mich. Weber (De numero epistolarum ad Corinthios rectius
constituendo, Wittenb. 1793-1805) and Mack (Theolog. Quartalschr. 1838, H.
8); those of an Italian congregation, perhaps of the great city Ravenna,
by Ewald (Gott. gel. Anzz. 1868, p. 286; cf. Gesch. Isr., Bu. VI. p. 638, Das
Sendschreiben an die Hebr., Gott. 1870, p. 6); those of Rome, by Wetstein
(Nov. Test. II. p. 383 sq.), and recently by R. Ké6stlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of
Baur and Zeller, 1850, H. 2, p. 242), who, however, afterwards withdrew
this opinion (vid. infra); by Holtzmann (Theol. Slud. und Krit., 1859, H. 2,
p. 297 ff., in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, VIII., and in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol., 1837, H. 1, p.1 ff.), by Alford (Greek Test., vol. IV. part 1, Lond.
1859, Proleg7. p. 62 ff.), by Kurtz, p. 42 ff, by Renan (L’Antechrist, Paris,
1873, p. xviii. ff, 211), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Finleitl. in das N. T.,3 Aufl,
Berl. 1875, p. 612 f.), and by Harnack (Putr. Apostt. Opp. I. p. 1xxxii.);
those of Spain, finally, by Nicolaus de Lyra (in the Prooemium to the
epistle) and by Ludwig (in Carpzov’s Sacr. Evercitt. in St. P. ep. ad Hebr.,
Helmst. 1750, p. lix. 8q.).
All these opinions, however, which in part rest upon the erroneous sup-
position that the epistle is the work of the Apostle Paul, find their refuta-
tion at once in the fact that it cannot have been addressed to so-called
mixed assemblies, consisting of Jewish- and Gentile-Christians, but only
to an exclusively Jewish-Christian circle of readers. Not even the slightest
reference is made to conditions such as must of necessity arise from the
living together of converted Jews with converted Gentiles, and which, by
reason of the manifold conflicts to which they would give occasion, were
of too great importance to be passed over unnoticed.!. Nowhere is the rela-
1 For this reason it cannot be asserted, with
Holtzmann (Stud. u. Arit. 1859, IT. 2, p. 298),
that there is nothing at all contradictory in
the rupposition of the epistic being addressed
to a large congregation, atill outwardly com-
powed of Gentile- and Jewish-Christians;
that there the epistle had naturally sought
out its Jewish readers; and on that account
it leads us, without any address properly
speaking, in mediam rem. That the epistle
presupposes exclusively Jewish-Chriatian
readers has been anew disputed by Wieselor
INTRODUCTION. 369
tion of the Gentiles to the Jews, and of both to the kingdom of God, spoken
of; rather is everything specially referred to the Jewish people of God,
already sanctified in their fathers. Unmixed Jewish-Christian congrega-
tions, however, cannot be historically proved, in the late time at which
the date of the epistle falls (see sec. 4), in any of the fore-mentioned
places. The fact, likewise, is opposed to those suppositions, that the
readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews regarded the continued participation
in the institutions of the Jewish temple-service and sacrifices as so necessary,
that without this they thought they could obtain no complete expiation
of their sins. Such a form of Judaism, still continuing to operate in the
Christian state, does not apply to the Jewish-Christians of the diaspora,
but only to those who had their dwelling-place in the immediate vicinity
of the Jewish temple. For in the case of Jews who lived at a greater dis-
tance from the temple, the zeal for the Mosaic law manifested itself
naturally most of all in a tenacious clinging to the rite of circumcision,
to the injunctions regarding food and purification, to the observance of
the Sabbath, and the like.
A Jewish temple, however, besides that at Jerusalem, existed at the
time of our epistle only in Egypt. The epistle can therefore only have
been addressed either to the Christian congregation in Palestine, mainly
in Jerusalem, or to Egyptian, specially Alexandrian, Jewish-Christians.
The latter supposition has found defenders in J. E. Chr. Schmidt (Hist.-
krit. Einl. in’s N. T., Giessen 1804, p. 284, 293), Bunsen (Hippolytus und
seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p. 365), Hilgenfeld (Zeittschr. f. wissenschafil.
Theol. 1858, H.1, p. 103; Hist.-krit. Einl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, p. 385
f.), Volkmar (Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon, von C. A. Credner, Herausgg. v.
G. V., Berl. 1860, p. 182), Ritschl (Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1866, H.1, p.
90), and in particular Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, Gott.
1848, p. 481 ff.; Untersuchung uber den Hebraerbrief, namenilich seinen Ver-
fasser u. s. Leser. Second half. [Schriften der Universitat zu Kiel aus d. J.
1861, 4, B. VIII.; also separately printed, Kiel 1861, 8.] Comp. also
Studien u. Kritiken, 1847, H. 4, p. 840 ff.; 1867, H. 4, p. 665 ff.), and R.
KOstlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 8, p. 388 ff.) ; Davidson,
too (Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p
265 ff., 270), although he does not decide, gives it the preference. The
(Schriften der Univers. zu Kiel aus d. J. 1861,p. NN. T. p. 380, 386), but in a by no means con-
21 ff., Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 695 ff.), by Holtz- vincing manner. See the detailed and
mann (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. effective refutation of this supposition in
1867, p. 26 f.), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Einl.in Grimm (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p.
d. N. T. p. 612), and by Hilgenfeld (Hinl.ind. 34 ff).
24
370 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
prevailing opinion, on the other hand, is the first one. Within recent times
it has been maintained by Bleek, Schott, de Wette, Thiersch, Stengel,
Delitzsch, Tholuck, Ebrard,! Bisping, Bloomfield, Ritsch] (Hntstehung der
altkathol. Kirche, 2 Aufi., Bonn 1857, p. 159), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebr.-
Br. I. p. 31), Maier, Langen (Tiibing. theol. Quartalschr. 1863, H. 3, p. 879
ff.), Moll, and others? And rightly so.
In favor of Alexandria as the place of destination for the epistle, the
following arguments have been advanced :—
(1) Even in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews bore likewise the
title of a letter to the Alexandrians, and in general there is seen to be
a wavering within the early church itself in the indication of the original
circle of readers. Whether, indeed, the superscription Ilpd¢ ‘ESpaiow pro-
ceeds from the author himself, a view to which Bleek and Credner are
inclined, is doubtful. But not only is this superscription very ancient,
since it is found in the Peshito, and with Tertullian, Origen, and many
others; but the fact, moreover, is universally presupposed in Christian
antiquity as beyond doubt that the ‘E@paio., whose name the epistle bears
at its head, were the Palestinian Christians. The evidence for this state-
ment is afforded by Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Chrys-
ostom, Theodoret, and many others. It is now indeed supposed that we
possess a testimony in favor of the Alexandrians as the original recipients
of the epistle, namely, in the so-called Canon of Muratori, in which we
read: Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses (Laodicenses), alia ad Alexandrinos,
Pauli nomine finctae (fictae) ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura, quae
in catholicam ecclesiam recepi (recipi) non potest (possunt). Fel enim
For that by the words alia ad Alexan-
drinos the Epistle to the Hebrews is meant must be assumed, og is sup-
posed, since otherwise the Epistle to the Hebrews would, remarkably
enough, not be even mentioned in the fragment, which, forsooth, is a list
both of the genuine and spurious epistles ascribed to the Apostle Paul.
Now this epistle, it is argued, not being in the early Roman Church, either
cum melle misceri non congruit.
}Very arbitrarily, nevertheless, Ebrard
represents the epistle as not being written to
the whole congregation at Jerusalem, but
only to “a private circle of neophytes” there.
For it neither follows from v. 12 “ that all the
readers had embraced Christianity at one
and the same time, the one with the other;” —
nor from vi. 10 that we can think “only of a
very narrow and limited circle of individuals
in a community;” nor, finally, from xpecay
exere Tod SiSaoxey Uuas, V. 12, “that the readers
were really again placed under instruction.”
2W. Grimm also supposes now that the
epistle was addressed to a town of Palestine;
only not Jerusalem, but Jamnia. Comp.
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 71 f. Never
theless we know nothing of the existence of
a Christian congregation in Jamnia.
INTRODUCTION. 371
regarded as a work of Paul, or indeed as canonical, must have been men-
tioned by name precisely in this passage, in which the writer is speaking
of epistles of which the authorship is falsely imputed to the Apostle Paul.
But against this it must be said that the characteristics of the epistle ad
Alezxandrinos, of which the fragment makes mention, are not suitable to
the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the former was a forgery, composed
“Pauli nomine,” the meaning of which is too distinct for us to be able,
with Wieseler, to subtilize it into the statement that the epistle had only
indirectly, from its contents and general bearing, left the impression of its
proceeding from Paul; which rather can only indicate that this epistle, in
a prefixed address altogether wanting to the Epistle to the Hebrews, put
forth the claim to be a work of Paul. Moreover, it was fabricated “ad
haeresem Marcionis,’”’ which can mean nothing else but that its con-
tents were in agreement with the errors of Marcion, and were designed to
wage a propaganda for the same. With Marcionite errors, however, the
Epistle to the Hebrews has confessedly nothing in common; but, on the
contrary, “its fundamental doctrine of Mosaism as pointing forward to
Christianity, as well as the idea of the incarnation of the Divine Logos, is
in glaring contrast with Marcion’s Gnosis ” (Grimm, Zeiischr. f. wiss. Theol.
1870, p. 55), as accordingly it obtained no reception into Marcion’s canon.!
That, finally, the fragmentist must necessarily have mentioned the Epistle
to the Hebrews cannot be asserted, inasmuch as, considering the non-
currency thereof within the early Roman Church, it was quite possible
that he should not be at all acquainted with it. Comp. also Fr. H. Hesse,
das Muratori’sche Fragment neu untersucht und erklart, Giessen 1873, p. 201
ff.—But as it cannot be shown that the Epistle to the Hebrews passed in
antiquity for an epistle to the Alexandrians, so in like manner it cannot
be shown that this epistle was regarded by others in early times as an
epistle to the Laodiceans. This last has been inferred from the words of
Philastrius (Haeres. 89): Haeresis quorundam de epistola Pauli ad Heb-
raeos. Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt
1This counter-moment Wieseler now, in- which have been fabricated under the name
deed, seeks to deprive of its force, by giving
to the words in Muratori’s fragment another
punctuation than that given above, as also
formerly by himeelf, in supposing the comma
after Marcionis is to be deleted, and one
placed after fictae ; so that the sense shall be:
“There is also in circulation an epistle to the
Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians,
of Paul; with the sect of Marcion there are
also several other things current, which, etc.”
But what unnatural twisting and rending by
such construction of that which is simply
and naturally connected; and how little can
it serve to the recommendation thereof, that
ad haeresem Marcionis must be taken in the
sense of apud Marcionitas !
ot THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe
Roma episcopi. Alii autem Lucae evangelistae ajunt epistolam etiam ad
Laodicenses conscriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene
sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; etsi legitur a quibusdam, non
tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolae ejus et ad Heb-
But manifestly the words Alii autem, etc., are only a
concise expression for the declaration that others looked upon the evan-
gelist Luke as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and not only as
the author of this, but also of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Epistle
to the Laodiceans was not at all read in the service of the church; the
Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, was read indeed in the service
raeos interdum.
of the church, not, however, as the thirteen Pauline Epistles, regularly,
but only occasionally.’ Just as little, finally, is there any indication of a
controversy with regard to the original recipients of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, when Chrysostom, in the Prooemium of his commentary, takes
up the question : rob d2 obaw éxéoredAev; and then answers this with é poi
Soxet év 'lepocodipog nal Wadaorivgy, For Chrysostom perceived that the
superscription of the epistle was in and of itself an ambiguous one, inas-
much as it admitted the possibility of thinking of the Jewish-Christians
in general as the recipients of the letter; he thought it needful, therefore,
to state the limitation with which in his estimation the Ipd¢ 'E3paioue, of
such wide signification, is to be understood.
(2) The description of the Jewish sanctuary (ix. 1-5), as well as the acts
of ritual performed in the same (vii. 27, x. 11), is supposed to point to the
1The opinion, still entertained by Wieseler,
that the quia addiderunt in ea is to be referred
to the Epistle to the Hebrews, is manifestly
untenable in face of the contradiction in that
case arising from the conflicting statements
non legitur in ceelesia and in ecclesia legitur
interdum, The new punctuation, moreover,
by which Wieseler seeks to help His accepta-
tion of the words of Philastrius out of the
difficulty, is no happy one. According to
Wieseler, namely, we have to divide as fol-
lows: .. . Episcopi, alii autem Lucae evan-
gelistae. Ajunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicen-
xes conscriptam. Et quia, ete. Against this
arrangement of the words argues—{1) That
the proposition Ajunt . . . conscriptam would
then stand forth quite abrupt and without
any connection, whereas when we make the
beginning of a new proposition with Ali
autem, the grammatical nexus of the sentence
is an entirely simple and natural one; (2)
That if Philastrius had wished first to begin
a new proposition with Ajunt, he would have
appended the closing member of the previous
sentence, not in the form: alii autem Lucas
evangelistae, but in the form of expression
corresponding to that which precedes: aut
Lucae evangelistae ; finally, (3) that the position
assigned to etiam pointe to the fact that it
serves specially to bring into relief ad Lao-
dicenses, and consequently opposer the Epistle
to the Laodiceans to another epistle already
mentioned. If Philastrius had only intended
to say that the Epistle to the Hebrews too,
so far as its destination is concerned, was
considered as belonging to Laodicea, then
INTRODUCTION. 373
temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. But even if it could be proved that the
temple arrangements at Leontopolis furnished the standard for that
description, and that the original regulations of Moses were identified with
these, yet only the conclusion would be warranted with respect to the author,
that he must have been by birth an Egyptian Jew, but it could not be
inferred with equal necessity that his readers also were to be sought in
Egypt. Nevertheless, that assertion itself by no means admits of proof.
For Josephus—to whose testimony Wieseler appeals,—where he is describ-
ing in general that depév at Leontopolis, designates the same as dno10v (Antig.
xii. 9. 7), Or a8 maparAgocov (Antig. xx.-10) 7 év ‘LepoooAbporc, but then ob-
serves, Bell. Jud. vii. 10, 3, where he is relating somewhat more exactly, as
follows: 'Oviag rév pév vadv ovy bporov g'koddunoe rH év "IepocoAtpor GAAG
wbipyy mapanAjotov, Aidwy peyddwy eig Ejxovta mHxe aveotnkdéra, Tow Bwpow
dé tTHv katackevhy mpdc tov olxoe EFeutupoato Kai Tote avabgpaciy
époiws exdounoe, ywpic THO mEpi THY Avyviav KatacKev7e. OF
yap éwoinge Avxviav abrdv d2 xadxevoduevog Tov Abxvov yxpvoowy émigai-
vovta séhag xpvoye dAtceucg efexpéuacev. Josephus accordingly relates that
the temple of Onias in Egypt was indeed as to its outward form different
from the temple at Jerusalem, inasmuch as it stood upon a foundation or
sub-structure’ of great stones rising sixty cubits high, and thereby
acquired a tower-like appearance; that, on the other hand, its inner
arrangement, with the single exception of the golden candlestick, was
constituted in the same manner as that of the temple at Jerusalem, for
the altar of burnt-offering and the other sacred objects were similar in
both. Now, how does it follow from these statements that the golden altar
of incense in the Egyptian temple occupied the very site which the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews assigns to it at ix. 4, in contradiction with the
etiam—inasmuch as it would in that case
belong to the whole proposition—must have
heen placed immediately after Ajunt.
1If Josephus had, as Wieseler supposes,
ascribed to the vade only a total height of
sixty cubits, he would neither have character-
ized it as tower-like, nor have designated it
as unlike the vads in Jerusalem. For the
latter also had, at any rate, a height of sixty
cubits. It is true Wieseler finds actually ex-
pressed by dAAa wipyp wapazAnccoy not a
dissimilarity, but a resemblance tothe temple
erected at Jerusalem by Zerubbabel ; but he
reaches this result only by unwarrantably
translating aAAd as “but yet,” and accord-
ingly taking aAAa . . . aveornxdéra as a kind
of parenthetical insertion: “Onias erected
the temple not indeed equal to that one in
Jerusalem, but yet tower-like, since it was
built up of large stones sixty cubits high; in
the construction of the altar, however, he
imitated that of his native land.” That adda,
on account of the preceding ovx, can signify
only dué, on the contrary [sondern], and in-
troduces the particular point of difference by
which the before-mentioned dissimilarity 1s
evidenced, ought not to have been called in
question.
314 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
actual position thereof in the temple at Jerusalem, namely, in the Most
Holy Place? of such a difference—and surely just this point would have
called for proof—Josephus says in truth nota single word, but, on the
contrary, leaves the opposite impression. And then how could the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if he had had the temple of Onias before
him in his description of the sanctuary, have written év 9 7 Avyvia, 1x. 2,
when, according to the express statement of Josephus, there was not
therein a lamp-stand resting on the ground, as in the temple at Jerusa-
lem, but a chandelier suspended by a golden chain?—In Philo, too,
Wieseler has subsequently (comp. Studien u. Kritiken, 1867, p. 673 ff.)
fancied he could discover a support for his opinion. In de sacrificantibus,
24 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 253), and de animal. sacrific. 310 (ed. Mangey, IT.
p. 247), it is thought that Philo expressly testifies that in the temple of
Onias the altar of incense, as well as the vessels mentioned Heb. ix. 4, 5,
were present in the Most Holy Place. Yet how entirely unsuccessful this
attempted proof of Wieseler’sis, has been already convincingly shown in
detail by Grimm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 60 ff.—But just as little do
the notices, Heb. vii. 27, x. 11, lead to think of the temple of Onias. For
even supposing—what is far, however, from being the case—that it could
be historically proved, with regard to the Egyptian temple, that the high
priest entered into the Most Holy Place every day, yet such fact would
not so much as accord with the presuppositions of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. For, Heb. ix. 7, it is expressly said that the high priest went
into the Most Holy Place only once in the year. Nor, as we need hardly
remark, can this passage, in connection with ix. 4, vii. 27, x. 11, contain
the sense which Wieseler would put into it, that the high priest entered
indeed the Most Holy Place every day, but only once in the year with
blood. For to eg pév tiv xporgv oxy da mavri¢ eiciaow ol iepeic only the
words cig dé tiv devrépay Graf rod énavrud pdvog 6 apytepete form the oppo-
sition, and not until after the laying down of this opposition is the nearer
modality for the final member added, namely, that the high priest, in the
(special) case of his entering the Most Holy Place, enters it not without
blood.
The fact, however, in general, that the original recipients of the Epistle
to the Hebrews attached so high a value to the temple service and the
sacrificial ritual, that even as Christians they regarded continual partici-
pation in the same as necessary for the attaining of salvation, is one
which points not to Alexandrians, but only to Palestinians. For, quite
apart from the consideration that we do not even know from other sources
INTRODUCTION. 375
whether the Christian congregation of Alexandria was an unmixed
Jewish-Christian one, nay, whether an organized Christian congregation
existed there at all so early as the time of our letter, the Alexandrian
Jews had been so greatly affected by Grecian culture and philosophy, that
their whole bent of mind had become a spiritualistic one. Far from all
narrow-minded cleaving to the letter of the Mosaic law, they sought by
allegoric interpretation to discover and bring into recognition the deeper
spiritual sense underlying the precepts and institutions of Judaism. In
addition to this, the temple of Onias in Leontopolis was not able to boast
even in Egypt itself of any high estimation. The Egyptian Jews were to
a great extent displeased that it did not stand upon Moriah; the Egyptian
Samaritans, that it did not stand upon Gerizim (comp. Jost, Allg. Gesch.
des Israel. Volks, in 2 vols., Bd. I. p. 515 ff.). The yearly temple-gifts, too,
were on that account for the most part sent not to Leontopolis, but to
Jerusalem (comp. Frankel, Histor.-krit. Studien zu der Septuaginta, Bd. I.
Abth. 1, Leipz. 1841, p, 186, note d); and pilgrimages of Alexandrian Jews
to Jerusalem, to offer prayers and sacrifices in the temple there, did not
cease so long as this temple continued to exist. Even Phiio vouches for
this. (Comp. Opp., ed. Mangey, t. II. p. 646: xa® av xpévov cic rd marpyiov
lepdv éoreAAdunv eviduevdg te xai Biowr.)
(3) In favor of the supposition of Alexandrian readers is the fact further
thought to plead, that the epistle is not composed in Aramaic; a Greek
epistle to Palestinian Jews would at any rate, it is argued, be less probable
than an Aramaic letter. But asit is absolutely certain, on the one hand,
that the Palestinians understood not only Aramaic, but also Greek ; so,
on the other hand, it is altogether doubtful whether the author, who by
his whole epistle proclaims himself to be a non-Palestinian, was in an
equal degree qualified for writing not only a Greek, but also an Aramaic
epistle.
(4) “The whole manner of conducting the argument and the spiritual
exposition of the ideas employed,” is said to accord best with the supposi-
tion of Alexandrian readers. But that this mode of argumentation is
thought of “at once as familiar to the readers,” cannot be maintained.
There can thus be found therein only an indication as to the author, and
not as to his readers.
(5) That the author so exactly follows the Septuagint in his Old Testa-
ment citations, even in the case of striking deviations of the same from
the original text, is said not to harmonize with the hypothesis of Pales-
tinian readers, since with them the Septuagint was held in no estimation ;
376 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
but certainly with that of Alexandrians, for whom the Septuagint had
long been the accepted book of the synagogues. But were that transla-
tion really in so little credit in Palestine, then neither would the Apostle
Paul, educated as he was at Jerusalem, have made such frequent use of it,
nor would the Palestinian Josephus have fallen back upon that oftener
than upon the original text. Moreover, the fact that the Alexandrine
recension is to be traced in the text of the Septuagint used in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (comp. Bleek, I. p. 372 ff.), and (Heb. xi. 35 f.) reference is
made to the second Book of Maccabees (Kostlin, J. c. p. 402), 7. e. a writing
peculiar to Alexandrian Judaism, admits only of an inference pointing
back to an Alexandrian author, but not to Alexandrian readers.
(6) To the Alexandrians as original recipients of the epistle, is the
circumstance, finally, supposed to point, that the first mention of the
epistle is met with in the Alexandrian fathers. These same Alexandrian
fathers, nevertheless, confessedly agree in speaking of the epistle as
addressed to the congregations in Palestine.
As, however, no valid ground is to be adduced in favor of Alexandria
as the place of destination for the epistle, so are the objections urged
against the claim of Palestine very easily disposed of. They are the
following :—{1) That the readers, according to Heb. x. 32 ff, xii. 4, had
already endured persecutions, but not wexpi aiuaroc, which consistently
with Acts viii. 1-8, xii. 1, 2, could not have been said of the Palestinian
Christians; (2) That the readers, according to Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 16, had
exercised liberality towards other Christians, and were still further enjoined
to do so, whereas, according to Acts xi. 30, Gal. ii. 10,1 Cor. xvi. 1-3,
2 Cor. vii. 9, Rom. xv. 25 ff, these very Palestinian Christians appear as
poor and in need of assistance; (3) That according to Heb. il. 3 they had
received their knowledge of the gospel only from a secondary source; (4)
Finally, that (xii. 18, 19, 23) they are represented as standing in friendly
relations as well towards the author, who was surely an adherent of Paul,
as towards the Pauline disciple Timothy. That, nevertheless, these
relations were of a particularly close and intimate nature does not
follow from the passages adduced ; a friendly footing, however, of a more
general kind with Apollos, and, after the death of the Apostle Paul, also
with Timothy, has nothing surprising about it. The other statements to
which allusion is made all find their justification in the fact that, as is also
clearly apparent from xiii. 7 and v. 12, the recipients of the letter already
belonged to a second generation of Christians.
yp” * Whilst the above-mentioned arguments are common to the majority of
INTRODUCTION. 377
those who dispute the Palestineo-Jerusalemic destination of the epistle,
Kostlin has sought to confirm his position by the following additional
counter-moments peculiar to himself :—
(1) The author, as is shown by his entire dependence upon the Septua-
gint, was acquainted only with Greek. But it results from xiii. 19 that he
himself belonged to the congregation to which he is writing. If, there-
fore, the epistle were directed to Palestine, the author himself would have
been a Palestinian Christian; as such, however, hardly of so exclusively
Hellenistic culture, but without doubt familiar with the vernacular of
Palestine, and notably acquainted with the original text of the Old Testa-
ment. Reply: But that the author himself was a member of the congre-
gation to which he is writing, does not at all follow from xiii. 19. Comp.
the exposition of the passage. |
(2) It cannot be assumed that in the Palestinian Christendom, or rather
in the chief congregation thereof, that of Jerusalem, in the first century,
and notably in the years 60-70, there could have been found such great
indifference as regards the knowledge of the central truths of the Christian
faith, so great want of capacity for understanding the mysteries of the
Christian doctrine, such culpable lukewarmness and weakness of faith, a
discontent on account of Jewish reproaches and persecutions, which was
altogether unworthy of their position, while they must long have been
accustomed to these, and such a disloyal inclination to a relapse into
Judaism, as the epistle presupposes in its recipients. But where, we ask,
could there have been a Jewish-Christian congregation in connection with
which the conditions described would have been more easily explicable,
than precisely in Jerusalem, where the ancient ritual, with its seductive
splendor and its charms for the sensuous nature, stood before the very
eyes of tlie Christian converts, and the tenacious power of resistance on
the part of the ancient Judaism most vigorously exerted itself? Comp.
also Acts xxi. 20 ff.
(8) If Jerusalem had been the place of destination for the epistle, the
author (ii. 3) could not have omitted to remind the readers that the Lord
Himself had walked, and taught, and wrought among them, had in their
midst, nay, before their eyes, suffered the death of the cross, among them
had found the first witnesses of His resurrection and ascension; and the
more so, since during the years 60-70 there must still have been a large
number of the immediate disciples of Jesus present in Jerusalem. But,
in reply, we cannot at all expect to see the personal life and labors of
Jesus described ii. 3, because the connection does not lead thereto. For
378 | THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
that which is essential in ii. 3 is not the relation to author and readers of
the epistle, but that about which the writer is concerned is only to oppose
to the Old Testament Aéyoc, as something higher, the salvation of the
Christians. The question thus, in connection with this opposition, is that
of the Christians in general, or of the salvation which is the common
possession of all Christians; while, then, only as a mere secondary consid-
eration, which might have been wanting without prejudice to the connect-
edness of thought, the remark is yet further added, that the knowledge
of this Christian blessedness has been transmitted in a sure and trust-
worthy manner to the present (second) generation of Christians, to which
alike author and readers of the epistle belong. An occasion for speaking
more fully of the erewhile personal activity of Jesus among the readers
did not accordingly at all present itself; and a reason for urging the
declaration ii. 3 against the supposition of Palestinenses as recipients of
the epistle is the less to be thought of, inasmuch as the fact that the Lord
had once Himself proclaimed the salvation to the ancestors of the present
church members is not excluded by the words. But that a great number
of the original disciples must have been still living in Jerusalem during
the years 60-70 is a gratuitous assertion, to which may be opposed the
consideration that surely Luke too, in the prologue of his Gospel—. e.
of a writing, the composition of which at any rate falls within the decade
of the seventics, which thus is only a few years later in date than our
epistle—without hesitation reckons himself and his contemporaries, as
belonging to a second generation of Christians. Even supposing, however,
that immediate disciples of Jesus were still to be found in Jerusalem, yet
these could number towards the close of the sixties, to which time the
origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be assigned (comp. sec. 4), only
a few solitary individuals; a possible exception here and there would
have been no hindrance in the way of characterizing the members of the
congregation of that day as belonging to a second generation of Christians,
just because only the character of the congregation in general, or as it
presented itself in the main and on the whole, was being taken into
account.
(4) The author presupposes, in various passages, what does not apply to
the case of the primitive congregation, that his readers have been for only
a comparatively short time members of the Christian church. But from
ill. 14, vi. 11, x. 32, vi. 1-5, x. 28, this conclusion does not follow; on the
other hand, the opposite is to be inferred from v. 12.
{5) The Jerusalemic Christians, he asserts, consisted partly of members
INTRODUCTION. 379 ©
who became believers immediately after the resurrection,—some of them,
perhaps, even earlier,—partly of such as only later acceded to this primi-
tive stock. They composed a congregation which was only gradually
formed, and, particularly so long as James was alive, received constant
augmentation from the adherents of Judaism; the community of the
‘Efpaioe had not arisen in this gradual manner during a long succession of
years; but the conversion of all its members, or at least of by far the
greater number, had taken place at one and the same time: it must have
been formed by the simultaneous passing over of a considerable number
of Jews to the Christian church, and have maintained itself up to the
time of our epistle with much the same total of members as it at first
counted. But fora conclusion of this kind the words év alc gwriofévreg
moAAyy GOAnow drepeivare rabnpdruv, x. 82, afford no warrant. For only the
fact is there brought into prominence, that the conflict of suffering, which
the readers formerly endured, fell at a period of their life in which they
were already Christians. On the peculiar circumstances (modality) of
their conversion the words contain nothing.
(6) From the carefully-chosen designation roi¢ dyiocg, it is evident
that the ‘ESpaia are here presupposed to be a non-Palestinian community,
who have aided the Palestinenses with their support. Any other congre-
gation (!) than the primitive one could not have been thus simply desig-
nated as of dysoz, whereas the employment of this name with regard to
that congregation is very frequent (1 Cor. xvi.1; 2 Cor. vill. 4, 1x.1; Rom.
xv. 25, 31). A usage to be accounted for by the fact that, as distinguished
from all the other éxxAyoia:, the Palestinian, and specially the Jerusalemic
Christians, were the dy: nar’ tox, who before all others, chosen and
separated from the world by Christ and His apostles themselves, became
the first recipients of the divine word and of the Holy Spirit, were the
first witnesses and intermediate channels of Christian truth for all other
Christian communities, and were also, as such, acknowledged (specially
Rom. xv. 27), until, owing to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rending
progress of Gentile Christianity, this relation of dependence and filial
affection was gradually dissolved of itself—In order, however, to show the
mistake in such reasoning, it suffices to point to the use of of dycoe in
passages like 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2, xvi. 15; Rom. xii. 13, xvi. 2; 1 Tim. v. 10; to
the addresses of the Pauline epistles; to the addition rav év ‘Iepovoadgy,
considered necessary in connection with rév dyov, Rom. xv. 26; and
many similar instances. (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, on the other
hand, there was no need of such addition,—against Kurtz,—because the
380 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
collection which is the subject treated of in those passages was a business
already known to the Corinthians, and before earnestly enjoined upon
them; while, Rom. xv. 25, it was already apparent from vuvi dé ropetouat
ei¢ ‘IepovoaAgu, and, Rom. xv. 31, from 7 ei¢ ‘Iepovoadjy, of What ayo the
apostle was speaking.) Yea, Késtlin has even overlooked the considera-
tion, that by means of this argument, if it were well-grounded, he would
most effectually refute himself! For what further proof, that the
readers of the letter are to be sought in Jerusalem, would it then need
than the utterance of our epistle itself, xiii. 24: aomdcaofe advrag tov¢ syov-
pévovg tuav nai wavtag Tove ayiovg?
(7) That the Jerusalemic congregation remained, as is clear from Acts
li. 46, 111. 1 (comp. xxi. 20), from the first in connection with the temple
ritual. By the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other
hand, all religious connection with Judaism was originally relinquished,
and only now had they become involved in peril, as well through the
influence of teachings which would urge the necessity of holding firmly
to the Mosaic law (xiii. 9 ff.), as also, as it seems, through the influence of
enticing offers (comp. xii. 16 f.), partly also by harassing manifestations of
ill-will on the part of their former Jewish fellow-believers, of being seduced
into a return to the Jewish religious constitution. But the actual state of
matters is by this assertion inverted into its exact opposite. For that the
recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews not only still continued to occupy
themselves with the Jewish temple-service and sacrificial ritual, but even
regarded participation therein as a necessary requirement for the com-
plete expiation of sins, certainly underlies the whole argumentation of
the epistle as an everywhere-recurring presupposition.
SEC. 3.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was occasioned by the danger to which the
Christians in Palestine, particularly in Jerusalem, were exposed, of re-
nouncing again their faith in Christ, and wholly falling back again into
Judaism (comp. specially vi. 4-6, x. 26 ff). This danger had become a
very pressing one, inasmuch as many had already as a matter of fact
ceased to frequent the Christian assemblies (x. 25). The epistle accord-
ingly aims, by the unfolding on every side of the sublimity of the Chris-
tian revelation as the perfect and archetypal, above that of the Old Testa-
ment as the merely preparatory and typical, as well as by setting forth the
terrible consequences of an apostasy, to warn against such falling away,
and to animate to a faithful perseverance in the Christian course.—Differ-
INTRODUCTION. 381
ently, but quite incorrectly, does Thiersch (De epistola ad Hebr., Marb.
1848, p. 2 sqq. ; Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, Frankf. and Erlang.
1852, p. 188 ff.) define the object of the epistle, to the effect that it was to
be a consolatory letter to the Christians of Jerusalem, on account of the
exclusion from the Jewish temple with which they had been visited on
the part of their unconverted compatriots at the outbreak of the Jewish
war. Nothing in the epistle points to any such state of the matter; but,
on the contrary, even the one passage, Heb. xiii. 18, serves to place in a
clear light the erroneousness of this conjecture. For, instead of men-
tioning a state of exclusion, and bestowing a word of consolation upon the
occasion of an event like that, the author here assuredly summons to a
coming forth out of Judaism as a voluntary act, and thus, as in his other
reasoning, presupposes that the readers were still in the midst of Judaism,
and adhered thereto with narrow-minded and unchristian stubbornness.
A special support for his hypothesis Thiersch fancies is to be found in the
eleventh chapter. All the historic instances there adduced are, he tells
us, chosen by the author with a special bearing upon such a position of
the readers as is assumed by him. But a glance at the paraphrase of the
eleventh chapter, which Thiersch affords in proof of this assertion, shows
that everything from which he derives his argument has first been im-
ported by himself into the text.—That, finally, also Ebrard’s view—accord-
ing to which the epistle was designed to be “a kind of manual (Leit-
faden)” (!) for Jerusalem “ neophytes” (!), who, “ out of dread of exclu-
sion from the temple cultus,” seemed about to withdraw again from
Christianity '—is an extremely arbitrary one, needs hardly a word of
further demonstration.
As regards its contents, the epistle is ordinarily divided into two parts,—
a dogmatic (i. 1-x. 18) and a paraenetic (x. 19-xiii. 25). But a rigid separa-
tion does not exist, inasmuch as exhortations, some of them of considerable
extent, are already often incorporated in that first part, and the main
tendency of the whole letter is a paraenetic (hortatory) one.
14 Hostility of the other Jews,” and “ appre-
hension of being excluded from the temple
cult,” is also assumed by v. Déllinger (Christ-
enthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung,
Regensb. 1860, p. 84) as the cause of the
tendency to apostasy; while Kluge (der He
brderbrief. Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu-
Ruppin 1863, p. 203 ff.) discovers in the letter
a product of the Jewish apocalyptics (? N)
transplanted upon Christian soil, which as
such has arisen only after the destruction of
Jerusalem, and received its outward occasion
from the final catastrophe of the Jewish
people. Deriving its theme from Rom. xi.
$2, it ia supposed to pursue the soterio-paeda-
gogic object of an exhortation to repentance
for the chosen people, and of a warning to
the Jewish-Christian readers descended from
Israel against apostasy from their living
hopes.
O82 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
The contents themselves run as follows:—The revelation of God in
Christ is superior to His revelations under the Old Covenant. For Christ,
as the Son of God, is exalted above the angels, as mere servants (chap. i.).
So much the more are we called to hold firmly to the Christian faith.
For if even the Mosaic law, given through the ministry of angels, could
not be transgressed with impunity, the culpability of slighting the Chris-
tian salvation, proclaimed by the Lord and attested by God Himself, is
incomparably greater (ii. 1-4). Not to angels, but to Christ, the Son of
man, is the Messianic kingdom made subject. Certainly Christ was for a
little time abased beneath the angels; but thus it must be, in order
that mankind might obtain salvation: He must suffer and die, and
in all things become like unto men, His brethren, in order to be
able, as High Priest, to reconcile them to God (vv. 5-18). Therefore
consider well Jesus, the Envoy and High Priest of our confession! He
is more exalted than Moses; so much higher does He stand than Moses,
as the son, who is lord over the house, has precedence over the servant
of the house (i. 1-6). Take heed, therefore, in accordance with the
admonition of the Holy Ghost, of unbelief and apostasy; since the fate
of the fathers, who because of their disobedience became the prey of de-
struction, serves to you as a warning. The promise of God of an enter-
ing into His rest is still unfulfilled; to you, also, the entrance is open, if
you have faith, whereas rebelliousness against the admonition which is
addressed anew unto you delivers you over to the vindicatory righteous-
ness of God (iv. 1-13). The readers ought to hold fast to the Christian
confession, since they possess in Jesus a High Priest who is not only
highly exalted, but also is qualified to redeem mankind (vv. 14-16). The
two main essential qualifications which every human high priest must
possess,—namely, the capacity for having sympathy with erring humanity,
and the being no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same,
—Christ also possesses. He is a High Priest after the manner of Mel-
chisedec (v. 1-10). But before the author passes over, as is his purpose,
to the more detailed presentation of the high-priestly dignity belonging to
Christ after the manner of Melchisedec, and thus to His exalted rank
above the Levitical high priests, he complains, in a digression, of the low
stage of Christian knowledge at which the readers, who ought themselves
long ago to have been teachers of Christianity, still remain. He exhorts
them to strive after full manhood and maturity in the Christian life, and,
in a note of warning, reminds them that those who have already experi-
enced, in its influence upon them, the fullness of blessing which pertains
INTRODUCTION. | 383
to Christianity, and nevertheless apostatize from the faith, by their own
fault let slip beyond recovery the Christian blessedness; then, however,
expresses the confidence he feels that it will not be so with the readers,
who have distinguished themselves, and do still distinguish themselves by
works of Christian love, and indicates what he desires of them, namely,
perseverance to the end; while at the same time he directs their attention
to the inviolability of the divine promise and the objective certainty of the
Christian hope (v. 11-vi. 20). With the seventh chapter the author
returns to the subject under discussion. He dwells first upon the person
of Melchisedec himself, following up the hints of Scripture as he presents
to his readers the exalted position of Melchisedec, and shows a threefold
superiority of the same over the Levitical priests (vii. 1-10). From this
relation of inferiority, however, it follows now that the Levitical priest-
hood, and thus consequently the Mosaic law in general, is imperfect and
incapable of leading on to perfection. For otherwise there would have
been no need, after the law had long been instituted, of the promise and
the appearing of another priest of other descent (vv. 11,12). That the
Levitical priesthood, together with the Mosaic law, has lost its validity, is
evident from the circumstance that Christ, to whom that divine utter-
ance Ps. cx. 4 has reference, belongs as a matter of fact to a tribe which,
according to Mosaic ordinance, has no part in the administration of the
priestly office (vv. 13, 14); it is further evident from the consideration
that the new priest who is promised is to bear a resemblance to Mel-
chisedec, in which is implied just the particular, that his characteristic
peculiarity is other than that of the Levitical priests (vv. 15-17). The
end, to the bringing in of which the Levitical priesthood was wanting in
power, is attained by Christ’s everlasting priesthood after the manner of
Melchisedec (vv. 18, 19). The preeminence of this over the Levitical
priesthood appears further from the fact that it was constituted by God
by virtue of an oath, whereas the former was constituted without an oath
(vv. 20-22). The Levitical priests, moreover, die one after another:
Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand,—and that forms a third point of
superiority,—since He ever liveth, is an unchangeable and intransitory
priesthood (vv. 23-25). A fourth point of superiority is manifested in the
distinction, that while the Levitical priests are sinful men, who each suc-
cessive day must offer sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of the
people, Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once for all has offered up
Himself as a sacrifice (vv. 26-28). But not only as regards His own per-
son is Christ exalted far above the Levitical priests: the sanctuary, too, in
384 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
which He exercises the high-priestly functions, is exalted far above the
Levitical one. For Christ administers His office of high priest in the
heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, of which, as the prototype,
the earthly tabernacle in which the Levitical priests minister is a mere
copy (vii. 1-5). So much more excellent is the personal ministry of
Christ, inasmuch as the covenant, whose Mediator He is, is a better cove-
nant, because resting upon the foundation of better promises. The char-
acter of this promised new covenant is a more inner, spiritual one; and
by the promise of a new covenant the old is declared to be worn out and
no longer serviceable (vv. 6-13). In the disposition of the Mosaic sanc-
tuary itself, and the ordering of the priestly ministration in conformity
therewith, lies the indication on the part of God, that Mosaism is not
itself the perfect religion, but only the preparatory institution for the same
(ix. 1-8); as accordingly also the Levitical sacrifices, since they belong to
the domain of carnal ordinance, are not in a position to make real atone-
ment, whereas the sacrifice of Christ, presented by virtue of an eternal
spirit through the efficacy of His own blood, possesses an everlasting
power of atonement (vv. 9-14). In order to be the Middle Person of the
New Covenant, Christ, however, must needs suffer death. That follows
from the notion of a d:a67x7, since such acquires a binding character only
when the death of the dcaféuevog has been before proved; as accordingly
also the first, or Old Testament dcat#x7, was not consecrated without blood,
and without blood-shedding there is, under the Mosaic law, no forgiveness.
For the consecration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals
sufficed, but for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary there was
need of a more excellent sacrifice than these; this Christ has offered once
for all at the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death ; and
in connection with His return, to be looked for unto the salvation of
them that wait for Him, no repetition of sacrifice will be necessary (vv.
15-28). In the imperfection of the Mosaic law is to be sought the cause
that under it the expiatory sacrifice is repeated every year; that repeti-
tion contains the reminder that there are ever sins still present, as truly
a cancelling of sins by the blood of bulls and of goats is from the very
nature of the case impossible (x. 1-4). Already in Scripture has it been
expressed, that not by animal sacrifices, but only by the fulfilling of the
will of God, deliverance from sins is to be attained. On the ground of
this fulfillment of His will by Christ are we Christians sanctified (vv. 5-10).
Hereupon the main distinction between the Old Testament high priest
and the High Priest of the New Testament is once more brought into
INTRODUCTION, 385
relief—namely, in that the former daily repeats the same sacrifices with-
out thereby effecting the cancelling of sin ; the latter, on the other hand,
by His sacrifice once offered, has wrought everlasting sanctification; and
finally, attention is drawn to the Scripture testimony, that there is no
more need for further expiatory sacrifice (vv. 15-18).
The readers in possession of such an High Priest, and the blessing
mediated by Him, are to cleave with resolution and constancy to the
Christian faith, to incite one another to love and good works, and not, as
has become a practice with some, to forsake the religious assemblies. And
the more so since the Advent is now close at hand (vv. 19-25). For he
who wittingly contemns recognized Christian truth, and sins against it,
will not escape the avenging judgment of God (vv. 26-31). Mindful of the
Christian courage they have displayed in former days, the readers are not
to lose their Christian cheerfulness, but to persevere in the Christian
career ; for only a short time longer will it be beforethe return of Christ,
and the entrance into the promised fullness of blessing (vv. 32-39). The
author hereupon defines the nature of the wiorme which he requires of the
readers, and then sets before them examples of the heroism of faith from
times gone by (chap. xi.). In possession of such a multitude of examples, |
and with the eye fixed upon Jesus Himself, the readers are to endure
with stedfastness the conflict which awaits them, and to regard their suf-
ferings as a salutary chastisement on the partof that God who is full of
fatherly love towards them (xii. 1-13). To this attaches an exhortation
to concord and growth in holiness (vv. 14-17). The very constitution of
the New Covenant, to which the readers have come, obliges them to the
endeavor after sanctification. Whereas the Old Covenant bore the char-
acter of the sensuous, earthly, and that which awakens merely fear, the
New Covenant has the character of the spiritual, heavenly, brings into
communion with God and all holy ones, and confers reconciliation. The
readers are therefore to be on their guard against apostatizing from the
New Covenant, for their guilt and exposure to punishment would be
thereby incomparably augmented. Rather should they be filled with
gratitude towards God for the participation in the unshakable kingdom
of the New Covenant, and serve Him with awe and reverential fear (vv.
18-29). To this are now appended exhortations to continued brotherly
love (xiii. 1), to hospitality (ver. 2), to the assistance of prisoners and
oppressed (ver. 3), to chastity (ver. 4), to the eschewing of covetousness and
to contentment (vv. 5, 6), to the remembering of former teachers and the
emulating of their faith (ver. 7), to the avoidance of unchristian doctrines
25
386 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
and precepts (vv. 8-15), to benevolence (ver. 16), to obedience towards the
presidents of the congregation (ver. 17). There follows a call to intercession
on behalf of the author (vv. 18, 19), a wish of blessing (vv. 20, 21), the
petition for a friendly reception of the epistle (ver. 22), the communica-
tion of a piece of intelligence (ver. 23), the prayer for the delivery of sal-
utations, and, at the same time, the conveying of salutations to the read-
ers (ver. 24), and the concluding wish of blessing (ver. 25).
BEC. 4—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
The epistle can only have been written at a late time. For, according
to li. 3, xiii. 7 (comp. also v. 12, x. 82 ff.), the recipients belonged to a
second generation of Christians. According to xiii. 7, the presidents and
teachers of the congregation had already been snatched away from the
same by death, and that a death by martyrdom. The death, too, of James,
the brother of the Lord, who as president of the congregation at Jerusa-
lem was reckoned one of the pillars of the Christian church (Gal. ii. 9), must
thus have already taken place; as it is, moreover, on general grounds
hardly conceivable that, sq long as James was still living, an encroach-
ment upon his province, by means of a letter of such tone and contents
as are displayed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, should have been made
by the author of this epistle. The Epistle to the Hebrews cannot there-
fore have been written before the year 63 (Josephus, Antiqg. xx. 9.1). Its
time of composition, however, must yet fall in the period before the de-
struction of Jerusalem. For the presupposition that the Levitical service
of the temple is still continuing, underlies the current of the whole epis-
tle. Instances in proof are found not only viii. 4, 5, ix. 6 ff, xiii. 10 ff,
and specially ix. 9,—where the continued existence of the foretabernacle
(or holy place) in the Jewish sanctuary is expressly explained as a typical
reference to the time now being, in which the priests still continue to offer
sacrifices which are unable to afford satisfaction to the conscience (comp.
besides vii. 8, 20, viii. 13, x. 2),—but also in general a great part of the
contents of the epistle, wherein the erroneous persuasion of the readers
that the attainment of everlasting salvation is not possible without con-
tinued participation in the Levitical sacrificial rites and temple cultus, is
controverted by our author. Further, our epistle must have been com-
posed even before the beginning of the Jewish war; for if this had already
broken out, distinct references thereto could not have been wanting. Yet
it would seem that the commotions and insurrections which immediately
preceded the outbreak of the Jewish war had already begun. For, x. 25,
INTRODUCTION. 387
reference is made to the fact that the visible signs of the approaching
advent of Christ have already appeared before the eyes of the readers;
and their personal condition was, according to xii. 4 ff, xiii. 13, one of
great suffering. That supposition is thus the most natural one which
places the date of the epistle’s composition between the years 65 and 67.
According to Orelli (Select. patrum eccles. capp. ad eioryntixiy sacram pertt-
nentia, P. III., Turic. 1822, p. 4 sq.), the Epistle to the Hebrews was com-
posed only towards the year 90; according to Holtzmann (Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol. 1867, p. 6 f.), Harnack (Patrum Apostt. Opp. I. p. 1xxxii.), and others,
only after the persecution under Domitian ; according to Schwegler (Nach-
apostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 309), somewhere about the close of the first
century; according to Hausrath (Neutestamenil. Zeitgesch., 1st ed. III. p,
401 f.), only after Trajan’s persecution ; according to Volkmar (Religion
Jesu, p. 388 f.) and Keim (Geschichte Jesu v. Nazara, Bd. I., Ziirich 1867, p.
148 f., 636) only between the years 116-118. See, on the other hand, the
remarks of Grimm in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 23 ff. Without
ground does Mangold (in Bleek’s Einl.in d.N. T., 3d ed., Berlin 1875, p.
617) object against the conclusiveness of Grimm’s reasoning, that “ the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews conducts his argument on the basis
of the Scripture representation of the tabernacle” as of “a purely ideal
magnitude,” which does not guarantee “the actual continuance of the
temple cultus.” This objection would be admissible if the preterites eixev,
ix. 1, and xareoxevdod7, ix. 2, had, in the formula which resumes all the
previous description,—rotruv 62 obtwe xateoxevacpévwy, ver. 6,—been followed
by a participle aorist. But it becomes directly impossible when instead
thereof a participle perfect is chosen; inasmuch as, by this construction,
beyond doubt the opinion of the author is manifested that in the inner
arrangement of the temple the inner arrangement of the tabernacle is
still perpetuated. The following praesentia can therefore be understood
only in the most strictly present sense, and not “as praesentia of the legal
defining.”
The place of composition is indeterminable. Only thus much is clear
from xiil. 24, that it is to be sought outside of Italy.
SEC. 5—FORM AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
That the composition was an actual letter, and not, as has been assumed
by Berger (Gotting. theol. Bibl., Th. III. St. 3, p. 449 ff.; Moral. Einleit. in
das N. T., Th. III. p. 442 f. Comp. also Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schrr. N. T.,
Sth ed., Braunschw. 1874, 3151), a homily, is acknowledged, and is, more-
388 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
over, rendered certain by the personal allusions at the close of the com-
position, since these admit neither of our regarding them, with Berger, as
the later appendix of another author, nor, with Schwegler (Nachapostol-
isches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 304), as a “literary fiction.”
In like manner, the opinion frequently expressed in ancient times,—
originally broached with a view to the removal of the difficulties arising
from the literary character of the book, upon the presupposition of the
authorship of the Apostle Paul,—and in recent times specially advocated
by Joseph Hallet, jun., and John David Michaelis, that the epistle was
originally composed in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and only after-
wards translated into Greek, is at the present time universally recognized
to be erroneous. Even on account of the great freedom with which the
translator must have proceeded in the remoulding of the original,—on
account of the purity in the Greek expression, the skill in the formation
of genuine Greek periods, such as are foreign to the Aramaic,—on account
of the many compound terms, the equivalent of which could have been
expressed in Aramaic only by means of periphrases (as roAuuepi¢ nat rodv-
rpéruc, i. 1; axavyacua,i. 3; petpurabeiv, v. 2; evrepioraroc, xii. 1, etc.),—on
account of the multitude of paronomasias, which could not possibly be in
every case the work of chance (i. 1, ii. 2, ii. 3, ii. 8, ii. 10, ii. 18, iii. 13, iv.
2, v. 1, v. 8, v. 14, vil. 3, vii. 9, vii. 13, vii. 19, 22, vii. 23, 24, ix. 10, ix. 28, x.
29, x. 34, x. 38, 39, xi. 27, xi. 37, xii. 24, 25, xiii. 14),—and on account
of the ambiguous use of d:ajxy, ix. 15 ff.) this view is wanting in all prob-
ability and naturalness. Absolutely inadmissible, however, it becomes
only from the fact that the author, not only in connection with his Biblical
citations, but also in the conducting of his argument, bases his reasoning
throughout upon the form of the text in the LXX., even when this yer-
sion gives a sense entirely at variance with that of the original text. With
particular distinctness does this appear x. 5 ff., where in place of the
Hebrew % F2 O18 the entirely diverse caua d? xarnpriow woe of the >. @.
is adopted by our author, and then at ver. 10 the rpocopa rob obuar o? 70
Xpiorov brought into relation therewith. )
1 Nevertheless, ashasalreadybeenobserved the Chaldee Paraphras
by Braun, as also by Bleek, the °°", ortainls
adopted by the Aramaic from the Greek and
occurring in the Talmud, as frequently also 9%“ testa
in the Peshito; or the DY)» more ustial with
CHAP, L | 389
‘H xpos ‘EBpatious éxeorody.
A B K® have merely Ipd¢ ‘EBpafove. Simplest and probably earliest super-
scription.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. én’ éaydrov] Elz.: én’ écxdrov. Against AB D E K L MX, most
min., Vulg. Copt. a/., and many Fathers. The plural éo74rw» arose from the
Tov immediately following.—Ver. 2. In place of cai rovg ai@vag éroinoey
of the Recepta, A B D* D*** EM &, 17, 37, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. al, Patres
Gr. et. Lat. m. have kai éwoincev rov¢g aidvag, Already recommended by
Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. In addition to the strong
attestation, this position of the words is favored by the internal ground that in
this order the emphasis falls, as was required, upon €toinoev, instead of falling
upon Tov¢ aidvac.—Ver. 3. Before xavapioudy, Elz. Wetst. Griesb. Matth.
Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 7, Reiche (Commentarius Criticus in N. T., t. III. p. 6 8q.),
with D***, almost all min. Syr. utr. (Aeth. ?) Ath. p. 362, Chrys. in text. et
comm. dis., Oec. Theoph. Aug. (?) add J’ éavrov. But de’ éavrod instead of
which dt’ avrov (according to Theodoret’s express observation to be read as dé?
atrov) is found with D* 137, Copt. Clar. Germ. Cyr. (semel) Didym. Theodoret, in
t. et comm. Euthal. Damasc. in textu, is wanting in A B D** &, 17, 46* 47, 80,
Vulg. Arm. Cyr. (saepe) Cyr. Hieros. }seudo-Athanas. (ed. Bened. ii. 337),
Damasc. (comm.) Sedul. Cassiod. Bede. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg.
991). Rightly deleted as a gloss by Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 8,
and Alford. For although the addition 6: éavrov (by Himself, t.e. by the offer-
ing of Himself, inasmuch as He was at the same time High Priest and Victim) is
in perfect keeping with the after deductions of the epistle, it is nevertheless not
indispensable ; and though it is conceivable that 6:’ éavrot was taken up into the
preceding aired, yet it is, on the other hand, hardly credible, seeing the endeavor
of the author after linguistic euphony, that he should have placed the words
avrov, dt’ éavrov (atrov) in immediate juxtaposition the one with the other.—
Instead of tornodpevocg rav aduaprtoy, Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and
8, Alford read: Tov duapridy rotnodpevoc. In favor of the latter decides
the preponderant attestation on the part of A B DE M 8, 37, 46, al, Vulg. It.
Cyr. Cyr. Hieros. Athan. Did. ps.-Athan. Dam. (comm.).—rov ayapriév] Elz,
Matth. Scholz: rév duapridv gudv. But juov is wanting in A B D* E*
M ®*, 67** al, Valg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Cyr. utr. Nyss. Didym. Damasc. Aug.
Sedul. Cassiod. al. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 496) and Griesb.
Rightly rejected by Lachm., Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Reiche, Alford. It was
added as a dogmatic precaution, in order to guard against a referring of the words
also to the own ayapriat of the subject.—Ver. 8. pafdoc ewSiryrog 4 paBdoc ric
BasiAziag cov] Instead of that, Lachm. in the edit. stereot. (as likewise Tisch. 8)
390 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
read; xai(A B D* b* M &,.17, Aecth. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Cyr.) ? (AB M®,
Cyr.) paBdog rH¢o (A BM ®** Cyr.) evdirgrog paBdoc (A B M ®** Cyr.)
T4¢ Baotheiag cov, In the later larger edition, vol. II., on the other
hand, he has adopted xai paj3dog tg evdirnrog PaBdog rH¢ Baar
Aciag cov, The «ai at the beginning is, as also Bleek and Alford
decide, to be looked upon as original, but in other respects the Recepta
is to be retained, inasmuch as the 7 before the first p4/3do¢ (in the first
edition of Lachmann) would be a variation from the text presented by the
LXX., such as could hardly be ascribed to the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, considering the closeness with which he follows that translation in other
cases, and the purity in other respects of his Greek expression.—Ver. 9. avoyiav]}
AX, 13, 23, al., Cyr. Chron. Alex. Eus. Chrys. ms, adcxiav; preferred by Bleek,
since it is also found in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. Adopted also by Tisch. 8.
But avouiav might easily be changed into adcxcav, since the latter formed a more
direct opposite to the preceding dixacootv7v.—Ver. 12. é2i€ et¢] Beza, Bengel, Tisch.
8: aAAdgecc. Only insufficiently supported by D* ®* 43, Vulg. (not Harl.*) It.
Tert.—avrotc] Lachm.: avrots, o¢ inériov, after A B D* E 8, Aeth. Arm.
Clar.Germ. Spite of the strong authority, an apparent gloss, explanatory of
Ooet meptBdAasov.
Vv. 1-4. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note XLI., pages 410-414.] Without beginning
with the ordinary salutation, with the omission even of any kind of pre-
face, the author proceeds at once to place the revelation of God in Christ
in contrast with the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, inasmuch
as he characterizes the revelations under the Old Covenant as imperfect,
while he shows the perfection of this new revelation by a description of
the incomparable dignity of its Mediator. With vv. 1-3 the author strikes
the keynote for all that which he is subsequently to disclose to the
readers. The utterances of these three verses afford the theme of his
whole epistle. [XLI a.] For the later dogmatic disquisitions are only the
more full unfolding of the same; and for the later paraeneses they form
the motive and fundamental consideration. To ver. 4, however,—which
combines grammatically with that which precedes into the unity of a
well-ordered, rhetorically vigorous and majestic period,—vv. 1-3 stand
related as the universal to the particular, since that which was before ex-
pressed in a more general way is in ver. 4 brought into relief on a special
side, which finds in the sequel its detailed development, in such wise that
then ver. 4 in turn forms, as regard its contents, the theme for the first
section of the epistle (i. 4-i1. 18).
On vv. 1-3 comp. L. J. Uhland, Dissert. Theol. ad Hebr. i. 1-3, Pars I.,
II., Tubing. 1777, 4.—G. M. Amthor, Commentatio eregetico-dogmatica in
tres priores versus epistolae ad Hebraeos scriptae (Coburg), 1828, 8.—{J. G.
Reiche), In locum epist. ad Hebr. i. 1-3 observationes, Gotting. (Weihnachte-
programm) 1829, 4.
Ver. 1. MoAvupepae nai roAurpéru¢ «.t.A.] [XLI}6.] After God had spoken
oftentimes and in manifold ways of old time to the fathers in the prophets.
The twofold expression roAvpepo¢ xai moAutpémuc (comp. Maximus
Tyrius, Dissert. vii. 2, xvii. 7) is by no means merely rhetorical amplifica-
CHAP. I. 1. 391
tion of one and the same idea (Chrysostom: rovréor: d:agépwe; Michaelis,
Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Reiche, Tholuck,! and others). Td
wodupepéc is that which is divided into many parts (rd ei¢ roAAa pepiCduevor,
Hesychius). Todavpepae therefore presents the Aadeiv of former ages
from the point of view of something which was accomplished in a multi-
plicity of successive acts, whereas toAurpérwe brings out the manifold
character of the modality in which, in connection with those acts, the
Aadeiv Was accomplished. Common thus to both expressions is, indeed,
the notion of changeful diversity ; but the former marks the changeful
diversity of the times in which, and the persons through whom, God
revealed Himself; the latter, the changeful diversity of the divine revela-
tions as regards contents and form. For not only was the substance and
extent of the single revelations disproportioned, but also the modes of
their communication varied, inasmuch as God spoke to the recipients of
His revelations sometimes by means of visions and dreams, sometimes
mouth to mouth (comp. Num. xii. 6 ff.), sometimes immediately, some-
times by the intervention of an angel, sometimes under the veil of symbols
and types, sometimes without these.? By the very choice of woAuyepdc Kai
rodutpérw¢ our author indicates the imperfection of the O. T. revelations.
No single one of them contained the full truth, for otherwise there would
have been no need of a succession of many revelations, of which the one
supplemented the other. And just so was the continual change in the
modes of communicating these revelations a sign of imperfection, inas--
much as only a perfect form of communication corresponds to the perfect
truth.—As, moreover, on the one hand, by means of the adverbs the im-
perfection of the O. T. revelation is indicated in contrast with the perfec-
tion of the N. T. revelation; so, on the other hand, by means of the
identity of the subject 6 6eé6¢ in Aadgoac and éAddAnoev, the inner connec-
tion between the revelations of the O. T. and that of the N. T. is brought
into relief, and in this way attention is tacitly drawn to the fact that the
former was the divinely appointed preliminary stage and preparation for
1The last-named expositor would otherwise
expect an antithetical awAws (!) or epawat at
the close of the verse.
2Erroneously does Grimm (Theol. Litera-
turbl. to the Darmstadt A. K. Z. 1857, No. 29,
p. 661) raise against the above explanation,
according to which woAvrpéwws has respect
not only to the purport, but also at the same
time to the form of the divine revelations,
the objection that the properly understood
uy Tes spod. (see below) does not accora
therewith, inasmuch as revelations “mouth
to mouth,” or by the intervention of angels,
would not have been a speaking of God tn the
propheta, but to (xpés) the same. For what
is spoken of (ver. 1) is not the relation of God
to the prophets in iteelf alone, but the rela-
tion of God to the fathers through the medium
of the prophets. The fact, however, that the
prophets, as men in whom God was present,
brought to the knowledge of the fathers the
revelations received, is independent of the
way and manner in which those revelations
were previously communicated to themselves
by God.—Since, moreover, the prophets as
recipients of revelation in the first rank are
distinguished from the fathers as recipients
of revelation in the second rank, and only an
interweaving of the relation of God to both
takes place, we cannot assume either, with
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 90), who in
other respects rightly explains roAvrpdéwws,
that the form of the communieation of the
word of God to the prophets is to be taken
into account only so far as a duly propor-
tioned form corresponded to it, even as in
the prophetic word the revelation of God be-
came known to the fathers.
392 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the latter —[XLI ¢.]—éAa:] of old, in long bygone times. For Malachi was
looked upon as the last of the O. T. prophets, and since his appearing
already from four to five centuries had elapsed. Delitzsch: ra2a is not
so much antiquitus as antehac, since the contrast is not between ancient and
recent or new, but between past and present. Wrongly; for the opposition
of a ‘“‘ prius”’ and “ post” had certainly been already expressed by AaAjoac
and éAddAycev, whereas 7éAa: still finds its special, and indeed very signifi-
cant opposition in én’ toydrov tov juepov ToiTwv, and must accordingly be
explained after the analogy of this.—Aaziv] particularly in our epistle of
very frequent use, to indicate divine revelations. Comp. ii. 2, 3, iii. 5, vii.
14, ix. 19, x1. 18, xii. 24, 25.—roi¢ warpdowv] to the fathers (forced, and need-
lessly ; Kurtz: roi¢ rarpdocv, and equally so afterwards #yiv, is dativus com-
modi) i.e. to the forefathers of the Jewish people. Comp. Rom. ix. 5. The
expression in its absolute use characterizes author and recipients as born
Jews.—zpog7rat}] is to be taken in the widest sense, in such wise that all
holy men of the O. T. history who received revelations from God are
comprehended under it. For unquestionably the aim of the discussion now
begun, that of expressing the pre-eminence of the revelation contained in
Christ over each and all of the O. T. revelations, demands this. But thus
must Moses also, and very specially, be reckoned as belonging to the rpogjrar,
since Moses held the first rank in the series of development of the pre-
Christian revelations; as, accordingly, iii. 2 ff., the superiority of Christ
even over Moses is expressly asserted. Nor does the wider acceptation
of rpogqrae encounter any difficulties on the ground of Biblical usage.
Comp. e.g. Gen. xx. 7, where Abraham is spoken of as a mpogira¢ (8'3.)
Deut. xxxiv. 10, where it is said of Moses: kai ovk avéorn Ere mpopfrng év ‘TopanaA
&¢ Mwiogc.'—By virtue of this wider acceptation of mpogyra: in itself, the
opinion of Er. Schmid and Stein, that éy roi¢ mpogfrac signifies: “in the
prophetic Scriptures,” becomes an impossibility ; quite apart from the
consideration that this interpretation is also sufficiently refuted by the
antithesis év vig. But just as little is év roic¢ mpopyrace to be made equiva-
lent to d:d rév mpopyrav For the linguistic character of the Epistle to
the Hebrews affords no warrant for the supposition of such a Hebraism in
the interchange of prepositions. Nor is this proved by ix. 25, to which
Tholuck appeals in following the precedent of Fritzsche (Jen. Lileraturacit.
1843, p. 59). ’Ev is of more extensive significance than 6:4. While the
latter would signify the mere medium, the mere instrument, ¢v implies that
God, in revealing Himself to the fathers by the prophets, was present in
the latter, was indwelling in them, in such wise that the prophets were
only the outward organs of speech for the God who spoke in them.
Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3; Matt. x. 20.—é2 éoyérov rév wuepov rovvwy] Anti-
thesis to rd4a:. Wrongly does Delitzsch, with the approval of Meier,® take
1Philo, too (de nom. mut. p. 1064 A,ed. Man- Tholuck, Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Bloom-
gey, I. p. 597), calls Moses the epxtrpodyrns. field, Delitzsch, Maier, and M’Caul.
8As is done by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 8Comp. also Schneckenburger in the Theol.
.Theophylact, Primasius, Luther, Calvin, Gro- Stud. w. rit. 1861, H. 3, p. 557.
tius, and the majority, also Bohme, Reiche,
CHAP. I. 2. 393
Trav huepav toerey as apposition to én’ éoyérov: “at the period’s close, which
these days form,”’—for which, on account of the article before juepov, the
placing of éxi rot éoyarov would at least have been required,—while he
then still more arbitrarily finds in éoyarov rdv quepov “the expression
indicative of one idea, equivalent to D'PT MW,” and makes rotruv
belong logically to the whole idea! The #uépa aira: are identical with
that which is elsewhere called 6 aidv otros, in opposition to 6 aidy péAAuv.
The demonstrative rotrw» refers to the fact that these Juéoa are the
period of time in which the author equally as his readers lives, and of an
écyartov of these yufépa: he speaks, because like all N. T. writers—the
author of the Second Epistle of Peter (ili. 4 ff) excepted—he regards the
return of Christ, for the transforming of the present order of the world and
the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom, as near at hand; comp.
x. 87, ix. 26.—juiv] to us, namely, who belong to the age just mentioned,
the foyarev trav juepov toiTwv. Antithesis to roi¢ ratpdow.—év vid] anar-
throus, as vii. 28; not because vids has acquired the nature of a nomen
proprium,* but for the indication of the essential property : in one (to wit,
Christ) who is not merely prophet—who is more than that, namely, Son.
Vv. 2-4, [XLI d.] The author unfolds the idea of superiority contained
in vig, ver. 1, in sketching a brief portraiture in full of the Son of God,
and setting vividly before the readers the incomparable dignity of this
Son, as manifested in each single one of the various periods of His life.
Ver. 2. As far as ric duvdéyews airov, ver. 3. The dignity of the Son as
the premundane Logos.—T: 3évae with double accusative, in the sense
of xoeiv td re, is no Hebraism (DW, MY), but is very frequent with the
classics? "EX 7xev, however, has reference not so much to the time when
Christ, having completed the work of redemption, has returned to the
Father in heaven (so the Greek expositors; and in like manner Prima-
sius, Erasmus (Paraphr.), Calvin, Cameron, Corn. a Lapide, Grotius,
Schlichting, Calov, Hammond, Braun, Limborch, Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch,
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 295 ff.;* Maier, Moll, and others), but
Christ are described in their historic succes-
sion, so that only in connection with the in-
termediate member—wy . . . dépwv te «.7.A.,;
ver. 3 (see on the verse)—there resounds
1Bohme, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm,
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 272.
2Comp. ¢.g. Herodian, Hist. v. 7.10; °Ed¢’
ols "Avtrwvivos wdvu joxadAe Kai peTey(yvwoe,
Oduevos avrov vidy Kai Kowwwvoy THs apxis;
Xenophon, Cyrop. iv. 6.3: wowep av evdaipova
watépa wais timmy riGein; Aelian, Var. Hist.
xiii. 6; Homer, Odyss. ix. 404, al. Comp. also
Elsner ad loc.; Kihner, II. p. 226.
3 According to Riehm, the author first (ver.
2) glanced at the final point of the power of
the Redeemer, and then at the beginning
thereof, and after this (ver. 3) described the
way to that final point with respect to the
beginning. But however delicate and acute
this conception of the subject, it is too greatly
refined and artificial. In point of simplicity
and naturalness it falls short of the view that
at vv. 2,3 the various phases of the life of
throughout, in addition to the main reference
to an earlier condition of the life of Christ, at
the same tirne the subordinate reference toa
later condition of His life. That which
Riehm urges in support of his own view, and
in refutation of the opposite one, is easily dis-
posed of. When he thinks, in the first place,
that only by his apprehension the whole
structure of the period becomes thoroughly
clear, this is already shown to be inaccurate
by the fact that the simple is always more
clear than the complex. For even if it be
admitted in some respects that a new division
of thought begins with the 6s, ver. 3, which
specially brings into relief the subject, where-
394 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
relates to the appointment made in the eternal decree of God before all
time; thus has reference to Christ as the premundane Logos. This appli-
cation is required in order to a due proportion with the declarations
immediately following, and to the logical development of the well thought-
out periods, in which the discourse reaches the exaltation of the incarnate
Redeemer only with éxddiwev ey defig tio peyarwotvag tv tnpydoic, ver. 3.
The idea of the pre-existence of Christ or the Son of God as the eternal
Logos with its nearer definitions, as this comes forth here and in that
which immediately follows, is the same as is met with also in Paul’s
writings. Yet, in the shaping of this idea on the part of the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only the teaching of Paul, but likewise the
Logos-speculations of Philo, with whose writings the Epistle to the
Hebrews has manifold points in common, have not been without influ-
ence.—xAypovéuov mavruv} heir, i.e. (future) Possessor and Lord of all things,
namely, of the world.2, Comp. Gal. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 17.—d¢ ov] by whom.
Grammatically unwarranted, Grotius: propter quem (é’ év). Comp. also
ii. 10.—xai éroincev}] The emphasis falls upon the word éroincev, on that
account preposed, while rove aiavag only takes up again under a varying
form a notion already expressed in that which precedes, and «ai indicates
no heightening of the expression (even, or more than this; Wolf and
as before o @eés was the subject, yet nothing
is to be inferred from this, because the
character of the relative statements, ver. 2, is
not changed thercby, inasmuch as the refer-
ence to God assuredly appears in the third
relative clause, namely, in xexAnpovdunxey,
ver.4. When Richm further contends that
in his explanation ver. 2 agrees much better
with that which precedes,—inasmuch as by
the vids, ver. 1, the historic Christ is con-
fessedly to be understood, but now an inex.
plicable leap in the thought would arise, if
the author had first ascribed to the historic
Christ a number of predicates, which were
appropriate to Him only as the premundane
Logos, and should only afterwards speak of
His present glory,—this contention is already
sufficiently refuted by the wholly parallel
procedure of the Apostle Paul, Phil. ii. 5 ff.,
who likewise takes his departure from the
historic Christ, and then, in the same order
which Riehm calls an “inexplicable leap in
the thought,” attaches thereto further state-
ments with regard to the person of the Re-
deemer. Moreover, in our passage the order
of succession censured as an “inexplicable
leap in the thought” is perfectly justified,
because vids, ver. 1, is the total expression,
which, as such, includes in itself all the stadia
in the life of Christ; and thus from it one
might proceed with equal Justice immediately
to the premundane Christ as to the exalted
Christ. If Riehm further supposes that in
connection with the appointment as heir, ver.
2, we cannot think of a destination made in
the eternal decree of God, then the analogous
declaration of Scripture: warépa roAAwy eOvwv
té0exa oe, Rom. iv. 17, already proves the
opposite; and if he finds the expression
xAnpovopos appropriate only to the incarnate
Son, inasmuch as the name could hardly
otherwise occur in connection with reOévar
than in reference to a possession which the
xAnpovémos once had not, there underlies this
objection only this amount of truth, namely,
that the expression xAnpoyopos no doubt in-
cludes in itself a reference pointing to the
future; but that which it is designed to ex-
press by the first relative clause is assuredly
also only the thought that Christ was in the
ideal sense before all time appointed or made
something, which in the real sense He could
only be in the full extent at the end of all
time. When, finally, Riehm believes that
ov €Onxey KAnpoycmoy mavtwy, ver. 2, must be
understood of the dominion of the exalted
Christ, for the reason that the passage i. 8, 9,
bearing upon the dominion of the exalted
Christ, is supposed to refer back to those
words, this is altogether erroneous, since a
special referring back on the part of i. 8, 9 to
the opening proposition of ver. 2 is not by
any means to be admitted. See below, the
analysis of contents of vv. 5-14.
1Comp. Col. i. 15 ff.; Phil. ii. 6; 1 Cor. viii.
6, x. 4, xv. 47; 2 Cor. iv. 4, viii. 9.
2Chrysostom: Ty 8 rov xAnpovdpov dovduare
xéxpytat, 800 SyAwy, Kai Td THs VidTHTOS yrRCLOM,
CHAP, I. 2. 395
others), but is intended to bring out the accordance between the state-
ment in the second relative clause and that in the first; so that the fact
that by the Son the aldvec were created is made to follow as something
quite natural, from the fact that He was by God constituted canpovdpog
ravtev (by whom He also created, etc.). Wrongly does Riehm (Lehrbegr.
des Hebraerbr. p. 298 f.) invert the relation of the two members indicated
by «ai, in finding out the sense: “the installation of the Son in the office
of the world’s dominion is in entire accordance with the fact that by the
Son the world was created; in other words, from the relation of the Son
to God and the world, revealed in the latter fact, His installation in the
office of the world’s dominion presents nothing extraordinary, but rather
appears something which we could not at all expect to be otherwise.”
[So in substance Owen, who seeks to combine the two meanings of
ridévat.}| Had this been meant, then 6 ob éoincey rovg aidvac, bv kai
Ednxev KAnpovéuov mévrwv Must have been written. For the xai of the second
clause accentuates the fact that what follows is in accord with that which
precedes, not that what precedes is in accord with that which follows.
Comp. Phil. iii. 20, where by means of «ai the fact that we expect the
Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as a deliverer is represented as something
quite natural, since our odivevua is in heaven; but not conversely is the
fact that our rodirevza is in heaven deduced from the presupposition of
our expecting Christ from thence.—rov¢ aidvac] does not here denote the
ages; either in such wise that the totality of the periods of time from the
creation of the world to its close is meant (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Daniel Heinsius), for this thought
would be too abstract ; or in such wise that the two main periods in the
world’s history—the pre-Messianic and the Messianic—are to be under-
stood thereby (Paulus, Stein), for in connection with the absolute roi¢ aidvac
no one could have thought of this special division into two parts. Nor
must we either apprehend rove aidvac of the Aeons in the sense of the
Gnostics (Amelius in Wolf, Fabricis, Cod. Apocryph. N. T.I. p. 710); for at
the time when our author wrote this notion of the word did not yet exist.
Tov¢ aidvag is to be understood of the worlds, of the totality of all things
existing in time (and space), so that it is identical with the preceding
névruv and the following ré mdyra of ver. 3. 6 aidyv, it is true, has always
with the classics the strict notion of duration of time; but, as in the case
of the Hebrew 09}Y, this notion might easily pass over into the wider
notion of that which forms the visible contents of time, thus into that of
the complex of all created things. This interpretation is confirmed by
the reading of xi. 3, where aiavec cannot possibly be used in any other
sense.—As parallel passages to this second relative clause of ver. 2, express-
ing the thought of a creation of the universe by the premundane Son of
God, comp. in Paul’s writings, Col. i. 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6; in those of John,
John i. 8,10. Philo, too, supposes the world was created by the Logos,
as the earliest or first-born Son of God.'
Kal To The Kupiérnros AvpawocwacToy. p. 162): ie thy peyiorny oixiay § wédAry, rérde
1Comp. de Cherubim, p. 129 (ed. Mangey, Ls raw xdcpow’ avpiices ydp aircow wéy avTou Tor
396 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ver. 8. Continued description of the dignity of the Son. The main
declaration of the verse, 8¢ éxdJuev év de&ta Tig peyadwoivac év vynZoic, 18
established on the grounds presented in the preceding participles av...
gépwv Te... moinoduevoc, The grounding, however, is a twofold one, inas-
much as the participles present still relate to Christ as the Adyo¢ dcapxog,
and describe His nature and sway, while the participle aorist has as its
contents the redceming act of the Adyo¢g évcapxoe. Of the two present par-
ticiples, the first corresponds to the former half of the proposition, ver. 2,
and the second to the latter half—dov aratyacua] not: quum esset, but:
quum sit azaty., or as ataiyacua. For the etva: aratyacua x.7.A. and ¢épsw
ta ravra x.7.A.. Which was appropriate to the Son of God in His prehuman
form of existence, has, after the exaltation or ascension has taken place,
become again appropriate to Him.'—aratyaopua] [XLI e.] an Alexandrian
word, occurring Wisd. vii. 26, and frequently with Philo, but only here in
the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, 1. e. as
a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g., of the sun.? Or (2) as image,
reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection’ In
favor of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius
paraphrases araiyaoya by HAiov géyyoc; and in Lezic. Cyrilli ms. Brem. are
found the words: aratyacpa axri¢ pAiov, 4 mpdty Tov HAtaxov gwrd¢ arofoay,
as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain azatyacua by
ga¢ ix guréc, the latter with the addition 1é azaiyaoya éx Tov HAiov kai ovy
forepov avrov; and Theodoret observes: Td yap aratyacua Kai éx tov rupdc
gore Kai ody TH mupi éote’ Kai aitiov pev Eyer TO Tvp, aydpiorov dé tot Tov
mupbc’ && ov yap Td mvp, EE éxeivov xal rd anavyacua. But without reason
does Bleek claim, in favor of this first interpretation, also the usage of
Philo and Wisd. vii. 26. For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg. 311
(ed. Mangey, II. p. 356), which Bleek regards as “ particularly clear” (Td
& éugvodpuevov (Gen. 11. 7] d7Aov ag aiBépcov tw mvedua Kat et df Te alOepiov
Oedv, vd’ ob ydyovev, tAny 8 ta séocapa
oroxeca, ef dy cuvexpady, Spyavorv 8é
Adyov @Oeovu, 8’ of KxarecxevacGn,
mys 8¢ xatagKxevns airiay thy ayabdérnTa Tov
Snucovpyou.—De Monarch. lib. ii. p. 823 B (ed.
Mangey, II. p. 225): Adyos 5¢ éaorey eixwy Oeou,
8.’ of cipwas 0 xédagpos ednmrovp-
yetro.—Legg. allegor. lib. ili. p. 79 A (ed.
Mangey, [. p. 106): oxcad Oeov 52 o Adyos avrov
dor, @ xaGdawep dpyav@m mpocxpnad
mevos €xogpomotes.
pong as (Schriftbew. I. p. 159 f., 2d ed.;
comp. also his remarks in the Commentary,
p. 64 ff.) believes that the oy awatyaoua x.7.A.
and the ¢dpwy ra wavra «.t.A. must be referred
exclusively to the exalted Christ, but on
untenable grounds. For from the consider-
ation that dOépwy re ra wravta “forms the
most unambiguous contrast to the condition
of Christ's life in the flesh,” nothing is to be
argued in favor of this view; because this
contrast is equally to be supposed, when we
understand these words alike of the premun-
dane as of the exalted Christ. The further
assertion, however, that in the case of a re-
ferring of @v dwavyagua «.7.A. to that
which Christ is apart from His humanity,
the declaration ver. 3 must have been con-
nected by means of o¢ éorcy instead of ay, is
lacking in all grammatical support. For, so
far as concerns the sense, there is no differ-
ence whatever between os éorw and wv: only
regard for rhetorical euphony and the due
rounding off of the periods determined the
author upon expressing himself as he did.
2So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz,
and Hofmann, after the example of Clartus,
Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard,
Calov, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heu-
mann, Bohme, Reiche.
3So Erasmus, Calvin, Besa, Grotius, Wit-
tich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Litera-
turbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z. 1857, No.
29, p. 661, and in his Lexie. N. T. p. 36), Nickel
CHAP, I. 3. 397
mvepatog Kpeittov, Gre TH¢ paxapiac kat tptopaxapias pboews aabyacya), there
is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the
word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by
Bleck, tell less in favor of it than against it. For in the former of these
aravyacyza is explained by expayeiov [impression] and avéonacya [shred]
as synonyms, in the latter by pipnua [copy]. (De Opific. Mundi, p. 33 D,
in Mangey, I. p. 30: mag GvOpwirog Kara pév trav diavotav gixeiwrat Bei Adyy,
rig paxapiag pboews éxuayeiov ) améoracua 7) axabyacua yeyovis, Kata dé TI
Tov odpaTog KATGOKEVYY GmavTl TH xdouy.—De plantat. Noe, p. 221 C, Mang. I.
p. 387: Td dé ayiaopa lov dyiwy amabyacua, pinnua apyerimov’ eel Ta alobjoet
Kaa Kal vopoer Kadév eixdvec.) Finally, there are found also, Wisd. vii. 26,
as kindred expressions, besides azabyaoua, the words égcorrpov and eixdv.
(‘Araiyacpa yap tote gwrd¢ didiov nal goontpov axyAidutov Tig TOU Beov évepyeiac
kal eixav THC ayabéryto¢ avrov.) The decision is afforded by the form of the
word itself. Inasmuch as not éaravyacpés, but drabyacua is written, an
active notion, such as would be required by Bleek’s acceptation, cannot be
expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result
thereof must be intended. For as ar#xnpa denotes that which is produced
by the an7zeiv, the resonance or echo, and dzooxiasza that which ig pro-
duced by the amooxdfew, the shadow cast by an object, so does aratyacua
denote that which is produced by the amavydlew. ’Aravyacua is therefore
to be rendered by reflected radiance, and a threefold idea is contained in
the word—(1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of
descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.—ric dééns] of His
(the divine) glory or majesty. For the following «trot belongs equally to
tio d6&n¢ as to TIC bmoordcewe.—xal yapaxtip Tig vrooTdoews avrov] [XLI f.]
and as impress of His essential being, 80 that the essential being of the
Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and coun-
terpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. Noé, p. 217 A (ed. Mangey,
I. p. 832), where the rational soul (4 Aoy:x7 wpoxh) 18 called a coin which
stands the test, ovowSeica Kat ruruveica odpayide Geor, no 6 yapaxthp
iorev Gtdtoc Adyos. Inthe N. T. the word yapaxrTfp 18 found only in
this place. To interpret brécracces, however, in the sense of mpéowrov, or
“ Person,” ! is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic
age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic aratyaopua
rig S6EnC Kal yapaxtip THE brocTacEws abrov, the Apostle Paul expresses, Col.
i. 15, by eixdv tov ecb Tov aopdrov, and, Phil. ii. 6 (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4), by é
pope® Oeov irdpyuv.—plpuv Te ra mévra TO phyate THe Suvdpews avrov| [XLI g.]
and as He who upholds the whole creation by the word of His power. Comp.
Col. i. 17: nat ra mévra év abt@ ovvéorqKey ; Philo. de Cherub. p. 114 (ed.
Mang. I. p. 145): 6 mdasovxo¢ kal xvBeprarng tov mavrd¢ Adyoc Aeiog.—r a
révra is not to be limited, with the Socinians, to the kingdom of grace,
but is identical with mavruv ; and rov¢ alavac, ver. 2, thus denotes the com-
(Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a La-
others; so substantially also Riehm (Lehrbegr. _ pide, Gerhard, Dorecheus, Calov, Sebastian
des Hebrderbr. p. 279). Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann,
)
1Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, Calvin [in the Wolf, Suicer.
398 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
plex of all created things. On ¢épecy in the signification: to uphold any-
thing, so that its continued existence is assured, comp. Plutarch, Lucull. 6:
gépew riv réAw—re pipate tig Suvdyews abrov] more emphatic than if r@
pquatt avrov t@ duvat@® were written, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, Stengel,
Tholuck, Bloomfield would, without reason, make the words equivalent.’
—Not the gospel, however, is meant by Aja tig duvdyews; but as by the
word of Omnipotence the world was created (comp. xi. 3), so is it also by
the word of Omnipotence upheld or preserved.—airoi] goes back to 4c,
thus to the Son, not to God (Grotius, Peirce, Reiche, Paulus). [XLI h.J—
kaOapiopey Tav auapriav womodpuevoc] after He had accomplished a cleansing
from the sins. [XLIi.] Progress of the discourse to the dignity of the
Son as the eternal Logos incarnate, or the Redeemer in His historic ap-
pearing on earth. The nearer defining of the sense conveyed by the
declaration : xafapropév T&v duapriav rooduevoc,—with regard to the gram-
matical expression of which LXX. of Job vii. 21, 2 Pet. i. 9, may be com-
pared,—was naturally presented to the readers. As the object on which
the xafapioué¢ was wrought was understood as something self-evident, the
world of mankind, which until then was under the defiling stain of sins,
without possessing the power for its own deliverance; as the means, how-:
ever, by which the xa6ap:oués was accomplished, the atoning death of
Christ. [Owen compares the lustrations, i.e. purifications by sacrifice, and
cites Lucian’s piouev pév avrov tov Kpnuvod xafapioudv tov otparov éaduevoy,
“We shall cast him down headlong for an expiation of the army.”] To
conceive of the duapria: themselves as a direct object to xaBapicpdy, to
which Bleek and Winer, Gramm. 5th ed. p. 214 (differently, 6th ed. p. 168,
7th ed. p.176 [E. T. 187]), were inclined, and in favor of which Delitzsch
and Alford (comp. also Hofmann ad loc.) pronounce themselves with
decision,—in such wise that these are thought of as the disease of the
human race, which is healed or put away by Christ,—is not at all war-
ranted by the isolated and less accurate form of expression: éxa@apioOy
avrov Aémpa, Matt. vill. 3. Noris it requisite to supply a7é before rav
duaptiav, and assume a pregnancy of expression, since xafapéc and its
derived words are not only connected by azé6, but likewise, with equal
propriety, by the bare genitive.2—éxd@ccev bv Seba Tic ueyadwobuyc év ipndoic]
sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Culminating point of the
description. Characteristic of the dignity of the Son after the completed
work of redemption, in the period of His return to the Father, which fol-
lowed the period of His self-abasement. The sitting at the right hand of
God is a well-known figure, derived from Ps. cx. 1, in order to designate
1Valerius Maximus, xi. 8.5: Humeris ges-
tare salutem patriac; Cicero, pro Flacco, c.
38: Quam (rempublicam) vos universam in
hoe judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam
humeris, judices sustinetis; Seneca, Ep. 31:
Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse
vehit omnia; Herm. Past. iif. 9. 14: Nomen
Filii Dei magnum et immensum est et totus
ab eo sustentatur orbis.
20ecumenius: paua &e elwe Secxvis wévra
evxdAws abroy ayew xai dépey. Theophylact:
THALKOUTOY Gyxow THs KTivews Toy UTéppeyay
ws ovdey avrds SiaBacrage. nai Adym pory
wavra Suvapyévy.
3See Kihner, IL p. 168.
CHAP. I. 4. 399
supreme honor and dominion over the world (Rom. viii. 34, al.).—év
tyndoig] Comp. Ps. xciii. 4, cxili. 5; tantamount to év roi¢ obpavoic, Heb.
Vili. 1; or év roic érovpaviorc, Eph. i. 20; or év dpioroc, Luke ii. 14, xix. 38,
al. The addition belongs not to peyadwotwye (Beza, BOhme, Bleek, Ebrard,
Alford),—since otherwise the article would be repeated,—but to éxd@cev,
The plural év iyndcic is explained from the supposition of several heavens,
in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed.
Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-6, see Note XLII., pages 414-416.] The author has
first, vv. 1-3, instituted a parallel between the mediators of the Old Testa-
ment revelations in general or in pleno, and the Mediator of the Christian
revelation. [XLII a.] But among the revelations of God under the Old
Covenant, none attained in point of glory to the Mosaic; inasmuch as
this was given not only through the medium of a man enlightened by the
Spirit of God,—i. e. by one of the zpogjra:, mentioned ver. 1,—but, accord-
ing to the universal Jewish belief (vid. ad ii. 2), was given by the instru-
mentality not only of Moses, but also of angels. As, therefore, the author
has maintained the superiority of Christ, as the Son of God, over the
xpogmtat, 80 is he now naturally further led to show the superiority of
Christ over the angels also. This is done in the declaration, ver. 4, which
in @ grammatical sense is closely connected with that which precedes,
and serves for the completing of the description of Christ’s characteristic
qualifications; at the same time, however, logically regarded, affords the
theme for the following disquisition, which constitutes the first section of
the epistle (i. 5-ii. 18)—-The supposition of Tholuck, that the addition of
ver. 4 “has an independent object,” z.e. is occasioned by polemic refer-
ence to the opinion spread abroad among the Jews, in addition to other
conceptions with regard to the person of the Messiah, that He was an
intermediate spirit or angel,' is entirely erroneous. It finds no counte-
nance whatever in the reasoning of the author, and is opposed to the
whole scope of the epistle, that of showing in detail the inferiority of the
Old Covenant as compared with the New, and of influencing in a corres-
ponding manner the conduct of the readers. [XLII 8, c.]—The oratorical
formula of comparison: rocotrw ... 60, which recurs vii. 20—22, viii.
6, x. 25, is found likewise with Philo, but never with Paul.—xpeirrur] better,
or more excellent, namely, in power, dignity, and exaltedness ; comp. vii.
19, 22, vill. 6, ix. 23, x. 34, xi. 16, 35, 40, xii. 24—yevduevoc] marks the
having begun to be in time, whereas ov, ver. 3, expressed the timeless
eternal existence. Kpeirrav trav ayyfAwy did Christ become just at that
time when, having accomplished the work of redemption, He sat down
at the mght hand of the Majesty on high. The yevdéuevoc thus closely
attaches itself to the éxd@cev, ver. 3, [XLII d 1.] and is more fully
explained by the fact that Christ, by virtue of His incarnation, and so
'That the defective view with regard to bability. Comp. the “Observations on the
Christ, which saw in Him only anangel,must Epistle to the Hebrews,” contributed by
have called for rectification, has likewise | Riehm from Schneckenburger’s remains, in
been thought probable by Schneckenburger, the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 644 ff
who sought further to confirm this pro-
400 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
long as He dwelt on earth, was made lower than the angels; comp. ii. 7,
9.—The comparative d:agopérepoyv, found in the N. T. only here and
viii. 6, serves, since even the positive didgopoy would have sufficed for
the indication of the superiority, for the more emphatic accentuating
of the signification of the word. The opinion of Hofmann, that the
comparative is chosen because the name 4dyyedo¢c 18 in itself an dvoua
d:dgopov, when the author contrasts the spirits of God with men living in
the flesh, is quite remote from the idea of the passage.—rapé] after a
comparative is very common in our epistle; cf. iii. 3, ix. 28, xi. 4, x11. 24.!
With Paul it never occurs. Similar is vrép with the accusative, Heb. iv.
12; Luke xvi. 8.—évoue] must not, with Beza, Calov, Wittich, Storr, Valck-
enaer, Zachariae, Heinrichs, be altered into the notion of “dignity.” For
this dvoua never signifies in itself, and its substitution would in our passage,
in relation to xpeirrov yevduevoc, bring about only a tautology. The name
of pre-eminence above the angels, which Christ has obtained as an inher-
itance, is the name vids, Son of God,—comp. ver. 5 and ver. 1,—while
the angels by their name are characterized only as messengers and
servants of God. Contrary to the context, Delitzsch says: the name vide
suffices not to express the thought in connection with évoue. The supra-
angelic name, to which the author refers, lies beyond the notionally
separating and sundering language of men. It is the heavenly total-
name of the Exalted One, His #15973 DY, nomen explicitum, which in this
world has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human
tongue, the dvoua 6 otvdeic oldev ei py) avtéc, Rev. xix. 12. The following
words of Scripture are, he supposes, only upward pointing signs, which
call forth in us some foreboding as to how glorious He is. But this is
opposed to the connection. For even though it be true, as advanced by
Delitzsch in support of his view, that in the following O. T. passages there
occur also, in addition to viéc, the wider appellations 6edg and xipio¢g; yet,
on the other hand, not merely év vig, ver. 1, as likewise ver. 5 with its
proof-giving yép, but also the antithesis mpd¢ pay rode ayyéAove and xpd¢ d2-
tov vidvy, vv. 7, 8, shows that vide is the main conception, to which the
words of address: 6 6eé¢ and xtp:e, vv. 8, 10, stand in the relation of
subordination, inasmuch as they are already contained in this very idea
of Son.—The perfect cexAnpovéunxev, however, not the aorist éxAnpovdunoer,
is employed by the author; because Christ did not first obtain this name
at the time of the xaOifew év de&ia tic peyad., ver. 3, but had already as
pre-existing Logos obtained it as an abiding portion and _ possession.
(XLII. d 2.] We have not, in connection with xexAnpovéunxer, to think
‘‘ quite in general of the O. T. time, in which the future Messiah received
in the Word of God the name of Son,” as is asserted by Riehm (Lehrbegr.
des Hebraerbr. p. 274), whose statement is endorsed: by E. Woerner.? For
this view is contradicted by the 6? ot xai éroinoev rove aidvac, ver. 2, in its
tComp. also Luke iii. 13; 3 Esdr. iv. 35; Byoav; Herod. vii. 103: Winer, p. 225, [E. T. 2401.
Thucyd. {. 23: nAtou re éxAeipers, at ruxvérepat 2 Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebrder, Lud-
Wapa Ta éx Tou mpiv xpdvou mynmovevdweva fuvé- wigsb. 1876.
CHAP. I. 5. 401
relation to év vig, ver. 1, according to which Christ already existed as the
Son before alltime. The declarations of ver. 5, which Riehm has urged
in favor of the construction put by him on our passage, have only the
object of affording vouchers for a condition of things already existing.—
The difficulty raised, for the rest, that the name of Son is here insisted on
as a distinguishing characteristic of Christ, while, nevertheless, in single
passages of the O. T.,) angels too are called sons of God, is already dis-
posed of by the reflection that this is not the characteristic name for the
angels as such. There is no need, therefore, of the justification of the
author made by Bleek, that this writer, since he was not at home in the
Hebrew text of the O. T., but only in the Alexandrine version thereof,
which latter freely renders the majority of those passages by dyyedo row
6eov, may easily have overlooked, or perhaps have otherwise interpreted,
those passages in which the literal translation is found in the LXX. (Ps.
xxix. 1, lxxxix. 7 [Gen. vi. 2, 4?]).
Vv. 5-14 follow the scriptural proof for ver. 4, and that in such form
that in the first place, ver. 5, the d:agopdrepov rap’ airov¢ KexAnpovdunnev
dvoua is confirmed, and then, vv. 6-14, the xpeirrwy yevduevog trav ayyéAwy.
Ver. 5. Tivt yap elév rote tov ayyédur] For to which of the angels has He
ever said, 7. e. to none of the angels has He ever said.—The position of the
words serves to put a strong accentuation at the same time upon ri. and
upon rév ayyéAwy.—The subject in elrev is 6 0e6¢, as is evident alike from
the passage itself which is cited, and from our context; inasmuch as both
in that which precedes (vv. 1-4) 6 6eé¢ was expressly mentioned as the
subject of the main proposition, and in that which follows (ver. 6) the
subject of cicaydyy tov mpwréroxoyv can only be God.—voré] is particle of
time, at any time, unquam. Wrongly taken by Ch. F. Schmid, Kuinoel,
and others as a mere strengthening particle, in the sense of the German
doch or the Latin tandem. For then roré must have been placed immedi-
ately after rim.—The citation vids... oe is from Ps. ii. 7, in verbal
accordance with the LXX. In its historic sense the psalm relates to an
Israelite king (probably Solomon), who, just now solemnly anointed in
Zion as theocratic king, in the lofty feeling of his unity with Jehovah,
warns the subjugated nations, who are meditating revolt and defection, of
the fruitlessness of their undertaking. The author, however, sees Christ
in the person addressed, even as a referring of this psalm to the Messiah
was quite usual among the Jews of that period, and in the N. T. the
Messianic interpretation thereof is further met with, besides ver. 5, in
Acts xili. 33.—vlé¢ pov] my Son, t. e. in the sense of the psalm, the king of
my theocracy, my representative, the object of my fatherly love and
protection. The author, on the other hand, takes vids in the sense
unfolded, vv. 2, 8.—éy& ofpepov yeyévynxa ce] I have this day begotten thee,
s.e. in the historic sense of the original. I have, by the anointing accom-
plished this day, installed thee as the theocratic prince. In the sense of
the author, yeyévvn«a denotes the fact of having become the Son. The
‘Job f. 6, if. 1. xxxviii. 7; Gen. vi. 2,4; Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix.7; Dan. ili. 25.
26
402 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
question is now, how he conceived of the o#ueporv. [XLII d 3.] Itis
referred either to the moment in which Christ was manifested to be the
Son of God, ¢. e. to the moment of the Resurrection or the Ascension,' or to
the moment of the Incarnation, or, finally, to the period before the crea-
tion of the world, thus to eterrity2 That the author‘ attached no definite
notion to the ojpepov, as being without significance for his demonstration,
is an unexegetical supposition. Exclusively correct, because alone in
harmony with the context, is the referring of the ofyepov to eernity; since,
according to ver. 2,God created the world by Christ as the Son, thus Christ
must already have existed as Son before the foundation of the world.
With Philo, too, occurs the same interpretation of ojpepov, as signifying
eternity.°—xai dav] and further, serves, as frequently (e.g. ii. 18, x. 30;
Rom. xv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. iii. 20; Philo, ed. Mangey, I. p. 88, 490, al.), for the
introduction of a new passage of Scripture. The «ai rédw «.7.4. is not,
however, to be taken as an assertory declaration, so that merely eizev
would have to be supplied (in accordance with which Lachmann punctu-
ates); but the question is continued in such wise that the proposition is
to be completed by xai (rive elwéy more tov ayyfAwy) wéduv.—This second
citation is derived from 2 Sam. vii. 14, in verbal accordance with the LXX.
Comp. also 1 Chron. xvii. (xviii.) 18. avrg and avrée refer in the historic
sense to Solomon. To David, who designs building a temple to Jehovah,
the divine direction comes by Nathan to desist from his purpose. Not
David, but his seed, who shall ascend the throne after him, is to build a
temple to Jehovah ; to him will Jehovah for ever establish the throne of
his kingdom; to him will Jehovah be a father, and he shall be to Him a
son, and, if he transgress, Jehovah will chasten him with the rod of men
and with the stripes of the children of men. Even this latter addition
(which, for the rest, is not found in the parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii.
(xvill.) 13) makes it impossible to refer the words to the Messiah, as,
moreover, the reference to Solomon is rendered certain even from the O.
T. itself by the following passages: 1 Kings v. 19 (5), viii. 17 ff.; 2 Chron.
vi. 9,10; as also1 Chron. xxii. (xxiii.) 9 ff., xxviii. (xxix.) 2 ff—elva: cic]
Formed after the Hebrew 5 mr. Comp. viii. 10, al.
Ver. 6. [XLII d 4.] *Orav, with the conjunctive aorist, takes the place of the
Latin futurum exzactum. See Winer, p.289[E.T.308]. "Orav eicaydayy can-
1Hilary, in Psalmum ; Ambrose, de Sacram.
3.1; Calvin, Cameron, Grotius, Schlichting,
Limborch, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Calmet,
Peirce, Storr, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier;
comp. Delitzsch, who would have the words
interpreted of “the entrance of the Son into
the kingly life of supra-terrestrial glory in
God, of which the resurrection is the initial
point.”
2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, in
Psalmum, alii; Piscator, Bohme, Kuinoel,
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 123 f. of the 2d ed.;
Woerner.
8Origen in Joh, t. {. c. 32; Athanasius, de
decret. Nicen. Synod. 313; Basil, contra Eunom.
2. 24; Augustine, in Psalmum [Arnobius of
Gaul, in Psalmum]; Primasius, Theophylact,
Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius,
Calov, Wittich, Braun, Carpzov, Bleek [but
with wavering; more devidedly in the
lectures edited by Windrath, Der Hebrderbr.,
erkladrt von Dr. Fr. Bleck, Elberf. 1868}, Stein,
Alford, Kurtz, and the majority.
4As Bleek I., de Wette, and Riehm (Lehr-
begr. des Hebrderbr. p. 287 f.) deem possible.
5 Comp. De Profugis, p. 458 E (with Mangey,
I. p. 554): onpepoy & eotivy © améparos cai
adivefirnros aiwv’ pnvewy yap Kai dviavrwy Kai
CHAP. I. 6. 403
not consequently mean, as was still assumed by Bleek I., and recently by
Reuss :' “when He brings in,” but only: “when He shall have brought
in.” To take raacv, however,? as ver. 5, 7.e. merely as the formula for
linking on a new citation, is forbidden by the position of the words. It
must then have been written: wdjpv dé, drav eicaydyy .. . Aéyer. The
possibility of an inversion of the wad is defended, it is true, by Bleek,
after the precedent of Carpzov, on the authority of two passages in Philo
(Legg. Allegor. iii. p. 66; ed. Mangey, p. 93). But neither of these presents
a case analogous to the one before us, nor does an inversion of the wdAw
at all take place inthem. For in both vad has the signification in turn,
or on the other hand, inasmuch as in the former two classes of persons (6
dé vovv tov iditov amodcimwy and 6 dé mdAcv arodidpackuy Oe6v) in the latter two
classes of défac or opinions (7 pév tov Emit pépovs, tov yevvyrov Kai Ov7yrév
arokirovoa and 7 dé méAcv Oedv amodoxiudlovea), are compared together by
way of contrast, in such wise that in both mdz only serves for bringing
the dé into stronger relief, and in both has occupied its legitimate place.
By virtue of its position, +44cv, in our passage, can be construed only
with eloaydyy, in such wise that a bringing again of the First-born into
the world, which is an event still belonging to the future, is spoken of.
In the former member of ver. 6 the reference can accordingly be neither
to the time of the Incarnation of the Son ;* nor to the time of the Resur-
rection and Exaltation to heaven ;* nor® to a moment yet preceding the
Incarnation of Christ, in which the Father had, by a solemn act as it were,
conducted forth and presented the Son to the beings created by Him, as
the First-born, as their Creator and Ruler, who was to uphold and guide
all things,“—which in any case would be an entirely singular thought in
the N. T.,—but simply and alone to the coming again of Christ to judg-
ment, and the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom.’ The objection
brought by Bleek and Ebrard against this interpretation of the former
member, required as it is by the exigencies of the grammar, viz. that the
discourse could not turn on the bringing again of the First-born into the
world, unless an earlier bringing in of the same into the world, or at least
§ As Bleek I. supposed.
6In like manner Reuss, lJ. ¢. p. 201: “II est
plus naturel de songer au moment, ov le
monde nouvellement créé était sommé de
reconnaitre lc Fils comme créateur. A ce
moment, les anges seuls étaient les étres
formant pour ainsi dire l’Eglise du Verbe
cuvodws xpdvey mepiodor Séypata avOpwrwy
Ciogiy apiOmoy exterisnxdrwy, ro 8 apevdes
Ovopa aiwmvos ) oNMeEpor.
1Comp. Reuss, L’¢pitre aux Hébreux. Essai
@Wune traduction accompagnée Cun commentaire
(Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, vol. v. 4e, 5e,
et 6e livraison, Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 199).
2 With the Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin,
Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim-
borch, Hammond, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov,
Cramer, Valckenaer, Schulz, Kuinoel, Bleek,
Stengel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Reuss, alii.
3Chrysostom, Primasius, Calvin, Owen,
Calov, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel (Stuart: or be-
ginning of His ministry], Bleek II. alii.
Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Wittich,
Braun, Wetstein, Rambach, Peirce, Whitby,
and others
(comme xii. 22), et qui ponvaient recevoir
l’ordre de Dieu d’adorer le Fils.”
1 So, rightly, Gregory Nyssen, contra Eunom.
Orat. iii. p. 541; Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron
[Mede: for the inauguration of His millennial
kingdom], Gerhard, Calmet, Camerarius,
Fstius, Gomar, Boéhme, de Wette, Tholuck,
Bisping, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 172, 2d
ed.), Delitzach, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrd-
erbr. p. 306, 617), Alford, Conybeare, Maier,
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Woerner.
404 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
a, former being of the Son év 79 olxovuévp had been explicitly spoken of, is
invalidated by vv. 1, 3, where certainly the discourse was already of the
historic appearing of the Son on earth, and thus of a first bringing in of
the same into the world. The additional objection of Bleek, however,
that the author would hardly have limited the scope of a divine summons
to the angels to do homage tothe First-born to a time even in his day
future, is set aside by the consideration that, according to ii. 9, Christ was
during His earthly life humbled toa condition beneath the angels, and
only the Parousia itself is the epoch at which His majesty will be unfolded
in full glory.—rév mpuréroxov] in the N. T. only here without more precisely
defining addition; comp. however, Ps. 1xxxix. 28 (27). That the expres-
sion must not be regarded as equivalent to povoyeric,' is self-evident. But
neither is it identical with the wpwréroxog mdaone xricewc, Col. i. 15, in such
wise that the temporal priority of Christ, as the eternal Logos, over all
creatures, and the notion of His precedence over all creatures, necessarily
resulting therefrom, should be contained in the word? For this interpre-
tation is excluded by the absoluteness of the expression in our passage.
Rather is Christ called the First-born with respect to Christians, who are
His brethren (ii. 11 f.), and therefore likewise vioi of God (ii. 10). Comp.
also Rom. viii. 29.—As, for the rest, the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews terms Christ the First-born Son of God; so does Philo also term
the Logos the First-born Son2—# oixovuévg] the world, not in the widest
sense (equivalent to oi aidvec, Bleek; or to # oixovpévy } uéAdovea, (BOhme) ;
but, since the former member has reference to the Parousia, the habitable
earth.—éyer] sc. 6 Oed¢, not 4 ypade (Grotius, Clericus, BGhme, and others)
The present is chosen, because the utterance of God, which shall infallibly
be made in the future, stands already noted down in the Scripture —The
citation is not derived from Ps. xcvii. 7, but from Deut. xxxii. 48. For, in
the former passage, the LXX. have a reading divergent from that of our
text, in the words: xai tpooxuvioate ait@ mavrec [oi] ayyedoe abrov, Whereas in
the Codex Vaticanus of Deut. xxxii. 48, the words occur as in our text; while
the «xa/, taken up by the author into his citation, manifestly points—seeing
that it is without any importance for his reasoning—to the verbatim repro-
duction of an O. T. utterance. Now, it is true our author follows in other
cases a form of the Sept. text which bears affinity less to that contained
in the Codex Vaticanus than to that in the Codex Alexandrinus, and the
latter displays the variation from the Cod. Vat. Deut. xxx. 48, in so far
as viol Geov ig found therein in place of dyyeAo Oeov. But the Song of
Moses, of which Deut. xxxii. 43 forms the conclusion, is communicated
anew, in many Mss. of the LXX., and so also in the Codex Alexandrinus,
1As is done by Primasius, Oecumenius (7d
S¢ xpwroroxoy oun éwi Sevrépov Adyes GAA’ éwi
dvds cat pdvou Tov yeyynOévros éx Tov warpés),
Clarius, and even now by Stengel.
2 Bleek, Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl.
to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z., No. 29, p. 662;
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 292 f.;
Kurtz, Ewald, and others.
3Comp. de Agricultura, p.195 B (ed. Mangey,
I. p. 308): roy dp0dv avrov Adyoy, Tpwroyovor
vidv. De Confus. Ling. p. 329 (ed. Mang. I. p.
415): rovroy wey yap wpecBvtraroy vidy 6 Trwr
évrev avérecAe warp, Sy erépwO. xpwrdyovor
wvépacey, al.
CHAP. I. 7. 405
in a second recension, having its place after the Psalms; and in this
second recension the Codex Alexandrinus, too, reads éyyeAor Oeov, only
the article of has been interpolated between zdvrec and dyyedn. It is
probable, therefore, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did
not take the citation direct from Deut. xxxii. 43, but mediately, 7. e. from
that second recension of the hymn.—It remains to be said that the words
of the citation are wanting in the Hebrew; they are found only in the
LX X.—xpooxvveivy] with the dative only in the case of later classic authors,
whereas the earlier combine the accusative with this verb.!. The N. T. has
both constructions, as besides them the Hebraizing turns mpooxweiv évdriov,
or éumpoobév tiv0c, Or Tév moddv tevoc. See the Lexicons.—airg] That this
pronoun of the third person was to be referred to the Messiah naturally
suggested itself, inasmuch as Jehovah is the subject speaking immediately
before in the Song. [XLII e.]
Vv. 7-12. Contrastful comparison of a declaration of Scripture charac-
terizing the angels, and two declarations characterizing the Son. [On Vv.
7-14, see Note XLIII., pages 416-420.]
Ver. 7. [XLIII a.] Ipéc} with regard to, as Luke xx.19; Acts xii. 21;
Rom. x. 21, and frequently.*—yé] corresponds to the dé of ver. 8,
thus places ver. 7 in express opposition to ver. 8. [XLIII b.J—
Aéyec] namely, God, in the Scripture—The citation is from Ps. civ. 4,
according to the LXX. (Cod. Alex., whereas Cod. Vatican. has rip ¢Atyov
instead of rvpd¢ gAdya). The psalm praises Jehovah as the Creator and Sus-
tainer of all nature. In the Hebrew the words cited read: YIN NYy,
OTD wR NW NIN and, having respect to their connection with what
precedes and that which follows, no doubt can obtain on the point
that they are to be rendered,—what is objected thereto by Hofmann
(Schrifibew. I. p. 325 f., 2 Aufl.), Delitzsch, and Alford is untenable,—“ God
makes winds His messengers, and flames of fire (lightnings) His servants,”’
in such wise that the thought is expressed: as the whole of nature, so are
also winds and lightnings servants of God the Lord.’ Otherwise have the
LXX. apprehended the sense of the words, as is shown by the addition
of the article before ayyéAoue and Aecroupyobs, and they are followed by our
author. [So the Targum also.] They have taken rove ayyéAove atrov and
Tove Agcroupyovs avtov as the objects, rvefuara and upd gAdya, on the other
hand, as the predicates to rodév, thus have found the meaning of the
words: ‘“‘ He makes His angels winds, and His servants a flame of fire.”
If we now observe the scope of the thought of those declarations of
Scripture concerning the Son which follow, vv. 8-12, placed as they are in
antithetical relation to the one before us, it is evident that the author
must have discovered the inferiority of the angels compared with the Son,
as attested in Scripture, in a twofold respect—(1) that the angels are ser-
1Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463; Bern- %Comp., as to the thought, Xenophon,
hardy, Syntaz, p. 113, 266. Memorabilia, iv. 3. 14, where quite similarly
2Comp. Matthiae, p. 1181; Winer, p.378[E. lightning and winds (xepauds and dyeuos) are
T. 405). called usnpéra trav Oca.
406 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
vants, whereas the Son is ruler; (2) that the angels are mutable and per-
ishable, whereas the Son abides the same for ever.—The conception of such
a subjection on the part of the angels, that they must submit even to be
changed into elements, is, moreover, not uncommon among the Rabbins.
—rveipara] not: spirits (Luther, Erasmus, Paraphrase ; Clarius, Piscator,
Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Brochmann, Bengel, Bohme), but : winds—erovpyoi-¢]
only another name for ayyéAoug.
Vv. 8, 9derived from Ps. xlv. 7,8 (6, 7). The psalm is an epithalamium,
a wedding-song. But even by Rabbins like Aben Esra, Kimchi, and
others, it is Messianically interpreted.—Ver. 8. [XLIII c.] The nomina-
tive 6 Oed¢ is taken by our author in the sense of the vocative (comp. e.g.
Col. iii. 18 ffi; Luke viii. 54; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 182]; Kihner, II. p.
155), thus as an apostrophe to the Messiah.? In the Hebrew words: J802
ayy oy D'OR, O'ON is not vocative, but to be translated either after the
analogy of Lev. xxvi. 42 (2)PY2 ‘NIEMAN I will remember my
Jacob’s-covenant, z.e. the covenant made by me with Jacob), with Bleek,
de Wette, and Kurtz: “thy throne of God,” ¢. e. “ thy divine throne; ” or,
with Ewald (ad loc. and Gramm. @ 547): “thy throne is (throne) of God or
divine.” The Greek 6 6ed¢, too, it has been thought by Grimm (Theol.
Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 662) and
Ewald (das Sendschr. an d. Hebr. p. 55), ought not to be explained
in the sense of a vocative. According to Grimm, the words are to
be taken in the acceptation: “Thy throne, i. e. the foundation of Thy
throne, is God;” according to Ewald, they say that “the throne of the
Messiah for everlasting ages is God Himself, so that where He reigns, there
God Himself is virtually ever present.” But the argument urged by
Grimm in favor of this construction—that, since Philo, as frequently also
the Christian Alexandrians, makes a sharp distinction between 6 @ed¢ (with
the article) as a designation of God, and 6eé¢ (without an article) as
designation of the Logos, it is hardly to be regarded as probable that a
man of Alexandrian culture, like our author, would have called Christ as
to His divine nature 6 6eée-—would have had weight only if that designation,
in place of being met with in a citation, had occurred in our author’s own
discourse.—eig rdv aldva rod aidvoc] sec. éotiv. So LXX., Cod. Alex.; Cod.
Vatican.: ei¢ aiéva aidvoe. The same (merely Hellenistic) formula,
strengthening the simple ei¢ rav aidva (v. 6, and often), also Tob. vi. 18; Ps.
Ixxxi. 18, al. In independent discourse the author uses in place thereof
1Comp. e. g. Shemoth rabba, sec. 25, fol. 123.
3: “aliquando ipsos (angelos) facit ventos, q.
d. qui facis angelos tuos ventos, aliquando
ignem, q. d. ministros tuos flammam ignis.”
Jalkut Simeoni, part II. fol. 11. 3: “Angelus
dixit ad Manoah: nescio ad cujus imaginem
ego factus sim; nam Deus singulis horis nos
immutat; curergo nomen meum interrogas?
Nonnunquam facit nos ignem, alias venfum,
interdum viros, alias denique angelos.” See
in general, Schottgen and Wetstein ad loc.
2 Against the peculiar opinion of Hofmann
(Schriftbew. I. p. 168 f., 2 Aufi.), that, vv. 8, 9, it
is not Christ who is addressed; that, on the
contrary, the author of the epistle leaves it to
the reader “to take the words: 0 @pévos cov o
6eds, a8 an address to Jehovah, or with a right
understanding of the connection NOD
DON as an address to the king, the anointed
of Jehovah,” see Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebra-
erbr. p. 286, Remark.
CHAP. I. 8-9. a 407
elec rd dtyvexés. Comp. vii. 3, x. 1, xii. 14.—pdfdo¢ evOirytoc] a sceptre of
uprightness, i.e. of righteousness. evObrac, in the N. T. only here; but
comp. LXX. Ps. ix. 9, lxvii. 5, xevi. 10, xcvill. 9. Comp. also Aeschylus,
Persae, ver. 726 f. (according to the division in Hartung’s edition, Leipzig
1853) :
év’ avdp’ ardone ’Acido¢g unAotpdgov
Tayeiv, éyovTa oKATT pov EvovyTHpLoy.
Ver. 9. ’Hydrnoag dtxawocivyy x.7.A.] Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst
wrong. In the Hebrew the corresponding verbs have a present significa-
tion: thou lovest justice and hatest wrong. Our author, however, refers
the aorists of the LXX. to the historic life of the Son of God upon earth.
—édia rovto] therefore, i.e. as a reward for the dyamav dixawoctvyy kai piceiv
avouiav. Comp. 6:6, Phil. 1i. 9. Erroneously Augustine (in Ps.), Thomas
Aquinas, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Brochmann, Schottgen, and others: for this
cause, that thou mightest love righteousness, etc.—éypicév ce, 6 Bedc, 6 Bede
cov éAatov x.7.A.] [XLII d.] O God, Thy God hath Thee anointed with oil of
gladness above Thy companions. Here, too, the author takes 6 6eéd¢ as an
apostrophe,! whereas in the Hebrew D'AIN is the subject to JW, and is
taken up again into the discourse, and more nearly defined by PTI.
The anointing with the oil of joy in the psalm is a figurative designation
of the blessing. and abundance given by God. Our author, however,
understands it of the anointing to be king, as a figure of the divine glory
with which the Son, after His life upon earth and His exaltation to heaven,
has been crowned. Comp. also Acts iv. 27,i1. 36. Thesense of the author
is departed from when the Fathers and earlier expositors interpret the
expression of the anointing of the Son with the Holy Ghost.—On the
double accusative combined with éypiev (Rev. iii. 18), see Winer, p. 212
[E. T. 226]. As an analogon, comp. also Aristophanes, Acharn. 114: iva
ph oe Bayo Baéuya Lapdiviaxdv.—llapa tovg perdxove cov] [XLIII e.] refers in
the original to the contemporary kings, the rulers of other lands. But
what our author understood by it in the application is obscure. Kuinoel,
Ebrard, Delitzsch, and Moll suppose the author, like the Psalmist, to
intend the other kings; Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 306), all earthly
and heavenly princes; Wittich, Braun, Cramer, the kings, high priests,
and prophets of the O. T., inasmuch as they were anointed as types of
Christ; Klee, all the creatures; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Bengel, and Bisping, men in general; Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Cameron,
Piscator, Schlichting, Maier, Kurtz, the Christians specially [Owen hesi-
tates between all believers and prophets and apostles}; Bleek, Olshausen,
Alford, and Ewald finally, after the precedent of Peirce and others, the
angels, “as beings which do not indeed appear as sitting at the right hand
of God, but yet as existing in immediate proximity to the divine throne.”
The last supposition is the most probable. It is true de Wette regards it
10n account of ver. 8 this construction is Delitzsch also leaves the choice open), that
more natural than the supposition of Grimm, we have to explain in accordance with the
kc. p. 602; Alford, and Ewald (to which Hebrew: “God, even Thy God.”
408 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
as the least conceivable, because the author has “ placed the angels in no
other position than deeply below Christ,” and Ebrard even thinks the
author must have been “beside himself” if he had referred the words to
the angels. But (1) it is a question throughout the whole section of a
comparison of Christ with the angels ; the renewed indication of this point
of comparison also in ver. 9 cannot therefore in itself be found unsuitable.
(2) If shortly before (ver. 7) the angels are placed deeply below Christ, so
it will be admitted their inferiority is likewise expressly intimated by
means of wapé in our passage. (3) The angels were, in the conception of
the author, the next in rank after Christ; for they are exalted above men.
To whom, therefore, could the author more fittingly apply the designation
uéroyvo: than precisely to them? The objection of Delitzsch, finally, that
after all angels are not anointed ones, would be of weight only if the
author were obliged of necessity to think of the puéroxo: too as anointed ;
he finds, on the contrary, in the anointing only of the Son, a fact ex-
pressed, from which the exaltedness of the same above His companions,
i.e. of those who of all others stand nearest to Him in dignity, is neces-
sarily deduced. For zapé is used here not in the sense of the quantity
arising from the notion of comparison, but denotes the part accruing to
one to the exclusion of others.
Vv. 10-12. A second citation—co-ordinate with the Scripture testimony
adduced, vv. 8, 9—derived from Ps. cii. 26-28 (25-27) according to the
LXX. [XLIII f.] The psalm is a lamentation, belonging probably to
the first century after the Captivity. The words of address refer in the
original to God. The author, however, mainly indeed misled? by the
kipee in the LX-X., which was the ordinary appellation of Christ in apos-
tolic time, takes the utterance as an address to Christ, the Son of God.
This interpretation must the more have appeared to him unquestionable,
inasmuch as the scope of the utterance fully harmonized with his own
conception of theSon of God as the premundane Logos. Comp. vv. 2, 3.
When, for the rest, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 169 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes that
the author found no address whatever to Christ designed in the «tpe of
the psalm, but only meant to say in the words of Scripture what was true
of Jesus according to his own belief and that presupposed in the readers,
this is a freak of fancy without anything to justify it, and even opposed to
the context (comp. mpd¢ dé rav vidv, (ver. 8). For the author can have been
concerned only about this very object of proving the higher attestation
1 According to Delitzsch, indeed, it would
be “a poor look-out” if that were “true.”
But when, following in Hofmann’s steps, he
objects against it that “we may already see
from viii. 8 ff., xii. 6 ff., that the author is far
from everywhere understanding Christ to be
intended by the O. T. «vpsos,” these passages
naturally prove nothing, since the usual
practice is never the constant and invariable
practice. When Delitzsch further adds:
“such perversity originating in ignorance is
not to be laid to the charge of an author who
shows so deep an insight into the innermost
core of the O. T.,” that is a prejudiced verdict,
arising from subjectivity and dogmatic par-
tiality, to the establishing of which it would
have been necessary first of all to bring for-
ward the proof that the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews in reality possessed an accu-
rate knowledge not only of the Greek text of
the LXX., but also of the original text of the
O. T.,—a proof which even Delitzsch has not
been able to afford.
CHAP. I. 10-12. 409
given to his assertion by the Scriptures.—Ka/] not a constituent part of the
citation, but a brief formula of connecting, when a further passage of Scrip-
ture is linked to that which precedes, comp. Acts i. 20.—oi kar’ apydc, xipue,
THY yqv Mepedincag] LXX.Cod. Alex.: xar’ apydc ob, xbpie, tAv yqv EOeueAiwoas ;
Cod. Vatic. : xaz’ apyae ri yi ob, xbpte, EepeAiwcac. It is probable the author
changed the position of the words in order to make oi the more emphatic.
—xar’ apxac] in the beginning. With the LXX. elsewhere only Ps. cxix. 152,
instead of the more usual év apy or az’ apyfc, but frequently met with in
Philo and the classics (see Raphel, Wetstein, and Munthe ad loc.). In the
Hebrew stands the more general DD, “formerly,” or “of old.”
Ver. 11. Airoi] refers back not to earth and heaven, ver. 10, taken
together (Kuinoel, Stuart, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Kurtz), but, as is evident
from the following md»rec, and in particular from éAigec, ver. 12,
only to ol ovpavoi.—arodovvra:] shall perish. Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 4, li.
6, Ixv. 17; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xx. 11, xxi. 1—od 62 diapuéverc] but
Thou abidest for evermore (throughout all duration of time, dd). On
account of the environment of futures, and because the future is used
here in the Hebrew, Bleek, after the example of Luther, Cornelius a
Lapide, Peirce, Bengel, Wetstein, ali, accentuates: diapeveic. So also the
Vulgate (permanebis). Hardly in the sense of the author. For, since he
employed only the LXX., not the Hebrew original, he surely took od 62
dian. as a parallel member to od dé 6 avréc el, ver. 12, consequently also con-
strued the former as a present.—d¢ ud tov tadawgoovra:] will grow old like a
garment, which by long use is worn out and laid aside, to be replaced by a
new and better one. Comp. Isa. 1. 9, li. 6; Ecclus. xiv. 17.
Ver. 12. Kai doei mepiBdraiov é2iferg avrove nai aAAayfhoovra:}] and as a cloak
(something flung about one) wilt Thou roll them up, and they shall become
changed. In the original: As the vesture dost Thou change them, and they
are changed. This sense of the original is rendered by the LXX. accord-
ing to the reading of the Cod. Vat.: xat doei repiBdracov GAAdEeg avTove Kai
addayfoovra:; whereas the Cod. Alex. presents éAifecg; and this is also most
probably the reading followed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
in our passage.—ovx éxdeipovory] will know no end.
Ver. 13. Further citation from Ps. cx. 1, according to the LXX. The
psalm was looked upon universally in the time of Christ (comp. Matt. xxii.
44 ff.; Mark xii. 35 ff; Luke xx. 41 ff), and also in later times by many
Rabbins (see Wetstein on Matt. xxii. 44), as a prophecy relating to the
Messiah; inasmuch as on the ground of the superscription nD David
himself was regarded as the author of it, and in connection with this view
the reference to the Messiah was easily proved on the ground of the words
at the beginning: “to my Lord speaketh Jehovah,” according to which
David acknowledges, in addition to his God, also a Lord over him. The
superscription WY, nevertheless, indicates not the writer, but the subject
of the psalm. It is in its historic sense an oracle pronounced to David,
when the latter was preparing for war against his powerful foes. See
Ewald on the Psalm.—zpd¢ riva dé] dé in the third place, as often occurs
410° THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
after prepositional combinations.'—The sitting at the right hand, figure
of the highest honor and dominion, see on ver. 3.—izorédtov rév rodév cov]
the footstool of Thy feet. There lies in the expression an allusion to the
custom of the victor of placing his foot upon the neck of the vanquished,
in token of the complete subjection of the latter; comp. Josh. x. 24—
vrorédiov] first used in the Greck of a later age.?
Ver. 14. Confirmation of the zpd¢ riva dé tov ayyéAwy cipnxév rore, show-
ing the inconccivableness of such a thing by a reference to the nature of
the angels, and with this the termination of the present train of thought.—
The emphasis rests upon wdvre¢g and Aecrovpycxd: are not all (alike,
whether they belong to a lower or higher class of angels) ministering
spirits [spirits in wailing]? weiuara here in adifferent sense from ver.
7.—eig dtaxoviav] [XLII g.] for service, sc. which they render to God, not
to the men who shall inherit the ocur7pia; otherwise, in place of dca rov¢
péddovrac, the dative roig uéAAover KAnpovoueiv owtnpiav (1 Cor. xvi. 15) or the
genitive tav peAAdvrev x.7.A. would have been placed.—The participle
present amooteAAéueva brings out the permanent, habitual character of
the action expressed by the verb.—«id rot¢ «.7.4.] for the sake of those who
shall inherit (everlasting) salvation (this isintended by cwrypiav, although
without the article, see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 120]; not: deliverance from
peril, as Michaelis, Schleusner, Bohme, Kuinoel assume), 7. e. in order, by
means of the offices in which they are employed by God, to bring it in for
the same.
Nores By AMERICAN EDIror.
XLI. Vv. 1-3.
(a) The Epistle to the Hebrews differs from the Pauline Epistles at its begin-
ning, not merely in the fact that the name of the author is not given, but also in
two other points which are connected with this omission. There is no salutation—
“‘grace and peace” to the readers,—and, also, no introductory passage of a general
character. On the other hand, the writer proceeds at once to state the subject on
which he proposes to discourse, in vv. 1-3, and then enters immediately upon his
extended argument. The subject of the Epistle is: The superiority of the N. T.
system or revelation to the O. T. system or revelation. This subject, however, is
not presented in the form of a definite proposition, such as might be found at the
beginning of a treatise or a philosophical thesis, but, after the manner of Paul’s
Epistles, in the form which is characteristic of a letter addressed to a church for
the final purpose of admonition and exhortation. The Epistle is rhetorical, and
artistically arranged, in a degree quite beyond the ordinary letters of Paul, but it
nowhere loses the character of a letter, or assumes that of a rhetorical or oratorical
discourse.
(6) In the statement of the subject or proposition to be proved, the writer sets
forth the superiority of the N. T. to the O. T. revelation, primarily, by describing
it as év vig, and secondarily (in connection with this fact), as being,—not, like the
1Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378 f.: Hartung, I. p. 397; Winer, p. 519, [F. T. 558}.
Partikellehre, I. p. 190 f.; Ellendt, Leric. Soph. 2Comp. Sturz, de dial, Aler. ct Maced. p. 199.
NOTES. ? 411
O.T. system, revealed roAvpepi¢.xai roAvrpérwc, but—complete and full. The
primary emphasis on the thought suggested by év vig of ver. 2 is shown by the -
fact, that the whole of the following argument is the setting forth of Christ as
superior to the agents employed for introducing and carrying forward the O. T.
system; and the secondary emphasis on the other point is made clear by many
hints and statements in the course of the argument, as well as by the prominent
position given to the two adverbs at the opening of the first verse. In this con-
nection, it may be noticed that the words év roic xpo¢#ratc—though, in the position
given them in the arrangement and statement of vv. 1, 2, they are codrdinate (in
contrast) with év vig—are, in relation to the substance of thought filling the Epistle,
scarcely more than mere descriptive words characterizing the O. T. revelation.
The contrasts of the Epistle are not between Christ and the prophets, but first, be-
tween Christ and the angels and Moses, and secondly, between Christ and the O. T.
High-priests. The angels and Moses are the instrumental agents who introduce
the old system; the High priests, the instrumental agents who carry it forward.
The prophets are not spoken of as connected with either office. Indeed the word
prophet is not used elsewhere in the Epistle, except in the enumeration of the
heroes of faith in xi. 32, “Samuel and the prophets.’ The special emphasis on
woAvu. kai woAutp. in the arrangement of words in ver. 1 is due to the demands of
the thought tn that verse, rather than of the thought in the epistle. As related to
the thought of theepistle, the rendering of R. V. brings out the emphasis cor-
rectly :—‘“God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by
divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto
us in His Son,” or, as in the marg., a Son.
(c) With respect to the words of ver. 1, the following points may be noticed:
1. God is evidently declared to be the author of the two revelations.—2. The verb
Aadeiv has in these verses, and so, to a considerable extent, throughout the epistle,
a certain technical or peculiar sense, and refers to the revelations which God
makes.—3. The two adverbs, at the beginning, serve the purpose of setting forth
the partial and incomplete character of the O. T. revelation. The distinction be-
tween them is that which is given by Liinemann in his note.—4. év does not mean
by, but in.—5. If the text-reading én’ éoydrov rav juepav TovTwv is adopted, as it
undoubtedly should be, 7. 7. rovr. is used as equivalent to 6 aia ovroc, and the
N. T. revelation is conceived of (as ordinarily by the N.T. writers) as made in the
closing period of the ante-Messianic age, 4.¢., the period before the full establish-
ment of the Messianic kingdom.—6. vi@ is translated both by A. V. and R. V.
“his Son.” It is difficult, in a version, to express the exact idea of vi@ as here
used in distinction from 7 vid, or TO vip atvrov. What the writer means is: one
who stands in the relation of son to God, and not in the position of a mere prophet.
It is a characteristic, descriptive word here, and not a proper name. What Christ
ts, as Son, is set forth in the sentences which follow, and, indeed, throughout the
epistle.
(d) The statements in vv. 2, 3 respecting the one who is vide are contained in
three relative clauses, the last of which includes several minor and participial
clauses. If the progress of the compound sentence is closely observed, it can
hardly fail to be noticed that the verbs are intended to be arranged in a certain
chronological succession. This is clear in the case of éoincev—omnodyevoc—
éxd0.cev; and, this being the fact, it can hardly be otherwise than true, that the
same holds good respecting éJ7xev, as related to the oth¢r words. As the verb
412 ' (HE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
éroincev evidently refers to the time of creation, 37xev must have reference to
what preceded that time, and hence is, doubtless, to be understood of the eternal
purpose of God, who appointed the Son, while in His condition as Aéyo¢ doapkoc,
heir of all things. In the carrying out of this purpose, He made the worlds
through Him; employed Him as the one who should make purification of sins; gave
Him a seat at His own right hand in the Heavens; and bestowed upon Him a
more excellent name than on any other. The correspondence’ of this description
of the Son with that which is given by Paul in Col. i. 15 ff. is very noticeable.
See, also, notes of Amer. Ed. on that passage in Col., in AMfeyer’s vol. on Phil., Col.
and Thess. The idea of xAnpovéuoy ravruy, which is not presented in Col., is here
introduced, not improbably, in connection with, and as preparatory to, the thought
of the dominion of Christ, which is referred to in the latter part of this chapter,
and of that glorious consummation which is alluded to in chap. ii. The suggestion
of the Headship of Christ and His exaltation is made, in another form and in a
' somewhat different connection, in Eph. i. 20 ff, Phil. ii. 8-10, and at the end of the
passage in Col. (i. 18 5).
(ec) The word azatyacua (ver. 3) is one whose precise meaning has been much
discussed and is quite difficult of determination. It is derived from a7é6 and
atyaopa, avydéfu, avy. The formation in va and the most natural sense of a7é
would seem to suggest the idea of light flashed or rayed forth from a luminous body.
If, however, a7é is to be understood in the sense which it has in the kindred verb
of sound, ar7yxéw, to sound back, and in the corresponding noun a7#y7ya, echo (or
the sound coming back, or sent back, from an object which has been struck, as it
were, by that which went forth from the resounding body), the idea of azatyaopua
will be that of reflection. Either sense of a7é in compounds is, apparently, allow-
able. This word occurs in but few places, and unfortunately for the decision of
_ the question of its exact signification, the passages in which it is found are open
to dispute. There is but one passage in the O. T. Apoc. books, Wisd. vii. 26, and
none in the O. T. or N. T. except the one before us, which can throw any light
on the meaning. Directly opposite views are held, as e.g. by Bleek and Liinem,
respecting Wisd. vii. 26. The fact mentioned by Liinem., that écorrpov and eixav
are used in parallel clauses of that verse, is undoubtedly favorable to his under-
standing of azaty. as there used. But it is not decisive, because the writer may
have intended to use two figures—one of rayed-forth light, as connected with
aidtov ¢a¢, and another of a mirror or image, as related to évépye:a and dayadérne
(see the words of the passage in Wisd., as quoted by Liinem.) ; and, as Bleek says,
the meaning may be, that wisdom is a light beaming forth from the everlasting
light, and, for this very reason, an image, etc. The passages cited from Philo and
other writers by different comm. are equally uncertain, though the first one which
Liinem. gives from Philo seems to be more naturally interpreted according to
Bleek’s view.
The position taken by Liinem., that the form in ya, as distinguished from jos,
determines the question, can hardly be sustained. All that the form in ya requires
is, that the passive idea should be in the substantive, and this is found in the flashed-
forth light. More properly we may say, with Cremer (Lex. N. T.), that the noun
may mean either brightness or reflection, so far as its derivation is concerned ;—and
80 we must form our conclusion according to the probabilities of the passage which
may be before us. In noticing these in the present case, we may observe that
dé§a seems to refer to the being of God as manifesting itself outwardly, and trécraace
NOTES. 413
to the being of God in its inward essence. This being the fact, we may believe
that the writer had in his mind the two ideas, and that, in his description of the
Son, he intended to set forth His relation to God, with emphasis and complete-
ness, by the use of the two words. If this was his purpose, it is probable that he
did not desire simply to make an ordinary parallelism— as of a reflected image of
a luminous body and a stamped image of a die or stamp ;—but that he wished to go
beyond this, and, in his parallelism, express in each part that which belonged to
the peculiar figurative word which he selected. The Son is, thus, on the side of
the d6fa (the outward manifestation of God’s being) the effulgenco—the rayed-forth
light,—which comes from it, and, on the side of the iéoraa:c (the inward essence)
the express image, the exact counterpart, answering to it.
The decision between the two possible meanings of aratyacua is, however, not
essential to the doctrine of the passage, and is not of great importance even as
bearing upon the main thought of the two clauses; for, in either case, the inter-
pretation of the words places them in close relation with the words of Paul, in
his later Epistles; and of John, in his Gospel, and makes this writer declare that
Christ is etxav Seov, with all which that expression involves.
Grimm (Lex. N. T.) gives to azabyacua the meaning splendor repercussus; L.
and S. 7th ed. and Rob. regard it as meaning effulgence. R. V.,and A. V., as well as
the recent English translations generally, adopt the latter signification: effulgence,
brightness. So also, in addition to the writers mentioned by Liinem., Alf., W. and
Wilk., Bib. Comm., Angus., in Schaff’s Pop. Comm., Stuart and others. Ebrard
translates by ray-image—“ a light radiated from another light, and viewed as now
become an independent light”—thus fully satisfying the passive form.
(f) There can be no reasonable doubt, both by reason of the correspondence
with déga and because the use of the word in the sense of person belongs only to a
later time, that tréoraorg here denotes essence or substance—that which stands
under the outward form. Of this essential being of God the Son is the yapaxrfp,
the very image (R. V. text), the impress (R. V. marg). Ebrard says, “ As it belongs
to the déga to concentrate and reproduce itself in a form composed of rays, a sun,
so it is proper to the ovcia or imécracc¢e to stamp itself out in a manifest form or
figure. This form or figure, however, is not to be viewed as a copy, brt as an im-
mediate and substantial rendering visible and corporeal, of the iméoraatc.”
(g) The close connection of the ¢épw» clause with the preceding words by re,
is, doubtless, intended to intimate that the statement of this clause naturally
follows upon that which goes before. Being the dratyacya x.r.A., it is His office,
as to create, so also to sustain all things. The participles ov and ¢épuv are evidently
continuous present participles, and indicate what the Son is in His permanent
existence and in His work of power.—(h) The word airoi, in the expression To
phuate tig dvvduews avrod, is to be referred to Christ for the following reasons :—
1, Because the clause is a participial descriptive clause, which has reference to
the Son. 2. Because the action spoken of (¢épwv) is an action of the Son.
3. Because there is nothing in the surrounding context which necessitates any
other reference. 4. Because the entire passage is evidently designed to set forth
the glory of the Son. 5. Because the instrumental agency of the Son in the crea-
tion, as presented in the kindred passages of John (Gosp. i. 3) and Paul (Col. i. 16
f.), points only to what is declared here in the last clause of ver. 2; while what
Paul says in Col. i. 17 (avré¢ gore mpd révruw cal ta rdvra Ev abte ouvtornKev
accords rather with the present verse, if avrov is understood of the Son, than if o
414 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the Father. The complete dependence of the creation on the Son is the idea on which
both writers are insisting with emphasis. 6. Because the statement, if avvoi is
made to refer to the Father, contains a thought not thus formally expressed else-
where in the N. T.
(i) The participle rocyodpuevoc is antecedent to éxaficev, and describes the work
of the Son while in His earthly life, and what He accomplished especially through
His death. The preceding participles are clearly distinguished from this, and
their reference and significance are indicated by this fact, as well as by the other
suggestions of the passage. The explanation: cleansing, or purifying from, rather
than of, which is given by Liinem. to xafapiopév as connected with Tov auapriay is
probably correct ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 9. Bleek, Alf., and others say of. De W.
agrees with Liinem. It does not seem probable, on the other hand,—certainly,
not necessary,—that év wy7Aci¢ should be taken, as Liinem. holds, with éxadccev,
The connection with peyaAwovrv7¢ is sustained by a number of parallel cases in the
N. T., where the article is omitted with a defining prepositional phrase following
a noun; and by means of this connection the expression here used becomes more
simple and natural.
XLII. Vv. 4-6.
- (a) At the 4th verse the development of the subject of the epistle begins, and
from this point the argument in proof of the proposition involved in the first three
verses moves steadily forward through the entire letter, until the end of the twelfth
chapter is reached. The plan of the epistle is fundamentally different from that
which we discover in the principal doctrinal epistles of Paul. In the latter, Paul -
has, in each case, a doctrinal section, containing the proof of the proposition which
he desires to establish; and only when this is finished does he turn to a practical
section, whose exhortations are more or less connected with what has been pre-
viously proved. This writer, on the other hand, carries his argument, as just in-
timated, throughout his whole work, and interweaves into it a hortatory element
at every stage of its progress. This hortatory element is everywhere the same.
The exhortation is always directed to one object—that the readers should not
abandon the N. T. system and go back to Judaism, but should hold fast and endure
to the end. It is repeated at the close of the presentation of each point of the
argument ; and, in each successive case, the readers are urged to yield to it in view
of what has been established in the next preceding sub-section.
The underlying thought of the writer, as he begins his course of reasoning, seems
evidently to be the following :—The N. T. system is superior to the O. T. system,
in the first place, because the instrumental agent employed by God to introduce it
is more exalted than the instrumental agents employed to introduce the O. T.
Of these latter agents there were two: the angels and Moses. Christ is more ex-
alted than either of these. And first, He is more exalted than the angels. This
underlying thought is plainly indicated by the progress of the argument, but it is
left to the reader to supply. It must be supplied at the beginning of ver.4 in
order to make the statement of the plan, and also of the proof, complete.
It is the last of these points which is now developed :—Christ is more exalted
than the angels. This is proved, first, in what may be described as a more direct ;
and, secondly, in what may be styled a more indirect way. The former in i. 5-14;
the latter in ii. 5-18. The hortatory passage belonging to the former includes ii.
1-4; that which belongs to the latter is found in iii. 1. Then follows, in iii. 2—
NOTES, 415
iv. 16, the comparison of Christ with Moses, together with a hortatory passage
appertaining to it. In the direct setting forth of the superiority of Christ to the
angels two points are presented: 1. He is called Son, while they are called ser-
vants, vv. 5-7. 2. He has everlasting dominion, while they are sent forth as
messengers and ministers, vv. 8-14.
(6) While the plan of the epistle, as well as the absence of any salutation or in-
troductory passage, distinguishes it from the Pauline writings, it will be noticed
that the omission of what has been alluded to as an underlying thought, and the
manner in which the first point of the argument is brought in, as grammatically
subordinate to the verb éxd@:oev «.7.A., are characteristic of Paul’s style. We find
thus, here as everywhere throughout the epistle, that combination of resemblances
to the letters of the Apostle with marked differences, which renders the question
of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews one of so much difficulty. It
must be admitted, however, that these points of unlikeness which are met with at
the very beginning, and which have been mentioned, are deserving of most serious
consideration. They are points connected with the essential elements of an
author’s thought and his manner of writing, and points in which it is not easy to
believe that a man of Paul’s peculiar habits of mind would have turned aside, in
one of his epistles, from his ordinary course in his other writings.
(c) The view of Liinem., expressed at the beginning of his note on ver. 4,—that
the author at first, in vv. 1-3, has reference to the O. T. revelations in general, and
now, in this verse, turns to the Mosaic—is hardly to be accepted, bécause it breaks
the unity of the passage, and because the comparison throughout all the epistle is
between the Mosaic and the Christian revelations.
(d) As to the individual words and phrases of vv. 4-7, the following points may
be noticed :—1. yevéuevog is, as Liinem. also says, to be connected with éxdd:cev, and
thus refers to the time when Christ took His seat at the right hand, etc. It indi-
cates, together with the verb, the last step in that succession which begins with
éOnxev of ver. 2.—2. With respect to xexAnjpovdunxev Alford justly remarks, that
“the xpeitrwy yevdu. is not identical with it, but in proportion to it: the triumphant
issue of His Mediation is consonant to the glorious name which is His by inherit-
ance.” The verb «Azpov. is, thus, used because Christ, in His very nature, stands
and has always stood in the relation of viéc, and also because, in a certain sense
and completeness, He entered into possession of His glory as vid¢ at the time when
His earthly work was finished.—3. With respect to the question of the time indi-
cated by ofepov, it may be noticed: (x) that the time-element is not the promi-
nent one in the writer’s thought as he introduces these citations; vid¢ is the em-
phatic word. It is not impossible, therefore, that the citations are made without
attaching any definite notion to o#uepov, as Riehm and de Wette suggest. It is
evident, however, (y) that, if ta2cv of ver. 6 is explained according to its position
in the sentence, there is a reference in that verse to time—a fact which would
seem to suggest, at least, a similar reference in ver. 5. It will, also, be observed
(z) that, in the O. T. passages as originally written (Ps. ii. 7 and 2 Sam. vii. 14),
the time-element is not without prominence. While it cannot properly be
affirmed, therefore, with Liinem., that the view of de W. and Riehm involves an
unexegetical supposition, it must be regarded as not improbable that the writer
of the epistle had in his mind the idea of time. If he had this idea, the deter-
mination as to what the time which he thought of was, will depend on the adjust-
ment to each other of two points:—/irst, the evident fact that in the O.T. the
416 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
words, both in Ps, ii. and 2 Sam. vii., refer primarily to Solomon (or in Ps. ii. to
some Israelitish king), and, so far as they are Messianic, to the Messiah’s reign on
earth, and, secondly, the preceding and following context in this chapter. This
adjustment seems, on the whole, to be most successfully made by carrying back—
in the transference of the application of the words from the earthly king to the
Divine Son—the time of constituting the sonship, or “begetting,” to the period
indicated in é67xev x.t.A, of ver. 2. There are, then, two epochs referred to,—that
in ver. 2, when it was said to the Son, “Thou art, etc.; To-day have I begotten
thee,” and “TI will be to him,” etc.; and that in ver. 6, when it is said, “Let all
the angels worship him:”—the epoch of His appointment as heir of all things, and
the epoch of the final consummation of His glory at the end of His work. Both
parts of ver. 5 have reference to the same time.—4. The position of 7é/c», of ver.
6, in the sentence in which it stands, and the connection of the verses, fake it
almost, if not indeed absolutely, certain, that it is not parallel with the same word
in ver. 56, but that it qualifies esoaydyy. The objections to this view, which are
mentioned by Bleek, in his first edition, and Ebrard, are satisfactorily answered
by Liinemann. The appropriateness of the word eicaydyy to express the idea of
the introduction to the full possession of the kingdom (comp. Exod. xiii. 5; Deut.
vi. 10, etc.); the reference of oixovzévy in ii. 5 to the Messianic aiov; the following
verses of this chapter which speak of eternal dominion and the subjection of all
enemies; and the evident intention of the author, in the early verses, to cover in
thought the whole progress of the work of the Son, even to its end ;—all these
things point very clearly to the second coming as indicated by ma/uy,
(e) Ver.7 may be regarded as having a twofold connection. By the construction
with yév and dé, and the correspondence of 7pd¢ toig ayyéAove with zpd¢ tév vid», it
is evidently intended to have a close relation to ver. 8. By the indication that
the angels are, like the winds and the lightning, mere servants of God, it stands
in contrast to ver. 5, where Christ is presented as Son, and gives, as it were, a
ground for the call upon the angels to worship Him, which is quoted from the
LXX., in ver. 6.
XLII. Vv. 7-14.
(a) The immediate and special connection of ver. 7 is, as intimated in the pre-
ceding note, with ver. 8, and the «ai at the beginning of the verse adds the state-
ment of these two verses to that of vv. 5, 6. That the sense of the original passage,
Ps. civ. 4, is different from that of the LXX. translation which is quoted by the
writer of the epistle, is rendered probable by the verses which precede and follow
the one quoted, and by the progress of thought in the Psalm. We may hold, there-
fore, with Liinem., Bleek, Ebrard, de Wette, W. and Wilk. and other comm.,
that the Heb. is to be translated, as in A. R. V., “ Who maketh winds his messen-
gers, flames of fire, his ministers.” [R. V., gives this rendering for the first clause,
but translates the second, “his ministers a flaming fire”]. On the ground that
the order of the words in this verse is different from that in the previous verses of
the Psalm, and that the rendering favored by Liinem., joins a singular object
flaming fire with a plural predicate, Alford, Delitzsch, Stuart and some others
insist that the Heb., means: “who maketh his messengers winds,” etc. Moll
holds that, as the Hebrew verb here used, when it has a double Acc., usually
means fo make out of something, the words may be properly translated : “making His
messengers out of winds, His servants out of flaming fire.”
NOTES. 417
The writer to the Hebrews evidently quotes from the LXX., and, whatever
may be true as to the O. T. paasage as originally written, his idea is that the
angels are, like the winds and the lightning, mere ministers or servants for the
accomplishment of God’s will.
(b) As mpdé¢ of ver. 7 must be translated with respect to, there can be little doubt
that the same meaning is to be given to zpé¢ in ver. 8. The preposition in the
latter verse might be taken, so far as the verse itself is concerned, in the ordinary
sense of fo, and so Bleek understands it. He holds that the author uses 7pé¢ in the
same sense in the 7th ver., also, without being distinctly conscious that the words
there cited are not, after the same munner, addressed to the angels, as those of
ver. 8 are to the Son. But the argument in the case goes rather from ver. 7 to
ver. 8, than from ver. 8 to ver. 7.
(c) Thecomm. generally regard 4 6ed¢ of ver. 8 as a vocative, both in this author’s
use of the words and in the LXX. So Liinem., Alf., Moll, W. and Wilk, Stuart,
Bleek, Ebrard, de Wette, Delitzsch, and many others. Comp., also, Buttm., p.
140. As to the construction in the orginal Heb. of the Psalm, there is much
more difference of opinion, but a large proportion of the best recent writers hold
that the Hebrew word, also, is a vocative. The writer of the present note would
offer the following suggestions with respect to the matter:
1. There is no reasonable ground to doubt that the author of this Epistle
believed, as Paul and John did, in the divinity of Christ. The correspondence
between the early verses of this chapter and such passages as John ii. 1 ff. and Col.
i. 15 ff. (see Note of Am. Ed. in Meyer’s Comm. on Col.) places this beyond ques-
tion. The legitimate and natural explanation of vv. 2, 3 of this Chap., also,
establishes this view. Whatever, therefore, may be true as to 6 6ed¢ in ver. 8, or
Elohim in Ps. xlv. 6, the doctrine of this Epistle is not affected. The question
concerns the statement of this particular verse alone, and is only as to whether the
name God is given to Christ in this place.
2. With regurd to this question it may be noticed, first, that Elohim in the O. T.
passage is, by no means, necessarily a vocative, but may be either a genitive in
sense: “thy throne of God ”=thy divine throne, or thy throne is (throne) of
God, or divine—in the former case, the Elohim having more of the adjective-
genitive character, and, in the latter, more of the predicate-genitive character ;—
or it may be a predicate nominative: “thy throne is God”=God is the
foundation of thy throne. [R. V. gives, as a marginal rendering, “Thy
throne is the throne of God”]; secondly, that the explanation of Elohim in
the Hebrew Psalm as a vocative is opposed by the fact, that this word is not used
of the person addressed anywhere else in the Psalm; that, on the other hand, God
is spoken of as distinct from him in two different places—as blessing him in ver.
2, and anointing him in ver. 7; and that God is even described iu ver. 7 as his (thy)
God. The explanation of the word as a genitive or nominative, on the contrary,
is favored by all that is said of the honor and majesty of the ruler referred to as
given tohim by God, as the reward of his loving righteousness, etc. ; thirdly, it must
be admitted, however, that the genitive and predicate constructions alluded to are, in
sentences of this sort, somewhat less simple and natural than that with the vocative,
provided the latter be possible, as it certainly is here. The passages cited in sup-
port of these constructions are few in number, and it is claimed by some writers,
that none of them are exactly parallel to the one before us. This latter position,
however, cannot be sustained,—at least, so far as to exclude their force as confirm-
27
418 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
ing the possibility of a corresponding explanation here; fourthly, as the Psalm
has, apparently, a Messianic character, it is more difficult than it might be in
other cases, to pronounce a decisive judgment respecting the employment in it of
such a word as Elohim as a vocative of address; yet, inasmuch as there can be
little doubt that it had a primary reference to some earthly ruler (perhaps,
Solomon), it would seem that its interpretation must be mainly determined by
this fact. Now it is to be noticed that, while the word Elohim is applied to kings
or magistrates in two or three places in the O. T., Ps. lxxxii. vv. 1, 6, Ex. xxi. 6,
xxii. 8, it is thus applied, apparently, not to the individual magistrate, bnt to
the collective magistracy (comp. Delitzsch on this verse). It is nowhere used as
a title in addressing a human ruler.—In view of these considerations, it seems, on
the whole, not improbable that Elohim in the original Psalm-passage is to be regarded,
not as a vocative, but as having a genitive or nominative character. This explana-
tion of the word, however, cannot be insisted upon as more than probable. It
cannot, by any means, be affirmed as beyond question.
3. Respecting the words as used by this writer, who quotes from the LXX, it is
clear that the genitive construction is impossible. That 6 6e6¢, however, may bea
predicate nominative, and that the meaning may be, as Grimm gives it, “Thy
throne, i. e. the foundation of thy throne, is God,” can hardly be denied. On the
other hand, the use of the nominative, with the article, as a vocative is, as Buttm.
says, well-known both in the O. T., and N. T., and is also found in the colloquial
language of classical] writers, such as Plato and Aristophanes. Inan ordinary and
independent N. T. sentence, written in this form, the interpretation of 6 6eé¢ as a
vocative would, undoubtedly, be the most natural one. But, in the present case,
the fact that it is an O. T. passage, which, in the original Hebrew, may probably,
or at least not improbably, have had another construction, must be borne in
mind, and must be allowed such weight as it deserves.
4. It is worthy of consideration, also, that the writer of the Epistle does not
seem to use this word @eéd¢ as showing the superiority of Christ to the angels;
that is, he does not seem to make it a prominent point in his argument. This is
indicated by two facts connected with the passage: (x) the fact, that the main state-
ment of the cited verses, and the main idea which the author of the Epistle
apparently desires to set forth in his use of them, is that the throne of the Son is
for ever and ever, i.e. that He has had bestowed upon Him everlasting dominion,
while the angels have not; and not that He is Gedés, while they are not; and (y)
the fact, that the word 6réc, which, if intended to be used in the argument, was of
more significance and importance than any other in the entire passage, is intro-
duced in so incidental a way, and is passed over without emphasis, and without
developing or dwelling upon the idea which it suggests. If the author not only
understvod the O. T., in these verses, to declare the Son to be God, but proposed
to make use of this declaration as presenting a great fact respecting His exaltation
above the angels, in the same way as he did of the statement in ver. 5 a, it seems
very strange, that he should not have placed it at the beginning of his argument.
This was the position which would naturally have been assigned to it; because, if
the Son was God, His superiority tothe angels was put beyond question, and the
revelation through Him was the greatest of all possible revelations. Indeed, if
He was addressed as God and declared to be God in the O. T., what further proof
of His superiority to the angels and Moses could be needed ina writing whose
entire argument is so manifestly founded upon the statements of the O. T.? It is
NOTES. 419
evident, however, that the writer makes no further allusion to these words—as
involving a declaration that Christ has the name Jeéc—in the entire course of the
Epistle, and that he does not lay emphasis, in any other passage, on the fact that
He has this name.
The considerations on the different sides of this question, which have been thus
briefly, and some of them incidentally, mentioned, must influence the decision
that is reached. It seems possible to take one or another of three positions. In
the first place, we may assume, either (z) that the writer to the Hebrews uses 6
6eé¢ a8 a vocative—founding our view upon the greater simplicity and naturalness
of the construction in the Greek, and perhaps, also, in the Hebrew, if the word is
thus understood ; or (y) that he uses it as a nominative—giving the greater weight
to the other reasons suggested above. In the second pluce, if we adopt (x), we
may hold either (zx*) that, in the use of the vocative, he intended to make the
statement, which the employment of the name eé¢ might naturally involve, a
part of his proof of the main proposition which he was undertaking to defend; or
(z**) that, without any such intention, he simply cited the passage as he found it
in the LX X.—allowing the vocative to express whatever it might to the mind of
any reader, but not designing to press it as a vital point in the argument. The
probabilities of the case seem to the writer of this note to favor either z** or y,
rather than z*. Perhaps 2** may be regarded as the view which best meets the
difficulties of the case.
(d) The construction of the first 6 Sede in ver. 9 is, also, a point of discussion
among commentators. A. R. V. marg., Liinem., Blk., Ebr., de W., and others hold
that the writer of the epistle uses this, also, as a vocative. R. V., A.R. V. text,
A. V., Alf., Grimm, and many others regard it as a nominative, with which the
second 6 Yedc is in apposition. The opinion is almost universal that the word in
the Hebrew is, in this case, a nominative, (Ebrard, however, denies this), and
there seems to be no reason for making it a vocative as used in the epistle, except
the correspondence with the (supposed) vocative in ver. 8. But such a cor-
respondence is not demanded by the passage, and the reasons which may be
thought to require the explanation of 6 Weds, of ver. 8, in this way, do not exist in
connection with ver. 9. Delitzsch, Stuart, and some others agree with A. R. V. in
allowing either rendering of the word in this verse. Prof. Stuart, at the end of
his notes on vv. 8, 9 has the following words: “Does the word Sed here denote
the divine or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah? Most interpreters, who
admit the doctrine of the Saviour’s divine nature, contend for the first of these
senses ; as I have myself once done in a former publication. But further examina-
tion has led me to believe, that there are grounds to doubt of such an application
of the word ed¢ in this passage. The king here called ede, has for himself a
Jedc; ‘thy God hath anointed thee’ The same king has associates (uetéyouc), As
divine, who are the péroyo: with the Saviour, to whom He is preferred?” He
thinks the title Elohim may be applied, (as in the case of magistrates, but in a
peculiar and preéminent sense) to the Messiah as King. His opinion borders
thus upon that which is alluded to in this note under z**, He adds that, from
other statements of the writer, there is no doubt of his regarding the Messiah as
having a divine nature. The same is true, it may be added, if we interpret 6 Sede
in these two verses according to the manner indicated by y above.
(ec) The reference in Tove perdyoug cov (ver. 9) is, in the original Psalm, evi-
dently to other kings. The same general reference—that is, the exaltation of this
420 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Son, in His everlasting dominion, above all others who, as having dominion or
sovereignty, might be thought of in comparison with Him—seems to be intended
by the writer, in his citation of the words. The objection which de Wette pre-
sents against referring “etd. to the angels, is one of much force:—that “the
author has placed the angels in no other position than deeply below Christ ;” and
the answers to it, which Liinemann gives in his note, do not set it aside.
(f) The citation from the Psalms (cii.; ci. LX-X.) in vv. 10-12 is evidently
intended by the writer of the epistle to set forth the idea that the Son abides the
same for ever (so Liinem.). In connection with vv. 8, 9, however, we may believe
that this idea is, in the writer’s mind, closely related to the thought of the do-
minion of the Son; and hence that by all these verses, as brought together, he
means to contrast the everlasting sovereignty of Christ with the temporary and ©
changing offices of the angels, who are servants. This citation is peculiar in two
respects: 1. in that xipee has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text, and is
manifestly borrowed from the LXX., and 2. in that the words are addressed in the
original Psalm to God, and refer to Him. The first point is easily explained by
the writer's constant, and apparently exclusive, use of the L.XX. for his quotations.
The second is regarded by Liinem. as due to his being misled by the xtpce into the
idea that the words were addressed to the Son. This supposition does not seem
to be necessary, and it is exposed to the following objections: (w) that a careful
reading of the Psalm in the LXX. must have shown him, as the examination of
the original Hebrew showed those who read it, that the Psalmist was speaking of
and to God, and not Christ; (x) that his own use and understanding of «tpio¢, Loth
in passages which he writes himself and in some which he quotes from the O. T.,
make it clear that he, like the other N. T. authors, recognizes the possibility of the
application of the word to God—the mere presence of the word, therefore, could
scarcely lead him into error; (y) that the difficulties of this passage cannot be
considered in entire independency of those which meet us in other O. T. citations,
which the writer makes, and in which such an explanation as Ltinem. here gives
will not prove satisfactory; (z) that, if Apollos was the author of the epistle and
was (as is declared in Acts xviii. 24) duvardc év raic ypagaic, it is especially im-
probable that an error like this, which does not seem to belong to an earnest stu-
dent of the O. T., should have been made by him. The explanation of many such
cases is, rather, to be found in the view which the N. T. writers had of the O. T.
They regarded it as so full of Christ in all its design and purpose, as having the
consummation of its history and prophecy so completely and exclusively in Him—
as being so wholly without significance, even, except as it was realized, in all its
foreshadowings, by His life and work—that they carried Him in thought, as it
were, into any and every part of it, and saw Him in many of its words, whose first
pointing, as they well knew, was to some other than Himself. Their view was in
one sense, if not indeed in another,—it was, as regarded from the highest stand-
point, and, may we not say, in the truest conception of the whole matter,—the
right view. He, who filled the whole, must also fill the parts.
(9) The explanation of dtaxoviay (ver. 14) given by Liinem., Alf.,de W., Blk., Moll,
and others—that it refers to their service to God, which has in view the eternal
saivation of His people, and is thus for their sake or on account of them—is undoubt-
edly correct. The contrast between the angels and the Son in respect to the end-
lessness of the sovereignty is thus set forth with a similar emphasis to that with
which, in vv. 7, 8, the contrast with reference to the sovereignty itself is presented.
CHAP. IL 421
CHAPTER II.
VER. 1. Instead of the Recepia: fuacg mpocéxecv (K L, Theodoret), Lachm.
Tisch. and Alford read: tpocéyxeev 4uasg. In favor of the latter decides the
preponderating authority of A B D E®, Vulg. Athan. Aug. alii—Ver. 4. avrov)}
D* E*; row deov. Explanatory gloss.—Ver. 6. Ti éorcv] Lachm. (but only in the
ed. stereot.) Bleek, and Kurtz: rig éorcev, Only insufficiently attested by C* Clar.
Sangerm. Tol. Copt. Damascenus, although also A contains tic in Ps. viii. By
reason of the preceding ric, Ti might easily pass over into tic.—Ver. 7. After
éoregdvwoac avrév there is added by Elz., with A C D* E* MX, many cursives
and translations, Theodoret, Sedulius: cai xaréoryoag avrov émi ta Epya
TOv xetpav cov, Against B D** E** K L more than 65 min., Syr. (codices
and some edd.) Slav. ms. Chrys. Damase. alii. The addition already regarded as
spurious by Mill (Prolegg. 1376, 1421). Bracketed by Lachm. and Bloomf.
Rightly deleted by Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford,
Reiche, and others. Complementary gloss from the LXX. Comp. the exposition
of ver. 7—Ver. 8. év yep 79] So AC KL, al. Lachm. and Tisch. 1, 7, and 8,
after BD E M ®&, 23: ¢v r@ yap.—Ver. 9. Besides yapire Geowv (so also in
the Cod. Sinait., as well as A B C DE K L, al.), Origen,—in Joann. i. 1, Opp. iv.
41; tn Joann. xi. 49, Opp. iv. 393; tn Joann. extr. Opp. iv. 450,—Theodor. Mop-
suest. (in N. T. commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt, ed. Fritzsche, Turic. 1847,
p. 163 f.), and Jerome, on Gal. iii. 10, know of a reading yuwpi¢ teov, to which
the two former give the preference. Theodoret ad loc. and ad Eph. i. 10, takes
notice only of the reading ywpig Yeov, In like manner do, also, Anastas. abbas
Palaestin., in the 8th century, in his work, Contra Judaeos (Latin ed. Canis.), in
ant. lect. ili.; Ambrose, de fid. ad Gratian. ii. 8, 63, 65, v. 8.106; Fulgentius, ad
Thrasimund. iii. 20; and Vigilius Thapsens. Contra Eutych. ii. 3, cite in accord-
ance with the same; it has also passed over into single mss. of the Peshito (some-
times in combination with the ordinary reading; so also in Syr. Cod. Heidelber-
gens.: “ipse enim excepto Deo per beneficentiam suam pro quovis homine
gustavit mortem,” according to Tremellius in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8); comp. La
Croze, Histoire du Christtanisme des Indes, iii. 3, 64; Bode, Pseudo-crit. Millio-
Bengel, t. ii. p. 339. So, too, it is found in Arab. Petropolitana of the 8th century
(in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8): “quare ywpic eov, qui eum sibi fecerat templum,
gustavit mortem it?p révruv trav av3pdruv.”” Above all, this reading was
championed by the Nestorians (see Oecumen. and Theophyl. ad loc.). Among
later expositors it has found defenders in Camerarius, P. Colomesius (Observatt.
sacr. p. 603), Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid, Paulus, and Ebrard. But neither in our
codd. nor in the versions (with the exceptions above named) does yupic 3 eod
find any countenance; it is met with only in the Cod. M (of Tisch.; with Wetst.
and Griesb.: Cod. 53) of the 9th or 10th century, and in the Cod. 67 of the 11th
or 12th century—in the latter only on the margin. On internal grounds, too, it
is to be rejected (see the exposition, and Reiche in the Commenéarius Oritcus, p.
422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
14 ff). Probably arose from the placing of zwpi¢ Seov, occasioned by 1 Cor. xv.
27, as a gloss to the words of ver. 8: ovdév agijxev ait avyTéraxtov; and this
gloss being erroneously regarded by a later transcriber as a correction of yapere
Seow, ver. 9, was taken up in place thereof into the text.—Ver. 14. Elz. Mat-
thaei, Scholz: capkdc¢ xai aizarog. ButA BCD E M8, 37, al, many ver-
sions and Fathers, have aiuarog xai capxéc, Already approved by Bengel
and Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. The Recepta is a
later transposition, since the order capé xai aiuza is elsewhere the more usual
one.—Tév avtov] D* E* It. Eus. Theodoret (semel), Jerome: rév avrév
radnuétwv, (Erroneous) explanatory gloss.—d:a rov Yavdrov] D* E* It.: dia rob
Savarov Jdvatov. An addition incompatible with that which follows. Proceeded
from an erroneous twofold writing of avdrov.
Vv. 1-4. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XLIV., pages 446, 447.] The author, in
availing himself of the communicative form of speech, deduces from the
superiority of the Son over the angels, set forth in chap. (1, as likewise
from the fact that even the Mosaic law, given through the instrumentality
of angels, could not be transgressed with impunity, the imperative obliga-
tion for the readers to hold fast to the salvation revealed by Christ, securely
handed down, and confirmed by God with miracles. Thus there already
comes out here the paraenetic main tendency of the epistle: to animate
the Hebrews, urgently exposed as they were to the peril of apostasy, to
perseverance in the Christian faith, as this aim is also manifested else-
where in repeated admonitions (e. g. iii. 6, 14, iv. 14, vi. 11, x. 23) ; although
the author has the intention of speaking further concerning the relation of
Christ to the angels (comp. ver. 5 ff.).
Ver. 1. Acd rovro] [XLIV b.] therefore, sc. because Christ, the mediator
of the New Covenant, is as the Son of God so highly exalted above the
angels, the intermediate agents in the giving of the Old Covenant.—éei]
indication of the inner necessity resulting of itself from the described con-
ditions.—repicoorépws | 30 much the more, sc. than would be the case if He
who proclaimed the axovofévra were one of lower rank. We have not
however, to connect teprcoorépw¢ with dei (Grotius, Bengel, Dindorf,
Bohme, Kuinoel), but with rpocéyer:v as the main idea.—zpootyew rivi
wp.| to give heed or attention to anything, sc. in order to hold fast to it—
toig axovobeiow] to that which has been heard. The salvation preached by
the Lord and His immediate disciples is intended, of which the readers
had heard. Comp. ver. 3. [XLIV c.]—y#rore rapappripev}| lest haply we
should be carried past it, 4. e. lest we lose it, fail of obtaining the salvation
promised to us by the word we have heard; comp. ver. 3. The interpre-
tation of Erasmus, Clarius, Beza, Cameron, Stuart, al.: lest we forget it, or
let it escape attention, is unmeaning and almost tautological. wapapprepuev
(or tapapvapev, as Lachmann and Tischendorf 2 and 7 write it, afler A B*
D* L¥), moreover, is not, as Wittich, Dindorf, and others suppose, con-
junctive present active of rapappvéw,—for the forms rapappriv, rapappte,
1Comp. LXX. Prov. iii. 21: vie wh wapappuys, ripyocor 82 eugy BovAdy cai ervacep.
CHAP. II. 1-3. 423
xapappinue are mere figments of the grammarians,! in order to derive cer-
tain tenses therefrom,—but sec. aorist conjunct. passive from sapappéw.
Vv. 2-4. Establishing of the dei wepiccoripug mpoctxetv jude toic¢ axovobeiary,
ver. 1, by a warning reference to the great responsibility and culpability
in the case of its neglect, and this in a conclusion a minore ad majus.
Not justifiably does de Wette take vv. 2-4 asa “ proving of the danger of
the sapapp.” For not the possibility of foregoing salvation, but the cul-
pability of losing it through neglect, forms the central thought in wv.
2-4.
Ver. 2. ‘0 d? ayyéAwv Aadrnoeic Adyoc| the word proclaimed by angels (not:
by human messengers, ¢.e. prophets; so Daniel Heinsius and G. Olearius,
against the connection with chap. i., and contrary to Biblical usage), 7. e.
the Mosaic law. Of an activity of the angels in connection with the act
of legislation on Sinai nothing indeed is mentioned in Ex. xix.; it was,
however, a traditional view very widely spread among the Jews. See
Schoettgen and Wetstein on Gal. 111.19. The earliest traces thereof appear
Deut. xxxiii. 2, LX X., and Ps. Ixviii. 18 (17). It is clearly enunciated Acts
vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Josephus, Anéiq. xv. 5.3.—To understand other divine
revelations given through the intervention of angels, like Gen. xix. 26, to
the exclusion of the Mosaic law (Dorscheus, Calov, Schoettgen, Carpzov,
Semler, al.), or with the inclusion of the same (Baumgarten, Ewald,
M’Caul: “To my mind, the transition to the law exclusively is in the
present instance somewhat abrupt. Does it not rather also refer to the
ministrations of angels vouchsafed from time to time during the whole of
the earlier dispensation, and to which allusion is made in the concluding
verse of the first chapter?”’), as intended by the 6 &' ayyéAwy Aadnbeic Adyos,
is forbidden—apart from the connection in its main points, and the whole
tendency of the epistle—by the expression 6 Adéyoc in the singular.—The
preterites ¢yévero and éAaBev characterize the period of the Mosaic law
as a past one, the condition of life prevailing in the same as one now obso-
lete and historically surmounted.—BéBaroc] [XLIV d.] firm, i. e. inviolable
and obligatory, as is evident from the explanatory clause xai aca .
puofar. immediately following.—zapdéBaccco the objective transgression,
napakof the subjective listless hearing or inattention, Uebertretung and
Ueberhorung. Not inaptly Béhme, in preserving the paronomasia, “non
commissa solum, sed omissa etiam.”’—évdixoc] just, in the N. T. only here
- and Rom. iii. 8. yo8arodocia] selected, sonorous word, a favorite one with
our author in the sense of the simple s:o6éc, but not occurring elsewhere
in the N. T. The term is a vor media, signifies thus recompense. It is here
employed in the unfavorable sense (= punishment), x. 35, xi. 26, in the
favorable sense (= reward).
Ver. 3. The apodosis follows in the form of a question, which for the
rest extends only to owrnpiac, not to the close of ver. 4.—7éc] how is it
possible that.—jueic] has the emphasis. The Christians in general are
1 Without warrant Delitzach denies this. He has not been able to adduce an instance in
favor of the opposite opinion.
424 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
meant, in opposition to the men once belonging to the O. T. theocracy, of
whom the writer has spoken at least by implication in ver. 2.—éxgev&de6a]
stands absolutely, as xii. 25; 1 Thess. v. 3. Needlessly do Heinrichs,
Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier,and many others supplement from ver. 2:
tiv évdixov wiofarodociav.—apeAfoavrec] Instancing of the case or condition,
after the arising of which an escape or deliverance from punishment
becomes an impossibility : in case that, or if, we shall have neglected (slighted).
The participle aorist is properly used, since the culpability must first have
been incurred before a punishment can ensue.—ryAicaita¢ owrnpiac]
[XLIV e.] such a salvation, t.e. one so great, so far surpassing in exalted-
ness that of the O. T.!\—ryAixabrn¢ does not in itself contain a reference to
grec (Tholuck and others; the former will then have gre taken in the
sense of core), but stands there independently of any correlative; it is
then, however, after the question has closed with owrypiac, enforced by the
clause with greg (quippe quae).—7reg apyx7v AaBoica Aareiobat dia Tov Kvpiov,
td Tov axovodvtwr Eig yuac é&SeBad0y] which indeed, at first proclaimed by the
Lord, was handed down with certainty to us by them that heard vt. Wrongly
does Ebrard translate: “which was confirmed to us by the hearers, as one
proclaimed by the Lord from the very first,” in supposing that apy
AaBovea depends upon éfeBaioty as an “apposition of object.” For how
can apyiv AaBdv Aadeiobac denote something proclaimed “from the very
beginning,” or “from the commencement”? And how unskilfully would
the author have proceeded in the choice and position of his words, if—as
Ebrard supposes—he had wished to express the thought, “ that the owrypia
was directly revealed by the Lord, has been transmitted to us asa cer-
tainty, and thus asa divine legitimation of the owrnpia by the dxotoavrec,
the ear- (and eye-) witnesses!” ’Apyjv AaPeiv, to begin, always presup-
poses an opposition, expressed or understood, to a being continued, or to
a being brought to an end. When thus in our passage there is mention
made not only of an apy AaBeiv Aadeicbat by the Lord, but also of a BeBaw-
Ova ei¢ Aude on the part of those who heard the Lord, it is clear that the
author will have these two factors regarded as statements of two distinct
but mutually corresponding periods of time.—lIn general, it is wrong when
Ebrard, in connection with his explanation just adduced, will find in ver.
3 the twofold contrast with the law—(1) That the law was a mere word
(Adyoc); the gospel, on the other hand, a deliverance, a redemption, an act.
(2) That the our7pia was manifested and proclaimed to men as at first
hand, by the Lord Himself; the law, on the contrary, only at second hand,
by the angels. For, as concerns the first alleged point of difference,
assuredly the emphasis rests neither upon Aédyoc, ver. 2, nor upon owropiac,
ver. 3; but, ver. 2, upon dv’ ayyéAuy, and, ver. 3, upon r7Axabrac. The
second alleged point of difference falls, however, with the consideration
that the author employs the preposition d:4, as before ayyéAwy, ver. 2, 80
1Theodorus Mopsuestenus: éxetvo voninwr ewayyeAia cai aOavacias umdéoxeots’ Séery xel
Sders fy pdvov, évrai@a 8@ Kai xapis wvedpatos «_ Sxaing THALKavTHS elwey.
mai Avocs axaptnudrery cai BaciAcias ovpaywy
CHAP. II. 3. 425
also before row xvpiov, ver. 3; thus indicates that the supreme Author alike
of the Mosaic law and of the gospel is God Himself, both consequently
are proclaimed to man “only at second hand.”! The pre-eminence of
the gospel can accordingly have been discovered by our author only in
the fact that in connection with this the Lord Himself was the interven-
ing agent; in connection with the law, on the other hand, only the angels,
who, according to chap. i., are subordinate to the Lord.—izé trav axovody-
rev] by them that heard it (sc. from the Lord ; zapa roi xupiov, Chrysost.), thus
by His apostles and immediate disciples. From these axotcavres the author
distinguishes himself and his readers (ei¢ judas). As well he himself as the
Palestinian Christians to whom he writes must consequently have already
belonged to a second generation of Christendom, and the author of the
epistle cannot have been Paul (comp. Jnérod. p.11). [XLIVg.] When
Hofmann (Schrifibew. IT. p. 378, 2 Aufl.) objects to this: “from ei¢ guag¢ is
in truth evident only that the author belonged not to the number of those
who could testify that they had with their own ears heard the Lord, at
the time when He was upon earth proclaiming that salvation which
they now preached,” this is indeed perfectly correct. But when he adds
that Paul likewise had certainly only heard the word of salvation from
the mouth of those who had listened to Jesus, this is—so long as the
solemn asseveration of Paul himself (comp. expressly Gal. i. 12) has any
value for us—decidedly false. For Paul reckons himself not among the
disciples of the axotcarrec, but among the axoicavrec themselves. For the
circumstance that the axotecy was otherwise brought about in his case than
in the case of the original apostles, inasmuch as these had stood in the
relation of axobcavrec to the Christ walking upon earth, Paul, on the other
hand, stood in the relation of an axobcac to the exalted or heavenly Christ,
left the essence of the matter itself untouched. Nor even by the assump-
tion of a so-called avaxoivwor, to which recourse has very frequently been
had, can the conclusion resulting with stringent necessity from the words
of our verse be set aside; for that which the writer of a letter says to his
readers by means of an avaxoivwore is always of such nature as to be like-
wise true of himself; never can it stand in excluding opposition to him-
self.—éSeBa667] corresponds to the éyévero PBéSacoc, ver. 2; and eic¢ puas
éBeBadOy is a well-known blending of the notion of rest with that of the
preceding movement. See Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 414 f£.] Theophylact:
StemopOpebtn cic guac BeBaiug nal rior dc, it came to usina firm, trust-
worthy manner, so that it has become for us a owrypia BeBaia. Wrongly
Heinrichs (and so also Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Wolf, Cramer, Paulus, and
1] cannot bring myself to recall this remark,
although Delitasch takes so great offence at
it that he finds therein “a toning down of the
opposition in gross misapprehension of the
sense of the author.” The conception of an
“immediate ” speaking on the part of Jeho-
vah in the N. T., on which Delitzsch insists,
p. 49, 51, is regarded in general unbiblical ; it
is, moreover, remote from the thought of the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the
whole chapter in itself shows: only by forcing
upon him dogmatic notions already a priors
determined, and entirely disregarding the
laws of grammar, can it be brought out from
his statements,
/
426 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
others), according to whom ei¢ #ua¢ signifies ad nostra tempora, or usque
ad nos.
Ver. 4. Zuveripaprupoivrog rot Oeov x.7.A.] in that, with them (the axotearrec),
God bore testimony in addition, to the same (the salvation, the owrnpia), by
signs and wonders. The doubly compound word ovver:paprupeiv in the N.
T. only here. Nor is it found at all in the LXX. With later profane
writers, on the other hand, it is not rare. oyueia and répara only dis-
tinguished in the form of conception as signa and portenta, not different
in the notion conveyed by them. Comp. Fritzsche on Rom. xv. 19 (t. ili.
p. 270).—rorxidag] belongs only to dwvdéyecey. The adjective is not likewise
to be referred to pepiopoic (Bleek, Maier). For the notion of morxidov is
again specially brought into prominence in the sequel, in that it forms an
element also in the contents of xara ry avrov OfAnow.—The duvdperc, how-
ever, are not miraculous acts, but the source of the same: miraculous pow-
ers.—xal mvetpatog dyiov peptopoic x.t.A.] and distributions of the Holy Spirit
according to His good pleasure. mvetparog dytan is genitivus objectiv., not
subjectiv. (Cameron and others); and pepsopués, which (iv. 12) signifies
dividing, denotes here, in accordance with the use of the verb pepiCecy,
vii. 2, Rom. xii. 3, 1 Cor. vii. 17, 2 Cor. x. 13: an apportioning or dealing
out, distribution.—kara tiv avrov AéAnow] Addition, not to the whole period,
ver. 4 (Abresch, B6hme), ner to roixida . . . peptopoic (Bleek), but only to
peptopoic (de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz), on
which account this 1s also placed after the genitive mvebyaruc ayiov. avrov
relates back to rov Geov, not to mvebyarog dyfov (Oecumenius, Carpzov), and
the whole addition xara rv abrov 6éAnow has the design not only in general
of representing the bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit on the part of God as
a work of His free grace, but also of pointing to the manifold character
of those distributions, inasmuch as, according to God’s free determination
of will, the Holy Spirit was communicated in greater fullness to the one
than to the other, and of the special gifts of the Spirit to the one was
granted this, to the other that. Comp. 1 Cor. xii?
Vv. 5-18. [On Vv. 5-8, see Note XLV. pages 447-450.] Further
investigation of the relation of Christ to the angels, and demonstration of
the necessity for the death of Christ. Not to angels, but to Christ, the
Son of man, has, according to the testimony of Scripture, the Messianic
world been subjected. Certainly Christ was abased for a short time lower
than the angels; but so it must be, in order that mankind might obtain
salvation; He must suffer and die, and become in all things like unto
men, His brethren, in order to be able as High Priest to reconcile them to
God.
Ver. 5. [XLV a.] The author has brought into relief the fact, ver. 3,
that it was the Son of God, or the Lord, according to chap. i., highly ex-
alted above the angels, by whom the Messianic salvation was proclaimed,
18ee examples In Bleek, Abth. II. 1 Halfte, ad Phryn. p. 7, 353; Pollux, v. 165: BovAgets
p. 218. ercOvuia, Spegcs, Epws? Se OdAnars iscos-
2On the un-Attic @¢Anoes, comp. Lobeck, frexér.
CHAP, II. 4, 5. 427
and from whose immediate disciples it was handed down to Christendom.
He now justifies this order of things as founded in a higher divine decree,
and already foretold in the Scriptures of the Old Covenant. That order
of things is, however, justified, in conformity to the comparison of Christ
with the angels, which is begun with i. 4, first, e contrario or negatively,
ver. 5, and then, ver. 6, positively. The emphasis les in ver. 5 upon ayyé-
Ao.¢, and this then finds its antithesis in dv#pwzo¢ and vli¢g. av@pamov, ver.
6. For when the author first in an absolute form of expression says: For
not unto the angels has He put into subjection the world to come, and
then continues: But one in a certain place testifies, etc., the sense—on
account of the close connectedness of ver. 6 (see on that verse) with ver.
5—is certainly this: for, according to the testimony of Scripture, the world
to come is put in subjection, not to angels, but to Christ, the Son of man.
—<ayyéAoc] without article. For it stands generically: beings who are
angels, who have the nature of angels (Bleek). [Owen : nature angelical. ]
De Wette supposes the reason for the anarthrous form to be in the possi-
bility that only @ part of the angels are to be thought of. Unsuitably,
because in connection with ov« ayyéAoc already the definite antithesis :
“but to the Son of man,” was present to the mind of the author (comp.
ver. 6).—izérafev] sc. 6 dedc, which naturally follows from the rod Geot of
ver.4. The verb expresses the notion of making dependent, or of the
placing in a position of subjection, and is chosen because the same expres-
sion is employed in the citation presently tu be adduced (comp. ver. 8).—
Tiv oixouutvav tHv éAAovoar] the world to come. This mode of designating it
is explained from the well-known Biblical phraseology, according to
which the Messianic period was distinguished as the aiav néAAwv, from the
pre-Messianic as the aidy otroc.1 What is meant, consequently, is not
something purely future (Theodoret: 46 uéArwy Biog; Oecumenius: 6 éoduevog
xécuocg; Schulz: the new order of the world which is approaching; Bleek
II. : the blessings of the kingdom of God which will first be manifested and
conferred upon believers at the return of the Lord in glory; Grotius,
Maier, and others: heaven, as the future dwelling-place of the Christians
also), but the new order of things in the Messianic kingdom, which in tts first
manifestations has already appeared, but as regards its completion is still a
future one. Calvin: apparet non vocari orbem futurum dumtaxat, qualem
e resurrectione speramus, sed qui coepit ab exordio regni Christi, comple-
mentum vero suum habebit in ultima redemptione. riv olxoupévay rv
#éAAovoay is itself without emphasis ; on the contrary, only resumes under
another form the ryAccabryg owrnpiac of ver. 3. It results from this, that
the opinion according to which the tacit contrast is to be supplied in
thought to the declaration, ver. 5: “the present world is indeed” to be
regarded as “subjected to the angels, by them swayed and governed ”
(Cameron, Bleek, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 656, al.), is a baseless
1We have not to seek the origin of the promised belonged as yet to the purely future
addition ryy wéAAovcay in the fact thatat the (so, along with the right explanation this
time of the Psalmist (ver. 6), that which was _—ilikewise in Bleek I.).
428 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
one. For it must then have been written ov yap riv pé2ALoveay oixovutyyy
ayyébiog ivétagev.—repi 7¢ AadAnipev] does not go back to 1. 6 (Theophylact,
Zeger, Grotius, Schlichting, Schulz, Bbhme, comp. also Delitzsch),—against
which the present AaAoituev, in place of which a preterite must have been
expected, and not less the addition ry péAAovoar to tiv oixoupévy, is decisive,
—nor is AaAovyev put in place of a future: “de quo in sequenti testimonio
loquemur” (Vatablus); but the relative clause is to be taken quite gener-
ally: which is the subject of our discourse (our epistle). Too specially
Kurtz: “ of which we are speaking just now, in this section of our epistle,”
which would have called for the addition of a vw». The plural Aaioiper,
moreover, has reference merely to the writer. Comp. v. 11, vi. 9, 11, xiii.
18. Without good reason does Bengel supplement nos doctores; while
even, according to Hofmann, “all who believe the promise, the apostle
and his readers,” are the subject of Aadotyev, Inasmuch as it is only a
question of an “additional explanatory clause, when the apostle adds
that that world to come is intended, of which the Christians speak!”
Ver. 6 attaches itself closely to ver. 5, in that the adversative dé (differ-
ent from the disjunctive aAAa, but, on the contrary. Comp. Hartung,
Partikell. I. p. 171), as iv. 18, 15, ix. 12, x. 27, xii. 18, 1 Cor. vii. 15, 25 fin.,
and frequently, as it were correcting the preceding negative statement,
now places in opposition the actual state of the question: Some one, hou-
ever (some one, on the contrary), testified in a certain place and said. Quite
wrongly does Heinrichs suppose an entirely new section of the epistle to
begin with ver. 6.—7ot ric] The wavering character of this form of cita-
tion is derived by Grotius from the consideration that the Psalms were the
work of different authors, and the authors of particular psalms were often
unknown. But the eighth Psalm, here cited, is, both in the Hebrew and
the LXX., expressly ascribed to David. According to Koppe (Ercursus I.
ad epist.ad Roman., 2d ed. p. 379), Dindorf, Schulz, Heinrichs (comp. also
Stengel), the indefiniteness of the formula is to be explained by the fact
that the author is citing from memory. But the words agree too exactly
with the LX-X. to be a citation from memory, and, moreover, the indefi-
nite vov occurs again, iv. 4, in connection with the citation of Gen. ii. 2,
thus in connection with an appeal to a passage of the O. T. Scripture, of
which the place where it is found could not possibly escape the memory
of our author. De Wette, after the precedent of Bleek [cf. Peshito: the
Scripture witnesses, and says], regards it as the most correct supposition
that the author “ was not concerned about the particular writers of Scrip-
ture, since for him God or the Holy Ghost spoke through the Scripture.”
Yet, if the reason for the form of expression is to be sought in this, then
in general we should hardly expect the personal indication ric to be
added, but rather a passive construction to be chosen. According to Hof-
mann, finally, rob rec is intended to declare “ that it is indeed a matter of
indifference for his purpose who said this, and where it is found; that it
is adduced as the utterance of some man, only an utterance which comes
invested with the authority of Scripture!” The indefinite mode of cita-
tion has probably no other than a rhetorical ground, inasmuch as the
CHAP. I. 6. 429
author presupposes a universal acquaintance with the passage, without
concerning himself to learn whether it is known to all ornot.!. The same
reticence in the mode of citation is often found with Philo.?~—The citation,
which extends to zodév airod, ver. 8, is from Ps. viii. 5-7 (4-6). [XLV 6.]
The utterance in its historic sense contains a declaration with regard to
man in general; but the author, on the ground of the ideal import of the
passage, as likewise in particular on the ground of the expression vid¢
avdpdé7ov, which in consequence of Dan. vii. 13 was current with the Jews
as an appellation of the Messiah (comp. John xii. 34), which, too, was one
often bestowed by Jesus upon Himself, finds in it a declaration concern-
ing the Son of man xar’ éfox#, i.e. concerning Christ.2 Paul, too, has
Messianically interpreted the psalin, 1 Cor. xv. 27 f. (comp. Eph. i. 22).—
Ti got avdpwrog «.7.A.] What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the
son of man that Thou regardest him ! t.e., in the sense of the original, How
small, weak, and insignificant, as compared with the majestic heavenly
bodies, is man, that Thou shouldst nevertheless take a loving and careful
interest in him! In the application: How great and full of dignity 1s
man, that Thou so greatly distinguishest him with loving care! (Kuinoel,
Heinrichs, BOhme, Bleek, Stein; otherwise, de Wette, Hofmann, Schrift-
bew. II. 1, p. 45,2 Aufl.; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 361; Alford,
Moll, Kurtz, al.). Thus the author could understand the words, although
the “ being mindful ” and “looking upon ” do not very well accord there-
with, in that he was guided in his acceptance of them pre-eminently by
the final clause d6&) . . . avtov.—7] instead of this ) is found in the
Hebrew, thus introduces a purely parallel member, in such wise that vié¢
av9pérov is identical with aéy3pwro¢ in the first member, and is distin-
guished therefrom only as a more sharply defined presentation of the
same notion.
180 substantially also Chrysostom (rovro 8
avré, oluat, rd xpUmrew cai wn TiOdvar rdv
cipnedta Thy paprupiay, GAA’ ws wepihepoudvny
cai xataénAov otcay etcayey, Secxvivros eoriv,
attovs odddpa éureipovs elvas tar ypadwr),
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Jac.
Cappellus, Cornelius a Lapide [Owen: “the
reason is plain; both person and place were
sufficiently known to them to whom he
wrote "}, Calov, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Alford,
Maier, Moll, Kurts, al.
2Comp. ¢. g. de ebrietate, p. 248 (ed. Mangey,
I. p. 365): ete ydp wo ris (8c. Abraham, Gen.
xx. 12). Further examples see in Bleek,
Abth. II. 1 H&lfte, p. 239.
8In contradiction with the design of the
whole explication, as this clearly manifests
itself from the context, do Beza, Piscator,
Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch (p. 57, 59), Hofmann
(Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 45, 2 Aufl.), Alford, Moll,
and others, refer dv@pwros, even in the sense
of our author, and vios av@purov to man gen-
erally, namely, to the man of the New Cove-
nant, inasmuch as he shall receive the
dominion over all things, in the possession
of which Christ is already set. When Ebrard,
p. 84, asserts that the “ Messianic” interpre-
tation “of the non-Measianic eighth Psalm”
cannot be laid to the account of the author
of the epistle, without charging him with “a
downright Rabbinical misunderstanding of a
psalm ;” and when, in like manner, Delitzsch,
p. 57, declares it “not at all conceivable that
the author of our epistle should without any
explanation have referred avOpwros and vids
avOpwmrov of the psalm to Christ,” unles« we
are to attribute “the uttermost limitation of
thought to the N. T. exposition of Scripture,”
that is nothing else than a controlling of the
author of the epistle by preconceived opinions
of one's own, from which, in the face of 1 Cor.
xv. 27 f., one ought to have shrunk. For the
rest, against the view espoused by Ebrard,
Delitzsch, and Hofmann, comp. also Riehm,
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderobr. p. 368 ff., note.
430 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ver. 7. [XLV c 1, 2, 3.] 'HAdrrwcac abrév Bpayt te wap’ ayyédouc] Thus
the LXX. translate the Hebrew O'F1782 OY AIONA. The sense of the
Hebrew is: “Thou hast made Him only a little lower than God, hast
made Him only a little less than God.” The Bpayzt rz is consequently
in the original a note of degree, and the whole former member 7Adrrucag
. ayyéAove contains in the original the same thought as the immedi-
ately following dé6& Kai rivh éoregdvwoac avtév. The author, however, takes
the Spaz tr of the LXX. in the temporal sense: “for a short time”
(comp. ver. 9), and finds in the second member an opposition to the first,
in such wise that in the application he refers the statement of the first
clause to the humiliation of Christ, that of the second to the eraltation of
Christ.—The words following these in the LXX. (as also in the Hebrew):
nai xatéotyoag avtov émi ra Epya trav yetpov cov (comp. the critical remarks),
have been left out by the author as unsuitable to his presentment. For
the statement that God has set the Son of man or the Messiah over the
works of creation which proceeded from the hands of God, might appear
to contain a contradiction to i. 10 (comp. also i. 2), where earth and
heaven were designated as works created by the hands of the Son.
Ver. 8. Ilavra wtérafag wrondtw trav rodav avtov] All things didst Thou
putin subjection under His feet. In the psalm these words refer to the
dominion which God has conferred upon man over the earth, and indeed
specially (comp. Ps. viii. 8, 9 [7, 8]) over the whole animal world. The
author of the epistle, on the other hand, taking wéyra in the absolute
sense, understands them of the dominion over the universe which has
been conferred upon Christ, the Son of man. Comp. Matt. xxviii. 18.—
With év yap tO brorégae... avuréraxroy the author still dwells on
the closing words of the citation: mévra tréragac x.7.4.,in order by way
of elucidation to unfold its contents, and thus to place in clearer light the
truth of the main thought expressed vv. 5-8. yép consequently refers
back to that which immediately precedes, and the supposition of Tholuck
—that év yap rt trordgéac x.7.A,, a8 the clause which affords the proof, is
parenthetically preposed to the viv dé «.r.4., as the clause which is to be
proved, so that the connection would be: “but now we see not yet all
things made subject to Him; for, according to the declaration of the psalm,
all things without exception are subject to Him ”—is to be rejected as
entirely unnecessary ; quite apart from the fact that no instance of such
parenthetical preposing of an elucidatory clause with yép is to be found
anywhere in the N, T. (not in John iv. 44, 45 either), although not rare
with classical writers. Nor does yép stand for ot (Heinrichs, Stengel),
but is the explicative namely. [XLV c 4.] The subject in trordéaz,
further, is not David, the singer of the psalm (Heinrichs), but God; and
the emphasis rests upon the opposition between ra wévra and ovdéy.
The threefold atrQ, finally, relates not to man in general,? but to the Son
1Comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 467; Kah- Grotius, Owen, Whitby, Storr, Kuincel,
ner, Gramm. II. p. 454. Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Hofmann,
2 Beza [Piscator: the believers], Schlichting, | Woerner, and others.
CHAP, II. 7-9. 431
of man, and that not merely as regards its signification,’ but—as is shown
by the "Iycotv, only incidentally added, ver. 9—to the Son of man as He
appeared in Christ as an historical person.? The sense is accordingly : by
the fact, namely, that God made all things subject to Christ, the Son of
man, He left nothing that is not subjected unto Him; itis thus also—this
natural inference the author leaves to the readers themselves to make—
to Him, the Son of man, and not to the angels, that 4 oixouzévy 7) péAAovea
(ver. 5), which is only a part of that rad wévra, is subjected; nay, the
angels themselves, seeing that all things have been put in subjection under —
Him, are themselves subject to Him.—With viv 62 ot rw dpauev avrg
ra wévta broreraypéva the author limits the immediately preceding
declaration by an admission, by which, however, as is then further shown,
ver. 9, the correctness of the former assertion as to the actual state of the
matter suffers no infringement: now, however,—that must be conceded,
—we see not yet all things subjected unto Him. For we are as yet in the
condition of the earthly body; as yet the kingdom of God is only partially
established ; as yet it has to wage warfare with many enemies (comp. x.
12, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 24-27) We shall see that all things have been made
subject to Christ by God the Father only when Christ shall have returned
for the consummation of the kingdom of God.
Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-16, see Note XLVI., pages 450-452.] Proof that, not-
withstanding the circumstances just mentioned, the matter itself which
has been asserted is perfectly true. Certainly we do not, at the present
moment, as yet see all things made subject to Christ, the Son of man; but
we do see Him already crowned with glory and honor, in that after suffer-
ing and dying He has been exalted to the right hand of the Father. From
the reality of the one, however, which we see, follows of necessity the
reality of the other, which we do not yetsee. For if the word of Scripture:
66&y kal Tin Eotepadvwoge avrdv, has already been fulfilled in His
case, there can be no kind of doubt but in like manner also the further
word of Scripture: wévra irérafag troxadtw tov modédv avtod, in-
separably connected as it is with the former, has already attained its
realization in Him.—The words of ver. 9 have undergone a strange mis-
interpretation on the part of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 45 ff. 2 Aufi.).
As Hofmann with regard to ver. 7 already denies that the two members
of the sentence in that verse: 7Adrrwoag abrév Bpaxt re map’ ayyéAove and
d6Ep nat Tinh torepdvucac avréy, form in the mind of the writer an opposi-
tion to each other, so just as little is the writer in ver. 9 supposed to have
had present to his mind in connection with rdv Bpayt re rap’ ayyéAove
qaatrwpévov the humiliation of Christ, and with 6d6&y kai tiup éoredavwptvov
the eraltation of Christ. Ver. 9 is thought rather to refer exclusively to
the Jesus “living in the flesh,” and the connection is thus explained:
“Far from its being the case that we see all things subjected to man, He,
1 Masch, Bleek, de Wette. Stuart, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He
Calvin, Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, brderbr. p. 364; Kurtz, Ewald, al.
Wittich, Peirce, Schulz, Tholuck, Klee,
432 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
on the contrary, of whom that which the psalm speaks of man holds good
in full truth, Jesus namely, stands before our eyes in a position of divine
appointment, as such demanded by the existing calamity of death, which,
according to ver. 14, makes the devil a ruler and us bondsmen.” For by
Bpaxt te wap’ ayyéAovg ndartwpévog there is reference made, in the opinion
of Hofmann, to the person of man, of which the psalm is treating, with
regard to the dignity belonging thereto as conferred by God,—inasmuch
as Spayb te is to be taken of degree,—but by rd waé9nua rov Oavdrov is indi-
cated the misfortune consisting in death itself, and not his suffering of
death ; and défa xat riuf finally expresses, according to iii. 3, v. 4, 5, the
glurious character of his position by virtue of his vocation. The sense of
ver. 9, then, is supposed to be: “ What He, in whom the wealth of human
nature has appeared in full truth, denotes and represents on the part of
God,—for the former is meant by rug, the latter by défa,—that He denotes
and represents, for the reason that mankind is obnoxious to the suffering
of death, and to the end that He might taste a death which should redound
unto good for every one!” Sce, on the other hand, the remarks of
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 333 ff., note —rav Bpayt re rap’
GyyéAove qAatropévoy is the object, and défy nai ripg Ecregavupé vow
the predicate to BAérouev, while "I yoovv is the appositional nearer defi-
nition of the object brought in only at the close. The sense thus is: “ But
we do indeed see the one for a time abased below the angels, namely Jesus,
crowned with glory and honor.” Wrongly others: “ As the one for a time
abased below the angels do we recognize Jesus, who is crowned with glory
and honor.” For, in order to express this thought, "Iycovv rév ...
éotepavwuévoy must have been placed. Wrongly likewise Ebrard, with
whom Delitzsch agrees in substance, who takes 'Iycovy as object,
qAatrupévoy as adjectival attribute to ‘Iycotv, and éoredavwyévoy as predicate
to the object. The sense then is: “ mankind is not yet exalted ; but Jesus,
who was indeed abased for a while below the angels, we see already
crowned with glory and honor.” This construction, which at any rate
rests upon the false supposition that the subject of discourse, vv. 6-8, is
not already Christ, the Son of man, but only man in general, and that the
author of the epistle had regarded as fully identical the two utterances of
the psalm: d6&y xai tig éotepdvwcac abrév, and wdvta imétagag trondtw tiv
nodav avtov, would only be permissible in the case that 'Iycovyv dé, rdv
Bpaxb te wap’ ayyédove nAattwpevov, BAétouev x.t.A., OF Tov d2 Bpaxb te map’
ayyédoue Aatruptvov 'Incovv BAémopev x.t.A.. had been written. By the
position of the 'Incovv after BAétouev it becomes impossible; since in con-
sequence thereof 'Ijcoty appears as entirely unaccentuated, consequently
can be regarded only as a supplementary addition by way of elucidation
with regard to the question who is to be understood by the 6 Bpayt re
map’ ayyéAovg qAattuptvoc. ‘Incovv might even have been entirely left out
without detriment to the sense and intelligibility of that which the author
would imply; it is nevertheless inserted, in order, by the express mention
of His name, to cut off every kind of doubt upon the point that it is
no other than Christ, the historic Redeemer, of whom the citation ad-
CHAP. II. 9. 433
duced, vv. 6-8, is treating.—fAérouev] we see, perceive; namely, with the
eyes of the mind; comp. iii. 19, al. For itis openly testified that Christ
rose from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in
heaven; and Christians feel that He is reigning in power and glory by
means of the Holy Spirit, which He has conferred upon them.—déaé 1d
ré0nua tov Gavarov] [XLVI a.] on account of His suffering of death, belongs
not to Bpaxb re wap’ ayyédove qAarrepévoy,' but to dé6&y Kat tiny éorepavwpévov?
Only this mode of referring the clause has the merit of naturalness from
the position of the words; only this is grammatically and logically justi-
fied. For not only with this construction does é:4 with the accusative
retain its only possible signification, but the thought likewise finds its con-
firmation in the sequel (d:a radquérev tredecdoa, ver. 10), and accords with
the view of Paul, Phil. ii. 9, according to which the exaltation of Christ to
the right hand of the Father was the consequence and divine recom-
pense of the voluntary abasement endured even to the death of the
cross. Supposing the connection to be with that which precedes,
dia 7d wana Tov Gavdrov must contain a later added nearer definition to
fAatrupévoyv; but a second supplementary nearer definition, seeing that
"Iycovv already occupies such a position, would be extremely improbable,
when we consider the carefulness with regard to style which prevails in
this epistle; it would not, like ’I7covv, have a purpose to serve, but be
merely an instance of linguistic negligence such as ought not to be readily
laid to the charge of our author. Moreover, dia rd ré9nua tov Gavdrov,
referred to that which precedes, does not even admit of any satisfactory
explanation. For, as thus combined, it is interpreted either: humbled by
reason of the suffering of death, z.e. by suffering death, or: humbled jor
the sake of the suffering of death, ¢.e. in order to be able to undertake it.
But in the latter case the choice of the preposition 6:4 would be an ex-
ceedingly ill-judged one, since we must, at any rate, have expected ei¢ 7rd
néoyew tov Odvatov, or something similar. In the former case, on the
other hand, 6:4 must have been combined with the genitive instead of the
accusative, quite apart from the consideration that the author can hardly
be supposed to limit the humiliation of Christ to the moment of His
death, but rather (comp. ver. 14), like Paul, to comprehend in general the
whole period of His life in the flesh.—éruc¢ ydpite Seow txép mavrog yebonrac
Vavarov| that He by the grace of God might taste death for every one, does not
depend upon 66&% kat ring éotegavopévov. For the enduring of death was
certainly not something which was to take place only after the exaltation,
but already preceded this. The contorted interpretations, however : 30.
that He died for all or: in order that He may have suffered death for all, or:
postquam mortem gustavit,> are grammatically impossible. But sinee a
1Origen, in Joann. t. ii. ec. 6; Augustine, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr.
contra Marximin. iii. 2.5; Chrysostom, Theo- des Hebrderbr. p. 357; Alford, Maier, Moll,
doret, Oecumenius, Beza, Schlichting, Cor- Kurtz, Ewald, and many others.
nelius a Lapide, Cameron, Calov, Limborch, 8Erasmus, Paraphr., Tena, Ribera, Morus,
Semler, al. Valckenaer, Kuinoel.
3Luther, Calvin, Estius. Grotius, Bengel, 4Ebrard. :
Wetstein, Bohme, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette, 5Schleusner.
28
434 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
connecting of the final clause with 7Aarrwpuévor,! is, considering the gram-
matical construction of ver. 9, quite inconceivable, ézw¢ «.7.2. can be only
a further, but pregnant, exponent of the preceding 7d md8qua tov Yavdzov:
on account of His suffering of death, namely, in order that He might, etc.—
xépitt Seov] for the grace and love of God is the supreme cause of the
redeeming death of Christ (comp. Rom. v. 8; Gal. ii. 21).—izép] on behalf
of, for the weal of —ravréc] is not neuter, in such wise that the declaration
should apply to the whole creation, including the angels (Theodoret,
Oecumentius, Theophylact; comp. Origen, in Joann. t. 1. c. 40);? for this
thought comes into collision with ver. 16, and the expression thereof
would be incorrect, since we must expect in that case isp rdone tic
xrioewc, Or at least irép tov mavrdéc. Tlavréc is masculine, and has reference
only to mankind. The singular, however, is placed, not the plural zdvruv,
in order distinctly to bring out the thought that Christ died on behalf of
each single individual among men (namely, who will appropriate the sal-
vation offered him), not merely for mankind as a totality, as a compact
corporation. [Piscator and Owen understand : each and every one, sc. of
the roAdot vioi mentioned ver. 10. Cf. Acts xx. 28.]—yebeodac Yavdrov] rep-
resents the experiencing of death under the figure of a tasting of the same.
Comp. Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27; John viii. 52.3. The
formula is only a more significant expression for the ordinary azodvjoxecv,
Neither the notion of the brief duration of Christ’s death‘ nor along with
this the notion of the reality of that death® nor, finally, the notion of the
bitterness of the death sufferings ® lies in the expression.
REMARK.—In connection with the explanation of the reading ywpi¢ Veov
(see the critical remarks) comes forth the main diversity, that these words were
either taken as closely conjoined with i7ép zavréc, or regarded in themselves as
an independent nearer defining of the verb. The former mode of explanation is
adopted by Origen, Theodoret, Ebrard, Ewald: “in order that He might suffer
death for all beings, with the exception of God alone ;” further Bengel, and Chr.
F. Schmid: “in order that, with a view to purchasing or subjecting all things
except God, He might suffer death.” But against both acceptations is the fact
that zav7é6¢ cannot be neuter (see above), against the latter, moreover, in particular
the fact that the notion: “in order to purchase to himself,” cannot possibly be
expressed by the mere trép mavrég, As an independent addition xwpic Veoi is
taken by Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Ambrose, Fulgentius, the Nestorians, and P.
Colomesius (Observatt. Sacr. p. 603) : “that He might taste death without God,
t.e. Without the participation of His Godhead, with the mere sharing of His
1Akersloot, Bengel, Bohme, Bisping.
%Ebrard, too, finds the thought expressed
in Urép wavrds: “that Christ by His death
has reconciled absolutely all things, heaven
and earth;” but in connection therewith in-
consistently takes warrés as a masculine.
8 The formula corresponds to the rabbinical
mn oy (see Schoettgen and Wetstein on
Matt. xvi. 28), and has its manifold analogies
in the Greek turns; yeveo@a: u6xOwy (Soph.
Trachin. 1101), cxaxwy (Eurip. Hee. 379; Luc.
Nigr. 28), wévOovs mexpov (Eurip. Alcest. 1069),
movwy (Pindar, Nem. vi. 41), oterov (Homer,
Odyss. xxi. 98), THs apxns, THS EeAcvOepins
(Herod. iv. 147, vi. 5), ete.
4Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Primasius, Clarius, Camerarius, Braun,
Peirce, Cramer, Ch. F. Schmid.
5 Beza, Bengel.
Calov, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz.
CHAP. II. 10. 435
humanity in death.” But that such a thought, in itself entirely alien as it is to
the Biblical writers, could not have been expressed by xupic¢ Jeoi, is at once appar-
ent. There must at least have been written ywpi¢ ti¢ avrov Vedétyroc. To this
place further belongs Paulus, with an appeal to Matt. xxvii. 46: “as without
God, as one abandoned by God, not delivered.” But the added “as,” by
which alone the interpretation becomes tolerable, is, without grammatical justifi-
cation, the expositor’s own additamentum.
Ver. 10. [XLVI b.] Not without design has the author, ver. 9, added to
the declaration 66&7 kat riv@ éorepavwpuévov the indication of the cause, dca
to wd9nua tov Savérov, and then brought into relief this superadded
clause by the final statement: érw¢o ydpire Seov trip mravrioc
yebonrat Savdrov. For the Redeemer’s death onthe cross, ridiculed by
the Gentiles as folly, was to the Jews an offence (1 Cor. i. 23). Even to the
Hebrews, to whom the author is writing, the thought of a Messiah who
passed through sufferings and death might be a stumbling-block not yet
surmounted, and, with other things, have contributed to shake their con-
fidence in Christianity, and incline them to relapse into Judaism. With-
out, therefore, further giving express utterance to the conclusion to be
expected after ver. 9 (see on ver. 9, inzt.), but rather leaving the supplying
of the same to the readers, the author passes over, ver. 10 ff., at once to
the justification of that fact regarded as an offence, in bringing into relief
the consideration that the choice of that way, so apparently strange, of
causing the Messiah to attain to glory through sufferings and death, was
altogether worthy of God (ver. 10), and necessary (vv. 14-18), in order that
Christ might be qualified to be the redeemer of sinful humanity.—Wrongly
does Tholuck suppose that ver. 10 attaches itself to dé&y éoregavupévov, ver.
9, and expresses the thought that the glorification of Him could not fail
of its accomplishment, who became to others the author of salvation. For
the centre of gravity in the proposition lies not in reAedoa, but in dia
radnuatwv, Which Tholuck erroneously degrades to a mere “secondary
thought.”—ézperev] it was befitting; not an expression of necessity (Kui-
noel, Bloomfield, al.), but of meetness and becomingness, in relation partly
to the nature of God (comp. é¢ 4» ra rdvra xai 6d’ ov td mévta), partly to
the ends He would attain (cf. vv. 14-18).’—atr@ de bv ra mdvra nai 6? ob Ta
zavra] does not relate to Christ (Primasius, Hunnius, Kénigsmann,
Cramer, al.), but is a periphrasis for God. This periphrastic delineation,
however, of the divine characteristics justifies the éxperev in its truth and
naturalness. For He who is the Supreme Cause and Creator of the Uni-
verse cannot have done anything unworthy of Himself.—ra révra] the
totality of all that exists, not merely that which serves for the bringing about
of salvation (Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Paulus).—d’ 6v] for the sake
of whom,’ characterizes God as the One for whom, i.e. to accomplish whose
1Comp. Philo, Legg. allegor. I. p.48 E(with aicxioros wepiriOévat Oavpacra KaAAn.
Mangey, I. p. 53): mpéree tw Oem utevecy 2Not: “at whose command or will,” as
Kai oixodomety ev Wuxy Tas aperds.—De incor- Wieseler (Comm. ub. d. Br. an die Gal., Gott.
rupt. Mundi, p. 950 B (with Mangey, II. p.500): = 1859, p. 111) will have &’ é» explained.
duwperds 5¢ Oe ra auopda moppovy Kai Trois
436 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
ends, all things are designed, and corresponds to the ei¢ atvév, Rom. xi.
36, 1 Cor. vili.6; while dé’ ot characterizes Him as the One by whom all
things have been effected or created, inasmuch as, according to the
popular conception, the notion of the originating is not strictly separated
from that of effecting, since both are summed up under the more general
notion of disposing, preparing [roceiv, mapackevaser, éroundtev]; comp. 1
Cor. i.9; Gal. i.1. In the case of our author, moreover, the placing of
the inaccurate d¢ ov instead of the more accurate é ov (comp. Rom. xi.
36) or ig’ ov, may also have been occasioned with a view to the parono-
masia produced by the use of the twofold da with different cases.—
torsovg viorg etc déEav ayayévta] is not a preposed apposition to rov apynyov
tHE Owrnpiag avTav: “it became God to make Him,—as one who led many sons
unto glory,—namely, the Beginner of their salvation, perfect through suffer-
ings”! Such construction is not indeed to be opposed, as BOhme and
Bleek think, on the ground that the article rév could not in that case
have been wanting also before woAAote. On the contrary, either the addi-
tion or the omission of the article before roAdobt¢ would be justified; only
a modification of the sense results from the choice of the one or the other
course. Ifthe article is placed, then rdv moAdote viotc cig défav ayayévta
and rov apynydv ti¢ owrnpiag avrey are two parallel but co-ordinate utter-
ances, in such wise that the second repeats the first only in more sharply-
defined form of expression. In connection with the omission of the arti-
cle, again, the first expression stands in the relation of subordination to
the second, and is a preposed statement of the reason for the same. But
what really decides against that view is—({1) That according to ver. 11 the
believers are brethren of Christ, and sons of God; consequently oAAoi¢
viov¢ eig ddgav ayaydvra Would be unsuitable as an utterance with respect
to Christ, while the interpretation of the viot¢ as sons of God, adopted by
Nickel, /.c.,in connection with the referring of the ayayévra to Christ,
would be unnatural. (2) That, assuming the identity of the subject in
ayayévra and apyznyév, both expressions would in effect cover cach other,
consequently become tautological. We must accordingly take, as the
subject in woAAoi¢ vioig cig dégav ayayévra, God; in tov apynydv tio owrnpiac
avrav, Christ? It cannot, however, be urged against the referring of
ayayévra to God (Carpzov, Michaelis, and others), that we have not, instead
of the accusative ayayévra, the dative ayayévr:, which no doubt would have
been more accurate on account of the preceding ai7@; since this very
accusative is otherwise the general case of the subject grammatically con-
strued with the accusative. Transitions to the latter, spite of a preceding
dative, are accordingly nothing rare.3—MoAdobc}] not equivalent to davra¢
1Primasius, Erasmus, Paraphr.; Estius,
Heinrichs, Stuart, Winer, p. 321 f.[E. T. 343];
Ebrard, Nickel, in Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct.
p. 20, and many others.
3So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Erasmus, Annott.; Luther, Vatablus,
Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Bengel,
Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping,
Delitzsch, Buttmann (Gramm. p. 262), [E. T.
306]; Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 51 f.),
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 581), Al-
ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Woerner, and many
others.
®Comp. Acts xi. 12, xv. 22; Luke i. 74;
Kthner, Gramm. II. p. 346 f.; Bernhardy,
Syntaz, p. 367, fin.
CHAP. I. 10. 437
(Seb. Schmidt). IoAd‘obe renders prominent only the notion of multitude
or plurality, quite apart from the question whether or not this plurality is
to be thought of as the totality of mankind; comp. ix. 28; Rom. v. 19,
viii. 29; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28.—ei¢ dégav] The dé&a is not distinguished,
as to the thing itself, from the cwrypia mentioned immediately after. The
Messianic glory and blessedness is intended thereby. The word 6ééa,
however, was chosen in accordance with the words: d6&y kai tig éorepa-
veouévov, ver. 9, taken over from the psalm cited.—dayayévra] [XLVI c.]
cannot signify: “since He would lead.”! For the aorist has never a
future sense. Butneither is ayayévra to be rendered by “ qui adduzerat ;”*
in such wise that the thought were directed to the saints of the
O. T., already led to glory. For the characterizing of Christ as the
apxynyoc tHe owtynpiag avroév shows that the viol, in whom was
accomplished the eig dégav dyeodac on the part of God, must already
have been in communion with Christ,—the communion with Christ
was the conditioning cause of their attainment to the défa. Accord-
ing to Tholuck, who is followed by Moll, the participle aorist indi-
cates, “as the nearer defining of the infinitive aorist reAedoa:, the
specific character of the same without respect to the relation of time.”
But only the infinitive, not the participle aorist is used non-temporally ;
and the ‘‘specific character” of reAecéoac cannot be expressed by ayayévra,
for the reason that the personal objects of dyayévra and reAecioa: are
different. a@yayévra can have no other meaning than: since He led, and
is the indication of the cause from the standpoint of the writer. The par-
ticiple aorist has its justification in the fact that, from the moment Christ
appeared on earth as a redeemer, and found faith among men, God in
reality was leading cic défav those who believed, 7. e. caused them to walk
in the way to the déga. For only this notion of title to the défa in rever-
sion, not that of the actual possession of the same, can be meant; inas-
much as the possession of the déga will only come in at the Parousia. The
causal relation, however, of the participial clause: moAAot¢ vlov¢ sig déFav
ayayévra, to the main statement: éxpeme tov apyryov tig cutnpiag avTav dia
wadnuatov Tededoa, and consequently the justification of the latter by
the former, lies in the fact that the roAAo? vioi, just because they were not
angels but men, could only be redeemed in that Christ for them became
man, and for them suffered and died; even as the author himself will
more fully show, ver. 14 ff. Others find the causal relation by sup-
plying, in thought, d:é .raSnuéruv to the first clause also. But in this case
1Bleek, Stengel, Bloomfield, and Bisping;
after the precedent of Erasmus, Annott.;
Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Lim-
borch, Peirce, Starck, Wolf, Storr, Ernesti,
Dindorf, Schulz, B6hme, Kuinoel, Klee.
With the Vulgate, Estius, Hofmann
(Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 39, 1 Aufl.; Komm. p. 121;
differently Schriftbew. 2 Aufl. p.51), and others.
3 For the same reason have we to reject the
kindred interpretation of Kurtz, who takes
the aye eis 56fay as preceding the reAccwoat,
and refers the vior to the believing contempo-
raries of Jesus, with the inclusion of the believ-
ers undcr the Old Covenant.
4So Jac. Cappellus: “quum tot filios suos
per afflictiones consecrasset, afflictionum via
perduxisset ad gloriam pater coelestis, dece-
bat sane et aequum erat, ut principem salutis
eorum eadem via perduceret ad coelestem
gloriam.” In like manner Grotius: “quia
438 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the express addition of dia radnudruv in the first clause could not have
been omitted.—rév apynyov] [XLVI d.] Comp. xii. 2; Acts ii. 15, v. 31.
Designation of the beginner, or first in a series, to which the further notion
of author then easily attaches, so that the word is frequently used, as here,
exactly in the sense of airioc. Instances in Bleek, Abth. II. 1 Halfte, p.
302.—reAerdioa] to bring to perfection, to lead to the goal, does not here
express “an inner moral perfection, which has as its consequence the
attainment of the highest outward goal” (de Wette, Tholuck, Riehm,
Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 343, 346; and, long ago, Cameron), nor does it
denote the close of the appointed course with which God has brought
Jesus to the goal of that which He was to become, to the end of His
earthly temporal existence (Hofmann); but resumes the notion of the
ddEn Kai tiny oTegavovcdar, ver. 9, and is identical with this.
Vv. 11-13. [XLVI e.] Elucidatory justification, in passing, of the
expression woA2ove viot¢, employed ver. 10; in proof of the brotherly
relation existing between Christ and believers, already indicated by that
expression. That this view as to the aim and signification of vv. 11-13 is
the true one, is contested indeed by Richm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p.
366 f. (comp. also Kurtz, and Hofmann ad loc.). According to Riehm, vv.
11-13 are to be regarded not as mere accessory remarks, but as the first
link in the proof for ver. 10, to which then ver. 14 f. attaches as second
link ; in such wise that only in the two thoughts together (vv. 11-13 and
ver. 14 f.), not in ver. 14 by itself (see on the verses) alone, is a confirma-
tion of ver. 10 to be found; and accordingly the (argumentative, not
explicative) ydp, ver. 11, belongs not merely to ver. 11. The following
“ chain of reasoning,” namely, is supposed to shape the course of thought:
“it became God, etc. For—(1) Christ is brother to the Christians; it is
thus not unbecoming that He should have been made like them; and (2)
He must be made like them, because His suffering and death were neces-
sary, if they were to be saved.” The untenable character of this state-
ment of the connection of thought, as made by Riehm, is, however,
sufficiently apparent from the fact—apart from the consideration that the
contents of vv. 11-13 manifestly point back to the expression soAAviv¢ viots,
ver. 10—that if the proof for the main thought of ver. 10 was designed in
reality already to begin with vv. 11-13, it would surely not be the proposi-
tion: i is not unbecoming that Christ should be made like unto the Christians
(of which there was no express mention so early as ver. 10), which must
have been proved, but solely and simply the proposition : it is not unbe-
coming that God should have led Christ through suffering to perfection, in
which the true central thought of ver. 10 is contained. But such proof is
not given.—é te yap ayidfuv . . . wdévtes] Now He who sanctifies and those
who are sanctified (through Him, ¢. e. through His atoning sacrificial death,"
fieri non potest, ut qui se pietati dedunt, non 1Delitzsch arbitrarily takes ay:agey, ver.
multa mala patiantur ... ideo Deus voluit 11, as synonymous with reAccovy, ver. 10: “In
ipsum auctorem salutiferae doctrinae non order to be crowned with dd6€a xai tiny Jesus
nisi per graves calamitates perducere ad must first be sanctified, or, as the author
statum illum perfectae beatitudinis.” says, ver. 10, be made perfect through suffer-
CHAP, Ir. 11, 12. 439
comp. x. 10, 14, ix. 13 f,, xiii. 12) all have their origin in One,—is a special
statement concerning Christ and Christians. To take the words as a
proposition of universal validity, the application of which to Christ and
the Christians was left to the readers, wherein there is specially an under-
lying allusion to the O. T. high priest and those whose cleansing from sins
he accomplished (Schlichting, Gerhard, Schéttgen, al.), is forbidden by the
connection with that which precedes and that which follows.—The present
participles 6 dy:dfuv xat of dycaféuevoe are used substantively. Comp.
Winer, p. 331 f. [E. T. 853].--é& évdcg mdvreg] sc. cioiv. évd¢ is masculine.
Wrongly is it by others taken as a newler, in that they either supplement
in thought: oxépyaroc, or aluaroc, or yévoug (so Carpzov, Abresch, al.), or
else explain: ex communi massa (Jac. Cappellus, Akersloot), or “of one
and the same nature” (Calvin, Cameron: ejusdem naturae et conditionis
spiritualis; Cornelius a Lapide, Owen, Whitby, Moses Stuart); for neither
is the supplying of a substantive admissible, nor can éx, expressive as it
is of the origin, be transformed into a declaration of nature and constitu-
tion. We have, however, to understand by évé¢, not Adam' or Abraham?
but God. Yet the notion of fatherhood, which is in this way assigned to
God, is not to be expounded in the universal sense, in such wise that God
would be called Creator and Father in relation to Christians also, only in
the same manner in which He is the Creator of every creature,® but is to
be referred specially to the fact that Christians are His spiritual children.‘
Comp. John viii. 47; 1 John iii. 10, iv. 6, v.19; 3 John 11.—révrec] Peirce
and Bengel would have taken with of dy:aféuevoc alone. The position of
the word, however, renders this impossible. Rather does wévrec, after
the close connection between the dy:df{wv and the dy:aféuevor has already
been accentuated by means of the ré. . . xai, still further lay stress upon
the fact that they all, the Christians not less than Christ, are é& éé¢.—d.’
iw aitiav] Wherefore. Comp. 2 Tim.i. 6,12; Tit.i.13. The same formula
also not rarely with Philo.—oix éraoytverac] He (sc. 6 ayidfuv) ts not
ashamed. For Christ is the higher one. Comp. xi. 16.—airote] 8c. roves
aytalouévouc.
Vv. 12, 138. Documentary proofs from Scripture for the ov« éramytvera
adeAgove avtrove xadeiv, ver. 11. [XLVI]
Ver. 12. First proof, taken from Ps. xxii. 23 (22). In its historic sense
the citation has reference to the composer of the psalm himself, who in
the deepest distress supplicates God for deliverance, and promises to
praise Him for the deliverance granted. The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, on the other hand, interprets the psalm Messianically, and
regards Christ as the subject speaking therein.—azayyeAa] LXX.: dinyfoopuat.
ings, inasmuch as the sufferings melted away inian, Hunnius, Baumgarten, Zachariae,
that about Him which was not capable of ex-
altaticn, that He, Himself sanctified before,
might be able to sanctify us, and so to raise
us to like 8a.” Of a being sanctified, on
the part of Christ, there is no mention made
either here or anywhere else in the epistle.
2 Erasmus, Paraphr.; Besa, Estius, Just-
Bisping, Wieseler in the Publications of the
University of Ktel, 1867, p. 26; Hofmann,
Woerner.
2 Drusius, Peirce, Bengel.
3So Chrysostom and the majority.
*Piscator, Grotius, Limborch,
Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll.
Paulus,
440 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ver. 18. Second and third proofs, taken from Isa. vili.17,18. The design
of the author in dividing into two different citations, by means of «ai
wdaAcv, the words which stand together in the Hebrew and the LXX., is
not to present the relation of community between Christ and the Christians
on two different sides, in that, namely, it is indicated in his first passage
how the incarnate Son of God descended to the standpoint of man; in
the second, on the other hand, how redeemed men are raised by God to the
standpoint of Christ (Kurtz),—all of which is subtle and far-fetched; but
only to pile up the Scripture testimonies, inasmuch as the end of ver. 17,
as well as the beginning of ver. 18, seemed to him to contain each in itself
an independent means of evidence for that which he would make good.
The words of the first proof passage : memoiOa¢ icouat ex’ avto, are likewise
found in the LXX. at 2 Sam. xxii. 3 and Isa. xii. 2. But that the author
was not thinking of one of these passages (according to Ebrard, of the
first), but of Isa. viii. 17, 1s the more natural supposition, because with the
LXX. and in the original the words, which here, too, are first adduced
(only in partially inverted order, and augmented by é)6): kai rerodlac
écouat éx’ avtg, immediately precede the directly following passage, taken
from Isa. viii. 18. In their historic sense the words cited refer to the
prophet and his sons, and, indeed, with the LXX., the ido . . . Ged¢ is a
further unfolding of the subject in éoouaz. The author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, however, regards the words as an utterance of Christ, led
thercto, as Bleek rightly conjectures, by the xai épei, interpolated by the LX-X.
before ver. 17, which seemed to indicate another subject than the prophet,
since he spoke throughout the whole section in the first person; and
other than God, since He is spoken of, by virtue of éz’ avrg, as the one in
whom the speaker trusts. The demonstrative force of the words cited is
found by our author in the fact that the person speaking, ¢. e. Christ, places
Himself, by means of the testifying of His confidence in God, upon the
same level with other men;! as also in that the author understands by the
maidia, not the children of the speaker, but the children of God, the
children whom God the Father has given to Christ.
Vv. 14, 15. The author, after the subsidiary remarks, vv. 11-18, returns
to the main thought of ver. 10, now further to develop the same. [XLVI g.]
To lead Christ through sufferings to perfection, was a provision worthy of
God. For it was necessary, if Christ was to be the Redeemer of sinful
humanity. In order, however, to be able to take upon Himself sufferings
and death, He must become man as other men, and place Himself upon
one level with those to be redeemed.*—viv] is the outward sign of that
return to the main thought. Logically it belongs not to the protasis, with
which it is grammatically connected, but to the main thesis: kai avré¢
mapanAncing petéoxev x.t.A. An attachment of ver. 14 to ver. 13, therefore,
is effected only in so far as rd radia, ver. 18, has given occasion for the
1Theophylact: xai da rovrou Seixvuciy, Ste = Er’ UTE, TOUTéOTL TH TarTpi.
avOpwros cai adeAdds nuay yéyover. oowep yap 2Comp. on ver. 14, Zyro in the Theol. Studd.
éxagrTos Tay avOpwxwy, ovTe Kai autres wéroOey tu. Aritt. 1864, H. 3, p. 516 ff.
CHAP. 1. 13, 14. 441
resuming of this word in the first clause of ver. 14. Ina strangely per-
verted fashion Heinrichs (comp. also Valckenaer): “ Quod si homo fuit
Christus, infans quoque primo fuerit omnemque in nativitate sua humanam
naturam induerit necesse est.”—kexo:vdvyxev] here, as often in the case of
the classics, combined with the genitive ; whereas elsewhere in the N. T.
the dative is used with xowoveity (Rom. xy. 27; 1 Tim. v. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 13,
al.). The persons with whom the communion or the common participation
takes place are not the parents (Valckenaer, who supplies yovevo:), but the
children themselves. One zacdiov with the other, one as well as the other,
has part in blood and flesh, or possesses the same. The perfect, however,
indicates the constant and definitive character of the order of nature, as
this has always prevailed already, and still continues to assert its sway.—
aiuatog kai capxéc¢] The same succession of words, also Eph. vi. 12. Other-
wise more ordinarily: odpf xai aiza. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 50; Gal. i. 16;
Matt. xvi. 17; Ecclus. xiv. 18, xvii. 31. aiva xai odpé, the two main
constituents of the sensuously perceptible outward nature of man.—
nraparAnoiwc|] is not: “ equally,” ! or: “ likewise,” 7—a signification which
is linguistically undemonstrable,—but : in @ manner very closely resembling.
It expresses the resemblance with the accessory notion of the diversity ;
in such wise that the author characterizes the human form of Christ’s
existence, in all its correspondence with the form of existence of other
men, as still different from the latter.® And rightly so. For Christ was no
ordinary man, but the incarnate Son of God. He was distinguished from
His human brethren by His sinlessness (comp. iv. 15). As therefore Paul,
Phil. ii. 7 (and similarly Rom. viii. 3), speaks of the incarnate Christ not
as dv@pwrog yevouevoc, but as év duotdparte avOporuv yevduevoc, even 80
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also here places not é& icov, but
mapanranoiug petécxev tov aitav. Comp. also dOev Ogerdev ata mavta Toi¢
adeAdoic dporwOAvat, ver. 17.—peréoxev] The aorist. For the incarnation
and the earthly course of Christ is a fact already belonging to the purely
past; now Christ is already the glorified Son of God.—rév airar] se.
aiuatog cai capxéc. Erroneously, because without taking into account the
reference imperatively required by the former clause, Bengel: eadem, quae
fratribus accidunt, sanguine et carne laborantibus, ne morte quidem
excepta.—did tov Savdrov] [XLVI h.] by means of death, the enduring of
which first became possible by the taking upon Him of flesh and blood.
Bengel : dia tov Gavdrov Paradoxon. Jesus mortem passus vicit; diabolus
mortem vibrans succubuit.—The placing of the characteristic rdv 7rd
kpdérog Exovra row Oavdrov before rév diéBodov is chosen, in order to
gain a marked contrast to the preceding 6:4 rov Oavdrov. [XLVI i.]—A
ruler’s power over death,* however, is possessed by the devil, inasmuch as
1Bleek, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, %Cameron, Owen, Akersloot, Cramer,
Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. to the | Bodhme, Zyro, Moll, Woerner.
Darmstadt A. K. Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 663; Hof- 4Over-refinedly does Ebrard take 7d xpdros
mann, Sehriftbew. II. 1, p. 57,2 Aufl.; Riehm, absolutely, and rov Oavdarov as genitivus sub-
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 313 f.; Maier. ¢ jectivus: “him who holds in his hands the
2De Wette. power which death exerts over us.”
442 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
by the enticement of the devil sin came into the world of men, and sin
brings about death for man. Comp. Wisd. ii. 24: g6dvp dé diapdrov Odvaros
eionAGev ei¢ tov Kéopov; Rom. v. 12.
Ver. 15. Kai] consecutive: and in consequence thereof.—a7ai74£y) stands
absolutely : might set free, deliver. Without warrant do Grotius, Wolf, and
others supplement rov ¢éf3ov or tov ¢6f8ov Gavdrov.—Tobrovg] does not go
back to ra radia (BOhme, Kuinoel), but serves for the bringing into relief
of the following éo0, and ro trove door «.t.A. is a periphrasis of the unre-
deemed humanity; the thought is not merely of the Israelites (Akersloot,
Rambach, Braun, Woerner), and still less merely of the Gentiles (Peirce).
—90;3y Oavdrov] out of fear of death, causal detinition to d:4 ravrdg tov CH
Evoxot qoav dovAciag.—dia mavto¢ tov C7v] throughout the whole life. The
infinitive is employed, by virtue of the addition zavréc, entirely as a sub-
stantive (dia mdon¢e tHe Cwyc¢). This practice is more rare than the coupling
of the infinitive with the mere preposition and article. Yet this very
infinitive ¢7v is found exactly so used, as Bleek remarks, with Aesch.
Dial. iii. 4 (Gorep eig Erepov Cav éxHavotpevoc); Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. 9 (ov
xwpic Td adAnOivov Cyv ovK exouev), ad Ephes. 3 (ka: yap 'Iyoovg Xptordg 7d adid-
Kpitov nudv Cyv).—évoxot goav dovaeiac] belongs together; were held in bond-
age, had become subject to bondage. [XLVI j.] We have not to construe
Evoxyat goav With 968 Oavdrov, and dovasiag with amaA2éty (Abresch, Din-
dorf, Bohme). For against this the position of the words is decisive. On
the thought, comp. Rom. viii. 15.
Ver. 16. [XLVI k.] The necessity for the assumption of flesh and
blood on the part of the Redeemer is more fully brought to light by
means of an establishing of the characteristic rofrove bo0e x.7.4., ver. 16.
This assumption was necessary, since the object of this redemption was
confessedly not angels, i.e. beings of a purely spiritual, nature, but
descendants of Abraham, i.e, beings of flesh and blood.—ov dirov] or 64
tov, as it is more correctly written, does not signify: ‘nowhere ” (Luther,
Zeger, Calvin, Schlichting, Limborch, Bisping, al.; Vulg.: nusquam), in
such wise that ov should be referred to a passage in the O. T., and the
sense would result: nowhere in the O. T. is it spoken of, that, etc..—For
such reference must at least have been indicated by the context, which is
not the case. Av mov stands rather, according to purely classical usage
(in the N. T., for the rest, it is found only here; with the LXX. not at all),
to denote, in ironical form of expression, the presupposition that the
statement to be expressed is a truth raised above all doubt, which must be
conceded by every one. It corresponds to our “ assuredly,” “surely”
(doch wohl), “I should think,” to the Latin “ opinor.” ?—ériauBdvecbai
tivoc| to take a helping interest in any one (comp. Ecclus, iv. 11), here to
deliver him from the guilt and punishment of sin (comp. daAAdéy, ver.
15; and ei¢ rd iAdoxeofa: td¢g duapriag Tov Aaov, ver. 17; wrongly, because
1 Ebrard still finds in ver.16 a proof from __ versally acknowledged fact of the O. T.!
the O. T. Only he supposes the author did 2Comp. Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 285;
not here feel it needful to cite asingle pas- § Klotz, ad Devar. p. 427.
sage, but that it sufficed to remind of a uni-
CHAP. Ir. 15, 16. 443
tovrove boo x.7.A., ver. 15, stands not in reciprocal relation with éAap-
Bavera, but with the antithesis ob« ayyéAuv aAAd oréppatos 'Apadu, ver. 16;
Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 59, 2 Aufi.: “in order that the fear of death
might not in our life terrify and enslave us”). The present, since the
ériauBavecdac is something still continuing. The interpretation of Chry-
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius,
Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Wolf, and many others: not angels,
but the seed of Abraham, that is to say: not the nature of angels, but the
nature of the sced of Abraham did Christ assume, has fallen into deserved
disrepute; only Castellio, however, first perceived its grammatical
impossibility. The proposal of Schulz to supply 6 @d¢varo¢ from vv. 14,
15 as the subject to émaAauBdverac: “ for certainly he (death, or the lord of
death) does not lay hold of, or carry off, angels, but the posterity of Abraham
does he lay hold of,” is indeed grammatically permissible; logically, how-
ever, it does not commend itself, inasmuch as ver. 17 stands in close con-
nection with ver. 16, but at ver. 17, as vv. 14, 15, the subject again is
naturally Christ.—ayyé2wv] without article, like the following oépyarog
"ABpadu, generically. The author here excludes the angels from the
province of the redemption which takes place through Christ. He is
thus brought into contradiction with the teaching of Paul (comp. Col. i.
20)—a position which is wrongly denied by Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p.
59 f.; Delitzsch, and Moll; by the first-named upon the untenable ground
that “the design in this connection was not to say whom Jesus helps and
whom He does not help, but what He is for those with whom He concerns
Himself, for whom He exerts Himself! ”—ozépuaroc 'AZpadu] does not
denote mankind in general (Bengel, BGhme, Klee, Stein, Wieseler, Chron-
ologie des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 491 f., al.), in such wise that the expression
should be taken in the spiritual sense, or “the congregation of God,
reaching over from the O. T. into the N. T., which goes back to Abraham’s
call and obedience of faith for its fundamental beginning, Israel and the
believers out of all mankind, the whole good olive tree, which has the
patriarchs as its sacred root, Gal. 111.29; Rom. iv. 16, xi. 16” (Delitzsch,
Hofmann, II. 1, p. 60,2 Aufl.; Kluge, Kurtz), which must have been
introduced and made manifest by the context; but the Jewish people
(comp. Tov Aaov, ver. 17; rdv Aadv, xiii. 12). For Apollos, who (according
to sec. 1 of the Introduction) is to be regarded as the author of the epistle,
the conviction of the universality of Christianity must, it is true, have
been not less firmly established than for Paul himself. He has men-
tioned, however, in place of the genus—i.e. in place of mankind in
general—only a species of this genus, namely, Jewish humanity; just
because he had only to do with born Jews as the readers of his epistle.
Grotius: Hebraeis scribens satis habet de illis loqui; de gentibus alibi
loquendi locus. Rightly at the same time does de Wette remark that
Paul, even under a precisely identical state of the case, would hardly
have expressed himself as is here done.?
1M’Caul alone has espoused it afresh. logie, vol. V., Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 208):
$Comp. also Reuss (Nouvelle Revue de Théo- “Nous doutons, que Paul ett pu traiter un
444 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ver.17. [On Vv. 17,18, see Note XLVIL., pages 452, 453.] Inference from
ver. 16, and consequently a reverting to the main statement in ver. 14.—
fev] wherefore, sc. on account of the essential constitution of those to be
redeemed, as indicated in ver. 16. [XLVII 6.] The particle 46e» is of
very frequent occurrence in the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. iii. 1, vii.
25, vill. 3, ix. 18, xi. 19). In Paul’s writings, on the other hand, it is
nowhere met with.—dge:Aev] He ought. Expression, not of the necessity
founded in the decree of God (cf. éde, Luke xxiv. 26), but of that founded
in the nature of the case itself, comp. v. 8, 12.—kxara wévta] in all respects.
—<dpouthjvac] is not: “to be made the same or equal,”? but expresses, as
always, the notion of resemblance. Christ was in all things similar to men,
His brethren, inasmuch as He had assumed a truly human nature; He
was distinguished from them, however, by His absolute sinlessness.
Comp. iv. 15.—éAeqyur] merciful, full of compassion for the sufferings of
the adeAgoi, may be taken by itself} but also as morécs, may be taken with
apxyepetc.* In the former case, which, on account of the position
of the words, seems more natural, «ai denotes “and in conse-
quence thereof,” so that éAejuwy indicates the quality, the possession of
which fits him to become a muré¢ apytepeto.—rordc] faithful, so fulfilling
_ His high-priestly office as to satisfy the requirements of those to be recon-
ciled.—ra mpoic tov bedv] with regard to the affairs of God, or: with regard to
the cause of God. Comp. v.1; Rom. xv. 17.—iAdoxeofac] middle voice.—
tov acu] of the people (of Israel, xiii. 12), see on ver. 16.—The idea of the
high-priesthood of Christ here first comes out in this epistle. From iv. 14
onwards it is unfolded in detail. It is disputed, however, at what point
our author thought of the high-priestly office of Christ as beginning,
whether even on earth, with His death on the cross,> or only after the return to
the Father; in such wise that, according to the view of the author, the
offering of His own body upon the earth, and the entering with His own
blood into the heavenly sanctuary, 1s to be regarded only as the inaugu-
ration of Christ to His high-priestly dignity, this dignity itself, however,
beginning only with the moment when Christ, in accordance with Ps. cx.
1, sat down at the right hand of God the Father, Heb. viii. 1.6 It is cer-
tainly undeniable that the author in the course of his epistle very strongly
accentuates the high-priesthood of Christ (comp. v. 9 f., vi. 19 f., vii. 24-26,
vill. 4, ix. 24). But the polemic against readers who thought they could
not dispense with the ritual of the Jewish sacrifice of atonement for the
pareil sujet en s’imposant un silence absolu
sur un principe, qui était, A vrai dire, le
centre de son activité apostolique.”
1Chrysostom: ri éort xara mavra; éréxOn,
dnoiv, érpadn, qvéndn, evade ravta amep Expy,
tédAos areBavey. Theodoret: ‘Opoiws yap nuiy
Kat Tpodns peréAaBe wai movoy Uméuetve Kat
nOvunoe xai edaxpuce xa Oavaroy xaredéfaro.
2Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, De-
litzsch, Riehm, Lehrbeqr. des Hebrderbr. p.
320; Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, al.
3 Luther, Grotius, Bohme, Bleek, Stein, de
Wette, Tholuck, Woerner [after Peshito,
Arabic, and Ethiopic versions].
4Qwen, Bengel, Cramer, Storr, Stuart, Eb-
rard, Delitzsch, Riehm, p. 330; Alford, Moll,
Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann.
6So Cramer, Winzer, de sacerdotis officio,
quod Christo tribuitur in ep. ad Hebr., Lips.
1825, Comment. I. p. vi. sq.; de Wette, De-
litzsch, Alford, and others.
6So Bleek and Kurtz, after the precedent
CHAP. 1. 17, 18. 445
attainment of salvation, naturally led him to insist with emphasis on the
superiority of Christ as the heavenly High Priest over the Jewish high
priests as the merely earthly ones. Since now, on the other side, it is
equally undeniable that the author places the voluntary sacrificial death of
Christ, and the entering with His blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies,
—as the two inseparable acts of the same proceeding,—in parallel with
the slaying of the sacrificial victim, and the entering of the earthly high
priest with the sacrificial blood into the earthly Holy of Holies, and looks
upon the sins of men as completely expiated by the sacrificial death of
Christ itself (comp. ii. 14 f., vii. 27, ix. 11-14, 26, 29, x. 10, 12, 14, xiii. 12),
there can be no room for doubt, that according to the mind of our author
the investiture of Christ with the high-priestly dignity had already begun
on earth, from the time of His death; and the representation of mankind
in the presence of God is to be thought of as the continued administration
of the high-priestly office already entered upon. So in substance also
Riehm (comp. the detailed discussion by this writer, Lehrbegr. des
Hebraerbr. p. 466-481) ; although it is certainly not in accordance with
the view of the writer of the epistle, when Riehm afterwards (like Hof-
mann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 63 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes a distinction is to be
made between Christ as High Priest and Christ as High Priest after the man-
ner of Melchisedcc, in that he represents Christ as having become the former
by virtue of that which He did during the days of His flesh, as well as on
His entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and the latter only by
virtue of His exaltation to God, where He ever liveth to make interces-
sion for us. ,
Ver. 18. Elucidatory justification of ta éAequav yévyrat «.7.2., and by
means thereof corroborative conclusion to the last main assertion : dgeAev
Kata Tdvta Toi¢g adeAgoic duotwHpvac. Christ, namely, became qualified for
having compassion and rendering help, inasmuch as He experienced in
His own person the temptations, the burden of which pressed upon the
brethren He came to redeem. Comp. iv. 15, 16—é» »] equivalent to é
rovrw bre (comp. John xvi. 30: é rotry, propter hoc), literally: upon the
ground of (the fact) that, in that, i.e. inasmuch as, or because. The inter-
pretation “ wherein,” or “in which province,” ? with which construction
an év robry corresponding to the é& » has to be supplied before dbévaraz,
and é » itself is connected with xérovfev or with mepaobeic, or else by the
resolving of the participle into the tempus finitum is connected in like
measure with both verbs, is to be rejected; not, indeed, because in that
case the aorist érafev must have been employed (Hofmann, Schriftbew.
IT. 1, p. 392, 2 Aufl.), nor because the plural] év oi¢ must have been placed
(Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 320, note),—for
only slight modifications of the sense would result in this way, the sub-
stance of the statement itself remaining untouched,—but in reality for the
of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting [Whitby], on Rom. viii. 3, p. 93.
Griesbach, Opuse. II. p. 436 sq. ; Schulz, p. 83 f., 2 Luther, Casaubon, Valckenaer, Fritzsche,
and others. lc. p. 94, note; Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Woer-
1 Comp. Bernhardy, Synt., p. 211: Fritzsche _ ner, and others.
446 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
reason that the thought thus resulting would be unsuitable. For Christ’s
capacity for conferring sympathy and help would then be restricted within
the too narrow bounds of like conditions of suffering and temptations in
the case of Himself and His earthly brethren. Bleek, too, understands év
» in the ordinary signification: “ wherein,” but then—after the example
of Chr. Fr. Schmid—takes the words év @ zérovfev as a kind of adverbial
nearer defining to avré¢ meipacbeic: “ Himself tempted in that which He
suffered,” 2. e. Himself tempted in the midst of His sufferings. So like-
wise more recently Alford: “for, having been Himself tempted in that
which He suffered.” Against this, however, the violence of the linguistic
expression is decisive, since metpacfelg yap airog ev toig¢ wafjuaow, or some-
thing similar, would have been much more simply and naturally written.
—The emphasis rests not upon zérovfev (Hofmann), but upon atra¢
mecpacOetc, inasmuch as not the mdoyew in and of itself, but the réoyew
in a definite state, is to be brought into relief: because He Himself suffered
as one tempted, i.e. because His suffering was combined with temptations.
aito¢g mepacbeic, however, was designedly placed at the end, in order to
gain thereby a marked correspondence to the following roi¢ me¢pafouévore.
—divara:] not a note of the inclination (Grotius: potest auxiliari pro potest
moveri ad auxiliandum, and similarly many others), but of the possibility —
toig tecpafouévorc] a characteristic of roi¢ adeAgoic, ver. 17. The participle
present, since the state of temptation of the human brethren is one still
continuing.—fo7$jear] to come to the help, sc. in that He entirely fills with
His Spirit the suffering ones, whose necessities He has become acquainted
with as a result of His own experience.
Nores By AMERICAN EDIToR.
XLIV. Vv. 1-4.
(a) These verses contain an exhortation founded upon vv. 4-14 of the preceding
chapter and should, properly, be joined with that chapter. The exhortation is,
in substance, that which we find in all parts of the Epistle—the one great exhor-
tation which the writer presses upon the readers, and for the purpose of giving
force to which he writes the letter—on the negative side, not to apostatize from
Christianity to Judaism ; on the positive side, to hold fast their Christian faith and
confession to the end. Sometimes, the positive side is more prominently presented,
as it is here; sometimes the negative side is emphasized; sometimes they are
both set forth. But the substance of the thought and the end in view are always
the same.—(b) did rovro points back to the whole passage i. 4-14. That passage is
thus made the ground of dei tpocéyew x.7.A. The latter words are, again, through
yap of ver. 2 founded upon what is said in vv. 2 ff. These verses, however, con-
tain—+so far as their statement as to the two systems or revelations is concerned—
nothing more than has been suggested in chap. i., namely, that the revelation
which has come through the Lord must, for this very reason, be superior to that
which came through angels. But in connection with the repeated expression of
this thought, reference is made to the greater danger resulting from neglecting
the greater system. The introduction of the yép sentence after the dia rovro—as
NOTES. 7 447
considered both in the repetition of the main thought and the addition of the
special reason,—and the consequent resting of the dei «7.4. on both what
precedes and what follows, is in accordance with one of the peculiar charac-
teristics of the Pauline style—(c) Though there is no special emphasis to be laid
upon #a¢, the reference in the word is plainly to the readers as those who have
heard and accepted the Christian revelation. They are reminded of the duty—
the moral necessity (dei)—of giving more earnest attention to what had been
heard, than would have been demanded if the new system were only like the old.
mapappvapev is rightly explained by Liinem. It means to be carried by as on a .
flowing stream, floated past, and thus to drift away, as R. V. The verb is appro-
priately chosen as suggesting the idea of indifference or want of thoughtfulness
which is opposed to tepiocorépwg mpooéxerv,
(d) BéBaog (ver. 2) seems to be immediately related in thought with éAaBev évd.
juod., and zapaxoh mis-hearing, “the subjective listless hearing or inattention ”
(Liinem.), may, not improbably, be added to tapafBaacg transgression in connection
with the idea conveyed in tapappvayev.—(e) The word owrnpiag has, in this place,
a peculiar sense, which is both demanded and indicated by the context. It means
not salvation, but a salvation or a system of salvation. The rendering of the word by
salvation, A. V., R. V., is likely to mislead the English reader.—(f) The contrast
between the two systems is set forth, in vv. 2, 3, by dv’ ayyéAwy AadApSeic and Aadeiodat
dca Tou xupiov, The writer, throughout the entire epistle, presents the same idea
which he expresses here ;—namely, that there are two revelations, both of which
alike come from God, but one of which is made through angels (or Moses), while
the other is given through Christ. The superiority of the latter to the former,
accordingly, is not in the originating source of the system, but in the instrumental
agent employed.
(g) The argument against the Pauline authorship which Liinem., Alf., Blk.,
and others find in the words t7d rév axovodytur sic nudg éBeBacodn, deserves
serious consideration. These words show that the writer places himself, with the
readers, among those to whom the knowlege of the N. T. revelation had not come
directly from Jesus, but only from those who had heard Him. Paul, on the other
hand, claims with regard to himself, in Gal. i.11 ff, that he had derived the
Gospel immediately from Christ. The only ways of reconciling the two state-
ments, as being made by the same auther, are either (1) to suppose that he uses
the “communicative we,” or (2) that, while, in Gal., he is speaking of the great
impartation of the Gospel truth in preparation for his apostleship and ministry,
’ he is, in this passage, referring only to the fact, that, not having been associated
with Jesus when He was on the earth, as the other apostles were, he, like the
readers, was obliged to depend on their testimony for his acquaintance with many
of the things which Jesus did and said. To the former supposition Liinem. very
properly objects, that “ what a writer of a letter says to his readers by means of
an avaxoivworc is always of such a nature as to be likewise true of himself’? With
regard to the latter supposition, it cannot be affirmed that it is impossible, but it
may justly be declared in a high degree improbable.
XLV. Vv. 5-8.
(a) At ver. 5 the writer begins the more indirect argument in proof of the
exaltation of Christ, as the instrumental agent in the N.T. revelation, above the
448 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
angels. His thought has been understood in two different ways, according as the
reference in vv. 6 ff. has been supposed to be to Christ, or to man. If the former
view is taken, the fact that the oixovpévy péndovea, te. the aiav pé2Awv or the Mes-
sianic period, is subjected, according to God’s plan, to Christ, is made the ground
of the assertion of His superiority. He was, indeed, for a time made lower than
the angels, but this was only for the purpose of the accomplishment of His great
work. At the consummation of the work, the glory belonging to Him in con-
nection with it began to be manifested, and it will be manifested hereafter in its
fullness, On this interpretation, the thought centres upon Christ throughout.
If the latter view is adopted, on the other hand, the writer presents the o:xouz.
péA2. as subjected, not to angels, but to man. Man, indeed, is not yet elevated to
the dominion designed for him, but the exaltation has already been given to the .
representative man, Jesus Christ, and He is to lead his brethren—the sons of God
among mankind, of whose nature He has partaken—to the attainment of it in the
future. The main purpose of the passage is the same, in whichever of the two
ways it is explained. But, in the latter case, the line of thought is somewhat
more indirect than it is in the former. The considerations which favor the latter
view are the following:—(1) The verses quoted from the Psalm refer, in the
original, not to Christ, but to man. (2) The later verses of the chapter speak of
the exaltation of man as the end accomplished by the work and exaltation of
Christ. (3) It gives the simplest and most natural explanation of the introduction
of the thought of Christ’s assuming the nature of man and undertaking to help
man. (+4) It best accounts for the fact that the name of Christ is not introduced
in ver. 5. On the contrary, the former view is favored by the following considera-
tions :—(1) that Christ is made prominent throughout the entire passage ; and (2) that
the order of words in ver. 9 is not 'Ijootv dé Tov x.7.A. BAéropuev, (as if the writer
would call attention to the realization of the fact in the case of Jesus as having
already been witnessed, though not as yet seen in the experience of mankind uni-
versally), but rév dé... 7AatT-wu. BAéropuev "Iyootv (as if the name Jesus were only
added without emphasis, for the purpose, simply, of designating the person who
had already, in the preceding verses, been spoken of as the one who was made
lower than the angels). The force of this last objection to the reference of vv.
6 ff. to man is insisted upon by Liinemann and others. But it does not seem to be
conclusive, because the object of the writer may have been, not to say: we do not
yet see man exalted to his destined glory and dominion, but we do see Jesus thus
exalted; but to say: we do not yet see man, indeed, exalted, but we do see the
representative man, namely, Jesus, crowned, etc. Now if this was the author’s de-
sign, and if he desired to express his thought in the exact phraseology of the
Psalm, it is difficult to see how he could have adopted any better course than the
one which we find him to have taken.
(6) The reference of the words, as used by the Psalmist, is evidently to the
honor put upon man by his Creator, and the dominion given to him over the
other creatures on the earth—the sheep and oxen, the beasts and birds and fishes
(vv. 7, 8 of the Psalm). The Psalmist is contemplating the glory of God’s power
and being as manifested in the starry heavens, and is filled with wonder that He
should have so “visited” man and been “mindful of him,” even making him
“but little lower than God,” and subjecting all things to him. The writer of the
epistle transfers the thought to the aiév yéAAur, and to the dominion of man, or of
Christ, in that period. He quotes from the LXX, and incidentally, thus, brings
NOTES. 449
in a reference to a temporary condition of Christ, or man, below the angels, which
is not to continue, since the coming age is, by God’s appointment, not to be sub-
ordinated to the angels, but to him. It is doubtful whether the writer supposed
the Psalmist to have intended, in his words, to make any reference either to the
aiav uéAAwy or to the Messianic King. The words were suited to express his own
thought respecting the point in hand, and he used them for the purpose for which,
in the highest and best sense, the Old Testament, in all its parts and words, had
been Divinely prepared.
(c) With respect to individual words and phrases in these verses, the following
points may be noticed :—1. The explanation given by Liinem. of ayyéAoce as used
without the article, and of zepi 7¢ Aadotvuev as equivalent to “which is the subject
of our discourse (our epistle),”’ is to be adopted as correct. 2. The indefiniteness
in the use of t¢¢ and ov, in ver. 6, is characteristic of the writer of this epistle. He
seems, in general, to be less careful to present the name of the O. T. author whose
words he cites, than he is to give the words themselves. That such words are in
the O. T., which was God’s earlier revelation and which is so reverenced by the
readers, is the point of all importance to his mind. The use, in different passages,
of the different phrases: “a certain one says,” “the Holy Spirit says,” “he hath
said somewhere,” “it is witnessed,” “the exhortation which says,” may be some-
times accidental and sometimes determined by special reasons; but the same de-
sign, to bring out the thought for its own sake, and as coming from God, not from
any particular prophet or writer, is manifest, whatever may be the form cf ex-
pression. 3. Spay tt, This expression is, apparently, used here in a different
sense from that of the corresponding phrase in the original Psalm. The meaning
of the Psalmist is, as given in R. V., “Thou hast made him but little lower than
God.” The dignity and exaltation of man are thus set forth, as they are, also, in
the following clause: “and crownest him with glory and honor.” But here, the
thought must be that of man’s inferiority, as is evident from the reference to Jesus
in ver. 9. The words, as here used, may refer to degree or to time, a little, some
little in measure, or for a little time. As between these two meanings, the former
is favored by the fact that, in the original passage, the idea is that of measure or
degree; and, though the writer of the epistle might, in employing the passage for
his special purpose, change the thought from but little to some little, he was less
likely to give an altogether new sense to the words. But, on the other hand, the
interpretation of the phrase as meaning for a little time is exactly suited to the ap-
plication which is made of the clause to Jesus in ver. 9; it is, also, fitted to the
course of thought, in the chapter, respecting man, if the primary reference of vv.
6-8 is to him, and not to Christ; and it likewise accords with the suggestion which
arises from ovzw of ver. 8. Liinem., Blk., Grimm, de W., Calv. and others adopt.
this view. 4. yap of ver. 8 is regarded by Winer, p. 447, as giving the proof that.
there is nothing which was not put in subjection to Him, and, therefore, indirectly
of ver. 5: that the world to come is also subjected to Him. This case, however, is
one of the strongest which we find in the N.T., as showing that this conjunction
was occasionally used bv the writers of its different books in the sense of namely, in-
deed, that is, certainly. The connection with ver. 5 is remote, not to say, harsh.
That with ver. 8a, on the other hand, is difficult, and involves some degree of
tautology, if yap is regarded as argumentative. But if ydép is taken as explicative,
this latter connection is most simple, and is just in accordance with what might be
expected :—God is declared by the Psalmist to have put all things under him.
29
450 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
This means, certainly, that there is nothing which is not put under him. We do
not, as yet, however, see this grand result secured in its completeness. But we do
see it begun and the assurance of the end given, in that we behold Jesus crowned
with glory. The progress of the thought may thus be regarded as proving this
sense of ydp (as Liinem. also takes it) to be the true one.
XLVI. Vv. 9-16.
(a) With reference to the difficulties in the construction of the last portion of
ver. 9, we may notice: 1. that, for the reasons suggested by Ltinem., the words
dia 7d wdOnua Tov Gavdrov are not to be connected with 7Aarrupévov, but with
éoregavwuévov; 2. that, with the latter connection, these words have a peculiar
and marked emphasis—the author must have intended to make especially promi-
nent, at this point, the ground of Christ’s exaltation to glory ; 3. that, inasmuch
as this was evidently his intention, the further explanation of His suffering of
death in relation to its purpose as bearing upon mankind, might naturally be
added ; 4. that, for the sake of not breaking the close union between dia rt. 7a.
and écregav., and of not interfering with the primary emphasis on the former of
these two expressions, and the secondary on the latter, this desired addition might
be separated by éoregav. from the words to which it immediately belonged ; 5.
that the relation of Christ to men—and in the way of delivering them from the
fear and power of death by His own sufferings and dying—which is presented in
the following verses, is developed out of the comprehensive statement of this
verse, and thus demands, for the greatest clearness of the thought, the placing of
the words: “that he should taste of death for every man,” where they are, 1. e.,
at the end of ver. 9. These considerations render it almost certain that the o7w¢
clause belongs with wa@jua (as if he had said: on account of that suffering of
death, which He suffered in order that, etc.). The words of this clause, it may be
added, are a plain declaration of the universality of the atonement.
(6) Ver. 10 sets forth the fitness that Jesus should have had this experience
appointed to Him by God. The fact of this fitness is developed and established
in vv. 11 ff As men, and not angels, are the sons of God who are to be brought
to glory, there was a need that He who was to be the leader of the great company,
and the representative man, should partake of their human nature, and should
pass through their experience. He must be perfected as a leader and Saviour
through sufferings. te2ecdoae does not, probably, convey the idea of bringing to
perfection with respect to moral character, but in relation to His office—Linem.
says it is equivalent to dé6& . . . orepavovodar, but this is doubtful.
(c) That the participle ayayévra refers to God, not to Christ, is proved by the
considerations which Liinem., presents in his note. The explanation of the aorist
tense is to be found in the fact, that the whole work of the ayecv is conceived of
as, in a sense, centered in the reAecaoa: of Christ. This gathering up of the results
of Christ’s death and glorification into the one fact of His death and glorification,
is characteristic of the Pauline mode of thought. Comp. for a similar centering of
all results of evil in the first transgression of Adam, Rom. v. 12—R. V., text
renders ayay. in bringing—so also A. V. R. V., marg. has having brought. The
rendering bringing, as he did, which is suggested by Alford, seems perhaps more
exactly to suit the aorist participle—(d) The word apz7yév is found twice in this
epistle, in this verse and xii. 2. In the latter passage, it is explained by Grimm
NOTES. 451
(Lex. N. T.), as qui in aliqua re praeit,and he adds the words: eoque modo exemplum
edit, It is used by Plutarch, Isocrates and others, as Bleek shows, with reference
to the originator of a family as the leader of his descendants. It is, also, employed
as equivalent in meaning to aircoc. This last sense is given to it here by
Liinem., Bleek, Grimm, and others. The connection of thought in this chap-
ter, and also in chap. xii., seems, however, to point to the fact that Christ not only
is the author of salvation or faith for His brethren, but that He is so by being their
leader—the one who went through their experience to the glorious consummation,
and thus became the first, and, as it were, the representative of them all. The
choice of the word, instead of aircoc, we may believe to have been determined by
the desire of the writer to bring out this compound idea of cause and leader,
which aizio¢ would not have suggested.—(e) Vv. 11-13 do not appear to be merely
subsidiary and, as it were, parenthetical, as Liinem., regards them. They form
a part of the proof given of ver. 10, though, as compared with vv. 14, 15, a sub-
ordinate part. In developing the idea of the fitness, that, in His plan of bring-
ing His sons to glory, God should perfect the apz7yé¢ through sufferings, two
thoughts needed to be presented and confirmed—namely, that the apy7yé¢ was a
son, a8 the viof for whom He was to accomplish the great result were sons, and
that, in order to have their position fully, and be a leader for them, it was necessary
for Him to become a partaker of their human nature, and thus to become subject
to death. These two thoughts might, not improbably, have been introduced co6r-
dinately by ordinary writers, as two grounds for the statement or suggestion of
ver. 10. But this author, who constantly manifests the Pauline influence in his
manner of writing, introduces the first and less important thought by ydp, con-
necting it immediately with toAAov¢ viovc, and then afterwards, in ver. 14, he
brings in the second thought as an inference (ody) suggested by the words ra
wadta of ver. 13. The immediate and grammatical connection is, in this case,
accordingly, as so often in Paul’s epistles, different from the logical connection.—
(f) We find a use of O. T. passages in vv. 12 f. similar to that which has been
noticed in ch. i., and in vv. 6-8 of this chapter. The change in the reference of
ta zuidia, by which it is made to designate, not the children of the prophet, as in
the O. T., but the children of God, is, also, noticeable, and finds its explanation in
the way in which the author viewed the O. T. Such a change was, at the most,
a sacrifice of the letter for the more full and perfect setting forth of the Divine
truth. The O. T. was filled with foreshadowings of Christ and the new system.
(g) The movement in the thought from vv. 11 ff. to what follows is evidently
through ver. 14a towards vv. 145, 15—the emphasis being on the idea expressed
in the latter. The representative is crowned with glory and honor on account of
his suffering of death, because this was the course by which the end which God
had in view—the deliverance of men from the fear of death—might be accom-
plished. To this end, accordingly, Christ becomes a son, in the human sense, and
partakes of flesh and blood.—(h) xarapyfoy is used here in a sense similar to that
which we find in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 26, i.e. of bringing to nought (R. V.) or destroying
the power of the enemy to do injurv with respect to the thing in question. Here
the devil is deprived of the power of death so far as the persons mentioned, the
vioi or taidia, are concerned.—(i) The power of death, here spoken of, is appar-
ently that connected with fear. This verse may, perhaps, be regarded as throwing
light on some passages in Paul’s writings, where death is referred to as the conse-
quence of sin, and as showing that to the Pauline thought death, as thus used,
452 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
always carried with it this idea, and did not mean simply the separation of the
soul from the body. However this may be, the power of death is here ascribed to
the devil, us we cannot doubt, because he was the one who introduced sin into the
race, through the temptation at the beginning, and death is the result of sin. See
Rom. v. 12, 1 Cor. xv. 56, and other passages.—(j ) dovAeiag seems to be deter-
mined in its meaning by the earlier words of the clause. It does not denote the
bondage to the law of decay and death, the bondage of corruption, Rom. viii. 21, but
the bondage to the fear of death as a terrible and hopeless evil—(k) The imme-
diate connection of ver. 16 through ydp is, manifestly, with vv. 14, 15, as still
further explanatory of what is there said. It seems, however, to be an unnecessary
addition, so far as this object alone is concerned, and to be even repetitious, in its
idea, of what has been already brought out with sufficient fullness. It is not
improbable, therefore, that the writer was led to write these words, not so much
for the purpose of adding a new point or argument, as of calling attention at the
end, as he had done at the beginning (ver. 5), tothe fact that the oixovuévy puéAAovea
was, in God’s plan, subjected not to angels, but to men. The use of the words
“seed of Abraham,” instead of men, is most simply explained in accordance with
Liinemann’s supposition: the author writes thus just because he had only to de
with born Jews as the readers of his epistle. That there is a conflict between the
statements of this passage, and of this verse, and Paul’s declaration in Col. i. 20,
has been maintained by Liinemann and some others. But when we take the
different passages in Paul’s writings, which relate to the work of redemption, into
careful consideration, it can hardly be doubted that his including of the angels in
the azoxaraAAagéac of Col. i. 20 is, in no sense, such as to cover the ground of this
author in this chapter. Paul does not regard the angels as among the sons of
God whom Christ leads to salvation and glory through His sufferings, and into
the experiences of whose nature Christ enters for this end.
XLVII. Vv. 17-18.
(a) The close correspondence between these verses and those at the end of the
fourth chapter will not fail to be observed. This correspondence isseen: 1. in the
ideas and expressions of these corresponding verses in the two chapters; 2. in the
connection of the verses, in each case, with the preceding context; 3. in the fact
that the word dpxcepet'¢ is found in each, whereas neither this word nor any sug-
gestion of the idea of the High-priesthood of Jesus is introduced anywhere else in
the first and second, or again in the third and fourth chapters, (iii. 1 forms no
proper exception, see note on that verse). It can scarcely be questioned, it would
seem, that when a writer, who is so careful with respect to the artistic arrangement
of his work as the author of this epistle is, has two such passages in two correspond-
ing places, he means to make them parallel to each other. When we observe,
also, that the High-priesthood of Christ is the subject of the second half of the
epistle (v. 1—xii. 29), and that this second part is that on which the author
dwells with greater fullness and emphasis, we may believe that, in these verses,
he intends to give a hint or foreshadowing, at the close of each subdivision of the
first section of his work, of that which is to be the great thought of its second and
most important division. An artistic arrangement of this character is quite foreign
to the style of Paul in his thirteen epistles—(5) As to the similarities between
ii. 17, 18 and iv. 14-16, the following points may be noticed: 1. The use of the
NOTES. 453
same words, in the case of apxcepete, retpdlouat, BonPjoa: (BofGerav), 6uowHjvat (Kal?
duoidtyTa), 2. The general correspondence in the thought, where the words are
unlike, as e. g. “the merciful high-priest in things pertaining to God,” as compared
with “approaching the throne of grace (through him) that we may find mercy ” ;
“in that he has suffered being tempted, he is able,” etc., as compared with
“tempted in all points like as we are;” “he becomes a merciful and faithful high-
priest through being made like unto his brethren,” as compared with “ he is able
to sympathize with our infirmities because he was tempted like ourselves.” The
few differences in expression and in the minor details of the verses are only such as
might be expected in a careful rhetorical writer, who would avoid mechanical
repetition, and who, in the latter case, is drawing nearer to the thoughts and
expressions of the second part of the epistle.
454 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
CHAPTER IIL
VER. 1. 'Incotv] Recepta: Xptordyv "Incovv, Bightly rejected by Griesb.
Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. For against it stands the pre-
ponderating authority of A B C* D* M x, 17, 34, al., many vss. and Greek as well
as Latin Fathers, and not less the usus loguendi of the epistle, since Xpiordg ’Incot¢
is found nowhere else therein, "I7covg Xpioré¢ only [vi. 20, with D* E* It.] x. 10,
xiii. 8 (20, with D* 17, al.], 21; quite commonly, on the other hand, the simple
"Inoove (ii. 9, iv. 14, vi. 20, vii. 22, x. 19, xii. 2, 24, xiii. 12, 20) or the simple
Xpiorde (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, vi. 1, ix. 11, 14, 28, xi. 26).—Ver. 2. & Aw 7 oixw ator]
Instead thereof, Tiseh. 1 and 2 reads merely é¢v T@ olxw avrov. But for the
deletion of 6Ay the authority of B, Sahid. Erp. Ambr. does not suffice. dA is
defended not only by AC DEK LMy, Vulg. al., but also by the consideration
that it forms a constituent part of the passage Num. xii. 7, to which the writer
has respect, and the complete formula év 6A r@ oixy avrov is, on account of its
repetition in ver. 5, already presupposed for ver. 2.—Ver. 3. ovro¢ dé654¢] Elz.
Matthaei, Bloomfield: d6&y¢ ovrog. Against A BC DE y, 37, 47, al., It. Chrvs.
Transposition for bringing into marked relief the opposition otrog mapa Muiozv.
—Ver. 4. In place of the Recepta ra mévta, Lachm. Bleek, de. Wette, Tisch.
read only tavra. To be preferred, not merely on account of the strong attesta-
tion by A B C* D* E* K M xy, al. mult., Chrys. ms., but also because the notion
of the universe, which ta tavra would contain, does not suit the connection.—
Ver. 6. In place of é4vmep, Lachm. (this editor, however, only in the edit.
stereot.; in the larger edition he adds zp in brackets) and Tisch. have adopted,
after B D* E* M y* 17, the mere ¢4», The author, however, is fond of the
fuller éévzep (comp. ver. 14, vi. 3), and here it has preponderating testimonies
(A C D*** E** K L y*** Lucif. Cal.) in its favor.—péype téAovg BeBaiav xara-
oxwuev} Instead of this, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads merely xardoyuyev. But, for the
omission of the words wéypt téAovg BeBaiav (already condemned by Mill, Prolegg.
1208, and more recently by Delitzsch and Alford), the authority of B, Aeth. Lucif.
Ambr. does not suffice; and-as a gloss from ver. 14 they can hardly be regarded,
inasmuch as, with regard to the object the author has in view, they are just as
little without significance here as there. See, moreover, the observations of Reiche,
p- 19 sq.—Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. have ¢weipacdv we ol
matépec tuav, Edoxinzacdy pe. Defended also by Reiche. But the only
accredited reading is éxeipacay oi warépes tuadv év doxtpacig, Already
preferred by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, ai.
éweipacay, in place of éreipacay pe, is demanded by A B C D* E* x* 17, It.
Copt. Lucif.; év doxcuacia in place of édoxivacdy ye, by ABC D* E M x* 78,
137, It. Copt. Lucif. Clem. Al. protrept. c. 9, 3 84, Didym.—Ver. 10. Elz. Matthaei,
Scholz, Bloomf. Reiche: tr yeveg éxeivy. More correctly, after A B D* Mx,
6, 17, al., Vulg. Clem. Did. Bengel, Bohme, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford
(recommended also by Griesb.): r9 yeveg rabry. Deviating from the LXX.,
CHAP. In. 1. 455
the author chose ratry, inorder to make the bearing of the passage upon the
readers the more palpable—Ver. 13. The Recepita rig &&§ tuav (adopted by
Tisch. 8) is, with Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford, al.,
to be transposed into €£ vuayv ric, in accordance with B D E K L, 46, 48, Theo-
doret, Damasc. al. By means of the transposition, the person of the readers, in
opposition to the fathers in the wilderness, comes out more emphatically, and
more in accordance with the context.—Ver. 14. Elz. Matthaei, Bloomf.: yey é6va-
fev tov Xptorov] But the important attestation by AB CD EH M x 37, al,
Vulg. Clar. Germ. Cyr. Damase. Lucif. Hilar. Hier. Ambr. Vigil. Taps. decides in
favor of the order of the words rot Xprorov yeydvapev; accepted by Griesb.
Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Alford, al.
Vv. 1-6. Even above Moses is Christ exalted. By so much higher than
Moses does He stand, as the son exercising authority over his own house
has precedence over the servant of the house. This new dogmatic con-
sideration, to which the discourse now advances, was indeed already con-
tained implicite as the minus, in the preceding argument as the majus; it
must, however, still be separately insisted on, inasmuch as, in addition to
the angels as the suprahuman agents (Vermittler) in connection with the
founding of the Old Covenant, Moses, as the human agent (Vermitiler) in
the founding of the same, could not remain unmentioned. Appropri-
ately to the subject, however, the author treats of this new point of com-
parison only with brevity, blending the same with the exhortation,
derived from that which precedes, to cleave firmly unto the end to Christ
and the Christian hope ; and then, from ver.7 forward, further developing
this exhortation in detail,—in the form of a parallel instituted between
the people of God of the present time, 7. e. the Christians, and the people
of God of Moses’ time,—in their interest, with even a warning impres-
siveness.
On Vv. 1-6, comp. Carl. Wilh. Otto, der Apostel und Hohepriester unsres
Bekenninisses. An Exegetical Study on Heb. iii. 1-6, Leipz. 1861, 8vo.!
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-6, see Note XLVIII., pages 470-472.] "O6ev] refers
back to the total characterization of Christ given in chaps. i. ii. [XLVIII
1 This writer finds (comp. p. 96), by dint of a
long extended chain of arbitrary assertions
and erroneous presuppositions, the absolutely
impossible sense in the words: “(Ver. 1)
From this (ii. 10-18), beloved brethren, who,
delivered from death, are presented a sacri-
fice to God, and have your right of citizenship
in heaven, perceive that the Ambassador and
High Priest, who in His own person has
borne our confession to the heavenly goal, and
as mediator continually introduces into
heaven, namcly Jexus (ver. 2}, is one en-
trusted (an organ of confidence) of Him who
made Him (such), é. 6. (comp. p. 65) called
Him into existence as Jesus, as was also
Moses in the house of God, i.e. in the limita-
tion and subordination, as this was presup-
posed by his position in the house of God.
(Ver. 3) For (comp. p. 87) greater glory (i. ¢.
higher position of power) has been vouchsafed
to this man than to Moses, in which measure,
as the house (8c. of God), so has He who has
fitted it up, greater honor (sic!). (Ver. 4) For
every house is fitted up by some one (but to
correspond to all its requirements, no one is
able); He, however, who has fitted it up with
all things (se. as Jesus the house of God, for
time and eternity) is omnipotent, is of divine
nature. (Ver. 5) And Moscs, indeed, was
trustworthy in all his house, as a servant, to
testify what was to be revealed (ver. 6): Jesus,
however, as the Christ (comp. p. 90), trust-
worthy as Son (se. of God) over His (sc. God’s)
house. Whose (sc. God’s) house we are and
remain, if at any rate we retain the joy fulness
and boasting of hope to the end.”
456 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
a.| Wherefore, t.e. seeing that it stands in such wise with Christ, His
nature and disposition. As regards its contents, 6@e» is unfolded by the
Tov axdaTosov kai apylepéa THE duodoyiac jyuov immediately following, inasmuch
as by these designations the preceding total-characterization of Christ is
recapitulated in its two main features (vid. infra). For if the author says:
“Therefore regard well Jesus, the amécrohog Kat apyziepeig rio dpuoAoyiag
juov!” that is only a Greek form of expression for the thought: ‘“ There-
fore, because Jesus is the aréaros0¢g nai apytepeic tHe duodoyiag yudv, regard
Him well! ”—ade7¢g0i dycor.] belongs together. With Michaelis, to separate
the two words from each other by acomma, would be permissible only if
by the isolation thereof a gradation were obtained. But this is not the
case; since then only two relations parallel to each other, namely, on the
one side the relation of the readers to the author (ade2¢0:), and on the
other side their relation to the non-Chnistian world (ay:0:), would be ren-
dered separately prominent.—ade/¢o0i] designates the readers not as
brethren of Christ (so with an unwarranted appeal to ii. 11, 12, 17, Peirce,
Michaelis, Carpzov, Pyle; comp. also Delitzsch, according to whom this
is at least also to be thought of), nor does it express the brotherly relation
in the national sense, z.e. the descent from the Jewish people common to
the author and readers (Chr. Fr. Schmid), but has reference to the spirit-
ual, ideal brotherly relationship, into which author and recipients of the
letter have been brought towards each other by the common bond of
Christianity.—xAgoews éxovpaviov pétoxo] ye who are partakers of a heavenly
calling. This second direct address—to which Grotius needlessly supplies
“ nobiscum ”—strengthens the former, and the two forms of address ex-
plain the ground of the obligation to the xaravociv, by pointing to the
reader’s state of grace. «Ayorc stands actively. It denotes the call or
invitation, which God! has by Christ given to the readers, to participation
in the Messianic kingdom. This calling, however, is termed ézovpéviog,
either because the blessings, the possession of which it promises, are exist-
ent in heaven and of heavenly nature (Grotius, al.), or, what is more
probable, because they have come to men from heaven [so Owen], where
God their supreme author has His throne, and whence Christ their pro-
claimer and procurer (Vermittler) was sent forth. It 1s possible, however,
that both references are to be combined: “a calling which proceeds from
heaven and leads to heaven.” 2—xaravofoare] direct your view to Jesus, sc. in
order to cleave firmly to Him; regard well what He is and what you have
in Him!—rov amédorodov kat apxtepia tig dporoyiac juov}] [XLVIII b.] the
Envoy and High Priest of our confession, is comprehended into a unity of
idea by the article rév only once placed (“ Him who is amdoroaog and apyee-
pe’c In one person ”’), in connection with which rie duodoyiag juev is then
also most naturally referred in equal degree to both substantives. 1r7¢
épodroyias yuo, however, is not to be resolved into dv éuoAoyotuev (Luther,
1 For God, as everywhere with Paul also, not 280 Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Bis-
Christ, as Delitzsch supposes, is thought ofas ping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebd-
the cadwy. rderbr. p. 693 ; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others,
CHAP. IIL. 2. 457
Cameron, Calov, Wolf, de Wette, Maier, and others; similarly Delitzsch:
“ who is the subject-matter of our confession;” and Riehm, Lehrbegr. des
Hebraerbr. p. 427 f.: “ who appertains to our confession ”’), but stands, like
riortc, Gal. i. 28, and éAmic, Col. i. 5, objectively: of our Christian confession
(of our evangelical faith). Comp. iv. 14, x. 23; 2 Cor. ix. 13; 1 Tim. vi.
12,18. [So Calvin, Piscator, Owen (with hesitation), Stuart.] The opposi-
tion is to the pre-Christian or Mosaic confession, without, however, the
emphasis, as Kurtz supposes, falling upon jer, which is forbidden by the
position of the words: The deputed One (sc. of God) for our confession, i.e.
sent by God (comp. Gal. iv. 4; Matt. x. 40, al.) in order to bring about our
confession or Christian faith. The signification “mediator,” which Tho-
luck attaches to the word azécrodoc, after the example of Braun and
others, appealing in favor thereof to the authority of Rabbinico-talmudic
usage, the latter never has. The notion of mediator follows, alike for
arxdéoroaov as also for doyepéa, only from the context. By azécrodop,
namely, is referred back to the main thought of the last and highest di-
vine revelation (the Aadeiv), contained in Christ, of which the writer has
treated i. 1-ii. 4; by apycepéa, to the main thought of the reconciliation
of sinful humanity to God by Christ, then further treated in the second
chapter. Aptly, therefore, does Bengel distinguish é@zécrodov and apyrepéa
as “eum, qui Dei causam apud nos agit” and “ qui nostram causam apud
Deum agit.”
Ver. 2. [XLVIII c.] The discourse takes a turn, by virtue of a further
alleging of reasons for the xaravogoare, to the comparison of Jesus with
Moses, in that first of all the relation of parity between the two is brought
prominently forward. The O. T. passage which the author here has under
consideration is Num. xii. 7, where Moses is designated by God as faithful
in all His house.—dr7a] characterizes the being faithful as an inherent
property; the sense of a strict present is not to be asserted for the parti-
ciple (with Seb. Schmidt and Bleek), according to which we should have
to think only of an eralted Christ; rather does m:ordv évra attach itself as
well to the notion "Ijcovy rov amdartodAov “tHe duodoyiag judy as to the notion.
"Inoowy rov apytepéa tie dpodoyiac judy; bvra embraces, therefore, equally
the time from which Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, had appeared
upon earth, and the time from which He, invested with the high-priestly
dignity, has returned to the Father, and now continues to fulfill in heaven
His high-priestly office.—s9 wogjoavre aizé6v] [XLVIII d 1.] Periphrasis
of God: Him who created Him. Only this sense of the calling forth into
existence can the word soiv have when placed absolutely; comp. LXX.
Isa. xvii. 7, xiii. 1, li. 13; Hos. viii. 14; Job xxxv. 10; Ps. xcv. 6, cxlix. 2;
Ecclus. vii. 80, ai. Rightly is this accepted by the early Latin translation
of the codd. D E (fidelem esse creatori suo), Ambrose (de fide, 3. 11), Vigi-
lius Tapsensis (contra Varimadum, p. 729), Primasius, Schulz, Bleek,
Alford, Kurtz, and Hofmann. Contrary to linguistic usage—for an appeal
cannot be made to 1 Sam. xii. 6 (where roy (WY) has its ordinary sig-
nification), and still less to Mark iii. 14 (where a nearer defining is given
to the verb by means of iva «.7.4.), or to Acts 11.36 (where a double accusa-
458 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
tive is found)—do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Occumenius, Theophylact,
Vatablus, Clarius [Calvin], Cameron, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf,
Bengel, BGhme, Kuinoel, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard,
Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 286 f.), Reuss, Maier,
Kluge, Moll, M’Caul, Woerner, and the majority, interpret 7@ rocfoavre
either by: who appointed Him thereto (sc. Apostle and High Priest), or
ordained Him thereto; or—what amounts to the same thing—explaining
the supplementing of a second accusative to morjoavre as unnecessary, by:
who set Him forth upon the stage of history. Whether, for the rest, the
author referred the notion of having created to the incarnation of Christ,
as the above-mentioned early ecclesiastical writers suppose, or to His
premundane generation as the First-born (cf. 1. 5, 6), which Bleek rightly
regards as at least possible, cannot be determined.'—o¢ xai Muiaie] se.
mors qv TH Tojoavte aitév.—iv bAy TH oixw avtov] does not belong to
nuotov bvTa Th Touoavte airév, in such wise that we have, with Calvin,
Paulus, Bleek, Ebrard, and Hofmann, to enclose o¢ cai Mwitojce within
commas, but it is to be comprehended with d¢ xat Muioye (de Wette,
Kurtz, and the majority). For not only, Num. xii. 7, do the words
appended: év dAw r@ oiky avrov, stand in special relation to Moses,—so
that the author might very well derive from that place the same addition
with the same special reference to Moses,—but also the equal reference
of év 6Aw To olkw avtov to Christ, as to Moses, would be unsuitable to the
connection with that which follows, since the author, ver. 5 and ver. 6,
definitely distinguishes the place occupied by Moscs, as the position of a
servant év dAw re oixy, from the place occupied by Christ, as a position
of ruler éxi rév olxov; and in harmony with this distinction, already ver.
3 characterizes Moses as merely a member of the olkog itself; Christ, on
the other hand, as the founder of the olxog.—avrov] refers neither to Christ
(Bleek) nor to Jfoses (Oecumenius and others), but, as also determined by
the form of the expression with the LXX. (é 62» 16 olkp nov), to God.—
But the house of God is the people of God, or the kingdom of God; and
év denotes the province, in the administration of which the mordv eivac was
made manifest.
Ver. 3.2? [XLVIII d 2.] Continued alleging of reasons for the xaravogcare,
ver. 1, in bringing into more distinct relief the exaltedness of Christ above
Moses. Ver. 3 is not, as de Wette supposes, explication or analysis of
1 That which Delitzsch urges against either the author has, i. 2,employed moety as ex-
possibility, namely, that “although the man
Jesus as such, so far as that which is essential
in the notion of creation is the state of be-
ginning in time, must be regarded as a
creature, there could be no more unsuitable
expression—because one almost unmean-
ingly colorless, or even indecorous—for the
matchless and unique act of: the formation
of the humanity of the Son in the womb of
Mary, than the term roe, for the use of
which, in this sense, no instances can on that
very account be adduced;" and that “after
pression of the pure idea of creation, he could
surely not now have employed it of the sub-
limer genesis of the Mediator of the world’s
creation,” falls to pieces, because it rests
upon mere subjectivity. For it is nothing
more than a pronouncing upon the mind of
the writer from the standpoint of the critic’s
own ready-formed dogmatics.
2Comp. Gabler, Dissert. exeg. tn illustrem
locum Heb. iii. 3-6, Jena 1778. (Reprinted in
the Opusee. acad. vol. II. Ulm 1831, 8.)
CHAP. Ill. 3, 4. 459
ver.2. For a placing upon a parallel cannot be explained or analyzed by
a placing superior.—otro¢] sc. ’Iycovs—On wapé after a comparative, see
at 1. 4.—7iwrac] has been counted worthy, sc. by God. The verb stands, as
ordinarily (comp. 2 Thess. 1. 5,11; 1 Tim. v.17; Heb. x. 29), in the real
sense, so that it includes the notion of the possession obtained.—The
figure in the proposition of comparison, xa’ dc0v mwAciova Tiny Exe
tov olxov «7r.A., 18 occasioned by the preceding éy 64m re oixw avrov
added in ver. 2. The words contain a truth of universal validity, the
application of which, for the rest, to Christ and Moses, follows of itself.
Greater honor than the house (in the wider sense [of household], the
family and servants included therein) has he who has prepared it. Thus,
also, Christ stands higher in honor and glory than Moses. For founder
and establisher of the house of God, or the divine kingdom,—which in its
first formations reaches back to the time of the Old Covenant, but by the
New Covenant comes to full realization,—is Christ ; while Moses is only a
part of the olxo¢ itself, only a (ministering, cf. ver. 5) member of this
house, or an otxéry¢ in the same. Confusing and full of caprice is the
indication of the connection of thought of vv. 8-6 as given by Delitzsch.
See, in opposition to him, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 309.—roi oixov]
is governed by the comparative zAeiova: more (greater) honor than the house.
Mistakenly do Homberg, Wolf, Peirce, Michaelis, Heumann, Semler,
Morus, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Paulus, Stengel, and others make it depend
upon tippy: greater honor of the house, or in the house.—xataoxevdgew] im-
plies more than oixodoyeiv. Not only the erection of the house, but also
the arrangement thereof, the providing of it with the necessary furniture
and servants, is thereby expressed.
Ver. 4. [XLVIII d3.] The author has spoken, ver. 2, of the house of
God, and yet, ver. 3, has ascribed the founding and preparing of the same
to Christ. For the justification of this apparent contradiction does the
remark, ver. 4,serve. Although every house has its special preparer, yet
this notwithstanding, it is God who has prepared all things. That special
foundership of Christ does not exclude the universal higher foundership
of God. The proposition ver. 4 is incidental to the main argument. Itis
not, however, to be enclosed in a parenthesis, because avrov, ver. 5, refers
back to 6eéc, ver. 4—In the second clause, @eé¢ is subject, and 6 dé
madvtTa@ KxatacKxevacac predicate. Wrongly has 6eé¢ been ordinarily
taken by others as predicate, and as subject either 6 d2 mdvra xatackevdcag
or merely 6 dé, since dévra xataoxevdcac was taken as a defining adjunct.
The second member of the proposition was then referred to Christ, and
the statement found therein that Christ is God.’ But with this thought
the sequel is not in keeping. For not of Christ’s being God, but of His
exalted relation to the house of God as the vids, while Moses was only a
Oepéruv, does the author speak, vv. 5, 6.—dvra] denotes not the univer-
1S0 Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schmidt, Wittich, Braun, Akersloot, Calmet,
Clarius, Beza, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Corne- Bengel, Cramer, Whitby, Stuart, Baumgarten,
lius a Lapide, Cameron, Piscator, Owen, Seb. and many others; also still Woerncr.
460 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
sality of all created things, thought of as a unity, but in general: each and
all, that exists.
Ver. 5 as far as avrov, ver.6. Return to the point of comparison between
Christ and Moses, ver. 2 (xcoré¢), and the exaltedness of the former above
the latter, ver. 3 (vidc, éwi. . . Gepadmuv, év).—xai] is the more sharply-
defining “and indeed ;”’ whereas ,é» serves to bring into relief the per-
sonal name Moio7c, and finds in Xproré¢ dé, ver. 6, its emphatic opposition.
Vv. 5, 6 init. does not, accordingly, contain a second proof for the superior-
ity of Christ to Moses,'! but is only a more detailed unfolding of the
thoughts, ver. 2 and ver. 3.—zoréc] sc. #v, or else éoriv, in connection
with which latter mode of supplementing, the thought would be less of
the historic fact as such, than of the fact as it still continues present in the
O. T. narrative.—airov] refers not to Mwioy¢e (as Ebrard assumes, since he
starts with the erroneous presupposition that the author speaks of a
twofold oixocs, and that the design of vv. 5,6 was just that of rendering
clearly apparent the difference of the house entrusted to Moses on the
one hand, and that entrusted to Christ on the other), but to @eé¢, ver. 4—
o¢ Oeparuy] in his capacity as servant, comp. Num. xi. 7. Upon this, as
upon the preceding év, rests the emphasis of ver. 5.—ei¢ papripiov] belongs
to Ocpdruv. It is unnaturally referred back by Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Sten-
gel, and others to moré¢.—eic paptipiov tev AadAnfyoopéver] [XLVIII d 4.]
to give testimony to that which should be spoken, or proclaimed to the people.
Ta AadyOnodueva are not the revelations afterwards to be given in Christ,”
which must have been more precisely specified ; and still less does the
expression indicate: ‘dicenda a nobis in hac epistola de cerimoniis earum-
que significatione et usu” (Pareus), but the law to be proclaimed by Moses,
at the mandate of God, to the Jewish people is intended.
Ver. 6. Xpiordg dé o¢ vide] Christ, on the other hand, in His capacity as
Son, sc. wiorég éorev. Upon this supplement depends émi rév olxoyv atrov
(comp. Matt. xxv. 21, 23); and as vié¢ forms an ascent from the preceding
Gepdérurv, 80 does éxi form an ascent from the preceding é¢v. Erasmus,
Paraphr. ; Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Delitzsch, Moll, and others supply
to Xpioréc dé . . . avrov simply éoriv, whereby, however, the relation of
just proportion between ver. 5 and ver. 6 is destroyed. The opening
words of ver. 5, moreover,—inasmuch as they attach themselves not only
to ver. 3, but also again to ver. 2,—manifestly point to the fact that the
author will indicate not the mere difference between Christ and Moses, but
their difference within the quality common to both. Yet others, as Bleek,
de Wette, and Bisping, supply a double mioré¢ éorw, the first after Xprord¢
dé, the second after airov; since® they refer airov back to vid¢: Christ,
however, is faithful, as a son is faithful over his house. But a satisfactory
ground for taking olxog airov, ver. 6, otherwise than the same expression
1Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Woer- M'Caul, Woerner, and others.
ner. 3As the Vulgate, Beza, Estius, Grotius,
2Erasmus, Calvin, Cameron, Calov, Seb. Owen, Er. Schmid, Calov, Wolf, Carpzov,
Schmidt, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Wetstein, Cramer, Baumgarten, Gabler, Valckenaer,
Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Ewald, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Tholuck, and others.
CHAP. Il. 5, 6. 461
ver. 5, is not to be found. The house of God, or the divine kingdom, is
for Moses and Christ the common sphere of operation; only by the posi-
tion which the two occupy towards this house, are they distinguished the
one from the other.—As airov, ver. 6, so is the relative ov, with which
the author prepares the way for a transition to the paraenesis, not to be
referred to Christ, but to God; [XLVIII d 5.] although as regards the
matter itself even the former reference would not be incorrect, since the
house of God, ver. 2, is likewise characterized as the house of Christ,
ver. 3.—The article before olxes was not imperatively required, although
the whole Christian community forms a single indivisible house of God,
since the notion of the word was one sufficiently well known, and, more-
over, adequately defined by that which precedes.—The absolute declara-
tion: od olxéc éouev Hueic, on the import of which 1 Cor. ili. 9, 16, 2 Cor.
vi. 16, Eph. ii. 20 ff., 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. ii. 5, iv. 17, is to be compared,’
and which is taken in a strangely perverted way by Ebrard (p. 187) and
Delitzsch as the logical antithesis to ei¢ papriptoy tov AaAnByoopévwr, Ver. 5,
the author limits by a condition—The fuller éadvmep is foreign to the
epistles of Paul.—rjv rappyoiav] not the bold confession* to which eSaiav
xatéoxouev would not be fitting, but cheerful confidence as a disposition.
Comp. iv. 16, x. 19,35. rH» rappnoiav, to which ri é2ridoc ® belongs in
like manner as to 7d xabynua (against Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p.
739), is the main idea, whereas cai 1d kabxynpa adds only an explicative
subsidiary factor. That is manifest from the feminine Befaiav (which
Stengel wonderfully refers back, in a constructio ad sensum, to éAidoc).
Instances of the agreement of the adjective in point of gender with the
remoter substantive, in cases where this forms the principal idea, occur
also with the classics.—The é2é¢ is the Christians’ hope of the consum-
mation of the kingdom of God, and the glorification of the Christians
bound up therewith. Comp. Rom. v. 2, also Heb. vi. 11, 18, vii. 19, x. 23.
xav xa, however, is not here either equivalent to xaizyorc," any more
1Oecumenius, Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, 4Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Hammond,
Owen, Whitby, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping,
Woerner, al.
2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Stengel,
Stuart, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz,
Hofmann, and others.
% Philo, too, often employs the same figure,
applying it to the human soul. Comp. de
Somn. p. 587 E (ed. Mangey, I. p. 643): orov-
Sagov obv, & Wuxy, Ocov olxos yevécOat, cepdy
&ytov «.7.A.—De resip. Noe, p. 282 E (ed. Man-
gey, I. p. 402): tis yap olxos mapa yeveoes bu-
vacr’ av agcomperéarepos eipeOjvar Sew mAnv
WuxIs TeAciws cexabappevns Kai povov To KaAOY
Hyoupevns ayadov; ...Karoceiy 5¢@ A€yeras ev
Olney o Beds Ox ws ev TOm~ (meprexet yap Ta Tavra
mpds undevos meprexduevos), GAA’ ws mMpovotay Kat
émisdAccay éxeivou TOU xwpiou 8:adepdvrws movov-
pevos' mays yap Te Seawdcovre oiKias FY TAUTHES
xara To avayxaioy avnaTas Ppovris.
Limborch, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others.
6 Both words are found combined in Jo-
sephus likewise, Antiq. xvi. 3.3: cat decvos wy
rov tpémov ‘Avtimatpos, éwecdy appnaotas
Tivds THS OF mpdTtEpoy OvaNS EATLO0S
avremotycaro, piay écxey vTddeorw KAKOUV
Tous adeAgous, K.T.A.
6Comp. Hom, Il. xv. 344: tadp@ Kat cxo-
Admeco everAngavres OpuKTyH; Hesiod. Theo-
gon. 972 f.: 5 elo’ emi ynv Te, Kat evpéa voTa
Qaddcons, ragav; Xenophon, Anab. i. 5.63
6 8¢ aiyAos Svvarat émra OBoArAoVUS Kat ncopo-
hoy ‘Arrexnovs; Thucydides, viii. 63: rv6o-
pevos Ta wEpi THY vaUmaxiay Kal Tov STpom--
Bixidny nai tas vais aweAnAvOdra. See
Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 431.
7 Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Stengel, Bis-
ping, Maier, and others.
462 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
than 2 Cor. v. 12, ix. 3, which have been unwarrantably appealed to (see
Meyer ad loc.), but denotes the subject of the boasting. Sense: provided
we shall have maintained the Christians’ hope as a cheerful confidence and sub-
ject of boasting firm unto the end.—péypt rérovg] not: until the death of each
individual (Schlichting, Grotius, Kuinoel) ; not: “ until the final decision
of the readers in favor of going over to Christianity ” (! Ebrard), but as
ver. 14, vi. 11, 1 Cor. 1. 8, al., unto the end of the present order of the world,
intervening with the coming again of Christ, and thought of asin the
near future (comp. x. 25, 37), at which time faith shall pass over into sight,
hope into possession.
Ver. 7-iv. 13. [On Vv. 7-14, see Note XLIX., pages 472, 473.] The author,
in detailed development of the paraenesis already contained in vv. 1, 6,
warns against unbelief and apostasy, making the basis of this warning the
admonitory utterance of Scripture in Ps. xcv. 7-11; and by means of a
parallelizing of the people of God of the present time, 7. e. the Christians,
with the people of God of Moses’ day, z.e. the Israelite fathers in the
wilderness,—a parallelizing equally suggested by this passage of Scripture
as by the preceding comparison of Christ with Moses,—he sets forth
before the eyes of his readers the fate of the ancient people of God, who
because of their unbelief were consigned to destruction, that the readers
may earnestly ponder thereon. [XLIX a.]
Ver. 7. Aié] [XLIX b.] Wherefore, i.e. either: because Christ stands
higher than Moses,! or, which is better: because we are the oixos of God,
only in the case that we hold fast the rappyoia and the xatynua of the
Christian hope unto the end (ver. 6). [XLIX c.] The tempus finitum
belonging to Acé is #Aémere, ver. 12,7 in such wise that xaBoc . . . xardwav-
civ nov forms an intervening clause. The length of the intervening clause,
‘at which de Wette takes umbrage, decides nothing against the supposition
of such construction, which at all events possesses the advantage of
greater regularity and naturalness, since the author, owing to the care
which he everywhere bestows upon his diction, in other cases, too, accur-
ately fits in his discourse again to the opening words of the proposition,
notwithstanding the occurrence of lengthy intervening clauses. Comp.
vii. 20-22, xil. 18-24. That, moreover, which de Wette further objects,
that in the intervening clause the discourse takes a new departure with
6:6, ver. 10, forms no valid counter-argument, since the connectedness of
the preceding and following words as part of a Biblical citation follows
naturally. In any case, ver. 10 connects itself with that which precedes,
without a new beginning, in a simply relative fashion, if—as we are per-
fectly justified in doing—we write 6’ 6 instead of 6:6. When de Wette,
finally, discovers a difficulty in the fact that the warning, vv. 12, 18, does
not appear in the form of asimple application of the passage of Scripture,
but, on the contrary, begins with an analysis of the same, this also is
1So0 Carpzov, Zachariae, Bohme, Stuart, tor, Pareus, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt,
Kurtz, and Woerner; comp.already Schlicht- |Limborch, Bengel, Peirce, Carpzov, Wetstein,
ing. Abresch, Zachariae, Béhme, Bleek, Bisping,
2 rasmus, Annott.; Calvin, Estius, Pisca- Alford, Kurtz, Woerner, al.
CHAP. wr. 7—9. 463
without weight, inasmuch as the correctness of this assumed fact must
itself be contested. In addition to this, if the author had conceived of
the structure otherwise than has been indicated, he would assuredly have
placed Biérere obv, ver. 12, instead of the disconnected BAézere. For
neither is it permissible to appeal (with Tholuck) to the disconnected
Biérere, Xil. 25, in proof of the opposite, since this passage, on account of
the rhetorical character of the description which there immediately
precedes, is totally different from ours. Others,! connect 6:6 immediately
With y oxAnpivyre, in connection with which, however, the direct address
of God, coming in ver. 9 ff., occasions a great harshness; or else,? leave
the application pa) oxAnptunte tac xapdiag tuev to be supplied in thought
from these words; or, finally, supplement 6:6 in a somewhat free manner:
therefore conduct yourselves in accordance with that which the Holy Ghost speaks.
—rd mvevpa Td Gyiov] the Spirit of God in prophecy; comp. ix. 8, x. 15.—
ojuEepov éav THC gwvijc¢ avTov axotonre] isin the Hebrew (3) mnwn Op3-ON p1})
an independent clause, and the expression of a wish: “would that you
would only to-day listen to His (God’s) voice!” It is possible that the
_ LXX. also understood the words as a wish, since elsewhere, too (e.g. Ps.
cxxxix. 19), they render the particle of wishing, D8, by éé». Differently,
however, does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews take the words
(agaist Hofmann). He regards éév as the protasis, and pu) oxAnpbyyre as
the apodosis; comp. ver. 15, iv. 7.—In the application ofpnepoyr denotes
the time of salvation which has come in with the appearing of Christ
upon earth, and 4 gwv avrowv the voice of God which through Christ
sounds forth to the readers by means of the gracious message of the
gospel.
Ver. 8. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation (contumacy), on the
day of temptation in the wilderness. In the original, rapazcxpacuds and
mepaouds are proper names (“as.at Meribah, as on the day of Massah in
the wilderness’ [13793 159 O13 13'33]), which, however, are under-
stood by the author in the appellative sense (comp. ver. 16), in that he
takes xara r7v juépay tov mepacuov aS an epexegetical note of time to év
T@ Tapamixpacoua. On the history, comp. Ex. xvi. 1-7; Num. xx. 1-13.—
tov mecpacuov| in the active sense: the tempting of God by contumacious
behavior, comp. ver. 9.
Ver. 9. Oi] is taken by Erasmus Schmid, Bengel, and Pierce as attrac-
tion to mecpacyov instead of 9, wherewith. But in this case ot would have
been connected immediately with zecpacuov. It is the local “where; ”
thus stands, as frequently, in the sense of é7ov, and refers back to épjuy.—
ov éveipacav ol marépes tyav év doxipacia] where your fathers essayed tempta-
tion,’ on the ground of proving or testing, i. e. where your fathers tempted me
and put me to the test. dox:yacia as re:pdCecv here in the bad sense.
1As Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Wittich, appeal to Rom. xv. 3, 21, 1 Cor. i. 31, ii. 9.
Heinrichs, Kuninoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Eb- 3[n an unnatural manner, Hofmann: as
rard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reuss, and Hof- «léov,so also even é¢retpacay finds its object in
mann. Ta épya pov.
As Tholuck, de Wette, and Maier, who
464 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
The former contains an enhancement of the latter. This involves doubt
with regard to the inclination of God to render help, that doubt with
regard to His power of doing so.—xai eidov] «.7.A.] and yet saw my works
forty years long. This was a fact that aggravated their guilt. In the
original, rescapdxovra érq belongs to the following zpocdytica. To the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also this original connection was
known, as is evident from ver.17. If he nevertheless refers recoapaxovra
éry7 to that which precedes, and moreover consolidates this connection by
means of the dé (d¢ 6) interpolated only by himself, he must have been
guided by a distinct design in doing so. Rightly, therefore, is it assumed !
that the author discovered in the forty years during which the Israclites
in the wilderness saw the works of God, a typical reference to the about
equal space of time during which the Hebrews had now also witnessed
the government of God as manifested in Christ, and would make this
reference clear to the readers, in order thereby to render the more impres-
sive his exhortation to receptiveness, while there is yet time. The
reminder of Akersloot, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Abresch, Bleck, and others, is at
the same time worthy of notice, viz. that also in the Talmud and by the
Rabbins a duration of forty years is assigned to the Messianic kingdom
with reference to Ps. xev. and the forty years of the wilderness.
Ver. 10. Acd tpociyfhoa ry yeveg tabty] Wherefore I conceived an aversion,
or was incensed against this generation —On 6.6, see at ver. 9. The verb
mpocox@icercy is not found at all in the classics, in the N. T. only here
and ver. 17; with the LXX., on the other hand, very frequently.—In
yevea lies neither the subordinate notion of meanness (Heinrichs, Sten-
gel), nor yet the intimation that the men of acertain period belong in
point of character and mind to a definite class (Bleek). Each of these
subordinate notions ry yeve@ acquires only by the taitg which is added.—
aei] note of time to wAavavra, not to eizov (Erasmus).—airoi dé] So the
LX X. in the Cod. Alex., whose form of the text the author for the most
part reproduces; the Cod. Vatican. has more in accordance with the
Hebrew: xai airoi obk Eyvwoar.
Ver. 11. 'Q¢ duoca év 7H opyh pov] as accordingly I (as to the sense equiv-
alent to: so thatI; sce Winer, p. 431 [E. T. 462]; in the Hebrew WW)
sware (comp. Num. xiv. 21 ff, xxx. 10 ff; Deut. 1. 34 ff) in (not: by) my
wrath.—ei_ eicedebaovrat eig tiv Kataravoiv pov] not enter, shall they, into my rest.
ec is an exact imitation of the negative Hebrew particle O8 in formulas of
swearing, and is to be explained from an aposiopesis of the latter clause?
—xatazavorc] in the sense of the psalmist, the undisturbed possession of
1Calov, Wittich, Akersloot, Surenhus,
Schottgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Abresch, Béhme,
Tanchuma, fol. 79, 4: Quamdiu durant anni
Messiae? R. Akiba dixit: quadraginta an-
Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr.
des Hebrierbr. p. 618; Alford, Reiche, Comm.
Crit. p. 22; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others.
4Comp. Sanhedr. fol. 99,1: R. Eliezer dixit:
dies Messiae sunt guadraginta anni, sicut
dicitur: quadraginta annos sqq. (Ps. xev. 10):
nos quemadmodum Israélitae per tot annos in
deserto fuerunt.
3 Comp. Mark vili. 12; Ewald, Krit. Gramm,
p. 661; Winer, p. 466 [E. T. 500]; Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 308 [E. T. 358].
CHAP, UI. 10-12. 465
the land of Canaan promised by God. Afterwards, because with the
possession of the promised land the expected full repose and happiness
had as yet by no means come in, the meaning of the promise was subli-
mated, just as that of the kindred xAnpovoyeiv tiv ygv Ps. xxxvii. 9, into the
everlasting Messianic blessedness. This reference obtains, as is evident
from the following disquisition, with our author also.
Vv. 12, 18. [XLIX d.] Close of the period begun with dé, ver. 7.—Aé-
mete] beware, take heed.—ph more gota], uy after BAére, dpa, and similar
words, with the indicative future (comp. Col. ii. 8), expresses at the same
time with the warning, the fear that the warning will be slighted? The
enclitic tore appended to the 4, not: at any time (Beza and others), but:
haply [ii.1; Luke xiv. 29; Acts v. 39; Matt. iv. 6, etc.]—év rex tuor) dif-
ferent from év tuiv. Calvin: Nec tantum in universum praecipit aposto-
lus, ut sibi omnes caveant, sed vult ita de salute cujusque membri esse
sollicitos, ne quem omnino ex 1is, qui semel vocati fuerint, sua negligen-
tia perire sinant. Comp. ver. 13, x. 24, xii. 15.—xapdia movypa amoriac] an
evil heart of unbelief; comp. iv. 2, 3. Wrongly Schulz and others: of
faithlessness or ameiea, iv. 6, 11, 111.18; for the latter is only the conse-
quence of the amoria. amcoriag is either genitive of origin, which pro-
ceeds from unbelief (Owen, Bleek, Stengel, and others), or genitive of
result, which leads to unbelief, renders inclined to the same (de Wette,
Bisping, al.), or genitive of reference to a more precise characterization of
movnpa: a heart evil (on account) of unbelief, which is then equivalent to
kapdia wovynpiav amtoriag éxovea (so Winer, p. 183 [E. T. 194.]; Ebrard,
Alford, Meyer, Moll, and Hofmann). The last acceptation is to be pre-
ferred, since thereby amoriac is more clearly brought out as the main idea
(for xapdia rovnpa is only a clothing of the same attaching itself to aei zAa-
vovtat TH xapdig, ver. 10).—év 1@ arooTHvat ard Oecd Cvroc] more precise defi-
nition’ to amoriag for the declaration of the outward form of appearance,
in which the inner unbelief comes forth : in the falling away from the living
God, or in such wise that a falling away from the living God takes place. God
(not Christ: Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, S. Schmidt, Schéttgen, Carpzov,
al.) is called living, not in opposition to the dead works of the law (ix. 14,
vi. 1; Bleek), nor in opposition to the idols of the heathen, similarly as
2 Kings xix. 16, 1 Thess.1. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 16, Acts xiv. 15(Béhme and
others),—both of which must have been suggested by the context,—but.
because He does not allow His declared will to be slighted with impunity.
Comp. x.31. That which is meant is the relapse from Christianity into
Judaism.‘
1 Comp. Deut. xii. 9, 10: Ov ydp Reare és Tov 8Schlichting: Duplex est enim increduli-
vuy eis THY KaTdMaveLY Kai Cig THY KANpovouiar,
fv nvptos © Beds nuwy Siswouy Uuiv’ cat dcaBr-
weaGe Tov “lopddvny nai xarowenoere emi THS y7S,
Hs xvptos 6 Beds Nua KatraxAnpovomer UutY Kai
KaTamavoe. Vas amd wavrey Twy éxOpeav vue
Tey KUKA® Kai KaToLKHoETE pETA Aodaleias.
2 Comp. Winer, p. 468 f. [E. T. 503]; Hartung,
Partikellehre, IT. p. 140.
30
tas; una eorum, qui nunquam Deo credunt;
altera eorum, qui credere desinunt, h. e. a
Deo desciscunt seu apostatae fiunt.
4Limborch: Defectio hic intelligitur a re-
ligione Christiana; quia enim illa continetur
ultima ac perfecta Dei voluntas, hinc sequi-
tur, quod fs, quia a religione Christiana deficit,
ab ipso Deo deficiat. Ergo quicunque deserta
466 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ver. 13. 'Eavrotc] tantamount to aaAq2ove, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7; Eph. iv.
82; Col. iii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 8, al. ; Kiihner, II. p. 325.—éyper
ov] [XLIX e.] in the inclusive sense: as far as that, t.e. so long as. aypi¢
ov Td ofpuepov Kadeita] so long as the to-day, of which mention is made in the
passage of the psalm, is named, or: so long as it is still called “to-day,”
and itis thus not yet too late to be obedient to the admonition of the
psalm.? Others:*® so long as that to-day of the psalm is called out, i.e. is
called out, or proclaimed, to you.—The “ to-day ” is not the duration of the
lifetime of the individuals,‘ but (comp. péype téAove, vv. 6, 14) the continued
existence of the earthly world, which, with the Parousia of Christ—thought
of as near at hand (x. 25, 37)}—attains its end.—azdry rij¢ auapriacs] by the
deception (the treacherous enticement or alluring) of sin. The duapria
is here personified, comp. Rom. vii. 11. What is meant is the allurement
exerted by the seductive splendor of the ancient cultus to a relapse into
the same, and therewith to an apostasy from Christianity.
Ver. 14. Warning justification of iva ui cxAnpuvOg 2& tudv tig x.7.2., ver. 18,
inasmuch as the fulfilling of a condition is necessary to the attainment of
salvation.— péroxot tov Xpicrov| Participators in (iii. 1, vi. 4, xii. 8) Christ,
4. e. in His treasures of blessing and in His glory. Schulz, Delitzsch,
Ewald, Hofmann, and others explain: Associates of Christ (i. 9), t.e. His
brethren (ii. 11 ff.), or His ovyxanpovéuo: (Rom. viii. 17), inasmuch as “the
éé6fa, into which Christ, the Anointed One existing in kingly glory, has
entered as our apyryéc, is, by virtue of the KAjowe éxovpdrioc, not only His,
but also ours, although as to its revelation and consummation in hope”
(Delitzsch); against which, however, the fact is decisive that éévmep x.1.2.
points to a relation not of equality, but of dependence, and yperdyovg row
Xpiorov eivac corresponds to the notion of eicépyeoba sig trav KxaTdravow, VV.
11,18. Compare, moreover, against Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Heb-
raerbr. p. 719, note.—yeyévauev] we have become. Theauthor does not write
éouév, a8 ver. 6, in order to dismiss at once the thought of claim existing
from the first, and, on the contrary, to represent the said prerogative as
one only acquired (by faith, comp. édvmep x.7.A.).—édvrep tiv apxy Tic
iroordcewc «.7.4.] if so be that (provided) we preserve the beginning of the con-
fidence firm to the end, comp. ver. 6, fin. ta7éeraocc¢ does not here denote
fundamentum (Erasmus, Paraphr.; Seyffarth, p. 67: prima religionis fun-
fide Christiana ad Judaismum redetint, a Deo
deficiunt; licet enim Deum non abnegent,
qui legis Mosaicae auctor est, tamen, quia
Deus nunc non secundum legis praecepta se
coli velle testatur, sed juxta evangelium il-
lique credentibus fidem in justitiam imputa-
turum, etiam, qui illud deserunt, a Deo defi-
cere dicendi sunt. Deus enim multis ac evi-
dentissimis signis ac miraculis se Christum
misisse ostendit, et voce e caelo demissa tes-
tatus est eum esse suum filium, in quo sibi
complacuit jussitque ut eum audiant. Ergo
praecepta ejus sunt praecepta Dei, ete.
1Cf. 2 Macc. xiv. 10: dxpe yap lovdas repiec-
I
tiv, advvaroy eipnyns Tuxety Ta Mpdyuara. JO-
sephus, dntig. x. 2.2: nvxero péxpis THs avTod
Gwis eipneny Umapfac; Kenophon, Cyrop. v. 4.
16: Kai o pév "Agovpios diwhas axpis ob aadadres
@ero elvat, ametpamero.
#80 Luther, Estius, Schlichting, Owen, Carp-
zov, Stuart, Bleek, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, al,
?As Heinrichs, Dindorf, BOhme, Kuinoel,
Klee, Tholuck, Moll, Hofmann.
4 Basil, Ep. 42, Opp. iii. p. 130: 7d ojpepov
onpaiver GAoy Toy xpdvoy THs GaRS nuwy; Theo-
doret, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Es.
tius, Cornelius a Lapide, J. Cappellus, Dor.
scheus, Valckenaer.
CHAP. III. 13-16. 467
damenta; Schulz: the first [anfanglichen] firm‘ foundation; Stein and
others), nor substantia, whether this be taken as reality [Wesen], as Luther
(the reality begun), or as that of which a thing consists [Bestand}, which con-
stitutes it (Vatablus: illud, per quod primum subsistimus, i.e. fidem fir-
mam; Estius : fidem, per quam in vita hac spirituali subsistimus; Bisping :
the beginning of the subsistence [of Christ in us], i.e. faith; Ewald, al.).
The expression stands, on the contrary, in the well-ascertained significa-
tion: confidence, which notion is here naturally defined by the connection
as confidence of faith (not hope, as Whitby and Delitzsch think)..—ry apypv
tHe brootdcewc] the beginning of the confidence, i.e. not: the first confidence,
which now begins to diminish,? but the confidence with which we have made
a beginning, in such wise that r7v apy corresponds to the following ué vps
téiove BeBaiav.. Thus, rightly, Bleek, de Wette, Alford.
Vv. 15-19. Confirmation of the warning statement, ver. 14. That the
blessing-fraught fact (uéroyor rov Xpiorov yeydévauev), declared ver. 14, is real-
ized singly and solely in the case that the condition stated, of firmness of
faith to the end, is fulfilled, is shown by the example of the Fathers.
Their unbelief, their arzoria (comp. ver. 19), was the cause why they did
not attain to the goal.
Vv. 15, 16. [On Vv. 15-19, see Note L., pages 473, 474.] With regard to
the construction of ver. 15 the views of expositors greatly differ. It is
assumed—(1) That ver. 15 forms an independent, complete sentence. It
is then supposed that the citation introduced by é r@ Aéyeo8ac embraces
only the words ofuepov . . . axovoyre, and that afterwards with su) cxAqpivyre
x.t.4, the author proceeds, it is true, in the following words of that Bibli-
cal citation, but appropriates them to himself, and employs them only for
the clothing of the admonition to be uttered on his own part.’ As, how-
ever, the same words: ju?) oxAnpivynte rag xapdiag tudv ac tv TO Tapanikpacug,
had already been adduced, ver. 8, in the midst of the Biblical citation, and
as a constituent part thercof, it could not possibly occur to the reader here
at once to detach them from ofyepov . . . dxotonre, and to understand them
as words of the author addressed to themselves; and the less so, because
ver. 16 ff. there follows a comment on the passage, in which ver. 16
glances back to cquepov . . . mapamixpacu@, ver. 15 (ver. 7 f.); ver. 17 to the
npoodyoioa x.7.A., ver. 10; ver. 18, finally, to the duoca x.r.4., ver. 11, so that
the natural explanation can only be, that the author intended to refer
1Comp. Heb. xi. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xi.17; LXX.
Ps. xxxix.8; Ezek. xix. 5; Ruth i.12. Com-
pare also Polybius, iv. 50. 10: Ot 8 ‘Pddi.or,
Oewpouvtes thy Tay BuCavriwy iméoracty, mpay-
HartiKws ScevonOnoar mpds Td xadixécOat THs mpo-
Oécews ; Vi. 55. 2: oby odrw thy Svvauty, ws THY
UndgTagty alTod Kai TéAMay KaTamenAnypevwy
Twv évavtiwy; Diodorus Siculus, Excerpta de
Virt. et vit. (Opp. ed. Wesselingius, t. if., Am-
stelod. 1745, fol.) p. 557: 9 év rats Bagdvots iwda-
TALS THS Wuyns Kai TO KapTepiKdy THs TwY Serveay
Vropovys wept pdvor éyevnOn roy “Apcoroyetrova ;
Josephus, Antig. xviii. 1. 6: 7d auxeraAAaxTov
avTeY THS Ud TOLOVTOLS VrOTTATENS.
2 rhv Urdotaccy, hv nptacbe exery Vel hy etxere
€y apxn, Cameron; rhv brdotracty thy ef apxns,
Grotius, Wolf, Bloomfield; thy rpwrnv urde-
Tact AS Thy Mpwrny miot, 1 Tim. v.12, and as
Thy ayarny thy mpwry, Rev. ii. 4; Abresch,
Tholuck, Stuart, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr.
des Hebrderbr. p. 754; Maier, Kurtz, Hof-
mann.
3So Flacius IIlyricus, Jac. Cappellus, Carp-
zov, Kuinoel, Winer, Gramm., 5 Aufl. p.
620, and Bloomfield; comp. also Hofmann
ad loc.
468 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
back to the whole Scripture citation already previously adduced, vv. 7-11,
but that—inasmuch as he might presuppose it as known from that which
precedes—he expressly repeats it only to the point at which the first mem-
ber of his comment could attach itself. (2) Ver. 15 is connected with
that which precedes, in that & 76 Aéyeoba x.7.A. i8 either regarded as
epexegesis to uéype réAouc, ver. 14,' or is attached to the conditional clause
édvrep .. . kardoywpev there occurring,? or to all the words of ver. 14:
. . katdoxouev, or, finally, is construed with mapaxadeire, ver. 13.4
But in the first case one must expect dypic ot A€yerat, or Something similar,
in place of év 7@ Aéyec@ac. In the other cases ver. 15 would drag as a feeble
addition ; in the last, moreover, ver. 14 would, contrary to all probability,
become a parenthesis. (3) Ver. 15 is combined with that which follows.
With 9$0370dpuev obv, iv. 1, it is connected by Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Olearius, Wittich, Valckenaer. Vv. 16-19 must then be
regarded as a parenthesis, and ovv, iv. 1, as a particle of resumption. But
of a resuming of the, as yet, incomplete thought, ver. 15, in iv. 1, there is
no appearance in the form of discourse in the latter passage, notwith-
standing the accuracy of style on the part of our author. On the con-
trary, from the tenor of iv. 1, itis indubitable that this verse is represented
by virtue of ody as a consequence from ii. 16-19. These verses, there-
fore, can form no parenthesis. But thus every possibility of connecting
ver. 15 with iv. 1 falls away.—There remains, therefore, no course open
but to take ver. 15 with the first question of ver. 16: riveg yap axoticav-
reg waperixpavav; as one whole.® The sense is: “ When it is said: ‘to-
day,’ etc., (now, I ask:) who then were they who, although they heard
(the voice), resisted ? was it not all, etc.?” On év r@ AéyeoOar, comp. Ev
TG Aéyerv, Vill. 138.—ydp serves for the strengthening of the particle of
interrogation, but, at the same time, confirms the state of the fact ex-
pressed, ver. 14.6 From what has been already observed, it is evident that
ver. 16 contains two questions, of which the second forms the answer to
the first. [L 6.] This view of ver. 16, appearing only rarely in antiquity
(in the Peshito, with Chrysostom and Theodoret), and only asserted afresh
since the beginning of last century, is now almost universally regarded as
the true one. According to the mode of interpretation formerly current,
two affirmative statements were recognized in ver. 16, the first of which
was limited by the second. revé¢ was accordingly written instead of
tive,’ and the thought was found expressed that some, it is true, but by
pétoxat .
1 Primasius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bis-
ping, Reuss.
2 Erasmus Schmid, Wolf.
8 Ebrard, Alford.
4Cameron, Peirce, Bengel, Cramer, Baum-
garten, Abresch.
6This is done by Semler, Morus, Storr,
Heinrichs, Dindorf, Bdhme, Klee, Bleek, de
Wette. Tholuck, Winer, p. 632 [E. T. 571];
Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, and
Woerner.
6See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245f. Comp. also
Matt. xxvii. 23; John vii. 41; Acts xix. 25; 1
Cor. xi. 22.
7 Wrongly is it supposed by Bisping, who
(equally as M’Caul) espouses afresh this in-
terpretation formerly current, that it is a
matter of indifference whether in connection
therewith the two clauses be taken as ques-
tions or as absolute statements. For, in
reality, ob has in a question, like the Latin
nonne, always an affirmative sense. See
CHAP, 11. 17, 18. 469
no means the totality of the Israelites, proved rebellious. As those who
formed an exception to the rebelliousness or unbelief of the r:véc, exposi-
tors accordingly thought either of Joshua and Caleb only,' or else, with
reference to Num. xiv. 29 ff, 1. 45, 47, at the same time of all the Israel-
ites who, at the numbering, had not attained an age of twenty years, as
also the Levites and women.? But, considering the small number of re-
sponsible believers, which, in comparison with the enormous total mass
of responsible unbelievers (more than six hundred thousand), retires alto-
gether into the background, the latter could not possibly be designated
by the mere rvéc; nor can appeal be made for the opposite view to 1 Cor.
x. 7-10, since the rivéc there several times recurring specializes only the év
Toic wAeioav, Ver. 5, in its different subdivisions. In addition to this, the
interrogatory form in the parallel clauses, vv. 17,18, already presupposes
the interrogatory form also for ver. 16, and, as follows of necessity from
the whole subsequent disquisition (comp. iv. 1, 2, 6, 8), the thought must
be expressed in ver. 16 that the whole of the Israelites were disobedient
in the wilderness, and therefore came short of the promised goal, in con-
nection with which the wholly isolated exceptions are passed over un-
noticed as not being taken into account.—a224a] decides the preceding
question with the expression of astonishment conveyed in a counter-
question: but (can there be a doubt as to the answer?) was it not all of
those who came forth out of Egypt ?—7dvre¢ oi] Erroneously Bengel,
Schulz, Kuinoel, and others: only such as, etc.—d:d Mwiotwc] by Moses, 7. e.
by his agency and under his guidance. cd is used with considerable free-
dom, since we should properly expect with it, instead of éA8évre¢, a pass-
ive notion as éay@évrec. Comp. 6? ov éxoretoarte, 1 Cor. 111. 5.
Vv. 17, 18. Further development of the truth, ver. 16, by means of
recapitulation of the other main points of the Scripture citation. It was
just this perverse totality of the Israelites with whom God was wroth on ac-
count of their sin forty years long, and against whom, on account of their
disobedience, He closed by an oath the entrance into His xaréravore.—Ben-
gel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Delitzsch, Moll, Hofmann, and
others, place the second note of interrogation, ver. 17, immediately after
duaprnoacv, and then take ov .. . épfum as an assertory statement. But
on account of the environment of purely interrogatory clauses, and be-
cause the author indicates the result at which he aims only in ver. 19, it
seems more correct, with Luther, Calvin, Beza, Mill, Wetstein, Bleek, de
Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, and others, to take the whole clause:
ovyi. . . épjuy, together asa single question, in such wise that dv «.r.A.
forms a prolonged characterization of roi¢ duaprhoaciww.—roic¢ ayapthoacty |
those that had sinned, namely, by unbelief and apostasy from God.—dv ra
Koda x.7.2.] pictorial description of seizure by a violent death, taken from
Num. xiv. 29, 32.—xé2a] limbs (specially hands and feet), with the LXX.,
Kihner, II. p. 579; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. _ tainly all.”
p. 88. aAA’ ov ravres cannot consequently 1S0 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius,
signify, as Bisping maintains, “but certainly Seb. Schmidt, Owen, and others.
not all,” but, on the contrary, only “ but cer- 2So Cornelius a Lapide, Braun, Carpzov, al.
470 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
translation of the Hebrew 0°)23, thus in general bodies or corpses.—
éxecev| fell down, were stretched out dead, comp. 1 Cor. x. 8.
Ver. 18. Tiow] Dativus incommodi.—p9 ciceAeboecbac] On account of the
variation of the subject in the tempus finitum and the infinitive, an inac-
curacy instead of 4 ciceAetoecfac avrots, but excusable since the subject
of the infinitive was naturally afforded by the context.—ei 47] Observe
the mastery of style on the part of the author, appearing even in the
variation of the negations: 4A2’ ob... obyi . . . et wh, VV. 16-18.
Ver. 19. Closing result from vv. 15-18.—xai BAérouev] thus we see then.
Grotius (to whom Carpzov and others assent): “ Ex historia cognoscimus.”
But more correctly Seb. Schmidt (with whom Owen, Bleek, Alford, and
others agree): “ BAérouev non de lectione aut cognitione historiae, sed de
convictione animi e disputatione seu doctrina praemissa.”—déde azoriav]
on account of (their) unbelief. Placed with emphasis at the end.
Nores By AMERICAN EDITor.
XLVIII. Vv. 1-6.
(a) Ver. 1 contains an exhortation which is parallel with the one in ii. 1-4
(xaravofoate—éei wepiocotépwe tpooé yerv), but which, through ev, is connected with
the next preceding passage, as the previous exhortation is with i.4-14. It is the
one, often-repeated exhortation, which is pressed upon the readers as the result of
the argument in all its parts. In this case, the hortatory passage is closely joined
in the grammatical construction with what follows in ver. 2, which is a part of the
words contrasting Christ with Moses. This grammatical union, however, is only
incidental to the epistolary and Pauline character of the writing. In relation to
the thought and to the plan of the epistle, this first verse of chap. ili. should be
placed at the end of chap. iii—(6) The word a7éorodog is used here in a sense in.
which dyye2o¢ might be used—that is, as designating the one sent from God to
communicate the revelation, and thus to become the instrumental agent in the
introduction of the N. T. system. It is doubtless chosen because the writer wished
to compare Christ, in this regard, with the angels, and yet felt naturally impelled
to avoid, in this connection, the use of dyyeAoc. The addition of apytepets cannot
be regarded as anything more than a passing allusion to the title given in ii. 17,
and thus must be considered, as it were, accidental. There is no dwelling upon the
thought suggested by this title in the following context, as there has been none in
the preceding context. The suggestion of Liinem., that apy. refers back to the
main thought of chap. ii.—the reconciliation of sinful humanity to God by Christ—
is to be rejected, because the main thought of chap. ii. is rather that of the death
of Jesus for all men, and His preparation to be a leader of the great company to
salvation, than that of presenting an offering on their behalf before God, or minis-
tering as a priest. The latter ideas belong to the distinctive peculiarities of the
high-priestly office, and to this author’s conception of it; and the treatment of
thesé which he gives is wholly in the later chapters.—The genitive rij¢ duodoyiag
yuov may be considered, grammatically, a possessive genitive. Jesus is the
apostle of, i. e., appertaining to, our confession. But He is so, not as being the one
whom we confess, but the one who introduces the new confession. The actual
NOTES. 471
relation of the two words is, accordingly, an objective one, when the fundamental
thought is considered.
(c) Ver. 2 is introduced by dvra as a mere descriptive phrase, setting forth the
faithfulness of Jesus, and belonging with ver.1. In the plan of the epistle,
however, the comparison of Jesus with Moses begins here, and vv. 2-6 stand in
a parallelism with the entire comparison with the angels in chaps. i., ii. In the
development of the argument here, ver. 2 presents the fact that Christ and Moses -
were both instrumental agents employed by God and doing faithfully His
appointed work. Ver. 3 and ver. 5 set forth the superiority of Christ, in that He
was employed to establish and preside over the house of God, while Moses was
only, as a servant, a part of the house, and one whose work found its end, not in
itself, but in what was to follow after him. There are not two distinct and inde-
pendent ideas in ver. 3 and ver. 5; there is only a development of one idea, which
appears in the two separated verses by reason of the incidental insertion of ver.
4.—(d) With respect to minor points in vv. 2-5, the following remarks may be
made :—1. woc#oavre is translated in A. V. and R. V. by appointed (though the
marg. of both versions reads, Gr. made). Liinem., Blk., Alf, Grimm, and others
maintain that this meaning cannot be given to zovetv when it stands absolutely, as
it does here—that a second accusative cannot, in such a case, be supplied with this
verb from the context. They hold that made or created is the meaning of the
word, «As to whether it refers to the incarnation or to the pre-mundane condition
of the Son, there is some difference of opinion. On this point, it may. be observed,
(w) that, inasmuch as ver. 1 and, also, ver. 5 speak of official position, the idea of
appointing to office is most suitable to the context, and this sense is, therefore, the
most natural one for the word, if, indeed, it is a possible sense in such a case; (zx)
that the idea of creating the Son, either by an eternal generation or through His
incarnation, is not suggested in the epistle elsewhere, and seems unlikely to have
been presented here; (y) that this verb in 1 Sam. xii. 6 may have this meaning,
and according to Gesenius and other prominent authorities does have it, although
there is no second accusative in the text—a probability even, that this is the
correct understanding of the word in that passage, being found in the second verse
which follows (ver. 8), where, in referring to the same matter, the word sent is
used, and where it can hardly mean sent by creating ; (z) that, if ever allowable to
omit the second accusative, it would seem very natural to do so here, because the
word designating office has been just mentioned, and because the repetition of it
would be rhetorically offensive. The use of ocfoavri, instead of the participle of
the verb xaS:ordva: (v. 1, vii. 28, viii. 3), is, not improbably, connected with its
use in 1 Sam. xii. 6.—2. ydp of ver. 3 is to be joined with xaravofoare (ver. 1) in
the grammatical construction of the sentences as they are written. But, if the
thought of vv. 2-6 be considered, as apart from ver. 1, yép has no proper place
in ver. 3. Some particle signifying but or however would be more suitable to the
passage considered as independent and beginning with ver. 2.—3. Ver. 4 is
explained most satisfactorily by Ebrard, as showing that the declaration of ver. 3
is not inconsistent with that of ver. 2, or, in other words, “that the ‘ being faith-
ful’ might be predicated of Christ although He was the xaraoxevdcas.” By this
explanation the ydp which opens the verse is easily accounted for, and the verse
itself, though subordinate and secondary, comes into living connection with the
development of the leading thoughts.—4. rdv AaAydnoouévew of ver 5, is best
understood as referring to the N. T. revelation. This is indicated by the fact that
472 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Aaieiv is used especially of the.two revelations, in this epistle; by the future tense,
which naturally refers to the latter of the two, and also to what is future to the
time of Moses’ testimony; and by the indications which the writer gives that, in
his view, the O. T. revelation through Moses was only a preparation and fore-
shadowing of the revelation through Christ.—5. The reference of airov in vv. 2,5
is to God, and the house of God is one and the same, only conceived of in its
OQ. T. and N. T. condition. Of this house we i. e., the writer and his readers, are a
part, 2f, and only if they hold fast to the end. The clause ov oixé¢ éopev of ver. 6
forms an easy transition to the hortatory passage which follows, iii. 7-iv. 13.
XLIX. Vv. 7-14.
(a) From ver. 7 to iv. 13 we have the hortatory passage belonging to the
portion of the argument just given, vv. 2-6. This passage is made up of four
parts: the first containing the general exhortation of the epistle (as presented in
this connection), which is enforced by a quotation from the Psalms, vv. 7-14;
the second calling attention to the cause of the failure of the persons spoken of in
the Psalm-passage to receive the promised blessing, vv. 15-19; the third suggesting
the danger that the readers might fail of the blessing from a similar cause, iv.
1-10; and the fourth pressing the exhortation anew, in view of the fact that the
word of God, which threatens punishment to the disobedient, is sure to be fulfilled,
iv. 11-13.—(b) In the first part of the passage, the exhortation is found in vv.
12-14 (negatively, not to apostatize, ver. 12; positively, to hold fast, vv. 13, 14).
It is connected by 66 of ver. 7 with vv. 2-6, and is thus founded upon the
superiority of Christ to Moses—the Psalm-passage having, as related to the
progress of the thought, a parenthetical character. This Psalm-passage would
more naturally have had its place after ver. 14, but it is inserted immediately
after 6:6 in order to give additional force to the exhortation. Acé of ver. 7,
accordingly, qualifies BAémere x.7.A, of ver. 12; xaVoc of ver.7 follows SAéwere x.7.A,
in thought, and also qualifies it; but 6:6 of ver. 10 is merely a part of the cited
passage, connecting 7poowyioa «.T.A. with éreipacay x,t.A, of ver. 9, and has no
bearing upon the main thought in ver. 12.—(c) The connection of 4:6 of ver. 7
with the thought that we are the otxo¢ of God only in case we hold fast etc., which
Liinem prefers, is to be rejected—at least, so far as the development of the main
thought of the epistle is concerned—irst, because the main thought of the epistle
is, not that we are the olxog of God only in that case, but it is that Christ is
superior to the agents employed by God in the O. T. revelation ; secondly, because,
even in the preceding verses, ov olxo¢ x.7.4., is only a subordinate and secondary
clause, while the principal idea is the exaltation of Christ above Moses; and
thirdly, because, in the artistic arrangement of the epistle, the writer seems in
every case, as already suggested, to found his exhortation on the point which he
has made of chief importance in the next preceding sub-section. If 6:6 is to be
joined with ov oixéd¢ éopev, therefore, it is only a grammatical connection, as we
may say, and not the logicalone. There is no necessity, however, for regarding
this as the grammatical connection.
(d) The exhortation vv. 12, 13 is affected, in the expressions used, by the words
quoted from the O. T. Comp. xapdia ovyp4 (which, as Liinem. says, is only a
clothing of the idea attaching itself to aeit tAavévra: tH Kapdig); Td ohuepov KadeiTat ;
oxAnpuvd}. It is characteristic of Paul’s style, after the insertion of a parenthetical
NOTES. 473
passage of this sort, e. g., Rom v. 15-17, to express the following part of the main
discourse in language which is, more or less, influenced by the parenthesis. But
in this writer we notice something more than this :—namely, that, after a citation
from the O. T., he is disposed to linger, in the presentation of what follows, within
the language of the verses cited, and that he apparently thinks that, by so doing,
he can give greater emphasis and force to the suggestions which he has to set
before his readers. This peculiarity of his style, as connected with O. T. quota-
tions, is strikingly manifest from this point of the epistle to the end.
(e) In connection with what has been noticed under (d), the expression éxpi¢
ov TO Ofuepov Kadzira isto be explained. 10 ofuepov means the to-day of the passage
quoted ; and the period within which the invitation and call of God come is set
forth by this word, because of the writer’s desire to move in the sphere of that
passage, so far as his language is concerned. 4ypi¢ ov and xaAciraz are to be under-
stood as Liinem. interprets them. The former of these two expressions probably
refers, as he also says, to the time before the Parousia, but this view of the matter
is not rendered absolutely necessary by the words used.
(f) The yap of ver. 14, after the dé of ver. 7, is to be explained as the ydp of
ii. 2 following d:a rovro of ii. 1 (See Note XLIV } above). The thought and
language of this verse are nearly the same as in ver. 6 6. It will be noticed, how-
ever, that, in addition to the minor differences (yeyévayev substituted for eouev and
Thy apxny tHE UrooTécews for THY mappyoiay k.T.A.), we find here uétoxor tov Xprorov
in place of ov olxog. This change of expression is indicative of the fact that the
idea of Christ is the prominent one throughout the entire passage from the begin-
ing of the chapter, and it may thus be regarded as confirmatory of the view
advocated above, respecting the connection of 6:6 (ver. 7) with the thought of
Christ as being higher than Moses.
L. Vv. 15-19.
(a) The question whether ver. 15 is to be connected with ver. 14 or with vv.
16-19, is one of much difficulty. The connection with the following verses is
favored, 1. by the fact that, at this point, there is a turn—from the application of
the passage from the Psalms to the readers—to the setting forth of the reason why
the persons in the O. T. history, to whom the passage alludes, failed to receive
the offered blessing; 2. by the fact, at such a turning-point, it was natural that
the writer should repeat the leading verse of the cited passage; 3. by the fact,
that in ii. 8 and viii. 13, when making a turn which is in some measure, though
not precisely, similar to that which he makes here, the writer uses the phrase é
T¢ with an infinitive—and, in viii. 13 at least, without any particle of transition;
4. by the fact, that the correspondence of the latter part of ver. 14 with the latter
part of ver. 6 renders it probable, as Bleek says, that the thought of vv. 12-14
is intended to close with ver. 14; 5. by the fact of the feeble and dragging—we
may add, unnecessarily repetitious—character of ver. 15 as an addition to vv.
12-14; 6. by the fact that, while there are two other cases in which the writer uses év
7@ with an infin. in a sense kindred to that which it has here, if ver. 15 is joined
with vv. 16-19, there is no place where he uses it with such a meaning as is
assigned to it if this verse is united with ver. 14, i.e. while, as long as, seeing that,
anasmuch as, etc. For the latter ideas, we should rather expect dxzpi¢ ov, or dd, or
some similar expression. The only objection to the connection with ver. 16 lies
474 THE EPISTLE TO THE HBBREWS.
in the word yép. This particle must in this case be taken in the sense of then, or
pray, which seems somewhat improbable in such a sentence; while, on the other
hand, if ver. 15 is. joined with ver. 14, ya4p has its ordinary meaning jor, and is
quite in place. This objection, however, does not appear to be insuperable.
Liinem. seems to hold that yép has a kind of double force, strengthening the
particle of interrogation and, at the same time, confirming the statement of the
fact expressed in ver. 14. But if ver. 15 begins a new thought, it is improbable
that yap goes beyond it to ver. 14. The bearing of vv. 15-19 is rather towards iv.
1 (comp ovv of that verse). On the whole, therefore, the connection of ver. 15 with
vv. 16-19 is to be accepted as that which was intended by the author, and yép is
to be taken as having no reference to ver. 14.—Dr. Kendrick, in a note in Moll’s
Commentary on the Ep. to the Heb., defends the connection of ver. 15 with iv. 1,
adopting the view of Chrys. and others mentioned by Liinem. He modifies
Chrysostom’s view somewhat, and holds that, “as the writer was about to proceed
to the train of thought ch. iv. 1, he was led, especially by the language of the
quotation itself, to restate, sharply and distinctly, what had been previously but
implied and hinted at, the actual crime and the actual punishment of the ancient Israel-
ites ;” that “he therefore abruptly breaks off in the middle of hissentence [end of ver.
15], to introduce, in a series of sharp interrogations and statements, these ideas :
which being accomplished, he returns,—with a natural change of construction
occasioned by the long interposed passage,—to the idea which at iii. 15 he had
started to develop.” By this method the objections to the view which makes
ver, 15 a protasis, to which iv. 1 is the apodosis——namely that the particle ovr is
out of place, and that vv. 16-19 become a mere parenthesis, in the strict sense,
whereas ovv can only be properly explained as pointing back to those verses—auare,
in his judgment, obviated. But such a digression at ver. 16 seems improbable, as
compared with the straight-forward progress of thought which the connection of
ver. 15 with vv. 16-19 gives, as set forth above. Ifthe author had it in mind, at
all, to state sharply and distinctly the actual crime, etc., of the ancient Israelites, he
could accomplish this end with far more of impressiveness, if he turned directly
to it at the close of ver. 14, and made it the next prominent thought of the passage,
than if he introduced it only in a parenthetical way after beginning the expression
of another idea. Moreover, as Bleek says, this writer, as contrasted with Paul, is
careful to avoid such anacoluthic constructions, which leave the end not in accord
with the beginning.
(b) The zevec of ver. 16 is now universally regarded as interrogative, not
indefinite, as A. V., and the earlier writers referred to by Liinem., understood it.—
aA24a is rendered by nay in R. V. It is well explained by Grimm (Lex. N. T.),
by “at cur rogo? nonne erant omnes, etc.” Alf. says that it expresses “a negation
of the uncertainty implied in the question—a ground why the question should not
have been asked at all.’ That the two parts of ver. 16 are both interrogative is
proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the interrogative character of vv. 17, 18.—
The close connection of amei9eca and amoria is made clear both in these verses
and in iv. 1-6. azcoria is the foundation of amreiVeca,
CHAP. IV. 475
CHAPTER IV.
VER. 2. Better attested, it is true, than the nominative singular cvyxexpapévog
(ovyxexpauuévoc), which the Recepta presents, is the accusative plural of this par-
ticiple, inasmuch as A BC D* M, 23, al., Theodor. Mops. read ovyxexepaopévoue
(ovvxexepacuévovc), and D*** E K L, 4, 6, 10, al. plur., Cyr. Alex. (semel) Macar.
Chrys. Theodoret, Phot. al. cvyxexpapévove (cvyxexpaypévovc), and also the
majority of translations (Syr. poster. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. al.) render in the
accusative. Griesbach therefore commended the accusative to notice. ovyxe-
Kkpau(u)Evovg is adopted into the text by the edd. Complut. Antw. Plantin.
Genev., by Matthaei and others; cvyxexepacuévovs, by Lachm. Tisch. 1, and
Alford. The accusative is, notwithstanding, to be rejected, as opposed to the con-
text and unmeaning. This reading being accepted, we have as exposition either:
“but the word listened to did not profit them, since they were not mixed in faith
or joined together in one with Joshua and Caleb, who heard, ¢. e. were obedient to
the word listened to” (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Hammond, Cramer, Mat-
thaei, al.). But this interpretation is in conflict with iii. 15 ff, according to which
the whole people of Israel brought out of Egypt by Moses is described as rebel-
lious and unbelieving; between two classes thereof, on the other hand, a class of
believers and another of unbelievers, no distinction whatever is made. Moreover,
in connection with this interpretation, Toi¢ dxobcacw suffers transmutation into a
notion which it cannot have, regarded in itself only, much less here, seeing its
evident correspondence with the preceding axoyc. Not less untenable is the —
modification of this construction with Alford, who, rejecting all reference to
Joshua and Caleb, will have tvi¢ axotcacw taken, not at all in the historic sense,
but, like John v. 25, as an indication of the category: “6 Adéyo¢ rH¢ axog¢ having
been mentioned in the general sense of the word heard, ol axotcayreg is also in the
general sense of its hearers, and the assumption is made that the word heard has
naturally recipients, of whom the normal characteristic is faith. And so these
men received no benefit from the word of hearing, because they were not one in
faith with its hearers; did not correspond, in their method of receiving it, with
faithful hearers, whom it does profit;” as, accordingly, Alford himself frankly
confesses that he does not feel satisfied with this explanation, and is only driven
to adopt it on the ground of critical and grammatical difficulties,—difficulties of
the latter kind, nevertheless, do not exist, and those urged by Alford are easily
solved. Or else a passive notion is substituted for the active toi¢ axotcacv, So
already Theodore of Mopsuestia, who thinks roi¢ axovofeiocy! must be read (in
Nov. Test. Commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt Coll. O. Fr. Fritzsche, Turici
1847, p. 166: pundé ydp tig otfo0w apxeiv ait@ ti émayyediay Tov pEdAdvT7ur, GoTEp
ovde Exeivore ob yap FoavKata THY wioTLy Toig EmayyeAOcion GuVHmmEvoL’
b0ev otTws avayvworttov’ un ovyKkeKxepaoputvove TH wioTEL TOIG aKovE-
1 Also in one cursive ms. (Cod. 71) is found rots axovadeiouy.
476 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ociorv, iva eixy Taig mpoc avtove yeyevnuévaig émayyediatc Tov Beov did Muoéuc) ;
further, as it appears, Theodoret, since—although in our editions roi¢ axoboaow
precedes—he makes use of the words: ri yap dvqjcev 7 tov Oecd émayyedia rove
tattyy degapévouc, uy mote deFapévove xal tH Tov Geo duvdper tebappnxérag Kai
olov Toig Geov Adyote avaxpabévrac ; and recently Bleek, who, led thereto by Noes-
selt’s remark on Theodoret’s exposition of Heb. iv. 2 (hed. Opp. t. iii, Hal. 1771,
p. 566, note 1), conjectures Toi¢ axobapaccv, For such alteration of the text,
however, there exists not the slightest diplomatic justification. We must there-
fore regard the accusative plural as having arisen from a transcriber’s error, to
which the preceding éxeivovg gave occasion, and look upon the nominative singu-
lar of the Recepta ovyxexpapévocg, which yields an excellent sense (see the
exposition), as that which was originally written by the author. Rightly, there-
fore, is the Recepta defended by Mill, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche (p. 24 sqq.),
and others, and also received again into the text by Tisch. 2 (ovyxexpapévoc), 7
(ovvaexpapévoc), and 8 (ouvxexepacuévoc). Nor is it by any means so badly attested
that one could assert, with Bleek, that it could “claim not much more authority
than as being a not improbable conjecture.” For it is supported by the testimony
of the Peshito, which in antiquity surpasses any of our Mss., as well as by the
Codex Sinaiticus, which has 4?) ovveexepacpévoc. It is found, besides, in the Vulg.
It. Erp., as well as with Cyr. Alex. (sem.) [Theodoret (Hervet.)] Lucif. and in
five cursives (17, 31, 37, 41, 114).—Ver. 3. cioepyducha yap] AC: etoepxyoucba
ovv. But with an exhortation, the following of mioretoavre¢ is irreconcilable,
instead of which zioretvovreg or dia riorews must be placed.—Ver. 7. Elz. Wet-
stein, Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf.: eipy7rac. But in favor of tpoeipyras, which
is indirectly supported also by poeipnxev in B, 73, 80, the preponderating
authority of A C D* E*8, 17, 23, 31, al., Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Al.
Chrys. Theodoret. Lucif. Bed. is decisive. Commended already by Grotius, Ben-
gel, Griesbach. Rightly adopted into the text by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.
Approved also by Reiche.—Ver. 10. avd trav épywy avtov] D* E, Syr. poster.
Cyr. Chrys. ms.: a76 wdvrwv trdv Epywy avrov. Expansion from ver. 4.—
Ver. 12. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: puyjo te xai mvebuarog, But
te is wanting in A B C H L® (in which last originally only pepeopov xai
mveiyaToc was written, which, however, was already supplemented, as it would
appear by the first hand, by a puy7¢ inserted before xai), 3,73, al., with Origen
(three times), Athan. Euseb. Chrys. Theodoret, Cyril Al. (eleven times), John
Damasc. Theoph. and many others. Condemned already by Bengel and Gries-
bach, [Doubted by Owen.] Rightly rejected by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.
Addition for the sake of uniformity with the following clause: apyov te xai
uvedov, in which te is wanting with no witnesses—Ver. 15. Instead of the
metwecpaunévov, commended by Griesbach and adopted by Matthaei, Tisch. 1,
2, 7, and Bloomfield, as earlier by Mill and Bengel (also preferred by Reiche), the
mevwetpaouévov of the Recepta, supported by A B D EX, Origen (four times),
Chrys., al., is to be retained, with Wetstein, Scholz, Lachm. Alford, and Tisch. 8.
For the context demands the notion of having been tempted, for which, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. ii. 18, xi. 17, 37), only the verb wecpdlec@ac is
used, while tewecpayévov would yield the totally unsuitable sense: who had
made attempts.—Ver. 16. Elz.; €4e0v. The form of the word, preferred by Tisch.
Bloomf. and Alford, éA¢o¢, is, however, required by A B C* D* K 8, 17, 71, al.
pl., Antioch.
CHAP. Iv. l. 477
Vv. 1-13. Thus, then, the promise of entering into God’s rest is still
unfulfilled. The promise yet avails for the Christians. Let, therefore,
the readers be careful, lest they, too, by disobedience and unbelief forfeit
the proffered salvation.
Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note LI., pages 495-497.] Exhortation to the
readers, deduced from the historic fact, iii. 15-19, and softened by the form
of community with the readers adopted by the author, which, however, is
involuntarily abandoned again at the close of the verse.—o0f76apev ovr]
[LI a.] Let us therefore be apprehensive—Indication not of the mere being
afraid, but of the earnest endeavor, based upon the fear of coming short of
the proposed goal.'—xaradecrouévyg . . . abrov] is made by Cramer and
Ernesti dependent on torepyxéva:, against which, however, the anarthrous
participle in itself suffices to decide. It is parenthetical, and katade:touévye
with emphasis preposed: while there yet remains promise of entering into
His rest. But a promise remains so long as it has not yet received its
fulfillment. For with its fulfillment it ceases to be a promise, loses its
existence—inasmuch as the character of the future essential to it has then
become present. Erroneously do Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Strigel,
Hyperius, Estius, Schlichting, S. Schmidt, Limborch, Braun, Semler,
Carpzov, al., explain: “by neglect or non-observance of the promise.”
For, although cxaradeimecy can signify that (comp. Acts vi. 2; Baruch
iv. 1), yet in that case the article r7 could not have been wanting before
éxayyediag; and certainly also an active (karadeipacg tiv énayyediar)
would have been chosen in place of the passive participle. Finally, against
the latter explanation, and in favor of that above given, pleads the
avoheiterat, VV. 6, 9.—aizov] not of Christ (Rambach, Chr. F. Schmid), but
of God. This is required by the connection, alike with that which pre-
cedes (ill. 11, 18) as with that which follows (vv. 3-5, 10).—# xaréavorc}
the repose and blessedness which belong to God Himself, and which
shall become the portion of believing Christians in the epoch of consum-
mation beginning with the coming again of Christ.—déoxg torepyxéver] should
appear [be seen] to have come short, i.e. to have failed of attaining to the
catdmravorg, The infinitive perfect characterizes that which, with the
dawn of the Parousia, has become an historically completed, definite
fact. doxg torepyxévat, however, does not stand pleonastically in place of
the bare torepg or totepfoy (Michaelis, Carpzov, Abresch, al.), nor is it
placed “ because, in connection with the question whether and where the
torepnxévat exists as a concluded, and therefore irreparable, fact, the human
perception does not extend beyond a mere videtur” (Kurtz); for it is not
here a case of a question to be decided by men still living upon earth. It
serves rather, as the videatur often added in Latin, to give a more refined
and delicate expression to the discourse. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16. Errone-
ously, however, Delitzsch, that in doxg there is contained not only a
1Calvin: Hic nobis commendatur timor, peamus. Metuendum ergo, non quia trepi-
non qui fidei certitudinem excutiat, sed tan- = dare aut diffidere nos oporteat quasi incertos
tam incutiat sollicitudinem, ne securi tor- de exitu, sed ne Dei gratiae desimus.
478 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
softening, but, at the same time, also an accentuation of the expression ;
the sense being: “they are to take earnest heed, lest haply # should even
seem that this or the other has fallen short.” For the augmenting “ even”
is only arbitrarily imported.—Grotius explains doxg by: “ne cui vestrum
libeat,” for, which, however, the construction with the dative (doxd por)
would have been required, and to which, moreover, the infinitive perfect
does not lend itself. Schdéttgen finally, Baumgarten, Schulz, Paulus,
Stengel, Ebrard,and Hofmann take doxj in the sense of opinetur. The
author is thus supposed to be warning the readers against the delusion
that they were too late, i.e. that they lived at a time when all the prom-
ises had long been fulfilled, and no further means of salvation was to be
expected. But the linguistic expression in itself is decisive against this
interpretation. The author could not then have put ¢oB7bapev otv, pazore,
but must have written py) ody goSyOauev torepyxévat, or something similar.
Moreover, the whole historic situation of the readers of the Epistle to the
Hebrews is out of keeping with this view. It was not therein a question
of consoling and calming those who still despaired of being able at all to
attain to salvation, but of the warning correction of those who were want-
ing in the assurance of conviction that faith in Christ is the sufficient and
only way to salvation. Only a warning to the readers, not by their own
behavior, like the fathers, to incur the loss of salvation, can therefore be
contained in ver. 1. .
Ver. 2. [LI b.] corroborates in its first half the xaraAerrouévyc, ver. 1,
while the second half shows the danger of the torepyjxévac in the example
of others. The emphasis in the first half lies upon éopév ebyyyedopévor.
The sense is not: for we, too, like them, have promise (to express this the
addition of #uet¢ after «at yép would have been called for), but: for
promise (se. of entering into’ the xardzavorce, cf. vv. 1, 3) have we indeed,
even as they (the fathers), sc. had it—Most arbitrarily is the meaning of
this and the following verse apprehended by Ebrard. According to
Ebrard, ver. 2 ff. proclaims as the reason why the Jews did not attain the
promised xardéravorc, not their “subjective unbelief,” but “the objective
imperfection of the Old Testament revelation.” With the second half of
ver. 2, namely, a gradation (!) is supposed to begin, and the progress of
thought to be as follows: “The word which we have received is even in-
finitely better than the word which the Israelites received through Moses.
For, first, the word spoken by Moses was unable to bring the people to
faith—it remained external to them; it set forth a promise, it is true, and
also attached a condition, but it communicated no strength to fulfill this
condition (vv. 2-5, comp. vv. 12, 18); but, secondly, the promise there
given was not even in its purport the true one; there, earthly rest was
promised; here, spiritual and everlasting rest (vv. 6-10).” That the con-
text affords no warrant for the bringing out of such a meaning is self-evi-
dent. For neither does the author here distinguish such twofold word of
promise, nor a twofold xaréwavoic, nor can Adyoo . . . pi) ovyKeKpapé voc
signify a word which “ could not prove binding.”’—Erroneous, too, is the
view of the connection on the part of Delitzsch, to whom Riehm (Lehrbegr.
CHAP. IV. 2. 479
des Hebraerbr. p. 798 ff.) accedes in all essential particulars. According
to Riehm, the (as yet unproved) presupposition is first provisionally ex-
pressed in the parenthesis, ver. 1, in a simply assertory manner, viz. that
there is still in existence a promise of entering into the rest of God, a
promise of which the fulfillment is yet outstanding, and this presupposi-
tion is then repeated, ver. 2, in other expressions of a more general bear-
ing, no doubt, but essentially in the same way of simple assertion. Upon
this, however, the author now wishes to furnish proof that such presuppo-
sition is fully warranted. Accordingly, ver. 3, he formulates that presup-
position in the most definite manner, inasmuch as in the opening words
of ver. 8, eicepydueba . . . mioreboavrec, he lays down the theme which 1s to
be proved in the sequel. This proof is afforded in the following way: the
rest of God has existed long; nevertheless, in the oath of God, mentioned
in the words of the psalm, a rest of God is spoken of as yet future, and of
a truth it is one and the same rest of God which, according to Gen. ii. 2—
in so far as God enjoys it alone—has existed from the beginning of the
world, and, according to the word of the psalm,—in so far as the people
of God are to participate therein,—is one yet approaching. Although
thus the long present rest of God was the aim and end of the creative
activity of God, yet it is not the final aim which God has proposed to
Himself. On the contrary, it is clearly apparent, from a comparison of
the word of God pronounced upon the Israelites in the time of Moses, a
word confirmed by an oath, with the account of the rest of God on the
seventh day, that, according to the gracious designs of God, the rest,
which He has enjoyed alone from the foundation of the world, should
eventually become a rest of God which He enjoys in communion with
His people. It is therefore indubitably certain, that even after, the com-
pletion of the work of creation and the ensuing of the rest of God, there
is still something outstanding [unfulfilled], an azodecrépevov, and this con-
sists in the fact that some, received by God into communion with Him-
self, are made partakers of that repose of God. This view is a mistaken
one, because—({1) As regards the assumed proof, the assertion that in the
oath of God, spoken of in the words of the psalm, mention is made of a
yet future rest of God, is entirely untrue. Not of a particular form of the
rest of God, which is still future, is the discourse, but only the fact is
represented as future that it is shared on the part of men who enter into
it. Fora rest of God which has already existed long is not opposed to a
rest of God which is still future, nor is the rest of God, mentioned Gen. ii.,
distinguished as of another kind than that mentioned in the psalm. On
the contrary, the rest of God, or—what is identical therewith—the Sab-
bath-rest of God, has existed in fact and without change from the time of
the completion of the works of creation, and this same rest of God it is,
the participation in which was once promised to the Israelites on the con-
dition of faith, and now upon the same condition is promised to the
Christians; it is a question therefore only of the Christians taking warn-
ing from the example of the fathers, and not, like them, losing the
promised blessing through unbelief. (2) That the author was desirous of
48U THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
still proving the xaradeimeofar éxrayyeAiav, cannot at all be supposed. For
this was a fact which, as self-evident from that which precedes, stood in
no need of a demonstration; it is therefore expressed not only ver. 1, but
also ver. 6, in a mere subsidiary clause, consequently in the form of log-
ical subordination ; and even ver. 9, in which it is introduced in an appar-
ently independent form, decides nothing against our explanation, because
ver. 9, while forming a certain conclusion to that which precedes, yet
contains only the logical substructure for the exhortation attaching itself
afresh at ver. 11. That at which the author alone aimed, in connection
with ver. 2 ff., was therefore the impressive confirmation of the paraenesis,
ver. 1; and just this paraenctic main tendency of our section likewise fails
of attaining due recognition in connection with the explanation of Delitzsch
and Riehm. But when Delitzsch thinks he can support his view, that the
Katadeirouévyg éxayyeaiac, ver. 1, is first proved in the sequel, by declaring
the otherwise to be accepted “thought that the promise of entering into
God’s rest has remained without its fulfillment in the generation of the
wilderness, and thus is still valid,” to be “entirely false,” and exclaims:
“What logic that would be! The generation of the wilderness perished
indeed, but the younger generation entered into Canaan, came to Shiloh
(the place in the heart of the land, which has its name from the rest, Josh.
xvill. 1), and had now its own fixed land of habitation, whither Jchovah
had brought and planted it, and where He fenced it in (2 Sam. vii. 10); ”
such conclusion would be justified only if the author had not understood
the promise given to the fathers in the time of Moses, of entering into
God's xararavorg, at the same time in a higher sense, but had regarded it
as fulfilled by the occupation of Canaan under Joshua; such, however,
according to the distinct statement of ver. 8, is not the case.—xa/] after
xaOazep, the ordinary «ai after particles of comparison. See Winer, p.
409 [E. T. 440].—6 Adyog rH¢ axopco}] [LI ¢.] Periphrasis of the notion ézay-
yezia, ver. 1: the word of that which is heard (axo# in the passive sense, as
Rom. x. 16; Gal. iii. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 18; John xii. 38), i.e. the word of
promise which was heard by them, or proclaimed to them. This peri-
phrasis is chosen in order already at this stage to point out that it was by
the fault of the fathers themsclves that the word of promise became for
them an unprofitable word, one which did not receive its fulfillment. It
remained for them a word heard only externally, whereas, if it was to
profit them, they must manifest receptiveness for the same, must believ-
ingly and confidingly appropriate the same. This culpability on the part
of the fathers themselves is brought into direct relief by the participial
clause “9 ovyKxexpapévoc TH wWiotee ToOl¢ Axotcaccy, containing the in-
dication of cause to ovx OgéAnoev, Wherein 79 mioree forms an emphatic
opposition to the preceding rico axoge. The sense is: because it was not for
the hearers mingled with faith; the dative roi¢ axovoacty denoting the sub-
ject, in relation to which the yx) ovyx. r@ mioree took place. See Winer, p.
206 [E. T. 219].'' But that the fault of this not being mingled was not in
1Thus interpret Erasmus, translation, Cal- | borch, Bengel, Kypke, Storr, Stuart, Reiche,
vin, Castellio, Gerhard, Owen, Calov, Lim- Comm. Crit. p.30; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He-
CHAP. IV. 3. 481
the word but in the men, was naturally understood from the connection.
ovykexpauévoc is not to be connected with roi¢ axobcaccv, so that rz mioree
would have to be taken as the dativus instrumentalis: “ because it did not, by
means of faith, mingle with them that heard it, become fully incorporated
with them” (Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Dorscheus, S. Schmidt, Wolf,
Rambach, Michaelis, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Klee, Paulus,
Stein, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner). For manifestly the
centres of thought for the adversative clause lie in r#¢ axope and TA
nioret, while roi¢ axotcacw only takes up again the indication of the per-
sons, already known to us from the éxeivouc, although now as characterizing
these persons in attaching itself to t#¢ axoye.—roi¢g axobcaccy, however,
not the mere demonstrative pronoun, is put by the author in order thus
once more to place hearing and believing in suggestive contrast. Further,
the author did not write pu) ovyxexpayévog rp wioTee TOY axovodvTuwr, be-
cause he would thereby have conveyed the impression that the Israelites
in the wilderness possessed indeed zioric, but the word of promise which
was heard did not blend into a unity with the same; whereas by means
of uA avyxexpapévog tH wiotee Toig axotoactv he denies altogether the
presence of riorcc in them.
Ver. 3. [LI d.] Confirmation, not of xaradecropévng émayyediag x.7.4., Ver.
1 (Bengel), nor of xai ydép éopev ebyyyedouévor, ver. 2 (de Wette, Bloomfield,
Bisping), and just as little of the two clauses of ver. 2 taken together
(Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerb. p. 799; Moll), but of rg wiores,
ver. 2. So also Bleek, Alford, and Kurtz. What Riehm (p. 800, note)
alleges against this interpretation—viz. that the author has already, in iil.
15 ff. (specially iii. 19), shown clearly enough that the Israelites in the
wilderness could not enter into the promised rest on account of their
unbelief, that it was therefore impossible that a special proof for this fact
should once more be required—does not apply ; because this very morevew
was the main question, about the quite special accentuation of whicu he
is seen from the context to be concerned. For surely the whole disquisi-
tion, ili. 7-iv. 13, has its all-combining centre precisely in the endeavor to
animate to ior the readers, who were in danger of sinking, like the
fathers, into amoria. The emphasis rests, therefore, upon o! mioret-
oavrec, and the sense is: for into rest enter just those of us who have manifested
faith, For oi wioreboavres cannot signify: if we have displayed
faith (Béhme, de Wette, Bisping); this must have been expressed
by the anarthrous mvwrebcavrec. On the contrary, ol mwreboavrec adds
a special characterization of the subject of eloepyéuefa, and has the
aim of limiting the quite generally expressed “we” to a definite class of
us. The present cicepxéue0a is employed with reference to the certainty
of that to be looked for in the future, and ol mioreboavrec, not of morebovres,
is placed, because the oretey must have already preceded as an historic
fact, before the ecictpyecfa: can be accomplished.—xaBec elpyxev x.7.A.]
brderbr. p. 696, note; Maier, and others. which is open to no grammatical objection
Heinsius, Semler, Kuinoel, al, take tots (cf. Winer, p. 206 [E. T. p. 219]), and makes no
exovgacsy as equivalent tovwd ravaxovedyrwy, alteration in the sense.
31
482 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
[LI e.] Scripture proof for the first half of ver. 8, from the already cited
words of Ps. xcv.11. Wrongly is xa@o¢ ecipyxev connected by Piscator with
ver. 1, by Brochmann and Bleek II. with ver. 2. For to suppose paren-
theses before it is unwarranted. In quite a contorted manner Hofmann
(p. 187): with xa6d¢ eipyxev begins a protasis, which finds its apodosis in
maddy tivd dpiler juépav, ver. 7; and even the fact that the latter is apodosis
to émei arodeimerac does not, according to him, preclude the possibility of
this construction, because this second protasis is connected by ow with
the first, as a deduction from the same !—eipyxev] sc. 6 Oe6¢.—év TH Opyy pov]
sc. at their unbelief and obstinate perverseness, which naturally suggested
itself to the readers from the passage of the psalm more copiously adduced
in the third chapter, and the reasoning of the author there attached to it.
—xalror Tov épywy amd KataBoAje xécpou yevnbévtwy] although the works were
completed from the creation of the world ; and accordingly the xardzavoce
of God was something long present and lying in readiness, in which the
Israelites, if they had been believing, might well have obtained part. The
words, therefore, serve to point out the deep significance of the divine
oath.! Wrongly are they taken ordinarily as epexegesis to tiv xardravoiv
pov, in supplying xardravow afresh after xairo. Then either rav épyuv
x.7.A, ig made dependent on the xaréravow supplied, in that xairo: is taken,
contrary to linguistic usage, in the sense of “et quidem:” “ into the rest,
namely, from the works which had been completed from the creation of
the world ” (so Schlichting, S. Schmidt, Wolf, Carpzov, Kypke, Baumgar-
ten, Stuart, Heinrichs, Klee, Bloomfield), to which construction, more-
over, the repetition of the article ra» after rév Epywy would have been in
any case necessary; or else rav épywv . . . yevnbévrev is regarded as a gent-
tive absolute: “namely (or even, although), into a rest, which ensued upon
the works of creation being completed” (so Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Lim-
-borch, Cramer, Bohme, Bisping), which however, in like manner, must
grammatically have been otherwise expressed. But, in general, the
author cannot here have been at all occupied with the subjoining of a
definition with regard to the kind of rest which was meant, since he does
not anywhere distinguish several kinds of rest, but without further remark
presupposes that the xardmavorg which ensued for God after the comple-
tion of the works of creation is identical with that once promised
to the Israelites and now promised to the Christians.—7év épyur]
sc. tov Oeov. The necessity for thus supplementing is apparent from
ver. 4; comp. also ver.10. Very arbitrarily, and forcing in a thought
entirely foreign to the context, Ebrard understands ray épywv of the
works of men, supposing that with xabdc cipyxev “the author proceeds
to show to what extent even the O. T. itself points out the insuffi-
ciency of the law and its épya” (!), regards trav épywy as antithesis to the
preceding of morebcavreg (!), and finds the thought, “that all that which
1 The aim in cairo rev épywv «.7.A. isnot,as tution of the Sabbath] into the rest here in-
Bleek thinks, to prove: “that men had not ‘tended by God;” for this was a truth which
perchance even then, after the creation of hardly stood in need of any proof.
the world, entered with Him [sc. by the insti-
CHAP. Iv. 4-6. 483
can be called épya has been wrought from the time of the creation of the
world, but has not sufficed to bring mankind to the xardmavo, to a con-
dition of satisfied repose,” whence follows “that an entirely new way of
salvation—not that of human doing and human exertion, but that of
faith in God’s saving deed—is necessary in order to attain to the «ara-
navotc’’ (!).—amd xataBodge xéopov| from the foundation of the world, i. e. since
the world began. Comp. ix. 26; Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 84; Luke xi. 50; Rev.
xiii. 8, xvii. 8.
Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-10, see Note LII., pages 497, 498.] Scripture proof for
the thought implicitly contained in xaivo: «.r.4., ver. 3, viz. that the actual
existence of the divine «xardzavorc, from which the Israelites were to be
excluded, has not been wanting. [LII a, b.]—The citation is from Gen. ii.
2, according to the LX X., with some non-essential variations.—To elpnxev
we have to supply as subject, not 7 ypag7 (Boéhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein,
Bisping, al.), but 6 @eé¢. For although, in the citation, God is spoken of
in the third person, yet in cipyxev, ver. 4, the subject must be the same as
in xal év robty mdAc, 8c. cipyxev, ver. 5; in this latter passage, however, the
subject can only be 6 6ed¢, as is proved by the following pov.—rov] see on
il. 6.—repi rig EBdbuns] with regard to the seventh day.!
Ver. 5. Renewed contrastful presentation of the relations of the Jewish
forefathers to this existing rest of God: “ And yet He says again in this
place (namely, the passage already cited ver. 3): they shall not enter into
my rest.”—év rotr] stands substantively, without requiring a supplement-
ing of rémy (Kuinoel), or zpdvy (Abresch), or yasup (Carpzov). Comp. é
érépy, V. 6. )
Vv. 6, 7. The author, founding his reasoning, on the one hand, on the
truthfulness of God, and on the other, on the actual state of matters de-
clared from ad, ver. 2, to xardravoiv pov, ver. 5, now returns to the
statements: xarade:rmoptvne éemayyedtac, ver. 1, and cai yap eoper
evny yeAcopévor xafldmep Kaxetvos, ver.2, in order, by means of the open-
ing words of the psalm cited, to render clear the truth contained in these
statements concerning the non-fulfillment of the promise as yet, and also
the necessity for not closing the heart against the same.?—The sense is:
since then it still remains, i.e. is to be expected with certainty, that some
enter therein (inasmuch, namely, as God carries also into effect that which
He promises), and the earlier recipients of the promise did not enter in because
of their unbelief, He marks out anew a definite day, etc. From this relation
of the first half of the protasis to the second, as that of a general postulate
1Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 690]; Buttmann,
p. 71 [E. T. 81}.
3Ebrard has here, too, entirely misappre-
hended the connection. He says: “Vv. 6-8,
the author passes to a new thought, to a new
point of comparison between the work of
Christ and the work of Moses. The oppo-
sition between the work of the one and that
of the other is twofold... . The first imper-
fection in the work of Moses consisted (iv.
2-5) in the fact that his work conferred no
power for fulfillment—did not combine by
faith with the hearers,—and on that account
did not avail to lead into rest; the second
consists in the fact that the rest itself, into
which the Israclites might have been led by
Moses, and then by Joshua were led in, was
only an earthly typical rest, whereas Christ
leads into an actual rest, which intrinsically
corresponds to the Sabbath-rest of God.”
484 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
to a special historic fact, is explained also the indefinite revé¢ in the
first clause. Wrongly Delitzsch, according to whom rié¢ signifies:
“others than those.” Some, again, find in émei otv amoteimerat twac
eioeABeiv the meaning: since then the promise, of entering into His rest, is
still left, 4. e. awaits its fulfillment. So substantially Bleek : “since it now
remains, that the divine rest has not yet been already closed by the com-
plete (?) fulfillment of the prophecy relating thereto, in such wise that no
more entrance exists for them.” Against this, however, pleads the fact
that the author would then have illogically co-ordinated, the one with the
other, the two protases ver. 6, since the first would surely contain the
result of the second. For the sequence of thought would then be: the
former recipients of the promise came short of attaining salvation, and the con-
sequence thereof 18 that the xaranavory stands open for others. It must thus
have been written: émel otv admodelrerat tivag ciceAOciv eig aivthy, Tov
mpdotepov evayyeaArobévrur ovn cicerbdvrwry dit ameiPerav.—oil rpdrepov
evayyedabévrec] sc. the Israelites in the wilderness.
Ver. 7. The apodosis. We have not to construe in such wise that the
first ojuepov shall be taken as apposition to juépav: “ He marks out, there-
fore, again a definite day (fixes anew a term), namely, ‘a to-day,’ in that
—as was before observed—He says in David, so long time after, ‘ To-day,
etc”! Nor yet so that the first ojuepov is connected with Aéywow: “ He
fixes, therefore, again a day, in that, after so long a time, He says in
David ‘to-day ;’ even as it says: ‘To-day, if ye, etc.’”? On the contrary,
the first ojuepov already begins the citation; is then, however,—on account
of the words parenthetically introduced by the author: év Aavid ...
mpoeipyta:,—resumed in the second ofuepov.—év Aavid] not: apud Davidem,
i.e. in the Book of Psalms, but: in the person of David, as the instrument
of which God made use for speaking. The ninety-fifth psalm, although
not Davidic, was ascribed to David in the superscription of the LXX.,
whom our author follows.—uera rtocovrov zpévov] from the time of Joshua
(ver. 8).—xa0ae mpoeipyra:| Reference to iii. 7 f., 15.
Ver. 8. Justification of the wdc rivad dpifec quépar, ver.7. If Joshua
had already introduced into the rest of God, God would not still have
spoken in the time after Joshua of aterm (period) of entrance into the
sume.—avrobe] sc. rove mpérepov evayyedobévrac, ver. 6.—xataratew] here (in
accordance with the classic usage) transitive, as Ex. xxxili. 14, Deut. iil.
90, v. 33, al.: to lead into the rest.—éAdre] sc. 6 Oed¢.—perd tavta] belongs
not to 4aAn¢ #uépag (Hofmann, al.), but to é4é4e, and corresponds to the
ueta TocovToy yxpdbvov, ver. 7.
Ver. 9. [LII c.] Deduction from vv. 7, 8, and consequently return to
the first half of ver. 6. ‘Thus still remaining, still awaiting its advent, is
a Sabbath rest for the people of God,” inasmuch, namely,—what the
author in reasoning with the Hebrews might presuppose as admitted,—as
1 Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Jac. Cappellus, Carp- ?Dindorf, Schulz, Béhme, Bleek, Ebrard,
zov, Schulz, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Alford, Woerner, al.; with comparison of
Maier, M'Caul, Moll. Rom. xi. 2, ix. 25.
* Zeger, Schlichting, Heinrichs, Stengel.
CHAP. Iv. 7-11. 489
from David’s time down to the present no one had entered into the
xardnavog Of God. As Sabbatic rest the author characterizes the rest of
God, in adherence to the thought of ver. 4. Asa type of the everlasting
blessedness do the Rabbins also regard the Sabbath.’—dpa] at the begin-
ning of a sentence is, in prose, foreign to the classics. Comp. however,
Rom. x. 17; 2 Cor. vii. 12; Luke xi. 48; Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 558]; Butt-
mann, p. 318 [E. T. 371].—The expression oafParionude (from cafsBarivev,
N3W, to observe the Sabbath, Ex. xvi. 80, al.) only here and with Plutarch, De
Superstit. c. 3.—rg@ Aag tov Geov} to the people which appertains to God, is
recognized and treated by Him as His people, since it has believ-
ingly devoted itself to Him. Comp. Gal. vi. 16: 6 'IopajA rov Geov.
Ver. 10. [LIL d.] There is not an establishing of the reasoning in ver.
9 by a reference to the essence of the Sabbatic rest (Delitzsch and Riehm,
Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 804), but justification of the expression oa;33a-
riouéc, employed ver. 9. For not that which constitutes the nature of the
Sabbath is here brought out, but the fact that in the case supposed a
xatavavey can be ascribed to man, even as to God. Wrongly (because at
least eiceAPOv yap ei¢ THY KaTdravow avrowv x.t.A. must have been written)
does Schulz refer 6 ydp eiaeaddy to 6 Aad: “and when it has entered,”
etc. And just as wrongly, because the context affords no point of support
for the same, do Owen, Alting, Starck, Valckenaer, and more recently
Ebrard and Alford, find in 6 eiseAdav a designation of Christ, in connection
with which the éZpya are then understood of the redemption completed, or
also of the sufferings and death undergone. On the contrary, ver. 10 con-
tains a universal proposition: for whoever has entered into His (namely,
God's) rest, has also on his part attained to rest from his works (the burdens
and toils of the earthly life:* even as God from His own (works, the works
of creation); for him has thus the Sabbath of everlasting blessedness
set in.
Vv. 11-13. [On Vv. 11-13, see Note LIII., page 498.] Conclusion by
way of warning admonition.—orovddowper] not: festinemus (Vulg.), but:
let our earnest effort be directed to this end.—oiv] [LIII a.] deduces the
inference from all that has been hitherto said, from iii. 7 onwards.—
éxeivyy Tv Katdravotv] that very xarémwavorc, of which the discourse has
heretofore been, which was described as a xardzavoie of God, as one
already promised to the fathers, and then again to us, as a possession
which they, on account of their disobedience and unbelief, failed to obtain,
1 Comp. « g. Jalkut Rubent, fol. 958.4: Dixe-
runt Israélitae: Domine totius mundi, os-
tende nobis exemplar mundi futuri. Re-
spondit ipeis Deus 8. B.: illud exemplar est
eabhatam. 8. D. Kimchi et R. Salomo in Ps.
xcii.: Psalmus cantici in diem Sabbati, quod
hic psaimus pertineat ad seculum futurum,
. quod totum sabbatum est et quies ad vitam
acternam. See Wetstein and Schédtigen ad
loc.
2Comp. LXX. Gen. fii 17: éwsxardparos 9
Yi €v Trois Epyors cov; V. 20: obros Scavawavce
nMGS awd TwY épywr nuery Kai awd Trwv AvTwy
TWH XeLpwY HuwY Kat &wd THS yIs, As Katnpa-
waro xuptos 6 Geds. Comp. also Rev. xiv. 15.
What is meant is not the works or labor
“of sanctification” (Tholuck, Grimm, Theol.
Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. A.-Z. 1857, No.
29, p. 664); and still less the ritual ordinances
of Judaism (Braun, Akersloot, Cramer, Sem-
ler, and Griesbach).
486 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
but which is still open to us as an ideal Sabbatic rest and everlasting
blessedness, if we manifest faith and oonfidence.—iva p9 év rh atre tec
vrodsiypatt thoy tic ameeiac] lest any one fall into the same example of
unbelief, 7.e. lest any one fall into the same obstinate perversity as the
fathers, and like them become a warning example for others! rimrecy
év is also quite usual in classical authors; see Passow and Pape ad vocem.
From wimrecv eic¢ it is distinguished only by a greater degree of signifi-
cance in that it does not merely like this express the falling into some-
thing, but also the subsequent lying in the same. Others,? take zéog
absolutely: “fall, i.e. to be brought to ruin, perish.” In that case & is
explained either by per (Wolf, Stengel, Ewald, a.), or “ comformably to
[gemass]” (Tholuck), or propter (Carpzov), or, what with this construction
would alone be correct, of the condition, the state in which one is (Bleek, de
Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Maier, Moll): “in giving the same
example.” But this whole construction is artificial. Opposed to it is
likewise the position of réo7. For had this word such emphasis as it
must have so soon as it is taken in the absolute sense, it would not have
been inserted in such subordinate, unaccentuated fashion between the
other words, but have been introduced at the very beginning of the
proposition : iva uh tig wéog x.T.A.
Vv. 12, 13. Warning demonstration of the necessity for compliance
with the exhdrtation uttered ver. 11.°—é Adyor rov Gcov] the word of God.
[LIII 5.] By these words we have not‘ the hypostatic word of God, or
Christ, as the second person of the Godhead. For although this mode of
designating Christ in the case of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
according to 1. 1-3, and on account of the points of contact he displays
with Philo, can present nothing strange in itself, yet the expression was
1 Thus the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Cornelius
a Lapide, Grotius, Abresch, Alford, Kurtz,
Hofmann, Woerner, and others.
2As Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cap-
pellus, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Hein-
richs, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck,
Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the
Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 664; the
last-named because the expression “to fall
into an example,” instead of “to afford an
example,” is supposed to be a forced one,—
the expression, however, is only a concise
one (see above),—and because wmiwrey is
probably chosen with a retrospective glance
to iii. 17, the passage to which reference is
here made, with the difference that the word
there denoted the physical destruction. But
such intention in connected with the choice
of the word is not at all to be assumed), De-
litzsech, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p.
774), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald.
8 Ebrard'’s commentary here too abounds in
quixotic caprice, such as disowns all linguis-
tic basis. According to Ebrard, the pre-
ceding warning of ver. 11 is yet further en-
forced, ver. 12, by the reminder that in our
case (!) that excuse (!) is removed, which, ac-
cording to ver. 2 (!), still exiated in the case
of the contemporaries of Moses. For us
nothing is wanting (!) on the part of the word
of God; for (!) the word of God is living, pow-
erful, penetrating into the soul; if we (!)
should fall victims to unbelief, the guilt
would rest upon ourselves alone (!). Accord-
ing to Ebrard, the genitive rov 6eov forms an
opposition to the first person plural orovéace-
per (!), and ver. 12 a supplementary material
opposition to ver. 2(!). That “this profound
and delicate connection has hitherto been
overlooked by all expositors” is natural
enough. Even after Ebrard has discovered
it, it will still remain unnoticed.
4With many Fathers, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, Thomas Aquinas, Lyra, Cajetan,
Clarius, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac.
Cappellus, Gomar, Owen, Heinsius, Alting,
Clericus, Cramer, Ewald, al.
CHAP. Iv. 12. 487
too unusual for it to be employed and understood without further indica-
tion, in this special sense, where the connection did not even lead up to
it. Moreover, the predicates évepyf¢, roudrepoc «.7.A., and xpitexde (instead
of xp:rfc), seem better suited to an impersonal than a personal subject. The
majority understand 6 Aédyog rov Peov of the word of God, as proclaimed
and as preserved in Scripture. They refer it then either to the gospel,' or
to the threatenings of God,* or, finally, to the threatenings and promises of God
taken together.2 6 Aédyo¢g rov Geod is to be understood quite generally :
“that which God speaks,” as, indeed, the whole proposition, vv. 12, 13,
contains a general sentence. But that “that which God speaks” was
then, in its application to the case here specially coming under notice,
the call to receptivity of heart repeatedly made by God through the
psalmist, and the exclusion from His xardravoig threatened in the event
of obstinate disobedience and unbelief, was for the reader self-evident
from the connection.—The word of God is characterized in progressive
enhancement. It is called (», living, on account of its inner vital power
(not on account of its everlasting, intransitory continuance, Schlichting,
Abresch; nor as ‘‘cibus ac nutrimentum, quod hominum animis vitam
conservat,” Carpzoz; nor, in opposition to the rigid lifeless law, Ebrard) ;
évepyne, effective, on account of its asserting itself, manifesting itself vig-
orously in the outer world. The latter is the consequence of the former,
‘and both in this connection refer to the power of punishing its contemners,
which is inherent in the word of God.—The penetrating sharpness of this
power of punishment is described in ascending gradation in the sequel.
—kxai touerepog ixép macav pdyzatpav dicrouov] and more trenchant than every
(any) two-edged sword. wxép after a comparative (Luke xvi. 8; Judg. xi.
25, LX X. Cod. Vaticanus), like wapd, i. 4. pd yatpa dioropos, a sword
with twofold mouth, 7.e. with an edge on both sides (augorépwhev ofeia).4—
The proof for the statement: roudrepog trip macav pdyatpay dicropov, is con-
tained in the words: kai dtixvoipevog &xpt peptopod Wuyxye nal mvebuatoc, appav
Te xai pveAav] and piercing to the separating of soul and spirit, joints as well
as marrow. [LITI c.] peptouds denotes the action of separating, and the
separating subject is the word of God. Wrongly does Schlichting (comp.
also BGhme) take it locally, or as reflexive: to the secret spot where soul and
spirit separate. Such construction is to be rejected, as otherwise the clause
following would have also to be explained in like manner: where joints
and marrow separate. Joints and marrow, however, not being, in the
human organization, things coming into direct contact, the thought would
be inappropriate, whether we understand dpyév re xa? pveddv in the literal
or non-literal sense. Schlichting, to be sure, will make dpyéy re xat prveddv
no longer dependent upon pepwyov, but take it as co-ordinate with pepiopod
1 Cameron, Grotius, Wittich, Akersloot, Eb- _—ifii. 16; Prov. v. 4. Comp. poudaia Sicropos,
rard, al. Rey. i. 16, ii. 12; LXX. Ps. cxlix. 6; Ecctus.
Schlichting, Michaelis, Abresch, BOhme, xxi.3. Similarly, Eurip. Helen. 989: édudy
Heinricha, ai. wpds frap doa Sicronoy fidos réde; Orest.
8 Beza, Schuls, Bisping, al. 1309: Siwrvyxa, Sicropa dacyava.
The same expression in the LXX. Judg.
488 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
(“ ... ut gladius iste penetrare dicatur ad loca in homine abditissima,
etiam illuc, ubi anima cum spiritu connectitur et ab eo dividitur, itemque
ubi sunt membrorum compages et medullae’’). But for this distinction
the repetition of ay: before dpzév would have been necessary. An entire
failure, finally, is also the method proposed by Hofmann! in order to
preserve the local acceptation, in making yuy7¢ xai rvebpatoc dependent on
dpyay te kai pvedov: “to the point at which it dissects and dissolves both
joints and marrow of the inner life, the secret ligaments of its connection
and the innermost marrow of its existence.” For then the readers would
be required to understand an arrangement of the words which has not, as
Hofmann thinks, perhaps “its parallel” in Heb. vi. 1, 2, but which is, on
the contrary, altogether impossible, on account of the addition of pe propuod
already to puyjc xai mvevyaroc, and therefore nowhere finds its analogon
in the N. T., not to say in the Epistle to the Hebrews. All four words:
PvxATS, Tvebparos, dpparv, and pvedrady, depend upon pepiopod, and not
a dividing of the soul from the spirit, of joinings or joints from the marrow, is
intended, nor yet a dividing of the soul and spirit from joints and marrow
(Béhme), but a dividing of the soul, the spirit, etc., each in itself is meant.
The two last substantives, however, are not co-ordinate to the two first
(Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Storr, Delitzsch, al.), but subordinate. For wuyx7
and mveiyza, which are distinguished from each other as characterizing
respectively the lower sensuous life and the higher life of the spirit, here
set forth without any more special limitation the inner side of human
life generally, in opposition to the oéza or body, which latter alone an
earthly sword is able to pierce, and dpyoi re xal pvedoi is not to be
understood of the joints and marrow of the body,” but of the ligaments and
marrow of the »uy# and rveipa, is thus a figurative expression to de-
note the innermost, most hidden depth of the rational life of man. In
such transferred signification pveAd¢ is used also with the classics.*
1 Schriftbew, I. 2 Aufl. p. 297, and likewise
still in his Comm, p. 192.
880 Delitzsch still explains, who represents
the author as giving expression to the grossly
sensuous conception, regardless whether
such conception is in harmony with the
author's refined mode of thought,—that the
word of God points out “to man the antithe-
istic forces of his bodily nature, which has
become wholly, and to all the joints and
marrow (cerebral marrow, spinal marrow,
etc.), a seat of sin and death!” The expres-
sion is supposed to adapt itself, without itself
becoming figurative, to the figure of the
Mdxaipa. It is presupposed that the word of
God has already accomplished its work of
dissection (!) to the skeleton, with its bones
and sinews (!), or at least presupposed that
all, so far as this, is manifestly to be per-
formed with ease. A stop, however, is not
made here, but it further separates the joints
of the bones, with the sinews or tendons
serving to their movement, and cuts through
the bones themselves, so that the marrow
they contain is laid bare. Thus, then, the
word renders the whole man transparent to
God and to himself, and unveils in sharpest
and most rigid analysis his most psychico-
spiritual and innermost physical (!) condi-
tion; whereby it is then seen that, in so far
as the man has not yet given scope tothe
work of grace, and in so far as the latter has
not yet been able to accomplish itself, the
marrow of the body is as corrupt as the spirit,
which is as it were the marrow of the soul,
and the joints of the body as corrupt as the
soul, which is as it were the joint of the
spirit (!). ;
3Comp. Themist. Orat. 32, p. 357: (d8vry)
eioSedunvia eis avrdv wov Tov pveddy THS PvYRs f
Eurip. Hippol. 255f.: xpnv yap merpias eis ad-
AxjAovs PrAias Ovnrous avaxipracgOas cat wy pd
Gxpow pveddy Puyis.
CHAP. Iv. 13. 489
dpuéc, however, a fastening together, uniting, joint, could likewise be em-
ployed metaphorically, inasmuch as it receives its signification as joint of
the human body only from the addition of rov cdéuarog or from the con-
nection, but elsewhere occurs in the most varied combinations and rela-
tions.'—It is, moreover, worthy of notice that Philo also ascribes to his
divine Logos a like cutting and severing power. He calls the same ropetes
tav ouszavrwy, Which God has whetted to the most piercing sharpness,
which on that account not only separates all sensuous things and pene-
trates to the atoms, but even divides the supra-sensuous, separating the
soul into the rational and irrational, the reason into the true and false,
the perception into the clear and the obscure.*—xai xperexdg évOuygoewv ral
évvoiav xapdiacg] and qualified to take cognizance of, or to judge (wrongly
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, al.: to condemn), the dispositions and thoughts of the
heart.—évOuphoewv] Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25; Acts xvii. 29.—évvocdv] 1 Pet. iv. 1.
Ver. 13. Transition from the word of God to God Himself. That the
twofold atrov and the év, ver. 18, cannot be referred to Christ,’ follows
from the correct interpretation of 6 Aéyo¢ rov Geov, ver. 12. That, however,
in general not the total notion 6 Adyo¢ rod Geov (So Ebrard still) can form the
subject of the pronouns, ver. 138, but only the 6 6eéd¢ to be deduced there-
from, is evident from the expression roi¢ 690aA pu oi¢ avrov, which is appro-
priate only to the latter, not to the former. The transition from the word
of God to God Himself was, moreover, a very natural one, inasmuch as
in the word of God, God Himself is present and operative.—xrioi] as Rom.
viii. 39, and frequently, in the most universal sense: any creature, and in-
deed here not merely as regards its external existence, but also as regards
its inner essence. Quite mistakenly Grotius, who is followed by Carpzov:
Videtur mihi hoc loco «riot significare opus hominis, quia id est velut crea-
tura hominis.—éé] on the contrary. See on ii. 6.—rerpayndopéva] laid bare.
Hesychius : tepavepwuéva. tpayndAifecy means: to bend back the neck of
the victim, in the act of slaying, in order to lay bare the chest, then gen-
erally : to lay bare, disclose, expose to view. See the Lexicons of Passow
1Comp. 6g. apuds O¥pas, Dionys. Hal. v. 7;
dppoi Adm, Ecclus. xxvii. 2, al.
vos Toy rouda Tay cuuradytwy avTov Adyor s&at-
pet THY Te GuopHoy Kai awoLtoy TWH SAwY OVCiaD,
8Comp. especially, Quis rerum divinarum
haeres. p. 499 (with Mangey, I. p. 491): El’
dwiAdyes’ AcatAey aura doa (Gen. xv. 10] rd ris
ov mpocGeis, iva Tov adidaxtov évvojs Oedy réu-
yorTa Tas Te TWY GWUATwWY Kal Mpayudter ffs
éxdgas npudcOa Kai nvmaba Soxovcas dices
Te TOMEL TOY CUMMAYTwWHY AUVTOVASYH’
os, els Thy O€uTdrny axovnOeis axury, Siacpmr
ovddwore Arye: Ta aicOnTa wdvra’ éwecdar 82 mé-
XPt TwOY aTénwy Kai Acyoudvwy anepwr SiefEAOy,
wad awd Tovrwy Ta Adyy Oewpyra cis auvOyrous
Kat aweptypadovs poipas dpxerat Scacpety obros
6 roweds ...°Exacroy oby raw rpm dcetde wé-
coy, Thy péy Puxny eis Aoyixdy nat dAoyor, Toy
82 Adyor eig arnOds re nai Pevsos, Thy 8¢ aicOncuy
eis eataAnwrinhy dayraciay nal axatadAnrroy.—
Ibid. p 500 (I. p. 492): Ovres 6 Oeds axornodpe-
Kai ta ef avrans amoxpiOdyta réocapa Tov KOgpoU
oroxea, etc. Comp. also de Cherubim. p.
112f. (with Mangey, I. p. 144), where Philo
finds in the dAoyiry poxdaca, Gen. iii. 24,
asymbol of the Logos, and then observes
with regard to Abraham: Ovyx opgs, ott nat
"ABpaap 0 codgos, Hrixa npfaro xara Oedy petpety
wavra xai under awodeiwery Ty yevyyre, Aaufd-
vee THS HAoyivns poxdaies (i.¢ of the
divine Logos) wiunua, wip Kai paxat-
pay [Gen. xxii. 6] dceActy cai xaraprAdtar 7d
Ovnrdy ad’ éavrov yAtxdpmevos, iva yuury Th Sua-
yous petdpatos mpos Tov Gedy avarry.
8 As is done even by Dorscheus, Calov, Wit-
tich, Braun, Brochmann, and Schottgen, al-
though they do not explain hypostatically
the word of God in ver. 12.
490 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
and Pape on the word.’ Others? would, after the precedent of Perizonius,
ad Aeliani Var. Hist. xii. 58, derive the signification “lay bare” to rpayy7Al-
Sew, from the practice in antiquity of laying hold of transgressors by the
neck when they were being led away to execution, and bending back the
head, that they might be exposed to the gaze of all. Appeal is made not
amiss to Suetonius in favor of this custom, Vitell. 17 : donec (Vitellius)
-_religatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, semi-
nudus in forum tractus est... reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent,
atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ad visendam praeberet faciem
neve submitteret. In like manner to Pliny, Panegyr. 34,3: Nihil tamen
gratius, nihil seculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum
supina ora retortasque cervices. Yet a Roman custom cannot in itself
afford a standard for determining the signification of a Greek word. Yet
others, as Cameron, Brochmann, and Klee, suppose the general significa-
tion: “to lay bare,” for rpaynAigev, to arise from the circumstance that
the verb is used also of the wrestler, who grasps his opponent by the throat,
and hurls him down backwards, whereby the face of the latter is exposed
to the full view of the spectators? But the exposing of the face of the
’ thrown opponent was a circumstance of no importance in the rpaynAivev
of the athlete, because not at all necessarily connected therewith. Fur-
ther, and not less improbable derivations, see in Bleek.—zpo¢ 6v «.7.A.]
[LIII d.] is to be taken in close combination only with the aivov imme-
diately preceding, not likewise, as is done by Michaelis, Bloomficld, and
Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 2 Aufl. p. 104), with the first atrov, and upon #piv
falls no emphasis (against Ebrard and Alford). The words for the rest
have too little the character of independence to justify our taking them
alone, with Alford, and separating them by a colon from that which pre-
cedes.—rpoc bv ipyiv b Adyoc] towards whom exists for us the relation, 1. e. with
whom we haveto do. Calvin: vertendum erat: cum quo nobis est ratio:
cujus orationis hic est sensus, Deum esse, qui nobiscum agit, vel cum quo
nobis est negotium, ideoque non esse ludendum quasi cum homine mor-
tali, sed quoties verbum ejus nobis proponitur, contremiscendum esse,
quia nihil ipsum lateat. Comp. 1 Kings i. 14 and 2 Kings 1x. 5: Aédyo¢ poe
xpo¢ oé.A—Incorrectly do Luther, Vatablus, Cameron, Schlichting, Corne-
lius a Lapide [Piscator hesitates between this and the rendering above
given], Grotius, Calov, Wolf, Schulz, Stengel, al., generally with an appeal
to mpés, i. 7, 8, and a comparison of v. 11, take xpo¢ bv guiv 6 Adyo¢ as equiv-
1Comp. Hom. Il. i. 459: at épvcav, se. roy
TpaxndAov tov iepov ; Orpheus, Argon. 311: rav-
pov adacoy, avaxdivas xehadny cis aidépa Biav ;
P. Fr. Ach. Nitsch, Beschreibung des hduslichen,
gottesdienstlichen u. 8. w. Zustandes der Griechen,
2 Aufl. Th. I. p. 667.
#As Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel,
Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, and Maier.
%Cameron: Videtur esse metaphora petita
are palaestrica. Nam luctatores tum demum
adversarium dicuntur rpaxndAigeav, cum ob-
stricto collo ita versant, ut objiciant rpectato-
rum oculis nudum conspiciendum et retec-
tum undiquaque, id quod tum demum max-
ime fit, quum ejus cervicibus inequitant.
4 Aristides, Leuctr. iv. p. 465: dot 8 nai
TovTo Oavpagrow paiverat, et ris Td wey OnBaiovs
MOvous ayrimaAous Huw xatadrerhOnvar Sdéce, To
Se wpds audhordpovs Huty etvar roy Adyor, ovdevde
afvoy xpive. $é8ov. Further examples in
Wetstein and Bleek.
CHAP. Iv. 14. 491
alent to wep? ov huiv 6 Adyoc. Moreover, something entirely foreign is im-
ported by Ewald when, with a reference to 11.10 f,, he finds in the words
the sense: “ to whom, as a friend and brother, we can always most confi-
dently speak.” Finally, the Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Primasius, Erasmus Paraphr., Clarius, Zeger, Owen, Limborch,
Michaelis, Whitby, Cramer, Stuart, Hofmann, al., explain: to whom we
shall have to give an account of our actions. In itself this interpretation
would be admissible; but, inasmuch as the words must in consequence
thereof be taken in reference to an event yet future, we should necessarily
expect the addition of éora:.
Ver. 14-x. 18. [On Vv. 14-16, see Note LIV., pages 498, 499.] The
author has, in that which precedes, compared Christ with the angels and
then with Moses, and proved the superiority of Christ over both. He
applies himself now to a third point of the comparison, in that he insti-
tutes a comparison between Christ and the Levitical high priests, and
developes on every side the exalted character of His high-priesthood
above the Levitical high-priesthood, with regard to His person, with regard
to the sanctuary in which He fulfills His office, and with regard to the
sacrifice presented. The copiousness of this new dogmatic investigation
—which is subservient to the same paraenetic aim as the preceding expo-
sitions, and therefore opens with an exhortation of the same nature with
the former ones, and is presently interrupted by a somewhat lengthy
warning-paraenetic interlude—is to be explained by the greater import-
ance it had for the readers, who, in narrow-minded over-estimate of the
temple cultus inherited from the fathers, regarded the continued participa-
tion in this cultus as necessary for the complete expiation of sin and the
acquiring of everlasting salvation, and, because they thought nothing
similar was to be found in Christianity, were exposed to an imminent peril
of turning away from the latter and relapsing entirely into Judaism.!—
The transition to this new section is formed by vv. 14-16.
Ver. 14. The introductory phrase: éyovre¢ otv apyziepéa, presupposes that
the author has already had occasion to speak of Jesus as dpycepeis. We
are therefore led back for ody to ii. 17, 111. 1. But, since there is further
added to épyzepéa the qualification wéyav and dceAnAvOdra rove ovpa-
voc, and thus also these characteristics must be presupposed as known
from that which precedes, we have consequently not to limit ody, in its
backward reference, to 11. 17, 111. 1, but to extend it to the whole disquisi-
tion, i. 1-iii. 6, in such wise that (logically, indeed, in a not very exact
manner) péyav, deAnAviéra rov¢ ovpavote glances back in general to the dig-
nity and exaltedness of the person of Jesus, as described in these sections.
—Erroneously does Delitzsch suppose that by means of ovv the exhorta-
tion xpat&pev ri¢ duodoyiac is derived as a deduction from vv. 12,138. Such
1 Compare the explanation already given by puxai, ddA’ UpnAdrepa cai TreAecérepa wavta, Kai
Chrysostom, Hom. viii. init.: "Ewecdy yap ovdev = obey tay Gwmarixay, To 2 way ey TOIS KVEVLA-
Rw (sc. in the New Covenant) cwparixoy 7 Gar = tex0is Hy, ovx OVTe S28 ra WHEVaTIKa TOUS aabe-
TACTLKOY, OloV OV Vacs, OVX Ayla ayiwy, OVy iepeve veordpouUs érNyeTO ws TA TWMATLKG, TOUTOY xapLY
TOTAUTHY CXwY KATACKEVTY, OV BapaTnpHces vO- TOUTOP OAOM KivEt TOV Adyor.
492 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
opinion would be warranted only if, with the omission of the participial
clause, merely xpardpev obv ree duodoyiac had been written. For since xpara-
bev Tic Guodoyiag has received its own justification in the prefixed éyovre¢
x.7.4., apart from that which immediately precedes, it is clear that, in con-
nection with ver. 14, there is no further respect had to the contents of vv.
12,13. Itis not therefore to be approved that Delitzsch, in order to make
room for the unfortunate reference tovv. 12, 13, will have ody logically
attached to the verb xpardyev, instead of the participle, with which it is
grammatically connected, and to which, as the most simple and natural,
the like passage, x. 19 ff., also points. What labored confusion of the re-
lations would Delitzsch require the reader to assume, when he is called to
regard éyovrec «.7.2. as being at the same time a recapitulation of that
which has been said before, and continuation of the argument; and yet,
spite of all this, to look upon xpatéuev rig éuodoyiac as a deduction from vv.
12,13! In any case, the connection asserted by Delitzsch to exist between
ver. 14 and vv. 12, 13: “the word of God demands obedience and appro-
priation, z.e. faith, not, however, as merely a faith locked up within the
breast, but also a loud Yea and Amen, unreserved and fearless confession,
duodoyia from mouth and heart, as the echo thereof,” is in itself a baseless
imagination; because the before-demanded wiori¢ and the here de-
manded ouoAocyia are by no means distinguished from each other as a minus
and a majus, but, on the contrary, in the mind of the author of the epis-
tle are synonyms. It results that oty stands in a somewhat free relation
to the foregoing argument, consequently must not at all be taken as,
strictly speaking, an illative particle, with which that which precedes is
first brought to a close, but as a particle of resuming, which, in the form of
a return to that which has already been said before, begins a new section.
—éyav] does not in such wise appertain to apyepéa that only in combi-
nation with the same it should form the idea of the high priest (Jac. Cap-
pellus, Braun, Rambach, Wolf, Carpzov, Michaelis, Stuart), but is indica-
tive of the quality of the high priest, and means exalted, just as péyag, x.
21, in combination with lepebe. Comp. also xiii. 20.—As the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews represents Christ the Son of God, so also does
Philo! represent the divine Logos as 6 péyac apyrepetc.2*A—dteAnAwera rove
ovpavois] elucidatory demonstration of yvéyav. Wrongly is it translated by
Luther (as also by the Peshito): who has ascended up to heaven ; by Calvin,
Peirce, Ernesti, al.: qui coelos ingressus est. It can only signify [Piscator,
Owen, Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, al.]: who has passed through the heavens, sc.
in order, exalted above the heavens (cf. vii. 26; Eph. iv. 10), totake His
seat upon the throne of the Divine Majesty (i. 3, 13). Allusion to the
high priest of the Old Covenant, who, in order to make atonement for
the people, passed through the courts of the Temple, and through the
Temple itself, into the Most Holy Place. Comp. ix. 11.—'I,cowy rav vid»
1 De Somn. p. 598 A, with Mangey, I. p. 654. apxrepeds 6 rpwrdéyovos avrov Ocios Adyos, érepoy
2Comp. tbid. p. 597 (1. p. 663): Avo ydp, ws 52 Aoyixyn Puyy, Rs iepeds O pds GAryOecay am
douxey, iepa Oeod, cw ey Ode O KOcpHOS, ey pat Opwwos.
‘ CHAP, Iv. 15. 493
tov deo] emphatic apposition to apycepéa uéyav x.7.A., in which the charac-
terization of Jesus as the vide rov Oecd (i. 1, 5, vi. 6, vii. 3, x. 29) serves anew
to call attention to the dignity of the New Testament High Priest. Quite
mistaken are Wolf and Béhme in their conjecture that the object in the
addition of rév vidy rot Geov is the distinction of Jesus from the Joshua
mentioned ver.8. For the mention of Joshua, ver. 8, was, as regards the
connection, only an incidental one, on which account there also not even
& more precise definition was given to the name.—xparépev ric duodoyiac]
let us hold fast (vi. 18; Col. 11.19; 2 Thess. 11.15; wrongly Tittmann: lay
hold of, embrace) the confession. dpodoyia isnot, with Storr, to be referred
specially to the confession of Christ as the High Priest, but to be taken in
general of the Christian confession. The expression is here too used
objectively, as iii. 1, of the sum or subject-matter of the Christian’s belief.
Ver. 15. Further justification of the demand, ver. 14, of stedfast adher-
ence to the Christian confession.! For the High Priest of Christians is
not merely a highly exalted One (ver. 14), He is also qualified, since as
Brother He stands very closely related to believers, and has been tempted
as they are, to have sympathy for their weaknesses. Comp. ii. 17, 18.?
Whereas duvéyevov ovyrabjoa and meretpacpuévoy xara mévta xaP dpocéryra
bring out the homogeneity of the New Testament High Priest with that
of the Old Testament (comp. v. 2), the dissimilarity at the same time ex-
isting between the two is rendered apparent by ywpiy dyapriac.—ovurabeiv |
to have sympathy, compassionate feeling.—Comp. x. 34. Preliminary con-
dition to bestowing succor and redemption.—ai do6éverat yudv] the condi-
tions of human weakness, as well moral as physical, which have been
called forth by the entrance of sin into the world.—reme:paopévov dé] con-
tains in the form of a correction of 4) duvdyuevov the proof of the capacity
for having sympathy.—xard zévra] Comp. 11. 17.—xaf? duotéryta] sc. pyar,
(comp. vii. 15: xara rv dpuobryta MeAxeoedéx), or juiv,® or even mpd¢
nuac * in like (similar) manner as we.—yupic¢ duapriac] without sin, 7. e. with-
out sin arising out of the temptations, or more clearly: without His
being led into sinning, as a result of His being tempted. Comp. vii.
26; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John 111.5; 1 Pet. 1. 22. When Hofmann (Schriftbew.
II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 37) and Delitzsch will discover in these words the additional
1Incorrectly does Ebrard take ver. 15 as
elucidation of ¢xovres apxtepda.
*Calvin: In nomine Filii Dei, quod posuit,
subest ea majestas, quae nos ad timorem et
obsequium adigat. Verum si nihil in Christo
aliud consideremus, nondum pacatae erunt
conscientiae. Quis enim non reformidet
Filii Dei conspectum, praesertim quum re-
putamus, qualis sit nostra conditio, nobisque
in mentem veniunt peccata nostra? Deinde
Judaeis aliud obstare poterat, quia Levitico
sacerdotio assneverant: illic cernebant hom-
inem mortalem unum ex aliis electum, qui
sanctuarium ingrediebatur, ut sua depreca-
tione reconciliaret fratres suos Deo. Hoc
Magnum est, quum mediator, qui placare
erga nos Deum potest, unus est ex nobis.
Haec illecebra poterat Judaeos illaqueare, ut
sacerdotio Levitico semper essent addicti,
nisi occurreret apostolus, ac ostenderet
Filium Def non modo excellere gloria, sed
aequa bonitate et indulgentia erga nos esse
praeditum.
3Comp. Polyb. xiii. 7. 2: "Hv yap et8w@Aor ye
vatxetoy, ToAUTEAdaty imariots Hudiecudvoy, Kata
82 thy popdny eis dpordryra TH To’ NaBiSes yu-
vant Scaddpes areipyagudvoy.
4Comp. Philo, de Profugis, p. 468 A, with
Mangey, I. p. 553: xard thy wpds radAa duccd-
THTO.
494 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
indication that in the case of Jesus temptation also found no sin present, this is
indeed true as to the fact, but open to the misconception of being sup-
posed to imply that even the possibility of sinning on the part of Jesus is
denied, whereas surely this possibility in itself must be conceived of as an
essential factor in the idea of being tempted ; and opposed to the context,
because yupi¢ duapriag is the continued note of modality of wrerecpacuévoy,
and thus cannot possibly specify something that was already present, even
before the mepéfeo6ac came in. More in accordance with the context,
therefore, does Alford express himself: “Throughout these temptations,
in their origin, in their process, in their result,—sin had nothing in Him:
He was free and separate from it.” Wrongly Jac. Cappellus, Calmet,
Semler, Storr, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others: tempted in all
things, sin excepted. For in that case yupic ri¢ duapriac (with the article)
would be written, and this be connected immediately with xara zdvra.
Mistaken, however, is also the explanation of Oecumenius, Schlichting,
Dindorf: without having committed sin, as a guiltless one; an interpretation
which would be admissible only if me:paéfecfac could be referred specially
to the enduring of outward sufferings, which might be seen to be a conse-
quence of sin—Comp., for the rest, on ywpic duapriac likewise the kindred
statements concerning the divine Logos in Philo.!
Ver. 16. Encouragement, derived from the character of the High Priest
of the New Testament, as brought into relief, ver. 15.—zxpostpyeofac]
approach, draw near, in order to have community with something. Comp.
vil. 25, x. 1, 22, xi. 6, xii. 18, 22. Too specially Delitzsch, Kurtz, and
Ewald, who explain: drawing near in prayer for aid or succour.—vpera
mappnoiac| with confulence (iii. 6), inasmuch as we possess, in the very office
of intercessor, a High Priest who is not only exalted, but also full of
sympathy, who thus has not only the power, but also the will to help.—
Opdvog tHE yaptroc] not: Christ Himself (Gerhard, S. Schmidt, Carpzov,
Ernesti, al.), not: the throne of Christ (Primasius [also Tena, arguing from
the Vulgate of ii. 9], Schlichting, Limborch, Ch. Fr. Schmid, al.), but the
throne of God, at whose right hand Christ is seated. Comp. viii. 1, xii. 2
[Eph. ii. 18]. It is called, however, the throne of grace, because the
nature of the New Covenant has, as its presupposition, not strictly judicial
retribution, according to the works of men, but compassion and grace on
the part of God; the believer feels himself united to God as a loving
Father, who has remitted to him the guilt and punishment of sin. A
reference for the rest to the cover of the ark of the covenant, regarded as
the seat of the Godhead in the sanctuary (the nbd or laoripwv of the
Old Covenant), assumed by Piscator, Schéttgen, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer,
Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, al., and still in recent times by Bloomfield and
Bisping (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in connection with the expression: 6
Opdvog tHe xépiroc, is not indicated by anything in the text—To obtain
1 De Profugis, p. 466 B (with Mangey, I. p. vow GAAd nai axovoler ddecnudrwy dudroxov.—
662): Adyouew yap, ror dpxrepéa ovx avOpwwow Ibid. p. 467 O (I. p. 563): duéroxos ydp as are-
GAAG ASyor Oeioy elva:, wdvruy ovx éxovainw us — pabexros wavrds elvar wépuxey auapryuaros.
NOTES. 495
mercy and find grace (Luke i. 30; Acts vil. 46; comp. ff €¥, Gen. vi. 8,
xviii. 3, and frequently) are synonymous terms, All distinctions, as that of
Bohme: éAco¢ magis id appellat, quo indigebant calamitatibus oppressi
lectores, ydépec, quo peccatis non carentes; of Stein, that coc relates to
compassion towards the sinner, ydpi¢ to every manifestation of grace; of
Bisping, that 2Aeo¢ refers more to the forgiveness of sins and deliverance
from sufferings, while yép:c refers to the communication of higher gifts
of grace; of Hofmann, that ydpiw etpicxes means “to be brought into a
state of favor with any one, to become an object of his good-will;”
AauBdvey Edeo¢, on the other hand, is “a receiving of that which the kind
and gracious One accords to those in need of His kindness, Just on account
of their need,” and many others, are untenable.—eic eixarpov Bofbecav] for
timely help, i.e. in order that we may in this manner attain to a help which
appears on the scene, while it is still the right time, before itis yet too
late (iii. 13). Wrongly Tholuck, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, and Hofmann:
“before the one in conflict with the temptations succumbs ;” and others
(also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 740): “as often as we stand in
need of the BofGea.”
Nores By AMERICAN EprIror.
LI. Vv. 1-3.
(a) Vv. 1-10 constitute the third part of this extended hortatory passage (see
Note XLIX a above), in which the readers are reminded of the danger that they
might fail of entering into the rest of God from the same cause which had led to
the failure of the ancient Israelites—namely, atioria, Ovyv of ver. 1 refers to what
is said of the Israelites in vv. 15-19; ¢0873auev calls to mind the reason for
apprehension, and, at the same time, urges the course of action which such appre-
hension would naturally suggest; dox# and vorepyxéva: are to be explained, with
Liinem., the former as an intentional softening of the expression, and the latter as
in the perfect because, at the time of decision as to who shall find entrance, these
will prove to have already failed. The genitive-absolute clause, intermediate
between ¢0f870ayev and don} tor, (Kxatadecroutvng érayyeAiag. ., avrov) stands ina
circumstantial relation to the sentence. This is indicated by the position of the
words after “fore, which shows that they do not give a reason for the exhortation
to be apprehensive of the danger and thus avoid it, but set forth a circumstance
connected with the statement of the thing to be apprehended. They were to fear
lest, their condition being the same with that of the Israelites, in respect to the
fact of the promise, the result at the end might be the same. The emphasis on
xaraAerouévng and the use of the word are connected rather with the thought de-
veloped later in the chapter (see vv. 3 ff.), than with the demands of the thought
in this verse. The omission of the article with érayyeAla¢ is due, no doubt, to the
fact that it was the idea of promise, rather than of the particular promise, which was
here prominent in the writer's mind. That the great promise of God is one and
the same is made sufficiently clear in subsequent verses.—(b) Ver. 2, as Liinem.
remarks, “corroborates in its first half the «aradecrouévnc (ver. 1), while the
second half shows the danger of the torepyxéva: in the example of others.” This
verse belongs, thus, immediately with ver. 1, and serves to complete its idea. It
496 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
is to be observed, however, that the substance of this verse is really gathered
up into the otv of ver. 1 with the following xaraAec7., and consequently that
it has a repetitious character, such as we often see, in similar cases, in Paul’s
writings.
(c) As to the text and construction of ver. 2 }, the following suggestions may be
offered :—1. The nominative of the participle (cvyxex.) is read by Tisch. 8, as
Liinem. states in his critical notes, but Lachm., Treg., W. & H., Alf, R. V., read
the accusative. The external evidence, as may be seen by the presentation of it
given by Liinem., strongly favors the accusative, which is also favored by the con-
sideration that it is the more difficult reading. The change from o¢ to ovc, how-
ever, is only a slight one, and might, easily, as it would seem, have been made by
a cupyist, who, without carefully examining the bearing of it on the thought of
the sentence, was influenced, by the preceding éxcivove, to put the participle in the
same case.—2. The reading with the accusative—because they were not mixed in
faith, or united by faith, with those who heard—presents a thought which is not
in the special line of the surrounding context. This is evident for the following
reasons: first, because the context does not call attention to those who received the
word by faith, in the early times, but finds all its emphasis in centering the
thought upon those who did not thus receive it; secondly, because the context
uses hearing in the more objective or passive sense, i.e. that hearing which is
involved in the proclamation, and not receptive hearing; thirdly, the context,
in ver. 2 a and also in ver. 6, distinctly sets forth the persons, to whom the good
tidings were preached, as the same with the disobedient ones—the same with those
who had been mentioned in iii. 16 ff.; fourthly, the argument of the context
which follows is to show, that the rest remains for the readers to enter into it,
because it had not been entered already ;—but, to make an allusion to Caleb
and Joshua, who, in a certain sense, had entered it, would not only be wholly
unnecessary, but would diminish the rhetorical force of the passage. On the
other hand, the reading with the nominative places the sentence in the direct line
of all that is said from iii. 15 to iv. 10. Like Rom. v. i., therefore, this verse
must be reckoned among the small number of passages, where it seems probable
that the internal evidence is to be regarded as out-weighing the external. The
internal evidence, in this case, is supported by ® and by Vulg., and some other
authorities which read the nominative. A. R. V., reads the nominative in the
text and the accusative in the margin; R. V., the acc. in the text, and the nom.
In the margin.
(d) In ver. 3a, there is a twofold emphasis—on eicepyéue6a, by reason of its
_ position and as related to vv. 4-10; and on of moreboavrec, as related to the idea
of faith which, through 79 qiore: and amoria, is made so prominent in the pre-
ceding context. There is a turn in the thought, in this verse, from the danger of
failure through unbelief, and the vital necessity of faith, to the certainty of the
reward in case we have faith. In order to the setting forth of this certainty,
which is expressed in the emphatic eicepyéucba, the writer proceeds in vv. 4-10
to establish the fact that the rest really awaits the entrance of the true believers.—
(e) In the latter part of ver. 3, two points are to be noticed :—1. That xafldc cipyxev
«.7.A,, introduces the proof of the necessity of faith, which is suggested in oi mor.
This proof lies in the fact that the Israelites were refused entrance notwithstand-
ing that the rest had long since been prepared—it must have been their disobedi-
ence, therefore, occasioned by their amoria, which caused their rejection. 2. That
NOTES. 497
the clause following xairo:, though connected by that word, as just indicated, with
the xafo¢ clause, gives in its own suggested thought the foundation for the next
verses, 4-10.
LIT. Vv. 4-10.
(a) In the development of the proof given in these verses (with which, as
already stated, the last clause of ver. 3 is, in thought, to be connected), there are,
apparently, four steps: 1. The rest of God was established by Him at the end of
the work of the creation of the world. 2. This rest was not entered by the
Israelites of Moses’ time; it remained, therefore, open for others. 3. It was not
entered, in the full sense, in the time of Joshua; it was reserved for men who should
follow afterwards. 4. It was not entered, even in David’s time, as indicated by
the very exhortation of his Psalm, which is still read in the days present to the
writer and his readers. The arrangement of the steps is not in the order of direct
succession, but according to the incidental suggestions of each sentence as intro-
ducing the next. It follows, as we may say, the grammatical, rather than the
logical law of connection and progress. But the thought may be easily traced ;
and the conclusion is reached in ver. 9, that there is a rest yet remaining, and that
it is a caBBarcoudc—a rest such as God Himself had “when the works were done.”
(b) With respect to the immediate and grammatical connection of the passage
(4-10), the following points may be observed :—1. ydp of ver. 4, grammatically,
gives the reason for the whole sentence from ¢ duoca to yevvybévrwr, and it
covers in its force ver. 4 and ver.5. Inthe special progress of thought in vv.
4-10, ver. 4 may be regarded as giving the proof of what is suggested as to the
first provision of the rest in ver. 3c, and ver. 5 repeats, for the purposes of this
passage, the statement of the failure of the Israelites in the times of Moses, which
is still further mentioned in ver. 6 6. Vv. 5, 6 6, thus contain the second step of
the proof.—2. ovv of ver.6 connects @roAeimeras x.7.A., as an inference, with what
precedes, and é7ei introduces these words as a protasis, to which dpilec x.7.A. (ver.
7) answers as an apodosis. The chief statement of these two verses is, evidently,
that of ver. 7, and, in relation to the main thought of the passage, these verses
declare that the exhortation in the Psalms shows the rest to be still open for
entrance, in the time of David.—3. ydp of ver. 8 introduces that verse as a proof
or justification of the words wéAcv dpifec yuépav. There would have been no such
reference to a new day, if the rest to which Joshua led the people had been all
that was meant. It is evident, however, that the placing of ver. 8 after ver. 7 and
the connecting of the two by yap belong only to the incidental and grammatical
progress of the verses, and not to the historical order of the proofs.
(c) The introduction of the word oafariouds (ver. 9), in place of xardravor,
cannot be satisfactorily explained without giving it a deeper significance. The
progress of the steps in the argument, which shows that nothing in the past has
exhausted the meaning of the offer of entrance into the rest, points to the same
significance. The word amodefrera:, also, which carries with it the idea of remain-
ing over, and the implication that what is referred to had not yet been fully
realized, accord with this deeper sense. The rest which remains isa future and
heavenly one—the one clearly revealed by Christ.
(d) The two views respecting 6 ciceA6év of ver. 10—that it refers to Christ, and
that it designates the individual believer, whoever he may be—are, both of them,
liable to serious objections. Without expressing a confident opinion on the sub-
82
498 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
ject, the writer of this note would offer the following suggestions, which may be
regarded as favoring the reference to Christ :—(1) If we consider ver. 3, by its
emphatic eioepyéuefa, as intended to turn the thought of the readers to something
outside of the mere exhortation—namely, to the certainty that they will enter
the rest, if they believe-——we may find a most appropriate conclusion to the
development of this idea in the statement of ver. 9, that the rest is a oa;3,3arcopde,
and in the proof of this statement, which is found in the fact that it is the rest
which Jesus entered at the end of His work.—-(2) This view of the matter
removes, in some measure, the prolonged and repetitious character of the horta-
tory section, ili, 7—iv. 13, by connecting these verses with the idea (which is
suggested in ch. ii. 9, 10) of Jesus as leading the sons of God to the glory awaiting
them. At the same time, however, it does not destroy the close union of the
verses wjth those which precede, and their manifest grammatical subordination
to the exhortation of vv. 1, 2.—(3) A certain rhetorical parallelism, in this
grammatically subordinate passage, to the thought of ch. ii. is thus given—though
not such an elaborate parallelism as is supposed by Ebrard—and this we might
naturally expect in these chapters.—(4) The reference of ver. 10 to Jesus makes
this verse a declaration that Jesus has entered the heavenly rest, as ch. ii. 9
affirms His entrance into tle heavenly glory—in both cases, leading the way for
His people.—(5) By means of this declaration, the way is prepared—as it is not
so fully otherwise—for the introduction of vv. 14-16, which correspond so closely
with ii. 17, 18.—The objections to this view are found in the fact that Jesus is not
mentioned by name in the verse, and in the absence of any allusion to Him in
connection with of moreicarrec, in ver. 3, or even in the entire passage ili. 7-iv,
9. The objections to the other view are the use of the aorist instead of the pre-
sent, both in the participle and the verb, and the emphatic atrdéc, which is less
easily accounted for if the reference is to any believer whatsoever.
LIII. Vv. 11-15.
(a) ovv of ver. 11 deduces the inference from iii. 7 onwards, according to
Liinem.’s view. More probably, we are to refer it to the preceding verses of this
chapter (vv. 3-7); so Alford and others. This latter reference is unquestionable,
if the design of these verses as following eicepxéueba, which has been alluded to,
is to be admitted. In any case, there is undoubtedly a special pointing of otv to
the idea expressed in oa Zartiopzéc.—(b) The Aoyog rov Oeov (ver. 12) must, at least,
be regarded as including and giving prominence to the idea of a threatening of
punishment, if, indeed, it is not to be limited in its meaning to this—(c) The four
genitives yuy7¢ «.7.A. (ver. 12) may, each of them, depend on pepiopov, or the last
two may depend on yep., and each of the first two on both of the last two. The
latter construction is, perhaps, to be preferred—(d) The explanation of zpo¢ or
quiv 6 Adyoc to which Liinem. gives his assent, is the most satisfactory one. The
danger attending neglect of the new revelation and the certainty of punishment in
case of falling away are suggested here, as in other places, in connection with the
one, ever-repeated exhortation.
LIV. Vv. 14-16.
(a) The view of Liinem. and other writers, who regard these verses as properly
to be united with ch. v., is to be rejected. This is evident, first, because of the
NOTES. | 499
very striking parallelism between these verses and those at the end of ch. ii., both
in their words and thoughts and in the manner of their introduction ; secondly, be-
cause ch. v. introduces the discourse respecting the subject of the high-priesthood in
the most natural way, by presenting certain essential qualifications and then add-
ing the statement that Christ had these qualifications, and thus most appropriately
opens the new section; thirdly, because these last verses of ch. iv. are mainly
hortatory, and are accordingly, in contrast to v. 1 ff, adapted to form the conclusion
of the preceding section. The dividing point between the first and second main
divisions of the epistle is the end of ch. iv.—(b) As to the correspondences and
differences in the words here used and those in ii. 17, 18, see Note XLVII 8.
above. The second part of the first main division closes, like the first part, with
a brief passage which is a foreshadowing of and preparation for the thoughts
of the later chapters.
500 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS,
CHAPTER V.
VER. 1. Instead of the Recepta dGpé re xai Ovoiac, Lachm. and Tisch. 1
read merely d@pa kai O6voiag. But the single testimony of B (D**?)—for
nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions—does not suffice for the
condemnation of the particle. re is protected by A C D*** (D*: re ddpa) E
K L ¥s, by, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Heb.
viii. 3, ix. 9—Ver. 3. Elz.: d:a ratryv. Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch.
Delitzsch, Alford, al.: d¢’ avrq@v. To be preferred on account of the better
attestation by A B C* D* x, 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret
(alic.).—Instead of the Recepta éavrod, there is placed in the text by Lachm.,
after B D*, avrowv; by Tisch. 1, avrov.—But éavrov is found in A C D*** E
K LX, almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained,
with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7,and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others.
—The preference over the Recepta d7ép dyaptiay (supported by C*¥** D** E
K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al. ; defended by Bleek,
and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading wepi
duaptiav, already commended to attention by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm.
Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Heb-
rderbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* 8, 17,
31, 47, 73, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because vepi might easily,
on account of the zepi placed twice before, be altered into uzép, in conformity
With Urép auaptiav, ver. 1.—Ver. 4. adda xatotpevoc] So rightly already the
Editt. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei,
Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the
preponderating authority of A B C* D E K x, 23, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys.
Damasc. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: aAAa 6 kadotpe-
voc, is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophy-
lact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatic
ti¢ is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to
the significant oty éavr@.—Instead of the Recepta xabdwep (C** D** E K L
x*** Theodoret), anproved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de
Wette, Bloomfield, a/., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: xa¥oc¢; Tisch.,
with Alford, after A B D* %* Damasc.: cad9oGorep. The last, in favor of
which Delitzsch also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested,
and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious com-
binations.—The article 6 before 'Aapv in the Recepta was already with justice
deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz,
Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty author-
ity of A BC D E K LX, many min. and Fathers.—Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei,
Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: troig vraxobovory avr@ mactv. But
preponderating witnesses (A B C D E x, 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg.
Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order :
CHAP. y. 1-5. 501
maotv toig traxobovow ary. Already recommended by Griesbach.
Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch.
The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring
out the more noticeably the paronomasia Of toig vraxotevecy with the foregoing
tov braxofv.—Ver. 12. xai ob orepeag tpogi¢] So Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford,
al. ; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, »* Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice)
Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only ov otepeag tpody¢. But «ai is protected
by A B* D E K L &*** the majority of the min., many versions, and several
Fathers.
Vv. 1-10. [On Vv. 1-10, see Note LV., pages 519-522. ] Emphasizing
of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ
likewise is not wanting. [LV a. ]
Vv. 1-3. [LV b.] The first qualification: the capacity, as man, who him-
self is subject to human weakness, to deal leniently with erring humanity.
To what extent and under what modification this characteristic of the
earthly high priest is applicable also to Christ, is not discussed by the
author in our passage. This might appear remarkable, since with respect
to the second necessary qualification of the earthly high priest, further
added ver. 4, the parallel relation in the case of Christ is expounded in
detail from ver.5 onwards. But yet there was no need of an express
application to Christ, of that which was observed vv. 1-3. What the
author had had to say with regard to this was already clear to the readers
from the earlier disquisitions of the epistle itself. The element of the
homogeneity of Christ with the Jewish high priest, namely, that He, like
the Jewish high priest, can have sympathy with sinful man, since He had
become in_all points like unto men His brethren, had been fully traced
out in the second chapter, and attention is called anew to it in iv. 15 by
the duvdyevov cvprabjoat taig aobeveiare yuov and memeipacpévoy cata wdvta
xa? duodrnra. The element of the dissimilarity, on the other hand,
namely, that while the Jewish high priest had to offer for his own sins,
Christ was without sin, is first brought prominently forward in iv. 15 by
means of ywpic dyuaprias, and, besides this, followed already from the
exalted position the author had, in the opening chapters of the epistle,
assigned to Christ as the Son of God.—That, in reality, also the paragraph
vv. 7-10, no less than vv. 5, 6, is subordinate to the second main consider-
ation, expressed ver. 4, has been denied, it is true, by Beza, Schlichting,
Hammond, Limborch, Storr, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others. They
are of opinion that from ver. 5 onwards an application of all the state-
ments, vv. 1-4, to Christ ensues; that this, however, takes place in inverse
order, so that vv. 5, 6 refer back to ver. 4, vv. 7, 8 to ver. 2, and finally, vv.
9,10 to ver.1. The untenable character of such opinion is self-evident.
For—(1) vv. 7, 8 cannot have the design of applying to Christ that which was
observed ver. 2, because only the parenthetic clause of ver. 7 (defoes ...
evAaBeiac) adapts itself to any extent to the contents of ver. 2, and this
parenthetic clause stands in logical subordination to ver. 8 as the main
point of the argument, consequently just ver. 8 and ver. 2 must present a
502 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
similarity of contents, which is not the case. (2) That vv.9, 10 should be
referred back to ver. 1 cannot be accepted as correct, because ver. 1 forms
in itself no independent and complete statement, but stands in closest
concatenation with ver. 2,80 that only with this verse comes in what is
for ver. 1 the all-essential point of nearer definition—From the foregoing
it results that the harmonizing view of Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p.
444, 447) is unwarranted. According to this view, vv. 7, 8 are indeed,
“in the first place,” or “ formally,” a link in the demonstration that Christ
did not become high priest by an act of arbitrary self-glorification, but as
regards the ‘ contents” or “tenor” form, “ at the same time also an indi-
cation corresponding to vv. 1-3, and pointing out that Christ upon His
path of suffering has passed through experiences which were adapted not
only to make Him acquainted with the human dodéveca, but also to prove
in Him the capacity for the perpiomdeca.”—With Tholuck, for the rest, to
take vv. 1-3 still in relation to the preceding chapter, as an antithesis to
ver. 15, and to begin a new section with ver. 4, is not permissible. Fora
comparison of the main contents of vv. 1-3 with the main contents of iv.
15, points to the fact that the author designs to bring out a relation of
resemblance and affinity. We cannot possibly, therefore, attach, with
Tholuck, to the particle yap, v.1, the sense: “the distinction namely
arises, that.” The consideration, moreover, presents itself, that ver. 4 can
only appear in relation to vv. 1-8, alike as regards tenor of contents as
with regard to its lax grammatical nexus, as a further co-ordinate link in
an enumeration, before begun, of the qualifications essential to the char-
acter of every earthly high priest, consequently is not appropriate to the
introduction of a section entirely separated from that which precedes.
Vv. 1, 2. Justification of the dtvacOa: cuprabyoa raic¢ acbeveiatc fudy, iv.
15, as a necessary qualification in the case of Christ, since it is an indis-
pensable requirement even in every earthly high priest. ydép does not
glance back to iv. 16, as is maintained by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p.
395) and Delitzsch. For v. 1-3 can in point of contents be taken neither
as enforcement nor as elucidation of the admonition, iv. 16. The suppo-
sition of Hofmann and Delitzsch, however, that ydp logically controls the
whole section, v. 1-10, is arbitrary, inasmuch as ver. 4 ff. is logically and
grammatically bounded off from vv. 1-3, and the assertion that the aim
in the section, v. 1-10, is to enforce the exhortation, iv. 16, by a reminder
“of the nature of the high-priesthood of Jesus, how on the one hand it
bears resemblance to that of Aaron, and on the other hand to the priest-
hood of Melchisedec” (Hofmann), or of the “blending of Aaronitic
humanity (tenderness) with the Melchisedecian dignity in the person of
Jesus” (Delitzsch), is entirely erroneous; because, vv. 5-10, Aaron and
Melchisedec are not yet at all distinguished from each other as the lower
and the higher; but, on the contrary, this relation—in which the one
stands to the other—is for the present left wholly in abeyance, and all
that is insisted on is the fact that Christ, even as Aaron, was called by God
to the high-priesthood, and that a high-priesthood after the manner of
Melchisedec.—7a¢] refers, as is evident from é& dav6péruv Aap Bardpevos, and
CHAP. Vv. 2. 503
from ver. 3, to the earthly, 7. e. the Levitical, high priest. Wrongiy, because
going beyond the necessity of the case and the horizon of the epistle,
Grotius (comp. also Peirce): Non tantum legem hic respicit, sed et morem
ante legem, quum aut primo geniti familiarum aut a populis electi reges
inirent sacerdotium. But neither is é avpéruv AauPavduevog a part of the
subject (“every high priest taken from among men, in opposition to the
heavenly One;” Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Akersloot, Peirce, Wet-
stein, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Abresch. Kuinoel, Paulus, Stengel, comp.
also Tholuck),—for then the order wa@¢ ydp & avOpdrwv AauBavduervog
apxtepets Would have been chosen,—nor is it intended “ to lay stress upon
the phenomenon, in itself remarkable, that the high priest has to repre-
sent men, who are thus his equals, in their relation to God” (Hofmann,
(Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.)—for thereby a reference altogether
foreign to the connection is introduced, and the thought thus presupposed
is itself a singular one, because, so far from its being remarkable, it is, on
the contrary, natural and appropriate that like should be represented by
its like; it would be remarkable and unnatural if, for instance, a man
should represent angels,—but it contains a note of cause to trép arbpa-
mov xadiorarat, The twice occurring av3pdé7uyv stands full of emphasis,
and presents a correspondence between the two. By the é& avdpérwv
AauBavopuevog the brép avdpdrur xavdiorara is explained and justified.
For the very reason that the high priest is taken from among men, is he
also appointed or installed in his office as mediator with God.—xa9icraraz]
not middle, so that ra mpo¢ rév Oedv were accusative of object thereto (Calvin:
Curat pontifex vel ordinat, quae ad Deum pertinent; Kypke), but passive,
so that ra mpd¢ rév Oedv, ag il. 17, is to be taken as an accusative absolute.
—iva x.7.A.] epexegetic amplification of trép avOpdéruv xabiorara: Ta pode
tov Ge6v.—d pa [j21P, ,,.Jand @votae are properly distinguished as
gifts and sacrifices of every kind, and bloody sacrifices. The distinction,
however, is not always observed. Comp. e.g. LXX. Lev. ii. 1 ff., Num. v.
15 ff., Gen. iv. 3,5, where @voia is used of unbloody sacrifices; and Gen.
iv. 4, Lev. 1. 2, 3, 10, al., where dépa is used of bloody sacrifices. In our
passage the author has, without doubt, specially the bloody sacrifices in
mind; as, accordingly, in the course of the epistle he opposes the sacrifice
presented by Christ to the Levitical victims in particular.—trép duapriov]
4.¢. for the expiation thereof. It belongs not merely to @vciac (Grotius, Lim-
borch, Bengel, Dindorf) or to dapé re cui @voiag (Owen, Alford), but to the
whole clause of the design.
Ver. 2 is to be coupled with ver. 1 without the placing of a comma, in
such wise that the partigipial clause: perpiorateiv duvdéjsvoc, connects itself
immediately with the preceding clause of the design. The purpose of the
author is not to mention the bare fact that the high priest presents gifts
and sacrifices for the expiation of sins, but to dwell on the fact that he
presents them as one who is capable of perprorabeiv.’ petpiorabeiv duvduevog
1When for the rest Hofmann (Schriftbew. rarat... iva xpoopdpy could be chosen, and
II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.) supposes that for the ex- not xa@iorara... eis Td mpooddpey, since
pression of this relation of thought only «a@ie- _— the latter would “ only be a declaration of the
504 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
is therefore neither to be resolved into iva divyrat perp. (Heinrichs), nor is
it connected, by reason of a negligent participial construction, like Aapz-
Bavépevoc with apytepete (Stengel), nor is it added merely “appendicis
loco ” (Béhme).—yerpiorabeiv] stands not in opposition to ovzrafjoa, iv.
16, for the indication of a difference between the human high priest and
the divine one (Tholuck) ; it is not, however, identical in meaning with
ovuutabeiy (Oecumenius, Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Baumgarten, Semler, Storr,
Abresch, al.), but expresses a kindred notion. It is by virtue of its com-
position equivalent to pezpiwg or card 1d pétpov mdcyev, and is accord-
ingly used of the moderating of one’s passions and feelings, as opposed to
an unbridled surrender thereto, but also as opposed to that absolute avd6ea
which the Stoics demanded of the sage.!. Here the moderation or tender-
ness in the judgment formed upon the errors of one’s neighbor is intended,
as this is wont to arise from a sympathy with the unhappiness of the
same which is produced by sin. Thus: to be tenderly disposed or equitable.
—roi¢g ayvoovow kai rAavwpévorc] Dativus commodi: in consideration of the
agnorant and erring. Lenient designation of sinners. Perhaps, however,
designedly chosen (comp. also ix. 7: trép éavrov nai trav Tod Aaoi ayvonpmda-
twv) in order to bring into relief only one species of sins, the sins of pre-
cipitancy and without premeditation, inasmuch as according to the
Mosaic law the sacrificial expiation extended only to those who had
sinned dxovoiwe ; those, on the other hand, who had sinned deliberately
and with forethought were to be cut off from the congregation of Jehovah,
Num. xv. 22-31; Lev. iv. 18 ff—éret wat airdg mepixecrac dobévecay] Con-
firmation of the duvdyevoc: since he indeed himself is encircled (as with a
garment) by weakness (altogether beset with it), ao@éveca is to be under-
stood, as vil. 28, of the ethical weakness, thus also actual sin, compre-
hended under this expression ; comp. ver. 3.—The construction wepixecuai
tt, which in the N. T. occurs likewise Acts xxviii. 20, is genuine Greek.?
Ver. 3. Logical consequence from the second half of ver. 2. The words
form a merely incidental observation. They would be on that account
better regarded as an independent statement than, with de Wette,
Delitzsch, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 397), and Woerner,
thought of as still dependent on érei, ver. 2.—dv’ airfyv] sc. aotéverav. Quite
untruc is the assertion that the feminine is used Hebraistically instead of
the neuter, which even Bengel and others, with a mistaken appeal to
Matt. xxi. 42 (see Meyer ad loc.), still hold to be possible.—é¢eire:] Refer-
ence not, as is supposed by Bbhme and Hofmann, l.c., to the precept in
the law of Moses (Lev. iv. 3, ix. 7, xvi. 6, al.), but, as 1.17, to the inner
vocation” of the high priest, while the former
“can take to itself the participial clause pe-
tpioradery Suvapuevos, and thereby signify to
what end it serves in the exercise of his office,
that he has been in this way appointed there-
to,” this is grammatically altogether baseless.
Either turn of discourse was equally open to
the choice of the author. Only, in case the
latter was chosen, the nop ‘ative duvduevos
must naturally be changed into the accusa-
tive duvdpevoy.
1Comp. Diogen. Laert. v. 31: é¢y 8€ (se.
Aristotle), roy copay pn alvar wey azaby, pe-
tpioraéy $¢. Further instances in Wetstein
and Bleek.
2Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. xxiii. 14: Bp ras
dpyas weptxeiuevos; Kihner, Gramm. Il. p.
231; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229].
CHAP. VY. 3-5. 205d
necessity arising from the nature of the case. Non-natural the view of
Delitzsch and Moll, that both alike are intended.—rpoogépey| stands, as
Luke v. 14, Num. vii. 18, absolutely. With Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr.
p. 484), to look upon wep? dyapredy as definition of object to mpoogéperv
is inadmissible, inasmuch as only the singular form wep? duapriag is
employed to indicate the notion of “ sin-offering ” with the LXX., as also
in our epistle. Comp. Reiche, Commentarius Criticus ad loc. p. 35.
Ver. 4. [LV c.] The second necessary qualification: to be no usurper of
the office, but one called of God to the same.—xai] Progress, not from ver.
8, nor yet from ver. 1,in such wise that AauBdve, ver. 4, should form a
paronomasia with AapBavéuevoc, ver. 1 (Béhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford,
Maier), but from vv. 1-38.—And not to himself does any one take the honor
(here under consideration), ¢.e. not any one appropriates or arrogates to
himself the high-priestly dignity on his own authority.\—aAAd xadobuevoe
trd tov Geov) sc. AauBdver air#, he receives it. The AauBdve here to be
supplied has consequently—what is wrongly denied by Delitzsch, Hof-
mann, and Woerner—another notion than the Zaufdvec before placed.
This diversity of notion, nevertheless, comes out more strongly in Ger-
man, where two different verbs must be chosen to indicate it, than in
Greek, where one and the same verb combines both significations in itself.
—xafdotep nai ’Aapdv] sc. KAnOeic td Tov Oeod avriv eidAndev. These words
still belong to that which precedes. They are unnaturally referred by
Paulus to the sequel, as its protasis—Aaron and his descendants were,
according to Ex. xxviii. 1, xxix. 4 ff., Lev. viii. 1 ff., Num. iii. 10, xvi.—xviil.,
called by God Himself to the high-priesthood.2 Not until the time of
Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed
and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron.® That, how-
ever, as Chrysostom, Occumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others con-
jecture, the author intended by the words of ver. 4 at the same time to indicate
that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all,
since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way
of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise
have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto.
Vv. 5-10. Demonstration of the presence of the qualification, mentioned
ver. 4, in the case of Christ also.
Ver. 5. In like manner also Christ appointed not Himself to be High
Priest, but God the Father has appointed Him. The main emphasis in
the verse falls upon oby éavrdv . . . GAA’ 6 AadAgoas. With Hofmann for
the rest (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398, 2 Aufl.), to take the opening words of the
verse: oitwe xal 6 Xpiordés, separately as an independent clause, is not
41Comp. Xiphilinus, Galb. p. 187: vopi¢wy
OvUK eiAndévar Thy apxyy, adda Seddc0ar avry.
2Comp. Bammidbur rabba, sec. 18, fol. 234. 4
(in Schéttgen and Wetstein): Moses ad
Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron
frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit,
recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexis-
tis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est
magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicum-
que igitur contra Asronem surgit, contra
ipsum Deum surgit.
8Comp. Josephus, Antig. xx. 10. 5; Winer,
Bibl. Realworterb. I. p. 691, 2 Aufl.
506 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
warranted on any ground. ovy éavrév éddgacev yevnOgva apyiepéa| He did
not glorify (comp. John viii. 54) Himself (arbitrarily encircle Himself with
honor and glory) in order to be made a high priest.—iddéacev] is to be taken
quite generally, so that it first acquires its nearer definition and comple-
tion, under the form of the intention, by means of yevyjvac apyupéia. See
Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 318]. The referring of the verb, with de Wette, spe-
cially to the glorification, mentioned 11. 9, is forbidden by the parallel rela-
tion to ver. 4, in that oby éavrov éeddbfacev yevnbjvar apyepéa Manifestly
corresponds exactly to the foregoing statement, oy éavT@ tig AapBavec tiv
tyuqv. On account of this parallel relationship in itself, clearly indicated
as it is above by the otra «ai, is the view of Hofmann too (Schrijtbew. II.
1, p. 398 f. 2 Aufl.) entirely erroneous, namely, that ovy éavriv idéfacev
acquires its nearer defining of signification from vv. 7, 8, in that this rela-
tive clause denotes the same thing as that negative clause, and conse-
quently is to be brought into relief; not a path of self-glorification was it,
but a path of anguish and suffering, by which Christ attained to glory.
The violence done in this explanation is already shown, in the fact that
the relative clause, ver. 7 ff., is logically subordinate to the ovy éavrév
édéfacev, as a farther demonstration of the truth thereof; and, moreover, in
this relative clause the mention of the suffering of Christ forms not the
main element, but only a subsidiary member.—ad”’ 6 Aadthoag mpi¢ airov
x.t.A.] 8c. abitov édéEacev yevnfyvat apypta. The participle aorist AaAgoac is
anterior in point of time to the édégacev. Thus 6 Aadfoac: He who had
said, sc. before the creation of the world; comp. 1-38. Inasmuch as the
conncction with that which precedes, and the opposition ovy éavrdv ada’ 6
Aadjoac, place it beyond doubt that the author can here only design to
mention the person or authority by virtue of which Christ possesses His
high-priesthood, it results that in the words vlé¢ pov ef od «7.4. a proof
for the fact that Christ is High Priest is not to be sought. Against
Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Whitby, Peirce, Stengel,
Ebrard, Maier, and others. If it were here already a question with the
author of adducing a proof, he would have written without an article 47’
6 Bedg AadAgoas (“but God, in saying to Him,” etc.), instead of writing
with the article 442’ 6 AaAjoac. But why does not the author simply say
6 6e6¢? Why does he employ the periphrasis of the idea of God by means
of the words (already cited, 1.5) from Ps.1i.7? In order to render already
apparent, by this designation of God, how little ground can exist for sur-
prise that He who occupies the rank of the Son of God should, moreover,
also of God be appointed High Priest.
Ver. 6 now introduces the proof from Scripture that Christ, the Son of
God, has also been appointed High Priest.—xa@ae¢ kai év érépw Aéyer] as He
(sc. God) accordingly speaks in another place of Scripture (namely Ps. cx.
4; comp. Heb. i. 13).—xai] belongs not to év érépy, so that we should
have to assume that the author has already found in the citation, ver. 5,
a Scripture proof for the high-priesthood of Christ, and now in ver. 6 is
adding thereto a second Scripture proof for the same thing (Schlichting,
Ebrard, and others), but it belongs to the whole relative clause xafac Aéyer,
CHAP. Vv. 6, 7. 507
and is just the ordinary «ai after a particle of comparison; comp. ver. 4.
By means of this correct apprehension of the force of «ai the objection is
further set aside, that ver. 6, if a Scripture proof was first to be given in
this place, must have been joined on to that which precedes simply with
Aéywv, as ii. 6, iv. 7, or with paprupet ydp, as vii. 17 (Abresch), or with Aéyec
yap, or at least with xa6éc without xai (Ebrard).—év érépy] See on év rotry,
iv. 5.—iepetc] for the author equivalent to apycepet¢; comp. ver. 10, vi.
20. This equalization is likewise warranted. For Melchisedec (Gen. xiv.
18 ff), with whom the person addressed is compared, was at the same
time king and priest; but with the attributes of a king the attributes of
an ordinary priest are irreconcilable; the character sustained by a
superior or high priest alone comports therewith.—xara trav rag Med yioe-
déx}] not: in the time of succession (Schulz), but: after the order or manner
c7927-9y) of Melchisedec, in such wise that thou obtainest the same
position, the same character, as he possessed. Comp. vil. 15: xara ri
duobtytTa MeAytoedéx.—eic tov aisva] the author combines (contrary to the
sense of the original) with iepebs into a single idea, comp. vii. 3, 8.
Vv. 7-10. [LV d.] Further proof—accessory to the Scripture testimony,
ver. 6—that Christ did not on His own authority usurp to Himself the
high-priesthood, but was invested with the same by God. Far removed
from all self-exaltation, He displayed in His earthly life the most perfect
obedience towards God. In consequence thereof He became, after His
consummation and glorification, the Procurer ( Vermittler) of everlasting
blessedness for all believers, and was appointed by God High Priest after
the manner of Melchisedec.—We have to reject the explanation—mainly
called forth by the expression zpocevéyxag (compared with vv. 1 and 3)—
of Schlichting, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braum, Limborch, Akersloot, Cramer,
Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Bbhme, Klee, Bloomfield, and others, according
to which the design in vv. 7-10 is to show that Christ already discharged
the functions of the high-priestly office during His earthly life, in that He
offered prayers as sacrifices to God. For evidently the main gist of vv.
7-10 lies in the words of ver. 8: Euadev ag’ av ixadev tv trakoghy, to
which the statements vv. 9, 10 attach themselves only for the completion
of the figure traced out vv. 7, 8, and for leading back to ver. 6. But by
the fact that Christ manifested obedience, it cannot by any means be
shown that He was already executing the office of High Priest.—Quite
mistaken also is the opinion of Kurtz, that, vv. 7-10, a “third require-
ment of the Levitical high-priesthood, namely, obedience to the will of Him
that founded it” (?), is shown to be satisfied in Christ. For neither does
the form of the grammatical annexing of ver. 7 to that which precedes
point in any way to the conclusion that the author designed to string on
to the two necessary qualifications of the earthly high priest yet a third
one of equal value; nor, as regards the import, is anything else to be
found in vv. 7, 8 than a wider unfolding of the foregoing statement, ovx
éautoyv edofdoev yevrdpva apyzepéa, ver. 5.
Ver. 7. “Oc] [LV e.] refers back to the last main idea, thus to 6 Xpiorée,
ver. 5. The tempus finitum belonging thereto is éya6ev, ver. 8, in that vv.
508 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
7-10 form a single period, resolving itself into two co-ordinate statements
(d¢ éuabev . . . xai éyévero). To connect the é¢ first with éyévero, ver. 9 (so
Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Stengel, and others), is impossible, since ver.
8 cannot be taken as a parenthesis.—év raic yuépaie tig capKéc avtov] in the
days of His flesh, i. e. during the time of His earthly life.’ On the whole
expression, comp. li. 14; on ai quépaz, in the more gencral sense of 6 ypédvoe,
x. 32, xii. 10. False, because opposed to the current linguistic use of cap&
(Gal. 1. 20; 2 Cor. x. 3; Phil. i, 22, 24; 1 Pet. iv. 2, al.), and because é rai¢
nuépace THC CapKoc avtov Obtains its opposition in reAewheic, Ver. 9,—whereby,
in general, the period of Christ’s life of humiliation is contrasted with the
period of His life of exaltation,—Schlichting: what is specially meant is
“tempus infirmitatis Christi, et praesertim illud, quo infirmitas ejus max-
ime apparuit ... dies illi, quibus Christus est passus.” The note of
time: év raig juépaig tig capKdg avrov, however, is to be construed with the
main verb éuafev, not with the participles mpocevéyxag xai eicaxovobeic, Which
latter form a simply parenthetic clause.—As the occasion of this paren-
thetic clause deyoetg . . . evAaBelacs,—in connection with which we have
neither, with Thceophylact, Peirce, B6bhme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping,
Maier, Kurtz, and others, to derive the coloring of the linguistic expres-
sion from the author’s having respect to certain utterances of the Psalms
(as Ps. xxii. 25 [24], ibid. ver. 3 [2], cxvi.1 ff.), nor with Braun, Akersloot,
Bohme, al., to suppose a reference to the loud praying of the Jewish high
priest on the great day of atonement; neither is there an underlying
comparison, as Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 399 f. 2 Aufl.) strangely sup-
poses, of the supplication of Jesus, which He before (!) the learning of
obedience offered for Himself as a sacrifice on account of weakness (!),
with the sin-offering which, according to ver. 3, the Levitical high priest
had on this day to present for himself before he could yet offer on behalf
of the people,—the author has present to his mind, according to the pre-
vailing and, beyond doubt, correct view, the prayer of Christ in Gethsem-
ane, as this was made known to him by oral or written tradition. [LV /]
Comp. Matt. xxvi. 36 ff; Mark xiv. 32 ff; Luke xxii. 39 ff. It is true we
do not read in our Gospels that Christ at that time prayed to God pera
daxpiwv, But, considering the great emotion of mind on the part of the
Saviour, which is also described in the account given by our evangelists,?
that fact has nothing improbable about it; comp. also Luke xix. 41; John
xi. 35. On account of the addition werd kpavyg¢ toxvpas, others
will have us understand the loud crying of Christ upon the cross (Matt. xxvii.
46; Mark xv. 34), either,® besides the prayer in Gethsemane, or,‘ exclusively,
or even,’ the last cry, with which He departed (Matt. xxvil. 50; Mark xv. 37;
’Theodorect: ‘Hyépas 8 capxds dv ris
Ovyrdrynros éby xatpoy, TouTdoriw Hnvixa Oyyrov
elxe rd owpa.
2Comp. in particular, Matt. xxvi. 37: npfaro
AuvretoGar cai adnuovery; Mark xiv. 33: npfaro
éxOapPeioOa cai abypovery; Luke xxii. 44;
Kai yevopevos év aywria extevéorepoy mpoo~
nvxeto" ¢ydvero 82 0 idpws avrov woe OpduBos
aipatos xaraBaivoytes éwi Thy yHy.
3As Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator,
Owen, Limborch, Schulz, Stein, Stuart, De-
litzsch.
4 As Cajetan, Estius,Calov, Hammond, Kurts.
bAs Klee,
CHAP. V. 7. 509
Luke xxiii. 46). The supposition of such references we cannot, with de
Wette! characterize as “entirely unsuitable.” For de Wette’s objection,
that the author “manifestly regarded the prayer as the preparation and
condition of the éua6e,” that it must “ thus precede the suffering,” does not
apply, since pocevéyxac igs not to be resolved into “after,” but into “in
that,” or “inasmuch as.” Not as “ preparation and condition of the éuafe ”’
is the prayer looked upon by the author, but rather is the historic fact of
the fervent prayer of Christ mentioned by him as an evidence that Christ
in reality submitted Himself to God, even in the severest sufferings. For
that which Hofmann (I. c. p. 67) objects hereto, that the author, if he had
meant this, would have written: pafley ag’ ov éxavdev tiv irakony deqoec Te
kai ixernpiag mpoohveyxer, is devoid of sense; because, by means of such a
transposition, that which is merely a secondary statement would be made
the main statement. Yet the supposing of such references is not neces-
sary, since also the plural defect te xat ixernpiacs, to which appeal has been
made, is sufficiently explained by the repetitions of the prayer in the gar-
den of Gethsemane.—To ixerypia, which conjoined with déyo¢ further
occurs LXX. Job xl. 22 [27], as also with the classic writers, éAaia or pa;3do¢
(not «Addoc) is originally to be supplemented, inasmuch as it denotes the
olive branch which the supplicant pleading for protection bore in his
hand. Later it acquired like signification with lkereia or ixecia. It implies
thus the prostrate or urgent entreaty of one seeking refuge. As an inten-
sifying of déyoe it is rightly placed after this—pé¢ rov duvauerov case
aitov éx Vavdtov] is most naturally referred to mpocevéyxac (so Calvin,
Abresch, al.). To the connecting with dejoe te xai ixernpiacg? we are forced
neither by the position before pera xpavyj¢ ioyvpac, nor by the fact of the
combination of zpoogépew with the dative being: chosen elsewhere in the
epistle (ix. 14, xi. 4), as it is also the more usual one with classical writers,
since likewise the conjoining with zpéc is nothing out of the way. Comp.
e.g. Polyb. iv.51.2: mpooeveyxdpevor po tov ’Axatdy (equivalent to r@ ’ A yar)
THY xapw tabtnv. In the characteristic of God as the One who was able to
deliver Christ from death, there lies, at the same time, the indication of
that which Christ implored of God. odfecv éx Savdrov, however, may
denote one of two things, either: to save from death, in such wise that it
needs not to be undergone, thus to preserve from death, or: to save out of
the death to which one is exposed, so that one does not remain the prey
of death, but is restored to life. In favor of the former interpretation
seems to plead the fact that Christ, according to the account in the Gos-
pels, in reality prayed that He might be spared the suffering of death.
Nevertheless what decides against this, and in favor of the second, is the
consideration, in the first place, that Christ in reality still suffered death,
and then the addition in our verse that the prayer of Christ was
answered. And then, finally, we have to take into account the fact that,
according to our Gospels also, Christ does not pray absolutely to be pre-
1Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. #Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Al-
70 f. 2 Aufl. ford, Maier, Moll.
510 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
served from death, but makes this His wish dependent upon the will of
the Father, thus entirely subordinates Himself to the Father.—xai eicaxovs-
Veig avd tHe evaAaBeiac] and being heard by reason of His piety, or fear of God.
[LV g.] In this sense is evAd Bea (cf. xii. 28) rightly taken by Chrysostom,
’ Photius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, the Vulgate (pro sua reverentia), Vigil.
Taps., Primasius, Lyra, Luther, Castellio, Camerarius, Estius, Casaubon,
Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Rambach, Heinrichs, Schulz, Bleek, Bisping,
Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 327), Alford, Reuss, Maier,
Moll, Kurtz, and others.! az6, as an indication of the occasioning cause, is
also of very frequent occurrence elsewhere; cf. Matt. xxviii. 4; Luke xix.
3, xxiv. 41; John xxi. 6; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11; Kiihner, Gram. IT,
p. 270. Christ, however, was heard in His prayer, inasmuch as He was
raised out of death, exalted to the right hand of God, and made partaker
of the divine glory. To be rejected is the explanation of the word pre-
ferred by Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Scaliger, Schlichting, Grotius,
Owen, Hammond, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Whitby, Carpzov,
Abresch, B6hme, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Stuart, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield,
Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 665),
Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 69, 2 Aufl.), and many others, according to
which a pregnancy of meaning is assumed for the same, and evAdBea is
interpreted in the sense of “ metus :” “ heard (and delivered) from the fear.”
There is then found expressed in it either the thought (and this is the com-
mon acceptation) that Christ was delivered from His agony of soul by the
strengthening on the part of the angel, Luke xxii. 43, or evAdea is under-
stood by metonymy of the object of the fear, 7. e. death, from which Christ
was delivered by the resurrection. So, among others, Calvin: “ exaudi-
tum fuisse Christum ex eo, quod timebat, ne scilicet malis obrutus suc-
cumberet, vel morte absorberetur ;” and Schlichting: “a metu i.e. ab eo,
quod metuebat, nimirum morte.” But against the first modification of
this view pleads the fact that the being heard must refer to the same thing as
that for which Christ had prayed, but from that which precedes it is evi-
dent that Christ had besought God not for deliverance from the agony of
soul, but for deliverance from death. Against both modifications pleads
the fact that the strong signification of fear is never expressed by eb2deca.
Only the mild signification of témidity or awe (whether reverential awe of
the Godhead, 7. e. picty, or shyness of earthly things), as well as the notion
arising from that of timidity, namely heedfulness, discretion, circumspect-
ness in arranging that which is adapted to the bringing about of a definite
result, lies in the word; as accordingly also the Greeks themselves, par-
ticularly the Stoics, expressly distinguished from each other #6f0¢ and
evAdpeca, and pronounced ¢680¢ to be worthy of reprobation; evAdBea, on
1In this explanation Linden on Heb. v.7-9 not natural, inasmuch as éuaGev already has
(Stud. u. HKrit. 1860, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) likewise nearer definition before and after it, and
concurs, only he would have awd ris evAa- _ the linguistic symmetry with the foregoing
Beias separated by a comma from that which _ participial clause is destroyed by the eica-
precedes, and taken in conjunction with that x«xovo@e‘s standing alone.
which follows. This construction, however, is
CHAP. Vv. 8. 511
the other hand, to be a duty. See the instances in Bleek. Nordo the
passages anew adduced by Grimm, /. c., Wisd. xvii. 8,2 Macc. vili. 16, Ec-
clus. xli. 3, in which the word is supposed to be used in the sense of
fear, and the demonstrative force of which is acknowledged by Delitzsch
(p. 190, and Observv. and Correctt.), Riehm (i. c.), and Moll, prove what
they are thought to prove. Forin the first-mentioned passage we have to
understand by xareyéAaorog evAdBera the perverted, idolatrous, and there-
fore ridiculous religious awe of the Egyptian magicians; the second pass-
age is only a dissuasive against standing in any awe of the outward supcr-
iority in force of the hostile army; and the third, finally, against fecling
any awe of death, since this is the common lot of all men. The notion
of mere awe, however, is, on account of the preceding strong expressions,
KETG Kpavyi¢ layupas Kai daxpvwv, unsuited to our passage.’ In addition to
this, the assumed constructio praegnans in connection with a verb like
cicaxovad#vasc is, in any case, open to doubt, and is not yet at all justi-
fied by the alleged parallels which have been adduced.2*—The addition kai
elaaxovadeic ard TH evAaBeiac contains, for the rest, logically regarded, merely
a parenthetic remark, called forth only by the contents of the foregoing
participial clause.
Ver. 8. Kaizep ov vidc] belongs together. With Heinrichs and others,
to construe «airep with éuafev, and in this way to enclose ver. 8 within a
parenthesis, is forbidden by the grammar, since xaizep is never combined
with a tempus finitum. «aizep dv vids, however, is to be connected neither,
by virtue of an hyperbaton, with defoew . . . mpocevéyxacs, Which Photius
(in Oecumenius) and Clarius consider permissible, but which is already
shown to be impossible by means of the addition xai cicaxovobeig ard ric
evaAaseiac, nor yet with kai eicaxovodeic ard tie evAapeiac itself (Chrysostom,
Theophylact). For against the latter xairep is decisive, according to which
the property of Sonship is insisted on as something in consequence of
which the main statement might appear strange; it is not, however,
strange, but, on the contrary, congruent with nature, if any one is heard
by the Father on account of his sonship. xaizep dv vide belongs, therefore,
to éuabev ag’ dv Exabev tiv draxofy, and serves to bring the same into relief
by way of contrast. Notwithstanding the fact that Christ was a Son, He
lAccording to Tholuck, the author has will. SoTholuck. But neither does evAdBea
before his mind the first petition of the Re-
deemer in prayer at Gethsemane, the petition
with « dvvardy, in which is expressed a con-
dition of “lingering hesitancy,” of “ detrec-
tatio” (1), which also according to him evAa-
Bea exactly indicates. From this hesitancy,
which with the Redeemer continued just so
long as He was absorbed in an abstract man-
ner in the greatness of the impending suffer-
ing, He was delivered. Thus, it is true, the
first prayer uttered in this condition remained
unfulfilled, but it was certainly annulled in
the second, wherein His own will had be-
come perfectly harmonized with the divine
ever signify “lingering hesitancy ” (not even
in Plutarch, Fab. Mar. c.1, where it denotes
nothing more than caution or wariness).
*Namely Ps. xxii. 22 [21] (0°19 2p
“Vay, which, however, the LXX. did not
understand, and reproduced without preg-
nancy); LXX. Job xxxv. 12 (exec xexpafovrat
Kai ov uh evoaxovon [xai] awd UBpews rovnpwy,
where, however, avo «.r.A., a8 in the Hebrew,
refers back to the first verb); Ps. cxviil. 6 («ac
ewjxovod pou eis wAarvcpoy xvpros); Heb. x.
22 (€pp*yrurudvoe Tas xapdias awd ovvesnoees
sovnpas).
612 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
learned from suffering (learned, in that He suffered) obedience, resigna-
tion to the will of the Father. Comp. Phil. ii. 6-8.—The article before
traxoyy marks the definite virtue of obedience. The article here cannot
denote, as Hofmann will maintain (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 72,2 Aufl.), the
obedience “ already present,” or the obedience “in which Jesus stood.”
For, on the one hand, there must then have been previous mention of
the obedience of Jesus, which is not the case; and then, on the other
hand, we cannot any longer predicate the learning of a virtue of one in
whom this virtue is already present. But altogether, that which Hofmann
brings out as the import of ver. 8 is a wonderful Quid pro quo. Instead
of recognizing, to wit, in vv. 7, 8 the sharply and clearly defined leading
statement: é¢ év raic juépats THe GapKd¢ avTov .. . &uabev . . . tH braxof?, in
itself, and in its simply confirmatory relation to ovy éavrév édétacev, ver. 5,
Hofmann will have the stress to be laid upon the subsidiary defining note
ag’ ov éxafev, and then, moreover, make the whole weight of the words:
kairep Ov vidc, fall upon that same ag¢’ ov éxabev! In this way the thought
expressed in ver. 8 is, forsooth: that Jesus afterwards (!) suffered that (')
for the averting of which He had made entreaty. The special point is
not that He learnt anything as Son, nor that He learnt obedience (?!).
He did not learn to obey, but the obedience in which He stood, He now
(!) or in a new manner (!) so learnt, as it should there (!) be exercised,
where (!) it was a question (!) of suffering. And this is to be taken as the
meaning, in spite of the fact—apart from all other arbitrary assumptions
—that we have ag’ ov érafev written, and not even év ol¢ éxafev, which at
least must be expected as a support for such an exposition as that ?—
éuatev] The disposition of obedience Christ possessed even before the
suffering. But this needed, in order to become vouched for, to be tested
in action. And this continued development of the disposition of obedi-
ence into the act of obedience is nothing else than a practical learning of
the virtue of obedience.—é76 with pavOdver, as Matt. xxiv. 32, xi. 29,
denoting the starting-point.—ag¢’ ov érafev] well-known attraction in place
of az’ ixeivwy & &rabev.—The combination éuabev . . . éxabev is also of fre-
quent occurrence with the classic writers and with Philo.!
Ver. 9. Kai redcwHeic] and being brought to consummation, t.e. being
crowned with glory by His exaltation to heaven (comp. il. 9, 10), sc. in
consequence of the obedience to God proved by His sufferings and death.
—iyévero] He became. Author and Mediator of everlasting blessedness for
His believers, Christ certainly was even during His earthly life. But in
an eminent manner, because formally and manifestly accredited by God
as such, He became so first by His resurrection and exaltation.—aou:}
perhaps added in order to indicate the equal claim of the believing Gen-
tiles also, to the salvation in Christ.—roi¢ traxotovewy avrg] The expression
1Comp. Herod. i. 207: ra 8¢€ poe wabjara, worep Avmyy, ov paOyna; Philo, de speciall,
«ovra, axadptora, padypara ydyoves; Soph. legg. 6 (with Mangey, II. p. 340): ty dx rov
Trach, 142 f.: as 8 éyew OuvpopOopa, urjr’ éxud- wabeiv udOy. Many other instances in Wet-
Bors waPovca; Xenoph. Cyrop.iii.1.17: wéOnua stein.
apa Ty Wuyis ov Adyers elvar Thy cwppooiwny,
CHAP. V. 9-11. 513
attaches itself in point of form to rv braxofy, ver. 8, with which it forms
& paronomasia; in point of subject-matter it is not different from roi¢
ristebovocy (iv. 3). Comp. Rom. x. 16; 2 Thess. i. 8, al—The mode of
expression: alreév reve elvat autnpliac (comp. Tov apxnyov THC owrnpias
avréy, ii. 10), [LV A.] is also often met with in Philo, Josephus, and the
classical writers! The adjective aiévco¢g with ourypia.in the N. T. only
here. Comp., however, LXX. Isa. xlv. 17.
Ver. 10 [LV i.] is not to be separated from ver. 9 by a colon, and to be
referred back to all that precedes, from ver. 7 onwards (BOhme). On the
contrary, the statement connects itself closely with ver. 9, in that it con-
tains an elucidation of the airwo¢g owrnpiag aiwviov there found. Christ be-
came for all believers author of everlasting blessedness, in that He was
saluted (or named) of God as High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec.
That is to say: In order to become the mediate, cause of salvation for
others, Christ must be the possessor of high-priestly dignity; but this was
ascribed to Him on the part of God in the utterance from the psalm,
already cited in ver.6. Bengel: tpoonyopia, appellatio sacerdotis, non
solum secuta est consummationem Jesu, sed antecessit etiam passionem,
tempore Psalmi cx. 4.—To appoint or constitute (Casaubon: constitutus ;
Schulz: proclaimed, publicly declared or appointed ; Stengel: declared,
appointed; Bloomfield: being proclaimed and constituted) tpocayopet-
ecv, & amaf Aeysuevov in the N. T., never means; but only to address,
salute, name.
Ver. 11-vi. 20. [On Vv. 11-14, see Note LVI., pages 522, 523.] The author
is on the point of turning to the nearer presentation of the dignity of
High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec, which pertains to Christ,
and thus of His superiority over the Levitical high priests. But before he
passes over to this, he complains in a digression of the low stage of Chris-
tian knowledge at which the readers are yet standing, whereas they ought
long ago themselves to have been teachers of Christianity; exhorts them
to strive after manhood and maturity in Christianity, and with warning
admonition points out that those who have already had experience of the
rich blessing of Christianity, and nevertheless apostatize from the same,
let slip beyond the possibility of recall the Christian salvation ; then, how-
ever, expresses his confidence that such a state of things will not be the case
with the readers, who have distinguished themselves, and still do distin-
guish themselves, by works of Christian love, and indicates that which he
desires of them,—namely, endurance to the end,—while at the same time
reminding them of the inviolability of the divine promise and the objec-
tive certainty of the Christian hope.
Ver. 11. Mep? ot] [LVI a] sc. Xpiorod apyeepiwe nara tiv rdéwv MeAyiocdér.
To this total-conception, as is also recognized by Riehm (Lehrbegr. des
Hebrierbr. p. 780), is wept ob to be referred back. We have to supplement
not merely Xporov (Occumenius, Primasius, Justinian), because that
would be a far too general defining of the object, inasmuch as confessedly
1 Instances in Wetstein, Kypke, and Bleek.
33
614 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the discourse is not first about Christ in the sequel, but everywhere
throughout the epistle. But neither is MeAyiocdéx to be supplied to ov.!
For even though—a fact to which Bleek appeals—the author, after hav-
ing concluded the digression (vii. 1 f.), begins by characterizing this same
Melchisedec, yet this description is subordinated to a higher aim, that of
setting forth the high-priestly dignity of Christ; as surely also the refer-
ence of vii. 1 ff. to the close of the digression (vi. 20) clearly shows, since
the former is represented by ydép as only the development now begun of
the main consideration: 'Iycov¢g ward rv régiv MeAyioedix apyte-
peo yevdpevog eic rdv aidva, taken up anew, vi. 20. To take ov asa
neuter,? and to refer it to the high-priesthood of Christ after Melchisedec’s
manner,—according to which ot would thus have to be resolved into epi
Tov mpocayopevttjvar avrov id Tov Oeot apyupéa xara rHv Trdg MeAyioedéx,—
is possible indeed, but not so natural as when it is taken as a masculine,
since the discourse in that which precedes was about the definite person
of Christ.—zodi¢ guiv 6 Adyoc] sc. éoriv. [LVI b.] Wrongly, because other-
wise Gv ei7 must have been added, and because a detailed development
of the subject really follows afterwards; Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, and
others: concerning which we should have much to speak.—xai] and
indeed.—ityew] belongs to dvoepufvevroe. Heinrichs erroneously joins it
with juiv 6 Adyoc—Even on account of the connectedness of the Aéyew
with dvcepufvevtoc, but also on account of the preceding #2», followed by
no viv, it is inadmissible,’ to suppose the difficulty of the exposition or
rendering intelligible of the Aéyo¢ to exist on the part of the readers, and
thus to interpret dvoepufvevrog in the sense of dvovéyroc, 2 Pet. iii. 16. On
’ the contrary, as the author has abundant material for discoursing on the
subject announced, so is it also difficult for the author to render himself
intelligible thereon to the readers. The ground of this difficulty which
obtains for him is introduced by the clause with éwei, which on that
account is to be referred only to dvoepurvevrog Aéyerv, not at the same time
(Hofmann) to rodic fuiv 6 Adyoe. For the rest, Storr and Bleek have
already rightly remarked, that in the connecting of Aéyor with the two
predicates vroAbe and ducepufvevroc a sort of zeugma is contained, inasmuch
as Adyoc is to be taken in relation to the first predicate actively,‘ in relation
to the second passively. On the high-priesthood of Christ after the man-
ner of Melchisedec, the author has much ¢o speak ; and truly it is difficult
for him to make plain to his readers the contents or subject of his discourse.
—yeyévare] [LVI c.] characterizes the spiritual sluggishness or dullness of
the readers not as something which was originally inherent in them, but
only as something which afterwards manifested itself in connection with
1 Peshito, Calvin [Piscator hesitates between 8 With Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Peirce, Chr.
this and the following application], Owen, Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and others.
Schdttgen, Peirce, Semler, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 4This is erroneously denied by Delitzsch
Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, al. and Alford. Even the two instances from
2With Grotius, Cramer, Storr, Abresch, Dionys. Halicarn., on which Delitzsch relies,
Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bisp- plead against him.
ing, Delitzsch, Kurtz, and others.
CHAP. Vv. 12. 515
them.'—wufpéc} in the N. T. only here and vi. 12.—rai¢ dxoaic] with regard
to the hearing, i. e. the spiritual faculty of comprehension.* The plural is
used, inasmuch as the discourse is of a multitude of persons. On the
dalive, instead of which the accusative might have been placed, comp.
Winer, p. 202 [E. T. 215].
Ver. 12. Justitication of the reproach: vwlpol yeyévare tai¢ axoaic, ver. 11.
—kai yap dgeidovreg elvas didéoxaroe] for when ye ought to have been teachers.
«ai gives intensity to the dgeiAovrec elvar diddoxadot. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10,
al. Arbitrarily Bloomfield (ed. 8), according to whom an intermediate
link is to be supplied in connection with «ai yép: “ [And such ye are,]
for though ye ought, according to the time, to be teachers,” ete.—dia rav
xpsvov] by reason of the space of time, i.e. because already so considerable
a space of time has passed since ye became Christians. In like manner
is da tov ypdvuv often employed by classical writers.°—As regards that
which follows, there is a controversy as to whether we have to accentuate
riva or tevd. [LVI d.] The word is taken as an interrogative particle by
the Peshito and Vulgate, Augustine, Tract. 98 in Joh.; Schlichting,
Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Abresch, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette,
Tischendorf, Stengel, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr.
des Hebraerbr. p. 780; Reuss, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, and
the majority. As an indefinite pronoun, on the other hand, it is taken by
Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Peirce, Cramer, Heinrichs, Bohme, Lach-
mann, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, Alford, Woerner, and others. The
latter alone is grammatically possible. For in the opposite case, since the
subject is a varying one in the tempus finitum (ypelav éxere) and the injini-
tive (dcddoxecv), either the infinitive passive must be written, rod d:ddoxe-
o8ac tuac, or to the infinitive active a special accusative of the subject
(perhaps éué) must be further added. Nor is 1 Thess. iv. 9 decisive in
' opposition hereto, since there the reading of Lachmann: ov ypeiav
Exomev ypdge vuiv, is the only correct one. See, besides, the remarks in
my Commentary on the Thessalonians, ad loc. As, moreover, in a gram-
matical respect, so also in a logical respect is the accentuation riva to be
rejected. For upon the adopting thereof the thought would arise, that
the readers anew required instruction upon the question: which articles
are to be reckoned among the crotycia tie apxie Tav Aoyiwy tov Geov, or else:
of what nature these are. But manifestly the author is only complaining—
as is plain also from the explicative clause: xat yeyévare «.7.A.—of the fact
that the readers, who ought long ago to have been qualified for instruct-
ing others, themselves still needed to be instructed in the oro:yeia. While,
for the rest, de Wette and Richm erroneously find in the indefinite revd
‘Chrysostom: 7d yap eiweivy wei veePpor
yeyovare raig axoais SnAovvros Fy, ote waAat
vyiatvoy Kai }oay icxvpoi, Th wpoOvmsia Cdovres,
Kai UOTEpoy avrovs ToUTO waleiy papTupel.
2Comp. Philo, Quis rer. divin. haeres. p. 483
(with Mangey, I. p. 474): év ayuxots avSpidocy,
ols dra pwdy éoriv, axoai 52 ov évecow.
8Comp. e.g. Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 37: ot
wavy wap avrTois yeynpaxdres . . . mivovar
Kavecoy, Otay e€avros ouverdmo.y, Ste Mpds Ta
épya Ta tH warpid: AvaotteAourra axpnoroi
cioey, VroAnpovaons Hoy Ts AVTOIS Kat THS yruuns
Sa roy xpdvor. :
516 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
“too strong a signification,” Delitzsch is equally mistaken in characteriz-
ing it as “ unmeaning ” and “ flat.” With justice does Alford remark, in
opposition to the last-named: “So far from rid, some one, being, as
Delitzsch most absurdly says, ‘matt und nichtesagend,’ it carries with it
the fine keen edge of reproach ; q.d.to teach you what all know, and any
can teach.”’—tuac] preposed to the rivé, in order to bring into the more
marked relief the antithesis to elva: diddoxato..—The notion of rudimenta
already existing in rd orocyeia is made yet more definitely prominent
by the genitive rj¢ ap xe (Calvin: “ quo plus incutiat pudoris ”). Thus:
the very first primary grounds or elements.\.—rav doyiwy tov Yeov] of the utter-
ances of God. Comp. Acts vii. 38; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rom. ili. 2. What is
intended is the saving revelations of Christianity, which God has caused
to be proclaimed as His word. To think of the Old Testament prophe-
cies, and their interpretation and reference to the Christian relations,? is
inadmissible; since the expression ra Aéya tov Veov, in consideration of
its generality, always acquires ita nearer defining of meaning only from
the context, while here, that which was, ver. 12, mentioned as ra crocyeia
THE GpYRC Tav Aoyiwvy Tov Yeov, is immediately after (vi. 1) designated 6 ri
apxi¢ tov Xpiorov Adyoc.—yeyévare] reminds anew, even as the preceding
waadcv, of the earlier more gladdening spiritual condition of the readers.
—yddAaktog nai ob orepeag tpogic] On the figure, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 2: yd%a
tuacg érérica, ov Bpaua.2Q—By the milk, the author understands the elemen-
tary instruction in Christianity; by the solid food, the more profound dis-
closures with regard to the essence of Christianity, for the understanding
of which a Christian insight already more matured is called for. In con-
nection with the former, he thinks of the doctrinal topics enumerated vi.
1, 2 (not, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius,
Clarius, and others suppose, of the doctrine of the humanity of Christ in
contradistinection from that of His Godhead, which is foreign to the con-
text); in connection with the latter, mainly of the subject, just the treat-
ment of which will pre-eminently occupy him in the sequel,—the high-
priesthood of Christ after the manner of Melchisedec.—The statement of
ver. 12 has been urged by Mynster,* Ebrard, and others, in proof that the
Epistle to the Hebrews cannot have been addressed to the Palestinean
congregations, particularly not to the congregation at Jerusalem. The
tenor of the verse might, it is true, appear strange, considering that the
congregation at Jerusalem was the parent congregation of all the others,
and out of its midst had proceeded the most distinguished teachers of
Christianity. Nevertheless this last fact is not at all called in question by
1 Analogous is the use of the Latin prima
rudimenia, Justin. vii. 56; Liv. i. 3; prima
dementia, Horace, Serm. i. 1. 26; Quintil. i. 1.
23, 35; Ovid, Fast. iii. 179.
* Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Stengel,
and others; comp. also Hofmann and Woer-
ner ad loe.
3 Philo, de Agricult. p. 188 (with Mangey, I.
p. 301): "Ewei 82 vywios pév done yada rpody,
Tereions 82 Ta ex wWupwy wéupara, Kai Wuyne
yoraxrwders nev ay elev rpopai cata Thy wadicny
Atalay, Ta THS CyxuxAcoy povoerkyns spowardev-
para’ TéeAccat S¢ cai avdpaciwy cunpencis ai dca
dpoviigews Kai cwhpocvrns Kai ardoys apeTns
véonyycecs. Quod omnis proins liber, p. 889 A
(II. p. 470), al.
4 Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1829, H. 2, p. 338.
CHAP. vV. 13, 14. 517
the statement of the verse. For the author has present to his mind the
condition of the congregation as it was in his own time; he is addressing
—in favor of which also dia rév zpdvov pronounces—a second generation —
of Palestinean Christianity. The narrow-minded tendency, however,
which this second generation had assumed, instead of advancing in its
growth to the recognition of the freedom and universality of Christianity
as the most perfect religion, might well justify with regard to it the utter-
ance of a reproach such as we here meet with. Only thus much follows
from the words,—what is also confirmed by xili. 7,—that when the author
wrote, James the Lord’s brother had already been torn from the congre-
gation at Jerusalem by death, since he would otherwise certainly have
written in another tone.
Vv. 13, 14. Establishing of the yeyévare ypeiav tyovres ydAaxrog xai ov
orepeag tpogae, ver. 12. Sense: for it is universally characteristic of him who
(in # spiritual respect) has need of milk, that he is, because not of ripe age,
still inexperienced tn the Abyo¢ Stxavocbunc ; and this ts just your case. Solid
food, on the other hand, is proper only for the rédewr; rédeot, however, ye are
not yet. [LVI e.] In connection with this acceptation of the words, there
is no occasion for finding anything out of place in the y¢p in relation to
that which precedes, and either, with Storr, making it ‘co-ordinate with
the ydp, ver. 12, and referring it back like this to ver. 11,—which on ac-
count of the figure vv. 13, 14, retained from ver. 12, is already seen to be
inadmissible,—or for saying, with Bleek and Bisping, that the progress of
thought would come out more naturally.if the author had written: za¢
yap 6 dretpoc Adyouv dixatooivag petéxer yaAaxtog’ viriog ydp toriv.—d petéyur
ydAaxroc] he who (in a spiritual respect) parlakes of milk, t.e. only in this
possesses his nourishment, is not in a position to take in solid food..—
Gretpog Adyov Stxaooivyc] sc. eoriv, he is still inexperienced in the word of
righteousness. [LVI f.] Expositors have almost without exception been
guided by the presupposition (as also Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Kurtz
still are) that Adyo¢ dixacooivyc is only a varying form of expression for the
same idea as is expressed, vv. 12, 14, by orepea tpog7, or, vi. 1, by reAecérnc.
Adyog dixacooivnc has then either been taken as equivalent to Adyo¢g dixatoc
or réAeoc, and the higher, more perfect type of doctrine found indicated in
the expression.? Or d:xacootvn¢ has been more correctly regarded as geni-
tive of the object. In the latter case d:xasootvy is taken either, as Michaelis,
ad Peirc., with an appeal to the Hebrew "PTF, in the sense of ad7dea,? as
1 Benge]: Lacte etiam robusti vescuntur,
eed non lacte praecipue, nedum lacte solo.
{taque notantur hoc loco if, qui nil denique
nisi lac aut capiunt aut petunt.
280 Schlichting (“sermo justitiae videtur
positus pro sermone justo, h. e. perfecto ac
solido”), Grotius (“ Hic &xaroovrns dixit pro
vTeAacétnros ... et genitivus est pro adject-
ivo’), Abresch (“doctrina vel institutio justa,
h. e. perfecta, plena, omnia complectens, quae
ad perspicuam distinctamque pertineant doc-
trinae Christianae intelligentiam"), Schulz
(“that true [rightly so called) higher doc-
trine”), Kuinoel, Bisping, Kurtz, and many
others.
3 Delitzsch, too, with an illusion to the use
of PTX, Ww", DW", takes &xatoovvy as
a synonym of aA@ea; but will then have the
genitive dcatocvwns looked upon not as ex-
pressing the contents, butas a defining of the
quality of Aoyos, and will interpret Adyos of
the faculty of speech. Thus, then, Adyos
518 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the doctrine of the essence of the matter itself, in opposition to the typical
figures thereof; or Aéyo¢ d:xacootvn¢ is understood specially, as by Oecu-
menius, of the Adyo¢ mepi rij¢ YedryTog Tov xvpiov, or, as by Carpzov, of the:
“ doctrina de sacerdotio Jesu Christi Melchisedeciano, quae dicitur 6 2éyoc
dtxaoci:vy¢ propterea, quia Melchisedecus, vi nominis, Baaidetc dccacocivnc
vertitur, vii. 2, eaque appellatio ad Christum sacerdotem applicatur, cujus
mpérov fuit mAnpdoat macav dixatoctyvyy, Matt. ili. 15;” or the words are
made to refer, as by Primasius, Zeger, Bengel, de Wette, and others, to
intellectual and moral perfection in general, as also already Chrysostom, who
explains the expression by # dvw g:Aocogia (and after him Theophylact),
leaves us the choice of understanding the Bioc dxpog nat sxpiBwuévoc
(according to Matt. v. 20), or rav Xpiorév nai rov byndov rept avrov Adyov.
But the fundamental presupposition, out of which all these interpreta-
tions have sprung, is an erroneous one. For the emphasis falls not upon
Adyov dixatocbyync, but upon the &wecpoc, on that account preposed. Not
for a non-possession of the Adyo¢ dixacooinns, but only for a want of expe-
rience in the same, only for an insufficient, schoolboy’s knowledge of it,
does the author blame the readers. The Adyog dixacoctyne in itself, there-
fore, stands as indifferently related to the notion of the oreped rpoey or
reAsiétn¢ as to the notion of the orayeia, to which Ebrard reckons it. Only
by the more or less exhaustive imparting of its subject-matter does it be-
come the one or the other. For the word of righteousness is nothing
more than a periphrasis of Christianity or the gospel, inasmuch as just the
righteousness availing with God? is the central-point of its contents.
&ixcacoovyns is taken to mean: “the faculty
of speaking in accordance with righteous-
ness,” i.¢. the “discourse on spiritual things
which is guided in strict accord with the
norm of the true, and harmoniously com-
bines all the factors of the case, proportion-
ately regarded, without leaving one of them
out of sight;” and in ver. 13 is supposed to be
contained the following “most rigid connec-
tion of ideas:” “he who must still receive
milk is still ignorant of rightly-constituted,
i.e. right-teaching or orthodox, discourse;
for he isa child only beginning to lisp, and
not yet capable of speech.” This strange
view, based upon the incomprehensible
grounds, that “since vjmos (from vy and éros)
denotes one incapable of speech, an infant,
there is a presumption in favor of Adéyos in
drecpos Adyou &cacoovyvns having the signi-
fication of faculty of speech,—and this
signification is here the more probable in
regard to the aic@nrjpa occurring in the
antithetic parallel clause, inasmuch as 6 Adyos,
in the sense of language, is met with count-
less times in Philo along with the ata@yars or
the wrévre aig@yoes, of which the organs are
known as aic@nripia,’—bears its refutation
upon the face of it. It is not at all suitable
to the connection, as Riehm (Lekrdcgr. des
Hebrderbr. p. 734) and Alford have already
observed; since according to this there is no
question as to the faculty for speaking on
spiritual subjects, but only as to the faculty
for understanding the same.—aAs “ discourse”
will Hofmann also have Aéyos interpreted, in
that he fully subtilizes the notion lying in
Sixacogvvn, and finds indicated by the total
expression Adyos dtxatooveyns only “correct
discourse.” For, according to him, the words
ver. 13 are used in their most literal sense,
and allude to the fact that he who is still fed
with milk at the maternal breast is as yet no
judge of correct discourse!
10f the righteousness availing with God
(comp. also xi. 7), have Beza, Jac. Cappellus,
Peirce, Storr, Klee, Tholuack, Bleek, Stein,
Ebrard, Bloomfield, and others already
rightly interpreted &:cacoovvy.—In the above
exposition, Alford, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des
Hebrderbr. p. 733), and Woerner have con-
curred; save that, according to Riehm, by
virtue of an overrefined distinction, the
gospel is not called the word of righteous-
ness “because the righteousness availing
with God is the central-point of its contents,”
but “because it leads to righteousness;
NOTES. 519
Quite analogous to this mode of designation is the Pauline characteriza-
tion of the gospel office of teaching by 7 dsaxovla rie dtxaswobvnc, 2 Cor. iil.
9, and of the teachers of Christianity by didxovos dixasootvyc, 2 Cor. xi. 15;
on which account also it is unnecessary, for the justification of the expres-
sion chosen, with Bleek, Bisping, and Maier, to assume an allusion to the
exposition of the name Melchisedec, BaorAeig dimacooivyc, given vii. 2.—
viriog yap éotiv) for he is still a babe, a novice in Christianity. Setting
forth of the naturalness of the adzecpog Adyouv dixarootyne.
Ver. 14. The opposition: for perfect or more matured Christians, on
the other hand (and only for them), is the solid food.—reAeivv is with
emphasis preposed.—rév dia tiv éfw x.7.4.] more precise characterizing
of the réAeo: for those who, etc.—ééic] like the following aiedyrhpr0v, in
the N. T. a draft Acyéuevov. It corresponds to the Latin habitus, and is
used in particular of the condition produced by use and wont. Here it
denotes the capacity or dexterity acquired by practice.'"—7ré aicdyripia} the
organs of the senses; transferred to that which is spiritual: the power of
apprehension.2—yeyupvacuéva} Predicate; literally: as exercised.’—mpd¢
Siéxpiow «.7.A.] for the distinguishing of good and bad. [LVI g.] The words
may be taken with yeyuuvacpéva, or they may be taken with the whole
expression yeyupvacuéva éyévrav. The xadadv re nai xaxév, however, is
to be understood of the right and the wrong, or of the wholesome and the
pernicious, not, with Stein, of that which is morally good or evil. [LVI h.]
Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR.
LV. Vv. 1-10.
(a) This passage presents, as is generally admitted by commentators, two
qualifications which are necessary for the high-priestly office. The first of these
is set forth in vv. 1-3; the second, in ver. 4. The second qualification is
perfectly evident from the words used: the high-priest must not take the office
for himself, but must be called to it by God. There can be as little doubt as to
the general meaning of what is said respecting the first qualification. The con-
struction of the sentence in which it is described, however, is somewhat question-
able. The order of the words, as Liinem., also remarks, shows that é£ av3pdéruv
because, by its proclamation to man, the
possibility is created and the opportunity is
afforded of entering into a condition of the
rightness of his relation to God, inasmuch,
namely, as he assumes a believing attitude
towards the word proclaimed.” But why
should the author, familiar as he was with
Paul’s manner of teaching, and attaching his
own doctrinal presentation thereto,—albeit
with independence of character,—have
shrunk from recognizing, as the central
theme of the gospel, “the righteousness
which avails with God,” since even this was
only a general notion, which did not exclude
@ peculiar conception and treatment, where
it was a question of the development of de-
tails, and insistance thereon ?
1Comp. Quintil. x. 1. 1: firma quaedam
facilitas, quae apud Graecos éé.¢ nominatur.
2Comp. LXX. Jer. iv. 19: ra aicOnnjpia rie
Puxhs pov.
On the whole turn of discourse, comp.
Galen, De dignot. puls. 3 (in Wetstein): &¢ per
yap... 7 aic@nripoy exec yeyuuvacpévoy
ixavag ... ObTOS apioTos ay ein yume.
‘Chrysostom: viv ov wepi Biov airy 3
Adyos, Stay Adyy’ wpds Stcdxprory xadrov nai
xaxov (rovro ydp wayti avOpwomry Suvardy eiddvas
Kat evxodov) adAd wepi dSo0ynatrwy vytay cai
UYypAwy, Scepbapudvey Te Kai Tarceva.
520 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Aap Bavéuevoc belongs with the predicate, and not with the subject. It is clear,
also, that the writer is not, as yet, contrasting the heavenly and the earthly high-
priests, as he does in chs. vii ff., but is, in these introductory verses, simply show-
ing what the high-priest must be, and that Christ answers to the demands of the
office. It would be out of the line of thought, therefore, to make these words a
part of the subject, as designating the priest who is taken from among men. But,
if they are united with the predicate, the question may be asked whether they
have a more prominent, or a less prominent position. Is this participial clause
a mere incidental expression, the chief emphasis resting upon what follows iva to
the end of ver. 2: Every high-priest is appointed, etc., taken as he is from among
men, in order that, etc.? Or does it contain in itself the chief point, which is, as
it were, only unfolded in the iva clause: Every high-priest is appointed as one
who is a man, and this to the end that, etc.? The emphatic position of the words
and the fact that they seem scarcely necessary, if they express only a secondary
and incidental idea, strongly favor the latter view of the construction. In either
case, the general meaning is, that the high-priest must be a man, or one who, as
@ man, is able to sympathize with men in their infirmities.
(6b) The yép at the beginning of ver. 1, connects the idea of the necessity of this
sympathy with the statement, in iv. 14-16, that we have a high-priest who has
been tempted like ourselves; but this connection is grammatical, rather than the
necessary logical connection of the main thought. The main thought turns here
into a new line, of which, as already remarked, iv. 14-16 (like ii. 17, 18) gives
only a foreshadowing hint.—dvvdéyevoc has nearly, if not precisely, the same
relation to mpoogépy x.t.4., which AauBavéuevoc has to xadioraraz, if the latter is
explained in the second way mentioned above: his appointment as being a man
is in order that he may offer the sncrifices as one who is able, etc.—Ver. 3 is, not
improbably, best explained, with Liinem., as an independent sentence, containing
an observation which is incidental, so far as the chief point in discussion in the
other verses is concerned.
(c) That, in vv. 4-6, Christ is declared to have the second of the two qualifica-
tions mentioned, is admitted by all. With reference to special points in these
three verses, it may be remarked: 1. That in ver. 5 the writer substitutes for 6
Sede (ver, 4) the sentence 6 Aadyoac x.7.A. This sentence includes the characteristic
word used by the author to describe divine utterances and revelations, and also the
passage cited from the Psalms, which was introduced at the very beginning of the
first part of the epistle (i. 5); 2. That ver. 6 does not stand in a parallelism with
ver.5 6. Ver.5 0 is simply a description of the One who calls Christ to the office of
high-priest—é AaAfoac with its dependent words being the subject of the verb to
be supplied from édéface. Ver. 6, on the other hand (see xa¥ac), gives the proof
that 6 AadAfoac x.7.A., did what is indicated by édéface.—3. From these two facts
it is to be inferred, that the author wrote his sentences intentionally in this
way. He designed, with rhetorical force and in an artistic manner, to unite the
beginning of the second division of his work with the beginning of the first, and
to call the attention of his readers to the thought, that He who had made Christ
His agent in introducing the N. T. system, had also made Him His agent in
carrying it forward.
(d) In vv. 7-9, Christ is presented as having the first of the two qualifications
for the high-priestly office. That such a presentation is the design of these verses is
proved by the following considerations:—1. The artistic arrangement of the
NOTES. 521
epistle, which is so clearly manifest in all its parts, renders it extremely improb-
able that, after having formally stated the two things mentioned in vv. 1-4, the
first one, and the one which had been set forth with greatest fullness, should be
passed over without notice in the application of the matter to Christ. 2. What
is said respecting Christ in vv. 7-9, both as to His own experience and as to the
result of it, is wholly unconnected with the statement of vv. 5, 6; but,‘ on the
other hand, it accords with what is indicated in vv. 1-3. That in consequence of
His having gone through the experiences of human weakness and suffering, as
attendant upon His being a man, He is enabled to be the high-priest for men, is
the thought of these verses;—that such experience and qualification are essential
to the office, is the thought of vv. 1-3. 3. There is no satisfactory reason for
denying this reference to the first verses of the chapter—neither the absence of
the phrase ¢&. avdp, Aau. or of the word dv0puroc, for the idea is sufficiently
suggested by the words “in the days of his flesh,” as well as by the other indica-
tions of human experience; nor the fact that certain expressions are found which
remind us of the second chapter, for the high-priestly office, and its work for men,
find their full significance only as they help men to eternal salvation; nor the
correspondence in some points with iv. 14-16, for, as has been already intimated,
that passage is only preparatory to this, and is not determinative of the plan or
main ideas of this introduction to the second leading division of the letter; nor the
repetition, in ver. 10, of the words of ver. 6, for this repetition is only for the purpose
of forming a transition from the introductory passage to the development of the
first point connected with the exaltation of Christ’s priesthood above the O. T.
priesthood,—namely, that it is after the Melchisedek order, as contrasted with
the Aaronic or Levitical. This writer does not turn aside from his line of
thought without coming back to it again, as Paul does under the influence of some
new idea or word. He isa rhetorician, rather than an ardent advocate, and he
cares for the form, as well as for the substance. When he leaves his thought in
incompleteness, he returns to it again. The plan is never forgotten. But, at the
same time, he is not slavishly bound to the use of the same words. He moves in
the circle of ideas, not of mere expressions, and so he readily brings out a new
thought, or application of thought, in words kindred to those which hemay have
already employed elsewhere and for a different purpose.
(e) The close connection of ver. 7 with vv. 5, 6 by the relative 5¢ may be
accounted for after the same manner with many other unions of sentences in this
epistle, and in Paul’s letters. It is a characteristic of epistolary writing to connect
independent thoughts in this dependent way.—(f) The correct view of the ex-
pressions referring to Christ’s prayers, etc., seems to be this: that they are
intended to be descriptive of His whole earthly life, in this regard, but that they
are chosen, to a considerable extent, if not altogether, under the influence of the
story of the scene in Gethsemane. It is improbable that the sole reference, in the
thought, is to that scene. But that the writer should make the language belong-
ing to, or suggested by, this decisive hour of Christ’s history serve to represent His
whole history of suffering, supplication, obedience, is not at all strange or
unnatural.—(g) The view of Liinemann, and the many writers whom he mentions
as agreeing with him, respecting eicaxovedeic ard rig evAaBeiac, is to be adopted.—
(hk) The use of airwoc in ver. 9, instead of apyzyé¢ which is found in ii. 10, may,
not improbably, be due to the fact that the writer has not here in mind the idea
of leading the way as the first of a great company, but only of cause as connected
522 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
with the work of the high-priest.—(z) The connection of ver. 10 with ver. 9 is
like that of ver. land ver. 7 with the verses which immediately precede them.
As to the relation of ver. 10 to the main thought, see under (d) above.
LVI. Vv. 11-14.
(a) The reference of ov (ver. 11)—whether to Melchisedec, or to Christ as priest
after the order of M., or (as neuter) to the topic of Christ’s Mel. priesthood—is
uncertain. In any case, we have the same general purpose in the passage. The
fact that Christ is the principal subject of the preceding verses, that ver. 10 is
opened by a participle referring to Him, that it is His doctrine, in its elementary
and deeper parts, which is mentioned at the beginning of ch. vi., and that His
correspondence with Melchisedek inthe matter of the priesthood is presented in ch.
vii., may lead to the conclusion that the writer intended to refer, not to Melchisedek,
and not to the mere topic or proposition, but to what is set forth in the words of
ver. 10, z.e. Christ as high-priest after the Melchis. order. Liinem.’s view, there-
fore, though not certainly correct, is probably to be adopted.—(b) The verb to be
supplied with wodi¢c 6 Adyoc is, undoubtedly, éoriv, and so the meaning is: we
have many things to say (R. V.). The strict sense of the words, accordingly, is
that which Liinem. gives: “the author has abundant material for discoursing on
the subject announced.” When connected with the following phrase dvcepytvevrog
Aéyew, however, it is not impossible that, along with this primary and proper
meaning, the words are intended to suggest that the unfolding of the subject,
being dvcepuvevros, requires for the readers an extended presentation. This
possibility is suggested, also, by the ézef which follows, if this word, as may be
intimated by the form of the sentence, is to be connected in thought with the
whole clause mepi ob... . Aéyeev.—(c) The verb yeyévare, like many other words
and statements in the epistle, implies that the readers were falling back, rather
than pressing forward in their Christian life-—(d) On the possibilities of the con-
struction of tov didackerv and tiva (ver. 12), see Buttm.pp. 260, 268, Winer p.
339, and Liinem.’s note on 1 Thess. iv. 9, to which he himself refers in his remarks
on the present verse. That the use of the infinitive active, in such a case, with-
out the supply of a new subject, and instead of the infinitive passive, is possible,
may, perhaps, be admitted—though, to say the least, it seems questionable. But
that it is improbable in a sentence which can be otherwise explained satisfactorily,
may be safely affirmed. The present sentence, however, can not only be inter-
preted without serious difficulty, by making teva the subject of ypd¢ecv, but, if this
construction is adopted, the meaning accords with what we must believe the writer
to have intended. It is scarcely conceivable that he meant to say, that the readers
had become so dull and sluggish in all their Christian understanding as not to
know whether repentance and faith were fundamental and elementary doctrines.
There is certainly nothing in the context which implies this. The context
intimates only that they needed milk, i. e., instruction in the elementary things,
(not information as to whether these things were elementary or not) (vv. 12 8, 13),
and that they should move beyond these things to those which were higher, or
should open their minds to the truth so as to receive and understand a discourse
on the higher things (vi. 1 ff). There can be little doubt, therefore, that reve is
the indefinite pronoun, not the interrogative—(e) The explanation given by
Liinem. of the sequence of thought in vv. 12 6, 13, shows that it is not necessary
NOTES. 523
to suppose, that the author sacrificed the sense to the word-arrangement in the
order of the clauses of vv. 13, 14. But it can hardly be doubted that Bleek is
correct in saying, that the reverse order would have carried forward the thought
more simply and naturally. Ver. 126 is only a renewed expression, in a figurative
way, of what it is involved in 12 a. The object of vv. 13, 14 is to prove—not so
much that the one who partakes of, or needs, milk, rather than solid food, is in
want of instruction—as that the one who is inexperienced in the word of righte-
ousness, being vi#rio¢ and not TéAevog, requires milk i.e. elementary teaching. Not
improbably, the writer places the wetéywv yddAaxrog first, under the influence of his
tendency towards rhetorical word-arrangement.—(f) Grimm (Lex. N. T.)
regards Adyo¢ ric dixacoobyye as equivalent to doctrina de modo quo homo conditionem
deo probatam consequatur, giving thus a general meaning to dix. This is one of the
instances in which this writer may intend to use the word in the distinctively
Pauline sense. But that he does have this intention cannot be confidently
affirmed. The only case where the Pauline idea is beyond doubt is xi. 7. Grimm
says of BaoiAei¢ dixatooiv7e¢ in vii. 2—the interpretation of the name of Melchisedek—
that it means rex, qui tpse deo probatur et cives suos deo probatos reddit. The fact
that the verses of ch. vii. and those here used are both connected with the allusion
to Melchisedek renders it not improbable that the writer's idea of righteousness
in the two cases was the same; but the separation of the two verses by the sixth
chapter, and the fact that the word is not immediately joined with what is said of
Christ’s Mel. priesthood, make it somewhat doubtful. The most that can be
stated with confidence is, that Aoy. dix., as here used, may mean the doctrine of
righteousness by faith, and may, also, mean the doctrine of righteousness in the more
general signification of the word.—(g) The reference of the thought of the
passage to doctrine and teaching shows that xadov re xai xaxov has the same
reference. The same fact, also, shows that aicfr#pia means the perceptive
faculties, or, as Alf., says, the inner organs of the soul.
(hk) This passage (vv. 11-14) is evidently a mere digression and parenthesis, as
related to the direct development of the thought suggested in ver. 10, and carried
on in ch. vii. It is however, a digression which is very easily and naturally
made. Ch. vi. is introduced in connection with the last part of this passage, i. e.,
the present v77érn¢ of the readers, when they ought to be réAeoe, But it is not
a part of the same parenthesis. It is, on the other hand, the hortatory passage
belonging to this new sub-section of the epistle, which is introduced before the
argumentative part of the section—instead of after it, as in other cases—because it
was so readily suggested to the writer's mind by the closing verses of ch. v.
§24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
CHAPTER VI.
VER. 2. Instead of the Recepta d:da x45, Lachm. reads didayg%v, But the
accusative has the support only of B and the Latin translation in D (doctrinam),
and is a mere transcribers error.—Ver. 3. Elz.: tocfoopev, after BK L x, It
Vulg. Basm. Copt. Syr. utr. Ambrose. Retained by Lachm. Tisch. and Bloomfield.
Defended also by Reiche. But as more original, on account of the symmetry
with gepOueda, ver. 1, appears the conjunctive to:7owper, already commended
to notice by Griesbach; approved by Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford. It is attested
by the strong authority of A C D E, 23, 31, 39, al. mult, Arm. Chrys. (codd.)
Theodoret (comment.), Oecum. Damasc.—Ver. 7. x avri¢] B** 213, 219** al. :
éx’ avrg@y, Alteration in favor of the more prevailing linguistic usage.—To the
Recepta worAddnece éEpxopevov, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford have
preferred the order épyépevov moAAducc. The external accrediting is for
both substantially equal. The Recepta is attested by A C KL, Vulg.; Lach-
mann’s reading by BD E yx, 37, 116, al., It. Syr. utr. Copt. al. But in favor of
the originality of the latter pleads the greater euphony, for which the author
is wont to show a predilection—Ver. 9. The mode of writing xpetacova,
followed by Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, al., after the precedent given
by the Edd. Complut. and Plantin., instead of the Recepia xpeirrova, is here
required by A BC D*** (E?) L x, al. Otherwise, i. 4, vii. 7, and frequently.—
Ver. 10. xat rij¢ ayarnc] Elz. Matthaei: xai rov kémrov tHE aGydane. But row
xérov is wanting in A BC D* E* x, 6, 31, 47, al, Syr. utr. Erp. Basm. Aeth.
Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ., with Chrys. (twice) Antioch. Theoph. Jerome. Already
condemned by Beza, Mill, Bengel, al. Rightly deleted by Griesb. Knapp,
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, Reiche, and others. Gloss from 1 Thess. i. 3.—
Ver. 14. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, Reiche: 7 4».
Instead thereof, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford have e: “4. The latter,
approved also by Bleek and others, is, on account of the weighty authority of
A B(C L**: et 4) D(Deoorr.: e& uf) E x, 17, 23, al., Didym. Damase. Vulg. It.
Ambrose. Bede (: nisi), to be looked upon as the original reading. 97 va7v isa
later conversion of the non-Greek expression of the LXX. into Greek.—Ver.
16. Gv¥pwroe pév yap] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloom-
field, and Alford. But “év is wanting in A B D* x, 47, 52, Cyril. Rightly
rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8.—Ver. 18. deév] Bleek and Tisch. 8,
after A C x*, 17, 52, Cyril, Didym. Chrys, al.: tov ¢e6v.—Ver. 19. Instead of
the Recepta 409¢aA%, which is confirmed also by the Codex Sinaiticus, Lachm., in
the stereotype edition, writes, after A C D*: aodaAyyv (so also Tisch. 7), in the
larger edition: aogaA#v. But the form is hardly to be justified. Yet comp.
Winer, p. 64 [E. T. 66].
Vv. 1-3. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note LVII., pages 549, 550.] It is disputed
whether in these verses the author carries out his purpose of advancing,
CHAP. VI. 1-3. 525
with the pretermission of the Christian elementary instruction, to objects
of deeper Christian knowledge; or whether there is contained in the same
a summons to the readers, no longer to cling to the doctrines of the first
principles of Christianity, but to strive to reach beyond them and attain
to Christian maturity and perfection.!. The former supposition is favored
by Primasius, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pisca-
tor, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer,
Michaelis, Morus, Storr, Abresch, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette,
Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Reiche (Comment. Crit. p. 36 sqq.)
Conybeare, Reuss, M’Caul, Hofmann (Komm. p. 231), and many others;
the latter, on the other hand, by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Genna-
dius (in Oecumenius), Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Calvin, Clarius,
Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Bhme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schrift-
bew. I. p. 636, 2 Aufl.), Moll, and others. [LVII a.] The connection with
the preceding and following context decides against the first acceptation
and in favor of the second. The author has just now charged the readers
with dullness, and complained that they are still children in Christian un-
derstanding. It is not possible, therefore, that he should now continue in
the strain: “on that account he purposes, passing over the doctrines of
the initial stage, to treat in his address of objects of higher, profounder
Christian knowledge ;”’ whereas, on the other hand, the exhortation to
ascend to a higher stage fittingly links itself to the complaint of the lower
standpoint of the readers, which still continues unchanged notwithstand-
ing all legitimate expectation to the contrary. No wonder, then, that ex-
positors have been forced, in connection with the first-named explanation,
to have recourse to arbitrary interpretations of the 6:6, vi. 1; either in
completing the idea, as Grotius, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, and others,
1Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des He-
brderbr. p. 781 f.), to whom Maier, Kluge,
Kurtz, and Woerner have given in their adhe-
sion, have thought to be able to escape the
stringency of the above either...or...
They will have us recognize the one to the
non-exclusion of the other, in that they find
expressed at the same time the exhortation
to the readers to strive after the reAecdérns,
and the design of the writer to lead forward
the readers to the reAecétys. But this (comp.
also Reiche, Comment. Orit. p. 37, note 2) is an
unnatural, absolutely impossible assumption.
The announcement of the author's design to
advance to a more difficult section of his dis-
quisition, and the exhortation to the endeavor
after Christian maturity addressed to others,
are two so mutually irreconcilable declara-
tions, as not possibly to admit of being com-
pressed at the same time into the dépecOar
émi, ver. 1, and rovro woecy, ver. 3. Just as
little can at the same time be indicated by
reAaorns, Ver. 1, the condition of ripe age in
Christianity, and the Christian teaching
activity of another in reference to higher
things. If, therefore, the author had designed
to express both together,—alike an incite-
ment of the readers, as also the carrying out
of his own intention,—he must necessarily
have brought under review each one sepa-
rately, t. 6. first the one and then the other.
In addition to this, there is the further con-
sideration that the view of Delitzsch and
Riehm bears the character of half measures.
For they do not even venture to push it to a
consistent conclusion, in that surely the same
two-sidedneas of reference which attaches to
the principal verb ¢epueOa (and to the rovro
zo.jcwnew Which resumes the thought of the
same), must also attach to the participles
adévres and xaraBadAduevor; but as it is, the
participles are supposed to have gramma-
tically, it is true, the same two-sided subject
as the principal verbs; logically, on the other
hand, to refer preponderantly (i. 4. according
to the preceding remark in Delitssch, p. 209,
init.: exclusively) to the author!
526 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
by: “therefore, because surely no one of you wishes to remain a v#zz0¢,”
—which, however, as the middle term, must have been expressly added,
since no reader could divine this from that which precedes,—or in refer-
ring it, as Schlichting and Reuss, to the first words of v.11: rept ot rove
nuiv 6 Adyo¢ Kat dvoepuqvevtoc Aéyecv, and regarding all that intervenes in the
light of remarks appended by way of parenthesis,—which, nevertheless,
is to be rejected, even on account of the intimate connection of dvoepuyvev-
tog Aéyerv, V. 11, with the following ée? «.7.4.,—or finally, what is lexically
impossible, denying to it a causal signification, and then translating it
either, as Morus, by “yet” (doch), or, as Zachariae, by “ nevertheless ”
(indessen), or as Abresch, by vero, enimvero.—But no less does the coherence
with that which follows decide against the first interpretation and in favor
of the second. For it is quite comprehensible how the reason given, ver. 4
ff., should be able to lend emphasis to a preceding exhortation, but not how
the declaration of the author, that he now intended to pass over to more
difficult, more profound themes for instruction, should be explained
thereby. (See on vv. 46.) In agévrec there lies no decisive ground in
favor of either the one or the other view (against de Wette, Bisping, and
others), and évi ri redecéryta, as also Vepédov xaraBaddAdsuevor, is more rele-
vant to the case of the readers than tothat of the author (vide infra).—
Aid] [LVII 61.) therefore, i. e. since the solid food is suited only to réAecos,
ye, however, do not yet belong to the number of the réAetor.—agiévar] is not
only employed by orators and historians to indicate that they intend to pass
over some subject or leave it unmentioned,' but serves with equal fre-
quency to denote the leaving unnoticed or leaving aside of an object in
actual conduct.?’ In our passage it is the leaving aside of the lesser, in
order to reach beyond it and attain to the higher. Entirely akin to the
agiévar Tov THE apxRe Tov Xprorov Adyov is that which Paul, Phil. iii. 14, denotes
as émiavSavecda: ta oriow. Asin the passagenamed Paul speaks of a for-
getting of that already attained upon the path of Christian perfection,
only with a glance at the goal as yet unattained, and not in an absolute
sense,—as though he would in reality deny all actual significance to that
which was already attained,—quite so does the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews stir up the readers to an ageévar rév tho apxi¢ Tov Xptorov Adyar,
only inasmuch as they are called to rise, beyond that which forms a mere
preliminary stage, to something higher, without in any way implying
thereby that the ric apyic tov Xpiorov Adyoc, which certainly, as a base pre-
supposed as already present, remains necessary for all subsequent build-
ing, should at all cease to be their possession. The objection, that agévrec
cannot be referred to the readers, because instead of a leaving aside (let-
ting go) a holding fast or renewing of the ri¢ apxic tov Xpeorov Adyog must
rather be demanded as a means for attaining to the reAecéryc, has therefore
no force®—rdv rie Gpxie Tov Xpiotov Adyov] the word of the beginning concern-
1Comp. e. g. Demosth. de Falsa Legat. p.433, Luke v.11: agévres wdvra yxodovOncay avre;
98: wavra ra GAAa cadets, & mavres tueistore ep. Eurip. Androm. 303: aAAad thy dpxnv ageis
2Comp. ¢.9. Mark vii. 8: adévres thy evroAny —s- wpds._ Thy TeAevTIy, VaTdpay odcay, Sépp.
Tov Ocov xpareite Thy wapddogwy Twy avOpuruy ; 8Comp. Calvin: Jubet autem omitti ejus-
CHAP. VI. 1-3. 527
tng Christ, t. e. the Christian doctrine in its first rudiments or elements.
tTHo apxae locks together with rov Aéyovinto a single notion, and upon
this total-notion row Xpzorov depends. The whole expression, however,
amounts to the same thing as was before (v. 12) denoted by ra ocrozyzeia rie
apxi¢ Tov Aoyiuy tov Seou.—y redecdryn¢] in connection with our apprehension
of vv. 1-3, determines itself naturally as perfection, i.e. manhood and
maturity in Christianity, and that in an intellectual respect, not in an
ethical or practical one, in which latter sense the expression has been
accepted—arbitrarily, because opposed to the connection with v. 11-14—
by Chrysostom (Bio¢ dpiatoc).1. Those who find in vv. 1-3 a statement of
the author concerning his intention, must naturally understand r eA e: 6-
tng of the perfection of doctrine, 7. e. of the deeper disclosures with regard
to Christianity. But this is, at all events, a forced interpretation of the
simple notion of the word, such as neither corresponds to the usage in
other cases (comp. Col. iii. 14), nor in our passage appears in keeping with
the context. For, since immediately before the discourse was of r éAecoz
in opposition to »#mL04, so here only the condition of the réAecoe can
consistently with nature be the meaning of the reAecéryc. Had the
author intended the perfection of doctrine, he must at least have written
émt tra trav reaeiwy instead of éri mw redeétryra; for only in this way
would he have acquired a notion corresponding to the preceding # oreped
tpo¢h, V. 14.—gepdueda] The author includes himself in the exhortation
(cf. iv. 14, al.), and thereby tempers the same. gépeodac éri ri, to be
carried away to something, to strive with zeal after something.—eyédcov xata-
BaAAeoda:] a formula fully current in later Greek style (Dionys. Halicarn. iii.
69; Josephus, Antig. xi. 4. 4, al. [whereas Paul and Luke employ ridéva:, 1
Cor. iii. 10; Luke vi. 48, xiv. 29]), to denote the laying of the foundation.
Even on account of the usualness of this mode of speech, it is quite a
misapprehension of the meaning when Ebrard would here vindicate for
xataBdAAcoda: the signification : “demolish.” But also the position of the
word decides against this, since xara3aAAéuevo. must have its place be-
fore Yeuédsov, whereas the placing of it after shows that the emphasis must
fall upon Sep éAcoy, not upon the verb; SexuéAcov thus stands in antithesis
to the following reAeéryra. The participial clause: u} wdacv depercov
xara. x.t.4., accordingly forms an elucidation to agévre¢ rdv ric apxie Tod
Xpicrov Adyov.—The genitive peravolac, etc., indicates the material with
which the foundation is laid, and, indeed, each two of the instances named
belong together, so that three pairs of the first principles of Christianity
are enumerated. The article before the single substantives is omitted
throughout; not, as Béhme and Bleek suppose, out of a consideration for
modi rudimenta, non quod eorum oblivisci
unquam debeant fideles, sed quia in illis
minime est haerendum. Quod melius patet
ex fundamenti similitudine, quae mox sequi-
tur. Nam in exstruenda domo nunquam a
fundamento discedere oportet; in eo tamen
jaciendo semper laborare ridiculum.
1 Gennadius (xpnorh woditreia cal ris wioTews
afia), Photius () dv rais aperais wooxow}, #
tov OdrACpeww cai Staryuav cai weipagueay vro-
povy), Oecumenius () trav épywy gidccodia),
Clarius (non solum superioris illius de Christo
theologiae comprehensio, quantum homini
fas est, verum etiam profectus in virtutes et
afflictionum persecutionumque tolerantia),
and others.
528 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the rhythm, lest otherwise the articles should too greatly accumulate, but
because the sense is: with things such as pwerdvoca, etc.—Further, as sub-
ject in xaraBaAAduevoe we have to regard the readers of the epistle (not the
author), because the same subject is presupposed for the puerdvoa and the
Geuédov xataBaAdcodac; but the wetdévora, which cannot denote the doctrine
of the change of mind,—since otherwise, as with the words in ver. 2, the
addition of didaz% could not have been wanting,—but expresses the act
of the change of mind itself, beyond doubt relates to the readers of the
letter, not to the author.—Not anew are the readers to lay the foundation by
petavora amd vexpav Epyov and miore évi Vedv; since this foundation has with
them already been laid, itis now thus only a question of continuing to
build upon the foundation laid. Not in such wise are they accordingly to
behave, that the primary requirement of turning from the épya vexpad and
having ziorce towards God, must ever afresh be made with regard to them.
—The construction perdvoca amd, as with peravociv, Acts vill. 22; LXX.
Jer. vill. 6.—ard vexpov Eoyov] [LVII 6 2.] By vexpa the works are not
characterized as sinful, and by sin occasioning death (Piscator, Schlichting,
Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Peirce, Abresch, Bisping, Stuart, and others),
nor as defiling, as according to the law of Moses contact with a dead body
defiled (Michaelis, al.), but as in themselves vain and fruitless [see on ix. 14].
Perhaps the author has—what is on no sufficient grounds contested by R.
Kostlin (Theol. Jahrbb. von Baur und Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 469 ff., Remark),
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 568), and Kurtz—before his mind the
service of works under the Mosaic law, from which the readers had not
yet been able to free themselves. A contradiction, as Riehm supposes
(2. c. p. 835 f.), of the fact recognized, p. 16, that iors with the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews does not, as with Paul, involve an opposition
to the véuoc and the épya véuov, lies not in this expression. For neither in
our passage is mention made of vexpa épya in relation to iors, but only in
relation to the factor of the zerdvoa which precedes the wioti¢.—xai ricrews
éxit Yedv] The positive reverse side to the negative peravoiag ard vexpav Epyur.
The ideas conveyed by the yeravoeiv and mreverv, the verdvora and the zioreg,
likewise associated with each other, Mark 1. 15; Acts xx.21. These words,
however, are to be understood, as Abresch, Bleck,and others rightly insist,
in accordance with the signification, which the author is otherwise wont
to attach to iors, of the believing confidence in God, as the one who in
part has already fulfilled the promises of salvation given in the person
of Jesus Christ, in part will yet completely fulfill them.
Ver. 2. Barricnav didaxgco] [LVII b 3.] We have not to divide by a
comma, with Cajetan, Luther, Hyperius, Sykes, Semler, Morus, Heinrichs,
Schulz, de Wette, Conybeare, and others [after the Syriac], in such wise
that Barriopot and didayf are each separately enumerated as a particular
subject for elementary instruction in Christianity. Acdayf must in this
case mean the elementary instruction in Christianity connected with
baptism, imparted either before or after the same. But since, at the close
of the verse, the avdcracig vexpov and the xpiua aiéwov are mentioned,
while the treatment of these subjects for teaching belonged equally to the
CHAP. VI. 2. 529
first stage of instruction in Christianity, it is not easy to perceive why, in
addition to that diday4, these two points, presupposed in the same, should
be brought into special relief by the author. Then there is the considera-
tion that all the particulars which are mentioned before and after as con-
stituent parts of the @euédov, are designated by a double expression.
Seeing the care bestowed by the author upon the symmetrical proportions
of his discourse, we should therefore naturally be led to regard Sarriopav
didaxjce aS @ Corresponding double expression. But even as thus appre-
hended the expression is capable of a twofold explanation. The question,
namely, is whether the author is speaking of Barriopoi didayxge or of a
Banrtiopav didayy. In the first case baptisms with a view to doctrine are
meant, in the second instruction concerning baptisms. In the first accepta-
tion the term is taken by Bengel, Michaelis, Maier, Kurtz, as also Winer,
p. 181 [E. T. 192] (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 217); in the last, by Bleek and
the majority. Against the first view pleads, on the one hand, the fact that
the addition diday7¢ would be something too little characteristic, almost
unmeaning, since a Christian baptism, not preceded, accompanied, or
followed by instruction in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity,
would be something inconceivable; on the other hand, that in this way
the erroneous secondary meaning would arise, that there were, in addition
to the Christian baptisms with a view to doctrine, also other Christian
baptisms. We follow, therefore, the second mode of interpretation. In
connection with this the plural Barron» still presents some difficulty.
Gerhard, Dorscheus, Ernesti, M’Lean, Stuart, and others arbitrarily set
aside this difficulty, in that they suppose just the plural to be placed for.
the singular. But neither is the plural to be explained by the assumption
that respect is had to the proneness of the Hebrews for often repeating
the Christian baptism, in conformity with the many Barriopoi in Judaism,!
or, at the same time, to the outward and inner baptism.? Just as little by
the supposition that reference is made to a plurality of baptismal candi-
dates or baptismal acts,’ or toa repeated immersing of the candidate.
Most in its favor has the opinion of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schott-
gen, Wolf, and others;* namely, that the author is thinking not so much
of Christian baptism in itself, or exclusively, as along with it at the same
time of the relation of the same to the Jewish lustrations, and perhaps
also to the baptism of John. This view appears at least to acquire a
point of support from ix. 10, according to which the readers still continued
to esteem the washings enjoined by the Mosaic law as of importance for
Christians too. Yet it seems to be precarious, with Jac. Cappellus, Bleek,
and others, to urge in favor of this acceptation the distinction that in the
N. T. only Bérriya is used for Christian baptism in the proper sense of
1Oecumenius, Theophylact. 4In which more recently also BOhme, Kui-
£Grotius, Whitby, Braun, Brochmann; noel, Klee, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloom-
Reuss; la différence du baptéme d’eauetdu __ field, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr.
baptéme d'esprit. des Hebrderbr. p. 724), Alford, and Moll have
%Theodoret, Primasius, Beza, Er. Schmid, concurred.
Owen, Heinrichs, al.
34
530 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the term, Barrioués, on the other hand, being in the N. T. a word of wider
signification (ix. 10; Mark vii. 4); precarious, because the expression
Barzoua not occurring at all with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
[as also Josephus designates the rite of John only by Barriopuds, the action
by Barrio, Antig. xviii. 5. 2], with regard to his usage in this respect thus
nothing can be determined.—In close inner connection with the Barrceo-
pot stands the évideote yetpov. As therefore the readers ought no
longer to be in need of teaching concerning the nature of the former
(and concerning its pre-eminence over the kindred institutions of Judaism),
so was it also to be reasonably expected that they should experience a
necessity for being instructed concerning the nature of the latter (and
concerning the eminent blessings which attend thereon). The reference
is to that laying on of hands by which those previously baptized were
fully received into the communion, and through which the reception of
the Holy Ghost was wont to be vouchsafed to them. Comp. Acts viii. 17
ff., xix. 6. From this close inner connectedness of the éridecg yetpav
with the Bazriouoi results that, also as regards the external arrangement
of words, the genitive éx:%écewe does not depend immediately upon
OcuéFtov, but hike Barripov upon didaxge. But, moreover, even the fol-
lowing genitives, dvacrdceuwc and xpiparog, are, as rightly apprehended
by Storr, BGhme, Ebrard, Bisping,’ Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and Woerner,
governed by didayfce. For not by the resurrection of the dead, and the
everlasting judgment itself, since these facts will first unfold themselves in
the future, but only by the doctrine thereof can the foundation be laid in
Christianity. It would, however, be arbitrary to assign to the words
avdoraoce and xpiva in themselves a signification which they can only have
in combination with the foregoing d:éday#¢. A grammatical harshness
{de Wette) is not to be discovered in this construction, on account of the
close connection of the last clauses by means of re and re . . . kai; any
more than de Wette is right in regarding Bazriopav didayjc, in the mode
of interpretation above followed, as an unnatural trajection without an
example in the writings of our author; for Bazricpzav is preposed because
the emphasis rests on that word, and an analogon in our epistle is already
afforded by the mveiparocg dyiov pepiopoic, li. 4.—avaotdoeds re vexpov kai
xpipatog aiwviov] Two dogmas already belonging to the Jewish theology,
which obtained by means of Christianity only their more definite, con-
crete signification. The expression in both these clauses is used quite
generally. We have therefore no warrant for limiting, with Estius,
1Wrongly, however, is it supposed by
Bisping (as before his time by Gennadius in
Oecumenius, and Klee) that peravoias and
miorews, Ver. 1, are already dependent upon
&dax7ns.—Just as wrongly would Calvin, who
is followed by Piscator and Owen, enclose
Banricpoy b8axns, exOécews Te xecpwy within
a parenthesis, “ut sit appositio ... hoc sensu.
Non jacientes rursus fundamentum poeniten-
tiae, fidei in Deum, mortuorum resurrec-
tionis, quae doctrina est baptismi et impo
sitionis manuum ... Nisi enim appositive
legas, hoc erit absurdi, quod bis idem repetet.
Quae enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi
quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de
poenitentia et de judicio ac similibus?"—
Both views are deprived of their support by
the reflection that perdvoca and wiewcs, ver. 1,
denote not a doctrine, but an act [against
Stuart}.
CHAP. VI. 3. | 531
Schlichting, Schéttgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and others, the avdcoraoce
to the godly, the xpiva to the ungodly. On the contrary, both have
reference to the pious or believers, and the ungodly or unbelievers in
comnion.
Ver. 3. Repetition of the exhortation, ver. 1, in order immediately to
give thereto so much the greater emphasis by attaching the warning, ver.
4 f.—xai rovro rohowuev] [LVII b 4.) just this let us do.—rovro] sc. rd eri
thy Ttehecdtyta dépeada, ver.1.! To rovro we cannot supplement from the
participial clause, ver. 1: Td GeuéAcoy xarafdAAcoda, as was done, on the
presupposition of the reading zojoouev, by Jac. Cappellus (who, however,
besides this gives also the true reference, and comes to no decision),
Schlichting, Grotius, Dorscheus, Wittich, Limborch, Calmet, Zachariae,
Storr, Abresch, and is still done by Hofmann, as it is also regarded by Tho-
luck as possible; in such wise that there should issue the sense: this also,
namely, the laying of the foundation, the author will do, sce. at another
and more favorable time, if God permit. For—apart from the unsuit-
ability of the sense resulting, according to which the author would declare
his intention of treating the more difficult earlier than the more easy,
which latter surely contains the preliminary condition for the under-
standing of the former—against such supplementing the fact is decisive,
that the 44 in connection with karafadrAduevor, ver. 1, would be arbitrarily
set aside; against the apprehending in this sense, the fact that for the
expression of such a meaning tofjoouev dé xai tovro must have been
Written.—édvrep éxerplry 6 Oedc] provided that God permits it (1 Cor. xvi. 7),
inasmuch, namely, as all things, even the carrying into effect of good
resolutions, are subordinated to the higher decree of God. Incompre-
hensible, therefore, is the assertion of de Wette, who has therein followed
Abresch, that the addition édvmep «.r.A. is plainly irreconcilable “ with the
taking of our verse in the sense of a demand.” For the supposition, that
in this case “the encouraging belief in God’s gracious assistance ” must
be expressed, is an altogether erroneous assumption, since the author in
the present passage is by no means aiming at the consolation of the
readers, but, on the contrary—as is shown by vv. 4—-8—at the alarming of
them. To an encouraging and pointing to God’s gracious help the
discourse first advances, vv. 9, 10.
Vv. 4-8. [On Vv. 4-8, see Note LVIIL, pages 550, 551.] Warning enforce-
ment of ‘the foregoing exhortation, by dwelling on the impossibility of
leading back Christians who have already experienced the abundant
blessing of Christianity, and for all that have fallen away again from the
same, anew to a state of grace. [LVIII a.] Very appropriately (against
de Wette) does this warning justification attach itself to the preceding
demand; since the readers were not merely still far from the redecéry¢ in
Christianity, but were, moreover, upon the way of entirely falling off
again from Christianity. Comp. especially x. 25-31. In order, therefore,
1Theodoret; avyri rov owovidcwiey, ériOunicwuey, wdvta wovovw vwlp Hs TeAELéTHTOS
aoracwueba,
532 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS,
to deter them from such contemplated apostasy, there 1s very fitly set
before the eyes of the readers the magnitude of the culpability which the
completed apostasy would involve, and the terrible nature of the divine
punitive judgment which it would entail—In connection with the other
view, that a declaration of the purpose of the author is contained in vv.
1-3, the connection of thought would be: Passing over the subjects of cate-
chumenical instruction in Christianity, I shall apply myself to the subjects
of deeper Christian knowledge. For it is surely impossible to convert
anew Christians who have already been enlightened, and then have fallen
away again. By the fruitlessness of enlarging on the initial doctrines,
therefore, the author would justify his resolution. But one does not per-
ceive the relevancy of this statement to the case of the readers. For since
a preparatory transition, such asis afforded by the paraenetic ¢epducva,
ver. 1. and rorgowuev, ver. 3,—in that the endeavor after Christian perfec-
tion necessarily includes the putting away of all that is opposed to it, thus
also of the inclination to apostasy,—would then be entirely wanting, on
the contrary, the declaration of the purpose of the author would connect
itself with the censure expressed, v. 11-14; in this way the explanation
of this zesolution must be found in the presupposition either that the
readers already actually belonged to the number of the rapamecéyres, or
else that, since they must already be reckoned among the réAeco:, what
is said admits of no application to them. In the first case, however, the
author would represent his own undertaking, for the benefit of such
readers to pass over to the higher subjects of teaching, as a fruitless one;
in the last case, having already just before blamed the readers for their
vyniétnc, would have fallen into self-contradiction.
Ver. 4. Tap] goes back to the last main utterance,—thus to robro rohow-
pev, ver. 3, and by means thereof to émi ri redecérytra pepdueda, ver. 1, not to
py mwdAw Sepédiov xaraBaddAduevn, ver. 1,1 nor yet to édvrep eEnitpéty 6 ede,
ver. 3,? still less, at the same time, to édvmep émitpéry 6 Oedc and pH wd2uv
SeutA. xaraB.2—adivaror] it is impossible. The import of the expression is
absolute; and to weaken it into “ difficile est,” ‘* according to which we
should have to suppose a rhetorical exaggeration, is 4n act of caprice.
Nor are we justified in seeking to obtain a softening of the declaration, as
is done by Er. Schmid, Clericus, Limborch, Schéttgen, Bengel, Cramer,
Baumgarten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bloomfield (comp. already Ambrose, de
Poenit. 11. 3), by urging the force of the infin. active advaxacvifecy as pointing
to human activity, and thus, with a reference to Matt. xix. 26, making the
impossibility to exist only on the part of men, not on the part of God.
For only the impossibility of the avaxacvifecv in itself is accentuated,
without respect to the person by whom it must otherwise be effected.
Instead of the infinitive active, therefore, the infinitive passive avaxaivil-
ecodat might have been -chosen by the author without affecting the
1 Whitby, de Wette, Bloomfield, Conybeare. 480, after the example of the Latin trans-
2Piscator, Abresch, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hof- lation in D and E: Ribera, Corn. a Lapide,
mann, Woerner. Clericus, Limborch, Storr, Heinrichs, Kui-
$Schlichting. noel, and others.
CHAP. VI. 4. 533
sense.—rov¢ Graf... aiavoc, ver. 5] characterizing of such as have not
only become Christians, but also have already experienced the plenitude
of blessing conferred upon Christians.—rove drag guriodévrac} those who
were once illumined (x. 32), 7.¢e. had already, through the preaching of the
gospel, been made participants of the light of the knowledge (sc. of Chris-
tianity as the perfect religion). As regards the thought, the same thing
is said by pera 1d AaBeiv tiv éexlyvwow to aAzVeiac, x. 26.—araé belongs, as
to duriotévrac, 80 also to the three following participles (against Hofmann),
and finds its opposition in wddv, ver.6. It does not signify “plene” or
“ perfecte ’ (Wolf), nor does it denote an act which admits of no repeti-
tion (Delitzsch); contains, however, the implication, that the once ought
to have sufficed and satisfied. Comp. [ix. 26] x.2; Jude 3.—gurifecy
reva, [LVIII 6.] of the spiritual enlightenment effected by teaching, is
purely Hellenistic.'—yevoauévove re rig Swpeds tio éxovpaviov] and have tasted
the heavenly gift. yebtecdai tevoc, to taste or receive a savor of a thing,
figurative indication of perception by one’s own experience. See on ii. 9.
The construction of the verb with the genitive (instead of being with the
accusative, as ver. 5) does not justify us, with many strict Reformed
expositors, in finding a mere “ gustare extremis labris ” in the expression.
Besides, such an interpretation would be in conflict with the design of the
writer, since it cannot be within his intention to represent the culpability
of the persons in question as small; he must, on the contrary, aim at
bringing out the same in all its magnitude.—By duped érovpavioc, Pri-
masius, Haymo, Estius, Michaelis, Semler, and others understand the
Lord's Supper ; Owen, Calmet, Ernesti, Whitby, M’Lean, Bloomfield, the
Holy Ghost (against which the following special mention of the same is
decisive); Klee, regeneration in general, in contradistinction from the
special communication of the Spirit in baptism; M’Caul, “the persuasion of
the eternal life, the yépicpa tot Seov, Rom. vi. 23;” Hofmann, righteous-
ness; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus,
Paraphrase ; Cameron, Hammond, Rambach, Ebrard, Maier, the forgive-
ness of sins; Justinian, Schlichting, Grotius, the peace of mind arising from
forgiveness; Pareus, faith; Seb. Schmidt, Dorscheus, Peirce, Bengel,
Carpzov, Cramer, Bisping, and others, Christ ; Morus, Heinrichs, Bohme,
Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, and others, the Christian religion or the gospel;
Abresch, Bleek, the enlightenment imparted to men through the preaching
of the gospel, or the heavenly light itself, which effects the enlightenment,
and by means thereof communicates itself to men. Inasmuch as re
points to a close connection between the second clause and the first, and
the emphasis rests upon the foregoing yevoapévouc, 7 duped is at any
rate to be taken quite generally. Most naturally, therefore, shall we
think in general of the gift of grace, i.e. of the abundant grace of Chris-
tianity. It is called heavenly, inasmuch as Christ was sent forth from
heaven in order to communicate it, and heaven is the scene of its full
realization.—xal perdxovg yevySévrag mvetpatoc dyiov] and were made par-
1Comp. Eph. iii.9; John i.9; LXX. Ps. cxix. 130; 2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, al.
534 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
takers of the Holy Ghost. The consequence and seal of the gift of grace
just mentioned.
Ver. 5. Kai xaddv yevoaputvove Beov pial and have tasted the refreshing
word of God. That the author already makes use afresh in this place of
the verb yeveo¥ar, after he has only just before employed it ver. 4, Bleek
ascribes, not wrongly, to a certain perplexity on the part of the writer
about finding for the idea to be expressed another term of the same im-
port. For the supposition of Delitzsch, that the repetition of the same
expression 1s to be explained from the design of bringing out so much the
more strongly the reality of the experiences made and of their objects,
would be admissible only if the second yevoayuévouc, like the first, were
placed emphatically at the beginning of its clause, and there were not
already another verb inserted between the two yevoauévouy. yetbeadar is
here, as John ii. 9, construed with the accusative, which occurs only in
the Hellenistic, never with the Greek classic writers. To assume, how-
ever, a different signification in the case of the two constructions,—Ben-
gel: “alter (genitivus) partem denotat; nam gustum Chnisti, doni
coelestis, non exhaurimus in hac vita; alter (accusativus) plus dicit,
quatenus verbi Dei praedicati gustus totus ad hanc vitam pertinet, quan-
quam eidem verbo futuri virtutes seculi annectuntur;” Bloomfield:
“here (ver. 4) yeboaoda: signifies to have experience of a thing, by having
received and possessed it; whereas in the clause following it signifies to
know a thing by experience of its value and benefit;” Delitzsch (comp.
also Moll): “with yevoayévoue ri¢ dup. tao érovp. is combined the concep-
tion that the heavenly gift is destined for all men, and is of inexhaustible
fullness of intent; with xaAdv yevoayévove Yeov pyua, however, the concep-
tion that God’s precious word was, as it were, the daily bread of those thus
described,”—is already forbidden by the homogeneity of the statements,
ver. 4 and ver. 5.—The expression pf#uara xadd serves, LXX. Josh xxi.
45, xxiii. 15, Zech. i. 18, for the rendering of the Hebrew 21879379 and
p30 O35 and is used of words of consolation and promise spoken by
God or the angel of God. In accordance therewith, we shall best also
here refer caAdv Beco pia to the gospel, inasmuch as God thereby gives
promises, and fulfills the promises given.'—Others? understand the ex-
pression of the gospel in general; in connection with which some, as
Calvin and Braun, see denoted in xa4év a contrast with the Mosaic law,
the characteristic of which was judicial severity. According to Bleek,
finally, we have to think of a personified attribute of God; which is sup-
posed to be here mentioned because the gospel, with its consolatory mes-
sage, is an efflux from the same,—an interpretation, however, which finds
no sort of support in the context.—duvdpere te péAAovrog aidvoc] and powers
of the world to come. What is intended is the extraordinary miraculous
180 Theodoret (riv Urccxecw Trav ayabwr), 2As Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
Estius, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch,Owen, __lact, Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Jac. Cap-
Whitby, Abresch, Béhme, Kuinoel, Klee, de _—pellus, Piscator, Bengel, Peirce, Heinrichs,
Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Alford.
Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz.
CHAP. VI. 9, 6. 535
powers wrought by the Holy Ghost, as these were called forth by the new
order of the world founded by Christ. The aidv uéAdov, namely (comp.
oixoupéry 47 péAdAovoa, 11. 5), is for the author nothing purely future,—so that
we have not! to think of the everlasting life, or of the glory coming in
with the Parousia of Christ, of which believers have received a foretaste
here upon earth,—but already begins, according to his view, with the
appearing of Christ upon earth, in that only its consummation still be-
longs to the future, namely, the time of Christ’s return.
Ver. 6. Kat sapareodvracs|] and (in spite of this) have fallen, i.e. have
fallen away again from Christianity —zdé’r] belongs to dvaxawifew. The
taking of the same with zaparecévrac (Heinsius, Alting, Peirce, and others)
has the position of the word against it. A pleonasm, however (Grotius),
is not produced by wéAcv along with the ava in dvaxawvifer. For ava
marks out the becoming new as a change ensuing, in opposition to the
preceding state of the old man; whereas 74é4:» has reference to the fact
that the class of men described have already experienced that change,
namely, at their first conversion.—évaxacvifew] to renew, to fashion inwardly
new. Tosupplement an éavrot¢ tothe verb (Erasmus, Vatablus, al.),
according to which the preceding accusatives of the object would be
changed into accusatives of the subject, is arbitrary.—ei¢ uerdvocav} not
equivalent to dca peravoiag (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zeger, Corn. a
Lapide), but under the form of conception of the result: in such wise
that change of mind or repentance should arise therefrom.—dvacravpotvrac
x.7.4.] since they, etc. Note of cause to adivarov avaxawiler. The impossi-
bility of the renewal is explained by the magnitude of the culpability. By
‘their action such men bear witness that the Son of God is in their estima-
tion a transgressor and deceiver who has been justly crucified.—The com-
pound form davacravpowvr occurs with classic writers only in the sense
of “nailing up to the cross.’’? In itself, however, the explanation is
equally admissible: “crucify afresh.” Thus it is accordingly taken with-
out questioning by the Greek interpreters, and probably was so meant by
the author.—éavroic] Dativus incommodi: to their own judgment. Vata-
blus: in suam ipsorum perniciem. Too weak, Bleek,—to whom Delitzsch,
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 769), and Alford give in their adhesion,
—‘they crucify Him to themselves, in so far as, by that crucifying again,
they rob Him of themselves, who were in His possession.” False is the
interpretation of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Lim-
borch, Béhme, Bisping: as much as in them lies, dco0v 7d é9’ éavroic; Hein-
richs: each one for himself; Schulz: by themselves [by their own act];
Grotius, Abresch, Tholuck, explaining by the supposition of the so-called
Dativus localis: in themselves; Hofmann: as regards their own persons ;
Klee : to their contentment ; Stengel: to the joy and pleasure of their obdurate
heart; Kurtz: to the gratification of their hatred or their enmity against Him.
Over refinedly Bengel and Delitzsch: sbi, as an opposition to tapadetyparic-
AWith Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Bohme, Comp. L. Bos, Ezvercitatt., and Wetstein
Kurtz, and others. ad loc.
536 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
ovrac, ostentantes, sc. aliis.—rév vidv rod deot] A more palpable manifesta-
tion of the enormity of the crime than would have been the case had he
written Tov Xpiorév or 'Incotw. Comp. x. 29.—rapadetyparifecv] to expose to
scorn and insult; here, inasmuch as the death of the cross was a shameful
one. apadetypzarife stronger than the simple de:yyarifev, Matt. i. 19.
Concluding remarks on vv. 46.—The declaration of vv. 46 has been
of importance for the controversy of the early church, as to the question
whether those who relapsed from the gospel renounced for ever the hope
of salvation, or whether by means of sincere repentance they might once
more attain to a state of salvation. The rigoristic view was especially
maintained by the Montanists and Novatianists; and already Tertullian,
de Pudicitia, c. 20, appeals to our passage in favor thereof. In opposition
to this view, another sense was universally put upon the passage in the
orthodox church from the time of the fourth century. The words were
interpreted of an impossibility of imparting a second time the baptism
once administered, and the consequent condemnable character of such an
act, in that according to a later usus loquendi (first met with in Justin
Martyr, Apol. i. 62, 65) they took guwrigev to be a designation of baptism,
referred avaxaivigew ei¢ perévocav to the repetition of baptism, and in
avactavpovvrag x.t.A. found the indication of that which such repetition
would produce or involve. That this interpretation, which is still fol-
lowed among later expositors by Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, and Calmet,
is a wrong one, is now generally admitted. The justification, however, of
this passage, which furnished to Luther a determining reason for denying
to the epistle canonicity in the narrower sense (see the Introduction, p.
18), is afforded by the fact that—as is also pointed out, x. 26-31—the
author is speaking not of a falling away in general, but of a clearly defined
falling away, 7.e., as is rightly urged by Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus,
Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch,
Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 341 f. 2 Aufl.), Maier, and others, those
Christians are described who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost
(Matt. xu. 31 f.; Mark i. 28 f.; Luke xii. 10), or the dpapria rpd¢
Sdvarov (1 John v.16). For Christians are described who fall away, not,
e.g., from mere weakness, from a mere wavering of conviction, but in
spite of a better knowledge, and in spite of having experienced the treas-
ures of grace in Christianity; Christians who, according to the parallel
passage, x. 26 ff., against their better consciousness and conscience, tread
under foot the Son of God as though He were a deceiver, brand His blood
1Comp. ¢. g. Theodoret: Tay dyay advvdroy,
Oyoiv, Tous te wavayiy mpogeAndAvOdras Bar-
tiguatt Kai THs Tou Belov wvevparos xapiTos
peeTecAnddotas Kai Twyv aiwviwy ayabwy Sefaue-
vous Tov Timov alOis wpoceAOaiy Kai ruxeip
érépov Bamwtiouaros. Tovro yap ovddy éorey
érepov, maAw Tov vily Tov Beov THY cravpy~
mpoonAwoa cai THY yeyernudyny atiuiay wdAcy
auTw mpocapa. “Oorwep yap awat 1d wa8os
GQUTOs Uméuetvey, OUTW Kal Huds amag alTe
Wpoojce. Kowevncat Tov wabovs. Lurbawrd-
meOa St aire dia Tov Bawricuaros Kat ourar-
toraueBa, Ovx oldv re ody nuas wadww awo-
Aatvoat tHS TOU Bawricuaros Swpeas. Xpioros
yap avacrds éx vexpway ove ere axoOrncxe,
Oavaros avrov ove ért kupteva. °O yap anwdOare,
Th apaptiq awdOaver epdwaf, 5 dé Cn, Sn Te
Oep. Kai juaw 8¢ 6 wadads arOpwros cuve-
oravpudy év tp Barricuan, rou Oavdtrov ror
ruwov Sefduevos.
CHAP. VI. 7. 537
shed for redemption as the blood of a transgressor, and scoff at the Spirit
of grace as a spirit of falsehood. In regard to men of this kind, the
adtvatov médw avaxawvifev cic petévocav is employed in its full right, since
with them there must be inwardly wanting every kind of receptiveness or
receptibility for the uerdévaa. The reference of the declaration to the sin
against the Holy Ghost is, moreover, so much the more unquestionable,
inasmuch as the author by no means says that the readers have already
committed it, but, on the contrary, only sets at once before their eyes asa
terrible warning the extreme length to which their conduct may lead
them.
Vv. 7, 8. Confirmation of the dadtvaroy «.7.4, on its objective side; since
in connection with so great culpability and such ingratitude the divine
punishment cannot fail to ensue. This thought is rendered manifest by
means of a similitude. The common subject for ver. 7 and ver. 8 is not
merely y#, but y7 4 meovoa rdv én’ aitig épyduevoy moAddus terdv taken to-
gether. For theintention of the author is to point to the diversity of
result arising from equally favorable preliminary conditions. The main
point of the similitude, however, lies in ver. 8, while ver. 7 serves only by
way of preparation, and as a means of bringing out into bolder relief the
following opposition.—y7 yap 4 mutica .. . terév] for the field which has
drunk in the rain frequently coming down upon it. Figure of the men before
described, who ofttimes have experienced God’s gracious benefits, and have
received the same into themselves.—The participle aorist wcotca is
chosen, while then participles present (rixrovoa, éxdépovea) follow, because the
fact already historically completed is to be emphasized, from which, then,
two different effects are developed for the time present.—A rivecy,
tixrecv, etc., is ascribed to the y7#, because this, as in general is very fre-
quently the case, is personified as a part of the life-displaying, assiduously
productive nature.—én’ airjc] The construction of éi with the genitive,
after a verb of motion, is distinguished from the more usual one with the
accusative, in this respect, that the former includes in itself at the same
time the notion of tarrying. Comp. Winer, p. 852 [E. T. 376].—xai
tixrovoa] In place of this, merely rixrovoa or tixrovoa uév would have been
more correctly written. Kai, however, does not stand in the sense of
“also” (Hofmann), but is the ordinary “ and.”—Bordvy] in the N. T. only
here, employed by the LXX. as a rendering of 883 (Gen. i. 11, 12), 282
(Ex. ix. 22, x. 12,15), and ‘VY¥9) (Job viii. 12), denotes, according to its deriva-
tion from Béoxe, originally herbage or pasturage, but then also every kind
of vegetation or produce of the field—et¥eroc] well-placed, fit, profitable.
Comp. Luke ix. 62. xiv. 35.—éxeivecg¢] may be referred to ebderov (BOhme
and the majority), but it also admits of being referred to rixrovoa (Bleek,
Alford, Hofmann).—é’ otc] for whose sake. Grammatically false, the Vul-
gate, Zeger, and others: a quibue- Calvin: quorum opera; Erasmus,
Vatablus, Heinrichs, and others: per quos; Luther: for those who till i ;
Schulz: for those who labor on it ; Wieseler (Comm. wb. d. Br. P. an die Gal.,
Gott. 1859, p. 111): at whose command and disposal.—xai yewpyeitar] it also
(or even) is cultivated, brings into relief the naturalness of the rixrew Bordvyv
538 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
etderov éexeivorc, in that the éxeivo: are the proprietors of the land, to whom
the cultivation and produce of the same pertains. Incorrectly Schlichting
(as likewise BOhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann): Ait autem “e colitur,” ut ad
imbrium irrigationem etiam terrae istius diligentem accedere culturam
ostendat. In the application of the figure, the éxeivor, di’ of¢ xai yewpyeizas
are God and Christ; not God alone (Schlichting, Grotius, Cramer, de
Wette, Tholuck, Alford), since in this way justice is not done to the
plural.—peradauBdver evdoyiag ard tov Seow] receives part in the blessing at the
hand of God, namely, in that its fruitfulness is progressively augmented.
Comp. Matt. xiii. 12; John xv. 2. Too weak, Grotius, Wittich: it is
praised or commended by God.—ad rov deci] from God (as the bestower),
is best connected with yeradauBave:, not with evAoyiag.
Ver. 8. The contrast.— Ex¢épovea] [LVIII c.] as to its signification not
different from the preceding rixrovoa. Without justification by usage is
it supposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide,
Grotius, Wittich, Valckenaer, Klee, and Bloomfield, that the word is to be
taken in malam partem, namely, in the sense: “ Ejicere quasi abortus.”—
axdvidac Kai tpu3daove|] Thorns and thistles. Proverbial designation of rankly
springing weeds and wild growth.'—dadéx:uoc] sc. éoriv, it fails to stand the
test, is rejected, namely, in the judgment of God, as is self-evident from the
ard sov Jeov in the preceding clause. Wrongly, therefore, Hofmann: it
is unworthy to be treated as arable land.—xai xardpa¢ éyyic¢] and near to
the curse, i.e. not: devoted to the execration of men (Hofmann), but
exposed to the peril of being abandoned by God to everlasting barrenness
and desolation. Enhancement of adéxiuoe. At the same time, however,
there is to be found in éyyt¢ a softening of the expression, manifestly
with a reference to the fact that it is not yet too late for the readers to
combat their lustings after defection, and to return fully into the right
way (comp. ver. 9 ff.).2—¢ 1d tédog ei¢ Kavow]) sc. éoriv, and its ultimate fate
issues in burning. 7 is referred by Camerarius, Abresch, Heinrichs,
Stuart, Bleek, to xarépag; but more correctly by Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, B6hme, Kuinoel,
Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 773),
Alford, Maier, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner, and the majority, to the main
subject; in such wise that the relative is to be complemented by yiec,
Exdepobong axadvi0ag Kat rtptBddove. In connection therewith, however, to
take elva: eic, with Carpzov, BOhme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and
others, as a Hebraism (7 Mi), is inadmissible. See Winer, p. 173 [E. T.
184.J—The understanding, moreover, of a burning of the field, or of its
produce, in order that the land may be improved, as that which is
intended by xavace (Schlichting, Bloomfield, and others), is forbidden by
the connection, since no other than the divine punitive judgment burst-
ing in upon it has to be described. What is meant is the burning up of
1Comp. Gen. iii. 18; Hos. x. 8 VT yp) & Adyos. Kardpas ydp eimeyv éyyvs, ov natapa®
Matt. vii. 16. 4 52 andere eis THy Kardpay éumecwy AAA’ eyyis
2 Chrysostom: Bafai, réany €xec wapapvOiay = yevdmevos Kai maxpay yevéoOar dumjcerac.
CHAP. Vi. 8—10. 039
che nield itself by fire and brimstone coming down from heaven; by which,
é.g., the soil of Sodom and Gomorrah was rendered for ever incapable of
tillage (Bleek, Tholuck, Ebrard, Alford, Maier, Moll, al.). Comp. Gen.
xix. 24; Deut. xxix. 23; aiso Heb. x. 27: mupd¢ CiA0¢ éodiew péAAovrog roig
irrevavriove.
Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-12, see Note LIX., pages 552, 553.] Softening of the
foregoing warning representation by attestation of the confidence, that
this description will not be applicable to the readers.—Ilereiopeda 62 repi
tuov|] [LIX a.] But we are convinced in regard to you. Comp. Rom. xv.
14.—zereisueda] stronger than reroiVayev.—repi tudv] has the emphasis.
It is therefore already placed here, not first after owrnpiac—The appellation
ayanyroi only here in the epistle.'—+ra xpeiocova] of that which is better. This
may refer to the subjective side, but it may also refer to the objective side
of the foregoing comparison. In the first case the sense is: that your
condition is a better one, than that you should be compared to a land
bringing forth thorns and thistles; in the latter case: that your fate will
be a better one than curse and perdition. On account of the plural ra
xpeiocova we shall do best to combine both factors together, as, indeed, the
last is but the consequence of the first. When, however, Hofmann thinks
that 7a xpeiccova does not at all point to the foregoing comparison, but
stands by itself without any reference, in that it denotes only the good in
Opposition to the bad, this is not only opposed to the context, but also
grammatically false, since the comparative is never placed for the posi-
tive. See Winer, p. 227 f. [E. T. 242 f.]—nai éxdueva owrnpiac] and of that
which stands in contact with salvation, t. e. that you will attain to salvation.
[LIX 6.] éxyduevor, with the genitive, denotes that which is closely
joined to an object, that which is either outwardly (logically or tempor-
ally) or inwardly bound up with it. Instances in Bleek, ITI. 2, p. 220 ff—
el Kai ovtwo AaAovyev| Chrysostom: BéAriov yap tuac toicg phuact goB7oat, iva
uy Ttoig mpdypacw GAyhonte.—oitwc] sc. as was done vv. 4-8.
Ver. 10. Reason for the good confidence expressed ver. 9. [LIX c.]—oi
yap Gdixog 6 Bed, étcAadéicdac] for God is not unjust, that He should forget.
God exercises retributive righteousness. Since, then, the readers have
performed, and do still perform, actions worthy of Christian recognition,
it is to be expected that God will be mindful thereof, and, provided they
will only perform their own part fully (comp. vv. 11, 12), will conduct
them with His grace and lead them to the possession of salvation. A
claim to demand salvation of God, on account of their behavior, is not
conceded by the words of ver. 10; only as a factor which God, by virtue
of His retributive righteousness, will take into account in connection with
the final result, is this brought forward for the consolation and encourage-
ment of the readers ; while, moreover, reference is at once made anew,
ver. 11 f., to the still unsatisfactory character of their Christian state, and
18chlichting: Apposite eos sic vocat, ne liora ominemur {is, quos amamus, et, si quid
putarent, eum aliquo ipsorum odio laborare, severius dicimus, animo corrigendi non
sed ut scirent, eum amore Christiano erga nocendi cupido dicamus.
ipsos flagrare, qui amor facit, ut semper me-
540 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
in general to the peril of falling again from their state of grace.—ézi2.a¥éo-
3a] The infinitive aorist expresses the mere verbal notion, without
respect to the relation of time.’ It is to be taken neither in the sense of a
preterite (Seb. Schmidt: ut oblitus sit) nor of a future (Bisping and
others).—rov Epyov ipzav] your work (as lying completed), é.e. that which
you have done. The expression is quite general. A more precise limita-
tion thereof may be found in the following «ai rig aydrnc, by taking «ai
as the epexegetic “and indeed,” “and that.” So Peshito, as also Kurtz
and Woerner. But since, in any case, the passage x. 32 ff. is to be com-
pared as a real (though not verbal) parallel to the statement ver. 10, and
there, in addition to the love displayed, the stedfastness manifested by
the readers under persecutions is lauded, it is most natural, with Schlicht-
ing, Grotius, and others, to suppose that just to this the general row fpyou
tuov in our passage also more especially alluded.—ri¢ ayaanc] [LIX d.J
has not in itself alone the notion of love “to the brethren,” in such wise
that ei¢ 1d dvoua avrov would have to be translated: “for His name”’
(Matt. x. 41, 42, xviii. 20), 7.e. to His honor (Vulgate: in nomine ejus;
Bohme and others: ém? r@ dvéuare airov, Matt. xviii. 5). On the contrary,
Tig Gydrne acquires its object in the ei¢ 1d dvoua aitov, to be construed in
relation to 9¢ évedelfacde (not to diaxovgoavrec x.t.A., to which Beza was
inclined). Thus: the love which ye have shown to His name (sc. God's name,
not Christ’s, Ernesti and others). This is the more general object, which
only then obtains its more special reference and indication of purport by
dtaxovgoavtes x.7.A. A love exercised towards Christian brethren, inasmuch
as Christians, as God’s children, bear the name of God.—diaxovfoavres roi¢
dyiowc] in that ye have rendered service to the saints (the fellow-Christians),
have aided them when they were in distress and affliction (not specially :
in poverty). But that this was not merely a virtue exercised once for all,
but one still continuously exercised, is clearly brought out by the addition
kai dcakovovrvres. [LIX €.]
Vv. 11, 12. To that which the author hopes with regard to the readers,
he now attaches that which he wishes to see performed by them.—éz:@uuoi-
pev dé] [LIX f.] now we long, most ardently desire. Stronger expression
than SéAouev or Bovadsueda [to set one’s heart on it, Matt. xiii. 17; Acts xx.
83; 1 Tim. iii. 1, etc.].—éxacrov tzév] More emphatic and accentuating
than the mere tza¢ would be. There is denoted by it, on the one hand,
that the heart-felt interest which the author cherishes in the readers ex-
tends to every single one of them. On the other hand, there lies in it the
thought that if haply single individuals among the readers already cor-
respond to the demand here made, it is still of supreme importance that
every one of them should so comport himself as is mentioned.—In the
sequel, r)v atrov évdetxvuvcdat orovdsy is not in such manner to be
taken together with dyp: 7éAove that the main stress should fall upon
this, and zpdc¢ rv rAnpodopiay tHe EAridog be regarded as a mere
subsidiary factor. In connection with this mode of interpretation,’ the
1See Ktthner, IT. 2 448, 2. menius, Theophylact, Grotius, Seb. Schmidt,
4 Adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- Limborch, and others.
CHAP. VI. 11, 12. 541
demand of the author would amount to this, that the readers should
manifest the same zeal which, according to ver. 10, they have already dis-
played, even to the end or in all future time. But in such manner it is
assumed that the author has every reason for being satisfied with the
Christian condition of the readers, and desires nothing more than a con-
tinuance of the same, whereas the whole epistle testifies that the state of
things with the Hebrews was very different from this. Hence it is evi-
dent that the emphasis rests quite as much upon mpé¢ tHv TANnpodopiav
tie éAmidog agupon ayps réAove. The thought must thus be: the author
longs for the readers to display the same zeal which they have already
manifested in regard to an active love, in equal measure also in another
relation, namely, in regard to the tAnpogopia x.r.4.,1 in connection with
which, however, adype réAovg is best taken, not, as is generally the case
even with this correct determination of the thought, with évdeixvvc6a, but
in close juxtaposition with mpd¢ tiv mAnpogopiav tho bAridog.—mnpog tiv TAnpo-
gopiav tie éAmidog axpe téAove] [LIX g.] in regard to the full certainty of con-
viction concerning the Christian’s hope, unto the end, t. e. in such manner that
ye cherish and preserve to the end the Christian’s hope of the Messianic
kingdom to be looked for at the coming again of Christ, as a firm confi-
dence of faith, untroubled by any doubts. Comp. iii. 6,14. Opposite is
the wavering conviction that the subject of the Christian hope is one
founded in objective truth; the standing still upon the path of Christianity
before the goal is reached, and the tendency to fall away again from
Christianity and to relapse into Judaism.—zA7npogopia}] We have not,’ to
apprehend in the active sense of “ perfecting, making full or complete;”
but to take it, as everywhere in the N. T. (1 Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2; Heb. x.
22; comp. also Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5),3 in the passive sense.—é yp: réAove] unto
the end, z.e. until (at the Parousia of the Lord) hope passes over into the
possession [of the kingdom] itself.
Ver. 12. Further prosecution of pé¢ tiv mAnpogoplay tig éAridog aype
rédouc, ver. 11.—iva ye veOpoi yévnobe] that ye become not sluggish. The
yévyode, pointing to the future, stands in no contradiction with yeyévare at
v.11. There, the sluggishness of the intellect was spoken of; here, it is
sluggishness in the retaining of the Christian hope. There is therefore no
need of the conjecture védo (after xii. 8) for »w8pot (Heinrichs).—piyyrat
dé tov dia mlorews Kal xaxpoSupiag KAnpovonotvruy tac émayyeAiac] but rather imi-
tators of those who, through faith and perseverance, inherit the promises. Of
the two substantives wiorewe xat paxpodvuiag, the latter forms the lead-
ing idea ; comp. ver. 15, where only paxpoduuhoac is placed. xai is there-
fore the more nearly defining “and indeed.” Thus: by faith, and indeed
by persevering constancy in the same.—The paxpodvpia, elsewhere usually
the divine attribute of long-suffering or forbearance, is likewise predicated
180 Bengel, Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, and others, after
Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Delitzsch, the exampleofthe Vulgate: “ad expletionem
Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and __spei.”
others. * With Erasmus, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin,
2 With Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schulz, Besa, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting,
542 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
of men, Col. i. 11; Jas. v. 7, 8, 10; LXX. Isa. lvii. 15 (oAryopiryore dedoig
paxpovvpiav), and frequently, and in the first-named passage combined with
vrouovg asa synonym.—The érayyediac are those given by God in the time
of the Old Covenant, which by means of Christianity attain to their fall
realization. Comp. vii. 6, viii. 6, xi. 13, 17, 38; Rom. ix. 4, xv.8; 2 Cor. i.
20, vii. 1; Gal. ili. 16. Comp. also the singular 7 érayyedia, ix. 15, x. 36,
xi. 39.—xAnpovopeiv rac émayyeAiag denotes: to enter into the heritage of
these promises, i. e. to attain to the enjoyment or possession of the blessings
placed in prospect by them. That in our passage (comp. ix. 15, x. 36, xi.
39) KAnpovoueiv tag érayyeAiag cannot be understood, with Schulz and Bleek,
of the mere “receiving of the imparting of the promises as such, apart
from their fulfillment,” is shown by the very position of the words, accord-
ing to which the main force of the statement is contained not in rd¢
érayyediac, but in KAnpovoyotvrwy. Comp. also ver. 15, where for the same
reason ééruyev 18 placed before the substantive zac érayye2iac. Besides,
it is also evident from the fact that in such case there would be nothing
in ver. 12 to correspond to the conception of the ensuing possession itself,
indicated as this is in the dype réAove of ver. 11.—In connection with
tv KAnpovozotvtwy almost all expositors,! think of the patriarchs,
especially Abraham, and of them either alone or with the inclusion of all
believers of the New Covenant. This interpretation, however, to which
they were without any necessity led by the consideration of ver. 13, is
untenable. For, in order to harmonize with it in its first-named form,
the writing of «Anpovounodvtwy would have been necessary,—for which, ac-
cordingly, many will have the participle present to be taken ; to harmon-
ize with it in its last-named form, the writing of «Anpovounodvrwv re Kai KAnpo-
vouotvrwy Would have been required. The characterizing of dia wiorews xai
Haxpoduniag KAnpovomobvtes Tag érayyediac is, on the contrary, quite a general
one, and the participle present marks out that which assuredly takes place,
or in accordance with a constant and fixed rule (as a rewarding of the ful-
filled preliminary condition of iott¢ xat paxpoduuia). The thought is
therefore, not that the readers should take the patriarchs as a model, but
in general that they should take as such those who manifest persevering
constancy in the faith, and, on that very account, beyond doubt attain to
the possession of that which is promised.
Vy. 13-15. [On Vv. 13-20, see Note LX., pages 553-555.] Proof of the gen-
eral truth that stedfast endurance leads to the possession of the promised
blessing, from the special instance of Abraham. [LX a.] Calvin: exem-
plum Abrahae adducitur, non quia unicum sit, sed quia prae aliis illustre.
—7 yap ’Afpaau éxayyetAduevoc 6 Oebc] for when God had given promise to
Abraham. [LX 6 1.] érayyecaduevog we have, with de Wette, to take as
in point of time anterior to uocev. It has reference to the promises
which God had already, Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 18, imparted to Abra-
ham, and which were then, Gen. xxii. 16-18, not merely repeated to him
Calov, Wolf, Abresch, Heinrichs, Bohme, Tho- Including Béhme, Bleek, de Wette, Tho-
luck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, luck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Kluge.
and the majority.
CHAP. VI. 13-195. 643
by God, and confirmed by an oath, but likewise, in part at least, were ful-
filled (see at ver. 15).—émei Kar’ ovdevig x.1.4.| because there was no greater or
higher (ovdevdc, masculine, not, as Hofmann supposes, neuter), by whom
He could swear, He sware by Himself. [LX b2.] Relation of the words,
‘LXX. Gen. xxii. 16: xar’ éuavroi Spooa, Aéyec xipioc, with the reason for
this form of declaration inserted."
Ver. 14. El piv «.7.4.] Adducing of the declaration, Gen. xxii. 17, with
the difference, that in the case of the LXX. rAy6vva rd orépya cov is in
harmony with the original put in place of 7A73vve ce. This deviation is
not to be explained by the supposition that the author chose ce instead
of rd oxépua cov merely “for brevity’s sake ” (Jac. Cappellus), or “in order
to present the promise in a form as concentrated as possible” (Delitzsch),
or that he cited from memory (Abresch), or that he wished to place in the
background all thought of the merely physical descendants of Abraham,
and direct the glance of the reader exclusively to the spiritual or heavenly
posterity of Abraham, which was appointed to him through Christ (Bohme,
Bisping, and others). It has its ground simply in the fact that the author
was here occupied exclusively with the person of Abraham himself
(Bleek, de Wette, Maier).—ei 7] in place of the Greek 4 jf, or of the «
uf, formed after the Hebrew x5-p’, is met with elsewhere in the LXX. |
(Ezek. xxxiii. 27, xxxiv. 8, xxxv. 6, xxxvi. 5, al.), not, indeed, so far as
concerns our passage in the Cod. Alex. and Cod. Vatic., but yet in other
ancient Mss.; and in any case, our author found it in the copy of the
LXX. used by him.—The combination of the participle with the tempus
Jinitum of the same verb (evAoyév etAoyfow «.7.4.) is a well-known Grecising
of the Hebrew injin. absol., occurring exceedingly often in the LXX., and
serving generally—as here—for the augmented and solemn emphasizing
of the idea contained in the verb. See Winer, p. 332 [E. T. 354].
Ver. 15. Kai otrwc] [LX b 3.] and in this way, i. e. since God on His part
had in such manner afforded documentary evidence for the solemnity of
His resolve. obtru¢ belongs to éxéruyev. The combining of it with paxpo-
Suugoac, as is done by Stein, Tholuck,? and Bisping, and consequently
taking the participle as an epexegesis of oirwe, is inadmissible, because in
that case the vaxpodupia of Abraham in particular must have been spoken
of immediately before. The opinion of Delitzsch, however, who is fol-
lowed by Maier, that ‘‘ the combination of the two combinations ”’ is “ the
right one,” refutes itself, since it requires that which is logically impossible.
—paxpobuuhoac | because he showed Lor: had shown] persevering stedfastness (sc.
in the faith, comp. ver. 12), in particular by the fact that he had just now
been so ready at God’s behest to sacrifice his son Isaac, although this
1Comp. Philo, Legg. allegor. iii. 98 E (with
Mangey, I. p. 127), where, with regard to the
same passage of Scripture, it is said: ed rat
Tp Spey BeBawweas Thy UNdcxecv, Kal Spey
Geomperet. ‘Opgs yap Gre ov nad’ érépou
Ourver Deds—oidey yap avrov xpecrrov—adAa
nad’ éavrou, Os dors TavTwY aprioTos.
2 Who unaccountably advances, as an argu-
ment in support, the supposition that “then
a parallel arises between the Christians, who,
according to vv. 17, 18, are, on the ground of
the divine oath, to hold fast the hope, and
Abraham, who likewise did so.”
544 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
soon appeared to afford the only hold for the realization of the divine pro-
mise.—éréruyev tie éwayyediac}] he obtained the promise, i.e. the thing [LX b
4, 5.] promised, inasmuch, namely, as not only Isaac was given back alive
to Abraham, but he further lived to see the time when two sons were born
to Isaac (comp. Gen. xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 26), and thus the divine promise was
fulfilled in its earlier stage. Not a fulfillment, which Abraham first wit-
nessed in the life beyond the grave (Maier, Hofmann), is intended. Nor
have we here to take érayyeAia, with Bleek, in the active sense [the giving
of a promise], and to refer it to the Messianic salvation placed in pros-
pect. For, apart from the consideration that in this case éréruyev rij¢
érayyeAiag would, in relation to éray).Adpuevoc, ver. 13, indicate no advance,
the emphatically preposed éréruyev can be understood only of the obtaining
possession of the promised object itself. The promise repeated to Abra-
ham, Gen. xxii. 17, 18, presented itself under a twofold point of view.
His seed was to be multiplied, and in his seed were all nations of the
earth to be blessed. Only the first of these in its earlier stage could Abra-
ham, from the nature of the case, live to see; the fulfillment of the latter
was attached to the appearing of Christ upon earth, which was to be
looked for in the distant future. The first-named reference obtains ver.
15. The last-named mode of contemplating the subject underlies the
KAnpovdmote THe émayyediacs, Ver. 17. That, too, which we read xi. 18, 39, is
spoken from the last-named point of view, on which account there is not
to be found in these passages a contradiction of ours.
Vv. 16-20. [LX c.] Not without design did the author, in connection
with the historic fact, vv. 13-15, make mention also of the divine oath,
although the mention thereof in that place was not necessarily required
by the relation to ver. 12. His object, namely, was further to bring into
special prominence the practical advantage accruing to the readers from
this circumstance. This he accomplishes vv. 16-20. For, since the pro-
mise imparted to Abraham, in so far as it respected the blessing of all
nations by means of his seed, could receive its fulfillment only in condi-
tioning connection with Christ, the Saviour of all believers, the Christians
are thus the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant; so also by the oath of God
there is guaranteed to them, no less than to Abraham, an indefeasible
claim to the object of promise. To hold fast to the Christian hope, object-
ively assured and undisappointing as this is, the Christians therefore must
feel themselves most powerfully animated.
Ver. 16. Tép] [LX d1.] establishes the éei nar’ ovdevdg x.7.4., Opooev nad
éavrov, ver. 13. Not, however, ver. 16 merely (against Hofmann), but the.
whole paragraph, vv. 16-18, is to be looked upon as an establishing of
these words. For ver. 16 is only a lemma, only a preparation for ver. 17
f.; and, indeed, ver. 16 states the practice valid among men with regard
to the taking of the oath, while ver. 17 f. there is shown in connection
with this the object contemplated by God in His declaration upon oath.—
Kata Tov pellovoc] by the Higher One. peifovos is not newer (M’Caul: “to
a thing that is greater, e.g. the temple, the altar;” Hofmann), but mascu-
line, and thereby God is intended.—With «ai the second half of the sen-.
CHAP. VI. 16, 17. 545
tence, ver. 16, is closely attached to the first: “and so,” “and conse-
quently.” To the habitual practice of men just mentioned, the legal
relation therefrom arising is Joined on.—rdone abrtoig avridoyiag mwépag etic
BeBaiwow 6 dpxoc] the oath is to them an end to every kind of (every conceiv-
able) contradiction, unto eslablishment.'.—For avrcaAoyia as “ contradiction ”?
comp. vii. 7, also xii.3; Jude 11. The signification “dispute,” “ litiga-
tion,” is certainly perfectly warranted by the usage alike of the classical
writers (Xen. Hellen. vi: 3. 9) as of the LXX. (Ex. xviii. 6, Heb. 1271; Deut.
xix. 7, 2°); Prov. xviii, 18, 0°2°79, al.). But here this meaning is remote
from the connection, since ver. 16 serves for the explanation of the trust-
worthiness of a divine declaration, but not the explanation of a con-
tention between God and men (Bleek). [LX d 2.] The meaning
“dubitatio,” “doubt,” assigned to the word by Grotius and Cramer, it
never has.—eic¢ BeBaiworw| unto ratification, or the creation of an indefeasible
claim. Wrongly do Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Paulus, and others take ei¢
BeBatwoww—which belongs to the whole second clause, not merely to xépac¢
(Boéhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford)—along with 6 apxoc: “ the oath given in
confirmation,” which must have been expressed by 4 eig BeBaiwow dpxoc.—
It results as a necessary inference from ver. 16, that the author did not
regard the taking of the oath on the part of men as anything forbidden.
Comp. Calvin: Praeterea hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos juris-
jurandi usum esse ligitimum....Nam apostolus certe hic de ratione
jurandi tanquam de re pia et Deo probata disserit. Porro non dicit olim
fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere pronuntiat.
Ver. 17. ’Ev ©] Upon the basis of which fact, t. e. in accordance with this
human custom, as one valid among men. é9,namely, refers back to the
whole contents of ver. 16 (not merely to 6 dpxoc), and coheres not with
BovdAduevog éxcdei€ar,* nor yet with the whole clause following,’ but with
éuecirevoev bpxy.—mepioadrepov | is to be taken along with émidei~a. It does
not, however, signify wnto redundancy, since this was not at all required
-(Beza, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Storr, Klee, and others), but: so
much the more, or: more emphatically, than would have been done by the
mere imparting of the promise.—roi¢ KAnpovépote tie éxayyediac] to the heirs
of the promise. By the xAanpovdépor, Grotius, Owen, Bleek, Stein, de Wette,
Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others understand the patriarchs
as well as all believers; Tholuck and others, only the Old Testament saints ;
Morus even (notwithstanding the plural), only Abraham ; Calvin, the Jews.
But, as is clearly apparent from the elucidatory iva éywuev, ver. 18, only
the Christians can be meant.—ré aperdberov rH¢ BovAge avrov] the unalterable-
1Comp. Philo, de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, p.
146 (with Mangey, I. p.181): Tov re uny morev-
Onva: xapiv amiorovmerva Katradhevyovaow.w é¢"
Spxov advdpwwor’ 6 $2 Geds nai Aédyor mords dori’
wore Kat Tovs Adyous avTov BeBardtyTOS évexa
mnddy dpxwy Siaddpey. . . Ov yap 8° Spxow
maros 0 Oeds, aAAd &’ avrdy «ai 6 dpxos
BdBaros.
35
2Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier,
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner.
§ Assumed by Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger,
Cameron, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Hein-
richs, Bohme, Stengel, and the majority.
4Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Hofmann,
al.
5 Delitssch, Alford.
046 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
ness of His decree, namely, to make all believers blessed through the seed
of Abraham. [LX d3.] Arbitrarily, because to the violent setting aside
of the nearest circle of thought furnished by the context itself, Abresch
(and similarly Michaelis, Storr, and Delitzsch): “ crediderim, non juratam
eam promissionem spectari, quam Abrahamo factam in superioribus dix-
erat, sed illud nominatim jusjurandum, quo Christus sit pontifex creatus
ad Melchisedeci rationem ”’ (Ps. cx. 4). Neither ver. 20, nor vii. 1 ff., nor
vii. 20, 21, 28, nor v. 10, contains a justification of this view.—The sub-
stantively employed adjective brings out the idea of the unchangeable-
ness, about the accentuation of which the author was here principally
concerned, more emphatically than if rj BovAdy avrov tiv auerdberov had
been written.—ayerda@eroc¢ in the N. T. only here and at ver. 18.—éyesirev-
oev dpxw] He came forward, as an intervening person, with an oath. As an
intermediate person, sc. between Himself and Abraham. Men swear by
God, because He is higher than they. Thus, in the case of an oath among
men, God is the higher middle person [so peoiryc, Josephus, Antig. iv. 6.
7], or the higher surety, for the fulfillment of the promise. But when
God takes an oath He can only swear by Himself, since there is no higher
one above Him, and thus only Himself undertakes the part of the surety
or middle person. peocretvecv, in the N. T. only here, isemployed transi-
tively and intransitively ; in the latter sense here. It is taken transitively
by Oecumenius, who supplements rv tréczeorv; and Bohme, who supple-
ments tiv Bovagv.
Ver. 18. Indication of purpose to éuecirevoey dpxy, ver. 17, and conse-
quently parallel to the participial clause there, repicodrepov BovAduevoc éxid.
Tol, KAnpovéu. THe Ew. Td GueTaOerov THC BovAye avtov, but no mere repetition of
_ the same, since the divine purpose, which was there presented purely ob-
jectively in relation to Christians, is now subjectively turned in relation
to them.—dé:d dbo mpaypdtwy auerabérev] by virtue of two unalterable facts,
namely, by virtue of the promise and the oath. Against the connection
(comp. vv. 13, 17) Reuss: l’une de ces choses c’est la parole évangélique
apportée par Christ, l’autre le serment typique donné 4 Abraham.—vio]
See Winer, p. 63 [E. T. 64]; Buttmann, p. 25 [E. T. 28].—év oi¢ adivarov
wevoacfa: Aedv] in which (i. e. in connection with their fulfillment) iz is im-
possible that God should have lied (deccived). For God is faithful. His bare
word is trustworthy ; how much more thus when He confirms it by an
oath! To supply a guac to peboacfa (Heinrichs) is inadmissible.—apéxAy-
ow] not “ consolation,”' but, as the hortatory tendency of our whole sec-
tion requires: encouragement*—Upoh rapénayowy Exuper, not upon of
caraguyévrec,® does xpargoar tHe wTpoKkerpevnc EAwidoc depend; so that
1 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus,
Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, BOhme,
Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, and the ma-
jority.
* Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Semler,
Carpzov, Stuart, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette,
Delitzsch, Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll,
Kurtz, and others.
8Primasius, Erasmus, Beza, Schlichting,
Grotius, Akersloot, Wolf, Carpzov, Abresch,
Schulz, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette,
Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitssch,
Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 749), Al-
ford, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, and many ®
others.
CHAP. VI. 18, 19. 547
ol xaragvyévrec is to be taken! absolutely. [LX d 4.] ol xaraguydévrec] those
who have fled, with the subordinate notion of having found refuge, thus the
sheltered, saved ones. As regards the sense, the expression is to be thus
filled up: we who have fled oud of the sinful world, and have fled to God.
As an analogon is compared oi ow%déuevoe (Acts ii. 47, al.).—xparjoac tig mpo-
xecuévng éAridoc] to hold fast* to the hope lying in readiness. To interpret
xparjoac as “tolay hold,” ’ with a right combining with wapaxAyow, is
forbidden by the connection ; comp. ver. 11, according to which the read-
ers already possess the éAric, but not as yet any rAnpogopia thereof; comp.
further the did paxpoOvpiac, ver. 12, and paxpoOvugoas, ver. 15.—ri¢ 7 poker
bévang éArid o¢ [LX d5.] is not the same thing as ry¢ éAmidog tov mpoxerpe-
vay, “to the hope of the blessings of salvation which lie before us, which
await us,” * in such wise that a mingling of the objective notion of éA7i¢ with
the subjective notion thereof would have to be assumed. Still less are we at
liberty ° to interpret éA7i¢ in itself alone as “res sperata ” (comp. Col. i. 5).
On the contrary, ver. 19 points to the Christian hope in the subjective sense.
As rpoxe:uévn, however, lying at hand, or existing in readiness, this is char-
acterized, since it is already infused into the Christians, has already been
communicated to them as a blessing for possession, with their reception
of Christianity.
Ver. 19. Description of the absolute certainty of this Christian hope.—
qv] sc. éArida. The referring back to wapéxAnow (Grotius and others) is pos-
sible only in connection with the erroneous interpretation of this word as
“solatium,” whereas, with the right apprehension of ver. 18, wapdxAnorw
Eywuev serves for the mere introduction of xpargoa: rie mpoxetutvang éArridos ;
qv thus most naturally links itself with éA:ido¢ as the last preceding lead-
ing thought. To this must be added the consideration that frequently also
elsewhere in antiquity—though nowhere else in Holy Scripture—the
anchor is already employed as a figure of hope, and appears also upon
coins as a symbol theoreof.® iw de ayxupav Eyouer rij¢ woxic] which we possess
even as an anchor of the soul, 1. e. in which we possess, as it were, an anchor of
the soul, which affords it support and protection against the storms and
- perils of the earthly life—There exists no good reason for making éyecv
equivalent to xaréyew.’"—acgary te nai BeBaiav kai eicepyoutvyy x.t.A.] which
(sc. anchor) is sure and firm, and reaches into the interior of the veil.
Wrongly does Carpzov (and so also Reuss) construe all these words with
qv (sc. éArida). For, in order to render this possible, éyovev must have re-
ceived its place only after ric yuyqe, in such wise that d¢ dyxvupay rig pure
should admit of being separated by commas from that which precedes and
follows. Equally inadmissible is it, however, when Abresch, Béhme,
1 With Oecumentius, Camerarius, Cameron,
Seb. Schmidt, Heinrichs, Bleek, Maier, Hof-
mann, and others.
2 Luther, Schulz, Stuart, Bleek, Conybeare,
Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others.
8 Wolf, Tholuck, de Wette, Alford, Kurtz,
Ewald, al.
«Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Maier.
5 With Grotius, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich,
Peirce, Limborch, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kui-
noel, Klee, Bloomfield, Alford, Hofmann, and
others.
6See Wetstein, Kypke, and Kuinoe] ad loc.
7 Abresch, Dindorf, Bloomfield, and others,
\
§48 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Bleek, Bloomfield, and others take only acgadj re xai BeBaiavy along with
dyxvpay, and then refer back eicepyoutvyy eig rd écdtepovy tov Kxaranetdouatoc to
qv (ac. éAvida). For although the figure of an anchor reaching on high,
instead of penetrating into the depths, is an incongruous one, yet meta-
phors are never to be pressed, and in our passage the choice of the ex-
pression cicépyeoba: eig rd éodrepov points to the retention of the figure of
the anchor, as well as the closely uniting re... nat... xaito the inti-
mate coherence of the three characteristics.—xararéraoza] [LX d 6.] with
the LXX. usually (Ex. xxvi. 31-85, xxvii. 21; Lev. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3; Num.
iv. 5, al.), in the N. T. always (x. 20; Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke
xxiii. 45) of the second (ix. 3), or innermost curtain of the temple, the
curtain before the Most Holy Place ()‘%3'3).\—16 éodrepov rov xataretdopa-
toc] the interior of the veil, ¢.e. that which is the interior with respect to the
veil, or exists within the same, thus behind it. Designation of the Most
Holy Place. Comp. Ex. xxvi. 33; Lev. xvi. 2, 12,15. The Most Holy
Place is spoken of as a symbol of heaven, where God is enthroned
in His glory, and at His right hand is enthroned the exalted Christ.
Ver. 20. Close of the digression made from v. 11 onwards, and apt re-
turn to v. 10.—é7ov] whither. Inexact, as Luke ix. 57, John viii. 21 f,, and
often, instead of the 57o0:, which is never used in the N. T. (see Winer, p.
439 [E. T. 472]); yet more significant than the latter, since it contains, in
addition to the notion of having entered, the additional notion of remain-
ing.—rpédépouo¢] as harbinger. The expression, in the N. T. only here,
characterizes Christ as the first member in a series, thus glances at the
fact that those who believe in Him shall attain to the Most Holy Place.
Comp. John xiv. 2, 3.—i7ép quay] inour interest, or for our eternal welfare,
namely, to obtain pardon for us (ix. 12), to represent us in the presence of
God (ix. 24), and to open up for us an entrance into heaven itself (x. 19 f.).
uTtép Hua is to be construed, not with mpédpouoc (Heinrichs, Bbhme, Tholuck,
Ebrard, and others), but (as already the Peshito) with eio7Aéev.—In that
which follows the emphasis rests upon xara rav ragiv MeAytoedéx
(Bohme, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Hofmann), which on that account is
preposed ; not upon ei¢ rdv aiéva (Bleek, Woerner), which latter, on the
contrary, as an additional note of definition is derived only from the
Kata tiv Taf Medyuo. 4
1Comp. also Philo, de vita Mosis, ili. p. 669 667 C (II. p. 148): éx 83 rey atrawy ré Te xara-
B (with Mangey, II. p. 150): é» 8& rp pedopig = méragpa cal Td Acyépevoy KaAvpua Kareoxeva-
Tey TrerTdpwy Kai mévre xidvwy, Swep oti eupiws ero’ Td wey eiow Kara Tos Tdagapas Kiovas, iv
€imeiy wpovaoy, eipydpevoy dvciw vddopact, rd 3=—s ewexpumrnras Td aévToy’ 7rd 8 éfw xara rovs
ev dvdoy by nadetrar carandracpa, wévre x.7.A,
7d & éxrds mpogvayopeveras xdAvpma. Ibid. p.
NOTES. 549
Nores By AMERICAN Eprror.
LVII. Vv. 1-3.
(a) The question which is suggested by Liinem., at the beginning of his note
on these verses, is one respecting which the most able scholars have taken
opposite sides. The possibility of both explanations should be acknowledged,
and the considerations on both sides should be fairly presented and weighed. In
favor of the view, which makes the verses contain an exhortation to the readers
to press forward in their Christian life to higher things, the following arguments
may be urged. 1. The special point of vv. ]2-14is the fact, that the readers have
not advanced as they should have done. The exhortation, that they should now
move onward, is the most natural thing to follow. 2. The word used to describe
the condition in which the readers now are, is v#7or; that in which they should be,
is réAeot, It was more natural, it would seem, to exhort them to press on to TeAecérne,
than to propose to go on himself, while they were yet v#:o1, to discuss a theme
appropriate to those who had become réAeco. 3. The thought presented in vv.
4-6 is that of the danger which threatened, in case the readers should fall away
from their Christian position, and the fact of this danger is made a reason for
what is said in vv. 1-3. But this fact is not adapted to such a purpose, if those
verses merely set forth a proposal to treat of the Melchisedek priesthood,
rather than repentance, while it is peculiarly fitted to be a ground of moral
exhortation to the readers. 4. The illustration drawn from productive and
unproductive land in vv. 7, 8, can only be applied to growth in character and
progress in Christian development. 5. When the writer proceeds to speak hope-
fully of the readers, in vv. 9 ff., he refers to their faith and love, and urges them
to press on in hope. 6. In addition to these points belonging to the detail of
the chapter, there is another consideration of great weight, which seems to the
writer of this note almost decisive—namely, the fact that ch. vi. as stated in
Note LVI ¢, contains the common exhortation of the epistle—not to apostatize, but to
go forward—as founded upon the present portion of the argument (Christ’s Mel. priest-
hood). This common exhortation of the epistle, however, is always addressed to
the readers, and has reference to their moral life.
The arguments in favor of the other view are, 1. that morfoouev of ver. 3 is
quite appropriate as a statement that the author will proceed to discuss the
higher theme, but seems unsuitable, and not to be expected, if the reference is
to an exhortation to grow in Christian life, addressed to those who were still
vymtot when they ought to be réAeor. This is the strongest point on this side of
the question. Liinem., indeed, defends the reading zoejowuev, But, in the first
place, this reading has the majority of the best authorities against it, and is
rejected by Tisch., Treg., Lachm., W. and H.; and, in the second place, even if
the subjunctive be read, such a peculiar repetition of the exhortation appears
antecedently improbable. 2. The words xaraBaAAduevor «.7.A., present a certain
difficulty as connected with making the words a moral exhortation, for these
persons had already begun the Christian life, and had thus already laid the
foundation, and vv. 4-6 seem to indicate that the writer was not contemplating a
second beginning. On the other hand, if vv. 1, 2 are applied to a discourse upon
higher subjects, as distinguished from lower, this participle might easily be used.
3. Although the thought of vv. 12-14 is of Christian development, there is a
550 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
special reference in those verses to the difficulty resulting from the v#mo¢ con-
dition in the matter of apprehending the higher truths, and the whole passage
is introduced by, and subordinate to, a declaration as to the difficulty of un-
folding the subject of the Melchisedek priesthood.
(6) With reference to individual words and phrases in these verses, it may be
remarked :—1. 6:6 refers to the verses which immediately precede. If gepaueda
x.7.A., is a moral exhortation, 4:6 refers to the fact that the readers have not pro-
gressed in their Christian life as far as they ought, considering the time which
had elapsed since their conversion. If ¢ep. is a word expressing the desire and
purpose of the writer to discuss the higher subjects, 6:6 apparently has reference to
the fitness that the Christian, who has been long in the new life, should turn his
thoughts to these things.—2. a7d vexpov épywr, The word vexpé here and in ix.
14 is best explained by deW. and Thol., as “die nicht aus rechter Lebenskraft
hervorgegangen sind.” This view corresponds with that of Bleek, Alford: “dead
i.e. devoid of life and power,” and others. Grimm says, vi ef fructu carentia.
Liinem. ; in themselves vain and fruitless —3. That the view of Liinem., respecting
Barricuav didaxne is correct, is rendered probable by the fact that baptism is
everywhere connected with faith, as belonging to the beginning of the Christian
life, and by the fact that, as the whole Christian course moves in the sphere of
teaching (comp., diddoxador, diddoxerv, v.12), it is improbable that the writer
would speak of teaching, or of the baptism of teaching, as one of the elementary
things. His view with respect to the reference of ériSécews xeipov to the laying
on of hands which was connected with reception into the full communion of
the church, and the dependence of this and the following genitive phrases, as
well as of Barrioudr, on diday7c, is, also, to be accepted.—4. If we read zrorjoopev
in ver. 3, and consider ver. 1 as containing a moral exhortation, we must regard
the author as adding to his exhortation an expression of confidence—in some
measure kindred to that in vv. 9 ff—that the readers will press forward. The
sentence, however, becomes parenthetical under these circumstances, for yup of
ver. 4 must be connected with the exhortation. If we read zotfowuev, this verb is
a repetition, in substance, of gepaueda, The éavrep clause is better adapted to
the future rocfoouzev, and it must be admitted that it favors the application of
owy¢, to the writer’s purpose with reference to his own discourse.
LVIII. Vv. 4-8.
(a) With respect to these verses the following points may be noticed. 1. The
emphatic expressions which are used and the repetition of substantially the
same idea under so many forms—once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift,
made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the powers
of the age to come—prove that the writer had in mind persons who had actually
entered upon the Christian life. 2. He supposes the case of the falling away of
such persons. 3. He says that, if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them
again to repentance. 4. The illustration given in vv. 7, 8 must be regarded as
conveying the author's meaning in the verses which it is intended to illustrate.
5. The kindred passage x. 26, 27, is so similar in its thought to the present
verses, that it may be properly regarded as further expressing the writer’s idea of
the subject presented.
NOTES. 551
The points thus mentioned may suggest certain conclusions, or possible infer-
ences. 1. As to the bearing of the passage on the doctrine of the perseverance of
the saints—it must be admitted that it cannot be cited among the proof-texts
establishing that doctrine. Whether it can be reconciled with she doctrine, as
applying to all actual cases of those who become Christians, will depend on the
question whether the writer means to present the matter only in a hypothetical
way, or to convey the idea that there are instances in which apostasy really
occurs. The determination of the probabilities in respect to this question may,
perhaps, both justify and require the examination of passages which are to be
found in other parts of the N. T. 2. As to the question whether the persons here
alluded to are those who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, it may be
remarked (z) that the sin against the Holy Ghost, so far as the indications of the
passages in the Gospels, where it is mentioned, are concerned, involves a bitter
hostility to Jesus (as indicated by the Pharisees’ charge, that He cast out the
demons by Beelzebub), which is not clearly set forth, either here, or even in x. 26, 27 ;
(y) that that sin is spoken of in the N. T. as committed by persons who were not
Christians ; and (unless the sin tpd¢ Sdvaroy, 1 John v. 16, is to he understood as
meaning this, which is, to say the least, open to question) is spoken of only as com-
mitted by such persons; (z) that the purpose for which, apparently, the writer
introduces these verses—namely, to warn the readers against falling by pointing
to the dangers consequent upon it—makes it probable, that he intended to present
the case of those who fell as they were themselves likely to fall, unless they arrested
their course; whereas he does not intimate that they were moving on in a heaven-
daring way, but rather were allowing themselves to drift away from the truth by
carelessness and neglect, or by an over-estimate of the Jewish system. So far as
the illustration in vv. 7, 8 goes, it may be added, the non-production of fruit is
placed in a parallelism with falling away.—3. With regard to the word adivaroy,
two suggestions may be offered :—(z) The corresponding passage in the tenth
chapter says: “there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins,” which seems to mean,
that there is no other and further provision for redemption. (y) There would
seem to be an antecedent improbability that a man who falls away, should be
placed absolutely beyond the power of regaining the blessing by renewed
repentance and faith. In view of these two considerations, the question may
be raised whether the writer does not mean by adivarov simply what he means
by the words in x. 26, and whether his thought, in both cases, is not, that, if the
way which Christ has opened is left, no other way except or beyond this will
open. The suggestion of punishment which both passages distinctly present
must be borne in mind, however, in the consideration of such points.
(b) The several phrases, dwriofivrac x.r.A., have apparently the same general
purpose,and present the same general idea under different forms. With respect
to two of these phrases, it may be remarked that dwped apparently means the
gift of grace (comp. Rom. v. 15. 17), and that the duvayecc uéAAovTog aidvog are the
miraculous spiritual gifts, or powers, of every kind, which belonged to the Chris-
tian dispensation as the readers knew it. The expression aiov péAdwy is very
probably used, because it had already been spoken of as the age or world of Christ
and His people, in ii. 5.—(c) The words 7 9 wiotoa .... vérdv, xal of ver. 7 are,
doubtless, to be supplied in thought before éxgépovoa of ver. 8. It was the land
_ which had experienced the gifts of Gud (the abundant rain) and yet brought forth
only thorns and thistles, which was cursed.
552 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
LIX. Vv. 9-12.
(a) dé of ver. 9 is however—the turn of the thought, at this point, being in the
line of correcting a possible misapprehension: In saying this which I have said
of those who fall away, I do not mean that you are of this number and are to meet
their fate—(b) It will be noticed that xpeiccova and éyéueva are united under
one article. They refer, therefore, to the same things, which are described as both
better and pertaining to salvation. This common reference of the two—the latter
evidently designating the future reward—and the fact that the thought of the
preceding verses, with which this verse is immediately connected, is of the fate
awaiting those who fall, prove that the writer is speaking in these words only of
the objective side, as Liinem calls it, not of the subjective side, of the heavenly
reward, i. e., not of character and life. The «ai which unites the two words is
like the xai which we sometimes find in Paul’s writings, adding a more specific to
& more general word, and answering to our expression that is to say: “ Things that
are better and, to explain the word more definitely, pertain to salvation. I am
persuaded that you will not be rejected, but saved.” The rendering of A. V., and
R. V., may possibly lead the reader to suppose that the writer had two different
classes of things in mind.—(c) ydp of ver. 10 introduces, as the ground of the
writer's confidence, that his readers will attain the reward of salvation, the fat
that God is righteous. It is evident, however, that the righteousness of God is not
here referred to as suggesting the idea of salvation by works; for the doctrine of
this author, as truly as that of Paul, is, that men are saved by faith. The reference
must be to the fact that God, having promised to reward those who believe for their
Christian living and action, will not unrighteously fail to fulfill His word. Were
He to forget their work and love, it would, in view of His promise, be unright-
eous. The words dixa:og and ad:xocg are to be understood, generally, in the N. T.,
in the sense of righteous and unrightcous,rather than of just and unjust. The latter
word is used in the same larger sense here, involving the idea of not being con-
formed to right i.e. to what one ought to be or do; but in the connection there is,
apperently, a suggestion of the thought of a kind of injustice in relation to those
who had depended on His promise.—(d) The rot xézov of T. R., which precedes
T7¢ ayatye is undoubtedly to be omitted, and the latter expression is added by xai
in rov épyou vuov for the purpose of bringing out distinctly the relation which the
work had to God—it was an exhibition of love towards Him, (hence the words
évedciEaobe cig Td bvoua avtov), To forget the épyov, therefore, would involve an
unrighteousness on the part of God—a failure to do what His promise to His
people bound Him todo. Comp. also ver. 13 ff—(e) The work, which was the
manifestation of love to God, consisted in their past and present rendering of
service to their fellow-Christians. The representation, which is frequently made
to the N. T., of God and Christ as experiencing or feeling what is experienced
or felt by believers, is found in this passage ; and in connection with such passages
as this, we may get some light with respect to the intetpretation of statements
like those in Col. i. 24. See notes on that passage.—(f) dé of ver. 11 is not,
apparently now, as Liinem. renders it, nor and, as in R. V.; but it has somewhat
of adversative force, as suggesting that, while they had done well in the line of
love, there was another line in which they had not yet as faithfully fulfilled the
duty of the Christian life. In connection with this movement of the thought, it
becomes plain that by the same zeal or diligence the writer means the same which
NOTES. 553
they had shown in the line of love and work. The other line, in which he would
have them press forward, was that of hope and stedfast endurance.—(g) mpdc,
with a rtew to, as looking towards, the full assurance of hope. The question
whether zAypopopia means full ussurance or fullness arises in every passage where
the word occurs. The indications of this Epistle, in its general thought, seem to
favor the former meaning, for we are led by these indications to the conclusion
that the persons addressed were losing confidence in the Christian system, in their
Christian faith and hope, and that the writer desired them to gain full assurance,
and not to fall entirely away. On the general question as to this word, the notes
of Bleek on this passage, and Lightfoot on Col. ii. 2 may be compared.—(h) that
paxpobuuia of ver. 12, and paxpofuujoac of ver. 15 have a sense kindred to that
which is elsewhere expressed, in the substantive form, by vrouov7, is made evident
by the demands of the passage.
LX. Vv. 13-20.
(a) The writer, by way of encouragement to the readers to yield to his ex-
hortation, gives in these verses two facts, on the ground of which they may
have confidence that, if they stedfastly endure, they will receive the promised
reward. These facts are both derived from the O. T., as his proofs throughout
the entire epistle rest upon these older writings to which, as they were looking
towards Judaism, the readers were turning with a renewal of their early trust.
They are, 1. The experience of Abraham—he patiently endured and in con-
sequence thereof obtained the promise (vv. 13-15) ; and 2. The oath of God, which
was added to His promise (vv. 16-20).
It will be noticed that, in the development of the thought, these two things
are united in vv. 13-15. Ina letter so truly Pauline in many of its characteristics,
it is natural that there should be such an intermingling of the two, since the
promise which included the oath was given to Abraham, and the author’s wish
was evidently to make an historical reference to Abraham’s case. But it will,
also, be noticed by the careful reader, that the emphasis in vv. 13-15 is laid upon
the statement of the 15th verse, and that, while the oath is alluded to in vv. 13,
14, the development of the thought respecting it, as bearing upon the point in
discussion, is found wholly in vv. 16-20. There can be little doubt, therefore, that
the writer intended, in his argument, to make these two points co-ordinate, and
to present each with its independent force. If the arrangement of the verses
had corresponded precisely with the movement of the leading thoughts, the
order would have been ver. 13 a, ver. 15, and- then v. 13 6, 14, united with ver.
16 ff—the construction of the sentences being slightly changed by reason of the
change of order.
(6) With reference to the individual words and phrases, the following points
may be noticed :—1. The purpose of the argument, as indicated above, accounts for
the emphatic position of ’ASpadu in ver. 13. The case of Abraham is selected,
both because the promise was made to him and, also, because of the fact, on the
ground of which Paul, in his epistles, carries back his O. T. arguments to
Abrahim’s history, namely, that he was the one with whom the.old covenant was
made, and the one on whom the Jews fixed their thoughts—2. The adding of
the oath to the promise is suggested in this first statement; and, as Linem.
remarks, the aorist participle érayye:Aduevoc is to be accounted for in this way:
554 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
after He had promised, (Gen. xii, xvii, xviii), God confirmed the promise by an
oath (Gen. xxii. 16, 17, the passage here cited).—3. ovrw refers to the fact stated
in vv. 13 b. 14, and thus is one of the words which belong to the arrangement
adopted by the author, as indicated above—4. The “obtaining” allnded
to in ver. 15 is best explained as that which Abraham actually realized,
but which is viewed, not simply in itself, but in its foreshadowing and
assurance of the future.—5. paxpotuufhoas signifies that the paxpofvuia was both
antecedent to and, in one sense, the cause of the “obtaining.”—6. 9 érayyedia
in this place (ver. 15), as also in ix. 15, x. 36, xi. 13, etc, has the sense of the
fulfillment of the promise. Comp. Gal. iii. 14 and some other passages.
(c) The object of vv. 16-20 a, is evidently to show that the oath of God
insures absolute certainty of the result. The development of the thought here
involves five points:—1l. With men an oath is the highest and final thing in the
way of confirming what they say. 2. The force of the oath lies in the fact that
it is sworn by the one greater than themselves i.e. by God. 3. God, in order
to give the strongest emphasis to His promise, adopts the same course with men ;
He gives His oath, and, as He is Himself the greater one, He swears by Himself.
4. Those who lay hold of the hope which God has revealed, have, therefore, two
things on which to rest, the promise and the oath, both of which are immutable,
and in both of which there can be no falsehood. Their hope, therefore, will be to
them as an anchor to the soul. 5. And since this is a hope entering within the
veil, Jesus—who, as leading the sons of God to glory, has, first among them all,
been crowned (ch. ii)—has, also, as their forerunner passed within the veil, in
His priestly character, for these and on their behalf. Thus naturally and easily
the line of the discourse is brought once more to the priesthood ; the digression
v. 11-14, which passed into the common exhortation vi. 1 ff, is brought to its
close ; and with the words of ver. 20 6, which repeat very nearly those of v. 10,
the subject of Christ’s Melchisedek-priesthood is sa set forth. Chap. vii then
proceeds with the discussion of this subject.
(d) As to the words and phrases in vv. 16-20, we may remark :—1l. ydp of ver.
16 belongs, in thought with ver. 13 }, and like ovrw of ver. 15, might probably
have been omitted or changed for some other construction, had the arrange-
ment of the sentences been according to the succession of the main thoughts.—
2. R. V. renders avriAoyiag (ver. 16) dispute, but the suggestion of Bleek quoted
by Liinem., that the context points, not to a contention between God and man,
but to the trustworthiness of a divine declaration, is of much force, and it seems
quite probable that-the word here means contradiction. Dr. Angus, in Schaff’s
Pop. Comm., gives the sentence thus: “and for confirmation, when any statement
of theirs is contradicted, the oath is final.”—3. Liinem. regards BovAje¢ (ver. 17)
as meaning God’s decree to make all believers blessed through the seed of
Abraham. This may, not improbably, be the correct view, but it may be that
the word has a somewhat more general meaning—will or counsel, in general.—4.
The construction of xparjoa: (ver. 18) is’ uncertain. But as it may depend on
kataguydévrec ; as the phrase of xaraguyévre¢ seems to call for some word which
may complete its idea; and as tapdxAyocy, if it means consolation, does not require
any such additional word, or, on the other hand, if it means encouragement, may
find one easily in the thought of the «parjoa: already introduced with of xar.,
it ‘is probable that the author intended to connect it with the participle —6.
éArig of ver. 18 is, apparently, to be taken in the subjective sense :—hope which
NOTES. 555.
the Christian may have in his soul, rather than the objective :—the thing hoped for,
because of the descriptive words in ver. 19 which characterize the former. This
subjective hope, however, is viewed, as faith is sometimes viewed in the Pauline
Epistles, in an objective light, and is thus made dependent on the verb xparjoaz.
Thus, also, it has the participle mpoxecuévy¢ united with it—it is said to be set
before us as something which we may lay hold of. This view of éAzic satisfies
the demands of the entire sentence of vv. 18, 19 better than that of Liinem.,
who makes the hope merely subjective, and gives to tpoxeiu., the meaning lying
at hand, or that of Alford and others, who regard it as equivalent to the thing hoped
for, or even that of Bleek, deW., Thol., and others, who consider the meaning
to be the hope of the things which le before us, tig eAridog tav tpoxeiEvov.—6, The
closing words of ver. 19, which are descriptive of the hope viewed under the
figure of an anchor, easily lead to those of ver. 20 and, in connection with the
latter, form the transition to ch. vii. With rd éodrepov tat xataretaouatoc the
more particular reference of the writer’s language to the old tabernacle
begins, and. by these words and zpddpoyoc, he shows that he is now passing from
the thoughts of the earlier section of the epistle (ch. ii. etc.) to those of the later
part.
556 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
CHAPTER VII.
VeER. 1. Instead of row vwicrov, Elz. has only bpiorov, Against ABCDE
K L&, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl, Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. mult.—é ovvarrjcac]
Lachm. and Alford, after A BC (corr.) D E K &, 17, 117, al.: 8¢ cuvavrgoas,
Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the
reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle—Ver. 4.
Instead of the Recepta gb xat dexdryv, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D*
E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely @ dexéryv, Certainly
«ai is not indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from ver. 2. But
with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the
author himself, the words of ver. 2 being still present to his mind. It is there-
fore, since it has in its favor the considerable attestation by A C D*#** E** KL
%, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidov. and Harlej.),
Syr. Philonex. al, by Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb.
Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained.—Ver. 6.
The article +év before 'ASpadu is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and
Alford, after B C D* &* 23, 57, 109, al. In favor of the omission pleads the very
sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the article as a rule being placed only where, as in xi. 17, the perspicuity of the
discourse imperatively demanded it.—Ver. 9. In place of the received Aevi we
have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Aevic, after A (Aewc) B C*
ReHH (Acverc), In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Aeveig.—Ver. 10. Elz.: 6
MeaAyctoedéx. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* 8, 73, 118, al. Chrys.:
MedAyctoedéx, The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds
as in ver. 6.—Ver. 11. The Recepia én’ avrg vevopodétyro (defended by
Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of éx’ avrg is em avrge
(approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm.
Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* 8, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead
of vevouobétytro is vevopodérnrasc (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius,
adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required byA BC D* 8, 17, 47, 73, al.,
Cyril.— Ver. 13. mpooéoynxev] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: tpocéoyev, Com-
mended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2,
7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commeniar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer. the
Recepta tpocéoxnxer, In favor of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attesta-
tion (B DE K LX, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with peréoynxev, consonant
with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.—Ver. 14. Elz.: ovdév repi
iepwotvnc. But A BC* D* E®, 17, 47, al, It. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Cyr.
Chrys. (codd.) have: mwepi tepéwv ovdév. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek,
Tisch. and Alford. rept lepwotvn¢ is a glossematic elucidation—Ver. 16. Instead
of the Recepta capxexic, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted
capkivye, after A BC* D* L & (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers.
Rightly, capxivyg might easily be changed into capacxy¢ by transcribers,
CHAP. VII. 1. 557
since capxixéc¢ is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., odpxevoc
a rare one.—Ver. 17. paprupeira:] Elz.: waprupet. Against preponderating
testimony (A B D* E* ®, 17, 31, al, Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys.
Theophyl.).—Ver. 21. After aiéva Elz, Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloom-*
field, Reiche add once more: xara rv ragiv MeAytoedéx. Deleted by Bleek,
Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede.
Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are
found in A D E K L &*** It. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and
the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the
same (yer. 22) the discourse is continued afresh with «ard; the eye of the tran-
scriber might thus easily wander from the first xardé to the second xatd. Also
for ** there was found in the twofold xara the occasion for overlooking not only
kata thy ragiv MeAywedéx, but in addition to this likewise ei¢ rdv aiava.—Ver.
22. rocovrov]. So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty
authority of A BC D* &* Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favor of the form of the
word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, rooovro.—Ver. 23.
Recepta: yeyovdéreg iepeic. So also Tisch. 2,7, and 8. As better attested,
however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: iepeic
yeyovéres, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and
Alford — Ver. 26. Elz.: émpemev. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm.
Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb. :
kal Emperey,
Vv. 1-10.! While the author now in reality passes over to the work of
developing the high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, proper
to Christ, and consequently of illustrating upon every side the pre-
eminence of the same above the Levitical high-priesthood, he dwells first
of all upon the person of Melchisedec himself, in that, following the thread
of the Scripture narrative, he brings vividly before his readers the exalt-
edness of Melchisedec’s position, and draws their attention to a threefold
superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests. [On Vv. 1-3, see
Note LXI., pages 577-579. ]
Vv. 1-3. [LXI a.] Elucidation of xara rv rééiv Medyoedix apyeepeic
yevéuevoc ei¢ tov aidva, vi. 20, by a delineation of the character of Melchis-
edec. [LXI 6.] Vv. 1-3 form a single proposition, in which pévec is the
tempus finitum. [LXI c-h.] The characterization of Melchisedec combines
in the first half (Baoitetcg TSadgu... euépioev ’ABpadu, ver. 2) the historic
traits which are afforded of him in Genesis (xiv. 18-20), while in the second
half (aporov pév x.r.A.), the author himself completes the picture of
Melchisedec, in reasoning from that historic delineation.—Baoeig Largu]
king of Salem. By Salem is understood, on the part of the Targumists,
Josephus, Antig. i. 10.2, the majority of the Church Fathers, Grotius,
Drusius, Owen, Michaelis, Gesenius, von Bohlen, Winer, Realworterb. IT.
2 Aufl. p. 95, Stuart, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Kngbel, Bisping,
Delitzsch, Auberlen, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, Jerusalem. On the
1C, A. Auberlen, “ Melchisedek’s ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Hebr. 7” (Stud. u. Krit.
1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.).
558 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
other hand, Primasius, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Whitby, Cellarius, Re!and,
Rosenmiiller, Bleek (see, however, at ver. 2), Tuch, Ewald, Alford, Maier,
and others think of the place ZaAeipz, mentioned John iti. 23, situated
eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis. The latter was, as we learn from
Jerome (Ep. 126, ad Evagrium), the view already espoused in his day by
the “eruditissimi” among the Hebrews, in opposition to “Josephus et
nostri omnes,” as accordingly also it was thought that the ruins of the
palace of Melchisedec were still to be shown at the last-named place in
the time of Jerome. This Zadeipz, mentioned John iii. 23, has, more-
over, been held by some recent expositors, as Bleek and Alford, to be
likewise identical with the LaAfu, Judith iv. 4. More correct, however,
is the first-named view. For, besides the earlier name Jebus for Jerusa-
lem (Judg. xix. 10, al.), occurs also the early name Salem (Ps. Ixxvi. 3 [2]),
and the narrative in Genesis (xiv. 17 ff.) points unmistakeably to the
southern part of the land.’—iepeie rov Yeor tov inpiorov] priest of God, the
Most High. In the monotheistic sense, as in Genesis, vid. ibid. ver. 22—<
ouvavtycas 'Apadu x.7.A.] who went to meet Abruham when he was returning
from the smiting of the kings (Gen. xiv. 12 ff.), and blessed him.—xai_ evAoypaag
airév] Gen. xiv. 19, 20. Wrongly is it alleged by Heinrichs that evioyeiv
denotes only: gratulari de victoria tam splendida.
Ver. 2. To whom also Abraham portioned out the tenth of all (sc. that he
had gained as booty; comp. é« rav axpoBiviuv, ver. 4).—pdrov pév épunver-
éuevog Bacireig duatootvyc] he who first, interpreted (¢.e. if one translates
his Hebrew name P}¥~"372 into Greek), is King of Righteousness?’ The
author of the epistle, however, following more closely the sense of the
Hebrew words, renders the name by faoiAcig dixacocivyg (instead of ren-
dering it Baoreve dixatoc, as Josephus does), and thereby brings out more
clearly the part sustained by Melchisedec as a type of Christ, inasmuch as
the latter is not only Himself righteous (comp. Zech. ix. 9; Jer. xxiii. 5),
but also the mediatorial author of righteousness for others. Comp. 1 Cor.
1. 30; Jer. xxili.6; Mal. iv. 2; Dan. ix. 24—éme:ra dé xai Baotdede Ladgp,
éorev Baodeds eipfync] and then also king of Sulem, which is (denotes) king of
peace. Comp. with regard to Christ as our peace and peace-bringer, Eph.
ii. 14, 15, 17; Rom. v.1; also Isa. ix.6, 7.—38 éorw] corresponds to the
épunvervouevog Of the previous clause. There is no reason for taking Salem,
with Boéhme and Bleek, after the precedent given by Petrus Cunaeus, de
Rep. Hebraeorum, iii. 3, as not being the name of a place at all, but
Baoideic Ladnu together as forming the further name of the man, since the
author of the epistle might discover a typical reference to Christ not only
in the personal name of Melchisedec, but also in the name of the state
over which he ruled as king and prophet. The author, for the rest,
interprets the name of the place as though not pow (peaceful) but De
1Comp. specially Knobel, Genesis, 2 Aufl, Bell. Jud. vi. 10: 6 8@ spwros crigas (‘Iepood-
Leipz. 1860, p. 149 f. Aupa) hy Xavavaiow Surdorys, & TH waTpip
*Comp. Josephus, Antig. i. 10.2: MeAyioe- yAdoon cAndeis Bacrrais Sixaos’ fy yap oy
ddxns, onmaive. S¢ rovro Bacwets Sixaros— TorvovTos.
CHAP. Vu. 2, 3. 559
(peace) had been written in the Hebrew,—a mode of rendering in which
Philo had already preceded him.!
Ver. 3. ’Amdtwp, auftwp, ayeveaddynroc| without father, without mother,
without pedigree, i.e. of whom neither father, nor mother, nor pedigree
stands recorded in Holy Scripture. This is the usual interpretation of the
words, which has been the prevalent one in the church from early times
to the present. Less natural, and only in repute here and there, is the
explanation: who possessed neither father nor mother, etc., according to
which the sacred writer must have recognized in Melchisedec a higher,
superhuman being, who had only for a time assumed a human form.
The latter view was taken by Origen and Didymus, who would maintain
that Melchisedec is to be regarded as an angel ; in like manner the unknown
authority in Jerome, ad Evagr.; Hilary, Quaestt. in V. T. quaest. 109, and
the Egyptian Hieracas in Epiph. Haeres. 67, who saw in him an ensar-
cosis of the Holy Ghost; as also the Melchisedecites, a section of the
Theodotians, who described him as peydAqv tia dbvauev Gciav, surpassing
in exaltedness even Christ Himself, since Christ appeared after the like-
ness of Melchisedec ; finally, single individuals in the orthpdox church, in
Epiphanius, Haer. 55.7; as also afterwards, P. Molinaeus, Vates, iv. 11
sq.; P. Cunaeus, lc; J. C. Hottinger, de Decimis Judaeorum, p. 15;
d’Outrein, Starck, and others, who supposed that in Melchisedec the Son of
God Himself had appeared in human form. This whole method of inter-
pretation has against it the fact that dyeveaAdédynroc—for not ayévytog is
placed—can be understood without violence only of the neglect to cite
the genealogical table of Melchisedec in the narrative of the Book of
Genesis‘[comp. ver. 6]; and azdrwop, au4rwp must be taken con-
formably with the elucidatory ayeveadsynroc, thus are likewise to be ex-
plained merely of the father and mother being passed over unnamed in
the historic account, not of their actual non-existence. The characteris-
tics amwdrwp, Guyrtup, 4yeveaaAdyyroc, moreover, are to be referred—
SINCE adwpowwukvog dé TH vip Tov Beov cannot yet be brought into corres-
pondence therewith—only to Melchisedec, without our being obliged to
seek for them a special point of comparison with Christ, as is done by
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide,
Jac. Cappellus, Bisping, al. (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in applying the
aratwp to Christ’s humanity, the adu7rwp to His divinity, and the ayevea-
Aéyntog either likewise to His divinity or to His New Testament high
priesthood.2~—By means of ardruwp, apftup, ayeveaAdyntos, Melchise-
dec appears as presenting a contrast to the Levitical priests, since in the
case of these scrupulous attention was paid to the descent.—The expres-
sion ayeveadAdynrog only here in all Greek literature.—yare apy juepov
pare Cute tédoc éyuv] without beginning of days and without end of life,
1Comp. Legg. allegor. iii, 25, p. 75 (with ori we Seeds’ de udvou ydp yeyévynrat rod wa-
Mangey, I. p. 102 f.): cat MeAxiveSdx Bagirda = tpds' awatwp 5e ws dvOpwwos’ éx udyns yap éréxOn
Ta THs eipyyns—Zarnp Trovro yap épunvevetarc— pyrpds, THs mapdévou gyi’ ayeveaAsynTos ws
iapda davrov wewoinxey b eds. deeds’ ov yap xprce. yereadroyias 6 ef ayernijrov
2Comp. ¢. g. Theodoret: ’Aujrep wey ydp = yeyevvnudvos warpés.
560 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
namely, ip that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his birth or
his death. The statement is quite a general one. To limit it to the be-
ginning and end of the priesthood; is arbitrary. Nor is the meaning of
the words, that Melchisedec was not born in the ordinary human way,
and, something like Enoch and Elijah, was taken up to heaven without
experiencing death,? a sense which conflicts with the right apprehension
of the opening words of the verse.—agwuompévoc 62 TH vig Tov Beot] on the
contrary (therein) made entirely like unto the Son of God, namely, as type of
the same. The words do not belong to péve: iepeicg cig td dinvexéc (Peshito,
Grotius, al.). For with justice does Theodoret already observe: év uévroc
tH lepwobvy ov MeAyioedix pepiuntae tov deorétyvy Xpiotdv, add’ 6 deonérne
Xprotic lepevg eig Tov aidva xata rv rdésv MeAytoedéx. They form, by means
of the closely combining 6é, a more precise positive defining to the nega-
tive ware apyiv tucpov phte Cuno tédog exywv.8—pkver iepeig cig 7d dupvexéc!
remains priest for ever, in that, as of his end of life so also of the cessation
of his priesthood, nothing is recorded. He remains so in the reality of
his office, but only as a figure and type of Christ. Against the view of
Auberlen (i. c. p. 497), that Melchisedec is termed an everlasting priest in
no other sense than as, according to the Apocalypse, all the blessed in
heaven are so, see the observations of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p.
202 f., Remark. The subject, moreover, in péve: is naturally the Melchis-
edec of Genesis, not, as Wieseler contends (Schrr. d. Univ. zu Kiel aus.
d. J. 1860, VI. 1, p. 40): “‘the Melchisedec of the passage in the Psalms
just mentioned (vi. 20), or the true antitypal Melchisedec or Messiah.”
For it is not grammatically allowable, with Wieseler, to take the words
Baotreds Ladgu.. . agwporsuevoe dé tH vig Tov Yeov as an apposition merely
to 6 MeAyoedéx, and not to the whole expression otros 6 MeAyoedéx, and in
connection with otros 6 MeAytoedéx to rest the emphasis exclusively upon
ovroc.—ei¢ Td duqvexéc] of the same import as ei¢ rév aidva, vi. 20. Comp.
x. 12, 14.
Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-10, see Note LXIL., pages 579, 580.] Gewpeire] is impera-
tive, whereby a strain is to be put on the attention for that which follows:
but behold, namely, inwardly, t.e. consider.—mniixoc] how great, i.e. how
high and exalted.—oiro¢ kai dexdtav 'ABpadu éduxev x.7.4.] Resuming of
the historic notice already adduced at the beginning of ver. 2, in order
then further to argue from the same. By the choice and position of the
words, however, the author brings out the r7Aixo¢ in its truth and inner
justice. (Choice of the words adxpo¥fvia and rarpidpxnc,—the latter
in place of the elsewhere more usual 6 zargp in regard to Abraham,—
and effective placing of the characterizing title 6 warpdpy7¢ at the close
of the proposition at a far remove from the name ’Afpadp.)—xai dexdrqv]
«ai is not the merely copulative “also,” as ver. 2 (Hofmann), but is used
1Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Whit- brews,” in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 2, p. 382
by, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al. ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p.
2Hunnius, Braun, Akersloot; comp. also 102 f.; Alford.
Bleek, p. 322 ff.; Nagel: “On the significance Chrysostom: "Adewpompdvos S¢, dyot, re
of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the He- vig rov deo" cai wow H Opordrns ; "Ore xas Tovroy
CHAP. vil. 4, 5. 561
as giving intensity. It gives intensity, however, not to the subject (so
Luther, Grotius, Owen, Carpzov: ‘Abraham himself also ”),—for then »
kai 'ABpadu dexdtyv édwxev must have been written,—but the predicate: to
whom Abraham gave even the tenth.—axpofiva] composed of dxpog and Oiv,
in the N. T. a drat Acyéuevorv, denotes the uppermost of the heap, the choice
or best thereof. The expression is most current with regard to the first-
fruits of the harvest presented to the Godhead; not seldom, however, is it
used of the best, which was selected out of the spoils of war as an offering
consecrated to the Godhead. In our passage, too, axpodina denotes not
simply the spoils acquired by Abraham,’ but the choicest, most valuable
articles thereof. Theophylact: é trav Aagipwy trav xperrrévev Kal tipiwrépwr,
Not that the meaning of the author is, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec
the tenth part of the most choice objects among the booty acquired, but
that the tithes which he presented to Melchisedec consisted of the choicest,
most excellent portions of the booty.—é warp:dpync] he, the patriarch. The
sonorous name of honor zatpedpy7c, composed of warpid and apxq, desig-
nates Abraham as the father of the chosen race, and ancestor of the people
of Israel. Comp. Acts ii. 29, where David is distinguished by the same
title of honor, and Acts vii. 8,9, where the twelve sons of Jacob are so
distinguished.
Vv. 5-10. Unfolding of the ryAixo¢g otrog «.7.4., ver. 4,in that Mel-
chisedec is compared with the Levitical priests, and a threefold superior-
ity of the former over the latter is pointed out.
Vv. 5-7. First point of superiority. The Levitical priests, indeed, take
tithes of their brethren, although these brethren, in like manner as they,
have descended from Abraham : they have thus, it is true, a pre-eminence
above these; but they are inferior to Melchisedec, since this man took
tithes of Abraham himself, the common ancestor of the Jewish people,
and blessed him.
Ver. 5. Admission of the relatively privileged position of the Levitical
priests.—xai] the explanatory: and certainly.—ol pév x.r.A4.] preparatory
to the adversative 6 d2 «.7.4., ver. 6.—oi éx Tov vidv Aevi rH lepareiav
‘AauBdvovrec]| those of the sons (descendants) of Levi who obtain the office of
priest. For not all Levites, but only those of them who claimed lineage
from the house of Aaron, were entitled to enter upon the priesthood.
Comp. Ex. xxviii. 1 ff.; Num. iii. 10, 38, xvi., xviii. 1 ff., al. Mistaken is
the opinion of Delitzsch, Maier, and Moll (in coinciding with Hofmann),
that the é& in é rév vidv Aevt is the causal éx of origin: “those who
receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi, z.¢. by virture of their
descent from Levi, in such wise that their person is not taken into
account as such, but only in so far as they belong to this lineage.” If
that had been intended, of éx rév vidv Aevi dvreg cat did tovTo TH iepaTtetay
AapBavovres must have been written.—évroAjy Eyovow amodexaroiv tov Aady
xaxeivou Td Téd\0s ayvoovmer Kal THY apxyy GAAd = dx THY oKVAwY Kal Aadvpwy; Erasmus, Luther,
Trovrov péy wapa Td wh yeypadda, éxeivou 6¢ Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Bohme, Kui-
wapa Td ph elvas. noel, Stuart, Bloomfield, and the majority.
1390 Chrysostom: ra Adduvpa ; Oecumenius:
36
562 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
cata rov véuov] havea charge to tithe the people according to the law.'—xara
rov vouov] belongs not to rov Aadv,? against which even the non-repetition
of the article after A4aév decides; nor yet to amodexatow,® but to évrozyy
Eyovorv.—In the closing words, rovréotiy rove adeAgovg avtov, Kaimep x.7.2.,
Bleek, after the example set by Bohme, erroneously finds the sense:
“that, although they are the posterity of Abraham, the lauded patriarch,
who are tithed by the Levitical priests, yet they are, after all, still the
brethren of the latter, 2. e. fellow-Israelites ; which cannot be so astonish-
ing as when Abraham himself paid the tithes to Melchisedec.” On the
contrary, the elucidation of rév Aaéy by rovuréorev roicg adeAgoi¢e aitav serves
to bring into more striking relief the singularity of the azodexarotv; since
elsewhere only the higher receives tithes from the lower, not the equal
from the equal (as here an Abrahamides from an Abrahamides), and this
singularity of the arodexarovy is then yet further manifested by «aizep
éLeAyditloracg x ti¢ dogbog ’ABpadu. The author can therefore only design,
by means of ver. 5, to characterize the priests as primi inter pares. This
superiority, however, in regard to their own fellow-Israelites, the author
concedes only in order immediately after, ver. 6, to oppose to the same
the inferiority in regard to Melchisedec.—ééépyeo6ar éx rig oogbog tivdc] So
the LX X. render the Hebrew 'D yon RX") Gen. xxxv. 11; 2 Chron. vi. 9.
Ver. 6. Notwithstanding this privileged position of the Levitical priests
(ver. 5), Melchisedec yet occupies a far higher position.—é dé] is not to be
taken alone, as by BUhme, Kuinoel, and Klee, and then to be supplemented
by rq lepateiav AaBov from ver. 5; but 6 dé py yevearoyobpevog es
avrav belongs together: Melchisedec, on the contrary, without (u7) his
family or descent being derived from them, received tithes of Abraham.—é abrir]
refers neither to the Israclites,* nor to Levi and Abraham, but to the vioi
Aevi, ver. 5.—The parallel clause, cat rdv Eyovra rag émayyeniag evadynxev]
and blessed him who had the promises, serves yet further to make manifest
the dignity and exaltedness of Melchisedec. For, by the fact that
Abraham had received the divine promises, that his seed should be multi-
plied, and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed (Gen. xii. 2 f.,
xiii. 14 f.), he had been already most highly favored of God. How high
thus must that man stand, who imparts his blessing to one already so
highly favored, since truly—as is immediately expressly added, ver. 7—
Levites. Nevertheless, however the matter
may have stood in thia respect, there was
1Comp. Num. xviii. 20-32; Deut. xiv. 22-29;
Neh. x. 38, 39; de Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jiid.
Archdologie, 3 Aufl. p. 273f.; Delitzsch, Tal-
mudische Studien, XIV. Justification of Heb.-
vii. 5 (in Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. d. gesammte
luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1863, H. 1, p. 16 ff). The
justification consists of the attempted proof
that in the post-exilian age the tenth was no
longer levied in the first place by the Le-
vites,—who had been wont only afterwards to
render to the priests the portion pertaining
to the same,—but the priests themselves had
entered upon the right of levying the tenth,
which had been originally assigned to the
hardly any need of a justification of the
words Heb. vii. 5, since no statement what-
ever as to the mode of receiving the tenths is
contained in the same; on the contrary, these
words are equally appropriate for indirect as
for direct levying of the tithes.
Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, Starck, Bohme,
Hofmann.
3 Owen, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Ewald.
4Epiph. Haor. 67. 7; Cornelius a Lapide,
Braun, Ernesti, Schulz.
6 Grotius.
CHAP, VII. 6-9. 563
the dispenser of the blessing is ever more exalted than the recipient of
the blessing !*
Ver. 7 joined on by means of dé, since the verse contains the major of
a syllogism. The minor is already furnished in the second half of ver. 6,
and the conclusion: “ therefore Melchisedec is more exalted than Abra-
ham,” is left to the readers themselves to supply.—The neuters rd éAar-
tov and rd xpeirrov serve for the generalization of the statement, inas-
much as the author has only persons in view. Comp. Winer, p. 167 [E.
T. 178].—The truth of the statement, however, is apparent, in that the
author is thinking of the blessing imparted in the name of God and by
virtue of the divine authority. For Melchisedec as the priest of God was
the representative of God, or one divinely commissioned, in the commu-
nicating of the blessings.
Ver. 8. Second point of superiority. The Levitical priests are mortal
men; but of Melchisedec it is testified that he lives—By «ai dde pév,
“and here,” reference is made to the Levitical priests, by éxei dé, “ but
there,” to Melchisedec, because the Levitical priesthood still continues to
exist to the time of our author, thus having something about it near and
present; the historic appearing of Melchisedec, on the other hand, falls
in the period of hoary antiquity.—Jdexdrac] The plural, on account of the
plurality of tithes levied by the Levitical priests —daro@vfcxovrec] as the
principal notion placed before avOpwro:.—arofvjoxorrec dvOpwrot] men who
die (irrevocably or successively), comp. ver. 23.—éxet d& paprupobuevog dre
oy] but there, one who has testimony that he lives, sc. dexdtyv éAaBev. That by
reason of the coherence with that which precedes only Melchisedec can be
understood, and not? Christ, scarcely stands in need of mention. ¢%, as
opposition to aobGvgoxovres, can be interpreted only absolutely, of the life
which is not interrupted by death. That the author, in connection with
paprupobvuevoc, had before his mind a testimony contained in the Holy
Scriptures of the Old Covenant, admits of no doubt. Whether, however,
he derived the testimony of Melchisedec’s continued life from the silence
of Scripture as to Melchisedec’s death, or found in the declaration, Ps. cx.
+, a direct proof therefor, or, finally, combined the two facts together, and
deduced his conclusion from both in common, is a question hardly to be
decided?
Vv. 9,10. Third point of superiority. In Abraham, Levi the receiver of
the tithes has also already been tithed by Melchisedec.—The formula o¢
éroc eimeiv, of very common occurrence with classic writers, as likewise
frequently met with in Philo, is found in the N. T. only here. It denotes
either: to say it in one word (in short), or: 80 to say, i.e. in some sense.* In
1Oecumenius: éfnpe roy "ABpadu,ivawAecov doret, Zeger, Whitby, Heinrichs, Bleek,
éfapn Tov MeAxroedéx.
2 With Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius,
and Pyle.
3The first supposition is entertained by
Calvin, Estius, Drusius, Piscator, Grotius,
Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Stein, Bisping, Delitzsch,
Maier, Moll, and others; the second, by Theo-
Bloomfield, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, M’Caul,
Woerner, and others; the third, by Béhme,
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. pp. 201, 454,
and others.
4Theophylact; Td 8 ws éwos eiwety rovTO
onmaives 6, Te cai dy cuvTémy eiwecy, 7) ayTi TOU
Ca ed
iy’ ovuTes eiwe.
564 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the former sense our passage is apprehended by Camerarius, Jac. Cappellus,
Er. Schmid, Owen (preferably), Elsner, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann ; in the
latter,—and this is here the more correct one,—the Vulgate, Faber Stapu-
lensis, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kypke,
Heinsius, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck,
Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hof-
mann, Woerner, and the majority. The author himself feels that the
thought he is on the point of expressing has something singular and
ynusual about it. Thus he mitigates and limits the harshness thereof by
wc éroc eimetv, whereby he indicates that the ensuing statement is, not-
withstanding its inner truth, not to be understood literally.—ér 'ABpadu]
by Abraham, i.e. by the fact that Abraham gave the tenth. 'ASpadéyz isa
genitive. Mistaken; Augustine (de Genes. ad lit.x.19): propter Abraham ;
Photius (in Oecumenius): dia rav dexatwdévra 'ABpadpu pnot rpérov tivd xal
6 év TH oogbi abtov ert Sv Aevi dedexdturar.—Acvic] As is shown by the parti-
ciple present in the addition 6 dexdra¢ AauBévwr, we have not to think of the
mere individual personality of Levi, but of him in connection with his
posterity, thus of Levi as ancestor and representative of the Jewish
priests.
Ver. 10. Proof for the assertion ver. 9. When Abraham gave the tenth
to Melchisedec, he was as yet childless, and therefore at that time still
bore his descendants as in germ in himself. When, accordingly, by the
presentation of the tenth he acknowledged a superior rank of Melchisedec
over himself, he rendered homage to the latter not only in his own person,
but at the same time as the representative of his posterity, as yet incapa-
ble of independent action, because as yet unborn.—ér: é rH dogti Tov
matpo¢ eivac] to be as yet in the loins of the father, or to be yet unborn. The
expression is explained by the analogous é¢épyecfar éx rH¢ dogbo¢g tivédc, Ver.
5: by generation to proceed from one’s loins.—rov ratpé¢] is not to be taken,
with Bleek, as a “universally recognized designation” of Abraham (2. e.
as father of the Jews and Christians). It stands in special relation to
Levi; thus: Ais father, wherein, of course, seeing Abraham was the great-
grandfather of Levi, zar#p is to be understood in the wider sense, or as
progenitor.
Vv. 11-17. The Levitical priesthood in general has, together with the
Mosaic law, lost its validity. [On Vv. 11-19, see Note LXIII., pages 580,
581.]
Ver. 11. From the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to the priest-
hood of Melchisedec, just proved, it followed that the former was imper-
fect and incapable of leading to perfection. This fact is now presupposed
by the author as a self-evident consequence, and he proceeds at once to
demonstrate the truth thereof. [L-XIII b-e.]—otv] deduces the conclusion
from vv. 5-10, not from vi. 20 (de Wette, Bisping), whereby an interrup-
tion ensues in the continuity of the development begun by the author.—
ei] with the indicative preterite (iv. 8, vili. 4), supposition of an impossible
case: if there were, if there existed ; in combination with é:4: if it were
effected.—reAciwoic] perfection, i.e. attainment of the highest goal of man-
CHAP. Vil. 10, 11. 565
kind in a moral and religious respect. There is included in it the obtain-
ing of the expiation of sins and the glory to come. Comp. ix. 9, x. 1, 14,
xi. 40.—6é Aade yap Ex’ avtie vevouobétnta) for the people on the ground thereof
hath received the law. These words can be taken only as a parenthesis
(against Stein). vopovdereiv revit signifies to give laws to one, to provide
one with a law (here the Mosaic law). The mode of transposing this
active construction into the passive 6 Aad¢ vevouobérnrac is quite the usual
one; comp. Winer, p. 244 f. [E. T. 261].—éz’ avryc] relates not to rercivarc,}
but to tHe Aevitinge iepwotvyc. eri, however, denotes: upon the ground or
condition of the existence of the Levitical priesthood, z.e. the Levitical
priesthood is indissolubly conjoined with the Mosaic law which the people
has received; it forms a foundation pillar upon which the latter rests, so
that with the fall of the one the other also must fall (ver. 12). Errone-
ously,—because the statement thus arising would be too insignificant, and
because ézi in this sense is used only with verba dicendi,7—Schlichting and
Grotius [as also Whitby]: de sacerdotio Levitico legem accepit [an inter-
pretation already rejected by Junius and Piscator]; as likewise Bleek I.:
the people had received legal instruction concerning the Levitical priest-
hood.—But to what end the parenthesis? Its design is to indicate the
ground on which one might expect to attain to the reAgiwow,—if the
Mosaic law were at all capable of leading thereto,—by the intervention of
the Levitical priesthood, since the Mosaic law is erected upon this very
Levitical priesthood as its basis.—ri¢ érc ypeia] sc. 7, or av Hv. The words
following xpeia are not to be blended together into one thought,’ in such
wise that Aéyeobac is governed immediately by zpeia, and again all the
rest (kara rv ré&wv MeAyioedix Etepov aviotacbat iepéa Kai ov nata tiv Traéw
"Aapov) by Aéyecbar. The position of the words would then be contorted,
and one explicable on no justifying grounds. On the contrary, the infini-
tive clause xara tiv rdéw MeAyioedéx Erepov avioracba lepéa depends at once
upon the immediately preceding ric ére ypeia; and to this first infinitive
clause the second kai ob nara tiv rdéécv 'Aapoy Afyecfac forms an epexegetic
parallel clause: What need was there still then (or: would there then still have
been) that another priest should arise “after the order of Melchisedec,” and
not be called (priest) after the order of Aaron ?—éz:] sc. after the Levitical
priesthood had long been instituted, and in general the Mosaic law pro-
mulgated.—érepov] in distinction from 44Aov, brings prominently forward
the dissimilarity of his nature and constitution as compared with that of
the Levitical priests.—To «ai we have not to supplement the whole idea
étepov lepéa, but only lepéa.—od, however, is placed, not yf as the infinitive
AéyeoSac might seem to require, because the negation extends to only a
part of the clause. ov, namely, is closely associated with xara ri rat
'‘Aapdév, and forms with the same merely a more precise definition to the
iepéa which is to be supplied, so that the total expression xai (iepéa) ob
180, upon the supposition of the reading Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, Syntaz, p- 248.
és” avty, Vatablus, but undecided; Seb. 3 Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Baumgarten,
Schmidt, Starck, Rambach. Chr. Fr. Schmid.
2Comp. Gal. iii. 16; Heindorf, ad Plat.
566 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
kara tiv téév ’Aapév presents an opposition to the foregoing total expres-
sion Kata ryv tagy MeAyioedix étepov iepfa.—Atyeoda:] namely, Ps. cx. 4.
That Aéyeo9ae is not to be taken in the sense of eligi (Kuinoel, Stein, al.) is
already shown by the Aéyera:, ver. 13.
Ver. 12. In the parenthesis, ver. 11, the author has brought forward in
gencral the close connectedness of the Levitical priesthood with the
Mosaic law, and thereby already indicated that if the former is an imper-
fect and unsatisfying one, the same also is true of the latter; the
perishing of the one involves also the perishing of the other. This truth
the author now further specially urges, by means of a corroboration of
the parenthetical remark, ver. 11. So in recent times also Alford and
Woerner. Otherwise is the connection apprehended by Bleek, de Wette,
Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 484), Maier, and
Moll. They refer yép to the main thought in ver. 11, and find in ver. 12
an indication of the reason “ why a change of the sacerdotal order would
not have ensued without an urgent cause, namely, because such change
would have involved also a change of the law in general.” But subject-
matter and form of expression in ver. 12 point back to the parenthesis,
ver. 11. For in both the author is speaking of the inseparable conjunc-
tion of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law; and én’ avric, ver.
11, is resumed by rig lepwoivyc, ver. 12; vevouodérnra, ver. 11, by véuor,
ver. 12.—erariSeuévnc] denotes, likethe werd deoce immediately following,
certainly as to its verbal signification, only a transformation or change (not
specially, as Chrysostom, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, Heinrichs, Stuart, and
others suppose, a transference of the priesthood to another tribe of the
Jewish people, or to a non-Aaronides.) As regards the thing intended,
however,—as is manifest from the parallel a¥érgors, ver. 18,—an actual
rendering obsolete or abrogation is spoken of. The author thus still expresses
himself with delicacy of feeling.—That, further, véuo0¢ is to be limited,
neither! to the law of the priesthood, nor? to the ceremonial law, but is to be
interpreted of the Mosaic law in general, is self-evident.
Vv. 13, 14. First proof of ver. 12. [LXIII f.] Levitical priesthood and
Mosaic law have lost their validity. For Christ, to whom the utterance
of God, Ps. cx. 4, refers, belongs in point of fact to another tribe, which,
according to Mosaic ordinance, has nothing to do with the administration
of the priesthood.
Ver. 13. ’Ey’ év] With regard to whom. Comp. Mark ix. 12,18; Rom.
iv. 9.—Aéyerac ravta] contains, like the Aéyeo9ac of ver. 11, a direct allusion
to the declaration of God, Ps. cx. 4. Wrongly Paulus: that which I have
said heretofore.—ovaje érépac peréoxnxev] has part in another tribe (i.e. in a
tribe different from that of Levi), namely, as member thereof.—ag¢’ 7c]
descended from which, or belonging to the number of its members.—ovdeic
mpostaynkev T@ Grotactnpiy] no one, namely, according to the ordinance of
the law, attends at the altar, i.e. performs the priestly functions.
1 With Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, Wit- 2With Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac.
tich, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Zachariae, Whitby, Cappellus, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Klee, and
Schulz. others.
CHAP. vir. 12-15. 567
Ver. 14. Further evidencing of ver. 13.—pédyAov ydp, bri] for it is
clearly apparent that. The zpo in mpédyAov is not to be taken, with
Peirce (following Owen), temporally, according to which the sense would be,
that Christ’s descent from the tribe of Judah was made known beforehand,
z.e. before He had yet arisen upon earth,—with which, in the first place,
the perfect avaréradxev does not harmonize,—but contains the notion
of lying manifestly before the eyes. Theodoret: 1d mpédyAov o¢ avavrippyrov
réQecxe. mpo serves, therefore, only for the strengthening of the simple
dgaov. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 24, 25.—é "Iotda] out of Judah, i.e. from the
tribe of Judah (comp. Rev. v. 5; Gen. xlix.9, 10). With emphasis pre-
posed.—avaréradxev] has arisen or sprung forth. The figure which underlies
the verb is either that of a rising star (comp. Num. xxiv. 17; Mal. iv.2; Isa.
lx. 1), or of a tender shoot coming up from the ground (Gen. xix. 25; Isa.
xliv. 4; Ezek. xvii. 6; comp. also avaroa#, NY, with reference to the
Messiah, Jer. xxiii. 5; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12).—é xbpso¢ #uav] Jesus Christ.—
ei¢ 7v gvagv] in reference to which tribe.—repi iepéwv] sc. who should be
taken out of the same.
Vv. 15-17. Second proof of ver. 12. The abrogation of the Levitical
priesthood and the Mosaic law follows further from the fact that the new
priest who is promised is to bear resemblance to Melchisedec, whereby it
is made manifest that his characteristic peculiarity is one quite different
from that of the Levitical priests.
Ver. 15. Kai wepoodrepov ere xatddnddv tori] and the more still is tt evident,
namely, that with the Levitical priesthood the whole Mosaic law, too, is
changed (and deprived of validity), ver. 12. Comp. also ver. 18. Not:
what difference there is between the Levitical and the N. T. priesthood ;'
nor yet that perfection is to be found, not in the Levitical priesthood,
but in the priesthood of Christ;? and just as little: that the priesthood
is changed. Quite mistakenly Ebrard: to xarddyAév éorcy we have to
supply from ver. 14 the clause ére é "Iotda avaréradxev 6 xipiog qyov: “ that
Jesus descended from Judah is first in itself an acknowledged fact (ver. 14);
this, however, is so much the more clear, since (ver. 15) it follows from
the Melchisidecian nature of His priesthood that He could not be born
xara véuov!” How then could it be inferred from the fact that Jesus could
not be born «ard véuov, that He must have descended precisely “ from
Judah ” ?!—xardédyAov] a similar intensifying of the simple form, as previ-
ously xpédqAov.—ei . . . aviorara:] if, as surely is the case, their arises.6 ei
thus, as to the sense, equal to éxe:d45—xara ri duoibryta MeAyioedéx] a8
the main idea placed first, and éuocéry¢ an elucidation of the réé¢ in
the passage of the Psalms.—The sulject in the conditional clause is lepei¢
1 Chrysostom: rd door rhs iepwovrns exaré- 4That Stein would combine «i and os in
pas, Td Scadopoy, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping.
3 Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Hofmann, Schrift-
bew. IT. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551; Delitzsch.
3Primasius, Justinian, Owen, Hammond,
Rambach, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stuart, Klee,
Paulus. im
the sense: “It is quite clear to all that, if at
any time another priest after the manner of
Melchisedec arises, he then,” etc., deserves
to be mentioned only as a curiosity.
6 Oecumenius, Theophylact.
568 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
repoc (if . . . another priest arises), not merely érepo¢ (Schulz: “if...
another is appointed as priest”), nor yet Jesus (if He ... arises as
another priest). |
Ver. 16. [LXIII g, h.] Nearer indication as to what is implied by the
chararacteristic xara tv duodtyra MeAyoedéx, ver. 15, what peculiarity of
priesthood is expressed by the same.—dc] sc. iepetg érepoc, NOt: MeAxuwedéx.
—ic ... yéyovev] who... has become s0 (sc. priest).—ot xara véuov évroAge
capkivng x.t.A.] not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according
to the power of indestructible [or indissoluble] life. In connection with
véuo¢, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bohme, Kuinoel, Tholuck,
Delitzsch, and others think of the Mosaic law ; but against this argues the
singular évtoAqe¢ capKivae, to take which, with the expositors mentioned,
in the sense of the plural (according to the Mosaic law, whose essence
consists in fleshly ordinances), or as a collective designation of the con-
stituent parts of the lawas 6 véuoc trav évroddv, Eph. ii. 15, is arbitrary.
véno¢ 18 therefore to be taken, as Rom. vii. 21, 28, in the more general
sense: norm (rule, standard), and the évroAq is the special precept or
ordinance which the Mosaic law contains regarding the Levitical priest-
hood.—It is called fleshly, however, according to Carpzov, Boéhme, Stuart,
and others, because it is mutable and transitory; more correctly, never-
theless : because it lays stress only upon evternal, earthly things, which fall
a prey to transitoriness, and (comp. the contrast agAAd xara divauev «.7.2.)
appoints as priests only mortal men, of whom one after another is snatched
away by death.—xaré divauiw Gwe axaradbrov} i.e. inasmuch as the power
of living for ever is inherent in Him. Comp. vv. 17, 24. Improperly do
Cameron, Dorscheus, Calov, al., refer itas well, or solely, to Christ’s power
of communicating intransitory life fo others. But wrongly, too, Hofmann
(Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551 f.), Delitzsch, and Alford: the {wi axaraAvro¢
is to be limited to that life of Christ which began with His resurrection.
On the contrary, the (u) axardavroc is thought of as a property inherent
In the lepev¢ érepoc, without respect to relation of time.?
Ver. 17. Scripture proof for xara divaytvy Cane axatadirov, ver. 16. This
Scripture proof the author finds in the el¢ rév aidve, Ps. cx. 4, upon which
words, therefore, the emphasis rests in ver. 17.—aprupeirac yap] for he
(namely, the icpete Erepoc, ver. 15, 7. e. Christ) has the testimony. paprupeira
is not to be taken impersonally: “it is witnessed ” (Bleek, Bisping, Cony-
beare, al.).—ér:] recitative, as x. 8, xi. 18.
Vv. 18,19. [LXIII i, 7.] Elucidation of that which is signified by this
proclamation in the psalm, of the arising of a new everlasting priest after
the manner of Melchisedec (ver. 17). By virtue of that proclamation of
God, the Mosaic institution of the priests, and with it the Mosaic law in
Schlichting: carnale (praeceptum) voca — sulens, successionis jura descripserat. Inde
tur, quia totum ad carnem spectabat, car- enim factum est, ut unum alteri succedere
nisque rationem habebat. Partim enim ad juberet, quo, morientibus sacerdotibus, sa-
certam stirpem,nempe Aaronicam, sacerdo- cerdotium tamen ipsum perpetuaretur.
tii dignitatem adstrinxerat, partim mortali- 2Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr.
tati pontificum, quae carnis propria est,con- _—p. 458, Obs.
CHAP, VII. 16-19. 569
general, is declared—and that with good reason—to be devoid of force;
and, on the other hand, a better hope is brought in.—Vv. 18, 19 contain
a single proposition, dividing itself into two halves by means of pév...
dé, for which yiverae forms the common verb, and in which otdév yap
éredeiwoev 6 véuoc constitutes a parenthesis.? Others construe differently,
in taking each of the two verses as an independent statement in itself.
They then vary as regards the interpretation of éresoaywyf, ver. 19, as this
is looked upon either as predicate or as subject. As predicate it is taken
by Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus (Version), Vatablus, Calvin, Hunnius, Jac.
Cappellus, Pyle, Ebrard, and others, in supplying éoriy or 7, and regard-
ing as subject thereto 6 véuoc. According to this, the sense would be: for
nothing has the law brought to perfection; but it is (or its meaning con-
sists in this, that it is) a bringing in of a better hope. But against this
argues the fact that, if érecoaywy7? dé was intended to form the opposition
to the first half of ver. 19, the author could not possibly—after having
placed a verb (éreAcivcev) in the first half, consisting as it does only of a
few words—have continued in the second half otherwise than with a verb;
he must have written éreiodye: dé xpeitrova éArida instead of éreoaywy) 62
x.t.A. Moreover, éri in émeccaywyf would have remained without any
reference upon the supposition of this construction. As subject irewaywyf
is looked upon by Beza, Castellio, Pareus, Piscator, Schlichting, Owen, Seb.
Schmidt, Carpzov, Whitby, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Hein-
richs, Stuart, and others. The sense would then be; the law indeed
brought nothing to perfection ; but the bringing in of a better hope did lead
to perfection. Against this view, however, the consideration is decisive,
that in such case, inasmuch as the preceding véuoc has the article, érecca-
ywyf also must have obtained the article—The statement of ver. 18 is to
be understood in special relation to the subject in question (not, as is
done by Schlichting, Heinrichs, and others, as a truth of universal im-
port). The article before mpoayoton¢ évroAje is wanting, because the design
was to express the évroAq regarding the Levitical priesthood as one which
had only the character of an évroAy x podyovoa.—avdétnor]| a declaring void
of force, abrogation. Comp. avereiv Gal. 111.15. The substantive only here
and ix. 26.—yivera:] results, namely, in the declaration of God, Ps. ex. 4—
The évroag, the command, denotes not the whole Mosaic law,’ but the
ordinance regarding the Levitical priesthood therein contained. Only
with ver. 19 does the author transfer to the whole that which he here
states concerning a part.—The évroa#, however, is termed zpodyovoa
(comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, v. 24), because, as a constituent part of theO. T., it
preceded in point of time the institution of the New Covenant. Yet, at
'1Theodoret: Tavetar, dyoty, 6 vdpos,éwecod- Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 592), Al-
yetar 8 7) Twy Kpecrrovey éAmis,
280, rightly, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, Primasius, Luther, Zeger, Camera-
rius, Estius, Peirce, Bengel, M’Lean, Schulz?
Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck,
Bloomfield, Conybeare, Bisping, Delitzsch,
ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann,
Woerner, and’the majority.
%Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Primasius, Calvin, Grotius,
Hammond, Owen, M'Lean, Boéhme, Kuinoel,
Stuart, Klee, Bloomfield.
570 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the same time, there lies in the emphatically preposed participle, on
account of its reciprocal relation to évecaywyf, ver. 19. at least the addi-
tional indication delicately conveyed, that this évroAy7, since just as a mere
precursor of something future it points beyond itself, naturally bears the
character of the merely temporary and consequently wnsatisfactory—éa 7d
aiTne aadevég Kat avwdeAéc] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness.
The évroA# was weak, since it did not possess the strength to attain its ob-
ject, namely, the reconciliation of men to God; but, because in such man-
ner it did not fulfill the end of its existence, it became for that very reason
something unprofitable and unserviceable. On acadevéc, comp. Rom. viii.
3; Gal. iv. 9.—ovdév] is not to be limited by means of oidéva (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Bis-
ping), but, on the contrary, 1s to be left in the full universality of the neu-
ter. Completion in general, in whatever respect, the law was not in a
position to bring about.—ézecaywy4] a doubly composite term. Literally:
introduction upon or in addition to, 2. e. the bringing in of something new in
addition to, or over and above, an object already present (here: in addi-
tion to the mpodyovsa évroag, ver. 18). éwi in éreccaywyf corresponds
therefore tothe zpé in xpoayobonc.—xpeirrovog éAridoc] of a better hope, sec.
than the zpodyovsa évroAq was in a position to afford.! Better, more excel-
lent, is the hope founded upon the newly instituted priesthood, in that this
hope is certain and infallible, thus in reality leads to the desired goal.—
bv ag éyyifouev tH Ge@] by means of which we draw nigh unto God (Jas. iv. 8).
Comp. vi. 19: eisepyouévay cig rd éobrepov tod xatatetdopuatoc, and x. 19 ff.
In contrast with the character of the Old Covenant, since the people were
not permitted to enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of Jehovah
was, Cf. ix. 6 ff.
Vv. 20-22. [On Vv. 20-28, see Note LXIV., pages 582, 583.] As one
element in the superiority of the everlasting priesthood after the manner
of Melchisedec, assigned to Christ, over the Levitical priesthood has been
already implicitly brought forward, vv. 18, 19, namely, that the goal, for
the attainment of which the strength was lacking to the Levitical priest-
hood, is really attained by the everlasting priesthood. A second point of
superiority in the new order of things over the old follows in vv. 20-22.
Of less moment than the everlasting priesthood of Jesus must the Levitical
priesthood be; for the former was constituted by God by virtue of a
declaration upon oath, the latter without a declaration upon oath, Vv.
20-22 form again a single period, the protasis being contained in xai xa,
1 We have not to explain, with Schulz: “So
is then... something better introduced, the
hope, by virtue of which,” etc. To the same
result as Schulz does Delitzsch also come,
when he observes: “It is not meant that the
law also afforded a hope, and that the one
introduced by the word of the psalm is only
by comparison hetter; but the cpetrrwy éAnis,
which possesses that which is truly perfected
in the future, in the world beyond the grave,
into which its anchor has been sunk (vi. 19),
stands opposed to the évroAy in the present
state of its unsatisfying praxis.” In the same
manner, lastly, Alford: “The contrast is be-
tween the xpodyovea éevroAy¥, weak and un-
profitable, and a better thing, viz. the eAsis,
which brings us neartoGod. This xcpetrrords
T.vos, TouTéaoTiy eAmiéos x.7.A., is expressed by
Kpetrrovos ¢Awisos.”
CHAP. VII. 20-22. 571
bcov vd xwpic dpxwpooiac, to which then xai rocovro x.7.A, ver. 22, corresponds
as the apodosis, while all that intervenes (oi név yap, to the end of ver. 21)
is a parenthesis. [LXIV a.] Wrongly do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus,
Calvin (in the translation), Er. Schmid, and others join xai xa? dcov ov yunic
opxwposiac, too, to the closing words of ver. 19: and, indeed, a hope which is
better, inasmuch as it 18 not brought in without an oath. So also Luther:
“and moreover, which is a great thing, not without oath;” while, with
not less violence, Lud. Cappellus, who, in enclosing vy. 18,19 within a -
parenthesis, and taking kai xa& écov ob ywpi¢ dpxwuooiag with ver. 17, gives as
the sense: “ Deus constituit Christum sacerdotem secundum ordinem Mel-
chisedec, et quidem non sine jurejurando.”—x«ai}] coupling on a farther
link in the chain of enumeration, as vv. 8, 9, 23.—xai xa? icov ob yupic
dpxwpooiac] sc. lepetg éotev yeyovdc ; and inasmuch (ix. 27) as He has become
priest not without a declaration upon oath, i.e. He has not become so without
God having sanctioned His appointment to be a priest by a declaration
upon oath (namely, by virtue of the oath, with which the declaration, Ps.
cx. 4, is introduced). Only this mode of supplementing is warranted by
the connection, as is shown partly by the of pév yap yupi¢ dpxwpocias eiciv
tepeic yeyovdérec immediately following, partly by the circumstance that
the author is still engaged in the exposition of the Scripture statement,
ver. 17, this statement thus containing for him the gist of the matter; as,
accordingly, this declaration of Scripture is repeated anew, ver. 21, and
then likewise the eiciv lepei¢g yeyovdérec recurs in the further member
of the thought, ver. 23 f. The explanation therefore of Seb. Schmidt,
Wolf, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Alford, Kurtz, and others is to
be rejected, when to xaf icov ob yupic dpxwpociac they supplement from the
apodosis diabjnng Eyyvog yéyovev; as also that of Storr, Schulz, Bleek, de
Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Moll, and Hofmann, when they sup-
ply rovro (8c. éretcaywy) xpeirrovog éAridoc) ylverar (yéyovev).—ol pév yép]
[LXIV 4, c.] namely, the Levitical priests.—yupi¢ dpxwpociacs] since nothing
is related in Scripture of an oath of God, when He destined Aaron and
his posterity to be priests.—eicly yeyovétec] forms one idea: have become.
Wrongly, Paulus and Klee: are priests who have become so without an
oath. Bohme (and so also Hofmann): “sunt sacerdotes, sed sine jura-
mento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti”—which must have been ex-
pressed by eisiv iepeig ywpic dpxwpoolac yeyovérec. Still more widely mistaken
the view of Michaelis ad Peirc.: “ fuerunt, t.e. esse desierunt,’—which is
grammatically as well as logically impossible. The tempus periphrasticum
siciv yeyorérec marks the fact already belonging to the past as still extend-
ing onwards into the present.—é dé] namely, Christ—pe? dpxwpociac] se.
lepetbe éotiv yeyovdc.—dia Tov Akyovrog mpoc avTéy] i. e. in the sense of the author:
by God, not: by the psalmist (Rambach, Heinrichs), although certainly the
statement, Ps. cx. 4, that God hath sworn and will not repent of this oath,
forms nota constituent part of the words of God Himself, but a remark of
the psalmist, with which he introduces the words of God. Yet, when in the
psalm it is said that God has sworn, and of this oath He will not repent,
and then there is adduced as the subject-matter of this oath the declara-
572 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
tion : ov lepete «.7.4., this is tantamount to saying that God has declared
by virtue of an irreversible oath: od lepete «.7.4. As, accordingly, the
psalmist is relating the words of God, so does he also relate the oath
which preceded them.
Ver. 22. The apodosis: Jesus has become the surety of a 30 much more ex-
cellent covenant, i.e. 80 much more excellent is the covenant of which Jesus
has become surety.—éyyvoc] in the N. T. only here. Comp. however, 2
Macc. x. 28; Ecclus. xxix. 15, 16.—Surety of a better covenant has Jesus
become, i. e. in the person of Jesus pledge and guarantee is given that a
better covenant has been established by God. For Christ, the Son of
God, had become man in order to proclaim this covenant upon earth, had
sealed it by His sufferings and death, and had been mightily accredited
by His resurrection from the dead as a Founder of the Covenant who
had been sent by God.—Incorrectly do Piscator, Owen, Calov, Wittich,
Braun, and others find the thought expressed that Christ became surety
to God for men, in that He vicariously took upon Himself the guilt which
they must have borne; while, just as erroneously, Limborch, Baumgarten,
Chr. Fr. Schmid, and others contend that a reciprocal suretyship, for God
with men and for men with God, is meant. Each of these views has the con-
text against it; since there respect is had only to that which has been guar-
anteed to men by the new order of things. Comp. ver. 19: xpeirrovoc éAzidog,
Ov He éyyifopev TH Oem; VV. 25, 26.—Inoove] with emphasis placed at the end.
Vv. 23-25. [LXIV d, e.] Third point of superiority of the priesthood of
Christ over the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priests die one after the
other; Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand, is, since He ever lives, an
unchangeable and intransitory one. The author consequently lays special
stress upon that point of superiority to which already, ver. 16 f. (comp.
ver. 8), he had pointed.
Ver. 23. Kai] parallel to the «ai, ver. 20.—xai ol pév rAsiovéc eicw lepeig
ysyovétec] and they on the one hand have as several (or as a plurality) become
priests, i.e. of Levitical priests there is a multiplicity. Attention is not
here called to the peculiarity that many priests always existed contem-
poraneously the one with the other (so Erasmus, Puraphr., Braun, De-
litzsch), or that “the Levitical priesthood was not given to one, but to a
lineage” (Hofmann). That which is meant is—as is evident from the
immediately following 6:4 rd Oavdr@ KwiteoOar rapapéverv, and from ver. 24—
the successive plurality, in that one dies after another, and consequently
the one succeeds the other. For the author in thus speaking has before
his mind the high priests, since it is just with these that Christ is placed in
parallel. Comp. ver. 26 ff., al—dé:a 1rd Oavdty KwAbecbas tuapapéverr] because
(wrongly de Wette: “by the fact that”) they are (wrongly de Wette and
Bisping : “ were’’) prevented by death from continuing.—apapévery] not: év
TH lepwotvy.' It denotes, as is clear from the corresponding da 1d pévecy
avrov ei¢ Tov aidva, ver. 24, to continue in life.”
180 Oecumeniusg, who is followed by Gro- Hebrderbr. pp. 459, 437; Alford, Maier, Kurta,
tius, 8eb. Schmidt, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee,Stein, | Hofmann, Woerner, and others.
Bloomfield, Delitasch, Riehm, Lekrbegr. des *Comp. also Phil, i. 25, and Meyer ad loe.
CHAP. VII. 22-25. 573
Ver. 24. The other, on the other hand, because (not “by the fact that,”
de Wette, Bisping) He abides unto eternity, has His priesthood as an un-
changeable one.—évew sic tov aiéva] must not be explained, with Estius,
Seb. Schmidt, and others, of abiding for ever as priest. For in this way
the declaration of ver. 24 becomes tautological. The expression denotes
the everlasting duration of life (comp. John xii. 34, xxi. 22, 23; 1 Cor. xv.
6; Phil. i. 25), is thus equivalent to the wdvrore (7, ver. 25.—amapdaBaroc] a
word belonging to later Greek (comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 313), save here,
foreign to the N. T., as also to the LXX. Erasmus, Schlichting, Bengel,
Schulz, Boéhme, Stengel, Stuart, Ebrard, Hofmann, Conybeare, and the
majority, take it in the active signification: not passing over to another,
thus remaining with the same person, or unchanging.’ More correctly, how-
ever, because more consistently with the demonstrable usage of the
language (see instances in Wetstein and Bleek), does Bleck, after the pre-
cedent of Elsner, insist upon the passive signification : “that which may
not be overstepped, transgressed ; therefore: inviolable, unalterable, im-
mutable,” which then, it is true, includes lhkewise the notion of ‘“ un-
changing.” |
’ Ver. 25. ‘O0ev] Wherefore, sc. because His priesthood is an everlasting
one.—xai] also, represents the statement, ver. 25, as being the natural
effect of the amapdéfarov tyew tiv iepwoivyr, ver. 24, as its cause.—eig rd
mavreAéc] means: perfectly, completely, entirely (comp. Luke xiii. 11), and
combines with odéfev in one idea. Theodoret: airdv yap adfew muac cipnev
kai tedeiav owrnpiav rapéxyewv. The meaning: in perpetuum, attached to the
word by the Peshito, the Vulgate, Chrysostom (ob zpd¢ 1d rapov pédvor,
gnoiv, GAAG Kai éxei év rH peAAoboy Sw), Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther,
Calvin, Schlichting, Grotius, Heinrichs, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, and others,
in joining it either with odfew or with divara:, is in accordance neither
with the etymology nor the usage (instances in Bleek), but arises only
from the connection, and is consequently to be rejected.—sdfev] save,
embraces the deliverance from the misery of sin and its consequences,
and, on the other hand, the communication of everlasting blessedness.
Too restricted, Hofmann: the answering of prayer, and deliverance out
of every assault.—rod¢ mpooepyouévove dt’ avtov te Bep] those who through
Him, i.e. through faith in Him, draw near to God.—rdvrote Cav eic td Evrvy-
xdvew irép abtav] seeing that He evermore lives, to make intercession for them
(Rom. viii. 26, 27, 34), or to represent them (sc.in the presence of God).
More precise unfolding of the notion already lying in 6%e¢».—Similarly
for the rest does Philo, too, ascribe to his Logos an intercession with God.?
Vv. 26-28. [LXIV f-i.] Fourth point of superiority of the priesthood of
130, as it would seem, already Theodoret
(obros 8¢ abavaros wy eis eTEpoy OV wapanéurear
THs tepwovrns 7d ydpas), Oecumentius (adcado-
xov, areAcvtyroyv), Theophylact (adcaxomoy,
ad.a80xov).
Comp. Vit. Mos. iii. p. 673 C (with Mangey,
II. p. 155): "Avayxaioy yap hy roy iepwudvoy re
Tov KéqMov Tarp, RapaxArry xpnaOa TeAccoTaTy
THY aperny vig, xpos Te auynotiay auapTyMaTwY
Kat xopnyiav adOovwrdtrwy ayadar.— Quis. rer.
div. haer. 42, p.509 B (with Mangey, I. p. 501):
‘O 8 avrdg ixérys dy dors rou BynTou, xnpaivoy-
Tog aei, wpds Td adVapror.
574 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Christ over the Levitical priesthood, in the form of an establishing of ver. 25.
The Levitical priests are sinful men, who need daily to offer for their own
sins and the sins of the people; Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once
for all has offered up Himself as a sacrifice.
Ver. 26. Proof for the actual existence of a high priest who is able in a
perfect manner to procure salvation, since He ever liveth to represent in
the presence of God those who believe in Him (ver. 25), derived from the
meetness and adaptedness to our need of just such a high priest: for such a
high priest (as had just been described, ver. 25) also beseemed us. tocovroc
begins no parenthesis, so that éccog «.7.A. were only “the continuation of
a series begun with mdvrore (dv eig TO évrvyzdverv ixép avrtav” (Hofmann),
nor is “oiog 6 ’Iycovc to be supplemented from ver. 22” (Woerner), nor
does it serve for the introducing or preparing the way for the following
predicates, dcv0¢ x«.7.4. (Grotius, Tholuck, al.), but refers back to the char-
acterization, ver. 25; while, then, with doc «.7.A. a newly beginning
further description of this so constituted high priest, or a further unfolding
of the roovrog, follows, in such wise that the dcco¢ «.7.A, thus attached is
best rendered by: He, since He is holy, etc., beseemed us.—xai] also, ¢. e.
exactly. See Winer, p. 408 [E. T. 488].—%o¢] holy or pure. In regard to
the relation towards God.'—éxaxocg] free from xaxia, from craft and malice.
In regard to the relation towards men.2—ipiavroc] unstained by any kind of
impurity. In regard to the relation towards Himselft—nxeywpicpivog ard
Tov duaptwaar] separated from the sinners, i.e. not: different from them by
reason of His sinlessness,‘ but—as is evident from the member immedi-
ately following—withdrawn by His exaltation to heaven from all contact with
the sinners, so that He cannot be defiled by them. As the Levitical priests
in general, so must very specially the high priest preserve himsclf free
from defilement (Lev. xxi. 10 ff.); before the great day of atonement he
must, according to the Talmud, spend seven days in the temple, apart
from his family, in order to be secured against defilement.5—xai inpyAdrepog
Tov ovparav yevduevoc] and (not “also” or “even,” as Hofmann contends)
raised above the heavens, inasmuch, namely, as He deAjAvbe rove ovpavois,
iv. 14. Comp. Eph. iv. 10: 6 avaBa¢ imepévw mavtwy trav ovpavar.
Ver. 27. In the mpérepov irép trav idluy auaptiav, Exerta tov Tov A2aov there
is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day
of atonement (Lev. xvi.), comp. ix. 7. We are prevented, however, from
referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin-offer-
ing prescribed, Lev. iv. 3 ff.) by xa6’ 7uépav, instead of which, as at ix.
25, x. 1, 3, xar’ éviav7dv must have been placed. For xcaW guépav can
signify nothing else than “ daily ” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the
1 Comp. 1 Theas. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 24; 1 Tim. 8 Comp. Jas. i. 27; 1 Pet. i. 4.
ii.8; Tit. 1.8. With the LXX. for the most 4So the Peshito, separatus a peccatis; Vata-
part translation of "OM, e.g. Ps. iv. 4 (3), xvi. blus, Calvin, Cameron, Carpzov, Owen, Bohme,
10 (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35), xxx. 5 (4). Kuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Ebrard, Bloomfield,
2Chrysostom: "Acaxos rt éotiv; “Aiovnpos, Kurtz, and others.
OUX UmovAOS' Kat Gre TOLOUTOS, Axove TOV TPOdH}- 6See Tract. Joma, i.1. Comp. also Schétt-
Tov A€yovros’ Oude eupédn SodA0s dv re orduats gen, Horae Hebraicae, p. 963 f.
avrov (Isa. liii. 9).
CHAP. VII. 26, 27. 575
signification : “ yearly ona definite day” (“‘xa¥ guspav dpiopévyy or teray-
pévyv”), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam,
in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr.
Schmid, M’Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense,
-as equivalent to “saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “ zoA-
Aduic ” (BOhme, Stein), or “ dia ravrd¢” (de Wette), or in the sense of “ one
day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a
succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to
his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice!), is
linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and
arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr.
des Hebraerbr. p. 438), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hof-
mann (Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense:
that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once
every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all-
embracing expiation of sin—must needs do day by day. For all that is
expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the
Levitical high priests need to do daily.!. Nor does it avail anything that
Kurtz will take xcaW’ guépay in conjunction only with ot« éyec avdayxny,
since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only
acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ca
guépav has “nothing whatever to do with the @vaiag avadéperv,” is a mere
assertion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily
renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account
of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ere (on the great day of propitiation)
he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacri-
fice for his own sins,” was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion
of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,—from which
even the mpérepov, éxecra, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have
kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary charac-
ter of the one half of the statement, pd rot with the infinitive, or zpiv
(zpiv 7), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with
Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck,
that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on
the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice
of the Levitical priests (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), and by reason
of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he
might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high
priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other
festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii.3: in general as often as
he was so minded)—went up with the other priests into the temple, and
took part in the sacrificial service.2 To be compared also are the words
1 The unsatisfactory character of the above 1860, H. 4, p. 595).
exposition was afterwards acknowledged by %Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5.7:
Delitzsch himself, and the explanation re- ‘O 8é apxcepeds aves nev Guy avTois GAA’ OVK ae,
tracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s _— rats & éBdouacr cai vouunviats, Kai ei Tis eopTn
Zeitschr. f. die gesammte luther. Theol.u. Kirche, warpros 7 wavyyupis mavdnnos ayouevy 8c’ érovs.
576 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
of Philo, who, Qués rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), re-
marks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for them-
selves, but the lambs for the people,’ and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with
Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the
offering of a daily sacrifice? Recently also Delitzsch* has further drawn
attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, ii. 4, and Bab. Pesachim,
57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily—rovro] namely, ré izip
tav vov Aaod duaptiav Ovoiav avagéperv. So rightly—as is even demanded by
ver. 28 (comp. iv. 15)}—Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius,
Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby,
Storr, Heinrichs, Bdhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloom-
field, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 463), Alford,
Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch,
Bengel, and Ebrard supplement 1d @voiac dvagépew; while, altogether
wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. II.
1, 2 Aufl. pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back rvvro to the whole proposition xpdérepov
... Aaov. For in the application to Christ, to explain the duapria as the
“dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esée, et quas Christus occasione
etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per
mortem ” (Grotius), or as “ Christi infirmitates et perpessiones ” (Schlicht-
ing, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with éavrév ave-
véyxac, besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is
at the same time to be thought of), becomes possible only on the arbitrary
supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much
opposed to the context (ver. 28) as to the linguistic use of éuapria:.—igdmas)}
— once for all; comp. ix. 12, x. 10; Rom. vi. 10. Belongs to ézoinoev, not to
avevéyxac.—éavrov avevéyxac] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not
only the High Priest of the New Covenant, but also the victim offered.
Comp. viii. 3, ix. 12, 14, 25 f., x. 10, 12, 14; Eph. v. 2.
Ver. 28. Establishment of rovro éroincev éparaf, ver. 27, by the definite
formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New
Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant,—a statement
for which the way has been prepared by vv. 26, 27. The law constitutes
high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp.
v. 2, 3), on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for
themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the
oath, on the other hand (comp. ver. 21), which ensued after the law,—
namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law,
ordains as high priest the Son (see on i. 1), who is for ever perfected, 7. e.
without sin (iv. 15), and by His exaltation withdrawn from all human
aovévera, however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth;
1°AAAG Kai ras evdeAexets Guatas Opgs eis iva
Scnpnuevas, Hy re vrep avTwY avadyovary oi Lepets
dia THs ceucdadews Kai Thy UTép TOU Edvous TwY
Svoty apyar, ots avadépecy dceipynrac.
2 Outw Tov cupmavros EdvoUs OVYyEVIS Kai ay-
XioTe’s KOLvos OapxLepe’s éoTL, TpYTavevwY wey
ta Sixaca Trois augioByrove: Kata Tovs vépous,
evyxyas b@ eat dugias TeAwr cad’ éxac
THY nuépay.
3 Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach
and Guericke’s Zeitschr. fiir die luther. Theol.
u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 6936
NOTES. 577
wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice,
but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end,
He needed not to repeat the same.—Entirely misapprehending the rea-
soning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the propo-
sition, ver. 28, is likewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us,
presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well dv9pwroc aavé-
vecay Eywv (according to chap. v.) as viog rereAewwputvoc ei¢ rdv alava (accord-
ing to chap. vii.), and is here recapitulating (!) the two. Thus, then, 6
vouog yap. . . aodévecay contains a concession (!) having reference to chap.
v., and the thought is: “ the law (in so far as it has not (!) been annulled)
demands of all high priests (consequently (!) also of Jesus) that they be
Gvdpwro Exovtes aovévecav; the sworn word of promise, however (given
after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as
high priest the Son for ever perfected” (!). A misinterpreting of the
meaning, against which even the opposition of 6 véuoe . . . 6 Adbyor dé, a8
a manifest parallel to of wév ... 6 dé, ver. 20 f, ver. 23 f., ought to have
kept him.—rye pera rév véucv] The author did not write 6 pera rdv véuov,
according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished
to accentuate épxwyooia as the principal notion.
Notes BY AMERICAN EDrror.
LXI. Vv. 1-3.
(a) Chap. vii. has an introductory passage (vv. 1-3), which sets forth the fact
that Melchisedecand Christ correspond in their priesthood to each other, and then an
argument to prove the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to the Levitical, because
it is after the order of Melchisedec. This superiority is set forth, 1. as connected
with the matter of tithes, vv. 4-10; 2. as connected with the inability of the
Levitical system to accomplish the end proposed (reAziworc). vy. 11--19; 3. as con-
nected with the appointment with an oath, vv. 20-22; 4. as connected with per-
manent life, vv. 23-25; 5. as connected with the completeness of the single
sacrifice, vv. 26—28.
(6) yap of ver. 1, evidently connects vv. 1-3 with vi. 205. The object of these
three verses, accordingly, is to set forth the fact that the priesthood of Christ and
that of Mel. are of the same order. For the accomplishment of this object, the
writer brings out with emphasis the great and fundamental point in which their
priesthood differs from the Levitical—the point in connection with which all the
other distinguishing peculiarities of the Melchisedec-Christ-priesthood naturally
arise or manifest themselves. He thus prepares the way for the most impressive
and effective presentation of the detailed argument which follows.
(c) From the connection of the verses with vi. 20 6, we might naturally have
expected the form of statement to be: For Jesus, the Son of God, was made like
to Mel., in respect to the permanent character of his priesthood. Instead of this,
we find the author beginning with Mel., as the subject ; and it is said of him, that,
being made like the Son of God, he abides a priest continually. This change of
form, however, was easily adopted by the writer, because of the fact that the name of
Mel. was the closing word of the preceding chapter. The meaning, with either
37
578 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
form, must be essentially the same.—(d) With reference to the interpretation of
the passage, accordingly, it must be noticed, that the subject under discussion, in
this section of the Epistle, is the priesthood of Christ, and that the comparison of
Christ with Melchisedek relates only to this point. When it is said, therefore,
that Mel. was without father and mother, and that he had neither beginning nor end
of life, the meaning of the writer is not: that Melchisedek as a man differed from
all other men, having no descent from ancestors and existing always; but that,
tn respect to his priestly office, he did not depend on the tracing of a genealogy, as
the Levitical priests did, but had his priesthood “continually abiding.” There isin
ver. 3 a parallelism, each part of which consists of three elements,—the last of the
three explaining the force and meaning of the first two. Without father, without
mother, that is to say, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, that is to say, abiding a priest continually. The last-mentioned
phrase, by the exigencies or accidents of the sentence, is put in a verbal form;
but, when the thought is carefully examined, it is evident that the writer had
in mind the likeness of Mel. to Christ in the points just mentioned, and thus that,
if the sentence had been written in precise accordance with the leading idea, it
would have read pare.... éxwr, pévu dé iepedc cic. tr. du, apupadty tH vid
tov Geov.—(e) We may believe that the writer did not intend to make any formal
declaration respecting Melchisedek, for the purpose of explaining to his readers
who or what that O. T., personage was. Such a declaration was unnecessary and
was hardly to have been expected. But in his setting forth of the exalted
character of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with the priesthood known to the
Jewish system, he takes this remarkable case of a priest, who suddenly appears
on the scene, in the O. T. history, having his priestly office in its full privileges
and prerogatives, and disappears again as suddenly, still having it and still in
life—a priest who rests his claims on no tracing of his genealogical line, and who,
so far as the narrative goes, has no recorded beginning or ending of his official
life—and he makes him serve as a means of accomplishing the end which he has
in view.
(f) In the presentation of the case of Melchisedek, the writer gives the details
of the brief O. T. story, and afterwards moves, in the development of his thought,
in the sphere of these, and of the Psalm-passage already cited which refers to
him, just as he does in all the other parts of the Epistle where he quotes from the
O. T. These details however, do not—as the careful reader will notice—belong
to the leading thought of this passage (vv. 1-3). The verb to which Mel. is sub-
ject is wévec of ver. 3, and the important or essential words connected with the
subject, in its relation to the verb, are those of the earlier part of ver. 3. The
words of vv. 1, 2 set forth only what is secondary, so far as the present sentence is
concerned, and what is to find its use and emphasis in the verses which follow
(4-10). The significance of the name of Melchisedek and of the place where he
was king is not alluded to afterwards, but it is probably brought out as giving a
certain additional fitness and force to the comparison between him and Jesus.
(g) The view held by Alford and some other writers, that Melchisedek is here
declared to be a person differing from common men in a mysterious and wonder-
ful manner—not having been born in the ordinary human way, and not having
been removed from the world by death—rests on the assumption that the author of
the Epistle could not have used the case of Mel. as illustrative, without intending to
make some dogmatic statement respecting him, an assumption which is neither
NOTES. 579
necessary nor capable of proof. This view is, also, exposed to three serious, if not
fatal objections :—1. that the author of the Epistle is so far from making any full
and clear affirmation on the subject, that even such writers themselves are com-
pelled to admit (as Alf. does) that, “when they come to inquire what high and
mysterious eminence is here allotted to Mel.,” they “have no data whereon to
decide” ; 2. that the O. T. gives, in the story in Genesis, not even the slightest
hint ofany such mysterious eminence, and makesno allusion whatever to Melchisedek
elsewhere, except in the Psalm-passage cited in v. 6; 3. that we have no_reason,
independently of what is supposed to be discovered in these verses, to believe that
any man since Adam has been actually without father or mother, beginning of
days or end of life, and, on the other hand, every reason to believe that no such
man kas existed.
(h) The phrase pare apynv juspdv x.7.A. is, as Liinem. says, not to be limited to
the beginning and end of the priesthood (as Hofmann and some others hold), but
is to be taken as meaning, that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his
birth or death. But the reference of the whole sentence is to the priesthood, and
these words, by reason of this reference, are to be understood as indicating that
Mel. had an office which was independent of the record of birth and death, and
was, therefore, permanent by virtue of a life-force (comp. ver. 16), in contrast to
the Levitical priests.
LXII. Vv. 4-10.
' (a) The whole of this passage has reference to the matter of tithes, as con-
nected with the story of Melchisedek and Abraham. The subject is presented
in three points: 1. vv. 5-7; 2. ver. 8; 3. vv. 9, 10, as, also, set forth by Liine-
mann, in his note. It is to be observed, however, with respect to the second
point, that the fact of death and life as bearing on the priesthood is not here
considered independently, as it is in vv. 23-25, but in relation to the taking of
tithes.
(6) As to the words and phrases of this passage, the following points may be
noticed. 1. The writer takes special pains to set forth the exaltation of Mel., as
illustrating that of Christ. This is evident from his mode of expression ; comp.
mydixos, with the imperative @ewpeire calling attention to it; the placing of
o marpidpyne at the end of the sentence (ver. 4), as showing that the head of the
Jewish race acknowledged the dignity of Mel. ; the manner in which the exaltation
of the Levitical priests above the rest of the descendants of Abr., is presented in
ver. 5, and in which they are then made inferior to Mel., in that the latter was
above Abr. himself; the adding of the fact of the blessing which Mel. pronounced,
as indicating elevated position.—2. There can be little doubt that Liinem. is
correct in his explanation of Gewpeire (ver. 4) as an imperative; of xara rév vdpov
(ver 5) as qualifying évroAjw Exovov; of é& avrov (ver. 6) as referring to the sons
of Levi; and of the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 6 by dé—ver. 7 being the
major premise of a syllogism and ver. 6 the minor, while the conclusion is left
to be supplied from the evident suggestion of the two verses.—3. With reference
to the question where the writer found the declaration alluded to in the words
paprepobuevog brs CH (ver. 8)—whether in the silence of Gen. xiv. or in the words
of Ps. cx. 4, or in both—the fact that the expression is in a positive form; the
presence of the participle uap7., when compared with yaprupeira:, followed by the
580 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Ps., passage, in ver. 17; and the introduction of the verse from the Ps. in con-
nection with the allusion to the priesthood as by virtue of a life-force, vv. 16, 17,
favor the second supposition. If this view is correct, however, it does not involve
the necessity of believing that Melchisedek never died.—4. The statement that
Levi paid tithes to Mel., because he was in the loins of Abraham, who was his
great-grandfather, is suggestive as to the question of the propriety of interpreting
the popular language of the N. T. writers according to the ordinary rules and
usage of such language.
LXIII. Vv. 11-19.
(a) The superiority of Christ as priest after the Melchisedek-order is presented
in these verses (see note LXI a) as connected with the inability of the Levitical
system to accomplish the end proposed, namely, the perfecting of the worshipers.
The development of this subject is as follows:—1. If the Levitical priesthood
could have secured the end, no other priest of a different order, would have
arisen, vv. 11, 12; 2. Such a different priest, however, has arisen, as is shown (r)
by the fact, that our Lotd came from a different tribe; namely, from that of Levi,
vv. 13, 14, and (y) by the fact, that the source of His priestly office and power is
different from that of the Levitical priestly office, vv. 15-17; 3. Accordingly the
old priesthood is set aside and a better one introduced.
(6) The first of these points (vv. 11, 12) is rendered more emphatic by the
suggestion, that, if the priesthood was to be changed, it would involve the change
of the entire legal system, since this institution was the central and fundamental
thing in that system. This explanation of ver. 12 and the parenthetical clause of
ver. 11 is objected to by Liinem. He holds that there are two co-ordinate
thoughts, which the writer designs to bring out—that the Levitical priesthood,
and also the Mosaic law, have lost their validity; Ver. 11, in its parenthesis, shows
the close connection of the priesthood and the law, and implies that, if the former
is imperfect and unsatisfying, the same is true of the latter; ver. 12, on the other
hand, is simply a corroboration of the parenthesis of ver. 11. But there is no in-
dication in the passage of any such co-ordination of the two thoughts. As the
priesthood is the one subject of this whole section of the epistle, and of this entire
chapter, so it is the one subject of this passage. The law comes in only in two
places, here and in ver. 19; and, in both cases, in a parenthetical and secondary
clause. The emphasis is wholly on the points mentioned above—that, if the old
priesthood had been sufficient, there would have been no new and different one;
that a new one has been established ; and that the provision establishing the old
one has been removed. The explanation given in this note, on the contrarv,
satisfies all the demands of the passage and bears along the thought in the most
simple and natural way.
(c) Alf. renders e yév obv by the English if again. He and Bleek carry back
the thought to vi. 20 5. Liinem. connects immediately with vv. 5-10. As related
to the development of the main idea Alf. and Bleek are probably correct, but it
may be that the writer intended, in vv. 5 ff., to suggest the imperfection of the
Levitical priesthood, though of course, only subordinately, to the principal thought
of those verses.—(d) The insertion of the words 6 Aadg yap «.r.A. parenthetically,
in ver. 11, instead of placing them in their more natural position after that verse,
was undoubtedly for the purpose of carrying the additional force of the suggestion,
NOTES. 581
which they contain, into the conclusion expressed in tic ért «7A. Such an
arrangement of sentences is characteristic of Paul, and may be observed e.g. in
Rom. v. 15-17 as related to the preceding and following context.—(e) R. V. gives
law as a marginal rendering of véuov (ver. 12). This rendering is proved to be
incorrect, here, by the fact that the writer is speaking of the Levitical priesthood ;
by the fact that vevouoOéryra: must refer to the Mosaic law ; and by the fact that 6
véuo¢ is used inver.19, Itwasthe vital relation between the Levitical priesthood and
the particular law to which it appertained, that was to be emphasized.—(f) yap
of ver. 13 proves the truth of the negative implied in ric ére ypeia x.7.A. of ver.
11. In thought, though not grammatically, it may be regarded as covering both
ver. 13 and vv. 15, 16. yap of ver. 14, on the other hand, gives the proof of the
statement of ver. 13. Ver. 15 and ver. 13 are co-ordinate, not ver. 15 and ver.
14.—(g) The distinction between the Mel. priest and the Levit., which made
them to be of two “different orders,” is set forth in ver. 16. The latter was
appointed in accordance with, and by virtue of, the rule or provision of an earthly
temporary ordinance (xata véuov évroAg¢ capxivyc); the former by virtue of the
power of his own indestructible life-force (xara dSivapuev Cwi¢ axatadttov), The
words are suggested, on the one hand, by the provisions of the Mosaic law, and, on
the other, by the fact respecting the story of Melchisedek which is noted in ver. 3
(ujre.... Cwyc), and by the declaration of Ps. cx. 4. Zapxivye has reference here
to what is external and passing away, rather than what is evil, or what is merely
physical. Zui¢ axarad, denotes, not endless life as a general idea, but the indis-
soluble life in Christ Himself.—(h) The variation in the arrangement of the words
in the Ps.-passage, in the different places where it is cited, will be noticed by the
careful reader. The arrangement is in accordance with the emphasis desired in
each case.
(i) Vv. 18, 19, being introduced by ydp, are grammatically, and in the
immediate connection of thought, united with vv. 15-17. They serve to show
that the argument of vv. 15, 16 may properly be urged, because the Psalm-passage
really involves what is said in vv. 18, 19. But, as related to the main idea of the
whole passage (vv. 11-19), they may be regarded as suggesting the conclusion of
the argument, or the summation of the thought (see (a) above): “There is a
disannulling,” etc.—(j) As to the words of these two verses, it is to be noticed:
1. that “év of ver. 18 and dé of ver. 19 are correlative; 2.°that yivera: is correctly
explained by Liinem.—if the grammatical connection only is considered—as mean-
ing results i.e. in the declaration of God, Ps. cx. 4; if the development of the
leading thought is considered, however, the meaning takes place may be suggested.
The translation of A. V. and R. V. there is may, possibly, be regarded as including
the two; 3. that évroAf refers to the ordinance respecting the Levitical priesthood,
and not to the whole law. This is evident from the use of évroA% in ver. 16, and
from the distinction made, both in this verse (évroA# and véyo¢) and in vv. 11, 12,
between the institution of the priesthood and the law, as between a part and
the whole; 4. that the words do8evéc and avudeAée are to be determined in their
special force and application by the reAefwore of ver. 11; 5. that the parenthetical
clause (ovdév yap «,r.A.) reasons from the whole to the part—as the law made
nothing perfect, so the ordinance respecting the priesthood was weak, etc.; 6.
that the hope is “ better” because sure to be realized; 7. that in the words é 7
éyyiZouev tp Beg there is a foreshadowing of a thought which has its development
in the next section (viii. 1-x. 18).
582 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
LXIV. Vv. 20-28.
(a) The explanation which Liinem. gives of the construction of vv. 20-22 is to
be adopted, as is also his view respecting the words to be supplied with xa dcoy
ov x. dpkwy, (namely, ispei¢ éotey ye,ovec), The arguments which he presents
for the supply of these last-mentioned words, rather than Totro referring to éxecoay.
7.4, of ver. 19, or drattjxng éyyvog }é over, are conclusive. These verses, how-
ever, are not to be regarded, (as he supposes), as having a sort of parallelism with
vv. 18, 19,—the former verses setting torth one element in the superiority of the
everlasting priesthood, vv. 15, 16, 17, and these latter verses setting forth a second
element. The parallelism of vv. 20-22 is with vv. 11-19 and vv. 4-10, and they
present a third point of superiority in the Mel. priesthood above the Levitical.
The view of Liinem. is incorrect, because the object of vv. 15-17 is not to set
forth the everlasting priesthood of Christ after the order of Mel., but the fact that
it is by virtue of the life-force in Himself (which is, indeed, indestructible), and
not of an ordinance of the law.—(6) The parenthetical passage, in its relation to
the development of the argument, is kindred to the similar passages in vv. 11, 19,
though there is a slight difference occasioned by the demands of the thought in
each case.—(c) The fact that here the words of the Psalm-passage: “The Lord
sware”’ are introduced, as they have not been before—the argument here requiring
them,—and the fact that in kpeirrovog diatyxn¢ we have again a foreshadowing of
the idea specially brought out in the next chapters, will be remarked by the
attentive reader.
(d) In vv. 23-25 the fourth point in the writer’s presentation of Christ’s
superiority as Mel.-priest (not the third, as Liinem. holds, see (a) above) is set
forth. This fourth point is the everlasting and unchanging character of the priest-
hood.—(e) Of the words in these three verses it may be said :—1. that mepapévery
may be understood either of continuing in life, or in the priesthood. Liine-
mann holds the former view. The parallelism of the clauses, however, favors the
Jatter: they are many in number, because death prevents their continuance in
office; he is one permanent priest, because he abides ever in life;—2. that
azapifarov is probably dealt with in the right manner by R. V. (comp. also
A. V.)—being rendered in the passive sense in the text, unchangeable, and in the
active in the margin, that doth not pass to another. The possibilities of the case are
such, that both meanings must be recognized ; but the probabilities favor, in some
degree, the passive sense. See Bleek Comm. on Heb. Ist. ed. Vol. II. pp. 396 f.
(f) Vv. 26-28 present the fifth point of the argument (see Note LXI a).
The main thought of these verses is that of the sinlessness of Christ, in contrast to
the infirmity of the Levitical priests, as making the sacrifice which He offers
sufficient and complete, while theirs needed to be constantly repeated. This pas-
sage, again, is introduced by y¢p in a grammatical subordination to the verses
which immediately precede, but logically, and in the development of the argu-
ment, it evidently has an independent force—(g) The distinction made by
Liinem. in the reference of éc0v0¢ and the two following adijectives—that they
point to Christ’s relation to God, to men, and to Iimself—is not improbably
correct, but it is doubtful whether it can be affirmed as certainly so.—(h) With
respect to xa? yuépav (ver. 27), the most satisfactory explanation may be this:
that the high priest, being the head of the priesthood, is viewed as fulfilling all
the requirements of the O. T. system, and that all the other offerings are looked
NOTES. | 583
upon as, in a sense, pointing to and finding their consummation in the great offer-
ing of the High-priest on the day of atonement.—(z) viév of ver. 28 is translated
bv R. V., and correctly, @ Son. The word is used here as it is in i. 2, and, though
it refers to Christ, it does not, like 6 vide, designate Him as the Son of God, but
describes Him as in contrast to the O. T. high-priests. He was not one who held
an office merely as a man, but one who stood in the relation to God of a Son in
the highest sense; as, in i. 1 f., He is set forth, by the use of the same word, in
contrast to the prophets. The peculiarity of the writer’s style (noticed already
in connection with v. 5, and elsewhere) by which, in an artistic, rhetorical way,
he unites one part of his epistle with another in the forms of expression employed,
is again manifest in this place—(j) That the writer, as he draws near to the
closing section of his Epistle, should anticipate its thought and expressions is not
strange. It seems, even, to be a part of his plan to do so; comp. ii. 17 f. iv. 14 ff.
584 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
CHAPTER VIII.
VER. 1. émi roi¢ Aeyouévoc] B: év roicg Aeyouévorg. Explanatory gloss.—Ver.
2. Recepta: xai ovx Gvdpwroc¢. But xai is wanting in B D* E*®, 17, It.
Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek,
Tisch. Alford.—Ver. 4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have et pév yap.
Defended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 504, Obs.), and
Reiche. But yép cannot be referred back to ver. 3, and upon the referring of it
back to ver. 2 the addition, ver. 3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More
in keeping logically, and better attested (by A B D* &, 17, 73, 80, 137, Vulg. It.
Copt., al.), is the reading: et z#v otv, already commended to attention by
Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which
is accordingly to be preferred.—Instead of the Recepta trav iepfwyv trav tpoo-
¢gepévtuwy (approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first rov within
brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted
merely tov tpoogepévtwy, Preferred also by Delitzsch. rav iepéwy, to the
rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an
elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E* &, 17,
67** 73, 137, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm.—rév] before véyov in the Recepta
(recently contended for by Bloomfield and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm.
Tisch. and Alford, after A B ®* 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addition
of the article is more easily to be explained than its omission.— Ver. 5. Elz:
mo:gon¢. But all the uncial mss. many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret,
Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have toryoers, which also is found in LXX. Ex.
xxv. 40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd.
Frasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachm.
Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche.—Ver. 6. In place
of the Recepta vuvi dé, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (B D*
Ath.): viv d& The more euphonious vvvi dé is protected by A D** D*** E K
L &, min., and many Fathers.—Instead of the Recepta rérevye (B D¥¥* Rett
min. Damasc. [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there is found in the edd. Complut.
Plantin. Genev. the peculiarly Attic form: tetvy7xe. This is supported by 47,
72, 73, 74, al., Athan. (thrice), Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Best
attested is the form: réruyev (by A D* K L &* 80, 116, 117, al., Athan. Oecum.
Theophylact), which is therefore rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch.
and Alford.—Ver. 8. avroi¢] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette,
Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, after B D*** E L 8¥*#*,
likewise, as it seems, almost all min. Chrys. Damasc. al—Lachm. and Tisch. 1
and 8 read atrotc. But the attestation of the latter (A D* K ®* 17, 39, al,
Theodoret) is not at all decisive, and the accusative, seeing it requires the conjoining
with ueudduevoc, opposed to the context; see the exposition. —Ver. 10. 9 d:adpxq]
Lachm.: 7 dtadaxn [uov],after A DE. vov is found, indeed, also with the LX X. in
most Mss, (but not in the Cod. Alez.); yet, nevertheless, since it forms a tautological
-
CHAP. VIIL 1. 585
addition, and does not correspond to the Hebrew original (11377 Nt °5), it probably
arose only by a mechanical repetition from the preceding dca 0 9x9 pov.—Ver. 11.
Recepita: tov wAnciov, But the weighty authority of all uncial mss. (B: rdv
woAeityv), most cursives, as well as that of Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Arm. It. al.,
Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret, Damasc. Aug. requires the reading: Tov moAirny,
already presented by the edd. Complut. Stephan. 1, 2, al, and later approved by
Bengel and Wetstein, as also adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz,
Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others—a76d pexpov] Elz.
Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: a76 pexpod avrov, But avrav
is wanting in A B D* E* (?) K 8, 17, 31, 61, 73, 80, al., Copt. Arm. It. Vulg.,
with Cyr. Chrys. al. Already suspected by Griesbach. Rightly deleted by Lachm.
Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.—Ver. 12. xai trav ayaptiov avrov
kal Tav avoutav avtrov] The concluding words: «ai rdv avopuidy avira», have
been taken for a gloss by Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford (comp. already
Beza and Grotius) ; and in accordance with B &* 17, 23, Vulg. Copt. Basm. Syr.
Arab. Erp. rejected. They are also declared suspected by Delitzsch. But in
favor of their retention (Lachm. Bloomfield, Tisch. 7, Reiche) decides partly the
preponderating authority of AD EK L &*** a/,, partly the recurrence of the
same words on the repetition of the citation x. i7. The addition might
easily be overlooked on account of the homoioteleuton.
Vv.1-13. [On Vv. 1-6, see Note LXV., pages 595, 596.] Not merely, how-
ever, as regards His person is Christ highly exalted above the Levitical
priests ; the sanctuary, too, in which He fulfills the office of High Priest,
is highly exalted above the Levitical sanctuary. For Christ sustains His
high-priestly office in the heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself,
of which as the archetype the earthly tabernacle, in which the Levitical
priests fulfill their office, is a mere copy. So much the more excellent
is the priestly ministry of Christ, in proportion as the Covenant of
which He is the Mediator is a better covenant, because resting upon the
foundation of better promises. The character of this promised New Cov-
enant is a more inward, spiritual one; and by the promise of a New Cov-
enant the Old is declared to be outworn and no longer serviceable.
Vv. 1, 2. [LXV b-e.] Kepddaov dé] Now a main point is. K epddAacor is
not accusative absolute (Bengel), nor yet the ordinary accusative with a
Aéyw Touro to be supplemented (Ebrard), but nominative, and apposition to
the whole ensuing proposition: rowtrov . . . dvOpwroc, ver. 2. Comp. Rom.
vill. 3. Just as xepddaov dé are also the kindred formulas: rd 62 péy:orov,
TO dé decvérarov, Td Exxarov, Td Tedevraiov, etc., very frequently prefixed to a
whole clause by way of apposition.' The expression xegéAacoy itself is
here understood by many expositors in the sense of “sum;” according to
which the author would express the intention of immediately compre-
hending or recapitulating the substance of all his previous disquisition in
a single statement.? This signification, however, although linguistically
1See Kihner, II. p. 146, Obs. 2. haec esto summa”), Carpzov (“ut rem sum-
2So Laurentius Valla (“in summam au- matim et uno verbo complectar”), Stengel,
tem”), Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405), Co-
Calvin, H. Stephanus, Grotius (“post tot dicta nybeare, M’Caul, etc.
586 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
justified, is here inadmissible, since the author is passing over to some-
thing essentially new; a recapitulation of the previous argument accord-
ingly does not take place at all. But neither is the anarthrous xega2acon—
although in itself this is not inadmissible—to be taken as equivalent to 7d
xegadAaov, as is done by Theophylact (iva eimw 1d péycotov Kal cuvexrimdrepov),
Bleek (“the essential thing, to which all else is subordinated ”’), Ebrard
(‘the keystone’’), Bisping (‘the core of all”), Stuart, Delitzsch, Riehm,
Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. pp. 464, 481; Alford, Maier, Ewald, and others.
For, besides the further main point in the superiority of the N. T. High
Priest over the Levitical high priests, here to be mentioned (namely, His
ministering in a better sanctuary), the author has yet before his mind the
clucidation of a third leading distinction (that of the better sacrifice pre-
sented by Christ). Comp. ix. 9 ff—ézi roi¢ Aeyouévorg] cannot be referred
back specially! to that which has already been said. For therewith the
participle present Aeyopévors doesnot agree; eipqauévorcg must have been
put instead of it. Nor, accordingly, can the sense be: “in addition to
that already treated of” (Calov, Wolf, Rambach, Peirce, Storr, Ebrard,
al.). On the contrary, éri must be taken in the signification: “upon
the supposition of,” “in the case of,” as ix. 17 and frequently, and éxi
toig Asyouévorg has essentially the same meaning as the genitive trav Aryo-
pévov, Thus: nowa main point in the case of those things we are speaking of
(or: in our argument) ts the following.—With the utmost violence does Hof-
mann tear the words asunder,” in that he will have «epé2aov dé separated
from émi roic Aeyouévorc, and to the latter would supplement apyrepevor, and
renders : “ besides those who are called high priests, we have a High Priest
who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” That,
moreover, the thought thus resulting would be a senseless one,—inasmuch
as it would then follow that Christians have several sorts of high priests,—
has already been pointed out by Nickel. For how arbitrary it is when
Hofmann seeks further to twist the statement, gained with so much toil,
in the sense: “thatthe Christians possess a High Priest, compared with
whom those who are so called have for them no significance,” hardly needs
to be observed.—rocotror] is a preparation for the following é¢ exd@oev x.7.A.
Wrongly does Bohme refer it back to rowirog, vii. 26, and Carpzov to ty7A6-
TEpo¢ THY ovpavav yevduevog in the same verse. The latter, moreover, with
an erroneous accentuation of the éyouev: “ habemus omnino talem pontifi-
CCM 8c. tYnAdrepoy Tov otpavav, quippe qui adeo consedit ad dextram Dei
év Toig ovpavoic,” in connection with which the progress of the discourse is
lost sight of, and the fact remains unnoticed that the centre of gravity in
the statement, vv. 1, 2, is contained only in ver. 2.—d¢ éxd@oev év defia tow
Opdévov tio peyadwobvne év Toig ovpaveic] who has sat down at the right hand of
the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Ps. cx.). Comp.1.3: éxd@toev év de&ia tig
peyadwovrng év dtynroic.—The opinion of Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch,
1 As is assumed by Erasmus, Clariug, Zeger, 8 Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 406, and so still
Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, in his commentary, p. 302 f.
Carpzov, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, Ebrard, Ew- 3In Reuter's Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 110.
ald, and many others. ;
CHAP. VIII. 2. . 587
Klee, Bleek, and Alford, that the author designed by éxé@ccev, too, to
indicate a point of superiority in Christ over the Levitical high priests,— .
inasmuch as the latter, when they entered the Most Holy Place, instead
of sitting down were required to stand,—is far-fetched. There is nothing
in the context to lead to such 3 supposition. It is otherwise (on account
of the express opposition there met with éorgxev . . . éxaOcoev) chap. x. 11,
12. év roig ovpavoic] belongs to éxdfoev, not to rie peyadwotvnc (BOhme),
since otherwise the article would have been repeated; still less to the
opening words of ver. 2(Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405 f.), since
in that case rdv dylwy tap év roig otpavoic AecTovpyé¢ Would have been the only
natural expression, the rhythmical proportion of vv. 1, 2 would have been
destroyed, and the év tyyAoic, 1. 3, parallel to the év roi¢ ovpavoic in our pass-
age, would have remained unnoticed as regards its coherence with that
‘which precedes.
Ver. 2. Declaration of the capacity in which Christ has sat down at the
right hand of God: as a sacrificing priest of the true sanctuary and taber-
nacle, which the Lord erected, nota man. Ver. 2 is to be joined without
any comma to ver. 1. For only the qualification of the éxd@ccev x.7.4., ver.
1, which is first added by means of ver. 2,—not merely the fact of the
xafica: in itself, since this had already been often mentioned in the epistle,
—contains the new main feature which the author aims at bringing into
prominence.—rév ayiwv] is not masculine’ but neuter ; it denotes, however,
neither the holy things,? nor that which is required for the priestly service,* nor
“such holy things as stand in essential relation to the oxyv7 aryOig” but
the sanctuary,’ in which (or: in regard to which) the priestly service ts per-
formed. Comp. ix. 8, 12, 24, 25, x. 19, xili, 11—Synonymous with rév
aylwy is the r#¢ oxnvic, added by way of elucidation; and from the adject-
ive of the latter, 77¢ a470cvqH¢, we have also to supply in thought the
corresponding adjective rav aAn@cvav (comp. ix. 24) to the foregoing ray
cyiov, For even the earthly high priest was a rév dyiwv Aeroupyéc; only a
Tv dayluv TOV aANnOtvdv Aecrovpyég he was not.—Aecroupydc ] Comp. Aecroupyeiv,
x. 11, and Aecroupyia, ver. 6, ix. 21; Phil. ii. 17; Lukei. 23. With the classic
writers, Zecrovpyé¢ denotes the bearer of any public office, or office of the
State. In the general sense of a “servant” it stands i.7; Rom. xiii. 6;
Phil. ii. 25. But already with the LXX. (Neh. x. 39; cf. Ecclus. vii. 30, al.)
it is spoken specially of him who discharges priestly service. In accord-
ance therewith it has here, too (comp. ver. 3), as well as Rom. xv. 16, the
signification : sacrificing priest. tij¢ a2.nOw7¢] The oxn# is called true, not in
opposition to the false, but as the archetype ® existing in heaven in contrast
with the earthly image of the same (ver. 5), which latter, as is always the
1Oecumenius: apxrepeds noe Trav nyraguer Bohme, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, De-
wy wap avrov avdpurwy nuwy yap €or ap- litzsch, Rielim, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p.
xtepevs, Primasius, Cajetan, Schulz, Paulus, 613; Alford, Maier, and others, specially> the
Stengel. Most Holy Place.
2 Lather, Hunninus, Balduin. 6 Comp. Wisd. ix. 8: efras oixoSonnoat vaor
*Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Ewald. 12. Ral... SvTLacrTHpLoy, LimNMa GKHVIS ayias,
* Kurtz. hv wponroimacas aw apxis.
® According to Erasmus, Jac. Cappellus,
588 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
case with the copy in relation to the original, could be only something
imperfect. iv érnfev] Comp. Ex. xxxili. 7.—4é xipiog] is here God, as else-
where in our epistle only in the O. T. citations.—é xipcoc, via avOpuroc]
Comp. oxnvig ot yetpotwotgrov, 1X.11; ov xetpomoinra aye, ix. 2A,
Ver. 3. [LXV f.] Subsidiary remark in justification of the expression
Aecroupyéc, ver. 2. The Aecrovpyeiv, or the presenting of sacrifices, is just
something essential in the fulfillment of the office of every high priest; a
Aetroupyéc, Or sacrificing priest, must thus Christ aleo be. By the statement,
ver. 3, the argument itself is not interrupted. For enclosing the verse
within a parenthesis, with Cameron, Stengel, and others, there exists there-
fore no reason.—yap] the explanatory namely. On rac ydp . . . xaBiorara,
comp. v. 1: mac yap apyupeic . . . xadiorara: Ta mpdg Tov Yedv, iva mpocdépy
dap te xai Svolac. b9ev avayxaiov] sc. qv) notéoriv.2 For the author knows
only one single sacrificial act of Christ, an act performed once for all (not
one continually repeated), as is evident partly from the parallel passages,
vii. 27, ix.12, 25, 28, x. 10, 12, 14, partly from the preterite rpocevé yxy in
our passage.—éyew rt nal rovrov, 8 mpooevéyxy) that also this (High Priest)
should have somewhat that He might offer up. By the ri the author under-
stands Christ’s own body, which He gave up to death as a propitiatory
sacrifice for the sinful world. The indefinite mode of expression by ri,
however, was chosen just because the reference to the sacrifice in this
place was only an incidental one, and that which was intended could the
less be misunderstood by the readers, in that immediately before, vii. 27,
it had been declared by means of éavréy avevéyxas in what the sacrifice of
Christ consisted.
Vv. 4, 5. Return (oiv) from the subsidiary remark, ver. 3, to the main
thought in ver. 2 (rév dyiwy Kai rie oKyvag THS GAnOtvAs, Fv xw.T.A.), and
proof for the same.
Ver. 4. A sacrificial priest Christ can only be, etéher in the earthly or
the heavenly sanctuary ; for a third, besides these two, there is not. The
author now proves, ver. 4, that He cannot be a priest in the earthly sanc-
tuary, whence it then follows of itself that He must be so in the heavenly
one.—ei 7] not: if He had been (Bohme, Kuinoel), but: if He were. To «
pév ovv my eri yn¢ We have, moreover, neither ® to supply pévov, nor * apyrepete
or iepets. It signifies nothing more than: if He were now on earth, had
His dwelling-place upon earth.—oid’ av qv lepetc] He would not even be a
priest. Incorrectly Bleek, Bisping, and Ewald: He would not even be a
priest—not to say a high priest. For the augmenting ovdé can refer only
to the whole proposition, not specially to iepetc, since otherwise oid" iepeic
év 7v must have been written. iesetc is therefore to be taken as a more
general expression for the more definite apyepets. Yet more erroneously
1 Syriac, Beza, Piscator, Owen, Bengel, begr. des Hebrderbr. p. 505; Alford, Maier,
Bleek, de Wette, Hofinann, Komm. p. 306; Moll, Ewald, M'Caul, al.
Woerner. 3 With Grotius, Wolf, and others.
SVulgate, Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, ‘With Zeger, Bengel, Carpzov, Heinrichs,
Schulz, Boéhme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Bohme, and others.
Schrifibew. II. 1,2 Aufl. p. 407; Riehm, Lehr-
CHAP. VIII. 3-5. 589
Primasius, Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Carpzov, and others: “He
would not be that unique, real, or true priest, that everlasting priest after
the manner of Melchisedec ’”’—which, without an addition, the words can-
not by any means signify.—The reason why Christ, if He were dwelling
upon earth, could not at all be a priest, is contained in the dvruy ... 7a
éapa, For on earth there are, of a truth, the legully appointed priests
already present, and with these Jesus, since He belonged not to the tribe
of Levi, but to the tribe of Judah (vii. 14), has nothing in common.—
dvTwv Tov mpoogepdyTuv Kata véuov Ta dapa] since assuredly there are present
(5vrwv has the emphasis), sc. on earth, those who in accordance with law (i.e.
according to the norm of the Mosaic law) offer the gifts, namely the Levites,
among whom Christ could not be reckoned. évrwv and rpocgepdyrurv
designate that which is still existing at the time of our author. To take
the words as participles of the past (Peshito, Vulgate, Grotius,! Braun, and
others), is already forbidden by the present Aarpebuvow, ver. 5.
Ver. 5. The author at once attaches to the proof given, ver. 4.—that
Christ must be High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary,—the testimony of
Scripture that the earthly sanctuary, in which the Levitical priests officiate,
is a mere copy of the heavenly, thus only an imperfect sanctuary.
Schlichting: Vel rationem quandam div. autor his verbis exprimit, cur
Christus, si in terris easet, sacerdos esse non posset, nempe quia sacerdotes
illi, qui in terris degentes offerunt, umbrae tantum serviunt coelestium ;
vel tantum a contrario illustrat id, quod de pontifice nostro dixerat, nempe
eum esse veri tabernaculi ministrum, legales vero pontifices umbrae tan-
tum et exemplari illius coelestis tabernaculi servire. Not to enclose
within a parenthesis (Griesbach, Schulz, Scholz, al.), since the same easily
joins on syntactically to ver. 4, and dtagopurépac, ver. 6, points back to its
subject-matter.— oirivec] nimirum qut.— brodeiyuart nai ong] a copy and
shadow. tmwodeiyware corresponds to the dezdévra oo in the ensuing
citation, and denotes here (otherwise iv. 11) that which is shown only by
way of hints, or only in its general outlines (comp. 1a trodeiyyara, ix. 23),
has thus the notion of a merely imperfect sketch or copy. Yet more em-
phatically is the notion of imperfection brought out by means of nai oxcg.
For oxcdé stands not merely opposed to the cdua, as the unsubstantial to
the substantial,? but also to the eixév, as the shadowy image melting into
obscurity, and only to be recognized in its exterior outlines to the likeness
distinctly struck off, containing light and color, and enabling one to:
recognize the original.*—Aarpeiovoy] igs taken unnaturally by Calvin,
Pareus, Bengel, Peirce, Schulz, and others in the absolute sense: “who
serve God in & copy and shadow.” The datives trodeiyyari xai oxig tov
1 This writer with the explanation ontirely
foreign to the subject : “ Erant, nempe quum
pealmus iste scriberetur.”
2 Col. i1. 17; Josephus, de Bello Jud. ii. 2.8:
CKiay aityoopmevos BagiAcias, is Apwacey cavTy
to geua; Philo, de confus. linguarum, p. 348;
with Mangey, I. p. 434.
8Comp. Heb. x. 1: oxsdy... ove avrhy thy
eixéva Tew mpayuétrey; Achilles Tatius, i. p. 47
(in Wetatein ad x. 1): ovree rédvncey cai TH
eixévos % axed; Cicero, de Officiis, iii. 17: Sed
nos veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam
et expreseam effigiem nullam tenemus; um-
bra et imaginibus utimur.
590 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
érxovpaviwy form the object of the verb (comp. xiii. 10): “who minister (as
priests) to that which is but a copy and shadow of the heavenly.”—
Aarpevecv here, by virtue of the connection, entirely equivalent to Zerorp-
yeiv; in general, however, of wider signification, and differing from
Aectovpyeiv as the Hebrew 13) from NV.—rav éxdvpaviov] not “of the
heavenly things” (Luther), ‘of the heavenly relations and facts
of redemption” (Ebrard), “of the heavenly relations and divine
thoughts ” (Moll), ‘of the ideal possessions in general, belonging to the
kingdom of God” (Tholuck); but: of the heavenly sanctuary. Comp. the
citation immediately following, as also ver. 2 and ix. 23, 24.—xadic xexpy-
pdriorat Mwiojc| according to the. response, or divine revelation, which Moses
‘received. The passive xypyparigecda in this sense only in the N: T. (xi. 7;
Matt. 1i. 22; Acts x. 22, al.) and in Josephus (Aniigq. iii. 8. 8, xi. 8. 4).—
émcredciv] denotes here not the completion of that which is already begun.
What is meant is the execution of that which had previously only been
resolved on.—The citation is from Ex. xxv. 40. The yap, even as o7aiy,
belongs to the author of our epistle, on which account épa yap ¢yow is to
be written without placing a comma after yap.—o7aiv] sc. 6 ypnuariouds, the
divine response, or, since in Exodus (xl. 1) God is expressly named as the
speaker: 6 Jeédc (Heinrichs, Bleek, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier,
Kurtz, al.), not 7 ypao7 (Béhme).—rdrra] is wanting with the LX X.—xara
tov tirov] in accordance with the pattern (VIA), i.e. corresponding to the
archetype presented to the contemplation of Moses in the manner of a
revelation, or by means of a vision. Comp. Acts vii. 44. Over-refined,
indeed, although linguistically not less admissible than the other, is the
interpretation of Faber Stapulensis, Rivetus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim-
borch, Storr, Bleek, and Maier, that in connection with rézo¢ we have to
think of a mere copy of the archetype, so that the Levitical priests served
in priestly guise the copy of a copy.—rév desySevra] LXX.: rov dedecyuévor.
—éiv 7g dpe] upon the mount, namely Sinai.
Ver. 6 repeats, in the form of an antithesis to vv. 4, 5, the main propo-
sition of the new section, that Christ accomplishes His priestly service in
the heavenly sanctuary (ver. 2); in the progress of the discourse, however,
advances an additional argument in favor of this main proposition : in
that the naturalness of the fact asserted is evidenced by the superiority of
that covenant which has been brought in by Christ. As, therefore, the
author (vii. 20-22) had deduced from the higher priestly rank of Christ
the more excellent nature of the covenant brought in by Him; so here,
conversely, from the better nature of the covenant established by Him, is
inferred the higher order of His priestly ministry. vuvi dé forms the
opposition to et wév ody, ver. 4, while dcagopwrépag points back anti-
thetically to the contents of ver. 5.\—vvi dé] not in the temporal, but in
the logical sense: but now.—d:agopwrépag Aecrovpyiac] inasmuch, namely, as
1Theophylact: "Exeivou 700 vonjparos Hpryrac =e ylag’ TouTéoTiv, OvK EoTLV avTOV #® AeLTOUpyia
Tavta, Tov Ei nev yap hy emi ys, ovx ay hy iepevs? roravTy, ota | TwY emi ys apxLEepewy GAA’ OUpa-
vuvi 5¢ wn wy, dnoiv, ext yns,aAAad Tov ovpavoy ios, ATE TOMOY ExOVTA THE Oixeias TeACTHS TOV
€xwy ieparecoy, diadhopwrépas eméruxe Accrovp- ovpavov.
CHAP. VII. 6, 7. o91
the oxyv7, in which He fulfills His office, is the aAn@cvy, fu Exnéev 6
Kkiptoc, ovx av@pwroe (ver. 2).—On the comparative diagopwrépas,
see at il. 4.—xai after 60 renders distinctly apparent the inner corres-
pondence of the two principal members in the proposition, ver. 6.—yeair7¢ |
Mediator (ix. 15, xii. 24; Gal. iii. 19, 20; 1 Tim. ii.5; LXX. Job ix. 33),
inasmuch as He has proclaimed the New and better Covenant, and has
sealed the same by His death on the cross. [On Vv. 6 6-13, see Note
LXVI., page 596.J—jrc] which, as such. Introduction of the proof
that the covenant of which Christ is made the Mediator is a better one
(vii. 22), ze. affords full satisfaction to the heart seeking salvation and
deliverance, which the Mosaic covenant was incapable of pacifying.
[LX VI a-c.] The proof for this superiority the author derives from the
fact that the New Covenant has been enacted upon the ground of (é7i (cf.
vil. 11; Acts xiv. 3]) better promises, 7.e. promises more excellent with
regard to their subject-matter. The expression vevoyzodéryrac is chosen
not in order to denote the similarity of nature in the two covenant-
foundings, but, after the analogy of the Pauline mode of expression, Rom.
ill. 27 (ix. 31), in order to oppose to the Mosaic law, hitherto in operation,
the New Covenant as in some sense a new law (comp. vépyove pov, ver. 10)
now come into force.—xpeirroow éxayyediatc] What is meant is without doubt
the several factors in the contents of the passage from Jeremiah cited
immediately after—to wit, the promise of the forgiveness of sins (comp.
ver. 12), which the Old Covenant was not able to bring about (Rom. viii.
3; Gal. iii. 10 ff), in connection with the character of innerness of the
New Covenant in general (vv. 10, 11), as opposed to the ezternalism of the
Old.—The explaining of the xpeirroves éxayyediac, with Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Bengel, Carpzov, Whitby,
M’Lean, Bisping, and others, of everlasting blessedness and the other eter-
nal blessings of Christianity, in opposition to the purely terrestrial and
temporal promises of Mosaism (the. peaceful possession of the land of
Canaan, a long life upon earth, etc.), is to be rejected ; becausc—apart
from the contradiction in which this interpretation stands with the eluci-
dation given by the author himself by virtue of the ensuing citation from
Scripture—it is, as Bleek rightly observes, improbable that the author
should have referred the promises deposited in the Mosaic law to merely
earthly things, in place of referring them to the object of which he under-
stands the promise already imparted to Abraham—the bringing in of the
great salvation for the people of God in the person of Christ.—The view,
too, that the émwayyetiac of the New Covenant are called xpeitroves because
they are better guaranteed (Stengel and others), has the context against it.
Vv. 7-13. Evidence from Scripture that the New Covenant rests upon better
promises than the Old, and consequently is a better covenant than that. God
Himself has, by the fact of His having promised a new covenant, pro-
nounced the former one to be growing obsolete.
Ver. 7. [LXVI d.] Justification of the xpeirrovocg and xpeirrocy,
ver. 6.—ei qv] tf it were (vii. 11, viii. 4)—j mpory éexeivy] ac. dtadfxn. On
the superlative, quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see
592 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Winer, p. 229, [E. T. 244.] Obs. 1.—dapeurroc] faultless (Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6),
satisfactory, sufficient. Theodoret: 1é dueumrog avti tov teAcia TéDecxe.—ovK
av devrépag élyreito téroc] place would not have been sought (sc. by God, in the
O. T., or in the passage of Scripture immediately adduced) for a second
(covenant) ; t.e. it would not have been expressed by God Himself, that a
second covenant is to come in beside the first, and replace it. In this
general sense éyreiro rérog is to be taken, and the form of expression in
the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of con-
templation (oix av devrépa élnreito nat devréipacg ovx yw av rémog: a second
would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second).
No emphasis rests upon rémo¢; on which account it is over-refining, when
Bleek finds in éfyreiro rémog the reference that to the New Covenant,
according to ver. 10, the place was assigned in the hearts of men, while
the Old was written upon tables of stone.
Ver. 8. Making good of the assertion, ver. 7, that the Old Covenant was
not free from fault, and God on that account made known His purpose
of establishing a New one. Since peugduevoe manifestly corresponds
to the dueumrroc, ver. 7, and there the non-freedom from blame regards
the covenant itself, not the possessors thereof, it is more natural to com-
bine avroi¢c with Aéyec' than—what is certainly possible in a gram-
matical respect (see the Lexicons)—to join it to peupduevoc.2—aAéyer] sc. 6
6e5¢. Comp. the thrice-occurring Aéye: xipiog in the following citation (vv.
8, 9, 10).—avroig Aéyec] He saith unto them, namely, the possessors of the
mpity dtabjny.—The citation beginning with idot, and extending to the
close of ver. 12, is from Jer. xxxi. (LXX. xxxviii.) 31-34, after the LXX.,
with slight deviations.—Aéye: xbpioc] so in the LXX. of the Cod. Alex. The
Cod. Vatican. and others have ¢y0i xipop.—In place of xai ovyvretécw
Evil rov olxov ’Iopana xat éxi rov oixov ‘Iotda, it reads in the
LXX.: xat dtabpoopar rE olxw 'IopanA nai tH oixw ‘Iobda. Perhaps a change
designedly made in order to characterize the New Covenant as a com-
pleted or perfect one.
Ver. 9. Ob xara tHv diabhxny, fv éxoinca Toig natpdow aitor] negative
unfolding of the foregoing positive expression xaw7v (namely, a cove-
nant): not after the manner of the covenant ("135 X°) which I made for
their fathers, i.e. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a
better one.—fv ézoinca] LXX.: iw dceBéunv—roicg watpaow avrov] in the
Hebrew ONIIN-NR, with their fathers. The mere dative with éxoinca ex-
cludes the notion of reciprocity in the covenant-founding which has taken
place, and presents it purely as the work of the disposition made by
God.—év juépa émtAaBoukvov pov x.t.A.] in the day (at the time) when I
took hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt
1Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, 2Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecume-
Grotius, Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Chr. nius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Er.
Fr. Schmid, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Schmid, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs,
Stein, Bloomfield, Reiche, Comment. crit. p. | Bohme, Stengel, Bisping, Delitsech, Alford,
65 sq. ; Conybeare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Maier, Hofmann, al.
and others.
CHAP. vill. 8-10. 593
(oy yw oyiny) of ‘pm 03). An unwieldy but not exactly
incorrect construction (see Winer, p. 531 [E. T. 571]), in place of which
Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. 11, in citing the same words of
Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous év 9 émeAaBéu. The note of ©
time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one—ir] for; not:
“ because,” a8 protasis to xayo x.r.A. as the apodosis (Calvin, Bohme, Hof-
mann, al.).—xayé] emphatic personal opposition to airoi: and conse-
quently I also concerned not myself about them.—)éyee kbpiog] LXX. (Cod:
Alex. too): ¢noi rbpioc. |
Ver. 10. Justification of the dtaPfxnv nasty, ob cata tiv dtabhen x.7.1.,
vy. 8, 9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be insti-
tuted.—ére airy 4 diabfnn x.r.A.) for this (or the following) is the covenant
which I will institute for the house of Israel. att introduces with emphasis
the material characterization following with décdov¢ «.7.A.—olxo¢g "Iopaya |
here embraces the whole nation, while in ver. 8 it denoted one of the two
kingdoms into which it had been divided.—yerd rag tyuépac éxetvac] after
those days, 7. e. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the
juépat mentioned, ver. 8,—in which the New Covenant is to come into
existence,—begin to dawn.’—Aéye: xbpiog} LXX.: got xbpio¢.—édidoi¢] So
LXxX. Cod. Alexr., while Cod. Vatic. and other mss. of the LXX. have
didove ddow. In the Hebrew ‘AN). didot¢ does not stand for décw (Vata-
blus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supple-
ment it with décw (Heinrichs, Stengel, al.), or with eivi or gooua: (Kuinoel,
Bloomfield), or dé:adjoopat avr#y (Delitzsch). Nor have we to join it to the
following émcypdyw (so Béhme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise
that we must render xai before éxypadyo by “also.” It attaches itself
grammatically to the preceding d:a?goouac. In order to obviate any
unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after d:dvoay
avtav. The separation, however, of the «al émypdyw from that which
precedes is not actually necessary, since instances of a transition from
the participle to the tempus finitum are elsewhere nothing strange. See
Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 573].—d:dvoca] mind, i.e. soul, innermost part (2p).
Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as
opposed to the ezternalism of the Old. Comp. 2 Cor. iii.3.—xapdias] either
accusative (Deut. iv. 13, v. 22, al.) or genitive (comp. Ex. xxxiv. 28; Num.
xvii. 2, 3, al.). In favor of the latter pleads the singular in the Hebrew
original; in favor of the former, the reading of the Cod. Aler.: émi rag
xapdiag. We cannot take into account, in favor of the accusative, the
greater conformity to the character of the Greek language, according to
which, on account of the plurality of persons (atvrav), one must also
speak of xapdiac in the plural. For without regard to this distinction the
singular d:dvocav has already been just placed, and in like manner the
singular ry xecpdc is placed, ver. 9.—In place of éxi xapdiag avrey
eviypadyw avrote, the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. has: émypdywo avrotg ext
Tag xapdiag avrav, and the Cod. Vatic.: évi xapdiag aitrav ypdyw avtot¢.—xai
1Wrongly Oecumenius: wotas yudpas; ras ris efddou, gv als EAaBov Toy wdnor.
38
594 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Eoouat avtoicg cig Oedv x.r.A.] Comp. already Ex. vi.7; Lev. xxvi. 12, al.;
also 2 Cor. vi. 16.—The Hebraizing eivac cig (7 7) asi. 5.
Ver. 11. The consequence resulting from the diddévac véuorg cig ri
didvorav abrov «.7.A., ver. 10. Comp. Joel iii. 1,2; 1 John ii. 27.—xai ob py
diddEwow] and then they shall not instruct (Winer, p. 472 [E. T. 507]; Butt-
mann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 183 [E. T. 211]), as regards the
sense equivalent to: and then it will not be needful that they instruct each
other; the reason for which is stated immediately after, in the ar: ravre¢
eidjoovciv pe x.t.A. On the intensifying od «4%, see Winer, p. 471 f. [E.
T. 505 f.J—rov rodiryy airov] his fellow-citizen. Soin the LXX., Cod. Vatic.,
and most Mss., while Cod. Alex. has in the first member rav adeAddv, in the
second rév mAnoiov.—yvath] in the Hebrew the plural: 32.—uxpor'] With
the LXX. in most Codd.: pexpod airav.—ard puxpov Ewe peydhov avrar]}
Young and old (b}13-7y) DINPP2). Comp. Acta viii. 10; LXX. Jer. vi.
13; Jonah iii. 5; Gen. xix. 11, al.
Ver. 12. The inner ground of this communion with God and this
knowledge of Him.—ér:] not: “that” (Michaelis, ad Peirc.), but: for.—
tAewe Esouat Taig adixiarg aitav] I will be gracious (20%) to their unrighteous-
ness, i. e. will forgive and forget the same.—ddcxia:] in the plural, in the N.
T. only here, but of frequent occurrence with the LXX. Designation of
the alienation from God in its single outbreaks and forms of manifesta-
tion.—xa? rév duaptidy Kai rév avouidv abtrov] LXX. merely: xai rév apap-
stav abrav, in accordance with the Hebrew: TWy-73n8 8D DNROM,
Ver. 13. The author derives the result from the Scripture testimony,
vv. 8-12.—év tO Aéyewv xawty] in that He (sc. God) saith : a new (covenant).
Comp. é 1r@ AfyecOa, iil. 15, and év rH trordfa, il. 8.—rewadaiuxev rip
apotnv] He hath made the first old (contrary to linguistic usage, Ebrard :
“relatively older”), 7.e. has declared it to be out of date, out-worn, and
no longer serviceable.—aAaotv] a word belonging to a later period of the
Greek language, elsewhere ordinarily used in the intransitive sense: “ to
grow old,” and generally in the middle voice (as a little below, and i. 11);
is found likewise in the transitive sense, “to make old,” in Lam. iii. 4;
Job ix. 5. Toabolish or render obsolete the word itself does not signify ;
but rendering obsolete is the natural consequence of pronouncing out of
date or outworn. The author accordingly does not directly express notion
of abrogation by reradaioxev in this place,—a sense, moreover, which, on
account of the following adaotyevov, would here be inappropriate,—but
leaves the reader to divine it.—réd dé madatobpevov nai yypdoxov éyyi¢ agavio-
pov] but that which is growing ancient and ts becoming infirm with years, is
near to disappearing or perishing.—yypéoxev] ordinarily said of human
beings (to become enfeebled with age, senescere); then, however, also of
things, comp. e.g. Xenoph. Ages. xi. 14: 9 pév tov cbparog iaxi¢ ynpdoxer,
dé tH WuxTe poun .. . ayfpatéc éortv.—The author says sparingly: near to
disappearing (comp. xarépac éyytc, vi. 8), in that he takes his standpoint
at the time of the divine promises just quoted. Butif God in the time
of Jeremiah already designated the Old Covenant as that which is nigh
NOTES. 595
unto ruin, it was therein necessarily declared by implication, that now,
after so long a time is passed and the New Covenant has already been in
reality brought in, the Old Covenant, as to its essence (if not yet as to its
external manifestation), must have been already entirely abrogated, must
have entirely lost its force and validity.
Nores BY AMERICAN Eprror.
LXV. Vv. 1-6.
(a) The second section of the second leading division of the Epistle begins
with viii. 1. So far as its argument is concerned, it ends with x. 18; but, if
the hortatory passage belonging with it is included, as it should be, it does not
end until xii. 29. The superiority of Christ, asthe instrumental agent employed
by God to carry on the N. T. system, to the instrumental agents (the Levitical
priests) employed to carry on the O. T. system, which is set forth in this section,
consists in the fact that He is the minister of a higher sanctuary which is con-
nected with a better covenant. There are two subordinate sections :—1. referring
to the higher sanctuary; 2. referring to the better covenant. These two subjects
are developed, in a more general way, in ch. viii. (1, vv. 1-6 a,; 2, vv. 6 5-13),
and in a more particular and detailed manner, in ch. ix. (1, vv. 1-14; 2, vv.
15-28). They are finally restated, in a summary form, in ch. x. (1-18). By the
fullness of his presentation of this subject, by the threefold repetition alluded to,
and by the fact that he places it at the end of his whole discussion, and makes all
which precedes move towards it, the author shows that this was, indeed, the
Kegddaov ei Toig Aeyouévorc.
(6) That xepdAaov (ver. 1) means chief point, not sum, is proved by the fact that
what the writer says in this verse cannot be separated from what he adds in ver.
2,and by the fact that what is contained in the two verses, or in the whole
passage (vv. J-6), is not the sum of what he is saying in the whole epistle, but
only a principal matter in the development of the main subject. That xed. may
mean either a chief point (as Liinem.) or the chief point (as Bleek and others)
cannot be denied. The argument presented by Liinem. as establishing the former
meaning—that, in addition to the chief point mentioned in vv. 1, 2, there is
another (the better sacrifice) in ix. 9 ff—is without any proper basis, for there is
no such second chief point. The point here alluded to is that which is suggested in
vv. 1-6—that Christ is the minister of a higher sanctuary connected with a better
covenant. The thought of the better sacrifice is only a subordinate one, which is
connected with the presentation of this principal thought. The writer sets forth
but one chief point. Whether he speaks of it as a, or the, chief point is uncertain,
but, in whichever way he presents it, it is the only one which he deems it neces-
sary to bring before the minds of his readers. The antecedent probability, under
the circumstances, would seem to be, that a writer of such a rhetorical character
would desire to give the emphasis here which belongs to the expression “ the chief
point.”—(c) ézi has here the meaning upon, as resting upon—as the head, which
is a part of the body, rests upon the body, or as Alf. says “lying, as it were, by
and among.” Inof R. V. is, in accordance with the English idiom and usage, a
satisfactory rendering.—(d) The close connection between the earlier and later
parts of the Epistle, already noticed in v. 5, is manifest again in the words d¢
596 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
éxdfioev x.T.A.. a8 compared with i, 3.—(e) That tov dyiwy (ver. 2) means the
sanctuary (R. V. text), and not the holy things (R. V. marg.), is indicated by the
connection of the word with oxy7jc, and by the fact that it is repeatedly used in
ch. ix. as referring to the sanctuary.—( f ) The course of the writer’s thought in vv.
3-6 a seems to be the following: As a high priest, He must hold the office in
connection with some sanctuary. The office, however, as related to the earthlv
sanctuary, is already filled by others. He, therefore, belongs to the heavenly.
LXVI. Vv. 6 5-13.
(a) It will be noticed that, both in this chapter and the next, the writer closely
unites the sanctuary and the covenant. He does not present them as two inde-
pendent things in their relation to the subject in hand, but, by the form of his
sentence in ver. 6, and again in ix. 15, he shows that, as the minister of the higher
sanctuary, Christ is also, and as it were necessarily, the mediator of a better cove-
nant; ver. 6, dtagopwrépac téruye Aetroupyiag bow Kai xpeirrovog «.T.A, :—ix. 15, xai
dia tovro Stabhxne Kacva¢ pecitnc éoriv.—(b) The “better” character of the cove-
nant is here connected with the fact, that it is established as an institution or
_ system (“enacted” R. V.) upon the foundation of better promises. The “ better”
character of the promises is indicated in the following verses, and the central
point of the thought is, that the end in view is to be accomplished—that which
the religious system aims at, namely reAciworc, involving forgiveness of past sin
and conformity to the will of God, is to be certainly secured. See vii. 18, 19.—(c)
The argument to prove that the covenant and the promises are better, is similar
to that respecting the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood in vii. 11 ff—
namely, that, unless there had been imperfection, no new arrangement would have
been made, whereas such a new arrangement has been introduced. That the new
covenant is established is proved here by a citation from Jer. xxxi. 31-34, which
constitutes the central O. T. passage of this section, after the analogy of others in
other sections already noticed. To this argument there is added another, in ver. 13,
namely, that the fact that the covenant to be made is, according to the O. T..
passage, called new implies that the former one is old, and, like all things old, is
ready to pass away.
(d) With reference to the words of vv. 7-13 it may be remarked :—1. that
avtovs in ver. 8 has a slight preponderance of external evidence as compared with
avroic¢, but the other reading and the construction of the sentence adopted by
Ltinem., and placed by A. R. V. in the margin, should be recognized as possibly
correct—if indeed, they should not be preferred;—2. that the words evi rov
olxov with ovvredéow, as contrasted with the simple dative roi¢ watpaoew (ver. 9)
and 7@ oixw ver. 10, may suggest the thought that the covenant is not merely
made with, but imposed or enjoined upon, the people by God (évereiAaro ix. 2U).—
3. the description of what the new covenant will be or involve begins with
didob¢ of ver. 10, which is thus equivalent to ddco, in substance of thought ;—
4, that the same element of the legal system is here hinted at, which seems to lie
at the basis of Gal. iii. 20—the weakness connected with the necessity, for its suc-
cess, that men should perfectly fulfill the requirements of the law ;—d. év r@
Aéyev corresponds with év t@ Aéyeobaz of iii. 15, only that here the active is used,
because God is the subject of the following verb, while in iii. 15 the mere words
of the cited passage are thought of as setting forth a historical fact.
CHAP. IX. 597
CHAPTER IX.
VER. 1. 9 mpétn) Elz.: 4 wpdry oxnvh. But the addition oxyvf is condemned
as a gloss by the fact of its being wanting in all the uncial mss., in many cursives,
in Syr. utr. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg., with Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril, Chrys.
Damasc. Theoph. Photius, a/. On the ground, too, of internal evidence it is to be
rejected, since, on the one hand, the coherence with viii. 13, and through that
with viii. 7 ff, leads to d¢:a@4«7 as the main idea to be supplemented ; and, on
the other hand, the expression } tpory ox, ix. 1, would be made to denote
something quite different from that which the same expression denotes in ix. 2.
For, while in ver. 2 the outer division of the tabernacle is indicated thereby, in
ver. 1 only the first or Old Testament, earthly tabernacle, in opposition to the
New Testament, heavenly one, thus something entirely dissimilar, could be
intended by this expression—Ver. 2. After adprwv, B, Basmur. add «ai ro
Xpvoovy Ovutary#pctov, and in return omit the words ypvoovv Ovutathpiov
xai, ver. 4. Violent intentional transposition, with a view to the removal of the
archaeological difficulty.—Instead of ayca, Lachm. writes @yca dyiwy, after A
(aya’ aywv) D* E, It. But dy:a dyivv is a mere slip on the part of the copyist,
occasioned by ver. 3, and is to be rejected as devoid of sense.—Ver. 5. Xepovin]
A: Xepou,3eiu, B D*** (and so Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8): Xepovfeiv, D¥ R: Kepov,3tv,
In the case of the LXX., too, the Mss. are wont equally to vary as regards the
final syllable of the word.—Instead of the Recepta 56&7¢, Griesb. and Scholz have
erroneously placed in the text r#¢ d6é7¢. The article has against it all the
uncial mss. and other witnesses.—Ver. 9. In place of the Recepta xa P? by (D*#¥*
E K L, min. It. Copt. Sah. Basm. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph.), Lachm.
Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Delitzsch, Alford have rightly preferred the
reading xad’ 9», in accordance with A B D* &, 17, 23* 27, al., Vulg. Slav. codd.
Damasc. Oecum. (comment.). Already approved by Mill, Prolegg. p. 1046, and
placed by Griesb. upon the inner margin. The «a 8», as affording an easier
mode of appending to that which precedes, is a later correction of the more
difficult and ill-understood xa? 7v.—Ver. 10. The Recepta reads: xai dixaco-
aot capkéc, But xai is wanting in A D* x* 6,17, 27, 31, al., with Cyr.
(twice) in Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al.; and in place of dixacduact, A B x, ten
cursives, Cyril., and many versions have d:xacopuara, while in D* It. Sahid.
there is found dsxaiwua, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford have
therefore adopted d:xarQ@uara capxéc, which was already approved by Grotius,
Mill, Prolegg. p. 13855, and Bengel, and recommended by Griesb. Delitzsch and
Reiche likewise give it the preference. This reading is in reality to be regarded
“as the original one. For it is more easily explicable that dcxatauzara should, on
account of the foregoing datives, be changed into dcxa:duact, and joined on to
them by means of xai, than that the xa? d:xacouaci, if it already existed, should,
on account of the closing word éeeiveva, be converted into d:xacduata,—Ver. 11.
In place of the Recepta tOv weadAdvrwy, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after B D*
It. Syr. utr. (yet the Syr. Philonex. has the Recepta in the margin) Arab. petropol.
598 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
and some codd. of Chrys: rav yevouévwrv. Defended by Ebrard. But the
reading is not in keeping with the carefully chosen diction of our author, and its
sense: “ High Priest of the good things which have arisen,” does not commend
itself. It is manifestly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by the presence of the
foregoing tapayevéuevog.— Ver. 12 eipduevoc] D* (E ?), 27, 44, 80, al. and some
Fathers: evpduevoc.—Ver. 13. Elz.: tatpwv xai trpdywv. With Lachm.
Bleek, Tisch. Alford, to be transposed into rpdywyv xai ratpwy, in accordance
with the decisive authority of A B D E ®, Cyr. Theodoret, Bede, Syr. Copt. Basm.
It. Vulg. al.—Ver. 14. mveiparog aiwviov] D* ®*** many cursives, Copt. Basm.
Slav. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Didym. (?) Damase. al.: wvetpartog dyiov. Inter-
pretative gloss—In place of the Recepta ovveidyzotv tua, Bengel, Knapp,
Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 2, Alford read more suitably, in accordance with A D* K,
44, 47, 67, al., Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. al. Athan. Cyr. Chrys. (comment.)
Theodoret, Theoph.: cvveidyorv guov. Recommended likewise by Griesb.,
and already placed in the text in the Edd. Complut. Genev. Plant.—To
the mere ¥e@ Cavre in the Recepia, Lachm., with A, 21* 31, 66 (in the
margin), Copt. Slav. Chrys. (comment.) Macar. Theoph., has added the words xai
aAy3tv@. These words are, however, to be deleted. They are a gloss from 1
Thess. i. 9.—Ver. 17. parore] D* ®* and Isidor. Pelus. iv. 113 (...ov7w yap
evpov Kal Ey Tadawoig avrtypdgow): pb tTé7e—Ver. 18. Instead of ovd in the
Recepta, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, to
write ovdé, in accordance with A C D E L, 4, 44, 52, Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.—
4 tpotn] D* E*It.: 9 tpdry dtadijnyn. Exegetical gloss.—Ver. 19. Elz.: cava
vouov, But the better attestation by A C D* L &*** 2], 47, 71, al., Copt.
Basm. Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theoph. requires the reading preferred by Lachm.
Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford: xara rdv véyuov.—In like manner is the article
TOv wanting in the Recepta before tpaywy to be added, with Lachm. Tisch. and
Alford, in accordance with the weighty authority of AC D E(D E, Aeth.: rav
Tpaywv Kal Tov udoxuv) ®K* 80, al. mult. It. Vulg. Theodoret, ms.—So, in place of
the Recepta éppdvrice here and ver. 21, we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and
Alford, in accordance with all the uncials, to write épdvrcoev.—Ver. 24. The
order of the words followed by Lachm. in the stereotype edition, as well as
recently by Tisch. in the ed. vii. and viii.: eco7Adev ayca, rests only upon the
testimony of A ¥®, 37,118. In the larger edition of Lachm., therefore, this has
rightly given place to the Recepta aya cionAdev.—Better attested than the
Recepta 6 Xptorée is the mere Xpiorde (A C* D* B®, al. (Cod. B in its original
form extends only to ovveidyor, ix. 14]), preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and
8, and Alford.—Ver. 26. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloom-
field, Delitzsch: viv dé Better Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with
A CL (?) &,37, 39, 40, Orig. Chrys.: vuvi 6£.—dyapriag] A ®, 17,73. Lachm.:
THO Guaprias, Against C D*** E K L, almost all the min. Orig. (once) al.
mult.— Ver. 28. ottwe kai] Elz. has only otrw¢. Against decisive witnesses (all
the uncial mss., most min., many translations and Fathers).—After et¢ owrnpiar,
Lachm. in the stereotype edition had added, with <A, 31, 47, al., Syr. Philonex.
Slav. codd. Damasc., the words d:a wicrews. Rightly, however, has he deleted
them in the larger edition. The addition is a complementary gloss, which has
against it the testimony of C D E K L 8, many min. versions, and Fathers, and
betrays its character as a gloss by its changing position (Arm. 27, 31, 57, 61, a!,
have it before ei¢ owrnpiayr).
CHAP. IX. 1. ; 599
Vv. 1-14. [On Vv. 1-14, see Note LXVII., pages 629-631.] The author
has in chap. viii. insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the
superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that
the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more excellent one, namely, the
heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the considera-
tion that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service,
in the earthly sanctuary ; and then has proceeded to show the natural-
ness of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly
sanctuary, by the proof that He is the Mediator of a better covenant. This
train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. ix., in that
attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the
Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service corresponding
thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not
itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto
(vv. 1-8). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of
those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to
the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they
belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone;
whereas.the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood,
possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement
(vv. 9-14), and thusathird main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ
is introduced, the development of which occupies the author as far as x.
18. [LXVII a.]
Vv. 1-5. Description of the arrangement of the O. T. sanctuary as
regards its essential component parte.
Ver. 1. [LXVII b-e.] Elyev piv obv nai 4 rpdry] sc. dtadGxn, Against
the supplementing of ox7vf (Cameron, Peirce, Whitby, Wetstein, Semler),
see the critical remark.—elyev] had. éyec is not written by the author,
although the cultus of the Old Covenant was still continuing at the time
when he wrote, not so much because—as is shown by ver. 2—it was his
intention to describe the primitive arrangement thereof (comp. viii. 5),
which is the opinion of BGhme, Kuinoel, Stengel, and Tholuck, as, what
is more naturally suggested by the coherence with viii. 18, because the
Old Covenant had already been declared by God in the time of Jeremiah
to be feeble with age and nigh unto disappearing, and consequently now,
after the actual appearance of the promised New Covenant, has no longer
any valid claim to existence.'—yév oiv] now truly. Admission that that
which the author is about to detail is indeed something relatively exalted.
The antithesis, by which again this admission is deprived of its value
and significance, is then introduced by ver. 6 (not first with ver. 11, as is
supposed by Piscator, Owen, Carpzov, Cramer, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bis-
ping, Maier, M’Caul, and others); yet in such wise that the material anti-
thesis itself is first contained in the statement, ver. 8, which is connected
syntactically only as a parenthetic clause.—xai] also. Indication that with
Chrysostom : weet eAcye, tore elxe, vuv ove = Tore yap elxe, dyciv. “Dore viv, ci cai EoTHKey,
éxee’ Seixvvowy nbn rovTe aurny cxxexwpyxviay® ovK éoTiy.
600 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the Old Covenant the New is compared, and possessions of the former are
enumerated, which also (although, it is true, in a more perfect form) are
proper to the latter.—dcca:mpara Aarpeiacg] legal ordinances! in regard to
worship, i.e. regulations made by virtue of divine authority respecting
the cultus.—Acrpeiac] is genitive. To take the expression as accusative
(Cameron, Grotius, Hammond, al.), according to which dtaa:dpara, Aarpeiag,
and Té ayov xoouxédy would as three members be made co-ordinate with
each other, is untenable; because the signification of d:xatpyara in itself
would be too extensive to fit in with the further development of ver. 1, to
which the author himself at once passes over, from ver. 2 onwards. For
as the statement ré re ay:ov xoouixév receives its more full explication by
means of vy. 2-5, so does the discourse in vy. 6, 7 return to the unfolding of
the twofold dixa:duara Zazpeias, blcnded as this is in a logical respect into a
unity of idea.—ré te Gytov xoouixdv] and the mundane sanctuary. Since, in
accordance with the «ai, possessions of the Old Covenant are to be men-
tioned, such as this has in common with the New,—while to the New Coven-
ant there pertains no mundane, earthly sanctuary ,—r6 re dyov xoouixéy must
be regarded as a concise mode of designation for kai ay:dév ti, Td Koopexdv,
“and a sanctuary, namely the mundane.” That such is the meaning of
the author, is indicated by the fact that the article is placed before this
second member, although it ought properly to have been inserted before
xoouixdy also. Yet the omission of the article in the case of adjectives
placed after their substantives is not a thing unknown among other
writers of the later period. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 323; Winer, p. 126
[k. T. 183]. Forced is the explanation of Delitzsch, with the adherence
of Kurtz and Woerner, that xoouxév as an adjectival predicate is to be
taken in association with elyev: “the first covenant had likewise dcxaropuara
Aatpeiac, and its sanctuary as mundane, 7.e. a sanctuary of mundane
nature.” Had the author intended the ‘readers to suppose such a con-
joining, he would also—equally as vii. 24, v. 14d—have indicated the same
to them by the position of the words. He must, in order to be under-
stood, at least have written: elyev pév obv wai 4 wpézy dtxatopata darpeiac
Koouckév te td dycov, Under an entire misapprehension, further, does
Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 408 f., 2 Aufl.) suppose that ré re aycov
xoouxév is not to be taken as a second object attaching itself to the duadpara
Aarpeiac, but as a second subject joining itself on to 7 zpéry,—a construc-
tion which, upon the presupposition of the Recepta 4 zpory oxy being
the correct reading, already Olearius adopted (comp. Wolf ad loc.), and
upon the same supposition also more recently M’Caul maintained, in
connection with which, however, 76 re ayiov xoopexéy would limp behind
in an intolerable manner, and would afford evidence of a negligence of
style, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would least of all
have been guilty of.—The view of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Zeger, Carp-
zov, and others, that ayzov is to be taken not in the local sense (sanctuary),
but in the ethical sense (holiness, dy:éryc, sanctitas, mundities), is altogether
1 Wrongly Stengel: “Means of justification.”
CHAP, IX. 2-5, 601
erroneous; since the expression chosen would be a remarkable one, the
immediate sequel does not point thereto, and the more exalted seat of the
cultus of the New Covenant forms the theme of the fresh train of thought
opened up with the beginning of chap. viil— Quite as much to be disap-
proved is the opinion of Wolf, who will have ayov to mean “ vasa sacra
totumque apparatum Leviticum.”—xoopexéds] means: belonging to the
world, worldly, mundanus. Comp. Tit. 11.12. The expression is equiva-
lent to émiyeoc, and to it érovpdvog stands opposed, as in general 4
xéouog in the N.T. very frequently has its tacit contrast in 6 ovpavéc.
Td aytov xoouexdv is consequently nothing else than 7 oxyv4, fv énngev
&vdpwrog (comp. viii. 2), Or } ox) xeipoTwointos, Tovréotiv Tabtye THE KTicEews
(comp. ix. 11), or ra yeporoinra aya (ix. 24), and a twofold idea is ex-
pressed in the adjective, first, that the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is
one existing in the terrestrial world, then, that it 1s accordingly something
only temporary and imperfect in its nature. Remote from the connec-
tion are the suppositions of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others :
that the Jewish sanctuary was called xooyixév, because the access to the
same stood open to the xéoyoc, t.e. the Gentiles; a statement, moreover,
which possesses historic truth only with reference to a part thereof, the
court of the Gentiles (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5.2; Acts xxi. 28),
while here the sanctuary as a whole must be indicated ;—of Theodorus
Mopsuesten., Theodoret,! Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Bobhme, Paulus,
and others: because the Jewish sanctuary symbolically represented the
universe; the holy place, earth; the most holy, heaven; and the curtain
before the latter, the firmament ;—of Kypke, because the sense is: tofo
terrarum orbe celebratum (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud.iv. 5. 2, where the
Jerusalem high priests, Ananus and Jesus, are represented as rij¢
Kooukne Spnoxeiag -Katdpyovres, mpooxvvotpevoi te Toig Ex THC oixovuévync), Which,
however, could only be said with reference to the temple, not with refer-
ence to the tabernacle itself, of which the author is here specially think-
ing.—Entirely baseless, finally, is the opinion of Homberg, that xoopcxdv is
to be apprehended in the sense of “adorned, well-ordered.” For. only
Kéapo¢, xoountixéc, and xoouyrés are used for the expression of this notion;
never is xoouixéc put for it. See the Lexicons.
Vv. 2-5. Unfolding of the collective idea rd dywv xoopexdy, as regards its
several essential component parts. That the author has before his mind
the Jewish sanctuary in its original form, z.e. the Mosaic tabernacle, is
evident alike from the expression ox7v4, as from the use of the aorist
xateoxevdodn. That, however, he likewise thinks of this original disposition
as still preserved in the temple of his day, is manifest partly from the
present Aéyerae immediately following, partly from the proposition : robrev
dé obTwe KaTecKkevacpivwy ... eiciacw, ver. 6.—oxyv) ydp Kareoxevdodn 4 pdt]
Sor a tent was prepared (set up), namely, the first or anterior one (the fore-
1Tay oxnyyny ovrws exddeoe, TUTOY ewdxovcay ayia THy ev TH yp MoATeiay, Ta be Gyca Tov
Tev xkécuou wavrés. Karaweracuare yap peop ayiwey TO Twy OVpavwy éevdtairnua. Avro 8 rd
Sippetro Sexy, cai Ta wey auTns exadeiro aya, xKarawdragua TOU aTepedmaros exAnpou Thy
Ta S¢ ayia Twyv aywwy. Kai eutuetro Ta wey = xpeiay.
602 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
tent). oxnv% stands first as the general notion, and only acquires its
nearer definition by the 7 wpéry afterwards brought in, without, how-
ever, our having, with Beza, Bloomfield, and others, to place a comma
after xareoxevéodn. That oxyv} 4 mpéry is not to be combined immediately
in one, as expressing the signification: “the fore-part of the tent” (so
Valckenaer, who compares in ultimis aedibus, and the like ; also Delitzsch),
is shown—although such acceptation presents no grammatical difficulty—
by the corresponding oxyv7 9 Aeyouévy ayia ayiwy, ver. 3, whence it follows
that the author is regarding the two divisions of the tent separated by the
veil in front of the Most Holy Place as two tents.—pdér7] not temporal,
but local.—xareoxevéod7] namely by Moses, at the behest of God (comp. viii.
5).—év 9 % Te Avyzvia] sc. éoriv (not #7, Alford, Kurtz, against which 2éy;era:
and ver. 6 are decisive): tn which there is the candlestick (or lamp-stand).
Comp. Ex. xxv. 31-39, xxxvii. 17-24; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd.
I., Heidelb. 1837, p. 412 ff In the temple of Herod, too, there was,
according to Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5, only one lamp-stand
in the Holy Place, while in the temple of Solomon there were ten of them
present; comp. 1 Kings vii. 49; 2 Chron. iv. 7.—xai 9 tpdxela nai 7
mpddeos tv aptuv] and the table and the setting forth of the bread (or loaves),
i.e. wherein is found the table, and the sacred custom is observed of plac-
ing thereon the shew-bread. Comp. Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 636.] Wrongly
do Vatablus, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bloomfield, and
others explain % mpédeoce tov dpruv as hypallage or antiptosis for of aprox
TH mpodécewe, Yet more unwarrantably do Valckenaer (and similarly
Heinrichs) maintain that 7 tpdmefa nat 4 mpddeon Tov dprwv is equivalent
to 7 Tparela Tov Gptwy tHE mpotéceuc. According to Tholuck, Delitzsch,
Alford, Maier, Kluge, and Moll, rpé8eore is, like the Hebrew QW.2, to be
taken concretely, strues panum. But mpéSeoe never has the passive sig-
nification of strues. On the matter itself, comp. Ex. xxv. 23-30, xxvi. 35,
xxxvil. 10-16; Lev. xxiv. 5-9; Bahr, lc. p. 407 ff—#ric] 8c. copy 9 xpdrn.
Not conjoined with the mere #, because the fact alleged is something
which is familiar to the readers.—éyia}] Holy Place (wp). So (as neuter
plur.), not, with Erasmus, Luther, Er. Schmid, Mill, Whitby, Heinrichs,
and others, ayia (as fem. sing.), have we to accentuate the word. It stands
opposed to the ayia dyioyv, ver. 3, and denotes the Holy Place, or the outer
portion of the tabernacle, in opposition to the Most Holy Place, or the
more secluded, inner portion of the same. Likewise with the LXX. and
with Philo, the plural rd dy@ in this sense is interchanged with the sin-
gular ré ayov.—ayra, however, not ra ayia, is placed, because the author
was less concerned about mentioning the definite name coined for the
expression thereof, than about bringing out the signification which this
name has.
Ver. 3. Mera] after or behind. Of local succession (Thucyd. vii. 58, al.),
in the N. T. only here.—ro detrepov xaranéracya] the second veil (N23). For
before the Holy Place, too, there was a veil (j29). On the former, comp.
Ex. xxvi. 31 ff—oxnvy] sc. xatecxevdoty.—ayia dyivv] Most Holy Place.
CHAP, Ix. 3, 4. 603
Periphrasis of the superlative (see Winer, p. 281 [E. T. 246]), and transla-
tion of DWP wyp-
Ver. 4. Qvucar7pcov] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer.
The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high
priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de
Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby,
Schulz, Bohme, M’Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping,
Alford, M’Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate
(turibulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand
(MwPA N3%) or 3039 N3tD), of which mention is made as a constituent
part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Ex. xxx. 1-10, xxxvii. 25-28, xl. 5, 26, as a
constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings vii. 48, 2 Chron. iv. 19,
and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud.
v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare),
as well as by Oecumenius (ad ver. 7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Broch-
mann, Mynster (Stud. wu. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel,
Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier,
Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others.
Instances from the classical writers in favor of either reference, see in
Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f. That a censer is intended may be urged from the
language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of
incense the expressions: 16 YvoacrApiov Suucduatoc (Ex. xxx. 1,27; Lev. iv.
7), T8 Svocactypiov Tov Suucaudtwy (1 Chron. vi. (vii.) 49, xxviii. 18; 2 Chron.
XXvi. 16, 19), 76 Suoractipiov 7d ypvooiw (Ex. xl. 5, 26, al.), 1d Yvoracrhprov 7d
(av) azévavre xvpiov (Lev. xvi. 12, 18); and, where the altar intended is clear
from the context, merely 16 Svoracrjpiov (Lev. xvi. 20, al.), are regularly
employed, and only in unimportant mss. of the same Suuarfpiov presents
itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the
LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage
of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, 7d Suparfpiov Was
quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense.’ Of the altar of
incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage.
For the manner in which the ypvooty Susargpcov is mentioned, as a paral-
lel member to rv xiBwrdv rae dcadAxnc, Shows that the former must be an
object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so,
something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only
the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the
tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Lev.
xvi. 12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the
1Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. de Bello Jud.v. 5.5: cai 7d wey wpwrov udpos
611 sq. (with Mangey, I. p. 504): rpravovrwy dy =. ww elxen ev alre rpia Oavzacwwrata Kai
Tos ayiows oxevav, Avxvias, Tpardgns, OuutaTn- weptBdnra act avOpwrots Epya, Avxviay, Tpawe-
piov; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): “Ama 6@ Cav, Ovjrarjpiow; Antig. iii. 6. 8: meragu be
route ednmcovpyetro nai oKxein iepa, xiBerds, avrns (THs Avyvias) xai THe Tpawdsns évdov ...
Avxvia, Tpawega, Oupsarynproy, Boyds. ‘O per Ovmrariprov, EvAcvor wey «.7.A., al.
ovy Beds iSputo ev vraibpy «.7.A.; Josephus,
604 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a
censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has
mainly before his mind, nothing 1s known with certainty. Only from the
Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4,1 do we learn something about it. Moreover,
according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the
storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon
the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom; even as it
would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument
should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Lev. xvi. 12,
13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy
Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned
above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to
him, to the end that he died not. And yet éyovca compels us to think
of an abiding place of the Susarppiov ; to explain éyovoa of the mere apper-
taining of the Suuar7pinv to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for
the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors,? is—inasmuch as
the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two
main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to
each of these divisions, by means of pera dé, ver 3, and thus éyovea, ver. 4,
unmistakably corresponds to the év 7, ver. 2—altogether arbitrary. If,
then, we understand @vuarfpcov of the altar of incense, as we are compelled
to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its stand-
ing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the
author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 1 ff.). This point
of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the
conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicin-
ity of the Jewish sanctuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to
the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of
an error is explicable. In favor of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the
following considerations: first, that Ex. xxvi. 35 there are mentioned as
standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, but not
the altar of incense also. Then, that where the standing place of this
altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by
reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction® Finally, that in
the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance
in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it
was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which
the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 10; Lev.
xvi. 18 f.).—ypvootv] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The arti-
cle, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the
10Omnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus
de altari accepit in turibuloargenteo .. . hoc
vero die in aureo.
?But also by some advocates of the opposite
view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Myn-
ster, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Conybeare, Riehm,
Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier,
Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal
to VINO-W MBIT, 1 Kings vi. 22.
3So Ex. xxx. 6: xai Oyoes avTo arévartTe
TOU KaTaweTagparos, TOU SyTOS emi THS KLBwTOw
Tay paprupiov; ibid. xl.5: cat Onoes Td voc
GoTYptoy TO xpycour eis Td OusLay evarTioy THS
a.Bwrov; ver. 26: awrévayrt Tov xarareracpa-
vos; Lev. iv. 7, xvi. 12,18: évavrioy or arévarte
KuUptov.
CHAP, Ix. 5. 605
altar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court,
namely, the altar of burnt-offering.—xai r#v Burov rye dtafijxn¢] and the ark
of the covenant ; comp. Ex. xxv. 10ff., xxxvii. 1-9.—repixexadvupévyy mdvto-
bev xpvoiy]| overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Ex. xxv. 11)
with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings viii., the ark of the
covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruc-
tion of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple
was without an ark.\—év 9 otduvog xpvoy Exyovoa Td pavva x.7.A.] wherein was a
golden pot with the manna, and Aaron's rod which had budded, and the
tables of the covenant. év y does not refer back to oxyvq, ver. 3 (Ribera,
Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the é 7, ver. 4, the trepdvu
dé avr7¢, ver. 5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to «Buw7rds. On the
pot of manna, comp. Ex. xvi. 32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. xvii. 16-26
(1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Ex. xxv. 16; Deut. x.1,2. Accord-
ing to 1 Kings viii. 9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant,
at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law;
and according to Ex. xvi. 33, Num. xvii. 25 (10), the two first-mentioned
objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the cove-
nant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to
the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is
found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1 Kings
vii. 9 and at Num. xvii. 10, and Abarbanel at 1 Kings vili.9. See Wet-
stein on our passage.
Ver. 5. The author turns from the objects to be found within the ark of
the covenant to that which is above the same.—imepdvw, dé airyc] sc. Ti
KiButov.—Xepoviv] comp. Ex, xxv. 18 ff, xxxvii. 7 ff.; Winer, Bibl. Real-
worterb. I. 2 Aufl. p. 262 ff; Biihr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. I. p. 311
ff. There existed two of them, of fine gold, one at each end of the cover
or lid of the ark of the covenant, upon which, with faces turned towards
each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their out-
spread wings. In the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God en-
throned (1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15; Isa. xxxvii. 16), and
from this place God would speak to Moses (Ex. xxv. 22; comp. Num. vil.
89).—Xepor,iiu is here treated as a neuter, as likewise generally with the
LXX., with whom the masculine ol XepovZ. occurs but rarely (e.g. Ex. xxv.
20, xxxvii. 7). The neuter is not, however, to be explained by the suppo-
sition that zvebyata is to be supplied to it in thought (comp. Drusius on
our passage), but from the fact that the cherubim were regarded as (aa.
—The cherubim are called XepovBip dédén¢o. That may mean cherubim
of glory or brightness, to whom glory or brightness is proper (so Camera-
rius, Estius, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, Kuinoel, al.), or the cheru-
bim which pertain to the divine glory, the M171" N33, 7. e. who are the bearers
1Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5: Mosaic cherubim are described as qwa merecva,
"Execro 8@ ove» GAws év atte, popday 8 ovderi ray un’ avOpwrwry ewpaudvwy
GBaroy 8¢ nai adxparror cat abdaroy fy wacww, jmwapanAjova. Comp. also Ezek. x. 15: xai ra
aytov 8¢ dytoy exaAdeiro. XepouBip Foav rovro 7d wow, § iow «.7.A. Ibid.
2Comp. Josephus, Antig. iii. 6. 5, where the ver. 20.
606 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
of the divine glory (so the majority). Grammatically the former is easier
(on account of the absence of the article before dé&7;). But the latter is
to be preferred as yielding a more appropriate thought, and the omission
of the article is to be justified from the usage of the LXX. Ex. xl. 34; 1
Sam. iv. 22; Ezek. ix. 3, x. 18, al.—xaraoxedfovra 1d iAaorhpiov] which over-
shadow the propitiatory (or mercy-seal). xaraoxidfecv in the N. T. only
here. Comp. ovoxidfe, Ex. xxv. 20; oxide, Ex. xxxvii. 9; 1 Chron.
xxvill. 18. A morechoice verb than zepexadirrecy, 1 Kings viii. 7. 1 iAsa-
or#peov (D2), the cover of the ark of the covenant, which on the
great day of atonement was sprinkled with the sacrificial blood for the
expiation of the sins of the people. Comp. Lev. xvi. 14 f—zepi dv] goes
back not merely to the cherubim (Ebrard, p. 294), but also to all the objects
before enumerated.—ovx gor] tt concerns us nol, or: is not the place, or: is
impossible. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 20. Of the same meaning as the more defi-
nite ov« éeorev, With Kurtz to supply zézo¢ is inadmissible.—xara pépoc]
in detail. The author does not design to set forth the typical significance
of every single object enumerated ; the indication of the typical signifi-
cance of the two main divisions of the Jewish sanctuary is that which he
at present aims at, and to this task he now addresses himself in that
which immediately follows, comp. ver. 8.
Vv. 6,7. After the collective expression ré adyzov xoopuexdy, ver. 1, has
been analyzed into its single constituent parts, vv. 2-5, and a recapitula-
tory reference has been made to the total result of this given analysis by
means Of robrwv obrag xatecnevacpévwr,—the opposition to wév, ver.
1, being formally introduced by dé, and then receiving its more precise
material defining by means of the statement, ver. 8, which is attached in
a& grammatical respect as a subsidiary clause,—the discourse advances to
the development of the further general idea, which is placed in the fore-
front, ver. 1, but has hitherto remained unnoticed, the twofold expression
dtkatopata Aatrpeiac.—From the present ciciacrv, asfrom tpocdgépet,
ver. 7 (comp. also ver 8 f.), it follows that the Mosaic cultus was still con-
tinuing at the time when the author wrote. The participle perfect, xaveo-
xevacuévwv, however, denotes that which is extending out of the past into
the present, and is still enduring in the present (see Winer, p. 254 [E. T.
270 f.]). The present hereby indicated can, of course, only be that in
which the author himself is living and writing. The endeavor to explain
it of a present into which the author only mentally places himself, is as
little warranted grammatically as is the asserting, with Hofmann, that the
present in which the discourse here moves is ‘not a past, nor actual, nor
something still continuing, but that set forth in the word of God, where
it is to be read how the sanctuary erected by Moses was constituted, and
what priests and high priests do in the same; ” or with Mangold (in Bleek’s
Finleit. in das N. T. p. 617), to find the Scripture picture of the tabernacle
drawn in our passage as a “ purely ideal magnitude, which by no means
guarantees the actual continued existence of the temple worship.” For,
in order to render possible suppositions of this kind, the conjoining of the
presents with a participle aorist would have been. indispensably necessary.
CHAP. IX. 6, 7. 607
From the’ form of discourse chosen: robruy otrug xareckevacptvav
(“in that these objects have been in such wise regulated ”), in union with
the present tenses ciciaccy and mpoogé peu, it therefore follows of neces-
sity that the author, although here entering only upon the presentation of
the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary,
nevertheless thinks of these two main divisions, together with all that
appertains to them,—which he has just now enumerated,—as still pre-
served in being, thus also as still present in the Jewish temple of his day ;
by which supposition, it is true, he becomes involved in contradiction with
the historic reality, inasmuch as alike the ark of the covenant as the ves-
sel of manna and Aaron’s rod were wanting in the second temple. Vid.
supra ad ver. 4. With very little reflection does Riehm (Lehrbegr. des
Hebrierbr. p. 491, Obs.) object to this conclusion, that “ with just the same
right one might infer from the present in xiii. 11 that the author supposed
the Israelites of his time to be still dwelling in a camp.” The passage
xiii. 11 has nothing whatever in common with ours, since it is here a ques-
tion of the combination of a participle perfect with verbs in the present.
That, too, which Delitzsch sets against it, that the robrwy obrwe careoxevac-
névuv, pointing back to xareoxevdo6y, ver. 2, certainly shows that the author
his the Mosaic period before his mind, utterly collapses, inasmuch as the
participle perfect, and not the participle aorist, has been employed. Phrases,
however, like those met with in Delitzsch: that the author was writing for
just such readers as would not have given him credit for an ignorance
like this, are peremptory decisions, for which the result is already fixed
before the investigation, and consequently intimidations of the grammati-
cal conscience.—7 mpéry oxy] as ver. 2, the fore-tent or Holy Place.—éa
mavréc] continually, t.e. day by day. Opposite araé rov éviavrov, ver. 7.—
oi iepeic] opposite jidvog 6 Gpyztepebc, ver. 7.—ra¢ Aatpeiag éncredovvrec] perform-
ing the religious actions. Daily, morning and evening, an offering of in-
cense was presented, and daily were the lamps of the sacred candlestick
placed in readiness and kindled. Comp. Ex. xxx. 7 ff.
Ver. 7. ‘IL devrépa] sc. oxmvf, the Most Holy Place.—ézaf rot évavroi]
once in the year, t. e. only on a single day of the year, namely, on the tenth
of the seventh month (Tisri), on the great solemnity of atonement. The
supposition that the high priest on this day more than once entered the
Most Holy Place is not excluded by the expression,.and the disputed
question as to how many times this took place has no bearing on our
passage. That the high priest was obliged to enter the Most Holy Place
at least twice on this day, follows from Lev. xvi. 12-16. That he entered
into it as many as four times is the teaching of the Talmud (tract. Joma,
v. 1, vii. 4) and Rabbins.—zévo¢ 6 apytepetc] sc. eloevot.—mpoodgéper] is not to
be explained, as by Calov and others, of the sacrifices outside of the Most
Holy Place. For in this case we should have to expect the aorist. It is
employed of the blood of the victim before slain, which blood the high
priest carries into the Most Holy Place, and here in the Most Holy Place
presents to God (the Socinians, Grotius, Bleek).—izép éavrov xai trav tov
Zand ayvonpdtwy] for himself and the transgressions of the people. To make
608 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
éavrowv likewise depend upon ayronudtwy (for his own sins and those of
the people: Vulgate, Luther (?), Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cap-
pellus, Grotius, Storr, Stuart, Paulus, and others), is, although the thought
is not thereby altered (comp. vii. 27), grammatically false ; because in that
case the article ra» could not have been wanting before éavrov.—ayvor-
pétuv] see atv.2,p. .
Ver. 8. Now follows (apparently as a subordinate thought) the main con-
sideration, with a view to which the author has been led more fully to
describe the ay:ov xoopixdy and the dixacéuara Aarpeias of ver. 1.—rovro dyAoiv-
Tog tov mvetpuatocg ayiov|] the Holy Ghost indicating this very thing (follow-
ing).—rovro] has the emphasis, and acquires its development of contents
by means of ufru mepavepdofa: . . . oTdow.—rov rvebpatog dyiov] The
arrangement of the sanctuary and priesthood prescribed by God to Moses
is thought of by our author as carried into effect by Moses under the
assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost; the idea expressed in that
arrangement might therefore very easily be represented as an indication
designed by the Holy Ghost.—ujrw redavepiotlac tiv trav dyiuy dddv, ete THE
mporne oxnvac Exobons ardor] that the way of the sanctuary is not yet manifested,
so long as the fore-tabernacle still exists —-év dyiuy] is erroneously appre-
hended by the Peshito and Schulz (comp. also Zeger) as masculine. It is
neuter. Does not, however, as ver. 2, denote the Holy Place, but, as vv. 12,
24, 25,x. 19, xili. 11 (comp. also 7d dyiov, Lev. xvi. 16, 17, 20, al.), the Most
Holy Place, and that not the earthly one (Kurtz),—for that would be a
trifling statement; whereas surely rotro dyAoivrog tov mveipatog ayiov pre-
pares the way for a deeper truth, vid. infra,—but the heavenly reality, the
throne of the Godhead.—# trav dyiwyv odé¢ signifies the way to the Most
Holy Place..—é yerv ordozv further means: to have existence, to exist.
We have not, however, with Bohme, to import into it a secondary refer-
ence to firmness or legal validity, and 4 «pdérn oxnvq is not the one first
in point of time, t.e. the earthly, Jewish sanctuary in opposition to the
heavenly (Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Semler, Baumgarten, Bloom-
field, al.), still less the tabernacle in opposition to the later temple (Peirce,
Sykes), but the fore-tabernacle or Holy Place, in opposition to the intenor
tabernacle or Most Holy Place. The thought is: by the ordering that
the Most Holy Place, the presence-chamber and place of manifestation of
God, might not be entered, save on one single day of the year, and by the
high priest alone, while the daily Levitical service of the priests 1s accom-
plished in the Holy Place, and thus approach to the former debarred and
shut off by the latter, the Holy Ghost proclaims that so long as the Leviti-
cal priesthood, and consequently the Mosaic law in general, continues,
the immediate access to God is not yet permitted; that thus, in order to
the bringing about and rendering possible of a full and direct communion
with God, the Old Testament covenant-religion must first fall, and the
more perfect one brought in by Christ (ver. 11) must take its place.”
1Comp. Matt. x. 5: eis 68v éOvav; Jer. ii. Obs. 4; Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 187].
18: ry dd Aiyvrrov, al.; Kdhuer, II. p. 176, Comp. Matt. xxvii. 51, as also Josephas,
CHAP. Ix. 8, 9. 609
Vv. 9, 10 are closely, indeed, connected grammatically with that
which precedes, but, logically regarded, introduce the third and last
main point of the disquisition on the high-priestly superiority of Christ
over the Levitical high priests. For after (1) it had been shown that
Christ, as regards His person, is exalted above the Levitical high priests
(iv. 14-vii. 28), and then afterwards (2) it was proved that likewise the
sanctuary in which He ministers surpasses in sublimity the Levitical
sanctuary (viii. 1-ix. 8), it is now further stated (3) that the sacrifice also
which He has offered is more excellent than the Levitical sacrifices
(ix. 9~x. 18).
Ver. 9. [LXVII f, g.] "Hric] is not synonymous with 7. It is employed
argumentatively, in that it presents the following declaration as a fact,
the truth of which is manifest—We have not, however, to take 7re¢ with
napaBoag as a designation of the subject (Calvin, a/.: which emblem was
only for the present time; Storr, al.: which emblem was to continue only
to the present; Zeger, Semler, de Wette, al.: which emblem has refer-
ence to the present time). For the verb to be supplemented would not
be the mere copula; it would have a peculiar signification, and thus could
not be omitted. grc¢ alone is consequently the subject, and mrapafoA7 the
predicate. Yet #ri¢ is not to be referred back to ordew (Chir. Fr. Schmid),
for the expression ordow does not occupy a sufficiently independent posi-
tion in the preceding context to justify this; still less—what is thought
possible by Cramer—to rv rév dyiwy 6d6v, by which the idea would be
rendered unmeaning. Nor have we to assume an attraction to zapafoag,
in such wise that #7¢ should stand in the sense of 4-7 (so Bengel, who
makes it point back to vv. 6-8; Maier, who makes it refer to vv. 7, 8;
Michaelis, who makes it refer to p#mw mepavepdofa x.7.A.. and others), or,
what amounts to the same thing, to supplement to the phrase jri¢
mapaBoAz, comprehended together as a subject, tapaBoAg éoriv as a pre-
dicate: which emblem (described vv. 6-8) is an emblem for the present
time.! For, in the course of vv. 9, 10, respect is had just to the closing
words alone of ver. 8: é&re rig mpdrn¢g oxmvig Exobone ordocwv. The exclusively
right construction, therefore, is the referring back of yri¢ to rag mpdrng
oxnvijc, ver. 8.—apaBoan cig tov Kaipdv Tov évearyxéra] 8c. éotiv. mapaBoat
in the Gospels very frequently a fictitious historic likeness. Here a like-
ness by means of a fact,an emblem. Not incorrectly, therefore, 1s it
explained, on the part of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by
riroc.—eic] in reference to, as regards. Instead of ei¢ rov xaipdv tov éveorn-
xéra, consequently, the mere rot Karpov row éveotnxérog might have been
written.—<é xaipdc 6 éveornxdc] the present time. The opposite thereto is
formed by the xarpd¢ dopAdcew, ver. 10, by which the reader is referred to
the Christian epoch of time, the aidv uéAdwy (vi.5; comp. also ii. 5). 6
natpo¢ 6 éveornxoe is therefore synonymous with the aidv oiro¢ else-
where, and indicates the pre-Christian period of time still extending
Antiq. iii. 3.7: raw 8@ rpirny poitpay [rhs oxnrys] 180 Nickel in Reuter'’s Repertor. 1858, Mars,
ove wepiéypawe Te Oep ba Td Kai roy ovpa- ip. 188 f.
vow avewiBaroy «lvat arOpwirots.
39
610 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
onward into the present.' The term xa:pé¢, however, is chosen, instead
of the more general ypévo¢, or aia», because it is the thought of the
author that this period of time has already reached its turning-point, at
which it is to take its departure.—xa? 4v] conformably to which, or in ac
cordance with which, applies not to zapaBoag,? but to rH¢ mporne oxpvig, 28
the last preceding main notion; stands thus parallel to gri.—pqH duvayuevas
Kata ovveidnow Tedet@oa Tov Aatpebovta] is to be taken in close connection
with ddpa rte xat Qvoia rpoogépovrac (against BGhme, who unwarrantably
presses the force of the plural dapé re xai Ovoiar).—nxara ovveidyou] as
regards the consciousness, or as to the conscience (Theophylact: xara rév iow
évOpurov), t.e. 80 that the reality of being led to perfection is inwardly
experienced, and the conscience in connection therewith feels itself satis-
fied.—rdv Aatpebovra}] him rendering the service (x. 2). Not specially the
priest is meant (Estius, Gerhard; comp. also Drusius), but in general, the
man doing homage to God by the offering of sacrifice, whether it be a priest
who offers for himself, or another who presents this offering through the
medium of the priest. [Matt. iv. 10; cf. 46 mpocepxéuevoc, Heb. x. 1.]
Ver. 10. Mévov éexi Bpdu. nai mou. cai diag. Barriopoig dixarcduata capnos
«.7.A.] which, together with meats and drinks and divers washings, are only
fleshly ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation. Apposition to dapé
re Kai Ovoias, up duvduevat x.t.A., ver. 9.—pédvov] belongs to dia:duara capkéds,
but is placed in advance of this on account of the addition éxi Spdyace
x.7.A.; and éi expresses the accession to something already present
(Winer, p. 3676 [E. T. 393]), or the existence externally side by side.2—
Otherwise is it explained by others, in that they take uévov éxi in close
combination, give to éri the signification “in reference to,” and place
both words still in relation to ver.9. They then regard pévoy éri x.r.A.
either as nearer definition to spoogépovra: (so, substantially, Vatablus,
Schlichting, and others), or as opposition to xara ovveidyjow redecioa (80
Schulz, Ebrard, al.). But against the first supposition the material ground
is decisive, that the presentation of sacrifices in reality had reference by
no means exclusively to the expiation of offences against the ordinances
regulative of food and lustrations ; against the second, the linguistic ground
that Gad’ éxt Bpduacw pédvoy x.r.A. must have been written instead of puévrov
éxi Boduacw x.r.A. Yet others take povoy éxi «.7.A. in close conjunction
1Quite mistaken (as is already apparent
even from the opposition to xacpos ScopOwcews,
ver. 10) is the opinion of Delitzsch, with whom
Alford concurs, that 6 xatpds 4 éveornxws
denotes the present begun with the cacvy
8ca@yxn, the present of the New Testament
time, in which the parable has attained its
close. See,on the contrary, Riehm, Lehkrbegr.
des Hebrderbr. p. 494, Obs., and specially
Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 748q.—That, for
the rest, by 6 xacpds 4 éveornxws only that
present in which the author lived and wrote
can be meant, needs not another word of
explanation. When Kurtz and Hofmann
deny this,—and the former will understand
only an “imagined present,” into which the
author “only transposed himself ;" the latter,
“that present in which the Holy Ghost pro-
phesied by means of that which was written
in the law,”—this is done only in the interest
of their wrong interpretations of ver. 6
2Oecumenius, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch,
Nickel, U.¢c., Riehm, Lekrbegr. des Hebraerdr.
p. 495, Ods.; Alford, Woerner, al.
3Comp. e.g. Hom. Od. vii. 120: éyxem ¢2”
Syx¥n ynpéoxe, wHAov 8 éexi wHAw; Thucyd.
li. 101: vworxsperos adeAday eavrov bucew
Kai xphpara én" avry.
cHAP. Ix. 10, 11. 611
with rdv Aarpebovra, ver. 9. So perhaps already the Vulgate (perfectum
facere servientem solummodo in cibis), then Luther (“him that does
religious service only in meats and drink,” etc.), Estius, Corn. a Lapide,
Olearius, Semler, Ernesti, Ewald, Hofmann, and others. But the addi-
tional words would too greatly drag, the thought resulting would be
incommensurable with xara ovveidyow redecooa, and the formula Aarpetecv
éri reve in the sense indicated without example.—The Bpdépara xai
néuata are interpreted by Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Heinrichs,
Maier, and others of the sacrificial meals ; by Bleek and de Wette, of the
partaking of the paschal supper in particular. But the mention of these
practices would be, here at any rate, something too special, and the words
xiii. 9 can furnish no standard for the interpretation of our passage.
More correctly, therefore, is it thought in general of the meats and drinks
permitted, as of those forbidden, in the Mosaic law. Comp. Col. ii.16; .
Rom. xiv. 17. With regard to drinks, there are in the Mosaic law pro-
hibitions only for special cases; comp. Num. vi. 3; Lev. x. 9, xi. 34.
Comp. however, also Matt. xxiii. 24; Rom. xiv. 21.—xai diagdporge Barriopoic]
Comp. Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. xi. 25, 28, 32, 40, xiv. 6-9, xv. 5 ff, xvi. 4, 24 ff. ;
Num. viii. 7, xix. 17 ff., al—dcxardpara capxdcs] ordinances of the flesh,
4. e. ordinances that relate to the flesh, and thus bear the impress of the
earthly and transitory.—yéypt xatpod dipOdcews émixeipeva] imposed (only)
until the time of reformation. The apd diophdcewe is the epoch of the
promised New and more excellent Covenant (viii. 8 ff.), which has begun
with the appearing of Christ.—d:ép@worc] only here in the N. T.—érureizeva]
Oecumenius: Bépog yap ww pdvov ta ty TH vbuy, Kabdc gacw of arécrodAo.
Comp. Acts xv. 10, 28.
Vv. 11, 12. [LX VII h-k.] Antithesis to vv. 9,10. What the religion of
the Mosaic covenant was unable to effect, that has been accomplished by Christ.
—rapayevopevog apxepere Tov pedddvruy ayaov] having appeared as High
Priest of the good things to come. The verb in the same sense as Matt.
ili. 1, 1 Macc. iv. 46; synonymous with dvicrac#a, Heb. vii. 11, 15.
Strangely misapprehending the meaning, Ebrard: zapayevépyevoc is to be
looked upon as an “ adjectival attribute” to apyepetcs, and the thought is,
“as a present High Priest,”—an acceptation which is incompatible with
the participle of the aorist—High Priest of the good things to come
(comp. x. 1) is Christ called, inasmuch as these good things are the conse-
quence and result of His high-priestly activity. They are the blessings
of everlasting salvation, which the author, ver. 12, sums up in the expres-
sion aiwia Abrpworr; and they are called future, inasmuch as they are
proper to the aiov péAdur (vi. 5), or the oixovpévy péAdovoa (ii. 5), and the
full enjoyment of them will first come in at the consummation of the
kingdom of God, to be looked for with the return of Christ.—é:a ri¢ peiZovoe
nat redeortpac oxmvg¢ x«.t.A.] through the greater and more perfect taber-
nacle, which is not made with hands—that is to say, not of this world.
The words belong to eio7Afev cig ra aya, ver. 12, and é¢é is used in the
local sense: “ through ” (not instrumentally, as the d:¢4, ver. 12). To join
the words to that which precedes, and find in them an indication of that
612 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
by means of which Christ became dpyepete tév peAAévrwv aycov (Primasius,
Luther, Dorscheus, Schulz, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 409, 412 f,, 2
Aufl.—which latter will accordingly also take the dd, ver. 12, in both
cases along with apyepet¢ tov pedAdvruv ayafoy; otherwise, however, in
the Comm. p. 337,—Moll, and others), is erroneous, because by virtue of
ovdé, ver. 12, the existence of an already preceding link in the nearer
definition of cio#Abev sig tra aya is presupposed.—But to interpret the
oxnvi through which Christ has entered into the Most Holy Place as the
body of Christ, or His human nature,' or as the holy life of Christ,? or as the
(militant) church upon earth,’ or, finally, as the world in general,‘ is incon-
sistent with the point of comparison suggested by the comparatives peiZovoc
and reseorépac in accordance with the foregoing disquisition, in general
is opposed to the connection with vv. 1-10, and has against it the anti-
thesis in which rad aya, ver. 12, stands to oxyvf, ver. 11, as also the addi-
tion ov rabryc tig Kxricewe. The lower spaces of the heavens are intended
—corresponding to the wpéry oxyr4 of the earthly sanctuary (vv. 2, 6, 8)}—
as the preliminary stage of the heavenly Holy of Holies. Comp. iv. 14:
dueAnaAviéra rove ovpavobc.—peilovog Kai Tedecorépac] sc. than the Mosaic cay.
—ov yeiporomrov] Comp. vili. 2: fv erngev 6 Kbptog, ovx dGvfpuros, Acta vil.
48, xvii. 24; Mark xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v. 1—ov rabrae rij¢ xricews] not belonging
to the earthly created world (the earth) lying before one’s eyes (ratrnc).
Wrongly Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Wolf,
Bengel, Kuinoel, Friederich, /.c. p. 296, and others: not of this kind of
building, sc. the same as the earthly sanctuary; or: as earthly things in
general.
Ver. 12. Ovdé] nor. Oddé is written by the author, misled by the fore-
going notes of negation: ob ye:poronrov and ot rabry¢ tHe KTiceus, Whereas,
properly, «a? ov ought to have been written, since that which is intro-
duced by ovdé is parallel, not to the negative expressions further charac-
terizing the oxqv4, but to the preceding 6:6.—dér’ aiuarog tpdyev Kai péozwv]
by (by means of) blood of goats and calves, by which the entrance of the
earthly high priests into the Most Holy Place was made possible on the
great day of atonement. Comp. Lev. xvi. 14, 15.—é:a 62 rod idiov aipzarog]
the Levitical high priest entered the Most Holy Place not merely by
means of the blood of animals, he entered at the same time with this
blood (ver. 7). The author, however, has respect, with reference to the
Levitical high priest also, only to the former notion, since only this, and
not at the same time the latter, was suitable for application to Christ
(Schlichting). If he had desired that the notion of the nerd should also
be supplied in thought in our passage (Kurtz), he would have known how
180, on account of x. 20, Chrysostom, Theo-
doret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius,
Ciarius, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Piscator, Jac.
Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, Ben-
gel, Peirce, Sykes, Ernesti, Chr. Fr. Schmid,
Friederich, Symbolik des Mos. Stiftshitte,
Leipz. 1841, p. 296 ff., and others; also Hof-
mann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 415, 2 Aufl., who,
however, will have us think of the glorified
human nature of Christ.
2 Ebrard.
8Cajetan, Corn. a Lapide, Calov, Wittich,
Braun, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, ad Petre.
Cramer, Baumgarten.
4 Justinian, Carpzov.
CHAP. Ix. 12-14. 613
to express likewise this “somewhat gross material conception” (Bleek
II.).—égaras] once for all. Corresponds to the following aiwviav.—ei¢g ra
Gy:a] into the inner sanctuary of heaven.—aiwviav Avtpwow eipauevog] having
obtained (by His sacrificial death) eernal redemption. Incorrectly do
Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, and Moll take etpdayevog as something
coinciding in point of time with eio7Adev. If it had been so intended, the
participle present would have been placed instead of cipapuevoc.—e t pio-
xeoGae signifies: to find (for oneself), obtain. The Atrpwors became
Christ’s peculiar possession, thus—since He Himself, as the Sinless One,
needed it not—to make it over to those who believe in Him.—This
Atrpwors is the ransoming, t.e. redemption from the guilt and punish-
ment of sin, and it is called aiwvia, eternal, or of indefeasible validity, in
opposition to the sacrifices of the O. T. priests, which had to be renewed
every year, since they were designed each for the [typical] expiation of
the sins of a single year.—The feminine formation aiwvia in the N. T.
only here and 2 Thess. ii. 16.
Vv. 13, 14. Justification of aivviay Aitpwow eipduevoc, ver. 12, by an argu-
ment a minore ad majus. With the quantitative augmentation, however,
expressed by ei ... méoy paddov, there is at the same time blended a
qualitative augmentation by means of mpd¢ ri tag capKdg Ka¥apétyra and
THY euveidnow hu. x.7.A., in such Wise that the two following thoughts are
enfolded the one in the other :—({1) Ifeven the blood of animals works
cleansing . . . how much more the blood of Cnrist? (2) If that effects
the purity of the flesh, this effects purity of conscience.—xai oédo¢
dapddcwc] and ashes of an heifer. According to Num. xix., those who by
contact with a dead body had become defiled, must be sprinkled with a
mixture of water and the ashes of a spotless red heifer wholly consumed
by fire, of which the ashes were preserved in a clean place without the
camp (with the so-called WI-"D, Num. xix. 9, 18, 20, 21; LXX.: idup
pavriopod), in order to become clean again.—pavrifovea roig nexowwupévorc |
sprinkling those who have been defiled. Free mode of expression for: with
which (ashes) those who have been defiled are sprinkled.—rov¢ xexocvwyévoue |
belongs, since favrifovea most requires an express addition of the object,
to this verb,' not to dydé¢er,? which latter stands absolutely: works sanctifi-
cation.—npod¢ tiv ti¢ capxd¢ xadapétyza]} to the (producing of the) purity of
the flesh. mpéc, as v.14. Indication of the result.
Ver. 14.5 Incomparably more efficacious must the sacrifice of Christ be.
For—(1) Christ offered Himself, i.e. He gave up His own body to the death
of a sacrifice, while the Levitical high priest derives his material of sacri-
fice from a domain foreign to himself personally; then: He offered Him-
self from a free resolve of will, while the Levitical high priest is placed
under the necessity of sacrificing, by the command of an external ordin-
ance, and the sacrificial victim whose blood he offers is an irrational ani-
1 Erasmus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Groting 2A. L. van der Boon Mesch, Specimen Her-
Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, meneuticum in locum ad Hebr. ix. 14, Lugd.
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, al. Bat. 1819, 8vo.
8 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Schulz, al.
614 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
mal, which consequently knows nothing of the end to which it is applied.
The Levitical act of sacrifice is then an external one wrought in accord-
ance with ordinance, a sensuous one; Christ’s act of sacrifice, on the
other hand, one arising out of the disposition of the heart, thus a moral
one. From this it is already evident how it could be said (2) that Christ
offered Himself é:a4 rvetparog aiwviov. The ethical belongs to the prov-
ince of the spirit. Christ accordingly offered Himself by virtue of spirit,
because His act of sacrifice was, in relation to God, an act of the highest
spiritual obedience (Phil. ii. 8), in relation to the human brethren an act
of the highest spiritual love (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). Aca mvetparog aiwvion,
however, by virtue of eernal spirit did Christ offer Himself, inasmuch as
the notion of the eternal belongs inseparably and essentially to the notion
of spirit, in opposition to odpf, which has the notion of the transitory as
its essential presupposition. The adjective ciwviov is added in natural
correspondence with aiwviay Avtpworv, ver. 12. For only by virtue of
eternal spirit could a redemption which is to be eternal, or of ever-
enduring validity, be accomplished.—The majority have interpreted 6:4
mvevpatog aiwviov of the Holy Spirit; then thinking either, as Clarius,
Estius, Whitby, and others, of the third person in the divine trias, or as
Bleek, de Wette, and others, of the Spirit of God which dwelt in Christ in
all its fullness, and was the principle which animated Ilim at every
moment.: But this application is too special. For, in accordance with
the force of the words and the connection of the thoughts, there can stand
as a tacit antithesis to the expression: dia mveiparog aiwviov, only the gen-
eral formula: d:a capxd¢ mpooxaipov, whereby the mode of accomplishing
the Levitical acts of sacrifice would be characterized. Moreover, if the
Holy Spirit had been intended, the choice of the adjective ciwviov instead
of dyiov must have appeared strange, because indistinct and liable
to being misunderstood; finally, the absence of the article also is
best explained on the supposition that the formula is to be understood
generically. Too special, likewise, is the explanation of the words adopted
by Aretius, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Gomarus, Calov, Wolf, Peirce, M’Lean,
Bisping, and many others, in part coinciding with the second form of the
first main interpretation, according to which, by rvevya aidnov, the divine
nature of Christ, or “the principle of the eternal Sonship of God indwelling
in Christ ” (Kurtz), is designated. This view already finds its refutation
in the fact that rveiva has its opposite in odpf, and mvetua and cdpé are
contrasted as spirit and body, not as divine and human. To be rejected
farther is the procedure of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim-
borch, Carpzov, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 525 ff.), Reuss,' Kurtz,
Woerner, and others, in making the rvetua aidvov, as regards the thing
intended, equivalent to the divaucc Cwi¢ axaradirov, vil. 16, whereby the
essentially ethical import of the expression in our passage is lost sight of;
1“T’auteur a voulu dire ici, par une tour- non snjette A la mort et par cela méme seule
nure nouvelle, justement ce qu'il a déja dit capable de nous assurer un bienfait durable
deux fois en d'autres termes (vii. 16,25). La et éternel aussi.”
nature de Christ lui assure une vie éternelle,
CHAP. Ix. 14. 615
entirely false and arbitrary, however, is the interpretation of Déderlein
Storr, and Stuart, who refer rvevya aidvov to Christ’s state of glorification
after His exaltation ; of Nésselt (Opusc. ad interpret. sacr. scripturr. fascic.
I. ed. 2, p. 334),—as also van der Boon Mesch, /.c. p. 100,—who espouse
the opinion: ‘“‘zvevya esse victimam, quam Christus se immolando Deo
obtulit, eamque aiwriay dici propterea, quod istius victimae vis ad homines
salvandos perpetua atque perennis futura sit;” of Michaelis, ad Peirc.,
who finds the sense, that Christ presented Himself not according to the
letter of the Mosaic law, but yet certainly according to its spirit; and of
Planck (Commeniatt. a Rosenm. etc., edd. I. 1, p. 189), who even maintains
that the spirit of prophecy in the prophets of the Old Covenant is thought
of. Strangely also Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, and others (comp.
already Chrysostom): dia wvebuato¢g aiwviov stands in opposition to the fire,
by which the Levitical sacritices were offered to God. Similarly Hofmann
(Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 420, 2 Aufl.), who is followed by Delitzsch and Riehm
(Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 527, Obs.): “the spirit by which Christ offered
Himself is called an eernal spirit, in opposition to the fleeting spirit of the
animals which the O. T. high priest presented.’ Of a “ spirit” of the ani-
mals the author (cf. iv. 12) can hardly have thought, inasmuch as, though
in the O. T. a wvedya is often ascribed to animals, this is understood only
in the lower sense of the yy. Needlessly, in the last place, does Reiske
conjecture dyvebyaroc instead of mvebyaroc.—diad] denotes not the mere
impulse or impelling motive (Vatablus, Ribera, Estius, al.), nor yet the con-
dition or sphere (Stengel, Tholuck, al.), but the higher power, by virtue of
which the offering was accomplished and made effective—éavrdv mpootvey-
xev] is understood by Bleek, with whom Kurtz concurs, after the prece-
dent of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, and others, in
the sense that Christ offered to God, tn the heavenly Holy of Holies, His blood
which was shed upon earth ; which, however, is violent on account of dé
mvebuatog aiwviov, since these words appertain to the whole relative clause,
and are not to be referred, with Bleek, as a nearer definition merely to
duwuov. The undergoing upon earth of the death of the cross is that which
is meant.—dpwpov] asa spotless sacrifice, yielding full satisfaction to God.
The Levitical victim must be duepo¢e (O°DN), physically free from blemish.
Here aywyoe is used of the higher, ethical spotlessness, and has reference
to the sinlessness of character manifested by Christ during His earthly
life. Erroneously Bleek: the expression has respect to “the condition of
Christ after death and the resurrection, in which, raised above even the
infirmities to which as very man He was subject upon earth, He could in
particular no more fall a victim to death.”—r@ @e9} is to be taken along
with the whole relative clause, not merely with duwpov.—ard vexpav Epyor]
forth from dead (legal) works, so that we free ourselves from them as from
something that is unfruitful and useless, rise above them. The notion of
the vexpa Zoya here the same as at vi. 1.
Vv. 15-28. [On Vv. 15-22, see Note LXVIII., pages 631, 632.] In order,
however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, u was
matter of necessity that He should suffer death. This follows from the very
616 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
notion of a diad#xn, since the same is only ratified after the death of the
diadéuevoe has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. diadzxy was
not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly
sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the
heavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excel-
lent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the
world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death. [LXVIII a, b.]
Ver. 15. Kal dia rovto diadinns xawie peoitne éoriv] and just for this cause
is He the Mediator of a New Covenant. [LX VIII c, d.] By means of «ai, ver.
15 attaches itself closely to the preceding context, and dca rotro points
back to the main thought contained in vv. 9-14; just for this reason, that
the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes that which the Levitical sacrifices are
_unable to accomplish; namely, that, presented by virtue of eternal spirit,
brings in an eternal redemption, these, on the other hand, as ordinances
of the flesh, are able to effect only purity of the flesh. Not specially to ra
aiza, ver. 14 (Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Maier), does dia rovro glance back.
For in this case dc’ avré, or rather did tov aizatoc, would more naturally
have been written. Nor is did rovro to be taken together with érur, as a
mere preparation thereto (so Schlichting, Schulz, B6hme, Bleek, Stengel,
Ebrard, and many). For thereby ver. 15 would be torn from its connection
with that which precedes—Upon xa:v#¢ there does not rest an emphasis,
as is supposed by Bleek and Delitzsch. For otherwise the adjectives must
have been prefixed to thesubstantive. On thecontrary, what is to be specially
emphasized is é:ad4xne. For just the inner nexus of the N. T. dcad gen,
with the redemptive death of Christ as its mediating cause, is to be brought
out; whereas the adjective xa: could be presupposed as familiar from
the disquisition viii. 8 ff, in that there the perfect covenant promised by
God was sufficiently characterized as a new one.—bruc] in order that. False
the interpretation of Heinrichs: “unde sequitur.” The final clause du¢
x.T.A. is not designed to develop more nearly the 4:4 rovro; it depends upon
diadHunc Kaivijg peoirne éoriv, and indicates the goal to which, in accordance
with the decree of God, the diadfxy xaiv% should lead, and at the same
time the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be
accomplished.—Oavarov yevoutvov] a death having ensued. The death of
Christ is that which is meant. The author, however, expresses himself
generically, because he has already in mind that which is to be observed,
vv. 16, 17.—Ei¢ aroAtrpwow tov éxt rh mpdry duadhny wapaBdcewr| for re-
demption from the transgressions (or sins) committed under the first covenant
(or at the time of the first covenant). Note of design to Gavdrov yevoyévov, not
tO AdBworv.—riv inayyedav] the promise, t.e. the promised blessing itself.
With rpv érayyeAlav we have to combine rij¢ aiwviov KAnpovopiags, as
a declaration wherein the promised blessing consists (genitive of apposition).
By the separation of the two closely connected words, ri érayyediav i8
brought out more emphatically, and the discourse gains in point of
rhythm. Less suitably, although free from objection on linguistic
grounds, did the Peshito, Faber Stapulensis,. Braun, Chr. Fr. Schmid,
Stein, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 594),
CHAP. Ix. 15, 16. 617
Moll, Ewald, and others take ri¢ alwviov xAnpovouiag with of xexAnpévoc:
those who are called to the eternal inheritance.—ol xexAnuévor] Comp.
KAjoews érovpaviov péroxot, ii. 1. The expression is here used absolutely,
and is not to be referred exclusively to the Christians. For, according to
ver. 26 and xi. 39, 40, the power of the redemptive death of Christ extends
retroactively likewise to the generations of the past. And just for this
reason the participle perfect is written, and not the participle aorist. For
not to the historic act of the temporal vocation, but ta the being called, as a
fact in the decree of God already completed and extending into the pres-
ent, is attention to be drawn.
Vv. 16,17. [LX VIII e.] Demonstration of the necessity of the @évarov
yevéodac by means of a truth of universal application. That Christ might
be able to become the Mediator of a new d:a¥fx7, His death was required.
For, to the validity of a d:adjx7, it is essential that the death of the d:adé-
pevoc be first proved. Since immediately before (ver. 15) and imme-
diately after (ver. 18 ff.) dcadqjxy was employed in the sense of “ cove-
nant,” elsewhere usual in our epistle, we might naturally, on account
of the conjunction of vv. 16, 17, by means of yép, with ver. 15, and
on account of 6%ev, by which again ver. 18 is joined to vv. 15, 16, expect
this signification of the word to be found also in vv. 16, 17. This
has accordingly been insisted upon, here too, by Codurcus (Crit. sacrr.
t. VII. P. ii. p. 1067 sqq.), Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Whitby [in com.],
Macknight, Michaelis, Sykes, Cramer, Paulus, and others, lastly also
by Ebrard. But it is altogether inadmissible. For if we take d:adfxn
as covenant, 6 diadéuevog could only designate him who makes or insti-
tutes the covenant; to take 6 diadéuevoc as the mediator of the covenant,
as is generally done in connection with that view, and to understand this
again of the sacrificial victims, by the offering of which the covenant was
sealed, is pure caprice. The thought, however, that for the validity of a
covenant-act the death of the author of the covenant must first ensue,
would be a perfectly irrational one. Irrational the more, inasmuch as,
vv. 16, 17, only an entirely general truth is contained, passing for a norm
in ordinary life. Ebrard finds expressed the thought: “ Where a sinful
man wishes to enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must
first die, must first atone for his guilt by death (or he must present a sub-
stitutionary ny y).” But all these definings have been arbitrarily im-
ported. For vv. 16,17 nothing is said either about a “sinful man,” or
about a volition on his part, or about the “holy God,” or about an
“atoning for guilt,” or about a “substitutionary m\y.” From what has
been said, it follows that d:adfxy, vv. 16, 17, can be taken only in the
sense, likewise very frequently occurring with the Greek authors, of
“testament” or “ disposition by will.” It is true there arises therefrom a
logical inaccuracy,! owing to the fact that diad4ny is used in these two
1For the author does not reason, as de __‘ff.), in order to manifest the non-existence of
Wette supposes, from the mere “analogy of a _a logical inaccuracy, in that, namely, in the
will or testament.”—The course, moreover, whole section, ver. 15 ff., he will have scaOjcy
pursued by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p.426 signify neither “covenant” nor “testament,”
618 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
verses in another sense than before, and the formal demonstrative force
of that which is advanced by the author—although the underlying
thoughts are in themselves perfectly just—is thereby sacrificed. It is,
however, to be observed that while for us, since we are obliged to employ
a twofold expression for the reproducing of the diversity of sense, the
transition from the one notion to the other appears abruptly made, this
transition for the author, on the other hand, might be an imperceptible
one, inasmuch asin the Greek one and the same word included within
itself both significations. Thus, accordingly, it has happened that the
ancient Greek interpreters explain di:ad7jx7, vv. 16, 17, expressly in the
sense of a testament or will, then at once pass over to the declaration con-
tained in ver. 18, without so much as noticing the logical inaccuracy
which presents itself. The sense consequently is: where a testament or
deed of bequest exists, there it is necessary, in order to give tt validity (comp.
toxbe:, ver. 17), that the death of the testator first be proved. The New Cove-
nant, therefore, which Christ has established between God and man by
His sacrificial death, the author here represents—in accordance with the
figure of the xAnpovoyia, ver. 15—as a testamentary disposition on the part
of Christ, which, however, as such could only acquire validity, and put
the heirs in possession of the blessings bequeathed to them, by means of
the death of Christ.—fdvarov] emphatically preposed, while rot diade-
#évov, upon which no emphasis falls, comes in at the end of the clause.—
gépecha:] be declared or proved. Wrongly Grotius: the verb to be regarded
as equivalent to erspectari (“est enim exspectatio onus quoddam ”’); Wit-
tich : it denotes the being endured on the part of the relatives; Carpzov,
Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Hofmann (Schrif?-
bew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 428), and others, that it denotes nothing more than
ensue or yivecda, ver. 15.
Ver. 17. Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 16. The words of the verse
are connected together as parts of a single statement. We have no right
to break up the same, in such wise that d:a6gxn yap émi vexpoic BeBaia is made
a parenthesis, and ézei «.r.4. joined to ver. 16 (Hofmann).—ézi vexpoic] in
the case of dead persons, t.e. only upon condition that the author of the dcabAxy
is dead, or has died.—efaia] firm or inviolable (comp. ii. 2), inasmuch,
namely, as, after the death of the testator has supervened, the abrogation
or alteration of the testament on his part is no longer possible.—p#zore |
never. [LXVIII f.] The making of p@rore equivalent to uA or nondum
(Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Schlichting, Boéhme) is
linguistically inadmissible. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Lud. de Dieu,
but throughout the whole only “disposal”
(Verfigung), is, as also Delitzsch and Riehm
(Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 598, Obs.) acknowl-
edge, an utter breakdown. See likewise the
observations of Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor.
1858, Marz, p. 194 f.—Nor will it do, with
Kurtz, to set aside the logical inaccuracy, at
which he takes ao great offence that he
thinks himself obliged to designate such
inaccuracy, in case it were present, an “ inex-
cusable confusion ” (1), in taking not only at
vv. 16, 17, but also in like manner at vv. 15,
18, the é:a6y«y in the special sense of “ estab-
lishing as heir.” For the connection with
that which precedes (comp. vii. 22, vili. 6 ff.
ix. 1, 4) leads at vv. 15, 18 exclusively to the
idea of a covenant,
CHAP. Ix. 17-19. 619
Heinsius, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Lachmann, Hofmann (Schriftbew. IT.
1, 2 Aufl. p. 429), Delitzsch, and Ewald regard the word as an inlerrogative
particle, which does not alter the sense, and might appear the preferable
course, since, on the supposition of an assertory statement, the objective
obrore might have been expected in place of the subjective p@rore. Never-
theless, elsewhere too, with later authors, the placing of the subjective
negation is not at all rare after érei, when it introduces an objectively
valid reason. See Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 480]; Buttmann, Gramm. des
neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 804 [E. T. 353.].—ioyter] sc. diabgxn, not 6 diabépevog
(Peirce).
Vv. 18-22. The first d:a64«y also was not inaugurated without blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no remission under the Mosaic law.
Ver. 18. “O6ev] [LXVIII g.] wherefore, sc. because, according to vv. 16,
17, a d:a6jxq becomes valid only through the intervention of death. To
enclose vv. 16, 17 within a parenthesis, and refer back dev to ver. 15
(Zachariae, Morus, Storr, Heinrichs, Conybeare, Bisping), is arbitrary.—
ovdé] the augmenting; not even.—7 zpéry] the first, or Old Testament, se.
d:abjxn. Erroneously do Wetstein and Koppe (in Heinrichs) supplement
oxnvi. —éyKexaiviora:] was inaugurated, 7. e. introduced in a valid manner.
The verb occurs in the N. T. only here and x. 20.
Vv. 19, 20. Historic proof for the assertion, ver.18, with a free refer-
ence to Ex. xxiv. 3-8.—xard rédv véuov] is taken by Schlichting, Calov, Jac.
Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Storr, Bohme, Bleek, Bisping, al., along
with mdon¢ évroage: “every precept according to the law, ¢.e. as it was con-
tained in the law.” So already the Vulgate: lecto enim omni mandato
legis. But against this construction the absence of the connecting article
and the strangeness of the preposition «ard. Rightly, therefore, have
Oecumenius, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius,
Wittich, Braun, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford,
Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others referred xara rév wyov to Aadnfeionc.
Only we must not explain, as is ordinarily done, “in accordance with the
commandment received of God,” but the sense is: after, in accordance
with the law received of God, every precept had been proclaimed by
Moses to the whole people. The standard for the proclamation of the
évrodai was the véuoc, since it contained these évroAai.—zravri rH Aap] Ex.
xxiv.3 stands only diyyfcaro ro Aag. But wavri resulted from the amexpi6y
d2 mac 6 Aad there immediately following.—xa? rév tpéywr] and of the
goats. Of goats slain in sacrifice the underlying narrative of Exodus says
nothing. Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bohme, and others
therefore suppose that the author had in view the burnt-offerings men-
tioned before the thank-offerings of oxen, Ex. xxiv. 5; inasmuch as,
according to Lev. i. 10 ff., iv. 23 ff., ix. 2,3, Num. vi. 10, 11, vii. 27, rams
and he-goats, as well as other smaller animals, might be selected for burnt-
offerings. Nevertheless, it is also possible that, as conjectured by Bleek,
de Wette, and Bisping, there was present to the mind of the author that
sacrifice of bullocks and goats already referred to, vv. 12, 18, which the
high priest was to offer on the great day of atonement.—yerd ddarog xai
620 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
épiov xoxx:vov xai icadrov]| along with water and crimson wool and hyssop. With
regard to this also, nothing is stated in the corresponding passage of Exo-
dus. But all three things are elsewhere mentioned in connection with
legally enjoined aspersions for purification. Comp. Num. xix. 6, 17 f.;
Lev. xiv. 2 ff., 49 ff In accordance therewith, a mixture of fresh spring
water in some cases with the ashes of the red heifer, in others with the
blood of a slain bird, was prescribed in the case of aspersions which were
appointed for the cleansing of one defiled by contact with a corpse or by
leprosy. In like manner, according to the passages above referred to,
hyssop (2%, comp. on this plant, Winer, Bibl. Realworterb. Bd. II. 2 Aufl.
p. 819 f.) and crimson wool. With the latter the hyssop stem was probably
bound round, and this served as a brush for sprinkling the blood. Comp.
this use of hyssop in Ex. xii. 22.—airé re rd BiBriov nai wévra rdv Aady épar
tioev] he sprinkled as well the book itself as also the whole people. rd B:32iov is
the B:Briov ri¢ dtabhunc, Ex, xxiv. 7. Of a sprinkling likewise of this book
of the covenant, nothing, however, is told us in Exodus. It has therefore
been proposed, by way of removing the difference, to make ré £:BAiov still
dependent upon the preceding 2afv.! But the «ai following :fAiov ren-
ders this impossible. For the setting aside of this «ai by pronouncing it
spurious (Colomesius, Valckenaer), or by the assumption of a pleonasm
(so ordinarily), isan act of violence; while we are prevented from placing
it, with Bengel and Ewald, in correspondence with the xai, ver. 21, as “et
. et vero,” or “non modo... vero etiam,”—apart from the clumsi-
ness of construction thus arising, and leaving out of consideration the
inconvenient dé,—dy the twice occurring of the verb Epdvricev, vv. 19 and 21.
—rdvra trav Aadv] LXX. ver. 8: AaBdv d? Muvone 7d aiva xareoxédace tov Aaowv.?
—épévricev] sc. for consecration and purification.
Ver. 20. Ex. xxiv. 8, LXX.: xai elvev’ idot rd alua rye dtabhens, 7¢ déOeTo
kipiog mpdc tuac mepi wévruv Tov Adywy Tobruv.—he evereiAaro mpod¢ tyag 6 Oedc]
Bengel: “ praecepit mihi, ut perferrem ad vos.” .
Ver. 21 adds to that mentioned vv. 19. 20, not a simultaneous fact, but
only something occurring later. For when the law was proclaimed by
Moses, and the people promised to observe the same, the tabernacle had
not yet an existence. Ex. xl., where we have the account of the erection
and inauguration of the tabernacle, only an anointing of the tabernacle
and its vessels with oil is enjoined, not a sprinkling thereof with blood.
Comp. ibid. ver.9. Similarly in Leviticus, a sprinkling indeed with blood
(viii. 15, 19, 24) is supposed in regard to the altar; in regard to the taber-
nacle and its furniture, on the other hand, only an anointing (viii. 10 ff). It
is possible, however, that Jewish tradition preserved more precise details.
At least mention is made by Josephus also (Antiq. iii. 8. 6) of an aspersion
of the tabernacle and its furniture, on the part of Moses, with blood.—
180, after the precedent of the Coptic and conspersiase dicitur, quia qui ex proxime
Armenian versions, Grotius, Wittich, Suren- astantibus conapersi fuerant, universi populi
hus, Cramer, Bengel, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, personam hac in parte geascre, ita ut totas
Ewald, and others. populus conspersus fuisse censeretur.
*Schlichting: Omnem autem populum
CHAP, 1x. 20-22. 621
Erroneously, for the rest (on account of the aorist), do Owen, Seb. Schmidt,
Wittich, Cramer, and others find mentioned, ver. 21, in place of the one
act of Moses, a sprinkling enjoined by the law of Moses, and occurring at
different fixed periods, in connection with which the majority will have
the sprinkling which is made on the great Day of Atonement, Lev. xvi.
14 ff., to be meant.—xa? . . . dé] but also. Luke ii. 35; John viii. 16, al.—
TG oxeby tig Aecroupyiac] the vessels designed for sacred use.
Ver. 22. Confirmation of the special historic facts adduced vv. 19-21, by
the general rule, which throughout the whole domain of Mosaic law was
recognized as, with hardly any exception, of binding obligation.—cyedév]
almost, nearly (Acts xili. 44, xix. 26), does not belong to év aivar: (Bengel,
Bohme). Still less is it to be joined to xa@apifera:, as is done by Chrysos-
tom, Occumenius, Theophylact, and Primasius, who, in opposition to the
cohesion with that which precedes and follows, will find the thought
expressed that the purification accomplished in accordance with the law
is only a partial, bodily one, and thus only imperfect, since it is not able
to cancel sins. It belongs logically to mavra. The author, however, does
not write xa? év aiate oyeddv wavta xaBapifera, but, on the contrary, pre-
fixes oxedév to the whole clause, in order to imply that the limitation
contained in this expression extends to both members of the clause. The
sense is consequently: and one must almost say that all things are
according to the law purified with blood, and that without the shedding
of blood no remission takes place.’ As concerns the thought, Grotius in
his day aptly refers us to the saying of the Talmud (tract. Joma, fol. 5.1;
Menachoth, fol. 93. 2): DVI RW 1733 ['R, non est expiatio nisi per sangui-
nem. The conceding, moreover, of the existence of single exceptions, by
virtue of oyvedév, finds its justification, as regards the first half of the
clause, in Ex. xix. 10; Lev. xv. 5 ff, 27, xvi. 26, 28, xxil.6; Num. xxxi.
22-24; as regards the second half, in Lev. v. 11-13.—7évra] all universally
(men as well as things), which as Levitically impure has need of cleansing.
Wrongly Peirce and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 563): all the
furniture and utensils of the sanctuary.—xara rév vduov] in conformity with
the law, t.e.80 soon as the norm fixed by the Mosaic law is taken into
account. The addition xaré rdv vduov is likewise to be supplied in
thought to the second member of the clause.—aluarexyvoia|] a word not
elsewhere met with in Greek literature. What is meant is not specially
the pouring out of the blood upon the altar,? but in general, the blood-shedding
by the slaying of sacrificial animals.’—dageorc] remission, sc. of the guilt
incurred.
Vv. 23-28. [On Vv. 23-28, see Note LXIX., pages 632-634.] If the
earthly sanctuary needed to be cleansed and consecrated by such things
as these, there was required of necessity for the dedication of the
heavenly sanctuary a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented
180, rightly, Bleek, Winer, p. 614 f. [E. T. Aufl. p. 435, al,
654); Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 500; 3 Bleek, Delitesch, Maier, Kurts, Hofmann,
Alford, Maier, Hofmann, and Woerner. Comm. p. 363.
De Wette, Hofmann, Schrifitbew. II. 1, 2
622 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
in the end of the world by means of His sin-cancelling sacrificial death ;
and at His return, which is now to be expected for the salvation of those
that hope in Him, no repetition of His sacrifice will be required.
Ver. 23. [LXIX a, b.] The first of the two statements dependent on
avayxn ov (ra piv... . xa0apifecda:) is deduced as a necessary conse-
quence from vv. 18-22, while then the second statement (aira dé x.r.A.) Is
derived as a necessary postulate from the first, and in such manner a
return is effected to the necessity for the death of Christ, already shown
at vv. 16, 17, in order to set forth the same on a fresh side. The necessity
of the first-mentioned fact of ver. 23 is evident from the norm instanced,
which is of validity in the domain of the Mosaic law; the necessity of
that last mentioned, from the difference between the Christian and the
Judaic. The main thought, however, lies in the second half of the clause,
to which the first forms logically only the bridge.—otv] sc. because blood
is so necessary a means for expiation and consecration.—avdyxy oiv] tt 48
then needful. To avdyxn otv we have to supplement éoriv, not, with Faber
Stapulensis, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Kurtz, and others,
#v. For although the author has only one special fact:in mind in connec-
tion with both members of the sentence, yet, as is shown by the plural
Gvoiac, he expresses himself universally ; because he is reasoning from the
inner necessity, as this is presupposed by the state of the matter itself.—
Ta ev trodelypata tév év Tolg ovpavoig Tobrocg KabapilerSat, av7ad dé x.7.A.]
[On some words in Vv. 23 ff., see LXIX g.] that the copy, indeed, of that
which is in heaven should be purified with these, but the heavenly place itself
with better sacrifices then these, i.e. for the characteristically Judaic the
means of expiation and consecration are necessarily determined in
accordance with the norm specified in the Mosaic law; but since Judaic
and Christian are distinguished from each other as the mere copy of the
heavenly place and the heavenly place itself, so of necessity must the
means of expiation and consecration in the Christian domain be a more
excellent one than in the Judaic—By ra év roig ovpavoic and ra
érovpévia we have to understand neither the heavenly possessions, nor
yet the Christian Church and its members.’ Still less can these expres-
sions denote: “that which, where God is essentially present, brings with
it His relation to the Church, ¢.e. first, His dwelling with it,—namely, in
that the glorified human nature of Christ is the dwelling for the whole
fullness of the divine nature ; secondly, the human nature, in its consecra-
tion to God, in which Christ presents and offers it up to the Father; and
thirdly, the place where God’s wrath against human sin meets with expia-
tory satisfaction, by which it is averted,—thus Christ, who, as the propitia-
tion for our sins, stands between the Church and its God” (Hofmann,
Schrifibew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 486 ff. [comp. also Owen]). Rather is the
heavenly sanctuary specially meant thereby, as is evident from ver. 24. For
in ver. 24 the meaning of 4 y:a issupposed to be already known from ver. 23;
1Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, and %Zeger, Estius, Corn. a Lapide, Calov,
others. Bohme, Stengel, al.; comp. also Tholuck.
CHAP. Ix. 23. 623
inasmuch, namely, as ayca isthere almost accentless, while all the emphasis
is laid upon the adjectives yecporoinra, etc. In accordance with this,
too, is determined the meaning of ra trodelypara rév év roi¢ ovpavoic
as the earthly sanctuary, inasmuch as it was the imperfect imitation or
copy of the former, as accordingly already, at viii. 5, the Levitical sanctu-
ary had been characterized as trédeyya kal ond tov éxovpaviov. The
plural ra trodeiyuara i8 placed, just because the author has already
before his mind, in ver. 23, the plural rd aya, ver. 24. Thus, then, the
first clause of ver. 23 has respect to the special fact already brought forward
at ver. 21, whereas the second clause receives its elucidation by means of
the special fact of which mention is made at ver. 24.—robroic] by such
things as these, t. e. by blood of slain animals, and similar means of purify-
ing, which belong to the earthly sanctuary; to which general rubric, also,
the ashes of the red heifer mentioned at ver. 13, but not here coming under
consideration, belong. With marvellous inversion of the sense, Paulus: “to
be declared pure for these, t.e. the Israelites.’—xa¥apigecda:} is passive.
Arbitrarily is it taken asa middle by Heinrichs, who will have juac supple-
mented as object. Against this the tenor of the foregoing verse is in
itself decisive. The notion of being purified is not, it is true, applicable to
the second clause, avrd d2 ra émoupdva x.r.A. For the heavenly sanctuary
is removed from contact with the sinful world; it has no need, therefore,
of an expiation or purification.' We are warranted, however, in supply-
ing in thought, without any hesitation, from «a8apifecOa, a kindred verb
to the second member of the sentence, by the assuming of a zeugma.
But since now, in accordance with that which precedes, the xaSaileofa is
an idea, which entirely subordinates itself to the idea of the éyxa:viferv, ver.
18, the former having only the design of the latter, we shall best extract
from the notion of being purified, in the first clause, the notion of being
consecrated to the service of God, for the second clause, understanding this
consecration of the heavenly sanctuary of the opening up of the access
'
1 Otherwise, indeed, do Delitzsch, Riehm
(Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 542 ff.), Alford,
Moll, and Kurtz decide. According to De-
litzsch, the meaning of the author is: “The
supra-terrestrial Holy of Holies, i.e the un-
created eternal heaven of God, although un-
sullied light in itself, had need of a xa@api¢ec-
@a:, in so far as the light of love towards
mankind had there been, so to speak, out-
glowed and eclipsed by the fire of wrath at
that whick was sinful; and the heavenly
tabernacle, ¢. e. the place of His glorious self-
manifestation in love, a self-manifestation for
men and angels, had need of a ca@apider@ar, in
so far as men had rendered this spot, from
the beginning designed for them, too, inac-
cessible on account of sin, and thus had first
to be transformed into the accessible place
ot manifestation of a God graciously disposed
towards men. As well with regard to ra dyra
as with regard to riy oxnrijv, thus to ra érov-
pana altogether, there was need of a taking
away of the action of human sin upon it, and
a taking away of the divine reaction against
sin, the wrath, or, what is the same thing, a
changing of the same into love.” [Similarly
also Whitby, M’Lean, and Stuart.]—Not less
far-fetched and forced upon the context is
that which Bleek, following the precedent
of Akersloot, regardsas probable. According
to this view, to which Woerner assents, an
objective xa@apigec@ar of the heavenly sanc-
tuary, after the analogy of the passages Luke
x. 18, John xii. 31, Acts xii. 7-9, was thought
of, “in accordance with which Satan with his
angels is, after the death and exaltation of the
Saviour, cast forth out of heaven, and thus
deprived of all influence which he might ex-
ert there as accnser of men in the presence
of God, or for the destruction of the blessed-
ness of the inhabitants of heaven.”
ae
624 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
to the same, effected through the blood of Christ (comp. x. 19, 20).—
-kpeitroatv Ovoiacc] The plural is chosen, although the author is thinking
exclusively of the death of Christ, on account of the universal form of
discourse, ver. 23, as a plural of the category (de Wette). False the inter-
pretation of Grotius and Stengel: in addition to the sacrificial death of
Christ, the sufferings of believers, together with their prayers and works of love
(xili. 15, 16), are thought of; and in like manner Paulus: the sacrifices of
Jesus and all Christians for the good which pertains to duty ; but false, also,
the explanation of Beza: the fact is hinted at that the one sacrifice of Christ
is instead of many.—On mapé with the comparative, see at 1. 4.
Ver. 24. [LXIX c.] Confirmatory justification of airaé ra érovpdua, ver.
23, by the proof that in reality the heavenly sanctuary is that consecrated
by the sacrifice of Christ. Wrongly is it assumed by Delitzsch, that: at
ver. 24 the indispensable requirement of better sacrifices for the heavenly
world is proved from the actual nature of the one rendered and presented
to God. For the argument passes over to the character of Christ’s sacri-
fice, as offered once for all, only at ver. 25.—oi ydp ei¢ yetporoigra ayia
eionev Xproréc] for Christ entered not into a holy place (i.e. most holy place,
see at ver. 8) made with hands (ver. 11).—yetporoiyra] ag the main idea
emphatically preposed.—avrirura trav aAnfivav] a copy of the true (viii. 2),
real one. avriruma denotes neither the copy of a copy, as is supposed by
Bleek, after the precedent of Michaelis, ad Peirc., Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid,
upon the presupposition that the author already thought of the ri:rog, viii.
5, a8 a mere copy of the original ; nor is it to be taken as equivalent to the
simple rimoc, as is done by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus,
Schlichting, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, and others. What is meant is the
corresponding image, t.e. the copy or imitation, formed after the propor-
tions of the rio¢ or pattern, which God had shown to Moses (comp. viii.
5). The expression, therefore, is of essentially the same import as
trddecyua, Vili. 5, 1x. 23.—aAA’ ei¢ avrdv tov ovpavdv] but into heaven itself,
into the heavenly Holy of Holies, where the throne of God itself exists,
in opposition to the earthly Most Holy Place, not to the heavenly fore-
tabernacle, ver. 11.—viv inganiobivac rh mpoodry tov Geov trip husr] now to
appear before the face of God on our behalf (as our advocate, and intent
upon our salvation, comp. vii. 25).—viv] now, after He has obtained His
abiding dwelling-place in heaven.—Before the face of God. In this
respect, too, a pointing to the exaltedness of Christ, the heavenly high
priest. For, according to Ex. xxxiii. 20,no man could continue to live
who had seen the face of God; on which account also the earthly high
priest might not even enter the earthly Holy of Holies until this had first
been filled with the smoke of the altar of incense, and in this way the
typical presence of God there existing had been veiled from his glance.
Comp. Lev. xvi. 12, 13. |
Vv. 25-28. Renewed (comp. vii. 27, 28, ix. 12) emphasizing of the mani-
festation once for all (and thus the full sufficiency) of the sacrifice of
Christ. [LXIX d.]
Ver. 25. Ovdé] nor yet, sc. eia7jAGev ei¢ Tov obpavdy.—zpoogépev éavrév} denotes
CHAP. Ix. 24-26. 625
not the presentation of Himself with His blood before God in the hea-
venly Holy of Holies,' but the offering of Himself as a sacrifice upon
earth. The sense is: Christ entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies,
not that He might presently leave it again, in order afresh to offer Him-
self as a sacrifice upon earth.—é épytepebe] the Levitical high priest—ra ayic]
the earthly Hely of Holies—év aipare addotpiy] with blood not his own—
GAdorpiy] opposition to éauréy.
Ver. 26. [LXIX e, f.] Proof of the necessity that Christ’s sacrifice should
take place only once for all, from the non-reasonableness of the opposite.
For if the sacrifice of Christ sufficed not once for all for the cancelling of
sin, He must oftentimes in succession—because no generation of mankind,
so long as the world has endured, has been free from sin—have undergone
death since the beginning of the world. But now, seeing this is contrary
to reason, the matter stands in reality quite otherwise. From this reason-
ing it is evident that the author supposed an expiation of the sins of all
the earlier generations of mankind too, by virtue of the sacrificial death of
Christ. An erroneous statement of the connection of thought is given
by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 441), Delitzsch, and Alford. See, on the
other hand, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 552, Obs.—érei] since other-
wise, alioquin. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 10, vii. 14, al.—édec avrdv moAAdnic mwabeiv] it
were needful that He should often suffer—On édee without av, see Winer,
p. 266 [E. T. 283].—ra@eiv specially of the suffering of death, as xiii. 12.
—ard xaraBoage xébopov] from the foundation or creation of the world onwards
(comp. iv. 3), %e. here: so long as there are men in the world.—vvwi dé] as
viii. 6, in the logical sense: buf now. Opposition to émei x.1.A.—ézi ovvte-
Asia tiv aidver] in the end of the ages, periods of time. Antithesis to ard
xataBoAge xéopov, and equivalent in signification to éa éoydrov tév juepav
robruv, i. 1. Comp. also é r@ owredeig rod aidvoc, Matt. xiii. 40, 49.—ei¢
abérnow dauapriag dia tH¢ Ovolac avroi] for the canceling of sin by His sacrijice.
These words belong together. The conjoining of dia rij¢ Gvoiag avrov with
mepavépwrat, Which has been preferred by Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov,
Heinrichs, Schulz, BGhme, Tholuck, and others, is, in connection with
the right determination of the sense of the verb (vid. énfra), harsh and
unnatural, and not at all justified by the alleged analogon: 6 éAfav de
idarog xat aiuaroc, 1 John v. 6. Tholuck’s objection, however, that arag
.. aidvev is antithetically opposed to the «ar éunavrév, ver. 25, and
megaviputat 6:4 THE Gvolac to the eicépyerar tv aipart aAAorpiy, does not apply,
inasmuch as the second clause of ver. 26 forms the antithesis to the first
clause of that verse, but not to ver. 25 ; on which account also érei . . . xéopov
is not, with Beza, Mill, Griesbach, Carpzov, Schulz, Bloomfield, and others, to
be enclosed within a parenthesis.—No emphasis for the rest falls upon the per-
sonal pronoun employed with @veiac, in such wise that the sense would be:
by the sacrifice of Himself? It means simply: by His sacrifice (Bleek, de
1Béohme, Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, lations, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Lim-
and others; comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des borech, Schulz, Heinrichs, Béhme, Stuart,
Hebrderbr. p. 474. Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Conybeare, and
2So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, in their trans- others.
40
626 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Wette), so that not airov, but airoi is to be written. The contrast between
His own blood and the blood of other victims was already sufficiently
brought out afresh at ver. 25.—regavépwta:] He has been manifested, i.e. He
has appeared or come forth before the sight of men upon earth. Comp.
1 Pet. i. 20; 1 John ii. 5, 8; also Col. ili. 4; 1 John ii. 28; 1 Pet. v. 4
[1 Tim. iii. 16]. To explain the expression of the appearing before God,
and to make it of like import with éugavoOgvac rH rpocdry tov Geov, Ver.
24 (Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, Schulz, al.), is forbidden alike by the absence
of the, in that case indispensable, addition r¢ 6e9, as by the éx devrépov
b¢0foera:, ver. 28, corresponding as it does to the wegavépurat.
Vv. 27, 28. Further (xai) enforcement of the dag, ver. 26, by means of
an analogy. As death is appointed to men once for all, they, after
having once suffered death, do not need to die again, but after death
nothing more follows for them but the judgment; so also Christ has once
for all offered up Himself for the canceling of sin; at His return He will
not again have to offer Himself for the canceling of sin, but He will
return once again, only to put the believers in possession of the everlasting
salvation.—xaf? bcov] inasmuch as [cf. vii. 20], is not entirely synonymous
with xa¥é, which one might have expected on account of the following
ottwc, and which Grotius and Braun conjecture to have been the original
reading; for, whereas xa0é¢ would express the bare notion of comparison,
this contains at the same time an indication of cause. The indication of
cause, however, has reference merely to draf aroVaveiv, to which then the
drat mpocevexdeic, ver. 28, corresponds; but not likewise, as Kurtz main-
tains,’ to the addition pera 42 rovro «pio, since to this an element of
dissimilarity is opposed at ver. 28. The sense is: inasmuch as men,
regarded generally, have only once to undergo death, so also Christ, since
He was herein entirely like unto His brethren, could not die more than
once.—aréxecra:] ts appointed (in the decree of God). Comp. Col. i. 5;
2 Tim. iv. 8. The verb originally of that which has been laid aside, and
go lies ready for future use.—araf arodaveiv] to die a single time, or once for
all. Comp. Sophocles in Stobaeus, 11.120: Saveiv yap obx eects roi¢ avroia
dic—Calvin : Si quis objiciat, bis quosdam esse mortuos, ut Lazarum et
similes (comp. Heb. xi. 35), expedita est solutio, apostolum hic de ordinaria
hominum conditione disputare: quin etiam ab hoc ordine eximuntur,
quos subita commutatio corruptione exuet (comp. Heb. xi. 5).—yera dé
TovtTo Kpioic] 8c. amdéxecrat, not éoriv or éoras. ether, for the rest, the
xpiotg 13 thought of by the author as ensuing immediately after the death
of each individual (Jac. Cappellus, Kurtz, al.), or as a later act coinciding
only with the general resurrection of the dead (Bengel, Bleek, Tholuck,
Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, al.), the elastic werd rovro affords us no intima-
tion.—xpioi] judgment, is to be taken quite generally. Wrongly is it
1 According to Kurtz, the resurrection and point of view of a judgment exercised on
ascension of Christ is then tobe thought ofas Him? And how could it be expected of the
the result of the xpiorcs on Christ's part. But reader, without further indication, that he
where is ever in the N.T. the resurrection should derive so strange a conception from
and ascension cf Christ presented from the the words of vv. 28, 29?
628 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBKEWS.
second time after His resurrection. But such difficulty does not at all
present itself'in connection with that application of mpocevezfeic either.
For éx devrépov dg6gcera: can only be understood of a second appearing in @
visible form upon earth; when, however, Christ after His resurrection
appeared again to His disciples, He had not yet left the earth; those
manifestations of the risen Christ before His ascension belonged conse-
quently to His first visible coming forth upon earth.— upi¢ duapriac] forms
the opposition to cig rd roAAdv aveveyxeiv duaprtiac, is therefore to be inter-
preted after the analogy of these words. (Erroneously Bleek, according
to whom jwpi¢ ayvaprias forms the opposition to eig afléryow duapriacg da THE
Vuciag avTod megavépwrat, ver. 26.) Christ has once offered Himself up for
the expiation of the sins of men; when He returns to earth the second
time, He will not once more have to do with the expiation of human sin,
but He will, apart from sin, or free from all relation to sin, appear to bring the
owtnpia to the believers. Freefrom the guiltand punishment of sin, Christ
has already rendered His believers by means of His sacrificial death at
His first appearing upon earth. Positively, He will bless them with sal-
vation at His return. To combine ywpi¢ duapriag with toi¢g arexde xo-
pévace by means of an hyperbaton (so Faber Stapulensis and Grotius) is
grammatically impossible. The sense, however, cannot be either, as the
Irvingites will, that Christ Himself will be free from sin at His second
appearing, in opposition to the lust which they suppose to have attached
to Him during His first appearing ; for that Christ during this period too,
notwithstanding all the temptation to which He was subject, was free
from sin, the author certainly distinctly asserts at iv. 15. Incorrectly also
does Bleek! take yupi¢ duapriag as equivalent in signification to pq oben
duaptiac, 80 that the sense would be: “at the return of Christ sin will no
longer be present, at least in the domain to which the operation of the
Redeemer will relate.” Even in a grammatical respect this application of
the words is inadmissible, since yoepi¢ duapriag must stand in relation to
the subject in 6¢0foerar, thus cannot be torn away from this reference by
being made equivalent to an independent participial clause. But also the
thought thence arising would be encumbered with difficulty, as Bleek
himself admits, by the addition of “at least,” etc., although Bleek has
sought to justify it. Additional misinterpretations of zwpi¢ auzapriag are
met with in other writers. Thus it is supposed to mean: without, again
vicariously laden with the sins of men, being made sin (2 Cor. v. 21) for
them,? which is already refuted by the erroneousness of explaining the
foregoing aveveyxeiv of the vicarious bearing of sins; without the punish-
ment of sin ;* without the sufferings undertaken for sin;‘* sine corporis,
1 After the example of Theodore of Mopsu- 8 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Akers
entia (rd yap xwpis auaprias Touro Adyet, Ste wy = loot, Wolf, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Hein-
eparovons éTt THs apaprTiag ovrTw xai richs, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, De
avros ef wayrds avOpwmivov wa0ous Ob0noeras _litssch, Riehm, Lehrhegr. des Hebraerbr. p.
tore) and of Theodoret (ov«eédrsi THs amap- 545, Obs.; Alford, Maier, Moll, and others.
TLAaS KpaTOVONsS, avTi TOV xwpay ovKeETS 3 Klee, al.
éxovens Kata Twy avOpwrwy THs asaprias). 4 Tholuck.
NOTES, 629
peccato obnoxii, mortalitate;! sine sacrificio pro peccato;? not as a su/-
ferer for the guilt of others, but as the holy judge of the guilt of others,’
and so forth, all of which have the plain expression of the language
against them.—ei¢ owrnpiav] belongs to og04cera:, not, as it is true, upon the
retention of the spurious addition (see the critical remark) dé riorewc, it
must be conjoined, to amexdeyouévorg.4 For roi¢ avrév arexdexouévorg contains
a@ non-essential element of the statement, ver. 28; cic owrypiav, on the other
hand, an essential element of the same. ei¢ owr7piav, namely, is the
positive nearer defining of the negative, ywpic dyapriac, and forms conse-
quently, like the latter, an antithesis to eig rd roAAdv aveveyxeiv dyaptiac.
The whole clause, however, éx devrépov . . . eig owrnpiav, corresponds to the
second member of the clause, ver. 27: pera dé rovro xpiotg.
Nores BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXVII. Vv. 1-14.
(a) The subject of viii. 1-6 a is taken up anew and presented more in detail in
these verses. In the development of the thought, as here given, there are four
steps, as follows:—1. (vv. 1-5). The old covenant had its arrangements for wor-
ship and its sanctuary. The old tabernacle had two parts, an outer one—the
holy place, and an inner one—the holy of holies, with furniture appropriate to
each. 2. (vv. 6, 7). This being the arrangement of the tabernacle, the rule
respecting it was, that to the outer part free admission was given to the priests, at
all times, but into the innermost part entrance was prohibited to all except the
high-priest, and to him it was allowed only once a year. 3. (vv. 8-10). This rule
was a divine indication that, so long as the old tabernacle, with its exclusion from
the holy of holies, i.e. from immediate access to God, continued, the more perfect
system was not yet reached. 4. (vv. 11-14). This more perfect system Christ
brings, when He passes through the veil and, entering the higher, i.e. the heavenly
sanctuary, as the heavenly high-priest opens the way for all His followers to the
immediate presence of God.
The view of Liinemann here—that, in ver. 9 ff, the writer, “by means of one
of those sudden transitions of which he is so fond,” turns to a new topic, the
inability of the Levitical sacrifices “really to atone,” and thus introduces “a third
main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ,” is erroneous. That the
writer is fond of making such sudden transitions, may be doubted. Here, at least,
he does not make one in the way that Liinem. supposes. What is said of the
Levitical sacrifices is only incidental and subordinate to the progress of the
thought as set forth above, and neither here, nor in ch. viii., does the writer move
beyond the idea of Christ as superior to the Levitical priests because He is the
minister of a higher sanctuary connected with a better covenant. (See also Note
LXV b.)
(6) xoouixéy of ver. 1 is added, as Liinem. remarks, not in the way of an inde-
pendent predication respecting the aycov, but rather as a passing suggestion of its
character as contrasted with the ayov which is to be alluded to afterwardsa—
1 Zeger. others.
$ Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, M'Caul, and many. 4So Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Camera-
8Ebrard, Delitzach; similarly Stein and rius, Wolf, Klee, Paulus, Stein.
630 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
(ce) The several things which are mentioned in vv. 2-5 as connected with the two
parte of the tabernacle, are not specified for the purpose of giving a detailed
description of the arrangements. This is evident, both from the fact that the
object of the whole passage is inconsistent with such a purpose, and also from the
closing words of ver.5. The writer simply wishes to present the fact, with
emphasis, that there was this division, with appropriate arrangements, preparatory
to the presentation of the rule of the old system, which he is about to mention,
and which is distinctively characteristic of it—one of its essential elements as a
religious system. This peculiarity in the writer's purpose may fairly be considered,
in connection with the difficulties which his distribution of the things specified
occasions. So far as some of these difficulties are concerned, it may offer a
satisfactory explanation; as e.g., when he says that the Holy of Holies had
(£xovoa) the golden altar or censer, it may suggest that the participle is used in a
looser sense than would be possible, if the purpose were to give a minute descrip-
tion. But with reference to the bearing of these verses on the question of the
Pauline anthorship, the fact of this peculiarity will hardly be sufficient to account
for his presenting the matter in this way.—(d) The question whether the altar or
the censer is intended by @yzarfpcov (ver. 4), is one which cannot be answered with
confidence. R. V. places censer in the text, and altar of incense in the margin.
A. R. V. place the former in the margin and the latter in the text. The considera-
tions presented by Liinem. make it not improbable that A. R. V. is correct. But
we cannot properly go beyond this position, and exclude censer altogether—(e) In
vv. 2, 4, dya and aya dyiuv being distinguished from each other, the former
means the Holy place, but everywhere else in the chapter ayia (vy. 8, 12, 24, 25)
means the Holiest place i.e. the immediate presence of God. In a similar
manner, the demands of the thought in different places change the sense of porn,
so that, while in ver. 1 it means first in time, in vv. 2,3, 8, it has the local sense.
Thus in ver. 8, the writer evidently means to say that, so long as the outer part of
the tabernacle continued—that is, so long as there was a veil shutting off the
inner part,—the way of access to God was not fully opened.
(f) Ver. 9 declares that the mpéry ox (ver. 8)—which involved, so long as
it continued, the existence of a separating veil—was a tapafoay eig Tov Karp.
éveor., i.e. 8 figure or emblem of the Jewish system in its imperfection, with
reference to the xa:pé¢ or period to which it belonged. The Holy place, as
divided from the Holy of Holies, became in itself, to the mind which rightly
apprehended its meaning, a kind of parabolic representation of Judaism, and just
as the Holy place, as thus separated, must cease to exist and the Holiest place be
opened, in order to perfect communion with God, so the Jewish system must pass
away and open into something higher and better.— rdv x, évect., is best taken as
in contrast with xatpot diophGcewls—(g) xa? 7v.—Liinem. is probably correct in
referring 7 (like 77/¢) to mpdérns oxavac. It was in accordance with the arrange-
ment which thus shut out the presence of God by a veil, i. e. the existence of a
mpot. ox. that imperfect and temporary offerings were instituted. This reference
to gifts and sacrifices is not for the purpose of introducing a new thought, but only
of showing, more fully and emphatically,the imperfection of the religious system
which involved the outer part of the tabernacle and the separating veil. The
offerings are essentially connected with the approach of the worshiper to God,
with the perfecting which is the end in view, and hence with the work of the
high-priest as ministering in a sanctuary. The allusion to them, therefore, is a
632 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
‘wv. 15 5-17. 3. This necessity of a death was recognized in the Mosaic system,
vv. 18-22. 4. For the higher system—that connected with the new covenant
and the heavenly sanctuary—a nobler sacrifice was needed, and with this sacrifice
Christ entered as high-priest into the presence of God, vv. 23, 24. 5. The
offering which He has there made does not need to be repeated, vv. 25-28. It
will be noticed that here, as in the previous passages, the idea of the sacrifice is
subordinated to that of the offering in the sanctuary.
(c) dea trovro refers to vv. 11-14, which present the idea of Christ as having
appeared as the minister of the higher sanctuary, and as accomplishing thereby, as
high-priest, the work of the higher system, reAeiworc.—(d) The retroactive work-
ing of the death of Christ is here presented, as it is, in a way somewhat similar, in
Rom. iii. 25.—(e) The word d:a0#xy passes from its regular N. T. sense of covenant
into that of testament as the discourse moves from ver. 15 to vv. 16, 17, and returns
again to that of covenant in vv. 18 ff. Kay, in the Bible Comm., Angus, in Schaf?’s
Pop. Comm., and one or two recent American writers have attempted to show
that the meaning testament is to be rejected, and covenant to be adopted in vv. 16,
17 ; following, in this point, the writers mentioned by Liinemann. The attempt
is unsuccessful, and the arguments presented by Liinem., Bleek, Alf, Moll, and
others against this view are conclusive. As Moll remarks, it is “convicted of
error at once by the utter falseness of the idea that in the formation of a covenant
the death of him who framed it is indispensable, as well as by the intolerable
harshness of any other mode of explaining 6 diaféuevoc.”” The fact that the
Divine covenant involves an inheritance (xAypovouia) gives it a certain testa-
mentary character, which completely accounts for, and at the same time justifies,
the change in the shade of meaning from covenant to testament (testamentary
covenant). With this change, the clauses of vv. 16, 17 become sufficiently simple;
without it, hopeless difficulties arise—(f) pore is made an interrogative word by
R. V. text, a negative word by R. V. margin. A. R. V. places the negative in the
text, and the interrogative in the margin. That “#rore is used in the later Greek
after évei as substantially like ofmore, is shown by what Winer says in his N. T.
Gram., p. 480, and, if it can be thus used, the negative is somewhat more in harmony
with the simple and confident style of the argument than the interrogative-—(q)
é9ev—the inference is legitimate so far as the covenant is of a testamentary char-
acter, which is the view taken of it here. The victims and blood of the O. T. system
were, like all things in that system, imperfect and symbolic, but all the arrange-
ments and ordinances, in this regard, followed in the line of the universal princi-
ple and necessity alluded to. This is set forth, first, in the statement of what
Moses did at the inauguration of the old covenant and afterwards (vv. 19-21),
and, secondly, in the setting forth of the general provision of the law (ver. 22).
LXIX. Vv. 23-28.
(a) Ver. 23 is introduced by ctv and presents a twofold conclusion from what
precedes. In the progress of the thought, however, the connection would be more
naturally given, if the verse had read: If it was necessary that the copies, etc., or,
As, accordingly, it was necessary, etc., it was, as a natural consequence, necessary
that the higher sanctuary should be purified with better sacrifices.—(6) xaBapi-
eo0a: need not be pressed, in its application to the heavenly tabernacle, into the
same meaning that it has as applied to the earthly one. Throughout the entire
NOTES. 633
section, the writer uses words with reference alike to the earthly and heavenly,
which he trusts the intelligence of his readers to modify in their meaning, and to
interpret according to the demands of each case. Here the word is, probably,
carried over to the heavenly sanctuary, only as indicating that there must be a
better sacrifice before men can find free access to the immediate presence of God.
—(c) Ver. 24 suggests the thought: “and it is into this heavenly sanctuary that
Christ has entered.” The writer introduces the verse with the particle ydp,
which, as Liinem. says, confirms the avra ra éxovp., by showing that it is, in
reality, the heavenly sanctuary that is consecrated by the sacrifice of Christ.
This, however, may be regarded as only the grammatical and more immediate or
minor connection of the thought. In the main connection and progress, the
suggestion mentioned above gives the force of the verse, which forms a transition
from ver. 23 to ver. 25 ff. It is into the heavenly sanctuary that Christ entered,
taking with Him the offering of the nobler sacrifice. He did this once for all,
since the offering needed to be made only once.—(d) The nobler character of
the offering is presented, in vv. 25 ff, especially in the point that it did not need
to be repeated. Liinemann is clearly wrong in his interpretation of tpoodgépecv
(ver. 25) as referring to Christ’s offering Himself as a sacrifice on earth. This is
what is indicated by ta@etv of ver. 26. The whole course of thought in the
passage, which has reference to the high-priest in the sanctuary ; the eto7A¥ev and
éupaviodiva of yer. 24; the etoépyerar ... . €v aivate aAdorp.; the contrast with
raveiv;—all these things show that pocgépecy denotes Christ’s presentation of
Himself with His blood before God in the heavenly Holy of Holies. The
sacrifice is, accordingly, as everywhere in this section of the epistle, subordinate to
the offering of the blood in the sanctuary. The high-priest’s ministry in the
presence of God is the subject constantly kept before the reader’s mind.
(e) That the offering does not need to be repeated is proved by two argu-
ments:—l. By the fact that, if there were such need, there would be a similar
necessity of a repeated sacrifice, as in the Levitical system—but that there is no such
necessity of ever-renewed sacrifices is indicated by the historical facts of the
case. He has not suffered oftentimes since the foundation of the world, but now,
at the consummation of the ages, He has been once manifested to put away sin by
His sacrifice. 2. By the analogy of the case of men. As they die but once, and.
that which is appointed for them afterwards is not death, but judgment; so He
has died once for all, and what awaits Him in the future is another thing than
death—an appearance for the bringing of salvation to those who wait for Him.
(f) The development of the thought in these later verses is subordinated to
the statement of ver. 15 a, and serves to show how the covenant of which Jesus is
the Mediator is a better one than that connected with the O. T. law. The cove-
nant, is better, since it secures salvation. But that He, as High-Priest, is the me-
diator of the new covenant, only as He is the minister of the higher sanctuary, is
also shown by the development of these verses.
(g) As to particular words and phrases in vv. 23 ff., the following points may
be noticed:—1. The writer uses words as descriptive of the old tabernacle in an
unusual sense, in some cases, a8 e. g. Urodeiyyara (ver, 23, comp. also viii. 5) in the
sense of copy, and not example or pattern, its original meaning (comp. tapddecyya) ;
évrirvra of the earthly (ver. 24) and rérov (viii. 5) of the heavenly. The O. T.
things, according to the more natural mode of regarding them, are riot; the
N. T. and heavenly things, the avrirvto. The conception of this writer, in these
034 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
places, is not of types, in the ordinary sense, but of the heavenly pattern and the
earthly copy answering to it.—2. émovpdva (ver. 23) means the heavenly sanctu-
ary.—3. The emphatic position in the sentence which is given to ei¢ yeipor. ay.
and, by contrast, to ei¢ avr, ovpavéy (ver. 24), indicates both the grammatical and
logical connection of this verse with ver. 23 and the following context. See (ec)
above.—4. vuvi (ver. 26) is the logical, not the temporal adverb: as the case stands.—
5. ovvredeia tov aidvev (ver. 26):—comp. Matt. xx. 28, owréAea tov aidvog;
1 Cor. x. 11, Ta téAy Tov aidvun Karhvryjxev ;—the ending together of the ages.—
6. ara, as used in this chapter, means once, apparently in the sense of once for all_—
7. xwpi¢ ayuapriac, apart from those relations to sin which He had when He
appeared the first time on earth and made atonement for it by His sacrifice
of Himself.
CHAP. X. 635
CHAPTER X.
VER. 1 reads in the Recepta: Emdv yap Exuv 6 véuoe Trav pedAdvruv ayadar, ov«
auriy tiv eixdva Tov Tpaypdtwr, nat’ évavtdv tai¢ avtaic¢ Gvoiais, &¢ mpoopépovow
etic Td devexéo, ovdérore divatat Todo mpocepyoutvove tede@oat, Instead thereof,
Lachm. takes the words Zadv . . . mpayuétwv as an independent clause, placing
a full stop after tpayyzdrwr, He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative
before zpoogépovory,—while in the larger edition he has again added the ag¢ of
the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after mpoogépovow, and writes
dvvavrac in place of divaraz. This punctuation and form of the text given by
Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection
with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent state-
ment, éoriv must be supplemented to éywv. Such supplementing, however, would
be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews;
moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how
the participle €ywv should come to be written for the finite tense éyet, which
naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes
by means of ydép would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become
an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting
relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before
mpoogépovory is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philo-
nex. then insert ai before ovdérore. Instead of the Recepta a¢ mpoogép. there is
found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 137, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which
Tisch., in the edit. vii. (comp. Pars I. p. cxci.), has designated as N, with Theo-
doret, as well as in a ms. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: ai¢
mpoodép., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta
ac, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K &, the majority of the cursives, and
many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding
end in ac¢, a¢ might easily also be changed into aig. The Recepta divaray,
finally, is attested by D (* and ***) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt.
al., Chrys. Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural dévavrac
(preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner mar-
gin) is presented by A C D** ®, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.)
Theodoret (comm. ?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense,
and can on that account be regarded only asa transcriber’s error, which was
occasioned by the foregoing plural poogépovorv.— Ver. 2. ’Ezei ovx av éxaboavro]
Elz.: évei av éexatoavro, Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of
moet cursives, vss. and Fathers.—The preference to the Recepta xexadapputvoue
is deserved by xexadapiopévovg (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8,
Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favor of xexadapciopuévove pleads not
only the testimony of D E K 8&, 23** 37, 39, al, but also the form which in A C
has risen as a transcriber’s error from the same xexadepiopuévove, which latter
Lachm. has adopted.—Ver. 6. Recepta here and ver. 8: evdéxyjoag. Better at-
636 ° THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
tested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and ver. 8
(by A D* [E ?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and
Alford, as also approved by Delitzsch: 7udé6xyj0a¢.—Ver. 8. In place of the
Recepta Guciav xai rpoogopayr, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly
read the plural: @vcia¢g xai mpoogopdaec, in accordance with A C D* &* 17, 23,
57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to at-
tention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its confor-
mation to ver. §.—In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete r 6»,
which the Recepta adds before véuov, as not being found in A C, 8&, 37, 46, 71, 73,
al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily
possible than its rejection—Ver. 9. tov mojoat] Elz.: tov torpoas, 6 beds,
Against AC DE K 8* 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt. al., 6 Ge6¢ is a complement-
ary addition from ver.7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm., Scholz, Bleek,
de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche.—Ver. 10. Instead of the mere dea in
the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd.
Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: of 6:4. Bloomfield places o within
brackets. But oi (se. 7y:aoyévor) is wanting in A C D* E* &, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theo-
doret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination opévoe
in #ytaopévot gave rise to the writing of éouév oif.—In place of rov cdparog in
the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have tov aivaroc. Mistaken
emendation, since tov cayuaroc, ver. 10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to
the citation oaua dé xarypriow pot, ver. 5.—'Incot Xpiorov.] Elz.: tov ’Incov
Xpiorov. But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many
cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz,
Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.— Ver. 11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei,
Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: tag wév iepetc. Defended
also by Béhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by
the reading: ra¢ pév apytepets, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al,
Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret
(text), Cyril. Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin.
Genev., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and
Alford. Ifthe ordinary Levitical priests had been intended, ot iepeig would, as
is rightly observed by Bleek, have been written instead of vag iepei¢, since each
single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable,
on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard
to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general
could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the
same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the
parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordi-
nary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: sac
pév iepets, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account
of the following xa? 7yu£pay, since this stood in apparent contradiction to tag pév
apxtepevs.—Ver. 12. ovrog dé] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: avrog
dé, But ovrog dé (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek,
Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche ; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded
by the preponderating authority of A C D* E 8, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr.
Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damasec. al.—Instead of the
Recepta: év de&tG, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: &« defsd»,
which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (8* has ex de&:@, which by R*##*
638 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
tion: €v ovpavoic after tztapév in the Recepta is wanting in A D* x* 17, in
the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al.
Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after pévovcav. Elucidatory gloss, suspected
by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek. Tisch.
Delitzsch, Alford.—Ver. 35. Recepta: pioVarodociav peyaanyv, With Lachm.
Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into peydAny picbaro-
dociav, after A D EX. the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al.
Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al.—Ver. 38. The Recepta omits the pov, which is
found in must gs. of the LXX. after tiorews. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin
version in D E, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after trictews. On
the other hand, it is found after dixasoc in A yx, Arm. Vulg., in the early frag-
ment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret
(alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have adopted it at
this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read,
inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A.
Vv. 1-4. [On Vv. 10-18, see Note LXX., pages 658-660.] Presentation in
a clearer light of the necessity for Christ’s offering Himself only once for
the expiation of sins (ix. 25-28), by pointing to the ineffectiveness of the
expiatory sacrifices continually repeated within the domain of Judaism.
This constant repetition attests that sins are still ever present, as indeed
a canceling of sin by the blood of bullocks and of goats is impossible.
[LXX a.]
Ver. 1. [LXX 6 1, 2.] Establishment of the ara mpoorvexfcic cig 1d
mwoAAay aveveyxeiv duaptiac, ix. 28, as being the main thought lying in ix.
25-28, by making good the opposite state of the case in the province of
the O. T. theocracy: “ For since the law contains only a shadow of the
future good things, not the actual likeness of the things, itis not able by
means of the same sacrifices every year, which are unceasingly offered,
ever to make perfect them that draw nigh.” The emphasis of the propo-
sition rests partly upon the characterization of the law as oxidy étyov
«7.4, partly upon xar’ éveavtov tai¢ avraic Aoiatc, &¢ mpoogtpovory cic
TO dinvexéc. The author, however, cannot thereby mean, as the words
at first hearing might seem toimply, that the law, in case its contents were
no mere oxida tov peAAdvrwy ayabev, would in reality effect the reAgiwoee by
means of its ever-repeated expiatory sacrifices. For, as is shown by vv. 2
and 3, the author already bases upon the very fact of the yearly repetition
of the Mosaic expiatory sacrifices the proof for their inadequacy. We must
therefore suppose that two independent particulars of thought have been
blended together into a single statement. One can resolve the matter
either in such wise that ovdérore divaras redecooa is looked upon as the
common predicate for both particulars: the law is incapable of leading to
reAeiwore, because it contains a mere oxd «.7.4.; and certainly it is inca-
pable, by means of its ever-repeated sacrifices, of leading to reAciwacs.
Or in such wise that the second particular is thought of originally as an
inference from the first, from which the ovdérore divarac x«.7.A. 18 then pro-
gressively derived: because the law contains a mere oxd tov peAAévrew
CHAP, x. 1, 2. 639
éya$av, there is found in its domain an unceasing repetition of the same
expiatory sacrifices ; by this unceasing repetition, however, it is never able
to lead to perfection. The latter analysis is to be preferred, because by
means of it the opposition, required by the course of the argument, be-
‘tween the once offered and the ofttimes repeated expiatory sacrifice,
comes out clearly and definitely in all its severity; while the characteriza-
tion of the véuoc, on the other hand, as ox:dv éywr «.7.A., is made only that
which here, in harmony with the context, it alone can be, 7.e. a mere
. subsidiary factor in the argument.—oxdv] a shadow, which is unsubstan-
tiated, melts away into obscurity, and only enables us to recognize the
external outlines. Opposite to this is the eixév, the image or impress,
which sets before us the figure itself, sharply and clearly stamped forth.
See on vii. 5. Freely, but not incorrectly, does Luther translate: “the
very substance of the good things.” —rév pedAdvruv ayafdv] see at ix. 11.—
tav mpayyzétar] different from rév peddAdvruv ayadav only as respects the
more general form of expression.—xar émavrév] belongs neither to
ovdérore divara,’ nor to &¢ mpoodépovow,? in which latter case the words
would have to be resolved by rai¢ @vciatc, G¢ nar’ évavrdy tag avrdg mpoagé-
povey, Or something similar. But «ar évavrév is rather to be taken in
intimate combination with rai¢ avraic: with the same sacrifices every year.
The author forebore writing rai¢ atraig xar’ éviavrév Ovoia, in order that he
might accentuate each notion equally strongly. As, moreover, with xar’
évavréy in this place, so also elsewhere with adverbs which in point of mean-
ing may be compared with it, such as dei, roAAdaxcc, etc., atransposing is noth-
ing rare. Comp. Winer, p. 514 f. [E. T. 553.]—rai¢ airaig @voiac}] Those
meant are, as is required by xar’ émavréy (comp. also ver. 4) only the sacri-
Jices on the great day of atonement, not also the daily sacrifices of propitia-
tion (ver. 11), as BOhme, Stein, and others suppose.—rpoogépoverv] sc. the
Levitical high priests. Wrongly Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p.
446), who in general has entirely failed in his interpretation of the state-
ment:® the mpoocspzéuevor.—eic Td dinvexéc] Note of time to mpoodgépovorv.
If we should seek, with Paulus, Lachmann, and Hofmann, l.c., to con-
join ei¢ rd diuqvexéc with that which follows, the’ relative clause d¢ mpoogé-
povory would be deprived of all signification.—roi¢ mpocepyouévovc] those
who approach God through the medium of the Levitical priests, thus
identical with rov¢ Aarpetovrac, ver. 2, ix. 9. [LXX 6 3.]
Ver. 2. [LXX 6b 4.] Proof for the xar’ éwavrdv raig abr. Ove. obdérore
divatat Tode mpocepxopévove TeAecioa: in the form of a question: for otherwise
would not their presentation have ceased? because the worshipers, 80 soon as
1Ebrard, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbevw.
II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446; Alford.
$Calvin, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs,
Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, and others.
3 Namely, in that he brings out as the sense
of the same, “the propitiatory sacrifice,
which is, as it were, offered by the law itself,
because offered at ita direction and by the
high priest for the congregation,” is here
“convinced of its manifest incapacity for
effecting real and abiding purity of con-
science for the individuals. This conviction
is wrought by the fact that, notwithstanding
this sacrifice has been offered every year for
the whole congregation, the individuals still
continue throughout the year to offer sacri-
fices for themselves"!
a
‘
E ~
jf
; F ;
om, |
640 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
they have once been really purged from sin, have no more consciousness of sins,
and thus no more need of an expiatory sacrifice. In connection with the
Recepta imei Gv énaicarro, the sense itself would remain unchanged, only
the words would then have to be taken as an assertory statement (“for
their presentation would have come to an end, because,” etc.); by which,
however, the discourse would suffer in point of vivacity (observe also the
aAAd, ver. 3, corresponding to the question of ver. 2). But the process is
not a natural one, when Beza, edd. 1 and 2, Wetstein, Matthaei, Stein, and
others (comp. already Theodoret) will have the proposition of ver. 2
regarded as an assertory statement, even with the retention of the ov«.
They then explain either (and thus ordinarily): for otherwise their presenta-
tion woukd not have ceased, sc. by the coming in of the New Covenant,’ or,
in that évei . . . mpoogepduevac is Closely attached to the main verb of ver.
1, and da 7d pndepiay «.r.A. is regarded as belonging to the whole proposi-
tion, vv. 1, 2: the law was not able by its sacrifices to lead to perfection,
since their presentation was an endless one; because those who are once
purified have no longer any consciousness of sins. So Wetstein, who,
however, will write—what in that case, no doubt, would be necessary and
perfectly justified—ovx averatcavro instead of ovx av énatcavto ( .
“quum non cessarent offerri. Ita quidem, ut haec verba, sublata dis-
tinctione majori, jungantur iis, quae praecedunt, deinde sequatur totius
sententiae confirmatio: quia sacrificantes,” etc.). But against the last-
mentioned mode of explanation it is decisive, that the relation of the
members of the sentence to each other would become obscure, and the
arrangement cumbrous; against the first-mentioned, the pre-supposition,
underlying the d&¢ rpoagépovowy eig rd duqvexéc, Ver. 1, a8 well as the epistle in
general (ix. 9, al.), that the Jewish sacrificial ritual was still in continuance
at the time of our author’s writing.—ératoavro zpoogepduevac] sc. al Aroiat.
The construction of zatecda: with the participle is the ordinary one, in
classic as well asin Hellenistic Greek.2—roi¢ Aarpeiovrac] see at ix. 9.
Ver. 3. Contrast to rd pydepiav Eye ett ovveidnow ayaptiov Tove Aarpet-
ovrac.®> In such wise, however, that the offerers should have no more
consciousness of guilt, the matter does not stand; on the contrary, there
lies in the yearly repetition of the sacrifices the yearly reminder that sins
are still remaining, and have to be expiated.t—év avraic] sc. taic¢ Avoias.—
avéuvnoic] not: commemoratio, or commemoratio publica (Bengel and
1 Beza: alioqui non desiissent offerri; Mat-
thaei: non cessavissent, non sublata essent;
comp. Theodoret: Ata rtovro réAos éxeiva
AauBave, ws ov duvdueva ovveidnow Kabapay
anzodnras.
#Comp. Eph. 1. 16; Col. i.9; Acts v. 42, al.;
Hermann, ad Viger. p, 771; Winer, p. 323 f.
(E. T. 345].
3To join on the words of ver. 3 to those of
ver. 1, and then to look upon ver. 2.as a paren-
thesis (Kurtz, Hofmann), is inadmissible,
even—apart from the adda, of frequent use
after a question—because avdumacs auaptiay,
ver. 8, points hack to the kindred ovvreidyo.w
Guaptimy, ver. 2.
4Comp. Philo, de Victim. p. 841 A (with Man-
gey, II. p. 244): EvnOes yap ras Ovotas py
AnjOyvy axaprypatrwy, add’ vrduynoiy avrer
xatagxevacecy.— De plantat. Noé, p. 229 B (I. p.
345) at... @voiar .. - vVropmtpyyoKoUCcas TAS
éxaoTwy ayvotas Te Kai S:apaptias.— Vit. Mos.
ili. p. 669 E (II. p. 151): Kai yap owcre yirec@ar
Soxovorw (sc. the dvaiac and evxai of the
impious), ov Avowy apapryparwy GAA’ Urépuryow
épyasgovra:.
5 Vulgate, Calvin, Clarius, ai.
CHAP, X. 3-5. 641
others), so that we must think of the confession of sin! which the high
priest made on the great day of atonement with regard to himself and
the whole people ;? but: reminding, recalling to memory. Comp. 1 Cor. xi.
24, 25; Luke xxii. 19.
Ver. 4. Proof that it cannot be otherwise, drawn from the matter itself
which is under consideration. By a rudely sensuous means we cannot
attain to a high spiritual good.
Vv. 5-10. [LXX 6 6, 7.] Scripture proof, from Ps. xl. 7-9 [6-8], that
deliverance from sins is to be obtained, not by animal sacrifices, but only
by the fulfilling of the will of God. On the ground of this fulfillment of
God’s will by Christ are we Christians sanctified.
Ver. 5. Acé] Wherefore, i. e. in accordance with the impossibility declared
at ver. 4.—Aéye:] He saith. As subject thereto is naturally supplied Christ,
although He was not mentioned again since ix. 28. This determination
of the subject is already placed beyond doubt by the whole connection,
but not less by the pointing back of rov ocdparog “Incov Xpiorov, ver. 10, to
gaya d2 xatnptiow po, ver.5. According to the view of. our author, Christ
is speaking® in the person of the psalmist. The psalm itself, indeed, as is
almost universally acknowledged, refuses to admit of the Messianic interpre-
tation (comp. especially ver. 13 [12]). The present Aéyer, moreover, might
be placed, because the utterance is one extending into the present, 7. e. one
which may still be daily read in the Scripture.—eicepyduevog cig rov xéopov]
at His coming into the world, 7. e. on the eve of coming (see Winer, p. 249
[E. T. 265]) into the world‘ (sc. by His incarnation). This détermining of
time is taken from the jx, ver.7. According to Bleek,’ the author in
penning the words eicepyduevoc eic¢ tov xédouov was thinking “less of the
moment of the incarnation and birth than of the public coming forth upon
earth to the work assigned to Him by the Father, in connection with
which His entrance into the world first became manifested to the world
itself.” But in that case ciceA0G6y must have been written, and the formula
eiaépyea9ar eig Tov xéouov (John i. 9, vi. 14, xi. 27; Rom. v.12; 1 Tim. i. 15,
al.) would lose its natural signification. The same applies against.
Delitzsch, who, bringing in that which lies very remote, will have the
words explained: “incarnate, and having entered upon the years of
human self-determination, signified Isa. vii. 16,’—an exposition which is
not any the more rendered acceptable, when Delitzsch adds, with a view to
doing justice to the participle present: “we need not regard the eisépyeo9ar
ei¢ Tov xéouov as a point; we can also conceive of it as a line.”® For the
1Tract. Jom. iv. 2, ili. 8, vi. 2.
%Schlichting, Grotius, Braun, al.
Arbitrarily does Kurtz place in Aédye a
double sense, in that he will have it under-
stood on the part of the psalmist of a speak-
ing in words, on the part of Christ of a speaking
by deeds.
4Without reason do Delitzsch and Alford
object against this interpretation, that the
following owpua xcarnpricw po is not in
41
harmony therewith. See the exposition of
the words.
6 Who is preceded therein by Grotius, and
followed by de Wette,as more recently by
Maier and Beyschlag, die Christologie des
Neuen Testaments, Berl. 1866, p. 192.
*So, in accord with Delitzsch, also Alford,
who observes: “It expresses, I believe, the
wifole time during which the Lord, being
ripened in human resolution, was in intent
642 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
author cannot possibly have thought of Christ’s cicépyeoda: sig zév xéspov,
and His Aéyey temporally therewith coinciding, as something constantly
repeated and only progressively developed.—tvsiav xai mpocgopav ov«
7i2noac]| sacrifice and offering (bloody and unbloody sacrifices) Thou didst
not will. Kindred utterances in the O. T.: Ps. 1. 7-15, h. 18 ff. [16 ff];
Isa. i.11; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21-23; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21 ff.; 1 Sam. xv. 22.
That, however, the author founded his Scripture proof precisely upon Ps.
xl., was occasioned principally by the addition, very important for his
purpose: cdua dé xartnpriow por, Which is found there.—cédua dé xarypzicw
po] [LXX b 8.] but a body hast Thou prepared me, sc. in order to be
clothed with the same, and by the giving up of the same unto death to
fulfill Thy will. Comp. ver.7. Thus, without doubt, the author found in
his copy of the LXX. But that the Hebrew words: » IY 2 Die (the ears
hast Thou digged to me, i.e. by revelation opened up religious knowledge
to me), were even originally rendered by the LXX. by capa dé xarnpricw
pot, as is contended by Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard,
Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others, is a supposition hardly to be enter-
tained. Probably the LXX. rendered the Hebrew words by daria 62
katnptiow pot, as they are still found in some ancient Mss. of that version,
and capa dé xaryptiow poe arose, not “from the translator being unable to
attach any satisfactory meaning to the words ‘the ears hast thou digged
to me,’ and therefore altering them with his own hand” (Kurtz); but
only from an accidental corruption of the text, in that 2, the final letter
of the 79éAnca¢ immediately preceding, was wrongly carried over to the
following word, and instead of TI the letter M was erroneously read.
Ver. 6. In burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hadst Thou no pleasure.—
LXX. Cod. Vatic.: dAoxatraya ... obx grncac; Cod. Alex.: éAoxavrdyara .. .
oix éarnoac.—xai mepi duaptiag] Oecumenius: tovréore mpoocgopav epi
apaptiac. Elsewhere also occasionally (Lev. vii. 37; Num. viii. 8, al.) the
LXX. denote the sin-offering by the mere epi duapriac, in that the addi-
tional notion of sacrifice is naturally yielded by the context. Stein’s ex-
pedient for avoiding all supplementing of the idea, in translating «ai by
“also ” (“ Thou hast also no pleasure in offerings for sin”), is grammat-
ically inadmissible.—evdoxetv] with the accusative also not rare elsewhere in
Hellenistic Greek. Comp. LXX. Gen. xxxiil. 10; Lev. xxvi. 34, 41; Ps.
li. 18, 21, al. Besides this in the Hellenistic evdoxeiy év (x. 38), with Greek
writers evdoxeiv rive.
Ver. 7. Tére elxov] then said I. In the sense of the writer of the epistle:
then, when Thou hadst prepared for me a body. In the sense of the com-
poser of the psalm: then, when such deeper knowledge was revealed to
me. Contrary to the usage of the language, Carpzov, Stein, and others
take rére as equivalent to ideo, propterea, while just as capriciously Hein-
richs makes it redundant as a particle of transition.—év xegadids BiSdiov yéy-
parta: wept éuov] is a parenthesis; so that rov tozgzoac depends not on
devoting Himself to the doing of His Father's rov warpés pov?’ was one of the opening
will: the time of which that youtHful announcements.”
question, ‘ Wist ye not that I must be ev rots
644 =. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
of validity, in order to establish the second as the norm in force (Rom. iii.
31). Parenthetic insertion, so that ver. 10 attaches itself closely to 7a
6éAnua, and is to be separated therefrom only by a comma. The paren-
thesis serves by way of exclamation to call attention to the importance of
the application to be given in ver. 10 to the idod xo «.7.A. Subject in
avaipet is naturally here also Christ; not “the Spirit of God,” as Kurtz
arbitrarily supposes.—réd mparov] sc. Td mpoogiperv Ovoiag nai mpoogopag x.7.7.
—rd debrepov] sc. rd roeeiv Td OéAnua tov Oeov. Theodoret: xpérov eize riv
tav addyuwr Ovoiav, debrepov dé Tv Acyuxfy, Ti tr’ abrod mpoceve xOcicav. Wrongly
does Peirce take rd zpérov and 1d debrepov adjectivally, in supplementing
to each rd 6éAnua Oeov. With equally little warrant Carpzov: the diajx
mpotn and the dcabfay xacvh, or the lepwoivy xara tiv rafey 'Aapdv and the
lepwotvn xata éuoidryta MeAyioedéx, are Meant; as also Stein: the O. T. and
the N. T. economy.
Ver. 10. ’Ev © OeAguar:] upon the ground of which will (more exactly: of
which fulfillment of His will), and in conditioning connection with that
will, What is meant is the will of God, of which the author has before
spoken.—#yacpévor éouév| we (Christians) have been sanctified (delivered from
sins). dycaleoOae correlative to the notions reAeovoba:, ver. 1, and xafa-
pilecOa, ver. 2.—By the mpocgopa rov cdparog Tyoov Xpcorow cannot
be meant “ the self-presentation of Christ in the heavenly Holy of Holies”
(Kurtz), but only (comp. ix. 28) Christ’s death upon the cross on earth.
For the indication of the former idea the expression rov oduatoc would be
altogether unsuitable. Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p.
475 f—épdrag] belongs to #ytacuévor éopév, not as Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Stein, Bloomfield, Alford,
and others conjoin, to &:a t#¢ mpoogopag Tov caparog 'Iyoov Xpiorov, because
otherwise the article r7¢ must have been repeated.
Vv. 11-14. Renewed emphasizing of the main distinction between the
Jewish high priest and Christ. The former repeats day by day the same
sacrifices without being able to effect thereby the canceling of sin; Christ
has by His single sacrifice procured everlasting sanctification. This the
main thought of vv. 11-14. Into the same, however, there is at the same
time introduced a subordinate feature, by virtue of the opposition of the
éornxev and éxé@coev, by which likewise 1s manifest the pre-eminence
of Christ over the Levitical high priests. The Jewish high priests were
required to accomplish their ministration standing (comp. Deut. x. &, xviii.
7; Judg. xx. 28, al.), were thus characterized as servants or inferiors
(comp. also Jas. ii. 3); whereas in Christ’s sitting down at the right hand
of God, His participation in the divine majesty and glory is proclaimed.
Ver. 11. Kai rac] «ai is the explanatory: and indeed. It develops the
égdtaf, ver. 10, and belongs equally to ver. 12 as to ver. 11.—apyepeic]
comp. the critical remark.—xaf juépav] see at vil. 27. [LXX 6 10.J—
mepeaety| stronger than agacpeiv, ver. 4. Literally: take away round about.
Ver. 12. Obrog] comp. iii. 3.—ei¢ rd dimvexécs] belongs to éxéO:oev.— With
that which precedes is it conjoined by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther,
Bengel, Bbhme, Stein, Ewald, and others; whereby, however, the manifest
CHAP. x. 10-15. 645
antithesis, which ele rd dipvexéc éxdOicev forms to éornxev xa? puépav, ver.
11, is destroyed, and the symmetry of the proposition, ver. 12, is lost.
Ver. 13. Td Aonrdv] henceforth, sc. from the time of His sitting down at
the right hand of God. What is meant is the time yet intervening before
the coming in of the Parousia. The taking of rd Aoméy in the relative
sense: “as regards the rest, concerning the rest” (Kurtz), is, on account
of the close coherence with éxdeyduevoe és, unnatural, for which reason
also the passages adduced by Kurtz as supposed parallels, Eph. vi. 10,
Phil. ii. 1, iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess, 111. 1, do not admit of comparison.
—The object of the waiting is expressed by our author in the language
of Ps. ex. 1—The éxd@coev ... rd Aotwov Exdeydpevog ~wo... in-
volves for the rest the supposition that the destruction of the enemies of
Christ is to be looked for even before His Parousia. The author accord-
ingly manifests here, too, a certain diversity in his mode of viewing the
subject from that of the Apostle Paul, since the latter (comp. 1 Cor. xv.
22-28) anticipates the destruction of the anti-Christian powers only after
the time of Christ’s Parousia. [LX X 611,12.) The supposition, which
de Wette holds possible for the removal of this difference, that the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews “thought only of the triumph of the gospel
among the nations, even as Paul also expected the universal diffusion of
the gospel and the conversion of the Jews before the appearing of Christ,”
has little probability, considering the absolute and unqualified character
of the expression here chosen: of éy@poi avroi.
Ver. 14. Proof of the possibility of the ei¢ 1d duvets ExdOtoev év dekiG Tov
Oeuv, ver. 12, from the needlessness for a fresh sacrifice, since Christ has
already, by the sacrifice once offered, brought in perfect sanctification for
His believers —The accentuation: »:@ yép pocop4, merits the prefer-
ence to sua yap zpocopd, to which Bengel is inclined, and which has been
followed by Ewald, since by the former the words acquire an immediate
reference to Christ.—roig dy:afouévouc] them that are sanctified, sc. as regards
the decree of God. The participle present is used substantively, as ii. 11,
without respect to time.
Vv. 15-18. That there is no need of any further expiatory sacrifice, the
Scripture also testifies. This Scripture proof the author derives from the
declaration, Jer. xxxi. 31-34, already adduced at viii. 8 ff., in that he here
briefly comprehends the same in its two main features.
Ver. 15. Maprupei dé tiv nai Td mvevpa 75 Gywov] Moreover, also, the Holy
Ghost bears witness to us.—ijpiv] has reference to the Christians generally.
Without warrant is it limited by Raphel, Wolf, Baumgarten, and others
to the author of the epistle (“the Holy Ghost attests my statement ’’).—
To tvevua 7d aytov] for it is the Holy Spirit of God who in the passage
indicated speaks by the prophet.—The subject in eipyxéva: is God, in that
the author makes his own the words Aéyee xbpeo¢ following in ver. 16,
although they form an originally constituent part of the citation, in such
wise that pera yap Td eipnxévac... éxetvag forms the former member of the
proposition ; and to this former member all the rest, from didot¢ véuovg pov
to the end of ver. 17, is then opposed by the author as a concluding mem-
CHAP. x. 16-20. . 647
the sanctuary, 7.e. of entering into the sanctuary, or heavenly Holy of Holies
(ray dyiwv, of the same import as cig rd dyca, comp. ix. 8). Arbitrarily
would Heinrichs refer the words to the entering of Jesus, in that he
regards ei¢ ry eicodov trav ay. év TH ai. "Iyoov as equivalent to eic riv
elcodov 'Inoot év TH aivate atrov, which is impossible.— év ro aivari "Inoov]
upon the ground, or by virtue of the blood of Jesus. Belongs to the whole
proposition : éyovreg rappyoiay sic tiv eicodov Tév dyivv, not merely to eicodov.!
The passage, ix. 25, by no means pleads in favor of the latter mode of
apprehending it, since at ix. 25, but not in the present passage, év can be
understood in the material sense: “with;” the reference of the é aiyare
in the two places is an entirely different one.
Ver. 20. ‘Hy] sc. eicodov. Not as yet with édév (Carpzov, Stuart, and
others) is 7 to be combined as indication of object, in such wise that
merely mpécg¢arov nai Cacav would form the predicate; but still less is
mappyoiav (Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al.) to be supplemented to 7. For
against the former decides the order of the words, against the latter the
manifest correspondence in which ¢isodov, ver. 19, and édév, ver. 20, stand
to each other. The d6éé¢, namely, characterized ver. 19 as to its goal (as
eicodog Tay dyiwy), is, ver. 20, further described with regard to its nature
and constitution (as éddi¢ tpdogarog and (ica).—hyv évexaivioey nuiv dddv
mpécg¢atov nal Cacav] which He for us (in order that we may walk in it) has
consecrated (inaugurated, in that He Himself first passed through it) asa
new (newly-opened, hitherto inaccessible, comp. ix. 8; Theodoret: d¢ rére
mputov gaveicav) and living way. mpéogarog, originally: fresh slain; then
in general: fresh, new, recens.2A—{ doa, however, that way or entrance is
called, not because it “ever remains, and needs not, like that into the
earthly sanctuary, to be consecrated every year by fresh blood ” (Bleek,
after the precedent of Ernesti, Schulz, and others ; comp. also Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, and Theophylact), but because it is ving in its efficacy
(comp. 6 dpro¢ 6 ¢év, John vi. 51), in such wise that it leads to the goal of
everlasting life. The contrast is found in the inefficaciousness of the
entrance into the earthly holy of holies.—dé:a rot xaramerdcparoc, rovréorw
TH¢ oapKd¢ aitow] through the veil, that is to say, His flesh. As the high priest
must pass through the concealing veil, in order to come within the earthly
Holy of Holies, thus also the flesh of Christ formed a veil, which must
first be withdrawn or removed (comp. Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 88; Luke
_ xxiii. 45) ere the entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies could be
rendered possible.—d:4] is to be taken locally,—wrongly is it understood by
Stein as instrumental,—and is not to be combined with évexaivecev,® but is
to be attached to édév, as a nearer definition, standing upon a parallel
With mpécgarov xai Cacav, seeing that an ovcay or dyovoav naturally suggests
itself by way of supplement.—ri¢ capxd¢ abvrot] depends immediately upon
the preceding 4:4, not first, as Peirce and Carpzov maintain, upon a rov
Kataretéopatoe to be supplied.
1Akersloot, Storr, Schulz, Béhme, Klee, 8Bohme, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbew.
Paulus, Bleek, Bisping. IL. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 253; Alford, Kluge.
%See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 374 f.
CHAP. X. 21-24, 649
be needlessly sacrificed, and xaréywzev stand there too much torn from the
context. For the supposition that «ai might have been wanting before xaréy-
wpuev, since a third verb (xaravoduer) follows at ver. 24, the placing of the
xai was thus necessary only before this last, is erroneous; inasmuch as
the author could hardly, from the very outset, comprehend ver. 24 in
thought with ver. 22, and ver. 23, on the contrary, only brings in later
that which is observed at ver. 24 as a new and independent exhortation,
while zpocepyouefa . . . kat xaréywuev stands together in the closest inner
relation (as a decided approaching to the communion with God opened
up by Christ, and a persevering maintenance of the same).—AeAovupévor rd
cipua idatt xabap¢ | inasmuch as our body has been washed with pure water [washed
as regards the body with pure water]. Reference to the sanctifying of Chris-
tians by Christian baptism. Comp. Eph. v. 26; Tit.iii.5. Analogon in the
Levitical domain the washings, Ex. xxix. 4, xxx. 19 ff, xl. 30 ff; Lev.
xvi. 4. To find denoted in a merely figurative sense (to the exclusion of
baptism), with Calvin [Owen] and others, in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi.
25: the communication of the Holy Ghost ; or, with Limborch, Ebrard, and
others: the being cleansed from sins; or, with [Piscator and] Reuss: the
blood of Christ “Tl s’agit ici, comme dans toute cette partie de l’épitre, du
sang de Christ. C’est ce sang, qui nous lave mieux que |’eau des
Lévites”’); or, with Schlichting: “Christi spiritus et doctrina, seu
spiritualis illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine
non excluso,” we are forbidden by the addition of 7rd cdua, which implies
likewise the reminiscence of an outward act.—xa@ap}] that which is pure,
and in consequence thereof also makes pure.—xaréyopev tiv duodoyiay Tic
éAmidog axAw7 | let us hold fast the confession of hope as an unbending unswerv-
ing one.—kazéywuev] inasmuch as the duodoyia became at once, with bap-
tism, the possession of believers.—rv éuodoyiav| may here be taken actively
(the confessing of the hope), but it may also be taken passively (the confes-
sion which has as its subject the Christian’s hope).—axdury] stronger than
BeBaiav, iii. 6, 14.—morde yap 6 éwayyetAduevoc] for faithful (so that He keeps
that which He promises; comp.1 Cor. 1. 9, x 18; 1 Thess. v. 24) is He who
has given the promises (namely, God). Ground of encouragement for the
waré yew.
Vv. 24, 25. Progress from that which the Christian has to do with
regard to himself, to that which he has to do with regard to his
fellow-Christians.—xal xatavoduev adAgrovc] and let us direct our view to each
other (comp. ili. 1), so that we may endeavor to emulate the good and
salutary which we discover in our neighbor, and, on the other hand, to
put away the bad and hurtful in ourselves and him. For limiting the
expression, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Michaelis, ad
Pierc., Bleek, and others, to the first-named particular, no reason exists;
since the positive cic mapofvopdy x.7.A. is yet followed by the negative yu?
tyxatadeirovrec K.T.A.—elg mapokvoudv aydrn¢g nat xadav Epyuv] that incitement
whole delicately-arranged period, vv. 19-23, niously commenced would be lacking in the
is rudely shattered—hardly meet with appropriate conclusion, the supposed new
approval on any side. The period soeupho- clause in the appropriate beginning.
CHAP. x. 25-27. 651
warmness in Christianity, which might lead to apostasy therefrom. In
warning notes, therefore, the author points out that the man who know-
ingly slights recognized Christian truth, and sins against it, will infallibly
be overtaken by the punitive judgment of God. To be compared vi. 4-8.
Ver. 26. ‘Exovoiug yap duapravévtev judy peta 7d AaBeiv ri Exiyvwow THE
GA7Seiac] For if we sin willfully (i.e. against our better knowledge and
conscience) after having received the certain knowledge of the truth; so that
we become recreant to Christianity (comp. ver. 29), to which the éyxaradcirew
tiv exiovvaywy7v éavtov forms the dangerous preliminary step. The éxovoiug
dpapravovrec are the opposite of the ayvooivree xai mAavapuevo, v. 2,' and
the participle present indicates the continuous or habitual character of the
action.—7 aA7%eca is the truth absolutely, as this has been revealed by
Christianity. The ériyvwore of this absolute truth, however, embraces,
along with the recognition thereof by the understanding, also the having
become conscious of its bliss-giving effects in one’s own experience. Comp.
vi. 4, 5.—ovtxére rept duaptiiy arodeimerat Svaial there remains in relation to
sins, t.e. for the expiation thereof, no more sacrifice ; inasmuch namely, as
the sin-canceling sacrifice of Christ, the communion of which we then
renounce, is a sacrifice which takes place only once, is not further
repeated, while at the same time the Levitical sacrifices are unable to
effect the canceling of sins. Bengel: Fructus ex sacrificio Christi
semper patet non repudiantibus ; qui autem repudiant, non aliud habent.
Ver. 27. doBepa dé tig éxdox7) Kpicewe] sc. Grodeimerac: but there remains
indeed, etc. The Groderéuevov is of two kinds, something subjective
(gofepa . . . xpicewc) and something objective (rupoc . . . vrevavtiovc).—poBepa
éxdox7) Kpicewc| denotes not “a terrible banquet of judgment,” as Ewald
strangely translates it, nor is it any hypallage in the sense of éxdoyi) xpicewc
goBepacs, as Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, and Stengel suppose, and to which
the choice is left open by Wolf. The terribleness is transferred to the
subjective domain of the expectation. For one who has sinned against
better light and knowledge, even the expectation of the divine judgment
is something terrible.—goBepd ric] an exceedingly terrible one. On the rig,
added with rhetorical emphasis to adjectives of quality or quantity, comp.
Kihner, IT. p. 331; Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 170].—xpioic] is used here, too,
as 1x. 27, quite without restriction, of the divine judgment in general.
That this will be a punitive judgment is not indicated by the word; it
only follows from the connection.—In the second member the emphasis
rests upon the preposed rvpé¢, on which account also the case of the
following participle conforms itself to this, not to ¢7A0r. We cannot,
1The assertion of Kurtz, that, if this re-
mark were true, the author would be express-
ing ‘“‘a dogma in its consequences truly sub-
versive, and destructive of the whole Christian
soteriology,” inasmuch as it would “ impera-
tively follow therefrom, that even under the
New Covenant only those who transgressed
from ignorance and error could find forgive-
ness with God for Christ's sake, while all who
1
4
A
+
1
,
= eee
1
had been guilty of a conscious and intentional
sin must beyond hope of deliverance fall
victims to the Judgment of everlasting dam-
nation,” is a precipitate one, since the special
limitation within which the expression
éxovoiws axaprdvecy was used was naturally
afforded to the reader, quite apart from the
investigation already preceding at vi. 4 ff,
even from our section itself.
CHAP. xX. 28-30. 653
what is better, because stronger, and on that account more in accord with
the other statements—as impure, i.e. as the blood of a transgressor, which
Christ must be, if He was not the Son of God and the Redeemer.—év »
yytéo07] contrasting addition to xoivdv dynoduevoc, and paronomasia: by
the communion with which he was nevertheless sanctified, or: the sanctifying
efficacy of which he has nevertheless felt in his own person.—xai 1d mvebya TiI¢
xapito¢s évvBpicac] and has done despite to the Spirit of Grace, sc. by scorn
and mockery of the wondrous unfolding of that Spirit’s power in the life
of the Christians. The compound form éwpifew rai or ri, found, apart
from the poets (Soph. Phil. 342), only with the later Greeks. In the N. T.
a ama Aeyduevov.—rd mvevpa tic xapitoc]| the Holy Spirit, who is a gift of the
divine grace.
Ver. 30. The yeipovoe a&twyoerac tiuwpiac, ver. 29, is a matter for the most
serious consideration. This the declarations of God Himself in the Scrip-
tures prove.—oidapev yap Tov eimdévra] for we know Him who hath spoken, i. e.
we know what it means when God makes predictions like those which
follow.—The first utterance is without doubt from Deut. xxxii. 35. It
deviates from the Hebrew original (oowh Op4 *4), but still more from the
LXX. (év quépe exdixhoewe avraroddow); on the other hand, it agrees to so
great an extent with Paul’s mode of citing the same in Rom. xii. 19, that
even the Aéyee xbpioc, Which is wanting in Deuteronomy, is found in both
these places. This agreement arises, according to Bleek, de Wette, De-
litzsch, and Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 97 (comp. also Béhme), from a deriv-
ing of the citation from the Epistle to the Romans; while according to
Meyer (at Rom. xii. 19, 2d. 3d. and 4th ed.) the identical words: éya arra-
rodaéow, are to be traced back to the paraphrase of Onkelos (D2W NI!)
as the common source employed by Paul and the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Yet with much greater probability is the coincidence to be
explained by the supposition that the utterance, in the form adopted here
as with Paul, had become proverbial. This was also the later view of
Meyer (see Meyer on Rom. xii. 19, 5th ed. p. 551 f.).—The second utter-
ance: kpivei kiptog Tov Aady avrov, attached by means of cat rdAcv
(i. 5, ii. 13), is found in like form, Deut. xxxii. 36 and Ps. cxxxv. 14. This
kpivecy tov Aady avrov has, in the mind of the author of the epistle, the
general signification of the holding of judgment upon His people, so that
the recreant members among the same will not be able to escape punish-
ment. Different is the sense of the original: He shall do justice for His
people. Delitzsch, it is true, whois followed therein by Maier, Kluge, Moll,
and Hofmann, will not acknowledge such diversity of the sense. But he
is able to remove such diversity only, in that—manifestly led thereto in
the interest of a mistaken harmonistic method—he foists upon the author
of the epistle the statement: “the Lord will do justice for His church, and
punish its betrayers and blasphemers;” a statement of which the first
half—as opposed to the grammatical meaning of xpivecv, as well as to the
1Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, Carpzov, Mi- lack, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbeqr. des Hebrderbr.
chaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bohme, Tho- __ p. 769; Mailer, Moll, Kurtz, and others.
CHAP. X. 31-35. 655
éyevfOnpev 16 xéoup Kat ayyéAore Kai avOpdroe. The verb only here and with
the Church Fathers.—rovto 62 xotvwvot . . . yevyfévzec] and, on the other
hand, ye became associates (fellow-sufferers) . . . sc. by the administering
of consolation, and by efforts for the alleviation of their sufferings. xovv-
wvoi yevnbévtee is elucidated by ovverabfoare, ver. 34, thus alludes equally
as the first half of the sentence to historic facts. Arbitrarily therefore
Ebrard : the expression indicates that the readers, “by the act of their
conversion, had become once for all associates in that community, of
which they knew that it thus fared, or was thus wont to fare with it.’”—
Tay obtwo avacrpepouévuv] of those who were in such condition (sc. év OAipeow
kai overdtopoic). Kypke, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoel, and others supplement the
ovtwe from the roAAjy GhAnow irepeivate TaMjudtur, ver. 32: of those who thus
walked, 4, e. sustained with great stedfastness the contest of sufferings. In
favor of this interpretation the authority of the ordinary Biblical use of
avactpégecbac may no doubt be urged. Since, however, xoAAjv abAnow w7e-
peivare waOnudtur, ver. 32, is the general statement, which afterwards, ver.
33, separates into two special subdivisions by means of rotro pév . . . TovTo
dé, 80 ovrwe in the second member can only refer back to the immediately
foregoing characterization in the first member.
Ver. 34. [LX XIV c,d.] Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 33, and thatin
such form that nai . . . ovverafjoare corresponds to the latter half of ver.
83, and cat . . . mpooedéEacbe to the former half thereof.—xai yap roi¢ decpios
ovverabnoate| for ye had both compassion (iv. 15) on the prisoners, in that ye
bestowed upon them active sympathy.—xai rjv dprayiy rév trapydvtuv tyov
x«.t.A.] and also accepted (comp. xi. 35) with joy the plundering of your
goods, with joy, or willingly submitted to it. Wrongly Heinrichs, accord-
ing to whom mpocdéyeoGac here expresses, at the same time, the idea of
“exspectare” and of “recipere,” so that we have to translate: “ye
looked for it.”—y«véckovres Eyerv éavroic xpeitrova traps Kal pévovoav] indicu-
tion of motive for xai r#v dprayiy x.t.A.: knowing that ye have for yourselves
(as your true possession) a better property (Acts ii. 45), and that an abiding
one, namely, the spiritual, everlasting blessings of Christianity, of which
no power of the earth can deprive you. Comp. Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 33.
Ver. 35. Exhortation deduced from vv. 32-34. The self-sacrificing zeal
for Christianity displayed in the past ought to animate the readers to a
joyful maintenance of the same likewise in the present, since of a truth
this very stedfastness in zeal leads to the longed-for goal._—amoBdaAAew] here
not the involuntary losing (Jac. Cappellus, Lésner, and others), but the
voluntary casling from one, or lelting fall away (comp. Mark x. 50), as
though it were a question only of a worthless, useless thing; pj aofda-
Ae thus the same as xaréyecv, ver. 23, ili. 6, 14, and xpareiv, iv. 14, vi. 18.—
Ti wappnoiay tpav] your joyful confidence, sc. towards Christ as your Saviour.
The free, courageous confession of Christianity before the world, of which
Beza, Grotius, and others understand the expression, is only the consequence
of the rapfyola, which here, too, as ver. 19, iii.6, iv. 16, denotes aframe of
the mind.—#ric] which of a truth. Introduction of a well-known, indisput-
able verity.—peydAnv pucbarodooiav| great rewarding retribution (see at ii. 2),
CHAP. X. 36-38, 657
foy, tnduecvov avtér, bri épydopevog wEet nat ob uP ypovicy. In thesense
of the prophet, the discourse is of the certain fulfillment of the prophecy
regarding the overthrow of the Chaldees. The LXX., however, wrongly
translated the words, and as the épyéuevoc looked upon either God or the
Messiah, of whom also the later Jewish theologians interpreted the passage
(see Wetstein ad loc.). Of the Messiah the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews also understands the expression, and therefore adds the article 6
to épxduevoc. In like manneré épyéuevoc appears, Matt. xi. 38, Luke vii.
19, as a current appellation of the Messiah (based upon Dan. vii. 18 ; Zech.
ix. 9; Mal. ili.1; Ps. xl. 8 [7], exviii. 26). Only in the instances mentioned
the first appearing of the Messiah upon earth is intended, whereas in our
passage (as also very frequently by épyeoda: elaewhere in the N. T., e.g. 1
Cor. xi. 26; Acts 1.11; Matt. xvi. 27,28; John xxi. 22, 23) the return of
Christ, as of the Messiah crucified upon earth and exalted to heaven, for
the consummation of the kingdom of God, is that which is referred to.
Arbitrarily Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bloomfield, Ebrard, and others: a coming
for the destruction of Jerusalem is here to be thought of.
Ver. 38. [LX XIV e.] Continuation of the citation, yet so that the author
adduces the two clauses of Hab. ii. 4 in inverted order. For in the O. T.
passage the words read: éav irooreiAnrat, obx eidoxet } Woy pov ev aiTy’ 6 dé
dixatoc éx wiotews pou[d dé dixatbe pov éx miotewc] Choeraz. The transposition
is intentional, in order to avoid the supplying of the subject 6 épyduevoc to
vrooreiAnrat.—d d2 dixatéc pov éx TioTews Choerat] my (of God, not of Christ:
Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 621, Obs.) righteous one (the devout man
belonging to me), however, shall live by faith. x mwiorewc, namely, is, in
the sense of the author of the epistle, to be referred to (#cera:. To con-
join it here, too, as Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11, with dixacog (so Baumgarten,
Schulz, Béhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stengel, a/.), is inadmissible, because, accord-
ing to the connection, the design is not to state by what any one becomes
dixatoc, but by what he will obtain the érayyeAia, or, what is the same
thing, the (#7 aidviog. The notion of the riorc¢ here closely attaches
itself to the Hebrew 1)328,. The meaning, in harmony with the conéep-
tion prevailing elsewhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews, divergent from
that of Paul, is the believing, faithfully enduring trust in God and Mis pro-
mises. The second member, cai av trooreiAnrac x.t.A., has been mis-
understood by the LXX. In the Hebrew: 13 Wa) MWe) Tay Iq
behold, lifted up, not upright is his (sc. the Chaldean’s) soul in him.—édv
irooreiAnta:] if so be that he with faint heart draws back. Comp. Gal. ii.
12. Inthe application : if he becomes lukewarm in Christianity, and apos-
tatizes from the same. trooreiAnrac does not stand impersonally ; nor
have we, with Grotius, Maier, and others, to supply ric, or, with de Wette,
Winer, p. 487 [E. T. 523] (less decidedly, 5th ed. p. 427), and Buttmann,
p. 117 [E. T. 134], to supplement from the foregoing 64 dixasoc the general
idea dyv3puro¢ as subject. The subject is still the foregoing 6 dixacég pov.
This is, moreover, placed beyond doubt, since dixasoc above is not to be
taken in the narrower Pauline sense, but in the general sense of the de-
vout man; he, however, who is in this sense dixaws, ceases by the trooréA-
42
NOTES. 659
and better covenant, vv. 15 ff., to the Levitical priesthood as related to the system
to which they belonged, vv. 5 ff. comp. with vv. 2 ff.
(6) As to the individual words and phrases of this passage, the following pointe
may be noticed :—1. The connection of ver. 1 with what precedes by yap is by
way of proof of the main suggestion of ix. 24-28, that Christ needed to appear with
the one offering of His own blood. This was necessary because the law, etc.—
2. The law is presented as having the oxcd, instead of the cixdv, of the ayada
péAAovta, The ayafda themselves are in heaven; the eixav, or exact representation
of them, is in the Gospel; the ond, or mere outline or foreshadowing, is found in
the Law-system.—3. Tisch. 8, Alf, A. R. V. agree with Liinem. in reading
divara; R. V. Treg. W. & H. read divavraz, The remark of Tisch., that the
writer nowhere speaks of the priests as unable to make the worshipers perfect,
but only of the law or sacrifices (as in ver. 11), suggests a strong reason for believ-
ing Jbvarat to be the true reading; and when the peculiar break in the sequence
of the sentence is considered, as well as the ease with which an error of a
copyist might have introduced the plural, it must be regarded as probable that
the singular is what the author actually wrote.—4. That ov« of ver. 2 is to be
adopted as the correct text, is proved by the external evidence. That, if this text
is accepted, the sentence is interrogative, is hardly to be doubted ; for, in opposi-
tion to the other rendering: “otherwise their presentation would not have
ceased,” it may not only be urged that, inasmuch as the Levitical system was still
continuing at the date of the Epistle, it could not be alluded to as if it had
actually passed away (see Liinem.’s note), but also that the point of the author's ar-
gument, in this part of it, is that the sacrifices of that system which is able to accom-
plish its end will (not be ever repeated, but) cease.—5. @A4 of ver. 3 is equivalent to
whereas, on the other hand.—6. The second point in the development of the thought
is introduced (vv. 5 ff.) by an O. T. passage (Ps. xl. 6-8), in which the peculiarity
of the new system, in its contrast with the old, is set forth. Here, again, as so
frequently elsewhere, the writer takes pains to base his argument on the words of
the O. T.—7. There can be no doubt, as Liinem. says, that the selection of this
particular passage is due to the presence of the word o@yc in it, as found in the
LXX.—a word which served the author’s purpose in a most satisfactory way,
see ver. 10.—8. As tothe word cua, its origin in the LX X. may, perhaps, be
accounted for correctly by Liinem.’s supposition of a copyist’s error for oria, or it
may have been due to the interpretation given by the Sept. translators to a
different text of the Hebrew, or, possibly, to a free expression on their part of what
they believed to be the meaning of the original—a mode of setting forth the idea
of willing obedience. Whatever may be the true explanation of this point, it will
be observed by the careful reader, (x) that the use of the word which the writer
of the epistle makes is only secondary to the expression of his main thought—
that of obedience to the will of God; (y) that, in his repetition of the words of
the Psalm in ver. 7, he does not introduce o@ua ; and (z) that, even when he does
mention it again, in ver. 10, it is only in a subordinate way, 6:4 tov oduaroc, while
the 6éAnpa is the sphere in which the sanctification of Christians takes place.—
9. Aéywv and elpyxev of ver. 8 are to be explained as connected with the pro-
positional and permanent character of the sentence, which the writer desires to
give to it in his application to the subject in discussion. He explains by the use
of Afyor, as in év re Afyew viii. 13, and év Te AkyeoBaz, iii. 15.—10. xa? ruépay
is to be explained asin vii. 27—the high-priest being at the head of the priest-
660 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
hood, all that is done in the priestly service is spoken of as if done by him.
Where a distinction between him and the other priests is a matter of importance,
as in ix. 6, 7, it is clearly presented, but, in cases like the present, it is of no con-
sequence.—11. The supposed discrepancy between the statement of ver. 13 and 1
Cor. xv. 22-28 (see Liinem.’s note) has no real foundation in fact, for the thought,
both of this writer and of Paul, is that Christ is to hold His position as head of
the Messianic work and kingdom until all enemies shall have been subdued.
Paul expresses this by the word BaovAetew; this writer, by éxadioev év defia tov
deov, The only difference between the two is, that this author does not refer to
the Parousia, which he has no occasion to mention. Paul makes the end follow
immediately after the Parousia and the resurrection which then takes place, (or,
to say the least, he may be understood in this way), and he makes physical death,
which ceases with the resurrection, the last enemy that is subdued.—12. It is
worthy of notice that, at the end of this section, ver. 13, as at its beginning, viii.
1, the author presents Christ as having sat down at the right hand of God—
recalling thus, with characteristic rhetorical art, the words of i. 3.
LXXI. Vv. 19 fF
With the 19th verse the hortatory passage which belongs to the last section of
the argument, vili. l—x. 18, is introduced. As in connection with each previous
section the general exhortation of the epistle is given, so here it is added once
more, and is based upon what has been stated in these last preceding chapters.
ovv of ver. 19, goes back in its force only to viii. 1, and not, as Liinem. says, to
v.1. This hortatory passage extends as far as xii. 29. The view, therefore,
that there is here the beginning of a Practical section of the Epistle, which has
a parallelism with the whole Doctrinal section, after the manner of the Pauline
Epistles, and the view that from x. 19 to xiii. 25 we have a third main division
of the epistle (so Alf.) having reference to “our duty in the interval of waiting
between the beginning and accomplishment of our salvation,” or a fifth division
(so Ebr.) “the laying hold of the N. T. salvation,” are erroneous and involve a
misconception of the author’s plan.
That this hortatory passage is connected with viii. 1—x. 18, as that which is
found ii. J-4 is connected with i. 4-14, and iii. 1 with ii. 5-16, and, again, vi.
1-20 with vii. 1-28, is made evident by the fact that the language here employed
and the thought presented are wholly in the line of what has been set forth since
the beginning of the eighth chapter—see, for example, the expressions “to enter
into the holy place,” “the blood of Jesus,” “the way which he inaugurated for us,
a new and living way,” “through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,” “having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” That it extends to the end of the
twelfth chapter, is indicated (1) by the fact that, in the final and climactic passage
of that chapter (xii. 18-24), which contrasts the Christian and Mosaic systems, the
idea of Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant, and of the blood of sprinkling,
is given the position of greatest emphasis; and (2) by the fact that there is a
steady and closely-connected development of thought throughout the entire
passage, according to which everything is subordinate to, and grows out of, the
direct exhortation x. 19-25.
The development of thought, x. 19—xii. 29 is as follows:—1. The general
exhortation of the epistle is given (as founded upon the last section of the argu-
O 8 le
NOTES. 661
ment, viii. 1-x. 18) in a positive form—to stand fast, x. 19-25. 2. This exhorta-
tion, as thus given, is pressed upon the readers by two considerations: (z) the
danger and punishment which will follow in case they do not hold fast to their
confession, x. 26-31, and (y) the encouragement which they might derive from
calling to remembrance the stedfastness of their earlier Christian life, x. 32-34.
3. The exhortation is repeated, but now in a negative form—not to fall away, x. 35.
4. This exhortation is founded upon two reasons: (z) the necessity of stedfast
endurance, in order to the attainment of the reward, x. 36; and (y) the fact that
this endurance is demanded only for a brief period, before the end shall come,
x. 37. The immediate connection of all the verses with 19 ff., is clearly manifest.
With x. 38 begins a new thought, but yet evidently in the same line of subordina-
tion to 19 ff—5. The stedfast endurance, involved in holding fast and not falling
away, must be in the line of faith, x. 38, 39. This is proved by the statement of
what faith is, xi. 1, and the citation of a long list of examples from the O. T. and
Jewish history, which show how the stedfastness of the ancient heroes had been
in the line of faith, and how those heroes had thereby gained their honorable
fame and reward, xi. 2-40.—6. In view of the fact that this multitude of witnesses
are, as it were, looking, as spectators in a race-course, upon us in our Christian
life, the exhortation to press on with stedfast endurance is again presented—and
now with a pointing to Jesus, as the head of the great company of the saints, xii.
1, 2.—7. This repeated exhortation is, again—in its turn—based upon two
grounds :—(z) the fact that the readers have not yet been called to such sufferings,
in their course, as had come upon some of the O. T. heroes, and upon Jesus, xii.
3,4; and (y) the fact that, in calling His people to endure afflictions and trials
with stedfastness, God is dealing with them in love, as a father treats his children,
xii. 5-11.—8. In view of this, the readers are urged to remove all] hindrances to
stedfast endurance, in the ease of all members of their church :—to lift up the
hands that hang down, etc., and make straight paths, that the lame may not be
turned out of the way, xii. 12, 13; to follow after peace and sanctification, xii. 14;
and to see to it that there be among them no one falling back from the grace of
God, no one who shall, as a root of bitterness, cause trouble and defilement, and no
one who shall sell his birth-right for nothing, as did Esau, xii. 15-17.—9. An
encouragement is given to hold fast the Christian confession, instead of falling
away, which is founded upon the nature of the new system—it is a system of hope
and love, not of terrors; of immediate and free access to God and communion
with Him; of spiritual and heavenly life; and a system which involves the
noblest sacrifice and a new and better covenant, xii. 18-24.—10. In view of this
character of the Christian revelation, as thus presented in its contrast with the
Mosaic, and in its encouraging influence towards stedfastness, the writer closes
with the solemn warning to his readers not to turn away from it, lest they should
meet with sorer punishment than those who had rejected the Mosaic law, xii.
25-29.
The progress of the thought from the beginning of the passage to the end,
therefore, proves that it is all connected with x. 19 ff; that it is, as it were, all
dependent on the ovv of x. 19, and thus founded upon viii. 1—x. 18; and that it
is the hortatory addition to this last section of the epistle. The artistic character
of the plan which the author adopted is thus clearly seen, as it is traced from the
earliest to the latest chapter; and its fundamental difference from any plan
which Paul follows, in any of his epistles, is most conspicuous.
NOTES. 663
that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, but that they will find
no other way of access opened—there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins. 4.
Stronger language is used here in describing the sin, than in ch. vi., but the
connection of this passage with the context and the light which the two passages
throw upon each other seem to imply that the expressions are intended to set forth
what apostasy actually is and involves, rather than any deadly or heaven-daring
opposition to Christ, such as the Pharisees exhibited when they said that He cast
out the demons through Beelzebub.
(6) The comparison with regard to penalty which is made in fv. 28 ff. and the
words of ver. 31 are strikingly similar to what is found in xii. 25 and 29. This
fact is, in itself, an indication that the entire passage x. 19—xii. 29 is intended by
the writer to develop one line of thought.
LXXIV. Vv. 32-39.
(a) In the grammatical connection and the progress of the thought from sen-
tence to sentence, dé (ver. 32) may be regarded as serving the same purpose as dé
of vi. 9—that is, contrasting the hopeful element in the condition of the readers
with the hopeless state of those who have just been mentioned. There can be little
doubt, however, that in the main development of the thought, vv. 32-34 give a
ground for the exhortation to hold fast, or not to apostatize.—(b) The reference to
the past career of the reader-, in ch. vi., calls to mind their love and ministering to
the saints; here, it suggests persecutions and sufferings which they had endured.
But, in both cases alike, the words used imply a feeling on their part of sympathy
towards their fellow-believers.—(c) As to the first of the two principal text-variations,
in ver. 34, the critical editors and commentators are now generally agreed, that roi¢
deopioce is to be read, instead of roi¢ deouoig pov, The grounds for the acceptance
of decuiorg are set forth by Liinem., in his textual note on this verse. It is not
improbable that this is the correct reading, but the Sin. MS. adds much to the
weight of the evidence on the other side. In view of this fact, and of the fact that,
while the connection of Paul’s name with the Epistle may have been a motive to
introduce the reading decyoi¢ yov, it is possible, on the other hand, that the allusion
to prisoners in xiil. 3 occasioned the introduction of deopiorc, it seems questionable
whether the former reading can be so decisively set aside, without any recognition
of its claims, as it is by some writers and by R. V.—(d) The second variation is be-
tween éavrovc and éavroi¢ ;—for év éavroic of T. R. has no sufficient claims to be
considered. éavrot¢ is adopted by Tisch. 8, Treg., W. & H., R. V. text, A. R. V.
marg., and others, and seems to have the greater external authority. éavroic, how-
ever, is read by Griesb., Alf., A. R. V. text, R. V. marg., and others. If the accusa-
tive is accepted as the true reading, the explanation given of the meaning of the
clause by A. RK. V. marg: “ye have your own selves for a better possession,” is to
be preferred to that of R. V. text: “ye yourselves have a better possession.”
Bleek, who adopts éavrois, agrees with R. V. text. év otpavoic inserted by T. R.,
with some authorities, after itapécv is undoubtedly to be rejected.
(e) Ver. 38 is a part of the same citation with ver. 37, and ver. 39 expresses the
writer’s belief that his readers are not among those referred to in the passage as
drawing back. The verses are thus closely related to those which precede. But
evidently they form a connecting link with ch. xi., and in the development of the
main thought they hold the place mentioned in note LXXL
668 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
58 f. [E. T. 59 £.]) will have gor taken as a verb substantive, and tréeraaus,
as likewise éAeyyoc, taken as apposition to ziore: “there is, however, a
faith, a confidence,” etc.—-rior¢] without an article, since the author will
define the notion of ior in general, not exclusively the notion of speci-
fically Christian faith.—imdéoraoi¢] is by many explained as “reality”
(entity, Wesenheit), and placed on a par with ovoia, substantia, essentia, and
the like which, however, is already proved to be inadmissible from the fact
that the notion of “ reality ” cannot be immediately applied, but, in order
to become fitting, must first be changed into that of an “endowing with
reality,” in such wise that one can then make out the sense: faith clothes
things which are not yet at all present with a substance or real existence,
as though they were already present.'—But likewise iaéoracc¢ is not to
be interpreted either by “ fundamentum,”? nor by “placing before one.”?
For neither of the two affords in itself, without further amplification, a
satisfactory, precise notion, quite apart from the fact that the last-men-
tioned signification can hardly be supported by the testimony of linguistic
usage.—The alone correct course is consequently,‘ to take ixdoracie, as
at iil. 14 (vid. ad loc.) as inner confidence.—éAnifouévuv] gen. objecti: of that
(or: with regard to that) which is still hoped for, has not yet appeared in an
actual form. The main emphasis in the predicate rests upon éArifopévoy,
as also upon the concluding words, corresponding in apposition thereto,
ov Bireroputvwr.—rpaypdtwr] belongs to ov Brerouévuv. The conjoining
With éAmouévuw (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Estius, Bohme, Woerner, and
others) deprives the two halves of the proposition of their rhythmical
symmetry.—rpaypdruv dey zoo ob Breropévwv] a being convinced (in mind or
heart) of things which are invisible, i. e.a firm inner persuasion of the exist-
ence of unseen things, even as though they were manifest to one’s eyes.
éAeyzvoco here expresses not the active notion of the convincing or assuring,
but, corresponding to the notion of the forementioned éiéeraare, indicates
the result of the éAéyzecv (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24), as Adyog that produced by
the Atyecv, roro¢ that effected by the rire, etc. Tobe rejected as unsuit-
able are the explanations: Proof, argumentuwm (Vulgate, Ambrose, Schlicht-
ing, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others); indicium (Erasmus); demonstratio
1This mode of interpretation was followed
by Chrys., (ewe:8 yap ra év éAmidt avundotata
dlvat S0xei, wiotts UMdcTtagw avrois xapis-
erat’ waddAov 8d, ov xapigerat aAA’ avrd éoriv
oveta aitwr’ oloy Hn avdoracis ov mapaytyovey
ovdd dotiy év Umootage, add’ H éATis Udiornoy
aurny ev Th Nuetépa Wuxy), Theodoret (Seixvvar
ws Udeotwra Ta pndérw yeyernuéva), Oecume-
nius (mions é€oriv avr H UrdcTracts Kai ovcia
Tov éAmCouevwy mpayparwr éredh yap Ta év
dAriawy avunéotara tatu ws Téws mh wapdévTa, 7
wiotis ovaia Tis aUTw@Y Kai y UmdoTacts yiverat,
elvat ard Kai wapeivat tTporoy Tiva mapacKev-
éLovea da rov morevery elvac) Theophylact
(ovoiwots Tay pi4w OYTWY Kai VIOoTAaCS THY LH
woecrwrwy), by the Vulgate (substantia), by
Ambrose, Augustine, Vatablus (rerum, quae
sperantur, essentia), H. Stephanus (illud, quod
facit, ut jam exstent, quae sperantur), Schlich-
ting, Bengel, Heinrichs, Bisping, and others.
2 With Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, Schuls,
Stein, Stengel, Woerner, and others.
8 With Castellio (dicitur eorum, qua speran-
tur, subjectio, quod absentia nobis subjiciat s¢
proponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse vide-
antur, nec secus eis assentiamur, quam $1
cerneremus) and Paulus.
‘With Luther, Cameron, Grotius, Wolf,
Huét, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Eb
rard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm, LeArbegr.
des Hebrdebr. p. 702, Alford, Maier, Moll, and
others.
5 Delitzsech, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrdertr.
p. 708; Moll, Hofmann.
Oo
QI
CHAP. XI. 2, 3. 669
(Calvin, H. Stephanus, Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Alford, al.); apprehensio
(Clarius); “a certain assurance, guarantee” (Stein), and many others. o¢
Baerdopeva, however, on account of the objective negation, combines
together into the unity of notion “ invisible,” and is a more general char-
acterization than éAw:{dueva. While the latter is restricted to that which
is purely future, the former comprehends at the same time that which is
already present, and denotes in general the supra-sensuous and heavenly.!
Ver. 2. [On Vv. 2, 3, see Note LX XVI., pages 694, 695.] Justification of
the characteristics mentioned, ver. 1, as those that are essential to the
faith. Just this quality of faith was it by which the Old Testament saints
were distinguished, and on that account became objects of the divine
satisfaction and the divine favor.—év rairy] not equivalent to dia rabry¢
(Luther, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel,
Boéhme, and the majority; comp. vv. 4, 39), or: ob eam (Wolf and others),
or touching faith, in point of faith (de Wette, Tholuck, Moll); but: in
possession of a faith so constituted (Winer, p. 362, [E. T., 387 Note '], Bleek,
Bloomfield, Kurtz).—aprvpeiofa:] to obtain a testimony, and that according
to the connection, a good, commendatory testimony, whether by words or
deeds ?.—oi mpecfbrepor] the ancients (Schulz: the early ancestors), t.e. the fore-
fathers under the Old Covenant; with the accessory idea of venerableness.
A like name of honor, as elsewhere (i. 1, al.) of marépec.
Ver. 3. [LX XVI b.c.] The author is on the point of proving out the
truth of ver. 2, in a series of historic instances from the Holy Scriptures
of the O. T., when the thought forces itself upon him that the very first
section of that sacred book of Scripture relates a fact of which the reality
can only be recognized by means of faith. He first of all, therefore, calls
attention to this fact, before proceeding, in ver. 4, to the designed enumer-
ation of those historic examples. Certainly not very aptly, since ver.
3 cannot, as ver. 4 ff., serve in proof of the assertion, ver. 2,
but, on the contrary, introduces into the examination something
heterogeneous in relation to ver. 4 ff. For ver. 3 shows only the ne-
cessity for riori¢ on our part in regard to a fact belonging to the past
and recorded in Scripture; ver. 4 ff. there are placed before our eyes as
models historic persons in whom the virtue of wioric, 80 constituted as the
author demands it of his readers, was livingly present. This judgment,
that ver.3 forms a heterogeneous insertion, is pronounced, indeed, by
Delitzsch, to whom Kluge and Moll have acceded, an “unfair one.” But
the counter observation of Delitzsch: “the author had already at ver. 2,
in connection with of mpeoBirepo:, and particularly in connection with
éuaptupySnoav, the O. T. Scripture before his mind; so that the statement,
1 Calvin : Nobis vita aeterna promittitur, sed
mortuis; nobis sermo fit de beata resurrecti-
one, interea putredine sumus obvoluti; justi
pronuntiamur, et habitat in nobis peccatum ;
audimus nos esse beatos, interea obruimur
infinitis miseriis; promittitur bonorum om-
nium aftluentia, prolixe vero esurimus et
sitimus; clamat Deus statim se nobis adfutu-
rum, sed videtur surdus erse ad clamores
nostros. Quid fieret, nisi spei inniteremur,
ac mens nostra praelucente Dei verbo ac
Spiritu per medias tenebras supra mundum
emergeret?
2Oecumenius: éxaprupiOyncay vwd Ocov eve
peoryxdva: avry.
672 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
éuaptup7 oy.) [LXXVII a.] Ofwhom? Not of Christ, by virtue of the
declaration Matt. xxiii. 35 (Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Justinian), but
of God; as, accordingly, the author himself adds, more nearly defining
the ézaprup79y: paptupovvrog eri roig¢ dwpotg avrov tov Veor| in that, namely,
God gave testimony in respect of his offerings. What is meant is the
testimony given in the fact that God looked with satisfaction upon Abel
and his sacrifice (comp. LXX. Gen. iv. 4: xai émeidev 6 Sede Exi "ABeA
kai émt toi¢ dapotc avrov), thus, in point of fact, recognized him as a dixaco¢
(comp. Matt. xxiii. 35: " ABeA rod dixaiov, and 1 John iii. 12).—xai de abrie
aroVavav ire Aahet] and by virtue of the same (namely: his faith, not: his
sacrifice) he yet speaks after his death—aroSavév] is a purely parenthetic
member: although he has died, and forms with ér: AadAei an oxymoron.
Hardly is it in accordance with the intention of the author to comprehend
in one azoSavoeyv and dz’ atr#c. In addition to the ordinary one, this
explanation also is proposed by Oecumenius, in referring the pronoun
back to the 8vcia by which the violent death of Abel was occasioned; it
is followed by Bengel, with the difference that he supplements &’ aiz¥¢
by ziorews, and will have dé taken in the sense of xara or év.—ér] is not
the temporal: still, adhuc,1 so that Aadei would signify: he speaks to us
of himself and his faith or piety,? or: he summons posterity to the imita-
tion of his faith Rather is ére employed, as Rom. iii. 7 and frequently,
in the logical sense, and serves for the emphasizing of the contrast: “ even
being dead,” or: “notwithstanding he is dead, he nevertheless speaks,”’
while 2aAei is to be regarded as the more vividly descriptive praesens
historicum (Winer, p. 250), [E. T. 266] and is to be referred to the thought
that the shed blood of Abel called to God for vengeance, and God, listen-
ing to this cry, was concerned about the slain Abel, as though he were
still living. For manifestly, as appears also from the parallel xii. 24, there
is an allusion in Aadei to the words, Gen. iv. 10: gw aiparog tov adeAgov
cov og mpd pe EK THO YC.
Vv. 5, 6. The example of Enoch. Comp. Gen. v. 21-24.—Ilicra ’Evoyx
petetédy | By reason of his faith Enoch was caught away; #.e. even during his
lifetime was, like Elijah (2 Kings ii.), caught up to God in heaven.‘—vow
pq ideiv Sévatov] not consecutively [so that], de Wette, Bisping, al., but
indication of the design of God: that he should not see or undergo death
(comp. Luke ii. 26).—xai oby wipioxeto, didte peréSyxev abtov 6 Sede] derived
verbally from the LXX. of Gen. v. 24, as given in the text of the Cod.
Alex.—pé yap ... yiverac; ver. 6] It is related in the Scripture concern-
ing Enoch that he was acceptable to God. But this presupposes that he
had faith. For to obtain God’s approbation without the possession of
enaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Bloomfield, and
1 Theodoret: uéxpe rov mapévros.
2Theodoret: 1d S¢ ére AaAet avi rou aoidcuude
dort wéxpt Tov mapdvTos Kat ToAVOpUAANTOS Kai
Wapa ravTwy evdnuecrat Tay evoeBov ; Heinsius,
Bengel: loquitur de se et sui similibus con-
tra Cainos, al.
8 Chrysostom : 6 yap rapatvav Trois GAAots &-
xaiots eivat, AaAec ; Cornelius a Lapide, Valck-
others.
4Comp. Ecclus, xliv. 16: “Eva, evapéorace
Kupiy kai pereTddyn Ueddecyua peravoias Tac ye-
veais; thid. xlix. 14: o¥8e els éxriaOy olos "Eviex
TOLOUTOS Exi THS ys, Kal yap avTds aveAydOy awd
THs yns; Joseph. Antig. 1.3.4: avexupaoe spds
Td Occov.
692 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
to perish by fire,” as érpfZo9noav, which is found with Cyrill. Hieros., and in
Codd. 110, 111 for éxpioSnoav, or éxvpiodncav, or even one of the forms more
commonly employed for the expressing of this idea,—éverpjodzcav and
éverupiodnoav,—to be the original reading, and then supposes the author
perhaps to have thought once more of martyrs under the tyranny of An-
tiochus Epiphanes, 2 Macc. vi. 11, vii. 4 f.; Dan. xi. 33, al.’ Similarly
Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 111 sqq., who leaves open the choice between
éxphoOnoav and érupdSycav.—lIf imecpdodyoay is genuine, it must have
been added by the author for the sake of the paronomasia with érpioSnoav,
and be referred to the enticements and temptations to escape a violent
death by means of apostasy (comp. e. g. 2 Macc. vil. 24).—év ¢é6vy uayaipag
aréYavov] died by slaughter of the sword. Comp. 1 Kings xix. 10: roi¢ xpo-
¢frac cov arékxrewav év pougaia; Jer. Xxvi. 23: xai éwdragev avrov ty puayaipg
(namely, the prophet Urijah). For the expression év ¢é6mp uayaipac,
comp. LXX. Ex. xvii.18; Num. xxi. 24; Deut. xiii. 15, xx. 18.—1e 9.9 -
Sov... tio y#e, Ver. 38, now further emphasizes the fact that the whole
life of the last-named class of the heroes of faith was one of want and dis-
tress.—epi7Avov év unduraic, év alyeioe déppaci] refers specially to single
prophets. Comp. Zech. xiii. 4.2—repi7Adov] they went hither and thither,
without being in possession of a fixed dwelling-place. Theophylact: 16 dz
repizAdov Td didkecdat avrov¢ dnAoi Kal aorareiv.— év] in, 2. e. clothed with.—
by pnduraic, tv atyetotg dépuactv] in sheep-skins, in goat fells. The latter, as
designation of a yet rougher clothing, is an ascent from the former, and
on that account placed last. s7dAwr#, the hide of smaller cattle in gen-
eral, and specially of sheep. A u7Aer7 is mentioned as the garment of
Elijah, which, on his being caught up to heaven, he left behind to Elisha,
1 Kings xix. 13, 19; 2 Kings viii. 13, 14.—tcrepobpevor, 9A Bbuevor, xaxovyotpe-
vor] in want (sc. of that which is necessary for the sustenance of life), affltc-
tion, evil-treatment (comp. ver. 25).
Ver. 38. ‘Qu obk q aétog 6 xéopoc] Men, to possess whom the (corrupt) world
(ver. 7) was not worthy.2—av] goes back to the subject in repi7Adov, ver. 37.
In a forced manner Bohme (as also Kuinoel, Klee, and Stein): it points
to that which follows, and the sense is: oberravisse illos in desertis tales,
quibus vulgus hominum, ut esse soleat, pravum ac impium, haud dignum
fuerit, quocum illi eodem loco versarentur. Notless unnaturally does
Hofmann look upon dv ovk Fv dktog 6 xéou0g as only a following definition
1Comp. also Philo, ad Flace. p. 990 A (with
Mangey, II. p. 542): xareAvOnody tives (8c.
8Theophylact: Ov« €xere, dno, eiwecy ore
apaptwAot bvres ToLauTA Ewacxov, aAAa ToLOVTOL,
Alexandrine Jews, by Flaccus) cai gwvres
oi péev everpycOnacay ao S€ Sa péons
katecupycay ayopas, we dAa Ta cwpaTa alTwy
éSaravnOn.
2Also Clemens Romanus, ad Corinth. 17:
Mipyrat yerwueda caxeivwy, oirives ev Séppaccy
Giytions Kai prnAwTais Weptematnoay, Knpiocor-
Tes Thy éAevawy Tov Xptgrov’ A€yomey 8¢ 'HAtav
wai "EAtooatov, ere &¢ cai "leCexcyA tovs mpo-
¢yTas.
olor cai Tov Kogpov avToU TimiwrTepor e:pac.
Calvin: Quum ita profugi inter feras vaga-
bantur sancti prophetae, videri poterant in-
digni, quos terra sustineret. Qui fit enim, ut
inter homines locum non inveniant? Sed
apostolus in contrariam partem hoc retorquet,
nempe quod mundua illis non esset dignus.
Nam quocunque veniant servi Dei, ejus bene-
dictionem, quasi fragrantiam bcoi odoris,
secum afferunt.
728 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
CHAPTER XIII.
Ver. 4, The preference over the Recepia topvoic dé is merited on account of
the better attestation (A D* D, Lat. M ¥&, Vulg. Copt. Anton. Max. Bed.) by
mopvovg yép. Commended to attention by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm.
Bleek, Alford, and Tisch. 8.—Ver. 8. Elz: y@é¢. But A C* D* M ®& have
éx6é¢. Rightly admitted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.—Ver. 9. 4) mapagipecbe]
Elz.: py weptgépecbe, Against AC DM X, the later supplementer of B, the
preponderant majority of the cursives, Vulg. Copt. al., and very many Fathers.
Already rejected by Grotius, Bengel, and Wetstein, then by Griesbach, Matthaei,
Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Lachm., Tisch., Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford,
Reiche, and others. Correction to accord with Eph. iv. 14.—Instead of the
Recepta wepinargoavrec, A D* &8* present tepiwarovvres, Placed in the
text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.—Ver. 10.
In place of the Recepta obk Exovorv éEovoiay, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads only ov«
€xzovoryv, and already Mill (Prolegg. 1292) has condemned éfovciav as a gloss.
But éfovolay is lacking only in D* Gr. and Lat. in M and with Damascen.,
whereas it is present in A C D** and*** K ®&, etc. (with Chrysostom before ov«
Exovorv). It was erroneously omitted by reason of its similarity in sound to the
foregoing ovx Zyovorv.—Ver. 11. Elz. Tisch. 8: 10 aiva wep? duapriag cic ra
dyia. SOoDKM B#,etc. In placeof this, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 write, after C* al.,
Copt. Syr. al.: 1d aiva eig ra Gyta mepi duapriag. By means of its varying
position, however, wep? aduapriac betrays itself as a glossematic elucidation, see-
ing that it is entirely wanting in A, in Aeth., and with Chrysostom, and seeing,
moreover, that some cursive Mss. (14, 47) present in place of the singular the
plural wep? duapriav, Rightly therefore have Bleek, Tisch. 2 and 7, and
Alford deleted the addition.—Ver. 17. irép rév yoxdv tydv oc Adyov axoddcovrec]
Instead of which Lachm. in the stereotype ed. and Tisch. 1 chose the order: o¢
Aéyov amoddaovres inip Tov prvxav tuov, But the authority of A, Vulg.
Bede does not suffice for the transposing. Rightly therefore did Lachm. in the
larger ed., and Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, return to the Recepta.—Ver. 18. Elz.: rezoi-
Vapyev, Against the preponderating testimony of A C* D* D, Lat. (suademus)
M, 17, 67** 137, which demands the reading, commended by Griesb. and adopted
by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford: rec9déueda, To the latter points also the Ja
yap ort xaArv in the Cod. Sinait., since in this codex or: xaAj. has been placed
immediately before, only in consequence of a manifest oversight of the copyist.—
Ver. 21. To the Recepta év wavri épyy, instead of which the Cod. Sinait. pre-
sents only év mavri (adopted by Tisch. 8), had Lachmann in the stereotype ed.
further added: «ai Aéyy, which he has yet rightly struck out again in the
larger edition. The addition xa? Aéyq is found only in A, and once with Chry-
sostom, whereas it is twice wanting with the latter. It is a gloss from 2 Thess. ii.
17.—Instead of the mere 70:4» of the Recepta, Lachmann reads in the Edit.
Stereotypa: avrd¢ wot@v; in the larger edition: avr@ rodv. But airég
CHAP. XIII. 1, 2. 729
rests only upon 71 and D, Lat. (ipso faciente); the alleged testimony of C in
favor thereof is founded on an error of Wetstein. avr@, however, which has for
it the authority of A C* ®* and of Gregor. Nyssen., is a disturbing addition, and
manifestly arose only from a twofold writing of the avrow immediately fore-
going.—Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche, Tisch. 8 : ti¢ Tove aidvac
Tav atover, But rdov aiovwy is wanting in C*** D, in many cursives, in Arab.
Armen., with Clem. Alex. and Theodoret. Suspected by Bengel and Griesbach ;
rightly rejected by Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1, 2,7, and Alford. For it is more
probable that the simpler formula, occurring for the rest Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27,
would be enlarged into the ampler formula more usual in the case of doxologies,
than that the ampler would be abbreviated into the simpler one.—Ver. 22. D*
46, 57, al.. Vulg. Syr. Arm. have avézeoat, Adopted by Lachmann. But
the imperative avézveode, presented by the Recepia, is to be retained, as imparting
more animation to thediscourse. This reading is protected by the preponderating
authority of A C D*** K M ®&, etc, Am., Copt. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret (also
in the Commentary), al—Ver. 23. Elz.: rov adeAgév, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1
and 8, de Wette, Delitzsch: Tov adeApov juav. The latter is to be preferred
on account of the stronger attestation by A C D* M &* 17, 31, 37, 39, al, all vas.
Euthal. Maxim. Athan.
Vv. 1-25. Concluding exhortations partly of a general nature, partly
in special relation to the main purport of the epistle, and concluding
notices, followed by a twofold wish of blessing. [On Vv. 1-8, see Note
LXXXITI., pages 745, 746.]
Ver.1. [LXXXIII a, b.] Exhortation to enduring brotherly love —
‘H giAadeAgia] The love of the brethren, t.e. love to the fellow-Christians.'—
pevétw] abide, cease not. For, according to vi. 10, x. 38, the readers had
already exercised this virtue before, and were still exercising it. Yet in
their case, since they had become doubtful regarding the absolute truth
of Christianity, and in part already sought to withdraw from the outward
fellowship of Christians (x. 25), and, moreover, in particularistic prejudice
closed their hearts against a brotherly intercourse with the Gentile
Christians, the renewed inculcation of this virtue was of special importance.
Vv. 2,3. Summons to two particular forms of expression of the general
virtue, ver.1. [LXXXIII ¢.]}
Ver. 2. Exhortation to hospitality.2 Owing to the hatred of the Jews
towards the Christians, and the almost entire absence of public places of
entertainment, hospitality towards fellow-Christians on their journeys
became, for the Palestinians also, an urgent necessity.—d:d ratrys yap
tAafiéy twee Eevioavtes ayyfAove}] Enforcement of the command uttered, by
calling attention to the high honor® which, by the exercise of this virtue,
accrued to single remote ancestors of the Jewish people; for by the mani-
1Comp. Rom. xii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 9; 1 Pet.
{. 22; 2 Pet. i. 7.
2Comp. Rom. xii. 13; 1 Pet. iv.9; 1 Tim. iil
2; Tit. i. 8.
8Comp. Philo, de Abrah. p. 366 (with Man-
gey, II. p. 17 f.): "Eyas 8¢ ov oida riva UwepBo-
Any evdapovias cal paxapréryros elvar da wepi
Thy oixiay, éy f xarayO@jvar xal feviwy Aaxeiy
Uwépetvay dyyeAo. wpds avOpwrous, iepal nai
Oeias ducers, Uwodcdxovos xai Urapxot TOU wpe-
rou @eov &° dy ola wpecBevrwy dca av OedAjoy
Typ yéves Huey wpoOermion, ScayydAAce. -
730 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
festation of hospitality some have unwittingly entertained angels. The
author was certainly, in connection with this statement, thinking specially
of Abraham and Lot (Gen. xviii. 19). We have, moreover, to compare
the declaration of the Lord, Matt. xxv. 44, 45, according to which he who
entertains one of His people, entertains the Lord Himself.—The 21a¥ o»,
written in accordance with genuine Greek praxis, but not occurring else-
where in the N. T., forms a paronomasia with éxrcAavddveote.
Ver. 3. Exhortation to have a care for the prisoners and distressed.—
Mipvhoneote tov decpiov) Be mindful (sc.in order to aid them with minister-
ing love) of the prisoners.—o¢ ovvdedeuévor] as fellow-prisoners, i.e. with as
much devotion to them as though the captivity had fallen upon yourselves.
For the Christians are members of the same body ; asin the prosperity, so
also are they to share in the sufferings one of the other. Comp. 1 Cor.
xii. 26. Béhme (in like manner Heinrichs too) explains: “ quippe ejus
naturae et conditionis homines, qui ipsi quoque pro captivis sint,
nimirum in ecclesia pressa degentes.” Upon this interpretation, it is true,
the twofold o¢ retains its full significance; but in order to represent the
readers as “in ecclesia pressa degentes,” an addition to ovdedeuévor
could not have been dispensed with.—rév xaxovyoupévur] of those who suffer
evil treatment. Tov xaxovzounévev is the genus, under which the foregoing
tov decuiwy are ranged as a particular species.—o¢ Kal avrol vtec év odparte]
([LXXXIIT d.] as sojourning yourselves in a body, thus likewise still sub-
jected to the earthly order of the world, and not secured against the like
ill-treatment. According to Calvin and others, the sense is: since ye indeed
are members of the same body (to wit, the church),—which, however, must
have been indicated by &¢ kai abrot év rH cduare row Xprorov bvrec. Accord-
ing to Beza: as though in your own person ye were xaxovzotpevol,—a sense
which can only with violence be put upon the words.
Ver. 4. Exhortation to chastity in the narrower sense.— Tiso¢] held in
estimation, honorable, sc. forw. [LX XXIII e.] Others supplement éoriv. So
already the Peshito (honoratum est connubium inter omnes), then Beza,
Grotius (apud omnes gentes moratas honos est conjugio), M’Caul, and
others. But against this stands the addition: xai } xoirg apyiavroc, since
the latter could not be asserted as a truth in point of fact. Rather might
the indicative rendering thereof be preserved by taking the clauses
descriptively : ‘Marriage honorable in all things,” etc., which then would
not be different in sense from the direct requirement that marriage should
be honorable. Nevertheless, this mode of interpretation too—recently
adopted by Delitzsch—could only be justified if it were followed by a
long series of similar statements; here, on the other hand, where impera-
tives are placed in close proximity before and after, it is unnatural.—é
yauoc] marriage. In this sense the word occurs frequently with the
Greeks. In the N. T. it has everywhere else the signification : wedding, and
its celebration—év racwv] is neuter: in ull things. The majority take é&
macy as masculine. There is then found expressed in it the precept, either,
as by Luther and others, that marriage should in the estimation of all be
held in honor, ¢.e. not desecrated by adultery; or, as by Bohme, Schulz,
CHAP. xIII, 3-6. 731
and others, that it should not be despised or slighted by any unmarried
person (according to Hofmann, by any one, whether he live in wedlock,
or he think that he ought for his own part to decline it); or finally, as
by Calvin and many, that it is to be denied to no order of men (as later to
the Catholic priests). In the two last cases it is generally supposed that
the reference is to a definite party of those who, out of ascetic or other
interest, looked unfavorably upon the married life. But for all three
modes of explanation, rapaé zaciv would have been more suitably written
than é waow; and a preference for celibacy on the part of born Jews in
particular, to whom nevertheless the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed,
is an unexplained presupposition, because one not in accordance with the
teaching of history.—xai 7 xoiry aulavroc] and the marriage bed (against the
ordinary usus loquendi, Valckenaer and Schulz: the cohabitation) be unde-
filed.—xépvovg yap Kai potyovs xpivet 6 Oedb¢] for fornicators and adulterers
will God judge (condemn at the judgment of the world). Comp. 1 Cor. vi.
9f., al. The 6 Oeé¢ placed at the close of the sentence is not without em-
phasis. It reminds that, though such sins of uncleanness remain for the
most part unpunished by earthly judges, the higher Judge will one day be
mindful of them.
Vv. 5, 6. Warning against covetousness; exhortation to contentedness.
—'AgiAdpyvpoc] free from greediness of money, from covetousness and avarice,
1 Tim. iii. 3. Comp. vi. 24 ff.—< rpéro¢] sc. gorw: let the mind and comport-
ment, the character, be.—dapxotpevot roi¢ mapovow] sc. fore: be contented with
that which is present. ra wapévra here, as Xen. Sympos. iv. 42 (ol¢ yap
padota ta Twapdévra apxei, yxota T&v adAorpluv optyovrac), and often with the
classic writers, of the earthly possession which one has.—avré¢ yap elpnxev]
for He Himself has said, namely, God, as He who is speaking in the
scripture; not Christ (Beza, BGhme, Klee).—ov pq ce avd oS ob ph oe
éyxatadinw] I will in no wise fail thee, nor by any means forsake thee. To this
citation the most similar passages are Deut. xxxi. 6 (obre ph oe avg, obre uh
oe éyxatadiny), ibid. ver. 8 (ovx avhoes oe, ovd2 uh oe éyxaradiry), and 1 Chron.
XXVili. 20 (ctx avfces ce nal ov pH) éyxatadiny); although, in these passages,
instead of the first person singular the third person is used. Less corre-
sponding in point of expression are Josh. i. 5 (ob éyxatadeiyo ce ovd
urepdpouai oe), Gen. Xxvili. 15 (ob ph oe éyxatadirw), and Isa. xli. 17 (ov«
éyxatadeiyw avrotc). On the other hand, theré is found a citation entirely
correspondent to ours in Philo, de Confus. Linguar. p. 344 C (ed. Mang. I.
p. 430). It is possible that, as Bleek and de Wette suppose, the author
adopted the same immediately from Philo. It is, however, also possible
that the utterance, in the form in which we meet with it here and in
Philo, had become proverbial. According to Delitzsch and Kluge, the
utterance of Deut. xxxi. 6 assumed this form in the liturgic or homiletic
usage of the Hellenistic synagogue, in that reminiscences of other
similar O. T. passages blended with the original passage. [According to
Piscator, Owen, and Tischendorf, the reference is to Josh. 1. 5.]
Ver. 6. "Qore Sappowwrac pudc Aéyew x.7.A.] 80 that we boldly say (namely,
in the words of Ps. cxviii. 6): the Lord is my helper, and I will not fear ;
732 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
what can a man do to mef—ri rohoet por dv8pwroc;] is an independent
direct question. Grammatically false is the construction of the Vulgate
(so also Jac. Cappellus and others), which takes the words as dependent
On ov g087970ouac: non timebo, quid faciat mihi homo.
Ver. 7. Exhortation to a remembrance of the former teachers, and an
emulation of their faith.—oi fyobuevur] the presidents and leaders of the con-
gregation. Comp. vv. 17, 24; where, however, those still living are in-
dicated, while here we have to think of those already fallen asleep. By
virtue of the characteristic oirivec éAGAnoav bpiv Tov Adyov Tov Beov
they appear as identical with the persons mentioned ii. 3, the immedi-
ate disciples of Christ, from whom the readers had received the gospel.
—d<v] has reference equally to riv éxPaow rie avactpogg¢ and rHv ziotw.
—avavewpeiv] the prolonged, ‘closely observing contemplation. Comp.
Acts xvii. 23.—rjv exBaow rig avactpop_¢] [LX XXIII f.] not: the course or
path of development of their walk (Oecumenius, but without deciding, and
Lud. de Dieu)—which is opposed to linguistic usage; nor yet: the result
Sor others of their believing walk, inasmuch as many were thereby converted
to Christianity (Braun, Cramer)}—which must have been more precisely
defined by means of additions; just as little: the result of their believing
walk for the tyotueva themselves, as regards their rewarding in heaven
(Storr, Bloomfield, and others), for an dvaveupeiv of the latter, to which
the author is supposed to exhort, would not have been possible; but:
the outlet or end of their walk on earth [1 Cor. x. 13]. Comp. 19 éodov,
Luke ix. 31, 2 Pet. i. 15, and ra dgeév, Acts xx. 29. That which is in-
tended, seeing that in combination with the a4 aVewpeiv tiv ExBaccev
THO GvaoTpooHe @& pipeiodat THY TiaTcy is spoken of, is beyond doubt
the martyr’s death, endured by the earlier leaders and presidents of the
Palestinian congregations, Stephen, James the elder, James the brother
of the Lord, and Peter, whereby they had manifested the strength and
immovable stedfastness of their faith.
Vv. 815. Exhortation to hold aloof from unchristian doctrines and
ritual observances.
Ver. 8 [LX XXIII g.] is ordinarily comprehended in one with ver. 7.
Expositors then find in the utterance either, as Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping,
and others, an adducing of the motive for the emulation of the faithful
leaders enjoined at ver. 7; or, as Zeger, Grotius, Schulz, Kurtz, and
others (comp. already Theophylact), the encouraging assurance that, as
to these leaders, so also to the readers, provided they only take the
faith of these leaders as a model for themselves, the gracious aid of Christ
—of which, however, there was no mention in ver. 7—will not be wanting ;
or finally, as Carpzov,! the more precise information as to that in which
their faith had consisted. More correctly, however, on account of the
antithetic correspondence between 6 airéc, ver. 8, and mocxiAaw xai Efvac,
ver. 9, are the words, ver. 8, taken as constituting the foundation and
1“Imitamini vestrorum praefectorum fidem, nimirum hanc: Jesus Christus heri, hodie
et semper 6 avrds Deus est.” '
“a CHAP, xi. 7-9. 733
preparation for the injunction of ver. 9. Jesus Christ is for ever the same ;
the Christian therefore must give no place in his mind and heart to
doctrines which are opposed to Christ, His nature and His requirements.
—ixdig .. . onepor ... ei¢ Tov¢ aidvac.] [LXXXIIIh.] Designation of
the past, present, and future; exhaustive unfolding of the notion ae. The
expression is rhetorical, éz0é¢ is consequently not to be further ex-
pounded, in such wise that we must think of the time of the former teachers,'
or of the time before the appearing of Christ,? or to the whole time of the Old
Covenant,’ or even to the elernal pre-existence of Christ.A—'Iqaovg Xprorée
is the subject, and 6 atréc¢ (sc. éoriv, not éorw) the common predicate to
all three notes of time. Wrongly Paulus: “ Jesus is the God-anointed
One; yesterday and to-day is He altogether the same ”’—which must have
read: ‘Iyootg 6 Xptords. But mistaken also the Vulgate, Oecumenius,
Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, and others, in that they interpunctuate
after ofuepov: Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day; the same also in eternity.
For that which is to be accentuated is not the elernity of Christ, as would be
the case by means of the éy¥é¢ xai ofpepov taken alone, but the eternal
unchangeableness of Christ.
Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-15, see Note LXXXIV., pages 746, 747.] The ex-
hortation itself, for which preparation was made at ver. 8, now follows.—
Aidayaig worxidac Kai Févate pu) rapagépecde] By manifold and strange doctrines do
not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. As is shown by the connect-
ing of the two halves of the verse by the ydp, expressive of the reason or
cause, the didayal wocxidac xai Eévace are related to the Bpduara men-
tioned immediately after as the genus to a species coming under particular
notice; and, as is manifest from ver. 10 ff., both belong to the specifically
Jewish domain. By didayal morxidac xai &&vazt, therefore, the ordinances
of the Mosaic law in general are to be understood, the observance of
which was proclaimed among the readers as necessary to the attainment
of salvation, while then under Bpdéuara a special group of the same is
mentioned. socxiAae the same are called, because they consist in com-
mands and prohibitions of manifold kind; &&va:, however, because they
are opposed to the spirit of Christianity.—xaidv yap] for it is a-fair thing,
i.e. praiseworthy and salutary.—yédprre BeBaovebat tiv xapdiav] [LX XXIV
c1.} that by grace the heart be made stedfast, in it seek and find its support.
For no other thing than the grace of God is that which determines the
character of the New Covenant, as the law that of the Old, Rom. vi. 14,
al. Erroneously, therefore, Castellio and Bohme, yépere means by thanks-
giving or gratitude towards God ; yet more incorrectly Bisping and Maier:
by the Christian sacrificial food, the Holy Communion.—oi Bpduaci] not
by meats. [LX XXIV b.] This is referred by the majority, lastly by Bohme,
Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr.
p. 158), Alford, Moll, Ewald, and Hofmann, to the Levitical ordinances
1Schlichting, Grotius,) Hammond, Lim- 8 Calvin, Pareus, al.
borch, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, 4Ambrose, de Fide, v. 1.25; Seb. Schmidt,
Maier, Kluge, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, al. Nemethus, and others.
2 Bengel, Cramer, Stein.
734 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
concerning pure and impure food. But only of the sacrificial meals can
ov Bpouao be understood. For rightly have Schlichting, Bleek, and
others called attention to the fact that (1) the expression, ver. 9, is more
applicable to the enjoyment of sacred meats than to the avoiding of un-
clean meats. Schlichting: Cor non reficitur cibis non comestis, sed com-
estis. Ciborum ergo usui, non abstinentiae, opponitur hic gratia; that (2)
it is said of the Christians, at ver. 10, in close conjunction with ver. 9, that
they possess an altar of which the servants of the Jewish sanctuary have
no right to eat; that, finally, (3) at the close of this series of thoughts,
ver. 15, the reference to the sacrifices is retained, inasmuch as there, in
Opposition to the Levitical sacrifices, it is made incumbent on Christians
through Christ continually to offer sacrifices of praise unto God. Tho-
luck, it is true, objects to this reasoning: (1) that Bpduara may denote “ the
clean, legally permitted meats, with (the mention of) which is at the same
time implied the abstinence from the unclean.” But this expedient is
artificial and unnatural; since, if we had in reality to think of the Leviti-
cal precepts with regard to food, in the exact converse of that which
happens the avoiding of unclean meats would be the main idea brought
under consideration. (2) That the connection of ver. 10 with ver. 9 would
only apparently be lost, since one may warrantably assume the following
line of thought; “Do not suffer yourselves to be led astray by a variety
of doctrines alien to the pure truth—surely it is a fairer thing to assure
the conscience by grace than by meats, by means of which no true ap-
peasement is obtained; we Christians have an altar with such glorious
soul-nourishment, of which no priest may eat.” But this supposed
thought of ver. 10 would be highly illogical. For how does it follow from
the fact that Christians have an altar of most glorious soul-nourishment,
that no priest may partake of the same? Logically correct, certainly,
would be only the thought: for we Christians possess an altar with such
glorious soul-nourishment, that we have no need whatever of the Leviti-
cal ordinances regarding food. Then again, at ver. 10, nothing at all is
written about “ glorious soul-nourishment;” but, on the contrary, the de-
sign of this verse can only be to inake good the incompatibility of the
Christian altar with the Jewish. (8) That the exhortation to the spiritual
sacrifices, ver. 15, may be more immediately referred back to ver. 10.
But ver. 10 stands to ver. 9, in which the theme of the investigation, vv.
8-15, is expressed, in the relation of subordination. The following ot»,
ver. 15, may therefore serve for the introducing of the final result from
the whole preceding investigation. (4) Finally, that it cannot be perceived
how the participation in sacrificial meals could have been looked upon
as a means of justification. But the participation in the sacrificial meals
was certainly a public avouchment of participation in the sacrifices them-
selves. Comp. 1 Cor.x.18. Very easily, therefore, might the author be
led finally to take up this preference of his readers for the Jewish sacrifi-
cial cultus in this particular form of manifestation, which had hitherto
remained unnoticed in the epistle—The supports, too, which Delitzsch
has more recently sought to give to the referring of ot Spdyacww to ordi-
CHAP. xr. 10. 735
nances regarding clean and unclean meats, are weak. For that Bpapara
is a word unheard of in the sacrificial thora, but familiar in the legislation
regarding food, and that Spaéya is used elsewhere in the N. T. of that
which is prohibited or permitted for eating, does not in any way fall under
consideration ; because our passage claims before everything to be intelli-
gible per se, nothing thus can be determinative of its meaning which is
Opposed to its expression and connection. That, however, the author
cannot by didayal morxida: nai févac have meant the ordinances of the law in
general, because he has recognized their divine origin, and therefore could
not have indicated them with so little reverence, is a mere prepossession.
For the Apostle Paul, too, speaks of them, as is already shown by Gal. iv.
9 f.,v. 2, with no greater reverence. We are prevented from thinking,
with Delitzsch, of ‘“-erroneous doctrines invented in accordance with one’s
own will, though it may be attaching themselves to the O. T. law,” by the
relation in which didayai¢ oxidase nai Eévacg stands to Bpdpuacw, ver. 9, and
this again to é& ov gayeiv ovx Exovow éfovciay ol TH oxv9R Aarpebovres, ver. 10.—
év oi¢ ovK OpeAgOnoay ol mepixarovvrec] [LX XXIV c2.] from which those busied
therein have derived no profit, inasmuch, namely, as by such partaking of
the sacrifice they did not attain to true blessedness.—éy oi¢ belongs to oi
mepitarovvrec, since these words cannot stand alone, not to ageA#Onoar.
Ver. 10. Justification of ob Bpduaci, ver. 9, the emphasizing of the incom-
patibility of the Christian altar with that of Judaism. We possess an altar, of
which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle, i. e. he who seeks in
the Jewish sacrificial meals, and consequently in the Jewish sacrificial
worship, a stay and support for his heart, thereby shuts himself out from
Christianity, for he makes himself a servant of the tabernacle; but he
who serves the tabernacle has no claim or title tothe altar of Christians.
That the subject in éyouev is the Christian, is acknowledged on all sides.
But equally little ought it ever to have been disputed that by oi rg oxnvg
Aatpet vte¢ persons must be denoted who are contrasted with the Chris-
tians. For, in accordance with the expression chosen, the author can only
mean to say that the Christians possess the right to eat of the altar; those
TH oxy Aatpebovres, on the other hand, forego this right. Quite in a wrong
sense, therefore, have Schlichting, Schulz, Heinrichs, Wieseler (Schriften
der Univ. Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. 42), Kurtz, and others, referred oi ry oxy
Aarpetovrec likewise to the Christians,’ in that they found expressed the
thought: for Christians there exists no other sacrifice than one of which ti is
not permitted them to eat. They then suppose to be intended by of 79 ony
Aatpebovres either, as Schlichting, ‘omnes in universum Christiani,” or, as
Schulz, particular officers of the society, who conducted the Christian wor-
ship. Butin the first case—apart from the fact that then, what would
alone be natural, fF vt dayeiy obx Eyouev eEovoiay Would have been written
180 also Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Auf. verse: “that we, whose only propitiatory
p. 457 ff.), who will have only the twofold fact sacrifice, and one for all alike, is Christ, have
to be accentuated at ver. 10: “that we are no other profit from our means of expiation,
priests,” and “that we possess a means ofex- _— than that we are reconciled.” (!)
piation,” and brings out as the sense of the
736 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
instead of é€ od gayeiv ovn Exovow éfovoiav ol TH oxyv9 Aarpebovres—the Chris-
tians would, as Bleek has already justly observed, have been designated
by a characteristic which could not possibly be predicated of them; in
the second, an anachronistic separation into clerics and laity would be im-
puted to the author, and the sense arising would be unsuitable, since the
proposition, that the warrant for eating of the Christian sacrifice is want-
ing, could not possibly hold good of the clergy alone, but must have its
application to Christians in general. By 9 oxgv4 can thus be un-
derstood nothing other than the earthly, Jewish sanctuary, as opposed
to the GAndaw_ and redeiotépa oxnvh of Christians, viii. 2, ix. 11. The
rH oxmvg Aatpebovres, [LXXXIVc 3.] however, are not specially’ the
Jewish priests (vili. 5), but the members of the Jewish covenant people
universally (ix. 9, x. 2).—The @vo:aorfpiov further is the altar, upon which
the sacrifice of the New Covenant, namely, the body of Christ (comp. ver.
12), has been presented. Not “ipse Christus”? or the Avia itself which
has been presented,® nor yet the culfus (Grotius),can be denoted thereby.
But likewise the explaining of the table of the Supper, the rpdmefa xvpiov, 1
Cor. x. 21‘ is inadmissible. For then there would underlie our passage
the conception that the body of the Lord is offered in the Supper, Christ’s
sacrifice is thus one constantly repeated; but such conception is unbibli-
cal, and in particular is remote from the thought of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in which the presentation of the sacrifice of Christ once for all,
and the all-sufficiency of this sacrifice by its one presentation, is frequently
urged with emphasis; comp. vii. 27, 1x. 12, 25 ff., x. 10. Exclusively cor-
rect is it, accordingly, to understand by the altar® the spvt on which the
Saviour offered Himself, 4. e. the cross of Christ. But to eat of this altar,
t. e. to partake of the sacrifice presented thereon, signifies: to attain to
the enjoyment of the spiritual blessings resulting from Chnist’s sacrificial
death for believers; the same thing as is represented, John vi. 51 ff., as the
eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ.
On vv. 11-13, comp. Bahr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 936 ff.
Vv. 11, 12. Proof for ver. 10. The proof lies in the fact that Christ's
sacrifice is one which has been presented without the camp, and conse-
quently has been freed from all community with Judaism. Ver. 11 and
ver. 12 are, as a proof of ver. 10, closely connected, and only in ver. 12
lies the main factor, whereas ver. 11 is related to the same asa merely
preparatory and accessory thought (Bahr). For the bodies of those
animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest are
burned without the camp ; wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might
sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered without the gate. That
1As Bleek, de Wette, Delitzach, Riehm Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and others (comp.
(Lebrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 161), Alford and
others suppose.
2 Piscator, Owen, Wolf; comp. Calvin.
8Limborch, Whitby, M’Lean, Heinrichs,
and others.
4With Corn. a Lapide, Chr. Fr. Schmid,
Bohme, Bahr (Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 938),
also Rackert, das Abendmahl. Scin Wesen und
seine Geschichte in der alten Kirche, Leips.
1856, pp. 242-246.
§ With Thomas Aquinas, Estius, Jac. Cap-
pellus, Bengel, Bleek, do Wette, Stengel, De-
litzsch, Riehm, l.c., Alford, Kluge, Moll,
Kurtz, Woerner, and others.
CHAP. xu. 11-13. 737
isto say: The N.T. sacrifice of the covenant is typically prefigured by the
great atoning sacrifice under the Old Covenant. Of the victims, however,
which were devoted to the latter, neither the high priest nor any other
member of the Jewish theocracy was permitted to eat anything. For of
those animals only the blood was taken, in order to be brought by the
high priest into the Most Holy Place as a propitiatory offering; the
bodies of those animals, on the other hand, were burned without the
_ camp or holy city (Lev. xvi. 27), wherein was contained the explanation
in an act (comp. Bahr, J. c.), that they were cast out from the theocratic
communion of Judaism. But thus, then, has Jesus also, in that He
entered with His sacrificial blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, made
expiation for the sins of them that believe in Him; His sacrificial body,
however, has, since He was led out of the camp, or beyond the gate of
the holy city, in order to endure the infliction of death (comp. Lev. xxiv.
14; Num. xv. 35 f.; Deut. xvii. 5), declared by this act to be cast out from
the Jewish covenant-people. Eat of His sacrificial body, ¢.e. obtain part
in the blessing procured by His sacrifice, can therefore no one who is still
within the camp, ¢.e. who still looks for salvation from the ordinances of
Judaism. Consequently he who will eat of the altar of Christ must
depart out of Judaism, and go forth unto Christ without the camp (ver.
18).—ra aya] as ix. 8, 12, 24, 25, x. 19, the Most Holy Place——The tenses in
the present mark the practice as one still continuing.—apeuBo24] Charac-
terization of the dwelling-place of the Jewish people at the time of the
lawgiving, while it was still journeying through the wilderness and had
tents forits habitation. The camp wasthe complex of the tents, enclosing
the totality of the people together with the sanctuary. Thus there was
combined with the idea of locality the religious reference to the people as
one covenant-people, and “without the camp” became equivalent in
signification to “ without the bounds of the Old Covenant.” But, since
afterwards the city of Jerusalem, with the temple in its midst, took the
place of the mrapeuBoag, the E&w rH¢ mbAne standing in ver. 12, without
the gate, sc. of the city of Jerusalem, says in effect the same thing as éw
rig mapeuBoaAgc, vv. 11, 13.—dé:6] wherefore, i. e. because the sacrificial death
of Jesus has been prefigured by the type mentioned, ver. 11.—idiov] oppo-
sition to the animal blood in the O. T. sacrifices of atonement.—rav Aaév]
see at ii. 16, p. 182.—érafev} comp. ix. 26.
Ver. 18. [L.XXXIV c 4.] Deduction from vv. 10-12, in the form of a
summons: Let us then no longer seek salvation for ourselves within the
bounds of Judaism, but come forth from the camp of the Old Covenant
and betake ourselves to Christ, untroubled about the reproach which may
fall upon us on that account. Theodoret: fw tie mapepBodrge avri rov tu
ri¢ kata vouov yevoueba rodreiag. False, because opposed to all the con-
nection, is it when Chrysostom 1, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus,
Paraphr., Clarius, and others find in ver. 18 the exhortation to renounce
the world and its delights; or Chrysostom 2, Limborch, Heinrichs, Dindorf,
Kuinoel, Bloomfield: willingly to follow the Lord into sufferings and
death; or Schlichting, Grotius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr: willingly to
47
‘
738 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
submit to expulsion by the Jews from their towns and fellowship; or
Clericus: to forsake the city of Jerusalem on account of its impending
destruction (Matt. xxiv.). —roivw] as the commencement of a sentence
only rare. Comp. LXX. Isa. iii. 10, v. 13, xxvii. 4, xxxii. 23; Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 342 sq.—rov dvecdiopov avrov] See at xi. 26.
Ver. 14. [LX XXIV c 5.] Ground of encouragement to the ¢épev ray
éverdioudy tov Xpiotov, ver. 138.—éyouev] namely: we Christians. Not: we
men in general.—ide| here upon earth. Erroneously Heinrichs: in the
earthly Jerusalem.—riv péiddovouv] sc. wédcv: the city to come, which, namely,
is an abiding one. Comp. xil. 22: ‘Iepovoaaju éroupévioc, and xi. 10: 4 rove
Oeperiovg Exovoa wéduc, Ao Texvitne Kal Onusovpydc 6 Oeds. Rightly, for the
rest, does Schlichting observe: Futuram autem civitatem hanc vocat, quia
nobis futura est. Nam Deo, Christo, angelis jam praesens est.
Ver. 15. Closing exhortation, through Christ, to offer to God sacrifices
of praise. Deduced from wv. 8-14.—Av? abroi] is with great emphasis pre-
posed : through Him (sc. Christ), but not through the intervention of the
Jewish sacrificial institution. Through Him, inasmuch as by the all-
sufficiency of His expiatory sacrifice once offered, He has qualified
believers so to do.—tvaiav aivéiceuc] a praise-offering (OVA M31), thus a
spiritual sacrifice, in opposition to the animal sacrifices of Judaism.—déa
mavtéc} continually. For the blessings obtained through Christ are so
abundant and inexhaustible, that God can never be sufficiently praised
for them.—rovréori xapriv yedsov sporoyobvtey tO dvduate avrov] that is,
| fruit of lips which praise His name. Elucidation of the meaning in #ciay
aivéoewc, in order further to bring into special relief the purely spiritual
nature of this Christian thankoffering already indicated by those words.
The expression xaproyv yersAéwv the author has derived from Hos. xiv.
3, LXX.: Kai avrarodécopev xaprov yedéov juov (in the Hebrew: 11990)
wWNDv OD, let us offer for oxen our own lips).'—The referring of airov to
Christ (830 Sykes, who finds the sense: confessing ourselves publicly as the
disciples of Christ) is unnatural, seeing that God has been expressly men-
tioned only just before as the One to whom the @vwia aivécews is to be
presented.
Ver. 16. [On Vv. 16-21, see Note LX XXV., pages 747, 748.] Exhorta-
tion to beneficence. By means of dé this verse attaches itself to the pre-
ceding, inasmuch as over against the Christianly devout mind which
expresses itself in words, is placed the Christianly devout mind which
manifests itself in deeds.—Tir dé evroitacg Kai xowwviag ph ExtAavdaveove }
([LXXXV a.] Of well-doing, moreover (the substantive eirocta only here
in the N. T.; ed toveiv, Mark xiv. 7), and fellowship (t.e. communication
of earthly possession, comp. Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 13), be not forgetful
(ver. 2).—rowabrais yap Ovoiag evapeoreiras 6 Oedc] for in such sacrifices God
1 For the thought, comp. Vajikra R.9.27,in — preces cessabunt, sed laudes non cessabunt.
Wetstein: R. Pinchas, R. Levi et R. Jocha- _—_— Philo, de Sacrificantibus, p. 849 E (with Mang.
nam ex ore R. Menachem Galilaei dixerunt: II. p. 253): raw apiorny dvayovar bvciay,
Tempore futuro omnia sacrificia cessabunt, Uprotsxat evyapiotiacs roy evepydrny Kai cwrapa
sacrificium vero laudis non cessabit. Omnes @edv yepaiporres.
CHAP, XIII. 14—18. 739
has pleasure—roatrac] refers back only to evmrodag Kai xocveviac, not
likewise to ver. 15.'—The formula evapecroiyat rive is elsewhere foreign
to the N. T. as to the LXX.; with later Greek writers, however, not
unusual.
Ver. 17. Exhortation to obedience to the presidents of the assembly.
[LXXXV 6.] Comp. 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.—TIleibeoGe roig qyovpévorg tov xat
ureixere] Obey your leaders, and yield to them. Bengel: Obedite in iis, quae
praecipiunt vobis tanquam salutaria; concedite, etiam ubi videntur plus-
culum postulare. The demand presupposes, for the rest, that the author
knew the #yotzevoe as men like-minded with himself, who had kept them-
selves free from the hankering after defection.—avroi yap aypurvovow irip
Tov puxov tudor] for it is they who watch for your souls, for the salvation thereof.
—we Adyov aroddcorres |] as those who must give an account (of the same), sc. to
God and the Lord at His return.—iva] is the subsequently introduced note
of design to zeiOcofe xai treixere. On that account, however, it is not per-
mitted, with Grotius, Carpzov, and others, to enclose airoi yap... tpav
within a parenthesis; because the subject-matter of the clause of design
refers back to the subject-matter of the foregoing establishing clause.—
peta yapac] with joy, namely, over your docility.—roiro] sc. 7d aypuTvetv. Er-
roneously do Owen, Whitby, Michaelis, M’Lean, Heinrichs, Stuart, and
others supplement rd Adyov arodidéva:. For the latter takes place only in
the future, whereas the conjunctive of the present ro:dorv points to that
which is already to be done in the present.—xai yp) orevdfovreg] and without
sighing, 8c. over your intractableness.—advorredéc] unprofitable, inasmuch as
it will bring you no gain, but, on the contrary, will call down upon you
the chastisement of God. A lilotes.—rovro] sc. rd orevdCerv.
Vv. 18, 19. Summons to the readers to intercession on behalf of the
author. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 25; 2 Thess. iii. 1; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19;
Col. iv. 3.—zepi juav] The plural has reference exclusively to the author
of the epistle. In addition to himself, to think of Timothy (Seb. Schmidt,
al.), or of the #yobuevor spoken of ver. 17 (Carpzov, Kluge), or of the fellow-
laborers in the gospel in the midst of the Gentile world, remote from the
Hebrew Christians (Delitzsch, comp. also Alford), or of the companions in
his vocation, with regard to whom it was to be made known that they
wished to be looked upon as joint-representatives of the subject-matter of
the epistle (Hofmann), is arbitrary. For—apart from the fact that no
mention has been made of Timothy until now, and that the presupposition
that the author wished himself to be numbered among the #yobpzevo: spoken
of in ver. 17 is a wholly baseless one—the singular, which in ver. 19 with-
out any qualification takes the place of the preceding plural, is in itself
decisive against this view. For, even if perchance at ver. 19 the person
of the writer had to be brought into special relief, out of a plurality of per-
sons indicated at ver. 18, a distinguishing éyé as addition to the simple
mapaxaa® could not have been wanting.—zeBdpefla yap bre x.7.A] [LX XXV c.]
for we persuade ourselves, i.e. we suppose or take it to be so (comp. Acts
1 Theophylact, Schlichting, Bengel, Bohme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Woerner.
740 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
xXvi. 26), that' we have a good conscience, since we endeavor tn all things to
walk ina praiseworthy manner. Indication of the reason on the ground
of which the author believes he is entitled to claim an interest on the part
of the readers, manifesting itself in intercession on his behalf. But in the
fact that he regards such explanation as necessary, there is displayed the
consciousness that the Palestinian Christians took umbrage at him and his
Pauline character of teaching; to remove this umbrage is therefore the
object of the justificatory clause.—év rao.v] belongs to that which follows,
not still? to éyovev; and raoucy is not masculine, but neuter.
Ver. 19. Meptocorépuc] is on account of its position more naturally
referred to tapaxado than‘ to roijoar—iva tayziov axoxaracraSa ipiv] that I
may the sooner be restored to you, may be in a position to return to you.
There is to be inferred from these words, neither that the author, at the
time of the composition of the epistle, was a prisoner,’ nor yet that he
belonged, as member, to the congregation of those to whom he was
writing.£ The former not, because the notice, ver. 23: ye®? ov, tay réxtov
Epyntat, Spouae vuac, shows beyond refutation that the writer at the time
of the composition of the epistle was able to dispose freely of his own per-
son. The latter not, because it is illogical to place the general notion of
a “being restored ” to a community upon a level with the special notion
of the “ return of one who has been torn from his home.” Only two
things follow from the words, namely (1) from the rdéyzcov, that the
author was still prevented, in some way or other which had nothing to do
with his personal freedom, from quitting his temporary place of residence
so quickly as he could wish; (2) from aroxaracra@é, that he had
already, before this time, been personally present in the midst of his
readers. *
Vv. 20, 21. A wish of blessing. [LXXXV d.] Chrysostom : IIpérov rap’
avréy airfoag tag evyds, tére xai avTd¢ avtoig érebyetat mavta ta ayadda.—é
Oedc rH eipfync] A designation of God very usual with Paul also. Its im-
port may either be, as 1 Thess. v. 23 (see at that place): the God of salva-
tion, i.e. God, who bestows the Christian salvation; or, as Rom. xv. 33,
xvi. 20, Phil. iv. 9, 2 Cor. xiii. 11: the God of peace, i.e. God, who produces
peace. In favor of the first acceptation, which is defended by Schlichting,
may be urged the tenor of the benediction itself. In favor of the latter
acceptation decides, however, the connection of thought with ver. 18 f.
1 Bengel, BOhme, Kuinoel, Klee, and others
take orc—in reading the received wewoi@a-
mew ydp, and then supposing this to be put
absolutely—as the causal “ for” or “ because,”
which, however, even supposing the correct-
ness of the Recepta, is forced and unnatural.
Yet more unsuitable, however, is it when
Hofmann, even with the reading wec@oue6a,
will have 6m taken causally. The sense is
supposed to be: “if we believe that ye are
praying for us, this has its ground in the fact
that we have a good conscience.” But to
derive the more precise indication of con-
tents for the dependent wrec@cueGa from that
which precedes, is altogether inadmissible.
3 As Oecumenius and Theophylact suppose,
8Chrysostom: ove dv é@vuxois pdévoy @AAa
kai ev wupniv; Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Luther, Er. Schmid, Tholuck, Hofmann, al.
4With Seb. Schmidt, Rambach, Bengel,
and Hofmann.
6Euthalius, Calov, Braun, Bisping, and
others.
®R. Kostlin in the Theol. Jahrb. of Baur and
Zeller, 1853, H. 3, pp 423, 427, and 1854, H. 3,
pp. 369, 406.
CHAP. XI. 19, 20. 741
For, since the closing half of ver. 18 betrayed the presupposition that the
receivers of the epistle were biassed by prejudice against the person of
the writer, there lies indicated in the fact, that in the following wish of
blessing God is designated as the God who creates peace, the further idea,
‘that He will also make peace between the readers and the writer, 7. e. will
bring the Christian convictions of the readers into harmony with that of the
writer. Soin substance Chrysostom (rovro ele dia 1d oracidlewv airotc. Ei
toivuv 6 ede eiptync Bede éote i) Staoracidlere mpdc juac), Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Jac. Cappellus, and others. Wrongly do Grotius, Bbhme, de Wette,
Bisping, and others derive the appellation “the God of peace ” from the
supposition that reference is made to the contentions which prevailed
amongst the members of the congregation itself. For the assumption of
a state in which the congregation was rent by internal dissensions, is one
warranted neither by xii. 14 nor by anything else in the epistle.—#é avaya-
yov «.7.4.] Further characterizing of God as the God who, by the raising
of Christ from the dead, has sanctioned and attested the redeeming work
of the same.—é avayayov éx vexpov] He who has brought up from the dead,
i.e. who has raised from death. Wrongly do Bleek, de Wette, Bisping,
Maier, Kluge, and Kurtz suppose that in 6 avayayéy is contained at the
same time the exaltation into heaven. For, since é avayayév does not
stand absolutely, but has with it the addition é« vexpév, 80 must that idea
also have been made evident by a special addition. There would thus
have been written 6 éx vexpav ei¢ ioc avayayév, or something similar.
Compare, too, Rom. x. 7, where in like manner, as is shown by ver. 9, by
the Xprordy éx vexpov avayayeiv is denoted exclusively the resurrection of
Christ, and not likewise His ascension.—rdv rotuéva tov rpoBdtur Tov péyav |
the exalted (comp. iv. 14) Shepherd of the sheep. For the figure, comp. John
x.11 ff; Matt. xxvi. 31; 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4 (6 apyerouugv). According to
Theophylact, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofmann,
and others, the author had in connection with this expression present to
his mind LXX. Isa. Ixiii. 10, where it is said in regard to Moses: zov 6
avaBiBdoag éx TH¢ Saddoons Tov Totméva Tov rpoBdtrwv,—a supposition which, con-
sidering the currency of the figure in the N. T., may certainly be dispensed
with —év aipare dtad Gung aiwviov] [LXX-XV d 1, 2] in virtue of the blood of an
everlasting covenant, i.e. in virtue of the shed blood of Christ, by which the
New Covenant was sealed; comp. ix. 15 ff., x. 29. Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Clarius, Calvin, Bengel, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Kurtz, Hof-
mann, Woerner, and others conjoin these words with 6 avayayév, but then
again differ. from each other in the determining of the sense. According to
Bleek and Kurtz (similarly Bisping), the author intends to say: “God
brought up Christ from the dead in the blood of the everlasting covenant ;
in such wise that He took, as it were, the shed blood with Him, in that
He opened up to Himself by the same the entrance into the heavenly
sanctuary, and it retained continually its power for the sealing of an ever-
lasting covenant.” But this interpretation falls with the erroneous pre-
supposition that 6 avayayév includes in itself likewise the idea of the ex-
altation to heaven. According to Oecumenius 2, Theophylact 2, and Cal-
742 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
vin, év, on the other hand, stands as the equivalent in signification to ot»:
who has raised Christ from the dead with the blood of the everlasting covenant,
so that this blood retains everlasting virtue; while Clarius (comp. the first
interpretation in Oecumenius and Theophylact) understands the words as
though ei¢ 7d eivas 16 aiuva airov yyuiv ic dtadhxyy aidviov had been written, and
Bengel, as likewise Hofmann, makes év aivat: the same as dca 1d aixa(for
the blood’s sake). But all these acceptations are linguistically untenable.
Equally inadmissible is it to take év, in this combination, instrumentally
(Delitzsch, Kluge: “by means of, by the power of, by virtue of;” Alford:
“through the blood’”’). . For if one insists on the strict signification of the
instrumental explanation, there arises a false thought, since the means
by the application of which the miraculous act of the resurrection
was accomplished is not the blood of Christ, but the omnipotence of God.
If, however, we mingle the notion of mediately effecting with that of the
meritorious cause, as is-done by Delitzsch and Alford, inasmuch as the
former dilutes the “ kraft” (by virtue of) into “ virtute ac merito sanguinis
ipsius in morte effusi,” the latter the “through” into “in virtue of the
blood,” we come back to Bengel’s ungrammatical equalizing of é aiparz
with dia rd aiva. Another class of expositors combine é aipare diabynyc
aiwviov with the pzéyay immediately foregoing; either, as Sykes and Baum-
garten, in taking rév véyay as a notion per se; or, as Starck, Wolf, and
Heinrichs, prolonging in connection with it the idea of the shepherd.
Nevertheless, it is most natural! to regard év aipare diadAxn¢ aivviov as in-
strumenta] nearer definition to the total idea rov romuéva tov xpoBatuv rv
péyav ; in such wise that by the addition is indicated the means by which
Christ became the exalted Shepherd, with whom no other shepherd may
be placed upon a parallel. Comp. Acts xx. 28: mpooéyere . . . mavti tO
royvi, Ev w tag TO Tvevpa Td Gytov ESeTO Emtoxbrous, Totuaivey THY EKKAnN-
ciav Tov Kupiov, fv meptewotfoato dia Tov aiparog rov idiov—
Stadixne atwviov} Comp. Jer. xxxii. 40, 1. 5; Isa. lv. 3, 1x1. 8.2?
Ver. 21. Karaprioca: inag év xavti ipyy ayabo] [LXXXV d 3.] cause that ye
become aprio, ready or perfect, in every good work. Oecumenius: xAnpdcat,
tedesoat. That, for the rest, xaraprica: is optative, and not, as Kurtz
strangely supposes, imperative aorist middle, is self-evident.—ei¢ 73 zoujoar]
Statement of the design, not of the effect (Schlichting and others): that ye
may accomplish.—rd 0éAnua abrov) His will, i.e. that which is morally good
and salutary. There is certainly comprehended under the expression the
faithful continuance in Christianity.—rody iv tyuiv 1rd ebdpectov évoroy
airov dia "Inco Xpeorov)] [LXXXV d4.] working in you (wrongly Bohme:
among you) that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Christ Jesus.
Modal definition to xarapricat.—rd ebdpectov évdartov avrov] Comp. 2 Cor. v.
9; Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Eph. v. 10; Phil. iv. 18.—déca ’Ijcov Xproroi] be-
IWith Beza, Eatius, Grotius, Limborch, é:adsjxnv, ws éerépas pera ravryny ovK éconéerns”
Schulz, Béhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, iva yap uy ris UroddBp, cat ravryy &’ aAAys
Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. &adyans savbjoecOat, eindrug avres Td areAcv-
601), Maier, Moll, and others. ryrov eSefer.
2Theodoret: Aiwmoy 8 thy cacyny néxAnxe
CHAP. xlII. 21-23. 143
longs neither to xaraprica: (Bloomfield) nor to 1d evdpeorov évorwov avrodv
(Grotius, Hammond, Michaelis, Storr, and others), but to roav.—o 7 dé£a
eig rovg aiavac] sc. éorw—7} dééa] the glory due to Him.—The doxology is
referred by Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti,
Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Woerner, and others, to God; and in favor of
this it may be urged that in the wish of blessing 6 éeé¢ forms the main
subject. More correctly, however, shall we refer it, partly on account of
the immediate joining of » to 'Iycot Xpiotov, partly on account of the
design of the whole epistle, to warn the readers, who had become waver-
' ing in their faith in Christ, against relapse into Judaism, with Calvin, Jac.
Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bis-
ping, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriéerbr. p. 286), Maier, Moll, and the
majority, to Christ. [LXXXV d5.]
Ver. 22. [On Vv. 22-25, see Note LXXXVI., page 748.] Request for
friendly reception of the epistle—avéyecbe rov Adyou tij¢ mapaxAfoeuc |
[LXXXVI a.] bear with the word of the exhortation, grant it entrance with
you, close not your hearts against it. Mistakenly do the Vulgate, Stein,
and Kluge make wapdéxayore here have the signification of “ consola-
tion.” Neither the verb avézeofe nor the tenor of the epistle is in keeping
therewith.—<o Aédyo¢ rij¢ mapaxAgceus] Comp. Acts xiii. 15. Not merely the
admonitions scattered here and there in the epistle (Dindorf, Kuinoel) are
to be understood under this expression ; and just as little is merely chap.
xiii. (Semler), or the last specially hortatory sections, chap. x. 19-xiil.
(Grotius, Calov, and others), thought of in connection therewith. Rather
is there intended by it, as also the following ééore:Aa proves, the epistle
in its full extent.—xai yap did Bpaxéuv éxéoreita iyiv] Argument for the
reasonableness of the request on the ground of the brevity of the epistle:
for I have also (i.e. apart from the fact that, by reason of your perilous
wavering in the Christian faith, the admonishing of you was laid as a duty
upon my conscience), as you see, written to you only with brief words.
Theophylact: Tocatvra eimdv, buwc Bpayta ravtd gyotv, dcov mpdc & éErediper
Aéyerv. Quite remote from the meaning is that sense which Kurtz would
put upon the words: the readers were also to take into account the fact that the
epistle has, owing to its brief compass, often assumed a harsher and severer form
of expression, than would be the case in connection with a more detatled amplifica-
tion and a more careful limitation. —éu Bpazéwv] of the same import as 6?
ddiywv, 1 Pet. v. 12.—émioréAAev] in the signification “to write a letter,”
elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25.
Ver. 23. Communication of the intelligence that Timothy has been set
free, and the promise, if the arrival of Timothy is not long delayed, in
company with him to visit the readers.—y:véoxere] is imperative, not
tndicative.* For, that the author would be obliged to communicate further
1Peshito, Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, ner, and others.
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Owen, Bengel, '2Vatablus, Néaselt, Opuse. I. p. 256; Morna,
Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, I. p. 278; Stein, Ebrard, Schulz, Bleek ad loc., and Finl. in d. N. T.,8
Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Aufl. p. 583: de Wette, al.
Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, Woer-
744 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
details concerning the liberation of Timothy in the case that the readers
had not yet known of it, cannot be maintained ; while, on the other hand,
upon the supposition of the indicative, the whole notice would become
superfluous.—y:vwoxete arroneAvpévov] [LX XXVI b, c.] know as one released,
i.e. know that he has been released. Comp. Winer, p. 324 [E. T. 346].
Wrongly will Storr, Schleussner, Bretschneider, Paulus have y:vdéoxere
taken in the sense: hold in honor, or: receive with kindness, against which,
equally as against the interpretation of Schulz: “ye know the brother
Timothy, who has been set at liberty,” the non-repetition of the article ré»
before the participle is in itself decisive.—azoAeAvpévov] is to be understood
of liberation from imprisonment.’ Of an imprisonment of Timothy noth-
ing is known to us, it is true, from other sources, but the possibility of the
same cannot be disputed. The suppositions, that arozeAuuévoy signifies :
sent away to the Hebrews with our epistle (Theodoret, subscription of the
epistle in many cursives: éypd¢y7 amd "Iradiac dtd Tiwodiov; Faber Stapu-
lensis, al.), or: sent away somewhither, and consequently absent from the
author (Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Carpzov, Stuart, and others),
have the simple signification of the word against them.—éav rayiov épynra:]
if he very speedily (earlier, sooner than I leave my present abode) comes to
me (incorrectly Grotius, Heinrichs, Stuart, al.: returns).—dpoua: ipa]
Oecumenius : épydpyevog mpdc ipa.
Ver. 24. Request for the delivering of salutations, together with the
conveying of salutations to the readers.—rdvrag roig pyoupuévorg tudv kai
mavrag tovg dyioug] This designation of persons has about it something
surprising, since according to it the letter would have the appearance of
being addressed neither to the presidents of the assembly, nor to the
whole congregation, but to single members of the latter. Probably, how-
ever, the meaning of the author is only that those to whom the epistle 1s
delivered, for reading to the congregation, should greet as well all the
presidents as also all the other members of the congregation.—oi a7é ri¢
"Iradiac] [LX XXYVI d.] is not to be explained from the absorption of one
local preposition into another; in such wise that it should stand for oi év
ty "Iradig amd tHe '"Iradiac, which is thought possible by Winer, p. 584
[E. T. 629]. It signifies: those from Italy, i.e. Christians who have come
out of Italy, and are now to be found in the surroundings of the writer.
The general expression : of awd r#¢ 'Iradiac, seems to point to a compact
number of persons already known to the readers. It is highly probable,
therefore, that those referred to are Christians who, on the occasion of the
Neronian persecution, had fled from Italy, and had settled down for the
time being at the place of the author’s present abode. The expression
shows, moreover, that the epistle was written outside of Italy. See p. 13.
Ver. 25. Concluding wish of blessing, entirely in accord with that of Tit.
lil. 15.
180 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo- Schmid, Béhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel,
phylact (all three, however, with hesitation), Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurta,
then Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Seb. Schmidt, | Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, and othera.
Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Sykes, Chr. Fr.
NOTES. 145
Nores By AMERICAN EDITor.
LXXXIII. Vv. 1-8.
(a) Ch. xiii. contains eight exhortations, which are unconnected with the
development of the main thought of the epistle and also unconnected with each
other, as follows:—1l. With reference to Christian brotherly love, including
hospitality and sympathy with those in bonds, vv. 1-3; 2. With reference to
chastity, ver. 4; 3. With reference to covetousness, vv. 5,6; 4. With reference to
imitating the deceased leaders of the Church, vv. 7, 8; 5. An exhortation not to
be led astray by Jewish doctrines and observances, vv. 9-15; 6. An exhortation to
beneficence, ver. 16; 7. An exhortation to obedience to the present leaders of the
Church, ver. 17; 8. An exhortation to prayer for the writer, vv. 18, 19. These
exhortations are brief, and they are such as might be added by any writer at the
close of his letter or discourse, whatever was the plan of his work. They con-
stitute in no proper sense a practical section of the epistle. The very marked
difference between this chapter and the passage from x. 19 to xii. 29 will be
noticed by all students, and will tend, as they observe it, to convince them that
the last-mentioned passage is subordinate to viii. 1—x. 18.—(b) After these ex-
hortations, the author adds a prayer that the readers may be blessed of God, vv.
20, 21, and then, with a request that they would kindly receive the appeal and
admonition of his letter, ver. 22, an expression of his hope to visit them in com-
pany with Timothy at an early day, ver. 23, and brief salutations, ver. 24, he
closes the epistle with the Apostolic benediction, ver. 25.
(c) The special allusion to hospitality and sympathy for the distressed—making
these the prominent exhibitions of brotherly love which he would mention—is to
be accounted for in connection with the peculiar circumstances and needs of the
period in which the writer and readers were living. The prominence here given
to prisoners among the class of those who suffer evil may, perhaps, have some
weight as favoring the text-reading deoyiog in x. 34, as the original one. This
word in the present verse may possibly, however, have occasioned a change in x.
34 from deopoi¢g to decpiotg (see Note LXXIV c); but this is less probable.—(d)
év oGyart is correctly explained by Liinem., but whether it should be rendered, as
by him, in a body, or, as by R. V. and others, in the body, is uncertain. The two
English expressions, in such a case, may be nearly equivalent to each other.—(e)
That the verb to be supplied in ver. 4 is éorw, not éori, is placed beyond any con-
siderable doubt by the hortatory character of the surrounding sentences and of
the entire chapter. é» aow is best taken as neuter; so Bleek, Alf., Moll,
Liinem., Delitzsch, de W., Kay, in Bib. Comm., and others. A. V., R. V.,
Stuart, W. & Wilk., Hofm., Thol., and others regard aocv as masculine.
(f) Respecting the word éxBaog (ver. 7) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) says, “non est
simpliciter finis vitae physicae, sed modus quo vitam bene actam absolverunt mente, quam
prodiderunt moriendo.” That the reference is to a death by martyrdom, though
probable, can hardly be affirmed, with Liinem., to be beyond doubt. The proba-
bility of this reference is indicated by the suggestion that vrouov# is involved in
riorv, which arises from the use of the words in the previous chapters, and by
the suggestion that this vrouovf was carried to the extreme point in these per-
sons, which is connected with the fact that they are so prominently mentioned
as examples of faith. Comp. xi., xii. 4. “Contemplating the way in which
746 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
(i. e. martyrdom) they end their holy manner of living, imitate their faith,”
(W. & Wilk).
(9) The connection of ver. 8 with vv. 9 ff. only, which is favored by Liinem.,
on the ground of the antithetic correspondence of 6 auré¢ with mutidaw nal
§&vacc, is not made necessary by this consideration. On the other hand, the
rhetorical force of the striking words of this verse, and the natural suggestion
of the ever-continuing sameness of Jesus in the reference to the faith and
perseverance of the leaders who had died, make the connection with ver. 7 more
probable. The readers should imitate the faith of those whose lives were already
finished, remembering the fact that “ Jesus Christ is yesterday and to day the
same; yea and for ever.”—(h) The explanation of éy6é¢ «1.4. as a designation
of the past, present and future, which is given by Liinem., is to be preferred to
-any of the other explanations to which he refers. The writer has in mind, no
doubt, the case of the deceased leaders, as he thinks of the past, und of those
whom he addresses, as he thinks of the present. But he uses a universal ex-
pression, which covers all time and may apply to past, present and future in any
age of the Church.
LXXXIV. Vv. 9-15.
(a) While the primary connection of ver. 8 is with ver. 7, the words of ver. 8
contain or suggest the idea of the ever-abiding sameness of the great Christian
truth. This suggestion naturallv leads the writer to the exhortation: not to be
carried away to other doctrines.—(6) The principal question of these verses relates
to the word BpGyuacw of ver. 9. The view of Liinem., Bik., and others, that it
refers to the sacrificial meats, is favored by the fact, that the thought moves on in a
single line to the end of the passage, if this view is adopted, and that the compari-
son of the sacrifices of the two systems is in accordance with the suggestions of
the immediately preceding chapters. Moreover, this writer does not occupy
himself in the Epistle with the subject of clean and unclean meats, as Paul does,
but with the O. T. system as a whole, or in its central and vital parts, as a pre-
paratory and inferior system. On the other hand, there is a reference to Levitically
clean meats in ix. 10, where Bpauaoz is used ; this meaning of the word will more
easily explain the adjectives sorxiAag and févaicg; and it is possible that the
writer may intend to change the thought in ver. 10, as Alf. holds:—“ those
ancient distinctions are profitless; one distinction remains: that our true meat
is not to be partaken of by those who adhere to those old distinctions: that
Christianity and Judaism are necessarily and totally distinct.” If the passage
is, as Liinemann claims, to be interpreted per se, the view which he takes has the
greater probability.
(c) With respect to particular words in this passage, the following points may
be noticed :—1. ydpitt (ver.9) means grace, not thankfulness. The writer is here
speaking of what is fundamental to the Christian svstem.—2. ovx ageApOnoav
(ver. 9) is to be taken in a sense kindred to arwgeAéc vii. 18, if Bpdyacw refers to
sacrificial meals, and so no argument for the other meaning of Spex. can be drawn
from the use of this verb. The writer regards the law in all its parts as
unprofitable. It made nothing perfect.—3. Those who serve the tabernacle
(ver. 10) are primarily the Jewish priests, but here they are doubtless only
representatives of all who belong to the Jewish system.—4. 2fw rij¢ xapeuBodage
NOTES. 747
of ver. 13 means: outside of the Jewish system—the entire figure as applied to
Christ and His sacrifice being introduced for the purpose of suggesting this idea.—
5. ydp (ver. 14) gives a reason (additional to that which is indicated in the earlier
verses and pointed to by roivuy of ver. 13) for éfepxaueba «.7.A.—the reason being
this: that the readers, as Christians, are not connected with the earthly Jerusalem,
but with the heavenly. This explanation seems better than that of Liinem., who
makes ydp introduce a ground of encouragement for the subordinate phrase ¢épovre¢
Tov ovediopov avrod,
LXXXV. Vv. 16-21.
(a) The preceding verses close with a renewed suggestion of the confession to
be made through Christ—that is, of holding fast to the Christian system in and
for themselves. Ver. 16 suggests that they are, as it were, to make the same con-
fession in their works as related to others. @voiac¢ continues the thought, which is
presented in vv. 9-15, and serves to show that in those verses the writer has
throughout the idea of sacrifice—thus bearing upon the explanation of Bpdpactp,
kovwvia here, evidently, refers to the imparting to others of what belongs to one’s
own possessions. It is the sharing or participation of one Christian with another,
which involves such communicating of guod to the other.
(6) The placing of the exhortation to obedience to their present leaders so near
the end of the chapter, rather than in connection with the allusion to the leaders
who had died, is due, not improbably, to the fact that vv. 9-15 were suggested by
the thought of ver. 8, which was added to ver. 7, and, possibly, also to the fact of
a remembrance of these living leaders as he was about to refer to himself.
(c) The ydp clause of ver. 18 may be only a modest expression of the writer’s
contidence in his own Christian character and life, which he might have given at
any time, or in any letter. But it may, quite probably, be intended to remove any
unkind feeling which the readers, or some portion of them, had on the ground of
his Pauline doctrine, and which, if set aside because of a conviction of his sin-
cerity, etc., so that they should pray for him, might give way toa readiness to
receive his letter and himself. «add is better translated honorably (A. R. V.),
than honestly (R. V.).
(d) The prayer which he now makes, in his turn, for them, is one which
gathers into itself the great thoughts of the epistle—the eternal covenant, the
idea of the last section; Jesus the shephetd leading His people, the idea which is
suggested even in ch. ii., though not by the use of this word. The petition which
he offers is to the end that the God of peace will make them perfect—the end
which is secured only by the Christian system, through the new covenant and the
death and resurrection of Jesus.—1. év aivart may be most simply explained as
belonging with avayayav éx vexpiv—the raising of Christ from the dead, viewed
as the final consummation of the plan of God for the salvation of men, was in the
sphere of the blood of the covenant. It was only as connected with this blood,
and this covenant, that it had this significance. —2. aiwviov diaffenc, not the, but an
eternal covenant (as A. R. V.). The covenant is here spoken of only as having
this character—it was an eternal one.—3. xaraprica: is not the same verb as
reAci@oat, but, if the xaraprifev x«.7.A., is accomplished for the Christian, he
becomes tereAcuputvoc.—4, rou ev hyuiv (dmiv) «.7.4.,in connection with toejoa
«.t.A.—Comp. Phil. ii. 18.—5. © (ver. 21) may refer to ’I. Xp.; but, as God is
148 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
manifestly the subject of the sentence and the one to whom the prayer is
addressed, there can be little doubt that it should be understood as referring to
God. The argument which Liinem. gives for the reference to Christ loses its force
when we consider, that Christ is everywhere in the epistle presented as the in-
strumental agent in introducing and carrying forward God’s new revelation, and
that the writer is urging the readers everywhere not to abandon God’s later and
greater revelation for the earlier and preparatory one.
LXXXVI. Vv. 22-25.
(a) Tov Adyou ri¢ mapaxAfoewc.—These words, as Liinem. remarks, refer to the
epistle as a whole. They show that this epistle, like all those written by Paul,
was written for a practical end—the doctrinal part being always, in this sense,
subordinate to the practical. This writer makes this purpose manifest, in a strik-
ing way, by adding his one comprehensive tapdxAyou after every section of his
argument.—(b) y:vGoxere is probably, though not certainly, imperative—(c) The
probabilities, connected with the use of the two words in the N. T. and elsewhere,
favor giving to aoAsAvuévoy the sense of released from imprisonment, and not
giving this meaning to aoxaracraGS (ver. 19). The argument derived from
these words either for or against the Pauline authorship of the epistle can hardly,
however, be considered a very strong one.—(d) oi ad rie "IraAiag is, to say the
least, somewhat more naturally explained as indicating that the writer was not
in Italy, at the time when the epistle was written.
TOPICAL INDEX.
A.
Abraham, promise of God to, 542-544 ;
553-555 ; gave tithes to Melchisedek,
558, 563, 564, 579; example of faith,
674, 675, 679-681.
Alexander, 85; mentioned elsewhere,
whether same or nov, 85, 86; the
coppersmith, 270, 271.
Alexandria, in Egypt, as the place to
which the Epistle to the Hebrews
was directed, 370-376.
Ambrose, referred to or uoted, 226,
302, 342, 434, 510, 668, 7
American Editor, Notes by. See Notes
by American Eiitor.
Angels, in New Testament, 131, 132;
ie Fleet,” 174; as “Sons of God, ’ 401;
as contrasted with the Son of God,
406-409; superiority of Christ to,
426-432 : 448-450 ; myriads of, 716,
717, 726.
Apollos, 320-322; thought, by Liine-
mann, to have "been author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 364-367,
443, 447.
Apostasy, punishment of, 651, 652.
Apostles, Christ so called, 456, 457, 470.
Apostolic Constitutions, 106, 143, 170.
Appearing (é7cpdavera) of the Lord, 194,
201, 212, 221, 261, 302, 303, 309.
Aquila and Pris-illa, 273.
Ark of the Covenant, 605-607.
Artemas, 7, 12, 15, 320.
Assemblies of Christians for worship,
650.
Athenagoras, referred to or quoted, 117,
159, 319.
Augustine, referred to or quoted, 209,
342, 343, 433, 515, 627, 668.
B.
Baptism, 315-317, 324, 325; “ doctrine
of baptisms,” 528-630, 550; Chris-
tian baptism, 649.
Barnabas, su ppoeed to have heen author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 351-
355; epistle of, 352-354.
Basil the Great, 339, Bag
Bishop. See Episco
Blood, shedding of, need to remission
of sin, 619-621.
C.
aris in the Pastoral Epistles,
Caius, of Rome, 34
Call, or calling (aes), 211.
Carpus, 270.
Carthage, synod of, 343.
Charisma, 207, 208, 220. See Holy
Spirit.
Chastening, 705, 707.
= are bearing, the,” meaning of, 108,
Christ Jesus. See Logos. Priesthood
of, 444, 445; High Priest, 493; quali-
fications of for high-priesthood, 501-~
513, 519-522; “after the order of
Melchisedek, # 507-560; superiority
of to the Levitical priesthood, 561-
577, 582, 583; Mediator of the New
Covenant, 591, 596, 616.
Chrysostom, referred to or quoted, 4,
79, 82, 83, 84, 97, 100, 102, 108, 117,
118, 121, 125, 129, 131, 144, 145, 148,
149, 158, 164, 176, 184, 204, 227, 236,
238, 239, 249, 251, 268, 272, 281, 284,
287, 288, 297, 303, 313, 318, 339, 391,
403, 429, 433, 439, 443, 444, 468, 491,
515, 519, 534, 538, 559, 567, 574, 599,
609, 627, 641, 649, 654, 668, 672, 686,
690, 701, 703, 706, 709, 710, 716, 720,
737, 740, 741, 744.
Church organization, in the Pastoral
Epistles, 48-50; the Church as the
foundation, 236-238, 244.
Church, “ pillar and ground,” meaning
of, 128, 136.
Circumcision, of the = Jewish Chris-
tians, 286.
Clement of Alexandria, referred to or
quoted, 43, 44, 74, 104, 117, 187, 224,
234, 336, 345.
Clement of Rome, 25; meaning of répua,
or boundary, used by, 26-28; quoted,
749
750
43, 49, 101, 340; supposed by some
to have written the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 363, 364, 692.
Conscience, 289.
Covenant, or testament, 617, 618, 632.
Crescens, 269.
Cretes and Cretans, 6, 57; labors of
Paul in, visits of to, etc. 12-17;
Cretan poet quoted by Paul, 286, 287 ;
Church in Crete, 292; heretics in,
293.
rian, 340.
Cori of Jerusalem, 339.
D.
Deacons, 123-127, 135.
Deaconesses, 124, 125, 135, 305, 306.
Death of the Messiah or Christ, 435,
450, 509, 617, 618.
Death, meaning of, 212, 213; power of,
451, 452.
Demons (dacuéva), warnings against by
Paul, 139, 140.
Devil, the, in the New Testament, 121,
122, 134, 135, 245, 441, 442.
E.
Elders. See Presbyters, and Presbytery.
Elect (éxAexrot), t.¢e., believers, 230.
Ephesus, 12-17, 63-66, 270.
Epiphanius, 116, 117, 339, 559. -
Episcopus (bishop),; meaning of the
term, 115, 133, 283, 292, 293.
Erastus, 18, 20, 274.
Esau, 710-713.
Essenes, 36, 37, 38, 56.
Eunice, Timothy’s mother, 1, 203, 207,
259
Eusebius, referred to or quoted, 4, 25,
43, 67, 250, 336-339.
Exegetical Literature, 331-334.
F.
Fablas (“60r), 68, 88, 144, 288, 296.
Faith, the, 267.
Faith (7/or¢), in Epistle to the He
brews, 347, 667, et seqq.
Families, directions to Titus respecting,
296-298.
Fatherhood of God, 439.
Felix, 31, 32.
Festus, 30-32.
oe Church of the, 717, 718,
726.
Foundation, the, i.e., the Church, 236-
238, 244.
TOPICAL INDEX.
a.
Genealogies (yeveadoyia:), meaning of,
40, 41, 68, 88, 319,0320.
horn and Gnosticism, 38-42, 235,
God (Geéc), as applied to Christ Jesus,
ean 136, 137, 302, 303, 307-311, 417-
Good works, 318, 325. |
Gregory Nazianzen, 339, 703.
Gregory of Nyssa, 129, 339, 403.
H.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, exegetical
literature, etc., 329-334; Introduc-
tion, ion 1, as to the author,
whether Paul, 335-351; or Barna-
bas, 351-355; or Luke, 353-363; or
Clement, 363, 364; or Silvanus (Si-
las), 364; or Apollos, 364-367 ; Sec-
tion 2, persons addressed, 367-380;
Section 3, occasion, object, and con-
tents, 380-386; Section 4, time and
place of composition, 386, 387 ; Sec-
tion 5, form, and original language,
387,388; exegesis, Chap. I. 390-410;
Notes by American Editor, 410-420;
exegesis, Chap. II. 422-446; Notes
by American Editor, 446-453; exe-
gesis, Chap. III. 455-470; Notes by
American Editor. 470-474; exegesis,
Chap. IV. 477-495; Notes by Ameri-
can Editor, 495-499; exegesis, Chap.
V., 501-519; Notes by American
Editor, 519-528 ; exegesis, Chap. VI,
524-548; Notes by American Editor,
549-555; exegesis, Chap. VII. 557-
577 ; Notes by American Editor, 577—
583; exegesis, Chap. VIII. 585-595 ;
Notes by American E:litor, 595, 596;
exegesis, Chap. 1X. 599-629; Notes
by American Editor, 629-634; exe-
gesis, peg X. 638-658 ; Notes by
American Editor, 658-663 ; exegesis,
Cha Sn one Notes by eae
can Editor, 694-696; exegesis, chap.
XIT. 699-722; Notes by Avierican
Editor, 722-727; exegesis, Chap.
XIII. 729-744; Notes by American
Editor, 745-748.
Hegesippus, 39, 43.
Heretics, warnings against in the Pas-
toral Epistles, 33-43, 186, 1983; how
to deal with, 232, 293, 320.
Hermas, 117.
Hermogenes and Phygellus, 216, 217.
High priest, Christ our, 456, 457, 492—
494. See Christ Jesus.
TOPICAL INDEX.
Hilary, 342, 559.
Holy Ghost, sin against, 536, 537, 550,
551.
Holy Spirit, source of prophecy, 138,
139; gift by to Timothy, 149, 150,
207, 208, 220; in connection with our
Lord’s sacrifice, 614.
Hospitality. exhortation to, 729, 745.
“‘ Husband of one wife,” probable mean-
ing of, 117, 118, 134.
Hymenaeus and Philetus, 35, 56, 85,
235.
I.
Ignatius, referred to or quoted, 43, 49,
52, 67, 159, 249, 442.
Incarnation of Christ, 300, 442, 452.
Ingpiration. See Scripture.
Irenaeus, referred to or quoted, 43, 235,
250, 341.
Isaac, example of faith, 682.
Italy, they of, i.e., Christians, 744, 748.
J.
James, brother of the Lord, 386.
Jannes and Jambres, 250.
Jerome, referred to or quoted, 4, 30,
a 125, 162, 167, 250, 289, 342, 559,
Jerusalem, the heavenly, 716.
Jesus Christ. See Christ Jesus and
Logos.
Jewish Christians, and Epistle to the
Hebrews, 363-370.
Joseph, example of faith, 682, 683.
Josephus, referred to or quoted, 31, 103,
174, 373, 386, 423, 505, 558, 575, 589,
590, 603, 605, 608, 672, 712.
Judaizers, in Pastoral Epistles, 35-37.
Judgment (xpiza), 121, 122, 135, 168.
Judgment (xpioic), 176, 177, 626.
Justification, 317, 318, 324.
Justin Martyr, referred to or quoted,
43, 117 159, 194, 271, 691.
K.
Kingdom, heavenly, of the Lord, 273.
L.
Laodiceans, Epistle to, 371, 372.
. Last days, the, 247, 258.
Law (véu0c), 72-74, 89.
Lawlessness (avopia), 304.
“ Laying on of hands,”’ meaning of, 151,
156, 175, 182; in Epistle to the He-
brews, 530.
_ Lyke, 269;
751
sae Peas in Egypt, Jewish temple
in, 373.
Levitical priesthood, inferior to Christ’s,
561-577, 582, 583.
Life, source of, 213.
Linus, 275.
“Lion, mouth of the,” 272, 278. See:
Nero.
Logos, the, 131; dignity of, 393-398;
world, created by, according to Philo,
395; incarnate, 398; first-born, 404;
as to life of on earth, 407-409; Phi-
lo’s view of, 489.
Lois, grandmother of Timothy, 1, 203,
207, 259,
supposed to have been
author of Epistle to the Hebrews,
355-363.
Luther, on Epistle to the Hebrews, not
by Paul, 349, 350; thought it might
have been, and almost certainly was,
written by Apollos, 364.
M.
Macedonia, 10, 14, 63-66.
Marcion and Marcionites, 38-40, 44, 46.
Marcus and Jesus, 363.
Mark, 269, 270.
Mediator, Christ the, 98; of the New
Covenant, 591, 596, 616.
Mediators of Old Testament, 399.
Melchisedek, priest of God, king of Sa-
lem, 557-560, 578. See Abraham.
Messianic kingdom, 403, 693; period,
426, 427, 449, 464, 544.
Money, love of, 190, 731.
Morality, Christian, basis of, 300, 307.
Moses, 250; inferior to Christ, 455, 459,
aoe 471, 590; example of faith, 683-
86.
Muratorian Canon, quoted, 28, 340.
Mystery of the fuith, 123; of godliness,
129, 130.
Myths. See Fables.
N.
Nero, emperor, 25, 31, 32; perhaps
“the lion,” 272, 278.
New Covenant, 591, 713. See Testa-
ment.
New Testament, superior to the Old,
399, 400, 414, 415.
Nic ‘polis, in Epirus, 4, 14-17, 33, 320,
321.
North African Church, on Epistle to
the Hebrews, 339, 340.
Notes by American Editor, 86-92, 109-
113; 183-137; 153-156; 178-182;
752
198-201; 218-222; 241-245; 258,
259; 275-278; 290-294; 305-311;
822-325; 410-420; 446-453; 470-
474; 495-499; 519-523; 549-555;
577-583 ; 595, 596; 629-634; 658-
663; 694-696 ; 722-727; 745-748.
O.
Obedience to authorities, 312, 313, 322,
323.
Onesiphorus, 20; Paul’s wish and prayer
for, 217, 222.
Onias, temple of, in Egypt, 373, 374,
375.
Origen, referred to or quoted, 29, 94,
95, 250, 336, 337, 345, 433 ; on author-
ship of Epistle to the Hebrews, 336,
337 ; on Melchisedek, 559, 691.
P.
Palestine, Christians in, as those to
whom Epistle to the Hebrews was
addressed, 369, 376-380.
Pantaenus, 335, 336.
Purousia of the Lord, 194, 201, 215, 247,
ro 275, 302, 466, 477, 541, 650, 657,
62.
Pastoral Epistles, Introduction to, 1-59;
section 1, Timothy and Titus, 1-5;
section 2, contents of, 5-9 ; section 3,
time and place of composition, 9-33 ;
section 4, heretics named in, 33-43;
section 5, authenticity and genuine-
ness of, defended against German
rationalists, 43-59.
Paul the Apostle, writes the Pastoral
Epistles, Introduction to, 1-59; dis-
cussion as to his missionary journeys,
etc., 1-5, 9-12; abode in Ephesus, 13,
14; imprisonment in Rome, 17; sec-
ond imprisonment, 24, 25, 30, 266;
visit to Spain, 26-29; places of writ-
ing Epistles to Timothy, and Titus,
32, 33; warnings against heretics,
33, etc.; who these were, 33-43 ; first
Epistle to Timothy a sort of “ busi-
ness letter,” according to Huther, 55;
second Epistle paternal and loving,
58, 62, 205; Epistle to Titus, charac-
ter of, 57, 282; love of for Timothy,
205, 206; exhorts him to courage,
tience, trust, love, endurance, etc.,
507-215, 224-232; advice of as to
dealing with heresy, 232; exhorts
Timoth to duty, 261-263; “ready
to be offered,” 265-266 ; discussion as
to Paul’s authorship of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 335-351, 414, 415.
TOPICAL INDEX.
Pelagius, 145.
Perseverance of the saints, 551.
Philetus. See Hymeneus.
Philo, referred to or quoted, 143, $74,
395, 404, 435, 489, 499, 494, 515, 516,
543, 545, 548, 559, 573, 576, 589, 603,
640, 670, 678, 692, 704, 729, 738.
Phygellus and Hermogenes, 216, 217.
Polycarp, 48, 190.
Pontius Pilate, 193, 200.
Poppaea and Nero, 31, 32.
Prayer for the dead, 217, 222.
Prayer for kings and others, 94-97, 110.
Presbyters, how to be treated by Timo-
thy, 171-175; two classes of, 1.1;
directions to Titus respecting, 283, 292.
Presbytery, at ordination of Timothy,
3, 150, 151, 156. Cf. p. 221, 222. :
Prisca and Aquila, 273.
Prophecy, as to heresies and heretics,
138, 139, 153; in the case of Timothy,
150, 156.
Prophets, the, 292.
R.
a daa eternal through Christ,
13.
Regeneration, in baptism, 315-317, 324.
Rest (caBBariopdc), 483, etc., 497, 498.
Resurrection, the, denied by heretics,
235, 236.
Riches, dangers of, 189-191, 195, 196,
199, 200.
Rome, church of, on Epistle to the
Hebrews, 340, 341. See Trent, coun-
cil of,
S.
Sacrifice of Christ, efficacy of, 613-615,
644.
Salem, Melchisedek king of, 558.
Salvation and redemption, universality
of, 91, 98, 110, 147, 300, 324, 433, 434.
Sanctuary, in temple in Egypt, 372-
374; heavenly, 621-625, b3>-634,
647.
Sarah, example of faith, 676, 677.
Sutan, delivered to, meaning of the ex-
pression, 86, 92; under the influence
of, 170.
Saviour. See God.
Science (yvoorc), or knowledge, false,
197, 201.
Scripture, inspiration of, 256, 257, 259.
Second Coming of the Lord. See:
Parousia.
Seneca and the Apostle Paul, 350.
Silas (Silvanus), 2.
Silvanus, supposed to have written
Epistle to the Hebrews, 364.
TOPICAL INDEX.
Slanderers (d¢d,302.0c), 125, 247, 296.
Slaves and servants, how to be treated,
and how to behave, 184-186, 198, 299,
300, 306, 307.
Socinus, referred to, 444.
Son of God, as declared in Epistle to
the Hebrews. See Logos.
Spirit, the eternal, 614, 615, 631.
“Spirit in,” of Christ, 131.
Spirits, departed, 718.
Syrian Church, how Epistle to the
Hebrews esteemed by, 338.
3 T.
Tatian, 44, 45.
Temple of Solomon, 605; second tem-
ple, 605; temple at Jerusalem, an
in Egypt, 369.
Tertullian, referred to or quoted, 43, 52,
117, 235, 236, 339, 340, 352, 691.
Testament, New, in Christ’s death, 617,
618.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, referred to or
uoted, 76, 117, 128, 248, 283, 339,
24, 601, 628.
Theodoret, referred to or quoted, 4, 10,
94, 98, 102, 118, 120, 123, 131, 176,
214, 227, 239, 257, 271, 287, 304, 313,
339, 433, 444, 459, 461, 466, 468, 508,
529, 534, 536, 559, 569, 571, 591, 601,
640, 647, 648, 649, 654, 668, 672, 677,
686, 700, 705, 706, 709, 715, 737, 740,
742, 744.
Theophylact, referred to or quoted, 5,
83, 94, 102, 108, 118, 123, 125, 141,
185, 241, 247, 254, 286, 301, 315, 425,
429, 440, 443, 459, 466, 491, 510, 533,
535, 545, 546, 559, 561, 563, 569, 586,
590, 592, 601, 609, 627, 647, 649, 652,
668, 676, 683, 688, 692, 701, 706, 709,
716, 719, 737, 744.
Timothy, parentage and education of,
1; assistant of Paul, 1, 2; travels
with the Apostle, 3; ordained, 3;
mentioned in Epistle to the He-
brews, 3; first bishop of Ephesus, 3,
4; abused by de Wette, 51, 52, 58;
“youth” of, 51, 52, 155; censured for
lack of zeal, etc., 208, 220; Paul’s
advice to, 232, 243-245; urged to
come to the Apostle, 274, 277.
Timothy, first Epistle to, 2, 5, 7, 9-12,
24, 33, 54-97; exegesis, Chap. I. 61-
86; Notes by American Editor, 86-
92 ; exegesis, Chap. II. 94-109 ; Notes
by American Editor, 109-113; exe-
gesis, Chap. III. 115-133; Notes by
American Editor, 133-137; exegesis,
chap. IV. 138-152; Notes by Ameri-
753
can Editor, 153-156; exegesis, Chap.
V.158-178; Notes by American Ed.
tor, 178-182; exegesis, Chap. VI. 184—-
a Notes by American Editor, 198-—
01
“Timothy, second Epistle to, 3, 5,7, 17-
21, 33, 34, 58; exegesis, Chap. I. 203-
218; Notes by American Editor,
218-222; exegesis, Chap. IL. 224~
241; Notes by American Editor,
241-245: exegesis, Chap. IIl. 246-
257: Notes by American Editor,
258, 259; exegesis, Chap. IV. 261-
275; Notes by American Editor,
275-278.
Titus, little known of his life, 4; as-
sisted Paul, 4; first bishop of Crete,
4,5; Paul’s Epistle to, 280, etc.; in-
structions to by the Apostle, 283,
284; date of Paul’s letter to, 292;
directions how to deal,with members
of families, 296-208; course to be
pursued as to slaves, 299, 300.
Titus, Epistle of Paul to, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13,
33, 34, 57 ; exegesis, Chap [. 280-290;
Notes by American Editor, 290-294 ;
exegesis, Chap. II. 296-305; Notes
by American Editor, 305-311; exe-
gesis, Chap. III. 312-322; Notes by
American Editor, 322-325.
“To-day” (ofjuepov), i.e. eternity, 401,
402, 415; in Epistle to the Hebrews,
466, 473.
Trent, council of, on Epistle to the
Hebrews, 349.
Trophimus, 16-20, 274.
Tychicug 12, 14-16, 270, 320, 321.
W.
Water drinkers and drinking, 176;
difficult topic to handle, 182.
Widows, institution of, 48; discussion
as to, 50, 51; “real” widows, 159-
162; other widows, 164-169 ; young
widows, 169-171; widows in general,
178-181.
Wine, Paul’s advice as to use of, 182.
Women, Christian, place, position, and
duties of, 105-109, 112, 113, 124;
some led astray by heretics, 249-250;
directions to Titus respecting, 296-
298, 305, 306.
Y.
Young men, 297, 298, 306.
Z.
Zenas, the lawyer, 321, 322.
Zion, Mount, 716.
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11