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/
A 550369
(Aree eer Le J rom
Mice CGectey af
(Ticce Cpe
Aon - Ht HE. Nee og ae
CPG AN -
; “SIBRARY VERITAS | OF THE
STOP tay
= "
= US
BS
2344
M623
) xy
yi flo
Digitized by Google
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK
. TO
THE GENERAL EPISTLES
J AMES, PETER, JOHN, AND JUDE.
ee |
BY
JOH. ED. HUTHER, Tna.D,
PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN BEI SCHWERIN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE GERMAN
BY
REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D., D. B. CROOM, M.A.,
AND REV. CLARKE H. IRWIN, M.A.
WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE
: AMERICAN EDITION
By TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PRESIDENT OF YALE UNIVERSITY.
NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS,
18 & 2 Astor PLACE.
1887.
COPYRIGHT, 1887,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS.
PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
THe commentaries included within the present volume of Meyer's
Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book were prepared by his coadjutor,
Dr. J. E. Huther. The English translation was made from the
latest editions of the several commentaries which were published
before Dr. Huther’s death. Since his death, a fourth edition of
the Commentary on the Epistle of James has appeared in Germany
(in 1882), with some additions by Dr. Willibald Beyschlag, who
has carefully revised the work. To this volume of Beyschlag,
some references have been made in the Additional Notes of the
American Editor. A fifth edition of the Commentary on the
Epistles of Peter and Jude has been prepared under the editor-
ship of Ernst Kuhl, but has not as yet been received. That
Huther was the equal of Meyer in those qualities and gifts which
make the great exegete, will not be claimed by any competent
scholar ; but that he was a worthy associate in the work of which
Meyer wrote so large a portion, is proved by the ability with
which he discharged the duty assigned to bim, and by the favor-
able reception which his commentaries have met with on the part
of all who have used them.
The Additional Notes of the American Editor have been
prepared in accordance with the same principles and purpose with
those which governed him in the preparation of the notes added
to the other volumes of Meyer’s Commentary of which he has
had editorial care. They have been placed at the end of the
volume; and the reader’s attention is invited to them with the
hope, on the writer’s part, that some help and some suggestions
of value may be found in them in connection with the study of
the several epistles.
ili
®
iv PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader, that, in the
references to the N. T. Grammars of Winer and Buttmann,
the numbers following the letters E. T. designate the pages
of the translations of those works by Professor J. Henry Thayer.
The letters A. V., R. V., and A. R. V., refer respectively to the
Authorized English Version of the New Testament, the Revised
Version, and the American Appendix to the latter.
In giving this last volume of Meyer’s work, of which he has
had editorial charge, to the public, in this American edition, the
editor would dedicate his part of it, as he has done in the case
of each of the earlier volumes, to the students whom he has met
for 80 many years, and with so much pleasure, in the lecture-rooms
of the Divinity School of Yale University.
TIMOTHY DWIGHT.
New Haven, April 15, 1887.
(New HAvEN, Nov. 16, 1887. — The Notes of the American Editor of
this volume, and all his editorial work connected with it, were completed,
as the date of the Preface may indicate, in the spring of the present year.
By reason of unavoidable delays in the matter of printing, the publication
of the volume has been deferred until the autumn. In the mean time, the
fifth edition of Huther’s Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, -
prepared by Kiihl, has appeared in Germany, and has been received in
this country. The work of Huther, so far as the First Epistle of Peter
is concerned, has been thoroughly revised; and, in many cases, changes
have been introduced, and different views from those of Huther expressed.
In the case of the other two Epistles, there is, in comparison, much less
of new matter calling for special notice. The American Editor has added
to his own Notes on First Peter a considerable number of statements giving
Kiihl’s views, which statements will be found enclosed in brackets. These
additions, which were all that under the circumstances could well be made,
will be sufficient, it is hoped, to acquaint the reader in some measure with
the new edition. ]
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE COMMENTARY ON JAMES,
In the new revision of this Commentary, the following works
have been chiefly examined: H. Bouman, Comment. perpet. in Jac.
Ep., ed. 1863, the exposition of the Epistle by Lange (second
edition, 1866) in Lange’s Bibelwerk, and the third edition of De
Wette’s exposition edited by Brickner. Whilst in the first of
these works a deep and thorough examination of the thoughts
of the Epistle is wanting, the work of Lange is too defective in
exegetical carefulness, which alone can lead to sure results.- In
order to comprehend the Epistle historically, Lange proceeds from
the most arbitrary hypotheses, which often mislead him into very
rash, and sometimes strange, explanations. It is to be regretted,
that, with all his spiritual feeling and acuteness, he has not been
able to put a proper bridle upon his imagination. The second
edition of De Wette’s Handbook, containing the exposition of the
Epistles of Peter, Jude, and James, had been previously prepared
by Brickner. When, in the preface to the third edition, he says
that he has subjected this portion of the Handbook to a thorough
revision, and, as far as possible, has made the necessary additions
and corrections, this assertion is completely justified by the work.
Although the remarks of Brickner are condensed, yet they are
highly deserving of attention, being the result of a true exegetical
insight. It were to be wished that Brickner had been less tram-
melled by ‘* the duty to preserve the work of De Wette as much
as possible uncurtailed.’’ Of the recent examinations on the
relation of the Pauline view of justification to that of James, I
will only here mention the familiar dissertation of Hengstenberg :
‘©The Epistle of James,’’ in Nos. 91-94 of the Hvangelical Church
Magazine, 1866; and the explanation of Jas. ii. 24-26, by Philippi,
in his Dogmatics, vol. i. pp. 297-815. Both, without assenting to
my explanation, agree with me in this, that there is no essential
difference between the doctrines of Paul and James. Hengstenberg
arrives at this result by. supposing, on the assumption of a justifi-
cation gradually developed, that James speaks of a different stage
Vv
vi AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
of justification from that of Paul; whilst Philippi attributes to
Sixarovv, with James, another meaning than that which it has with
Paul. I can approve neither of the one method nor of the other;
not of the former, because by it the idea of justification is altered
in a most serious manner; nor of the latter, because it is wanting
in linguistic correctness, and, moreover, thoughts are by it given
which are wholly unimportant. I will not bere resume the contro-
versy with Frank, to which I felt constrained in the publication
of the second edition; only remarking, that, after a careful examin-
ation, I have not been able to alter my earlier expressed view
of James’s doctrine of justification, the less so as it had not its
origin from dogmatic prepossession, but was demanded by exegetical
conviction. Moreover, I am no less convinced than formerly, that,
in the deductions made by me, nothing is contained which contra-
dicts the doctrine of the church regarding justification. — With
regard to the question whether the author of this Epistle, the
brother of the Lord, is or is not identical with the Apostle James,
I have not been able to change my earlier convictions. If, in
more recent times, the opposite view has been occasionally main-
tained, this is either in the way of simple assertion, or on grounds
which proceed from unjustified suppositions. This present edition
will show that I have exercised as impartial a criticism as possible
with regard to my own views, as well as with regard to the views
of others.
The quotations from Rauch and Gunkel refer to their reviews
of this commentary published before the second edition; the one
is found in No. 20 of the Theol. Literaturdlatt of the <Allgem.
Kirchenzeitung of the year 1858; and the other in the Gottingen
gel. Anz., parts 109-112 of the year 1859. I have occasionally
quoted Cremer’s Biblischtheol. Worterbuch des neutest. Grdcitat.
The more I know of the value of this work, the more I regret
that it does not answer to its title, inasmuch as those words are
only treated which the author considers to be the expressions of
spiritual, moral, and religious life. A distinction is here made
which can only with difficulty be maintained. I have quoted
Winer’s Grammar, not only according to the sixth, but also
according to the seventh edition, edited by Linemann.
I again close this preface with the hope that my labor may
help to make the truly apostolic spirit of the Epistle of James
more valued, and to render its ethical teaching more useful to
the Church.
WITTENFORDEN, November, 1869.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE COMMENTARY ON PETER,
In revising this Commentary on the Epistles of Peter for the
present fourth edition, the work which I had chiefly to consider
and subject to a careful examination was the Exposition of the
Epistles by Von Hofmann. This accordingly I did. Von Hofmann
often seeks to surmount the exegetical difficulties presented in the
epistles by a new exposition, and, of course, no exception can be
taken to this; but it is to be regretted that the interpretations
are not unfrequently of so artificial a nature that they cannot
stand the test of an unprejudiced examination, and are conse-
quently little calculated to promote the true understanding of the
text.
As regards the origin of the Second Epistle, my renewed
investigations have produced no result other than that which I
had formerly obtained. I can only repeat what I said in the
preface to the third edition of this Commentary: ‘‘If I should
be blamed for giving, in this edition also, no decisive and final
answer to the question as to the origin of Second Peter, I will
say, at the outset, that it seems to me more correct to pronounce
a non liquet than to cut the knot by arbitrary assertions and acute
appearances of argument.”’
Although this Commentary on the whole has preserved its former
character, yet it has been subjected to many changes in particulars,
which I hope may be regarded as improvements.
I would only add, that, in the critical remarks, it is principally
Tischendorf’s Recension that has been kept in view. Tisch. 7
refers to the editio septima critica minor, 1859; Tisch. 8, to his
editio octava major, 1869. Where the two editions agree in a
reading, Tisch. simply is put.
| J. Ep. HUTHER.
WITTEXFORDEN, May, 1877.
vii
Digitized by Google
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.—JAMES.
THe author of this Epistle designates himself in the inscription
"Idxu/Soc, Oeod xat xupiov ’Inaod Xpiotod dovAos, and thus announces himself to
be, though not an apostle in the narrower sense of the term, vet a man
of apostolic dignity. From this, as well as from the attitude which he
takes up toward the circle of readers to whom he has directed his
Epistle (raic dddexa gudAaic raig év ty duacropg), it is evident that no other
James can be meant than he who, at an early period in the Acts of the
Apostles, appears as the head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17,
xv. 13 ff., xxi. 18); whom Paul calls 4 ddeAdde rot xvpiov (Gal. i. 19), and
reckons among the cridtog (Gal. ii. 9), and whom Jude, the author of
the last Catholic Epistle, designates as his brother (Jude 1); the same
who in tradition received the name 6 dixawg (Hegesippus in Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. ii. 23, iv. 22), who was regarded even by the Jews as an
avin ducadraroc (Joseph., Antig. xx. 3, 1), to whom a higher dignity than
that of the apostles is attributed in the Clementines, and who, according
to the narrative of Josephus, suffered martyrdom about the year 63;
according to that of Hegesippus (Euseb. ii. 23), not long before the
destruction of Jerusalem.?
As regards the question whether this James is to be considered as
identical with the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus, as is maintained
1 No certain decision can be come to on this Tov, laxwBos Svoxpa alte cai) tivas (érépous)
difference, especially as the narrative of Hege- - . . mapédwxe AeveOncouevovs, the genuineness
sippus (comp. Lange’s Komment., Einleitung, of the bracketed words is at least doubtful;
p. 13 f.) bears unmistakable mythical traces; Clericus, Larduer, Credner, assert thelr spuri-
aod in the relation of Josephus: wapaywy eis ousness.
aura (roy adeAdor ‘Ingov, rod Acyousdvoy Xpic-
2 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
in recent times by Lange, Bouman, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others,
or as a different person, the data given in the N. T. are more favorable
to the idea of non-identity than to the opposite opinion. 1. When men-
tion is made in the N. T. of the ddeAgot of Jesus, they are represented
as a circle different from that of the apostles. Thus they are already
in John ii. 12 distinguished from the padyraig of Jesus; the same dis-
tinction is also made after the choice of the twelve apostles (Matt. xii.
46; Mark iii. 21, 31; Luke viii. 19; John vii. 3), and in such a manner
that neither in these passages nor in those where the Jews mention
the brethren of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3)! is there the slightest
indication that one or several of them belonged to the apostolic circle:
rather, their conduct toward Jesus is characterized as different from that
of the apostles; and, indeed, it is expressly said of them that they did
not believe on Him (John vii. 5). Also after the ascension of Christ,
when His brethren had become believers, and had attached themselves
to the apostles, they are expressly, and in the same simple manner as
before, distinguished from the Twelve (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5). 2. In
no passage of the N. T. is it indicated that the adeAgot of the Lord were
not Ilis brothers, in the usual meaning of the word, but His cousins;
and, on the other hand, James the son of Alphaeus is never reckoned
as a brother of Jesus, nor is there any trace of a relationship between
him and the Lord. Certainly the Mary mentioned in John xix. 25
(7 tov Kawra) was the mother of the sons of Alphaeus (Matt. xxvii. 56;
Mark xv. 40), a8 'AAgaiog and KAwde are only different forms of the same
name (‘DoN); but from that passage it does not follow that this Mary
was a sister of the mother of Jesus (see Meyer in loc.). 3. According
to the lists of the apostles, only one of the sons of Alphaeus, namely
James, was the apostle of the Lord. Although the Apostle Lebbaeus
(Matt. x. 3), whom Mark calls Thaddaeus (Mark ili. 18), is the same
with ‘fovdac ‘faxd3ov in Luke (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), yet he was not
a brother of James; for, on the one hand, if this were the case he
would have been called so by Matthew, who expressly places the brothers
among the apostles together; and, on the other hand, ddeAgde is not to
be supplied to the genitive ‘Iaxw3ov in Luke, —contrary to all analogy, —
1 According to the Receptus, the names of = in Mark they, however, read ‘Iwonros; yet
the brothers of Jesus are James, Joses, Judas, here aleo the Codex Sinaiticus has ‘Iwond. It
and Simon. Instead of ‘Iwons in Matthew, remains doubtful which is the correct name.
Lachmann, and Tischendorf have adopted, ac- Comp. Meyer on the passage in Matthew.
cording to preponderating authority, ‘lwond;
INTRODUCTION. 3
but vlé¢ (see Introduction to Commentary on Jude, sec. 1). According to
Matt. xxvii. 26 and Mark xv. 40, Alphaeus, besides James, had only one
other son, Joses. If the apostles Judas and Simon were also his sons,
his wife Mary in the above passages would have been also called their
mother, especially as Joses was not an apostle. From all these data,
then, the brothers of the Lord, James, Judas, and Simon, are not to
be considered as identical with the apostles bearing the same names.
4. There are, however, two passages, Gal. i. 19 and 1 Cor. xv. 7, which
appear to lead to a different conclusion. In the first passage e uf
appears to indicate, as many interpreters assume, that Paul, by the
addition for the sake of historical exactness, remarks that besides the
Apostle Peter he saw also the Apostle James. But on this supposition
we cannot see why he should designate him yet more exactly as rav
GdeAddv tov Kupiov, since the other Apostle James was at that time dead.
The addition of this surname indicates a distinction of this James from
the apostle. Now el uf does certainly refer not only to ot« eldov (Fritzsche,
Ad Matth., p. 482; Neander, Winer), but to the whole preceding clause;
still, considering the position which James occupied, Paul might regard
him, and indeed was bound to regard him, as standing in such a close
relation to the real apostles that he might use ei u# without including
him among them.! It is evident that Paul did not reckon James among
the original apostles, since in Gal. ii. he names him and Cephas and
John together, not as apostles, but as of doxotvre¢ elvai 11, ol doxowvrec oridot
eiva:z.*— In the other passage, 1 Cor. xv. 7, the word mdo:v may be added
by Paul, with reference to James formerly named, in the sense: “after-
wards Christ appeared to James, and then — not to him only, but —to
all the apostles,” from which it would follow that James belonged to the
1 Meyer (in loc.) supposes that James is
here reckoned by Paul among the apostles in
the wider sense of the term. But i!t is also
possible that the words ei un, «.7.A., are not to
be understood as a limitation to the thought
before expressed, ¢repow &é, «.7.A., but as &
remark added to it, by which Paul would lay
stress upon the fact that besides Peter he has
aleo seen James, the brother of the Lord, thus
the man who possessed not only an apostolic
dignity, bat to whom the opponents of Paul
directly appealed.
3 That James is reckoned by Paul among
the orvAots, has certainly been adduced as an
argument for the opposite opinion: but that
Paul does not reckon those named as arvAor
because they were apostles, is undeniable; and
that only apostles could be considered as
orvAo., Is an unwarranted assumption. Bou-
man thinks that a mere private person could
not attain to such an importance; but he over.
looks the fact that James, as the most promi-
nent of the brothers of the Lord, who are
named alongside of the apostles, was more
than a mere private person.
4 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
apostles. But this reference is not necessary, as mdow may as well be
added in order simply to give prominence to the fact that all the
apostles, without exception, had seen the Lord.! 5. All the other reasons
for the identity, which are taken from the N. T., as adduced by Lange,
are too subjective in character to be considered as conclusive: as, for
example, that Luke in Acts xii. 17 would have felt himself obliged
to notice that the James mentioned by him here, and farther on, is not
the same with the James whom he had called an apostle in Acts i. 13;2
that only an apostle could have written such an epistle, and have attained
to that consequence which James possessed in the Church;? and that
it is improbable that, besides the apostles James, Judas, and Simon,
there should be three of the brothers of Jesus bearing the same names.‘
The testimonies of the post-apostolic age are much too uncertain to
decide the controversy; for whilst Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb., //ist.
Eccl., ii. 1: dio d& yryévacww "lax eic 6 dixatog . . . Erepog dé 6. . . xaparounteic)
and Jerome declare for the hypothesis of identity, the Apostolic Constitu-
tions (il. 55, vi. 12, 14; in the latter passage, after the enumeration of the
twelve apostles, there are yet named: ‘luxw@d¢g re 6 toi Kupiov adeAgrg Kai ‘lepo-
Godipuy Exiaxoroc nai Maidoc 6 rov Over diddoxahoc) and Eusebius (commentary
on Isa. xvii. 5 in Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr., ii. p. 422; Hist. Eccl.,i. 12,
vii. 19) definitely distinguish the brother of the Lord from the apostles.
The statement of Hegesippus (in Euseb., iv. 22), to which Credner appeals
1 Otherwise Meyer (in loc.), who here also
understands the expression amogroAo In the
wider sense, which certainly receives a justifi-
cation from the fact that the original aposties
had before been designated by Paul as o
bwdexa.
? Againat thia it is to be affirmed, that Luke
might certainly assume such an acquaintance
on the part of his readera with the circum-
stances, thatin speaking of James in Jerusa-
lem he did not deem it necessary to remark
which James he meant. He even names Philip
(vili. 5) without saying whether he was the
apostle or the deacon. Bleek (Zin. in XN. 7.,
p. 545) explains the matter differently; that, as
the Acts of the Apostics is not to be considered
an Independent work of Luke, we may aup-
pose that he retained the simple designation
James as he found it In his document, without
making any remark on the relation of this
James to Jesus, and to James the son of
Alphacus.
3 The important position of James in Jeru-
salem was not founded on the apostolate, as
that office points rather to missionary activity
than to an epiacopal superiotendence of a
church.
4 This similarity ceases to be remarkable
when we consider how frequently the same
names are given to different persone in the
N. T.; we have only to adduce the names
Mary, Simon, Joseph, Judas, etc. On the sup-
position of the identity of these three apostles
with the three brothers of Jesus, then in the
passages Matt. xii. 46 (Mark iii. 31; Luke viil.
19) and John vil. 3, 5, only one brother of the
Lord, Joses (or Joseph), could be referred to,
particularly as sisters could not be included in
the fidca of brothers, as Lange, it is true, thinks
is the case in Acts {. 13, 14.
INTRODUCTION. 5
against, and Kern and Lange /or, the identity, is not in favor of it;} also
the extract of Jerome from the Hebrew gospel cannot with certainty be
quoted for it (Hieron., De Vir. /ilustrib., chap. ii.) ; and still less the passage
in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 85, where the words ra Acy@évre ddeAow rod
xvpiov pov annexed to ‘laxc@w admit of the explanation that the designation
ade29, rt. xvp. Was his familiar surname. The opinions of the later Church
Fathers are evidently of no weight either for or against the identity.
On the assumption of identity, the word ddeAgéc cannot be understood
in its usual sense. The opinion obtaining most favor since the time of
Jerome is that the so-called ddeAgot were the cousins of Jesus, namely, the
sons of the sister of His mother, who was also called Mary, and was the
wife of Clopas (= Alphaeus). This view is supported by the interpreta-
tion of John xix. 25, according to which the words Mapia 7 rot KAwad are
taken in apposition to the preceding 7 ddeAgR Tij¢ yntpd¢ airov; and so the
passage is explained by Theodoret: ddeAgdc rod xupiov éxadeiro pév, obn nv de
gio... Trou KAwia pev nv vioc, Tov d& Kupiov avec pntrépa yap eixe THY adeAdjy
Tig TOU Kupiov unrépoc. The correct interpretation of that passage removes all
1 The pasaage is: pera ro paprupycat ‘laxw-
Bow rov Snarov, ws Kai 0 KUptos Emi TY aUTY Adyy,
waAdtwv 0 逫 Oecov avrov Luuewy 0 Trou KAwna
aa@ioratar émioxonos® dy mpoéBevTO mavTes OvTA
aveyioy rou xuptov Sevrepoy. In this passage
the translation of avrov, of wad, and of
Seurepoy ia doubtful. Kern and Lange refer
avrov tO 0 xuptos, connect wadcy directly with
© ex Gecov avrov, and refer Sevrepoy to aveyrov
tov xvpov. But avrov may, as Credner re-
marks, also refer to ‘laxwBov, and mwadw be
coonected with xa@iorata: émicxomos, and Sev-
If avrov is referred
to ‘lacwBor, then James is designated as the
trepoy with ov mpoc@evro.
real brother of Jesus, since in another pas-
aage (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iil. 22) Simeon the
eon of Clopas is called by Hegesippus the son
of the uncle of Jesus; if, on the other hand, it
is referred to o xvptos, nothing is said regard-
ing the relationship of James to Jeaus: it thus
depends on the Interpretation of waAw and
It cannot be denied that mddAcw is
more naturally connected with «xa&icrarar
éeutepor.
emcaoxonos than with the words which immedi-
ately follow, as in that case it would clearly
mean that Simeon became bishop a second
time; but devrepoy may at least as well be con-
nected with ov rpoedevro (in the sense: “* whom
all appointed the second bishop’’) as with
Ovta ave. 7. cuptov. — Thus, then, the explana-
tion of Credner is not inferior to that of Kern
and Lange, but rather appears to be the more
probable, as Hegesippus elsewhere designates
James simply as the brother of the Lord, and
never indicates that he was an apostle; rather
in the words: dadéxerar 5¢ thy exxAnovay peta
Twy arogToAwy Oo adeAdos Tou xuptov ‘laxwBfos,
© OvopagGeis Ud mavtwy Sixatos ... "Eres
oAAot ‘TaxwBot éxaAovrro, he seems at lenst to
distinguish him from the apostles. According
to Hegesippus, Clopas was a brother of Joseph
(Euseb., iii. 4), and thua Simeon as the son of
Whether this
is correct, must indeed remain uncertain: it
Clopas was aveyds rou xuprov.
finds no support in the N. T., as there the sons
of Clopas (= Alphaeus) are only James and
Josesa. From these remarks it follows how
unjustifiable Is the assertion of Lange: “ We
learn from Hegesippus that James the brother
of the Lord was a brother of Simeon, aud that
both were the sons of Clopas.”
6 ; THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ground for this opinion. Accordingly Lange (in Herzog’s Real-Encyklo-
pddie, and repeated in his Commentary, Introduction, p. 10), instead of this
view, has advanced the theory, that as Clopas, according to Hegesippus, was
a brother of Joseph, the so-called brethren of Jesus were properly His step-
cousins, but after the early death of Clopas were adopted by Joseph, and so
actually became the brothers of Jesus. But this opinion is destitute of
foundation; for even although the narrative of Hegesippus is correct, yet
tradition is silent concerning the early death of Clopas and the adoption
of his children by Joseph, and as little ‘‘does history know that the sons of
Alphaeus formed one household with the mother of Jesus, and were promi-
nent members of it,” as Lange maintains. By the denial of identity, adeAgo¢
is to be understood in its proper sense. Thiersch (rit. d. neu. test. Schriften,
pp. 361, 430 ff.) adopts the opinion contained, according to his conjecture,
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and already advanced by Origen (on Matt.
xiii.), that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former
marriage; but against this Wiesinger rightly insists on the fact that this
opinion of Origen “was by no means prevalent in his time.” It owed its
origin apparently to a delicacy to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as
Thiersch confesses that “it is not to him a matter of indifference whether
the mother of the Lord remained dei zapoévoc.” The evangelists, however,
have not this feeling, for otherwise Matthew and Luke would not have said
of Mary: érexe rdv vidv abtig tov mpwréroxov, Which points to the birth of later
children not only as a possible, but as an actual fact. If it were otherwise,
there would be some indication in the N. T. that Joseph was a widower
when he married Mary, or that the ddeAgoi 'Incov were not her children.
According to the N. T., the brothers of Jesus, to whom James belonged,
are the children of Mary born in wedlock with Joseph after the birth of
Jesus; as is correctly recognized by Herder, Credner, Meyer, de Wette,
Wiesinger, Stier, Bleek, and others.
In what the Evangelists relate of the brothers of Jesus, James is not
particularly distinguished. Accordingly we are not to consider his conduct
as different from that of the rest. Although closely related by birth to
Jesus, His brothers did not recognize His higher dignity, so that Jesus with
reference to them said oby tort mpopatne atiuog, ei ph) bv TH Tatpidt aiTod, Kal tv TG
olxia abros (Matt. xiii. 56). Lange incorrectly infers from John ii. 12, where
the brothers of Jesus are first mentioned, that “even at the commencement
of the ministry of Jesus they were spiritually related (that is, by faith) to
the disciples;” for at that time the brothers had not attached themselves
to the disciples, but went with them from Cana to Capernaum that they
INTRODUCTION. 7
might accompany Mary. At a later period we find them separated from
the disciples (see Mark iii. 21; Matt. xii. 46; Luke viii. 19);1 they go
with Mary to the house where Jesus is, because, thinking that He was mad,
they wished to bring Him home with them, which was evidently no sign of
their faith, but rather of their unbelief.2 After the miracle of the loaves,
when the feast of tabernacles was at hand, they are with Jesus in Galilee;
but that even at this period they did not believe on Him, is expressly
asserted by John (vii. 5). Only after the ascension do we find them as
disciples of the Lord in close fellowship with the apostles.
informed when this change took place; but from the fact that Jesus on the
We are not
cross resigned His mother, as one forsaken, to the care of John, we may
conjecture that even then they did not believe. It is probable that our
Lord’s appearance after His resurrection to James (1 Cor. xv. 5) decided
his belief, and that his conversion drew his brothers along with him, as may
So Bleek, Einl. ind. N. T.,
p. 546. James at an early period obtained in the church of Jerusalem such
be inferred from the force of his character.
@ position that he appears as its head (about A.D. 44); yet this position is
not that of a bishop in distinction from presbyters, but he was one of the
presbyters (Acts xv. 22, 23), whose loftier dignity was not derived from
any special official authority, but only from his personality. In the confer-
ence at Jerusalem (in the year 50, Acts xv.), James not only took an impor-
tant part, but his voice gave the decision. We cannot call his advice, in
accordance with which the definite resolution was arrived at, a compromise;
for the question whether believers among the Gentiles were obliged to be
circumcised could only be affirmed or denied. James decided the question
in the negative; grounding his opinion not on his own experience, nor on
the communications of Paul and Barnabas, but on the divine act narrated
by Peter, wherein he recognized the commencement of the fulfilment of the
definite Asyor rdv xpoggrcy. When he imposed upon the Gentile Christians
axéxec0at amd TOY dGAicynuaTwy Tov eiddAwy Kal Tig mupveiag Kat Tov mviKTOU Kal Tod
aiuaroc, he does so, not in the same sense as that in which the Judaizers im-
1 This event, according to the united teeti-
mony of the Synoptists, occurred after the
choice of the Twelve; Mark makes it to fol-
low directly upon it. In €Aeyow ydp, ver. 21,
Lange finds an “‘ artifice’’ on the part of those
belonging to Jesus to rescue Him from the
death which threatened Him (!). — Meyer
supplies to ¢fnA@oyr, ‘‘ from Nazareth; ’’ but it
is probable that the family at this time dwelt
no longer in Nazareth, but In Capernaum; for
in Mark vi. 3 the inhabitants of Nazareth say
only of the sisters, but not of His mother and
brothers, that they dwelt with them (comp.
aleo Matt. xifl. 55).
2 Lange also, itis true, finds in the deniand
of the brothers a sign of unbelief, but of the
unbelief of an enthusiasm which had not yet
risen to self-sacrifice!
8 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
posed on them the observance of the law; and when as a reason he appeals
to the reading of Moses every sabbath in the synagogues even of Gentile
cities, he intimates that he wished to draw the boundary to the freedom of
the Gentile Christians, within which they must keep themselves if it were
to be possible for the Jewish Christians to live in brotherly fellowship with
them. That James not only recognizes Gentile Christianity, but also the
axooroAn of Paul, is apparent from Gal. ii. 7 ff.; yet it does not follow that
he entered entirely into Paul’s views. According to Gal. ii. 12, the persons
there called rivé¢ amd ’laxcBou were offended because Peter and the other Jews
did eat werd trav éevov. We are not told in the narrative of Paul that these
did not come directly from James, but only from Jerusalem; at least, that
they had not been sent by James, or that they had expressed themselves
more strongly than the views of James warranted. The influence which
they exerted on Peter, and even on Barnabas and the other Jewish Chris-
tians at Antioch, would rather seem to indicate that their words were
regarded as those of James, who, when he declared himself against ovvecdiedw
peta tov évav,! did not contradict his view expressed in the convention at
Jerusalem. It is clear from Acts xxi. 17-26 that James attached great im-
portance to the point that every dzocracia of the Jews from Moses should be
avoided, and that the Gentile Christians should remain by that fourfold
anéxecdar; he even demanded from Paul a proof that he had not ceased to
observe the law (rdv vopxov gvAdocew). From the fact that Paul complied with
this demand, it follows not only that he was not hostilely opposed to the
view of James, but that he respected it, and recognized in it nothing essen-
tially opposed to his own principles. He could not have done so had James
insisted on the observance of the law in the same sense as did the Judaizing
Christians, against whom Paul so often and so decidedly contended. Ac-
cording to James, the law was not a necessary means of justification along
with and in addition to faith, but the rule of life appointed by God to the
people of Israel, according to which believing Israel has to conform in the
free obedience of faith. Thus James was and continued to be in his faith in
Christ a true Jew, without, however, denying that Christianity was not only
the glorification of Judaism, but also that by it the blessing promised to
1 If Paul by ra €@vy (Gal. ii. 12) means not otherwise Peter would have had no reason to
Gentiles, but, as is certainly the usual view, separate himself from them at their meals. —
Gentile Christians, we must suppose, with Yet it Is doubtful if we are justificd in assum-
Wieseler (Komm. tiber d. Br. an d. Gal.), Ing thie, as the presupposed fact ia not in the
that the Gentile Christians at Antioch no least indicated by Paul.
longer kept the rules established at J erusalem,
INTRODUCTION. 9
Israel was imparted to the Gentiles without their being subject to the law
of Israel.1 The position of James toward the Mosaic law was accordingly
different from that of Paul. For, whilst the latter was conscious that in
Christ he was dead to the law (4 dv ixd vopov, 1 Cor. ix. 20), so that he felt
himself at liberty to be d¢ ‘Iovdaiog to the Jews but o¢ dvouoc to the avopoc,
though always fvvouog Xpwrp, the former esteemed it to be a sacred duty
in Christ to observe the law which God had given to His people through
Moses.2 Iu this legal obedience James showed such a strict conscientious-
ness, that even by the Jews he received the name of “the Just.”” And con-
sidering this his peculiar character, it is not at all to be wondered at that
the Judaistic Christians leant chiefly on him, and that Judaistic tradition
imparted additional features to his portrait, by which he appeared as the
ideal of Jewish holiness. According to the description of Hegesippus
(Euseb., Hist. Eccl., ii. 23), he was by birth a Nazarite, he led an ascetic
life, he never anointed with oil nor used the bath, he never wore woollen
but linen clothes, he was permitted to enter into the sanctuary, and he
prayed constantly on his knees for the forgiveness of the people, and con-
tinued in his devotions so long that his knees became hard as camels’.
This description may contain a few genuine traits, yet, as will be generally
1 Weiss is wrong when he maintains (in the
dissertation ‘‘ James and Paul” in the Deutsche
Ztachr. f. chrtstl. Wissenachaft, 5th year,
1854, No. 51) that James was a stranger to the
distinction between the fulfilment of the law
from a motive of duty and from the impulse
of a new principle, and that in this he was in
opposition to Paul; that while, according to
the latter, the law leads to sin and death; ac-
cording to the view of James it produces
rigbteousnesa and deliverance from death; and
that he cherishes the idea, supposed by Welss
to be contained in the O. T., that he only can
be declared righteous by God who is actually
perfectly righteous. In opposition to the first
two positions it is to be urged, that James in
chap. ji. speaks not of the O. T. law ae such,
but of the N. T. vépos ras dAevOepias; and
againat the third position, that the O. T. rec-
ognizes distinctly a forgiveness of sins, as well
as that James regarda &cxatovgda ¢f épywy as
a work of grace, since he does not deny the
existence of sin among true believers, and in
ii. 11 presupposes that it is only possible to .
stand in the judgment inasmuch as that judg.
ment is merciful. It is to be observed that
Welass advances the same view of James in his
Bibl. Theologie.
2 Pauland James before their conversion to
Ohriat certainly occupied different positions
with regard to the law. The former regarded
it —conformably to his Pharieaism —as the
means of procuring righteousness, and accord-
ingly in hie strivings he experienced it as a
¢vyés which weighed him down: James, on
the other hand, was certainly one of those
pious persons to whom, in the faith of the
covenant which God made with His people,
the law, as the witness of this covenant, was
the word of divine love, and therefore in it he
had found his joy and consolation (comp. Ps.
exix. 92, xix. 8-11).
when he recognized himself in Christ free from
Paul found his peace,
the law; James, when he experienced in
Christ strength to obey the law.
10 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
admitted, it cannot be acquitted of “suspicious exaggeration” (Lange).
The statements of the Ebionites proceed farther; in the Clementines, James
is raised above all the apostles, and exalted to the episcopacy of all Chris-
tendom; indeed, according to Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx. 16), his ascension
to heaven was a matter of narration; and Epiphanius himself thinks that
he not only went yearly into the holy of holies, but that he also wore the
diadem of the high priest.
SEC. 2.—THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE.
The contents of the Epistle prove that it was addressed to Christians.
Not only does the author— who by the designation xvpiov ‘Incod Xprorod
dovioc plainly announces himself to be a Christian — address his readers
throughout as his “brethren” (also as his “beloved brethren”), but in
several places he distinctly affirms that they stand with him on the same
ground of faith; in chap. i. 18 he says that God has begotten them
(nuGs) by the word of truth; in chap. ii. 1 he reminds them of their
miotic Tov Kupiov ’l, Xprotov ric dofn¢; in chap. ii. 7 he speaks of the goodly
name (that is, the name of Jesus Christ) which was invoked upon them;
in chap. v. 7 he exhorts them to patience, pointing out to them the
nearness of the coming of the Lord; and in chap. ii. 16 ff. he evidently
supposes that they had one and the same faith with himself. Add to
this, that if the author as a dotAor of Christ had written to non-Christians,
his Epistle could only have had the intention of leading them to faith
in Christ; but of such an intention there is not the slightest trace found
in the Epistle, so that Bouman is completely unjustified when he says:
vult haec esse epistola estque revera_ christianae religionis schola pro-
paedeutica. Certainly the designation of the readers, found in the
inscription of the Epistle as al dddexa gudal ai év ry duaczopd, appears at
variance with this view, as such a designation properly applies to Jews
dispersed among the Gentiles beyond the boundaries of Palestine. By
this name cannot be meant Christians in general (Hengstenberg), inas-
much as they are the spiritual Israel (in contrast to 6 ‘lopajA kata odpxa
1 Cor. x. 18; comp. Gal. vi. 16), and still less the Gentile Christians
(Philippi), because it stamps the nationality too distinctly (much more
than the expression éxAexrol mapenidnpot dtaonopac, 1 Pet. i. 1), particularly
as nothing is added pointing beyond the limits of nationality. The
apparent contradiction is solved by the consideration of the view of
James; according to which the Christians to whoin be wrote not only
INTRODUCTION. 11
had not ceased to be Jews, but it was precisely those Jews who believed
in the Messiah promised to them and manifested in Jesus who were the
true Jews, so that he regarded believing Israel as the true people of God,
on whom he could therefore without scruple confer the name ai dddexa
¢vaai,) pointing to the fathers to whom the promises were made; and,
besides, it is not to be forgotten that the sharp distinction between
Christianity springing up in Judaism, and Judaism called to Christianity,
did not at first arise, but was only gradually developed by subsequent
historical relations. Yet it is not—on account of the above adduced
reasons —to be inferred, as Bouman and Lange assume, that the Epistle
was not only written to the converted, but also to the unconverted
Jews.2 The destination of the Epistle to Jewish Christians follows from
chap. ii. 2, where the place of assembly of the congregations is called
cuvaywy7; from ii. 19, where monotheism is prominently brought for-
ward; from v. 12, where swearing according to forms customary among
the Jews is forbidden; and from v. 14, where the custom of anointing
with oil is mentioned. But, besides, all the ethical faults which the
author reproves are of such a nature that they have their root in the
carnal Jewish disposition (Wiesinger, Schaff, Thiersch, and others).§—
The indolent reliance, prevailing in the congregations, on a faith without
works, cannot be adduced as a feature opposed to the Jewish character;
for in its nature it is nothing else than the pharisaical confidence on the
superiority over all other nations, granted by God through the law to
the people of Israel. As the Jews thought that in their law they had
a guaranty for their salvation without the actual practice of the law
(comp. Rom. ii. 17 ff.), so these Christians trusted to their faith, though
defective in works.4 That in later times the Jews also placed a false
1 The solution is unsatisfactory, that “ James |
writes to the Jews with whom he has access
as a servant of Jesus Christ, and on whom as
such he has influence.”
3 It is true that the author directly addresses
the rich, who were hoatilely disposed to the
Christians; but it does not follow from this
that the Epistle was in any proper sense di-
rected to them; it is rather to be explained
from the liveliness with which he writes. The
author sees those who had exposed the read-
ers of his Epistle in a twofold manner to temp-
tation (wetpagyuds) as present before him, and
therefore for the sake of his readers he ad-
dresses them directly; as also the prophets
often did in their denunciations against the
enemies of Israel.
3’ When Briickner thinks that the descrip-
tion of the readers as ai wdexa dvAa does not
require that they were merely Jewish Chris-
tlans, but only that they who came over to
them from the Gentiles must have submitted
to the ordinances of the Jewish national life,
it ia to be observed that circumcised Gentiles
were no longer regarded as Gentiles, but as
Jews.
4 “What James had in view is simply a
Jewish orthodoxy which asserted itself among
12 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
confidence on their knowledge of God, Justin testifies when he says:
of ztyovow, Stt adv duaptusol wot, Osby dé yiwooxovoiv, ov py Aoviontat abroi¢
duapriav (Dial., p. 370, ed. col.). —It is true, it is not prominently men-
tioned in the Epistle, that the readers were solicitous about a scrupulous
observance of the rites of the Mosaic law; but a false estimate of an
external @pyoxeia was, according to i. 22 ff., not wanting among them,
with which also was united, as among the Jews, a fanatical zeal (6p;7).
— The condition of these Jewish-Christian congregations, as described
in the Epistle, was as follows: They were exposed to manifold tempta-
tions (sepacpoic mouidog), Whilst their members as poor (razewoi, rrwyoi)
by reason of their faith (chap. ii. 5, 6) were oppressed by the rich.
But they did not bear these persecutions with that patience which assures
the true Christian of the crown of life: on the contrary, these persecu-
tions gave rise to an inward temptation, the blame of which, however,
they sought not in themselves, in their ém@vuia, but in God. Instead
of praying in faith for the wisdom which was lacking to them, they gave
way to doubt, which placed them in opposition to the principle of Chris-
tian life. Whilst they considered their razevdéryg as a disgrace, they
looked with envy at the glitter of earthly glory, and preferred the friend-
ship of the world to that of God; in consequence of which, even in their
religious assemblies, they flattered the rich, whilst they looked down
upon the poor. This worldly spirit, conducive to the friendship of the
world, was likewise the occasion of bitter strife among them, in which
they murmured against each other, and in passionate zeal contended with
violent words. These contentions were not “theological discussions”
(Reuss) or “doctrinal dissensions” (Schmid), for the Epistle points to
none of these; but concerned practical life, especially the Christian’s
demeanor in the world! As the Jews imagined that it belonged to
them to be the ruling people of the world, to whom all the glory of the
world belonged, so also many in these congregations wished to possess,
even on the earth, in a worldly form, the glory promised to Christians;
and therefore they quarrelled with “the brethren of low degree,” who, on
their part, were carried along in passionate wrath against those of a
the Jewish Christians tn the form of a dead, and unphilosophical author as much opposed
unfrultful faith In God and the Messiah’? as the supremacy of money and fine clothes,"
(Thierseh), since the AaAeis against which James contends
1 The observation of Reuss (§ 144) Is mis- has nothing to do with “systems and philoso.
leading: “The aupremacy of systema and phy.”
philosophy of faith was to the simple-minded
INTRODUCTION. 13
proud disposition. In serving the world they certainly did not wish to
cease to be Christians; but they thought to be certain of justification
(dxuosodar) on account of their faith, although that faith was to them
something entirely external, which produced amnong them a fanatical zeal
(as the law among the Jews), but not that work of faith which consisted,
on the one hand, in rypeiv éavrdv dd rod xéopov, and, on the other, in the
practice of compassionate love. Yet all were not estranged in this
manner from the Christian life; there were still among them disciples
of the Lord who were and wished to be rarewoi: yet worldliness was so
prevalent in the midst of them, that even they suffered from it. Hence
the admonitory and warning nature of the Epistle to all, yet so that it
is addressed chiefly sometimes to the one party and sometimes to the
other, and is in its tone now mild and now severe. All, however, are
addressed as ddeAdoi, except the rich, who are distinctly stated as those
who stand not inside, but outside, of the congregations to whom the
Epistle was addressed. These faults in the congregations were the occa-
sion which induced James to compose his Epistle. The Epistle itself
is opposed to the opinion of Lange, that its occasion can only be under-
stood when it is recognized that the Jewish Christians were infected by
the fanaticism of the Jews, in which the revolutionary impulse of inde-
pendence and revenge was united with enthusiastic apocalyptic and
chiliastic hopes, and which was excited by the antagonism of the Gentile
world to Judaism; in the Epistle, only in an arbitrary manner can
references and allusions to these “historical conditions” be maintained.
The churches to which the Epistle is addressed are, according to the
inscription, outside of Palestine, chiefly in Syria and the far East, whilst
in the West there were hardly any Jewish-Christian churches; yet it is
possible that the author also included, by the expression employed, the
churches in Palestine only outside of Jerusalem (Guericke).
SEC. 3.—CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle commences with a reference to the metpacuoi which the
readers had to endure, exhorting them to esteem them as reasons for joy,
to prove their patience under them, to ask in faith for the wisdom which
was lacking to them, to which a warning against doubt is annexed. To
the rich the judgment of God is announced; whilst to the lowly, who .
endure patiently, the crown of life is promised (i. 1-12). Directly upon
this follows the warning not to refer the internal temptations which arose
14 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
from their own lusts (émdvpia) to God; as from God, on the contrary,
cometh every good gift, especially the new birth by the word of truth
(i. 18-18). To this is annexed the exhortation to be swift to hear, slow
to speak, and slow to wrath. This exhortation forms the basis for the
following amplifications. The first, “swift to hear,” is more precisely
defined: to receive with meekness the word: which is able to save the
soul, in such a way as there shall be no failure in the doing of the word
by works of compassionate love, and by preserving onc’s self from the
_ world (i. 19-27). With special reference to the flattery of the rich and
the despising of the poor occurring in their assemblies, the sin of respect
of persons is brought before the readers, and pressed upon them: that
whosoever shall transgress the law in one point, he is guilty of all, and
that to the unmerciful a judgment without mercy will be meted out
(ii. 1-13); whereupon it is strongly affirmed that it is foolish to trust
to a faith which without works is in itself dead. Such a faith does not
profit; for by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, as also
the examples of Abraham and Rahab show (ii. 14-26). — Without any
transition, an earnest warning follows against the vain desire of teaching,
which evidently refers to “slow to speak, slow to wrath.” The warning
is founded on the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of bridling the .
tongue. Heavenly wisdom is then commended, in contrast to the wisdom
of this world, which is full of bitter envy (iii. 1-18). The author severely
reprimands his readers for their strifes arising from the love of the
world; and exhorts them to humble themselves before God, and not to
judge one another (iv. 1-12). He then turns to those who, in the pride
of possession, forget their dependence on God, points out to them the
fleeting nature of human life, subjoins a severe apostrophe against the
rich, to whom he announces the certain judgment of God (iv. 13-v. 6),
and, pointing to the Old-Testament examples, exhorts his readers to a
persevering patience in love, as the coming of the Lord is at hand
(v. 7-11). After a short warning against idle swearing (v. 12), the
author gives advice as to how the sick are to behave themselves, exhort-
ing them to mutual confession of sin, and, referring to the example of
Elias, to mutual intercession; he then concludes the Epistle by stating
the blessing which arises from the conversion of a sinner (v. 13-20).
1 On the train of thought fo the Epistle, 1. 19 for the construction of the Epistle is cor-
see The Connection of the Epistle of James, rectly recognized; only the two members
by Pfeiffer, in Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1850, Bpadis eig 7d AcARoa and Bpadis eis dpyijv are
Part I. In this dissertation the importance of too much separated from each other, and ao-
INTRODUCTION. 15
This Epistle was not addressed to a single church, but to a circle of
churches (namely, to the Jewish-Christian churches outside of Palestine or
of Jerusalem), on which account, when received into the canon, it was
classed among the so-called émorodaic¢ xafoduxaic, by which, however, nothing
is determined concerning its peculiar design.! For, even although the
seven catholic Epistles received this name with reference to the already
existing collection of the Pauline Epistles, yet the opinion of Kern (Com-
mentary, Introduction), that the collection of these epistles under that name
indicates an internal relationship with reference to the doctrine and tend-
ency of Paul, is not justified. As an encyclical epistle, the Epistle of
James considers only congregational, but not personal, relations. With
regard to its contents, it is decidedly ethical, not dogmatic, and that not
merely because it treats only of the ethical faults in the congregations re-
ferred to, but also because it contemplates Christianity only according to
its ethical side.2 It is peculiar to this Epistle, that the gospel —the word
of truth by which God effects the new birth, and of which it is said that it
is able to save the soul—is designated vépuoc. This véduoc, more exactly
characterized as rideog & ric tAevdepias, is certainly distinguished from the
O. T. véuoc, which only commands, without communicating the power of
free obedience; but, at the same time, in this very designation the convic-
tion is expressed of the closest connection between Judaism and Christi-
anity, whilst the same véyuog Baaidixéc, which forms the essence of the law in
the O. T. economy, is stated as the summary of this N. T. voyoc. Taking
these two points together, it follows, according to the view of the author,
that, on the one hand, the Christian by means of ziort, which is implanted
in his mind by the word of truth, has stepped into a new relation with God
(and in so far Christianity is a new creation); and, on the other hand, the
chief point of Christianity consists in this, that in it such a moinow is pos-
sible, by which a man is paxépuc, and may be assured of future owrnpia (and
in so far Christianity is glorified Judaism). Hence the author can ascribe
no importance to a ziorg which is without épya, and hence it is natural to
cordingly the commencement of a third divis-
fon of the Eplstie is placed at ili. 13, where,
however, the reference to the dpy7 in the pre-
ceding paragraph is evident.
1 Concerning the name émeroAai xaodicai,
eee Introductions to the N. T. The most
probabie opinion is, that ca@oArxés is synony-
mous with dycvxAcos. The reason why 1 and
2 John are included fe that they belonged to
the First Epistle, and were appended to it.
Bee also Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie, article
“* Katholische Briefe.’
2 Aleo “the mystical element” (Briickner,
Gunke!) {s not wanting, as appears from {. 18;
but thie fs only indicated in a passing manner,
without James further entering upon
16 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
him to place all the importance on the épya, that is, on the works which pro-
ceed from faith; yet he does this neither in the sense that man by his épya
is placed in this new relation to God, for it is only in this relation that he ©
can do these works, nor yet in the sense that by them he can merit owrnpia
or dixawicba in the judgment (év 1@ xpiveodar), for James does not deny that
the believer continues a sinner, and that therefore he can only be acquitted
in judgment by the mercy of God. — The reticence on christological points
is another peculiarity of this Epistle. Yet there is not wanting in it a de-
cidedly Christian impress. This is seen in two ways: First, ethical exhor-
tations are enforced—though not, as is often the case in other N. T.
Epistles, by a reference to the specific points of Christ’s salvation— by a
reference both to the saving act of regeneration by the gospel, and to the
advent of the Lord, so that, as the foundation of the Christian ethical life
subjectively considered is mir, 80 objectively it is the redemption of God
in Christ. Secondly, the same dignity is attributed to Christ in this Epistle
as in the other writings of the N. T. This is seen from the fact that the
author calls himself a dovAoc of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is
here to be observed, that God and Christ are placed in juxtaposition, and
that the same name is given to Christ as to God, namely xipioc, by which
He is placed on an equality with God, and specifically distinguished from
man. The circumstance that the author directly unites the divine judg-
ment with the coming of the Lord, indeed designates the Lord Himself as
the Judge, also points to this higher dignity of Christ. See Dorner, Lehre
von der Person Christi, 2d ed., part i. p. 94 ff.; Kern, Komment., p. 40;
Schmid, Bibl. Theol., part ii. § 57, 1. Nor are christological points wanting
in the Epistle; though the fact that they are more repressed than is the case
elsewhere in the N. T., and that specific acts of redemption, as the incarna-
tion of Christ, His death, His resurrection, etc., are entirely omitted, forms
a peculiarity of this Epistle which distinguishes it from all the other writ-
ings of the N. T. The view of the author is directed less to the past than
to the future, as this corresponds to his design, which aimed at the practical
bearing of Christianity; see i. 12, ii. 5, 14, iii. 1, v.1,7,9. See, on the
contents of the Epistle, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des N. T., pp. 196-219.—It is
undeniable that there is a connection between this Epistle and Christ's Ser-
mon on the Mount; Kern calls it a counterpart of the same, and Schmid
(Bibl. Theol., ii. § 60) says that James had it for his model. Yet this is not
to be understood as if the Sermon on the Mount, as transmitted by Matthew,
was influential for the conception of this Epistle: it is not even proved that
the author was acquainted with that writing; and not only do we find in
INTRODUCTION. 17
each of these two writings many references which are foreign to the other,
but also where they coincide there is a difference of expression in the same
thoughts. The relationship consists rather in the fact that the ethical view
of Christianity, as seen in the Epistle, is in perfect accordance with the
thoughts expressed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in
His other discourses, and which, before they were reduced to writing, were
in their original form vividly impressed on the Church by oral tradition.
Imbued with the moral spirit of Christianity announced in these words of
Jesus, the author of the Epistle regards Christianity chiefly as a moral life,
so that even the person of Christ, in a certain measure, steps into the back-
ground; just as Christ Himself, where He treats of the ethical life, is com-
paratively silent with reference to His own person. ‘The parallel passages
from the Sermon on the Mount are the following: chap. i. 2, Matt. v. 10-12;
chap. i. 4 (iva iyre réAecot), Matt. v. 48; chap. i. 5, v. 15 ff., Matt. vii. 7 ff. ;
chap. i. 9, Matt. v. 3; chap. i. 20, Matt. v. 22; chap. ii. 18, Matt. vi. 14,
15, v. 7; chap. ii. 14 ff., Matt. vii. 21 ff.; chap. iii. 17, 18, Matt. v. 9; chap.
iv. 4, Matt. vi. 24; chap. iv. 10, Matt. v. 3,4; chap. iv. 11, Matt. vii. 1 f.;
chap. v. 2, Matt. vi. 19; chap. v. 10, Matt. v. 12; chap. v. 12, Matt. v. 33 ff.
There are also parallel passages from the other discourses of Jesus: chap. i.
14, Matt. xv. 19; chap. iv. 12, Matt. x. 28. Compare also the places where
the rich are denounced, with Luke vi. 24 ff. — But as these parallel passages
do not prove the use of the synoptical Gospels, so neither is a use of the
Pauline Epistles demonstrated.1_ The few places where the author coincides
with the First Epistle of Peter are to be explained from an acquaintance of
Peter with this Epistle. On the other hand, it is worthy of remark, that
not only is there frequent reference to the expressions and historical ex-
amples of the O. T., but that the idea ‘of the contrast, running through
the spirit of Israel, between the externally fortunate but reprobate friend-
ship of the world, and the externally suffering ‘but blessed friendship of
God” (Reuss), pervades this Epistle. — Several passages are evidently
founded on corresponding passages in the Apocrypha of the O. T.
As, on the one hand, the Epistle is a letter of comfort and exhortation
for the believing brethren, so, on the other hand, it is a polemical writing;
but its polemics are directed not against dogmatic errors, but ethical per-
versions. Only one passage, chap. ii. 14-26, appears to combat a definite
doctrine, and that the doctrine of justification of the Apostle Paul. But
1 Incorrectly, Hengstenberg thinks that if.12, to Gal. iv.5; and chap. i. 22, to Rom.
chap. i. 2, 3, refers to Rom. v. 3; chap. 1.25, ii. 13.
18 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
whatever view may be taken of this, the polemics are here introduced for
the sake of ethical Christian life, namely, only with the object of showing
that Christians are not indolently to trust to a ziore without works, but are
to prove a living faith by good works, so that the proposition t gpywv dixatodras
dvOpunoc, xal ob éx mictewe uovov, is by no means employed to confute the Paul-
ine principle, ob dixawdra: dvopwrog 8 Epywy vopov, Lav ua dia mictewe Inood Xptorod,
in the application in which Paul made the assertion. Here, then, as every-
where, we see that the author is a man whose attention is entirely directed
to practical life, and who, both for himself and for others, has in view, as
the aim of all striving, a redewrn¢ which consists in the perfect agreement
of the life with the divine will, which the law in itself was incapable of pro-
ducing, but which to the Christian is rendered possible, because God, accord-
ing to His will, has by faith implanted His law as an inner principle of life,
and therefore is to be aimed at with all earnestness.
In recent times, the peculiar tendency of this Epistle has often been des-
ignated as that of a Jewish Christianity. It is true that there is not the
slightest trace of an agreement with the view expressed in Acts xv. 1: éav pi)
mepttéuvnode TH EGE. Muiaéwe ob divacbe owivat; neither is circumcision, nor the
ritual observances of the Mosaic law, anywhere mentioned; but the suppo-
sition of the unity of the Old and New Testament law which lies at the
foundation of the Epistle, as well as the peculiar importance assigned to
noino tov Epyov, With the reticence on the christological points of salvation,
point certainly to a Jewish-Christian author, who occupies a different posi-
tion to the law from that of the Apostle Paul. So far, there is nothing to
object to in this designation; only it must not be forgotten, that, apart from
the heretical forms into which Jewish Christianity degenerated, it might
assume, and did assume, special forms different from that presented in this
Epistle. If, in later Jewish-Christian literature, there are many traces of a
relationship with the tendency of this Epistle, yet there is to be recognized
in this fact not less the definite influence of the person of the author than
its Jewish-Christian spirit.
As regards the style and form of expression, the janguage is not only fresh
and vivid, the immediate outflow of a deep and earnest spirit, but at the
same time sententious and rich in graphic figure. Gnome follows after
gnome, and the discourse hastens from one similitude to another: so that
the diction often passes into the poetical, and in some parts is like that of
the O. T. prophets. We do not find logical connection, like that in St.
Paul; but the thoughts arrange themselves in single groups, which are
strongly marked off from one another. We everywhere see that the author
INTRODUCTION. 19
has his object clearly in sight, and puts it forth with graphic concreteness.
“As mild language is suited to tender feeling, so strong feelings produce
strong language. Especially, the style acquires emphasis and majesty by
the climax of thoughts and words ever regularly and rhetorically arrived at,
and by the constantly occurring antithesis,” Kern (Commentary, p. 37 f.). —
Also the mode of representation in the Epistle is peculiar: “The writer ever
goes at once in res medias, and with the first sentence which begins a sec-
tion (usually an interrogative or imperative one) says out at once, fully
and entirely, that which he has in his heart; so that in almost every case
the first words of each section might serve as a title for it. The further
development of the thought, then, is regressive, explaining and grounding
the preceding sentence, and concludes with a comprehensive sentence, reca-
pitulating that with which he began” (Wiesinger).
SEC. 4.—THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
According to the inscription, the Epistle is written by James, who styles
himself dotAos of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ; but this designation is
neither in favor of nor against the apostolate of the author. Still, it is evi-
dent from the whole contents of the Epistle, addressed to the Jewish-Chris-
tian churches of the Diaspora, that no other James is meant than ‘the
brother of the Lord,’ who is not identical with the Apostle James (see
sec. 1). Eusebius expresses himself uncertainly concerning its authen-
ticity; he reckons it among the Antilegomena (Hist. Eccl., ili. 25), and
says of it: ioréov o¢ vodeveras yév, that not many of the ancients have men-
tioned it, but that nevertheless it is publicly read in most of the churches
(Hist. Eccl., ii. 23). Of the ancient fathers, Origen is the first who ex-
pressly cites it (tom. xix. In Joan. : w¢ év rH gepopévy "laxd,3ov émaroAg avéyvuuer);
in the Latin version of Rufinus, passages are often quoted from the Epistle
as the words of the Apostle James (ed. de la Rue, vol. ii., Hom. viii., Jn
Exod., p. 158: “sed et Apostolus Jacobus dicit;” comp. pp. 139, 191, 644,
671, 815). The Epistle is not mentioned in the writings of Clemens Alex-
andrinus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; yet, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.,
vi. 14), it was known and commented on by Clemens Alexandrinus. Diony-
sius Alexandrinus expressly mentions it; and Jerome (Catalog., ¢. iii.) di-
rectly calls James the Lord's brother, the author of the Epistle, yet with
the remark: quae et ipsa abalio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. It
is of special importance, that this Epistle is found in the old Syriac ver-
sion, the Peshito, in which are wanting the four smaller Catholic Epistles
20 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
and the Apocalypse. Guericke (Einl., p. 442) with truth remarks, “that
this testimony is of the greater importance, as the country from which the
Peshito proceeded closely bordered on that from which the Epistle origi-
nated, and as that testimony was also repeated and believed in by the Syriac
Church of the following age.” The early existence of the Epistle appears
by many similarities to single passages in the earliest writings. The agree-
ment which subsists between some passages of First Peter and this Epistle
is undeniable: compare 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, with Jas. i. 2,3; 1 Pet. ii. 1 with Jas.
i.21; 1 Pet. iv. 8 with Jas. v. 20; and 1 Pet. v. 5-9 with Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10.
(See author’s Comm. on First Peter, Introd., sec. 2.) That Clemens Romanus,
in his Epist. ad Corinth., chaps. x., xii., xvii., xxxviii., alludes to correspond-
ing passages in this Epistle, is not so certain as Kern (in his Commentary),
Guericke, Wiesinger, and others assume: for, that Clemens in chap. x.
adduces, among the pious men of the Old Testament, Abraham, referring to
Gen. xv. 6, is not surprising, also the words 6 ¢gido¢ npocayopevoei¢ do not
prove an acquaintance with the Epistle, as Abraham was already so called
by Philo; his offering of Isaac is indeed mentioned, but not as an épyov on
account of which he was justified. Similarly with reference to the mention
of Rahab, of whom it is said in chap. xli.: dca ior wal giAogeviav 2000n “Paa3,
4 mopvn, Whereupon follows the history, Still less is the connection between
chap. xvii. and Jas. v. 10, 11. It seems more certain that Jas. ili. 13
lies at the foundation of the words in chap. xxxvili.: 5 cogdc évdetxricdw tiv
coviav aitod pi ev Adyou GAA’ év Epyorr ayadoic. Some similarities to the Epistle
likewise occur in Hermas: thus III. Sunil. 8: nomen ejus negaverunt, quod
Super evs crat invocatum (comp. Jas. ii. 7); yet here the discourse is not con-
cerning the rich and an invective upon them. Further, the passages IT.
Mand, xii. 5: lav obv dvriozy¢ avtdv (Tov dia3oAov), vixndetg geiserac (comp. Jas.
iv. 7); and II. Mand. xii. 6: g0376nrt Tov xvpiov, tdv duvduevov odoat Kal drvAécat
(comp. Jas. iv. 12). Of greater importance than this coincidence in single
expressions, is the fact that, with Hermas, a view generally predominates
which agrees in many respects with that of the Epistle: Christianity is also
with him mostly considered in its ethical sense; the christological points
step into the background; the distinction of rich and poor is strongly em-
phasized; and in the exhortation to prayer, zicre is expressly insisted on,
and dwvyia (II. Mand. 9) is warned against; so that an acquaintance of the
author of this writing with the Epistle can scarcely be denied. Also the
1 Even Guericke admits that this passage of 31 than of Jas. fi. 25. But It is possible that
the example of Rahab, according to ite actual Clemens had neither the one passage nor the
contents, is a reminiscence rather of Heb. xi. other in view.
INTRODUCTION. 21
Clementine Homilies, apart from their speculative contents, exhibit an
acquaintance with the tendency of this Epistle. Kern has collected a great
number of parallel passages, yet it cannot be denied that in individual cases
both the connection and the expression of thought are different. In Ire-
naeus (Adv. Haer., iv. 16,2) the union of the words: Abraham credidit Deo et
reputatum est wli ad justitiam, with those which directly follow: et amicus
Dei vocatus est, points to Jas. ii. 23; also, in Clemens Alex., Strom., vi. p.
696, ed. Sylb., a similarity to Jas. ii. 8 can scarcely be denied; whilst the
designation of Abraham in Tertullian (Adv. Judaeos, cap. 2) as amicus Dei
proves nothing. Cyrill of Jerusalem (Catech., iv. c. 33) reckons all the
seven Catholic Epistles among the canonical writings; and since his time
the Epistle has been unbesitatingly reckoned an apostolic writing belonging
to the canon.!
According to the above data, a certain dubiety undoubtedly prevailed in
tradition, which, however, proves nothing against the authenticity, as it is
easily accounted for from the peculiar nature of the Epistle. For, on the
one hand, James the Lord’s brother had, it is true, obtained an apostolic
importance, so that Paul numbered him among the pillars of the church;
yet he was not an apostle, and the more closely the Jewish-Christian
churches attached themselves to him, so the more estranged must he have
become to the other churches; and, on the other hand, the Epistle was
directed only to the Jewish-Christian churches, and the more these, by hold-
ing to the original type, distinguished and separated themselves from the
other churches, the more difficult must it have been to regard an epistle
directed to them as the common property of the Church, especially as it
appeared to contain a contradiction to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul.
These circumstances, as Thiersch (Krit., p. 359 f.) and Wiesinger have
rightly remarked, would hinder the universal recognition of the Epistle;
but the more this was the case, so much the more valuable are those testi-
monies of antiquity, although isolated, in favor of its genuineness.
Whilst, in the Middle Ages, the canonicity of the Epistle was not
questioned, in the sixteenth century objections to it of various kinds were
advanced. It is well known that Luther did not regard the Epistle as
apostolical. In his preface to it (1522) he thus expresses his opinion:
“In my opinion, it was some good pious man who got hold of and put
on paper some sayings of the disciples of the apostles, or perhaps
another has made notes from his preaching.” In the preface to the
1 Only Theodorus Mopeuestius ie sald to Leontius Bysantius (Contra Nest. et Zut., ill.
have rejected it, according to the statement of 14).
22 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
N. T. (1522) he calls the Epistle, compared with the best books of the
N. T. (which he names as the Gospel and First Epistle of John, the
Pauline Epistles, particularly the Romans, the Galatians, and the Ephe-
sians, and First Peter), “a right strawy Epistle, for it has in it no true
evangelical character.” In his sermons on the Epistles of Peter (1523),
Luther says that one may discern that the Epistle of James is “no
genuine apostolical epistle;” and in his Kirchenpostille (delivered in the
summers of 1527 and 1528), he again says that it “was neither written by
an apostle, nor has it the true apostolic ring, nor does it agree with the
pure doctrine” (Luther’s Works, edited by Plochmann, vol. VIII. p. 268).
So also, in a sermon on the day of Epiphany, he says, “James and Jude,
many think, are not writings of the apostles.” The reasons with which
Luther supports his depreciatory judgment of the Epistle, and which
he gives in his preface to it, are the following: (1) That it “proclaims
the righteousness of works, in flat contradiction to Paul and all other
scripture ;" it is true “a gloss (or explanation) of such righteousness of
works may be found; but that the Epistle adduces the saying of Moses
(Rom. iv. 3), which speaks only of Abraham’s faith and not of his works,
in favor of works, cannot be defended.” (2) That it “makes no mention
of the sufferings, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ.” Besides, be
objects to the Epistle, that this James does nothing more than urge men
to the law and its works, and “confusedly passes from one subject to
another.” ! Assuming that some passages are borrowed from First Peter,
and that chap. iv. 5 is from Gal. v. 17, he comes to the conclusion, that
as James was put to death by Herod before Peter, he could not be the
author of the Epistle, but that the real author must have lived long after
Peter and Paul.?— With the opinion of Luther agree the Magdeburg
2 Also in the 7able- Talk (Plochmann's edi-
tion, vol. Ixil. p. 127) the same opinion is ex-
pressed : ‘‘ Many have endeavored and labored
to reconcile the Epistle of James with Paul.
Philip Melanchthon refers to it in his Apology,
but not with earnestness; for ‘ faith justifies,’
and ‘ faith does not justify,’ are plain contra-
dictions. Whoever can reconcile them, on him
will I put on my cap (Barett), and allow him
to call mea fool.” This saying, as well as the
expression in the Airchenpostille, proves that
Luther, even in his later years, continued firm
to the opinion expressed in his preface to the
Eplatle of 1522, and in his preface to the N. T.
of the same year; although in the later edi-
tions of the N. T. the whole conclusion, in
which he treats of the distinction between the
booka of the N. T., is omitted (see Plochmann,
vol. Ixifl. p. 114).
2 This opinion of Luther, that the supposed
author is James the sou of Zebedee, is sur-
prising, as in the tradition of the Church of his
own and of the preceding time, not James the
son of Zebedee, but James the son of Alphaeus,
was regarded as the author; yet in some MSS.
of the Peshito it ia ascribed to the former.
INTRODUCTION. 23
Centuries, Hunnius, Althamer, and others ; and also Wetstein.! On the
other hand, with evident reference to this opinion, Calvin defends the
Epistle. In his introduction to his commentary he says: Quia nullam
ejus (epistolae) repudiandae satis justam causam video, libenter eam sine
controversja amplector; he repudiates the assertion that the Epistle con-
tradicts the Apostle Paul; against the reason, quod parcior in praedi-
canda Christi gratia videtur, quam apostolo conveniat, he asserts: Non
est ab omnibus exigendum, ut idem argumentum tractent; and he then
gives his own judgment: Nihil continet Christi apostolo indignum; mul-
tiplici vero doctrina scatet, cujus uttlitas ad omnes Christianae vitae
partes late patet. On the other hand, the Epistle did not remain unat-
tacked even in the Catholic Church; not only Erasmus, but also Cajetan
(on account of the unapostolic salutation, chap. i. 1), expressed doubts
of its apostolic origin. But neither these doubts, nor the attacks of
Luther, deprived the Epistle of its ecclesiastical authority: on the con-
trary, it was regarded in the Protestant not less than in the Catholic
Church, as the work of the Apostle James the younger, who was con:
sidered as identical with “the Lord’s brother.” — Afterwards Faber
(Observait. in Ep. Jac., Coburg, 1770), Bolten (Uebers. der neut. Briefe),
Schmidt (Zinl. ins N. T.), and Bertholdt advanced the untenable opinion,
that the Epistle of James was originally written in Aramaic, and after-
wards translated by another into Greek. De Wette, in his Introduction to
the New Testament, asserted that the composition of this Epistle by the
Lord’s brother — whom he also regarded as the same with James the son
of Alphaeus— was doubtful. De Wette advances the following reasons
for his doubts: (1) That we cannot see what should have induced
James to write to all the Jewish Christians in the world; (2) that the
misplaced contradiction to Paul seems unworthy of James; (8) that, if
ii. 25 is to be regarded as a reference to Heb..xi. 31, this would betray
an author of a later day; and (4) lastly, that it is incomprehensible that
James should have attained to such a use of the Greek language. If
De Wette at a later period somewhat modified his opinion, still he
remained true to his doubts, which he did not deny even in his Evxeget.
Handbuch. Against these reasons it is to be observed: 1. The occasion
t Wetetein’s opinion ie as follows: Meam ram operibus justificationem tribuit; denique,
sententiam nemini obtrudam, tantum dicam, Jacobus ipsa ita confundit omnia ac permiscet,
me epistolam Jacobi non existimare essescrip- ut mihi vir bonus aliquis ac simplex fulsse
tum apostolicum, ob hance rationem: primo, _-videatur, qui arreptis quibusdam dictis discip-
quia directe contra Paulam et omnem seriptu- ulorum apostolicorum ea in chartam conjecerit.
24 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
of the writing is clearly to be recognized from the Epistle itself, namely,
the ethical faults in the churches referred to; that only the Jewish Chris-
tians in Palestine had separate churches for themselves, is an unfounded
assumption of De Wette. 2. The opinion of a contradiction to Paul is
destitute of all sure exegetical reasons; see explanation of ii. 14 ff. 3. It
cannot be proved that the example of Rahab is taken from the Epistle
to the Hebrews. 4. It cannot be perceived why James should be less
skilled in the Greek language than must be assumed from this Epistle.
— When De-Wette in his Ezeget. Handbuch thinks that the author has
appropriated to himself from Paul (out of his Epistles) the free moral
spirit, but not his contemplative believing view, and that it is very doubt-
ful whether he ever reached such a standpoint, it is to be observed that
such subjective suppositions form no sure basis for criticism. — Schleier-
macher (in his Introduction to the N. T., edited by Wolde) judges of the
Epistle even more unfavorably than De Wette. He not only agrees with
Luther that the author “is confused,” and is destitute “of the true
evangelical character,” but he also objects that the transitions are “either
ornate and artificial, or awkward;” that the artificial character of the
diction shows that the author was a stranger to the Greek language;
that much therein is bombast. Schleiermacher, indeed, acknowledges
that the Epistle is addressed to Jewish Christians; that possibly, in the
section ii. 14-26, ‘‘no reference to the Pauline theory lies at the founda-
tion; ” that, if the writing is to be placed in the canonical period of the
apostolic writings, it must be put at an early period, as there is no refer-
ehce to the relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians; that
it indicates a view of Christianity out of which afterwards Ebionite
Christianity may have arisen. But on the other hand, in opposition to
these admissions, Schleiermacher thinks that if the Epistle belongs to the
early period, it could not have been addressed to churches outside of
Palestine; that we would expect it to have been written in Aramaic;
that, considering the idea of Christianity which predominates in it
(namely, that it is the fullest development of monotheism), we can with
difficulty imagine that “this James was the same person who was the
immediate disciple of Christ and the apostles, who afterwards became
bishop of Jerusalem, and was so earnest (?) for the diffusion of Chris-
tianity among the Gentiles.” — Finally, Schleiermacher arrives at the con-
clusion that the Epistle is a later production and fabrication, i.e., not
founded on fact, and not intended by its author for any particular circle
of readers. The explanation of the origin and composition of the
INTRODUCTION. 25
Epistle which he most favored was, that “some one wrote it in the name
of the Palestinian Apostle James, and collected reminiscences from his
discourses, not in the happiest manner, and in a language which was not
familiar to him.” This criticism wants a sure ground to rest upon, as
much as the criticism of De Wette. — Also the recent Tiibingen school,”
in conformity with their view of the development of Christianity, have
denied the authenticity of the Epistle. They place its origin in the
period when the two antagonistic principles of Jewish Christianity and
Paulinism already began to be reconciled, in order to be united together
in Catholicism. Baur, both in his Paulus (p. 677 ff.) and in his Christen-
thum der 8 ersten Jahrhunderte (p. 96 f.), has attempted to prove that the
Epistle belongs to a period when Jewish:Christianity had already made
an important concession in relinquishing tHe necessity of circumcision to
Gentile Christianity, and that it proves itself to be a product of the
post-Pauline period, in that it opposes d:xawioda t& Esywy to the Pauline
G&xaotoba éx xictews, but, on the other hand, does not deny the influence
of Paulinism; for, in accordance with the Pauline idea of making the
law an inward thing, “it not only speaks of the commandment of love
as a royal law, but also speaks of a law of liberty.” -—Schwegler (Das
nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 413 ff.) has attempted to justify this view
of Baur by an examination of particulars. The following are the
reasons which he assigns for the composition of the Epistle in the post-
apostolic period: 1. Its want of individuality; 2. The want of acquaint-
ance of Christian antiquity with it, and its late recognition as a canon-
ical writing; 3. The form of a mild Ebionitism which pervades it; 4.
The internal congregational relations presupposed; 5. Its acquaintance
with the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel
of the Hebrews. The E£bionitical character of the Epistle is proved,
(1) from the name of James attached to it; (2) from the designation of
the readers as the dddexa gvdal, «.7.A.. by which not the Jewish-Christian
churches, but entire Christianity, is meant; (3) from the retention of the
old Jewish name ovvaywyy instead of txxAnoia; (4) from the statement
of the Christian life as the fulfilling of the law, united with reticence upon
the doctrine of the person of Christ; (5) from the relation of the Epistle
to the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Clementine Homilies; (6) from the
use of the Apocrypha; (7) from the polemic against the Pauline doctrine
of justification; and (8) lastly, from the antagonism to the Gentile Chris-
tians, who under the name Acta are put in opposition to the Jewish
Christians, i.e., to the mrwxoic. The conciliating tendency seeking an
26 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
adjustment of the antagonism is alleged to be manifest, (1) from the
antagonism of the rich and the poor being discussed with the design of
paving the way for an approximation of these parties by influencing the
former (the Gentile Christians, regarded as the rich) (!), and by bringing
about a change of sentiment in them (toward the Jewish Christians,
regarded as the poor); (2) from there being found in the Epistle a doc-
trinal approximation to the Pauline ideas and principles, particularly in
the idea of the law as véuuc tAevdepiac, of Christianity as a new creation,
of nicre as “an internal and confident apprehension of the doctrine of
salvation,” and even in the matter of justification itself; whilst to the
Pauline doctrine is not plainly opposed the daiwa t& Epywr, but the
dixaiwou && Epywy, oi¢ 9 miot« ouvepyei, Or the ducaiwow éx miotews, 7 TeAgwvra
dia rév Epywv; and (3) from the fact that by the words: od moreter, ort é
Gede ele tort’ xadoc mouic, the agreement of the Gentile-Christian and the
Jewish-Christian tendencies in this principal and fundamental doctrine
of Christianity is prominently brought forward. Schwegler has evidently
most carefully searched out and employed al] those points which can in
any way be made to support his hypothesis; but it is perfectly clear that
many of the points adduced by him are pure fictions, and that from
others the most arbitrary inferences are drawn. The result is a view
which is manifestly self-contradictory. Whilst Schwegler adopts the
fancy that by the “rich” are meant the Gentile Christians, he subjoins
to this the inference that the Gentile-Christian cause (i.e., the cause of
the Aovoio) represents itself to the Ebionitic writer as “a proud conceit
39
of wisdom,” as “loquacious controversy,” as “the love of the world and
its lusts, covetousness, insolence, uncharitableness,” as ‘‘a false and per-
verted tendency,” and that “to attack on all sides these tendencies in
their forms, disguises, and appearances, is the object of the Epistle;”
but in spite of this, he says at the conclusion of the inquiry, “Thus,
then, it is with a call to e/pyvy that the author turns himself to the oppo-
site Gentile-Christian faction; such is the watchword and leading practical
thought of his Epistle.” The most glaring internal contradiction of such
a criticism would not hinder us from placing the most arbitrary fiction
in the place of history.! Ritsch] (D. Entst. der altkathol. Kirche, p. 150 ff.)
occupies a different position with reference to the Epistle from Schwegler.
1 Reuss (§ 146, note) correctly observes: tury, and makes it grow from recent sources.
‘* The character of the Epistle given by the Til. That the wAovcro are the Pauline Christians,
bingen criticism goes beyond every sure reason, isa postulate of this criticlam for which there
when it places it far back into the second cen- isno proof. The numerous references to the
INTRODUCTION oT
He asserts expressly that the similarities and points of contact between
the Epistle and the Clementine Homilies are too vague to declare that, on
account of them, the Epistle must be regarded as post-apostolic, or that
a continuity of design in these writings can be discerned. He considers,
indeed, that the Epistle belongs to the Jewish-Christian tendency, partic-
ularly on account of its polemic against the. Pauline doctrine of justifi-—
cation; but it is a matter of surprise to him, that there is in it no
reference to the principles according to which the intercourse of Jewish
with Gentile Christians was arranged (namely, the compliance of the
latter with: the four prohibitions expressed in the decree of Jerusalem),
and also that the view of the Epistle is pervaded by an element essen-
tially Pauline (namely, by the idea of the new birth; but which is under-
stood, in a manner entirely original, as an implantation of the law).
Thus Ritschl is constrained to confess that the Epistle, viewed on every
side, remains as a riddle in the development of the oldest Christianity.
This unsatisfactory result points to the incorrectness of his suppositions.
Ritsch] does not only over-estimate the importance of the decree of Jeru-
salem in the view of James (he likewise overlooks the fact that James,
in an Epistle addressed to Jewish Christians, had no occasion to refer to
the necessity of keeping to the articles of that decree); but he is also
wrong in deriving the ideas of the law and regeneration, contained in
this .Epistle, from Paul,—as if these ideas were not contained in Chris-
tianity itself. Ritschl also, as Schwegler, maintains that chap ii. 14-26
is not designed to combat a perversion of Pauls doctrine, and in this
he is correct: but he assumes too hastily that the polemic is directed
against Paul. Ritschl’s judgment on the Epistle contains the correct
decision, that the reasons adduced by Schwegler do not contradict its
authenticity. Kern had already, in a treatise in the year 1835 (Tiibinger
Zeitschr.), partially adduced the same arguments against the authenticity;
but at a later period he regarded them as unsatisfactory, and asserted
this in his commentary in the year 1838,—of which fact Schwegler, who
often appeals to him, takes not the slightest notice. After a careful
review of the historical relations, Kern, in his commentary, says not only
that the Epistle bears internal evidence that it originated rather in the
apostolic age than in any other period, but also that he cannot but con-
sider it as the production of him to whom it is ascribed in the inscrip-
Pauline Epleties, the Epistie to the Hebrews, cause the extreme simplicity and originality of
the Gospel of the Hebrews, Hermas, Philo, this Epiatie to be overlooked.”
exist only in the imagination of the critic, and
28 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
tion, — of James the Lord's brother, who is called, along with Peter and
John, a pillar of the church, and under whose superintendence the church
of Jerusalem was placed. Kern arrived at this conclusion, even although
he regarded fi. 14-16 as a direct attack upon the Pauline doctrine of
justification. But this opinion is at variance with the authenticity of the
Epistle. For, how can it be supposed that James — after he had declared
himself on the side of Paul in the transaction at Jerusalem (Acts xv.),
or, if the narrative of Luke regarding that transaction cannot be reck-
oned as true, after he had given to Paul the right hand of xowuvia
(Gal. ii. 9)'— could have argued. not against an objectionable applica-
tion of the doctrine of Paul, but against that doctrine itself? Add to
this, that such an attack, in a writing devoted to Jewish Christians, was
certainly not necessary in their case. It is true Kern thinks that “James
might consider it possible that his Epistle might come into the hands of
Gentile Christians, with whom the Jewish Christians were at variance
upon the doctrine:” but this is a mere arbitrary hypothesis; in the
Epistle there is not the slightest indication that the author, in ii. 14,
addresses othets than those to whom he directed his Epistle. But if the
polemic of the Epistle is not directed against the Pauline doctrine of
justification, there are no reasons, either external or internal, which con-
strain us to deny that James was the author, and to consider it as the
production of a later period. The late recognition of the Epistle, as has
already been remarked, is sufficiently explained from the position of the
author and his readers: the want of personal references; from the ency-
clical form of the Epistle; the frequent references to the Old Testament
and to examples there represented, as well as to the Apocrypha; from
the individuality of James; and, lastly, the facility in the use of the
Greek language from the acquaintance with the Hellenistic idiom which
prevailed in Palestine. The organization of the Church does not here
appear such as was only appropriate to a later period; if Paul, in his
first missionary journey, made it a point to establish the office of presby-
ters in the then existing Gentile churches (Acts xiv. 23), and if, at a
still earlier period, such an office was formed at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30),
its existence in the Jewish-Christian churches, to which the Epistle is
directed, cannot certainly be regarded as any thing surprising; and the
1 Meyer, in coco, with truth obeerves: “‘Ac- agreement, toithoul any acknowledgment of
cording to the representation of vv. 7-9, the the principles of Paul, would have been as
aposties recognized the twofold dinine cali to little compatible with such a recognition as
apostieship; but a merely external and forced = with the apostolic character generally.”
INTRODUCTION. 29
function which is here attributed to the presbyters entirely corresponds
to the relation in which they stood to individual members of the church.
The opinion that chap. ii. 15 refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
chap. v. 12 to the Gospel of the Hebrews,! is any thing but certain; and
as little is a use of the Epistle to the Romans made out from chap. i. 2
(compared with Rom. v. 3), chap. i. 18 (compared with Rom. viii. 23),
chap. i. 21 (compared with Rom. xiii. 12), chap. i. 22 (compared with
Rom. ii. 13), chap. iv. 1 (compared with Rom. vii. 23), chap. iv. 4 (com-
pared with Rom. viii. 7), chap. iv. 12 (compared with Rom. ii. 1), for
the agreement is found here only in single expressions, which would as
naturally present themselves to James as to Paul (comp. Briickner in De
Wette’s Commentary, p. 188 f.). It may certainly appear surprising, that
in the Epistle the permanent importance for the readers of the Mosaic
law, according to its ritual side, is not prominently brought forward,
especially as James was such a careful observer of it; but this objection is
completely removed when we consider that no doubt of that importance
was supposed to exist among the readers. James here proceeds in the same
manner as Christ, who, although He Himself observed the law of His
nation, yet did not inculcate on His disciples so much the observance of
its separate ritual enactments, as point out to them the way by which the
law was observed in its innermost nature. Thus, then, there is no reason
in the Epistle to assign its origin to the post-apostolic age, or to ascribe
it to another author than to him who is named in the superscription.
Reuss (sec. 146) with truth observes: “ His official importance gave to James
the right to come forward as the common leader of all the Christians
of the circumcision; and what we know or conjecture of his religious
disposition is strikingly in unison with the contents of this Epistle.”
The authenticity of the Epistle, in spite of the supposition of a differ-
ence between the doctrine of justification of James and that of Paul,
has in recent times been generally recognized.? Reuss, indeed, expresses
1 In the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Clem-
ent. Hom., iil. 55, xix. 2), the prohibition of
oaths is as follows: ¢orw vuwy To va vai,
gai TO OV Ov TO yap weptogdy ToOUTwWHY ex TOU
worgpou éoriv; the second clause is in accord.
ance with Matt. v.37, the first with Luke v. 12,
But thia ouly indicates a different form of
expression in the tradition, not the use of a
written record.
3 For the same reasons as those of Luther,
the authenticity of the Epistle is denied by K.
Btrébel. In the Zeitschr. f. d. luth. Theol. of
Rudelbach and Guericke, 1857, part II. p. 365,
he says: “ Let the Epistle of James be under.
stood as you please, it is ever in contradiction
to the whole Sacred Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments, and therefore cannot be
reckoned of canonical authority; with ite well-
meaning but otherwise completely unknown
author, identical with none of the vames of the
80 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
himself very cautiously, that the genuineness of the Epistle is not raised
above all doubt because a definite ecclesiastical tradition does not exist;
however, he grants that nothing can be inferred from this against its
authenticity. Other critics and interpreters have, however, expressed
themselves more decidedly in favor of the authenticity of the Epistle,
agreeing with one another that the authorship is to be ascribed to James,
“the Lord’s brother,” who stood at the head of the Church of Jerusalem,
and only differing in this, whether he is identical with (so Hottinger,
Schneckenburger, Theile, Guericke, Lange, Bouman, and others) or differ-
ent from the Apostle James (80 Credner, Kern, Neander, Thiersch, Schaff,
Briickner, Wiesinger, Bleek, and others).— The integrity of the Epistle
in its separate portions has never been doubted: only Rauch (Wiener
and Engelhardt’s Neues krit. Journal der theolog. Lit., 1827, vol. vi. part 3)
has thought that the conclusion, chap. v. 12-20, proceeds from another
author; but the reasons which he assigns for this have already been
refuted by Schneckenburger (Tib. Zeitsch. f. Theol., 1829, part 8), Kern
(in bis Kommentar), Hagenbach (Winer’s rit. Journ., vi. 895 ff.), and
Theile.
SEC. 5.—PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING.
The place of composition is not mentioned in the Epistle; but from the
position which James occupied to the Church of Jerusalem, and from the
fact that he has addressed his Epistle to the churches in the Diaspora, it
cannot be doubted that this is Jerusalem. The supposition of Schwegler,
that the actual place of composition was Rome, requires no refutation. It
is more difficult to determine the time of composition. It is only certain
that it must have been before the destruction of Jerusalem; but it is a
niatter of dispute whether it was written before or after the ever-memorable
labors of Paul among the Gentiles, or, more precisely, whether it was
written before or after the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts xv.! If
there is in the Epistle a reference to the Pauline doctrine of justification, —
N. T. persona, the capacity of teaching falls
short of his good intention.” So also, in a
review of this commentary (1st edition) in the
same magazine, 1860, part I. p. 162 ff., Kahnis
(D. tuth. Dogmatik, vol. i. pp. 533-536) agrees
with the opinion of Luther on the contents of
this Epistle, but does not express himself on
fts guthenticity.
1 Lange infers from the political circum-
stances which, according to his view, were the
occasion of this Epistle, that it was composed
‘© at the latest perlod of the life of James, per.
haps about the year 62." For one who calls in
question the supposition of Lange, this state-
ment of time is destitute of all reason,
INTRODUCTION, 81
whether the attack be directed against the doctrine itself, or a perversion
of it,—then it could only be written after that transaction; as Bleek,
among others, assumes. But on the other supposition, both opinions are
possible. Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Schaff,
suppose it to be composed before, and Schmid and Wiesinger after, the
council at Jerusalem.!— The former opinion is the more probable; for
after that time the Pauline proposition, that man is justified not 2& Epyuy,
but only é« ricrews, was not only generally known, but so powerfully moved
the spirits in Christendom, that it seems impossible to suppose that James
could have in perfect ingenuousness asserted his principle: é& tpyuv duxcawirat
dvOpwroc, kal ob éx mloreac uovov, Without putting himself in a definite relation
to the doctrine of Paul, whether misunderstood or not. Wiesinger, for the
later composition of the Epistle, appeals “to the form of the Christian life
of the readers," whilst, on the one hand, they are treated ‘“‘as those who
are mature in doctrine,” and, on the other hand, “the faults censured in
their conduct are such as can only be understood on the supposition of a
lengthened continuance of Christianity among the readers.” But, in op-
position to this view, it is to be observed that a Christian church without
such maturity as is indicated in i. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, iv. 1, can hardly be
imagined; and that in Jewish-Christian churches such faults as are here
represented in the Epistle would arise at an early period from the unsub-
dued Jewish carnal disposition, especially as the transition to Christianity,
particularly among the Jews, might easily occur without any actual internal
transformation. The inquiry of Wiesinger: Where, outside of Palestine,
before the apostolic council, shall we look for the Jewish-Christian churches
which will satisfy the postulates of the Epistle? is of less importance, as
it cannot be proved that Wiesinger is correct in his undemonstrated
assertion, “that the Jewish-Christian church, precisely in the ten years
after that council, both inside and outside of Jerusalem, obtained a great
accession to their numbers.” That during this period it extended its limits
is certainly to be granted, but it cannot be proved that at that period it first
gained such an extension that James could only then write to rai¢ dddexa
guAaic raic tv r7 ccacnopgG. On Wiesinger’s view, that James was acquainted
with the Epistle to the Romans, but wrote ii. 14-26 without reference to
1 Brtickner, indeed, denying the assigned James combats, comes to the conclusion that
polemics, but supposing that the formule the Epistle indeed belongs to a comparatively
ScxarovcOa ex morews, dix. ef Epywv, were first early period of the apostolic age, but ie not to
drought into vogue by Paul, and then were used _—ibe transferred to the earliest period of sapose-
of an earlier existing habit of thought, which _tolic life.
82 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the doctrine of Paul, James must bear the reproach of having at least acted
very inconsiderately in using the Pauline mode of expression known to him,
and in enunciating propositions which in form expressed the opposite of
what Paul taught, with the design of saying something which had no
reference to Paulinism, which contained neither an antithesis against it
nor an agreement with it, and which was directed neither against Paul
himself nor against Paul misunderstood. If the reasons assigned by
Wiesinger for the later composition of the Epistle were convincing, — if,
particularly, an acquaintance of James with Paul’s mode of thought and
expression, and especially of his doctrine of justification, followed from the
points of similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, or from chap. ii. 14-26,
— it would result from this, that James in his polemics had this in view,
and that thus Wiesinger’s denial of any reference to it is unjustifiable. If,
_ then, we are not to involve ourselves in contradiction, we must in this
denial maintain that the Epistle was composed before the apostolic council;
and to this view nothing in the Epistle stands opposed.
CHAP. I. 33
"TaxwBov érurrody.
In several codd. the superscription is more fully expressed, whilst to érccroAn
the word xa@odx7 is added, and to ‘lexa3ov the words Tub arocrvAov, also row dyiov
atooToAov, and in one rov adeApud Oeod.
CHAPTER I. ;
Ver 3. Instead of Rec. 1d doxiuov tuav ripe niotewc, after A, B*, C, G, K, 8,
etc., several vss. (Lachm., Tisch. 7), Buttm. reads, after B**, some min., etc.,
70 doxiguov vuay without tio niorews, The addition, ri¢ wictewc, it is true, is
suspicious, as it may be derived from 1 Pet. i. 7 (De Wette); but the testimonies
for its genuineness are too important to declare it spurious. Instead of doximuor,
there is also the reading doxtueiov, and in three min. doxiuov,— Ver. 7. Instead
of 6 dvépwzos, Buttm. reads simply dvépwroc, a reading which Tisch. 7 leaves
entirely unnoticed. The same is also the case in respect of adeAgoc, ver. 9; & hase
the article in both places. — Ver. 11. B omits after tpoowzov the demonstrative
atrot. Instead of zopeiatc, A, 40, 89, 98, ed. Colinaei, read mopiacc, a reading on
which Theile rightly remarks: ‘ Faumniliari librartis rov e et ¢ permutationi
debetur ;”’ there is no word 7opia = ci:zopia in the Greek language. Codex 30,
apud Mill., reads ebzopiac evidently as an interpretation. The conjecture,
éutopiac, Which has been proposed by Hammond, Castalio, and Junius, is
arbitrary. — Ver. 12. Instead of av#p, A, some min. and vss. read dv@pw7or; an
unnecessary change. After éanyyeiAaro the Rec. has 6 xvpioc, after G, K, ete.
(instead of which some min. and vss. read 6 Oed¢; C: xvpioc), which, however,
after A, B, &, etc., is to be regarded as an insertion (Lachm., Tisch., De Wette,
Wiesinger ; on the other hand, Theile, Reiche, Bouman, Lange, consider 0 xtpio¢
as the correct reading). — Ver. 13. & alone reads v7 instead of azo. The article
tov before Oeov is, according to almost all authorities, to be obliterated as
spurious. — Ver. 19. Instead of the Rec. ore, after G, K, several min. and vss.,
B, C (&: tore, corrected ior), several min., Vulg., and other vss. read tare; A:
tore d€; Lach. has adopted the reading fore; Tisch. now (7) reads Gore. Whilst
Theile, Lange (tore dé), consider the reading ‘ore as the original, De Wette,
Wiesinger, Reiche, Bouman, have rejected it from internal reasons; as, how-
ever, on a careful consideration (see exposition), no internal reasons exist against
its genuineness, and the external testimonies are for it, it merits the preference.
Instead of fo7w, Rec., after G, K, ete. (Tisch. 7), Lachm. reads éorw dé, after B, C,
*. Codex A has xai forw (Lange). — Ver. 20. The Rec. ov warepyaterat (Tisch.),
after C*, G, K, et al. ; Lachm. has adopted ova épyacera, after A, B, C***, &, et
al.; De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, consider the compound, and Lange the
simple verb, as the correct reading. On the distinction of these modes of
reading, see exposition. — Ver. 22. yévov, which the Rec., after A, C, G, K, &,
834 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
many min., places before dxpoarai, stands after it in B, some min., etc.; so read
JLachm. and Tisch. It is possible that°the reading of the most of the codd. is a
correction, because one united ovov, according to its meaning, with «7; still, the
Kec, must be regarded as the original reading from authorities. — Ver. 25. Ouvror,
which the Rec., after G, K, many min. and vss., has before ov« axpouvy¢ (Tisch.
7), is wanting in A, B, C, 8, etc.; Lachm. has omitted it; it is difficult to consider
it genuine, for not only is the testimony of the most weighty authorities against
it, but also the addition from the following vvroc is not difficult to be explained
from the want of a connecting particle after mapayeivac; whilst De Wette
hesitates, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, are for its retention. — Ver. 26. After e
a de is found in C (Lachm.), which, however, appears to be inserted only for the
sake of a closer connection of the verse with the preceding. The words év iuiv
after ¢iva: are to be obliterated, after A, B, C, &, with Tisch., Lachm., Reiche, and
others. — Ver. 27. Tisch., after C**, G, K, etc., has omitted the article ro
before 0c; the weightiest authorities, A, B, C *, 8, corrected, etc., however,
are in favor of its retention (Lachm.)
Ver. 1. Address and greeting. James calls himself a “servant of God,
and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Oecumenius, correctly: Oob uév rob xazpdc,
xvpiov dé Tod viov; some expositors have incorrectly taken Oecod xai xvotov to-
gether as applied to ‘I7c, Xp. There is here no combination of the Old and
New Testaments in this conjunction (against Lange). It is to be observed
that in the apostolic addresses our Lord’s name is always given in full:
"Inooig Xproréc. — dovdoc is here an official appellation, which, however, be-
longs not only to the apostles, but to every possessor of an ecclesiastical office
received from the Lord; comp. particularly Phil. i. 1: MabAoc nai Trusdcoe,
dov20: Inoot Xptorov, and Jude 1. In this name the consciousness is expressed
that the office is a service in which not our own will, nor the will of other —
men, but only of God or of Christ, is to be fulfilled.!— raig daddexa guaaic rai¢
év ry dteonopa}. A designation of the people of Israel living outside of Pales-
tine, and dispersed among the Gentiles. On, ai dddexa gvdai it is to be ob-
served, that although this appellation of the people of Israel after the exile
does not occur in the Apocrypha, yet the people who returned were still
regarded as the twelve tribes (1 Esdr. vii. 8, 9); as the people of the twelve
tribes are the covenant people, to whom the promises given to the patriarchs
refer: from which it is to be explained, that in the N. T. the number twelve
is particularly emphasized (Matt. xix. 28; Rev. vii. 4-8, xxi. 12), and that
James designates by this name the people to whom the promise was fulfilled.
‘On 1% dtaczopd, see Deut. xxx. 4; Neh. i. 9; Ps. exlvit. 2; 2 Mace. i. 27
(Jer. xv. 7); John vii. 35; Winer’s Realwérterbuch, article “ Zerstreuung.”
Whether this designation is to be understood in a literal or symbolical sense,
see Introduction, sec. 2. Laurentius, Hornejus, Hottinger, Pott, Gebser,
Kern, Schneckenburger, Neander, Guericke, Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Wie-
‘singer, and others correctly consider the Epistle as addressed to Jewish Chris-
tians ; only it is to be observed that with the early composition of the Epistle
1 Oecumenius: vrép wav 88 rocuixdvagiwua Tar woretcBat, ai Adyorres wai émorédAowres
Oi Tov KUptov amdcroAa: Td SovAoL elvac Xprorov cat SiSdoxovrtes.
KadAwmiConevor, TOUTO yywpicua éavtey Bovdor-
CHAP. I. 2. 35
these are not here to be considered as contrasted with the Gentile Christians.
Had the author been conscious of such a contrast, it would have been else-
where indicated in the Epistle itself. — yaipev. sc. Aéyet; see 1 Macc. x. 18,
25, xv. 16; 2 Macc. i. 1; and in the N. T., Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26 (2 John 11).
It is to be observed that this very form of greeting, elsewhere not used in
the N. T. Epistles, occurs in the writing proceeding from James, Acts xv.
23 (Kern); the pure Greek form of greeting is more fully: yaipew xai bytaivew
nal ev xparrev, 2 Macc. ix. 19.
Vv. 2-12. Exhortation in reference to the endurance of temptations.
Ver. 2. James begins with the hortative words: mdcav yzapav jyjoucbe]
esteem it complete joy. aca ydpa, complete joy = nothing but joy. Luther:
“Esteem it pure joy.” Many old expositors incorrectly explain zdaca=
_peyiorn, summum, perfectum gaudium;1} it is more correct to resolve the
adjective here by the adverb zavruc, 6Auc (Carpzov), with which the explana-
tion of Theile coincides: rem revera omnique ex parte laetam. The meaning
is: the mewpaouoi are to you a joy which is enfire joy, excluding all trouble.
See Hom., Ou., xi. 507: macav GAndeinv pvtnooua, i.e., “of Neoptolemus [ will
declare to thee the whole truth ” (i.e., nothing but the truth, which excludes
all falsehood). — yapa, a metonymy = gaudendi materia, res laeta; see Luke
ii. 10. —It is not improbable that James by this exhortation to joy refers
to the yaipew in ver. 1; comp. vv. 5, 19 (Wiesinger). — The address adeAgoi
pov (or adeAgut alone, iv. 11, v. 7,9, 19; also ddeAgoi uov dyarnroi, i. 16, 19, ii. 5),
which is James’s constant form, expresses the consciousness of fellowship,
namely, the fellowship in nationality and belief (Paraeus), with the readers.?
—dbrav mepaopoic mepittanre mouido, meprinrew involvit (a) notionem adversi,
(6) notionem inviti atque inopinati (Theile); it is synonymous with éunizrev
(see Luke x. 30 compared with ver. 36), but has a stronger meaning: fo fall
into something, so that one is entirely surrounded by it; thus in the classics it is
particularly used of misfortune: cuugopaic, Plato, Leg., ix. 877¢; Cnuiatc nat
éveidect, Isocrates, i. 39. — By eipacuoi are commonly here understood the
@Aiwee which are prepared for Christians on account of their faith by an
unbelieving world (comp. Luke viii. 13: xa? év nap metpacuod dgioravrar; in
connection with Matt. xiii. 21: yevouévne OAipewc 7 diwypod did Tdv Adyov, ELOd¢
oxavdadivera:); and undoubtedly James had these inview. Yet there is noth-
ing in the context which necessitates us to such a limitation; rather the
additional epithet zoixcAo: justifies us to extend the idea, and to understand
by it all the relations of life which might induce the Christian to withdraw
from the faith, or to become wavering in it. When Lange explains ze:paopoi
specially of “the allurements and threats by which the Gentiles on the one
side, and the fanatical Jews on the other, and also the Ebionites, who were
already in the field, sought to draw the readers to their side,” he founds this
particular statement on his erroneous view of the tendency of the Epistle.
To refer the idea only to inward temptations (Pfeiffer), is the more erroneous,
as it is even questionable whether James had these in view at all. — On
1 Winer (p. 101 [Z. 7., p. 111]) explains however, does not suit the context.
waga yxapa as ‘all (full) joy.” This would ? Incorrectly, Semler: Hoc nomen praeci-
signify euch a joy as wants nothing; which, pue de doctoribus \utelligo.
36 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
rotxidowc, see 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff., xi. 23 ff. The adjective does not allude to the
different sources from which the zepeouoi sprung, but is to be referred to
their manifold forms. In a far-fetched manner, Lange finds in socxidozc,
according to its original meaning, “an allusion to the manifold-dazzling
glitter of colors of the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations, in which
they might even represent themselves as prophetic exhortations to zeal for
the glory of God.” — Inasmuch as the Christian has to rejoice not only in the
nepaopoic, but on account of them, Oecumenius strikingly observes: ry xara
Ordv Airny xal todo mEtpacuods TovTouc Kal EratvEtode olde Kai yapac agioug* deouds yap
ovrut eiotv appaync, xai abfnow ayanne nai katavbgews . . . ob yap tort éxrd¢ pupvaciuv
obre Koguixay otte Tov Kata Oedv oreguvwy uswO7va. With reference to joy in
OAipes, see Matt. v. 11,12; Acts iv. 23 ff., v.41; Rom. v. 3; also Ecclus.
ij. 1 ff.; particularly comp. the parallel passage 1 Pet. i. 6.
Ver. 3. yivwoxovrec}. Whilst ye may know (“in the consciousness,” De Wette).
The participle, when closely connected with the imperative, participates in
its meaning; see author on 2’Tim. ii. 23; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58; Col. iii. 24,
iv. 1; Heb. x. 34, and other passages. It is neither simply the imperative
(Luther, “and know ye”), nor simply a confirmation, so that it may be ren-
dered by ymwoxere yap (Pott). — dre 7d doximov ipav (rig miotews). Td doxiutov
(only here and in 1 Pet. 1. 7) = 16 doxtyeiov, is properly the means of proving:
quo quid exploratur (Pott); quo rei, quae sub examen vocatur, mantfestatur sin-
cerilas caque probatur omne id intrinseca virtule possidere, quod extrinsecus specie
ac nomine prae se fert (Heisen): thus = xperypeov; so in Dionysius Halicar-
nassus, I?hetor. 11: dei de Womep xavova eivat wai ordOunv tid Kal doximov Opicuévov
mpoc 6 tig ato32énwy duvqoetat Tv xplow roveicba; yet generally to the idea of
proving is attached that of purification and verification. Theile = proba-
mentum; thus Herodian, il. 10, 12: dox:utov dé orpartwwrev Kapatog aA’ ob rpv07;
and the LXX., Prov. xxvii. 21: doxigeov dpyupiw Kai xpvod zpwat ; comp. Prov.
xvii. 3; Ps. xii. 7; Ecclus. ii. 5. Many expositors, as Semler, Pott, Hot-
tinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, adhere to the import of means,
whether of proof or of purification and verification,! whilst they understand
thereby the above-mentioned mepaspoi. In this case 7d doxmoyv stands for
rovro 7) doxiuiov (Pott); but the necessity of supplying roiro is decisive against
this interpretation ; besides, doxiuov in 1 Pet. i. 7 cannot have that meaning.
In that passage céoxuov. is = the verification effected by proof; see author in
loco: and thus it is probable that this import is also here to be retained
(Oecumenius = 70 kexptzévov, 7d dedoxtuacuévov, 7d KaBapov); 7d doxiueov then is =
doxium in Rom. x. 4. The distinction, that in that passage doxmuy is desig-
nated as the effect, but in this as the cause of trouovy is not against this view,
for, as Tirinus well says: duae res saepe sibi invicem sunt causa.2?_ Most expos-
itors, both ancient and modern, however, explain doxiuov here by exploratio,
1 Thetle: Calamitates, quae natura sua vir- an erroneous Idea that verification (rd Sedoxc-
tutis recpacuoi, eam sub cxamen discrimenque mag@ac) produces vrouovy (80 also Rauch in
vocant, accedente demum -hominis strenua his Reriew); for the Christian always obtains
opera ejusdem virtutls flunt So«cucoy eam pur- more vroxuovn, In which only he can reach the
gantes, firmantes, commonetranteas. goal of perfection, not because he is tried, but
3 Wiesinger {ycorrectly maintalus: “It is because he stands the test and fs thus verified.’,
CHAP. I. 4. 37
probatio, proof in an active sense; thus Didymus, Bede, Calvin, Laurentius,
Beza, Piscator, Paraeus, Serarius, Paes, Hornejus, Baumgarten, De Wette,
Kern, Wiesinger, Lange, etc. Then is valid what Bede says in reference to
Rom. v. 4: Verborum differentia non sensuum in his sermonibus esse probatur
A postolorum, since there @Aiy, here proof by oziwe, is named as the cause
Of tvrouory. Though there is nothing against this idea, this explanation is
wanting in linguistic accuracy.! ‘.The meaning is, in essentials, the same,
whether we read ri¢ riorewc or not; for the doxiuoy of Christians consists in
nothing else than that of their faith, by which they are Christians. — riots
is here not used objectively = id cui fides habetur, ipsa Jesu Christi doctrina
(Pott), but subjectively, assured confidence in the gospel, whose contents
are Jesus Christ, as the necessary foundation of Christian conduct. — xarep-
yaverat brouovnv}. xareppileodat is distinguished: from épyaéroda in that it ex-
presses the actual accomplishment (Meyer on Rom. i. 27). — éropovy is faithful
endurance (uévev) under (ind) the temptations (epacuoic). Baumgarten:
“enduring constancy; ” Theile: “steadfastness,” perseverantia, quod majus est
quam patientia.2, The importance of iouory for Christians is evident from
Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13; comp. also Jas. v. 7 ff. On the connection of imonovy
with éAnic, see Cremer under the words éAni¢ and tmroporg.
Ver. 4. The verification of faith effected by the recpaopoi produces i-zouovh,
and on this account temptations should be to the Christian an object of joy,
as it depends on them that imouorf is of the right kind. This is indicated
in this verse.? — 9 dé ixopyov? Epyor tédetov éxérw. The emphasis is not placed
on épyor, — that tnouor has an épyov is understood of itself, — but on réAecov
(Wiesinger). James wishes that the épyov of txouovy among Christians be
rézewv, in order that they may be rédeoc: as he, moreover, strongly empha-
sizes réAcov eivaz. In explaining the thought, De Wette confounds the
abstract (imozevy) with the concrete (6 izozévwv), and understands by épyor
rézecov “the active virtue which the patient man must perfectly have.” This
explanation of De Wette agrees in essentials with the explanations of Eras-
mus, Calovius, Morus, Pott, Augusti, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, accord-
ing to which épyov réaewy is distinguished from éroyor7, and the moral activity
which the Christian has to exercise with his izouovy indicated. Thus Eras-
1 Cremer (see 0x:piov) is hardly right when
he maintained tbat ‘the means of proof are
not only, e.g., the touchstone Itself, but also
the trace of the metal left thereon, therefore
70 docintoy THs morews (Jas. i. 3) is the result
of the contact of sions with wecpaguois;’’ for
we are to consider the wecpagno not as a
touchstone, but asa test by fire. However,
Cremer explained the whole idea correctly
by ‘the verification of faith.” His remark
on S0c:u4 is to be noted: that in it we are not
to distinguish between the active and passive
signification; that it has rather a reflex sense,
either the having proved true or the proving
true.
2 Cicero, De Inv., li. 54: Patientia est hones-
tatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac
difficiiium voluutaria ac diuturna perpesslo;
perseverantia est In ratione bene considerata
atabilia et perpetua permansio. Schnecken-
burger strikingly observes: Si submissionem
(ro uwo. . .) urgeas, palientiam ac tolerantiam
malorum, sin ro pevery, constantiam et firmi-
tatem, perseverantiam ac calamitatum feren-
darum fortitudinem ab illecebris desciecend!
{nconcussam hoc vocabulo habebis expressam.
3 Oecumentius rightly observes: cadre. ove
elwe thy Umonovny dprotinws, OTe Epyor TéAeLov
€xet, adAa mpooraxrixnws exéTw’ ov yap mpoi-
woxeimevny aperny efayyeAAcr, aAAd vuY eyytvo-
Mevny, ws xpn yiverOat vowoderet.
88 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
mus: guemadmodum in malis tolerandis fortis est et alacris, ita in bonis operibus
exercendis sibi constet. Pott: perseverantiae fructus sit perfectum virtulis stu-
dium. This interpretation is, however, incorrect; it not only gives rise to
unjustifiable changes of meaning, as that of dxouor7 into 6 izouévur, or of éxétw
into xapexétw (Pott), or into xpareirw (Schulthess), but gives also a thought
which with the following iva, «.7.4., would be tautological. Most expositors
(even Briickner,! in opposition to De Wette) refer ipyov rédewv to vropovy
itself ; gpyov = work, realization (Wiesinger); comp. 1 Thess. i. 3: 1d épyov rig
niorewc ; for the bmouovy of the Christian is not only a suffering, but even more
adoing. This doing is to be réAgov, that is, not only, as many interpreters
explain, enduring to the end,? but complete, and that not only in respect of its
internal condition, —so that it is wanting in no essential points of true brouovy
— but also in respect of its activity (Lange ®), so that it in no way yields to
the meipacuoic, Which yielding occurs when a man by the temptations is deter-
mined to something which does not correspond with the principle of faith.
Bouman: Haeec txouova consummatum opus habet, quando ita se gerit, in quo
hubitat, homo, ut universam per vitam et animum et linguam et pedes regat ac
moderetur. That uxouov” in this manner has an épyov réAgov, 18 necessary, in
order that Christians may be perfect and entire, which, as Christians, they
should be. This Jaines indicates in the following words: iva fre réAetot xal
OAdxAnpot. iva is not here é«Barioac (which Baumgarten and Pott regard as
possible), but reduce, in order that. De Wette and Wiesinger incorrectly
refer it to the future judgment. — réAecoe and dAdKAnpo are Synonymous terms:
ré2eo¢ 18 properly “that which has attained its aim,” dAd«Anpoc “that which
is complete in all its parts, is entire.” Both expressions are found in the
LXX. as the translation of O°D (Gen. vi. 9; Ezek. xv. 5); besides this
verse, dAdxAnpoc in the N. T. only occurs in 1 Thess. v. 25 (é/oxAnpia, Acts
iii. 16).4 It is true that both réAeog (in the LAX. and in the classics) and
daoxAnpoc (particularly in Philo, but not in the LXX.) are used with special
reference to sacrifice; to which, however, there is here no allusion (against
Kern). Still moré arbitrary is the interpretation of Storr: qui superiores e
certamine discedebant. — év ynédevi Aetnouevorc]: The negative expression added
for strengthening the two positive expressions; as in ver. 5: amd xal ph
ovewifovroc, and in ver. 6: év mioret, undév deaxpirouevoe. As regards the expres-
sion itself, év undevi is not to be taken, with De Wette, as a supplement to
Aeinéuevot, as the supplement to this verb is always in the genitive; therefore
the expression has been correctly translated by Wiesinger and in this com-
mentary, not by wanting nothing, but by wanting in nothing (which Lange
1 ‘* Nothing elee can be meant than the per-
fect work of endurance, particularly as differ-
ent stages of this are concelvable.”
3 Luther: ‘‘ Patience is to continue stead-
fast to the end.’’ Calvin: Haec vera erit pa-
tientia, quae in finem usque durabit. Similarly
Jerome, Serarius, Salmero, Estius, Gomarus,
Piscator, Paraeus, Hornejus, Carpzov, Semier,
Hottinger, ete.
$ Lange here arbitrarily understands by
€pyoy reAccov apecially: “the unreserved ac-
knowledgment of their Gentile-Christian breth-
ren, the open rupture with Jewish pride of
faith and fanaticiesm.”’
‘ A limitation of this idea to moral perfec-
tion is uot required by the context. Lange has
the following strange remark : ‘“‘ The Jew was
a symbolicat «Anpos of the household; as a
Christian he was to become a real «xAnpos, and
thus oAcxAnpos.”
CHAP. I. 53. 39
has overlooked). The question, however, occurs, can Aecnépzevoe be explained
as= wanting? This idea is not contained in the verb by itself, and therefore
can hardly be attributed to it when it stands absolutely,as here. It is there-
fore safer to take Aeiweova in its usual meaning, and thus, with Lange, to ex-
plain Agzopevar by coming short of, namely, short of the goal marked out to
the Christian. It is incorrect, with Pott, to say: tota loyguendi ratio ab tis qui
cursu . . . relinquuntur el separantur (so also Losner, Krebs, Storr, Augusti) ;
for although the verb in classical writers has often this reference, yet there is
here no mention of a relation to others, and accordingly the appeal to Poly-
bius, p. 1202, ed. Gronov. : év 79 mpd¢‘Pwuaious evvoig mapa noAd TaSEAQOD AecTOpEVOS,
does not suit. According to the meaning here given, Aemdoyevor forms a strong
contrast to réAecoe.
Ver. 5. ei dé ree tuo Zeimerac cogiac, is chiefly connected with év undevi
Jerourrvoe, ei is not = quoniam, quandoguidem (Estius, Laurentius), but the
thought is hypothetical; e ru = dor; see Wahl on the word ei, —Acizera
cogiacg is to be explained as xredvuy Aeipvete ai oiAwv, in Pindar i. 2, 11, ‘“with-
out wealth and friends,” properly, “left behind of, or falling short of;”
accordingly, tcithout wisdom. Usually the meaning wanting, lacking, is given
to Azizoua:, Which, however, is not linguistically justified. James by cogia, as
Wiesinger correctly observes, does not mean “an arbitrary part of Christian
perfection,” but the essential foundation of Christian conduct, 1rd alrtoy rod
reAziov ipyouv (Oecumenius) ; for cogia is here the diving insight, rooted in the
rior, 1.e., the insight compelling to action in what is the Christian's duty,
both in whole and in its particular parts, especially in the meqacyoic (ver. 2)
(comp. the praise of wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon, in the Wisdom of
Solomon, and in the Book of Ecclesiasticus). Wisdom can only be given
by God (xiptoc didwot cogiav kai and Tpoownoy abtod yvaac xal cvveon, Prov. ii. 6),
and as a divine yapoua it has an impress definitely distinguishing it from
the wisdom of the world; see chap. iii. 15, 17.1. The connection does not
constrain us, with Bouman and others, to conceive the idea of sogia only in
reference to the mepacuo (ver. 2), and to understand by it only the doctrine
concerning the Christian conduct in the ze:paouoic, expressed in ver. 2,? or
that conduct itself. The idea of cogia is rather to be understood in its
completeness (Theile, De Wette, Kern, Wiesinger). The reason why James
here mentions it is because it was especially necessary to the Christian in
his mespacuoic; Briickner: “James thinks here of wisdom (in itself of a more
general acceptation), inasmuch as it is necessary rightly to estimate and
rightly to resist the trial, in order that it might not be converted into an
internal temptation, instead of being the path to perfection.” §— a/lreirw rapa,
x.t.a.: the same construction in Matt. xx. 20; Acts iii. 2; 1 John v. 15. —
1 The Etymologicum magnum thus gives
the distinction between godia and yvacis:
yrwois mev dare TO eiddvat Ta Ovra’ cgodia b2 Kai
Td Ta OvTa ytwwoKety, Kat 70 Ta YywoTa wWpaT-
TCL.
2 Calvin: Sapientiae nomen ad circumstan-
tlam praestantis loci restringo, acai diceret:
ei haec doctrina jngenii vestri captu altior
est, petite a Domino, ut vos Spiritu suo illu-
minet.
3 Lange, indeed, defends the explanation of
Calvin, but he interpreta the idea of codia dif-
ferently from Calvin, defining it as “the right
perception of the signs of the times, and of the
christological fulfilment of the theocracy in the
church as well us in the faith of iudividuals.’’
40 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
tov didovrog Oecd, instead of rov Ozod rod didovroc, as Codex A reads. By the
selected order of the words here, not only is the idea of giving emphatically
placed near to the request, but also the participle almost becomes an attribu-
tive adjective; God is indicated as the Giver absolutely. Accordingly —
as Baumgarten, Gebser, and others, correctly remark — no definite object as
tyv cogiav (Bouman) is to be supplied. — raow and andde are added as a more
detailed statement; rvui¢ airovow is, from the context, to be supplied to raaw
(Calvin, Estius, Piscator, Laurentius, etc.); or, better still, ol¢ d:dwor. The
adverb ddd, only here in the N. T., is either to be understood as an ethical
additional statement of didovac = tv axAdrnt: (Rom. xii. 8) (so Pott, Hottinger,
Kern, Theile, Bouman, uncertainly Wiesinger), or = simply, without further
ceremony (so De Wette).! In the latter case it is prominently brought for-
ward that God in the giving had only this in view. It is incorrectly ren-
dered benigne (Bede, Vorstius, and others), affluenter (Erasmus, Grotius, and
others), or as equivalent to overéuuc, xadamag (Hesychius). By pi dvetdifovroy
—as xai shows —damdcc is not more closely defined, but a new point in the
mode of the divine giving is added, and so that He dues not reproach him to
whom He gives, does not abuse him. dvedfev is generally taken in the more
special sense of upbraiding (Luther: “and upbraideth no man”); for which
the expression in Demosthenes is appealed to: 1d rag idiag evepyeciag tromtn-
vpoxe Kai Aéyev puxpod deiv duouw tore TH dvediCev; still more surely does Plu-
tarch, De Aud., 33, speak for this meaning: zdoa dvewdiLopérn xaptc EnaxOne Kal
cyaptc; also in Ecclus. xviii. 18, xx. 15, xli. 22, the word appears to have
this more special reference.? Still, there is no proof that James did not take
it in its more general sense. Semler: non tantum significat molestam commemo-
rationem beneficiorem, sed etiam qualemcunque reprehensionem (so also Schnecken-
burger, De Wette).® It is incorrect to explain dved:fev as equivalent to
aliquem ignominose cum repulsa dimittere (Morus, Zachariae, Carpzov, Storr,
Augusti, Stolz, Hottinger); the refusal of a petitioner may be considered as
& xaraoyvverv Of the same, but ovew:fecy Never occurs in this sense, not even in
Ecclus. xx. 15. The reason why James subjoins the particular statement
atc, x.7.4., 18 by it to encourage to aireiy (Zwinglius: ut mentes alliciat, ut ad
hunc unum in omni necessitate adcurrant); perhaps also with “a side glance
to the rich" (ver. 10, chap. v. 9 ff.), who do not give arjdc, and when they
do give, give only dved:ovree (Wiesinger). — «al dodjoerat aro, impersonal :
“it shall be given himn;” namely, what he asks; here, wisdom. It is erro-
neous directly to supply 7 cogia to doycerac as the subject (Lange), because
James here evidently wishes to emphasize the relation of the giving to the
8 Eustathius: ovecdiGecv ov povoy ro evepye-
Gias avadéperw Trois evepyernmevois . . . adda
Kai amAws avogTa riva kai émipouda Acyery.
1 Both of these explanations come essen-
tlally to the same thing, for ‘he that giveth
with simplicity will simply give; it will be a
pure, unmingled giving, without any admiz-
ture’? (Stler). Lange, without reason, main-
taina that in this commentary arAws will refer
not to the giving, but to the gift.
2 In this sense exprobare ia used tn Latin,
e.g., Cicero, De Amic.: Odlosum save genus
bominum ofticia ex probantiura.
The assertion of Lange ja unfounded, that
James, according to this exposition, would
utter an untenable sentiment, ‘ because God,
notwithstanding those who ask, often inflicts
injuries op men.” Lange hae not considered
that the passage treats only of asking.
CHAP. I. 6. 41
asking, and accordingly the object is suppressed; comp. on this thought
particularly 1 Kings iii. 9-12 (2 Chron. i. 10-12).
Ver. 6. A more particular statement how prayer must be made: aireitw
de iv xiote. With airerw the aireirw in ver. 5 is resumed; de indicates the
carrying-out of the thought. — The prayer, if it is to be heard, must be a
evy) tHe mioTEews, Chap. v. 15 (comp. Ecclus. vil. 10: 4 ddcyowvynone iv tH mp0-
oevyg cov).—éy miore: that is, in the confident assurance of being heard; on
what this is founded, is not here expressed. The explanation of Calvin:
“ fides est quae Dei promissionibus freta nos impetrandi, quod petimus, certos
reddit ” (similarly Baumgarten), expresses what is in itself true, but is not
here indicated by James. Some ancient commentators incorrectly supply to
mote as a more definite statement 'Iycot Xporov. — The object of the prayer
(namely, r#v cogiav) is not here named, where only the necessary condition of
prayer is treated of. The remarks made by many expositors on the manner
in which the Christian should ask for external good things are here inappro-
priate. — pydév dcaxpiwouevoc expresses the same idea as év more, only in a
negative form; pndev is here, as frequently, adverbial = on no account, nulla
ralione. deaxpivectar 18, according to N. T. usage, to doubt; compare, besides,
Acts x. 20, xi. 12; particularly Matt xxi. 21: éav éynre mori, wai uh deaxpudyre ;
Rom. iv. 20: ob deexpitn ty amorig; Rom. iv. 23; it is not = dmoreiv (Luke
xxiv. 21), or aredecv (John iii. 36), but includes in it the essential character
of emera: while mong says “Yes” and dmotia “ No,” ckaxpiveodar is the con-
junction of “Yes” and “No,” but so that “No” has the preponderance; it
is that internal wavering which leans not to miorc, but to amoria.1 — The fol-
lowing words, 6 ydo deaxpevouerog, x T.A., are annexed to the preceding dcaxpiwo- |
uevoc, more clearly explaining it (in figurative language) with reference to
the exhortation a:reiru, «.7.A.; but the reason of this exhortation is given
in ver. 7. The first yap, accordingly, has the meaning of namely, whereas
the second has that of for. According to this interpretation, the relation
of the thoughts expressed in vv. 6 and 7 is more correctly recognized than
when we say that the first yap assigns the reason why we should pray noth-
ing doubting, but that this thought is only brought to a conclusion in ver. 7
(Wiesinger, and so in the earlier edition of this commentary, where it is
said that the sentence taken together would read: 6 ydp deaxprvoperoc, douxdg
KAbdwrt . . . pe oléatw, drt Ajuwerai tt, a.7.2.). Lange incorrectly supposes that
1 The deep-lying ground of it is pride, and
eo far Theophyiact is right in saying d:axpu-
vouervos 5¢ o weO Urepoynas aitwy, UBporns
Ouodoyouperes, o St:axpivoyzeros; whereas Vecu.
menius, In the words A¢ywy é€v ceauty, oT: rus
8vvapac acTygas Tt Mapa TOV KuYptov mac AaBey,
HMapTHcws ToCauTa es avroy, brings out a point
which belongs not to d:acprverGa:, but to a yet
weak faith. Comp. with this passage Hermas
ii 9: *‘tolle a te dubitationem et nihil omnino
dubites petens aliquid a Deo.” As weak faith
is to be distloguished from S:axprver@ar, 80
also je the doult, of which the believer is con-
ecioue as a trial. Calvin strikingly remarks:
‘* Fier! quidem non potest in (hac) carnis in-
firmitate, quin variis tentationibus agitemur,
quae eunt veluti machinae ad labefactandam
nostram fiduciam : ita nemo reperietur, qui non
sensu carnis suae vacillet ac trepidet. Bed
" oportet ejusmodi tentationes fide tandem supe-
rari, quemadmodum arbor, quae firmas radices
jecit, quatitur quidem venti tmpulsu, sed non
revellitur, quin potius suo loco atabilis manet.”’
— Whilst the dcaxpircuevos, according to the
proper meaning of the term, will not believe,
itis the longing of the tried to be coutirmed
in the faith.
42 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the first yap has a more limited meaning, whilst it declares the diaxpivouevog as
incapable of praying aright; whereas the second ydp refers in a wider sense
to the unbelieving condition of the man to God, and therefore is to be ren-
dered by also. — fone. Only here in the N. T. and in ver. 23. — xAtduy badao-
onc. Only here in the N. T. and in Luke viii. 24 («Avd. rot tdaroc); usually
xoua. The verb xAvduvlecdae occurs in Eph. iv. 14; Isa. lvii. 20, LXX. The
point of comparison is contained in the subjoined words: dveufoutvy xal pemtco-
uévy, The verb dveuiteodae is entirely an azaé Aey., occurring nowhere else,
equivalent to dveuovcda, found in classical language (see Hegesippus 6: dAdc
hvenwuévn¢) = agitated, 1.e., agitated by the wind. The verb femfev (only
here in N. T.) is also elsewhere used to denote the agitation or excitement
of water by the wind.! Heisen incorrectly explains pumgeotat as equivalent
to calefiert et accendi; the word never has this meaning, although used of the
kindling of fire? The two expressions (which Lange incorrectly denies)
are synonymous, and are placed together only for the sake of strengthening
the idea. The opinion that dveu{. refers to agitation coming from without,
and J:m¢. to agitation coming from within (Bengel), is without foundation ;
also the assertion that the former word denotes the cause, and the latter the
effect (Theile, Wiesinger), is not entirely correct, as dveuiCeatat itself expresses
the effect.— By this image the mind of the doubter is characterized as un-
steady and wavering, to which a calm and sure rest is wanting. Comp.
Isa. lvii. 20,21, LXX.: of de ddiaot nAvdwvcdynouvra: nai dvanavoactat ov duvAcovTal,
ovx Eott xaipew (dv) toic ace 3eawv.*
Ver. 7. wi yap atodw. On yap, see ver. 6; it is neither the simple par-
. ticle of transition (Pott), nor equivalent to ergo (Calvin), nor is it to be
explained, with Winer (E. T. 558), according to its derivation from ye and
apa, by thus indeed, but is the reason for the exhortation in ver. 6; hence,
for.— The warning: ui ofécdw, supposes the fancy of the doubter, that he
will receive something from God in answer to prayer; similarly Matt. iii. 9:
uh dofnre. — 6 dvOpwtog txeivog refers back to 6 daxpwouevoc. Although not in
éxeivoc (in itself), yet in the whole mode of expression, there is something
disparaging. — By Ajupera,> instead of dotjoera (ver. 5), is not intended to
be indicated, that the fault of not being heard lies not with God but with
1 See Dio Chrysostom, xxxili. p. 368 B°
8nuos dorarov xaxov xat Baragaon wav6' onoor,
Um avenou pemigerac; Philo, De Mundo: mpos
avéuov pemgerat ro vbw.
2 Theile correctly rejects this explanation,
saying: ‘‘Hoc, quamquam undae spumantes
ventis revera incalescunt Latinisque etiam
ebullire aestusque dicuntur, longius tamen
petitum est.”” — The verb pumcgecy comes either
from pims = (1) follis (a bellows) ; fabellum,
having the meaning both of kindling (the fire)
and of fanning (for the rake of cooling); or
from jin = vibration, which is also used of
wind; thus pimy Bopeao, /1., xv. 171; peras
aveyuwv, Sophocles, Ant. 137; also jury = storm,
Pind. P. 1x. 49. The original import of the
German verbs schwingen, bewegen, is thus en-
tirely equivalent to aveycrcecr.
3“ A doubtful petitioner offers not to God
a steady band or heart, eo that God cannot de-
posit in it bis gift’ (Stier).
¢ Lange supposes that James has used these
expressions with a conscious reference to the
O. T. symbols, according to which the sea is
‘the emblem of the national Ife, agitated
hither and thither in pathological sympathies,”
whilet in hie time ‘these waves of the sea”
had already begun to roar.
5 The form Ayjupera, for which MS. au-
thorities decide, is not classical Greek; the
Ionic form is Adpyopat.
CHAP. I. 8. 43
man: rather, he receives not, because God gives not. — ri naturally refers to
what the doubter asks; thus scil. alroupzvuv. The definite object (wisdom)
above spoken of is not here meant; for the particular thought is founded
on a general declaration. By xipuc Christ is not to be understood, but, as
in chap. iv. 10, v. 4, 10, according to O. T. usage, God. — The designation
of God as the Lord naturally suggested itself to James, because he was
here speaking of the power of God manifested in giving or not giving: it is
not, as Lange thinks, chosen in order to characterize God as “Jehovah the
living covenant-God, who has now fully manifested Himself in Christ.”
Ver. 8 contains neither the subject to Ajpperac (Baumgarten), nor is it
to be understood as an exclamation = vae homini inconstanti (Pott). Many
expositors consider avjp diyvxoc as the subject and dxaréoraroc the predicate,
wanting the copula (Luther: “a doubter is unstable;” so Calvin, Schneck-
enburger, De Wette, Lange, and others); but according to this construction
the idea déyvyor falls too much into the background, and also the train of
thought would be too unconnected. It is better to take both dvjp diyvyoc
and d«urdorarog, x.7.A.. a8 in apposition to 6 dvOpumo¢ txevoc. It is true that
the character of the doubter has already been given in ver. 6 by éome, «.7.A.,
but, on the one hand, only figuratively, and, on the other hand, without
giving prominence to his ethical character, which James now introduces in
order strongly to confirm the thought expressed in ver. 7; which exposition
is far from being ‘‘a feeble tautology” (Lange). Less stress is to be put
on the want of the article (Schneckenburger, De Wette), as it would be
here hardly suitable. Correctly Winer, p. 497 [E. T. 534]: “he, a double-
minded man;” so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Bouman, and others. Only
according to this construction is the full meaning given to the idea dipuyor.
The word is not to be taken merely as another expression for d:axpivopevor
(Luther, Beza, Grotius, Cremer, and others; Luther directly renders it “a
doubter”’), but it characterizes the inward nature of the doubter. Accord-
ing to the mode in which dowparog, duxapdtoc, diyAwacoc, and similar words are
formed, dipuyog (Which occurs neither in the classics nor in the LXX. and
the Apocrypha, but besides here only in chap. iv. 8, and the Church Fathers)
properly denotes having two souls: it thus describes the doubter as a man
who has, as it were, two souls contending against each other, one of which
is turned to God, and one of which is turned away from God (thus to the
world) ; who, accordingly, will be at the same time gidog row Oecd and gidog
tov xéopov, although gia Tov xéopou is Fy6pa tov Ocob (chap. iv. 6).1 This
double-mindedness (or, what is the same thing, division of soul) expresses
the wavering to and fro, between micr« and dmoria generally, 80 particularly
3 Oecumentius limita the idea too specifically
to a care divided about the present and the
future: Sipvxoy dvépa roy avewépecoroy, roy
aorgmatoy Adye:, roy pyre wpds Ta wéAAOrTA
Wayies, were Node Ta WapovTra agpadws Hépac-
mévor, aAAad THde Kaxeioe AydmevoY Kat wepipe-
poueror, kai wore pdy trey pedAdvreyv, wore Se
Ter wapévTey ayrexouevoy. In the classics, re-
lated ideas are dcavdixa peppepeciey, Hom., Ji.,
i. 189; and frequently, dcdvdtyxa Ovpdy exer,
Hesiod, O., 13; wuxn avdappooros, Phaed., 93
c. (Opp. Wuxn opovonticy, Pl. Reap. vill. 554),
etc. In the Hebrew, a1 553, so in 1 Chron.
xil. 33, where 991 39-853 ts equivalent to
pow 3353, ver. 38; that expreasion has an-
other meaning in Ps. xii. 3.
44 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
also in prayer.! — diyvyor eivac is to be understood neither as the reason
(Wiesinger) nor as the result (Lange), but as the characteristic nature, of
dsaxpiveopat. — The word dvjp is here as in Matt. vii. 24; Ps. xxxii. 2, LXX.
Lange thinks that James used it because the dangers of which he warns
theim are more especially the dangers which threaten the men among the
Jews. — As a second apposition James adds: dxardoratog év macuic raig ddotg
airov; for, where thefe is a want of unity in the internal life, it is also want-
ing in the external conduct. The dipvyoc, being actuated sometimes by one
impulse and sometimes by another, is unsteady and inconstant in his inten-
tions and actions (év rai¢ ddo¢ avrov; comp. Ps. xci. 11; Jer. xvi. 17; Prov.
iii. 6, etc.) ; he walks not on one path, but, as it is said in Ecclus. ii. 12:
éxiBaive éxi dvo rpisove.2 The word dxardorarog is found only again in chap.
iii. 8 and in the LXX. Isa. liv. 11, as the translation of %j’0; the substan-
tive dxaructusia occurs in chap. iii. 16, besides in Luke and in the Epistles to
the Corinthians. — The reason why the doubter is not heard is accordingly
the disunion in which he is with himself, both in his internal and in his
external life; God gives the heavenly gift of wisdom, which according to
its nature is dyvq, only to him who év éAg ry puxg (Matt. xxii. 37), has given
to God an undivided disposition.
~ Vvy..9,10. James subjoins to the idea that the doubter should not think
that he should receive any thing, the exhortation to the lowly brother; dé
non solum apponendo, sed opponendo gravius hortatur (Theile). At first view
the natural sense is, with De Wette, Wiesinger, and most expositors, to take
6 udeAgdg as the general idea, which is specified by 6 ramewog and 6 rAotatoe.
According to this view, ramewog 18 not equivalent to ramewds Tg Kapdia, Matt.
xi. 29, but, in opposition to mAoveoc, must be taken in its proper sense:
_ afflictus, particularly poor; on the other hand, 6 zAoictog is the earthly rich,
equivalent to opulentus, fortunatus, affluens rebus externis. ‘The exaltation
(+d Soc), in which the brother of low degree is to glory, can naturally only
be the heavenly dignity which the Christian by his faith in Christ possesses,
and whose future completion is guaranteed to him by the promise of the
Lord; and, corresponding to this, by rareivwors is to be understood the low-
liness, which “belongs to the rich man as a Christian through Christ”
(Wiesinger), which is essentially the same with his exaltation. There is
nothing against this idea in itself; the same orymoron would be contained
in the expression, were we to say, according to 1 Cor. vii. 22: “the dotAog
rejoices in his éAev@epia, and the éAcvdepo¢ in his dovdcia.” But the context is
against this explanation, not only because the distinction of Christians into
rich and poor would be here introduced quite unexpectedly; but also be-
cause vv. 2 and 12 show that the connection of the ideas in this section
1 Therefore it is called, Constitut. Ap., vil.
11: wy yivou diuxos ev mpocevyy et Extra, 7 OV;
and Clemens Romanus: raAatrwpor ot dkvyxor,
ot dteotagovres thy Wuxnv; comp. Ecclua. |. 28:
wn TpoTEAOns altro (xupiw) ex capdia dioop.
2 Schneckenburger incorrectly explains
amroxaragtaros here of the fate of the doubter:
** parum constantiae experitur in omnibus, quae
ipsi contIngunt, sua culpa sorte varia confilc.
tatur,”’ and oé0s = fortuna ; aleo Hejsen at least
includes this idea: ‘‘ omnia vitae conailia ac
facta quin et fata.”” This certainly is a posei-
ble explanation ip itself, but it does not suit
the context. The meaning attached to the
word by Lange, “seditious diaturber,”’ cannot
be proved to be correct by Iii. 16.
CHAP. I. 9, 10. 45
is the reference to the zepacyot which Christians have to endure. Several
expositors have assumed this reference in the idea ramewéc; thus, among
moderns, Theile, whilst to the explanation of Morus: carens fortunis externis
omninoque calamilosus, he adds: metpaouav mepimeodyv, ver. 23; dedtwypevog evexev
duxawoovvne, Matt. v. 10; ndoyuv cad ducawoavync, 1 Pet. iii. 14; but by this the
simple contrast between rameiwéc and Aovaoc is destroyed ; for then 6 nAovatoc
must be taken as the rick Christian who had not suffered persecution, which
would be evidently meaningless. If, on the other hand, the rich man who
shares the lot of persecution with the poor is to be understood (as Laurentius
explains it: dives, sc. frater, qui ipse erat una cum paupere fratre in disper-
stone, direplionem bonorum suorum propter Christi evangelium passus. similarly
Erasmus, Hornejus, and others), such a reference is not to be found in the
idea ramevoc in itself; if one puts it into the idea razzivwou, so that by this is
to be understood the suffering condition of persecution in which the sAovaco¢
is placed, or by which he is threatened (Gebser: “he rejoices in his lowli-
ness, into which be may be brought by persecution "), then there is no reason
to find in razewo the idea of poverty expressed. Thus, then, in this view the
train of thought, referring it to zeipaouoi, becomes indistinct and confused;
and yet this reference is required by the context. But also what directly
follows is against the idea of considering the tAovsioe as well as the ramewvo¢
as a Christian (ddeAgoc); for, apart from the fact that such a rich man
would require no such pressing intimation of the perishableness of riches
as 1s contained in the following clauses, it is carefully to be observed that in
the words ér . . . wapeAtboera:, and in ver. 11: obtw «ai, x.r.A., the subject is
6 wdoboog and not 6 rAovry, as that explanation would render necessary ;
Winer: dives non habet, quo glorietur, nisi ab humilitate sua, nam divitiae mor
periturae sunt; so also De Wette, Theile, Wiesinger, and others. This
change of the subject is evidently unjustifiable. James says, not of riches,
but of the rich man, napeAevoerat, uapavOjcerat, Which evidently is only valid
of the rich man who fortns a contrast to ramewde év XtorH ‘Igood. Briickner,
in order to avoid the change of subject, explains it of “the rich man accord-
ing to his external relations;” but this reference is not only arbitrarily
introduced, but it weakens the train of thought. That such a bad sense
should be given by the author to the idea 6 wAovotor, is evident both from
chap. 1i. 6,7, where he represents the zAotorom as the persecutors of the Chris-
tians, and from chap. v. 1-6, where they are threatened with condemnation ;
besides, the word is elsewhere used in the Sacred Scriptures in a bad sense;
comp. Luke vi. 24-26; Isa. liii. 9, where VW3' is parallel with Ow; Ecclus.
Xiil. 3: whovatog Hdinnoe . . . xtwxd5 Hdianrac; XVii. 18: Ti KowwwrAcE AbKoe GuVva;
ovrwe apaptwidc npdy evoeB . . . TiC ELp7VN TAovaiw npdc mévnta. If 6 wAovatoc
stands in relation of contrast to 6 ddeAgdc 6 rametvic, then the Christian con-
dition cannot be understood by ramewwor, or scarcely with Bouman: animi,
nihil sibi arrogantis, modestia ; but only the destruction described in the fol-
lowing words: dri, «.r.4., into which the rich man on account of his pride
has fallen; comp. Luke vi. 24-26.1. The verb to be supplied is neither
1 According to Lange, the expressions 6 prophetico-symbolical sense, so that the first
Tawevos aud o wAovgios are to be taken In a ** designates the Jewish Chriatian and the Jew ©
46 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
aloxvvéchw (Oecumenius, Estius, and others) nor ramewovodw, but xavzyacbe
(comp. Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 622 f ]). This certainly does not appear
suitable, but the expression of James has its peculiar pointedness in this,
that the rareivwor, to which the rich man is devoted, is indicated as the only
ovject of his boasting.! To this irony (if it be called so) — which already
the author of the commentary on the Lamentations in Jerome's works, and
after him Lyra, Thomas, Beza, and others, have recognized in our passage —
less objection is to be taken, as this was so natural to the deeply moral spirit
of James, in opposition to the haughty self-confidence of the rich man
opposed to the lowly Christian. — For a more exact explanation of these
two verses, the following remarks may suffice. The connection of ver. 9
with the preceding is as follows: Let the brother of low degree glory amid
his temptations in his exaltation (Gunkel). The idea x«avydoda is neither
exhausted by laetari, ayaAjsdo6a, 1 Pet. i. 6, Matt. v. 12 (Gebser), nor by
commemorare, praedicare (Carpzov); it indicates rather glorying, proceeding -
from the confident assurance of superiority; Theile: notio gloriandi involvit
notas, 1 gaudendi, 2 conjfidentiae, 8 externe expressi.—6 ddcAgoc, according to
the above.explanation, refers only to 6 ramewvog, not to 6 nAobatoc, Which rather
forms the contrast set over against that idea. By 6 ramewoc is not indicated
a kind of adeAgoi, but is the characteristic mark of true Christians. It is
incorrect to take ramecvéc here as entirely equivalent to rrayor; it goes beyond
the idea of xrayoc, indicating the Christian according to his entire lowly
condition in the world, which also is not inapplicable to him who is perhaps
rich in worldly wealth, especially as these riches have no true value for him.
Comp. moreover, 1 Cor. i. 26: ob roA2ot duvaror, ob woAAol ebyeveic. Tarewvoc is
the Christian, in so far as he is despised and persecuted by the world
(reratewunévos xal xatnoxuupévoc, Ps. Ixxiv. 21; comp. 1 Cor. i. 27), is inwardly
distressed (év avril OAyIouevoc, FkwOev paxai, ~owSev godot, 2 Cor. vii. 5), and
walks in humility before God; the opposite of all this is comprehended in
mdovotoce. On boc, Theile rightly remarks: sublimitas . . . non solum jam
praesens sed etiam adhuc futura cogitari potest = (wy illa, quae in coelis perfi-
cienda in terris jam est. Incorrectly, De Wette understands by this “ present
exaltation; as little also does éyoc indicate only “the steadfast courage of
the Christian ” (Augusti); and still less is it equivalent to divitiae, as Pott
thinks, who finds only the thought here expressed: 6 ramewwéc dives sibi vide-
atur. — By év is not to be understood the condition in which (Schnecken-
burger), but, according to the prevailing linguistic usage of the N. T., the
object upon which, the glorying is to take place; comp. Rom. v. 3.— The
words érz ¢ dvOoc xéprov mapedeboera announce wherein the rarevwor of the
rich consists. As regards the construction, it forms one simple sentence.
absolutely in their low oppressed theocratic
condition as contrasted with the heathen world
and the secular power, or atill more exactly
the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels
his condition; ” the second, “ again, designates
the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inasmuch
as he sees the hopeless situation of the Jewish
people in a brilliant light, inasmuch as he is
not only rich in the consciousness of his Jew-
ish prerogatives, but alsoin chiliastic and vis-
fonary expectation,” etc. Thies interpretation
requires no refutation.
1 A similar connection is found in Phil. iif.
19: 9 d0€a €v ty aicxvrp avTwr.
CHAP. I. 11. AT
Baumgarten incorrectly construes mapeAeicera: with 6 riototoc, and considers
Gre OF avOoc ydprou, sc. éort, aS & parenthesis, by which an epigrammatic sharp-
ness is conveyed to the preceding sentence. The figure, which is further
drawn out in ver. 11, is of frequent occtrrence in the O. T., whilst with the
quickly fading grass and its flower is not only man generally (comp. Job
Xiv. 2: Gomep avOoc avOjoay tkérecev; Ps. ciil. 15: dvOpwmo¢g woel xoprog . . . doel
Grieg Tov aypou ovTus ELavOnce; Isa. xl. 6, 7: mda caps yoproc, nal mica défa avOpe-
Tuy wc avboc xoprov: EEnpavOn o xoptoc xai Td avOoc éféreoe; comp. 1 Pet. i. 24), but
also specially, as here the ungodly! (comp. Ps. xxxvii. 2: doet yoprog ray) aro-
EnparOjoovrat, xal woe? Aayava xAdn¢ rayd aromecovvra; see also Ps. xc. 6), com-
pared. — dv@oc is here, not as in Isa. xi. 1, LXX. translation of V¥) = germen,
surculus (Hottinger), but the flower: however, the combination V¥N y'¥ is
not found in Hebrew; in Isa. xl.7 it is MW P'S. TMapépyecta:, in the
meaning of destruction, often occurs in the N. T. (so also in the Hebrew
33°); also in the classics: Soph., Trach. 69: rdv mapeAddvr’ dporov.
Ver. 11. A further expansion of the image. The aorists dvéreide, téjpave,
etc., do not precisely stand for the present (Grotius, Piscator, Hottinger, and
others), but represent the occurrence in a concrete manner as a fact which
has taken place, by which the description gains in vividness (comp. Isa.
xl. 7), which is stil] more vividly portrayed by the simple succession of finite
verbs. See Winer, p. 248 [E. T. 277] and p. 417 [E. T. 470]; A. Butt-
mann, p. 175 [E. T. 202]. It is only confusing to convert dvérete . . . bi
pave into dvareiaac Or édv dvaréAAy . . . Léjpave. — By the word xavour is often,
in the LXX. (comp., besides, Ezek. xvii. 10, xix. 12; Hos. xiii. 15; Jer.
xviii. 17; Jon. iv. 8; where dveuog or rveiua is added, particularly Job
xxvii. 21; Hos. xii. 1), meant the hot east wind (O°%P), which, blowing over
the steppes of Arabia, is very dry and scorching to vegetation (see Winer’s
Reallezicon: word, Wind); here, however, as in Isa. xlix. 10 (37% closely
united with 8D), Ecclus. xviii. 16 (comp. also Ecclus. xliii. 3, where it is
said of the sun: aa? évavriov xaiuaroc abrov ti¢ txootyoera), Matt. xx. 12, Luke
xii. 55, it has the meaning “ heat, burning” (against Grotius, Pott, Hottinger,
Kern, Schneckenburger, Winer, Wahl, Lange, Bouman, and others), as the
parching effect is attributed not to the xaiowv, as something different from
the sun, but to the sun itself.? It is arbitrary to explain it as if it were
written: hy#p0q ydp, Gua 1G avareiAa tov pov, 6 xavowv; as Gebser says: “the
burning wind rising with the sun is the image.” Laurentius incorrectly
understands by the sun “Christ,” and by the rising of the sun “ the day of
the Lord;” thus the whole is an image of the judgment destroying the rich,
yet so that the individual parts are to be retained in their appropriate mean-
ing.* — xal i&jpave, x.7.A, The same expressions in Isa. xl. 7. — éxmizrew, i.e.,
1 Lange obeerves: ‘‘ This is not here the
image of the ungodly, but Ja to be underatood
asa historical figure with reference to the de-
cay of the O. T. glory!"
8 Neither the article before cavowm, nor
the observation that, ‘with the rising of the
sun and the development of ite heat the vege-
tation is not forthwith imperilled,” forms a
valid reason against this explanation (against
Lange).
8 That “with the sun of a finished revela-
tion was developing the hot wind of the law,
which ecorched the glory of Israel” (Lange),
ie a remark which is here the more inappro-
48 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
not simply the withering (Isa. xxviii. 1,4, LXX.), but the actual falling-off
of the flower, is a consequence of the blighting of the plant. —4 ebxpézeia,
the opposite of ampéreca, is used in the classics chiefly of external appearance;
in the N. T. it is an am. Aey.—1d tpdowrov =0°)39, Ps. civ. 30; comp. Lyke
xii. 56; Matt. xvi. 3: species externa. avrow refers, not as the first avrod, to
rav yoprov, but to rd dv6oc, on which the emphasis rests (comp. ver. 10, De
Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman).! — otra, thus quickly, thus entirely (Wiesinger);
xai is not purely superfluous (Wiesinger), but, referring back to the image,
heightens the comparison. — 6 rAototog . . . papavOjoera. It is to be observed
that here also 6 rdobawc, and not o rAciror, is the subject. apaivecda, in the
N. T. an dz, Aey., is found in the LXX. as the translation of Y3', Job xv. 30;
in the same rfeaning in the Wisdom of Solomon ii. 8. The figurative ex-
pression is explained by what goes before. —év rai¢ mopeiage airod; not “on
his journeys” (Laurentius, Piscator, Herder), also not “on his journeyings
of fortune” (Lange); but = é rai¢ dda¢ avrov, ver. 8 (comp. Prov. ii. 8, LXX.).
The prominent idea is that the rich man, overtaken by judgment, perishes
in the midst of his doings and pursuits, as the flower in the midst of its blos-
soming falleth a victim to the scorching heat of the sun. Luther's transla-
tion: “in his possession,” is explained from the false reading opiar. See
critical notes. ,
Ver. 12. Whilst the rich man is condemned in the judgment, the ddeAddc
6 tarevdc, who suffers the wespacusy proceeding from the rich man, is blessed.
This blessedness forms the conclusion of the series of thought begun at
ver. 2. To uaxaprog avgp (see Ps. i. 1, and frequently in O. T.), not forw but
éori is to be supplied. No special emphasis is to be put on dv7p; comp. vv.
8, 20; incorrectly Thomas: Beatus vir, non mollis vel effoeminatus, sed vir:
and not less incorrectly Lange, who explains avjp here as he does in ver 8.
— 6¢ bropéver Tet:pacuoy 18 NOt = O¢ mEetpacpuoic mEpimiMret OF G¢ nEtpaoudy naoyxee (Hot-
tinger); comp. ver. 3; it is the man who does not succumb to the tempta-
tions which he has to endure. Laurentius: aliud est ferre crucem, aliud
perferre. To supply drav repixéon (Wiesinger) is unnecessary. — The follow-
ing sentence beginning with érz adduces the reason of the pexapioucc: for
being approved, he will receive the crown of life. By doxtune yevouevog is given
not so much the condition as the cause, why he that endureth temptation
will receive the crown of life; the being approved is the consequence of
brouévery met:pacuov. — doxtuoc is not, with Krebs, Lésner, Augusti, Pott, and
others, to be referred as a figurative expression to the trial preceding the
contests of athletes; but if a conscious figurative reference is to be assumed
at all (which De Wette, Brickner, and Wiesinger not without reason con-
sider as doubtful), it is to be referred to the purification of metals by fire
(Hornejus, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Theile, and others).2 In rdv orégavov
priate, as according to it the sun and the hot
wind are indicated as two different powers
opposed to cach other.
1 Lange, on the other band, observes ‘‘ that
a fallen flower is atill to lose its beauty "’ can-
not be imagined; but 14 it then to be imagined
that the grase when it is withered, aud the
flower has fallen from it, {s atill to lose its
beauty?
3 Lange asserts that this figurative refer.
ence ie so far tncorrect, as “that figure pre-
supposes the idea of refining, which, although
contained in the trial or proof, ja not identical
with it; but the identity is not maintained.
CHAP. I. 13. 49
rig Gone (“not the crown which is peculiar to eternal life, i.e., which is im-
parted to it,” Gunkel), rig Gui is not the genitive of possession (Lange), but
of apposition: Gu, i.e., the eternal blessed life, is itself the crown of glory
with which he that endures is adorned; comp. Rev. 11. 10; 1 Pet. v. 4; 2
Tim. iv. 8. It is at least doubtful if there is here any allusion to the reward
of the victor in the Greek games,— which is maintained by Zwingli,
Michaelis, Hensler, Pott, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others, and contested
by Semler, Augusti, Schneckenburger, Hottinger, Theile, Briickner, and
others,—as even among the Jews, without any reference to a contest, a
crown or diadem is regarded as the symbol of peculiar honor; comp. besides
Ps. xxi. 4 (Briickner), especially Wisdom of Solomon v. 16, 17: dinxatoz ei¢ rdv
Giova Guat . . . Anwovrat rd Bacideiov rig EvmpEereiag nai Td dtudnua Tov KdAAOoUEC ex Yempd¢
«ugiov. With Paul, on the other hand, such an allusion frequently occurs.
The certainty of receiving this crown of glory is founded on the divine
promise : ov émnyyeidaro (6 xiptog) toi¢ dyataow airov. If 6 xipioc is the correct
reading, we are to understand not Christ (Baumgarten, Schneckenburger),
but God (Gebser, Theile, Wiesinger). — The expression roic¢ dyaxdow abrov
(comp. Ps. xevii. 10, cxlv. 20; Rom. viii. 28, etc.) intimates that brouévew
nepaouov is a proof and testimony of love to God, and is accordingly a proof
how careful James was to designate love as the essence of true faith (so
also Lange); therefore the repetition of the same addition in chap. ii. 5.
On the whole passage, comp. particularly 2 Tim. iv. 8.
Ver. 13. To o¢ trouévec retpacuéy James opposes o¢ reipaverac;} whilst the
former gains (7, the end to which the latter approaches is @avatog (ver. 15).
— First James disclaims a vain justification of the latter, and then describes
the process of sepigfectaz. The vain justification is introduced with the
direct words of the me:pa{ouevoc: drt and Oeov meipdzoua:, and then disclaimed
by the expression: 6 Qed amepactoc eoTt Kaxdv, x,7.A, — By the direct transition
from the preceding to this verse, it is supposed that by the rewpafouevoe spoken
about, in contrast to d¢ imouéver mecpacuov (ver. 12), is to be understood the
person who does not endure the temptation, and consequently is not proved
by it, but who succumbs under it, whilst he suffers himself to be enticed to
falling away —to sin. Pott: qui tenlatione vincitur, ad peccandum vincitur ,
Theile: agit Jacobus de turpi tentatione per tristem (tentationem); so also Ols-
hausen, Schneckenburger, Kern, and others. This connection is denied by
others; thus Calvin says: de alio tentationes genere disserit; and Wiesinger in
the strongest manner: “ This appears as the design of the apostle: to distin-
guish as much as possible those retpacyovc and this mepagecdu:, to place the
latter as totally different from the former.” But the close connection with
the preceding constrains us to the opinion that James has considered both
in reference to each other, the reipacua occasioning the retpaecpa: which takes
place when émévyia is excited by it.? It is arbitrary to take the verb mepa-
3 When Lange meets this with the ques- # It Is to be observed that James designates
tion, ‘How could any one endure the temp- the triale, on which he thinks in oray repac-
tation without having first been tempted?” he ois wepiwecnre, ver. 3,a8 wecpaguot. It may
oaly shows that he does not understand the _—ibe said that they are not this in themselves, but
explanation here given. only in so far as the Christian is yet a sinner,
50 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Seopa: in the clause: pndelce mecpafouevoc, in another sense than in the following
clause: d7d Qcod mecpafoua, as Hottinger asserts: hic verbum rewpafeoba bis dici-
tur sensu diversi; priori loco simpliciter: adversa pati; posteriori: malis sollici-
tari ad defectionem (similarly Grotius, Semler; also Lange); for, according
to this interpretation, the excuse, 6r:,x.r.A., would not correspond to the
supposition contained in pndel¢ wetpatouevnc. In justification of this view,
Matt. viii. 30 cannot be appealed to, where the same word (vexpov) is used
in the same sentence in different meanings, namely, in a proper and figura-
tive meaning, as here the relation is entirely different. — Some expositors
(Pott, Schneckenburger, and others), without reason, paraphrase Aeyérw by
“cogitet, sibi persuadeat.” Since the words which immediately follow are
introduced in the direct form, it is better to retain the usual meaning of
Aéyew, by which it is in itself evident that the external speaking presupposes
an internal, on which it is here natural to think. — James makes the meipa{o-
nevoc thus briefly express the excuse by which he would justify himself: dre
and Ocov mreipacgouat, by which he transfers the guilt from himself to God.! dre
is the form of quotation frequently occurring in the N. T., except with Paul.
amd Oeov is emphatically placed first. dé is not equivaleut to to; the former
points to the more distant, the latter to the nearest cause, though by later
writers azo with passive verbs is sometimes used as equivalent to ixé. Here,
however, the usual signification of dz6 is to be retained, for the mepalouevor,
introduced as directly speaking, would certainly not stigmatize God as the
direct tempter (comp. Matt. iv. 1). See Winer, p. 832 [E. T. 371]. .James
does not with these words refer to any particular doctrine of religion and
philosophy, perhaps to the doctrine of the Pharisees and Essenes on eluappévy
(Bull, Ittig, Schneckenburger, and others), or the doctrine of Simon Magus
(Calovius), but only considers generally the peculiar bias of the natural man
to charge God somehow with the blame of mewpatecOa, recognizable in the
answer of Adam to the question of God.2— James grounds the rejection of
the idea contained in pndeig . . . Aeyérw that the recpifeofae proceeds from God,
by a sentence comprising two members: 4 ydp Oede . . . obdéva. The word
Greipactoc, an azag Aey. in the N. T., has in classical Greek —in which, how-
ever, the form, ameiparog (ameipnroc) almost always occurs — either the passive
meaning unlempted, — that is, what is not tempted or proved, — or the active
®
and can thus be enticed by them into sin;
when this happens, then the recpagec@ar, of
which James here speake, takes place. Stier:
‘That there {s a necessity for our all being
tested and approved through trial, springs from
our ein; the tempting element In our trial, the
evilin it, springs therefore from that and not
from God.” |
1 He might find a justification of this in the
fact that wecpacuo actually spring from God.
See Meyer on Matt. vi. 18, and on 1 Cor. x. 13.
Lange introduces inappropriate matter, main-
taining In favor of the concrete relations sup-
posed by him, that the Jews and Judaizing
Christians with this word would justify their
fanaticiam against the Gentiles, particularly
their separation from the Gentile Christians,
as an affair of God (for hia glory) !
32 Many expressions in Greek authors show
how aatural this is to man; comp. Ji. r. 86:
éyw 8 ove aircés cic adAa Zeus, car poipa;
Plaut., Aulud., iv. 10, 7: Deus impuleor mihi
fuit; Terent., Zunuch., v. 2, 86: Quid, si hoc
voluit quisplam Deus? — Such an excuse sug-
gested itself to the Jews the more as It ap-
peared juetified by the language of the O. T.
Comp. Exod. xx. 16. On the contrary, Philo
(Quod. deter. pot.,177 D) remarks: ot ws evcoce
tev aceBwv, toy Gedy ainioy trwv xacww yor
Meitons. Still more fully in Schneckenburger.
CHAP. I. 14. 51
meaning: he who has made no trial, equivalent to inerperienced. Some
expositors take the word in the second meaning; thus Schulthess: tn Deum
nulla malorum experientia; De Wette, Briickner, and others.1 But, on ac-
count of the close connection with meipagecv, the word has here, as most expos-
itors assume, an ethical meaning. Yet it is incorrect to explain it actively,
with Luther (God is not a tempter to evil; Vulgate: intentator), because
this clause would then be tautological with the following. It is rather to
be taken passively: untempled of evil, by which the idea passes from tentatus
to that of tentabilis; Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 194]. By the Church Fathers
God is often named simply 6 dzeipacroc ; 80 Ignat. Ad. Philipp. : ri metpaerg rdv
dxsipacrov; Photius, Contra Manich., iv. p. 225: mewpalew énceyeippoact rdv dnei-
pacrov. By this predicate the holiness of God, which is raised above all
temptation to evil, is indicated, and is the motive likewise to the following
thought.2?— xaxcv is not masculine, but neuter; not misery (Oecumenius),
but evil.? — meipater dé abrd¢ obdéva expresses the consequence of the preceding
and the pointed contrast to ard Ozod meipafouae, meipater is placed first for the
sake of emphasis. By airéc, which most interpreters pass over, is brought
forward not God’s action in contrast to “being tempted” (Theile: ipse quo-
que non tentat tdem ille Deus, qui tentari nequit; Wiesinger: “He, self-active;”
so also Lange), but shows that the repafev indeed takes place, but from
another cause (7 ida ém@nuia) than from God. The meaning of the whole
verse is as follows: Let no man, when he is tempted (inwardly enticed) to
evil, say, From God I am tempted: for God suffers no temptation; but (dé)
as to the temptation, He (God) tempteth no man: but every man is tempted,
etc.‘ As regards the apparent contradiction of this with other passages of
the Holy Scriptures, where the sins of men are referred to God as their reason
(Gen. xxii. 1; Deut. viii. 2, etc.), Calvin correctly remarks: Quum Scriptura
excoecationem vel obdurationem cordis tribuit Deo, neque illi initium assignat,
neque factt mali auctorem, ul culpam sustinere debeat. In his autem duobus
solum Jacobus insistit.
Ver. 14. That “ mepagecda: proceeds not from God,” is the thought of
ver. 13. Whence comes it, then? The answer is given in this verse:
3 Buttmann, p. 148 [E. T. 170), contests this
meaning, which rather belongs to the word
dwepos. But passages, as Hom. //. ad Ven.
v. 183: advyiryy ps aydywy nai awecpyrny diAd-
mnros; Theognis, 772: woAAoi ameipnra: ddgay
éxovo’ ayebwy, show that awe:paros actually has
that meaning.
3 Lange maintains, {n reference to the In-
terpretation given above, that in this commen-
tary aweip. <ax. is explained as equivalent to
** God has no experience of evil,’ and that it
is eald that the passive construction: ‘not
tempted,” “not temptable,”’ is against gram.
matical usage and the connection! In a very
atrange manner he thinks it is here designed
to strengthen the warning: Let no man say;
for this eaying, like all fanaticlem, was a
tempting God, and therefore vain and impious,
because God d not suffer himself to be
tempted.
8 Inapposite uniting of various explana-
tions by Theile and Morus: ameip, cax, dicitur,
partim quoniam nullae miserlae possunt eve-
nire Deo, partim quoniam per eas non potest
inclinari ad peccandum, ad cupiditatem all-
quam exercendam; Deus igitur est expers
miseriae omnis atque etiam peccati vel pravae
cupiditatie, et quia est, peque tentatur a malis
ipse, neque alium tentat.
4 The passage in Ecclus. xv. 11, 12, 20, is
especially to be compared: ui eins ore bea
KUptoy axédorny, wn cians OTe aurds pe éwAdyy-
oev,. Ove édvereirAaro ovdevi ameBeiv nai ovx
twaev averww ovdert auaptavey. Bee also 1
Cor. x. 18.
52 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
“ Every man is tempted when he is drawn out and allured hy his own lust.” The
words ind rig id. émfvuiag belong not to mepdlerac (Theile, Wiesinger), but to
&keAxduevoc Kal deAcaGoperog (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Knapp, Grashof,
Hottinger, De Wette, Briickner, Lange, and others), as otherwise these ideas
would drag too much, and would receive their closer reference only by sup-
plying something, as im abri¢ (Wiesinger). James will describe mepatectat
according to its process; he therefore places the idea first, and then gives in
_ what follows how it occurs: consequently the construction mepafera: . . . ¢SeAnc-
pevog requires not to be altered into mewpatouevoc . . . ékeAxierat (Schnecken-
burger). — mecpafsuevoc, as is evident from what goes before, is to be supplied
to &kaaroc; it corresponds to obdéva, ver. 13. The attribute id:a¢ is emphatic,
expressing the contrast to airéc in ver. 13. It is brought prominently forward
because en:évpia has its ground not in God, but belongs to man. — By énibuyia
is not denoted “innocent sensuousness,” but it occurs here, as everywhere in
the N. T. (except where its specific object is named, as in Luke xxii. 15;
Phil. 1. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 17), even without the addition of xax#, capaixy, or
some similar adjectives, in sensu malo; yet it is not to be understood as origi-
nal sin: “the sinful tendency, the same as Paul calls duapria in Rom. vii. 7”
(Hofmann, Schriftbew., i. p. 469; Wiesinger); rather éx@vuia here is the
same as in Rom. vii. 7, namely, lust for the forbidden action springing from
original sin (which Paul designates as the duapria which yupic viuov is “ vexpd,”
but by the commandment revives, and racav éx:Oupiay xarepyagera). So, also,
Briickner.1— James does not here speak of the origin and development of
sin in general, but he wishes to mention, in contrast to amd Oz0b meipafoua, by
what sinful man is tempted to the definite act of sin, so that he had no occa-
sion to refer to original sin. — With regard to the form of expression, Pott
correctly says: ém@vpia, duaptia et Oavatog personarum vim habent; tmaginem
meretricis suppeditant voces ovAAaBeiv, Tixtetv, dmoxvev, nec non et ééAxew atque
deAeazev. The two words égéAxew and deAedfewy sind verba e re venatoria et pisca-
toria in rem amatoriam et inde in nostrum tropum translata (Schneckenburger) ;
this at least is valid of deAedgecv. The meaning: protrahere in littus (Pott, and
also De Wette), does not here lie at the root of the idea égéAxew (araf Acy. in
N. T.), for then it would require to be placed after deAeddev (as also Wieseler,
Briickner, and Lange observe). Schulthess more correctly explains it: eli-
cere bestias ex tuto uli latent in locum hanmis retibusque expositum; but it is
probable that James had not the original figure so definitely before his eyes.
Many interpreters (Menochius, Grotius, Laurentius, Pott, Hottinger, Baum-
1 According to Hofmann’s explanation, the
form of expression of James would be diamet-
rically opposed to that of Paul; for what Paul
calls azapria, James would call ¢xc@vuia; and
what Paul calls ¢ri@vyia, James would call
aunapria! And how objectionable is it to say,
with Wiesinger: éx:@vysca, when stirred up,
produces those é¢#c@uuias capxos in Gal. v. 16,
24, that ém@Ouuery and that exc@vuica in Rom.
vii. 7,8. It is alao incorrect, with Lange, to
understand by ida émc0. “ origina: sin itself in
its concrete activity,” or “‘ the folly which the
individual encounters externally, over against
which the lust belonging to him is objectively
placed,” and to determine the same more defi-
nitely as the totality of those “‘ glittering, varie-
gated, visionary expectations which seductively
met both the Jews and the Jewish Christians,
which had sprung from the matter of the chili-
astic, world-lusting, spiritual pride.” James
does not here speak of éw.@uyia as attacking
an individual from outside, but only of that
which is within him.
CHAP. I. 15. 53
garten, Theile, and others) supply a lono to tééAx. and ad malum to dededf.,
or something similar; yet incorrectly, as the idea is rather that éméuyia as a
harlot entices man, that is, his will, to herself; the é in éé4«. is thus to be
explained, that man, enticed by the allurements of émOvyia, is enticed to for-
sake his former position (as the place where he remained hitherto concealed);
Schneckenburger: Statu quasi suo et loco se extrahi et dimovert ipse patiur. It
is incorrect to explain égéAxew as equivalent to mpooéAxery, or as an intensified
form instead of lAcev. The being taken captive by émdvyia is indicated by
SeAcalouevoc.? deAecfav, in the N. T. used here only and in 2 Pet. ii. 2, 14, 18,
is also, among classical writers, used figuratively only in sensu malo.®
Ver. 15. Continuing the image used in ver. 14, James in this verse de-
scribes what is the fruit which proceeds froin deAedgeodat xd rig idiag éxcOnuiag:
Lust having conceived (i.e., become pregnant) bringeth forth sin, and sin when
tt is completed bringeth forth death. The object of this representation is not
to give a doctrine of sin, —its origin and its end,— but by indicating the
Sruit of reipageoba:, to demonstrate that it is not from God. By eira the result
of repageoda, namely rixre duapriav, is indicated as directly following upon
it; ovadaBovea forms the transition to it, which occurs by érévuia taking the
will of man captive; it, as it were, becomes pregnant, so that it bears sin. —
ovi2aZovca rixte: corresponds to the Hebrew 123) WIM, which is uniformly
in the LXX. translated by ovi.a,ovca Erexe (Gen. iv. 5, 17, xxx. 17, and other
passages). By duapria without the article, the fruit of émévuia, according to
its quality, is indicated in an entirely general manner. Sin born by lust
again carries in itself its own fruit («tqua), which, having come to comple-
tion (dzoreAco@eioa), is brought forth out of itself (d7oxte). According to
De Wette, by dyapria in the first clause is to be understood “the resolution
or internal act,”’ but in the second clause (7 duapria amoreAecOcioa), “sin accomn-
plished in the external act,” thus acts of sin. This, however, is incorrect, as
— (1) by 7 62 auapria the dpapria already mentioned is again taken up, and
therefore must have the same meaning; and (2) admoredciv duapriav cannot
mean “sin accomplished.” 4 Wiesinger, with regard to rixree cuapriav, correctly
observes: “duapria is sin, but whether the internal or external act is not
stated; yet aoreAeofecca added in the following clause shows that James
considered duapria as something gradually developed, for dmoredciv is not
equivalent to rixrev (so that droreAcodeica Would be = reydeica, Baumgarten :
“sin brought or produced iuto the world in such a manner”), but completed:
1 See Athenaeus, 1. 3, ¢. 8: da rh dmirAlay
Tovs épacras mpogeAcvcacOa. Ael., V. An., vi.
31: Uwd rH ySorns eAKcue vos.
2 Lange: ‘** To draw off and wo allure: Ger.
man, Ablocken and Anlocken; the man is
firat drawn out from his inward self-control
and fortress, aod then attracted (drawn to) by
the allurements of the harlot."’
3 Comp. particularly, Plato, Tim., Ixix. 6:
géovm weyiotwy xaxev SéAcap; Plut., De Ser.
Num. Vind.: ro yAvat ris émBupras womep
Sedrcap cfeAxciy (avOpwrovs).
¢ De Wette incorrectly appeals to the ex-
pression avoreAciy éxcOuyiay in Pilato, Gorg., p.
603 D, and reActy thy erOuvucav, as there ém-
@vuca and azapria Bre not similar, but different
ideas. When Wiesinge:, against the explana.
tion of De Wette, aays that cvAAafovea indi-
cates that “the will consents to the demand
of the desire, which is the resolution or inter.
nal act,” it is, on the contrary, to be observed
that these two are by no means Identical, as
the resolution is an act of the will, and thus ie
actually sin, whilst by evAAaSovca Ia indicated
a point preceding rixrecy apapriay,
54 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
thus 7 au. dror. = “ sin which has attained toits complete development.” It is not
entirely corresponding to the idea of James, when Calvin (with whom most
recent critics — Kern, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, and others — .
agree) explains it as “the entire sinful life” (non unum aliguod opus perpe-
tratum, sed cursus peccandi completus, vita impia et scelerata). As James
considers duapria itself personified, it is anoreAcodeioa When it has grown to
such fulness of power that it rules man’s whole life. According to this idea,
it is indeed correct when several interpreters explain dmorea. by adulta; thus
Bouman: Peccatum, quum ad adultam pervenit aetatem; yet, linguistically,
this explanation is not to be justified, as dmoreAcioda: is not equivalent to ado-
lescere. The explanation given in the earlier edition of this commentary,
that by duapria is meant the act of sin, is erroneous, because such a limita-
tion of the general idea is not indicated; on this account it is not correct to
think on émdvpyia and ayapria as a single definite lust and sin. — Briickner
considers the addition of amoreAcodeica is made only “iu order that dyapria,
which was at first represented as a child, might again be represented as a
mother.” This, however, is incorrect: the origin and growth (or, more cor-
rectly, the coinpletion) of sin by no means occur “in reality together at one
moment ;” sin bears death, which it carried in itself at the first, only when
it is not interrupted in its development by a higher life-power, but has
attained to its complete form. — By 6dvaroc, by which James indicates the
fruit of completed sin according to its nature, is to be understood, not only
temporary death (Pott: Homines peccando mortales factos esse omnes consentiunt
N. T. scriptores), but, as the opposite of the gw which God has promised,
and will give to them who love Him, elernal death; see Rom. vi. 23: ra
opima tig duaptiac, Oavarocg’ 7d dé yaptoza Ocod, (uy aiwrviog. If, therefore, noth-
ing but ¢avarog is the end to which mepafeodac conducts, this cannot possibly
have its reason in God, who works (7, and therefore it is absurd to say amd
Ocov meipagoua: (ver. 13).— The expression amoxvec (only here and in ver. 18
in the N. T.) is distinguished from rixre: only in this, that it indicates more
definitely that duapria from the beginning is pregnant with ddvaror. By the
explanation: meretur mortem (Bede, Laurentius, and others), a relation is
introduced foreign to the context. On the mode of writing dzoxvei and
émoxvet, see Winer, p. 80 (E. T. 88); Schirlitz, p. 184 f.
Ver. 16 introduces the statement which follows as one particularly im-
portant. Not only the exhortation ; yy xAavaode, but also the added address:
ddeAgoi pov ayurnzoi, shows how important this observation appeared to the
author. <A new line of thought, unconnected with the preceding, does not
indeed begin with this verse; 4 wAavdoée must not therefore be considered,
with Hornejus, Gebser, and others, only as the concluding formula to what
goes before. Theile correctly observes: Ubi antecedentia respicit, nunquam
finit cohortationem, sed ita interpositum est, ut continuet ae firmet, nune illus-
trando, nunc cavendo. The same formula is found in 1 Cor. vi. 9, xv. 33;
Gal. vi. 7 (similarly 1 John iii. 7); in all those places it precedes a thought
certain to the Christian conscience, by which a preceding expression is con-
firmed in opposition to a false opinion: this is also the case here. Grotius
inserts an entirely foreign reference when he says, hoc vult: ne putate vestruim
CHAP. I. 17. 55
studium sufficere sine precibus; see Luke xviii. 1. There is here no reference
whatever to prayer.
Ver. 17. The sentiment in this verse, introduced by ver. 16, is designed
for the complete rejection of dxd Ocot reipufoua; the good comes from God,
therefore repageodue cannot come from God. The idea of the good is indi-
cated by two synonymous expressions: dootg dyaéa and d&pyya rédewov. By
doox;, Which has here not an active, as in Phil. iv. 5 (Bouman, Lange), but
@ passive signification (as frequently in classical Greek and in the Apoc-
Typha), and by dopyua, the same thing is indicated —in contrast to idia ém-
_ buuia, ver. 14— as something given and presented, which thus proceeds not
from man himself. By dupyya réAcov the idea already contained in doa ayavn
is heightened, dupnua more definitely indicating the gift (dda) as a free present
(which Gunkel incorrectly denies; see Rom. v. 16, where dapyua is parallel
With yapioua), and réAeov the idea of the good (dyae7) as morally perfect.1 It
is arbitrary to refer the two expressions to different gifts, and by dos to
understand the gifts of the kingdom of nature or of the present life, and by
dpnya those of the kingdom of grace or of the future life. Also ayeéy is not,
with Didymus, to be restricted to the idea of the useful. Several interpret-
ers (Raphelius, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Bengel, Augusti, Pott, Hottinger, and
others) put an exclusive force on zac, as if it were = non nisi, “nothing but;”
but the thought is weakened thereby. James designs to say not only —in.
contrast to the derivation of reipatecda: from God — that only good (thus not
evil) gifts come from Him, but likewise that good gifts all come only from
God (thus from none else) (Stier); zag is accordingly to be taken in its
usual meaning; but aya@7 and ré2eov are to be emphasized. Schnecken-
burger arbitrarily explains it as if James had written: mdoa ddotc nai wav
dapnua dvutev xarapaivoy rédeov éori.2 — dvwbev = obpavopev (Acts xiv. 17, xxvi.
13; é« rob otpavov, John vi. 32, 33), is put first for the sake of emphasis. —
éort xarajaivoy are not, with Wolf, Bengel, Kern, Bouman, and others. to be
separated, so that ior is to be joined to dvwéev, and xaraBaivoy is added as an
epexegesis; but to be united, and are put instead of xaragaive, only that by
the participle the quality of the verbal idea is more brought out; see chap.
iii. 15; so also Wiesinger and’ A. Buttmann, p. 266 (E. T. 310); Winer,
p. 311 (E. T. 350), and Schirlitz, p. 317, on the other hand, regard the ex-
pression as entirely equivalent to xaru@aivec.— The expression xarafaivoy is
explained froin dvwfev. The explanation of Laurentius: non cadens, sed
descendens, quia ordinarie bona sua dona dat, is far-fetched. — amd tov marpd¢
Tov goruv, an epexegesis to the preceding. By ra gera is to be understood
neither spiritual light, whether knowledge (Hornejus), or joy (Michaelis), or
goodness, wisdom (Wolf: Omnis per/fectio, bonitas, sapientia et prosperitas),
or something similar, nor the spirits of light (Schol. ap. Mutt.: jroe trav
1 Whilst De Wette finds the emphasis only § Christianity;’’ and by éd0c. ay. “every thing
in the adjectives, Thelle correctly remarks: Et |§ which served to prepare this completed gift,
substantva et adjectiva differunt ita, ut poste- especially in the old covenant.” .
riuspriore elt definitius ideoque majus. So also 2 On the accidental hexameter which the
Wiesiager and Brickner. Lange by dip. reA. words waca ... teAccow form, see Wiuer, p.
understands ‘‘the gift of God compieted In 564 (E. ‘T’. 798).
56 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Gyyelncy duvipewv’ 9 tov néguriopévur avOpdonwv; Lange: “The whole series of
organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ, as the representatives of all
good spirits”). Nor is there here any allusion to the Urim and Thummim
of the high priest (Heisen); but by it are meant, as almost all modern
expositors recognize, the heavenly bodies (see LXX. Ps. cxxxv. (cxxxvi.) 7;
Jer. iv. 23) = qgworipes, LX X., Gen. i. 14. God is designated as the rarnp of
these, because He is their Creator and Preserver. This designation, for
which Job xxxviii. 28 cannot be appealed to, is surprising, as it is without
analogy either in the O. or N. T. (otherwise with profane writers and Philo).
It has, however, its ground in this, that James considers the light of the
heavenly bodies as a reflection of the essential light of God. Since God is
the Father of light, the symbol of the holy. ones (Wiesinger), so He Himself
must be light, and thus nothing dark (consequently not metpagectar), but
rather only all that is light,can proceed from Him. As the Father of lights,
God, however, outshines these: their light is changing; His, on the contrary,
is without change. The following words: with whom there is no variation nor
shadow (in consequence) of change, express this idea; i.e., whilst with the
stars @ napadAayy OF tpomA¢ arooxiacpa occurs, there is nothing similar to this
with God.! According to Grotius, with whom various expositors agree,
these expressions are fermini technict of astronomy. But, in opposition to
this, it is to be observed that mapadjayf never occurs as an astronomical term
(see Gebser in loco), and the astronomical signification of rpomr7 = solstitium,
solstice (rpora? depivai and yemepivai; comp. Wisd. vii. 18: rpomiy dAAayar), is
not here suitable, as the sun is not mentioned specially, nor is an drooxiacua
effected by the solstice. James here uses not the language of astronomy,
but that of ordinary life (Wiesinger). — rapaAdcyy is to be understood quite
generally, variation. James adds to this general idea, in order to bring
prominently forward that the essential light of God is not, as is the case
with the stars, obscured by any thing, the more definite idea rponij¢ drooxiacya.
aroocxiagua has not an active (De Wette: “casting a shadow”), but a passive
signification, being shaded (so Brickner); and rponije assigns the reason (dzo-
Gxiaopa quae orilur e tporg, Schneckenburger): thus the shadowing of the
stars, which is effected by their changeable position:* for that James has
founded his idea in a change in the stars themselves, is not probable.®
Luther's translation: “the change of light and darkness” (similarly, Stolz:
“changing obscuration ”), is only justified if it were said rpom) dmooxtdouarog.
Deviating entirely from the above explanation, the Greek interpreters take
1 Flatt (Spicil. observatt. ad ep. Jacobi):
Auctor siderum nitidorum Ipsie etiam nitidior
et nitoris, nullis unquaim tenebris interrupti,
majori conatantia fulgens. Similarly it is eaid
of Wisdom: €ore yap avrn evrperecrépa nAcov,
Kai Urép wagay aorpwy Bday, dwri cvynpivoundry
evpioxetat mporepa, Wisdom of Solomon, vii. 29.
3 Incorrectly, Lange explains the expres.
sion, ‘ of the obacuration of the earth effected
by the diurnal phenomenal revolution of the
sun, moon, and stars.’ And the proper idea
which James has in view is, according to
Lange, that God ‘‘ makes no revolution with
the Old Testament which would cast a night-
shadow on the New, nor does he suffer the
New Testament to cast a night-sbadow on the
Old’’!
8 Without reason, Baumgarten, Schnecken-
burger, and others assume that James here
alludes to the astrological superstitions of the
Jews.
CHAP. I. 18. 57
drooxiacua = ixyvog; Oecumenius: dvri rov- obd? péypye brovoiag rivd¢ trog0Aq;
Suidas: dvr? rov* dAAouwscews nal peraBoAne tyvoc* nal: duoiwya gavraciag; and
following them several recent writers; Morus: ne tantillum mutationes ;
Rosenmiiller: no shadow of change; so Hensler and others. But in this
signification arooxiaopa never elsewhere occurs; also the here essential idea of
obscuration (Bengel: drooxiacpa, opponitur luminibus) would be lost. — The
form fx (besides here in the N. T., in 1 Cor. vi. 5; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11)
is not, with Buttmann, ii. 375; Winer, p. 74 (E. T. 80); Schirlitz, 171, and
others, to be taken as a peculiar form of éy, but is the abbreviation of éfveore
(A. Buttmann, p. 64 [E. T. 72]); comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5: ob bu tv tpiv cope
oid? cic (see Meyer in loco). é&x, however, is not, with Pott, to be explained
as precisely equivalent with éory, yet the meaning of the preposition év is so
weakened, as the verb could be construed with any other preposition, as here
with the preposition mapa, which here, as frequently in the N. T., stands for
“what spiritually belongs to another, is in another's possession.” !
Ver. 18. Most interpreters subordinate the thought contained in this
verse to the preceding, regarding it either as an example (Laurentius: loqui-
tur Ap. in his verbis de generatione spirituali ut sit quasi exemplum aliquod
istorum donorum sptritualium, quae sunt desuper) or as a confirmation and a
proof (thus Gebser, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman; also Lange) :? on the con-
trary, according to Theile and De Wette,? its relation is that of co-ordination.
But in both explanations the peculiar significance which this verse has in
the context is mistaken. It is to be recognized as a principal thought, not
only because the succeeding exhortations flow from it, but also because the
preceding development only comes to its close in it; whilst only in BovAngete
azexinoev quac is not only the assertion dd Geod retpatouac completely refuted,
but also all the earlier-mentioned assertions have their sure foundation. It
is accordingly not a confirmation of ver. 17, but rather a special inference
from the general idea of that verse. — BovAndetc anexinoev quac). The verb itself
testifies that here the discourse is of the new birth, and not of natural birth,
for droxiey 18 synonymous with yswdv; but the man yeyevynuévog éx Oeod (1
John iii. 9; see also 1 Pet. i. 23) is not nan in himself, but man born again.
Unsatisfactorily Pott explains dzoxvew = facere, efficere, since by this the
specific idea of the verb, that the foundation of the life of him who is born
again lies in God, and that he is @eia¢ gicewc xowwwrvic (2 Pet. i. 4), is lost. —
guac; not us as nen, nor us as Jewish Christians, but us as Christians. — The
verse emphatically commences with ovAndeic, by which is expressed not a
contrast to the merit of human works (Bede: non nostris, sed beneficio suae
voluntatis; similarly Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, etc.), nor to ‘the Jewish
claims of righteousness” (Lange), but it is designed prominently to bring
forward the thought that the new birth rests on the divine till, — the work
is that which God has peculiarly willed. But if this be the case, how can
1 Demosthenes, De Cor., p. 318, 13: e: &’uty 3 Theille: Deus, luminum pater, etiam
dots xai wap’ epot TIs Cuwerpia ToOLaUTH. parens est generationis postrae. De Wette:
3 Lange strangely designates the new birth In place of all good gifts, the gracious gift of
as the effect of the depnua réAccoy which came —_— the Christian salvation is likewise mentioned
down from heaven. as a proof that God can be no tempter. :
58 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
meipagecpac proceed from Him? Without sufficient reason, Pengel, Kern,
Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, and others put the additional idea of love in
Bovandeic.1 — Adyw aAndeiac}. The instrument of amoxvjoa: is the Aoyoc dAnOeiac,
that is, the gospel,? which is so called because ‘‘dAnécia in its entire reality
is inherent in it” (Harless on Eph. i. 13). The words: ef¢ rd eivac que anapynv
Tiva Tov abrod xriopatwv, express the aim of this new birth, by which is not
indicated what Christians, as those who are born of God, ought to become,
but what they are, according to the intention of God.® By ra added to
anapxnv the mode of expression is indicated as figurative; for, as Calvin
correctly remarks, tiva similitudinis est nota, nos quodammodo esse primitias
(so also Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, and others). Also Bengel
recognizes this, but he puts therein a false reference, observing: QUAEDAM
habet MODESTIAM, nam primiliae proprie et absolute est Christus. Still more
incorrect is it, with Lange, to explain ria, that James considered the angels
of God as a different kind of first-fruits of creation. Laurentius correctly
says: amapy7 allusio est ad ritum legalem in Vetum Testamentum de consecra-
tione primogenitorum, frugum, jumentorum et hominum (so also Calvin,
Hornejus, Wiesinger, and others ; unsatisfactorily De Wette: ‘chosen and
holy”). The word has here, as everywhere in the O. T., and predominantly
ainong the classics, a religious signification, namely, “ the jirst-fruis dedicated
to God ;” so that James by this expression indicates Christians, as a fruit
dedicated to the service of God. But jude emphatically repeated shows that
James does not here state the nature of Christians generally, but what the
position is which he and those Christians occupy who, according to Rom.
Vili. 23, possess tiv dnapyny tod mvevuatog (see Meyer in loco). They are a
kind of first-fruits of God's creatures, because they, as being born of God,
are dedicated to God frst among all Ilis creatures. The glorification, which
is destined for the whole world, was first imparted to Christians then liviug.*
In the N. T. drapyq is sometimes so used that the religious signification steps
into the background (thus in 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; Rom. viii. 23, xvi. 5; 1 Cor.
xvi. 15; otherwise in Rom. xi. 16 and Rev. xiv. 5); and accordingly sev-
eral expositors explain the expression of James as equivalent to of xporo: trav
1 Bengel: voluntate amantissima. Schneck-
enburger: non merum volendi actum sed be.
pignam et benigna voluntate ortam volitionem
exprimit. The view of Oecumenius is evi-
dently entirely perverted: ro BovAnOeis elev,
émiotopicwy Tovs avTomatws veooTHvar tobe Td
trav Anpourtas,
2 If the want of the article should constrain
us to translate Adcyos aAn@eaas, “a word of
truth,’’ that is, a word whose nature Js truth
(see Meyer on 2 Cor. vi. 7), yet ‘by this word
of truth here the gospel can only be under-
stood; but it Is more probable that the article
is omitted because Adcyos aAn@eas, as an idea
definite in itself, did not require the article to
designate it.
8 According to Lange’s supposition, “this
teleological mode of expression is chosen in
order to indicate that the Jews should decome
what Christians already are.” This is purely
arbitrary, as such a distinction is not indicated
in the very slighteat degree.
# It is, however, also poasible that James by
yas has had in view, not the distinction be-
tween the then-existing and the later Chris-
tians, but only the distinction between Chris-
tilans and the other creatures, since Christians
of all ages form the amwapyH trav xticparey,
until the commencement of the world’s glort-
fication. Lange with truth brings forward the
idea that if Christians are arapxy, they are
sureties for the future glorification of the
world; but that the first believera of Israel in
their uvity are sureties for the future conver-
sion of the nation, is an introduced idea which
ls not indicated by James.
CHAP. I, 19. 59
atiopuTuv abros. But against this is, on the one hand, the added tia, and on
the other hand, the existing necessity of conceiving as added to xrioudrwy an
attribute, as réwy or xuivev, since the expression rd «riovara Oeod is not taken
by itself, those who are born again, but generally, the creatures of God. It
is still more arbitrary to take dxapy7 as equivalent to mpdro, in the sense
of ryuctaroe (Oecumenius; Morus: omnium creaturarum carissimi et dignis-
simi; the favorites among His creatures), and then to refer the verse to
the dignity of man generally, as the scholiast explains: rv édpwuévyy xriow
Onoiv, 7¢ TyuaoTepov Tov GvOpwrov idegev.. By avrod (Lachmann and Buttmann,
airov; Tischendorf, éavrov), emphatically added, the creatures are indicated
as God’s property.
Ver. 19. To ver. 18 is annexed at first the exhortation to hear, and then
in ver. 22 the more extended exhortation, not only to be hearers, but also
doers of the word. By the reading core, the connection with the preceding
is evidently expressed, dore being with the following imperative, as in 1 Cor.
iil. 21; Phil. il. 12 = iaque, therefore. This reading is, however, suspicious,
as not only predominant authorities declare for the reading iore, but also tore
might be easily changed into core, in order to mark the thoughts in this
verse as an inference from ver. 18. It is true the dé after forw, conjoined
with this reading (in B and C), appears to be harsh ; but it may be ex-
plained from this, that the sentence éorw . . . rayd¢ ei¢ 7d axovoat, x.7.A., is intro-
duced as being almost a proverbial expression. The reading of A: éore dd
. kai farw, appears to be a correction, in order to unite this verse more
closely with the preceding. icre may be either indicative (comp. Heb. xii.
17; usually ofdare) or imperative; it is at all events to be referred, not to what
goes before,? but to what follows, as otherwise rovro, or something similar,
by which it would be referred back to ver. 18, would require to be added.
Semler explains it as an indicative, paraphrasing it: non ignoratis istud
carmen; Ecclus. v. 11: yivov rayic év dxpouce auv, «.7.4. As, however, the
sentence in question is here expressed in different words, so it is not to be
assumed that James would here refer to that passage in Ecclesiasticus. It
is thus better to consider icre as an imperative, as it then corresponds to
p} wAavaode (ver. 16), and serves strongly to impress the following sentence
on the readers, in favor of which also is the address ddeAgoi pov dyannrol
added here as well as there; see also chap ii. 5: dxoveare, dd. u. dy. — The
sentence is entirely general : let every man be siwift to hear, slow to. speak, slow
to wrath. Whilst Laurentius and others consider this as a sententia generalis,
which stands in no internal connection with the preceding, but is pressed
upon the readers in its entire generality, most interpreters supply to daci-
ow, from the preceding context, rdv Adyov dAndeiac; thus Estius, Gataker,
Gomar, Piscator, Hornejus, Baumgarten, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Hlottinger,
Gebser, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others; but this is arbitrary, particularly
aS nd¢ GvOpwroc points to the universality of the sentence. However, the
1 Thus Schulthese: Divino rationis et ora- 2 De Wette explains it: ‘‘Ye know this,
tionis munere, cujus ex tot animantium gene- namely, that be has regenerated us; ” but this,
ribus atgue nataris homo solus est particeps, as he himeelf confesses, glves a wholly unsat-
principatum dignitatis el datum cernimus. isfactory sense.
60 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
intention of James is not to inculcate it on his readers in its general sense,
but he wishes rather that they, as Christians, should apply it to their Chris-
tian conduct; so that for them dxoica certainly refers to Adyoe ri¢ cAnOeiac
(Heisen, Schneckenburger,! Theile). tu» is therefore not to be supplied to
nic avOpwroc, still we may say with Semler: pertinet ad Christianos, quatenus
sunt Christiani; but the expression is, as part of the general sentence, like-
wise to be retained in its general meaning; but what holds good of all men,
in a peculiar manner holds good of Christians. — The ideas rayic and Spadir,
in the N. T. only here (in Luke xxiv. 25, Gpadic has a different meaning),
form a direct contrast.2, By @paddc ei¢ opyiv added to the second clause, James
announces what kind of speaking he means, namely, speaking é£ dpyi.2 But
from ver. 20 it is evident that by épy7 — which, as Cremer correctly remarks,
denotes not the passive affection, but active displeasure directed toward any
one —is to be understood sinful and passionate zeal. @padic is to be taken
in both clauses in the same sense, which —as is often the case with expres-
sions in figurative language — goes beyond the literal and direct idea of the
word, as Hornejus correctly explains it in reference to the second clause: tia
jubet tardos ad tram esse, ut ab eo nos prorsus retrahat. Several expositors
refer both clauses, others at least the second chiefly or alone, to the conduct
toward God, with or without an express reference to ver. 13.4 But this is
incorrect; the dpy7 to which James aliudes is rather carnal zeal, which will
censure its neighbor, whose fruit is not eipzvn, but dxaracracia (chap. iii. 16).
The warning is addressed to those Christians who misuse the gospel (the
Aoyoc dAneiac) as the Pharisees did the law, not for their own sanctification,
but for the gratification of their censoriousness and quarrelsome temper;
see chap. iii. Although James with this exhortation has specially in view
the conduct of Christians in their assemblies, yet AaAjoas must not be re-
stricted to the idea of mere teaching (Bede, Hornejus, Hottinger, De Wette,
Briickner, and others). AaAjca is @ more comprehensive term than diddoxew
which is included in it.
Ver. 20 gives the reason of the exhortation Spadic cic dpy7v: For the wrath
of man works not the righteousness of God. The preponderance of authorities
1 Schneckenburger: quamvie de sensu dubi-
tari nequeat, nempe de addiscendo Ady aAy-
@ecas caveas tamen vocem hanc Adyor putes
grammatice subaudiendam; sed Jacobus regu-
lam istam generalum ... ita hic subnectit,
uteam ad rem christianam imprimis valere
moneat.
2 Asin Philo, De con/. ling., p. 327 B: Bpa-
dus wheAngat, Taxis BAdWar (see Dio O., 82).
8 The circumatance is in favor of this close
connection of these two last clauses, that if
AaAnoa is here taken in a wider sense (ae
Gunkel thinks), then a different signification
must be given to Bpaéus in the two clauses, as
opyy here, as the following verse shows, must
be taken in a bad sense. Lange thinke that
James does not absolutely reject opyy; but
whilst he understands by dpy% eagerness of
passion to which one is led from eagerness in
speaking by warmth, he evidently understands
this as something to be entirely rejected. Ac-
cording to Bouman, the anger here is meant to
which one is inflamed by the AaAewv of another.
* On Bpad. eis rd AadA., Bengel remarks: ut
nil loquatur contra Deum, nec sinistre de Deo;
and on opyy: ira sive impatientia erga Deum,
fracundia erga proximum. Gebser explains
dépyy = anger, displeasure at God on account of
the persecutions. Calvin also has this refer.
ence in view when he says: certe nemo unquam
bonus erit Dei discipulus nisi qui eilendo eum
audiat; ... non enim Deus nisi sedato animo
audiri potest, as Is evident from the note:
(Jacobus) vult proterviam nostram corripere,
ne... intempestive obstrepamus Deo.
CHAP. I. 20. 61
at. From the
fact that dcxasocivny is twice in the N. T., namely Acts x. 35 and Heb. xi. 33,
joined with the simple verb, it does not follow that épyd¢erac is a later correc-
tion (against De Wette, Wiesinger), especially as xarepyéfecdac is also found
united with abstract substantives, as in Rom. i. 27 with ny doynpoovvyy, in
Rom. ii. 9 with rd xaxév, and in Rom. vii. 18 with 1rd xadov. With the read-
ing épydfera:, —and also with xarepydtera:, when this latter, as is frequently
the case (see especially Rom. ii. 9, 10), is synonymous with the former, —
dcxatocvvn is equivalent to 1d dixaov, as is frequently the case in the O. and
N. T.; see Acts x. 35 above referred to, and the frequently occurring phrase:
rouiv tiv dexawcvvyy, Gen. xviii. 19; Isa. vi. 1; Matt. vi. 1; 1 John ii. 29, iii.
7,10; Rev. xxii. 11. Q@eos is added in contrast to dvdpdég for the sake of a
more exact statement, so that dicawotvn Ocoi is the righteousness willed by God }
(similar to 1d dixaov tvomov rov Geov, Acts iv. 19; Luther: “The wrath of
man works not that which is right before God”); so Beza, Hornejus, Wolf,
Bengel, De Wette, Bouman, and others, correctly explain it. The opposite
Of duawoivny Ocod tpydfecba: is duapriav épydgecdat, chap. ii. 9 (comp. Matt.
Vil. 1: épyal. rv dvopiav; 1 Macc. ix. 23: épyal. ri dduiav ; also comp. Rom.
ii. 10: épyag rd dyadov; Gal. vi. 10). James was the more constrained to
give prominence to this idea, as dpyf itself and the words flowing from it
were considered by the pharisaical disposition of Christians, against whom
this warning is directed, and of whom it was said: GAov cou Exoverv, GAA’ ob
xar éxiywwow, Rom. x. 2, as something that was pleasing to God. With the
reading «xarepya¢era this verb may also be equivalent to effect, to bring
about (as ver. 3). Gebser, Grashof, and others understand, in accordance
with this view, by ducawoivy Oeov: “the condition of justification before
God;” but, on the one hand, an unsuitable thought is expressed by this,
and, on the other hand, a mode of expressing the idea dccasootvy roi Ocoi,
peculiar to Paul, is without ceremony ascribed to James. But as little is it
to be justified when Wiesinger, following Hofmann (Schriftbew. i., ed. 1,
p- 548 f.), finds expressed in the words of James, that “one by wrathful
zeal effects not on others the dix. Ocod, i.e., that state of righteousness in
which God begets men by His word of truth.”2 Though ducaootvn Oecod can
denote the righteousness wrought by God, yet this idea is here unsuitable,
since no man could entertain the opinion that his wrath could do what
can only be effected by God. Also in this case James would only emphasize
an impossibility of épy7, whereas he was required to bring prominently for-
ward its rejection; moreover, on others is inserted into the text. The same
decides against the reading xarepyagera:, and in favor of épyager
1 It is true the expression dccatoovrvn Seow
occars not elsewhere in this sense; but this can
be the less an objection to it, as the relation in
which the genitive Qeov is placed to &cacoovwn
ia not entirely opposed to the genitive of rela-
tion, as is evident if we designate the é&«. 0.
as that dcacoovvyn which is actually so accord-
ing to the determination of God.
3 In the second edition (p. 628), Hofmann
has indeed altered the words, but not the
thought, in the explanation given in the first
edition. When he defines the distinction in
the use of the idea dccacocuvn Geov, in Rom. i.
17 and here, to consist in this, that Paul speaks
of justification, James of regeneration, the
untenableness of his explanation is the more
evident, for that opy} produces regeneration
could occur to no one.
3 Contrary to the biblical use of language,
Oecumenius explains the expression dcatocury
62 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
reasons are also decisive against the explanation of Briickner (“the wrath
of man works not the righteousness which God accomplishes —this generally
stated both in respect to the dvjp and in respect to others on whom one
strives to work”), in which a twofold reference is arbitrarily assumed.
Briickner correctly rejects the explanation of Lange, that James speaks
against “the delusion of wrath, which imagines to administer and accom-
plish in the world the righteousness of God especially against unbelievers,”
because there is no reference to this in the context; it is, moreover, linguis-
tically unmaintainable, as épyafecgac does not mean “to administer and
accomplish.” — dvdod¢ stands here as in vv. 8 and 12; it forms a contrast
neither to the child (Thomas: ira fortis et deliberate non dicit pueri, qui cito
transit), nor to the woman (Bengel: serus virilis maxime iram alit), nor to
cvépwroc, ver. 19 (Lange).
Ver. 21. James infers (06) from the thought in ver. 20 the exhortation
by xpatryre déEaode tov Eudurov Adyov, With evident reference to amexinoev fudc Abyy
dAnoeiag (ver. 18). He places before this exhortation the participial clause:
anopéuevos . . . xaxlac; laying aside all filthiness and abundance of wickedness,
i.e., all filthy and abundantly prevalent wickedness. The word purapia (an. Aey.
in the N. T.) is here figurative (synonymous with dxadepoia in Rom. vi. 19
and other places), as purapég and éurapebu, Rev. xxii. 11 (Juapéc occurs in its
literal sense in chap. ii. 2: pimoc in 1 Pet. iii. 21). Several interpreters (Cal-
vin, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten, Hornejus, Bouman, Lange, and others) take
it here as standing alone, equivalent to moral uncleanness (see 2 Cor. vii. 1:
mig poAvopds capxdc¢ Kal mvetparoc), either generally “every immoral disposition,”
or specifically as avaritia (Storr), or scortatio (Laurentius), or vilia inlempe-
rantiae, gulae et lasciviae (Heisen), or “ filth in a religious theocratical sense”
(Lange); but it is better to join fumapiav with xaxiag (Theile, De Wette,
Wiesinger, and others), so that the ethical judgment of the author on the
xaxia is thereby expressed (comp. Acts xv. 20; Rev. xvii. 4), equivalent to
maoav xaxiav purapdy, or less exactly pumaivoveay rov avépwrov (Schol. on Matt.) ;
only the idea is more strongly brought forward by the substantive than by
the adjective. The word epicceia, united to pumapiav by the copulative xai
(not, as Schneckenburger thinks, exegetical ; in the cited passages, John i. 16
and 1 Cor. iii. 5, the position of «ai is entirely different), foreign to classical
Greek, has in the N. T. the signification abundance; properly, “ abundance
flowing over the measure,” which Lange incorrectly renders “outflow, com-
munication of life; see Rom. v. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 2, x. 15. Nevertheless,
the word has been here taken in a meaning corresponding to fumapia, and
has been explained as = repicowua excrementum (Beza, Piscator, Erasmus,
Schmid, and others), or also growth (Losner, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schnecken-
burger, De Wette). But both meanings are arbitrary. The defenders of
the second explanation indeed appeal to the passage in Philo, De Vict. Off.
as equivalent to és dy wux7 car’ afiay exdorp probatur.— Several commentators (also Kern)
droveunrixy. Pott, wholly arbitrarily, refers to this verse cite Ecclus. |. 21: ob dvvjoera
the verse to the teachers of the Chriatian rell- @upds adixos StxarwOnvac; but incorrectly, since
gian, paraphrasing {t: [ratus nequit docere é:caw@jva: hasan entirely different meaning
religionem christianum prout fas est Deoque from carepydter@at dicacocimny Ccov.
CHAP. I. 21. 63
p- 854 B: mepiréuvecbe . . . tag mepirrac gisere (fortasse tudgicerc, De Wette) rod
$yeuoveacd; but from this passage it does not follow that zeproceia can
be explained de ramis in vite vel arbore abundantibus falceque resecandis
(Lésner). It is equally unjustifiable when Kiittner, Michaelis, Augusti,
Gebser, Bouman, and others explain repioceia xaxiag a8 “xaxia surviving from
earlier times,” and thus take mepoceta as synonymous with zepicoevua (Mark
viii. 8). Against all these arbitrary views, Theile, Wiesinger, Briickner, cor-
rectly retain the word in the same sense which it has elsewhere in the N. T.,
so that xepioceia xaxiac is the abundance of xaxla, i.e., the abundantly existing
xaxia; only éy tyiv is hardly to be supplied as if James had only his readers
specially in view (Theile: quod lectoribus peculiare erat). —xaxia is not here
synonymous with zovnpia (1 Cor. v. 8) = vitiosttas (Semler, Theile, and others),
but according to the context, in contrast with év xpatryr:, as in Eph. iv. 31,
Col. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 1,a more special idea, namely, the hostile
disposition toward our neighbor which we call malignity (Cremer: malevo-
lence, as social faultiness). Wiesinger inaccurately takes it as equivalent
to dpy7, as that is only one cf the proofs of xaxia; incorrectly, Rosenmiiller =
morosilas.1 On dmodéueva, comp. Eph. iv. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 1; Heb. xii. 1.2
The participle precedes as a subordinate thought to défaste, because in con-
sequence of man’s sinful nature room only can be made for the good by the
rejection of the bad. Also, where similar sentences are co-ordinate, the ex-
hortation to dmuridecéac precedes; comp. Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 23, and
also the exhortation of Christ: ueravoeire xat moreiere, Mark i. 15.—In the
positive exhortation: Ev mpatryre degaobe tov Eugutov 26yov), fv npairyre emphati-
cally precedes, in contrast to the «xaxia from which flows dpy7. mpatrne
(= mpaérnc) denotes a loving, gentle disposition toward our neighbor ; comp.
1 Cor. iv. 21,2 Tim. ii. 25, Tit. iii. 2, and other passages; the opposite is
épyornc (Pape’s Gr. Worterb.); incorrectly, Calvin: Hoc verbo significat mo-
destiam et facilitatem’ mentis ad discendum compositae. év mpatrnre does not
therefore mean docili animo (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Hottinger), nor “with a
modest disposition, which recognizes the good deeds of Christianity ” (Geb-
ser). Also év xp. défaode is not a pregnant construction, as if the sense were:
monet . . . tllo Aéyp duce npatrnta exerceant (Schneckenburger); but James
exhorts to the reception of the word év xpairnr, in contrast to those who hear
the word in order to use it as a weapon of hatred (condemning others).—
défaoge (Opp. to Aadjoa:, ver. 19) corresponds to dxovca, but expresses
more than that, namely, “the inner reception, the taking hold of it with .
the heart;” comp. 1 Thess. i. 6. The object belonging to it: rdv Adyov
bugvrov, can only be the same as what was called the Adyor dAndeiac in
1 Meyer's translation: malice (Rom. 1. 29), 3 To the assertion of Lange, that aro@¢nevor
malicious disposition (Col. ili. 8), would aleo
not be entirely suitable, but too special. How
Luther has understood the idea, cannot be
determined from his translation wickednesa
(Boeheit); since he thus constantly renders
axaxca, it may be taken in a general or in a
specia] sense ; the word “‘ badness " (SchlecAtig-
keit) does not occur with him.
is not to be rendered putting off, because the
reference is not figuratively to the putting off
of filthy garments, but remoring; the passages
Rom. rill. 12 (awo@wpeOa. . . dvdvowpeda) and
Eph. iv. 22, 24, and the etymology of the word,
are opposed.
64 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ver. 18 (Wiesinger); it is neither “the reason innate in man,”? nor the
so-called inner light of the mystics, nor the gospel “in its subjective
form of life” (Lange). The verb déxzecdac is opposed to these explana-
tions. James designates the gospel a Avyov Eugvrov, inasmuch as it was
no longer strange to the hearts of his readers as Christians; also be-
cause it was not merely transmitted (Hottinger: é&ugurog = traditus), but
implanted.2, The verb dééacde does not conflict with this, as the word
by which the new birth is effected among Christians is to them ever
proclaimed anew, and must by them be ever received anew, in order that
the new life may be preserved and increased in them. It is therefore not
necessary, against the use of language, to change the idea: verbum quod
implantatum or insertum est, into verbum quod implantatur or inseritur, or to
assuine here a prolepsis, as is undoubtedly the case in 1 Cor. i. 8, Phil. iii. 21
(see Meyer in loco), and 1 Thess. iii. 13 (Liinemann in loco), and with Calvin
to explain it: ila suscipile ut vere inseratur (similarly Semler, De Wette,® and
others). The mode in which the adjective is united with the substantive is
opposed to a prolepsis, which would be only imaginable were it said: ray
Avyov Eugvroy tai¢ xapdiare buov, or something similar. — For the strengthening
of the exhortation expressed, James annexes to rdv fugvrov Adyov the clause
Tov duvduevov awoat Tac wuxdc buoy, by which, on the one hand, the value of the
Aéyoo i8 prominently brought forward, and, on the other hand, is indicated
what result ought to arise from the hearing of the word. By the verb duvd-
pevov, not the freedom of the human will (Serrarius: quod potest salvare, ut
arbitrit liberias indicetur), but the power of the word, is emphasized; it is, as
Paul says, divapuc cod cic owrnpiav navte tH morevovTre (Rom. i. 16). But if it
has this power, man must receive it, and that in a right manner, so that
it may prove its efficacy in him and save his soul. It is to be observed
that James says this of his readers, whom he had previously designated as
born again (ver. 18). Thus, according to James, Christians by the new
birth do not as yet possess owrmpia (the future salvation), but its obtainment
is conditioned by their conduct. — Instead of rag wuxdc tov, James might
simply have written dua, but Schneckenburger correctly warns: Cave pro
mera sumas circumscriptione personalis; animi enim proprie res agilur; see
chap. v. 20.
Ver. 22. The exhortations given in ver. 19 form the starting-point for
what follows. The next section, to the end of chap. ii., is attached to the
1 Oecumentius: rov d&iaxpiriuxdy rov BeAtiovos
Kai TOU xe(povos’ Kad’ & Kai Aoytxor éeopey Kai
Acyoneda; see Constit. Apost., vill. 12: véuov
Se8wxas euduToy.
2 Lange incorrectly explains the éy viv to
be supplied to éuduroy ‘in and among you,”
referring it to the Jewish Christians and the
Jews.
3 De Wette expresses himeelf doubtfully :
‘‘ Rither the adjective ia used proleptically, or,
which I prefer, it is the word implanted by the
second birth; but by this also, on account of
&éfacGe, a prolepsis occurs, ‘receive the word
of truth, that it may grow in you by that new
birth.’ ’”’ But opposed to this, it is to be ob-
served that the word is not implanted by the
second birth, but that the second birth ia the
fruit of the implanted word. In conclusion
De Wette remarke: ‘It must be taken rather
as a reference to the whole of Christendom
than to individuals: the word Implanted in us
Christians.” But the individual is only a
member of the Church by having the word of
God implanted in him. Brilckner has given
the correct explanation.
CHAP. I. 23. 65
thought rays els 1d dxovoa, which is continued in défaode rdv Eugvrov Adyov.
The word must be so heard and received that it produces a corresponding
activity. James first expresses this thought briefly and definitely: “Be ye
doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” The
verb yivecfe is neither intended to express the successionem perpetuam horum
exercitiorum (Semler), nor to indicate that hitherto the readers had not been
sanzal A6yov; this indication is contained in the whole exhortation, but not
in the verb, which is to be translated not by become, but by be; comp. chap.
ili. 1; Matt. vi. 16, x. 16, xxiv. 44; John xx. 27; Rom. xii. 16.1 The par-
ticle dé unites this verse with the preceding as its completion. The readers
ought to be roinra? Asyov, namely, of the Adyor Eudutog (ver. 21), or of the Adyoc
uAnfeiag (ver. 18), the gospel, inasmuch as it requires a definite Christian con-
duct, and on this account in ver. 25 is expressly called a véuoc. On roznrai,
comp. Jas. iv. 11; 1 Macc. ii. 67; Rom. ii. 18 John vii. 19: mouiv rdv vopov);
in the classical language, 6 zo:yri¢ véuov is the lawgiver. Theile correctly
observes: Subsiantiva plus sonant quam participia; the substantive expresses
the enduring relation. —In the reading pu dxpoara? pévor, pévov is closely united
with dxpoarai: not such who are only hearers. The word dxpoarye, in classical
Greek “an attentive hearer,” occurs in the N. T. only here and in Rom.
ii. 13, but both times without that additional meaning. On the thought,
comp. besides Rom. ii. 13 (where the same contrast is expressed), Matt.
vii. 21 ff.; Luke xi. 28; John xili. 17. — rapadoyuéuevor belongs to the sub-
ject contained in yivecée (De Wette, Wiesinger), deceiving your own selves,
and not as a more exact definition of dxpoarai, “hearers who deceive them-
selves” (Stolz, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange). The import of the word
(besides here in the N. T. only in Col. ii. 4, in the O. T. Gen. xxix. 25,
LXX.; synonymous expressions are found in ver. 26; Gal. vi.3; 1 John
i. 8) is to draw false inferences, to deceive by sophistical reasoning. The warn-
ing is directed against such who deceive themselves by sophisms on the
utility of mere hearing.
Ver. 23. This exhortation is confirmed by a comparison. Therefore: drt,
which is not superfluous (Pott). This verse expresses the similitude; ver. 24
the tertium comparationis. A hearer, who is not a doer, is to be compared to
a man who contemplates his bodily form in a glass. Hornejus, Rosenmiiller,
Semler, Pott, and others attach to the word xaravoeiv the additional meaning
of a transitory observation, against the etymology and the linguistic use
of the word (comp. Luke xii. 24, 37; Acts vii. 31, 32, xi. 6). The point of
transitoriness, or, more correctly, of transitory contemplation, is contained
not in the verb, but in the situation, which in ver. 24 is prominently brought
forward by xa? dreApAvdev. On the rhetorical usage of again resuming the
foregoing subject (which is here expressed by ei ru, «.7.4.) by obroc, see
Winer, p. 144 (E. T., 160); A. Buttmann, p. 262 (E. T., 347); on Fotxe,
3 Meyer certainly explains the imperative usage, to consider yivov as equivalent to ich,
y'vov, y:ver@Oe, uniformly by ‘‘ become thou,” is explained from the fact that the Christian
**become ye;’’ but this meaning is frequently § must yet ever more become that which he as a
retained in a mapoer more or less forced; Christian is.
comp. especially John xx. 27. The N. T.
66 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
see ver. 6; dvdpi, a8 in ver. 8, and frequently with James.1— 1d xpoownov ric
yevéoewc aizod. By mpécwrov is here meant not the whole form (Baumgarten,
Hensler, Pott, Schneckenburger), but the face. By ri¢ yevécewe is “more
plainly indicated the sphere of mere material perception, from which the
comparison is taken, as distinguished from the ethical sphere of dxpodcda”
(Wiesinger). yéveou denotes not so much the natural life as the natural
birth, so that the phrase is to be interpreted: the countenance ihich one pos-
sesses by his natural birth. See Eustathius in Od., ix. p. 663, 25.2 — Whether
avrod belongs to the whole idea, or only to the genitive, is uncertain. Winer,
p-. 212, leaves it undecided; Wiesinger is for the first rendering; but the
union here (as well as in Col. i. 13) with the genitive appears to be more
natural.
Ver. 24. With this verse begins the explanation of the image given in
ver. 25 (therefore yap), whilst xaravoeiy 1rd mpéownov 7. yev, avrod is again
resumed by xarevénoev éavrov. By ameAnavoev the point of the mere transitori-
ness of the contemplation in the glass only before presupposed is brought
forward, and by éxeAdéero the result of such a contemplation is added, by
which the points of application, which James employs, are brought out.
The emphasis lies on ameAnAvdev and evdéve éxeAcdero. The form of represen-
tation is here the same as in ver. 11. It is not a particular instance which
may occur (Wiesinger), but a general statement which is here introduced in
the form of a single incident, as the contemplating one’s self in the glass is
always only a temporary and not a permanent state. ‘The hearing of the
word answers to xaravociv; the averting of the mind from what is heard, to
anépxecvat; and the being unconcerned about what is heard, by which the
realization of the word in the life is prevented, to ev0éuc émAavOdvecbar. James
can only think on man according to his ethical condition in relation to the
demands of the divine will, as corresponding to mpéowrxov r. y. or éauréy in
the application. It is true that he does not definitely state this; but from
this it does not follow that James, overlooking all other considerations, has
had only in view generally the confents of the word, because the comparison
of the word with a glass, which gives to him who looks in it to see his own
image, would be without meaning.® On the use of the perfect (ameAnavoev)
between the aorists, see Winer, p. 243 f. (E. T., 278).—On dmoioc gv, Wie-
singer correctly remarks, “namely, in the glass.”
Ver. 25 does not give the simple application of the image, but rather
describes, with reference to the foregoing image, the right hearer, and says
of him that he is paxdpiog év rH rotnoe abrod.
1 The remark of Paes, approved of by Lange,
is curious: viri obiter tantum solent specula
intueri, muliebre autem est, curiose se ad
speculum componere.
3 Lange argues against this explanation,
whilst, mingling in a moet confused manner
the image employed with the thing itself, he
explains mpocewoy as “ the image of the inner
man’s appearance according to his sinful con-
dition.”
8 According to most interpreters, “the de-
In this description the three
pravity of the natural man” fe chiefly to be
thought on; but this is not entirely suitable,
as James addresses Christians who as such are
no longer natural men. In a wholly arbitrary
manner is the reference inserted by some in
xarevongey to spots which diefigure the face.
Wolf: de tralatitia speculi inspectione loquitur
Apostolus; talis vero efficit, ut maculas non
perspicias atque adeo de fis abstergendis pon
cogites; similarly Pott and others.
CHAP. I. 25. 67
points named in ver. 24 are carefully observed: mapaxtwag elc, «.7.A., answers
to xarevdnoev (év tadatpy), mapaueivac to ameAnAvber, and ovK axpoarhs éemtAnopovag
to éxeAcbero. The sentence consists of a simple combination of subject and
predicate ; yevduevoc is not to be resolved into the finite verb yivera: (Pott).
The predicate commerices, after the subject is summed up, in ovroce with
paxapioc. — This is also the case with the textus receptus, where a ovrog is put
before ob« axpoury¢; for, since with this reading the first oiro¢ is simply re-
sumed by the second ovro¢ (before paxdpwc), equivalent to hic, inquam, the
words nix axpontic . . . Epyou only serve to give a more exact designation of
the subject, zapaxiwar . . . xal wapayeivac being thus more clearly defined.
Thus these words begin not the apodosis or principal sentence, as if James
would here, in contrast to ver. 24, show that the right hearing and appropria-
tion leads to the doing, (and thereby) to the blessedness of doing (against
Wiesinger). Were this his object, he would have been obliged to put the
finite verb instead of the participle yevouevoc, and a xai after %yyov. The
subject is accordingly: but whosoever looks into the perfect law of liberty and
continueth therein, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man.
— The aorist participles are explained from the close connection of this
verse with the preceding, where the same tense was used. There is no copu-
lative xai before the participial clause ovx« dxpoarie, x.7.A., because the doing of
the law is the necessary consequence of the continued looking into it, and it
would otherwise have the appearance as if mapaxinrev and mapapévew could
take place without rouiv following. The verb rapextrrew (properly, bending
one’s self near an object in order to view it more exactly, Luke xxiv. 12; John
xx. 5, 11; 1 Pet. i. 12; Ecclus. xiv. 23, xxi. 23) refers back, indeed, to xara-
vociv, but is a stronger idea. James has fittingly chosen this verb as verbum
ad imaginem speculi humi aut mensae impositi adaptatum (Schneckenburger; see
also Theile, Wiesinger). Luther inaccurately translates it: looketh through.
As the accent is on zapa, the verb zapaueivac is used afterwards. By eis is
expressed not only the direction fo something, but the intensity of the look
into the inner nature of the law. apayeivac (not continueth therein, as Luther
translates it, but thereat) is added to zapaxiypac, — without the article, because
the two points are to be considered as most closely connected, — indicating
the continued consideration of the vduoc, from which action necessarily
follows. Schneckenburger incorrectly gives to the verb mapayéve here
(appealing to Acts xiv. 22; Gal. iii. 10; Heb. viii. 9) the meaning to
“observe the law;” but the subject treated of here is not the observance, but
“the appropriation which leads to action” (Wiesinger), or “the remaining
in the yielding of one’s self to the object by contemplating it” (Lange). By
vopoc Téidewoc 6 THE EAevVOepiacg? 13 Meant neither the QO. T. law, nor lex naturalis
(Schulthess), but Adyor aAndeiag (ver. 18), thus the gospel, inasmuch as it
2 Lange agrees in essentials with this ex-
planation, but he thinks that by it ‘‘ the full
energy of the idea is not preserved; ’’ it should
rather have been said that ‘‘ the wapaxuwas and
fapepecvas, a8 such, is wownrns epyou yevo-
uevos;’’ but the looking in and continuing are
evidently in themselves not identical with the
doing of which James speaks, however neces-
sarily the latter results from the former.
2 Kern incorrectly maintains that this ex-
pression je formed according to the Pauline
phraseology: vouos rou mvevparos THs Gwns ev
Xp. 'Incov, Rom. vill. 2; vduo¢ rs wiorews,
Rom. ili. 27; véuos Xporov, Gal. vi. 2; as if
. 68 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
places before the Christian — by reason of redemption — the rule of his life.
This evangelical yoyo, indeed, resembles the O. T. véuoc in expressing no other
will of God, but differs from it in that it only is the vépoe ric éAevdepiac, the
vouog réAewg. It not only confronts man as enjoining, but, resting on the love
of God, it creates the new life from which joyful obedience springs forth
voluntarily and unconstrained; it gives éAevéepia, which the O. T. vépn0¢ was
not able to give, and thus proves itself as the perfect law in contrast to
the imperfect law of the Old Covenant. It is true that even in the O. T. the
sweetness of the law was subject of praise (Ps. xix. 8-11), but the life-
giving power belonged to the law only in an imperfect manner, because the
covenant on which it rested was as yet only one of promise and not of fulfil-
ment. It is accordingly incorrect to explain the additional attribute as if
James considered the O. T. law, according to the Pauline manner, as a vyd¢
dovisiacg (Gal. v. 1), for of this there is no trace.1 Many expositors under-
stand by vopoc réAetoc, x.7.A., the gospel, as the joyful message of salvation, or
the doctrina evangelit, or simply gratia evangelii, namely, in contrast to the
O. T. economy; which, however, corresponds neither to the language of James
nor to his mode of contemplation. —In the additional] participial sentence,
the ideas dxpoarj¢e énAnouovac and motnri¢ Epyou are opposed to each other.
axpoath¢ imAnouovig (the word, foreign to classical Greek, is in the N. T. a
am. Aey.; it is found in Ecclus. xi. 27; among classical writers; émAsjoun,
émAnopoobvn) 18 = axp. étAjouwy, & hearer to whom forgetfulness belongs. To
nointnc, Epyov is attached in order to make still more prominent the idea of
activity, which indeed is already contained in mori. The singular does not
properly stand for the plural (Grotius: effector eorum operum, quae evangelica
lex exigit), but “is designed to import that it here results in something, in
the doing of work” (Wiesinger). Those ideas, which appear not to corre-
spond, yet form a true antithesis, since the law is inoperative on the forgetful
hearer, but incites him who is an attentive hearer to a corresponding activity
of life. James says of him who is thus described: he (ovroc) is blessed in his
deed. xoinotg in N. T. az, Acy., in Ecclus. xix. 20: moinou vouov. The prepo-
sition év is not to be exchanged with du, for by év the internal connection of
doing and blessedness is marked; Briickner: ‘the. blessing innate in such
doing is meant.” éora: is therefore 1fot to be referred to the future life; but
it is by it announced what is even here directly connected with the rofyatg;
James, however, certainly considered this paxapirnc as permanent. The
thought here expressed refers to the last words of ver. 21, completing them,
showing that the Adyor has the effect there stated (cdoa: rag yuydc) in him
who so embraces it that it leads him to zoinot.?
James must have borrowed the designation of
what was to him the cardinal point of Christian
life from another, and could not himeelf ori-
ginate it.
1 It is to be observed that even in the so-
called apostolic council at Jerusalem James
did not, as Peter, call the law a ¢uyos.
2 Laurentiue adde to the Jast words of the
verse: ‘Sc, non ex merito ipsius operis, sed
ex promissione gratuita; ” but this is a caution
foreign to the context. Lange !nappropriately
intermingles ideas when he reckons to this
woinocs particularly confession, and thinke that
James above all things indicated that the Jews
should confess Christ, and that the Jewish
Christians should fully acknowledge their
Christian brethren from the Gentiles.
CHAP. I. 26, 27. 69
Ver. 26. Whilst James — in contrast to the hearers who fail in proof by
works — will describe the true dpyoxeia (ver. 27), he first refers to the false
@pyoxeia of those who— slothful in action — are rayei¢ el¢ rd AcAjoau (ver. 19).
If any one thinks to serve God, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, his
worship is vain. — et tug doxei}. doxei here denotes (as in Matt. vi. 7, xxiv. 44;
1 Cor. iii. 18; otherwise in 1 Cor. vii. 40) the false opinion which one has of
something; it is not = videtur (Calvin, Gataker, Theile, and others); Luther
correctly translates: “if any one imagines.” — Opjoxog eivat]. Opiyoxuc, Which
elsewhere occurs neither in the N. T. nor in the classics (the substantive be-
sides here and in ver. 27, in the N. T. in Col. ii. 18 and Acts xxvi. 5), is not
equivalent to eboéea, inasmuch as it refers to external worship, the manifes-
tation of etcfBea, without, however, having in itself the secondary idea of
mere externality. Incorrectly Theile = religiosus singulatim cujus nimia,
nimis externa est religio, superstitiosus. Jn an arbitrary manner Schnecken-
burger infers from the adjectives xa@apa xa? duiavtoc (ver. 27) that it is here
said of dpnoxeia, quam in accurata lustrationem vbservatione constantem puta-
bant Judaet ac Judaevchristiani,! of which there is no trace in the whole
Epistle. The following words: yu} yalwaywydv ri yAdooav abroi, indicate in
what the épnoxeia of the readers consisted. It is incorrect, with Rosenmiiller,
Theile, and others, to supply exempli causa, and, as most interpreters do, to
resolve the participle by although ; James will blame those who reckon zeal
in speaking as a sign of @pyoxeia.2 The verb yudvaywyeiv, in the N. T. only
in James, is also found in classical language only in the later classics; comp.
the expression in Plato, De Leqg. ii.: ayd2wov xexrnpévor 7d corona. — By the
second participial sentence: cAAd azardév xapdiav aitov, James expresses his
judgment — already indicated by the expression pj xyadivaywyov—on the
opinion of serving God by Aadeiv év dpy7. Pott correctly: sc. eo quod nimiam
docendi licentiam et linguae extemperantiam pro vera Opnoxeig habet. The
clause belongs not to the apodosis (Schneckenburger), but, as in form so in
meaning, is closely connected with the preceding participle. The expres-
8i0N arargy xapdiay abtod Corresponds to mapadoylfecbat éavrév (ver. 22), but is
a stronger form, although it does not indicate only the consequence resulting
from zeal (Lange).* Etasmus incorrectly explains dmardv by sinere aberrare.
The apodosis, which emphatically begins with rotrov, declares that such a
Opnoxeia is not only without fruit (Baumgarten), but without actual contents,
is thus foolish and vain, corresponding to the thought: dpy7 duacaocivyy Geo
ov (xar)epydferat (ver. 20).
Ver. 27. To @pnoxeia patawc is opposed Opyoxeia xafapa xai duiavrog napa TY
2 Some Catholic interpreters, Salmero, Paes,
and others, refer the expression to the observ-
ance of the so-called consilia Christi, particu-
larly to voluntary circumcision for the sake of
the kingdom of heaven.
? Rauch also thinks that ‘‘the participles
must certainly be resolved by although ;"’ but
by this explanation all indication is wanting
of that on which those blamed by James rest
Opnexeia; also what follows (ver. 27), where
the nature of true Opnoxeia is given, forms no
appropriate antithesis to this verse. Briickner
explains it: *‘ Whosoever sceks worship in
striving by teaching to work on others;”’ here
the participle is correctly resolved, but the full
meaning is not given to the verb. Correctly,
Lange: ‘‘ Those who, by their fanatical zeal,
wanted to make good their pretensions of being
the true soldiers of God.”
3 Comp. Test. NapAt., III. p. 665: an oov-
Bacere . . . dv AGyots Kevois awargy Tas Puxas
Upor.
T0 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
cc]. xadapoc and dulavrog are synonymous expressions (Pott, Theile, and
others); the second word does not add any new idea to the first. Some
expositors (Baumgarten, Bengel, Knapp, Wiesinger) arbitrarily refer the
first word to what is internal, and the second to what is external. The
second word dyiavroc (which occurs only here and in Heb. vii. 26, xiii. 4; 1
Pet. i. 4), corresponding to its connection with yuaivw, wudoua, brings more
vividly forward purity as a being free from that by which the holy is defiled.
The purity of true Opnsxeia is, by the words mapa rQ OQ, «.7.A., marked as
absolute. mapa, in the judgment of, equivalent to évomov, as in 1 Pet. ii. 20;
comp. Winer, p. 352 (E. T., 395) ; Schirlitz, p. 340. That by this “the
attitude of a servant before the face of the commanding lord” (Lange) is
indicated, is a pure fiction. To 1g Ged is emphatically added xa? xarpi, by
which the relation of God, which the author has chiefly in view, is expressed :
that of love. God, by reason of His love, can only esteem that worship as
pure which is the expression of love. The contents of pure worship is given
in the following infinitive clauses, according to its positive and negative side;
still James evidently does not intend to give an exhaustive definition, but
he merely brings forward — in reference to the wants of his readers — two
chief points. Hermas, J. 2, Mand. 8, gives a description of these two sides
of worship, comprehending as inuch as possible all particulars. The first
point is: the visiting of the widows and the fatherless in their affliction, as a
manifestation of compassionate love. If it is said that the particular here
stands for the universal (the species pro genere, Hottinger, Theile, and
others); yet it is to be observed that elsewhere in the [Holy Scriptures com-
passion is adduced as the most direct proof of love. The verb émoxérrecta
here, as in Matt. xxv. 36, 43, Jer. xxiii. 2, Zech. xi. 16, Ecclus. vii. 35,
refers to the visiting of the suffering, in order to help them. By the expla-
nation: “to be careful of them” (Lange), the view of a concrete instance
is introduced ; dp¢avai are placed first, in close connection with zxarpi,} as God
in Ps. lxviii. 6 is expressly called 6 rarjp rv éppavev; see also Ecclus. iv. 10:
yivov dpgavoic oe natnp. — The words év rp oAipe abrav are not an idle addition,
but mark the condition in which the orphans and widows are found, to show
the necessity and object of émoxérreogaz. — In the second infinitive clause,
which is added with rhetorical emphasis, dovvderév,? to the first, domAoy stands
first as the chief idea. The same expression is in 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Pet. iii.
14 (in its proper sense, 1 Pet. 1.19). The addition dd rot xéoyov, more ex-
actly defining don:Aov rypeiv, is neither dependent merely on rypeiv (Ps. xii.
8, cxli. 9) nor merely on domAov, but on the combined idea. The sense is:
to preserve himself from the world (ané = éx, John xvii. 15; comp. also the
form xpooézew and, Matt. xvi. 12), so that he is not polluted by it (so also
Lange). By xécyoc not merely earthly things, so far as they tempt to sin
1 The combination dpdavoi rai yjpac is found
only here iu the N. T.; it often occurs in the
O.T.and Apocrypha, where sometimes opgavor
and sometimes y7pae are named first.
2 The asyndeton is thus explained, that
James considered the visiting of the orphans,
etc., as keeping one’s self unspotted from the
world, being in contradiction with the peculiar
charms of the world. Lange observes: ‘* The
two clauses are not eimply co-ordinate, but
the second {is the reverse side or sequence of
the first, ite pure antithesis.”
CHAP. I. 27. 71
(Schneckenburger), nor merely sinful lusts (Hottinger), nor énuidne xa? ovpde-
Tag SyAoc, 6 kata rag énOupias Tio dnarne abrov POetpouevos (Oecumenius; according
to Laurentius and others, the homines mundani atque impii), are to be under-
stood; but the idea xéouoe comprehends all these together ; it denotes the
whole earthly creation, so far as it is cut off from fellowship with God and
stands under the dominion of dpyuv rod xéouov (1 John v. 19), thus especially
the men who serve it in and with their sinful lusts; but, also, all earthly
possessions by which sinful lust is excited, and to which it not only conforms
itself, but converts them into the instruments of its activity. — Christians
by means of their divine birth, effected by the word of truth (ver. 18), are
indeed taken out of the xdcyoc, they are no longer members of it; but on
the other hand, both by the sin which is still in them (chap. ili. 2), and by
their external intercourse, they stand in connection with the world, on which
account they have to preserve themselves from its contaminating influence.
This preservation, as it is a work of God (John xvii. 15), so it is likewise a
work of man (1 Tim. v. 22), and therefore a task which believers must
continually strive to perform.
72 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2. The genuineness of the article 17v before cvvaywynv (Rec., after A,
G, K, &, corr. Tisch.) is, since B, C, &, pr. omit it (Lach.), at least doubtful.
— Ver. 8. Instead of the Rec. xai émi3Aewnre, after A, G, &, several vss.,
Oecumenius, Bede (Lach.), Tisch. has, after B, C, K, etc., adopted émBAépnre
dé; which reading is the original, cannot be determined. The air@ of the Rec.
(after G, K) is already rightly omitted by Griesb.; A, B, C, &, etc., do not have it;
it was inserted for the completion of the expression (against Reiche). In the
second clause of the verse, the Rec., after C**, G, K, &, reads or70t éxei 7) xadov
ods; in A, C*, ode is wanting (Lach., Tisch.); B reads ori6t } xa@ov éxet. The
latter reading is recommended by the sharper contrast of or76 to the preceding
«d§ov; but it is also possible that in this lies the reason of its origin; if éxe
belongs to o776, ode after xa8ov could be easily inserted, partly from the pre-
ceding xd@ov ade xadcc, partly to introduce the antithesis to éxei; but, on the
other hand, the original ode might also be omitted as superfluous (on account of
the following vd 1d tzoz.). Nothing can with certainty be decided. For the
addition of zov before tav rodav, adopted by Lach., only A and the Vulg. chiefly
speak. Almost all other authorities are against it. — Ver. 4. According to the
Rec., this verse commences with «ai ov diexpidnte (thus G, K, etc., Tisch. 7); in
A, B**, C, 8, many min. and vss., xaé is wanting (Lach., Tisch. 2); 0d is also
wanting in the original text of B. The omission of xai may, indeed, be more
easily explained than its insertion, on account of which Reiche and Bouman
consider it as genuine; but the most important authorities are against it; the
reading in B is to be considered as a correction (Buttmann). — Ver. 5. rod
xéauouv (rovrov) is a reading evidently explanatory (against Reiche, Bouman),
instead of ro xoouy, whose genuineness is, moreover, attested by A*, B, C*, &;
the same also with the reading év tr xéouy.— Ver. 10. Instead of the reading
tTypnoe . . . Rraioe, attested almost only by G, K, the conjunctives typyoy .. .
mraicy are to be read, with Lach. and Tisch. (against Reiche and Bouman). —
Ver. 11. The Ree. ef dé ob potryetoe, govetcec dé, found only in K, several min.,
Theoph., Tisch., and Lach. read the present poryeverc, goveters; thus A, C, &;
according to Tisch., also B; but, according to Buttm., B has potyevetc, govevaetc,
Reiche and Bouman retain the Rec. as the original reading. — Ver. 13. The
Rec. avidews (after G, etc.) is, after A, B, K, &, very many min., Oecumenius,
to be changed with the certainly entirely unusual form avéArog (Lach., Buttm.,
Tisch.). In the mode of writing this word, there is, however, great variation,
the forms avijAeoc, avidenc, aveiAcoc, avndeuc, avadwc occurring in different MSS.
It is surprising that no MS. has the classical form avyAene or avedenc. According
to the Rec., xaraxavzarat is connected with the preceding by «ai, which, however,
is found only in min. A, some min, etc., have, instead of it, after xarax., the
particle dé (Lach., ed. min.), which, however, appears only to have been inserted
to avoid the asyndeton. There are many variations of xaraxavycrar. <A has
CHAP. II. 1. 73
caraxavyaotw, C ** xaraxaiyacbe, readings which owe their origin to the difficulty
of the thought. — Instead of éAzoc (after xaraxavyara), Rec., after A, B (ed. Mai),
&, etc. (Lach., Tisch., Buttm.), C, G, K, and B (apud Bentley), and many min.,
have the form éAcov, a nominative form which occurs, indeed, in the classics,
but not in the N. T.—Ver. 14. Instead of the Rec. ri 1d dpedoc, attested by
A, C*#*, G, K, &, almost all min., Theoph., Oecumenius, Lach. has adopted 1
éecdoc, after B, C. On the distinction, see exposition. Whether, after the Rec.,
we are to read, with Tisch., Aéyp ru, or, with Lach., ti Aéyy, cannot with
certainty be decided; B, G, K, &, attest the former, A, C, the latter reading;
yet the latter appears to be a correction. — Ver. 15. After éav, the particle dé is
omitted in B, &; since its later insertion is not easy to be explained, the Rec.
is to be retained as the correct reading. After Aemduevor, Lach. (after A, G,
etc.) reads oo, which, however, is a later addition. — Ver. 16. Also here Lach.,
after B, C**, has omitted the article ré before dgeAoc. — Ver. 17. Instead of the
Rec. épya fxn, éxy Epya is to be read, with Griesb., Lach., Tisch., etc., after
almost all authorities. — Ver. 18. The Rec. éx rav Epywy is attested by too few
authorities (G, K, some min.) to be considered as genuine; Griesb. has conse-
quently correctly adopted yupic rev épy., attested by A, B, C, &, etc. Almost all
recent critics and interpreters, also Bouman, retain yupi¢ as the original reading;
Reiche and Philippi certainly judge otherwise. With the reading é« falls also
the pronoun oov after épywy, which Lach. and Tisch. have correctly omitted; it
is wanting in A, B, &, several min., vss., etc., whilst C, G, K, etc., have it. Alsou
after rnv xioriv, Tisch. (after B, C, &, etc.) has rightly omitted the pronoun sov
(A, G, K, Lach.); it appears to be added in order to bring more prominently
forward the contrast to the first r#v mio cov. — Ver. 19. The Rec. is 6 Ocdc el¢
tort; 80 G. In the most important MSS., however, e/¢ stands first; so in A, B,
C, &; in favor of this reading is also the line of thought; yet the difference is
found that éo7 in A, &, precedes (Lach.), and in B, C, follows, 6 Oed¢ (Tisch.);
which reading is the original cannot be decided, yet the former appears to be a
correction. B omits 6 before Ocd¢.— Ver. 20. Instead of the Rec. vexpa, after
A, C**, G, K, &, several min., vss., Theoph., Oecumenius, Lach. and Tisch.
have adopted dpy7, after B, C*, etc., which is preferred by Wiesinger, Briickner,
Lange; whereas Reiche and Bouman prefer the Rec. It is possible, that, in
order to avoid the frequent repetition of vexpa (see vv. 17, 26), the word apy7 =
weépyn, as corresponding to xuplc rav ipywv, was substituted; but it is also possible
that the reference to that verse occasioned the displacement of dpy7; it is
difficult to arrive at a sure decision. — Ver. 24. The particle roivuy after dpare
is already correctly omitted by Griesbach, being wanting in A, B, C, &, etc. —
Ver. 25. Instead of dyyéAouc, C, G, etc., have aaraoxorouvs, which, however, is
evidently borrowed from Heb. xi. 31.
Ver. 1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. i. 27,
that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James
proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect
to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring
contrast to that love. — After the impressive address adeAgo: pov, he first
expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith
should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger
regards the clause as interrogative, remarking: inlerrogationis formam sensus
gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the
T4 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
interrogation with u7 may not always require.a negative answer, yet it is
only used when the interrogator, with every inclination to regard something
as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case; comp. Winer,
p. 453 f. (E. T., 510 f.); Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the
fact mentioned in what follows, the xpuswroAmpia of the readers, was un-
doubtedly true. yu)... éyevre is thus imperative, as 1. 16, iii. 1.—The
plural zpoownoAnpiax is used because the author thinks on individual con-
crete instances in which the genera] fault manifested itself;1 comp. Col.
iii. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 12. For the explanation of mpoowmoAnywia (only here and
in Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 35), foreign to classical Greek, see
Matt. xxii. 16; Luke xx. 21; Gal. ii. 6 (see Meyer in loc.); from the O. T.,
Lev. xix. 15; Deut. i. 17, and other places (the verb xpoowmoAnnréw, Jas.
ii. 9; the adjective, Acts x. 34). The phrase éy mpoowzoAnwpiat yew 7. riotw
is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as fyew riva
tv opy7, év airiat, Eyew év émtyvooe: (Rom. i. 28), for James intends not to re-
proach his readers that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith
into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith
free from mpocwroAnyia. Also Exev does not stand for caréyeev, whether in the
meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut caplivam et inefficicacem) ;
but éye év expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your
faith, so that it is as tt were enclosed in rpoowroAnpian, 1.e., combined with t.
Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a
distinction of persons according to their external relations. — De Wette’s
opinion is incorrect, that miorw zxew here is to be understood of “the man-
agement of the concerns of faith.”— Faith is more exactly described as
9 jiotTt¢ Tov Kupiov qucav *Incov Xporod tig donc]. Most expositors? take mo
kupiov a8 & genitive of object, and make ric dognc, as a second genitive
(besides #ucv), dependent on «vpiov; thus: “the faith in our Lord of glory,
Jesus Christ.” Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory
(comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8; Ps. xxix. 3: 6 Ode rig dognc), nor the dependence of
two genitives (jucv and ric déénc) on one substantive (xvpiov), see Winer, p. 172
(E. T., 191), has any thing against it; yet this construction cannot be held
to be correct, because the name ‘Iyoov Xpiorov, which follows rot xupiov quer,
so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend
on xupiov; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written
either rav miotw ‘Ino. Xpotod, row xupiov nucy rig do$nc, OF FT. wr. TOU Kupiov Huar TIC
diénc, "Ino. Xpicrov.2 It is evidently an entire mistake to construct rig déén¢
with xpoowzoznwpiar, Whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel
bonorum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Hei-
sen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make rig dotn¢ depend on
Xpicros; thus Laureutius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus ;
1 Hornejus: * Multiplex illud malum tp vita see Phil. f1.10; Rom. ix. 21; and Winer, p.
est."’ 172 (E. T., 238); but, in that case, the inter-
2 Particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, De vening word is never in apposition with the
Wette, Brilckner, Wiesinger. preceding idea, with which it is completely
3 The genitive, indecd, not unfrequently {se concluded.
separated from the word which governs it;
CHAP. II. 2, 3. 75
so also Bouman; also Lange: “the Messiah exalted in His glory above
Judaistic expectations.” Decisive against this construction are— (1) the
close connection of ‘I7cos and Xpicroi, as, when those two names are so di-
rectly united as here, Xpsrod is purely numen proprium; (2) the N. T. mode
of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Xpicroo
by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article tov before Xprorpi
would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions), ric
dofnc was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on rv rior, and
tov avpiov nu. 'l, Xp, as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: “faith in the
glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ, — founded on Him,” namely,
THY péAdovoay dogav aroxaAr@ivas ei¢ quds, Rom. viii. 18. This construction,
although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler,
with Bengel, to regard ric duén¢ as in apposition with ‘Iyovt Xp.; still the idea
donc 18 too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luke ii. 32, Eph. i. 17,
1 Pet. iv. 14, Isa. x]. 5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justifi-
cation of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite ric duén¢ as a
genitive of quality, not with Xporos only, but with the whole expression row
kup. nu. 'Ino. Xp., by which dofa is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus
Christ which belongs to Ilim, the exalted One. Similar expressions are
6 ofxovouoc (Luke xvi. 8), o xperj¢ (Luke xviii. 6), ric ddtxiac. At all events,
tix dofn¢ is added in order to mark the contrast between the npoowxoAnpia
paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ.
Vv. 2, 3. In these verses the conduct of the readers, which occasioned
the exhortation of James (ver. 1), is described; hence the confirming yap.
Both verses together form the protasis, on which ver. 4 follows as the apo-
dosis ; whilst they in form appear by their connection with dé (according to
the Rec. by xai) as co-ordinate sentences, in thought ver. 2 is subordinate
to ver. 3; ver. 2 assigning the circumstances under which the conduct de-
scribed in ver. 3 occurred. — Hammond, Homberg, Baumgarten, Michaelis,
and Herder assign even ver. 4 to the protasis; but incorrectly, as in that
case the conjunctive would be required in that verse as in vv. 2,3. As
regards the matter itself, the fault is not directed against the rulers of the
congregation, — the presbyters and deacons (Grotius, Pott, Schulthess, Hot-
tinger), — but, as the address ddeAgoi pov (ver. 1) shows, it is entirely general.
It was not the custom in the time of James for the deacons to point out
places to those who entered their assemblies (Consiit. A post., ii. 56, 58). —
The instance (icv) which James states is, as regards the matter, not a hypo-
thetical assumption, but a fact; and certainly not to be regarded as a soli-
tary instance which only once took place, but as something which often
oocurred, that even in their religious assemblies the rich were treated with
distinction, and the poor with disdain. It is not surprising that James in
the description employed the aorist, since he generally uses that tense to
represent that which is habitually repeated as a single fact which has taken
place; see chap. i. 11, 24. — The words ¢i¢ riv cvvaywyiv dydv show that it
is an entrance into the religious assemblies of the congregation that is here
spoken of. It cannot be inferred from the usual signification of the word
ovvaywyn, that a Jewish synagogue is here meant (Semler, Schueckenburger,
76 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Bouman); opposed to this is tzév; besides, the Christians would certainly
not have the right to show seats to those who entered into such a place of
worship; but, on the other hand, by ovvaywy7 here is not to be understood
the religious assembly (De Wette). The whole description, both eicéavy and
the pointing out of seats, shows that ovvaywy7 denotes the place where the
Christian congregation assembled for worship. That James calls this by
the word which was appropriate for Jewish places of worship, cannot be
regarded in his mouth as any thing surprising. : Hammond, Baumgarten,
Storr, Herder, and others most arbitrarily understand by ovvaywyy the judi-
cial assemblies of the congregation and their elders. According to Lange,
the name of the Jewish place of worship is here a symbol “of the religious
fellowship of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion;” this opinion is not
less unjustifiable than the view connected with it, that “a literal under-
standing of what follows cannot be thought of.”— The rich man is here
described as avap ypvoodaxriduos tv éabirt Aaunpa, and the poor man as rruyic by
burapd éovyrt, the difference between them being represented to the eye in
their clothing. — ypvoodaxridioc], a purely az. Acy. = ypvodzep (Lucian, In Tim.:
mopgupa: Kat xpvadyelpec mepépyovra; In Nigrin.: rév daxtediwy nAjdog Exwv). On
Aaurpoc, used of clothes, see, on the one hand, Luke xxiii. 11 (comp. with
Matt. xxvii. 28), and, on the other hand, Rev. xv. 6. Raphelius: Nullum
certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum seu rubrum seu album
sit, seu alius generis. The counterpart of the éovj¢ Aaumpa is the 200, puxapa of
the poor man. — furapéc] in- its proper meaning only here in N. T.; in Zech.
iii. 3, 4, it is also used of garments. Are Christians or non-Christians meant
by these incomers? Most expositors consider them to be Christians only,
whether they belonged to the congregation or came there as éévo: (guests).
But the following reasons decide against this view: 1. They are distin-
guished by James from the brethren addressed, and are not indicated as
brethren, which yet, particularly in reference to the poor (ver. 5), would
readily have suggested itself as a strong confirmation of their fault. 2. In
vv. 6, 7, the rich are evidently opposed to Christians (duéy, tude, é9’ duce), and
reprimanded for their conduct towards Christians (not merely toward the
poor), which, if rich Christians had been guilty of it, would certainly have
been indicated as an offence against their Christian calling. That those.
who were not Christians might and did come into the Christian religious
assemblies, is a well-known fact; see 1 Cor. xiv. 22,238. The view of Weiss,?
that the rich man was not a Christian, but that the poor man was a Chris-
tian, is supported by no feature in the description; in that case James would
certainly have indicated the dissimilarity of relation; then “must ver. 5 ff.
bring it forward as the gravest offence, that the brother chosen by God is
slighted for the sake of the rich who were not Christians ” (Wiesinger).®
1 The word cvvaywyy occurs In the N. T.in
both meanings; usually it designates the rell-
gious place of meeting of the Jews; but that
it also denotes the assembly, Acts xili. 43
shows; see also Rev. fl. 9. In the Apocrypha
of the O. T., it has only the last meaning, and,
indeed, in a general sense; see Wahl, Clan.
Apocryph., cvvaysyy.
2 Deutsch. Zetischrift f. christl. Wissenech.,
etc., 1854, No. 61.
3 Lange considers the mode of expression
symbolical: by the rich man is meant the
CHAP, II. 3, 4. 17
Ver. 8 describes the conduct of the church toward the two incomers.
Many ancient expositors understand this as a figurative representation of
the ‘preference which was generally given in the congregation to the rich;
this is arbitrary. The whole description points rather to something which
James has actually in view; but in reprimanding this, he condemns par-
tiality generally, which certainly showed itself in many other ways. By
the descriptive words émBaepnre . . . tv Aaunpév, which precede elzyte (in
reference to the poor there is only eizyre), is indicated in a lively manner
the admiring look at the external glitter; éi3Aérew, emphatice sumendum est
(Pott); the rich man is characteristically described as 6 gopév ri 208. r. Aaunpar;
the splendid garment is that which attracts the eye, the character of the-
inan is entirely overlooked ; gopeiv, a secondary form of gépecy, is also in Matt.
xi. 8 used of garments; by the article before Aaumpay this idea is strength-
ened as the chief idea. — The contrast is sharply expressed in the different
address to the one and to the other; already they are distinguished from
one another by od) . . . ot, and then «aéov and orf, dde and éxei, xaddg and
bxd 1d bxonddiéy pov, are opposed. The form xdéov (instead of xa@yoo) is foreign
to classical Greek; see Winer, p. 75 (E. T., 81). —xadde refers to comfort
C(Wiesinger); it is not = honorifice (Wahl); and still less is it to be resolved
into “Be so good as” (Storr). A place is pointed out to the rich man,
where he can be comfortably seated; whilst to the poor man it is said, Stand
there. The second clause, separated from the first by #, is not a special
address, but the two clauses form one saying, whilst after 7 a thought is to
be supplied, as “If thou wilt rather sit;” by the addition of these words the
depreciation of the poor is yet more strongly marked. —imd 1d tronédiov]
means not under, but below, my footstool (Wiesinger), by which the floor is
pointed out as the fitting place for the poor to sit (Bouman). “The expres-
sion involves contempt: as it were, under one’s feet. Not on the footstool ”
(Lange). The word srordduv (not unicum, as Wiesinger asserts) belongs
only to the later classics. Often in N. T., and also in LXX.
Ver. 4 forms the apodosis to vv. 2 and 3, and rebukes what is blamable
in the conduct described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of
this verse, according as they explain the verb dcexpidyre, and understand ob as
a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take dsexpiénre,
in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Matt. xxi. 21,
Mark xi. 23, Rom. iv. 20, and to give to the verb here the same meaning
which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T.; so that it denotes the
doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith; see
on chap.i.6. But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative: Did you
not then doubt among yourselves? i.e., Have ye not fallen into a contradiction
with your faith (ver. 1), according to which external glory and riches are
nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them? To this
question the second is added, to which the preceding ov is also to be referred :
Jewish Christian, who, as wearing a gold ring, ing to Hengstenberg, the meaning is precisely
boasts of his covenant rights; and by the poor _ the reverse. Both opinions are unjustified.
man is meant the Gentile Christian. Acoord-
78 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
and became ye not (thus) judges of evil thoughts? This second question indicates
the direct consequence of d:axpivecdaz. James calls them xprrai, because in
their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The
genitive d:azoyispav rovnpov is not the genitive of object,! bat of quality.
dtadnyicuoi is here, as predominantly in the N. T., in malam partem (see espe-
cially Luke v. 21, 22), thoughts of doubt and unbelief; the bad meaning is
here heightened by movypén.
Other explanations are as follow : —
(1) dtaxpivecda = separare : then the sentence {s interrogative; év éavroic = tv
GAAnAo (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being
either passive: ‘‘ Nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati?’’ or middle:
‘‘Nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos?’’ ‘‘Do you not separate, divide your-
selves among yourselves ?’’ (Lange).
(2) dtaxpivecda: = discrimen fucere. (a) The verb active — (a) Interrogatire:
‘‘Nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos ?’’ (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hot-
tinger, Knapp). In this explanation, év éavroig = év dAAnAote; Schneckenburger,
however, explains év éavroic = in animis vestris; but then the meaning discri-
men facere would pass into an act of the judgment ‘‘ stfatuere.’”’ (3) Negative:
‘*Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound judgment)
among yourselves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of
thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart” (Grashof). —
(b) The verb passive: ‘‘Dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis
discriminati h. e. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia’’ (Oeder).
(3) dtanxpiveodac = judicare. (a) The verb active — (a) Interrogative: ‘‘Nonne
judicastis, deliberastis ipsi?’’? ‘* Are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong
this is ?’’ (Augusti). (8) Negative: ‘‘Non discrevistis justa dubitatione, con-
siderantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non
minus, quam diviti’’ (Bengel). Luther combines this rendering with that under
2: ‘And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an evil
distinction.’ Herealso comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: 1d dtaxperuxdv
bucv duedbeipare, undepiav oviytnow mothoavTes morepov tyuntéov . . . GAA’ ovTux,
adiaxpitug, xal év npoownoAmpig tov pév éttujoare . . . tov dé hriudoare, —(b) The
verb passive —(a) interrogative: ‘‘ Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati h. e.
convicti estis?’’ Paraeus; so also Bouman: ‘‘ Nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum
jam judicati estis animis?’’ (8) Negative: ‘‘ Et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non
estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra’’ (Heisen). Differently
Cajetanus: ‘*‘ Haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et pauper-
tate;’’ laying the chief stress on év éavroic.
(4) dtaxpivesdbac = dubitare, to entertain doubts. (a) Interrogatte: ‘‘ Et
non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos ? et facti estis iniqui judices?”’ ‘‘Should you
not yourselves have entertained doubts ? Should you actually have passed evil-
minded judgments?’ (Theile). (b) Negative: ‘‘ Non dubitastis apud animum,
ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos
statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.’’
All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a mean-
ing of dtaxpivecda foreign to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require
1 Elsner: ‘* Iniquas istas cogitationes appro- larum cogitationum 1. e. divitum, foris splen-
bastis; Bengel: ‘‘Judices approbatores, ma- dentium, eed malis cogitationibus sentientium.”
CHAP. II. 5. 79
arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Briick-
ner, De Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the
meaning to doubt. De Wette: “Have you not then become doubtful in
your faith?” Wiesinger: “Have you not forsaken the law of faith, which
recognizes only one true riches?” With the reading of B (omitting ot) the
thought is the same; the interrogative (ov), however, serves for the height-
ening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pro-
nounce the judgment. The «ai of the Receptus stands as in Mark x. 26,
Luke x. 29, 1 Cor. v. 2, with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since
in the N. T. no other passage is found where xai is placed before a question
forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with éay (on 2 Cor. ii. 2, see
Meyer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make ver. 4 a part
of the protasis; see above.
Ver. 5. With this verse the proof of the reprehensibleness of the conduct
found fault with commences: Jameg showing that the conduct toward the
poor is in contradiction with the mercy of God directed to the poor, and that
the conduct toward the rich is in contradiction with their conduct toward
Christians. The impressive exhortation to attention precedes dxotcare with
the address ddeAgoi wou dyannroi; see chap. i. 16,19. The proof itself (as in
ver. 4) is expressed in a lively manner in the form of a question: Has not
God chosen those who are the poor of the world (i.e., accounted as such) to be
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to them that love
Him *— The verb é&eAégéaro is to be retained in its usual acceptation, in that
which it has in 1 Cor. i. 27. Wiesinger, without sufficient reason, will
understand it here as equivalent to “God has so highly honored the poor; ”
and Lange incorrectly maintains that “the word here rather signifies calling
with reference to ethical good behavior to the divine revelation.” — The cor-
rect reading: rove rrwyods TO xdouw, is to be explained in the same manner as
the expressions doreiog rm Ged, Acts vii. 20, and duvara ro Ged, 2 Cor. x. 4 (see
Meyer on these passages, and Winer, p. 190 (E. T., 201); Al. Buttmann,
p- 156 [(E. T., 179]). The world esteems those as poor who possess no
visible earthly riches. Wiesinger prefers to explain the dative as the dative
of reference, thus “‘poor in respect of the world;” yet the former explana-
tion, which also Briickner and Lange adopt, in which 6 Oed¢ and 76 xéopw
form a sharp contrast, is more appropriate, and more in correspondence
with the meaning of the word xéouog with James. In the Receptus, rrwzove
tov xoopov, the genitive is to be understood as in the expression rd pupa rod
xoopov, etc., 1 Cor. i. 27; see Meyer in loco. — rAovoiove év miore:] is not in
apposition with rodc rrwyods (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Hottinger, Geb-
ser, Bouman, Lange, and others),! but the completion of é&Aégaro, stating to
what God has chosen the poor (Beza, Wolf, Morus, Knapp, Storr, Schnecken-
burger, Kern, Theile, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others) ; see 2 Cor. iii. 6. —
By é miore, as in the expression mAovawc év édéet, Eph. ii. 4 (see 1 Cor. i. 5;
1 If wAooglovs is taken asin apposition,then contained in the oxymorum Is entirely blunted ;
bere riches In faith forms the reason of the = it is also arbitrary to separate the two ideas
choice; but by this the keenness of the thought sAovoiovs and xAnporvouovs united by ca.
80 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
2 Cor. ix. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18), the object is not stated wherein they are rich
(Luther: “who are rich in the faith”), but the sphere within which riches
is imparted to them; similarly Wiesinger explains it: “rich in their position
as believers.” James wished primarily to mark the contrast that the poor
are appointed to be rich, namely, so far as they are believers; the context
gives the more exact statement of their riches: riches in the possessions of
the heavenly kingdom is meant; this the following clause indicates. — Cal-
vin: non qui fidei magnitudine abundant, sed quos Deus variis Spiritus sui donis
locupletavit, quae fide percipimus.1— The expression 4 Baoela Occurs also else-
where, without the addition of roi Geos or similar terms, as a designation of
. the kingdom of God; e.g., Matt. xiii. 838. No stress rests on the article ric
(= éxeivnc), a8 the relative 7c referred to it. The relative clause serves not
for a more definite statement of the idea BaorAeia, as if by it this Baoreia was
to be distinguished from another, but the statement éfe. . . . kAnpovdpouc r.
Caoueiag is confirmed, as a kingdom founded on the promise of God. — From
the expressions «Aqpovipor and éxnyyeidaro of the relative clause, it is evident
that James considered here Bacidcia as the future perfected kingdom of God,
not “the joint participation in the viofecia of the Jews” (Lange). On ic
éxnyyeidaro, x.t.A.,. see the remark on i. 12. The addition of this clause shows
that with James faith and love to God are most closely connected. — James
puts rode mrwzovc, to whom oi mAovowe are opposed, as the object of égeAéfaro.
He accordingly (the article is not to be overlooked) divides men into these
two classes, the poor and the rich, and designates, not the latter, but the
former, as those whom God has chosen and appointed to be rich in faith,?
namely, to be heirs of the kingdom; not as if all the poor received the
xAnpovoula, but his meaning is that those whom God has chosen belong to
this class, whereas those belonging to the class of the rich had not been
chosen. James did not require to point out the truth of this statement:
the Christians to whom he wrote were a living testimony of it, for they all
belonged to that class; and although some among them were zAoiows, yet,
on the one hand, what Christ says in Matt. xix. 23-26 holds good, and, on
the other hand, 1 Cor. i. 26-28 is to be compared. — With this divine choice
the conduct of his readers stood in direct contradiction when they treated a
poor man —thus one who belonged to the class of those chosen by God —
contemptuously, and that on account of his poverty. What directly follows
expresses this contradiction.
Ver. 6. dueic dé], contrast to Ged¢.— #riudoare], contrast to tfeAsEaro. The
aorist is used with reference to the case stated in vv. 2, 3, which is certainly
of a general character (Wiesinger).?—rdv mrwyév, not = pauperem ILLUM,
1 Kern: év miore indicates that it is faith
itself which makes the Christian inwardly
rich.
3 It is to be observed that éfeAdfaro does
not here refer only to zAovcious, as If riers
were to be considered as the condition on which
the rrwxyo were chosen to be rich, but to the
combined expression wAovaglove dv wiore:, 80
that also micris is to be considered as an effect
of the divine choice. The same view lies at
the foundation of what Paul fn 1 Cor. 1. 80 (sce
Meyer tn loco) and elsewhere often expresses.
3 According to Lange, the aoriet Is used to
point to “the historical fact in which Judaiz-
ing Jewish Christians have already takev part
with the Jews, namely, the dishonoring of the
Gentile Christians.”
CHAP. Il. 7. 81
but, to be understood generally, the poor man as such. That we are here
specially to think on the Christian poor, is an incorrect supposition. — With
ovx of xAovow:| James turns to the rich as the class opposed to the poor, in
order to point out from another side than he had already done the reprehen-
sibleness of the conduct denounced. Already from this opposition it is inti-
mated that not the Christian rich, but the rich generally, — not exactly only
“the rich Gentiles or the Romans” (Hengstenberg),— are meant. This is
also evident from what is said of them, and by which their conduct is desig-
nated as hostile to Christians (izov) who belong to the poor.) xaradvvacrevew]
only bere and in Acts x. 38, frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha (see
particularly Wisd. of Sol. ii. 20), means “to use power against any to his
hurt.” Related ideas are xaraxupievecv and xaregovoraev, Matt. xx. 25. This
exercise of power against the Christians might take place in various ways;
what follows: xal avrot tAxovoty bude eig xptrypta, Mentions one chief mode. —
«ai abvroi ] emphatically put first — even they (Theile). — éxev] indicates the
violence of the conduct (so in the classics). The courts of judgment («pirfjpca,
as in 1 Cor. vi. 2, 4) may be both Gentile and Jewish; certainly not Chris-
tian. It is arbitrary, and not corresponding to the expression éAxec, to think
here on a process quibus pauperes PROPTER DEBITA in judictis vexrabant (Hor-
nejus; also De Wette and others). — Since James so strongly contrasts atrof
and tudc, the former cannot possibly be regarded as a part of the latter.
Ver. 7. The description of the conduct of the rich is still continued;
they not only do violence to Christians, but they even revile the holy name
of Christ. Do they not (even) blaspheme that fair name which has been called
upon you? The pronoun airoi is put here as in ver. 6: incorrectly, Theile =
. ht potissinum. — The expression 1d évoua émxadcirae em: trwva] is borrowed from
the O. T., where it often occurs, and in the sense that one becomes the
property of him whose name is called upon him; particularly it is said of
Israel that the name of God was called upon them.? Accordingly, by the
name which is called upon Christians is not meant the Christian name
(Hensler: nomen fratrum et sororum), also not the name xrwyoi, but the
name of Him only to whom they as Christians belong — the name of Christ
(De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, and others); from which, however,
it does not follow (as Wiesinger correctly observes) that James here alludes
to the name Xpirriavoi. — By the addition of the attribute xadév the shame-
fulness of BAacgqueiv is still more strongly marked.—JIn support of the
hypothesis that the rich are Christians, many expositors (also Briickner and
Wiesinger) here arbitrarily explain Aac¢nyelv of indirect blasphemy, i.e., of
such as takes place not by words, but by works; but @Aacgnueiv is never thus
used in the Holy Scriptures; not one of the passages which Wiesinger cites
proves that for which he adduces them ; SAacgnueiy always denotes blasphemy
by word.’ — This word also proves that the rich who are not Christians are
1 If James had the Christian rich in view, the dative is put); 2 Chron. vil. 14; Jer. xiv. 9,
he certainly would not have omitted to point xv. 16; Amos ix. 12; see also Gen. xivili. 16;
to the contrast between their conduct to the Isa. iv. 1.
poor aod their Christian calling. 8 Were it here asserted that the blasphem-
# Bee Deut. xxviii. 10 (where instead of «wi = ing of the name of God or of Christ was.
82 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
here meant (thus also Lange, who, however, will understand particularly
the Judaists); which is also evident, because James otherwise would rather
have written 10 émxAndév ig’ avroi¢ instead of 1d émxd. 颒 dude. — By the thought
in this verse James indicates that Christians, by showing partiality to the
rich, not only acted foolishly, but were guilty of a violation of the respect
due to the name of Christ.
Vv. 8,9. With these verses James meets the attempt which his readers
might perhaps make to justify their conduct toward the rich with the law of
love; whilst he, granting to them that the fulfilment of that law is some-
thing excellent, designates zpoowxoAnrreiv directly as a transgression of the
law. This explanation, which among ancient expositors, particularly Cal-
vin, Cornelius a Lapide, Laurentius, Hornejus, and among the moderns Hot-
tinger, Theile, Wiesinger, have recognized as the correct one, is justified both
by the particle yévro: and by the phrase xajax roveire. — wévror has in the N. T.,
where besides the Gospel of John it only elsewhere occurs in 2 Tim. ii. 19
and Jude 8, always the meaning yet, nevertheless; but this meaning is not
here suitable, as ver. 8 contains no contrast to what goes before.’ It is
therefore to be retained in its original classical meaning, assuredly, certainly,
and points out that James grants something to his readers, having, however,
in view the contrast which he expresses in the following ei d?, «.r.4.2. This
is also indicated by the expression nada muuire (see ver. 19), which is evi-
dently too feeble for an earnest enforcement of the law of love. Wiesinger
correctly observes that the hypothetical dilemma carries in itself unmistak-
ably an ironical character.2 James calls the law dyamjoec, «.7.4., which is
cited from Lev. xix. 18, vépzov Zactaxov, because it is the most excellent of all
laws, ceterarum legum quasi regina (Knapp; so also Theile, Wiesinger, De
Wette, Bouman, and others), inasmuch as all other laws are contained in
it; see Rom. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14 (1 Tim. i. 5; Matt. xxii. 89). It is far-
fetched to explain the attribute Sac:Axé6v, because it was given by God the
great King (Raphelius, Wetstein, Wolf, Baumgarten), or by Christ (Grotius),
or because it applies to kings (Michaelis), or guia reges facit (Thomas;
Lange combines all these explanations); also Calvin’s remark is to be re-
jected as too artificial: regia lex dicitur, ul VIA REGIA, plana scilicet, recta et
aequabilis, qui sinuosis diverticulis vel ambagibus tacite opponitur. — voyuoc is here
(see also ver. 9), as in Jer. xxxi. 33 (Heb. viii. 10, x. 16), used of a single
commandment, instead of é:rn47 (which Lange wrongly denies). The expres-
occasioned by the wicked works of Jews or
Chrietians, this would be indicated not by the
active verb, but by the passive with da; see
Rom. ji. 24; Tit. 11.5; 2 Pet. 11.2; Tea. lil. 5.
Moreover, even then blasphemy (namely, of
the Gentiles) could only be expressed by words.
1 Brilckner finds the contrast in love being
the reverse of partiality; but névro: does not
simply express the opposite, but the adversa-
tive meaning of the particle in the N. T. is
of this nature, that ft only occurs when the
sbarp contrast to an ‘‘ although ’”’ is to be filled
up or expressed ; it is arbitrary to explain it as
equivalent to ‘on the contrary.”
2 Some interpreters explain pevroc here,
contrary to linguistic usage, as equivalent to
igitur.
8 When De Wette, against this explanation,
eays: ‘‘How could thoee blamed appeal to
thie law for their partiality?” it is to be ob-
served that they seek thereby to justify only
their conduct to the rich, by which certain.
ly they leave thelr conduct to the poor un.
justified.
CHAP. II. 10. 83
sion reAziy vouov is found only here and in Rom. ii. 27; it is a stronger ex-
pression than rypeiv vouov (ver. 10). — xara riv ypagqv] is not to be combined
with Succxév, nor is the mode of redeiv thereby stated, but it is the simple
formula of citation.
Ver. 9 is in sharp contrast to ver. 8, calling the conduct of his readers, in
opposition to their pretext, by its true name, and designating it directly
as sin. The verb mpoowmrodAnnreiv is a complete az. Acy.; James uses this word
with reference to the exhortation in ver. 1. On duapriav épyagecda:, see Matt.
vii.23; Acts x. 35; Heb.xi.33. Theile: gravius fere est quam duapriav nouiv,
duapravey. For the sake of heightening this judgment, James adds the par-
ticipial sentence éAeyyopevor, x.7.A.: being convicted by the law as transgressors.
If the npoowroAnzroivres appealed to a law, it is precisely the law by which
they are convinced as transgressors, so that they are without excuse. By
td rod vouov is meant not a single commandment, neither the above-men-
tioned law of love, nor specially a commandment forbidding respect of per-
sons, as Deut. xvi. 19 (Lange), but the law generally; so also mapaBara is
general: not as transgressors of one commandment, but of the law generally.
Ver. 10. Confirmation of the last expressed thought: For whosoever kept
the whole laic, and yet sinned in one (commandment), he is guilty of all (com-
mandments). The conjunctives rypijoy, rraioy, certified by authorities, are
not to be considered as an error of the scribe (as Winer, 5th ed., p. 356, was
inclined to assume); but the particle dy is here, as frequently as in the N.T.,
contrary to classical usage in hypothetical sentences, omitted when dort,
stands, because “the universality was already sufficiently indicated by the
pronoun ” (Buttmann, p. 197 [E. T., 229]).! dvépomy is not, with Schulthess,
to be supplied to & évi, but vou, with Theile, De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange,
and others, “frotn the preceding collective idea véuor.” The following mavruv
forbids us, with Schneckenburger and Kern, to understand évi as neuter. It
is in entire conformity with the character of the thought as a general sen-
tence to take évi quite generally, and not, with Theophylact, Oecumenius
(robro wep? dyanne eipnxe), Schol. Matthaei, p. 188 (éy évi rraioety eort, rd ud redeiav —
éxew ayarnv), and some recent critics (Semler: in HANC unam et primam), to
refer it to a definite commandment, particularly to that of love.2. By this
general sentence James seeks to confirm the thought that respect of persons
includes in itself the transgression of the whole law, although it appears to
be directed only against a single commandment. — The word zraiew is found
in the N. T. only in a figurative sense; the construction with é is only in
this place; in chap. iii. 2 the reference of év is different. By yéyovev ravtuv
(sc. vopwv) Evoyo;, James declares the transgressor of one commandment to
be guilty of the transgression of all. —évoyoc] is here, as in 1 Cor. xi. 27,
used with the genitive of the thing against which one sins, in the guilt of
2 Winer, p. 275 (E. T., 308), explains the
omiesion of ary, beeause in the writer’s concep-
tion the case is altogether definite; but then
the fature indicative would be put; aleo the
ease here stated, namely, that one may trans-
grees one commandment and yet keep the
tohole law, ie a case which cannot be Imagined.
$ Sdll more arbitrarily, Grotius, Morus,
Stolz, and Jaspar limit the general expres-
sione évi and warvtey to such commandment,
to the tranagression of which the punishment
of death is assigned.
84 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
which one is thus involved.1 The same thought is also found in the rab-
binical writings.?
Ver. 11. The truth of the above thought is founded on the fact that all
commandments proceed from one lawgiver. —6 ydp eixiv- pi) potxetogc, eixev
xai* ui) gdvevoys]. Baumgarten finds the reason why James adduces these two
commandments, yi? porxevone and pu?) govevoys, in this, because “the transgres-
sion of these two was punished with death;” Wiesinger, on the other hand,
because “ poryesecv was never laid to the charge of the readers, whereas ui)
govevone had the command of love as its essence;” and Lange, because “to
the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was likewise the prohibition of apos-
tasy to heathenism, and the prohibition of murder was likewise that of
uncharitableness towards our neighbor.” But the reason is rather because
these two commandments are the first of those which refer to our duties to
our neighbor (thus Briickner). That yu poryesog¢ precedes the other, has its
reason in ancient tradition; see on both points Mark x. 19; Luke xviii. 20;
Rom. xili. 9 (see Meyer in loc.); Philo, De Decal., xii. 24, 32. With the
words that follow: el d ob pocyeve, x.7.4., James draws the inference from
the preceding. The negative ou after ef with the indicative is not surprising
in the N. T. usage, the less so as here only a part of the conditional sentence
is denied; see Winer, p. 423 ff. (E. T., 479); Al. Buttmann, p. 296 ff. (E. T.,
346 f.).8 With the apodosis yéyovar rapa3ary¢ vouov, James refers to ver. 9;
consequently not évoyor, a8 in ver. 10, but mapaBarne is put. — The reason of
the judgment here expressed is contained in 6 cimuv . . . eize cal. Since the
law is the expression of the will of Him who gave it, the transgression of a
single portion is disobedience to the one will, and consequently a transgres-
sion of the whole law.‘ James might, indeed, have confirmed the idea by
the internal connection of all commands, and by pointing out that the trans-
gression of one commandment reveals a want which makes the fulfilment of
the other commandments impossible;5 but as he does not do 80, these con-
siderations are not to be arbitrarily introduced into his words.
1 The puniehment with évoxos is usually in
the genitive, with Matt. xxvi. 66, Mark iii. 29,
xiv. 46; yet also in the dative, Matt. v.21. In
classical language, the thiug against which one
sins is with é«voxos only in the dative, whilst
the crime itself of which the man is guilty, as
well as the punishment which he has to suffer,
is added in the genitive.
2 @.g., Cod. Talm. Schabbath, fol. Ixx. 2;
R. Johanan: Quodsi faciat omnia, unum vero
omittat, omnium est singulorum reus; see
Wolf. Késter (Stud. u. Arit., 1862, 1) to this
passage cites the corresponding expression of
Livy (Hist., xxxiv. 3) referring to the law-
giver: unam tollendo legem ceterae infirman-
tur.
§ According to Buttmann, the negative ov
here, even according to classic usage, is the
more necessary, ‘‘ when to the negative predi-
cate another, still in the protasis, is immedi-
ately so appended with an adversative particle
that the entire emphasis falls upon this second
part” (E. T., 346). It is indeed said In Thue.
1.32: et wn pera xaxiag, dofns 5é¢ padAovy apapri¢g
- . « €vayria ToAnwuerv; but here the relation
ie different, as the contrast dofgns, «.7.A., could
be left out without injury to the thought, which
ia evidently not the case with James.
¢ Bengel: unus‘est, qui totam legem tullft;
cujus volunotatem qui una in re violant, totam
violant.
5 Augustine, in his Epistle to Jerome on
this passage (Opera Hieronym., Francf., iv.
p. 154 ff.), says: Unde filet omnium reus, ai In
uno offendat, qui totam legem servaverit? An
forte quia plenitudo legis charitas est, qua Deus
proximuasque diligitur, in quibus praeceptia cha-
ritatis tota lex pendet et prophetae, merito fit
reus omnaium, qui contra illam fecit, in qua
pendent omnia? Nemo autem peccat, nisi
CHAP. II. 12, 13. 85
Ver. 12. To what has hitherto been said, she general exhortation is an-
nexed: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
A new section does not here begin, as Wetstein, Semler, and others assume;
but with this and the following verse the course of thought commenced at
ver. 1 is concluded; not until ver. 14 does the thought take a new turn.
The connection with what has gone before is to be thus explained, that
ver. 13 evidently points to the respect of persons with regard to the poor,
and refers to chap. i. 27. —otruc] “is not to be referred to what precedes,
but to the following dc, thus: so as is necessary for those who,” etc.; thus
in former editions. But by this explanation the thought is too abruptly
introduced ; therefore it would be more correct to refer obrwe to what pre-
cedes (obrur, i.e., according to the rule stated in ver. 10 f., Briickner), and
to take u¢ not as an explication, but as “a confirmation” (Lange). — James
takes up not only the doing (zoeire), but also the ‘speaking (Aadéire), to
which not only the conduct of his readers, specified in ver. 2 ff., but their
sinful volubility of tongue, generally led; see i. 19, iii. 1-12. The repetition
of ofr. serves for the heightening of the thought; da here is the same as in
Rom. ii. 12; see also John xii. 48, v. 45; correctly, Wiesinger: ‘the law
is a means because a measure;” incorrectly, Kern: vi ac jure leges. The
vouoc éAevOepias is also here not the gospel, as the publication of the grace of
God, or the Christian religion (Semler, Pott, Gebser), also not specially the
vouoc BaotAunée Mentioned in ver. 7 as a single command, but it is the same
as is mentioned in chap. i. 25.1 The demand which James here expresses
is that Christians, as such, who shall be judged by the véyoc eAevdepiac, must
regulate by it the whole course of their lives. From what has directly gone
before, one might infer that James wishes particularly to warn against the
pretext combated in ver. 10, but ver. 13 shows that he has rather in view
the want of compassionate love, forming the heart and pulse of the véyo¢
2Aevdepiac, which was renounced by his readers in their driudgew rdv mruxdv
(ver. 6).
Ver. 13 refers back to chap. i. 27, and concludes the section, appending
to dia vopow 21. xpiveodac a closer definition: for the judgment is unmerciful
against those who exercise no mercy; mercy rejotces against judgment. — That
which in the judgment passes sentence on Christians, who shall be judged
dua vopov tAevdeoias, is thus mercy. Against the unmerciful the judgment will
be unmerciful. On the form dvédeos, see critical notes; in Rom. i. 31 it is
avehenuuv; thus also in LXX., Prov. v. 9, xi. 17. . Luther incorrectly trans-
lates it: “it will pass an unmerciful judgment;” dvéAeoe is not an attribute,
adversus illam faciendo.—Ticinus thus well
expresses the unity of the law: lex tota est
commandment;” but the point of equal obli-
gation ie not here brought forward by James.
quasi una vestis, quae tota violatur, si vel unam
ex ea partem demus; quasi harmonia, quae
tota corrumpitur, si vel unica vox dissonet; and
Gataker: quasi catena aurea, quae tota rupta
est, si unicum nexum abrumpas. What Gun-
kel eays is indeed correct: ‘‘ The solidarity
consists in this, that God has given with the
equal obligation the one as well as the other
1 Kern: ‘James, by the expression é&a y.
éA., reminds them that the véuos for Christians
ie Indeed according to form a new one, being
converted into a willing impulse, but that it
does not on this account cease, according to
its nature, to be the rule of moral action, and
thus also of judgment."’
86 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
but a predicate. — Many expositors incorrectly explain éeo¢ = dyarn; the
former is a species of the latter, although James puts the chief stress upon it;
see chap. i. 27. — The concluding sentence is subjoined dovvdéruc ; see chap.
ili. 2,iv. 12. “ Asyndeton dicti pondus auget.” In the verb xaraxavydra: (only
here and in chap. iii. 14 and Rom. xi. 18), xara, on which the genitive xpiceus
depends, expresses the opposite tendency. Kpio« according to its nature
threatens to condemn the sinner (thus the believing Christian does not cease
to be a sinner), but mercy has the joyful confidence (xavydra:) that it will
overcome the threatening power of judgment.1— By a conversion of the
abstract idea é/zo¢ into the concrete, “the merciful man,” the peculiar im-
press is taken from the expression, and a lax interpretation is introduced.
On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 7; Prov. xvii. 5; Tob. iv. 7-11. Several
expositors (Calvin, Cappellus, Wolf, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Bengel) incor-
rectly supply the genitive Oeod to foc, by which a thought is introduced
entirely foreign to the context.
Ver. 14. After James, proceeding from the exhortation to receive the
word (rdv . . . Adyov roy duvayevov awoat rac uyds) in meekness, had enforced
the necessity not only to be hearers but also doers of the same, and with
reference to the respect of persons practised by the readers had designated
the exercise of compassionate love as true @pyoxela, he now, in close connec-
tion with the preceding, opposes the opinion that ziory which has no works
(xupic Epywv) can save (cdca). The section from ver. 14 to ver. 26 treats of
this; for the correct understanding of which it is to be held fast that James
considers ziory as the necessary ground of owrnpia, which is evident from
chap. i. 18-21, but of course that ricre¢ which is not without works. In com-
bating the above delusion, James adopts his characteristic mode of first stat-
ing in clear and well-defined language the fundamental thought on which
all the rest depends, and he does so by the introduction of brief interroga-
tive sentences which reject that false opinion. He commences with the
words ri rd dgeAoc; see ver. 16 and 1 Cor. xv. 32. The article is not super-
fluous: What ts the use which arises from it, if, ete.; without the article
(according to B and C) it means: What kind of use is it = what use is it?
thus frequently with the classics. With regard to the construction with
éav, see Matt. xvi. 26; 1 Cor. xiii. 3. The following words: éay miorw Aéyy
tig Exetv, Show that James had in view one who trusts for owr7pia, because he
has faith, although works are wanting to him. Many expositors place the
emphasis on 4éyy, as if it was thereby indicated that this assertion was a
mere pretext, the person introduced as speaking not in reality possessing
faith. Gataker: emphasis hic est in voce DICENDI; tntelligit istos fidem quidem
jactare, non tamen habere; similarly Vorstius, Piscator, Wolf, Baumgarten,
Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, Stier, Lange, Philippi (Glaubensl., i.
p. 298 ff.); also De Wette translates Aéyy by “pretends.” This is incorrect,
for the sequel does not give the lie to this Aéyev, but, on the contrary, it is
1 The explanation of Wiesinger,that James assured of grace beforehand, and glories in it,”’
intends to say ‘that mercy has nothingtofear, is not entirely suitable, inasmuch as an objec-
rather that she confounds the terrors of the tive idea («piocs) Is thus converted into a sub-
judgment by her contidence with which she is jective (the terrors of the judgment).
CHAP. II. 14. 87
granted that the man may have faith without having works. Besides,
it is self-evident that James did not require to say that a faith, which one
has not, cannot save him. That it is not simply said ta» xiorw ree Eyn, is
explained from James’s lively mode of representation, by which he intro-
duces his opponent as appealing to his wicnc.!_ It is also incorrect to em-
phasize the want of the article before ziorw (Schneckenburger: recte articulo
caret = to have faith, qguum revera non habeat riv rior, ver. 1; ita omissio
articuli jam quodammado scriptoris pudicium est). The article is here wanting,
as is often the case in the N. T. where the word expresses something definite
in itself (thus Briickner), particularly when it is to be brought forward
according to its quality. Also ior must not be precisely explained as =
NUDA nofitia, or hardly = NuDA professio; for those whom James combats
could not possibly think that they by their faith possessed only the so-called
theoretical faith, but rather they considered it the whole and complete faith.
Also this faith was not defective in point of confidence, which Lange should
not have denied, for they thought to be saved thereby; although this was
not true confidence, but an empty reliance on Christ;? they indeed believed,
but they did not receive Christ in themselves as a principle of a new
life; the object of their faith remained to them purely external, and thus
they wanted those works which spring from living faith.* — épya de pu} Eyy].
Epya is here indeed entirely general, but according to the context those works
are meant which are proofs of living faith, by which the véyoc éAevdepiac is
fulfilled on the ground of ziorc. — After éyy a simple comma (Gebser) is not
to be put, but a note of interrogation; the verse contains two questions, the
second interrogative sentence yy divarus «.7.A., confirming the judgment con-
tained in the first, that it profits nothing to have faith without works.
Some expositors incorrectly put a special emphasis on the article before
motu (Bede : fides ILLA, quam vos habere dicitis; or, that faith which has no |
works; so also Lange). The article here has not vim pronominis demonstrativt,
but is used because there is a resumption of the previous idea (ziorc); see
chap. i. 3 and iv. 15. It is also incorrect to supply out of what goes before
the more precise definition of faith: quae non habetur revera sed dicitur tantum-
modo et jactatur (Theile), or to supply uévy (Pott), or to understand by ziore
here bare notitia. Recourse has been had to these explanations, because it
was thought that James otherwise denied to faith its saving power, which
is not to be assumed. But the force of airév has been overlooked. If this
pronoun be taken into consideration, it is evident that James does not affirm
geverally that faith cannot save, but that it cannot save him whose faith,
3 Adyn is the more appropriate, as a falth
without works, as James indicates io ver. 18,
is something which cannot be proved, of which
he who possesses it can only give information
by Aéyeey.
3 1t was otherwiee with them than with
those Christians who indeed considered the
teaching of the gospel aa true, and did not
doubt to be saved, but who rested their hopes
not on Christ as the object of faith, but on their
supposed righteousness, J.e., on their good
worka; for James entirely denies good works
to them, and never indicates that they appealed
to their supposed good conduct.
3 For the view here rejected, an appeal is
Incorrectly made to ver. 19, as those thought
to have in thelr faith the guaranty of their
owrnpia, whilst their faith only produced ¢pic-
oev to the demons.
88 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES,
on which he trusts, is destitute of works; for airév refers back to the subject
tr, that is, to the person whom James has introduced as speaking. — odca:],
as in i. 21, is used here of the attainment of future salvation; the expression
is explained from the fact that eternal condemnation belongs to sinful man
as such, and thus requires a deliverance in order to be saved. The idea
ournpia generally signifies in the N. T. the future salvation ; see besides other
passages, particularly 1 Thess. v. 8, where owrnpia is designated as the object
of tAnic. Certainly the present state of salvation of Christians may also
be called owrnpia, but it is evident from the connection with what precedes
that James has not that in view, but the complete salvation (against
Lange).
Vv. 15, 16. James illustrates the idea that faith is dependent for its
proof on works, otherwise if these are wanting it is dead and profits noth-
ing, by an example of compassion, which also, if without the corresponding
works, is dead and can profit nothing. The representation of this simili-
tude has the same form as the description of the case mentioned in vv. 2 and
8: first, the statement of the circumstances, and then of the conduct. The
particle dé (Lachmann, Tischendorf) is not merely transitional (metabasis,
Wiesinger), but is to be explained from the fact that in this verse the argu-
ment against the opponent brought forward commences (Schneckenburger,
De Wette). — Those requiring help are by the name ddeAgdc # ddeAgn charac-
terized as members of the Christian community, in order to bring out more
strongly the obligation to active assistance. — By the words yuuvol . . . rpogi¢
their destitute condition is described. There is no need to interpret yupwig
by male vestitus (Laurentius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneck-
enburger, De Wette, Theile, Wiesinger); it is rather nudus, naked, but is
certainly also so used when there is no absolute nakedness, but when the
clothing can hardly be considered as clothing. On Aeméyevor, see chap. i. 4, 5.
— égnpepoc}] in the N. T. az, Aey., is neither = diurnus (Morus: quod in unum
diem sufficit) nor = hodiernus (Hottinger); but 9 égjuepog rpopy is = 9 nad’
quépav dvayxaia rpoo7 (Pott, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger).
Ver. 16 describes the conduct towards those requiring help. — re 2 bye]
is to be taken generally, and is not, with Grotius, to be limited to those qui
Jfidem creditis sufficere ad salutem.— The address: indyere tv cipyvy] expresses
a friendly wish at departure; similar to mopebeode tv eipgvy, Acts xvi. 36;
Judg. xviii. 6. imayew ei¢ cipyrvqv (Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50, and other
places) is somewhat different, where eipjvn and irayew are not yet conceived
as united. — With 6epuaiveooe with reference to yuuvoi, warming by clothing
is specially to be thought of (see Job xxxi. 30; Hag. i. 6); but it is inac-
curate to explain the verb itself as equivalent to vestiri (Laurentius, Baum-
garten, Pott, Bengel, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile). — @epuaivecde and yopravecde
are not imperatives of the passive, aud to be taken in an optative sense
(Hottinger: utinam aliquis beneficens vobis vestimenta ctargiatur,; similarly,
Grotius, Morus, Theile), but imperatives of the middle: Warm yourselves,
satisfy yourselves ; only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite;
that they are not properly to be considered as commanding, but as exhort-
ing, is of itself evident. The plural ua dore dé is explained from é& byucv; ra
CHAP. II. 17, 18 89
&xerpdesa (En, Acy.) = ra dvayxaia;1 the things necessary for the support of the
body, namely, clothing and food. The question ri rd dgedog ; brings forward
that such a sympathy which is yupic épywy profits nothing, has no efficacy;
to this neither egentibus (Hottinger) nor dicentibus (Gomar, Baumgarten,
Semler) is to be supplied.
Ver. 17. Application of the similitude. The verse forms one sentence,
of which 4 xioze is the subject, and vexpa éoriv is the predicate; neither after
siotic (Pott) nor after tpya (Michaelis) is a colon to be put. After éxy the
idea continually (Baumgarten) is not to be supplied. ior has here the same
meaning as in ver. 14. — From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has
not works, it is evident that by these works is not meant something which
must be added to faith, but something which grows out of faith; the épya
here treated of are works of faith, in which are the germs of faith. vexpa is
here not to be explained by operibus destituta, but = inanima, equivalent to a
dead body ;2 correctly, De Wette: “dead, that is, without the power of life;
thus not primarily to be referred to its effects, but to be understood as its
internal nature;”’ however, James thus designates a faith without works
to prove that it ob divara: cdca: and oidév Goedeirat. — The more precise state-
ment x«aé’ éavr7v has been variously understood. Grotius considers it as
simply pleonastic; some critics separate it from vexpa and take xara =
against (Moller = xa’ éavric, 1.€., sibimet ipsi repugnat; Augusti: contra semet
ipsam); others unite it with mory (Knapp = fides sola; Baumgarten: “in
so far as faith is alone”). But «aé’ éavr#¢ belongs evidently, as its position
shows, to vexpa (De Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange). It 1s thus
emphatically stated that a faith without works is not only dead in reference
to something else, but dead in reference to itself. It serves for the intensifi-
cation of the idea vexpa, yet not so that by it the existence of a ior without
works was denied (against Schneckenburger).
Ver. 18. The words dAd’ épei re, with which this verse begins, apparently
introduce an objection, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35; by which under re a certain
one is to be considered as an opponent of the thought above expressed, who
with oi addresses James, and by xdyd denotes himself. But against this
explanation the sentiment itself is opposed; for as James reproaches those
against whom he argues, that they have indeed faith but not works, he could
not possibly put into the mouth of his opponent, that the same had works,
but he (James) had faith. The opinion of Pott, that od . . . xdyo = dAdog xal
dAdos, cannot be justified (so also Bouman: hic... ille). By that explana-
tion it would require to be said: od fpya fret, xdyd riorw Exw, namely, in the
sense: If thou place all stress on works, J am not the less entitled to place
all stress on faith. Kern attempts to remove the difficulty by taking the first
1 Gloes.: 7a wpds rpodhy apudéca; Suidas:
adoppua: cig roy Brow; see Herod., fi. 174; Thuc.,
11. 23; Cicero, OF.1. 8; *‘ necessaria vitae prae-
sidja."’
* The comparison of faith without works to
adead body is found among the old interpreters
tp such a manner that it formed a controversy
between Catholic and Protestant interpreters;
whilst Lorinus says: “ mortuum corpus rerum
corpus est, ut sine operibus et charitate tides,’’
Laurentius remarks: ‘‘sicut homo mortuus
non est verus homo, ita nec fides mortua vera
fides.”
90 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
sentence: od nlorw Exec, a8 a& hypothetical protasis, and the second, on the
other hand, xayd épya Eyw, as the apodosis, and explains it: “If thou hast
faith, so have I also works, because, as thou sayest, faith and works cannot
be separated.” But to this explanation is opposed not only the fact that
James has not, in what has gone before, properly expressed the inseparable-
ness of faith and works, but has only presupposed it; but also that the oppo-
nent should appeal to works, whilst James considers him as a person who
has no works.! With these difficulties it is not to be wondered at that
almost all expositors have decided for the view that 4/2’ épei r1¢ is not here
to be taken as the form of an objection, and that by r¢ not an opponent of
James is meant, but a “ vir sapiens et intelligens,” to whom Jaines assigns the
part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his opponent. Wrie-
singer: “dAA’ évei tee cannot here be possibly taken, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35,
Rom. ix. 19, as an objection, for, as od ziory éye already shows, the person
introduced as speaking is on the side of James, and like him combats faith
without works.” Accordingly, with ov the same opponent is addressed
whom Jaies had hitherto in view, and with xdyo the person called ru desig-
nates himself as agreeing with James. But against this explanation there
are many objections. 1. It cannot be denied that the words aaa’ épei reg have
most decidedly the character of an objection. 2. If they are not so under-
stood, then 4A’ is not only an interruption, but inexplicable; Hottinger,
indeed, maintains: dada hic non adversativum esse per se patet; but who will
agree with him in this? De Wette assumes that by dada here is expressed
not primarily the contrast with what immediately precedes, but with the
error already combated. Wiesinger has, however, correctly rejected this
opinion, which is the less to be justified “as the error has not yet been per
se expressed.” dAAd must at all events be referred to what directly precedes.
According to Schneckenburger, it refers ad negationem, quam nolitio vexpoc
involvil, quasi dictum foret: ista fides non est fides, SED dicat aliquis; but that
note, if it has not works, is not siore¢ at all, is so little the opinion of James
that Ife ascribes a morevew to the devils (ver. 19); vexpa is here arbitrarily
explained as = nulla, and not less arbitrarily is it observed on ziorw exe:
“interlocutor ad hominis errorem descendens fidem, quam profitetur, eum habere
SUMIT,” since James does not the least indicate that the words ov micriv évete
are to be understood in the sense: “I will even assume that thou hast faith.”
The opinion of several critics, that daAd is here (= quin etiam) “a correction
of the preceding judgment, heightening it” (Wiesinger), and indicates “that
the opinion that a faith without works is dead is here surpassed ” (Gunkel),
is of no avail, as the opinion contained in this verse on faith without works
is evidently not, as Briickner falsely thinks, stronger than that which is
expressed in ver. 17 with veapa éorw.? Accordingly, all attempts at the
1 The explanation of Knapp, that the first
words are Interrogative: ‘‘tune quia ipse fide
cares, propterea eam contemnis?’’ and to
which the answer ie then given: “immo vero
plus habeo, quam quantum tu et haber et pos-
tulas, Adem videlicet cum factis conjunctam,”’
is correctly relinquished by bimaelf, aa it is too
artificial to be considered as correct.
% Wiesinger observes: ‘‘ The person intro-
duced as speaking not only confirms what was
said before, but goes beyond ft; not only that
such a faith is dead, but that it cannot even
CHAP. II. 18. 91
explanation of dda do not attain their object. 8. With this explanation it
is entirely uncertain how far the speech of ri¢ extends, and where James
again resumes; and accordingly the greatest uncertainty here occurs among
expositors. 4. Lastly, it cannot be perceived why James should express
his own opinion in the person of another who is designated by the entirely
indefinite term re. Woiesinger and most expositors do not touch on this
point at all. Baumgarten thinks that James speaks here in the words of a
stranger, in order the better and the more freely to convey the notion of
erroneousness in severer terms. But this is a pure fiction; that James did
not shrink from expressing himself freely and strongly, the whole Epistle is
a proof.? These objections are too important to permit us in spite of them
to rest on the above explanation. But, on the other hand, the difficulties
which arise if GAA’ épet rg is taken as a form of objection appear to be invin-
cible. They are only so, however, when it is assumed that the person intro-
duced with ot as speaking means James, and with xd)é himself. But this
assumption is by no means necessary. Since James introduces ti as speak-
ing, 80 both words oi and «dys can be understood as well from the stand-
point of James as from that of the speaker; that is to say, that with ov the
opponent with whom James argues, and against whom he asserts that rior
without works is dead, is meant, and with éyd James himself. The meaning,
then, is as follows: But some might say in answer to what I have just
stated, defending thee,’ thou (who hast not the works) hast faith, and /, on
the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works; 4
my one-sided insisting on works is no more right than thy one-sided insiat-
ing on faith. By this explanation, which has nothing linguistically against
it, not only is the nature of dAA' épei re preserved, but it expresses a thought
entirely suited to the context, whilst the following words give the answer by
which this objection is decidedly repelled. This answer is in form not
directed to the person introduced as speaking, but to the opponent with
whom ouly James has properly to do, and whom he in his lively style can
prove its existence without worke: f¢ is noth-
ing.” But with these last words Wiesinger
inserts a thought into the words which they
by no means contain, the same thought which,
according to Schneckenburger, is coutained in
venpe «ort,
1 The pointing aAA, épat rie, ov «.T.A
(Schulthess, Gebser, Rauch), does in no way
remove the difficulty, and has also this against
it, that the closely-united formula add’ épet re¢
is thus disunited.
3 Lange thinks to remove the difficulty by
ascribing to the words ‘a grand prophetical
character,” whilat by ms is meant “the Gen
tile-Cbhristian world,” which has proved ‘ by
its works of faith that it has had the true faith,
whereas Ebionism, with Its want of consistency
in Christian works of love, has proved that its
orthodoxy was not a living faith." But, apart
trom the arbitrariness of this interpretation,
aAAa is by it referred not to the preceding dec-
laration, but falsely to the erroneous opinion
of ree (ver. 14).
§ Tho view of Stier, that by the speaker a
Pharisaical Jew is to be understood, who takes
occasion from the inoperative faith of Chris-
tians to mock the Christian faith in general,
has been rightly rejected by Wiesinger. If
James had meant by res a Jew, he would have
called him such.
¢ This is a form of expression which fre-
quently occurs. Thue, ff one speaks with
Charles, and saya to him: Henry says thou
hast found the book which I have lost. Briick-
ner, indeed, thinks that this example is not
appropriate, but he does not give his reasone
for saying so. Lange calls the explanation
here given artificial, but he does not say in
what {te artificial character consists. The ob
jections which Lange brings against it are
founded on his having read erruneously de-
fending himself instead of defending thee.
92 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
now the more directly address, as the objection made was the expression of
his soul. The meaning of this answer is as follows: Hast thou actually,
as that person says, faith, —if this is to be of use it must manifest itself,
but this without works is impossible; thou canst not even show thy faith
without works: as for myself, who have works, these are a proof that faith
is not wanting, for without faith I could do no works. On deigfov, Schnecken-
burger correctly remarks: vide ne verbo tribuas significationem EXHIBENDI ET
MANIFESTANDI (PER VITAM), Sed retine primam et simplicem COMPROBARI quasi
ante judicem. — rv riotw cov is said because the opponent ascribed faith to
himself (ver. 14); thus “the faith which thou sayest thou hast ” (Wiesinger).
— With the reading of the Rec., éx r. &pywy (instead of yupic rév épywv), the
words are to be taken as ironical (so also Lange), as the supposition is that
works are wanting to him. — With these words not faith generally, but liv-
ing faith which saves, is denied to the opponent; if the same is not proved
by works, it is dead. —In what James says of himself, pya are the we-ks
which proceed from faith, as these could not otherwise authenticate it. It
is to be observed that in the first clause rv zicrw, and in the second é« trav
Epywv, stand first, because these ideas are the points on which the whole
turns. |
Ver. 19. James shows, in the faith of demons, with whom it produces
trembling, how little faith without works effects salvation. With ov morevet,
which is not, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be taken as a question, it
is granted to the opponent that he possesses faith. From the fact that what
is specifically Christian is not named as the object of faith, it is not to be
inferred, with Calvin, that in this entire section not the Christian faith (de
fide) is spoken of, but only de vulgari Dei notitia. Expositors correctly
assume that this one article of faith is only adduced as an example. The
selection of precisely this article on the unity of God is not to be explained
because “the Jewish Christians were particularly proud of it, so that it
kept them back from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith ”
(Lange), but because it distinguished revealed religion from all heathenism.
However much the position of the individual words vary (see critica] notes),
yet the unity of God appears in all as the chief idea; comp. particularly,
Deut. vi. 4; Neh. ix. 6; Isa. xliv. 6, xlv.6; Matt. xxiii. 9; Mark xii. 29, 32;
Rom. iii, 30; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 6; and, in this Epistle, chap. iv. 12. In Her-
mas, i. 2, Mand. 1, it is said: mpdrov ravrwy zicrevoov, Sti elg gor 6 Gedc. — De
Wette, with whom Philippi coincides, thinks that by the construction with
5rx the faith which the opponent has is characterized as merely theoretical ;
but it is, on the other hand, to be observed, that a construction with ei¢ or
here, where the unity of God is to be adduced, could hardly have been used
(so also Briickner). — James grants, by the words «add roic, that this faith
is something in itself entirely good (see ver. 8). Several expositors, as
Calvin, Semler, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman,
find in the expression a trace of irony, which others, as Laurentius, Baum-
garten, Grotius, Pott, Gebser, De Wette, deny. Though not in the state-
ment by itself, yet in the whole expression there is something ironical
(Lange, Briickuer), which, in the combination of xcrevovow kai gpiccovow (aa
CHAP. II. 20, 21. 93
Wieseler remarks), rises to sarcasm. This sarcasm is, moreover, to be
recognized in demons being placed in opposition to the opponent. — «al
before ra dasuévea is not to be explained by aAd xai (Pott), or atqui (Theile);
by the insertion of a contrary reference the peculiar severity of the expres-
sion is only weakened. That James, in his reference to the unity of God,
mentions the demons, is in accordance with the view that the heathen divin-
ities are demons; comp. LXX. Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. xcv. 5, cv. 87; 1 Cor.
x. 20; and Meyer in loco: As these are the occasion of polytheism, so they
are hostilely opposed to the one God; but, in their usurped lordship over
the heathen world, they tremble before the one God, who will again rescue
the world and judge them. It is wholly arbitrary to take rd dacudva = dae-
moniaci (3Vetstein), or to think on the demons in the possessed (Semler,
Gebser, Schneckenburger). Pott incorrectly paraphrases the xai between
miorevovay and gpiccova: by xa? duwc; the simple copulative meaning of the
word need not here be altered. ¢piccev, an Gm. Aey., is used particularly of
the hair standing on end (Job iv. 15), and is therefore a stronger expression
than dedoccévas and rpéuecy.
Ver. 20 introduces the following proof from Scripture, that faith without
works is dead, and accordingly cannot have dixaovofac as its consequence.
The questjon 6Astc d2 yvova: expresses the confident assurance of victory over
the opponent; the address & dvépuxe xevé, deep indignation at him. xevo¢
does not here indicate intellectual defect (Baumgarten = stupid, incapable
of thinking; Pott = short-sighted), but the want of true intrinsic worth, in
opposition to the imaginary wealth which the opponent fancies he possesses
in his dead -faith. The word is only here used in the N. T. of persons.
The ©, placed first, which is frequently used in reproof, —see Matt. xvii. 17;
Luke xxiv. 25; Rom. ix. 20 (Winer, p. 165 [E. T., 183]), — intensifies the
censure. The thought is essentially the same whether vexpd or dpy7 is read.
— dpyér], equivalent to idle, vain, that which profits and effects nothing,’ is
also used of a capital sum which lies idle, and therefore bears no interest,
thus is adead capital. Not because dpyf “deserves the preference with a
view to the sense” (Wiesinger), but only because it is difficult to consider
it as a gloss, is it to be considered — against the authorities which testify
for vexpa (see critical note) —as the original reading. — As yupic rov Epyuv
stands here instead of éav yu) epya Exy (ver. 17), the article 4 is not to be
supplied before zupic (against Beza, Baumgarten, and others).
Ver. 21. The testimony to which James first appeals is what happened
to Abraham. The reference to Abraham is completely explained from his
historical importance, and which is also indicated by 6 rarip qudv. — pov]
because both James and his readers belonged to the nation of Israel sprung
from Abraham. By the question with od the thought is characterized as
such to which all — thus all the opponents — must assent: Was not Abraham
our father justified by works? The participial sentence which follows declares
what works procured for him justification: when he offered Isaac his son upon
3 I¢ ie inaccurate to take dpyds as equivalent the conduct of the subject. They are united
to dzagwos (Frank: unproductive); an thie in- together not as identical, but only as related,
G@iestes the condition, tAat, on the contrary, ideas, in 2 Pet, 1. 8.
94 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the altar ? — The reference to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and especially
to his declaration in Rom. iv. 1 ff., has misled expositors into many arbitrary
explanations of this verse, and particularly of the word édcaaw6n. In order
to have a sure foundation for interpretation, two things are to be examined,
— (1) the context, and (2) the linguistic usage. (1) As regards the context,
the question treated in this whole section is, How the Christian is saved ;?
comp. the question in ver. 14: pd divara: 9 riots cdoat airov; and the connec-
tion of that section with the preceding, where the discourse is about the
divine judgment (ver. 12: xpivecdar; ver. 13: 9 xpiow). As James appeals
to Abraham for his assertion that faith without works cannot save, it is evi-
dent that by éd:xasi07 he cannot mean something which happened to Abra-
ham from himself, but only something which happened to him from God;
so that the meaning cannot be “ Abraham justified himself by his works,”
but only that ‘God justified him on the ground of his works.”? (2) As
regards the linguistic usage, d:xaoiy corresponds to the Hebrew p‘t¥"1,
which, as a judicial term, has the meaning : to declare one P'T¥ by an acquittal
from guilt, and is opposed to PWV (LXX.: xaraynvdcnev, xaraduadfev) = to
declare one YW by a sentence of condemnation; comp. Exod. xxiii.7; Deut.
xxv. 1; 1 Kings viii. 82; 2 Chron. vi. 23; Prov. xvii. 15; Isa. v. 23, 1. 8,
liii. 11; in the Apocrypha, comp. Ecclus. x. 29, xiii. 22, xxiii. 11, xxxiv. 5,
xlii. 2. dixatcotv has also the same meaning in the N. T., where, especially
(besides the passages treating of the Pauline doctrine of justification),
Matt. xii. 37, Rom. ii. 13, Luke xviii. 14 are to be compared. This
judicial meaning of the word is here to be retained. It is true, as dixawiv
(similarly the English word “to justify”) occurs not only in the judicial
sense, but, also more generally, as also p"?¥‘J, in the sense “set forth as
righteous” ® (comp. Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 29; Rom. iii. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16),
the passage has been explained: “ Abraham has been proved righteous,” or,
“has proved himself righteous” (so already Calvin, and, in recent times,
Philippi). But this explanation is unsuitable, since, according to this view,
justification did not happen to Abraham from God (as must be conceived
according to the context), but from his works; thus it was Abraham who
1 Philippi erroneously matfntains that the
question here treated is to prove that faith
has to manifest iteelf by works if it is to be
regarded as true faith. But James designates
the faith of his opponents as vexpa, not merely
because it has no works, but because it can-
not effect the cwrypa which they expected
from it.
3 Correctly, Wiesinger: “In ¢é&:xacw6n the
passive senee is decidedly to be retained, and,
indeed,a Deo ...; not of the human judg-
ment is the discourse here and {n ver. 23, but
of the divine; as it treats of the proposition in
ver. 14, that only an active faith can save.”
This is the more to be maintained, as the
thought, that faith has to justify iteelf before
men as living, is 80 void of importance that
James could not lay such stress upon it.
3 This is the prevailing meaning of p't¥it,
which !s differently modified according to the
different circumstances to which it is referred.
It is chiefly used of a judicial sentence, whether
of God or of a human judge, by which one is
declared D°"1¥ ; yet it aleo occurs in another
reference, namely, of every agency which
causes ope to appear as righteous, whether
that agency is exercised by the peraon in ques-
tion or by others. Tho N. T. dcxacovy corre-
sponds to this usage. Strictly taken, it is
accordingly not correct to translate dcacouy
by ‘‘ proved to be righteous,”’ or “ approved to
be .righteous,” as the ideas proving and ap-
proving, according to their proper and strict
meaning, are not contained in it. Comp., how.
ever, the excellent treatment of the word ia
Cremer’s dictionary.
CHAP. II. 21. 95 ©
justified himself by his works, i.e., proved himself to be righteous.’ If we
hold fast to the judicial meaning, then it is to be observed that, in the aon-
ception of the word, neither any thing about the disposition of him who is the
object of the declaration of righteousness, nor about the ground of justification
(whether it rests in the judge or in the conduct of him who is justified), is
indicated. For this reason the explanation of Wiesinger: a Deo justus
agnitus, is incorrect, as the idea of a ratifying recognition of the already exist-
ing condition is not contained in the word. As little is it to be vindicated
when Hofmann thinks that d:xaotoda here imports: “to become a dixatoc,
inasmuch as he then answered to the will of God relating to him;” for, on
the one hand, by this a meaning (namely, being made a righteous person)
is ascribed to the word which it has not; and, on the other hand, no one
can make himself a righteous person by his works, but only can prove him-
self to be such.? James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared
_righteous (by God) é Epyur. By i& Epywv the reason is specified, on Abraham’s
part, on account of which a declaration of righteousness was granted to him.
By these works are to be understood not ali the works which Abraham has
done, nor his whole pious life, but, as the clause dvevéyxag ’Ioadx, x.7.., Shows,
the actual offering of his son Isaac on the altar. The plural é§ fpywv is used
because the category, at first entirely general, is specified which here comes
into consideration. It may appear surprising that James here should em-
phasize precisely that offering as the reason of the declaration of righteous-
ness, since in the O. T. narrative (Gen. xxii.) & ducawtcda of Abraham is not
mentioned. What James has in view is not “the judgment of God there;
Gen. xxii. 12 comp. with ver. 16 ff.” (Wiesinger); for in these words, which,
moreover, only serve as an introduction to the declaration which follows,
nothing is addressed to Abraham, but only it is testified of him that God in
his action has recognized his fear of God. Not in this, but only in what
God addresses to him on account of it, because He has recognized him as a
God-fearing man, can James have found the declaration of Abraham's right-
1 Philipp! explains the words: Abraham
was justified before men by works, asa justi-
Jed man before God by faith. But here there _
are evidently introduced Into the idea &xa:ovec-
6a: a series of more precise statemente which
are not contained in it. The explanation of
Brtickner is simpler, who considers é&:«a:00y
to indicate: “that moral righteousness which
displays itself on the ground of the activity of
faith ;’’ but also this interpretation is not to be
considered correct for the reasons above stated.
The unsuiltableness of this’'and aimilar interpre-
tations ie particularly evident from ver. 24. It
is also to be observed, that in these explana-
tions the passive is converted into the middle
voice. In the O. T., it le true, the hithpael of
TY 1s translated in the LXX. by the preterite
passive of &ixecotvy (see Gon. xiiv. 16); but in
the N. T. the passive of this verb never occurs
in this meaning: the middle import is here
rather expressed by the active with the reflex
pronoun; comp. Luke x. 29, xvi. 15.
3 The following explanations are also incor.
rect: ‘‘he was loved as a righteous man”
(Grotius); ‘‘he was made a partaker of the
favor of God and of all the blessings springing
from it’’ (Theile); ‘‘ his justification was rat!-
fied by man” (Baumgarten). The translation:
‘‘he was pardoned” (Pott), ie inaccurate, be-
cause the idea of pardon always supposes a
crime, which &«atovy does not, Also the ex-
planation of Lange is arbitrary: 8c«casotr, in
the N. T. deeper sense, denotes that “God
declares righteousness in the theocratical fo-
rum before the theocratical congregation con-
ceived as permanent ;" for how can the precise
statement be contained in the simple verbal
idea, before whom the declaration of righteous-
ness was made?
96 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
eousness. This is the bestowal of the promise (vv. 16-18) by which it is
expressly said, “because thou hast done this thing” (ver. 16), and “ because
thou hast obeyed my voice” (ver. 18); by which is definitely brought for-
ward that the promise was granted on account of his obedience — that is,
on account of his works. What importance, with regard to the promise, the
obedience of Abraham had in the eyes of God, is clearly brought out from
Gen. xxvi. 5, where God ratifies this same promise with Isaac in these
words: ‘“ Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my
commandinents, my statutes, and my laws;” and not less is it to be observed
when it is said in Ecclus. xliv. 20: d¢ cuvergpnoev vouov bpiorov . . . xal év met
pacug ebpéOn mardg: 6:2 tovTo ty Spxy ~orynoev aire, «.7.A. It is true that the same
promise was made to Abraham at an earlier period, and that before he had
done any thing (Gen. xii. 2, 3); but the difference is, that after the offering
of his son it was imparted to nim as an inalienable blessing on account of this
action, and that at the close of his theocratic historical life. In this James
could rightly recognize a formal declaration of Abraham's righteousness on °
the part of God. —On the construction édecas6n éx, comp. Matt. xii. 37: éx
TOY Adywy aov dixawOjop, Where the Acyo are reckoned as that on the ground of
which acquittal (or condemnation) takes place. — The words: dvevéyxac .. .
él rd Gvotactipiov | are not, with Luther, to be translated: “ when he had sacri-
ficed his son upon the altar;” for dvagépew joined with éxi, with the accu-
sative, is not to sacrifice, but to bring as a sacrifice to the altar (comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 24); it is therefore incorrect to supply the idea will (Estius: cum obtulisset
= offere voluisset). Hottinger falsely explains én? r. Ovo. = before the altar.
To the name ‘loaax is emphatically added rdv vid» abrov; comp. Gen. xxii. 16.
Ver. 22. The direct inference from the preceding. Since the necessity
of faith to the attainment of salvation was not contested by those with whom
James disputed, but only the necessity of works; and since James (ver. 21)
had adduced the example of Abraham to prove that only a faith which is
not dpy7 and yupic ray Epywy profits: in this verse it can only be intended to
represent how important to Abraham were his works, but not how important
to him was his faith. This thought is thus clearly and evidently expressed
in the second hemistich: xa? éx rév Epyuv, «.t.A, On the other hand, the first
hemistich : 6re 4 niorie ovvapyet rol¢ Epyore atro’, has been generally understood
by expositors as if the necessity of faith was intended to be brought forward.
In this meaning Bengel says: duo commata, quorum in priore, si illud, FIDES,
tn altero OPERIBUS cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipitur, qua
exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat. According to this, James would
have expressed in the first hemistich, that faith was not wanting to Abra-
ham, that rather it was this from which his works sprung, that accordingly
Abraham was justified t§ pywy, because they were works of faith. The same
explanation is given by Erasmus, Tremellus, Beza, Baumgarten, Gebser,
Pott, Kern, and others; also by Hofmann and Wiesinger. But the context
is against it, as this thought does not follow as a consequence from ver. 21.
Those expositors have accordingly understood the passage more correctly
who find in the words in question the meaning that the iors of Abraham
was not dead but operative; Estius: operosa fuit, non otiosa, non mortua (80
CHAP. II. 23. 97
Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, and others), although their interpretation
is inaccurate in particulars. — ovvjpye}. If cvvepyeiy is taken in its strictly
literal sense: “to be a ovvepyér, to labor or to work along with” (1 Cor. xvi.
16; 2 Cor. vi. 1), and is translated: “faith wrought with his works,’’ the
idea of James (according to the usage of the word ovvepyeiy in this meaning)
would be, that whilst works wrought, faith participated in their work.}
But this thought does not correspond with the context, and is, moreover,
not in itself to be vindicated, since faith and works are not two principles
working along with one another. — Kern, with whom De Wette coincides,
takes roic Epyor as the dative of reference, and explains it: “faith wrought
to his works, i.e., was the operative principle for the production of works.”
This gives, indeed, a suitable enough thought, but linguistic usage is against
the explanation ; besides, it is not the case that “ovv has only a vague refer-
ence, or, to speak more correctly, no reference at all” (Hofmann). On this
account other interpreters, as Hofmann, Wiesinger, Briickner, also Philippi,
correctly take cuvepyeiv here in the meaning of: to help (Rom. viii. 28; 1
Macc xii. 1). The support which faith gave to works is to be found in
this, that as it operates to their production, so also to their accomplishment
in correspondence with the will of God.* By this explanation a special
emphasis is placed on the expression ovvfpye, it being thereby brought
prominently forward that the faith of Abraham was not dpyd¢ (d-epyoc), but
exercised an activity, namely, the activity mentioned as helpful to works.
Against Lange’s explanation: “faith manifested itself operatively at one
with the works,” besides not being linguistically justified, Briickner rightly
remarks that here the discourse is not concerning a co-operation of these
two points. — The second hemistich is not in antithesis with the first, but
constitutes its complement; whilst the faith of Abraham aided his works,
faith itself received by works its completion. — éreAewon] is by many inter-
preters understood as declarative; Gomarus: FIDES est causa, OPERA effectus ;
causa autem non perficitur a suo effectu, sed perfecta DECLARATUR, tt fructus
boni arborem bonam NON EFFICIUNT, sed INDICANT. The same explanation
is adopted by Calvin, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Gebser, Bengel, Philippi,®
and others. Also Wiesinger indicates the same meaning with the remark:
“faith could not be proved complete if it were not already so in itself, for
the complete work presupposes the complete faith ;" but reAcoioGa: does not
1 In the first edition of this commentary it
is said: ‘ Faith was the cvvepyd¢ of his worke
—that is, it operated not by iteelf, but with
hie works. James will here make prominent
that with Abraham both were combined, the
emphasis, however, acoording to the context,
being placed on rois gpyors.”” This explanation,
which has found favor with von Oettingen and
Rauch, is, however, not tenable, as, on the one
hand, linguistic usage is against jt, and on the
other hand, it was not insisted on by James
that the faith of Abraham wrought not alone,
but that it was no inactive (inoperative)
faith.
* The explanation of Hofmann (with whom
Wiesinger and Briickner coincide) : ‘that his
action would not have been what le represented
in an act of willing obedience, unjeses faith had
asalsted to ite performance,” has this against
it, that the principal thought would not there.
by be expressed, but muet be added. Philippi,
correctly: Abraham's faith was no inert faith,
but was helpful to his works, namely, to their
production and accomplishment; f.e., it as-
sisted bim to the performance of good worke.
§ Philippi incorrectly appeals for this
meaning to I John ii, 5, and to évec@e in
Luke vi. 35.
et Oe
98 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
signify to be proved, but to be completed.!_ Certainly the meaning of James
cannot be, that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by works, as some-
thing which was externally added to faith, since faith is the impulse to the
works; but as little is it his meaning, that faith is already complete (réActoc)
before works, and is by works only proved or demonstrated to be so; but
faith and works are in his view so closely connected, that faith only when
it produces works or by works (¢& fyywv) becomes ever more completely that
which it should be according to its nature and destination, and in so far
only by works attains to its completion; for as the power of love grows and
is completed by the practice of works of love, so does faith grow and is com-
pleted by the practice of works in which it manifests itself.2 Thus was
Abraham's faith only completed when he stood the severest test, and brought
his son as an offering upon the altar.®
Ver. 23. Since what was said of Abraham in the preceding appears to
conflict with the Scripture, Gen. xv. 6, James was obliged to solve this appar-
ent contradiction; therefore he adds to what he has said: and (thus) the
scripture was fulfilled which says, But Abraham believed God, and it was reck-
oned to him for riyhieousness; and he was called a friend of God. Most
expositors (also von Oettingen) explain mrAnpoiv by comprobare, confirmed,
and find here the thought expressed, that by Abraham being justified é€
Epywy, the scripture: “that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous-
ness,” received its confirmation. But in this explanation of the word rAnpooy
there is an arbitrary weakening of the idea. sAnpoiw signifies neither in the
N. T. nor in classical usage: “to confirm,” but always “to fulfil” (see
Cremer); with regard to a saying, the realization of the thought expressed
in it by an action following is indicated by rAnpotv, whether that saying be
in the form of a prediction or not. This meaning of the verb is also here
to be recognized, and indeed so much the more as James uses the formula
1 Also Hofmann’s explanation: * The rede.
wows Of his faith consiated not in this, that {it
attained from incompleteness to completeness,
but in this, that by the action, in which it
proved itself, it attained to its complete forma-
tion —to its historical accomplishment,” can-
not be reckoned as appropriate, because reAe-
ovcGa: never means “‘ to be completely formed,”
if by this expression a becoming complete fe
not intended. Lange agrees with the above
remark, only he introduces something strange
when he says: “‘ Abraham by his faith-offering
attained typically and ideally the reAeiwacs,
which the Jewish Christians were to attain by
the full proof of Christian brotherly love out
of faith, and which with them all Israel was to
attain.’’
2 Luther (in his introduction to Firat Peter,
published by Irmischer, vol. Ixx. p. 223 f.) says
of the fruits of faith: ‘* Although they belong
to our neighbor, that he may be profited there-
by, yet the fruit is not external — faith becomes
.etronger thereby. It is an entirely different
ere
strength than that of the body, for this decays
and is consumed; but this sptritual strength,
the more one uses and exercises it, the stronger
it becomes; it decays when one does not exer-
cise it.” See also the appropriate remarks
of Hengstenberg (Zvang. Kirchens., 1866, p.
1124 ff.).
8 When it is objected againet this explana.
tion, that faith must already have been perfect
in order to produce the perfect work, it is to
be observed, that it is in the nature of living
faith always to be becoming stronger, in and
with the production of works, and thus to per
fect itself in its nature more and more. Brlick-
ner, indeed, grante that the practice of works,
has a strengthening reficx efficacy on faith,
but observes that by this cannot be meant that
faith was not before already sufficient to jus-
tify Abraham. But to thie it is to be obeerved,
that James does not derive the justification
(meant by him) of Abraham from his faith
preceding works, but from his faith made per-
fect by works.
CHAP. II. 23. 99
with which not only in the N. T. but also in the O. T. (1 Kings 1). 27;
2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; 1 Mace. ii. 55) generally the fulfilment of a proper pre-
diction, and always the real proof of an earlier spoken thought, is expressed.
— The scripture which was fulfilled is Gen. xv. 6, where it is said not only
that Abraham believed Jehovah, but that He (Jehovah) reckoned it to him
for righteousness. James (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6; see also
1 Macc. ii. 52) cites the passage according to the LXX., where the passive
Hoyio#n is used instead of the active NIWNM; whilst he only deviates from the
Greek text in this, that he (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3) uses émiorevoev dé
instead of xai éxicrevoev; it is to be observed that in the corresponding pas-
eace, Ps. cvi. 31, the passive IYMM is also in the Hebrew. — Instead of the
expression used in these passages, the form: 117’ "309 npy 1? THA, is also
found in the OQ. T. Deut. xxiv. 13 and vi. 25 (where the LXX. incorrectly
translate MPT¥ by éAenuvcivn). The contrary of this is indicated by the
expression : m99p 5 39M, Prov. xxvii. 14. — All these expressions import
a judgment which God pronounces to Himself on a definite conduct of man,
by which He either reckons it for righteousness or for a curse; with Abra-
ham it was his faith on account of which God declared him a righteous per-
son. — But in what does James see the fulfilment of this scripture, that
testifies this judgment of God on believing Abraham? Evidently in what
he had already said, namely, that Abraham é& fpywv édixati6n, and which he
indicates by what follows: xa? gidog Oeov éxAnGn; for these words — since they
belong not to the scripture —are co-ordinate not with xai ¢Aoyicdn, but with
wal inAnpodn,«.7.A. It is true God regarded Abraham as His gido¢ (¢iAoc Ocod
is not, as Hofmann and Philippi think, God's friend who loved God, but
God’s friend whom God loved) the instant he reckoned his faith to him for
righteousness; but he was called so at a later period, namely, only at the
time that he was declared righteous by God on account of his works. The
expressions éAoyioén atte el¢ dinasootvyy and éd:xars6n are not regarded by James
as equivalent, but according to his representation the former was imparted
to Abraham purely on account of his faith (éricrevcev), but the latter only
when his faith was completed by works, thus on account of his works (é
Epywv), 80 that thereby that scripture was fulfilled. It is true this scripture
is abstractly no promise; but as it notifies facts which point to later actions
in which they received their full accomplishment, James might consider it
as a word of promise which was fulfilled by the occurrence of these later
actions.2— The appellation of Abraham as a gitoc Ocod is not indeed found
in the LXX.; but in 2 Chron. xx. 7, Jehoshaphat calls him in his prayer
qa (LXX.: 6 Fyaxnpévoc cov), and in Isa. xli. 8 God Himself calls him ‘37k
(LXX. ; év fyarnoc); comp. also Ges. Asar., v. 11: da "ABpadp tov Hyamnpévov
6nd ovd; also it was not unusual for the Jews to call him gido¢ Gent; to Gen.
xviii. 17, the LXX. have added to dd 'A@padu the words rob maidéc pov, for
4 Lange comprehends both; but at all events, obedience, and the divine reckoning of his
according to the context, the reference given faith for righteousness points to the declara-
abdore is to be recognized as the prevailing one. tion of righteousness imparted to him by God
® Namely: the faith with which Abraham ata later period after proof of his obedience.
recelved the promise of God points to the later
wee
100 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
which Philo puts rod ¢idov uov. It is evident from what has preceded, that
we cannot, with Grotius, Hornejus, Pott, and others, explain éxA76n = factus
est, fuit.
REMARK. — When De Wette explains tAnpoty by realized, this is so far inap-
propriate, as Anpoty does not directly refer to the fact itself, but to the saying
of scripture, and as neither of mgrevey of Abraham, nor of éAoyic6y abra eic¢ dux.,
can it be said that it ‘‘was something not yet wholly real, but the full realiza-
tion of which occurred only at a later period.’ For although both point to a
later period, yet there was in them something which had actually taken place,
as Lange correctly adduces. Hofmann also gave an incorrect reference to the
word, explaining it: ‘‘In the offering of Isaac it was proved that God had
rightly estimated the faith of Abraham when He counted it for righteousness;”’
for, on the one hand, there was no need of a proof that God had rightly esti-
mated something, of which there is no indication in James, and, on the other
hand, 7Anpovv has not the meaning of confirming or proving.! In opposition to
the explanation of Philippi: ‘‘the scriptural expression concerning Abraham’s
justification by faith was, because His justification by faith is in itself a thing
invisible as it were, an unfulfilled prophecy, until it became visible through
proof by works,”’ it is, apart from the unjustifiable insertion of ‘‘as it were,’’
to be observed that Abraham’s act of obedience, happening at a later period,
confirmed indeed his faith (thus that énicrevoev ro Gep), but not the righteous-
ness adjudged to him on account of his faith (that éAoyic6n av7@ ei¢ dux.), and
accordingly étAnpwéy would be suitable only for the first half of the scriptural
expression. It is peculiar that, according to the explanation of Philippi, the
same meaning: ‘‘to be proved,’’ is in essence ascribed to the three words —
dcxarodvobat, tedevovobat, TAnpovabat,
Ver. 24. An inference universally valid from the adduced example of
Abraham: “Ye see that by works a man ts justified (declared righteous), and
not by faith alone.” — édpare] is not imperative (Erasmus, Grotius), but indic-
ative; Griesbach, Schott, Schulthess, incorrectly understand the sentence as a
question, which it is as little as in ver. 22. — é& &pywv] is emphatically placed
first, because the chief stress is upon it. — denacovrac] has the same meaning
as in ver. 21. James thus infers from the foregoing that the declaration
of man’s righteousness proceeds éf fpyuv, and, with special reference to his
opponents, he adds: otx ix micrews uovov.2 The chief emphasis is on pévor;
for as little as James in ver. 14 has not said that faith cannot save (adca:),
so little will he here say that a man is not justified é« micrews (rather ior is
1 Also in Brtickner’e explanation: ‘‘ Both
the fact that Abraham belleved God, and that
his faith was reckoned to him by God for
righteousness, was confirmed and proved in
the offering of Ieaac, leading to this that Abra-
ham é€ épywy é8:ca:wOn,’’ the idea rAnpovy re-
ceives not ite right meaning. Lange has here
in easentiale adopted the correct meaning.
2 Philippi, according to his explanation of
d8txaww6n, ver. 21, muet find here the thought
expressed, that ‘faith alone without works
cannot prove a man before men to be a believer,
and justified by faith; *’ but this thought fs fn
fact so self-evident, that James would not have
thought it necessary to state it as a consequence
from the history of Abraham. The idea op-
posed to ¢f épywy should not be é« micrews, but
must be éx Adyww (comp. Adyn, ver. 14); more-
over, the simple &cacovrac av@pwwos cannot
possibly denote: ‘a man {fe justified as a be-
liever whom God, on account of his faith, has
justified.”
CHAP. II. 25 101
to him the presupposition, without which the attainment of salvation cannot
be conceived, as without it the ipya, é& ov dcxasodra: dvOpwxog are impossible);
but that the faith which justifies must not be yupic rev épywv. dvov is there-
fore not to be united with oi« (Theile: appositionis lege explenda est oratio: non
solum fide, sed eliam operibus , . . nempe cum fide conjungendis), but with
xiorews (Theophylact, Grotius, Knapp, Hottinger, Wiesinger, and others) ;
comp. 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xi. 23; Gal. i. 23; Phil. i. 26. The declara-
tion of righteousness, which James intends, is not that by which the believer
on account of his faith receives the forgiveness of his sins, but, as is evident
from the connection of the whole section, that which occurs to the believer,
who has proved his living faith by his works, at the judgment (é 179 «pice,
éy ro xpiveoc6a), and by which he receives owrnpia (ver. 14). When James,
in reference to this, appeals to what happened to Abraham, there is nothing
unsuitable, for why should not that which God has done in a definite instance
be regarded as a type and testimony of what He shall do at the future judg-
ment? Moreover, this is completely appropriate, since to Abraham, by the
address to him after the offering of Isaac, the promise which was before
made to his faith, was rendered unchangeably firm at the close of his theocratic
life. The present duawira is explained, because the thought was to be ex-
pressed as a universal sentence.
Ver. 25. To the example of Abraham, that of Rahab is added : But. was
not in like manner Rahab the harlot justified by works? The form of the sen-
tence is the same as in ver. 21. — duoiuc dé xai] does not signify “even so” (as
Frommann explains it in the Stud. u. Krit., 1833, p. 97), but by duoiwe the
similarity of what Rahab became a partaker with what happened to Abraham
is brought forward, whilst by dé the diversity of the relation is indicated.
This diversity is noted by the addition 7 mdépv7. Rahab, namely, was a
ropvy; nevertheless, on account of the works which she did (namely, her
works of faith), she was declared righteous. Thus, by the addition of this
example, the truth that a man is justified é¢ pyw» is yet further confirmed.?
1 Bee remarke by the author fn the April
number of the Erlang. Zeitschrift fir Protest.
Frank, in his repiy (in the same, p. 220), com
bating the reference of &«acovrac to the final
judgment, saye ‘If there was in the life of
Abraham a justification by works, which may
be considered as the type and testimony of the
final acquittal, so there occurs also io the life of
Christians such acts of justification by works,
that they may aleo be regarded as a testimony
and type of their future justification before the
judgment-seat of God.” To this it is to be
replied, that such an act of Justification is here
treated of by which the accounting of his faith
for righteousnese already imparted to the be.
Hever comes to ite termination, as was here
the case with Abraham. But this act, as con-
cerns Christian believers, occurs not in their
earthly fife, but cnly at the judgment. Philippi
also incorrectly says that the reference to the
judgment {is not indicated, sinco it is suffictently
indicated by the whole context; see remarks
on ver. 14.
2 Bede assigns as a reason why Rahab is
here adduced as an example: ‘‘ne quis obji-
cerect Abrahamum ejusque fidem exceleiorem
ease, quam et quivis cbristianus imitatione eam
adsequl possit.’’ Grotius thinke. ‘‘ Abraham!
exemplum Hebraels ad Chrietum conversis
sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis
ecribit, adjunxit exemplum feminae extraneae”
(similarly Hofmann); and Schneckenburger
obeerves: ‘“novum additur exemplum e sexu
muliebri sumtum” All these meanings are,
however, arbitrary, as there ia no indication of
them in the words before us. This holds aleo
good against Lange, according to whose opin-
ion Rahab is here to be considered ‘as a rep.
resentative of the Gentile Christians in thelr
works of faith.”
102 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
The article 7 is not, ag some expositors think, demonstrative illa; and moprq
means neither mulier cibaria vendens, nor caupona vel hospita (Lyranus, Gro-
tius), nor idololatra (Rosenmiiller). — vrodefayévn rod dyyéAouc, x.7.A.]. This
participial sentence mentions the épya on account of which Rahab was jus-
tified. ‘The correctness of the assertion, that Rahab was justified on account
of her works, consists in this: that, according to the narrative contained in
Josh. ii. and vi., life was on account of them granted to her, she was formally
delivered from that punishment which befell Jericho; see Josh. vi. 24.
Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what was said in ver.
24 to this fact, since also the future declaration of righteousness will be an
acquittal from punishment.—In Heb. xi. 31 the deliverance of Rahab is
ascribed to her moze, but so that her action 1s likewise mentioned as the
demonstration of it. ‘Theile explains umodegapévn = clam excepit; but Wie-
singer correctly observes: “The secondary meaning clam is not contained in
the word, but in the circumstances;” see Luke x. 38, xix. 6; Acts xvii. 7.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the simple verb defayévn is used, and the dy ye
Ao: are there more exactly designated as xarucxomor, éxaAAav is not simply
emittere (Schneckenburger), but has the secondary meaning of force = thrust
out, comp. Luke viii. 54; John ii. 15; Acts ix. 40. It denotes the pressing
haste with which she urged the messengers to go out of the house. érépg odo],
i.e., by another way than from that by which they entered the house, namely,
dua ti¢ Ovpidoc, Josh. ii. 15. For the local dative, see Winer, p. 196 (E. T., 219).
Ver. 26 is added as a reason (yap), primarily indeed, to what directly
goes before (é§ ipywy édcxard6n), but thereby likewise to the universal senti-
ment contained in ver. 24. James here repeats the same judgment which
he has already expressed (ver. 17) on miorte yupic rov épywv; yet heightens it
by the comparison with cdpa yupic mvevuutog: fur as the body without the spirit
ts dead, so also faith without works ts dead. — 1d coua yupi¢ mveiuutoc]. By ccaza
is to be understood the human body, and by mveixna the vital principle ani-
mating it, by which it lives; whether James has contemplated meiua
definitely as the intellectual spirit of man (as “ the principle of the morally
determined and God-derived life peculiar to man”), or generally as the
breath of life proceeding from God (see Gen. vi. 17, LXX.: mdoa odpé év y
éor? mvetua Gwi¢; Rev. xi. 11, xiii. 15), remains uncertain. With the body
without the spirit, which is vexpoc, James compares (obru¢ is not “the sign of
assurance = even so certainly,” Baumgarten) faith without works (the article
rwv denotes works as those which belong to ziore, its corresponding works),
which is also vexpé¢. This comparison appears so far incongruous, as the
relation of gpya to mioree does not correspond with that of mvediua to the oda,
since épya are the fruit, and not the source, of ziors.2 Therefore some inter-
preters have by épya understood not works themselves, but love (Theile), or
“the innermost life of faith in its outwardly operative and visible manifes-
tation” (Frank); but such an exchange of ideas is not to be justified. Al-
1 Lange strangely supposes that James has 2 Lanye denies the apparent incongruity,
chosen this expression ‘in allusion to the fact because ‘‘the spirit also, in virtue of its actu-
that the Gentiles of his time were ready tore. _ ality, effects the higher visibility of the body ""!
ceive the messengers of the gospel.”
CHAP. IIL. 26. 103
ready some of the older expositors, as Gomar, Piscator, Laurentius, Wolf,
and others, and recently Philippi (Theile is undecided), explain mvedua =
breath. This, however, is even linguistically objectionable, as mveiua in the
N. T. occurs in the meaning of breath proceeding out of the mouth only in
2 Thess. ii. 8, a passage in accordance with the O. T.; but also in sense this
explanation is not justified, for although “the breath is the proof of the
existence of life in the body” (Philippi), yet the ideas breath and works
have too great disparity between them to be parallelized with each other.
It is more natural, with De Wette, Kern, Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Weiss,
to assume that James intends not to compare the single nembers with each
other (coua with rior, and mveiya with ipyor), but to make prominent that
a faith which is yuple rov pyr, is thereby proved to be like to the body, in
which the wvedua, the source of life, is wanting — which is thus only a dead
body. With this sentence, in which the idea expressed in ver. 17 is strongly
confirmed, James closes this section, as from this it is self-evident that faith
without works cannot effect justification for man, and consequently not
owrnpia, and therefore profits nothing (ver. 14).
1. The doctrine of James in this section is, according to expression, in oppo-
sition with that of the Apostle Paul (James: é§ fpywv dixavovra: Gvépwroe xai obx
éx xiorewg povov; Paul, Gal. ii. 16: ob dixasovrat dvOpwroc é& Epywy vouov, tav pa did
miotew; James asks: 'ASpadu ov« & Epyuy édexaiwty; Paul, in Rom. iv. 2, says:
el ’A3padu é& Epywy édtxawoén, éxei xabynua, GAA’ ov mpdoc tov Oeov), It is asked
whether also the sentiment of the one contradicts that of the other. Until the
time of Luther, the conviction prevailed that the two agreed in thought. This
is maintained in recent times by Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Wiesinger,
Lange, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others. Luther, on the contrary, was of
opinion that the doctrine of James decidedly contradicted that of Paul; and
the same view has been expressed in recent times by De Wette, Kern, Baur,
Schwegler, and others, also Rauch. There is a middle view, that there is indeed
a diversity of doctrine between Paul and James, but that this does not exclude
a higher unity; thus Schmid, Weizsacker (Reuter’s Repert., Oct. 1855), Lechler,
and others. — Already Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede, have, for the sake of
harmonizing the difference, asserted that the épya of James are different from
those of which Paul speaks; Paul intends opera legis (Oecumenius: Td xa7d vouov
cadssarioucy nai meptroune Kai Tov Anta dyviopev); James, on the contrary, opera
Jidei (Oecumenius: épya ta rioriy BeBacotvta), This is indeed true. Paul has to
do with Judaizing opponents who maintained the necessity of circumcision, and
consequently of all legal works; but James, with such Christians who trusted
to simple zior, and thought that this would secure their salvation, although
destitute of corresponding works. Paul had thus to prove that épya rov vouov
were not necessary ; James, that épya ti¢ wiortwo were necessary. Nevertheless,
this recognition of the different relations does not suffice to an actual harmoniz-
ing of the difference; for it has with truth been maintained that, according to
the doctrinal system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works
of law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede but follow jus-
tification. — Accordingly a different meaning of the term ziori¢ has been adopted,
and it has been maintained that by ziory ywpic Epywy James understands only
bare speculation (Oecumenius: 97 avA7 ovyxaraveot), the friyida et nuda notitia,
104 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
or indeed even the falsa professio fidei. This is certainly not entirely suitable,
though Paul does not know by name a miorig vexpa. But although it were cor-
rect, yet the recognition of this distinction does not suffice to reconcile the
difference; for Wieseler is decidedly right when, against Schmid, Olshausen,
Neander, and others, he remarks, that it is one thing to say, To be justified by
faith whichis proved by works, and another thing, To be justified by works in |
which faith is proved. Already by Calvin, Calovius, Gerhard, and others, and
in recent times particularly by Hofmann, Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Philippi,
and others, the wished-for reconciliation has been attempted to be brought
about, by ascribing a different meaning to the word dixawicGa in James from
what it has in Paul; that James speaks not de actu, but de statu justificationis.
But either thereby a meaning is assigned to the word which it never has, or
there results from it in James an idea inappropriate to the connection; see
exposition of the verses in question. Hengstenberg (Brief des Jakobus, in the
Evang. Hirchenz., 1866, No. 91-94) correctly maintains that dexasoto@u: has with
Paul and James the same meaning; but when he attempts to prove the agree-
ment of the two modes of expression by the supposition that, as there are dif-
ferent stages of faith, so there are different stages of justification, and that
James speaks of a more perfect justification than Paul in the passages in ques-
tion, this cannot be admitted, since it contradicts the nature of divine justifica-
tion to conceive it as advancing from an imperfect to a more and more perfect
stage. Even the justification at the last judgment is in itself not more perfect
than that by which God in this life absolves the believer from his sins; the dis-
tinction consisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a
present blessing, and that in all its fulness, which by the latter was conferred
on him as a blessing yet future.!
The exposition given in the above pages has shown that the idea of the word
dixacovodat with James is none other than what it is with Paul, but that by it
James has in view the justification that places believers at the last judgment in
the full enjoyment of salvation, whereas Pau] denotes by it the justification that
puts believers already in this world in a gracious relation toward God. Only
on this supposition does James say what he designs to say; for if duaovabaz (so
also ouxXetv, ver. 14) refers to the judgment of God still in the future for believers,
the proof that it has épya for its essential condition effectually hits the opponent
who thought to be able to obtain owrnpia by an inoperative faith. — That the
doctrine of James so understood is in agreement with that of Paul, follows from
the following remarks:—(1) James here evidently says nothing against the
Pauline doctrine of justification, since his é§ yw» does not refer to being placed
in a new relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by what
this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his. Epistle at all; yet it is to
be observed that to him the foundation of the Christian life is aisr«¢, and that
he designates the new birth (chap. i. 18) as a work of God, which only takes
2 It 1s incorrect when Hengstenberg says:
“Tf by faith ia understood genuine living faith,
and by works genuine works proceeding from
faith, justification by faith and justification by
works can be taught without contradiction; "
since the justification of which Paul speaks is
the reason and not the consequence of works
of faith: on which account even Riggenbach
(**On Justification,” etc., in the Stud. u. Arit.,
1868, Part IT.) has not been able to approve of
this assertion of Hengstenberg. It ia also no
less incorrect when Hengstenberg, in epite of ef
épywv . . . ouK é« miorews povoy, ver. 24, thinks
that ‘in James also faith alone ia represented
as justifying,” since James doea not give the
name of justification to God's act of grace
which is effectual in man only through faith.
105
place through the will of God, and indeed so that God implants the word of truth
inman. That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, but
in agreement with Paul’s doctrine of justification, requires no proof. (2) The
doctrine of Paul concerning the future judgment of believers does not conflict
with what James says of dixa:ovoda, although he does not use that expression in
reference to it (except in Rom. ii. 13). It is to be observed, that Paul very defi-
nitely distinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of sins is
adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the judicial] act of God by
which owrnpia will either be adjudged or denied to the justified. Justification (so
called by Paul) is conditioned on the part of man only by ziovrc; the future ow-
typia will only be adjudged to him in whom ior7¢¢ has proved itself to be a work-
ing principle. As, on the one hand, it is incorrect to affirm that, according to
Paul, he only is justified by ziare¢ with whom it does not remain inactive; so,
on the other hand, it is incorrect to think that according to him no reference is
taken of épya in the judgment of God.! Wiesinger, in proof that Paul denies
the justifying (the word taken in his sense) efficacy of an inoperative faith,
adduces the passages, Rom. viii. 4, 18, xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. vi. 7-11, 18; Gal. v. 6,
19-21; Eph. ii. 8-10; Col. i. 10; Tit. if. 14; but it is, on the contrary, to be ob-
served that in none of these passages (except Eph. ii. 8, in the words tore ceawo-
uevos Ged THE TioTewc) is the discourse of being justified (dexacoveGa:, in the sense of
Paul). All these passages, however, prove that Paul makes the attainment
of cwrypia, or the future inheritance of the kingdom of God, conditioned on the
épyorc of the justified. It is to be observed that in Gal. v. 6, riorec de’ dyaryc
évepyouuévn does not (as is alinost universally assumed) refer to dexacovodar, but to
arexdéxecdat EArrida dexatoovvnc, thus to the hope of those who are orowopevoe Wid TIC
wiaorews, Further, in 1 Cor. vi. 11, the Christians, to whom Paul says amedov-
Cactve, 7ytdaGnTe, EdxcatwOnte,? are exhorted to consider that the ddxoe shall not
inherit the ucAeia Geov; also, in Gal. v. 25, it is indicated that the ¢jv mvetuar,
which is peculiar to believers, must also be a orocyeiv zvetpart; and lastly, Paul,
in 2 Cor. v. 10, says expressly that we all (that is, Christians who as such are
dcxauévtec) must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, iva xouionra: Exacrog
ta dd Tov Gouatog mpdc a éxpukev, elre ayaGov, elre xaxov. From these passages,
which might be greatly multiplied, it is not to be denied that Paul, as he defi-
nitely excludes every co-operation of human works in justification,® so he no
CHAP. II.
1 By this it ia not intended to be denied that
Paul often combines the two acts as one act of
divine salvation, and also that he frequently re-
fers the final salvation (not less than justifica-
tion) purely to the grace of God. The problem
is rather this, that, on the one-hand, the final
salvation is represented as a pure act of God's
grace, but, on the other hand, the final judg-
ment is as definitely represented as an act
carried into effect xara ra épya; as by Paul,
so in the Scriptures generally. The solution
of this problem, however, belongs uot to our
present subject.
3 By nysdo@nre and é&cxacwOnre a change of
man’s disposition is not In itself designated,
but the change of his relation to God effected
by God. Meyer in loco incorrectly gives to
the word &icacovg6a: a meaning (namely, ‘to
be made righteous’’) whicb it has elsewhere
neither with Paul nor fn any other passage of
the N. T.
3 Even with the recognition of this undeni-
able fact, Paul's doctrine of justification by
faith is not always understood in etrict pre-
cision. This la particularly the case when it ie
said, that according to Paul faith justifies, ao
far as it is a principle of new life; whereas it
is rather the case that, according to him, fuith
isa principle of new life, because it justifies.
Only when this ie misunderstood can it be said,
on the supposition that Paul and James under-
stand by dccacour the same divine act, that be-
tween them there Is no fundamental but only
an unersential contrast. See remarks of the
author tn the £rl. Zeitechr., April number,
1862, p. 214 f., where among other things it is
said: ‘**The reason of justification ie not the
ethical nature of faith, but solely and entirely
106 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
less definitely represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice
of ipya rig nictews (see Hengstenberg, Evangel. Kirchenztg., 1866, p. 1119 ff.).}
But if this is the case, then in reference to this point there occurs a difference
between Paul and James, not in thought, but only in expression ; namely, Paul
denotes by the word dicaovv that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by
God, by which the believer is placed in a new filial relation to God; whilst
James means that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which
he who is born again as a child of God receives the owrypia imparted at the judg-
ment: but with both d:cawiy means “to declare righteous,’’ ‘‘to acquit,’ but
not ‘‘to prove one righteous,’’ or ‘‘to convert him into a righteous man.” So,
also, in what both say concerning Abraham, there is no difference in sentiment;
the only difference is that 2Aoyio@n airy cig ducacoobvny and édixaiw6n are considered
by James as two points, whilst Paul considers the second to be equivalent to the
first.
2. If from what has been said it follows that the doctrine of James is not
in contradiction with that of Paul, then every reason for the opinion that James
wrote his Epistle with reference to Paul falls to the ground. The employment
of the same expressions by both is indeed surprising, but it is to be observed
that these expressions have their origin neither in Paul nor in James, but
already occur in the O. T. Paul uses the expressions ducacovofat, dixaooivn,
dtxaiwoc, chiefly in a relation foreign to the O. T., to which, however, he was
led by the words éAoyio@y cig dtxavootvnv. James, on the contrary, uses them not
in the application peculiar to Paul, but in the manner in which they are used
inthe O. T. Also the reference to Abraham by James is not to be explained
on the ground that Paul confirms his doctrine of justification by what happened
to Abraham; for, since James designed to appeal for his assertion to an O. T.
type, it was entirely natural that his glance should first fall on Abraham; also
the distinction is to be observed, that James used Abraham only as an example,
whereas Paul, as Schleiermacher correctly observes, ‘‘ referred to him his entire
peculiar system of doctrine, whilst he would trace back to him the special cove-
nant of the people with God.’’ — From all this it follows that James neither
designed an attack upon the Pauline doctrine itself, for in this case he would
have been obliged to demonstrate the necessity of épya vouor, nor also an attack
upon a misunderstanding of it, for then he would have been obliged to show
that his readers could only regard themselves as dexauévrec, when their faith
was to them an impulse to the practice of good works;? rather the Pauline doc-
trine was unknown to him, since otherwise he would necessarily have conformed
to Paul’s mode of representation. By this likewise the opinion is confirmed,
that the composition of the Epistle belongs not to the later, but to the earlier
apostolic times; see on this Sec. 4 of the Introduction, and the treatise of Weiss
mentioned above; also his Bibl. Theol. p. 124 f.
the merit of Christ, or Christ Flimaelf with
whom faith, that is, faith In Christ, places us
in connection. We are not justified sor the
sake of faith, but through faith (dca 7s wiorews)
Sor the sake of Christ: thus it holda good for
the justification which is by faith alone, that
every reference to works ia entirely excluded.”
1 The objection of Philippi, that the declara-
tion of righteousness in the judgment takes
place not «x twy epywy, but only xara ra épya,
is contradicted by the word of Christ, Matt.
xii. 37.
2 How the deductions of James are to be
directed against a misunderstanding of the
Pauline doctrine, if dccacovc@ac has with him
the meaning of ‘‘to be proved,” is in fact not
to be understood, so much the less as the juati-
fying power of faith assuredly does not depend
on its being proved by works before men.
CHAP. III. 107
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 3. Instead of the Rec. idod, found only in some min., Griesbach has,
after C, many min., etc., adopted ide; however, e dé is to be read, with Lachm.,
Tisch., Wiesinger, De Wette, and others, after A, B, G, K, &, many min., vss., etc.
Not only does the preponderating weight of authorities testify for this, but also
its difficulty. — Instead of mpdc rd weifeoda:, Lachm. and Tisch. (approved by De
Wette, Wiesinger, not by Bouman) have adopted e/¢ 7d 7. (so B, C, ®&). — Lachm.
has retained the Rec. avrovg nuiv, after B, G, K, &, etc.; Tisch., on the contrary,
reads Quiv avbrovs, after A, C.— Ver. 4. Instead of oxAnpav aveuwy (A, G, etc.),
Lachm. and Tisch. read avéuwy oxAnpay, after B, C, K, 8, which, according to au-
thorities, is to be considered as the correct reading. — Ver. 5. Lachm. and Tisch.
7 read prydda aby (A, C*) instead of the Rec. ueyadavyei (Tisch. 2); attested
by B, C **, G, K, &, almost all min. — Whether we are to read, with the Rec.,
OAiyov wip, or, with Lachm. and Tisch., 7Aixov zip, cannot with certainty be
decided by authorities, since A*, C*, G, K, etc., are in favor of the former, and
A**, B, C, &, of the latter reading. The latter reading, however, merits the
preference, as it is not to be understood how odiyov, suitable for the thought,
should be exchanged for the difficult reading 7Aiaov; without sufficient reason,
Kern, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman,! would retain the reading of the Rec. —
Ver. 6. Before the second 7 yAcooa the Rec., after several min., etc., has ovrwe,
which already Griesbach considered suspicious, and, after A, B, C, K, ®, etc.,
is according to Lachm. and Tisch. to be erased; it was evidently inserted in
order to lighten the difficult construction; also De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman,
and others consider it spurious; Reiche decides otherwise. — After yevéoeus, &
only has 7uev, which is evidently an interpretation. — There is great variation
with regard to the sequence of the words divara: avéporwy dayaoa (thus the Rec.
after G; retained by Tisch.); B, C, etc., read daydout divvara: avéporuv (Lachm.),
and A, K, &, etc., read duvarat dauzacat dvOpeTtuv. It is evidently indifferent for
the sense. — Instead of the Rec. axaracyerov after C, G, K, etc., probably should
be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., dxaruorarov, after A, B,-&, etc. (approved by
Wiesinger and Lange, rejected by Reiche and Bouman). — Ver. 9. The Rec. rdv
Geov after G, K, etc., is to be changed for the better attested reading rdv xipuy,
after A, B, C, &, etc., Lachm., Tisch.: the alteration is easily accounted for.2 —
Ver. 12. According to the Rec. the last clause begins with odruc, after C**, G,
K, &, some min. and vss., which already Griesbach considered suspicious; it is,
according to the testimony of A, B, C, to be erased as an insertion. — The words
which follow in the Rec. (after G, K, etc.) are of'deyzia mryi) GAuxoy xai yAvxd Tosjoat
1 Bouman thinks that nAcxov arose from the 2 Bouman erroneously thinks that @ecv was
following nAicny; but it is more correct toas- changed for «vpcov in order that a mention of
sume that even on this account it was changed Christ might once take place.
for the easily understood oAryor.
108 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
tdwp. This reading, whose spuriousness was already recognized by Griesbach,
is, as a correction for the sake of explanation, to be changed for obre dAvadv yAvxd
motjoat vdwp; attested by A, B, C, etc., and adopted by Griesbach, Lachm.,
Tisch., and others. & reads oidé, — Ver. 13. Whether after év duiv a comma is
to be placed, with Lachm. and Buttm., or, with Tisch. and the Rec., a note of
interrogation, see the explanation of the verse. — Ver. 14. Instead of é» r9 xapdig,
® has the plural év rai¢ xapdiarc. —In the same MS. rij¢ aAnGeiac instead of after
yevdeode stands after xaraxavyaode. — Ver. 16. After éxez, ¥ has inserted «ai, —
Ver. 17. The «ai of the Rec. between adiaxpirog and avumixptro¢g is, according to
A, B, C, &, etc., to be erased as an insertion; so also in ver. 18 the article ri¢
before dixawovrvns, according to A, B, C, G, K, &, ete.
With chap. ili. James passes to the treatment of a new theme, to which
the conduct of the Christians, to whom this Epistle was directed, likewise
gave occasion. It is that which was already indicated by Spadic eg rd AaAjoas
in chap. i. 17, and by yu} yatwaywyév yAwooay abrod in chap. i. 26. The more
unfruitful faith was in works corresponding to it (especially the works of
compassionate love), the more did “the loquacious teaching and ruling of,
others” (Wiesinger) prevail. Words had taken the place of works. This
section, which is closely united with the preceding, treats of this; yet
without “any hidden indication contained in it that it was the doctrine
of faith which was an object of controversy” (De Wette); for in the
whole Epistle there is not the slightest indication of controversies in
the churches in question. The fault refers to the same with which Paul
in Rom. ii. 17 ff. blames the Jews, only that with these Christians ziore,
which was to them something entirely external, took the place of Ȏuor. The
moral relation was essentially the same. The warning (as in chap. ii. 1)
stands first, and the reason assigned for it follows: “ Be not in great numbers
teachers, my brethren, considering that we will receive a heavier judgment.” Cal-
vin, Piscator, Laurentius, Baumgarten, and others arbitrarily refer this warn-
ing to the unauthorized judging and condemning of each other; by this
explanation the idea didaoxadAoe does not receive its proper meaning. On the
other hand, we are not to think of persons rushing into the proper munus
docendi (Bede, Semler, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, and
others), but on the free teaching in the congregation which was not yet
joined to a particular office, but appertained to every one who felt himself
called to it. —moAAg belongs not to yiveode (moAAoi yiyveotas = multiplicari,
Gen. vi. 1; Schneckenburger), but is either the subject (De Wette, Wie-
singer, Bouman) or forms the predicate united with diddoxado:. In the firat
_ case, however, ywécOwoay would more naturally stand instead of yivecte; also
from the second construction a more important thought arises; therefore it
is to be explained: “Be not many teachers,” that is: “ Be not a multitude
of teachers” (Lange). It is inaccurate to explain moAAoi = zavte¢ (Grotius) ;
it is false to explain it = nimii tn docendo (Baumgarten: “be not excessive,
vigorous judges”). The verb yiveoge has here the same meaning as in chap.
i. 22. — With ciddrec, «.7.4.. James points to the reason of yy... yivecbe; yet
eidérec being closely joined to the imperative is itself hortatory : considering.
In the phrase xpiva Aauiavev, xpiua has in the N. T. usage undoubtedly the
CHAP. III. 2. 109
meaning condemnation; comp. Matt. xxiii. 13 (Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47);
Rom. xiii. 2; but also elsewhere the word occurs in the N. T. almost
entirely in this meaning, which Lange incorrectly denies (see Cremer). —
Because James includes himself, many expositors have been induced to take
xpiua here as vor media (so also Lange), but it is to be considered that James
does not use this expression as if the sentence of condemnation could not be
removed (see chap. ii. 13); only this is evident to him, that the severer
(uzifov) the condemnation, so much the more difficult is it to be delivered
from its execution. The comparative peifov (not = too great, Pott) is ex-
plained from a comparison with others who are not teachers.
Ver. 2. The reason (yap) of the preceding; yet not so much of the warn-
ing: wu ... yiveode (Schneckenburger), — this is conditioned by eidérec, x.r.A.,
—as rather of the thought seifov xpiva Anyoueda; namely, so that the first
clause refers only to xpiva Ampoueda, and only that which follows to the idea
peigov; whilst in the expression ef ru, x.7.4., the idea is contained, that as ob
wraiav év Adyw conditions reAcornc, sinful man is thus not in a position to
bridle the tongue. Briickner incorrectly considers the clause ¢i tig, «7.4,
as the explanatory reason of the directly preceding sentence: ‘we all offend
frequently, for whosoever offends not in word, he only preserves himself from
wodAa xraiev.””— ‘The words oAda nraiouev adravree are to be taken in their
widest sense (Wiesinger, Briickner); by dzavre¢ (a stronger form than zavre¢)
neither the didacxatoe simply are meant, nor is it = plerique (Grotius), and
xraiew points not expressly to errores, qui docentibus obvenire possint (Grotius),
or to “speech which is used in teaching” (De Wette), but it comprehends
all and every moral error of whatever kind it may be.!— moda is adverbial,
as in Matt. ix. 14.— To this first thought that which follows is annexed
dovvdérws. — ei rec; see chap. i. 5, 23, 26 = dorn.— vy Adyw is not to be limited
to teaching proper (Pott = év didacxadig), but is equivalent to & ro AuAjoa,
chap. i. 19; é& denotes the sphere within which the ov rraiewv occurs; other-
wise in chap. 11. 10. On ob after et, see on chap. ii. 11. — To obrog réAetoe
évpp, dere is to be supplied; obrog is emphatic; what follows duvardx, «.7.4., is
in apposition to réA, dvjp; the word crgp is used here as in chap. i. 8. — The
meaning is: Whosoever offends (sins) not in speech, and thus is able to
bridle his fongue, proves himself thereby to be a perfect man who is able
to rule also the whole body, that is, all the other inembers, so that it is subject
to his will. James here places the body in opposition to the man “as a rela-
tive independent power which offers moral resistance to the will of the Ego”
(Wiesinger), which it is his task to bridle. The xapédja, indeed, is the fountain
of evil deeds (Matt. xv. 19), but the lust which is rooted therein has so thor-
oughly appropriated the members of man, and as it were fixed its dwelling in
them (Rom. vil. 25), that they appear as lusting subjects, and may be repre-
sented as such in lively concrete language. By such explanations as dAov rd
caua, equivalent to “the whole connection of the actions and changes of
man” (Baumgarten), or = religuae peccandi illecebrae (Pott), or = tota vita
' Brilekner correctly asserts, againet De that in what follows é» Ady rraieyw is partic-
Wette, that the subject In drawres has experi- ularly brought forward, requires for wraiey
enced an extensiop, and that the circumstance here a more universal] meaning
110 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
(Schneckenburger), the idea lying at the foundation does not receive its full
meaning. Even the remark of De Wette, that rd cdua denotes “ not only all
organs proper, but even the affections,” is not to be retained; on which ac- .
count Briickner adds: ‘the latter only in so far as they are expressed by the
former.” The explanation of Lange is also arbitrary, that the body here
denotes the organ and symbol of all other modes of human action, with the
exception of speech. Laurentius rightly observes: nihil obstat, quo minus per
totum corpus intelligamus caetera corporis nostri membra: manus, pedes, etc.
Vv. 3,4. Two comparisons by which the thought ef reg lv Adyy, «.7.2., is
illustrated and confirmed. It is incorrect when it is assumed that “ James,
with vv. 3 and 4, will primarily explain and establish by examples the im-
portance, maintained in ver. 2, of power over a little thing, as the tongue,
for the government of the whole” (Wiesinger), and that the tertium compara-
tionis is “a little thing does much” (Gunkel); for neither in ver. 2 is the
smallness of the tongue mentioned, nor in ver. 3 is the smallness of the bridle
brought forward. The examples adduced, which are closely attached to the
preceding, are rather designed to prove how by the mastery of the tongue that
of the whole body is possible; it is, James will say, even as one rules the
horse by the guidance of the bridle, and the ship by the guidance of the helm.
Only in the second image does the smallness of that by which the steersman
rules the great ship appear to James as something important, so that he
dwells upon this point in what follows (so also Lange).
Ver. 3. But if we put bridles in the mouths of horses, we turn also their whole
body. The clause xai dAov, «.r.A.. forms the apodosis to the protasis beginning
- with e (Pott, Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman). Many expositors in-
correctly attach this clause to the protasis, whereby Theile regards ver. 5 as
the apodosis belonging to it, whilst others supply a thought as the apodosis;
according to De Wette, this thought is, that “the tongue is not so easily
tamed as a horse,” which is wholly unsuitable.1— The particle dé is not,
with Theile, to be explained as closely connecting this verse to the follow-
ing,? for here and in ver. 4 nothing else than a contrast to ver. 2 is to be
expressed ; it is rather used here even as in chap. ii. 15, simply distinguish-
ing the case adduced for comparison from that for the sake of which it is
introduced (Wiesinger). By ray trzuy standing first, the view is at once
directed to the object by which the sentiment expressed is to be illustrated
(comp. ver. 4). The genitive depends not on rovdc xadwoicg (Theile, Lange,
and others), but on ra oréuata (Oecumenius, Hornejus, Pott, Gebser; Bou-
man wavers), for on this word the emphasis rests. rode yadvoig points back
to yadwaywyjoa, ver. 2, by which apparently this image was suggested to
James. — On the phrase: ec ra oréuara BaAAev, comp. in Aelian: yalvdv Imm
éu,3aAAev. — The words eic 1d meidecbat quiv abrove are for the purpose of ac-
1 Bede supplies: ‘‘ quanto amplius decet, nt ? Theile says: “Ita a difficultate linguam
nobis ipsis frenum continentiae in ora mitta- §moderandi transitus fit ad necessitatem: in
mus;”’ Lorinus: ‘‘ai hoc in equis contingit, memoriam vocatur, exigua saepe esse, quibus
simile quid oportet circa Iinguam procurari;” ingentfa moveantur non solum in bonam (vv.
Hottinger: ‘‘eodem modo qui Hnguam coer. 3, 4), sed maxime etlam in malam partem.”
cere potest, toti corpori facile moderabitur.” ;
CHAP. III. 4, 5. 111
centuating the governing of the horse by the bridle put into its mouth.
The apodosis xai dAov 7d oda, «.t.A., corresponds to yakivaywyjoat Kal dAov 1d
ocpa, ver. 2. —perdyerv, in the N. T. only here and in ver. 4, is = circum-
agere. The tertium comparationis lies in elg ra oréuara; for, as Bengel correctly
remarks: in ORE lingua est, and ob rraletv év Adyy, 1s identical with the bridling
of the tongue in the mouth.
Ver. 4. The second comparison is emphatically indicated by idot. xai is
either also or even so. Wiesinger prefers the second meaning, which cer-
tainly gives to the thought a peculiar emphasis. The participles dvra...
taavvoueva are to be resolved by although. Both participial sentences bring
forward the difficulty of guiding the ship, in order to cause the power of the
small helm to be recognized. It is possible that in the second clause: xa
.. . EAavvoueva, there is an allusion to the lusts moving man (Bede: venti
validi . . . ipsi appetitus sunt mentium), or “to the temptations (xepaopui) of
the world, coming from without” (Lange). — oxAnpéc is also used of the
wind in Prov. xxvii. 16 (so also Aelian, De Animal. v. 13, ix. 14; Dio Chry-
sostom, ili. p. 44 C). — The verb perayerac united with ra zAoia is the same as
in ver. 3. The words md éAayicrov madadiov mention by what this guidance
takes place. On dézo, see chap. i. 14. By the addition of éAayiorov a new
point is introduced which is retained in what follows. The superlative is
for the purpose of bringing more strongly forward the smallness of the
mdaduov in contrast to the great ship (ryAcaira Svra). The counterpart is
the little tongue (ver. 5). — The addition: whithersoever the desire of the steers-
man willeth, is not superfluous; it expresses —in opposition to 67d dvéywv av-
vopeva — the free mastery of him who steers the ship, which he exercises over
it by means of the helm, and corresponds to ei¢ rd meiGecbat, x.7.A., Ver. 3. —
bxov (instead of dz, which does not occur in the N. T.) is found also in the
classics united with verbs of motion, particularly with riéva:, but also with
Baiverv.! By dpuy is not to be understood the external impulse, or “ the press-
ure which the steersman exercises” (Erasmus, Semler, Augusti, Stolz, Pott,
Theile, Wiesinger), also not “ the course of the navigator kept in action by
the helm” (Lange); by both of these interpretations a meaning is imposed
upon the word foreign to it. It rather indicates, as in Acts xiv. 5 (see Meier
in loco), the eager will, the desire of something ;? thus Bede, Calvin, Grotius,
Baumgarten, Gebser, De Wette, and others. — The participle 6 et@ivuy indi-
cates him who sits at the helm and directs the ship; it is thus not = 6
ebtevrnp (Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger). Luther correctly translates it
according to its meaning: “whither he wills who governs it.” 8
Ver. 5. Application of the comparison, particularly of the second illus-
tration, puxpév pointing back to éayiorov.— ueyatavyeiv, which expresses the
contrast to uinpdr, 18 not = peydda lpyavecda: (Oecuimenius, Theophylact, Cal-
vin, Laurentius, Pott, Bouman, and others), for the idea of doing is precisely
not contained in the word, but it denotes proud conduct in word and be-
havior, which has for supposition the performance of great things, and is
§ Sophocles, Trach. 40: ceivos Swov BéBnaer. 8 For corresponding paseages from the clas-
® In Plato, Pail. p.35 D, itis used as synony- _—sics, see in Wetstein, Gebser, Theile; partic-
mous with dr:Ovuie. ularly Arietotle, Quaest. Mechan. il. 6.
112 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
always used in a bad sense. This certainly does not appear to suit obruy, as
in the preceding the discourse is not about talking, on which account Lange
prefers the reading peyadc abyei; but also this expression = “ boasteth great
things,” does not exclude, but includes, that secondary meaning, for why
would not James otherwise have written simply peyada roe? ? But obru¢ is
so far not unsuitable, as the performance of great things—as they are spoken
of in the foregoing — forms the reason of the boasting of the tongue. Ona
mere tnanis jactatio it is not natural here to think. This first clause already
- points to what follows, where the destructive power of the tongue is described.
This description begins with a figure: “What a fire kindles what a forest.”
In justification of the reading #Aixov (instead of dAiyov), De Wette (with
whom Briickner agrees), translating 7Aixey rip: “what a great fire,” observes,
“that the burning of the forest is contemplated in its whole extent.” But
the verb dvarra, as Wiesinger correctly observes, is opposed to this explana-
tion; also this clause forms the transition from the foregoing to what fol-
lows, and therefore must still contain the reference to ucxpév, which certainly
is afterwards laid aside. ‘This does not, however, constrain us to the rejec-
tion of the reading 7Aicov (against Wiesinger and Bouman), since this word,
which indeed chiefly emphasizes greatness, can also be used to give promi-
nence to smallness; see Pape. The older expositors, according to its mean-
ing, correctly explained the quantus of the Vulgate by quantulus; thus
Cajetan., Paes, and others; the same explanation by Lange. If Briickner
thinks that it is not appropriate to take #Aixov here in this signification,
owing to the following #Aixyy, it is on the contrary, to be observed that pre-
cisely the opposition of the same word in a different signification is entirely
in accordance with the liveliness of the sentiment. —On the usc of #Aixog in
‘the interrogative explanatory sense, see A. Buttmann, p. 217 (E. T., 253).
Erasmus, Laurentius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Augusti, explain the word tan
by materia, lignorum congeries, a8 it has in Ecclus. xxviii. 10 the significa-
tion of fuel; but the image is evidently much more lively and graphic when
tan is retained in its usual meaning: forest.}
Ver. 6. Application of the image: Also the tongue is a fire, the world of
unrighteousness ; the tongue sets itself among our members, as that which defileth
the whole bory and kindleth the wheel (of life) revolving from birth, and ts kindled
of hell. A8 a (little) fire setteth a forest in conflagration, so also the tongue
kindleth the whole life of man. Such is the destructive power of the tongue, -
that whosoever knows how to bridle it may with truth be called a perfect
man (ver. 2).— Several interpreters divide the first clause: xat 7 yAdéooa
mip, 6 Kécuoo THe ddexiac, into two corresponding parts, supplying the idea tay
to 4 xdouog rie ddintag; thus Morus: igni respondet lingua, materiae seu silvae
respondet mundus improbus. Manifestly wholly arbitrary; rather the words
6 xéouog Tie dduiag form an apposition to 4 yAcoca, by which the power of the
tongue similar to destructive fire is explained. x«éoyoc has here the same
meaning as in LXX., Prov. xvii. 6: éA0¢ xéopog rov ypnuaruv;* thus the mul-
1 Corresponding descriptions In Homer, 72. Stobacus it {s said: ‘Parva facula cacumen
xi.155. Pindar, Pyth. 111. 66; see aleo Ecclus. Idae incend! potest.”
xi. 32, Philo, De Migr. Abrah. 407 A. In 9 It ia to be observed that the LXX. often
CHAP. III. 6. 113
titude comprehending the individual: consequently 6 xéopoc rig aduxiag is the
fulness of unrighteousness. The tongue is so called because, as the organ of
épyq, it includes a fulness (not exactly the sum total) of unrighteousness
which from it pervades the other members (éAov 7d oda). Calvin correctly,
according to the sense: acsi vocaret mare vel abyssum (Luther, inaccurately :
“a world full of wickedness”). This is the explanation of most expositors.
Bouman correctly explains the definite article: famosus iste mundus iniqui-
tatis. The following are other explanations: (1) Oecumenius takes xéopoc
= ornament, and explains: 7 }Adeca xoopei tiv aduciav dea Tie Tov byTépay ebyAwrrov
dewwétynroc; similarly Wetstein, Semler, Elsner, Rosenmiiller, Storr, Lange}
(Wahl is doubtful). But xéoyoe never signifies in an active sense that which
puts an ornament on another, but always the ornament itself, that where-
with a person adorns himself (or another). (2) Bretschneider likewise
takes the word as equivalent to ornament, but supplies o:, and explains: ut
ornatus (mulierum) inhonestus sc. inquinat mentes, sic lingua deprehenditur inter
corporis membra td quod totum corpus inquinat; yet evidently mnore arbitrarily
than the foregoing explanation. (3) Theile retains the usual meaning of
the word world, and explains: lingua (est ignis), mundus (vero est) improbitatis,
i.e , improbilate plenus, nimirum ob illam ipsam linguae vim; but apart from
the inadmissible supplements rendered necessary, and the harshness con-
tained in this combination of the genitive, this explanation is to be rejected,
because by it the words would contain an assertion on the nature of the
world, instead of on the nature of the tongue. (4) Estius, indeed, is right
in his comprehension of the idea, but he arbitrarily understands it as causa-
tive: quia (lingua) peccata omnigena parit; so also Herder: “the mainspring
and the cause of all unrighteousness.” Gebser introduces something foreign
into the explanation, taking xéovoc = the wicked world. Clericus, Hammond,
Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and Hottinger, without any sufficient reason, think that
the words are to be expunged from the text as spurious. — Whilst almost all
expositors refer 4 xéopog ri¢ dduxiag to what precedes (to which, according to
the reading of the Rec. which has obrwe before the following 4 yAdoca, it
necessarily belongs), Tisch. has put a point after rip but not after ddiciac;?
and Neander translates: “ As a world full of unrighteousness, the tongue is
among our members;” so also Lange construes it. But this construction
is not only difficult, but isolates too much the first thought 7 yAccoa ziip,
which only has a correct meaning when it is closely connected with what
follows. — The new clause accordingly begins with 4 yAdooa, and xaviorara
has its necessary supplement in what follows: 4 omdAovoa, x... —xadioraras
can neither here nor in chap. iv. 4 mean i stands: the perfect only has this
meaning, but not the present; it means: it sets itself, iu appears (Wiesinger).
translate the Hebrew NOY by «écpos; see Gen.
ay culture, because it is that which sophistically,
fi.1; Deut. iv. 19, xvil. 3; Isa. xxiv. 21, x). 26.
etc., gives to unrighteousness ite worldly ...
1 Lange, indeed, grants that «dcyos is not
ap active idea, but he yet thinks that we must
return to the original signification of the word,
and he then explains it: ‘the tongue is the
form of the world, worldiiness, or worldly
and even splendid form.” But js not the idea
so explained taken {n an active sense?
§ Lachmann and Buttmann have, by leaving
out the punctuation, left the polnting to the
expositor.
114 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Also the explanations are false: “it is so placed” (Pott); collocata est (Beza,
Piscator, Schneckenburger) ; “it becomes (such) ” (De Wette, appealing to
Rom. v. 19), and “it rules ” (Lange, appealing to Heb. viii. 3). Theile arbi-
trarily completes the idea: haud raro. The words which follow mention
how the tongue appears among the members — as that which defileth the whole
body. The idea omdoiv, to which certainly zip is not suited, is suggested by
the apposition 6 xéopog rig ddcxiac. Only with the following participle does
James carry on the image of fire; it is artificial to assume in omdAoiv a refer-
ence to it. Bengel: maculans, ut ignis per fumum; comp. on this passage
Eccles. v. 5. Neither the double «ai (for how often the several xai succeed each
other in a simple copulative sense!) nor the omission of the article before
the two participles (comp. chap. iv. 11, 14) proves that the participles which
follow xai ¢Aoyifovea and «al gioywouévy are subordinated to oziAoica (Wie-
singer). This construction could only be considered as correct if the two
participles analyzed the idea omdAowvoa 6A. r. copa into its individual parts or
confirmed it; but neither of these is the case here; they rather add to this
idea two new points. The object rov rpoydv rig yevéceuc, belonging to pAoyi-
fovea, has found very different explanations. The word zpoyéc, according to
its etymology, denotes something running, and, although used of other rota-
tory orbs, as particularly of the potter’s wheel, it is especially used as a
designation of a theel, 1 Kings vii. 30 ff.; Ezek. i. 15, 19,20. The word
yéveoig can here be only in the same sense as in chap. i. 23; the compound
idea: the wheel of birth, i.e., “the wheel revolving from birth,” is a figurative
designation of human life.) Thus Gebser in particular correctly explains
it: “the wheel which is set in motion from our birth, i.e., a poetical descrip-
tion of life;” so also Briickner and Bouman. The explanations of Oecu-
menius,? Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, Pott, Neander, amount to the same
thing. Also Estius, Grotius, Carpzov, Michaelis, understand life, only de- —
riving this idea in a different manner. They explain rpoxyé¢ (for which
Grotjus would read rpéyoc) = cursus, yéveote = natura, aud cursus naturae =
vita; by this explanation, however, the figurative uature of the expression
suffers. Wiesinger (with whom Rauch agrees), deviating from this expla-
nation, prefers to understand by it the whole body (dAov rd cca), tpoyog de-
noting either the wheel (by which, then, rpoydr r. yev. would be the revolving
wheel of existence, of life, namely, of that to which the tongue belongs), or
(which Wiesinger prefers) the circumference (thus tpox. r. yev. would be the
circumference of being, i.e., the circumference belonging to the tongue from
birth, native to it). But, on the one hand, it is not to be supposed that
Jaines, after using the ordinary expression dAov rd cdua, should express the
same thing figuratively without the least indication of the identity of mean-
ing; and, on the other hand, it is opposed to the first interpretation that the
body is not to be represented as a wheel, and to the second that tpoydc is taken
in a sense which it never has, for it never means the circumferenee, but at
the most the round border which encloses something. Other expositors go
beyond the restriction of the expression to the life of the individual, —
1 Comp. Anacreon, Od. iv. 7: tpoxos appa- 9 tpoxds’ & Bios ws aig cavroy dvedurroue-
‘TOs yap ola Bioros Tpexes KuvAcaOers. vos.
CHAP. III. 6. 115
which is evidently required by the foregoing é4ov rd cia, —either, with
Wolf, appealing to the Hebrew nin 52a, explaining it: indesinens suB-
- BESSIO HOMINUM aliorum post alios nascentium (thus Lambert, Bos, Alberti,
Augusti, Staéudlin),! or taking rpoydc = xixdoc, yéveou = xriot, and accordingly
rpoy. T. yevéoews = “the circle of creation;” thus De Wette, and among the
earlier interpreters Beza (in the edition of 1565), Crusius, Coccejus. All
these ideas are foreign to the context. If the first explanation drags some-
thing “foreign” into it, the second bears besides “a monstrous character”
(Wiesinger). Still less is the explanation of Lange to be justified: “the
wheel of the development of life, primarily of the Jewish nation, and then
further of all mankind,” since yéveouw never denotes development of life.
The following are other explanations which are refuted by their arbitrariness
and rarity: (1) that of Semler, who explains it ordo generandi, according to
the expression occurring in Plutarch: oraydv ri¢ yevéoews évdeAexoc; (2) that of
Bengel: ‘‘ rota sive sphaera superior est ipsa natura humana rationalis; gehenna
vero est pars profundior cor; lingua in medio ex inferioribus inflammatur et
superiora inflammat;’’ (3) that of Meyer (Observatit. ad Ep. Jacobi), who
takes the expression = sanguinis orbis seu circulato; lastly, (4) that of Kypke,
who assumes that the rota poenalis is figuratively meant, cujus radiis illiga-
bantur rei, and that accordingly gAoyilew rov rpoy. Tt. yevéoewo Means: augere
vitae hujus cruciatus.
The verb ¢Aoyife is in the N. T. az. Aey.; in the LXX. it is found in
Exod. ix. 24; Num. xxi. 14; Ps. xevii. 3, and other places. The figurative
expression, which refers back to mip, indicates the fatal effect which the
tongue, from which the pollution of the whole body proceeds, exercises on
the life of man, whilst it pervades the same by its passionate heat. James
so presents it, that being 6 xéopoc ric dduxiac, and thus concentrating in itself
(or in word) a fulness of unrighteousness, it forms, as it were, the axle
round which the wheel of life moves, and by which it is set on fire. Morus
incorrectly understands gAoyiverw “de damnis, quae lingua dat;” but the dis-
course is not concerning the injury which man suffers, but concerning his
moral conduct; still less corresponding is the explanation of Michaelis, ac-
cording to which odoyifev = to inflame, and that in the words of James the
thought is contained: “lingua saepe alii excitantur, ut insano studio mala ingre-
diantur.” The representation that the tongue defiles the whole body and
sets the life on fire is, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, not to be justified by
the remark that all sins have their foundation in the sins of the tongue, but
rests on the observation that épy7, before it manifests itself in other ways,
first and foremost appears in word, and thus the tongue is its most direct
organ.? The second participial sentence states whence the tongue receives
“4 Already the Syriac version translates:
“incendit proventus generationum nostrarum,
quae currunt aicut rotae.””
* The view that James considered the tongue
as the source of ali ain is erroneous, since he,
bowever prominently he brings forward the
destructive power of the tongue, yet never as-
serts this. The restriction to opyy is justified
by the Epistle iteelf. See 1. 19, 20, 26, if. 9, 10,
18 (the opposite é¢v spatryre codias), 14, etc.
According to this, in thie edition the text in
some places has been rectified.
116 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
this destructive power (gAoyifecv), by which also the idea that it is xéopuorc rie
Gduxias finds its justification. The participle gAoyfouévy is to be retained in .
the sense of the present; it has neither the meaning of the perfect, as if the
tongue had been only once set on fire by yeévva, nor is it, with Grotius, Mill,
Benson, Semler, Storr, Rosenmiiller, to be taken as future, and to be referred
to future punishment. The expression yeévva, except in the Synoptics, is
only found here; in Matt. v. 22, xviii. 9, Mark ix. 47, it is used for a more
exact description of the genitive rob rupéc. The thought that the tongue is
set on fire of hell is not to be explained away either by ex inferno being para-
phrased by Theile by igne diabolico, and this by igne foedissimo ac funestissimo ;
or by being explained with Morus: tantus est ille ignis, ut ex geennae igne
VIDEATUR esse incensus. James means that as énduula (or more precisely
épy7), whose most direct organ is the tongue, has its origin from the devil, it
is thus from hell (see ver. 15). Also in the O. T. the injurious effects of
the tongue are described; see Ps. lii. 4, cxx. 3, 4, Prov. xvi. 27, and other
passages (Ecclus. v. 13 ff., xxviii. 11 ff.); yet in all these passages the dis-
course is only on the evil which is inflicted by it on others, or on the punish-
ment which befalls the man who misuses it. This peculiar thought of James
has its counterpart in no passage of the O. T.
Vv. 7, 8. In these verses the untamable power of the tongue is adduced.
The particle yép here indicates neither simply the transition (Pott), nor is it
to be referred to pueyadavyei (Wiesinger), separated from it by vv. 5, 6, nor
only to the last thought, gAoy:Couévn, «.7.A. (Lange); but it is used as a logical
particle, whilst the truth expressed in these verses substantiates the judg-
inent contained in vv. 5,6. The relation of these two verses to each other
is, that ver. 8 contains the principal thought, and ver. 7, on the other hand,
a thought subordinate to it, which is only added in order to make that
thought more emphatic. The meaning is: Whereas man tames all animals,
yet he cannot tame the tongue. By gic is to be understood not the genus
(Augusti, Gebser, Bretschneider, Schneckenburger), but the qualitas natu-
ralis, and in such a manner that James has in view not the relation of the
individual man to the individual beast, but the relation of human nature to
animal nature in general, however this may differ in the different kinds of
animals. The totality of beasts is expressed by four classes, which are
arranged in pairs, namely, guadrupeds and birds, creeping beasts and fishes. —
6npia are not “beasts generally ” (Pott), nor specially “wild beasts” (Eras-
mus, Vatablus, Piscator, Baumgarten, Theile, Bouman). — ra épmeré are
neither terrestrial animals generally (Pott, Hottinger), nor only serpents
(Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and others), but it is used here in the same mean-
ing as in Gen. i. 24, 25 (LXX. épzerd, as the translation of &)%); see Acts
x. 12; Rom. i. 23. —évadsa (Gz, Aey.) denotes erther fish simply, or likewise
all worms living in the water; Luther incorrectly translates it ‘‘sea wonders,”
and Stier “sea monsters.” There is here the same classification as in Gen..
ix. 2 in the LXX. (which may have been before the mind of James).!_ The
dominion of human nature over the brute creation is expressed by the verb
1 ra Onpia Ths yisy TA WeTecva TOU OVpavod, Ta KivoUMENA Emi THs yIs, Ot ixOvErs THE OaAdcons.
CHAP. III. 8, 9, 10. 117
dayafey (i.e., 80 to subdue, that what is subdued submits to the will of the
subduer), because it supposes the subjection of something resisting (see
Mark v. 4). That James only thought on wild animals does not follow from
this. The perfect deddyacra is added to the present daydcerac in order to
represent the present taming as that which had already taken place in the
past. It is incorrect to resolve daydtera: into dapafecdat divara: (Hottinger,
Schneckenburger), for it treats not only of the possibility, but of the actu-
ality. —rgj gice rt. dvép. is not the dat. commodi, but the dative used with
the passive, instead of the construction with io. ice has the same
meaning as before; accordingly not ingeni solertia (Hornejus, Hottinger,
Schneckenburger).
Ver. 8. The chief thought is marked by dé, as a contrast to the foregoing.
With rjv yAdaoav is meant not the tongue of others (Estius, Grotius, Horne-
jus, Baumgarten), but one’s own tongue (according to Lange, both are indi-
cated, the last primarily). The remark of Bengel is also unsuitable: nemo
alius, viz ipse quisque. The words oivdelc divarar dvdpétuv daudferv (or more
correctly, after B, C: otdet¢ dapdoa: divara: dvéponuv, because the accent is on
daucca:) are to be understood in all their sharpness; the weakening comple-
tion of the Schol. in Matthaei: eixdAue dnAadQ xal dvev névov, is false. By this
thought, what was said in ver. 2 now receives its full light. The moral
earnestness of the author urges him at the close to the exclamation: dara —
oratov xaxov, x.7.2.; hence the independent form of this addition (see Winer,
p. 471 [E. T., 532]). By dxarécraroy (unsteady, restless, see chap. i. 8) the
unrest of the passions is indicated, not simply with reference to what fol-
lows, unsteadfasiness (De Wette).! This reading is to be preferred to that of
the Rec. axaraczerov (not to be tamed), “ because it adds a new idea after
ovdelg dayaou duv. avp.” (Wiesinger). — The image of the poisonous serpent
lies at the foundation of the second exclamation: seor? fod Gavarngopov; comp.
Ps. cx]. 4.
Vv. 9, 10, are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the
unsteadfastness of the tongue is further described” (De Wette), nor as if
the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the
purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, although it praises God,
yet proves itself to be an dxardorarov xdxov, ueoth Tov Oavur. It is to be ob-
served that this expression, as the first person plural shows, refers to Chris-
tians among whom the etdcyeiv rdv xépiov occurs. James does not hesitate to
include himself, knowing that naturally he was entirely the same as others.?
James first places beside each other, by a simple copulative conjunction, the
two contradictory acts which man performs by the tongue, namely, the eido-
yeiv rov xopiov and the xarapacdai rode avépwnove. The preposition é is instru-
mental, as in Luke xxii. 29 and elsewhere. By the repetition of 颻 airy in
1 Comp. Hermas, Pust. li. Mand. 2: rownpdw
wrevne dor ® RaTaAaXia, cai axatacraroy Sa1-
porwr.
2 Lange finde a difficulty in James includ-
ing himeelf, “‘ which is to be solved either by
taking the secoud clause as a question expres-
sive of surprise, or by hearing James speak as
the representative of hie people in the name of
the guilty people.’’ But both supporitions are
equally impossible; the context contradicts the
first, and the fact that James could have no
reason to consider himself as the representa-
tive of the Jewish people contradicts the
second.
118 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the second clause, the antithesis is yet more strongly marked. ciAcyeiv and
xatapaoda are correlate expressions, since the former, as the translation of
the Hebrew 913, has properly the meaning “to bless;” in reference to God,
as here, it means /audibus celebrare, to praise; comp. Ps. cxlv. 21, and other
passages. — The combination of rdv xipwv xai zarépa (instead of the Rec. rav
Ozdv x. 7.) a8 & designation of God (for by xipue is not here to be understood
Christ) is unusual; comp. chap. i. 27. This twofold name designates God
on the side of His power and on the side of His love (comp. Matt. xi. 25).
— In the second clause the important description: rove xa’ 6uoiwow Oeob yeyo-
vorac, is annexed to rod dvpwrovc, by which the contradiction of the action
described still more pointedly appears. The thought and expression agree
with Gen. i. 26. Also, according to this, sinful man is stil] a being created
after the image of God. Were the expression merely to be referred to what
man originally was, but which he has ceased to be, the point of James’s say-
ing would be broken. Bengel correctly observes: remanet nobilitas INDELE-
VILIs. Benson, Pott, Gebser, and Semler arbitrarily restrict the contents of
this verse to the conduct of those who set themselves up as teachers.!
Ver. 10. First a repetition of the saying in brief expressive combination,
by which the accent is placed on airvs. With the words ob xp7 ravra obtu¢
yiveooa, James adds the condemnation of the conduct described. — The im-
personal verb yp7 is in the N. T. am, Acy.; the usual word is dei, from which
it does not differ in meaning. — raira obruwe]. The union of these two words
serves for the sharpening of the idea; ravra designates the contents; oirur,
the form of the action; incorrectly, Bengel: raira bona; vitrw adjunctis malis.
Ver. 11. Illustration of the unnaturalness of the conduct mentioned by
an image taken from nature: Does the fountain from the same hole send forth
the sweet and the bitter? — xnyq}. The article is not here for the sake of
liveliness (Schneckenburger: articulus fontem quasi ante oculos pingit), but is
used because z7yi is generically considered. — é« rig abrig orig]. O77, the hol-
low, Heb. xi. 38, Exod. xxxiii. 22, Obad. ver. 3, is here the hole from which
the water of the fountain streams forth. 7 rnyz refers to man; 97 677, to the
mouth. The chief accent is on atric, which points back to éx rob abrot créua-
roc, ver. 10. — Bpieev, an an. Aey., properly to sprout forth, then to overflow,
is here used transitively, to cause to flow forth. — rd yAvxi and 1d mexpdy indi-
cate, indeed, the two different kinds of water, yet linguistically rd idup is not
to be supplied; the former refers to eiAoyeiv, and the latter to xarapacdat.
With this verse James says only that happens not in nature, which occurs
in the case of man, out of whose mouth proceed blessing and cursing. The
following verse first expresses the impossibility.
Ver. 12. This verse shows, by examples taken from nature, that from
one principle opposite things cannot be produced, but that any cause can
only bring forth that which corresponds to its nature. Semler incorrectly
paraphrases the first question: yi dbvarat ovaiy tAaiag rowjoa: an fieri potest, ut
1 Bemler’s view is very strange: ‘hi inter pression chiefly to Christians, and specially
publicas Del laudes, ctlam exsecrationes et to Jewish Christians, ‘‘in whom the likeness
trietla omnia pracibant in Romanie!" It is of God, that is, the actuality and visibility of
equally a mistake when Lange refers the ex- =the image, Aas re-appeured.”
CHAP. III. 13. 119
Jicus, cujus est DULCIS natura, producat AMARAS oleas; for that here the con-
trast of sweet and bitter (which only the last clause of the verse resumes) is
not designed to be expressed, is evident from what imfnediately follows: 7
duntAoc cixa, Where James would otherwise have mentioned the olive instead
of the vine. The idea is, rather, that nothing can bring forth that which is
not corresponding to its nature.1 Consequently the opinion of De Wette,
that here thistles (according to Matt. vii. 16), or something similar, instead
of dumcdor, would be more appropriate, is incorrect. — To the question follows
as its conclusion the negative clause: obre dAuxov yAvxd rotijoa idwp, Which is
so construed as if the former sentence, not only in meaning, but also in form,
was a negative one; ore (N: oidé) and the omission of divara are thus to be
explained.? — diuxov is the subject, and y/uxd idwp the object; zojoa: is used
in the same signification as before; thus: Nor can bitter bring forth sweet
wafer. The opposite ideas dAvxcy and )Avxi are emphatically placed beside
each other. James hereby indicates, that if from one mouth the bitter
(namely, the xarapa) and also the sweet (namely, the evAoyia) proceed, this is
not only morally reprehensible, to which ver. 10 points, but is something
impossible : accordingly, the person who curses man, who is made after the
image of God, cannot also bless (praise) God, and that thus, if the mouth
yet express both, the evéoyeiv can only be mere seeming and hypocrisy
(Lange).*
Ver. 13. With this verse apparently begins a new section, which, how-
ever, stands in close connection with the warning in ver. 1, whilst the true
wisdom is here contrasted with the false wisdom of which the readers boasted,
and by which they considered themselves qualified to teach. Also here in
the words, ric copd¢ xal éncornuuy év byir, the chief point is again placed at the
beginning. These words are usually understood as a direct question (Tisch-
endorf and Winer, p. 152 [E. T., 169]); on the other hand, Lachmann
has only placed a comma after iyiv, which is approved by Al. Buttmann
(p. 217 [E. T., 252]); an inversio structurae then here takes place; whilst
“the direct interrogative form, owing to the construction which follows,
passed naturally over into the meaning of the kindred relative clause.”
Certainly in the N. T. the direct question is frequently used instead of the
indirect, indeed instead of the relative pronoun; also in the usual meaning
“the disruption of the clauses, as well as the asyndetic transition to defarw
without any subject,” is surprising. But, on the other hand, the discourse
1 Comp. Arrian, Epikt. i. 20: was yap duva-
Tas Guwcdos un auwedines atveicOat GAA’ cAaixus,
® €Aaia wdduy nH CAaixnuwg GAN’ aumedtcas; aun
xavor, adcavcnroy; comp. also Plut., De Trang.
An. p. 472 E.
4 Buttmann (p. 315 [E. T., 367]), following
Lachmann, prae/. p. xliv., assumes a corrup-
tion of the passage. :
§ Gunkel incorrectly thinks that ver. 12
only discloses the unnpaturalness of the con-
duct denounced in ver. 10, for py dvvyara: evi-
dently expresses imposstbility. It is also to be
observed, that in the last clause of ver. 12
GAuxév (vdwp) is considered as the fountain
which cannot bring forth yAvav déwp, and ac-
cordingly points to the bitter disposition, from
which only that which is bitter (namely, the
bitter xardpa), but not that which is sweet
(namely, the evAoy:a), can proceed. Lange
correctly observes, “‘ that the multiplying of ex-
amples has the effect of illustrating the general
application of the law of life here laid down; ”’
but he strangely supposes that “‘ the individual
examples bave a symbolical meaning;'’ the
fig-tree, the symbol of a luxurious natural life;
the olives, the symbols of apiritual life, etc.
120 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
by the direct question evidently gains in liveliness, as it is, moreover, peculiar
to the diction of James; see, however, Ecclus. vi. 34, to which Schnecken-
burger appeals in support of the incorrect opinion that re is here the indefi-
nite pronoun. — cogd¢ xal imotnuwv}. The same combination of these two
words is found in Defit. i. 13, iv. 6, LXX., as the translation of the Hebrew
113}) 02M; comp. also Hos. xiv. 9. If James here considered these two
synonymous ideas as different, copés is to be referred to the general, and
émorjpwv to the particular. Wiesinger refers the former to the intelligence,
and the latter to the practical insight into the correct judgment of any given
case; others differently. — That whosoever is actually wise is to show it by
action, is the chief thought of the following sentence. The construction of
deg{arw With ix and the object following on it, reminds us of chap. ii. 18:
deigw éx trav Epywy you tiv riotw, but the relation is not entirely the same. In
that passage ziore is the invisible, which is to manifest itself as the visible
by Zpya; but here both 4 xa2% avacrpogy and ra épya avrov are visible; the for-
mer is the general, the latter is the particular, which as individual special
manifestations proceed from it. The verb deixvyu means here, as there, not
to prove or demonstrate, but to show. The addition éy xpairyr:— which is to
be connected neither with ra épya airov nor with rie nade dvacrpogfc, forming
one idea, but belongs to defarw, more exactly defined by é« rig . . . airoi —
has the principal accent, as mpatrne cogiac, i.e., the meekness springing from
wisdom, and therefore peculiar to it (opposite of opy7), is the necessary con-
dition under which the showing forth of works out of a good conversation
alone is possible. The mode in which the individual ideas of the sentence
are united together is certainly somewhat surprising, but it is explainable
from the fact that James placed together all the points which occurred to
him as briefly as possible. James might have put ri» cogiay aro as the
object belonging to degarw; but instead of this he puts ra épya abrod, in con-
formity with the importance which works have to him, in which as faith
(ii. 10) 80 also wisdom manifests itself. He then makes the idea cogia to
follow in the adverbial addition év xpairnt: cogiac. The sentence might also
be divided by a point after dvacrpogic; then the first clause would mean: let
him show it out of a good conversation; and the second clause might either be
taken as an addition dependent on degéétw (so Neander: “works performed
in meekness suitable to wisdom”), or a verb would have to be supplied.
However, the detachment of the second clause decides against this construc-
tion. o¢ sogod is not, with Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, to be sup-
plied to airov, as the reference to wisdom is contained in the additional
clause; but also airov must not be referred to cagdce (his works, that is, of
the wise man), but it refers to the subject contained in defarw (thus Lange
and Briickner). The whole idea zpairne cogiac is neither to be resolved into
mpaeia cogia (Beza, Grotius, Baumgarten, Semler, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneck-
enburger), nor into mpatrye coon (Laurentius), but to be explained: “the
meekness which is proper to wisdom, and proceeds from it” (Wiesinger), or
“in which cogia evidences itself" (Lange).!_ With the einphasis on spaira¢
1 Luther inaccurately translates the passage: ‘‘ who shows with his good conversation his
works iu meekness and wisdom.”
CHAP. III. 14, 18. 121
James passes on to Jpadic ele dpy7v (chap. i. 29), of which what follows is a
further explication.
Ver. 14. As meekness belongs to wisdom, so he who has in his heart
Gpdog mixpdc and épifeia boasts of wisdom without any right. -As this was the
case with his readers, James now directly addresses them: «i dé .. . éyere].
To GjAuc, zeal, — which is here, as frequently, used in a bad sense, — is added
the adjective xi«péc for the sake of strengthening it, perhaps with reference
to vv. 11 and 12 (Grotius, Pott, Gebser).— épweia has in the N. T. the
meaning controversial spirit, or, more definitely, partisanship; comp. Rom.
ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20 (see Meyer on both passages); Gal. v. 20; Phil. i. 17,
ii. 3; in 2 Cor. xii. 20 and Gal. v. 20, Gao: and @vyoi are united together as
plurals. — év rj xapdig tucv], in contrast with the word of his readers, boast-
ing of their wisdom. —In the apodosis: yi) xataxavydobe nal weidecbe xata Tie
GAndeiac, neither the first nor the second verb is to be converted into a parti-
ciple; certainly xara in the first verb refers to xara ri¢ dAnd., and so far already
contains the idea of lying, but James designed prominently to bring forward
this, and therefore he adds xa? Weideode to xataxavydobe. On xaraxavxyaode, comp.
chap. ii. 13 (see Winer, p. 417 [E. T., 470, note 3]). In xaraxavyasée the
reference is to others, in pevdecde to one’s own conscience (Lange). In order
to avoid the tautology in weideode and xara r. dAnGeiag, Wiesinger understands
by dAnéeia “truth in an objective Christian sense—the Christian truth, by
the possession of which they fancied themselves cogoi.” 1 But, on the con-
trary, it is to be considered that that which, logically considered, appears as
mere tautology, receives another import, when not only the understanding
but also the disposition is recognized as a factor of the construction; so it is
here.?
Ver. 15. The character of the cogia from which bitter zeal and partisan-
ship proceed. — oia Eorm abrn 7 copia]. airy is not to be separated from 7 cogia,
but forms along with it the subject. Luther incorrectly translates: “for
this is not the wisdom,” ete. By airy 7 copia is meant that wisdom by which
man has GjAov mxpov in his heart, or that from which it springs; the predi-’
cate to it is: obx éorw avudev xarepyoutvn.—ovx gory emphatically precedes,
and the participle takes the place of an adjective (De Wette, Wiesinger,
Winer, p. 313 [E. T., 350]). Gebser, Pott, Schneckenburger, incorrectly
explain éorw xarepyouevn = xarépyera:z. On the idea dvw6ev xurepy., comp. chap.
i. 17. — As an ungodly wisdom it is characterized by three adjectives which
form a climax: émilyetoc, yyy, dapovuwdys. —éniyecoe expresses the sharpest
contrast to dvwGev xarepyopévn, that wisdom being designated as such which
belongs not to heaven, but to earth. That it is sinful (“taking root ina
whole life of sin,” Kern, Wiesinger) is not yet expressed. Jamies calls it
Yuriy, inasmuch as it belongs not to the zvedya, but, in contrast to it, to the
earthly life of the soul; see Meyer on 1 Cor. ii. 14, and author’s explanation
of Jude 19. These two first ideas are abstractly not of an ethical character,
but they become so by being considered in contrast to the heavenly and the
1 According to Lange, the theocratic truth ® Compare, moreover, Isocrates, De Face,
is to be understood which the Jewish zealots p. 165: dcapevderOas ris adnPacas.
professed to protect.
122 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
spiritual. It is otherwise with the third idea: dauovddys. This word (an,
Acy.) = devilish, betokens both the origin and the nature, and is to be taken
not in a figurative, but in its literal sense; comp. ver. 6, chap. iv. 7; incor-
rectly, Hottinger: impuro genio magis quam homine digna.}
Ver. 16. Reason of the judginent expressed in ver. 15. With the intro-
ductory words: drou yap GiAuc xal épideia, James points back to ver. 14; with
the following words: éxei, «.r.A., he names the fruit of GjAo¢ and épideia; these
are dxatactacia and miév gaivdov mpayyua; dxaracracia is uproar, disorder.2 An
uproarious, disorderly nature proceeds not from God: ob yap éorw dxaracraciag
6 Oedc, aA’ eippvnc, 1 Cor. xiv. 338. — To this special idea, which is particularly
brought forward on account of the condition of those to whom James writes,
the general idea: every evil deed, is added, in order to lay stress on the fact
that zeal and partisanship bring along with them the corruption of the whole
moral life. Of a wisdom which effects this, that must naturally hold good
which is said of it in ver. 15. — The supposition of Kern,’ to which De Wette
assents, that the here presupposed controversies between Jewish and Gentile
Christians are alluded to, is properly rejected by Briickner.
Ver. 17. The character of the true wisdom, which (in contrast to ver. 15)
is designated as 7 dvw6ev cogiu]. ‘Comp. with this expression, Prov. ii. 6; Wisd.
of Sol. vii. 25, 26; Philo, De Profug., p. 571: copia dvwbev du3pnGeioa ax’ obpavod;
De Nom. Mut.: oipaviog cogia. — rparov pév ayvy torw]. By axpérov pév this char-
acteristic is distinguished from the rest, which are introduced by ée:ra, be-
cause it belongs to its nature, “designates its internal quality” (Kern). It
is dyv7, 1.e., xaBapd Kai dpumapoc, pndevdg Tav capKixav avrexouéry (Oecumenius);
thus free from all impurity. Lange explains dyvq by consecrated, incorrectly
according to N. T. usage; even in the classics, the reference to the gods suf-
ficiently often steps into the background. — [In the series of characteristics
following after érara, which describe cogia according to its manifestations
(Kern), the first three are named which indicate the contrasts to ¢jAo¢ and
pifeia: elpnuixh, peaceful (comp. eipyvorowds, Matt. v. 9): émexte, fair, mild ;
‘see on 1 Tim. iii. 3 (not = yielding): evrebnc, ax. Aey. (Opposite amecdyc, Tit.
ili. 5): easy to persuade, that is, pliant, not contending in party strife. —
Then follows peari tAéovug xal xapwév dyadev, by which it is described as rich
in active love: éAéove is particularly mentioned, because compassion is the
most direct proof of love; comp. chap. i. 27, 11. 13; xapmov dyaboy forms
the contrast to miév gaiAov mpayya. — The series closes with two words — united
by similarity of sound — déuixprroc, dvuméxptroc, which express the contrast to
every thing of an uncertain and hypocritical nature. ddaxprroc is differently
explained according to the different meanings of the root d:axpiveotac: Luther
renders it impartial ; Lorinus, Hornejus, Grotius (“sine partilione, nempe ini-
1 The explanation of Hornejus contains
arbitrary statements: ‘ terrena, quia avaritiae
dedita est, quae operibus terrenis inhiat; ani-
malis, quia ad animi lubidines accommodatur ;
daemoniaca, quod ambitioni ect superblae ser-
vit, quae propria diaboli vitia sunt;’’ and
equally so that of Lange, who finds here char-
acterized ‘‘ Judaistic aud Ebionite zealotiem,”’
and refers émcy. to “ the chillastic claims to the
dominion of the earth.”” Without any justifi-
cation, Schwegler finds here an allusion to the
wisdom of the Gnostica.
2 Comp. Prov. xxvi. 28; ordga doreyor roret
axatagTagias.
3 Tub. Zeitechr., 1835, 11. 69.
CHAP. III. 18. 128
qua”), Baumgarten, Estius, Schulthess, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger,
Lange (‘‘not separatistic, not sectarian”), and others understand it in the
same sense; Beza explains it by “quae non discernit homines;” sitnilarly
Gebser undivided, that is, those who have the true wisdom do not separate
from each other; the explanation of Pott: pacificus, agrees with this; the
Vulgate, on the other hand, renders it non judicans; and Semler: nec temere
judicans de aliis Christianis, qui suo more vivunt. It is best to start from the
meaning of duaxpivecdac as it occurs in the N. T., to doubt, and accordingly,
with De Wette and Wiesinger, to take dd:axperog = expers omnis cujuscunque
ambiguitatis et dubitationis (similarly Wetstein = non duplez).1 dvuméxperog is
unhypocritical, upright; see Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6. — These two charac-
teristics are also added with special reference to the state of things among
the readers. On adidxpiroc, see chap. i. 6-8, ii. 4; on dvuméxpitoc, chap. i. 22,
26, ii. 1.— All the characteristics are attributed to true wisdom from the
effects which it produces among those who are partakers of it; since it makes
them pure, peaceable, etc. ; the virtues of which it is the source belong to it.
Ver. 18. As in ver. 16 the fruit of GAoc, and thus of false wisdom on
which it is founded, is named, so in this verse is the fruit of true wisdom,
which is eipyvixy.—xapmdc dxawoivnc .. . oneiperat 18 &@ pregnant expression
for: the seed, which yields the fruit of righteousness, is sown (Wiesinger, Bou-
man, Lange). duaacooivy is not justification (Gebser, Schneckenburger), but
righleousness or uprightness. The genitive is that of apposition, and announces
wherein the xapnég consists. This xapmodc dixaiooivnc forms thé antithesis to
GxaTactaga xal nav gavAov mpaypa, ver. 16. dixawnovvyn is by various expositors
incorrectly referred to the future life. — omeipera: is to be retained in its
literal meaning, from which there is no reason to depart, when the preg-
nant form of the expression is kept in view. Briickner converts the idea
without justification into that of dispersing, i.e., of profuse spending; Pott
falsely explains omeipera: by dei omeipcata:. The sower is not to be considered
as God (Briickner), for from the whole context the discourse is not concern-
ing the conduct of God, but of the Christian. The addition é elpgvy is not
to be combined with xapndc dixawotyne (Rauch) or with dixawoivns (Kern:
righteousness before God, which manifests itself in peace with God) as one
idea, but it belongs to the verb, and announces the condition by which only
the seed sown yields the fruits of righteousness; it is in antithesis to GjAu¢
nai ipOeia, ver. 16.— De Wette incorrectly takes éy eipyvy = cic eipivnv, in hope
of peace. —roi¢ mowvaw eipfvny (= eipnvorooic, Matt. v. 9) is either the dativus
actionis (Wiesinger, De Wette, formerly in this commentary; Lange uncer-
tainly) announcing who are the sowers, or dativus commodi (Briickner, Bou-
man) announcing for whose use the xapzdc dix. is sown; in the latter case the
nowivres eipyvyy are likewise to be considered as sowers (De Wette considers
it possible that the dativus commodi may by its importance have supplanted
1 The same signification is also adopted by _— conflicting doubts. James’s meaning is hardly
Neander, when he says, having man inview: to be described in one word. The notion of
*‘ James requires inner unity of soul, assured impartiality or simplicity is most in accordance
conviction, so that the soul be not driven to with it.”
and fro by extraneous considerations, and by
124 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
tnd tév, «.7.A.). The latter explanation is more corresponding to the context,
as it is already indicated in é eipgvy oneiperar that the sowing can only be by
such as are in possession of cogia eipyvuy, and it was particularly brought
forward that the righteousness springing from the seed is only imparted to
those who make peace. Accordingly, the meaning of the sententious expres-
sion is: that the seed of righteousness sown in peace yields righteousness
only to the peaceable. This explanation agrees in essentials with that of
Wiesinger and Bouman, also of Lange, who, however, blends with it some-
thing foreign to it, and thinks on the future harvest of righteousness. De-
viating from this, De Wette renders it: “The fruit (conduct, moral action)
of righteousness is in hope of peace, as the seed of the heavenly harvest sown
by them who practise peace.” Briickner: “The fruit (the produce) of right-
eousness is in peace dispersed (namely, by God) for them who practise
peace.” Kern: “That which springs up for the peaceable as the fruit of
their sowing, that is, of their peaceful conduct, is righteousness before God,
which manifests itself in peace with God.”
CHAP. IV. 125
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. Before udyat, x6fev is to be repeated, after A, B, C, &, etc. (Lachm.,
Tisch.). — Ver. 2. After xa? mudeueire, ovx Exere is to be read, according to almost
all testimonies (A, B, G, K, etc.); only a few min. insert dé (the reading of Rec.);
several others (C, &, etc.) read xa? ovx Eyere; recommended by Griesbach, guar-
anteed by Reiche; the insertion of the particle is explained from endeavoring
more closely to connect the following with what goes before. — Ver. 4. Instead
of the Rec. potzyol xa? potxadides, after G, K, etc., A, B, several vss., Bede, have
only poryadides (Lachm., Tisch.); &, pr., read only powxadidec, but corrected potzo?
wai poxyaa, Theile, Lange, Briickner (also Reiche) correctly consider the simple
feminine as the original reading; otherwise De Wette, Bouman, and others. —
Tisch. 7 remarks: ‘‘loco identidem considerato non possum quin teneam etiam-
num lectionem jam in ed. anni 1841 a me defensam ;”’ see on this the exposition.
® has a rovrov after xoopov, and instead of the genitive rov Ocov the dative ro Ged.
— Ver. 5. On the pointing of this verse, see exposition. — Instead of the Rec.
xcar,anoev, after G, K, all min., vss., Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede (Tisch.),
Lachm. has, after A, B, ®, etc., adopted xargacoev, — Ver. 7. A, B, &, very
many min., etc., have, after avriornte, the particle dé (Lachm.), which is want-
ing in G, K, many min., etc. (Rec., Tisch.); probably the dé was omitted to give
to the sentence an independent form; so also Lange; Bouman otherwise: ‘‘ dé
Sulciendae orationis caussa inculcatum est.”’ — Ver. 10. The article rov is to be
omitted before «vpiov, according to the testimony of A, B, K, &, etc. — Ver. 11.
Instead of «ai xpivuy, Rec. after G, K (Reiche, Bouman), etc., is, with Lachm.
and Tisch., to be read 9 xpivwy, according to the testimony of A, B, several min.,
vss., etc. — Ver. 12. After A, B, ®, many min., almost all vss., the words «ai
xpitng are, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., etc., to be added to 6 vouodérnc; they
are wanting in the Rec. (after G, K, etc.); so also, according to the testimony
of almost all authorities, the particle dé is to be added after ob. — Instead of the
Rec. o¢ xpivec, after G, K, etc. (Bouman), 6 xpivwy is, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
to be read, after A, B, ®, several min.; also recommended by Griesbach; and
instead of the Rec. rdv érepov, likewise with the same editors, rdv zAnciov is to be
read, after A, B, &, etc. — Ver. 18. The Elz. ed. reads ojuepov 7 atpiov (thus in
B, &, Lachm.); but A, G, K, very many min., etc., have the reading adopted
by Tisch.: ony. xat abpiov, which must be considered genuine, as 7 appears to be
a correction for the sake of simplification. — The Rec. (ed. Steph.) has the con-
junctives sopevowueia, tonowpev, éuropevoopueda, xepéjowuev, after G, K, several
min., etc. In A the two first verbs are in the conjunctive; in &, only the first
verb, the others in the indicative; B, very many min., Vulg., and other vss.,
have only the indicative; so Lachm. and Tisch. The conjuctive appears to be
a correction. — fva, following éviauréyv, is omitted by Lachm.; the omission {s,
however, too slightly attested by B, ®, Vulg., etc., and, besides, is easily ex-
plained as the statement of time here expressed by éva appeared unsuitable. —
Ver. 14. Before rij¢ abpwov Tisch. reads, after G, K, &, the article 76 (Rec.);
126 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Lachm., after A, ré; Buttmann, after B, has omitted the article; he has also
omitted the words yap and #@ after xoia, according to his statement after B (which
Tisch. has not remarked), so that his reading is: olrivec ovx énioracde tic abptov
toia (wi buav; see exposition. — After arui¢ Lachm., according to A, Vulg., has
omitted the particle yap; it is, however, probably genuine, and only removed
from the text as interrupting the sense. — Instead of the Rec. éoriv (after G, etc.),
which is defended by Reiche and Bouman, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly
adopted éore; attested by A, B, K, very many min.; the change into écriv is
easily explained. In & the words dryl¢ yap éore are entirely wanting. — The
Rec. érecra dé is a correction of the more difficult ére:ra xai, attested by A, B, K,
N, etc.; G has érera dé xai.— Ver. 15. Buttmann reads 6éAy instead of OeAjoy,
against the testimony of all authorities. — The indicative (yoouev . . . mojoonev
(Lachm., Tisch., after A, B, &, etc.) is to be preferred to the Rec. Gowuev .. .
notjoupev (after G, K, etc.), not only according to authorities, but on account of
the thought (Wiesinger, Lange). In some MSS. and vss. Gowpuev . . . motjaopev
is found; this reading is incorrectly defended by Fritzsche (Leipz. Lit. Z., and
Winer and Engelhardt’s Neues Krit. Journ., V., 1826), Theile, Reiche, Bou-
man, and others; Winer, p. 256 (E. T., 357), prefers to read both times the
conjunctive; see exposition. — Ver. 16. Instead of xavydoée, ® alone has xara-
xavyacde, — Instead of the form aAafoveiarg (B**, K, Lachm., Tisch., 2, Buttm.),
Tisch. 7 has adopted the form adafoviar (A, B*, G).
Ver. 1. The section beginning with this verse is in close connection with
what goes before, pointing to the internal reason of the disorders in the con-
gregations referred to. The sudden transition is to be observed from the
sentiment directly before expressed, that righteousness prospers only in
peace, to the impressive question: wédev méAeuot, x.7.A, an answer to which
follows in a second question “appealing to the conscience of the readers”
(Wiesinger). — méAcuae . . . udyac]. Synonymous terms, only to be distin-
guished by the first denoting the general condition, and by the second the
single phenomena (Wiesinger, Lange, Bouman: modeuoc = vehementior dimi-
catio, uaxn = minus aperta concertatio); correctly, Laurentius: non loquitur
apostolus de bellis et caedibus, sed de mutuis dissidiis, litibus, jurgtis et contentiont-
bus. Several expositors, as Pott, Schulthess, Schneckenburger, arbitrarily
limit these wédeuoe to contentions between teachers; according to De Wette
and Wiesinger, contentions concerning meum and tuum are to be understood ;
but in what follows the object is not stated, but the cause of the contentions
and dissensions among the readers.1— The repetition of ré#ev is explained
from the liveliness of the emotion with which James speaks. — év tuiv, among
you. — The demonstrative ovx évretgev emphatically points to what follows;
Bouman: graphica rei significatae est informatio, qua primum intento tanquam
digito monstrantur, deinde diserte nominantur ai }dovai; Michaelis incorrectly
assumes this as a separate question = ob« & rob xoguov rovrov, John xviii. 36.
By éx trav ndovev tuov the internal reason of these dissensions is disclosed.
néovai is here by metonymy = émévuia; they are lusts directed to earthly
riches; not “a life of sensual indulgence as realized lusts” (Lange). — rav
1 According to Lange, James has in view Samaritans) and of the Jewish Christians
all the hostile dissensions of the Jewish people (Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc.).
(Pharisees, Sadducees, Eesenes, Alexandrians,
CHAP. IV. 2. . 127
orparevopivuy by roic pédcorv tycv]. The lusts have their seat —as it were, their
encampment (Wiesinger) — in the members (see on chap. iii. 2);! they, how-
. ever, do not rest there, but according to their nature wage war (orparevovraz).
Estius (with whom Bouman agrees) incorrectly explains it: cupiditates, tan-
quam mililes, membris vestris, ut armis utuntur ad opera peccatt, by which é is
falsely understood. Calovius, Baumgarten, and De Wette, after 1 Pet. ii. 11
and Rom. vii. 23, supply xara rig porte or tod vooc; but if James had meant
the fight of the lusts against the soul or the reason, he would have more
plainly expressed it. Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange, and others (Briick-
ner comprehends both) understand it of the strife of the desires against each
other; but this is evidently a foreign thought. According to Wiesinger,
“the strife arises and is carried on because the ém:6vueiv has as its opponent
an ob« éyav . . . ob divacbat énrvyxeiv, against which it contends.” But it is
better to refer the orparetecfac to every thing which hinders the gratification
of the desires. As in what follows éxévueire refers to ai ndovai, and govevere
nal (nAobre to the idea orpareixofa:, James appears chiefly to have intended the
opposing strivings of others against which the #dovai contend. From this
internal war arose the moAeuot nai payat.?
Ver. 2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes.
The stages are émdupeire . . . govetere kul Cndoite . . . witxeode xal moAeueite; the
second succeeds the first because it is without result, and the third the second
for the same reason. — émdvyeire here in a bad sense referring to rév jdover,
ver.1. It is evident that the object to be thought on is worldly possessions ;
James does not mention the object, because he only required to express “ the
covetous impulse” (De Wette). It is unsatisfactory to think only on the
desires of individuals. James rather describes the conduct of the churches
to whom he writes; these, discontented with their low position in the world,
longed after earthly power to which, as the church of God, they thought they
had aclaim. This striving made them consider persecution as a reproach ;
on the contrary, James exhorts them to count it as a joy (chap. i. 2). This
also produced among them that respect of persons toward the rich of the
world, for which James blames them. This was also the source of internal
division; the affluent in the church despising the poor instead of imparting
to them of their wealth, and only striving after an increase of their riches;
whilst the poor grudged the rich their possessions, and accused them of
being the children of the world. Thus in these churches occurred the same
strife which prevailed among the Jews, and was the source of factions among
them. — By xat ota Ezere, the uselessness of éx:@uueiv is expressed, and also the
motive to govetew xai GpAciy is assigned; it is unnecessary here, with Gebser,
Hottinger, De Wette, to explain éyety = to receive; it rather means: to have,
to possess. The meaning is: From the desire follows not the possession,
namely, of what is desired. — govetere xal {yAoire]. As here the external
1 Incorrectly, Laurentius: ‘‘Per membra * Comp. Plato, Phaedr. xv.: xai yap wodAd-
hic intellige non tantum externa membra, sed ove cai oracets cai paxas ovdey GAAO wapdyxer
et internos animiaffectus.”’ Stillmore strangely 4 7d c@pa cal ai rovrou émOupiac; consult also
Lange explains ra wéAy as “‘the members of Cicero, De Fin. Bon. i. 13.
individuals and the members of the people.”
128 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, ¢ovetecy cannot here
be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T., 470]), Lange, Bou-
man, think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser,
Schneckenburger, and others, explain it adverbially: “even to murder and
killing;” but the position of the words contradicts this explanation; if the
idea (ndoire was to be strengthened by govetere, it must be placed first.
Other expositors, as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Hornejus, Laurentius,
Benson, Schulthess, Hottinger, and others, solve the difficulty by the conjec-
tural reading géoveire; but this reading has not the slightest support in au-
thorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, except to explain
govevery here, with Estius, Calovius, also De Wette (who, however, wavers),
according to 1 John iii. 15, of internal hatred,! and “to justify this word by
the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage; comp. méAeuoe «ai
payat, otparevecdat, woryoi (more correctly pocxadidec),” Wiesinger. It is true that
then an anti-climax would seem to occur; but this is only in appearance,
as in point of fact ¢(nAodv (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word
and action) presupposes internal govevew.2?—xal ob divacde émrvyeiv, namely,
that for which you hate and envy. The consequences of this are roAeuo,
therefore James closes with péxeote xai woAcueire, in which likewise the answer
to the question médev méAeuot, rédev payar is contained (Wiesinger). With otx
éyere, Which does not stand in the same relation to yayeobe, x.7.A., 8S xal ob dbv.
éxcruyeiv does to gov. x. (74,8 James resumes the foregoing ovx tyere and ot dé-
vaode émervxeiv, in order to assign the reason of this “not having,” etc.; the ,
reason is did 70 yu aireiofar tude, thus the want of prayer. That prayer for
earthly things is heard, is not an opinion peculiar to James, but a divine
promise; in which only this is to be observed, that the prayer must be no
naxx aiteiopus; see the following verse.
Ver. 3. James apparently again resumes the last expression, whilst he
now grants aireire to his readers; but as he designates this their asking as
xaxcx aireic@at, he does not consider it as an actual prayer, so that the fore-
going declaration is nevertheless true. It is therefore inaccurate to resolve
alreire into “or even if you ask.”5—Qn the interchange of middle and activo
1 Stier in his exposition remarks: ‘‘ James
means hatred, but he speaks of killing and
murdering, namely, in a spiritual sense, in
order to designate hatred as an attack on one’s
neighbor; ’’ his translation: ‘“‘ye emiéte” (in-
stead of Luther's: ‘‘ye hate’’), is not, how-
ever, Justified by this.
* The explanation of Oecumentiusis peculiar,
but not to be justified: dovevary Onai Tous thy
dauray Wuxny amoxtivvuvras Tats ToAMNpais Tav-
Tas émyxeipyoect, 8’ &s nar 6 mpds Thy evadBecay
QUToLS WOAEMOS,
8 Accordingly, not a comma is to be put
after roAewerzte, but a full stop; thus Tischen-
dorf and Lachmann. Stier incorrectly explains
it: ‘it thus remains at the close as at the
beginning, Ye have not.”
4 In this passage the expoeition of Lange
reaches almost the climax of arbitrariness. He
here assumes a fourfold gradation — (1) destr-
ing; (2) murdering and envying; (3) Sighting
and warring; (4) asking and not receiving;
and corresponding to these — (1) not having;
(2) not receiving; (3) an increased not having;
(4) an increased not receiving. The first stage
denotes Judaism fuil of chillastic worldly-
mindedness up to the time of the N. T.; the
second, the attitude of the Jews toward the
Christians; the third, the Jewish war; and
the fourth, Judaism after the destruction of
Jerusalem.
6 Semler very strangely paraphrases it:
**scio, quosdam vel publicis precibus (et exse-
crationibus, fii. 9) eam in rem parcere, mala
omnia precari imperatori et magistratul Ro-
mano.”
CHAP. IV. 4. 129
forms, see Winer, p. 229 (E. T., 256.) The middle form naturally sug-
gested itself in ver. 2, prayer for others being not the point under consider-
ation; but in the next clause, as James wished to lay stress on the active
side — of prayer in antithesis to AauBavecv — he used the active form. “ Ego-
listical praying for one’s self” (Lange) is incorrectly understood by the
middle. — xai ob Aaufavere emphasizes the uselessness of their asking, the rea-
son of which is assigned by the following: dirt xaxéic alreiobe. xaxae finds its
explanation in the following iva; your prayer is therefore evil, because it has
no other object than dazavgy ty raic ydavaic. Incorrectly, Gebser: “for your
prayer must implore only for true heavenly blessings.” The discourse is
here rather of the temporal condition; this, James observes, continues with
you a poor and depressed one, because ye ask for a better one only in order to
be able to indulge your lusts. — daravgv, to expend, spend (Mark v. 26); here,
in a bad sense, to squander, to lavish. Suidas: Aaumpic Gv nal onadgv; the
object to the transitive verb is “that for which you pray.” éy rai¢ ndovaig
tucy, not with, but in, your lusts. Wahl incorrectly explains daxavgy ty =
sumtum ponere in aliqua re, i.e., rdévan rd xpquara év rm; this meaning com-
bines dazavgy with etc. The sense is not “for the gratification of your lusts ”
(Baumgarten), but governed by your lusts.
Ver. 4. pocyadides. The Rec. potyol nat poryadides has not only the most
important authorities against it, but is also easily explained, because the
term was taken in its literal sense, which is expressly done by Augusti, Jach-
mann, and Winer. The context, however, proves that the literal meaning
is not here to be retained.. If the idea is used in a figurative sense, ac-
cording to the view which prevails in Ps. lxxiii. 27 (Isa. Ivii. 3 ff.; Ezek.
xxiii. 27), Hos. ii. 2, 4, and other passages of the O. T. (comp. also Matt.
xii. 39, xvi. 4; as also 2 Cor. xi. 2; Rev. ii. 22), and as the context requires,
then every reason for a distinction of sex ceases. Theile, Lange, Briickner,
have therefore correctly declared for the reading posyadidee. Theile’s opin-
ion: non minus recte singuli homines scorta dicuntur, quam tolum genus alque
universa aliqua gens scortum, is so far inappropriate, as the expression poya-
Aides used “of individuals in the Church of God is certainly singular” (Wie-
seler); it is here to be referred not to individuals, but to the churches to
whom James writes (not “the Jewish factions into which Judaism was
sundered,” Lange); so also Brickner. These, according to the conduct
described by James, bad fallen away from God, and therefore James, full
of moral indignation, addresses them with these certainly severe words. —
ob oldare, dr: points the readers to their own conduct. —#% gifa rob xécpov.
By xéoyeg expositors understand either worldly goods (Pott, Gebser, Hot-
tinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger) or worldly desires (Didymus,
Laurentius), or both of these together (De Wette, Stier); and by 7 g:Aia rob
séopov, the inclination of the heart diverted toward worldly things. But it
is more correct to take xéoyoc in the same sense as in chap. i. 27 (see explana-
tion of that passage), and to understand 4 g:Aia rod xéapou of reciprocal friend-
ship; yet so that active conduct toward the world here predominates. The
Christian who aims at worldly glory conforms himself (contrary to the ad-
monition in Rom. xii. 2) to the world, attaching himself to its pursuits, and
130 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
is thus inclined to it with his heart, his endeavor at the same time being to -
be esteemed and not despised by the world. The explanation of Piscator :
amicitia cum impiis, is in essentials correct. The term g:Aia (am. Acy. in N. T.)
does not suit the usual explanation.! — éy@pa rod Qeod expresses as gidia rod
xoouov & reciprocal relation; yet here also the active reference predominates,
on account of which most expositors explain it directly by fydpa cig Océv (Rom.
viii. 7), although Pott gives also the explanation: ad ejusmodi agendi rationem
nos abripu, quae Deo displicet, nosque privat amore divino. Lachmann, follow-
ing the translation of the Vulgate: inimica, has adopted the reading éy6pa,
by which, however, the peculiar force which consists in the opposition of
the two substantives is removed. — From the judgment here expressed con-
cerning the gia rod xécpuov, James infers the sentiment that follows: ovv,
therefore. — ic dv obv BovAndy, x.r.A. By the usual explanation of g:Aia r. xdopov,
and of the corresponding ¢gido¢ rod xéopov, BovAndg is at all events disconcerting.
Whilst some expositors urge that by it designed and conscious intention is
designated (Baumgarten), and others oppose it to the actual deed,? and find
the idea expressed that even the simple inclination to the love of the world
(De Wette: “whosoever has perchance willed to love the world”) effects
ExOpa tov Ocov,8 Schneckenburger, on the contrary, says: verbi SovAnd7 cave
premas vin. With each of these explanations the expression retains some-
thing strange, which also is not removed by distinguishing, with Lange, the
“formal” and the “material intention,” and understanding Bovanég only of
the latter. But it is different as soon as xéoyoc is considered not as an aggre-
gate of things but of persons, since then A/a, as-above remarked, consists in
@ reciprocity. The meaning is: Whosoever, although a Christian, giving
himself up to the pursuits of the world, will live in friendship with it, and
thus will not be despised but esteemed and loved by it, has directed to it his
wish (Bovantz),4—he (thereby) is constituted an enemy of God ; éx0pd¢ tov Oeud
is likewise used in the sense of reciprocal relation, although here the passive
meaning predominates. — xadierara has here the same meaning as in chap.
lil. 6 (so also Lange); it is generally rendered inoorrectly = éo1¢; inaccurately
iby Theile = fit, sistitur; by Schneckenburger = stands there as; by Bouman
= constituitur divino in judicio.
Vv. 5,6. The views of expositors differ widely in the interpretation of
these verses. At first sight the words following Aé¢ye appear to be a quota-
tion from the O. T. which James has in view. That of the older, and some
.of the more recent, expositors assume this to be the case, al though they differ
from each other, some combining xpos pédvov directly with Aéye:, but others
1 According to Lange, the friendship with
tthe world consisted ‘in the chillastic desire of
ithe enjoyment of a worldly glory which was
only colored with hierarchical piety.”
2? Laurentius states thia opposition in the
most definite terms: ‘non ai tantum est {nimi-
cus Dei, qui est ipso opere amicus mundi, sed
etiam ille, qui cum non possit, vult tamen...
et sic voluntate Implet, quod ipso opere nou
patest.”
8 Similarly aleo Wiesinger: ‘‘ James brings
under the eame judgment not only the decided
and expressed love to the world, but even the
inclination to atep into such a relation to the
world.”
4 In essentials Eetius correctly says: ‘* Ter-
ribilis valde sententia adversus eos qui suas
actiones et studia componunt ad gratiam hu-
manam. Hoc enim vere est esse amicuin bujus
seculi,”’
CHAP. IV. 5, 6. 131
including it in the quotation. Against this explanation, however, is the
circumstance that the words supposed to be here quoted nowhere occur in
the O. T. Such a passage has accordingly been sought for, where a similar
thought is expressed, but almost every expositor has fixed upon‘a different
passage. Many expositors seek to remove the difficulty by supposing that
James does not here quote any single definite passage, but only a sentiment
contained in the O. T. generally, or in several of its expressions. Opposed
to this idea, however, is, first, the uncertainty whether James will confirm
by it the statement contained in what precedes or in what follows; and
secondly, the formula of quotation pointing to a definite passage, particu-
larly as Aéyec is not = AadAet. But, moreover, the clause peiZova dé didworv yap
is against the view here indicated, since these words cannot be reckoned as
part of the quotation, because James only afterwards quotes the O. T. pas-
sage from which they are derived; but, also, they cannot be considered as a
statement of James not belonging to the quotation, because dé closely con-
nects them to what directly precedes.
REMARK. — The various O. T. passages which have been conjectured are as
follows: Gen. iv. 7 (Rauch); Gen. vi. 8, 5 (Grotius); Gen. viii. 21 (Beza, Ernest
Schmid); Num. xi. 29 (Witsius); Ps. xxxvii. 1 and Ixxili. 3 (Lange); Ps. cxix.
20 ff. (Clericus); Prov. xxi. 10 (Michaelis)s Song of Solomon viii. 6 (Coccejus) ;
from the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon vi. 12 (Wetstein), and others. Ben-
son supposes that James has in view the N. T. passage, Matt. vi. 24; Staudlin,
that he has in view that passage and also Gal. v. 17; Storr, the latter passage
only; and Bengel, 1 Pet. ii. 1 ff. Semler thinks that the passage is here cited
from the ‘‘ Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs;’’ and Gabler, that the words are
borrowed from a lost prophetical book. In recent times, Engelhardt (Remarks
on Jas. iv. 5, 6, in the Zéschr. f. d. Luth. Theol., by Delitzsch and Guericke,
1869, Part II.) has expressed the opinion that Isa. Ixiil. 8-11, Ps. cxxxii. 12, 18,
and Hos. i. 2, 15, form the groundwork of these words of James. Wolf, Hein-
slus, and Zachariae refer the words to the thoughts contained in what follows;
Theile, De Wette, Brickner (also first edition of this commentary), to the
thoughts contained in what precedes,—that the friendship of the world Is
enmity with God.
If the words pic g6évov émrofel, x.r.A., do not form the quotation belong-
ing to 4 ypa¢g? Aéye, it is to be assumed that James here already had in view
the scripture adduced after da Aéyer in ver. 6, but that he did not yet state it,
because the sentiment expressed in those words obtruded itself upon him in
confirmation of ob xevac (Wiesinger). mpdc g@dvov cannot, as Gebser and
others suppose, be united with Aéye; for if one takes it to be equivalent to
de invidia or contra invidiam, there is this against it, that in what goes before
there is no mention of envy; or if it is taken adverbially, then it appeats as
an appendage dragging after ov xevdx, which would be added the more unsuit-
ably, because, as De Wette correctly remarks, it cannot be perceived what
meaning can be attached to the assurance that the scripture does not speak
enviously. Most expositors rightly refer it to émogei, which, without the
addition, would be too bare; it is added to this idea as an adverbial and
more exact statement = in an envious, jealous manner, for the sake of strength-
ening it. It is linguistically incorrect to explain xpd¢ g8dvov éxcnopeiv = éredupeiv
132 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
xara ¢dévov, Gal. v. 17 (thus Luther: “the spirit lusteth- against envy;”
Bengel, Stier; also Lange: “the spirit longeth over against and in opposition
to envy’), since mpéc, although it may be used in a hostile relation (Luke
xxiii. 12; Acts vi. 1), yet does not in itself express a hostile reference. The
explanation of many ancient and soine recent expositors (Bede, Calvin, Beza,
Grotius, Hottinger, Gabler, Bouman, and others), taking mpod¢ g@6vov = ad
invidiam, is also unsuitable; for, on the one hand, émzogeiv is not = proclivem
esse, and, on the other hand, it is contradicted by the connection in which
there is not the slightest allusion to envy. With the correct explanation of
mpoc gOdvov, Td mveiua GO KaTgKnoev (kaTgxicev) Ev vw is either subjective, “the
Spirit of God,” or objective, “the spirit of man.” In the first case émcmodei
has no object. De Wette, Briickner (so also Schneckenburger and some of
the other expositors) supply judc as the object. Engelhardt, on the contrary,
will supply no object, thinking “the supposed translation of the verb §3p is
conclusive against an object; ” but §Jp requires an object no less than ézuzo-
Geiv, a8 it is, as well as the other, a relative (not an absolute) verb. By this
interpretation éy jyiv is to be understood of Christians, in whom the Holy
Spirit (according to Engelhardt: “by the covenant of baptism”) has taken
up His abode. In the second case, the subject is not expressed. Wiesinger
supplies 6 Geog. There is no difficulty in this completion, the less so as the
preceding 4 ypady, which, in connection with Aéye, is personified (comp. Gal.
iii. 8, mpotdovea 7 ypao7), points to God, with whom it is, as it were, identified.
This second explanation would deserve the preference before the first, as it
is not apparent why James here, instead of simply God, should name the
Holy Spirit, whom he has not elsewhere mentioned in his whole Epistle, and
because the specification of an object belonging to émofei, which is essen-
tially required for the thought, can scarcely be wanting. Certainly, in this
second interpretation, 6 xarganoev tv qyiv added to mvedua is difficult, not so
much on account of the formation of the expression, as because this addition
appears to be a very unimportant remark. But it is otherwise with the
reading xarc«toev, as then the relative clause marks “the right of propriety
as the ground of explanation of envious love” (Wiesinger). According to
this view, the passage is to be explained: Or think you that the scripture says
in vain — (rather God) enviously desires the spirit which He has made to dwell in
us, but He gives the greater grace —toherefore it says, etc. —It is yet to be
remarked that doxety has the same meaning as in chap. i. 26; xevac, that is,
without contents, corresponding to the truth; comp. xevoi Adyot, Eph. v. 6
(Plato, Lach. 1966). The adverbial import of mpd g@évov is justified by the
usage of the Greek language; see Pape’s Worterb.: the word mpég; Winer,
p. 878 (E. T., 425); Buttmann, p. 292 f. (E. T.,340). The verb émmogeiv is
also elsewhere in the N. T. construed with the accusative. The idea that
God cherishes an “envious and loving longing ” (Wiesinger) after the spirit
of man, corresponds to the circle of ideas in the O. T., from which also the
preceding potyadidec is to be explained.
REMARK. — The principal objections of Engelhardt — that the two members
of the 5th and 6th verses are not in congruity, and that the scripture adduced in
CHAP. IV. & 133
ver. 6 does not prove the thought expressed in ver. 4—are solved by the obser-
vation that the friendship of the world, in which man opposes himself to the
will of God, is pride, and that those to whom God gives grace are none other
than the humble, who disdain to be the arrogant friends of the world. ‘It is
erroneous when Engelhardt denies that an emphasis rests on ot xevoc, so that
the grammatical construction forbids to make the idea xpd¢ p6dvop, x.7.A., inter-
vene as a contrast to xevoc; the asyndeton form is, besides, wholly suitable to
James’s mode of expression; moreover, Engelhardt on his part finds himself
constrained to supply a transitionary thought before peifova dé didwov, ‘That
James does not quote the scripture intended by him directly after the first Aéyec,
but defers it because he wished to emphasize that it was not vain and empty,
may well surprise us, but it is to be explained from the liveliness peculiar to
James. Moreover, in Rom. xi. 2-4, although not in the same, yet in a similar
manner, the passage quoted is separated from the form of quotation: ri Aéye 7
yeae7, and in such a manner that the formula itself Is taken up again by an ada,
referring to the intervening remark, before the intended passage. When Engel-
hardt thinks that the words in consideration are to be recognized as the quota-
tion, because they are words which do not elsewhere occur in James, apart from
this being any thing but conclusive, it is, on the contrary, to be observed that
rvevua understood of the human spirit already occurs in chap. ii. 26, and that the
words xpdc ¢06vov éxirodeiv do not occur in the passages of the O. T. which James,
according to Engelhardt’s opinion, had in view.
Ver. 6. The words peifova dz didworv yap are explained from the fact that
James already had in his view the passage of the O. T., afterwards quoted,
from which these words are taken. The subject is the same as in the foriner
sentence. The comparative does not express the comparison with the bless-
ings which the world gives (Bede: majorent gratiam dat quam amicilia mundi;
thus also Tirinus, Gebser, Pott, Winer, Schneckenburger, Kern), or after
which those: invidi atque arrogantes, quos reprehendit, Jas. v. 2-4 (Bouman),
longed for; also it does not indicate “the greater measure of the comforting
and satisfying Spirit as related to the longing Spirit” (Lange: “but he
gives grace greater than the longing”), but “ yelfova suggests a comparison
with a case in which there is no pdx g@évov tmnog.” (Wiesinger, so also De
Wette); incorrectly Bengel: eo majorem, quo longius recesseris ab invidia. —
dus = therefore, because it is so (De Wette). % ypagi is to be supplied to Aéye.
Kern incorrectly takes Aéye: impersonally: i is said. The passage is Prov.
iii. 34, and is verbally quoted according to the LXX., except that here, as
also in 1 Pet. v. 5, 6 Oedc is put instead of xipuc. The tmepioave are those
who, whilst they in striving after high things (ra tynda gpovoivrec, Rom. xii.
16) will be the friends of the world, are not ready to bear the reproach of
Christ. That these are éydpo? rot Ocoi, tlie scripture confirms by dytirdocera:.
— Opposed to these are the razecvoi, that is, the lowly, those who roig rametvorg
ovvarayopeva, Rom. xii. 16, seek not the friendship of the world, but humbly
bear the cross of Christ. That these are gido rov Oeod the Scripture confirms
by didwoww yap.) Comp. Ecclus. iii. 19, 20.
1 The difficulty of the passage has induced plain the words from &d Adye: to xapry as a
some expusitors to have recourse toarbitrary gloas from 1 Pet. v.5. Hottinger (with whom
emendations; thus Erasmus and Grotius ex- Reiche agrecs), on the contrary, is inclined to
134 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Ver. 7. From the sentiment expressed in the preceding, James infers
(ovv) several exhortations expressive of the duty of humility. — brordyyre oiv
t® Oe]. The exhortation is addressed to the inepzgavm: because God ayri-
racoera them, they are to trordocew to God. In Schneckenburger’s explana-
tion: plena obedientia vos Deo commiltite, ut sitis dotAn Oecd, obedientia is in-
correctly emphasized. Calvin’s is better: subjectio tsta, quam commendal,
HUMILITATIS est; neque enim generaliter hortatur, ut pareamus Deo, sed requirit
BUBMISSIONEM.! — dvrioryre dé r@ dtaBéaw)]. This exhortation is closely joined
to the preceding; submission to God means resistance to the devil. This
requirement was so much the more appropriate, as the readers wished to be
the friends of the xécoyoc, whose dpyuv is the devil. —xal get&erar dg’ dor].
Comp. Hermas, i. 2, Mand. 12 (ed. Hefele, p. 380) : divarar 6 dui30Aog maAaion,
xaramadaioa dé ob duvatat, édy ovv avtiorys abTa, vixnbeic gevseTat Gnd cov KaTyoYUpL-
pévoc. Calvin: Quamvis continuos insultus repetat, semper tamen exclusus disce-
dit. —«xai after the imperative commencing the apodosis; so also in Matt.
vil. 7 and frequently. 1 Pet. v. 5-9 is to be compared with this passage,
where upon the quotation of the same O. T. passage follow exhortations to
humility before God, and to resistance to the devil.
Ver. 8. In contrast to the last exhortation and promise is the exhorta-
tion éyyicare rd Gep, united in a similar manner with a promise. Whilst the
devil is to be kept at a distance by resistance, we are to draw nigh to God.
“ éyyigeev is not to be limited to prayer, but is to be understood generally of
man’s turning to God” (Wiesinger). Comp. on éyyifev, Isa. xxix. 138; Heb.
vii. 19. — nai éyyet tuiv, corresponding to the preceding gebfera: ag’ tuov. Sim-
ilar expressions in 2 Chron. xv. 2; Isa. lvii. 15; Zech. i. 3. — But in order
to draw nigh to God, conversion from the former nature is necessary ; there-
fore xaQapicare yeipac ... dyvicate xapdiag. The cleansing of the hands consists
in withdrawing them from evil and in employing them in good works; the
sanctification of the heart, in contending with impure desires, and in the cul-
tivation of a holy disposition. The external and the internal must corre-
spond; comp. Ps. xxiv. 4: d@aog xepol Kai xaBapds rp xapdig. Pott erroneously
supposes the first expression to be a symbolical designation of uerdvoa, and
denies its reference to the externa vitae integritas (Carpzov). The reason
why James names the hands is not only because they are the principal organa
operandi, but also because that he, with éyyigecv ro Geo, does not think exclu-
_ sively on prayer; see 1 Tim. ii. 8. On dyvicare xapdias, comp. 1 Pet. i. 22;
1 John iii. 3. —duaprwAot.. . divvzo)]. This address, designating the present
. condition of the adtlressed, shows the necessity of perdvoia; auaprwaoi, because
instead of God, who chose them for His possession, they serve the lusts
erase the words from yeifova to Adya:, and to
ineert a &€ between o and @ecs, Also Liicke,
according to Gebeer, considered those words a
kind of gloss and error libraril to 9 ypadn Acyer
and trois ras, &6., ver. 6, and that the context
ia to be thus construed: mpds dOdvoy .. . dy
vpivy » Boxéire OTe Kevas 1 yp. Adyer: 6 Bede
vrepydavots, «.7.A.
1 Qn account of ite strangenese, we give
here Semler’s remarke on this passage: ‘‘ Ja-
cobus, Paulus, Petrus, Judas, uno quasi ore id
confirmant, opus cese, ut Romanis et sic Deo
se subjiciant’’ (in which Lange finda no fault
were it only said: ‘‘ut Deo et sic Romanis"’) ;
and afterwards: “re &aBdAq, qui per xvevua
@Ocvov vos suscitat adversus magistratum
Romanum,” similarly aleo, of course, Lange.
CHAP. IV. 9, 10. . 135
(sdovaic, ver. 1) of the adopos, corresponding to potyadides, ver. 4; dipvyot, be-
cause they would at the same time be Christians. De Wette's explanation
is too weak: ye undecided (between God and the world); Schneckenburger’s
remark: hic sensu latiore sumendum quam, i. 8, is incorrect, for dcaxpivecdas
there has its reason in the Christian giving his heart to the world instead of
to God; see Test. Aser., ili. p. 691: of dempécwnor ob Oe GAAA talc éxOupiuc abrow
dovAciover. — Calvin correctly remarks: non duo hominum genera designat, sed
eosdem vocat peccatores et duplices animo.!
Ver. 9. The peravoca required in ver. 8 does not take place without grief
and mourning for guilt. The consciousness of the latter is the road to the
former; therefore the summons now to this mourning: rada:nupjoare xal rev
@noare kal xAaicare. The repetition of xai is an expression of emotion; radar
xupeiv, in the N. T. an. Aey. (the adjective in Rom. vii. 24; Rev. iii. 17; the
substantive in chap. v. 1; Rom. iii. 16), literally, to suffer external hardships,
as in Mic. ii. 4, is here used of the internal condition: to feel unhappy,
wretched, as the adjective in Rom. vii. 27. Estius, Gagnejus, Grotius, erro-
neously refer it to bodily castigations: affligite vosmet ipsos jejuntis et aliis
corporis oxAnpaywyiay (Grotius); similarly Hottinger: sensum miseriae CLARIS
INDICIIS PRODITE; falsely also Beza: reprehendit dvadynoiav in adversis. —
xevOnoare xal xAavoare, the same combination in Neh. viii. 9; 2 Sam. xix. 1;
and in the N. T., Mark xvi. 10; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15, 19; wail and
weep. Grotius incorrectly explains mevéjcare = lugubrem habitum induite,
saccum et cilicia; there is not the slightest indication that James had in view
the external signs of mourning in dress and the like. If the foregoing exhor-
tations point to a change of the lusts and joy of worldly life into godly
mourning (rHv card Oedv Abmnv, 2 Cor. vii. 10), this is still more definitely
expressed in what follows, by which James passes from the outward mani-
festation (Aus . . . mévGoc) to the internal state (zapa . . . xarjpeta). — xari-
geta a. Ay. (the adj., Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 4), literally, the casting-down of the
eyes, here indicates internal shame.? Compare with this the picture of the
publican in Luke xviii. 13.
Ver. 10. Conclusion — carrying with it an O. T. coloring — of the ex-
hortation, in which what has hitherto been said is summed up. — razewwoGnre
évonuwy xvpiov}, tanevobnre in reference to rarevoic, x.1.A., ver. 6. — xvpiay, i.e.,
Ocov (comp. ver. 7), not Xporod (Grotius). —évomov not = ind (1 Pet. v. 6:
raxecvodnre vd tiv ... xeipa tov Ocov), but expresses that the self-abasement
is to take place in consciousness of the presence of God, who gives grace
only to the humble.® — xai ipdoet tude is to be referred both to the present
concealed and to the future manifested glory of the humble Christian
(comp. chap. i. 9). The contrasted ideas rarewoiv and typovy often occur;
see in the O. T., Job v. 11; Ezek. xxi. 26; in the N. T., Matt. xxiii. 12;
Luke xiv. 11; 1 Pet. v. 6, and other places.
3 Kern: As James considers man in refer- 2 In Plutarch, Them. 9, it 1a used synony-
ence to the divine grace as the receiver, 80, On mously with dvqOvyuia.
the other hand, he takes into account the free 3 Comp. Ecclus. {1. 17: of doBovpevoe «vprory
eelf-activity of man as the condition by which .. . dvwmtoy avrov traweiywoovcs Tas Wuyxas
arelation of unity of man with God takes airey.
place.
136 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Ver. 11. Without any indication of a connection with the preceding,
James passes to a new exhortation, which, however, is so far closely attached
to the preceding, inasmuch as humiliation before God carries with itself
humility toward our brethren. From the fact that this exhortation, although
decidedly earnest, has yet undeniably a milder character than the former,
and that James uses here the address ddeAgoi, whereas before it was poryadides,
duaprwAoi, diyvyo,) it 13 to be inferred that James now addresses, at least
primarily, those who by the worldly ways of others felt induced to do those
things against which he here exhorts them. — pu? xaradadeire GAARAwr]. xara-
Aadeiv only here and in 1 Pet. ii. 12, iii. 16 (the substantive in 2 Cor. xii. 30;
the adjective in Rom. i. 30; 1°Pet. ii. 1), to speak in a hostile manner against
one; Luther, “to slander.” dAAjAwv, against each other. Estius, Semler, Pott,
Gebser, Hottinger, incorrectly restrict the exhortation to teachers.2 — 6 xara-
AaApy, x.7.A., assigns the reason of the exhortation. The two ideas xaraAadaw
and xpivuv are indeed closely connected, but are not equivalent, since xara-
AadAeiv presupposes xpiveww; they are here indicated as distinct ideas by 7.—
By the addition ddeAgod not only is the reprehensibleness of xaraAadeiv empha-
sized (Schneckenburger: jam hoc vocabulo, quantum peccatur xaradanaic,
submonet), but also the reason is given for the sentiment here expressed
katadadei vopnov. By airov added to rdv adeAgév this is brought out more
strongly, whilst also the brotherly union is more distinctly marked than
by the simple ddeAgov ; incorrectly Bengel: /fraterna aequalitas laeditur obtrec-
tando; sed MAGIS judicando. — xatadadei vopuv cai xpiver vopov]. By voyuog the
same law is here meant as in chap. i. 25, ii. 9, etc.: the law of Christian
life which according to its contents is none other than the law of love, to
which ddeAgov and rdv ddcAgdv atroi already point. By reviling and con-
demning one’s brother, the law of love itself is reviled and condemned,
whilst it is thereby disclaimed as not lawfully existing, and, as may be
added, its tendency to save and not to destroy is condemned (Lange).
The explanation of De Wette, that there is here a kind of play of words,
in which is contained only the idea of contempt and disregard of the law,
is unsatisfactory.2 Grotius, Baumgarten, Hottinger, quite erroneously under-
stand by voyuor the Christian doctrine, and find therein expressed the senti-
ment, that whosoever imposes upon his neighbor arbitrary commandments
designates the Christian doctrine as defective, and in so far sets himself up
as its judge.‘— With the following words: ef dé voyov xpivecc, x.7.A., the fur-
1 Lange Incorrectly observes that there is
mo reason to see here a transition from one
class toanotber. But it ia not here maintained
that James bas In view a sharply exclusive dis-
tinction of different classes of his readers.
2 Wiesinger correctly says that we are not
here to think of a contest between Jewish and
Gentile Christians; Lange incorrectly asserts
that the primary reference here is to the in-
ternal! divisions of Judaism.
3 The opinion of Stier is mistaken: ‘‘ Who-
ever improperly and officiously notes and deals
with the sins of other men, throws blame
thereby upon the law of God, as if it were not
sufficient; for he acts as if he supposed it
necessary to come to the help of the law.”
* Lange, in accordance with his view, sup-
poses the reference to be to the Jewish cere-
monial law, although he does not explain roxos
as equivalent todoctrine. Also Bouman thinks
that James has here in view the judicia de
aliena conscientia ; but James does not indi-
cate that among bis readers disputes took place
de sabbati veneratione, de licito rel illicito
cidorum uau,ete. Augustine here arbitrarily
assumes an attack upon the Gentile Christians.
CHAP. IV. 12. 137
ther consequence is added: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of
the law, but a judge. — The particle dé serves to carry on the thought: ot« el
ronTi¢ vopov, i.e., thou thereby departest from the attitude which becomes
thee; for the law is given to man that he might do it, but whosoever thinks
he has right against the law, cannot be a doer of it, and consequently
assumes a position which does not belong to him (Wiesinger), which posi-
tion is, as the sequel says, dAAd xpir7¢. Baumgarten, Gebser, Neander, Wie-
singer, Lange, and others supply the genitive véyov to xpr7c; incorrectly, for
(1) this would make this sentence and the one preceding it tautological;
(2) it dilutes the idea xpiry¢ in its contrast to roirta¢ vouov; and (3) the
sequel which is added to this idea xpirnc, adverts not to the judging of
the law, but to the judging of the man. The meaning is: Whosoever
judges the law constitutes himself a judge, giving a law according to
which he judges or pronounces sentence upon his neighbor. But this is
not the province of man. The following verse tells the reason why it
is not 80.
Ver. 12. One is the lawgiver and judge, (namely) He who can rescue (save)
and destroy. The chief accents lies on elc, in opposition to men who presume
to be judges. — 6 vouosérnc xai xpirac]. The idea vopyosérne is here introduced,
because the judging belongs only to Him who has given the law, and is
adduced against those who by judging their neighbor act as lawgivers,
whereas their duty is to obey the given law.1— 6 duvisevoc odoat xa? amudéoat
serves for a more precise statement of the subject ely (so also Briickner,
Lange, Bouman); it mentions who this One is, and in such a manner that
it is also announced why He, and He only, can be voyodérne nal xpiric.
Schneckenburger correctly observes: 6 duvapyevog . . . articulus appositionis
signum, ad subjectum el¢ pertinentis grammatice; but incorrectly adds: ita
autem ul, quoad sensum, melius in propriam resolvatur sententiam. Not only
grammatically, but also according to the sense, 6 duvayuevor, etc., is to be
most closely united to ec; therefore also Luther's translation: “there is one
Lawgiver who is able to save and to condemn,” is incorrect.2 — 6 duvayevoc -
is not, with Schneckenburger, to be resolved into ¢ éeor:, but is to be retained
in its literal meaning. Bengel correctly remarks: nostrum non est judicare;
praesertim cum exequi non POSSIMUS. — On ocdca, see chap. ii. 14; on dzo-
Correctly, Laurentius: ‘‘Is qui detrahit prox-
imo, detrahit legi, quia lex prohibet omnem
detractionem, sed et judicat idem legem, quia
hoc {peo quod contra prohibitionem legis
detrahit, judicat quasi, legem non recte pro-
hibuisese.”
1 The explanation of Morus Je false: “‘ legis-
lator et judex est una eademque persona; ”’ and
Theile infers from this something entirely for-
eign: ‘‘unus est legislator ...idem ufriueque
legis auctor: et severioris moeaicae et liberali-
orie christianae . . . isque etiam judex .. . et
legitimus et idoncus, idque et utriusque legis
et eorum qui alterutram sequuntur:” of ail
which there is here no mention.
2 Most expositors, in the interpretation of
this passage, have failed in precision, being
natisfied with giving only ite general meaning.
They appear for the moat part to regard o duva-
ssevos, x. T. A, a8 aD attribute of & vonoberns
(the Rec. omits «ai xpitys); thus De Wette
translates it: ‘One ia the lawgiver and judge,
who is able to save and todestroy.” Wiesinger
gives here only a paraphrase which ie wanting
in definiteness: ‘‘ Judging us and our brethren
belongs to Him alone (namely, to Him who as
lawgiver is not under, but above the law), and
He proves Hie exclusive right by His power to
save and to destroy, with which he confirms
His judicial sentence.”
138 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Aécat, particularly Matt. x. 28.— od d2 rig el expresses the insignificance of
man, in contrast to 6 duvapevoc, x.7.A, (Schneckenburger), thus: “Thou who
hast no power to save and to destroy;” comp. Matt. x. 28. — The same
question in Rom. xiv. 4, ix. 20.1—6xpivev]. Schneckenburger : “ thou, appos.
ad pron. ob; qui articuli hanc vim nescierunt, loco participit posuerunt o¢
xpive.” — dv mAnoiov, without the personal pronoun, as in Mark xii. 33;
Rom. xiii. 10, xv. 2. The Rec. rav érepov perhaps arose from Rom. ii. 1.
Ver. 18. The apostrophe commencing with this verse, and continued
until chap. v. 6, has a character plainly distinguished from other portions
of the Epistle— (1) by dye viv repeated; (2) those addressed are neither
directly designated as ddeAgoi, as is elsewhere the case with James (with the
single exception of chap. iv. 1 ff.), nor are yet characterized as members of
the Christian Church; (3) only their forgetfulness of God is described, and
their judgment is announced, without any call being added to desist from
their practice and be converted; so that this apostrophe contains not the
slightest exhortation to repentance, as is the case with those addressed in
ver. 8 as duaprwdoi and dipyyo, All this is a sufficient proof that James has
in view, as Oecumenius, Bede, Semler, Pott, Hottinger, and others have cor-
rectly remarked (differently Gebser, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wiesinger ;
Theile considers that Jewish Christians and Jews are here addressed), not so
much the members of the church, as rather the rich (of xActow, chap. v. 1),
of whom it is already said in chap. ii. 6, 7, that they oppress the Christians
and blaspheme the name of Christ, and who are already, in chap. i. 10,
opposed to “the brother of low degree.” The severe language against them
in an epistle directed to Christians is sufficiently explained from the fact
that with many among them, as follows from ver. 1 ff., the same forgetful-
ness of God had gained ground. Also the first section (vv. 13-17) is of
such a nature that the fault therein expressed affected many of the readers
not less than the arrogant Jews.? In this section, those addressed are at
first characterized only according to their presumptuous security in their
striving after earthly gain. — dye viv]. dye, occurring in the N. T. only here
and in chap. v. 1, is a summons, which also, with classical writers, is joined
with the plural (Winer, p. 458 [E. T., 516]).— viv serves not only for
strengthening (De Wette, Wiesinger), but likewise for connection with
what goes before. As in what follows there is no summons to do any
thing, some expositors suppose that dye viv is designed only to excite atten-
tion; Grotius: jam ego ad vos; so also Pott, Theile: age, audite vos.
Others supply a thought; thus Schulthess: wig rouire, or py xadcc moueire,
_and the like. De Wette thinks that the summons to lay aside the fault
is indirectly contained in the reproof. Wiesinger suggests ver. 16 as the
1 Yet is the ov bere to be understood comma after ei, but not in those other
in definite antithesis to another, namely
to God, on which account also é€ is added.
It has therefore a more independent mean-
ing than in the passages adduced from
the Epistle to the Romans. In this there
ia reason for the editors Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Buttmann here piacing a
passages.
2 Lange agrees with this in essentials, affirm.
ing that this section was principally addressed
to the Jews; whereby he certainly proceeds
from the erroneous supposition that the Epistle
was directed to the Jews generally by the hands
of the Jewish Christians.
‘ CHAP. IV. 13. 139
material for the designed imperative clause. It is more correct to assume we
that James has already here in view the imperative clause in chap. v. 1,—
kAaboare . . . éml raig radairupiate tydv, «.t.A.,— placed after dye viv again re-
sumed; thus Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger; similarly Lange, accord-
ing to whoin dye viv “refers to the announcement of the judgment, which
comes out quite clear in chap. v. 1, but is here darkly and menacingly
alluded to.” — oi Aeyovrec]. Ye whosay. éyev is to be retained in its usual
signification; comp. chap. ii. 14. Theile, without reason, explains it: qui
non solum cogitare soletis sed etiam dicere audetlis. — onpuepov Kai atpiy an-
nounces the precise duration of the intended journey — not when it should
commence, but how long it should endure. With this explanation there is
no difficulty in «ai; otherwise 7 (as the Rec. reads) must stand. In «ai there
lies a greater confidence (Theile), as according to it a definite plan is fixed
upon also for the morrow. According to Wiesinger, different instances are
here taken together, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (so already Bengel: unus dicit hodie,
idem aliusve cras, ut commodum est); according to this, xai would have to
be explained: “and relatively” (see Meyer on that passage); but the in-
definiteness contained therein does not suit the certainty with which these
people speak. Lange’s meaning is unjustified: “that atp:ov is used for the
undefined future subsequent to to-day.” — mopercdueda]. The indicative we
shall journey expresses the certain confidence more strongly than the con-
junctive let us journey; see critical remarks. — eig rivde tiv rod]. Luther:
info us and that city. This explanation is also in Winer, ed. 6, p. 146
(E. T., ed. 7, 162), who adduces for it rivde riv quépav in Plutarch, Symp. i.
6.1; but Al. Buttmann (p. 90 [E. T., 103]), on the other hand, correctly
asserts that the pronoun in that passage, as everywhere among Greek
authors, has its full demonstrative meaning, and that therefore it must be
understood in James in the same sense; thus Schirlitz (p. 222) observes
that the pronoun is here used dearixog; see also Liinemann’s remark in
Winer, ed. 7, p. 153 (E. T., 162); still it is not to be explained, with
Schneckenburger: in hanc urbem, quae in conspectu quasi sita est: but, with
Theile: certa fingilur, quae vero verie eligi potest. Those introduced as
speaking mean each time a definite city; but as this differs with different
persons, James could only indicate it in an indefinite manner, and he does
so by the pronoun by which each time a definite city is pointed to; thus into
the city which the traveller had chosen as his aim. By sopeteodaz eig r. mod. is
indicated not merely the going into the city, but also the journey to the city in
which they would remain. — xa? moujoouev, «.7.A.]. We will spend there a year;
soeiv with a designation of time, as in Acts xv. 33, xx. 3, and other places;
in the O. T., Prov. xiii. 23; see also Nicarch., Epigr. 35 (Jacobs’ ed.): év
tavty weroinxa moAdv xpovov. Luther incorrectly translates it: “and will con-
tinue there a year:”! for évavrdr éva is not the accusative of duration, but
the proper objective accusative. The reading éa fittingly expresses the
confidence with which those introduced as speaking measure out their time
3 Seler, correctly : ‘ willspend therea year.” that the time in question !s busily employed,”
The opinion of Lange, that “ woeiy along with is contradicted by 2 Cor. xi. 25.
a deBiaition of time may likewise have indicated
140 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. e
beforehand, but not “their restless and unsteady conduct” (Lange). — «a2
Europevoopeda Kal xepdyoouev]. Bengel: xai frequens ; polysyndeton exprimit libé-
dinem animi securi. — tunopetecdat = to traffic; the final aim is designated
by xepdjcouev. That aim is worldly gain, which, in carnal security, is recog-
nized as certain to be realized, so that it cannot fail. Kern correctly re-
marks: “Traffic is introduced only by way of example, as characterizing
man’s doings with reference to the earthly life as contrasted with the life
in God.”
Ver. 14. James opposes to carnal security the uncertainty of the future
and the transitoriness of life. —oirwee = ul qui; correctly Wiesinger: “Ye
who are of such a character that,” etc. — ova émioracbe 1d (ra) r#¢ atpiov indi-
cates the ignorance of what the next day will bring forth; comp. Prov. iii. 28,
XXvil. 1: ye xavyd ra eig atpiov, ob yap ywehonere Ti TékeTAL 7 Exvovlca:: thus whether
life will stil] last. What follows shows that James had this chiefly in view.
— roia yap 7 Gud tuav;]. yap gives an explanation of ot« émicraobe. — roia, as in
1 Pet. ii. 20, how constituted? with the subsidiary meaning of nothingness.
By the reading adopted by Buttmann: oirivec cbx érioracde ric atpwov roia wi
tpav, the genitive ri¢ atpov is dependent on- zoia (wy; thus, “Ye know not
how your life of to-morrow is circumstanced.” This idea is evidently
feebler than the usual reading, for it is supposed that they yet live on
the following day, which according to the other reading is denoted as doubt-
ful. — druic yap tore, x.7.A.]. yap refers to the idea lying at the foundation of
the preceding question, that life is entirely nothing. — drug (in the N. T.
only here and in Acts ii. 19, in an O. T. quotation), literally breath ; thus in
Wisd. of Sol. vii. 25, synonymous with éméffoa, has in the O. T. and the
Apocrypha chiefly the meaning of smoke; thus Gen. xix. 28: dryi¢ xapyivov ;
so also Ecclus. xxii. 24; Ezek. viii. 11: drpic rob Ovucauaroc; Ecclus. xxiv. 15:
Rupavev atuic; see also Joel iii. 3; Ecclus. xliii. 4; in the classics it also
occurs in the meaning of vapor. According to biblical usage, it is here to
be taken in the first meaning (smoke); thus Lange; Luther translates it by
vapor; De Wette and Wiesinger, by steam. —éore is stronger than the Rec.
gore; not only their life, but also they themselves are designated as a smoke;
as in chap. i. 10 it is also said of the zAovows, that he shall fade away as
the flower of the grass. — By 9 mpdc ddiyov . . . dgavouévn, the nature of the
smoke is stated. — mpoc ddiyov = for a little time; dAipov is neuter. —xai is to
be explained: as it appears, so it also afterwards vanishes. In the corre-
sponding passages, Job viii. 9, Ps. cii. 12, cxliv. 4, the transitoriness of life
is represented not under the image of druic (Wiesinger), but of a shadow;
differently in Ps. cii. 4. .
Ver. 15. After the reason has been given in ver. 14 why it was wrong to
speak as in ver. 13, this verse tells us how we ought to speak. — dvri row Aéyew
tude is closely connected with of Aéyovrec, ver. 13, so that ver. 14 forms a paren-
thesis: Ye who say, To-day, etc., instead of saying, édv 6 xipwe, x.7.A. — Accord-
ing to the reading (joopey xai mojoouev (instead of the Rec. Growuev xal roejpowper)
1 Lange indeed assents to this; buthethinks trait of the diabolically excited worldliness of
that the apostle, with a prophet’s giance, evi- hie people, as it afterwards became more and
dently describes beforehand the fundamental more developed.
CHAP. IV. 16. 141
it is most natural to refer xa? Goouey not to the protasis (as Tischendorf
punctuates it), but to the apodosis (Lachmanu and Buttmann; so also Wie-
singer and Lange); for, first, it is grarhmatically more correct to make only
the conjunctive 6c/jo9 dependent on édv, and to take the two indicatives
together; and, secondly, from this construction the striking thought results,
that not only the doing, but also the life, as the condition of the doing, is
dependent on the will of God: it is accordingly to be translated: [f the Lord
will, we shall both live and do’ this or that. Correctly, Wiesinger: “It appears
to be more suitable to the sense to take éay é x. 6A. a8 a single condition, and
not to complete it by a second.” On the other hand, most expositors retain
the reading of the Rec., but they construe it differently. De Wette refers xal
Gpowpev to the protasis, and takes the second xai as belonging to the apodosis:
“If the Lord will and we live, we shall,” etc.; so also Erasmus, Luther,
Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, and in general most expositors (also Winer, see
critical remarks; on the contrary, A]. Buttmann, p. 311 (E. T., 362), prefers
the indicative). Schneckenburger, indeed, refers xai Gowyev to the protasis,
but he connects it more closely with éav @eAjoy: si Deo placet ut vivamus tum
Saciemus (similarly Grotius and Hottinger), which, however, cannot be lin-
guistically justified. Bornemann (in Winer and Engelhardt’s N. Krit.
Journ., vi., 1827) commences the apodosis with xai owner, and explains it:
“Let us seek our sustenance.” — Winer correctly observes that this explana-
tion (which Briickner erroneously ascribes to this commentary) lacks sim-
plicity, and is not supported by biblical usage. Bouman and others (see
critical notes) refer Gowyev naturally to the protasis, and momjoouev to the
apodosis. The meaning which this reading, unsupported by authorities,
gives, appears to be suitable, but yet is not correct, for it would be more
correct to have said: éay Gowper nul 6 xiptoc OeAnoy. — The indicative is to be
preferred to the conjunctive in the apodosis, as a reciprocal call to definite
action corresponds less with the context than the resolution to do something.
Ver. 16 expresses the conduct of those addressed in contrast to ver. 15;
and in such a manner that the judgment upon that conduct is also expressed.
—viv dé, here, as frequently, where the reality in opposition to what is set
before a person is emphasized; see 1 Cor. v. 11, xiv. 6. — xavydode tv ral¢ ada-
Coveiacs iucv. By cdAatoveia is to be understood the arrogant self-reliance on
the duration of earthly prosperity; see explanation of 1 John ii. 16. De
Wette inaccurately explains it by bragging; Theile, by arroganter facta,
dicta: Schneckenburger, by pertness ; Wiesinger, by “those arrogant expres-
sions affecting complete independence;” Lange, by “vain and arrogant
self-exaltation ;” and others differently. The plural is used, because such
haughtiness manifests itself differently under different circumstances. — éy,
here used differently than in chap. i. 9: the dAadoveia: are not the object but
the reason of the boasting, that from which it proceeds (against Wiesinger),
1 The indicative future after éiy ie only be assumed, James only intending to say that
found with absolute certainty in Luke zix.40. | we should always resolve never to speak decid-
See Al. Buttmann, p. 192 (E. T., 222). edly, he has in later editions correctly relin-
® The opinion which Winer, in ed.5,p.881f. quished.
bas expressed, that perbape no apodoeis is to
142 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
and xavydoda is designated from the standpoint of James: that haughty and
presumptuous language in ver. 13; comp. Prov. xxvii. 1.— With the fol-
lowing words: ndoa xatynotc, x.7.A. James definitely expresses his reproba-
tion. —roabry]. Not every boasting in itself (chap. i. 9), but every boasting
which proceeds from dAafoveia, which is founded in it, and connected with it,
is wicked.
Ver. 17. With the general sentence: Whosoever knoweth to do good and
doeth it not, to him it is sin, James concludes what he has hitherto said. — oy
is used in the sense of conclusion, but indicates that the concluding thought
is the result of what has gone before. — xadav moeiv belong together, depend-
ent on eidérs; not “whosoever knows the good. that is to be done,” which
would be to take mowiv as an epexegetical infinitive. Wiesinger correctly
remarks: “xadév is not the idea of good, in which case the article would be
put, but that which is fair, in contrast to an action which in its moral nature
is zovypév.” That the discourse is concerning a sin of omission as such, to
which this sentence is commonly referred (Bengel, Jachmann, and others),
is rightly contested by De Wette and Wiesinger.! — duapria aire toriv. De
Wette: “In the sense of reckoning; John xv. 22; Luke xii. 47 f.” (so
already Estius, also Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, and others). — ai7@ is here
put, as frequently in the N. T., especially after the participle; comp. Matt.
v. 40; see Al. Buttmann, p. 125 (E. T., 143). With regard to the connec-
tion in which this sentence stands with the preceding, most expositors
understand it as enforcing that to which James has formerly exhorted his
readers, and refer eidor to the knowledge which they have now received by
the word of James. But against this is the objection, that if this expression
be referred to all the previous exhortations (Estius: jam de omnibus satis vos
admonui, vobis bene nota sunt), this would not be its proper place, because
later on more exhortations follow; but if it is only referred to the last
remark (Grotius: moniti estis a me, ignorantiam non potestis oblendere, si quid
posthac tale dizeritis, gravior erit culpa; so also Pott, Theile, De Wette, Wie-
singer), we cannot see why James should have added such a remark to this
exhortation, as it would be equally suitable to any other. It is accordingly
better to refer cidér: to the already existing knowledge of the subject just
treated of; namely, the uncertainty of human life is something so manifest,
that those who notwithstanding talk in their presumption as if it did not
exist, as if their life were not dependent on God, contrary to their own
knowledge, do not that which is seemly, but that which is unseemly, and
therefore this is so much the more sin unto them.?
2 * Bloce caddy is the antithesis of rornpdy,
and not some positive good as beneficence, the
defect of which is not sovnpdy, as De Wette
correctly remarks, 1 rovovwre doen not merely
signify a sin of omission, but the omission of
«addy is necessarily a doing of sovnpéy.” .
3 When Lange, iu arguing agninst this ex-
planation, maintains that the word refers to
the better knowledge of the readers, of evan-
gelical behavior in general, the definite con-
nection of thought, in which here the general
sentence is placed, is not properly considered
by him.
CHAP. V. 143
CHAPTER V.
Ver. 4. Instead of elseAnAvéaow the form eiceAnAvéay is, with Tisch. and
Lachm., to be preferred (on this form see Ph. Buttm., Ausfiihrl. Gr. Gr., § 87, 8,
Note 5, and Winer, p. 70 f. [E. T., 93]).— Ver. 5. The o&¢ of the Rec. (after
G, K, ete.) before tv nuépea is, according to the testimonies of A, B, &, to be
regarded as an explanatory addition, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be left
out; so also Wiesinger, Lange, Briickner; Reiche and Bouman, however, judge
otherwise. — Ver. 7. The Rec. after the second fw¢ has the particle dv (so in &
and many min.). Tisch. has omitted it, as, according to his statement, it is not
found in A, B, G, K, etc.; Lachm. has retained it (according to Tischendorf’s
note: ez errore); so also Buttmann, who adduces no authority for its omission.
Already Griesbach regarded dv as suspicious. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted
terov: it is in A, G, K, etc., but is wanting in B, ®, etc.; its addition is easily
explained, particularly as in the LXX. it is never wanting with mpaipoc xa
éytuor. — Ver. 9. The address ddeAgoi, in A, B, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.), stands
before, In G, &, etc. (Rec.), after car aAAjdAwy; in K, etc., it is entirely wanting.
Instead of xaraxpi@7te the simple verb xpc67re is, with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm.,
Tisch., to be read, according to almost all authorities; so also the article 6
before xpir#¢ (which in the Rec. is wanting, against almost all authorities) is
to be adopted. — Ver. 10. The address according to the Rec. is adeAgot pov
(G, K, #, ete.); in A, B, etc., zov is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.); its correct posi-
tion is after AaBere, not after xaxonabeias, —Instead of xaxomaGeiac, ¥ alone reads
nadoxayadiac, — Before 1) dvéuar:, B, 8, etc., have the preposition é (Lachm.):
a correction apparently for the sake of simplification. —X alone omits To. —
Ver. 11. It is difficult to decide whether we are to read, with the Rec. and Tisch.,
trouévovrac (G, K, ete.), or, with Lachm. and Wiesinger, tmoueivavrac (A, B, 8,
etc.); yet the reading of the Rec. appears to have arisen from an endeavor to
generalize the reference of the idea: Bouman certainly judges otherwise. —
The Rec. eldere, after B® (teste Majo), K, &, etc., Oecumenius (Lachm.), is as
a correction to be changed for the more difficult reading idere, attested by A,
B, G, etc. (Tisch.). — After éor:v the Rec. has 6 xtpioc, according to A, B (in B,
however, the article is wanting), 8, several min., vss., etc. (Lachm.); Griesbach
regarded it as suspicious, and Tisch. has omitted it, after C, K, many min., ete.;
the omission can easily be explained from the fact that «vpiov directly precedes
(90 also Lange; Bouman wavers).— Ver. 12. The reading ele troxpiow (Ed.
Steph., after G, K, etc.) has probably arisen from the original td xpiorv, these
two words being taken as one, and then a preposition placed before them. —
Ver 14. The avrov after ateipavrec is wanting in B; it was omitted as being
self-evident. — Lachm. and Tisch. have, after A and some min., left out the
article rob before xvpiov; yet G, K, 8, many min., etc., attest its genuineness; in
B aleo avplov is wanting; nevertheless Buttmann has received it, but without
the article. — Ver. 16. The reading of the Rec. is é{opodoyeiove GAARA ra
4
144 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
mwapanrauara, xal ebyeode, x.7.A. (Tisch.); instead of which A, B read éfopodoyeiobe
ov GAAnAow Td¢ duapriag Kal mpocevxecde, x.7.A. (Lachm.); for ovv also K, &, several
mnin., Vulg., etc., testify: accordingly ovv is to be considered as genuine; yet
precisely this ovv might mislead one to find in this verse an extension of the
thought going before, and on this account to change the new expressions
with the preceding, and thus, instead of taparroyara, to put again duapriac,
and instead of evxeode, for which also & testifies, to put again mpoocevzeobe,
whereas the opposite change cannot be well explained. — Ver. 18. The Rec.
berdv Eduxev is found in B, G, K, almost all min., etc. (Tisch.); A, on the con-
trary, has éduxev verov (Lachm.); so also &, but with tov before verov, It is
possible that this change was occasioned by the following é8Acarnoev rdov xaprov,
— Ver. 19. Tisch. has omitted the pronoun pov after ddeAgoi, yet the most
important authorities, A, B, K, &, etc., attest its genuineness. —® alone has,
instead of the simple ri¢ aAnGeiac, the combination rig ddod 17¢ GAnbeiac.— Ver. 20.
The reading yevooxere in B is occasioned by the address adeAgot. Instead of the
Rec. yvy7y, after G, K, many min. (Tisch.), Lachm., and Buttm. have adopted
yuxny avrov. This abrod is found in A, &, some min., vss., etc. B has it, prob-
ably by an error of the scribe, not after yuy7v, but after bavarov.—B has as
subscription ‘laxa3ou; A, ‘laxwov émcotoAy; others differently.
Ver. 1. That here the same persons are meant as in chap. iv. 13, and
not others, has already been observed on that passage: by dye viv, the dye viv
of that passage is again resumed.! — oi rAotowm]. See chap. i. 10, ii. 6,7; the
expression is not to be taken in a symbolical, but in its literal, meaning
(against Lange). —«Aatvoare dAoAifovrec, x.7.1.]. xAaioare is not here to be
understood, as in chap. iv. 9, of the tears of repentance (Estius, Hornejus,
Laurentius, De Wette, and others), for there is no intimation of a call to
repentance. Correctly, Calvin: falluntur qui Jacobum hic exhortari ad poeni-
tentiam divites putant; mihi simplex magis denuntiatio judictt Dei videtur, qua
eos terrere voluit absque spe veniae.2 James already sees the judgment coming
upon the rich, therefore the call «Aatcare; that for which they should weep
are the rada:mwpia: which threatened them. — The tmperative is not here used
instead of the future (Semler: stilo prophetico tmperat, ut rem cerlissimam
demonstret, FLEBITIS; Schneckenburger: aoristus imperativi rem moz certoque
eventuram designat), but is to be retained in its full force. The imperative
expresses not what they will do, but what they shall even now do, because
their raAanupiac are nigh. The union of the imperative «xAaicare with the
participle 4AoAifovree is not an imitation of the frequent combination of
the finite verb with the infinite absolute of the same verb in the Hebrew
1 Whilat De Wette, Wiesinger, and others
understand by the rich here addressed Chrie-
tlans, Stier has correctly recognized that such
are here addressed ‘“‘who are outside of the
Christian Church,” namely, those already men-
tloned fn chap. fi. 6, 7, who practise violence
on you, the confessors of the Lord of glory.
His remark ie aleo striking: ‘To them James
predicts as a prophet, and entirely fn the style
of the old prophets, the impending judgment.”
® Wiesinger indeed concedes the point to
Calvin, but only in words; for ‘‘the design of
James, as in the case of the prophets of the
O. T., is certainly nothing elee than that of
moving them by such a threat if possible yet
to turn.” If James has thie design in these
words, he has certainly not indicated It.
3 That James by thie intends the end of
the Roman Empire (Hengstenberg), is proved
neither from the Epletie of Peter, nor from
Rev. xvili., nor from any other indications in
this Epistle.
CHAP. V. 2. 145
(Schneckenburger), since here two different verbs are united together (De
Wette, Wiesinger); also dAoAbfev has not the same meaning as «Aaiew, but,
as expressive of a more vehement affection, is added for the sake of strength.
dAoAvzerv frequently in the O. T., Isa. xiii. 6, xiv. 31, xv. 3 (dAoAbcere pera
xAqvouov), and in other places, and indeed chiefly used in reference to the
impending divine judgment (Isa. xiii. 6: dAoAilere, tyydc yap quépa xvpiov).
Calvin: est quidem et suus poenitentiae luctus, sed qui mixtus consolatione, non
ad ululatum usque procedit. — éni raic tadainwpiay buen). For your miseries, i.e.,
the miseries destined for you, namely, the miseries of the judgment; see ver. 3:
év boxara fuépay; ver. 7: napovoia rov xvpiov. Thomas Aquinas, Grotius,
Mill, Benson, Michaelis, Stier, Lange, Bouman, refer this to the then im-
pending destruction of Jerusalem; they are so far right, as the destruction
of Jerusalem and the last judgment had not as yet been distinguished in
representation ;! but it is incorrect to refer it to the judgment itself, rather
than to the miseries which will precede the advent of Christ; or, with Hottinger,
to find here only a description of the inconstancy of prosperity. — rai¢ inepyo-
pévaic, NOt sc. duiv (Luther: your misery which will come upon you; so also
De Wette, Lange, and others), but the impending, already threatening miseries ;
comp. Eph. ii. 7.
Ver. 2. Description of the judgment destroying all riches: 6 sAovrog busy
otonxev. In a prophetical manner the future is described as having already
taken place (Hottinger, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman,
and others). By ridciroc is not here—as Estius, Raphelius, Wolf, Semler,
Gebser, Bouman, on account of céoymev think — to be understood such things
(fruit, etc.) as undergo literal rottenness, but is to be understood generally ;
and céonre as a figuratire expression denotes generally the destruction to
which riches are abandoned. The explanation of Calvin is incorrect: hic
immensa divitum rapacitas perstringitur, dum supprimunt, quicquid undecunque
possunt ad se trahere, ut inuliliter in arca computrescat (similarly Hornejus,
Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile #) ; James “does not here intend to give
the natural result of covetousness, and thus the reason of the judgment, but
the effect of the judgment breaking forth” (Wiesinger). James describes
the reason from ver. 4 and onwards. — The verb ofzw, to cause to rot, in the
passive and second perfect to corrupt, is in the N T. an. dey. but often
occurs in the LXX.; comp. Job xxxiii. 21, xl. 7; as here in a general sense
(= @Geipecba) it is found in Ecclus. xiv. 19.—xat ra lparea tydv, x.r.A. The
general idea xAotroc is here and in what follows specialized. — oyrdBpuror,
1 Wiesinger : ‘‘ The question whether James
thought on the destruction of Jerusalem, or on
the advent of Messiah, is an anachronism; for
to him both of these events occur together.”’
8 Theile, who takes the preterite in its literal
sense, thus explains the passage: “‘divitiae a
wobis coacervatae perierunt nulla vestra all-
orumque utilitate ... atque ideo vos coram
jadice perdent. Ita cauea additur istarum cala-
‘ mitatam perferendi, gravi oppositione eorum
quae per abeurda et impia ipsorum avaritia
jam facta sunt eorumque, quae pro justa Dei
retributione adhuc fient.”’
8 In agreement with hia explanation of
wAovoro., Lange understands also wAovtos in
a symbolical sense, namely, the externalized
Judalstic righteousness — “‘ connected, of
course, with worldly prosperity.” Hise asser-
tion fe also Incorrect, that here not the last
judgment, but ‘the natural immanent judg-
ments of sinners’ are meant.
146 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
moth-eaten, in the N. T. az. Acy., does not occur in the classics, but in Job
xiii. 20, LXX.: domep ivarwv onréfpwrov; comp. Isa. li. 8. oxwAnxdBpwrog in
Acts xii. 23 is similarly formed.
Ver. 3. Continuation of the description of the judgment: 6 ypvade ipen
xal 6 dayvpoc, & further specification of riches. «xariwra:, in the N. T. am. Aey.
(Ecclus. xii. 10), equivalent to the simple verb, only in a stronger significa-
tion. Correctly, Hornejus: loquitur populariter, nam aurum proprie aeruginem
non contrahit; so in the Epistle of Jeremiah 11, where it is said of gold and
silver images: ob dtacc{ovra: dd ict; see also in the same, ver. 23. With too
minute accuracy, Bretschneider justifies the use of the verb here, that we are
to think on gold and silver vessels which are alloyed with copper (similarly
Bouman). It is no less incorrect, with Pott, to weaken the idea xariwrat,
that it is to be understood only of amisso auri et argenti splendore, de mutato
auri colore ex flavo in viridem; against this is 6 id¢ directly following. Wie-
singer thinks that because xariwra: is here used figuratively, it is a matter of
indifference that rust does not affect gold; but the ideas must suit each
other in the figurative expression. The verb is rather here to be justified
by the fact that since rust settles on metals generally, James in his vivid
concrete description did not scrupulously take into consideration the differ-
ence of metals, which, however, is not to be reckoned, with De Wette, asa
“poetical exaggeration.” 1— xa? 6 lag abrav (namely, rob xpvooi Kai Tov apyipov),
eig papriptov buiv fora. Most expositors agree with the explanation of Oecu-
menius: xarayaprupjoe bua, tAéyywr 7d dueradoroy tua; accordingly, “The rust
which has collected on your unused gold and silver will testify to your hard-
ness, and that to your injury = xar’ tev.” But since the preceding «xariwras
describes the judgment overtaking earthly glory, id¢ can only be understood
with reference to it; correctly, Wiesinger: “the rust is a witness of their
own destruction; in the destruction of their treasures they see depicted
their own.”? Augusti superficially explains it: “will convince you that all
riches are transitory.” After their riches are destroyed, the judgment seizes
upon themselves; therefore xal gdyera: ta¢ odpxac invov. The subject is 6 id,
“the corroding rust seizes also them, and will eat their flesh” (Wiesinger).
The figurative expression, although bold and peculiar, is not unsuitable,
since lé¢ is considered as an effect of judgment. gdyera: is not the present
(Schneckenburger), but in the LXX. and N. T. the ordinary future for
’déeraz; see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. Sprach., § 114 (E. T., 58), under éofia;
Winer, p. 82 (E. T., 89). The object rac otipxac tudv belonging to gayera is
neither = tude (Baumgarten), nor yet in itself indicates “bloated bodies”
(Augusti, Pott: corpora lautis cibis bene pasta); also Schneckenburger lays
too much stress on the expression, explaining it: emphatice, quum ejusmodi
homines nthil sint nisi oap§. According to usage, al cdpxec denotes the fleshy
parts of the body, therefore the plural is also used with reference to one indi-
1 Lange strangely thinke that it fe here in- as for the glory of Israel to ve as corrupted
tended to bring out the unnatural fact that the as the glory of other nations corrupts, which
princes of Israei are become rebellious and may be compared to bese metals,”’
companions of thieves: ‘It is as unnatural 3 Stier incorrectly understands by rust ‘‘the —
for gold and ailver to be eaten up with rust, guilt of sin which cleaves to mammon."”
?
CHAP. V. 4. 147
vidual ; comp. 2 Kings ix. 36: xaragdyovra: ol xbvec rag otipxag 'leGafeA; further,
Lev. xxvi. 29; Judith xvi. 17; Rev. xix. 18, 21; in definite distinction from
bones, Mic. iii. 2, 3. It is to be remarked that in almost all these passages
the same verb is united with the noun.! The context shows that what is
spoken of is not “the consuming of the body by care and want” (Erasmus,
Semler, Jaspar, Morus, Hottinger, Bouman), but the punishment of the
divine judgment (Calvin, Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wie-
singer, and others). The words w¢ zip may be united either with what goes
before or with what follows. Most expositors prefer the first combination;
yet already A, the Syriac version (where o¢ is wanting), and Oecumenius in
his commentary put a stop after tudv. Grotius, Knapp, and Wiesinger, con-
sidering this construction as correct, accordingly explain it: tanquam ignem
opes istas congessetis; Wiesinger states as a reason for this, that without the
union with o¢ rip the words é@ncavpicare, x.7.A,, give too feeble a meaning.
But this is not the case, since the chief stress rests on év foyaraice nuépatc (80
also Lange); also James could not well reckon riches as a fire of judgment.
Besides, in the O. T. the judgment is frequently represented as a devouring
consuming fire, which was sufficient to suggest to James to add dc zip to
¢ayerar.2 The sentiment is: After the judgment has overtaken the wealth of
the rich, it will attack themselves. Kern gives the sentiment in an unsatis-
factory manner: “ The destruction of that which was every thing to the rich
will punish him with torturing sorrow, as if fire devoured his flesh.” That
the raAa:mupia already draw near is said in ver. 1, and James by the words
tonoavpicare tv écxdrate qutpa indicates that the judgment is close at hand, so
that this time is the last days directly preceding the judgment; accordingly,
the beaping-up of treasure appears as something so much the more wicked.
Estius, Calvin, Laurentius, and others incorrectly supply to the verb the word
épy7v in accordance with Rom. ii. 5 (comp. Prov. i. 18). The object to be
supplied to @ycarpifer, which is often used absolutely (comp. Luke xii. 21;
2 Cor. xii. 14; Ps. xxxviii. 7), is contained in the verb itself, and also follows
from what has preceded. The preposition év is not used instead of ¢ic, and
doxarat futpa are not the last days of life (Wolf: accumulavistis divitias extremae
vitae parti provisuri; Morus: cumulastis opes sub finem vitae vestrae), but the
last times which precede the advent of Christ (ver. 7), not merely the final
national judgment (Lange). Jachmann most erroneously takes the sentence
as interrogative: Have ye collected your (spiritual) treasures on the day (i.e.,
for the day) of judgment, in order to exhibit them ?
Ver. 4. Description of the sins of the rich to the end of ver. 6, by reason
2 Although odp«es in iteelf indicates only
fiesh according to ite separate parts, yet the
expression ts here chosen in order to name
in a concrete manner that which is carefully
nouriahed by the rich. According to Lange,
ai cépaes are “ the externals of religious, civil,
and individual life; ” and the thought of James
is that ‘‘the rotten fixity described as ruat in
tte last stage transforms itself in the fire of a
revolutionary movement”’!
2 Bee Ps. xxi. 10, LXX.: carapayerar avrove
mvp; lea. x. 16, 17, xxx. 27 (7 opyn tov Gupov wes
wup éera); Ezek. xv. 7; Amos v. 6. Pott:
“‘Aerugo deacribitur, quasi invadat membra di-
vitum, eaque quasi, ut metallum, arrodat atque
consumat et quidem ... ws mvp, tanquam
flamma membra quasi circumlabene carnem-
que lento dolore depascens.”’
148 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
of which they become liable to the judgment. The first sin mentioned is
their injustice toward those who work for them. — idot, an interjection often
occurring in the N. T. to draw attention to the object in question. — ray
épyarav, emphatically put first; comp. the proverb: détoc 6 épyarne rot pucbob
abrov (1 Tim. v. 18). row dunodvruv (audv = Oepigerv, in the N. T. ax, Aey.) rac
xopar tyav; xopa = fields, as in Luke xii. 16; John iv. 35. — In the following
words, expositors conjoin dg’ duav with dmeorepnutvoc ;! whilst they either
explain dé = ind, or, as Wiesinger, retaining the distinction of the prepo-
sitions, observes, that “not the direct origin, but the proceeding of the act
of robbery from them, is indicated” (comp. Winer, p. 332 (E. T., 464); Al.
Buttmann, p. 280 [E. T., 326]). But it would be more suitable to join
ag’ ipov to xpafee (so also Lange); the kept-back hire crieth from the place
where it is.2 The chief stress is put on 6 ameorepnuévoc; the same kind of
conjunction as in chap. iv. 14. The injury of our neighbor, by diminished
payment or withholding of the wages due to him, was expressly forbidden
in the law.2—x«péfec. Calvin: vindictam quasi alto clamore exposcit; comp.
Gen. iv. 10.—In the following words it is stated that the cry has been heard
by God.‘ By the designation of God as xvpiov oa3ae0, His power as the Lord
of the heavenly hosts is emphasized; the reference occurring in the O. T.
likewise to the earthly hosts is here evidently not admissible (against Lange);
it is the transference of the Hebrew NIRI¥ 1177, often occurring in the LXX..,
particularly in Isaiah; in other places the LXX. have xipioc. mavroxparup,
2 Sam. v. 10, vii. 27, or xiptog rév duvauewv, Ps. xxiv. 10. — James, in his
graphic style, instead of the general word “laborer,” mentions specially the
reapers, not on account of their multitude (De Wette), but because their
laborious work in the sweat of their brow most strongly represents the work
which is worthy of wages. Thus Calvin not incorrectly observes: quid est
indignius quam eos, qui panem ex suo labore nobis suppeditant, inedia et fame
conficere? It is more remote to explain it thus: “because selfish hard-
heartedness is here most sharply stated, when even the joy of the harvest
does not induce them to give to the poor their hardly-earned portion”
(Briickner).§
Ver. 5. A second sin of the rich, namely, their luxurious and gluttonous
life, which forms a sharp contrast to the toilsome life of the laborers. —
érpuojoare . . . tomaradjoare, Synonymous terms: rpveav, in the N. T. am. Aey.,
in the LXX., Neh. ix. 25; Isa. Lxvi. 11 (Isa. Ivii. 4). onarad¢gv, only here
1 amwocrepéw, to keep hack. Plato, Gorg.
§19c.; so also LXX. Mal. ii. 5; Ecclus. xxxiv.
27.
2 Comp. Gen. iv. 10: ¢wvy atwaros .. .
Boa ,.. éx THs yns; Exod. fi. 28: aveBy 9 Bon
avrwy wpds Toy Gedy ard twr épywr.
8 Comp. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14; Jer.
xxii. 13; particularly aleo Mal. ili. 5: evopuas
maptys Taxis éwi... TOVS amooTepovvTas
pigBdv picOwrov; comp. also Job xxri. 38,
89; Tob. Iv. 14; Ecclus. xxxlv. 27 (dexéwv
Gime 0 amocTepey picbwy pichiov).
¢ Comp. on this expression, particularly
Ps. xviii. 7; Tea. v. 9: neovcOn cig ra Sra
xupiov caBaw@ ravra; besides Gen. xvili. 21,
xix.18; Exod. il. 23 f., i14.9, xxil. 22 f.; 2 Sam.
xxil. 7, and other passages.
5 Here aleo Lange comes in with his sym-
bolical interpretation, understanding by the
harvest ‘‘the time when the theocratic seed of
God in Ierael hae ripened unto the harvest
of God,” and by the reapers ‘the apostles
and first Christians.”
CHAP. V. 58. 149
and in 1 Tim. v. 6; in the LXX., Ezek. xvi. 49; Amos vi. 4, and other
places. Hottinger thus states the distinction between them: spug¢y delicia-
rum est el exquisitae voluplatis; onaraddv luxuriae alque prodigaliatis ; comp.
the description of the rich man in Luke xvi. 19. These and the following
verbs are in the aorist, not “because the conduct of the rich is described as
viewed from the day of judgment” (first edition of this commentary ; simi-
larly also Wiesinger), for “this does not suit the present dvrirdocerar” (Gunkel),
but because James will mark the present conduct as a constant occurrence.
The addition én? ri¢ y#e forms a sharp contrast to the preceding cic ra ora
xvpiov caBac9. Whilst the Lord in heaven hears the complaints of the unjustly
oppressed, the rich on earth enjoy their lusts, undisturbed by the wrath of
God, which shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men (Rom. i. 18). —dpépare rag xapdiag tydv does not
add a new idea to the preceding, but brings forward the fact that the rich
in their luxurious living find the satisfaction of the desires of their heart.
Luther’s translation: “Ye have pastured your heart,” does not sufficiently
correspond to the idea rpégev; something bad is evidently denoted by it.
Since rpégecv is literally ‘to make firm, thick,” it is best here to render it by
“to satiate.” Other expositors translate it by “to fatien;” Lange, by “to
make fat.” rd¢ xapdiac is equivalent neither to rd cdpzara tyucy nor to ipdc;
comp. Acts xiv. 17, and Meyer on that passage ;1 Winer, p. 141 (E. T., 158).
tv nuépg opayi¢ corresponds to the preceding év éoydrau nuépax. These last
times are designated by James with reference to the rich as nuépa ogayiec, the
day of slaughter, because the sentence of death, which they have incurred,
will be directly executed upon them at the approach of the rapovoia of Christ
(comp. ver. 7) and the judgment; so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, only
the latter arbitrarily understands by the day of slaughter, the day of Israel’s
judgment, comprehending the time from the death of Christ to the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem. This designation of the day of judgment is also found
in the O. T., particularly Jer. xii. 3, LXX.: dyvecov airove el quépav ogayig
airov; xxv. 34. By the reading c¢ before éy juépg of. & Comparison occurs,
namely, with the beasts who are to be slaughtered, so that Pott after d¢
directly supplies @péupara. De Wette explains it: “Ye have pastured your
hearts as in the day of slaughter; i.e., according to the comparison with
beasts, who on the day on which they are to be slaughtered feed carelessly
and devour greedily;” so also Bouman. But the idea “carelessly and
greedily” is introduced; also the comparison is unsuitable, since beasts on
the day of slaughter do not eat more greedily than on other days. Other
expositors, as Wolf, Augusti, Hottinger, and others, take éy as equivalent to
ecg; Hottinger: corpora vestra aluistis, tanquam pecora, quae saginari solent-ad
mactationem ; but this change of prepositions is arbitrary. Several expos-
itors, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Laurentius, Bengel, and others, understand
by #uépa opayie the day of sacrifice; Calvin: addit similitudinem, sicut, etc.,
quia solebant tn sacrifictis solemnibus liberalius vesci quam prov quotidiano more ;
1 Meyer: “The heart fs filled with food, the pleasant feeling of satisfaction, is in the
inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, heart.”
150 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the meaning then is: tola vila vestra est quasi perpetuum epulum ac festum con-
ainuum (Laurentius); but that expression never elsewhere occurs in this
signification. Had James thought on the sacrificial feast or the like, he
would have expressed it more definitely; besides, by this explanation the
reference to the judgment is entirely wanting, and only the luxurious life is
described; but this contradicts the character of the whole section, for if
James, from ver. 4 onwards, assigns the reason of rada:tupia, he does this
not without an earnest pointing to the judgment and its nearness.
Ver. 6. The third sin, the persecution of the just, by which the ungodliness
of their disposition is most strongly indicated. By dixa:oe is not meant Christ
(Oecumenius,! Bede, Grotius, Lange), for, on the one hand, there is nothing
in the context to indicate this, and, on the other hand, the present dvrirdocerat
is opposed to it; also, if this were the case, the perfect must be put instead of
the aorist, as here only one deed is mentioned, not, as before, a repetition
of deeds. Wiesinger, in an unsatisfactory manner, explains rdv dixaiov by the
innocent. Not merely the unjust conduct of the xAovore founded on covet-
ousuess is here intended to be described, but the reason of persecution is
implied in the expression rdv dixaov itself; comp. Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12-20;
as also 1 John iii. 12. The singular is to be taken collectively, and the
expression absolutely, as in ver.16. Several expositors assume that the verbs
xatedixacare, égovevoare, are not meant in their literal sense; but evidently
without reason. xarediacoare shows that here primarily judges are meant;
yet the accusers, if these are to be distinguished from them, are not to be
considered as excluded, since their accusation points to nothing else than to
a sentence of condemnation.? The asyndeton sharpens the climax, which
is contained in the addition of the second verb to the first. Bouman directs
attention to the paronomnasia between xared:ndoare and dixasov. — obx dvTitécosras
opposes the calm patience of the just to the violence of the wicked: he doth
not resist (comp. Acts xviii. 6; Rom. xiii. 4; Jas. iv. 6). Schneckenburger:
ovx avtir. sine copula el pronomine ponderose additur. The present is explained
from the fact that in what goes before not a single instance, but the con-
tinued conduct of the rich is described, and opposed to this is placed the
similarly continued conduct of the dixaso. Lange, by the reference of rdv
dixawy to Christ, misinterprets the force of the present, arbitrarily attributing
to the verb the meaning: “He stands no longer in your way; He does not
stop you (in the way of death); He suffers you to fill up your measure.” —
It is unnecessary to supply in thought é¢ or yép; also ot« dvrirdcoeraz is not to
be converted into ob divara: avrirdocecba: (Pott). For the correct construction
1 Oecumenius, indeed, says: avayrippyrws Thv éuBiwory; but he maintains without reason
76, ehov. 7. dia., ext TOY Xptorivy avadeperat ;
but he thinks that James likewise understands
by this: rovs addAous rods Ta Opota wapa tw
‘Iovdaiwy wadovras; and he closes with the
remark: iows 5¢ cai wpopyticws TO Wepi €avToy
Ureudaivec wa0os.
2 Wicsinger correctly observes that dovevery
is bere not to be explained according to Ecclus.
xxxi. 21: Qovevwe srov mAnoiov Oo apastpoupevos
that the death of the just is not to be considered
as the direct design of the rAovcro:, but only as
the result of their oppreasions. Also De Wette
thinks that the killing is not to be understood
Hteraliy, but of extreme violence, deprivation
of liberty, and the like. This interpretation
is, however, occasioned by the assumption
that the rich are Christians.
- : =
CHAP. V. 7. 151
there is no reason, with Bentley, for conjecturing 6 «ipwuc instead of od, or,
with Benson, to take the sentence as interrogative, and to supply 6 xiptor.
The object of the addition of the clause is not so much the more strongly tc
mark the violent conduct of the rich, as rather by implication to point to the
proximity of the vengeance of God, who interests Himself in the suffering
just, as is definitely asserted in the previous verses. With this verse are to
be compared, besides the already cited passage in Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12-20,
particularly Amos ii. 6, 7, v. 12 (xaramarotvreg dixawv), viii. 4, which testify
for the correctness of the explanation here given.
Ver. 7. Exhortation to the brethren to patient waiting, on to ver. 11. —
paxpodupnoare ovv]. paxpodvusiv; literally, to be long-suffering to those who do
an injury; opposed to dfvivueiv; see Meyer on Col. i. 11. On its distinction
from tropéver, see on 2 Tim. iii. 11; here the meaning appears to run into
that of tropzévew; comp. the following paxpoévudv and ver. 8; but it is here
well put, in order to exclude the feeling of disquieting doubt; comp. Heb.
vi. 12, 15. — otv refers to the preceding sentiment (also to that indicated in
obx avritdocera tpiv), that the judgment is near (De Wette, Wiesinger).? —
udeAgai, contrast to the rAotow.— Patience is to endure éfuc¢ ri¢ rapovoiag rob
avpiov. On éuc as & preposition, see Winer, p. 418 (E. T., 470). As regards
the meaning which éu¢ here has, Schneckenburger correctly observes: non
tempus tantum sed rem quoque indicat, qua 7 bAiye waxpodipuc toleranda tollatur.
By xapovoia rov xupiov, according to constant Christian usage, is to be under-
stood the advent of Christ (Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman), not the
coming of God (Augusti, Theile, De Wette); although James by xipue
chiefly designates God, yet he also uses this name for Christ, chap. ii. 1. —
The exhortation is strengthened by the reference to the patient waiting of
the husbandman (the same figure in Ecclus. vi. 19). As he waits (éxdéyeraz)
for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with reference to it, until
it has received the early and latter rain, so should the Christian patiently
wait for the precious fruit of his labor, for which he hopes. The xapré¢ is
designated as riysoc, because it is its preciousness which occasions the paxpo-
@vuia. By paxpodvpev én’ abr, éxdéxeras is more definitely stated, since that
verb does not necessarily include in itself the idea here intended. On én’ —
airs = in reference to the «aproc, comp. Luke xviii. 7. —6 yewpyo¢ is not the
subject of Aufy (Luther), but o xapmég (Stier). — The question whether we
are here to read éwe with or without dy (see critical remarks) cannot be an-
swered from the usage of the N. T.; see Matt. x. 11, and, on the other hand,
Luke xii. 59. According to Tischendorf, the authorities are decisive for the
omission of dv. See Al. Buttmann, p. 198 f. (E. T., 230 f.).8 — (terdv) apoi-
por xal Gyysov, the autumnal and spring rains; see Deut. xi. 14; Jer. v. 26;
Joel ii. 23; Zech. x. 1: not “the morning and the evening rain” (Luther);
see Winer’s Realwérterb. under “ Witlerung.” 8
3 Bchneckenburger correctly observes: ‘‘ad ? It ie peculiar that in the parallel sentences,
jadici divini propinquitatem respic:t;’’ but the Exod. xv. 16; Jer. xxiii. 20, at first ¢w¢ stands
remark is erroneous: ‘neque eam infitlas, si and then ews ay.
quis pariter versul 6 hunc jungat, ita ut exem- 3 In a peculiar manner Oecumenius allegor-
plo ris pacpoOvyucas ad eandem anim! lenitatem izing says: wpewipos verds, H év veoTHTL meTa
usque servandam excitentur.” Saxpyey peravoca® Spinos, 9 Ev TH YNPG.
152 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Ver. 8. Resumption and completion of the exhortation. The «ai after
paxpoduunoare is explained from the reference to 6 yewpyéc. — By the asynde-
ton addition ornpigare rag xapdiac tpev, the conduct which is the condition of
paxpodvyia is emphasized. Not weak, but strong hearts are able to cherish
paxpofvuiay; on this expression, comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13; 1 Pet. v.10. The
strengthening is indeed, on the one hand, an affair of God; but, on the other
hand, it depends on the man himself, just like every thing else that is
obtained by the man surrendering himself to the love of God working in
him. — dre 7 xupovoia, x.7.A.]. Calvin: Ne quis objiceret, nimium differri libera-
tionis tempus, occurrit dicens, prope instare Dominum, vel (quod idem est) ejus
adventum appropinquasse. — On the expression, comp. especially 1 Pet. iv. 7.
Ver. 9. To the preceding exhortation a new one is added: py orevacere,
GdeAgoi, kar’ dAAjAwy, Since with impatience in affliction a sinful irritability of
the sufferers toward each other is easily conjoined. orevd{ew xara is to be
understood neither of invtdia alienis bonis ingemiscente (Grotius), nor of impati-
entia mutuis lamentationibus augenda ; it rather denotes the gemitus accusatorius
(Estius, Calvin, and others), without, however, necessarily supposing a pro-
vocatio ullionis divinae malorumque imprecatio (Theile, and similarly Calvin,
Morus, Gebser, Hottinger, Lange, and others) united with it. Augusti in-
correctly renders it: “Give no occasion to one another for sighing.” — From
kar GAAndwy it does not follow that the riociow (ver. 1 ff.) belong to the
Christian Church (against De Wette and Wiesinger) ; the reference here is
rather to the conduct of Christians toward each other under the oppressions
to which they were exposed by the rAovorwm.1— Since orevafey xara involves
the judging of our brother, and is opposed to that love of which Paul says:
paxpobuuei, xpnoreveTat, . . . ov mupokvverat, ob Aoyilerat TO KaKOV . . . TaYTAa VTOpeveEt,
James adds the admonition iva ui xpibire (comp. Matt. vii. 1), and then, for
the purpose of strengthening the warning, points to the nearness of the
Judge. The xpirz is none other than the Lord, whose rapovoia is at hand.
As His nearness should comfort Christians in their distress, so it should
likewise restrain them from the renunciation of love to one another (comp.
chap. ii. 13). Incorrectly Theile: non tam, qui impatientius ferentes certo
" puniat (quamquam nec hoc abesse potest), quam: qui vos ulciscatur, ut igitur ne
opus quidem sit ista tam periculosa tmpatientia (so also De Wette); for 6 xperig
evidently points back to iva yu} xpuire.2—On mpd trav Ovpiw Eornxer, i.e., he
stands already before the door, on the point of entering, see Matt. xxiv. 33;
Mark xiii. 29 (Acts v. 23).
Vv. 10, 11. Old Testament examples adduced for the sake of strengthen-
ing the exhortation to patience. — trddetyya Adfere]. dtmodecypa (instead of the
classical napadetyya) here, as frequently in the N. T. and LXX., an example,
1 Hornejus: ‘‘Quos ad manifestas et gravia-
simas improborum injurias fortiter ferendas
incitarat, eos nunc bortatur, ut etiam in mi-
noribus illie offenais, quae inter pios ipsos
saepe subnascuntur, vel condonandis vel dis-
simulandis promti sint. Contingit enim, ut qui
hostium et improborum maximas saepe con-
tumelias et iojurias aequo avimo tolerant, fra-
trum tamen offensas multo leviores non facile
ferant.’’ ;
£ Wiesinger, indeed, recognizes that the
statement is added as a warning; but yet he
thinks that the chief idea is: ‘Ye may with
perfect calmness leave the judgment to Him”
(80 also Lange).
‘CHAP. V. 11. 153
a pattern, in sense equivalent to inéypaupov, 1 Pet. ii. 21; rinoc, 2 Thess.
ii. 9 (ele 1d pupeiodar). — To xaxomabeiac Kal Tig paxpoOvpiac). xaxondGew, in the
N. T. ax. Acy., is not synonymous with paxpodupia = vexationum patientia (Hot-
tinger), but denotes suffering, affliction, synonymous with évugopal, Thuc.
vii. 77; in 2 Mace. ii. 26, 27, it is used in a somewhat attenuated sense.
Schneckenburger arbitrarily combines it with the following words into one
idea = ric tv xaxonadeig paxpodvpias; by this combination the point of xaxoma-
@eca is weakened. On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 12.— By the relative
clause of 2AdAnoav (tv) rp dvouare xvpiov, belonging to rove mpog7rac, is indicated
that the prophets, as servants of God, stand opposed to the world, even as
believing Christians do. The dative r@ dvéuat: (see critical remark) is not
to be explained, with Meyer (see on Matt. vii. 22), “ by means of the name,
i.e., that the name of the Lord satisfied their religious consciousness and was
the object of their confession;” but, as is commonly understood = é ro
évouart xupiov (Wiesinger: jussu et auloritate; De Wette: “by virtue of the
name”); this is evident from the fact that the Hebrew M1 03 137 is
translated in the LXX. not only by é (r@) dv. xvpiov (Dan. ix. 6) or by én
ro dv, (Jer. xx. 9), but also by Aateiv r@ dvépuare xvpiov (Jer. xliv. 16).?
Ver. 11 assigns a new reason for the exhortation: Behold, we count happy
them who endure ; the pasapife of them is founded on the consciousness that
God does not leave them unrewarded (Matt. v. 12), which is clearly mani-
fested in the life of Job, on which account James, in conclusion, refers to
him. By the reading rove trouévovrac the idea is to be taken quite generally ;
whereas by the better attested reading rove trouelvavrac it is to be limited to
sufferers of the past time; the latter is more in conformity with the context
(Wiesinger). The “restricted reference” to rode mpogjrac (Grotius, Baum-
garten, Pott, Hottinger, Theile) is not to be justified. — rv imoporpy ‘1o8
hxovoare]. bvxouovy is not = perpessio (Storr), but the patience which Job dis-
played both in his afflictions, and in his replies to the contradictions of his
friends; Tob. ii. 12-15 (Vulg.; the text in the Greek ed., Tisch. reads dif-
ferently) refers to the same example; also in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, Job is
mentioned as a righteous man along with Noah and Daniel. — nxotcare may
refer specially to the reading in the synagogue, but may be understood
generally. —«al rd réAoc avpiov is, according to the connection given above,
to be referred to and explained of the issue in which the sufferings of Job
terminated: jfinem, quem a Domino habuit ; 80 that xvpiov is the genit. subj. or
causae (2 Cor. xi. 26); thus most expositors explain it. Others, as Augustin,
Bede, Lyra, Estius, Thomas, Pareus, Wetstein, Lange, assume that by réAo¢
avpiov the death of Christ is to be understood. Against this is not only the
concluding clause, but also the context, which points to the end to which
the pious sufferer is brought by the mercy of God, and on account of
which he is accounted happy; apart altogether from the improbability
1 Also In union with other verbs the LXX. were not decisive, yet it would be most natural
translate ov3 sometimes by the simple dative; to explain the dative ro dvopnari = through the
thus Exod. xxxill. 19, xxxiv. 5: nxadeiy te dv0- name, by which the name of the Lord would
pen; Jer. xii. 16: durverw Te ov. pov; see also be conceived as the objective power by which
Isa. xii. 25, x)iil!. 7, xlv. 4.— Though this usage the prophets were Induced to speak.
154 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
that James should connect the example of Christ immediately with that
of Job.1— With the reading eidere this can only be understood of “indirect
seeing, namely, of clear perception by hearing” (De Wette). The better
attested reading, however, is idere, and it can only be regarded as an over-
sight that Wiesinger translates this idere by ‘“‘audiendo cognovistis,” as it is
not the indicative, but the imperative. The imperative is here certainly sur-
prising, and was on that account changed into the indicate. Tischendorf has
connected idere with what goes before, and then it is to be explained: Ye
have heard of the patience of Job, look also at the end which the Lord gave. The
connection with what follows would, however, be more suitable: Ye have
heard of the patience of Job and the end which the Lord gave ; see (i.e., recognize
from this) that the Lord is nostondayxvoc and olxripywv. Such an imperative,
introduced dovvdéruc, is not foreign to the style of James; comp. chap. i. 16,
19. With the Receptus, and also with the union of idere with rd réAog xupiov,
dr: is not a particle of proof = fur (De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange), since in
the preceding words no thought is expressed which would be confirmed by
this clause ; 2 but an objective particle that: a twofold object is joined to the
verb, the second definitely bringing forward the point indicated in the first ;
arbitrarily Theile translates it and certainly. — The subject to Zomy is at all
events 6 xipios, which, according to the most important authorities, is to be
retained as genuine. — zoAvarAayxvoc is a complete dn. Aey. “coined after the
Hebrew 01 39” (Wiesinger), which the LXX. translate moAvedeoc, see
Exod. xxxiv. 6, etc.; in Eph. iv. 32, 1 Pet. iii. 8, is the related expression
ebonAayxvoc. —oixtippwv, in the N. T. only here and in Luke vi. 36 (comp.
Col. iii. 12: omddyyva olxrippov), frequently in O. T.; comp. with this pas-
sage, particularly Exod. xxxiv. 6; Ps. ciii. 8; and Ecclus. ii. 7 ff. — The
reference to the mercy of God was to impress the readers, in their suffer-
ings, with the hope that the reward of their patience would not fail them,
and to encourage them to steadfast endurance.
Ver. 12. The warning contained in this verse against swearing is in no
other connection with the preceding than what lay in the conduct of the
readers. The Epistle of James was occasioned by manifold faults in the
churches, and therefore he could not conclude without referring to the incon-
siderate swearing prevalent among them. It is as little indicated that he
refers to the warning against abuse of the tongue (chap. iii.; Hornejus)
as that this swearing arose from impatience, against which the preceding
verses are directed (against Gataker, Wiesinger). How important this
warning was to the author, the words pd mévrwy dé show, by which it is indi-
cated that it, of all other exhortations, is to be specially taken to heart.
James assigns the reason of this in the words iva uy bd xpiow néonre. — The
warning 4) duvtere is more exactly stated in the words pyre rdv ovpaver, uqre
1 In a most unsatisfactory manner Lange 2 Ina peculiar but bighly arbitrary manner,
seeks to justify this, by observing that James Lange refers om to what directly precedes,
‘‘did thus connect the example of Abraham uniting it with rd réAo¢g xvpiov in the sense
with that of Rahab.’’ It ia evidently inap- that it is thereby specified what Christ was
propriate to place together Job as ‘‘the great able to effect in entering upon His suffer-
sufferer of the Old Testament,” with Christ ings,
as “the great sufferer of the New Testament.”
CHAP. V. 12. 155
THY yy, wate doy riva bpxov. It is to be noticed that swearing by the name of
God is not mentioned. This is not, as Rauch along with others maintains,
to be considered as included in the last member of the clause, but James
With pire GAAov rivd dpxov has in view only similar formulae as the above, of
which several are mentioned in Matt. v. 35, 36. Had James intended to
forbid swearing by the name of God, he would most certainly have expressly
mentioned it; for not only is it commanded in the O. T. law, in contra-
distinction to other oaths (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20; Ps. Ixjii. 12), but also in the
prophets it is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God
(Isa Ixv. 16; Jer. xii. 16, xxiii. 7, 8). The omission of this oath shows that
James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews
generally and also among his readers, of introducing in the common every-
day affairs of life, instead of the simple yea or nay, such asseverations as
those bere mentioned; so that we are not justified in deducing from his
words an absolute prohibition of swearing in general,! as has been done by
many expositors of our Epistle, and especially by Oecumenius, Bede, Eras-
mus, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile, De Wette, Neander (comp. also Meyer on
Matt. v. 33 ff.); whereas Calvin, Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius,
Pott, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wie-
singer, Bouman, Lange,? and others, refer James’s prohibition to light and
trifling oaths. The use of oaths by heaven, etc., arises, on the one hand,
from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by
God; and, on the other hand, from a depreciation of the simple word, thus
from a frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnestness of the Chris-
tian disposition. The construction of duview with the accusative rdv obpavér,
etc., is in accordance with classical usage, whereas the construction with év
and ¢ic (in Matt.) is according to Hebraistic usage.—To the prohibition
James opposes the command with the words #rw dé bydv 7d val val cal rd od cb,
which do not express a new exhortation (Schneckenburger), but the con-
trast to duview rdv obpavdv, etc. Most expasitors (Theophylact, Oecumenius,
Zwingli, Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Kern,
Stier, and others) find here a command to truthfulness expressed ; but incor-
rectly, as in the foregoing pu) duviere a reference to the contrast between truth
and falsehood is not in question at all. De Wette correctly explains it:
“let your yea be (a simple) yea, and your nay (a simple) nay” (so also
1 Rauch says: ‘‘One should give honor to
the truth, and freely and without prejudice
recognize that according to the clear words of
the text here, as in Matt. v. 34 ff., a general
aud unconditional prohibition of all oaths is
expressed.” To this it is replied that honor
is given to the truth when one is not taken by
appearance, but seeks without prejudice to
comprehend the actual meaning. In oppo-
sition to the view that Christ by the prohibi-
tion of oaths, in Matt. v. 33 ff., bas In view
the ideal condition of the church, Wiesinger
with justice observes: “It can no longer be
said, in reference to our passage, that only an
ideal requirement is expressed calculated for
entirely different circumstances than those
which were in reality, for there can be no
doubt that James demands for his require-
ment complete practice under the actual and
not the ideal circumstances of his readers.”
2 Lange by this understands more exactly :
*‘conapiracy, which is a swearing accompanied
by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of
a pledge.” Moreover, his view of the design
of the Epistle misled him to find the reason of
this prohibition in Jewish zeal to enter into
conspiracies.
156 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Estius, Piscator, Hottinger, Neander, Wiesinger, and others; comp. Al.
Buttmann, p. 142 [E. T., 163]).1_ Not the sentiment itself, but its form
only is different from Matt. v. 37 (see Tholuck and Meyer in loco). — The
form rw (1 Cor. xvi. 22; Ps. civ. 81, LXX.) instead of forw is found in
classical Greek only once in Plato, Rep., ii. p. 361 (see Buttmann, 4 us/ihrl.
Gr., § 108, Remark 15 (E. T., 49); Winer, p. 73 [E. T., 79]). —ive um td
xpiow néonre assigns the reason why one should not swear, but should be
satisfied with the simple yea or nay. According to its meaning, the expres-
sion is equivalent to iva u% xpuyre, ver. 9. There is nothing strange in xinrew
tr6. Comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 39; Ps. xviii. 39. By xpiow is to be understood
judictum condemnatorium. The swearing forbidden by James subjects to
the judgment, because it is founded on and in every instance promotes
frivolity.
Ver. 13. [fone among you suffers, let him pray; if one is of good courage,
let him sing psalms. This exhortation stands in no assignable connection
with what goes before. The sufferings to which ver. 7 ff. refer are those of
persecution; but xaxoraéciv has here an entirely general meaning. On ac-
count of the following evévuei, many expositors (Beza, Semler, Rosenmiiller,
Hottinger) incorrectly explain xaxonuely = “to be dejected” (Vulgate: tris-
tatur quis). It rather means to be unfortunate, to suffer, in which aegritudo
animi is certainly to be considered as included. Pott incorrectly takes it as
equivalent to the following dofeveiv, which is only a particular kind of «axoza-
Gciv, — xpocevyeodac denotes prayer generally ; there is no reason to limit it here
to petition. — padre, literally, to touch, used particularly of stringed instru-
ments; in the LXX. the translation of }1] and ‘Ol = to sing psalms; comp.
particularly 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Both joy and sorrow should be the occasion of
prayer to the Christian. The form of the sentence is the same as in 1 Cor.
vii. 18, 27. Meyer: “The protases do not convey a question, being in the
rhetorically emphatic form of the hypothetical indicative;” see Winer, p. 152
(E. T., 169), p. 255 (E. T., 285), p. 478 (E. T., 541).?
Ver. 14. From the general xaxorafeiv a particular instance, that of sick-
ness, is selected. doGeveiv = aegrotare, as in Matt. x. 8, Luke iv. 40, and
many other passages; the opposite: bycaiver. — By dodevei tue James hardly
means any sick person, but only such a person who under the burden of
bodily suffering also suffers spiritually, being thereby tempted in his faith.
The sick man is to call to himself the presbyters of the congregation. poo-
xadecac0u, in the middle expresses only the reference ¢o himself; not that the
call is by others, which is here taken for granted. — rode mpeo3urépoue ric lxxAn-
aiac, the presbyters of the congregation, namely, to which the sick man belongs.
It is arbitrary to explain rode mpeoButipove as unum ex presbyteris (Estius, Ham-
mond, Laurentius, Wolf); the whole body is meant (Wiesinger), as the article
shows; not some of its members, as Theile considers possible. The follow-
1 Lange would unitethetwo pointatogether; Al. Buttmann, p. 195 (E. T., 226), rightly de.
and he isso far not in the wrong, as James clares this to be unnecessary, but has in his
presupposes truthfulness. edition of the N. T. adopted the same punctu-
* Lachmann has after the sentence contain. ation.
ing the hypothesis put a mark of interrogation.
CHAP. V. 15. 157
ing words: xa? mpocevfdodwoay, x.7.A., express the object for which the pres-
byters are to come; they are to pray over him, anointing him in the name
of the Lord. The prayer is the chief point, “as also ver. 15 teaches: # etxz7
r. nioteuc, k.r.A.” (Wiesinger); the anointing is the act accompanying the
prayer. én’ abrov is generally inaccurately explained as equivalent to. pro eo,
pro salute ejus; éxi with the accusative expresses figuratively the reference
to something, similarly as the German éber with the accusative; thus «Aaiew
éxi rova, Luke xxiii. 28. How far the author thought on a local reference,
he who prayeth bending over the sick, or stretching forth his hands over
him, cannot be determined; see Acts xix. 13.— With the prayer is to be
conjoined the anointing of the sick, for what purpose James does not state.
According to Mark vi. 18, the disciples in their miracles of healing applied
it, when at the command of Jesus they traversed the Jewish land; but the
reason of their doing so is not given, nor at a later period is there any men-
tion of it in the miracles of the apostles.1 Probably James mentions the
anointing with oil only in conformity with the general custom of employing
oil for the refreshing, strengthening, and healing of the body,? since he
refers the miracle not to the anointing, but to the prayer, and, presupposing
its use, directs that the presbyters should unite prayer with it, and that they
should perform it év ro dwiyart (rod) xvpiov, that is, in a believing and trustful
mention of the name of Christ (less probably of God). That év rp dv. xup,
cannot mean jussu et auctoritate Christi is evident, because there is no express
command of Christ to employ it. Gebser incorrectly unites this particular
With mpocevédodwoav; Schneckenburger with both verbs; it belongs only to
GAeipavres (De Wette, Wiesinger). The question why the presbyters should
do this is not to be answered, with Schneckenburger: quia rd yéproua laparuv
(1 Cor. xii. 9) cum iis communicatum erat; for, on the one hand, it is an arbi-
trary supposition that the presbyters possessed that yapioua, and, on the other
hand, there is here no mention of it; incorrectly also Pott: quia uti omnino
prudentissimi eligebantur, sic forte etiam artis medicae peritissimi erant. Bengel
has given the true explanation: gui dum orant, non mullo minus est, quam si
tola oraret ecclesia; and Neander: “the presbyters as organs acting in the
name of the church.” 8
_Ver. 15 mentions the result of the prayer conjoined with the anointing.
—nxai 4 ebx) tie micrewc]. That the prayer of the presbyters must proceed
from faith was not asserted in the preceding, but was evidently presupposed ;
it is now directly characterized as such. ric micrews is gen. subj.: the prayer
. which faith offers ; inaccurately Schneckenburger: preces jide plenae. sicty
1 Meyer tm loco considers this anointing, as
also the application of spittle on the part of
Jesus Himeelf, as a conductor of the super-
natural healing power, analogous to the laying-
on of bands. But in thie the distinction Is too
Httle obeerved, that according to general cus-
tom oil, but not spittle, and the laying-on of
hands, was applied to the aick.
1 Bee Herzog’s Real-Encyct. on Oel, Oclung,
Salbe.
8 It is wel] known that the Catholic Church,
besides Mark vi. 18, specially appeals to this
passage In support of the sacrament of extreme
unction. Chemnitz, in his Zzamen Conc. Trid.,
has already thoroughly shown with what in-
correctness they have done so. Hven Cajetan
and Baronius doubt whether James here treats
of that sacrament, as he does not speak of the
sick unto death, but of the sick generally. See
Herzog’s Real-Encyci. on the word Oelung.
158 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
is used here in the same signification as in chap. i. 16; it is sure confidence
in the Lord, in reference to the case in question. Grotius, Gomarus, Schneck-
enburger, Theile, and others define the prayer more closely, as that of the
presbytets and of the sick man. On the other hand, Wiesinger refers # ety
t. x. to mpocevédobwoar, accordingly the intercession of the presbyters; so also
De Wette. This is correct; it is, however, to be observed that James has
certainly supposed as self-evident the prayer of the sick man who called the
elders. The following words: cdc rdv xauvovra, state the effect of the prayer
of the presbyters. — rdv xayvovra takes up again dodevei ru. xauvew, in the
N. T. except here only in Heb. xii. 3 in a figurative sense, has even with
classical writers very commonly the meaning (o be sick. — cwoe:, equivalent
to will recover. This meaning is required by reference to rdv xauvovra, and to
the context generally; the word occurs in the same signification in Matt.
ix. 22; Mark v. 23; John xi. 12, and elsewhere. — By the following clause:
nal éyepei abtav 6 xipioc, what is said is more exactly specified; the prayer of
faith effects ode, by which the Lord (apparently Christ) on its account
helps; éyeipev, to raise up from the sick-bed, see Mark i. 31, etc.; not “to raise
up from sickness” (Lange; “to cause him to recover,” De Wette); the word
never occurs in this meaning in the N. T.—A particular case is added to
the general. xdv dwapriag J} meron}. xav is not, as is done by most expos-
itors, but against linguistic usage,! to be resolved by and if, but by even if
(so also Lange). By the sins here meant are such as formed the special
reason of the sickness. Accordingly, ‘the meaning is: even if he has drawn
his sickness upon himself by special sins (unsatisfactorily, Lange: “if his
sickness has become by them very severe”). By 3 rerotnxoc the effect of
the sins is represented as existing. — The apodosis dgetqoera: aire expresses
that even in this case the healing will not fail. The forgiveness of sins is
here meant, which is confirmed by the removal of the special punishment
produced by the particular sins. The explanation of Hammond is evidently
entirely erroneous: non tam a Deo, quam a Presbyteris, qui aegroto peccata
ipsis confitenti . . . absolutionem dare tenentur. As regards the construction
of the sentence, xdv memornxesg May be joined to what goes before, and d¢ebzoerat
considered as an asyndeton addition: and the Lord will raise him up, even if
he has committed sins . . . (for) it will be forgiven him. But the usual con-
struction, according to which dge@fcera is simply the apodosis to xév, x.r.2., is
to be preferred on account of the close connection of ideas; thus: even if he
hath committed sins, it will be forgiven him; by which the idea is included in
dgednoera avr, that he will be healed of his sickness. — 1d rero:nxévar is to be
supplied from the preceding to dgedjoera: (Bengel, Theile, Wiesinger). — The
promise (sdce .. . éyepei) 80 positively expyessed by James is founded on
his confidence in the Lord, who hears believing intercession, so that it is not
in vain. It is certainly surprising that James gives this assurance without
any restriction. Although we cannot say, with Hottinger: st certus et con-
stans talium precum fuisset eventus, nemo unquam mortuus esset, since the nature
1 In no passage of the N. T., except per- where the meaning though, even. The N.T.
hape Luke xiii. 9, 1s the xai In «ay the almple usage je here in conformity with the clasaical;
copula uniting two sentences, but it hasevery- see Pape on the word xa».
CHAP. V. 16. 159
of the condition, on which James makes the event dependent, is not consid-
ered; on the one hand, it is self-evident that true ziory¢ includes the humble
KAWY obY Oe EyO OfAw GAN’ Oc ob (Matt. xxvi. 39); and, on the other hand, it is
to be observed that although James here evidently speaks of bodily sickness
and its cure, yet he uses such expressions as point beyond the sphere of the
corporeal to the spiritual, so that even when the result corresponds not to
the expectation in reference to the bodily sickness, yet the prayer of faith
does not remain unanswered in the higher sense.!
Ver. 16 annexes a new thought to what has been said, which is, however,
as the strongly attested oty shows, in close connection. From the special
order James infers a general injunction, in which the intervening thought is
to be conceived that the sick man confessed his sins to the presbyters for
the purpose of their intercession; Christians generally are to practise the
same duty of confession toward each other. It is incorrect, with Chrysos-
tom (De Sacerd., i., iii.) and several ancient and other expositors, to refer
the injunction contained in this verse to the above-mentioned relation of the
presbyters and the sick to each other, and accordingly to paraphrase it, with
Pott: tueic dsbevorvrec topodoyriobe roig mpecBurépore Ta mapanTepata bucy nal bpeic
Kpeqsirepoc ebyecde txép tov dodevovrvtuyv; for by this not only is violence done
to the language, but also an intolerable tautology arises. a2AjAoe can only
be referred to the relation of individua] believers to each other, so that
Cajetan correctly says: nec hic est sermo de confessione sacramentali. Some
expositors jncorrectly restrict the general expression naparréyara to such sins
which one commits against another; Wolf: de tllis tantum peccatis sermo est,
quae aller in alterum commisit, quorumque veniam ab alltero poscit ; Benge):
aegrotus et quisquis offendit, jubetur conjiteri: offensus orare. The passage
treats not of human, but of the divine forgiveness; and thus of sins not as
offences against our neighbor, but as violations of the law of God.?—xal
ebxyeabe trip GAAnAwy]. To touoddynou, intercession for one another is to be
conjoined ; indeed, the former takes place in order that the latter may fol-
low. The contents of the prayer is naturally the divino forgiveness, but the
aim to be attained thereby is dzu¢ laéjre. The word ldoda is in the N. T.
used both literally and figuratively (Heb. xii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 24). After the
example of several expositors (Hottinger, De Wette, Wiesinger), the first
meaning has hitherto in this commentary been ascribed to iavyre, on account
of the connection of this verse with what goes before; but since among aAA7-
dow are certainly to be understood not only the sick, and James indicates by
nothing that his injunction refers only to them, it is more correct to take
lagjre here, in its proper reference to maparrdyara, in a figurative sense
(Estius, Carpzov, Grotius, Gebser, and others); whether James likewise
thought on a bodily healing taking place in the cases occurring (Schnecken-
3 It must be designated as arbitrary when Let these pray with and for him, and anoint
Lange understands this passage also as sym- him with the oll of the Spirit; such a couree,
bollcal, and thus interprets it: “If any man wherever taken, will surely restore bim, and
as e Christian has been hurt, or become sick _his transgreseions will be forgiven bim.”
im bts Christianity, let him seek healing from * Lange primarily understands by this ‘' the
the preebdyters, the kervel of the congregation. ins of the Judatzing disposition.”
160 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
burger, Kern), must remain undetermined. — It is to be remarked, that the
prayer of the presbyters does not exclude the common intercession of
the members of the church, and that the efficacy attributed to the latter is
not less than that attributed to the former. — odd ioyier déqoug duxaiou évepyov-
pévn is added by James for the purpose of strengthening the above exhorta-
tion; the asyndeton connection is with him not remarkable. The stress is
On zoAd ioxver, consequently it stands first. dixasc, equivalent to the Hebrew
p't¥, is, according to the Christian view of James, he who in faith performs
the works of voyoc éAevdepiac. — With regard to évepyouuévn, expositors have
introduced much that is arbitrary. Most take the participle as an adjective
belonging to dénou, and then attempt to explain the expression dénat évepyou-
pévn. Oecumenius leaves the word itself unexplained, but he lays stress on
the point that the prayer of the righteous is only then effectual when he,
for whoin it is offered, ovprparry 6 xaxdoewe mvevpatinie With the suppliant.
Michaelis explains it: preces agitante Spiritu sancto effusae; Carpzov: dénot
62 nictews évepyounévn; Gebser understands prayer in which the suppliant
himself works for the accomplishment of his wish; similarly Calvin: tune
vere tn actu est oratio, quum succurrere contendimus tis, qui laborant. Accord-
ing to the usual] explanation, évepyovyévy is assumed to be synonymous with
évepync Or évepydc (éxrevnc, Luke xxii. 44; Acts xii. 5), “strenuus,” “ intentus,”
“earnest,” etc., and this qualification of the prayer of the righteous man is
attached to mod loxve as its condition; Luther: “if it is earnest” (so Wie-
singer, and similarly Erasmus, Beza, Gataker, Hornejus, Grotius, Wolf,
Baumgarten, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, and others).
This explanation, however, has not only, as Wiesinger confesses, N. T.
usage against it, but this qualification cannot be taken as the condition
of rodv isyve, but is rather the statement of the characteristic nature of
the prayer of the righteous man. It would be more correct to adhere
to the verbal meaning of the participle (s0 Pott, whose paraphrases, how-
ever: roAd loyier [divaras] évepyeiv, OF: moAd icxbe nal evepyei dénotc, are arbi-
trary), and to explain it: the prayer of the righteous man availeth much,
whilst it works (not: “if it applies itself to working,” De Wette), i.e., in
tts working. That it does work, is assumed; that, besides working, it oad
loxbe, which James brings forward and confirms by the following example
of Elias.!
Vv. 17, 18. James, wishing to show in the example of Elias the power
of prayer, observes beforehand on the objection that, owing to his peculiar
greatness (see Ecclus. xlviii. 1-15), the example of Elias was inapplicable
to ordinary men, that 'Ediac dvépwroe fy duownabie hulv.—dvpwro¢ is not here
pleonastic (Schneckenburger), but denotes the point on which James insists,
which is still more strengthened by duowratie quiv. This idea contains no
reference to the sufferings which Elias had to endure (Laurentius, Schneck-
enburger, Bouman), but signifies only of like disposition and nature; see
Meyer on Acts xiv. 15; comp. also Wisd. of Sol. viii. 8, and Grimm on
4 Macc. xii. 13. Lange inappropriately explains it “similarly conditioned.”
1 Lange translates: ‘‘ which is inwardly effectual (working),’ and thinks that dvepyciodas
expresses a paseive-active working.
CHAP. V. 17, 18. 161
Gebser assumes a contrast to dixawc, strangely explaining it: “having the
same sentiments and passions as we; James inferred how much more will
the prayer of a ducaiw avail.” — The history, to which James refers, is con-
tained in 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, 41 ff. The account of James differs in
two points from the O. T. narrative; first, the point on account of which
James appeals to Elias, namely his twofold prayer, is not mentioned; and,
secondly, it is stated that it began to rain in the third year. Both in 1 Kings
xvii. l and in xviii. 41, Elias only announces what will take place; in the
first passage, that it will not rain these years, and in the second passage,
that it will soon rain. Neither in what Elias says of himself in 1 Kings
xvii. 1: "3D ‘AYOY WR, nor in what is related in 1 Kings xviii. 41, is it
stated that Elias offered up such a prayer as James mentions; for although
in ver. 42 Elias is represented as praying, yet it is not hinted that the
rain took place in consequence of his prayer, since rather the promise of rain
(ver. 1) preceded the prayer. Yet those statements, and particularly the
word of Elias in 1 Kings xvii. 2: “131 "D-DN 3, are to be considered as
the foundation of the statement of James, whether he followed a tradition
(see Ecclus. xlviii. 2, 3) or a view peculiar to himself.— With regard to
the second deviation, the same statement concerning the duration of the
drought is found in Luke iv. 25 (see Meyer in loco), and in the Jalkut Schi-
moni on 1 Kings xvi., where it is said: Anno ziii. Achabi fames regnabit in
Samaria per tres annos et dimidium anni. It is certainly correct, as Benson
remarks, that if the rain, according to the word of Elias, was stayed at the
beginning of the rainy season, and it again began to rain in the third year
at the end of the summer season, the drought would continue in all three
and a half years; but according to the statement of Jaines, the drought
began with the prayer of Elias, and continued from that three and a half
years. Accordingly, Wiesinger is wrong in finding in the remark of Benson
a sufficient reconciliation of the difference.! — mpocevy9 mpocnigaro, the same
construction as @aviry dropaveicg:, Gen. ii. 17, LXX., as the Greek rendering
of the Hebrew union of the infinite absolute with the finite tense, which the
LXX. usually express by the union of the participle with the finite tense
(see Winer, p. 317 f. [E. T., 355]). This addition of the substantive serves
to bring out the verbal idea (De Wette), not to denote that the prayer of
Elias was earnest (Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange), but that nothing
else than his prayer produced the long drought. — rod yy Spéga, the genitive of
design after mpoonifaro, because the contents of the prayer agreed with its
object. This construction corresponds to the frequent use of iva with verbs
of asking in the N. T.; see Winer, p. 292 (E. T., 326). — Apéxew is here
used, as in the later classics, impersonally; otherwise in Matt. v. 45; Gen.
1 Jt is otherwise with regard to Luke iv.
25, where the simple duration of time during
which it would not rain is stated. James has
erred in making the prayer of Elias mentioned
by him precede this whole period; whereas
what ts mentioned In 1 Kings xvii. 1, is that it
commenced after the summer during which
_¢
|
~~
it had not rained. According to Lange, the
reconciliation consists in this, that in 1 Kings
xviil. only the duration of the real famine is
stated, which did not begin antil one year
after the announcement of the drought; but
there is no indication of this statement.
162 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ii. 5, xix. 24. Baumgarten incorrectly supplies 6 Oed¢ as the subject. —xa?
ovx, x.7.A., the result of the prayer. Schneckenburger: quis non sentit pondus
dictionis row 4a) Bpé$at, xal obx ESpegev; comp. Gen. 1. 3, fiat luz, et facta est luz.
—éni rie yc, Dot on the land, i.e., Palestine (Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten,
Stolz, Lange, and others), but on the earth (Luther); comp. Luke iv. 25
(Gen. vii. 12).
Ver. 18. The second prayer of Elias, and its result. —é obpavic berdv tduxer,
a popular form of expression; comp. Acts xiv. 17. —xai 9 yi, «.7.4., contains
not a further description, but added to mark more strongly the effect of the
prayer: heaven and earth acted according to the prayer of Elias. — é3aaornoev,
properly an intransitive verb; so in Matt. xiii. 26; Mark iv. 27; Heb. ix. 4.
The first aorist here, as frequently in the later classics, in a transitive signi-
fication; comp. Gen. i. 11, LXX. With respect to the form, see Winer,
p. 77 (E. T., 54). — rdv xapndv airing ; Schneckenburger : fruges suas, i.e., quas
Jerre solet.
Vv. 19, 20. To the exhortation to mutual confession and intercession is
annexed “ the reference to an important matter — the reclaiming of an erring
soul” (Wiesinger). Ver. 19 forms the supposition; this is expressed in
two co-ordinate sentences, of which the first is subordinate in thought to the
second: “if any convert one who has erred from the truth.” — rAavn6y, the
passive aorist here, as frequently in the signification of the middle. — dma ri¢
GAngeiag. With this is meant not a single practical aberration, but an alien-
ation from the Christian principle of life, an inward apostasy from the Avyog
GAndeiag by which the Christian is begotten (Jas. i. 18), disclosing itself in a
sinful course of life (so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange!). —xai imorpéypy,
sc. énl tiv GAjdeav; comp. Luke i. 16, 17.
Ver. 20 forms the apodosis, — ywwwoxérw]. The ree mentioned in the second
half of the preceding verse is the subject — the converter and not the con-
verted. The remarkableness of the repetition of the subject after ér: disap-
pears, when it is considered that the idea to be taken to heart is expressed
as a sentence which is universally valid.? Calvin rightly draws attention to
the fact that the tendency of the verse is to excite zeal for the conversion
of the erring. — The word dyuaprwdcy is to be retained in its general significa-
tion, and not to be referred simply to rév wAavndévta and ri¢ cAndeiac; it denotes
the genus to which he that errs from the truth belongs as species. —éx zAdyy¢
édov aitov, not = ex erroris vita (Schulthess); correctly, Luther: “from the
error of his way.” Advy states the nature of the way on which the duaprwaAde
walks, and forms the contrast to dAjGera. — odoe puyyv [aitoi] éx Oavarou, 1.e.,
he will save a (his) sou! from the death to which otherwise it would have fallen a
prey. The future is here used because James “has in view the final result
vf such a saving deed” (Wiesinger).
1 Arbitrarily, Lange defines the aberration
wore precisely ‘‘as an aberration into Juda-
istic and chiliastic doinge and fanatical and
ecditious lusts.”
2 Wiesinger: ‘6 émorpépas is not to be
taken as equivalent to Ae who, in atrict refer-
On wuyqv, comp. chap. i. 21; on the
ence to the subject of y:vywoxérw, but expresses
the general idea that every one who converts a
sinner performs a great work; it in the general
statement, under which he who ifs desiguated
by ycrwoxerw subordinates his doing.”’
CHAP. V. 20. 163
reading of the Receptus Estius remarks: absolute posita emphasin habet. But
probably yux7v atrov is the correct reading. @dvaroc, eternal destruction, as
in chap. i. 15. Lange strangely explains it as “the moral dissolution of the
ontological life eternally self-generating itself." — xal xaAiwet rAj00¢ apapriov
is to be understood not of the sins of the converter, who by his good work
obtains forgiveness, whether on the part of God (Zacharias, Ep. i., Ad Boni-
fac. ; Bede, Erasmus, Bouman, and others) or on the part of man (Augusti:
“his own offences will not be remembered ”), but of the sins of the converted
(so most expositors). The words are an echo of Prov. x. 12 (comp. 1 Pet.
iv. 8), although it is doubtful if James had this passage actually in view;
especially xaAinreyv here does not, as a strict translation of the Hebrew 09,
—see Neh. iii. 36 (LXX., ed. Tisch. iv. 6); Ps. xxxii. 1, lxxxv. 3, —
signify to forgive, but the figurative expression is used by James in the sense
that the sins of the converted are by the converter covered or concealed from
the eyes of God, i.e., their forgiveness is effected. By mAj00c duaprwy are
meant not the sins which the duaprwAdc would otherwise commit (Jaspar:
peccata adhuc patranda), and which were now prevented by his conversion
(Pott: multa futura impediet), but the multitude of sins which he committed
before his conversion.! Lange thinks: “this restriction misapprehends the
progressive nature of guilt;” but how could sins which have not been com-
mitted be forgiven?? That the mention here is not of human, but of divine
forgiveness, the close connection of the idea with the pre. .ding odca yup
tx Gavarov shows. Correctly, Wiesinger: “xadipe: car. on further the
coca yux7v, and states the ground of this salvation.
1 De Wette takes objection to the strong
expression wA760s, as he thinks that the refer.
ence here is only to aberration, and not to a
victous life; and on this account be will con-
sider, along with this, the sins of those who
stand in reciprocal action with him who has
erred, and were or might have been injured
and led astray by him; but without reason;
especially wAn@os auaprimy correspouds en-
tirely to the idea wAavnOnvas azo THs aAnOecas,
provided it be not arbitrarily weakened (so
also Briickner).
2 In order to give-prominence to the noble
historical import of the Epistle, which has been
only too much missed and neglected,’’ Lange
maintains that James here, at the conclusion,
invites the believing part of his people to engage
in intercession u..d in “the work of salvation,
that many individuals may be saved from death,
and a multitude of sins might be atoned for.”
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.—THE APOSTLE PETER.
THE apostle’s real name was Liuw» (according to another pronunciation
Suuedv, Acts xv. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1). A native of Bethsaida on the Sea of
Galilee (John i. 45), he dwelt afterwards in Capernaum (Luke iv. 31, 38),
where he was married (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5), and where his mother-in-law lived.
In the tradition, his wife is called at one time Concordia, at another Per-
petua, and is said (Clem. Alex., Strom. 7) to have suffered martyrdom
before him. Along with his father Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17; called ‘Iwavyne
also, John i. 43, xxi. 15) and his brother Andrew, he was by occupation a
fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. When the Baptist began his ministry
at the Jordan, the two brothers resorted to him. On John’s testimony
Andrew, and through his instrumentality Peter, attached themselves to
Jesus, who gave to the latter the name full of promise, Cephas. From
that time forth Peter, and along with him Andrew, remained a disciple of
Christ. After he had accompanied Jesus —as there is no reason to doubt
—on the journeys recorded by John, chaps. ii. 2-iv. 43, we find him, it is
true, again engaged in his earthly calling; but from this there is no reason
for concluding that he had forsaken Jesus, who Himself was then living in
Capernaum, Matt. iv. 13,18. At that time he received his call to enter
on the service of Christ. On the occasion of the miraculous draught of
fishes he was impressed powerfully, and as he never before had been, by
the revelation of his Master’s glory; to his words: é£eAge dn’ éuov, the reply
is given: Amd roy viv dvOpworoug toy Swypav.t Received afterwards into the
1 That Luke (v. 1 ff.) and Matthew (iv. wowjow vuas adceis arOpwrwy, agree in sense
18 ff.) relate the eame fact, admits of no with those in Luke addressed specially to
doubt; not only are the scenes and the per- Peter. Neither is there any inward differ-
sons identical, but the words in Matthew, ence (cf. Meyer on Luke v.1 f.), for the
. 165
166 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
number of the apostles, he forthwith gained a prominent place among them.
Not only was he one of the three who stood in most trusted fellowship with
Jesus, but on himself pronouncing in his own name and in that of his fel-
lows the decisive confession : od ei 6 Xproréc, 6 vldg rob Oeod (cf. John vi. 67 ff.),
Jesus confirmed the name formerly given to him, and added the promise:
éxi ravty TH métTpQ oiKodouHow pov Thy ExxAnciay ... Kal ddow coi rd¢ KAeic Tie Baat-
Aciag tov obpavov. Thus a primacy was lent to him which is in harmony
with the word of Christ later on: arnpilov trove adeAgove cov (Luke xxii. 32),
and the charge of the Risen One: Booxe ra dpvia you (John xxi. 15-17).
And for such a calling Peter was peculiarly fitted, by the energy prompting
to decisive action, which formed an essentia] feature of his character;
though not until his natural man had been purified and sanctified. by the
Spirit of the Lord. Fot, on the one hand, his resolute character betrayed
him more than once into vaingloriousness, self-will, and unthinking zeal;
and, on the other, he was wanting in the patience and even firmness which
might have been expected from him who was surnamed the Rock. Whilst,
too, he pressed on swiftly to the end he had in view, as if to take it by
storm, confronted with danger he was seized of a sudden with faint-hearted-
ness; his nature was suited more to quick action than to patient suffering.
As proofs of this may be taken his walking on the sea and his sudden fear
(Matt. xiv. 28-31), his rebuke of Christ (Matt. xvi. 22), his question as to
the sufficient measure of forgiveness (Matt. xviii. 21), his inquiring what
reward they, the disciples, would have, in that they had forsaken all for
Christ’s sake (Matt. xix. 27). In still more marked lines does the picture
of his distinctive character stand out in the background of Christ’s passion,
when he first in vain self-confidence promises to the Lord that he would
never forsake him, but would go with Him even unto death, and then on
the Mount of Olives is unable to watch with Him; he wishes, thereupon, to
save his Master with the sword, and follows Him even to the court of the
high priest, but in sudden cowardice denies Him before the men-servants
and maids, and as quickly, feeling the whole weight of his guilt, leaves the
judgment-hall in tears. On account of these unquestionably serious vacil-
lations in feeling and conduct, he nevertheless cannot be accused of inde-
cision of character. If he showed himself weak on particular occasions,
“point” of Matthew's narrative is not the ie related in v. 8 does not prove that previous
mere injunction and promise, as in Luke’s to thie Peter had had no experience of mira-
it is not the “miracle of the draught of cles, since that which produced the impres-
fishes,’’ but the call to become fishers of men. sion on Peter — related hy Luke — was not
Nor does Luke contradict himself, for what necessarily the frst miracle he witnessed.
INTRODUCTION, 167
this was the result partly of his sanguine temperament, in which action
instantaneously followed on excited feeling, and partly of his great self-
confidence, into which he was betrayed by the consciousness of his own
strength. The denial of Christ led to his inward purification; all the more
that after His resurrection Christ revealed Himself to Peter first among the
apostles. And so to the thrice-repeated question of the Lord, if he loved
Him more than the others, he returned the answer, humble yet full of faith:
“Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.”
After the ascension of Christ, Peter appears standing at the head of the
apostles, for it is at his advice that their number is again increased to twelve.
After the descent of the Spirit, however, he becomes in reality the Rock, as
' Christ had ordained him; henceforth the direction and furtherance of the
church rest chiefly in his hand. It was his sermon —the first apostolic
sermon — by means of which, on the Day of Pentecost, three thousand were
added to the church of God; and if afterwards he labored at first in connec-
tion with John, it was yet himself who was the real actor (Acts iii. 1, 4 ff,,
11 ff.). He healed the lame man, addressed the people, and on both
apostles being brought before the ecclesiastical authorities, it was he who
was the speaker. He had to execute judgment on Ananias and Sapphira
(Acts v. 1-10); and when the whole of the apostles were summoned to
appear before the Sanhedrim, it is he, too, who in the name of all testifies
for Christ. Again, in Samaria, whither he went along with John to con-
tinue the work begun by Philip, John appears beside him only as an accom-
panying fellow-worker. — During the time that the churches had rest after
the conversion of Paul, Peter journeyed throughout the districts of Palestine
bordering on the Mediterranean Sea; in Lydda he healed Aeneas (Acts
ix. 82 ff.), and raised up Tabitha in Joppa (ix. 86 ff.).—In accordance
with the position assigned to him by Christ, he was permitted by God to
bring into the church the first-fruits of heathenism; for although Paul was
destined to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, it was still Peter who should
Jirst preach the gospel to the heathen, and administer the ordinance of bap-
tism, that thus also he might retain the primacy, and be the Rock of the
Church. — During the persecution raised shortly before his death by Herod
Agrippa I., Peter was cast into prison. After his miraculous release he
quitted Jerusalem! for a time, but later on again returned thither. The
2 We are not told where Peter went; Acts founded the Christian Church, has, without
xfi. 17 only says: éwopevOn ei¢ érepov rérov. sufficient warrant, been accepted by Thiersch
The statement of several Fathers, that Peter (Die Kirche im apoat. Zettalter, p. 96 ff.).
then betook himself to Rome, and there ‘This {is decidedly opposed not only by the
168 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
last circumstance which the Acts of the Apostles relates of him is his justi-
fication of Paul at the so-called convention of apostles in Jerusalem.
The labors of Paul among the heathen, and the reception of believing
Gentiles into the Christian Church, occasioned the first division amongst the
Christians. What position did Peter then take up? After what he himself
had witnessed at the conversion of Cornelius, he could not make common
cause with the Judaistically-minded Christians; in the proceedings at Jeru-
salem, too, he placed hirnself decidedly on the side of Paul, and spoke
against the subjugation of the heathen to the law. It was then, on Peter
formally recognizing the grace given by the Lord to Paul, that an agree-
ment was come to, that Paul and Barnabas should labor among the Gentiles,
whilst he himself, along with John and James, should devote themselves to
the Jews (Gal. ii. 9)—the field of missionary enterprise being in this way
divided among them. — In thus limiting his activity to the Jewish people,
Peter detracted in no way from his primacy; for this, which had never in
any sense been absolute, remained intact, as is evident from the circum-
stance that Paul took especial care to assure himself of Peter's consent, and
acknowledged his foremost position among the apostles (cf. Gal. ii. 7, 8).
That Peter, with all his recognition of Paul’s principles, was wholly unfit
to undertake the direction of missions to the Gentiles, is proved by his con-
duct at Antioch, for which he was called to account by Paul. He was not
wanting, it is true, in a right perception of the relation in which the gospel
stood to the law, so that without any misgivings he entered into complete
fellowship with the Gentile Christians ;! still, as regarded his own conduct,
this perception was -not vivid enough to preserve him from the hypocrisy
which drew forth Paul’s rebuke (Gal. ii. 12). For, when “certain came”
to Antioch “from James,” Peter withdrew himself from them, fearing those
of the circumcision, doubtless because he did not wish to appear in the light
Epistle to the Romans, but also by the in- Peter should have gone to Rome with the
definite expression employed here. Ewald
also (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, VI. p.
618 ff.) thinks ‘that the old legend as to
Peter’s sojourn in Rome during the reign of
Claudius, and his meeting here with Simon
.the magician, was not altogether without
foundation,” but that the Christian Church
:in Rome had then already been established.
— But it is not credible, either that if Peter
‘had vielted the church in Rome, Paul should
not have made the slightest allusion to the
fact. in his Epistle to the Romans, or that
intention of there, as in Samaria, opposing
Simon; cf. Hofmann, p. 203 ff.
1 As in Gal. il. 2, 8, 9, 15, ra ¢0vm means not
Gentile Christians, but Gentiles, Paul seems,
by the expression in ver. 12, nerd rar ever
ovvycbcev, to have meant heathens aleo. But
even if they were only Gentile Christians with
whom Peter ate, it is not their Christianity,
but their Gentile nationality and custome, as
distinguishing them from the Jews, which
Paul has here in his eye.
INTRODUCTION. - 169
of a transgreasor of the law. How dangerous his example was, became evi-
dent even then; and it is clear further that the Jewish Christians hostilely
disposed to the heathen converts were only too ready to appeal to the ex-
ample of Peter in their opposition to Paul. From this, however, it must
not be concluded that there was any want of harmony in principle between
Paul and Peter, and that by the degsiic duxav éuol xal Bapvaia xowwviac is to be
understood a mere “temporary truce,” which they had concluded with each
other in a purely external manner, and whilst holding fast their internal
differences.?
As to where and with what result Peter worked after Paul commenced
his labors, all precise and reliable information is wanting; from 1 Cor. ix. 5
it follows only that he made missionary journeys to various regions. If by
Babylon (chap. v. 18) that city itself and not Rome is to be understood, he
must have been at the time our epistle was written in Babylon, whence by
means of this letter he extended his influence to the churches of Asia Minor,
which, in part at least, had been founded by Paul.
The account which the Fathers give of the life of the apostle is pervaded
by many mythical traits. The more important his position, the more natural
it was for a-one-sided Judaeo-Christianity; as well as for the Catholic Church,
to draw by invention, intentional or unintentional, the picture of the apos-
tle’s labors in their own interests. Without any sifting of the legendary
elements, Hieronymus describes the subsequent life of Peter in the follow-
ing manner: “ Sunon Petrus princeps apostolorum post episcopatum A ntiochensis
ecclesiae et praedicationem dispersionis eorum, qui de circumcisione crediderant,
in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia secundo Claudii imperatoris
anno ad expugnandum Simonum Magum, Romam pergit, ibique viginti quinque
1 The Ttibingen echool confessedly con-
siders the first aposties, and Peter in par-
ticular, to have been narrow Judaists, and
accordingly ascribes to them precisely those
views which Paul 80 decidedly combats in
those of his epistles which are undoubtedly
Though compelled to admit that
it was not the first aposties themselves who
opposed Paul and his gospel at Corinth and
elsewhere, Pfleiderer (Der Judaismus, p. 299),
nevertheless, maintains that they supported
those who did a0. He explains Peter's con-
duct in Antioch (p. 206) in this way, that
the apostle, in order to please the heathen
Christians, adopted there a mode of life freer
genuine.
than was really permissible from his dogmatic
standpoint. The fact, on the contrary, was
that his mode of life was stricter than was
consistent with his principles, for which rea-
eon Paul accneed him of vadepos. It is
more than singular that Pfleiderer should so
entirely overlook the dishonor thus brought
upon Pani by maintaining that the first apos-
tles preached a different gospel from that
which he taught. For how could Paul, with-
out grossly violating his own conscience, ac-
cept the Sef:a xocvwvias offered him by James,
Peter, and John, If his dva@eya éorw (Gal. 1.
7,8) was applicable to each of them as the
preacher of a érepow evayydAcor ?
170. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
annis cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit, usque ad wltimum annum Neronis, id est,
decimum quarlum. A quo et affizus cruci martyrio coronatus est, capite ad terram
verso et in sublime pedibus elevatis, asserens se indignum, qui sic crucifigeretur ul
dominus suus. Sepultus Romae in Vaticano juxta viam triumphalem totius orbis
veneratione celebratur” (De Scriptor. Eccl., cap. i., De Petro).
In this narrative the following particulars are mythical: (1) The epis-
copate of Peter in the church at Antioch; the saying, too, of Eusebius
(Chronicum ad Annum, iii.), that Peter founded the church at Antioch, must
_ be considered apocryphal, as contradicting Acts xi. 19-22. (2) His personal
activity in the regions of Asia Minor; this is doubtless mentioned already
by Origen as probable;! but it must be regarded simply as an inference
from 1 Pet. i. 1, a8 even Windischmann (Vindiciae Pet., § 112 f.) admits.
(3) His journey to Rome for the purpose of combating Simon Magus 2
This story is based on a passage in Justin’s Apologia Maj., c. 26, which
speaks of a statue in Rome with the following inscription: ZIMQNI AEQ
SAIKTQ, which, however, has been discovered to be the dedication not to
that Simon, but to the Sabine god Semo Sanctus. (4) The twenty-five
years’ residence of Peter in Rome (cf. on this Wieseler’s Chronol. des A pos-
tol. Zeitalters, p. 571 ff.). Perhaps also (5) the peculiar manner of his cruci-
fixion, which has been recorded by Origen already (in Euseb., H. E., iii. 1:
dveaxodoniobn Kata xepadne) ; the motive given for it by Hieronymus must cer-
tainly be looked upon as an arbitrary addition. As indisputable fact, there
remains, in the first instance, only the martyrdom of the apostle, which is
corroborated by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, and especially by
John xxi. 19;8 the residence in Rome appears more open to doubt, still the
reasons which can be urged against it are not sufficient to prove the purely
legendary character of the tradition. Although Clemens Rom. (Ep. ad.
1 Euseb., HW. Z., iti. 1: Werpos év Iidvre,
K.TA., Kexnpuydvas ros dy Scacrmops ‘lovdaois
éorxev.
% The stories about Peter and Simon M.
in the Clementine Homilies are mere legend-
ary formations. Even Ewald’s opinion, that
Peter, after his release, went to Rome for
a short time, in order there to oppose Simon
M.; that, on his return to Jerusalem, he had
viaited the districts in the north-east, and
there founded the churches to which he later
addressed this epletie,—is too destitute of
secure historical foundation to be regarded
as correct.
8 The explanation given in this verse of
the prophecy contained in ver. 18 is indis-
putably correct. Mayerhoff is wrong in call-
ing it in question (Zini. in d. Petr. Schriften,
p. 87) by applying Christ’s words to Peter,
not to the martyrdom he was about to suffer,
but to the apostle himself, as destined to be
the leader of the church: ‘‘ He explains to
Peter the necessity of a ministry of this kind,
by pointing out to him that active support
of the needy is a duty imposed by love to
Christ.” Meyer gives the right explanation
of this passage. Cf. in loc.
INTRODUCTION. 171
Corinth., c. 5) does not say that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome, yet
Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb , H. E., ii. 25), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., iii. 1),
Tertullian (Contra Marc., iv. 5, and De Praescript. adv. Haeret., c. 36), and
Origen (Euseb., H. E., iii. 1) do; and so early as by the presbyter Cajus
mention is made of the rpémaca of the two apostles Peter and Paul. Doubt-
less these testimonies are mixed up with many inexact and inaccurate par-
ticulars; but this does not justify doubt as to the truth of the circumstance
to which Ignatius seems to refer in the words: oly d¢ Mérpo¢ xal NaiAoc dtario-
cova (Ep. ad Rom.,c. 4). It is less certain that Peter was in Rome at the
same time with Paul; nor, as Wieseler wrongly asserts, are all the witnesses
of the second century who speak of the martyrdom of Peter in Rome guar-
anties for it. For, with the exception of the author of the Praedicatio Pauli,
whose testimony is uncertain, not one of these witnesses speaks of a meeting
and a conjoint labor of the two apostles in Rome, although all relate that
both of them in Rome had a part in founding the church, and that they
suffered martyrdom there. Even the circumstance mentioned by Dionysius
of Corinth (Euseb., H. E., ii. 25): éuapripycay xara rdv abrdv xatpéy,} does not
prove that at any previous time they had lived together; for this expression
allows, as Wieseler himself grants, the possibility of a period of time — pro-
vided it be not too long— having elapsed between the deaths of the two
apostles. ‘ What remains, then, as the kernel of ecclesiastical tradition is
this: that towards the end of his life Peter came ta Rome, that he there
labored for the propagation of the gospel, and that he suffered martyrdom
under Nero” (Wiesinger; cf. also Bleek, Introd. to N. T., p. 563 ff. [E. T.,
ii. 157 ff.]). As, then, the Epistle of Peter is addressed to Pauline churches
(i.e., those churches which were either founded by Paul himself, or’ had
sprung from such as had been so founded), and as Peter could hardly feel
himself called upon during Paul’s lifetime to interfere with the latter’s field
of missionary operations, it is not at all improbable that he suffered martyr-
dom later than Paul. This is supported by the circumstance that after
Paul’s death, and then only, was the fitting time for him to labor in Rome.
Had Peter been there earlier, some trace surely of his presence would have
1 The words of Dionysius, cai yap audw
mai cig THY HueTdpay KépirOov durevcarres huas
iBasay, ounoiws b@ cai cig Thy "Iradiay dudoe
&dcfarres duasrupncay cata Toy avrdy Kaipdr,
admit, on the whole, of but a doubtful infer-
ence, the more s0 that what is said here of
Peter’s Jabor in Corinth appears to have arisen
only from the fact that there was, at an early
period in Corinth, a party calling iteelf by
Peter’s name. <A legend such as this could
originate all the more easily from the en.
deavor to bring the two apostles as near as
poesible to each other; the «cara roy avroy
xatpdy may also have arisen from that endea-
vor.
172 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
been found in Paul’s epistles written from Rome. If, then, Paul suffered
martyrdom at the earliest in the year 64, the death of Peter must have taken
place in the time between 65-67 A.D.}
SEC. 2.—CONTENTS, AIM, AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.?
The contents of the epistle are in the order of thought as follows: First
of all, thanksgiving to God for the hope of the eternal inheritance in heaven,
of which the Christians had been made partakers, of which they can with
joy be certain, although for a time here they have to suffer tribulation, and
of which the glory is so great that the prophets diligently searched after it,
and the angels desired to behold it. This is followed by a series of exhor-
tations, which may be divided into three classes. The first class (i. 13-ii. 10)
is linked on to the thought of the glory promised to the Christians, and has
sanctification in general as its object. Foremost and as a starting-point
stands the summons to a full hope of the future grace (redeiug éAnicarte);
then follows the exhortation to a holy walk (Gy:oe yevfén7e) in the fear of
God the impartial Judge, based on a conscious knowledge of the redemption
wrought by the blood of Christ (i. 14-21); then, to a pure and unfeigned
love of the brethren (dAAjAoue ayanjoare), a8 became those who were born of
incorruptible seed (i. 15-25); and lastly, laying aside all xaxia, to desire the
pure milk, and firmly cleaving to Christ, as living stones to build themselves
1 According to Ewald, Peter suffered mar-
tyrdom before Paul; that is to say, during
the persecutions of the Christians by Nero,
A.D. 64, whilst Paul, having been released
from his Roman captivity, was in Spain.
3 The epistle is one of those termed already
by Origen, the seven émicroAai xaGoAtcac; for
the meaning of the designation, cf. Introd.
to the N. T., and Herzog’s Encyclopddie,
VII. p. 497 ff. The most probable view is
this: that, when the Pauline Epistles were
classified together as a whole, the other epis-
tles of the N. T. canon were united together
under the title of catholic epistles, because
they were not addressed to individual churches
or particular persone, bat as circular letters
to Christendom generaliy, or to a somewhat
extensive system of churches, juet as Origen
termed the apostolic epistle, Acts xv. 22, an
émoroAn nadoAccy. The objection may, doubt-
less, be raised to this view, that the Epistle
to the Hebrews should be included among
these, whilst Second and Third John should
be excluded from them. But the addition
of the former to the Pauline Epistles is
explained by its having been belleved to
be by Paul; and the inclusion of the latter
among the catholic epistles, by the circum-
stance that having, in later times only, come
to be regarded as canonical, they were added
on to the much more important First Epistle
of John. Hofmann’s opinion, ‘that the
seven epistles have the above designation
because they are writings neither arising from
nor pertaining to any personal relation of the
writer to those whom he addresses,”’ is con-
tradicted by the term itself, since the expres-
sion xa9oArnés contains not the slightest allu-
sion to a relation subsisting between the
writer and those to whom he writes.
INTRODUCTION. 173
up more and more to the spiritual house, in accordance with their calling as
Christians (rd Aoyudy ddodov yada imimotyoare’ . . . O¢ Aidor Gavteg oixodoueiode),
ii. 1-10. — The second series of exhortations (ii. 1l-iv. 6), which are of a
special nature, is in connection with the position of the Christians in the
world (xapaxadd o¢ mapoixove cal napemidjyoves . . . tiv avactoogny tua by roi¢
&@re0u Exovrec, VV. 11, 12), and has reference — (1) To the relation to civil
authorities (ii. 13-17); (2) To the particular relations of domestic life:
(a) exhortation to the slaves (of olxérat iroraccépevoe . . . Toig deondracc, 18-25)
to obedience towards their masters in patient endurance, even of unjust suf-
fering, based on a reference to the sufferings of Christ; (5) exhortation to
the women to be subject unto their husbands, and to a holy walk, with
reference to the godly women of the O. T., especially Sarah, ili. 1-6; (c)
exhortation to the men to a discreet treatment of their wives; (3) To the
relation to the world persecuting the church; after a short exhortation to
unity and love (ver. 8), the apostle exhorts not to return evil for evil
(vv. 9-14); with meekness to give a reason for their own hope (ver. 15),
and in the midst of suffering to give proof of faithful submission to the
divine will (vv. 16,17). These exhortations are based on a reference to
Christ, who through suffering entered into His glory (vv. 18-22), and who
by His death appeals to believers not to continue their former life, but to
lead a new one, even though they should be reviled for it. Lastly, the
apostle reminds lis readers of the future judgment of Christ (iv. 1-6). —
The third class of exhortations (iv. 7-v. 9) has special reference to life in
the church, and is connected with the thought of the nearness of the end
of all things (iv. 7). The several particulars to which prominence is given
are: soberness unto prayer (ver. 7), ardent love towards each other (ver. 8),
hospitality (ver. 9), a faithful administration of spiritual gifts for the gen-
eral good (vv. 10, 11), joyful bearing of the sufferings of Christ (vv. 12-19).
Hereupon follows an exhortation to the elders to guide the church in a right
manner, reference being made to the reward which awaits them (v. 1-4);
then a command to the younger to submit themselves to the elder (ver. 5);
on this, admonitions to all to a humble behavior towards each other, and
to humiliation before God (vv. 6, 7); lastly, a summons to watchfulness
against the temptations of the Devil (vv. 8, 9).— The epistle concludes with
the benediction and a doxology (vv. 10, 11), an observation on this epistle
iteelf (ver. 12), and sundry commissions (vv. 13, 14).
The aim of this epistle is stated by the apostle himself (v. 12) in the
words: Eypaya mapaxadav Kal émmaprupdy rainy elvar dandy xapw rod Oeod, ele iv
éorgxare. Accordingly he proposed a mapaxadcv and an énipaprypay, both in
174 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
close connection with each ather, as the immediate juxtaposition of the
ideas shows. The occasion of them lay in this, that the readers, as profess-
ing Christians, had to endure severe afflictions through the slanders of the
heathen. In view of the dangers lying therein, the apostle was careful, on
the one hand, to exhort them to patience, by directing their minds to the
future xAnpovoyia, as also to the continuance in holiness, and to a conduct
towards each other and towards the heathen such as would lead the latter
to see how groundless their slanders were; and, on the other hand, that his
exhortation might not be without a firm basis, to assure them that a state of
suffering was the true divine state of grace. Accordingly the epistle bears
neither a polemical nor a doctrinal, but an entirely hortatory character. No
doubt dogmatic ideas are interwoven in some passages; these, however, are
never treated doctrinally, but are always made subservient to the purpose of
exhortation.
REMARK. — Schott regards this epistle as, in the first instance, a letter of
consolation, in which the readers are calmed and comforted, on the one hand,
with respect ‘“‘to the accusations of the heathen, that they, as matter of
principle, denied a moral basis to social life;’? and, on the other, as regards
their fears, lest the fact of God’s permitting persecutions should be a proof to
them that they were without the ‘‘complete moral certainty of their salvation
in Christ.’? In opposition to this, it is to be remarked that Peter uses zapaxadeiv
only in the sense of ‘‘ to exhort,’’ and that even if the apostle, in the treatment
of his subject, does introduce some words of comfort, the whole epistle cannot,
on that account, be styled a letter of consolation, the less so that these very
words are always made subservient to purposes of exhortation; cf. Weiss, Die
petrin. Frage, p. 631 f.— Several interpreters assume from énaprupay, x.7.1,,
that Peter composed his hortatory epistles with the intention also of formally
confirming the preaching of the gospel aforetime addressed to his readers.
Wiesinger says: ‘‘ Peter, in his epistle to Pauline churches, has impressed the
seal of his testimony on the gospel as preached by Paul.’’ Weiss, while
questioning this, in that he does not consider the church to have been Pauline,
nevertheless asserts that ‘‘the apostle wished, by his apostolic testimony, to
confirm the preaching already delivered to the readers,’’ and for this reason
precisely, ‘‘ that it had not yet been proclaimed to them by an apostle.’’ But,
although in i. 12, 25, we have it attested that the true gospel is preached unto
them, and, in v. 12, that thus they are made partakers of the very grace of God,
still this testimony is not made in such a form as to warrant the conclusion that
tue Apostle Peter considered it necessary to confirm, by his apostolic authority,
the preaching by which the readers had been converted; nor does it imply
that the readers had begun to doubt of its truth, because it had come to them
INTRODUCTION. 175
— directly or indirectly —from Paul, or even from one who was no apostle.
The double testimony is rather to be explained simply thus: The apostle was
desirous of preserving his readers from the danger to which they were exposed,
by the trials that had befallen them, of entertaining doubts as to their state of
grace, and of confirming them in the confident trust in the grace of which they
had been made partakers, apart altogether from the person by whom the gospel
had been preached to them. — Hofmann, while justly recognizing the hortatory
character of the epistle, thinks that Peter’s intention in it was ‘‘to secure the
fruits of Paul’s labors in a way possible only to the Apostle of the Circum-
cision.’”? But in the epistle there is not the smallest hint of any such intention,
nor is there any mention made of a difference between the Apostle of the
Gentiles and the Apostle of the Circumcision. Besides, if such were his
intention, it is impossible to understand how Peter could ‘have written a
hortatory epistle of such length. This same objection may be urged against
Bleek’s idea that the sole occasion of the epistle was the journey of Silvanus to
Asia Minor. — Pfleiderer (as above, p. 419) correctly gives the design of the
letter thus: ‘‘ An exhortation to patience and perseverance under severe perse-
cution from without, as also to a blameless life, by means of which the Christian
Churclt might avoid every occasion for a justifiable persecution.’’ — On Schweg-
ler’s hypothesis, that the letter was written with the design of effecting a
compromise between the followers of Paul and those of Peter, see § 4, Introd.
Ewald’s view, that this circular letter was composed chiefly with the design ‘‘ of
teaching the true relation to all heathen, and heathen rulers,’’ is refuted by the
contents themselves, which go far beyond this,
The peculiar character of the epistle is due as much to the individuality
of its author as to its own hortatory tendency; but not to this, that its
author preached a Christianity different from that of the other apostles,
that is to say, a narrow Jewish Christianity. The Christianity of Peter, in
its subjective as in its objective side, is the same as that of Paul and John.
As regards the objective side, there are no conceptions of the person of Christ
here expressed lower than in the other books of the N. T. Weiss, who
draws a distinction between the historical and the speculative methods of
viewing the person of Christ in the N. T., is no doubt of opinion that only
the former of these is to be found here, and that therefore Peter’s concep-
tion is, in this respect, only a preliminary step to those of Paul and John.
But although Peter does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ in so many
words, yet the significance which, according to him, Christ had for the reali-
zation of the eternal purposes of God toward humanity (i. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10-12,
18-20, ii. 4-10, 21-25, iii. 18-iv. 6, iv. 13, 14, v. 4, 10), goes to prove that
176 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
he did not regard Christ “as a mere man,” distinguished from other men
only in that “ He was anointed by God at His baptism with the Holy Spirit,
and thus equipped for the office of Messiah.”” Besides, however, there are
not wanting hints which point to a higher conception than this. If Christ
be not called vide rot Geos, God is spoken of directly as xargp rov xvpiov ‘Iqoov
Xpiorod (chap. i. 3, 2); and the name xipuc, which Peter, according to the
O. T. usage, frequently applies to God, is by him attributed without any
explanation to Christ also. Again, if the Trinity, to which reference is
made in chap. i. 2, be only the economical Trinity, still in it Christ is placed
in such a relation to God “as could absolutely never, and especially never in
the domain of Old-Testament faith, be applied to a mere human instrument”
(Jul. Koéstlin). Still further, in chap. i. 20, mpoeyvwouérov mpd xataBoArne xocpev,
where even Weiss is forced to find an idea expressed beyond any that can
be explained on the “historic principle,” though it be true that here it is
not —as Schumann (Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi, p. 449) assumes — the
real, but only, in the first instance, the ideal pre-existence that is affirmed,
yet this very ideal pre-existence undeniably points beyond the simple hu-
manity of Christ. It is, too, a mere makeshift for Weiss to assert that the
idea was formed in Peter’s mind, from the circumstance only, that Christ
had already been predicted by the prophets, for mpd xaraoAijj¢ xéouov plainly
goes far beyond this. And lastly, even if Weiss’s interpretation of ro...
avevpa Xptorod, chap. i. 11 (see Comment., in loc.), were admissible, it would
also follow, from the very fact that Peter spoke of the working of God's
Spirit in the prophets, according to its indwelling in Christ, that he had a
conception of Christ’s nature higher than any Weiss would allow him to
have had.
Peter’s estimate also of the work of Christ, as of His person, is in no way
different from that of the other apostles. For him, too, it is the death and
resurrection of Christ which lays the foundation of man’s salvation, the
communication of the Spirit of the glorified Christ by which that salvation
is appropriated by man, and the second coming of Christ by which it is
completed. No doubt Weiss thinks that Peter attributes to the blood of
Christ a redemptive, but not an expiatory, power, and that certainly the idea
of sacrifice is foreign to him, if that of substitution be not; but this opinion
can be justified only by a misconception of the particular points in the
passages in question (i. 18, 19, ii. 24, iii. 18).
With respect to the subjective side of Christianity, Peter has in reference
to it also no peculiar teaching. According to him, it is again faith which is
made the condition of a participation in the salvation of Christ; cf. i. 5, 7,
INTRODUCTION. 177
8, 9, 21, ii. 7 (iv. 18), v. 9. True, the ziorc of Peter is not characterized as
specifically Christian by any adjunct such as els Xpsorov; but that none other
than a faith on Christ can be meant is evident, partly from the reference to
the redeeming death of Christ which pervades the whole epistle, and partly
from the circumstance, that when God is spoken of as the object of faith
(i. 21), the phrase: rdv éyeipavra abrdv (Xpiordv) éx vexpév nal ddgav abry dévra
(comp. Rom. iv. 24), is added to Geéy by way of nearer definition. It can
with no justification be asserted that faith according to Peter is, on the one .
hand, only the trust in God based on the miracle of the resurrection, and on
the other simply the recognition of the Messianic dignity of Christ, and that
accordingly he does not, like Paul, make reference to the atonement accom-
plished by the blood of Christ. For, precisely because Peter regards the
death of Christ as the ground of salvation, it is plainly impossible that he
should think of this faith by which redemption is obtained, without reference
to the death of Christ and its effects. Weiss, though he admits that this
faith, according to the view taken of it not merely by Paul and John, but
also by Peter, introduces into real community of life with Christ, does so
only under this restriction, that Peter’s conception is based entirely on the
utterances of Christ, and has not as yet been worked into didactic shape;
as if the living faith were not necessarily conscious of community of life
with Christ, and as if the matter contained in an epistle written with the
view of imparting instruction must of necessity be brought into didactic
form. If, according to Peter, the life of faith be, from its earliest commence-
ment, a life of obedience, there is taught in this nothing different from what
Paul more than once affirms (Rom. vi. 17, xv. 18, xvi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. x. 15);
but that Peter “makes the idea of obedience so prominent, that faith as the
fundamental condition of the possession of salvation retires completely into
the background” (Weiss), is an unfounded assertion. — Since, then, the
epistle is written with the design mapaxadciv the Christians, who were endur-
ing affitction for their faith’s sake, the reference to a future and complete
salvation — xAnpovouia, owrnpia, dofa, xdpic Gwi¢ —forms, along with the exhor-
tation to a pious Christian walk of life, a chief feature in it, and it is there-
fore quite natural that the éAmi¢ should appear as the centre of ita apostolic
napaxAnow (chap. i. 8, 18, 21, iii. 5, 9, 15, iv. 18, v. 1, 4,10). But although
it is peculiar to Peter to gaze on the future completion of salvation with a
hope that stretched away beyond the present possession of it, yet we must
not on that account seek to draw a distinction between him as the apostle of
hope, and Paul as the apostle of faith, and still less, with Weiss, attribute to
him a different conception of doctrine in that, whilst according to Paul hope
178 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is only a single constituent of faith, Peter saw in faith only “the preliminary
step to hope.”
REMARK. — Whilst Weiss considers the doctrinal conception in the epistle
as a preliminary step to Paulinism, Pfleiderer, on the other hand, characterizes
it as ‘“‘a Paulinism popularized, and thereby rendered weak and insipid.’? In
reference to this, the following remarks must be made: (1) Pfleiderer indeed
admits that the emphasis laid on the death of Christ as the means of our
redemption is a genuinely Pauline feature; at the same time, however, he is of
opinion that the death of Christ must be taken here as referring not, as with
Paul, to the expiation of the guilt of sin, but only to the removal of a life of
sin, and that its redemptory effects can only be considered as morally communi-
cated, in order that it may, as a powerful example, bring about the resolution to
an obedient imitation of Christ. But this is clearly incorrect, for it is apparent,
from an unprejudiced perusal of the passages in question, that redemption from
the guilt of sin is viewed as the primary effect of Christ’s death, though there
is undoubtedly also reference to its final aim in delivering from the power of sin.
How can redemption from a life of sin be conceived of without the forgiveness
of sin? The very expression pavricuds aivarog 'I, X. (i. 2) is a proof that our
author regarded the forgiveness of sin as the effect of the blood of Christ. The
idea that man must earn pardon for himself by his own obedient following of
Christ is totally foreign to this epistle. (2) If Pfleiderer asserts that here we
have faith presented in an aspect different from that of Paul, inasmuch as its
object is not Christ, the histarical Redeemer from sin, but Christ, the glorified
One, it must be urged, in reply, that Christian faith, in the nature of it, has
reference at once to the abased and to the exalted Christ, —to the former
because He Is exalted, to the latter in that He was made low, — and, that, in
this passage also, between Paul and the writer of this epistle there was no
difference, and could be none. (8) In opposition to Pfieiderer’s assertion, that
obedience also has, for each of the two, a different import, inasmuch as, while
Paul considers moral obedience to be the fruit of faith, the author of this epistle
looks on morality as a particular element of faith itself, it must be remarked,
that, if obedience be the fruit of faith, it must, in germ, be contained in faith,
that is, be an element of faith. (4) With respect to the mvevyua, Pfleiderer
admits that it is for both, in every way, the life-principle of Christianity; only
he finds it worthy of notice, that, in this epistle, the communication of the
Spirit is not made to stand in any way connected with baptism. But it is clearly
a quite unjustifiable demand, that this relation should find expression in the
single passage in which reference is made to baptism. — No doubt it cannot be
denied that the several particulars of Christian faith, knowledge, and life have
received from Paul a fuller development, and, as a consequence, a clearer
definition, than in our epistle; but this can be accounted for as much by the
INTRODUCTION. 179
individuality of the two apostles as by the purely hortatory character of this
epistle, and is no evidence of the correctness of Pfleiderer’s view. — Hofmann
justly remarks: ‘‘ The epistle contains nothing by which its author can be
recognized as the advocate of an... insipid Paulinism, and nothing either
which betrays his dependence on Pauline forms of thought.”
The peculiar character of the epistle, by which it is distinguished from
the writings of Paul and John, has its origin not in any doctrinal difference,
but on the one hand in the individuality of its author, and on the other
in its own practical design. Peter does not mean to teach, he is anxious
rather to exhort in accordance with his practical mind,! as far removed from
the dialectic bent of Paul as from the intuitive of John. — The epistle bears
further a characteristic impress in the O. T. modes of thought and expres-
sion peculiar to it.2 In none of the writings of the N. T. do we find, com-
paratively speaking, so numerous quotations from and references to the
O. T. (comp. chap. i. 16, 24, 25, ii. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22-24, iii. 10-12, 13, 14,
iv. 8, 17, 18, v. 5,7). But more than this, the author lives and moves so
much in O. T. conceptions, that he expresses his thoughts by preference in
O. T. language. When he wishes to set forth the dignity of the Christian
Church, or to make reference to the future salvation of believers, or to exhort
to a walk becoming Christians, he does so for the most part in the manner
peculiar to the O. T. Even when he speaks of the death of Christ as the
ground of salvation, it is in O. T. language that he lays stress on its signifi-
And all this without so much as hinting at the specific difference
between the O. and N. T. So that all the ideas, more especially, which are
in Paul rooted in the clear consciousness of the difference between the two
cance.
economies: dixasovoGat ix tig wicTewe, vivdecia, the relation of affection between
God and Christians as His children,® etc., occupy here an entirely subor-
dinate position. Nevertheless, the tone of the whole epistle is decidedly
Christian, not only in that it is inspired by that Spirit to which Christ
referred when He said to James and John: “Know ye not what spirit ye
1 Strangely enough, Hofmann takes offence
at what is here said, although he himself
describes ‘“‘ Peter’s mind as one which directly
apprehended the duty of the moment, as the
moment presented it, and set about fulfilling
it by word and deed without circumlocution
or hesitation,’” — proof evidently of a practical
mind.
3 According to Hofmann, it is not the con-
ception, but the manner of expression, that
is that of the O. T.; but is not expression
determined by conception ?
3 This, too, Hofmann questions, assigning
as his reason ch. i. 17; but the expression
Father Is applied to God in the O. T. also
(lea. Ixili. 16; Jer. xxxi. 9), without the rela-
tion of child belng conceived in the same way
as it fe by Paul.
180 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
are of ?” but because there is to be found in it no trace of Mosaic legality,
The Christian
church is a yévoc éxAexroy just in that it is Christian, and not in any way
because the greater part of it belongs to the nation of Israel, “into which
or of the national narrowness peculiar to the Jewish people.
the others have only been ingrafted.” The Mosaic law is not so much as
mentioned, nor does the expression véyoc once occur. No doubt it is strongly
insisted upon that Christians should live a holy life; but the obligation is
deduced not from any law, bat from the fact that they are redeemed from
their paraia dvacrpogn by the ripsov alua of Christ, and are born again of seed
incorruptible, while, as the means through which they are to procure their
sanctification, the zvevya is mentioned, not the legal letter (a ypauya). From
this it follows that the name Apostle of the Circumcision” (Weiss), given
to Peter, is inappropriate, if it be understood in a sense different from that
in Gal. ii. 7, 8. It can nowhere be proved from his epistle that circumcision
had for Peter any significance whatever for the Christian life. Rather is
he penetrated by O. T. ideas only in so far as they obtain their true fulfil-
ment in Christianity, and no allusion whatever is made to those of them
which had already found their realization in Christ. — Further, the epistle
bears a peculiar character from the traces in it which prove the author to
have been an eye-witness and an ear-witness of Christ. Not only does the
apostle style himself pdpru¢ rev rod Xptotod radnuatwr, but the way in which he
discourses of the sufferings and glory of Christ is a proof that he speaks
from a personal experience, the power of which he himself had directly felt.
Oftentimes in his expressions the very words he had heard
from Christ are re-echoed, and hence the many points of accord, especially
with the discourses of Christ as these are contained in the synoptic Gospels ;
cf. chap. i. 4 with Matt. xxv. 34; 1. 8 with John xx. 23; i. 10 ff. with Luke
x. 24; 1.13 with Luke xii. 35; ii. 12 with Matt. v. 10; ii. 17 with Matt.
xxii. 21; iii. 138-15 with Matt. x. 28; and v. 10, 11, iv. 13, 14, with Matt. v.
12; v. 3 with Matt. xx. 25, 26; v. 6 with Matt. xxiii. 12.2
Lastly, the epistle shows an unmistakable kinship with various writings
of the N. T. Did this consist merely in the occurrence here and there of
single cognate thoughts, conceptions, or expressions, there would still be no
Nor this alone.
1 Hofmann, indeed, disputes that there is
here any allusion to the words of Christ; he
admits, however, that it is possible that ‘‘ the
expression used by our Lord, Matt. v. 16, was
present to the mind of the apostle when
writing fi. 12;"" and he says: “The ov ove
iSéyres ayarare shows clearly enough that it
is written by one who has seen the Lord.”
Hofmann te wrong in denying that the words
paptus TwY Tov Xprorou wabyparor, V. 1, bear
the meaning here presupposed. See Hofmann
in loc.
INTRODUCTION. 181
proof of interdependence. In the whole of the N. T. writings there is con-
tained a gospel substantially one and the same, and there must have prevailed
in the intercourse of believers with one another— every allowance being
made for diversity in the individual —a common mode of thought and ex-
pression, which had its origin chiefly in the writings of the O. T. But the
affinity which is apparent between the Epistle of Peter and several of the
Epistles of Paul and the Epistle of James, goes far beyond this. Among
Paul’s writings there are several passages in the Epistles to the Romans and
Ephesians to which Peter’s epistle stands in a relation of dependence.
Almost all the thoughts in Rom. xii. and xiii. are to be found repeated in
the Epistle of Peter,—only here they are scattered throughout the whole
letter; and not detached thoughts alone, but whole trains of thought, in
which there is a similarity of expression even in what is of secondary mo-
ment; cf. from Rom. xii., ver. 1 with 1 Pet. ii. 5, ver. 2 with i. 14, vv. 3-8
with iv. 10, ver. 9 with i. 22, ver. 10 with ii. 17, ver. 13 with iv. 9, more
especially vv. 14-19 with iii. 8-12; and from chap. xiii., vv. 1-7 with ii.
18, 14 (see on this Weiss, p. 406 ff.). But echoes of other passages in
Romans are to be found: cf. Pet. i. 21 with Rom. iv. 24; Pet. ii. 24 with
Rom. vi. 18; Pet. iii. 22 with Ronn. viii. 34; Pet. iv. 1, 2, with Rom. vi. 7
(bere it is not the clauses only which correspond: 6 zaédv, x.7.A., and 6 ato
Garwv, x.7.A., but the subsequent thought of Peter: cic rd unnére dv0pmnuy, x.7.2.,
answers to the previous idea of Paul: rob pnxéri dovaetecv, x.7.A.); Pet. v. 1
with Rom. viii. 18; particularly striking is the agreement between Pet. ii. 6
and Rom. ix. 33 (x. 11).— The kinship between the Epistle of Peter and
that to the Ephesians is based not on single passages only, but at the same
time on the composition of the two writings. If our epistle be in super-
scription and introduction similar to the epistles of Paul, it bears a peculiar
resemblance to that to the Ephesians, inasinuch as the thanks expressed in
the latter have reference not to the particular circumstances of a special
church, but to the common salvation of which the Christians had been made
partakers; the formula of thanksgiving, too, is in both literally the same:
cbdoyntoc 6 eds, «.7.A, (thus 2 Cor.). The contents, too, of the epistles pre-
sent many points of similarity both in the general exhortations to a walk in
love towards each other, humility, and meekness, and a renunciation of their
former heathenish life in fleshly passions and lusts, and in the special exhor-
tations with respect to domestic relations; further, in the summons to resist
the devil; and lastly, in the concluding wish of peace. The following par-
ticular passages may be compared with each other: Pet. i. 1 (éxAexroig . . .
cata npoyvwoty Oeod . . . év dywoup mvebuaroc) and Eph. i. 4 (égedégaro qude . . .
182 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
mpd xaraBodric xéauov, elvac nu. dyiovc); Pet. i. 5 and Eph. i. 19; Pet. i. 14 and
Eph. ii. 3; Pet. i. 18 and Eph. iv. 17; Pet. ii. 4, 5, and Eph. ii. 20-22; Pet.
ii. 18 and Eph. vi. 5; Pet. iii. 1 and Eph. v. 22; Pet. iii. 18 (mpooayew) and
Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12 (xposaywyf); Pet. iii. 22 and Eph. i. 20, 21; Pet. v. 8, 9,
and Eph. vi. 10 ff. It is also worthy of special remark, that in both epistles
the goal of the Christian is indicated by the word xAypovoyia, and that in both
the angel world is represented as standing in a relation to Christ’s work of
redemption; cf. Pet. i. 12 and Eph. iii. 10; Peter seems to make reference
also to Eph. iv. 8-10.
The similarity between particular passages of Peter’s epistle and Paul’s
other epistles is not of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that there
is a dependence of the former on the latter. If, e.g., Pet. iii. 2, etc., and
1 Tim. ii. 9 treat of the ornaments of women, and the order in which the
particular objects are brought forward be in both cases the same, this may
doubtless be a merely accidental circumstance. Besides, the nomenclature
varies. —On the other hand, the agreement between particular passages in
the epistles of James and Peter is of such a kind that it cannot be regarded
as accidental; see Pet. i. 6, 7, and Jas. i. 2, 3 (comp. dyaAAdode and yupav
Hyjoacve ; Aunndévrec év mromidou metpacuoig aNd dSrav retpacpoig mepiméonre monidor,
and in both passages the identical 7d doxiuiov tyov rig meoteuc); further, Pet.
il. 1 and Jas. i. 21 (there: damutéusvo: racav xaxiav; here: dmodépevor tacav pura-
piav kai mépioceiay xaxiacs; there: 1d Aoyixdy ddoAov yada émimodgjoare; here, the not
| very dissimilar thought: degaode rdv Euqurov Asyov; there, the aim: tva éy abry
abéndire cig owrnpiav; here, the similar thought in the participial clause: rd»
duvauevov awoat rag pryacg tuov); lastly, Pet. v. 5-9 and Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10, where
in both passages there is the same quotation from the O. T., then the exhor-
tation to humble submission to God, and thereon the summons to withstand
the devil; besides this, Pet. v. 6 is almost identical with Jas. iv. 10.!
The dependence of Peter’s epistle on the writings already mentioned,
whilst it is acknowledged by almost all interpreters (in recent times more
especially by Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofmann ; in like manner, too, by
Ewald, Reuss, Bleek ; Guericke’s opinion is doubtful), is denied by Mayer-
hoff, Rauch, and Briickner. Briickner, while admitting that there still
remains the general impression of so many echoes, which always seems to
point back to the dependence of Peter’s epistles, is nevertheless of opinion
1 Although several of the citations from Peter's epistle are not dependent on them
the epliaties to the Romana and Ephesians, (cf. Hofmann, p. 206 ff.), yet, as ie fully
and from that of James, might lead to the recognized by Hofmann, that in no way alters
supposition that the passages in questiun in the matter itserf.
INTRODUCTION. 188
that the similarity can be explained simply from the circumstance that cog-
nate ideas in the minds of the apostles called for cognate terms, especially
if there be taken into account the power of primitive Christian tradition on
early Christian style, and the prevalent modes of expression which had arisen
out of conceptions formed under the influence of the Old Covenant. This
- Fesult, however, he obtains in the following way: He resolves the similar
thoughts into their several elements; and having directed special attention
to these, he lays particular stress on the differences he discovers. This
process of separation is of necessity misleading, and if it be not employed,
the similarity is so great that there can be no doubt as to the dependence
of the one composition on the other. Weiss has demonstrated this at full
length with respect to the relation between the Epistle of Peter and those to
the Romans (chaps. xii. and xiii.) and Ephesians.
when he says that the dependence is on the side of Paul, and not on that of
Peter. With regard to Rom. xii. and xiii., it must be remembered — (1)
That it is entirely improbable that Paul should, quite contrary to his usual
custom, have been at the trouble to collect the thoughts here arranged from
He is wrong, however,
an epistle where they occur in a quite different connection; whilst there is in
itself nothing improbable in the supposition, —if he were acquainted with
the Epistle to the Romans, and more especially the above chapters, — that
Peter wrote under the influence of Paul’s expression in the different passages
of his epistle, where the course of his own thoughts suggested to hiin the
same ideas. (2) That the views of Weiss necessarily lead to a depreciation
of the literary capability of Paul. Weiss himself says that Paul’s depend-
ence on Peter caused him to place in chap. xii. 6,7, dcaxovia, in the narrower
sense, which is “evidently jarring,” between the three spiritual gifts; to
introduce in ver. 11, “ without any purpose,” the exhortation 19 tAnids xaipovrec;
to put the thought in ver. 15 in the wrong place; and in ver. 16 to interpo-
late the idea quite inappropriately.1 As to the Epistle to the Ephesians, it
must be remarked — (1) That no foreign influence can be recognized in it,
when compared with the other Pauline epistles. Its dissimilarity is to be
(2) That
the special peculiarities by which this epistle is distinguished from the other
explained from its own individual tendency as a circular letter.
1 Since Weiss himself uses the expressions
above quoted, the accusation that he detracts
from Paul’s independence is certainly not
without justification. If he complain that
even in this commentary regard is not paid
to “‘the general considerations” (pp. 403-406
in Der Petrin. Lehrbegrif’), we must observe,
in reply, that general possibilities do not issue
in much, more especially when concrete cit-
cumstances prevent that being regarded as a
reality which is in itself possible.
184 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
letters of Paul, even from that to the Colossians, have nothing whatsoever
in common with the Epistle of Peter. In addition to this, let it be noted
that the independence of Paul, which is apparent in every one of his epistles,
stands in sharpest contradiction with the assumption that the apostle was
indebted to those passages in Peter’s epistle; whilst, on the other hand, the
leaning which Peter had to the O. T. and to the words of Christ, shows that
to allow his mode of expression to be shaped by the influence of another
was in no way opposed to the peculiar character of his mind, but entirely in
harmony with it, as part of a nature “easily determined, receptive, and
peculiarly open to personal impressions” (Schott).
REMARK. — Weiss, in his essay entitled Die Petrinische Frage, written for
the purpose of defending his views on the dependence of the epistles to the
Romans and Ephesians against objections raised to them, substantially repeats
what he had formerly said, and hardly adduces any thing new. In denying that
there subsists any relation of dependence between Rom. vi. 7 and Pet. iv. 12,
and between Rom. vi. 2, 18, and Pet. ii. 24, Weiss overlooks the fact that the
resemblance rests not alone on the two expressions 6 dzo@avev and 6 ma6dv capa,
and that his interpretation of rai¢ auapriac droyevouevoc is an erroneous one. A
more minute examination of the several clauses of chaps. xii. and xiii. of Romans
can result merely in the conclusion that it is not in itself impossible that this
epistle was conceived under the influence of Peter’s letter. But the priority of
the latter is not thereby proved. The hortatory design of this epistle explains
why it is that Peter has confined himself to these two chapters, and why in his
composition are to be found none “‘of the developments of Christian doctrinal
conceptions peculiar to Paul.’’ Besides, it must be noted that although Peter
says nothing of the relation of the vouoc and the épya rov vouov, he is completely
at one with Paul in the fundamental conception that sinful man can obtain
salvation only through faith in Christ. — With respect to the affinity between
the Epistle of Peter and that to the Ephesians, Weiss himself admits that
‘evidence for the originality of the Petrine passages can be adduced with still
less strictness from a comparison of details.”’> Weiss wrongly affirms that the
Epistle to the Ephesians is related to that of Peter precisely in those very
points which distinguish it from the rest of Paul’s writings. For the peculiar
and distinctive character of the Epistle to the Ephesians does not consist only
in that it is a circular letter (an assertion which, however, is decidedly denied
by many critics, and particularly by Meyer; see his commentary, Einl., § 1),
and that its commencement is of an import more general than that of the other
Pauline epistles, but more especially in the whole diction, which, in the rich
fulness of its expression, bears an impress different from the rest of the
apostle’s writings. That this peculiarity, however, cannot be traced to a
INTRODUCTION. 185
knowledge, on the apostle’s part, of Peter’s epistle, needs not to be proved.
When Weiss finds # a characteristic of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that its
** ethical exhortation culminates in advices for the several stations of life,’’ he
must have forgotten that exactly the same is the case with the Epistle to the
Colossians, which plainly was not written under the influence of Peter’s epistle.
The dependence of this epistle on Paul and James is not, as Schott
assumes, to be attributed to Peter’s intention to show the agreement of his
doctrine with that of these two men. For it is precisely their doctrinal
peculiarities which are not echoed in the related passages; and altogether a
doctrinal intent is nowhere discernible. It must therefore be assumed that
Peter, from his familiarity with these epistles, was so penetrated by their
prevailing modes of thought and expression, and the connection of their
ideas, that recollections of these, although not unconsciously, still involun-
tarily,! became interwoven with his style. Such reminiscences, too, would
press themselves upon his mind the more readily in the case of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, that it was addressed to the same churches in Asia Minor
which Peter felt himself urged to confirm and strengthen in their state of
grace.?
With all this dependence, however, the epistle has still its peculiar im-
press different from that of the epistles of Paul and James. Although it
abounds in conceptions which are common to all the apostles, there are yet
to be found in it not only particular expressions and terms, but also many
ideas, which are foreign to the other writings of the N. T. Thus it is dis-
tinctive of this epistle, that the work of salvation is characterized as some-
thing after which the prophets searched, and into which the angels desired
to look (i. 10-12); that the Christiana are called mdpoco xal maperidnyoe
(ii. 11); that the exhortation to a holy walk is based on this, that thereby
2 Schott’s opinion is far-fetched, that Peter’s
continual references to the Pauline epistles
arose from his tender anxiety lest he should
add to “‘ the disquiet and apprehension of his
readers by giving any direct expression to
his apostolic individuality, unknown as it was
to them.” He thinks, that, for this reason,
Peter had, “ without mentioning his intention,
unnoticed, and, as it were, by chance, here
and there, sometimes more distinctly, and
sometimes less so, allowed his readers to
hear the well-known voice of their real
pastor.”
® Hofmann goes too far in maintaining that
Peter “ purposely ’® connected his epistle with
that to the Ephesians, making the opening
passages of the former thus similar to those
of the latter, ‘‘in order, that, from the com-
mencement, his heathen readers must perceive
his intention, and recognize the harmony sub-
sisting between that which was written by
the Apostle of the Circumcision and that
formerly penned by the Apostle of the Hea-
then.” This assertion arises from the mis-
taken views which Hofmann has formed as
to the design of the epiastle.
186 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the heathen would recognize the groundlessness of their accusations (ii. 12,
iii. 16); and that the endurance of wrong is termed a yép¢. Further, pe-
culiar to this epistle are: the exhibition of Christ’s sufferings as a type of
their own sufferings for the faith’s sake (ii. 21 ff.); the idea that Christ has
preachefl to the spirits in prison (iii. 19, iv. 6); the consolation drawn from
the similarity of the affliction of the Christian brethren (v. 9); Sarah, in
her subjection to Abraham, held up to women as an example (iii. 6); the
comparison drawn between baptism and the flood, and the designation of
the former as ouvetdycews dyabig émepornua (iii. 21); the thought that the suf-
ferings of Christ form the beginning of judgment (iv. 12); the exhortation
to the elders (v. 1-3); the term dpx:nomi as (v. 4) applied to Christ, etc.
It cannot justly be urged against this epistle, that it is wanting in logical
development of thought. Since the epistle bears a hortatory character,
there is nothing to excite surprise when the author makes a transition
from more general to more special precepts, and again from more special
to more general, and when he, as the spirit moves him, builds now one
exhortation, now another, on this or on that fact of redemption, finding
here again occasion for fresh admonitions. But that with all this there is
no want of a definite train of thought, is proved by the above summary
of contents. The style does not abound in aphorisms, like that of the dis-
courses of Jesus and the Epistle of James, but is distinguished by thoughts
connected by means of participles, relative pronouns, copulative particles, as
in the Pauline epistles. A peculiarity, too, is to be found in the frequent
condensation of several conceptions into a substantival or adjectival idea by
means of the definite article (chap. i. 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 14, 15, 17, ete.) ; further,
the frequent use of the particle ac (chap. i. 14, 19, ii. 1, 5, 16, iv. 10, 11, 15,
16, v. 3); lastly, the construction of the participle, both with an imperative
either preceding (i. 13, 14, 22, ii. 1, 4, 16) or following it (i. 18, 28, ii. 1, 2,
5, 7), as also its employment in an absolute and independent way, without
being joined to a particular finite verb (ii. 18, iii. 1, 7, 9, 16, iv. 8).
Whilst De Wette looks on the epistle as hardly worthy of au apostle,
others praise, and rightly too, the freshness and vividness of its style,' its
‘richness in Christian doctrine,” and the ‘‘noble artlessness which feels
itself satisfied and blessed in the simple and believing reception, and calm
and quiet possession, of the facts of a divinely given salvation ” (Schott).
1 Grotius: ‘‘Habet haec epistola rd odo- alacritas Petrini sermonis lectorem suavissime
8pov, conveniens ingenio principis aposto- _retinens.”
lorum.” Bengel: ‘‘ Mirabilis est gravitas et
INTRODUCTION. 187
SEC. 8. — THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE; THE TIME AND
PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION.
Whilst the epistle itself gives no precise information as to who the
readers addressed are, its superscription shows them to have been Christians
in Asia Minor, more especially those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
(by which term proconsular Asia is to be understood), and Bithynia; that
is to say, the Christians in regions where Paul and his companions, accord-
ing to his epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, had first preached the gospel
and founded the Christian Church. —In ancient times the prevalent view
was that the epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians. This opinion was
entertained by Eusebius, Didymus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Oecumenius,
Theophylactus; and among more recent authors, by Erasmus, Calvin, Gro-
tius, Bengel, Augusti, Hug, Bertholdt, Pott, and others. Several inter-
preters, like Wolf, Gerhard, Jachmann, ete., have modified this view, in so
far that they hold the epistle to have been written principally (principaliter)
no doubt for Jewish Christians, but in a certain sense (quodammodo) for
Gentile Christians also (fidei tnterna ac loci externa unitate ilis conjunctos).
This is the position taken up by Weiss. He assumes that the majority of
church-members were Jewish Christians, and that these were regarded by
Peter as the real body of the congregations; for this reason, and not think-
ing of the admixture of heathen which had everywhere taken place, the
apostle addresses the Jewish Christians only. Weiss’s view is very closely
bound up with his opinion, that the churches in question had already been
founded before the missionary journey of Paul to Asia Minor, by Jews of
that region who had been converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost
or subsequently to it. This assertion, however, is not only without any
foundation whatsoever in history, but is opposed to all that is told us of
the Apostle Paul’s labors in Asia Minor, in his epistles and in the Acts of the
Apostles, inasmuch as there is in neither the smallest hint that when he
commeneed his work there, a Christian church was in existence anywhere in
that land. It is surely inconceivable that Paul should have pursued his
missionary work in that region without in any way taking notice of the
church already established there, and all the more so if that church had by
that time risen to such importance as to draw on itself the persecuting hate
of the heathen. — The proofs adduced by Weiss, that the epistle was addressed
to Jewish-Christian churches, are as follow: 1. The designation of the
readers in the superscription of the letter; 2. The style of expression so
strongly based on the O. T.; 3. The occurrence of several passages, namely,
188 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
chaps. i. 14, 18, ii. 9, 10, iii. 6, iv. 3, which point apparently to Gentile but
in reality to Jewish Christians as readers. The jirst proof falls to the ground
when the expression éxdexrol mapenidnuoe duacxopdg Modvrov, x.t.A., is correctly
understood (see Comment. toi. 1). With regard to the secund proof, how-
ever, it must be noted that the references to the O. T. were for Gentile
Christians (who of course cannot be conceived of without some acquaintance
with the O. T.) not less intelligible than for Jewish Christians. Paul
himself makes frequent enough allusion to the O. T. in his epistles addressed
to Gentile Christians (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. i. 19, 31, ii. 9, 16, iii. 19, 20, etc.).4—
With respect to the third proof, the previous condition of the readers in the
passages quoted is not in appearance only, but as a matter of fact, charac-
terized as heathenish, and that not positively simply, but negatively also.
For in these verses there is not the faintest intimation that the readers
before their conversion had stood, as Israelites, in the covenant relation to
God to which Paul invariably makes reference when he speaks to Jews
or of them. The whole character of the epistle speaks not against, but
much more in favor of, the assumption that the churches here addressed, at
least the larger part of them, were composed not of Jewish but of Gentile
Christians. In favor, too, of this view, is the circumstance that these same
churches are represented as suffering persecution, not at the hands of the
Jews, but of the heathen; which goes to show that the latter did not regard
these Christians merely as a sect within Judaism, as would naturally have
been the case had they been formerly Jews, or for the most part Jews. The
persecuting zeal of the heathen was directed against it only when Chris-
tianity began to draw its professors no longer from Judaism chiefly, but
from heathendom; and %& was not Jewish but Gentile Christian churches
which were the objects of detestation. Justly, then, did Augustine (Contra
Faustum, xii. 89) already, and Cassiodorus (De Instit. Div. Lit., ii. p. 516),
later on, Luther and Wetstein, and in recent times Steiger, De Wette,
1 Weiss wrongly tries (Die Petrin. Frage,
p- 623) to neutralize the evidential value of
this remark, by saying ‘* that it does not touch
the very pitb of bis argament, which consiats
in this, that Peter expressly quotes the O. T.,
as Paul does, only in 1. 16, fi. 6.”
the one hand, Paul, too, employs O. T. ex-
pressions and phrases without adding yéypaz-
For, on
tac or the like, e.g., in the passage above
quoted, 1 Cor. ii. 16. On the other hasxd, the
O. T. expressions employed by Peter without
the formula of quotation are of such a kind
as to have been Intelligible to the Christians
as euch, irrespective of whether they formerly
had been heathens or Jews; nor do they by
any means “ presuppose so intimate a knowl.
edge of the O. T. as is conceivable only in
those who had formerly been Jews." With
regard to their acquaintance with the O. T.,
cf. Meyer on Rom. vii. 1, where Paul speaks
of the Christians, without exception, as yt»woe
KOVTED voMOY,
INTRODUCTION. 189
Briickner, Mayerhoff, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, as also Neander, Gue-
ricke, Reuss, Lechler, Schaff, Jul. Kostlin, Bleek, and others, pronounce in
favor of the opinion that the churches in question must be held to have
been composed of Gentile Christians. The hypothesis of Benson, Michaelis,
Credner, and some others, that this epistle is designed for such Gentile
Christians as had before their conversion to Christianity been “ proselytes
of the gate,” is evidently a purely arbitrary one.
As to their condition, we gather from the epistle for the most part only,
that the churches were at that time exposed to many persecutions at the
hands of the heathen, which, however, consisted more in contumelies and
revilings than in actual ill-treatment. That these manifold persecutions
were instituted by the state, cannot, with Hug, Mayerhoff, and Neander, be
concluded from the expressions drodoyia and xaxomoide in iii. 15, 16. Schott’s
conjecture, that they were connected with those which arose under Nero, is
refuted on the one hand by their character as described in the epistle, and
on the other by the testimony of history, which confines the Neronic perse-
cution solely to Rome. A too gloomy picture of the moral condition of the
readers must not be drawn from the exhortations given to them relative to
the persecutions, although it is not incredible that the shortcomings brought
here and there to light by the persecutions may have induced the apostle to
compose this epistle; open blame is nevertheless not expressed. Nor is
there any thing to indicate that the church was disturbed by heretical tend-
encies, or opposing parties of Jewish and Gentile Christians. — The notion
that Peter was personally acquainted with his readers, is opposed as much
by the want of any personal relations on his part to his readers, as by the
distinction he makes between himself and those who had proclaimed the
gospel to them.-
Only one passage (v. 18) has reference to the place where the epistle was
composed. From the circumstance that Peter sends greetings from the
church (not from his wife) in Babylon, it may correctly be inferred that
during the composition of the epistle he was in that city. But whether by
Babylon is to be understood the Babylon properly so called, on the banks of
the Euphrates, or Rome rather, the capital pf the world, is a question by
no means settled as yet (cf. on this the remarks on the passage). It is not
at all improbable in itself that Peter was for a time in Babylon proper, and
labored there as an apostle, the less so that from of old, in that very city,
there were large Jewish communities, which stood in intimate connection
with Jerusalem.
In order to settle more precisely the time of the composition, it must be
190 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
observed principally: (1) That the epistle is directed to Pauline churches;
(2) That it presupposes the acquaintance of its author with the Epistle to
the Ephesians. If these two points, above proved to be correct, are estab-
lished, the epistle can neither, as Weiss assumes, have been composed at
the beginning of Paul’s third missionary journey, nor, as Briickner con-
jectures, at the end of it; its origin must be relegated, rather, to a later
date. Assuming that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul
during his captivity at Rome, Wieseler would place the composition of
our epistle in the latter part of that captivity. But the following facts
militate against this: on the one hand, that the persecutions of the Chris-
tians in the provinces of Asia Minor, which occasioned this letter of Peter,
are mentioned neither in the Epistle to the Ephesians nor in that to the
Colossians; and, on the other, that in the former there is no reference to
those false teachers whose appearance these epistles presuppose. Peter,
too, if he had composed his epistle at that time, would certainly not have
left the imprisonment of Paul unnoticed, the more especially that he was
writing to a Pauline church. The letter can have been composed, then,
only after the two-years’ imprisonment of Paul in Rome. Ewald and
Hofmann are of opinion that it was written immediately after his release
from captivity. But it is more than improbable that an epistle addressed
to a Pauline church was composed when Paul was still alive and engaged
in work. If such had been the case, Peter would certainly not have omitted
to specify the relation in which he stood to Paul, and the motive which
induced him to write to a Pauline church, since by so doing he was evi-
dently encroaching by his apostolic labors on the missionary territory of
Paul.! Accordingly, it must be assumed that the epistle was not written
until after Paul had been removed by martyrdom from the field of apos-
tolic labor, and withal at a time when this fact had become known to the
churches, otherwise Peter could not have passed it over in silence. We
must agree, then, with those critics who place the composition of the
epistle in the closing years of Peter’s lifetime, at the earliest in the year 66
(as Reuss, Bleek, Wiesinger, Schott). If Peter died under Nero, that is,
about the year 67 A.D., the period which extends from the Neronic perse-
cution of the Christians and the death of Paul — especially as he suffered
martyrdom soon after the conflagration in Rome, 64 A.D. — to the time
1 Hofmann’s remark is singular: Thatthose Peter would only have been guilty of an
only were guilty of an interference who at- encroachment if he had almed at forming a
tempted to turn away from Paul the Gentile. number of Gentile-Christian churches.
Christian churches founded by him, and that
INTRODUCTION. 191
when this epistle was composed, is long enough to allow of it seeming
natural that Peter in his epistle should leave those two events unnoticed.!
All that we learn from the epistle as to the circumstances in which the
churches in question were placed, and, in particular, respecting the perse-
cutions to which they were exposed, is in harmony with this date. For
although the Christians had to suffer persecution even during the time of
Paul’s missionary labors (cf. 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4, etc.), yet
this was by no means so generally the case —a statement Hofmann unjustly
calls in question —as our epistle seems to presuppose, but took place for
the most part then only when the heathen were instigated by the Jews
(Acts xvii.. 5, xvili. 12), or by particular individuals to whose interests
Christianity was opposed (cf. Acts xvi. 16 ff., xix. 23 ff.). And albeit
Tacitus records that the Christians, even so early as the burning of Rome,
were the odium humani generis and per flagitia invisi, they could have begun
to be so only after Christianity had shown itself a power capable of advancing
on heathendom and convulsing it. This it became only in consequence
of Paul’s missionary labor ; and Weiss is not justified in taking advantage of
the fact to support his views ag to the early date of composition. On the
other hand, the epistle shows that, at the time of its origin, the hostility of
the Gentiles towards Christianity had not risen to such a height that the
heathen authorities sought to suppress that religion as a religio nova fraught
with danger to the state, but had confined itself as yet to slanders and the
like, to which the heathen population were incited for the reasons given
in chap. iv. All this, in like manner, harmonizes with the date above
mentioned. Weiss concludes that the epistle belongs to a time considerably
earlier, from the following circumstances: “that these sufferings were for
1 The opposite view (Hofmann’s), that the
epistle was written between the autumn of
the year 63 and that of 64, ie based on assump-
tions, the correctness of which cannot be
proved. Hofmann supposes, that, immedi-
ately after Paul’s release, Peter undertook
the journey from Jerusalem to Rome, passing
through Asia Minor by way of Ephesus,
withal “in order that he might restrain those
whose enmity towards Paul threatened to
produce a dissension which would have been
specially injurious to the church of the world’s
capital;"? further, that during this journey
he became acquainted with the Epiatle to the
Ephesians, with which he “ purposely’ con-
nected his own; and that he took Mark, who
was with him when he composed his epistle,
away with him from Ephesus, ‘ because that
of ail the Jewish converts who, without be-
longing to the company of the Apostle of
the Gentiles, were preaching Christ in Rome
at the time of Paul’s imprisonment, he was,
perhaps, the only one whose conduct towards
Peter was influenced by love instead of by
jealousy and enmity ;’’ that, immediately upon
his arrival at Rome, he wrote his epistles. All
these suppositions are purely fictions, nor
can the slightest trace of them be found in
the Epistle of Peter.
192 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the Christians still something new, at which they wondered;” and “that
to the heathen it was a thing novel and strange that the Christians should
renounce their vicious life;” and from this also, that “the apostle still
expresses the naive (!) hope that the heathen, on becoming better acquainted
with the holy walk of the Christians, would cease from their enmity, as
having arisen from ignorance.” The conclusion, however, is unwarranted,
the more so that, on the views above expressed as to the origin of the
churches of Asia Minor and the date of the epistle’s composition, the time
during which the churches had existed was even shorter than on the theory
supported by Weiss; according to the latter, they had already been in
existence for about twenty years; according to the former, for only about
fifteen. Under these circumstances, which he has omitted to take into
account, Weiss can naturally draw nothing favorable to his own opinions
from the expression occurring in chap. ii. 2: dpryévynra Bpégn. The men-
tion, too, of the vedrepo, in contrast to the mpecBirepo (chap. v. 5), is not
evidence that the epistle was composed at an earlier date, for there is no
proof that such vedrepox were no longer to be found in the churches of
Asia Minor, say, ten years after the time. mentioned by Weiss. But the
chief reason which Weiss adduces as proof that the churches in question
were not Gentile-Christian, but Judaeo-Christian communities which had
already been in existence before the apostolic career of Paul, and that
Peter's epistle had been written before the literary labors of the former
had commenced, is his own affirmation, that the doctrinal system of Peter’s
epistle “is preparatory to that of Paul.” This assertion, in itself erroneous
and opposed to the real state of the case (cf. more particularly Jul. Kostlin,
Einheit und Mannigfaltigkett in d. neutest. Lehre, in the Jahrb. fir deutsche
Theologie, 1858), can be brought as evidence of the early composition of
the epistle the less that it in no way admits of proof that Paul became
acquainted with the opinions of Peter by means only of this epistle, and
that Peter afterwards renounced his own system for that of Paul. From
the presence of Silvanus and Mark with Peter at the time he composed this
epistle, nothing with any exactitude can be concluded, since the former is
mentioned in Acts xviii. 5 as the companion of Paul; the latter, although
he was in Rome (Col. iv. 10) during Paul’s first imprisonment, and during
the second (2 Tim. iv. 11) in Asia Minor, may have been with Peter at any
other time. :
INTRODUCTION. 193
SEC. 4.— AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
The epistle is one of the writings of the N. T., the authenticity of which
is most clearly established from antiquity. Although in the works of the
Apostolic Fathers, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, and Ignatius, there are no
formal citations from the epistle, but only echoes of it, the direct reference
of which cannot with certainty be established, still, on the other hand, it is
undeniable, not only that it is mentioned in the so-called Second Epistle of
Peter, but that Polycarp also quotes verbatim several passages from it, thus
justifying the remark of Eusebius (H. E., iv. 14), that Polycarp had already
made use of it; we have it likewise on the testimony of Eusebius, that
Papias did the same in his work, Aoyiwv xupiaxdv ténynoes. Irenaeus, Tertul-
lian, Clemens Alex., Origen, Cyprian, quote passages from the epistle with
direct reference to it by name, and that without the smallest hint that
there had ever a doubt been entertained as to its genuineness. It is found
also in the older Peschito, which contains only the three catholic epistles.
Eusebius justly, then, numbers it with the Homologumena. In the so-called
Muratorian Canon our epistle is doubtless not definitely quoted, but the
passage to which reference is made is not of such a nature that it can be
used to impugn the authenticity of the epistle.1 The words of Leontius of
1 The passage runs thus: “ EKpistola sane
Jadae et superscripti Jobannis duas in ca-
tholica habentur. Et sapientia ab amicis Salo
monies in honorem ipsius ecripta. Apocalypsis
etiam Johannie et Petri tantum recipimus,
quam quidem ex nostris legi in ecclesia
nolunt.” — Hug, who looks upon the whole
document as a translation from the Greek,
pute a full stop after Johannia, and connects
the words Apocalypsis etiam Johannis with
what precedes; he regards tantum as a
misunderstood translation of porny, and quam
quidem (or guidam) = js wape€ tues. Gue-
ricke agrees with Hug, only with this differ.
ence, that, Instead of is wapef reves, he con-
siders nv reves to be the original text. —
Wieseler likewise unites the firat words with
the preceding paseage, and then reads quem
quidam, 00 that the senee is: ‘Of Peter also
we accept as much (as of John, who was
previously mentioned, f.e., two epistles and
an Apocalypee), which some amongst us
would not allow to be read in the Church.”
— Dietlein’s conjecture and explanation is still
almpler (Die Kath. Briefe, Th. I. p. 47). Ac-
cording to it, instead of Apocalypsis, there
should be <Apocalypses, and the passage
would be translated: ‘Furthermore, of
Apocalypses we accept only those of John
and Peter, which (latter) some amongst us
would not allow to be read In the church.”
— Thiersch’s change of tantum into unam
epistolam, and of the words quam quidem
into alteram quidam, is rather too bold.
According to Hofmann, the epistle is not
alluded to in the Fragment; he, like Hug,
accepts an original Greek document, and
takes the firat half of the passage to say of
the Epistle of Jude, and of the two, as stated
in the superscription, by John (consequently
the firat is not included, for it has no euper-
scription), that they are valued in the Church
as utterances of wisdom written by friends
of Solomon (i.e., Christ) to his honor; In
194 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Byzantium do not prove that Theodoret of Mopsuestia disbelieved in its
genuineness (Contr. Nestor. et Eutych., iii. 14), on which Theodorus: “ob
quam causam, ut arbitror, ipsam epistolam Jacobi ct alias deinceps aliorum
catholicas abrogat et antiquat.” The fact, however, that the Paulicians,
according to the testimony of Petrus Siculus (Hist. Manich., p. 17), rejected
it, plainly does not affect the question.
In more recent times, Cludius (Uransichten des Christenthums) was the
first to deny the epistle’s genuineness — on grounds, however, entirely insuf-
ficient, the weightiest of them being, that in thought and expression it bears
a too great similarity to the Pauline epistles ever to have been composed by
Peter. This is what brought Eichhorn to the hypothesis that the epistle
was written by some one who had for a long time been connected with Paul,
and had consequently adopted his current ideas and phrases. - But as this
cannot be applicable to Peter, and yet as all worth must not be denied to
ecclesiastical tradition, Eichhorn goes farther, and concludes that Peter
supplied the material, but that Mark worked it up into the epistle before
us.!_ Bertholdt, while justly rejecting this hypothesis, has defended the
opinion hinted at already by Hieronymus, and more definitely expressed by
Baronius, that the epistle was not originally written in Greek (but in Ara-
maic; according to Baronius, in Hebrew), and translated by an interpreter
(Baronius holds by Mark, Bertholdt by Silvanus) into Greek. But this
hypothesis is not less arbitrary than that of Eichhorn; for, on the one hand,
it is an assertion incapable of proof that Peter could not have been familiar
with the Greek ‘language; and, on the other, as much the entire diction of the
epistle as the harmony with the corresponding passages in the epistles of Paul
and James, and the whole matter of quotation from the O. T., are evidence
against any other than a Greek original. De Wette speaks with some vacil-
lation as to the genuineness.? He recognizes, indeed, the weight of the
external testimony, and thinks it would be hazardous in the face of it to
the second part of the passage he understands
the writer to say: We so far accept the
revelations both of John and Peter, as, indeed,
some of us will not allow them to be read
iu the Church.
1 Ewald’s assertion is no less arbitrary,
that Peter, not being able to speak and write
Greek fluently, employed Silvanus to write
the eplatle.
2 Reuss, too (Geach. d. hetl. Schriften
XM. 7.), while, no doubt, recognizing that
the tradition of the Church, from the earliest
times, unanimously pronounces Peter to be
the author, still thinks that there is much
in the epistle (more especially its dependence
on the Pauline episties already mentioned,
without any understanding of the system of
Paul) which appears strange as coming from
Peter. He himself, however, attempts to
refute hie own objections, though without
being able to make up his mind to acknowl.
edge decidedly the authenticity of the epistie.
INTRODUCTION. 195
condemn the epistle as spurious; yet still he is of opinion that its character
is evidence rather against than for its genuineness, — especially on account
of its want of distinctive features, and the reminiscences of the epistles
already repeatedly mentioned. In reply, it must be urged that the epistle
is in no wise wanting in individual impress, and that the writings referred
to, if Peter had read and become familiar with them, might have left such
an impression on him that echoes of them should be discernible without this
in any way interfering with a free and independent development of thought,
or standing in contradiction to the personal and apostolic character of the
composition. That the Tiibingen school should hold this epistle to be spu-
rious, was of course to be expected from its views respecting the apostolic
and post-apostolic age.1 The reasons which Schwegler urges against the
genuineness are the following: (1) The want of any definite external
occasion, and the general character of its contents and aim. — But such a
want is not apparent, and the general character is to be explained, partly by
the fact that the apostle was personally unacquainted with the members
of the church, and partly by the designation of the epistle as a circular
letter. (2) The want of any literary or theological character bearing the
impress of individuality. — It has, however, been shown in § 2, that in the
epistle there is no want of individuality; but that this must necessarily
. be as sharply defined as in Paul and John, is an unwarrantable demand.
(3) The want of any inner connection of thought. — But the tendency of .-
the epistle is opposed to any such “firm, definite progression of thought”
as Schwegler demands, and as is to be found in the Pauline epistles. (4) It
was impossible that Peter, while laboring in the far East at a time and ina
region destitute of any means of literary communication, could have had in
his hand the later epistles of Paul—supposing these to be genuine —so
short a time after their composition.— But in Peter’s epistle there are
no echoes of the latest of Paul’s epistles. It cannot be denied that between
the composition of this epistle and that to the Ephesians, a period of time
elapsed sufficiently long to allow of the possibility of Peter’s having become
acquainted with the latter; nor will it be disputed that even before his resi-
dence in Babylon Peter might have known it. (5) The impossibility — on
the assumption of its having been composed in Babylon — of harmonizing
the Neronic persecution, presupposed in the epistle, with the martyrdom of
Peter in Rome during that persecution. — But the supposition that the per-
1 Pfleiderer’s opinion, that the Apostle insipid Pauliniem peculiar to later times (see
Peter was in favor of a Judaic Christianity, on this §2, p.16 f.), must necessarily lead
whilst the epistie expresses a feeble and him to deny the authenticity also.
196 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
secution here referred to was the Neronic finds no support in the epistle;
nor is it by any means a necessary assumption for “the friends of the con-
servative school of historians, and a positive criticism,” that the persecution
referred to be the Neronic. — For his theory that the epistle was written in
post-apostolic times, and withal under Trajan, Schwegler chiefly depends
(here Pfleiderer agrees with him) on this, that the persecution presupposed
in the epistle is not the Neronic, but the Trajanic; and for the truth of his
assertion he brings the following proofs: (1) The calm, unimpassioned
tone of the epistle, as contrasted with the impression which the Neronic
persecution made upon the Christians. (2) Under Nero the Christians were
persecuted, inasmuch as they were accused of participation in fire-raising,
that is to say, on account of a definite crime; but at the time of this letter
they suffered persecution as Christians (d¢ xpiortavoi), on whom suspicion
was sought to be thrown on account of their general behavior (d¢ xaxomotoi).
(3) It is incapable of proof, and incredible, that the Nerohic persecution
extended beyond Rome. (4) The epistle takes for granted investigations,
with regular trial and under legal forms; whilst the Neronic persecution
was a tumultuary act of popular law. (5) The position of Christianity in
Asia Minor, presupposed in the epistle, corresponds with the description
of it given in Pliny’s letter to Trajan. — Of all these, however, this one
point alone must be conceded, that the persecution referred to cannot be
. regarded as due directly to the burning of Rome —all the other assertions
being based simply on arbitrary assumptions or on false interpretations.)
It is also entirely out of place for Schwegler to understand the formula of
salutation (v. 12) symbolically, so as to find in it the expression of the later
church tradition “as to the presence of Peter in Rome, along with his
épueveorne Mark,” and to assert that v. 2 points to an ecclesiastico-political
constitution (!) which had overspread the whole of Christendom, and to the
1 In opposition to Schwegler, it must be
remarked: (1) The passionless tone would
remain equally admirable in the Trajanic
persecution as under that of Nero; any other
atyle would have been hardly becoming an
apostle. (2) From the first, and not under
Trajan alone, the Christians had to suffer
from the very fact of their being Christians.
(3) Although the persecution of Nero, f.e.,
the one which he himself inetituted, did
not extend beyond Rome, still, in his day,
the Chriatians might, through the hatred of
the people, have had to endure persecution
(4) No mention
is made in our epistle of any judicial perse.
in the provinces as well.
cution of the Christians according to legal
(5) The description given in Pliny’s
letter does not prove that the persecution
mentioned here was that under Trajan; in
the latter, the Christiana were punished /or-
mally with death; whilet there is nothing
in our epistie to show that such took place in
the former.
form.
INTRODUCTION. 197
sway of hierarchical tendencies (!) which had already forced their way into
it. Schwegler sees the real design of the epistle expressed in the passage
v. 12, according to which “it is simply the attempt on the part of one of
Paul’s followers to reconcile the two opposing schools of Peter and Paul,
by putting into the mouth of Peter, as testimony to the orthodoxy of his
fellow-apostle Paul, a somewhat Petrine-colored presentation of the Pauline
system.” Schwegler seeks to establish this hypothesis, which even Pfleiderer
calls in question, thus: that, on the one hand, in the epistle are to be found
“(almost all the chief conceptions and fundamental ideas” of Paul; on the
other, the latter’s doctrine of justification is wanting, and thoughts, views,
and expressions occur which are peculiar to Petrinism. It is not to be
denied that Schwegler, in carrying out his idea, has sought out every point
which could in any way be used in its favor; his labor, however, has been
in vain — the untenableness of the hypothesis being too apparent. For if
the maintenance of the churches in the gospel preached to them be a matter
obviously near to the apostle’s heart, yet in its whole composition there is no
justification for the assertion that the epistle has for its aim a conciliatory
design which is nowhere apparent in it. How strange that the matter of
chief moment should be, not the exhortations of which the epistle is com-
posed, but something entirely different — nowhere expressed in it, not even
in ver. 5! How can a Paulinism be conceived of from which the very pith
is wanting, the doctrine of justification by faith, with its characteristic
terminology: duaaooivy and dicawicba? Precisely the absence of this doc-
trine, and the other points which Schwegler brings forward as evidence of a
Petrine coloring, show that the epistle cannot have been composed by one
who belonged to the school of Paul, but must be the production of Peter, or
of one of his disciples.! Lastly, opposed to Schwegler’s hypothesis as to the
post-apostolic origin of the epistle, is the circumstance that it is hardly con-
ceivable how a forger should have attempted to palm off on definitely formed
churches, some jifty years after his death, a letter professing to have been
written by Peter, in which they are comforted in their present affliction;
and that he should have been so successful, that the fraud was detected by
no one in the churches (comp. against Schwegler, in particular Briickner,
Introd., § 5a).— Although the characteristic traits which Krummacher
1 Namely, the great strees laid on «add _ ficial services; the conception of Christians
épya, OD ayaby avagrpody, OD ayary(!), on asthe true Meselanic people; the introduction
éyaGowoey, On ¢dAwis, as a dogmatic funda- into the new covenant of the idea of the
mental idea synonymous with wions ;‘ the O.T. priesthood; the expression 8cacmopa in
symbolizing of the Jewish temple and sacri- the superscription.
198 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
(Evangel. Kirchenzeitung, 1829, No. 49), and after him Guericke, brings as
proof of the genuineness, namely, “the manner of exhortation, so human and
evangelical, so strong and gentle; the urgent directions to steadfastness of
faith in lowliness and patience, with reference to the example and the glory
of Christ; the urgent appeal to more watchfulness and sobriety, the higher
their calling as believers; the repeated summonses to humility; the way in
which the general aim is kept in view; the clearness, precision, and em-
phatic character of the style,”— these characteristic features, although in
themselves they do not prove Peter to have been the author of the epistle,
still show that it breathes an apostolic spirit such as is not peculiar to post-
apostolic writings, and that in its inward structure there is nothing to justify
a doubt as to its genuineness.
CHAP. I. 199
Ilérpov émurroAy a.
Instead of this superscription, which A, C, ® have, B reads Ilérpov a’; in
some min., it is Térpov xadodixy mporn émcoroay, and, in G, txtoroAy KafoAuwy a’ Tov
dyiov xual mavevgnuou amoordAou Térpov,
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 6. ef déov éori], Tisch. omits éori; it is wanting also in B, x, Clem., ete. ;
Lachm. has retained it; the most of the codd. (A, C, K, L, P, etc.) read it,
indeed; but it is more easy to explain how it was afterwards added than how it
was left out later. —Aurnéévrec], The reading Avzndévrac, in L, &, and several
min., is probably only an error in copying. — Ver. 7. moAvriyorepov, adopted by
Griesb. already, instead of moAd rywrepov in K, etc. Instead of riujv xal dogav
(Rec., according to K, L, P, etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read doguv nat reysqv, which
is supported by A, B, C, &, many min., several vss., etc. — Ver. 8. eidorec],
Rec., after A, K, L, P, etc., Copt., Clem., Theoph., etc.; Lachm. and Tisch.,
following B, C, &, 27, etc., Syr., Aeth., etc., read /dovrec; as both readings give
a fitting sense, and as both are attested by high authorities, it cannot with
certainty be decided which is the original. Briickner and Hofmann are in favor
of idovrec, Schott of eidores, Wiesinger uncertain. — Ver. 9. After miorews, Tisch.
7, following B, several min., Clem., Aeth., etc., omits budy, attested though it
be by most of the authorities (A, C, K, L, P, &, al., etc.); Tisch. 8 has retained.
Although it may be superfluous for the meaning, yet its omission is not justified.
— Vv. 10, 11. Instead of é&npevvqoay and épevverrec, Tisch., following A, B, has
adopted *énpavvycay, and, after B*, épauvavrec, — Ver. 11. B omits Xpiorov, which
must be regarded as a correction. — Ver. 12. Instead of the Received nuiv dé
(K, a/., Copt., ete.), Griesb., Schola, Lachin., Tisch., have rightly adopted the
reading vyiv dé, attested by A, B, C, L, P, &, al., Vulg., etc.) év rvebuart dyiv].
Rec., after C, K, L, P, &, etc., Copt., Theoph., etc. (Tisch. 8); Lachm. and
Tisch. 7 omit év, after A, B, al., Slav., Vulg., Cypr., Didym., etc. Possibly év
was interpolated on account of the usage prevalent elsewhere in the N. T. —
Ver. 16. Tisch. 7 reads, after yéypamrac: Ore dywe Ececde, Grt; on the other hand,
Tisch. 8 omits dre before aysot, and has, after éoecGe: diér. With the preponder-
ance of authorities, ays éoecbe, Ste is to be read; almost B alone is in favor of
bre before Gyo; and, for dwr, only X. — yéveode}. Rec., after K, P, etc. Lachm.
and Tisch. rightly read éceode after A, B, C, &, al., Vulg., Clem., Syr.; yéveode
1 Buttmann has retained the Rec. nui» 8é ofs rather than 4... wucy would be expected
after B as he asserts. De Wette holds the after vuiv; Briickner justly gives preference
Rec. to be the original reading, {t being natural _—to the opposing testimony.
that the apostle should include himself, and
200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is a correction after the preceding yev76nte. In the LXX., foecde stands. — In A,
B*, x, Clem., Cyr., efue is wanting after Gy:oc; Lachm. and Tisch. have justly
omitted it. — Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. rightly read, instead of én’ éoyaTrwr
(Rec., after K, L, P, etc.), én’ éoyarov (A, B, C, &, al., Copt., Syr., utr., etc.).
— Instead of tydc, A and several min. have jucc, which, however, must be
considered as a correction. — Ver. 21. smsrevovrac]. Rec., according to C, K,
L, P, &, etc., several vss., Theoph., Oec.; still the reading merutc might be
preferred as the more difficult, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, B, especially
as mordc el¢ does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; Wiesinger and Schott also
consider microve the original reading, whilst Hofmann gives the preference to
the Rec. — Ver. 22. The Rec. has the words did mveipuaroc after cAndeiac, following
K, L, P, Theoph., etc., which Griesb. already considers suspicious; Lachm. and
Tisch. have justly omitted them, following A, B, C, 8, many min., etc. — Lachm.
and Tisch. read é« xapdiag (A, B, Vulg.); the Rec. is é« xa@apd¢ xapdiacg (C, K, L,
P, &, al., nearly all the vss., etc.); xa@apd¢ is certainly very suspicious, since its
addition is more easily explained than its omission; cf. 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. fi. 223
on the other hand, however, see Rom. vi. 17. Hofmann assumes that xa@apag
is omitted only by mistake. — Ver. 23. The words e¢ 70v aidva, following in the
Rec. after uévovroc, which, in A, B, C, &, and other authorities, are wanting,
were justly omitted already by Griesb. — Ver. 24. Lachm. omits o¢ before yaproc,
after A, several min., Syr., etc. Most of the witnesses are in favor of oc, the
omission of which is to be regarded as a correction after the text of the LX-X.
— d0ga abrig, after A, B, C, K, L, P, etc., instead of the Rec., to be found almost
only in min., Rec.: dda avépwrov, In 8, pr. m., is to be found the reading, 7 d0ga
avrov. After rd dvOoc, the Rec. has avrov, retained by Tisch. 7, after C, K, L, P,
etc., Vulg., Copt. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have omitted it after A, B, &, etc.; it
is certainly suspicious, since it may have been interpolated as an explanation;
on the other hand, its omission may be a correction after Isa. xl. 7, LX X.
Vv. 1,2. The superscription, while corresponding in fundamental plan
with those of the Pauline epistles, has nevertheless a peculiar character of
its own. — Ierpog]. As Paul in his epistles calls himself not by his original
name Labdoc, so Peter designates himself not by his original name Zizwr, but
by that given him by Christ, which “may be regarded as his apostolic, his
official, name” (Schott); otherwise in 2 Pet.: Zuyedy Mérpog. — An addition
such as did OeAjparog Oeod, or the like, of which Paul oftentimes, though not
always, makes use in the superscriptions of his epistles, was unnecessary
for Peter. — Peter designates his readers by the words: éxAexroi¢ mapemdinuotc
ducnopac Tévrov, x.7.a.; he calls the Christians to whom he writes — for that
his epistle is addressed to Christians cannot be doubted — “elect strangers ;”
and withal, those who belong to the dacmopa throughout Pontus, ete. éxAexroé
the Christians are named, inasmuch as God had chosen them to be His own,
in order that they might be made partakers of the «Anpovouia (ver. 4) reserved
for them in heaven; cf. chap. ili. 9: teic yévog éxAexrév, — mapenidnpoc is he
who dwells in a land of which he is not a native (where his home is not);
in the LXX. it is given as the rendering of IW\A, Gen. xxiii. 4; Ps xxxix.
12 (in other passages IY1N is translated by wapouoc; cf. Exod. xii. 45; Lev.
xxii. 10, xxv. 23, 47, etc.); in the Apocrypha rapenidnuoc does not occur; in
the N. T., besides in this passage, it is to be found in chap. ii. 11; Heb. xi
CHAP. I. 1, 2 201
13. — If account be taken of vv. 4, 17 (6 ri¢ mapotxiag bud ypdvoc), and par-
ticularly of chap. ii. 11, it cannot be doubted that Peter styled his readers
saperidnuoc, because during their present life upon earth they, as Christians,
were not in their true home, which is the xAnpovoyia . . . rernpnuévy év obpavoic.
The expression is understood in this sense by the more modern writers, in
particular by Steiger, Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt (Reuter’s Re-
pertor., 1855, Nov.), Schott, Hofmann, etc.! It is incorrect to refer the
word here to an earthly home, that is, Palestine, as is done by De Wette,
and in like manner by Weizsdcker (in Reuter’s Repert., 1858, No. 3).?
REMARK. —In the O. T., 381A occurs in its strict signification in Gen.
xxiii. 4; Exod. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 47 (LXX., mapotxoc), In Lev. xxv. 23,
the Israelites are called D'3W1N) O°) in a peculiar connection; God says that
such they are with Him (‘1)y, cf. Gen. xxiii. 4), in that the land wherein they
should dwell belongs to Him. The same idea is to be found in Ps. xxxix. 12,
where the Psalmist bases his request for hearing on this, that he is 12 and
IMA with God (7), as were his fathers; for although in vv. 5-7 the short-
ness of human life is made specially prominent, yet there is nothing to
show, that, in ver. 12, there is any reference to this. On the other hand, in
1 Chron. xxix. (xxx.) 15, David, in prayer to God, speaks of himself and his
people as 0°) and O'IWiN, because they have no abiding rest on earth (33*2° ‘¥2
mp? pe yun-5y); here it is not the preposition ‘Wy, but "259, which is
used. In the passage Ps. cxix. 19, the relation in which the Psalmist speaks
of himself as a stranger is not expressed }183, ver. 54; he calls his earthly life
“4, as Jacob in Gen. xlvii. 9, which points evidently enough to the circum-
stance that the Israelites were not without the consciousness that their real home
lay beyond this earthly life; cf. on this, Heb. xi. 13, 14, and Delitzsch in loc.
Whilst the expression éxAexroi¢ xupemdnporg — wherein not éxAexroic (Hof-
mann) but raperiW7u0¢ is the substantival idea —is applicable to all Chris-
tians, the following words: diaonopic Movrov, «.7.A., specify those Christians to
whom the epistle is addressed (cf. the superscriptions of the Pauline epistles).
— ckacropd, strictly an abstract idea, denotes, according to Jewish usage:
“Israel living scattered among the heathen,” — that is, it is a complex of
concrete ideas, 2 Macc. i. 27; John vii. 35; cf. Meyer in loc. ; Winer, Bibl.
1 It is inexact to interpret rapemdyuo alm-
ply by ** pilgrims of earth ;"’ Steinmeyer, on
the other hand (Disquisitio in Ep. Petr. 1.
jrocemium), rightly observes: “Quum man.
sio in terra sempiterna permittatur nemini, in
universos omues vox quadaret, nec in cos solos,
qui per evangelium vocati sunt; but when
Steinmeyer adds: ‘‘ Quare censemur, wrapems,
... significare ...1n mundo viventes, cujus
esee desterint, cul ipst sint perosi,’’ he thus
givces an improper application to the word, the
more so that the conception «xocos, in an
ethical sense, is foreign to the Epistle of Peter.
Weles weakens the idea by saying: “ The
Christian isin so far a stranger on the earth
as he is aware of the Inheritance reserved for
him In heaven; this knowledge the unbeliever
cannot have, and accordingly he cannot feel
himeelf a stranger on earth.’’ It is not the
knowing and feeling, but the really deing,
which is of consequence.
9 It is atill more erroneous to suppose, as
Reuss does (Geach. der h. Schriften N. T.,
§ 147, note), that the readers are here termed
napencd., ** because they are looked upon as
D°) proselytes, f.c., Israelites according to
faith, not according to the form of worship.”*
This view, however, is opposed to the usus
loguendi, since waper:dnuot LOWhere denotes
proselytes.
202 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Realwérterb., see under “ Zerstreuung.” 1 The question is now: Is the word
to be taken as applying only to the Jewish nation? From of old the ques-
tion has, by many interpreters, been answered in the affirmative (Didy mus,
Oecumenius, Eusebius, Calvin, Beza, De Wette, Weiss, etc.), and therefrom
the conclusion has been drawn that the readers of the epistle were Jewish
Christians.2_ But the character of the epistle is opposed to this view (cf.
Introd., § 3). Since the Apostle Peter regarded Christians as the true Israel,
of which the Israel of the O. T. was only the type (ii. 9), there is nothing to
prevent the expression being applied, as many interpreters hold,’ to the Chris-
tians, and withal to those who dwelt outside of Canaan. No doubt this land
had not for the N. T. Church the same significance which it possessed for
that of the O. T., still it was the scene of Christ's labors, and in Jerusalem
was the mother church of all Christendom.‘ Some interpreters, like Aretius,
Schott, IIofmann, leave entirely out of view the local reference of the word,
and take it as applying to the whole of Christendom ecclesia dispersa in toto
orbe, in so far as the latter represents “a concrete corporeal centre around
which the members of the church were locally united,” and “has its point
of union in that Christ who is seated at the right hand of God” (Schott).§
Against this, however, it must be urged that Peter, if he had wished the
word dtacropi to have been understood in a sense so entirely different from
the established usage, would in some way or other have indicated this. — It
is entirely erroneous to suppose ® that in the expression used by Peter the
readers are designated as heathen Christians, or even” as aforetime proselytes.
The one correct interpretation is, that in the superscription those readers
only are described as “Christians, who constituted the people of God living,
scattered throughout the regions mentioned, who, in consequence of their
election, had become strangers in the world, but who had their inheritance
and home in heaven, whither they were journeying” (Wiesinger). The
reason why Peter employed this term with reference to his readers lies in
the design of the epistle; he speaks of them as éxAexroi, in order that in their
present condition of suffering he might assure them of their state of grace
1 The LXX. translate BP | (as a collective
noun), Deut. xxx. 4, Neh. 1. 9, by Scacmopa,
and as inexactly and even incorrectly Alf
Jer. xxxiv.17; V1), Jer.xv.7; Sena 3s¥},
Isa. xlix. 6
3 Taken in this way, the genit. dcaomopas
muat be interpreted aa genit. partit., thus: the
members of the d:agmopa who have become
Christians (exAextot mapemcdnuct). Weilsziicker
is altogether mistaken (Reuter’s Repert., 1858,
No. 3) in bis opinion that the reference is to
“‘the Christiane who, in as far as they dwell
among the diapersed Jewish communities, are
members of the Diaspora.”
8 Brlickner, Wiesinger, Wieseler too; Rett-
berg in Zrach-Gruber, see under ‘ Petrus,”
and others.
4 It is worthy of note that Paul also con.
siders the Christian Church to be the Israel
xara wvevua, that he looks upon the converted
heathen as the branches ingrafted into Israel,
thut he was ever anxious to Keep up the con-
nection between the heathen Christian churches
and the mother church in Jerusalem, and that
he diatinctly terms the Church triumphant
n avw ‘lepovcaAnp.
5 Schott, however, grants that ‘‘ Peter con-
siders Jerusalem and the mother church in
Jerusalem typically as the ideal centre for all
believers under the New Covenant.”
6 With Auguatine (Contra Faustum, xxii.
89), Procopius (Jn Jea., xv. 20), Cassiodorus
(De instit. div. litt., il. p. 516), Luther, Gual-
ther, and others, and, among more reccnt
authors, Steiger.
7 With Creduer (Zial., p. 638), Neudecker
(Zinl., p. 677).
CHAP. I. 1, 2 203
as wapescidquo, that they might know that they belonged to the home of
believers in heaven. But it is at least open to doubt whether in dsaomopic
there is any reference to the present want of direct union around Christ
(Schott). — Movrov, Tadariag, x.r.A. The provinces of Asia Minor are named
chiefly in a westerly direction, Galatia westward from Pontus, then the
enumeration continues with Cappadocia lying south from Galatia, that is to
say, in the east, and goes from thence westward towards Asia, after which
Bithynia is: mentioned, the eastern boundary of the northern part of Asia
Minor.
So that Bengel is not so far wrong (as opposed to Wiesinger) when
he says: Quinque provinicas nominal eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribentt ex
oriente.
If in Asia, besides Caria, Lydia, and Mysia, Phrygia also (Ptolem.,
v. 2) be included, and in Galatia the lands of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and a part
of Lycaonia, — which, however, is improbable,—the provinces mentioned
by Peter will embrace almost the whole of Asia Minor. —JIn the N. T.
there is no mention of the founding of the Christian churches in Pontus,
Cappadocia, and Bithynia. — Ver. 2. xara modywwow, «tA. The three ad-
juncts, beginning with different prepositions, are not to be taken with
axdéerodos, as Cyrillus (De recta fide), Oecumen., Kahnis (Lehre v. Abendm.,
p- 65), and others think, but with éxdexroi¢ rapemidjuoer, pointing out as they
do the origin, the means, and the end of the condition in which the readers
aS éxAexroi waperidnuoe Were.
It is further incorrect to limit, as is prevalently
done, their reference simply to the term éxAexrois,! and to find in them a more
particular definition of the method of the divine election.
Steinmeyer, in
violation of the grammatical construction, gives a different reference to each
of the three adjuncts joining xara mpoyv. with éxdexroic, dv dycaoud With nape
duns, and eig vax, With dy:acuo.
But inasmuch as the ideas éxJexroic xapemidi-
wore stand in closest connection, the two prepositions card and év must apply
equally to them.
xara States that the éxAexrot rapexidquoe are such in virtue of
the xpoyvwore Ocov; xara denotes “ the origin, and gives the pattern according
to which” (so, too, Wiesinger).
mpoyvwote is translated generally by the
commentators as predestination ;? this is. no doubt inexact, still it must be
observed that in the N. T. mpoyrwou stands always in such a connection as
to show that it expresses an idea akin to that of predestination, but without
the idea of knowing or of taking cognizance being lost.
It is the perceiving
of God by means of which the object is deterinined, as that which IIe per-
ceives it to be. Cf. Meyer on Rom. vili. 29: “It is God’s being aware in
His plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to sal-
1 Hofmano supports this application as
against that to wapemdyuos, ‘because the
state of being a stranger, even though taken
spiritually, is not a condition to which the
prepositional determinations are suited.” Hof.
mann does not state the ground of this asser.
tion; as the idea of being a stranger is identical
with that of being a Christian, these are very
well adapted to exAcxrois wapemdnuors. The
mere circumstance that the question here is
not one of a nearer definition of election, but
of the condition {n which the readers were, is
opposed to a connection with éxAexzois. Cf.
1 Cor. i. 1, where dca OeAnwaros stands con-
nected with «Anros awdarodos “Ing. Xp., and
not with «Anros; see 2 Cor. 1. 1.
2? Lyranus, praedestinatio; Erasmus, prae-
finitio; Beza, antegressum decretum s. pro-
positum Del; Luther, the foresecing of God;
Gerhard, rpo8ecre Juxta quam facta eat elec.
tiv; de Wette, BovAy or spoopicpos.
204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
vation, He knows who are to be so destined by Him.” It is incorrect, there-
fore, to understand the word as denoting simply foreknowledge;! this leads
to a Pelagianizing interpretation, and is met by Augustine's phrase: eligen-
dos facit Deus, non invent. Estius translates npoyywor at once by praedilectio:
other interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, would include the idea of
love, at least, in that of foreknowledge; but although it must be granted
that the xpéyvwors of God here spoken of cannot be conceived of without His
love, it must not be overlooked that the idea of love is not made prominent.?
Hofmann says: “ mpéyvwor is — precognition; here, therefore, a work of God
the Father, which consists in this, that He makes beforehand those whom
He has chosen, objects of a knowledge, as the akin and homogeneous are
known, that is, of an approving knowledge.” — zarpéc is added to Ge; the
apostle has already in his mind the following wveiuaroc and "Inoob Xpioros, in
order thereby to emphasize more definitely the threefold basis of election.
Bengel: Mysterium Trinitatis et oeconomia salutis nostrae innuitur hoc versu. —
éy dy:aoue nvevparoc. It seems simplest and most natural to interpret, with
Luther and most others, “through the sanctifying of the Spirit,’ —that is,
taking dy:acudc actively, and év as denoting the instrumentality. The only
diffulty in the way is, that dy:aouéc, a word foreign to classical Greek, and
occurring but seldom in the Apocrypha,.has constantly the neutral signifi-
cation, “sanctification ;’® cf. Meyer on Rom. vi. 19. Now, since the word,
as far as the form is concerned, admits of both meanings,‘ it is certainly
permissible to assume that here — deviating from the general usus loquendi
— it may have an active signification, as perhaps also in 2 Thess. ii. 13. If
1 The word has not this signification in the
N. T.; it has it, however, in the Book of
Judith, ix. 6 and xi. 19. — The verb wpoy:yywo-
xecy has the meaning of simple foreknowledge
in Acts xxvi. 5 and 2 Pet. iii. 17 (80, too, Book
ot Wied. vi. 13, vili. 8, xvili. 6); the sense is
different in Rom. vilf. 29, xi. 2, and 1 Pet.
i. 20.
1 Schott’s assertion, that “ytyywoney is
always a cognizance of this kind, since he who
fa cognizant gives himself up in his inmoat
nature to the object in question, so as again to
take it up into his being and to appropriate it
to himself,’ — further, that ‘‘the perceiving
of God creates its own objects, and conse-
quently is a rpoy:yywoxey,” and that accord-
ingly neither death nor sin can be the objects
of God’s foreknowledge, — contradicts itsclf
by the clearest statements of Scripture: cf.
Deut. ix. 24, xxxi. 27, Matt. xxil. 18; Luke
xvi. 15; John y. $2; 1 Cor. Ill. 20, ete.
£ Cf. Rom. vi. 19, where it {s contrasted
with avoyca; 1 Cor. {. 30, where it is connected
with Sccacoguyy, 1 Tim. i1. 15 with ayarn, and
1 Thess. iv. 4 with rez; 1 Thess. iv. 7, where
jt stands In antithesis to axa@apoia; and Heb.
xii. 14, where, Iike cipyyny (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 11:
Siwee Sceacogvimyv), it depends on dw«eres In
1 Thess. iv. 3 alvo lt has the meaning referred
to. If it be here taken in an active sense, and
tu@y be the objective genitive, the subject ja
wanting; but if vuar be the subjective geni-
tive, then it is the object which is wanting.
Lilnemann’s interpretation accordingly : ‘that
you sanctify yourselves,” is unwarranted.
@ytacpuos can only be artificially interpreted by
“‘sanctifying” in the passages quoted. <A
striking example of this is Hofmann’s inter-
pretation of 1 Theas. iv. 4. Only in 2 Thess.
ii. 13, where the expression, as here, is: ev
ayitaguap mvevparos, does the active meaning
seem to correspond better than the neuter with
the thought. There is no foundation whatever
for the opinion of Cremer, cf. 8. v., that—
whilst in the Apocrypha the word never has
an active signification, but is either ‘ sanc-
tuary’’ (thus also in the LXX. Ezek. xlv. 4
and Amos fj. 11) or “‘sanctity ’’—it ts in the
N. T. for the most part ‘“‘sanctifying.’’ —
Schott very justly calls in question the active
signification of the word; but when, not con-
tent with the rendering ‘sanctification,’ he
interprets: ‘‘the condition of holinese being
increasingly realized.” he confuses the concep-
tion by references which are simply imported.
4 Cf. Buttmann, dug/tiArl. griech. Spracht.
§ 119, 20.
CHAP. I. 1, 2 20:5
the preposition é be taken as equal to “through,” there results an appro-
priate progression of thought from origin (xaré) to means (év), and further
to end (eis). If, however, the usage establish a hard and fast rule, the inter-
pretation must be: “the holiness wrought by the (Holy) Spirit,” so that the
genitive as gen. auct. has a signification similar to that in the expression
Sixaiooivn Geoi';} in this interpretation év may equally have an instrumental
force. No doubt, many interpreters deny that év can here be equal to cd,
since the election is not accomplished by means of the Holy Spirit. But
this ground gives way if the three nearer definitions refer not to the election,
—asa divine activity,—and so not to the éxsexroig alone, but to the state
into which the readers had been introduced by the choice of God, that is, to
the éxAexroig rapenidjyoc. It is incorrect to attribute to éy here a final signifi-
cation; Beza: ad sanctificationem; De Wette: eic¢ 1d civar év dytacua; the con-
ception of purpose begins only with the subsequent eic. — The explanation,
that éy dy. rv, points out the sphere (or the limitations) within which the
readers are éxA, raper. (formerly supported in this commentary), is wanting
in the necessary clearness of thought. — eig itaxoyy nai pavriopdy aiparog "lyoov
Xp. The third adjunct to éxA, rapenid., giving the end towards which this
condition is directed. The preposition ef¢ is not to be connected with dyzacpdg
(De Wette, Steinmeyer); for although such a construction be grammatically
possible, the reference to the Trinity goes to show that these words must
be taken as a third adjunct, co-ordinate with the two preceding clauses.
Besides, if there were two parts only, the conjunction «a would hardly be
wanting. taxof is to be construed neither with ‘Ijcod Xpicrov, whether taken
as a subjective genitive (Beza: designatur nosirae sanctificationis subjectum,
nempe Christus Jesus qui patri fuit obediens ad mortem, where ¢i¢ is arbitrarily
rendered by du), nor, with Hofmann and Schott, as an objective genitive:
“ obedience towards Christ ” (for then this genitive would stand in a relation
other than to aiuaroc),? nor with aivzaruc. inaxom must be taken here abso-
lutely, a3 in ver. 14; cf. Rom. vi. 16. With regard to the meaning of
braao7, Many interpreters understand by it faith in Christ; so Luther, Ger-
hard, Vorstius, Heidegger, Bengel, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.: others, on
the contrary, take it to signify “moral obedience;” so Pott, De Wette,
Schott, etc. Many of the former, however, insist that by it a faith is meant
“which of itself includes a conduct corresponding to it’? (Hofmann), whilst
by the latter it is emphasized that that moral obedience is meant which
1 The idea of holiness is here by no means
inappropriate, since the readers would not be
éxAcato. wapemcdnuoe if they had not become
ayctos through the Holy Spirit. It is this ayco»
elvas which is here expressed by aycacuds.
Also .in 2 Thess. ij. 13, there is no urgent
reason for departing from this signification of
the word. Hofmann erroneously appeals to
2 Macc. xiv. 36; cf. Cremer, 4. v.
2 Hofmann thinks that since parrropds aiga-
ros forms one conception, and vraxoy can be
accompanied by an objective genitive, "Incov
Xptorov, being the subjective genitive to aiua-
ros, might at the same time be objective geni-
tive to vwaxoy. In opposition to this, we
obeerve (1) that it is self-contradictory to aay
that payr. aiwaros forms one conception, and
that 'Incov Xp. is dependent on aisaros; and
(2) that 1t is grammatically tnadmiasible to
take the same genitive as being at once sub.
jective and objective genitive. — This much
only is correct, that the nearer definition,
which must be supplied to vumaxoy, has, in
sense, to be borrowed from the subsequent
genitive ‘Incov Xp.
206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
springs from faith, so that both interpretations are substantially in accord.
It may then be said that traxo7 is the life of man conformed in faith and
walk to the will of the Lord, which the éxAexro? wapexidnuo: as such must
realize; so that there is no reason why the idea should be limited towards
the one side or the other; cf. 1 John iii. 23. The second particular: «a?
pavriaudv aipuatog ‘Inovi Xpiorot, is closely linked on to imaxo7. Some commen-
tators have held that the O. T. type on which this expression is based was
the paschal lamb.! Others think that the ceremonial of the great day of
atonement is meant.?, Wrongly, however; for although in both cases blood
was employed, neither the blood of the paschal lamb nor that of the offering
of atonement was used to sprinkle the people. With the former the posts
were tinged; with the latter the sacred vessels were sprinkled. Steinmeyer
is wrong in tracing the expression to the sprinkling with water (Lev. xix.)
of him who had been defiled through contact with a corpse, from the fact
that the LXX. have favzouoc only in this passage. For, apart from the arti-
ficialness of the explanation which Steinmeyer ® thus feels himself compelled
to adopt, the reference to the water of sprinkling is inapt, since mention is
made here of a sprinklir.g of blood, and not of water. <A sprinkling of the
people with blood took place only on the occasion of the sacrifice of the cove-
nant.4 The O. T. type on which the expression is founded is no other than
the making of the covenant related in Exod. xxiv. 8, to which even Gerhard
had made reference, and as, in more recent times, has been acknowledged
by Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. This is clear from Heb. ix. 19
(Aafay Td aiva ta pooxuv .. . Tavra Tdv Aadv ébpayrice) and xii. 24, where aiua
pavriopod, i.e., “the blood by means of the sprinkling of which the ratifica-
tion of the covenant took place,” is connected with the immediately preced-
ing xal duabanne véag pecitrnc. Accordingly, by pavriopdc aiuarog Igo. Xp. is to be
understood the ratification of the covenant relation grounded on the death
of Christ, with those thereto ordained; the reference here, however, being
not to the commencement, but to the continuance of that relation. For by
1 Thus Beda: “aspersi sanguine Christ!
potestatem Satanae vitant, sicut Israel per
agni sanguinem Aegypt! dominatum declina-
vit;’’ Aretius, etc.
2 Thus Pott,
etc.
3 Since Steinmeyer, from the fact that the
LXX. translate the Hebrew WW) “1D (which is
not, in his view, equal to ‘“‘ water of purifica-
tion,” but to “‘ water of impurity”) by véwp
pavtiguov, concludes that payriouos does not
simply mean aapersio, but ca aspersio, cujus
ratio, causa, effectus verbis (1°1) °7) descripta
sunt, —that Is, since that water was tanquam
mortis instar, quum in {psius mortise commu.
nionem ita redigeret immundos, ut reduceren-
tur inde in munditiem vitae, ejusmod! aspersio
quae in naturam spareae aquae trahit, atque
virtute ipsius sparsos penitus imbult, he ex-
plalos pavricu. atu, I, Xp, as a sprinkling with
Augusti, Stelger, Usteri,
the blood of Christ, qua {n mortis salvatoris
nostri communionem traharmur,
4 When Wiesinger remarks: ‘* But in Heb.
xi. 22, éppayricpevoe tas xapdias aro ouvecd.
rovnpas is based on the typical sacrifice of the
great day of atonement, although epparricpevor
is transferred here to persons, and amo points
to a cleansing and freeing from the conscious.
ness of guilt,’’ we cannot fo this agree with
him; nor do either Ltinemann or Delitzsch
see here any reference to the great sacrifice of
atonement. The former explaius the expres-
sion “fon the analogy of the sprinkling with
blood by which the first Levitical priests were
coneecrated ;” while the latter quotes by way
of explanation the passage Heb. xii. 24, where
he terms the alua payricpov the antitype of the
blood witb which Moses sprinkled the people
at the institution and consecration of the cove.
nant.
CHAP. I. 3-12. 207
this expression the apostle does not intend to remind his readers of the end
God had in view in their election, but to set before them what the purpose
of their election is, which, like the tzaxo7, should therefore be realized in
them as the elect strangers. They are then éxdexrol napexiénuo, in order that
they may constantly render obedience to Christ, and in Him constantly pos-
sess the forgiveness of sins.1— The «ai standing between éraxoqy and pavricudy
is taken by Steinmeyer as an explicative ; he explains: “in obedientiam, atque
in eam praesertim, ut aspergamini sanguine Christi h. e. ut vos in mortis Jesu
Christi communionem trahi patiamini.” Incorrectly: “inasmuch as the active
idea of obedience can never be explained by the passive being sprinkled ”
(Wiesiuger); and the introduction of the idea pati is arbitrary. — It is
further to be observed that the readers are, by the expression last used:
pavr. aluaroc 'Incot Xptorov, here for the first time characterized directly as
Christians, all the previous designations having been equally applicable to
the children of Israel; a circumstance which shows clearly enough that Peter
regards the Christian Church as the true Israel, and that without making
it in any way dependent on national connection. — As regards the lexicol-
ogy, it must be remarked that in classical Greek favrioudg never occurs, and
pavrifery Only in later writers: the usnal word is faiver, e.g., Euripides, [phig.
in Aul., 1589: i aivate Bundy paiver’ apdnv tie Ocod; in the LXX. both verbal
forms: favricuds, only in Nuin. xix., in a somewhat inexact translation,
however. — yapic tuiv xat elpavn wAndvvdein. The distinction between ydpic and
tipqvn is thus drawn by Gerhard: “paz a gratia distinguitur tanquam FRUCTUS
et EFFECTUS @ sua CAUSA.” In harmony with this, yape is regarded by the
interpreters for the most part as “the subjective in God” (Meyer on Rom.
i. 7); but Paul's use of azé and the subsequent rAnéuvdein show that by ydpir
in forms of greeting, is to be understood the gifts which flow from it (the
manifestation of grace). elpfvn specifies this gift more closely according to
its nature (see on 1 Tim. i. 2).? wAndvvéein]. Luther: “ye have peace and
grace, but not yet to the full;” on the salutation form in the N. T., besides
here only in 2 Pet. i. 2 and Jude 2; in O. T. in Dan. iii. 81, LXX.: elpiuy
buiv tAndvvdein.®
Vv. 8-12. Praise to God for the grace of which the Christians had been
‘made the partakers. The prominence which the apostle gives to dvayemay
tig éArrida Gacav, a8 also his designation of them as éxAexro? rapenidnuot, is occa-
‘sioned by the present state of suffering in which his readers were, and above
which he is desirous of raising them.
1 Hofmann is accordingly wrong io main-
taining that ‘what is here meant bas taken
place once for al] for the readers, and is not
continually to be done.” Nor does this alto-
gether accord with his own interpretation,
when he says, ‘‘the readers are chosen to
become obedient to Christ, and partakers of
Hie propitiation for sin.’’ The Christian, on
being received {nto communion with Christ, has
been sprinkled with IIie blood, but etill he
requires a continual cleansing, and this he re-
ceives, if he walk in the light; cf. 1 Jobn j. 7.
2 When Schott, in order to preserve the
objectivenesa of cipy»n, erroneously under.
etande it to mean “the state of matters which
to those who are in it occasions inwardly no
want or unrest, and externally no harm or die-
turbance,” it must be urged in opposition that
the inwardnees of a possession does not in any
way affect ite objectiveness.
8 Cf. Schoettgen: L/orae Hebr. et Tulm., on
this passage.
208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Ver. 3. etAoynric 6 Orde xal rath rod Kup. nu. ’l. Xpwcros. The same formula
occurs in 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3. — ebAoynrog, not: “worthy of praise,” but:
“praised ;” in the LXX. the translation of ]3%%; in the N. T. the word
ebAoyntos used only with reference to God. ei and not ésriv is probably to
be supplied, as is done by most commentators, cf. Meyer on Eph. i. 1;
Winer, p. 545 (E. T., 586) (Schott; Buttm., p. 120 [E. T., 187]), at least
from the fact that in the doxologies introduced by means of relatives, toriv
is to be found (cf. Rom. i. 25; also 1 Pet. iv. 11), it cannot be concluded
that the indicative is to be supplied in an ascription of praise quite differ-
ently constructed, cf. LXX: Jobi.21. The adjunct xa? rari, «.7.4., to 6 Ocde
is explainable as a natural expression of the Christian consciousness. It is
possible “that the whole formula of doxology has its origin in the liturgical
usage, so to speak, in the primitive Christian Church” (Weiss, p. 401). —
6 xara TO TOAD avrov ~Acog avayevynoas jac. The participial clause states the
reason why God is to be praised. sodi gives prominence to the riches of
the divine mercy, Eph. il. 4: mAobowe dy év Agee. xara is used here in the same
sense as in ver. 2. dvayevvoac has its nearer definition in the subsequent
cig tAnida Gooav. De Wette joins these intimately connected ideas in a some-
what too loose way, when he thus interprets: “who hath awakened us to
repentance and faith, and thereby at the same time toa hope.” Similarly
Wiesinger, who takes dvayevvgoac as a self-contained idea, and connects ei¢
éArida with it, in this sense, “that in the idea of regeneration this particular
determination of it is brought into prominence, that it is a new birth to
living hope, i.e., as born again we have attained unto a lively hope;” thus
Schott. This view, however, refutes itself, because it necessitates unjustifi-
able supplements. More in harmony with the expression is Briickner’s
interpretation, according to which el¢ denotes the aim of the new birth
(“the hope is conceived of as the aim of him by whom the readers have
been begotten again;” thus Morus, already: Deus nos in melius mutavit, cur?
ul sperare possimus). But if the attainment of owrpia be conceived as the
aim and end of the new birth, the hopes directed to it cannot be so, all
the less that this hope forms an essential element of the new life itself. The
verb dvayevvgy is here taken not as an absolute, but as a relative, idea, its
supplement lying in ec éar. ¢. (so also Steinmeyer, Weiss, Hofmann). The
LAnlc (aoa is then to be thought of as the life into which the mercy of God
has raised or begotten the believer from the death of hopelessness (Eph.
ii. 12: fv ro napa ineivy ywpic Xprorod . . . Amida pH Exovrec); the connection is
the same as in Gal. iv. 24, where the simple yevygy is also construed with
ei¢.1 This view is justified, not only by the close connection of éei¢ with the
idea dvayevvav, but also by the corresponding adj. (ccay. In this there is no
1 Against this interpretation Schott urges:
that avayeyygv does not mean ‘to awaken,”
that ‘a death of despair”’ is not alluded to,
that neither ¢Amis nor éAmis gwoa denotes ‘a
life of hope.’” These reasons are insignificant,
for (1) the expression ‘‘awakened”’ is not
employed in order to give the full meaning of
avayevygv; (2) even On the opposite interpre-
tation thelr former condition may be consid-
ered as a hopeless one, and can undoubtedly
be regarded as a death; and (3) it cannot be
denied that hope is life. In opposition to
Schott’s assertion, that avayevyqy is every-
where a self-contained idea, it is to be noted
that the word occurs in the N. T. only here
apd iu ver, 23.
CHAP. I. 4. 209
weakening of the idea dvayen¢dy (in opposition to Wiesinger), for éAric need
not be conceived as representing one single side of the Christian life, but
under it may be understood the whole Christian life in its relation to the
future owrnpia. It is incorrect to take éAnic here in the objective sense, as:
object of hope; Aretius: res, quae speit subjectae sunt, h. e. vita aelerna;
Bengel: haereditas coelestis; so also Hottinger, Hensler, etc. It is used
rather in the subjective sense to denote the inward condition of life. — The
expression {ica has been variously translated by the commentators; thus
Beza explains it as: perennis; Aretius: solida; Piscator: vivifica: Gualther:
spes viva certitudinem salutis significat; Heidegger: Goa: quia et fructus vitae
edit, et spes vitae est et permanet; quia non languida, infirma est, sed mapprciav
et neroidnow habet et perpetua simul sempergque exhilarans est, neque unquam
tnlermoritur, sed semper renovatur et refocillatur; in the first edition of
this commentary; “the hope of the Christian is pervaded by life, carry-
ing with it in undying power the certainty of fulfilment (Rom. v. 5),
and making the heart joyful and happy;” it “has life in itself, and gives
life, and at the same time has life as its object” (De Wette). Taken
strictly, (ea characterizes the hope as one which has life in itself, and is
therefore operative. All else may as a matter of, fact be connected with it,
but is not contained in the word itself (Weiss, p. 92); more especially, too,
the idea that it has the certainty of its own realization (Hofmann); cf. i.
23: Adyor Cov; ii. 4,5: Aidog Gav. Gerhard incorrectly interprets ¢Ami¢ by fides,
sive fiducialis meriti Christi apprehensio quae est regenerationis nostrae causa
formalis. For apart from the fact that Peter is not here speaking of regen-
eration at all, éAmig and rior are in themselves separate ideas, which cannot
be arbitrarily substituted for one another. It is erroneous also, with Luther,
Calvin, and others, to resolve éAric (aoa into éAnlc Cwi¢ ; Gooa denotes not the
end, but the nature of the hope. — &’ dvacraceus ‘Ino. Xptorod ix vexpov 18 not
to be joined with Giear,! but with dvayevvgoas, more nearly defined by eis...
Gscav;? for {acav does not define a particular kind of hope, but only gives
special prominence to an element already contained in the idea éanic. The
resurrection of Christ is the means by which God has begotten us again to
the living hope. It is the fact which forms the living ground of Christian
hope. Wiesinger joins & dvaor, somewhat too loosely with avay., explaining
as he does: “ He hath begotten us again, and thus in virtue of the resurrec-
tion of Jesus Christ hath aided us to living hope.” — As (icay corresponds to
the term dvayevyysas, 80 does dvactac¢ in the most exact manner to both
of these ideas. By the resurrection of Christ the believer also is risen to
life. It must be remarked, the prepositions xara, év, cic, ver. 2, are used
to correspond with xara, els, da; cf. ver. 5, the use of the prepositions: ty,
did, etc.
Ver. 4. ei¢ xAnpovoyiay, co-ordinate with the conception éArida; it is never-
1 Oecum., Luth., Bengel, Lorinus, Steiger, apply it, in accordance with ther interpreta.
De Wette, Hofmann. tion of avay. cig tAwisa, 5’ dvacracews, both
2 Calvin, Gerhard, Knapp, Weise, p. 209, to regeneration and the hope therewith con-
Schott, Brickner. Schott aud Bruckner, while nected, which, however, they term ‘‘a single
accepting the construction above indicated, homogeneous fact.”
210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
theless not dependent on it, but on dvayenqoac, although it denotes the
objective blessing to which the éAmi¢ has regard. It is added by way of
apposition, in order to describe more nearly the substance of the hope with
respect to its alm. — «Ayjpovoyia means, no doubt, in the O. and N. T. (Matt.
xxi. 38; Luke xii. 13) sometimes inheritance; but more frequently it has
the signification of possession. In the O. T. it often serves to denote the
Jand of Canaan and its separate parts, promised and apportioned to the peo-
ple of Israel (Deut. xii. 9; Lam. v. 2; Josh. xiii. 14, and other passages):
n yi, iv xbpiog 6 Oed¢ cov didwoi ax év KAnpw, Deut. xxiv. 2, or Hv . . . didwol aot
xAnpovoujoa. In the N. T., and so here also, by the term is to be under-
stood the completed BaaiAzia rov Ocoi with all its possessions, as the antitype
of the land of Canaan (cf. in particular, Heb. ix. 15). As this use of the
word is not based on the signification “inheritance,” it cannot be main-
tained, with Wiesinger (Schott agreeing with him), that «Anpovouia stands
here with reference to dvayevyjoac, “to designate that of which the Chris-
tians as children of God have expectations.” ! The following words: dg@aprov
wal duiavtov xai duapavroy, state the gloriousness of the «Anpovouia.? dgéapro¢
(cf. chap. iii. 4), opposite of p@aproc (ver. 18 equal to dmoAAbuevos, ver. 7), cf.
ver. 23; Rom. i. 23; 1°Cor. ix. 25, xv. 53, 54; “not subject to the ggopa.”
Guiavrog (Jas. i. 27; Heb. vii. 26), “undefiled, undefilable.” dpdpavrog az.
Aey. (duapaytivoc is similar, chap. v. 4), “unfading;” in the last expression
prominence is given to the imperishable beauty of the xAnpovouia. Steinmeyer's
Opinion is incorrect, that duiavrog has nearly the same meaning as roAbriuoc
and riuos, ver. 19. —It is not to be assumed that Peter alludes to the char-
acter “of the earthly xAnpovouia (Weiss, p. 74) of the people of Israel,”
especially as there is nothing in the expressions dudpayvrog and dgdaptoc which
can without artificial straining admit of such a reference.? — rernpnyévny év
nbpavoic cic ina]. The apostle, having up to this time spoken generally, makes
a transition, and addresses his readers directly: dvayevy. quac; he thereby
assures them that that «2npovoyia is a possession intended and reserved for
them. For the conception here expressed, cf. especially Col. 1. 5, and
Meyer in loc. The perf. rernpnuévny (Luth., inexactly: “which is kept’)
stands here with reference to the nearness of the time when their «Anpovouia
will be allotted to believers; ver. 5: éroiuny droxaAvg@jva.*
Ver. 5. As the basis of the thought: rernpnuévnv . . . eis tude, the apostle
subjoins to iuds the additional rove év duvdper ppovpovuévors . . . ei¢ owrnpiav, by
iteclf or ite enemies (Jer. 1i. 7; Lev. xvill. 28;
Num. xxxv. 34; Ezek. xxxvi. 17; Pa. ixxix. 1,
t No doubt Rom. viii. 17 might be appealed
to in support of this interpretation, yet ft
would be unwarrantable to maintain that the
idea there expressed belongs aleo to Peter. It
must also be observed that even Paul, where
he makes use of the term «Anpovouia, Dever
alludes to that idea, —a circumstance which
hae its reason in the current usage of the word.
2 Caivin, maccurately: ‘‘tria epitheta quae
sequuntur ad gratiae Dei amplificationem
posita sunt.’
3 In auiavros, Weise sees an allusion to the
pollution of Judwa by the people of Israel
where the LXX. has wratvery) ; and in ayvapap-
ros to the scorching of the country by the
simoom. Wes thinks that ad@apros may
allude to the @epew thy ynv, Isa. xxiv. 3;
still he himself does not consider this probda-
ble.
4 Hofmann, in disputing this by saying tbat
the perf. partic. 1s not erpluined by the pear.
ness of the time when the believers will be in
possession of the inheritance, calls in question
an assertion which ia nowbere here made.
CHAP. I. 5. 211
which is expressed not the condition on which the readers might hope for
the heavenly «Anpovopia, but the reason why they possess expectations of it.
The chief emphasis lies not on év duvdue Ocvd (Schott), but on gpovpovpévove
. . « el¢ owrnpiav, inasmuch as the former expression serves only to define the
gpovpeiavat more precisely. Gerhard incorrectly makes the accusative depend
On dvayevrjcac. The prep. év (as distinguished from the following é&c) points
out the divayic Oot as the causa efficiens (Gerhard), so that Luther's: “out of
God’s power” is in sense correct; the gpovpeic#a: is based on the div, Gcod.
Steinmeyer wrongly explains, referring to Gal. iii. 23, the divayic cod as the
gpoupa Within which the Christians as believers (da miorews equal to moretovres !)
are kept, velut sub vetere T. lex carcerum instar erstitit, in quibus ol tnd vépov
évrec custodiebantur. To assume an antithesis between the div. Ocot and the
law in explanation of this passage, is entirely unjustifiable. By div. Ozov is
not to be understood, with De Wette and Weiss (p. 189), the Holy Spirit;
He is never in any passage of the N. T. (not even in Luke i. 35) designated
by these words. The means by which the power of God effects the preserva-
tion is the xiorc,! the ultimate origin of which, nevertheless, is also the gra-
cious will of God. — On ¢povpouufvoug, Vorstius rightly remarks: notatur tatis
custodia, quae praesidium habet adjunctum.2 The word by which the apostle
even here makes reference to the subsequent éy rotxiAowe metpacpoic, ver. 6, has
its nearer definition in the following ei¢ owrnpiav éroiuny droxadvesinat, which
by Calvin (haec duo membra appositive lego, ul posterius sit prioris expositio, rem
unam duobus modis exprimit), Steiger, and others is joined to dvayevvgcac as &
co-ordinate adjunct to ei¢ xAypovouiav. It is preferable to connect them with
gpovpovyévouc; the more so that «Anpovouia, “ with its predicates, so fully char-
acterizes the object of hope, that ei¢ owrnpiav, «.7.A., would add nothing
further” (Wiesinger). The introduction of tui, too, is decidedly opposed
to the former construction. There is nothing to support the connection
with ziorews, in which owrnpia would be regarded as the object of faith. Ac-
cording to the correct construction, the verbal conception is more nearly
defined by the addition of the origin, means, and end, cf. vv. 2, 3.8% The
word owrnpia is here — as the conjoined éroiun anaoxadvgdijva shows — a positive
conception; namely: the salvation effected and completed by Christ, not
simply a negative idea, “deliverance from dnxdAga” (Weiss, p. 79). It does
1 wiorcs implies the entire and full Christian
faith; not simply confidence in God (Weiss),
nor the mere ‘“ confident assurance of the eal-
vation which fe ready to be revealed ’’ (Hof.
mann); there are single elements which it
focludes, but which do not exhaust the idea.
According to Schott, the apostle has omitted
the article, in order to emphasize the fact that
he means ‘'that faith which, as to its inmost
pature, is not dependent on sight’ (!).
* Aretius rightly observes: ‘ militare est
vocabulum d¢povpa: praceidium. Pil igitur,
dum eunt in periculis, sciant totidem eis di-
vinitus parata esse praesidia: millia millium
custodiunt eos. Finis est salus.” Bengel aleo
aptly says: ‘* baereditas servata est; haeredes
custodiuntur, neque ilia his, neque hi deerunt
ani.”
8 Schott justly calls attention to the relation
of dpovpoupevous to rernpynuevny: ‘If the re-
serving of the inheritance for Christians is not
to be fruitless, it must be accompanted by a
. . » preserving of them on earth for that
inheritance.” He states the difference between
the two expressions thus: “As regards the
inheritance, it is only necessary that ite exist-
ence should not cease. Christians, on the other
hand, must be guarded and preserved from
influences endangeriug their estate of salva-
tion.”
212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
not follow from the circumstance that xAnpovouia and owrnpia are Synonymous
terms, that the former is “only the negative side of the completed salvation.”
— The verb droxaAvodjva is here, as elsewhere, used to denote the disclosure
of what is already in existence (with God, év otpavoic, ver. 4), but as yet
hidden. érocuoc is here, like »éAdAwv often, joined with the inf. pass. (see Gal.
iii. 23. On the use of the inf. aor. in this connection, see Winer, p. 311 f.
[E. T., 332}); uzAdwr, nevertheless, has a less strong force. The future salva-
tion lies ready to be revealed, that is to say: éy Kap éoxatw, by which is
denoted the time when the world’s history will be closed (not “the relatively
last; Bengel: Jn comparatione temporum V. T.; but absolutely the last time
éy aroxadipe: 'l. Xp. ver. 7.” Wiesinger).!. When this time will be, the
apostle does not say; but his whole manner of expression indicates that in
hope it floated before his vision as one near at hand; cf. chap. iv. 7. :
Ver. 6. év 3 dyad?iao0e]. ‘The verb expresses the liveliness of the Christian
joy, equivalent to exult; it is stronger than yaipev, with which it is some-
times connected (chap. iv. 13; Matt. v. 12; Rev. xix. 7).2?—é @ refers
either to the preceding thought, that the salvation is ready to be revealed,®
or to xaipo éoyary.* In the first construction dyaaA.— in form as in meaning
— is praesens, and denotes the present joy of the Christians over their future
salvation (ty 4: over which, cf. chap. iv. 4).6 In the second construction a
double interpretation is possible, inasmuch as év 5 may denote either the
object or the time of the joy; in the first case the sense is: the xapdc Eoxaroc
is for you an object of joy, because in it the salvation will be revealed; in
the second case the sense is: in that last time ye shall rejoice (so Wiesinger
and Hofmann); here the object of joy is doubtless not named, but it may
be easily supplied, and the want of it therefore cannot be urged against this
view (as opposed to Briickner). The last of these different views deserves
the preference, both on account of the subsequent ddiyov dprt . . . Aumndévrec,
which forms a distinct antithesis to dyaAddode, and of the idea peculiar to
the epistle, that in the present time the Christian has to suffer rather than
to exult, and only in the future can he expect the full joy ;— and the preva-
lent manner of conjunction, too, precisely in this section of the epistle, by
which what follows is linked directly on to the word immediately preceding,
cf. vv. 5, 8, 10, shows that év 5 applies to xampp éoyary. In this combination,
however, it is more natural to take é in the same sense as in that which it
1 Schott unjustifiably supposes that the
want of the article indicates that “‘ the cwrnpia
would take place at a time which, from this
very fact, must be regarded as the last.’
2 Steinmeyer, whilet combating the opinion
that ayaAA. has a stronger force than yatpety,
correctly describes the ayaAAcaccs as “‘ affectio
fervidior animi hilaria,’? but yapa unwarrant-
ably as ‘‘ perpetua illa cordia laetitla, quae
beque augeri queat neque imminui.”
® Calvin: ‘‘ Articulus in quo refert totam
illud complexum de ape salutis in coelo repoal-
tae;’’ so also Estius, Grotius, Calov, Steiger,
Jachmann, De Wette, Brtickner, Steinmeyer,
Schott; similarly Gerhard, who, however, ap-
plies it to all that precedes: avayerynoas, etc.
Oecum., Erasmus, Luther, Wiesinger, etc.
5 Brickner explains ey @ as above atated,
but he understands ayaAAcagGe in a future
sense, ‘‘of that which shall moet surely come
to pass;”’ this interpretation is undoubtedly
inappropriate, inasmuch as the present assur-
ance of the future salvation, stated in ver. 5,
may now indeed be an object of rejoicing, but
will not be so then, when that future salvation
iteelf ie attained.
CHAP. I. 6. 213
has before xa, rather than in another.!— Doubtless the present dyaAAuobe
will then have a future force; but this occasions no difficulty, there being
nothing uncommon in such a use of the present (cf. also Winer, p. 249
[E. T., 265 f.]). — The present tense strongly emphasizes the certainty of
the future joy, rays of which fall even on the present life.2— 6A:)ov dpre].
éacyov not of measure (Steiger), but of time, chap. v. 10, where it forms the
antithesis to aiévoc; cf. Rev. xvii. 10; dpre denotes present time. The
juxtaposition of the two words is explainable by the apostle’s hope that
the xa:pdc Esyarog would soon begin. — ci déov éori, not an affirmative (Bengel),
but a hypothetical parenthesis: si res ita ferat: if it must be so, that is,
according to divine decree; cf. chap. iii. 17.2— AunnOivrec év rroiAou reipacpoic |.
The aorist with dpr: has reference to the fulure joy: “after that ye have now
for a short time been made sorrowful.” “It signifies the inward sadness, in
consequence of outward experiences” (Wiesinger). — Particula év non solum
esl xpovixh, sed eliam alrwodoyixn (Gerhard). Both meanings pass over into
each other, so that é is not to be interpreted as synonymous with dd, —
metpaoun are the events by which the faith of the Christian is proved or also
tempted; here, specially the persecutions which he is called upon to endure
at the hands of the unbelieving world: cf. Jas.i. 2; Acts xx. 19. By the
addition of the adjective, the manifold nature of their different kinds is
pointed out.
REMARK. — When Schott, in opposition to the interpretation here given,
maintains the purely present force of dyaAA, on the ground that ‘‘it must be
the apostle’s object to commend, by way of exhortation, the readers for their
present state of mind,’ it is to be remarked, (1) That the apostle here gives
utterance to no exhortation; and (2) That the apostle might perfectly well direct
his readers to the certainty of the future joy, in order to strengthen them for
the patient endurance of their present condition of suffering. It is perfectly
arbitrary to assert with Schott, that, by apr, the present trials, as transitory, are
contrasted with the present joy, as enduring, as also to maintain, “‘ that, by the
aorist Aumnbévrec, the suffering is reduced to the idea of an ever-changing variety
of individual momentary incidents, which, in virtue of the uniform joy, may
always lie behind the Christian surmounted’? (!). Schott insists again, without
reason, that ei déov [écri] cannot be taken as referring to the divine decree, in
that it is ‘‘impossible to make the accomplished concrete fact of the Aury@jvas
hypothetical with respect to the will of God;”’ for it is not clear why Peter
should not characterize the Aury6jva: év nox, retpaouoic as something hypothetical
1 Schott’s assertion, that, ae a rule, ayadd.
is connected by év with its object, is erroneous.
In the N. T. the passage, John v. 35, at the
moet, can be quoted in support of this con-
struction; whilst in Luke x. 21, éy accompa-
nies the simple indication of time. In Luke
1. 47, ayaAA. ie construed with é¢xic. dat.; John
vill. 56, with va.
3 It ie altogether inappropriate to interpret
ayadA.ac6e, with Augustine, as ap imperative,
the exhortations begin only in ver. 13.
8 Incorrectly Bteinmeyer: ‘Qui per pere-
grinationis spatium, quamdiu necessarium est,
contristati estis.”” The older Protestant com-
mentators, more especially, sometimes employ
this passage to combat the arbitrary seeking
after suffering; thus Luther says: ‘It is not
to be our own worke which we chooee, but we
must await what God lays upon us and sends,
so that we go and follow, therefore thou mayest
not thyself run after them.”
214 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
here, whcre he does not as yet enter more particularly into the concrete facts.
Nor can it be assumed that ei déov (éori) is added in order to remind the readers
that the moexioi retpacpuol should, in reality, occasion no sadness, the less so that
thus the intimately connected AvmnGévrec ty roux, reipacpuois are torn asunder.
Ver. 7. iva states the aim of the Aurnéiva: fy . . . metpaopois, in order to
console the readers with respect to it, “that the approvedness of your faith may
be found more precious than (that) of gold, which perisheth, yet it is tried by fire,
to (your) praise, and glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” —
doxiusov here, as in Jas. i. 3 (cf. in loco), equal to doxiuy, the approvedness as
the result of the trial (Rom. v. 3, 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13; Phil. ii. 22).}
The strict signification “ medium of proof” is inappropriate, inasmuch as the
alm of the Aumnéqva év retpaopoic cannot be stated as the glorification of these
reipaouoi, but as only that of faith in its approvedness (in opposition to Stein-
meyer). Unsuitable, too, is the interpretation “trial” (Briickner, Wiesinger),
7d doxiuov tie miorewc being taken for 4 miartc duxiuavouévn, inasmuch as it is not
the trial of the faith, but the faith being tried that is to be compared with
the gold. This substitution of ideas is not justifiable, inasmuch as the
process applied to an object cannot be put for the object itself to which it is °
applied. Only if doxisov denote a quality of faith, can a substitution of this
kind take place. doxiywv must be taken as “ approvedness,” and by ap-
provedness of faith, the “ approved,” or rather “the faith approving itself.” ?
REMARK. — What Schott had formerly alleged with respect to doxiycioy is
repeated by Hofmann, only by him it is carried further. By a highly artificial
interpretation of Ps. xii. 7, LXX., and by the application of the rule established
by him, ‘‘ that the neuter of the adjective does not stand in the place of an
abstract attributive, but expresses the condition of something as a concrete
reality, and, in conjunction with a genitive, denotes the object thereby named
in this its condition,’?’ Hofmann makes out that it is here affirmed that ‘‘ at the
revelation of Christ, it will be found that the faith of the readers has been
subjected to purification, and is, in consequence, free from dross.’’ This whole
interpretation is a pure matter of fancy; for doxijwov—a circumstance which
both Schott and Hofmann have left unnoticed — is not an adjective, but a real
substantive, for doxcuetov. — Cremer explains: ‘‘ dox, is not the touchstone only, in
and for itself, but the trace left behind on it by the metal; therefore 70 dux. rij¢
1 80ncuy in the N. T. has either an active or
a passive signification; in the former it means
** the trial which leads to approvedness,” as in
2 Cor. vili. 2; in the latter, ‘‘ the approvednesa
effected by trial,’’ as in the passages quoted ;
or, better still, ‘a distinction must be drawn
between a present and a perfect force, in that
doxcuy has a reflexive sense; either, then, the
having approved itself, or the approving itself,"
Cremer, 4.r.
2 Briickner raises the following objections
to this interpretation: (1) That so0«:ucov can
linguiatically only be understood aa meane of
proof, trial; and (2) That the part. pres.,
standing in opposition to xpuciou (Soxcuagonue-
vov), does not presuppoee the purification of
the gold to have already taken place, and tbat,
consequently, the riots doxcuagoueryn only can
be considered as compared with xpvaiov Soni-
magouevoy. But against this it must be ob-
served that docsucoy has only the signification
of ‘‘means of proof,” not of trial; and (3)
That in the above interpretation it is not the
already approved faith, but that faith which 1s
being approved, or approving iteelf in tribula.
tion, which is contrasted with gold which is
being tried.
CHAP. I. 7. 215
siorews igs that which results from the contact of wiorw with tetpacpoic, that by
which faith is recognized as genuine, equal to the proof of faith.”’ But, in
opposition to this, it must be remarked that fire, and not touchstone, is here
conceived as the means of testing.
— moduriudtepov, «.7.A., 18 by most interpreters closely connected with
etpe67; by others, again (Wolf, Pott, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Hofmann), sep-
arated from it, and considered as in apposition to 1d doxiuov iu. r. mor. The
following facts, however, are decisive against the latter construction: (1)
That—as Wiesinger admits— this appositional clause expresses “some-
thing understood of itself.” (2) That the intention here is not to make an
observation on faith, but to state what is the design of sorrow, namely, that
the faith which is approving itself may be found to be one xodtrioc. (3)
That thus etped9 would be deprived of any nearer definition, in that the sub-
sequent eic has reference not to evpsdg alone, but to the whole idea expressed.
Yet it cannot well dispense with a nearer definition (in opposition to Hof-
mann). — The genitive zpvoiov is, as alinost all the interpreters take it, to be
joined in sense directly with the comparative: “than the gold,” so that the
doxiov of the faith is compared with the gold. Some commentators, like
Beza, Grotius, Vorstius, Steinmeyer, Hofmann, assume an ellipsis (cf. Winer,
p- 230 [E. T., 235]), supplying before xpvciov the words # 1d doximorv. In
opposition it may be urged, however, not precisely “that this is cumbrous ”
(Briickner), but that the point of comparison is not properly the approval
of faith, but the faith in the act of approving itself. Whilst comparing the
faith with the gold, the apostle places the former above the latter; the reason
of this he states in the attribute rov dmoAAvuévov connected with ypvoiov, by
which reference is made to the imperishable nature of faith. To this first
attribute he subjoins the second: ca mupdc dé doxtyafozévov, in order to name
here also the medium of proving, to which the metpaopoi, with respect to faith,
correspond. Accordingly Wiesinger and Steinmeyer are wrong in asserting
that in the interpretation here given the attribute rod amoAAvpévov is inappro-
priate. — anoAAipevoc: gdapréc, cf. vv. 18, 23; also John vi. 27. For the posi-
tion of the adjective with art. after an anarthrous subst., see Winer, p. 131 f.
(E. T., 139). — cea srupd¢ de doxtuafouévov. The particle dé seems to place this
second adjunct in antithesis to the first (dazoAAvpévov) (thus De Wette:
“which is perishable, and yet is proved by fire;” so also Hofmann). But
opposed to this view is the circumstance that the trial and purification of
what is perishable is by no means anything to occasion surprise; it is there-
fore more correct to find the purpose of the adjunct in this, that by it the
idea of the doxcuafecda is brought prominently forward. Vorstius remarks
to the point: aurum igni commiititur non ad ileritum, sed ad gloriam, sic fides
cruct ad gloriam subjicitur. — For this comparison, see Job xxiii. 10; Prov.
xvii. 3; Zech. xiii. 9. — ebpedy ele Emacvov wal ddgay xai tysqv]. The verb eipedivar,
“to be found to be,” is more significant than eiva (cf. Winer, p. 572 f. [E. T.,
616 |), and has reference to the judicial investigation on the last day of judg-
ment. The words following form an adjunct to the whole preceding thought:
iva... etpedy. Beza, rightly: hic agitur de ipsorum electorum laude, etc.; thus:
°
216 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
“to your praise, glory, and honor.” Schott quite arbitrarily interprets éacvoc
as in itself: “the judicial recognition” (as opposed to this, cf. Phil. i. 11,
iv. 8); riz: “the moral estimation of the person arising therefrom” (as
opposed to this, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 7), and doga: “the form of glory” (as opposed
to this, cf. Gal. 1. 5; Phil. i. 11). Steinmeyer incorrectly applies the words
not to the persons, but to their faith. d6fa and rizf in the N. T. stand fre-
quently together; in connection with frau, here only. The juxtaposition
of these synonymous expressions serves to give prominence to the one
idea of honorable recognition common to them all. Standing as dofa does
between éxa:voc and riz, it cannot signify “the allotment of the possession
of glory ” (Wiesinger), but it is “glory, praise.” — éy dmoxadiwpee "Inco Xpicrov;
not through, but at, the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, on the day of
His return, which is at once the droxdAvyec dixavoxpioiag roi Geov (Rom. ii. 5)
and the droxdAujic trav vidv rod Ocov (Rom. viii. 19).
Ver. 8. The longing of the believers is directed to the droxéAuyug "Ino.
Xpiorov, He being the object of their love and joy. This thought is subjoined
to what precedes in two relative clauses, in order that thereby the apostle
may advert to the glory of the future salvation. — é» ot« cidores ayandrte,
“whom, although ye know Him not (that is, according to the flesh, or in His
earthly personality), ye love.” The object of cidérec is easily supplied from
ér, according to the usage in Greek. The reading idévrec expresses substan-
tially the same thought. — Since dydry, properly speaking, presupposes per-
sonal acquaintance, the clause ov« eidérec is significantly added, in order to
set forth prominently that the relation to Christ is a higher than any based
on a knowledge after the flesh. — In the clause following — co-ordinate with
this—the thought is carried further, the apostle’s glance being again di-
rected to the future appearance of Christ. — ec dv dpe ud cpivreg morebovrer d&
dyaAdaobe. As regards the construction, ée¢ dv can hardly be taken with dyaa-
Auobe, the participles dpavrec and morevovtes thus standing absolutely (Fron-
miiller), but, as most interpreters are agreed, must be construed with
morevovres. The more precise determination of the thought must depend on
whether dyaAjuicde is, with De Wette, Briickner, Winer, Steinmeyer, Weiss,
Schott, to be taken as referring to present, or, with Wiesinger and Hofmann,
to future joy. In the first case, dyaAddoge is joined in the closest manner
with moreiovres, and dprt Only with up dpcwtes (De Wette: “and in Him,
though now seeing Him not, yet believing ye exult’”); in the second, ec év
. morevovres dé 18 to be taken as the condition of the dyanddode, and dort
to be joined with moretovrec (Wiesinger: “on whom for the present believ-
ing, — although without seeing, — ye exult”). In support of the first view,
it may be advanced, that thus dyaAjudose corresponds more exactly to dyamdre,
and that ui dpavre¢ forms a more natural antithesis to dyadddode than to
motevovtes; for the second, that it is precisely one of the peculiarities char-
acteristic of this epistle, that it sets forth the present condition of believers
as one chiefly of suffering, which only at the droxaAvyc of the Lord will be
changed into one of joy; that the more precise definition: yap@ dvexAaAgty
xai dedogacyévy, as also the subsequent xopnauervm, have reference to the future;
that the cpr: seems to involve the thought: ‘now ye see Him uot, but then ye
®
CHAP. I. 9. 217
see Him, and shall rejoice in beholding Him;” and lastly, that the apostle,
iv. 13, expressly ascribes the ayaAdidoda: to the future. On these grounds the
second view 1s preferable to the first. The present dyaAd:dode need excite
the less surprise, that the future joy is one not only surely pledged to the
Christian, but which its certainty makes already present. It may, indeed,
be supposed that ayaAjdose must be conceived as in the same relation to
time with ayamare; yet, according to the sense, it is not the dyaAAudoda, but
the morevecy, which forms the second characteristic of the Christian life
- annexed to dyandv. It is not, however, the case, that on account of the
present morevuvrec, dyadA, also must be taken with a present signification
(Schott), since love and faith are the present ground of the joy beginning
indeed now, but perfected only in the future. The particle of time dor
applies not only to ud dpavrec, but likewise to morevovree dé; the sense of pi
douvrec morevovrec dé is not this, that although they now do not see, yet still
believe —the not seeing and the believing do uot form an antithesis, they
belong to each other; but this, that the Christians do not indeed see, but
believe. On the distinction between ov« eiddres and pA dpwvres, See Winer,
p. 452 (E. T., 485).— Xapg dvextadgry xal dedofacuevn serves to intensify
GyarAuobe. avexAuAntoc, ar. 2e7., “unspeakable,” is either “what cannot be
expressed in words” (thus dAudAnroc, Rom. viii. 26), or “what cannot be ex-
hausted by words.” dedofacuévn, according to Weiss, means: “the joy
which already bears within it ‘the glory, in which the future glory comes
into play even in the Christian’s earthly life;” similarly, Steinmeyer:
“hominis fidelis laetitia jam exstat dedokacpévn, quoniam doéav ejus fuluram prae-
sentem habet ac sentit;” but on this interpretation relations are introduced
which in and for itself the word does not possess. dedofacyévoc means simply
“glorified ;"” xapda dedokaou. is accordingly the joy which has attained unto
perfected glory: but “the imperfect joy of the Christian here ( Wiesinger,
Hofmann), and not the joy of the world, which as of sense and transitory is
a joy év drwig™ (Fronmiiller), is to be regarded as its antithesis; so that this
expression also seems to show that cyadjudobe is to be understood of the
future exultation. :
Ver. 9. xoutSouevor rd teAog, x.7.A., gives the reason of that joy; the parti-
ciple links itself simply on to dyaAdAuobe, “inasmuch as ye obtain,” etc., and
supplies confirmation that what is here spoken of is not present but future
joy. It is arbitrary to interpret, with De Wette and Briickner: “inasmuch
as ye are destined to obtain;” or with Steiger: “inasmuch as even now in
foretaste ye obtain.” Joined with the future present d)adAcaode, the participle
must also be in the present.? Cf. with this passage, more especially chap.
1 Bteinmeyer gives an unjustifiable applica.
tlon to the word, by saying: ‘‘ Meminerimus
Tey troKiAwy wecpacueyv. Si quidem plurimae
illae tentationes totidem lactitiae causas affe.
runt,sine dublo 9 xapa eodem sensu avexAadntos
exetat, QUO metpagwo: nequeunt enumerari.”
2 Winer, in the 5th ed. (p. 403), gives the
fame interpretation as De Wette; In the 6th
(p. 306) and the 7th (p. 330 [E. T., 351 f.]), on
the other hand: ‘as receiving (they are that
already in the asaurance of faith).’’ Schott:
** Since ye are about to, or on the way to, guther
in(!) like a harvest the end of your faith.”
Schotts clearly wrong when he asserts that if
the apostle had had the future joy in his mind,
he must have written cowscayeva on account
of the dedofacnevn, ** because the attaining of
the end of salvation, which is still in the act
of being accomplished, could not be placed
parallel with the fina! glorification which has
218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
v. 4. —xopifev: ‘ obtain” (cf. chap. v. 4), is in the N. T. frequently used of
the obtaining of what will be assigned to man at the last judgment; 2 Pet.
ii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25. Steinmeyer incorrectly ex-
plains the word: secum portare. — 1d rédoc, not “the reward ” = yucd0g (Beza,
Vorstius, etc.), neither is it “the reward of victory” (Hofmann);! but it is
the end of faith, that to which it is directed; see Cremer, s. v. —ri¢ miorewc
buoy refers back to motevovrec, ver. 8.— owrnpiav puyov. The salvation is
indeed one already present; but here is meant the Christians’ completed
salvation, of which they shall be partakers, év xap@ toyary (ver. 5).— On
yuxov, Bengel remarks: ANIMA praecipue salvatur: corpus in resurrectione
participat; cf. Jas. i. 21; John xii. 25; Luke xxi. 19.
Vv. 10-12. The design of this paragraph is not to prove the truth of the
apostolic doctrine by its agreement with that of the prophets (Gerhard), but
to bring prominently forward the glory of the owrypia before spoken of, by
presenting it as the object of prophetic search. Calvin: “salulis hujus
pretium inde commendat, quod in eam toto studio intente fuerunt prophetae.”
Wiesinger also; in such a way, however, that he holds the real tendency to
be this, that the readers should recognize theinselves as “those favored ones
who, by the preaching of the gospel, had been made partakers of the salva-
tion foretold in the O. T.” Schott thinks that here the position of the
Christians is compared very favorably with that of the prophets, since
the latter had to cling to a bare word referring to an indefinite time; the
former, on the other hand, have in their possession of salvation the pledge
of a blessed future — indeed, in a certain sense even possess it. — But how
much is here introduced !
Ver. 10. mepi go owrnpiag ékeCyrnoav xa? tEnpeivncav rpopyra|. The aurnpia,
to which the search of the prophets was directed, is, as the connection: repi
#¢ owr., Shows, the previously mentioned owrnpia puyev, which is the rédoc of
faith. Wiesinger and Schott extend the idea so as to include within it the
present salvation. This is correct thus far, that the future salvation is only
the completion of the present; but it is precisely to the completion that the
apostle’s glance is directed. De Wette is wrong in understanding by ournpia
“the work of salvation.” — Both verbs express the earnest search. é&epenvdy
is in the N. T. az. Aey. (LXX., 1 Sam. xxiii. 23: WN; 1 Chron. xix. 3: pM).
The prefixed é« serves to intensify the idea, without hinting that the prophets
selected the right time from among different periods (Steiger); see the other
passages in the N. T. where the verb éxéyreiv occurs. The aim of their
search is more precisely defined in ver. 11. Luther’s translation is inexact:
“after which salvation; mepe means rather: in respect to, with regard to. —
Calvin justly remarks: quum dicit prophetas sciscitatos esse et sedulo inquisivisse,
hoc ad eorum scripta aut doctrinam non pertinet, sed ad PRIVATUM DESIDERIUM
quo quisque aestuavit. A distinction is here drawn between the individual
activity put forth on the basis of the revelation of which they had been
already taken place,’’ aince there is nothing 1 The expression coyucgery indeed shows that
unreasonable in the idea that the joy of the Peter pictured to himself the reAogs of faith as
Christians ia glorified when they receive the a trophy, but not that reAos literally means
end of their salvation. ‘“‘ trophy.”
CHAP. I. 11. 219
made partakers, and that revelation itself (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann).!
To xpogirat is subjoined the nearer definition: of mepi rijg eig tydg xapitog mpo-
¢ntevoavrec, by which some prophets are not distinguished from others, as
Hofmann thinks, but all are characterized according to their function.2— 4
ei¢ buds xapec, either from the prophets’ standpoint: “destined for you” (De
Wette, Briickner), or from that of the apostles: “the grace of which ye
have been made partakers"” (Wiesinger, Schott). The first is the prefer-
able view. yadpic is not to be taken as identical with cwrnpia (as opposed to
Wiesinger), but the difference in expression points to a distinction in idea.
xapu¢ denotes both the present and the future, owrnpia only the future. Hof-
mann attaches particular importance to the fact that tude and not judg is here
used; assuming that by tudic the readers must be understood to be heathen
Christians. This is, however, incorrect, since Peter nowhere in his epistle
makes a distinction between heathen and Jewish Christians; by izdr the
readers are addressed not as heathen Christians, but as Christians in general;
cf. also vv. 3, 4: avayevvjoac nds . . . retnpnuévove sig bude.
Ver. 11 stands in close grammatical connection with the preceding, épev-
vowrec being conjoined with the verba finita of ver. 10; what follows states
the object of the épevvav. — ic riva 7 noiov xaipov}, iva refers to the time itself,
noiov to its character. Steinmeyer (appealing without justification to Rom.
iv. 13) explains incorrectly: vel potius; vel, ul rectius dicam. — idndov, not
“referred to” (Luth.; or significaret, Vulg.), but “revealed,” as Heb. ix. 8,
xii. 17, etc. Vorstius supplies: gratiam illam erstituram, de qua et ipsi vatict-
nabantur, this is incorrect. ei¢ .. . xaipév is conjoined rather directly —
though not as its real object, but as a secondary determination — with édyAov.
An object is not to be supplied (neither raira nor rv xape ravrnv, Steiger),
as édéjAov is in intimate union with the participle mpouaprupéyuevov (De Wette,
Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott), by which “at once the act of dnActy and its
object are exactly determined” (De Wette).— 1d iv abroig mveiza Xpioroi).
By this the revealing subject is mentioned: the prophets only expressed
what the Spirit within them communicated to them; “the 1d év abroic¢ is to
be taken as a special act of édjAov” (Wiesinger), cf. besides, Matt. xxii. 43
and 2 Pet. i. 21.4— This Spirit is characterized as the 7d mvedyu rot Xporov,
not in that it bears witness of Christ (Bengel: Spiritus Christi: testans de
Christo; thus also Grotius, Augustine, Jachmann), for Xporod is the sub-
1 8teinmeyer denies this distinction, and
says, interpreting riva % wotov xacpoy, ver. 11,
by ‘‘ de sola inde indole temporis:”’ “* neminem
latebit, eos saepenumero de creacente piorum
hominum desiderio nec non de aucta impro-
borum protervitate verba fecisse; . . . ecce ra
onucia tou pseAAovtos xatpov, quae indagata
praedicarunt.”’ According to this, ée¢ynreiy and
éfepevygy would be indagata praedicare (!).
3 Bengel: ‘‘Articuluse hic praetermiseus
grandem facit orationem, nam auditorem a
determinata individuorum consideratione ad
ipsum genus spectandum traducit; sic ver. 12:
angeli.””
8 Bengel: ‘‘ in quod vel quale tempus; guod
innuit tempus per se, quasi dicas aeram suis
numeris notatam: quale dicit tempus ex event-
idus variia noscendum.”
¢ Hofmann is indeed not mistaken in saying
that ro «vy avrots wy. Xp. is a designation of
the Spirit working prophetic knowledge in the
prophets, and not of a constant indwelling of
it, — only it muet be observed that the expres-
sion here employed says nothing as to how
or in what manner the Spirit dwelt in the
prophets.
220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
jective and not the objective genitive, but because it is the Spirit “which
Christ has and gives” (Wiesinger); see Rom. viii. 8. The expression is to
be explained from the apostle’s conviction of the pre-existence of Christ, and
is here used in reference strictly to the mpouaprupéyevov ra eig¢ Xptordy nabjpyara,
«.T.A., directly conjoined with it. Barnabas, chap. v.: prophetae ab ipso
habentes donum in illum prophetarunt.
REMARK. — By far the greater number of the interpreters rightly see, in the
term here applied to the Spirit, a testimony to the real pre-existence of Christ.
Not so De Wette, who finds in it merely the expression of the view ‘‘that the
work of redemption is the same in both the O. and N. T., and that the Spirit of
God at work in the former is identical with the Spirit of Christ;’’? and Weiss
(pp. 247-249), who explains the name thus: That the Spirit which was at work
in the prophets was the same as ‘* that which Christ received at His baptism,
and since then has possessed;”’’ similarly Schmid also (Bibl. Theol., p. 163),
**the Spirit of God, which, in after time, worked in the person of Christ.”’
Weiss seeks to prove, indeed, that ‘‘ Christ had, in the pre-existent Messianic
Spirit, an ideal, or, in a certain sense, a real pre-existence;’’ but, in this way,
reflex ideas are attributed to the apostles, which certainly lay far from their
mind. Besides, Weiss himself admits, that, in 1 Cor. x. 4, 9, reference is made
to the pre-existent Christ; but it cannot be concluded, from Acts ii. 36, that
Peter did not believe it. Schott, too, in his interpretation, does not abstain
from introducing many results of modern thought, when he designates rd xv, Xp,
here as the Spirit ‘‘of the Mediator continually approaching the consummation
of salvation (!), but as yet supernaturally concealed in God.’’? Steinmeyer does
not touch the question of the pre-existence of Christ; he finds an adequate
explanation of the expression in the remark of Bengel, although he takes
Xpiorovd as a subject. gen.
— mpouaprupouevov]. This verb compos. occurs nowhere else in the N. T.,
and in none of the classical writers; the simplex means properly: “to call
to witness;” then, “to swear to, to attest; ”’ mpoyapripecta: is therefore: “to
attest beforehand.” 1 —The object of éd7Aw .. . xpouapr. 18 ra ei¢ Xptordv nabquata
xai ra¢ era Tavita dogag]. On this Luther remarks, that it can be understood
of both kinds of suffering, of those which Christ Himself bore, as well as of
those which we endure. The majority of interpreters conceive the reference
to be to the former: Oecumenius, Theophy]., Erasmus, Grotius, Aretius,
Piscator (cf. Luke xxiv. 26), Vorstius, Hensler, Stolz, Hottinger, Knapp,
Steiger, De Wette, Briickner, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt,
Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann, etc.; but not so Calvin: non tractat, Petr.
quod Christo sit proprium, sed de universali ecclesiae statu disserit; Bolten and
Clericus explain it of the sufferings of the Christians; the same position is
taken up in the first edition of this commentary. Since the main tendency
1 Schott justly remarks that SyAouv and
mpopaprupec@ac are not {identical with wpody-
revevv, but that they denote the “‘ action of the
Spirit,’? by means of which “‘ He communicated
to the prophets the prophecies after which they
were to inquire.” But he is evidently mistaken
when he asserts that thie identification takes
place in the above interpretation. — Nor is
Schott warranted in supposing that in mpouap,
the apostle emphatically shows that the man-
ner of communication ‘‘ was a revelation In
the form of speech, and not an inward vision.”
CHAP. IL. 12. 221
of the paragraph, vv. 10-12, is to give special prominence to the glorious
nature of the believers’ cwrnpia, the latter view ts favored by the connection
of thought. But, on the other hand, there is nothing opposed to the assump-
tion, that the apostle here mentions the facts on which the owrmpia is founded,
as the substance of the testimony of the Spirit of God in the prophets. The
expression ra ei¢ Xprordv naGjuara too, which must be interpreted on the anal-
ogy of ric cig bude xaperos, goes to show that by it are to be understood the
sufferings which were ordained or appointed to Christ (Wiesinger). — On
the plural rac . . . ddgac, Bengel says: Plurale: gloria resurrectionis, gloria
ascensionis, gloria judiciit extremi et regni coelestis; thus also Grotius, De
Wette, Steiger, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. But it might be more correct
to explain the plural in this way, that as the one suffering of Christ compre-
hends in it a plurality of sufferings, so does His dvga a plurality of glories.
Hofmann: “by raéjpuara is to be understood the manifold afflictions in which
the one suffering of Christ consisted, while the manifold glorifyings which
go to make up His glory are included under déga.”1 Besides, it must be
noted that the suffering of Christ is always designated by the plural sa¢j-
uara (with the exception of Heb. ii. 9, where we have: 1d mu@nua row davarov),
but His glory always by the singular déga.— As the zxaGquara and déga of
Christ are the object of éd/Aov mpopaprupouevov, 80 by xapdc, to which the
épevvgv of the prophets was directed, the time is referred to when this salva-
tion would actually be accomplished. For this reason, then, éégpetvncay, ver.
10, cannot again be repeated in épevrdvrec (Wiesinger, Schott), as if the el¢
tiva ... xa:pov referred directly to the appearance of the owrnpia; the apostle’s
thought is rather this, that in their search as to the time of the sufferings,
etc., of Christ, the prophets had before their eyes, as that with respect to
which they sought to obtain knowledge, the owrypia of which believers were
to be made partakers.
REMARK. — Definite corroboration of the ideas here expressed is to be found
in the Book of Daniel, chap. xii. 4, 9, 10, 13. The fundamental presupposition
is that the ‘‘ when”’ of the fulfilment was unknown to the prophets; according
to ver. 12, all that was revealed to them was that it would take place only in the
times to come. De Wette asserts too much when he says that searching as to
the time cannot be predicated of the genuine prophets of ancient Judaism,
but of Daniel only, who pondered over the seventy years of Jeremiah. But
although the words of Daniel may have given occasion for the apostle’s state-
ment, still that statement is not incapable of justification. If the apostles
searched as to the time when the promises of Christ would receive accomplish-
ment, why should it not be presupposed that similarly the prophets, too,
inquired into that which the avevua Xpicroi testified beforehand to them, more
especially as to the xatpd¢ of its fulfilment ?
Ver. 12. ol¢ drexadb¢6n is linked on by way of explanation to épevvéwrec :
“to whom il was revealed,” i.e., “in that it was revealed tothem.” This is
1 Hofmann’s opinion, that Peter had chiefly 15, arlees from the fact that he applies unas
in his mind the paseages in Isa. xlix. 6,7, iil. specially to the Gentiles.
292 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
to be taken neither as an antithesis to the searching, nor as the result of it,
but as an element accompanying—and stimulating —it; see Wiesinger
and Schott in loc. —ér oby éavroic tpiv (nuiv) dé dinxdvovy abra). dr is not
causal here (Luther: “for;” so also Luthardt and Hofmann). Opposed
to this is the circumstance that if 6ri, «.7.4., be taken as a parenthesis, and
the & viv avnyyéAn, «.7.4., following be joined with amexaAigén (Hofmann), this
sentence is strangely broken up; if, on the other hand, 4 viv, «.r.A., be united
with what immediately precedes (Luther), azexadig6n is plainly much too
bald. Norcan it be denied that dre naturally connects itself with dexadigen,
and @ viv is joined with dinxévovy aira. dre states, then, not the reason, but
the contents of what was revealed to the prophets.! — diaxoveiv, both in the
N. T. and in the classics, is frequently a transitive verb joined with the
accusative, and that in such a way that the ‘accusative denotes either
the result of the diaxoveiv, or the thing to which the service is directed
(iv. 10). Here, where aira is the accusative dependent on dinxdvovy, the
latter is the case; for that which is announced to the Christians is not
the result of the prophets’ ministrations, but that to which they were
directed. That “they did their part in bringing to pass by their ministra-
tion the salvation which is now preached” (Wiesinger, and Schott also), is
a thought in no way hinted at here, and in which “did their part” is a purely
arbitrary addition. The ministration of the prophets consisted not in the
bringing to pass of the salvation, but in the proclaiming of that which was
revealed to them (Briickner); and this is what is conveyed by attra. — They
exercised this ministration, oby, etc., “not for their, rather for your (our) bene-
Sit,” i.e., in such a way that its application was to you (us), not to themselves,
—On dé after the negation, as distinguished from dada, cf. Winer, p. 411
(E. T., 442 f.).2 The difference in the reading tyuiv or quiv does not essen-
tially affect the meaning, since by tziv, though the readers of the epistle are
indeed addressed in the first instance, all the rest of the Christians are natur-
ally thought of as included. Still, the idea expressed in the tyiv or nuiv dé
is not without difficulty. Taken strictly, the oby éavrac alone was known to
the prophets —and along with this likewise, that it was for ofhers, i.e., for
those who lived at the time of its fulfilment. But as these others are the
Christians, the apostle directly opposes tyiv de to ctx éavroig — that is, inserts
But is or: then not still
1 Luthardt interprets: “ for there the object
was a future one, from which the veil had to
be removed by single acta of God; here, it isa
present one, which accordingly the messengers
simply proclaim, in the power of the now ever
present Spirit of God;’? bow much je im.
ported here! Steinmeyer admits that or: is
not to be taken a:rroAeyccaws, Dut denies at the
same time that it states the argumentum ris
awocaoAuvwews; he assumes qn inversion, which
is to be resolved thus: ols awexadudOn (ac.
ravra, namely ra wad. x. S6fat Xp.) ovzx davrois,
GAA’ ore Upiv binxcvovy avrd, and then inter-
preta: h. e. quibus manifestata sunt, non in
ipsorum commodum, eed quia nobis ea minis-
trare jussi erant.
aintoAoyinwe? And on what ground should
an jnversion so very harsh be adopted?
2 Schott’s singular assertion, that ‘‘ov...
8¢ does not cancel eavrois simply, and put vuiw
in its place, but that de adds only something
new to the preceding which remains stand-
ing" (in spite of the ov!), ie based on a mis-
conception of what is eald by Hartung,
Partikellehre, 1. 171, to which Schott appeale.
“Others than those addressed are not ex-
cluded; the latter only are indicated as those
for whom the prophecy was intended; thus
Hofmann, too, incorrectly.
CHAP. I. 12. 223
the definite for the indefinite. — Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner, join atra closely
with the & which follows: “the same as that which now is proclaimed to
you;” this is, however, incorrect. aira is nowhere in the N. T. construed
thus with a relative to which it is antecedent; it applies rather to what has
been formerly mentioned; here, therefore, doubtless to that of which the
mvevua Xporod testified beforehand to the prophets, and what they prophesied
of the ydp«, of which the readers had been made partakers. It is less fitting
to limit the reference to the ra ei¢ Xpcordv maGnpara, G, x.7.4., being joined to it
in a somewhat loose way. — It is entirely arbitrary for Hofmann to assert that
“ Peter does not speak of any prophecies in general, but of the written records
in which were contained the prediction of the prophets, who had foretold
the extension of grace to the Gentile world,” — there is nothing here to lead
to the supposition that the apostle makes any reference to written records, —
and predictions with regard to the heathen. — By means of the following
a viv avny)éAn, x.7.A., the apostle insists that what the prophets foretold is
that which is now proclaimed to the readers; viv emphasizes the present, in
which the facts of salvation are proclaimed as having already taken place,
as contradistinguished from the time when they were predicted as future. —
du tev evayyeAtcapévuv bude (ev) mvevpars dyiw]. For the construction of the
verb ebayyeAifecdat, c. acc., cf. Gal. i. 9; Winer, p. 209 (E. T., 223). —If
the reading: év mv. be adopted, the Holy Spirit is conceived of as the power,
as it were, encompassing and swaying them; if the other reading, as the
moving and impelling cause. Like prophecy (ver. 11), the preaching of
the gospel proceeds from the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit. —
dnootadcvrt an’ oipavod refers to the events of Pentecost; since then the Holy
Spirit has His abode and is at work in the church.!_ Though the same Spirit
was already in the prophets, ver. 11, He had not yet at. that time been sent
from heaven. Who the individuals were who had preached the gospel to the
readers, Peter does not say. No doubt the form of the apostle’s expression
does not compel us to think of him as excluded from the rav evayyea.; yet it
is very probable that Peter, had he intended to include himself, would some-
low have given this to be understood. —ei¢ dG émtupotow dyyeAot mapaxtwar].
The relative é clearly goes back to d viv dvnyyéAn. It is arbitrary to under-
stand (with Schott) by that which the angels desired to see, “the nature
and origin of the mora] transformation wrought by the proclamation of the
gospel;” or, with Hofmann, to give it this reference, “that Christ has died,
and been glorified in such a way that now He can and should be preached
to the heathen as having died and been glorified for them;” it includes
not only the xadjuara and déga of Christ (Wiesinger), but the whole contents
of the message of salvation (Briickner), which, as it is a testimony to the
facts of redemption, is also a preaching of the owrnpia founded on them,
1 Welss’s assertion (Die Petrin. Frage,
above mentioned, p. 642), that, ‘‘if there be
here an allusion to the outpouring of the Spirit
on the day of Pentecost, Paul could not have
belonged to those who had preached the gospel
to the readers,” is without foundation, as it is
not said here that the evayyeAtoduevor vuae
belonged to thuee who received the Holy Spirit
at Peotecost, but only that they preached in
that Spirit, which was sent from heaven at
Pentecost; and this applies to Paul no less
than to the other apostles, etc.
224 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
which is éroiun droxaAugo7vat tv xaipo toxyary (ver. 5), and which the believers
will obtain (ver. 9).1— érévuoio: must not be taken as an aorist,? for the
question is not as to what the angels did at the time of the prophets, but as
to what they are now doing. That after which they long is the xapaxiyar ele
On the inf. aor. after éréupotow, see Winer, p. 310 f. (E. T., 331). —
mapaxvrrev, properly, “to bend to the side so as to examine a thing,” means
when joined with ec not only “to look towards,” but ‘to look into any
thing,” and that in order to obtain a more accurate knowledge of the object
in question.2 The zapa of the verb indicates that the angels stand outside
the work of redemption, inasmuch as it is not for them, but for man
(cf. Heb. ii. 16). The addition of this clause brings prominently forward the
idea, not that the work of salvation is a mystery, — concealed even from
the angels, — but that that which has been proclaimed to the readers is
something so glorious that even the angels had a wish and a longing to see
what was its fashion, and what the course of its development (cf. Eph. iii.
10). Nor is it implied in émévpoia that “the angels cannot attain to a
knowledge of the economy of salvation” (Schott). It is more than
doubtful whether there be here any reference to Exod. xxv. 20, as several
interpreters assume.‘
The first group of exhortations extends from ver. 13 to the end of
the chapter. — Ver. 13. First exhortation, which forms the basis of those
which follow. The reAoiwe éArifew is the foundation upon which the whole
moral-religious life of the Christian must be raised. — 61d dvagworpevor rac
doovac Tie duavoiag tuév]. to does not refer back to any single thought in
what precedes, certainly not to the glory of the ournpia touched upon in vv.
10 ff. (Calvin: ex magnitudine et excellentia gratiae deducit exhortationem),
still less to the thought expressed vv. 5-9: “that the Christian goes through
trial towards a glorious destiny” (De Wette), but to the whole of the fore-
going lines of thought (Schott), which, however, have their point of con-
vergence in this, that unto the Christian begotten again ei éAmida (cay, the
cuwrnpia 18 appointed as the rédoc rig miorewc (sitnilarly Briickner). — dvagwoa-
pevur tac dagiac, a figurative expression taken from the runners (and others)
who tucked up their dress, 80 as to prosecute their work with less hinderance.
avalovvuut, a. 2ey. (Prov. xxxi. 17; LXX., ed. Van Ess, xxix. 17), means to
tuck up; Luther, incorrectly: “therefore so gird yourselves” (thus Wie-
singer also translates, although he justly says: “The figure taken from the
tucking up of a long undergarment denotes preparedness for something,”’
aura.
1 The Vulg. translates eis & by “in quem”
(i.e., in Spiritum sanctum).
32 Irenaeus, C. Haer. iv. 67; Oecumenius:
G@Y THY yywoty Kai éxBacty Kai avTa of ayyeAoL
éweOvuncay.
8 Although Hofmann may not be wrong in
asserting that wapaxumwrey is used aleo to de-
note a cursory glance at any thing (cf. Dem.
iv. 24, in Pape, 8.v.), yet, in connection with
eis, it ls chiefly employed in cases where a
more accurate knowledge is implied; precisely
as Pape also interprets wapaxvwrecy, “to stand
beside a thing, and to bend down so as to see
it more distinctly; '’ cf. further, Ecclus. xxi.
23 (xiv. 23), and in the N. T. besides, Jas. i.
25, aleo John xx. 11 (Luke xxiv. 12; John
xx. 5).
4 Beza: “alludit Ap. ad duos illos Cheru-
bim opercula Arcae inelstentes, conversis in
{ipsam arcam oculis.” Piscator: ‘ videtur
reapicere ad Cherubim super arcam foederia,
tanquam ad typum.”
CHAP. I. 13. 225
etc.) ; cf. the passages, Luke xii. 835 and Eph. vi. 14 (in both passages, how-
ever, mep{ovvune). The figure is the more appropriate, that the Christian is
a rapemdnuoc, on his way to the future «Aypovoyia. The figurative rac dogiag
finds its own explanation in the epexegetical genitive rig diavoiag tucn.
Aretius interprets incorrectly: lumbi mentis, i.e., tpsa recta ratio renali hominis
recte judicans de negotio pietatis; ésdvoa means here, as in Col. i. 21, the
“disposition of mind.” The meaning of the phrase applies not only to
deliverance from evil desires,} but to all and every needful preparation
of spirit for the fulfilling of the exhortations following; “it is the figure of
spiritual preparedness and activity” (De Wette). The aorist participle
points to this spiritual preparedness as the preliminary condition of éAmigew
(Schott). — vigovrec]. Cf. chap. iv. 7, v. 8 (1 Thess. v. 6, 8; 2 Tim. iv. 5).
Calvin, correctly: non temperantiam solum in cibo et potu commendal, sed spiri-
tualem potius sobrietatem, quum sensus omnes nosiros continemus, ne se hujus
mundi illecebris inebrient; similarly most interpreters. Otherwise, however,
Weiss (p. 95 f.), who supposes an antithesis between dvatwodpevoas and vagortec,
inasmuch as the former is opposed “to want of courage and apathy,” the
latter to “unnatural overstraining and excitement,” and “unhealthy exalta-
tion.” But no such antithetical relation is (as little as there is in chap. v. 8
and 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, between ypnyopeiv and vigev) here anywhere hinted at,
nor is there any thing in the whole epistle to lead us to suppose that Peter
considered it necessary “to warn his hearers against the extravagant enthu-
siasm of a Messianic glory.” Rather in vagovre¢ is prominence given to an
important element in the dva{ocacda, without which a teAcing tAnivery cannot
exist, namely, the clearness and soberness of mind with which the goal of
hope, and the way leading thither, is kept in view. —redeiug éAmioare én ri
gepouévnv, x.T.A.J. Tedeiug, Gr. Aey., belongs not to v#dovres (Oecumenius, Ben-
son, Semler, Mayerhoff, Hofmann), but to éAricare;? it shows emphatically
that the hope should be perfect, undivided, unchangeable (“ without doubt
or faint-heartedness, with full surrender of soul” (De Wette); Wiesinger
adds further: “excluding all ungodly substance and worldly desire, and
including the yp? ovoynyar., ver. 14;” and Schott: “with reference also to
the moral conduct of earnest sanctification”). Weiss (p. 93) finds the
reaewrne of hope in this, that it does not allow itself to be overcome by suffer-
ing — but of suffering there is here no mention. Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel,
take it unsatisfactorily, only ratione temporis, i.e., “ad finem usque."” — éAnigew,
frequently with eic, év, éri, c. dat., is construed with éxi cum accus. only
here and in 1 Tim. v. 5; it means “to place his hope on something.” The
object connected with it by means ot ézi is not the proper object of hope;
the latter stands in the accusative, or is expressed by a verb, either in the
infin. or with ér; but it is that from which the fulfilment of hope is ex-
pected.* If, as here, éri be construed with the accusativé, the disposition
1 Gerhard: ‘‘Quarumvis passionum et cu-
piditatum carnalium refrenatio praescribitur.”
2 The reasons which Hofmann brings for-
ward for the combination of reAciws with
yndovres are not by any means concluaive; for
as the chief accent lies on éAmicare,a strength.
ening of this expression by reAciws ia entirely
appropriate, whilst »ydorres requires no such
support. The position of the word, too, te in
favor of the connection with eAmeare.
3 The expression *‘ to hope for something,”
confideatly to expect it, may lead to the sup-
226 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
of mind with respect to the object is expressed; whilst if it be taken with
the dative, the object is presented to us as the basis of hope, that on which
it is founded. — én? ri gepopevny byiv xdpw bv droxadipe "Ino. Xpiotov)]. Several
commentators interpret so that the sense runs: “place your hope on the
grace which has been shown you by the revelation of Jesus Christ;"" thus
Erasmus, Luther, Calov, Bengel, Gerhard, Steiger, etc.; according to this,
gepopévny is the avriorpogoy Of xouifecdac (i.e., “ which has been already offered
or communicated to you”), yapic, “ the forgiveness of sins effected by Christ,”
and druxdAvpe ‘Inoot Xpiored, “the revelation of Christ which has already
taken place.” In the more exact definition of the term dzoxdAuyic, these
interpreters again diverge from one another; whilst Luther, Calov, Steiger,
and others hold it to be “the revelation which has taken place in the gos-
pel;” Bengel, etc., on the other hand, understand it of “the incarnation of
Christ.” Erasmus gives both: sentit de mysterio evangelii divulgato per quod
Christus innotuit, seu de adventu Christi. Steiger, in support of the first view,
appeals to Luke ii. 32; Rom. xvi. 25; Gal. i. 16; Eph. i. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 1;
Eph. iii. 3; but all these passages do not furnish the proof desired. In no
passage is the revelation of the gospel called the dzoxdAvyic ‘Inood Xptorov.
But the other view is opposed by the N. T. usus loquendi, according to which
drox. always denotes the future coming of Christ only. It must also be held
to be unwarrantable to interpret éy dmox, "Ino. Xp. here in a different sense
from that given shortly before in ver. 7 (and chap. iv. 13).— Not less
opposed to the former interpretation is the present participle gepouévny, since
the present may not arbitrarily be taken in the sense of the preterite, but
must be looked upon as a realization of the future. Steiger is no doubt
right in holding that 7 gep. iu. xape¢ “ does not speak of the object of hoping,
but the ground on which hope is built.” But from this it does not follow
that by the phrase “something already accomplished" must be understood,
for why should the Christian not be able to set his hopes of salvation on the
grace which in the future will be offered to him at and with the return of
Christ? Piscator incorrectly explains xdpu: coelestis felicitas et gloria, quam
Deus nobis ex gratia daturus est. Aretius, again, is right: benevolentia Dei,
qua nos amplectitur in filio: the grace of God from which the Christian has
to expect the coelestis felicitas. — With gepouérnv, cf. Heb. ix. 16. gépev: “to
bring, to present” (not “to bring nearer,” Schott), points here to the free grace
of God. That is, then: “ place your hope on the grace which will be brought to
you at (in and with) the revelation (the second coming) of Christ.” It is rightly
interpreted by Oecumenius, Calvin (who errs in this only, that he takes éy
for élc, i.e., usque ad adventum Christi), Beza, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Pott,
De Wette, etc.
position that this meaning is expressed by
dAmigeyw dxf rr. In the N. T. thie is usually
rendered by amexddxev8ar. Even in the con-
struction with eis the thing accompanying It is
not the object of hope, cf. John v. 45; 2 Cor.
4. 10; only in Ecclue. fi. 9 Ie the object of
éAmigecy construed with eis (éAwicare eis ayaba
ai ei¢ evdpogurny). Hofmann wrongly at-
taches importance to whether eis is followed
by a person or a thing, asserting that fn the
latter case the thing ia the object; for it 1s
quite as possible to set one’s hope on a thing
as on a person. Cremer rightly quotes this
passage as one of those in which éAmcery has
the meaning of ‘setting one’s hope on some-
thing."”
CHAP. I. 14. 227
REMARK. — The more recent interpreters take up different positions with
respect to the view here presented. Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller,
Hofmann, agree with the interpretation of aroxaAupiy, but are opposed to that
of éAmifew kxi. Weiss and Zockler (De vi ac notione voc. tamic in N. T., 1856,
p. 15 ff.), on the other hand, are against the latter, but in favor of the former.
— As regards @Ani¢., Zéckler: Ea est vis praepositionis ti c. acc. constructae,
ut finem designet s. localem s. temporalem s. causalem, in quem tendat actus
verbi. Qui tamen finis 8s. terminus sperandi ita discernendus est a simplici
OBJECTO sperandi, ut hoc significet rem, quam sibi obtingere speret subjectum,
Jfinis vero ille simul auctor sit, e quo pendeat vel satisfacere votis sperantis, vel
deesse ;} in support of which he justly quotes, in addition to this verse, 1 ‘Tim.
v. 5 (to which Wiesinger appeals without any justification), and a not inconsid-
erable number of passages from the LXX.; cf. Weiss also (p. 36 f.). De Wette
interprets éAnicecy correctly, but thinks, that, inasmuch as the owrnpia is con-
ceived as a yape, it is at once the ground and the object of the hope. With this
Briickner agrees, finding, ‘‘in this intermingling, a part of the peculiarity of
the thought;”’ .whilst, on the other hand, Weiss sees in it only a makeshift
conveying no clear idea at all. With regard to the term azoxadvyic, Welss
explains it as: manifestatio Christi, quae fit in verbo evangelii in hac vita
(Gerhard). But this interpretation is decidedly opposed to the N. T. usage; in
no passage is the revelation of which, by the gospel, we become partakers
described as an aroxdAvyic 'Inoot Xpiorod, although amoxadiarev is used of the
different kinds of revealing. The reference to the gospel is an evident importa-
tion. Weiss raises two objections to the correct view — (1) ‘‘ It is, as a matter
of fact, impossible that the Christian should set his hope on the grace that is to
be brought at the revelation of Christ.’? But why should this be impossible ?
How often does it happen that the individual bases his hope for the fulfilment
of his wish on an event as yet future, but which he is assured will happen!
(2) ‘* That the second coming of Christ is not a revelation of grace at all, but of
just judgment.’’ But the latter in no way excludes the former; and how could
the Christian contemplate the second coming of Christ with calm, yes, even
with joy, if there were no grace ?
Ver. 14. Second exhortation (extending to ver. 21).— cc réxva braxone
does not belong to what precedes (Hofmann), but serves to introduce the
new exhortation.?—d¢ does not here introduce a comparison (as ii. 2, 5, -
ili. 7), but marks the essential quality of the subject. Lorinus correctly
remarks on ii. 14: constat hujusmodi particulas saepe nihil minuere, sed rei
veritalem magis exprimere ; it corresponds to our “as,” i.e., as becomes you
who should be réxva iraxoi¢. —traxo7 is used here as absolutely as in ver. 2,
and has the same signification as there. The spirit which pervades the life
of believers is the spirit of obedience, and therefore they should be réxva
braxone. According to the analogy of similar compounds in the N. T., as
réxva guric, Eph. v. 8; its opposite, réxva xardpac, 2 Pet. ii. 14; réxva rig opyie,
1 Thies interpretation is correct. The only
point under dispute js “ simul.’”’
* Hofmann connects not only these words,
but the subsequent participial clause also: uy
ovoxnuariCépevor, x, Tr. A.. With what precedes.
This, however, is opposed, on the ove hand,
by the correspondence which exists between
téxva vmwaxons and the eubsequent exhorta-
tions; and, on the other hand, by aAdAa, ver.
15, which is in antitheals to ny evexnuarcgd-
evo, and therefore not to be separated from
it, ue though it cofmenced a new paragraph.
228 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Eph. ii. 8; particularly vlol rig dmeubeiag, Eph. ii. 2,—the expression réxva
imaxoj¢ nay be explained so as that réxva shall denote only the relation in
which the persons in question stand to the idea of the accompanying geni-
tive; cf. Winer, p. 223 f. (E. T., 238); Buttmann, p. 141; Meyer on Eph.
ii. 2 (thus Grotius, Jachmann, etc.; Fronmiiller too). De Wette, Briickner,
Schott, Weiss, too, most probably, p. 172, take réxva as the “children of
God,” and tmraxope as the genitive of character (as Luke xvi. 8: 6 ofxdvoyog riz¢
Gdixiag; XVili. 6: 6 xpirnc rig adixiac). But as it is in ver. 17 that mention
is first made of the sonship relation of the Christian, it remains at least
doubtful whether the apostle had in this expression that relation in view;
at any rate the emphasis here lies not on réxva, but on bxaxoze. — ud) ovoxnpuati-
Couevor]. jy occurs here on account of the imperative cast of the whole sen-
tence. Neither yev#énre (Bengel) nor any other similar word is to be supplied
to the part., inasmuch as it does not correspond to the ayo yergOnre, but to
the xara rdv xadécavra tude aywv (Wiesinger); there is here no “departure
from the construction” (De Wette). The word ovoynyarifecda, occurring in
the N. T. only here and in Rom. xii. 2, and nowhere but in later Greek,
means: “to form his oxija like that of another ;""} it has reference not to the
outward conduct merely, but to the whole outward and inward conformation
of life, as the connection with the following words shows: raig mpérepov év r9
dyvoig tuov émibvuiac. The émévuia, i.e., the sinful desires (not “the satisfied
lusts, or a life of pleasure,” as De Wette understands), which formerly held
sway in them, are the syfua, according to which they are not to fashion
themselves in their new life.2 Luther’s translation is inexact: “take not
up your former position, when ye in your ignorance lived according to your
lusts.’? The éxc@uyiac are more precisely characterized as formerly belonging
to them év dyvoia; év specifies not merely the time (Calvin: tempus ignorantiae
vocal, anlequam in fidem Christi vocati essent), but likewise the origin (Wie-
singer). dyvoa is used here as in Acts xvii. 30, Eph. iv. 18, ignorance in
divine things, and is to be understood, if not exactly of idolatry, at least of
heathenism, which is far from the knowledge of the living God and of His
will. Paul, in Rom. i. 18 ff., shows how the obscuring of the consciousness
of God is the source of moral corruption.
REMARK. — In answer to Weiss, who can see in this passage no proof that
the readers were Gentile Christians, Wiesinger justly remarks, Schott and
Briickner agreeing with him: ‘‘ The dyvoa of which the Jews (Acts iii. 17;
Rom. x. 3) are accused, or which Paul attributes to himself, 1 Tim. i. 13 (the
same applies to Luke xxiii. 34; John viii. 19), is of quite a different kind; not
1 When, tn objection to this, Hofmann urges
that gvoxnuarigecOac should here be inter-
preted not according to Rom. xil. 2, but on the
principle of the expression, avoy. Tors Aeyoue-
vos, —''80 to conduct one’s self as to give
adequate expression to the words used,” — he
does not consider that in this verse the verb
has the same force as in Rom. xif. 2, for it
means, ‘‘ to conform your ¢xyye to that which
your words express.”
? Schott terms this interpretation ‘tn-
exact; for ‘‘{t is not the lueta themselves, but
the mode of life which is essentially charac.
terized by these lusts, according to which they
are not to fashion themselves; "’ but does then
éexcOvycac mean ‘ the mode of life”? RBesldes,
Schott himaelf eays that the thought is not
altogether correctly expressed.
CHAP. I. 15, 16. 229
an dyvoa of the moral demands of the law, but the misapprehension of the
purpose of salvation manifesting itself also through the law.’”’ If Weiss, on
the other hand, insists (Die Petr. Frage, p. 624) that the invectives of Christ
most plainly teach how, in the Jewish conception of the law, at that time its
deeper moral demands were misapprehended; it must, as opposed to him, be
observed that Christ’s attack was specially directed against the Pharisaic con-
ception of it, and can in no way be applied to the people of Israel as such.
Paul, in describing them, expressly allows to the Jews, Rom. fi. 17 ff., the
yivooxey 7d O€Anua; and an Gyvoa, in the absolute sense here implied, is nowhere
cast up to them. — The O. T. distinction between ‘‘sins of weakness (13)W3,
LXX.: «ar’ dyvoav, év dyvoig) and insolent sins of disobedience’ (13) 723)
(Weiss, p. 175) does not apply here.
Vv. 15, 16. dada ward rdv xadécavra tyic Gywv]. Steiger: “this positive
instruction, instead of forming a participial clause of its own, like the pre-
ceding (negative), is in animated discourse at once merged into the principal
clause;” there is, accordingly, nothing to be supplied; still Oecumenius
explains, in sense, correctly: dAAd viv yotv, Aéyet, TH Kakécavte ovoynpartilopevot,
dyiw dvrt, x.7.A,—Gyiov is here a substantive, to which the participle «ad. is
added as nearer definition (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 1), and that by way of strengthen-
ing the exhortation (“as ye are bound to do, since He hath called you”).
The behavior of those called must correspond with the nature of Him who
has called them. Schott rightly remarks that the xaAciv must here be taken
as “an effectual calling,” by which the readers are delivered from their state
of estrangement from God, and introduced into one of fellowship with Him.
xat abrol Gyto tv macy avactpooy yevyOnze]. xal avroi forms the antithesis to ray
dytov; Schott, incorrectly: ‘as against what God has, on Elis part, by His
calling, done to you and made you.” — év racy dvactpogy, not: in (your) whole
(De Wette), but in (your) every walk.! — yevnoqre denotes not the becoming,
but the being ; Luther, correctly: “like Him. . . be ye also holy.?” — Ver. 16.
dure yéyparrat], ditt, 1.e., dua trovta drt, “for this reason because,” indicates the
reason for the preceding exhortation, and not simply for the use of the word
aywv (De Wette). The apostle goes back to the command given to Israel, as
to the reason why the Christians, called as they were by the God of holiness,
should be holy in their every walk. The holiness of God laid Israel under
the obligation to be holy, since God had chosen them to be His people; the
saine is the case, as Peter suggests by xaZésavra tuds, with the N. T.
church of believers, the true Israel, on whom, though doubtless in a form
adapted to them, for this reason the commandments of the O. C. are still
binding. Schott justly observes that the pdssage quoted by Peter is not
1 For it must be observed that in the case of
a collective expression, was ia accompanied by
the article when the totality is conceived of as
forming one whole; the article is wanting
when it is considered as composed of many;
é.g., tas 6 Aads means ‘‘the whole people,”
but wag Aads, “all people; ’? when not ‘every
people,” in which case the collective expres-
aion Is the special idea.
2 Wiesinger aska why? The reasons are,
(1) because both in the LXX. and Apocrypha
of the O. T., as also in the N. T., instead of
the imper. of eiva:, which ia but rarely used,
there is very generally the imper. aoriat of
yeyvouas, in the LXX. translation of 7, 1
(cf. apecially Ps. Ixix. 26); (2) because the
exhortation ‘‘ be holy’ is more suited to the
condition of Christiane than ‘‘ become holy.”
230 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
meant to establish the duty of holiness in itself, but to show that the fact of
belonging to God involves as a matter of duty the necessity of a holy walk.
The expression, which the apostle quotes, occurs more than once in the book
of Leviticus, xi. 44, xix. 2, xx. 7, 26. :
Ver. 17. From here to the end of the verse the preceding exhortation is
continued; the connection is shown by the copula xai.—xal ei muripa émtxa-
. Asioge, corresponding to the d¢ réxva traxoic, ver. 14. ei is here: “particula
non conditionalis, sed assertiva, non dubitantis, sed rem notam praesupponentis”
(Calvin). The form of the sentence is, however, hypothetical; the sense
is: “if you act thus and thus, as ye are indeed now doing.” By this form the
language is made more impressive than it would have been by a simple
causative particle. — émxaAeiobat, as medium, means to “call upon” (for the
meaning “to name,” as Wiesinger, De Wette, Briickner take it, is supported
in the classics only by a doubtful passage in Dio Cass. Ixxvii. 7). arépa is
the accusative of more precise definition (thus Hofmann also); Luther:
“since ye call on Him the (i.e., as, dc) Father.” The sense is: “if ye look
on Him as Father who, etc., and ye acknowledge yourselves as His children.” ?! -
It is to be noticed that the éuadeiase corresponds to the xadécuvra, v. 15;
God has called believers, —and they answer with the call to Him, in which
they name Him Father. This mutual relationship lays the Christians under
obligations to be holy as He is holy.2— rdv dxpoowroAgnrwg xpivovra td éxaotov
Epyov, a circumlocution for God full of significance, instead of the simple
rov Oedv, corresponding to the dyov, ver. 15. —dmpoowmoAnrtec, & Gn. Ary.,
formed on the noun mpoownoAnnrn, (Acts x. 34), which is camposed of mpédacurov
and AauBave ; see Meyer on Gal. ii. 6. — The present xpivovra indicates that
impartial judgment is a characteristic function of God. The apostle men-
tions 7d épyov as that according to which the judgment of God is determined;
in this connection the plural is generally found (Rom. ii. 6); by the singular
the whole conduct of man (outwardly and inwardly) is conceived as a work
of his life. — éxaorov, not without emphasis. It implies that the Christian
also—a son of God though he be — will, like all others, be judged accord-
ing to his work; it is arbitrary to limit the application of the general term
éxaotov to Christians only (Schott); there is no thought here of the distinc-
tion between Jew and Gentile (Bengel). — The term judge, as applied to
God, stands in a peculiar contrast to warépa. The Christian, while conscious
of the love of God shed abroad in his heart (Rom. v. 5), must still never
forget that God judges the evil, that His love is a holy love, and that sonship
involves obligation of obedience towards a just God. — tv gow rav . . . dvao-
tpagnre, corresponding to the dytoc év macy dvacrpogy yevmOnre, ver. 15; the feel-
ing which harmonizes with the thought of the impartial judge is the gdpog;
thus Peter places géfoc first by way of emphasis. doc is here, indeed, not
the slavish fear which cannot co-exist with love (see 1 John iv. 18), no more
1 It is possible, and as Gerhard and Weiss in the preceding verses; but here it is not
(p.172) think probable, that Peter here alludes § considered as established by God, but aa real-
to the Lord’s Prayer. - ized in practice by the readers, i.e., aa sub-
* Schott rightly remarks that émcadctoOat jectively known and acknowledged by them.
ie based on the same common relationship as
CHAP. I. 18. 231
is it the reverence which an inferior feels for a superior (Grotius, Bolten, etc.);
but it is the holy awe of a judge who condemns the evil; the opposite of
thoughtless security. Calvin: timor securilati opponitur; cf. chap. ii. 17;
2 Cor. vii. 1; Phil. ii. 12.1 — rdv rig maposxiac tpew xypovoy specifies the dura-
tion of the walk é 963; rapouia: “the sojourn in a foreign country;” in its
strict sense, Acts xiii. 17 (Ezra viii. 34, LX X.); here applied to the earthly
life of the Christian, inasmuch as their «Anpovoyia is in heaven, ver. 1. This
expression serves to give point to the exhortation expressed, hinting as it
does at the possibility of coming short of the home; cf. chap. ii. 11.
Ver. 18. The apostle strengthens his exhortation by reminding his
readers of the redemption wrought out for them by the death of Christ. It
is an assumption too far-fetched to suppose that this verse serves to show
“the causal connection between the protasis and the apodosis of ver. 17”
(Schott). — eidé7ec, not “since ye know,” but “considering,” “reflecting; ”
Gerhard: expendentes ; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and my commentary on the passage.
— drt ob]. The negation is placed foremost in order the more to give promi-
nence to the position. — géaproic, dpyupiy 7} xpuciy]. gvaproi¢ is not an adjective
here (Luther: “with perishable silver and gold’), but a substantive: “with
perishable things :” see Winer, p. 491 (E. T., 527). — Benson thinks that by
dpyupiy 7 xpvoiy the apostle alludes to the custom of paying money as a sign
of reconciliation, according to Exod. xxx. 12-16; Num. iii. 44-51, xviii. 16;
this is possible, but not probable. — éAurpwénre is here used in its strict signi-
fication of, to ransom, or redeem by a Airpoy (cf. Matt. xx. 28), as in Tit.
ii. 14, whilst in Luke xxiv. 21 this definite application is lost sight of;
with the thought, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The ransom is stated in the follow-
ing verse. —éx ti¢ paraiag bow dvaorpodng]. Cf. ver. 14. aratoc, “empty,
without real contents,” does not occur in an ethical sense in the classics;
LXX. Isa. xxxii. 6 translation of {}® is not to be limited specially to the
idolatry of the heathen (Carpzov, Benson, etc.), still less to the ceremonial
service of the Jews (Grotius).?— rarporapadétov belongs to the whole idea
preceding: paraiac tucv avacrpogi¢ (see Winer, p. 489 [E. T., 525]). Aretius
explains it by innata nobis natura; but this is not appropriate to dvaarpneiie ;
correctly, Erasmus: quam ex Patrum traditione acceperatis; Steiger: “by
upbringing, instruction, and example” (thus also De Wette-Briickner,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott). This attribute emphatically shows that the
pataia dvacrpog7 is peculiar, not to the individual only, but to the whole race,
and has been from the earliest times, and consequently is so completely
1 Weiss (p. 170) thinks that the passage,
Rom. viii. 15, proves Paul's fundamental views
of Christian life to have been different from
those of Peter; this opinion, however, is suf-
ficiently contradicted by Weies himeelf, who
admits that in 2 Cor. vii. 1, ‘‘ Paul mentions
the fear of God as a peculiar mark of the
Christian’s life, and that he often speaks of a
fear of Christ.’ — Schott insists, in the first
place, that ¢d68o¢ be understood absolutely
(without special reference to God as the judge)
as the consciousness of liability to err, but
afterwards more precieely defines the expres-
sion as that fear which is anxious that nothing
should happen which might cause God, as the
righteous judge, to refuse tho inheritance to
him who hopes to attain it.
? Although parata avacrpody marporapa-
Soros does not necessarily apply to the heathen
(Schott), yet the expression more aptly charac-
terizes thelr mode of life than the Jewish.
232 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
master of the individual that he cannot free himself from it. — There is
here no “special reference to Judaeo-Christian readers ” (Weiss, p. 181).
Ver. 19. dAAd riiw alvari)]. tii forms the antithesis to ¢éaproic, in so far
as the perishable is destitute of true worth. —aiyzan: refers not only to the
death, but to the bloody death, of Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 22.—éc¢.. . dur
Gudpuov Kal doridov Xpwroi]. o¢ ... domidov is in antecedent apposition to
Xptoros (Wiesinger, De Wette-Briickner), as in chap. ii. 7, where likewise
d¢ dobeveoripy oxevec is in similar apposition to r& yuvateiy (sc. oxeber). It is
incorrect to supply, with Steiger, Schott, and others, “alvar:” before duvod,
taking Xpcoros either as an explanatory adjunct (Steiger), or connecting it
directly with aizare (Schott, Hofmann). —d¢ is also here not merely com-
parative, as, among others, Schott and Hofmann hold, maintaining that “ by
duvod only an actual lamb is meant,” but it emphasizes that Christ is a blame-
less and spotless lamb (Gerhard, De Wette-Briickner).1 — duvoe is, as Briick-
ner also assumes, to be understood of a sacrificial lamb. This is clear both
from the connection — since the ransom by the aiua of Christ (Lev. xvii. 11)
is here in question—and from the attributes duwpoe and domaAoc, of which
the former is used in the O. T. expressly to denote the faultlessness of
animals taken for sacrifice (O°‘3A, LXX.: duwyoc), — to this class lambs also
belonged. The precise designation, a /amb, was probably suggested to Peter
by Isa. liii. 7 (cf. chap. ii. 22 ff.); from this it inust not, however, be inferred,
with Weiss (p. 227 ff.) and Schott, that there is nowhere here any reference
to the idea of sacrifice. For although the passage in Isaiah compares the
servant of God to a lamb simply on account of the patience he exhibited in
the midst of his sufferings, still it is based so wholly on the idea of sacrifice,
and the sufferings of Christ are 80 expressly presented as propitiatory, that
it is easily explainable how, with this passage applied to Him, Christ could
have been thought of precisely as a sacrificial lamb. Doubtless it is not
Peter’s intention to give special prominence to the fact that Christ is the
sacrificial lamb designated by Isaiah’s prophecy; for in that case the definite
article would not have been wanting (cf. John i. 29, and Meyer in loc.); but
alluding to the above passage, Peter styles Him generally a lamb, — which,
however, he conceives as a sacrificial lamb. There is no direct allusion
(Wiesinger) here to the paschal lamb (De Wette-Briickner, Schott); the
want of the article forbids it. Hofmann, though he has justly recognized
this, still firmly holds by the reference to the paschal lamb; only in thus
far, however, that he terms the slaying of it “the occurrence” which “ was
here present to the apostle’s mind.”? But the fact that the blood of this
1 If ws be taken as instituting a comparison,
there then arises the etngular thought, that the
blood of Chriet js as precious as that of a lamb
without blemish. Hofmann, indeed, avoide
this conclusion by supplying to we not ripcp
atmars, but aiuan only, and observes that the
shedding of blood alone (not the shedding of
precious blood) is compared to the slaying of
a spotiess lamb; but there is not the slightest
justification for thus separating tiuip from
aluanr. The apostle would in some way have
indicated it by prefixing at least a simple
aipars tO auvov.
2 Hofmann says: ‘The meaning is not
that the same wns done to Christ as to the
paschal Jamb, but the recollection of the pas-
chal lamb explains only how Peter came to
compare the shedding of Christ's bluod with
the shedding of the blood of a spotless lamb."’
— As to whether the paschal lamb should be
, CHAP. I. 20. 233
lamb did not serve to ransom Israel out of Egypt, but to preserve them from
the destroying angel, is opposed to any such allusion. Further, it must not
be left unnoticed that in the N. T. the paschal lamb is always styled 1rd macya;
and in the passage treating of it in Exod. xii. in the LXX., the expression
npoBarov only, and never duvéc, is employed. — The adjunct: dy . . . donidon,
serves to specify particularly the blood of Christ as sacrificial, and not merely
to give a nearer definition of its preciousness (the rizov), inasmuch as, “ ac-
cording to Petrine conceptions, it is precisely the innocence (denoted here
by the two attributes) and the patience (conveyed by duvéc) which give to the
suffering its riz” (as opposed to Weiss, p. 281 f.). The preciousness of
the blood lies in this, that it is the blood of Christ; its redemptive power
in this, that He shed it as a sacrificial lamb without blemish and fault.1 — With
duno, cf. in addition to Lev. xxii. 18 ff., especially Heb. ix. 14. — domaAog
is not to be found in the LXX., and in the N. T. only metaphorically ; the
_ two expressions here conjoined are a reproduction of the & ni-99 ee} 5)
13-7, Lev. xxii. 18 ff. (Wiesinger). All the commentators construe
Xptorob With what precedes, [lofmann only excepted, who separates it there-
from, and connects it with what follows, taking Xpiorod mpoeyvwopévov, x.1.A., a3
an absolute genitive (i.e., “in that... Christ... was foreordained,” etc.).
But this construction does not specify by whose blood the redemption was
accomplished, nor does it give a clear logical connection between the thought
of the participial and that of the principal clause.
REMARK. —It must be observed, that whilst the power of propitiation, i.e.,
of blotting out sin, is attributed to the blood of the sacrifice, Lev. xvi. 11, the
blood of Christ is here specified as the means by which we are redeemed from
the araia dvacrpo¢7. From this, it must not be concluded, with Weiss (p. 279),
that the blood of Christ is not regarded here as the blood of offering, inasmuch
‘* as the sacrifice can have an expiatory, but not a redemptory, worth;’’ for the
two are in no way opposed to each other. The expiation is nothing different
from the redemption, i.e., ransom from the guilt by the blood freely shed. The
redemption, however, which is here spoken of, though, doubtless, not identical
with expiation, is yet a necessary condition of it,—a circumstance which
Pfleiderer also fails to observe, when he says that the passage has reference
only ‘‘to the putting away of a life of sin, to moral eae not to
expiation of the guilt of sin.’’
Ver. 20. mpoeyywouévov ufv is indeed not simply and at once prueordinatus
- (Beza), but the foreknowledge of God is, with respect to the salvation He
was to bring about, essentially a providing; cf. ver. 2: mpéywworc. In regard
to Christ it was provided (xpoeyrwoutvov refers not directly to duvet, but to
considered as a sacrificial lamb (Kell on Gen.
xii.) or not, ls a matter of dispute, which
cannot be decided here.
' Schott, in opposition to this, aseerts:
“This blood can redeem because it is that of
the divine Mediator (Xpiorés), but it ta vctlu-
able in that it le the blood of an innocent
Saint.” This is, however, erroneous, since
this blood bas power to redeem only, because
Christ shed {t as a sacrifice for propitiation.
But it is not clear why this blood should not
even have ite full worth from the fact that it fe
the blood of the Mediator.
234 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Xptorod) that He should appear (¢avepwhtvroc dé) a8 a sacrificial lamb to
redeem the world by His blood. The passage does not say that Christ
would have appeared even though sin had never entered. — pd xaraBorne
xdoyov, & frequent designation of antemundane eternity, John xvii. 24; Eph.
i. 4. This nearer definition specifies the sending of Christ as having origi-
nated in the eternal counsels of God, in order thus to give point to the
exhortation contained in ver. 17. — gavepwévtoc dé here of the first appearing
of Christ, which in this passage is represented as an emerging from the
obscurity in which He was (chap. v. 4, of His second coming); it is incor-
rect to refer gavepwhévroc to the obscurity of the divine counsels (as formerly
in this commentary), since gavepwérrog applies as much as xpoeyywopévov to
the person of Christ. Between the xpoywwor and the gavépwore lies the rpo-
gnreia, ver. 10. Rightly interpreted, gavepweivrog testifies to the pre-existence
of Christ.1_ The sequence of the aorist participle on the participle mpoeywwo-
pévov is to be explained from this, that by gavepwoévroc an historical fact is
mentioned. — én’ éaxyarou trav xpovur]. Foxarov: a substantival use of it, “at the
end of the times.” This fcyarov of the times is here conceived as the whole
period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second coming;
in like manner Heb. i. 1; otherwise 2 Pet. iii. 3, where by éoyarov is meant
the time as yet future, immediately preceding the second coming of Christ;
in like manner 1 Pet. i. 5.2— Note the antithesis: pd xara. x. and én’ éoydrov
r.xp.: beginning and end united in Christ. — dv’ id refers in the first in-
stance to the readers, but embraces at the same time all éxJexroi. Believers
are the aim of all God’s schemes of salvation; what an appeal to them to
walk év 90j3w rdv tig mapotxiag xypdvov! There is as little here to indicate any
reference to the heathen (Hofmann) as there was in ei¢ tude, ver. 10.
Ver. 21. rode ct’ abrot (i.e., Xpiorod) morevovrag (or morovc) el¢ Oedv]. rove:
the same clausal connection as in vv. 4 and 5.— The construction moretew
eig ig very frequent in the N. T., especially in John; Christ is for the most
part named as the object; God, as here, in John xii. 44, xiv. 1.— This
adjunct, by giving prominence to the fact that the readers are brought to
faith in God by Christ, confirms the thought previously expressed &’ tyudc.®
Nor should it ever have been denied that by it the readers may be recog-
nized as having been heathens formerly. — rdv éyeipavra abrdv éx veapov Kal ddgav
aire dévra,* not subjoined aimlessly as an accidental predicate applied by the
apostle to God; but, closely linked on to @eév, the words serve to describe
1 Schmid rightly says (Bibl. Theol., II. p.
165): ‘‘ rpoeyywouxevov does not deny the
actual pre-existence, because Xpiorov Includes
a designation which fs not yet realized in the
actual pre-existence, but will be so only in
virtue of the davepwOjvar.”
2 It fe tudeed correct that, as Schott says,
the end of the times is so, through the mani-
festation of Christ; but it is an arbitrary
assertion to say that er serves to give more
prominence and precision to this thought.
3 Hofmann: ‘The assertion that Christ
was foreordained and made manifest for their
sake {fe actually justified in this, that they
have faith in God through Him.”
4 Weiss (p. 243) lays strese on 8éyvra in
order to prove the low plane of Peter’s con.
ception of the person of Chriet; yet Christ
also says, in the Gospel of John, that God had
given him ¢w%, xpiows, efovcia wagns capxés,
8éfa, etc. Paul, too, asserts that God exalted
Christ, and gifted Him (éxapicaro) with the
Svona To Urép way Gvoua; there is a similar
passage, too, in Hebrews, that God has ap-
polnted or made Him «xAnpovopos wavtay.
CHAP. I. 22. 235
@zov more nearly as the object of the Christian faith. The conviction that
God has raised and glorified Christ the Crucified belongs essentially to the
Christian faith in God; with the first half of this clause, cf. Rom. iv. 24,
viii. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Gal. i. 1; with the second, John xvii. 5, 22; and
with the whole thought, Eph. i. 20; Acts ii. 82 f. This adjunct, defining
@zov more nearly, is not meant to declare “how far Christ by His revelation
has produced faith in God” (Wiesinger), — the whole structure of the clause
is opposed to this, — but what is the faith to which through Christ the
readers have attained. —dore, not iva (Oecumenius, Luther: “in order
that; thus also the Syr., Vulg., Beza, etc.), nor is it itaque, as if a “det” or
a ‘yon were to be supplied to eivae (Aretius); but “so that,” it denotes the
fruit which faith in God, who raised up Christ from the dead, has brought
forth in the readers, which supplies the confirmation that Christ has ap-
peared for their sake (é:’ abroic). — ray riot buoy Kal éAmida eivat cig Oeov]. Most
interpreters translate: “so that your faith and your hope are directed to
God;” Weiss, on the other hand (p. 43), Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller,
Hofmann, take it: “so that your faith is at the same time hope toward
God.” The position of the words seems to favor this last translation, since
the genitive iuav stands between the two substantives, whilst otherwise
either dudy rv morw Kal éAnida (oF thr budv xiar.), (cf. Rom. i. 20; Phil. i. 25;
1 Thess. ii. 12), or rav mw. x. éAm. ducev (cf. Phil. i. 20; 1 Thess. iii. 7), would
have been expected; — but this is not decisive, inasmuch as in Eph. iii. 5
toi¢ ayiowg anoaroAa abrov «ai mpogyrace Occurs. Qn the other hand, the con-
nection of thought gives the preference to the latter view; for, in the former
case, not only is it noticeable that “the result is exactly the same as that
denoted by rode morovc” (Weiss), but in it éArida seems to be nothing more
than an accidental appendage, whilst in reality it is the point aimed at in
_the whole deduction; that is to say, the truth and livingness of faith (in the
resurrection and glorification of Christ) are manifested in this, that it is also
a hope; cf. vv. 3, 6,9, 13.1 Schott is wrong in thinking that ec Ody has
reference not only to éAmda, but at the same time to rq riorw; for though
by rior here only ziotic cic Oc6v can be understood, yet it is graminatically
impossible to connect the final ei¢ Oe6v, which is closely linked on to éAmiéda,
likewise with rj miorw iuov. — The object of hope is specified in the words
rov éyeipavta avrov, x.7.A.; it is the resurrection and attainment of the doga
which is given to Christ; cf. Rom. viii. 11, 17. |
Ver. 22. From ver. 22 to ver. 25 the third exhortation,? and its subject
is love one of another. Gerhard incorrectly joins this verse with verse 17,
and regards vv. 18-21 as a parenthesis. — ra¢ puyxde buy nyvixdreg}]. The par-
1 Welss is wrong in saying that, according
to Peter’s view, faith is but the preparatory
sequent idea; yet it must be observed that in
the N. T. the firet combination is more fre-
step to hope, eince it rather includes the latter.
2 Hofmann, witbout any eufiiclent reason,
supposes the third exhortation to begin with
ver. 18, although the amplifications contained
in vv. 18-21 serve eminently to inculcate the
preceding exbortation. The expression eddres
can be joined eltber with a preceding or a sub-
quent than the second, and that in the latter
case ciéores is always accompanied by a par-
ticle, by which it is marked as the first word
of a subsequent set of phrases; Hofmavn
altogether overlooke thie. Here undoubtedly
xa. would have been prefixed to eidores.
236 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
ticiple does not here express the accomplished act as the basis of the exhor-
tation, as if it were: “after that ye, or since ye, have purified” (Bengel,
Wiesinger), but it stands closely linked on to the imperative, and denotes
the duty which must ever be fulfilled (hence the perf.) if the dyardv is to
be realized (De Wette-Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller);1 Luther, inexactly :
“make chaste .. . and,” etc. — dyviferv, a religious idea denoting in the first
instance the outward, and afterwards the inward consecration and sanctify-
ing also (cf. John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26, xxiv. 18); in passages too, as
here, where it expresses moral cleansing from all impurity (here more espe-
cially from selfishness), it does not lose its religious significance; cf. Jas.
iv. 8; 1 John ili. 3.2—év rg braxog rig GAnOciac]. % GAfdea is the truth re-
vealed and expressed in the gospel in all its fulness. — baxo7, not “ faith”
(Wiesinger), but “obedience.” The genitive is not the gen. subj.: “the
obedience which the truth begets,” but the gen. obj.: “obedience to the
truth.” This iraxo#, however, consists in believing what the truth proclaims,
and in performing what it requires (thus Weiss also). — The preposition éy
exhibits taxon as the element in which the Christian must move in order
to procure the sanctification of his soul. —If the reading du rveipuarog be
adopted, the rveiua is not the human spirit, but the Spirit of God; Luther,
incorrectly: that the apostle here means to observe that the word of God
must not only be heard and read, but be laid hold of with the heart. —el¢ guta-
deAgiav dvundxptrov does not belong to the-dyamjaare following, either as denot-
ing the terminus of love, and the sense being: diligite vos in fralernam carilatem,
i.e., in unum corpus fraternae caritalis ; or as 64 (Oecumenius), and thus point-
ing out the “agency by which;” nor, fivally, is it ecbatic: tifa ul omnibus
manifestum fiat, vos esse invicem fratres (Gerhard) ;— but it is to be taken in
conjunction with fyuxérec, and specifies the aim towards which the dyvifew
is to be directed. Sanctification towards love, by the putting away of all
selfishness, must ever precede love itself. — g:AadeAgia, love of the brethren
peculiar to Christians: cf. 2 Pet. i. 7; Rom. xii. 9,10; 1 Thess. iv. 9.—
With dvumoxperoc, cf. 1 John iii. 18, where true unfeigned love is described. —
bx (xaQapdc) xapdiag is not to be joined with what precedes, — it being thus a
somewhat cumbrous adjunct, — but with what follows, setting forth in relief
an essential element of love; with the expression éx xapdiac, cf. Rom. vi. 17;
Matt. xviii. 35 (ard rév xapdusv buoy); on the Rec. éx xadapds xupdias, see 1 Tim.
1 Hofmann declares himself opposed to both
of these interpretations, or rather he seeke to
unite them after a fashion, by assuming that
the participial clause partakes of the impera-
tive tone of the principal clause. He likewise
characterizes personal purification, presup-
posed by that love which {is ever and avon
manifested, as that which should have been
accomplished once for all (as {If it were possible
to command that something should have taken
place); he then adds that he who has not yet
dedicated his soul to brotherly love must do
go still (!).
* Schott leaves this religious reference en-
tirely unnoticed. He states that the original
meaning of the word ayvos,‘‘ is that purity of
mind which regarde one thing only as the
foundation and aim of all practical life, — the
truly moral.’’ Cremer, too, thinks that
although originally it had the religious sense
** to dedicate,’’ it ie (John xi. 55, Acts xxi. 24,
26, xxiv. 18, excepted) as a term. techn. foreign
to the N. T., and is here only equal to ‘to
purify,” “to cleanse"? (without the secondary
meaning ‘‘ to dedicate '’).
3 Calvin's limitation of the idea {s arbitrary :
““veritatem accipit pro regula, quam nobis
Dominus in evangelio praescribit.”’
CHAP. I. 23. 287
i. 5.1 — ddAqdouc dyangoare éxrevic)}. dyandy is not to be limited, as Wiesinger
proposes, “to the manifestation of love in act;” the passages, chap. iv. 8,
1 John iii. 18, do not justify this limitation. —éxrevag, “with strained ener-
gies ;"’ it denotes here “the persevering intensity of lore” (in like manner,
Weiss, p. 336; Fronmiiller, Hofmann); Luther translates “ardently ;”
Schott without any reason asserts that in all the N. T. passages the word is
used only in the temporal sense of duration, and therefore is so to be taken
here; Luke xxii. 24, Acts xii. 5, xxvi. 7,1 Pet. iv. 8, are evidence not for,
but against, Schott’s assertion. The chief emphasis lies not on dyamjaare,
but on tx (xa@apdc) xapdias and éxrevinc.
Ver. 23. dvayeyevvnuévo gives the ground of the preceding exhortation,
by referring to the regeneration from incorruptible seed already accom-
plished, which, as it alone renders the dyax@y éxrevog possible, also demands
it. Luther: “as those who are born afresh;’’ cf. 1 John iv. 7, v. 1. This
regeneration is described, as to the origin of it, by the words which follow,
and withal in such a way that here, as in ver. 18, the position is strengthened
by placing the negation first. — ov« é« omopdc gOapric, GAAG agduprov]. omopd,
strictly, “the sowing, the begetting,” is not here used with this active force
(Aretius: satio incorrupta h. e. regeneratio ad vilam aeternam. Fronmiiller:
“the energizing principle of the Holy Spirit”), but it is “seed,” because, as
De Wette says, the epithet suggests the idea of a substance. By czopa péapry
is to be understood not the semen fruygum, but the semen humanum (De Wette,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, Hofmann); cf John i. 13. — The question arises,
in what relation do é« omopd¢ dpduprov and did Adyov stand to one another?
The direct connection of the figurative expression (o7opa) with the literal
(Adyoc), and the correspondence which evidently exists between cpéaprov and
Gavros x. uévovroc, do not allow of the two ideas being considered as different,
nor of cropa being taken to denote the “ Holy Spirit” (De Wette-Briickner).
On the other hand, the difference of the prepositions points to a distinction
to which, from the fact that oxopa is a figurative, Ao)oc a real appellative
(Gerhard, Weiss, Schott),? justice has not yet been done. The use of the
two prepositions is to be understood by supposing a different relation of
the same thing (of the Asyor) to the regeneration; in ¢g we have its point
of departure, and net merely its “originating cause” (Hofmann) ;8 we have
1 Thie participial clauge joins itself natur.
ally with what precedes, and is not, with
Hofmann, to be taken with what follows
(chap. fi. 1); awoOéuevor, as ody shows, begins
a new sentence. The connection proposed by
Hofmann would give rise to a very clumay
phraseology. Were it true that regeneration
has nothing to do with brotherly love, then of
course neither has it any thing to do with the
laying aside of those luste which are oppoaed
to love, spoken of in chap. ii. 1. Hofmann
says, indeed, that chap. il. 1 describes the
contraries of amwAorys (childlike simplicity),
not of diAaseAdia; but is not the opposite of
the one the opposite of the other also? The
construction in Rom. xiii. 11 ff. is only in
appearance similar to that which Hofmann
understands as occurring here.
? Weles is of opinion that, as an explana.
tion of the metaphor, 8:4 only can be employed
with Adyos, not éx, which belongs exclusively
to the figure. Thjs ie, however, incorrect;
&a would doubtless not have been suited to
anopa, but é« might very well have been used
with Adyov (cf. John iii. 5), indeed, must have
been so if the Adyos itself were regarded as
oropa. The two prepositions express, each of
them, a different relation.
3 Also in the passages quoted by Hofmann,
John i. 13, ti. 5; Matt. 1. 18, —ex« indicates
more than a mere causal action.
238 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the word of God looked upon as the principle implanted in man working
newness of life (6 Adyoc Eugvroc, Jas. 1. 21); dia, on the other hand, points to
the outward instrumentality by which the new life is effected. — dé Adyou
Gavroc Ozod xal pévovtoc refers back to ver. 22: év ry vraxog rig dAnd.; the Chris-
tian is laid under obligation to continued sanctification év iz. r. dA., inasmuch
as he has been begotten again to newness of being, by the word of God, i.e.,
the word of truth. —Adyog Oecd is every word of divine revelation; here
especially the word which, originating in God, proclaims Christ, i.e., the
gospel. Schwenkfeld erroneously understands by it the Johannine Logos,
which, indeed, even Didymus had considered possible. —On the construc-
tion of the adj. {ivro¢ and pévovroc, Calvin says: possumus legere tam sermonem
viventem Dei, quam Dei viventixs; he himself prefers the second combination ;
thus also Vulg., Oecuin., Beza, Hensler, Jachmann, etc. Most interpreters
give preference, and with justice, to the first, for which are decisive both the
contents of the following verses, in which the emphasis is laid, not on
the abiding nature of God, but of the word of God, and the position of the
words — otherwise (évror, on account of the subsequent xai pévovroc, must
have stood after @cos. The superaddition of pévovrog arises from the circum-
stance that this attribute is deduced from the previous one, and is brought
in so a8 to prepare the way for the passage of Scripture (ver. 25: pévec) (De
Wette).1 The characteristics specified by these attributes are applicable to
the word of God, not in its form, but in its inner substance. It is living in
essence as in effect; and it is enduring, not only in that its results are
eternal, but because itself never perishes. If the subjoined ei¢ rdv aidva be
spurious, then without it the vévew must not be limited to the present life.?
Vv. 24, 25. Quotation from Isa. x]. 6, 8, slightly altered from the LXX.
in order to confirm the eternal endurance of the word by a passage from the
Old Testament.* — dir, as in ver. 16; the passage here quoted not only
confirms the idea pévovroc, but it gives the reason why the new birth has
taken place through the living and abiding word of God (so, too, Hofm.).
The reason is this, that it may be a birth into life that passes not away. —
maca ops, i.e., mac dvOpwroc; CARO fragilitatem naturae indicat (Aretius) ; not
“all creature existence,” embracing both stones and plants, etc. (Schott),
for of a plant it cannot be said that it is &¢ ydproc.— o¢ xoprog is to be found
1 Hofmann strangely enough explains the
position of @eov by assuming it to be placed
as an apposition between the two predicates to
which it serves as basis; he accordingly thinks
the words should be written thus: da Acyou
Gwyros, Qeov, cat sevortos (!).
3 The word, as the revelation of the Spirit,
ise eternal, although changeable, according to
ite form; to the word also applies what Paul
says (1 Cor. xv. 54): “this corruptible shall
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put
on immortality.” Luther admirably says:
‘“*The word is an eternal, divine power. For
although voice and speech pase away, the
kernel remalna, i.e., the understanding, the
truth which the voice contained. Just as,
when I put to my lips a cup which contains
wine, I drink the wine, although I thrust not
the cup down my throat. Thus it is with the
word which the voice utters; it drops fnto
the heart, and becomes living, although the
voice :emains outside and passes away. There.
fore it is indeed a divine power, it is God
Himeelf.”
5 The context in no way Indicates that the
apostic had particularly deslred to make em-
phatic “that natural nationalities, with all
their glory, form but a tle for these earthly
periods of ime” (Schott).
CHAP. I. 25. 239
neither in the Hebrew text nor in the LX X. —xa? mioa défa abr; instead of
abric, the LX.X. have dvépdrov; in Hebrew, 1301). Incorrectly, Vorstius: Ap.
nomine carnis et gloriae ejus intelligtt praecipue legem Mosis et ductrinas hominum ;
Calvin, again rightly: omne id quod in rebus humanis magnificum dicitur. —
éEnpdvOn 6 xoproc, x.7.A., gives the point of comparison, that wherein the odp£
and its défa resemble the yépro¢ and its dv@oc; but it does not emphatically
assert that ‘‘ the relation of the flesh to its glory in point of nothingness is
quite the same as that of the grass in its bloom” (Schott). —xai 7d dr6o¢
airov tééimece]. avrov, if it be the true reading, is an addition made by Peter,
for it is to be found neither in the LXX. nor in the Hebrew text. By the
preterites ténpavén and égémece the transitoriness is more strongly marked ;
cf. Jas. i. 11, v. 2. — Ver. 25. Instead of xvpiov, the LX-X. have rov Ocov jucv,
INTIIN. xvoiov can hardly have been written on purpose by Peter “ because
he had in his mind Christ’s word” (Luthardt). James refers to the same
passage here cited by Peter, without, however, quoting it verbatim. — In the
following words the apostle makes the application: roiro dé gory], rodto is
not used “substantively, as the predicate of the sentence, equal to that
is, namely, eternally abiding word of God is, the word of God preached
among you” (Schott); but it refers back simply to the preceding rd pijya xvpiov,
and is equivalent to, “this word, of which it is said that it remaineth for-
ever, is the word which has been preached among you.” — rd pia rd ebayye-
A:cdév}. Periphrasis for the gospel. In the O. T. it denotes the word of
promise, here the gospel. Peter identifies them with each other, as indeed
in their inmost nature they are one, containing the one eternal purpose of
God for the redemption of the world, distinguished only according to dif-
ferent degrees of development. — ei¢ tudes, i.e., tuiv; in the expression here
used, however, the reference to the hearers comes more distinctly into promi-
nence (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 9, and Linemann in loc.). —In the last words Peter
has spoken of the gospel preached to the churches to which he writes, as the
word of God, by which his readers are begotten again of the incorruptible
seed of divine life, so that as such, in obedience to the truth thus commu-
nicated to them, they must sanctify themselves to unfeigned love of the
brethren.
240 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. Instead of toxpicets, B reads tmoxpiowv; correction after the pre-
ceding doAov, with which it is in signification closely linked on. In like manner
.the reading macav xatadAadiay, & (pr. m.), for nacag xaradadiag, is to be taken as
an alteration. In’ A, some vss., tacac is wanting before xaradadiac ; it could
easily have fallen aside, inasmuch as the two preceding words are without
adjectives. — Ver. 2. After até767re, most codd. (A, B, C, K, P, &, al.), ete,
read: ei¢ owrypiav (accepted by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.). The adjunct
is wanting in the Rec. (after L, and several min.); it may be omitted, inasmuch
as an adjunct of this kind is not necessary to the words, é aire abéndjre.
Ver. 3. The Rec. eimep, after C, K, L, P, al., Vulg. (si tamen), is retained by
Tisch. 7; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 and Lachm. have adopted the simple el.
This is supported by A, B, & (m. pr. C has corrected eltep), Cyr., Clem. The
Rec. seems to have made the alteration for the sake of the sense. — Ver. 5.
Instead of olxodopueiobe (Tisch. 7), A**, C, &, several min., Vulg., Cyr. read ézroixo-
doueiobe (Tisch. 8), which, however, seems to be a correction after Eph. if. 20. —
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read the prep. ei¢ between olxog mvevuarixog and leparevpa
ay.ov, after A, B, C, &, 5, al., several vss., and K, V. The common reading is
supported by K, L, P, many min., Vulg., other versions, Clem., etc.; Tisch. 7
has retained it; De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, have in like manner
declared themselves in favor of the Rec. ; De Wette speaks of the interpolation
of elc, ‘Sas facilitating a transition, otherwise abrupt, to another conception;”
on the other hand, Briickner and Hofmann prefer the other reading, which is
attested by weightier witnesses. The e¢ may be omitted, inasmuch as the
thought might seem inappropriate that an olxo¢ should be built up to an
(eparevpa, — t~ before Geo is doubtful ; for it, are L, P, etc.; against, A, B, C,
®, al. Lachm. and Tisch. have doubtless correctly omitted it. — Ver. 6. dor,
with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., etc., according to almost all the authorities,
instead of the Rec. 60 xa, which is to be found only in min. and in Orig. —
iv ty ypagy]. Rec., after K, L, P, several min., etce.; Tisch. reads, after A, B,
&, 38, 73, é» ypaoy; Lachm. has adopted 7 ypag7, which is found in C, several
min., Vulg., Hier., Aug. This last reading seems, however, to be only a correc-
tion, in order to avoid the difficulty which lies in connecting the verb wepuyee
with é» (ry) ypag7.— Instead of ét airy, & (pr. m.) has éx’ atrov, which is not
supported by other witnesses. — Ver. 7. Instead of the dreovow of the Rec.,
after A, K, L, P, etc. (Tisch. 7, Lachm., Buttm.), Tisch. 8, after B, C, 8, al.,
has adopted amorovory Perhaps the Rec. is a correction after ver. 8, — Ai6ov].
Rec., after C**, K, L, P, & (pr. m.). al., Thph. — Retained by Tisch.; in its
stead Lachm. has A:6o¢ ; this reading is found in A, B, C*, several min., Oec.
Since in Greek 1t is by no means uncommon that the substantive is often put
CHAP. II. . 241
in the same case as the relative which it precedes, Ai6ov need occasion no sur-
prise ; as, in addition to this, A/@ov is found in the LXX., Aidoc seems to have
been the original reading, which became changed into Aidov, following the LXX.
and the common usage in Greek. — The words Aidog . . . ywviac xai are wanting
in the Syr. ver.; Grotius, Mill, Semler, Hottinger, therefore consider them
spurious, for which, nevertheless, sufficient justification is wanting. — Ver. 11.
amexecda], Rec., after B, K, &, several min., vss., and K, V; retained by Lachm.
and Tisch., whilst A, C, L, P, several min., read azéyeoe, which Buttm. has
adopted ; see on this the commentary ; Lachm. adds tyds, after the Vulg., as
Tisch. remarks, ‘‘ ex errore de C.’’ — Ver. 12. Instead of éxorrevoayrec, Rec.,
after A, K, L, P, al., érorrevovres must be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., after
B, C, &, al., Thph., Oec.; on account of the dogaowow following, the present
could easily have been changed into the aorist. — Ver. 13. taoraynre ovv], Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 omit ovv, after A, B, C, &, al., Didy., Cassiod.; ov» (Tisch. 7) is sup-
ported only by K, L, P, many min., etc.; it is possible that ovy was interpolated
in order to obtain a firmer connection of thought. In Cod. & (pr. m.) Gvépurivg
is wanting, but is supported by almost all witnesses. — Ver. 14. The Rec., fol-
lowing C and several min., retains uév after éxdixnow, which had been rightly
rejected already by Griesbach. — Ver. 18. & has after decorate the pron. tbuov, —
Ver. 19. — Different adjuncts to yapt¢ are found in different codd., as Oecd, Gea,
napa Oey, Rapa te Oey, which have been all interpolated later, in order to define
the idea more precisely. —Several min. and C have, instead of cuveidyow Ve0d :
ouveidnow ayaéyv ; in A* both readings are combined : ovveidnow Oeod ayabiy. —
Ver. 20. The Rec. has rovro xup¢ ; this reading Tisch. 8 has retained, as he
asserts, following B, C, K, L, P, &, etc.; on the other hand, Lachm., Buttm.,
Tisch. 7, read tovro ydp zap, after A. According to Buttm., this reading is
found also in B (& ?). — Ver. 21. The codices vary between the Rec. (ed. Elzev.)
trip tuov, tuiv, which is found in A, B, C, &, several min., Oec., Amb., etc.
(Lachm., Tisch. 8) ; tzép quar, tyiv in K, L, P, al., Slav., Vulg., Cyr., etc. (Scholz,
Tisch. 7, Reiche), and trip quov, nuiv, in several min., etc. (Rec.). Tisch.
remarks : Nil probabilius quam jyiv vuiv in caussa fuisse, cur bis ab aliis ipiv ab
aliia nuiv scriberetur. Quod tota oratio ad lectores incitandos instituta est, id
emendatori magis tyiv quam guiv commendabat. According to almost all the
authorities, vuiv is the original reading ; it is possible that, in accordance with
it, 7uov was changed into tucy; it is also possible that the application of Xp.
éxatev to the readers alone seemed inappropriate to the copyist, and that he
changed oye into nuov. Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. hold jycv, and Brickner
tuav, to be the original reading ; the weightiest authorities decide for tuov, —
e reads azéGavev instead of éradev, supported by general testimony, and in ver.
23, éAoddpe: (pr. m.) instead of avreAowddper, — Ver. 24. The adrod after uodwm
(Rec.) is supported only by L, P, & (pr. m.), 40, al., Thph., Oec., whilst A, B, C,
K, have it not ; Lachm. has accordingly omitted it, whilst Tisch., on the other
hand, has retained it. Although abrov is in itself the more difficult, still, on
account of the preponderating evidence against it, it can hardly be regarded as the
original reading ; its addition can be explained also partly from the endeavor to
form this relative clause as similarly as possible to the preceding dr . . . atrdg,
partly from the circumstance that it Is to be found in Isa. Hil. 5, LXX.; although
Tisch. says: ob . . . abrov emendatori deberi incredibile est ; nec magis credi-
bile abrot ex LX X. inlatum esse servato inepte ob. Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott,
Hofm., hold abrod to be original. — Ver. 25. rAavopueva} Rec., after C, K, L, P,
etc., Thph., Oec.; on the other hand, Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, k,
212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
etc., Tol., Harl., Fulg., have adopted Aavapevo:, which is probably the original
reading ; the change into mAavayeva was very natural, on account of the tpofara
immediately preceding.
Vv. 1,2. dmodéuevoe obv . . . éximo@joare]. The admonition which com-
mences here stands, as ovy shows, in close conrection with what precedes.
In ver. 22 the apostle had exhorted to unfeigned love one of another, which
love he shows to be conditioned by dyvitey tv rg bnaxog tie candela, and
grounded on dvayeyevyqurvoy elvas; from this deducing the dmoritecta méicav
xaxiav,x.7.A., he now exhorts énirodeiv rd Aoyuxdv yada. The apostle’s intention,
explaining at once the connection of this with the foregoing admonition, and
the relation in which the thought of the participial clause drodéuevor stands
to that of the imperative ér:mofjoare, is that the Christians should show
themselves réxva traxoze (i. 14), not each for himself, but united together,
AN oixog mvevyatixog (ver. 5), yévoc éxAexrov,'x.7.A. (ver. 9). Schott acknowledges
this reference (unjustifiably denied by Hofmann) to the unity of the church;
it explains why the apostle mentions those sins only which stand in direct
antagonism to the gAadeAgia awvrixpiroc (i. 22). The participle dropéuevor
stands to émmo@foare in the same relation as dvaf(woduevo: to éAnioare in chap.
i. 13; it is therefore not equal to postquam deposuistis, but expresses the
continued purification of the Christian; comp. Eph. iv. 22; Heb. xii. 1;
specially also Col. iii. 8; and for the whole passage, Jas. i. 21. — ndcav
xaxiav,x.7.A.]. Calvin: non est integra omnium enumeratio quae deponit a nobis
oportet, sed cum de veteri homine disputant A postoli, quaedam vitia praeponunt
in exemplum, quibus illius ingenium designant. xaxia means here, as in Col.
iil. 8, not generally, “ wickedness,” but specially “malice,” nocendi cupiditas
(Hemming). mdcav denotes the whole compass of the idea: “every kind of
malice.” The same is implied by the plural form in the words following
broxploet, etc. ; in macac xaradudlag both are combined. The same and simi-
lar ideas to those here expressed are to be found conjoined elsewhere in the
N. T.3 comp. Rom. i. 29, 30. “The admonitions which follow are in essen-
tial connection with this comprehensive exhortation; comp. chap. ii. 22 ff. ;
especially chaps. iii. 8 ff., iv. 8 ff., v. 2 ff.” (Wiesinger). For the force of
the separate terms, comp. lexicon.!— xaradadia occurs only here and in 2
Cor. xii. 20; in the classics the verb is to be found, never the subst. —
Ver. 2. dg dprtyévynta Bpéon is not to be connected with droséuevor, but with
what follows. It does not mark the childlike nature of the Christians, but,
in view of the goal of manhood yet afar off, is meant (referring to 1. 23:
avayeyevynpévor) to designate the readers as those who had but recently been
born again.? In Bengel’s interpretation: denotatur prima aetas ecclesiae
N. T., a false reference is given. to the expression. The particle dc is here
also not used with a comparative force only; comp. chap. i. 14. — 1d
Aoytxdv Gdodov yada tmmoGjoare], ydda is not here contrasted with Bpdya, as in
1 Augustin: ‘‘malitia maculo delectatur 2 It must be observed that the expression
alleno; invidia bono cruciatur alleno; dolus was used by the Jews also to designate the
duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat inguam; de- proselytes; corroborating passages in Wret-
trectatio vulnerat famam.’’ stein in loc.
CHAP. II. 1, 2. 243
1 Cor. iii. 2, or with orepec rpod7, a8 in Heb. v. 12; but it denotes the word
of God, in that it by its indwelling strength nourishes the soul of man.
The term yada, as applied by the apostle, is to be explained simply from
the reference to apriyévynra Epéon (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). This view
results quite naturally from the comparison with chap. i. 22, 23. If Peter
had intended to convey any other meaning, he would have indicated it so as
to have been understood.! — Aoyixév does not state an attribute of evangelical
doctrine: “rational ;” Gualther: quod tradit rationem vere credendi et vivendi,
not even in the sense that this (with Smaleius in Calov.) might be inferred:
nihi: credendum esse quod ratione adversetur ; but it is added in order to mark
the figurative nature of the expression yada (to which it stands related simi-
larly as in chap. i. 13: rij¢ cuav. bu. to rag dogtac), 80 that by it this milk is
characterized as a spiritual nourishment. Luther: “spiritual, what is drawn
in by the soul, what the heart must seek;” thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott,
Briickner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It has here the same signification as in
Rom. xii. 1, where it does not mean “rational” as contrasted with what is
external (De Wette). The interpretation on which Aeycoy yada is taken
as equal to ydda rot Acyov, lac verbale, is opposed to the usus loquendi (it is
supported by Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Hornejus, Bengel, Wolf, and others).
Nor less so is the suggestion of Weiss (p. 187), that by “Aoy«xoy is to be
understood that which proceeds from the Aoyog (i.e., Word);” thus ydda
Aoytxév would be the verbal milk of doctrine.2, The second adjective: ddoaw
(am, Aey.), strictly “without guile,” then “ pure, unadulterated,” is not meant
to give prominence to the idea that the Christians should strive to obtain
the pure gospel, unadulterated by heretical doctrines of man, but it specifies
purity as a quality belonging to the gospel (Wiesinger, Schott). It is,
besides, applicable, strictly speaking, not to the figurative yada, but only
to the word of God thereby denoted (Schott).4 — émmno@jcare expresses a
strong, lively desire, Phil. ii. 26. Wolf: Ap. alludit ad infantes, quos sponte
sua et impetu quodam naturali tn lac maternum ferri constat. The conjecture
of Grotius: émmorifere, is quite unnecessary. — iva tv abr avéndyre}]. iva, not
éxBarixcx, but redcnog; it states the purpose of the émmo@noure. év is more sig-
nificant than dia, equivalent to “in ts power.” The verb atvéné7re, used in
connection with dptryevy, Bpégn, denotes the ever further development and
strengthening of the new life. Although the aim which the apostle has in
1 Calvin understands ydAa to mean: “ vitae
ratio quae novam genituram sapiat;’’ Hem-
God is Christ Himself, who {fs preached and
revealed in the word.”
ming: ‘‘ consentanea simplici infantiae vivendi
ratio; Cornelius a Lapide: ‘‘symbolum can-
doris, sinccritatis et benevolentiae.” All these
interpretations are contradicted by the fact
that yada is not a condition of life, but means
of nourishment. It is altogether arbitrary to
explain yada to be the Lord's Supper (Eetius,
Turrianus, Salmeron), or as meaning Christ
as the incarnate Logos (Clemens Al. in Pue-
dag., i.c. 6; Augustin In Tract. fil., in 1 Zp.
John); Weilsa, too, is mistaken, when he says:
‘“‘The nourishment of the new-born child of
2 Besides, how doee this agree with Welss’s
opinion, that ydAa means Christ Himself?
The verdal Christ ?!
8 Wolf: ‘lac ddeAoy ideo appellari puto, ut
indicetur, operam dandam esee, ne illud tra-
ditionibus bumanis per cawyAevovtas Tov Acyov,
2 Cor. ff. 17, corruptum bauriatur.”
* Hofmann rightly observes: ‘ What tends
to the Christian’s growth may be compared
to the pure milk which makes the child to
thrive at its mother's breast, and therefore it
is termed ro Aoyixov aboAoy yada.”
244 — THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
view in his exhortation is to mark the destination of Christians to be an
olxog mvevyzarixéc, still it is incorrect to affirm that avéyezre has reference, not
to the growth of the individual, but (with Schott) only to the transforming
of the church as such, “to the conception of a building which is being
carried up higher and higher to its completion.” Apart from the fact that
aigdvecdat plainly refers back to aprey. Bvégn, aud is not equivalent to “to be
built up,” it must be remarked that the church can become what it should
be, only by individual members growing up each of them ever more and
more to the, darvap réAewc. — ei¢ owrnpiay, omitted in the Rec., states the final
aim of all Christian growth. Schott’s explanation, that by curnpia'“ the
fina] glorious transfiguration of the church” is meant, is only a consequence
of his erroneous and one-sided reference of the apostle’s exhortation to the
church as such.
Ver. 3. ef (elrep) tyeboaode, drt, x.7.A.]. Based on the Old Testament pas-
sage, Ps. xxxiv. 9: yeicacbe cal idere, drt xpnatds 6 xiptog; the words xal idere are
omitted, not being suitable to the figure yaAu.—e is here, as in ver. 17,
hypothetical indeed: “if,” but it does not express a doubt; thus Gerhard
correctly explains elmep: non est dubitantis, sed supponentis, quod factum sit.
Comp. Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thess. i. 6. — yetouar is used here of inward experi-
ence, comp. Heb. vi. 4, 5; it alludes to the figurative )a4a, inasmuch as the
Christian tastes, as it were, of the kindness of the Lord in the spiritual milk
tendered to him. The apostle takes for granted that the Christians had
already made inward experience of the goodness of their Lord (xipioc; in
the Psalms, God; here, Christ), not merely in the instruction which preceded
baptism, or in baptism itself (Lorinus), or cum jfidem evangelii susceperunt
(Hornejus), but generally during their life as Christians; as the new-born
child, not once only, but ever anew, refreshes itself on the nourishment
offered by a mother’s love. With such experience, it is natural that be-
lievers should ever afresh be eager for the spiritual nourishment, in the
imparting of which the xzpyororns of the Lord is manifested: nam gustus
provocat appetitum (Lorinus).!— ér, not equal to quam (Grotius), but “ that.”
— xpnoroc, “kind, gracious,” not exactly suavis (Grotius: uf a gustu sumta
translatio melius procedat); in this sense it would be more applicable to ydAa
than to xipioc. — Several interpreters assume that in ypyoréc Peter plays upon
the word Xpcoré¢; but this is more than improbable.
Vv. 4, 5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar to that of the
previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, externally (éy) as inter-
nally, inasmuch as the imperative (o/xodopeicbe) is preceded by a participle
(xpocepyouevn), and an adjunct introduced by cs, defining the subject more
nearly. — Starting from 6 xipsc the apostle says: mpdc dv mpocepxouevat]. mpooép-
xeoda (elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the dative) denotes the
going spiritually to the Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in
1 Schott insista “ that the apostle is not here Nothing in the context indicates that that in
anxious about the readers’ desire in general which the xpnordérns of the Lord is manifested
for the word, but that such desire should be is ‘those rare moments of heavenly joy in
combined with the purpose of finally attaining which this life is a foretaste of eternal glory "
salvation.”” But is there anywhere a desire (Schott).
after the word of God without such intent?
CHAP. II. 4, 5. 245
union with Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming
united ever more completely with Him (thus also Hofmann).! Luther,
incorrectly: “to whom ye have come,” as if it were the part. praet.; Hor-
nejus well puts it: non actum inchoatum, sed continuatum designat. — Aidov Gavra,
in apposition to dy; it is not necessary to supply o (Wolf). What follows
shows that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the prophecies,
Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. xxviii. 16 (cf. Matt. xxi. 42; Acts iv.11; Rom. ix. 33).
The want of the article points to the fact that the apostle was more con-
cerned to lay stress on the attribute expressed in Aiduc Gv, than to draw
attention to the fact that in these passages of the O. T. Christ is the prom-
ised Aivoc. In using this term, Peter had already in view the subsequent
olxodoyeiade. The church is the temple of God, the individual Christians are
the stones from which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on
which it rests. In order that the church may become ever more completed
as a temple, it is necessary that the Christians should unite themselves ever
more closely with Christ. The apostle enlarges on this thought with refer-
ence to those predictions. — The explanatory adjective is added, as in ver. 2,
to the figurative A:dov; and by it, on the one hand, the expression is marked
as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger); and, on the other, the
nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. (ovra is to be taken here as in John
vi. 51 and similar passages. Flacius, correctly: dicitur Christus lapis vivus,
non tamen passive, quod tn semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, quia nos mortuos
vivifical.2?— vrd avOpuTtuv uiv drodedoxysaopévov, & nearer definition, according
to Ps. cxviii. 22 What is there said specially of the builders, is here
applied generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may be
obtained to the mapa de Oem. The want of the article ro» does not warrant
a toning-down of the interpretation to mean “by men,” i.e., by some or by
many men (Hofmann). The thought is general and comprehensive; the
article is wanting in order to emphasize the cliaracter of those by whom
Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers are here
regarded “as an exception” (Steiger). — mapa dé Oe éxAexrdv, Evriwov, after
Isa xxviii. 16; Peter has, however, selected two attributes only; that is to
say, he passes over the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation
to the building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of Ged”
(Steiger). Both adjects. form the antithesis to dmodedox.; éxAexrog is neither
equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to mpoeyvwopevoc (Steiger); but “elect,” ie.,
1 The single passage, 1 Macc. ii. 16, by no
means proves that spocdpxec@ar wpds has in
itself a stronger force than wpocdpyx. cum dat.
(as against Hofmann). According to Schott,
by mpoodpx. is meant: “not the individual
Christian’s deepening experience of commu-
nity of life with Christ, but only the conduct
of the believer, by which, as a member of the
church, he gives himself up to the Lord as
present in His church, in fact to the church
itaelf”'!
2 De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and
Steiger) is right in refusing to see here any
reference to the conception of the sazum
vioum as opposed to broken stones (Virg.,
4en., i. 171; Ovid., Setam., xiv. 741). Inap-
propriate is Schott’s opinion, ‘* that ga» indi-
cates that by the self-unfolding(!) of His
divinely human life, Christ causes the charch
to grow up from Himeelf the foundation
stone." Hofmann would erroneously exclude
the second of the above-mentioned ideas from
the A:@ov Geavra, although ft le clearly indicated
by the very fact that, through connection with
the atone, Christians themselves become living
stones.
246 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
chosen as the object of love; cf. 1 Tim. v. 21. — rapa Ged, not a Deo (Vulg.),
but évaémov rod Geos, coram Deo, Deo judice, “with God.” Worthy of note is
the “antagonism between the human judgment and the divine” (Wiesinger),
the former given effect to in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of
Christ. — Ver. 5. «al atrol we Aidoe Savreg oixodoueiobe], xal atrod places the
Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger inappropriately takes awroi as
also applying to the verb oixodoz.). As He is a living stone, so are they also
living stones, i.e., through Him. The explanation: cum lapidibus comparan-
tur homines, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur (Carpzov, Morus), is
inadequate. Further, oc ido Govrec states the qualities which the readers
already possessed, not those which they were to obtain only through the
oixodoueicvac (Schott); that unto which they should be built is stated in what
follows. — oixodoueio#e is, according to the structure of the sentence, not in-
dicative! but imperative.2 The objection that the verses following are
declarative, may be quite as well used for the imperative force of that which
precedes them.® If vv. 4, 5, serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation,
this turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several interpreters (as
Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal form as middle; it is
passive; “be ye built up,” ie., “let yourself be built up,” i.e., by Christ, as
the foregoing xpdc dv xpooepyouevan shows. Corresponding with the reading
érouxodoueiode super illum, i.e., Christum, is generally understood; an unneces-
sary supplement; the thought is: that (not on which) the Christians should
let themselves be built up, to that, namely, which the following words state.
— olxoc mvevuarixds tic iepdrevua Gytov]. In the Rec. without cic the two concep-
tions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the ofxodousiodac: “to the spiritual
house, to the holy priesthood ;” but if the reading olx. mv. cic iepar. ay. be adopted,
then “iepar, dy. is the further result of the being built up to the spiritual
house” (Brickner). Hofmann holds that olxog rv. is in apposition to the
subject contained in ofxodoyeiode, and that cic iepatevua dy. alone is directly
dependent on oixodoueio#e; the former view is, however, more expressive,
inasmuch as it prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to
@ spiritual house. olaoc rv. contains the expression of the passive, iepar. dy.,
on the other hand, that of the active relation of the church to God (Wie-
singer, Schott, Bruckner). The dissimilarity of the two ideas seems to be
opposed to the reading ec, since an olxog cannot be transformed into a ispa-
revoua; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered that the house here
spoken of is built of living stones. It is clearly not the case that e’¢ serves
only to facilitate an otherwise abrupt transition to a new idea (De Wette,
Wiesinger). — oixog means, in the first instance, “house,” and not “ temple;”
nor does the attribute rvevyaruds mark it as a temple. We must either hold
1 Hornejus, Bengel, Gerhard, etc.; more
recently, Wiesinger, Welss, Hofmann.
3 Beza, <Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, De
Wette-Briickner, Luthardt, Schott, etc.
8 The structure of the clause ia in favor of
the imperative, inasmuch as it ie thus brought
into conformity with the imperative preceding.
When [ofmann asserts that the sentence must
necessarily be indicative in form, ‘ because
the words subjoined to xpnards 6 cvpros must
state that to which the goudness of Christ
brings them,” he does so without reason, for
the clauec may also state that to which they
should allow the goodness of Christ to lead
them.
CHAP. II. 4, 5. 247
by the conception “house” (Luthardt, Hofmann), or assume that by the
house Peter thought of the temple. The latter view deserves the preference
on account of the close connection with what follows: comp. the passages
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 1 Pet. iv. 17. — mvevuaruds is the house
raised from “living stones,” in contradistinction to the temple built from
dead ones, inasmuch as their life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears
His nature on it.2 — deparevua is here not the “ office of priest” (2 Macc. ii. 17),
but the “ priesthood” (comp. Gerhard: coetus s. collegium sacerdotum); comp.
ver. 9; Exod. xix. 6; “not instead of levels Gyo, but including the essential
idea of a community” (De Wette). It has unjustly been maintained that
if the reading ele be adopted, leparevxua must be understood of the priestly
Office. dywv subjoined to iepirevza does not mark a characteristic of the
ieparevua of the New as distingnishing it from that of the Old Testament,
but one which belongs essentially to the leparevua (of course “as ordained by
God,” Hofmann) as such. Tere, too, there lies in the connection of thought
@ special emphasis on dyiv, inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly
calling cannot be truly fulfilled. — dvevéyxas rvevpartixds @voiac is closely con- °
joined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T., 317]) and purport with
what precedes, pointing out as it does the function of the leparevya. This
consists, as under the Old Covenant, in offering sacrifice. The word dva-
géoav, which ig never used by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in
the LXX., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of James, the
meaning “to sacrifice ;” strictly speaking, “to bring the offering to the altar.”
— The @voia which the N. T. priesthood, i.e., the Christian Church in all
its members, has to offer, are called rvevyarai, because they have their origin
in the rveiya, and bear on them its nature and essence.* Cf. with this Rom.
xii. 1; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. — edrpoodexrove rH Oed). ebapdodexrog (Rom. xv. 16),
equivalent to evdpecroe (Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Phil. iv. 18, and other pas-
sages). — dia "Inovi Xpisrov belongs not to olxodopeiode (Beda), but either to
ebnpood. t, Ged (Luther: per Christum fit, ut et mea opera a Deo aestimentur,
quae alias non culmo digna haberet; Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofmann,
etc.), or to dvevéyxas (Grotius, Aretius, De Wette, Weiss, etc.).4 No doubt
Heb. xili. 15 might be appealed to in support of the latter construction ;
but in favor of the former are, (1) That the dvevéyxa: as a priestly function
stands in such close connection with iepdrevua Gy., that it seems out of place
1 Luthardt: “‘oixos is not equal to vads ;
nor in the context is a temple alluded to, for
the emphasis lies on wvevsariacds. olxos is
chosen because of oicoSopeioGe: be ye built as
a epiritual house! To this is joined, ‘to an
holy priesthood.’ ”’
* Schott finds the antithesis therein, that In
the O. T. temple “ the indwelling of God was
confined to the holy of holies, and visible to
the eye’ (?); whilet, on the contrary, in the
Christian Church there is ‘a real and direct
indwelling of God.”
3 Calvin says in what they consist: ‘inter
hostias spirituales primum locum obtinet
generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre
quicquam possumus Deo, donec illi nos ipsoe
in sacrificilum obtulerimus, quod fit noetri
abnegatione; sequuntur postea preces et gra-
tlarum actiones, eleemosynae et omnia pietatis
exercitia.’’
¢ Briickner and Schott think it is correct to
connect &a ‘I. Xp. not with aver¢ycar only, but
with the entire thought; but it is self-under-
stood that in the first combination, not the
mere avaddpey, but the avadepery mvevpariaas
Ovoias, «.t.A., must be cousidered as effected
by Christ.
248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
to suppose a medium (da ‘Ino. Xp.) in addition; and (2) With dvevéyxa: mvevu.
@voiag the idea is substantially completed, ebxpood, being a mere adjunct, to
which therefore dia ’1. Xp. also belongs.
REMARK. — In this description of the Christians’ calling, the apostle’s first
object is not to state the difference between the church of the Old and that of
the New Covenant, but to show distinctly that in the latter there is and should
have been fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the former, but
had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatisfactory way. The points of
difference are distinctly set forth. Israel had a house of God; the Christian
Church is called to be itself that house of God. That house was built of inani-
mate stones, this of living stones ; it is a spiritual house. Israel was to be a
holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular priesthood introduced into
the church ; the Christian Church is called to be a leparevya ayov in this sense,
that each individual in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The
sacrifices which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like ; those
of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, through Christ,
well-pleasing to God. — The idea of a universal priesthood, here expressed, is
opposed not only to the catholic doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all
teaching with regard to the office of the administration of word and sacrament
which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in the church, resting
on divine mandate, and necessary for the communication of salvation (i.e.,
priestly importance).
Ver. 6 gives the ground for the exhortation contained in vv. 4, 5, by a
quotation of the passage, Isa. xxviii. 16, to which reference was already
made in ver. 4. — dre]. cf. 1. 24. — mepeéyer tv 19 ypagy: an uncommon con-
struction, yet not without parallel; see Joseph., Anit., xi. 7: BotAoua: yiveobat
mavra, nada év abrp (1.e., émoroAy) mepiéyec; indeed, sepiéxyev is more than once
used to denote the contents of a writing, see Acts xxiii. 25; Joseph., Antt.,
xi. 9: nal 9 pév éxiotoAy ravta mepesizxev. Either 4 repwoyy (or 6 rémoc) must, with
Wahl, be supplied here as subject; or, better, repeeye: must be taken imper-
sonally as equal to continetur; cf. Winer, p. 237 [E. T., 252]; Buttmann,
p. 126 [E. T., 144]. — The words of the passage in the O. T. (Isa. xxviii.
16) are quoted neither literally from the LXX. nor exactly according to the
Hebrew text. Inthe LXX. it is: ldov, tya éuBadaw el¢ rd Oeuedia Teoy (instead
of which we have here, exactly as in Rom. ix. 33: idod, ri@qus dv Seadv) 2idov
moduteA (this adject. here omitted) éxAexrdv dxpoywriaiov (these two words
here transposed) évriuov ei¢ ra Oeuédta adtig (the last two words eic¢ . . . avrig
here left out) xai6 mortebwy (éu’ avr added) ob ya xatacyvvd7 (Rom. ix. 33:
kai rac 6 motetwy én’ abre ob xatatoxuv0nnerac). Whatever may be understood
by the stone in Zion, whether the theocracy, or the temple, or the house of
David, or the promise given to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, 16 (Hofmann), this
passage, which certainly has a Messianic character,— inasmuch as the
thought expressed in it should find, and has found, its fulfilment in Christ,
— jis not here only, but by Paul and the Rabbis (see Vitringa, Ad. Jes., I.
p. 217), taken to refer directly to the Messiah, who also, according to Delitzsch
(cf. in loc.), iy directly meant by the stone (“this stone is the true seed of
CHAP. II. 7. 249
‘David, manifested in Christ”). Luther, following Oecumenius and Theo-
phylactus, assumes that Christ is called Aidoc dxpoywv. because He has united
Jew and Gentile together, and out of both collected the one church; this
Calvin, not entirely without reason, calls a subtilius philosophart. In the
words: xual 6 morebuy, x.t.A., motevwy corresponds to npocepyiuevor, ver. 4. ob ud
xaraoyuveg does not refer to the glory which consists for the believer in this,
“that he, as a Aidoo (av, will form part of the olxog rv.”” (Wiesinger), but to
“the final glory of salvation which is the aim of the present moretew”
(Schott) ; cf. ver. 2: cig owrnpiav.}
Ver. 7. bpiv obv 4 tip toic morevovav]. Conclusion, with special reference to
the readers, iziv, drawn from ver. 6 (ovv), and in the first instance from the
second half of the O. T. quotation, for roic moretovow evidently stands related
to 6 morebuv én’ aito, hence the definite article. On the position of roi¢ mor.,
ef. Winer, p. 511 [E. T., 549]; only, with Winer, it must not be interpreted :
“as believers, i.e. if ye are believers,” but, ** ye who are believers.” — From
the fact that 4 riz? echoes évrivov, it must not be concluded that 4 riuy here
is the worth which the stone possesses, and that the meaning is: “the worth
which the stone has, it has for you who believe” (Wiesinger). The clause
would then have read, perhaps: ipiv obv o Aidoc tort H teuy, or the like. 7 ryzn
stands rather in antithesis to xaracyvy@jvar, and takes up positively what had
been expressed negatively in the verse immediately preceding. Gerhard:
vobis, qui per fidem tanquam lapides vivi super eum aedificamini, est honor coram
Deo (so, too, De Wette-Briickner, Weiss, Schott); duiv, sc. gore: “ yours there-
fore is the honor;” the article is not without significance here; the honor,
namely, which in that word is awarded to believers (Steiger). — roi¢ mored-
ovo: an explanatory adjunct placed by way of emphasis at the end. —
arebovot [amorovew] dé: antithesis to roig morevover ; aedeiv denotes not only
the simple not believing, but the resistance against belief; thus also amorovey
here, if it be the true reading. Bengel wrongly explains the dative by:
quod attinet; it is the dat. incommodi (Steiger, De Wette, etc.). The words:
Aifog (Aidov) . . . ywriac, are borrowed literally from Ps. cxviii. 22, after the
LXX. What is fatal for unbelievers in the fact that the stone is become
the corner-stone (xed. ywv. equals 1:0, dxpoy.) is stated in the following words,
which are taken from Isa. viii. 14: Sivan sax 4) 129.8 In a manner
similar, though not quite identical, these passages of the O. T. are woven
together by Paul in Rom. ix. 33. The words do not denote the subjective
conduct of the unbelievers (according to Luther, the occasion of stumbling
or offence which they find in the preaching of the cross), but the objective
destruction which they bring upon themselves by their unbelief (Steiger,
De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller); cf. Luke xx. 17, 18,
where the corner-stone is also characterized as a stone of destruction for
unbelievers. It is therefore without any foundation that Hofmann asserts
“the thought that, to the disobedient, Christ is become the corner-stone
1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that it ie as the corner-atone, must not be understood,
here said ‘‘ that ov 17 xara:oxvvOn ie meant to with Gerhard and Steiger, as one on which
call back to mind the eis cwrnpiay in ver. 2."” one stumbles and falls. This is not contained
2 Schott rightly obeerves that cegaAy ywvias, in the idea, corner-stone, in iteelf.
250 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
seems impossible,” if dmedotav be taken as the dat. incommodi. So that it:
is in no way necessary to accept a construction so uncommon as that adopted
by Hofmann, who considers the two clauses: tyiv . . . oixodouvivtes to be,
with an omitted dv, in apposition to the following otros, looking on 7 riuz as
a kind of personal designation of the stone, and separating the three follow-
ing expressions: ei¢ xed, ywr., 240. mpoxoup., and métpa cxavd. in such a way as
to refer the first to believers, and the other two to unbelievers, although no
such division is anywhere hinted at.
Ver. 8. of mpooxdrrover links itself on to dareGovot, x.7.A,: “that is, to those
who,” etc., not to what follows, as if eios were to be supplied: “they who
stumble are those who are,” etc. — zpooxérretv has here the same meaning
as that contained in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different;
there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, namely, the
ground of their destruction; here, on the contrary, that they are really
overtaken by this destruction; Lorinus explains mpuoxérrova incorrectly :
verbo offenduntur et scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loquuntur. —
T@) Avyw anewoivrec]. It is better to connect ro Adyw with areowwres than with
mpooxérrova (either: “who at the word are offended,” or: ‘“ who by the word
suffer hurt”). For, on the one hand, the leading idea spoon. would be
weakened by its connection with Acyw; and, on the other, the nearer defini-
tion requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes; it would, too, be
inappropriate “ that Ao)o¢ should of a sudden take the place of Christ, who
in ver. 7 is, as Aidoc, the object of xpoox.” (Briickner). Wolf: quit impingunt,
nempe: in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes: quo ipso et offensio
ipsa et ejus causa indicatur. — ec 6 nat érednoav}. eic 5 not equal to 颒 4, *‘on
account of which;” nor is it equal to ei¢ éy (se. Adyov or Aidov); Luther:
“on which they are placed ;” or, similarly, Bolten: “they stumble at that, on
which they should have been laid ” (he makes ei¢ 6 refer to the omitted object
of zpoox.), but it points rather to the end of ére@gcav.1 — rebyut 18 here, as
frequently in the N. T., ‘* to appoint, constituere” (cf. 1 Thess. v. 9). It is
clear from the connection of this verse with the preceding, that e/¢ 6 does not
go back to ver. 5 (Gerhard: in hoc posit sunt, videlicet, ul psi quoque in hunc
lapidem fide aedificarentur). It may be referred either to dzedev (Calvin,
Beza, Piscator, and others) or to xpooxorrev and dredeiv (Estius, Pott, De
Wette, Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger,? etc.), or, more correctly, to mpooxorrey
! The application to the Word or to Christ
occurs already in the older commentators;
thus Beda says. ‘in hoe positi sunt, i. e., per
naturam facti sunt homines, ut credant Deo et
ejus voluntati obtemperent;’? and Nicol. de
Lyra, applying it specially to the Jews: “illis
data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Christum
secundum quod dicitur Gal. iii. lex paedagogus
noeter fuit in Christo; et ipei pro majore
parte remaneerunt inereduli.”
2 Different interpreters seek in various ways
to soften the harshness of the idea here pre-
sented. Thus Estiua, by explaining é¢ré6ncay
only of the permission of God; Pott, by
paraphrasing the idea thus: “their lot seemed
to bring this with it; °° Wiesinger, by asserting
that ‘‘ the passage here speaks of the action of
God os a matter of history, not of His eternal
decrees.”’ But what justities any such soften-
ing down? While Hofmann, in the first
edition of his Schriflberceiz, 1., p. 210, says
precisely, **that God has ordained them to
this, that they should not become obedient
to His word, but should atumble at tt and fall
over it;"? in the second edition, I., p. 287, it
appears that the meaning only is, ‘that the
evil which befalls them in the very fact of
their not believing, ie ordained by God to
those who do not obey Eis mesenge of salva-
tion, as a punishment of their disposition of
CHAP. II. 9. 251
(Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), since on the latter
(not on credeiv) the chief emphasis of the thought lies, and ic 6, «.7.2.,
applies to that which is predicated of the subject, that is, of the dzedovvtec,
but not to the characteristic according to which the subject is designated.
The xpooxonrev it is to which they, the aze@oivvrec, were already appointed,
and witha] on account of their unbelief, as appears from the r@ Ady ames.
This interpretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, for
it is simply the moretovres and dredovvrec, together with the blessing and
curse which they respectively obtain, that are here contrasted, without
any reference being made to the precise ground of faith and unbelief.! —
Following the construction of ver. 7 adopted by him, Hofmann takes oi
mpooxornrovow not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but as protasis to
the subsequent «ic 6, which, according to him, contains the apodosis expressed
in the form of an exclamation. This interpretation falls with that of ver. 7.
Besides, it gives rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there
is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative pronoun,? or
the method here resorted to, of connecting apodosis with protasis. The
words are added by the apostle in order to show that the being put to shame
of unbelievers, takes place according to divine determination and direction.
Oecumenius 8 is not justified by the context in laying special stress on the
personal guilt of unbelief; or Aretius, in answering the question: quis autem
illog sic posuit? by non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit.
Ver. 9. tueic dé]. The apostle returns again to his readers, contrasting
them with the unbelievers (not “ with the people of Israel,” as Weiss thinks)
he had just spoken of. The nature of believers, as such, is described by the
same predicates which were originally applied to the O. T. church of God
(cf. Exod. xix. 5, 6), but have found their accomplishment only in that of
the N. T. Schott justly remarks that “what in ver. 5 had been expressed
in the form of an exhortation, is here predicated of the Christians as an
mind.” Schott agrees with this view. But in
it the idea of ere@ncay in relation to are:Bovpr-
ves is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott ex-
2 Vorstius, correctly : “‘ Increduli sunt desig-
nati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive
exitium sibi accersant sua incredulitate.”
preasly says that unbelievers, by their own
state of mind, ‘“‘appoint themselves to un-
belief,’’ he can look on unbellef only in so far
ae the result of a divine decree, that God has
determined faith to be impossible with a carnal
disposition. But a limitation of this kind fa
here all the more {nappropriate, that Peter fn
the passage makes no allusion to the disposi-
tion which lies at the foundation of unbellef.
Hofmann, in his commentary, aays: ‘it ie the
word which is preached to them that they
refuse to obey; but, by the very fact of their
doing so, they stumble at Christ and fall over
Him, as over a stone that Hea in the way.
Both are one and the same thing, named from
different sides; the one time from what they
do, the other from what {is done to them.”
Yet these are two different things; the one
the cause, the other the effect. ;
* Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Matt. xxvi.
50; but the interpretation of this passage is eo
doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; cf. the
various interpretations in Meyer on this
passage; in Winer, p. 157 (E. T., 167); in
Buttmann, p. 217.
8 Ovx ws ard rou @eov eis TovTO adwpicpe-
vows, eipnras: ovdeuia yap airita amwAaas mapa
Tou mavtas avOpwrous OeAovTos owOnvas BpaBeve-
Tat’ GAAG Tos €avTOIS TKEVT KaTHPTiKOCL Opyns
Kai 9 aweiOeca éxnxodovOnce, cat ets fy wapec-
kevacay éavrovs tafiy éeréOncay. Thus also
Didymue: ‘ad non credendum a semetipais
sunt positi;’"’ and Hornejus: ‘‘constituti ad
impingendum et non credendum Ideo dicuntur,
quia cum credere sermoni Dej nollent, sed
ultro eum repellerent, desert! a Deo sunt et
ipstus permissione traditi ut non crederent et
im pingerent.””
252 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
already present condition.” — yévog éxAexrov, after Isa. xliii. 20 CYMI ‘Dy,
LXX.: yévoc pov 1 éxAexrév); cf. also Deut. vii. 6 ff.; Isa. xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2,
xlv. 4, etc. This first designation sets forth that the Christians, in virtue
of God’s love, have been elected to be a people which no longer belongs to
this world; cf. chap. 1. 1. — Bacidewv lepdrevya, after Exod. xix. 6, LXX. (in
Hebrew 0°37 n3729, “a kingdom of priests”); most interpreters take it
as simple combination of the two ideas: “kings and priests.” Still, it is
more correct to regard lepdrevua as the principal idea (cf. ver. 3), and Basi-
Aecov a3 & nore precise definition: “a royal priesthood.” Several commen-
tators explain: “a priesthood possessing a royal character,” inasmuch as it
not only offers up sacrifices (ver. 5), but exercises sway (over the world) ;
cf. Rev. i. 6, v. 10 (Wiesinger). Weiss (p. 125), on the other hand: “a
priesthood serving Jehovah the King, just as we speak of the royal house-
hold.” Since all the other predicates express the belonging to God, the
second explanation deserves the preference, only it must be modified so far
as to include in aoiA. not only the relation of service, but that also of belong-
ing to and participation in the glory of the King founded thereon. Schott is
not justified in assuming that Peter did not intend to convey the force of
the Greek, but that of the Hebrew expression, 0°)719 N2799, namely: “a
kingdom which consists of priests.” It is inadequate to understand, with
Hofmann, by the term: “a priesthood of princely honors,” or Bacideov as
equal to, magnificus, splendidus (Aretius, Hottinger, etc.), or to find in it the
expression of the highest freedom! (subject only to God) (De Wette). —
Lovoc dywov in like manner after Exod. xix. 6, LXX. (WP ‘\3). —Aade cic
neptroinow]. Corresponding passages in the O. T. are Deut. vii. 6 (TAD Dy),
Mal. iii. 17 (71929), and especially Isa. xliii. 21, LXX.: Aasv pov dv epreroin-
cauny tag dperdg pov dinyetodae (3190 “non ” ‘AVS. N-DY). The words fol-
lowing show that the apostle had this last passage chiefly in his mind: still
it must be noted that this idea is contained already in Exod. xix. 5 (Aade
neptovaws). mepiroino is strictly the acquiring (Heb. x. 39); here, what is
acquired, possession ; neither destinatus (Vorstius) nor positus (Calovius) is to
be supplied to e/c, they would not correspond with the sense; elc is here to be
explained from Mal. iii. 17, LXX.: oovrai wo. . . ei¢ mepinoinaw; On eivar elc,
ef. Winer, p. 173 (E. T., 183 f.); in sense it is equivalent to Aad mepiovote,
Tit. ii. 14. Schott attributes to this expression an eschatological reference,
explaining: “a people destined for appropriation, for acquisition ;” this is
incorrect, for, understood thus, it would fall out of all analogy with the other
expressions. The apostle does not here state to what the Christian Church
is destined, but what she already is; “her complete liberation from all cosmic
powers is not,” as Briickner justly remarks, “an acquiring on God's side, but
only the final redemption of those whom He already possesses.” Schott’s
assertion, that in the N. T. mepervinac has always an eschatological reference,
is opposed by Eph. i. 14; cf. Meyer in loc. — Although a difference of idea
1 Clemens Al. interpreta: “‘regale,quoniam _ fit orationfbus et doctrinis, quibus adquirantur
ad regnum vocati sumus et sumus Christi animae, quae afferuntur Deo.”
sacerdotium autem propter oblationem quae
CHAP. II. 9. 253
founded on the etymologies of yévoc, E@voc, Aadc is not to be pressed ;! yet it
must be observed that by these expressions, as also by leparevua, Christians
are spoken of as a community united together in itself, and although diverse
as to natural descent, they, as belonging to God (and all the names employed
by the apostle point to this), form one people, from the fact that God has
joined them to Himself. — due rac aperdg éEayyeiAnre rod, x.7.2.]. Smwe connects
itself, after Isa. xliii. 21, in the first instance with what immediately goes
before, in such a way, however, that the preceding ideas point towards it as
their end. —rd¢ dperdc; thus the LXX. translate noAA in the above-men-
tioned passage (in general, in the LXX., dper# occurs only as the translation
of Wn, Hab. iii. 3, Zech. vi. 13; dperai as the translation of monn, Isa.
xlii. 8, 12, xliii, 21, and of NoTN, Isa. Ixiii. 7); accordingly the Alexan-
drine translators understand by Wand noAA in the passages in question,
not the “glory or praise” of God, but the object of the glory, that is, the
excellence or the glorious attributes of God. Peter took the word, in this
meaning of it, from them.? —éfayyecAnre}. Cf. Isa. xlii. 12, LXX.: rag dperac
avrov év rai¢ vnoorg anayyeAovat; ékayyéAAew; strictly, tis qui foris sunt nunciare
guae intus fiunt (Xen., Anab., ii. 4, 21), is employed for the most part without
this definite application; in the LXX. the translation of 190; in the N. T.
in this passage only; it is possible that Peter thought of the word here in
its original force (Bengel, Wiesinger). — rod éx oxdrove tude xadécavroc, 1.€.,
Gcov, NOt Xprorod; xadeiv is almost unifermly attributed to God. — cxoroug, not
equivalent to miseria (Wahl), but is used to designate the whole unhappy
condition of sin and lying in which the natural and unregenerate man is
(cf. Col. i. 18); here employed, no doubt, with special reference to the former
heatbenism of the readers. — eic rd Oavyaordy avrod gac]. To render ¢d¢ by
cognitio melior (Wahl), is arbitrarily to weaken the force of the word; it
is rather the complete opposite of oxéroc, and denotes the absolutely holy
and blessed nature — as airov shows—of God. The Christian is translated
from darkness to the light of God, so that he participates in this light, and
is illumined by it. Schott incorrectly understands by oxcroc: “ heathen
1 Btelger draws the following distinction:
** yevos is the race, people of like descent;
é@vos, a people of like customs; Aads, people
as the mass.’"’ Schott thinks that ¢@vos in-
cludes within it a reference to the intellectual
aod moral characteristics of the people, and
that Aaos points to ite being gathered together
under one Lord. In this urging of distinc-
tions — which are not even correctly drawn —
is to be found the reason why Schott ex-
changes the Greek expression BacuA. ieparevpa
for the Hebrew, because ieparevza is not
analogous to the other three designations,
whilst Bac:Aaa is so, as a national commu-
nity. — Peter certainly, in selecting these ex-
preasions, did not reflect on the original
distinction of the ideas, but made use of them
almply as they were presented to him in the
O. T.
3 It is arbitrary to understand the word to
mean only this or that attribute of God; nor
must the meaning, as ie done by Gerhard, be
Nmited to the ‘‘virtntes Dei, quae in opere
gratuitae vocationis et In toto negotio salutia
nostrae relucent.”” Schott’s interpretation js
linguistically incorrect: ai aperai equal to
ta peyadcia r. @. (Acta fi. 11), “the great
deeds of God.” Cornelius a Lapide entirely
misses the point in explaining: ‘‘ virtutes,
quas Christus in nobis operatur, humilitatem,
caritatem,” etc.; and Salmeron: “ virtutes
Christi, quas in diebus carnis suae exhibuit.”
8 Wiesinger disputes this interpretation,
holding that what is meant is ‘that light
which has appeared to the world in Chriat;’”’
but fe not this light the light of God? — Cer-
tainly dws is here not i.q. Xpords. According
to De Wette, avrov designates the light as the
204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
huinanity left to itself,” and by rd. . . abroi gdc: “the church;” the church
lives in God’s light, but it is not the light of God. —«adeiv is here applied,
as it is by Paul, to the effectual, successful calling of God. — éavyacrov (cf.
Matt. xxi. 42) denotes the inconceivable glory of the ga¢ Geov.
Ver. 10. A reference to Hos. ii. 25, linking itself on to the end of the
preceding verse, in which the former and present conditions of the readers
are contrasted. This difference the verse emphasizes by means of a simple
antithesis. The passage in Hosea runs: ‘PY-R07 “AON mn) NO-N ION
MAR“ DY, LXX.: ayarzow rhv obx hyarnuévyy nal épd rH ob Aad pov’ Aade pov ei ob
(the Cod. Alex. and the Ed. Aldina have at the commencement the addi-
tional words: éAejow riv obk HAenuévnv).—ol mor? ob Aadc]. Grotius, Steiger,
Weiss, incorrectly supply: @eov. Aad is here used absolutely (Bengel: ne
populus quidem, nedum Dei populus). ot belongs not to #re to be supplied,
but is closely connected with Aadc, equivalent to “no-people.” In like man-
ner obx nAenuévo: as equal to “not-obtained mercy.” ‘The meaning is not that
they once were not what they now are, but that they were the opposite of
it” (Wiesinger). But ob . . . Aade is a people who, in their separation from
God, are without that unity of life in which alone they can be considered by
Him as a people; or, more simply, who do not serve God who is the true
King of every people; cf. Deut. xxxii. 21, and Keil in loc. De Wette is
hardly satisfactory: “they were not a people, inasmuch as they were with-
out the principle of all true nationality, the real knowledge of God,” etc. ;
now they are a people, even a people of God, inasmuch as they not only serve
God, but are received also by God into community of life with Himself. —
ol abx hAenuévot, viv de éAendévrec]. The part. perf. denotes their former and
ended condition. Standing as it does here not as a verb, but as a substan-
tive, like ob . . . Aadc, it cannot be taken as a plusquam-perf. part. (in oppo-
sition to Hofmann). The aorist part. points, on the other hand, to the fact
of pardon having been extended: “once not in possession of mercy, but now
having become partakers of it” (Winer, p. 322! [E. T., 343]).
work of God, and consequently a different
thing from the ¢ws which He ise Himeelf.
1 In the original paseage these words apply
to Israel; but from this it does not follow that
Peter writes to Jewish Christians. For if
Paul — as he clearly does — applies the passage
(Rom. ix. 25) to the calling of the heathen,
then Peter surely, with equal right, could uee
it with reference to the heathen converts.
They had been, in its full sense, that which
God says to Ierael, pon; and they had
become that to which He would again make
Israel, His people. It must be observed,
however, that God in that passage addresses
Israel as ‘yon, only because it had for-
saken Him and given iteelf up to the worship
of Baal, and consequently incurred punieb-
ment. Apart from this, Israel had always
remained the people of God. — If only Jewish
converts were meant here, then Peter would
assume that they in their Judaism had been
idolaters, which is absolutely impossible, or at
least Peter must then have sald why they,
who as Israelites were the people of God,
could not jn their former state be regarded as
such. Accordingly, ov Aads ie here in no way
applicable to Israel, but only to the heathen;
and it is not (as Weles maintains, p. 119)
purely arbitrary to apply the passage, in oppo-
sition to its original sense, to heathen Chris-
ans. Whilet Briickner says only that the
words cannot serve to prove the readers to
have been Jews formerly, Wiesinger rightly
and most decidedly denies the possibility of
applying them to Jewish converts; 80, too,
Schott. — Welss’s assertion is by no means
justified by his insisting (Die Petr. Frage,
p. 626) that nothing tenable has been brought
forward against it.
CHAP. II. 11, 12. 250
Vv. 11, 12. A new exhortation: the central thought is expressed in the
beginning of ver. 12. The apostle, after describing its peculiarly lofty
dignity, considers the Christian Church in its relation to the non-Christian
world, and shows how believers must prove themselves blameless before it
by right conduct in the different relations of human life. The condition
necessary for this is stated in ver. 11.—’Ayamnroi]. This form of address
expresses the affectionate, impressive earnestness of the following exhorta-
tion. — mapaxadre (sc. tude) we mapolxove Kai napendjpyovc]. Cf. Ps. xxxix. 18,
LXX. — cs, as in i. 14. — nadpotxog, cf. i. 17, in its strict sense; Acts vii. 6, 29,
equal to inguilinus, he who dwells in a town (or land) where he has no civil
rights; cf. Luke xxiv. 18. In Eph. ii. 19 it stands as synonymous with
gévoc, of the relation of the heathen to the kingdom of God. — mapexidnuoc,
cf. j. 1. The home of the believer is heaven, on earth he is a stranger.
Calvin: sic eos appellat, non quia a patria exularert, ac dissipati essent in diver-
sis regionibus, sed guia filit Dei, ubicunque lerrarum agant, mundi sunt hospites ;
cf. Heb, xi. 18-15. A distinction between the two words is not to be pressed
here; the same idea is expressed by two words, in order to emphasize it the
more strongly. Luther inexactly translates napetidnyo by “pilgrims.” —
Even if dzéyecda: be the true reading, the words c¢ mapoixove, x.7.A.. must be
connected with zapaxadc (as opposed to De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger), for
they show in what character Peter now regarded his readers (Hofmann) !
in relation to the following exhortations, and have reference not simply to
the admonition dxéyeo#a:; as Weiss also (p. 45) rightly remarks. Probably,
however, azéyeode is the original reading, and was changed into the infinitive
in order to make the connection with mapaxadc more close. améyecdar pre-
sents the negative aspect of sanctification, as chap. ii. 1: dredéuevor, — rov
capKiuxdy exvyuor: similar expressions in Gal. v.10; Eph. ii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 18.
The émdvuia: are capxixai, because they have their seat in the oapg Wiesinger
improperly says that “the lusts which manifest themselves outwardly” are
here meant, for al! ém@vuia: tend to, and do, manifest themselves outwardly,
if there be no dzéyecpar. Schott assumes, without reason, that the émdvuiae
are here considered “as something oulside of the Christian community, and
manifesting itself only in the surrounding heathen population;” they are
indeed peculiar to the unbelieving world; but the Christian, too, has them
still in his oapg, though he can and should prevent thcm from having a deter-
mining power over him, inasinuch as in the world over which they rule he is
& nipocxog nai tapeTtidypoc.2 This sequence of thought lies plainly indicated in
the close connection of the exhortation with what precedes (as opposed
to Hofmann). —uilriwvec otparevovta: xard tig yoxne is not a definition of the
oapxixai, but a8 alrivec, equal to “as those which,” shows, explains the nature
of the émé@vuia: capxuxai, thus giving the reason of the exhortation. — ozpurevew
1In the former exhortations Peter had
regarded them as réxva vwaxons, as such who
call on God as Father, as regenerate.
2 Calvin interprets: ‘“carnisa desideria in.
telligit, non tantum crassos et cum pecudibus
coinmunes appetitus, sed omnes animae nos-
trae affectus, ad quos natura ferimur et
ducimur.” This goes too far, as it would
demand the destruction not alone of the
striving against the Spirit, natural to man in
hie sinful condition, but of the entire life of
the soul. Cf. Gal. v. 17.
256 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is not “to lay siege to” (Steiger), but “to war,” “fight against,” as in Jas.
iv. 1 (Rom. vii. 23: dvrotpareiecpar). — yy has here its usual meaning; it
is neither vita et salus animae (Hornejus, Grotius), nor ratio (Pott: libidines,
quae nos impellunt ad peragenda ea, quae rationi contraria sunt); nor does it
mean: “the new man” (Gerhard: folus homo novus ac inlerior, quatenus est
per Spiritum s. renovatus), nor: the soul, “in so far as it is penetrated by
the Holy Spirit” (Steiger), nor: “life as determined by the new Ego”
(Schott); but it is here simply, in contradistinction to osue, the spiritual
substance of man of which Peter says that it must be sanctified (chap. i. 22),
and its owrnpia is the end of faith (chap. i. 9); thus also De Wette-Briickner,
Wiesinger, Hofmann, Fronmiiller. In the natural man the yyy is under
the power of the énifvpias capxexai (which according to Jas. iv. 1 have their
dwelling ?v roi¢ uéAeow; cf. also Rom. vii. 23); in him who is regenerate, it
is delivered from them, yet the émuyiae seek to bring it again into subjec-
tion, so that it may fail of its owrnpia; —in this consists the orpareicota: xara
rie oxic. — Ver. 12. rv dvacrpogiy tus (chap. i. 15, 17) év roic EOvecw txovres
xaAnv), év roicg fov,: “among the Gentiles;” for the churches to whom Peter
wrote were in Gentile lands. — éyovre¢ xaanv; Luther, inexactly: “lead a
good mode of life;” xaAjv is a predicate: “having your mode of life good (as
one good);" cf. chap. iv. 8. —?yovrec (antithesis to améyeo6e, ver. 11) is not
here put for the imperative, but is a participle subordinate to the finite verb;
if dxéyecdar be read, there is here, as in Eph. iv. 2, Col. iii. 16, an irregularity
in the construction by which the idea contained in the participle is signifi-
cantly made prominent. —iva év & xaradadocvaw, x.t.A., “that in the matter in
which they revile you as evil-doers they may, on the ground of the good works they
themselves have beheld, glorify God,” i.e., in order that the matter which was
made the ground of their evil speaking, may by your good works become to
them the ground of giving glory to God. —iva states the purpose; not for
Gore: évS is not év 3 ypove, as In Mark ii. 19 (Pott, Hensler), for the xaradareiv
and the doféferv cannot be simultaneous; nor is it pro eo quod (Beza), such a
construction has no grammatical] justification; but éy specifies here, as in
verb. affect., the occasioning object (cf. chap. iv. 4), and the relative refers
to a demonstrative to be supplied, which stands in the same relation to doéa-
(wot as év ds to xaradadodor. It is not then rovro, but év rovrw, which is to be
supplied (Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann). If roiro were to be sup-
plied it would be dependent on émoxreioavres; but such a construction is
opposed by the circumstance that it is not this participle, but doga¢wor, which
forms the antithesis to xaradadvixx. The participle is interposed here abso-
lutely (as in Eph. iii. 4: dvaywooxovrec), and é trav xadov ipywv is connected
with dofafwor, the sense being: “on account of your good works.” Steiger
specifies the xaAd Zoya as that which occasions the «aradadeiv, — and later the
oofulery rov Oedv, — but the subsequent é« trav xadcav Epywy does not agree with
this; De Wette gives: “the whole tenor of life;” the connection with what
precedes might suggest the axéyeova: trav capx. éxidvucv;) but it is simpler,
1 So formerly in this commentary, with the heathen; for it is precisely this abetinence
obeervation: “Of this awexeo@a: Peter says which gives the Christian life ite peculiar
(chap. iv. 3, 4), that it seemed strange to the character, and distinguiahes it from that of
CHAP. II. 11, 12. 257
with Hofmann, to understand by it generally the Christian profession. —
With xaxorowi, cf. ver. 14, iv. 15; John xvili. 30. Briickner, Wiesinger,
Weiss (p. 367), justly reject the opinion of Hug, Neander, etc., that xaxorotd¢
here, in harmony with the passage in Suetonius, Vit. Ner., c. 16: Christians
genus hominum superstitionis novae et MALIFICAE, is equivalent to ‘‘ state
criminal.’’? In the mouth of a heathen the word would signify a criminal,
though not exactly a vicious man; one who had been guilty of such crimes
as theft, murder, and the like (cf. iv. 15), which are punished by the state!
(cf. ver. 14).— én rév xadov lpyur].. The xadd éipya, in the practice of which
the dvacrpog? xady of the Christians consists, are here presented as the motive
by which, when they see them, the heathen are to be induced to substitute
the glorifying of God for their evil speaking; as the Christians too, on their
part, are often exhorted to holiness of life, that thus they may overcome the
opposition of the Gentiles; cf. chap. iii. 2. Hofmann incorrectly interprets
éx 7. Kad, Epywy énonrebovrec: “if the heathen judge of your Christianity by
your good works;” for érorrebewy does not mean “to judge of.” With é& +.
nad, épywy . . . dofiowor tT. Oedv, comp. Christ’s words, Matt. v. 16, which, as
Weiss not without reason assumes, may have here been present to the
apostle’s mind. — éxomrebovres ‘‘ goes back in thought to the «add épya, in
harmony with the linguistic parallel in iii. 2 and the grammatical parallel
in Eph. iii. 4° (De Wette). It makes no essential difference in the sense,
whether the present or, with the Rec., the aorist be read (see critical remarks).
The word occurs only here and in iii. 2, where it is used with the accusative
of the object (for the subst. étrémrnc, see 2 Pet. i. 16). It expresses the idea
of seeing with one’s own eyes, more strongly than the simple dp¢v. There is
no reference here to the use of the word as applied to those who were initi-
ated into the third grade of the Eleusinian mysteries. — év juépa émoxonic).
émoxory is in the LXX. a translation of 19, the visitation of God, whether
it be to bless (Job x. 12) or to chastise (Isa. x. 3); fuépa émoxonrig is there-
fore the time when God gives salvation, or the time when He punishes, be it
in the genera) sense (Beda: dies extremi judicii), or more specially with refer-
ence either to the Christians or the heathen. — The connection of thought
seems to point decisively to that time as meant when the «arudadobvree shall
be brought to repentance and faith, that is, to “the gracious visitation of
the heathen” (Steiger); as 6 xa:pdc rig émtoxonij¢ cov, Luke xix. 44, is used
with regard to the Jews. This interpretation is to be found already in the
Fathers and in many later commentators, as Nicol. de Lyra, Erasm., Hem-
the heathen. It became the ground of evil «adj», and the reference to it in éd« rt. cad.
report for thie reason, that immoral motives
were supposed to be concealed behind ft; and
this was all the more natural that the Christian
had necessarily to place himeelf in opposition
to many of the ordinances of heathen life, and
that from a Gentile point of view his obedience
to the will of God must have appeared a
violation of the law. This prejudice could
not be better overcome than by the practice
of good works; hence, ray avagrp. vu....
épywr.”
1 Schott’s assumption, ‘that it was the
burning of Rome that firet increased the uni-
versal hatred and aversion of the Christians to
a special accusation of criminal and immoral
principles,” is unwarranted. He attempts to
justify it only by charging Tacitus with an
error in the account he gives of the accusations
brought by Nero agaluat the Christians.
258 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
ming, Vorstius, Beza, Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc. On the
other hand, Oecumenius, Wolf, Bengel, etc., apply the éxoxor# not to God,
but understand by it the égéraoy of the Christians at the hands of the heathen.
But for this there is absolutely no ground. Luther's interpretation, “when
it shall be brought to light,” is wrong; it is equivalent to that of Gerhard:
simplicissime accipitur de visitatione illa divina, qua Deus piorum, innocentiam
varits modis in lucem producit. — Akin to this is the view held by some of the
scholastics, that énicxony is to be understood of the trial of the Christians by
affliction ; see Lorinus in loc.
REMARK. — At variance with this explanation is that given by Schott, who
interprets the passage in this way: ‘‘ In order that the heathen may glorify God
in the day of judgment, from this that (by the fact that) they slander you as
evil-doers in consequence of your good works, of which they are witnesses.”’
The idea that the undeserved calumnies of the heathen serve at last to the
glorification of God, is in itself right and appropriate as a basis for the exhorta-
tion given in the context. The resolution, too, of é& 4 into & rovry, dri, has
grammatically nothing against it ; Meyer even allows it to be possible in Rom.
ji. 13; cf. Heb. if. 18, where Liinemann has recourse to a like construction,
though with a somewhat inadequate explanation. Still, more than one objec-
tion may be urged against this interpretation : (1) A reference is given to
dofavev different from what is contained in xaruAadeiv, inasmuch as it is taken,
as in 1 Cor. vi. 20, in the sense of ‘‘by action ;”? (2) dofagecv must be thought
of as something which the heathen bring about “ without knowing or willing”’
jt, whereas the apostle does not let fall a hint of any such nearer definition ;
(3) dogafecv can only in a loose sense be conceived of as an act of the heathen ;
it is simply the result of what they do (of their «aradadriv) ; and (4) In com-
paring these words with those of Christ (Matt. v. 16): dmw¢ idwow tucy rd nada
Epya xal dufuower rdv marépa tpuay rov év roic obpavoic, the thought cannot be got rid
of that Peter had this passage here in his mind. Schott’s objection, that
**dofalesy tov Oecv is a strange and, specially here, a doubly inappropriate
expression for conversion to Christianity, whilst the connection of the verb
thus taken with é&, as equal to ‘in consequence of,’ is a hard and inelegant
construction,’ amounts to very little, since in the acceptation of the passage
which he calls in question the verb is by no means made to bear any such
meaning.
Vv. 13, 14. The apostle now goes on to name the different relations of
life, ordained of God, in which the Christian should show his holy walk.
First of all, an exhortation to obey those in authority. — troraynre: the aor.
pass. is used here, as it often is, with a middle, not a passive — as Wlesinger
thinks—force. It is not: “be made subject,” but “make yourselves subject”
(cf. ramewvisenre, chap v. 6).!_ The more liable liberty in Christ was to be
misunderstood by the heathen, and even to be abused by the Christians
themselves, the more important it was that the latter should have inculcated
1 Winer is wrong in attributing (p. 245 36, but is right in ascribing it to wapeddOyre,
{E. T., 261}) a passive signification to this Rom. vi. 1%.
tanmeywOnre, as also to wpogexAcOn, in Acts v.
CHAP. II. 13, 14. 259
upon them as one of their principal] duties this trordocesta (ver. 18, chap.
ili. 1) in all circumstances of life. — xéoy avépwrivg xrioet: xriow is here, in
accordance with the signification peculiar to the verb «xrifew: “to establish,
to set up,”’ the ordinance, or institution (‘an ordinance resting on a particular
arrangement,” Hofmann). In connection with the attribute drépwrivy, this
expression seeins to denote an ordinance or institution established by men
(so most expositors, and formerly in this commentary). But it must be
noted that «rife (and its derivatives) are never applied to human, but only
to divine agency; besides, the demand that they should submit themselves
to every human ordinance would be asking too much. It is therefore
preferable to understand, with Hofmann, by the term, an ordinance (of God)
applying to human relations (“regulating the social life of man” ).! By
the subsequent ¢eire . . . eire, the expression is referred in the first instance
to the magistracy; but this does not justify the interpretation of it as equal
directly to “authority,” or even persons in authority (Gerhard: concretive
et personaliter: homines, qui magistratum gerunt). That Peter's exposition of
the idea had direct reference to persons in authority, is to be explained from
the circuinstance that the institution possessed reality only in the existence
of those individuals.* At variance with this view is De Wette's (following
Erasmus, Estius, Pott) interpretation of the expression: “to every human
creature, i.e., to all men.”’ Not only, however, the singular circumlocution :
_ xtiow av@punivy for avépwnoc (for which De Wette wrongly quotes Mark xvi.
15, and Col. i. 23), but the very idea that Christians should be subject to
all men, — and in support of it no appeal can be made either to chap. v. 5,
or to the following exhortation: mavrug ryugoare,—is decisive against this
view.? The fact that Peter places the general term asa «riot first, is
explained most naturally in this way: that it was his intention to speak
not of the magistracy merely, but also of the other institutions of human
life. — The motive for the submission here demanded is given by dia xipuov,
i.e., Xpeorév (not Oedv, as Schott thinks), which must be taken to mean:
“ because such is the will of the Lord,” or, with Hofmann: “out of consid-
eration due to Christ, to whom the opposite would bring dishonor.” The
latter, however, is the less likely interpretation. Still less natural is it to
say, with Wiesinger, that this adjunct points to the deiov in ordinances under
which human life is passed. Incorrectly Huss: propter imitationem Dei, 1.€.,
Christi. —In the enumeration which follows, the apostle is guided by the
historical conditions of his time. It must be remarked that trordcocopa is
1 This view avolds the certainly arbitrary
interpretation given, for example, by Flavius,
who applies the expression specially to life
connected with the estate. He says: ‘dicitur
humana ordinatio ideo quia politiae mundi
non sunt epeciali verbo Dei formatae, ut vera
religio, eed magis ab hominibus ipseorumque
fodustria ordinatae.”
3 Jt is arbitrary to regard «tiow (with
Luther, Osiander, etc.) as meaning the laws
given by the muyistrates.
8 Brtickner endeavors, indeed, to defend
De Wette's interpretation: yet he decides to
understand the expression in question as
“every ordinance of human civil society,”
and solves the difficulty presented by the
adjective avOpwmrivy (comp. with Rom. xiii. 1)
by remarking that ‘ the ordinances of national
life which have been developed historically
and by human means possess a divine element
fu thew.””
260 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
inculcated not only with regard to the institutions of the state, but to the
persons in whom these are embodied, and this quite unconditionally. Even
in cases where obedience, according to the principle laid down in Acts iv.
19, is to be refused, the duty of the trordocecda: must not be infringed upon.
— elre Baodei]. Baodedc is here the naine given to the Roman emperor; cf.
Joseph., De Bello Jud., v. 18, § 6. Bengel: Caesari, erant enim provinciae
romanae, in quas mittebat Petrus. — ac tmepéxovre: O¢ here also assigns the
reason; imepéxery expresses, as in Rom. xiii. 1, simply the idea of sovereign
power; non est comparatio cum aliis magistratibus (Calvin). In the Roman
Empire the emperor was not merely the highest ruler, but properly speaking
the only one, all the other authorities being simply the organs through
which he exercised his sway. — Ver. 14. ite nyeucow]. yepivec praesides pro-
vinciarum, gui a Caesare mittebantur in provincias (Gerh.). — d¢ de abroi, etc. :
dc’ avrow does not, as Gerh., Aretius,.and others take it, refer to xépiov, but to
Baoirei. The nyeu., although brepéxovrec too, are 80 not in the same absolute
sense as the Baowetc. They are so in relation to their subordinates, but not
to the Baoreic. — cig Exdixnow xaxorowy, Exawov d& ayaforady is joined gram-
matically to reumouévo, not to brepéxovTe also (Hofm., Schott); yet, from the
fact that the 7yeudvec are sent by the PBaaireic ele Exdixnotv, «.t.a-, 1b 18 implied
that the latter, too, has an office with respect to éxdixnow, «.r.A.1 — Oecumenius
arbitrarily narrows the thought when he says: édeée xal abrdg 6 Mérpog riot nal
moiow épxyovow trordcceabat dei, Stt Tolg Td dixawov éxduxotow. The apostle insists
rather, without reserve, on submission to the #yeudvec, because (not if) they are
sent by the emperor to administer justice. — éxdixnot, here, as often, “pun-
tshment;" &xatvog, not precisely “reward,” but “laudatory recognition.” —
ayaborotde is to be found only in later authors, in N. T. ax, Aey. The subs.
occurs chap. iv. 19.
Ver. 15. dr: gives the ground of the exhortation: troraynrte, x.7.A. — obru¢
toriv 7d 0éAnua tov Beov: With obruc; cf. Winer, p. 434 (E. T., 465), Buttin.,
p. 115 (E. T., 1381): “of such a nature is the will of God.” Schott gives the
sense correctly: “In this wise is it with the will of God.” The position of
the words is opposed to a connection of o ruc with dyaforowivtac (Wiesinger,
Hofmann). — dyadorootvrag; sc., twice; ayadoroeiv, in Mark iii. 4; Acts xiv.
17, the word has reference to deeds of benevolence. Here, on the other
hand, it is used in a general sense: to do good, with special reference to the
fulfilment of the duties towards those in authority. — giuodv ri rav ddpovev
avéperuy ayvwoiav; gysovv (cf. 1 Tim. v. 18) here in the cognate sense of (to put
to silence, Wiesinger ; “ the dyvwoia is here conceived of as speaking; cf. v. 12:
Katadadovat bu. wo Kakonnwy,” —dyvesia (except here, only in 1 Cor. xv. 34) is
the self-caused lack of any comprehension of the Christian life. Because
1 Hofmann is consequently wrong in assert-
ing that in thia connection ‘‘ the duty of sub-
mission to him who makes over the exercise
of bis power to others is derived from and
based alone on his possession of that power,
whilst submission to those to whom that
power has been entrusted originated In, and je
founded on, the mora! purpose for which that
is done.”’
2 Calvin very aptly pute it: “ Objici possit ;
reges et alfos magistratus saepe sua potentia
abuti; respondeo, tyrannos et elmiles non
fucere suo abusu, quia manealt semper firma
Dei ordinatio.”
CHAP. II. 16, 17. 261
they are without this, they in their foolishness (hence d¢pévwv davéporur)
imagine that its characteristic is not dyadoroiv, but xaxonoiv. Beda incor-
rectly limits of dgpovec.dv@puma to those persons in authority ; but the refer-
ence is rather quite general to the xaradadobvrec, ver. 12.
Ver. 16. d¢ éAebGepor is not, as Lachm., Jachmann, Steiger, Fronmiiller
think, to be joined with what follows (ver. 17),! but with a preceding
thought; either with dyasoraoivrag (Beda, Luther, Calvin, Wiesinger,
Hofm.), or with wzoraynre (Chrys., Oecum., Gerhard, Bengel, De Wette,
Schott, ete.). The latter of these connections deserves the preference, not
because in the former a change of construction would take place, but because
the special point to be brought out here was, that the freedom of the Chris-
tians was to be manifested in submission to (heathen) authorities. What
follows shows this, inasmuch as those Christians who had not attained unto
true freedom might easily be led to justify their opposition to those in
power on the ground of the liberty which belonged to thei in Christ. o¢
éAevdepa states the position which the Christians are to take up inwardly
towards the authorities; their subjection is not that of dovAo, since they
recognize them as a divine ordinance for the attainment of moral ends.?—
kal ph oc émtxa2vupa Exovtes tig Kaxiag THY éAevdepiav]. xai ig epexegetical: “and
that,” since what follows defines the idea éAetdepo: first negatively and then
positively. —a¢ belongs not to émuddAvupa, but to éxovres: “and that not as
those who have.” — tnixadvuya is the more remote, hv tAevdepiay the proximate,
object of Exovrec: “ who have the thevdepia as the émuddvppa Tt. Kax,” — émixcAvuua,
an, Aey.; for its original meaning, cf. Exod. xxvi. 14, LXX.; here used
metaphorically (cf. Kypke, in loc.). The sense is: “not as those to whom
their freedom serves as a covering for their xaxia” (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19; Gal.
v. 13), i.e, who seek to conceal their wickedness by boasting of their
Christian freedom. This is the exact reverse of the Pharisaism of those
who seek to conceal the wickedness of the heart by an outward conformity
to the law. — dA’ dc dovAor Ocod expresses positively the nature of the truly
free. True liberty consists in the dovdcia Geos (Rom. vi. 16, ff.); it refers
back to the rd 0éAnua rob Oeov, and further still to dict xipiov.
Ver. 17. Four hortatory clauses suggested to Peter by the term dyaforot-
ovvrac; in the last he returns, by way of conclusion, to the principal theme.
In the first three there is a climax.® — ravrag riwjoare: mavrag must not, with
1 Hofmann justly says: * We cannot think
of joining ver. 16 with ver. 17, for its contents
would not auit ravras rreuyoare, — even should
it be connected with this only (Fronmiiller),
which ia quite impossible, — not to speak of
tnv abeAdornra Or Tov Gedy doBeicbe.””
2 It ia not probable that Peter here refers,
as Welsa (p. 349) thinks, to the words of
Christ (Matt. xvii. 27), since they apply to
circumstances altogether different from those
mentioned here; see Meyer in loc.
3 To distribute these four exhortations over
“the two provinces of life, the natural and
civil, and the spiritual and ecclesiastical com-
munities” (Schott), is warranted neither by
what precedes nor by any thing the clauses
themselves contain. — Hofmann, who denies
the climax, determines the relation of the four
maxims to each other in a highly artificial
manner. He holds that the second sentence
ia in antithesis to the first, and the fourth to
the third; that the first is akin to the fourth,
and the second to the third; that in the first
atreas is laid on wdvras, whilst in the second,
on the other hand, it lies not on adeAddryra,
but on ayaware, and tbat In the first antithesis
it is the first member that is emphatic, in the
second it is the last.
262 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Bengel, be limited to those quibus honos debetur, Rom. xiii. 7,] nor to those
who belong to the same state (Schott); it expresses totality without any
exception. — ryzgv is not equivalent to tzoraccecda: (De Wette); but neither
is it equal to civiliter tractare (Bengel); the former is too strong, the latter
too weak; it is the opposite. positively stated, of xara¢poveiv, and means: to
recognize the worth (riuz) which any one possesses, and to act on the recog-
nition (Briickner, Weiss, Wiesinger, Schott). This exhortation is all the
more important for the Christian, that his consciousness of his own dignity
can easily betray him into a depreciation of others. It refers to the rua
which is due to man as man, and not first in respect of any particular
position he may hold.? — my ddeAgérnra cyanate]. adeAgornc, also in chap. v. 9,
corresponding to our “ brotherhood,” i.e., the totality of the Christian breth-
ren, cf. leparevua, vv.5, 9. The apparent contradiction of Matt. v. 44, here
presented, where love to enemies is also enjoined, is to be explained on the
following principle: that the dyamy is differently conditioned, according as
it has different objects. In perfect harmony with its inmost nature, it can
exist only between Christians, for only among them is there community of
life in God; cf. chap. i. 22. Pott interprets ayaxgv here superficially by
“entertain good-will to.” — rdv Gedy goseiabe: cf. chap. i. 17 ; a command not
only of the Old, but of the New Testament, inasmuch as a lowly awe before
the holy God is an essential feature of the filial relation to God. — rv
jJuadéa teuate). Reiteration of the command (ver. 13) as a conclusion to the
whole passage; cf. Prov. xxiv. 21, goZod rdv Ordy, vit, xat Bacidta. — rysare has
here the same meaning as previously: “show to the king the respect which
pertains to him as king; ” what that is, the apostle has explained in ver. 13.
Hornejus ? incorrectly thinks that in the conjunction of the last two com-
mands, he can here discover an indication of the limits by which obedience
to the king is bounded. — The difference in the tenses of the imperative, in
the first exhortation the imperat. aor., in the three others the imperat. pres.,
is to be regarded as accidental, rather than as in any way arising from the
substance of the command.‘
Ver. 18. An exhortation to the slaves, extending from this verse to the
end of the chapter. — of ofxéra:]. oixérnc, properly speaking, “a domestic,” a
milder expression for dovAoge. It is improbable that Peter employed this
term in order to include the freedmen who had remained in the master’s
house (Steiger). — of olx. is vocative ; nor is chap. 1. 3 (as Steiger thinks)
opposed to this. —broraccduevan]. It is quite arbitrary to supply yre (Oecu-
menius, etc ), or to assert that the participle is used here instead of the
imperative.
1 In Hke manner, Hornejua: ‘non de om.
nibus absolute Joquitur, quasi omnes homines
etiam pessimi honorandi aint, sed de iis, quibus
honor propter potestatem quam habent, com-
petit.”
* Flacius: ‘‘ untculque suum locum et debita
officia exhibete.”
8 Explicat Petr. quomodo Caesari parendum
The participle rather shows that the exhortation is conceived
sit, nempe ut Del ioterim timori nihil deroge-
tur.
¢ Hofmann’s view te purely arbitrary:
‘that in the foremost clause the aoriat is put
because, in the first place, and chiefly, it is
required to honor all; and after thie, that the
Chriatian should love bie brethren in Christ.”
Nor can it be at ail supported by Wluer’s
remarks, p. 204 (EK. T., 314).
CHAP. II. 19. 263
of as dependent on a thought already expressed ; not on ver. 17 (De Wette),
but on ver. 13, which vv. 11 and 12 serve to introduce ; brordynre .. . Kbptor,
the institution of the household implied in the relation of servant to master,
is comprehended in the general term mdoa dvOpur, xriotc.—év ravri gow).
poor (vid. i. 17) is stronger than reverentia; it denotes the shrinking from
transgressing the masters will, based on the consciousness of subjection;
cf. Eph. vi. 5.1. Doubtless this shrinking is in the case of the Christian based
on the fear of God; but the word géor¢ does not directly mean such fear, as
Weiss (p. 169) holds and seeks to prove, especially from the circumstance
that Peter in chap. iii. 6, 14, condemns the fear of man, forgetting, however,
that this fear too may be of different kinds; cf. in loco. — ravri is intensive.
nic ¢6Boc is every kind of fear; a fear wanting in nothing that goes to make
up true fear. — roic deonérare]. Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 1; Tit. i1. 9, equals roi¢ xupros,
Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22. — ob uévov roic ayaboic nai émtecxectv, GAMA Kal roic oxoAwic }.
The moral conduct of the servant, which consists in trordccecda: towards the
master, must remain unchanged, whatever the character of the latter may
be; the chief emphasis, however, rests here on dAAd xal roig ox. —cyaboi here
is equal to “kind ;” for éxcecnc, of. 1 Tim. iii. 8; 1t does not mean “ yield-
ing” (Fronmiiller), but, properly speaking, one who “acis with propriety,”
then “ gentle.” — oxodsc, literally “crooked,” “bent,” the opposite of straight,
denotes metaphorically the perverse disposition; Phil. ii. 15, synonymous
with ceorpaupévoc; in Prov. xxviii. 18, 6 oxodcaic cdoic mopevdpevoc forms the
antithesis to 6 mopevopevog dexaluc (cf. Luke iii. 5). It has the same force in
the classics (Athen., xv. p. 695; oxodcd gpoveiv, opp. to ebdéa gpoveiv). It de-
notes, therefore, such masters as conduct themselves, not in a right, but in a
perverse manner, towards their servants—are hard and unjust to them;
Luther's “ capricious” is inexact.?
Ver. 19. rotro yap yapec, ei]. The ground of the exhortation. rotro refers
to the clause beginning with e/.— ydpec has not the special meaning “ grace ”
here, as if it were to be explained, either with the older commentators,
gratiam concilians; or as if by it were to be understood “the gift of grace”
(Steiger: “it is to be regarded as grace, if one can suffer for the sake of
God ;” so, too, Schott), or “the condition of grace” (Wiesinger: “in the
trouévery is manifested the actual condition of grace”); for this expression
is not parallel with «Agog, ver. 12: and how can a summons be issued in a
manner so direct, to the performance of a duty, by representing it either as
a gift of grace or a proof of a state of grace? Besides, Wiesinger alters the
term “grace” into “sign of grace.”— Some commentators, on account of
ver. 20, explain ydpi¢ as synonymous with «Aégoc, but without any linguistic
justification.® In profane Greek, ydpu denotes either the charm or the
loveliness, or also the favor which one person has for another (to which are
linked on the meanings, expressions of good-will and thanks). Both senses
1 Thus, too, in substance, Schott: ‘‘Fearin cumstances, but fs not to be concluded from
general, as it is determiued by the circum- the adject. cxoArés (as opposed to Schott).
stances here mentioned.” * Thus already Oecumenius (Calvin: ‘idem
3 That Peter made special reference to valet nomen gratiae quod laudis; qui patienter
heathen masters, lies in the nature of the cir- ferunt injurias, if laude digni sunt).”
264 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
are to be found in the Scriptures.’ If the first signification be adopted, the
enduring of the adversity of which Peter here speaks is characterized as
something lovely; and so Cremer (see under ydpe, p. 576) seems to take
it. But it is more natural to hold by the second sense, and to explain “ this
is favor,” as equal to “ this causes favor.” Several interpreters explain ydpic as
equal directly to “delight,” substituting for the substantive the adjective
‘‘ well-pleasing,” and supplying mapa ro Oed from ver. 20. Thus Gerhard:
hoc est Deo gratum et acceptum; De Wette: “Favor with God, i.e., well-
pleasing before God;” so, too, Hofmann. But both of these are open to
objection. Hofmann no doubt gives as the ground of his supplement:
“that the slave who lived up to the apostle’s injunction has to look for the
approval of none.” This is, however, surely an unjustifiable assertion. It
is not clear why Peter did not add the words supplied if he had them in his
miud; yap and «Agog in ver. 20 are therefore —in consideration of vv. 12
and 15—to be taken quite generally. The following clause indicates a
good behavior, by which the xaradudia of the heathen is to be put to silence.
al dua cuveldnow Ocod brogépet, x.7.A.], ef refers back to robro; duc cuveidnotv Ccod
is placed first by way of emphasis. ovveidnote Oeov is neither ‘God's knowl-
edge of us” (Morus: guia Deus conscius est tuarum miseriarum; similarly
Fronmiiller: “on account of the knowledge shared by God, since God
knows all”), nor is it “conscientiousness before God” (Stolz); but @cod is
the object. genit. (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb. x. 2), therefore the meaning is:
the (duty-compelling) consciousness of God.? A metonymy does not require
to be assumed (Grotius: per metonymiam objecti dicitur conscientia ejus, quod
quis Deo debet). Steiger introduces what is foreign to it when he extends
the idea so as to include the conscious knowledge of the divine recompense.
In dia ovvedd. Geod is expressed substantially the same thought as in dc Oeod
dovan, ver. 16, and did r. xipiov, ver. 13; dia rv ovveidnary Without @cov is to be
found in Rom. xiii. 5. — trogéper rug Avmac), brogépev: “to bear the burden put
on one;” the opposite of succumbing under a burden, cf. 1 Cor. x. 13; 2
Tim. iii. 11; nevertheless, the apostle seems here to have in mind more the
antithesis to being provoked to anger and stubbornness (Hofmann). — diraz,
here, outward afflictions. — xdcyur ddixuc, “ whilst (not although) he suffers
wrong (from the master, i.e., undeserved on the part of the slave).” — It is
not suffering itself, but patient endurance in the midst of undeserved suffering,
and that di ovveidnow Ocot, which Peter calls a yépu. — This thought, general
in itself, is here applied to the relation of servant to master.
Ver. 20. mofov ydp Agog]. Gerhard: tnterrogatio respundet h. . negationi;
this interrogation brings out the nothingness, or at least the little value, of
the object in question; cf. Jas. iv. 14; Luke vi. 32. — xAéoc, not sc. évamov
tov Ozov (Pott), but quite generally, for the thought “refers back to the point
of view, stated in vv. 12-15, from which this exhortation is given” (Wie-
1 yapis has the firat meaning (Ps. xlv. 8; — ete.). Cf. besides, Cremer and Wahl: Clavis
Prov. 1. 9, x. 32, etc.; also Ecclus. vil. 19, ete.; br. V. T. apocryphi.
in the N. T., Luke fv. 22; Col. iv. 6, etc.). 2 Calov: ‘‘ quia conecius est, id Deum velle
The second signification (Prov. xxii. 1, etc.; et Deo gratum ease.’’ So, too, De Wette,
iu the N. T., Luke i. 30, ii. 52; Acts fi. 47, Schott, ete.
CHAP. II. 21. 265
singer).— el duapravovrec nat xodagCopevae bropueveire]. The two participles
stand in the closest connection with each other, so that duapravew is to be
conceived as the cause of the xoAagiteoour. Luther's translation is accordingly
correct: “if ye suffer punishment on account of your evil deeds;” the only
fault to be found with this is, that it weakens the force of the idea tnopévem.
—trouévew is synonymous with dmogépew; the sense is: “it is no glory to
show patience in the suffering of deserved punishment.” The view of De
Wette, that Peter referred only “to the reluctant, dull endurance of a crim-
inal who cannot escape his punishment,” misses the apostle’s meaning, and
is correctly rejected by Briickner and Wiesinger. Steiger remarks justly:
“that, when any one endures patiently deserved punishment, he is only
performing a duty binding on him by every law of right and authority.”
iroueveire is in the future with reference to the standpoint of the exhorta-
tion (Wiesinger). — xodagifev: apud LXX. non occurrit, in N. T. generaliter
pro plagis ac percussionibus. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 7
(Gerh.); the strict signification is “to give blows with the fist, or slaps
on the ear.” Bengel: poena servorum eaque subita. —ddX el dyadorowivre¢ xal
maoxovrec troueveire]. The interpretation of Erasmus: si quum benejiciatis
et TAMEN affligamini, suffertis, is incorrect, for between dyafor. and racy.
there exists the same relationship as between auapravovrec and xodagicpuevor ;
Luther, correctly: “if ye suffer on account of good-doing;” cf. ili. 17.—
tovto yap xape stapd Ocw before these words — yap is the correct reading — the
apodosis taken out of roiov xA‘oc, “this is true praise,” must be added to
what precedes, and these words form the basis of an argument in which
rovro refers to ef dyadorowtvres . . , tropeveite.. The meaning is: because this
in God’s sight is & xape¢ (not equal to “in the judgment of God,” cf. Luke ii.
52), therefore it is a xAéor.
Ver. 21 gives the ground of the exhortation to bear undeserved suffering
patiently, by a reference to the sufferings of Christ. — elc roiro yap éxafonre).
elg rovro refers to ei dyadomaobvres ... dmopevelre. Many interpreters incor-
rectly make it apply only to suffering as such; but, as Hemming rightly
remarks: omnes ptt vocatt sunt, ut patienter injuriam ferant. — The construc-
tion with eg occurs frequently; cf. Col. iii. 15; 2 Thess. ii. 14. —In har-
mony with the connection, oi oixéra: is to be thought of as the subject to
éxAndnre; accordingly it is the slaves in the first instance, not the Christians
in general, who are addressed (as in chap. ili. 9, 14, 17); but as this cAn@jvaz
applies to them not as slaves but as believers, it holds true at the same time
of all Christians. — 67: xa? Xprorde Erabev trip budv), br: such suffering is
part of a Christian’s calling, for Christ also suffered: &radev is here the em-
phatic word; and with it «ai also must be joined (which Fronmiiller errone-
ously interprets by “even”). Wioiesinger incorrectly takes «ai with Eratey
1 Nor is this relation sufficiently percetved
by Schott in his explanation: ‘If they show
patience under fll-treatment which accompa-
nies good conduct.” In urging against the
interpretation given, that ‘If daya@omwoeiv
apply to the labor of servants, then, that
which the slave suffers is not caused by his
actions,’ Hofmann has failed to observe (1)
that the context does not render the idea of
servants’ work only necessary; (2) that the
well-doing of the Christian was not always in
harmony witb beathen views (cf. chap. iv. 4).
266 ' THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
tztp tucy in this sense, that, as Christ suffered for us, “so we should endure
affliction for Him, for His sake, and for His honor and glory in the world,”
thus introducing a thought foreign to the context. The obligation to suffer
under which we who are Christ’s people are laid, from the very fact that
Christ also suffered, is for us all the greater that the sufferings of Christ
were trip judy (not ard’ quay, but “for our advantage”), and therefore such
as enable us to follow the example which Ie has left us in His sufferings.
Inasmuch as izéo ius implies that Christ suffered not for His own sins, but
for ours, we are no doubt justified in recognizing these sufferings as unde-
served, but not in concluding, with Hofmann, that ixtp tydv is meant to
mark only the undeservedness of Christ’s sufferings. — ipiv brodmniver ino-
ypauusr). vrokpnévu, ax. Aey, Another form of trodeintw (used of the leaving
behind at death, Judith viii. 7). Bengel: in abitu ad patrem. sroypappds
(am, Aey.): specimen, quod imitentur, ut pictores noviliis exemplaria dant, ad quae
inter pingendum respiciant: equivalent in sense to trddéeyua, John xiii. 15
(rizoc; 2 Thess. iii. 9). It is not Christ’s life in general that is here pre-
sented by way of example, but the patience which He showed in the midst
of undeserved sufferings.!. The participle is connected with éxaev in. tu. as
giving the nearer definition of the latter: He thus suffered, as in doing
so to leave you an example, withal to the end that, etc.2— iva énxaxoAovéjonte
roic txveow abrov]. Sicut prior metaphora a pictoribus et scriptoribus, ita haec
posterior petita est a viae duce (Gerhard); with énaxod. cf. 1 Tim. v. 10, 24.
— ixvoc, besides here, in Rom. iv. 12 (croyeiv roicg ixveot) and 2 Cor. xii. 18
(mepirareiv trois tyvect).
Ver. 22. The first feature in the exemplary nature of Christ's sufferings:
His innocence. — After Isa. liti. 9, LXA.: dvopuiav ob éxoinae, otdé dddov by tH
orouart ubrod (Cod. Alex., olde eipén dodoc év rp or. abrod). Gerhard: nec verbo
nec facto unquam peccavit. The second half of the sentence expresses truth
in speech. With dodoc, cf. chap. ii. 1; John i. 48. For the difference be-
tween eipioxecdas and eivat, cf. Winer, p. 572 (E. T., 616).
Ver. 23. The second feature: the patience of Christ in His sufferings.
- A reference, however slight, to Isa. liii. 7, cannot but be recognized. — d¢
Andopobpevoc obn ayTeAodope, taoxuv odx Hreida]. De Wette and Wiesinger
rightly draw attention to the climax between Aodop, and mécyur, dvredod, and
Hneider: Aodopia omnis generis injuriae verbales ; naGjpata omnis generis injuriae
reales (Gerhard). —dvridod, am, Acy.; cf. dvrierpéw, Luke vi. 38. — gmeires is
here used of threat of vengeful recompense. The announcements of divine
judgment on unbelievers, to which Christ more than once gave expression,
are of a different nature, and cannot be considered as an dzeideiv, in the
sense in which that word is here used. Comp. with this passage the exhor-
only in place of an infinitive clause, as after
dvroAy (Jobo xiii. 34), BovAn (Acts xxvii. 42),’
1 Wherever Scripture presents Christ as an
example, it does so almost always with refer-
ence to His self-abasement in suffering and
death (Phil. ii. 6; John xiil. 15, xv. 12; 1 John
1ii. 16; Heb. xii. 2). Only in 1 Jobn il. 6 is
Christ presented as an example in the more
general sense.
§ Hofmann wrongly asserts that ‘iva stands
inasmuch as “ vroypauzds is no more than a
direction to do likewise.”” But thia interpre-
tation of vroypaupuds is erroneous, and there-
fore iva éwaxoAovOjonre cannot be resolved
into an Inflnitive clause.
‘
CHAP. II. 24. 267
tation of the apostle, chap. iii. 9. — mapedidov d2 rH xplvovts dixaiwc]. mapedidov
not in a reflexive sense: “He committed Himself” (Winer, p. 549 [E. T.,
590]; De Wette), neither is causam suam (Gerhard, etc.) nor xpiow (from
xpivovrs) to be supplied; the supplement is rather Aodopotcda and mécyew
(Wiesinger, Schott). Luther’s translation is good: “He left it to Him.” ?
— Didymus arbitrarily understands mapedidov of Christ’s prayer for His
enemies ;* the meaning is rather, that Christ left it to the God who judges
justly, to determine what should be the consequences of the injustice done
to Him on those who wrought it. That His desire was only that they should
be punished, is not contained in mapedidov (similarly Hofmann). Conse-
quently the reference formerly made in this commentary to Jer. xi. 20,
xx. 12, as illustrative of the passage, is erroneous. With ra duacaiug xpivevri,
ef. chap. i. 17: rdv dxpoowroAnnrus xpivovra, “a direct designation of God,
whose just judgment is the outcome of His being” (Wiesinger).
Ver. 24. A further expansion of the imp tudy, ver. 21. — b¢ rag duapriac
hucy abzd¢ dviaveyxev, x.7.A.: “ Who himself bore our sins on His body to the tree.”
— dc, the third relative clause, though a climax too, cannot fail to be recog-
nized here: He suffered innocently, — patiently (not requiting evil for evil),
—vicariously, for us, still it must not be asserted that this third clause
predicates any thing of Christ in which He can be an example for us
(Hofmann); the thought here expressed itself contradicts this assertion. —
The phraseology of this verse arose from a reference to the passage in Isa.
liii., and the actual fulfilment of the prophecy herein contained. The
words of that chapter which were chiefly present to the mind of the apostle
are those of ver. 12, LXX., xat abrdg duupriag modAcw dviveyce (NY) ; cf. also
ver. 11: xat rd¢ duapriag abraw abrog davoinet (739°), and ver. 4: otroc tr. duapriac
fucv dépe (8%). The Hebrew x) with the accus. of the idea of sin,
therefore “to bear sin,” is equivalent to, “to suffer the punishment for sin,”
either one’s own or that of another. Now, as dviveyxe is in the above-quoted
passage a translation of NW), its meaning is: “He suffered the punishment
for the sins of many.” 4— This suffering of punishment is, in the case of
1In Mark iv. 29, too, to which De Wette
appeals, rapadi8dva: bas no reflexive force;
see Meyer on this passage.
2 The Vulg. strangely tranelates, “tradebat
jadicanti se injuste;”’’ according to which
Lorinus interprets: ‘‘tradidit se Christus
sponte propriaque voluntate tum Judaels, tum
Filato ad mortem oblatus.”’ Cyprian (De Bono
Patientiae) and Paulinus (Zp. 2) quotes the
passage as it stands in the Vulg. Augustin
(Tract. in John xxi.) and Fulgentius (Ad
Trasimarch., lib. I.), on the other hand, have
juete.
8 From the fact that Christ’s prayer Je not
mentioned hers, De Wette unwarrantably con-
cludes that it was unknown to the writer of
the epiatie.
“It admits of no doubt that ne) in con-
nection with ROP or 13, has the meaning
above given; cf. Lev. xix. 17, xx. 19, xxiv. 15;
Num. v. 31, xiv. 34; Ezek. iv. 5, xiv. 10, xvi.
68, xxifl. 35, ete. (Lam. v. 7,999); generally,
indeed, the LXX. translate this xe by
AawBavery, but also by coucgecw and amoddpev;
in the passage quoted, Isa. lill. 4, by ddpey; in
Num. xiv. 33, as in Isa. Hil. 12, by avaddpew,
This proves how unwarranted Hofmann
(Schriftbewets, II., 1, p. 465, 2d ed.) is in
saying, ‘‘ that in view of the Greek translation
of Isa. lilf!. 11, 12, it is arbitrary to assume
that avaddpecy means simply ‘to carry.’” Of
course every one knows that in and of itself
dvaddpecy does not mean ‘“‘to carry;” but
from this it does not follow that the LXX. did
not use it in this sense In the phrase above
alluded to, the more eo that they attribute to
the word no meaning opposed to its classical
usage; cf. Thuc. Ii. 18, xiwduvous dvaddp.;
268 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the Servant of God, of such a nature that by it those whose the sin is, and
for whom He endures the punishment, become free from that punishment;
it is therefore a vicarious suffering.! Since, then, Peter plainly had this
passage in his mind, the thought here expressed can be no other than this:
that Christ in our stead has suffered the punishment we have merited
through our sins, and so has borne our sins. But with this the subsequent
éx? rd EbAov, which means not “on the tree,” but “on to the tree,” does not
seem to harmonize. Consequently it has been proposed to take dvagépev in
the sense which it has in the phrase: dvagépecv re tnt 1d Ovotacrapia (cf. Jas.
ii. 21; Lev. xiv. 20; 2 Chron. xxxv. 16; Bar. i. 10; 1 Macc. iv. 53); cf.
ver. 5, where 1d fiAov would be conceived as the altar. But against this
interpretation, besides the fact that dvagép. is thus here taken in a sense
different from that which it has in Isa. liii., there are the following objec-
tions: (1) That in no other passage of the N. T. is the cross of Christ
represented as the altar on which He is offered ;* (2) That neither in the
O. T. nor in the N. T. is sin anywhere spoken of as the offering which is
brought up to the altar.‘ é? 7d giAov might be explained by assuming a
pregnant construction, as in the Versio Syr., which runs: bajulavit omnia
peccata nostra eaque sustulit in corpore suo ad crucem,§ that is: “bearing our
sins He ascended the cross.” But the assumption of such a construction is
not necessary, since dvagépetv can quite well be taken to mean “carrying up,”
without depriving the word of the signification which it has in the passage
in Isaiah, since “carrying up” implies “carrying.” In no other way did
Pol. 1. 30, d@dvov¢e wai SaBodrAds dvaddp., se0
' Pape, 8.v. dvaddpw, and Delitzech, Komment.
s. Br. an dte Hebr., p. 442. —- Doubtless xo)
py-ne (Lev. x. 17) is said of the prieste bear-
ing away sin (making atonement), but there
the LXX. translate nz) by adarpet». Plainly
there can here be no allusion to the meaning
**to forgive sin.”
1 Weiss is inaccurate when he asserts
(p. 265) that the passages, Lev. xix. 17; Num.
xiv, 88; Lam. v.7; Ezek. xvill. 19, 20, allude
to a vicarious suffering. These passages, in-
deed, epeak of a bearing of the punishment
- which the sins of others have caused; but this
is suffering with, not instead of, others, with-
out those who have done the ain being freed
from its punishment.
3 Gerhard: ‘‘ Crux Christi furt sublime {llud
altare, in quod Christus se ipsum in eacrificium
oblaturus ascendit, sicut V. Testamenti sacri-
ficia altari imponebantur.
8 Schott, whilst admitting the above, asserts
“that it will hardly be contradicted that in all
the passages which speak of Christ’s death on
the cross as a sacrifice, the cross must be pre-
supposed to be that which served as altar.”
This ie decidedly to be contradicted, the more
so that the animal sacrificed suffered death
not upon, but before, the altar.
4 If avadépecy be here taken as equivalent to
** to offer sacrifice,” as in Heb. vil. 27, not only
would the thought — which Delitzach (p. 440)
terme a corrupt one — arise, per semet ipsum
immolavit peccata nostra,” but ert ro fuAoy
would then have to be interpreted, ‘‘on the
cross.” Luther: ‘““who Himself offered in
sacrifice our sins on His body on the tree.” —
Here, too, Schott admits what is sald above,
but seeks to destroy ite force as a proof, by
claiming for avaddpay the sense, “to present
or bring up in offering,” at the same time
supplying—as it seema—as the object of
offering, the body of Christ, which the ex-
preasion of the apostle in no way justifies.
5 Schott brings the baseless accusation
against the circumlocution of the Syr. tranela-
tion, *‘ that in it peccata is to be taken differ.
ently in the first clause from the second;” in
the former, as equivalent to “the punishment
of our sin;’’ {o the latter, as ‘“‘ the sin iteelf;”
for peccata has the same meaning in both
members, although the bearing of the sins
consiste in the suffering of the punishment for
them. Comp. Num. xiv. 33, where in the ex-
pression dvoicove: thy ropyeiay vue, the word
wopveia has by no means the meaning ‘“ pun-
ishment for fornication,” although avaddpey
Thy wopyecay means as much as “to suffer the
punishment for fornication.”
. CHAP. II. 24. 269
Christ bear our sins up on to the cross than by suffering the punishment for
our sins in the crucifixion, and thereby delivering us from the punishment.
The apostle lays special stress on the idea of substitution here contained,
by the addition of atréc, which, as in Isa. iii. 11, stands by way of emphasis
next to nuov; but by év ro cdpart abrov — not “in,” but “on His body” —
we are reminded that His body it was on which the punishment was accom-
plished, inasmuch as it was nailed to the cross, and died thereon. It is
quite possible that this adjunct, as Wiesinger assumes, is meant at the same
time to serve the purpose of expressing the greatness of that love which
moved Christ to give His body to the death for our sins; but that there is
in it any special reference to the sacramental words of the Lord (Weiss,
p. 273), is a conjecture which has nothing to support it. The addition of
éxi rd bAov is explained by the fact itself, since it is precisely Christ’s death
on the cross that has redeemed us from the guilt and power of our sins.
Peter also uses the expression 1a £iAor to denote the cross, in his sermons,
Acts v. 30, x. 39. It had its origin in the Old-Testament phraseology YY,
rendered giAo0v by LX X., denoting the pole on which the bodies of executed
criminals were sometimes suspended; cf. Deut. xxi. 22, 23; Josh. x. 26.
Certainly in this way attention is drawn to the shame of the punishment
which Christ suffered; but it is at least doubtful, since there is no reference
to it in any way, whether Peter, like Paul in Gal. iii. 13, used the expression
with regard to the curse pronounced in Deut. xxi. 22 (as Weiss, p. 267,
emphatically denies, and Schott as emphatically asserts). Bengel is entirely
mistaken in thinking, that by the adjunct én? rd g+Aov the apostle alludes to
the punishment of slaves (ligno, cruce, furca, plecti soliti erant servi).
REMARK 1.— The interpretation of many of the commentators is wanting
in the necessary precision, inasmuch as the two senses, which avagépery has in
the different phrases, dvagépew rac duapriag and dvadepery ri énl 7. Gvovacrnpioy,
are mixed up with each other. Vitringa (Viz uno verbo éuganey vocis avagépev
exprimi potest. Nota ferre et offere. Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum
portasse peccata nostra, in quantum illa ipsi erant imposita. Secundo ita
tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulerit in altari), while drawing, indeed, a
distinction between the two meanings, thinks that Peter had both of them in
his mind, which of course is impossible. — Hofmann explains avagépev . . . ém
76 EvAov on the analogy of the phrase, avagépecy te Eri 1d Ovoracrnpiov, without,
however, understanding the cross as the altar; the meaning then would be:
‘** He lifted up His body on to the cross, thereby bearing up thither our sins,
that is to say, atoning for our sins.’’ Although Hofmann admits that Peter
had in his mind the passage in Isaiah, he nevertheless denies that aviveyxe has
here the same meaning as there. In his Schriftbeweis, lst ed., he gives a
similar interpretation, only that there he says: ‘‘ He took up our sins with
Him, and so took them away from us.’’ He, however, justly adds that avagépew
has the same meaning here as in Heb. ix. 28. Wiesinger has adopted this
interpretation, as also, in substance, Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, p. 442 f. In the
2d edition of the Schriftbeweis, Hofmann has withdrawn this explanation ; but,
1 Bo, too, Schott, who interprets éy re awuars as equal to “in His earthly bodily life” (!).
270 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
on the other hand, he erroneously asserts that avagépey here is ‘‘ the dvagépeww
of Heb. vii. 27.’ — Schott justly combats Hofmann’s view, that the sufferings of
Christ for our sins consisted essentially only in what befell Him as the result
of our sins, and maintains, in opposition to it, the substitution of Christ. His
own interpretation, however, of our passage is equally inadmissible, since he
attributes to avagépew the meaning, ‘‘to bring up or present in offering,’’ yet
adding to the idea of ‘‘offering’’ an object other than dyapriac, which stands
with dvpveyxev, thus giving to the one word two quite different references.
Schott makes sayua Xpiorov the object of *‘ offering,’’ taking it out of the supple-
mentary clause, év Tm owyuate avtov ; but this he is the less justified in doing, that
he explains these words by ‘‘in His earthly corporeal life.’’ — This is not the
place to enter fully into Schott’s conception of the propitiation wrought by
Christ’s death on the cross. Though it contains many points worthy of notice,
it is of much too artificial a nature ever to be considered a just representation
of the views of the apostle. — Luthardt interprets : ‘‘ He bore His body away
from the earth up to God. No doubt it was not an altar to which Christ
brought His body up ; but the peculiarity lies precisely in this, that His body
should at the same time hang on the accursed tree.’’ ‘‘ Away from the earth to
God,’”’ is evidently an addition ; and had Peter wished to emphasize the cross
as the accursed tree, he would have added ti¢ xurapac.!
REMARK 2. — This interpretation agrees substantially with that given by
De Wette-Briickner and Weiss ; yet De Wette’s reference to Col. ii. 14 is
inappropriate, inasmuch as that passage has a character entirely different, both
in thought and expression, from the one here under consideration. Weiss is
wanting in accuracy when he says that ‘‘ Christ ascended the cross, and there
bore the punishment of our sins,’’ since already in the sufferings which preceded
the crucifixion, the bearing of our sins took place. — Nor can it be conceded to
these commentators, that the idea of sacrifice was absent from the conception
of the apostle. Its existence is erroneously disputed also in Isa. liii., in spite of
the DWN, ver. 10. No doubt prominence is given, in the first instance, to the
idea of substitution ; but Weiss ought not to have denied that this thought is
connected in the mind of the prophet, as in that of the apostle, with the idea of
sacrifice, especially as he himself says that the idea of substitution is that upon
which the sin-offering is based (Lev. xvii. 11). And was there any other sub-
stitutionary bearing of sin than in the sacrifice? It must not, however, be
concluded that each word in the expression, and especially éai rd gvAov, must
have a particular reference to the idea of sacrifice.
lva rui¢ duaptiaw anoyeviueva]. Oecumenius: droyevopevoe* avti rov, dropa-
vortec; cf. Rom. vi. 2, 11 (Gal. ii. 19). Bengel’s rendering: yivec@a: revdg
Fieri alicujus dicitur servus, and dicit sejunctionem; Germ. “to become with-
out,” which Weiss (p. 284) supports, is inappropriate here, since dmoyiyvecba
in this sense is construed with the genitive. For the dative, see Winer,
p. 398 (E. T., 427 f.). raig duapriace corresponds to the foregoing rag duapriag
nuov. The use of the aor. part. shows that the being dead unto sin is the
1 Pfleiderer (p. 422) is entirely unwarranted __life,”’ and “‘ that by this removal {s meant, that
in maintaining the sense to be: ** That Christ, we free our moral life and conduct from
by His death on the cross, took away, removed sin’’(!).
our sins, so~wthat they no longer surround our
CHAP. II. 25. 271
condition into which we are introduced by the fact that Christ rac duapriac
quav avrog dviveyxev, x.7.A, The actions of the Christians should correspond
with this condition; this the apostle expresses by iva... t9 dixawaivy Growper ;
cf. Rom. vi. — dcaatoobvn means here not “justification or righteousness, as a
condition of him whose sins are forgiven,” but it is the opposite of dyapria,
“ righteousness which consists in obedience towards God and in the fulfilling
of His will.” The clause, introduced here by the final particle iva (as in
i. 18), does not give the primary aim of Christ’s substitutionary death,
that, namely, of reconciliation; but further the design, that of making free
from the power of sin. Weiss (p. 285) is wrong in thinking that Peter
“did not here conceive the redemption as already completed in principle by
the blood of Christ,” but “ accomplished in a purely physiological way, by the
impression produced by the preaching of His death and the incitement to
imitation which! it gave.” Thus Pfleiderer also. The refutation of this
is to be found in what follows. — ob 7@ wodwm (airov) iadnre]. Isa. lili. 5,
LXX.: return to the direct form of address: poAwy is, properly speaking,
marks left by scourging (Sir. xxviii. 17, wAny} uaortyoc moet udAwrac); there-
fore, taken strictly, the expression has reference to the flagellation of Christ
only; but here it stands as a pars pro toto (Steiger) to denote the whole of
Christ’s sufferings, of which His death was the culminating point. — By
ia@yre the apostle declares, that, through the suffering of Christ (of course
by the instrumentality of faith), the Christians are translated from the sick-
ness of a sinful nature into the health of a life of righteousness.
Ver. 25. fre yap o¢ mpoBata rAavepeva]. This explanatory clause (yi)
points back, as the continuance in it of the direct address (iaonre . . . gre)
shows, in the first instance, to the statement immediately preceding ov ra
pddune iadnre, but at the same time also to the thought iva . . . ry dixawcivy
Gjowuev, to which that assertion is subservient. For the foregoing figure a
new one is substituted, after Isa. lili. 6: LXOX. mavreg d¢ npdBara érAavfbquev;
if xAaveouero be the correct reading, then from it the nearer definition of
mpoBara is to be supplied, the sheep are to be thought of as those which have
no shepherd (Matt. ix. 36: cei zpdsara ui Exovra roméva; comp. Num. xxvii.
17; 1 Kings xxii. 17). — For the figure describing the state of man sepa-
rated in his sin from God, comp. Matt. xviii. 12,13; Luke xv. 4 ff. —aav
breotpagnre viv]. éxeotpagnre 18, in harmony with the uniform usage of Scrip-
ture, to be taken not in a passive (Wiesinger, Schott), but in a middle sense:
“ye have turned yourselves."2 Luther translates: “but ye are now turned.”
The word émorpégecy means to turn one’s self away from (az6, éx), towards
1 In his Lehrbuch der Bibl. Theol. (p. 172),
Weiss only says: ‘It follows from ii. 24, that
the being released from sin ts certainly a con-
sequence, but only the indirect consequence,
of the death of Christ. Because {it has released
us from the guilt of our former sins, the fur.
ther consequence will be, that henceforward
we will renounce those sins which He vica-
rlously expiated.”
3 Schott’s counter-remark: ‘‘The question
ia not here what they did, but what in Christ
was imparted to them,” has all the less weight,
that conversion, though the personal act of the
Christian, must still be regarded as effected by
Christ. Hofmann maintains, without the
slightest right to do so, that in this pasaaye
the chief emphasis lies on the readers’ own
act, though at the same time he correctly
understands émearpadnre in a middle sense.
272 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
something (éi, mpéc, ele), (Sometimes equal to: to turn round); but it is not
implied in the word itself, that the individual has formerly been in that place
towards which he has now turned round, and whither he is going (therefore,
in Gal. iv. 9, mdédwv is expressly added). Weiss (p. 122) is therefore wrong
when from this very word he tries to prove that by rouqv God, and not
Christ, is to be understood, although the term sometimes includes in it the
secondary idea of “back;” cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21, 22. — én? rdv moiuéva xal éxioxonov
Tov poyov vtucw]. Cf. especially Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12, 16, LXX.: ys éxtqriow
Ta mpoBura jou Kal enioxéwouat avrd, Worep Cyrei 6 nowy 1d roiuviov abrod . . . Td
mAavapevov anxootpéyw; besides, with omy, Ps. xxiii. 1; Isa. xl. 11. From
the fact that in these passages God is spoken of as the shepherd, it must not
be concluded, with Weiss, that zou nai éxioxorocg refers not to Christ, but to
God. For not only has God, calling Himself a shepherd, promised a shep-
herd (Ezek. xxxiv. 24, LXX.: dvaorgow én’ abrovs toiuéva tva . . . Tov dovAov pov
Aavid, xxxvil. 24), but Christ, too, speaks of Himself as the good Shepherd ;
and Peter himself, in chap. v. 4, calls Him dpyexouuyv. In comparison with
these passages, chap v. 2 is plainly of no account. All interpreters — ex-
cept Weiss — rightly understand the expressions here used as applying to
Christ. The designation éxicxoroc would all the more naturally occur to the
apostle, as it was, like zocuyy, the name of the presidents of the churches
who were, so to speak, the representatives of the One Shepherd and Bishop,
the Head of the whole Church. — rav puxdy tuov belongs, as the omission of
the article before éxicxoxoy shows, to both words; with the expression,
ef. chap. i. 9, 22.
CHAP. III. 278
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. al yvvaixec}. Rec., after C, K, L, P, etc. (Tisch. 7); Lachm. and
Tisch. 8 omit ai, after A, B; ai omitted perhaps in order to mark the vocative.
— Almost all authorities (as also ®), even Griesb., along with Lachm. and Tisch.,
support the reading xepdnéncovra, instead of xepdnOjowvrar. The future conjunct.,
occurring only in later writers (see Winer, p. 72 [E. T., 89]), is to be found only
in min.; it is put here because of iva ; superfluously, however, as iva in the N. T.
is often construed cum. ind., John xvii. 2; Rev. xxii. 14.— Ver. 3. éumAoxic
Tpixov kal repibécewe], Lachm. substitutes éumAoxig 7 mepidécews, in C. — The most
important authorities, however, support the usual reading (Tisch.) — Ver. 4.
mpaéog xal jovxiov). Rec., after A, C, L, K, P, &, most min., Clem., Thph., etc.
— Lachm. : 7ovxiov xal mpgéoc, in B, Vulg., Copt., etc. Instead of rpefoc, Tisch.
reads zpeéwc, cf. A. Buttmann, p. 23. — Ver. 5. Millius, without sufficient reason,
regards the words, ai éAni{ovoa éxi rdv Gedy, as spurious, because they are not in
the vss. Aethiop. — However, according to A, B, C, etc., and Lachm. and Tisch.,
ei¢ should probably be read for éri. The article r6v, which is found almost only in
min., must be deleted (Lachm., Tisch.), so that the original text probably runs:
ai Arifovoa elc Oeov. W reads ai éAn, éni rov Oedv, after the word éavrac. — Ver. 6.
trpxovoe], Lachm.@ trpxovey is insufficiently attested by B, Vulg.— Ver. 7. The
Rec. ovyxAnpovopos (Tisch.) is found in several min. (8, 7, 8, etc.), in Vulg., Syr.,
Aeth., Arm., Arr., in Thph., Oec., Aug., etc.; it is doubtful if in B.! In ® we
find at first hand, ovyxAnpovouovs, and, as correction, cvyxAnpovopuor (according to
Buttm.). In A, C, K, L, P, many min., several versions, and Hier., on the
other hand, we find the nominative, ovyxAnpovouo: (Lachm.). The opinion of
critics as to which is the original reading, is much divided ; almost all com-
mentators prefer the Rec.; so, too, Reiche; whilst Hofm. holds an opposite
view. According to the handwriting, the nominative appears clearly to be the
better-attested reading ; but for this, see the commentary on the verse. — A, C**,
®, several min., Hier., add the adjective soxliAn¢ to yaptroc, which is probably
taken from chap. iv. 10, but which Hofm. nevertheless considers genuine. —
Instead of Rec. éxxorrec6a:, after C**, K, L, several min., and Theoph. (Tisch.
7), Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read, after A, B, &, etc., éyxorrecOa: (Tisch. 8, év«.),
which Hofmann also considers the original reading. Both readings occur in
Oec. It cannot be decided with certainty.. Buttm., following B, has accepted
the dative raig mpocevyaic, in place of the accus. rd¢ tpocevxde. Grammatically
no objection can be raised (‘‘so that no hinderance be given to your prayers’) ;
but as this reading is only found in B, it can hardly be considered the original
1 Birch has given as the reading of B: ingofB. On the other hand, in his Recensus
ovyxAnpovéme:, but bas been accused of error _ilectt., Cod. &, he gives cvyxAnpovémors as the
by Majus. Buttmann, in his edition, reads reading adopted by him.
ovyxAnporduor, and gives this also as the read-
274 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
one. — Ver. 8. ramecvégpovec], After A, B, C, x, etc., Syr., Erp., etc.; accepted
even by Griesb. and Scholz, instead of the ¢:Ad¢povec of K, and several min. In
some Cod. both words are placed side by side, which may, according to Hofmann,
be taken as the original reading. — Ver 9. According to almost all authorities,
A, B, C, K, &, al., Syr., utr. Copt., etc., as also Lachm. and Tisch., eldore¢
should be deleted. — Ver. 10. The Rec. gives the pronoun airovd after yAdocay
(K, L, P, &, etc.); in A, B, C, and several min., it is wanting here, as also after
xeiAn ; Lachm. and Tisch. have accordingly omitted it in both passages. —
Ver. 11. After éxxdivdrw, several Codd., A, B, C*, have the particle dé (Lachm.,
Tisch. 7), which in the Rec. is wanting after C**, K, L, P, &, etc. (Tisch. 8).
The omission seems to be a correction. — Ver. 12. of og@aauoi]. The article is
wanting in A, B, C*, K, L, P, &, ete., omitted by Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.;
Griesb., too, regards of as doubtful. In the original passage (Ps. xxxiv. 16,
LXX., it is wanting. — Ver. 13. (jAurai]. After A, B, C, &, al. (Lachm., Tisch.
8), instead of the Rec., uizntai in K, L, P, several min., Oec. (Tisch.). pupnrai
appears to be a correction. tov ayafov having been taken as masc., and (nAwrai
not being suitable thereto, uiunrtai, following such passages as Eph. v. 1, 1 Thess.
i. 6, very naturally presented itself; De Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, Hofmann,
prefer uuyntai; Briickner and Schott, (jAwrai. Instead of édv ... yévnobe, B
reads: ei... yévo.ode, as Buttm. notes, without, however, receiving it into the
text. — Ver. 14. Instead of GAA’ ei, in A and several min.: e/ dé. —undé rapayb7re,
omitted in B, L, 43, but yet received into the text by Buttm. — Ver. 15. rdv
Ocov]. Rec., after K, L, P, several min., Thph., Oec. Instead of this, Lachm.
and Tisch. read rdv Xpiordv (considered by Griesb. to be probably the genuine
reading) ; attested by A, B, C, &, 7, al., Syr., utr. Copt., etc., Clem., Fulgent.
The alteration to 7rdv Geov is explained by Isa. viii. 18. — After frocuot, the Rec.
adds dé; according to Tisch.’s statement, it stands in A, K, etc., but not in
B, C, &, etc. ; Buttm. affirms that it is also to be found in B; Tisch. 7 has
retained it ; Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have not. —In place of airotvr:, & has the
correction : ararovvtt, — A, B, C, &, 5, al., Copt., Syr., etc., have @AAa@ before
usta, which Lachm. and Tisch. have justly accepted ; it may be considered as
the original, not only from the testimony of the authorities (it is wanting only
in K, L, P, some min., and versions, in Oec., Beda), but also as being the more
difficult reading. — Ver. 16. The reading which is best attested by the authori-
ties ig : év QS xaradadovat budy we Kaxorouy, as in A, C, K, &, etc. Instead of the
{ndicative, Rec. has the conjunctive : xataAadworv, B, on the other hand, simply
has xaradadeioée, which Tisch. has accepted ; he is, however, hardly justified in
doing so, as it is too insufficiently attested, and appears rather to be a correction
for the purpose of making the passage less difficult (cf. Schott and Hofmann).
— Ver. 17. ef déAvt]. Justly accepted even by Griesb., instead of the Rec. el
6é2e, — Ver. 18. qucv, following upon duaprwy, in C*, al., Syr., Arr., etc., has
been accepted by Lachm. in his small edition ; it appears to have been inserted
in consideration of iva tude mpooayayy r. 0. — Instead of the Rec. &raée, in B, K,
L, P, pl., Thph., Oec., Aug. (Tisch. 7), A, C, &, 5, al., Cypr., Didym., several
versions (Lachm., Tisch. 8) have azé@ave ; De Wette-Briickner explain ané@ave
to be a gloss, after Rom. v. 6, vi. 10; Heb. iv. 27; to this Wiesinger agrees ; it
is, however, possible that éra@ev arose from chap. fi. 21, as Hofm. also thinks.
According to Tisch., the reading of the Codd., A, C*, G, before the verb, is:
trip nucy vel trip tucy ; & has ump fucv ; but whether this addition be genuine,
cannot with certainty be decided ; it may equally well have been left out as
superfluous, as added in order to give prominence to the peculiar significance of
CHAP. III. 1. 275
the death of Christ. — Instead of judas (A, C, K, L, al., pl., several versions, etc.,
Lachm., Tisch. 8), B and several min. have tydc (Tisch. 7); insufficiently
attested. In the original handwriting, & has neither nud¢ nor tudc; in the
correction, #uds. In B, rm) O20, after mpocaydyy, is wanting, for which reason
Buttm. has omitted it. — mvevuari], Accepted even by Griesb., instead of Rec.
To mvevpart, — Ver, 20. amegedéxero|. Undoubtedly the correct rendering, instead
of the amaf éfedéxero, which is hardly supported by any authority. Tisch.
remarks : videtur ex conjectura Erasmi fluzisse, qui sic edidit inde ab ed. 2.—
ddya]. Ree., after C, K, L, P, many min., Thph., Oec. (Griesb., Scholz) ;
Lachm. and Tisch., on the other hand, following A, B, &, al., Vulg., Orig., etc.,
have accepted dAlya, dAiyat seems to be a correction, because of the subsequent
wyoyai. — Ver. 21. 5]. Rightly accepted by Griesb., instead of the reading ¢ in
the ed. Elz.—In K, many min., Thph., etc., the opening words — evidently as
a correction for the sake of simplification — are thus transposed : 6 avritvrov viv
bung ocXet. — Instead of the jud¢ in the Rec. (C, K, L, Copt., ete., Thph., Oec.),
Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted tur (A, B, P, &, several vss., and Fathers) ;
doubtless rightly, as the change to tudcs can be explained on the principle that
the more general 7ud¢ seemed better suited to the context. Reiche prefers jude,
— Ver. 22. According to almost all authorities, the article rod stands before
@cov (Rec., Lachm., Tisch. 7); Tisch. 8, however, following B and &, has
dropped it. :
Ver. 1. From here to ver. 6, an exhortation to wives. — duolwe not
simply particula transeundi (Pott); on account of the subsequent déorac-
coueva: it stands related rather to the exhortation contained in what pre-
cedes; the participle here as in chap. il. 18. — ai yuvaixec. Form of address,
like of oixéra: (as opposed to Steiger); vid., duay, ver. 2; rav yuvacw (instead
of tudv) is used here, not because the thought is a general one (De Wette,
Wiesinger), nor “ because Peter means to say that the heathen men should
be won over by their own wives” (Schott), but because the apostle wishes
clearly to point out how the wives too may be able to advance the kingdom
of God. The words are addressed generally to all Christian wives, though,
as the sequel shows, with special reference to those who have unbelieving
husbands. — troragacpevat roig idiotg dvdpacty)}. idiog is used here, not by way
of contradistinction (Glossa interl.: suis viris, non adulteris, or according to
Calvin: ut Ap. castitatis uxores admoneat avocetque a suspectis ubsequiis virorum
aliorum ; 80, too, Fronmiiller), but only to express the idea of belonging
together, more strongly than the simple pronoun; cf. also Winer, p. 145 f.
(E. T., 153 f.). — With the thought here expressed, cf. Eph. v. 22-24; Col.
iii. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 9. It is self-evident, — although many interpreters have
discussed the question at considerable length, —that the subjection of the
wife to the husband is of quite a different kind from that of the slave to
the master. The apostle, however, does not go into the subject further, but
contents himself with sitinply emphasizing that point.!— ta xai ei reve¢
GreBovat TO Adyy]. xal el, i.e., “even then when,” supposes not only a possible,
1 For similar remarks of the ancients, see cant: aya0as yuvaicds doriy, & Nixoorparn, we
in Steiger; that of the humorist Philemon (in «peirrov’ elvas sr’ avépds, aAA’ Upxooy.
a Fragment, ver. 123) is particularly signifi.
276 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
but a particularly unfavorable case; that is to say, when men who are
joined to Christian wives oppose the Adyoc, even then may such be gained
over by the Christian walk of their wives;! rive¢ must be conceived as
referring to heathen men with Christian wives. — With ro Aoyy, cf. chap.
ii. 8. — The expression dmeeivy denotes here, as in chap. ii. 7, not a simple
negation only (Pott: ad religionem christianam nondum accessisse), but an
opposition*to. — da rig tév yuvaindy dvacrpogic: éavtoy must be supplied to
yuvaxayv; itis not wives in general who are here meant, but only the wives
of heathen husbands. — dvacrpop7; quite generally: the Christian walk of
women, with specia] reference, however, to their relation to their husbands;
it is precisely obedience that most easily wins the heart. — dvev Acyov: Huss,
incorrectly: sine verbo praedicationis publicae (so, too, Fronmiiller); the
words are used here to emphasize more strongly dud rig . . . dvactpogic, and
must be held to refer to the conduct of wives (De Wette, Wiesinger).
Schott wrongly unites dvsv Aoyou with the preceding ri¢ . . . dvacrpogn¢ into
one idea; Peter could never have meant to say that the walk of women
should be a silent one. The apostle’s thought is this: If the husbands
oppose the Word, the wives should all the more diligently seek to preserve
a Christian walk, in order by it to win over their husbands, even without
words, i.e., “ without preaching and exhortation on their part ” (De Wette).
Oecumenius incorrectly refers these words to the conduct of husbands in
the sense: cessanti omni verbo et contradictione. — xepdn@joovra: that is to
say, for the faith, and by it for the kingdom of God; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff.;
s0, too, Schott indeed, who, however, unjustifiably thinks that the apostle’s
meaning is, that the preserration of the marriage relation is the primary object
which is to be attained by the good behavior of the wives. On the indic.
with iva, cf. Winer, p. 269 ff. (E. T., 287 ff.).
Ver. 2. énomreboavrec tiv év G68w ayvav dvactpogny tuav: for énonr., cf.
chap ii. 12. The participial clause here serves as a further explanation of
the preceding ca, «.7.4, —dyvoc: “ chaste,” in the full extent of the word, not
only in contradistinction to mopveia proper, but to whatsoever violates the
moral relation of the subjection of the wife to her husband. This dyveia is
determined by éy ¢63y (not equal to, in timore Dei conservato: Glossa interl. ;
Grotius too, Bengel, Jachmann, Weiss, Fronmiller, etc., understand by
goBoe here the “fear of God”), as connected in the closest possible way
with the shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband; ?
ef. chap. ii. 18.
Ver. 3. dv lotw]. The genitive dv does not depend on a xdoyog to be
supplied from the predicate 6 EHuwev ... xdauog (De Wette, Wiesinger,
1 Hofmann maintains that if the protasis be
thus understood, the apodosia is not suited to
it, “inasmuch as no other case could be sup-
posed in which the husband could be won,
without words, by the conduct of his wife,
than that of his being disobedient to the
Word,” and that the difficulty can only be
removed if ei ries be Interpreted as equal to
ores. But the difficulty Uofmann alludes
to clearly still remains, though In fact it has
no existence if only the idea are:Bovar receive
the precision it is entitled to.
2 Schott unwarrantably maintains that in
this interpretation it ie not avacrpody which is
more precisely defined by the homogeneous
adjectival expression dy 6S dyvy, but ayry
avagtp. by ¢y $oBe.
CHAP. III. 4. 277
Schott, Hofmann); such a construction, arbitrary in itself, is here entirely
inadmissible on account of the remoteness of the predicate, from which the
idea wanting is to be taken. The genitive is rather ruled by forw. civai tevog
expresses, as usual, the relation of belonging to; the sense is therefore:
‘ whose business let it be,” i.e., who have to occupy themselves with.! — oix
6 téwdev, «.7.4. As often in our epistle, the negative preceding the positive.
— 6 livoev is closely joined together with xoopoc. The genitives which stand
between, and are dependent on xdooyoc, serve to determine the idea more
precisely, their position immediately after 6 éwev is explained from the
intention of the writer to lay special emphasis on them, since it belongs to
women to take pleasure in adorning themselves in this wise. The whole
expression is to be interpreted thus: “outward adornment wrought by the
praiting of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.” — éundoxn,
av aey (in the passage specially to be compared with this, 1 Tim. ii. 9,
r2éyuata is used), not “the plaits,” but “the plaiting;” it is an active idea,
like wepiGeote and évdvarc; “these verbalia describe the vain occupation of
worldly women” (Wies.); xpica are golden ornaments generally. — The
last two members of the clause, united by 7, are connected with the first
by xa:, because they have reference to things which are put on the body.
Ver. 4. As antithesis to what precedes, cA2’ 6 fowsev xoouor Would have
been expected; instead of this, however, the author at once states in what
that adornment does consist.— 6 xpumrdc tig xapdiag av@pwrog does not mean
the virtutes christ. quas Spir. s. per regenerationem in homine operatur (Gerhard ;
so, too, Wiesinger and Fronmiiller), for here there is no mention either of the
Holy Ghost or of regeneration. It denotes simply the inner man, in contra-
distinction to the outward man (so, too, De Wette, Briickner, Weiss, Schott,
Hofmann) ; «pumrés, antithesis to Fuw6ev, ver. 3; cf. 6 tow dvOp., Rom. vii. 22;
Eph. iii. 16; 6 Zowev, sc. dvép., 2 Cor. iv. 16; cf., too, such expressions as:
Ta xpurra rig xapdiac, 1 Cor. xiv. 25, and ra xpurra rov dv6p., Rom. ii. 16. The
apostle selected the expression xpumrés as a contrast to the conspicuous adorn-
ment formerly spoken of. ri¢ xapdiac is not gen. qualitatis (Schott); xapdia
itself denotes no quality; it is the genitive of apposition subjoined, in that
xapdta is the seat of the feeling and the disposition. —é ro dodupty]. rd
aodaprov, substantive (like g@apra, chap. i. 18), “ the imperishable” (incorrectly,
Hofmann: év rd agdapry, 8c. xoozy), in contrast to the perishable ornaments
above mentioned. The prepos. év points out the sphere in which the inner
hidden man should move. If dv 6 xécyoc forw be supplied after aida, then
“ty is to be joined with it, so as to show in what, and with what, this their
inward hidden man should be their ornament ” (Schott; so, too, Hofmann).
— Tov mpgéog nai novziov mvevparoc, &@ More exact definition of the dgéaprov; it
1 When Hofmann would advance against
thie construction, that the affirmative subject
reply that {t ie not 6 cpumrds . . . avOpwros in
iteelf, but o «pumwrds ... dvOpwros éy Ty
(ver 4) ie not suitable to it, ‘since it may be
eaid of the hidden man of the heart, that it
should be the woman's adornment, but not
that it should be her business, for she hereelf
fe that hidden man,’ it must be observed in
a¢Odpry, x. r. A., which is to be taken as that
which should be characteristic of women; as
Hofmann also in his expoeitfons saya: ‘* The
adornment of women is not indicated by the
simple, but by the compound expression.”
278 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
denotes not the zy. éyov of God, but the spirit of man. The meek and quiet
spirit (here emphasized with special reference to tmoraccduevor, ver. 1) is that
“imperishable,” in which the hidden life of woman should exist and move.}
& forw tveomuv tov Oecd rodvredtc]. 6 does not apply to the whole (Grotius),
nor to r@ apddpry (Bengel, Pott, Steiger, Schott), since it is self-evident that
the dggaprov is in God’s eyes nodvredéc. It is to be taken with the immedi-
ately preceding mxveiparoc (De Wette, Wiesinger). Such a vein is, in the
judgment of God (1 Tim. ii. 3), modwreaée (Mark xiv. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 9), whilst
‘outward adornment, worthless to the divine mind, possesses a value only in
the eyes of men.?
Vv. 5, 6. otrw yap, ground for the exhortation: dv lorw, etc., by the ex-
ample of the saintly women of the O. T. ofrw refers back to what precedes.
—oré xal ui dywat yuvaixec]. moré, i.e., in the time of the Old Covenant. —
Gyat: because they belonged to the chosen people of God (Schott), and their
life was sanctified aud consecrated to God in faith. —ai tAnifovoa eig (én?)
@cov]. Cf. 1 Tim. v. 5. This nearer definition is subjoined not only be-
cause hope in God, i.e., in the fulfilment of His promises, was the character-
istic mark of the piety of these holy women, rooted as it was in faith, but
specially “to explain why it did not, and could not, occur to them, ever to
delight in empty show ” (Hofmann).* — With éadopovy éavrdc, cf. 1 Tim. ii. 9.
— troraccouevat Toig dvdpaow is linked on to éxdopouy éavrdc, showing wherein
lay the proof that they had adorned themselves with the meek and quiet
spirit. There is but one (De Wette) characteristic indeed here mentioned ;
but, according to the connection, it is the chief manifestation of that spirit.
It is incorrect to resolve (as was formerly done in the commentary) the par-
ticiple into: “ from this fact, that.” — Ver. 6. w¢ Zappa irjxovoe rp 'ASpadu]. A
simple comparison of the contents of the two passages is a sufficient refuta-
tion of De Wette’s supposition that, in the words before us, there isa refer-
ence to Heb. xi. 11. — dc: particula allegandi exemplum: Bengel. Sarah is
mentioned, because, as the wife of Abraham and ancestress of the people
of Israel, she had especial significance in the history of redemption.4—
1 The two expreesions, rpads and novos,
must not be sharply distinguished; mpavrns
stands contrasted specially with opyn (Jas. {.
20, 21) or ¢nAos (Jas. ili. 13, 14), synonymous
with émemea (2 Cor. x. 1), paxpoOvuia (Col.
Hi. 12), vronovy (1 Tim. vi. 11), ete.; it is
pecullar to him who does not allow himself
to be provoked to wrath. yovxia is related to
axatagtagia; & novx.os is be who is peaceable
and does not care for noisy life. Bengel inter-
prets mansuetus (mpavs), ‘qui non turbat;’"
tranquillus (novx0os), “ qui turbas aliorum fert
placide ;” the contrary would be more correct.
2 Luther: **A woman should be thus dis-
poecd as not to care for adornment. Else
when people turn thelr minds to adornment,
they never give it up; that is thelr way and
their nature; therefore a Christiano woman
should deepise it. But it her husband wish it,
or there be some other good reason for adorn-
ing herself, then she is right todo so.” Calvin,
too, rightly observes: ‘‘ Non quemvis cultum
reprehendere voluit Petrus, sed morbum vani-
tatis, quo mulieres laborant.”
3 According to Schott, this addition fs meant
to express that ‘‘ the complete development of
the Christian Church, to which they belonged,
was only ae yet an object of hope;” but this
introduces a reference which the words do not
contain.
4 Schott applies ws to that which directly
precedes, in this sense: that ‘the conduct of
the holy women was regulated only according
to the standard of Sarah.”” Hofmann thus:
that Sarah ‘is mentioned as a shining example
of the conduct of holy women.” Both are
wrong, since neither is alluded to by ws.
CHAP. III. 5, 6. 279
tnjxovee refers not merely to the single case which the apostle had particu-
larly before his mind, but denotes the habitual behavior of Sarah towards
Abraham: the aor. is used here as in Gal. iv. 8 (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott).
— xtpiov aitov xadotca}]. She showed herself submissive to the will of Abra-
ham in this, that she called him xipig. The allusion is here to Gen. xviii. 12
(cf. also 1 Sam. i. 8, LXX.). — ng éyevgogre réxva]. Lorinus: non successione
generis, sed imitatione fidei; Pott incorrectly explains the aorist by the future
(éoecbe); the translation, too, of the Vulg., estis, is inexact; Luther is right:
““whose daughters ye are become.” As Paul calls the believing heathen, on
account of their faith, children of Abraham, so Peter here styles the women
who had become Christians, children of Sarah. —dya6orowica does not be-
long to iroracadueva:, as if de Sappa ... téxva were a parenthesis (Bengel,
Ernesti, etc.), but to éyevndnre, not, however, as stating how they become
(Weiss, p. 110 f.)! or “have become” children of Sarah (to the first interpre-
tation the aorist yevgénre is opposed, to the latter the pres. partic.), but as
showing the mark by which they proved themselves children of Sarah. It
may be resolved into “since,” or “that is to say if,” etc. It is grammati-
cally incorrect to see in dyaSorowtoa the result of 7 tyevaOnre Téxva, and to
explain: “in this way have they become the children of Sarah, that they are
now tn accordance therewith ayaSoxowtca and uh gofoipevar” (Schott). By
dyaSoroviv is to be understood here not specially benevolence (Oecum.) ; ?
the word denotes rather the whole moral activity of Christian life in its
fullest extent, although here, as the connection shows, with particular refer-
ence to the marriage relation. —xa2 4) goBobpevar undepiay mrénow). mronoy
equals gé630¢ (Pollux, v. 122: cvorody, bdpvBoc, rapayn), in the N. T. dm. rey.
(Luke xxi. 9, xxxvii. 9, the verb wrondévrec is connected with EuduBor yevopevor);
it denotes not the object causing fear, but the fear itself which is felt;
and it can be looked on either objectively as a power threatening man, or
laying hold of him (as, Prov. ili. 25, LXX.: nal ob poBndnoy mrénow ereAdorcay;
1 Mace. iii. 25: 4 wrénote émiminrer emi rd Eevg; the synonymous terms 96io¢,
zpduoc, are used also in a like manner), or taken in a sense purely subjective.
Most commentators understand rréqowr here in the first of these senses, only
they do not take the conception strictly by itself, but identify it with that
which causes fear; in the first edition of this commentary, the second mean-
ing is attributed to mrénow: goBeicdae rrénav equal to goeicbar goBov: ‘to
experience fear” (Mark iv. 41; Luke ii. 9; cf. Winer, p. 210 f. [E. T., 223]);
but this explanation is opposed by the fact “that in such a connection the
sabstantive must be taken not in idea only, but in form also from the verb”
(Briickner). The idea here is quite as universal as in dyafor,; and accord-
ingly it must be conceived as the fear generally which the enmity of the
1 It muet be held, with Wiesinger, Briick-
ner, and Schott, in opposition to Weiss and
Fronmiiller, that it is more natural to take
these words as applying to Gentile-Christian
rather than to Jewish-Christian readers. For
inasmuch as the latter, before their conversion,
were already réxva rns Sdppas, some allusion
must have been made to their not having been
80 In a right manner, and as they now had
become. It does not follow from Jobn vill. 39
(as Weiss thinks) that an allusion of thie kind
was unnecessary.
3 Mera rov evadcpov cai mpdworros Xpic-
Travois kéopov Kat dAeHmovas alrda¢ eivas Tapas
vet, under vwofAewouevacg Toy azd Twy avdpuy
avrey da trovTo éxAoyiopoy.
280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
unbelieving world occasions to believers; still, according to the connection,
the apostle had doubtless in his mind more particularly the conduct of
heathen men towards their Christian wives. — Luther’s translation is in-
exact: “if ye... are not so fearful.” The rendering of Stephanus is
incorrect, s. v., nronouw: jubentur mulieris officium facere ETIAM, CUM nullus
€as metus constringit, i.e., sponte et ultro. .
Ver. 7. of dvdper dpoiwc). dpoiuc, with the participle following, refers back,
as in ver. 1, to ixoraynre macy avOp. xricec, With which the exhortation begins
(Hofmann); though there is no tmoracoduevn (cf. ii. 18, iii. 1), there lies
something corresponding to it in the fact that the wife on her part possesses
a tiun to be acknowledged by the husband. Pott erroneously renders dpoiu¢
by vicissim, “ou the other hand;” nor is it, as De Wette thinks probable,
to be expanded: “in like manner, ye men also, hear my exhortation.” —
ouvoxovvres]. ocuvoimeiv (an, Aey.) is not a euphemismus de tori conjugalis consue-
tudine (Hieronym., Contra Jovian., lib. }.c.4; Augustin., In Ps. czlvi., etc.);
the reference is rather to life together at home. —xara ywoor]. As yvoor is
here anarthrous, it is wrong to understand yv»dier¢ as referring directly to
“Christian recognition of the relation of wife to husband” (Briickner,
Schott); xara yvaow is rather an adverbial expression, in which yvoor is to
be understood generally, as Wiesinger correctly remarks: “according to recog-
nition, i.e., so that home life must be regulated by knowledge and under-
standing ” (so also Hofmann). Similar adverbial expressions, formed by a
conjunction of aura with an anarthrous subst., occur frequently both in clas-
sical and N. T. Greek. It is evident from the context that xara yvoow has
here special reference to the marriage relation; but from this it does not
follow that the interpretation, “in a judicious, discerning manner,” or Lu-
ther’s “with reason,” is incorrect (in opposition to Briickner and Schott).
De Wette is completely mistaken in rendering yroor by “that knowledge
of men and self, in fact, that inward discernment, which is the condition of
all moderation,” as is Bengel also directly by moderatio.!— oc dodevectépy
oxevet Ty yuvaxeiy is erroneously connected by Luther and others with cnove-
povrec; it belongs, however, to cvvoxoivres, which requires a nearer definition.
— The word oxeiog is used to designate the wife in 1 Thess. iv. 4 (see Liine-
mann in loc.) with reference to the husband; the same meaning, though
with various applications, is here attributed to it by many interpreters.?
But this view is incorrect, for 1r@ jvvarxeiy, sc. oxetet, is subjoined by way of
explanation, and the comparative dog. shows that the husband also is thought
of as oxevoc. oxeiog must be taken here in its specific meaning of a utensil
(or instrument) serving a particular purpose, and is accordingly to be under-
stood as specially applicable to man, in so far as the latter is used by God
? Occumenlus understands this exhortation
in connection with ver. 6, as having a apecial
application to the household: oi avdpes...
Guvoxourres’ Tourégtiy: aicOnoww AapBavovTes
THs Tov OnAdeos novddryTos Kai TOU evwapadcpou
dv race, cat cig uexpopuxiay evorAccOov, paxpdbv-
Mor yiverOe mpos auras, wn Acyor awasrourTes
WiKpws TwY KaTa Thy oiciay alTwy ei¢ Taunscelay
mapaxareOérwry.
2 Beza: ‘Ket femina vas, i. e., comes et
adjutrix viro ad fideliter coram Deo tranei-
gendam vitam adjuncta.” Bengel: ‘‘ Denotat
hoc sexum et totum jngenium temperament-
umque foemineum.”
CHAP. III. 7. 281
for the actomplishment of His will (cf. Acts ix. 15). It is inaccurate, nor
can it be justified by Rom. ix. 21 ff., to take the word in the general sense
of “creation” (so Wiesinger, and formerly in this commentary). Hofmann
understands oxevoc here as referring both to the husband and the wife, inas-
much as “in a life united in marriage, one part is destined to be and to
accomplish something for the other;” but the reference to this mutual
relation is purely arbitrary.! — dodeveorépy]. Bengel: Comparativus, etiam
vir habet infirmitatem; in like manner Steiger: “the less weak is called upon
to assist the more weak” (thus also Fronmiiller). This view is, however,
incorrect; it is the husband rather as the stronger oxevoc — there is no refer-
ence made here to his weakness — who is here contrasted with the wife as
the weaker (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). And, because he is
such @ oxcioc, it is demanded of him that he live with his wife xara yvdow; oc
here also states the reason: because the wife is a ox, dodevevéorepov, it is ac-
cordingly incumbent on the man to behave towards her xara yooorv. Schott
erroneously sees in xara ydow the determining reason why the man should
treat her as a ox. do9.; but this-can the less be maintained, that «x. yv. cannot
signify “because he recognizes her as such,” but states the manner of the
ovvoxeiv, — cobeveotépy oxever Stands in apposition to rd yuvarxein, sc. oxever, and
is put first by way of emphasis. — yuvaieioc, Gx. Aey., Lev. xviil. 22; Deut.
xxii. 5, LXX.; Esth. ii. 11, 17. —drovépovreg reuqv, “in that ye show honor
(respect) to them;” axovéyew in the N. T. an. Aey. — The participle is not co-
ordinate with the foregoing (cvvorcovyrec), but subordinate to it, since it brings
prominently forward one of the chief ways in which the preceding exhorta-
tion may be carried into effect. The thought here must not be arbitrarily
limited to any special relation (e. g., to that of maintenance or of continence,
etc.). The husband. should, in every relation, show the respect due to his
wife. — cdc xal ovyxAnpovopor (-0c) ydpttoc Gwe Serves as ground of the exhorta-
tion; if the reading be ovy«Anpovouoy, the reference is to the wives; if
ovysAnpovouot, to the husbands (in opposition to Pott, who somewhat singu-
larly interprets as equal to elat yap ovyxAnpovouort, 8c. al yuvalxec). The dative
is more in harmony with the structure of the sentence and the thought, and
therefore is to be preferred to the nom. supported by the authorities;
although the nom. may be defended on the ground that husbands, as ovyxa.
of their wives, should in turn regard the latter as their ovyxa, But since
this last is really the point of importance, it can hardly be assumed that the
apostle would only have hinted at it, without openly giving expression to
it.2— xal ovyxAnpovonors, De Wette-Briickner explain, “as (those who) also
1 Schott arbitrarily asserts that the creature
ja here termed oxevos, ‘as a vessel which is
destined to receive into itself, as ita real con-
tents, the realization of the divine will.”
Even though a vessel containing something
can be termed a cxevos, it does not follow that
oxevos must be understood as meaning this
and nothing else.
® In the second edition of this Commentary
it was said: ‘Why should not the apostle
base his exhortation to the men to honor their
wives, by reminding them (the men) that they
are called to inherit the xapis GwHs along with
their wives?"* Reiche aays: ‘acilicet quia
absurdum (!) eseet, sic argumentari.”” Briick-
ner maintaine that meaning to be “‘ altogether
inappropriate and foreign to the purpose of
the address.” These assertions, however, can
by no means be accepted, since the conscious-
ness of being a fellow-heir of salvation with
282 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
(like yourselves) (are) fellow-heirs (one with another).” The reference here
attributed to ovy —simply on account of xai—is inappropriate, since it is a
thought entirely foreign to the context, that the wives are heirs with each
other. lf the reading ovyxAnpovopou be adopted, ovy applies to the husbands,
equivalent to “with you;” «ai may stand with reference to the foregoing
doveveotépy, adding a second particular to it (Schott); or it may also serve
simply to intensify ovv, since, strictly speaking, it is redundant.! If, how-
ever, ovyxAnpovoyzot be read, xai is to be taken in the latter way, and is not to
be explained thus: “by dmoveyovres something further is enjoined, which
goes beyond the... xara yooow" (Hofmann); for cuvooivres xara yvoow
stands imperatively, whilst ovyx2Anpovoyo does not say what the husbands
should be, but what they are. With the idea «Anpoviuo, cf. chap. i. 4; the
expression avyxAnp., Rom. viil. 17; Eph. ili. 6; Heb. xi. 9.— ydperug Guin].
twice states in what the ydpec, of which they are and will be xAnpovoyuo, cousists.
It is erroneous to resolve the expression into xydpu Goa (Erasmus) or xapy
Gwonavica (Grotius). Hofmann, assuming ovyxAnpovopoe moumiAns yapitog Quigg to
be the true reading, gives an interpretation different from the above: “as
such who, with their wives, share a life of manifold grace, i.e., of those
divine favors which are experienced in common in every marriage by be-
lievers and unbelievers.” In this way, however, justice is done to neither
of the ideas, nor is it pointed out what the favors in married life referred
to are.?— cic rd ph eyxomrecdue (Rec. éxxdnrecdar) 1a¢ mpocevydg bucv]. éynxorrev,
strictly, incidere, then intercidere, from which arises the further meaning
tmpedire ;® ixxénreyv, pr. excidere, whence stirpilus delere;* the idea of the
latter word is stronger than that of the former, but the thought in both
readings remains substantially the same, since both expressions denote the
ceasing of prayer. Wiesinger incorrectly understands the meaning of
the term éyxézr. to be: “prayer in the mean time there still is, but the way
is closed to it.” In like manner De Wette, following Bretschneider: ne
riam praecludatis precibus vestris, remarks: “ Prayer is by sin hindered from
mounting up to the throne of God;” and such is in substance Hofmann's
view.5
any ope may very well lead to a recognition of
the r4u which he possesses. Nor is there
any thing improbable iu the circumstance
iteelf, that the apostle, whilst basing the ex-
hortation cuvoccecy cata yyworr On the position
of the women, should ground the amroveyeuw
tinny on the position of the men. — Schott
passes too lightly over the whole question.
1 On the redundance of «ac in comparisons,
see Winer, p. 390 (E. T., 548); but this use of
it cannot be appealed to, since ws here ie not a
comparative particle. Wesinger thinks that
ovv perhaps contains the reference to a com-
munity to which man and wife equally belong;
but what this was, would have been indicated
by the context, as Eph. iii. 6; such, however,
fs not the case here. To the expression
strictly,” Reiche adds a 7, without ever
This idea would, however, have been more definitely expressed.
thinking that, since the same idea is expressed
by «a: and gvy, one of the two must be
redundant, and that “strictly ’ is only meant
to show that «a: fs in so far not purely re-
dundant, that it serves to strengthen the idea
expressed by ovy.
2 There is no warrant for the opinion that
the apostle’s exhortation must apply aleo to
such huebands as have unbelieving wives,
since a case so apecial might well have been
passed over. If the apostie had wished to
make reference to this, he would in some way
have alluded to it; cf. ver. 1 ff.
3 Hes. eumodicery, d&c:acwAvery.
4 Cf. Job xix. 10, LXX.: eexope 88 wowep
bévEpor thy ¢Amsa pov.
5 In this interpretation the reference to the
coming of prayer to God is a simple importa-
CHAP. III. 8. 283
The apostle does not say that the power and the hearing of prayer are hin-
dered, but that the prayer itself is (this also in opposition to Reiche). In
harmony with the connection of this last clause, by rac mpocevyde bye is to be
understood either the joint prayer of married persons (Weiss, p. 352),! or the
prayers which those here addressed offer up, as the husbands of their wives
(or, further, as heads of households). Depreciation of the wife, in spite of
union with respect to the xAnpovoyia, necessarily excludes prayer from married
life. Schott: “ Where the husband does not recognize that the union of
natural life in marriage is also union in the state of grace, there can natur-
ally be no expression of the spiritual and Christian fellowship of marriage,
no prayer in common.”
Ver. 8. Exhortations of a general character follow, without regard to the
various conditions of men, yet in connection with chap. ii. 11 ff. They deal
with the relations of the Christians towards each other, and towards those
who.are inimically disposed to them. — rd dé réAoc, here adverbially: “ finally,
lastly ;” in the classics réAog dé occurs frequently. — xavres, emphatically, in
contrast to what preceded: slaves and masters, husbands and wives. — fore
or some such word is usually supplied here; it is more correct, however, to
consider the following adjectives, etc., as standing in a dependence similar
to that of the participles formerly; only that the apostle has in his mind,
instead of the particular trorayyre, x.7.A., in ii. 18, the more general exhorta-
tion to obedience toward God. — dudgpovec, in the N. T. az. acy. (Theognis, 81,
dudg¢pova duudy Exovrec); frequently 1d abrd gpoveiv, Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 2 Cor.
_ xiii. 11; Phil. ii. 2; similar expressions, 1 Cor. i. 10; Eph. iv. 3; Phil. |
iii. 16; Luther: “like-minded.” — cvpradeic, “ sympathizing,” in N. T. am. Aey.;
the verb, Heb. iv. 15, x. 34; for the explanation, comp. Rom. xii. 15. Occu-
menius explains: ovumddea: 5b xpd Tov¢g Kaxwg macyovtag wo xal tg’ éavroic Ecos;
where, however, it is incorrect to limit the application to suffering only.
Bengel: duogp.: mente, cuprabeig: affectu in rebus secundis et adversis. — oAd-
deAgor, “brotherly,” Luther; also da. Aey.; the substantive occurs in chap. i. 22.
— eboraayyvo: to be found, besides here, in Eph. iv. 32, “compassionate ;” in
classical Greek: gui robustis ext visceribus, as in Hippocr., p. 89 C; and figura-
tively equal to ebxapdcoc, avdpeiog ; in the sense of compassionate it does not
occur in the classics. — raretvigpovec]. am. Aey.: the rarewugpooivy (humility) as
tion. Hofmann adds to the fuoterpretation,
that ‘‘ the sighs of the wife bar the road to the
husband's prayers, by accusing him to God
before his prayer, thus rendered worthless,
reaches Him.” But this is a thought alto-
gether foreign to the context.
1 Although in ver. 7 it is the husbands who
are addreseed, atill, as the verse treats of their
behavior towards their wives, vuwy can well
apply to both.
2 Hieronymus, Oecumentus, etc., apply the
words, according to 1 Cor. vil. 3, ‘‘ad honorem
impertiendum uxoribus a viris, qui sit abseti-
nentia a congreseu, ut orationi vacare possint ”’
(Lorinus), which is connected with the’false
interpretation of cvvo.covurvres; Nicol. de Lyra
says more correctly: “ cum vir et uxor non
sunt bene concordes, minus possunt orationi
vacare.”’ The Scholion in Matthael, p. 199, is
inadequate: o yap wept THY oixtay OdpuBos Twy
Kata Qcov épywy éumddioy.
3 Pott explains erroneously, by appeal to
1 Tim. 1. 5: “Pro «cara &@ rd réAos summa
cohortationum mearum jam eo redit”’ (in like
manner Erasmus, Grotius, Wolf, Steiger, etc.).
Oecumenius marks the transition very well
thus: re xpn rodoyeioOar ; andAws wacs dye:
TovTo yap réAos Kai mpds TOUTO 6 oxdmos éfopg
THS Twrypias.
284 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
well before God (Acts xx. 19) as towards our neighbor (chap. v. 5, Phil.
ii. 3, where it is joined with omAdyyve oixripyov); here, with the latter refer-
ence. — Calvin: humilitas praecipuum conservandae amicitiae vinculum. Hof-
mann justly questions whether “ jxordccoua, the leading idea of the series
of exhortations which here comes to a close, is, as it were, echoed in rane-
vogp.” (Wiesinger). For a panegyric on humility, see Lorinus in loc. In
the classics ramecvégpwy Means “ mean-spirited and faint-hearted.” The word
gAdgpovec (Spurious here) is explained by Gerhard: qui student facere ea quae
altert amica sunt et grata. The first three expressions show the loving rela-
tion in which Christians stand to each other; the last two (or three), the
conduct of Christians towards all without distinction (Hofmann).
Ver. 9. Behavior towards the hostile world. a dmoddévreg waxdv avr?
xaxov}. The same phrase occurs, Rom. xii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 15: comp. Matt.
v. 43 ff. — # AowWopiav avti Aowopiag: comp. chap. ii. 23.1 — robvavrioy dé etAoyowv-
Tec, 1.e., in return for xaxdv and Aodopia; ebaAoyeitv in the N. T., when used of
man, is equal to bona apprecari, opposed to xarapacda; cf. Matt. v. 44; Luke
vi. 28; Rom. xii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 12; Jas. iii. 9. Taken in this sense
(Wiesinger, Briickner, Hofmann ),? it expresses simply the opposite of the
preceding Aowdopiay dvr? Aodopias. It is more in harmony with the context,
however, to understand it as referring equally to xaxdv dvr? xaxov; in which
case it will have a wider sense, and be equivalent to “wishing well and
showing kindness by word and deed” (Fronmiiller). This is supported by
the subsequent ebAcyiav; nor does the N. T. usage stand in the way, in so
far as in 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6, at least, evAoysa denotes something accomplished by
human action, though Hofmann strangely seeks to lessen its force by under-
standing it of “a personal greeting.” —ére ei¢ rovro éxAnénre: comp. chap.
ii. 21. — iva ebaoyiay aAnpovopjontre.] From chap. li. 21 it is natural to take
ei¢ tovro as referring to what precedes (etdoyovvres) (Oecumenius, Grotius,
Calvin, Steiger, De Wette-Brickner, Fronmiiller, Reiche, Hofmann, etc.) ;
in which case iva would belong either to etAoyotvres, drt. . . exAnOnre thus
forming a parenthesis, or to éAnénre. But in the first case the close con-
nection of the clauses is broken, whilst in the second the somewhat inade-
quate idea arises, that we are called upon to bless, in order that we ourselves
may obtain a blessing. It is therefore better to take «ig rviro with the
subsequent iva (Luther, Beza, Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.); comp.
chap. iv. 6; John xviii. 87; Rom. xiv. 9. The consciousness that we, as
Christians, are called to obtain a blessing, should be an incitement to us
to bring blessing to others; the more so, that otherwise we shall fall short
of the blessing to which we are called. On eiAnyiav Bengel rightly remarks:
benedictionem aelernam, cujus primitias jam nunc pti habent. lf eidores before
drt be the correct reading, it must be taken as in chap. i. 18.
1 Nicol. de Lyra: ‘* Non reddentes malum
pro malo in factis injuriosia, nec maledictam
pro maledicta in cerdis contentiosis.”’
? Schott no doubt insists that the bleasing
of man is accomplished in word only and not
in deed; but he does not say whether {ft means
a wish expressed in prayer (bona apprecari),
or whether any operation through the word is
to be understood, for he renders evAoyew by
‘*to bestow good in word.” If the former be
Implied, then it is wrong to say ‘that God’s
blessing is in truth accompanied by deeds, but
man’s muet stop short at the word.” If the
second, then man’s blessing is aleo in deed.
CHAP. III. 10-12.
Vv. 10-12.
285
Quoted from Ps. xxxiv. 13-17, LXX., and strengthening
the foregoing exhortations by a reference to the divine judgment.
In the
original the first clause forms an interrogation, to which the following
clauses, in the second person imperative, give the answer. — 6 ydp 0éAwy Guy
ayangv, xal idelvy nyuépacs dyadacs]. The translation of the LXX., an inexact
reproduction of the Hebrew,! runs: ric éorw dvépwroc 6 béAwy Guy, dyaTov
huépac ayadac; Peter’s deviation from it by the conjunction of 6éAuwv dyangy is
striking. — @éAwy is not used adverbially here, equivalent to “fain;” but
neither must another conception be substituted for dyaxa@v; De Wette: “he
who will show? love for life” (i.e., a yearning. desire after it). The idea
“show,” besides being an arbitrary introduction, is inappropriate, inasmuch
as it is Jove of life itself, and not the showing of it, that is here in question.
Wiesinger is more happy: “ He who is really in earnest as to the love of
life.” @éAuv is then to be explained on the principle that love of Gj, no
less than the possession of it, is conditioned by a certain course of conduct
on the part of man.
Bengel, appealing to Eccles. ii. 17, interprets still
better: qui vult ita vivere, ut ipsum non taedeat vitae; i.e., who will have life so
that he can love it; so, too, Schott; similarly Hofmann, only that the latter
unnecessarily understands dyangvy to mean simply “to enjoy a thing.” — xa?
ldeiv quépac dyadac: with Ideivy in this connection, comp. Luke ii. 26; Heb.
xi. 5; John iii. 3.
The passage in the Psalms has evidently reference to
earthly happiness; according to De Wette, on the other hand, the apostle
bad the future and eternal life in view here; this, however, is not the case,
for in the passage before us the reference is likewise to the present life
(Wiesinger, Schott, and Briickner), only it must be observed that for the
believer happiness in this life consists in something different from that of
the man of the world; to the former, days of suffering also may be fuépac
ayadai.
If this be correct, yap cannot refer to the thought immediately pre-
ceding, but only “to the whole exhortation, vv. 8, 9” (Wiesinger, Schott). 5
— mavourw, «.T.A. }.
The LXX., keeping to the Hebrew original, here and in
what follows preserve the second person. — rave, “to cause to cease, to hold
back ;” in classical Greek never joined with a6; the subsequent genitive
Tob ui) Aadjoa stands in conformity with the use of the verb among the
Greeks; comp. Winer, p. 805 (E. T., 325 f.).—xaxéy has a wider range \
than déAoc; there is no ground for limiting the application of the term here
simply to words of reprimand (De Wette). With d6doc, comp. chap. ii. 1, 22.
— Ver. 11. éxxdsvarw 62, x.7.A. J.
éxxAivey and; comp. Rom. xvi. 17. The
same thought in the same words, Ps. xxxvii. 27; comp. further, Isa. i. 16,
17; Rom. xii. 9. — dé, if it be genuine, serves to bring into prominence the
1 In the original Hebrew the passage is: ~
ON) YON wp
310 Ney ON: IT
3 Similarly already the Glosea interl.: * qui
vult ostendere, se dilectionem habere.” —
Lorinuse thinks that the combination of the
two words eerves to intensify the idea. ‘si
recte dicitur quis concupiscere, desiderare
(Ps. cxviii. 20), quidni velle, quod est verbum
generale, amare? Innuit duplicatio non solum
vehementiam desiderli amorisve, sed infirmi-
tatem quoque carnis revocantls subinde vol-
untatem, ne ita velit acriter et assiduo.” But
in Ps. cxvill. (Vulg., ‘*‘concupivit anima mea
desiderare justificationes tuas”) the connec.
tion 18 different from here.
286 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
new idea, distinct from the preceding. —¢yrycarw, x.7.4.: didxety (comp.
1 Tim. vi. 11, etc.), stronger than (yretv (comp. Matt. vi. 33; Col. iii. 1).—
The first half contains the general thought, the second emphasizes one more
special. Although the exhortations of the apostle refer more particularly
to the conduct of Christians towards their persecutors, yet they are not
confined to this, but go beyond it (in opposition to Schott). — Ver. 12. ér
6g0aApuol xupiov, x.7.A.]. drt is inserted by the apostle in order to mark more
precisely the connection of thought. The exhortations are founded on a
reference to the manner of God’s dealings. On the first hemistich Bengel
remarks: inde vitam habent et dies bonos. The apostle omits the words rov
i£oAodpeboat éx yi¢ Td uynudovvoy abray in the Psalm, added to mpdowzoy . . . xaxd
(not because, as De Wette thinks, he considered them too strong), and thus
deprives the last member of the verse of a nearer definition. Calvin,
Grotius, Beza, De Wette, accordingly take the éxi of this member in a
sense different from that which it has in the first, namely, as conveying the
idea of “punishment,” equivalent to “against ;” this, however, is arbitrary.
Hensler, Augusti, and Steiger find in all three members the expression of
“attentive observation” only; but this view — itself, according to the
thought, inadequate — is opposed by the particle dé, which indicates rather
a contrast, and is not to be translated, with Hensler, by “but also.” If,
now, the antithesis be not contained in ézi, it can be sought for only in
mpoowrov, Which, though in itself doubtless a vor media (comp. Num. vi. 25,
26; Ps. iv. 7), is nevertheless in this passage of the Psalms to be thought
of as one full of wrath, and, as such, was present to the mind of the apostle.
Strictly speaking, indeed, this should have been expressed; but not neces-
sarily so, since the antithesis between this and the preceding member of
the verse makes it sufficiently apparent. A similar interpretation is given
by Wiesinger, Briickner, and Schott.
Ver. 13 serves further to emphasize the exhortation to well-doing, and
at the same time introduces the following paragraph, in which Peter calls
upon the Christians to suffer persecutions patiently. — «ai unites what
follows with what precedes. A new reason, the truth of which is attested
by the thought contained in ver. 12, is added in ver. 13 to the argument
advanced for the preceding exhortation of ver. 12. The sense is: Do good,
for to the good God is gracious, with the wicked He is angry; and those
who do good, for this very reason none can harm. —ri¢ 6 xaxdouv tua: an
impressive and passionate question (stronger than a simple negative), in
which must be noted the form 6 xaxdowy, sc. éori instead of xaxdoe, as also
the sharp contrast between xaxotv and the subsequent ayafot. ‘Do harm,”
as a rendering of xaxotv (Wiesinger, De Wette), is too weak. The word is
used for the most part of ill-treatment (Acts vii. 6, 19, xii. 1, xviii. 10), and
denotes here, with reference to the preceding «axa, such evil-doing as is
really harmful for him who suffers it. It is possible that the apostle had
in his mind Isa. 1. 9, LXX.: idod xipioc xiptog BonOjoe pot, tig xaxdoe pe. The
interrogative form expresses the sure confidence of the apostle, that to
those who do good, no one either will or can do harm. Steiger’s interpre-
tation is too pointless: “and indeed who then will seek to do you harm, as
CHAP. III. 14. 287
you imagine, if you really,” etc. ;! for the reservation must be added that
every proverb has this peculiarity, that it is not without exception (Benson),
or that the statement in the oratio popularis must not be taken too strictly.
The strong and consoling expression of an unshaken faith is thus reduced
to a somewhat empty commonplace.? — tay rod dyabod (nAwral yévnode]. rod
dyadov was taken by some of the older interpreters (Lorin., Aret., etc.) to
be the genitive masc., probably on account of the article (as distinguished
from the anarthrous dya#év, ver. 11). Weiss also thinks that by it Christ
perhaps may be understood. Most commentators, however, correctly regard
it as the neuter; comp. ver. 11. The article is put, inasmuch as in this
term all the single virtues, formerly mentioned, are included ; it stands
first by way of emphasis. — (nAwrai; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12; Tit. ii. 14. If
the reading psnrai be adopted, its connection with the neuter is somewhat
singular, still the verb cueicdae does occur with names of things; comp.
Heb. xiii. 7; 3 John 11.
Ver. 14. dA’ el nai maoxorre}]. GAAG& expresses the antithesis to the nega-
tion contained in the preceding question: “but even though you should suffer ;”
ef. Winer, p. 275 (E. T., 367); a species of restriction which, however, is
not intended to weaken the force of the foregoing thought. No doubt the
possibility of suffering is admitted, yet in such a way that the Christian is
considered blessed on account of that suffering. zdécyew is not identical
with xaxovoda, but, as Bengel rightly remarks, levius verbum quam xaxovodat.
Every Christian has a xdoyew, but he need never fear a xaxovoGa.® — ca
dixatooivny recalls Matt. v. 10. dcxacocivy is here (cf. chap. ii. 24) synony-
mous with 7d dyadov and # ayaby ty Xpiote avaorpog7, ver. 16. — paxdpioe: 8c.
éoré. Even suffering itself contributes to your blessedness. — rdv dé gov,
x.7.A,]. These and the words which begin the following verse are “a free
use ’’ (Schott) of the passage, Isa. viii. 12, 18, LX-X.: rdv dé p6Bov abrod (i.e.,
Tod Aaov) ob uh GoBnOAre, abd? ye) TapaxdiTe’ Kipiov abrdy ayticare. The thought
here is not quite the same, the sense of the Old-Testament passage being:
do not share the terror of the people, and do not be moved by what alarms
them. If ¢6@o¢ be here taken objectively, then géBoc abrav is “the fear ema-
2 Gualther’s paraphrase is not less lusipid :
**Quis eat, scilicet tam impudens et iniquus,
qui vos affligat, si beneficentiae sitis aemula-
tores?” Wesinger’s interpretation aleo is
inappropriate: ‘If ye follow my exbortations,
it is to be hoped,” etc. — The words do not
hint that ‘‘the trials which the readers had
endured were pot altogether undeserved on
their part’ (Wiesinger).
3 Schott’s interpretation, according to which
xaxovy is ‘to make evil-doers in the judgment
of God,” is altogether wide of the mark.
Although xcaxovv, — corresponding to the He-
brew YT, — as applied to a judge, may
mean, ‘‘to condemn,” or properly, ‘‘ to declare
& person 8 xaxdés,” it does not follow therefrom
that it may aleo have the meaning of “‘ causing
God to declare a person a xaxds.””
8 These words also are wrongly explained
by Schott, since be takes aAA’ as quickly deny-
ing the previous statement, and fotroducing a
new turn of thought, separates ei xa: from
each other, and connects car with mdcyxoare in
the sense of ‘‘even.” For the first, Schott
appeals to Hartung'’s Purtikell., II., p. 87; for
the second, to Hartung, I., p. 140, note; but
without any right to do so. For, as to the °
JSormer, be overlooks that aAA’ here follows
on a sentence negative in meaning; and as to
the latter, that «<a: bas here a position, in
which a separation of it from ¢: could not for
& moment be thought of. The apostle would
have expreased the idea: “if for righteous-
ness’ sake you should have to experience (not
only not happiness and biessing, but) even
suffering,” by «i dia dcxatoguyny cai rarxare.
288 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
nating from them,” or “the fear which they excite” (De Wette, Briickner) ;
cf. Ps. xci. 5: ob gofnbnoy ard g6Bov vuxrepevod ; cf. also in this chapter ver. 6.
If, on the other hand, it be taken in a subjective sense, then adrév is equal
to “of them,” therefore: “do not fear with the fear of them, i.e., do not be
afraid of them” (Schott and Hofmann also). In both cases the meaning
is substantially the same. Wiesinger is inaccurate when he takes ¢gd@o¢
subjectively, and interprets airay as De Wette does.
Ver. 15. xiprov dé rdv Xpioréy). xvpwv, in Isaiah equivalent to rdv Ocdv; a
substitution of this kind is frequently found in the N. T., where reference
is made to passages in the O. T., and can be easily explained on the prin-
ciple that a consciousness distinctively Christian was asserting itself; “ xiprov
is placed first, as antithesis to airav” (Wiesinger). Schott denies that xipiov
stands in apposition to rdv Xpiorov, holding that xipiuyv is to be taken rather
as a predicate of the object, equivalent to “as Lord;” for this reason, that
xvptoc stands here without the article, and that the simple conjunction of
xipwg and Xprorég does not occur. But against the first objection the expres-
8ion Kiptoc 6 Oedc May be urged, and against the second the verse Luke ii. 11.
It is more natural, and at the same time more in harmony with the passage
in the O. T., to connect xtiprog directly with rav Xpeorov: “but . . . the Lord,
the Messiah.” — dy:aoare, in antithesis to go8néjre and rapayd7re; “hold, i.e.,
honor, fear as holy” (De Wette); the sanctifying comprehends within it the
fear of God; cf. Isa. viii. 18, xxix. 28; it thus forms the contrast to the fear
of man; where the former is, the latter must give way. — év rai¢ xapdiay tua
added by the apostle in order to mark the inward nature of the dyidfew, —
trout}. Whether dé be the original reading or not, this clause is undoubt-
edly intimately connected in thought with that which precedes it. Without
dé this being ready is conceived as a proof of the dydcev Xp.; with dé the
thought is this, that the dy:ufev Xp., «.7.4., which banishes all fear of man,
should not exclude the dzodoyia before men (De Wette, Wiesinger). Hof-
mann takes the particle here as equal to “rather;” but against this is the
fact that here xipuoy . . . tuav would have to be taken as a simple paren-
thesis, inasmuch as dé would refer only to what precedes, and a second
antithesis would then be added to the already antithetical xipsov d2, «.7.4.—
cel mpdg GmoAoyiav mavtl TH, x.7.2.]. eérouuoc npéc, cf. Tit. iii. 1.— “The injunc-
tion exempts neither time (dei) nor person (mavri) ” (Steiger). — To limit its
application to a judicial examination is arbitrary, and militates against
navti,—amodoyia not equal to satisfactio (Vulg.), but here rather quaevis
responsio, qua ratio fidei (more correctly spei) nostrae redditur (Vorstius; Phil.
i. 7,16; Acts xxvi. 2). — navri rp airotvri, «.7.4.]. The dative depending on
anodoyiav, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 3; for airéw with double accusative, cf. Winer, p.
212 f. (E. T., 227). Adyov alreiv, “to demand account of,” only here, cf. chap.
iv. 5; Rom. xiv. 12. — ep? rig bv viv eAmidoc], mepi: as to its nature and
ground. — éAni¢ not equivalent to ior (Calvin: spes hic per synecdochen pro
Jide capitur), but the hope of the Christian looking, on the ground of faith,
into the future salvation.!— dda perd npabryroc xa? go3ov]. If ara be the
1 That this ‘‘ account” had special reference dom of Chriet was of this world, is nowhere
to the removal of the suspicion that the king- alluded to in the context (De Wette, Schott).
CHAP. III. 16, 289
true reading, as there can hardly be any doubt it is, it will serve to make
more sharply prominent the way and manner in which the drodoyia should
be conducted; De Wette: “as it were: but remember.” — pera, to be con-
nected not with érogo, but with dmodoyiav; mpabrntog opposed to passionate
zeal. gov is to be applied directly neither to God (Aretius: reverentia et
timor Dei; thus Weiss also, p. 169), nor to men before whom testimony is to
be borne (according to some, the civil authorities) ; but it denotes the being
afraid — based, of course, on the fear of God —of every unseemly kind
of dmoAoyia, and stands especially opposed to all arrogant self-confidence
(Wiesinger).
Ver. 16. ouveidénow txovres dyadiv]. These words are taken by several
interpreters (Bengel, Steiger, De Wette, etc.) with dy:doare, ver. 14, as co-
ordinate with éroyoe; Wiesinger construes them with from, as subordinate
to it. The latter is-to be preferred, for ovveid. éy. denotes “the point essen-
tially important, to being ever prepared to give an answer in a right man-
ner” (Wiesinger). But it is better still to assume that it — like pera mpairn-
toc — belongs in a loose way to dmodoyiav, equivalent to “with good conscience,”
i.e., in that your walk does not give the lie to your confession.! Calvin says
correctly: quia parum auctoritalis habet sermo absque vita.— iva év ¢, «.7.A.].
The construction is here the same as in chap. ii. 12; see the exposition of
this passage, where, too, Schott’s interpretation of é G, equal to “in this,
that,” is considered. The conjunctive of the Rec. xaraAadcow would repre-
sent the case as possible, equal to “in which they may possibly slander you.” —
iva, a8 a final particle, refers to the whole preceding thought, especially to
ouveid, x. cyadnv, —Kxatacxyvvoccw]. Comp. 2 Cor. vil. 14: “that they may be
put to shame,” i.e., since their slanders are openly proved to be lies. — oé én-
peafovrec, «.7.A.]. The subject stands, by way of emphasis, at the end of the
sentence. trnpedfew, “to revile,” Matt. v. 44; Luke vi. 28. Hensler distin- ©
guishes, without any ground, the érnped{ovrec from the xaradadobvrec, as differ-
ent persons; the former he considers to be the accusers of the Christians,
who bring the slanders of others before the judge. — tuay riv dyabiy tv Xporo
évactpogiy, i.e., “the good life which you lead in Christ (i.e., as Christians).”
Ver. 17. xpeirrov yap}. yap gives the ground of the exhortation contained
in ovveid, éy. ay.; the explanation of this xpeirrov is contained in chap. ii. 19 ff.
—dyaboruotvrag .. . xacxev]. The connection between these two ideas is
the same as that between dyaGonowivrec xal macxovrec, chap. ii. 20, the parti-
ciples giving not simply the special circumstances, as Hofmann asserts, but.
the reason of the suffering; this Schott denies as regards the first member:
dyaGonowivrac.2— The parenthetical clause: ef 6éA0c rd 6¢Anua rod Gevd, belongs
And Schott is bardly justified in giving the
upostle’s exhortations special application ‘‘to
the divinely ordained ordinances of natural
social life.”
1 Hofmano says, ‘that it should not be
joined with awoAoyia, for the meaning fs, that
they should do that whereunto they must be
prepared witb cagernees, and a guod conscience
which they should bring to it.’ To this it is
to be replied, that the awodocyia iteelf is pre-
cisely the thing for which they are to be ready.
It is evidently arbitrary ‘' to supplement an
imperative (which?) to aAAa, and to connect
ovvebnow éxovres ay. with it.”
2 It must, indeed, be noted that those suf-
ferings which the believers, as such, have to
endure from the unbelieving world, overtake
them because of thelr ayadoroev; Christians
290 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
to racxew; the optative denotes the possibility: “if such should be the will of
God.” —On the pleonasm: 6éAo rd 6éAnua, see Winer, p. 562 (E. T., 604).
The thought here is not quite the same as that of chap. ii. 20. There, chief
stress is laid on tpopuéverr, to which no special prominence is here given.
But, as in the former case the exhortation is enforced by reference to Christ,
i.e., to His sufferings, so is it here also, in the following paragraph on to the
end of the chapter, only that in this passage the typical character of His
sufferings is less emphasized, whilst the exaltation which followed them is
brought specially forward.
Ver. 18. First, mention of the death of Christ by way of giving the
reason. — ért xal Xpiordg umak mepl duaptioy Exade (aTtedave)]. dre is connected
with the idea immediately preceding, and gives the ground of the «peirrov; xai
Xptoréc (as in chap. ii. 21) places the sufferings which the Christians have to
bear, a8 dyasorowirrec, side by side with the sufferings of Christ, repi aquapricy,
so that «ai must be taken as referring not to fnae (arédave) only (as is done
by most commentators, among them De Wette), but, as the position of the
words (epi duapr. before ina6e) clearly shows, to mep? duaprioy Exabe (aré0ave)
(Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott). Hofmann’s application of it to the whole
“gtaternent here with respect to Christ” is open to objection, from the fact
that in what follows there are elements introduced which go too far beyond
the comparison here instituted. Christ’s sufferings were on account of sin,
and such also should be the sufferings of the Christians.1 This does not
preclude the possibility of His sufferings having had a significance different
from what theirs can have. This peculiar significance of Christ’s sufferings
is marked by dixawuc imep adixwy, or, as Schott holds, by drag. axa gives
promineuce to the fact that in relation to His subsequent life (@avarogeic .. .
Gworotndets) Christ’s suffering took place but once, as in Heb. ix. 27, 28 (Hof-
mann: “once it took place that He died the death He did die, and what
followed thereon forms, as what is enduring, a contrast to what passed over
but once”); doubtless not without implying the secondary idea, that the
sufferings of Christians take place only once also, and come to an end with
this life.? — mepi duapriav, which states yet more indefinitely the purpose of
who, though confessing Christ, at the same
time live entirely like the children of the
world, are well liked by the world.
1 The subsequent dcacos proves that the
sins for which Christ suffered were not His
’ own eins; thue also the believer's sufferings
should not arise out of his own sins, he should
not suffer asa xaxorowy, but as an ayaborowy.
Rejecting thie application, Hofmann finds the
point of comparison In this, ‘ that we should
Jet the sins which those who do us wrong
commit, be to us the cause of sufferings to
us’? (?).
? Oecumentus flods in arof an allusion to
To Tov waOovros Spacripioy re nai Suvarov, OF
to the brevity also of the sufferings. Gerhard
unites all three elements by saying: ‘ut
“oetendat (Ap.) passionis Christ! brevitatem et
perfectionem sacrificli et ut doceat Christum
non ampiius passion! fore obnoxium.” — Ac-
cording to Pott, it is alo meant to express the
contrast to the frequent repetition of the O. T.
sacrifices, —an application entirely foreign to
the context. According to Schott, azaf indi-
cates that Christ suffered once for all, 80 that
any further suffering of the same kind Is
neither necessary nor possible. This is no
doubt correct; but it does not follow that
Peter — whose words combine the typical and
specifically peculiar significance of the suffer-
ings of Christ — should not have had in his
mind the application of awag to bellevers, as
above stated. It is with awaf as with mepi
auapnev; it is impossible for belfevers to
suffer wepi auaprioy in the same sense that
Christ suffered rep apapriay.
CHAP. III. 18. 291
Christ’s sufferings, “on account of sin,” finds a more precise definition in
what follows. — dixasoc imip ddixuy, “as the just for the unjust;” comp. Rom.
v. 6: bxép, equivalent to in commodum, is not in itself, indeed, equal to avri;
but the contrast here drawn between dixawc and ddixwy suggests that in the
general relation, the more special one of substitution is implied (Weiss, p.
_ 261); comp. chap. ii. 21. The omission of the article is due to the fact that
the apostle holds it of” importance to mark the character of the one as of the
other. —iva jude xpooayayy To Oe gives the purpose of fnadev (anédave), which
latter is more closely defined by that which immediately precedes and fol-
lows; mpocayetv does not mean “to sacrifice” (Luther, Vulg.: ut nos offerret
Deo), neither “to reconcile;” but “to bring to,” i.e., “to bring into communion
with God,” which goes still beyond the idea of reconciliation; the latter pre-
supposes Christ’s death for us; the former, the life of Him who died for us.
Weiss maintains, without sufficient reason (p. 260), that the word here points
to the idea of the Christian’s priesthood (chap. ii. 5). The verb occurs here
only; the substantive zpooaywy7, Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12.1 — eavarwpeic
piv capkl, (woroindelc dé nvevtyatt]. This adjunct does not belong to ératev (De
Wette), but to zpocayayy (Wiesinger); it is subjoined, in order to show
prominently how the mpoodyey can take place through Christ; the chief
stress is laid on the second member. According to Schott, both participles
are to be considered as ‘‘an exposition of azaf;" this assumption is contra-
dicted, on the one hand, by the distance between them and the latter word;
and, on the other, that they must necessarily be attached to a verb. — The
antithesis between the two members of this sentence is strongly marked by
piv... 6€. The datives capxi, rvetuar, state with reference to what the
verbal conceptions Gavarwitic, Gworandeic, hold good; “they serve to mark
the sphere to which the general predicate is to be thought of as restricted”
(Winer); comp. 1 Cor. vii. 34: dyia nai odpart xal mvetpare; Col. 11. 53 ry cape?
Grey, Ty nvevuart ody tyiv ei. Schott explains — somewhat ambiguously —
the datives “as general more precise adverbial definitions,” which state
“ what is of determinative importance in both facts,” and “the nature of the
actual condition produced by them.” — rveiyar: is by some understood instru-
mentally; incorrectly, for ‘capxi cannot be taken thus; the two members of
the clause correspond so exactly in form, that the dative in the one could not
be explained differently from the dative in the other, as Wiesinger, Weiss,
von Zezschwitz, Briickner, Schott, and Fronmiiller justly acknowledge. — capxi
.. mvetuatt; this antithesis occurs frequently in the N. T.; with reference to
the person of Christ, besides in this passage, in Rom. i. 3: «ard cdpxa ...
cata mvebua dywovryc, and 1 Tim. iii. 16: év capa? ... dv mvebpare (cf. also
chap. iv. 6). — The antithesis of the two conceptions proves it to be erro-
neous to assign to the one term a sphere different from that of the other,
and to suppose cups to mean the body of Christ, and mveiua the Spirit of God.
Antithesis clare ostendit quod dicatur in alia quidem sui parte aut vilae ratione
1 It is certaloly very doubtful whether the manner in which we endure undeserved suf-
purpose aleo of the death of Christ, here ferings, to bring those by whom we are
stated, ‘admits of application to us,” in that wronged to bethink themselves, and to lead
‘it should likewise be our object, by the them toa knowledge of Christ” (Hofmann).
292 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF: PETER.
mortificatus, in alia autem vivificatus (Flacius). It must be observed that
both are here used as general conceptions (Hofmann), without a pronoun to
mark them as designations applicable only to Christ; for which reason cap§
cannot relate exclusively to the human, and xveiza to the divine nature of
Christ.1 As general conceptions (that is, as applicable not to Christ alone,
but to human nature generally), oap£ and mveiza must, however, not be iden-
tified with cdua and yuy7.2 For capé is that side of human nature in virtue
of which man belongs to the earth, is therefore an earthly creature, and
accordingly perishable like every thing earthly; and mveiua, on the other
hand, is (hat side of his nature by which he belongs to a supernatural sphere
of existence, is not a mere creature of earth, and is accordingly destined also
to an imperishable existence. — Wiesinger (with whom Zezschwitz agrees)
deviates from this interpretation thus far only, that he understands zveiya,
not as belonging to the nature of man, “but as that principle of union with
God which is bestowed upon man at regeneration.” This deviation may
arise from the reluctance to attribute a meiyza to man as such (also in his
sinful condition) ; as, however, according to Peter, the souls of the departed
are mvebuara (ver. 19), it is thus presupposed that an unregenerate man also
possesses a mvedyuu during his earthly existence. It must also be observed
that capf and zvebua are here not ethical antitheses, but are contrasted with
each other as natural distinctions. — @avarwOels . . . Gworonbeic], @avatow in-
correctly interpreted by Wahl here, as in other passages of the N. T., by
capitis damno, morti addico; for although it may sometimes occur in this
sense in the classics, still in the N. T. it means only to kill. By Oavarubele
capxi, then, the apostle says of Christ, that He was put to death in His
earthly human nature (which He along with all the rest of mankind pos-
sessed), i.e., at the hand of man by the crucifixion. —Q@orodw does not
1 According)y, interpretations like those of
Calvin are Incorrect: ‘caro hic pro externo
homine capitur, spiritus pro divina potentia,
qua Christus victor a morte emersit; Beza:
“‘wvevmare, j.e., per divinitatem in ipso corpo-
raliter habitantem, equal to ex duvaynews Geo,”
2 Cor. xiii. 4; Oecumenius: davare6eis pey ry
duce THs TapKos, TOUTECTL TH avOpwrivy, avac-
tas b¢ ty duvduer trys OedtyTos. It is equally
incorrect, with Weiss (p. 252), to understand
capt as meaning ‘‘ the human nature of Chriet”’
(instead of which he no doubt alao says: * the
earthly human nature of Christ’), and rvevuna
as meaning ‘‘the pre-existent divine mvevua
communicated at baptism to the man Jesus”
(which, as Weiss maintains, constitutes, ac-
cording to Peter, the divine nature of Christ).
Weiss, for the sole purpose of representing
the apostie’s doctrinal conception as still in
a very undeveloped state, imputes to Peter a
view of the person of Christ which —as he
bimeelf says —is possessed of ‘a duality
which somewhat endangers the unity of His
person.’’ Nor has Wichelhaue hit the true
explanation when he says: “Peter here con-
siders Christ as, on the one hand, a true man
in body and soul, liable to all suffering .. .;
and, on the other hand, in so far as He was
anointed by the Holy Ghost.”
2 capt and cwua are proved to be two dis. -
tinct conceptions by the fact that, after the
resurrection, man will have a capa, but no
capt. The difference between mvevpa and
yvx7 Is clear, from passages such as Matt. vi.
25. If in other passages wvevua be used as
synonymous with yvx% (comp., e. g., John xii.
27 with Jobn xill. 21), this Js explained by the
two-sidedoess of the human soul.
3 To Welss’s remark, that Peter terms that
side of human nature by which man is ren-
dered capable of religious life yvx%, it must be
replied that the ux possesses auch capacity
for this very reason, that even under the power
of the cap¢ it has never ceased to be spiritual.
In place of rvevuart, Wuxg Would not be at all
appropriate here, In the first place, because
Yux7 forms no antithesis to odpf, and then
because the idea of whut Is celestial, peculiar
to rvevua, would not find expression tn It,
é Schott is wrong in maintaining that the an.
CHAP. III. 18. 293
mean “to preserve alive,” as several commentators explain, e.g., Bellarmin
(De Christo, lib. iv. cap. 13), Hottinger, Steiger, and Giider, — this idea, in
the Old as in the New Testament, being expressed by (joyoveiv and other
words (see Zezschwitz on this passage); but “to make alive” (De Wette,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Zezschwitz, Schott, Kohler,! Hofmann, and others); it
often applies to the raising-up of the dead; cf. John v. 21; Rom. iv. 17;
1 Cor. xv. 22, ete. In this sense alone does (wozoindei¢ answer the preceding
Gavarwheic. Bengel: vivificatio ex antitheto ad mortificationem resolvi debet.
The latter idea assumes the anterior condition to have been one of death,
whilst the former — in contradiction to davar.— would presuppose one of life.
Christ then, according to the apostle, entered into the actual state of death,
that is, in so far as the cépt pertained to Him, so that His life in the flesh
came to anend;? but from death He was brought back again to life, that
is, was raised up, as far as the rveiua pertained to Him, so that the new life
was purely pneumatical. But the new life began by His re-uniting Himself
as mveiya to His cdpa, so that thus this odpa itself became pneumatical.? —
According to Bengel, with whom Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Lechler, and Fron-
miiller agree (comp. also Hahn, Neutest. Theol., i. 440), GwomanGeig does not
refer to the resurrection of Christ, but to His deliverance from the weakness
of the flesh, effected by His death, and, based upon this, his transition to a
higher life (which was followed by the resurrection). Against this, how-
ever, is to be observed: (1) That the going of His mveipa to the Father,
connected with His death (Luke xxiii 46), is, as little as His ascension,
spoken of in Scripture as “a becoming quickened ;” (2) That as in @avarw6ei¢
the whole man Christ is meant, the same must be the case in QwomotnGeic; and
(3) That this view is based on what follows, which, however, if rightly
interpreted, by no means renders it necessary. Buddeus is therefore en-
tirely right when he says: vivificatio animae corporisque conjunctionem denotal.5
f
tithesis to what is here sald should be, ‘‘ that
Christ was quickened according to His glorified
human nature; " the antithesis to ‘‘ earthly,”
however, is not ‘ glorifed,”” but ‘‘ celestial.”
1 «Zur Lehre von Christ! H&llenfahrt,” in
the Zeitschrift far luth. Theol u. Kirche, by
Delitzech and Guericke, 1864, H. 4.
3 Schott substantially agrees witb thie inter-
pretation, but thinks that the above expression
does not say decidedly enough that “this was
an entire cessation of His life.” However,
this ‘‘ entire” ia saying too much, since capaé
evidently points to a limitation.
§ Hofmann says, not quite accurately
(Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 473): ‘* The antithe-
sis Gavar., x. 7. r4., denotes the end of life in
the flesh, and the commencement of life in the
spirit.” For spiritual life was in Christ during
His life in the flesh, and after it, before Iie
resurrection. At Hie death He committed
His wvevya to His Father; it was therefore In
Him before, and continued to live after His
death. — Hofmann remarks correctly, howe
ever: “As it was the Christ living in the
fiesh who, by being put to death, ceased to be
any longer in that bodily Hfe in which from
Hie birth He had existed, so His quickening
of tbat which was dead is a restoration of a
spiritual nature to a bodily life.”
4 Bengel: ‘Simul atque per mortifica-
tionem involucro infirmitatis in carne solutus
erat, etatim vitae solvi nesciae virtue modis
novis et multis expeditissimis sese exserere
coepit. Hanc vivificationem necessario celert.
ter subsecuta est excitatio corporis ex morte
et resurrectio e sepuicro.” — Schmid: ‘“ The
svevpa is a principle which He possessed in a
special manner, .. . this, in consequence of
death, Is set free from the trammels of sens-
uous bodily nature, it now enters upon its
full rights, and develops in its fulness that
gwy which was in Him.”
5 Schott explains, Indeed, GworornGers rightly
in itself, but he objects to the identification of
Sworoinors With avacracts, and thinks that the
former is the fundamental condition of
294 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Ver. 19. With this verse a new paragraph — extending to ver. 22
inclusive — begins, closely connected by é& ¢ (i. e., mvetyar:) with what
precedes, and in which reference is made to the glory of Him who was
quickened according to the Spirit. It may appear singular that in this
passage Peter should make mention of those who were unbelieving in the
days of Noah, and of baptism as the antitype of the water of the deluge;
but this may be explained from the circumstance that he looks on the
deluge as a type of the approaching judgment. It must be observed, that
it is not so much the condemnation of the unbelieving, as the salvation of
believers, that the apostle has here in his mind. —év 6 xal, «.7.4.: “in which
(spirit) He also went and preached unto the spirits in prison (to them), which
sometime were unbelieving when,” etc. .-The close connection of these words
with what immediately precedes — by év , sc. rvedpart— favors the view that
ixnpvge refers to an act of Christ which, as the (womomtelc metyart, He
performed after His death, and that with reference to the spirits év gvaakg
of the unbelievers who had perished in the deluge.’ This is the view of
the oldest Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church, as also of the greater
number of later and modern theologians. Augustin, however, opposed it,
and considered éxjpugev as referring to a preaching by Christ éy mvetyare long
before His incarnation, in the days of Noah, to the people of that gen.
eration, upon which the judgment of the deluge came because of their
unbelief! This view, after being adopted by several theologians of the
Middle Ages, became prevalent in the Reformed Church. In recent times,
it has been defended more especially by Schweizer, Wichelhaus, Besser, and
Hofmann. The chief arguments which those who maintain it advance in
opposition to that first mentioned, are the following: (1) The idea that
Christ preached to the spirits év gvAcxg would be an isolated one occurring
nowhere else in Scripture; and, further, preaching such as this, if conceived
as judicial, would have been entirely useless, whilst, looked on as a procla-
mation of salvation, it would stand in contradiction to the uniform teaching
of Scripture regarding the state of man after death. To this, however, it
must be replied, that isolated ideas are to be found expressed here and there
in Scripture, and that the reconciliation of the idea of a salvation offered
to the spirits éy ¢vdaxg with the other doctrines of Scripture, can at most be
termed a problem difficult of solution; nor must it be forgotten that the
eschatological doctrines comprehend within them very many problems.
(2) This view does not correspond with the tendency of the entire passage
from ver. 17 to ver. 22, and therefore does not fit into the train of thought.
But this assertion is to the point only if those who make it have themselves
correctly understood the tendency of the passage, which in this instance
the latter, which Is the “side of the reeur- taken place through Noah, Schweizer most
rection concealed and as yet hidden in the decidedly disputes this, and is of the opinion
depths” (?). But where does the apostle that it was addreased to Noah himeelf as well
twake any allusion to any such distinction as to his contemporaries. In support of this,
between two sides in the resurrection of he very rightly appeals to the fact that Noah
Christ? is not here — as 2 Pet. il. 6 — termed a xnpvé.
1 It must be observed that whilet Hofmann But he does not say by whom this preaching
coveiders the preachlog of Christ as having must be considered to have takeu place.
CHAP. III. 19. 295
they have not done. (3) It cannot be understood how Peter comes so
suddenly to speak of the spirits in prison. But, in reply, it may be urged,
with at least equal justification, that it is not easy to understand how Peter
comes so suddenly to speak of an act of Christ before His incarnation.
(4) The want of the article before dmejcace compels us to translate this
participle not: “which sometime were unbelieving,” but: “when they
sometime were unbelieving.” This, however, is not the case, since the
participle, added with adjectival force to a substantive, is often enough
joined to the latter without an article. If Peter had put the words zopeugei¢
éxipvée before roig . . . mvetuact, no difficulty would have presented itself in
the translation under dispute (“the sometime unbelieving spirits in prison ”).
The translation to which preference is given is grammatically untenable.! —
Finally, appeal has been made to the fact that «ai is placed after év ¢, indeed
even to é a itself; but a correct explanation offers no justification for so
doing. Besides the close connection of the relative clause with that
immediately preceding, the following points favor the interpretation
attacked: (1) The correspondence of the nveipare to be supplied to év¢,
with the subsequent mveipacw; (2) mopevdeic, which must be taken in the
same sense as the mopevieig in ver. 22; (3) The fact that zoré does not stand
with éxfpvge, but in ver. 20 with dreéjcany, which shows that the dredeiy
took place previous to the xnpiscoew ; and, lastly, (4) The circumstance that
had Peter closed his sentence with éxjpvéev, it could have occurred to no one
that Peter was here speaking of a preaching of Christ which took place in a
time long gone by. —éy¢ is not equivalent to did (airtodoyuor with reference
to éxage, Theophylact); but whilst 3 refers back to xveipyari, évd states in
what condition Christ accomplished that which is mentioned in what
follows,— He accomplished it not é» capxi (for after the cup He was put
to death), but éy mveivare (for after the mveiua He was made alive). &
stands here in a position similar to that which it holds in Rom. viii. 8,
where, however, oap§ and avevyu form an ethical antithesis, which here is
not the case. Hofmann wrongly attributes to 4 here an “instrumental
force” equivalent to “by means of ;” he is induced to do so solely by his
explanation of the zveipan to be supplied. Although it is evident that
mvevpare here must be taken in no sense different from that of the foregoing
rvevpart, Hofmann nevertheless holds it to be identical with the avetpa Xpicrov
mentioned in chap. i. 11, while he himself says that the mveiyar: subjoined
to Qworornpeig cannot be understood of the Holy Ghost.?— Peter says, then,
1 Hofmann, Indeed, says that since the ex-
pression is not rors arecOycacr, the translation
should not be: “‘ those spirits in durance, which
sometime were disobedient; but he grants
that, from a grammatical point of view, it
remains doubtful ‘‘ whether word signifies the
past as related to the time of Christ’s preach-
ing, or the past as regards the present of the
writer.”
* Hofmann says that the accusation made
against him, that he effaces the distinction
between mvevyna as a term used to designate
the precise nature of Christ, and rvevyua as the
third Person in the Trinity, ie the result of
that confusion of ideas by which “in the
Spirit’? and ‘tas a Spirit” are understood to
mean the same thing. But it must be replied
that rather is the identification of two different
ideas, contained in his interpretation, the result
of the confusion of ideas, leading him as it
does to hide the difference by defining wvevpa
as “the Spirit of Christ's life.”
296 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER,
that Christ, in the Spirit according to which He was made alive, preached
to the spirits év gvAaxg, which cannot be understood to mean any thing else
than that He did it as a mveiya (in His pneumatical condition). Fronmiiller
erroneously interprets: “in the existence-form of a spirit separated from
the body ;” for the quickened Christ lives not as a simple spirit, but is in
possession of a glorified spiritual body. — xal roi¢ év guAaxy nveipact ropevbei¢
éxnpugev]. By ra... mvetpara are to be understood, neither angels (Heb.
i. 14)! nor “men living upon the earth” (as Wichelhaus explains), but the
souls of men already dead, as in Heb. xii. 23, which in Rev. vi. 9, xx. 4,
Wisd. iii. 1, are called yuyai. év gvdaxg designates not only the place, but
denotes also the condition in which the mveiyara are. Hofmann wrongly —
because in opposition to the uniform usage in the N. T. — denies all local
reference to the expression, and would therefore translate év gvaaxg by “in
durance.” The meaning is, that the mveiuzara were in prison as prisoners.?
The expression occurs in the N. T. with the article and without it, and its
more precise force here is clear from the passages, Rev. xx. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 4;
Jude 6. It does not denote generally the kingdom of the dead (Lactant.
Inst., I. 7, c. 21: omnes [animae] tn una communique custodia detinentur), but
that part of it which serves as abode for the souls of the ungodly until the
day of judgment. The dative depends, indeed, on éxgpvéev, not on ropevoeic;
but the addition of the latter word gives prominence to the fact that Christ
went to those spirits, and preached to them in that place where they were.
Hofmann is not altogether wrong when, in support of his own view of the
passage, he says: “the operation of the spirit of Christ, by which Noah
was made the organ of His proclamation, might be termed a ‘going and
preaching’ on the part of Christ” (comp. especially the passage, Eph.
ii. 17: éA@dv einyyedicato; see Meyer in loc., to which Hofmann might have
appealed). But that ropevéeic cannot be so taken here, is shown by the
stopevdeic in ver. 22, with which it must be identical] in sense.* éxfpvée is
the same verb as that so often used in the N. T. of the preaching (not the
teaching) of Christ and His apostles. Usually it is accompanied by an
Object (1d ebayyédov, riv Baodeiav rov Ocod, Xpiordv, or the like); but it is
frequently, as here, used absolutely, cf. Matt. xi. 1; Mark i. 38, etc. —It
cannot be concluded, with Zezschwitz, from the connection of this relative
clause with GWoromnteic mvevuart, that Gworoinow illam spiritualem quasi funda-
mentum fuisse concionis idemque argumentum ; nor does the word itself disclose
1 Raur (7tb. Theol. Jahrb. 1856, H. 2, p.
215) understands it to mean the ayyeAo: auap-
thoavres, 2 Pet. li. 4, who, according to Gen.
vi. 1 ff., had fallen previous to the deluge.
This interpretation is sufficiently contradicted
by ver. 20.
* The interpretation of Wichelhaus — who
by circumlocution explains 7a év vA. rvevpara
as equal to 0: areBouvres rnpovmeror, Ppovpov-
evan. eis nudpay tov cataxAvopov —is alto-
gether erroneous.
3 Justin (Dial c. Tryph., c. 5): tas wey tev
evoeBav (puxas) év xpeirrom ov xwpy pévecy,
tas & adtxovs cas wownpois év xetpore roy THs
apicews évdexouevas xpovoy.
4 Luthardt so thoroughly recognizes the
vis of this ropev@ecs, that he says be should
interpret the passage as Hofmann does, if the
wopevOecs did not prevent him from doing so.
Besides, it is certain that the coming of the
Holy Spirit is at the same time a coming of
Christ; but it must not be overlooked that in
the N. T. it is nowhere indlcated as being a
coming of Christ éy rvevpar.
CHAP. III. 20. 297
either the contents or the purpose of that preaching; but since Christ is
called the xjpvgac without the addition of any more precise qualification,
it must be concluded that the contents and design of this «jpvyuza are in
harmony with the xjpvyua of Christ elsewhere. It is accordingly arbitrary,
and in contradiction to Christ’s significance for the work of redemption,
to assume that this preaching consisted in the proclamation of the coming
judgment (Flacius, Calov., Buddeus, Hollaz, Wolf, Aretius, Zezschwitz,
Schott, etc.), and was a praedicatio damnatoria.1 Wiesinger justly asks:
“This concio damnatoria— what does it mean in general, what here espe-
cially? *—It is unjustifiable to deny, with some commentators, that the
apostle regarded this mopevdeic éxnpvée as an actual reality.?— «ai, following
év¢, must not be explained, as Schweizer does, in this way, that Peter,
wishing to hold up Christ to his readers as a pattern of how they should
conduct themselves under suffering, adduces two examples, vv. 19 ff., His
death on the cross, and His preaching’ the whole structure of the clauses,
as well as their contents, contradicts this. Nor can it be explained, as
Hofmann assumes, “from the antithesis between us whom Christ wished
to bring to God, and those who as spirits are in durance.” This would
hold good only if, in ver. 18, it were affirmed that Christ did the same to us
as to those spirits, that is, preached to us. It is likewise incorrect to take
xai as equivalent to “even” (Wiesinger, Fronmiiller); for a distinction
between these spirits and others is nowhere hinted at. «ai is put rather in
order to show prominently that what is said in this verse coincides with the
SworonGelc mvevuart Of ver. 18. Zezschwitz: ul notio, quae in enunciatione tv ¢
latet (Cwor, mvevpart) urgeatur.
Ver. 20. The words which begin this verse, drewjoaciv more, characterize
the spirits who are in prison according to their former conduct. The parti-
ciple must not, with Wiesinger, be resolved into “although, notwithstand-
ing the fact that they had been disobedient;” an adversative relation of this
1 Hollaz: ‘ Fuit praedicatio Christi in in-
ferno non evangelica, quae hominibus tantum
2 Thus Picus-Mirandola says: ‘ Christua
non veraciter et quantum ad realem praesen-
in regno gratiae anpunciatur, sed legalis
elenchthica, terribills eaque tum verbalis, qua
ipeos aeterna supplicia promeritos esse con-
vincit, tum realis, qua immanem terrorem its
incussit.” This interpretation, which has its
origin in dogmatic views, Zezachwitz seeks to
found on exegesia by characterizing the idea
of judgment as the leading conception of the
whole passage, to which, however, the context
gives no warrant, and also by maintaining that
otherwise Peter would have used the word
evayyeAccery, Or a compound of ayyéAAev. It
{s certainly correct when Schott and Kdéhler
say that «ypicoceyw is not in Itself equal to
evayyeAcgecws but it does not follow that it
may not be applied to a message of salvation.
It must be remembered that Christ's aim, even
as a preacher of judgment, ever was the ac-
complishment of salvation, as he declared Luke
zix.10; John xii. 47.
tiam descendit ad inferoe, sed solum quoad
effectum.” Cf., too, J. R. Lavater, De Descensu
Christi ad Inf., lib. I., c. 9. — Many interpret-
ers unwarrantably weaken at least exyjpvée, in
80 far as to make it synonymous with “‘ showed
Himeelf,”’ or, at any rate, they say that the
preaching of Christ was potius realiter, quam
verbaliter. This the author of the article,
“Tie Hadllenfabrt Christi,” in the Erlanger
Zeitschrift fiir Protest., 1856, should not have
sanctioned. Schott fe not free from this arbi-
trary method of interpretation, in that he char-
acterizes «npvocew ‘“‘as a bearing witness to
one’s self, not only in word, but also in deed,”
and calle ‘this bearing witness to and show-
ing forth of Himself by Christ In the glory
of His mediatorial person,” a concio damna-
toria.
298 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
kind must have been more plainly expressed }— According to the uniform
usage of the N. T., the word dmeweiv has here also the meaning of unbelief
involving resistance; cf. chap. ii. 7, 8, iii. 1, iv. 17. The translation: “to
be disobedient,” is too inexact, for the word forms the antithesis to morevecy,
— Gre avegedéxero, x.7.A., Serves not only to specify the time when these spirits
were unbelieving, but also to mark the guilt of the dmedeiv. — amexdéxecOat,
according to N. T. usage, equivalent to “patient waiting,” is here used abso-
lutely, as in Rom. viii. 25 (comp. éxdéyeo@a, Heb. x. 13; thus Schott also).
The narrative itself shows the object to which this waiting of God’s long-
suffering was directed. Its duration is not to be limited to the seven days
mentioned in Gen. vii. 4 (De Wette), for this is in keeping neither with the
amefedéxeTo 7. . . paxpoGvuia, nor the subsequent xaracxevalopévnc xiBwrod, but
embraces the whole period of one hundred and twenty years mentioned in
Gen. vi. 3. — The time specified by dre, «.7.4,, is still more precisely defined
in the subsequent év jutpar Née and the xaraoxevalopévne xeBwrov; in such @
way, however, that these adjuncts contain a reference to the exhortation to
repentance then given, for Noah was not, like the others, an unbeliever, but
a believer, and the preparation of the ark gave unmistakable testimony to
the approaching judgment. —“«Burd¢ without the article, the expression
used by the LXX. for 2A, equal to ark, arca; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38; Luke
xvii. 27; Heb. xi. 7” (Wiesinger).
REMARK 1.—Some of the interpreters who do not apply this passage to
the descensus ad inferos, as Luther (in his Auslegung der Ep. Petri, 1523 (the
Socinians, Vorstius, Amelius, Grotius, etc., explain éxjpvge as referring to
the preaching of the apostles, assuming that the unbelievers in the time of
Noah are mentioned only as types of the unbelievers in apostolic times, ra év
gvAaxg mvebuara they understand to mean the heathen alone, or those along with
the Jews. Amelius: mvetu. hic in genere denotant homines, quemadmodum
paulo post prxai tv gvdang: in captivitate erant tum Judaei, sub jugo legis
existentes, tum quoque gentiles, sub potestate diaboli jacentes. Illos omnes
Christus liberavit ; praedicationem verbi sui ad ipsos mittens et continuans et
Apostolos divina virtute instruens.
REMARK 2. — Even interpreters who apply this passage to the descensus ad
inferos, and understand éxypvge of the preaching of salvation,? are guilty of much
arbitrariness, and especially in designating more precisely those to whom the
preaching is addressed. Several of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippo-
lytus ; many of the Scholastics ; further, Zwingli, Calvin (in his Comment.),
1 Hofman has now juatly given up hie
former explanation: ‘without being obe-
dient.” Walther’s Interpretation {ts evidently
entirely arbitrary: ‘‘to the spirits, j.e., the
devile and the damned in general, particularly
to those damned who,” etc. But neither is
there a warrant for inserting oiov (Bengel:
*‘gubaudi! ofov, j.e., exempli gratia, in dlebus
Noe; subjicitur generl species maxime insig-
nis’’).
3 It must further be remarked, that several
commentators, Athanasius, Ambroslus, Eras-
mus, Calvin (in his /nstié., lib. I1., 2, c. 16, § 9),
underatand Christ’s preaching as at once a
praedicatio salvifica and praed. damnatoria,
Calvin, however, doce hold by the idea of
knpvogey, when he says: ‘‘Contextus vim
mortis (Christi) inde amplificat, quod ad mor.
tuos usque penetraverit, dum piae animae ejus
visitationis, quam sollicite exepectaverant,
praesenti aspectu sunt potitae; contra reprobls
clarius patuit, se excludi ab omni salute.”
CHAP. III. 20. 299
and others hold those to have been the pious, especially the pious of the O. T.!
—Marcion thinks the «#pvyya was addressed to those who, though in the
O. T. termed ungodly, were actually better than the O. T. believers. — Clemens
Al. supposes the dixaoe xara gidocogiav, who, however, were still without faith
and in the trammels of idolatry. —Several commentators assume that not all
unbelievers in the days of Noah are meant, but those only who, at first indeed
unbelieving, had still repented at the last moment when the flood came upon
them ; this is the view of Suarez, Estius, Bellarmin, Luther (Zu der Erkldrung
der Genesis, 1536, und zu Hosea IV. 2, v. J. 1545),2 Peter Martyr, etc. Bengel
says: Probabile est, nonnullos ex tunta multitudine, veniente pluvia, resipuisse ;
cumque non credidissent, dum expectaret Deus, postea, cum . . . poena ingrue-
ret, credere coepisse, quibus postea Christus eorumque similibus se praeconem
gratiae praestiterit. Wiesinger agrees with this interpretation, at least in so
far that he assumes that the moral condition of the individual (at the time of
the flood) was not in every case the same, but extremely varied; although,
on the other hand, he finds fault with it on the ground ‘‘ that, in contradiction
to the context, it limits the é«apuge only to a part.”? Schott remarks, as against
Wiesinger, ‘‘ that although some may in respect of moral condition have differed
from the majority, or still have repented in the last moment, yet these were not
among the spirits in durance who listened to Christ’s preaching.”’
REMARK 3. — The view commonly accepted is that this preaching by Christ
took place before His resurrection, whilst His body lay in the grave. Many
even of the older dogmatists of the Lutheran Church, however, hold it to have
been accomplished after His quickening, that is, in the time between this and
His going forth from the grave. Quenstedt says: Christus @eavépwrog totaque
adeo persona (non igitur secundum animam tantwum nec secundum corpus tan-
tum) post redunitionem animae ac corporis ad istud damnatorum ov deacendit s
he fixes the time when this happened : illud momentum, quod intercessit inter
Cworoinay et avuoraav Christi stricte ita dictam. Hollaz: distinguendum inter
resurrectionem externam et internam ; illa est egressio e sepulcrg et exterior
coram hominibus manifestatio ; haec est ipsa virificatio; so, too, Hutter, Baier,
Buddeus, etc. In like manner, Schott: ‘‘In the new spiritual life which in
that mysterious hour of midnight He had put on, and before appearing with it
on the upper world by His resurrection, He descended.’’ — The verse does not
indeed say that the éxjpvge belongs to this very moment, but it does certainly
point to the preaching having taken place after Christ’s restoration to life, as
De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, Zezschwitz, have rightly acknowledged ; for
referring as év © does to the zvevyatt connected with Gworonfeic, it is arbitrary to
find in zopevdeic éexnpvge mention made of an act of Christ which took place after
the 6avarwheic indeed, but yet before the Qworanéele, As, then, both expressions
apply to Christ in His entire person, consisting of body and soul, what follows
1 Calvin’s exposition is singular: he inter. titudine paene obruti fuerunt. Exemplum
prets duAaxy as equal to epecula vel ipse excu-
bundi actus ; ro év dvd. wy. equals “ the spirits
of those who were on the watch-tower,”’ j.e.,
in the expectation of salvation, or also in
anzietas expectationis Christi, and then con-
tinues: ‘‘Postquam (Ap.) dixit, Christi se
mortuis manifestasse, mox addit: quum in-
creduli fuiesent olim, quo algnificat nihil
noculsse sanctis Patribus quod impiorum mul-
vero ex tota vetustate prac allis illuatre deligit,
nempe cum diluvio submersus fuilt mundus.”
He removes the scruple, that the dative are:
Oycace is not in harmony witb thie explana-
tion, by obeerving that the apostles sometimes
employ one case in room of another.
2 On Luther's vacillation in interpreting this
passage, see Kihler as above, and Schweizer
as above, p. 7.
800 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
must not be conceived as an activity which He exercised in His spirit only
and whilst separated from His body. In addition to this, if according to His
intention His preaching was to be indeed a preaching of salvation, it must have
had for its substance the work of redemption, completed only in the resurrec-
tion. Weiss (p. 232) objects that avevya is not equal to copua xvevyaru«oy, and
this is undoubtedly true; but it cannot prove any thing against the view that
Christ as the Risen One, that is, in His glorified body, preached to the spirits in
prison, inasmuch as in this body the Lord is no longer év capxi, but entirely év
avevpart, — Thus the passage says nothing as to Christ’s existence between His
death and resurrection. If Acts ii. 31 presuppose the going of the dead Christ
into Hades, the common dwelling-place of departed souls, this descensus ad
inferos must not be identified with the one here mentioned, as also Wiesinger,
Briickner, and Schott rightly observe ; so that by drawing this distinction the
disputed question, too, whether Christ descended into Hades, guoad animam, or
quoad animam et corpus, finds its correct solution. It must further be added,
that this passage gives no support whatever either to the doctrine of the Form.
concordiae, that in Hades Christ ‘‘overcame the devil, destroyed the power of
hell, and despoiled the devil of his might,’’ or to that of the Catholic Church
of the limbus Patrum and purgatory.
Connected with the words xaresxevalopévne xcBwrot are the thoughts which
follow, in which stress is laid not so much on the judgment which overtook
unbelievers in the flood, as on the deliverance of the few: el¢ fv dAiyo. — duecd-
Gnoav dt’ idatoc]. The preposition da is to be explained not as equal to é«
(Acts xxviii. 4: dv dtacwbévra tx rig Oadaoonc), nor as if it were éy (in medio
aquarum), nor equivalent to non obstante aqua (Gerhard), nor even as a prepo-
sition of time (eo tempore, quo aquae inundaverant); but is to be taken either
locally or instrumentally. e’ idarog is then either “through the water,” or
equivalent to “by means of water.” The former view (Bengel, Steiger, De
Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, formerly Hofmann also) seems to be confirmed
by the rerbum compos. deodOyoav. But duacdfev, both in the LXX. and in
the N. T. (cf. Matt. xiv. 36; Luke vii. 3, etc.), is often used as a strength-
ened form of adev, without the peculiar force of dd being pressed. And
thus it must be taken here, inasmuch as it contradicts the historical narra-
tive in Genesis, to say that Noah and his family were saved by passing
through the water. da has accordingly here an instrumental force, so that
ét’ idaroc indicates water as the medium through which the Noahites were
delivered.1 And this interpretation is alone in harmony with the context,
inasmuch as the apostle in what follows gives special prominence to the fact
that the N. T. deliverance is likewise effected by means of water. If water
was the means of deliverance to Noah and those with him, “in so far as it
bore those hidden within the ark, and thus preserved them from destruction,
comp. (ien. vii. 17, 18” (Weiss, p. 318; thus also Wolf, Pott, Jachmann,
Schott), this implies recourse to a pregnant construction, inasmuch as the
1 Wiesinger has expressed himself iu favor bines both interpretations: “In which few
of the first version, but then remarks: ‘The souls sought shelter, and were saved through
writer conceives the water at the same time as _— the water and by it;” this is evidently alto-
the saving element.”” Fronmliller, too, com- gether unwarrautable.
CHAP. III. 21. 801
apostle unites the two thoughts in one: “they were sared hy going into the
ark,” and “they were saved é' tdatoc.” Hofmann seeks to avuid the assump-
tion of a pregnancy by explaining idup here as the water “which began to
overflow the earth,” and which compelled Noah to enter with those belong-
ing to him into the ark, in support of which he appeals to Gen. vii. 11, 13.
But although these passages state that both the entering into the ark and
the beginning of the deluge took place on the same day, still the latter event
is not indicated as the motive of the former. According to the narrative in
Genesis, it was the command of God which moved the Noahites to enter the
ark, and as soon as they had done so, and God had closed the ark, the deluge
commenced; cf. Gen. vii. 1, 16, 17. — Further, on Hofmann’s interpretation
water can be regarded only in a very loose sense as the mediuin of deliver-
ance; nor would it be in keeping with the subsequent parallelism. It must
be noted that idaror is anarthrous, and although by the term no other water
can be understood than that of the flood, yet Peter’s object here is not to
show that the same water which destroyed some served as the means of de-
liverance for others, but merely to state that the deliverance of Noah and
those with him was effected by water, in order that this water then may be
recognized as the type of the saving water of baptism (comp. Schott). —
6Aiyoe, Tobr’ Latey OxTd wWuyxai]. ovr’ toriv, x.7.4., justifies the use of the expres-
Sion ddAiyor; 80 much stress is laid on this particular, very probably in order
to point out, on the one hand, the great number of those who perished, and
on the other, the proporticn to be looked for at the final judgment.
Ver. 21. 6 wai bude (Nude) avtiruToy viv owe Buttioua}, 6 does not apply to
the thought expressed in the previous verse, as Gerhard, who adopts the
reading ¢, explains: isfi conserrationt tanquam typo spiritualis conservationis
baptismus velul dvrirvmovy respondet (in like manner Beza, Hornejus, Morus,
Hottinger, Hensler, etc.), but it refers back to idaroc, and, withal, so that by
it water generally is to be understood, and not that particular water through
the medium of which the Noahites were saved; water saved them, and it is
water by which you too are saved. The general term receives @ more pre-
cise definition in the adjectival dvrirvmov, by means of which the water which
now saves is contrasted as antlitype! with the water which raved Noah and
those with him. What this antitypical water is, is stated by the subjoined
Barrioua, Which as an apposition must be explained in the sense: “as bap-
lism” (comp. Winer, p. 491 [E. T., 528]). Differently, Hofmann; he would
take the apposition in the sense of “a baptism namely,” he says, “in the
explanatory apposition the apostle substitutes the term ‘baptism’ for ‘water,’
without, by the anarthrous jarropa, directly indicating Christian baptism.
What kind of baptism he means is stated by the apposition, subjoined to
Banriouc.” On this it must be remarked, that Garrioua would certainly con-
vey to the readers only the idea of a definite Christian baptism, and that the
apposition following is not fitted to mark the term baptism, indefinite in
iteelf, as the specifically Christian baptism, but only to point out in what
way baptism possesses in itself the saving power attributed to it. — Without
2 Raphellus: * rinos res allud quid prae- dvrirvwos has another meaning in Heb. il. 24,
figurans, avritvwos res illa pracigurata.” §where the rumos is the aAn@ivor.
302 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
any cogent reason, Steiger interprets Bimriopua as equivalent to “ baptismal
water.” ‘The direct conjunction which takes place here ceases to occasion
surprise, if it be considered that the typical character of the deluge, as re-
gards baptism, consists not only in the sameness of the elements, but in the
similarity of the relation of the water to those saved. If 6: idaroc be rendered
“through the water,” an incongruity will arise, disturbing to the parallelism,
and which attempts have been made to overcome by supplying intermediate
ideas. According to De Wette, the antitypical character of baptism consists
in this: “that in it the flesh must perish and, as it were, be judged; whilst, at
the same time, through faith in the resurrection of Christ, pure spiritual life
is attained, and the believer saved.” By these and such like supplements,
which the apostle himself in no way suggests, elements are introduced
foreign to his conception.!— The present ode is put here neither instead
of the preterite nor the future; it denotes rather the effect which, from the
moment of its accomplishment, baptism produces on the persons who submit
to it. The latter resemble the Noahites whilst by means of water they were
being preserved in the ark from destruction (axdAeu). — The antithesis which
exists between tude and the preceding éAiyou, indicates that the proportion
saved by baptism to the unbelieving is but small. dAiyo has accordingly a
typical significance. It is more doubtful whether the same is the case with
the ark; Oecumenius already saw in it the Church, whilst others regard it
as a symbol of Jesus Christ.? — ob capxds dmobeo pitov, dada}. Apposition to
Barripa, which, however, does not state the nature of baptism generally, but
only in what sense it effects oof. This is stated first negatively, in order
thereby to mark more distinctly the standpoint. Almost all commentators
take capxé¢ as a genitive depending on fvzov, and preceding it only for the
sake of emphasis. Bengel, on the other hand, joins it—as genit. subj. —
directly with arégeor: “carnt adscribitur depositio sordium ; ideo non dicitur:
deposttio sordium carnis.” The sense would then be: baptism does not con-
sist in this, “that the flesh lays aside its uncleanness.” This explanation,
corresponding as it does to the position of the words, is well suited to the
idea dzodeow, which does not necessarily presuppose the activity of the sub-
ject, but can be used when the subject is, strictly speaking, passive; comp.
2 Pet. i. 14, the ouly other passage in which the word occurs in the N. T.
Hofmann is accordingly mistaken in asserting that “the laying aside of
uncleanness cannot be regarded as an act of the flesh.” — An antithetical
allusion to the Jewish washings can hardly be here assumed (cf. Justin M.,
Dial. c. Tryph., p. 331: ri ydp dperog éxeivov ro Barriouarog (the Jewish wash-
1 Schott, indeed, justly remarks “that the
avtitypical nature of baptism, and therefore
destroyed mankind from the earth, so that
from out of it only a small number, belonging
the typical nature of that to which baptiem
corresponds as antitype, consists precisely in
what ia asserted of both, namely, in their
saving power and effect."’ He thinks, how-
ever, “that the antitypical nature of the water
applies to what was essentially pecullar to the
great flood.” What this is he explains by
eaying that ‘‘the flood was a Judgment which
to the church of believers, were saved; that
is, ‘it was a judgment of extirpation in such
a way that it wae the means of effecting a
salvation.”
2 Thus Hemming: ‘‘Quemadmodum aqua
per se non salvavit Noe, sed mediante arca,
ita aqua baptiami per ee non salvat, eed medi-
aute arca, h. e. Christo Jesu."
CHAP. III. 21. 303
ing), 6 riv cdpxa nal pdvav 1d cdua gadptve;: Batrlobgte Thy yoyhr).! — Gadd ovver-
dnaeus ayabing Emepornua cic Oedv]. The positive, as contrasted with the negative
character of baptism. ovvewdpoewe ayabge can be either the subjective or the
objective gen.? émepernua, a an. Acy. in the N. T. (in the O. T. only once,
LXX., Dan. iv. 14, as a translation of RAINY), is used in classical Greek
only in the sense of “question.” Holding by this meaning, cominentators
have explained it as (1) the question concerning a@ good conscience addressed
to God” (thus Wiesinger, who, however, prefers the translation “inquiry”
to “question”), or (2) “the question of a good conscience directed to God”
(Gerhard, Steiger, Besser). The first of these renderings is not in har.
mony with the nature of baptism, inasmuch as the person to be baptized
already knows how the good conscience is to be obtained. From the second
there results only an incomplete idea, necessitating arbitrary supplements.®
Now, a8 érepwrav, which doubtless means only “to ask a question,” 1s used also
of such questions as would obtain something from the person asked (Matt.
xvi. 1; Ps. cxxxvii. 3, LXX.), the meaning has been assigned to érepwrnua:
“the inquiring desire,” “ the inquiring request.” Some commentators here take
ovy. dy, a8 a subj. gen., and interpret: “the request of a good conscience ad-
dressed to God” (thus Bengel, with whom Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N. T.,
p. 199, agrees: salvat nos rogatio bonae conscientiae, i.e., rogatio, qua nos Deum
compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis remissis et depositis) ;* but this also
gives rise to an incomplete idea, inasmuch as the contents of the request are
not stated. On this rendering of érepurnua, it is better to regard the gen. as
an object. gen., thus: “the request addressed to God for a good conscience :"
Lutz, Lechler, Weiss, Weizsicker (Reuter’s Repert., 1858, H. 3), Hofmann,
Schott; Wiesinger, too, is inclined to agree. But to this also objections
1 Augustin’s opinion (Contr. Faust ,c. 13 § Gerbard: ‘“‘Quomodo deus erga baptiza.
et 13), with which Beda and others agree, is
quite inappropriate. It is, that the apostie
here alludes to the baptism of the heretics.
Calvin's assertion, too, that thie negative ap-
position emphasizes the fact that baptism, as
an outward form, is of no use, introduces a
foreign idea into the words of the apostle.
3 This is denied, indeed, by several com-
mentators, specially by Hofmann and Schott,
because a good conscience does not precede,
but fe the fruit of, baptiem. But this assertion
presuppoees the identification of the yood con-
ecience with that conscience which by Christ
is reconciled with God, and is released from
the feeling of guilt. For this, however, the
N. T. phraseology gives no warrant. Accord.
jng to it, cvverdnors ayady rather means ‘the
cousciousness of pure iotentions,”’ or ** the con-
sciousness of sincerely willing that which is
good’ (Heb. xill. 18, caAny cuverdnory éxopev,
dv wact Kadas O¢dovTEs avactpéperOa; cf. also
1 Pet. iii. 16; Acte xxill. 1; 1 Tim. 4. 5, 19, fff.
9). If baptism ie really to bring a blessing to
the person baptized, he must surely desire it
with a good consctence.
tum affectue sit,” etc.; Steiger: ‘For the
salvation of which he who receives baptism
would be assured,” Besser: ‘Art thou not
my father? Am I not thy child?’’ The ino
lerpretation given inthe Zrlunger Zeitschrift,
1856, p. 203 ff., is evidently altogether erro-
neous: “The proof of the good conscience
attained in baptism is the ¢repwrnua cis @.,
j.e., the question, Am I not saved by my bap.
tism from the judgment on an unbelieving
world?” Apart from all else, the matter here
treated of is not a question which is only put
after baptism, since baptism itself is designated
as the eweparnua.
* To this interpretation of Bengel, Hof-
mann rightly objects ‘‘ that ¢repwrnua cannot
well mean sometbing which presupposes the
reception of baptisam;’’ but if the “ peccatie
remissis et depositis'’ be not looked upon as
belonging to the idea of a goud conscience,
Hofmann’s objection loses its validity.
5 The same view is to be found already in
Seb. Schmidlus, only that he regards érep. as
meaving the petitio addressed to God by him
who baptizes, and ovy. a}. as the gift which
804 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
which cannot be overlooked arise: (1) Although the reception of baptism
be founded on the desire for a reconciled conscience, yet it does not follow
that baptism itself can be described as the expression of this desire; (2)
Taken thus, the proper meaning of érepdrnua is entirely lost sight of; tho
word is used in a sense in which it occurs nowhere else, ——a proceeding
which is all the more open to question, that the apostle had certainly other
words at his command wherewith to give the idea of request; (3) The object
which the recipient of baptism requests, namely, “the reconciled conscience,”
is inadequately expressed by ovveidnou ayaey, for here no stress is laid on the
essential element, — the forgiveness of sin; lastly, (4) In this interpretation
ei¢ Gedy is Only of secondary importance, whilst the passages, chap. i. 21 and
lil. 18, show that the chief emphasis lies on cic @ecv.1—Even from early
times interpreters have attempted to explain érepornua in this passage, not
according to common but according to juristic usage, taking it as equal to
ciugurvoy, stipulatio mutua, contract (Luther: “covenant ”), referring at the
same time to the act of question and answer, which took place at baptism:
amoracoy TH Larava; axordecopuat * ouvracay TH Xptote; cvvtrdccoua: abrenuntias ¢
abrenuntio ; credis? credo (Tertull., Lib. de Resurr. Carn.: anima non lavatione,
sed responsione sancitur). Aretius Interprets: Deus in baptismo nobis promittit,
quod velit nos filiorum loco habere propter Christum ; contra nos promittimus, nos
serio victuros pie; haec est mutua stipulatio; this interpretation, however, is
erroneous, as even in legal phraseology émepwrnua does not mean a “ recip=
rocal” contract. De Wette’s is likewise wrong: “by metonymy, because
questions were addressed to the individual who took the vow, émepwraobat
acquired the meaning promittere, spondere, and éneporqua that of sponsio ;”
for érepornua is not derived from énepurcoda but from émepwrgv, and therefore
never had or could have had the signification, “solemn pledge.” Further,
it has been not unjustly remarked, in opposition to this view, according to
which ov». dy. is considered as an object. gen., that it would have been better
to have spoken of dvaorpog? dyae7 as that which has to be vowed.? Briickver
has substantially corrected De Wette by pointing out that in the language
of the Byzantine lawyers émepwrgv is used in the sense, “to conclude a treaty,
a contract, stipulari,” taking ov. dy. as a subject. gen. But his exposition
suffers from an uncertain wavering, for he too declares émeporqua to be
synonymous with “treaty,” indeed with “vow,” which is certainly not the
case. The facts are these: a contract was concluded in the form of ques-
tlon of baptism its application to cleansing is
be implores for the person baptized; evidently
this is entirely arbitrary.
1 Hofmann, in support of the interpretation
here called in question, appeals to the circum-
stance, ‘that the petition for the cleansing of
the conscience from past sins forms the only
suitable antithesis to the putting away of filth
contracted outwardly.’’ But it must be re.
marked in opposition, that, however suitable
this antithesis may appear in Itself, it does not
follow that the apostle had it in his mind in
the way here stated. It {s rather improbable
that he had, since in this positive nearer defini-
in no way alluded to. — The explanation given
iu Weissagung und E£rfitllung, I. p. 24,
“the Aappiness of a good conscience asked of
God,” he passes over in silence in his Schrit-
beweis, II. 2.— The interpretation given by
Winer in the 5th ed. of his Gr.: “ The inquiry
of a good conecience after God, j.e., the turn.
ing to God, the seeking Him,” does not occur
in the subsequent editious, nor fe there any
justification for it.
* Estius, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Pott, Hens-
ler, etc., interpret similarly to De Wette.
CHAP. III. 22. 305
tion and answer: spondesne? spondeo (comp. Puchta, Curs. der Institut, v. 3,
p. 97); by the question, on the one side, the agreement was proposed; by
the reply, on the other, it was concluded. émepdérnua’is, then, this question by
which the conclusion of a contract began, not then the contract itself, and
still less the pledge which was taken rather by him-who replied. The ques-
tioner bound himself by his question to accept that which he who gave the
reply promised. If, then, the designation of baptism as cuvedjoews ay. éxepi-
tnua ei¢ Oeov is to be explained from legal procedure, it can only be spoken of
as such, inasmuch as the person baptized, by the reception of baptism, enters
into a relation — as it were, of contract — with God, in which he submits in
faith to God's promise of salvation. Nor can it be denied that this is really
in harmony with the nature of baptism, more especially if it be considered
that in the legal proceedings, connected with the conclusion of a contract,
the respondent pronounced his spondeo in the expectation that the interro-
gator would fulfil the conditions previously stipulated, to which he had
pledged himself. This explains the expression ouvewdyjoewe dyadic, which
points to the circumstance that the recipient of baptism, in submitting to it,
has the honest purpose faithfully to fulfil the conditions under which the
divine assent is given. This interpretation is distinguished from those
above mentioned by its concrete precision. No doubt émepdrqua in this
juristic sense is to be found only in writings of a later date; but since
this form of concluding a contract belonged to an earlier time, it may be
assumed that the word had previously been in use thus in legal phraseology.!
The adjunct: &' dvactdcews 'Inood Xpeorod, by referring back to Gsomandele dé
mvevuart, brings the apostle again to his former train of thought. The words
are not appended in a loose way to érepwrnyua for the purpose of stating how
this is effected, as Grotius, Pott, Hensler, Zezschwitz, Hofmann, Schott, and
others assume ;? they are rather conjoined with the verb of the clause auger,
inasmuch as they state that through which the Purroya exercises its saving
effect (De Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss). The former construction is the less
justifiable, that it is more natural to unite the concluding adjunct with the
leading idea than with the secondary thought which specifies the nature of
baptism. It is still less appropriate to connect the words directly with ouve-
djoewe ay. (as against Fronmiiller).
Ver. 22. d¢ dotev ty defeg rov Geot]. This brings to a close the whole train
of thought with reference to Christ, from ver. 18 and onwards, inasmuch as
to His sufferings, death, resurrection, and going to the spirits in prison, there
1 After the explanation here given, itisevi- émepwryca: 8° avrov rdy xuvpiov, has been ap-
dently incorrect when Hofmann says that pealed to in favor of this construction; erro-
‘‘¢xepwrnua could only be the question ad- neously, since &’ avrov applies to a person.
dressed by him who closes an agreement, to ‘ Between it, therefore, and &'° avagragems no
the person who is to consent to it.” The very __—paralic! can be drawn. — According to Hof.-
opposite is the case. The question ia not ad- mann, é&d states that which the person bap-
dressed from the former to the latter, but from tized appeals to in support of his desire for
the latter to the former; that is, then, pot the remission of sin. The passages, however,
from God to the person baptized, but from which he quotes (1 Cor. {. 10 and Row. xil. 1)
the person baptized to God. by no means prove that the prep. dca has this
2 1 Kings xxii. 7: dre eis dotew aynp aig 7d ~—= signification.
806 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is now added, His sitting down at the right hand of God. This expression,
which points out the present condition of the glorified Redeemer, occurs
likewise in Rom. viii. 34, Col. viii. 1, and in other passages of the N. T. —
mopevdeic ei¢ obpavéy corresponds to zopevéeic, ver. 19. — tmorayévruv . . . duvapewr,
added in order to give prominence to the unlimited sway of Christ (Eph. i.
21, 22; Col. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8), extending even over all
heavenly powers, whatever their name or office. — The expressions éfovoiat
and duvipec are — with the exception of this passage — used only by Paul as
names of angels (with duvdyet, cf. Ps. citi. 21, clxviii. 2, LX-X.); and in the
same sequence. dyyedo is not here the general term to which éfovoia: and
duvayere (kal... xai equivalent to cum... tum) are subordinate, but the
three conceptions are co-ordinate, and connected by the repeated copula.
This is shown by Rom. viii. 38, where, instead of éfovoia, the name dpyai is
used. For the various names, comp. Meyer on Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16.—
troray. expresses, not enforced, but voluntary subjection.
With regard to the relation of this whole passage to what precedes, dr: xa
Xptorde . . . Emadev shows that in the first instance confirmation is given to
the thought that it is better to suffer for well than for evil doing, by refer-
ence to the sufferings of Christ, similarly as is done in chap. ii. 21. But as
the last-mentioned passage passes beyond the limits of the typical, — that
is, first by the addition of trép tiv to énasev, and then by the statements
of ver. 24,—the same takes place here. There, reference is made to the
redeeming death of the abased Christ; here, to the living work of the glori-
fied Christ. The chief separate points have already been stated. The
allusion of baptism appears indeed to be a digression, yet it belongs essen-
tially to the train of thought; for fater that mention had been made of
Christ’s work among the spirits in prison in His exalted condition, it was
necessary to call attention likewise to His redeeming work on earth, the
effects of which are communicated through baptisin. That Peter speaks of
this medium (not that of the word, etc.), is explained by his reference to the
deluge as the type of the approaching judgment, and to the water by which
Noah and those with bim were saved, and which appeared as a rimog of
baptism.!
3 Since that which is stated in this para- mann’s assertion to the contrary, be described
graph does not keep within the limits of the asa digression.
typical, i€ may very well, in spite of Hof-
CHAP. IV. 307
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. trép nucv). Rec. after A, K, L, P, & (corr.; after m. pr., GroGavovror
txtp quay), al., is wanting in B, C, several min., Sahid, Vulg., Aug., Fulgent.,
etc.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Perhaps it is inserted in order to complete
the idea ; Reiche considers vzép juov to be the original reading ; so, too, Hofm.
The Rec. has éy capxi before méravra, after K, several min., etc. In A, B,C, L,
®, etc., etc., the preposition is wanting. Even Griesb. recommends its omis-
sion ; Lachm. and Tisch. omit év. Buttm. has retained é, as, according to his
statement, it occurs in B. Wiesinger inclines to explain the reading ocapxi from
what precedes ; Reiche, on the other hand, explains év capxi from what follows.
The authorities, as well as the idea itself, decide for the omission of é& —
Ver. 3. quiv|]. Rec. after C, K, L, P, al., Oec., Hier., can hardly be genuine ; it
is wanting in A, B, al., Syr., utr.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Steiger’s
remark, that ‘‘it is pleasing to us to observe how the apostle does not think
higher of his own former conduct than of that of the others,’’ does not prove
the genuineness of juiv. The reading dpiv, too, in 8 and several min., must be
regarded as a correction; it lay to hand to insert a dative in order to complete
the sentence. — Following K, L, P, several min., etc., the Rec. has ruv ,3:ou after
xpovoc, which is wanting in A, B, C, &, etc., etc. Tittmann brackets it, Lachm.
and Tisch. rightly omit it. — dotAnua]. After A, B, C, &, etc. Clem., Theoph.
(Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. 6éAjua, which occurs only in K, L, P,
several min., Oec. — The aorist aarspyaoacba: is attested only by K, L, P, Oec.;
it is accordingly better to read the perfect with Lachm. and Tisch., carepyaodat,
after A, B, C, &, al., Clem. The change could easily have taken place from the
fact that the aorist form of the word is the prevailing one in the N. T. (e.g.,
Rom. vii. 8; 1 Cor. v. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 11, etc.).— Ver. 5. Instead of To éroiuue
Exovre xpiva, Buttm. reads, ty éroiuwe xpivovrt, a reading which is attested only
by B. — Ver. 7. ei¢ rag mpocevyac}], The article ra¢ is very suspicious ; Lachm.
has omitted it ; Tisch. has now again adopted it, with the remark : articulus
non intellecta ea quam habet vi omittendus videbatur. It is wanting in A, B,
&%, and several min., and seems to be inserted here following chap. iii. 7,—
Ver. 8. pd navruv dé}, The omission of dé in A, B, 13, Arm., Tol., etc., is a
correction in order to connect the participle clause directly with the preceding
verbb, fin. —% aya]. Rec. after several min. and Theoph. —%, however, is
spurious, after A, B, K, L, P, &, etc. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted the
article ; Griesb. regards it as at least suspicious. —«advmre:]. After A, B, K, al.,
Copt., Arm., etc., Clem. Rom., Syr., ete. (Lachm., Tisch., much recommended
by Griesb.) ; instead of the Rec. cadupe, after L, P, &, which is easily explained
from Jas. v. 20.— Ver. 9. yoyyvoper]. Rec., after K, L, P, Oec.; on the other
hand, A, B, &, al., m., Syr., Arm., Vulg., Cyr., etc., are in favor of the singular,
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.: yoyyvoyzov. The plural from Phil. il, 14. — Ver. 13.
808 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
xa8o]. Instead of the Rec. «auc, rightly accepted by Griesb., after almost all
authorities. — Ver. 14. 1d rac dofgc]. Scholz and Lachm. add «ai duvauews, which
occurs in A, P, & (r7¢ duv.), severa] min., etc. In B, K, L, many min., and
Fathers, the adjunct is wanting ; Tisch., too, has omitted it. It may quite as
well have been omitted later as superfluous, as added by way of strengthening.
— avaravera:], Instead of this, A and several min. have éruvanaverat, after Luke
x. 6; some other authorities read avarézavra:, after 2 Cor. vii. 13. — The genuine-
ness of the words, xara uev abrove BAasonuetar, anata dé vudc dokalerat, is at least
doubtful ; it 1s supported by K, L, P, etc., Harl., Tol., etc., Thph., Oec., Cypr.;
whilst it is opposed by A, B, &, al.. Syr., Aeth., Copt., etc., Tert., Ambr., Beda
(Lachm. and Tisch.). Whilst De Wette and Wiesinger declare the adjunct to
be suspicious, and Schott looks upon it as spurious, Hiofm. considers it genuine,
because, in his opinion, without it the proper connection of ver. 15 with what
precedes would be wanting. — Ver. 15. Instead of dAdAorpioerioxoroc, Lachm.,
following B, writes dAdorpuemcoxoroc ; on it Tisch. observes, ridetur elegantiae
causa ejectum o, — Ver. 16. ev ta ovouare tovrw jis the reading of A, B. x, al.,
Syr., utr., Erp., Copt., etc., Cypr., Ephr., Oec. (Lachm., Tisch.). There is less
evidence for the Rec. éy rq uépet rovrw, which occurs in K, L, P, etc., and probably
arose out of 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3.— Ver. 17. Instead of nuor, A**, al., Aeth.,
Slav., Thph., etc., read tuov. — Ver, 19. o¢ mora artistry]. Rec. according to K,
L, P, almost all min., several vss., and Fathers (Tisch. 7). Lachm. and Tisch.
& have omitted oc, after A, B, &, several min., Copt., Aeth., Arm., Vulg., Athan.
It is difficult to decide which is the correct reading ; o¢ may have been inserted,
following Peter’s habitual mode of expression; on the other hand, it may have
been omitted in order to make toTw «tiorg purely terminative. — avruy, after
A, G, K, 8, etc., etc., is to be preferred to éavtav, — Instead of cyadu7oia, which
occurs in B, K, L, P, ®, pl., al.. Theoph., Oec., and is accepted by Tisch.,
Lachm., after A, al., Vulg., etc., reads the plural cya@ooriarg.
Ver. 1. Xprotod oby madivrog (bntp qudv) capxi]. “In these words the
apostle returns to chap. iii. 18, in order to subjoin the following exhorta-
tion. — oupxi is not “in the flesh” (Luther), but, “according to the flesh ;"
comp. iii. 18. This is made prominent because the believer's sufferings,
too, under persecutions, touch the flesh only; comp. Matt. x. 28. mavévro¢
is not to be limited to the suffering of Christ before His death, but com-
prehends the latter also. It is, however, incorrect to understand, with
Hofmann, radévroc at once as identical with aro@avovroc, and in connection
with capxi to explain: “that Christ by His life in the flesh submitted for
our sake to a suffering which befell Him—that for our sake He allowed
His life in the flesh to come to an end” (!).—xal tyeig tiv aitay évyotav
énAicacte], xai with reference to Christ: “ye also:” the disciple must be
like the master. It lies to hand to translate évvoa (besides here, only in
Heb. iv. 12) as equivalent here to “disposition of mind” (De Wette;
Weiss, p. 288) ; but évvoa means always “ thought, consideration” (Wiesinger,
Schott).1. There is here also no reference to the mind of Christ in His
sufferings. riv aitay évvoay refers back to the maoyew oapxi of Christ
1 Reiche erroneously appeals in support of paseages in Prov. v. 2, xxiii. 19, LXX., and
this meaning, “disposition of mind,”’ to the Wid. il. 14.
CHAP. IV. 1. 309
Himself, so that the sense is, that since Christ suffered actording to the
flesh, they too should not refuse the thought of like Him suffering according
to (or on) the flesh. or gives the ground of the exhortation. Hofmann,
Wiesinger, and Schott take én as explaining ny air. &vvoav. Incorrectly ;
for the menavra: duapriag will not admit of an application to Christ, inas-
much as the expression does not presuppose generally a former “relation to
sin,” but former sinning itself. — The verb érAigeoda, in the N. T. az. Aey.,
is in classical writers often construed with the accusative. (Soph. Electra,
v. 991: Opdoog orAigecda:) ; while applied to every kind of equipment, e.g.,
of ships, it here refers to the Christian’s calling as one of conflict. — dr 6
madov tv capxi némavrat duaptiag]. In WLuther’s translation: “for he who
suffers on the flesh, he ceaseth from sin,” the present is incorrectly substi-
tuted for the preterite tense: év capxi; correctly: “on the flesh.” Hofmann’s
rendering is wrong: “in the flesh,” which, compared with the é capxt
preceding, would imply “that whilst Christ’s life in the flesh ended with
His suffering, our sufferings took place with continued life in the flesh” (1).
The reading capi, “according to the flesh,” conveys the same idea; cf.
Winer, 384 (E. T., 412). — rémavra: duapriag}. The mid. maiouza is in the
classics frequently joined with the genitive. In this way wémavra here is
explained by most interpreters as equivalent to: “he has ceased from sin,
that is, he has given up sinning.” The word may also be taken as the perf.
pass. according to the construction ravew ra rivoc, equivalent to: “to cause
one to give up, to desist from a thing.” émavra: duapriag would then mean:
“he has been brought to cease from sin, to sin no more” (Schott: “brought
away from sinful conduct”). Hofmann erroneously asserts that “mate
riva duapriag Would in a quite general way mean: action such as brings it
about that the individual is ended with sin;” that is to say, in the sense
that his relation to sin is at an end.? For the genitive with mavew denotes
always a condition or an activity of him who is the object of ravev. — It
makes no essential difference in the thought, whether zaiew be taken here
as a middle (Weiss) or as a passive (De Wette, Wiesinger). The idea:
“through Christ immunitatem nactus sum, is expressed here neither in the
one case nor in the other (Weisinger). — The clause here has the form of a
general] statement, the meaning of which is, that by suffering as to the flesh
a ceasing of sin is effected. This idea, in many respects a true one, may
according to the connection be defined thus: he who suffered on account of
sin, that is, on account of his opposition to sin, has in such wise broken
with sin that it has no more power over him (Weiss). It is incorrect, with
several of the earlier commentators, as also Schott, to understand zaédy in
teg., Jt. vil. 200: wavowpeOa paxns 5 ® Genuinely catholic ia the remark of Lorli-
Herod. i. 47: rhs paxns ¢wavcavro; Herodian.
vil. 10, 16: rhs Te Opyns Oo dynos exavaaro.
? Thus, too, Schott: ‘‘He who has expe-
rienced the waGeiv capac is delivered from his
former relation to sin.” But Schott admits
that ‘‘a release from sin must be thought of,
in so far as sin determined the conduct and
made it sinful.”
nus OD wen. apaprias: ‘ Peccatorum nomine
absolute posito gravia intelliguntur, quae vo-
camus mortalia; nam desinere atque quiescere
a levibus et venialibus, eximium privilegium
est, praeterque Deiparam definire non possu-
mus, an alii ulli conceasum.”’
310 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
a spiritual sense, either of the being dead with Christ in baptism, according
to Rom. vi. 7 (Schott), or of the putting to death of the old man (Gerhard),!
Calvin.2_ Opposed to such an interpretation is the subjoined capai, by which
this naduv here is expressly marked as identical with the za@év used with
reference to Christ; and the apostle in no way hints that that raddr is
employed in a spiritual sense. It is evidently entirely a mistake to
understand by 6 zadév Christ, as Fronmiiller does, — zéx. duapr. being thus
in no way appropriate (doubtless Jachmann explains: “because Christ
hath removed sin for Himself, that is, hath shown that it is possible to be
without sin” [!]); nor is it less so to assume, finally, with Steiger, that
here “the apostle unites together the different persons, the head and the
members in their unity,” so that the clause would contain the double idea:
“Christ suffering as to the body made us free from sin,” and “we, by
participating through faith in the sufferings of Christ, die unto sin.”
Hofmann, too, unjustifiably gives the clause the double reference — to
Christ and to the Christian; to Christ, “in as far as He by His bodily
death was finished with sin, which Ile took upon Himself for the purpose
of atoning for it;” to the Christian, “in so far as he is spiritually dead
whilst still alive in the body, and so is translated into a life in which he
goes free from the guilt and slavery of sin.” In these interpretations
thoughts are supplied to which the context makes no allusion.” §
Ver. 2. elg rd ynxétt, «.7.4.]. The words may be connected either with
the exhortation érAicacde or with xémavrat duapriac. De Wette, Briickner,
Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. justly prefer the former connection, inas-
much as the infinitival clause expressive of a purpose stands related more
naturally to the imperative, than to a subordinate clause containing a
general statement (otherwise Zezschwitz and the former exposition in this
commentary). Still it is incorrect to connect eic here with dzAifecda, as in
the common phrase: énAifeodae cig rd paxesbat (Schott). Had the apostle
meant this, he could not have separated by a parenthesis words which so
directly belong to each other ; ele can only add the nearer definition of the
aim to which $74. is directed. —dvOpdmwv émbupiats, GAAd OeAnpatt Vend].
The datives are to be explained either as ry dixawobvy Gav, chap ii. 24
(Briickner, Wiesinger), or they express the pattern according to which
(Hofm.); as in Acts xv. 1; Gal. v. 16, 25, ete.‘ The ee view is to be
preferred on account of the idea rav .. . Bicoat xpiver. “drOpdrwv and Gov
are antitheses, as are also the manifold lusts of men, and the one uniform
will of God” (Wiesinger). The notion that by éméuuia are te be under-
stood the lusts, not of the readers, but of those only by whom they were
surrounded (Schott, Hofm.), must be rejected as arbitrary. — rdv énidouzov
by capa Bisoat xpovov]. With é» capxi, comp. 2 Cor. x. 3; Gal. ii. 20; Phil.
1 “Qui carnem cum concupiecentlis suis in spurious, because of the difficulty and indis.
Christo et cum Christo crucifigit, ille peccare — tinctness of the thought.
desinit.” ¢ Gerh.: ‘* Praecipit ut normam vitae noe.
2 «‘ Passio in carne significat nostri abnega- trae statuamus non hominum voluntatem, sed
tlonem.” Dei voluntatem.”*
® Reiche regarde the entire sentence as
CHAP. IV. 3. 311
i. 22,24. apf expresses as little here as in ver. 1, an ethical conception;
it denotes the earthly human nature to which the mortal body belongs. —
The verb Swiv is ax. Aey. in the N. T. The form @idou is to be found in
the Attic writers, but it is less common than the 2d aor.: Bua. — évidoror,
in like manner, dm, Agy.: “the remaining time in the flesh;” an idea similar
to 4 rie mapocxiag xpovoc, chap. i. 17. With the whole thought, comp. Rom.
xii. 2.
Ver. 3. A fuller explanation is now given of the thought expressed in
the previous verse, that the Christians should no longer live after the lusts
of men, but according to the will of God; hence yap —dpxerog: Matt.
vi. 34, x. 25; correctly Wiesinger: “the expression is here a peiwoi ”
Gerhard: in eo quod ait “sufficit” est quidam asterismus sive liptotes, qua
mitigal Ap. exprobrationis asperitatem. Schott introduces a foreign applica-
tion when he explains: “in it you have enough to repent of and to make
amends for.” The construction as in Isocrates (in Panegyr.): ixavd¢ ydp 6
napeAnavdac xpdvoc, tv 3 tt Trav dewey ov yeyove; comp. ixavovedw, Ezek. xliv. 6,
xlv. 9. éor simply is to be supplied; not, with Steiger, “should be.” —
6 mapeAnaAvidee xyooveg points back to pyxért; in contrast to rdv émidomov...
xXpovov. — 1d GovAnua trav &vav xareipyaoba]. The infinitive is, in free con-
struction, dependent on dpaeroc, as it also stands with dpxei; cf. Winer, p. 298 f.
[E. T., 3151.3. The inf. perf. 1s selected “to designate the former life of
sin, which has once for all been brought to a close” (Schott). — riwv dover is
not evidence that the epistle was addressed to aforetime Jews. When Jach-
mann says: “the apostle could never say of the heathen, that they lived
according to the will of the heathen,” it must be observed, that if the readers
were formerly heathen, the govAnua rov é6vov was undoubtedly their own #ov-
Anua, but that égven is explained by the fact that they were now heathen no
longer (as opposed to Weiss). — meropevpévove must be referred to dudc, to be
supplied in thought to xarepyaodae If the right reading be qyiv after dpxerdc
yap, Peter would include himself, and judc would have to be supplied. The
Vulg. is indefinite: Ais qui ambulaverunt. Beza’s view is inappropriate, that
Peter refers here not only to the readers of the epistle (whom he considers
to have been Jewish Christians), but also to their ancestors, 1.e., the former
ten tribes of Israel. With mopetecta: év, cf. Luke i. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 10. — dced-
yeiass, “ excesses of every kind,” embracing specially unchastity; cf. Rom. xiii.
13; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v. 19; 3 Macc. ii. 26, etc.; Buddeus considers it to
mean nothing else than obscoenitas et stuprorum flagitiosa consuetudo; Lucian
has the expression: daeAyéorepoe rav dvuv. —émidvpiace in the plural denotes
Sfleshly lusts in themselves; although not limited to sensual desires only,
it yet includes these chiefly. — ofvogdAvyiauc]. am. Aey. in the N. T.; the verb
oivogAvyeiv, LX X., Deut. xxi. 20, Heb. 829; Luther: “intoxication ;” better,
“drunkenness.” 1 — xéou, besides here, only in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 21,
where, as here with méroc, it is joined with uéea: commissationes, properly :
“carousals ;* cf. Pape, 8. v. — moro]. ax. Aey.; chiefly applied to social drinking
3 Andronicus Rhodug, lib. wep: wader, p.6: Phiio (V. M., 1, § 22) calls oivodAvyia an
owoddAvyia doriy em@upia oivov amAnoTos. GwAnpwros emOupia.
812 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
at the banquet.!—xai dGeuirow eidwAodatpeiaug designates heathen idolatrous
practices specially. ddéuroc, in the N. T. occurring, besides in this passage,
only in Acts x. 28, gives marked prominence to that in the nature of eidwa.
which is antagonistic to the divine law. Bengel: quibus sanctissimum Dei
jus violatur.2 This description is only applicable to such persons as were
formerly heathen, not to the Jews; to the latter only in the days before the
Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Weiss (p. 113), in opposition to this,
wrongly appeals to Rom. ii 17 ff.; for the reproach there made against the
Jews bears an impress entirely different from the description here given;
nor is the éepoovdeiv in that passage identical with the practice of idolatry.
It is altogether arbitrary to take the expression cidwAodarpeiae here in a wider
sense, so as to exclude from it idolatry proper, and it is further opposed by
the expression d6epiroec.
Ver.4 é @ fevifovra]. Many: interpreters apply év < directly to the
thought contained in the following clause: u ovyrpeyovruv . . . avayvow;
Pott: éy robry de gevil., Sr uh avvtpéxere; incorrectly, év 3 is connected rather
with what precedes. Still, it can hardly be right to explain, that as the per-
fects xareipyac0as and menopevuévove point to the fact that they no longer live
as they had lived, this was the matter of wonderment (De Wette, Wiesinger,
Schott,® and in this commentary). It is more natural to take it thus— #6
equivalent to “on the ground of this” (that is, because ye have thus lived),
and the absolute genitive following as equal to “inasmuch as ye run not
with them,” 8o that the sense is: “on account of this, that ye thus walked in
times past, your countrymen think it strange when ye do so no longer”
(Hofm.); with é 3, comp. John xvi. 30 and Meyer in loc. The genitive
absolute assigns, as it frequently does, the occasioning cause (Winer, p. 195
[E T., 207}). The word €eviteota (in its common meaning, equivalent to
“to be a guest;” thus it is used frequently in the N. T.) here means: “to
be amazed,” “to feel astonishment ;” comp. ver. 12; Acts xvil. 20.4— yu ovr-
rpexovtuy duov]. “why refers the matter to the amazement of the heathen.”
ovvrpéxewv, Mark vi. 33 and Acts iii. 11: to run together, confluere; here, “to
run in company with any one.” — ele rhv abriy ric dowrias dvaxvow states the
aim of the cvvrp. With dowria, comp. Eph. v. 18; Tit. 1. 6: “lewd and disso-
lute conduct.” The word dvdayvorr is to be found in Aelian, De An., xvi. 15,
used synonymously with énixavorc, and Script. Graec. Ap. Luper. in Harpocr.
with oépxdAvow; it means, accordingly, “the overflowing.” This‘sense is to
be kept hold of, and rpéyew ei¢ dowriag to be explained of the haste with which
dissoluteness is allowed to break forth and to overflow. According to Hofm.,
that ei8wAoAarpeia could only be termed aéue-
tos when practised by the Jews, not when by
the heathen.
1 Appian, B. C., I., p. 700: o 8 Zeprapros
o «Ta WoOAAG Fy wi Tpuds, yuvaiks cai copors
Ka. TOTALS TXOAGLwY,
3? Schott unjustitiably maintains that the
ei8wAoAarpetar are termed a@eucror not in them-
selves, but on account of the immoral, volup-
tuous ceremonies connected with them. The
adject. is added because they form an anti-
thesis, In the strictest sense, to God's holy
prerogative. It is unwarrantable to assert
3 It is true that ‘“‘a surprise calling forth
displeasure” (Schott) is meant; but this does
not lie ip the word Itself.
4 The object. to fexGer@ac ie either In the
dative, as ver. 12 (Polyd. ill. 68.9: efernorro
Te Ti cuuBeBnnds elvat wapa THY wpocdoxiay),
or Ie subjoined by means of dca rc or ew: rim.
CHAP. IV. 5, 6. 813
it denotes the doings of those who are in‘haste to pour out from them their
indwelling lasciviousness, so that it overflows and spreads in all directions.
From the explanation of Strabo, iii. p. 206 A: Aéyovra: avaxicen ui mAnpoipevat
Ty Oadarry xoiAadec év TAnuprpia:, it is unjustifiable to derive the meaning “ sen-
tina, mire” (second edition of this commentary), or “flood” (third edition),
or “stream” (Schott).1— SAacgnuotvres characterizes their amazement more
nearly as one which prompts them to speak evil of those whose conduct
causes them astonishment (not “ Christianity,” as Hofmann thinks). Schott
justly remarks that “it is not the being struck with amazement in itself
which is, strictly speaking, of significance here, but that definite form of it
expressed by GAacgnuoivres, placed last for the sake of emphasis.”
Ver. 5 points to the judgment which awaits the evil-speaking heathen:
of droddcovar Adyov]. arod, Adyov (Matt. xii. 36; Heb. xiii. 17; Acts xix. 40).
Antithesis to aireiy Adyov, chap. iii. 15.-—~ To éroipwe Eyovrt, “that is, the Sav-
iour risen, and seated at the right hand, chap. iii. 22,’"° De Wette. — The
expression : éroizwe Exe, “to be ready,” with the exception of here, only in
Acts xxi. 138; 2 Cor. xii. 14.—«pivar (avra¢ xa vexpovc]. As often in the
_ N. T., of the last judgment, which by éroip. &y. is pointed out as near at
hand; comp. ver. 7. Govrag kai vexpois does not denote some dead and some
alive, but the aggregate of all, whether they be living or already dead when
the day of judgment comes; comp. Acts x. 42; 2 Tim. iv. 1.2. It is erro-
neous to understand by the quick and the dead the Christians only (Wichel-
haus, Schott), or those who speak evil only. Peter, by naming Him to
whom the evil-speakers shall render an account, the Judge of the quick and
the dead, implies thereby that they are not to remain unpunished, whether
they die before the day of judgment or not. And this as a testimony to the
justice of God, should serve to coinfort the Christians under the calumnies
which they had to endure, and exhort them not to be led aside by them toa
denial of their Christian walk. It must further be observed, that this pas-
sage adds the last to those elements of the glory of the exalted Saviour men-
tioned at the close of the last chapter, namely, the office of judge which He
will execute at the end of the days.
Ver. 6. This verse, which has been explained in very diverse ways,® is
meant, as the yao following upon e/¢ rovro shows, to give the ground or the
explanation of a statement going before. The question is: Which state-
ment is it? The sound of the words serves to suggest that in vexpoig we have
1 Hesych. and Suidas interpret avadvare
also by BaAaxea, éxAvois; thus Gerhard :
‘“‘virlum exolutio, mollities;" according to
De Wette it means profusio, wantonness; but
it is better to keep to the above signification.
2 Gerhard: ‘ Vivos, quos judex veniens
reperiet vivos, mortuos, quos ex sepulcris in
vitam revocabit.’? Several commentators erro-
neously understand the words ¢wvras «ai
vexepovs in a figurative sense; Joh. Huas:
** piros in gratia ad beatitudinem, mortuos in
culpa ad damnationem ;’’ Bened. Arias: ‘‘ vizos
adbuc in carne Illa Adami; mortuos in Chris-
to.”’
8 Lorinus enumerates twelve different Ir
terpretations; nor does that complete the
number. Many commentators are uncertain,
and confess that they do not understand the
true meaning of the verse; thus also, Luther,
who even thinks it possible that the text has
been corrupted. Reiche, too, {s inclined to
regard the passage as a gloss added by a later
hand.
814 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
a resumption of the vexpot¢ immediately preceding, and that what is said in
this verse is to be regarded as the ground of the thought that judgment will
be pronounced, not only upon the living, but upon the dead also. This assump-
tion seems to be.corroborated by the xai before vexpoic. The fact — to which
Peter appeals —on which this thought is based is expressed in ebayycAiobn.
But it is precisely this idea, that the gospel was preached to the dead, —
to all the dead,— which has induced the interpreters to deviate from the
explanation lying most naturally to hand. It is entirely unjustifiable, with
Zezschwitz (thus Alethaeus already, and Starkius in Wolf), to connect the
verse with vv. 1 and 2, regard vv. 3-5 as a digression, and understand under
vexpoic the Christians who are already dead when the day of judgment arrives.
yap certainly must refer back to ver. 5; according to Schott, it applies to
the whole homogeneous statement of ver. 5; according to Bengel, to 7
éroipuc Exovre; in their opinion, likewise, vexpoic is to be understood of Chris-
tians already dead. This determination of the expression, however, is
arbitrary, a8 no mention is made in ver. 5 of the Christians.1 It lies more
to hand to take the vexpoi¢ as meaning the evil-speakers mentioned in ver. 5.
On this interpretation, the apostle tells the Christians who were being evil
spoken of, not to forget that those calumniators who died before the judg-
ment would not on that account escape punishment. Still it is difficult to
see why the apostle should give such special prominence to this, — more
especially with the further remark, that the gospel was preached unto them,
iva... Goot, «.t.A. Wiesinger justly remarks: “that the author should so
expressly accept the assumption of their death, does not well agree with the
éroiuwc éxetv, and not with the subsequent mavruy dé 1d reAog Hyytxe.” — Hof-
mann, whilst correctly recognizing that by vexpoic the apostle here does not
denote Christians only, or unbelievers only, gives a closer definition of the
term by applying it to those of the dead to whom, during their lifetime,
the gospel had been preached. At the same time, however, he assumes that
the thought here expressed “serves to confirm or explain the whole state-
ment that the slanderers, without exception, whether living or dead, must
render account to the Lord.” But, on the one hand, the apostle in no
way alludes to the limitation of the idea here too supposed; and, on the
other, it is incorrect to understand by avra¢ xai vexpodc, ver. 5, the calumni-
ators only. If all arbitrariness is to be avoided, then vexpoic must here be
taken in the same wide sense as vexpotc in ver. 5. Any limitation of the
general idea is without justification, — indicated, as such is, neither by
the want of the article before vexpoic,2 nor by the circumstance that the slan-
derers are the subject in ver. 5. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that the
apostle gives expression to the thought that the gospel has been preached
to all who are dead at the time when the last judgment arrives. With the
1 It ie evidently still farther-fetched toun- go to prove that the expression veepoc, when
stand vexpois as meaning the bellevere of the applied to aii the dead, has not necessarily the
O. T., as is done by several of the earliercom- article prefixed to it. Elsewhere, too, vexpoi
mentators, — Bullinger, Aretius, etc. has no article: cf. Luke xvi. 30; Acts x. 42;
2 The phrases, éyeiperv, éyeipecOar, advagry- Rom. xiv. 9.
vas éx vexpwy (see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]),
CHAP. IV. 6. 815
view of chap. iii. 19, 20, which is in harmony with the words, this thought
need occasion no stumbling. In that passage, it is true, the éxjpvgev applies
only to the spirits of those who perished in the flood. But they alone are
mentioned there, not because the «jpvyza was addressed exclusively to them,
but because the apostle recognized in the deluge the type of baptism.! <Ac-
cordingly, though there be a close connection of thought internally between
what is here said and chap. iii. 19, 20, it is nevertheless erroneous, with
Steiger, Konig, Giider, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 228 f., to take einyyeAioty as
applying only to those there named. — einyyeAicd7 is put here impersonally :
“the gospel was proclaimed,” neither 6 Xpord¢ nor 7 dedayy tor Xpeorod (Bengel,
Grotius, Pott, etc.), nor any thing similar, is to be supplied.
ig rovro . . . iva (comp. chap. iii. 9, John xviii. 37, and other passages)
points to the design of the fact stated in etnyyeAcoby; on this the chief accent
of the sentence lies. The apostle bases the thought, that the Lord stands
ready to judge the dead also, not alone on the circunistance that the gospel
has been preached to them too, but that it has been preached for the purpose
which he states in what follows. This purpose is expressed in the sentence
consisting of two members: iva xpidow wev xatd avOpwroug capal, wow dé xara
Ordv mrvevuart. According to the grammatical structure, xpiwow and Gow are
co-ordinate with each other, and both are equally dependent on iva. In
sense iva applies, however, only to Gow, inasmuch as the first member must
be regarded as a parenthesis. The construction here is similar to that which
is frequently to be found in classical writers in clauses connected by yév .
d.2 This conjunction, as Hartung? remarks, discloses the contrast. The
aorist xpidoo.v shows the judgment to be one which, at the commencement of
the last judgment, is by their very death executed upon those who are then
dead, and this quite independently of whether the gospel was preached to
them before or after death. It is accordingly erroneous to understand this
judgment (xpitwow) to mean the judgment of repentance (Gerhard), or that
of the flood (De Wette); it is the judgment of death. as nearly all expositors
have rightly acknowledged. Hofmann, with only an appearance of right-
ness, asserts that the expression of the apostle cau be appropriately applied
only to those who did not suffer this judgment of death till after the gospel
had been preached to them. The apostle could express himself thus as
regards those also with whom this was not the case, all the more readily
that they were not set free from the condition of death immediately on hear-
ing the gospel preached, nor then even, when they had received it in faith.
Accordingly, the interpretation is: “in order that they, after the flesh, indeed,
judged by death, may live according to the spirit’ (Wiesinger). The antithesis
capxl . . . mvebuare is here in the same sense as in chap. iii. 18. Giider’s
opinion, that cap here denotes the sinful bias which the dead possess, is
unwarranted; nowhere in Scripture is oupé attributed to the already de-
1 Erroneous is the opinion of several com- 32 See Matthiae, Ausf. Griech. Gr., 2d cd.,
mentators (Pott, Jachinann, Kénig, Grimm in p. 1262.
Theol. Studien und Aritiken, 1835), that these 3 Lehre v. d. Partikl., Part I1., pe 406.
only are named by way of example because
they were apecially ungodly.
316 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
parted. — xara dvépéxove means nejtber “by men,” nor “according to the
judgment of men;” but “according to the manner of men, as ts peculiar to
them.” — The second member, (is dé xard Ocdv nvevyart, corresponds as to ©
form entirely with the first clause, only that here the verb is present,
because it mentions the future condition aimed at. Gv is antithetical to xpr-
6ivai, and denotes the eternal life which in the judgment is awarded to those
who in faith have received the gospel. It is more nearly defined by xara Oecd»,
which (corresponding to the xara dvépimouc) can only mean, “according to the
manner of God, as corresponds with the character of God.” 1 — This final clause
states the purpose which this ebayyeAigecdas should serve; whether, and in
how far, the object is attained, is not said.
Ver. 7. Here begins the third series of exhortations, which has special
reference to life in the church, and is linked on to the thought of the near-
ness of the end of all things (see Introd., § 2). — mavruv dé rd TéACE Hyytxer],
de marks clearly the transition to another train of thought. It is accordingly
incorrect to connect the clause with what precedes (Hofmann). avruv rd
réAog, equal to “the end of all things,” refers back to the foregoing éroipus
yovrt xpivac; With the judgment comes the rédoc, xévrwy, placed first by
way of emphasis, is not masc. (Hensler: “the end of all men”) but neut.;?
comp. 2 Pet. ili. 10, 11; with rédoc, Matt. xxiv. 6, 14. —yyyue]. Comp.
Rom. xiii. 12; Jas. v. 8; Phil. iv. 5. That the apostle, without fixing the
time or the hour of it, looked upon the advent of Christ and the end of
the world, —in its condition hitherto, — therewith connected, as near at
hand, must be simply admitted.’ — cwgporjoare odv xat viware}. The first
exhortation, grounded (oiv) on the thought of the nearness of the end of the
world. ocugp.; Vulg.: estote PRUDENTES; in this sense the word is not in
use in the N. T.; it means rather temperateness of spirit, i.e., the govern-
ing omnium immoderatorum affectuum; with the passage comp. 1 Tim. ii. 9;
Tit. ii. 6,4 in contrast to the licentiousness of the heathen described in ver. 2
(Wiesinger). —vapare]. Vulg.: vigilate, inexactly ; vapev has here the same
meaning as in chap. i. 18. It is not enough to understand both expressions
of abstinence from sensual indulgence. — ei¢ (rac) xpocevxzac, Dot in orationibus
(Vulg.), for ele states the aim of the owoo. and vagev, but “ unto prayer,” that
is, 80 that you may always be in the right frame of mind for prayer. If rd¢
be genuine, it is to be explained on the supposition that the apostle took the
prayers of Christians for granted —A mind excited by passions and lusts
1 Hofmann interpreta cara Gedy tnsorrectiy
by " because of God," to which he adds the
more precise definition, ‘‘ since it Is God who
gives this life, so that ft is therefore consti.
tuted accordingly.” — Jachmann’s view is very
singular; be holds that xara Gedy means “ with
reference to their divine part; ”? nor, be thinks,
should this occasion surprise, for, as the een-
euous nature of man is in biblical language
pereonified by @ av@pwaos, 80 too his Invisible,
divine nature might be personitied by & @eds.
$ Occumenius gives two interpretations:
TO TEAOS* avTs TOU, ) TUMMANPWOLS, N TUYTEAKa’
H TEéAOS Hyylxevat Twy navTwy mpodnTwy* ToOUTO
6¢ aAnOes Advw, O Xptotos, » Tavtwy yap reAcco-
™s, autos eorev. The second is evidently
false.
3 According to Schott, nyyexe means as
much as: *‘not only is there nothing more
between the Christian’s present state of salva-
tion and the end, but the former Is iteelf
already the eud, j.e., the beginning of the
end.”
4 Hemming: “‘cadpoovvn, equal to, affect-
uu et voluntatis harmonia.”
817
cannot pray. The plural points to repeated prayer (Schott). Schott, with-
out any warrant, would understand by it the prayers of the Church only. —
The fact that both ideas are synonymous, forbids any separation, with De
Wette and Hofmann, of ocwgpovioure from vapare, and the conjoining of ei¢ r.
npocevyac With the latter term only.
Ver. 8. mpd navrur dé}; cf. Jas. v. 12. — rhy eic Eavrods (1.€., GAAAAOUG) dya-
anv éxtevh Exovrec. The second exhortation. The participle shows that this
and the first exhortation belong closely together. Luther translates inex-
actly: “have . .. a burning love.” Love one to another, as the charac-
teristic sign (John xiii. 35) of Christians, is presupposed; the apostle’s
exhortation is directed to this, that the love should be é«revac.1 — For ixrevig,
cf. chap. i. 22. There is nothing to show that the apostle gave expression
to this exhortation with special reference to the circumstance “that in the
case of his readers brotherly love was united with danger and persecution ”
(Schott). — dr: (9) dyann xadumre: nAjGog duaptiév]. A proverbial saying after
Prov. x. 12: TIX NDIA pywa-99 0 D'J7D VIPA 7) (the second half is
incorrectly translated by the LXX., mdvrac dé rode ui piAovetnobvrug xaAbmret (gAia):
“ Love covereth (maketh a covering over) all sins.” The sense of the words
is evident from the first half of the verse; whilst hatred stirs up strife and
contention (by bringing the sins of others to the light of day), love, with
forgiving gentleness, covers the sins of others (and thus works concord).? —
In its original meaning, accordingly, the proverb has reference to what love
does as regards the sins of others; Jove in its essential nature is forgiveness,
and that not of some, but of many sins; 1 Cor. xiii. 5,7; Matt. xviii. 21, 22.
In this sense Estius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Steiger, Wiesinger,
Weiss (p. 337 f.), Schott, Fronmiiller, etc., have rightly interpreted the
passage, which then, serving as the basis of the preceding exhortation,® is
intended to set forth the blessed influence of love on life in the church.
Hofmann unjustly denies this (Beza: caritatem mutuam commendat ex eo, quod
innumerabilia peccata veluti sepeliat, ac proinde pacis ac concordiae sit fautrix et
conserratriz. Wiesinger: “Only by the forgiving, reconciling influence of
love, can the destructive power of sin be kept away from church life").
Steiger (with whom Weiss and Fronmiiller agree) explains: “the apostle
recommends the Christians to ezlend the limits of brotherly love and to
strengthen themselves in it, because true love covers a multitude of sins;" but
this is not to the point, inasmuch as the covering of many sins is peculiar
to the ayu7n itself, and constitutes the reason why it should be éxrevic. Sev-
eral expositors (Grotius, etc.) understand the words to have the same mean-
ing here as in Jas. v. 20 (see Comment., in loc.), that is, that love in effecting
CHAP. IV. 8.
1 Bengel: ‘* Amor jam praesupponitur, ut
sit vehemens, praecipttur.”
? As opposed to the view that Peter had
this passage in bie mind, De Wette asserts,
that in ‘‘that case the apostie must have
translated from the Hebrew the passage incor-
rectly rendered by the LXX. Thie, however,
is in iteelf improbable, as be would then have
written wacas tas axaprias, or rather, wavra
ta abiajpara (cf. Prov. xvii. 9).” But though
it may be questioned whether Peter quoted
directly from it, there can be no doubt, as
even Brtickner, Wiesinger, and Weiss admit,
that the proverbial phrase arose out of that
e.
8 Hottinger: ‘‘dre indicare videtur (better,
indicat) incitamentum aliquod, quo chris-
tiavis amor iste commecndatur.”’
318 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the sinner’s conversion, procures the divine forgiveness for his many sins;
but, on the one hand, “the apostle does not here regard his readers as erring
brethren, of whom it might be the duty of some to convert the others”
(Wiesinger) ; and, on the other, “there is here not the slightest indication
that the expression is not to be understood directly of the covering of sins
as such, but of reclaiming labors” (Weiss). — Oecumenius already (6 pév yap
el¢ rov nAnoiov EAeoc, Tov Oedv Huiv idewv noi), and after him many Catholic
expositors (Salmeron, Cornelius a Lapide, Lorinus, etc.), and several Protes-
tants also (the latter sometimes, whilst distinctly defending the Protestant
principle against Catholic applications of the passage),! understand the
maxim of the blessing which love brings to him who puts it into practice.
But if Peter had wished to express a thought similar to that uttered by
Christ, Matt. vi. 14, 15, he would assuredly not have made use of words such
as these, which in the nature of them bear not upon personal sins, but on
those of others.?
Ver. 9. In this and the following verses two manifestations of love are
brought prominently forward, in which its ministering nature is revealed.
First: gtAogevoe eig dAAndovc]. Cf. Rom. xii. 138; Heb. xiii. 2; 3 John 5;
1 Tim. iii. 2, etc. The chief emphasis lies on the words which serve more
closely to define the statement: dvev yoyyvapod, “without murmuring,” i.e.,
murmuring at the trouble caused by the hospitality shown to brethren.
The same thing is said in a more general way, Phil. ii. 14: aavra roeite yupic
yoyyvopaw xai dsatoytopav; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 7: ud éx Abanc, 7 e& avayane.
Ver. 10. Second manifestation of love. It is presupposed that each one
has received a yaproua: éxacroc xabds tase xaptoua]. Kade, not equal to é¢, but
pro ratione qua, prouti (Wahl), “ according as.” — xdptoua, as in Rom. xii. 8;
1 Cor. xii. 4, 28; not an office in the church. Every man should, according
to the kind of gift he has received (not according to the measure of it,
dv rovTw TO wéTpy, ev @ EAaBe, vel ut Paulus: we 6 Ocdc éuepice uétpov xaptoudTwr,
Rom. xii. 3; Pott: “still less can xa@d¢ be referred to the manner of re-
ceiving;” Lorinus: sicué GRATIS accepimus, ita gratis demus), administer
it for his brethren, ei¢ éavrotc, i.e., for their benefit, and therefore for that
of the entire community. dcaxoveiv (a transitive verb, as in chap. i. 12):
vocula emphatica; innuit Ap. quod propter dona illa nemo se debeat supra
1 Voratiue: ‘‘Intelligit Ap. caritatem in light of that love which penetrates all; that ia,
causa esse, ut non tautum proximi nostri pec-
cata humaniter tegamus, verum etiam ut Deus
nobis ex pacto gratuito nostra peccata condo-
net, non quod propter meritum seu dignitatem
caritatie id fiat, sed quia caritas erga fratres
cenditio est, sine qua Deus nobis ignoecere
non vuit.”
2 De Wette gives a peculiar combination of
the varioue interpretations: ‘As the love
which is required of us is a common love, 60
the writer refera to the common sins atill
defacing the whole of Christian social life, but
which, as single blemishes ('), are overshone,
aod made pardonable in God's eye, by the
in that this love produces mutual reconciliation
and improvement.” On this Briickner remarks,
that what Is true here is the thought that
reciprocalness ia a characteristic not of love
only, but of all her actions, i.e., ‘‘ He whose
love covers the sins of others, sees in like man-
ner his own ains covered by the love of others.”
But this makes ‘‘ the interpretation only more
artificial, and removes it still farther from the
simple phraseology of our passage” (Weisa).
—Clemens Al. and Bernhard of Clairvaux
(Sermo 28 in Cant.) understand aydry to
mean the love of Christ (!).
CHAP. IV. 11. 819
alios efferre, aut dominium in alios affectare, sed aliorum ministrum sese sponte
constituere (Gerhard). —d¢ xadol oixovouot motxiAne xaptrog Ocov]. With ac, cf.
chap. i. 14: as is peculiar to the xadol¢ ofxovouoe, which, from their vocation,
Christians should be. With oixovouo, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. i. 7. According
to De Wette and Weiss, there is here an allusion to the parable of the talents,
Matt. xxv. 14. — xadéc, expression of irreproachable excellence ; see 1 Tim.
iv. 6; 2 Tim. ii. 3. The Lord of the Christians, as the oixovoyor, is God; the
goods which He intrusts to their stewardship are Ilis nocidn yaptc; xapec is
here the sum of all that has fallen to the share of believers through the grace
of God; the individual manifestations of it are the yapiopuara, the homoge-
neous character of which is marked by the singular, and their variety by
noxiAn here subjoined with reference to the preceding xaOuc . . . yaptoua.
Ver. 11. Species duas generi subjicit (Vorstius). From the general term
xdpioua, Peter selects two special functions for greater prominence. — é ric
Aadsi], Aadeiv is here the preaching in the church, which includes the spo-
ontevey, didaoxety, ANd rapaxadeiv, mentioned in Rom. xii. 6-8. Pott is inexact
in paraphrasing ¢ rig Aaaei by ef rig Exec rd Yaptoua tai Aadeiv (so, too, Schott:
“if any one have the gift and vocation to speak”), for Aadeiv is not the gift,
but the exercise of it. It is arbitrary to limit the application of the term
to the official duties of the elders (Hemming: si quis docendi munus in ecclesia
sustinet), for in the assemblies every one who possessed the necessary ydpioua
was at liberty to speak. —d¢ Adyia Oca]. Aadeirw Gd Aadei must be supplied;
or, better still, with Wiesinger: Aadowvrec; cf. Exacrog . . . dtaxovodvres above;
Aéyta — as in classical Greek, chiefly of oracular responses — is applied in
the N. T. only to the utterances or revelations of God, either to those
in the O. T., as in Acts vii. 38, Rom. iii. 2, or those in the N. T., as Heb.
v. 12. The idea, prophecies, is too narrow. This exhortation presup-
poses that whoever speaks in the congregation gives utterance, not to
his own thoughts, but to the revelations of God; and it demands that he
should do so in a manner (oc) conformable to them. — ef ri¢ dtaxovei]. dtaxoveiv
must not be understood as applying to the official work of the appointed
deacons only; it embraces quaevis ministeria in ecclesia ab docendi officio dis-
tincta (Gerhard; 80, too, Wiesinger, who here cites Rom. xii. 8 and 1 Cor.
xii. 28), but it refers specially to the care of the poor, the sick, and the
strangers, either official, or according to the free-will of individual members
of the church. — o¢ é& ioyboc, «.7.4., 8c., dtaxoveitw, or better diaxovowvrec: “ so
ministering, as of,” etc. Here, too, it is presumed that the person ministering
is not wanting in that strength which God supplies, and the exhortation is,
that he should exercise his ability in a way corresponding with the fact that
he received the strength nécessary thereto from God, and not as “of himself
possessing it.” yopnyeiv, besides in this passage, occurs only in 2 Cor. ix. 10.
(émxopnyeiv is to be met with frequently, e.g., 2 Pet. i. 5). —iva, as stating
their purpose, refers back to the exhortations in vy. 10 and 11, with special
reference to the determinative clauses introduced by o¢.—éy rac, “in all
things” (Wiesinger), i.e., “in the practice of all the gifts, the exercise of
1 Calvin: “ Quia quicquid babemus ad ministrandum virtutlis solus ipse nobis suggerit.”
820 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
which was connected with matters relating to the churches” (Schott); not
equivalent to év maa &veow (Oec.), or “in you all” (De Wette: “as His
true instruments”); cf. 1 Tim. iii. 11. — dofatyra: 6 Oedc, “in order that God
may be glorified,” i.e., that He obtain the praise, since it will be evident from
your conduct that you as His oixovouo: have received (xa@u¢ ?a,3e) all things
(7a Adyta, hv ioyiv) from Him. — dad 'Incod Xprorod belongs to dofagnra, and
points out that not the ability only, for the Aadeiy and d:axoveiv, is communi-
cated to the Christian through the agency of Christ,! but that all actual
employment of it is effected by Christ. It is mistaken, with Hofmann, —
who is not justified in appealing to Rom. xvi. 27 and Heb. xiij. 21 in sup-
port of his assertion,—to connect 2 Il. Xp. with the following relative
clause. Such a view is opposed not only to the natural construction, but to
the thought, since God did not receive His duga and His xparog first through
Christ. — As a close, the doxology, }, may be referred either to Ocd¢ (Ocecu-
menius, Calvin, Bengel, De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott,
Hofmann) or to 'l. Xpeorod (Grotius, Calov, Steiger). The first is the correct
application, since 4 Odor is the subject of the clause and 7 déga points back to
dogalnraz. Comp. chap. v. 11. The doxology states the reason of the iva
dofilnra: 6 Geds (Schott); because God is (éorv) the glory and the power,
therefore the endeavors of the church should be directed to bring about a
lively acknowledgment of this, to the praise of God. — Identical with this
is the doxology, Rev. i. 6 (cf. also Rev. v. 13).
Ver. 12. Exhortation with refereuce to the sufferings under persecution.
ayarnroi]. See chap. in. 11. — ua seviteote]. Cf. ver. 4; Nicol. de Lyra
translates incorrectly: nolite a fide alienari: Luther, correctly: “let it not
astonish you.” — rg év ipiv mvpdon)]. The construction cum dat. occurs also
in classical Greek; ripwoc, besides in this passage, to be found only in
Rev. xviii. 9, 18, where it is equal to incendium. ‘The LXX. translate 47¥
and even W3 by mvpow; the substantive, Prov. xxvii. 21, 1s an inexact
translation of 133 in the sense of “refining furnace;” Oecc., correctly:
mipwow rag OAiwe eitdv, evégyvev we did doxipaciay Exayovrat avroig avtai. The
word, however, does not in itself contain the reference to purification ; this is
introduced only in what follows.! — éy iyiv]. “ Among, with you;”’ not equal
to “affecting some in your midst” (De Wette), but “ the readers are regarded
as a totality, and the rip. & present in the midst of them” (Wiesinger). —
The definite purpose of the ripwar is brought out in the subsequent words :
mpds Tepacudy wpiv yvouévy. metpacuos here means the trial with intent to
purify (elsewhere it has also the secondary signification of designed
temptation to sin); cf. chap. i. 7. —o¢ gévov tyiv ovpsaivovroc]. gévov points
back to up éevifecde. Luther: “as though some strange thing happened unto
you;” 1.e., something strange to your destination, unsuited to it.?
Ver. 13. dada... xaipere]. Antithesis to fevigecde; non tantum mirari
$
1 Gualtber: ‘“Confert crucem igni, nos of salvation. Thie the context fn no way jus-
auro.” ties. What causes astonishment is rather the
2 Schott here again supposes that In conse. _— fact that the church belonging to the glorified
quence of persecutions tbe leaders bad become Christ is exposed to the obloquy of the
perplexed as to the moral truth of thelr state world.
CHAP. IV. 14. 321
vetat Petrus, sed gaudere eliam jubet (Calvin); the measure of the joy is
indicated by «a0 xowwveire roig rob Xprorod madjuact. — xaGo, not equivalent to
“that,” nor to quando (Pott), but to quatenus, in quantum: cf. Rom. viii. 26,
2 Cor. vill. 12. — ra rod Xpiorov nadjuara is inexactly interpreted by Vorstius
as afflictiones Christi membris destinatae, nempe quas pit propter justitiam et
evangelium Christi sustinent; they rather mean the sufferings which Christ
Himself has endured. Of these the believers are partakers (xowwvovow
avroic), for the world shows the same enmity to them as to Christ, since it is
He who is hated in them; cf. my commentary to Col. i. 24, and Meyer to
2 Cor. i. 5, 7 (so, too, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 293 f., Schott). Steiger! is
wrong in thinking of the inward suffering endured by the Christian, whilst,
by the power of Christ’s death, he dies unto sin. — The object to be supplied
in thought to yaipere is the xipwac previously mentioned by the apostle. —
iva xa states the design of yaipew: the Christians are to rejoice now, in
order that they may also («ai lays stress on the future in relation to the
present) rejoice év rj atoxaAiwe, etc.; for this future joy is conditioned by
that of the present, as the future partaking of the dega of Christ by the
present sharing of His za@quac.2 Schott unreasonably opposes, as “ gram-
matical pedantry,” the application of iva to the preceding yaipere, for he re-
marks: “it is the sufferings themselves which hold out to us the future joy.”
But he omits to consider that the xomvwveiv roic 7. Xp, 7a. holds out future
happiness to him only who finds his joy in it. Schott incorrectly appeals, in
support of his construction, to John xi. 15. — It is not correct to explain,
with Gerhard, etc., iva, éxBatinixg. — év tg droxadiwer, x.7.2.], not “ because of,”
but “at” (Luther: “at the time of”) the revelation; cf. chap. i. 17. The
expression anmuxdA. rig dd&n¢ Xpeorod (with which compare Matt. xxv. 31) is to
be found only here. By it the apostle indicates that he who is now a
partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and rejoices in them (Col. iii. 4),
will one day be partaker of His glory, and in it rejoice everlastingly.
ayaAAcpevos is added to yapyre by way of giving additional force to the idea
(chap. 1. 8; Matt. v. 12).
Ver. 14. In order to strengthen the exhortation: wu) fevifecte . . . dda
xaipere, Peter adds the assurance: ¢i dvetigeode, x.7.A.3 ef. chap. iil. 14 and
Matt. v. 11. — Pott, without any reason, explains ei by xaiten,—év dvouare
Xpectov)]. The explanation, propter confessionem Christi (De Wette), is inac-
curate, for dvoua is not confessio; the meaning is the same as that in Mark
ix. 41: éy dvouari, dr1 Xptorod tort, thus: *‘ because ye bear the name of Christ,
and therefore belong to Him.” Schott: “for the sake of your Christian name
and Christian profession ;” Steiger: “as servants of Christ.” — paxdpo, sc.
1“ The cotvevety rt. 208. consista in the
inward fellowehip of the sufferings of Christ,
diate thought, that participation in the euffer-
ings of Christ is the necessary mark of the true
in the participation in that strength which
arises from the justifying confidence in their
value, and which causes us even to die unto
ein.”
2 Welss (p. 201 ff.), while denying that
Peter has the Pauline idea of community of
life with Christ, supplements, as an interme-
disciples. But this is to give a much too super.
ficial conception of the reiation; and could
Peter have thought it possible to be a disciple
witbout community of life?
8 **Quia prius illud (gaudium) cum dolore
et trietitia mixtum east, secundum cum exsulta-
tione conjungit ’’ (Calvin).
322 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
gore. — dre 1d rig Cdkne (xat duvaueuc) xai 1d rod Oevd nveipa). ddga: glory in its
highest. sense, heavenly, divine glory.! According to Greek usage, rd rij¢ done
may be a circumlocution for 7 déga;? but this form of expression does not
occur elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, p. 104 [E. T., 109]}); nor is it easy to
understand why the apostle should not simply have written 4 déga. Accord-
ingly, it is preferable to take ro with the subsequent mveiya, and to assume
an additional zveiyza (as is done by the greater number of commentators, De
Wette, also Bruckner, Wiesinger, Schott); the Spirit of glory is, then, the
same as that which is also the Spirit of God (xal rd rot Oecd xv, subjoined
epexegetically). But in consideration of dvedigecde, He is styled the Spirit
of ddfa, i.e., to whom dvga belongs (Calvin: qui gloriam secum perpetuo con-
junctam habet; cf. Eph. i. 17), and who therefore also bestows it. 1d row
@zov is added in order to show that this Spirit of doga is none other than the
Spirit of God Himself. It must be allowed, that, on this interpretation,
there is an inexactness of expression, xai being evidently out of place.8—
Hofmann proposes, therefore, to supply to ré6 not mveiya, but dvoua, from what
precedes. But if Peter had had this thought in his mind, he would certainly
have given definite expression to it; and it is self-evident, tao, that on him
who is reproached é dvéuart Xporod, as a bearer of it, that name rests. — é9’
tude avanaiera, after Isa. xi. 2, where the same expression is used of the
rvevua tr, Oeov (in like manner énavanaveoda, Num. xi. 25; 2 Kings ii. 15,
LXX.; of eipyvn, Luke x. 6). The accus. ég’ ipa is to be explained as with
iuevev, John i. 32; Wahl: demissus in vos requiescit in vobis; it points to the
living operation of the Spirit on those upon whom He rests. The thought
contained in these words gives the reason (ér:) of what has been said: not,
however, the logical reason;‘ but the actual reason, that is, inasmuch as
this resting of the Spirit of doga, on those who are reproached év éveu. Xproroi,
is a sealing of their eternal doga. It is inappropriate to insert, with Calvin,
a nihilominus, so that the sense would be: in spite of that reproach, the
Spirit of God still dwells in you; the more so that the reproach of unbe-
lievers was called forth by the very fact that the life of the Christians was
determined by the Spirit which rested upon them.—In the additional
clause found in the Rec., and connected with what goes before: xara pév
avrode BAacpnueitat, xara dé bua dofdkera, the subject can hardly be mveiya Ccod
taken from the explanatory clause immediately preceding, but is more prob-
ably évoza Xpiorov from the previous clause, and on which the principal stress
is laid. Schott wrongly thinks that this addition interrupts the connection
of thought; but Hofmann is equally in error in holding the opposite opin-
jon, that it is of necessity demanded by the ydp, ver. 15; for yap may be
equally well applied to the idea that the Spirit of God rests on those who
1 Bongel erroneously understands 80éa pro 4 Aretius: “crux, quam bonus fert pro
concreto, and that, ita ué sitappellatio Christi, | Christo, indicat, quod Spir. Dei in Silo quies-
adding: “‘innuitur, Spiritum Christi eundem cat;” similarly, too, Flofmann: ‘they should
esee Spiritum Dei Patria.” consider themselves happy that they are re-
2 Sce Matth., Auf. Gr. Gram., 2d ed., §284. | proached for bearing the name of Christ; every
8 Cf. Plato, Rep., vill. 665: wepe rd ay “Apxa- such reproach reminds them of what, by bear.
8iq rd TcU Atos icpov; cf. Winer, p. 125 (4. 7., ing it, they are.”
132).
CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 323
are reproached éy évéuart Xporov, as to this, that the name of Christ is glori-
fied xad’ iuic. Since the rendering of «xara by “with” (as formerly in this
commentary), or by “on the part of ” (Hofmann), cannot be supported,’ the
meaning “with regard to” (De Wette) must be maintained. The interpre-
tation will then be: “by their . . . your conduct,” or “according to their...
your opinion.”
Ver. 15. With reference to the assumption contained in what precedes
— whether expressed in the clause vi dvedifecbe . . . avanavera:, or in the
doubtful adjunct xara dé tude dofalerac—the apostle by way of explanation
adds the following warning: p) yép ru budcy nacyétw o¢ govedo, x.7.2.]. The
particle yap does not here assign a reason, it gives an explanation: “that is
to say,”? “that is, let none of you suffer as a murderer;” cc goveuc, 1.e.,
because he is a murderer. The two special conceptions, govets and arénrne,
are followed by the more general xaxorosc, in order that every other kind of
crime may be therein included. These three conceptions belong very closely
to each other, for which reason d¢ is not repeated. On the other hand, the
fourth conception, didorpwericxoros, is, by the prefixed cc, distinguished from
the others as entirely independent. Etymologically, this word denotes one
who assumes to himself an oversight of other people’s affairs with which he
has nothing to do. The consciousness of a higher dignity could easily
betray the Christian into such a presumption, which must make him all the
more odious to strangers. Oecumenius takes the word as equivalent to 6 ra
GAAdrpia wepepyatouevoc; Calvin, Beza, etc., to alieni cupidus, appetens; Pott,
to “a disturber of the public peace.” But all these interpretations are not
in harmony with the etymology of the word.
Ver. 16. Antithesis to the foregoing. — ei de wg Xprortavdc (sc. rig ndoxer)
ph aicxyuvéctw}. The name Xproriavéc, besides here, is to be found only in
Acts xi. 26, where its origin is mentioned (cf. Meyer, in loc.), and Acts
xxvi. 28. —d¢ Xp., 1.e., because of his being a Christian, synonymous with
év dvouatt Xptorov, ver. 14. Calvin: non tam nomen quam causam respicit. —
uh aloxuvtcdu: “let him not consider it a disgrace;” cf. Rom. i. 16; 2 Tim. i.
8, 12. — dofalérw dé rdov Ocdv; cf. Acts v. 41.2— & 16 dvouari rovrw goes back to
néoxew o¢ Xprotiavic; De Wette regards it as synonymous with the reading:
év ro péper robry, 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3: “in this matter,” “in this respect; ” 4
évoua can, however, be retained in its strict sense (Wiesinger), in which case
it will mean the name Xjoravéc; év will then designate this name as the
reason of the dofafew (see Winer, p. 362 [E. T., 387]). Hofmann, who gives
1 Although Hofmann appeals for this slg-
nification to chap. iv. 6, still, in interpreting
that passage, he himeelf takes «card in a sense
other than it is supposed to have here. — Pott
uses the circumiocution cara rhy yrouny avrey
for xara avrovs, whilst he explains xara &¢
tuas by “quod autem ad vos attinet,” f.e.,
“ vestra autem agendi ratione,”’ although «ara
muat have the same meaning in both clauses.
* Calvin: ‘ Particula cauealis hic super-
vacua Don est, quum velit Ap. caueam reddere,
cur tantum ad societatem passionum Christi
hortatus sit fideles et simu) per occasionem eos
monere, ut juste et Innoxie vivant, ne justas
elbi poenas arcessant propria culpa.’ — Eras-
mus rightly remarks: ‘non enim cruciatus
martyrem facit, sed causa.”
§ Bengel, Poterat Petr., antitheti vi., dicere:
honori sibi ducat, sed honorem Deo resig-
nandum esse docet.
4 Bchott interprets jépos artificially, as
“that piece of life apportioned to Christians
which consists in suffering.”
324 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER,
the preference to the reading éy 16 yépet rovry, “in this respect,” refers the
word to what follows, thus attributing to dofaéérw an application different
from that of 4% aloyvvéctw. When, then, he states that the cause for praise
arises from this circumstance, that the Christian's sufferings are appointed
by God, he is introducing a thought in no way alluded to, and still less ex-
pressed, by the apostle.
Ver. 17. The apostle’s exhortation, p> aisyuvécbu, dokaléru dé, is based on
a reference to the judgment which threatens the unbelieving. The connec-
tion of thought is the same here as in vv. 4 and 5.— Calvin, differently :
Nam haec necessitas totam Dei ecclesiam manet, ut — Dei manu castigetur : tanto
igitur aequiori animo ferendae sunt pro Christo persequutiones. But in this, as
- in the following verse, the chief stress is laid not so much on the first as on
the second half. It is purely arbitrary for Pott to assert that dr: is super-
fluous. — dr: 6 xarpdg rod dpiaovat 7d xpiua]. Luther's translation, “it is time,”
is inexact. The article before xaipés must not be overlooked; thus, “for it
is the lime of the beginning of the judgment, that is, in which the judgment is be-
ginning ;” éori is to be supplied; the genitive is directly dependent on 6 xa:poc
(cf. Luke i. 57), and not “on xaipé¢ taken out of the subject, 6 xaspéc ” (Hof-
mann). By xpiua 1s to be understood the definite judgment (ré), that is, the
fina] judgment, which Peter, however, here thinks of, not in its last decisive
act, but in its gradual development. It begins with the Christians (Matt.
xxiv. 9 ff.) in the refining fire of affliction, ver. 12, and is completed in the
sentence of condemnation pronounced on the unbelieving world at the ad-
vent of Christ. In opposition to the apostle’s manner of expressing himself,
Hofmann maintains that reference is here made only to the judgment of the
unbelieving world, the beginning of which Peter recognized in the fact that
God permitted it to persecute the Christians, to do unto them that which
makes itself ripe for judgment (!). — d70 rod oixov rod Oeod]. amd is here preg-
nant: the judgment takes place first in the olx, rov Ocov: thence it proceeds
further on; with the construction dpyeoda: a6, cf. Acts i. 22, viii. 35, x. 37.1
—olxo¢ rob Oeod is the church of believers; 1 Tim. iii. 15 (chap. ii. 5, oixog
mvevpatixoc). — ei 68 mpatov ag’ judy]. By these words the apostle passes over
to the chief thought of the verse. Either 7d xpiva dpyerat may be supplied,
and xporov regarded as a pleonasm intensifying the idea dpyera; or it may
be assumed with De Wette, that the expression arose from a mingling of
the two thoughts, ef de dg’ quay 7d xpiva dpyerat and ei d& mpdrov tuei¢ xptvoueda.
The first is more probable; zparov presented itself to the apostle, because
he wished to lay stress on the fact that the Christians had to suffer only
the beginning of the judgment, not its close.?— dg’ mua corresponds with the
preceding oix. r. Ocob. The sense is: If God does not exempt us, the mem-
bers of His house (His family), from judgment, but permits it to take its
1 Schott thinks that Peter really intended
to write: “for the time is come that the judg-
ment of the world must begin, but its begin-
ning muat be at the house of God.” But why
then did Peter not write as he intended?
Schott introduces an idea into the second
clause which Peter bas in no way expressed.
4 Schott’s interpretation, that rparor should
be taken as a substantive (equal to ‘a first"),
and that a general verb, expressive of what
takes place, should be supplied out of apfacdar
(aro being at the eame time zeugmatically
repeated), contradicts iteelf by its artificial.
ness.
CHAP. IV. 18, 19. 325
beginning at us, how should the unbelievers be exempted ? (cf. Luke
xxlii. 31.) — ri rd réAog Tév, x.7.A., 8c. Eotat, —1d TéAoc, not “the reward,” but
the final term, the end, to which the dmedobvteg r@ evayy. (i.e., those who in
hostility oppose the gospel of God) are going. Schott explains 10 réAog (anti-
thetically to mparov) as the final judgment itself, and the genitive rav amet
Govvrwy aS & concise, nearer definition (“the part of the judgment which falls
to the lot of the unbelievers”). But as little as xpdrov means initiatory
judgment, so little does rd réAoc final judgment. — On the interrogative form
of the clause, Gerhard rightly remarks: ezxaggeratio est in interrogatione ; cf.
Luke xxiii. 31. The echo! in this verse of passages of the Old Testament,
like Jer. xxv. 29, xlix. 12, Ezek. ix. 6, can the less fail to be recognized,
that the words which follow are borrowed from the Old Testament.
Ver. 18. Strengthening of the foregoing thought by quotation of the
O. T. passage, Prov. xi. 31, after the LXX., whose translation, however, is
inexact (cf. Delitzsch, in loc.). — 6 dixacoc “is he who stands in a right rela-
tion to God” (Schott), that is, the believer who belongs to the oix. r. Ocod;
6 doe8Hc nal duaprwddc, the unbeliever (6 dmedcv rH 7, O. evayy.). mode outerat i8
not, with Gerhard, to be referred to the fact that for the pious non nisi per
multas tribulationes ingressus in regnum coeleste paleal, but that it is difficult
(udduc, scarcely, with great difficulty) to stand in the judgment (ver. 17), and
to attain owrqpia, — nov gaveira, “ where will he appear?” that is, he will not
stand, but will be annihilated. The same thought as in Ps. i. 5.
Ver. 19. The exhortation contained in this verse is closely connected
with vv. 17 and 18, in such a way, however, “that it brings to a close the
whole section which treats of suffering for the sake of Christ” (Hofmann);
Hornejus : clausula est qua totam exhortationem obsignat. — Gore, as in Rom.
vii. 4, and often elsewhere, with a finite verb following (Winer, p. 282 f.
[E. T., 301]) “ therefore.” — nai does not belong to ui xacyovrec, equivalent to
“those also who suffer,” with reference to those who do not suffer (Wie-
singer, Hofmann), for there is no allusion in the context to any distinctiou
between those who suffer because of their Christian profession and those
who have not so to suffer,? but it is united with core, and applies to the
verb, “and just for this reason” (cf. Winer, p. 408 [E. T., 438]). Incorrectly,
Bengel: xai concessive cum participio i. q. e nal maoxotre. ~ of méoxovrec, namely,
the believers. — xara rd 6éAnya Tov Ocov; that is, mpdc metpacuoy, ver. 12. Wie-
singer: “looking back to ver. 17, inasmuch as they as Christians are over-
taken by the judgment God pronounces on His house.” Besser incorrectly
takes it as referring to their subjective behavior under suffering. — d¢ mor
KrwoTg maparibécduoay, x.7.A,]. Gerhard: o¢ exprimit causam, propler quam, hi
qui patiuntur animas suas apud Deum deponere debeant, nimirum quia est earum
creator et fidelis custos. If o¢ be the correct reading, then from the foregoing
tod Meod an aire must be supplied, to which o¢ mord xriorg applies. — xriorge
is not possessor (Calvin), but the creator; 6 «ricac, Rom. i. 25. It is used
1 Calvin: ‘* Hance sententiam ex trita et per- 3 Schott explains «at by the contrast be-
petua Scripturae doctrina sumpsit Petrus; tween “the individual sufferers” and ‘the
idque mibi probabilius est, quam quod alii church;”’ but nothing in the context alludes
putant, certum aliquem locum notari.” to this.
826 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
here in its strict sense, and not with reference to the new creation (Steiger,
Schott, connect both together); cf. Acts iv. 24 ff.: “this prayer is an actual
example of what is here demanded” (Weiss, p. 190). In the N. T. xriorne
is dn, Acy., in the O. T. it occurs frequently; Jud. ix. 12; 2 Mace. i. 24.
motoc: Oecumenius, equivalent to, dopadie xal apevdae xara tac énayyeAiag abrod,
kal obx édaoet nude netpacbiva: trip 6 duvayueda; cf. 1 Cor. x. 13.— With maparitecdat,
cf. Acts xiv. 23, xx. 82: “to commit to the protection of any one.” — év dya6o-
nog}. dyaforoia, ax. Aey.; the adjec., chap. ii. 14. This addition shows that
the confident surrender to God is to be joined, not with careless indolence,
but with the active practice of good. Oecumenius erroneously paraphrases
the word by rametvogpocivy.
CHAP. V. 827
CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. A, B, several min., read ovv after tpeoBurépove (Lachm.); K, L, P,
etc., Copt., Thph., etc., on the other hand, rui¢ (Rec., Tisch. 7); ® has both,
i.e., obv ruic. This reading, accepted by Tisch. 8, is perhaps the original one;
ovv may have been omitted, because the subsequent exhortation does not appear
to be a conclusion from what goes before. — Ver. 2. emoxonowres is wanting
only in B, &, 27, 29, Hier., etc.; it is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 7, and
omitted by Tisch. 8. — After éxovoiwc, A, P, 8, several min., vss., etc., Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 have: «ard Ocov. The words are wanting in the Rec. after B, K,
L, etc., Oec., etc.; Tisch. 7 had omitted them; they are probably a later addi-
tion, in order to complete the idea. — undé aioypoxepdcg}]. Rec., after B, K, P, ®,
etc., Vulg., Copt., Thph., Beda (Lachm., Tisch. 8); Tisch. 7 reads, instead of
undé, un, after A, L, 68, al., Syr., etc., Oec.; this, however, appears to be a mere
alteration on account of the preceding “7 and the subsequent undé. — Ver. 3.
Following B, Buttmann has omitted the entire third verse; but as all authori-
ties retain it, it cannot be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 5. uxoraccouevo:]. Rec.,
according to K, L, P, etc., Thph., Oec.; is omitted in A, B, x, 13, etc., several
vss., etc. Lachm. and Tisch. are probably right in omitting it, as it appears to
be a correction introduced in order to make the sense plainer, perhaps after
Eph. v. 21. Wiesinger and Schott are against the Rec.; Reiche is in favor of it.
— Instead of 4 Oedc, Buttm. has, following B, adopted Oed6¢ (without article). —
Ver. 6. év xa). In A, and the most of the vss., émeoxori¢ follows here;
adopted by Uachm., erroneously, however, as it is a later addition after chap.
ii. 12. — Ver. 8. Following the most numerous and best authorities, Griesb.
already has justly erased the or of the Rec. before 6 dvridiaog.— tiva xatancy],
Rec., after A, al., Vulg., Syr., Cyr., etc. (Tisch. 7); in its place K, L, P, ®, al.,
mult., Cop., ete., read rivd xatamuiv (Lachim.: teva; Tisch. 8: riva); B has the
inf. only, without reva. The commentators (as also Reiche) prefer the Rec.; it
appears, too, to be the more natural reading; but that very fact makes it sus-
picious. The reading of B {s evidently a correction, as twa seems to be inap-
propriate. — Ver. 9. B, ®, have the art. rw before xdouw (Tisch. 8); in the Rec.
it is omitted, after A, K, L, P, ete. (Tisch. 7). — Ver. 10. judc]. Rec., accord-
ing to K, several min., Vulg., Syr., etc.; in place of it, the most important
authorities, A, B, L, P, ®, very many min., and several vss., support buds, which
is accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., and rightly declared to be genuine by De
Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche. The Codd., A, K, L, P, have the name ’I7cod
after Xpiorp (Rec., Lachm., Tisch. 7); in B, &, there is only Xpeoro (Tisch. 8).
The Rec. runs: xarapricat vudc, orypigar, ofevwoat, GeueAwoa, Although these
optatives convey an appropriate idea, still there is too little evidence for their
genuineness; in the three last verbs, the optative occurs only in min., several
vss., Thph., and Oec.; in the first verb it is found also in K, L, P. As, how-
328 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
ever, the future «arapricet, etc., occurs in almost all authorities, it is to be pre-
ferred. Erasmus reads xatapriocat, and then orepiget, In similar passages of the
N. T., the optat. is mostly used (thus, undisputedly, in Rom. xv. 13; Heb. xiii.
21; 1 Thess. v. 23, etc.), and this explains how, in employing the future, a
change could have been made to the optative; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Phil. iv. 19.
There is less force in the reason given for the use of the indicative, viz., that it
is better suited to the subsequent doxology (Bengel), in opposition to which De
Wette rightly refers to Heb. xiii. 21.— The pronoun tude is wanting in the A,
B, &, etc., and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its genuineness is at least
doubtful; not less so is that of OeueAwoet, which, however, Tisch. has retained,
following K, L, P, &, etc., whilst it is omitted in A, B, Vulg., ete. (Lachm.).
—Ver. 11. 7 dufa xai Hoes not occur in A, B, 23, Aeth., Vulg.; omitted by
Lachm. and Tisch.; perhaps a later addition, after chap. iv. 11. — rev aiwvur is
erased by Tisch. 7, after B, 36, 99, Copt., Arm., but retained by Lachm. and
_ Tisch, 8, who follow A, K, L, P, &, the majority of min., several vss., etc. —
Ver. 12. Lachin. omits the article rod before microv, appealing to B. Tisch.,
however, remarks on this: errabat circa B. The omission, for which certainly
there is too little warrant, may be explained by the transcriber having construed
tuiv with morov. According to Tisch., however, it is not certain whether B has
the article or not; according to Buttm., it does not occur in B. — Instead of éor7-
wate (Rec.), Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after A, B, &, many min., etc., read or7re. This
reading would seem to be favored by the fact that it is the more difficult one,
and that the Rec. may have arisen out of Rom. v. 2; but the idea itself decides
in favor of éorjxare, which is retained by Tisch. 7, following K, L, P, ete.,
Theoph., Oec. — The reading év 7 (instead of ef¢ nv) in A is evidently a correc-
. tion for the sake of simplicity. — Ver. 14. Instead of Xpiora ‘Incov (in Rec., K,
L, P, &, al., pler., Vulg., Copt., etc., Thph., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch. have
adopted Xprorw only (A, B, etc., Syr., Aeth., etc.). The final auyjy (Rec., in G,
K, &, etc.) is likewise wanting in A, B, etc., and is therefore omitted by Lachin.
and Tisch. — The subsequent addition of ’Ijcov and ayy is undoubtedly more
easy of explanation than the subsequent omission of it.
Ver. 1. New exhortations in the first place to the mpeo3irepx and the
vewrepo. 8 far as ver. 5; then to all, without distinction, vv. 5-9. — npeoJv-
Tépuuc ody Tods év buiv mapaxada), mpeosirepor are the presidents of the congre-
gations. The name is employed here probably not without reference to age
(‘the elders”) (see ver. 5), though this is disputed by Hofmann, who, how-
ever, fails to give any reason for so doing. The article is wanting “ because
apecd. is considered as definite of itself” (Wiesinger), and not “ because Peter
had not a more accurate knowledge of the constitution of the churches”
(Schott). If the reading oiv be adopted, these and the following exhorta-
tions connect themselves, as conclusions drawn from it, with the preceding
couception dyatoroua, for the passages 1 Thess. iv. 1 and Matt. vii. 15 do not
prove that oi» expresses “only the continuance of the exhortation” (Hof-
mann). The reading é iniv, without rove, is opposed by the want of the
article before xpeoBurtpouc. — 6 cuumpecsirepog nal, x.7.A.]. Peter adds these
designations of himself, in order thus to give the more weight to his mapa-
xadeiv. He calls himself ovuzpeozirepog because of his office. What the
elders were for the individual congregations, that were the apostles for the
CHAP. V. 2. 329
whole church, since they had the superintendence of the entire system of
congregations.!_ By this name Peter, in humble love,? places himself on an
equal footing with the elders proper.? It is less natural to assume, with
Hofmann, that in thus speaking of himself Peter “would emphasize the
share he had in responsibility for the weal and woe of the congregations.”
—kal udptyg tov tov Xpictod wabquatwy]. By ra rob Xptorod nadquara must not
be understood the sufferings which the apostle had to undergo in following
Christ, but those which Christ Himself endured; cf. chap. iv. 13. Yet
Peter calls himself a yapruc, not only because he was an eye-voitness of them
(cf. Acts x. 39),4 but also because he proclaimed those sufferings which he
himself had seen (cf. Acts i. 8, 22, xiii. 31). This he did, in the first place,
by his words, but at the same time also by his sufferings (a fact which Hof-
mann should not have denied), in which he was a xowwvds tev rod Xp. wadquatwv
(chap. iv. 13) (Wiesinger, Schott). What follows seems also to refer to
this. — De Wette thinks that whilst by “cupzpeo3 ,” Peter puts himself on
an equality with the elders, he by the second designation places himself
above them. But if this had been his intention, he would hardly have
included both under the one article; the elders, too, were equally called
to be uaprupec rov Xp. xa,, although Peter, as an eye-witness, occupied “a
special position” (Briickner).— 6 xai rig ueAdovone . . . xosnwroc]. Several
of the older commentators incorrectly supply rov Xpicrov to doénc; it is not
merely the glory of Christ which is meant, but the doga, which, at the reve-
lation of that glory, shall be revealed in all those who are His; cf. Rom.
vill. 18; Col. ili. 4; 1 John ili 2.— xowwvoe means simply the participation
in that glory. Although it is not equivalent to ovyxoewwroc (Phil. i. 7), still
the apostle has in his soul the consciousness of being a fellow-sharer with
those to whom he is speaking. — The particle «ai, “also,” unites the two
ideas: waptic tov . . . Ta@quutwy and nowwroc tre. . . doéne together; because
the apostle is the former, he will also be the latter. Yet this does not com-
pel the adoption, with Hofmann, of the reading 6 (equal to &’ é, “ where-
fore”) instead of 6 Although ydprue, which is closely connected with
ouunpeczurepoc, has uo article, it does not follow that «omwvoc can have none
either. The N. T. usage is opposed to the interpretation of 4 by & 4,
Gal. ii. 10; cf. Meyer, in loc. ; cf. also Winer, p. 135 (E. T , 142).
Ver. 2. momuavare 1d év duiv moipwov tov Ocov}]. The work of directing the
church is often in the N. and O. T. represented by the figure of pasturing
(cf. Acts xx. 28; John xxi. 16; Jer. xxiii. 1-4; Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff.), and
the church by that of a flock (Luke xii. 32). ros Oeov is added here very
significantly. By it the flock is designated as belonging, not to the elders
1 Hofmann ‘ The apostles were the over-
seers of the universal church of Christ; each of
them, therefore, in so far shared in the admin-
ietratiou of all the single congregations, inas-
much as these were in the universal church.”
3 Gualter: ‘nota humilitatem Petri qul
minimo jus primatua In se cognovit.”’
§ Bengel: “bortatio mutua iuter aequales
et collegas imprimis valet.”
« Aretius: ‘‘oculatus testis, qui praecipuls
ejus aerumnie Interfui.”
5 It cannot be denied, that, in accordance
with its almost uniform usage in the N. T., the
word waprus possesses this secondary meaning
(as opposed to Hofmann).
® Wilesinger: “The antithesis 6 xai rig
mead. axon. Scfns cowwwvos presupposes the
KoLveorety Tos T. Xp. rad.”
330 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
who tend _ it, but to God as His peculiar property. Luther takes a too nar-
row view of the idea of tending; he limits it to the preaching of the gospel.
It applies rather to all and every thing that is done by the elders, for the
welfare of the individual as well as for that of the entire congregation. 1d
év ouiv must not be separated from roiumov, as if it were equal to quantum in
vobis est (cf. Rom. i. 15), i.e., intendite omnes nervos (Calvin); it rather forms
one idea with mouvov. The greater number of commentators understand év
in a local sense, either in vestris regionibus (Pott), or “ with you, within your
reach” (Luther in the commentary, Iensler, De Wette, Besser, Schott,}
etc.). Since é juiv,as a more precise local definition, stands somewhat
significantly, and “the churches only are the place where the elders are, and
not vice versa” (Hofmann), év iviv must, according to the analogy of xsic@a
iv rev, be interpreted “that which is committed to you” (Luther's translation,
Bengel, Steiger), or “that which ts placed under your care (hand).” év wiv
then serves to give point to the exhortation. — émoxoroivrec, cf. the critical
notes. It must be observed, that émoxor. is here placed in conjunction with
moavate, 23 in chap. ii. 25: mowyv and émoxoroc. This participle, with the
adverbs belonging to it, states what should be the character of the moiaiverv.?
The verb (which, except here, occurs only in Heb. xii. 15), equivalent to —
“to give heed,” denotes the labors of the elders in caring for the congrega-
tion, but with the implied meaning of oversight. The still closer definition
follows in three adjuncts, each of which consists of a negative and a positive .
member.® — dvayxacrac (an expression foreign to Greek usage, and occurring
only here, which Hofmann erroneously denies) and éxovoiug (this adverb
occurs in the N. T., besides in this passage, only in Heb. x. 26; the adjec-
tive in Philem 14) are opposed to each other, in such a way that the former
characterizes the work as undertaken from outward motives only, the latter
as from inward The same antithesis occurs in Philem. 14: xara dvayanv
cata éxovotov (similarly the antithesis of dxw» and éxov, 1 Cor. ix. 17);
with éxovoiws, cf. Exod xxxvi.2. The position, etc., must be regarded as
the outwardly ineiting or compelling motive.4— According to the Rec.,
exovoiug is yet further strengthened by xara Ocdv (cf. chap. iv. 6; 2 Cor. vii.
9, 10), equal to «ara rd HeAqjua tov Ocov. — aloxpoxepdag (the adverb occurs here
only, the adjective 1 Tim iii. 8; Tit. 1.7; Tit. 1. 11: aicypod xépdoug yap) ;
“the apostle places the impure motive side by side with the unwillingness
? Schott’s opinion, that In ev uuiy thie an.
tithesis to rov @eou is expressed, “that the
church, belonging to heaven, 1s yet at present
in the bodily and visible vicinity of the elders,
and surrounded by them,”’ must be rejected as
purely arbitrary. —Gerhard’s interpretation :
*‘gui vobiscum est, videlicet cum quo unum
corpus, una ecclesia estie,”’ brings out an idea
which is in no way indicated by the apostle.
2 Jt is doubtless corrett that the adverbs do
not simply define more nearly the term é¢mo-
xomourtes, In and for itself considered, but it is
wrong to make them co-ordinate with this idea
(as against Hofmann); closely joined with
émoxorouvtes, they, with this participle, are
connected with wocavere.
3 The thought is aptly given by Calvin:
‘*Dum Pastores ad officium hortari vult, tria
potissimum vitia notat, quae plurimum obesse
solent, pigritiam ecilicet, lucri captandi cupidi-
tatem et licentiam dominandi; primo vitio
opponit alacritatem aut voluntarium etudium,
secundo Itberalem affectum tertio modera-
tionem ac modestiam.”
4 Bengel is incorrect: ‘‘id valet et in eus-
cipiendo et in gerendo munere;”’ to the former
there is in this case no allusion.
0
CHAP. V. 3, 4. 301
of avayx.” (Wiesinger). — mpodijuc (in the N. T. the adverb occurs here only;
more frequently the adjective and substantive) as antithesis to aicxpoxepddx :
“out of love to the thing itself ;’’ Luther: “from the bottom of the heart.’’!
Ver. 3. nd” O¢ xataxupevovres tov KAnpwr, i.e., “not as those, who,” ete.
With xaraxvp. cf. for meaning and expression Matt. xx. 25-28; 2 Cor. i. 24;
it is not equal to xupevew (Steiger), but the prefixed xara intensifies the idea
of xupetew: “to exercise a sway, by which violence is offered to those who
are under it.” ? — 2ipoc, properly speaking, the lot, then that which is appor-
tioned by lot, then, generally, that which is allotted or assigned to any one,
whether it be an office, a possession, or any thing else. Here it is the con-
gregation (1d roizmov) that is to be understood ; not as though «ior in itself
meant the congregation, but the churches are thus designated, because they
are assigned to the elders as a possession, in which to exercise their official
duties. The plural is put, because different elders filled offices in different
congregations (Calov, Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Com-
pare the passage in Acts xvii. 4, where it is said of those converted by Paul
and Silas, zpocexAnpw@noay to Tlavaw nai ro Lida. It is incorrect to supply rov
Oro, as is done by Beza, etc., and to derive the expression from the O. T.,
where the congregation of Israel is termed the xAjpor (7121) of God, Deut.
ix. 29, LXX. But it is equally incorrect when Hofmann applies xaraxupeed-
ovrec, not to the zpecsirepa, but to others, and, taking cx as instituting a com-
parison, understands «Apo to signify “the estates belonging to some one
himself,” translating accordingly: “not as those who exercise rule over
estates belonging to themselves ” The apostle’s idea thus would be, “the
elders are not to treat the church as an object over which they exercise right
of possession, and do with as they please.” — How should the apostle have
thought of bringing forward a comparison so far fetched? —and how arbi-
trary it appears to interpret dc differently in this passage from in chap. i. 14,
ii. 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, etc. , to allow the article rcv to take the place of the pos-
sessive pronoun, and to attribute a meaning to «Ajpo which it often has in
profane Greek, but never either in the O. or in the N. T.!8 Gadd rina yuvo-
uevoc Tov rotuviov]. The antithesis here is a different one from that in the
passage quoted from Matt. The elders, as the leaders of the church, neces-
sarily possess a kind of xupiornc over it; but they are not to exercise this in
& manner opposed to the character of Christian life in the church (which
would be a xaraxupevev), but by being examples to the congregations, shin-
ing before them in every Christian virtue (1 Tim. iv. 12; Tit. ii. 7); ef.
2 Thess. iii. 9; Phil. iii. 17.
Ver. 4. Assurance of the future reward for the faithful fulfilment of
the exhortation just given. —x«ai simply connects the result with the
1 Hofmann: “ With a joyous devotion, 3 The opinion of Oecumentus: «Ajpoy 1d
which excludes all secondary considerations,
to the work which has to be done.’’
? Thus Hofmann interprets, correctly. He
is mistaken, however, in maintaining that «ata
bere does not imply an bostile antithesis, since
a violent rule is one by which he who is ruled
over is injured in his rights.
iepoy avoTyua Kadel, worep Kai vuy nue (1.e.,
the priesthood), which many Catholic com.
mentators have followed, requires no refuta-
tion; and as little does that of Dodwell,
who understands «Ayjpo to mean church
property.
332 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
exhortation (cf. Winer, p. 406 [E. T., 436 f.]), and is not to be taken
aitioAoyexeg for iva. — davepwhévrog tov dpximotuévog]. With gavep. cf. Col. iii. 4;
1 John ii. 28; Christ is here termed dpyiroruqy (am, Acy., chap. ii. 25: 6 momaqv;
Heb. xili. 20: 06 mouujv 6 weydc) as He “to whom the elders, with the flock
they tend, are subject ” (Hofmann). — xouseiobe (cf. chap. i. 9) rdv duapayrivoy
tig dofn¢ orégavov]. The greater number of commentators consider duapavrivo¢g
as equal to dudpavrog in chap. 1.4; but the direct derivation of the word
from yapaivecda: is hardly to be justified. It comes rather from the
substantive dudapayroc, and therefore means, as Beza explains: ex amaranto
videlicet, cujus floris (inquit Plintus) summa natura in nomine est, sic appellato
quoniam non marcescit. Accordingly the figure present to the mind of the
apostle was an amaranthine wreath; thus also Schott. It is at least
uncertain whether oréfavoc here (as frequently in the writings of Paul) is
thought of as a wreath of victory (thus the greater number of commentators),
since among the Jews, also, wreaths of flowers and leaves were in use as
tokens of honor and rejoicing (cf. Winer's Bibl. Realwérterbuch, s.v. Kranze).
— rig duén¢ is the genitive of apposition; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8; Jas. i. 12; Rev.
ii. 10: the dvga is the unfading crown which they shall obtain.
Ver. 5. duoiuc; cf. chap. iii. 1,7; here also duo. is not a mere particle
of transition (Pott). The exhortation to humility expressed in this verse
corresponds to those addressed to the elders, wherein they are admonished
to submit themselves to the duties of their office with humility, and without
seeking their own advantage. — vewrepoe broraynre mpeosutépou |. Who are
these vearepar ? ~Certainly not the whole of the members of the congregation
(in contrast to the elders), as Beda, Estius, Pott, Wiesinger, etc., assume,
but neither the younger members generally, nor such of them as were
employed in many ministrations suitable neither for the elders nor the
deacons. The first assumption (Luther, Calvin, Aretius, Gerhard, etc.) is
opposed by the circumstance that mpeo3urépog here seems to have the same
official signification as above in ver. 1 ff. If this be so, then it is plainly
inconsistent to take the expression vedrepo: as specifying only a particular
time of life. The second (Weiss, p. 344 ff., Schott, Briickner), founded
chiefly on Acts v. 6, 10, is contradicted by the fact that there is no historical
testimony for the existence of an office such as it takes for granted. If
veotepot indicate only a particular time of life, then the like may be said of
the accompanying mpeofurépo. The difficulty which arises from the same
name being employed first as an official title, and then to denote a particular
age, is solved, in a measure at least, by supposing, that, since the word
contained both references, the apostle might, as he proceeded in his
exhortation, lose sight of the one in the other.? The special exhortation
is followed by the general: mavrec dé dAAjAoc]. If troraccduevs is to be
1 Perhaps, however, Hofmann may be right _ office, but »earepor a time of life (De Wette),
when he supposes that auapayrivos stands in is opposed by the circumstance that ‘it re-
the same relation to auapayros as aAnOives to. 83s mains incomprehensible why the exhortation,
adnOns and vyrecvds te byijs, and that accord- which is surely meant to apply to the whole
ingly the word should be written apapaytivos. church, should be addressed to the younger
* The view that speofurepois indicates an’ members only” (Hofmann).
CHAP. V. 6. 333
erased after aaAjdoc, the words may then be taken either with what precedes
(Lach., Gr. Ausg., Buttmann, Hofmann) or with what follows. In the first
case, there is something fragmentary in the structure of the clause, while
the second, adopted by almost all commentators (formerly also in this
commentary), is opposed by the dative aAApAac, which is too easily passed
over with the remark that it is the dative of reference, equivalent to “for
each other,” or “with reference to each other.” AJ! the passages which
Winer (p. 202 [E. T., 215]) brings forward to prove that the dative is used
of every thing with reference to which any thing takes place are of a differ-
ent nature. savrec denotes the whole of the members of the church, without
distinction. — ryv ramevogpocivay éyxou3dcacbe]. In interpreting the word
éyxou3coacde, commentators have not unfrequently, but erroneously, started
from the meaning of the substantive éyxduGwua,! understanding (certainly
without justification) it to signify “a beautiful dress,” and rendering:
“adorn yourselves with humility ;” thus Calvin, etc.; or else, whilst
correctly explaining the word as the apron worn by slaves, they find in
the verb itself the reference to humility in behavior; thus Grotius,
Hornejus, Steiger, De Wette, etc.2— Rather, however, must that sense
of the verb be retained which is to be had by deriving it from xéudoc, “a
band ;” to tie on, or fasten any thing by means of a soudu, ie., “a band.”
Since, now, it is used for the most part of the fastening of a garment, it lies
to hand to take the expression here as having the same sense with éydveatar
(cf. Col. iii. 12), yet so that the idea of making fast is more strongly brought
out in the former than in the latter : “to clothe one’s self firmly, wrap one’s self
round with razewvogp.;” Bengel: induife ros et involvite, ut amictus humilitatis
nulla vi robis detrahi possit (thus also Wiesinger, Schott). Other interpreters
hold by the one or the other meaning only, i.e., either by that of clothing
(Oecumenius: éveAgoaade xal mepisuadecbe), or that of making fast (Luther:
“hold fast by humility; Erasmus: humilitatem vobis fixam habete). Similar
exhortations to humility towards one another: Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3;
Rom. xii. 16. The exhortation is strengthened by the quotation of the Old-
Testament passage, Prov. iii. 34, after the LXX., where, however, xipeoc
stands instead of 6 Geoc. The same quotation is to be found in Jas. iv. 6,
where, as here, there is first of all the injunction to submit to God, and then
that to resist the devil; cf. also Luke i. 51.
Ver. 6. Conclusion drawn from the Old-Testament passage, rame:viounre
otv ind, x.7.A.], see Jas. iv. 6; not “become humble,” as Wiesinger interprets,
on account of the passive (for if the meaning must be passive, in accordance
with the form, it ought to be, “be made humble”), but, in a middle sense,
1 Bteph., 8. ov. éycouBdw: illigo, involvo; from that of the substantive). He says that
Hesych : enim ¢yxoufwleis exponit sebecs et
dyxexéuBwras affert pro éveiAnrat.—'Eyxdép-
Awua vestimenti genus est; ecribit enim Poll.
4, 119, ry 8¢ raw SovrAwy cfwucd wpocceicOas
car iparididy te Acuxdy, quod édyxdéuBwua 6.
éwcBAnua nominart.
8% Hofmann holds by this reference (although
he does not derive the meaning of the verb
the verb of itself has that sense, since he who
prepared himeelf for the duties of a servant
girded himself with a garment fastened by
means of a band. This conclusion would be
established If ¢y<oufouy were used only of the
putting on of a slave’s aprop, which, however,
is not the case.
334 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
‘humble yourselves.” Ver. 7 shows that this self-humbling here refers to the
lowly and submissive bearing of afilictions (otherwise in Luke xiv. 11). —
tiv xparaav xeipa}]. Old-Testament expression denoting the power of God
which rules and judges all; cf. Deut. iii. 24, LXX.; it does not refer here
to the laying-on of afflictions only (De Wette), but to the being exalted
out of them (so, too, Briickner); cf. Luke i. 51: éroinoe xparoc tv Bpaytov
airov: deoxdpmioev Unepngavovc . . . Kal bywoe tarewvovc. The purpose of this
subordination, iva oud¢ bpwoy, is the glory which follows upon the sufferings ;
iva is not put éx Jarier (Pott), but reduc. — dv nape}. Matt. xxiv. 45:
“tempore statuto;” Erasmus: wut vos eztollat, cum erit opportunum, cum
judicabit id vobis expedire vel in hoc saeculo, vel in die judicii; this last is
here the principal point of view.
Ver. 7 is closely connected with ver. 6; hence the participle. The idea
and expression are taken from Ps. lv. 22, LXX. (émippjeov int xipwov rv
pépeuvay cov xal avtog ce dadptpu), although somewhat altered ; xdoav riyv
péptuvav buov:! “your whole care;" the singular unites all individual cares
together into one uniform whole. Hofmann, without reason, assumes, that,
in this passage, népiuzva does not mean care itself, but the object which causes
care. The context shows that the care specially meant here is that which is
occasioned by the sufferings; cf. Matt. vi. 25; Phil. iv. 6. — ér: aire, «.1.A.],
“for He careth for you;” the same construction of the verb with mepi occurs
frequently in the O.T., e.g., John x. 13; é’ avroy, dr aire, “ are intentionally
brought together ” (Wiesinger).
Ver. 8. vaware (chap. iv. 7), ypyyopyoare, cf. 1 Thess. v. 6; placed in jux-
taposition by asyndeton “in nervous conciseness, in virtue of which dri, too,
is omitted before 6 davzdiaog” (Wiesinger). ‘Temperance and watchfulness
are specially necessary, in order to remain faithful amid all the temptations
of suffering. The reason is given in what follows. — 6 dvridscog budy diaoAoc).
Hensler’s explanation: “slandering opponents,” requires no refutation. —
diuBvdoc is a substantive, in explanatory apposition to 6 dvrid, tusv, which
latter is used, in this passage only, to designate the devil (corresponding to
the Hebrew [0¥, which, however, the LXX. always translate by d:aoAoc).
The word denotes strictly an opponent in a court of justice; but it occurs also
in a general sense as “adversary.” Schott would retain the original appli-
cation, after Zech. iii. 1 ff., Rev. xii. 10, in that “the devil will, as it were,
compel God to declare in condemnatory judgment that the Christians have
forfeited salvation;” but there is no allusion to the divine judgment here,
the xaramvew is rather indicated as the aim of the devil. — o¢ Aéuy dpvdzevor).?
cpieodat peculiariter dicitur én Aiu@ KAaovruv Aixuwy, f) Aedvtwv, h xvvdv (Hesych.),
cf. Ps. civ. 21. —-epenarei (Job i. 7, ii. 2) Gyrav tiva xaranig), mepexareiy and
Snrév belong strictly to each other, so that the comparison with the lion
applies to both (Steiger). The efforts of the devil are directed against
Christians, who, as such, do not belong to him; as long as they remain
1 Gerhard: ‘yépiuva significat curam 8 Auguatin (Sermo 46, De Divers., c. ii.):
sollicitam et dublam, quae mentem in ‘Christus leo propter fortitudinem, diabolus
partes divisas velut dividit, a pwepigecw row propter feritatem; ille leo ad vincendum, iste
your.” leo ad nocendum.”
CHAP. V. 9. 335
faithful to their Christian calling, he can do them no harm (1 John v. 18),
therefore he is on the lookout whom (according to the reading: tiva xarariy)
he may devour, or if he may devour any one (according to the reading: rwa
catanuiv), by alluring to unfaithfulness.! — xarunivew, “devour,” denotes com-
plete destruction. Chrysostom (Homil. 22, Ad Popul. Anttoch.): circuit
quaerens, non quem mordeal vel frangal, sed quem devoret.
Ver. 9. «\ dvriornre orepeot rp micre, cf. Jas. iv. 7; Eph. vi. 11 ff. 19 riores
does not belong to avriornre (Bengel), but to orepeot; not as the dat. instrum.
(Beza, Hensler), but as the dative of nearer definition: “firm in the faith ;”
ef. Acts xvi. 5; Col. ii. 7; cf. Winer, p. 202 (E. T., 215). It is only a firm
faith that can resist the devil. — edoree ra avra rwv nabyparuv . . . imereAciopat].
Almost al] interpreters assume that the construction here is that of the accus.
c.inf. Hofmann, nevertheless, denies this, remarking that in the N. T. eidorec
(in the sense of “knowing"’) never takes the accus. c. inf., but always the
particle 67, and that when cidorec is followed by the accus. c. inf., it signifies
“to understand how to do a thing.”? If this be correct, émredeio#ac must
have an active meaning, ra abra tov rad. be the accusative after it, and the
dative ry . . . ddeAgotnrs be dependent on ra attra. Explaining éncreAciogac on
the analogy of the phrase ra rob ynpuc imredAeiobar (Xen., Mem., iv. 8, 8), and
seeing in ra avira the idea of measure expressed, Hofmann translates, “ know-
ing how to pay for your Christianity the same tribute of affliction as your.
brethren in the world.” This explanation cannot be accepted without hesi-
tation. For, on the one hand, from the fact that in other parts of the N. T.
eidoree does not take the accus. c. inf., it cannot be concluded that here it
does not do so either, the more especially that the construction of the accus.
c. inf. occurs comparatively rarely in the N. T.; and, on the other hand,
the phrase, ra . . . tow ma0. droreA., is not analogous with the expression, ra
Tod yous émireA., since in the former there is no conception corresponding to rov
yhows. Hofmann inserts, indeed, as such, the idea of the Christian calling;
but it is purely imported, and nowhere hinted at in the text. Accordingly,
émreAcioda: — graminatically considered —can have a passive signification ;
not, indeed, equivalent to “are completed” (Thue. vii. 2; Phil. i. 6, and
other passages), for this idea would not be suitable here, but rather, “are
being accomplished.® This idea is, in truth, not very appropriate either; it
seems to be more fitting to take the verb in a middle sense, as equivalent
to “are accomplishing themselves;” and to translate, “knowing (or, better,
rather: considering) that the same sufferings are accomplishing themselves
in the brethren.” This rendering is to be preferred to all others. The
Vulg. translates é¢mreA. by feri: Luther, by “befall.” both are too inexact
renderings of the sense. In the explanation above given, ra atra is used as
a substantive, as frequently happens with the neuter of adjectives (Winer,
1 Hofmann irrelevantly remarks, that 8 Thue Herod., i. 51, 1n connection with ra
Surety, followed by an interrogative, means, to
consider a thing; the word above is evidently
stronger than that.
* Cf. the passages quoted by Hofmann:
Matt. vil. 11; Luke xi. 18, xii. 86; Jas. iv. 17;
Phil. ftv. 12; 1 Tim. ili. 6; 2 Pet. il. 9.
dmracaéueva; Thuc. i. 138: édwireAcca 4
Umdoxero.
¢ The translation of Wichelhaus, “io le
laid upon,” is entirely unjustifiable.
336 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.’
p. 220! [E. T., 234]), and is put here to emphasize the sameness of the
sufferings (thus De Wette, Wiesinger); 19... ddeAgory7e is to be taken as
the more remote object; on no condition can the dative be understood
as equivalent to uo in passives. With the idea ddeAgorgn, ef. chap. ii. 17. —
The addition, é xoouy, alludes to the reason of the afflictions (Steiger).
Wiesinger justly remarks: “in the world, the dominion of the Evil One,
the Christian can and dare expect nothing else.” Possibly it may contain
at the same time a reference to the ddeAgernc, which the Lord has already
taken to Himself éx rod xdopov. The thought that the brethren have to bear
the same afflictions, serves to give strength in resisting the devil, since the
consciousness of bearing similar afflictions in common with all Christian
brethren encourages to patient endurance.
Vv. 10,11. Promise of blessing, and doxology. — 6 dé @ed¢, placed by way
of emphasis at the beginning. That which has gone before has told the
readers what they should do; in contrast to this (dé), the apostle now says
what God will do (Schott); with the expression: @ed¢ zuone yapitos, cf. 2 Cor.
1. 3: Occ maone mapaxAnoew. God as the author of all grace; ydapec conceived
as a possession. Like the whole promise of blessing, this very designation
of God serves to comfort and strengthen the readers in their afflictions. —
6 xadéoac tyar, x.7.A., cf. 1 Thess. ii. 12 (2 Thess. ii. 14); that is, to partici-
pation in His (God's) own doga. The participation is here thought of as
future, although for believing Christians it is even now present in its begin-
ning (2 Pet. i. 4). In this calling there is already contained the pledge of
the promises that follow: «araprice:, «.7.A, —év Xprora belongs to xadéaac, more
nearly defined by iuac eic, etc. (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott), not to dofuy
(Hofmann). God possesses the glory not first in Christ, as Hofmann says,
but He has had it from all eternity, although in Christ it is first revealed.
Gerhard interprets incorrectly: propter meritum Christi. év is by several
interpreters inaccurately taken as equivalent to da; but though éy denote
instrumentality, this is of a more inward nature than that expressed by dia.
The sense is: by God having brought you into union with Christ (thus also
De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). The connection of é Xp, with dy. radovra¢
following (Glossa interl.: sicut membra in illo patientes. Nicol. de Lyra) has
nothing to commend it. —oAiyuv naGovrac]. oAiyov, a8 in chap. i. 6: “a little
while.” — radevracg is to be joined with xaAécag, x.r.A. (Steiger, De Wette,
Wiesinger), but in such a way that in sense it does not apply so much to
xaAtoac, as to the obtaining of the doéa of God, since the aorist must not arbi-
trarily be interpreted as a present. Hofmann rightly observes: “ Peter sub-
joins this aorist participle as if it had been preceded by ei¢ 7d dofilecdar.”” 2
Lachmann and Tischendorf (om. tude after xaraprioe:) have connected these
words with what follows, as also the Vulg. translates: modicum passos ipse
perficiet (so also Wichelhaus). Many, particularly among the older com-
mentators, even retaining the éudc, have adopted this construction; Luther:
1 Hofmann erroneously appeals to Har- ashe looks from the present, in eo far as it
tung’s Gr., II. p. 238, in support of the fnter- — already contains their completion, back on the
pretation ‘the same measure of suffering.” present of actual reality, the sufferings appear
2 Schott's explavation, that ‘to the apostle —_as past,”’ is inappropriate.
CHAP. V. 12-14. 337
“The same will make you, that suffer a little while, fully prepared,” ete.
Opposed to this, however, is as much the fact that the xaraprigew does not
take place after the afflictions only, but during them, as that the present afflic-
tion and the future glory belong closely together; cf. ver. 1.— If, as is highly
probable, the dude after xaraprice: be spurious, it must be supplied out of the
tude that precedes. — atréc is placed emphatically: the God . . . , who hath
called you, He will, etc., the same God; the calling already contains the
guaranty for the xaraprigew, «.7.A, —xataprice, x.1.A.]. Kxaraprifev, Luke vi. 40;
1 Cor. i. 10; Heb. xiii. 21; Luther rightly translates: “fully prepare ;”
Bengel: ne remaneat in vobis defectus. — ornpigev, 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 3, and
other passages. Bengel: ne quid vos labefactet. — odevoiv, an. Aey. Bengel:
ul superetis vim omnem adversam. — OeueAwiv (see the critical notes); in its
proper sense, Matt. vii. 25; Luke vi. 48; figuratively: Eph. iii. 18 (redeueAcu-
pevoe Synonymous With épwuévor); Col. i. 23 (synonymous with épaia). —
The future expresses the sure expectation that, as the apostle wishes, God
will perfect, etc., the believers.— If xaraprica: be read, this form must not be
taken as the infinitive (Pott), but as the optative.!— The heaping-up of
expressions connected by asyndeton is rhetorical, and arises from the natural
impulse of an agitated heart to find full expression for its feelings. — Ver. 11.
The same doxology as iv chap. iv. 11. It sets the seal on the hope just
expressed. ;
Vv. 12-14. Concluding remarks; first, ver. 12, as to the letter itself. —
da LiAovavod . . . éypaya]. There is no reason to doubt that this Silvanus is
the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul. Whilst in the Acts he is
named “Silas,” Paul, like Peter, calls him “Silvanus.” He was sent from
the convention of apostles, along with Paul, Barnabas, and Judas Barsabas,
as bearers of the epistle to Antioch. After this he accompanied Paul on his
second missionary journey. He is not mentioned afterwards, nor is it
known at what time he came to Peter. dd... Zypaya does not designate
Silvanus either as the translator or the writer of the epistle, but simply as
the bearer of it. da has here the same sense as in the subscriptions of the
Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, etc.; it is synonymous with da
xewpoc, Acts xv. 23. —“ It is evident that the choice of Silas for this (media-
tory) mission was a particularly happy one, as he had been Paul’s companion
in former times, and had assisted him in founding the greater part of the
churcheg here addressed” (Wieseler). — tuiv rav morod adeAgod]. tyuiv can be
joined either with the following éypawa, or with moroi ad, If the latter com-
bination be adopted (it is more simple if rov be erased as spurious, but is
also possible if rot be retained; equivalent to “who is the faithful brother
unto you”), the apposition indicates that an intimate relation subsisted be-
tween Silvanus and the churches to which Peter writes. The connection
with Zypaya, however, is the more natural one, iuiv being inserted between,
as in Gal. vi. 11. —6 morde ddeAooe is the name given to Silvanus, because
generally he had proved faithful in the performance of every service for the
church of Christ. There is no reason why the expression should be referred
2 Erasmus, by first reading xaraprica: and eubeequent words as subetantives: ‘ perficiet
then orypifer, etc., uuderstands this and the = fultura confirmatione, fuudatione.”’
338 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
specially to his relation to the churches of Asia Minor only (as formerly in
this commentary), or particularly to that in which he stood to Peter (Ilof-
mann). Still, it is not improbable that Peter, by this designation, alludes
to the confidence he has, that he will also prove faithful in the service which
is now required of him. — The following words, o¢ Zoyifouar, may be applied
either to the opinion just expressed on Silvanus (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott,
Wichelhaus), or to the subsequent dé’ dAlywr Eypaya (Steiger, Hofmann). It
is hardly possible to come to a definite conclusion. At any rate, Aoyifouas
does not express an uncertain conjecture; cf. Rom. iii. 28, viii. 18; Heb.
xi. 19. In the first case, by the confirmation which it contains of the opin-
ion just uttered, it serves to strengthen the confidence of the churches in
Silvanus; in the second, the apostle indicates that, considering the impor-
tance of his subject and the yearning of his heart, he looks on his letter as
a short one.! This last appears the more probable. — i’ é2iywy, equal to dia
Bpaxéwv, Heb. xiii. 22: “in few words;” cf. Thucyd., iv. 95. — &ypawa refers
to this epistle, which the apostle is on the point of closing, and not, as Eras-
mus, Grotius, etc., altogether unwarrantably assume, to a former one which
has been lost;? cf. Philem. 19, 21. — mapaxadwy xal émaprypov)]. Although
by these two words the apostle indicates two distinct subjects, still these are
not to be separated in such a way as to be applicable to different parts of
the epistle (De Wette, Brickner) ;® but the mapaxAnowe and the émpapropyoc
are throughout the whole letter closely bound up together. As the contents
of the éxuaprupeiv are stated, but not those of the rapaxadeiv, the chief stress
is laid on the former, the latter (wapaxaduv) being placed first, in order
thereby to give prominence to the character of the émapripnox. Contrary
to its common usage, De Wette interprets émuaprupov: in addition to, i.e.,
testifying in addition to the exhortation. émmaprupeiv simply means: to bear
witness to any thing (opp. dvriyaprupeiv, see Pape and Cremer, 8. v..; in the
N. T. Gz. Aey.; éxqapripecda: occurs in the LXX. and in the Apocr., but not
érimaprepeiv); Bengel is therefore wrong in interpreting: lestimonium jam per
Paulum et Silam audierant pridem: Petrus INSUPER TESTATUR; 80, too, is
Hofmann in saying that in éxwaprepeiv it is presupposed that the readers
themselves already know and believe what Peter testifies. — ravryy eivar dandy
zap tov Geod}. Contents of the émpapripnoc: “that this is the true grace of
1 Hofmann’s opinion is purely arbitrary,
**that since the {ndividual churches received
the epistle, intended as it was for so wide a
circle, only in a tranecription of a transcrip-
tion, and had again to send it on, a modest re.
mark, that he had not made hie letter too long
in order to venture to ask them to take this
trouble, was not inappropriate.” Nothing
alludes to the taking of any such trouble. —
Fronmililer’s view is aleo incorrect. He thinks
that ws Aoy:¢. should be taken with dia ZcAov.
éyp., in the sense of, “I count upon your
receiving this epistle by Silvanus,” — for
there ia no question here of the receiving
of it.
2In this interpretation, as Aoyifoua is
applied to the writing of the former epletie.
Erasmus: ‘‘ per Silvanum . . . qui non dubito,
quin epiatolam bona fide reddiderit.”” Silmi-
larly, Pott: ‘‘antehac et, si recte memini (‘tf
I remember aright! ’) per Silv. epistolam vobis
acripel.”” Differently, Wetstein : ‘‘ Scripei, ut
ipse sentio et apud me, omnibus rite perpensis,
atatuo, ita etiam alios bhortor, ut idem mecum
profiteantur~ doctrinam Christ! esse veram.”
3 «*The firet statement of the contents of
the epistle applies to chap. 1. 13-v. 9; the sec.
ond, to t. 3-12; and one or two passages in the
hortatory portion, as 1. 18-20, 25, 11. 9 f., iff. 18,
iv. 12 f.”
CHAP. V. 13. 839
God ;”! ratrnv does not refer to that of which the apostle has written, but
its more precise definition follows in the subsequent relative clause. Peter
accordingly sets forth, in conclusion, that his epistle testifies to the readers
that that grace in which they already stood is the true grace, from which,
therefore, they should not depart (cf. with this, chap. i. 12, 25, ii. 10, 25).
No doubt this was the yap¢ which had been brought to them by means of
the preaching of Paul, but it does not follow that the purpose of Peter’s
ériapripnou was to set, for the readers, the seal on that preaching. It is not
the preaching which is here in question, but the yap in which the readers
stood, quite apart from the person through whose instrumentality it was
brought to them. Had Peter intended to bear a testimony to Paul, he would
surely have done so in clear terms; nor does any thing in the epistle allude
to an uncertainty on the part of the readers as to whether Paul had preached
the true gospel to them. apr is not doctrina evangelii (Gerhard); but neither
is it “the state of grace” (De Wette), for with this the adjunct rod Ocos would
not harmonize. But it denotes the objective divine grace, into the sphere of
which the readers have entered by means of faith; cf. Rom. v. 2. — dan@7
stands here as the leading conception, not with any polemical reference to
an erroneous doctrine (for there is no trace of any such polemic in the
epistle), but is intended by the apostle to mark in itself the truth and reality
of this ydpu, in order that the readers may not be induced by the persecu-
tions to abandon it.—el¢ fw éorjxare: for this construction, cf. Winer, p.
886 f. (E. T., 414 f£.). If the reading orjre be adopted, this adjunct expresses
the exhortation to continue in that grace. Here, however, the nearer defi-
nition necessary to ratrqy is wanting; for as the émpapripyoe is not some-
thing added on to the epistle (&ypaya), ravtny yap cannot be the grace of
which I have written to you.
Ver. 13. Salutation. —The notion that 4... ovvexdexrf denotes the
apostle’s wife (Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, etc.) finds no support from
1 Cor. ix. 5; it is contradicted by the év BaSvAc* inserted between. By
far the greater number of commentators rightly consider it to mean: “ the
church in Babylon” (x has the word éxxAnoia after BafvAd; Oec. and Vulg.,
ecclesia). According to Hofmann, éxaAgoia is not to be supplied to ovverdexth,
“but the churches to which the apostle writes are, as such, éxAexrai, and the
church from which he sends greetings is, as such, a ovvexAexr#, a8 she from
whom the Apostle John sends salutations is an adeAga éxAext®” (2 John 13).
But in John’s Epistle, ver. 1, «vpia, and ver. 13, ddeAgq, are put along with
éxAextn; accordingly, it does not follow that ovvexdexr#, without the addi-
tional idea éxxAyoia, would of itself mean a church. The ovr refers to the
churches to which Peter sends the salutation of the former, cf. chap. i. 1.8
! Hofmann lays stress on the want of the
article before xdpcv, and therefore interprets:
*‘that it fa real grace of God, that that is in
truth grace from God, wherein they have come
to stand;"’ but if Peter had meant this, he
would not have written aAnéy, but aAnéws. In
this interpretation also the rule of assimilation
ie wrongly applied.
3 According to several commentators,
ovvecd., though not meaning definitely Peter’s
wife, yet refers to some other excellent woman
of the church. Wolf even thinke it may be
understood as a proper name.
8 It is far-fetched when Schott says that 4
cuvexd. 7 dv Baf. is not written here, but » é»
Baf, cvvend., because the very fact of her be-
‘
340 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
According to Eusebius (H. E., c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that
the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be
understood. The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus,
Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters;! in
more recent times, by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.
The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are—
(1) The tradition of the primitive Church, which speaks of the apostle’s
stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2)
The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. xiv. 8, xviii.
2,10; (8) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the
Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph., Ant., i. 18, c. 12. But these
reasons are not conclusive, for—(1) The tradition has preserved altogether
very imperfect and uncertain notices of the apostles; (2) In Revelation
this designation is very naturally explained from the reference to O.-T.
prophecy; (3) The account of Josephus does not lead us to understand
that all the Jews were banished from Babylon and its vicinity (see
Mayerhoff, p. 128 ff., and Wieseler, p. 557 f.).2 Although De Wette’s
rejoinder, that “the allegorical designation is unnatural in a letter, espe-
cially in the salutation,” may be going too far, still it is improbable that
Peter, in simply conveying a greeting, would have made use of an allegorical
name of a place, without ever hinting that the designation was not to be
taken literally. This could admit of explanation only if, at the time the
epistle was written, it had been customary among the Christians to speak
of Rome as Babylon; and that it was so, we have no evidence. Accordingly,
Erasmus, Calvin, Gerhard, Neander, De Wette-Briickner, Wieseler, Weiss,
Bleek, Reuss, Fronmiiller, etc., have justly declared themselves opposed to
the allegorical interpretation. The view that by Babylon is meant the
Babylon in Egypt mentioned by Strabo, i. 17 (Pearson, Calov, Vitringa,
Wolf), has nothing to commend it, the less so that this Babylon was simply
a military garrison.* — xai Mapxog 6 vidg wov]. The correct interpretation of
vidg nov is given already by Oetumenius: Mdpxov viév, cara rvevua xadei, GAd’ ob
xara capxa. It is undoubtedly the well-known companion of Paul who is
meant. Since, according to Acts, Peter was acquainted with his mother,
it is probable that Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter. The
idea that Peter here speaks of a son of his own after the flesh, named
Mark (Bengel, Hottinger, Jachmann, etc.), could receive support only if
ovvexAexth Were used to designate the apostle’s wife.
ing in Babylon (i.e., Rome) makes the church
&@ ovvexdexty, i.e., the real associate of the
churches who read the epistle; namely, in as
far as thus reference is made to a like condi.
tion of suffering.
1 Lorinus remarks: ‘‘ Omnes quot quot lege-
rim interpretes catholic! romanam Iintelligunt
ecclesiam.” Calvin says of this interpretation :
‘*hoc commentum Papistae Iibenter arripiunt,
ut videatur Petrus romanae ecclesiae prae-
fuisee.”
? Hofmann maintains that it is ‘‘indiscov-
erable how Peter had come to know the two
Pauline Epistles to the Romans and Ephe-
sians,” if he wrote his epistie in Babylon.
But the composition of the epistle in Rome is
not by any means proved by eo uncertain an
assertion.
3 It is clearly quite arbitrary when some
scholars, like Capellue, Spanbeim, and Sem-
ler, understand Babylon here as a name for
Jerusalem, or even for the house where the
apostles were assembled on the day of Pente-
cost.
CHAP. V. 14. 841
Ver. 14. domacaste GAAnAove tv gAnuaTt dyarnc]. Paul usés a similar
expression, Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26.
The members of the church are by turns to greet one another (not each
other in Peter's name) with the kiss of charity, thus testifying to their
brotherly love for each other (see Meyer on 1 Cor. xvi. 26). Instead of
the Pauline: év dyiw oA., there is here: év gid. dyanne, “with the kiss of love,”
i.e., the kiss, which is the type and expression of Christian brotherly love.
— The final benediction is likewise similar to those in the epistles of Paul;
only that in these ydpec stands in the place of eipzvn (Eph. vi. 28, 24, both
occur; cf. too, 3 John 15). By the addition of roi év Xp., the mavre¢ are
designated according to their nature as such, who live in union with Christ,
and to whom, therefore, the benediction here pronounced belongs.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.— OCCASION, CONTENTS, AND CHARACTER OF THE
EPISTLE.
Tue epistle on its own testimony professes to have been written by the
Apostle Peter (chap. i. 1, 14, 16-18, iii. 1, 15), subsequent to his first epistle
(chap. iii. 1; comp. also i. 16), and addressed to the same churches. Its
occasion and aim are stated in chap. iii. 17,18. The author is in anxiety
as to the false teachers who were about to appear, — he nevertheless pictures
them as actually present,—and therefore he wishes to warn his readers
against them, that they might not be led astray, and exhorts them to grow
in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The false teachers against whom the epistle is directed are the Libertines
(chap. ii.), and the deniers of the parousia of Christ, and the destruction of
the world connected therewith (chap. iii.). It is commonly assumed that
_ in chap. iii.'the persons meant are the same as those described in chap. ii.
But an identity of this kind is nowhere suggested; indeed, the way and the
terms in which the éumaixra: are introduced in chap. iii. seem rather to indi-
cate that by the latter — although mention is also made of their sensual life
(xara rac idiag abrav émOuuag mopevouevor) — different individuals are intended
from those portrayed in chap. ii. (Weiss). — De Wette’s opinion, that the
author had in his eye “vicious persons” simply, and not “false teachers,”
is erroneous, it being abundantly evident from vv. 18, 19, that the persons
described in chap. ii. based their actions on a definite principle; moreover,
they are expressly termed peudodidioxadm, ver. 1. It is also equally erroneous
to take them to be Gnostics, properly so called, or more particularly, with
Grotius, followers of Carpocrates. Bertholdt calls them Sadducee Chris-
tians, but this term is wanting in the necessary precision. Cf. my Iutro-
duction to Jude's Epistle.
343
844 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
The epistle falls into two principal divisions, each consisting of two
parts. In the first part of the first division (chap. i. 1-11), the author
reminds the Christians of the blessings, more especially the érayyéAuara, of
which by the power of God they had been made partakers, linking on to
this the exhortation to give abundant proof of the virtues which are the
fruits of faith,— those especially in which he that is wanting is like unto
one blind, and he only who possesses can enter into the eternal kingdom of
Christ. — In the second part (chap. i. 12-21), the author, as the Apostle
Peter, mentions first, what had induced him to give the exhortation at this
particular time, and then refers his readers to the certainty of Christ’s
advent, confirmed as it was both by the divine words which hir:nself had
heard at the Saviour'’s transfiguration and by the prophecies of the Old
Covenant. —In the first part of the second division (chap. ii.), the author
portrays the immoral character of the Libertines. He begins by announ-
cing their coming, future as yet; calls them deniers of the Lord who would
seduce many, but would not escape punishment (vv. 1-8); then he proves
the certainty of their punishment by the examples of the fallen angels, those
who perished in the Flood, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, not for-
getting, however, in the last two cases to call to remembrance Noah and
‘Lot, just men both, and therefrom to draw the conclusion as to the right-
eousness of God (vv. 4-9). In vv. 10-22 follows the more minute descrip-
tion of the sensual character of the false teachers. — The author commences
the last part of this division by stating the design of this second epistle, and
then goes on to mention the scoffers who would walk after their own lusts,
and would deny the advent of the Lord (chap. iii. 1-4); this he follows up
by a refutation of the arguments on which the denial is based, foretelling
the coming destruction of the world by fire, and representing the apparent
delay of the judgment as an act of divine patience (vv. 5-10); and to this
he subjoins the exhortation to a holy walk in expectation of the new heaven
and the new earth (vv. 11-13). — The epistle concludes with the mention
of the Apostle Paul’s epistles, coupled with the warning against wresting
the difficult passages contained in them. Finally, the author gives forth
exhortations by way of caution, in which he makes apparent the design of
the epistle; on this follows the doxology.
The fundamental idea which runs through the whole epistle is that of
the éxiyvwou Xporod, which consists essentially in the acknowledgment of the
divayuc Kal rapoveia of Christ. Advancement in this éxiyrwor, as the ground
and aim of the exercise of all Christian virtue, is the prominent feature of
every exhortation. Hence the rijua tray)éduara are designated as that by
INTRODUCTION. 845
which xowwvia with the divine nature is effected, and which must move the
Christian to show all zeal in supplying the Christian virtues. The author
is therefore at pains to prove the certain fulfilment of those promises, and
to refute the sceptical doubts of the false teachers.
As regards its structure, the epistle has encountered much adverse criti-
cism from the opponents of its authenticity. Mayerhoff reproaches it, more
especially, with a clumsy and illogical development; but it cannot fail to be
observed that there is a clear and firm line of thought, by which all particu:
lars are joined together and form a well-arranged whole (cf. Brickner, Einl.,
§ 1a; Hofmann, p. 121 ff.). The thoughts which form the commencement
of the epistle prepare the way for the warnings against the false teachers,
and have as their aim the concluding exhortations which point back to the
heresy. The prominence given to the thought that ra mpdc Gui nai evoeBeav
are bestowed upon us (i. 8), and the exhortation to furnish the Christian
virtues (i. 5-11), are all aimed at the false teachers, who would indulge in
doeAyeiacs, and by whom the dddc rig dAndeiag would be brought into disrepute
(ii. 2); whilst the emphasis laid on the énayyéAyara (i. 4), a8 also the refer-
ence to the incidents of the transfiguration as a proof of the divayse xa
nanovoia Of Christ (i. 16-18), point to the prophetic announcement of the
coming of the é¢uraixras who would deny the advent of the Saviour (iii.3 ff.).
Still, it is surprising that the whole of the second chapter may be omitted
without the connection of thought being in any way injured thereby. For
inasmuch as the scoffers are characterized as men who walk xara rag idac
abvrov émidvuiac, the moral exhortations introduced in i. 3, 4, and to which
- lil. 12 has retrospect, may be applicable to them also; and although ii. 1 is
closely connected with i. 19-21 by the words: éyévovro dé xal pevdorpopirat tv
Ty Aaw, YOt prvnobiva: rov mpoeipnuévuy pnuctuv tnd rav dyiwy npognrov (iii 2) can
equally be joined with them. It may accordingly be conjectured that
chap. ii. was afterwards added, either by the writer himself, or by some
later hand; but, again, opposed to such a supposition is the circumstance
that chap. ii. in no way disturbs the unity of the whole.
Besides several echoes of the Pauline Epistles and the First Epistle of
Peter, this letter, as is well known, presents in the second chapter, and in
one or two passages of the first and third, a striking resemblance to the
Epistle of Jude, which cannot possibly be considered accidental. Rather
must one of these epistles be regarded as the original, of which the author
of the other made use. In former times the prevalent view was, that the
Second Epistle of Peter was the original (thus Luther, Wolf, Semler, Storr,
Pott, etc.); but afterwards the opposite opinion obtained most favor (thus
846 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
already Herder, Hug, Eichhorn, Credner, Neander, Mayerhoff, De Wette,
Guericke) ; and in more recent times it has been supported by Reuss, Bleek,
Arnaud, Wiesinger, Brickner, Weiss, and F. Philippi,—that is to say, not
only by opponents of the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, but by
defenders of it also (Wiesinger, Briickner, Weiss). A different judgment,
however, is passed by Thiersch, Dietlein, Stier, Luthardt, Schott, Steinfass,
Fronmiiller, Hofmann. Appeal is made chiefly to this circumstance, that at
the time when the Epistle of Jude was composed, the false teachers were
already present, while in Second Peter their appearance is looked upon as
future, and is the subject of prophecy. But this, as Weiss has shown, is an
argument only in appearance, and is in no way capable of proof. That the
passages Jude 17 and 18 have no reference to 2 Pet. ii. 1-3 and iii. 2, 3, is
plain from this, that had Jude seen in the appearance of the Libertines the
fulfilment of the prediction contained in Second Peter, he would have styled
them, not éumaixra, «.7.A,, but rather pevdudidioxadot. For in Second Peter it
is not the Libertines described in chap. ii. that are called éuraixra:, but the
deniers of the parvusia spoken of in chap. iii.,. whom Jude does not even
mention. Nor is it easy to see why Jude, if in vv. 17 and 18 he really had
in his mind the prophecy given by Peter, should not have directly said so,
but should rather have spoken of the actual word of the actual Peter as ra
pnuara rd mpoeipnuéva ind THY anooToAwy rov xupiov. In favor of the view that
the Second Epistle of Peter is dependent on the Epistle of Jude, is the
latter’s entirely individual manner of thought and diction, which bears:
the distinct impress of originality;! whilst in Second Peter, on the other
hand, there is apparent the endeavor to tone down the expression by simpli-
fication, addition, or omission. Further, the circumstance that the more
the expression in Peter's second epistle coincides with that of Jude, the
more does what is otherwise peculiar to the epistle tend to disappear.?
And, finally, the absence of any tenable reason which might have induced
1 Herder: ‘‘ See whata thoroughly powerful
epistle, like a fire-wheel running back into
iteelf; take now that of Peter, what introduc.
tion he makes, how he tones down, omits, con-
firms,” etc.; ‘‘Jude has always the most
precise and the strongest expression.”” Even
Schott grants, in opposition to Dietlein, ‘‘ that
the Epistle of Jude bears the impress of much
greater literary originality on the part of the
writer than that of Second Peter; ” and that
“it must be allowed to possess a by far
greater intellectual originality and pithi-
ness.”
2 Thie Weiss brings very decidedly for-
ward: ‘It plainly appears, that wherever in
the parallel passages it strikingly coincides
with that of Jude, the expression is to be
found nowhere else In Second Peter; but
wherever it deviates from that of Jude, or
becomes entirely fudependent, it is at once in
surprising conformity with the form of ex-
pression in this or the First Epistle of Peter.”
INTRODUCTION. 847
Jude to collect together separate passages from a larger apostolic writing, in
order to compose therefrom a new epistle, which, seeing that the former
was already in existence, must have had the less significance that it omite
from the delineation important particulars which are contained in Second
Peter.!
In discussing the question as to which !s the original epistle, two points
must be remembered: (1) ‘‘ That in neither have we a slavish dependence or a
mere copy, but that the correspondence of the one with the other is carried out
with literary freedom and license” (Weiss); and (2) The circumstance that this
question is not identical with that as to the authenticity of the Second Epistle
of Peter; Wiesinger, Weiss, Briickner, defend its authenticity, although they
question its priority. — The reasons which Schott adduces for the priority of
the Epistle of Jude are simple assertions, which a closer examination by no
means justifies, inasmuch as they are either plainly arbitrary, or presuppose
artificial interpretations and pure inventions. Steinfass thinks, strangely
enough, that to accept the originality of Jude’s Epistle is somewhat hazardous
for that composition itself, and not only for Second Peter, inasmuch as on the
assumption he takes the repeated reference to the pseudo-Enoch to be an
offence, many examples a redundancy, much conciseness restraint, and the
whole arrangement pretty much confusion. Fronmiiller bases his argument for
the priority of Second Peter specially on this, that it is inconceivable that
Peter, the prince of the aposties, should have borrowed expressions, figures, and
examples from one who was plainly less gifted than himself. Hofmann would
completely settle the whole question by asserting that Peter composed his
second epistle soon after his first; that is to say, before the destruction of
Jerusalem, while Jude wrote after (ver. 5!) that event. But when, neverthe-
less quite superfluously, he by way of proof goes Into particulars, he, on the
one hand, bases his arguments on many unjustifiable assertions: as, for exam-
ple, that Peter exhorts to a holy walk, but Jude to the aggressive maintenance
of the Christian faith, or that Jude was dealing only with some unworthy
members of the church in the present, whilst Peter had in view teachers who
were to arise in the future; and, on the other hand, the proofs he adduces have
also to be supported by erroneous interpretations, and judgments purely sub-
jective. —1f now, following the course of thought in the Epistle of Jude, we
consider the individual passages in their relation to what Is similar to them In
2 When Luthardt thinks to explain this by fact that the latter epistle treats equally at
observing ‘‘that Jude could certainly assume _ length of the false teachers, and that conse-
that his readers were acquainted with Second quently Jude might have left his entire letter
Peter, in which enough had already been said unwritten.
as to the wapovcia,” he entirely overlooks the
348 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Second Peter, these results are obtained: In the opening of his epistle, Jude
introduces his opponents without any bias as rivég dvipwnoe, without even hint-
ing that they are those whose appearance Peter had before predicted. The first
description of them by rv 10d Oeod Quov xapira perarivévres ei¢ doéAyeav is
peculiar to Jude. It is in no way probable that the expression aoéAyea is taken
from the passage 2 Pet. ii. 2. The following deorérnv apvovpevor is found in
Peter also, but to whom it originally belongs cannot be concluded from the
nearer definitions connected therewith. The fact that the particular features
by which Jude characterizes his opponents are to be found in 2 Pet. ii. 1-3,
others being here added, however, and with a less original turn of expression,
tends to show rather that the Epistle of Jude had exercised an influence on
* that of Peter than vice versa (Wiesinger). In the one epistle as in the other,
the examples of divine judgment follow the first and special description of the
adversaries. Yet these are not in both the same, and in Peter’s epistle, in
the second and third cases, there is added to the mention of the punishment of
the ungodly a reference to the deliverance of the just, more especially of Noah
and Lot. The order in which the examples of judgment are brought forward is,
in Peter’s composition, chronological, and in so far eminently natural; still the
selection of the first is striking, since in Gen. vi. 2 ff. there is no mention made
of a punishment of the angels. Now, as there is nothing in the connection of
. thought here which could have determined Peter to bring forward this example,
he must have been moved to do so by something external to it, that is, by the
influence which the Epistle of Jude had upon him. The order of examples of
judgment in Jude is of so singular a nature, that so far from showing even the
faintest trace of a dependence on Peter, it is rather on the assumption of any
such quite incomprehensible. How could it ever have occurred to Jude, sup-
posing he drew from Second Peter, to place the case of the unbelieving Israel-
ites first, and to omit that of the Flood ? Jude’s manner of presentation is based
on a conception so entirely original, that it cannot possibly have been suggested
to him by that in Second Peter. It is difficult to see what could have moved
Jude to avoid the two-sided character of Peter’s examples, if it really lay before
him: it was equally well suited to his purpose. Noticeable, also, is the latter’s
prevailing tendency to generalization. The last two examples adduced by Jude
have reference to a quite definite sin, the éxmopvevew xai anépxecdat Oriow capKds
érépas; Peter, on the other hand, deals only with the general distinction between
godly and ungodly; and whilst Jude characterizes the conduct of the angels as
it lay to his hand in the tradition, or in the Book of Enoch itself, Peter con-
tents himself with the more general auaptnoavrwy, and avoids all distinct refer-
ence to that tradition. But whence had he, then, the cemai¢ Gogov, «.7.4., if he
did not write under the influence of Jude’s epistle? After the examples of
judgment, there follows, in both epistles, the description of the Libertines,
according to their sensual walk, and their despising and defamation of the
INTRODUCTION. 349
supernatural powers. Amidst much that is similar, there are, nevertheless,
many points of disagreement, so that, in general, it may be open to dispute in
which epistle the more original expression prevails. This is, however, not the
case as regards the difference between Jude 9 and 2 Pet. ii. 11, for instead of
Jude’s concrete description according to apocryphal tradition, we have again in
Peter, as in the mention of the angels formerly, an entirely general expression,
which, however, must refer to something special. It has indeed been asserted
(Schott, Hofmann) that Peter’s expression finds its explanation in Zech. fii. 1:
but if the apostle had this verse in view, he would have made more distinct
reference to it; nor, again, could any reason be assigned why Jude should have
alluded, not to the fact recorded in that passage, but to one entirely apocryphal.
This also speaks decidedly in favor of the priority of Jude’s epistle. Dicetlein
asserts with regard to Jude 10, as compared with 2 Pet. ii. 12, “‘that the
higher degree of pure elaboration proves Jude to have been the reviser;’’ but
this is unjustifiable, as even Steinfass admits. Wiesinger and Brickner rightly
say, that here also, in the whole mode of expression, the priority of Jude’s
epistle is recognizable. —In Jude the woe follows, breaking in upon the text,
and as the basis of it, the comparison of the Libertines with Cain, Balaam, and
Korah. To this is added a more minute description of them in a series of
figurative expressions, coupled with Enoch’s prophecy of judgment. In the
Epistle of Peter, subjoined to g@apjcovra:, ver. 12, Is the reference to the reward
of the ddcxia of the Libertines, and on this a description of the adeaia itself, —
the false teachers being then at the end classed along with Balaam. It is only
after this that several figurative designations follow, which are based on their
propagandist doings. The grouping is accordingly different in each of the
epistles; and otherwise, with much that is coincident in detail, there are many
divergences. The train of thought is in both epistles equally suited to the
subject-matter, only it is somewhat strange that Jude, if he had the Epistle
of Peter before him, should ever have thought of Interrupting the connection of
ideas here existing between vv. 12 and 13 by a woe. This paragraph clearly
shows that the dependence of the one author on the other is not to be looked
upon as of such a nature that the later changed, and arranged with designed
elaboration, the writings of the earlier, but only, that in the description of the
same object, the manner of presentation of the latter had wrought with mani-
fold determination upon that of the former. The divergences which here occur
are more easily explained on the assumption that the Epistle of Jude, and not
that of Peter, was the earlier. Were it otherwise, it would certainly be diffi-
cult to understand how Jude left unnoticed not only the characteristic o¢@adyode¢
byovrec pectove uorxadidoc, but also the repeatedly recurring deAec(ovtec, and the
references generally to the propagandist designs. With regard to this differ-
ence, that Jude speaks of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, whilst Peter mentions
Balaam only, it is more natural to suppose that Peter, leaving the other two
350 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
unnoticed, refers simply to Balaam because the latter appeared to him a par-
ticularly fitting type of the Libertines (on account of their rAcovegia, to which
special prominence is given, and to which the suo600 of Jude alludes; whilst in
the case of the others there is no such distinctive trait), than to assume that
Jude added the two other illustrations to that of Balaam which he had before
him in the Epistle of Peter. The priority of Jude’s epistle may be recognized
in this also, that the somewhat striking expression s:o600 is, in the composition
of Peter, supplemented by the explanatory, 6¢ puofdv ddixiag hydmnoev, Highly
characteristic, too, is the relation of the two clauses Jude 12a and Pet. fi. 18),
especially in their corresponding expressions: omAddec in Jude, and onidoe xai
uouo in Peter, and év raic ayanacg buoy there, and év rai¢ amdrae avtéy here. In
spite of the different expressions, the influence of the one on the other {s
unmistakable; and it is equally plain that it was not Jude who wrote under
the influence of Peter, but Peter under that of Jude. For, what could have
induced Jude to substitute for the clear expression of Peter the uncommon
onAades, — which, besides, has a different meaning, —and to change the much
more general idea arutacg into the special conception ayanac? Whatever may
be thought of Weiss’ opinion, that Peter allowed himself to be guided simply
by the sound of the words, we must certainly agree with him when he says that
‘‘Schott’s attempt to save the originality of Peter’s epistle rests on the entirely
untenable assumption that the Petrine passage has reference to the love-
feasts.’? — His omission of the passage from Enoch, quoted by Jude, can be
easily enough explained, inasmuch as it was Peter’s predominating desire to
allow what was apocryphal to recede, especially when by doing so no essential
thought was omitted, and in chap. fi. 1, 2, distinct enough reference had been
already made to the future judgment. But it is difficult to see what possible
reason Jude could have had for inserting the passage from the Apocrypha in
addition to what he found in Peter. — In what follows, each epistle goes its own
way, and there are to be found but few traces of any influence of either on the
other. Those few are as follows: (1) The xara rac érefuplag abrov ropevourve: in
Jude 16, 17, and Pet. iil. 3, and the éuaixra: closely connected herewith. With
regard to this last expression, it is more than improbable that Jude borrowed it
from Peter’s epistle, it being there applied to the deniers of the parousia, whom
Jude does not even mention. Peter, on the other hand, might easily have
adopted this designation from the Epistle of Jude as very applicable to those
who called the advent in question, the more so that he had already spoken of
the Libertines as pevdodiddoxado, Thus, too, is explained the addition from
Jude’s epistle of xara rdg . . . mopevduevor, which otherwise, as applied by Peter
to a special heresy, is somewhat surprising. (2) The term tnépoyxa, Jude 16
and Pet. fi. 18; Jude employs it without any nearer definition, but Peter in
relation to éAevdepiav inayyéAAcobaz. This, too, speaks for the priority of Jude’s
composition; for it is not conceivable that Jude, in adopting the expression,
INTRODUCTION. 351
would have left unnoticed its nearer definition presented by Peter; whilst, on
the other hand, the latter might easily have borrowed it from Jude’s epistle, as
well suited to the end he had in view. — The result, then, of an unbiassed
comparison can be no other than this, that the Second Epistle of Peter was
composed under the influence of what Jude had written, and not vice versa.
This has been proved by Brickner, Wiesinger, and Weiss in their investi-
gations, which have in part been conducted with more attention to particular
detail.
SEC. 2.—THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
Eusebius (7. E., ii. 23, iii. 5) rightly includes this epistle among the
Antilegomena, its genuineness having been called in question by many.
Origen already expressly says (Eusebius, H. E., vi. 23): Weérpoe .. . piav
émaroAny duodoyounévny xaradéAonev* Eotw dé nal devtépav, dugeBaAAera yap. In
spite of this verdict, Origen—only, however, in the writings which we
possess in Latin translation —treats it as a genuine composition of the
apostle, citing it several times; see Homil. in Josuam vii., Homil. iv. in
Levitic., Homil. viii. in Numer., and Comment. in Ep. ad Romanos viii. 7.
—1f in his Comment. in Ev. Johannis he speak only of the First Epistle of
Peter as catholic, saying, with reference to 1 Pet. iii. 18-20: wept rig¢ év
gudaxg mopeiag pera mvebpatoc napa Te Tlétpy év ry xaGboduxg émoroAg, it can at most
be concluded from this, only that he refused to apply that name to the
second epistle, perhaps because it had not found general acceptation, but
not that he himself had any doubts as to its genuineness. — Origen’s
contemporary, too, Firmilianus of Caesarea, seems to have known the
epistle, and to have regarded it as genuine; for when, in his Epistle to
Cyprian (Epp. Cypr., ep. 75), he says that Peter and Paul have condemned
the heretics in suis epistolis, this seems, as far as Peter is concerned, to be
applicable to his second epistle only, as in the first there is no mention of any
such persons. — It cannot be definitely asserted that Clemens Alexandrinus
commented on this epistle in his Hypotyposes. According to Eusebius
(H. E., vi. 14): ev dé raic brorundoea fuvédovra einelv, naong rig tvdcabqxov ypagne
| émcrerunuévuc menoinras dinynoe ph 6& Tac avTiAeyouévac mapedbur Tv 'lovda Aéyw Kal
tag Aoinag tmicroAas: rhv te BapyaGa xal rip Tlérpov Aeyouévyy amoxaAupur Kai riyv mpd¢
"Eppaiouc dé tmioroAjy, x.7r.A., Clement commented on the whole of the N. T.
writings, the Antilegomena included, and therefore Second Peter, which
Eusebius designates as an émoroAd dvriAey. To this, however, the remark of
Cassiodorus is opposed (De Instit. Div. Script., c. 8): in eptstolis canonicis
Clemens Al., i.e., in ep. Petri prima, Joannis prima et secunda et Jacobi (or
852 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
rather Judae) quaedam attico sermone declaravit, ete. — Cum de reliquis
epistolis canonicis magna nos cogitatio fatigaret, subito nobis codex Didymi . . .
concessus est, etc. But as Cassiodorus expressly says in the Praefatio:
JSerunt itaque scripturas divinas V. et N. Testamenti ab ipso principio usque ad
Jinem graeco sermone declarasse Clementem Alex., it may be concluded from
this that he did not possess a complete copy of the Hypotyposes, but one
only in which several epistles of the N. T., and among these Second Peter,
were wanting. Whilst Briickner says that the remark of Cassiodorus is
no certain refutation of the statement made by Eusebius, Weiss declares
himself convinced that the epistle was not commented on by Clement. —
Neither in the writings of Tertullian nor of Cyprian is there to be found
any trace of an acquaintance with the epistle, though both of them know
and quote First Peter. — The epistle does not stand in the older Peshito, nor
is it mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. Previous to Clemens Al. it is
sought for in vain in the apostolic and in the older Church Fathers. As to
whether in these writers certain echoes of the epistle are to be found which
point to an acquaintance with it, Guericke, even, expresses himself very
doubtfully: “The allusions, in the case of some of the apostolic Fathers,
are not quite certain; but, on the other hand, Justin M., Irenaeus, and
Theophilus, do really appear to have made unmistakable reference to it.”
Thiersch (p. 362, D. A. Schr.) denies still more decidedly a reference in the
earlier Church Fathers to this epistle. “The two thoughts only,” says
Thiersch, “‘that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,’ and that
‘the end of the world will come as a conflagration,’ had at a very early
period obtained general diffusion throughout the Church;” but he himself
shows that these two ideas did not necessarily originate in this epistle.
Most of the recent critics agree with Thiersch. Entirely opposed to this,
however, is the judgment of Dietlein; he fancies he finds, not only in the
three Fathers already mentioned, but in Polycarp, Ignatius, Clemens
Romanus, Barnabas, and Hermes, not in some few passages merely, but
“scattered in large numbers throughout the writings of each of them,”
indisputable references to our epistle. In his endeavor to discover these,
however, Dietlein has failed to observe that the writers of ecclesiastical
antiquity all drew! from the same store of conceptions, expressions, and
1 Even with regard to Philo, Dietlein says, | expressions, only the use they make of these is
‘¢ The coincidence between Philoand the N.T. very different.’”-— This remark is very just;
and primitive ecclesiastical writers ls by no but why does not Dietlein apply what he says
means always fortuitous.— Both draw abun- as to Philo to the relation between the primi-
dantly from the same storehouse of views and ____ tive Christian writers and those of the N. T. 2
INTRODUCTION. 353
phrases, and that a correspondence must necessarily take place, without the
dependence of any one upon another following therefrom. By far the most
of the passages in those apostolic Fathers to which Dietlein appeals attest
only a community of conception and expression, but not a dependence on
Second Peter, the less so that the harmony consists almost only in accidental
phrases and the like, and not in such ideas as are peculiarly characteristic
of our epistlé; nor has Dietlein been able to show a single sentence in
which there is an exact verbal agreement.
In the Epistle of Barnabas, the words, chap. xv., 7 7uépa rap’ atro (that is,
xuplw) xijua Ern, doubtless call up 2 Pet. ili. 8; but the thought to which they
give expression is there entirely different from that here. Besides, it must be
particularly observed —to this Thiersch calls attention—that the conception
of the days of the Messiah as a Sabbath of a thousand years is found in the
Mischnah, Tractat.,Sanhedrin, 97b, in connection with Ps. xc. 4; as, also, that
the authenticity of the Epistle of Barnabas is by no means so certain as Dietlein
presupposes. — All the other passages in this epistle to which Dietlein appeals
(especially in chaps. i. and ii., in the salutation and the conclusion of the
epistle) show points of similarity only, which by no means prove the existence
of definite references.1— So, too, with the passages from thé Epistle of Clemens
Romanus (chap. vii. init., comp. with 2 Pet. i. 12 and iii. 9; chap. viii., comp.
with 2 Pet. iii. 9, 16, 17; chap. ix., comp. with 2 Pet. i. 17, etc.; chap. xi. with
2 Pet. ii. 6, 7, etc.), and from that of Polycarp (chap. iii., comp. with 2 Pet. fii.
15, 16; chap. vi. fin., and vii. init., with 2 Pet. iii. 2, etc.).2 Had Polycarp
abundantiam
Is it because the application is in no way dif-
ferent ? But, according to his own account,
the material which the former drew directly
from the latter was often applied in a very
diverse manner; and though the difference
here be not so great as in the above case, !t Is
only natural it should be so, if the different
circumatances be considered.
1 When Barnabas, in the introduction to his
epistle, thus states the purpose of it: iva pera
THS Migtews TéACtay éexnTE Kai Thy yveocy, this
80 entirely corresponds with the contents of
the epistie that he certainly cannot have made
Second Peter his guide; that he makes use of
the verb omrovéacew ts all the less objectiona.
ble, that the word is a very common one. The
enumeration of the virtues (chap. if.) is en-
tirely different from that which occurs in
2 Pet. i. 5-8, and the words “‘magnarum et
honestarum Del aequitatum
eciens esse In yobis” Nave a very feeble simi-
larity to ra pdytora nuiy Kat Timea ewayyeApara
Sedwpyrar, 2 Pet. i. 4, especially as the connec-
tion of thought is of quite another kind.
3 Dietlein finds specially in Clement a mass
of references to Second Peter; but it is here
precisely that the way in which he strains the
most natural phrases and expreasions becomes
There is no foundation for the
assertions that the expression ¢v 79 aire écper
apparent.
oxauppan (which the words cai 4 avros Hui
ayer éwicecta: follow) bad its origin, by aseo-
ciation of ideas (!), In the é$° ogoy eit dv rovTe
tw oxnvepate Of Peter; that Clement was
stimulated by Peter to write the remarks in
chap. vil. and xi.; that when he wished to
account for the very special reverence in which
Paul was held, he, in doing so, did not act
*
854 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
really been acquainted with Second Peter, and had he wished to refer to it, it is
impossible to understand why he does not quote even one sentence from it
literally, as he certainly does from First Peter. — Still less than that of the
above-mentioned Fathers is the dependence of Ignatius on Second Peter capable
of proof, even in a single passage. — As regards Justin Martyr, the earlier
critics have traced back the expression in the Dialog. cum Tryph., c. 89 (p. 308,
Morelli’s edition): cuvvixapev ydp 10 eipnuévov, drt huépa Kuplov we xidua Ern, tig trovTo
ovvayets', to 2 Pet. iii. 8 as their original source ; but the words here have the
same meaning as in the Epistle of Barnabas, and, besides, differ still more
markedly from those of Second Peter. — Indeed, Justin himself seems to hint
that the words are not taken from an apostolic writing, for he cites them as a
saying not unknown to Trypho, whilst he expressly mentions the book of the
N. T., from which a quotation immediately following is taken: xa? Exetra (i.e.,
‘‘and then,” i.e., “Sand further’’) lwavyne . . . év aroxadiwe . . . mpoegnrevoe. —
Subsequently, indeed, Justin designates the false teachers as wevdodiddacoxadot (a
word which occurs, no doubt, in the N. T. only in Second Peter), and that,
similarly as in 2 Pet. if. 1, in connection with the false prophets among the
‘Jews; but this need occasion no surprise, since in after times the name was not
uncommon, and the application of it must have suggested itself at once to him
in conversation with a Jew.— Nor in Hermas either is there any quotation,
properly so called, from Second Peter. Still, appeal has been made to various |
expressions (in Vis. ill. 7, iv. 3) which no doubt may be traced back to that
epistle; and yet more is this the case in Vis. vii. Whilst, however, Wiesinger
admits the dependence on Second Peter, and Briickner is inclined to agree with
him, Weiss remarks, that in the Greek text, now brought to light, the supposed
references in Hermas lose every semblance of similarity. On the other hand,
Hofmann maintains that in Sim. vi. c. 2 ff., the peculiar connection of rpv¢7
with dary, etc., as also the singular caJculation, for how long a time pain would
follow one day of luxurious living, can only be explained by a reference to
Second Peter; and, further, that the vision of the seven virtues (Sim. fii. c. 8)
could have had 2 Pet. i. 5-7 as a pattern. Both of these assertions are very
questionable. —In Theophilus (Ad Autol.) it is two passages principally that
recall our epistle; in the one it is said of the prophets (1. II. c. 11, ed. Wolfii,
Hamb., 1724): of de rov Ocod GvOpumae mvevuarogdpoe mvevuaroc dyiov Kal mpooiras
yevourvat tr’ avtod Tov Oeob éumvevobévres Kal coguobévres Eyévovro Geodidaxtoc Kai Sore
without reference to 2 Pet. ifi.15! By what does so, as also to his controversy with the
right are expressions such as iraxor, perdvora, heretics who denied the avdcracis. Yet here,
8icatocuyn, ranevodpocvmm, etc., stamped as too, it Is presupposed that similarities are due
pecullarly Petrine ? — Dietlein attaches special = entirely to direct reference; and, moreover, no
importance, both to the fact that Polyearp account whatever ies taken of the relation in
mentions Paul, and to the manner !n which he which Volycarp stood to Clement.
INTRODUCTION. 355
cat dixacm; in the other (1. II. c. 1) with reference to the Logos: 7 dtéragic rot
Geod rovrd tory 6 Adyog abrod gaivuy Gomep Abxvog ev olxnpatt ovvexouévy, The simi-
larity of the former passage with 2 Pet. i. 21, and of the latter with 2 Pet. i. 18,
is indisputable; but that the one had its origin in the other remains certainly
doubtful, the points of difference being not less marked than those of agree-
ment. The conception formed of the prophets is in both cases the same, no
doubt, but it was also the view generally prevalent, and is found even in Philo;
cf, the exposition of 2 Pet. |. 21; the manner of expression, too, is not a little
different. As regards the other passages, it must be observed that there is
agreement neither in the figure employed (év olajpart cvvexouévw instead of év
abyunpw Tom), nor with respect to the object spoken of. — In Irenaeus the thought
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years is again found, and that in
two passages (Adv. Haeres., v. 23 and 28), but in neither of them is it hinted
that the words are taken from an apostolic writing. If it had not its origin in
some collection of proverbs then in circulation, it is very probable that Irenaeus
borrowed it from Justin, since he too uses the expression: 7uépa xupiov (not mapa
xupiw). — Dietlein, indeed, thinks that instances of reference on Irenaeus’ part
to Second Peter may be richly accumulated, the more the finding of them is
made an object of study (!). But Irenaeus nowhere mentions the epistle, nor
does he anywhere make a quotation from it, —a circumstance more surprising
in his case than in that of Polycarp, if he really knew the epistle, and considered
it to be an apostolic writing. Cf. Brickner, Einl, § 4.
The result of an unbiassed examination is, that in Ignatius there are to
be found no references to Second Peter; in Clemens Rom., Barnabas, and
Polycarp, none in any way probable; in Justin Martyr, Hermas, and The-
ophilus, none certain; and, further, that Irenaeus cannot be looked upon as
a guaranty for the existence and authority of the epistle in the Church. [If,
then, the apostolic Fathers had already made use of this composition, more
especially in the manner in which Dietlein holds that they did, it would be
impossible to explain not only how the doubts, spoken of by Origen, arose,
but also the circumstance that the epistle is mentioned neither by Tertullian
nor by Cyprian. Dietlein’s assertion, that the older Fathers of the Church,
in making more frequent reference to the Pauline Epistles than to the
Petrine, did, in doing 80, but follow the hints which Peter himself gave in
chap. iii. 15, 16, explains nothing: for, on the one hand, no such hint is
contained in that passage; and, on the other, the first epistle must have
shared the same fate as the second, which is not the case. — Thiersch, as
already remarked, whilst admitting that it cannot be proved that any of the
early Church Fathers made reference to Second Peter, at the same time
856 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
allows that none of the reasons which explain the subordinate position held
by the Antilegomena as compared with the Homologoumena, are applicable
to this epistle. He is therefore driven to account for the fact that this
epistle was not included among the subjects of regular anagnosis, by saying
that this was due to the fear lest a too-early disclosure—as made in his
words of thunder (?) — of the evil, in its whole scope, would have had the
effect of hastening on the otttbreak of it, more especially at a time when all
minds were being stirred to their very depths, as was the case when the
canon of the Homologoumena was fixed. But this reason is in itself very
improbable, for there could certainly have been no better weapon against
the advancing evil than the word of an apostle, and especially of Peter.
Thus, too, the reflection is cast upon Peter, that he was here wanting in true
apostolic wisdom, inasmuch as he composed an epistle which could have no
other than a disturbing influence. And what, then, is to be said of Jude,
who made into a special epistle the sharpest passages, and those likely to
exercise that influence most strongly |!
The circumstance that the epistle is not mentioned by the earliest Fathers
of the Church remains all the more surprising, when it is considered how
important the polemic it contains against errors of the worst kind must
have made it appear to them. Wiesinger thinks that the exception taken
to it by Hieronymus on linguistic grounds (see below), as well as the dog-
matic objections raised to it, would be less likely to recommend for use an
epistle so special in its contents. But opposed to this is—(1) That if the
churches to whom it is addressed did receive it from Peter, they would
hardly have compared it in the matter of style with the first epistle; (2)
That it affords no ground for dogmatic objection; (3) That the special
character of its contents is precisely of such a nature as to promote its use,
rather than to be an obstacle in the way of it. Weiss justly maintains that
the question, how it can be explained that there are no certain traces of the
epistle in the second century, is as yet unsolved, in that what has been urged
in the way of solution by the defenders of the genuineness, is in a great
measure arbitrary and insufficient.
After the time of Eusebius, the epistle was generally treated as canonical;
yet Gregory of Nazianzum already says (Carm. 33, ver. 35): xu@oduxav énto-
today rivec pby Era gaat, of dé rpet¢ uovac ypivat déxeobac; and Hieronymus (S. de
Script. Eccl., c. 1), who himself holds the genuineness of the epistle, remarks
that its Petrine origin is denied by most, and withal propter styli cum priore
dissonantiam. — Although it was not in the Peschito, Ephraem Syrus made
no doubt as to its genuineness; meantime, and notwithstanding, doubt long
INTRODUCTION. 357
maintained itself in the Syrian Church, as may be-seen from the words of
Cosmas Indicopleustes (Christ. Topographia, lib. vi.): mapa Lipo dé et pH ai
Tpeig povat ai mpoyéypoppévat oby Evpioxovrat, ‘laxa ov xal Térpov xai 'lwavvou* ai dAAat
yap obre xeivrat map’ avroic,
In the Middle Ages all doubts were silenced, but at the time of the Refor-
mation they immediatély revived. Erasmus already said that, juxta sensum
humanum he did not believe that the epistle was the composition of Peter;
and Calvin is of opinion that there are several probabiles conjecturae, from
which it can be concluded that the epistle is the work rather of some one
other than Peter. — The older Lutheran dogmatists are not inclined to insist
positively on its genuineness, on the ground that the church does not possess
the power, quod possit ex falsis scriptis facere vera, ex veris falsa, ex dubiis et
incertis facere certa, canonica et legitima (Chemnitz, Ez. Conc. Trid., ed. 1615,
Francof., p. 87 ff.).
obliterate, more and more, the distinction between homologoumena and
Although the later writers on dogmatics gradually
antilegomena, and our epistle in ecclesiastical use is treated increasingly as
@ canonical writing, yet doubt did not wholly disappear. Indeed, since
Semler it has grown to such an extent that Schwegler (D. Nachapost. Zeitalt.,
Bd. 1, p. 491) feels warranted in saying: “From Calvin, Grotius, Scaliger,
and Salmasius, to Semler, Neander, Credner, and De Wette, the voices of
all competent authorities have united in doubting and rejecting it.” — This
is, however, saying too much, for there has never been any want of compe-
tent authorities to defend its genuineness. Still, the general voice had cer-
tainly become always more unfavorable to the epistle, — till in recent times
new defenders of its authenticity appeared.!_ Many critics hold that genuine
and spurious parts may be distinguished in the epistle; thus Berthold in his
Einl. z. N. T., and C. Ullmann in his work, Der 2 Brief Petri kritisch
untersucht, Heidelb., 1821. The former regards the second chapter as spu-
rious, the latter the third also. The first of these two views is refuted by
the fact that not the second chapter alone, but likewise several passages of
the third, bear a similarity to Jude’s epistle; and against that of Ullmann are
1 As defenders of its authenticity may be
specially named, Nitzeche (Zp. Petri posterior
auctori suo imprimis contra Grotium vindi-
cata, Lips., 1785), C. C. Flatt (@enuina secun-
dae ep. Petri origo denuo defenditur, Tub.,
1806), J. C. W. Dabl (Ve Authentia ep. Petri
poster. et Judae, Rost., 1807), F. Windisch-
mann (Vindiciae Petrinae, Ratisb., 1836),
A. L. C. Heydenreich (Zin Wort eur Ver-
theidigung der Aechtheit des 2 Br. Petri,
Herborn, 1837), Guericke (who in his Beitrdge
had expressed doubts as to the authenticity) ;
besides these Pott, Augueti, Hug, etc.; and in
most recent times, Thierach, Stier, Dietlein,
Hofmann, Luthardt, Wiesinger, Schott, Weiss, :
Steinfasa; Briickner is not quite decided.
308 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the circumstances that the first chapter has by no means the character of a
completed whole, while, as § 2 proves, there is a firm line of thought running
through the epistle,; and binding into a unity its several parts, from begin-
ning to end.
In discussing the question of the authenticity of our epistle, it will be
necessary to consider its relation to First Peter. If this latter be held to
be spurious, there is of course no need of any further investigation; for,
appealing as the second does to the first, it must share its fate. But since
First Peter must be regarded as genuine, a comparison of it with our epistle
is of the highest importance.
The doubts as to the authenticity of the second epistle, which result
from a comparison of the two writings with each other, are founded not on
a dissonantia styli only (Hieron.), but also on a diversity (although not a
contradiction) in the mode of conception. No doubt those who call the
authenticity in question have not unfrequently gone too far in the produc-
tion of alleged differences, but that such do exist cannot be denied. Of
these the following are the most important: The prominent feature in
both epistles is, indeed, the parousia of Christ, but the manner in which it is
spoken of is in each different: in the first epistle, the prevailing conception
is the éAnic; in the second, on the other hand, it is the éxiyywou, —the former
expression not occurring in the second epistle, nor the latter in the first.
In the first epistle, the day of the second advent is looked upon as imminent:
in the second, mention is indeed made of a sudden, but not of the near
arrival of that day; rather is it expressly indicated as possible that it would
not come till farther on in the future. In the first epistle, the chief stress is
laid on the glorification of believers which shall accompany the return of
Christ; in the second epistle, prominence is principally given to the catas-
trophe which shall overtake the whole creation in connection with the
advent, that is, to the destruction of the old world by fire, to give place to
the new heaven and the new earth. In addition to this, the advent is in the
first epistle designated by the word dzuxaéavye, and in the second by sapovcia.
The existence of this difference cannot, as opposed to Hofmann too, be
called in question. Even if, as Wiesinger strongly urges, the passage iii. 14, 15,
indicate that the parousia will be the glorification of believers, still the form
under which this is represented as taking place is different from that of the
first epistle. When Schott asserts that ‘‘the second epistle in no way, and
least of all ‘ expressly,’ alleges the possibility of a later realization of the parou-
sia,’ the statement loses its justification in presence of verse 8. Weiss’s
objection, that by éxiyywor is not to be understood a “theoretical knowledge
INTRODUCTION. 359
perfecting the Christian life,”’ is out of place here, for ériyywou and éAni¢ are
certainly different ideas; and even if Weiss be correct in saying that the expec-
tation of the near parousia is not abandoned in the second epistle, the differ-
ence in question would not be removed.
Whilst in the first epistle the saving truths of the death and resurrection
of Christ form the basis of the éAzic¢ and of the Christian’s moral life, in the
second epistle these are nowhere mentioned. Nor in the latter epistle is
there any trace to be found of the ideas peculiar to the former (cf. Intro-
duction to the epistle). And, on the other hand, the conceptions character-
istic of this epistle, as the view expressed in chap. i. 19; further, the idea
of the xonwvia with the divine nature secured by means of the érayyéAuara,
and the belief that the world was framed by God, and would perish again
by fire, — are nowhere hinted at in the first epistle.
These remarks, too, maintain their full force against the objections taken to
them; for the question here is not as to how these differences (not contradic-
tions) are to be explained, on the assumption of an identity of authorship, but
as to the fact, which cannot be called in question, that they actually do exist.
Is it beside the question for Schott, in reply to the remark that in the second
epistle the death and resurrection of Christ are not mentioned, to adduce a
mass of citations from it for the purpose of showing, what is no doubt true, that
the person of Christ is very decidedly brought forward as the guaranty of a
completed salvation, and the efficient origin of a holy walk; and all the more
that, in proportion as the person of Christ is insisted upon, the stranger does it
seem that an apostle like Peter should pass over those facts in silence ?
As regards the style and mode of expression in both epistles, it should not
be left unnoticed that Peter's literary character, as seen in his first epistle,
is not, like that of Paul or John, so sharply defined and original that each
of his productions reveals its authorship. And just as little must it be for-
gotten, that the first epistle in many passages recalls the epistles of Paul,
that the second is, to no inconsiderable extent, dependent on Jude, and that
consequently the peculiar character of Peter’s style is difficult to determine,
the more so that his writings are only of small extent.? Still many lin-
1 In opposition to what is said above, Schott from Eph. fi. 19; awodvydvres . . . dOopas,
maintains not only that the Epistle of Jude ie i. 4, from Rom. vill. 20 ff.; and the passage 1.
dependent on Second Peter, but also that 12 ff. from Rom. xv. 14, etc. The epietle, fur-
Second Peter contains echoes of the Pauline ther, is supposed to show a special dependence
Epistles. He thinke that ioéripos,i.1, arose on the Pastoral Epistles, i. 3-11 belng only an
860 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
guistic differences are to be found, which even in Hieronymus’ time
attracted attention, and which cannot be overlooked. It is not to be denied
that the freshness of expression of the first epistle, and its richness in com-
binations of thought, are here wanting. Whilst in the first epistle one
thought follows directly upon another in lively succession, the connection
in the second epistle is not unfrequently effected by means of conjunctions
which point back to what precedes, or by a formal resumption of what had
previously been said; cf. chap. i. 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, iii. 7,10, 12. And whilst,
too, in the first epistle there is a richness and variety in the use of prepo-
sitions expressive of manifold relationships, a conspicuous uniformity in this
respect prevails throughout the second epistle. Many peculiarities which
are characteristic of the diction of the first epistle (cf. Introd. to first epistle,
§ 2), are foreign to the second. In the use also of several single expressions
there is an established difference: xipeos, when used without more precise
definition, is in the second epistle a designation of God, cf. chap. ii. 9 (11),
iil. 8, 9, 10; in the first epistle,on the other hand, except in quotations from
the O. T., it is used of Christ, cf. chap. ii. 3,13. In the first epistle the
name Xprordc, when not joined with ‘Incoic, is frequently treated as a proper
name, cf. i. 11, 19, ii. 21, iii. 16, 18, iv. 1, 13, 14, v. 1; in the second epistle,
on the other hand, Xpeordc never occurs except in connection with 'Inovic.
And these divergences are all the more fitted to excite surprise, if, as Hof-
mann assumes, the second epistle was written very soon after the first.
1. The objection raised against the last remark, that the combination of
Xptord¢ with "Incove occurs also in the first epistle (Weisinger, Schott, Briickner),
is without force, since this is not, and never could have been, denied. And it
signifies equally little that, as Hofmann shows, in the second epistle (with the
adaptation of Tit. ii. 12-14, etc. Schott attaches
particular importance to this, that leading and
fundamental ideas in the epistle are employed
in the eame prominent manner only here and
in the Pastoral Epistles, as evedBeta, cveeBys,
aceBys, gwrnp, gwar, piacrw With its family,
emiyvwars, BAacdynueiy, ewayyéAAonar; a de-
pendence, too, on the Epistle to the Hebrews
he considers hardly less evident.— All these
assertions, however, are unwarranted. As a
matter of course, there are ideas expressed in
Second Peter which correspond to those con-
tained in other epistles; but this arises from
the oneness of the Christian faith, and is no
proof of a special reference to any of those
epistles. As regards the individual leading
and fundamental) ideas of the Pastoral Epistles
and of Second Peter, adduced by Schott, aveBns
(aveBeca) is to be found equally in the Epistle
to the Romans; owryp occurs in other N. T.
writings; cwéeyv is not used in Second Peter,
and as little is pracve; exiyrwors and BAacdn-
pecy are terms which are to be found often
enough in the N. T.; éwayyéAAopa: in 2 Pet.
ii. 19, has not the meaning which it has in First
Timothy; the terms evoeBys, evcdBara alone,
are almost the only ones which are peculiar to
these epistles.
INTRODUCTION. 861
exception of i. 1) "Ino. Xpioréc also is never to be found alone, but always in
connection with 6 xipioc quar, etc., since it cannot be denied that Xpcorde is used
by itself — often in the first, but never in the second epistle. — Of still less con-
sequence are the remarks of Hofmann as to the use of xvpeoc, When Schott
asserts that Xpordoc, with or without the article, wherever it stands in the first
epistle, denotes the Mediator as such, but that in the second epistle there is
nothing to lead to the mention of the Mediator, it must be remarked in reply,
that in the second epistle Christ is designated as the Mediator distinctly enough
by the name ourf7p.
2. Besides the differences here mentioned, Mayerhoff brings forward many
others. In doing so, however, he has gone much too far. Thus, he lays stress
on the fact that in the first epistle the exhortations are commenced concisely
with the imperative; in the second, on the other hand, with a circumlocutory
expression, e.g., i. 12, 13, 15, iii. 1, 2, 8. But in the first epistle, the latter
manner of beginning could not occur, inasmuch as the apostle does not there
remind his readers of what they had formerly heard from him, as he does in
the second epistle; nor, in the second epistle, is the imperative without circum-
locution by any means wanting. Further, Mayerhoff speaks of it as peculiar
to the second epistle, that év is inserted with a substantive, as in chap. i. 4; yet
the same takes place in the first epistle. Of many of the phenomena which are
supposed to be peculiar to the first epistle, Mayerhoff himself admits that they
are to be found also in the second, only less frequently. To the assertion that in
the two epistles the conception of the Christian religion is not the same, it must
be replied, that the various expressions denote the different sides of the Christian
life. As against Mayerhoff, cf. the discussions of Schott, Briickner, Weiss.
No doubt their diversity in thought may be traced to a difference in the
tendency of the two epistles, nor is the diction either of the second by any
means unjustifiable;! yet it does appear strange that, if Peter wrote this
letter from the situation on which the second epistle is based, he should
have done so in such a manner that it would present so many diversities
in character from that of the first epistle. Nevertheless, there are between
the two writings many points of coincidence which cannot be overlooked.
In both attention is directed chiefly to the parousia of Christ, and to
preparation for it by a holy walk. In both the readers are expressly
shown that to be Christians, as they were, is to be in the right and true
state of salvation, and they are exhorted at once to give proof of it by a
1 It is only these two points, here distinctly the different characters of the two epistles, to
expressed, which Hofmann brings forward in _— the view that both are the productions of the
order to remove all objectiona, arising from same author.
362 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
holy behavior, and to confirm themselves in it. Both epistles, further, have
this in common, that they are strongly dependent on the O. T. (on this see
Schott and Weiss). In the mode of expression, also, there are to be found
many points of coincidence. Thus it may be noted that in i. 4 the ideas
xadeiv and dper are connected together in a manner which, though not
identical with 1 Pet. ii. 9, is yet similar to it; that as in 1 Pet. i. 19, the
adjectives duwpog and demAog stand together, so in 2 Pet. iii. 14, domAog and
duduntoc are conjoined, with which also the expression, ii. 18: amido xai popor,
corresponds; that the word dro@enc is to be found only in these two epistles.
It is also worthy of remark that the introductions and the conclusions in
both the epistles show an unmistakable likeness. The commencement
points, in the case of each, to the future kingdom of God; 1 Pet. i. 4:
ele xAnpovopiav; 2 Pet. i. 11: ei¢ riv aiduov Bactaciay ‘Ino. Xporov; and as at
the close of First Peter the purpose of the letter is stated by the mapaxadcv,
«.T.4., V- 12,80 in Second Peter the design of the composition is given by
guAdaocecbe . . . abgivere, where the gvAdcceode . . . iva uh éxméionre rod idiov
ornptyyov corresponds in a particular manner with the orpiga: and the
éxiaptupav, trabrny elvas GAndi xdpev Tod Oeod, el¢ nv éorjxare, in First Peter.
Like the opponents of the authenticity in bringing forward differences, its
defenders have not unfrequently overstepped all bounds in the production of
supposed points of coincidence. Of this Schott has been especially guilty. He
goes so far as to say that even 2 Pet. i. 1 ‘‘ is an armory from which all doubts
concerning the Petrine origin of the second epistle are repelled,’’ an’ every-
where, wherever in thought or conception any resemblance between the two
epistles is to be seen, he seeks to show that the second makes reference to the
first, without in any way distinguishing what in conception is Christian and
common from what is characteristic and peculiar; and Bruckner has accordingly
justly protested against many of the arguments advanced by Schott. But even
Weiss often goes too far, as when, with reference to the doctrine of redemption,
he maintains that the ideas of calling and of election in 2 Peter (i. 10) seem to
be synonymous as in 1 Peter, whilst the fact is, that no such combination
occurs in the latter epistle; when he compares the xowwria Geiacs piaeus (2 Pet. i. 4)
with the thought that the calling is the motive to become like unto him who
calls, after 1 Pet. i. 15; when he thinks that the @ea dtvauu of Christ, which
gives all that is necessary for the new life, corresponds with the divine divayic,
which preserves unto salvation (1 Pet. i. 5); further, when he lays stress on the
fact that in both epistles, the d:xazoovvy constitutes the central point of Chris-
tian moral life, whilst elsewhere also in the New Testament the essence of such
life is often enough expressed by dtcawocivn; when he considers that the falling
INTRODUCTION. 863
a prey to ¢@opa (2 Pet. i. 4, ii. 12, 19) recalls the antithesis between ¢@aprov and
é¢daprov in the first epistle; when he states that in the second epistle (i. 7) the
gcAadeAgia forms the climax of the Christian virtues in harmony with 1 Pet. i. 22,
since there it is not giAadeAgia, but ayern which is spoken of as the climax, and
gtAadeAgia is also made prominent elsewhere in the N. T. With regard to the
doctrinal phraseology, Weiss, in the first instance, adduces a number of points
of divergence, and then lays stress on the fact that many, and in part striking,
points of agreement are to be found. But here, again, Weiss goes too far; the
most of the substantives, adjectives, and verbs which he brings forward as
significant of the agreement of the two epistles, being in current use in N. T.
language. As regards substantives, with the exception of dper7, the term yuoor
(1 Pet. iii. 7 and 2 Pet. i. 5) only can be adduced as of importance, for tyz7 and
é66€a occur elsewhere together; in like manner téxva, in a metaphorical sense, is
to be found elsewhere; it is plainly incorrect to say that divayc in 2 Pet. ii. 11
is used of angels as in 1 Pet. fii. 22; in the latter passage it denotes the angels
themselves, but not so in the former. How the adjectives adduced by Weiss
should ever have a special significance, it is not easy to see, used as they often
enough are elsewhere. The same is the case with most of the verbs; dvacrpé-
gecda év and abgavecy év at most can be brought forward as of importance in this
connection. And in referring to kindred expressions, Weiss again goes too far.
The following at most are to be noted here as worthy of attention: looriuoc in
the second, and zoAbriuog in the first; adeouoc there, aféustoc here; the already
mentioned domAoc xal aucpnrtoc in the first, and domdAoc xa? duwpoc in the second,
but hardly axaranavorove duapriag and xéxavrat duapriac.
In spite of all points of accord, real and asserted, the verdict of Weiss
comes only to this, that if these be taken into account, there will be an
inclination to see in the divergences no hinderance to an identity of author-
ship; that the points of agreement are more than those of divergence; and
that the old complaint as to the complete difference of style was founded
on very great exaggeration. Similar, though more moderate, is the judg-
ment of Briickner. Schott, however, expressly admits that the outward
form of the second epistle as a whole shows, at first sight even, quite other
features from those of the first epistle. The question as to how the
undeniable difference in thought and expression is to be explained, has
been variously answered. On the assumption of the authenticity of the
epistle, it will not do to explain the difficulty by supposing that Peter wrote
‘*in advanced old age, and when at the very gate of death” (Guericke), for
the period between the composition of the first and the second epistles can
have been, comparatively speaking, only a brief one, at most four years —
864 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
a time certainly too short to account for the difference. Iieronymus tries
to make the dissimilarity of style intelligible by assuming that Peter made
use of different interpreters for each of his epistles. But this hypothesis
of the use of interpreters is without any valid reason, and, besides, is
inadequate to the end it is meant to serve.
find the ground of the diversity in the different tendencies of the two
epistles. ‘The purpose of the first is to lay down to the readers their true
course of conduct in the midst of the persecutions they had to suffer; that
of the second, on the other hand, is to protect them against the heresies of
the Libertines which threatened them.?
naturally lend to each of the epistles its own peculiar character. Yet even
Schott admits that this alone is insufficient for the solution of the problem.
Schott thinks it can be solved only in this way: that Peter in his first
epistle, “for the sake of his readers —to whom he was unknown — and in
his own interest, of set purpose kept his individuality assiduously in the
background, and sought with the utmost possible fidelity all through the
epistle to write in a manner to which the Gentile Christians and the Pauline
churches were accustomed. For this reason he elaborated his first epistle
It is certainly more correct to
These different tendencies must
with special care, even as to form; but after he had entered into near
personal relations with his readers, he had not the same occasion as in the
first epistle to keep his own individuality out of sight.” This manner of
answering the question under discussion, which Weiss justly calls “ hyper-
artificial,” needs certainly no refutation. As, then, the difficulty is not to
be removed either by separating, with Weiss, the two epistles by an interval
of more than ten years,—for the assumption that the first epistle was
written before the letters of the Apostle Paul to the churches of Asia
Minor, is an untenable hypothesis, — it must be admitted, with Briickner
and Weiss, on the supposition of the authenticity, that there is presented
here a problem which has not yet been satisfactorily solved. And the
difficulty is increased if it be considered that in the two epistles quite
different conditions of the churches are presupposed; for, whilst in the
first there is no trace of any dread of heretical trouble, there is wanting
1 Hofmann thinks that the different tenden-
cies of the two epistles are erroneously stated
here. He holds that the first epistie contains
* nothing as to what are usually termed perse-
cutions of Christians,’ and that in the second
epistle there ie ‘no warning against teachers
of falee doctrine, to whom the readers were
exposed, or who already had appeared in their
midst.”” Both assertions are false. To what
is said above must be added only, that the two
epistles, relating as they do to different cir.
cumstances, point to the exhortation to lead
‘an holy and godly life.”
INTRODUCTION. 865
in the second all reference to persecutions to which the readers were
exposed, —a circumstance which is not to be passed over so lightly as
Hofmann does.
The shorter the time between the composition of the two epistles, the more
surprising is this phenomenon; the longer, the easier is it of explanation. For
Weiss, who assumes an interval of over ten years, there is here hardly any diffi-
culty, more especially as he thinks that Peter, after the composition of the first
epistle, was personally present in the churches, and in that case did not need to
mention the persecutions which had induced him to compose his first letter.
Brickner reserves for himself a way of escape from the difficulty caused by this
and other surprising phenomena, by holding that as to the close of Peter’s life the
received tradition may be wrong. Schott, on the other hand, attaches no impor-
tance to these divergences, although in his opinion the first epistle was written
in the year 65, and the second in the year 66. For he assumes, on the one hand,
that when Peter wrote his second epistle the persecutions were past; and, on the
other, that even in the first there are references to errors already present, which
Peter, ‘‘from his tender and fine feeling of the delicate relation in which he
stood to a Pauline church as yet in reality unknown to him,” did not wish
expressly to censure. Both assumptions are erroneous; for the persecutions
which were the occasion of the first epistle are there clearly characterized as
persecutions which, after they had arisen, continued (see Introd. to Ep. 1); and
as regards the heresies supposed to have been in existence when the first epistle
was composed, Weiss justly remarks: ‘* There is nothing to be discovered in it,
either of the connection with the heresy combated in the second epistle, which
Briickner artificially brings out, nor of its clearly marked features, which Schott
professes to have found.”? It is not in any way to be inferred from the First
Epistle of Peter, as Schott asserts, ‘‘that it shows a greater spread and inward
intensity of the evil combated in the Epistle to Timothy,” or that 1 Pet. iv. 2-4
attests that ‘‘a comparatively large section of the readers was prepared, by a
liberal concession to immorality in social life, to gain undisturbed security for
themselves as professing Christians;’’ or that in iii. 18 ff., iv. 5, 6, 17, 18, it is
hinted “that the spiritualistic explaining away of the resurrection of the flesh
led the readers to deny also a final judicial decision connected with the return
of Christ in the body.’? Schott, in what he here says, is moving, not on the
ground of true exegesis, but in the region of the most arbitrary fiction.
The less success has attended all efforts to overcome the difficulties
which, on the assumption of the authenticity, lie in the relation of the two
epistles to each other, the more justifiable does doubt as to the authenticity
appear. It has, no doubt, been asserted that a falsarius would have
followed the first epistle so closely as to have avoided these differences;
866 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
but it is equally conceivable that a pseadonymous author could have
written under the influence of Peter’s epistle indeed, yet still in his own
peculiar style, and without being anxiously careful lest the origin of his
composition should thus be betrayed. On this assumption the existence
both of similarity and divergence is explained. Several considerations
have been urged against the authenticity of the epistle: —
1. The intention of the author to make himself known as the Apostle
Peter. To this it may be replied, that, looked at from the situation in which
the epistle was written, and which it presupposes (i. 13, 14), this so-called
intention is neither unnatural, nor need it excite surprise. If Peter,
conscious of his approaching death, felt himself impelled to write a last
word to the churches with which he had before this become connected,
reminding them of his former preaching, and warning them against doubts
as to the second coming of Christ, it was certainly not out of place for him
to mention himself, his relation to the churches, and more especially that
event in his own life by which the glory of Christ was revealed to him in a
manner so special. 2. The remark the author makes on the epistles of
Paul and the other Scriptures. In itself, the fact is not strange that the
epistle bears testimony to an acquaintance with the epistles of Paul, for .
that some of the latter were known to Peter is evident from the first
epistle; nor do the words (chap. iii. 16) imply that the author possessed
a formally completed collection of them. But the expression: o¢ xal ra¢
donde ypadas, is certainly striking. For although it is arbitrary to under-
stand by it the whole of the other books of the New Testament, yet the
expression must have reference to writings which were already in general
use in the churches. It is at least open to question whether this could have
been said, in Peter’s time, of writings of the New Testament. Several
interpreters (Luthardt, Wiesinger) understand by the term the oldest
writings; on this point see the exposition. 3. The use made of the Epistle
of Jude. It is certainly going too far to brand this as a plagiarism
(Reuss); nor can it be said that to make use of another’s work was in
itself unworthy of an apostle. Still, it is surprising that an apostle should
have incorporated in his epistle, as to the substance of it, a non-apostolic
letter... De Wette’s accusations are, however, unjust: that in Second Peter
1 Weles takes a too low estimate of the use from thie intentional connection, an ‘expres.
made of Jude’s epletle when he says: “‘Sec- sion may involuntarily here and there have
ond Peter intentionally seeks support in the presented itself to the author’s pen from an
highly realistic and vivid description given by epiatie so important, and which he had proba-
Jude of his opponents; and that, even apart bly juat read.” :
INTRODUCTION. 367
the simple expression of Jude is partly changed by rhetorical and artificial
circumlocution, partly disfigured and singularly superseded, and that a
vacillating line of thought takes the place of one firm and definite. The
circumlocutions and additions of Second Peter do not bear on them the
' character of artificialness. If alterations in the latter composition are to
be found (cf. Jude 12, with 2 Pet. ii. 18; Jude 12, 18, with 2 Pet. ii. 17),
these cannot be said to be distortions (or, according to Schwegler, confusion
and misunderstanding); and if the original course of ideas be not firmly
maintained owing to the introduction of new relations (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 5, 7-9),
and a transposition be resorted to (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 18-17, comp. with Jude
11-13), yet the firmness of the line of thought does not in any way suffer
thereby. Incorrect, too, is De Wette’s assertion, that “the heretics combated
in Second Peter are mere nonentities, and a spurious copy of the seducers
in Jude;” as also that of Schwegler, that they are characterized not after
life, not from direct knowledge of them, but according to the vague repre-
sentation of tradition. Not, however, without weight is the circumstance
on which De Wette lays stress, that the false teachers are represented at
one time as about to appear in the future, at another as already present.
Wiesinger rejects the view, that while in ii. 1-8 the future seducers are
meant, ver. 10 ff. has reference to those already present; and assumes that
the future fcovra: applies only to the relation of these seducers éo0 the readers,
and their work among them. Weiss combats this assumption, and in oppo-
sition to it defends that rejected by Wiesinger. If it be conceivable that
the Libertines already present are “the beginning of the end,” and there-
fore not yet the wevdodiddoxadn, ver. 1, still it must not fail to be observed
that in the epistle itself no single word definitely points to any such distinc-
tion. Even less satisfactory is it to say, with Dietlein, that the first germs
of opposition were already in existence; or, with Luthardt and Schott, to
hold that if the author speaks of the false teachers as already present, he
does so only in appearance, arising from the circumstance that he passes
from the prediction to the description of them. It may perhaps be most
correct to assume that the author, in the first instance, quotes the prophetic
word in and for itself simply; and that he afterwards, in the description of
the Libertines already in existence, hints that the predictions had begun to
be fulfilled. Briickner seems to hold a similar opinion; only he unites this
view with that of Wiesinger, and thus deprives it of its necessary clearness.
— If the authenticity be rejected, the difficulty seems to disappear. It would
then lie to hand to explain the vacillation by saying, that the author thought
to combat the heresies of his time, with better result, by representing them
868 THE ‘SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
as already predicted by Peter, and by allowing himself, in the description of
them, to be guided by a composition in which they were treated as actually
But it can hardly be conceived that the author should fail to
perceive how incongruous his conduct was. — Worthy of remark, further,
is the endeavor of the author to obliterate all apocryphal traces to be found
in existence.
in Jude. The total omission of these would have argued nothing aguinst
the Petrine authorship; but it is only the words of Enoch (Jude 14, 15) that
are left out. The passage relating to the angels: rode ui) ryphoavrac . . . olxn-
Thprov, is —inasmuch as the case of the angels must not be omitted — changed
into the more general: dyyéAwv duapryoayruy, whilst the punishment that
befell them is given in almost the same words. The reference to the apoc-
ryphal narrative of the contest between the Archangel Michael and the Devil
is likewise not wholly destroyed, but only effaced,—a more general term
being employed, which, however, causes the thought itself to lose its clear-
ness and precision.?
4. The heretical denial of the second advent of Christ, and of the final
judgment of the world connected therewith. Although, already in Paul’s
lifetime, many errors in the teaching as to the last things — as, for example,
the denial of the resurrection—had begun to grow up, there is nothing
in the other writings of the New Testament to show that the parousia of
Christ was called in question; yet the denial of it is so naturally con-
nected with that of the resurrection, that it could quite easily have found
On the other hand, it cannot
be questioned that the reasons assigned by the false teachers (2 Pet. iii. 4)
are such as seem to belong rather to a time later than that of the
Apostle Peter, although the words by no means imply that the parousia
had for many generations already been looked for in vain (Schwegler).
And, further, there are the facts that the so-called Second Epistle of
Clemens Romanus combats the same heresy, — although in an advanced
expression even while Peter was yet alive.
1 Schwegler sees in this also a proof that
the epistie was not written until the end of the
second century, inasmuch as the dislike to
quote apocryphal writings was still foreign
even to an Irenaeus, a Clement, or an Origen.
If importance must be attached to this, the
epistle ‘plainly cannot have been written till
after the time of Origen, which ts impossible.
3 Wiesinger and Briickner think that
Enoch’s prediction of judgment was omitted
only because there was no appropriate place
for it in the connection of thought in this
epistie, and that the change in the two verses,
4 and 11, does not show a desire to efface what
is apocryphal; that Peter only generalized the
special fact mentioned by Jude, ver. 9, pre-
supposing at the same time an acquaintance on
the part of his readers with the apocryphal
incident referred to. But does not such a
presupposition contain what must appear un-
suited to an apostle ?
INTRODUCTION. 369
state of development,—and that one similar, at least, is mentioned in the
Epistle of Polycarp.
5. The view expressed in this epistle as to the origin and the destruction
of the world. The opinion of Mayerhoff and Neander, that this view “is
in harmony neither with the practical, simple mind of Peter, nor with the
N. T. development of doctrine,” reaches certainly too far; it can only be
said that it does not find expression elsewhere in the New Testament. Yet
the conception that the world arose into being out of the water by the word
of God, points back to the history of creation in Genesis; and that of its
destruction by fire, though not indeed expressed, has nevertheless the way
prepared for it in passages of the O. T., such as Isa. xvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9 sq.
(cf. 1 Cor. iii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 8), so that a more precise development of it
by Peter is not inconceivable. In opposition to the appeal to the passage
in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 24: Aoysoupevog drt ta wdvra 1d bdwp moui, «.7.A.,
Briickner remarks that it must not be overlooked that in Clement it is water,
and in Peter God’s word, to which precedence is given.
When Credner thinks to prove the spuriousness of the epistle by saying that
an apostle would never have made reference to one of the mythical additions in
the Gospels like the narrative of Christ’s transfiguration; and Reuss, by assert-
ing that ‘‘ the apparent aim of the epistle is to defend the teaching as to the
last things, according to the Judaeo-Christian conception of it, and that as
much against unbelief as against a spiritualizing interpretation,’’ —their views
must be simply rejected. Not less unjustifiable is it, however, for Bleek to base
his verdict of rejection on the circumstance that in i. 18 the mount of transfig-
uration is called 7d dpo¢ rd aycov, inasmuch as the place is not even mentioned in
the Gospels, or more nearly described.
If the numerous difficulties and doubts above mentioned do not render
the authenticity of the epistle absolutely impossible, many of them are yet
of such a nature that the spuriousness of the epistle appears to be hardly
less probable than its genuineness, especially as the only positive evidence
for the latter is the statement of the author himself, that he is the Apostle
Peter. On the other hand, many reasons seem to speak against its pseudo-
nymity. Guericke insists that the passages characteristic of the epistle are,
“living, spiritual, and truly apostolic;” but, apart from the circumstance
that, e.g., the want of any reference to the essential facts of salvation does
seem strange in the case of the Apostle Peter, this in no way excludes the
possibility of a non-apostolic origin. He further says that it is not apparent
what purpose a falsarius could have had in writing; but this is refuted by
870 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the epistle itself, which clearly enough states its design. Further, it has
been remarked that the epistle, if it be written under a false name, is a
palpable fraud, and to this its own moral character is opposed. But, in
reply to this, the fact may be brought forward that men of earnest moral
character have often thought more effectually to combat heresy by assuming
& pseudonyme. Thiersch asserts that it was in the period which followed the
labors of Paul, and preceded those of John, that that Libertinism made its
appearance in the Pauline churches; but from this it does not follow that
the heresy did not maintain itself for a considerable time, so that after Jude
had already combated it in his epistle, a later attack on it would have been
no longer timely.
Weiss, too, has attempted to prove the hypothesis of a pseudonyme unten-
able. He urges, in the first instance, that it is afflicted with an evil contra-
diction; for the author appears to play his réle at one time cleverly, at
another very awkwardly, inasmuch as, with all his endeavors to make him-
self pass for the apostle, he sometimes forgets his part, and thus betrays his
pseudonymity; and, whilst the connection with Jude is made in full har-
mony with his design, it is carried out in direct opposition to it. Weiss in
his remarks has omitted to observe, that, like many of the opponents of the
authenticity too, he attributes to the author various intentions, which the
words of the epistle in no way entitle him todo.! Again, Weiss seeks to
show that, on the assumption of a pseudonymous author, there is no uniform
purpose discoverable in the epistle. But as far as its purpose is concerned,
it is irrelevant whether the epistle was composed by the apostle or not. If
the three passages in the epistle—the polemic against the Libertines de-
scribed according to the Epistle of Jude, that against the deniers of the
parousia, and the recommendation of Paul's writings — form a united whole,
it is not clear how they should do so less if they had an author other than
Peter. Finally, Weiss seeks to show that no suitable time can be adduced
for the composition of the epistle if it be pseundonymous. But this difficulty
is not less than that which arises in specifying the time in the life of Peter
when he wrote the epistle; and if it be difficult to show how a pseudony-
1 The author le supposed to have forgotten
his part, from this circumstance, that whilst
in the beginning of it he does not name a
special class of readers, in order thus to hide
the interpolation of his epistle, he indirectly
mentions them in ili. 1. But there is no proof
that the author iutentionally, and for pruden-
tial reasons, omitted to name the class of read-
ers whom he addressed. The same holds good
with regard to the aseertion that he intention-
ally chose the prophetic form, ii. 1 ff. and iil.
3, in order that this epistle might contain the
prophecy to which Jude in ver. 17 refers.
INTRODUCTION. 871
mous composition could have found acceptation in the church, it is not less
hard to explain how a genuine composition of the Apostle Peter could have
If, then,
the grounds for and against the authenticity are thus evenly balanced, there
is here presented a problem which is not yet solved, and which perhaps can-
not be solved, so that the guardedness with which Briickner, Wiesinger also,
and even Weiss, with all his inclination to regard the epistle as genuine,
remained for so long a time unused in the service of the church.
express themselves on the question, deserves only acknowledgnient.
If the epistle be not genuine, the question arises by whom, when, and
where it was written. — Mayerhoff seeks to show that it was composed by a
Jewish Christian in Alexandria in the middle of the second century. That
the author was a Jewish and not a Gentile Christian, the whole character of
the epistle shows; but that he lived in Alexandria, cannot be concluded
from the reasons brought forward by Mayerhoff.1 The date, too, to which
he assigns the composition of the epistle, is certainly too late, inasmuch as
the description of the heretics contains no reference to Gnostic views prop-
erly so called. It would be more appropriate to look upon it as a production
of the first century. —Schwegler considers Rome to have been the place,
and the end of the second century, at the earliest, the time of the epistle’s
composition. In Rome, he thinks, endeavors were made, by carrying out a
Petrinism and a Paulinism, to realize the idea of the Catholic Church. In
Rome, therefore, it was that—like so many other writings which have
reference to these two schools — this epistle was composed. Its object — an
entirely conciliatory one —is this, as is evident from chap. iii. 15, 16, and
i. 14, 16 ff., “to bring about from the standpoint of Petrinism a final and
permanent peace between the opposing views of the followers of Peter
and those of Paul.” In confirmation of this, Schwegler asserts that the
peculiarities of the Petrine system are apparent throughout the epistle,
whilst that which is specifically Pauline entirely recedes. But if a doubt
arise even here as to how a so decided follower of Peter — who, according to
1 These reasons are: (1) The standpoint of
yveots, and the speculation as to how the
world originated, and how it will be destroyed.
But the yvwors spoken of in our epistle is
entirely different from the yuaors of Alexan
drine-Jcwish speculation, and that the view
here expressed as to the beginning — unjustly
called a speculation — of the world, had its
origin precisely in Egypt, 1s not proved. (2)
Theo use made of the Epistle of Jude; but that
the latter was composed in Alexandria is at
least very doubtful. (3) The coincidence be-
tween this epistie and the so-called Second
Eptetle of Clement of Rome, in oppoeing the
same heretical tendency; but, as there is no
proof that the quotation occurring in thie epis-
tle was taken from the evayydAcov car’ Aiyue-
riov¢, it is also doubtful whether this fragment
had its origin in Egypt.
872 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the view of Schwegler, must as such have necessarily stood in opposition
to him—could have been the eulogist of Paul, it must excite most legiti-
mate astonishment to see what are the reasons he brings forward in support
of his view.! The evidence, too, which he leads for the late date of compo-
sition, possesses no value.2_ The chief point, the so-called conciliatory tend-
ency of the epistle, is a pure hypothesis, which has no support in the epistle
itself; for neither in the passages quoted by bim, nor in any others, are the
differences between Petrinism and Paulinism touched upon, much less ad-
justed or surmounted. No doubt Paul is spoken of in terms of praise; but,
according to the connection of the passage, only for the purpose of warning
the churches to which the epistle is addressed, lest they should be led astray
by the heretics, who wrested and changed many statements of the apostle
for their own purposes.®
1 Theee reasons are: the employment of
expressions peculiar to Judaeo-Christian modes
of thought: evodBeca, aysat avacrpopai, apern,
ayta évroAn, x.7.A. (but almost all these ex-
pressions are to be found in the N. T. writ-
ings, which, according to Schwegler, favor
Paulinism) ; the high place given to the Adyos
w, wxos (as if Paul had set little value on
it); the countenance given to angelological
mysticism (which he thinks is proved by chap.
fi. 10, 11!); the demand for a tradition as a
standard in the interpretation of Scripture
(said to be contained in chap. 1. 20!) ; oy8oo0s
aypug Siucacoovyns, a8 applied to Noah; and
the reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews
(in support of which chap. 1. 17 is quoted).
3 Thus, when, among other things, Schweg.
ler brings forward as a reason for this, the
writer’s acquantance with such N. T. Scrip-
tures as he supposes to have been composed
only after the middle of the second century,
i.e., the Pastoral Epistles, the Gospels of John
and of Mark. He concludes that the author
was acquainted with the Pastoral Epistles
from the fact that some expressions occur only
in these, and in the epistles of Peter; as also
with the Gospel of John, by asserting that
the writer, in chap. i. 14, had the passage,
John xxi., 18, 19, in his mind; and, finally,
with the Gospel of Mark, by supposing that
chap. i. 12-15 contains allusions to that gos-
pel (!). :
$8 Heydenrefch rightly observes: ‘‘ For that
(conciliatory) purpose, the little which chap.
fii. says in passing of Paul would not have
sufficed; {tf the writer had been chiefly anxious
to show such a union, he would have adapted
the construction and contents of the whole
epistle to the conciliatory design.”
CHAP. I. 373
Tlérpov érurroAy f’.
According to A and B, the Inscriptio is simply: Tlétpov (’.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. Zvuedv]. B, several min., and vss. read, according to the usual form,
Ziuewv (Lachm.), which is evidently an alteration. — Ver. 3. After A, 8, etc.,
Tisch. 8 reads, rd wavra, instead of the Rec. wavra, according to almost all
authorities (Lachm., Tisch. 7). — dia doéy¢ nal dpernc]. A, C, P, &, many min.,
Copt., Arm., Vulg., etc., read, (dig doéy xa? dperg, which Griesb. thinks probable;
accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., approved of by the modern commentators and
Reiche; the Rec. in B (Buttm. has, however, put a ? to B), K, L, al., Thph.,
Oec., appears to be a correction. — Ver. 4. The Rec. is: ra péytora qyiv «al rigua;
this occurs only in some min., however much the position of the single words
varies in the different Codd., etc. Buttmann has, following B: ra rijua «x. uty.
nuiv; Lachm. and Tisch. 7, following C, read: 1a uéycora xat tiga fuiv; so, too,
A, only instead of fulv, tuiv. Tisch. 8, following K, L, &, and many min., has
accepted 7a riya nud xal utytora, It cannot be determined which reading is the
original one. — év xdcyzy]. Rec., according to C, K, several min., Thph., Oec.
(Tisch. 7); on the other hand, A, B, L, &, etc., attest év rq xoouw (Lachm., Tisch.
8).— Ver. 5. abrd rovro de], Rec., sufficiently corroborated by B, C*, K, L, P,
al., pl., Syr., Oec.—In C**, &, several min., Thph., there 1s avrd de rovro,
Lachm., according to A, reads atrol dé, which can only be considered a cor-
rection. Tischendorf has rightly retained the Rec. Schott arbitrarily supposes
that the original reading might be: «a? atrot rovro 6é¢.— Ver. 8. Instead of
trapxovra, which is attested by almost all authorities, Lachm., according to A,
Vulg., etc., has accepted wapévra, which probably arose from the subsequent
mapeott, — Ver. 9. duaprwy]. Rec., according to B, C, L, P, al., Thph., Oec.
(Lachm.); in its place, Griesb., Scholz, Tisch., etc., according to A, K, &, al.,
Damasc., have duaprnuarwy, which most likely is the original reading; the alter-
ation is easily explained by Heb. {. 8, as well as by dudprnyua, being in the N. T.
of rarer occurrence.— Ver. 10. omovddoate Bepaiay tucw thy KAjow nai éxdoyiyv
rovioda}], Rec., according to B, C, K, L, P, al., pl., Theoph., Oec., etc.
(Tisch.); in A, &, several min., and many vss., the words lva di rov xadow bucw
Epywy are inserted between onovddoare and Besaiav (evidently a later explanatory
addition), in which the inf. is changed into temp. finit., soveiode (Lachm.; in
the small ed., zotjoGe),— Ver. 12. obx dueAnow). Rec., after K, L, al., Thph.,
Oec. (Griesb., Scholz); on the other hand, A, B, C, P, &, al., Copt., Sahid.,
Vulg., etc., are in favor of peAAzow, which is justly accepted by Lachm. and
874 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Tisch., approved of by De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, and Schott, whilst
Reiche prefers ov« dueAjow, ut modestius et urbanius.— According to the testi-
mony of B, C, K, L, &, al., pl., several vss., etc., aed badc (Griesb., Scholz,
Tisch.) should be put in place of the Rec. tude del, following A, Vulg., ete.
(Lachm.). — Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 reads, after B: 6 vide pov 6 ayamnrtoc pov obrocg éoriw,
and remarks, with reference to the Rec. otré¢ éorw 6 vlog pou 6 ayamnrog (after A,
C, K, L, &, etc., Lachm.): at ita locis parall. omnib. quorum nullo ott. éor,
postponitur neque Graec. ullus testis nov repetit. Tisch. 8 has accepted the
Rec. — Ver. 18. According to B, C*, etc., Tisch. 7 reads: év 79 dyiw dpec; but the
Rec., év re dpe ro dyiy (Tisch. 8), is too strongly supported by A, C***, K, L, P,
x, al., Vulg., ever to be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 21. According to B, C, K,
P, al., Copt., etc., Tisch. 7 has woré after xpognreia, and Tisch. 8, following A,
L, &, etc., tore before zpognreia; this order of words is the more natural, but for
that very reason can hardly be considered the original one. — The Rec. ol aycot
Ged occurs only in several min., some vss., Oec., Vulg. — A has aysot rod Oecd
(Lachm.); K, L, &, al., dysoe Oeod (Griesb., Scholz). Tisch. has adopted in its
place, axd Oevd, according to B, al., Syr., Copt.; Wiesinger, Schott, and Stein-
fass prefer this reading; Briickner, too, inclines to it; no doubt it was the one
which was most likely to give rise to alterations; still, it is too little supported
by B, etc. Reiche considers ayi Geot to be the original reading.
Vv. 1,2. Zuvyedy Mérpoc]. The form most in harmony with the Semitic
language: Zuyewy, as a name of Peter, is to be found, besides here, only in
Acts xv. 14; otherwise, cf. Luke 113. 25, 111. 80; Rev. vii. 7; Acts xiii. 1.
From the addition of the name itself, as little as from its form, can any
thing be concluded as to the genuineness (in opposition to Dietlein, Schott,
Steinfass) or the non genuineness of the epistle. The two names Yip
Ilérpoc are directly conjoined also in Matt. xvi. 16; Luke v. 8, etc.; else-
where, too, the apostle is called Siuwy 6 Aeyouevoc Mérpoe. The addition of
Suuedv serves to mark the author as a Jewish Christian.! —dobAog xai amdcrodoc
‘I, Xp, ef. Rom. i. 1; Tit. i. 1 (Phil. i. 1). dovAoe expresses the more gen-.
eral, anécrodog the more special official relation; cf. Meyer on Rom. i. 1;
Schott unjustly denies that doiAoc has reference to the official relation. Ac-
cording to De Wette, the author has here combined 1 Pet. i. 1 and Jude 1.
—roig icdriov huiv Aayova nicrw]. ladtoc is inexactly translated in the Vul-
gate by coaequaliter ; it is not equivalent to icoc (Acts xi. 17: ion duped), but
means, “having equal honor or worth.” De Wette’s interpretation is as incor-
rect: “to those who have obtained the same right to participate in faith
with us.” The use of the words ru, ryzaw, in Peter’s epistie, does not prove
that the expression has here reference specially to the divine privileges of
the kingdom (Dietlein). By this word the author gives it to be understood,
that the faith of those to whom he writes, has the same worth as that of
those whom he designates by juiv; both have received one and the same
faith (as to its objective contents) (Briickner, Besser, Wiesinger); Hornejus:
1 Bengel, assuming the authenticity of the conditionie pristinae, antequam cogromen
epistle, observes not inaptly that Peter adds _—nactus erat.”
Supewy, “ extremo tempore admonens sec ipsun)
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 3875
dicilur fides aeque pretiosa, non quod omnium credentium aeque magna sit, sed
quod per fidem illam eadem mysteria et eadem beneficia divina nobis proponantur.
— The connection shows that by guiv all Christians (De Wette) cannot be
understood; the word must only refer either to Peter (Pott), or to the
apostles (Bengel, Wolf, Briickner, Steinfass, Fronmiiller), or to the Jewish
Christians generally (Nic. de Lyra, Dietlein, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott,
Hofm.); the last is the correct application (cf. Acts xi. 17, xv. 9-11).
Wiesinger: “That the faith of the apostles should have a different value
from that of those who through their preaching had become believers, is an
idea totally foreign to the apostolic age.” —Aayova: points out that faith is a
gift of grace. Huss: sicul sors non respicit personam, ta nec divina electio
acceplatriz est personarum (cf. Acts i. 17).—On the breviloquence of the
expression, cf. Winer, p. 579 (E. T., 623).—é dixaotvy rod Oeod, x.7.1.].
Luther translates: “in the righteousness, which our God gives,” thus
dixatocvvy would here mean that gift of God’s grace which is the result of
faith, whether it is to be understood of the state of justification (Schott), or
the Christians’ manner of life conformed to the commandments of God
(Briickner). If this view be adopted, however, diawovvy cannot be con-
nected with alorw, for though év may be regarded as equal siinply to cum, or
be taken in the sense of, being furnished with (thus Brickner, formerly),
it would always denote that rior is contained in d:caotvn, which certainly
does not correspond with the relation in which the two stand to each other;
faith is not bestowed on the Christian in righteousness, but righteousness in
faith. Hofmann joins é dx. directly with mor, and understands by diam-
ovvn here: “the righteousness which makes Christ our Saviour; that in
which the world has the propitiation for its sins.” This interpretation
assumes that Qcod is predicate to ‘Ijcvi Xprorot (see below) ; besides, it is
opposed by the circumstance that the context makes no allusion to any such
nearer definition of the idea, whilst it is arbitrary to render mori év dix :
“that faith which trus/s in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” Schott, Stein-
fass, and now, too, Briickner, connect du. with ledrizov; the position of the
words, however, is opposed to this, for were éyv d«. the closer definition of
lodryov, it must have been placed directly beside it. Besides, a somewhat
obscure thought results from this combination. The simple addition of
év dex, does not assert that the faith of the one has equal value with the faith
of the other in this, that in both cases it effects a dixaocivn. dixavocivn is
here not a gift, but an attribute of God, or a characteristic of His dealings.
Still, the expression must not be taken as equivalent either to “kindness”
(Eman. a Sa., Pott), or to “ faithfulness,” as regards the promises given by
Him (Beza, Piscator, Grotius); for although d:cacocivy may sometimes come
near to the above meanings, it is never identical! with them; cf. Meyer on
1 De Wette thinks that the author, in ap-
proximation to the Pauline views, may perhaps
have understood the righteousness of God as
bringing in righteousness, — or salvation, —or
as redemptive righteousness, otherwise termed
grace, and the righteousness of Christ, as that
love by which He undertook the work of sal-
vation. But d.<. means neither grace nor love;
and, besides, it is altogether arbitrary to give
the expression a different meaning with respect
to Christ from that which It has when applied
to God.
876 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Rom. iii. 25. Still less warrant is there for Dietlein’s view, that righteous-
ness is here “as a kingdom, the totality of the divine action and revelation
in contrast to this world full of sin and of uncompensated evil.” Wiesinger
(and thus also Fronmiiller) understand by dixasovvn, “the righteousness of
God and Christ, which has manifested itself in the propitiation for the sins
of the world;” in opposition to which Briickner correctly remarks, that
Christ’s work of atonement is not an act of His righteousness; further,
‘“‘the righteousness of God which demands the death of the sinner” (Fron-
miiller), may be considered as causing the death of Christ, but not as pro-
ducing faith. dcxcaoovrn, in harmony with icdriov, is rather that righteousness
of God — opposed to every kind of mpocorwAnyia — according to which He
bestows the same faith on all, without respect of persons (cf. Acts x. 34 f.).
év is in meaning akin to du, but it brings out more distinctly than it, in what
the obtaining of the iors icor.is grounded. The author’s thought is accord-
ingly this: “in His righteousness, which makes no distinction between the
one and the other, God has bestowed on you the same like precious faith as
on us.” !— tov Osobd nu. xal owrijpoc ‘Il. Xp.]. Many interpreters (Beza, Hem-
ming, Gerhard, and more recently Schott and Hofmann) take rot cot ju.
and owrjpoc as a double attribute of 'Ijcots Xp. Others (Wiesinger, Brickner,
Fronmiller, Steinfass) separate the two expressions, and understand rov Gov
gucv of God the Father; and rightly so, although in the similar combination,
ver. 11, ili. 18, there be but one subject. For ede differs from xtipioc in this,
that it is never conjoined with Xpioréc as a direct attribute, whilst xipio¢ is
very often thus employed, as in the very next verse; see my commentary
to Tit. ii. 13. There need be no hesitation in taking the article which
stands before Ooi with owripoc also, as a secord subject, — a statement which
Schott and Hofmann have wrongly called in question; cf. (Winer, p. 124
[E. T., 130]) Buttmann, p. 84 ff. (E. T., 97, 100). Dietlein, in his inter-
pretation, adopts a middle course: “of our God and Saviour; and when I
speak of God the Saviour, I inean the Saviour Jesus Christ.” But only this
much is correct here, that the close conjunction points to the oneness of God
and Christ of which the author was assured. — Ver. 2. yap . . . tAnOuvéecin,
as in 1 Pet. i.2. In this passage éy émyvooe rob Ocod x. ’Iyood Tod xupiov nucy
is added. Here, too, év is not cum, but states in what the increase of grace
has its origin, and by what it is effected (De Wette). This is the knowledge
of God and Jesus, our Lord; cf. on this John xvii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 20. Cal-
vin: Dei et Christi agnitionem simul connectit, quia rite non potest, nisi in Christo,
Deus agnosci. Although the émiyywou here spoken of includes in it acknowl-
edgment, yet it is erroneous to distinguish between éziyrwore and yviou, by
holding the former to be equivalent to acknowledgment ; cf. the further dis-
cussions on the term éziyywor in Wiesinger and Schott, which, however,
éspecially in the case of the latter, are not without the mixing-up of thoughts
foreign to the idea. It is wrong to interpret é& by eic; Aretius: ut colant
Deum, quemadmodum sese patefecit in Scripturis et ut coli vult. According to
1 Hofmann moet unwarrantably maintains that, in this interpretation, ¢» is taken “in a sense
which cannot be justified.”
CHAP. I. 3. 377
Dietlein, the thought intended to be expressed is that “grace and peace
grow and increase from within the soul, outwards, and in thus growing they
became ever more and more knowledge of the revealed God ” (1).
Ver. 8. The first paragraph, extending as far as ver. 11, contains exhor-
tations. The first of these is expressed in vv. 5-7, and to it vv. 3 and 4
serve as an introduction. —¢<]. Lachmann connects d¢ directly with what
precedes, and puts a full stop after g@opdc at the end of ver. 4; thus also
Vulg., Beza, Erasmus, Hornejus, Grotius. This combination, however, is
against the analogy of the N. T. epistles, in which the superscription closes
with the benediction (in the Epistle to the Galatians alone a relative clause
is subjoined, ending, however, with a doxology that marks the conclusion),
and is also opposed to the contents of vv. 3, 4, which serve as the basis for
ver. 5 (Wiesinger). Gerhard and others consider wr as equivalent to xaddc
(which Gerhard explains by énei, i.e., “postquam” vel “siquidem”), and
supply obrwc to ver. 5; arbitrarily: o¢ belongs much more to the genitive
absolute (not pleonastically, Pott). The objective reason expressed in this
phrase for the exhortation contained in ver. 5 is by o¢ characterized as a
subjective motive; Winer: “convinced (considering) that the divine power,”
etc.; Dietlein: “in the consciousness that;” so, too, De Wette, and the
more recent commentators generally; the construction in 1 Cor. iv. 18,
2 Cor. v. 20, is similar; cf. Matthia, Ausf. Gr., 1825, § 568, p. 1120. — ravra
. . . edupnuévync]. The Vulg. incorrectly: quomodo omnia vobis divinae virtutis
sunt, quae ad vitam et pietatem, donata est (another reading is: sunt); and
Luther: “since every thing of His divine power, that pertains unto life and
godliness, is given us;” dedwonuévnc is here not passive, but middle (cf. Gen.
xxx. 20, LX X.; Mark xv. 45), and rig¢ 6. dvvauewe does not depend on xayra,
but is the subject (thus all modern commentators). — According to the
position of the words, airot refers back to 'Ino. r. xvpiov fucv (Calvin, Schott,
Steinfass), and not to Gevs;1 if it be applied to Geos (De Wette-Briickner,
Wiesinger), then deiag (which occurs here only and in ver. 4; Acts xvii. 29,
7d Oeiov, as Subst.) is pleonastic. Dietlein and Fronmiiller refer atrot to God
and Jesus, which linguistically cannot be justified.?— ra mpodc (uy xa? eboe Berar).
The (uy xai eboéBeca are not spoken of as the object, but ra mpdc Guiyv, «.7.A. For
the attainment of the former is conditioned by the Christian's conduct; but
in order that it may be put within his reach, every thing is granted him
which is serviceable to Go and evoéfea (cf. Luke xix. 42: 1a xpdc eipavnv cov).
The difference between the two ideas is in itself clear; (ua, “ blessedness,”
indicates the condition: ebcéBea, “godliness” (except in Acts iii. 12, occur-
ring only in the Pastoral Epistles and Second Peter), the conduct. Grotius
incorrectly interprets (wi as equivalent to vita ALTERIUS seculi, and eboéBea
as pietas in HOC seculo. Both together they form the antithesis to 7 éy xéouy
1 Hofmann, indeed, applies it alvoto Christ, by the fact, that otherwise this whole argument
but by passing over ver. 2 to ver.1, where, as § would contain no reference to.Him; the appll-
already observed, he considers that it ls not cation to both contains the correct idea, that
God and Christ, but Christ alone, who fs re- =the gift imparted by Jesus is the gift of God
ferred to. the Father.
2 The application to Jesus is aleo supported
378 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
év éxtOvnia g00p4; mavra is by way of emphasis placed first, in order to show
distinctly that every thing, which is in any way serviceable to Gf and eboé@.,
has been given us by the divine power of the Lord. Hofmann is wrong in
defining this zavra as faith, hope, and charity, for this triad does not pertain
mpos evoéBerav, but is the eboéBea itself. — dia tig Emtyvdceuc Tod Kadécavrog Huac
states the medium through which the gift is communicated to us; with
éxiyvwote, cf. ver. 2. God is here designated as 6 xaAéoag nuag, since it is only
by the knowledge of the God who calls us that the wavra ra mp. C., x.7.A., are
appropriated by us, —the calling being the actual proof of His love to us.
The subject to xadeiv is not Christ (Vorstius, Jachmann, Schott, etc.), but
God (Aretius, Hemming, De Wette, Hofmann, etc.), as almost always in the
N. T.! Of course x«adeiv does not mean the mere outward, but the inward,
effectual calling. — id:a défy xa? dperg]. dota denotes the being, dpery the ac-
tivity; Bengel: ad GLoRIAM referuntur attributa Dei naturalia, ad VIRTUTEM
ea, quae dicuntur moralia: intime unum sunt utraque. It is arbitrary to under-
stand dogfa as meaning: “that side the nature of the Almighty One that
liveth, which is directed outwards,” and by dper7: “the holy loving-kindness
of God” (as opposed to Hofmann). — The nature of God represented as the
instrumentality, as in Gal. 1. 15: xadgoac dud rig yaperoc abrov; cf., too, Rom.
vi. 4. A wrong application is given to the words, if they be taken as refer-
ring to the miracles of Christ. It must be observed that this ériyvwou itself,
too, is to be looked upon as wrought by Christ in us.
Ver. 4 must not, as a simple intervening clause, be enclosed in paren-
theses; for although ver. 5 is the principal clause standing related to the
participial clause in ver. 3, still the latter is determined, in the thought of
it, by ver. 4. — &’ wy]. dv does not refer to the immediately preceding idia
d6éy x. dperg (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Briickner, this comment.), for it cannot be
said that Christ has given us the émayyéAyara through the déga x. dpery Of His
Father, but to mavra ra npdc, x.t.A. (Hofmann). Beza inaccurately interprets
dt’ ov by ex eo quod. — ra rima huiv nal utywra éxayyéAwata]. émdyyeAua, besides
here, occurs only in chap. iii. 18, where it is used in connection with the
new heaven and new earth in the future. By it is to be understood, not
the promises of the prophets of the O. C. fulfilled in Christ for us, nor those
things promised us of which we are made partakers in Christ (Hornejus:
bona et beneficia omnia, quae Deus per Christum offert et exhibet omnibus, qui in
ipsum credunt; Wiesinger, Schott); but, according to ver. 12 ff., chap. iii. 4,
ix. 18, the prophecies of the zapovoia of Christ and the future consummation
of His kingdom, as contained in the gospel (Briickner).?_ Dietlein is wrong
1 De Wette (with whom Brtickner agrees)
is accordingly wrong in supposing that rov
cadécavroc nu. stands in place of the simple
pron. avrov, and is inserted becaure, by this
circumlocution of the active subject, the
address gains in matter and range. — Schott’s
remarks, in which he attempts to justify hie
assertion that rov caAdcavros applies to Christ,
are only in so far correct, that caAciv might
indeed be understood of an activity of Christ;
cf. Matt. ix. 18; Mark 11. 17; on the other
hand, it is certain that 6 caddoas is never ap-
plied to Christ, but alicaya to God.
2 Schott’s assertion, that emayyéAmara, ac-
cording to the form of the word, must mean
** promised things,” is opposed by chap. {il.
13; but why the promises as such should not,
as Wiesinger supposes, be the means of effect-
ing the copwwia Gecas ducews, it is difficult to
understand.
CHAP. I. 4. 379
in saying that érayyéAuara are not only promises of what is future, but
announcements of what is present and eternal. He goes still farther astray
when he substitutes for this idea the different one: “the granting of favors
which proclaim themselves.” The word érayyéAdev (except in 1 Tim. ii. 10,
vi. 21) has constantly in the N. T. the meaning “to promise,” never simply
“to proclaim.” These promises are called “ precious,” not because they are
“no mere empty words” (Schott), but because they promise that which is
of the greatest value (Hofmann). The dative jyiv from its position should
be connected more probably with riwa than with dedapnra. — deddpyrat is here
also not passive (Dietlein), but middle (all modern interpreters). Gualther
erroneously explains it: donatae, i.e , impletae sunt. What is here referred
to is the communication, not the fulfilment, of the promises, which are a free
gift of divine grace. — The subject to deddp, is not 6 xadéoac (as formerly in
this commentary), but the same as that to the foregoing dedupnyévnc. — iva dd
tovrwv}. Calvin, De Wette-Briickner, Hofmann, understand rovruy to refer
to ra mpdc uv, x.7.4,, as the leading thought; this construction Wiesinger
justly calls “a distortion of the structure, justifiable only if all other refer-
ences were impossible.” Incorrect also is the application to dd&y xal dperg
(Bengel). From its position it can apply only to énayyéAyara (Dietlein, Wie-
singer, Schott), and not in like manner to déég xal dperg (Fronmiiller). dea
has here its proper signification, not equal to “because of them” (Jachmann),
nor to “incited by them;"” as elsewhere the gospel is spoken of as the ob-
jective means through which the divine life is communicated, so here the
émayyéAuara, Which, according to the conception of Second Peter, form the
essentia] element of the gospel. — yévno6e Geiacg xotvuvol giceuc, not “that ye
may become partakers,” but “that ye might be,” etc. (Wiesinger). The aorist
shows that the author does not look upon the xowwvia, which for the Chris-
tian is aimed at in the bestowal of the promises, as something entirely future
(Vorstius: quorum vi tandem divinae naturae in illa beata immortalitate vos quo-
que parlicipes efficiemini), but as something of which he should even now be
partaker.!. The thought that man is intended to be partaker of the divine
nature, or to be transfigured into the divine being, — which is accomplished
in him through faith in the promises, —is, though in other terms, often
enough expressed in the N. T. (Heb. xii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 23; John i. 12, 18,
and many other passages). Hemming justly remarks: vocat hic divinam
naturam id quod divina praesentia efficit in nobis, t.e., conformitatem nos(ri cum
Deo, seu imaginem Dei, quae in nobis reformatur per divinam praesentiam in
nobis. When Hofmann urges the expression gto against this view, because
a distinction must be drawn between the gion of man and the personal life
of man, the former remaining even in him who is regenerate always the
same, until this ciua is changed from a caya puyxéy to a oda mvevparuxdy, he
' fails to observe that it is not the human, but the divine gic that is here
spokeh of, and in God there can be no difference made between natural and
1 Hornejus: “incipit ea in hac vita per magts illic erimus per adspectum et si hic per
gratiam, sed perficietur in altera per gloriam; gratiam id adipisclmur, quanto magie illic
si enim jam hic in ista imbecillitate divinae per gloriam, ubi Deus ipee erit omnia in
paturae consortes sumus per fidem, quanto omuibus.’’
380 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
personal life. The expression giac is here quite inappropriately pressed by
Hofmann. As opposed to the mystic “deification,* it must be remarked,
with the older interpreters, that the expression gto conveys the thought,
not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas. Grotius’ interpreta-
tion dilutes the idea: ut fieretis imitatores divinae bonitatis. The second per-
son (yévnode) serves to appropriate to the readers in particular that which
belongs to all Christians (juiv).1— damogvyovres rig tv (TQ) xoouw bv éemibvuig
g0opdc]. These words do not express the condition on which the Christian
becomes partaker of the divine nature, but the negative element which is
most intimately connected with the positive aim. Accordingly, the trans-
lation is incorrect: “if you escape” (Luther, Briickner); amopuydvrec is to be
translated “escaping, eluding;” the aor. part. is put because the verb is
closely conjoined with the preceding aorist yévnofe. It is to be resolved into:
“in order that ye might be partakers of the divine nature, in that ye escape
the g@opa.”2 With g@opa, cf. chap. ii. 12, and especially Rom. viii. 21; Gal.
vi. 8 (see Meyer on the last passage). By it is to be understood not simply
perishableness, but more generally corruption. The term g@opa is here more
nearly defined as # év rd xoouw dopa, i e., the corruption which dwells in the
(unredeemed) world, and to which all thereto belonging is a prey. The
further more precise definition: év én@vyig, states that this gfopa has its origin
in the evil lust, opposed to what is divine, which has its sway in the world
(1 John ii. 16, 17). — azog., here c. gen.; chap. ii. 18, 20, cum accus. constr.
— The sequence of thought in vv. 3, 4, is: Christ hath granted us every
thing that is serviceable to salvation and holiness, and that by the knowl-
edge of God who hath called us by His glory; through it he has given us
the most glorious promises, the design of which is the communication of the
divine life.
Vv. 5, 6. xat atrd rovro dé]. xad... dé, equivalent to “but also,” “and
_also;” cf. Winer, p. 412 f. (E. T., 448); Buttmann, p. 312 (E. T., 864).
xai adds something new to what goes before; dé brings out that what is
added is to be distinguished from what precedes.2— Neither epi nor xara
1 Hofmann arbitrarily objects to this inter.
pretation, that a change of persons could not
take place in a clause expressive of a design;
rather does it simply depend on the will of the
writer, where he wishes it to take place.
When the writer of a letter wishes to state the
purpose of any thing which has been imparted
to all, should he not in particular apply it to
those to whom he addresses his letter ? —
Augusti strangely presses the change of per.
sons by applying yucv to the Jews, yernode to
the heathen converts, and understanding deta
dvocs of the divine descent of the Jews.
® Bengel: ‘‘haec fuga non tam ut officilum
nostrum, quam ut beneficium divinum, com-
munionem cum Deo comitans, h. }. ponitur.”*
Dietlein: ‘arog. contains no demand and
condition, but only the other side of the fact:
Ye have entered the kingdom of the divine
nature, therefore ye have left the kingdom
of the worldly nature.” — By transferring
yévno6e to the future, Schott gives an er-
roneous (linguistically) interpretation of azo-
gdvyévres as future also: ** Ye shall become
partakers of the divine nature, as such who
have (shall have) precisely thus escaped
THS . . « P8opas.”
8 Hofmann, without any reason, ascribes
two different meanings to cai... 8d, by say-
ing, that ‘‘cac ... &¢ is either equal to ‘ but
now,’ or else to ‘ but also;’ in the first case
«ai adds something further, which 8 polnts
out to be something different, and must be
added to what precedes by way of explana-
tion; in the second case de adds something dif-
ferent, and «a intimates that it is added on to
what precedes, which cannot do without it.”
kai... S¢ has in itself always the same sig.
CHAP. I. 8, 6. 381
nor npoc is to be supplied to atrd robro, which stands here absolutely, equiva-
lent to dv abrd rovto: “ for this very reason,” cf. Winer, p. 184 f. (E. T., 142),
and refers back to the thought contained in c¢ mavra . . . dedwpnuévnc, and
further developed in the clauses following: “since ye have been made par-
takers of all that, therefore,” etc. Grotius: Deus fecit quod suum est, vos
quuque quod vestrum est faciete. Dietlein takes abrd rovro as a simple accusa-
tive dependent on émyzopjoare (thus also Steinfass); but this combination,
which would make rovro refer to the subsequent éy rq x. ty. riv dperfy, or to
r, apetnv alone, is opposed by the airé beside it, which looks back to what
has gone before. Nor does Dietlein fail to see this, for he explains: “the
announcements given are now to be produced in the form of Christian
virtues ;" this, however, results in a “straining ” (Briickner) of the thought.
— As regards the connection of clauses, the apodosis belonging to ver. 3
begins with ver. 5, not, however, in quite regular construction. Hofmann,
on the other hand, holds that the apodosis conveying the exhortations begins
already with iva in ver. 4. He looks upon iva as depending on émyoprygoare,
and considers that the two participial clauses, droguyévrec, x.7.4, and wal...
mapeoevéyxavtec, are to be closely connected with each other, and both to-
gether joined with the imperative; accordingly he translates: “ Considering
that His divine power hath given us all that is serviceable to life and godli-
ness . . . ye should, in order thereby to become partakers of the divine
nature, having escaped the corruption in the world occasioned by lust, but for
that very reason giving all diligence, supply virtue in and with your faith.”
But opposed. to this view is: (1) The intolerable cumbrousness of the con-
struction; (2) The circumstance that although a dependent clause may
precede the clause on which it depends, this may take place only when the
clearness of the style does not thereby suffer, i.e., when the periods are so con-
structed that the dependent clause cannot, by any rule of language, be taken
with a preceding clause,—but this is plainly not the case here; (3) The
aorist yévqode, instead of which the present would have been written; and
finally, (4) The impossibility of here applying da rotray to any thing that
goes before. This becomes the more obvious if the preceding secondary
clause be considered as standing after the imperatival clause émyopnyjoare
. ayanny.—onovdjy macayv sapetcevéyxavrec, cf. Jude 3: mdcav on. rotovuevog
(Jos., Arch. xx. 9. 2: elogépev oravdjv), mapa points out that believers on
their side (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott) should contribute their part,
namely, the orovd7, to what has here been given them. That zapa has not
here the implied idea of secresy, is self-evident; but it is also unjustifiable
when Hofmann asserts that rapeooépey orovd7y means “the application of
diligence, which endeavors after something already given in a different man-
ner.” — éntyopnyjoate év ry mioret duov rhy dperny), émcyopnyeiv, either “ contrib-
ute,” i.e., your contribution to the work of salvation (De Wette), or more
probably, according to the use of the word elsewhere in the N. T. (2 Cor.
ix. 10; Gal. iii. 5; cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 11), “to supply” (Briickner, Wiesinger,
nification; &¢ only emphasizes the new element cnt one from what goes before, or altogether
added by «a, whether this be merely a differ- antithetical to It.
382 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Hofmann); it is here placed as correlative to the term dedwpnra, ver. 4, and
denotes “the gift which the believer gives in return for the gift of God”
(Wiesinger, although the meaning of the word does not quite justify him in
doing so, adds: “or more accurately, by which he again presents to God his
own gift in the fruit it has produced"’). Dietlein’s interpretation is erro-
neous: “to perform in dance.” This meaning the word never has. Even
xopyyeiv Sometimes means “to lead a dance,” but not “to perform any thing
in dance.” The original meaning of émyop. is: “to contri the ex-
penses of a ydpoc.” Schott’s assertion is arbitrary, “that tmyopnyeiv signifies
a supplying of what is due to one in virtue of an official or honorary posi-
tion.” — Pott incorrectly explains the preposition év by da; De Wette inade-
quately by “in, with, of that which is already present, and to which something
else should be added.” The sense is: “since you have rior, let it not be
wanting in dpery.” It is not meant, that to the xiore, as something different
from it, dper7 should be added ; but dpery belongs to rioru, and for this reason
the Christian must put it into practice. The same relation is preserved in
the members which follow.! sicre¢ is presupposed as the origin (Oecume-
nius: Geuédoc rwv ayabdv nal xpnric) of all Christian virtues, and in the first
instance of the dper7, by which Oecumenius understands ra épya; Gerhard:
generale nomen omnium operum et actionum bonarum. Calvin: honesta et bene
composita vila; it is best explained by strenuus animae tonus ac vigor (Bengel):
“moral efficiency” (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.).2—& 6 ry dperg rv
yroov), 7 yao is not here 7 rév rod God atoxpigwy uvornpiuy eldyou (Oecum.),
nor is it “the knowledge of God which the Christians possess” (Dietl.);
but as the matter in hand here is the practical proof of the Christian temper,
it must be understood as denoting the perception of that which the Christian
as such has to do in all relations of life, and of how he has to do it (Besser,
Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Briickner, in agreement with this: “ discre-
tion”’).2— Ver 6 The three virtues here named are: the éyxparea, the
trouovn7, and the eboéBera. — éyxparea, besides here, in Acts xxiv. 25 and Gal.
vi. 22 (Tit. i. 8: éyxparye; 1 Cor. vii. 9, ix. 25: éyxparetouar), denotes the
contro] of one’s own desires; 7d undevi droctpecdat rdber (Oecumenius) ; cf. on
Tit. i. 8.4 Compare this with the passage in Jes. Sir., xviii. 30, where under
the superscription éyxpdrea yuri there is the maxim: dniow rav emdvuwy cov
uy mopeiov, xai and trav opégecy ouv xwAvov.—inozovy is enduring patience in all
temptations. Besser aptly recalls the proverb: abstine, sustine. — With
1 Steinfasa remarks: ‘‘éy conceives the
accusatives as involute accusatives, and as
elements of the previous datives;” this cer-
tainly is correct, but must be supplemented
thus far, that the element of the preceding
conception, expreased by the accusative, stands
forth as a special grace, and thus becomes, as
it were, the complement of it.
3 Hofmann: ‘that disposition which shows
iteelf in the doing of what ia right and good.”
3 Besser is undoubtedly right in trying to
prove that Luther's ‘“‘ modesty” has another
aignification than that in which the word is at
present employed; still that expression does
not altogether coincide with yrwors, which
Luther understands as meaning that “‘ circum.
spectness ” which knows how to maintain the
right moderation in all things.
* Hofmann unwarrantably disputes this in.
terpretation by saying that éy«p. is ‘‘that
quality by which a person denies himeelf al!
that is unprofitable; ” for the denying one’s eelf
that which is unprofitable, for which there is
no desire, surely gives no proof whatever of
éyxpareca.
CHAP. I. 7. 383
eboéBera, comp. ver. 3; Dietlein, without sufficient justification, explains it
here as “the godly awe and respect in the personal, domestic relations of
life.” If evoéBea do not apply only to our relation to God (e.g., Dio Cass.,
Xlvili. 5: dea ray mpd rov ddeAgdv eboésecav), the other object of it must in this
case be definitely stated.
Ver. 7 adds @AadeAgia and dyarn to the virtues already named. These
are to be distinguished thus, that the former applies specially to the Chris-
tian brethren, the latter to all— without distinction; 1 Thess. iii. 12: # ayamy
ei¢ GAAnAove cai ec wavtac (Gal. vi. 10); with geAadeAgua, cf. 1 Pet. i. 22. While
the apostle calls the love which is extended to all dyam7, he gives it to be
understood that what he means is not the purely natural well-wishing, but
Christian love springing from the Christian spirit. Dietlein, without suf-
ficient reason, thinks that g:AadeAgia is only the opposite of that which is
forbidden in the eighth and ninth commandments, whilst the aya7y is the
complete antithesis to what is forbidden in the tenth commandment. In
this way the conception gAadeAgia is unjustifiably disregarded, —a proceed-
ing to which the language of Scripture gives the less sanction, that where
love in all its depth and truth is spoken of, the word gay is not unfre-
quently used; cf. John v. 20, xvi 27, etc. — Although the different virtues
here are not arranged according to definite logica}) order, yet the way in
which they here belong to each other is not to be mistaken. Each of the
virtues to be shown forth forms the complement of that which precedes, and
thus gives rise to a firmly-linked chain of thought. dpery7 supplies the com-
plement of mrortc, for faith without virtue is wanting in moral character, and
is in itself dead; that of aper7 is yycou, for the realizing of the moral volition
is conditioned by comprehension of that which is needful in each separate
case; that of yruorg is éyxpurea, for self-control must not be wanting to voli-
tion and comprehension; that of éyxpureta is imouovn, for there are outward
as well as inward temptations to be withstood; that of urouov7 18 eiceBea, for
only in trustful love to God has the étoxzovy firm support; that of eboé3ea the
oAadeAgia, for “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can
he love God whom he has not seen?” (1 John iv. 20); that of eAadeAgia the
ayarn, for without the latter the former would degenerate into poor narrow-
heartedness. Thus, in that the one virtue is the complement of the other,
the latter produces the former of itself as its natural outcome; Bengel:
praesens quisque gradus subsequentem parit et facilem reddit, subsequens priorem
femperat ac perficit.!
1 According to Dietlein, the three first
graces, including s:oms, correspond to the
first table of the law, the three firet petitions
of the Lord’s Prayer, the first article of the
Creed, and to faith in the Pauline triad; the
three following graces, to the first half of
the second table of the law, tbe fourth petition
ia the Lord’s Prayer, the second article of the
Creed, and the second grace iv the Pauline
triad, the two last graces, to the second half of
the accond table of the law, the three last peti-
tions of the Lord’s Prayer, the third article of
the Creed, and the third grace of that triad.
Certainly there is here a good deal that coin-
cides, but this by no means warrants a consist-
ent parallelism of all the individual pointe,
which can only gain an appearance of correct-
ness by an arbitrary narrowing or extending
of the ideas and their applications. —It ts
worthy of remark, that the series begins with
mons abd ends with ayarn; in that, then, ver.
11 points to the future, eAmis is added, so that
the well-known triad is here alluded to
(Schott).
384 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Ver. 8. Reason for the foregoing exhortation. — raira, i.e., the virtues
above mentioned. — yép iuiv vmdpyovra Kal mAeovdgovra]. For uzapyew c. dat.,
ef. Acts iii. 6; wAeovafovra intensifies the idea bzdpyovra; for mAcovage, cf. my
commentary to 1 Tim. i. 14; it means either “to be present in abundance,”
strictly, to exceed the measure (abundare), or “to become more, to increase
(crescere).”” Here the first of these two meanings seems to deserve the pref:
erence; though not so in the judgment of Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott,
Steinfass, Hofinann. The participles may be resolved into “in that”
“since ” (Dietlein), or “if” (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); the latter is to
be preferred. inasmuch as this verse refers back to the exhortation ver. 5,
and in “ver. 9 the opposite is assumed as possible” (Briickner); thus: “for
if these virlues exist in you, and that in rich measure;” Luther in his transla-
tion has combined the two translations. — ob« dpyove ovdé dxiprous xadiornot).
tuac is to be supplied. Hornejus: Aurorne est, cum ait: non inerles neque in-
fructuosos pro operosos et fructuosos; Dietlein: “the ot« and ovdé belong to
the adjectives, not to xasiornov.”’ — For dpyoc, cf. 1 Tim. v. 13; Tit. i. 12;
obn apyoc, equivalent to “active.” dxaproc cannot mean only “without fruit,”
but “barren” also; cf. Eph. v. 11 (as against Schott). — xaéiorno:: the
present is not put here for the future (IIornejus). According’ to Dietlein,
Wiesinger, and Schott, xaSiornu: should mean, “to cause to appear, to ex-
hibit,” so that the sense would be: “he who possesses these virtues, he
thereby appears as bringing forth fruit with regard to the émyv, rob xupiav 'I.
Xp.,” by which is meant that his knowledge manifests itself as an active one.
' This is, however, incorrect: for (1) A meaning is thereby attributed to xavie-
rnu Which it never has, either in the classics or in the N. T. (not even in
Jas. iii. 6, iv. 4, and Rom v. 19); it means “to set up,” but not to set forth,
to exhibit, to manifest, ete. (2) It gives a meaning to ée/c such as that word
has nowhere else, since the object with which it is to be taken is always to
be thought of as the end, and that even in the more loose connection in
which e/¢ is equal to “ with regard, with respect to.” (3) It is a somewhat
idle, because a self-evident reflection, that if knowledge produce the above-
named virtues, it thereby nanifests itself as a knowledge that is not inactive.!
It is also inaccurate to translate with Luther: “where such is present in
abundance in you, it will let you be neither idle nor unfruitful in the knowl-
edcve,” etc., for e/g is not equal to év. The verb xadiornu denotes, in connec-
tion with an adjective, reddere, to make into, to set one up as; cf. Pape,
s.v.; and the preposition ec expresses the direction, so that the thought is:
those virtues make you (or, more exactly, place you as) active and fruitful
with regard to knowledge, i.e., by them you are advanced with regard to
knowledge; cf. Col. i. 10: éy navi ipyw d)ada xapropopoivtes Kai abgavouevor eic
tiv kriyvwotv tov Beod (cf. Meyer, in loc.); De Wette: “The author considers
all these virtues only as steps to the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and this
knowledge he regards not merely as theoretical, but as one to be obtained
1 This third reason also contradicts Hof. neither inactive nor unfruitful, he makes this
mann’s interpretation, which he expresses aiming the rule of all his actions, but vo that
thus: “ The believer posserses the knowledge = they should be its work, its fruit.”
of Christ. If then, io aiming at it, he be
CHAP. I. 9. 385
practically, a living into Him, and, at the same time, perfect;” thus, too,
Briickner, Fronmiiller, Steinfass.
Ver. 9 gives in negative form an explanation of the preceding verses. —
@ ydp yi mapeort ravra, antithesis to ravra . . . mAeovafovra, ver. 8. The posses-
sion of these graces furthers knowledge, for he who does not possess them is
rvodcc, that is, in so far as he is, and remains, without the true knowledge
of Jesus Christ. x7 is explained thus, that the idea which lies at the basis
is: “he who is so constituted, that he is without these virtues” (Hofmann),
or so that he must be judged as being without them.! — rugdéc dort, pywrdgur),
pounacer (am, Acy.) means, to be a piwy, i.e., one short-sighted :? accordingly
yvunigiwy serves More nearly to define the term tvpdc¢ as one who can see only
what is near, not what is far off. Schott correctly explains puwrdafuy by
“weak-sighted.” The older commentators, following Oecumenius, for the
most part take wuwrdfev as synonymous with rugddrrev; thus Calvin, Hor-
nejus, etc.; but the identification in meaning of these two terms cannot be
justified, whilst it gives rise to an intolerable tautology. The translation
of the Vulgate: manu tentans (similarly, Erasmus: manu viam tentans;
Luther: “and gropes with the hand;” Calvin: manu palpans), has arisen
probably from the gloss, wyAagov, perhaps with reference to Deut. xxviii.
28, 29; Isa. lix. 10. Wolf interprets the word, after Bochart (Hierozoic
l. lc. 4), by xauubew oculos claudere;* but pvurager is not derived from
uiev rac orac, but from piv. A piwy, however, is not one who arbitrarily
closes his eyes, but one who, from inability to see far enough, is obliged to
blink with his eyes, in order to see a distant object. The same applies
to Dietlein, who translates: “one who closes his eyes,” by which he con-
ceives a roluntary closing of the eyes, precisely that which is opposed to the
meaning of the word. If, then, gvwrdtw» mean a short-sighted person, the
question arises: What is that near at hand which he sees, and that far off
which he does not see? The first expression is generally understood as ap-
plying to earthly, and the second to heavenly things. Hofmann, on the other
hand, explains: “he sees only what is present to him: that he is a member
of the Christian Church; but how he has become so, that lies outside his
horizon.” Here, however, the first thought is purely imported, and the
second has only an apparent justification in the clause which follows. —
AnOnv Au3ov]. am, Aey. equal to oblitus; Vulgate: oblirionem accipiens: cf.
trouvnow AaBov, 2 Tim. i. 5 (cf. Joseph., Ant. ii. vi. 9; Wetstein, Losner,
Krebs, in loc.) ; taken strictly, the translation is- “having received the Aj6n.”
Hofmann justly remarks: that this aoristic clause is not only co-ordinate
with the preceding, but is added to it by way of explanation. He is wrong,
however, when he thinks that it is intended to elucidate pworiiuv. By it
the author refers not to the consequences (Steinfass, and formerly here), but
1 Schott unwarrantably maintains, on the cy oi yeparres Trois pvmmdgovow* Ta yap éyyus
interpretation of ver. 8 here adopted, that the 4) Opwerres Ta woppwGev BAdwovery.
translation must be, ** he becomes blind.” 3 TudAcs puwragwr is dicitur, qui ideo
3 Aristotle interprets sec. 31: uwvewagor caecus est, quia sponte claudit oculos, ut ne
TES: OF dx yeverns Ta wey dyyus BAetovres, Ta S¢ © Videat.
«€ awogracess ovx opwrres’ dvayria 8¢ wagxov-
386 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. :
rather to the reason of the blindness, or, more strictly, short-sightedness,
which manifests itself in the want of the Christian graces. Dietlein arbi-
trarily emphasizes this forgetting as a roluntary act. This is justified neither
by the expression itself nor by the connection of thought. — rot xadapiouow
Tov maha avrod duaprnuatuv, “the (accomplished) cleansing from the former
sins; ” not as Winer formerly, in the fifth edition, p. 214, conjectured: “the
purification, i.e., the removal of sins:" cf. Heb. i. 3. As madac shows, xa6ap.
does not here mean a continuous (to be obtained by repentance perhaps,
etc.), but a completed process. Not, however, the (ideal) xadapsopd¢ of sins
for the whole world of sinners, accomplished through Christ's death on the
cross ; —avrov is opposed to this; but the cleansing, i.e., forgiveness, pro-
cured by the individual in baptism (thus to Briickner, Schott, Hofmann;
Wiesinger less aptly applies it to the calling), so that muAa dénotes the time
preceding baptism; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11.
Ver. 10. Resumption of the exhortation. —6ad udddov]. 66 is usually
taken as referring to the truth expressed in vv. 8, 9, and udAdov interpreted
as equal to “all the more.” The meaning is, then: that this truth should
still more incite to zeal (thus Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Dietlein,
on the other hand, takes waAAov as “ushering in an antithesis," equal to
“rather;” thus also Hofmann. The former supplies the thought: “instead
of following a virtueless endeavor after a so-called éniyywor,” for which,
however, in the context there is no warrant. The latter more correctly
applies it to what immediately precedes, in this sense, “the readers should
do the opposite of that which Peter calls a forgetting that they have received
the pardon of sin.”! That the particle paAdov frequently expresses an an-
tithesis, cannot be denied; cf. 1 Cor. v. 2: but as little can it be questioned
that it may serve to express intensification; cf. Meyer on 2 Cor. vii. 7. In
this way both interpretations are possible. Still that which is usually given
appears to be preferable, inasmuch as it seems more natural to apply the
very significant thought of this verse to vv. 8, 9, than only to the subordi-
nate idea immediately preceding. — adeAgoi makes the exhortation more
urgent. — omovduoate . . . moeiodar]. The exhortation here points back to
ver. 5: onovday m. mapeccevéyx. The relations of xAjou and éxdoyy are thus
stated by Gerhard: VOCATIO, qua in tempore ad regnum gratiae vocati estis ;
ELECTIO, qua ab aeterno ad regnum gloriae electi estis; in like manner Wie-
singer, Froniniiller, etc.; cf. Liinemann also on 1 Thess. i. 4. But éxdoyn
can also denote the election effected by the xAjoz, i.e., the separation of
those who are called from the world, and the translation of them into the
kingdom of God. And this latter view is supported not only by the position
in which the two ideas stand to each other, but by the connection of thought
(Grotius, Briickner, Schott, Hofmann) ;? for the summons eGaiav rouirba
can apply only to something which has been realiter accomplished in man,
1 Hofmann interprets &6 in harmony with 3 Grotius: ‘‘date operam, ut et vocatio
his conception of ver.2: ‘for this reason, quae vobis contigit per evangellum et electio
because he only, who is possessed of the afore- eam eecuta, qua facti estis Dei populus, ratae
named graces, is capable of putting his knowl. - aint.”
edge into practice.”
CHAP. I. 11, 12. 887
not to the decree of God in itself unchangeable and eternal. For this reason
Calvin feels himself compelled unwarrantably to paraphrase ozovd, Be3. . . .
rosioga: by: studete ut re ipsa testatum fial, vos non frustra vocatos esse, imo
electos.1— For @eBaiav, cf. Heb. iii. 6, 14. The making sure takes place
then, when the Christians, by a conduct such as is directed in vv. 5, 8, do
their part to remain the called and elected people; thé opposite of this is
expressed in ver. 9. — The reading: iva dud trav xadov tuov Epyuv Beg. x.7.A.,
reproduces the thought in substance correctly. —raita yap xooivrec]. raira
refers not to the foregoing virtues, as Hofmann thinks, but to that which
immediately precedes; “the plural shows that the apostle considered this
making sure a very many-sided act” (Dietlein). — ov uy mraionré nore). rai
means in Jas. ii. 10, ili. 2, “to offend” (Vulg.: non peccubitis); hore as in
Rom. xi. 11, “to forfeit salvation ;” thus also Hofmann. It is unjustifiable
to combine the two ideas (De Wette: “to fall, and so to fail of salvation”).
The double negation of uz, and the moré placed at the end, strengthen the
statement.
Ver. 11. obrw yap]. Resumption of the raira mowoivres ; Dittlein’s inter-
pretation is erroneous: “ precisely when ye in all humility renounce every
arrogant striving after distinction;” for there is no reference here to any
such striving. — Aovolug émixopnynOjoeTar tyuv 7 eicodug etc, x.7.A,]. The con-
junction of eisodoc and xAovarwe imcyopnyndjoerat 18 surprising. It is incorrect
to attribute to nAovoiwg a meaning different from that which it always has
(thus Grotius: promplissimo Dei affectu; Augusti: “in more than one way"). —
It is, however, also erroneous to make dove. émyop, apply not to eicodog itself,
but to the condition which is entered upon after the sioodoc, “the higher
degree of blessedness” (De Wette).? émzop, represents the entrance into the
eternal kingdom of Christ as a gift; mdovoiug as a gift abundantly, in so far
as that entrance is not in any way rendered difficult, or even hindered; the
opposite is the udjcc, 1 Pet. iv. 18. Schott is not quite accurate in applying
niovowws to the “secure certainty of the entrance.’ Wiesinger adopts both
the interpretation of Gerhard: diviles erilis in paaemiis coelestibus, and that of
Bengel: uf quasi cum triumpho intrare possitis. Dietlein here inaptly brings
in with émyopny. ‘the conception of a chorus in solemn procession.” It is
to be noted that as émyopyynoare, ver. 5, points back to dedwpyra: in ver. 4, so
does this émyopn)nOqcera here to émyopnynoare. The Christian's gift in return
inust correspond with the gift of God, and the return-gift of God again with
that of the Christian.
Ver. 12. dd, not “therefore, because the whole duty consists precisely in
the not forgetting” (Dietlein), for no expression was given to any such
thought here, but “because to him alone,’ who in the supplying of virtues
1 Besser too Ia wrong: ‘‘ the apostie exhorts
in these words, that what fe stable with God,
be also stable with us.”
2 Steinfaes: “‘ This passage treats of the
way, of the admission to it, and not of the
bieasedneas which awalts the believer at the
endof it.” He is right, only that 1: fo not even
the way that fa treated of, but merely the ad-
mission (or, more correctly, the entrance) to it.
> Hofmann takes exception to this “only; ”
wrongly, for although the apoatle merely says,
** that he who would hve up to his exhortations
would uuduubtedly tind an entrance opeu to
the everlasting kingdom of Chriat,’’ still that
388 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
reaches an ever more complete knowledge of Christ, is an entrance into the
everlasting kingdom of Christ ministered. — yeA270u}. The same form elsé-
where only in Matt. xxiv. 6; De Wette interprets it here: “I will ever have
a care;"’ Schott translates: “I will always be in the position;” but there
is nothing which renders necessary here a translation different from that in
the other passage. Hofmann justly says that it is a circumlocution for the
future of troupvasxevv, as in Matt. for dxovew, and that dei must be joined
with yeAajsw. — Luther, following the Rec. ob« dueAjow: “therefore I will
not cease.” — rep? robtwy, i.e., of all that which has been already mentioned.
It is not to be limited to any one thing; and therefore not, with De Wette,
to “the kingdom of God and its future;” nor, with Wiesinger, to “the
manifestation of faith in its fruits;° and still less can robrwv be understood,
with Hofmann, of the virtues mentioned in vv. 5-7. In this verse the author
promises his readers that he will ce, i.e., at every time, as the opportunity
presented itself (Hofmann in all probability incorrectly: “when I address
you”), remind them of this. By what means, is not said; but that he does
not refer to this epistle, is shown by the so strongly expressed future. — xaimep
eidotac]. Calvin: Vos quidem, inquit, probe tenelis, quaenam sit evangelii veritas,
neque vos quasi fluctuantes confirmo, sed in re tanta monitiones nunquam sint
supervacuae: quare nunquam molestae esse debent. Simili excusatione ulitur
Paulus ad Rom., xv. 14. Cf. also 1 John ii. 21; Jude 5. —xal éornprypévove
év Ty Tapovoy aAnbeia, “and made firm, i.e., are firm in,” ete.; not “although ye
are supported, i.e., have won a firm position by standing on the present
truth” (Dietlein). é» ry wap, dAno. is the complement of tornp., and states
not the means by which, but the object in which, the readers have become
firm. — rapovcy stands here in the same sense as roi rapévtoc (that is, ebayyediov)
el¢ buac, Col.i.6.1 De Wette, with not quite strict accuracy, interprets mapovoy
as equal to rapadogeicy, Jude 3. Vorstius, Bengel, etc., incorrectly take it as
referring to the fulfilment in the gospel of the Old-Testament promises; and
Schott, instead of to truth in an objective sense, “to the relation of fellow-
ship with God, in which they stood as Christians.”
Vv. 13, 14. dixasov de gyotuar}. “1 consider it right and reasonable” (Diet-
lein: “asaduty”); cf. Phil. i. 7; ver. 14 states the reason. — io’ da0v eiul tv
TOUT Tp) OxNvepaTt], oxivupa, like oxivoc, 2 Cor. v. 1, “ the tabernacle,” a figura-
tive designation of the human body; cf. Wisd. ix. 15: rd yedde¢ axivog.
There can hardly be here any direct reference to the nomadic life in tents
(Hornejus). — deyecpey bude év brouvgoet, “to stir you up hy reminding you, i.e.,
to encourage you.’"’ The same combination takes place in chap. iii. 1; dceyei-
pew is to be found elsewhere only in the Gospels, and there in its strict
signification. — év brouvzoe points back to broumuviaonev in ver. 12, which, in
the aim of it, dceyetpecy serves to define more nearly. In De Wette’s opinion,
these words are written with special reference to the advent of Christ; but
there is nothing to indicate any such limitation of them. It cannot, with
16 as much as to aay that he who does not do so 1 Steinfass says : “* Theantitbesis to rapovey
will not find that entrance; consequently the ja Peter's absence; ” 1t Is bardly probable that
‘only’? is underetood of itwelf. the writer thought of this antithesis.
CHAP. I. 15. 889
Dietlein, be concluded that this letter is linked on to the First Epistle of
Peter, from the circumstance that in 1] Pet. v. 8, 9, ypn)opycare is to be found
followed by orepea. — Ver. 14. eiduc, “since 1 know,” gives the reason for
the dicucov wyotpa, ver. 13. — dre rayry ear 7 aruGeate Tov oxqvauatoc pov). The
expression dro@can is to be explained by “a mingling of the figure of a
garment and that of a tent “ (De Wette). — raywy is taken by most cominen-
tators (as also by Wiesinger and Briickner) to mean “soon.” Accordingly
some (De Wette, Fronmiiller, and others) think that in the subsequent
words the writer does not refer to the prediction of Christ contained in John
xxi. 18 ff., but to a later revelation vouchsafed to Peter (such as is men-
tioned by Hegesippus, De Excid. Jerosolym., 11). 2, and by Ambrose, Ep. 33) ;
but Bengel already translated rayivy éarw correctly by repentina est: observ-
ing: Praesens, qui diu aegrotant, possunt altos adhuc pascere. Crux id Petro
non erat permissura. I:deo prius agit, quod ayendum erat.’ In chap. ii. 1 also,
taxivoe means “sudden, swift (Vulg., velor), not “soon.” Peter says here
that he will end his life by a sudden (i.e., violent) death; so too Steinfass,
Schott, Hofmann; the adjective rayu7 states, not the time, but the manner
of the drdgeare. Accordingly the assumption of a later revelation has no
foundation in this passage.2— The particle xa: after xaudwe, for the most part
left unnoticed, shows that the words xa@uc, «.7.4., are added in confirmation
of Peter’s certainty as to his sudden death, equivalent to “even as indeed.”
With édnaAwoer, cf. 1 Pet. i. 11.
Ver. 15. onovdiow d& nai, “but I will, moreover, also zealously take care,
that.”’ «a: connects this sentence with ver. 13; it belongs to oravduow, not to
what follows. —éxaorore], am, Aey., “on every vccasion,” quoltiescunque usus
venertt (Bengel); it belongs to éyze.1, «.7.4., and must not be connected with
onovdacw, — Eye tua... motecabar}]. The construction of ezovdafev with the
accus. cum inf. only here; é@ye» with the infinitive means, “to be able.” —
Thy uvnuny roetoba, here only, “to call up the memory (recollection) of this,”
that is, in you. similarly yveav noeicdar (Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 16, etc.), —
rovrwy a8 in ver. 12. Dietlein, altogether arbitrarily, understands it of the
memory of the history of Christ as He appeared in the flesh. — Peter prom-
ises to his readers, that as it was his intention in ver. 12 to remind thein of
the truths stated in vv. 3-11, he would also endeavor that after his death
they should always be able to remember them. By what means he would
do this, is in this passage as little stated as in the weAAnow . . . vpuc broutury-
oxecv, Ver. 12. The reference here is not to the first and second epistles ; #
this in like manuer is opposed by the future onvvdiow. The words dé xai
following on omovdiow seem to imply that the author would do something
1 Besser: ‘The Lord had communicated to
him that a quick and sudden putting-off of the
tabernacle of the body awaited him.”’
* Even if raxwwn meant ‘ soon,” it would
not be necessary to understand thie here; for
as John xxi. 18 expressly says, dray 5¢ yepacys,
Peter could, if writing thie epistie in his old
age, appeal to those words of Christ as cor-
roborating his expectation of a speedy death.
3 Dictlein: ‘ Peter finds it neceseary, in the
first place, to stir up their remembrance during
hin lifetime, and secondly, to secure it for the
time after his death; he wishes to provide for
the Jatter also, at ali times, f.e., be will not stop
short at the epistle he has already written, but
will make use of the present opportunity for
writing a second.”
390 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
else besides the brouuvgoxer, whereby his readers after-his death would be
put in a position to remember what he had now written to them. This
additional something may, however, be regarded as the fyew tude... ry
rovTwy pegunyv rowiohar itself in relation to tudc brouuryoxer; that is to say, the
latter states what he, the former what they, should do. It is most probable
that the author in weAAjow broueuvnanery and orovddaw expresses his intention
of continuing for the future also to write to his readers as time and oppor-
tunity presented themselves. It is entirely arbitrary to take the promise as
referring to copies of his letters (De Wette), or to the composition of the
Gospel of Mark, which is supposed to have been done under Peter's super-
intendence (Michaelis, Pott, Fronmiller, etc.), or to the appointing of faithful
teachers, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2.
Ver. 16. ob yap aecogrouévory piBo taxodoviqoavrec], yan shows that this
verse, in which allusion is made to the erroneous teachers, gives the reason
for the azovduow. The connection of thought is perfectly plain, so soon as it
is observed that all that has gone before has been said in close relation to
the “promises” (ver. 4). — ceoogiauerag pido, Luther inexactly: “clever
fables; ” cogigerv means in 2 Tim. ili. 15, “to make wise;” this meaning
is inappropriate here; in the classics it occurs in the sense, ‘‘ to contrive
cleverly ;” thus Aristophanes, Nuh. 543: ae xatvag ideac cogifovar; accordingly
aecoo, wido: are “cleverly contrived fables:” Pott: fabulae ad decipiendos homi-
num animos artificiosae excogitatae atque exornalae;} cf.chap.i. 3, tAacrol Ao; 08.
The interpretation of Aretius is, on the other hand, incorrect: faluae falsam
habentes sapientiae et veritatis spectem. The expression pidoe is to be found in
the N. T. only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. As the author makes no
special allusion of the kind, it is at least doubtful if he refers to any definite
myths; either those of the heathen with reference to the appearances of the
gods upon earth (Oecumenius, Estius, Bengel, etc.), or to those of the Gnos-
tics as to the emanation of the aeons (Dietlein), or to the Gnostic myth of
the Sophia (Baur), or to the apocryphal legends of the birth and childhood
of Christ, especially in the Ev. Infantiae Jesu (Jachmann), or to false myths
as to Christ embellished in the spirit of the Jewish Messianic beliefs (Semler),
or “apocryphal, didactic, and historical traditions, as these were appended by
a later Judaism to the histories of the O. T., especially to the most ancient ”
(Schott, similarly Steinfass), or to the practice of heathen lawgivers, who,
according to Joseplius, appropriated to themselves the fables of popular
belief, borrowing from them their accounts of the gods (Hofmann). The
words express, indeed, an antithesis, but this is of an entirely general kind;
either in order to bring out that the apostolic preachers are not like those
1 Dietlein thinks that the expreasion aego-
dropevors contains a doubie reproach, i.e., not
only by the termination cGecy, but also in as far
asthe word gog:a means what is bad; however,
the termination cgev is by no means always
used in a bad sense, nor does godgcra in itself
mean what is bad, except only in connection
with rov coouov sovrou (1 Cor. 4. 20), avrOpwrivy
(1 Cor. li. 13), etc. Besides, codigecy is mostly
employed so aa to contain the secondary mean-
ing of cleverness (sce Pape, 3.v.) ; consequently
Hofmann Ia wrong in rendering vecod.iopevos
simply by ‘“‘conceired,” asserting that the
word means nothing else. Cf. with our pasa-
age, Josephus, Antig., prooem. 4: ot wév addAos
vouoberat tors pudos’ efaxodovOhcartes Ter
avOpwrivwy auapTnuaTwy es Tous Beous TH Aoyw
THY acoxuuny weTeOnaay, K.T.A.
CHAP, I. 16. 391
others who seek the support of myths,— perhaps with special reference to
the false teachers alluded to in chaps. ii. and iii..— or, what is less probable,
in order to meet the reproaches of these teachers (Wiesinger), and the
contrast serves to give the more prominence to the positive statement. —
ééaxodovenoavrec]. The verb, besides here, only in chap. ii. 2 and 15. The
preposition 2g does not precisely indicate the error (Bengel), but only the
going forth from a particular point; in common usage, however, this second-
ary meaning often entirely recedes; cf. the passage below, quoted from
Josephus, Ant., prooem. §4. By this negative statement the author denies
not only that his message was based on myths, but that in it he followed a
communication received from others (Schott). — éyvupioapev ipiv rv row xvp,
nu. 1. Xp. dovayev x, mapovoiay]. Several interpreters understand this of the
First Epistle of Peter; in which case the plural is surprising, for the author
had already spoken of himself in the singular. Hofmann’s objection to this
view is, that although in his former epistle Peter refers to the power and
coming of Christ, he did not first make it known to the readers. But the
passages 1 Cor. xv. 1 and Gal. i. 11 show that yvupifey may also be used of
a proclamation, the substance of which had already been communicated
to those to whom it was made. Many commentators take the words as
referring to the whole preaching of the apostles, understanding iniv, not of
the readers specially, but of the Gentile Christians generally; thus Wie-
singer, and more decidedly Hofmann. It must be observed, however, in
opposition to this, that yevndévres and the subsequent jueic pxoboayev must
refer to the same subject as éywwpicauev. The most probable explanation is,
that the author, remembering that he was not the only witness of the trans-
figuration, passed from the singular to the plural, and in so doing made use
of tyiv in its extended sense. — rapovoia is not here the nativitas Christi, His
human birth (Vatablus, Erasmus, Hornejus, Pott, Jachmann, etc.), nor
“ His presence during the time He appeared on earth” (Schmid); but, in
harmony both with the N. T. usage (chap. iii. 4; Matt. xxiv. 3, 27; 1 Cor.
xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19, etc.) and the connection of thought (vv. 4, 17, ili. 4):
the return of Christ to judgment (Estius, Semler, Knapp, Dietlein, De Wette-
Briickner, Hofmann, and the more modern interpreters generally).! divayuc,
however, denotes the fulness of might of the glorified Lord, as it will be
more especially revealed in His mapovoia. It is not correct to combine both
ideas into one, and with Hornejus to explain, potens advertus; or with
Bengel, majestas praesentissima. — GAA éxénrat... ueyuaewrynroc}. An antithesis,
affirmatively stated, to what goes before. émomrnc, am. Aey. (1 Pet. ii. 12,
iii. 2: éxonrevw), is the term. techn. for him who had reached the highest
degree of initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries. Keeping to this, Bengel
here interprets, ad intima arcana admissi; De Wette, too, thinks that the
expression has here the secondary meaning of being initiated, of intimacy.
It is no doubt chosen purposely with reference to the fact that the pueyadeorne
of Christ, which Peter and the other two disciples beheld, was a mystery
' Fronmtiller only interprets: “Tlie ap- along with His expected appearance in
pearing with miraculous powers in the flesh, = glory.”
892 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
hidden from the others. Grotius, Pott, and others take it as synonymous
with airémryc, Luke i. 2. The connection demands that érémra: yevndévres
should be referred to the fact of the transfiguration (ver. 17). Hofmann is
wrong in supposing that Peter here thought of the appearance of the risen
One and His ascension. The assertion is refuted not only by the close con-
nection in which ver. 17 stands to this verse, but by the word meyadedrne,
which in no sense is expressive only of “greatness.” As the form in which
Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection was the same
as that in which they had seen Him before it, they were not then in any
way énénra: Of his peyadedrnc; nor is there the slightest hint that there is
here allusion to any fact other than that mentioned in the following verse.
— tig éxeivov peyadedrnros, that is, the glory in which at His transfiguration
Christ showed Himself to the three disciples. Incorrectly, Calvin: ezemplum
unum prae aliis eligit memorabile, in quo Christus coelesti gloria ornatus con-
spicuam divinae magnificentiae speciem tribus discipulis praebuit. The apostle
rather regards the transfiguration glory of Christ as the type—and there-
fore the proof — of the glory of Christ at His mrapovaca. :
Ver. 17. AaSov yap... dogavj. yap, “that is;” explanation of the imme-
diately preceding: émomrat yevndévrec. The participle does not require any
such supplement as 4y or ériyyave, nor is it put instead of the finite verb.
For the principal thought is, not that Christ was transfigured, but that Peter
was a witness of this transfiguration, which was typical of the divauwc xa?
sapovoia of Christ. The finite verb belonging to the participle A4a3ur is
wanting. Its absence is most naturally accounted for by supposing that
the addition of gurij¢ évexdeions, x.r.A., caused the author to forget to notice
that he had not written fale yep. How after writing Aa3uv he intended to
proceed, cannot be definitely said; what is wanting, however, must be sup-
plied from that which goes before, not from what follows. Winer, p. 330
(E. T., 351), incorrectly supplies the necessary complement from ver. 18,
since he says that Peter should have continued ude eize rabryy rv guviv dxov-
cavrac, oF in a similar manner. But it is still more arbitrary to borrow the
supplement from ver. 19 (as is done by Dietlein and Schott). — napa eos
narpoc]. natip is applied here to God in His relation to Christ, with refer-
ence to the subsequent 6 vid¢ wou. — riudv nal ddfav]. “Honor and glory,” as
in Rom. ii. 7, 10; doga denotes not the brightness of Christ's body at the
transfiguration (Hornejus, Gerhard, etc.; Steinfass would understand both
expressions of the shining figure of Christ). Hofmann is unwarranted in
finding in Aa3dv, «.7.4., @ confirmation of his opinion that it is the resurrec-
tion and ascension that are here referred to, inasmuch as God first conferred
honor and glory upon Christ, by raising Him from the dead and exalting
Him. To this it may be said that by every act of God which testified to
His glory, Christ received riu) «ai doga, i.e., “honor and praise.” — gwvi¢
bvexOeionc abro rodade states through what Christ received “honor and praise :”
the expression guv? géperui tim, here only; Luke ix. 35, 36, gu») yiyverac; so
also Mark i. 11; Luke iii. 22 (cf. John xii. 28, 30); ai7o, the dative of direc-
tion, not “in honorem ejus” (Pott).—imd rig ueyadonperoic déénc], tnd 18
neither equivalent to “accompanied by” (Wahl), nor to “from .. . out of”
CHAP, I. 18, 19. * 393
(Winer, fifth edition, p. 442 f.): the preposition, even where in local rela-
tions it inclines to these significations, always maintains firmly its original
meaning, “‘under;" here, as generally in passives, it signifies. “by;" thus,
too, Winer, sixth edition, p. 330, seventh, 346 (E. T., 368): “when this
voice was borne to Him by the sublime Majesty.” % yeyadozpenic (ar. Aey.)
doa means neither heaven nor the bright cloud (Matt. xvii. 5);} it is rather
a designation of God Himself (Gerhard, De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger,
Fronmiiller, Hofmann); similarly as, in Matt. xxvi. 64, God is called by
the abstract expression 7 divauc. With ueyadonperix, cf. Deut. xxxiii. 26,
LXX. — obrég tori 6 vlog pov 6 dyarnric]. So in Matthew; only with the
addition atrot dxovere, and instead of eic bv: “év 3.” In Mark ix. 7 and Luke
ix. 35 (where, instead of dyamrnréc, there is “ éxAedeypévoc ”), the words etc dv
bys etdéxnoa are entirely wanting. The reading adopted by Tisch. 7: 6 vioc
pov 6 ayamnrog wou obtoc icrt, corresponds to none of the accounts in the Gos-
pels; cf. with it the O. T. quotation from Isa. xlii. 1 in Matthew (chap.
xii. 18): 6 maic¢ pou .. . ddyanntog pov, elc bv ebdoxnoey 7 Wuxn ywov. — The con-
struction of evdoxeiy with ei¢ does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; there is
no warrant for the assertion that ei¢ points “to the historical development
of the plan of salvation” (!) (Dietlein).
Ver. 18. xai ravryv .. . évexOeicav; the author is anxious to show promi-
nently that he has been an ear-witness of that divine voice, as well as an
eye-witness of the peyadedrnc of Christ. — ¢é oipavov éex0. is added by way
of emphasis, in order to lay stress on the fact that Christ received that
testimony directly from heaven. — ty rw) dpe ro dyiw). From the epithet
7) dytw it must not, with Grotius, be concluded that the reference here is
to the hill on which the temple stood, and that what is alluded to is not
the transfiguration, but the incident recorded in John xii. 28. Without
any reason, De Wette asserts that that epithet (instead of which Matt.
Xvii. 1 has tyndov) betrays a view of the case more highly colored with
the belief in miracles than that of the apostles, and belonging to a later
period; Calvin already gives the correct interpretation: monlem SANCTUM
appellat, qua ratione terra sancta dicilur, in qua Mosi Deus apparuit; quo-
cunque enim accedit Dominus, ut est fons omnis sanctitatis, praesentiae suae
odore omnia sanctificat, Dietlein: “the ‘in the holy’ is added, not to desig-
nate the mountain, but in order to distinguish it on account of this event;”
so, too, Briickner and the modern commentators generally.
Ver. 19. nat &xouev BeBatorepoy rov mpopytixdr Aoyov, “and we have as one more
stable (surer) the word of prophecy.” ‘The second testimony for the glory of
Christ in His second coming is “the word of prophecy.” This Luther under
stands to mean the “gospel; Griesbach: “ New Testament prophecies ;”
Erasmus: “the heavenly testimony mentioned in ver. 18.” But the connec-
tion with what follows shows that it is the Old-Testament promises which
are here meant. On the singular Bengel rightly says: Afosis, Esaiae et
1 Bchott, indeed, interprets urd correctly, the manifestation which God gave of Him.
but yet thinks that rns weyad. 86fn>s means the self’ (!).
cloud; *‘ not ladeed the cloud in itself, but as
894 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
amnium prophetarum sermones unum sermonem sibi undequaque constantem fa-
ciunt; non jam singularia dicta Petrus profert, sed universum eorum testimonium
- complectitur ; only that here reference is made specially to the promise with
regard to the duvayec xat rapovora of Christ. — The expression xpoonrixde,
besides here, only in Rom. xvi. 26: ypaga? mpogyrexai. — The article roy marks
this as a definite prophecy, well known to the readers. With regard to it
the author says: fyouev deSasrepov; for the force of Pésatoc, cf. especially Rom.
iv. 16; Heb. ii. 2, 9,17; 2 Cor. i. 6. @eawrepov is neither to be connected
directly with the object, nor is the comparative to be taken as synonymous
with the positive or with the superlative. Luther, trebly inaccurate: “we
have a stable prophetic word.” — How then is the comparative to be ex-
plained? Oecumenius says, by the relation in which the fulfilment stands
to the promise, in this sense, that the truth of the latter is confirmed by the
former, and that accordingly the prophetic word has now become more sure
and stable than it was formerly (thus, too, Fronmiiller). But the promise
here in question still awaits its fulfilment. De Wette’s view is more suit-
able. According to it, the comparative is put with reference to the event
mentioned in vv. 17, 18, so that the thought would be, “and the prophetic
word is more stable to us (now) from the fact that we saw and heard that”
(thus, too, Schmidt, II., p. 213, Briickner, Dietlein, Schott )!_ Wiesinger
combines this view with that of Oecumenius. There are objections to this
view; De Wette himself raises them: (1) That any more precise allusion to
this sense by a viv or an é« rovrov is wanting; (2) That in what follows, the
thought stated is neither held fast nor developed. These, however, are
easily removed, when it is considered that there is no intention here of giving
prominence to the point of time, and that in what follows the reference is
precisely to the prophetic word confirmed by the above-mentioned fact; cf.
Briickner. It is incorrect to take the comparative here as implying that the
word of prophecy is placed higher than something else, for this could only
be that event mentioned in vv. 16, 17.2 But the very stress laid on it and
on the éronrat yevndévrec tie éxeivov ueyadeuryroc, is opposed to this view. How
inappropriate would it be, if in comparison with it the word of prophecy
should be brought prominently forward as more stable and sure! The
nominative to éyouev is not the apostles generally (against Hofmann), hardly
either can it be Peter and his readers; but, as the close connection of this
verse with what precedes shows, the subject to &youev is no other than that
to #xotcauev. The author does not, indeed, here appeal to any of Christ’s
own prophecies of His second coming. But this is to be explained, not by
assuming that these were unknown to him, nor because “the rapid succes-
sion of the advent on the destruction of Jerusalem, foretold in them, had
not taken place” (De Wette), but simply because the writer’s aim here was
to point to the testimonies regarding Christ and what related to Him (and
1 Hofmann, too, Interprets thus, only that 2 Stelnfass, indeed, thinks that the ni6o: are
he looks upon the fact, by which the word of _ referred to; Gerhard has already proved the
prophecy is made “ more sure,” not as being incorrectness of this assumption.
Chnat’s transfiguration, with the divine testi-
mony, but His resurrection and ascension.
CHAP. 1.19 | 895
thus not to those of Christ Himself) (thus, too, Briickner). —o& xaddc roceire
npoaiyourec, “ whereunto to take heed, ye do tell,” as Heb. ii. 1: “to give heed
to something with a believing heart.” The searching into the word of
prophecy is only the consequence of this. The same construction of «aa.
noeiy cum part., Acts x. 33; Phil. iv. 14; 3 John 6.1— d¢ Adyuw gaivovri by
abyunnw tromw}. The comparative particle oc points to the nature and signifi-
cance of the Adyor mpog.; it is in the sphere of spiritual life, the same as a
Abxvoc in the outward world of sense. — gaivorr:, not qui lucebat (Bengel) ; it
is rather the present, an attribute of 2vyww. atyunpdc (am. Aey.), literally,
“ parched, dry,” then “ dirty, dingy ” (opposed to Aaunpoc, Arist., De Colorib.).?
It is used with the latter meaning here. atxzyunpd¢ rotoc has indeed been
explained as a desert, or a “place overrun with wild scraggy wood” (Hof-
mann); but this would make sense only if the idea of darkness or night
were added in thought (as by Steinfass), for which, however, there is still
no warrant. —éu¢ ob nuépa dtavyioy)]. ews ob (generally construed with avr),
c. conj. aorist, expresses the duration of the act until the arrival of a future
event which is looked upon as possible; that is, “until the day breaks,” etc.,
not “until the day shal] have dawned” (De Wette), cf. Matt. x. 11, 23, 39 ff.
Some commentators (Bengel, ete., Schott, too, and Hofmann) join éuc ob
with gaivovr; incorrectly; it belongs rather to zpocéyovrec, which in the con-
text has the accent. Taken with ga:vovr it would be a somnewhat superfluous
adjunct, if it be not at the same time applied, according to the thought, to
mpooéxovrec, a8 is done by Dietlein, though without any linguistic justifica-
tion. — diavydferv, am. Acy., used frequently in the classics of the break of day,
when the light shines through the darkness; Rolyb. iii. 104; dua rad dravyagerv.
— Kal gwoddpos avareiAn]. gwopdpoc, Gr, Aey., is not meant to designate the sun
(Hesychius, Knapp, etc.), but the morning star; many interpreters (Besser,
etc.) incorrectly understand by it Christ. The adjunct xal gwopdpoe avareAy
serves only further to complete the picture—that of the morning which
precedes the full day. —év rai¢ xapd:are duwr belongs not to xpocexovrec (Schott),
far removed from it, to which it would form a somewhat dragging supple-
ment; nor is it to be taken with the subsequent robro xpwrov yevwoxovrec (Ilof-
mann). For, on the one hand, the observation that the reference here is to
a heart knowledge, would have a meaning only if yewoaxovrec contained an
exhortation to such knowledge; and, on the other, the position of the words
is opposed to this connection. Consequently év raic xapdiane can be joined
only with the clause immediately preceding éur o%, «.7.4.(De Wette-Briickner,
Wiesinger, Fronmiiller). As to the reference of the figure, commentators
are much divided among themselves. De Wette understands aizunpd¢ rorog
of “the time previous to Christianity, which still continues for those who
were not in the faith, and to whom the readers belonged.” But opposed to
1 Joseph., Ant., xi. 6, 12: ols (ypdupacts original meaning of ‘dry,’ is antithetical to
*Audvov) rojoare cadws un wpordxovtes. oriABov,; ’ is contradicted by the passage Itself
3 Hofmann’s entirely unwarranted asser- to which he appeals, and which runs thus:
tion, “It Is in vain to appeal to the fact, that wove 6a Bsadopay nai rd Aaumpoy fh oTABow elvac
in Aristotle avxunpdés occurs as antithesis to 7d ytyyiuevow Tovvayriov avxunpdy Kai
Aapwpds; the antithesis to Aaumpév there Is ddAapwds (Arist.: wepi xpwudrer; Becker, IT.
éAaumes; On the other hand, avxunpés, in ite 793); and how should or:Asos mean “ wet” ?
396 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
this is the fact that in vv. 1, 12, the author speaks of his readers as believing
Christians. Gerhard (with whom Briickner formerly concurred) takes the
reference to be to the former condition of the readers, when as yet they did
not believe. Against this, however, is the present 3 xadie moveire mpooéy.
The only adequate meaning to attach to roxoc abyu. is, the world in its
present condition (Wiesinger, Briickner, in the third edition of De Wette’s
Commentary). The world is the dark place which is illumined only by the
light of the divine (nore precisely, the prophetic) word; therefore the Chris-
tians do well to give heed to this word, since otherwise they would be in
darkness. In taking exception to this view, Hofmann says that it is “a
mistake to identify the place where the light shines with that where those
are for whom it is lit up.” In his view the meaning should be, that to
him who looks into the final future, to which the prophetic word points,
this word will perform a service similar to that of a light in a pathless
region at night, —this service, namely, “that the believer does not stand
helplessly before the future, which lies before us like a confusion which is
enveloped in night.” But against this explanation it must be urged, that
the figure employed by Peter would be appropriate only if the place in which
the Avyvoc shines were compared with that in which the believers are, and
that the reference to the uncertain future is purely imported. — The words
&ue ob, x.7.4., Show that for the believer another condition of matters will
commence. The time when the day dawns in the hearts of the Christians,
and the morning star arises, and when consequently they can do without
the light, has been variously determined. According to Dorner, it is “a
time within the development of the Christian life in the individual; that
time, namely, when what is matter of history shall become living Knowl-
edge, influencing entirely the whole life.”! But such a separation of the
development of the Christian life of his readers into two periods can the less
be assumed here, that the author would thus accuse them of still possessing
& purely outward Christianity, and it can hardly be supposed that he should
have considered the word of prophecy as unnecessary for the advanced Chris-
tian. Early commentators already correctly applied the words to the parousia.
It is erroneous, however, to understand them of that event itself, for with the
advent the morning passes into the perfect day. The point of time which
Peter has in view is that immediately preceding the second coming, the time
when the onueiov of the Son of man appears (Matt. xxiv. 30), when believers
are to lift up their heads because their droAtrpwou draweth nigh (Luke xxi.
28), when accordingly the morning star which ushers in the day shall arise
in their hearts; similarly, Wiesinger and Briickner.?
Ver. 20. rotvro mpdtov ywwéoxovres}], toiro refers not to any thing said
before, but to the clause following: drt, «.r.4,; ef. chap. lil. 3. —a2pdrov, 1.q.,
1 Lehre v. d. Pers. Christi, 2d ed. part I., the question remains, what that morning is
p. 104. to which they refer. Schott, indeed, passes
3 The difficulty of this verse is not dimin- lightly over this difficulty by saying: ‘It is
ished by the connection of the words dy ¢. left to the reader to transfer this metaphor
apd. vm. with wpocex., and of ews of 9 nudpa, correctly to the dawn of the future day of per-
«.7.A., with damworre (Schott), since, if these fect consummation.”
words ews od are not to be almost meaningless,
CHAP. I. 20. 397
nparov mavtwy, 1 Tim. il. 1; erroneously, Bengel: prius quam ego dico, angliceé:
“before that.” — ydoxovrec: “whilst ye recognize, bring yourselves to the
conscious knowledge that” (De Wette); cf. Jas. i. 3; Heb. x. 34. With-
out any warrant Pott supplies sé, and takes the participle as equivalent to
“dei yevioxerv vuac;” the participle, as such, is rather to be joined closely
tO xa, maeire mpoaty. By rovro mp. yw. the author directs the attention of his
readers to the point to which they in their mpooéyew (ver. 19) should pay
special attention; what that is, the words following say: ért rdaoa mpognreia
... ylverat; maoa . . . ob 18 &@ Hebraism for oideua, cf. Rom. iii. 20; 1 Cor.
1. 29, eto. mpoogyteia ypagix is undoubtedly to be understood of the prediction
of the Old Testament, either the prophecy contained in Scripture, or that to
which the Scripture gives expression. For the construction of y:vera: c. gen.,
ef. Winer, p. 184 (E. T., 195 f.); Buttm.. p. 142 (E. T., 163) ; according to
Buttmann, the genitive definition of the thing with eva: or yivectas frequently
denotes a permanent attribute; thus here: prophecy is of such a kind that
it, etc.; the more precise definition depends on the meaning of the words
idiag émtAvoews. Instead of émAvcews, Grotius would read émnAvceuc, aud Hein-
sius, émeAeboewc ; 80 that the sense would be, the mpoonrea non est res proprii
impetus s. instinctus: but these changes have been justly rejected by Wolf
already as arbitrary. Not less unwarranted is it to understand, with Ham-
mond, ériAvoe originally de emissione cursorum e carceribus, deducing there-
from the thought: that the prophets non a se, sed a Deo missi currerent, or,
with Clericus, de solutione vris, or, with Lakemacher, to derive émAvoiw from
imAevdw (érépyoua:), instead of from emaAdev, thus obtaining the idea: that
prophecy is not accessus proprie aut talis, quae virtute quadam mentis humanae
propria et naturalt proveniat et ad hominem quasi accedat (cf. Wolf, in loc.).
The notion that éxidvor is equal to dissalutio! has been refuted already by
Wolf. — émaAvoiwe means solution, explanation, interpretation; thus Mark
iv. 34, émaiev; Gen. xl. 8, Aquila, émaAvouevog (9), ixidvorc (JS); Gen.
xli. 12, LXX., according to some codd., ra évitua qudr, dvdpl xara 1d évorviov
abrov érédvorr; Phil. De Vita Contempl., p. 901 A.— Almost all expositors
understand émAvo¢ as the interpretation of the zpoonresa made aforetime;:
but «diac, however, has been variously applied: (1) It has been taken to refer |
to the mpoonreca itself; Werenfels (cf. Wolf): apoonntia otw bye thy iaurig imt-
Avatv, that is, ob émAvec éavt@v; thus also Wahl, Dietlein, Briickner. The
positive idea here to be supplied is: but “the interpretation is to be looked
for only from God” (Brickner; Dietlein arbitrarily finds the further idea
contained here, that prophecy must not be treated as allegory). (2) To the
prophets themselves; Oecumenius: sdecav (oi tpogirat) pév nai ovriecav Tov KaTa-
TeuMouevoy abroic mpognTixdy Avyov, ob pEévToL Kal THY imAvow adzov ttaoivro (simMi-
larly, Knapp, De Wette); and the thought to be supplied here is: the
interpretation is then not an easy, but a difficult, matter (De Wette: “the
author makes this remark in order to excuse the difficulty of the interpreta-
tion, and to take away the pretext for unbelief or scoffug”). (3) To the
1 Hardt: ‘‘omnis promissio non est dissolutionis sed indissolubilis, immutabilie,” etc.;
aimilariy Storr, Opp. U. 391 ff.
398 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. ae
readers or to man generally. This is the view most generally adopted; it
is that of Beda, Erasmus, Luther, Aretius, Gerhard, Pott, Steiger, Schmid,
Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, etc.; and the positive thought to be
supplied is: only the Holy Spirit cau expound the prediction (Luther: “act
accordingly, and do not think that you can interpret Scripture according to
your own reason or cunning; Peter has forbidden it; you are not to inter-
pret; the Holy Spirit must interpret, or it must remain uninterpreted”). But
opposed to all these interpretations is: (1) The necessity of supplying the
positive thought which really contains the point of the remark, but to which
the apostle does not give expression; (2) The connection of thought, accord-
ing to which ver. 20 is subjoined as a confirmation of the ¢ nado moeite mpocé-
xovres. If the thought here expressed were intended to give a caution with
respect to the xpooé,erv, or to forin, as Wiesinger says, a condition preliminary
and necessary to it, this must in some way have been referred to. Besides,
it must be noted that eva: or y:veoda:, c. gen., implies a relation of depend-
ence, and in such a way that the genitive denotes that on which something
else depends.!_ Now, it may, indeed, be said that the “understanding ” of
prophecy, but not that prophecy itself, depends on the interpretation of it.
The rendering, “ prophecy is not a matter of private interpretation ” (or even,
“it does not permit of private interpretation,” Hofmann), takes too little
account of the force of the genitive. For these reasons é7i2vo~ must neces-
sarily be understood rather of an “interpretation ’ on which the mpodyrea is
based, on which it depends. But this is the explanation of the problematic
future itself, or of the figure under which it presented itself to the prophets
(thus, too, Gerlach and Fronmiiller).2 The passage above cited makes the
matter clear. Gen. xl. 8: the words in which Joseph predicted to the pris-
oners what lay before them, form the zpogyre:a; this presupposes an émiAvorc,
interpretation, of the dream by Joseph, and of this Joseph says that it be-
longs to God. ‘Thus, too, he speaks to Pharaoh: “the interpretation is not
in me,” Gen. xi. 15, 16; cf. Dan. chap. ii. — The thought accordingly is this:
No prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who
utters the prophecy) interpretation of the future. Taken thus, the verse
stands in close and correct connection both with what precedes, for it states
1 Certainly, also, the above construction can
merely express the relation of belonging to, as
in Heb. xii. 11; but in that passage the ideas
watéeca and yapas (Aurns) stand in an altogether
different relation to each other, from that in
which mpodyreca here stands to emaAvors.
2 Hofmann’s remark is indeed very apodic-.
tic, that ‘‘ the firat of these counter reasons is
pull, and that accordingly the second is ao too,
because rovro mpwroyv y.vwoKovrTes MCANA A per-
ception, which must be combined with the
attending to the word of prophecy, ... buta
perception, the substance of which could only
be expressed negatively, because meant only
lo guard the prophecy against an interpreta.
tion brought about by the conclusions of the
individual intellect; but the objection to this
is the same as that to the second counter reason
above. If the author wished the rovro...
ywwwoxovtes to be understood in the senre of
guarding against, he would at least have
added a d«.— It is not easy to underataund why
the author, if be had wished to express the
thought which bis words are supposed to con.
tain, did not write, ore émiAvots wpodynreaas ov
yivera: ef avOpwrwy, or something similar.
3 Bengel'sa interpretation is similar: ‘ ém-
Avocs dicitur interpretatio, qua ipei prophetae
res antea plane claurnas aperuere mortalibus,”
only that here no definite distinction js drawn
between mpod. and émAvors.
CHAP. I. 21. 399
why the Ady. mpog. is RéBatoc whereunto it is right to take heed, as unto a light in
a dark place (namely, because it is based on no human interpretation); and
at the same time with what follows, which serves to explain and confirm the
thought (inasmuch as it more precisely defines the idea, and by the positive
statement confirms the negation).' Briickner incorrectly, therefore, objects
to this interpretation, that although it may be iu harmony with ver. 21, it
cannot with propriety be connected with ver. 19; and if Briickner and Wie-
singer further urge against it that it arbitrarily supplies the object of éziAvocc,
it must be replied, that object is rather supplied of itself out of the connec-
tion with mpog7reia. The present yivera: alone seems to be inappropriate, but
this may be explained by supposing that the thought is conceived in the
form of a general statement; this Brickner has recognized, whilst Wiesinger
leaves it unnoticed.?
Ver. 21. ob yap OeAgjpart dvOpwnov]. These words correspond with the pre-
ceding idiac émiA. ob yivera; “nol from or by the will ofa man," cf. Jer. xxiii.
26, LXX.: tu¢ wore ora... dv rw mpognreverv abrods td OeAnpata Tig Kapdiac abrav.
— hvéx0n mort npognrera]. Vulg.: allata est, the verb as in vv. 17, 18 (cf. also
2 John 10). De Wette’s translation: “is delivered or uttered,” is inexact,
inasmuch as the idea of a set discourse is not directly contained in the verb.
Steinfass’s interpretation of xpog. is wrong from a linguistic point of view:
“ rift of prophecy.” — moré belongs closely to the negative ob, equal to “never.”
The sense of the clause is, “the cause in which zpooyrea has its origin is not
the free will of man, determining itself thereto.” — dda’ imd nveiparoc dyiov
@epouevo., x.7.A,]. The form of this, which does not exactly correspond with
that of the preceding clause, serves to bring into greater prominence the
passivity of the prophets. — gepduevar: “borne along” (as by the wind, e.g.,
the ship was driven, Acts xxvii. 15,17). The impelling power is the mveiya
dyov. Joseph., Ant., iv. 6, 5, says of Balaam: ry dew mveiuare. .. xexcvnutvos 5
ef. the expressions in the classics: deopopeicfa:, Peoodpntoc.2 — iAnAnoav]. Hor-
nejus: tniellige tam voce, quam scripto. “Men it was who spoke; but their
speaking had the active reason of its origin, and its starting-point, in God”
(Schott). — ard Ocov dvOpwra]. In this expression, considered to be genuine,
dd Ocov denotes the starting-point of the speaking: “men spoke from God.”
The prophets are thus significantly called simply dv@pura, in reference to the
dvépanov going before. They were but men; prophets they became only by
the mveipa Geov.4 The Rec. tyro Oeod drOpwro is: only a circumlocution for
1 On the other hand, in the usual way of
understanding this passaye, ver. 21 is most
{uappropriately connected with ver. 20, since
po explanation {a given of the idea that the
interpretation of the prophecy, becauee it is
not the work of man, can only be expected
from the Holy Spirit.
2 Steinfass thinks that the author refers to
Daniel, chap. xii., and that éwiAvors means the
anawer given In ver. 12 to Daniel’s question in
vet. ‘8, by which the indefinite statement of
time is definitely fixed. This singular opinion
is, however, contradicted by the single ex-
pression raca.
3 Macrob. 1. 23: ‘‘feruntur divino spiritu,
non suo arbitratu, seed quo Deus propellit.’’
Calvin correctly remarks: ‘‘impulsos fulsse
dicit, non quod ment) aljenati fueriut (qualem
in suis prophetis ¢rOovoracyudy fingunt gen-
tiles), sed quia nibil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tan-
tum obedienter sequut! sunt Spiritum ducem.”
4 Into thie verse aleo Dietlein inserts much
that ia foreign, by saying in explanation of it:
* not only are man and God placed tu antithe-
400 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
prophets, who are called Gyto dvép. because they were in the service of
God, inasmuch as they were the instruments of His mveiua dyov, cf. 1 Tim.
vi. 11.
sis to each other, but over against the designs prophets only because that which He teaches
of man and the unreal world of human possesses historical reality, or else will do eo
thoughts and conceptions (!) stands the Spirit in time.”
of God, which so powerfully takes hold of the
CHAP, Il, 401
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2, doedyeiay, according to almost all authorities, instead of the Rec.
érudciatc, which only occurs in some min. — Ver. 4. cepaic]. Rec., after K, L,
P, etc. (Tisch. 7); A, B, C. ¥ (Lachm., Tisch. 8), have ce¢poi¢, where it is uncer-
tain whether this is to be regarded as an untommon form for oepatg (perhaps by
mistake), or another form for the more usual opoi¢ (Pape: ‘‘ oipos, written also
ceipoc: a pit, specially for preserving corn’’). The lect. is peculiar in A and ®:
cepolc Cogore, in which oepoicg is evidently an adjective, equa] to ‘“‘hot.’’ Com-
mentators take no notice of these various readings; Reiche rejects them; so,
too, Hofmann, who says simply that the reading cipo has no claim to atten-
tion. — In place of the Rec. rernpnuévove (in several min., Thph., Oec.), Griesb.,
Tittm., Tisch. (Reiche), have accepted rypovpzévovc, after B, C*, K, L, P.—
Lachmann reads: xoAalouévoug rnpeiv (A, C**, &, etc., Syr., Erp., Copt., Vulg.,
etc.); this appears, however, to be taken from ver. 9; Tisch.: flurit ez. 9.
— Ver. 6. The word xaracrpo¢9 is wanting in B, C*, 27, al., Copt. — Ver. 8. 6
dixawoc], Lachm. omits 4, after B, without sufficient reason. — Ver. 9. Tisch. 7
reads: teipaouod (Rec., according to almost all authorities); on the other hand,
Tisch. 8 has wetpaopcy, after &, corr., and several min. ‘Tischendorf’s observa-
tion on meipacuod: quod multo magis usu venit, does not justify the reading
accepted by him in ed. 8. —Ver. 11. mapa xvpiw]. Rec., after B, C, K, L, P, x,
etc., Thph., Oec. (Tisch. 8). — Lachm. and Tisch. 7 are hardly correct in omit-
ting it; it is wanting in A, al., Syr., Erp., Vulg., etc. — Ver. 12. Instead of
yeyevvnuéva (Rec., after A*, B, C, P, al., m., etc., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 7),
A**, K, L, &, al., read: yeyevnuéva (Tisch. 8). Whilst the Rec. has gvomua before
yey. (K, L, al., pl., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch. have placed it after yey. (A, B, C,
P, &, al.), and rightly; the transposition is easily explained by assuming that it
was thought necessary to connect yeyevvnuéva directly with the el¢ GAwow belong-
ing to it. Mill, without reason, regards yeyevv, as a scholion, which has come
into the text by way of explanation of ¢vouxe. Dietlien considers the Rec. to be
the original reading. —«aragéapjoovra]. Rec., after C**, K, L, etc., Thph., Oec.
(Griesb., Scholz); on the other hand, A, B, C, P, & (pr. m.), 7, al., Aeth., Arm.,
Syr., etc., support xa? ¢fapyoovra (Lachm. and Tisch.). This reading ts to be
preferred: xai gives peculiar point to the idea; since this was overlooked, and
xai only regarded as being In the way, it might easily have been changed into
xara, — Ver. 13, amira]. Rec., after A*, C, K, L, P, ®, al., Copt., ete., Thph.,
Oec. (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.). In its place, A**, B, Syr., Arr., Vulg., Ephr.,
etc., have dydzae; approved of by Erasmus, Luther, Camerarius, Grotius, etc.;
adopted into the text by Lachm.; though hardly justly, for in one passage
(either here or Jude 12), éruracc, as De Wette also thinks, is probably the origi-
nal reading; if so, then rather here than in Jude, all the more that buor (in
Jude) may be adapted to dyamace, but not so much atrov; B has dyarac in both
passages; C, on the other hand, dara, which is explained by the one having
402 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
stood originally in the one passage, and the other in the other. Elsner, Wolf,
Wetstein, Bengel, De Wette, and the modern commentators generally, are in
favor of axaracc in this passage; so, too, Reiche. — Ver. 14. The reading uoryadiag
in A, ®, several min., Copt., Vulg., etc., instead of poryadidoc, can only be
looked upon as a correction for the sake of simplification. — axarazaiorouc]. Rec.,
after C, K, L, P, &, etc. (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.); instead of which Lachmann
reads axatanaorovc, following A, B, a word which does not occur elsewhere, and
which Reiche accordingly declares to be an error in transcription; Buttmann,
p. 57, thinks it is not unlikely that the original reading was xarardcrovg, i.e.,
‘polluted, defiled,’ that then, by mistake, an a, perhaps taken from the previ-
ous xat, had been added, out of which dxuramatorove arose. The reading occur-
ring in severa] min., aaataravorov, gives indeed an appropriate meaning, but
cannot be regarded as original. — 7Acovegiac, the reading attested by A, B, C, K,
L, P, &, ete. (Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. wAcovegiau,
which is a mere correction. — Ver. 15. Tisch. 7 reads xaradexovrec; Rec., after
B***, C, K, L, P; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, has xatadcirovrec, following A, B*,
¥, etc. — Griesb. already has rightly omitted the article r7v before evéciav; it is
opposed by almost all authorities. — Ver. 17. Instead of the Rec. vedéAaz (L, etc.,
Thph., Oec.), Griesb. correctly has admitted duizAat into the text, following A,
B, C, &, etc.; so, too, Scholz, Tisch., Lachm. %n the other hand, Dietlein,
though without sufficient reason, considers the Rec., which is evidently taken
from Jude 10, to be original; so, too, Reiche. — e/¢ aidva, according to A, C, L,
P, etc., Thph., Oec. — Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it (following B, &); it
seems to have been added from Jude 18; Reiche, however, regards it as original.
— Ver. 18. The prepos. év before aoeAy. in the ed. Elz. occurs in a few min.,
Theoph., Oec., only. —¢éAiywe, accepted by Griesb. already, in place of the Rec.
évrus, according to the testimony of A, B, al., Syr., utr., Copt., etc., Aug., Hier. ;
so, too, by Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. — cxogebyovrac, after A, B, C, 8, many min.,
Syr., Arm., Vulg., etc. (Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. droguyovrac,
according to K, L, P, etc. Reiche seeks to prove the originality of the Rec.
from internal reasons, but these are insufficient; he prefers also é6vrwe to dAiyws.
— Ver. 19. Tisch. 7 has rovrw xai (Rec., according to A, C, K, L, P, etc.); on
the other hand, Tisch. 8 has rovry, and omits «ai, following B, etc.; the greater
number of authorities are in favor of the Rec. — Ver. 20. A, C, L, P, &, ete,
read 7udv after xupiov (Lachm., Tisch. 8); the Rec. omits 7uav, according to B, K
(Tisch. 7).— Ver. 21. éxtorpéya), Rec., according to K, L, al., Thph., Oec.
(Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. 7, De Wette, etc.); B, C, P, etc., read troorpé paz (Tisch.
8); A, &, on the other hand, has ¢i¢ ra Oxiow dvaxayya aro, This latter reading
is probably only an explanatory gloss; but whether ériorp. or tzoorp. be the
original reading or not, it is difficult to decide with certainty; since the verb has
not here the simple meaning of ‘‘ turning back,” but of ‘‘ turning back again to
what has gone before,” a meaning in no way peculiar to the expression éncorpégecy
itself, without any nearer definition, it lies to hand to look upon vmoorpéyva asa
correction. Lacbm. has adopted el¢ rd éziow tnoarpéwas and; but no codex has
this reading. — Ver. 22. In A, B, & (pr. m.), Sahid. (Lachm., Tisch.), dé is
wanting; it is probably added in order to connect ver. 22 more closely with ver.
21.—In the place of «iAccua (A, K, L, P, &, etc., Lachm.), B, C*, 29 (Tisch.),
have the form «vaioudr,
Ver. 1. From here onwards, a description of the false teachers, who
were to arise in the church, and a warning against them. —é¢yévwovrro dé xal
CHAP. II. 1. 403
wevdorpopira}, dé: antithesis to what goes before. xai: “also,” that is,
besides the true prophets mentioned in chap. i. 21. The expression, pevdo-
mpoontn¢, already in the O. T. LXX., e.g., Jer. vi. 13, frequently in the
N. T., not after the analogy of pevdoAdyoc: “one who prophesies falsely,”
but “one who falsely gives himself out for a prophet,” on the analogy of pevda-
SeAgoc, pevdaniarodos. —év ro Aaw, i.e., among the people of Israel. These
words are in form a principal clause, but in thought a secondary clause:
as there were false prophets in Israel, so will there be also among you,
etc.— uc kal... weudodidaoxado]. tcovra designates the wevdodidacxadoe as such,
who would arise only in the future. They are afterwards pictured as
actually present; see on this, the Introd., § 2, p. 281. The expression |
wevdodid, is in the N. T. az. Aey.; Wiesinger and Briickner interpret: “such
as teach lies;” Dietlein and Fronmiiller: “such as lyingly pretend to he
teachers.” The analogy of wevdorpog., with which it is here contrasted, makes
the last the preferable interpretation (thus, too, Hofmann). Both result in
the same sense (Schott); what the pevdozpopira: were in the O. T., the wevdo-
didacxado are in the N. T. —oitriwec, equivalent to guippe qui, “such as.”” —
mapecoagovat; cf. Jude 4: “to introduce by the side of,’ with the secondary idea
of secrecy.! — aipéoee dnwdeiac], aipéoec, according to N. T. usage, “ party-
divisions,” cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19 (synonymous with cyicuzara); Gal. v. 20 (synony-
mous with dyooracia); also Tit. iii. 10, which have their origin in false
doctrine; thus Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.; Hofmann, too, says that
the word is to be taken in no sense different from that which it has else-
where in the N. T., but then interprets it as equivalent to “particular
systems of opinion,” thus attributing to it a meaning which it has nowhere
else. Others take aipeosg here to mean “false doctrine, heresy” (Bengel,
De Wette, Fronmiiller). This interpretation is better suited to the connec-
tion, and especially to the verb mapecdyav. In the N. T., doubtless, the
word has not this meaning, yet Ignatius already uses it with this force.
dnwaeiag (Which is not to be resolved into the adject. “destructive ”) desig-
nates the heresies as those which lead to anrwdea; cf. vv. 2, 3. —xai rdv ayopa-
cavra ... anwdecav]. Winer (fifth edition, p. 399 f.) translates, “since they
also, denying the Lord, draw upon themselves swift destruction ;” but the
connection of «ai with éxayovrec, 80 far removed from it by rdv dyopacavra,
x.t.A., cannot be justified. Fronmiiller connects the member of the clause
beginning with «ai not with the relative clause oirivec, but with loovra pevdo-
ddioxadan. This construction was formerly supported in this commentary,
with the remark, however, that a particular species of false doctrine was not,
as Fronmiiller assumes, indicated here, but that the participial clause more
nearly defined the pevdodiddacxado, xai being here put in the sense of “and
uithal ;” this construction, however, is any thing but natural. The «ai must
undoubtedly be connected with the clause immediately preceding, though
not as a simple copula, but in the sense of “also;” thus De Wette and Wie-
s t
1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that in with this secondary meaning, and wichgut Me
classical Greek rapecocayery has not the second. (see Pape, 8.v.).
ary meaning of secrecy; the verb occurs both
404 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
singer,’ taking «ai as an intensification, equivalent to “even:” “whilst they
deny even the Lord who bought them.” On the other hand, Hofmann does
not admit any such intensification, and takes xai as equivalent to “also,” in
the sense of addition, and interprets: “with their particular systems they
break up the unity of the church, which, however, they do not do without
at the same time denying the Lord.” But, on this interpretation, it is not
clear why the author did not put the finite verb instead of the partic. dpvov-
pevor; the thought, too, that they break up the unity of the church, is simply
imported. The participle shows that this clause is meant to serve as an
explanation or a more precise definition of what goes before. De Wette’s
view, accordingly, is to be preferred to that of Hofmann; it is, however, also
possible that Schott is right in assuming an irregularity of the construction,
in that the author, led astray by the participle dproievor, wrote the participle
énayovrec instead of the finite verb émdgovar; in which case «ai must be taken
as a simple copula. — The participle érdyovrec is connected in a loose fashion
with what precedes, in the sense, “by which they,” etc. The pevdodiddoxaror
are more precisely characterized as rdv dyopdcavra aibrode dearérny apvotpevot ;
apvovpeva, cf. Jude 4; Bengel, correctly: doctrina et operibus. By deondrny
Christ is here meant; the author speaks of Him thus, in order to lay stress
on the fact that they deny that Christ is the Lord ; dyopacavra abroic is added
by way of emphasis: they deny the Lord who “ bought” them, i.e., procured
them for Himself by paying the purchase price. This does not only serve
to emphasize more strongly what is reprehensible in the dpveicba, but points
out also that they deny the act to which allusion is made, and by which He
has become their Lord. With dyopdgev, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; Rev. v. 9;
the blood of Christ must be thought of as the purchase price. — émayovreg
éavroig taxiway andAeav]. With éay. éavroic, cf. ver. 5, as also Acts v. 28.
-éavroic indicates that they prepare an ddAea not only for others (alpécee dtu-
Aeiacs), but for themselves. — With rayiwqv, see chap. i. 14, not a speedy dmddeta;
Hornejus, correctly: inopinatam et inexspectatam; the destruction will come
over them suddenly, and before they are aware of it (Schott, Fronmiiller,
Hofmann).
Ver. 2. xat nod2ot bEaxodovdjoovaiy}. The activity of these pevdodiddonado:
would not be without result; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 17. With éfaxoa, cf. chap. i. 16.
—airdw raig doeAyeiat, i.e., their daéAyea will serve as a rule to many, so that
they give themselves up to them; cf. Jude 4. The connection of erroneous
doctrine with sensual excesses is shown in vv. 18, 19. —&’ ods . . . BAacdnun-
Onoera}. dé’ ob¢, not “by whom” (Vulg., per quas), but “on account of whom ;”*
they (either the pevdodidioxaro, or those led astray by them, or both) by their
doéAyeu give those who are not Christians occasion for ZAaconuia against the
ddd¢ rig GAnOeiac; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 1; Rom. ii. 24. dda¢ ripe dAndeiag (Barnab.
c.v.: via veritatis), a designation of Christianity or of the Christian religion
(cf. on the expression édéc, Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, xvi. 17,
3 Winer (6thed., p.314 [E.T., 441], 7thed., éedyorres is annexed to the clause oirives . . «
*p. 3299 says: ‘‘ Both participles, dpy.andémdy., dpvovmevor;"” he does not state how «xa: is to
are connected with rapecafovory; they arenot, be understood.
however, co-ordinate with each other, but
CHAP. II. 3, 4 405
xviii. 25), in so far as it is the form of life in harmony with pane truth
(not leading to the truth).
Ver. 3. xat év nAcovegig, i.e., as it were, encompassed by covetousness, living
in it, governed by it; it is incorrect to translate éy by dua, mAuoroic Adyou). ar.
Aey., i.e., “ with deceitfully invented words,” 1 which are not in accordance with
truth; incorrectly, Hofmann: “artfully contrived doctrines.” — iudc éunoped-
covrat, “they will seek gain of you;” Gerhard: quaestum ex robis facient, ad
quaestum suum vobis abutentur; thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott, De Wette-
Briickner; cf. also Winer, p. 209 (E. T., 223); this meaning of the verb
c. acc. in classical Greek is sufficiently assured.? The mAacroi Adyo: are not,
as Hofmann supposes, “to be thought of as the merchandise which they
bring to the market, in order to be repaid for such instruction,” but as the
means by which they carry on the éumopevecba. Steinfass translates éuzo-
peveoda: as equivalent to “to buy,” and vude as the direct object of purchase;
thus Pott too: vos seclae suae conciliare conantur. It is undeniable that the
object traded in may stand in the accusative (cf. Prov. iii. 14, LXX.), but
the context here is opposed to this, partly on account of the é x2eovegig,
partly because this thought is already contained in the preceding verse.
Fronmiiller incorrectly renders the word by “to deceive.” — By deceitful
words as to Christian freedom, etc., they sought to delude others, and, in
accordance with their covetous desires, to make gain of them; cf. vv. 13, 14,
and Jude 16.—olg 1d xpiua éxmadas obx dpyei). oi¢: dat. incommodi; refers to
the subj. in duzopeicovra:, 10 xpiva is the judgment of God ordering the
Gnodea, Exnadac 18 not to be combined with 1d «pina into one idea, equal to
xpiua Exradat abroig rpoyeypaupévoyv; cf. Jude 4 (Pott, De Wette); such a mode
of combination is to be found nowhere in the N. T. It belongs rather to
ovx apyei. There is not, as De Wette insists, any contradiction involved in
this connection, especially as oix dpye is a positive idea; strictly, “1s not
inactive, does nol tarry;” the idea of haste is not implied in it (De Wette).
éxmadaz sets forth prominently that for a long time the judgment has, as it
were, been approaching, that is, ever since it was given and pronounced;
it is living, and will come in due time. It is possible that z«mada: refers to
the judgments mentioned in ver. 4, formerly put into execution (Dietlein,
Scott, Wiesinger), which, however, Hofmann disputes. —xai 9 amdAga abrav
(ver. 1) ob wword{e]. worager, strictly, “to nod;” then, to slumber (only else-
where in Matt. xxv. 5; there, however, in its literal meaning), is used in the
classics in a figurative sense; Plato, De Repub., iii. 405 C: undév deioda vvora-
Govruc dixacrov. Steinfass, inexactly, “to becoine sleepy.”
Ver. 4. From here to ver. 6, three examples of divine judgment; cf.
Jude 5 ff. — First example: the fallen angels, Jude 6. —e& yap]. The apo-
dosis is wanting; Gerhard supplies: oid’ éxeivou geiceraz. In thought, if not
1 Plato, Apol. Socrat.: wAdrrew Adyous; éveropevero THY Anny tev &xactev. J. Chry-
Artemidor., {. 23: wAagcew docer.. . ayadoy sostom : Thy weviay Tou wAnoiov éuwopevedOar.
pntopa: ... &a TO wy SyTa ws OvTa Seixvvecy The translation of the Vulg. is inexact: ‘‘de
Ta¢ Téxvag TaVvTAS. vobis negotiabuntur; ’’ as also that of Luther:
2 Cf. Athenag., xill. 569: ‘Acwacia dvero- ‘they will trade with you.”
pevero wANOy yuvaccwyv. Philo in Flacc., p. 984:
406 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
in form, the latter half of ver. 9 constitutes the apodosis (Winer, 529 f.
(E. T., 569), De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, and the more modern writers
generally). The irregularity of the construction is explained by the fact
that the third example is dwelt on at much length. —6 Ocd¢ ayyéAwy duupry-
cavruy obk égeicaro]. The nature of the sin is not stated; otherwise in Jude.?
What sin the apostle refers to, is only faintly hinted at by the circumstance
that the example of the flood immediately follows. It is less likely (against
Wiesinger) that ver. 20 contains any reference to it, for in that verse other
sins are conjoined with the dmiaw capnds . . . mopeiecGat. — dA2a cetpaic Gogov . . .
tnpovpévouc, “but (when he) having cast (them) down into Tartarus, hath delivered
them over to the chains of darkness, as being reserved unto the judgment.” cetpaic
Gogov is nostly taken in connection with raprapaoug (sc. dedeuévovc) (De Wette :
“but cast them down into hell with chains of darkness”); but, since the
added (égov shows that the cepui are designated as fetters, which belong to
the darkness of Tartarus (not “fetters which consist in darkness” (Schott),
nor “fetters by which they were banished into darkness,” as Hofmann ex-
plains), the enchaining could only have taken place there, and therefore
(with Calov, Pott, Steinfass, Hofmann, Wahl, s.v., wapad:duye) it is preferable
to connect the words with zapéduxev (as opposed to De Wette, Briickner,
Dietlein, Wiesinger, etc. ).2— Instead of sepaic Soouv, Jude has deauoi¢ aidiou:
Gogo is not Tartarus itself, but the darkness of Tartarus; the word is to be
found only here and in Jude. — raprapoiy does not mean fartaro adjudicare
(Crusius, Hypomn., I., p. 154), but “lo remove into Tartarus” (cf. Homer, /1.,
Vill. 13: 79 uv Ady pi ei¢ raprapov hepdevta). The expression répragoc occurs
nowhere else either in the N. T. or LAX. It is not equal to ddyc, which is
the general term for the dwelling-place of the dead. Nor does the author
use it as synonymous with yeévva, for that is “the place of final punishment,
the hell-fire”” (Fronmiiller) but it is used to designate “the place of prelimi-
nary custody.” — mapéduxev here, as often, used with the implied idea of pun-
ishment. — ei¢ xpiow rnpovpévors]. xpiow is the final judgment (xpiow pryaanc
huépac); “as those who are reserved for the judgment: Luther, inexactly; “in
order to reserve them.” — On the reading, rapéduxev ei¢ xpiotw xodalouévoug rypeiv,
the infin. rnpeiv is dependent on aped., and xodal, states, not “the purpose for
which, but the condition in which, they are reserved for judgment; the Vulg.
therefore translates inexactly : tradidit cruciandos, in judicium reservari. Diet-
lein, in opposition to all reliable authorities, insists on reading, rernpnuévove,
which, moreover, he incorrectly paraphrases, “as those who once should have
been kept;” it must rather be, “as those who (until now) have been kept.”
Ver. 5. Second example: the flood. This is peculiar to the author of
this epistle; cf. the corresponding section in Jude. xa dpyaiov xéopov ob
tgeicaro]. The clausal formation is the same as that in ver. 4. Subaudienda
1 Fronmtiller fs wrong in asserting that the | becomes more drastic if the act of casting Into
apostasy of Satan ja meant here; it cannot be Tartarus be completed only by the binding with
doubted that the sin meant here is the same as chains,” this supports the construction to
that of which Jude speaks, and it is not that which he objects. Schott translates, altogether
apostasy; see my Comment. on Jude. unwarrantably : " but has /ustened them down
2 When Brilckner says: “the expression into the depths with chains of darkness.”
CHAP. II. 5. 407
est particula: ei (Gerhard). . The words which follow on this tell in what
the obx égeioaro consisted: xaraxAvopov, «x.7.A.; there is no mention here of a
“destruction” (Schott) of the world. — apy. xooyor, i.e., mundus antedilu-
vianus. — dad... égvAage]. The thought of the deliverance of the righteous
is connected with that of the destruction of the ungodly; cf. ver. 7. — dydoo»
belongs not to «fpvxa,! but directly to Noe; Luther, correctly: Noah with
seven others; cf. Winer, p. 234 (E. T., 249); Buttmann, p. 26 (E. T., p. 30).
There is nothing to show that the number eight has a inystical meaning
here (Dietlein).2 The mention of it naturally arose from the recollection
of the event; at the same time, however, it marks the small number of the
saved contrasted with that of those who perished (Bengel, Schott, etc. ).
Besides, Noah and those with him, as also Lot afterwards, are taken by the
author as types of the eboeBec (ver. 9), on whom the judgment of God will
not come — d«aiootvas xppvxa is added as the reason of God’s preservation
(égiAaée) (thus, too, Wiesinger). By dexacoavyn is to be understood here, not
the condition of being justified (Wiesinger), but a believing and godly bear-
ing towards God; otherwise in Heb. xi. 7. —xaraxdvoyuov]. Matt. xxiv 38,
39: Gen. v. 17, LXX. Heb. 5139: the verb kataxAvgew, chap. ili. 6.—
xoouw aoeBuv, antithesis to dicatooiyng xnovxa; the world is thus named, mas-
much as it had become the dwelling-place of ungodly humanity. — énégac:
on this form of the aorist, see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr., § 114, s.v. dyw.
REMARK. — With regard to its position, Dietlein insists that this verse is
intimately connected with ver. 4, so that ‘‘the judgment of imprisonment on
the angels must be considered as one and the same event with the Noachic
flood;"’ that the judgment on the dpxaioc xoopoc, vv. 4, 5, must be distinguished
from the judgment of God within the second world (ver. 6); and that the latter
only, not the former, must be regarded as the example, strictly so called; thus,
too, Schott. But the whole structure and mode of expression of this section are
opposed to any such division; for (1) The clauses are simply co-ordinate (as
ver. 5 is joined to ver. 4, so is ver. 6 to ver. 5, merely by xai); (2) The dpyaiog
xoouoc is mentioned only here, not in ver. 4; (3) What is stated in ver. 6 is not
brought prominently forward as an event taking place in the new world; (4) In
the idea of the xoopos doe iw, the angels cannot be included, since the flood came
on the ungodly men only; and it is arbitrary and strange to assume that the
flood buried mankind ‘‘in the depths, and those spirits which in sin had taken
up their abode with them ”’ (Schott). It is arbitrary to regard the judgment on
Sodom as the only proper example, since no other position is given to the judg-
nents mentioned in vv. 4, 5, than to that in ver. 6. The chief reason for the
division lies in ver. 9, which consists of two members, due, however, to the two
foregoing examples. From the fact that only one of the members applies to
ver. 4, it does not follow that there no special example can be intended; the less
so that the leading idea is not ‘‘the deliverance of the righteous,’ but ‘‘ the
confinement of the ungodly.’’ Equally little is proved by the repetition of the
1 Heinsius, Lightfoot, and Schwegler in his of the eight, and saw in the church saved from
Nachapost. Zeitalter,I. p. 515; cf.,as opposed the flood a holy eight, makiug a final close
to him, [lilgenfeld, Clement., p. 185. to the old world.”
2 ‘Peter looked upon Noah as the bearer
408 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
verb ov«, égelcaro, which serves rather to mark off the dpyaiog xéouoc from
the ayyeA, duapt., not to unite them into one idea. Even Briickner has rejected
the view of Dietlein and Schott. Hofmann, too, while questioning it, ap-
proaches it very closely when he says, “The judgment of the flood was also a
judgment upon those spirits which had become involved in the sin and in the
fate of the race of men then living.”
Ver. 6. Third example: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah; cf.
Jude 7. — This verse also is still dependent on «i. Schott, without any ade-
quate reason, asserts that the author “has even here forgotten the construc-
tion of his expression in the protasis with ei.” — modes Lodduwv xai Toudppac]).
The gen. as apposition. — regowsac]. Suidas: equivalent to éunpiyouc, oxo-
dcoac: “by burning them to ashes, by reducing them to ashes.” — xatactpogj xaré-
xpivev, NOt equal to eversione s. subversione damnavit, ie., unditus evertendo
punwit (Gerhard, Dietlein, Schott), but «araorpogy is the dative of reference;
see Buttmann, p. 144; cf. xaraxp bavaty, Matt. xx. 18; Pott, correctly: in
cineres redigens damnawit ad everswonem; thus also Wahl, De Wette, Wie-
singer, Steinfass, Fronmiller, Hofmann; only it must be here remarked
that xaraxpivew includes within it the punishment, the putting into execution
of the judgment of condemnation — which Hofmann, without reason, denies,
ef. Rom. vii. 3.—It is incorrect to connect xaracrpupy with regpwoac (Ben-
gel). —xaraorpoon, in the N. T. besides here, only in 2 Tim. ii. 14; there,
however, in a figurative sense; the same word occurs in the narrative of the
‘destruction of the cities of the plain, Gen. xix. 29, LAX. — tmdderyua wed-
Aovruv doeGBeiv redexoc]. Jude 7, with vrdderyya, not equal to “example,” but
to “type,” cf. Jas. v. 10; Heb. iv. 11,ete The perf. redecuc corresponds
with the spoxevra:, Jude 7: Hofmann, correctly: “God has made them, as
the perf. shows, a lasting type of those who ever afterwards should live a
godless life.” ?
Ver. 7. Contrast to the divine justice in punishing, which is not to be
found in Jude. Wiesinger: “The expansion of the thought, introduced
by the mention antithetically of Noah, ver. 5, gains, by the co-ordination
(xai) of the deliverance of Lot, independent value, and prepares the way for
the double inference, ver. 9 ‘’— «ai has not here an adversative force (Jach-
mann), but is simply the copulative particle. — diaacov Awr]. dixawog here like
Sixatocivn, ver. 5.—xararovovuevov, besides here, in Acts vii. 24 (2 Mace.
viii. 2, where, however, it is doubtful whether the reading should be «ara-
sovovpevoy OF Katanarovpevov); Pott, Schol. Soph. in Trachin., v. 328, verba:
GAQ’ elev Sdwwovca exponit per xaranovovpévyn. — ind tI... Eppioato). v7 belongs
not to éppvearo, but to xaranuv.; cf. Winer, p. 346 (E. T., 369); — with 7 &
doeAy. avaorpogn, cf. 1 Pet. i. 17. — dééopwr, besides here only in chap. iii. 17;
homines nefarii, qui nec jus nec fas curant (Gerhard).
Ver. 8. Explanation of the xararovowpevov. — BAéupart yap nal dxog 18 to be
joined neither with dixaoe (Vulg.: adspectu et auditu justus erat), nor with
éyxaruxav (Gerhard), but with the finite verb; it was by seeing and hearing
1 Hofmann attaches particular importance was effected by water was followed by an-
to the circumstance, that the judgment which _— other, which was effected by fire.
CHAP. II. 9, 10. 409
that Lot’s soul suffered, and is added in order more strongly to emphasize
Lot’s painful position among the ungodly. — puy hv ducaiav avipoy Epyow éBacd-
vilev, “he vexed his righteous soul by the ungodly works,” i.e., bis soul, because
it was righteous, felt vexation at the evil which he was obliged to see and
hear. ‘“ é3acdavev serves to show that the pain at the sight of the sinful lives
arose out of personal activity, out of inclination of the soul to the good, out
" of positive opposition to the evil” (Dietlein). The earlier interpreters have
for the most part missed the correct idea; Calvin, IIornejus, Pott, De Wette,
and the modern commentators generally, having interpreted correctly.?
Ver. 9. This verse in thought, though not in form, constitutes the apo-
- dosis to the preceding clauses beginning with ei. The thought, however, is
expressed in a more extended and general manner; the special application
follows in ver. 10. —oide]. Knowledge 1s conceived at the same time as a
divine power. — xipsrc, i.e., God, ver. 4. — eboeBeic, like Noah and Lot. —&
mepaouoy precda, cf. 1 Pet. i. 6. — ddixovs dé, like the fallen angels, etc. — ei¢
nuéoay Kpicew, xoAalouevouc thpeiv]. xoAat, is not used here with a future force:
cruciandos (Bengel, Calvin, Winer, who, in his fifth edition, p. 405, resolves
the clause thus: ddex. rapei (Gore) xoAufecy, and others) but 1t must be taken as
a real present; it refers to the punishment which they suffer even before the
last judgment unto which they are kept (rypeiv); cf. on ver. 4. Thus also
Wiesinger, Schott, Bruckner.
Ver. 10. Compare Jude 8. — paduora de in close connection to what imme-
diately precedes. The author passes from the general, to those against
whom this epistle is specially directed. Dietlein introduces a foreign refer-
ence when he says, “The apostle means the false teachers in contrast to such
ungodly persons as did not base their ungodliness on theoretically developed
error.” — As in Jude, the false teachers are characterized in two respects.
Whilst in vv. 1-3 they are spoken of as yet to appear, they are here described
as already present. — rovc émiow . . . mopevouévovc; cf. besides Jude 8 also 7,
and the commentary on the passage. — oapxog stands here without érépac, and
niust therefore be taken more generally. Buttmann (p. 160) wrongly trans-
lates oap§ here by “lusts.” — év émdyuia yacpob). uaopoi is not to be resolved
into an adjec.: cupiditas foeda, tmpura (Wahl) ;? but it 1s the objective geni-
tive, and states that to which the énupuia is directed (De Wette-Bruckner,
Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). — yuuopds, aw. Aey., equivalent to pollutio. Accord-
ing to Schott, ~zaouec is here used subjectively, “what to themselves is dis-
honoring to the human body, that they make the object of their wild lust.”
—kal xuptotytos xatagpowivrec, cf. Jude 8, and the exposition. — roAuyrai}.
The author drops the construction hitherto adopted, and begins a new
clause; the word is a &m. Aey. equal to “ insolent, daring;” Luther: “ thire-
1 Cf. Xenophon, Hist. Graec., I. 4, p. 407:
wor ¢viovs Kat Tey TyETONEywY, voutnerw b@
OvTwy avOpwrwy, adnuovncas Tas Wuyas, isovras
thy agéBeay; Only it must be observed that
Lot was vexed at the godlessness in iteelf, not
because he personally had to suffer by it.
? Hofmann also renders the idea by ‘‘im-
pure desire, filthy lust,” which, taking wragpov
as an attributive genitive, he interpreta more
closely thus: ‘a lust which brings defilement
with it, since it pollutes not only him who
gratifies it, but him aleo on whom it is gratl-
fied;"’ but in this interpretation the two ex.
pressions, ‘impure lust” and “lust which
pollutes,’’ are erroncously taken as identical.
410 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
tig” (i.e., bold, from the root tarr; in old High German, gaturstig).! — ated-
dec, to be found, besides here, only in Tit. i. 7. — Most modern expositors
understand the two words substantively ; but as abéadne is strictly an adject.,
it can here also be taken as such; thus Schott. It is improbable that they
form a passionate exclamation (Schott). They may be either connected in
2 loose way as subject with ob rpeyouc:, or they may be regarded as an ante-
cedent apposition to the subject of rpévovo: (Hofmann). — dogac ob tpépovor
BAaognpoivrec}. For dégac see Jude 8. The particip. stands here as in chap.
1.19. Vulg., strangely: sectas non metuunt (introducere, facere) blasphemantes.
Ver. 11. Compare Jude 9 What Jude says specially of the archangel
Michael is here more generally affirmed of angels. In this its generality the
thought 1s hardly intelligible; the. necessary light is obtained only by com-
paring it with Jude (De Wette). If the priority of this epistle be assumed,
the thought here expressed must have reference to Zech. iii. 2 (thus Schott,
Steinfass, Hofmann). —- dzov cannot stand here as assigning the reason, as it
sometimes does in the classics, since it refers back not to rodugra, but to
dogay ob, «.7.A.; but neither is it equal to “ whilst even, since even;” this use
can nowhere be established. It is meant rather to indicate the similarity of
the relationship (with respect to the dofa).2 The adversative relationship
hes not in the particle, but in the thought. — dyyedor, according to the parallel
passage, not evel, but good, angels. — icyti xal duvaper uecCoves dvtec}]. The com-
parative expresses the relation in which they stand either to the roAuyrai or
to the dofa. The latter reference deserves the preference, since —and to
this Hofmann has called attention, Schritbew. I., p. 460 —it is understood
of itseif that angels are more powerful than men (Wiesinger, Schott, Stein-
fass).— od gepovor . . . xpiow). oece xpiow (Jude: éim@épe xpiowv) does not
mean “to endure a Judgment” (Luth.), but “to pronounce a judgment.” —
BAacgnuov, With an eye to dAacgnuovvrec —aar’ atrov; not adversum se (Vulg.),
but abrov goes back to dogac (Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, De Wette, and
all the more modern interpreters, with the exception of Fronmiiller), by
which are to be understood here — as in Jude —the diabolical powers. The
opposite interpretation, according to which the meaning should be that the
wicked angels are not able to bear the judgment of God on their blasphemy
(Luther, Fronmuiller, etc.), is opposed not only to the language (SAdo¢ypor
xpos equal to xpiow SAacgnuiac) but to the context. — mapa xupw). These
words, the genuineness of which is doubtful, may not be explained with
Bengel: apud Dominum .. . reveriti, abstinent judicio: for, as Hofinann
justly remarks, rapa «vo. “belongs to that which is denied, and does not
explain why that does not happen which is denied.” “The conception is,
that angels appear before God, and, before His throne, tell what evil spirits
are doing in the world.” Cf. Winer, p. 369 (E. T., 395).
Ver. 12. Compare Jude 10. With all their similarity the two passages
are nevertheless very different. The characteristics are stil] further de-
2 Cf. Piechon, Erk/dr. der hauptsdchl. ver- euch as. “eome laugh where others weep;
alteten deutschen Worter in der Luth. Bibeld- _ thus here, these rail where the angele ov ¢epov-
bere., Berl., 1844, p. 7. ow, x.T.A, It must not be interpreted, with
2 It corresponds to “where” in passages Hofmann, as equal to «ad ww.
CHAP, II. 12. 411
scribed in Jude 10, but here the punishment is promised to these men. —
ovro de, antithesis to ayyeau; the predicate belonging to it is g@apjoovra:, — o¢
Gdoya {oa . . . gdopuv]. Payenthetical thought in close relation to g@upizoovra: ;
Grotius: ita pertbunt ili, sicut pereunt muta animantia. — yeyevynuéva gvowa can
hardly be translated “born as sensuous beings to,” etc. (Wiesinger, and
formerly in this commentary). gvo«a is meant rather to bring out that the
irrational animals are, according to their natural constitution, born to dawarg.
Hofmann takes gvoud as a second attribute added to yeyevynuéva by asynde-
ton, equal to “ by nature determined to dawarr,” etc. But the only objection
to this is that yeyevvnuéva alone cannot well be considered as a special attri-
bute. As regards the sense, it makes no difference whether gvoua be placed
before (Rec.) or after yeyevv. —el¢ GAwaw nai gbopav]. According to Luther, a
twofold rendering is possible: “ First, those who take and strangle; second,
who are to be taken, strangled, and slaughtered ;”” the latter is the only cor-
rect interpretation. The general interpretation is, “for taking and destroy-
ing; Schott on the other hand translates, “for taking’ and consuming ;"’
and Hofmann, in like manner, who holds that both are active ideas, “ that
they may be taken and consumed.” This interpretation of p¥opd, however, is
arbitrary, and all the more unwarranted, that in the subsequent é» ry g6op¢
attov, pupa cannot have this special meaning. According to N. T. usage,
what is meant by o¢opa here is the destruction to which the beasts are des-
tined ; cf. Col. i). 22. — év ole ayvoovow BAacgnuoivtes . . . gOapnoovraj. With
regard to the construction, cf. Winer, p. 583 (E. T., 628). According to
the usual interpretation, év oi¢ is dependent on BAacenuoivrer, and is to be
resolved into éy rovrac, @ ayvoovorz, BAaog, (Winer decides in favor of this;
so, too, Wiesinger, and Buttmann, p. 128 [E. T., 146]). But é of may
also be dependent on dyvooiarw, and be resolved, raira, év ol¢ dyroutow, BAaagn-
uovvrec. There is no other instance to be found of the construction GAacgneiv
év, although @aacgnusiv elg occurs frequently. Buttmann accordingly says
that by év here (not the object strictly speaking, but) “rather the sphere is
denoted, within which the evil-speaking takes place;” nor is the combina-
tion of dyroeiy with éy common, “yet it is not without example in later writ-
ings.” 1 “That dyvoeiv, in the sense of it, may be joined with év, is shown by
the German expression, “to be ignorant in a matter.” Besides, in both
constructions the sense is substantially the same. According to the connec-
tion with what precedes (ver. 10) and Jude 8-and 10, the dof& are to be
understood as that which was unknown to them, and to which their slanders
had reference. On account of this irrational evil-speaking, that will happen
to them which is expressed in the words, év ri oop aitav nal g6apqoovrat,
¢Go0a has been understood here to mean moral corruption; thus De Wette-
Brickner, Steinfass, Fronmiiller; erroneously, however, for the word must
have the same meaning in this passage as it had formerly; then, in this
case, avrev does not refer to the Libertines, but to the Ga before mentioned,
and xai is to be explained from the comparison with these. They (thé Lib-
ertines) whose irrational slander of that of which they are ignorant, makes
2 It ia to be found in Test. XII. patr. in Fabricius cod. peeudepigr. V. T., p. 717.
412 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
them like unto the irrational brutes, will also suffer géopa, like the latter,
who by nature are destined thereto. Entirely different from this, however,
is the interpretation given by Hofmann. He resolves év ol¢ into év rovro 4,
and takes éy rovroy with géapqoovra; that which, without knowing it, they
speak evil of, is, according to him, the things of sense; he understands év r9
¢0opG aitav to be in more definite and explanatory apposition to év rovras,
and 9@opa actively, equivalent to “abuse.” In his view, then, the idea here
expressed is that the Libertines by abusing, after their lusts, the things of
sense, believing them to have nothing in common with God, fall a prey to
destruction. The objections to this interpretation are, first, that év ole is not
applied to any of the verba near it, but to the remote g6aphoovra; secondly,
that a meaning is attributed to the second oéopa different from that of the
first, — the one is taken as equivalent to “consumption,” the other to
“abuse,”—and that neither of these significations belongs in any way
to the word; thirdly, that the reference to the things of sense is in no way
alluded to in the context; fourthly, that év rg g@0p¢ cannot possibly be in
apposition to év rovro¢; and lastly, that, on this interpretation, we should
have had dyvooivres BAaoginpova instead of dyvoviary PAacgnucivrec.4
Ver. 13. xopsoipevor pioddv ddixiag 18 subjoined by way of explanation to
what precedes.2 — Cf. 1 Pet. 1. 9. — po8dv ddixcag not equivalent to yucbdy ddenov
(Wolf), but “the reward for unrighteousness.” — jdoviv fyoipevn}. This and
the following participles, as far as the end of ver. 14, are connected with
what precedes, as descriptive of the dd«ia; it is less probable that, as Hof-
mann assumes, a new period begins with jdovyv gyovuevoe and ends with
ver. 16. The three kinds of dduia here spoken of are: 1, luxurious living; ©
2, fornication; 3, covetousness. De Wette: “they who count it pleasure.” —
riv bv quépe tpvo7v]. tv qyépg is by Oecumenius interpreted as equal to «aé’
jguépav, but this is not in accordance with the usage. Several interpreters
(Benson, Morus, Fronmiiller, Hofmann) take gyuépa here as in contrast to the
night. This, however, is inappropriate, for it is not easy to see why they
should not regard the rpvg7 in the night as a pleasure. Gerhard is better:
per tiv quepav intelligitur praesentis vitae tempus, Luther, “temporal luxurious
living” (De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott). It stands by way of con-
trast to the future, to which the fut. somotpevor refers. — omiAor nal pouor is
1 Schott agrees with Hofmann in regard to
the application to things of sense, and to the
interpretation of the meaning of the first ¢@o0pa,
but differs from him in other points. He states
the idea contained in the verse thus: ‘ As irra-
tional beasts, which... made to be taken
and consumed ... come to destruction, so
these people ehall perish; since they rail at
those matters which they do not comprehend,
they themselves shall periah fn and with the
destruction of those things against which they
rail.” This interpretation is quite as unwar-
rantable as that of Hofmann.
2 Hofmann considers the reading aédccovme-
vo. but little attested, however — instead of
xoutovpevor to be the original, because the
more difficult one. Tisch. 8, on the other
hand, says: “‘adicovpevn, si aptum sepsum
praebere judicabitur, omnino praeferendum
erit.””, Nescio an ‘‘decepti circa prodov ade-
«ias”’ verti liceat. Hofmann interpreta the
accus, wroOov as an accus. of appoeition, cf.
2 Cor. vi. 13, and then translates: “evil hap-
pens to them as the reward of evil;'"’ but
though aéicecy occurs in this wider significa.
tion, as in Luke x. 19, and often in Revelation,
atill advcca never does.—Buttmann has ac-
cepted, not adicovyevor, as in B, but comrovpe-
Por.
CHAP. II. 14. i 413
either to be connected with what follows: “who as om. ‘kal youn riot” (De
Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger), or they are independent expressions of dis-
pleasure, like roAyyrai attadecc formerly in ver. 10, and xardpac réxva afterwards
(Schott, Fronmiiller) subjoined to what precedes by way of apposition (Hof-
mann); the latter is most in harmony with the animated form of address.
Instead of o7ida, Jude has omaAddes; onidoc (less commonly oxida) is equivalent
to “spots of dirt,” cf. Eph. v. 27. — uduoe : Gx. Aey., commonly “blame, shame ;™
here “blemishes.” ! — évrpugavrec év raicg data abrov]. évtpygdvrec points back
to ravoi7, and may not therefore be taken, with Hofmann, in the weakened
meaning of, “to take delight in any thing,” which it probably has in Isa.
lv. 2, LXX.; it is not to be connected with the following iui» in the sense
of: illudere, ludibrio habere, but means, as it commonly does, “to riot;” ipuiv
belongs to ovvevwyobpevor, —év raicg drdrate abrav is explained from vv. 3 and
14; they practised deceit in this way, that they succeeded in procuring
earthly advantage to themselves, by praising their vain wisdom (Wiesinger,
Fronmiiller); since évrpy¢gy denotes the actual rioting, év raic atdrac abréw
cannot state the object of their évrovddy, that is, “the lies with which they
practise deceit” (Hofmann; or, according to Schott: “their deceiving ap-
pearance of wisdom”). The opinion of Wolf and others, that dréra: means
the love-feasts, inasmuch as they — in opposition to their real nature — are
abused by these individuals to their own profit, requires no refutation. -
ovvevuxoiuevor tuiv is subordinate to what precedes. They rioted in their
. deceits, that is to say, by enjoying themselves at the feasts of those among
whom they had obtained an entrance by deceit. — Luther’s translation is
mistaken: “they make a show of your (iyv instead of atrév) alms (incorrect
interpretation of aydmas), they revel with what is yours” (instead of “with
you”).
Ver. 14 has no parallel in Jude. — Description of the sensual lust of the
eye of the false teachers. — d96aAuove Exovres uearode poryadidos]. The adulter-
ous lust is depicted in their eyes; in the expression, pesrod¢ uoryadidoc, the lust
after the poryaric, revealing itself in the eyes, is designated as a being filled
of the eye with it, since they look at nothing else but this. The interpreta-
tion of Hornejus is not to the point: quasi dicat, tam libidinosos eos esse, ut in
tpsorum oculis quast adulierae habitent, seu ut adulleras semper in oculis ferant.
— Hofmann explains yeordc rivog by reference to Plato, Sympos. 194 B, here
equivalent to “ to be entirely engrossed, pre-occupied with something.” —It is
wrong to suppose (as Dietlein does) that it is here in any way stated that a
female member of the house, into which they had forced themselves, had
already fallen a victim to their seduction. Calvin even? had connected this
verse closely with the preceding, as Schott and Hofmann do; but it is not
easy to understand why the persons here described should have had adulter-
1 Hofmann arbitrarily defines these expres- 2 Calvin: ‘*Istt vos ac coetum vestram
#100 more precisely as ‘‘ spota which defile the foedis maculis aspergunt: nam dum epulantur
purity of the church, blemishes which attach vobtacum, simul luxuriantur to suis erroribus,
to her, to her shame; "’ they are rather spoken §amores meretricioe et perditam incontinentiam
of thus, because both defilement and shame _ oculis gestuque exprimunt.””
cleave to them.
414 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
ous desires only at the feasts. —xal dxaranatoroue duapriac, “not satiated, un-
satisfied in sin,” i.e., eyes, in which is reflected the restless desire after ever
fresh sin; in duapria the reference is chiefly to sensual sins. —deAcdlovrer,
ver. 18, and Jas, i. 14: “to allure, to entice ;" quasi pisces hamo captare (Beza).
— yuxi¢ dornpixrous], aorppextoc (chap. iii. 16), not “wanton” (Luther), but
in fide et pictatis studi nondum satis fundatus et formatus (Gerhard). — This
idea is doubtless connected more closely with what precedes than with what
follows (Hofmann), so that the sense is: they entice them, so as to satisfy
their fleshly lusts on them. —«aphav ... Exovrec]. Third vice:! covetous-
ness. The construction of the verb yeyuuvacperny, c. gen., occurs also in the
classics:? “@ heart practised in covetousness.” Calvin is quite unwarranted
in interpreting wAeovegia here by cupiditates, cf. ver. 3. —xardpac réxva, cf.
Eph. ii. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 3: “men, who have incurred the curse ;" an expres-
sion of profoundest displeasure; similar to omidoe xai yoyo, ver. 13. It is
doubtful whether it is to be connected with the preceding or with the subse-
quent passage; the first combination is preferable, because in it the language
is more passionate. In the other case the construction, from ver. 10 med.
onwards, might be taken thus, rodunrai abdadec, as introducing the section
down to rpveqv, ver. 13; oniAn xa? uduo that from there to éyovrec, ver. 14;
and xarapac réxva that as far as sapagpoviar, ver. 16.
Vv. 15, 16. Comparison with Balaam; cf. Jude 11. The comparisons
with Cain and Korah are wanting here. —xaradinévrec evpeiav oddv, «.7.2., With
ev@. 66., cf. Acts xiii. 16; the words connect themselves closely with érJav7-
@noav, to which then the subsequent participial clause is added by way of a
more precise definition With ééuxodovs., cf. chap. i. 16, ii. 2. The con-
junction of this verb with rj 6d@ is explained by the circumstance that édé¢
is here taken in a figurative sense: manner of life, conduct. — The form
Bocop, Heb. 3, arises from a peculiar pronunciation of }; Grotius is
wrong in regarding the word as the corrupted name of the country, 7)4Nd,
Num. xxii. 5. Several commentators, Krebs, Vitringa, Wolf, Grotius, etc.,
assume that there is here an allusion to the counsel which Balaam gave to
the Midianites to the corrupting of the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 16; Rev.
ii. 14) (s0, too, Dietlein); but, according to ver. 16, the reference is rather
to the intended cursing of the people of Israel, to which certainly Balaam,
for the sake of reward, was inclined; hence, &¢ ysofdv dduxciag (see ver. 13)
nyarnoev. Although such inclination on his part is not definitely mentioned
in Num. xxii. 1-20, still, judging from the narrative of the ass, it is to be
presupposed; cf., too, Deut. xxiii. 5. Corroboration from the rabbinical
writings, see Wetstein. — Ver. 16. lAeyéw de Loxev idlag mapavopiac, “but he
received (suffered) rebuke (blame) for his trespass;” his mapavouia (not
equivalent to vesania (Vulg.), but synonymous with ddéxia) consisted in this,
1 Hofmann erroneously says that thie states
‘not a third, but a second characteristic of
their nature, the avaritia, aloug with the luxu-
‘ria;”’ for in the first half of this verse they are
accused of something which is identical neither
with luxuria vor with avaritia, and this even
if d@0aApu. dxovres be closely connected with
the preceding passage.
2 Philostratue, 2, 15: @aAdarrns ovww yeyup-
vaoueva; 3, 1: Nécropa wmodcuov wodAny
yeyunv.; 10,1: codias nbn yeyunvacpdvoy.
CHAP. II. 17, 18. 415
that he was willing, for the sake of the reward, if God permitted it, to curse
Israel, and for this reason went to Balak. idiug stands here in place of the
pers. pron. atrov. Dietlein presses idiac, by translating, “ belonging to him,”
and adds by way of explanation: “to him who must be looked upon as the
prototype of the false prophets.” Wiesinger, on the other hand, sees the sig-
nificance of {diag in this, that “he who was a prophet to others, had to suffer
rebuke of an ass for his own mapavau.” But neither the one nor the other is
alluded to in the context. — That which follows states in what the éeyéec
cousisted. — inof{ty:ov, properly: a beast that bears a yoke, here as in Matt.
xxi. 5, designation of the ass. — dguvor, in contrast to human speaking. —
& dvOpiTtov dwvg o0eyfauevoy does not state the reason of the éxdAvoe, but em-
phasizes the miraculous nature of the occurrence (dgwrov . . . guvg), — ixadvne
Ti Tov mpodyTov rapagpoviay]. Schott understands Balaam’s rapagpovia to be
his striking of the ass; Wiesinger: “his folly, in setting himself against the
angel;"’ but it is more correct to understand by it the aforenamed zapavoia,
which the angel opposed. Hofmann rightly observes: “ The signification of
the verb does not imply that it is left undone, but simply that opposition is
offered to what is done or is intended to be done; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 16.°2
The word sapagpovia, “ folly,” am. Aey, (the verb in 2 Cor. xi. 23), unusual in
the classics also, instead of which sapagpocivn or mapagpévnorc; see Winer,
p- 90 (E. T., 95). —rav npopjrov (cf. Num. xxiv. 4) stands in emphatic
antithesis to imofiytov aguvov.
Ver. 17. Description of the teachers of false doctrine from another point
of view, in as far as by making a false show of freedom they seduce others
tc immorality. First, a double comparison, of which the second only occurs
in Jude 12. —otroi eloe xyyal dvvdpx}. The point of comparison lies in the
deceptiveness of a xy, which is without water; it awakens an expectation
which it does not fulfil (as a contrast, cf. Prov. x. 11; Isa. Iviii. 11).— mya
here (which Hofmann wrongly disputes) means, as in John iv. 6: a spring,
well; fontes enim proprie sic dicti non carent aqua (Gerhard). — xai duixAat rd
Aaidarog éAavvouevat}], ducx4n properly mist, here clouds of mist, as the plural
already goes to prove, as well as the fact that it is not the mist, but the misty
clouds, which must be regarded as foretelling rain. — Aaiday, according to
Aristotle (Lib. De Mundo), equal to mvetya Biawy xal cidoipevov xaTwbev dvw;
Mark iv. 37. The point of comparison is the same here as in the previous
figure, only that by ima Aaid. dAcuy, their want of consistency (not “ their pun-
ishment”’) is more pointedly referred to.?— oi¢ . . . rerapnrat, 80, too, in Jude
13; it connects itself with otra, not with duizAa, as Hofmann maintains, for
how can this relative clause express “the dissolving of vapor into nothing ”’?
Ver. 18. Cf. Jude 16.—<dnépoyxa yap parawrnrog gbeyyéuevn]. The yap
does not serve to explain the figurative words, ver. 17 (as formerly in this
1 Formerly in this commentary, éxwAvocy
was explained thus: that although Balaam's
wapadpowma was not exactly prevented by the
ase, still, by the conduct of the latter, a begin-
niug was made to prevent it.
2 Wiesinger inappropriately remarke:
“ However empty tn itself the conduct of these
men may be, still for the Christian community
it has the effect of a storm which cleanees it; ”
for their conduct is not compared to a storm,
but to clouds of mist; nor is reference made
to their effect on the Church, but to that of the
storm on the clouds of mist.
416 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
commentary), for, as Hofinann justly says, “the description of their conduct
contained in this verse goes far beyond those figurative statements as to
their nature.” It must be referred either, with Wiesinger, to the judgment
expressed in ver. 17,—olc . . . rernp. being included, — or, as is done by
Hofmann, to the relative clause only; the former is probably the more cor-
rect view.! — intpoyxoc, “swelling; in the classics used also of style. arat-
érnc gives the nature of the swelling, high-sounding speeches (“the proud
_ words,” Luther); Luther, aptly: “since there is nothing behind them.”
The word g6eyyouero (besides in Acts iv. 18, to be found only here and in
ver. 16) is here the more appropriate that it is used chiefly of loud speaking.
— —dedeatovow]. Cf. ver. 14. —év énipuniauy, capxde doedyeiax), év is commonly
_ taken as equivalent to du, and doedy. as an apposition to én6.: “through the
_ lusts of the flesh, through debauchery” (De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger,
probably Schott too); but thus there is a felt want of a xa/, or of a second év,
and the énduu:a: of the seducers, too, are not to be considered as the means
of allurement. Hofmann explains: “by means of fleshly lusts, which they
awaken in them, through acts of wantonness, the enjoyment of which they
hold out to them;” but here relations are introduced to which the text
makes no allusion. It is therefore better to take év émbuplai o. as designat-
ing the condition of the seducers, and aoeAyeiarc as the dat. instrum.: “in
the lusts of the flesh (i.e., taken in them, governed by them) they allure by
voluptuousness those who,” etc.; Steinfass, correctly: “it is part of their
ém§. capx. that they seek to allure the members of the church;” he is wrong,
however, when he explains the dceAyeiac as that to which they allure them.
Luther translates wrongly: “through lasciviousness to fleshly lust; év ém-
Gvuiac is not equal to ei¢ éniBupiac.— rode dAiywe amogetyovrac], dAiyus, Gm. Aey.,
is hardly to be found elsewhere. It expresses both time and measure, and
corresponds to the English, “hardly, just” (thus also Schott). Wiesinger
and Hofmann understand it only of measure, equivalent to “little; Hof-
mann understands it of space: “they are a little way escaped from those
who walk in error.” The pres. of the verb shows that they are, as it were,
still in the act of flight from their former condition, and are not yet firmly
established in the new; cf. ver. 14: wuyad¢ dornpixrove. — rode év tAavyg avacrpego-
pévovcg not an adjunct co-ordinate with what goes before; Luther: “and now
walk in error;” but the accus. is dependent on dzogetyovrac, and of év tAavy
avaorpegouevor are those from whom the persons who are being seduced have
separated themselves, those who are not Christians, especially the heathen,
who lead a life é mAdvy (Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann);
Steinfass incorrectly understands by the expression the wevdoddconaAa.
Ver. 19. levOepiav abroic émayyeAAcuevac]. Explanation of the imévoyxa uar.
¢0eyyouevar; the high speeches have as their contents the praise of liberty. —
énayyeAdouevar; they assure, promise, those who submit to their guidance that
they will conduct them to true liberty. — atrol doiAo: tmuprovree rig pbopdc ].
A sharp antithesis to éAevd. émayyeAA.: “though they themselves are slaves of
1 Bengel: “‘Puteus et nubes aquam polli. lumina ecclesiae; sed bi putei, hae nubes nil
centur; sic JIli praegrandia jactant, quas{ praebent; praegrandia {lla sunt vanitatic.”
CHAP. II. 20. 417
gdopa.” By g6op4 moral corruption is generally understood, but elsewhere
in the N. T. the word never has this meaning; it should rather be taken in
the same sense as that which it has in ver. 12. In Rom. viii. 21 it denotes
the opposite of dda, which Hofmann wrongly denies. Schott erroneously
takes it to mean “the things of sense;” but these, though they be given up
to gdopa, yet cannot be directly defined as géopa itself.1 ‘The chief emphasis
lies on dovAn. The general statement, ¢ yap rig grratat, rovtw xal dedovAurat,
serves to show that the term is applied to them not without justification.
The verb jrracéa (with the exception of in this passage and in ver. 20, to be
found only in 2 Cor. xii. 13) is in classical Greek often used as a passive
and construed with io, and, in harmony with its meaning, frequently with
the genitive, and sometimes also with the dative. The latter is the case
here: “to whom any one succumbs.” The dat. with dedovAwras expresses the
relation of belonging to: to him he is made the slave, i.e., whose slave he is.
Schott arbitrarily asserts that yrryrac with the dat. brings out that the being
overcome “is voluntary and desired on principle.”
Ver. 20 gives an explanation (yup, equal to: namely) of the statement
contained in ver. 19, that those there described are the duiAc: ri¢ gOopas, after
that the general remark: «. . . dedovAwrat has been applied tothem. Almost
all interpreters hold that in this verse the same persons are the subjects as
in ver. 19; so that the dzogvyovree refers to those with the description of
whom the author has throughout the whole chapter been engaged. Bengel,
Fronmiiller, Hofmann, are of a different opinion. They assume that dzogv-
yovrec refers to those who are led astray, and that the latter accordingly,
and not the seducers, are to be regarded as the subject of the clause.
In favor of this view may be urged the term adzogvyévrec, which seems
to refer back to the dzogevyovrac in ver. 18. But, on the one hand, it is
certainly unnatural to consider those to be the subjects here who are the
objects in ver. 18, especially as ver. 19 has the same subject as ver. 18;
and, on the other, it would be more than surprising if the apostle did not,
from here onwards, continue the description of those of whom the whole
chapter speaks, but should, all of a sudden, treat of entirely different
persons, —and this without in any way hinting at the transition from
the one to the other; in addition to this, there is the circumstance that
Htravrat corresponds much too directly with igrryra:z.—e yap]. The reality,
as frequently, expressed hypothetically. Without any reason, Grotius
would read “oi yao” instead of ef yap. —dmoguycvte¢]. The participle is
not to be resolved by “although,” but by “after that.” —1d wuopara rov
xoouov}. td wdouata, a form occurring only here; ver. 10: saopoc, — rov
xoouov, here in an ethical sense, as composed of: those who walk (ver. 18)
év wAdvy, Or, With Wiesinger: “as the dominion over which sin rules,” “ the
defilements which belong to the world.” Without sufficient reason, Hlofmann
takes rd uaouara 7, x. in & personal sense, and thinks that it means, in the
first instance, ‘those individuals who are the abomination and blemishes of
. ) Hofmann, appealing to 1 Cor. xv. 50,un-. _—iteelf proves that the abstract idea {fs put {fo
derstands ¢@opa here also as meaning “the place of the concrete, which is not the case
corruptible;’’ but in that passage the context _shere.
418 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the non-Christian world, and that rotroc dé refers to the Christians whom
Peter designates as the omido: x. woo Of the church.” But nothing in the
context hints at this, and it is arbitrary to understand by rovroi¢ other pudo-
wara than those designated by that word itself. — év émyvaice rov xupiov . .
Xpiorod, i.e., by their having come to the knowledge of Christ..— roiroeg (i.e.,
pudopac) dé mad éunAaxévrec Arravrat). éuxAaxevrec is valde emphalicum ; éundre-
xeodas enim dicuntur, qui tricis et laqueis implicantur (Gerhard). The particle
éé places in antithesis either the two participles, dropuyévrec and wdAw éurda-
xévrec, or the first participle and the finite verb arravra:; the former construc-
tion is to be preferred as the more correct. — yéyovev airoig . . . Trav mpwtur).
The same words are to be found in Matt. xii. 45; Luke xi. 26;! ra mpora:
the former condition, in which they were before their conversion; rd toyara:
their subsequent condition, into which they have come after their falling away,
i.e., the condition of complete slavery to the géopd, from which there is no
hope of redemption: with the thought, cf. Heb. x. 26, 27.
Ver. 21. xpeitrov yap hv abroic]. The same use of the imperf. where we
should employ the conjunct., Mark xiv. 21: «addy pv airw; cf. on the constr.
Winer, p. 265 (E. T., 282). — pp éxeyvuxévar ry dddv ti dinatoobync). 9 ddd¢ Tic
dixaoo, is not “the way to virtue,” or “the way of salvation which leads to
the moral condition of righteousness ” (Schott), but a designation of Chris-
tianity in so far as a godly righteous life belongs to it; cf. ver. 2.2—4
émyvovaw)]. The dat. instead of the accus., dependent on airoc; by an
attraction not uncommon in Greek — émorpéya is to be taken here in the
sense of “to turn back to the former things,” cf. ver. 22, as in Mark xiii. 16;
Luke xvii. 31, where it is connected with ¢ei¢ ra éxiow; in Luke viii. 55, never-
theless, it is used in the same sense without adjunct; see critica] remarks. —
éx tHe... evroaijc]. With rapadodeone abras, cf. Jude 3.— 7 dyia évroaq is
the law of the Christian life, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 14; here mentioned because the
passage treats of the moral corruption of the false teachers.
Ver. 22. The two proverbial expressions which form the close bring out
how contemptible is the conduct just described. — cvu3é8yxe abror, “it has
happened to them,” “has befallen them.” — 7a ric GAnGovg wapouiac]. The same
construction, Matt. xxi. 21: 1d rig cuxysg; xapomia denotes a figurative speech
or mode of expression generally. dAnéove is added in order to bring out that
the proverb has here too proved true; the author employs the singular
mapoiuiac, because the two proverbs following have one and the same mean-
ing. —xiwy émorpépac ... éépaua}]. The verse of the O. T., Prov. xxvi. 1],
LXX., TUNS: Gomep xbwv Grav émeAg éni tdv Eavtov Euerov meonrdg yevijrar, ovTuS
Gopwy Ty EavTov Kaxia avaotpépag én? rhv Eavtod duapriav; in spite of the similarity,
it is yet doubtful whether the writer had this passage in his eye; probably
he took this rapo:ma, like that which follows, — which can be traced to no
written source,— from popular tradition. — émorpépas is not to be taken as
1 There is a similar passage In Past. Herm. 2 In Steinfass’s observation: “ By the d:x-
iif. 9: ‘*quidam tamen ex fis maculaverunt se, asoovrns of the odov Sixacogvrns, righteousness
et project] sunt de genere justorum et Iterum ja understood as being not the end, but the
redierunt ad statum pristinum, atque ctiam wayfarer,” the firat is right, but the second
deteriores quam prius evaserunt.” wrong.
CHAP. II. 22. 419
a verb fin., but the predicate is, after the manner of proverbial expression,
joined without the copula to the noun (Winer, p. 331 [E. T., 353 f.]): “a ,
dog that has returned to its égépaua” (Gm, Aey.: “what has been vomited"). —
Ue Aovoauévyn . . . BopBdpov], émorpépaoa may be supplied from what precedes,
but thus this second mapouia would lose its independence; breviloquence is
natural to proverbs (Winer, p. 547 [E. T., 588]); eic, according to the sense,
points sufficiently to a verb of motion to be supplied: “a sow that has bathed
itself, to the xvAtoua BupBapov.” 1 — xidsoua (ar. Aey.), equal to xvdiorpa: the place
for wallowing. The genit. GopGdpov (am. Aey.) shows the nature of the xiAoua
where the swine wallow; the other reading, «vacuov, indicates the act of
wallowing. —Similar passages are to be found in the Rabbis. Cf. Pott
tn loc.
1 Steinfass interprets erroneously : ‘‘ A sow that was bathed, in order the better to wallow in
the mire.”
420 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. guar, the reading, according to almost all
authorities (Lachm., Tisch.), should be, ¢uav, — Ver. 3. In place of é2’ éoxarou
in K, L, P, etc., Syr., utr., Oec., etc. (Griesb., Scholz), A, B, C**, 8, al., Sahid.,
Chrys., etc., read: éoxatwy (Lachm., Tisch.); the Rec. is probably a correction
after Heb. i. 1; cf. also Jude 18. — év éuracyuovg has been rightly adopted into
the text by Griesb., Scholz, etc.; it is attested by A, B, C, P, &, 27, etc., Syr.,
utr., Arr., etc. Its omission (in K, L, etc., Rec.) is easily explained by its hav-
ing seemed superfluous on account of the subsequent éumuixrat, — Tisch. has
placed avruv before érGuuiac, following A, &, several min., Oec.; however, B, C,
K, L, P, al., m., Theoph., etc., are in favor of placing it after émdé. (Griesb.,
Scholz, Lachm.). — Ver. 7. Instead of the Rec. 79 abr@ Aoyw, after A, Vulg.,
Copt., etc. (Lachm., Buttm., Tisch. 8), C, L, &, al., perm., Syr., utr., etc., read:
T@ avbrov Adyw (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. 7). According to Buttm., the reading in
B is uncertain. On internal grounds it is difficult to decide which is the origi-
nal reading; Hofmann, however, declares the reading avr to be absurd. — Ver.
9. xtproc, instead of the Rec. 6 «vpoc; the most important authorities omit the
article. — el¢ fudc). Rec., K, L, etc.; instead of judc, A, B, C, &, etc., have duac;
and instead of eis, A, &, etc., read dia, Tisch. 7 has adopted ei¢ iudc, and
Lachm. and Tisch. 8, & twdc; the reading cic vpdc is best attested. Reiche con-
siders that of the Rec. to be the original reading: 0b testi majorem numerum
(?) ef quia hic modestlius et convenientius erat, se ipsuin includere ; the most of
the modern commentators prefer ei¢ duds; Hofm., however, holds the Rec. to
be the original reading. Semler looks upon all the three readings as mere inter-
pretamenta. — Ver. 10. In B, C, Cyr., the article is wanting before quéoa,
Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it. — After xAémrn¢ the Rec. has év vuxri (after
C, K, L, etc.), already justly omitted by Griesb. as a later supplement from
1 Thess. v. 2 (so, too, Tisch. ). — Before vipava the Rec., after A, B, C (Lachm.,
Tisch. 7), has the article of; in K, L, &, it is wanting (Tisch. 8).—In place of
Avénoovrat, Rec., after A, K, L (Tisch. 7), Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have adopted
the sing. Avégcerat, following B, C, &; perhaps it is a correction according to the
common usage. — Instead of the Rec. xaraxayoera: in A, L, etc., B, K, P, etc.,
read ebpedgoerac; Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec.; the latter observes
(8): dubium non est, quin evpednoera edere jubeamur, at hoc viz ac ne vir quidem
potest sanum esse; ovy sive obxétt 8i praepositum esset, non haerendum esset.
The greater number of commentators have left unnoticed the reading ebped7cera;
not so Hofmann; Buttm. reads: @ év airy Epya ebpedjoerat; but a instead of ta
occurs in no codex. Cod. C reads apamodjouvra, See further in the exposi-
tion. — Ver. 11. rovrwy ov}. Rec., after A, K, L, &, etc., Vulg., Thph., Occ.
(Lachm., Tisch. 8); in its place B has rovrwy obtuc, and C trovrwy de obtw¢; Tisch.
7 had accepted the version of B. — Ver. 12. Instead of ra«erat, Lachmm., following
C, Vulg., ete., reads: taxyoerat; probably a correction, because of the preceding
CHAP. III. 1, 2. 421
future. — Ver. 13. yiv xaivnv). Rec., according to B, C, K, L, P, ete. (Lachm.,
Tisch. 7); in its place Tisch. 8 reads xacvqv yi7v, according to A, &; this appears
to be a correction, after the preceding xa:vove . . . obpavovg. — xatd 1d émayyeAua),
Rec., according to B, C, K, L, P (Tisch. 7); instead of «ara, A, etc., read «ar;
and in place of érayyeAua, A, &, etc., have: émayyéAuara; Lachm. has adopted «ai
ta émayyeAuara; and Tisch. 8: xara a émayyéAuara, —-Ver. 15. According to A,
B, C, K, P, 8, etc., instead of the Rec. airw dodeicay (L, etc.), the reading should
be, as in Lachm. and Tisch.: do@eicavy attra, — Ver. 16. After zaou, Tisch. 8,
following K, L, P, &, reads the article raic¢; Tisch. 7 and Lachm. omit rai¢, after
A, B, C, al. —In place of the Rec. é» aic (Tisch. 8), after A, B, 8, Lachm. and
Tisch, 7 read: év off; on this see the commentary. — Lachm. has retained the
aunv, which closes the epistle, according to A, C, K, L, P, &, al.; Tisch., follow-
ing B, has omitted it, remarking: solet omnino a testibus plerisque addi ad
Sinem epistolarum; ter tantum (Rom., Gal., Jud.) non satis auctoritatis est, ut
omittatur aunv, Pauci addunt aunv 3 Joh.
Ver. 1. Not the commencement of a new epistle (Grotius), but of a new
section, directed against the deniers of the advent of Christ. — ratrnv jén...
imoroAnv]. ‘* This epistle I write to you, as already the second.” Pott:
airy nn devripa tory imarvdAn, fv yoagw viv. Fronmiiller incorrectly explains
non by: “now being near my death.” The epistle first written is the so-
called First Epistle of Peter. — év alc applies both to this and the First
Epistle of Peter (Winer, p. 134 [E. T., 142]). The prepos. é& does not
stand here in place of dd (Gerhard), but refers to the contents. — deyeipu
. . . davoav, for the phrase: deyeipe év vnouvaoe, ef. chap. i. 13. — tue
belongs to davmav. — e:Acxpev9, Cf. Phil. i. 10.
Ver. 2. Cf. Jude 17; in Jude mention is not made of the apostles, but
only of the prophets. — uvnotjva}. Infin. of purpose: “in order that ye may
remember,” equivalent to ei¢ rd nvnodjvae (Vorstius). — row mpoeipnuévur pnuarwv
umd Tov Gyiwy mpognrav)]. This applies evidently to the Old Testament proph-
ets; and with especial reference to the prophecies which relate to the
napovoia Of Christ (cf. ver. 4 and chap. i. 19).1 The Vulg. wrongly trans-
lates: ut memores silis eorum quae praedixi verborum a sanctis prophetis (or
sanctorum prophetarum).—xal rig tov aroatvAwy budv evroAn¢ tod xupiov xal
suwripoc]. On the commonly accepted reading guuwv, a: double interpretation
has been given; some, making juav depend on évrodjc, for the most part
regard ray dzooroAwy a8 in apposition to pyc, thus: “of our, the apostles’,
command” (Luther: “the commandment of us, who are the apostles of the
Lord;” thus, too, Calvin, Hornejus, Wolf, Pott, Dietlein, etc.); whilst
Bengel more correctly takes ju0v as in apposition to dmocroAwy; as in Acts
x. 41: pwaprvo:. . . quiv; for otherwise jucv must have stood before anooré-
Awy; cf. also 1 Cor. i. 18. Others, again, hold that jyzov is dependent on
atooroAwy; thus De Wette: “the commandment of our apostles of the Lord,
i.e., of the apostles who have preached to us, and are sent from the Lord.”
1 Of course ra wpoeipyueva prjuara does not not require to inslet upon it; the more eo that
mean ‘‘ what has been raid before,’’ but ‘the the contrary is not asserted in the commen-
words aforetime spoken,” and Hofmann did _taries against which his argument ie directed.
422 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
But against this interpretation is the circumstance, that, whilst he elsewhere
in the epistle designates himself as an apostle, the author of the epistle
would thus make a distinction between himself and the apostles.!. On the
_ true reading, iuav, the gen. rod xvpiov does not, as was for the most part
formerly assumed, depend on drocréAwy, but on évroAfe (Briickner, Wiesinger,
Schott, Steinfass); either in the sense: “the commandment .. . of the
Lord of the apostles, i.e., the commandment of the Lord, which the apostles
have proclaimed ;” or “rot xupiov is added by way of supplement to évroa.,”
and the expression is to be left as it stands originally: “your command of
the apostles, of the Lord, i.e., which the Lord has given” (Briickner; thus also
Wiesinger, Schott) ; the latter is to be preferred. No doubt the parallel
passage in Jude runs: dd rev arocréAuy rov kupiov nucv; but the whole epistle,
and especially this passage of it, shows that the author of our epistle, even
if he had Jude’s composition before him, in no way bound himself slavishly
to individual expressions in it. According to Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass,
by the dz, ou., Paul and his fellow-laborers are meant; this, too, is more
probable than that the apostle included himself among them. — By évrody is
here, as little as in chap. ii. 21, to be understood the gospel, or the Christian
religion (or, as Dietlein thinks, “the announcement, i.e., the historical
proclamation, of those predictions of the prophets, partly fulfilled, partly
yet unfulfilled, which was intrusted to the apostles”); but évroA7 means
here, as it always does, the commandment; according to De Wette: “the
commandment to guard against the false teachers,” after 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff.
But it is more appropriate, and more in harmony with the connection of
thought, to understand by it the command to lead a Christian life, in expec-
tation of the second coming of Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner); cf.
chap. ii. 22, i. 5 ff., iii. 12.
Ver. 3. rotto mparov ywooxovrec; cf. chap. i. 20.—ymaoxovree refers in
loose construction (instead of an accus.) to the subject contained in svnodivar.
— br: Mebaovra, «.7.A.]. Cf. Jude 18.2 — ev éunatyzovy gives sharp prominence
to the conduct of the éumaixra. The word is a dn, Aey.; Heb. xi. 86: éumary-
uocg; With the constr. épyecda: év, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 21. —xara rae . . . mopevduevor;
Jude 18 and 16; /d:a¢ is added so as to strengthen the pronoun atrov.
Ver. 4. The scoffing words-of the éumaixras. — nat Aéyovreg* tov dori % éray-
yeAia rig mapovoiac atrov]. The question mot éorw expresses the negation;
“quasi dicunt: nusquam est, eranuil; denique vana est et mendax;” cf. 1 Pet.
iv. 18. The same form of speech with roi éorw: Ps. xlii. 4, xxix. 10; Mal.
ii. 17; Luke viii. 25. — abroi, i.e., Christi, cuyus nomen ex re ipsa satis poterat
intelligt (Grotius). Gerhard assumes that the scoffers did not mention the
name of Christ per éfovdevropuv ; thus also Wiesinger, Hofmann. According
to the connection (ver. 2), the éray)eAia meant is that of the O. T. (cf. chap.
1 De Wette thinks, indeed, that here the £ Hofmann unwarrantably assumes that by
non-apostolic writer has involuntarily betrayed that, of which the writer would bave his read-
himeelf; but, as Stier justly obeerves, it can ers to be specially mindful, he does not mean
indeed hardly be supposed that the writer only the contents of the sentence depending
should have ‘'so grossly failed to keepupthe directly on y:vwoxovres, but atlil more than
part’ which he had distinctly assumed. that.
CHAP. III. 4. 423
i. 19 ff.1). In what follows we have the thesis of the scoffers in opposition
to the émayyedia, and the basis of it. The thesis is: navra obtu¢ dtapéver dw’
dpri¢ xticewc; its basis is indicated by the words: dg’ fe (sc. ucoac) of maréper
éxamundnoav. On the assumption that the ag’ ye of mar, éxouuz., aS used by the
scoffers, means the period marking off the commencement of the dayéve:, and
that dn’ dpy. xr. serves only as a more precise definition of it (Briickner,
Schott), then by of zxarépec must be understood “the ancestors, the first
generations of the human race.” But on this view, a¢’ ™, «.7.2., is an
entirely superfluous determination (Wiesinger), nor would there thus be any
indication of the ground on which the scoffers based their thesis; if, how-
ever, this be contained in dg’ jc, «.7 A., the reference in of rarépec can be only
either to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom the ézayyeAia was given,
cf. Heb. i. 1 (Wiesinger), or those of the generation to which the scoffers
belong (De Weitte, Thiersch, Fronmiiller, Hofmann). Now, since the fall-
ing asleep of the fathers of Israel, before its fulfilment, could not well be
brought as a proof that the promise was of none effect, inasmuch as it
referred to a time beyond that in which they lived (cf. 1 Pet. i. 10 ff.),
preference must be given to the second view. Weisinger, indeed, says that
the time of the composition of the epistle does not agree with this; but as
the tarrying of the rapovoia had already been the occasion of wonder in the
church, and Christianity, when this letter was composed, had now been in
existence for at least thirty-five years, it is quite possible that even atsthat
tame those who held Libertine views could have supported their denial of the
parousia by the fact that the expectation cherished by the early Christians:
had remained unrealized, thus calling forth the prophecy here made. At
any rate, it is a point not to be overlooked, that the words here used are
represented as to be spoken at a time then still in the future. Ver. 8, which
_otherwise would stand totally unconnected with ver. 4, also favors this view.?
The connection of the two members of the verse is certainly a loose one,
since on none of the interpretations does d¢’ 4c, x.r.4., stand in close connec-
tion with diauéve. The thought which has been somewhat inadequately
expressed is: Since the fathers fell asleep, nothing has changed, — the
promise has not been fulfilled, —a proof that every thing remains as it has
been since the creation. With éxouunqcav, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 39, xv. 6, and other
passages. — ofrwc does not require any supplement properly so called: “the
scoffers point, as it were, with the finger to the (sacred) status quo of the
world ” (Steinfass). — d:avéver does not mean “has remained,” nor 18 it “ will
1 This Hofmann disputes, saying: ‘* By the
promise ia not to be understood the Old Teata-
ment promise, nor by the future the future of
Christ, since those who epeak thus are mem-
bers of the Christian church; but with respect
to the Old Testament prophecy, they speak of
Jehovah's coming, and, with reepect to Christ's
prophecy, of His own coming. 7 éwayyeAta -
THs Wapovaias Tov cvpiov might comprehend the
one as well as the other; the context, how.
ever, fa in favor of the interpretation which
Hofmann disputes.
2 Dietlein’s interpretation is altogether
wrong. According to it, oi wardpes means:
**One generation after another always stand.
ing in the relation of fathers to the race euc-
ceeding it.’’ Peculiar, but certainly quite
unjuatifiable, is the opinion of Stetnfase, that
the ecoffers, with reference to the promise con
tained in the Book of Enoch, understood oi
warépes to mean “the prophetical, or more
definitely, the eachatological patriarchs, begin.
ning with Enoch, and extending down to
Daniel.”
424 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
remain,” but the present expresses the continuous, uniform duration; da
strengthens the idea pévew.—dn’ dpric¢ xticewe: “since creation took its
beginning.” |
Ver.5 Refutation of the assertion: dvra obtw diapéver, by the adducing
the fact of the flood.’ Aavéave: yap . . . déAovrac; yap 18 not equivalent to dé,
but designates the thought which follows as the reason for their scoffing:
“Thus they speak because;” cf. Winer, p. 423 [E. T., 453]. — rovro belongs
either to Aavéuver or to GéAovrac; in the first case it refers to what follows:
6rt, «7.4, 3; In which case déAovrac will mean: “ willingly, on purpose ” (Bruck-
ner, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Hofmann; cf. Winer, p. 436 [E. T., 467];
Buttmann, p. 322. Luther: “but they wilfully will not know"); in the
Becond case robro refers to the contents of the preceding statement, and eAev
means “to assert;” “for, whilst they assert this, tt is hidden from them that”
(Dietlein, Schott). The position both of rovro separated from dre by géAovrac,
. and of vé2ovrac separated by rovro from Aavéaver, favors the second construc-
tion; that oéAew can be used in the sense of “to assert,” is clear from
Herodian, v. 8, 11: eixéva re 7Aiov avépyacroy elva: beAovor; the word marks the
assertion as one based on self-willed arbitrariness, and as without any cer-
tain foundation. — ér: obpavol hoav Exmadm; ol obpavoi, the plural according to
the common usage. — émaza; cf. chap. ii. 3, not, “of old, formerly,” but,
“from of old,” i.e., jam inde a primo rerum omnium inilio (Gerhard). — yoav
belongs in the first instance to obpavoi; yet the subsequent y7 is to be taken
as applying to it also —x«al y# t bdaroc nal d¢ idatog acvvectiaa]. cuvecraca
‘expresses the idea of originating out of a combination ; ovviornu is often
employed thus by the Greeks in the intransitive tenses, though the reference
contained in ovy sometimes disappears almost entirely. The prepositions 2
and da must not be regarded as synonymous; é refers to the substance, da
to the means. A twofold significance is thus attributed to the water in the
formation of the earth, which 1s also in harmony with the Mosaic account
of the creation, where the original substance is distinctly spoken of as itdup,
and in the formation of the earth, water is meutioned as the instrumental
element (Briickner). There is, accordingly, no foundation for the assertion
of De Wette, that the author conceived the origin of the world, according
to Indo-Egyptian cosmogony, as a species of chemical product of water.
Many interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmuller, Hofmann, as
also Winer, p. 390 [E. T., 419], explain && idatac by saying that the earth
arose out of the water “in which it lay buried.” But this interpretation is
refuted by the meaning of the verba] idea cvvecrisa, which belongs to é€
tdaroc; thus, too, an element would be introduced which would be of only
secondary importance.?. Although ovveorica belongs grammatically only to
means of a flood, and consequently was not an
absolute annihilation, but only a change of
1 Schott diaputes this, and maintains that
the scoffers appealed to the fact of the flood in
support of thelr opinion, ‘in as far as it did
not form a definite close of the earthly devel
opment of the world, by an annihilation of the
world,” and that now what the writer wished
to bring forward against it was why that judg.
ment of destruction was executed simply by
form; but how much here muat be read be-
tween the lines, and to which po allusion is
made.
2 The interpretation of Hornejus shows to
what eccentricities commentators sometimes
have recourse: ‘‘dicitur autem terra coneiatere
CHAP. III. 6, 7. 425
yi, yet in thought it has been applied to cbpavo: also; thus Briickner, Wies-
inger, Schott, and in this commentary. This reference may be justified thus
far, that otpavo is understood of the second day’s work of creation, the visi-
ble heavens; but it is necessary only if xdspoc (ver. 6) is to be taken as
meaning the heavens and the earth. De Wette arbitrarily refers the prepo-
sition é§ only to the earth, and dia to the heavens; the latter in the sense of,
“through the water, between the water.” 71 rot Ocot Ady draws emphatic
attention to the fact that the active cause of the creation of the world was
the Word of God; to this 7 rot Gcod Avyy, the rd abrov Adyy, ver. 7, corre-
sponds.
Ver. 6. ck’ ov, «.7.4.]. The question is, To what has cy retrospect? The
answer depends on the meaning attached to 6 rore xoopoc. To appearance
this phrase must be regarded as identical with otpavn xal yz, vv. 5 and 7
(vv. 10, 13); and in support of this view, appeal may be made also to the
rore a8 distinguished from viv, ver. 7. On this interpretation, accepted by
most expositors (as also in this commentary), dc dv can refer only either to
é& idatoc and re rod Ocov Aoyw (Gerhard, Briickner, Besser, Wiesinger, in this
commentary also), or to tdaroc alone (Calvin. Pott, etc.),!— the plural being
explained from the circumstance that the water was formerly spoken of both
as substance and as medium. ‘The objection to this explanation, however,
is that in the account of the flood there is nothing to show that it caused the
destruction both of the heaven and of the earth, and that the earth only, but
not the heaven, was submerged; Hofmann accordingly understands by 6 rére
xoopoc, “the world of living creatures,” as Oecumenius already had done:
7d uTtwAeTO Ui) TPE TavTa Tdv KdopuoV axuvaréov, G?Ad Tpdc udva Ta Goa. On this view .
(where viv only, ver. 6, seems tc cause difficulty) dv refers to ofpavol nai yi
(Oecumenius, Beza, Wolf, Hornejus, Fronintiller, Steinfass, Hofmann).?
Ver. 7. o dé ovpavol xa? 7 y7]. The viv, which applies also to 4 y#, cannot,
if by 6 rore xoopog is to be understood the world of living beings, be taken as
an antithesis to rore, but it refers simply to the present continuance of
heaven and earth. — ro abro [abot] Aoyy points back r# rob Ocod Aoyw, ver. 5;
if the reading abrov be adopted, this adjunct gives expression to the thought
that, like as the originating of the heavens and the earth was dependent on
the Word of God, so also is their preservation to annihilation by fire. If,
however, avr be the true reading, the idea seems to be implied that the
reservation of the heavens and the earth unto judgment is based already on
the words of creation.? Though this idea be surprising, it can certainly not,
ef v8aros, 1.€., éxrd¢ DSaroc 860 Mpos Vdara, extra
aquam s. ad aquas: & véaros, f.e., wera 8. év
dow vdaros cum aqua 8. in media aqua.” —
The opinion of Steinfass, too, that ‘‘ cuverrwoa
is to be limited to the creation and extatence of
human beings, animala, and vegetables,” finds
no justification In the worda of the epiatie.
1 With this reference Burnet (Archaeol.
Philos., p. 487) agrees, yet he iocorrectly ex-
plains & a» by ‘* eam ob caneam,” or “ propter
{lam (aquam) ;”’ for he strangely assumes that
whilet the former world was ‘“‘ex aqua et per
aquam constituta,” this constitutio perisbed by
the flood, so that therefore the «ocyos that now
is, is no longer ‘‘ex aqua et per aquam,’’ but
“allter constitutus.”’
2 Beda likewise applies &» to heaven and
earth, but interpreta (evidently erroueously)
8a thus, that theese are not the causa, but the
objectum perditionis; f.e., 8 d» as equivalent
to in quibus partibus sere et terra.
§ Dietlein: ‘* The senne ia this, that the same
426 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
with Hofmann, be said to be paradoxical. It is, however, also possible that
airs is only meant to show that the word by which this keeping of the
heavens and the earth takes place, is the Word of God equally with that by
which they were created. — re@yoavpropévor cic; “are stored up,” like a treas-
ure, which is kept against a particular time, cf. Rom. ii. 5. Dietlein is of
opinion that in the word the idea of use must be kept hold of; he defines it
thus: “that heaven and earth are to serve as the material for punishment, in
such a manner, however, that they at the same time perish themselves; ” but
this is justified neither by the reference (Rom. ii. 5), nor by the context. —
voi tnpovpevot, x.7.A.]. “ In that they are reserved for the fire against the day,”
etc.; zvpi is more appropriately joined with rypotuevon (Briickner, Fron-
miiller) than with redycavpropévae eioi (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); this
last term does not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the
joav . . . ovvectona, and it is only in the second member of the sentence that
mention can be made of the future destruction by fire; otherwise, too,
tnoot'uevos Would be somewhat superfluous. The thought alluded to in upi
rnoovpevot is further developed in ver. 10. Nowhere in the O. T. or N. T. is
this idea so definitely expressed as here; yet from this it does not follow
that it is to be traced to Greek, more particularly to the Stoic philosophy, or
to Oriental mythology. The O. T. makes frequent reference to a future
change in the present condition of the world (‘‘ Heaven and earth shall pass
away,” Ps. ii. 26, 27), in connection with the appearance of God to judgment;
cf. Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 6; especially Isa. Ixvi., where, in ver. 22, a new heaven
and a new earth is expressly spoken of; thus, too, Job xiv. 12, Equally is
it more than once set forth that God will come to judgment in the destroy-
ing fire, Isa. lxvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9, 10, etc.; how easily, then, from passages
such as these could the conception which finds expression here arise,! the
more especially that it was promised that the world would never again be
destroyed by a flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire
appeared to be a type of the future judgment of the world. — Conceptions
as to the world’s destruction similar to those in the O. T. are to be found in
the N. T., Matt. v. 18 (24, 29), Heb. xii. 27; of fire accompanying the judg-
ment, 1 Cor. iii. 18, 2 Thess. i. 8; of the new heaven and the new earth,
Rev. xxi. 1.—eig qpépav . . . avopdmwv]. The final end against which
heaven and earth remain reserved for fire; dmddea: the opposite of owrnpia,
cf. Phil. i. 28 (chap. ii. 3).— Dietlein erroneously understands rav doesiv
avOpinwv as a designation of the whole of mankind, in that, with the excep-
tion of the converted, they are ungodly. To any such erception there is here
no reference: the phrase has reference rather to the ungodly in contrast to
the godly.
Ver. 8 refers to the reason given in dg’ 7, ver. 4, on which the scoffers
based their assertion; it points out that the delay, also, of the parousia is no
proof that it will not take place. — év dé rotro; “ this one thing,” as a specially
Aoyos which created the world assigned also opposition that the pasaages Jaa. Ixvi. 15 ff., to-
to the post-Noachic world its time and its gether with Mal {i!. 1-3, iv. 1, are “the com-
judgment.” plete statements of that event,” surely no
1 When Schott denies this, and asserta in judicious expositor will agree with him.
CHAP. III. 9. 427
important point. — pi) AavOarétw dude; “let it not be hid from you;” said
with reference to ver. 5. — ér: uia fuépa, «.7.A,; a thought that echoes Ps. xc.
4. The words lay stress on the difference between the divine and the human
reckoning of time. It does not designate God as being absolutely without
limitations of time (cui nihil est praeteritum, nihil futurum, sed omnia prae-
sentia; Aretius), for it is not the nature of God that is here in question,
but God’s reckoning of time which He created along with the world, and the
words only bring out that it is different from that of man.! For this pur-
pose the words of the Psalms were not sufficient : yidsa Ern tv d¢8adapoi¢ cov oc
4 hutpa 7 éx0éc; and, therefore, on the basis of thern, the author constructs a
verse consisting of two members. — mapa xupiov; ‘with God,” i.e., in God's
way of looking at things. Since, then, time has a different value in God's
eyes from that which it has in the eyes of men, the tarrying hitherto of the
judgment, although it had been predicted as at hand, is no proof that
the judgment will not actually come.?
Ver. 9. Explanation of the seeming delay in the fulfilment of the prom-
ise. — ob Bpadiver xiptog tig éxayyeAiac]. The genitive does not depend on
xoptog (Steinfass), but on the verb, which here is not intransitive, as if epi
(Hornejus), or évexa (Pott), or some such word were to be supplied, but
transitive; although elsewhere it governs the accusative (Isa. xlvi. 13, LXCX.:
Thy awrnpiay Ty rap’ éxov ob Bpaduvve), it can, in the idea of it, be likewise con-
strued with the genitive.? — Spadivec means not simply, “differre, to put off,”
for the author admits a delay, but it contains in it the idea of tardiness
(Gen. xliii. 10), which even holds out the prospect of a non-fulfilment;
Gerhard: discrimen est inter tardare et differre; ts demum tardat, qui ultra
debitum tempus, quod agendum est, differt. Cf. with this passage, Hab. ii. 3
(Heb. x. 37) and Ecclus. xxxii. 22 (in Luther's translation, xxxv. 22), LXX.:
kal 6 xbptog ob uh Bpadbvy, obd2 pi) paxpoOvunoe. — xiptos here, as in ver. 8, is God,
not Christ, as Schott vainly tries to prove. —w¢ rivée Bpadirnra jyotvrat; “as
some consider it tardiness ;" that is, that, contrary to expectation, the promise
has not yet been fulfilled; Grotius: “et propterea ipsam quoque rem promissam
tn dubium trahunt.” rive denotes not the scoffers, but members of the
church weak in the faith. —dAAQ puxpodvpel eig tude]. panpoduuetv c. eri:
Matt. xviii. 26,29; Luke xviii. 7, etc.; c. npoc: 1 Thess. v. 14; c. els only
here: “with reference to you.” —eic twig; not: “towards mankind called of
free grace ” (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but in tua the
readers are addressed to whom the epistle is written, the more general ref-
1 Hofmann is consequently equally Inoor-
rect when he says that the passage in the
Paalm asserts that ‘‘ for God time is no time,”
but here that ‘for Him it is neither short vor
long.”
2 The following thoughts are not expressed
bere, although they may be inferred from
what is said: ‘In one eingle day of judgment
God can punish the sin of centuries, and can
adjust that great inequality which, by so long
a duration, has been introduced Into eternity "
(Dietiein); and ‘‘in one day a mighty step
onwards may be taken, such as In a thousand
years could hardly have been expected; and
then again, if retarded by the will of God, the
march of development will, for a thousand
years, hardly move faster than otherwise it
would have done in a single day" (Thicrsch,
p- 107).
? To combine ris éwayyeAcas with the sub-
sequent ws reves Apadyrnra nyovrrar, BO as tO
make the genitive dependent on fpadvrnra
(Hofmann), produces a very clumsy aud artl-
ficial construction.
428 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
erence to the others being understood as a matter of course. The reason of
the non-fulfilment hithertg lies in the long-suffering love of God; the
nearer definition lies in the words which follow. — 2) Bovdcuevoc]. The par-
ticiple in an explanatory sense: “in that he is not willing.” 1 — rag arodécOas;
tivac, namely, such as still lead a sensual life. — dAAa mavrag ele uetavoiav ywp7-
cat; yupeiv here similarly as in Matt. xv. 17,3‘ but come to repentance,” or,
perhaps more correctly, “enter into repentance;” not as Dietlein thinks :
“take the decisive step to repentance;” Calvin would, quite incorrectly,
take ywpeiv either as equivalent to recipere, so that xipioc would be the sub-
ject, or as an intrans. verb equal to colligi, aggregari. — With the thought,
ef. 1 Tim. ii. 4; Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11.8
Ver. 10. Sec dé (7) nuspa Kupiov O¢ xAentnc). H&ee dé stands first by way of
emphasis, in contrast to what precedes: “ but come will the day of the Lord.”
These words express the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment,
and o¢ xAérrgc its unexpected suddenness; cf. 1 Thess. v. 2 (Matt. xxiv. 43):
Ti¢ ToD Oeod nuepac, Ver. 12, shows that xvpiov is here also equivalent to Geod
(not to Xprorov; Schott). — év 7 (of) obpavol porsnddv mapedeboovra]. This rela-
tive clause states “the event of that day, which makes it essentially what
it is” (Schott). pocinddv, am. Aey., equivalent to pera poifov, is best taken in
the sense peculiar to the word: “with rushing swiftness” (Wiesinger, Schott,
Hofmann; Pape, s.v.); Oecumenius understands it of the crackling of the
destroying fire; De Wette, on the other hand, of the crash of the falling
together. With mapedetoovra, cf. Matt. xxiv. 35, v. 18; Luke xvi. 17; Rev.
xxi. 1. As to how the heavens shall pass away, see ver. 12. —oroyeia dé
xavooteva Avdjoovrat], oroxeia cannot refer to the so-called four elements,
“inasmuch as the dissolving of fire by means of fire is unthinkable ” (Briick-
ner), and it is arbitrary to limit the idea to three (Hornejus), or to two
(Estius) elements; as now the position of the words shows that the expres-
sion has reference neither to the earth afterwards named, nor to the world
as made up of heaven and earth (Pott: elementa totius mundi tam coeli quam
terrae; thus, too, Briickner: “the primary substances of which the world,
as an organism, is composed;” similarly, Wiesinger, Schott), it must be
understood of the constituent elements of the heavens, corresponding to the
expression: ai duvaperg rév ovpavdv, Isa. xxxiv. 4; Matt. xxiv. 29 (cf. Meyer,
in loc.). This view is justified by the circumstance that in the preceding
oi ovpavol . . . mapedevoovra: no mention has as yet been made.of the destruc-
tion of heaven and earth by fire. At variance with this view, Hofmann
1 According to Dietlein, BovAec@a: expresses
a ‘* determination of the will; '’ OéAe», ** will-
ing as a self-determination;" this is incorrect,
BovAec@a. rather means willing, arieing with
and from conscious reflection; @eAe», on the
other hand, is willing in general, arising also
from direct iuclination.
2 Aeschyl. Pers., v. 385: eis vavy; cf. Wahl,
8.0.
53 In order to deprive this passage of all
force against the doctrine of predestination,
Calvin remarks: ‘‘sed hic quaerl potest: ai
neminem Deus perire vult, cur tam multi
pereunt ? Respondeo, non de arcano Det con-
silio hic fleri mentionem, quo destinati sunt
reprobi in suum exitum: sed tantum de vo-
luntate, quae nobis in evangello patefit, Omni-
bus enim promiscue manum illic porrigit Deus,
sed eos tantum apprehendit, ut ad se ducat,
quos ante conditum mundum elegit;"’ Beza,
Piscator, etc., also apply this passage to the
electi only.
CHAP. III. 11, 12. 429
understands the expression oroyeia here as a designation of the stars, arbi-
trarily asserting that crocyeia “cannot be only original component parts, but
must also be prominent points which dominate that by which they are
surrounded,” — appealing to Justin (Apolog., ii. c. 5, and Dial. c. Tr., c. 23),
who speaks of the stars as orotyela otpaua. To this view it may be objected,
that the author could not picture to himself a burning of the stars, which
appeared to him as fiery bodies; neither do any of the corresponding
passages of Scripture allude to this. — The verb «uvoovcGa only here and in
ver. 12, “to burn;” in the classics, “to suffer from heat;" the participle
expresses the reason of the Avéjcuvra:: “will be dissolved by the burning.”
Avery, in the sense of “to destroy, to bring to nothing,” Eph. ii. 14; 1 John
iii. 8, — very appropriate here if crozeia be the original eleinents. — xa? yi xal
ra év airy Epya xaraxancera]. td épya are neither the wicked works of man
(after 1 Cor. ili. 15), nor his works in general (Rosenmiiller, Steinfass, Hof-
mann); the reference may be either to the opera naturae et artis (Bengel,
Dietlein: “the manifold forms which appear on the earth’s surface, in con-
trast to the earth as a whole;” thus also Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fron-
miiller); or the expression may be synonymous with that which frequently
occurs in the O. T.: 7 y# al rd rAjpwua airic, that is to say, the creations of
God which belong to the earth, as they are related in the history of creation,
cf. Rev. x. 6. Hofmann wrongly urges against this view, that on it ra éy
atry would be sufficient; for even though this be true, it does not follow that
the addition of the word Zpya would prove that it is “the works of men”
that are here meant. With reference to the reading etpedjzera, instead of
the Rec. xaraxajaera (see critical remarks), Hofmann regards it as original,
and considers the words xai rd . . . evpedjoera: as an interrogative clause sub-
joined to the preceding affirmative clause. Of course an interrogative clause
may be subjoined to an affirmative; but when Hofmann, in support of his
interpretation, appeals to 1 Cor. v. 2, he fails to observe that the relation
between the statement and the question there is entirely different from that
which is supposed to exist here.
Vv. 11, 12. rovrey oby mavtwy Avouévwr]. rTovrwy mavtuv refers to all the
things before mentioned, and not only, as Hofmann thinks, to the immedi-
ately preceding ép)a. As regards the reading oiruc, instead of the Rec. od»,
it is indeed not supported by the preponderance of authorities; it deserves,
however, the preference because it (equivalent to “as has before been stated”)
is more significant than the reading oiv. The present Avouévur is explained
by Winer, p. 321 (E. T., 342): “since all this is in ita nature destined to
dissolution; the lot of dissolution is, as it were, already inherent in those
things” (thus also Dietlein, De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger) ; but it is more
correct to find expressed in the present the certainty of the event, which is,
no doubt, as yet future (similarly, Schott), especially as the passing away
of all things, as it is formerly described, is in consequence not of their
nature, but of the will of God as Judge. Hofmann denies, indeed, any
reference to the future, remarking: the present participial clause brings out
that this is the fate of the subject; but this fate is one which is realized
only in the future. — roramovde dei, x.7.A.]. A8 regards its arrangement, this
430 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
period, as far as the end of ver. 12, is divided by many into two portions, of
which the first closes either with tude (Pott, Meyer in his translation) or
with evdacBeiau (Griesbach, Fronmiiller), and forms a question to which
the second half supplies the answer. But opposed to this construction is the
word moranovc, which in the N. T. is never used as indirect interrogation,
but always in exclamation. Consequently the whole forms one clause,
which has a hortative sense (so, too, Hofmann),! and before which may be
supplied, for the sake of clearness, “consider therefore.” The sense is:
“since all that passes away, consider what manner of persons you ought to
be; Gerhard: quam pie, quam prudenter vos oportet conservari; yet norand¢
(in classical writers generally rodanéc) is not equivalent to quantus (Bret-
schneider, De Wette-Briickner), but to qualis. —éy dyiau dvaotpogaig nai eboe-
Beiary]. The plural marks the holy behavior and the piety in their different
tendencies and forms of manifestation. These words may be taken either
with what precedes (so most commentators) or with what follows (thus
Steinfass); the latter is to be preferred, since the force of zorarovg would
only be weakened by this adjunct. — mpocdoxévrag nal oreddovrag tiv mapovciay
rig Tov Oeov juépag; not “so that,” but “since ye . . . in holy walk . . . look
for.” — Most of the earlier interpreters arbitrarily supply ei¢ to omeidovrac;
Vulg.: exspectantes et properantes in adventum; Luther: “hasten to the day.”
Others attribute to the word the meaning, “to expect with longing,” but
this force it never has; in the passages quoted in support of it the word
rather means, “to prosecute any thing with zeal,” e.g., Pind., Jsthm., v. 22:
omeidev dperav; Isa. xvi. 5, LXX.: on, dexasooivnv; but then the object is
always something which is effected by the action of the omeidovrog; the origi-
nal signification of hastening, hurrying, is to be kept hold of here. That
by which this hastening is to be accomplished is to be gathered from ver. 11,
namely, by a holy walk and piety. The context nowhere hints that it is
to be accomplished only by prayer? (Hofmann, following Bengel). — The
expression, tiv mapuvciav rig tov Oeov nuépac, Occurs nowhere else; with 7 7.
Ccod qu., cf. ver. 10 and Tit. ii. 13; to zapovoiay Steinfass arbitrarily supplies
“ rod Xpiotod,"” — de’ 7v obpavol, x.t.A.]. A resumption of what is said in ver. 10.
— d&’ mv may be referred either to rv zapovaiay (Steinfass, Hofmann) or to
ri t. O. Auépac; in both cases the sense remains substantially the same. It
is to be taken neither as equivalent to per (like dd, c. gen.), nor in a tem-
poral sense (Luther: “in which”); but it denotes here, as it always does,
the occasioning cause, equal to “on account of ” (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott);
ef. Winer, p. 373 [E. T., 400]). Dietlein translates correctly, but arbitra-
rily explains the phrase by “in whose honor as it were.” — rupotpevos, cf.
Eph. vi. 16; Dietlein falsely: “in that they will burn;” the part. is present, ®
not future. —ryxeraz; De Wette: “ryxeroe must not be taken strictly as
1 Hofmann, however, does not urge the interpretation: ‘‘They hasten the coming of
N. T. usage of worawovs in favor of thie con- the day, in that by repentance and holiness
struction, but ‘‘ the want of purpose and cold: they accomplish the work of ealvation, and
ness of dividing the thought into question and render the paxpoOvyia, ver. 9, unnecessary ; ”
answer.”’ and Wiesinger further adds: ‘and positively
2 De Wette gives substantially the correct bring it on by their prayere”’ (Rev. xxii. 17).
CHAP. III. 13, 14. 431
meaning (o be melted, as if cra. were to be conceived of as a solid mass; it
can be regarded as synonymous with Avec#au.” The reference to Isa. xxxiv. 4,
LXX.: nai raxjoovrat micas ai duvapec tov ovpavay (cf. Micah i. 4), cannot fail
to be recognized.!_ Gerhard: cum tota mundi machina, coelum, terra et omnia
quae sunt in ea sint aliquando peritura, ideo ab inordinata mundi dilectione cor
nostrum abstrahentes coelestium bonorum desiderio et amore flagremus.
Ver. 13. xawvovg dé obtpavode cal yqv xuwvgv]. This verse, which does not
depend on dc #v (Dietlein), but is joined in an independent manner to what
goes before, forms the antithesis to the thought last expressed, and serves to
strengthen the exhortation contained in vv. 11, 12.— By xamuie . . . xawa
the heaven and the earth of the future are distinguished as to their character
from those of the present, and prominence is given to their glorified condi-
tion; cf. 2 Cor. v. 17. — The same idea of a new heaven and a new earth is
expressed in Rev. xxi. 1.—xard 1d énayyeAua abrod, cf. Isa. Ixv. 17, lxvi. 22.
— airod, 1.e., Oecd; the O. T. promise, principally at least, is meant. mpoodo-
xapev, Which looks back to xpoodoxwvrag, ver. 12, significantly designates the
new heaven and the new earth as the aim of the certain hope of believers. —
éy ol¢ dixatoobvn xatoei]. A similar thought is contained in Isa. Ixv. 25; cf.
also Rev. xxi. 3-27. Erasmus incorrectly refers é oi¢ to the subject con-
tained in mpoodoxipev; it plainly goes back to ca:vode ovp, x. yiv xatv. Sixawodyn,
not equivalent to gloria et felicitas coelestis, utpote verae justitiae praemium
(Vorstius), but the vera justitia itself, i.e., the holy conduct, completely in
harmony with the divine will, of those who belong to the new heaven and
the new earth.2, Hofmann widens the idea too much, when he says that
“ Sixasocivn is to be understood not as applying only to the right conduct of
men, but in the sense of integrity of nature generally.”
Ver. 14. dw, dyannrol, taita mposdoxevres]. The participle does not give
the explanation of the dw: “ wherefore, because we expect this’ (Wiesinger,
Schott), but the waiting for it belongs to the exhortation (Dietlein, Briick-
ner, Steinfass). — oxovdacare domo... ev eipivg; como, cf. 1 Pet. i. 19:
Guounro, besides here only in Phil. ii. 15, “unblamable” (Deut. xxxii. 5:
réxva pounra); reverse of the false teachers: omido xai popor, chap. il. 138. —
air; not equal to bx’ abrod, nor is it the dat. comm. (Schott); and as little:
“with reference to him ” (Hofinann); but: “according to His (i.e., God's)
judgment.” — cipediva: refers not to the future time of the judgment, but to
the present time of the expectation. —é» eipyvy]. This adjunct does not
1 Although this passage does not finally
settle the dispute, whether an entire destruc.
tion, an annifhilation, or only a transformation
of the atate of the world is to be looked for,
whether the world is to be destroyed by fire,
quoad substantiam suam, or quoad qualitutese
suag, atill it gives more support to the second
than the firat idea, since, In spite of the strong
expressions which the writer makes use of, it
is not decidedly stated that the world will be
dissolved into nothing.
3 In the Book of Enoch, also, similar con-
ceptions are to be found; chap. xc. 17: ‘“‘ and
the former heavens, they shall pass away and
be dissolved, and new heavene will appear; ”’
chap. liv., 4,5: ‘‘In that day wiil I cause mine
elect to dwell in thelr midst, and I will change
the heavens,”’ etc.; ‘‘I will also change the
earth,’ etc.; 1.5: ‘*the earth shall rejoice, the
righteous shall dwell therein, and the elect
shal! go and walk therein;’’ x.17: ‘‘ The earth
shall be purified from all corruption, from all
crime, from all punishment, and from all suf-
fering.”
432 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
belong to mpoodoxdvrec, as Beza considers probable, but to etpedzvar doncios,
x.7.4,; it gives the life-element, in which the Christian must move (so, too,
Briickner); cf. Ephes. i. 4: év dyamy; 1 Thess. iii. 13: t& dywoivy, if he
. would be found an domdAog: eipnvy is here not “concord” (Pott, Augusti),
nor is it “ the good conscience,” but peace, in the full meaning of the word;
the addition is explained from ver. 15. Dietlein incorrectly takes év eipzvy
as the object to be supplied to domAo: xal ducunro, which are here used not
as relative, but as absolute adjectives ; at the same time, too, he limits eipjun,
in the conception of it, to ‘peace of the church, especially to peace in rela-
tion to the church authorities.” Not less erroneous is it to regard, with
Steinfass, év eipvy as the opposite “of all division between the Jewish and
the Gentile elements.” The interpretation of De Wette: ‘to your peace,”
equivalent to ei¢ elpavqv (Beza: vestro bono, clementem illum videlicet ac pacifi-
cum experturi), cannot be justified on linguistic grounds.
Vv. 15, 16. xal ri rod xupion qucv paxpodvyiav]. See ver. 9: “the long-
suffering of our Lord, which consists in this, that He still keeps back the last
judgment.” It is open to question whether 6 xiptoc jucy means God (De
Wette, Dietlein, Fronmiiller), or Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass) ;
what goes before favors the former (vv. 14, 12, 10, 9, 8), the N. T. usage
the latter; in both cases the sense is substantially the same. — owrypiav
nyeioge ; antithesis to Spadurita pyovvra, ver. 9: “the paxpoduuia of the Lord
account for salvation,” i.e., as something which has your salvation as its aim;
that is, by your making such use of the time of grace, that the fruit of it is
the owrnpia. — xadiwc xai 6 adyannroc nudv adeAgdc Mavdoc, x.r.A.]. The reference
here to Paul is evidently meant to emphasize the exhortation given; it is,
however, more particularly occasioned by the circumstance that many per-
sons had been guilty of wresting the apostle’s words, and against this the
apostle wishes to warn his readers. — 6 ayannrdc, «.7.4., designates Paul not
only as a friend, or a fellow-Christian, but as one with whom Peter feels
himself most intimately connected in official relationship. Hofmann, on the
other hand, presses the plura! jucv, and thinks that by it the apostle, with a
view to his Gentile readers, would unite the Jewish-Christians with himself,
so as to show that the apostle of the Gentiles was a beloved brother to them
as well as to him. The adjunct, aara rv dogeicay abre codiav, acknowledges
the wisdom which has been granted to him, of which also the utterances
which the apostle especially has in his eye are the outcome. -— éypawev iyiv].
Which epistle or epistles are meant ? According to Oecumenius, Lorinus,
Grotius, etc., as also Dietlein and Besser, it is the Epistle to the Romans, on
account of chap. ix. 22 (jveyxev év woAAH uuapodvuig) and chap. ii. 4; accord-
ing to Jachmann, the Epistle to the Corinthians (chiefly on account of 1 Ep. i.
7-9), in consideration of the words, xara . . . cogav; according to Estius,
Bengel, Hornejus, Gerhard, etc., the Eypistie to the Hebrews, on account of ix.
26 ff., x. 25, 37. These different opinions assume that xa@o¢ applies only to
the last thought expressed in this verse. But there is no reason for any
such limitation, since this exhortation is joined in the closest manner possi-
ble to that which precedes it in ver. 14. Wiesinger rightly rejects the sup-
position that xa@u¢ éypaye refers still farther back, namely, to the whole
CHAP. III. 16. 433
section relating to the parousia (De Wette, with whom Briickner agrees, and
Schott). — Since the document to which the author alludes is, by éypapev
tiuiv, indicated as one addressed to the same circle of readers as Second Peter,
the reference here cannot be to the above-named epistles, nor yet to the
Epistle to the Thessalonians (De Wette), but only to the Epistle to the
Ephesians (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmaun: to this Steinfass adds the First
Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to the Colossians; Fronmiiller, the last-
named epistle and that to the Romans). In support of this may be urged
the character of this epistle as a circular letter, and the echoes of it to be
found in First Peter. It must also be observed, that although the precise
thought expressed in the beginning of this verse is not to be found in that
epistle, yet the epistle itself is certainly rich in ethical exhortations with
reference to the Christian’s hope of salvation.! It is plainly entirely arbi-
trary to assume, with Pott and Morus, that the apostle here refers to an
epistle which we do not now possess.
Ver. 16. we «ai év maou [aig] émoroAaic; sc. Eypayev. By this adjunct the
epistle of Paul, referred to in éypapev tuiv, is definitely distinguished from
his other epistles; but what is true of the former is asserted also of the
latter, i.e., that they contain the same exhortations, a statement, however,
which is more precisely limited by Aaddv év abraic rept ruituv. The difference
in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be put with doa or not,
is of trifling importance for the meaning, since it is unwarranted to suppose
that mdcac raic marks the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed
collection (Wiesinger), — the article only showing that the epistles of Paul
were already known as such. — AaAdw é abraic mepl rovrwv]. Aadov is not for
bv alg Aadei (Pott), but it means: “ when in them (i.e., in his epistles) he speaks
of these things. — repli rovrwv can only have the same reference as xadc, ver.
15; that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the parousia as such,
but chiefly “‘to the exhortation given in ver. 14 f.” (Wiesinger), and what
is connected with it. — The remark in what follows alludes to that which
occasioned the mention of Paul's epistles. — év ol¢ or ai¢ éort dvovonra tiva].
It can hardly be decided which is the true reading, ofc or alc. Schott thinks
that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if afc be read, the ra must be
limited to the passages where Paul happens to speak zepi rotrwv; and if év ol¢
the reference can be to those things or questions not generally, but only in
the way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a different
view; in his opinion, éy og refers to those things in themselves, ¢» aig to the
epistles generally; this can, however, hardly be correct, for it is scarcely
conceivable that the author should let fall a remark closely conjoined with
what had gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of
thought. Besides, év aig deserves the preference not only on account of the
1 Schott must be considered mistaken in
appealing to this, that ‘it is precisely the
Eptatie to the Ephesians, ii. 11-i1i, 12, which
contains the moet exact development of the
idea expressed here in ver. 9 and ver. 15, that
the divine direction of history, with a view to
the completion of salvation, has given the pe-
culiar significance to the present time, to lead
into the church the Aeathen world, which will
be the subject of the future completion of sal-
vation;” of all this absolutely uothing is here
said.
434 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
external authorities, but because of the following: dc rag Aotma¢ ypadic (Wie-
singer, Briickner, Reiche, Hofmann; Schott otherwise). své is generally
regarded as the subject, and dvovénra as the predicate belonging to it; the
position of the words, however, decides that dvov. ra must be taken together
as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By dvovénra must not be understood, with
Schott, “the things which in themselves are opposed to the human mind,”
but the expressions in which Paul speaks of them; Steinfass correctly:
“ rva are words, not objects;” for to the things the verb orpeBAcvow is not
suited. What the apostle meant can only be gathered from the connection ;
consequently, the reference here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul
with respect to the parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any state-
ments of his, such as are to be found in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 12-58.
Still less does the connection appear to justify the assumption that ‘the
Pauline doctrine of freedom ” (Wiesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul’s
statements with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to the
final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms such a characteristic
feature of Paul’s teaching, which could only too easily be distorted by mis-
understanding, it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author
had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expression.!— d oi
Guadeic xai dornptxtot orpeBAovoww; dyadic, am. Aey.. according to De Wette,
equivalent to “unteachable, with the implied idea of stubbornness and of
unbelief.” This is incorrect. duad7¢ means only “ignorant;” no doubt
the secondary idea given by De Wette may be connected with this (as in the
passages quoted, Joseph., Antiq., i. 4, 1, and iii. 14, 4), but here it is not to
be presupposed, since the idea doripuroc connected with duaiix, although
denying strength of faith, does not deny faith itself; with dorjpmara, cf.
chap. ii. 14. Most interpreters assume that the reference here is to the
seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the parousia formerly mentioned ;
but as a designation of them, the expressions are too weak; chap. ii. 14, too,
is opposed to this (Schott). — orpeBAodr, ax. Aey., strictly: “to turn with the
otpéBan.”” Here it means: “fo distort the words,” i.e., to give them a sense
other than they actually have; equivalent to diaorpégey (cf. Chrysostom on
2 Cor. x. 8: ovroe mpoc tag olxeiag déorpepav 7a ppuata évvoiag); the word is to
be found in another figurative sense in 2 Sam. xxii. 27, LXX.—d¢ xad rac
Aownag ypagac]. This addition is somewhat surprising, not only because all
more precise statement of the ypagai referred to is wanting, but because by
it orpeBActv, which formerly had reference only to the dvovonrd rwa in the
epistles of Paul, is here extended to entire writings; for, to interpret ypagai
by “passages of Scripture” (De Wette), is arbitrary. —It is very improba-
ble that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (Wiesinger, Schott, Stein-
fass), since the author would certainly have defined them more nearly as
1 According to Hofmann, it is passages than that which takes place in regeneration
sucb as Eph. ii. 5 f., Col. ii. 12, that are meant, _—ia to be looked for. — This doctrine, combined
‘for with these and similar statements, the witb the other, that the world of sense has
teaching of a Hymenaeus and a Philetus could nothing related to God, would produce that
be combined, —that the resurrection was al- justification of immorality predicted in chap.
ready past, and that no other resurrection it.”
CHAP. III. 17, 18. 485
such ! (Briickner); probably, then, other writings are meant, which, at the
time of the composition of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for
the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is possible,
therefore, that these included other writings of the N. T.; but that they
were only such, cannot be proved. That the words presuppose a collection
of N. T. writings, properly so called, is without any reason asserted by De
Wette (Briickner). — pac ry Idiav abrév andAaayv]. Ildiavy serves to intensify
airév: to their own destruction (cf. chap. ii. 1). The wresting of Scripture
has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use of the distorted expres-
sions, in order to harden themselves in their fleshly lust.
Vv. 17, 18. Concluding exhortation and doxology. — izeic obv]. Conclu-
sion from what goes before. — mpoywioxovrec; since ye know it beforehand ;
i.e., that such false teachers as have been described will come; not “that
the advent of Christ will take place,” nor “that the consequences of the
orpeBAoww will be the damodea” (Schott). — guddccecde, iva uy]. Since gvddo-
ceobe is nowhere else construed with iva uf, iva, x.7.2., is not to be taken as an
objective clause, but as one expressive of purpose; “ consequently, special
emphasis lies on gvAdcaecte” (Schott). — rg trav ddécpwv rAavy ovvanaxbévres }.
The dgecuo (cf. chap. ii. 7) are the aforementioned éunaixrae and Libertines.
— nAévy is not “seduction” (Dietlein: “leading astray of others”), for the
word never has this meaning (not even in Eph. iv. 14); nor would the ow
in the verb agree with this, but, as in chap. ii. 18: “ moral-religious error; ”
with owvaraybévrec, “ carried away along with,” cf. Gal. ii. 18, and Meyer on
Rom. xii. 16. — éxréonre rod idiov ornptypov]. With éxrimrev, cf. Gal. v. 4, and
Meyer in loc. — ornptypoc, ‘an. Aey., is the firm position which any one pos-
sesses (not “ the fortress :"" Luther) ; here, therefore, the firm position which
the readers as believing Christians take up; cf. i. 12; antithesis to the dua-
Gei¢ xal aornpixroe, ver. 16. Dietlein explains the word quite arbitrarily of
the “remaining at peace in the church.” — Ver. 18. avéavere dé]. Antithesis
to the éxzéonre; the remaining in the firm position can take place only where
the avéavew is not lacking. Calvin: “ad profectum etiam hortatur, quia haec
unica est perseverandi ratio, si assidue progredimur.” Hofmann incorrectly
connects this imperative with ¢vadccecde, to which it is supposed to be related
as a further addition; this view is opposed by dé. —éy yapire nal yvooet rod
xvupiov, x.7.A., does not state “the means and the origin of the growing”
(Schott), but that in which they should grow or increase; avfavew, without
any nearer definition, would be too bald in presence of the iva py... éxmé-
oyre, x.7.A, With regard to the two ideas, yép¢ and yreou, Aretius says:
“‘illud ad conversationem inter homines refero, quae gratiosa esse debet; hoc vero
ad Dei cultum, qui consistit in cognitione Christi ;” this explanation is wrong ;
xapy can be only either the grace of God, so that the sense of the exhorta-
tion would be, that they should seek to acquire the grace of God in ever
richer measure (Hornejus, etc.) ; or —and this is preferable — the state of
1 Although in other parts of the N.T. ai Scriptures are here referred to; it would be
ypadai always means the O. T. Scriptures, different were Aowras not added.
atillthe addition of Aowwa: proves that other
436 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
grace of the Christians (according to Calvin, etc.: the sum of the divine
gifts of grace). — The yvaou is here specially mentioned, because the author
regarded it as the living origin of all Christian activity. — The genitive, ros
xupiov, «.7.A., is taken by De Wette, Briickner agreeing with him, with refer-
ence to ydpe as the subjective, with reference to yao as the objective
genitive; in like manner Hofmann. This twofold reference of the same
genitive is inconceivable ;! if it belong to both ideas, it can only be the gen.
auctoris (Dietlein, Steinfass); but since it is more natural to explain it in
connection with yreor as gen. objec., yapi¢ must be taken as an independent
conception. — Finally, the doxology, applied to Christ; Hemming : “ test#-
monium de divinitate Christi, nam cum tribuit Christo aeternam gloriam, ipsum
verum Deum absque omni dubio agnoscit. — The expression eig jpyépav aidvoc, is
to be found only here; Bengel takes #uépe in contrast to the night: aeternitas
est dies, stne nocte, merus et perpetuus ; this is hardly correct; most interpret-
ers explain the expression as equivalent to tempus aeternum, synonymous
with el¢ ray aidva, 1 Pet. i. 25, or with ei¢ rode aldvac, Rom. xvi. 27; this is
too inexact; #uzpa aidvog is the day on which eternity, as contrasted with
time, begins, which, however, at the same time, is eternity itself. — daujy ;
cf. Jude 25.
1 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Rom. xv. 4; Tit. fi. 18; 1 Pet. 1. 2; but these passages do
not prove what they are meant to prove.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.—CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE.
1. Leaprne Ipeas. — The entire development of the argument of the
Epistle is based upon the single fundamental conviction of the antagonism
subsisting between the “world” and “believers.” Whilst the former are
under the power and dominion of the devil, the latter are in fellowship with
God. Those who belong to the world are the children of the devil, the others
are the children of God. The objective basis of believers’ life-fellowship
with God is the mission of the Son of God, originating in His love, for
the reconciliation of the world, or the incarnation of the Son of God (the
Eternal Life which was with God from eternity), and His self-sacrifice unto
death ; its subjective basis is faith in this fact of the divine love. Whoso-
ever believes in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, belongs no more to the
world, but has been born of divine seed, a child of God. The Christian
must therefore, above all things, be on his guard against the false doctrine
which, making a distinction between Jesus and the Son of God (or Christ),
denies the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, — and, consequently,
the fact of the revelation of divine love, — and thereby abolishes the ground
of the life-fellowship with God.—In the communion which the believer,
anointed with the Holy Ghost, enjoys with God in Christ, he possesses not
only true knowledge, but also righteousness. Whilst the world is dominated
by darkness, and those who belong to it know not whither they go, believers
walk in the light. Enlightened by the Holy Ghost, they know God in the
truth of His being, and are able to distinguish between truth and false-
hood. At the same time their life is in sharpest contrast to sin. The
latter is so opposed to their nature, that, as those who are born of God,
they do not, nay, can not sin, but, on the contrary, in harmony with the
pattern of Christ, do righteousness ; whereas those who belong to the world,
437
438 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
as children of the devil, commit sin, which is the principle of their life.
It is true the Christian is conscious that he also still has sin; but inas-
much as he does not deny, but, on the contrary, confesses it openly, the
blood of Christ cleanses him; and, further, in the consciousness that Christ,
the Righteous One, is his Paraclete with the Father, he also purifies himself,
as Christ is pure.— The essence of the believer’s righteousness is Jove to
God, which manifests itself in obedience to His commandments, the sum of
which is love to the brethren. — Whilst the world, following the example
of Cain, who hated and slew his brother on account of his righteous life,
hates the children of God, and in the spirit of hatred incurs the guilt of
murder, the believer, imitating the pattern of Christ, feels himself bound,
not in word only, but in deed as well, to love his brother, and to give his
life for him if necessary. In love like this he possesses evidence of his
divine adoption, and therein eternal life. Whilst the world continues in
death, he has passed out of death into life; and in this new life he is free
from fear and full of joyful confidence. He knows that his prayers are
heard of God, and looks forward with confidence to the day of judgment,
when he shall not be put to shame, but shall be like God, inasmuch as
he shall see Him as He is. — The period still continues during which the
world manifests its antagonism to the believer, who is also tempted by
the devil; but in his faith, which is the victory over the world, he has
vanquished these enemies, and the devil can accomplish nothing against
him. Moreover, the world has already begun to vanish; it is the last
time, as the appearance of Antichrist clearly proves; soon Christ shall
appear, and with Him the perfecting of His own.
2. Line of Argument. — At the outset we have an introduction, in which
the apostle announces the appearing of that Eternal Life which was with
the Father to be the theme of his apostolic message; and indicates the
perfecting of his readers’ joy, in their communion with the Father and
with His Son Jesus Christ, as the end aimed at in his Epistle (chap. i.
1-4). The letter itself he begins with the thought that God is Light (i. 5),
from which he infers that if a man asserta that he has fellowship with
God, whilst walking in darkness, it is a lie (i. 6); and, on the’other hand,
that the fellowship of Christians with each other, and purification through
the blood of Christ, are conditioned by a walk in the light (i. 7). In
connection with the purification mentioned, he urges that whosoever claims
to be without sin deceives himself, and makes God a liar, whereas in case
of an honest confession of sin God manifests His faithfulness and justice
by forgiving the sin and cleansing from it (i. 8-10); and with this con-
° INTRODUCTION. 439
sciousness, in case he sin, the Christian may comfort himself, since he
has Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for the sins of
the whole world, as his Paraclete with the Father (ii. 1,2). In ver. 3 the
apostle returns again to the starting-point in his argument, by showing
that (just as fellowship with God can only be enjoyed whilst walking in
the light) the knowledge of God can only exist in obedience to His com-
mandments, and the being in Him in following after Christ (ii. 3-6).
The command involved in this for the readers, says the apostle, is the
old one which they had heard from the beginning, and which he now once
more impresses on them because the darkness is already beginning to
vanish. He then describes (ii. 7, 8) walking in the light as walking in
brotherly love, whereas the man who hates his brother is in darkness (il.
9-11); and turns directly to his readers, whom he addresses as true Chris-
tians who have obtained forgiveness, known the Father, and conquered
the evil one (ii. 12-14), in order to warn them against love of the world
and seduction by false teachers. The exhortation: “love not the world,”
he bases on a reference to the incompatibility of love of the world with
love of God, and on the passing away of the world and its lust (ii. 15-17).
The necessity for this exhortation the apostle discovers in the fact that it
is the last time, as the appearance of the antichrists shows (ii. 18). The
line of thought thus passes on to the consideration of these antichrists.
The apostle mentions, first of all, their relation to the Christian Church.
“ They have,” he says, “gone out from us, but they were not of us;” and
he then describes them, after the interjectory remark that his readers, as
the anointed of the Holy One, know the truth, as those who deny that
Jesus is the Christ (i.e., as deniers of the identity of Jesus and Christ),
whereby they deny the Father as well as the Son (ii. 19-23). After an
exhortation to his readers to abide by what they had heard from the
beginning, whereby they should continue in the Son and in the Father,
and enjoy everlasting life, he expresses his confidence towards them that
the unction they had received remains in them, that therefore they
require no human teacher; and exhorts them to abide in Christ in order
that they may not be put to shame at His coming (ii. 24-28).
In like manner as the apostle, in chap. i. 5, inferred from the light-
nature of God that only the person who walks in light can have fellowship
with Him, so now he argues from the righteousness of God, that only the
person who practises righteousness is born of Him (ii. 29). But since
Christians are the children of God, and as such entertain the hope of
one day being like Him, therefore this hope is, as it were, an incentive
440 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
to them to purify themselves even as Christ is pure, and consequently to
avoid sin, which is disobedience to the law; and this is all the more since
Christ has appeared for the very purpose of taking away sin, and is Him-
self free from it. From the sinlessness of Christ it follows that whoso-
ever is in Him does not sin; but, on the contrary, whosoever sinueth hath
not truly known Him (iii. 1-6). The apostle, having pointed out that he
alone is righteous according to the pattern of Christ who doeth righteous-
ness (ili. 7), sharply contrasts those who commit sin, as children of the
devil, with those who are born of God, and therefore cannot sin, because
the divine seed remaineth in them (iii. 8-10); and then indicates, as the
righteousness which the children of God practise, that brotherly love which
he describes as the theme of the message which Christians had heard
from the beginning (iii. 10, 11). Warningly does the apostle point to
the world, which, following the type of Cain, hates the children of God,
and is in death; whereas the believer shows by love that he has passed
from death unto life (iii. 12-15). The pattern of Christian love is Christ;
as He gave His life for us, so also must the Christian give his life for
the brethren; nor may he content himself with a mere apparent love, but
must love in deed and in truth (iii. 16-18). Love like this bears its own
blessing with it; he who practises it knows that he is of the truth, and,
whilst he overcomes thereby the accusation of his own heart, he has con-
fidence towards God in the ‘consciousness that God hears his prayers
because he keeps the commandments of God (iii. 19-22). With the fore-
going the apostle then immediately connects the idea that God’s com-
mandment embraces a twofold element: viz., (1) that we believe on the
name of His Son Jesus Christ; and (2) that we love one another (iii.
23); and then proceeds, after remarking that whosoever obeys the com-
mandments of God stands in communion with Him (he in God, and God
in him), and is conscious of this fellowship through the Spirit given him
of God (iii. 24), to a further reference to the false teachers, which he
commences with the warning: “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God.” He gives the characteristic mark of the
Spirit that is of God, and also of the spirit of Antichrist, assures the
believers of victory over false teachers, and presents the difference between
them and the true apostolic teachers: “They are of the world, wherefore
they speak of the world, and the world hears them; we are of God; who-
soever knoweth God heareth us” (iv. 1-6).— Without introducing any
ideas to mark the transition thereto, the apostle now utters the exhorta-
tion: “Let us love one another,” which he establishes by saying that love
INTRODUCTION. 441
is of God, or—as he also says—that God is love. God has proved His
love by sending His Son to be a propitiation for our sins; but if God
has loved us so much, we ought also to love one another. When we do
this, then God is in us, and lets us know that He is by His Spirit (iv.
7-18). Having pointed out that the manifestation of the love of God is
the substance of apostolic testimony, and faith therein the condition of
fellowship with God, the apostle once more utters the thought that God
is love, in order to urge that communion with Him can consist only in
love, and that this love manifests itself as perfect by our having confi-
dence on the day of judgment, since love drives out all fear (iv. 16-18).
But if the love of God compels us to love Him in return, we must re-
member that we really love God only in case we love the brethren; for
the man who does not love the person whom he sees, cannot possibly love
God whom he does not see (iv. 19-21). That the believer loves the breth-
ren, the apostle then infers from the fact that he is born of God; for if,
as such, he loves God who has begotten himself, he must also necessarily
love those who are begotten of God, i.e., his own brethren (v. 1); and he
is conscious of this love in that he loves God and keeps His command-
ments. After remarking that love to God consists in keeping His com-
mandments, and that God’s commandments are not hard to the believer,
because being born of God he conquers the world by faith (v. 3-5), the
apostle proceeds to refer to the divine evidence of the belief that Jesus is
the Son of God. He describes the latter as having come by water and
blood, and in proof of this appeals to the testimony of the Spirit. This
testimony is all the stronger inasmuch as it is a threefold one, viz., that
of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. If human evidence is accepted,
much more ought the witness of God to be received. To the believer,
however, this witness is not merely an external, but also, at the same time,
an inward thing; viz., the eternal life which has been given him in the
Son of God (v. 6-12). As already previously, so also here again, the apos-
tle sets forth, as a main element in the believer’s eternal life, his confi-
dence that God hears his prayers, and couples with this the exhortation
to make intercession for the brother who may chance to sin. At the same
time, however, he distinguishes between the case of the man who sins
unto death and the man who does not, and explains that his precept
anent intercession only refers to those who do not sin unto death (v. 13-17).
—In bringing his Epistle to a close, the apostle once more announces,
in three propositions, its leading thoughts, viz., that he who is born of
God does not commit sin; that they, the Christians, are born of God,
442 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
whilst the world, on the other hand, belongs to the evil one; and that
they have received, through the Son of God, the faculty to recognize Him
that is true as the substance of their Christian consciousness. After the
remark, that being in Christ we are in Him that is true, and that He is
the Son of God and eternal life, the Epistle closes with the exhortation:
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
Concerning the various theories as to the construction of the Epistle,
compare especially Erdmann, Primae Joannis ep. argumentum, etc., I. 1855;
Liicke’s Kommentar, § 4, 8d ed. 1856; and Luthardt’s Programm: de primae
Jo. ep. compositione, 1860. Pre-Reformation commentators hardly troubled
themselves about the construction of the Epistle at all. After the Refor-
mation, the theory which first prevailed was that a systematic, logically
arranged sequence of ideas of any kind is entirely absent from the work
(Calvin: sparsim docendo et exhortando varius est). After the time of
Matth. Flaccius, some expositors assumed that it was made up of a num-
ber of isolated aphorisms, only loosely jointed together, and in which
various subjects were discussed; though others (Calvin, Hunnius), notwith-
standing, labored to show a close sequence of ideas in accordance with a
dogmatic plan. The most ingenious attempt of this kind was that made
by Bengel, who, basing his argument upon the passage in v. 7 (Receptus),
traced the construction of the Epistle to the dogma of the Trinity; a
view adopted also by Sander. The right point of view from which to
gain an insight into the structure of the Epistle was first discovered by
Joach. Operinus in his work, Johannis ap. paraenesis ad primos christianos
de constanter tenenda communione cum patre ac filio ejus Jesu Christi, etc.,
Gittingen, 1741, in which he shows that the purpose which John himself
has announced in the preface is the same by which he was led in the
composition of the Epistle throughout. Nearly all modern expositors,
with the exception of a few of the earlier ones, have followed in the
path opened up for them by Operinus. But with regard to the coupling
of the ideas, unanimity has not been attained.
Whilst Liicke, in dividing the argument into eight groups of ideas,
approaches at least the aphoristic method, the other modern commenta-
tors have labored to prove a more stringent arrangement of the thoughts
conveyed in the book. It is plain, however, on closer study of the work,
that none of these attempts has really succeeded. The Epistle has indeed
been divided into different sections, and to each section a separate super-
scription been given, expressive of the main idea which informs the entire
argument of that particular portion; but, on the one hand, the same ideas
é
INTRODUCTION. 443
are found repeating themselves in the various sections, and, on the other,
the leading thought suggested for a particular section does not invariably
so inform that portion, that it might serve as the point of departure for
studying its details. In the first edition of this commentary it is asserted,
— following the view of De Wette,—that the Epistle from chap. i. ver. 5
till chap. v. ver. 17, may be divided into three groups of ideas, distin-
guishable from each other by the fact that at the outset of each, as it were,
a chord is struck which, more or less, gives tone to the melody throughout
the entire part which it marks. As keynotes for the three sections sug-
gested, the three truths are indicated: Ist, God is light, i. 5; 2d, Christ
(or God) is righteous, ii. 28; and 3d, God is love. But that these key-
notes actually sound throughout the whole of the parts they are respec-
tively supposed to lead, is not and cannot be proved.
REMARK. — That the theories respecting the argument suggested by other
commentators, ancient as well ag modern, are insufficient, has been shown by
Luthardt in the work already quoted; the same remark, however, applies also to
the construction which he himself — following in the lead of Hofmann (Schrift
bew. 2d ed. II. 2, p. 353 ff.) — has proposed, and which divides the Epistle into the
following five parts: i. 5-ii. 11; ti. 12-27; ii. 28-iii. 24a; iii. 24b-iv. 21; v. 1-21.
For, when he thus defines the contents of the third part: Salutis futurae spes
christiana quantum afferat ad vitam sancte agendam, exponitur, it is manifestly
inappropriate, since the apostle throughout the entire section only refers to the
Christian hope in ii. 2, from which it is plain that this is not the informing
main idea of it. Again, when he represents the fourth part as treating of the
Holy Ghost, his view is indeed so far correct, that, especially in the beginning,
the discourse does turn upon the Spirit of God; but from iv. 7 onwards the
development of the argument proceeds independently, without any reference to
the Spirit, and only in ver. 13— and even then merely in passing — is there any
mention of Him made whatever. Much more decidedly does the apostle refer
to Him in v. 6 ff., which passage, however, according to Luthardt, belongs not
to the fourth, but to the fifth part, in which the subject treated of is faith.
But even this definition is doubtful, since faith is discussed not only in v. 1 ff.,
but also, and very distinctly, long previously, in iii. 23 and iv. 18-16. Braune
hardly attempts a disposition of the Epistle at all. It is true he divides it into
four parts: namely, Introduction, i. 1-4; first main division, i. 5-ii. 28; second
main division, ii. 20-v. 11; conclusion, v. 12-21. He also suggests leading chief
topics for the two main divisions (viz., for the first, God is light; for the second,
Whosoever is born of the righteous God doeth righteousness). But he only
indicates as leading main topics the ideas which the apostle expresses in i. 5 and
. di. 20, that is, at the beginning of the passages which Braune has marked as the
¢
444 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
chief sections, without showing how these thoughts inform the various groups
of ideas which follow them. He contents himself with pointing out the simple
sequence of the ideas as they follow each other in the development of the
argument.
In order to understand the construction of the Epistle, the following
three points are especially to be observed: lst, The apostle’s object is to
preserve the readers in the fellowship of God, that their joy may be perfect.
2d, That the apostle, in order to achieve his end, unfolds especially the
ideas that fellowship with God is only possible in the case of one whose
life, rooted in faith in Jesus Christ, and harmonizing in holiness with the
nature of God, is in love; and that the Christian is not only bound to such
a life, but also in virtue of his divine birth (which has placed him in a
relation of absolute antagonism to the world, which is é rod rovnpod) is
impelled by an inward necessity to lead it. 8d, That the apostle develops —
these ideas under the conviction that the antichristian lie is present in the
world, and also that the second advent of Christ is rapidly approaching.
Keeping these elements in view, it depends upon the identification of the
various points in the unfolding of the argument in the Epistle when
the latter takes such a turn that a new feature may be said to enter and
to inform the discourse which follows. Nearly all commentators are
agreed, and rightly, that the verses from chap. i. ver. 5 to chap. ii. ver. 11
form one self-contained group of ideas. The informing and ruling idea of
this passage, however, is not a distinct and specific doctrinal proposition,
intended to be explained in its several parts, but rather the antithesis to
that indifferentism which ignores the antagonism between fellowship with
. God and a life in sin, in opposition to which the apostle urges that only the
man who walks in light—or who keeps the divine commandments and
loves his brother — is in communion with God, and knows Him. The close
relation in which these propositions stand to each other is shown also
outwardly by the phrases: tay elmwyuev, «.7.4., chap. i. 6, 8, 10, and 6 Aéyun,
x.7.A., li. 4, 6, 8, which are only found here, and is proved by the fact that
ii. 10,11, manifestly refers backwards to i. 5, 6.— The argument takes a new
turn, as most commentators also have noticed, with ii. 12, in which the apos-
tle, after reminding his readers of their happy experiences in salvation, and
indicating these as the ground of his writing to them, in direct exhortation
warns them against the love of the world. With this warning is coupled
the reference to the antichrists which has impelled the apostle to exhort
his readers to abide by what they had heard from the beginning, because
thus alone can they abide in the Son and in the Father, and enjoy ever-
eee
INTRODUCTION. 445
lasting life, so that they may not be put to shame on the day of judgment.
The last turn in the argument shows how closely the apostle has kept in
view, throughout this exhortation, the intention of the entire Epistle (i. 4).
Moreover, the fact that the dvrixoro:—as the apostle himself asserts
subsequently — are éx rov xéouov, justifies our joining together in one whole
the warning reference to the antichrists, and that against the love of the
world. — In the foregoing the apostle has indeed shown that if Christians
are to glory in their communion with God, they must walk in the light
(that is, in obedience towards God, and in love towards the brethren),
abstain from fellowship with the world, and faithfully abide by the Word
of God ; but he has not yet shown how they stand, in accordance with their
nature, in antagonism to sin, and therefore also to the world. To this proof
he proceeds in ii. 29, from which onwards he explains in detail how
Christians as such are born of God, and therefore the children of God,
who necessarily sanctify themselves in the hope of the future glory, do
righteousness, and abstain from sin, nay, cannot sin, because the divine
seed remains in them ; whilst, on the other hand, those who commit sin,
and therefore belong to the world, are the children of the devil. This
explanation the apostle gives from ii. 29-iii. 10, where, with the words «xa?
bc ui dyandv, «.7.A., he begins to discourse about brotherly love. But that
a new section, properly speaking, does not open herewith, notwithstanding
that the conception of the divine birth recedes into the background,
appears not only from the nature of the connection with the foregoing, but
also from the fact that the apostle at the outset holds fast to the contrast
which he had so sharply defined at the close of the preceding — directing
the attention of his readers to Cain, who was é« tov rovyooi, as the repre-
sentative of the world. The immediate transition from the conception of
the dxaocbyn to that of the dyar7 cannot excite surprise if we consider that
to the mind of the apostle the latter was not something added to the
former, but is the diaaoovrvn itself in its practical manifestation. The
propositions which treat of love, aud in which the line of argument is so
plainly defined by the intention of the work, hang so closely together down
to ver. 22, that, although one new element after another is introduced, still
it is impossible to make a new section until, in ver. 23, to the conception of
brotherly love there is added that of faith in the name of Jesus Christ
the Son of God. This, however, dare all the less be overlooked, since in the
whole discussion hitherto the element of faith, so weighty for the purpose
of the work, has nowhere been exhaustively considered, nor even the word
morebew been once introduced. It is true the apostle seems immediately
446 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
afterwards to pass on to something else, since in iv. 1-6 he discourses of
the difference between the antichristian spirit and the Spirit of God, and .
in iv. 7-21 of the love of the brethren ; nevertheless, on closer examination
it is manifest that in these sections the reference to faith is maintained
throughout. In the section iv. 1-6, namely, the duodoyeiv 'Incoiv Xprorov,
«.t.A., ig given as the characteristic of the Spirit of God. This spodoyeiv,
however, is nothing else than the belief ei¢ rd dvoua r. viow Ocod ‘1. Xotorod,
expressing itself in words. That the apostle, while he would exhort his
readers to hold fast their faith, first of all calls on them to try the spirits,
need not surprise us when we think of the danger threatened to believers
by the false teachers that had arisen. It may appear more strange that in
ver. 7, with the exhortation dyamaurv dsAniouw, there is a transition to a
train of thought that treats of love; but it is to be observed, not only that
in iii. 23, dyandper aAdAndove is closely connected with moreiowuer, x.7.4., but
also that the further statements about love serve exactly to explain its
connection with faith. The thought of the apostle is this: He only lives in
God who loves God; God can only be loved because He is love; God has
revealed Iimself as love by the sending of His Son to be a propitiation for
sin, therefore love to God 1s conditioned by faith in this act of the divine love.
But while the believing Christian, who as such is born of God, now loves
God, his love extends also to his brethren who, as he is, are born of God.
In the development of these ideas, not only do the preceding statements of
the apostle about brotherly love obtain their special confirmation, but
the necessity of faith for fellowship with God is also set forth, so that the
apostle in what follows, after referring to the world-overcoming power of
faith, can proceed to treat of the divine evidences for faith, and emphasize
the fact that the believer has eternal life, and therein possesses rappyora mpdc¢
r)v Oeuv. The ideas froin iii. 23 to v. 17 are so grouped into a whole, as
indeed may be perceived in them, that v. 13 (of morebvovreg cig 1d dvepa tov wow
rov Ozov) plainly refers backwards to iii. 23, in addition to which it is to be
observed that the concluding thought here bears the same reference to the
purpose stated in i. 4 as the concluding thought of the preceding group.
From this explanation it is clear, that if we lay aside the preface, i 1-4,
and the conclusion, v. 18-21, three points are to be noticed in the Epistle,
at which the development of ideas takes such a direction that a newly
introduced point of view dominates what follows, and that the Epistle
therefore divides itself into four leading sections, namely, i. 5-ii. 11; ii.
12-28; ii. 29-iij. 22; and iii. 23-v. 17. In order to fulfil in his readers the
purpose of his writing, the apostle in the first section attacks the moral
INTRODUCTION. 447
indifference which endangers them; in the second he warns them of love of
the world and of antichrist; in the third he shows that only a righteous
life of brotherly love corresponds to the nature of the Christian; and in the
fourth he points them to faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as that
which is testified by God to be the basis of Christian life.?
3. Motive. — From chap. ii. 18 ff. and iv. 1 ff. it is to be understood that
the appearance of the false teachers, spoken of by him as dvrixporo, fur-
nished the special motive for the production of this Epistle. These are
neither different false teachers (according to Storr, Sabians and Docetans;
according to Sander, Ebionites and Docetans), nor even “true Jews as
deniers of the Messiahship of Jesus” (Loffler, Disert. hist. exeg. Joannis Ep.
I. gnosticos impugnari negans, 1784, and Commt. theol., ed. Velthusen, vol. I.),
nor “practical false teachers, proceeding from heathenism” (Baumgarten-
Crusius), nor “such men as partly had suffered shipwreck of their faith,
and partly did not practise worthily the Christian belief in their lives”
(Bleek); but Docetans, and indeed such Docetans as denied the identity
of Jesus and Christ, and so adhered to that false doctrine which Irenaeus
ascribes to Cerinthus in the words: Cerinthus . . . subjecit, Jesum ...
fuisse . . . Joseph et Mariae filium ... post baplismum descendisse in eum
. . » Christum, . . . in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu. Not
only the passages named, but also v. 5, 6, i. 3, iii. 23, iv. 15, point to this
form of Docetism only (so also Braune). Without foundation is the view |
of several commentators (Sander, Liicke, Ewald, also Thiersch, Hilgenfeld,
who, however, is not definitely decided, and others), that the polemical
purpose of the apostle was equally, or even alone, directed against the
stricter Docetism which ascribed to Christ only an apparent body, on behalf
of which appeal is erroneously made to 1 John i. 1, iv.2; 2 John 7. —
That the former Docetans had a distinct antinomian direction, or in their
darkness of knowledge in regard to duty felt themselves elevated to a moral
course of life (Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Guericke, Ewald, etc.), cannot be
inferred from the moral exhortations of the apostle (comp. Briickner) ; it
is much rather to be observed, that nowhere in these exhortations does the
apostle refer to the antichristians, and that where he does mention them
he nowhere characterizes them as Antinomians.?
1 We may aleo unite the first and second _ points to the joy of which the Christian par-
sections more closely in one whole; for the takes in fellowehip with God.
former contains the premises for the warning 3 In opposition to the view that the passage,
uttered in the latter. In the threefold division _{if. 4, bears evidence for the Antinomianism of
which then arises, the conclusion of each part _—the fulse doctrine, Neander (Geach. d. Pflans-
448 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
According to Liicke and Erdmann, the Epistle was occasioned not only
by the appearance of the antichristians, but also by the critical state of the
churches to which it is addressed (which Erdmann describes as a state of
moral depravity). But although some of it, especially the antithetical
import of the section, i. 5-ii. 11, indicates that in the case of many
indifference to holiness of life was not wanting, yet nowhere do we ‘find
any blame expressed in regard to the moral condition of the churches on
the whole. The apostle does not exhort his readers to return to the moral
earnestness originally displayed by the Christians, but to perseverance in
that which they are and have.
SEC. 2.—FORM AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.
1. The Form. — While the mass of ancient writers regarded this com-
position as a letter, Heidegger first speaks of it in his Enchiridion bibl.,
1681, p. 986, as, brevis quaedam christianae doctrinae epitome et evangelii a
Joanne scripti succinctum quoddam enchiridion. Similarly Michaelis judges,
who understands it as a “treatise,” and indeed as the second part of the
Gospel; so also Berger (Versuch einer moralischen Einl. ins. N. 7.) and
Storr (Ueber den Zweck der Evangel. Gesch. u. Briefe Johannis), only that
the former speaks of it as the prac(ical, the latter as the polemical part of
the Gospel. Even Bengel (Gnomon, 2d ed.) thinks it is to be called rather
a libellus than a letter; his reason is, that a letter ad absentes mittitur,
Joannes autem apud eos, quibus scribebat, eodem tempore fuisse videtur. Reuss
(Die Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., p. 217) expresses himself similarly,
when he would prefer to call it “a homiletical essay, at the most a pastoral,
the readers of which are present,” rather than an epistle. But, in oppo-
sition to these views, the work proves itself by the form of its contents to
be a real epistle. The author shows himself throughout in the most
lively interchange of thought with his readers; and even though not
infrequently the objective development of thought predominates, as _ is
peculiar to a treatise, — which, however, is found no less in other Epistles
of the N. T.,— yet the language always returns involuntarily to the form
of an address, in which is specially to be observed “the oft-recurring dis-
tinctive epistolary formula: radra ypdgouev, OF ypagw, Or even éypapa buiv —
in contrast particularly with the formula in the more general historical
ung der Kirche durch d. Ap., p. 817) rightly gresseth the law committeth sin, for trans-
remarks, that the apostle against Antinomians = greasion of the law Is sin.”
would have had to say: ‘* Whosoever trans-
INTRODUCTION. 449
writing, the Fourth Gospel: raira yéyparrac without tyiv, xx. 31; comp.
xix. 85 and xxi. 24” (Liicke). Diisterdieck rightly remarks that “the
epistolary nature expresses itself in the whole import and progress of the
work,” inasmuch as in it “there dominates that easy naturalness and
freedom in the composition and presentation, which corresponds with the
immediate practical interest and with the practical purpose of an epistle”
(comp. Bleek, Einl. in d. N. T., p. 589, and Braune, Einl., § 5).— The
absence of a blessing or a doxology at the close occurs also in the Epistle of
James, and there is nothing strange in it; but it is rather striking that the
epistolary introduction is also wanting to the work, as the author neither
mentions himself, nor the readers to whom he is writing; in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, however, such an introduction is also omitted. We must
explain this want in this way, that, on the one hand, the apostle pre-
supposed that the readers would recognize him as the author of the Epistle
without his naming himself in it, and, on the other, that he did not intend
it for a single church, or for a limited circle of churches.1_ The description
of this work as a second part of the Gospel is so much the more arbitrary,
as each of those works forms in itself a completed whole. — The view of
some critics and commentators (Augusti, who calls the Epistle a summary
of the Gospel; Hug, Frommann in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, Heft 4;
Thiersch in Versuch zur Herstellung des hist. Stdpktes., p. 78, and Die Kirche
im apostol. Zeitalter, p. 266; Ebrard in Kritik der evangel. Geschichte, p. 148,
and in his Commentary), that the Epistle is a companion-work of the Gospel,
is opposed by the contents of the Epistle, which follow an individual aim,
as well as by the complete absence of a distinctly indicated reference to
the written Gospel.? In opposition to Reuss, according to whose view the
1 In opposition to Ebrard, who, admitting
the epistolary character of the work, thinks
repeated éypaya in the latter, to the writing
of the Gospel. That this te without adequate
that this want may be eaelly explained if the
epistie ‘‘ had no individual aim in iteelf, but
depended on something else,” inusmuch as
‘(by ite form it bears the nature of a sort of
preface, or of an epistola dedicatoria,”’ it is to
be remarked that the Epistle, from ite whole
character, cannot be at all compared to a pre/-
ace, and that in an epistola dedicatorla this
want would be just as striking as in any other
epietie. °
2 Ebrard derives the proof for his opinion
from |. 1-4 and from ii. 12-14, referring away-
yéAAouwey in the former passage, and the thrice-
ground, comp. the commentary on these; but
even if thie reference were correct, yet the
description of the Eplatle as a “' sort of dedica-
tory epistle”? would etill remain unjustified,
for ite purpose is clearly quite other than to
dedicate the Goepel to its readers. We would
then have to call every epietle, in which refer-
ence is made to another work, a dedicatory
epistie. Even the designation ‘companion.
work" is unsatisfactory, because it does not at
all appropriately state the true character of
the Epietie in accordance with its actual con-
tents. ‘
450 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Epistle “was destined to bring home to the readers of the Gospel the
practical side of the Gnosis there laid down,” it is to be observed that
neither is the practical side wanting in the Gospel, nor the Gnosis in the
Epistle.
2. The Character.— The same peculiarity of conception, development
of thought, and form of expression, which characterize the Gospel of John,
penetrate the Epistle also, and distinguish it from all other Epistles of
the N. T. There dominate in it the same spiritual tendency, and the
same preference for the concrete and abstract ideas: 4 hy, x.7.2., gor, Swi, Gud
alaviog, lAaopoc; nouiv THY duapriayv, 7%. THY Gvouiay, 7. THY dixasoobvnv; elvat bx Tie
a2ndeias, etc.; the same combination of antitheses: gdc .. . oxoria; dApbea
» « « perdos; dyandv ... muoeiv; 7 Gyann tod naTpég . .. Gy. TOU KéopoU; moteiv
Thy Cixaooivyy . . . m. THY Guapriav; Ta Tékva Tob Oeod... Ta T, Tod diatddov; Td
mvevpa The GAnOeiag ... 7. wv. Tie wAaync; duaptia ob mpd Oavaroyv .. . duaptia
mpos Gavarov; Yun . . . Gavaroc, etc.; the same continuation of the thought by
the resumption of an idea that has preceded, and the accompanying and
correspondingly unusual application of the relative pronoun; the same
juxtaposition of the positive and negative expression of a thought. Both
works, as Ebrard brings out, bear the same impress, not only in style and
construction, but also in the sphere of ideas, and in the dogmatic views;
comp. also Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften, I. p. 429 ff. — With regard to the
Epistle especially, here, in contrast to the dialectical development of
thought which is characteristic of the Pauline Epistles particularly, the
individual propositions follow one another in gnomon fashion,! and
unitedly form groups of ideas, which are sometimes strung together without
any mark of the transition.?, Even the proof of an idea takes place in the
simplest manner by reference to a truth self-evident to the Christian
consciousness. By the peculiar manner of connection of the ideas arises
the appearance of rather frequent repetition of the same thoughts; but on
closer observation it is evident that even where the negative expression
follows the positive, or vice versa, generally both expressions do not say
the same thing, but that in the second a new element is taken up, a new
1 Comp. on this, Ewald, D. Joh. Schriften, _ nection.” But it might be more appropriate
I. p. 441. to perceive it in this, that the apostle by alogle
§ Diisterdieck finds the pecullarity of the leading thoughts strikes as it were chords,
manner of development and statement of which he allows to sound for a while in the
thought in the Epistle in this, ‘that the ideas thoughts deduced for them, until a new chord
move, combine, and circle round certain lead- results, which leads to a new strain.
{ng propositions as points of support and con-
INTRODUCTION. 451
direction is prepared for. Characteristic is the simplicity and plainness
of statement. Whether the apostle states divine truths by themselves,
whether he discourses in exhortation or in warning to his readers, his
language always retains the same calmness and precision. He nowhere
shows a disposition excited by passion. Everywhere the stillness of a
heart reposing in happy peace is mirrored, and having this he is sure that
the simple utterance of the truth is enough to procure for his discourse an
entrance into the minds of his readers. At the same time, a firm, manly
tone pervades the Epistle, in contrast with every weak fanaticism of
sentiment, which is so little characteristic of the apostle, that he, along with
the internal character of life, constantly urges that the reality of it is
proved by action. It is also worthy of notice, that, on the one hand, he
speaks to his readers as a father to his children, but, on the other hand,
does not ignore the fact that they are no longer minors, to whom he has
some new information to give, but are quite like himself, and are, like
himself, in possession of all the truth which he .utters, of all the life which
he is anxious, not to produce in them for the first time, but only to main-
tain in them. Against the reproach that the Epistle bears “the clearest
traces of the feebleness of old age” (S. G. Lange), or that —as Baur says
— “it is wanting in the fresh color of direct life,” that “the tenderness and
fervor of John’s manner of conception and representation have relaxed far
too much into a tone of childlike feebleness, which loses itself in indefi-
niteness, falls into continual repetitions, and is lacking in logica] force,’
it must be maintained that the Epistle bears the impress of directness,
freshness, definiteness, and vigorous clearness in no degree less than the
Gospel of John.
SEC, 3. — GENUINENESS.
According to the testimony of antiquity, the Epistle was written by the
Apostle John, which is confirmed by the Epistle itself, in so far as that the
author, in the whole tone in which he speaks to his readers, and in particular
expressions (i. 1, iii. 5, iv. 14), may be recognized as an apostle, and that
the agreement with the Gospel of John favors the conclusion that both
1 Hilgenfeld rightly states, in opposition to fanity;” ‘that the fresh, vivid, attractive
Baur, that the Epistle belongs to the most character of the Epistle, consists exactly in
beautiful writings of the N. T., that it is this, that it conducts us with such a predilec-
specially rich and original ‘‘exactly in what tion into the inner experience of genuine
relates to the subjective, inner life of Christ- Christian life.”
452 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
works proceed from the same author. Eusebius (H. E., iii. 24, 25) rightly
reckons it among the Homologoumena; and Hieronymus (De viris illustr.,
c. 9), says: ab universis ecclesiasticis eruditis viris probatur. —In the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers, it is true, the Epistle is not considered in a
definite way; but the passage found in Polycarp, cap. vii.: wag yap d¢ av pa
oporoyy "Inoovv Xprordv év capt tAnavoévat, avtixprordg éorwv, etc., may be recog-
nized as a “natural use of 1 John iv. 2,3” (Diisterdieck), by deduction from
particular resemblances to some expression or other of the Epistle; and
Eusebius (71. E., iii. 39) states of Papias: xéypnra 3 5 abrd¢ paprepia and
tie "lwavvov mportpac étmioroAne xal tig Mérpov duoiwe. — By the Fathers of the
church: Tertullian (Adv. Praz., ec. 15; Scorp., c. 12; Adv. Marc., iii. 8; de
Praescript., c. 33; De Carne Christi, c. 24), Irenaeus (Adv. Haeret., iii. 16),
Clemens Alex. (Sirom., |. ii. c. 15, 1. iii. e. 4, 5, 6; Paedag., iii. 11, 12, ete.),
Origen (in Euseb., H. E., vi. 25), Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. and Ep. 25),
passages are frequently quoted from it, often with explicit mention of the
apostle.
spuriousness of the Apocalypse; the Peshito and the Muratorian Fragment ?
Dionysius Alex. uses it, along with the Gospel, to prove the
1 Inthe Zp.ad Diognet. several expressions
appear, which point back to John’s mode of
thought; so cap. vi.: Xpioriavot év xoone
oixovery, ovK eici 5¢ éx Tov Kdcpov; cap. Vil. :
6... Geds... Thy aAnOeay xai Toy Adyor
Toy aytoy Kai amepevdnroy avOpamos évidpuce;
cap. xi.: o&tos & aw’ dpxfs; as also in the
Shepherd of Hermaa, lib. ti. mand. 9:
migteves Te Gew. OTe WayTa Ta aiTyuara cov,
& airy, Ajvn (comp. 1 John ili. 28, fv. 15);
lib. 11. mand. 12: evxcdws atras (i.e., ras
évtoAas Tov @eov) dudAdges, cat ovx évovras
oxAnpat (comp. 1 John v. 8).
2 By the words: “‘epietola sane Jude et
superscriptio [superscripti; or, according
to Laurent, Neulest. Studien, pp. 201, 205:
superscrintae = ‘provided with superscrip-
tlons’] Joannis duas [duae] in catholica
habentur,” are not meant, as Braune sup-
poses, the first and second, but the second
and third Epistles. When, however, it ie
previously written: “Quid ergo mirum, ei
Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in
epistolis suis proferat dicens in semet ipso;
quae vidimus oculle nostris et auribus audi-
vimus et manus nostrae palpaverunt, haec
scripsimus,” this is a clear evidence for the
composition of the First Epistle by the
Apostle John. The reviewer of the firat
edition of this commentary, in the T7heol.
Literaturblatt sur allg. Kirchenetg., 1855,
No. 92, thinks, indeed, that In the words:
*‘quarti evangeliorum Joannis ex discipulis,”
the Presbyter John is indicated as the author
of the Gospel, because it is not said ex
apostolis; but that the author of the Frag-
ment indicates by the expression discipuli
such disciples of Jesus as were not apostles,
can nelther be proved by the fact that Papias
(in Euseb., ZH. Z., ili. 89) calle the Presbyter
John a disciple (ua@nrys) of Jesus, nor by the
fact that afterwards ‘ex apostolis” is added
to characterize Andrew. If the author of the
Fragment had regarded as the author of
the Gospel, not the Apostle, but the Presbyter
John, he would certainly have expressed this
definitely. The expression ez discipulis
presented iteelf to him here so much the
more naturally, as he had immediately before
spoken of Luke, and sald of him: ‘‘ Dominum
nec ipse vidit in carne.’ — Rightly, therefore,
Licke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, and others
INTRODUCTION. 458
also testify to its genuineness. That the Alogi rejected it, as Epiphanius
conjectures, and that Marcion did not admit it into his canon, is of no
importance; just as little is the highly obscure account of Cosmas in his
Topogr. Christ., 1. vii., according to which some maintain that all the catholic
epistles were composed, not by apostles, but by presbyters; and the remark
of Leontius Byz. (Contra Nestor. et Eutychian, iii. 14) in regard to Theodore
of Mopsv.: Epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catholicas abrogat et
antiquat: comp. on this Liicke’s Comment. Introd., § 8, 4, p. 135 ff., 3d ed.
— The genuineness continued unchallenged until: first Jos. Scaliger came
forward with the assertion: tres epistolae Joannis non sunt apostoli Joannis ,
since then it has been variously disputed. Sam. J. Lange, indeed, recognized
the unanimous testimony of antiquity as too significant to permit of denial
of the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, but he, nevertheless, regarded it
as a writing not worthy of the apostle; Claudius (Uransichien des Christenth.,
p. 52 ff.) went further, explaining it as the performance of a Jewish
Christian, which was revised by a Gnostic. Bretschneider (in his Proba-
bilien) and Paulus ascribe it to the Presbyter John, while they, however, at
the same time, maintained the identity of the author of the Epistle and the
author of the Gospel; Horst (Museum fir Religionswissensch. Henke, 1803,
vol. i.) declated himself against this. — The later Tiibingen school cannot,
in consequence of their conception of the development of Christianity,
regard either the Gospel or the Epistle as the work of the apostle; the
admission of the genuineness of one of these writings would overthrow their
whole historical construction. Since, therefore, the adherents of this school
are agreed in denying the genuineness of both writings, they, nevertheless,
explain in different ways the relation of them to one another. K. R.
Kostlin (Lehrbegr. des Ev., ete.) and W. Georgii (Ueber die eschatolog.
Vorstellungen der N. T. Schrifisteller ; Theol. Jahrb., Tibingen, 1845) ascribe
both writings (even the second and third Epistles) to the same author.
After Zeller, who, in his “ Beitrdgen zur Einl. in die Apokalypse" (in the
Theol. Jahrb., Tiibing., 1842) presupposed the identity of the author in his
review of Kostlin’s writings (Theol. Jahrb., 1845), and K. Planck (“Juden-
thum und Urchristenth.” in the Theol. Jahrb., 1847) had intimated the opposite
view, the former position was strongly defended by Baur (Die Joh. Briefe,
in the Theol. Jahrb., 1848, 3), and by Hilgenfeld (Das Evang. u. die Briefe
Joh., 1849, and “D. Joh. Briefe” in the Tiib. theol. Jahrb , 1855, part iv.);
(comp. also Meyer in hie Comment. on regarded the Murat. Fragm. ae evidence for
Gospel of John, and Laurent as above) have the apostolic origin of the Epistie.
454 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
but with this difference, that the former explains the Epistle as the copy, the
latter as the pattern of the Gospel.
For the non-identity of the authors, it is specially advanced, that, in the
Gospel, a “ more ideal and internal,” in the Epistle, on the other hand, “a
more material and external,” mode of thought dominates. This difference
is to be chiefly recognized in the eschatological ideas. While the author of
the Epistle expects a visible “ material” (!) parousia of Christ, the Evangelist
is held to know only of a “re-appearance of Christ in the spirit of His
disciples,” and of a merely “ present” judgment, because for him “the future
has already become the present.” How incorrect, however, this assertion is,
is proved by passages such as Gospel of John v. 28, 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, in
which, distinctly enough, a future day of resurrection of the dead, and of
judgment by Christ, is spoken of (comp. Weiss, p. 179 ff.); and, as in this
the Gospel is quite in agreement with the Epistle, so, on the other hand, the
Epistle expresses, no less distinctly than the Gospel, the idea of a resurrec-
tion, already accomplished in belief, of Christians from the dead.!. The
fundamental conceptions, therefore, are the same in both writings; the only
difference is that in the Epistle the thought is expressed that the écyarn dpa
is already, — but in the Gospel there was plainly no room for the expression
of this thought. — For that difference between the material and the ideal
conception, Baur appeals, moreover, to 1 John v. 6, comp. with Gospel xix.
34, and Hilgenfeld (1849) to 1 John i. 5,7. Baur asserts, that in place of
the ideal import which the two symbols, blood and water, have in the
Gospel, the sacramental appears in the Epistle. This assertion, however,
is based on a false interpretation of both of those passages, since neither
. has the circumstance recorded in the Gospel, xix. 34, the meaning “that
death (of which the blood is the symbol) is the necessary preliminary
condition under which alone the Spirit (of which the water is the symbol [!])
can be communicated to the believer;” nor is 1 John v. 6 to be directly
interpreted of the coming of Christ in or through the two sacraments,
baptisin and the Lord’s Supper. Besides, it is rather strange to call the
conception of water and blood as the two sacraments, a material one. —
1 In the article of Hilgenfeld quoted above,
he thinks that ‘‘ there is undeniably a different
representation of the last day, when the
author of the Epistle exhorts his readers #0 to
deport themselves that they may meet the
judgment day without shame, and when, on
the other hand, the Evangelist excludes
believers from the judgment;” but neither
of these views is at all exclusive of the other;
it ia only to be remembered that the future
judgment for thoee who here already have
passed from death into life, who here already
possess the (wy aiwvos (1 John v. 13), is such
that for them it is not a judgment tn that
sense in which it is a Judgment for the
wicked.
INTRODUCTION. 455
Hilgenfeld thinks that when in 1 John i. 5, 7, it is said of God that He is
gos, nay, that He is ty rp guri, a representation is expressed which “has too
much the ideas of matter and of space in it for the Evangelist to have any
connection with it,” since he uses gd only as predicate of the Logos. But
from the application which is made in the Epistle of the thought there
expressed, it is clear that the writer of the Epistle, in the idea gx, did not
think less of any thing than of something “ pertaining to matter and space.”
That alleged difference, therefore, does not exist; the groundless pretence
of it proves neither the hypothesis of Baur, that the Epistle is the per-
formance of an imitator of the Gospel, nor that of Hilgenfeld, that it
belongs to an earlier stage of development than the latter. Nevertheless,
according to Baur, we may recognize the imitative hand not only in the
character of the whole epistle (see on this Sec. 2), but in the passages
i. 1-4 and v. 6-9; according to Hilgenfeld (1849), the earlier stage of
development may be perceived in the O. T. conception expressed in the
Epistle, and in its views of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit. In regard
to the passage i. 1-4, Baur says: “In all the features, in which the author
himself would give us a picture of his personality, the premeditated most
anxious concern cannot be mistaken, to be regarded as one person with
the Evangelist ;” but that those verses are only to serve “to give a picture
of the personality of the author,” is a groundless supposition of Baur. In
the other passage (v. 6-9, comp. with John viii. 16 ff.) Baur sees nothing
but a mere playing on words, “for the yaprvpia rov Grou has the same
subject as the paprupia rév dvépenur, and the latter differs from the former
only in this, that the three —spirit, water, and blood—are counted as
three, and it therefore consists of nothing else than the numerical relation
of those three to one another, which again is immediately annulled when
it is said that it is God that bears witness in those three.” But this entire
conclusion is purely fanciful; for, on the one hand, the paprupia raw dvdpaoruv
is not at all spoken of, in regard to its subject, as identical with the paprvpia
rob Geov; and, on the other hand, in the mention of the former paprvpia,
the numerical relation is not alluded to by a single syllable. — Hilgenfeld
asserts that the epistle stands in a more intimate relationship to the O. T.
law than the Gospel does. The proof of this is supposed to lie in the
passages 1 John iii. 4 and ii. 7, 8;. but with regard to the first passage,
the idea dvouia in no way hints at the Mosaic law; and besides, if the
author attached a higher importance to the Mosaic »uoc than the Evangel-
ist, he would somewhere state its signification; this, however, he is so far
from doing, that the idea véuog never appears in his work at all. With
456 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
regard to the second passage, Hilgenfeld, indeed, admits that dr’ dpric
refers to the transition to Christianity, but thinks that “this old com-
mandment of love is not set forth as it is in the Gospel, as an absolutely
new one which first receives its rule through the love of the Saviour to
His people;” but, apart from the explanation of that passage itself, the
immediately preceding verse, and, moreover, what is written in iii. 16 and
iv. 7 ff. about love, shows how unfounded is the assertion of Hilgenfeld.
It is not any thing better with the remark of Hilgenfeld (1849), that “the
greatest probability is in favor of the statement that the idea of the
personal Logos is still foreign to the Epistle, whilst it is distinctly expressed
in the Gospel;” this Hilgenfeld infers from this, that for description of
-what is loftier in Christ the expression 6 Aédyoc is not used in the Epistle.!
But even if in the expression 6 Adyoe ri¢ Gw¢ the idea Adyoc had the meaning
of “doctrine,” yet the supposition of Hilgenfeld would still be unjustified,
since it cannot be denied that 7 (ui (7 Gud aldoc), whereby the superhuman
that appeared in Christ is indicated, is considered by the writer of the
Epistle as hypostatic nature, nor that the vidg ros Oeod is identical with
Him who in the Gospel is called 6 Aéyor. Nay, the whole Epistle in the
most unmistakable manner presupposes the hypostatic nature of the
Son of God. — That, finally, the writer of the Epistle ascribed no per-
sonality to the Holy Spirit, can neither be proved by this, that he does
not call Him 6 mapaxAnroc, nor by this, that He indicates Him by the
expression xzpioua; the words 1rd mvevpd éote 7d paprepovy especially, 1 John v.
6 comp. with John xv. 26, presuppose His personality.2— For proof of
the non-identity, Baur finally appeals to this, that the “representation
of Christ as the zapaxAnroc, i.e., the interceding High Priest, accords
more with the sphere of ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews than with
that of the Gospel; that thereby intervening thoughts are inserted into
John’s view of the relation of Jesus to those who believe on Him, which
lay far from the horizon of the Evangelist.” But if Baur were right in
this assertion, then there would exist not only a difference between the
Epistle and the Gospel, but a difference between the Epistle and itself,
since, apart from those representations, quite the same view of the relation
2 In the article of 1855 this is merely no- yxpioua and omépya. Along with thie he
ticed, without the former inference being admits, however, that the Gospel, iu the
drawn from it. expression aAAog¢ wapdxAnros shows an agree-
3 In the article of 1855, Hilgenfeld finds the |= ment with the Epletle, in which Christ is
difference only in this, that in the Epistle spoken of as mrapaxAnros.
the Holy Spirit is not called mwapaxAnros, but
INTRODUCTION. } 457
of Jesus to believers dominates in the Epistle as in the Gospel; with
regard, however, to those representations, they are not peculiar to the
Epistle to the Hebrews only, but are a common property of the apostles,
as they are expressed in the Epistle to the Romans (comp. chap. iii. 25
and viii. 84) with no less distinctness than in the former.
The reasons adduced by Baur and Hilgenfeld are therefore unable to
shake the conviction of combined antiquity, that both writings come from
one and the same author. That each of the works—along with all unity
of conception and of expression — has its own peculiarities, is naturally
caused both by the difference of their object, and by the living activity of
the Spirit from whom they both proceeded. It is also to be observed,
that in the Gospel it is chiefly the Master, in the Epistle the disciple, that
speaks,—a fact to which the Tubingen critics can certainly attach no
importance. There is, however, the further question as to the character
of the reasons which are said to be opposed to the genuineness of the
Epistle, and to prove that the author of it could not be the Apostle John.
When S. G. Lange says that on account of “its lack of all individual
references, its slavish imitation of the Gospel, the too great generality of
the thoughts, the traces of the feebleness of old age, the non-reference to
the destruction of Jerusalem,” he only reluctantly regards the Epistle as
the work of an apostle; these reasons are of such arbitrarily subjective
character as to require no refutation. Of greater importance, indeed, is
the frequently-expressed assertion, that the Epistle refers to circumstances
which first belong to a time later than that of the apostles. As such
Bretschneider regarded the doctrine of the Logos and the Docetism con-
tended against in the Epistle; but “without the previous existence and
assurance of a canonical doctrine of the Logos, the patristic doctrine
from Justin on would be almost inexplicable” (Liicke), and that Docetismn
— to which the Jewish as well as the heathen speculation must be added,
when, without- giving itself up, it amalgamated with Christianity — first
belonged to the post-apostolic age, is historically an unjustifiable assertion.
— After Planck (in the article already quoted) advanced the view that
the author of the Epistle moves in the Montanist sphere of thought, as he
“seeks to transform the external Jewish-Christian mode of conception
into the deeper, more internal mode of John,” Baur developed it further.
He explains the Epistle directly as a writing belonging to Montanism. His
proofs of this are: (1) the thought that the fellowship of Christians is
sinless, holy; (2) the mention of the ypioza; and (3) the distinction between
venial and mortal sins. But how weak are these reasons! If the Mon-
458 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
tanists considered themselves as the Spirituales, in contrast to the rest of
the Christians, who in their eyes were Psychici, this is plainly something
very different from the representation of the Epistle that believing Chris-
tians—in contrast to the unholy world—form a holy fellowship. If
the Epistle says that Christians possess the holy zpicua, there lies therein
nothing but an allusion to the custom, first mentioned by Tertullian, of
anointing candidates for baptism with holy oil. And if in 1 John v. 16 the
duaptia mpd¢ Oavarov is distinguished from the dyapria ob mpdc Gavaroy, this
distinction is of a very different character from the Montanist distinction
between venial and mortal sins. Baur, indeed, maintains that in the
Epistle the same sins are called mortal sins, as in Tertullian; but while
Tertullian represents as mortal sins, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio,
biasphemia, moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei, Baur
arbitrarily selects only three of these, namely idolatry, murder, adultery or
fornication, which are alleged to be spoken of in the Epistle as mortal sins.
To idolatry, namely, not only chap. v. 21, but also chap. ili. 4, is alleged
to refer; to murder, chap. iii. 15;! and to mopveia, which is nowhere
mentioned in the Epistle itself, the superscription that appears in Augustin
(corrupted from mpdc mapGévovc): ad Parthos.— The hypothesis so feebly
established (comp. Liicke’s. incisive refutation in the 3d ed. of his com-
ment.), of the Montanism of the writer of the Epistle, found in Hilgenfeld
an opponent in the Tiibingen school itself. In opposition to it,? Hilgenfeld
has attempted to show that not only the false doctrine of the antichristians
who are contended against in the Epistle, but also many of the views of
the author himself, would go to prove that the appearance of the Epistle
is to be fixed at the time immediately preceding that in which Gnosticism
was at its prime. As Gnostic elements in the system of the epistle,
Hilgenfeld specifies the idea of the ozépya (iil. 9), the thought that we
1 Baur himself admits that with regard to
these two pointa the author does not mean
“‘the outward actlon,’”’ but “altogether the
inner character of the moral sentiment;” but
if that be the case, then it is clear that his
position is not in Montanism, but outside it,
since in Montaniem it is precisely actions, and
indced particular, definite actions, that are
referred to in that distinction of sins. Ter-
tulllan (De Pudicit., c. 19): ‘* Cui non accidit,
aut frasci inique et ultra solis occasum, aut et
manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut
temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere,
aut verecundia aut necessitate mentirl. In
negotiie, in officiis, in quaestu, fn victu, In
visu, in audita quanta tentamur, ut a! nulla sit
venia istorum, nemini salus competat,” etc.
2 Tlilgenfeld urges especially that it 1s im-
possible to conceive that a Montanist author
would not have known to begin with the idea
of the Paraclete; and also that the idea of
special mortal sins already occurs in the
Tlepiodox Tlerpov (Res. iv. 36), which belong to
the pre-Montanlst peeudo-Clementine liter-
ature.
INTRODUCTION. 459
should not fear, but only love God (iv. 18, 19), and the idea of the xpioua
(ii. 20); but these ideas are so essential to the Christian consciousness,
that it cannot at all be thought of without them. At the most, the
expressions onépya and xpioua might seem strange, but the former so
naturally suggested itself in connection with the idea of being born of
God, and of God's being in him who is born of Him,! and the latter from
the antithesis of the Christian to the dvriypioroc, — especially with the O. T.
type of anointing,—that a derivation of them from Gnostic fancies is
entirely unjustified; quite apart from the fact that these ideas play quite
another part in the Gnostic systems from that which they fulfil in this
Epistle. Even if it be conceded to Hilgenfeld, further, that the false
doctrine contended against is Gnostic, yet it cannot be admitted that
Gnosticism also, as regards its beginnings, belongs first to the post-apostolic
time. Hilgenfeld rightly says that the features alluded to by the author of
the Epistle do not mark a completely definite Gnostic system; but wrongly,
that therefore the doctrine of Cerinthus must not be thought of, because
this represents a form of Gnosis as yet quite incomplete. The whole
character of the polemic of the writer of the Epistle shows, however, that
he has to do with a system of Gnosticism which, in comparison with the
systems of the second century, had a form still incomplete. For there is
only one point which he brings forward, namely Docetism, and indeed that
form of it which consists of the distinction of the Son of God from the
man Jesus, and therefore the same as was propounded by Cerinthus; comp.
Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, I. p. 314 ff. — That this Docetism was
associated with an antinomian sentiment “which set itself far above all the
moral laws of life,” by no means follows, as has already been remarked in
Sec. 2, from the polemic of the Epistle. — Against the assertion of Baur,
that even the form of the polemic is decisive against the genuineness of the
1 In his article of 1855, Hilgenfeid attaches
the chief importance to the idea of the owepya,
and tries to deduce from 1 John v. 1, that
according to the representation of the author
of the Epistle, ‘‘ being born of God is to be
regarded as the presupposition of Christian
faith,” and therefore that the oweppya ie,
according to him, “the metaphysical ground
of existence” from which faith proceeds.
But if the distinction between the rexva rov
@eov and the reava rou S:aBcAov has, according
to the author, a metaphysical ground lying
beyond faith, and if the former, by virtue of
the owépua which is peculiar to them by
natore, cannot sin-— how does this accord
with the soteriology which is so clearly ex.
pressed in the Epistie, and according to which
Christ is the iAacpds wepi Tey auaprimy Huw,
and the blood of Christ cleanses us awd sacns
apeprias?—In this article also Hilgenfeld
derives the “‘ repeated assurance that God is
love,” from the influence of Gnosticism on
the author, without any regard to the close
connection with the fundamental essential
truth of Christianity in which this is brought
forward by the author.
460 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Epistle, since “nothing further is said than just that the false teachers of
Docetism are antichristians,” it is to be observed that the main force of the
apostle’s polemic throughout does not consist in negation, but in the positive
presentment of the truth, in the light of which the antagonistic doctrine is
manifested as a lie (see on this the excellent exposition of Thiersch, Versuch,
etc., p. 255). ;
The spuriousness of the Epistle (as also of the Gospel, and of John’s
two other Epistles) also follows, according to Hilgenfeld (article of 1855),
from the relation of these toritings to the Apocalypse. While, namely, he
presupposes the genuineness of the latter, he maintains that “the contrast
between it and the Epistles must not be ignored,” and that “the latter
occupy a middle place between the two most extreme contrasts of the
Apocalypse and the Gospel.” The contrast is seen, according to him, first, in
the language (in the Epistles not indeed an Attic, but an easy and versatile
Greek style; in the Apocalypse, on the other hand, a strongly Hebraizing
impress); and, second, in the sphere of thought, although he recognizes
“between the spheres of thought on both sides very essential points of
contact.” But against these instances it is to be observed—1. That the
composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John is by no means 80 surely
established as Hilgenfeld assumes, and is certainly not to be proved by
stating that it is the product of a still judaistically-narrowed mode of
conception; 2. That in the explanation of the Hebrew-colored style of the
Apocalypse, attention is to be paid to the fact that it stands in close
connection with O. T. prophecy; 3. That the appearance of the contrast,
alleged by Hilgenfeld, between the spheres of thought on both sides, dis-
appears when with the necessary critical impartiality they are taken hold of
with consideration of the entire individual elements which constitute them.
1 Hilgenfeld proceeds uneritically in his
demonstration of the contrast between the
spheres of thought, inasmuch as he not only
adducee, as antithetical, ideas which are not
so, but aleo ascribes to one or the other
writing views which are not contained in it.
The former is, for example, the case when he
thinks that the idea of an angry God, as is
peculiar to the Apocalypse, and the idea of
a God who is lore, as we find it expressed in
the Epistle, contradict ove another; or when
he asserts that the conception of the Divine
justice, according to which it is shown as the
punishment of the wicked, is in contradiction
to that according to which it appears as the
forgiveness of sins; when he supposes a con-
trast between the representation of the Apoca-
lyptic judgment and the idea of the spiritual
victory of the Christian over the devil and the
world, accomplished by means of morality
and faith. He does the latter when, for
example, he saye that the Apocalypse con-
siders “‘the political world-power of the
Roman Empire” as. Antichrist, whereas the
name avrixpioros is never once mentioned in
the Apocalypse; or when he ascribes to the
Epistle the idea of a metaphysical antagonism
bet ween the children of God and the children
INTRODUCTION. 461
As the internal tests, which have been asserted to be opposed to the
genuineness of the Epistle, do not prove the alleged spuriousness; as the
Epistle much rather bears on the face of it quite the impress of an apostolic
writing; as it also—as even Hilgenfeld admits — “belongs to the writings
of the N. T., the genuineness of which was never disputed in the ancient
Church, and the chain of witnesses who have made use of it begins as far
back as Papias,” — the composition of it by the Apostle John is as surely
established as it can ever be.
SEC. 4.— THE READERS; TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
1. The Readers. — Augustin says in his Quaest. Evang., ii. 39, when he
is quoting the passage 1 John iii. 2: scriptum est a Joanne in Epistola ad
Parthos; this more particular determination of the Epistle is also found
(only however, in the Benedictine edition of Augustin’s works) in the
superscription of his treatises on the Epistle; and similarly in Possidius,
in his Jndiculus operum S. Augustini, as he introduces those treatises with
the words, De Ep. Joannis ad Parthos sermones decem. The same statement,
it is true, frequently appears later; thus in the work of Vigilius Tapsensis
(end of the fifth century), published under the name of Idacius Clarus,
Contra Varimadum Arianum ; in Cassiodorus, De Institut. Divin. Script.,c. 14,
who, however, refers the words ad Parthos to all the three Epistles; in Col.
62 of Griesb., and in several lat. codd. (see Guericke, Gesammtgesch. des
N. T., 1854, p. 486, note 2); but the whole Greek Church, and similarly
the Latin Church before Augustin, knows nothing of it. It is therefore
of no importance even for the determination of the original readers of the
Epistle (against Grotius); nay, it cannot even be said that in it was retained
an old tradition in regard to the determination of the Epistle or the activity
of the devil, which is found in the Gnoetics. —
For the rest, it must not be denied that the
difference in character bet ween the A pocaly pee
and the other writings of John is considerable
enough to allow the view, that it does not
proceed from the same author, to appear not
unjustified. While that difference, on the one
side, is often not sufficiently estimated, on the
other side, with the object of bringing it more
clearly out, the mistake is not infrequently
made, of not keeping strictly enough witblo
the truth. But, as may hold good of the
origiu of the Apocalypse also, the Gospel and
the First Epistle of John are too strongly
attested, both by thelr whole character and
by the external evidences, as writings of the
Apostle John, to allow their genuineness to
be denied on account of the Apocalypee.
1 Against this fact the strange remark of
Bede in the Prologus super septem epistolus
canonicas (printed in Care’s Script. Eccles.
Hist. Liter.): “Multi ecriptorum ecclesiasti.
corum, in quibus est 8. Athanasius, primam
ejus (j.e., Joannis) epistolam aecriptam ad
Parthos esse testantur,” cannot of course
be regarded as of any weight.
462 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
of John (Baumgarten-Crusius), and still less that it “refers to its designa-
tion for Farther and Central Asia, as formerly Persian lands ” (Guericke
as above, p. 487). It might no doubt be possible that Augustin thereby
expressed his own conjecture (Michaelis), but then he would hardly have
proceeded with the Epistle under this designation without further remark.
Perhaps a mistake is at the bottom of it. Some critics assume a corruption
of the reading in Augustin. Serrarius conjectures as the original reading:
ad Pathmios; Wetstein: ad sparsos; Semler: adpertius. Most explain the
words as originating in a Greek expression; quite arbitrarily, Paulus
(Heidelh. Jahrb., 1832, p. 1071) thinks that they might have arisen through
misunderstanding of a probable inscription mpdc mavrac; it is more natural
to have recourse, with most critics, to the Greek word xap6évoc, and to
regard ad Parthos as originating in mpdc rapsévove. Whiston considers spd¢
mapbévovc as the description of the yet uncorrupted, virgin condition of the
churches of John; according to Hug’s view, the inscription of some
manuscripts of the Second Epistle, mpd¢ mapdouc (i.e., mpdg mapbévovc), was
transferred to the First Epistle, because that designation was regarded as
unsuitable to the Second Epistle, Gieseler (Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch., 4th
ed., vol. i., Pt. 1, p. 189, note 1), with whom Liicke (3d ed., p. 52 f.) agrees,
supposes that the inscription of the First and of the Second Epistle was:
émtoroA} ‘luxiyvov rod mapdévov; this is certainly not found in any codex of the
Epistle, but the inscription of the Apocalypse in Cod. Guelpherit. (30 of
Griesb.) runs thus: rod dyiov . . . amoarddAov al ebayyediorod mapOtvor hyannuévov
émornpiov ‘lwavvov Seoddyov. The simplest supposition might be that Augustin
misunderstood the remark of Clemens Alex. (Opp., ed. Potter., Fragm.
1011) that the Second Epistle was written mpd¢ mapdévouy (ad virgines) —
(see Introd. to Second and Third Epistle, Sec. 1),— and then by mistake
referred it to the First Epistle.— But whatever be the origin of this ad
Parthos, it can be-of no value as an historical evidence for the original place
of destination of the Epistle. As John, according to the unquestionable
accounts of antiquity, after the death of the Apostle Paul, took up his place
in Asia Minor; and asin Asia Minor, as the Epistle to the Colossians
testifies, heretical tendencies of Gnostic character already appeared at an
early date,—it is to be assumed, with most critics, that the Epistle was
originally directed to the churches of Asia Minor; not to one of them
(according to Hug, to that of Ephesus), but as émoroAy éyxuxdiny (Oec.) to
several (perhaps to “John’s Ephesian circle of churches,” Liicke), perhaps
to all of those to which the personal activity of the apostle extended, for
the Epistle would otherwise certainly touch at individual circumstances of
‘INTRODUCTION. 463
the single church.’ It is clearly quite arbitrary to regard as its place
of destination, with Benson, Palestine, or, with Lightfoot, Corinth.
2. The Place of Composition. — This is just as little stated in the
Epistle as the place of destination; the prevailing opinion, that John wrote
it in Ephesus, has at least nothing against it. Hug and Ebrard, who
regard it— though without tenable reason—as a companion work of the
Gospel, suppose that it was written with the latter in Patmos; but even
though the statement is found in some of the later Fathers, that the Gospel
was written in Patmos, the more ancient tradition names Ephesus as its
place of composition ; comp. Meyer's Comment. on the Gospel, 3d ed., p. 39.
— Hug appeals also to 2 John 12 and 13,3 John 13: unwarrantably, how-
ever, for a want of writing materials is here in no way hinted at.
. 8. The Time of Composition. — That the Epistle belongs not to the
earlier, but to the later apostolic time, i.e., the time after the departure of
the Apostle Paul, is not to be disputed. The whole tone in which it is
written leaves us in no mistake as to the advanced age of the writer;
moreover, the somewhat prolonged existence of the Christian churches to
which it i8 addressed is brought out pretty clearly; and there is the
additional fact that the antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christi-
anity is no longer the subject, and that the Docetism therein opposed points
also to the later time. With this corresponds the tradition, according to
which it was written by John during his sojourn in Ephesus. As, however,
the tradition states indeed the end (Iren., Haer., iii. 3, 4, in Euseb. iv. 14:
"Iwavvov d& mapaueivavroc abroig péxpe rov Tpatavod yporwy), but not the beginning
of this sojourn, the time of composition of the Epistle is only indefinitely
fixed by it. This much only seems to be indisputable, that John first
settled in Ephesus after the death of the Apostle Paul, in order from there
to direct the churches of Asia Minor, especially those in the proconsulate ;
against which, the view that he remained in that city until the destruction
of Jerusalem (Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. p. 202 ff.) lacks any
certain ground. The composition of the Epistle before the destruction of
Jerusalem, Grotius, Hammond, and Diisterdieck infer from chap. ii. 18;
Ziegler, Fritzsche, and others, from the circumstance that that event, so
important for Christianity, is not mentioned in the Epistle. But i. 18
refers, indeed, to the nearness of the parousia of Christ, not, however, to
1 Hilgenfeld thinks that the Epistle wae even if the apostie mentions no specific limit
addressed to the whole of orthodox Christen. of his sphere of readers, such a limit is
dom, in #0 far as it did not belong to the nevertheless indicated in the warning refer-
immediate sphere of the apostie's labors; but ence to the Docetan heresy.
464 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the fall of Jerusalem; that even later the time reaching to the parousia of
Christ was considered as the “ last time,” is shown by the passage in Jgnat.
Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.: &oyaroe xa:pol Aorrov aloyvvOduev, goBnOduev THv uaxpouuiay
Tov Ozod, iva ur huiv ei¢ xpiua yéevnra. And that the destruction of Jerusalem
is not mentioned, might be explained in this way, that when the Epistle was
written a considerable time might have already elapsed since that event.
Most commentators place the composition in the time after the destruction
of Jerusalem, especially because, as they think, the state of the churches
brought out in the Epistle was such as was appropriate only to the end
of the apostolic age. But even this conclusion is at least not quite sure,
since even already Paul in his later Epistles had to take notice of moral
indifferentism, nay, Antinomianism and Gnostic error ;1 and the disturbing
influence of the Judaistically-inclined Christians on the Gentile-Christian
churches must be regarded as already overcome by the labors of the Apostle
Paul, inasmuch as even Paul himself does not combat it in his later Epistles
in the way in which he had done in the earlier ones. — Thiersch appeals,
in favor of a comparatively late appearance of the Epistle, to this, that
according to chap. ii. 19, “the separation of the heretics from the Christian
community was already accomplished,” though they still, according to the
Epistle of Jude, revelled at the Agapae; but on the one hand, it is to be
observed that from the former passage it is not clear. how far a formal
separation was at that time already carried out (the church-forming activity
of the heretics belongs first to the second century); and, on the other
hand, it is at least uncertain whether John and Jude had to do with
heretics of the same kind, for the one class are depicted as Antinomians,
the other as Docetans. — Ebrard fixes as the time of composition the year
95 aer. Dion. His reasons for this are: the Epistle was written at the same
time as the Gospel, as its dedicatory epistle; the Gospel wag composed at
Patmos; John was at Patmos in the 15th year of Domitian. But these
premises lack any certain foundation. — By most critics it is considered
that the Epistle was written later than the Gospel, and that the latter was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem. As regards the first part,
appeal is made in its favor especially to this, that in the Epistle reference
is sometimes made to the Gospel. This, however, is not the case; there is
(as Bleek, as above, also remarks) in the whole Epistle not a single passage
1 Still it cannot remain unobserved, that the end of the apostolic age; and that the
the heretics, againet whom Paul directs his heretical error which the Ignatian Epistles
polemic, are never accused of Docetiam; that contend against was of specially Docetan
Cerintbus probably appeared only towards character.
INTRODUCTION. 465
It would seem
on the face of it more probable that John, induced by the false teachers,
first wrote the Epistle to warn and exhort the churches intrusted to him,
and then wrote the Gospel for entire Christendom, as “a consecrated record
of the historical foundation of salvation” (Thiersch), than that he first |
wrote the latter and then the former.?. Some of the very passages by which
it is thought the dependence of the Epistle upon the Gospel can be proved
seein to tell in favor of this. The passage, 1 John i. 1-4, appears, when
compared with Gospel i. 1 ff., to be not the later, but the earlier one, since
the apostle in the former is still striving to give to the idea the suitable
expression, whereas in the latter he has already found it.
which assumes the torttten Gospel as known! (Guericke).
None the less,
compared with the expression 46 Adyoc odp§ tyévero, is the expression ‘Inccv¢
Xpiordg iv capxi éAnAvode the more indefinite, and therefore no doubt the
earlier. Besides, the affinity of the two works permits the conjecture that
the dates of their composition do not lie far from one another (comp. Bleek,
p. 590; differently Briickner), especially as this appears not only in their
peculiar character, but also in the form, to such an extent that not only
do they both begin with a prooemium containing the same ideas, but even
the thoughts expressed at the close completely correspond with each other:
Gospel of John xx. 31: ratra dé yéypatra, iva morebanre, Ste "Inoove torw 6
Xjnoroc, 6 vidc tod Oeoi, nai lva miorevovtes Cwnv Exnte tv rp dvouate abrov, and
1 John v. 13: raira éypapa ipiv, iva eidite, Gre Cuyv aiavov Exere of morebovres cic
Td Gvaua tov viod ros Ocov. — AS regards the second point, no exact proof can
indeed be drawn from the Gospel itself in favor of its composition after
the destruction of Jerusalem ;® but, on the other hand, there lies in this no
ground to contradict the old tradition, that John wrote it in his more
advanced age.
in the lifetime of the apostle; at least, it is more natural to suppose that the
It is also not improbable that it was not already circulated
1 Reues (as above, p. 218) rightly says:
‘‘ For ue the Epistie requires the Gospel as a
commentary; but as it once had this in the
oral instruction of ite author it is not thereby
proved that it is the later.”
2 What Thiersch (Versuch /. d. Kritik,
p. 79) says generally: ‘‘ As a general rule, the
proposition may be proved to be historically
true, that the writings of momentary design,
to which most of the Epieties belong, appeared
earlier, and the writings of permanent design,
especially the Gospels, later,” — may also be
applied to the relation of the Gospel and the
Epistle of Jobn.
3 From the use of 4v in the passages of the
Gospel of John xi. 18, xvifl. 1, xix. 41, nothing
can be inferred, as it is entirely explained “ by
the context of historical narrative;’’ on the
other hand, however, the ¢or, John v. 2, does
not prove that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed
at the time when Jobn wrote this, for John In
his account of the past event might represent to
himself that which no longer existed as atlill
existing (comp. Ebrard, Comment. p. 40 ff.).
466 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
2lst chapter was added to it immediately on its appearance than later,
when it had already become a possession of the Christian churches.! In ©
that case, John composed the Gospel as a legacy for the age after his death ;
hence, however, it would result as to the Epistle, that it also was written only
in the advanced age of the apostle, although before the Gospel. True, the
apostle nowhere says that his readers have heard the gospel from him, though
he often speaks of their acquaintance with it, nor is there any passage
from which it could be proved that he himself already labored among them
in person; but from this the conclusion cannot be drawn, that “John
composed the Epistle when he took up his place in Asia Minor after the
death of the Apostle Paul, and indeed in order, by means of it as a pastoral
Epistle, to introduce his labors there” (1st ed. of this comment.) ; for, on
the one hand, such a purpose of the Epistle is nowhere hinted at; and, on
the other hand, that circumstance might arise from this, that the Epistle
was not exclusively destined for those churches in which the apostle had
already labored by oral preaching, but was equally for others which he had
not yet visited. On impartial consideration of all points, it appears probable
that the Epistle of John was written in the last quarter of the apostolic age.
1 Ewald (Geech. Jeraels, vil. p. 217 ff.)
thinks that the Gospel was written about the
year 80, but was first circulated later, shortly
before the death of John, with the supple-
mentary chap. xxj. added by him; and that
the First Epistle was written later than the
Gospel, though independently of it, but was
circulated earlier than it, immediately after
its composition. -For this, however, there is
quite as little certain proof as there is for the
opinion that both the Gospel and the Epistle
of John were composed only at the special
urgency of his friends.
CHAP. I. 467
"lwdvvov éruroA7 a.
In A, B, the superscription runs: ‘luayvov (B: -avov) a; in other codd.,
éxiaroAy ‘lwavvou mporn. The Rec. is "lwavvouv rov amocruAov éxtoroAy xabodnn
T put.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. Instead of éwpaxayuev, Tisch. 7 has, both here and hereafter, and iii. 6, _
iv. 20, accepted the form éop.; on this form, see Ph. Buttmann, Ausf. griech.
Gramm., 1819, § 84, Anm. 11, note; Al. Buttmann (p. 56) says: “The form
éopaxa, it is true, is often presented by the MSS., but has not, up to the present,
been received by the editors.””— Ver. 2. Cod. B has, before éwpaxauev, the
relative 46, perhaps, through mistake, from vv. 1 and 3; even Buttm. has not
accepted it.— Ver. 3, umayyéAAouev byiv]. Rec., according to G, K, and several
others, Copt. and others, Oec., Aug., Beda (Tisch.); according to A, B, C,
however, with Lachm., a «a: is to be inserted after adnayyéAAouev, — it seems to
have been omitted as superfluous on account of the following iva xal dueic; in
Thph., it reads: xai umayyéAAouev buiv; so also &, in which it reads: dxnx. xal
éwpax, xai ara) yéAAouev. — Ver. 4. Instead of ypugouer nyuiv (Rec., Tisch., Lachm.,
ed. maj.), A*, B, & read ypugozey nueic (Lachm., ed. min., Buttm.); Liicke, De
Wette, Ewald, and Reiche consider this reading as unsuitable; differently
Brickner; the change of quzic to tuiv can, at any rate, be more easily explained
than that of duiv to qucic.—7 xapd duov). Rec., according to A, C, K, several
others, Copt., etc. (Tisch.); Lachm., following B, G, &, and others, reads 7u0v;
hardly correct. — Ver. 5. «ai éorw abry, according to B, C, G, K, &, and others,
Syr., Thph., Oec. (Tisch.), instead of the Rec., «ai airy éoriv, according to A,
Vulg. (Lach.). The Rec. is an alteration of the original reading; comp. ii. 25,
iii. 11. — ayyeAia], 80 Lachm. and Tisch. (approved of by Reiche and most modern
commentators), following almost the entire number of authorities, A, B, G, K,
by far the most of the others (Thph. in Comm. Oec.), instead of the Rec.,
énayyedia, which only a few codices support; perhaps C; according to Lachm., C
has ayyeAia; according to Tisch., érayyeAia, Paulus considers cyyeAia as an
explanatory gloss from fii. 11; so De Wette; but, on the contrary, énayyedia is a
correction of ayyeAia, which, otherwise, does not appear in the N. T., except in
ili. 11, where, however, the same correction is found. The original reading of
N is amayyeAcac; later it corrects this to ayyeAia; others have corrected it to ayamn
tis érayyediac, Socin thinks that éwayyedia should be read. — Ver. 7. Instead of
GAAnAwy, A® (?), Tol., some lat. codices, Aeth., Clem., Didym., Tert. read avrod,
which is plainly a correction, as GAAjAwy does not seem conformable to the train
of thought; see the comment. on this passage. After ’Inoov, the Rec., following
A, G, K, and others, Vulg., etc., has Xporot, which is wanting in B, C, &;
468 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; Reiche would have it retained; the addition
is easily explained, comp. v. 3.— Ver. 8. Instead of ov« goriv év nuiv (Rec., after
B, G, &, Vulg., etc.), Lachm. and Tisch., following A, C, K, and others, read
év nuiv obx Eorww; perhaps the former is a correction, after ver. 10.— Ver. 9.
Instead of xa6apicy is found, in A, h., some min. (perhaps also in C **), xa@apicet,
which, however, has too little evidence to be regarded as genuine.
Vv. 1-4. Introduction of the Epistle: Statement of the subject of the
apostolic proclamation and of the aim of this writing. The construction
of the periods is not carried out conformably to rule. The relative clauses
beginning with 6 form the object of a verbal idea, which is just as little
directly expressed as the subject which belongs to it; nay, more, with epi
the period that was begun breaks off, and with xai 7 G7 (which refers back
to the preceding ri (wie) begins a new period consisting of two principal
members. In the new sentence, ver. 3, the object, expressed in relative
form, is placed before the finite verb, which contains in itself the subject.
The parts of the sentence in ver. 1, beginning with 6, are co-ordinate with
each other; it is grammatically impossible to take the first part as subject,
and the following parts as the predicate of it. As far as regards the sense,
it is unsuitable to find in épnAagnoay the verb which governs the preceding
objective clauses (Paulus: “that which was, etc., which we have seen, our
hands also have touched”). The governing verb cannot be contained in
ver. 2 either, for the verbs of this verse have their object near them in ray
Cuhy riav aiamov. AS 6 éupiixauev x, dxnxoauev, ver. 3, shows itself to be the
resumption of the objective clauses of ver. 1,— only in more abridged form,
— it is to be assumed that dayyéAAouev, ver. 3, is the verb which was before
the apostle’s mind from the very beginning, from the immediate addition of
which he was, however, prevented by feeling bimself constrained to define
the object more precisely by the appositional addition nepi rov Asyou rig Guigs.
As he was then induced by rie Gwi¢ to the parenthetical continuation in
ver. 2, he made the finite verb follow after he had first resumed the object.
Ver. 1. 6 qv an’ dpyac}]. This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully
explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which
was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of
perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct zepi,
x.t.A., and the parenthetical sentence, ver. 2, it follows that John understands
by it the Adyor ric Gwe or the ¢7, and more exactly the Ju7 7 aiovos, which
was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does
not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first
from 6 dxnxdéapev, x.7.4., and égavepwOn, and then especially from the comparison
with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is
in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by 6 4 am’ dpyne the same
subject is meant as is there spoken of as 6 Aoyor. The neuter form does
not entitle us to understand by 6 4», «.r.4., with the Greek commentators
Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “pvorjpuv of God;”
1 Cappellus: “ Quod erat ab initio hoc Speum est, quod audivimus,”’ etc.
CHAP. I, 1. 469
namely, 57 Oedc tdavepden tv capxi, or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo
destinatae.” Nor does De Wette’s interpretation, “that which appeared in
Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with
the representation of the apostle, according to which the 4.7 not only was
manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of
commentators interpret 5 4 én’ dpxic correctly of the personal Christ. The
reason why John did not write é¢ (comp. chap. ii. 13: rdv ax’ dpxiic), but 4,
cannot, with several commentators (Erdmann, Liicke, Ebrard!), be found
in this, that John means not only the person in itself, but, at the same time,
its whole history, all that it did and experienced, for 4%» an’ dpyge (Synonymous
with éy dpxyj hv, Gospel of John i. 1) is decisive as to the historical
manifestation of Christ. Nor is it, with Diisterdieck, to be found in this,
“ because only this form (the neuter) is wide and flexible enough to bear, at
the same time, the two conceptions of the one . . . object, the conception
of the pre-mundane existence and that of the historical manifestation,” for
then each of the four 6’s would have to embrace in itself both these ideas,
which, however, is not the case. But neither is it, with Hofmann (Schri/t-
beweis, ed. 2, I. p. 112), this: “ because John just wants to describe only the
subject of the apostolic proclamation as suck.;” for this is not the order,
that John first describes the subject of the apostolic proclamation only
generally, and “ then” defines it more particularly, but 6 4 az’ dpyi¢ is itself
the more particular definition of the subject of the proclamation. Nor,
finally, is it, with Weiss, this, that the apostle does not here mean the Son
of God Himself, but “that which constituted the eternal being of the Son,”
namely, life; for, on the one hand, nothing here points to a distinction of
the Son and His being, and, on the other hand, it is not the being of the
Son which the apostle heard, saw, handled, but the Son Himself. The
neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that, to the apostle, Christ is
“the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea ?
1 Liicke gives this explanation of the
neuter: that John, “ seeking to express briefly
the idea of the Gospel, combines 1n this idea
the person of Christ, as the incarnate Logos,
with His whole history and work.” — Erdmann
firet remarks: ‘‘ Forma neutrius generis gene.
ralia potio e contextis atque Joannis dicendi
ratione facile definienda, ad personam Christi
aperte referenda significatur, nec solum vis et
amplitudo sententiae apte notatur, sed etiam
illo o quater repetito orationis sublimitati
concinnitas additur;’? and then continues:
‘* Praeterea meminerimus, non solum Christi
personam per se spectatam hic designari,
verum etiam omnia, quae per vitam humanam
ab eo perfecta et profecta, acta, dicta, ete.,
Aéyoy in eo apparuisse comprobant. — With
thie the opinion of Ebrard agrees, that o shows
that the person was not to be proclaimed qua
person, not as an abstraction, but in ite bis.
torical manifestation. Against this, however,
it is a valid objection, that John in 6 }» an’
apxis has plainly in his view the Logos not
in, but before, ite historical manifestation. —
When Erdmann appeals, in favor of John’s
reference of the neuter to persons, to the
passages, Gospel of John iit. 6, vi. 39, xvii. 2,
1 John iv. 4, it 1s, on the other hand, to be
observed that in aj] these passages the neuter
serves to combine the single individuals into a
whole that embraces the entirety of them,
which permite of no application to the use of
© here.
3 Ebrard rejects this explanation as quite
erroneous, and as being in contradiction with
the acceptation of the verse otherwise. The
rasbneas of thia judgment is clearly evident
from the question which he adds: ‘ Where
would there be even the shadow of a gram-
matical reference of 6 to wns?” for a
grammatical reference is not and could not
be asserted. —Bertheau’s objection (Licke,
Comment., ed. 3, p. 206 f.), that ‘we would
still have to regard the neuter form as a
470 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
True, the apostle could have written even é instead of the neuter; but as
Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself
(not merely a living individual), — comp. Gospel of John xiv. 6,—and as
John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for
him to write here 6 than é&.1_ By 4» an’ dpyic, John describes Christ as Him
who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense,
has been from all eternity; the imperfect #v, however, does not express the
pre-mundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John
speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which
Christ had become the object of sensuous perception. — dm’ dpy7c has
frequently in the N. T. its more particular determination along with it, as
in Mark xiii. 19, 2 Pet. iii. 4: ric xriceuc, or it is easily discovered from the
context, as in Acts xxvi.4. In the passage 2 Thess. ii. 13, dz’ dpyiec
corresponds to the expression used in Eph. i. 4: mpd xaragodj¢ xoouov, and is
identical with the German von Ewigkei her (from all eternity), for which
elsewhere is said: ad trav afdvwyv (Eph. ili. 9), or similar words. Here it is
explained by the following fru hv mpdg rov merépa. This existence of Christ
with the Father precedes not merely His appearance in the flesh, but also
the creation of the world, for according to John i. 2, the world was made by
Him; dpx7 is therefore not the moment of the beginning of the world, as it
is frequently interpreted, but what preceded it (comp. Meyer on Gospel of
John i. 1); Christ was before the world was, and is therefore not first from
the beginning of the world, as Christ Himself in John xvii. 5 speaks of a
dofa which He had with the Father mpd rov rdv xéouov elvac.2 The apostle .
says here az’ dpyic, because he is looking back from the time when Christ by
His incarnation became the object of sensuous perception (similarly Ebrard).
It is incorrect either to change the idea of elvue dm’ dpyae into that of exist-
ence in the pre-determined plan,® by which the words are strained, or to
interpret apy here of the beginning of the public activity of Christ in the
flesh (Semler, Paulus, and others), by which the connection with ver. 2 is
ignored. — 6 dxnxoayev, x.7.A.]. By the four sentences the apostle expresses
the thought that that which was from the beginning was the subject of his
own perception; the main purpose of them is not “to put forward that
which is to be proclaimed about Christ as absolutely certain and self-
experienced (Ebrard), but to bring out and to establish the identity of that
which was from the beginning with that which was manifested in the flesh,
while he has at the sane time in his view the Docetan heresy afterwards
general comprehensive expression which re-
fers both to that to which the apostle ascribes
a primeval existence and to that which be has
heard with his ears,”’ etc., is not tenable, for it
rests on the unproved assumption that o Adyos
tr. ¢. is not identical with that which the apoetle
regarded as the object of the acovety, «.7.A.
1 It fs unsuitable to explain the o, with
Braune, in this way, that the apostle, ‘in
view of the mysterious sublimity, ... wrote
in a flight and feeling of indetiniteneas.”’
2 That the Adyos before the creation of the
world was immanent in God, but by the ac-
complishment of the act of creation bypo-
statically proceeded from God (see Meyer on
Gospel of John 1. 1), is an idea nowhere
hinted at in Scripture. .
3 Grotius: ** Eae res, quas apostoli eeneibus
suis percepere, fuerunt a Deo destinatae jam
ab ipso mundi primordio.”
CHAP. I. 1. 471
mentioned by him.! By the 6 with which these sentences begin, nothing
else, therefore, is meant than by the 6 of the first sentence, namely, Christ
Himself (Briickner, Braune); and here the peculiar paradox is to be
noticed, which lies in this, that the general (7 Gw7) is represented by the
apostle as something perceived by his senses. It is erroneous to understand
by each of these 6’s something different; thus by the first (with dxnxdayev),
perhaps the testimony which was expressed by God Himself (Grotius), or
by the law and the prophets (Oecumenius), or by John the Baptist (Nicolas
de Lyra), or even the words which Christ uttered (Ebrard); by the second 6
(with éwpaxauev), the miracles of Christ (Ebrard); by the third 6 (with
éeanaueba), tot et tanta miracula (Grotius), or even “the divine glory of Christ”
(Ebrard); and by the 6 which is to be supplied with éynAagnoav, the resur-
rection-body of Christ (Ebrard), or, still more arbitrarily, the panes multi-
plicatos, Lazarum, etc. (Grotius); all these supplementary ideas, which
have originated in the incorrect assumption that John refers here to “the
various sides of Christ’s appearance in the flesh,” and which can easily be
confounded with others, are utterly unjustified, since they are in no way
hinted at in the context. John does not mean here to say that he has
experienced this or that in Christ, but that he has heard, seen, looked upon,
and handled Christ Himself. In the succession of the four verbs there lies
an unmistakable gradation (a Lapide: gradatim crescit oratio) ; from dxnxéa-
pev to évpdxayev & climax occurs, in so far as we are more certainly and
immediately convinced of the reality of an appearance of sense by sight than
by hearing; the addition of the words roi¢ de@aduoic qydav is not, as Lorinus
already remarks, a neptocoAoyia or Sarrodoyia, but there is in them “ plainly an
aiming at emphasis, as, to see with one’s own eyes” (Winer, p. 564 [E. T.,
607]). The third verb égeacdueda must not here be taken — with Bede and
Ebrard —in the sense of spiritual beholding, by which it is removed from
the sphere to which the other verbs belong; it is rather of similar significa-
tion with éwpaxayev — in this respect, that, equally with the latter, it indi-
cates the seeing with the bodily eyes. The difference does not, however, lie
in this, that dedoda: = peta Oaiparog xal OauBovc dpav (Oecumenius, a Lapide,
Hornejus, etc.), or = altente cum gaudto et admiratione conspicere (Black-
well), by which significations are put into the word which are foreign to it
in itself, but in this, that it has in it the suggestion of intention.? It is to be
remarked that i@eacaueda is closely connected with the following «a2 ai yetper
huov ynddgnoav; for 6 is not repeated here, and both verbs are in the aorist,
so that they thus go to form a sort of contrast to the two preceding clauses;
whilst dxotecy and cpgy express rather the involuntary perception, dedofa: and
21 Erdmann: “Jam etiam clarum fit, cur
tam diserte ... testem oculatum et auritum
experientia fundatam ab insolentia illoram
vindicet.”
ee significare studeat, ecilicet primum ut veri-
tatem et certitudinem verbi aeterni in Christo
manifestati sensibueque humanis percepti ad-
versus contrariam pseudodoctorum doctrinam
- - confirmet, deirde ut sui praeconii apos-
tolici idem et auctoritatem in ipsa seneuum
3 This force Lticke brings out correctly:
‘*Where the expressions are used as con.
trasted, opqy signifies altogether the objective
seeing. but Ocac@ac the designed, continued
beholding.”
472 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ynAageiy express acts of voluntary design, —the former the purposed behold-
ing, the latter the purposed touching of the object in order to convince
one’s self of its reality and of its nature. As both these parts of the clause
remind us of the words of the risen Christ: wyAagjoaré pe xai idere (Luke
xxiv. 39), it is not improbable that John had in his mind the beholding and
touching of the Risen One, only it must be maintained at the same time
that Christ was one and the same to him before and after His resurrection.
In this view, the transition from the perfect to the aorist is naturally
explained in this way, that the apostle in the last verbs refers to single
definite acts.!. The plural dxnyxéauev, «.7.4., is not plur. majesiaticus, but is
used because John, although he speaks of himself as subject, still at the
same time embraces in his consciousness the other apostles as having had
the same experience as himself. — zepi rod Adyou rig wi is not dependent on
any of the preceding verbs ;? it is also inadmissible to explain repé here,
with Briickner, in the sense in which it is used in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 12, namely,
in order to mark the transition to something new; not only the sense, but
also the position of epi, prohibits this signification; it is an additional clause
in apposition to the preceding descriptions of the object, by which it is
stated to what 6 fv an’ apxic, 6 dxnxoauev refers. The expression 6 Adyor ric
Gom¢ may be in itself a description of the Gospel (so it is taken by Grotius,
Semler, Frommann, Ewald, De Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck, etc.), and ric
Gwoh¢ either gen. obj. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 19), or gen. qualitatis (Phil. ii.
16; Gospel of John vi. 68): but this acceptation is refuted, first, by the
preposition zepi, instead of which the simple accusative would have had to
be put, for John proclaimed not about the gospel, but the gospel itself
(dnayyéAAopev, ver. 3); then by the close connection of this additional clause
with the preceding objective clauses; and, finally by the analogy with the
prooemium of the Gospel of John (ver. 1: év dpxy hv 6 Adyoc; ver. 4: by abta
Cu hv). These reasons, which are opposed to that explanation, are in favor
of the explanation of Hornejus: hic non denotatur sermo s. verbum evangelit,
sed Christus, which is also that of most commentators. The opinion of
Dusterdieck, that ‘‘ as John (according to ver. 2) considered the Logos itself
a3 7 Gu, 7 Gu) aiwvoc, the Asyoc in the composition 6 Adyo¢ ri¢ Gw7¢ Cannot again
be the personal Logos,” is overthrown by this, that rjc Gw7¢ in itself is not
the name of a person, but of a thing, just as in Gospel of John i. 4, Guy in
1 Diisterdieck rightly remarks that the
change of the tenses does not here originate
in an indefiniteness. His view, however,
“that the transition from the perfect to the
aorist is to be explained in this way, that
the nearer the apostle’s discourse comes to
the definite historical force of edavepwOn, the
more it takes the historical form,” is unten.
able, for axovey and opgy stand to edavepwAn
in no other relation than eac@ar and wyAadecs.
Brtickner opposes the view indicated above,
being of opinion that the perfect emphasizes
‘“‘the certain effect,’ the aorist, on the other
hand, ‘‘ the historical event; ’? but why would
John there emphasize the former and here
the latter, if this were not to be explained by the
distinction which we have stated ?
2 §. G. Lange construes wep with the first
sentence: 6 fv am’ apxns, 80 that the sense
that results to him, explaining ax’ apyys =
‘from the beginning of His ministry,” and
alvac = ‘‘fleri, to happen,’’ fs: ‘that which
happened from the beginning in connection
with our Lord, the Word of life’?! — Not leas
extraordinary is the explanation of Paulus:
‘¢what in general was thus in regard to the
Logos; what we, in regard to Him, heard,
saw, etc., that also, in regard to Him, these
CHAP. I. 1. 473
the clause é aire (wy hv, and 1d gd¢ 7. avOp. in the clause xa? f Gut) hy 7d par fr.
avdp. Even 6 Asyoc is the name of a thing; not, indeed, that we shoud
understand by it, first, “the word, which was preached by the apostles,”
and then, because this has Christ as its subject, “Christ Himself,” as
Hofmann (Schriftbew., ed. 2, I. p. 109 ff.) thinks, for the subject of a word
cannot be called the Word (comp. Meyer on Gospel of John i. 1)? but 6
Aoyoc signifies, in the province of religious thought, xar égoy7v, the Word by
which God expressed Iimself év apyj. Though John of course knows that
this Word is the personal Christ, yet in this expression in itself the idea of
personality is not yet brought out. This being the case, we will have to
understand the compound phrase, 6 Aoyor ripe Gwiz¢, first of all as the name of a
thing :? so that John in this description, which in itself does not express
the idea of personality, does not mean to say that that which was from the
beginning, and which he has heard, etc.,.is the person that bears the name
6 Aoyor rie Gwizc, but only defines more particularly the object, previously
stated indefinitely, in so far that it is the Word of life, i.e., the Word which
has life in it (whose nature consists in this, that it is life), and is the source
of all life (Braune) ; comp. John vi. 35, viii. 12. In agreement with this,
Weiss says (p. 35) that 6 Aoyoc is here, as in the prologue of the Gospel, a
description of the nature of the Son of God; but the assertion is incorrect,
that the genitive ric Gui¢ describes the Word as “the Word belonging to life,
necessary for life,” in favor of which he appeals incorrectly to the ex-
pressions dproc ric Gwe (John vi. 35, 48) and pruata Gwie aluviov (John vi. 68).
This explanation is refuted by this, that with it 7 Guy, ver. 2, must be taken
in a different reference from that which ri¢ G@oa¢ has here. — The personality
of this Word, which has already been indicated by 6 d«nxoauer, x.7.A, is still
more definitely expressed in ver. 2 by the twofold égavepoon, in which 8
éwpaxapev xal uanxdaper of ver. 3 finds its explanation. That in the expression
6 Aoyos rie Gwe the emphasis lies on ri¢ Gage, is clear from this, that in ver. 2
hands of ours have touched,” namely, ‘the
human body which here contained Him as
the Logos come down from above.”’
1 The identification of the ideas: «jpvypna
(= Adyos) and & «npvcoduevos, by which,
without enlargement, the former could be put
where the latter {s meant, is rightly opposed
by Luthardt (Das £o. Joh., p. 284 ff.); and
what Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of his Schrift.
bewceis, brings forward for his defence, does
not refute the statements of Luthardt. But
even the explanation of Luthardt, that Christ
§s called the Word because He ‘‘is the Word
which God has spoken to the world, because
He is the final and last word of all earlier
words of God to the world,” cannot be justi-
fied, because, on the one hand, in the simple
expression Adéyos nothing is less indicated than
that He is the Anal word, and, on the other
band, it must be acknowledged that Christ,
not merely from His incarnation, but from the
very beginning, is the Word in which life is,
or the Word of Life.
3 Even Hofmann has rightly recognized
this, although only from his inadmissibje in-
terpretation of the idea o Adyos: ** As 6 Adyos
is the word of the apostolic proclamation,
© Aoyos THs guns is also not meant to be
the proper name of a personal being, but the
description of a thing, which requires the
genitival attributive ri¢ ¢whs in order to be
described according to its peculiar essence.”
8 This incongruity is concealed by Weiss in
this way, that he takes (wy = “ knowledge of
God;"” but it ie not thereby removed, for
Weiss understands by ¢wys here “our know!l-
edge of God,” but by » ¢wy in ver. 2, on the
other hand, the knowledge of God which the
Logos has. —It is arbitrary for Ewald to
explain Adyos by “‘ subject,” and, accordingly,
wept Tou Ady. THE Gwys by “in regard to the
eubject of life.”*
474 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
it is not 6 Asyor, but # Guy, that is the subject. The construction with zepé
is thus explained, that the apostle does not thereby mean to speak of the
object of his proclamation, which he has already stated in 6 hv an’ dprije, x.7.2.,
but only desires to add a more particular description of it, for which reason
also it is not to be regarded as dependent on dwayyéAAouev. Braune incor-
rectly takes it as “a new dependent clause parallel in its matter to the
succession of relative clauses, which along with the latter comes to an end
in émayyéAdouev.” Ebrard groundlessly finds in this construction the sug-
gestion, that John considers as the object of his proclamation, not Christ
“as an abstract single conception '(!), but “his concrete historical experi-
ences of Christ.”
Ver. 2. Without bringing to an end the thought begun in ver. 1, from
the exact continuation of which he has already digressed in mepi rot Adyov r. 6,
the apostle in this verse expresses the double thought, that the life was
manifested, and that this eternal life which was with the Father and
was manifested, has been seen and is declared by him; so that in this, both
6 hv an’ dpxic and 6 dxnxoauev, how the former, namely, could have been the
subject of sensuous perception, find their more particular determination.
This whole verse is of course parenthetical; but that it is not regarded by
John as mere parenthesis (contrary to Diisterdieck) is clear, partly from the
connecting xai, and partly from this, that in ver. 3 it is not 6 7 am’ dpyi, but
only 6 dxnxdauev, «.7.2., that is resumed, while the former is fully dealt with
in this verse. — xac is not put for yap, but is copulative, “ not disjunctive,
but conjunctive " (Licke); the thought with which it is connected is that
which lies in 6 yy an’ dpxqe, that the life, before it became subject of percep-
tion, was, as it is afterwards put, mpc tov rarépa.1— 7 Cw Epavepwoon). Instead
of a relative, the noun is repeated, as is peculiar to the diction of John;
4 Sun instead of 6 Aoyor rig Gwe, because the einphasis, as has been already
remarked, is on G7, is analogous to Gospel of John i. 4, where also, after it
is said of the Aoyog, tv abr@ Gut hr, it is not 4 Aoyoc, but 7 dwn, that is the subject
of the following sentence.? It is plainly incorrect to understand by (uy the
doctrina de felicitale nova = evangelium (Semler), or, with others, the felicitas
of believers; but neither is S. G. Lange’s explanation, according to which
fun = “auctor vitae, the Life-giver,” sufficient, for Christ is so designated
not merely according to the operation that proceeds from Him, but, at the
same time, according to the peculiarity of His nature.?— égavepogn. In
1 Evrard wrongly conceives the logical
relation thus, that by «a: the thought that ie
latent in the preceding verse, ‘‘that Christ
was of eternal being, but became incarnate
and was manifested,” is confirmed.
2 Groundlessly Baumgarten-Crunius asserts
that ¢w7 ‘‘ has here more inner, spiritual mean-
ing than in Gospel 1. 14; this is to mietake
the meaning which the word has in that
passage.
§ The chief elements which are contained
in the idea ¢w7 are differently stated by the
commentators. Frommann mentions as such:
“‘ the truth, perfection, or the llving and happy
character of being;” Kdstlin: ‘the mighti-
ness, blessedness, and endlessness of being.”
If we keep to the scriptural mode of concep-
tion, the chief elements appear to be ‘*con-
sciousness, activity, and happiness;” true
activity le only where consciousnees is, and
happiness is activity which is not disturbed or
hindered by any opposition. — Welss wrongly
infers from Jobn xvii. 3, that by ¢w7 is to be
understood only the knowledge of God, and
CHAP. I. 2. 475
what way the ¢avépwore took place, is taught in chap. iv. 2 and John i.,14.
In this way, that the life which was in itself hidden appeared in the flesh or
became flesh, did it become perceptible by sense, subject of the dxovew, cpav,
x.7.A, Ebrard rightly remarks: “The odp{ yiyveofac indicates the objective
event of the incarnation as such; the gavepw6jva, the result of it for our
faculty of perception.” — xai éwpdxayev xai,x.t.A.]. The object that belongs
to the verbs is tiv Gunv riv aldvov; according to De Wette, Briickner, and
Dusterdieck, this object is only attracted to dnayyéAAouev, and the object is to
be supplied to both of the first verbs from what precedes (fw) ; but the two
ideas paprupeiuev and dzayy. are thereby unduly separated from each other ;
there is more in favor of supplying only an airay with éwpdxauev (1st ed. of
this comm., Myrberg), by which the idea of this verb is significantly brought
out: “the life was manifested, and we have seen it; but as in the context
even this construction is not indicated, it is better, with most commentators,
to connect riv War 7. alév. also with éupdxauev. — By éwpdxauev the apostle
brings out that the eternal Life which was made manifest and perceptible
was seen by himself; the verb uaprupoiuev, which signifies the utterance of
that which one has personally seen or experienced (comp. Gospel of John
xix. 35; also 1 John i. 34, iii. 32),! is directly connected with this, and
thereupon first follows the more general idea dzayyéAAouev; Baumgarten-
Crusius incorrectly refers uaprvpowuev specially to épaveputn, and amayyéAAopev
to éwpdxauev, with the assertion that “the former two have more objective,
the latter more subjective meaning.”2 By ouiv, drayyéAdouev is put in refer-
ence to the readers of the Epistle; hence it does not follow, however, that
it is to be understood only of the writing of this Epistle, and is therefore
simply resumed by ratra yoagoueyv in ver. 4; but the former is the more general
idea, in which the more special one of the writing of the Epistle is embraced ;
the ypagev 18 a particular kind of the anayyeAdev.2 Ebrard incorrectly sepa-
rates the two by referring dmayyéAAouev to the written Gospel of John, and
yoagouer to this Epistle. — rpv Gudy riv aidviov]. The noun is here put for the
pronoun abrqv, not only in accordance with John’s usual mode of expression,
but because the idea of (w7 was to be more particularly defined by aldvuoe.
Baumgarten-Crusius erroneously explains 4 (A 4% alivoc by “ bestowing
higher, unending life ;” rather the go7, which Christ is, is marked by aldvo¢
as such as 77v an’ dpxic, Or, still more comprehensively, as such as, though by
it {s erroneous for him to maintain that » ¢w%
does not here signify Christ Himself, but ‘‘ His
peculiar knowledge of God,” which He pos.
sessed even before His davepwors. The relative
clause qT¢ Ry wpdos Tov wardpa, which ie con.
nected with rny gwnvy thy aiwmnoy, is opposed
to this interpretation; {pasmuch as it shows
that here n (wn 7 avanos, and just as much 7
wy, is to be considered as the same subject
which John in the proocemium of the Gospel
calls o Adéyos, and of which he eays there that
it hv» wpos tov Geor.
1 Incorrectly, a Lapide. ‘Quasi martyres,
i.e., testes Def tum voce, tum vita, tum pas-
sione, morte et martyrio.”
3 Myrberg’s explanation also: “ naprupia
est expertae veritatis simplex confessio, qua
homo eibi fpsi potius, quam aliis consulat:
arayyeAca annuntiatio veritatis cognitae, qua
aliis potius, quam albi ipsi providere studeat,’’
is without grammatical justification.
§ Bengel’s interpretation: ‘* Testimonium,
genus; species duae: annuntiatio et scriptio;
annuntiatio ponit fundamentum, acriptio su-
peraedificat,” is inadmissible.
476 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the incarnation it entered into time, is in itself nevertheless without meas-
ure of time, eternal (Briickner; similarly Braune). It is true, the idea Qa
aisvus has elsewhere in the N. T. admittedly another signification, but this
does not justify the explanation of Calvin: ubi secundo repetit: annuntiamus
vitam aeternam, non dubito quin de effectu loquatur, nempe quod annunliet: bene-
Jficio Christi partam nobis esse vilam. De Wette’s explanation also, that 4 a?
9 alcnioc is an idea “which hovers in the middle between the eternal true
life which is to be appropriated by believers (John xvii. 3), and life in
Christ, so that the first is to be considered in closest connection with
amayyéAAouev, but the second in reference to the reflexive fre vy,” can so much
the less be held correct as the simple and clear thought of the apostle is
thereby rendered complicated and obscure. Of that which the believer
possesses in‘Christ there is here no mention at all, but only of Christ Him-
self; and, besides, that 4 (w) 7 alov. is to the Apostle John not merely a
subjective, but also an objective conception, is proved by chap. v. 11.—
hric qv]. rec is more significant than the simple 7, inasmuch as it makes the
twofold relative clause as containing a confirmation of the preceding state-
ment: éwpdxayev, «.t.A., THY Cony Tiv aidviw.1 — The imperfect #v also does not
here indicate the intemporal existence, but is used in reference to égavepi6n :
ere the Gw7 appeared, it was with the Father. — spac trav marépa; comp. Gos-
pel of John i. 1: xpd¢ rdv Océv. The preposition mpi¢ is often combined with
the accusative in the N. T. in the sense of “with: ” comp. Matt. xiii. 56,
xxvi. 55; but mpoc with the accusative differs from mpé¢ with the dative in
this, that it describes being with one another not as a mere being beside one
another, but as a living connection, a being in intercourse with one another
(so also Braune) ; but we put too much into it, if we find the relationship
of love directly expressed by zpd¢.2_ John does not mean to bring out that the
Som (Christ) was connected with the Father in love, but that Christ already
was, before He appeared (égavepwen); before He was év ro xéoxy with men,
He was therefore in heaven with God, and, indeed, in lively union with
God as he afterwards entered into a lively communion with men. Quite
erroneously, Socin, Grotius, and others understand the expression of the
1 The statement of Ebrard fs inapposite,
that by nres the subject-matter of the relative
clause {is stated as an already (from ver. 1)
known and at the same time acknowledged
element of the substantive idea on which the
relative clause depends. The right view seems
to lie at the base of the explanation of Sander:
‘*I declare unto you eternal life, even as such
as,’’ etc.; at least, it ls not touched at by the
remark of Ebrard in opposition: ‘ The mean.
ing of John is plainly thie, that the ¢. aiwy. is
really and in itself one which was with the
Father and was manifested to us, and is by no
means represented as such merely in the
proclamation of it.” Dtisterdieck rightly
says: “By Aris the twofold extension of the
predicate ts connected with the subject 9 ¢.
aiwy., not merely in simply relative manner,
but in such a way that the extension of the
predicate contains at the same time an explan-
atory and confirmatory reference; ’’ but it ja
difficult to admit that by virtue of pris the cac
édavepwOn ynucv in its close connection with
Rv mp. 7. war, is marked as the connecting link
which unites to 6 jv am’ apy. the accessory
elements 0 axynxoapey, x.T.A,
1 Besser: ‘‘The Word was with God, re-
lated to the Father fn fllial loce.’’ Still tese
justifiable is Ebrard’s explanation: * The gw
was a life flowing forth indeed from the bosom
of the Father, but Immediately returning to it,
floating in the inner ciroulation of the life of
God *(!).
CHAP. I. 3. 477
concealment of the tu aidyv. in the decree of God. From the fact that John
here calls God in His relation to Christ rarjp, it follows that the sonship of
Christ to God is to be regarded not as first begun with His incarnation, but
as pre-mundane. — xa? égavepwOn juiv is not a mere repetition of what has been
already said, but in 7uiv a new element is added, by which éwpdxauev and 6
axnxoauev, x.t.A., ver. 1, find their explanation.
Ver. 3. In the opening words of this verse, 6... daxnxéayev, the object
expressed in ver. 1 is resumed, and the governing verb, which was there
already in the apostle’s view, is added. The drift of this verse does not,
however, lie in this, but rather in the final clause: iva, «7.4. While John
first meant to state what was the subject of his proclamation, namely, that
it was that which was from the beginning and was perceived by his senses,
—which he then more particularly defined in ver. 2,—he now wants to
state the purpose of this proclamation of that subject. In this lies the
reason why the object is resumed in abridged form, namely, in the form
which the immediately preceding words (xai égavepotn juiv) suggested. The
& hy an’ dpxyic, and similarly the 5 é¢eacaue6a, was not to be resumed; the
former, because it has been fully dealt with in what follows it; the latter,
because it was not here in the purpose of the apostle once more to bring out
the reality of the sensuous appearance of Him who was from the beginning.
That éwpaxayev is placed before dxyxéayev, in which no artificial parallelism is
to be sought for (against Ebrard), resulted naturally from the interweaving
of éupdxauev into ver. 2 (De Wette). —dnayyéAdouev nat tpiv; with drayyéA-
Aourv, comp. ver. 2.— xai (see the critical remarks) distinguishes the readers
either from others to whom the apostle had declared the same thing
(Spener, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Myrberg,
Braune, etc.), or from John (along with the other apostles). Lorinus: vos
qui nimirum non audistis, nec vidistis, nec manibus vestris contrectastis verbum
vitae ; so also Zwingli, Bullinger, Ebrard. The latter interpretation would
be preferable, if the following xai before ipeic, to which the same reference
is to be attributed, did not thereby become pleonastic. — iva xai iuei¢ xowwwviav
Eynze u20’ nudv]. Many commentators, as Socin, Bengel, Russmeyer, Spener,
and others, supply with «avwriay as enlargement: “with God and Christ; ”
without adequate ground; the enlargement of the idea xowvuria is ped’ quav
(Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Braune), whereby, however, John does
not mean “the apostles and other Christians” (De Wette), but himself,
although including the other apostles, who have also seen and heard the
Word of Life. This xomwvie is self-evidently the fellowship of spirit in
faith and love, which was brought about by the apostolic preaching. — éyev
is neither to be explained, with a Lapide, by pergere et in ea (xowwvia) profi-
cere et confirmari, nor, with Fritzsche, by “to acquire; ” the word is rather to
be retained in the signification peculiar to it; the apostle simply indicates
the having fellowship as the aim of the apostolic proclamation, quite apart
from the question as to how the hearers of this are related to that. —xal q
Kowvuvia dé 7 juetipa, x.7.A.}. By 7 xowwvia 7 juetépa Most commentators under-
stand “the fellowship which the apostles and the believing hearers of their
proclamation have with one another,” and, according as 7 or éori is supplied,
478 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
have thus defined the thought of the verse, that the apostle states of this
mutual fellowship that it either should be or is a fellowship with the Father
and the Son. But as this view necessitates a scarcely justifiable enlarge-
ment of the idea xowwvia (7 xowwvia 7 querépa y [or tori] xowwvia pera rt. ratp.,
x.7.A,),! the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius, who resolves 4 cov. 7 jueréva
into jueic Exouev xowwwviay perd 7, narp., deserves the preference (so also Ewald,
Braune); taking this explanation, the xowwvia meant here is not identical
with that mentioned before, inasmuch as the distinction is marked both by
the difference of the subject, ipeic and qyeic (which is contained in juerépa),
and that of the object, ued’ quay and pera rod marpéc. According to this accep-
tation, the apostle here brings out that he (along with the rest of the apos-
tles) has fellowship with the Father and with the Son, and, no doubt, in
order to intimate by this that his readers, if they have fellowship with him,
are thereby received with him into that fellowship. It is at all events
incorrect, with Augustin, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard, etc., to supply 7
with this sentence. In opposition to it are: (1) the structure of the sen-
tence, for if it were dependent on iva, the verb could not be omitted ;? and
(2) the thought, for as the apostles are already in fellowship with the
Father and with the Son, it cannot be the aim of their dmayyeAia to elevate
the fellowship which exists between them, and those who accept their word,
into fellowship with the Father and with the Son. Therefore it is éori that
must be supplied, as Erasmus, a Lapide, Vatablus, Hornejus, De Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune, etc., have
rightly recognized. The conjunction xa? .. . dé, which is pretty often found
in the N. T., is used when the idea which is connected with a preceding one
is at the same time to be contrasted with it; “the introduction of something
new is thereby intimated” (Pape, see on «ai... dé). Whether it be the
connection or the contrast which is to be the more emphasized, this particle
is never used to resume an idea with the view to a further expression of it.
This usage therefore also proves that by # xow. 4 fuerépa it is not the previ-
ously mentioned xowwvia ped’ jucv, but another fellowship, namely, the fel-
lowship of the jyeic, i.e., of John and the other apostles (not with one another,
but) with the Father and with the Son, that is meant. God is here called
1 This enlargement is involuntarily made
by the commentators — although they do not
mention it; thus by Liicke, when he explains:
“‘that ye may have fellowship with us: but
(not with us only, but — ye know) our fellow-
ship with one another is also éhat with the
Father and with the 8on;” similarly by
Diisterdieck; Ebrard also says: ‘‘It is the
purpose of John In his amayyeAca, that his
readers may enter into fellowship with the
disciples, and that this fellowship may have
its life-principle in the fellowship with the
Father and with the Son.”’
? The omission of éort very often occurs;
on the other hand, 7j is rery seldom omitted in
the N. T., only in 1 Cor. vill. 11 and 13 (still
stronger is the ellipsis in Rom. iv. 16); thus
even with Paul, who eo frequently expresses
only the outlines of the thought, the sub.
junctive of the substantive verb is almost never
omitted; how much less can it be held as
omitted in a construction of periods otherwise
quite conformable to rule, in the second part
of the dependent clause!
8 For the usage of cai... de, comp.
Matt. xvi. 18; Mark iv. 36; Luke if. 35;
Acts fifi. 24, xxil. 29; Heb. fx. 21; and in
Gospel of Jobn vi. 51, vill. 16, 17, xv. 27.
Lticke wrongly says that the particle is used
for the more exact definition, expansion, and
strengthening of a preceding thought, and that
there is contained in ft an ‘‘ at the same time”
CHAP. I. 4, 8. 479
ratyp in relation to rod vlov abrov. — The full description of Christ as roi vlod
avtow 'Inoot Xporod serves to bring out the identity of that which was from
the beginning with Him who became man.
Ver. 4. After stating the subject and aim of his apostolic proclamation,
the apostle intimates specially the aim of this Epistle. —xa? raira ypagouev
iyiv. By «ai, ypagovey is made co-ordinate with amayyéAAouer, the particular
with the general, not the composition of the Epistle with that of the Gospel
(Ebrard). raira refers neither merely to what precedes (Russmeyer, Sander),
nor merely to what immediately follows (Socin), but to the whole Epistle
(Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck). With ypagouev tuiv, comp. ii. 1, 12, v. 13.
The plural is used because John as an apostle writes in the consciousness
that Ais written word is in full agreement with the preaching of all the
apostles; all the apostles, as it were, speak through him to the readers of
the Epistle. —iva # yapd tyov y menAnpwuévn. Comp. with this John xv. 11,
xvii. 13. The aim of the Epistle is the rAjpwor of joy which it, as apostolic
testimony to the salvation founded on the ¢avépwor of the (ui aldvog (ver. 2),
was to produce in its readers. De Wette groundlessly thinks that the effect,
namely, the perfected Christian frame of mind, is here put for the cause,
namely, Christian perfection. It is rather very especially the perfect yaoa
(not merely “the joy of conflict and victory,” Ebrard) that is the goal to
which the apostle would lead his readers by this Epistle. With the reading
fucy it is the yapa of the apostles — first of all of John — that is the goal,
and no doubt the joy which for them consists in this, that their word
produces fruit in their hearers.!' Incorrectly Ebrard: “ If qucv is right, then
the apostle resumes the mutual jyerépa: that our (common) joy may be
full;” for, on the one hand, querépa is not mutual (embracing the apostles
and the readers), and, on the other, #ucv would have to be referred to the
fueic that is contained in )papouer, but not to the more remote jyerépa.
Ver. 5-chap. ii. 11.
After the apostle has indicated the fulness of joy, which is in the
fellowship with the Father and with the Son, as the aim of his Epistle, he
brings out in what follows, from the point of view that God is gig (ver. 5),
in opposition to moral indifferentism, the condition under which alone that
fellowship can exist.
Ver. 5. This verse contains no inference from what precedes («ai is
not = igitur, Beza), but the thought that lays the foundation for what
follows. — geri airy 7 ayyeAia, “and this is the message ;” Eorw is here put —
or ‘‘notonly ... butaleo.” It must also be
held as erroneous when Dileterdieck says:
“John has juet spoken of a ‘ fellowship
with us;’ now he wants to expand ¢this idea
further; therefore he continues: ‘and our
fellowship’—the new explanatory thought,
however, forma a certain antithesis to what
waa previously said: but our fellowship is not
eo much the fellowship with us as rather that
with the Father and with the Son.” — Apart
from the fact that cai... de has not the force
of such a restriction (not so much... as
rather), who does not feel that, if Joho wanted
to express this thought, he would have had to
write not yHmerepa, but vuerepa, or rather:
autn 82 xowwwna?
1 Theophyl.: yuev yap vuiy Kcotwwvourrey
wAcioTny éxouey THY Xapay Huw, hy Tos Oepic-
Tais 6 xatper Owopers ey TH Tou uraOou amoArWee
BpaBevon, yatpovtey cai TOUTwY OTL TwY TOVwY
avTwy awoAavove..
480 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
contrary to its usual position, comp. ii. 25, iii. 11, 23, iv. 3, etc. — before
airy “in order to mark the reality of the message” (Braune); afry here —
as elsewhere also—refers to what follows: ére 4 Qedc, «.7.4., by which the
subject-matter of the message is stated. Calvin incorrectly, following
the reading énayyeAia: promissio, quam vobis afferimus, hoc secum trahit, vel hanc
conditionem habet annexam. — The word dyyeAia only here and iii. 11 (where,
however, it is also not unopposed) ; frequently in the LXX., 2 Sam. iv. 4;
Prov. xii. 26, xxv. 26, xxvi. 16; Isa. xxviii. 9; Jer. xlviii.34. The reading
éayyedia is more difficult with the meaning “ promise;” yet this may be
justified in so far as every N. T. proclamation carries with it a promise.?
De Wette prefers this reading, but takes érayyedia, following the example of
Oecumenius, a Lapide, Beza, Hornejus, etc., — contrary to the constant usus
loguendi of the N. T.,—in the signification: “ announcement” (Lange:
‘ teaching "). — fv axnxdapev an’ abrov, “from Him, that is, Christ.” Instead
of ao, it is more usual to have mapa, comp. John viii. 26, 40, xv. 15; Acts
x. 22, xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2. —airdg in the Epistle, not always (Paulus,
Baumgarten-Crusius) indeed, but mostly, refers to God, while éxeivog refers
always to Christ; here it refers backwards to rob viod abrov ‘I. Xp, in ver. 3;
Diisterdieck : “From Him, Christ, the Son of God manifested in: the flesh
(ver. 3), whom the apostle himself has heard (ver. 1 ff.), has he received
the message about the Father.” In favor of the correctness of this
explanation is also the following: 6érz 6 @coc.2 — cal dvayyéAAouev tiv].
avay)éAdev is synonymous with dmayyéAdev, vv. 2 and 3, only that in dva the
idea “again” is contained; Erasmus: quod filius annuntiavit a patre, hoc
apostolus acceptum a filio RENUNCIAT.8 This dvayyéAAouev refers back with
peculiar subtleness to the preceding dyyeAia, and thus testifies to the
correctness of that reading (Diisterdieck). The subject is, as in vv. 2 and 3,
John and the rest of the apostles. To reduce their proclamation to the
word which they heard from Christ Himself serves to confimn its truth;
comp. the combination of da«otew and amayyeAdew in ver. 8. Ebrard wrongly
interprets this dvayyeAAouev also of the proclamation of John which occurred
in his Gospel, to which this Epistle is related as the concentrating develop-
ment.4— dri 6 Oxvde gu éori]. gd¢ 18 inappropriately translated by Luther:
“alight; the article weakens the thought; God is light, i.e., God's nature
is light = absolute holiness and truth (comp. chap. iv. 8; Gospel of John
cording to which, on account of the conjunctio
inter Deum et Christum (which Socinua,
1 Spener: ‘* Promise; inasmuch as, in what
follows, a promise is really invoived. God is
not only a light in Himself, but to believers
He is alao their light. And that ie the prom-
ise.”*
2 The use of this pronoun even where the
reference is obscure is caused by this, that
John does not think of the Father without
the Son, or the Son without the Father; the
thought therefore remaina essentially the same,
whether we refer it in the first instance to the
Father or to the Son; notwithstanding, how-
ever, the view of Socinus is unjustitiable, ac-
moreover, holds not as a conjunctio essentiae,
but only as a conjunctio voluntatis et rerum
aliarum omnium), by avrov is here to be
understood equally God and Christ.
3 Bengel: *‘ Quae in ore Christi fuit ayyeAia,
eam apostoll avayyeAAovor; DAM ayyeAtay ab
ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant.”
* According to Ewald, John is bere quoting
a definite utterance of Christ; possibly, but
not necessarily.
CHAP. I. 6, 481
iv. 24).!. For the signification of the symbolical expression “ light,” comp.
especially Jas. i. 13, 17. — As God is gd¢ in absolute sense, so also all light
outside of Ilim is the radiation of His nature, as all love flows forth from
Him whose nature is aydry; comp. chap. iv. 7 ff. — «al oxoria év aire ob« Eorw
ovdeuia]. The thought contained in the foregoing is emphasized by the
negation of its opposite, which is here expressed in the strongest manner by
ox . . . ovdeuia, in accordance with John’s diction (comp. chap. ii. 4, 18,
etc.). — oxoria: antithesis of gdc: sin and falsehood; the same antithesis is
frequently in the N. T.; comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8 ff.; 1 Thess. v.
4,5. In opposition to the general prevalent explanation given here, Weiss
thus explains the sense of this verse: “God is light, i.e., He has become
visible, capable of being known, namely, in Christ, who certainly proclaims
this truth; there is no more any darkness in God at all, ie., no part of His
nature remains any longer dark and unknown; He has (in Christ) become
completely revealed.” This interpretation, to which Weiss is led by the
erroneous supposition that the idea gdc has, in the N. T., no ethical
reference,? is refuted both by the form of expression, which exhibits ga¢
(just as dyamy, chap. iv. 8) as a description of the nature of God, and also
by the train of thought, in so far as the truth expressed here forms the
starting-point for all the following amplifications — which bear on the ethical
relationship of Christians. Besides, the apostle would have insufficiently
expressed the thought, as he would have left out the essential tv Xpior@,
which Weiss unjustifiably inserts. John rightly puts the truth that God is
light, as the chief subject-matter of the dyyedia of Christ, at the top of his
development; for it forms the essential basis of Christianity, both in its
objective and in its subjective subsistence; in it there lies, as well as
judgment in regard to sin, so also salvation from sin by the incarnation and
death of Christ, as well as necessity of repentance and faith, so also the
moral exercise of the Christian life.
Ver. 6. Inference froin ver. 5. He alone has fellowship with God, who
does not walk in darkness. — éav ciruuev]. The same form of speech (éév) is
repeated from verse to verse (only with the exception of ii. 2) until chap.
ii. 8; then appears the participle with the definite article: 6 Aéyu», ii. 4, vi.
9; ddyaray, ii. 10; 5 woody, ii. 11.— The use of the hypothetical particles,
especially of é#v, is also found very often in the Gospel.? On the first person
1 The fulness of the references contained in knowledge and not to the ethical state, {s so
these words, Lorinus states in the following
manner: ‘Deus lux est, quia clarissime se
ipsum percipit, omniaque in se ipso, utpote
prima et ipeiseima veritas; quia summe bonus,
ac summa et ipsiseima bonitas; fidelis abeque
ulla iniquitate, justus et rectus, quia fons om-
nis lucis fin alils 1. e. veritatis atque virtutls,
non solum Illustrans mentem, docensque quid
agendum eit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut
agamus et eic radiis suis liberans mentem ab
ignorantiae tenebris, purgans a pravitate
voluntatem."
1 The assertion that ¢os refers ouly to
much the more untenable, as Weiss himeelf
describes this knowledge as ‘‘ the ¢rue knowl-
edge of God, i.e., such that the entire spiritual
life of man is absorbed in It, so that he js
henceforth completely in God,”’ or “in which
the object of cognition is received into the
whole spiritual life of man in such a way that
it becomes a force, iuspiring and determining,
or ruling, the latter In its totality.” But even
such a cognition must certainly be regarded as
an ethical act.
3 éav is used — as Winer says, p. 273 (E. T.,
291) — with the idea of an objective possibility,
482 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
plural, Lorinus says: suam quoque in hac hypothesi personam conjugit, ut lenius
ac facilius agat; better Liicke: “By the communicative and hypothetical
form, the language gains, on the one hand, in refining delicacy, and, on the
other, in more general reference and force; “ unsatisfactorily Ebrard: “The
first person plural serves only to express the general ‘we.’” — dr socvwriav
- Eyouev per’ airad. See ver. 3. Fellowship with God forms the innermost
essence of all true Christian life. — nal tv 19 oxéree mepenatauev. Comp. Gospel
of John viii. 12. év rq oxdret weperareiv is not merely “not to know whither
we are going” (Luther), but to live in darkness, i.e., in sin, as our element.
According to Weiss, who denies to the oxéroc, as well as to the contrasted
¢oc, an ethical reference, it is = “to walk in the unenlightened state; but
is not this just the very state in which the life is ruled by sin ? — Bengel, for
more particular definition, rightly adds: actione interna et externa, quoque nos
vertimus ; such a walking in darkness is all life whose principle is not the
love of God.! — pevdoueda nai of rovobpev ri GAnseav; for, ric xowwrvia gurl mpdc
oxéroc; (2 Cor. vi. 14). yevddueda expresses the moral objectionableness of
such a contradiction between the deed and the word. — The negative clause
is not a mere repetition of the same thought, but introduces along with it a
new idea: wpevdoueda refers to eirupev; ob rocoiuev r. dA, refers back to éy 1, ox,
neptratapev ; for moelvy ryv aa. is not merely = dAndebers (Eph. iv. 15), but
signifies the practice of dAj@ea in word and deed ; comp. John ili. 21, where
it is contrasted with gui2a mpaocev, and is used expressly of gpya. In the
common interpretation, according to which it is = ayere candide, sincere
(Cyprian, Theodorus, Socinus, Grotius, etc.), rv dAnGecav does not receive its
due force; by the article the idea is specified in its complete generality and
objectivity: ‘the true,” i.e., that which corresponds to the nature and will of
God (Briickner, Braune), although it must be admitted that the general idea
is here used with special reference to the desirable conformity between word
and deed ; emphasis is thereby given to the fact that in the case mentioned
in éqv, a.7.4., the alleged xowuvia with God is practically denied. In De
Wette'’s explanation: “to do that which corresponds to the nature of Chris-
tian fellowship,” a meaning is given to the expression which is neither
indicated in the word nor in the train of thought.
Ver. 7. This verse does not merely repeat in its antithetical form the
preceding thought, but contains also — as is peculiar to John’s lively fertility
of ideas —an expansion of it. — éay 62 év ro gurl meptrarcuer i8 contrasted
not only with the preceding (édav) év r@ oxorec xepematduev, but also with éav
eitupev, Ste xowv, &x. wet’ abrov (so also Ebrard), thus: “if we do not merely say
that we have fellowship with God, and yet at the same time walk in dark-
j.e., when the particular event is to be repre-
sented simply as objectively possible, and the
epeaker does not want to express his subjective
view of it (whether he considers it probable,
desirable, etc.). A Tertium non datur (Ebrard)
is not contained in it.
2 That fn weperarety there is a reference to
the outward manner of life, is self-evident, but
that ft only signifies this, an visible by the eyes
af men, to the exclusion of the Inner activity
of life, is an unfounded assertion of [brard.
The commentators rightly polnt out that this
wepmarey «vy oeore is different from ‘the
failing and falling, through over-haste and
weakness, in temptation and in conflict”
(Gerlach); “it does not mean. atill to have
darkness in us”’ (Spener).
CHAP. I. 7. 483
ness, but if we really walk éy 1 guri.” — év ro gurl reptrareiy is not “to strive
after likeness to God” (Lucke), but so to walk that the light (by which,
however, we are not, with Weiss, to understand only knowledge) is the
element in which our light moves; this, however, is a life which does not
consist in striving after likeness to God, but which has this already as its
own, or which is an éyew cowwviay per’ abroi with Him who is light. This
unity between walking in the light, and fellowship with God, is even more
clearly brought out by the following words: o¢ avrég tori fy rH guri]. dx,
because it is the same element in which the true Christian walks, and in
which God “lives and works” (Diisterdieck, Briickner), inasmuch as the
Christian has become 6eiac xowwwrde gicews (2 Pet. i. 4). —abrig refers back to
avrov, ver. 6, and is put for Ged¢. The idea “that God is in the light,” is the
same as this, “ that God is light,” that which is the nature of God is also
the element of His life; the expression used here is occasioned by the
preceding év ro gwr? meperareiv. Ebrard incorrectly explains: “God has
chosen for His habitation the spheres of the sinless, holy, and pure life
of the angels and those made perfect; there is not the slightest hint at
such a conception in the context. As Weiss denies to the expression gd¢
an ethical reference, and explains év rd gurl mepizareiv = “to walk in a
state of right knowledge,” the clause de abrég torw dv rH gwri necessarily
causes him a difficulty which he can only solve by the supposition “that an
idea similar to that in 1 Tim. vi. 16 was before the apostle’s mind, and
that he institutes a parallel between the walk of the Christian in the
light of true knowledge, and the dwelling of God in the brightness of His
glory,” in which it is plainly ignored that the second éy 7 guwri must neces-
sarily have the same meaning as the first év r@ guri. — ior: i8 contrasted with
meptratauev; the former is peculiar to God, the latter to men; the former
(being) to Him who is eternal, the latter (walking) to him who is temporal.
— xowwviav Exyouev wet’ GAAnAwy)]. Several commentators wrongly deviate from
the statement of the apostle, by interpreting as if “ yer’ atrov”” were used in-
stead of yer’ dAApAuy, as indeed the reading of some is (see the critical notes);
or by understanding, quite unsuitably, aA;jawy of God and men; so Calvin:
quod dicit, societatem esse nobis mutuam, non simpliciter ad homines refertur, sed
Deum in una parte, nos autem in altera; the same interpretation in Augustin,
Beza, Socinus, Hornejus, Lange, Spener, Russmeyer, Ewald, etc. De Wette,
it is true, interprets dAA7Aw» correctly, but supplies “ vera rod Ocoi,” thus: “ we
have fellowship one with another, namely, with God.” Against this explana-
tion are: first, that then John would not have mentioned the very leading
thought; and, secondly, that a tautological idea results from it (Liicke), for
& weptrareiv tv TH gui 18 Only possible through the «owuvia pera rod Oeod, nay,
even is the necessary proof of it. The subject here is much rather the
fellowship of Christians with one another (Bede, Lyranus, Grotius, Wolf,
Bengel, Semler, Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Sander, Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Braune, Briickner, etc.), and indeed quite generally; not, as Bengel
considers, so that the apostle and his readers (nos et vos) would be regarded
as the fwo parts bound together. The brotherly fellowship of Christians
with one another é dyamy presupposes therefore the walking in light, or in
484 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
fellowship with God, of which it is the necessary consequence. — With such
a walk a second element is, however, united, namely, xa? rd alua "Iycod Tov viod
atrov xadapiler nudco and maone auaprtiac. — rd alua 'Incov is not a metonymical
expression for “the consideration of His death” (Socinus, Episcopius, Gro-
tius, etc.),! but the blood which Jesus (thus spoken of here as incarnate)
shed as an offering at his death; or, the bloody sacrificial death of the Lord
(Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).?— roi viob abrov is “not merely added as a
name of honor,” but also not “to indicate the close connection between the
cause of God and Christ,” as Baumgarten-Crusius says, but in order to bring
out the identity of the crucified One with the Son of God (so also the incar-
nation of the Son of God); compare chap. v. 6; at the same time, however,
there lies in it an indication how the blood of Jesus can have the effect
which the apostle attributes to it (so also Ebrard). —xa6apiler nude axd muonc
Guaprias may mean either the cleansing from guilt, i.e., the forgiveness of
sins (Bede, Socinus, a Lapide, Calov, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann,
Weiss, etc.), or cleansing from sin itself, its eradication (Liicke, Frommann,
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Myrberg, Braune, Ewald, etc.), or, finally, both to-
gether (Spener, Hornejus, Bengel, De Wette, Briickner). According to
ver. 9, where dguévat tag duapriag and xadaplfew dnd méane aduciag are placed
together, and thus distinguished from one another, the second view must be
regarded as the correct one,’ as indeed the context also demands; for, as
the fact that even the believer has still continually sin is in opposition to the
exhortation to zepimareiv év 7) guri, the apostle had to point out that sin
is ever disappearing more and more, and how, so that the walk which is
troubled by it may still be considered as a walk in light, and that in spite of
sin, there may exist a fellowship with God, who is light. As zeperareiv ly ro
guri is given as the condition (not as the means, which the blood of Christ
is) of xadapigecba, and as the subject here therefore is not the change, wrought
by the blood of Christ, of man from a child of darkness into a child of
light, but the growing transformation of him who has already become a
child of light, the present «adapifec is not to be turned into the preterite, but
is to be retained as the present; Spener: “He purifies us ever more and
more until the final perfect purity.” Comp. Gospel of John xv. 2.4— ana
1 That the operation of the blood of Jesus
on.us is to be regarded as conditioned by
faith, ja evident; but there is no justification
in this for paraphrasing ro alua by “ faith in
the blood.”
2 It is unjustifiable for Myrberg to say:
**Quum hic sanguis nominatur, de toto opere
Christi Mediatoria, immo de toto Christo Deum
nobis et nos Deo reconciliante ac opus divinum
in nobis operante cogitare debemus.”’
3 Against Erdmann’s assertion: ‘‘ Quum
notio aizaros J. Chriati In a. ecriptia aeque ac
mors ejus semper vim expiandi habeat atque
idem quod iAacuds significet (fi. 2), etiam bh. 1.
expiatio ab apoatolo designatur, qua sola fiert
potest, ut peccata nobis condonentur,” tt 1s to
be observed that in Scripture the ris expiandi
only is by no means ascribed to the blood of
Christ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. In opposition to
the assertion of Welss, that “we cannot
imagine how the blood of Christ should effect
a deliverance from sin,’’ it may be stated
that a forgiveness of sin which produces no
deliverance from sin, ie no true forgiveness;
comp. Tit. il. 14. Forgiveness is here to be
associated with the thought only in so far as
it is the necessary presupposition of that
deliverance.
4 In what this purifying efficacy of the
alua “Incov is founded, John does not here
say; but from the fact that in ver. 9 the adievar
Tas amaprias is put before the xadapgey, and
CHAP. I. 8. 485
naonc duapriac, “ from every sin;” sins are regarded as the single dark spots
which still continually trouble the Christian's walk in light. The «ai which
connects the two parts of the subordinate clause is explained by Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Beza, Lange, Semler, etc. = nam. Sander recognizes the
grammatical incorrectness of this interpretation, but is of opinion that the
second clause is to be taken as causal as the basis and condition of the first ;
but even this is arbitrary. According to De Wette, “xai connects directly
with the idea of fellowship the progressive and highest perfection of it;”
but this view is founded on the incorrect assumption that the subject of the
first clause is fellowship with God. Ebrard thinks that John in these two
clauses together expresses the idea of xocwuria with God, while he “analyzes
it forthwith into its two elements: the fellowship of believers with one
another, and the fellowship and participation in the divine vital power ;”
but it is in the first place incorrect to describe the xowwvia wer’ GAARAwY a8 an
element of the xowwvia pera rob Oecd, and in the second place the purifying
efficacy of the blood of Jesus can much less be regarded as an element of it;
besides, Ebrard has clearly been induced to add the word “ participation,”
through the perception that the idea of fellowship is quite unsuitable to the
second clause. While the xcowuria yerd tov Oecd is manifestly pre-supposed
before the repirareiv ty ro gwri, these two clauses express rather the “double
fruit of our walk in light, of our living fellowship with God, who is light”
(Disterdieck) ; but when John puts xowuvria yer’ dAAndAwy first, he thereby
indicates that it is the sphere within which the purifying power of the blood
of Christ operates on each individual (Brickner, Braune). Besides, it may
be observed that the second clause is intended to point out the progressive
growth of Christian life, and cannot therefore suitably precede the first
clause.
Ver. 8. Purification from sin presupposes the existence of sin even in
believers; the denial of this is self-deception. —édy eciruyev; as in ver. 6;
thereby is meant not merely “the speech of the heart” (Spener), but the
actual expression and assertion. — drt dyapriav otx tyouev]. The view of
Grotius,! that this refers to sinning before conversion, and that duapria there-
fore means the guilt of sin, is rightly rejected by Liicke, Sander, etc. — The
question, especially of earlier commentators, whether ducpria is here original
sin (or sinfulness, as Weiss still thinks) or actual sin ( pecc. actuale), desire
(concupiscentia) or deed, is solved by the fact that the idea is considered
quite generally by the apostle (so also Braune) — only, of course, with the
Christ tn chap. fi. 2 is described as iAacuds, it
follows, that according to John the purifying
power is associated with the blood of Christ in
eo far as it is the blood of atonement. Ebrard
improperly separates the two elements from
one avother, ascribing to the death of Christ
“the power of purifying our hearts from sin,
because in Christ's death sin Is condemned ;”
and, on the other band, “‘ the power of making
atonement and obtaining forgiveness, because
in Christ's death the debt was paid and mercy
procured.””—- When Frommann says, ‘* The
power that purifies from sin does not exactly
lie in the blood of Christ itself, but in the
love of God, of which Christ in His bloody
death is the most speaking token, and of the
existence of which He supplies the most
unquestionable evidence,’’ this is clearly an
inadmissible twisting of the apostic’s worda.
1 «¢ Habere peccatum, non est: nunc in pec-
cato esse, sed ob peccatum reum posee fieri.””
486 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
exception of the sin spoken of in chap. v. 16. The first person plural éyouev
is to be noticed in so far as the having sin is thereby represented as some-
thing that is true of ali Christians. The expression dyapriav tyew describes
in a quite general way the taint of sin; only of the absolutely pure, in whom
no trace of sin exists, is it true that he duapriav ob« Eyer; the relation of this
duapriav Eyew to nepirateiv dv re oxdrec (ver. 6), in which the will of man serves
sin (or in which sin is the dominating principle of life), is therefore not that
of contrast (say in this way, that duapriay tyew is a being tainted with sin,
where no act of will takes place),! but is to be defined thus, that the latter
(repirareiv év tO oxdret) is a particular species of duapriav ~zev. Even though
as Christians, who are born of God, we have no longer sin in the sense that
repir, év 7a oxdre is true of us, nevertheless we do not yet cease to have sin;
if we deny this, if we maintain that we have no sin at all, then what John
says in the following words is the case with us. éavrov¢g mAavayer; not =
‘we are mistaken,” which rAaveuesa would mean; ? but, as Sander explains,
“we mislead ourselves, take ourselves astray from salvation (or better, from
truth);” by that assertion, which is a lie (not an unconscious mistake), the
Christian (for the apostle is not here speaking of non-Christians) deceives
himself about the truth, for which he leaves no room in himself. Braune
rightly observes that égavrdv mAaviév emphasizes the self-activity, which the
middle with its passive form leaves in the background. — xa? 7 GAjdea tv piv
ob« Eorv is not a mere repetition of favroi¢g rAaveyev, but adds to this another
new element. —% dAjGea, a8 in ver. 6, is neither = studium veri (Grotius),
nor = castior cognitio (Semler), nor even = uprightness, or truthfulness
(Liicke in his 2d ed.), or, as De Wette explains, “the veracity of self-
knowledge and self-examination ;”*® but truth in its objective character
(Liicke in his 1st ed., Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune).
Baumgarten-Crusius rightly says: ‘ dA##ea does not need to be taken in a
subjective sense, the subjective lies in obx forw év jyiv.’”? The expressions
used here: éavr, rAavdyev and 7 dA, obx, Eotw év juiv, are not milder (Sander)
than the corresponding expressions in ver. 6: pevddueda and ob rowipev ry
aAjdecav, but stronger (Ebrard), since in éavr. 7A. the self-injury, and in 7
GAZ0. ovx Ear év quiv the negation of possession of the truth, are more sharply
marked.
Ver. 9. Not a mere antithesis of the previous verse, but an expansion of
the thought; “ there follows as conclusion not merely this, that we are then
true, but the incomparably greater and surprisingly glorious thought that
God then proves Ilimself actually towards us as the True, as the mord¢ xal
1 Even Ebrard does not correctly state the
relation of the two expressions to one another,
when he says that “in ¢xe» auapriay man is
not in auapria, but avapria is in man,” for
plainly he also who {s in auapria has this in
himself.
3 When Ebrard, in opposition to this, re-
marks that it cannot be asserted ‘‘that tho
middle wAavac@a: means ‘to be mistaken,’
and wAavay <cavtoy, on the other hand, ‘to
mislead one’s self,’” this is not at all to the
point, since it is not said that rAavacGa: has
alwaye the meaning ‘‘to be mistaken,” but
that the German ‘sich irren’’ [Engl. “to be
mistaken’’] is expressed in Greek not by
wAavay éautoyv, but by rAavacOa.
3 Ewald’s explanation is also unsatisfactory:
“Truth about this relation of things, and
therefore easliy about every other also.’
CHAP. I. 9. 487
dixatog”” (Ebrard). — éav cyodoyapev rac duapriag quay). duodoyeiv does not mean
to recognize (Socinus: confiteri significat interioren ac profundam suorum
peccatorum agnitionem),! but to confess; of course it is manifest that the
confession is not here spoken of as a purely outward act; still, at the same
time, it is not sufficient to regard it merely as “an inward fact, which is
founded on the whole internal tendency of the mind” (Neander); it
is rather the real (even if not always vocal) expression of sins recognized
within and confessed to one’s self ;. here also it is the word in which the inner
life has to operate. —- What are to be confessed are ai duapria: fucy, i.e., the
sins of Christians, which are the particular manifestations of duapricy Exew
(so also Braune) ; therefore the plural. — Ebrard rightly calls attention to
the fact that John here mentions, as the subject of the confession, not the
abstract duapriav fyev, but rac duapriac, i.e., the definite, concrete, single sins
committed ; “the mere confession in the abstract that we have sin would
not have truth without the acknowledgment of the concrete particular sins,
but would shrivel up into a mere phrase.” — musrég gore xat dixatoc]. It is true
God is both in Himself, He does not become so only when we confess our
sins; but this confession is the condition on which He actually proves
Himself to us as sicrog xal dixawc.4 These two epithets are indeed not of the
same signification, but still, as their combination proves, of cognate meaning.
God is called moré;, inasmuch as He, as the promise-maker, also fulfils what
He has promised, Heb. x. 23: mordc 6 émnay yetAduevog; Heb. xi. 11; especially
as He accomplishes in believers the promise of blessing, which lies for them
in the fact of their eall, by conducting them through manifestation of His
grace to the goal of their calling (according to Ewald, “inasmuch as He
keeps His promise already repeatedly given in the O. T.”), 1 Cor. i. 9: moradg
6 Oeoc, di’ ob ExANGnTe el notvwviay Tov vlod avrov; X. 13; 2 Cor. 1. 18-21; 1 Thess.
v.24: morde 6 addy tucic, d¢ nal rojo; 2 Thess. ili. 3. mordc has this meaning
here also, as results from the following ta, «.r.A, Ebrard incorrectly calls
the reference of the faithfulness of God here to His promises and prophecies
an introduction of foreign ideas, and says “the subject here is faithfulness
to the nature of truth and light, akin to His own nature, and which prevails
in us, inasmuch as we confess our sins.” — God is described as dixcawc in the
N. T., inasmuch as He, for the realization of His kingdom of grace, gives
1 Similarly Baumgarten -Crusius says:
*Ouodoyety is not exactly to confess, but to
recognize, perceive, become conscious of, as
opposed to the aweiy my dxecw auapriay;”’ but
ft is just to eiwety that opodoyeiy is exactly
opposed only when {t is taken in its natural
signification.
3 It is quite clear that confession to God is
meant; when, however, Braune adde: ‘and
indeed a confession so fervent and deep that it
becomes public and regulated by the church,”
he introduces an element which nothing here
suggests. In genuine Catholic fashion a
Lapide says: ‘Quam confeesionem exigit
Johanves? Haerctici solam generalem quae
fit Deo admittunt; Catholic! etiam specialem
requirunt. Respondeo: Jobannem utramque
exigere, generalem pro peccatis levibus,
epectalem pro gracibus.
3 Even here Socinus, Grotius (Si fatemur
nos in gravibus peccatis vixisse ante notitiam
evangelii), and others understand ayzapria: of
sins before conversion.
¢ Semler’s interpretation is not satisfactory:
** Logice intelligendum est; nec enim In Deo
jam demum oritur nova ratio tant! praedicati,
sed in his christianis succreecit nova cognitio
tante rel.” The subject is not our perception,
but the actual manifestation of God.
488 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
to every one — without mposwruAnyia — what is due to him, according to the
righteous judgment of God, in proportion to the position which he occupies
toward God (or toward the kingdom of God), God being in this regarded as
the Judge. The idea of the righteousness of God and that of His judicial
activity are very closely connected; God is 6 dixawe xpir7¢, 2 Tim. iv. 8; He
judges év dicasooivy, Acts xvii. 31 (Rev. xix. 11), or dicaiwe, 1 Pet. ii. 23; His
xpiatc iS & xpiow dixaia, 2 Thess. i. 5. The relation of the duawsivn of God to
His judicial activity is found throughout in the N. T., even where the
former is the subject without the latter being expressly mentioned with it.
As the manifestation of the dixaia xpiog of God consists in the righteous
distribution of punishment and of blessing, it follows that dicaosiry is
- yeferred to not only where both of these are mentioned together (as in
2 Thess. i. 5 seq.), but also where only one of the two is spoken of. God
punishes as the dixasc, but He blesses also as the dixatoc, no doubt in view of
the realization of His kingdom, which depends upon the good obtaining the
complete victory over the evil. Towards him who walks év ré oxéret, God
shows Himself dixasog in that He xaraxpivee hin; towards him who walks iv
t@ gwti, by ever more and more removing from him every thing that hinders
his perfect xocvwvia wert rov Ocov (namely, both his consciousness of guilt, and
the ddéia which still clings to him), and by finally permitting him to inherit
the perfect happiness which is prepared for those who love God (comp.
2 Tim. iv. 8). Here God is called dixauc, inasmuch as His purpose is
directed to allotting to those who, walking in light, confess their sins, that
which is suitable for them, namely, the blessing mentioned in the following
Ilva, x.7.A. The meaning of dixaoc is rightly stated by Baumgarten-Crusius,
Diisterdieck, Briickner, and Braune;? on the other hand, it is incorrect to
refer dixawcg here to the punitive activity (Drusius: justus, quia vere punivit
peccata nostra in filio suo), but also to explain it = bonis, lenis, aequus
(Grotius, Lange, Carpzov, etc.), for dixawe never has this meaning in the
N. T.; it is here of cognate meaning with mordc,? because the allotment of
blessing bestowed in accordance with the dcasotvy of God has been promised
by Him, and is accomplished according to His promise; yet it must not
therefore be regarded as synonymous with it (Hornejus: = in promissis
servandis integer). Following Rom. iii. 26, some commentators have here
interpreted it = diay; but this is so much the more unjustifiable, as that
very passage by the juxtaposition of the two ideas proves their different
meaning.
1 Ewald’s explanation is unsatisfactory:
according to which God is here called just,
because He ‘‘ knows well and considers that
He alone jis the Creator, whilst we are His
creation exposed to error and ein, and acts
according to this just consideration.”
8 In the passage Rom. ili. 3-5, miorns and
Scxasoovrn are also used as cognate ideas, but
even here in such a way that é&:ca:oovum has
not lost its reference to the judicial activity of
God; Meyer on this passage explains d:xaro-
According to the Roman-Catholic view, morés refers to the
ouvn, on account of the contrast with adieca,
generally by ‘‘justice;” but the former refer-
ence appears both In un ddixcos 6 Oeds 0 ewehepwy
Thy dpyyy, and also in ver. 6 wwe xpivet 0 Geog
Toy Kéc0y.
3 Not less inexact is it for Ebrard to say:
‘¢God manifests Himself towards us as the
sicatos, inasmuch as He is not only just, but
also makes just,” since é:cascovy does not mean
‘Sto make just.” His assertion is also inap-
propriate, that here and in Rom. i. 17 to li. 26,
CHAP. I. 9. 489°
peccata mortalia, dixavoc to the peccata venialia.1 — iva a¢9 jpiv tag duapriac]. tva,
not = “so that” (Castellio: ita justus, ut condonet), has here (as in other
passages of the N. T.) not retained strictly its idea of purpose (hence not :
“in order that”), but it states what is the aim of the divine faithfulness
and justice to attain which these qualities operate on men; Luther therefore
translates correctly: “that.” De Wette’s explanation, with which Braune
agrees, “in the divine faithfulness lies the law or the will of forgiving sins,”
is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as dgdvaz, «.7.A., is not merely the will, but the
operation of the divine faithfulness and justice. — ra¢ auapriac refers back to
duodoycmev rag duapriac, thus: “the sins confessed by us.” The remission, i.e.,
the forgiveness, of sins is therefore, by virtue of the faithfulness of God, the
first result of the confession; the second, John describes by the words: «xa?
xaGapicy? nude amd néonc dduias. Llere the first thought is not repeated
epexegetically (Semler), or only in figurative manner (Lange); but the
words express the same thing as the corresponding words of the 7th verse,
with which the 8th and 9th verses are in closest connection (Diisterdieck,
Braune; Briickner does not explain himself definitely); xadapigecv has here
the same meaning as there, and dduia (not = poena peccati, Socinus) is
synonymous with duapria; they are two different names for the same thing ;
comp. chap. v. 17.8 The order in which the two clauses that express the
redemptive operations of God are connected together (Myrberg: ordo
verborum ponit remissionem ante abrogationem), points to the fact that
purification takes place by means of forgiveness. — The context is quite
decisive in favor of regarding as the subject of mordés tort, «.7.A,, not Xpuoroc,
but (with Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.) 6 @cog; for even
though in ver. 7 the xadapifeyv is described as the operation of the alua ‘Inoov
Xpicro’, and in chap. ii. 2, 'l. Xp. is the subject, yet in this section 6 Oedc is
the principal subject; ver. 5, 6 Oed¢; ver. 6, adrog; even in ver. 7, tov viov
‘the justice of God appears as the source in the best attested Rec., iva ts followed both
Him from which His saving, sin-forgiving, and
sin-overcoming action flows.” This source is
rather God’s aydrn manifesting itself as xapis
towards the guilt of men; there is a reference
to that in chap. ifi. 24 of the passage in
Romans, but here the source of the salvation
is not mentioned. — The interpretation of
Calov: ‘ Justa est haec peccatorum remissio
et cx justitia debita, sed Christo non nobis,”
and that of Sander: *‘ The Lord ie just, inas-
much as He remite the sin of the sinner who
appeals to the ransom pald in the blood of
Christ, because it would be unjust to demand
the payment twice,” introduce refcrences into
this passage which are foreign to it.
2 Suarez: ‘Fidelis est Deus, cum condonat
poenitentibus peccata mortalia; juetus, cum
justia condonat venialia, quia, ec. justi per
opera (!) poenitentiae, charitatis, etc., me-
rentur de condigno hanc condonationem.”
2 The Rec. xa@apice. corresponds to the
passage Luke xxii. 30, where, according to
by the subjunctive first, and then by the in-
dicative; but not to the passage John vi. 40,
cited by Ebrard, where the indicative is not
regarded as dependent on iva. On tva with
the indicative, comp. .\. Buttmann’s Gramm.,
p- 202 [Z. 7., 234]. Winer, p. 271 ff. (Z. 7.,
289 f.).
3 While Weiss also interprets both ex-
preesions of the forgiveness of sins, he tries
to repel the reproach of tautology by saying:
“If sin committed is regarded as a stain, it {fs
quite correct that God forgives us the sin, and
thus purifies us from all unrighteousness, since
by the very fact that God forgives it, sin has
ceased to exist before Him, and at the same
time also to stain us;” true though this may
be, however, it cannot serve to refute that
objection, for as ca@apigew in this sense is not
the result of adievar, but the former consists
in the latter, both clauses express only one
and the same thought.
490 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
abrov; the blood of Christ, therefore, is regarded as the means by which
God produces purification from sins. To hold, with Sander, that God and
Christ together form the subject,! is quite as inappropriate here as in ver. 5
to understand by aire both together. Though, with John, God and Jesus
Christ approach very close to a unity, yet they are always distinguished by
him, and never represented as one subject.
Ver. 10. Not a repetition, but “a strengthening of ver. 8” (Baumgarten-
Crusius). As ver. 8 is connected with the end of ver. 7, so is this verse
with ver. 9.— édy eizwyev as in ver. 8. — dri oby quaprixauey is substantially
synonymous with dr duapr. obx Exyouev, only distinguished from it in this way
that the former describes an activity, the latter a state (so also Braune) ;
the expression used here is called forth by the plural rdé¢ duapriac and the
idea 7 dduia (ver. 9), by which the sinful character is more definitely
specified as an activity than by dyapria in ver. 7. The perfect does not
prove that juaprixayev is meant of sins before conversion (Socinus, Russmeyer,
Paulus, etc.); the subject here, as in all the verses before, is the sinning of
Christians; for to deny former sin could not occur to a Christian.2 The
perfect is explained both by John's usus loquendi, according to which an
action lasting up to the present is often represented in this tense, and also
by the fact that the confession every time refers to sins previously committed.
— pevorny rowipev atrov corresponds to éavrove rAavovev; it brings out that the
Christian by the denial of his sin accuses God (atrév, i.e., rdv Cedv) of lying.
In rouiv there lies, as Duisterdieck remarks, a certain reproachful bitterness ;
comp. John vy. 18, viii. 53, x. 33, xix. 7,12. This thought presupposes the
declaration of God that even the Christian sins, which ver. 9, mord¢ éori,
x.T.A,, also suggests ; for if God has promised Christians forgiveness of their
sins on condition of their confessing them, the above declaration is thereby
made on God’s side. — xui 6 Adyor abrod (i.e., roi Oecd) od Eoriw ev quiv]. 6 Adyog,
corresponding to the thought 4 dAjéea in ver. 8, refers directly to the
preceding webornv, «.7.4, Liicke explains it correctly: “the revelation of
God, especially the gospel of Jesus Christ” (so also Briickner, Diisterdieck,
Braune); to understand by it (with Oecumenius, Grotius, De Wette, etc.)
especially the O. T., is forbidden by the train of thought, for the subject
here is not the sinfulness of man in general, but the duapréverv of Christians.®
1 In favor of conjoining Christ aa the
subject, Sander adduces the fact that just in
the following chapter Chriet is called d:catos;
but in this he overlooks altogether the differ-
ent meanings which the word has in the two
passages; for in the verse before us 8icatos is
used of a relation to men, but fo chap. fi. 1 of
the relation of Christ to the divine will; and
when Sander further says that In Heb. ix. 14
it ia precisely stated of Christ that He purges
the consclences, this !s {ncorrect, since 7d atza
rov Xptorov is the subject there just as here in
ver.7; and there even more expressly than
here God is specified as the author of the
purification, for the aiua 7. Xp. purges because
it is offered as a sacrifice ry @ew. Moreover, it
is not meant by this that forgiveness and
cleansing could not be ascribed to Christ quite
as much as to God, only it docs not follow
from this that 0 Xpords is the subject here.
§ Therefore it {s also not correct to refer
Huaprnc. to present and past, as Hornejus
explains: ‘Si dixerimus noe non tantum pec.
catum nunc non habere, sed nec peccatores
unquam fuissc.”
S$ This has been more or less overlooked by
the commentators (even by Dlisterdieck and
Ebrard), although it is also important for the
understanding of chap. fi. 1, 2. But John may
with justice assume that the word of God
CHAP. I. 10. 491
Ebrard interprets 6 Ayo r. 6. as the “self-proclamation of the nature of
God, which has taken place both in the verbal revelations of the O. and
N. T. and in the revelations of deeds,” so that even the Adyor of Gospel of
John i. 1 is to be regarded as included; but from the fact that the elements
mentioned here are very closely connected, it does not follow that that idea
has here, or anywhere else, this extensive signification. The words ob« forw
év quiv are erroneously explained by Baumgarten-Crusius: “ we have given it
up, or, also, we are not qualified or fit for it;” it means rather: “it is not
vividly imprinted in our hearts” (Spener); it has remained external to us,
inwardly unknown.
denies the absolute sinlessnesa of Christians, wapaxAnois is an essential element for be-
’ gince—apart from the fact that even the Hevers, which presupposes their having and
QO. T. does not depict the dicasoc as perfectly doing sin.
holy —in every evangelical announcement the
492 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2. Lachm., according to A, B, Vulg., has put éore before /Aaopér.
Instead of povov, B has “ow, which, no doubt, is only to be regarded as a
mistake. — Ver. 3. The original reading of & is gvAdgwuev, instead of typapev; -
but it was afterwards corrected. — Ver. 4. A, B, &, al., Clem., Thph., etc.
(Lachm., min., Tisch. 7), read 67 after A€ywv; it is wanting in C, G, K, al.
(Tisch. 2); Lachm., maj., has ére in brackets. It is possible that 47¢ was, in
later times, omitted as an interruption. &, has, with 7 aA70ea, the addition: tod
Ocov. — Ver. 6. obrw¢ before mepirareiv (Rec. following C, K, &, al. pl., Copt.,
etc., Thph., ete., Tisch.) is uncertain; A, B, al., Vulg. (Lachm.), omit it; per-
haps it was inserted to emphasize more strongly xa@oc, etc. — Ver. 7. dyarnrot,
accepted by Griesb., on overwhelming authority, instead of the Rec., ddeAgai
(G, K, ete.).— The addition a7’ dpxic, after nxotvoate (Rec., after G, K, etc.),
already regarded as doubtful by Griesb., is with justice deleted by Lachm. and
Tisch. (after A, B, C, 8, al.); it was added from the preceding; Reiche, it is
true, thinks otherwise. — Ver. 8. év tuiv]. Rec. The reading & #yiv, recom-
mended by Griesb., has in A too feeble evidence. — Ver. 10. Instead of év atra
oix Eorw (Rec., after B, G, K, al., Tisch.), A, C, &, al., have ov« torw év airy
(Lachm.).— Ver. 13. Instead of the Rec. ypagw vyiv nadia (K, al.), we must
read, in accordance with A, B, C, G, &, many min., vss., and Fathers: éypawa
vuiv radia (Lachm., Tisch.; also recommended by Griesb.); see, further, on this
passage. Instead of rdv wovypov, N erroneously reads rd zovnpov,— Ver. 14.
Instead of tov az’ apy, B reads rd an’ dpxie, plainly following chap. 1. 1; this,
however, is not accepted by Buttm.; in B the addition rob Ocov is wanting after
6 Adyoc. — Ver. 15. Instead of rov warpoc (Rec., after B, G, K, &, al., Vulg., Syr.,
utr., etc., Oec., Thph., etc.), A, C, al., read Geov; which reading is the correct
one, cannot be decided, as an intentional change of the one to the other cannot
be proved. Ebrard considers Ocov as original, but without adequate grounds.
Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec. — Ver. 17. Although Griesb. approves
of the omission of avrod after ériuuia (following A), it must nevertheless be con-
sidered genuine. The difficulty of it easily explains why it would be left out.
In some of the Latin Fathers there is found at the close of the verse the addi-
tion: guo modo et Deus manet in aeternum, which Bengel, without reason, is
disposed to regard as genuine. — Ver. 18. The article before avrixzpiotoc is at
least doubtful; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it: it is wanting in B, C, x*,.—~—
Ver. 19. Instead of é§/jA#ov the more unusual form é£7A6av is probably, with
Lachm. and Tisch. (after A, B, C), to be regarded as genuine. &, however,
has ¢&7A@ov, — The generally prevailing reading: GAA’ ot« foav && nuov, has been
changed by Buttm. into GAA’ ob« é& nucy hoav, according to his own statement,
following B; Tisch. has not noticed this reading. In the following clause
Tisch. reads: ef yap &£ nuav fhoav, after B, C, al. ; Lachm., on the other hand,
CHAP. II. 1. 493
has retained the Rec.: é ydp foav LE judy, after A, G, K, 8, al. pl., Vulg., ete.
It is remarkable that even Buttm. —against the evidence of B—has the Rec.
It cannot be decided which reading is the correct one. — Ver. 20. Buttm. omits
xa: before ofdare, according to B; the wavrec, instead of xdvra presented (accord-
ing to the statement of Tisch. maj.) by B, has not, however, been accepted by
Buttm. — Ver. 23. The words 6 duodoyov ... éxet are wanting (after G, K, etc.,
Oec.) in the Rec. Calvin, Milius, Wolf, ete., do not consider them genuine; but
they are sufficiently attested by A, B, C, &, etc., etc., and with justice admitted
into the text by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. — Ver. 24. The Rec. ovv
after dueic is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, C, x,
al., Vulg., etc. — év rp narpi]. Rec. after A, C, G, K, al., Syr., utr., Sahid., al.,
Thph., Oec. (Tisch.). Lachm. has omitted é (after B, Vulg., etc.). The omis-
sion of the preposition is perhaps explained by the fact that it appeared super-
fluous. 8 reads ¢v rq tarp? xal év re vig. — Instead of fxovcare, 8 has both times
the unusual reading axnxdare, — Ver. 25. Instead of guiv, Lachm. in his small
edition, following B, has accepted vuiv (Buttm.); in the larger edition, however,
guiv is rightly found, which is defended by almost all the authorities. — Ver. 27.
On. the form éAadare, received by Tisch. 7, following B*, comp. Ph. Buttmann’s
Compl. Gram., § 96, note 9, and Winer, p. 68, VIL, p. 71.— Instead of é& tiv
pévee is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., which Griesb. previously recom-
mended: wéver év buiv (after A, B, C, 8, several vss., etc.). Buttm., following
B. has accepted, instead of AA’ oc, the reading dAAd, which probably arose
through a correction. Instead of the Rec. 7d avrd xpioua (A, B, G, K, ete.,
Tbph., Oec., Hier.), retained by Lachm., with the approval of Bengel, Liicke.
Bruckner, té atrod xpioua has been accepted by Tisch., following C, 4, 5, 7, al.,
which is approved of by Reiche and Braune ; & has also «brov, but instead of
xoioua, ‘‘ rvetya;”? see the comm. —Instead of diddoxee bude, Lachm. in his
large edition reads dd, #uca¢; probably a misprint, as it is not noticed either by
him or Tisch. as a special reading. —peveire], Rec. after G, K, al. (Tisch.);
Lachm. has received instead of it the reading pévere, recommended by Griesb.,
following A, B, C, x, al. The overwhelming evidence of the authorities is in
favor of this reading, which probably was changed at a later date in accordance
with ver. 24; Reiche, however, has decided in favor of the Rec.; Diisterdieck,
Ewald, Braune, and now Bruckner also, justly prefer pévere. — Ver. 28. The
words at the beginning: xal viv . . . év aire, are wanting in x. — Instead of
iva d6rax (Rec. after G, K, al., Thph., Oec., Tisch.) we must read, with Lachm.,
following A, B, C, &, al., Copt., Sahid.: iva éav, Instead of fywuev (Rec. after
A, G, K, ete., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch., following B, C, al., Thph., read
oxauev, N* has oyouev; NX, has Eyuuev. The words dr’ airod are read by & not
before but after wapovoia abrov, — Ver. 29. The Rec. drt rag (Lachm., Tisch. 2)
is found in B, G, K, several min., vss., and Fathers; A, C, 8, al., Vulg., read
ot: xai wag (Tisch. 7); if «ai, on which Tisch. (ed. maj.) observes, cujus addendt
nulla causa erat ; ex Johannis vero usu est, be genuine, it serves ‘‘to bring out
the agreement of the conclusion with the premise’”’ (Ebrard).
Vv. 1 and 2 are most closely connected with what immediately precedes,
and further determine and conclude it.
Ver. 1. The apostle had considered, in chap. 1. 7, the blood of Christ, in
1. 9 the faithfulness and justice of God — and both in reference to the
forgiveness and purification of believers; now he comfortingly points to
494 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Christ as the Paraclete, whereby the previous thought now obtains its
necessary complement. First, however, he mentions the object of his
previous statement. —Texvia pov]. Similarly chap. iii. 18; without jon,
ii. 12, 28, iii. 7. John chooses this form of address: tum propter aetatem
suam, tum propter paternam curam et affectum (Hornejus). In regard to the
verbal form, Lorinus rightly says: diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt
amoris signa. The Apostle Paul, in Gal. iv. 19, uses the same form of
address, with special reference to the spiritual fatherhood in which he stood
toward his readers. — raira ypigu iuiv]. raira is referred by Bengel to what
follows, by Grotius to what follows and what precedes, by most commentators
(Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Sander, Diisterdieck, Braune),
correctly, to the latter only; it refera, however, not merely to the truth
expressed in ver. 6, nor merely to the “exhortation to self-knowledge and
penitence” (De Wette) which is contained in the preceding, nor merely to
the statement about forgiveness and cleansing; but to the “whole in its
vivid harmony ” (Diisterdieck, so also Braune) ! — iva u} duaprnre. Statement
of the object for which the apostle wrote what precedes; the direction which
Calvin gives it: ne quis putet eum peccandi licentiam dare, quum de misericordia
Dei concionatur, which is also found in Augustin, Bede, Calov, Bengel,
Hornejus, Diisterdieck, Ewald, etc., is incorrect, since the sternness of the
apostle against sin has already been sharply and definitely expressed, and
the context, in which the subject previously was the forgiveness of sin,
would not permit such a supposition to arise at all.?— xa? éav ru dpipry.
xai is neither = “however” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor = sed (Vulg.); it
connects as simple copula a new thought with the preceding one. By éapv
the possibility of sinning is admitted; Calvin incorrectly explains it:
conditionalis particula “si quis” debet in causalem resolvi; nam fiert non potest
quin peccemus. Whether it is possible for the Christian not to sin, John
does not say. Under the influence of the new spirit of life which is
communicated to the believer, he cannot sin; but, at the same time, in his
internal and external mechanism there lies for him the possibility of sinning
—and it is this which the apostle has in view. Socinus perverts the idea of
the apostle when he interprets: st quis peccat, t.e., post Christum agnitum et
professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit, etc. ; for,
1 Ebrard refers raira to the two sentences
i. 6, 7, and 8-10, in which these thoughts, in-:
volving an apparent contradiction, are con.
tained, —- (1) ‘That wo must by no means
walk in darkness,’’ and (2) ‘‘that we must
confess that we have, and that we commit
sin,” and thinks that this apparent contra-
diction ie solved by fj. 1, in this way, that in
contrast to those theoretical statements these
twe practical conclusions from them are here
given, namely, (1) ‘that we are not to ein;”
(2) “that when we have sinned we are to
reflect that in Christ we have an Advocate.”
But against this it is to be observed, (1) that
by such a changing of theoretical statements
into practical precepts the problem mentioned
above js really not solved; (2) that the ideas
expressed in 1. 6, 7, and in i. 8-10, do not stand
to one another in the relation of co-ordination,
but the idea of i. 8-10 is subordinated to that
cf 1.6, 7; (3) that it fe herewlth presupposed
that the apostic should have written: «ar iva
e8nre, Ott, day Tig auapTn, TapaxAnToy €xoper,
which, however, is incorrect, as the advocate-
office of Christ is not mentioned in the pre.
ceding.
8 Socinus Incorrectly renders auapravey =
manere in peccatis; Léffer even more so
= ‘to remain unbaptized.”
CHAP. II. 1. 495
on the one hand, the true Christian may indeed sin, but cannot remain in
his sins; and, on the other hand, Christ is not the mapixAnrog for him who
remains in his sins. Besser correctly: “If any man sin — not with wilful
doirig of sin, but in spite of the will in his mind, which says no to sin.” —
wapaKAnrov Exouev mpdc Tov warépa. From the first pers. plur. it follows that the
preceding ric is used quite generally; the apostle is speaking communicatively,
and does not wish himself to be considered excluded.? It is unnecessary for
the connection of this sentence to supply “let him know that,” or “ let him
comfort himself with the thought that,” or any similar expression; for it is
precisely through the duapravew of believers, that Christ is induced to be
their Paraclete. The verb éye» indicates that Christ belongs to believers.?
— The word rapdxanroc has both a general and a special forensic meaning ;
in the former, in which it is = “assister,” or “helper,” it is used in Gospel
of John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, where the Holy Ghost is so called because
by His witness He leads the disciples into all truth; see Meyer on John
xiv. 16; here, on the other hand, it is used in its forensic meaning
= “advocatus, patronus causae,” or even more special = “ intercessor,” and
is in close connection with the following ‘Aaopés, and refers back to the
dgéva: and xaGapiter of chap. i. 9; so that in Christ the typical action of
the high priest interceding for the people has reached its complete fulfilment.
The idea of the apostle therefore is — as almost all commentators recognize 4
—the same as is expressed in Rom. viii. 84 (d¢ nat évrvyyaver bmi p gud), in
Heb. ix. 24 (elojAdev 6 Xpiordg . . . ele. . . Tdv obpavdr, viv Euganodqvac TO
npoowny Tov Geo bnip fucv), and in Ileb. vii. 25.5— mpdc rdv warépa. mpog in
the same sense as chap. i. 2. — God is called rarfp, because the mapaxAnroc is the
Son of God, and we also (believing Christians) have become through Him
téxva rod Oeod, chap. ili. 1, 2. —’Iyoviy Xpisrdv dixacov. Christ is the Paraclete,
not as the Logos, but as the incarnate Logos, who has shed His alua (chap. i. 7)
for the atonement, —and indeed inasmuch as He is dixasoc; dixacoc is here
also neither = lenis et bonus (Grotius), nor = dau» (see Wolf on this—
1 Augustin: ‘“‘Habemues dixit, non habetie »
maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum, at
habeat advocatum Christum, quam ponere se
pro Christo advocato et inveniri inter damnan-
dos superbos.’’ — Socinus thinks that the
apostle speaks in the first person, ‘‘non quod
revera ipse esset unue ex Illis, qui adhuc pec-
carent, sed ut melius indicet, id quod affirmat
pertinere ad omnes, quibus evangelium an-
nunciatum est;”’ clearly erroneous. Grotius
arbitrarily: ‘‘Habet ille advocatum, sed ec-
clesia habet, quae pro lapso precataur. Preces
autem ecciesiae Christus more advocatl Deo
patri commendat.”
$ Besser: ‘‘He has made Himeelf ours, has
given our faith an eternally valid claim on
Him.”
3 In the fact that in the Gospel of John the
Holy Ghost, but here Christ, is called wapaxAn-
tos, there is eo much the less wu contradiction,
as in John xiv. 16 it is expressly put: dAAoy
wapdxAntoy, by which Christ signifies that He
Himself is the proper mrapaxAnros, and the
Holy Ghost Hie substitute.
4 Ebrard, who here gives the same explana
tion, explains the expression in the Goepel of
John = **Comforter,”’ os wapaxaAei (more cor-
rectly wapaxaAcitar, mid.), according to the
Hebrew DM}, LXX. Job xvi. 2; but in this
passage it is not mapaxAnros, but mapaxAtrws,
that is used; Hofmann’s explanation is also
incorrect (Schriftbew., II. 2, p. 15 ff.) =
‘‘Teacher"’ (comp. Meyer and Hengstenberg
on Jobn xiv. 16).
58 This idea is not, as it might appear, in
contradiction with John xvi. 26; for even in
this statement a lasting Intercession by Christ
is indicated, eince Christ ascribes the hearing
of prayer in His name to Himeelf (xiv. 13) as
wel! as to the Father.
496 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
passage); but neither is it = fidelis atque verax, quatenus id praestal quod
promisit, se scilicct suis adfuturum (Socinus) ; according to the usus loguendi,
dixatog could be understood of (judicial) justice (Bede: justus acdvocatus,
injustas causas non suscipit), but then the adjective would have had to be put
with mapéxanrov; Ebrard incorrectly explains it = dixawg xa? decay; but this
explanation is so much the more unwarrantable, as dia is the very
business of the rapaxAnrog; by the epithet dixasoc, Christ is held up before the
duapravovar as one who by His nature is fitted to be the Paraclete of sinners,
i.e, as one who perfectly satisfies the will of God; who is “just and
stainless, and without sin” (Luther). ‘Only as the Holy One, in whom
the holy ideal of manhood is seen realized, can He intercede for sinners with
the heavenly Father ” (Neander).
REMARK. — How Christ executes His office of Advocate with the Father,
John does not say; a dogmatic exposition of it is not in place here, still it is
important to mark the chief elements which are the result of the apostle’s
statement. These are the following: 1. The Paraclete is Jesus, the glorified
Redeemer, who is with the Father ; therefore neither His divine nature alone,
nor His human nature alone, but the Lord in His divine-human personality.
2. The presupposition is the reconciliation of men with God by His blood.
3. His advocacy has reference to believers, who still sin amid their walking in
light; and, 4. It is a real activity in which He intercedes for His people (that
God may manifest in their forgiveness and sanctification His faithfulness and
justice) with God, as His (and their) Father. If these points are observed, on
the one hand, there is found in the apostolic statement no ground for a materi-
alistic conception, which Calvin opposes in the following words: obiter notan-
dum est, nimis crasse errare e08, qui patris genibus Christum advolvunt, ut pro
nobis oret. Tollendae sunt eiusmodi cogitationes, quae coelesti Christi gloriae
derogant; but neither, on the other hand, is there any justification for doing
away with the idea, as not a few commentators have been guilty of. Even Bede
has not kept himself free from it, when he says that the advocacy consists in
this, that Christ presents Himself as man to God, and prays for us non voce, sed
miseratione, and therefore considers the intercessio, not as an actio realis, but
only as an actio interpretativa. But the idea is even more done away with,
when the intercession is viewed only as the permanent effect of the redemptive
work accomplished by Christ in the giving up of His life to the death, which is
no doubt the opinion of Baumgarten-Crusius when he says: ‘‘The apostles
certainly did not think of a special oral intercession, but of an intercession by
deed, in His work.’’! Liucke rightly says: ‘‘The meaning of this form of
representation is no other than this, that Jesus Christ also in His doga with the
Father continues His work of reconciliation. If Christ were not the eternal
Paraclete for us with God, His saving and reconciling work would be limited to.
His earthly life merely, and in so far could not be regarded as eternal and com-
plete;”’ but it is not to the point when he further puts it: ‘‘ Without the eter-
1 Similarly Kdstlin (p. 61): ‘‘Christ is the © Frommann also (p. 472 ff.) finde in the state.
eternal mapaxAnros; He does not, however, ment of the apostle only a aymbolical form of
pray the Father, but the sense of His office of expression, by which the continuation of the
Advocate is simply this, that for His sake the atoning work of Christ in His state of exalta-
Father also loves those who believe on Him.’’ _ tion is indicated.
CHAP. II. 2 497
nally active saving and reconciling spirit of Christ, without the wveiya Xpicrod,
- Christ would not be a perfect, a living Christ;’’ for John is not here speaking
of the tvedua of Christ, but of the personal Christ Himself. The explanation of
De Wette, that the advocacy of Christ is the combination of the idea of the
glorified and of the suffering Messiah, is also unsatisfactory, becauses it changes
the objective reality into a subjective representation. Neander rightly says:
‘* When Christ is described as the Advocate, this is not to be understood as if
only the effects of the work once accomplished by Him were transferred to
Himself. — John considers the living Christ as personally operating in His work,
as operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love
with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation for sinful man.
It is by Him in His divine-human personality that the connection between man,
saved and reconciled to God by Him, and God as the Father, is always brought
about.’’ Comp. also Meyer on Rom. viii. 84, and Braune in the fundamental
dogmatic ideas of the passage.
Ver. 2. nal abréc = et ipse, tdemque ille ; xai is here also the simple copula,
and is not to be resolved either into guia (a Lapide) or nam. —atroc refers
back to ‘Ino, Xoordv dixacov, and the epithet dixacov is not to be lost sight of
here; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers atré¢ to God. — tAacuog éorr].
The word :Aaouéc, which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. iv. 10,
and here also indeed in combination with ep? rav du quiv, may, according to
Ezek. xliv. 27 (= NXON), mean the sin-offering (Lucke, 8d ed.), but is here
to be taken in the sense of O°69, Lev. xxv. 9, Num. v. 8, and no doubt in
this way, that Christ is called the jAacudc, inasmuch as He has expiated by
His aiua the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ,
it is true, is not demanded by the idea /Aacuoc tn itself) but certainly is
demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of
Christ, in chap. i. 7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking,
because he knows that reconciliation is based on it.
REMARK. — In classical Greek /AdoxecGa (as middle) is = Mewy tev; but in
Scripture it never appears in this active signification, in which God would not
be the object; but in ali the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this
word, whether it is as the translation of PB) (Ps. Ixv. 4, Ixxviii. 88, Ixxix. 9),
or of DD (Ps. xxiv. 11; 2 Kings v. 18), or of DM) (Exod. xxxii. 14), God is the
subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; in Heb. if. 17, Christ is the sub-
ject, and the object also is rd¢ duapriac, The case is almost exactly similar with
é§cAdoxec6a, which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on
the other hand, is used as the translation of "93 much more frequently than the
simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men,
1 In the Septuagint not only does iAacuds
appear as the translation of the Hebrew
m9 (Pe. cxxix. 4; Dan. ix. 9), but iAde.
xeoOa ie also used = to be merciful, to forgive
(Ps. Ixv. 4, Ixxvill. 88, Ixxix. 9),— quite with.
out reference to an offering. — The explanation
of Paulue, however: ‘‘He (1.e., God) Is the
pure exercise of compassion on account of
sinful faulte,” ie not justifiable, because, in
the first place, God is not the eubject, and
secondly, the iAaguds of Christ is not the
forgiveness iteelf, but is that which procures
forgiveness.
498 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
namely, Gen. xxxifi. 21'and Prov. xvi. 14, that the classical usus loquendi is
preserved; but elsewhere with ¢&Adoxeo#a:, whether the subject be God (as in
Ezek. xvi. 63) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev. iv. 20.
v. 26, vi. 7, xvi. 6, 11, 16, 17, 24, 30, 33; Ezek. xlv. 17) or sin (Exod. xxxil. 30;
both together, Lev. v. 18, Num. vi. 11), or even holiness defiled by sin (the
most holy place, Lev. xvi. 16; the altar, Lev. xvi. 18, xxvii. 33, Ezek. xliii. 22):
only in Zech. vii. 2 is found éAdoxacéai rdv xipov, where, however, the Hebrew
text has M7 “JB-Ne mond. TAaouoc, therefore, in Scripture does not denote
the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not
placatio (or, as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or
reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T.
that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God.!
Grotius, S. G Lange, and others take iJacud¢ = iacrio: of course that
abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the con-
crete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; “the abstract
is more comprehensive, more intensive, comp. 1 Cor. i. 30° (Briickner) ; it
gives it to be understood “that Christ is not the propitiator through any
thing outside Himself, but through Himself" (Licke, 2d ed.), and that
there is no propitiation except through Him.*— The relation of tdacude to
the preceding wapdxAnrov may be variously regarded; either rapdxAnroc is the
higher idea, in which /Aacpuée is contained, Bede: advocatum habemus apud
Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris
reddit. or, conversely, iAaouéc is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is
subordinated, as De Wette thus says ‘“ iAaoyoc does not merely refer to the
sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the more general idea, includes the inter-
cession as the progressive reconciliation © (so also Rickli, Frommann); or,
lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the iacuo¢
‘in regard to His blood which was shed, and the mapuxAnroc, on the other
hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are
reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence
beginning with xa? atré, by which /Aaouéc is marked as an idea which is not
already contained in the idea rapéxAnroc, but is distinct from it; against the
1 Comp. Delitzech in his Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, on chap fi. 17,
p- 94 ff. But it ie to be noticed that Delitzech,
while he states correctly the Biblical mode of
representation, bases his opening discussion
on the idea of the ‘self reconciliation of the
Godhead with iteelf,” an idea which is not
contained in Scripture.—It 1s observed by
several commentators that iAaguds, as dis-
tinguished from «araAAayy = * Versdhnung”
(reconciliation), {is to be translated by
** Sihnung”’ or“! Veretthnung’’ (both = Eng).
expiation, atonement. It ie true, Versdhnung
and Verathnung are properly one and the
same word, but in the usage of the language
the distinction has certainly been fixed that
the latter word denotes the restoration of the
dieturbed relationship by an expiation to be
performed; only it 1s inexact to assert that
the idea iAaguds in ilsel/ containe the idea of
punishment, since AagxegGa: does not include
thia idea either in claasical or ln Biblical usage,
aud efcAdoxerOa., though moatiy indeed used
in the O. T. In reference to a sacrifice by
which sin ie covered, is aleo used without this
reference (comp. Ecclus. fli. 28).
2? The case is the same with the expression
iAacwés as with other abstractions by which
Christ {s described, as ¢w7, od6¢, aytacpuos,
K.eTA. Who does not feel that by these words
something much more comprehensive is ex-
preseed than in the concrete forms : 0 Gworawy,
o dSyyov, O aytacer, «.7.A,?
CHAP. II. 2. 499
second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as,
has reference to all sins, but his intercession, on the other hand, has refer-
ence only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains,
accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune).
The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as
its presupposition the iAccuéc wrought out in His death,! yet the sentence
nai avrog is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster
(Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence
is thereby taken away; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the
explanation or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of meaning
in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners.
nept wav duapriv fudv]. mepi expresses the reference quite generally: “in
regard to;” it may here be observed that ¢écAdoxeoda in the LXX. is usually
construed with zepi, after the Hebrew oy 135. The idea of substitution is
not suggested in mepi.— With rov duapr. fucv, comp. chap. i. 9; it is not
merely the sins of Christians (fuév, i.e., fidelium; Bengel) before their con-
version that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their
Christian life; comp. chap. i. 7. Ebrard’s opinion, that these words are
added to idacyuég merely as a preparation for the following additional
thought, is inadmissible; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle —
and without regard to what follows — inasmuch as it is only by virtue of
them that the idea obtains complete expression. — ob rept rov juetépwv de
wovov, GAAQ xa? epi bAou rod xdopov}]. Expansion of the thought, in reference
to the preceding epi r. du. guov, in order to mark the universality of the
propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by queic the Jews, and by xéopor
the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli, etc.) ; jeic are rather
believers, and xéouo¢ is the whole of unbelieving mankind; so Spener,
Paulus, De Wette, Liicke, Sander, Neander, Diisterd., Braune, etc. —
Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by
xoouoc not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive) ; but
this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was
thinking directly of the xéoyzoc as it existed in his time, without, however,
limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by
which xéopoc is = “ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa,” is clearly
quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the whole world,
for the whole of fallen mankind ; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the
cause of that does not lie in a want of efficacia in it; Dusterdieck therefore
rightly says: “ The propitiation is of judicial nature ; according to this, the
propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world:
to the believing it brings life; to the unbelieving, death.” Calvin quite
improperly asserts: sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed eos designat,
qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly
1 K&stlin incorrectly says (p. 180): ‘Christ iteelf:’ for neither does wapdxd. describe the
is wapaaAnros, while he ts lAacués, t.e., high high-priesthood of Christ, according to its
priest, and at the same time sacrifice,a high full comprehension, nor does tAacuos mean
priest who offers himeelf; and iAacyuds, while ‘sacrifice.’
He is wapaxAnros, i.e., a sacrifice which offers
500 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Beza) ; against this the statement of Bengel is sufficient: quam late peccatum,
tam late propitiatio. The expressly added 6éAov places the matter beyond all
doubt. — With regard to the genitive mepi 6A. tov xdouov, Winer says (p. 536
(E. T., 577]): “instead of this, either epi rv dAov r. x., Or, instead of the
first words, rept #p4v might have been written; similarly Heb. ix. 7;"" many
commentators, on the other hand, supply rév directly, as Grotius, Semler,
Wilke (Hermeneutik, II. p. 145), De Wette, Diisterdieck; as the Vulg. ren-
ders : “pro totius mundi,” and Luther: “fir der ganzen Welt.” On behalf of
this, appeal is made to passages such as John v. 36,} Matt. v. 20; but the
construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio
compendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at
all; an oratio variata is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural
to the apostle, as the idea xéoyor includes in itself that of sin.?
Vv. 3-11. Further antithetical statement of the believers’ walk in light;
it is described as rnpeiv rag évroAdc Ocov (vv. 3-86); this then is further defined
QS & mepirareiv KaGide Exeivog meptenarnoe (ver. 6). and dyandy rdv adeAgoy is empha-
sized as being the essence of this walk (vv. 7-11).
Ver. 3. Semler would make a new section begin here: “after the foun-
dation of salvation has been spoken of, there follows the exhortation to
preserving the salvation;” incorrectly; ver. 3 is closely connected with
chap. i. 5, 6, and states in what the Christian's walk in light consists; there-
fore also it begins simply with xai. — tv robtw ywdoxouev]. év robr@ refers to the
following éav; the object is stated by 5r:; the same combination is found in
the Gospel of John xiii. 35; similarly in chap. iv. 138, where, however, the
particle ér: is used instead of éa», and chap. v. 2, where drav is used. A
Lapide wrongly weakens the force of ywdoxouev: non certo et demonstrative,
sed probabiliter et conjecturalilter; it is rather the anxiety of the apostle to
bring out that the Christian has a sure and certain consciousness of the
nature of the Christian life. This certainty is confirmed to him by unmis-
takable facts, in which the truth of his knowledge attests itself. — dr: tyvo-
xauev atrov]. avréy seems to refer to the last-mentioned subject in ver. 2,
therefore to Christ; so it is explained by Oecumenius, Erasmus, Grotins,
Calov, Spener, Bengel, Semler, Johannsen, Sander, Myrberg, Erdmann, ete. :
but the deeper train of thought is opposed to this; John is not continuing the
idea of ver. 2, but is going back to the fundamental thought of the whole
section : “ He who has fellowship with God walks in the light;” the principal
subject is God, and to it, therefore, airéy is to be referred; so Calvin, Beza,
Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, De Wette, Briickner, Ebrard, Diister-
dieck, Braune, etc.?— On éyvixayer, which is not, with Lange and Carpzov,
1 Thies paseage fe cited by Ebrard further, not happened for the sake of the evil which
in order to prove hie assertion: ‘“‘Thisabbre- attaches to the xocpuos, for this is true of
viation for repi rw» OAov rou xoomov needs no Christians also (contrary to Huther),” he
explanation " (!). thercby showe that he has not correctly un-
2 When Braune, who has accepted the ex- derstood the above remark.
planation which js here given of the verse as a 8 The reason brought forward by Ebrard:
whole and in detail, says in reference to the ‘it Ifes also in the idea of the commandments,
oratio variata which occurs here: ‘‘3t has that they are mentioned as commandments of
CHAP. II. 4. 501
to be interpreted = “love,” the commentators rightly remark that it is not
a mere external, purely theoretical knowledge that is to be understood by
it; it is the diving knowledge that is meant, i.e., a knowledge in which the
subject (God) is really received into the inner life, and thought and action
are determined by it,? so that éyvuxéva: is necessarily connected with the
xotvuviay Exe per’ avtov (chap. i. 6); still it is inexact to render ér: éyvdxapev
atrév, with Oecumenius, directly by drt orvexpd@nuev aire, or, with Clarius, by
societatem habemus cum eo. By tyvexauev the element of consciousness in the
fellowship, and with this its internal and spiritual side, is brought out. —
kav rag évroAde abrod typapuev]. The expression r, évroA, rnpeiv® describes the
obedience resulting from the internal faithful keeping of the command-
ments :‘ it is incorrect, with Braune, so to press the idea rypeiv here, in its
distinction from zouiv, that merely “attention to the commandments” is to
be understood by it; it rather includes in itself the actual obedience. This
obedience is not here regarded as the means of the knowledge of God, but as
the proof of it; rightly Oecumenius: dca rév Epywv 77 redeia dedelxvuras dyann;
only he should have said “ yvéor” instead of ayarn. Between both of those
there is the same relationship as between fellowship with God and walking
in light; for as the former is related to the knowledge of God, so is the
latter related to the observance of the divine commandments, which is
the concrete embodimeut of év rd gut? meptrareiv. |
Ver. 4. Inference from ver. 3, expressing the antithetical side. —o6 Aéyuv,
x.7.2., is used in the same sense as édv elxwuev, chap. i. 6. Without reason,
Braune considers that “in the singular there lies a progress in the develop-
the Father and not of the Son,” is not valid;
comp. Gospel of John xiv. 15, 21, 23, xv. 10.
Ebrard, on the other hand, rightly points to
ver. 6, where éxetvos (Christ) is distinguished
from atrés. From this verse it also follows
that John, in this section, ia considering Christ
not as having given commandments, but as
having walked according to the command-
ments of God.
1 Lorinus : “ Cognoscere cum quadam volun-
tatis propendentis approbatione.’’ — A Lapide:
“‘Cognitione non tantum speculativa, sed et
practica, quae cum amore et affectu conjuncta
est, ac in opus derivatur.”” —Spener: ‘‘ Thie is
not a mere knowing (1 Cor. vill. 1), euch as
may exist without love, but a knowledge which
comes into the heart and fulfils His will with
trust.””— De Wette: ** Knowledge of the heart,
not of the mind, wherewith activity Is also
assumed.” — Lilcke: “ The knowledge of God
in the highest sense; not, however, in so far
as it 1s identical with the love of God, but only
in so far as it really impels men practically to
fulfilment of the divine commands, and thus
reveals itself In growing love to the God who
is known as the Light.”
3 Welss not unjustly contends against the
current view of y:wwoxew in John, in so far
as the idea of knowledge fs not kept pure in
it from confusion with other ideas; but when
Weiss says that in John only “the knowledge
that rests on immediate contemplation js to be
thought of,”’ and observes that ‘‘it lies in the
nature of the case, that jo this Intuition and
contemplation the object is received into the
entire spiritual being of a man as a— nay, as
the determining power,’’ he not only agrees
with the explanation given above, but defines
the idea in euch a way as not to deviate a0 very
far from the commentators whom he opposes
as hie polemic would lead one to suppose.
8 It is to be noticed, that to describe the
Christian commandments John never uses
youos (which by him is only used in reference
to the Mosaic law), but generally évroAai
(only now and then Acyos @eov or Xprctov) ;
and as verb, rypeiy, never woecy (except in
Rev. xxii. 14).—In the writings of Paul,
Typety dvroAny appears only in 1 Tim. vi. 14,
and besides in the N. T. in Matt. xix. 17 (chap.
Xxvili. 20: rypety wavra dca éverecAdunpy Upir).
4 The paraphrase of Semler may be given
here merely for ita curioeity : ‘Si (nos Apos-
toli) retinemus et magnifacimus hanc ejus
doctrinam: Deum esse pariter omnoium gen-
tlum.”’
502 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ment of the thought.” The statement that fyvuxa is used “‘ with manifest
regard to the Gnostics” (Ebrard), is not to be accepted; 6 Aéywy is rather to
be taken in a quite general sense, comp. ver. 6, at the same time referring
to the appearance of such a moral indifferentism among the churches. aéré»,
as in ver. 3 = Ocov. — peborne ori = Pebderar, chap. i. 6; but in such a way
that the idea is more sharply brought out by it (Braune). — xai év roétw, x.7.2.,
as in chap. i. 8.— From the connection between the knowledge of God,
and the observance of His commandments, it follows that he who boasts
of the former, but is wanting in the latter, has not the truth in him, but
is a liar. ;
Ver. 5. In this verse the apostle confirms the idea of ver. 3, in the form
of an antithesis to ver. 4, and with the introduction of a new element. —
d¢ 6° Gv rnpp aitob (i.e., Oeov) rdv Adyov]. The particle dé, which refers not to
ver. 3 (Liicke), but to the words xa? rag tvroAdc abrov pi rypiv, ver. 4, shows
that this verse stands in the same relationship to ver. 4 as chap. i. 7 to ver.
6; “rnpg is with emphasis put first, and similarly atrov before riv Adyov”
(Braune). — airod 6 Acyog is synonymous with af évroAa? atrov, vv. 3 and 4:
“the essence of the divine commandments;” a Lapide: Dicit verbum ejus in
singulari, quia praecipue respicit legem caritatis ; haec enim caeteras omnes in se
comprehendit. — The predicate does not run, ovrog Eyvuxev abrov, but dAndic év
rovTw % ayamn Tod Beod rereAciurat, Whereby “a new side of the thought comes
into view ” (Ebrard). — cAndd¢, “in truth,” opposed to appearance and mere
pretence; it is emphatically put first, as in John viii. 31, with reference to
the preceding 4 d70eu (De Wette); and serves to bring out not a quality of
the rereAciwra: (Ebrard), but the actuality of the & roiry ... reredciwra: (80
also Briickner). — év rovtw 7 dyamn rot Oeod rereAciuta]. 9 ayant Tr. Oeod is not
here, as in chap. iv. 9, “the love of God to us” (Flacius, Calovius, Bengel,
Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Lange, etc.), nor, “the love commanded by
God” (Episcopius), nor, “the relationship of mutual love between God and
man” (Ebrard: “the mulua amicitia et conjunctio between God and the Chris-
tian ’’);1 but “love to God,” as in chap. ii. 15, iii. 17, iv. 12, v. 3 (Bede,
Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, De Wette-
Briickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg,
Braune, etc.). This interpretation is required by the context; for “the love
of God” appears here in place of the ‘‘ knowledge of God,” vv. 3 and 4.
As in the latter, so in the former also, consists fellowship with God. Both,
love and knowledge, are so inseparably connected, and are so essentially one
in their principle and nature, that the one is the condition of the other.? —
The idea rereAciwra: is not to be weakened, as in Beza: re2eoiv hoc in loco non
declarat perfecte aliquid consummare, sed mendacio et simulationt opponitur, ut
hoc plane sit, quod dicimus: mettre en execution; but it is to be taken in its
1 Similarly Beseer : ‘‘ The love of God in us’
ueually embraces both God’e love to us, by
which, and our love to God, in which, we live.
Thie ie the case in this passage also.” This
interpretation can be just as little grammati-
cally justified us that of Ebrard; uelther a ds-
plicity nor a mutual relationship is expressed
in the phrase 4 ay. rov @ecov.
3 Grotius, it is true, is not wrong when be
says: ‘‘Amor praecsupponit cognitlonem;”
but {t is just as correct to say: ‘‘ Cognitio
praesupponit amorem.”
CHAP. IL. 6. 503
constant meaning: “has been perfected,” as in chap. iv. 12, 17, 18.1 The
objection, that nevertheless no Christian can boast of perfect love to God,
does not justify an arbitrary change of meaning. The absolute idea rnpeiv
abrov rév Adyov demands for its counterpart an idea quite as absolute (so also
Briickner).2, Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there love to God
is perfect ; in perfect obedience, perfect love is shown. That the Christian
has not attained this perfection at any moment of his life, but is ever only
in a state of progress towards it, is no doubt true; but John is not here con-
sidering that aspect (so also Braune).* — é rovtw ywwdonopev]. ev rovry refers
neither to the thought contained in ver. 6 (Socinus, Ewald), nor to 4 dyazn
... TereA., but to the keeping of the commandments (so also Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Briickner, Braune). Obedience is the evidence for the knowledge
that we are év abrp. — drt by abro touev]. The expression signifies the inward
fellowship of life (differently Acts xvii. 28); it combines the preceding é»y
roury .. . reread, and the former éyvéxapev abrév, and is identical with xowwviay
Eyouev per’ avrov (chap. i. 6), which it defines in its internal character. The
knowledge and love of God is being in God (so also Briickner).4 — Grotius,
who understands airp of Christ, enfeeblingly explains: Christi ingenii dis-
cipuli sumus.
Ver. 6 gives the more particular definition of what the rnpeiv of God’s
commandments, and therefore the Christian’s walk in light, consists in. —
6 Aéywv, as in ver. 4; here, however, with the infinitive construction. — é&
ait@ pévew]. év atr@ does not refer to Christ (Augustin, Hornejus, Wolf,
Lange, Neander, etc.), but to God. — pévew instead of eivm, ver. 5. Both
expressions are synonymous, it is true, but not identical (Beza); in pévev
the unchangeableness of the being is brought out. Bengel: Synonyma cum
gradatione : illum nosse, in illo esse, in illo manere. Frommann (p. 187): “The
being and abiding in God signifies one and the same fellowship with God.
The latter describes it merely as something constant, lasting, which accessory
notion is not contained in the former expression.” — dgeiAe: (comp. chap.
iii. 16, iv. 11, “is in duty bound ”) refers back to 6 Aéywv; it is not meant to
be indicated here what is demanded in regard to the pévew év Geo, but what
1 Even Bengel's interpretation : ‘‘ Perfectum
regimen nactus et perfecte cognitue est (viz.,
amor Dei! erga hominem),” does not corre-
spond to the idea of the word.
8 Ebrard, it is true, wants the idea rere-
Aciwras to be retained unweakened, but finds
himeelf compelled by his interpretation of
% dy. T. 8. to agree with Beza’s explanation,
because ‘in the case of a relationship its per..-
Section ie nothing elee than its conclusion.”
Ebrard's opinion, that if 4 ay. r. ©. = “ love
to God,” John must have written reAcia doriy
instead of rereAccwras, la — besides being con-
trary to John's useuse loguendi — without
foundation.
8 To Calvin’s explanation : “Si quis ubjiciat,
neminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui Deum
ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo: sufficere,
modo qufeque pro gratiae elbi datae mensura
ad hanc perfectionem aspiret,” and in that of
Sucinue: **Est autem perfectio feta caritatis
in Deum et vbedientia praeceptorum ejus ita
intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ef
quicquam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejus-
modi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos
bonitate contentus esse voluit,”’ limitations are
introduced which are foreign to the apostie’s
train of thought.
4 In substantial agreement with this Weiss
says: ‘In vv. 3 and 4 it was etated that In the
keeping of God's commandments we recognize
that we have known God. If, therefore, there
is a continuous train of thought here, the
being in God must only be a new expression
for the knowing of God, or must be directly
given along with it,’
504 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
is the duty of him who says that he abides in God—if he does not want to
be a liar, in whom the truth is not, ver. 4. — xaOug txelvog mepuerarnoe, nal atric
[obrwe] mepirarveiv. By these words Christ is placed as a pattern before
Christians, i.e., in regard to His whole walk (which is elsewhere done in the
N. T. only in regard to His self-abasement and to His conduct in suffering ;
see this commentary on 1 Pet. ii. 21); of what sort this was, John does not
here say; from the connection with what precedes, however, it is clear that
the apostle points to Him in so far as He kept the commandments of God,
and therefore walked in the light.1_ This reference to Christ as an example
is frequently found in the same form (xa6dc éxeivoc) in our Epistle; so iii. 3,7,
iv. 17; comp. also John xiii. 15, xv. 10, and passim. — weperareiv describes
not merely the disposition, but the action resulting from it. In the fact that
John brings just this out (comp. especially chap. iii. 17, 18), it is evident
how far his mysticism is removed from mere fanaticism. — On ofruc, see the
critical notes.
Vv. 7-11. A more particular statement of the nature and import of
Thpeiv tac évroAde abrov or Of weperareiv xabdc exeivog mepunarnoe.
Ver. 7. dyannroi. Such a form of address does not necessarily indicate
the commencement of a new section, but is also used when the subject of the
discourse is intended to be brought home to the hearers or readers; this is
the case here. — ob« évroAdv xaiviv ypigw tpiv certainly does not mean: “I do
not write to you of a new commandment;” neither, however: “I write (set)
before you” (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; for ypage» has not this signification ; it
simply means ¢o write; when connected with an object, as here, it is = to
communicate or announce any thing by writing; comp. chap. i.4. The
subject of his writing, the apostle calls an évroay. It is arbitrary to take
the word here in a different meaning from that which it always has; thus
Rickli: “ the whole revelation of divine truth as it has been brought to us
in Jesus Christ”? (similarly Flacius, Calovius, etc.); and Ebrard: “the
announcement, that God is light, chap. i. 5;” évroa# means “ commandment; ”
this idea must not be confounded with any other. Most of the commentators
(Augustin, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-
Crusius, De Wette-Briickner, Neander, Sander, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald,
etc.) understand by it, according to vv. 9-11, the commandment of brotherly
love; others, on the other hand (Socinus, Episcopius, Calovius, Schott,
Liicke, Fritzsche, Frommann, etc.), according to ver. 6, the commandment
of following Christ. These two views seem to be opposed to one another,
but they really are so only if we assume that John here wants to emphasize
a single special commandment — in distinction from other commandments.
1 Semler paraphrases: ‘8! quis gloriatur,
se suamque doctrinam semper conveniase cum
doctrina illa Christi, is aane debet etiam in
humanae vitae modo non Judaismum prae-
ferre”’ (!).
3 Ebrard wrongly maintains that évroAy ie
‘a truth including directly in itself practical
requirements.’” Only the practical require-
ments contained in a truth can be — when
regarded as a unity — called éyroAy, but not
the truth which contains them in itself. It is
true, the demand of faith in the message of
salvation may be described as ¢vroAy, but not
the message of salvation itself; here, however,
the context forbide us to take the expression
in that sense (as Weiss), since neither in what
precedes nor in what immediately follows ts
there a demand for faith expressed.
CHAP. II. 7. 505
This supposition, however, is erroneous; the command to keep the
commandments (or the word) of God after the example of Christ, or to
walk in the light, is no other than the command to love one’s brother.
From chap. i. 5 on, John is speaking not of different commandments, but of
the one general commandment of the Christian life which results from the
truth that God is light. It is to this commandment that reference is made
when John, in order to bring it home to his readers, says: ot« évroAjy xawiv
yoagw tyiv, 80 that by évroAy he does not indicate a commandment which he
then for the first time is about to mention, but the commandment which
he has already spoken of in what precedes (only not merely in ver. 6), but
defines more particularly in what follows, namely, in regard to its concrete
import.! Of this commandment John says, that it is not an évroAy xatwa ; 2
in what sense he means this, the following words state: GAA’ évroAjy naAaay,
fv elxere an’ dpxype3 it is not new, but old, inasmuch as his readers did not first
receive it through this writing, but already had it, and indeed am’ dpyiy, i.e.,
from the very beginning of their Christian life; comp. chap. iii. 11 ;
2 John 5, 6; and, for the expression az’ dpyfc, ver. 24 (Calvin, Beza, Socinus,
Episcopius, Piscator, Hornejus, Lange, Rickli, Liicke, De Wette-Briickner,
Sander, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune,
etc.). The imperfect ciyere, instead of which we should expect the present,
either refers back to the time before John had come to his readers, or
is to be explained: “which ye hitherto already had.” The latter is the
more probable. Some commentators weaken this interpretation, which is
demanded by the context, and hold that John calls the commandment
(namely, “the commandment of love”) an old one, because it was already
given by Moses; thus Flacius, Clarius, etc.; the Greek commentators even
go beyond that, and refer it at once to this, that it was written from the
very beginning in the heart of man;® the latter Baumgarten-Crusius
maintains, and says: “here, therefore, the ethics of Christianity are
represented as the eternal law of reason,” in which he explains an’ doyi¢
“from the beginning of the history of man,” and regards “ye as men” as
2 This view is in accordance with that of
Dtisterdieck, who rightly remarks: ‘‘ The
3 Certainly what John here says reminds
us of the statement of Christ in John xiii. 84;
solution of the problem lies in this, that the
holy command to walk as Christ walked, fully
and essentially resolves iteelf into the com-
mand of brotherly love;” it is also accepted
by Braune. The objection of Briickner, that
brotherly love is only a principal element,
and not the complete fulfilment of following
Christ, can only be regarded as valid if
brotherly love is not viewed in ite full, com-
plete character; comp. John xill. 34, and also
the statement of the Apostle Paul: wAjpeaya
vouov » ayawn, Rom. xiii. 10.— The instances
adduced by Ebrard against the reference to
brotherly love can only have any force if the
commandment which prescribes this is dis.
tinguished, as a special one, from the com-
mand to walk in light.
nor can it be denied that John was here
thinking of that, as well as in the passage
2 John 5; but from this it does not follow that
ote dvroA. cay. ypadw vuiv does not refer to
what precedes, but only to what comes after
(ver. 9).
8 In the scholia of Matthael it is thus put:
et péy ‘lovdaiags Travra ypader, cixdress, THY wepi
ayawns évroAny ov xarvhy elvas dyci. waAdar yap
avrny ba tev wpodyray dxnyyeiAaro, Ei 8 oven
*lovéaio foav, unwor’ oly dvToAn wadata ..
doriv } cara Ta¢ dvaiKas tvyvoias Pirin ScadGecre,
waytes yap vce: Hucpa kai Kotvwryica Cwa ovres
ayanecs Tovs wAnciov. — Oecumenius and
Theophylact combine the two together, hold-
ing that the Epistle was addressed to Jewish
and Gentile Christians.
506 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the subject of elyere. — 7 Evrodd # madaia tori 6 Adyor bv fotcare. This addition
serves for a more particular definition of the preceding; #4 ada is repeated
in order to accentuate this idea more strongly. By eiyere it was only stated
that the readers were in possession of the commandment; now the apostle
defines it more particularly in this respect, that it is the word (not “the
chief substance of the word,” De Wette) which they had heard (comp.
ver. 24, iii. 11, iv. 3), which, therefore, was proclaimed unto them (comp.
chap. i. 2, 3), namely, by the apostolic preaching. The clause is therefore
not to be taken, as Baumgarten-Crusius holds, as a correction of ypagu: “ not
by him was it first given; it is from the beginning of Christianity, the Adyor,
dy Hxovoare, namely, from Christ;” for fxovoare does not refer directly to
ypdgu (Bengel), but to eiyere.1 On the addition az’ dpyi¢ (Rec.) after qovcare,
which Ewald regards as genuine, see the critical notes.
Ver. 8. mddw évroAjv xaviv, «.7.A4.].° Almost all commentators hold that
the évroAd xawvy is the same évroa7 as was the subject of ver. 7; differently
Ebrard, who explains as follows: “ With ver. 7 begins a new section which
continues to ver. 29, in which the leading thought is the position of the
readers to the light as one which was already shining; by évr. mada is
meant the clause, chap. i. 5: 6 @ed¢ gic dort; by évr. xusvy, on the other hand,
the following clause: 4 oxoria mapayerat nal 1rd gc TO dAndwoy 7én palver;? the
relative clause 6 éor:v dAndic, x.t.A., belongs, by apposition, to the following
sentence: ér % oxoria, x.t.A., and states to what extent the essential true
light has already begun to shine, namely, the fact that the light already
shines has a double sphere in which it is dAnéés, ie., actually realized,
first in Christ, but then also é» duiv, i.e., in the Ephesian readers them-
selves, and equally in all true Christians.” This explanation is, however,
incorrect ; for (1) the truth 9 oxoria mapayerat, «.7.4., can just as little be
called an évroa7 as the sentence 6 Ged gu tore (See on ver. 7); (2) the rela-
tive clause, if it was to be a preceding apposition to 9 oxoria, «.7.A., would
have had to come after dr; according to the structure of the verse, 6 must
necessarily be connected with what precedes; (3) it is a false idea, that that
which the clause ér: 7 oxoria expresses was actually realized in Christ; the
incorrectness of this idea is concealed in Ebrard’s interpretation in this way,
no doubt, that he gives to év avrd a different relation from that which he
gives éy ipiv, and changes the present wapdyeruc into the perfect.* Nor is the
1 Wolf assumes a pecuilar antithesis be-
tween the two sentences: ‘ Ratio fortassis
aliqua reddl possit, cur éxecv et axovew ax’
apxns sibt invicem subjungantur. Prius enim
ad illos spectaverit, qui ex Judaeis ad Christum
convers! erant; illi enim jam ante praeceptum
hoc de amore mutuo ex lege Mosis et pro-
phetis cognitum habebant; posterius respiciet
ex-Gentiles, qui idem inter prima evangell-
cae doctrinae praecepta acceperant;’’ this
amounts, partly, if not altogether, to what the
Greek commentators adduce for explanation
of the expression waAad. The arbitrariness of
such an untithesis is self-evident.
2 The same view is found in Castellio,
Socinus, and Bengel. The latter remarks on
éyroAny xacvyy: ‘ Pracceptum novum, quod
nobis nunc primum fn hac epistola scribitur; '”
and on ore: ‘* Quod hoc est illud praeceptum,”*
to which he then very strangely adds: ‘‘amor
fratris, ex luce.”
3 Ebrard says: ‘The eternally existing
light is one which has already appeared ¢v
avrg, in so far as in Christ the light objectiv-
ized has arisen for the world and has overcome
the darkness, and ¢» vyucw in so far as also
subjectively to the readers the light of the
gospel has arisen, and they also subjectively
CHAP. II. 8. 507
opinion that we are to understand by ér. rad, the commandment of walking
in light, and by évr. xa:vq, on the other hand, that of brotherly love (ver. 9),
tenable, because these commandments, according to their import, are not
two distinct commandments, but one and the same commandinent. Still
more unjustifiable is the assumption of S. Schmid, that in ver. 7 the funda-
mental law of Christianity, namely, justification by faith, but here the com-
mandment of Christian sanctification, is meant; and that of Weiss, that by
évroAf, ver. 7, is to be understood the evangelical message of salvation, but
here the commandment of love. The apostle, having in view here the same
commandment as in ver. 7, says: “ Again a new commandment I write unto you,
which thing is true in Him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the
true light now shineth.” The relative clause 6 tory, «.7.4,, serves not merely to
establish the statement that the commandment is a new one (Socinus, Fla-
cius, Morus, Hornejus, De Wette-Briickner, Liicke, ed. 2 and 3, ed. 1 of this
commentary, Erdmann, etc.);! but the apostle thereby describes the com-
mandment, yet not in a material way, so that 4 would be referred to the
substance of it (Oecumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Semler, From-
mann, Diisterdieck, etc.),? but only in a formal way, as that which is actually
fulfilled in Christ and in his readers; as the commandment in ver. 7 was
also only defined in a formal way by jy elzere an’ apxiic. —b tory... év tyiv is
have been drawn from darkness unto light.”
By év vty he means, therefore, the readers, in
whom, i.e., in whose souls, the transition from
darkness to light has taken place; by ev
avry, however, not Christ, in whom, but the
world, for which that has happened objectively,
inasmuch as Christ entered as the light Into
the darkness of the world. Quite a different
meaning, therefore, is here assigned to é» aur»
from that which ie given to ev uur, as the dif-
ference in the relation from the antitheais of
** objective’ and “subjective”? clearly shows.
— It is not merely the change of the present
wapdayera: into the perfect that fs the cause of
thie treatment, for it appears elsewhere in the
commentary, — thus on p. 148: ‘‘ that which ls
true in Christ and in you, that the darkness
ts past,’ etc.; p. 150: ‘similar to the new
announcement, that the darkness is past,” etc. ;
p- 156 : “It ie the truth, that the darkness ie
past;” against which, on the other hand,
wapayera: is correctly explained on p. 159:
“the darkness fs passing by, is in a state of
passing away, of disappearing.”
1 For if 6 éory, «.7.A., le, according to the
jutention of the apostle, to be referred to
the idea of the newness of the commandment,
he would — first, have given this idea a more
independent form than he has given it as a
simple attribute of the object ¢vroAny depend-
ing On ypd¢w; and, secondly, not have given
the confirmation of the etatement (that the
commandment is a new one) in a sentence
which does pot so much show the truth of
this idea as mercly state the sphere in which
that statement is true; to which may be
added, that the idea so resulting is itself so
indistinct, that it requires, in order to be un-
derstood, an explanatory circumlocution, such
as: ‘‘that the commandment is a new one has
its truth in Christ, inasmuch as it did not exist
before IIim,”’ ete. (ed. 1 of this comm.). Be-
sides, an emphasis unwarranted by the context
is placed on the idea of the newness of the
commandment, especially if it is thought that
the following ov: again serves to establish the
thought expressed in the confirmatory clause
(Licke, De Wette, Briickner).
2 Dilsterdieck, {t {s true, approves of
Knapp’s paraphrase, which agrces with the
above explanation: wads (ws) ¢vroAny cacy.
YP. Uuty TOUTO 6 corey GANnOds, x.TA.; but, with
the idea of a constructio ad sensum, refers o to
the preceding évroAyy, ao that this forms the
object of ypade, which by the relative clause
obtains {its more particular definition. In
opposition to this construction, De Wette has
rightly obeerved that it has grammatical diffi.
culty. When Disterdieck, in reply to Licke’s
objection, that with that interpretation it
would need to run # éorww adnéys, says that
it is not the ¢vroAy itself as such, but its
subetance in Christ, etc., that has been fulfilled,
Ebrard’s obeervation is a eufficient answer:
“That which is required in the évroAy is
nothing elee than just the évroAy itself; the
requirement itself is fulfilled in Christ when
its substance is fulfilled in Him.”
508 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the object belonging to ypagu, and fvrodjy xaiviv is to be taken as the accusative
of more particular definition ; this construction of it is found in Ewald, only
he explains év avré incorrectly by “in the last-mentioned (in ver. 7) word of
God;” most recently it has been accepted by Braune with the interpretation
here given. The sense accordingly is: that which is already true, i.e., ful-
filled, in Christ and in you, namely, the rnpeiv rac tvroAds rod Seow (comp. John
xv. 10, where Christ says of Himself, éyo rag évroAig rob marpég pov terhpnxa),
I write unto you as a new commandment.! With this view it is self-evident
that the apostle calls the old commandment a new one only in so far as he
writes it anew to them. It is true, a different reference has usually been
given to xaw7, by understanding it either of the constant endurance of the
commandment of love,? or to indicate that this commandment first entered
into the world along with Christianity — whether emphasis was put more
upon the substance of it (Liicke, De Wette, ed. 1 of this comm.), or upon
the mere time of it (Diisterdieck) ;* but these constructions, not being indi-
cated in the context, are purely forced. —On udv, Erasmus says: et con-
trarietatem declarat et iterationem; hic autem non repetitionis sed contrarietatis
est declaratio; with this interpretation almost all commentators agree,
referring waa to the idea évr. xawnv; but an antithetical construction is
foreign to the word; it is = “again, once more,” is to be connected with
ypiow, and is explained by the fact that the readers have already heard the
commandment, nay, even are already fulfilling it. Liicke and De Wette
connect it directly with the verb, but in such a way that even they give to
it an antithetical reference.* — éoriv dAndéc]. dAnOnc signifies here the actual
reality, as in Acts xii. 9 (see Meyer on this passage). —év atr@]. éy is to be
retained in its special meaning, not = “respectu, in reference to,” nor is it
used “of the subject in which something true is to be recognized as true
(ver. 3) ” (De Wette), for there is no mention here of any knowledge. That
by abrég here not God (Jachmann), but Christ is to be understood, is shown
1 That John places before his readers anew
as a commandment that which already has
been fulfilled in them, fs clearly not more
strange than that he declares to them truths of
which he himself says that they know them
already (comp. ver. 21). Briickner admits
that the construction here advocated {s simple
and clear, but groundleasly thinks that ‘the
strangeness of this form of speech”’ is not
mitigated by the reference to ver, 21.
2 Calvin: “ Novum dicit, quod Deus quoti-
die suggerendo veluti renovat; Joannes negat
ejusmodi esse doctrinam de fratribus dill-
gendis, quae tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo
vigere.”
3 On the basis of the right view of az’ apxns,
ver. 7, we find the nature of the newness of
the commandment indicated just in this; this,
however, is only the case if the temporal
reference je retained in ite purity. This
Disterdieck indeed Insists on; but this relation
has only force if we regard at the same time
the substance of the commandment, as Dilistor-
dieck does. But nothing in the context {ndi-
cates this new substance, and it is therefore
very differently defined by the commentators.
« Liicke does so when he says: ‘In yer. 8,
John continues correctingly thus: Again a
pew commandment I write unto you.” (In
the edition of 1851, Liicke agrees with the
usual acceptation: ‘“‘ Again—in contrast —a
new commandment I write unto you;” see
ed. 8, p. 249, note 1.)— De Wette does not
expressly give his opinion about waAw; but
when he thinks that John should properly
have written: “again a new commandment I
call it,”” and when he then paraphrases it:
“The commandment of love is an old and
long-known one to you; but (as it is altogether
revealed as a new one by Christ) for you who
partake in the newness of life it ts in an
especial manner a new one,” the antithetical
reference is clearly brought out by him also.
CHAP. II. 8 509
by the context. Socinus incorrectly explains év atré = per se ac simpliciter.
On the point that juiv is not to be read, see the critical notes. Grotius
unjustifiably understands by jyiv the apostles. — Neander has a wrong
conception of the relation of év airé and év tuiv when he explains: “it takes
place in reference to Christ and in reference to the church, therefore in
reference to their mutual relationship to one another.” — dre 4 oxoria, x.7.A, }.
ér: is not used declaratively, nor in such a way as to be dependent on dAndéc
(“it is true that the darkness,” etc.), or on évroaAgy (Castellio, Socinus, Beng-
el, Ebrard), — to both these views the structure of the verse is opposed, —
but causally; this is rightly perceived by most of the commentators; but it
is incorrect when they connect it with the immediately preceding 8 tory
dAndic, x.7.2., for the doubleemembered clause, ér: 7 oxoria . . . gaive, being a
confirmatory clause, does not stand in a corresponding relationship to the
thought, 6 tory aA. . . . tuiv, which it is intended to confirm.! By 62, «.r.2.,
the apostle rather states the reason why he writes to them as a new com-
mandment that which is true in Christ and in them (Diisterdieck, Braune) ;
this reason is the already commenced disappearance of darkness, and shining
of the true light. The contrasted words 4 oxoria and 7d gac Td dAndwvov are to be |
taken in an ethical sense (Braune);? the former idea signifies the darkness
which consists in error and sin, as it exists outside the fellowship with God ;
the latter, the light which consists in truth and holiness, as it proceeds from
Christ, who Himself is the true light. It is incorrect to understand here by
7d goc rd aA., Christ Himself (Bengel, Erdmann), as the contrast with 7 oxoria
shows.
1 With this connection of the thoughts, the
double-membered clause ort § gxoria . ..
gaive: must confirm both dor 4A, dy atry and
also doru aA. dy vuitv. Now, when Liticke
makes the apostie to say, as a proof that the
commandment to walk in light shows itself in
Christ and in his readers as a new one: * Not
only in Christ Himself (é» avre) has the true
light appeared, but it has also shed itself
abroad, dispelling the darkness in the minds
of bie readers (éy vuty), and is shining fn
them,” he attributes the thought really ex-
pressed by the apostle (9 cxoria .. . paives)
only to dv viv; while to éy abry, on the other
hand, he attributes an idea which the apostle
has not expressed. — Brtickner says: ‘‘ The ev
evry refers to nai Td dws, &.7.A., the dy Omiy
rather to » oxoria, «.7.A.;"’ but this reference
of the one member of the confirmatory clause
to the one element of the thought to be
confirmed must be regarded as unjustified,
although Brtickner thinks “it can easily be
imagined that the apostie in the one part of
the confirmation had in view rather the latter,
and in the other rather the former part of the
clause to be confirmed,” for such a different
reference is in no way hinted at; besides, 48y
is here altogether left out of view. Disterdieck
GAn@vo¢ is an expression which is almost confined to the writings of
rightly establishes the proposition that the
whole sentence aAnO. . . . vu is to be
regarded as confirmed by the whole sentence
ore ) oe, .. . Gaivec; but when he then, in
interpretation, says: ‘* Already the darkness
ie dispelled by the true light, which shines in
truth in Christ and in Hie believers (in so far,
namely, as brotherly love attained its moet
perfect manifestation in the walk of Christ,
and is exercised by believers aleo),” it is only
the second part of the confirmatory clause that
is referred by him to dy avry cai dy vuiy, but
not the first part; and this indeed is quite
natural, since in Christ a disappearance of
darkness ig not imaginable.
2 It was to be expected that Weisa here also
denies to the ideas gcoria and dws the ethical
meaning, and wants to be understood by the
former only error, by the latter only the
knowledge of God. Weiss himeelf, however,
views them both so that they are of ethical —
and not merely theoretical — character; and,
moreover, as he admits that with the former
error ein, and with the latter knowledge
holiness, is necessarily connected, it ia #0
much the more arbitrary to allege that John,
in the use of these ideas, utterly ignored this
necessary connection.
510 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
John; outside them it is only found in Luke xvi. 11, 1 Thess. i. 9, and three
times in the Epistle to the Hebrews; it describes the light of which the
apostle is speaking as the eternal, essential light, of which the earthly light
is merely the transitory reflection; see especially Neander on this passage.
— napayerat is translated by the Vulgate as perfect: quoniam tenebrae transt-
erunt; similarly by Luther: “the darkness is past;” and Calvin directly
says: Praesens tempus loco Praeteriti. This, however, is arbitrary; the
present is to be retained as such; it is used in the same sense as in 1 Cor.
Vii. 31: mapdyee (see Meyer on this passage), so that we must interpret: “the
oxoria is in the state of passing away.” It is unnecessary to take mapiyerai,
with Bengel, with whom Sander and Besser agree, as passive (Bengel: non
dicit mapuyee transit, sed apayera traducttur, commutatur, tla ut tandem
absorbeatur) ; it is more natural to regard it as the middle form with intran-
sitive meaning. With the meaning “is in the state of passing,” corresponds
the particle #67 with galve, which is not = “now” (Luther), but by which
the moment is described in which the darkness is retreating before the light,
at which therefore neither has the darkness already completely disappeared,
nor is the light completely dominant. Most of the commentators, both the
older and more recent (Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette-Briickner, Liicke,
Sander, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard), take this as referring to Christian-
ity in general, in so far as by it, as the true light, the old darkness is
being ever more and more overcome; but by the word #7 the apostle shows
that in these words he is looking forward to a future time at which that °
victory will have been completely won, and which he regards as close at hand
(so also Braune). The moment in which he writes this is in his eyes,
therefore, no other than that which immediately precedes the second coming
of Christ, and which He Himself in ver. 18 calls the éoydrn dpa, in which it
is of the greater importance for Christians, by keeping the commandment,
to show themselves as children of the light. The same train of thought
essentially occurs here as afterwards in vv. 15-18; compare also the Pauline
4 w0§ mpoéxowper, 7 dé Huépa jyyue, Rom. xiii. 12.
Vv. 9-11. Further definition of the life of light as life in love. — Ver. 9.
6 Aéywv; the same form as in ver. 4, to which the structure of the whole
verse is very similar. éy ro dur? elva: stands in close relation to what imme-
diately precedes; although he alone is in the light who lives in fellowship
with Christ, and belongs to the Church of Christ, yet rd ga¢ describes neither
Christ Himself (Spener, etc) nor “the church as the sphere within which
the light has operated as illuminating power” (Ebrard). Chap. i. 6, 7,
may be compared. — In contrast with xal rdv ddeAgdv abrod yucdy is ver. 10, 4
ayaray ad. abrov, in which the apostle states the substance of the rypeiv rdp
Asyov rov Oeot after the example of Christ. As ¢d¢ and oxoria, 80 puceiv r. ad,
and dyandy +r. ad. exclude each other; they are tendencies diametrically
1 Rickii: ‘‘John says this of the time in truth, is already shining; ... already the
which they are living, and in which the great great morning is dawning for mankind. When
work of the Lord had had a wonderful, rapid = the Lord shall return, then ehall be the perfect
progress of development. The true Light, the day of God. Towards this manifestation all
Lord in His perfect manifestation of divine believers walk.”
CHAP. II. 9-11. 511
opposed to one another; human action belongs either to the one or to the
other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one, falls into that of
the other; Bengel: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor non est vacuum. Here
also John speaks absolutely, without taking into consideration the imperfect
state of the Christian, as is seen in the hesitations between love and hatred.
—rdv adeAgov Grotius interprets: sive Judaeum, sive aliegenam; fratres omnes
in Adamo sumus; similarly Calov, J. Lange, etc. ; by far the greatest num-
ber of commentators understand thereby fellow-Christians. Apart from its
exact meaning and the wider meaning =.brethren of the same nation (Acts
xxiii. 1; Heb. vii. 5), adeAgig is used in the N. T. generally, in Acts and in
the Pauline Epistles always, to denote Christians; but in many passages it
is also = 6 rAnoiov or 6 Erepoc; thus in Matt. v. 22 ff., vii. 3 ff., xviii. 85;
Luke vi. 41 ff.; Jas. iv. 11, 12 (in Matt. v. 47 it describes our friendly
neighbor). In the Gospel of John it is only used in the sense of relation-
ship, except in chap. xx. 17, where Christ calls His paénrai “ol ddeAgoi pov,”
and in chap. xxi. 23, where of dd. is a name of Christians. If, therefore,
according to the usus loguendi of the N. T., 6 adeAgoe may certainly be = 6
mAnoiov, yet in the Epistles of John, according to chap. iii. 11 (comp. Gospel
of John xiii. 34, xv. 12; besides, especially with iii. 16, comp. Gospel of
John xv. 18; there intp rév ddeAgpaw rds Wuxi rifévac; here tnép rov ¢gidwv
airov), and according to chap. v. 1 (where the ad. is specifically called a
yeyevynuévor éx tov Geov), we must understand by it the Christian brother; so
that John, therefore, is speaking, not of the general love towards men, but
of the special relationship of Christians to one another; comp. the distinc-
tion in 2 Pet. i. 7; Gal. vi. 10. — ue dors; “until now,” refers back to #n,
ver. 9; the meaning is: although the darkness is already shining, such a
one is nevertheless still (adhuc) in darkness; on this peculiarly N. T.
expression, see Winer, p. 439 (E. T., 470); A. Buttmann, p. 275 (E. T.,
320); there is no reason for supplying, “even if he were a long time a
Christian” (Ewald). With the évr. ox. éorcy is contrasted (ver. 10), é ro
gurl uevec; see on this ver. 6.1 That the “exercise of brotherly love is
itself a means of strengthening the new life ” (Ebrard), is not contained in
the idea péver. Even if the idea of ver. 10—in relation to that of the 9th
verse — is brought out more distinctly by uéve:, this is uch more done by the
words xa? oxdvdadov tv atte otc Eortv. oxavdadov appears in the N. T. only in
the ethical signification = “offence,” i.e., that which entices and tempts to
sin; in the case of é airp, the preposition é is generally either left unno-
ticed by the commentators (Grotius says, appealing to Ps. cxix: est meto-
nymia et tv abundat. Sensus: ille non impingit), or changed in meaning; De
Wette : “in his case (for him) there is no stumbling; comp. John xi. 9 ff. ;”
similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, etc.; Liicke even says: “éy abro
can here only signify the outer circle of life,” because “the oxdvdada for the
1 KSetlin incorrectly finds the reason why the apostle {e not epeaking here at all; but the
he who loves hie brother remaine in the light, truth of his statement lies rather in thie, that
in this, ‘that the Christian life of the Indi- love and light are essentially connected with
vidual requires for its own existence the one another.
support of all others.” Of such a support
512 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Christian lie in the world, and not in him;” with him Sander agrees. For
such changes there is no ground, since, in the usage of the word, the figure
(the snare, or rather the wood that falls in the snare) has quite given place
to the thing; and it is therefore unnecessary to say, with Diisterdieck, that
“in the expression é airo the thing itself penetrates into the otherwise
figurative form of speech;” the offence may be outside a man, but it may
be in him also; comp. Matt. v. 29, 30. The preposition é is here to be
retained in its proper meaning (Diisterdieck, Ewald, Braune). The sense
is: In him who loves his brother, and thus remains in the light, there is
nothing which entices him to sin. Some commentators refer cxavdadov to
the temptation of others to sinning; so Vatablus: nemini offendiculo est;
Johannsen: “he gives no offence; Ebrard: “there is nothing in them by
which they would give offence to the brethren,” etc.; but in the context
there is no reference to the influence which the Christian exercises upon
others, and if John had had this relationship in his mind, he would certainly
have expressed it; this is decisive also against Braune, who would retain
both references. Paulus quite unwarrantably refers ty aire to rd dog: “in
that light nothing is a stumbling-block.” — The beginning of the 11th verse
repeats, in a form antithetical to ver. 10, that which was said in ver. 9; but
with further continuation of the é 19 oxorig éoriv.— The first subordinate
clause runs, xal év t9 oxoria mepirarei. The difference of the two clauses does
not consist in this, that the representation passes over from the less figura-
tive (tori) to the more figurative (ep:nare’) (Liicke); for, on the one hand,
weptrareiv is so often used of the ethical relationship of man, that it is
scarcely any longer found as a figurative expression ; and, on the other hand,
the connection by «ai shows that there is a difference of idea between the
two expressions; this has been correctly thus described by Grotius: priori
membro affectus (or better, habitus, Sander), altero actus denotatur (similarly
De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Braune). Both the being (the condition)
and the doing (the result) of the unloving one belong to darkness; comp.
Gal. v. 25. The second subordinate clause, xai ot« olde rod iméyet, is closely
connected with sep:rarei; nov, properly a particle of rest, is in the N. T.
frequently connected with verbs of motion; comp. John vii. 35, xx. 2, 18;
Heb. xi. 8; in the Gospel of John especially, as here, with trayew; see John
iii. 8, viii. 14, etc.; in John xii. 35 it runs exactly as here: 6 meperaray bv rp
oxorig obx olde nod tmayet. The translation “where be is going,” is false, for
tréyew is not “to go,” but “to go to.” To the unloving one, the goal whither
he is going on his dark way, and therefore the direction of his way, is
unknown. By this goal it is not exactly the final goal, i.e., condemnation
(Cyprian : it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et caecus praecipitatur tn poenam),
that is to be thought of, for the subject according to the context is not
punishment; but by the figurative expression the apostle wants to bring out
that the unloving one, not knowing whither, follows the impulse of his own
1 When Ebrard finds no obetacile in the find no obstacle in the thought that there ts
thought that be who loves his brother does not nothing in him which becomes an offence to
by any act give offence to others, he should himeelf.
CHAP. II. 12-14. 513
selfish desire: he does not know what he is doing, and whither it tends. As
a confirmation of this last idea, the apostle further adds: dri 4 oxoria trigAwce
rods d¢0aAuodc avTod; TupAciy does not mean “to darken,” but “to make blind,
to blind; this idea is to be retained, and is not, with Liicke and others, to
be enfeebled by an interpolated tamquam, as (“in the darknese they are as
if blind”), by which the clause loses its meaning; the apostle wants to
bring out, that, inasmuch as the unloving one walks in the darkness, the
sight of his eyes is taken from him by this darkness, so that he does
not know, etc. He who lives in sin is blinded by sin, and therefore does not
know whither his sin is leading him; comp. John xii. 40 and 2 Cor. iv. 4.
Vv. 12-14. After the apostle has depicted the Christian life in its essen-
tial features, he passes on to exhortation. To this these verses form the
introduction, in which the apostle assures his readers that their Christianity
is the ground of his writing. The motive of this, which explains also the
form of expression, is the earnest longing which inspires the apostle, that
his readers may take home to themselves the following exhortation. — The
apostle addresses them under four different names: reavia and radia, ratépec,
veavioxa. By the two latter names they are distinguished according to the
two corresponding degrees of age;! in the case of saripec the proper mean-
ing is not to be strictly retained, but in contrast to veaviono: it is = yépovrer
or mpecGirepa, the members of the church who are already in advanced age;
thus Erasmus, Calvin, Socinus, Morus, Carpzov, Lange, Paulus, De Wette-
Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc. — The veavioxos are the younger
members of the church; Calvin: tametsi diminutivo utitur, non tamen dubium
est, quin sermonem ad omnes dirigat, qui sunt in aetatis flore et statu. The view
of Augustine is to be rejected, that under the three names the same persons
are addressed whom the apostle only designates differently in different
aspects: filtoli, quia baplismo neonati sunt; patres, quia Christum pairem et
antiquum dierum agnoscunt; adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. So also
is the opinion that the apostle has in view, not the difference in age, but the
difference in the degree, or even in the length of existence, of Christian life;
a Lapide: (riplict hoe aetatis gradu triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum et
quasi aetaium repraesentat; pueri enim repraesentant incipientes et neophytos ;
juvenes repraesentant proficientes ; senes perfectos ; similarly Clemens, Oecu-
menius, further Gagneius, Cajetanus, Russmeyer, Grotius,? etc. Some
commentators (as Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange, Myrberg) also refer the two
expressions, rexvia (ver. 12) and rauia (ver. 18), to the difference of age, and
understand by them children, in the proper sense of the word; but more
prevalent is the view that this is true of madia only, and that rexvia, on the
other hand, is to be regarded as a form of address to all Christians; Calvin:
haec (namely, ver. 12) adhuc generalis est sententia, mox speciales sententias
accomodabit singulis aetatibus; similarly Luther, Beza, Calov, Wolf, Baum-
1 That “the distinction between church clasesen,quaediacriminanon secundum aetatem,
leaders and church members appears in the sed secundum gradus diversos ejus profectus,
distinction between old and young” (Hilgen- qui in Christo est, intelligi debent,” cf. 1 Cor.
feld), is in no way suggested. xill. 11,12; Heb. v. 13; Eph. Iv. 13, 14.
2 Grotius: ‘* Partitur Christianos In tres
514 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
garten-Crusius, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, etc. With the first view
there arises a wrong succession, namely, children, fathers, young men;
instead of, children, young men, fathers, or, fathers, young men, children;
and, moreover, since rexvia is in the Epistle frequently the form of address
to all readers, and not only with but also without pov (see on ver. 1), so it
is to be taken here also. Equally, however, by za:dia the apostle addresses
all readers; as Liicke, De Wette-Briickner, Diisterdieck, Gerlach, Erdmann,
Ewald, Braune, rightly interpret. If we read before radia, with the Recep-
tus, ypagw tyiv, there certainly results, if mada is taken as alluding to chil-
dren, @ more accurate succession: fathers, young men, children; but (1)
according to almost all authorities we must read, not ypadw, but éypaya, and
the former reading can only be explained in this way, that rawia was under-
stood in its proper sense, and it was thought that this clause must be brought
into the closest connection with the preceding; (2) then in the repetition of
the same succession in ver. 14 one member of it is wanting, as the children
are not mentioned again; and (3) in ver. 18 wawia is used as a form of
address in reference to all readers; comp. John xxi. 5. Against the two
last reasons it might indeed be alleged, with Bengel, Sander, and Besser,
that from ver. 14 to ver. 17 is still intended for the veavicxorr, and that then
in ver. 18 the address to the children comes in, and that the sequel as far as
ver. 27 refers to then. But against this construction is: (1) the dissimi-
larity in the form of the sentences that thereby results; (2) the absence of
an exhortation addressed to the fathers; (8) the unsuitable reference of the
warning against false teachers specially to the children, with the additional
remark, oidare mavra, ver. 20, and ob xpeiav Eyere, iva tic duddoxy tude, even though
the warning against false teachers in chap. iv. 1 ff. is referred without dis-
binction to all readers; and, finally (4), the close connection of ver. 17 and
ver. 18: 6 xdopuoe mapdyerac (comp. ver. 8: 9 oxoria mapayerat), and éoydry dpa
tori. — According to the true construction of the sentences, they fall into
two groups; in each group first all Christians, and then specially the older
and the younger members of the church, are addressed ;} the correctness of
this construction is shown also by this, that in reference to marépec, and
equally to veavioxm, in both groups the same thing is expressed, but in refer-
ence to al] there are different statements. The arbitrary conjecture of
Calvin (with whom Wall agrees), that both the clauses of ver. 14 are
spurious, and interpolated temere by ignorant readers, requires no refutation.
— The interchange of ypa¢u with the aorist Zypaya is peculiar, and is not to
be explained by saying that fpyaya points to another writing of the apostle,
whether it be the Gospel (Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schott, Ebrard,
Hofmann, Schriftbew., II. 2, § 3836; Braune),? or even an earlier Epistle
1 Even Ebrard regards the second triad as
beginning with macdca, although he understands
by it children in age; there ie a glaring incon-
sistency in thie construction.
2 To this view the followlng reasons are
opposed: 1. That if the apostle in ¢ypaya
had another writing ju view than in ypadew, he
would have expressed this distinctly; 2. That
thereby the train of thought of the Epistle is
unduly interrupted, since the assertion of the
reason why he had written the Gospel ie here
introduced without any connecting link; 3.
That then the emphasis contained in the three-
fold repetition of ¢ypawa remaine inexplicable
CHAP. II. 12-14. 515
(Michaelis); both expressions rather refer, as most of the commentators
have recognized, to this Epistle; not, however, to the same thing, as some
commentators suppose; thus Bengel, who regards the two expressions as
synonymous, explains: verbo scribendi ex praesenti in praeterito transposito
innuit commonitionem firmissimam, which cannot be grammatically justified ;}
and Diisterdieck, who thinks that the “different import of the present and
of the aorist can only be sought for in the representation of the writing
itself; that both times the apostle means the whole Epistle lying before
him; that by ypagw he represents himself in the immediately present act of
writing, and by épya~a, on the other hand, his readers, who have received
the completed Epistle:” opposed to this, however, is the fact that such a
change of the mere form of representation would certainly be rather trifling.
The éypaya must be referred to something else than the preceding ypagu;
yet it is not, with Neander and Erdmann,? to be referred to that which is
expressed in the clauses beginning with ypégw; for, on the one hand, the
clauses beginning with éypaya have not the form of confirmation, and, on
the other hand, there is no real cause apparent for the addition of such a
confirmation; it seems more appropriate when Rickli thinks that ypagw
refers to what follows, and éypaypa to what precedes ;* but opposed to this is
the fact that éypaya would then stand more naturally before ypagw. The
correct view has been taken by De Wette, Briickner, and Ewald, who refer
typawa to what was already written, and ypdgw to the immediate act of
writing, and hence to the Epistle in general; taking this view, it is quite in
order for John to write ypagw first, and that he then refers specially by Zypaya
to what has been already written is explained in this way, that this contains
the principal grounds for the following exhortations and amplifications.‘ —
In each part a clause beginning with 5x follows the address; this érs is not
whereas it je perfectly justifiable if the refer-
ence to something written in this Epletle is
intended to stimulate the readers more ear-
nestly to attend to the following exhortation.
The view of Ebrard, that ‘‘ while the Epistle
plainly could only be understood by grown
people,” the Gospel “is even for children
(wa:d:a) enjoyable and pleasing food,” scarcely
any one will Indorse; although even Braune
passes this over in silence.
1 When Buttmann (p. 172 [E. T., 198])
thinks that the change of tense is entirely
occasioned by the need for variation in a sixfold
repetition of the verb, it may be observed
against this, that then ver. 14a would be
nothing but a repetition of ver. 13a.
® Neander explains: ‘As John bad said:
*I write unto you,’ so now he resumes con-
firmingly what has just been written, and
says: ‘I have written unto you,’ as if he would
say: It ie agreed. This that I am now writing
to you, I have now written, it is settled, I have
nothing else to say to you, this you must
always allow to be sald to you.’ Erdmann:
** Pertinet hoc (¢ypaya) neque ad superiorem
epistolam, neque ad quidquam in hac ep. supra
dictum, sed ad ea, quae modo verbo ypadea
notata sunt.”” Similarly Paulue, who compares
with this the expression : ‘‘ iis majesty decrees
and has decreed.”’
3 Licke, following Rickil, thought that with
the first part (ore adewryrat, x.7.A.) corresponded
the section li. 15-17 in what follows, and 1. 5-7
in what precedes; with the sccond part (or
dyvexare, x.7.A.), In the former fi, 18-27, and
in the latter i. 8-11. 2; and with the third part
(ore vevtanaare, x.7.A.), in the former ii. 28
ili. 22, and itn the latter ii. 3-11; but he
afterwards gave up this artificial, cruciform
conetruction of the clauses, and explained the
ypade with éypayaas belonging to the rhetoric
of the author. See 3d ed. p. 265, note.
4 It Js only if the signification of the section
chap. i. 5~i1.11 for the essentially hortatory
Epistle is ignored, that it can be said, with
Ebrard and Braune, that with this view the
antithesis of ypadw and ¢cypapa becomes a mere
repetition, or play upon words.
516 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
objective or declarative = “that” (Socinus, Lange, Russmeyer, Bengel,
Paulus, Johannsen, Neander, Hilgenfeld, etc.), but causal, “because ” (Cal-
vin, Beza, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, De Wette-Briickner, Gerlach, Diis-
terdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard,! etc.). The apostle does not want to say what
he is writing, but why he is writing to them; comp. especially ver. 20, also
vv. 21, 27, iii. 5, 14, 15, v. 18-20. The particular Christian experiences of
his readers form the fundamental presuppositions of the Epistle; it is not
any thing new that the apostle declares unto them, but he reminds them of
what they know, so that they may take it more seriously to heart. — The
firat thing that the apostle, addressing all, reminds them of is: drt dgéwvrae
byiv ai duapriat da 7d 6voua airav. The forgiveness of sins is the basis of all
Christian life; therefore this is put first. —On the form used here, the
perfect passive dgéwvra, see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Gr., § 97, Anmerk. 8, and
§ 108, note 1; and Winer, p. 77 (FE. T., 80). The Vulgate and Luther
incorrectly translated it as if it were the present: “are forgiven ” (similarly
Rickli and others; Paulus strangely interprets, deriving it from dg’ éa0 =
ag’ éovrat, dimituniur). — da with the accusative is not = “through” (this
meaning, as is well known, it has only with the genitive, comp. Acts x. 43:
dgeoty Guaptiav AaBeiv cad tod dvduaroc abrov), but = “for the sake of ;” abvrov =
Xptcrod, not = Geov (Socinus, Paulus). According to most of the commen-
tators, did 7, dv, atrov refers to the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins,
and 1d dvoua abrod signifies Christ Himself; thus Diisterdieck : “Christ who
is what His name signifies; 2 but this is contrary to the Biblical usus lo-
quendi; if by da Christ is referred to as the author of salvation, the prepo-
sition is always construed with the genitive; by da 1rd dvoua abo, therefore,
it is the subjective ground of forgiveness that is stated (De Wette-Briickner,
Braune), in this sense: because His name is in you, i.e., because ye believe
on His name (comp. ver. 23: moretew 1H dvouart ’Inaot Xporov). The name
is therefore not regarded as empty,’but as the form which includes the
contents and reveals them; so that the subjective ground embraces in itself
the objective. —In the second group it is said, in regard to the readers of
the Epistle there called radia: yp. tuiv . . . drt tyvdxate rdv narépa. By 6 rarfp
we are not to understand, with Hornejus, Christ, inasmuch as believers per
Jidem in nomén ejus renati sunt, for such a designation of Christ has the
constant usus loquendi of Scripture against it, but God; for the name 6 srarip
is used here without any more particular definition, with clear reference to
maidia, and so God is here so called, not merely on account of His relation-
ship to Christ, but equally on account of His relationship to those who, by
1 Luther varies curiously in his translation:
fn ver. 12 he translates or: “ that,’ in ver. 13
*¢ for,’ and in ver. 14 again ‘“‘that.”? Sander
thinks that !n vv. 14 and 18 or ia used
causatively, but that In ver. 12 both “‘ because ”
‘and ‘‘that’’ are contained In 671. Erdmann
takes or: in the first three sentences objectively,
but he leaves it undecided whether in the last
three sentences it is to be taken objectively or
causally.
2 Similarly Sander: ‘‘ God forgives our sins
for the sake of the offering which Christ made;
both of these — the person and work of Christ
—are His name, for the sake of which we
recelve forgiveness.” Besser: ‘for the sake
of all that Chriet is, from the manger to the
throne.” Ewald: ‘because Christ is and is
called Christ.”
CHAP. II. 12-14. 517
faith in Christ, have obtained the forgiveness of their sins, and are thereby
placed in the relationship of children to God. From this it is clear also how
exactly 67: dgéwvrat tiv al dyapriat and Ste éyvéxate tov narépa correspond
with one another. But in the fact that John ascribes to the believers both
of these, he testifies to them that they are in possession of the fulness of
divine peace and of divine truth.—In regard to the zurépec, the apostle
brings out the same thing in both groups, vv. 18 and 14: dr: éyvdxare rdv az’
apxnc. If the forgiveness of sins and the knowledge of God are common to
al], the knowledge of Him who is ax’ dpxi¢ is specially appropriate to the
older members of the church. When some commentators, as a Lapide,
Grotius (novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum ; Dan. vii. 9, xiii. 22), and others,
understand by 6 ax’ dpxi¢ God, they ignore the deeper connection which
exists between the particular ideas; 6 ax’ dpr#¢ is Christ, but not so called
because He is the author of Christianity,! but because He is from all
eternity; az’ dpyfc is used in the same sense as in chap. i. 1. John brings
out by this designation of Christ the truth that Christ is subject of their
knowledge in the quality of His being herein mentioned; it is therefore
incorrect to understand éyvixare of the personal knowledge of Him who was
manifest in the flesh (Bengel, Schoettgen, etc.); the word has rather the
same meaning as in ver. 3.2. John ascribes this knowledge to the fathers,
because he might with justice assume that they had not contented them-
selves with a superficial knowledge of Christ in His appearance according
to the sense, but had looked more deeply into the eternal nature of the
Lord. — In regard to the young men, it is said in both groups: dre vevujxare
rdv novnpoy; not as if the same were not true also of the older members of
the church, but John attributes this eminently to the young men, because
they, in accordance with their age, had just recently obtained this victory,
and their care therefore must be specially this, not to lose again what had
been lately won. That 6 novnpéc is the devil (comp. Matt. xiii. 19, 38, 39;
Eph. vi. 16; 1 John iii. 12, v. 18, 19), the commentators have rightly
recognized. Carpzov suitably says: Viris fortibus et robustix tribuitur supra
fortissimum et robustissimum victoria. In the second group some further sub-
ordinate clauses precede that word, which state the conditions under which
the young men have attained their victory: dre ioyupoi tore; ioxupoi, “ strong
in spirit,” with special reference to the fight, comp. Heb. xi. 84; Luke xi.
21; Matt. xii. 29 (Diisterdieck); here also dr: is “ because,” not “ that,” thus:
“ because ye are strong,” not “that ye are to be strong” (Paulus). — This
conquering power of the young men is not their “own moral strength”
(Baumgarten-Crusius), but the effect of the Word of God; therefore John
1 Socinue: ‘ Novi foederis et evangelll! the statement of a certain formula about the
patefacti primum lIoltium;" Semler: “ Qui
inde ab initio auctor fult bujus melioris
religionte.”
2 Neander: ‘‘ A knowledge of Chriet as the
One who is from the beginning, which reeulta
from the deeper communton with the person-
ality of Christ. Thie is something else than
pereon of Christ.”
3 Even Semler admita this, but then ob-
serves: ‘ Est usitata Judaeorum descriptio,
quae gravium peccatorum et flagitiorum ma-
gistrum diabolum designat, quam descrip-
tionem non opus est ut Christian! retineant,
quum pon aint ex Judaeis.”’
518 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
adds: xai 6 Adyor ro Oeod év duly péver, and only then brings in xal vevexfxare,
x.t.A, — The individual sentences are simply placed side by side in order to
let each of them appear the more strongly in its own meaning. The train
of thought, however, is this, that their strength has its ground in the Word
of God, which is permanent in them (yévec), and that it is in this power that
they have attained the victory.! This relation is correctly stated by Gro-
tius, who explains the first xai by quia, the second by ob id. — 6 Adyog tov Ocod
is not = Christ, but the word proceeding from God, i.e., the Gospel, of
which the personal Christ is no doubt the substance.
Vv. 15-17. A warning against love of the world, which is directed
neither specially to the children (Oecumenius: éxrénra: ydp cel rd radia rep?
7d gacvozevov 760), nor specially to the young men (Bengel, Semler, Besser),
but to all (Bede: omnibus haec generaliter ecclesiae jiliis scribit).
Ver. 15. ua dyardre rdv xésuov]. The meaning of dyardy depends on that
of the idea xéopuoc. —xdouoc is with John eminently an ethical conception =
mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him,
together with al] that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jas. i. 27,
iv. 4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune).®
The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading
classes: (1) Those in which xéoyuoc is regarded as a total number of men
indeed, but in a limited way; either = “the heathen world” (Lange), or,
more indefinitely, “the mass of common men” (Oecumenius: 6 oupderic
bxAnc, S¢ ob Ty Tod marpdc Exe ayanny by éavtrm; Calovius: homines dediti rebus
hujus mundi), or “the greater part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus,
secundum partem majorem, quae in malis actionibus versatur); Storr limits the
idea here “to that part of the world which the antichristians constituted.”
(2) Those which understand xéoyoc not of the human world itself, but of
the evil dwelling in it; so says the Scholiast: xécpoy riv xoopixyy gAndoviay Ka?
Suaxvow Aéyet, 7¢ Eotiv dpywy 6 deaBodog ; Luther: “the world, i.e., godlessness
itself, through which a man has not the right use of the creatures;” to this
class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, S. Schmid, Semler; ®
but in this abstract sense the word never appears elsewhere; and besides,
taking this view, difficulties appear in the sequel which can only be
1 Weiss groundlessly finds in what is said
above an incorrect expression, and thinks that
xdopos (11.2) the whole human race, as needing
salvation, is to be understood.
not the abiding, but the being of the Word of
God in them ia the ground of their strength;
for to the Apostle John the being is really
this only when it is a firm and abiding ex.
istence.
2 It might not be incorrect to suppose that
John, when he here and afterwards in his
Epistle places the <écyos in sharp contrast
with believers, specially understands the sum-
total of those who, as the light has come into
the world, love the darkness rather than light
(Gospe! of John fil. 13), and therefore not
unsaved humanity as such, but those of man-
kind who resist salvation, while by oAos 6
$ Calvin: ‘“‘Mundi nomine Intellige, quic-
quid ad praesentem vitam spectat, ubi separa-
tur a regno Dei et spe vitae aeternae. Ita in
se comprehendit omne genus corruptelae et
malorum omnium abyssum.” Morus explaing
coonos by: “malum morale;” 8. Schmid by:
“corruptio peccaminosa;” Semler by: ‘ vul-
gata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice
appetentium.’”? Here may be enumerated also
‘the interpretation of Erdmann: ‘ Totus com-
plexus et ambitus mali, quatenus hoc non so.
lum tot! gener! humano, verum etiam propter
hominum a Deo defectionem omnibus rebus
bumanis totique rerum naturue iubaeret.”
CHAP. II. 15. 519
overcome by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which
xoouoc is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things; these things
being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea xéouoc, in and by
itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the dyangy which
is connected with it; the xoouoc as a creature of God is in itself good and
irreproachable, but the love to the xéouoc, through which man centres his
affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed,
because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God,
that must be loved; thus there results for the command, yy dyanare rodv
xdouov, certainly an appropriate idea; but what follows in vv. 16 and 17 has
induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless,
to the idea xvopore itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference; thus
Liicke indeed says: “6 xéopoc 18, as the sum total of the temporal and
sensuous, in contrast (!) to the mveiua, always only the objective sphere of
evil, i.e., to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition,” but
immediately afterwards he explains the same idea “as the sum total of all
sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses;” still more
definitely De Wette says: “the sum total of that which attracts desire, the
temporal, sensuous, earthly — regarded in contrast with God.” But this
connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself
rather unsuitable: not in the things, but in man himeelf, lies the cause of
the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not
possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the
end of the 17th verse. It is true some commentators? distinctly say that
John here makes a sort of play upon the word; but such an assumption
does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us
to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take 6 xéoyoc here in the
same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John’s works, so that
it signifies the world lying & 1@ rovnpd. This xdopor, this is the meaning
of the apostle’s warning, is not to be the object of the dyary of believers.
From this it follows that dyaxgy here means neither “to love too much,”
*
1 Thus Lticke finds himeelf compelled in
the case of wav év te coon to make an ab-
straction of the things themselves, and to
understand thereby their ethical reference;
and here results the certainly unjustifiable
thought that this ethical reference of things
has its origin in the things themselves (é« rov
xogyov). B8till more decidedly De Wette says
that in the words é« rov «ocpov éori, ver. 16,
**o xogpos in not regarded as the sum total of
earthly things, but as the sensuous life allen-
ated from God, or as the sum total of worldly
men who enjoy this.” Somewhat differently,
Brickner: ‘‘ that the sum total of earthly evil,
of the xoopos, ie here regarded rather of real
things, is clear from the subordinate clause
unde ta évy ry x.; In ver. 16, the personal aspect
prevails.” Neander, on ver. 16, equally devi-
ates from the explanation which he had given
of ver. 15; in the latter he regards 6 x6cyos as
‘the world and earthly things,” but in the
former as ‘“‘the predominating tendency of
the sou! to the world, the growing worldliness
of the soul, which blends itself with the
world.”
2? Thus a Lapide says (after he has assigned
to the word three meanings, namely (1) ‘* ho-
mines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscen-
tia;”? (2) “‘orbis sublunaris, in hoc mundo
proprie et formaliter non est concupiscentia;
sed in eo eat concupiscentia materialis, j.e.,
objectum concnpiacibile;” (3) “ipsa mundana
vita vel concupiscentia in genere ’’): ‘‘ omnibus
hiece modis mundus hic accipi potest et
Johannes nunc ad unum, nunc ad alterum res-
picit; éwdi¢ enim in voce mundus.”
520 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
nor “to love with unhallowed sense,” but love in the strictest sense of the
word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship.! — ud? ra év rd xéouw]. As
xdopuoc is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by ra év
rt. «., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into
its service; or, better, the apparently good things which the world pursues,
or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches,
honor, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously under-
stands thereby “the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action,
e.g., avarice, ambition, sensuality, and such like,” for either of these is
plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be
regarded as the object of love. — éay rig dyang rov xécpov, obx tori, x.1.A.]).
By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhortation, expressing
the incongruity of love to the «ooo with the dyémy rob narpég; Bede: Unum
cor duos tam sibi adversarios amores non capit. By dyamq row rarpor is to be
understood neither the love of God to us (Luther II., Calovius), nor the
charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus); but, as by far the most of
commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the
modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation
of ver. 5), interpret, love to God.2—If marpég is the correct reading, then
the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of
Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God.
— Between the two sorts of dydarn there is the same exclusive contrast as
between the Oc dovaeiev and paywrg dovaciev, Matt. vi. 24. Compare also
Jas. iv. 4: 9 geAia Tov Kdopov, txOpa tov Geov eoriv.
Ver. 16. Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world
is inconsistent with love to God. — dr: rév 1d év 1 xdopy]. Bede incorrectly
explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as
masculine: omnes mundi dilectores non habent nist concupiscentiam ; most com-
mentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing 14 év rq coop;
even Diisterdieck, who, in reference to the following 7 éwt6uyia, «.7.A4., thinks
that a “change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of
the world to the subjective desire itself, and its actual manifestations.”
But even apart from the fact that the assumption of such a change in the
form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to
this; for had he not meant by way rd év r. x, something else than by ra év rH «.,
he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be over-
looked why the following, # {7iupia, «.7.A., could not be the apposition stating
the sense of nav r. év r. «, (Frommann, p. 269).8 Accordingly, the apostle
means by this expression, all that forms the contents, i.e., the substance of
the xéozoc; its inner life, which auimates it (Braune): in what this consists,
8 According to Ebrard, way ro ev 7. a, is a
1 Liicke groundiessly thinks the idea of
love must necessarily be weakened to that
of “mere longing for,” if by xoopos the
- human world is understood.
2 A combination of both interpretations:
‘‘ Amor patris erga suos et filialie erga pa-
trem” (Bengel), is clearly unjustifiable.
resumption of ra ev r+. «.; as, however, he
understands by it various kinds of conduct,
etc., that idea is rightly interpreted by him.
Myrberg agrees with the interpretation given
above.
CHAP. II. 16. 521
the following words state. 4% émGvyia rig capxdc, x.r.2.]. Although the ideas
émbvuia and ddavoveia in themselves denote a subjective disposition of man,
yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things
are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russ-
meyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the otherwise subjective idea disappears into
the objective (De Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objec-
tive are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Briickner). But with the cor-
rect conception of the ideas xdopoc and may 1d év rd xoowy there is no apparent
reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the
words of the apostle. — % émé@vua rig capxdg]. The genitive is here not
the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with ém#uyia! always in the
N. T. (except 2 Pet. ii. 10; on Eph. iv. 22 comp. Meyer on this passage),
the genitive of the subject, hence not “the desire directed towards the flesh,”
but “the desire which the flesh, i.c., the corrupted sensual nature of man,
cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh; * comp. Gal. v. 17, i odp§ émcevpei.
— Ebrard interprets, describing the genitive as that “of quality and refer-
ence,” for which: he wrongly appeals to Eph. iv. 22, 2 Pet. ii. 10: “the
desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh;” the apostle scarcely con-
ceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea may be taken in a broader or in
& narrower sense; the first view in Licke (“ fleshly, sensuous desire in gen-
eral, in contrast to mvetyars mepinareiy and dyeoba:; comp. Eph. ii. 3; 1 Pet.
ii. 11°"), De Wette, Neander, Diisterdieck; in the second, the desire of sen-
suality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium
earum rerum, quae pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujus-
modi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc.; Briick-
ner limits the idea to “the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense;” Gerlach
specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment;? and Ebrard to “sexual
enjoyments.”® The right explanation can be found only on the considera-
tion of the following expression. — «cal 9 émGuyia rév dobaducr, i.e., “the
desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them;” the expression is
explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to
the sense of sight itself.4 This idea also is understood in a broader and
- in a‘narrower sense. As Liicke calls the eyes, “as it were, the principal
gates of sensual desire for the external world,” he identifies this idea with
the preceding one; De Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective
aspect): “what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited.” The
connection by «ai, however, which is further followed by a second xai, shows
that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most
4 It je arbitrary for Ebrard to say: éw@vuca
ie here —as in John vill. 44; Rom. vil. 8; Gal.
v. 16, etc. — “that which one luats after,”
which indeed he again cancels by translating
the word by ‘' dust.”
3 Even Bengel takes the expression (while,
however, he understands it of the objective
things) in a narrower senee: ‘‘ Ea quibus pas.
cuntur sensus, qui appellantur fruitivi: guetus
et tactus.”
8 This explanation results for Ebrard from
the fact that he takes capf here = cwua, and
then describes the idea “ sensual’’ as identical
with “ sexual” (').
4 Ebrard strangely thinks that in this view
the genitive ofdaAper ie regarded as objective
genitive = ‘‘the desire for eyes, j.e., for enjoy-
ment of the eyes.”
522 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
commentators justly regard ém@, ro» debaaycy as the description of a special
sort of émévuia; thus (against De Wette) Briickner in subjective and objec-
tive view, “the lust of the eyes, and, at the same time, that in which, as
sensuous aud earthly, the eyes delight.” Two different interpretations are
found with a more exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther,
Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, etc.,! hold, though with some modifications,
the expression to be substantially synonymous with icovegia, avaritia. On
behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages
of the O. T., and especially to Eccles. iv. 8, v. 10; Prov. xxiii. 5, xxvii. 20;
but erroneously, for even though the eye of the covetous or avaricious man
looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still
the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing; the striv-
ing for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase émiduuia trav dpdaruar.
Still less justifiable is the explanation of Ebrard, who partly agrees with
those commentators, but regards the idea of “avarice” as too narrow; and,
with an appeal to passages such as Ps. xvii. 11, liv. 9, xci. 8, xcii. 12; Prov.
vi. 17, etc., maintains that by # ém0. r. 699. is meant “the whole sphere of
the desires of selfishness, envy, and avarice, of hatred and revenge (!).”
Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure
of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, ete.; thus
Augustine: omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris; similarly, Neander and
others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary; accordingly, others refer
the expression to other objects of sight;? but it is more correct to take the
reference to these things in a quite general way, and, with Spener, to inter-
pret “all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself” (so
also Braune); besides, it is to be observed that 7 émé@vuia r. 690. is not the
desire for wealth, etc., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others),®
but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the
sight of them affords.‘ Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the énidupia ric
capxoc; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a
particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet
the idea that the desire of seeing any thing can have nothing sinful in it. —
But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by xai, it is more
correct to suppose that John conceived the émd. ra¢ capxdg not in that general
sense, but in the particular sense of the “Just for wealth and immoderate
enjoyment,” so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not
of subordination, but of co-ordination, both being subordinate to the general
idea of énituyia.—xai 7 dAafovera 10d Bivvy}. dAafoveia is usually translated by
1 Sander also explains it of avarice, but
would not exclude the curiositas in spectacu-
tis, ete.; regarding this, however, as merely
collateral.
2 Thus Calvin: ‘‘Tam libidinosos conspec-
tue comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in
pompis et ivani spiendore vagatur.”
8 Ricki interprets: ‘‘ the low, sensual style
of thought, in so far as thie is excited and
fostered by the sight.” Dtisterdieck under-
stands by it specially covetousness and avarice;
but at the same time obeerves that every sort
of desire may be excited by the eye.
4 Bengel extends the idea beyond the limit
which lies in the expression itself, when he
explains: ‘Ea, quibue tenentur sensus in-
vestigativi: oculus, sive visus, auditus et
olfactus.”
CHAP. II. 16. 523
superbia, ambitio (Socinus: ambitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and
by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition, together with the
pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with
it;? thus Cyril interprets (Homil. Pasch., xxvii.) : dAajoveiav r, B. dnot Tov
dktwudruv vrepoxny cai rd hpyévov toc xara ye Ty Kai dogav. Thereby, however,
its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. T. «atoveia
only appears in Jas. iv. 16 (in the plural); the adjective aadgwv in Rom.
i. 830 and 2 Tim. iii. 2, in close connection with ireppgavoc, from which, how-
ever, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is
contained in it, but only that the dag is related to imepngavia; in James is
meant thereby — according to the context—the haughtiness which overlooks
the uncertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence.
In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession, whether real or pre-
tended, of earthly good things, such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the
word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wisd. v. 8, xvii. 7;
2 Macc. ix. 8, xv. 6. In classical Greek aAafoveia has almost always the col-
lateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation,? which has obtained in
Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to sonie-
thing by its very nature worthless and trifling, and in this way certainly in-
cludes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as
is rightly done by Liicke, Sander, Besser, Braune ;® for examples in the Scrip-
tures, comp. 1 Chron. xxii. 1 ff.; Eccles. ii. 1 ff.; Ezek. xxviii. 16, 17;
Dan. iv. 27; Rev. xvii. 4, xviii. 7, ete. The genitive rot Ziov serves for the
more particular definition of the idea; ioc signifies in the N. T. either
“temporal life” (1 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3, Rec.), or more commonly “the
support of life, the means” (chap. iii. 17; Mark xii. 44; Luke viii. 43, xv.
12, 30, xxi. 4); it never has the meaning “conduct of life” (Ebrard).
Following Polyb., Hist., vi. 576: 7% xepi rove Biovg dAatoveia Kal rroAvréAea, it is
appropriate to take Bio here in the second meaning, and the genitive as
objective genitive (so Liicke); as, however, capxdg and dedaAuay are subjective
genitives, it is much more correct to take Biov also as subjective genitive,
and accordingly to interpret “the dAadoveia peculiar to the Bioc;” iu the
expression #dovai rov jiov, Luke viii. 14, rod Biov may also be the objective
genitive, thus: “the pleasures which refer to the ioc, the temporal good ;”
but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be
connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus, “the
pleasures peculiar to the present life.” ¢
1 Calvin: ‘‘Fastus aut superbla, cui oon-
jancta est ambitio, jactantia, allorum contemp-
tus, coecus amor sui, praeceps confidentia.”
2 Theophr., CAaract. 23: wxpocroancis ti¢
ayadwy ove dvtwy mpos Séfay; Plato, Phaedr. :
efits mpoomonrixn ayabov 7 ayabwy rer un
vaapxovrwy; antithesis of eipwrea.
3 With this view Neander, Gerlach, and
Dllsterdieck substantially agree also; yet their
paraphrases do not keep precisely enough
within the definite linnts of the extent of the
idea, as they include ostentatiou, ambition,
etc.; a definite distinction between this idea
and émOvuia is requisite. — Augustine not in.
accurately describes the aAc¢w»y thus: “ jactare
ee vuilt in honortbus, magnus aibi videtur, sive
de divitlis, slve de aliqua potentia.” Ebrard
wrongly denies that according to Hellenistic
usage the element of pride is contained in the
idea adagovea; neither in classical nor in
Hellenistic ueage has the word the meaning
** luxury,’ which he maintains for It.
‘The commentators for the most part
express themselves somewhat vaguely. De
524 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
REMARK. — It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance
of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity
which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Clinias: gAndovia piv bv rai¢
Grodavoeat tai¢ did sapuaroc, wAcovetia dé év TH KEpdaiverv, piAodogia dé év TH KabuTepexetv
Tov lowy re xal duviwy; for other expressions, see Wetstein.! This threefold form,
it has been thought, is found both in the fall, and again in the temptation of
Christ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas
humana tentatur ; per haec tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per huec tentatus
est Christus et vicit ; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with
the three Persons in the divine Trinity.2— Bengel opposes this view, and makes
such a distinction between the é7w. ri¢ capxéc and the ém0. r. 690,, that he refers
the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus investigativi, but says
of the diafoveia 7, 3.: arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et
longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu,
etc.; and then observes: non concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia:
voluptas, avaritia, superbia ; sed tamen in his continentur. . By the last clause
Bengel shows, however, ‘‘ that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even
in him” (Disterdieck). — Liicke has more decidedly expressed himself against
it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only ‘the three chief points
of worldly lust’’ (according to the first edition, only ‘‘as examples’’) ; and,
moreover, the points ‘‘in which it proceeds from the sensual desire to the
climax of the dAe{oveia,”” But Liicke’s own interpretation of the particular
ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide
in regard to their substance, and thus no progress takes place from the one
éxcOuuia to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted at by the apostle. —
Liicke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here; not
individual vices, but the leading forms (Liicke) ;* or, as Briickner says, the
leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold
form. But in what relation do these stand to one another? According to
Diisterdieck, the émtGvyia ti¢ capxo¢g forms the superior idea, to which the two
other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: ‘‘ The first-mentioned
lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love
of the world (ver. 15), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.’’
This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the aya7n to the xdopoc is not to be
identified with the ém@uuia rig capxoc, as the latter rather describes the inner
nature of the xdcuoc; the apostle warns against that love, because in the xdopec
Wette explains: ‘the enjoyment, combined
with pride of (earthly) life (not: of the good
things of life) ;”’ Braune says that the genitive
is to be taken as subjective genitive, and then
interprets: ‘‘the genitive 7. Acov signifies the
side on which ostentatious pride usually
appears;’’ Ewald translates: ‘‘swindling in
money,” which is not only indefinite, but even
unjustifiable.
1 Ebrard justly denies that a division of sin
as such fs to be sought for here; but his own
view, that In that threefold form there is given
a distribution of worldly conduct in its entire
extent, and in this way, that first the relation
of man to his own bodily and sensual nature
is expressed, then the egotistical opposition
to hie fellow-men, and finally, his relation to
them and complication with them, js, as resting
on a fale interpretation of the particular ideas,
just as little to be justified.
2 The counterpart of these three forms of
the sinful life is, according to a Lapide, the
three primariae virtutes: continentia, chari-
tas, humtlitas, which coincide very exactly
with the three monastic vows of chastity,
poverty, and obedience.
3 When Lticke calle those three not merely
the leading forme, but also the principles and
sources of the worldly sense, this is not
correct; for the worldly sense does not epring
from the ¢wiOupia, «.7.A., but the latter te the
ving motion of the former.
CHAP. II. 17. 525
the ém@vyia which is not of God dominates; the thought that {fs to be supplied
is this, that love to the xdopo¢ necessarily implies an entrance into its nature;
and, on the other hand, the apostle’s form of expression is utterly opposed to
such a subordination; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the
same appellation ém:@vyia closely connected with each other, and distinguished
from the third, which is not called ériévuia, but dAafoveia;1 it is unsuitable,
however, to regard the latter as émc@uyia; én@vuia is the desire directed to the
attainment of any good — the lust for something (not exactly the lust or delight
in any thing), but the cdAa(oveia is a definite behavior in regard to the good
which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the
perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he
wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on
the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own.
— That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed
when he says: ‘‘ The following three things are not of the Father, viz.:
(1) hatred of the brethren ; (2) the three iJols of the world; (8) false and
seductive teaching.’? — Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful
corruption, appealing for it to chap. ii. 2-12, where the subject is the first, to
vv. 15-17, where it is the second, and to ver. 19 ff., where it is the third. The
apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but
that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far.
The following words, ob« for éx row marpdc, x.7.4.. express the anti-divine
character of the worldly nature of the émdvyia, x.7.A.— nargp, as in ver. 15;
xdonoc here quite in the same sense as before. —elva: éx is, according to
Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, not the description of the origin,
but only of the connection and similarity; by this view, however, the depth
of John’s conception is ignored; the expression rather embraces both, but
the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard); comp. John
viii. 44. — By the addition of GAA’ éx rot xécpov fori the antagonism between
God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out
with peculiar distinctness.
Ver. 17 adds a new element to the preceding, whereby the exhortation
of ver. 15 is strengthened and confirmed. —xai 4 xéopog napéyera: 18 frequently
taken by commentators, with an appeal to 1 Cor. vii. 31, as an expression
of the transitoriness of the world; either the present being changed into the
future (Bede: mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem
mutabitur figuram, ut sit coelum novum et terra nova), or the peculiar nature of
the world being regarded as described in it (Oecumenius: ra xoopixd émcdvps-
para otk Exe 7d wévoy re xal tora, GAA mapayera:); Diisterdieck combines both;
the apostle, according to him, expresses a truth “which holds good with ever
present meaning, and which will thereby show itself some time in fact” (so
also Ebrard and Braune). But ver. 8 and the following éoyary dpa lotiv
make it more than probable that the apostle here also uses rapayera: in the
consciousness of the approaching second advent of Christ and the judgment
1 Frommann (p. 270 ff.) justly remarks that deetre, and the dAafoveia the action, which in
the two leading forms are the ¢wi@évuica and theattainment of the object desired has already
the aAagoveca; that the éw@vuca algnifies the found its satisfaction.
526 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
on the xéopuog which is connected with it, thus, “the world ts in the state of dis-
appearing;” in 1 Cor. vii. 31, mapdyet rd oxjpa tov xoopov rovrov is said with
the same feeling. — xa? # énc6vyia abrov]. With the world passes away also
the émévuia which dwells in it; whereby the apostle briefly refers to the
threefold form previously named: aérod is not genitive of the object (Liicke,
Neander, Sander, Besser), but of the subject (Diisterdieck, Braune); though
there is mention previously of an dyun¢y rdv xéopuov, yet there is none of an
émOvpia directed towards the xdcpoc; the contrary view rests on an erroneous
interpretation of xéouoc.—6 d& rowdy rd OéAnua Tod Ocod, antithesis to 6 xdopog,
which in its érévpia does not do the will of God. It is true, “6 aarp” is
previously put as antithesis to the xéopuoc, but it does not follow from this
that the antithesis here is not to be taken as fully corresponding, and “ émc-
Guucw" to be taken out of émévuia (Liicke); the appearance of this arises
only from the fact that xéouoc is taken as something concrete. The expres-
sion used by the apostle is synonymous with 6 dyanay rdv Gedy; for the doing
of the divine will is the effect of love to Him. — pévee ei¢ rdv aidva, antithesis
of zapdyera:; the expression signifies, as frequently, eternal, infinite endur-
ance, comp. John vi. 51, 58, viii. 85, etc. That John regarded this abiding
forever as the eternally happy life in the fellowship of God, is certain, but is
not contained in the expression.! To the xéopoc is assigned @dvaroc, to the
children of God Gu? aidvor.
Vv. 18-27. Warning against the antichrists, whose presence shows that
the last hour has come. Description of them, and exhortation to believers
to continue in that which they have heard from the beginning, combined
with the testimony that they have known the truth. — This section stands
in closest connection with the preceding one; for, in the first place, the pre-
ceding exhortation is occasioned by the thought that it is éoxarn dpa, as is
evidenced by the appearance of the dvrixzpiora:; and, in the second place, the
cvrixptora, of whom the apostle treats here, are, as it is put in chap. iv. 5,
tk Tov KOopov.
Ver. 18. The appearance of the avrizpioro. shows that the last hour has
come. — rauwia; not an address to the children (see on vv. 12-14), but to all
readers.2— éoxirn dpa éori]. éaxarn dpa may be the whole Christian era’ from
the incarnation of Christ to His second advent. In the O. T. prophecy the
appearance of the Messiah was promised DD J T83 (Isa. ii. 2; Hos. iii.
5; Mic. iv. 1, LXX.: & raig éayaray quépac; comp. also Acts ii. 16).
Hence arose among the Jews the distinction of the two eras: Ti} pty (aldy
obros) and R37} DN (aidv péAAwv), the former the time up to the appearance
of the Messiah, the latter embracing the Messianic time itself. —In the
N. T. are found, partly the former idea that Christ has appeared in the last
1 Ebrard arbitrarily explains that by acy
is to be understood “the son which will
begin with the visible establishment in glory
of Christ’s kingdom on earth,’’ and that 4
Towy... ei¢ T. aiwva therefore means: ‘‘ he
who does the will of God shall remain till the
establishment of the kingdom of Christ — he
will be permitted to see the victory of Christ’s
kingdom.”’
2 For the contrary, Ebrard appeals to the
peculiarly childlike character of this section;
but plainly this beara no other character than
the whole Epistie, of which Ebrard himself says
that It could only be understood by adults.
CHAP. II. 18. 527
time (Heb. i. 1; 1 Pet. i. 20), partly also the distinction of these two periods,
but in this way, that the aldv ovroc does not close with the jirst appearance of
Christ, but only with his parousia, which coincides with the ouvrédaa rod
alévos; comp. Mark x. 80; Luke xx. 34, 35; Eph. i. 21.— Inasmuch as the
period which begins with the birth of Christ is now the last preceding
the ovyréAea, it may be described by the expression éoxar7 dpa, as Calvin says:
ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit praeter ultimam
Christi revelationem. This view is the customary one with the older com-
mentators ; Semler agrees with it, but the context is opposed to it; on the
one hand, it results from vv. 8 and 17 that the apostle is writing with a
presentiment of the parousia of Christ; and, on the other hand, the conclu-
sion of this verse: é¢ev, x.r.4.. shows that the apostle cannot here mean the
whole period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second
coming, but only a distinct time in it, namely, the time immediately pre-
ceding its termination; in favor of this also is the usus loquendi of the N. T.;
comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; 1 Pet. i. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 3; along with which
it is to be observed, that, especially in the Gospel of John, the day of judg-
ment is called 4 nuépa loyarn. JLiicke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ger-
lach, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, etc., have therefore rightly interpreted the
expression as a description of this time. The hesitation to admit that
the apostle was mistaken in his expectation of the nearness of the advent,
has given rise to many a false interpretation. Socinus and Grotius think
that éoydry dpa is the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem ;
this view approximates to that of Diisterdieck, according to which the last
time before the commencement of the xpiow is meant, which had its begin-
ning at the destruction of Jerusalem. But the scruple is not overcome by
this, for chap. ii. 28 shows that John regarded the mapovoia of the Lord as
near, and not as distant, just as the other apostles, and especially also Paul,
according to 1 Thess. iv. 15, in view of which even Diisterdieck finds him-
self compelled to admit this; Besser urges the want of the article, and
translates “a last time,” i.e., the time before a special revelation of the
judicial glory of Christ, in which the last hour before the universal final
judgment is prefigured; but it is well known that the article is often want-
ing just with ideas which are definite in themselves; to which it may be
added that the idea of such a succession of different epochs, which are to
be regarded as special revelations of the judicial power of Christ, is nowhere
found expressed in the N. T.1 Oecumenius regarded it as likely that éoyary
here is used = yepiorn; this explanation is found in Schoettgen (tempora
periculosa, pessima et abjectissima), Carpzov, and others (similarly Paulus:
it is a late, i.e., dark, and ever growing worse, time); whereas the distinc-
tion between these ideas is perfectly clear from 2 Tim. ili. 1: ly éoxaray
1 Braune, who apeaks of Calvin’s view and even a Aistorical reference to the parousia of
that of Besser as ‘‘ worthy of notice,” expreasea Christ, as the beginning of the second era
himself somewhat vaguely when he says: of the world, but no chronological reference
‘The expression écxatn wpa is to be taken to the date of the commencement of thie
prophetically, eechatologically, and has avalue parouela.” Clearly a quite arbitrary aseer-
connected with the history af the kingdom, tion.
528 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
futpate évornoovrat xatpol yareroi.1 The result of an impartial exegesis there-
fore remains, that, as the other apostles, John also expected that the advent
of the Lord would soon take place.* It was only when the first generation
of believers was already dead, without that expectation having been ful-
filled, that in the consciousness of Christians the period till the coming of
the Lord extended to an indefinitely distant limit, without, however, extin-
guishing the hope of His speedy advent; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 4 ff.; but that later
still, the time which began with the appearance of false teachers was
regarded as the Jast, is proved by Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph., c. xi.— nat xadd¢
qxovoare, x.t.A,]. With the observation that it is the last time, the apostle
connects the other, that in accordance with what his readers have heard,
that the dvrixpurog would come, many dvrizpiora have already come. Bengel
supplies before xaduc, “et ita est,” and after xai, “adeo” (et ita est, sicut
audistis, nempe antichristum venire: atque ardeo jam multi, etc.); these supple-
ments are, however, unnecessary, for the xa: before viv is not the simple
copula, but serves to mark the appearance of the dvriypiorn as a fact corre-
sponding to the nada hxobaare, x.7.A.: “as ye have heard, etc., 80, accordingly,
many avtixpiorot are even now actually appearing.” ® xado¢ pxovcate, namely, by
the apostolic declaration which had been communicated to his readers
(comp. vv. 7, 24) either by John, or even earlier, by Paul especially, accord-
ing to Semler by Jewish teachers, who were spreading false rumors of the
end of the world (!). dre (6) dvrixpuoros Fpyeras nal, «.7.A.]. The present tpyerae
is put for the future; it marks what is still future as a certainly occurring
event. Ebrard incorrectly translates épyera by “is to come;” even in the
passages cited by him, chap. iv. 3; Matt. xi. 3; Gospel of John xvi. 13;
Rev. i. 8 (why not i. 47), &pyecdaz does not express simply the idea of the
future ; besides, Ebrard interprets correctly: “will one day appear.” — The
prophecy that before Christ comes (hence before His parousia) Antichrist
will come, accordingly formed a part of the apostolic preaching, although it
the course of history, it cannot be any reproach
on them if they cherished the hope that the
1 Peculiar, but artificial, is Bengel’se inter.
pretation, which, moreover, reste on the falee
opinion that the children are here specially
addressed: ‘‘u/tima, non reepectu omnium
mundi) temporum sed in antitheto puerulorum
ad patres et ad juvenes. Tres omnino horae
erant, quarum una post aliam et inchoavit, et
conjunctim continuato cursu ad finem se incli-
pavit. Patrum itemque juveoum hora statim
absoluta fult. Hine puerulls Johannes dicit:
ultima hora est. Hac ultima hora noe etiam-
num vivimuse omnes.”
2 In opposltion to the “ prejudice” that the
apostles regarded the advent as eo near, Sander
thinks that they could not possibly have im-
agined that “all the great changes, transforma-
tions, and developments,” to which 2 These.
ili. 3, Rom. xi. 25, 26, Luke xxi. 24-26, allude,
could be accomplished within a generation.
But could not important events take place
within a comparatively short period? As it
was not the business of the apostles to foresee
Jonged-for coming of the Lord would soon
occur, especially as they formed out of thie
hope no peculiar doctrine, and did not venture
to determine the time and the hour. The
certainly extravagant assertion of Ebrard,
that it would have been contrary to the order
of God's economy of revelation, if John, at
the time when he wrote hie Epistle, had not
expected the second advent of Chriat in the
near future, rests entirely on Ebrard’s views
of the Apocalypse, from the visione of which,
according to him, it could only be clear to the
apostle for the first time that the épxoua of
the Gospel of Johu xxi. 22 is to be understood
of the coming of the Lord in a vision.
8 Diisterdieck : “‘ With the expectation dr: 4
dv7exp. épx., founded on the apostolic teaching,
corresponds the fact already begun: dyzxp.
woAAoi yeyévaciy.”
CHAP. II. 18, 529
is not contained in the last discourses of Christ that have been handed down
to us, for the ypevdoxpopyra: and the wevdoypcru, whose appearance Christ
foretells, are not to be identified with the dvrixpsoroc. — According to the
view which has prevailed from antiquity, the dvrizpcorog and the moAAol dvri-
xporo: are to be distinguished in this way, that the latter are only the
mpodpuuot Of the former, in which for the first time the antichristian spirit
which already animates them will be revealed in his full perfection and
energy. Bengel, deviating from this, takes the expression dvrizpicroc as a
collective idea: ubi Joh. antichristum, vel spiritum antichristi, vel deceptorem et
antichristuimn dicit, sub singulari numero, omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos.
tnnuit. Antichristus pro antichristianismo, sive doctrina, et multitudine hominum
Christo contraria dicitur; with this interpretation, Lange, Baumgarten-Cru-
sius, Besser, and Myrberg agree. But neither here nor in iv. 1 ff. does John
say that antichrist has already come; here he merely indicates the fact that
nodol avrixpota yeyovacty a8 Corresponding to the announcement of the com-
ing of antichrist, and in the other passage it is merely stated that many wevdo-
mpogitas are gone out into the world, and that the mveidya of antichrist is
already in the world. In the passage 2 John 7, “ it is true that the explana-
tory clause ovrog éorw 6 wAdvog xal é dvrixpiorog refers so directly to the preced-
ing noo xAdva,” that it appears that “the identity is thereby indicated”
(ist ed.); but this direct connection may, no doubt, be explained in this
way, that he who speaks through the many is, according to John, no other
than the one antichrist; and even though John “ neither describes the dyvri-
xptora: a8 the xpéddpopzo:, vor the dyrtixpiorog as the one in whom the principle
that animates them is concentrated in highest potency,” it is to be remem-
bered that John is speaking of the antichrist here, not in doctrinal aspect,
but only in order to show by the heretics, whom he calls dyrijporo, that the
rveipa Of antichrist is already év rp xéopy.1 The name dvrixzpioros is not found
in the Scriptures outside of the First and Second Epistles of John; only in
the later ecclesiastical literature does it appear frequently. That the pre-
fixed cvr: does not express the substitutionary reference (as in dvriiacAeic),
but the reference of antagonism, is with justice now commonly recognized ;
but the prevailing translation, “enemy of Christ,” is grammatically inaccu-
rate, as in substantive compounds formed with dvr (in the antagonistic sense),
the substantive is an object which by dvr: is described as standing in opposi-
tion to an object of the same kind. Thus, an dyrigiAdscogoe is not an
“opponent of philosophy” (Ebrard), or of philosophers, but a philosopher
who is opposed to other philosophers, a hostile philosopher; comp. dyte
MaxNTIX, GvTinadacorig, Gvrimodic, dvrippnow, avrippoa, x.t.A,2 Accordingly, 4 dvri-
1 Weiss justly maintains, against From.
mann and Reuse, according to whom John
has epiritualized or confused the dogma of
antichrist, that he in no way denies the reality
of the antichrist, although Weles thinks that
Jobn regarde the prophecy of the antichrist as
fulfilled in this, that the eptrit of antichriet has
come into the world, and 1n the false teachers 1s
denying the fundamentals of Chnetian truth.
. 2? From this it is clear that the rule laid
down by Licke, that ‘the word compounded
with avr: is the object of the opposition,” can
by po means hold good for all compounds with
ayrt, inasmuch as the examples adduced by
Liicke—dyrippiow dxpor, dyriBdpecos, avrHAcos,
avri@vpog—are not substantives; and, In the
second place, ayrs does not express in them
the idea of hostile antagoniem.
530 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
xptarog does not mean generally, the enemy of Christ, but the “ opposition
Christ,” i.e., that enemy of Christ who, under the false pretence of being the
real Christ, seeks to destroy the work of Christ.1_ Almost all commentators
have correctly supposed that John understands by this enemy the same as
Paul speaks of in 2 Thess. ii. 3; the features which appear in the descrip-
tion of the Apostle Paul and in the statements of John correspond too
closely to permit of this being doubted; according to both, his appearance
in the Church is preceded by a falling away (John says in ver. 19, of the
antichrists: é&§ gudv é£200v; Paul in ver. 3 speaks of an dmocracia connected
“with his dmoxdAvyi); both ascribe to him a God-opposing, wicked nature
(Paul calls him 6 dvépwrog rig duapriac, 6 dvouog; John puts the wveipa rot dvre-
xpiorov in antithesis to the mveiua rod Ocod, and says of the antichrists who
are animated by the former, that they are é« row xéouov); both characterize
him as a liar, who seeks to establish the lie against the truth; according to
both, he appears in the last time before the parousia of Christ. Even the
names correspond with each other; for, even though the name dvrixpicrog
contains an important feature which is not expressed in the name 6 dvuruei-
pevoc, yet this very feature comes out so distinctly in the Pauline description,
that it is clear how suitable John’s appellation of that enemy is; when,
namely, Paul describes him as the dv@pwo¢ rig duapriac, and afterwards says
of him that he dzodcixvvot éavrév, 5rt ori Oedc, this points to the fact that he
will represent himself as the incarnate God, and this is just what is indicated
in the name dayrixprarog.
REMARK.—On the various views of the antichrist, see Liinemann on
2 Thess. ii. 1-12, p. 204 ff., and Diisterdieck on this passage. — The Greek
Fathers regard the antichrist usually as a man who, as an instrument of the
Devil, imitates the true Christ, comp. Hippolyt., De Cunsummat Mundi, c. vi.
14, c. xlviii.; Cyril, Catech. xv.; yet there is also found the incorrect view that he
is the incarnate Devil himself (comp. Theodoret, Epit. Div. Decret., c. xxili., and
Comment. in Dan., ii.; Hippolyt. c. xxii.). — Like the parousia of Christ, so the
appearance of antichrist also belongs still to the future: of antichrists, as they
had appeared in the time.of John, there has never since been any lack; but the
antichrist has not yet come, and it was equally arbitrary for Grotius to regard
Barkochba, or others Mohammed, or Luther the Pope, or Catholics Luther, and
so on, as antichrist. — Not merely rationalistic writers, but also Liicke, De
Wette, Neander, and others, distinguish form and idea in John’s representation
of the future appearance of the antichrist. As the fundamental idea, they
regard the thought, that, equally with the development of Christianity, the evil
will gradually increase more and more in its contest against Christ, until at last,
when it has attained its highest summit, it will be completely conquered by the
power of Christ. As the form, they regard the representation that this highest
energy of the evil will finally appear in one single person. For such a
1 While Brtickner agrees with the explana- tence’ does not lie in the word itself, but
tion given here, it is opposed by Braune; but _certalnly in the fact, since there is only one
he does not pay attention to the grammatical Christ; it ie different in the case of the word
vindication. Besides, it is to be observed that avripiAdcodgos.
tho more particular definition of ‘ falee pre- :
CHAP. II. 19. 531
distinction it is difficult, however, to show any justification, as Scripture Itself
gives no suggestion of it; it is therefore rightly rejected by Diisterdieck, Braune,
Brickner.
In the words xat viv avtlypirro roAAol yeyévacwv, the apostle mentions the
fact in which the expectation, dre 6 dvrixpiarog Epyeras, is beginning to be real-
ized. The dvrixpcsro are the heretics who accept the lie described in ver. 22;
but they bear that name because the mveiya rod dvtiypicroey animates them,
and thus the antichrist himself is already revealing himself in them. yeyo-
vaow is not = coeperunt esse (Erasmus), but ‘they have become,” i.e., they
are already in existence. By means of the subordinate clause d0ev ywdoxo-
pev, x.7.4,, the connection between the two first parts of the verse is to be
recognized.
Ver. 19. Relation of the dyrixporn to the Christian Church. — 2 judy
tinAGav, GAA’ obx Hoav &E nudv]. On the form of the second aorist with a, see
Winer, p. 71 (E. T., 73).—By fucv we are not to understand the Jews
(Grotius, Eichhorn, Rickli), nor the apostles (S. Schmid, Spener, Besser,
and others), but Christians in general, as the Church of Christ.1 é§A6av is
taken by several commentators = prodierunt (Vulgate, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Erdmann, and others), finding the idea of origin expressed in it: this is
incorrect; the following pezevgxeccav shows that it is rather to be taken in
the sense of secessio (so Augustine, Bede, Erasmus; and among the moderns,
Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, and others). By the emphatic posi-
tion of é£ fudy it is brought out that the antichrists were previously ye6’ judy,
and belonged therefore to the Christian Church. How far this separation
had been formally accomplished, John does not say; but it is contained in
tgmAgavy that they had taken up an antagonistic position, not merely to the
apostolic doctrine (Beza: ad mutationem non loci sed doctrinae pertinet), but
to those who by their faithful observance of the unadulterated gospel proved
themselves to be the children of God (as also Braune). — aaa’ oix Reavy tf
quay). add’ expresses the contrast to the preceding thought: although they
went out from us (and therefore were connected with us), yet they were not
of us. elvac éx expresses connection in the most complete reality, thus: they
were not of us, viz., in such a way that they would have really belonged to
us, a8 common members of one body, in which one soul lives; in contrast
to which the elvya: wera contained in the following pepevixecav dv ped’? jyow
expresses the oulward fellowship as distinguished from the former idea.
Even here é« does not depart from its original meaning (see on ver. 16), for
he only truly belongs to the Church of the Lord who in regard to his inner
life has proceeded from it, i.e., from the Spirit ruling in it.2 The imperfect
1 Ebrard finds himself compelied by his ethical relationship of those men who went
{oterpretation of wa:éia not to include In ynpueis
those addressed, but to say ‘the apostie puts
himself and the Charch in contrast to the
Httle ones whom he addresses.”
2 Disterdieck : ‘‘ That thoee antichriste left
the fellowship of the believers, follows from
weperia. dy neO’ nuey; but the original, inner,
out from tho bosom of Christian fellowship,
and fell away from it, is indicated by the
different meaning in which the same phrase ¢f
yuwy appears, on the one hand, with ¢fnAéap,
with which penenjc., «.7.A., le to be combined;
and, on the other hand, in the expressions ov«
hoa» é€ nue and ci yap hoa» éf Hy.
532 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
joav embraces the whole previous period during which the antichristians
were connected with the believers, and does not merely refer to the time
immediately preceding their separation (Episcopius, Socinus). — That they
were not é§ yuav, John proves by the words, el ydp hoav é& fudv, peuevgxeioay av
ped’ nucv. The dvrixpiore belonged therefore to the Christians for a while;
they were yer’ atrév, although not é£ avrév, for in this case they would also
have remained yer atrov. Here, too, John proceeds on the idea that the
pévev is the evidence of the eivaz. On the pluperfect without the augment,
see Winer, p. 70 (E. T., 72). — GAa’ Iva gavepwdcow, x.7.4.]. dada refers
back to é£)4eav, or to the thought, ob peuevinact p60’ qudcv, “but they have
not remained with us.” Less simply Diisterdieck interprets: “they have not
remained with us, but (aaAc) they have been separated from us, in order
that.” Such a double supplement is not necessary, for d44a is not neces-
sarily the antithesis of a negation. — By iva, «.1.4., it is not the result
(Paulus), but the purpose, that is stated,—the purpose, namely, of their
separation or not remaining, which was willed by God; the purpose is that
it might be manifest that they are not é jyucv. The connection of gavepu-
@cocv with the following ére oix eiot mavreg e€ yc is not quite regular; So-
cinus construes ob and mavre¢ together: non omnes = nulli, t.e., nemo ex illis
est ex nostro numero: this is incorrect; ob ravrec is not = nulli, but = nonnulli.
De Wette rightly supposes the conjunction of two thoughts, viz., (1) iva
gavepwOp, Ort ovK elol mavrec EE nucv; and (2) iva davepwhdouv, Sre obdx elolv 8E Hudy,
only De Wette should have put the second thought first, for John’s imme-
diate intention was, as the plural gavepwhsow shows, to speak only of the
évrixpicro, but then he extends his idea so as to introduce the new subject
navrec; the sense is: it was to be made manifest in the dvrixypora that they
were not —and therefore that all who were ped’ fuav were not — é& nudy (so
also Braune).!— For the work of the Christian Church it is necessary that
it shall be manifest who really belongs to it, and who does not; this «pici¢ is
the purpose for the sake of which God has so arranged it that those dyri-
xpcorot should go out: comp. with the idea in 1 Cor. xi. 19.
REMARK. —In the words, ef foav && pucv, peuevgxeccav Gv pel’ hucy, this
thought is contained: He who really belongs to the Church never leaves it; he
who leaves it shows thereby that he did not really belong to it. This confidence
of the apostle in the preserving love of the Lord, and in the faithfulness of
those whom He has saved, seems to be opposed to the idea brought out in
Heb. vi. 4 ff., that even those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, etc., may fall
away. But, as constantly in his Epistle, so here also John speaks absolutely,
without taking into view the state of gradual development, from which, however,
it does not follow that he does not recognize it. The one circumstance that he
exhorts believers as such to abide in Christ, shows that he would not deny the
1 Myrberg interprets: ‘Sed (egressi sunt) de nobis,” cannot serve to establish the idea
ut manifesti redderentur; nam non omnes ¢avepwdworr. According to Hilgenfeld, rarre¢g
suvt de nobis;” but incorrectly, for (1) is to be referred only to the antichriets: ‘‘ that
davepwOmorw requires a more particular defi- they all were not of us;” but this ie refuted
nition; and (2) the idea: ‘‘non omnes eunt by the position of wavres.
CHAP. II. 20, 21. 538
possibility of their falling away; only it is — justly — certain to him that he
who does not abide had not yet with his whole heart entered into the fellowship
of the Lord, but even though touched by His love, and exhibiting the trace of
love towards Him, had nevertheless not broken completely. with the world.
Ebrard thinks that the apostle means only, that temptation by this particular
lie (namely, by Gnosticism) is only possible with those who in their inner being
were previously strangers to Christianity; but even though John bere speaks of
particular antichrists, yet the general thought is at the basis of the words ¢
Hoav uttered in reference to them; otherwise the apostle would have definitely
pointed out the difference of these apostates from others to whom the word has
no reference. — Augustine, Calvin, Beza, etc., find in the words a confirmation
of their doctrine of predestination, but only by inserting in them ideas which
are foreign to them, since the subject here is neither a donum perseverantiae
nor a distinction of the vocati and electi.
Vv. 20, 21. Testimony that the believers, to whom the apostle writes,
know the truth. — anal tyei¢ xpiaua Exere]. The apostle writes this neither as
a caplatio benevolentiae (Lange), nor as a justification of the brevity of his
writing on the foregoing subject (a Lapide), nor for the purpose of quieting
his readers, “who at the appearance of so many antichrists might possibly
be alarmed for the safety of their own faith " (Liicke), but in order to make
the warning contained in his words in reference to the antichristian lie the
more forcible; see on ver. 12.— Most commentators take «ai here as particula
adversativa (so even De Wette; more cautiously, Liicke: “the logical rela-
tionship of this verse to ver. 19 is that of an antithesis, therefore xai becomes
logically adversative”’); the incorrectness of this view is recognized indeed
by Diisterdieck and Ebrard, yet they maintain the antithetical reference of
this verse to the preceding one; and of course in itself there is nothing
against the supposition of a connection of adversative ideas by the simple
copula; but that an adversative relationship occurs here is very much: to be
doubted, for the apostle did not now need to say to his readers that they,
as such as have the ypioua, were in opposition to the antichrists, and, besides,
in the sequel that idea is not further followed up.! It is more suitable to
the context, to connect the first part of this verse closely with the second,
and in this two-claused sentence to find the presupposition stated for what
is said in the following verse (so also Briickner). — xpicua appears in the
N. T. only here and in ver. 27; according to Greek usus loquendi, it is
the anointing oil; as in the O. T., for example, Exod. xxix. 7, xxx. 31. “In
the O. T. the holy anointing oil is constantly the type of the Holy Spirit,
both where anointing appears as a figurative action (besides the passages
quoted, in 1 Sam. x. 1 ff., xvi. 13, 14) as well as where it appears in figura-
1 By this, however, {t Is not meant that the
apostle, when he turne to his readers with
vueis, does not contrast them at all with the
antichrists, but only that he does not do it in
thie sense, that he wishes thereby to empha-
size a contrast between them. Had the apostle
intended this, he would certaloly not have
used «at, for in euch antitheses «ai ie only
suitable when the predicates exactly corre-
spond with one another (e.g., they have ro
wveuua Tou ayrixpioroyv, and ye have ro rvevwa
@eotv); but even then, usually 3¢ is used
(comp. Matt. v. 21, 22, and many other
passages), or no particle at ali (comp. John
lil. 31, etc.).
538+ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
tive language (Ps. xlv. 8; Isa. Ixi. 1). But that which in the O. T. is
presented in type and shadow, in the N. T. has appeared in truth and sub-
stance” (Besser); ypicva is therefore a symbolical expression for the Holy
Spirit, a8 xpiecv, noreover, is frequently used of the gift of the Holy Spirit;
comp. Acts iv. 27, x. 38; 2 Cor. i. 21. With this most of the commen-
tators agree, only that ypicua is usually incorrectly explained as the act
“unctio, anointing,” and this is then taken as a description of the Holy
Spirit; so by Augustine, and even by De Wette, Ewald, Sander, and Erd-
mann. It is erroneous to understand ypiouva of the “true tradition about
Christ, vividly transmitted, proceeding from the apostles” (Késtlin, p. 243),
or of the working of the Holy Spirit (Didymus: charitas, quae diffunditur in
cordibus nostris per spiruum sanctum; Socinus: divinum beneficium cognoscendi
tpsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus; Emanuel Sa: christianismus), or of
the act in which the Spirit is given to Christians, thus of baptism (Ewald)
or of confirmation. Oecumenius wrongly finds here (iAuere da row Barriopua-
Tog Td Ypiopa 7d iepov, Kal dua rovTov 7d Eig maCay THY GAnBecay Sdnyoby tude Oeiov mvedua)
an allusion to the old custom of anointing the candidate for baptism; this
custoin does not belong to the apostolic age, but was probably first intro-
duced by this passage, as Bengel has observed.! It is, on the whole, less
likely that John was here thinking of the communication of the Spirit by
means of baptism, as is usually supposed, than that he was thinking of that
by means of the preaching of the gospel (Diisterdieck), as in the whole
context there is nothing to suggest the former.? That Jolin uses just the
word xpicua is not without meaning; as in the O. T. not only kings, but also
priests and (sometimes) prophets were anointed, he reminds believers thereby
“of their high honor, calling, office, and glory (Sander).® If it be the case
that there is also an allusion in it to the name of the Antichrist (Bengel,
Diisterdieck), then the apostle wanted to bring out that believers in posses-
sion of the ypicua are enabled to fully know the antichrislian wevdog in its con-
tradiction to the dAjéea; see ver. 21. —éyere ard rov dyiov].
1 As Bengel thinks that thie whole section
fe addressed to the children, he says: ‘‘ Kam
unctionem spiritualem habent tra wacka
pueruli; namque cum baptismo, quem susce.
perunt, conjunctum erat douum Spiritus s.,
cujue, eignificandi causa ex hoc !pso loco —
deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo
corpora baptizatorum ungerentur.’’ — How in
modern times this passage is misused as a
proof of the post-apostolic origin of the
Epietie, see the Introduction, sec. 3.
2 As quite arbitrary interpretatious, we
may further mention here that of Semler and
that of J. J. Hess (Flutt’e and Susakind's
Magas., vol. xiv.); the former, on the false
assumption that the Epistle is addressed
especially to the presbyters also, explains
xpiopa by: legitima auctoritas docendi, and
adds: xpioua est idem ac xapioua illud, cujus
auctor spiritua 8., yui per apostolus imperti-
For éyzere, in
tur doctoribua ; and the latter understands by
ft the instruction which the churches of Asia
Mipor received about Antichrist through the
Apocaly pee. :
3 Neander: “ That which in the Old Cove-
nant was connected only with individuals to
whom in some way the guidance of God's
people was intrusted, with individuale who
thereby were singled out from the mass of the
rest of the people, this under the New Cove-
nant is connected with the people of God in
general. ... There are therefore no longer
among the people of God any such distinctions
as there were in the Old Covenant between
kings, prophets, priests, and people... .
They are one kingly priestly race, whose
nobility and high destination all share; all
are prophets by virtue of that common en-
Iightenment by the Holy Spirit.”
CHAP. II. 21. 585
ver. 27, éAdBere is put; the possession rests upon a reception, and this,
indeed, ad rob dyiov ; 6 Gywos is—following the correct interpretation of xpicua
—not the Holy Spirit (Didymus, Lorinus, Semler), but either God (Rickli,
Besser, Neander: “a6 indicates the source ;” which, however, is not always
the case), -—comp. John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 19: rov dyiov mvebparog, ob Exere
anxd env, — or more probably, as most commentators think, Christ; comp.
John xv. 26: 6 rapdadnros, dv yd réupo bpiv mapa tov xnarpog; and John vi. 69,
where Christ (according to the overwhelming authorities) is called 6 dyto¢ row
Ocov; in favor of which is the fact that John, in ver. 29, calls Christ dixator,
and in chap. iii. 3, Gyvog (comp. also Acts iii. 14; Rev. iii. 7).— That the
bestower of the ypioua is called by John 6 dywe (whether it be God or Christ)
arises from this, that the anointing with the Spirit is an act of making holy,
i.e., of separation from the world; but he only can make holy who himself is
holy. —«xai oidare tavra]. Bengel, according-to the sense, explains «ai cor-
rectly by et inde; the possession of the xpioua is the reason of the eidévac
wavra, —mavra is not masculine (Syrus: omnes; Bede: discernilis inter probos
et improbos), but neuter. Calvin rightly says: omnia, non universaliter capi,
sed ad praesentis loci circumstantiam restringt debet: still it must not be
restricted merely to those things (quae sunt) necessaria agnoscendis anti-
christis et cavendis ulorum insidiis (Bengel), but it embraces along with these
Thy dAjdecav in general (ver. 21); comp. John xiv. 26, xvi. 13: mdoay riv dA7-
Qeav. In the possession of the whole truth Christians are also enabled to
distinguish lies and truth.}
Ver. 21. ov« éypapa tpiv does not refer to the whole epistle (Beza), but to
that which is said of the antichrists; comp. ver. 26.2— érc obx oldare rv GAj-
Geta, x.7.A.]. dre = becuuse (comp. vv. 12-14); the apostle does not want to
teach the anointed Christians for the first time the truth which was revealed
in Christ, but he is writing to them because they know it; a Lapide: non ut
haec vos doceam, sed ut doctos confirmem. — xai 5re wav Weirdo, x.7.A,]. This dre
is not co-ordinate with the preceding one, but is dependent on oidare. Luther,
correctly according to the sense: “but ye know it, and know that,” etc. —
nav weddoc, quite generally, though with special reference to the antichristian
doctrine; peidog: “not merely error, but lie” (De Wette)—the absolute
antithesis of dAjdea; Lange quite arbitrarily thinks that the abstract is here
put for the concrete: “that no false teacher can be a genuine Christian.”
It is incorrect to take zav . . . ob as a Hebraism = oidév; of belongs rather to
the predicate. —éx rjc cAnOeiac obx Fort], éx here also indicates the source, and
does not express merely the connection (De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius).
Because the lie is not of the truth, so also it has no connection with it;
Lorinus: ex vero non nisi verum sequitur, et verum vero consonat. Whence
the lie, which is not é« rig dAnOeiac, originates, Christ says in John viii. 44:
The truth is from God, who is Himself the truth; the lie from the Devil,
who is not in the truth.
1 The genuinely Catholic interpretation of quae pertinent ad doctrinae christianae veri-
Estius ie worthy of notice: ‘‘Habetis episco- tatem.
pos et presbyteros, quorum cura ac studio 2 Ebrard refers this ¢ypaya also arbitrarily
veatrae ecclesiae satie instructac sunt ip fis, to the Gospel of John.
536 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Vv. 22,23. The existence of the antichrists and their relationship to the
Christian Church having been previously stated, there follows now the more
particular definition of the antichristian lie. — ric éorw 4 pevornc. The inter-
rogative form, with which John addresses his readers who know the truth,
is explained by the vividness of the feeling with which the apostle is
writing ; similarly in chap. v. 5. He passes from the abstract (mdv weidor)
directly to the concrete (wetornc). The definite article 6 petorne (Luther
incorrectly : a liar) brings out the idea in clearer distinctness: the liar xar’
éEoxnv, i.e., he in whom the lie appears in concrete personality (so also
-Braune), identical with 6 dvrixzpioroc, which is denied by Jachmann through
mistake of John’s idea. The thought is weakened by the supposition that
the apostle is speaking here comparatively (Grotius: quis potest major esse
impostor’). Nor is Bengel’s interpretation satisfactory: qui est illius men-
dacti imposturaeque reus? with which Diisterdieck agrees, when he para-
phrases: “ What sort of a lie I mean, ye know very well. Who are the
liars? Are they not those who deny, etc.?” The apostle certainly has
the particular lie of the antichrists of his time in view, but this he regards
as the one chief and fundamental lie “in which all peidoe is comprised ”
(Liicke). The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is plainly quite errone-
ous: *“ what else is a false doctrine than, etc. ?” nor is that of Ebrard less
so, as he finds in this catechetical (!) question intended for children this
meaning: “on whose side is the lie?” with which he then supplies the
corresponding question: “and on whose side is the truth? ”— ei a 6 dpvot-
pevoc]. el wn, often after a negation, may also stand after a question, as in
this a negation is contained ; comp.’ Luke xvii. 18; Rom. xi. 15; 1 Cor. ii.
11; 2 Cor. ii. 2; 1 John v. 5; it corresponds to the German “als nur”
(English: “ but only,” “except”), and limits the general thought to a par-
ticular one; the sense accordingly is: No other is the liar but he who, etc.
According to Ebrard, ef »# must here only have the meaning of “than,”
because the question here is, which of the two dogmatical tendencies (!) belongs
to the lie; that the apostle here has in view two parties, namely, the anti-
christs and the believing Christians, and asks which of thein is in possession
of the truth, is a pure fiction, for which there is not the slightest evidence in
the text. dre "Inaoig obk Form 6 Xptoroc]. On the construction of the negative
idea dpveioda with the following ovx, by which the negation is more strongly
emphasized, see Kiihner, II. p. 410. — The lie of the antichrist consists in
the denial that Jesus is 6 Xprordc, i.e., in the denial of the identity of Jesus
and Christ, whereby is tneant, according to ver. 19 and chap. iv. 3, not the
Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic
heresy of the distinction between Jesus and Christ, which forms the sharpest
contradiction to the apostle’s doctrine that Jesus is the Adyog cdpg yeviuevor.
It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy; on
the one hand, the denial of the divine, on the other, the denial of the Auman,
nature of Jesus;! for John speaks only of one lie. — obrég éorw 6 dvtixpiotoc)}.
180 Tertullian (de Praescript. c. 33): non putarent Jesum esse Fillum Del; fllud
“Joh. in ep. eos maxime antichristos vocat, | Marcion, hoc Ebion vindicavit.” Similarly
qui Christum negareut in carne venisee et qui Besser: “‘ ‘That Jesus was not the Christ, the
CHAP. II. 23, 587
otroc refers back to é dpvodpevoc: the liar who denies the identity of Jesus
and Christ, he is the antichrist. It is natural to take 6 weborn¢ and 6 avrixp.
here in a general signification, and to find therein a justification for Bengel's
conception of John’s idea of antichrist; but as the lie of the antichrists pro-
ceeds from the aveiua roi avtizpicrov, it may be ascribed to the antichrist
himself; the individual antichrists are the mouth by which he speaks. —é
cpvoipevoc rdv watépu Kal rdv vidy is not to be connected with ovror, so that the
sense would be: this one, who denies the Father and the Son, is the anti-
christ; but as a clause of more particular definition subordinate to 6 dvri-
xptoroc. “John hereby adds a new element which states the full unhappy
consequence of that antichristian lie” (Diisterdieck ; similarly Braune). The
apostle wants to bring out here that the denial that Jesus is 6 Xprord¢ is in
its very essence a denial of the Father and of the Son. He who denies the
identity of Jesus and Christ directly denies the Son, for the Son is no other
than ‘Injootc 6 Xprorée (neither an von named Christ that did not become
man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or, according to John i. 14, the Logos) ;}
but he who denies the Son denies also the Father, and not merely inasmuch
as Son and Father are logically interchangeable ideas, but because the nature
of the Father is only manifested in the Son, and all true knowledge of the
Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those
who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false image of their own
thoughts, an eldwAov.?
Ver. 23. Confirmation of the last stated thought in two clauses which
express the same idea, only in different form.* — mac 6 dpvoipevog rdv vidv, obdé
rdv narépa Fyec]. dpveloda: rdv vicv i8 In meaning synonymous with dpveicbaz, bre
"Inootc obx éortv 6 Xptoréc. The assertion that John here confounds with the
idea of Christ that of the Son, i.e. of the eternal Logos (De Wette and
others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as
the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Disterdieck, Briickner). —
Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause xal dpveira, corre-
sponding to the first part, John says, otdé . . . Zyet, which has a wider
import, for éyew is to be taken emphatically = “to possess in living fellow-
ship ” (Diisterdieck) ; the explanation of Beza is insufficient: nec patrem esse
Christ not Jesus. Either the Word that was
from the beginuing was eeparated from thie
to interpret the thought of the apostle, ie quite
natural. But even others have got a more
Jesus, or the flesh was denied to the cternal
Word.” Comp. Introd. sec. 3.
3 Weiss correctly brings out the distinction
between the ideas Xprorés and vids, when he
observes that o Xprords is a historical concep.
tion to the apostle, and that it is enough for
him that that proposition of the false teachers
denies the Messiahship of Chriet, from which
all belicf in Him muet take ite starting-point,
in order to arrive at the recognition that Jesus
is the Son of God, and thus in the Son to
recognize the Father.
? That such commentators as proceed on
rationalistic assumptions have not been able
or less indistinct view of it by putting, as
Diisterdieck rightly says, ‘‘the ideas of John
too directly into dogmatic forms (and, indeed,
into those defined by the Church);” or by
ignoring the realism of the apostle, and re-
garding what he considered in an objectively
real way as a mere element of the subjective
consideration; or, finally, by bringing out
one-sided references inetead of giving the
ideas the due force of their entire compre-
hension.
§ Braune, rightly: ‘“‘ Here is the progress
from the denying to the having, and from the
particular (0 wevorns) lo the general (was).”*
%
538 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
credit (better, a Lapide: habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessiune); the
thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius,
Grotius, fyev 7, marépa ig explained by “to know the will of God;” errone-
ously Storr also: “to him is the Father not gracious.” —In the following
words: 6 éuodoywv, «.7.4., Which are wanting in the Iecepta (see the critical
notes), duodoyeiv forms the antithesis of dpyeioda; it means a confession which
is the expression of faith (Matt. x. 32; Rom. x. 10). In regard to the
construction, Ebrard rightly remarks: “ That rdv vidv is dependent on dpodo-
yov, and not along with «a2 rdv zarépa (as in 2 John 9) on fe (in which case
(uodoyav would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words,
to which these form the antithesis.”
Vv. 24, 25. Exhortation to the faithful keeping of the gospel. Ver.
24. tyueic]. By the Jtecepta, tueic ody, the correct relationship of this verse
is taken away; it is not a conclusion from what immediately precedes
(Diisterdieck, Braune), but with the emphasized twei¢ it is put in contrast
with what is said of the false teachers; Theophylact: éxeivoe piv obv obruc*
tyueic dé Grep Nxovoate art’ apri¢ gudurrere nap’ éavtoic. — In regard to the construc-
tion: tyeic 6 gxovoare av’ apric, év tpiv pevérw, Beza and Socinus, it is either an
attraction (ipeic 6 px. for 6 ipeic fxobvc., 80 also Bengel: antitheton est in prono-
mine, tdeo adhibetur trajectio; De Wette: “tpeic is properly no doubt the
subject of the relative clause placed first;" Jachmann)! or an ellipsis (iyei¢
= quod ad vos altinet); Paulus and Ebrard regard tieic as the pure vocative ;
but it is more correct to admit an anacolouthon which has its natural origin
in this, that the apostle’s thought in opposition to the false teachers was
first directed to his readers, but equally also to the word which they had
heard from the beginning; accordingly the apostle begins with tyeic, but
does not follow it up by uévere ev or a similar expression, but by 6 jxoveare,
x.T.A., a8 & Dew subject; comp. Winer, p. 534 (E. T., 574); Buttmann, p. 325
(Ek. T., 380). The same anacolouthon in ver. 27.2 With 6 jxovoare an’ apyic,
comp. ver. 7; thereby, of course, the whole gospel is meant, but here specially
the fundamental doctrine of it, — that Jesus is the Christ. —é» tuiv}]. Theo-
phylact interprets év by zapa; Luther: “among;” but the preposition must
be retained in its proper meaning; for upon that it depends that what was
heard “ abides in the soul as something that determines the life” (Neander;
comp. John xv. 7), because only then does that take place which the apostle
expresses in the sequel. — «ai dyeic . . . weveire]. The «ai before the conclud-
ing clause brings out more clearly its corresponding relationship to the pre-
ceding clause; here it is so much the more significant, as in both clauses the
same verbal idea pévew is used: If the Word remain in you, ye also will
remain in the Son, etc. That our remaining in the Son is the immediate
1 The idea of an attraction is erroneous,
because “vues, if attracted to the relative
clause, would be too strongly emphasized in
this position’ (Wiver).
2 Myrberg's reply, that vpeis is rather to be
regarded as nominative absolute, is met by the
fact that the use of the nominative absolute is
precisely an anacolouthon.
® Dilsterdieck: ‘* By «ac before vueis John
specifies the promised consequence which will
correspond to the condition which is stated,
while at the same time he brings out the nice
point which {se contained in the significant
interchange of ¢y vmiy petvy and vmecs ey Tye
vig os . weverre.”
CHAP. II. 25. 539
result of the Word remaining in us, is explained by the fact that “the words
of Christ substantially contain nothing else than a self-revelation or explana-
tion of His person and His appearing, and similarly the evangelical proc-
lamation of the apostles is only the copy of this preaching of Christ Himself”
(Weiss). év rd vig is put first, because fellowship with the Father is con-
ditioned by fellowship with the Son.
Ver. 25. Kai uirn éoriv f émayyeAia, «.7.4.] abrg may be referred either to
what precedes, or to the concluding words of this verse: ray Quiv rv aidvov.
In the first case the meaning is: and this remaining is what He has prom-
ised, namely, eternal life. Gagnejus: “ Manere in filio et patre promissio cst,
quam nobis pollicitus est orans pro nobis patrem Dominus Joh. xvii. 20. Bene
ergo ait de hoc Johannes: haec est promissio, quam pollicitus est nobis, quae
quidem est vita aeterna; vita enim aeterna est manere in Deo eoque frui hic per
gratiam, in futuro per gloriam ;” rv Guay tiv aisvov then forms an apposition,
by which that very remaining is described as happiness; this view in Oecu-
menius, and among modern commentators in Sander, Besser, Weiss. In
the second case the thought is, “and eternal life is the promise which He
has given us;” taking this view, a new thought, it is true, enters with
ver. 25, and it requires something to be supplied to connect it with the pre-
ceding, perhaps what a Lapide gives: si in ipso maneamus (Spener: that is
the promise if we remain in the Word, and consequently in the Father and
the Son); but nevertheless it is, in accordance with the analogy of John’s
mode of expression, to be preferred; comp. chap. i. 5, v. 14; similarly also
chap. iii. 23, v. 11; in the last two passages the connection with what pre-
cedes appears clearly enough by both being connected with the same idea,
whereas here there is no previous mention of the émayyedia; but even here
the connection is not to be mistaken, because the Gua aidvog is directly con-
nected with the péverw év 76 vid, x.7.A. This second interpretation in a Lapide,
Grotius, Loriuus, Russmeyer, Spener, Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, Erd-
mann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, and others. —xai is not used here airwao-
yds (Oecumenius), but is the simple copula. — 7 éxayyeAia: “the promise.”
Liicke unnecessarily conjectures that instead of this perhaps dmayyedia is
probably to be read, or that éxayyedia has here the meaning, “ proclama-
tion,” for neither is it the case that the idea of the promise refers only to the
distant future life, nor, according to John, that Christ does not bestow any
promise.! — abrog is Christ, who in this whole passage forms the centre round
which all the statements of the apostle move. —On the accusative riv Gui,
which has occurred through the attraction of the verb in the relative clause,
comp. Winer, p. 583 (E. T., 628); Buttmann, p. 68 (E. T., 78).
Vv. 26, 27. Conclusion of the section on the antichrists.
1 From this passage it ie clear that with
John (wn aiwnos and the knowledge of God
are not by any means, as Welss thinke, iden-
tical ideas; for if John here, according to the
view of Weiss, describes the abiding in the Son
and in the Father as the ¢wiy aiusos, he then
mentions what this consists in, as something
plainly tranecending the idea of knowledge;
but ff avzy le directly connected with ryy ¢. 7.
aiwwy., then the abiding in the Son and the
Father is considered as the condition of the
Gwyn; it is impossible, however, for it to be
the condition of knowledge, for it rather
presupposes the latter.
540 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 26. raira refers to all that the apostle has written about the anti-
christs from ver. 18 down. In calling them here of rAavavrec tude, he gives
it to be understood that their efforts were directed to seduce the Church
from the truth of the gospel to their lie; that their purpose had actual effect
(Braune) is not indicated by the verb. — Ver. 27. In the first part of this
verse the apostle testifies to his readers that they do not need any teacher,
in which he goes back to what he had already expressed in vv. 20, 21. —
nai iueic]. xai is here used just as in ver. 20.— On the anacolouthon, see on
ver. 24.—rd xpioua 6 eAdBere dn’ avroi)]. 1d xypiova is, with Braune, to be
regarded as the accusative, for the juxtaposition of two nominatives could
not be explained; the apostle probably had an éyere in his mind, instead of
which, however, he then wrote péve év tuiv; abrod, i.e., Xpcrov; so the con-
text demands; abréc, ver. 25. Herein lies a proof that rov dyiov in ver. 20 is
to be understood of Christ. —év tuiv péver]. The indicative, instead of which
the imperative is used in ver. 24, expresses the certain confidence of the
apostle. — xa? ob xpeiav Eyere]. This sentence, which by «ai is made co-ordi-
nate with the preceding, stands to it in the relation of conclusion; meaning:
since, as is not to be doubted, the Spirit is in you —and abiding — you do
not need; Bengel describes this relation correctly by et ideo. — iva reg deddoxy
tude]. iva is used here, as not unfrequently in the N. T., in an enfeebled
signification ; only in an artificial way could the original force of purpose of
this particle be here retained; while this force sometimes passes over into
that of object, this is still further weakened, so that the clause beginning
with iva is the object which completes the idea of the verb; so it is here;
comp. especially Heb. v. 12: ypelav fyere rod didcoxerv tudo; in other passages
xp. Exev is used even with the simple infinitive, Matt. iii. 14, xiv. 16; 1 Thess.
i. 8, iv. 9; with iva as here, John xvi. 30.1— Several commentators suppose
here a reference to the false teachers, so that in the words of the apostle
there lies a warning against those who wish to impose themselves on the
Church as teachers; so a Lapide, Spener (ric = “who may make pretence
of a new revelation "), Sander, Gerlach, Besser, and others. But it is more
appropriate (according to ver. 21) to refer the apostle’s word to a teaching
proceeding from himself or other apostolic teachers; so Hornejus, De Wette-
Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc. — only we must not restrict the
generally expressed thought merely to instruction about the false teachers,
even though it is intended with special reference to that.2 Believers need
no human teacher in order that the divine truth may be made known to
them. They have received, with the word which was declared unto them
(6 yxovoav), the xpioua, which leads them el¢ ndcav ray dAndeav; therefore the
apostle frequently in this epistle emphasizes the fact that he does not want
1 At the most it may be said that iva is
used with the verb yxpe:ay ¢xev, because that
of which one is in need may be regarded as
the object of his need; on the other hand, it is
unsuitable when Braune says: ‘the teaching
is here regarded as the object and purpose for
the sake of the position of him who is to be
taught.” :
2 Liicke paraphrases the passage: ‘‘ The
reason why I do not write any more about the
false teachers, is that I assume that that holy
unction of the Spirit remains In you; and if
that is so, you do not need that any one shall
instruct you further on the eubject.”’
CHAP. II. 26. 541
\
to instruct them, but is writing to them what they already know (oldare navra,
ver. 20). John thereby assumes believing readers, in whose hearts that
which they have heard from the beginning is preserved true and uncor-
rupted. Nothing new therefore can be proclaimed to the believers, but only
that which they already possess in faith may be brought to a clearer con-
sciousness.! — dAA' ws 1d abdrd ypioua, x.7.A.]. In this second part of the verse
the first question is about the construction. Liicke, Ewald, De Wette,
Neander, Diisterdieck, Braune (and previously Oecumenius and Theophylact)
think that the whole to the end of the verse forms one period, in which the
premise dA’ we . . . deddoxer is resumed by the words xa? xadc édidagev duly, and
has its conclusion in peveire (or pévere) tv abrm, and in which the words xa?
GAndic .. . weidog contain a parenthetical adjunct. The difficulty that in
the resumed premise «ai is put instead of dAAd, xadéc, instead of cx, and the
aorist éd:dagev instead of the present didaoxer, can certainly be easily got over
by the fact that the apostle wanted not simply to repeat the thought, but at
the same time to bring out a new phase of the subject; but the additional
rept xavtwv, Which does not stand in any relationship whatever to the conclu-
sion eveire (uévere), is decidedly opposed to this construction; to this is
added that aA4d indicates that the apostle wants to express a contrast to the
ob xoeiav Exere, x.7.4,, that is, a clause in which the teaching of the xpicua is
described as such as removes the need of any other (human) teacher; finally,
that the subordinate clause xa? ovx art weidog conjoined with dAnéés gor: raises
this thought above the level of & mere parenthetical adjunct, and stamps it
as a leading thought. For these reasons it is preferable, with Luther, Cal-
vin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Briickner, Besser, and in general most of
the commentators, to divide the whole into two parts, and to regard xai dAn6@.
govt. . . weirdo as the conclusion of the first part; Luther: “but as the
anointing teaches you all things, it is true, and is no lie; and,” etc.2— dc
refers not so much to the form and fashion, as to the substance of the teach-
ing. —1d abrd xpioua}], rdatrdis not IDEM semper, non aliud atque aliud, sed
sibi constans et idem apud sanctos omnes (Bengel; so also Erdmann), but just
the same xpioua, namely 6 éAdBere. Still the reading atrod might be preferable,
for it seems unnecessary to emphasize the fact that the ypioua is the same
that they have received, and no other. — rep? ravrwv is used in the same sense
as mivra, Ver. 20.—xal dAndec tort, x.7.4.]. «ai before the conclusion, as in
ver. 24: “then tt ts also true,” etc.; it brings out prominently the idea aandéc;
aAndéc is referred to 1d ypsoua by Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Ewald, Braune, and others; but the substantive peidor is opposed to
this connection, for it cannot be referred to 1d ypioua, inasmuch as it is con-
1 Several commentators rightly remark here,
that in the statement of the apostle there is no
foundation for the error of the “‘ enthusiaste,”’
inasmuch as John does not separate the
teaching of the xpiona and the apostolic
word from one another, but places them in
the closeat connection.
* Ebrard makes ws dependent upon fypawa,
ver. 26; itis true he himself admite that this
gives a “‘lazxe and legere form of speech,”
but he thinke that there fe ‘‘ nothing strange’’
in thie, because the apostie fs epeaking to
children in quite childlike language. But
what child’s understanding would be capable
of supplying with the words: ‘but ae the
same anointing teacheth you of all things,’
the thought: ‘ec. I have said to you”?
542 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
sidered by John as a person (d:ddoxer), and must neither be arbitrarily ex-
plained, with Beza, by wevdéc, nor, with Braune, be separated from dAngéc
(‘and there is no lie in it”); Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander,
Besser, Erdmann, and others, have therefore rightly referred cAn6és, x.7.4., to
that which the ypicua teaches. Because this is true, and is no seidoc, there-
fore believers do not need any teacher besides, but they may rely entirely
upon the teaching of the ypicua. To this thought the apostle further adds a
new one, in which he goes back to the end of ver. 24. —xal xaOuc]. xafdc, as
distinct from ws, means “in proportion as.” — édidagev bic, namely, ax épy7e.
— pévere (ueverre) tv atro]. The Recepta peveire is taken by Socinus, a Lapide,
Lorinus, Semler, and others, in the sense of the imperative; others retain
the future meaning, as in ver. 24; thus Beza says: mihi videtur omnino ser-
vanda Fuluri propria significatio ut est optime sperantis ; as the apostle thereby
expresses his good confidence, the future accordingly has the vim consolandt
(Bengel). The correct reading, however, is uévere, which, corresponding to
the preceding pévec and éyere, is not imperative (Ewald, Braune), but indic-
ative (Briickner), and as such it expresses the firm conviction of the apostle
that they, according to the constant instruction of the ypiova, abide év atte,
i.e., in Christ (Erasmus, erroneously: = éy ro xpiovart, and Baumgarten-
Crusius: “in the teaching which the ypicua communicates to them”). In
favor of this view is also the exhortation of ver. 28 herewith connected.}
Ver. 28 concludes the section beginning at ver. 18, but serves at the same
time as an introduction to the following section. — «al viv cannot, it is true,
be explained, with Paulus, by “even now already,” but neither can it be
explained, with most of the commentators, exactly by igitur, or a similar
word; here it rather introduces, as it frequently does, the following exhor-
tation as a deduction from the present circumstances. Incorrectly, Ebrard:
“And now (namely, after I have spoken to the sadiog) I turn to you”
(namely, to the whole Church): a supplement of that kind cannot be jus-
tified from the passages quoted by Ebrard; John xvii. 8; Acts x. 5, xxii. 16.
—rexvia, a8 in ver. 1. — pévere év ait@, quite the same thought as in ver. 27.
Rickli’s view is incorrect, that in ver. 27 it is “the abiding in the confession
that Jesus is the Christ, but here another abiding, namely, the abiding in
righteousness,” that is meant. — iva édv gavepog]. éav is distinguished from
érav (Recepta) in this way, that it describes not the time, but only the actu-
ality of the manifestation of Christ. The garépwor of Christ is His parousia
occurring at the end of the éoyar7 doa; comp. Col. iii. 4. By the same word
the first appearance of Christ on earth is also elsewhere described; see chap.
iii. 5, 8. Eyupev (oxduer) wabpnciav]. The communicative form of expression
indicates that John tacitly includes himself also under the exhortation :
pévere by abro.2— nappnoia: the confidence of the believer at the day of judg-
1 Myrberg on ver. 28: ‘Sperantis verba 2 Sander introduces here a foreign reference,
flla sunt, quae paullo ante leguntur; haec when he thinks that John includes himeelf as
adhortantis, quod novum quoddam initlum if he would also have to be ashamed if on that
dicendi indicat.” day his children, whom he begot through the
CHAP. II. 29. 543
ment; chap. iv. 17. —xa? ui) aloyvvOcpuev an’ abrov]. Elsewhere also rappnoia
and aloyivecéa: are contrasted with one another; so Prov. xiii. 5: dae3i¢
aloxbverat xa? oby et mappnoiav; comp. also Phil. i. 20. aloyuv@cyev is either
used in the passive sense, in which case the original meaning “to be
shamed” passes over into this, “to be put to shame” (see Meyer on Phil.
i. 20); then axé (which is not = i76) describes Christ as the one from whom
this alcyiveo#at comes, namely, by means of His judgment of condemnation ;
or it is used in the middle sense: “to be ashamed,” in which case dé is not
=coram (Luther, Ewald), but = “away from,” thus, “to draw back from
Him with shame;” so Calvin, Beza, Episcopius, De Wette, Liicke (who
adduces Sir. xxi. 22: dv@pwroc dé roAimetpog alcyuvOjoerat and xpocwrov), Diister-
dieck, Ebrard.! The second view deserves the preference, on account of the
corresponding contrast with yew nappnoiav. — ty 1g napovoia avrov expresses
definitely the reference already implied in ¢avepweg: “at His (Christ’s) com-
ing;” sapovoia, in John only here, frequently appears in this sense in the
N. T.: comp. Matt. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 87, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19,
and elsewhere.
Ver. 29. With this verse the third section begins, which continues to
chap. iii. 22, and consists of two groups: (1) ver. 29-iii. 10a, and (2) iii.
106-22. — After the apostle has warned them against the love of the xéapor,
and against the false teachers (who are éx rot xoouov), he shows the obliga-
tion of Christians to dxcacoobvn, in which they reveal themselves as réxva Ooi,
in contrast to the réxva dafodov.
Ver. 29. The apostle now goes on to indicate how it is consistent with
the nature of Christians, as those that are born of God, to do righteousness.
— av eidjre]. Here also the apostle directs himself to his readers’ own con-
sciousness, a8 he does not want to teach them any thing new, but only to
state what they already know for their more earnest consideration. — dre
dixatéc ort. The present éor is not used, either here or in iii. 5, iv. 17, for
#v (Storr). It is doubtful whether the subject is Christ (a Lapide, Lorinus,
Bengel, Rickli, Frommann, Myrberg, first edition of this commentary, etc.)
or God (Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Gerlach, Koéstlin, De Wette, Diister-
dieck, Erdmann, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, and others). In favor of the
former is the fact that previously, not only in ver. 25 by abréc, and ver. 27
by é aird, but also in ver. 28 by gavepwOj, an’ abrov, and év rg rapovaig atrod,
Christ is clearly meant; for the latter, that in the following 2& abrov yeyévynra
the pronoun refers back to the subject of dixasg éort, and the idea yevviodat ix
Xpicros never appears in the writing, and, moreover, John, in what follows,
gospel, should come short. Similarly a La-
pide: “Ne pndefiamus utrique, ec. tam vos,
si a ddctrina Chrieti aberretis, quam nos
Apostoli et Pastores, quod vos in ea non
conservaverimus.” Lorinus: ‘Conjungit
selpsum disecipulis, spe de fllorum gloria ad-
gaudens.”
1 Braune thinke that the passive meaning is
to be retained: ‘For we shall not draw back
and tremble, but we shall be rejected and cast
out.” but the meaning above stated, and
accepted aleo by Braune, does not suit the
passive idea; besides, the correspondence
with the idea éxev wrapsnoiay demands the
middie signification of the word.
544 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
calls Christians réxva @cod, and in ver. 9 makes use of the expression yeyevvy-
pévoc éx tov Geos (comp. iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18). From the predicate dixaws nothing
can be inferred, as this attribute is assigned by John both to God (i. 9) and
Christ (ii. 1). As, with John’s peculiar blending of the Father and the
Son (or of God and Christ), it would not be easy to explain how he can pass
from the one to the other without specially indicating it, it appears more
safe, in accordance with the constant mode of conception and expression in
the Epistle, to supply as the subject of dinatég gore God, than Christ. It is inap-
propriate, with Storr, Liicke, and others, to refer dixasc to Christ, and é& abroi,
on the other hand, to God, because the thought of the apostle would thereby
lose its peculiar force (Bengel: justus justum gignit).1— The statement that
God is dixatog corresponds with the statement that He is gc (chap. i. 5); it
‘does not follow from ver. 28 that by dixazog here the justitia judicialis is to
be understood; Erdmann: quum noeiv ri dcxasocivyy ad dixatés tore referendum
sit, hoc justitiam Det sensu judiciali significare nequit, sed absolutam ejus sancti-
tatem. — ywéoxete is here not to be regarded as the indicative (Beza, Bengel,
Semler, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, and others), but, as its position
between pévere (ver. 27) and idere (chap. ili. 1) shows, as the imperative:
“then know, i.e., observe and reflect,” with Vulgate, Grotius, Russmeyer,
Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Liicke, Erdmeyer, Ebrard, Braune, and
others. — dre nag . . . yeyévvgrac]. The same relationship in which, accord-
ing to chap. i. 6, xowwviay Eyew pera Oeod and repirareiv éx rH wri stand to one
another, exists between yeyevyjodar ix rov Geod and moceiv riy dixaco-
ctvny (so also Braune), inasmuch as the latter is the practical proof of the
former, so that every one who practises righteousness— but no one else
(Bengel: omnis et solus) —is born of God. That when Episcopius describes
the nasci ex Deo, not as the condition, but as the result, of the ezercitii jus-
titiae, he perverts the thought of the apostle, needs no proof. The right
interpretation in Bengel, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg,
Ebrard, Briickner, Braune, Weiss.2 By rv dcxatoovyny it is plainly righteous-
ness, in the full extent of the idea, that is described; with the expression
moeiv riv dixawoobynv, compare the synonymous idea noviy riv aAndeay (chap.
i. 6); similarly in Hebrew 7¥ 703;; Gen. xviii. 19; Isa. lvi. 1; Ps.
xiv. 15; in the N. T. comp. Matt. vi. 1. On roiy an emphasis is placed
which must not be overlooked; comp. chap. iii. 18; for now is the truth of
the experience and of the word first proved in deed. — In é€ avrod yey., we must
1 Sander would leave the question unde-
cided; still he correctly states the alternative ;
“If dccacog must be referred to Christ, so also
must éf avrov. But if the latter cannot be, if
e€ avrov can only be referred to God, then
dc:nacos must also be referred to God.”’
2 The thought that only he who 1s born of
God can practise righteousness, 1s not exactly
expressed here by John, but it is suggested 10
the preceding ras. When Liicke 1n his 2d ed.
aays: ‘* We might have properly expected or:
wag b yeyevynudvos é€ avrov, moet THY dixato-
cuyvmv; but John would appear to have the
purpose of exciting in his readers the oon-
sciousness of sonship to God in Christ, there-
fore he states the roversed relation,” — this 10
erroneous, since it je rather roew ray dicaro-
ovvny that has the chief emphasis; in bis let
ed. Liicke correctly stated the thought of the
apoatie.
CHAP. II. 29.
545
retain #¢ in its proper meaning; explanations which weaken it, such as that
of Socinus, dei similem esse, or of Rosenmiiller, amari a deo, are of course to
be rejected (Braune); the relation of the perfect yeyévyyra: to the present
mouv is to be observed.!
1 The definition of Weiss: “The being
born of God is the act by which the known
nature of God, and therewith God Himeelf,
who indeed is received into our entire spiritual
life as the object of that intuitive knowledge,
operates determiningly, mouldingly, regener-
atingly, upon our spiritual and moral being,”
ie in various aspects unsuitable; for (1) it is
not so much the act of God as rather the
activity of man, his knowledge, which is rep-
resented as causing the being born of God;
(2) tt is erroneous to describe the dirth as
producing, since the birth is the result of the
generating activity; (3) it is no doubt true
that the birth is brought about by knowledge,
for it is only by producing in man the knowl-
edge of His nature that God produces in
him the new birth; but, on the other hand, it
ie just as true that the knowledge of God is
conditioned by the belng born of God: only
he who is born of God knows God; there are
two grades of the knowledge to be distin-
guished, namely, the knowledge as condition,
and knowledge as result, of being born of
God.
546 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. Instead of déduxev, A, G, read the aorist &dwxev; the Rec. is, however,
sufficiently attested by the majority of authorities. — The reading tyiv in B is
not even accepted by Buttm., rightly; for it no doubt owes its existence merely
to the connection with the second pers. idere, — After xAn@cuev is found in A, B,
C, &, many min. and vss., in Thph., Aug., Bede, the addition «ai éouév; the
Vulg. and other Latin vss. have: e¢ stmus; Oecum. in his comm,: éduxev jyiv
réxva avtov yeveoda: tre cat xAnOjva, and Thph. in his comm.: yevéoda: re xa
Aoy:o0i7vaz, According to these authorities, the addition must be regarded as
genuine (Lachm., Diisterd., Ewald, Briickner); Tisch. (following G, K, many
min., Copt., etc.) has not accepted it; many critics (thus even Reiche) explain
it as a gloss; this it certainly may be — taken from ver. 2; but the overwhelming
weight of authorities is in favor of its genuineness. Diisterdieck thinks that
the omission originated in a false explanation of xAnOcauev.— Instead of ydc,
® has dudc. — Ver. 2. After ofdauev the Rec. has dé (G, K, etc., Syr., Copt., etc.,
Thph., Oec., etc.), which, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, C, &, several
min., etc., is to be deleted; its insertion is easily explained by the apparent
antithesis to the preceding. — Ver. 4. The Rec. # duapria is certified by all the
authorities; Lachm. omits 7, but, as Tisch. observes, sine teste, for even B, to
which Lachm. appeals, reads 97 duapria. After éori, & (sol.) reads «ai, which,
scarcely genuine, serves to connect more closely the two ideas duapria and dvoxia,
— Ver. 5. Instead of ofdare, & (sol.) reads oldazev, which makes no essential
difference in the thought. —rd¢ dyapriag qudv, Rec., following C, G, K, &, etc.,
Syr., etc., Thph., Oec., Bede (De Wette); Lachm. and Tisch. omit 7uov, following
A, B, etc., Copt., Theb., etc., Tert., Aug., etc. The genuineness of jyucw is
certainly doubtful; perhaps it was omitted at a later date, to generalize the
idea tdc¢ duaptiac; Reiche regards it as genuine. — Ver. 6. With the reading
éopaxev in Tisch. 7, comp. chap. i. 1.— Ver. 7. Instead of the Rec. rexvia (in B,
G, K, &, etc., vss., min., Thph., Oec., Tert., etc., Lachm.), Tisch. has accepted
maisia, after A, C, etc., Copt., etc.; it is difficult to decide; it is possible that
rexvia is a correction for madla, a form of address unusual in the Epistle. That
matdia, as Ebrard thinks, is a correction, because in the section beginning with
the address sa:dia (chap. ii. 18) the conclusion is rep? ray rAavevrwy (ver. 25), and
here the same verb (unéei¢ tAavarw bic) follows the address, has little probability
in its favor. — Ver. 10. Lachm. in his larger ed. has instead of the Rec. rorov
dtxatoovyvny, which he had retained in his smaller ed., the reading o»
dixatoc, attested by no cod., but only by the Vulg., some other vss., and
several Fathers (Or., Tert., Cyp., etc.); clearly without adequate reason. —
The Codd. A, C, K, etc., have before dtcatoctvny the article t7v, probably inserted
in correspondence with ver. 7 and chap. ii. 29.— Ver. 11. Instead of the Rec.
dyyedia, C, &, etc., some vss. read érayyeAia; probably in accordance with
chap. ii. 25; De Wette considers it the original reading, just as chap. i. 3;
CHAP. III. 5AT
scarcely correct. — Ver. 13. & has, before 4) Oavuatere, ‘‘xai,’”’ clearly added for
the purpose of closer connection. — ddeAgoi, according to A, B, C, &, 27, etc.,
Vulg., ete., Aug., Oros., etc.; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm.,
Tisch. ; the Rec. adds pov, after G, K, etc. — Ver. 14. After rove adeAgoic & reads
yucov, probably a later addition to complete the thought. —ayaray rov adeAgor,
Rec., following C, G, K, Thph., Oecum. ; rev adeAgov is, however, a later addition ;
it is not found in A, B, &, etc., Vulg., etc., Aug., etc.; justly omitted by Lachm.
and Tisch.; its insertion is easily explained; Reiche, however, is of a different
opinion. — Ver. 15. Instead of avrod, as Lachm. and Tisch., or aurov, as
most of the editors read, B has éavrov. — év atrw (or better, év avtp, Tisch.),
Rec., after B, G, K, etc., Thph., Oec. — Lachm. bas accepted év éavty, the reading
of A, C,&, etc. — Ver. 16. Instead of r¢6 évaz (Rec., according to G, K, etc., Oec.)
we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the overwhelming evidence of
A, B, C, &, ete., the aorist deivac. — Ver. 18. After rexvia the Rec. (following G,
K, etc.) has ov, the genuineness of which, however, is justly doubted by Griesb.
— The article t7 before yAdooy, which is omitted by the Rec., is with certainty
attested by almost all authorities; it is wanting, however, in ®.— Before fpyw
the Rec. has omitted év, only on the evidence of K; almost all the authorities
attest its genuineness; as the co-ordinate ideas are without é, it was natural
to omit the preposition with fpyy also. — Ver. 19. Before év rotry the Rec.,
following C, G, K, &, most min., vss., etc., reads xai, which is also accepted by
Tisch. Lachm. has omitted it; it is wanting in A, B, etc., Vulg., Copt., etc.;
it is, however, probably genuine; omitted because it seemed unsuitable for the
connection. — Instead of yévwoxouev, Rec., following G, K, etc., Vulg., etc.
(Tisch.), A, B, C, &, etc.,! several vss., etc., read yvwoousba (Lachm.); as the
latter is the more difficult reading, and besides has the most important
authorities in its favor, it is to be regarded as genuine, with Ewald, Brickner,
Braune, contrary to the opinion of Liicke, De Wette, Reiche; Bengel and De
Wette think that the following eicouev has led to the change of the present to
the future; but it is just as likely that the indicative is a correction of the
copyists, in accordance with the frequently-occurring formula év rovrw ywwooxonuer,
ii. 3, lil. 24, iv. 2, v. 2 (Erdmann). —rd¢ capdiac nuoav. Rec., following A**,
’ C, G, K, &, almost all min., several vss., Thph., Oecum., Bede; retained by
Tisch, and Lachm. (in his larger ed.); {n the small ed. Lachm. has rv xapdiav
quar, after A*, B, Syr., etc.; the plural was apparently altered to the singular in
accordance with ver. 20. — Ver. 20. Instead of 6rz ¢¢v, Lachm. and Buttm. read:
5 re édv; see on this the explanation of the verse. — The dre before weiquv, which
Lachm. had omitted in his small ed. (following A, etc., Vulg., etc., Oec., ete.),
he has again rightly accepted {n the larger ed. The change of it to &, which
Henr. Stephanus would read, is arbitrary. — Ver. 21. The genuineness of ov
(Rec.) after 4 xapdia is uncertain; it is found in C, G, K, &, etc. (Tisch.), but
is wanting in A, B, ete., Vulg., etc. (Lachm.). — The nuov after caraywooxy is
wanting in B and C; it is, however, hardly spurious, as it is indispensable for
the sense. Instead of #yupev, attested by almost all the authorities, B has
Exec, originating in a false reference to xapdia, — Ver. 22. Instead of 0 éav, B
reads 6 dv. — Instead of the active form airayev, there is found in & the middle
form afropueda.—In opposition to the Rec. map’ abrod (G, K, etc.), an’ avrud
deserves the preference, according to the authorities (A, B, C, &, etc., Lachin.,
* Licke, whom Sander copies, says that C does not testify in favor of yrwooueda, but according
to Tischendorf it certainly does.
548 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Tisch.). — The reading rypapyev in & instead of rypotyev is no doubt only a clerical
error. — Ver. 23. miorevouuev, Rec., following B, G, K, al. pl., Oec., Tisch.; the
reading of A, C, &, etc., Thph., on the other hand, is miorebwyev; recommended
by Griesb., accepted by Lachm., probably a change in accordance with the
following present ayatauev; so Reiche thinks. — After évrodjy, quiv is wanting
in G, K, etc. (omitted by Tisch.). The most important authorities attest the
genuineness of jiv; Reiche, however, regards it as a later edition. — Ver. 24.
In & the «ai is wanting before év rovry; in the same cod. ov éduxev nuiv is found
instead of the Rec. ov nyiv éduxev,
Ver. 1. From the é£ atrot yeyévynra (chap. ii. 29) the apostle goes on to
the thought that he and his readers are children of God, whence he deduces
the necessity that exists for them of zoceiv rv dixawootvnv. First, however, he
points his readers to the love of God, through which they have become chil-
dren: of God, inviting thein to the consideration of it by idere. — roraniy ayanyyv
déduxev nuiv 6 narnp, what manner of love the Father hus bestowed on us. oraro¢
(later form for rodaroc, properly = from whence?) in the N. T., never in the
direct question, is strictly, 1t is true, not = quantus, but = qualis (comp. Luke
i. 29; 2 Pet. iii. 11), but is frequently used as an expression of admiration
at any thing especially wonderful (comp. Matt. viii. 27; Mark xiii. 1; Luke
vii. 39), so that the meaning of gualis passes over into that of quantus; and
so it is to be taken here also. —ayamnv diddvas only here; d:d6vae is more
significant than évdeviva: or a similar expression ; it means, “to give, to be-
stow.” God has made His love our property (so also Braune). It is quite
incorrect to take d.dévact = destinare, and, weakening the thought, ayamny as
metonymous for “ love-token” (Grotius), or for effectum charitatis (Socinus).}
The reference which Calvin finds in the word, when he says: guod dicit
DATAM esse carilatem, significal: hoc MERAE esse ltberalilalis, quod nos Deus pro
Jiliis habet, ig not indicated by John. — On juiv a Lapide remarks: indignis,
tnimicis, peccatoribus. — The name 6 warfp points to the following réxva Ocov.
—lva réxva’ Ocov xAnddpev]. Paulus, De Wette, Liicke, etc., retain iva in its
original meaning; “the greatness of the divine love,” says Liicke, “lies in
the sending of the’ Son” (chap. iv. 10). This thought is correct in itself;
but the apostle is not here thinking of the sending Christ; it is therefore
arbitrary to supply it; here there is in his mind only the fact that we — as
believers —are called the children of God: “ This is the proof and the result
of love” (Spener); iva is accordingly used here in modified signification,
synonymous with éy rovru, drt, Only that by Iva the réxva ©. «And. is more defi-
nitely described as the purpose (not, however, as the object of an act distin-
guished from it) of the love of the Father; Ebrard unsuitably gives the
meaning by the explanation zor, dy. déduxev hu. 6 nathp tv Td BovAcoOaz iva, K.T.A.,
2 A Lapide interpreta aydwyv inthe Catholic §§ Dei nominamur et sumus.” — Very appropri-
‘*usus est
interest : j.e., ‘*charitatem tum activam (actum
amoris Dei quo nos mire amat), tum passivam
nobisque a Deo communicatam et infusam.
Videte quantam charitatem ... nobis...
praestitit et exhibuit Deus, cum ... charita-
tem creatam nobis dedit et infudit, qua filil
ately Luther, In his Scholia:
Joannes singulari verborum pondere: non
dicit, dediase nobis Deum donum aliquod, sed
ipsam caritatem et fontem omnium bonorum,
cor ipsum,’’ etc.
CHAP. III. 1. 049
inasmuch as the love of God is bestowed on us, not in His will, but in the
act which is the outcome of it.—«aAeio@ac is erroneously explained by
Baumgarten-Crusius = éfovoiav xe yevéodat, John i. 12, so that the sense
would be: “that we have the right to dare to call-ourselves God’s children ”
(Neander); it is very common to take cadeioda: = elvac, Augustin: hic
non est discrimen inter dici et esse; this is so far correct as the name, which is
here spoken of, inanis esse titulus non potest (Calvin), for: ‘‘ where God gives
a name, He always gives the nature itself along with it” (Besser); the eivas
is included in the xadciopa:; yet the very fact of being called is significant,
for it is only in the name that the being is revealed, and it is through that
giving of a name that the separation of believers from the world is actually
accomplished. iva... «An@cuev is usually translated, “that we should be
called.” Ewald adds, “at the day of judgment,” but it is not the future,
but the present, that is here spoken of; «An@cyev is therefore not to be taken
as the subj. fut., but as the subj. aor.: “that we were named, and therefore
are called.” Braune would explain the apostle’s expression in this way, that
being children of God is “a work only gradually accomplished, an opera-
tion;” incorrectly, for “being the children of God” is certainly “a simply
stated fact;” comp. the «al éeuév and ver. 2. Instead of réxva atrov, John
says 7. @zov, because he wants to state the full name itself. The view of
Baumgarten-Crusius has Jess in its favor, that the apostle contrasted zarjp
and @cot in order to indicate: “Fle bestowed it on us lovingly, that we should
be connected with the Godhead, inasmuch as the former describes the divine
will, the latter the divine nature.” — xa? éoyvév, which according to the ma-
jority of authorities is scarcely a mere gloss (see the critical notes), says
John in an independent form, not depending on iva (the Vulgate errone-
ously = simus),' in order still more specially to bring out the element of
being, which was certainly contained already in x«Andouev. — Not in order to
comfort believers in regard to the persecutions which they have to suffer
from the world (De Wette, Liicke, etc.), but to specify the contrast in which
believers as réxva Ocot stand to the world, and the greatness of the love of
the Father who has given them that name, the apostle continues: da robro 6
ndopoc ob yevwoxet qudc]. dw rovro refers back to the preceding thought (Beng-
el, De Wette, Briickner, Braune); thus: therefore, because we are children
of God; the following én then serves to confirm the reason why the world
does not know us as children of God. It is true, da rovro might be also
directly referred to 5x (Baumgarten-Crusius, also perhaps Liicke, Ewald) ;
1 Ebrard thinks that éoudv may be depend-
ent upon iva, not certainly according to Butt-
mann’s, but according to John’s grammar;
incorrectly, for the present indicative after
iva is not surely attested in John even by a
single passage, whilst it is unmistakably in
Pau], 1 Cor. iv. 6, and Gal. iv. 17 (comp. in
addition, Al. Buttmann, p. 202, note [E. T.,
234]); it therefore appears most probable that
xa: €ondy is added by John, not indeed as a
triumphant exclamation, but as an utterance
about the actual present state of his readers,
confirming the preceding. If eoudv is re-
garded as dependent on iva, we are compelled
to weaken the idea cAnOwuev, for Ebrard’s
supposition that in cAnOwyer ie contained the |
relationship of God to as, or the element of
*‘ being reconciled,” and in ¢ecyuév, on the other
hand, “‘ our relationship to God, or the element
of the conversion and renewal of our nature,”
lacks any tenable ground.
550 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
but with this reference the sentence would come in too disconnectedly. —
With 6 xéopocg comp. chap. ii. 15. — ob yweéoxer means, “does not know us,” i.e.,
our inner nature, which we as réxva Geod possess, is to the world something
incomprehensible; to it, alienated from God, what is godly is strange and
inconceivable: compare John xiv. 17. Many commentators unnecessarily
deviate from this proper meaning of the word; thus Grotius, who inter-
prets it = non agnoscit pro suis; Semler = nos rejicit, reprobat ; Baumgarten-
Crusius = yoei (“therefore the world cannot endure us, because it cannot
endure Him — God ”). — dr: otk 8yvw atrov, “ for it did not know Him” (namely,
God or the Father). S. Schmid erroneously explains fw by credere in Deum ;
Episcopius, by jussa Dei observare ; John’s idea of knowledge is to be retained,
as in the case of ywdoxet, 80 also in fyyw (Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).
Ver. 2. After emphatic resumption of éopév, the apostle indicates the
yet concealed glory of the réxva Geot. He begins with the address dya-
xntot, which occurs to him here the more readily as he feels himself most
closely connected with his readers in the common fellowship with God (so
also Diisterdieck). — viv réxva Geor éopuév]. viv is used in reference to the
future (ofrw); it is here a particle of time, not = “now, in consequence of
that decree " (De Wette); a contrast with what immediately precedes (Liicke:
“amidst all mistake on the part of the world, we are nerertheless really now
the children of God;” so also Diisterdieck and Braune) is not suggested
by it. Hereby the present glory of the believing Christian is described ;1
before the apostle mentions the future glory, he observes that this is yet
concealed: xal obrw égavepwdn ri tadpuedal. gavepoicda may, as Ebrard
remarks, mean “to be actually revealed,” or, “for the knowledge to be re-
vealed ;” most commentators rightly take the word here in the first mean-
ing; it is true, Ebrard maintains that this explanation is grammatically
impossible, because gavepéw, aS governing a question, can only have the
meaning of theoretical revelation; but this assertion is unfounded, for in
the N. T. usus loguendi (nay, even in the classics) the interrogative ric, some-
times ri, confessedly appears where, according to the rule, the relative should
properly be used; comp. Winer, p. 158 f. (E. T., 168), Al. Buttmann, p. 216
(E. T., 250 f.); and especially if the thought involves an assumed question,
as is the case here.? That gavepodcvac cannot here be understood of the theo-
retical revelation, is clear—(1) from the fact that no juiv is put with it,
which Ebrard arbitrarily inserts when he interprets, “it has not yet been
revealed fo us, no information about it has yet been communicated fo us;”
(2) from the fact that the apostle himself immediately afterwards says what
1 De Wette incorrectly remarks on éopédy:
“by destiny, by faith and aspiration or idea; ”
John rather signifies by éoudy the actual
reality.
3 Acts xill. 25 is especially to be compared.
According to Buttmann, the interrogative is
used for the relative only after predicates
which have a certain similarity with the verda
sentiend{, etc., thus especially after ¢xew
(Mark vill. 1,2); yet this similarity is seome-
. times at the least very remote, thus with
b00jcera:, Matt. x. 19, aud with ¢rocuacop,
Luke xvii. 8, where Buttmann finds himeelf
compelled to supply a connecting verb. Be-
sides, a similarity with the verda sentiendi is
not to be denied to the verb davepovcGa, even
if it does not describe the theoretical revela-
tion, for the coming out of concealment In-
cludes the becoming visible.
CHAP. III. 2. 551
Christians will be in the future; (8) from the fact that a confession of
present ignorance is at variance with the natural connection; from the fact
that with this view a very artificial thought results for the following words,
oldapev, x.t.A,; see below. — By oft tpavepidn, x.t.A, the apostle accordingly
states that the future condition of those who at present are réxva Gcoi is still
concealed, has not yet come to light (comp. Col. iii. 8; Rom. viii. 18).
This future state is, it is true, something different from the present, yet it
is not absolutely new, but is that “which is latent and established in the
present” (Diisterdieck, Braune). — oldapev dr: édv gavepwO9, x.7.4.]. By oidapev
the apostle expresses his own and his readers’ consciousness of that which,
as réxva Qeov, they will be in the future. — With gavepweg we must supply
ri éodueda, the meaning is the same as it previously has; so it is correctly
explained by Didymus, Augustine, Socinus, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten-
Crusius, De Wette, Semler, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Braune, etc. As
Ebrard similarly supplies ri todueGa, but understands gavepwoy here also of the
knowledge, there results from him this thought: “we know rather that when
it shall be made known to us, we shall eren already be like Him,” in which
“the emphasis is made to rest on the contemporaneousness of the theoretical
gavepovoba With the actual duo Ececda;” but in this interpretation, which
suffers from unjustifiable supplements, a reference is brought out as the
chief element of the thought which is in no way indicated, and is foreign to
the context. — Some critics supply with gavepweg as subject Xpiordc, as in
chap ii. 28, so Syrus, Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Calov, Semler, etc. (Myrberg
at least thinks that this is not omnino improbdabile); this is, however, erro-
neous, a8 in this gavepwo9 what immediately precedes is clearly resumed. It
is self-evident that this revelation will take place év rg xaporcia Xprorod; comp.
ii. 28. — duos abrd éodpeGa}, abrp, 1.e., Deo, cujus sumus filii (Bengel); the
idea remains, indeed, essentially the same if atrg is taken = Xpord (Storr),
but the context decides in favor of the first explanation. The apostle says:
we shall be to God dzom, not ican, because likeness to God will not be uncon-
ditioned, but conditioned by the nature of the creature, as a creature; in so
far dy010¢ may be translated by “like,” only this idea has something indefinite
in it, and therefore Sander not unjustly says that “thereby the point of the
thought is lost.” As John himself does not more particularly define this
future duocérn¢ of man with God, the commentator must not arbitrarily restrict
the general idea on the one side or the other, as, for instance, by the refer-
ence to the “light-nature of God” (Ebrard), or the dixasootvy Oecd (Diisterdieck),
or the déga Ocot (De Wette).2— dri dpoueda abvrév, cade éorij}. This sen-
tence states the logical ground of the foregoing; Calvin, correctly: ratio haec
ab effectu sumia est, non a causa; so that the sense is: “ because we shall see
1 Ebrard groundlessly asserts that this view
amounts to a tautology: ‘our future state is
still future;’’ for according to it the apostle
rather expresses the thought that the future
condition of the rexva @eov will be distin-
guished from the present; in which, plainly,
there is not the slightest tautology contained.
2 Baumgarten-Crusius and others quote on
thie passage 2 Pet. 1. 4: xotwwvor rie Oeias
dvcoews; this is (as Briickner also remarks)
unsuitable, for In this expression the author
of that Epistle does not say what the Christian
will be one day, but what he already ie; it
therefore corresponds rather to the rexva Geov,
552
Him as He is, we therefore know that we shall be like Him” (Rickli; so
also Socinus, S. Schmidt, Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.). It is a different thought
in 2 Cor. iii. 18, according to which Bengel explains: ex aspectu, similitudo
(similarly Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iv. 38, says: dpacu Oeod meperoinrud) udbapoiac),
according to which the sense is: “the beholding is the cause of the likeness”
(Spener; similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Neander, Késtlin, Diist-
erdieck, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, etc.). But John does not here want to
explain whence the éyoov elvat 7 Gem comes to the believer, but on what the
oidapuev is based. The certain hope of the Christian is that he shall see
God. In that hope there lies for him the certainty that he will one day be
like God; for God can only be seen by him who is like Him.1. When Rickli
remarks on éyopeda: “not a bodily vision of Him who is Spirit; it is. the
spiritual beholding, the knowledge of God in His infinite divine nature”
(similarly Frommann, p. 217), or when others interpret this dpa» simply by
“to know aright,” and similarly, this is contrary to the sense of the apostle;
for as the word itself indeed shows, an actual seeing is meant. For man in
his earthly body, God is certainly invisible; but it is different with the glori-
fied man in his odpa rvevyarudy (1 Cor. xv. 44); he will not merely know
(the believer has knowledge already here), but see God; and, moreover, no
longer 6: éadrrpov év alviypant, but tpdawnoyv mpdc¢ mpdcwroyp, 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
Compare, on the seeing of God, Matt. v. 8; 2 Cor. v. 7; Rev. xxii. 4. — By
xa0we éor. the entire reality of the nature of God: “as He is, not merely in a
copy, etc., but in Himself and in His nature, His perfect majesty and glory ”
(Spener), is described.2 The relation of the single parts of this verse is
usually regarded by the commentators as adversative; certainly viv and
obzw form an antithesis, but the connecting xai shows that the apostle con-
sidered the first two thoughts less in their antithesis to one another than in
their co-ordination, inasmuch as it occurred to him to emphasize them both
equally : both that believers are now really réxva Gcov, and also that a glory
as yet concealed — namely, likeness to God— awaits them. Between the
third and fourth parts also, a sort of antithesis occurs (hence the Recepta dé),
but here also the apostle is not anxious to bring out this contrast, but rather
to add to the negatively-expressed thought, for its confirmation, the positive
substance of Christian consciousness; comp. De Wette-Briickner, Braune.
Ver. 3 shows the moral effect of the Christian hope; not the condition
with which the fulfilment of it is connected, as Liicke thinks. The same
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
1 To Ditlsterdieck’s question, Why then did
not the apostle write: dyone8a abrév, dre Suocor
avry écdueOa? It is a valid reply: because he.
did not want to represent the beholding of God,
but likeness to God, as the purpose of tho
divine love. The justification of the rejected
explanation by 2 Cor. iii. 18 is inappropriate,
because John describes the future condition
of the children of God, not as a becoming
like, but as a being like (é¢cdye@a).
2 Calvin: ‘‘Deus nune se nobis conspict-
endum offert, non qualis est, sed qualem
modulus noster eum capit.”” Weiss rightly
observes that the emphasis is laid on caOuc¢
éeorw; but it is incorrect for him to place this
in contrast with Hie manifestation in the Son ;
for God has not revealed Himself in Christ
otherwise than xadws ¢or:.—As a curiosity
the explanation of Oertel may be given here:
‘One day after several centuries, mankind,
which now belongs too much to the spirit of
barbarism, will become more glorified, more
ennobled, and more happy, and thus attain to
the perfect knowledge of the plan of God and
the purpose of Jesus.”
CHAP. III. 4. 5538
combination of ideas, only in the form of exhortation, occurs in 2 Cor. vi.
18 and vii. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 18, 14. — mic & &ywv rhv tAzida rabrqy én’ aito, namely,
the hope of one day being like God.1 “In the case of mac 6 éy. we can, as
in ii. 29, brin the converse in the meaning of the apostle: every one
. . « angonly such” (Diisterdieck). The phrase ézew tnida éxi with dative
only here; Acts xxiv. 15: fy. éAn, ele Oedv; but éAmifeav éxi with dative: Rom.
| X¥-°12 and 1 Tim. vi. 17. —adra, i-e., Qed]. God is regarded as the basis
~~ —~ on which the hope is founded. The idea of maintaining (Spener) is not
contained in Frew. —dyvifee éaurdv xaGuc, x.7.A,]. dyvigev (comp. on 1 Pet.
i. 22), not “to keep one’s self pure” (& Mons, Bengel, Russmeyer, etc.), but
“to purify one’s self, i.e., to make one’s self free of every thing that is unholy ;”
in Jas. iv. 8 it is used synonymously with xadapifew. This self-purification
necessarily follows from the Christian’s hope, because the object of this is
to be like God, and therefore also to be holy.—In reference to the opinion
that this purification is described as an act of man, Augustine says: videte
quemadmodum non abstulit liberum arbitrium, ut diceret: castificat semetipsum.
Quis nos castificat nisi Deus? Sed Deus te nolentem non castificat. Castificas
te, non de te; sed de illo, gui venit, ut habitel in te. The active impulse of this
dyvicey éavrév does not lie in the natural liberum arbditrium of man, but in
the hope, which the salvation work of God presupposes in man. — This
purification takes place after the pattern (xadduc) of Christ (éxeivoc, ver. 4),
who is dyvéc, ie., “pure from every sinful stain.” The want of harmony
which exists in the juxtaposition of the dyvigew éavréy of the Christian and
the dyvdv eivae of Christ, must not induce us to take xaddé¢ here otherwise
than in ver. 7, ii. 6, iv. 17, namely = quandoquidem, so that this clause
would add a second motive for the dyvifew éavrov, as Ebrard thinks; the
sense rather is, that the purity of Christ is the pattern for Christians,
which the Christian by self-purification strives to copy in his life also. —
dori: “the ayvérn¢ is a quality inherent in Christ” (Liicke); the present
is not put for the preterite, but signifies the unbroken permanent state;
chap. ii. 29.
Ver. 4. The believer is so much the more bound to holiness, as all sin
is dvouia. —ndc 6 mov, x.7.A,, corresponding to the beginning of ver. 3, mac
6 Exwv, x.7.A, The apostle is anxious to emphasize the truth of the thought
as being without exception. zmoceiv rv duapriay, as the antithesis of
nouiv Tv decawoobyny, chap. ii. 29, is contrasted with dyvilew éavrév, ver. 8; as
the apostle ‘‘ wants to contrast with the positive sentence, ver. 3, its negative
counterpart,” “he begins with the antithesis of that idea which formed the
. predicate in ver. 8, and makes it the subject” (Ebrard). The definite
article shows that the idea, according to its complete extent, is intended
as definite, as forming the concrete antithesis to 4 diaootvn;? both the
1 Ebrard groundilessly would understand ver.9 it le put duapriay woeiv, and then, as
by éAwis the treasure which is the object of synonymous with it, simply apapravey;
the hope. nevertheless, it is to be noticed that ‘the
3 Braune, however, rightly observes that fuller idea rorety rhv au. at the beginning
too strong an emphasis is not to be laid here, includes and determines the others, rocety ap.
either upon the article or on roeitv; for in and auaprdvew” (Ebrard).
554 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
interpretation of Socinus: “to remain in sin,” and that of Baumgarten-
Crusius: “to receive sin into one’s self, to let it exist in one’s self,” are alike
arbitrary; even the very common definition: “to sin knowingly and
wilfully,” is out of place here, as the subject here is not the way in which
sin is done, but the actual doing of sin itself. According t iickner,”
by woveiv riv dunpriav “an actual moral tendency of life” is indicated this
explanation is apparently justified by vv. 6, 8, 9, but even in these passas
the apostle’s meaning goes beyond the restricted idea of “tendency of life,”
inasmuch as he certainly has sinning in view. —xul rv duapriav nou). “Kai
accentuates the idea that the very doing of duapria is as such equally the
doing of dvouia” (Diisterdieck) ; by dvouia we are to understand, according
to the constant usus loquendi, never the mere non-possession of the law
(differently dvouoc, 1 Cor. ix. 21), but always the violation of the law,
namely, of the divine law, of the divine order according to which man
should regulate his life, — lawlessness (Liicke). The sense therefore is: he
who practises sin (in whatever way it may be) thereby makes himself guilty
of the violation of divine order, he acts contrary to the 6éAnue rov Oeod, chap.
ii. 17. According to Ebrard, riv avouiay moiv expresses the antithesis of
Exew riv eAnida tabryv, ver. 3; but it is more correct to perceive in that
sentence — instead of a conclusion —the introduction of a new element,
by which the sharp contrast with rv dicasooivyy (ii. 29) is indicated. — The
following words, xal # ducpria éotly # dvopia, are added, partly to confirm the
previous thought, partly to mark emphatically the identity of duapria and
dvouia which is expressed in it. The apostle does not want to give an exact
definition of the idea azapria (contrary to Sander), but to indicate its nature
from the side “on which its absolute antagonisin to any fellowship with
God appears most unrestrictedly ” (Briickner). The apostle could not more
sharply express the antithesis between the character of the believer, who is
& réxvov Geod, and will be duowe Ged, and the dyapria, than by showing dyapria
to be dvouwa, whereby he most distinctly opposes the moral indifferentism
against which the first section of the Epistle is also directed. Violence is
done to the thought, both by limiting the idea duapria to a particular kind
of sin (a Lapide: loquitur proprie de peccato perfecto, puta mortifero), and by
making avowa the subject and duapriu the predicate ;* so also by mixing up
references which are foreign to the context. The «ai by which the two
1 Brtickner rightly rejects the interpreta.
tion of De Wette: “‘auapria appears to be
the broader idea, avouia the narrower, more
definite and stronger, including particular
offences, vices, etc.”
3 dvouia ie distinguished from déicia (1. 9,
v.17) in this way, that the former idea ie
contrasted with abstract right (d«n), the
- {etter with the concrete form of right (voéu0s)
(Briickner).
8 Kdstlin (p. 246) appeals in behalf of thie
construction to John j. 1: ca: Ged¢ hv d Adyos,
assuming that «cai duapria, «.7.A., le to be
read ; see, however, the critical notes. Against
this construction there is, besides, the fact
that auapria would have to be taken in a
different sense here from that in which it fs
previously used, namely, as KGstlin says:
‘The firet time ayapria meane sinful action;
the second time, guilt in the sight of God.”
4 This is the case, for example, in Hilgen-
feld’s explanation: ‘‘ Not every one who
deviates from the ceremonial laws, but only
the sinner, falls under the category of avo-
pias” not less in the remark of Calvin: ‘‘ the
sum of the thought is that the life of those
who give themselves to ain ie hateful to God,
and cannot be tolerated by God.”
CHAP. III. 5. 555
sentences are connected with one another, Bengel translates and explains
by: immo (so also Briickner by “nay”), with the remark: non solum
conjuncta est notio peccati et iniquitatis, sed eadem; this is incorrect, for even
the first sentence expresses, not a mere connection, but identity. The
apostle could have written instead of «ai the confirmatory particle dr, or
the like, but by means of xai the thought of the second clause obtains a
more independent position (so also Braune).
Ver. 5 contains a new proof of the incompatibility of the Christian life
with sin; this exists in Christ, to whose example the apostle has already
pointed in ver. 3. Of Christ, John states two things, while he appeals to
the consciousness of his readers (ofdare; the same is the case with the
reading of x: ofdayev) — (1) that His manifestation (é¢avepoon, an expression
which refers to the previously unrevealed existence of Christ in heaven)
had this purpose: iva ra¢ duapriag dpg; and (2) that He is without sin. —
rd¢ duaptiag alpew may, of course, mean in itself “to bear our sins,” i.e., as
the atoning sacrifice, in order thereby to procure their forgiveness, but here
it means “to take away, to remove our sins;” for even although the Hebrew
expression |) ®) signifies both, yet the LXX. translates this in the second
sense only by aipew, but in the first sense by gépev (comp. Meyer on John i.
29, and my commentary on 1 Pet. ii. 24); moreover, afpey with John
constantly means “to take away;” comp. xi. 48, xv. 2, xvii. 15, xix. 31, 38;
and the context is also decisive in favor of this meaning, for even though
in the thought that Christ bore our sins, inasmuch as He suffered for them,
there lies a mighty impulse to avoid sins, yet the antagonism of the Christian
life to sin appears more directly and more strongly if the taking away of sins
is described as the purpose of the manifestation of Christ. Kostlin (p. 180)
rightly says: “ The expression signifies, to take away the sins themselves, but
not their guilt or their punishment, for it is added: xat du. év abre otk For,
and in ver. 8: &pya rov d&iafddov.” This interpretation in Calvin, Luther,
Russmeyer, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Frommann (p. 449),
Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc., contrary to which Liicke,
De Wette, Erdmann, etc., explain aipew = “to bear;” Liicke: “the object
of the manifestation of Christ is the bearing of sins as a holy offering in
His death;” while others, as Bede (“tollit et dimittendo quae facta sunt et
adjuvando ne fiant et perducendo ad vitam, ubi fieri omnino non possint”),
Socinus, a Lapide, Spener, Sander, Besser (also Liicke in his Ist ed.),}
combine both meanings. Weiss, it is true, interprets alpey correctly, but
thinks that the plural duapriac “can only signify actually existing sins”
which Christ takes away, “inasmuch as His blood cleanses us from their
guilt;” but in the whole context the subject is not the guilt of sins, but the
sins themselves. The plural, however, by no means renders that interpre-
tation compulsory. — The pronoun judy after rac duapriac (see the critical
1 Aipew +. du. Huey corresponds to the the ideal sense by the act of forgiving sin, and
xa@apicery awd wdaons au., 1. 7, and signifies also in the real sense by the act of sanctifying
the whole extent of the redemptive activity of the saved.”
Christ, His office of taking away sin, both fo
-
556 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
notes) is regarded by Liicke and De Wette as genuine ; Liicke: “ because
John would otherwise have written ri duapriav;”’ De Wette: “because its
omission appears to be occasioned by the interpretation of aipewy = to
remove ;” Diisterdieck remarks against qudv, that in the whole section vv.
4-10 there is no direct application expressed ; from internal grounds it cannot
be decided, inasmuch as rd¢ duapr. fudv can be taken quite as generally as the
simple rac duapriac. In regard to the plural rac duapriac, Diisterdieck rightly
says that “thereby the form of representation is made so much the more
vivid, as the whole mass of all individual sins is taken into view.” It is to
be observed, that John does not regard Christ, according to the Pelagian
mode of thought, only as the motive for the free self-determination of man,
but as the active living cause of sanctification determining the will of
man. It is His crucifixion especially from which proceeds, not only the
forgiveness of sins, but also (in and with this) the new life, in which
the believer purifies himself (dyvigec), even as He is pure (dyvwic). — The
second thing which John states of Christ is: xa? duapria év abrd ox sort.
The meaning of these words is not that in those who are in Christ there is
no sin (Calvin, Paulus), but that Christ Himself is without sin; com. ver.
3, ii. 29. This clause is not meant to confirm the preceding one (a Lapide:
tdeo Christus potens fuit tollere peccatum, quia carebat omni peccato, imo potes-
tate peccandi; so also Oecumenius, Lorinus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander,
Neander); but it is co-ordinate with it (Liicke, De Wette-Briickner,
Diisterdieck, Braune), in order to serve as a basis for the following state-
ment. — The present éori is not used instead of the preterite (Grotius), nor
is it to be explained in this way, with Winer (p. 251 [E. T., 267]), that
“the sirlessness of Jesus is considered as still present in faith;” but it
rather denotes, as in ver. 3, the character of Christ in its eternal existence.
Ver. 6. mag o tv air@ (i.e., Xpord) uévov refers back to the exhortation in
ii. 27; uévecv, not merely = inesse, expresses close fellowship. — oby duapraver).
John hereby states the abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable oppo-
sites; still it is not his meaning, that the believing Christian does not sin
any more at all, or that he who still sins is not in Christ, for in i. 8-10,
ii. 1, 2, iii. 8, he clearly enough expresses that sin still clings to the Chris-
tian, and that he therefore needs constantly both the forgiving and saving
grace of God, and the intercession of Christ, as well as self-purification.
The solution of the apparent contradiction must not be sought by giving
the word duapravew here a meaning different from what it has elsewhere
(e g. = persistere in peccato; or with Capellus = sceleratum esse, or = to com-
mit peccata mortalia); nor even by appealing to the apostle’s ideal mode of
conception (De Wette, Diisterdieck; substantially also Weiss and Briick-
ner),! for “John has here to do with real cases, and wants to indicate to us
the marks by which it may be known whether a man loves the Lord or not,
whether he is a child of God or of the wicked one” (Sander), as is clear
2 When Welse (and Brilickner agreeing with and ought to be,’ the expression of the apoetile
him) eays “that John here represente the is explained by him aleo from its idealism.
Christian life as according to its nature it ts
CHAP. III. 6. 557
from gavepa tort, ver. 10; but only in the fact that the Christian, who is a
réxvov @eov, bears the contradiction in himself that he, on the one hand, it is
true, still actually sins, but, on the other hand, is also actually free from
sin —so free from it that he cannot sin (ver. 9); he has actually broken
with sin, so that in his most inner nature he is in the most decided opposi-
tion to it; yet at the same time he finds it in himself, and indeed in such a
way that he still actually sins (chap. i. 10), but inasmuch as he confesses it,
and experiences the forgiving and saving love of the faithful God towards
him (chap. i. 9), and with all earnestness practises the dyvifev éavrov, it ever
loses more and more its power over him, and thus it results that it is no
longer sin, but opposition to it (as something foreign to his nature), that
determines his conduct of life; and hence the apostle may with perfect justice
say, that he who abides in Christ does not sin (so also Braune),! which is
quite the same as when Paul says: él rug év Xptore, xaivi xriow* Ta apyaia Ta-
piAdev, ldov, yéyove xawvda td wavra (2 Cor. v. 17). — The antithesis expressed
in the first clause is even more sharply brought out in the second, inasmuch
as John does not say nag 6 duaprivwy ... ov uéver ev aire, but oby Edpaxev
abrév, obd@ Eyvuxev abrov.— mic 6 duaprdvey is every one who leads a life
in duapria, and therefore has not come out of the xdoyoc into the number of
God’s children;? such an one, says John, hath not seen neither known airév,
i.e., Christ. Liicke takes the perfects édpaxev and éyvuxev in present signifi-
cation, the former in the.meaning of “the present possession of the experi-
ence,” the latter in the meaning of “the present possession of previously
obtained knowledge;” but this is not rendered necessary by the context,
and hence the perfects are to be retained as such, although it must be ad-
mitted that John is considering the result as one that continues into the
present. The meaning of the two verbs in their relation to one another is
very differently explained; according to some commentators, édpaxev signifies
soinething inferior (Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke in his first edition),
according to others, something superior (Socinus, Neander, Frommann,
p. 223), to Zyvuxev. With the former view, oidé is taken as = “and still less; ”
with the latter, as = “and not as much as.” Both are incorrect, for a dif-
ference of degree is in no way suggested. Yet the two expressions are not to
be regarded as synonymous, so that fyvwxe would only be added to bring out
the spiritual meaning of éwpaxev (Diisterdieck); for, although oidé can neither
be necessarily “disjunctive” (Liicke, first edition) nor “conjunctive ” (Liicke,
1 Besser appropriately says: ‘Every one
who abides in Christ, to whom He once be-
longs, does not sin, but says ‘No’ to ain,
which belongs to the old man, and resists its
alien power. A Christian does not do sin, but
he suffers it. His will, his Christian ego, is
not at one with sin. Hatred of sin ia the
common mark of the children of God; love
of sin, the common property of the children
of the Devil. Augustine’s explanation: “in
quantum in Christo manet, in tantum non
peccat,”? is unsatisfactory, because it would
thereby appear as if the inner fe of the
Christian were something divided in iteelf; but
it is more correct when he says. ‘* Etsi infir-
mitate labitur, peccato tamen non conesentit,
quia potius gemendo luctatur.
2 Ebrard says this explanation is opposed
to the context, because “even from ver. 4 the
‘gubject is such as are Christians, but are lack-
ing in holiness, and it is only in ver. 6 that it
is stated how far such Christians cannot be
regarded as truly regenerate; ”’ bat (1) do not
the unregenerate Christians still belong to the
xsomos? and (2) does not that explanation
refer precisely to the clove of the 6th verse?
558 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
second edition), yet the form of the clauses shows, inasmuch as the object is
put along with each verb, that otdé here has a stronger emphasis, and that
John wanted to express by the two verbs two distinct ideas. In order to
determine these, the original signification of the words must be retained.
dpgv signifies neither “the mere historical knowledge of Christ” (Liicke),
nor the perseverantia communionis cum Christo (Erdmann), and y:vdoxew sig-
nifies neither “the experience of the heart,” nor even “love;” but even here
ép¢v means to see, and ywdoxerv to know: but the seeing of Christ takes place
when the immediate consciousness of the glory of Christ has dawned upon
us, so that the eye of our soul beholds Him as He is in the totality of His
nature; the knowing of Him when by means of inquiring consideration the
right understanding of Him has come to us, so that we are clearly conscious
not only of His nature, but also of His relation to us.}
Ver. 7. While the apostle would reduce the specified antithesis to the
last cause, and thereby bring it out in all its sharpness, he begins the new
train of thought, connected, however, with the preceding, after the impres-
sive address rexvia (or radia), with the warning directed against moral indif-
ferentism: yundelc nAavatw tude, Which, as Diisterdieck rightly observes, is not
necessarily founded on a polemic against false teachers (Antinomians, for
instance); comp. chap. i. 8.—6 mouw ray dacawobrny, dixatds tort xabdc, K.7.2,,
with rocciv riv du, comp. chap. ii. 29. From the connection with the fore-
going we would expect as predicate either éipaxev abrdv, «.7.A, (ver. 6), or
év atrm uéve (ver. 5); but it is peculiar to John to introduce new thoughts
and references in antithetical sentences. By the subordinate clause xavd¢
éxeivoc (i.e., Xpordc) dixatds tort, he puts the idea dixacog in direct reference to
Christ, so that the thought of this verse includes in it this, that only he who
practises d:xaociyn7 has known Christ and abides in Him; for he only can be
exactly xafec Xproréc (i.e., in a way corresponding to the pattern of Christ),
who stands in a real fellowship of life with Him. It is incorrect, both to
interpret, with Baumgarten-Crusius: “he who is righteous follows the ex-
ample of Christ,” and also to take dixasoc = “justified,” and to define the
meaning of the verse thus: “only he who has been justified by Christ does
righteousness.” 2— There is this difference between the two ideas: noveiy tiv
1 With this interpretation that of Sander, or known Christ. When Erdmann defines
who interprets ewpaxey of ‘ spiritual intuition
or beholding,” and éyvw«ey of the * knowledge
obtained more by reflection along the lines of
dialectic and inquiry,’ as well as that of Myr-
berg, according to which the former signifies
the “‘immediata perceptio Christi spiritual
modo homin! se manifestantis,’’ the latter the
*“‘perdurans cognitio atque intelligentia,”’ are
in substantial agreement. Braune, it {fs true,
assents to this view; but he erroneously thus
defines the thought of the apostle: ‘Every
one who sins, and tnasmuch as he sins, is one
in whom the seeing and knowing of Christ ie
a thing of the past, but does not continue and
operate into the present;”’ for John plainly
says of him who sins that he Aaa not seen
€yvwxey as the ‘“‘cognitio Christi, quae et in-
tuitu et intellectu non solum personae Christi
verum etiam totius ejus operis indolem com-
plectitur,” this is in so far unsuitable, as the
intuttu helongs precisely to the cwpaxey. Very
unsatisfactory is Ebrard’s explanation, that
opqy is “the seeing of Christ as the ight,
yiwwoxecy the loving knowledge."” The differ-
ence between opgy and ywweoxcey appears also
in this, that in the former the operating
activity is represented rather ou the side of
the object, which presents iteclf to the cye
of the soul; in the latter, rather on the side of
the subject, which this verb makes the subject
of consideration.
3 As there is no reference here at all to
CHAP. III. 8 559
dx. and dixacov elva, that the first signifies the action, the second the state.
The reality of the latter is proved in the former. He who does not do right-
eousness shows thereby that he is not righteous.!
Ver. 8. 6 mouv riv duapriav forms the diametrical opposite of 46 mod rv
dtxatoovvny, inasmuch as it signifies the man whose life is a service of sin,
“who lives in sin as his element” (Sander). While the former belongs to
Christ, and is a réxvov Oeod, the latter is ix rov dtaBddAov; tx does not
signify here either merely connection (De Wette), or similarity (Paulus), or
imitation (Semler), but, as the expression réxvoy rov dtaBodov (ver. 10) shows,
origin (so also Ebrard): the life that animates the sinner emanates from
the Devil; “not as if the Devil created him, but that he introduced the evil
into him” (Russmeyer). The apostle confirms the truth of this statement
by the following words: Gri az’ dpyicg 6 dtaBodog duaprave. The words dn’ dpyi¢
are put first, because the chief emphasis rests on them, inasmuch as those
who commit sin are é« rov dia3dAov, not because he sins, but because it is he
who sinneth ew dpxic. From this expression it must not, with Frommann
and Hilgenfeld, be inferred that John was considering the Devil as an origin-
ally evil being, — in dualistic fashion (comp. Kostlin, p. 127, and Weiss,
p. 132 ff.), —for John is not here speaking of the being, but of the action of
the Devil. In order not to accuse John of the Manichaean dualism, the
attempt has been made to define an’ dpryi¢ more particularly, either by refer-
ring it to the creation of the world (Calvin, S. G. Lange; also Hofmann,
Schriftbew., second edition, I. 429° “since the beginning of the world;” or,
“from the beginning of history, in the course of which the sin of men has
begun”); or, to res humanae (Semler); or, to the time of the Devil's fall
(Bengel: ex quo diabolus est diabolus): but all these supplements are purely’
arbitrary. Many modern commentators take the expression in reference to
the sin of man, and find this idea expressed in it, that “the Devil is related
to all the sins of men as the first and seductive originator” (Nitzsch, Syst.
der christlichen Lehre, sixth edition, p. 244 f.); thus Liicke, Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Weiss, Braune, and previously in this commentary: but this
thought, while it no doubt lies in the preceding éx rov dcaGcdAov and in the
following réxvov rob dia3dAov, and hence in the thesis to be established, does
not lie in this confirmatory clause, apart from the fact that in dz’ dpriec
duapravee no reference is indicated to the sin of man. It is otherwise in
John viii. 44, where the more particular definition of the relation of the
Devil to men is supplied with dx’ dpy7¢ from the context (“since he has put
himself in connection with men”): here, on the contrary, John does not
say “what the Devil is to men, but what is his relationship to God ” (Hof-
mann as above); but as he describes his relationship by an’ apyic duapraver,
justification, there is no ground whatever for
the assertion of a Lapide, that the thought of
this verse forms a contradiction to the Prot-
eetant doctrine of justification by faith. — The
interpretation of Lorinus, that o rowy tn dx.
ia = “qui habet in se justitiam, i.e., opus
gratiae, videlicet virtutem infusam,” is also
plainly erroneous.
1 Braune rightly proves, against Roman
Catholics and Rationalists, that ‘‘ the predicate
is not first attained after what is expressed in
the subjective clause has taken place,” and
that rather ‘‘ the predicate is immanent in the
aubject.”’
560 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
as a sinning which has continued from the beginning, this can only mean
that the Devil’s first action was sin, and that he has remained and remains
in that action. Likewise in the interpretation which Briickner gives of
an’ dpryic, “i.e., 80 long as there is sin,” an’ dox7¢ does not receive its full
force.1— The present duaprave describes the sinning of the Devil as uninter-
ruptedly continuous. — ei¢ rovro épavepwin, x.7.2,]. As vv. 6, 7, refer to the
second part of ver. 5, these words refer to the first part of that verse: they
not only express the antithesis between Christ and the Devil, but they bring
out the fact that the appearance of Christ has for its object the destruction
of the épya rov diafoAov, i.e., of the duapria which are wrought by him (not
“the reward of sin,” Calov, Spener; nor “the agency that seduces to sin,”
De Wette). Avew is used here as in John ii. 19 (similarly 2 Pet. iii. 10-12),
in the meaning of “to destroy;” less naturally some commentators (a La-
pide, Lorinus, Spener, Besser, etc.) maintain the meaning “to undo,” sins
being regarded as the snares of the Devil.
Ver. 9. Antithesis of the preceding verse; yet what was there the sub-
ject is here—in its opposite—the predicate, and what was there the
predicate is here the subject. — wag 6 yeyevynutvoc éx tov Ocov]. Antithesis to
him who is é« rov dcaBodov (ver. 8); “by mac the general signification of the
clause is indicated ” (Braune); duapriay od roi ig used in the same sense as
ovy duaprave, ver. 6. To be born of God and to commit sin are mutually
exclusive contraries; for 6 Oed¢ gar éort, kal oxoria év abre oix Eotiw ovdepia, chap.
i. 5; comp. also chap. ii. 29; the child is of the same nature with him of
whom he is born. For confirmation of the thought, John adds: dr omépya
airow év ait@ péve. Both the deeper context and the expression itself are
opposed to the interpretation of these words, according to which omépua is
explained = réxvoy, and év aire = é¢v Oew (Bengel, Lange, Sander, Steinhofer) ;
for if the apostle meant to say that ‘‘a child of God remains in God,”
he would certainly not have exchanged the word réxvov, which so naturally
would suggest itself just here, for another word, unusual in (Ais sense.
By ozépua Geos is rather to be understood the divine element of which
the new man is produced? (comp. Gospel of John i. 13), and which, as the
essence of his being, keeps him from sin. According to many commenta-
tors (Clemens Al., Augustine, Bede, Luther (1), Spener, Grotius, Besser,
Weiss, Ewald, etc.), this is the word of God, in favor of which appeal is
made not only to the parable of the sower (Matt. xiii.), but also to 1 Pet.
i. 23 and Jas. i. 18. But that parable can here so much the less be adduced,
1 The idea that the Devil, before he sinned,
was for a time without sin, is nowhere ex-
preased in Scripture; neither in Jotn viil. 44
nor in the deutero-canonical passages Jude 6
and 2 Pet. fi. 4 (see my comm. on these pas-
sages).—- The view of Frommann, that John’s
statements do not justify the representation of
a personal existence of the Devil, that “he Is
nothing further than the world-spirit that
tempts man, considered in concrete person-
ality,” is to be rejected as arbitrary.
2 Frommann (p. 170) incorrectly interprets
orepua Of the divine light originally dwelling
in man, by which he is distinguished from the
rest of creation; for the subject here ls not
men as such, but the réxva rov Geov.
3 In his second edition Luther says: ‘*‘ He
calla the cause of our change a seed, nota full
ear of corn, but what is cast into the ground,
and must first die there; from thence there
now results true repentance, so that it is ac-
cordingly said: he cannot sin.”
CHAP. III. 9. 561
as in it the reference is to the seed of plants; but here, as the allusion to
the idea yeyevynpévos shows, “the comparison is made to the seed of human
birth, as in John i. 13” (Neander); and in the two other passages the word
is not represented so much as the seed, but as the means of producing the
new life.1 It is scarcely to be doubted that the apostle was here thinking
of the Holy Spirit; the only question is, whether he means the Spirit
Himself, the zvevua dywv in His divine personality (so Beza: sic vocatur
Spiritus sanctus, quod ejus virtute tanquam ex semine quodam novi homines
efficiamur ; Diisterdieck and Myrberg; also, perhaps, Liicke and De Wette),
or the Spirit infused by Him into the heart of man, the germ of life com-
municated to his nature (Hornejus: nativitatis novae indoles, Semler: nova
quaedam et sanctior natura; so also Ebrard, Braune, and others). The
figurative expression is more in favor of the second view than of the first,
only this germ of life must not, on the one hand, be regarded as something
separate from the Holy Spirit Himself,? nor, on the other hand, as love
(a Lapide, Lorinus), for this is the life which has proceeded from the
ozepua, but not the onépua itself. — The thought that he who is born of God
does not commit sin is still further emphasized by the words xai ob dévarat
duapravev, whereby, of course, not the physical, but no doubt the moral,
impossibility of sinning is described; both ideas, duaprévew as well as ov
divara, are to be retained in their proper meaning, and not to be arbitrarily
perverted ; duapravew must here, just as little as in ver. 6, be restricted to
mortal sins (a Lapide, Gagnejus), or to “sinning in the way in which they
who are of the Devil sin” (Besser), or “ to sinning knowingly and wilfully ”
(Ebrard), or even merely to the violatio charitatis (Augustine, Bede); but
just as little is the pointedness and definiteness of of divara: to be weakened
and to be explained = aegre, difficulter potest, or similarly,® for the apostle
here wants to bring out the absolute antagonism which exists in general
between being born of God and committing sin (so also Braune) ; comp.
on ver. 6, With regard to the question as to the relationship of the thought
expressed here to Heb. vi. 4 ff., comp. the remark on chap. ii 19.— As in
the case of the first thought of this verse, so here to this second one a
confirmatory clause is added, namely: dre é« rov Qeod yeyévvarau; it is true,
the idea of the subject seemns to be here repeated (similarly John iii. 31:
6 ov é« rie yhc, tn Tie yi éort), but here é« rob Geod is put first, whereas in the
subject it follows yeyevynuévoc, by which that idea is strongly accentuated ;
Bengel: priora verba: ex Deo, majorem habent in pronunciando accentum, quod
ubi observatur, patet, non idem per idem probari, collato initio verso. The sense
therefore is: Because he is born of God (comp. chap. i. 5), he who is born
of God, i.e., the believer, cannot sin.
' Weiss appeale to chap. !i. 14; but from
the fact that John there says: 6 Adyoe Tov
Geov dv vuiy pévea, it does not follow that
oxdpyua ie here = 4 Adyos 7. @.; 80 much the
lees as there is no reference there to being
born of God. It is more appropriate Jn con-
nection with owdpya to refer to chap. Ii. 27.
3 Briickner inversely first interprets owdppa
as the wvevua 7. @.; but then adde: ‘and,
indeed, In this way, that the principle of life
which operates on man ie at the same time
regarded as the germ of life planted in man.”
§ Grotius explains: ‘‘res de qua agitur
aliena est ab ejusmodi ingevio,” Paulus:
“not absolutely impossible, but: his whole
spirituality and Aabit (!) are opposed to it.”
562 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 10a concludes the development of the thought with the sharp
antithesis of the children of God and the children of the Devil. —& rotry
is by most commentators justly referred to the preceding, inasmuch as in
ver. 9 the characteristic sign of the réxva rob cod, and in ver. 8 that of the
réxva tov duaBodov, are stated. Some commentators, however (a Lapide,
Grotius, S. Schmidt, Spener, Episcopius, Ebrard, etc.), refer it to what
follows; but as in this only the one part of the antithesis is resumed, this
reference is found to necessitate an arbitrary supplement. The explanation
of a Lapide is clearly quite erroneous: hae sunt duae tesserae et quasi duo
symbola filiorum et militum Det, sc. justitia et caritas. — gavepd tori]. The elva
éx rov Geo’, and equally the elva: éx rod dcaoAov, are in their principle internal,
and therefore concealed: it is by the different souiv that the different
nature is disclosed; comp. Matt. vii. 16.— The expression, ra réxva rod
dca 8dAov, nowhere else in the N. T. except in Acts xiii. 10: vide diapddov, is
easily explained from ver. 8; comp also John viii. 44. Sander supposes a
distinction between these and the children of wrath, Eph. ii. 3; while the
latter name signifies all who are not born again, the former only signifies
those among them “who despise the grace offered to them in Christ, and
wantonly set themselves against it.” This is, however, incorrect, as the
whole conduct of men falls under the contrast of duapravey and oby cyaprivety,
so the distinction of réxva rov Geos and réxva rov diaBodov, that is based on
it, equally embraces the whole of humanity (see also Braune). Socinus
accordingly with justice says: Ex Apostoli verbis satis aperte colliga potest,
quod inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli nulli sint homines medi.
Vv. 106-22. This section treats on brotherly love as the substance of
éxatooivn, and is therefore most closely connected with the foregoing; it is
the commandment of Christ (ver. 11), instead of which hatred reigns in the
world (vv. 12, 13); with love, life is connected; with hatred, death (vv. 14,
15); in Christ we possess the ideal and example of love (ver. 16). True
love consists not in word, but in deed (vv. 17, 18); it produces firm confi-
dence towards God, and obtains an answer to prayer (vv. 19-22)
Ver. 105. Transition to the section on brotherly love. — mig 6 pa} rowy
dixawoivny refers to ver. 7, and further to chap. ii. 29; the meaning of roeiv
dixaocivyy is here the same as there; only that the idea dixawotrn is indicated
by the article as definite and restricted; comp. ver. 8: rjv duapriay; ver. 9.
duapriav,—otvKx Earty tx tov Geov = ox lor réxvov rov Oeod,—xal 6 pH
dyandyv rdv adeAgdv abrot]. Calvin correctly says: hoc membrum vice
expositionis additum est. The dydény is not a part of the dixaootvn (Bengel,
Spener, Lange, Neander, Gerlach), still less something different from the
dixatoobyvn, Which must be connected with it (Rickli), or even forms an antith-
esis to it (Socinus) ;! but it is the essence and nature of the dixawovrn (80
also Braune),? or rather the dixauobtvy itself in reference to the brethren ;
3 While Socinus understands by &xkatoovwny may be true of love to God only, but not of
rovecy * Juste vivere ex praescriptione Mosaicae love to the brethren; but Christian brotherly
legis et ipeius humanae rationte,” he explains _—love is, according to John, certainly identical
aydxn as the transcendent Christian virtue of with love to God, for the Christian lovee hie
sacrifice for the brethren brother as one who is born of God.
1 Ebrard and Myrberg object to this, that it |
CHAP. III. 11, 12. 563
comp. Rum. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14; Col. iii. 14; 1 Tim. i. 5; John xiv. 15.
Besser: “ brotherly love is the essence of all righteous life;” it is related to
d&xasocivn just as to the meperureiv xabd¢ éxeivog mepeerarnoe, chap. ii. 6. Ebrard
erroneously tries to prove from the avros which is added, that ddeAgicg = 6
nanoiov, Luke x. 36, and is therefore used differently from ii. 9, 10, 11, iv.
20, 21, for that John in this relative sentence passes on to the love of
Christians towards one another is quite clear from ver. 11; the atrod only
shows that, though in the foregoing the antithesis between the regenerate
and the unregenerate is quite generally stated, this is for the special con-
sideration of Christians. It is incomprehensible that the view, according
to which John in this section speaks of Christian brotherly Jove (i.e., the
love of Christians towards one another), is in antagonism with Matt. v. 44;
1 Cor. iv. 12 (according to Ebrard). The co-ordinating «ai is epexegetical
= “namely;” it is unnecessary to supply ove fore éx 1, 0.
Ver. 11. Sr: confirms the thought expressed in the foregoing, that he
who does not love his brother is not of God. —atry éoriv 9 dyyeAia]. atrty
refers to the following iva, with a retrospective allusion to dyaniy r. ad, abrod.
The word dyyedia = “ message,” is here to be taken in the meaning of “com-
mission,” “commandment.” With the reading éxayyedia, comp. i. 5. By the
words fv... dm’ dpric, which do not refer to the Old-Testament period
(Grotius: etiam sub lege), or to “the beginning of history” (Ebrard), the
commandment of brotherly Jove is characterized as the dyyeAta which is
necessarily connected with the preaching of the gospel; comp. chap. ii. 7.
— Iva, x.7.2., states, not the purpose for which the dyyeAia is given, but the
import of it, as frequently with words of wishing, commanding, etc. ; comp.
Buttm., p. 203 ff... The ayandpev dAApiove shows that the apostle is in this
section treating of the love of Christians towards one another; it is self-evi-
dent that the Christian has to fulfil the general commandment of love, even
to those who are not Christians. Yet John does not here enter on that, as
it would be inappropriate, for he has here to do with the ethical antithesis
between Christians as children of God and those who are opposed to them
as children of the Devil; it is only on the ground of this antithesis that it
can be said ja) dyandre tov xéopor, ii. 15.
Ver. 12. The converse of Christian brotherly love is the hatred of the
world, which has its example in Cain. —ob xa6d¢ Kdiv, x.7.4.]. Contrary to —
the opinion of Grotius, with which Liicke agrees, that before xe@u¢ we must
supply “ obx duev éx rob movnpow”’ dependent on Iva, De Wette has shown the
clumsiness of speech that would result with this construction; it is unjusti-
fiable, however, on the side of the thought also, for it is impossible that
John would say that to Christians the commandment has been given from
the beginning, not to be éx roi rovgpod. Most commentators supply after ob
the thought “we should be disposed,” and after Kai» the relative dr. Thus
there certainly results a good sense; but if the apostle had thought thus, he
1 Braune would have the idea of purpose tained as a fask in the gi/t of the message,” he
retained; but in his interpretation: “it is not quite overlooks the fact that if iva = {n order
merely the substance of a commandment that = that (and only thus is the original idea of
is treated of, but a commandment which iscon- purpose retained), it cannot refer to avy.
564 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
would also have expressed himself thus; at least he would not have left out
the dc. De Wette rightly finds here “an inexact comparison of contrast, as
John vi. 58, only still more difficult to supply, and just on that account not
to be supplied,” i.e., by a definitely formulated sentence (so also Braune).
Christians are (and therefore should also show themselves as) the opposite
of Cain; they are é« rod Geos, Cain was éx rod ovnpod: rod rovypow is not neuter,
but masculine; 6 movnpdc = 6 duaj3020¢ ; comp. especially Matt. xiii. 38.1 — xai
Eogatev tov ddeAgov abtod]. This murder of his brother is the evidence that
Cain was é roi movnpot. The verb ogdfev (besides here, only in the Apoca-
lypse), strictly used of slaughter, indicates the violence of the action;? the
diabolical character of it is brought out by the following: xa? yapev rivog, «72-3
the form of the sentence in question and answer serves to bring out emphat-
ically the thought contained in it, that the hatred of Cain towards his brother
was founded in his hatred towards the good, i.e., that which is of God, for
it is just in this that the hatred of the world towards believing Christians is
also founded.* The correspondence between é« rod novnpot and ra Epya abrow
novnpa, Which J. Lange and Diisterdieck have already noticed, is to be
observed.
Ver. 13. If Cain is the type of the world, it is not to be wondered at
that the children of God are hated by it; accordingly the apostle says, yu?
Oavpdlere, x.7.A.3 comp. ver. 1; not exactly to comfort his readers about it,
but rather to bring out the antithesis clearly; Neander: “it must not sur-
prise Christians if they are hated by the world; this is to them the stamp
of the divine life, in the possession of which they form the contrast to the
world.” — The particle ef expresses here neither a doubt nor even merely
possibility; for, that the world hates the children of God, is not merely pos-
sible, but in the nature of the case necessary; it is only the form of the
sentence, and not the thought of it, that is hypothetical;* comp. John
xv. 18, also Mark xv. 44.
band of a godless man, or as a sacrifice which
Cain offered to his god, the Devil.”
1 The strange rabbinical view of the devil-
ish nature of Cain in Zohar on Gen. iv. 1:
** Rabbi Eleazar dixit : Cum projecisset serpens
ile immunditlem suam in Evam eaque illam
suscepisset, remque cum Adam: habuieset,
peperit duos fillos, unum ex latere illo im-
mundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque
Cain similis imagine superiorum h. e. Angelo-
rum et Abel imagine inferiorum h. e. bhomi-
num, ac propterea diverse fuerunt viae istius
ab fllius vila. Equidem Cain fult filius spiritus
immundi, qui est serpens malus; Abel vero
fuit filiua Adami; et propterea quod Caiu
venit de parte Angell mortis, ideo iuterfecit
fratrem suum.”
2 From the fact that oddgew fe used in the
Revelation of “slaying in a holy service, as
the martyrs are slain, even though by the
godless’? (which is never quite appropriate,
comp. Rev. vi. 4), it cannot be concluded that
Jobo here used the expression in order ‘‘ to
mark the death of Abel as a martyrdoin by the
8 That Cain slew his brother because hie
own works were evil aud his brother’s right-
eous, does not seem to correspond to the
Mosaic narrative, for ra épya are not the offer-
ing, but the worke in general (Spener: ‘the
whole manner of life’’); but there is no real
contradiction, for the narrative in Genesis
does not exclude the !dea that the piety of
Abel had already excited in Cain hatred
towards his brother, and that, when God
despised hie offering, but had respect: unto
his brother’s, thia hatred went so far that he
became guilty of murder. Cain with hie
hatred, and Abel in his suffering on account
of his Sccatoovvy, serve the apostle as proto-
types of the world and of the children of
God. On the similar view in Philo and in
the Clementine Homilies, see Lticke on thie
passage.
4 Ebrard explains «i incorrectly: ‘‘ when-
CHAP. IIL. 14, 18. 565
Ver. 14. The contrast of love and hatred is at the same time one of life
and death. — queic vidaper]. nyueic forms the antithesis of 6 xdopos. Though
the world hate us and persecute us éo death, as Cain killed his brother, we
know, etc. — dre peraBeBnxapev éx tov Oavarov eic rHv Gwyv]. Comp. Gospel of
John v. 24; the perfect shows that the subject is a present aud not merely
a future state; moreover, the apostle does not say that the Christian has
received the title to eternal life (Grotius: juri ad rem saepe datur nomen rei
ipsius), but that the believer has already passed from death iuto life, and
therefore no longer is in a state of death, but in life. By Gu is to be under-
stood not merely the knowledge of God (Weiss), but holy life in truth and
righteousness; by dévaroc, not merely the want of the knowledge of God
(Weiss), but unholy life in lying and sin. The natural man is fallen in
lies and unrighteousness, and hence wretched é» @avaty: by the salvation of
Christ he enters from this state into the other, the essence of which is happi-
ness in truth and righteousness.1 That the Christian, as such, is in a state
of Gw7, he knows from the fact that he loves the brethren; brotherly love is
the sign of the (u7; therefore the apostle continues: dr: ayamépev troi¢ ddeAgods.
—6rn refers, as most commentators rightly interpret, to oidayev and not to
peraseBixauev (Baumgarten-Crusius, Kostlin); the relation between Qj and
ayarn is, namely, not this, that the latter is the originating cause of the
former (Lyra: opera ex caritate facta sunt meritoria), but both are one in their
cause, and are only distinguished in this way, that Gf is the state, ayann the
action of the believer: out of the happy life, love grows, and love again pro-
duces happiness; therefore John says: 6 yu) ayanev (sc. rdv ddeAgiv, see the
critical notes) péve: év ro Oavary, by which the identity of not loving and of
abiding in death is directly brought out.2— It is not without a purpose that
the apostle contents himself here, where he has only to do with the simple
antithesis to the preceding, with the negative idea, x? dyaxgv, with which
the év rd davdrw wéver also corresponds; it is only in the following verse that
the negation reaches the form of a positive antithesis. — péves expresses here
also the firm, sure being (so also Myrberg); it is therefore used neither
merely in reference to the past, nor merely in reference to the future.
Ver. 15. mig é yoo, instead of the preceding jy) dyazav; not loving, and
hating, are one and the same thing :® for pure indifference is not possible to
the living human soul. — dvépwroxrévoc éoti]. This word (except only in John -
viii. 44, used of the Devil) does not signify the murderer of the soul, whether |
ever the case occurs,” for the hatred which is
here spoken of ia not a frequently occurring
case, but a necessary relationship. Braune
unintelligibly aays: * by « John signifies that
his readers as a whole or as individuals have
after all at preeent no hatred to endure.”
3 By thie expression: weraBeBryxapeyv, «.7.A.,
the apostle describes Christians as having
been, previously to their believing, ¢» rw dava-
ty, hence aleo not yet rexva tov @eou; contrary
to the assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the autbor
of the Epistie shared the Gnostic view of the
original metaphysical difference in men.
* Besser: ‘*‘ Where hatred Is, there io death;
where love is, there ia life; nay, love itself le
life.” Welas erroneously maintains that here,
‘instead of the strict converse in the form of |
& progreseive parallelism, just that is men-
tioned which is the result of the non-transition
from death to life, namely, the abiding in
death,” for John did not need to say actually
that he who has not passed from death to life
is in death.
8 Wrongly, Nicol. de Lyra: ‘‘ Odiese pejus
quam non diligere.”
566 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
one’s own or one’s brother’s, but the murderer in the strict sense. Every
one who hates his brother is a murderer, not merely inasmuch as hatred
sometimes leads to murder, but because by his nature he is inclined to the
destruction of his brother, and if he does not attain this object is only hin-
dered from it by other opposing forces. As in the moral life it is not the
outward act in itself, but the intention, that is of consequence, every one
who lives in hatred towards his brother must by the moral consciousness
(or by God, Drusius, Hornejus) be regarded as a murderer; comp. Matt.
v. 21 ff., 27, 28. — Hence it is clear that the real thought of the apostle is
missed when weéeiy is here limited to the odium perfectum (Hornejus). Baum-
garten-Crusius erroneously denies that dvépwroxrévoc refers to Cain, ver. 12;
this reference is clearly patent. — xal oldare]. De Wette: “whence? from
the Christian consciousness in general.” — dr: xd¢ dvO@pwroxrivoc, x.7.A.]. He
who takes his brother's life can not and must not retain life himself, his life
decays in death; that is the order appointed by God; comp. Gen ix. 6
Accordingly he who in his heart murders his brother, cannot be in possession
of the life which dwells in the heart, i.e., of ‘“efernal life.” By Gu aicvue
we are to understand the same thing as in ver. 14 was described by the
simple word 7; and é&ye is to be retained as the actual present: errone-
ously, 8 Lapide: non habebit gloriam vitae. — The adjective péivoveay Liicke,
with whom Sander agrees, appealing to the parable of the unmerciful ser-
vant, explains by the fact that John is speaking to Christians who already
had some part in eternal life. But the expression mig 6 pscov shows that
John is here speaking quite generally, and, indeed, in order to confirm the
preceding thought, 6 ui dyarcv péver tv 76 Oavaty; it must therefore be the con-
dition of those who form the xéopoc (to whom also the mere nominal Chris-
tians belong), of those accordingly who have no part in the (uw aldo, that
is stated. By yévovoay is therefore not suggested the loss of a previously
possessed good; just as little as in the corresponding passage, Gospel of
John vy. 38: rdv Adyoy abrov obx Exere év tyiv pévovra, where also the meaning
is not that those addressed have previously had the word of God, for this is
distinctly denied in ver. 37. The pévovcay is rather explained by the fact
that he alone really has the (1) aidévie in whom it abides (comp. chap. ii 19);
pévew expresses here also, according to John’s usus loquendi, the idea of being
in a strengthened degree, and may accordingly be used quite apart from any
reference to the previous state; pévovoay is to be connected with év abrp; he
has not the life abiding, i.e., surely and firmly existing, in him.?
Vv. 16-18. Description of true love.
derer;”’ such a case John would not and could
1 It is incorrect to aay, with Braune: “ by
not at all assume. Very strange is Ebrard’s
pévovoay the existence of eternal life from
baptism, etc., is Indicated,’’ since In the con-
text there ia no reference whatever to baptism,
instruction, etc., and the advantage resulting
therefrom. Welss artificially explains: “ John
supposes the case of a person having eternal
life, and now goes so far as to say that even
such an one may not have it permanently at
least, but may be in the condition of losing it
if by hating his brother he becomes a mur-
interpretation: “ supposing that the murderer
Aad at the time the ¢wi aiamos in him (which,
however, according to ver. 9, is not posaible in
the full (!) sense), yet this tcou/d not remain
in him, he would again fall away from the (w%
(which just for this reason could not be gens-
ine),” as well as his assertion that (wiry aiwry.
ie here used without the article, because John
could not ascribe to him who is not a true
CHAP. III. 16. 567
Ver 16. Whilst he who belongs to the world hates his brother and is
therefore an dvépwroxtévu;, Christians, on the contrary, are by the example
of Christ to lay down their life for their brethren. — év rotry refers to the
following 611. —éyvixayev rv ayarnv, “we have known the love, i.e., the character
or the nature of the love" (Bengel, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke,
Sander); some commentators (Carpzov, Paulus, etc.) erroneously supply
with rv dyémnv as @ more particular definition, rod Xporod; others (Grotius,
Spener, etc.), rod Ocod. In Christ’s self-devotion to death, love itself became
concrete. Without adequate reason Ebrard supplies with é rovry an ovoay,
so that é&: rosrw forms the predicate of rpv dyarny; thus, “we have known love
as consisting in this;” and éyvdxauer is only used as an accessory. — dre éxeivos,
ie., Christ; comp. ver. 7, chap. ii. 6. “He, says the apostle, without men-
tioning him by name, for He is to every believer the well-known ” (Rickli). —
The phrase, rjv wuyi rebéva, besides here and frequently in the Gospel of
John, never appears elsewhere either in the N. T. or in the classics. Meyer
on John x. 11 explains it by the “representation of the sacrificial death as a
ransom paid: fo lay down, to pay; according to the classical usage of rdévas,
according to which it is used of payment;” Hengstenberg (on the same
passage) explains it by Isa. liii. 10; but it is unsuitable to supply the idea
“ransom” or “an offering for sin,” for the redévac riv puy7y is not merely
ascribed to Christ, but is also made the duty of Christians; besides, in that
case izép could not be wanting, as is the case in the Gospel of John x. 17, 18.
The derivation of it from the Hebrew 23 ¥)) OY (Ebrard) is equally
unsuitable, because “here the 33 is essential” (Meyer). According to
John xiii. 4, redyue may in this phrase also be interpreted = deponere (so
most commentators), which is so much the more appropriate as in John x.
iva mad Augw abriv is conjoined with riégue trav wux7w pov, just as in chap.
xili. 12 it runs, cai ZAaBev ra iuarea abrov; “comp. animam ponere in Propert.
II 10, 43, and animam deponere in Corn. Nep., Vita Hannib. I. 3” (Briickner).
Perhaps riénuc might also be taken in the meaning of “to give up” (Jl.
xxiii. 704: Geivac cic pécoov, rebévar el¢ rd xotvov, in Pape see ridnu).—bdrip f#uor
is, “ ose our good,” i.e., to save us from destruction; for the idea, comp. chap.
ii. 2. — xal qyeic, x,t... comp. chap. ii. 6. By this the climax is stated (John
xv. 18); but even every self-denying sacrifice for our brethren belongs to the
riivar Tiy wyijv, to which we are bound by the example of Christ by virtue
of our fellowship with Him. — The reading 6eiva: is just as conformable to
the N. T. usus loquendi as the Rec. r:devar, for dgeidety is sometimes connected
with the pres. inf., and sometimes with the aor. inf. For the idea, comp.
Rom. xvi. 4.) |
child of God ‘the eterna! life,’* but “eternal
life,” j.e., powers of the future world. Comp.
againet this, v. 13.
1 The thought of this verse is, according to
Ebrard, the surest proof that John in this
section is not treating of the ‘‘ general and
vague (!) idea of brotherly love,” but of “the
relation of the réxcva @eov to those who are not
tTéxva @eov,”” because the apostic canuot posail-
bly “‘Hmit the duty of loving sacrifice of life
to the relationship of the regenerate to one
another.” But (1) the idea of Christian
brotherly love is very far from belug a vague
idea; (2) when Christians are exhorted s0 to
Jove one another as to lay down their lives for
oue another, that is not a limitation of the
commandment of love; (3) those who are not
téxva @cov, and are therefore rexva tov diva
568 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 17. As the apostle wants to bring out that love must show ifself by
action, he turns his attention to the most direct evidence of it, namely, com-
passion towards the needy brother. “By the adversative connection (dé)
with ver. 16, John marks the progress from the greater, which is justly
demanded, to the less, the non-performance of which seems, therefore, a
grosser transgression of the rule just stated” (Diisterdieck). According to
Ebrard, the dé is meant to express the opposition to the delusion “that love
can only show itself in great actions and sacrifices ;” but there is no sugges-
tion in the context of any thing like this. — rdv piov rot xéauou: “the life of
the world,” i.e., that which serves to support the earthly, worldly life; comp.
Luke viii. 43, xv. 12, xxi. 4.1 The expression forms here a significant con-
trast to (wi aiwveoc (ver. 15). — deypeiv, stronger than dpay, strictly “to be a
spectator,” heuce = to look at; “it expresses the active beholding " (Ebrard,
similarly Myrberg: oculis immotis).— With xpeiav Eyev, comp. Mark ii. 25;
Eph. iv. 28.— The expression, xAeiew ra ondAnyyva, is found only here; ra
onAuyyva as @ translation of DDN appears both in the L.XX. as well as often
in the N. T. = xapdia; “to close the heart,” is as much as “to forbid to com-
passion towards the needy brother entrance into one’s heart;” the additional
an’ avron is used in pregnant sense = “turning away from him” (Liicke,
De Wette, Diisterdieck). The first two clauses might have had (not, as
Bauingarten-Crusius says, “must have had") the form of subordinate
clauses; but by the fact that the form of principal clauses is given to them,
the statement gains in vividness. The conclusion, which according to the
sense is negative, appears as a question with mac (comp. chap. iv. 20), where-
by the negation is emphatically brought out. 4 ayamn rov Ozoi is love to God,
not the love of God to us (Calov).2? Here also sévev has the meaning
noticed on ver. 15 (Myrberg); incorrectly, Liicke: “as John is speaking of
the probable absence of the previously-existing Christian life, it 1s put pévee
and not ésti.” The apostle does not want to say that the pitiless person
loses again his love to God, but that it never is really in him at all. Piti-
lessness cannot be combined with love to God; the reason of this John states
in chap. iv. 20.
Ver. 18. True love proves itself by deed.. The exhortation contained
in this verse is, on the one hand, a deduction from the foregoing (especially
from vv. 16 and 17); but, on the other hand, it forms the basis of the
further development. — rexvia]. Impressive address before the exhortation.
— uh dyanapev Aoyw ude TH yAwooy, i.e., “let us not so love that the proof of
our love is the outward word or the tongue; ” yndé ry yAdooy is epexegetically
added, in order to mark the externality of the love indicated by Asyy dyad»,
inasinuch as it points out that by Adyor here only the outward word is meant;
BéAov, John cannot possibly call adeAdot with- 1 Comp. the Greek proverb: Bios Biov 8ed-
out any further statement; (4) the whole sevos OK eats Bros.
section is an explication of ayarwmpev aAAnAous, 2? Ebrard explains » ayary 7. Geov: “the
ver. 11; but by aAAyAovs cannot be understood love which in ita essential being took substan-
the children of God and the children of the tial form after Christ and in Christ’s loving
Devil in their relation to one another; comp. deed "*(!).
besides, iv. 2-11.
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 569
it is erroneous to regard yjdooa as a climax in so far as “one may love with
words (without deeds), but in such a way that the words are nevertheless
really and sincerely meant” (Ebrard), for John would not in the very least
consider as truly and sincerely meant words of love which remain without
corresponding deed. The article serves “to vivify the expression ” (Liicke):
the tongue as the particular member for expression of the word. It is
unnecessary, nay, “contrary to the text” (Diisterdieck), with Beza, Lange,
Sander, etc., to supply “ povoy” with dyanmdyev, x.r.A.; for dyamdyv Adyy, «7.2.5
in itself expresses the mere apparent love. — ddA’ év Epyy xal dAndeia}]. Instead
of the Rec. épyw, we must read é fpyy. According to De Wette, the two
readings are synonymous; according to Liicke, év fpyw «. ad. has more of
“adverbial nature” than épyw xal dAndeia; “in rH Aédyw the apostle is con-
sidering more the way in which love expresses itself, in év fpyw «x. da, he is
considering more the form and fashion of it.” The preposition suggested
itself to the apostle because the work, as being the realization of love,
stands in an inner relationship to it, “‘is the element in which love moves”
(Diisterdieck).! Adyor and épyov are frequently in the N. T. connected with
one another; so Luke xxiv. 19, Acts vii. 22, and many other passages; in
order to bring out the insufficiency of Adyor in 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20, 1 Thess. i. 5,
divauec 18 contrasted with it. By «al dAndeig the apostle does not mean to
add a second element of love, but to characterize the dyan¢v év tpyy as the
true love (so also Myrberg); a love which does not show itself é épyy is
only an apparent love.?. The relationship of (év) danveia to év Epyy is just
the same as that of r7 yAwooy to Avyw. The two words of each clause express
together one idea, and these two ideas are contrasted with one another, so
that it is not to be asked whether Ady corresponds with fpyw, and yAdsay
with dAndeig, OF yAwooy With épyw, and Adyw with aAndecia (against Diisterdieck
and Braune). With the thought of this verse compare especially Jas. ii. 15,
16; only here the thought is more comprehensive than there.®
Vv. 19, 20. Blessed result of true love. — «ai é rotrw]. xai: simple
copula. — éy rovrw does not refer here, as in chap. ii. 3, iii. 16, 24, iv. 2, to
the following thought, but to the foregoing dyan¢y év ipyy x. dA. The future
yvwoouedu, Which, according to the authorities, 18 to be read instead of
yivdoxouev (see the critical notes), “is used as in John vii. 17, viii. 31, 32,
xiii. 85, where the subject is the possibility of an event which may with
justice be expected” (Braune): it is the more natural here, as the form of
thought is the cohortative; the sense is: If we love éy épyw xal dAndeia, we
shall thereby Know that, etc. — re éx rig GAnOeiac éouév: weakening and partly
erroneous explanations of the phrase: éx rig dA, elvas, are those of Socinus:
vere talem esse ul quis se esse profiletur; of Grotius: congruere evangelio, of
1 Braune: ‘It is to be observed that the
firet pair in the dative only states the means
by which love operates; the preposition éy
states the element tn which it moves.”
3 Comp. Jobn iv. 24, where also “‘ «ai dAn-
Ocia ” is added to dv wvevuari, not to bring out
a second element of true worship (contrary to
Meyer on this passage), but to describe the
wpookuvety dy mvevuars as true worship in
contrast to every apparent worship.
3 Wolf quotes the corresponding statement
of Picke, Avoth, chap. v. : “Omnis dilectio, quae
dependet a verbo, verbo cesaante, ipsa quoque
ceseat: at quae non dependet a verbo, nun-
quam ceseat.”’ — In Theognis 979 it fs put thus:
MH MOU avnp cin yAwooy diAos, aAAa Kat epye.
570 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Semler: dAndetew év ayary; of Baumgarten-Crusius: “to be as we ought to
be;” of De Wette: “to belong to the truth; to live in it.” Bengel, on the
other hand, rightly interprets the preposition é« of the principium or ortus;.
so also Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.; comp. John xviii. 37, and Meyer
on this passage. The truth is the source of life in love. It is indeed in its
deepest nature God himself ; but é« rod Geos must not be put instead of éx
tie dAndeiac, for the apostle here, with reference to the preceding dAyéeig,
arrives at the idea of truth. Love é» dAnveig is the evidence of being born
dx tig GAnGeiag, —Kal Eumpoodev abrov meicopev rag xapdiag Auav]. This
sentence is not governed by ér, but it is independently connected with the
preceding, either depending or not depending on éy roirw; if the former is
the case, “we must take év robry combined with zeicouev somewhat differently
than when connected with y:woxopev (yvwodueda) ; with the latter it would be
more therein, with the former more thereby” (Liicke; so also Braune); if
the latter be the case, the thought: év rovry ywwodueda St, x.7.A., Serves as the
presupposition of the following éuzpoadev abrod, x.rA., in this sense: if we truly
love our brethren, we shall therein know, etc., and thus (in this consciousness
of being of the truth) we shall assure our hearts, etc.1 The idea that with
xal Eurpoodev an entirely new thought appears, which stands in no intimate
connection with the preceding (Ebrard), is contradicted by the «ai, which’
closely connects the two thoughts with one another. What, then, is the
meaning of meicouey rig xapdiag quov? Plainly meicouev expresses a truth
which we (the subject contained in zeioozev) impress upon our hearts, so
that they are thereby determined to something, which presupposes at least
a relative contrast between us and our hearts. The verb meidecw means either
to persuade a person to something, 8o that he thinks or acts as we wish, or to
convince him of something so that he agrees with our opinion. Some ancient
commentators have interpreted in accordance with the first signification:
suadebimus corda nostra, ut studeant proficere in melius; the more particular
definition which is added is here clearly quite arbitrary; it is not much
better with the explanation of Fritzsche (Comment. III. de nonnullis
Pauli ad Gal. ep. locis); animos nostros flectemus, nempe ad amorem vita
factisque ostendendum, or even with the more recent one: anim. n. fleclemus
sc. ut veram Christi doctrinam tueamur (see Erdmann, p. 129 ff.).2 It is very
common to explain meidew here by placare, to calm, to compose; this, it is
true, is in so far inaccurate as xeidew has not this meaning in itself, but
certainly the verb is sometimes used in such a connection that the purpose
of the persuasion is the calming of anger or of a similar passion ;* hence
1 Liicke: “‘ Even if it be anadvisable to con.
nect xai éumpocGev avrov, «.7.A., directly with
év rovT@, 80 that it appears better, with Lach-
mann and the old commentators, to put a
comma after ¢gpev, every one must at least
admit the connection fn the direct succession
of the sentences. But then it muat also be
permitted to take the logical connection thus:
In this (vv. 16-18) do we know that we are of
the truth. And thus (if we In living love
have the assurance that we are of the truth)
we shall, etc.”
2 This interpretation is based on the erro-
neous view that elva: de ris dAnOeias is = reram
doctrinam tenere; the former interpretation
is contradicted by the fact that if we already
know from our love to the brethren that we
are of the truth, we do not need for the first
time to move our hearts to love.
3 In favor of this we may appeal to the
571
the original meaning of the word passes into the above. This may be the
case here also, for the following xaray:vdoxy shows that the apostle regards
our heart as affected with a passion directed against us; then the following
drt, ver. 20 (at least the second, for the first may also be the pronoun 6 1),
is the causal particle = “because, since.” Taking this view, the sense is:
In the consciousness that we are of the truth, we shall silence the accusation which
our heart makes against us, because God is greater than our heart. — If, on
the other hand, we take zeidew in the meaning of to convince, 6r: (at least the
second) is = “that;” and the sentence peifwy éorty 6 Ged tig xapdiac fudy is
the object belonging to meicouev; 80 that the sense is: Jf our heart accuses
us, we shall bring it to the conviction that God is greater than it. — The words
Eumpoodev avrov, i.e., rod Geod, do not point to the “future judgment” (Liicke,
De Wette), but to the representation of God in the devotion of the soul,
which is peculiar to the Christian. By putting them first, it is brought out
that the zeicouey only occurs in this representation of God (Diisterdieck,
Ewald, Brickner, Braune).— Ver. 20. By far the most of the commenta-
tors take the én with which this verse begins as the particle, either =
“‘ because” or “ that,” and explain the second dr: as epanalepsis of the first.
The supposition of the epanalepsis of a particle has, considered in itself,
nothing against it, although it very seldom appears in the N. T., but it is
only suitable if dr: is the objective particle (comp. Eph. ii. 11, 12); from
this it follows, that, if rei@ouev has the meaning “to calm,” the first dr: is not
to be regarded as the particle. Sander, it is true, translates: “we can calm
our heart, that—God is greater,” etc., but this has only sense if before
“that” is supplied “with this,” or “inasmuch as we reflect; such a sup-
plement, however, is arbitrary. Several commentators (Hoogewen, Bengel,
Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald) regard the first dr: as the pronoun, as
also Lachmann (in his large edition) reads 6 r: éav. Diisterdieck erroneously
asserts (as even Bertheau in the third edition of Liicke’s Commentary, p. 339,
Ebrard, and now even Briickuer and Braune, have acknowledged) that
this form is never found in the N. T. It is true that in Col. iii. 23 it is
probably not 8, re éav, but 6 éav that is to be read, although D***,E, J, K,
have the former; but in Acts iii. 23 Tisch. reads free éav (So also &), and in
Col. iii. 17, according to the overwhelming authorities, it is not 6 rm dy, but 6
rt £4, that must be read (which is admitted by Lachm., Tisch., and Buttm.),
and similarly in Gal. v. 10, not der dv, but dort éav (also accepted by Lachmn.,
CHAP. III. 19, 20.
passages cited by Llicke, Matt. xxviii. 14;
Joseph., Arch. vi. 6, 6 (Samuel), umsrxveivas
kas wapaxadécey Troy Geoy guyyvwvas wept Tov-
Tey avrow, Kai weicev, and the passage in
Plutarch, where to awodoipny, ei uh ce Tipe
pycainny, the reply runs: aroAoinyy, ei my oe
wecgacm, although weideww has not in them
exactly the meaning of “to calm.”
1 Liicke himself admits that the passages
adduced by him In favor of the epanalepels
** have only value for those who take or both
times not as causal particle, but as conjunc.
tion, belonging to weicouev 5” but thinks that
the context makes it necessary to assume the
epanalepeis here even for the causal particle;
similarly Braune, although without even
showing the grammatical justification in any
way. Besides, in this construction it is quite
overlooked that if the intermediate clause ear
xatayiwwonn, «.7.A., ie connected with the
preceding, the first o7: comes in disturbingly;
and if it is connected with the following, the
second érx does so. As {in accordance with
the thought only the former connection can
be the correct one, it ia incomprehensible how
John should have here interrupted it by or,
572 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Tisch. 7, and Buttm.); moreover, there is nothing syntactically against
reading here 6, tt éév, for xatraywaoxev is frequently construed with the
accusative of the thing. Ebrard, however, thinks that this view is “im-
probable,” nay, “absolutely impossible:” ‘‘ improbable,” because in ver. 22,
6 éav is used (but in the first edition of this commentary it was shown that é
dav is by no means the constant form with John, but that in the Gospel, ii.
5, xiv. 13, xv. 16, 6, r: dv also appears,! and that the sudden change of forms
is found elsewhere also in the N. T., as in Matt. v. 19, first dc ay and after-
wards 6c dav is used, and in Matt. xvi. 19, in some codd. (Lachm.), first
6 av, and then 6 édv is read); “absolutely impossible,” “on account of the
mutual relationship of the two conditional clauses, ver. 20 and ver. 21.”
Certainly the éay in ver. 21 seems to forin a sharp antithesis to the éav in ver.
20; but it must not be unnoticed, that, similar though the two clauses are to
one another, they nevertheless have not the pure form of antithesis, inas-
much as in ver. 21 there is no antithetical particle, in the clauses the suc-
cession of the particular words is different, and the first conditional clause
only forms an inserted intermediate clause.? In favor of the explanation:
“before Him shall we calm our heart, whatever it may accuse us of, because,” etc.
(or convince . . . that, etc.), is the fact that not only is the idea xaraywooxy
thereby more closely connected with zeicovev, but also the certainly strange
epanalepsis of the dr: is avoided.2— The verb xaray:wwoxev, according to
Liicke, does not signify condemnation, but only accusation: in the inner
life of the heart, however, the two are not distinctly separated from one
another, but the accusation of conscience rather includes the condemnation ;
the special xardxpioe is certainly the work of God.‘ The object of the
xatayiwooxew of the heart is variously defined by the commentators; some
understanding by it, with reference to the preceding thought, the “want of
love,” others more generally the sinfulness which still adheres to believers
even with all the consciousness of loving the brethren (chap. i. 8). The
decision as to which is the correct interpretation depends on the explanation
1 § has in chap. f1.5: 6 ay; xiv. 18: 8 re dv;
xv. 16: 6 ve dav.
2 If it was the apoatle’s intention to contrast
sharply two different cases, he could do this
more definitely if he constructed the first
period thus: day xaray, nuwy 7» xapha, éu-
mpooOey avTou weigopmey T, Ke, OTt EiGwy, K.T.A.,
and the second: eay &@ un xaray. nuwy 7 Kap-
é:a. From the fact that he did not do so, it
may be concluded that such a sharp contrast
was not in his purpose.
3 That the supposition of an epanalepsis
for the causal particle is improper, has been
already noticed above; and for the passage
before us it is further clear from the fact that
if orc is the cauaal particle, the clause peigwy
éoriy, x.7.A., forms, according to the thought,
the conclusion of éay caraywwocn, as plainly
appears in Liicke when he explains: ‘‘ Then,
if... our conscience accuses us, God is
greater than our heart,” etc. — But even the
epanalepsis of 67: as objective particle may
be doubted ; for as the thought édv caraywwaony
does not form the presupposition for peidwyr
doriv, x.7.A., but for meiconer, it is unsuitable
to place it in the objective clause dependent
on weicouey, instead of connecting it with
weigoney.
¢ Dtisterdieck, with whom also Braune
agrees, appropriately remarks that xcarayr-
vwoonecy occuples a middie place between
xatyyopery, along with which an amodoyey
further occurs, and «ataxpivey, which ifn-
cludes the judicial decree of punishment;
comp. Deut. xxv. 1, 2. — Dilsterdieck suitably
quotes on this passage Sir. xiv. 2, comp. xix.
6, and Test. Gad. 5; J. A. Fabricius, Cod.
pseudep.V. T., p. 681. — xaraytywoxnecy Means,
to provounce against a person that he is
guilty; xaraxpivew, on the other hand, to
pronounce the merited punishment on a per.
s0n.
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 573
of the following sentence: dre peifuv toriv 6 Oed¢ rae napdiag Hudy ra
yevooxet navta.— The old controversy is, whether God is called greater
than our heart as forgiving or as judging: the former is the view of Thomas
Angl., Luther, Bengel, Morus, Kussmeyer, Spener, Noesselt, Steinhofer,
Rickli, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myr-
berg, Ewald, Briickner, Braune, etc.; the latter is the view of Calvin, Beza,
Socinus, Grotius, a Lapide, Castalio, Hornejus, Estius, Calovius, Semler,
Liicke, Neander, Gerlach, De Wette, Ebrard, etc. —If zeidev is = “ to calm,”
then yeifwy must refer to the forgiving love of God.’ Liicke, indeed, gives
the following explanation: “after John has said that only if we are, in
active brotherly love, conscious that we are of the truth, shall we calm our
hearts in the judgment, he adds: for if the contrary is the case, if our con-
science accuses us of the want of genuine love, then God is greater than
our heart, and before His holiness and omniscience there is no calm for the
accusing conscience.’’ But the assumption of such a declaratio e contrario,
which is in no way hinted at, is only an artificial expedient for reconciling
contraries. eiGwv can only be referred to God as judging, if reidecv has the
meaning “to persuade.” As Ebrard regards this as the right view, and
would begin “a perfectly independent new sentence” with xal Eumpoodev abrod,
he states the meaning as follows: “In the sight of God we shall convince
our hearts of this, that if (even) our heart (so prone to self-deception and
self-excuse, and therefore small) accuses us (namely, of not practising love),
God, the all-knowing, is greater than our heart, and we shall therefore so
much the less be able to stand before Him.” This interpretation is contra-
dicted, in the first place, by the fact that it separates the second part of the
nineteenth verse from the first, nay, even places it in antithesis to it,} where-
as such an independence is not only not suggested as belonging to it, but is
refuted by the connecting xai; and, in the second place, by the fact that
the thought is in itself inadmissible. According to the representation of the
apostle, we and our heart are regarded as contrasted with one another,
inasmuch as our heart brings a condemning accusation against us, which
plainly refers to the fact that we by our sins have made ourselves liable to
the judgment of God; it is not we therefore that hold out to our heart, but our
heart that holds out to us, the judgment of God ; how, then, shall we after
this bring our heart to the conviction that God will condemn us, nay, will
condemn us even more than our heart does already? From this it follows
that — whatever be the meaning of reidew — veifuv cannot refer to the judicial
activity of God. As God is called peifwy in comparison with our heart that
condemns us, the comparison expresses an opposition. Erdmann: Notioni
cordis condemnantis magnitudo Dei comparatur et opponitur, the heart, inas-
much as it condemns us, is like the “‘ hostis, qui nos aggreditur, sed Deus peitov
h. e. forlior est, ut hostem illum devincere possit” (comp. iv. 4). As this
greatness of God, which surpasses the heart, proves itself in this, that in
those who are éx rig dAndeiag it overcomes the accusations of the heart, those
1 The conviction, namely, that we cannot stand before God, plainly forms an antithesis to the
conviction that we are of the truth.
574 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
commentators are right who assign to this verse a comforting tendency, and
therefore refer pei{uv to the forgiving love. No doubt, it is objected that
the thought of God’s omniscience (ywdoxee rdvra) 1 is not able to comfort the
man whom conscience accuses; but this can only hold good in reference to
those who are not yet éx rij¢ dAndeiac, and not in reference to those of whom
John is here speaking, namely, those who in their sincere love to the breth-
ren have the evidence that they are é« rij¢ dAndeiac.? If this is the right
interpretation, then it is clear that xaray:vdoxey does not refer to the want
of love, but to sin in general, from which even the réxvov rot Geod is not yet
free (i. 8 ff); and this is also indicated by the apostle’s very form of
expression, if meicouev is directly connected with xarayweoxe, and if, accord-
ingly, 5, re éav is to be read (see above), in which case ért peifuy éort, x.1.2.,
states the objective ground of the meidev: “because God is greater than our
heart, we therefure (in the consciousness that we are of the truth) shall calm
our hearts before God, however much our heart may accuse us.” This interpre-
tation deserves the preference before that according to which seicouey is =
“to convince,” aud dre peitwr, x.7.A., the object governed by it; because not
only does the purpose of the verse thereby appear more clearly, but it is
not easy to perceive how the conviction of. the greatness of God which
overcomes the heart should result from the consciousness dr: éx rig dAndeiac
éouév.* — It is further to be observed that De Wette makes the jirst dr as
causal particle dependent on eicouev (= to calm), the second, on the other
hand, on xarayweoxy: “for, if our heart accuses us because God is greater
than our heart, He also knows all things;” but this construction is opposed
not only by the fact that the «ai is more naturally taken as copula (Baum-
garten-Crusius), but also by the fact that the thought that our heart condemns
us because God is greater than our heart, is incorrect.4— Without adequate
1 Several commentators find In the words
Kai ywwwoxes wavra the explanation of the idea
meigwy: Bo Oecumentus, Augustine, Bede, So.
cinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus,
De Wette, etc.; even Ebrard says that God Is
called pet¢wv, ‘because He cannot be de.
ceived,” but its position gives no justification
for that; we can at the most say tbat the
apostle by those words brings specially out
one element which Is included in pecgwy.
2 Luther rightly says: ‘“‘ Though our con-
science makes us despondent, and representa
God to us as angry, yet God !s greater than
our heart. Conscience is a single drop, but
the reconciled God is a sea full of comfort.
. . -« When conscience punishes and condemns
a man, he becomes alarmed; but against this
darkness of the heart it is aalid: God knows
all things. Conecience is always In fear, and
closes its eyes; but God is deeper and higher
than thy heart, and more exactly searches the
innermost parts of it.'’— Besser: ‘Our heart
knows some things, and decides againet us;
God knows all things, and does not decide
against us, but for us, because before His eyes
the seed of truth, of which we have been
born, is not concealed.”
3 Ewald construes correctly, but In hia ex-
planation: ‘‘If we earnestly seek in His sight
whether we really love . . . we shall be able,
even if we must sometimes accuse ourselves
before God, nevertheless by the penitent (?)
acknowledgment of the truth, to convince our
conscience that we are men and God.is God,
that we may therefore sometimes fail and
muet be admonished by Him,” — he introduces
references into the thought which are not
contained in it.
4 Brickner, it ie true, defends De Wette’s
interpretation, but he substantially perverts
it; for whilst De Wette refers the whole verse
to the accusation of God (therelo agreeing
with Lifcke), Brilckner takes the ore yrwwoxes
wavra in comforting sense; but it then be-
comes atill more untenable, for {t is plainly
unjustifiable to refer the omniscience of God
in the subordinate clause to condemnation (for
both explain pet¢wy by: ‘looking more deeply,
examining all the recesses of the heart ’’), but
in the principal clause to forgiveness.
CHAP. III. 21, 22. 575
ground, Erdmann thinks that xapdia, in ver. 19, is used in a wider sense than
in ver. 20 (“vertimus neicouev tag xapdiac: nobis ipsis persuadebimus”’), because
there the plural, and here the singular, is used ; this change of the number
has no influence on the meaning of the word, but the apostle speaks of the
xapdia as the object of meidev, and as the subject of xaray:éonev, inasmuch
as the heart is the seat or the union of the affections; the Greek commen-
tators explain xapdia here as synonymous with ovveldyot.
Ver. 21. In this verse the apostle states the case of our heart not accus-
ing (or condemning) us. We can understand it thus, that what he pre-
viously observed has happened, namely, that, in the consciousness that we
are of the truth, we have induced our heart to refrain from its accusation
against us. Then this thought does not stand to the preceding one in the
relation of antithesis (as if in this verse a different case was contrasted with
the case stated in ver. 20), but in that of continuation;! but it is more
correct to suppose that the apostle is here speaking of a relationship which
is different from that indicated in ver. 20, and that he is not regarding the
question whether the non-condemnation has never taken place at all, or has
been only brought about by persuasion. That two sentences may stand to
one another in the relation of antithesis, even without the antithetical par-
ticle, is proved by chap. i. 8 and 9. — nafpnoiay Fyouev mpdc rdv Oedy states
what occurs when the case exists which is mentioned by éay; it is erroneous
to explain zafpnciav Eyouev = meioouev tac Kapdiag fuwy; the same expression in
chap. li. 28 and iv. 17, and construed with npoc, chap. v. 14; the same con-
struction in Rom. v. 1: elpivny Ey. mpdc rdov Oedv. As the calming of the heart,
so, also confidence toward God, which is the subject here, is based on the
fact that God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.
Ver. 22. By xai the following is closely connected with the preceding,
inasmuch as it states what further happens when, in consequence of non-
condemnation on the part of the heart, the rafpnoia mpdc rdv Gedy existe; it is
not merely the consciousness of the hearing of our prayers, but it is this
hearing itself. — 6 éav alrdyev is to be taken quite generally, and must not be
spoiled by arbitrary limitations; the necessary limitation lies, on the one
hand, in the subject itself: the child of God asks for nothing which is con-
trary to his Father’s will, comp. v. 14; and, on the other hand, in the
sappnoia with which he prays; comp. Matt. xxi. 22; the contrary in Jas.
i. 6, 7. — AapBavouer an’ abrov, i.e., rov Oeot. The present is not used instead
of the future (Grotius); the subject is here not something future, but what
constantly occurs in the life of believers. Augustine suitably says: Charitas
ipsa gemit, charitas ipsa orat, contra hanc aures claudere non novit, qui illam dedit.
dre rag évtoAde abrod, «.7.4.]. dre is connected with.the immediately preceding
Aau3dvouev, and states the ground of God’s manifestation of love in the hear-
1 The objection of Ebrard to this interpre-
tation, that dav cannot serve the purpose of
introducing a deduction from a premise which
fe presupposed as already having actually oc-
curred, is inappropriate; for ddy is not in this
view at all taken as ‘‘if, then, therefore,” but
fe retained tn its own proper meaning. Con-
trary to Brauve’s opinion, that with this inter.
pretation not uy, but wy<é7, would have to be
ured, it is to be observed that it was not
necessary to bring out the element which is
contained in pnxér.
O76 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ing of prayer; this ground, which, however, is not to be regarded as the
causa meritoria, is the childlike obedience of him who prays, wherein God
recognizes him as His child; the idea of obedience is expressed in two mu-
tually co-ordinate sentences (similar to the Hebrew parallelism): rdg évroddc
avrov and rd dpeotad évomwv abrod are synonymous ;! by mouiv the obedience is
specified as active; the second clause indicates that it consists, not in a
slavish subjection to the commandment, but in a childlike fulfilment of that
which is pleasing to God. In John viii. 29, dpeorév is construed with the
dative; only in Acts vi. 2, xii. 3 is the word besides found; similar is the
expression amddextov évortov rov Geoi: (1 Tim. v. 4).
Ver. 23. With this verse, which —as the statement of the substance of
God’s commandments — is most closely connected with the preceding, begins
a new leading section, indeed the last in the Epistle, inasmuch as in iva
morebowuev TO dvouati, x.7.2., @ new element of the development of ideas
appears, by which the sequel is not merely “ prepared for” (Ebrard), but is
dominated. — «ai is not explicative, but simply copulative.— airy refers
to the following iva, which here also does not merely state the purpose
(Braune), but the substance. — 4 évroAR atrov]. The singular is used, because
the manifold commandments in their inner nature form one unity: this is
especially true of the two commandments of faith and love, here mentioned.
From the fact that faith is described as an évrod#, it must not be inferred that
it is not a work of God in man, but it certainly follows that neither can it be
accomplished without the self-activity of man. — The phrase moretew rd ove-
watt Tov viov, x.7.A., Only appears here; in chap. v. 13 the preposition ei¢ is
used instead of the dative; so also in John i. 12, ii. 23, iii. 18, ete.; by the
dative the dvoua of Christ is indicated as the object of devoted, believing
trust;2 “to believe on the name of Christ,” is, however, identical with “to
believe on Christ,” inasmuch as in the name the nature of Him who is
spoken of is expressed; comp. Meyer on John i. 12. Grotius, quite errone-
ously: propter Christum sive Christo auctore Deo credere. — While faith is the
fundamental condition of the Christian life, brotherly love is the active proof
of the living character of the faith; the two things cannot be separated from
one another; hence it follows here, xal dyatdyev d7?ARAovc,® which as the effect
is distinguished from morevew as the cause; xai is therefore copulative and
not epexegetical (as Frommann thinks, p. 591).— The subordinate clause,
xaba¢ Eduxev évtuAqy huiv, is best referred to dyandurv cAAnjdAovc, inasmuch as it is
1 Meyer actually thinks that by apeora are
meant the so-called consilia evangelica, by
which ordinary Christians are not bound, but
which are voluntarily undertaken by Christians
who are specially holy!
2 Weiss has been at pains to show that
morevecy in John does not include the element
of trust; in this, however, he is wrong, be-
cause even where the element of conviction
prevails in the use of the word, this must not
be identified with the theoretical belief, which
is a mere act of the understanding, but it
jucludes as an cssential element the immediate
trust of the words or of the person to which
the morevey refers; in the phrase: morevey
Tp ovépare I, Xp., the ethical meaning of the
verb is eo much the more to be recognized, as
the denial of it noceasitates aleo a weakening
of the idea ovoua.
8 Frommann (p. 200) wrongly concludes
from this passage and iv. 7, 19, in which the
obligation to love is expressed, that being
born of God is conditioned by love, as the
free act of man, ‘by which He keeps [is
independent personality and freedom towards
God "(:), bay, even is produced by it (p. 206).
OTT
not God (Estius, Bengel, Sander) but Christ that is to be regarded as the
subject ; by xada¢ (“in proportion as”) the quality of love is indicated: it
must correspond to the commandment of Christ; Myrberg: Non modo aman-
dum est, sed etiam vere et recte amandum.
Ver. 24. After the apostle has mentioned the substance of the divine
commandment, he describes the keeping of it as the condition of fellowship
with God, and states the mark whereby the Christian knows that God is in
him. —«ai is the simple copula, not = itaque; rag évroAds atrot is @ resump-
tion of the # évrody abros of ver. 23; the plural is used because the command-
nent is described as containing two elements; atrod = rov Geot, not Xpiorov
(Sander, Neander, Besser). — é abrad pévet, x.7.4.]. The mention of fellow-
ship with God, which consists in this, that we abide in God and God abides
in us,? is explained by the purpose of the Epistle. —xai éy robiry ywooxoper),
éy robrw is referred by Liicke and Ebrard to the preceding, namely to rypeiv
rac évroAds atrod; but thus there results a superfluous thought, for with the
connection which according to the apostle exists between the keeping of
God’s commandments and God’s abiding in us, and which he has ex-
pressed in the first half of the verse, it is plainly superfluous to say once
more that we know the latter by the former; it is, besides, contradicted by
the following é rod rvevzaroc, which has induced Liicke to assume a combi-
nation of two trains of thought and an ambiguity of éy robry,? and Ebrard
arbitrarily to supply with é« 1, rveiparoc the words “we know;” Diisterdieck,
De Wette, Erdmann, Braune, etc., refer éy rotry to é row mvetuaroc, 80 that
according to the apostle it is from the mveipa which is given to us that we
know that God is in us if we keep His commandments; comp. iv. 12, 18,
where the same connection of ideas occurs. The change of the prepositions
év and é« is certainly strange, but does not render this interpretation “ impos-
sible’* (Ebrard); for, on the one hand, the form, “ éy robrw yewdoxoper,” is too
familiar to the apostle not to have suggested itself to him here; and, on the
other hand, by éx the mvevyua is indicated as the source from which that yao-
oxey flows; besides, the construction with é appears also in chap. iv. 6. —
By sveiua is here to be understood, just as by ypioua in chap. ii. 20, “ the
Holy Ghost,” who lives and works in the believer, but not, with Socinus,
the disposition or the love produced by Him; or, with De Wette, “ first of
all, the true knowledge and doctrine of the person of Jesus.” With this
verse the apostle makes the transition to the following section, in which, with
reference to the false teachers, the distinction is made between the mveiza
rov Oeod and the mvedua which is not é rod Oeod,
CHAP. III. 24.
1 When Weles defines the abiding or being
of God in him who keeps His commandments,
in this way, that God who Is known, or the
knowledge of God, is the determining principle
of his spiritual life, this scems ‘to weaken
the powerful realism of John’s conception;”
yet Welas guards himecif against this when
he says that he does not in any way diminish
the divine causality in the act of regeneration,
but only means thereby that God accomplishes
thie act by means of His revelation in Christ,
which must be accepted into knowledge.
2 The two thoughts which Liicke considers
as combined here are: (1) that we in the keep-
ing of God's commandments know that we are
in fellowsbip with Him, and (2) that the rypeiy
ras évroAds is nothing else than the expression
and operation of the Divine Spirit. — It ts
_ plainly quite mistaken for Paulus to regard é«
Tov mvevuaros as the subject belonging to udves
578 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. y:vdoxere, found in K, several min., vss., and
Fathers have yiwoxerac: in N*: ywooxouev (Ni: ycvooxete); the Rec. is to be
regarded as genuine. — The reading in B: ¢AnAv@éva:, instead of the Rec. éAndv-
Gora, is a correction. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Rec. duoAoyei 'Inootv Xpiordv év capai
fAndAvora (K, etc., and G, though with the article roy prefixed), A, B, ete., have
the simple rév ‘Inovtv (Lachm., Tisch.). This is probably the original reading
(Briickner), and is confirmed by the preceding (contrary to Reiche, etc.), ¥
reads: '[nootv xipiov tv o, tAnAvddra, — According to Socrates, vii. chap. 32, 6 Avec
is found in old manuscripts instead of 6 4 duodoyei; the same reading in Iren.
iii. 18: gui soLVIT Jesum Christum ; similarly the Vulg. (Lucif.: destruit) and
in Fulg. — Tertullian also prefers this reading, though in connection with the
common one; Adv. Marc., v. 16: negantes Christum in carne venisse .. . hic
antichristus est ; the same connection in Tychonius and Augustine: qui solvit
Jesum et negat in carne venisse. Semler’s view is a strange one, that 6 Avec has
arisen oculorwm vitio; the reading is probably to be explained by the polemic
against the Gnostics (Grotius, Liicke, De Wette), in favor of which is the Scho-
lion in Matthael, p. 225: mpoodevsay yip atrov (rou avriypiorod) al aipéaetc, wv yapaxTe-
ptorixdy 7d da Wevdorpognrayv xal mvevuaruy Aveww rov 'lyooty ev TO uD duodvyeiv abrov
év oapx, éAnAvéévas, — The reading in &: 57¢ (6 rt) dxnxoapev, instead of 6 axnxdare,
is singular. — Ver. 6. In his small edition Lachm., after A, Vulg., etc., reads
éy rovrw instead of éx rovrov; in his large edition he has accepted the latter
reading. — Ver. 7. To ayaxcv is wrongly added in A, Tov Orov,— Ver. 8. In-
stead of Zyvw, 8* has éyvuxev; in the original text of & the whole sentence, 6 “4
Gy... . Oedv, Is wanting. — Ver. 9. NS has Gouev for Gjowuev.— Ver. 10. To 9
ayann is added In ®: rod Oeod, plainly a correction. For #yatycauev, B has
Hyanhxapev (Buttm.).— For dréoredev, & has axéoradnev, — Ver. 12. The order
of words varies: the Rec. is rereAccwuévn éoriv év guiv, following G, K,
etc. (Tisch.); A, etc., Vulg., etc., have év quiv before reteAewpévy (Lachm.);
B and 8: év jquiv between rereA. and éoriv (Buttm.).— Ver. 15. B reads o¢ éay
instead of 5¢ dv, and ‘Incoic Xpiordg Instead of the simple ‘Inoovc. — Ver. 16.
At the end of the verse B, G, K, %, etc., several vss , etc., read wéver (brack-
eted by Lachm.); in A, etc., Vulg., several Fathers, uévec is wanting (Tisch.);
according to the authorities it is to be regarded as genuine, being probably
omitted to correspond with the end of the 15th verse (Reiche). — Ver. 17. &®
has after pe6’ gudv the further words é july, and instead of topvev the future
éooutOa.— Ver. 19. The Rec. quelc dyanduev airov, drt avrog is found in G, K,
etc.; in A is found #ueic obv ayandpuer, Ste 6 Oedc (Lachm.): in B guei¢ ayane-
pev, drt atrég (Tisch.); & has fy. ay. rov Oedv, Sri abroc. The abrog after dre is
sufficiently attested by the authorities; the avrév after dyamdyev, on the other
hand, appears to be a later addition, added for explanation of the thought.
Reiche, however, regards it as genuine; Liicke thinks that if ayanowev is with-
CHAP. IV. 1. 579
out an object, 6 Ged¢ is necessary; this, however, according to John’s usus
loguendi, is not the case.— Ver. 20. ® omits the dr. In reference to the
reading é6paxev in Tisch. 7, see on chap. i. 1.— Instead of the Rec. (Tisch.)
wos, 8, B, etc., Theb., etc., read ob (Lachm.). The interrogative is, however,
more expressive than the negative.
Vv. 1-6. Resumption of the warning against the false teachers; comp.
chap. ii. 18 ff. The connecting link is formed by é rob mvevuaroc, chap. iii. 24;
the object is to distinguish between the xveiya which is of God and the
mvevpa Which is not of God (vv. 2, 3), between the mv. rig dAndeiag and the my,
tie wAavyc. The distinguishing mark is the confession; the former confesses,
the latter denies, Jesus; the former is mightier than the latter; therefore the
believers have overcome the wevdorpogjras; the words of the former spring
éx rob xdouov, and are pleasing to the xédsyoc; the words of the latter are
accepted by him who is éx rot Oecd.
Ver. 1. The apostle first exhorts them not to believe ravr? rveivarr. The
idea rvevya is in closest connection with pevdorpogiira. The true prophets
spoke, as we read in 2 Pet, i. 21, ind xvetparoc ayiov gepouevor; the source of
the revelations which they proclaim (xpégnuc) is the mvetua dywy or rv, rob
Ocod, by which is meant not an affection of their mind, but the power of
God, distinct from their own personality, aniinating and determining them
(divautg bpiorov, synonymous with mveiya dywov, Luke i. 35). This xveipa
speaks through the prophet, penetrating into his metya and communicating
to him the truth to be revealed; thus the xvetya of the prophet himself be-
comes a nveiya éx tov Oecod. As every prophet has his own meiua, there exists,
though the mveipa Gyov is a single being, a plurality of prophetic spirits.
The same relationship holds good, on the other hand, in the case of the false
prophets. These also are under the influence of a spirit, namely, of the
mveipa Which éx rot Geod obx Lott, of the mvedya tio rAcvne; this similarly is a
single being, but inasmuch as with its lie it penetrates the mveiyara of the
false prophets and makes them like itself, it is true of the mveiya of every
individual prophet that it is not of God, not a mvevpa rig dAndeiac, but a mvedpa
rig wAdvnc¢. As John speaks here of a plurality of spirits (xavri mveipari, rd
mvevuata), we are to understand by meiza in this passage not the higher
spirit different from the human spirit, but this spirit itself, penetrated,
however, and filled with the former! (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 32, and Meyer on
this passage). This spirit, however, may be spoken of, not merely in plu-
tality, but also in unity, that is, in collective sense ; for on each of the two
sides all rvevyara, being animated by one and the same spirit, — whether the
divine or that which is against God, — are of one nature, and so form together
one unity. It is incorrect to understand by mveipa here, by metonymy,
1 Dilsterdieck considers the expression as
describing ‘‘ the superhuman principle animat-
ing the man who propheales,”’ and explains the
plural in this way, that ‘ those different prin-
ciples reveal themselves differently in their
different instruments;”’ bot with this inter.
pretation the plural would be used in a very
figurative signification. Braune, correctly:
‘The queation !s not about a dual, but about
a plural; we must therefore understand the
spirits of men, to whom the Spirit bears
witness.”
580 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
“the prophets ” themselves (= Aadoivrec ty mvetyart, Liicke, De Wette,
Calvin: pro eo, qui spiritus dono se praeditum esse jactat ad obeundum prophetae
munus ; so also Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.), or “their inspiration ” (Socinus,
Paulus), or even “the teaching of the prophet, his inspired word ” (Lorinus,
Cyril, Didymus, etc.). — dAAd doxiudtere ra rveipara}. The appearance of the
pevdorpoo;rat, i.e., such teachers as, moved by the ungodly spirit, proclaimed
instead of the truth the antichristian lie, under the pretext of speaking by
divine inspiration, necessitated in the Christian Church a trial of the spirits
(a duixptore of them, 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29); comp. 1 Thess. v. 20, 21; in
order to know ei éx roi Qcod tort, i.e. (if é is to be retained in its exact
meaning), if they originate in and proceed from God. — This trial is to be
exercised by all (comp. Rom. xii. 2; Eph. v. 10; 1 Cor. x. 15, xi. 13), for
“alloquitur (apostolus) non modo totum ecclesiae corpus, sed etiam 8INGULOS
Jfideles” (Calvin); against which Lorinus arbitrarily says: non omnium est
probare ; unum oportet in ecclesia summum judicem quaestionum de fide mori-
busque ; ts est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus. — The necessity of the trial John
establishes by the words dre moAdol wevdorpopirat, «.7.A. These pevrdorpogira
are the same as in chap. ii. 18 are called dvrixproroe; comp. vv. 2,3. The
name wevdurpogirat indicates that the teachers proclaimed their doctrine, not
as the result of human speculation, but as a revelation communicated to
them by the mveiua of God. The expression, éeAnAigacy eig rdv xdouov, does
not merely signify their public appearance (Socinus: ezistere ef publice munus
aliquod aggredi; Grotius: apparere populo), nor is “é& oixay aitéy to be
mentally supplied” (Ebrard), but it is to be explained by the fact that the
prophets, as such, were sent (comp. John xvii. 18), and therefore go out from
Him who sends them. It is He, however, that sends them, who through
His mveiua makes them prophets. The idea of égépxeoda is accordingly
different here from what it is in chap. ii. 19 (contrary to Lorinus, Spener,
etc.); a going out of the false prophets from the Church of the Lord is not
here alluded to. With ei¢ rdv xéouov, compare John vi. 14, x. 36.
Ver. 2. Statement of the token by which the mviua rot cot is to be
recognized. —év rovrw refers to the following sentence: may mvetya, x.t.A. —
yevwoxere is Imperative, comp. morevere, donxiuagere, Ver. 1. — wav mveiua 6 Ouo-
Aoyei 'Ingootv Xptordyv év capr? éAndAvddra]. It is arbitrary not only to
change the participle ¢A7Avééra into the infinitive éandveévar, but also to change
éy into ec (so Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander); by é» capxi the flesh, i.e.,
the earthly human nature, is stated as the form of being in which Christ
appeared. The form of the object is explained by the polemic against Do-
cetism; it is to be translated either: “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (Liicke,
De Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, etc.); or, “Jesus, as Christ come in the
flesh ;” the last interpretation has this advantage, that it not only brings out
more clearly the reference to the Cerinthian Docetism,! but it makes it more
1 In the firet interpretation the antithesis subject so described, which containe in it the
to the Cerinthlan Docetiem lies not merely in idea Xprords, is more particularly defined as
the combination of ‘Incotw Xpioroy as one having come in the flesh.
name (Ebrard), but aleo in this, that this
CHAP. IV. 3 581
easy to explain how the apostle in ver. 3 can designate the object simply by
rov 'Inoobv. It might, however, be still more suitable to take 'Iyjcotv . . . éAn-
Avd6ra as one object = “ the Jesus Christ who came in the flesh,” so that in this
expression the individual elements on which John here relied in opposition
to Docetism have been gathered into one; so perhaps Braune, when he says:
“the form is that of a substantive objective sentence,” and “in év a, éA, it is
not a predicate, but an attributive clause, that is added.” That the apostle
has in view not only the Cerinthian, but also the later Docetism, which
attributed to the Saviour only a seeming body, cannot be proved from the
form of expression used here. The commentators who deny the reference
of the apostle to Docetism find themselves driven to artificial explanations;
thus Socinus, who expands the participle by quamvis, and Grotius, according
to whom ?@y oapxi refers to the status humilis in which Christ appeared, in con-
trast to the regia pompa in which the Jews expected the Messiah.! To exact
unbelievers there can here be no reference, as, according to chap. ii. 2, the
false prophets had previously belonged to the Church itself.2 That John
brings out as the token of the Spirit, that is, of God, just the confession of
this particular truth, has its ground in the circumstances that have been
mentioned; while it is also so very much the fundamental truth, that, as
Liicke on chap. ii. 22 with justice says, ‘“ every yeidor is contained in this, and
amounts to this, the denial of that truth in any sense.” 3.
Ver. 3. In the reading, 6 pa dpodoyei rdv "Inoiv, the article (which is not,
with Liicke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus
as the historical person who is Christ. The false teachers did not confess
Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesua, but to the Aeon
Christ. The particle yu# indicates the contradiction of the true confession,
whilst ob would only express the simple negation. At the words «ai rodro
gore 13 row avrexpiorov, almost all commentators (even Briickner and
Braune) supply with ro the word mvedua; but Valla (with whom Zegerus
agrees) interprets: ef hic est antichristi spiritus, VEL POTIUS: et hoc est anti-
christi i. e. proprium antichristi, if this latter interpretation be correct, then
rovro refers to ud duodoyeiv, and 1d row ayriypicrov is “the antichristian nature.”
As it is not easy to see why John should have left out mveduc, this interpreta-
1 Socinus: “ Qui confitetur Jesum Christam 2 Comp. with this passage Polycarp, Zp. ad
i. e. eum pro suo servatore ac domino et deni-
que vero Christo habet, guamoie is in carne
venerit h. e. homo fuerit, non modo mortalis,
sed infinitis malis obnoxius.” Without any
ground, Baumgarten-Cruslus asserts: ‘If any
force were to be assigned to the predicate,
‘come in the flesh,’ the infinitive would have
been used.” — Briickner thinks that {if in
ver. 8 the shorter reading (without the appo-
sition) be the correct one, the reference to
Docetism is here uncertain and unnecessary ;
but the uncertain expression is plainly to be
interpreted {n accordance with the more cer-
tain, and not, contrariwise, the latter in ac-
cordance with the former.
Philipp.: was yap & av un opodoyy ‘Incovy
Xptordy dy capxi éAnAvOdra, avrixporés dots
Kai S¢ wh dpodoy7 TO mapTUpiov TOU oravpoU éx
rou d:aBdAov éorti.
§ Augustine peculiarly turns this sentence
against the Donatists, whom he reproaches
with a denial of their love, on account of their
separation from the Catholic Church, when
he says that John speaks here of a denial
of Christ not merely by word, but also by
deed: ‘*Quisquis non habet charitatem negat
Christum fu carne venisse;”” so Bede: “ Ipse
est Spiritus Del, qui dicit Jesum Christum in
carne venisee, qui dicit non lingua, sed factis,
non sonando, sed amando.”’
582 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
tion is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg; Ewald similarly
interprets: “the work of antichrist;” the same form of expression in Matt.
xxi. 21; 1 Cor. x. 24; 2 Pet. ii. 22; Jas. iv. 14).1— 6 dxnxdare drt Epyerac; com-
pare chap. ii.18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read “év” instead of 5; the
relative does not refer to dvrtypiorov, but to 1d 7, avrixp. — Kal var év 70 xOomy eoTiv
én, i.e., in the false prophets; comp. ver. 1. John does not say here that
antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of antichrist),
is already in the world; 7467 is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the
vir, but to point to the future time of the appearing of antichrist, which is
already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends
on 6; this, however, is not likely, as 6 is the accusative; it is rather connected,
as an independent sentence, with the preceding one.
Ver. 4. After the apostle has characterized the twofold mveiya, he directs
the attention of his readers to the relationship in which they stand to the
false prophets. — tyeic é rov Oot tore]. A contrast to those who are é« row
xodopov; believers are of God, because the mveiza which animates them is the
mvetua Tov Oeov, — kal vevixyxate abroic]. abroi¢g is not = antichristum et mundum
(Erasmus), but rode yevdorpogarac, in whom the antichristian nature dwells.
— vevixnxare is to be retained as perfect; comp. chap. ji. 13. Calvin inaccu-
rately interprets: in media pugna jam extra periculum sunt, quia fuluri sunt
superiores. John could say to his readers, vevexixare, not only inasmuch as in
them was mighty the strength of Him who had said, dapoeire, éyd vevixnxa rdv
xéouov, and inasmuch as they in Him were sure of ultimate success (Ne-
ander, Diisterdieck), but also inasmuch as their opponents with their seduc-
tive arts must have been put to shame by their faithfulness, and must have
been repulsed by them (Ebrard, Braune). The cause of this victory, however,
did not and does not lie in the human power of believers, but in the fact ére
peifur toriv 6 év tyiv 7 6 by rd xdouy. —6 ev wpiv, i.e., 6 Oed¢ (according to Gro-
tius, Erdmann, and others: 6 Xpioré¢); as the believer is of God, God remains
in him as the soul of his life; 6 & rq xdopw, 1.€., 6 dtaBodoc, “ whose children
the antichrists are” (Liicke). Instead of the more particular év abroig, John
uses the more general év 7a xéouy, in order thereby to signify that they,
although they were for a while in the Church, belong nevertheless to the
xoopoc, Which the following words expressively bring out.
Ver. 5. In chap. ii. 19, John had said of the false teachers, ot eloty &£ fudv;
now he states ftom what source they spring; this is the xéayoc; the anti-
christian nature in them belonged to the world, quatenus Satanas est ejus prin-
ceps (Calvin). The manifestation of life corresponds with the source of it;
because they are of the world, dia rovro éx rod xéapov AaAodac; éx 7. xéopov
Aadeiv means: to speak that which the xdopoc supplies, to take the burden
of their speech from the xdouocg, ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere
(Bengel). This is not identical with é« ri yi Aadeiv (John iii. 31), for 7 >
is not an ethical idea like 6 xéopuac,—xa? 6 xdopog abrov dnote]. The false
1 Braune thinks that fin these passages it ever, that the substantive idea rd rov ayrixp.
was of importance to form a substantive is here also more aignificant than a mere
conception, but that here the simple genitive genitive connected with «ony.
would have been sufficient; it ie plain, how-
CHAP. IV. 6. | 583
prophets had gone out from the Church into the world, to which they in-
wardly belonged, and proclaimed to it a wisdom which originated in it;
therefore the world heard them, i.e., gave to their words applause and assent,
T@ yap dpoiy rd duoov mooorpéxes (Oecumenius) ; in contrast to which, believers
were hated and persecuted by the world.
Ver. 6. jqyeic]. Antithesis of adroi, ver. 5; either specially John and the
other apostles (Storr, Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune, etc.) as the true
teachers, or believers generally (Calvin, Spener, Liicke, De Wette, etc.); in
favor of the former interpretation is the fact that believers are addressed
in this section in the second person, together with the following dxote: fucv,
as also the antithesis to pevdorpogijra: indicates leachers. — With ix rod Qeod
fouev we are to supply, according to ver. 5, the thought, da rotro éx rov Oecd
Aadovuer; the following words, 6 yweoxwy rdv Oedv dxover judy, contain the proof
of the thought just expressed. —6 y.». 16v Ocdv forms the antithesis of 6 xécpor,
and is synonymous with d¢ gory tx r. Oecd, for it is only he who is a child of God
that possesses the true knowledge of God. According to Liicke and others,
the apostle means by this, those to whom belongs the “ general é roi Geow
tiva, i.e., the divine impress and instinct, which is the condition of childhood
of God in Christ ;”" but the expression itself is opposed to this, for the knowl-
edge of God is necessarily conditioned by faith in Christ. —In the second
clause, d¢ ob« tori . . . obx dx, Qudv, &¢ . . . Oeov forms the antithesis to 6 ywo-
oxur tr, Oeov. This is the antithesis between “world” and “church of the
children of God.” — In the concluding clause, é« rovrov ... ri¢ wAdvne, it is to
the immediately preceding thought that é« rvirov refers. According to the
usual view, with which Dusterdieck agrees, the sense of this passage is: He
who hears the apostles shows thereby that the mvetua rig dAndeiag is in him; he
who, on the contrary, does not hear them, shows that the wv, rig rAdvng is in
him; it is in his relation to the apostolic teaching that any one shows of what
spirit he is the child.!. But, according to the train of thought in this section,
it is not the spirit of the hearers, but that of the teachers, that is the subject
(80 also Myrberg and Braune); the sense therefore is: That the mveipa ric
mAdvn¢ prevails in the false prophets, may be known by this, that the world
hears them; that in us, on the contrary, the rveipa rg dAndeiag dwells, may
be perceived by this, that those who know God, i.e., the children of God, hear
us. The xv. ri¢ dAndeiag cannot be in him whom the world hears, nor can
the wv. ri¢ mAdvnc be in him whom the children of God hear; Braune: “the
nv, tie maavng is certainly in him whom the world hears, and the ry», rig dAn-
Geiag in him whom the childrey of God hear.” — rd rveipa rig dAndeiacg; comp.
John xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13; a description of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as
He not only produces a knowledge of the truth, but “makes the truth His
very nature” (Weiss).2 rd 2», ric xAavyc, the spirit that emanates from the
1 Luther: “If we hear God's true messen- _with that of John x. 3-5, where Christ appeals
gers, that is a plain token of true religion; if, fora proof that He ts the Good Shepherd, to
however, we despise and mock them, that is a the fact that the sheep know and hear bis
plain token of error.” voice, whilst they do not know the voice of
2 The tbought of this passage corresponds _ the stranger, and flee from it.
584 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Devil, which seduces men to falsehood and error: comp. chap. i. 8; 1 Thess.
ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1.
Vv. 7-21. After the apostle, induced by the appearance of the anti-
christian nature, has characterized the spirit of truth and the spirit of error,
he passes on directly to a detailed account of the elements of faith and love
alluded to in chap. iii. 238.
Vv. 7, 8. Exhortation to mutual: love, and the establishing of this. —
The address dyarnroi emphatically introduces the command: dyanapev. — The
object 44A7A0vce shows that here also it is not human love in general, but
Christian brotherly love, that is the subject. Mutual love is the holiest
calling of Christians who are réxva rob Geod, for 7 dydmy ex tov Oend eort,) 1.€.,
love proceeds from God. Calovius: originem habet a Deo. Unsatisfactory
is the explanation of Grotius: Deo mazime placet bonitas. 4% dayarn is used
without a determining object, because it is love in its full extent that is
meant. — kal rig 6 dyaniy éx row Oeod yryévvnrat, x.7.A,]. Inference from what
immediately precedes. If love is of God, then he who lives in love must
also be born of God and know Him. The relation of dyamgy and é rov Ocow
yeyevviodu is not to be defined thus, that the former is the condition of the
latter (De Wette), but thus, that the former is to be regarded as the criterion
of the latter; to be born of God does not follow from love, but love follows
from being born of God. The same relationship exists also between ayamgy
and yivdoxerv rdv Oeov; 2 what sort of a knowledge of God is meant, however,
is seen from the close connection of ywdoxec with éx rob Oeob yeyevynrar. —
Ver. 8. From the foregoing it follows further: 6 u) dyamév obn Eyvw rov Océv;
obx Eyve, i.e., “has not known.” The reason is: S57 6 Oed¢ dyin écriv. — By
this thought the preceding 7 ayann tx rot Geni éori receives its full compre-
hension. — ayam7 is without the article, because it is considered as a general
definition of the nature of God; so ver. 16, comp. i. 5: 56 @edc¢ gig éori.
‘Love is not so much a quality which God has, as rather the all-embracing
total of what He is” (Besser). Luther: Deus nihil est quam mera caritas ;
Grotius, tamely: plenus est dilectione.
Ver. 9. The manifestation of the love of God is the sending of His Son.
—v robry refers to the following 61, —égavepi6n 4 ayarn rot Oeov ev hyir).
égavepion expresses the objective fact, not the subjective knowledge; the
apostle does not mean that the love of God is known by us through the
sending of His Son (comp. ver. 16), but that it has by that means come
1 Neander : ‘‘ The apostle does not here lay
down a commandment of love; he does not
want to impress on believers new motives for
love, but to convince them, that, 8s sure as they
are God's children, this fact must be mani.
fested by mutual love. — As proof he adduces
that love is of God, and therefore every one
who loves is born of God.”
2 It was previously stated in this com-
mentary: ‘John does not here say that love
Hows from the knowledge of God, but that
Jove, because it is of divine nature, necesearily
brings with it the knowledge of God.” This
is incorrect, since ywwoxes toy Geoy stands in
the same relationship to ayarwy as ex tov @eou
yeyevvnrac does, even though It is in iteelf true
also that only he who himeelf loves can really
know God, who is love. For the correct
explanation, see Lticke, Braune, Weiss. It
haa already been observed, however, that the
last-named does not correctly state the connec-
tion between being born of God and the
knowledge of God, as he makes the latter
the condition of the former.
CHAP. IV. 9. 585
forth from its concealment, has manifested itself in act. é» jyiv is therefore
neither “in” nor “among” us; neither must it be explained = ei¢ jmdc; dv is
here, as in ver. 16 and John ix. 3 = “to;” either connected with égavepdon
or with 4 dyann r. 0.; hence, either “it has been manifested to us” (Diister-
dieck, Briickner, Braune, etc.), or, “the love of God to us” (Ewald) has
been manifested. With the first interpretation the sentence: dr... ei¢
rov xéopov, makes @ difficulty which has been overlooked by the commenta-
tors;! with regard to the second, the article 7 is wanting before é juiv;
but a direct connection of an attributive clause with a substantive, without
a connecting article, is very often found in the N. T., and is therefore not
“ungrammatical” (as Diisterdieck thinks); the idea is here, then, the same
as that which John in ver. 16 expresses by: 7 dyumy iw Exet 6 Ocdc év tyiv.?
The difference between cic yude and év jyuiv is this, that the former indicates
only the tendency towards the goal, the latter the abiding at the goal. By
quiv we are to understand not mankind in general, but believers in partic-
ular, so also ver. 10 in the case of metic, «.7r.A.—In the following sentence:
drt rdv vidv abrod . . . iva Growuev de’ airov, the special emphasis rests on the last
words, for the love which God has towards us is manifested in the fact that
He sent His Son into the world for this purpose, that we might live through
Hin, i.e., become partakers through Him of the life ‘of blessedness. It is
especially in its purpose that the sending of His Son is the manifestation of
God’s love to us. The more particular description of the Son of God as
& povoyevnc, Which is frequently found in the Gospel of John, appears only
here in his Epistles. In Luke (vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38) and in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (xi. 17), uovoyevns denotes the only child of his parents. So
the expression is used by John also to denote Christ as the only Son of God,
‘‘ besides whom His Father has none.” This predicate is suitable to Him,
inasmuch as He is the Adyog who is év dpyp, npdc rov Gedv, Ordg. Lorinus arbi-
trarily explains yovoyevi¢ = ayarnrd¢; comp. Meyer on John i. 14. Calvin
rightly remarks: “quod unigenitum appellat, ad auxesin valet.” How great
the love of God, in that He sent His only begotten Son in order that we
might live! Baumgarten-Crusius: ‘ poveyevne and Gjouzev are the principal
words: the most glorious . . . for our salvation!”
1 Even Ebrard has not perceived the diffi.
culty. It liea in this, that by or, «.7.A.,
something is mentioned which happened for
us, but not which happened éo us; differently
in John ix. 3. Briickner thinks that the diffi-
culty ie removed by the fact that ‘‘{n the pur-
pose of the sending of Christ there also lies
something which happened fo us; incorrectly,
since even if the purpose of that fs our |ife
(iva Chooueyv), yet it cannot be said that the
love shown in the sending of Chriet has mani-
feasted itself to us; the result is then that
édavepwOy is taken = *‘ has operated,” and that
an emphasise is laid on é» nuiw which it does
Not receive from the context.
* Licke incorrectly observes that with this
connection there is in év nur ‘ something
superfluous and unsuitable.” This is so far
from being the case, that it is juet in this that
the apostle arrives at the consideration of the
relationship between God and the believer.
True, the love of God relates to the whole
world, John ili. 16: nyaryncer 6 Geos Tdy KOc-
pov, and to all, without exception, He has
given, by sending His Son, the possibility of
not being loet, but obtaining eternal life, but
the loving purpose of God ls accomplished
only in them that believe; the unbelieving
remain dy opyp rou @eov; hence the love of God
to the world is more narrowly limited than His
love to believers, who are Lis réxva.
586 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 10. dv robrw éoriv 7 ayarn, i.e., “herein consists love,” love is in its
nature of this kind. Oecumenius, inaccurately: év roiry, deixvyrat, drt ayary
goriv 6 Oed¢; for éori is not = deixvyraz; nor is rod Geow to be supplied with
97 ayann (with Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, etc.), but the expression means
love in general, as in ver. 7 in the words: 9 ayazn éx rod Ocob éori (Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Braune). — oby dri queig nyamjoapev rov Oedv, GAA’ ért, x.7.A.]. Grotius
and Lange arbitrarily render ovy ore here = dr: oby. Several commentators
take the first part as, according to its sense, a subordinate clause = yor pd
ayarnoaytuv. Meyer: “Herein consists love, in that, although we had not
previously loved God, He nevertheless loved us;’’! this, however, is incor-
rect; as John in ver. 7 has said that love is é« ros Oeov, so here also he would
emphasize the fact that love has its origin not in inan, but in God; it is
originally in God, and not first called forth in Him by the love of men; the
latter is rather first the outcome of the djvine love;? the words ovy dre
therefore serve to specify love as something divine, not, however, as Diis-
terdieck (who otherwise interprets correctly) thinks, to emphasize the fact
that “the love of God to us is entirely undeserved;” this is a thought
which is only to be derived from the statement of the apostle (Braune). —
nueic and avréc are emphatically contrasted with one another. —xail dméorede
tov vidv avrod, x.7.A., states the actual proof of abrdc qyarnoev qucc; here also
the special emphasis rests, not on dréorede, but on JAacpdv, x.7.A.. which
corresponds fo the iva Gowyev of ver. 9, inasmuch as it states the basis of
the (w7; with iAacusy, comp. chap. ii. 2. The aorists #yanjoauev, gyarneoe,
anéoredev, are to be retained as historical tenses (De Wette); by the perfect
azéoradxev, ver. 9, the sending of Christ is merely stated, whereas the aorist
employed here narratively depicts the loving act of God in the sending of
His Son (Liicke).
Ver. 11. Conclusion from vv. 9 and 10, giving the motive for the exhor-
tation in ver. 7.— The love of God (previously described: obru¢) to us obliges
us, believers, to love one another. The obligatory force lies not merely in
the example given by God's act of love, but also in this, that we by means
of it have become the children of God, and as such love as He loves (Liicke).
At the same time, however, the correspondence between jydc and aAAnAoug is
to be observed ; the Christian, namely, as a child of God, feels himself bound
to love his brother because he knows that God loves him, and him whom God
loves God’s child cannot hate.
Ver. 12. The blessing of brotherly love is perfect fellowship with God.
— Ordv obdeig mamore tedéatar; comp. ver. 20 and Gospel of John i. 18. In
opposition to Rickli'’s view, that these words were spoken in polemic refer-
ence to the false teachers who pretended to see God, i.e., to know Him fully,
1 Similarly a Lapide: ‘‘ Hic caritatem Del give a different meaning to the dx in each
case:
ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla
dilectione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus,
imo multis injurils et sceleribus nostris offen-
sus, prior dilexit nos.”
2 With this interpretation it is not at all
necessary, as Baumgarten-Crusius thinks, to
‘not as if... but In tho fact that;
but or: has the same meaning both times, as
the sense fa: ‘this Is not the nature of the
love that ece were the first to love, but that
God was the first to love.”
CHAP. IV. 12. 587
Lucke rightly asserts that in that case the apostle would have more definitely
expressed the polemic element; re6éarac does not here at-all denote spiritual
seeing or knowledge (Hornejus, Neander, Sander, Erdmann), but seeing in
the strict sense of the word (De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune). John, how-
ever, does not here emphasize this invisibility of God (in which He is infi-
nitely exalted above man; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16) in order to suggest that we
can reciprocate the love of God, not directly, but only through love to our
visible brethren (Lucke, Ebrard; similarly Hornejus, Lange, etc.), but in
order thereby to emphasize still more the following: 6 Qcdg év quiv pévet, x.t.2.,
as the Scholiast in Matthiae indicates by paraphrasing, 0 adparoc Oed¢ nal dvé-
gixzoc dia THE cic GAAHAUY, ayannge iv fuiv péver; a Lapide correctly interprets: licet
eum non videamus, tamen, si proximum diligamus, ipse invisibilis erit nobis prae-
sentissimus (so also De Wette, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune).
The swore which is added shows that reééara: is regarded as the simple per-
fect, and does not “include past and present” (Liicke); nevertheless with
the thought, “no one has seen God at any time,” the further thought, “no
one can see Him,” is tacitly combined. That the apostle had in view the
passage Exod. xxxiii. 20 (Sander), is the more improbable, as both thought
and expression are different. In reference to the appearances of God which
the ©. T. in Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, and elsewhere, relates, Spener rightly
remarks: “ All such was not the seeing of the Divine Being Himself, but of
an assumed form in which His being manifested itself.” — éav dyandpev cAAg-
Aovc, 0 Osdg év juiv péver]. In these words the blessing of brotherly love is
stated: With brotherly love fellowship with God is associated, because, in-
deed, love is of God. The explanation of several commentators, “if we love
one another, then it may thereby be known that God is in us,” weakens the
thought of the apostle.! God’s dwelling in us is certainly not meant to be
represented here as a result or fruit of our love to one another (as From-
mann, p. 109, interprets); and just as little is it the converse relation; but
it is the inseparable co-dependence of the two elements, which mutually
condition each other (so also Braune). — aa? 9 yarn avrov teTteAciwpévn éoriv by
qui). # ayary atrov is not here “the love which God has to us” (Calovius,
Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Erdmann, etc.), for the idea rereAeupévy éoriv
does not agree with this (comp. ver. 18), but the love which the believer has;
atrov may, however, be either the objective genitive (so most commentators)
or the subjective genitive; but in the latter case we must not interpret, with
Socinus: ea dilectiv, quam ipse Deus nobis praescripsit,” nor, as Calvin thinks
probable: “caritas, quam Deus nobis inspirat,” but “the love which ts inherent
in God” (which is His nature and 2& atrov); this, however, considered as
dwelling in believers (év ju») as the soul of their life (so also Briickner and
1 Weiss Insieta on thie interpretation, be-
cause ‘‘it is meant to be shown how we have
in brotherly love the visible evidence of an
existence of God who isin Himeelf invisible ;"’
incorrectly, for (1) Christians need no visible
proof of the existence of the invisible God,
and, besides, it ie not the existence of God, but
God's dwelling in us, etc, that is the aubject
here; (2) the conjunction ¢ay shows that the
subordinate clause states the condition under
which what fs stated In the principal clause
takes place; (3) the supplement of a ywwwonouey
ie purely arbitrary.
588 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Braune). This explanation, in which no object which would restrict the
general idea of love has to be supplied (comp. vv. 7, 8, 16, 18), deserves
the preference, because the specific love to God is first mentioned in ver. 19.
Quite unjustifiably Ebrard asserts that 7 ay. avrov denotes “ the mutual loving
relationship between God and us; comp. ii. 5.”
Ver. 18. The token of .our fellowship with God (é air pévoyev corre-
sponds to the preceding 4 dyary avrov ... tv muiv) is dre én tov mvebuatoc
avrow déduxev quiv; comp. iii. 24. The expression, éx roi mveiyaroc (instead
of 1d mveipa), is explained by the fact that the «vetua of God is the entire
fulness of the life of God operating in believers, of which his share is given
to each individual. The expression is not to be connected with the c:aipeser
tov xaptouatuy, of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. xii. 4,11. Compare Acts ii. 17;
in reference to Christ it is said: ov« é« pérpou didwot 7d rveipa, Gospel of John
ili. 34. Against the view that by mveiya here “love” or a similar quality is
to be understood, Spener says: “it is the Spirit Himself, and not His gifts
only, that we receive.” !— én does*not mean “if” (Baumgarten-Crusius),
for John supposes that his readers are believers, and as such are certainly
partakers of the Spirit.
Vv. 14,15. That love brings with it fellowship with God, is caused by
the fact that God is love, and love springs from God. But God's love was
made manifest by the sending of His Son, and this is testified by the apostles,
who themselves have seer Him. The last thought which ver. 14 expresses
serves as an introduction to the thought that follows in ver. 15, in which the
believing confession (and therefore faith) is described as the condition of
fellowship with God, and hence also of true love.—sxai queis]. By jyueic John
means here himself and his fellow-apostles; comp. ver. 6.— re@edueda xa
paprupovev, comp. chap. i. 1,2. re@euveda expresses the direct seeing (Gos-
pel of John i. 14), not knowledge through the medium of others. The
apostles saw that the Father sent the Son, inasmuch as they saw the Son
Himself —and not after the flesh merely, but also as the uovoyevac mapa marpor.
With regeauzeda corresponds the closely-connected idea uvaptvpoiuev, which
presupposes one’s own direct experience; comp. Gospel of John i. 34. — The
subject of this testimony is, dre 6 rargp dxéoradxe Trav vidv owrtipa Tov Koopov, COMP.
vv. 9, 10; ourfpa 7. x. states the purpose of the sending, which does not refer
to particular elect ones, but to the whole number of sinners (comp. chap. ii. 2
and Gospel of John iii. 16). — Ver. 15. With dpzodoygoy, comp. ver. 2. The
subject of the confession is dre 'Inoove éarev 6 vidg rov Gov; this is precisely
what the antichrists deny; comp. vv. 2 and 3. — Weiss erroneously inter-
prets: “ Whosoever abides in this confession, in him it is seen that God is in
him;” the words “in him.-it is seen” are a mere interpolation.
Ver. 16. The beginning of this verse, «a? queic, is indeed of the same im-
port as the beginning of ver. 14; but gueic here does not merely mean the
1 Weiss incorrectly uses this passage as a here does not specify the personality of tbe
proof that, whilet Jesus considered the Holy Spirit, yet it is in no way contradictory to it.
Ghoet as a personal being, John had not yet Besides, Weiss himself admits that the passage
perfectly taken hold of thia conception; for ro mvevua éoriv 7 adndeca (chap. v. 6), pointe
even if it be admitted that the expression used _—to the personality of the Spirit.
CHAP. IV. 17. 589
apostles (Myrberg), for otherwise év nuiv also would have to be referred to
them, and a contrast, here inappropriate, would be drawn between the
apostles and the readers, but it is used in its more general sense (as most
commentators take it), which is also indicated by the connection of this
verse with the preceding one. — With ¢yviaayev xai memoreixauev, comp. John
vi. 69. As the object of faith must have been previously made known to us,
and hence made the subject of knowledge before we can take hold of it in
faith, and as, on the other hand, it is only through faith that knowledge
becomes the determining principle of our life, and these two elements mu-
tually condition each other continually in the Christian life, knowledge,
therefore, can be put before faith, as. here, and faith can also be put before
knowledge, as in John vi. 69.1 — ry dyanny, iy Exe 6 Cede ev juiv is not, with
Wilke (Hermeneutik des N. T , II. 64), to be interpreted: “the love which
God has in us, i.e., as a love dwelling in us,” or, with Ebrard: “God's love
which He has kindled in us, by means of which, as by His own nature, He
works in us,” for the verbs éyvé«apyev and memoreixauev Show that the subject
here is not something subjective, and therefore not our love (which only in
so far as it is the outcome of the divine love is described as the love which
God has in us), but something objective, and therefore the love of God, which
has manifested itself in the sending of His Son for the propitiation for our
sins. é» is used here just as in ver. 9. The following words, 6 Oedy dyann
tori, x.7.4., which are closely connected with what immediately precedes,
formin the keystone of the foregoing, inasmuch as the particular ideas of the
previous context are all embraced in them. — On o @ed¢ ay. éati, see ver. 8.
—xal 6 pévwy, «.7.4.,18 the inference from the thought that God is love, in
this way, namely, that all true love springs from Him. The idea of love
here is not to be restricted to brotherly love (ver. 12, éav ayamGuev dAAniorc),
but (as also Diisterdieck, Braune, and Weiss remark) is to be understood
quite generally. The idea of fellowship with God is here expressed just as
in ver. 15. If John makes it at one time dependent on knowledge, and at
another dependent on love, this is explained by the fact that to him both
knowledge and love are the radiations of that faith by means of which the
new birth operates.
Ver. 17. After the apostle has said in ver. 16, that he that dwelleth in
love (and therefore no one else) has fellowship with God, he now indicates
wherein love shows itself as perfected; the thought of this verse is accord-
1 Lficke: ‘ True faith is, according to John,
lutelligent and experienced; true knowledge
ie a believing knowledge. Both together form
the complete Christian conviction, so that John,
when he wants to express thie very strongly,
puts them both together, in which case it 18
indifferent whether the one or the other comes
first.” Comp. aleo Neander on thie passage,
and Kustlin, Der Lehrbegr. des Eov., etc., pp.
63, 215 ff.
3 Weiss further erroneously observes that
‘Shere also being in God ie not to be made
dependent on love, but love on being In God.”
§ Ebrard introduces a reference foreign to
the passage when he Includes in pevey ey ry
aydérp also the ' dwelling in the love of God to
us, in faith in God's love;’’ Erdmann also
incorrectly interpreta: “ ry wdvew ey TH ayarn
eadem anim! nostri ad caritatem Dei relatio
denotatur, quae verbis éyywxanery cat wemioTey-
cauey aignificatur.” Had the apostle meant
this, he would have added to ayarpn, as a more
particular definition, rov @«cov. Comp. Gospel
of Jobn xv, 10.
590 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ingly connected with the preceding: 6 wévuv év 19 dyamy.— ev robrw reredsiorat
ayarn ped’ nuav}. Several commentators, Luther, Calvin, Spener, Grotius,
Hornejus, Calovius, Semler, Sander, Besser, Ewald, ete., understand by 4
ayény “the love of God to us,” interpreting ped’ judy = ei¢ qydc, and rereAciwrat
as referring to the perfect manifestation of the love of God. Grotius: hic
est summus gradus delectionis Dei erga nos.1_ This interpretation, however,
has the context against it, for in ver. 16: 6 pévwv év 79 dyary, as well as in
ver. 18: & gdfo¢ obx Eotw év r9 dyary, by dyamy is meant the love of man, the
love that dwells in us; comp. also ver. 12. Here also, therefore, aya must
be understood of this love, with Estius, Socinus, Lange, Liicke, De Wette,
Neander, Gerlach, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc. ; reredeiwra: is used in the same
sense as rereAciupivy éotev, ver 12; comp. also ver. 18: 9 reAeia ayarn. — It is
not the object of the love that is described by se6’ nucv, for vera is not = eg,
but it means “in;”? it either belongs to the verb: “therein is love made
perfect in us” (Liicke, Da Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.; Erdmann, who
explains pera = év), or to dyamn: “the love which exists (prevails) in us is,”
etc. With the first construction, the addition appears rather superfluous;
besides, its position would then be more natural before 7 dyary. The
underlying idea is that the love which has come from God (for all the love
is éx rov Oeov) has made its abode with believers. Here, also, 7 ayazy is used
without more particular definition, as in ver. 16, and is therefore not to be
limited to a specific object (so also De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune); it is
therefore neither merely “love fo the brethren” (Socinus, Liicke,® etc.), nor
merely “love fo God” (Lange, Erdmann); Baumgarten-Crusius not incor-
rectly explains the idea by “the sentiment of love,” only it must not be
forgotten that true love is not merely sentiment, but action also; comp. chap.
ill. 18. — év ror does not refer to the preceding, nor to dwelling in love,
nor to fellowship with God, but to what follows; not, however, to éri, as
Beza,‘ Grotius, etc., assuming an attraction, think, but to iva rafpyoiay Eqyuuev
1 Sander: ‘‘That it te made perfect must
only mean: this love of God which was mani.
fested in the sending of His Son is manifested
in its might and glory in this, that, as over.
coming every thing, It brings us so far that
we,” etc. — Calovius: “ Perficitur dilectio Def
in nobis, non ratione sui, alc enim absolute
perfecta est, sed ratione nostri, non quoad
existentiam, sed quoad experientiam.”’
2 Honce 9» ay. ned" nuwy is neither a7 ay.
(rob Geov) eis nuas, Nor = 7 ayawn (nuwy) as
GAAHAovs, as Litcke {in his let ed. interpreta
(‘‘our love among ourselves, f.e., our mutual
love’); still leas justifiable is the interpreta-
tion of Rickli: ‘‘the mutual love between God
and the believer;”’ for John never includes
God and men in nuets. When Ebrard, admit-
ting this, nevertheless acccpte the interpreta-
tion of Rickii as far as the sense is concerned,
explaining ‘‘ the love of God with us” by “ the
love which existe betweeu God and ue,” this
is purely arbitrary, for even though perd is
frequently used to denote a reciprocal action
(see Winer, p. 336; VII. p. 352 ff.), yet this
reference is here unsuitable, for it is not God
and we, but dove and we, that are placed to-
gether. Moreover, to supply tov @eou with 9
ayarn ie at the beat only defensible if in neo
yuwy the subject to which the love refers is
stated; but this is grammatically impossible.
If, as Ebrard thinks, 7 ayarn denotes not love,
but the love-relationship, then 9 ayarn wee’
juwv may only mean “ the loving-relationship
that exists among us;"" thie idea, however, as
Ebrard with justice says, does not sult the
context.
8 According to Bertheau’s note in the 3d ed.
of Liicke’s Commentary (p. 364), Liicke has,
however, in the edition of 1851, interpreted »
ayawy: ‘brotherly love combined with love to
God.”
4 Beza's interpretation runs: ‘' Churitas
CHAP. IV. 17. 691
by 19 huépa tie xpioeac. From ver. 18 it is clear that the chief aim of the
apostle is to emphasize the fact that perfect love (7 redeia ayarn, ver. 18) is
free from fear, or that he who is perfect in love (reredempévog tv rg dyary)
experiences no fear, but has confident boldness (xafpnoia). The thought of
this verse is no other than this, that love has its perfection in the fact that it
fills us with such zafpnoia; the clause beginning with iva therefore contains
the leading thought, to which the following én is subordinated. It is true,
the combination éy rovrw . . . tva (instead of dr, vv. 9, 10, and frequently)
is strange, but it is quite John’s custom ta use the particle of purpose, iva,
not seldom as objective particle; the same combination is found in the
Gospel of John xv. 8 (Meyer, indeed, differently on this passage); comp.
chap. iii. 10, 23: atry . . . iva (Gospel of John xvii. 3); by Iva, rappnciav
yey is indicated as the goal, not “ which God has in view in the perfecting
of love in us” (Braune), but which the dyérn in its perfection attains
‘(Diisterdieck). With xafnciav tev, comp. chap. ii. 28.1— The auépa ri¢
xpicews is the day brav gavepwOg ‘Insotc Xprordc, ii. 28. The preposition is
not to be interpreted = eic, and éywuev is not to be taken as a future (Ewald:
“that we shall have”); the difficulty that any thing future (behavior on the
judgment-day) should be taken as the evidence of perfect love in the present
(rereAeiurat is not to be taken as future complete, bunt as perfect: “has been
made perfect,” or “has become perfect” = “is perfected”), is removed if
we take it that in é the mafpnola, which the believer will have at the
judgment-day, and which he already has when he thinks of the judgment,
is included, which could the more easily occur in John, as in his view the
judgment-day did not lie in far-off distance, but was already conceived as
begun (chap. 11. 18). The future wafpnoia is to him in his love already
present; similarly De Wette, Sander, Besser.2— The following words: dre
xabos . . . Tory, serve to establish the foregoing thought. By éxeivoc we are
not to understand, with Augustine, Bede, Estius, Lyranus, Castalio, ete.,
God, but, with most commentators, Christ, who is also suggested by the
idea: 4 fuépa rig xpictewc. — The comparison (xadu¢) does not refer to eiva: éy
adimpletur in nobis per hoc quod qualls tlle
ext, tales et nos simus in hoc mundo, ut fidu.
clam habeamus fn die judicii.”
1 In Luther's version, wappyoia is here, as
eleewhere frequently, translated by Freudig-
keit; this is not a word derived from /freude
(joy), but the old German word /reidikeit
(from freidic, fraidig) = haughtiness, bold.
ness, confidence (comp. Vilmar’s Pastoral.
theol. Bidtter, 1861, vole. i. and fi. p. 110 ff.);
In the older editions It is written sometimes
Sreydickeyt (Wittenb. ed. 1525), sometimes
Sreydigkett (NUrnberg ed. 1524), bat In 1537
(ja a Strasburg ed.) freudigkett. In what
senso Luther understood the word, {is clearly
seen from a sermon on 1 John Iv. 16-21 (see
DPlochman’s ed., x!x. 883), in which he says:
‘the means that faith should thus show iteelf,
so that when the last day comes, you may have
boldness and atand firm.”’ It fe to be obeerved
also, that such Hebrew and Greek words as
contain the idea of joy, Luther never trans.
lates by that word (‘‘boidnese”’), but by
66 joyous," ee joy.”
3 Braune, though he explains correctly tho
particular thought, denies that these two ele.
mente are here to be regarded as combined;
but without entering into the difficulty which
lics In the expression. Ebrard states the
meaning of the worde incorrectly thus: ‘In
the fact that the till of God, that we should
have boldness in the day of judgment, is in.
ternally revealed to us, and manifests itself as
a power (of confidence) in us (even now), the
loving relationship of God with us is shown
to be perfect... How many elements foreign
to the context are here introduced |
592 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
To Kdony Toor», 80 that the sense would be: “as Christ is in this world, so
are we also in this world,” for (1) Christ is no longer in this world (comp.
Gospel of John xvii. 11), and (2) in the fact that we are in this world lies
no reason for rupproia at the day of judgment. By xaddc . . . xai it is rather
the similarity of character that is brought out, as in ii. 16, where xada—¢ does
not refer to the idea of zeprareiv in itself, but to the character of the walk,
so that it is to be interpreted: “as the character of Christ is, so is our
character also;” in the second clause odruc is to be supplied, as in 1 Cor.
viii. 2; Eph. iv. 17,21. What sort of character is meant, must be inferred
from the context; it is entirely arbitrary to find the similarity in the
temptation (Rickli) or in the sufferings of Christ (Grotius), or in the fact
that Christ was in the world but not of it (Sander), for there is no such
reference in the context. But it is also inadmissible to regard as the more
particular definition of xa6dé¢ the dixasocivy (Diisterdieck), or the sonship of
God (Liicke: “as Christ is the Son of God, so are we also children of God”),
for neither do these ideas appear in the context. We are rather to go back
to 6 uévev év ry dyary, and accordingly to refer xaééc¢ to love (so Lorinus:
“reddit nos charitas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei:” Bengel,
De Wette, Ewald, Myrberg, Braune, etc.),! so that the sense is: “if we live
in love, then we do not fear the judgment of Christ, because then we are
like Him, and He therefore cannot condemn us.”2 The present écri is to
be retained as a present, and not to be turned into the preterite (Oecume-
NlUS: we exeivoc hu év TH Kdopw duwuoc nal xadapéc). Love is the eternal nature
of Christ, comp. iii. 7: nadie éxeivos dixadc 2arcv. In the concluding words:
tv r@ koopy rovry, which belong, not to éon, but only to éouev, it is brought
out that we are still in the earthly world (x4cpuoc¢ ovrog is not an ethical
idea), whereas Christ has already ascended from it into heaven.
1 The reference of xa0ws to love is the only
one demanded by the context, so that it fs not
suitable to regard love only as a single element
in the likeness of believers to Christ which is
here spoken of, as ts the case with Licke, for
instance. Erdmann lays the chief emphasis
not so much on love as on fellowship with
God, which exists in love; but by cadws...
éor: it is not a relationship, but a quality, that
is indicated.
2 Ebrard in his interpretation arrives at no
definite result; as, on his supposition thal the
centre of the fertii comparationis lies in the
words év te xécpnm rovre, the present eort is
objectionable to him, be would prefer to con-
jecture ‘‘ovrws”’ fustead of éori; but “as a
faithful attention to the requirements of Bibli-
cal exegesis would scarcely permit such a con-
jecture,” he thinks that nothing else remains
but either to suppose that ¢ori (in the sense of
an historical present) ‘is added as an ind! ffer-
ent, colorless word,’”’ or to refer xa@Ows éx.
éory to the fact that Christ even now “‘atill
exists in the wicked world to a certuin extent,
namely, in the Church, which is His body.”
Ebrard regards the second conjecture as the
more correct, and in accordance with it thus
states the sense: ‘‘ We look forward to the
judgment with boldness, for, as He (in His
Church) fs still persecuted by the wicked
world (even at the present day), so are we
also in this world (as lambs among wolves) ”
(!). Ebrard groundlessly matntains, against
the explanation given in the text, ‘that with
it an ovrws could not be omitted, nay, that even
this would not suffice, but that it would have
to read: ore olog dxeivds dori, rocouros Kai
nuccs douey, and that even then the passage re-
mains obecure enough; ’’ and “‘ that with this
acceptation, ev 7. «x. 7, almost appears quite
superfluous and foreign.” Against the astate-
ment that ‘cour confidence in view of the
judgment could vot possibly be founded on
our likeness to Christ, but only on the love of
God as manifested in Christ,” it is a declaive
anewer that John in other passages as well
makes the rafpnoia dependent upon our char-
acter: comp. UL. 28, fil, 21.
CHAP. IV. 18. 593
Ver. 18 serves to establish the preceding thought, that love has its per-
fection in rappyoia, — p6Bor obx tore év 7 dyétg]. The thought is quite general
in its character: “ where love is, there is no fear” (Ebrard); ¢630¢ is there-
fore not specially the fear of God, and by ayarn we: are not to understand
specially love to God, but at the same time this general thought is certainly
expressed here in reference to the relationship to God. It is quite erroneous
to explain dydary here, with Calvin, Calovius, Flacius, Spener, etc., as “the
love of God to us;°! but it is also incorrect, with Liicke and others, to
understand by it, specially, brotherly love.2— The preposition é is not =
with (& Mons: ne se trouve avec la charité); Luther, correctly: ‘“ Fear is not
in love;” i.e., it is not an element in love, it is something utterly foreign to
it, which only exists outside it. By the following words, daa’ 7 redeia dyann
Fw BaArAe rdv gosov, the preceding thought is confirmed and expanded: love
not only has no fear in it, but it does not even endure it; where it enters,
there must fear completely vanish. Beza inadequately paraphrases the
adjective redsia by sincera, opposita simulationi; it is not love in its first
beginnings, love which is still feeble, but love in its perfection, that com-
pletely casts out fear. The reason why Jove does not suffer fear to be along
with it is, dre 6 @ofog xdAaory Exer, The word xdAace (besides here, only
in Matt. xxv. 46; comp. Wisd. xi. 14, xvi. 2, 24, xix. 4) has always the
meaning of “ punishment” (also LXX., Ezek. xiv. 3, 4, 7, xviii. 30, xliv. 32,
as incorrect translation of Siw) ; if we adhere to this meaning, that ex-
pression can only mean: fear has punishment, in which case that which it has
to expect is regarded as inherent in it, just as on the other hand it could be
said: 7 dyarn Fre Gudv alivov (this being considered as future happiness, as
in Matt. xxv. 46); this idea has nothing against it, for fear, as rooted
in unbelief, is in itself deserving of punishment, and therein lies the reason
(ér:) why perfect love casteth out fear.? Several commentators, however, ex-
plain xéAaoc by “ pain,” thinking that “ here causa is put pro effectu” (Ebrard),
or, in more correspondence with the thought, by “pain of punishment”
(Besser, Braune, so also previously in this commentary); similarly Liicke
explains «éAao = “consciousness of punishment.” The thought that then
results is indeed right in itself, for “certainly this having of xéAao¢ does
actually show itself in the consciousness or the pain of the expectation of
punishment” (Brickner); but such a change in the meaning of the idea
xodacee cannot be grammatically justified. The following sentence, o dé goo0%-
pevoc ob tertdeiwta év Ty dyann, Which is not connected with the subordinate
1 Calovius interprets: ‘‘Charitas divina,
quae apprehensa per fidem, omnem servilem
timorem expellit,” whereby a reference for-
eign to the context {is plainly introduced.
* For justification of thie Interpretation
Licke refers to the words cfw BadAec roy doBor,
and remarks: ‘it cannot be sald of the love
of God in its perfection, that it caste out fear of
God, for it has not got any.” But Jqhn does
not eay that love caste out fear out of iteelf;
the idea rather is, it drives fear out of the
heart In which it dwells before it (love) ob-
tains ite entrance. If aydary and dofos were
meant to have different references, the apostle
would certainly have indicated this.
8 It fe unnecessary to take the abstract (4
@oBos) for the concrete (o dofovpevos), as De
Wette and Dilsterdieck do; De Wette Incor.
rectly interpreta é¢xec by ‘‘recelves,’”’ and
Baumgarten-Crusius by ‘‘ keeps, tenet, thinks
of ... punishment” (eo that the sense is:
‘* Fear knows nothing of mercy, of love”),
594 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
clause dri 6 g6foc, x.7.A., but with the preceding principal clause, does not
contain a conclusion from this (dé is not = ovv), but (as Braune also thinks)
expresses the same thought in negative form (hence the connection by dé) ;
only with this difference, that what was there expressed in an objective way,
here receives a subjective aspect. It needs no proof, that the apostle has in
view in this verse no other fear than that of which Paul says, Rom. viii. 15,
oix éAcGere mvedpa dovdeiag nak ei¢ ¢680v, and therefore not the childlike
awe of God arising from the consciousness of God’s glory, which forms an
essential element of love to God.! The conjectures of Grotius, instead of
nOAactv . Kodovaw (1.e., mutilationem ; so that the sense is “metus amorem mutilat
alque infringit, aut prohibel, ne se exserat”’), and instead of goobpevog: xoAovoue-
voc (“qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione, ts in ea perfectus non est”); and
that of Lamb. Bos: instead of «éAaciw, xoAvow, are not merely useless, but
even rob the thought of the apostle of its peculiar force.
Ver. 19. music dyarapev}. According to this reading (omit adrév), ayangy
is here to be taken in the same comprehensive way as ayamn in ver. 16 (Diis-
terdieck, Myrberg,? Ebrard), and must not be restricted to “brotherly love ”
(Liicke). — dyardpev, in analogy with dyandyey in ver. 7, and with dpeiAouev,
ver. 11, is taken by Hornejus, Grotius, Lorinus, Lange, Liicke, De Wette-
Briickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, etc.,
as imperative subjunctive; but it might be more correct to regard this verse,
just as ver. 17, as an expression of the actual character of true Christians,
with whom, in ver. 20, by éav ree eiry the false Christian is contrasted, and
therefore to take dyanduev, with Beza, Socinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli,
Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schrifibew., II. 2, p. 338), Braune, etc., as in-
dicative, in favor of which is also the prefixed jueic. — The reason of fyei¢
ayanauev is stated in dr abrdg xpwroc Hyannoev jude, in Which the chief emphasis
rests on mpatoc; comp. vv. 9, 10.
Ver. 20-chap. v. 1. Proof of the necessary co-existence of love to God
and love to the brethren. The absence of the latter is evidence of the
absence of the former; where love to God is, brotherly love also cannot be
wanting.
Ver. 20. This verse divides itself into two parts, the second part confirm-
ing the thought of the first. — dy rug cinn]. The same form of thought as in
chap. i. 6 ff. — dr ayane rdv Oedv]. dre is used, as frequently, at the commence-
ment of the direct oration. — xa? rdv ddeAgav aitod wwog]. With suc corresponds
the subsequent 6 ua ayardv, comp. chap. iii. 14, 15. Spener: “not only with
actual hatred towards him, but even not loving him in perfect truth.”
To hate is the positive expression for “not to love” (so also Braune). —
1 That the fear which the apoetle means has
its necessary place aleo in the development of
the spiritual life, Augustine strikingly ex-
presses thus: ‘“‘ Timor quasi locum praeparat
charitati. Si autem nullus timor, non est qua
intret charitas. Timor Dei sic yulnerat quo-
modo medici ferramentum. Timor medica-
mentum, charitas sanitas. Timor servus est
charitatis. Timor est custose et paedagogus
legis, donec veniat charitas.""— The different
steps are thus stated by Bengel: ‘ Varius
hominum status: sine timore et amore; cum
timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine
timore cum amore.”
2 Myrberg remarks: “‘ Totum genus amoris
hic proponitur; sed ubi totum genus amoris
nuncupatur, ib! mens ante omnia fertar ad
considerationem amoris erga Deum.”
CHAP. IV. 21. 595
petornc éoriv; see chap. i. 6. The truth that he who hates (or, does not love)
his brother, also does not love God, the apostle confirms by the contrast be-
tween dv éopaxe and dv obx Edpaxeyv, in which the visibility of the brother
is contrasted with the invisibility of God. The perfect indicates the perma-
nent state; comp. ver. 12, Gospel of John i. 18. Liicke: éwpaxéva: = “to
have before one’s eyes;" a Lapide: “ virdit et assidue videt.” Socinus incor-
rectly lays a certain emphasis on the preterite when he says: quandoquidem
satis est ad amorem per cognitionem alicujus erga illum excitandum, quod quis
ipsum aliquando viderit ; nec necesse est, ut etiam nunc illum videat. The prem-
ise for the conclusion of the apostle is, that the visible — as the object
directly presented to the sight—is more easily loved than the invisible.
Even the natural man turns with love to the visible,! whereas love to God,
as the Unseen, requires an elevation of the heart of which only the saved
are capable. Hence brotherly love is the easier, love to God is the more
difficult. In him who rejects the former, the latter has certainly no place.
The truth that love to God is the condition of Christian brotherly love, is
not in contradiction with this; for that love, as the glorification of natural
love, has its necessary basis in the natural inclination which we have to our
visible brother, who is like us. It is therefore unnecessary to attach any
importance to elements which the apostle here leaves quite untouched, as is
the case with Calvin (with whom Sander, Ebrard, etc., agree) when he says:
A postolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deum se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui insculp-
tam gerunt EJUS IMAGINEM ; Joannes nil aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactan-
tiam, st quis Deum se amare dicat, et EJUS IMAGINEM, quae ante oculos est, negli-
gat;? and with De Wette in his interpretation: “the brother is the visible
empiric object of love; whereas God, the ideal invisible object, can really be
loved only in him.” By the interrogative mig divara dyangy (comp. chap.
iii. 17), and by placing the object rdv Geo» first, the expression gains in
vivacity and point. — rdc divarac must not be taken: “how can he attain to
that?” but “how can we suppose that he loves?” (Baumgarten-Crusius).
Bengel: sermo modalis: impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in praesenti.
Ver. 21. Alterum argumentum cur amare proximum (or, more correctly,
fratrem) debeamus: quia Deus id praecepit (Grotius). —x«al, not = and yet
(Paulus); for this verse does not contain an antithesis, but an expansion, of
the preceding thought. — ra6rnv rv évrodjy, «.7.4.]. Lange interprets évroAy
here by “ teaching;” and Grotius paraphrases 6 dyaxav rdv Oeov by gui a Deo
1 Oecumenius: épedcvotindy yap Spacce
dyaryvy. Hornejus: “Sicut omnis cognitio
noetra communiter a sensu incipit, ita amor
quoque, unde facilius et prius amatur, quod
facilius et promptius cognoscitur.” Similarly
Luther, Calovius, etc. Compare also the
statement of Gregory (Homil. XI.in Evang.) ;
* Ocull sunt {in amore duces;’’ and Philo (Ad
Decalog.): dpyjxavov evocheicOas roy adparoy
Uwo Tey cig TOVE éudapeis Kai dyyus dceBouUrTwy,
8 The objection of Ebrard, that ‘‘it is not
easier to love a person who stands visibly be-
fore me, and has, for instance, injured me,
than a person whom I have not seen at all,” is
overthrown by the fact that the apoetile does
not here make the slightest reference to the
conduct of persone standing In visible opposi-
tion to us, by whom the natural feeling of love
towards our equale is destroyed and turned
into hate. As the apostle is contrasting the
elements of visibility and invisibility, it is eo
much the more arbitrary to introduce here a
reference to the imago Dei, as this is not some-
thing visible, but something invisible, — the
object, not of sight, but of faith.
596 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
pro amante ipsius haberi vult; both false and unnecessary; for although
brotherly love is the natural fruit and activity of love to God, yet at the
same time the practice of it is the habitual task which he who loves God
has to perform, as one appointed him by God. It is doubtful whether we
are to understand by atrod God (Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Diister-
dieck, etc.) or Christ; that in the latter case éxeivov must be read, is unfounded;
because rdv Gedy follows, the second view seems to be the more correct; but
as in the context there is no reference here at all to Christ, it might be safer
to understand by airod God. — By iva referring back to ratryy, it is here, as
frequently after verbs of wishing and commanding, not so much the pur-
pose as the purport of the commandment (the realization of which is cer-
tainly the aim and object of the commandment) that is stated, which Braune
here also incorrectly disputes.
CHAP. V. 597
CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. Lachm. has bracketed the «ai before rdv yeyevynuévoy, because It is
wanting in B, some min., Vulg., Hil., ete. Instead of rdv yeyevvnuévov, ® reads
rd yey. as it runs in ver. 4. — Ver. 2. Instead of rnpapev, Rec. in A, G, K, &, ete.,
Lachm. and Tisch. read soiper, according to B, several min., Vulg., Syr.,
Thph., etc. The authorities, however, decide in favor of rnpopev, even A; in
which the following words: airy ydp . . . Tppapev, are wanting, perhaps through
a mistake. Still it remains likely that rypayev bas been inserted as John’s usual
expression (with évroAd¢) instead of totwpev,— Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. ri¢
éorw (A, G, al., pl., Vulg., etc., Lachm., Tisch. ), is found in B, K, several] min.,
etc.: ric orc dé; Tig dé tory; in & the dé is inserted, perhaps for closer connec-
tion of the clauses. — Ver. 6. Instead of aiuaroc, rvetyarog is found in some
min., etc.; in A, 8, some min., etc., is found the addition ; xai mvetyarog; others
read mvetuatocg xual aluaroc, and aluatog xa mvebyarog is also found; mvetpuaroc
is evidently a later addition. — The Rec. has before Xpioréc the article 46; it is
wanting in A, G, x (K: Xpesrd¢ 'Incouc) and, according to the statement of Tisch.
7, in B; according to Tisch, 2, it is found in B (namely, e silentio collaturum);
Buttmann has retained it, as well as Lachmann and Tisch. 2; Tisch. 7 has,
however, rejected it.—AInstead of suévov, B reads pow; a correction right
according to the sense. —<«al tq aixzart]. According to A, B, G, and many
others, Syr., Copt. (with Lachm. and Tisch.), «a? év r@ alu. is probably to be
substituted. Other variations, as mvebuarte instead of aluart, etc., do not call for
observation; the reading érs Xpcoroé¢ instead of dre rd rvedua need only be
mentioned, which, because it is found in the Vulgate, is the basis of several old
interpretations, although it is supported by scarcely any other authorities. —
Ver. 7. Before rpeic, * has the article of; but in this it is alone. — The words
that follow of paprupoivrec in the Rec.: év re obpava@, 6 warp, 6 Adyog xal
70 &ytov mvevua nal ovroe of rpeic &v elo (Ver. 8) Kal rpei¢ elorv
of paptupobyrec év rg yH, are rejected by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch, etc., and
are considered spurious by almost all modern commentators (except Sander,
Besser, Mayer). — They are wanting in all the Greek Codices, except in 1738**
(of the 16th cent.), 84, and 162; in the two latter, however, which also belong
only to the 16th cent., the words «al ol rpeicg rd év eiowv, and the articles 4, 4, rd,
are omitted. They are wanting, further, in almost all the versions. With
regard to the Latin Codices, they are only found in these after the 8th cent.;
the Codex Amiatinus (circa 541), Harleianus (of the 7th cent.), and others do
not contain them; the Codex Demidovianus has transposed them, thus: quia
trea sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, aptritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres unum
sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus.
— Of the Greek Fathers not a single one mentions them, although reference to
them would have been very convenient in the Arian controversies; just as little
598 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
is there any reference to them in most of the older Latin Fathers, as Hilary,
Lucifer, Ambrose, Faustinus, Jerome, Augustine, etc. An allusion to them has
incorrectly been believed to exist in Tertullian in the passages: c. Praz., 25,
and De Pudicit., 21; on the other hand, Cyprian (De Unitate Ecclesiae) seems to
refer to them in the words: Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus; et
iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt.
The passage in Phoebadius (4th cent.), Contra Arianos, c. 45, refers rather to
Tertullian than to John;! and in Eucherius (5th cent.), Lib. Formularum, c. 11,
they are only found in interpolated handwriting. They are first certainly quoted
by Vigilius (towards the end of the 5th cent.) in the books written under the
name of Idacius, Contra Varimadum, by Fulgentius, Cassiodorus (of the 6th
cent.), and in many later ones since the 9th cent. — The peculiar quotation in
Cyprian finds its explanation in the symbolical interpretation of the words 7d
mvevua, 1d bdwp, and 70 alua of the Trinity, which is also found in the Schol. in
Matthaei: of rpeic dé elzev dpoevexdc, Sti cbupsoda ravta tHe tpiddoc; and in the
Schol.: rovréore rd mvevyua 7d dywov xal 6 narhp xai abroc Eavrov (and on &v eiotv: rov-
réore pia Geornc, el¢ Gedc¢), and which Facundus (6th cent.) has rightly recognized
when he says, Pro Defens. Trium Capit., 1. i. c. 3: tres sunt qui testimonium
dant (in terra?): Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt... quod
Joannis apostoli testimonium Cyprianus ... de Patre, Filio et Spiritu s.
intelligit.2 — As at first the three persons of the Trinity were substituted for the
former words, as was the case with Cyprian, the idea arose afterwards that they
were named by the apostle in addition to them, and some Fathers then quoted
the passage as it had taken shape in accordance with this idea. — The weight of
the evidence against the genuineness of the disputed words is so strong, that it
is opposed to the fundamental principles of a sound and unprejudiced criticism
to regard them as genuine. — In the 16th cent. the words are found in most of
the Latin translations, as well as in some of the German translations which
were made in accordance with the Vulgate. With regard to the editions of the
Greek text, the Complutensian (1504-1514), following the Vulgate, accepted
them; on the other hand, Erasmus in his earliest editions rejected them, as
well as Aldus Manutius in the Venetian edition (1518); in his translation of
1521, and in the 3d edition of 1522, Erasmus, however, accepted them, adducing
Cod. 34; Stephanus and Beza did the same; ‘‘the Rec. sanctioned the claim of
this reading’? (Braune). Luther never admitted them into his translation.®
They are first found in the translations which appeared in Switzerland without
Luther’s name; thus in the Ziirich edition of Froschover, 1529; the edition of
1 The passages In Tertullian run thus: the
JArst: ‘‘Ceterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut
ipse de Patris. . Ita connexus Patris in Fillo et
Filli in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes al-
terum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non
unus, quomodo dictum est. Ego et Pater unum
sumus, ad eubstantiac unitatem, non ad nu-
meri singularitatem;” the second: ‘‘ Et eccle-
sia proprie ct principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in
quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et
Fillus et Spiritus Sanctus.” The passage in
Phoebadius: “ Sic alius a Fillo Spiritus, sicut
aliuaa Patre Filiua. Sic tertia tn Spiritu, ut
in Filio secunda Persona: unus tamen Deus
omnia, quia tres unum sunt.”
3 Ebrard, indeed, also holds these words to
be spurious, but thinks it probable that they
existed in the MSS. which were available to
Cyprian; this, however, is the lese to be in.
ferred from the fact that Vigilius had the
passage in his N. T., since he quotes it in a
corrupt sense.
8 It is strange that the words are found
explained in Luther’s second commentary on
the Epistle (Walch) without the alightest
reference to their spuriousncss, whilet In
Luther’s first commentary they are distinctly
specified as spurious. This is no doubt ex-
plained by the fact that he based his second
edition on the later text of Erasmus.
CHAP. V. 599
1531 also has them, but with the omission of ‘‘in earth,’ and in small print;
in that of 1533 they are printed in ordinary letters, whilst they are bracketed
in later editions of 1540, 1545, 1549.1 The Basel edition of Bryllinger, 1552, has
them without brackets; the Ziirich edition of Gessner, 1555, on the other hand,
has them bracketed. — With regard to the editions published in Frankfort-on-
the-Main, these words, according to the usual statement, are first found in
the edition of 1593; this, however, is incorrect, for they previously occur in the
quarto edition of 1582, though they are wanting in the octavo of Feyerabendt,
1582.2, Among the editions printed in Wittenberg, the quarto edition of Zach.
Lehmann, 1596, is probably the first that admitted the words; but again they
are wanting in many later editions; the last which does not contain them is the
quarto of 1620, which was published by Zach, Schiirer at Joh. Richter’s.—In —
the 17th cent. their genuineness was defended —certainly on insufficient and
false grounds. After Richard Simon had declared himself against them, they
were opposed in the 18th cent., especially by Thomas Emlyn (1715), Clarke
(1738), Wetstein, Michaelis, Semler, Hezel, Griesbach, Matthaei. Bengel, on
the contrary, defended them, but with the arbitrary assumption that the text
originally ran: ‘‘ drt rpei¢ efor ol uaprvonivrec bv Ty yp Td mveipa, K.TA, eg Td bv
eiavv, Ver. 8. wal rpei¢ slow of uaprupovvrec tv To otpavy, 6 matip, 6 Aoyog xal 10
Gywov mvevua xal ovrot ol rpeicg bv eforv.”” Compare especially Bengel, Apparat.
Criticus ; Griesbach, Diatribe in loc. 1 Johann. v. 7, 8, as appendix of the 2d
part of his edition; Semler in his Hist. u. krit. Sammlungen tiber die Sog.
Beweisstellen in d. Doym. St., I.; Rickli in his notes on this passage: Knittel,
Neue Kritiken iiber 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. — Ver. 9. Instead of #», according to G, K,
etc., Thph., Oecum., A, B, &, etc., Vulg., etc., Cyr., read 5rt, which is recom-
mended by Griesbach and accepted by Lachm. and Tisch.: 7 seems to have
arisen from ver. 10; Reiche, however, holds #7» to be the original. — Ver. 10.
xe Tv paptupiav]. Rec., according to B, G, K, ®%, very many min., and vss.,
Thph., ete. (Tisch.); Lachm. (following A, Vulg.) adds rot Geo, which, how-
ever, seems to be an explanatory gloss. — Instead of éavro, Tisch. reads aire,
following A, G, K; only a clerical variation. te Oe, Rec., after B, G, K, ®,
Syr., etc., Thph. (Tisch.). Against this A and the Vulg. have 7» vio (Lachm. ).
This reading has arisen from the idea that this negative sentence must exactly
correspond to the preceding: 6 moretwy ei¢ tov vidy rod Ocov. — Ver. 18. The Rec.
runs: tuiv roig morebovow ei¢ TO Gvoua Tod viov Tod Oeod, iva eidzre Sri Gud
Eyere aloviov «ai iva motetnre ei¢ rd Svoua tov viov ros Geod. In A, B,RX, etc,
Vulg., Copt., Theb., etc., Cassiod., Bede, the addition roi¢ moretovoty . .. rob Beod,
is wanting after duiv; instead of the concluding «al iva, «.7.4., the reading in A,
etc., almost all the vss., Cassiod., Bede, is: of moreiovree ei¢ Td dv., x.7.4.3 in B,
1 According to Rickll, these brackets were
first omitted In 1597; Ebrard, on the other
hand, says that they were already omitted in
the edition of 1561 which was in his poeses-
sion.
* For these and the following notices I
have to thank my friend Dr. Klose of Ham-
burg, who has personally examined these
editions in the Hamburg Library. According
to Panzer (Hist. de Bibeliibers., p. 492 ff.) and
MUnckeburg (Bettr. «. Feststellung, etc., p.
152), the worde are said to occur as early as In
the Frankfurt editlon of 1574, edited by Reffeler
(published by John Feyerabendt); but this
statement is incorrect. According to a written
communication from Professor Dr. Keil, who
bas compared the edition in the Leipzig
University Library, the passage referred to
runs: “ And it is the Spirit that bears witness
that the Spirit is truth. For there are three
that bear record on earth, the Spirit and the
water and the blood, and these three are one.
If we receive the witness of men,” etc. The
folio edition of Weyg. Hanen, 1574, also does
not contain the words.
600 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
however, rolc¢ morevovorv; so also 8*; in &,, however, of mearevovrec, — Griesb.,
Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., have accepted the reading as it is in A, Buttmann as it
isin B. Even if the common reading is to be justified according to the sense
(De Wette, Sander, Reiche), yet its correctness does not therefore follow, as it
has too little support from external authorities, and as iva morevyre seems to
owe its origin to the passage, Gospel of John xx. 31. The reading of B might,
however, be preferable to the reading of A, since the former is not only the
more difficult, but by it the origin of the Rec. can be more easily explained; so
also Briickner; Braune prefers the reading of A, ‘‘as diffcilior,’’ but the addi-
tion is more easily connected with éxyere than with the preceding tuiv. — It is
doubtful whether aiaoy had its original position before or after fyere; the
former is attested by G, K, &, several min., Thph., Oec.; the latter by A, B,
etc., Vulg., ete. (Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 14. Instead of dre éav rt, Lachm.,
following A, reads: 4, rt dv, which, however, has too little support. — Ver. 15.
Lachmann’s reading, xa? dv, instead of xa? éav, has too little evidence in B. A
omits entirely the words «al. . . quav; so also N*; &, reads xa? fav idouev, «.7.A.
—6 av]. Rec., according to A, K, etc., Oec. (Lachm.); instead of which B, G,
x, and many others, Thph., have 6 éay (Tisch.). The reading in x®, dre édy
Fywpev, is merely a mistake. — Instead of zap’ avrov (A, G, K, and several others),
B, &, read a’ atrov (Lachm., Tisch.). — Ver. 16. Instead of ?6n, Rec., according
to A, B, G, K, &, ete., Clem., Thph., Oec., Lachmann, has accepted the reading
eidy, presented only by the Vulg. and Latin Fathers. s* has airfoey xal doce
instead of the third person.— Ver. 18. Instead of GAA’, Tisch. and Buttm.,
following B, read adda. The reading abroy in A*, B, instead of éavroy, is only a
clerical variation of the word. — Ver. 20. «ai ofdapev], Rec., according to A,
several min., etc. (Lachm., ‘Buttm.); K, &®, etc. (according to Tisch., also B;
contrary to which Buttm. states that «al of6, Is found in B) have otdayev dé
(Tisch.); G reads merely olfdayev. — Tisch. 7, following A, B*, G, &, etc., reads
yivooxouev, whilst the Rec., according to B®, K, etc., is ymwoxwuev (Tisch. 2,
Lachm., Buttm.); the latter is probably a correction. — To rdv adAniivov, A,
several min., vss., and Fathers add @e6v, which, though approved of by Liicke,
De Wette, Reiche, is with justice not accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., since it
may easily be recognized to be an interpolation. »#* has 70 aA70.; &,, however,
tov. — # Gu aiwvioc], According to A, B, ®, many min., etc., the article 7, which
is only supported by a few min., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted,
inasmuch as it is elther (uw aiwvoc, or 4 Cw) 7 alwyog, or 7 aiwviog Go (John xvii.
3), that always appears in John, but never 7 (wv? aiwvoc, The grounds which
Frommann (p. 91 ff.) adduces for the retention of the article are not adequate.
— Ver. 21. Instead of éavrov¢e (Rec., according to A, K, etc., Tisch.), B, G, x*
(&,: éavrotc) read éaura (Lachm.); this is probably a correction with reference to
Texvia,
Ver. 1 shows that the believer, as born of God, necessarily loves his
brother. The two elements of the Christian life, faith and love, are repre-
sented in their real unity. — wdc 6 mecretuwr bre 'Igaoig toriv 6 Xprores
refers back to chap. iv. 15; comp. ii. 22, iv. 2; instead of 6 Xproréc, the
apostle in ver. 5 puts 6 vide rod Geod 3; comp. iii. 23, from which, however, it
does not follow that 6 Xmoros and 6 vld¢ ros Ozod are to the apostle exactly
identical ideas, but certainly that he only is Christ to him, who is also Son
of God. That John says here 6 Xprorog, is occasioned by the antithesis to
CHAP. V. 2. 601
the false teachers; comp. on this Weiss, p. 155 ff. Grotius erroneously
explains: gui credere se ostendit: it is not the manifestation of faith, but
faith itself, that is the subject. —éx rot Ocov yeyévvnrar; for faith is not a
human, but a divine work in us.! This first sentence forms the premise
from which the apostle draws his conclusion. He does not specially
emphasize the self-evident intermediate thought: mdg 6 yeyevynuévog bx rod
@cov ayarg rov Gedy, but presupposing it,? he says: «al rd¢ 6 dyamay roy
yevvnoavra, ayand nal rdv yeyevunpévoy e£€ abrod)]. 6 yeyevv. b& abrod
is not “Christ” (Augustine, Hilarius, a Lapide, etc.), but “the believer.”
Calvin, correctly: Sub numero singulari omnes fideles Ap. designat. Est
autem argumentum ex communi naturae ordine sumptum. By the last thought
Calvin rightly indicates why the apostle here says “rav yevvqoavra”
instead of rdv Oedv, and “rdv yeyevynquévoy #& abrov” instead of rdv
ddeAgov.—adyanra is not subjunctive “let bim love,” but indicative “he
loves;” John is here expressing not an exhortation, but a fact.
Ver. 2 states how love to the “children of God” is to be recognized.
The sign of it is: drav rdv Gedy dyarduev nal rag évrodds abrod
tnpaper (rodpev). The difficulty, that whereas elsewhere the keeping of
the commandments or brotherly love is mentioned as the evidence of love
to God (or of knowing God), comp. ii. 3, iv. 20, 21, here the converse
relationship is represented, so that, as De Wette says, “the apostle here
makes the cause (love to God) the token of the effect (love to the breth-
ren),” cannot be solved by the arbitrary assumption of an attraction, which
Oecumenius supposes when he interprets, deiyya rig ele Oedv dyarne rv ele rdv
ddeAgdy ayanny 1Gerat, and which Grotius distinctly expresses when he para-
phrases: éy robry yevdoxopuev Ste tov Oedy dyanduev, brav ayanapev ta réxva abrod
nal ta¢ évroAde atrod rnpdyev; nor even with De Wette by the view “that ra
lvrodds abrod rnpdpev is the principal clause, and rdv Gedy dyanauev only the
anticipated confirmation of it, so that the one result of love to God is put
for a token of the other:” but the explanation lies in this, that these two
elements, “love to God” and “love to the brethren as children of God,” in
reality mutually prove one another.® By the addition of the words, aa? ra¢
bvrodde abrot rnpéuev, it is brought out that love to God necessarily shows
itself in the obedient keeping of His commandments. This obedience,
rooted in love to God, is equally with the former the token of true brotherly
love, because the commandments of God include the duties which we owe
1 The relationship between being born of
God and faith is not to be expressed thus,
that first the latter and then the former
follows; but neither je it first the former and
then the latter, but being born of God hap-
pens in this way, that God works faith in
man. ‘The new birth is,” as it rune in the
Mecklenburg Catechism, “the working and
gift of faith.” The morevecv, which begins
with the gift of mien, is therefore the result,
and hence aleo the token, of being born of
God, as the woceiy rn Scxarogvyny (chap. if. 29)
and the ayamqy (chap. ili. 7).
2 That thie thought is presupposed by
Jobn, which Ebrard and Braune erroneously
deny, is proved by the fact that John does
not say here, d éx rod cov yeyerynudvos, but
instead of it, 3 ayarwy roy yerriicarra.
8 He who loves God has therein an evidence
that he loves the brethren also —as récva Tov
@eov, because brotherly love isa the necessary
result of love to God; but it is aleo quite as
true that he who loves the brethren has
therein an evidence of love to God, because
the latter ie the necessary cause of the
former.
602 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
to the brethren. He therefore who regards it as incumbent on him to fulfil
God’s commandments, possesses therein the evidence that he loves his
brethren, the réxva roi Ocod, that his love to them is not mere appearance,
but reality: similarly Liicke, Sander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Diister-
dieck, Braune, interpret; Calvin, on the other hand, gives the thought an
erroneous direction when he says: “nune docet, recte et ordine amari homines,
quum Deus priores obtinet; vult sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus
praeferatur.” — It is further to be observed, that the first dyarayev is neither
subjunctive nor used instead of the future (Carpzov, Lange), but is simple
indicative; and that éray is not = quamdiu (Carpzov, Lange), but con-
ditional particle, as éav, chap. ii. 3.
Ver. 3 refers to the last two ideas, which were simply mentioned co-
ordinatively, and expresses their unity: airy ydp torw dyarn row Ocod). abr
is explained by the following iva, —éoriy is to be kept in its proper meaning,
though tva follows; the paraphrase: “it brings this with it, it includes
the endeavor’ (De Wette), weakens the thought; iva states the import of the
Gyaimy 1. Oeod, to the realization of which it is directed. Quite incorrectly
Grotius takes 7 dyarn metonymicaily for: ostensio dilectionis. —xat al évroaa?
avrod Bapeiat otx eiciv is connected with the preceding as a new idea; Bapeiat
= “heavy, as an oppressive burden ;”! comp. Luke xi. 46: gopria dvoBdoraxra,
and Matt. xi. 80: dopriov LAagpev. It is grammatically incorrect to explain
Bapeia: “difficult to fulfil” (Ebrard). The idea is, indeed, expressed
absolutely, but from the confirmation that follows in ver. 4 it is evident
that the apostle meant it in special reference to those who are born of God.
Ver. 4. Confirmation of the preceding thought. — nav rd jeyevynuévon éx
rod Ocov]. The neuter is used here as in Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 37, xvii.
2; it serves “to bring out the general category;” see Meyer on John iii. 6;
comp. Winer, p. 160; according to the sense = zavrec ol, «.7.A., it is not the
disposition, but persons, that are meant. Quite erroneous is the remark of
Baumgarten-Crusius: “the yeyevy, éx r, ©. has here only an external signifi-
cation: whatever has the position of God's children.” — vad rov xédouov, for
peiluv toriv 6 bv abroic, # 6 év rH xéouy, Chap. iv. 4. — vad is the simple present;
in the conflict between the xdozoc and him who is born of God, the latter
is constantly gaining the victory. Baumgarten-Crusius unsatisfactorily ex-
plains wxgv by “to keep one’s self innocent;” this does not exhaust the idea
of victory; that is not obtained when we take our stand against the enemy,
but only when the enemy is overcome. The completion of the victory in
its full sense certainly only takes place with the second coming of Christ. —
Rickli and De Wette explain xécuo¢e by ‘‘love of the world and of self:”
better Liicke, Calvin, Sander, Diisterdieck, Briickner, etc., “all that strives
1 Spener: ‘We are to understand the after Hise own image, cannot be grievous to
heaviness of a burden that is so oppressive
that one cannot bear it, that is, painful.’
Calovius: ‘‘ Dicit ea non esse gravia, quia non
aggravant, ant Inetar molis onerosae praemunt
renatum.”” The commandments of God, as
the demands of Flis love on man, who is made
the latter; if, however, they are so, that fs
because man has departed from hie original
relationship to God; to the believer they are
not grievous, because as the child of God he
has gone back to the original relationship of
love to God.
CHAP. V. 5, 6. 603
against the will of God within and without man;” but even this is too
abstract. It is the kingdom of the wicked one, which, under its prince the
Devil, striving against the kingdom of God, seeks to tempt the believer to
unbelief and disobedience to the divine commands. — As the apostle wants
to show how he that is born of God overcomes the world, he continues: «a2
attn torly h vixn 7 vixgoaca Tov KocpoY H wioTt¢c fuor. The pronoun
airy refers to 4 riott Aucv, which in its import is no other than the mioric, dre
"Inaode éotiv 6 vide rov Oeod, ver. 5. The expression is peculiar, inasmuch as
faith is described as the vixy itself, and the vxgy is ascribed to it. Lorinus
rightly remarks: victoria proprie non vincit, sed comparatur pugnando, sed
energiam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit vincendi ratio, unde
victoria parta.1_ The aorist vxfoacu is not to be turned into the present
(a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, etc.); even though the victory is a continuous
one, in which every believer is constantly taking part, the aorist neverthe-
less indicates that faith from the beginning overcame the world. The
explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius: “it is already victory won that ye
have become believers” (similarly Neander), is incorrect; it is not here
intended to commend faith as the result of a fight, but as that which fights,
and which has won the victory; hence the active % vix7joaca (so also Braune).
Ver. 5. Confirmation of the preceding thought by an appeal to the expe-
rience of the readers (Liicke). — ric tori 6 vuxdv, «.7.4.]. The same form of
speech as in chap. ii. 22. The thought is: “ Credens omnis et solus vincit”
(Bengel). With ért "Inooie éoriv, «.7.A., comp. ver. 1, chap. il. 22, iii. 23. — The
believer is victorious because he is born of God; vv. 1 and 4 (Diisterdieck).
Vv. 6-12. That Jesus is the Son of God, is confirmed by divine testimony.
Ver. 6. In order to arrive at an understanding of this verse we must first
of all look at the expression, fpyeoda: di’ bdarog xa? aluaroc. The question, what
is to be understood by édup and aiua, has been answered in very different
ways. The explanations worthy of notice are these: 1. That the apostle
means thereby the blood and water which flowed from Christ’s side on the
cross, John xix. 34; this explanation is found in Augustine, Vatablus, and
many of the old commentators; but some of them consider that the apostle
here mentions this water and blood as the proof of the actual occurrence of
the death of Christ, others that he uses them as symbols of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper. 2. That by t¢up and alua are to be understood the sacra-
ments appointed by Christ; this is the explanation of Wolf (who, however,
understands an allusion to the incident recorded in John xix. 34), S. Schmid,
Carpzovius, Baur, Sander, Besser, and others. 8. That by fduwp John means
2 Ebrard opposes this explanation with the
arbitrary statement that 7 vay ‘is the action
which conquers the world" (!).
3 To thie claes belongs aleo Luther's inter-
pretation (in the lat ed. of Walch), which,
however, differs in thie, that according to it
water and blood together constitute the sacra-
ment of baptiem; he eaysa: ‘‘ Most commen.
tators consider both sacraments; ...I do
not object, indeed, to this explanation, but I
understand the phrase of baptism merely... .
Chriet comes not by water only, but by watcr
which is mixed with blood, that is, by baptism,
which is colored with blood.” 80 also in the
interpretation of the following verse. “If you
are baptized with water, the blood of Christ
ie eprinkied by the Word. If you are bap.
tized in blood, you are at the same time
washed by the Holy Spirit through the Word.”
In his 2d ed., on the other hand, Luther under.
604 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist, and by alua the atoning death
which He suffered. This is the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact,
Cappellus, Heumann, Semler, Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgen-
feld, Neander, Ewald,! Briickner, Liicke (third edition, Introduction, p- 160;
comp. Bertheau’s note on this passage, p. 381), Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss,
Braune, etc. Not a few commentators, however, divide the explanation,
understanding tdup of the baptism appointed by Christ, and aiza of His own
death ; so Hornejus, Knapp, Liicke (in the commentary on this passage; also
in the third edition, Introduction, p. 110; differently, Introduction, p. 160),
De Wette, Rickli, Gerlach, Frommann (p. 596), Diisterdieck, ete.2— By
many commentators (as Bede, a Lapide, Russmeyer, Spener, Bengel, etc.)
different interpretations are connected together in one or the other of these
ways.®
To these interpretations may be added others, the arbitrariness of which is
evident at the first glance. To this class the following belong: 1. That by édup
and aiua John denotes the two elements of the physical life of Jesus; this is the
view of Schulthess. Wetstein adds even the following mvetua, and says that
the apostle wants to prove that Christ was a verus homo, who was formed ex
spiritu, sanguine et aqua sive humore.4 2. That by both words, or at least by
tdwp, the ethical nature of Christ is indicated; thus Grotius interprets é’ idaro¢
= per vitam purissimam, quae per aquam significari solet. Socinus under-
stands by édwp: ipsa doctrina pura cum vitae puritate conjuncta. 8. That in
fdwp and aiua it is not so much the baptism and death of Christ themselves that
are to be thought of, as rather the testimonies that were given in connection
with thein; in dédup the testimony of the divine voice in the baptism (Wahl); in
aiua either the testimony of the good centurion (Stroth), or the events that
followed the death of Jesus, namely, His resurrection and ascension (Wahl,
stands water and blood, with reference to
John xix. 34, of the two sacraments: “ This
brief summary has been kept in the Church,
that out of the side of Jesus the two sacra-
ments flowed.”
1 Ewald understands by them, however, not
merely the baptism and the death, but by udap
the baptism, “‘ with every thing epecial which
besides occurred in Hie case," and by aina
“*the bloody death on the cross, with every
thing still more wonderful that was connected
with it.”
2 To this class Ebrard aleo belongs, but he
differs from the other commentators in this
respect, that he understands by vdwp Christian
baptiam indeed, but “ not the entire sacrament
of baptiem (consisting of symbol and thing
signified), but only the eymbol in the sacra-
ment;’’ hence, only that side of Christian
baptism in which it ts identical with the bap.
tlem of John. Clearly an unjustifiable division
of the sacrament! The same view is no doubt
that of Hofmann, who says (Schri/tbew., II.
1, p. 76): ‘‘alua is, In contrast with vdwp, the
blood shed by Jesus for the remiesion of sins,
differing from the water of baptism, which
John also performed;" then on p. 470 he
asserts that véwp is not the baptism which
Jesus received, but that which He introduced,
hence {t denotes that which Jesus had in
common with the Baptist ; and in ii. 2, p. 221,
he describes vdwp precisely ase ‘‘the baptism
with water originated by John.” But how
strange it is to say, nevertheless, that the bap-
tism which Jesus introduced is the baptism of
water originated by John!
3 Bengel: ‘‘ Agua dicit baptismum, quem
primum administravit Johannes; ideo in aqua
* baptizare missus, ut Jesus manifestaretur tan-
quam Filius Dei. Porro baptismus etiam per
diecipuloe Jesu admipistratus eet. Sanguis
est utique sanguis —Jesu Christi, qui effusus
in passione, in coena dominica bibitur." Ter-
tullian says: ‘‘Venerat per aquam et san-
guinem, aicut Job. scripait, ut aqua tingeretur,
eanguice glorificaretur. Proiode ut nos aqua
faceret vocatoe, sanguine electos,- hose duoe
baptismos de vulnere perfoesi lateris emisit.”
¢ Similarly Paulus fn reference to alyua;
téwp he understands of the baptism of John.
a
CHAP. V. 6. 605
Ziegler, Lange), or even the testimony of God in John xii. 28 (Oecumenius).}
4. That in these two expressions we are to consider the operations brought into
exercise by Christ; in tdwp, regeneratio et fides (Clemens Al.), or purgatio
(Cameron); in alua, cognitio (Clemens Al.), or expiatio (Cameron), or redemptio
(Bullinger). To this class belongs also Calvin’s explanation: eyo existimo
Joannem hic fructum et effectum exprimere ejus rei, guam in historia evangelica
narrat. Christi latus sanguinis et aquae fons erat, ut scirent fideles, veram
munditiem (cujus figurae erant veteres baptismi) in eo sibi constare: ut scirent
etiam completum, quod omnes sanguinis aspersiones olim promiserant. 5. That
those expressions and wvevya are descriptive of the threefold redemptive office
of Christ: that 6éwp (= coelestis doctrini, Bullinger) represents Him as prophet,
aiuva as priest, and wvedua as king. Here may be added the strange explanation
of édwp as the tears which Jesus shed on various occasions, and of aiva as the
blood which He shed at His circumcision. Again, some of the old commenta-
tors understood by alua the blood of the martyrs.
It is at all events incorrect to permit ourselves, in the interpretation of
tédwp and alua, to be led by the question as to the nature of their testimony
(Sander: “It must be maintained as the chief difficulty in the passage before
us, what are the three witnesses on earth”), for that is not the subject in this
verse, in which the zvedya only is mentioned as bearing witness.? By the
words ovrég ort, «.7.4., the apostle simply states who Jesus the Son of God
is.— With regard to the expression 6 éAgov di’, «.7.A,, most commentators
interpret as if it were “ ovro¢ Epyera:,” OF, ovrég toriy tpxopevoc.” Others, it is
true, have not overlooked the aorist, but they interpret it as if it expressed
something present; thus Sander = “has come and comes,” against which
Bengel rightly says, non dicit: o épyénevoc in Praesenti, sed 6 éAdev Aoristo
tempore, Praeteriti vim habenti. It is true, it is further correct when, in oppo-
sition to De Wette, who takes ¢Agé» as synonymous with éAnAvddc, chap. iv. 2,
Briickner objects that by the aorist as a purely historic tense nothing con-
tinuous or permanent is expressed; but even then the expression does not
obtain complete justice. It is to be observed that John did not write “Age,”
or “éoriy tAgav,” but éorty d tAdGv. By the participle with the definite article,
it is not a verbal, but a nominal. and, if it is not in apposition to a preceding
substantive (as in John i. 18, 29, iii. 13, vi. 44, and passim), a substantive
idea that is expressed; comp. John i. 15, 83, iii. 31, 36, and many other
passages. It therefore does not mean “this came,” or “this is one who
came,” but “this is he that came;” by this predicate it is not merely stated
1 Oecumenius: 8&4 row Usaros, rouréotin, év
te & vsatos Barnopuars éfehavOyn vids Geov o
*Incovs d:a Ths rou warpds paprupiac’ da 8¢ Tov
atparos* ors pdAAwy cravpovaba éAcye, Sofacdy
Me ov waTep, Kar HvdxOn HY Gwvi, car éddfaca,
cat wadwy Sofacw’ ba 8¢ rod mvevmaros, ort ws
Ged¢ avdorn éx vexpwv.
* This is usually too little noticed by com-
mentators. Even Liicke — who remarks on the
following words, xai 7rd wvevma, «.7.A., that it
was not sald of the water and blood that they
bear witness,” and then “it is only through
the wretma that both of them, which in them.
selves give no testimony, likewise become wit-
nesses’? — bas in his discussion of the mean-
ing of G8ep and alga all along regarded them
as ‘‘ witnesses ’’ for the Messiahship of Jesus.
Brtickner also, in hie interpretation of the
ideas G8ep and alua, has al) along included the &
element of testimony, whereby the clearness
of his statement is only too much diminished.
606 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
what the subject which is here spoken of (namely, oiro¢) has done, but the
subject is thereby characterized as the particular person to whom this predi-
cate is suitable as a specific characteristic; according to the analogy of John
i. 33 (ovrdg éorw 6 Barriquy év mveipart dyiw), ill. 13 (6 é« rod obpavod xarapic),
and other passages, the expression therefore serves to state something char-
acteristic of the Messianic office of Christ. If this is taken into considera-
tion, the incorrectness of Augustine’s interpretation (see above) follows;
for even if the flowing of the blood and water from the side of Jesus was
intended by John not so much as a proof of the actual occurrence of Christ’s
death (Liicke), but as a wonder proving the Messiahship of Jesus (Meyer on
John xix. 34), yet this would be only a very subordinate proof, which by
no means states a characteristic sign of the Messiah as such. — In the life
of Jesus there are two points which correspond with the expressions idup
and aiza, namely, His baptism at the beginning of His Messianic work, and
ITis bloody death at the end of it; by His baptism Jesus entered on His medi-
atorial work; it formed the initiatio (Erdmann, Myrberg) of it, but this did
not take place only by means of what happened at the baptism, but by the
act of baptism itself; by His death he effected the atonement itself, inasmuch
as by His blood he blotted out the guilt of the sinful world, for yupi¢ cizarexyv-
oiac ob yivera dgeote (Heb. ix. 22). John may with justice therefore describe
Christ as the Mediator by calling Hin the one who came dr idatog xa? aiparog.?
Against the view that fdwp and aia are to be understood of the sacraments
instituted by Christ, is not only the circumstance that these are only the
means for the appropriation of the atonement effected by Him, whereas the
subject here is the accomplishment of the atonement itself, but also the use of
the aorist éAgcv, instead of which, in that case, the present would have to be
used, and also the expression uiya, which by itself alone never in the N. T.
signifies the Lord’s Supper; even in 1 Cor. xii. 13 éqoric@yoav is not an
allusion to the Lord’s Supper, but to the communication of the Spirit in bap-
tism. In opposition to the idea that aiua indeed signifies the death which
Christ suffered, but that idup does not denote the baptism which He received,
but the baptism which He instituted, are (1) that the close connection of
the two words (without repetition of da before alzaroc) is only suitable if the
ideas correspond with one another, which is not the case if by &’ idarug we
understand an institution of Christ, but by aizaroc, on the other hand, the
blood shed by Christ; ? (2) that the simple expression idup is little suited for
a description of Christian baptism ;* (3) that as the institution of baptism
Christian baptiem is something at present ex-
fating, but the blood which Christ shed 1s only
1 That “Jesus In both cases proved His
obedience to Hie Father’s will, and that Hie
It is no better
obedience proved Him to be the Son of God,
the holy and Innocent One” (Braune), are
ideas which John here {n no way suggests.
* This inconsistency te only apparently
removed by Dlsterdieck’s obeervation that
# « John regards the blood of the Lord shed at
Hie death as something which has a substan-
tial existence; ’’ for even {f thie be correct, yet
there remains the difference that the water of
regarded as such by John.
with the interpretation of Hofmann, who at
one time describes alua as ‘the blood of
Christ shed for remission,” and at another
time as “ the sprinkling of blood which Christ
bestows."
3 It is indeed Juat this very fact that dis-
tinguishee Christian baptism from that of
John, that the former in ite nature is not véwp
CHAP. V. 6 607
took place after the death of Christ, and necessarily presupposes it, John, if
he had understood by idwp Christian baptism, would certainly have put idarog
not lefore, but after, aiuaroe. Hilgenfeld and Neander have rightly shown
that if épyeova: &’ aizuroc signifies something pertaining to the Messiah per-
sonally, the same must be the case with épyecda &:’ idatoc. ‘The connection
must be the same in both expressions. If by uéuva is meant the death which
Christ underwent, then by idup can therefore only be meant the baptism
which He likewise underwent.
The objection of Knapp (with whom Liicke and Sander agree), that iAdov de’
bdarog in this sense is much more appropriately said of John the Baptist than of
Christ, is untenable, for that expression may at least just as well be used of him
who allowed himself to be baptized as of him who baptized; Erdmann: sane id
non alius momenti, ac si quis objiceret, Epxecbac de’ atuatog non posse dici de
Christi sanguine et morte, sed potius de iis, qui cruentam mortem ei paraverint.
There is just as little in the objection of Liicke, that Christ allowed Himself to
be baptized, not in order to purify Himself, but to fulfil all righteousness; since
two ideas are here placed in antagonism to one another, which are by no means
mutually exclusive, as Jesus underwent the baptism of purification just for the
very purpose of fulfilling all righteousness.
With regard to the expression éA@dv dia, ded is not to be separated from
LAdov, 80 that o 24g» in itself would denote “the Saviour who came,” and d,
x.7.4., would state “in what way Jesus is the Saviour who came” (Hofmann,
in the Schrifibew., second edition, p. 469); for that Christ is called 4 épyduevoe
(Matt. xi. 4; Luke vii. 19, 20) does not confirm, but contradicts, this inter-
pretation; besides, John does not here want to bring out how Jesus is the
Messiah, but that He is so. The preposition da has been differently
explained: usually it is here taken simply in the sense of accompaniment,
which, however, is unjustifiable; in this commentary, with reference to
Heb. ix. 12 (where it is indicated by da that the high priest entered into
the holy place by means of the blood which he had with him), the idea of
instrumentality is combined with that of accompaniment, inasmuch as
Jesus operated as mediator by means of fdup xel aiua; similarly Bruckner
explains du as a preposition of instrumentality, namely, in the passive
sense, as “by which he was proved;" &&d, however, is here connected
neither with an idea of operation nor of verification, but with 20u».
Weiss takes the preposition in this way, that iduwp «. aiza are thereby
‘introduced as historical elements of the life of Christ, through which His
career passed,” but it might be more suitable to interpret dc’ id., «.7.A,, in
this way, that thereby the elements are brought out dy which the 249d» was
specially characterized ; just as in 2 Cor. v. 7, by ca miorewe the feature is
mentioned by which our present wepirareiv is characterized ; comp. also Rom.
Vili. 24: de’ drouovig arexdexoue0a, and Heb. xii. 1; Braune siimply abides by
as the latter is, ae John the Baptist himeelf, was deacribed by him as 6 Bawrigey dy wvev-
marking hie difference from Christ, said: ¢ys pare ayiy (John i. 33).
Barnigw «vy védars (John |. 26), whereas Jesus
608 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the idea of instrumentality, without further explaining himself on the
subject. The question, whether otroc refers to Inoovc Or to 4 vide row Oeot, 18
to be answered in this way, that it refers to the whole idea: ‘lnocic 6 vldc rub
Geod; Jesus, the Son of God, is the subject of Christian faith; it is He who
came by water and blood. In favor of this reference is the addition ‘Iyoonc
6 Xpordc, which, as "Insoic shows, is not an explanatory apposition of the
predicate (“He who came by water and blood,” i.e., Christ), but is in
apposition to the subject otros, which is more particularly defined by the
predicate; the preceding ‘Ijooi¢ 6 vide rob Ocod is thereby resumed, but in this
way, that in consequence of 6 éAGdv, «.7.4., the idea 6 vide rod Ocot is changed
into 6 Xpuric.— The import of the preceding lies, as cannot be doubted,
simply in the statement which is therein contained; Ebrard, indeed, thinks
that the apostle wants thereby to express “that in the loving and merciful
act of the devotion of Jesus to death lies the power by which He has
overcome the world;” but although in the preceding the victory over the
world is ascribed to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, yet it is not to
be inferred from this that it is Christ’s victory over the world that is the
subject here, us John does not make the most remote suggestion of that. —
By the words: obx év rm bdare povov GAA’ év try bdare Kai TO aiuart,
the apostle brings out with special emphasis the fact that Jesus did not
come by water only, but by both water and blood; as the latter (wo, in their
combination, are contrasted with the former one, the principal emphasis
plainly falls on the blood, as that by which the Mediator as such has
operated. This emphasis is not intended for the purpose of indicating the
difference between Jesus and John the Baptist (Liicke, De Wette, Diister-
dieck, Ebrard); for, on the one hand, it is self-evident to Christians that
Jesus would not be the mediator if He had not acted differently from John;
and, on the other hand, the feature which distinguishes Jesus from John in
regard to baptism is this, that the latter baptized with water, but the former
baptizes with the Holy Ghost.!. The addition has a polemic import (not
against “disciples of John,” Ewald, but) against the Docetans, who in a
certain sense indeed taught that Christ came &&’ ddaroc, but denied that He
came 6 aivaroc, inasmuch as, according to their heresy, Christ united
Himself with Jesus at His baptism, but separated from Him again before
His death (Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune); indeed, it is only by the
reference to these heretics, against whom the apostle frequently directs a
polemic in the Epistle, that the whole section from ver. 6 to ver. 12 can be
explained. — With regard to grammar, it is to be observed that povoy is not
connected with od, but with idarz, and therefore there can be no «xa after
GAA, which is not observed by A. Buttmann (p. 317 [E. T., 369 f.}). The
1 Erdmann has rightly pointed out that the
view, according to which véwp is understood
of the baptism inatituted by Christ, is opposed
to the idea that the addition refers to John the
Baptist; this antagonism can only be removed
if we explain the idea téwp in the principal
clause differently from its meaning in this
subordinate clauee, in the former of a baptism
which was not merely a baptism of water, but
also of the Spirit, but in the latter of a baptism
which is only a baptism of water; but that
would be an interpretation which condemns
itself.
CHAP. V. 6. 609
preposition év simply expresses the idea of accompaniment without bringing
out the accessory notion which lies in dé; comp. Heb. ix. 12 and 25.— The
definite article before idan: and aluare is explained by the fact that both have
been already mentioned. Bengel, correctly: Articulus habet vim relativam. —
cal rd wveiud eoriv rd uaprupovv}]. Just as in regard to tdwp and ala, so in
regard to mvetdyua, the views of commentators vary very much. The following
opinions are to be rejected as utterly arbitrary: (1) that it denotes the
psychical element, which, with alua and idup as the physical elements, con-
stituted the human nature of Christ (Wetstein); (2) that it is the spirit
which Christ at His death committed into His Father's hands (Augustine,
etc.); (3) that it means “the teaching of Jesus” (Carpzovius); (4) that
rd rvedua 18 = 6 mvevyatudés, whereby John means himself (Ziegler, Stroth).
By rd mvetua can only be understood either the Holy Ghost Himself or the
spiritual life produced by Him in believers.! Against the latter view there
are, however, two reasons,—(1) that rd mvedua never has this meaning
without a more particular definition indicating it; and (2) that the ra
uaprupody, Which is added, here defines the mveiua as something specifically
different from the subjective life of man. We must therefore understand by
it the objective Spirit of God, yet not, however, inasmuch as He descended
on Christ at His baptism, and testified to Him as the Messiah, nor inasmuch
as He was in Christ as the divine power which manifested itself in lis
miracles,? but (as most commentators correctly interpret) the Holy Ghost,
whom Christ sent to His disciples at Pentecost, and who is the permanent
possession of His Church. The predicate éort 1d paprypodv is not put for
uaprupe: or for éort uaprupovv; here also the article must not be overlooked:
Td waptupoiy 18 a nominal idea, and, moreover, not adjectival, but substantive:
“the Spirit is the witness” (Liicke). The office of witnessing belongs
essentially to the Holy Ghost; comp. John xv. 26.2— As the apostle con-
tinues: dre rd mveipua tory 4 dAndea, he seems thereby to state the object of
uaprupeiv;* but this view is opposed to the whole context, according to
which the apostle does not want to bring out that the Spirit is truth, but
“that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.” Therefore é here must, with
Gerhard, Calovius, and most modern commentators (De Wette, Liicke,
1 Sander ie very uncertain In his explana-
tion of rd rvevma; first he explains it by ‘the
conversion of man accomplished by the com-
munication of the Holy Ghost,’’ but then he
puts instead of thie, without further explana-
tion: ‘those who are born of the Spirit’ (!).
* Grotius understands by 7d wvevua even
the miracles themselves: ‘‘admiranda ejus
opera a virtute divina manifeste proceden.
tia.”
§ The assertion of Ebrard, that John in
these words shows “how and how far our
faith in Christ, in consequence of the fact that
Christ bears in Himsclf the power that over-
comes the world, ie iteelf an overcoming
power,” and that paprupey therefore ‘‘ must
denote an act which is in substance identical
with the act of overcoming the world,” is
simply to be rejected.
# In connection with this view, Luther takes
7d wvevpa in a different sense from that in the
principal sentence, namely, as ‘the word
which has saved us by baptism and by blood,”
and of which the Spirit bears witness that 1%
proceeds from the Spirit of truth, and is the
truth iteelf; Besser distinguishes ro wy. in the
prince! pal clause from the wv. in the subordinate
clause, in that he understands by the former
“‘the Spirit bearing witness to the heart of
believers,” and by the latter ‘‘ the Spirit dom.
nating in the sacramente and in the word."
Ebrard interprets: ‘‘ the Spirit evidences itself
- . » by its power,” clearly the words “ hy tts
power "’ are a pure importation.
610 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune), be taken as causal particle, so
that the subordinate clause serves to strengthen the preceding thought. It
is because the Spirit is the truth, that the Spirit is the witness in the fullest
sense of the word. — To interpret 7 4470¢:a = adndéc (Grotius) is to weaken
the thought; by the definite article the idea cA7Gea is indicated in its full
concrete vividness; comp. John xiv. 6, where Christ calls Himself # daée:c.
Weiss calls attention to the way in which this designation proves the person-
ality of the Spirit, inasmuch as “the truth is the nature of God Himself
made manifest.” — The object which is to be supplied with 1d zaprepoty can
be no other than the thought which John has previously expressed in the
first half of the verse.
Ver. 7. By means of the witness of the Spirit, water and blood also
attain to the position of witnesses. As such John now adduces them in
connection with the Spirit, in order by the weight of this threefold witness
to confirm the truth that the Son of God, who is identical with Jesus, is
the Messiah. — The 6r: which begins the verse means neither “jam vero”
(Grotius, Calov.), nor “hence” (Meyer), nor “consequently ” (Baumgarten-
Crusius), but “for.” This connection with the foregoing is explained by
the fact that the truth of the testimony of the Holy Ghost (who is the truth
itself) is strengthened by the circumstance that it is not He alone that bears
witness, but that with Him the water and the blood bear witness also, as
the two elements by means of which the atonement took place (similarly
Liicke).1 De Wette unnecessarily supplies: “and, humanly considered, the
witness is also true, for." Paulus connects ver. 9, as consequent, with this
verse as antecedent: “because there are three, etc., then, if, etc., the
witness of God is much greater.” This construction, which is contrary to
the style of John, is the more to be rejected as an erroneous idea arises
from it. — rpei¢ elotv of uaprupowvrec]. The masculine is used because the
three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Liicke, etc.),
but not because they are “types of men representing these three ” (Benge)),®
or symbols of the Trinity (as they are interpreted in the Scholion of Mat-
thaei, p. 138, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether
John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known
legal rule, Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, Matt. xviii. 16, etc., as several commenta-
tors suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present, that édup and alua
are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments; for by means
of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is perma-
nently present, so that.the baptism and death of Jesus — although belonging
to the past — prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atone-
ment for the world (so also Braune). The participle of paprupodyres,
2 “Tn ver. 6 it was said that the witnessing
Spirit is the truth, and hence it fs implied tbat,
to prove that Jesus is the Chriet, the Spirit
unites with the water and blood, as the test!-
mony of the truth. As John now assumes this
conclusion from ver. 6, he adds, passing on to
another subordinate confirmatory proof: for,”
etc.
* Tropum... Ap.adhibet... ut hoc dicat:
tria sunt genera hominum, qui ministerio
testand! in terra funguntuar: (1) fllud...
genus teatium, quod pracconio evangelll vacat ;
(2) illud gen. test., quod baptismum adminie-
trat, ut Johanues baptista ct caeteri; (3) Hlad
gen. test., quod passionem et mortem Domini
spectavit et celebrat.
CHAP. V. 7. 611
instead of. the substantive oi zéprvpec, emphasizes more strongly the activity
of the witnessing. —1d avevua xal 7d idwp xal rd aiua}]. <All these three
expressions have here, of course, the same meaning as previously.! — xa
ol rpeic eic rd év elo). Luther, inaccurately: “and these three are one;” 1d é
is the one specific object of the witness; “the three are directed to this one,”
namely, in their thus unanimous witness. Storr, inaccurately: “they serve
one: cause, they promote one and the same object, namely, the object
previously mentioned (v. 1, 5).”
REMARK. — According to the Rec., after of paprupotyrec appear the words é»
ta obpavy . . . of uaprupovvrec tv TH yy (see the critical notes). Luther says in
reference to them: ‘‘It appears as if this verse was inserted by the orthodox
against the Arians, which, however, cannot suitably be done, because both here
and there he speaks not of witnesses in heaven, but of witnesses on earth.”’
With this most modern commentators agree, with the exception of Besser and
Sander. It is true, that, if we consider the contents of the whole Epistle, the
idea of the three witnesses in heaven may be brought into connection with
something or other that appears in the Epistle; but it does not follow from this
that that idea has here a suitable, or even a necessary, place. This plainly is
not the case, so much the more, as neither in what follows, nor in what imme-
diately precedes, with which ver. 7 is closely connected by 47, is there the
slightest reference to such a witness of the Trinity. There are clear and intelli-
gible grounds in the foregoing for adducing the three witnesses mvetyua, idup,
aiua, but not for adducing the three witnesses 6 saryp, 6 Adyor, 7d mvebua ayy:
this trinity appears quite unprepared for; but the sequel is also opposed to it,
for it makes it unintelligible what witness is meant by the xaprupia rot Gent,
ver. 9, whether that of the three in heaven, or that of the three on earth. — To
this it may be added that these two different classes of witnesses appear together
quite unconnected; it is said, indeed, that these three witnesses agree in one,
but not in what relationship the two threes stand to one another. — Besides,
however, the idea in itself is utterly obscure; for what are we'to understand by
@ witness in heaven? Bengel, it is true (with whom Sander agrees), says:
“non fertur testinonium in coelo, sed in terra: qui autem testantur, sunt in
terra, sunt in coelo; i.e., illi sunt naturae terrestris et humanae, hi autem
naturae divinae et gloriosae.’? How untenable, however, this is, is shown, on
the one hand, in the fact that év ra obpavm does not belong to efocv, but rather to
Haprupovvrec, and the text therefore does not speak of being, but of bearing
witness, in heaven ; and, on the other hand, in the fact that according to it the
1 Weins erroneously refers the witness of blood of Christ, !.e., His atoning death, ...
the baptiem here to that which was given at
the baptiem of Christ, and the witness of the
death to that which was given at the outflow-
ing of His blood. — It {s not by what happened
in connection with them, but ifn themselves,
that véwp and alua are the maprupovrres.—
According to Ebrard, vdwp Aere ‘ie the bap-
tiem of water inetituted by Christ, ae an ex-
ternal inatitution, . . . as the representation of
every means of grace to be administered by
men, above all in its connection with the
preaching of the word;” and alyua is “the
not, however, the blood of Christ alone, but
also the power of the blood of the testimony,
which !s shed from time to time by His disci.
ples for the sake of confessing Jesus.” To
this Ebrard further adds: ‘‘ we may eay that
in the water of baptism \s embodied the con.
feasion which by its firmness overcomes the
lie, and fn the blood of testimony that love
which by patience overcomes the power of the
flesh.” This interpretation needs no refuta-
tion.
612 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
mvevua which is connected with téup and alua must be regarded as something
earthly and human. — There is further the un-Johannean character of the
diction, as by John 6 Oed¢ and 6 Adyog, and similarly 6 tary#p and 6 vids, are
certainly conjoined, but never 6 tarfp and 6 Adyog. Sander avails himself of
the assumption, which is certainly very easy, of a amag Acyouevov; but this is here
unwarrantable, for those ideas are so frequently occurring in John, and that
mode of conjunction is not accidental, but is grounded on the nature of the
case. We see that the interpolator wrote Ad yo¢, because this suggested itself to
him as a genuine Johannean expression, without reflecting that its connection
with tar7p isun-Johannean. Finally, the xai ovros of rpeic év elo is also strange.
Bengel interprets: unum sunt essentia, notitia, voluntate, atque adeo consensu
testimonii. Bengel with justice puts the essentiality first, for it is just this that
is denoted by the expression; but just this is unsuitable here, where the
subject rather is the unity of the witness.
Ver. 9 brings out the greatness of the witness of God, and our obligation
to accept it. The two clauses which are here connected with one another
do not perfectly correspond in form; for in the antecedent clause the idea
that corresponds to the peifwv of the consequent clause is not expressed, nor
in the consequent clause the idea that corresponds to the AauBavouev of the
antecedent. The sentence, if completed, would run: If we receive the wit-
ness of men because it is of some value, much more must we receive the
witness of God, as it has a much greater value (comp. A. Buttm., p. 338).
The sentence contains a conclusion ex minore ad majus. The conjunction ei,
as frequently, is not dubitative. —Briickner justly says, in opposition to
Baur: “ The witness of men is only alluded to on the side of its judicial
value; there is not assumed to be in it an import which would be equal to
that of the witness of God by water and blood and spirit.” !— 4 paprvpia roo
Qcoi is here used quite generally; the more particular definition is only given
by the sequel (so also Diisterdieck). —6ri abr éoriy 4 waprupia tov Ceci]. With
dri it seems necessary to gupply a thought to which it refers; Liicke supplies
the thought: “if we accept the witness of God, we must believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God;” Diisterdieck, with whom Braune agrees: “a
witness of God now really exists, namely this . . .;” but such a supplement
is not necessary if we suppose that the clause beginning with dr is intended
to give the reason of the contrast of the human and of the divine witness
which here appears, in this sense: “I say, # uaprupia rov Oecd, for . . .” —In
the reading, ére (instead of fv) nepapripnxe wepi rod viot abrod, which
is attested by the best manuscripts, this second 6 may be taken as causal
particle, in which case airy would be referred to the witness spoken of in
vv. 6 and 7, in this sense: “for this is the witness of God, since He has
testified (it) of His Son;” but the want of an airég before weuapripyxe is an
obstacle to this view; it is therefore better to interpret dr by “that,” and to
refer airy to this sentence which begins with 57 (Liicke, Erdmann, Diister-
dieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Ewald, Briickner, Braune), so that the sense is:
1 It 1s quite erroneous for Storr to understand by the witness of men specially the witness of
John the Baptist.
CHAP. V. 10, 11. 613
for this is (therein consists) the witness of God, that He has testified of His
Son. By this witness we are to understand no other than that which was
spoken of in the preceding, namely, the objective witness of the Spirit, not
the internal witness, of which the apostle does not speak until afterwards
(contrary to Diisterdieck), but still less, as Ebrard interprets, the witness
in John i. 33. — With the reading i, airy must be referred back to the pre-
ceding; the sense then is: “for that (vv. 6 and 7) is the witness of God
which He has testified of His Son.” !—The perfect peyzapripyxe is here to be
taken in the same way as John frequently uses the perfect, namely, in this
way, that the witness which God has given is to be regarded as permanently
remaining.
Ver. 10. God’s testimony of His Son has for its object faith in the Son ©
of God. Hence, “ He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself.”? —
riyv puptupiay, i.e., the witness of God which was previously spoken of; fee év
éavta, i.e., the witness is no longer merely external to him, but by virtue of
his faith he has it in (not as Luther translates, “ with”) himself; the external
has become internal to him. This thought forms the transition to that con-
tained in ver.11. The believer, namely, has the objective witness in himself,
inasmuch as he experiences in his soul the power of the truth attested by
God; yet rv paprypiay must not here be understood —as in ver. 11 — of this
operation itself (contrary to Diisterdieck). In the interpretation, “he ac-
cepts the witness,” — for which, corresponding to the éye:, it should at least
be put, “he has accepted it,” — the preposition év does not receive due justice.
—In the following negative sentence, by which the thought expressed is
strengthened and extended, we must supply with r@ O«p (instead of which
t® vig is not to be read), “rQ peuaprupyxdre.” — pevoriy meroinxev aitov, see chap.
i. 10. In his unbelief, the witness of God is regarded by him as a lie, and
God, who has given it, therefore as a liar.— This thought is confirmed by
the following words: “for he believeth not (has not become a believer) in the
record which God has given (as a permanent record) of His Son.” — With the
participle moretuv, which describes a general class (not a single particular
individual), 47 is used; but with the finite verb meniorevxev it is ot, because
thereby the morebev of those that belong to that class is exactly and directly |
denied (comp. chap. ii. 4, iii. 10, 14, iv. 8).?
Ver. 11 states in what way that witness of God shows itself as internal
to the believer; to him who, by believing, has the objective witness of God
in himself, it is no longer purely objective, but he experiences it in himself
as a divine power, or as the éu# alcwwc which God has given him.* Hence
1 Liicke erroneously thinks that with the
reading nw» there resulta only an imperfect
sense, when he says, ‘‘the witness of God,
which He has testifled, consiate—in what? ’’
This appearance of {ncompleteness disappears,
however, as soon as airy {es referred to the
preceding.
2 It is different In John fii. 18, where ore
ny wenmiorevaey follows 6 un morever, but as
the reason for én xdxpsrac, and where, there-
fore, it la considered as the reason of the con-
demnation operating in the mind of the judge;
differently Winer, p. 441 ff. [E. T., 474]. The
distinction lies in this, that by pevorhny wewoy-
nev avrov it is an act of the subject, but by
«éxpcrac the action of the judge (i.e., of God),
that Ie indicated.
§ According to Braune, by or: the import
of the record is meant to be stated; but then
John would be speaking of a different record
from that which he mentioned before.
614 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the apostle says: “And this is the record, ért Cwdv aldviov Eduxev Huiv 6
Oed¢.’? With guiv, roig memorevxdow is to be mentally supplied. — Qui aidrio¢
~ is not “the hope of eternal life” (Bede: dedit nobis vitam aeternam, sed adhuc
in terra peregrinantibus IN SPE, quam daturus est in coelis ad se pervenientibus
IN RE), but it is this itself, the divine life, of which the believer is even here
a partaker; what the believer hopes for, that he has already. — (wiv aldvioy,
as the principal idea, is put first. — édwxev means, “he gave ;” it is not = pro-
misit (Socinus), nor does it express merely the jirmitatem et certitudinem promissi-
onis divinae (a Lapide). — Myrberg incorrectly finds the import of the zaprvpia
of God stated in ér:, «.r.4,, which is in opposition to the context. The second
part of the verse, xal airy 4 (wR tv 19 vl abrod tatty, Which is not dependent on
- 6re (Baumgarten-Crusius), but forms a co-ordinate principal clause, gives a
further explanation in regard to (uy alcwws. Several commentators find this
thought expressed in these words, that we possess the (w? aléyv. in the Son, i.e.,
in fellowship with the Son: but this the words do not say; they rather state
where the (1 alév., which God gave to believers, had its original place,
namely, in the Son; comp. John i. 4. Frommann (p. 405): ‘the eternal
life of which the Christian is by faith a partaker is one with the life that
dwells in Christ” (so also Diisterdieck, etc.). Braune incorrectly separates
airy from # fun, as he puts éoriv between them in the thought, and refers airy
to the idea aide: “and this . . . namely, aidviog . . . is the life,” etc.
Ver. 12 states the inference from the immediately preceding thought.
If the (w7 is originally in the Son, then he who has the Son has with him
also the G7. With 4 yu rdv vidv, comp. chap. ii. 23. Changing and
weakening the sense, Grotius puts for rdv vlév: verba illa quae Pater Filio
mandavit; even Eye riv Guz he erroneously explains by jus certum ad vitam
-aeternam. Whilst John in the first clause says simply rdv viéy, in the second
he adds rob Ooi; on this Bengel remarks: habet versus duo cola; in privre
non additur De, nam fideles norunt Filium; in altero additur, ut demum sciant
Jideles, quanti sit, non habere. |
Ver. 13. Many commentators (Lorinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Liicke, Sander, Diisterdieck, Braune) make the conclusion
of the Epistle begin with this verse (“a sort of concluding section,” Ebrard),
referring raira to the whole Epistle. This, however, is incorrect. That
this verse also belongs to the last leading section beginning at iii. 23, is
shown not only by the idea (wiv aicveoyv, which refers to what immediately
precedes, but also by the idea mretew ei¢ rd dvoza tov viod tov Orov, which refers
back to iii. 23; besides, it is to be observed *that the following sentences,
vv. 14 and 15, correspond to the thought with which the preceding leading
section ended; comp. iii. 21, 22. Accordingly, raira is not to be referred to
the whole Epistle, but to the last section, vv. 6-12 (Briickner), which reaches
its climax in the thought, 6 éyuv rov vidv Exet rv Coqv; comp. ii. 1, 21, 26. In
the words Iva eld7re, Srt Gudy Exere aidveov, John states the object for which he
wrote that which is contained in the foregoing. The certainty of the life
which is bestowed on him is so much the more necessary to the Christian’s
mind, as this is sometimes hidden from him in the struggles of life—the
life is there, but at times like a hidden treasure. That the possession of
CHAP. V. 15. 615
this life, however, is conditioned by faith, the apostle brings out especially
by an additional clause, which indeed runs differently in the different codices
(see the critical remarks), but in its different forms expresses essentially the
same thought; according to the probable reading, it is connected with tyiv;
according to A, however, with éyere. The second clause in the Rec., xa? iva
mioreinre elc rd Svoua Tov viod rov Oeod, indicates as the second object the adher-
ence to faith; with the phrase, morevey ele 7d dvopa, comp. chap. iii. 23.
Ver 14, as the preliminary «ai shows, is not the beginning of a new sec-
tion (contrary to De Wette); but the thought expressed here is in close
connection with the foregoing, inasmuch as the rafpyoia is an essential ele-
ment of the (wi alovoc. As in chap. iii. 21, 22, so here also, xappyoia is the
confidence which the believer experiences in the certainty that his prayer is
heard. —airtn éoriv 4 woppycia does not mean, “hence arises also a happy
spirit” (Ziegler), but “herein consists the confidence” (De Wette). — iv tyouev
mpoy aitév]. abrov does not refer to the Son, but to God; though God is not
previously mentioned as the subject, yet He is nevertheless considered as
the principal subject, as the One who gives life through the Son. — ér:].
Liicke (with whom Ebrard agrees, with the incorrect remark that ér: does not
depend on airy, but simply on rafpnoia) supplies before drm: “that we have
the confidence; ”’ but the concise thought of the apostle is thereby weakened,
and besides the rafpyaia is itself this confidence (Diisterdieck ). — ééy r alra-
ueva xara Td OéAnua avrov]. By means of xara r, 6€A, abrov, 1.6., rov Oecd, prayer
is more particularly defined as to its substance and character. — dxove: nuav]).
In chap. iii. 22 it is put instead of this, AauZarouev ax’ abrod, — dxovew includes
the idea of granting, which, however, is not brought definitely out until the
following verse.
Ver. 15. xa? tay olduuev. By the indicative after éav (see on this, Winer,
p. 277 [E. T., 295]; Al. Buttmann, p. 191 ff. [E. T., 223]) this knowledge
is emphasized as something undoubtedly belonging to the believer; differ-
ently ver. 16: éav reg tidy. — drt dxover nuov, 6 tav (av) airdueda]. Resumption of
what was previously stated. — oldayev, drt, x.7.4 ]. In the certainty that God
hears us lies also the certainty, 6r: Exouev rd alrjpyarta & Yraxapev an’ (rap’) avbrov.
— lxouev is neither = AcuBavouev, nor 1s the present put for the future (Grotius);
the present is rather to be kept in its proper meaning; the believer always
has that for which he has asked God (xara rd ¢éAnua abrov); he has God, aud
in Him all things. —+ra airjyara are the res petitae (Lorinus). — dr’ abrov
from its position is not to be connected with éyouev, but with jraxauev; comp.
Matt. xx. 20; Acts iii. 2; differently chap. iii. 22: AauBdvouev az’ abrod.
Ver. 16. The apostle applies the general thought expressed in ver. 15 to
a particular case, namely, to a prayer for one’s brother when one sees him
committing sin. — day reg idg rdv ddeAgdy atrov)]. By éay with the subjunctive
the possibility is simply stated. By ddeAgic we are to understand, according
to the usus loquendi of the Epistle, not the neighbor in general (Calovius),
but the Christian brother (avrot), not exactly the “ regenerate ” (Diisterdieck);
Ebrard, erroneously: “first of all, members of the Christian Church, yet
without excluding those who are not Christians.” — dyapravovra dyuapriav pi
mpog Oavarov}]. The phrase duapravecv duapriay is stronger and more ex-
616 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
pressive than moceZy duapriav. — The sort of duapria is more particularly
defined by the addition yu mpdc Oavarov. The negative uf (iustead of which
ob is used in ver. 17) is explained by thé fact that the idea is regarded as
dependent on éav roo idy (comp. Winer, p. 442 [E. T., 475]). The apostle
distinguishes between the dyapria ob wpd¢ Oavaroy and the dyuapria
xpo¢ Oavarov, What sin is to be understood by the latter? The idea
nan ROM, LXX.: duapria Gavarnddpoc, is found already in the O. T., Num.
xviii. 22, whence the Rabbis distinguish between 7"'09 Mon and Xo RON
muvn5 (Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr.); in accordance with this, as Schoettgen
also interprets, the duapria mpdc Odvarov would be that sin to which the Mosaic
law assigned the punishment of death, as idolatry, adultery, etc.: but even
if that Old-Testament definition is the basis of John’s expression, yet it does
not follow that he used the idea in the same sense; @dvaroc may here, as dis-
tinguished from Gu# (xa? doce atte Gov), not mean bodily death. For this
reason alone, therefore, the explanation of Morus and S. G. Lange is to be
rejected, according to which that sort of sin is meant which is punished by
the authorities with death or with other severe punishments (!), even apart
from the fact that it makes the prayer of the Christian dependent on the
penal decrees of civil law. But the opinion of Zachariae, Michaelis, and
Linder (in the Zeitschrift fir d. luth. Theol. of Rudelbach and Guericke,
vol. iv., 1862), that here, as in Jas. v. 14 ff., it is those who are in bodily
sickness that are spoken of, and that such sin is meant as God punishes with
deadly sickness or sudden death, is for the same reason unfounded.! — If
Gavatos is not bodily death, then by apd¢ davarov the period to which the sin
lasts cannot either be meant. — With reference to the ecclesiastical disci-
pline exercised in the Church, the older Catholic theologians especially
understood by the dy. mp. 6av., without further comment, all those sins which
were punished by the punishment of excommunication. But even if the
Church had always punished in that way the sin which John here has in
view, yet that expression could not be explained by that practice. — As
@dvaroc is not bodily death, it is only spiritual death or damnation that can be
meant by it; du. pd¢ Odvarov is therefore the sin which leads to damnation.
But what sin is this? It is much too general to regard every grievous trans-
gression as such. As Christ Himself refuses forgiveness absolutely only to
one sin, the commentators who assent to the above view find themselves
driven to an arbitrary weakening of mpd¢ @avaruy; so Ambrosius (Lib. de
Poenit.), when he says: quodvis peccatum gravissimum, quod VIX remittitur,
and still more strangely, a Lapide: peccatum quodvis gracissimum, quod .. .
juzta legem communem per gratiam, quam Deus ORDINARIE dare solet, est quasi
tmmedicabile, incorrigibile et insanabile. It is more correct, indeed, to regard
1 Linder, tt le true, remarks against thin
that a new section begins with ver. 13, but
even fn that verse ¢w7 fe used tn the apiritual
sense. The above view is also opposed by the
fact that {t assumes in John the opinion that
deadly sickness or sudden death ie always di-
vine punishment for a special sin, which can
neither be justified by Acts v. nor by 1 Cor.
xi. 830. The appeal to Jas. v. 14 ff. ls ao much
the more inappropriate, as John here in no
way suggests that he fs speaking of those who
are in bodily sickness. It is therefore quite
arbitrary for Linder to futerpret «at duces
atte Cwenv: “God will grant to him pardon
and recovery.”
CHAP. V. 16. 617
it as sin which is not repented of, and to find the characteristic of the du. zp.
gay, in the impenitence of the sinner who will give heed to no exhortation
(Grotius, Socinus, etc.); but even this cannot be the feature which John
here has specially in view, because at the time of the commitment of a sin
it cannot be decided whether it will be repented of or not. John must mean
& duapria, which in itself is characterized as a duapria mpdc Oavarov. Many com-
mentators accordingly fix the meaning of it on a single particular sin; thus
Tertullian, who understands by it, moechia post baptismum commissa; Bede,
who, following the precedent of Augustine, understands by it the peccatum
invidentiae, quo quis invidet fratri gratiam, virtutem et salulem, but then we do
not see why John did not specifically and definitely mention this particular
sin. We might therefore agree with those who tuke duapria here as the
description of a state, as Bengel, who thus interprets: falis sTATUS, in quo
fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova exstincta est; but this is opposed by
the apostle’s mode of expression, which plainly refers to a sinful deed, and
not to a state. Though, on the one hand, a single sin cannot be meant
(Calvin: non est partialis lapsus, nec praecepti unius transgressio), yet we must
only think of a whole species of sins, or better, of such sinning as is charac-
terized not by the object with which it is connected, but by the disposition
from which it proceeds. For the further definition it is to be observed, as
Liicke with justice points out, that it can “only be a class of sins of Chris-
tians, and not of those who are not Christians,” that is spoken of, and that
‘the distinction between the sin unto death, and sin that is not unto death,
must be capable of being known.” It is true, every sin can be called a
duapria npdc Oavarov, inasinuch as it tends in the direction of dévaroc, but every
sin does not infallibly lead to 6avaroc: so long as along with the dyapria there
stil] exists an fyew rdv vidv (vv. 11 and 12), the sinning Christian is still in
fellowship with the alua 'lycot Xpicrov which cleanses him dnd done duapriag
(chap i. 7); and so long as he has a rapxAnrog mpd roy narépa, namely, Jesus
Christ the righteous (chap. ii. 1), sin does not deprive him of the (uy aldvio.,
and is not therefore duapria mpdc Odvarov; this it only is when it involves
an actual falling away from Christ; De Wette and Liicke therefore rightly
say that the sin unto death is the sin by which the Christian falls back
again from the Christian’s (7 into the Gavarog (comp. also Hofmann,
Schrifibew., IT. 2, p. 840), only it is not exactly the falling away itself that is
to be understood, for this is an internal act which, as such, is invisible,? but
rather the sinful conduct by which the internal loss of life with Christ
externally operates and reveals itself (so also Braune).* It is incorrect of
1 Augustine (De Serm. Dei in Monte Matt., idea by “‘ fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur,
lib. {. c. 22, § 78) says: ‘‘ Peccatum fratris ad
mortem puto esse, cum post agnitionem Del
per gratiam. . . . Jesu Christ! quisque oppug-
nat fraternitatem et adversus ipeam gratiam
. .- invidentilae facibus agitatur.” Yet Augus-
tine fs not conaiatent in his interpretation; in
the Retractationa he adds further: ‘ai in hac
perversitate finierit vitam;” in hie work, De
Corrept. et Gratia, c. 12, § 35, be explains the
desercre xague ad mortem.”
2 This aleo contradicts Ebrard’s interpreta-
tion, according to which the ap. wp. Oa». is
“the act of inward rejection; although
Ebrard is correct when he says: ‘ xpds Gay. ia
that sort of einning which has resulted fn a
corruption of the soul, from which the return
to wiorts and wy is no longer possible to him.”
8 Several commentators, as Calvin, Beza,
618 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Diisterdieck (and similarly Ebrard) to understand by the sin unto death the
antichristian denial that Jesus is the Christ; for if John had meant this, he
would have expressed it definitely, so much the more as in the Epistle he is
carrying on a polemic against that antichristianity. Just as little has Myr-
berg arrived at the correct explanation when on Zorw duapria mpdc Oavarov he
remarks: varia genera peccatorum, quae mortem in sensu loci nostri adferant,
vide enumerata, Gal. v. 18-21; for although Paul says: éri ra rocaita xpaocovres
Basiieiav Oeod ob KAnpovopjouvor, yet it does not follow from this that no return
is possible from such sins.—In the face of the apostle’s words the possibility
of knowing the duapravey mpdc Gav, cannot be denied, yet it is difficult to dis-
tinguish amongst the particular concrete manifestations: but, on the one
hand, the Christian mind which is fitted for the xpioe will not decide with-
out scrupulous examination; and, on the other hand, John himself shows
by the uz that the decision can at any time be only a subjective one. The
meaning of the sentence accordingly is: If any man see his brother sin in
such a way that the sin which he commits does not involve absolute renun-
ciation of Christ, and therefore does not necessarily bring condemnation
' with it, he shall pray for him.!— airgoe is not to be understood of the united
prayer of the Church as such (so Neander; Ewald also says: “Christian prayer,
especially in the consecrated bosom of the Church”), but of every prayer of
one for another. The future is not exactly used instead of the imperative:
it rather expresses the certainty that, in the case stated, the Christian will
pray, but in this there is certainly involved the injunction actually to do it.
The substance of the prayer is indicated by the following —x«a? déce abto
Gwiv denotes the result of the prayer; very many, perhaps most commen-
tators (Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, Spener, Lucke, Sander, Erdmann,
etc.), supply with dace: as subject 6 Oed¢ or 6 alravuevog (80 also Winer, p. 487
[E. T., 523]; Al Buttm., p. 116 [E. T., 116, note1]); a similar change of
subject occurs in Acts viii. 6: but considering the close connection of airjoee
and dwce, along with which the similarity of the verbal form is also to be
noticed, it is preferable, with Jerome, Sander, De Wette-Briickner,? Baum-
garten-Crusius, Frommann (p. 674), Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Braune, etc., to
assume the same subject with doce as with alrjoe; then the sense is: he that
prays gives the (w7, inasmuch as God grants him his prayer. The idea finds
its explanation in the fact that every sin brings with it a weakening of the
Caloviue, Heumann, Sander, etc., identify this
sin with the sin against the Holy Ghost in
Matt. xii. 31 ff.; certainly the azapria meant
here is not imaginable without a SAacdyuia
Tou mvevmaros; and the BAacdyia +. wy. has
Oavaros as its reward: but the Ideas do not
quite coincide, for (1) the BAagdynyia +. wy.
may occur even on the part of non-Christians,
but it is the sin of the Christian that is spoken
of here; and (2) the former fs completed in
words (eimeiy xara Tov mvevparos 7. ay.), but
the au. wp, Ody. can only consist in further
action.
1 When Linder (as above quoted) remarks
against thie explanation, that “‘the decision
whether a sin is a ap, mp. 6. or not le objectirely
made by God Himself, and must be cognizable
in some outward mauifestation,” we may reply
that even the occurrence of bodily death can-
not be regarded as a certain proof; for even
though God sometimes ordains it as a punish-
ment of the sinner, yet it occurs aleo when it
is not to be concluded that there is special
guilt.
? Brtickner seems, however, to be doubtful,
as he remarks: “If there were only an avros,
or a aimilar indication! ’’
CHAP. V. 17. 619
Sw; in order that he that sins may not remain in this want, he requires a new
infusion of life, and this is procured for him by the prayer of his believing
brother. In addition to this, of course, the confession of his sin, with trust in
the cleansing power of the blood of Christ (comp. chap. i. 7), is necessary on
his part; but it is just in this that the blessing of the prayer consists, that he
receives as the result of it the needful inclination for this.!— roi¢ duapravoves
uh mpd Oavarov] apposition to aird; the plural serves only for generalization
(De Wette, Winer, etc.); Bornemann (Bibl. Studien der sdchs. Geistlichen, I.
p- 71; and Alex. Buttm., p. 156 [E. T., 179]) erroneously explains roi¢ dyap-
ravova: as the dative commodi, referring aire to the person that prays himself.
By the following words, éorw duapria mpdc davarov, the apostle brings out that
there is really a sin unto death, with which he connects the observation, od
mep éxeivac Aeyw iva Epwryoy. Most commentators find in this a prohibition,
even though mildly expressed, of prayer in reference to the sin unto death;
but this is not contained here, as Grotius, Hornejus, Besser, Myrberg, Ebrard,
Brickner, etc., rightly observe; for the negative ot does not belong to épu-
TOY, but to Aéyw; if the negative was to be referred to the former, it would
have had to be uw. The sense is: My injunction does not mean (ob Aéyw)
that a man is to offer prayer (iva épwrfoy) in reference to (epi) the sin mpdc
6avarov.2— The words do not express more than this, although it is admitted
that in the emphasizing of od A¢yw a warning is indicated (similarly Braune):
John does not want to make a duty of a prayer, to which the certain assur-
ance of being granted is wanting; he therefore adds this limitation to his
exhortation to prayer (so also Besser): a formal prohibition would only be
appropriate if the duapravew mp, bay, were always cognizable as such. It is
observable that John does not say here alrjoy, but épurjoy; épurdy (lit. “to
ask’), ig a milder idea than aireiy (lit. “to demand”); the apostle warns
against the épwrdy, and, of course, much more against the more urgent aireiv.®
Ver. 17. To guard against indifference to transgressions occurring in
the Christian's life, the apostle continues: doa dduia duapria sori, —ddixta is
not synonymous with avowa, chap. iii. 4; for whilst dvouia there serves to
strengthen the idea duapria, the idea dd«ia is here more particularly defined
and strengthened by dyapria; dduia, namely, is the character of every offence
against that which is right, “every breach of duty” (Meyer). Though, on
the one hand, every such transgression is sin; yet, on the other hand, it
must be maintained that every sin does not lead to death; hence xal forw
duaptia ob mpoc Oavarov: cui is not adversative, but serves to emphasize the
1 It is to weaken the thought of the apostle
if, with Rickli, ‘we find the blessing of the
prayer only in this, that he who prays is him.
velf led thereby toa right relation toward his
brother. According to the apostle’s view, the
prayer rather brings blessing directly to the
brother, for as James (v.16) says: wrod ioxves
Benois duxaiou dvepyoupern.
2? As Neander thinks that it ise only Church
prayer that is spoken of here, he interprets:
**one who ulus xpos Gavaroy is not to be in- ©
cluded in the united prayer of the Church for
sinners in general, eo that he may not be con-
firmed in his sin and be led to a false trust in
the prayer of others; but John in no way
indicates that he is speaking only of Church
prayer.
* Braune unesuitably says that “ airety im-
plies conversation; épergy, on the other hand,
equalization of him who prays with him whom
he addresses.”
620 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
thought. — ob mpd dévarov does not belong to éory (Luther: “some sin is not
to death”), but to duapria: “ there is sin not unto death.”
Ver. 18, it is true, is closely connected with the foregoing, but at the
same time forms the commencement of the conclusion of the Epistle, which
is indicated as such by the successive thrice-repeated oidayev (Ebrard), and
in which the apostle describes the position of believers in brief vigorous
strokes. — As in vv. 16 and 17 it was admitted that even in Christians adcuia,
and hence dwapria, still exists, the apostle finds himself compelled to repeat,
confirmingly, what was said in chap. iii. 6-10, as a truth known to Chris-
tians (ofdayev, in which there does not lie “an appeal to the fact that he has
already said it,” Ebrard), in order that it may be thoroughly impressed on
them that all sin is in the sharpest antagonism to their essential principle
of life. — oidauev, dre mic yeyevvnutvor tx tov Ocod, oby duapraver]. This appears
to be in contradiction with what is previously admitted; John does not
solve the contradiction; many commentators seek to do so by supplying
mpoc Oavarov as @ more particular definition of oby duaprare, or by interpreting
it of remaining in sin: both are, however, arbitrary; the solution lies rather
in the fact that the apostle wants simply to emphasize the antagonism
between being born of God, and sinning. Though sin is still found in the
life of the believer, who as such is yeyevynpévoc éx ror Oeov, yet it is neverthe-
less foreign to him, opposed to his nature, and in the strength of his faith
he is ever becoming more and more free from it.1—dAA’ 6 yevvydele éx row
Ozov rypei éavr6v}. This second clause is not dependent on én, but is to be
regarded as an independent sentence (Diisterdieck, Braune). Bengel
erroneously states the difference between the form 4 yevnOeic and the
preceding 6 yeyevvyuévog thus: Praeteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam
Goristus: non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet,
qui regenitus est, servat se, it is rather the same distinction that occurs here
as that by which these two verbal forms are generally distinguished; 6
yevvndeic is: “he who was born,” regarded as an historical fact.—In 1 Tim.
v. 22, dyvov, and in Jas. i. 27, domdAov, are put with rypei éavrd6v as more
particular definition. It is, however, unnecessary to supply such a predicate
(De Wette) ; rypei éavrov denotes the self-preservation of the believer in his
proper character (so also Braune);? the more particular definition results
from the following: «al 6 movnpdg oby Greta: abrod is the result of the rype
éavrév; Ebrard, incorrectly: “Satan dare not touch him; God does not
permit it;” the present simply expresses the fact, but this, according to
the context, is the case, because the Devil is prevented froin ézrecda: by the
mnpriv éavrov Of him who is born of God. With 6 rovnpég, comp. chap. i. 13.
By drrecfa we are to understand touching in order to do harm; Ps. ev. 15,
LXX. (see Raphelii, Annot. ex Polybio). Compare Jas. iv. 7: gevgera: dg’
1 It needs no proof, that the thought of the 2 It is loss suitable to explain rypeiy eavrop
apostle ia perverted by the explanation of De here, with Ebrard - rpeioda, * to be on guard,
Wette: ‘‘ the apostie expresses his confidence to take care;” for, in the first place, it is op-
that the occurrence of the sin unto death, and posed to the usus loguendi of the N. T. to as-
of sin in general, cannot often (!),take place in sign this meaning to the word; and, secondly,
the Christian Church.” - ft is not expressive enough for the context.
CHAP. V. 19, 20. 621
tucv. It is true the believer is still tempted by the Devil (comp. 1 Pet. v.
8, etc.), just as sinful desires still arise in him; but being in his most inner
nature redeemed from the fellowship of sin, he suffers from these tempta-
tions no injury to the life that has come to him from God: in the ravoniia
rov Oeod he is protected against all the peGodeias rod diasvAcv (Eph. vi.
11 ff.).1
Ver. 19 marks the antithesis between believers as being born of God,
and the «douos, as belonging in its whole extent (é40;) to the movgpéc; and
this is done by the apostle vindicating for himself and his readers — who
are united with him in faith—the eivau: é« rov Osod, —éx rov Ocod tonev finds
its explanation in the preceding: 6 yevvnGeic¢ éx rov Oevs. Socinus, incorrectly:
a Deo pendemus.—xal 6 xécpog dAoc, «.7.A., probably as an independent
sentence, not depending on 47: (Diisterdieck). «ai is not = dé; it is just the
connecting xai that brings out the antithesis which exists between the two
parts of the verse, still more clearly than if this had been done by an
adversative particle. 6 xdopuoc is here used in the ethical meaning of the
word, which is peculiar to John. —é 16 movnpp xeira], 7 movnpd is not
neuter (Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli, Erdmann), but masculine, as is clear
both from 6 rovnpé¢ in ver. 18, as also from the antithesis to 6 Oeé¢. — By the
preceding é 7. Geos and Luther's translation of Isa. xlvi. 3, some commen-
tators have been led erroneously to refer the expression é» . . . xeira: to the
relation of the child to its mother (Spener: “as a child in its mother’s
womb”); by év it is expressed that the xdoyoc is, as it were, surrounded by
the Devil, i.e., is quite in his power; xeira:, stronger than lori, indicates, if
not, as Liicke thinks, the permanent, yet certainly the passive state (so also
Braune), and hence the complete domination of the Devil, which is in
the most pronounced contrast with the preceding: xal 6 wovnpds obx anrerat
abrov.
Ver. 20. In conclusion, the apostle indicates whence the elva ty rH ed
(the result of the elva: tx rod Oeot) has come to him and his readers; and he
does this by expressing it through oidayev as the substance of their Christian
consciousness. — ofdayev dé, Sri 6 vide rod Oeod ine]. The conditioning cause
of the former is the coming of the Son of God. —The particle dé is here .
used to indicate the antithesis to the immediately preceding thought ;
Briickner has with justice decided in favor of this reading (contrary to «a?
oldayev; see the critical notes). —fxe is not = adest (Bengel), but “has
come;” the reference is to the incarnation of the Son of God.—xa?
dédwKev Quiv dtavotav, lva pitvdcoKkopev Tov GAnGtvdyv]. Still dependent
on én. — The subject of déduxev is not 6 Oedc (Bengel), but 4 vldc rod Ocod, as
the close connection of this clause with that immediately preceding clearly
shows; rdv dAnGwov, on the other hand, is not a description of the Son
(Bengel), but of God. — By diavoa we are not to understand, with Liicke
and De Wette, “knowledge,” or even “insight,” but the capability of know|-
edge (Diisterdieck, Ebrard), yet in its living activity, hence “the faculty of
1 Calvin: “ Utut malignus renatum ad pec- quonfam renatus scuto fidel munitus ea repellit
catum) solicitet, tela tamen illius irrita cadunt, et diabolo per tidem resietit.”
622 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
knowing.” 1— By tva ywdoxopuev, x.7.4,., it is neither the purpose, “in order
that,” nor even the result, “so that,” that is stated, but the object to which
the duéivora is directed, and which it attains. We can only regard iva as the
particle of purpose, if we unjustifiably understand by d:avoa “ the spiritual
disposition” (contrary to Braune).— The idea ymwdoxer is here used with
the same force as in chap. ii. 4, 5, where it is similarly connected with é»
. abro elvar. By rdv adnoevdv God is described, in distinction from all idols,
especially from the idol which the false teachers made of God, as the true
God. Calvin: Verum Deum intelligit, non veracem, sed eum qui re vera Deus
ext, ul eum ab idolis omnibus discernat; comp. John xvii. 32 (similarly Liicke,
De Wette, Neander, Erdmann, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc.).
He is the true God, who has sent His Son into the world; the coming of
Christ has not been ineffectual, but has produced in believers the knowledge
of God,—a Knowledge which is one with being in God. Therefore the
apostle continues: «al fouev tv r@ dAndwp. These words are not dependent
on ért (Vulg.: et simus), but form an independent sentence. The é& ro
azno.vy refers back to rdv dAndwév; considering the close connection of the two
sentences, it must be the same subject, namely God, that is meant by the same
word (Briickner, Braune) ; it is arbitrary to understand by rdv dAngvév God,
and by ro dAnove, on the other hand, Christ, and it is, moreover, forbidden
by the context, in accordance with which the «ai éopév év TQ aZznOiwe states the
consequence of the preceding, namely of the fact that the Son of God has
come and has given to us the capability of knowing the true God.* There-
fore also the following words, ty 1@ vid abrod 'Incod Xpror@, are not to be
taken as apposition to év ro da, (Weiss), against which even the atrod
testifies, for then it would have to be referred, not to rod dAnoive, but beyond
it to rdv dAnévov. The additional clause shows in what the civa: év ro dAndwo
has its ground and stability (Briickner, Braune): é& is not = per, but
indicates, as generally in the formula é ‘Inc. Xorg, the relationship of
intimate fellowship: the believer is in God, inasmuch as he is in Christ. —
Before the last warning, connected with this (ver. 21), the apostle expres-
sively concludes with the statement: otrég éariv 6 dAnOivig Bede nal God aidvuc.
As is well known, views have differed from old times about the meaning of
ovroc. While the Arians understand otroc of God, the orthodox refer it to
the immediately preceding év ro vig ’I. Xp., and use this passage as a proof
of the divinity of the Son. This interpretation remained the prevailing
one in the Church, even after Erasmus had remarked: “hic est verus Deus”
referri potest ad Deum verum Patrem qui praecessit; and against this the
Socinians, and then Grotius, Wetstein, the English Anti-trinitarians, and
1 It is quite arbitrary, with Semler, to in-
terpret the idea d:avora m perdvora nar wiotee.
Paulus lays a epecial emphasis on &d: ‘think.
ing through (out) in contrast to a vaguo
acceptance and thoughtless belief ’’ (!).
? Baumgarten-Crusius thinks that aA7né.
meane more here than in John xvii. 3, namely,
**be who gives a satisfaction, in quo uno ac-
quiescendum est ;” but if this were really oon-
tained in the idea here, that would be the case
in John xvil. 3 also.
3 This explanation is so much the more jus-
tiflable, as it fs to be expected from John, that
at the close of hie Eplietle he would express iu
brief language the highest thing that can be
said of the life of the believer, and this is the
eva: dv ry Gey (Te adn&ve).
CHAP. V. 20. 623
the German Rationalists followed the opposite view. It is not to be denied,
that on both sides the different dogmatic interests did not remain without
influence on the interpretation, until in more recent times a more unbiassed
consideration has led the way. Among the latest commentators, Rickli,
Liicke, De Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Frommann, Diisterdieck, Erdmann,
Myrberg, even Briickner and Braune (who, however, leave room for doubt),
similarly Hofmann (Schriftbew., second edition, I., p. 146), Winer (p. 148
[E. T., 157]), and A). Buttmann (p. 91 [E. T., 104]), have decided in
favor of the reference to God; Sander, Besser, Ebrard, Weiss, etc., for the
reference to the Son. The dispute cannot be settled on grammatical lines,
for obrog can be referred both to rdv aAnéwov! and also to ra via. The addition
kal Gu aidwoc, seems to support the latter reference; for Christ, in the Gospel
of John, calls Himself precisely 7 (7, and also in the beginning of this
Epistle it is the Son of God that is to be understood by 4 fo7 and 4 Guay
aidévos. The former reference, on the other hand, is supported by the
expression: 0 GAnfivde Oeoc; for, in the first place, it is more natural to
understand here the same subject as is previously designated by 5 dAndcvoe,
than any other; and, in the second place, the Father and the Son, God and
Jesus Christ, are always so definitely distinguished throughout the whole
Epistle, that it would be strange if, at the close of it, and, moreover, just
after both subjects have been similarly distinguished immediately before,
Christ — without further explanation, too — should be described as 6 dAn@evd¢g
Orde, especially as this designation is never ascribed to the Son in the
writings of John, definitely though the divinity of the Son is taught in
them.? To this it may be added, that, after John has brought out as
the peculiar characteristic of the Christian's life, of which he partakes in'the
Son of God, the eivac ty rp dAnivd, the clause in question has its right
meaning only if it states who that aan@&vdc is, namely that he is the dando
Oeds xal fu aiovoc. Now, though elsewhere it is only Christ that is called
exactly % (u7, yet He has the (7 — according to His own words, John v. 26
—only from the Father, who originally has the life in Himself (6 mrardp Exes
Guy tv gavrg), and may therefore be called (a9 aldvioc no less than the Son.
Besides, it is to be observed that (wv) aid». is here used without the article,
so that the expression comes under the same category as the expressions:
5 Ged¢ gore gig (1. 5), dyarn (iv. 16), rvetua (Gospel of John iv. 24).— The
objection that “it would be a feeble ‘repetition, after the Father had twice
been called 6 dAné:véc, again to say: this is the dAndirde Oedc” (Ebrard,
2 It Hes in the very nature of the case, that
otros may refer to the principal subject, nay,
that this ie the reference most suitable to the
word: comp. 1 John ff. 22; 2 John 7; Acts Iv.
11, vil. 10. Calvin’s rule, which Sander re-
peats, is erroneous: ‘ Pron, demonstr. obros
ordinarte, nisi evidenter textus alfud requirat,
immediate antecedene nomen respicit ac de-
monstrat.”’
2 It is only through a superficial considera.
tion, that, for the refutation of thie aseertion,
appeal can be made to John 1.1, xx. 28, and
the passages in the Apocalypse jn which the
predicate adnOuvds is ascribed to Christ. — How
little care is sometimes exercised in the proof
of the truth that what is stated by John of
Jesus Christ really proclaime Him as the true
God, is shown, amongat others, by Schulze, In
the way in which he appeals on behalf of this
to John xvii. 23 and xiv. 20; since it would
follow from this, that even the disciples of
Jesus could be described as the true God.
624 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
similarly Weiss; also Schulze, Menschensohn, etc., p. 263),! is the less valid,
as the apostle has already in view the warning of ver. 21, and by é r@ vio
avrov "I, Xp., it is indicated that He alone is the true God, with whom we are
in fellowship in Christ: it is only the Father of Jesus Christ that is the
true God.— The connection of the words, xat Gj) aldvor, as a second
predicate, with oiroc, has appeared a difficulty to many commentators.
Socinus wanted to take otros = retro, with reference to the whole preceding
thought, and then he paraphrases robro by év rovrw and interprets: in eo, quod
dizimus, est ille verus Deus et vita aelerna; nam quatenus quis habet et cognoscit
Christi Patrem et ipsum Christum, habet et illum verum Deum et aeternam vitam ;
similarly Ewald, when he paraphrases: “this, both these things together,
that we know and that we are all this, this is the true God and eternal life.”
The arbitrariness of this explanation is self-evident. Others, as Clarke,
Benson, Liicke (in his first edition), supply before (ua aiov. an abry éoriv out
of ovrdéc éorw, referring uiry either to 4 vidc or to the idea eiva: ty rd G2n?.
Liicke has rightly withdrawn this explanation in his second edition, as
unwarrantable, and correctly says: “ai Gu) aidv. can certainly not be gram-
matically connected directly with odrog.” Liicke, however, thinks that there
is an ellipsis in the expression, and that it is to be interpreted: “this... the
true God is eternal life, which can either be understood of the fact that God
is the cause and source of eternal life, or thus: His fellowship is eternal life.”
But why could not John have described by (uw? aidv. the substantial character
of the divine nature? If God has fj in Himself (John v. 26), namely the
Gsm which He has given to the Son, and which believers possess through
the Son (John v. 24), then God in His very nature is (7, and (ui aidvoc too.
As John mentions this as the characteristic of God’s nature, there certainly
lies in this the indication that God is the source of life for us.
Ver. 21. If believers have come to the true God through Christ, they
have to take care that they do not lose this eternal and highest good by
giving themselves up to any vain idol. In this train of thought John
closes his Epistle with the short exhortation, so impressive, however, in its
brevity: rexvia guddgere fav-odc amd tév elddAwyv. In the address rexvia we may
see the depth of the feeling with which John utters these concluding words.
—eldwia are properly images; this signification is retained here by many
commentators (Tertullian, Oecumenius, Lyranus, Lorinus, Salineron, Liicke,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, Diisterdieck, etc.), whilst some of them,
however, extend the idea to that of “false, heathen gods;”’ others, again,
refer the expression to the arbitrary self-made representations of God which
the false teachers had, —thus Bede, Rickli, Sander, Thiersch (Versuch zur
Herstellung, p. 241), ete.; others combine both views, and understand by
eidwda here all sorts of images which men arbitrarily make for themselves of
God (Ebrard, Braune). If the warning is not to be regarded as a detached
appendix, foreign to the contents of the Epistle, we cannot rest satisfied
' Brtickner and Braune aleo consider the is here added to aAn@cvds, and the idea (uz
“tautology” at least as something not quite aiwmos is directly connected with the idea o
out of the question; but a real tautology ia aAn@iwvds Geos.
here 20 far from being the case, that ‘‘@eds"*
CHAP. VY. 21. 625
with the first interpretation. As the apostle, just in the antithesis to the
false teachers, who belong to the «doors, has so decidedly referred to
the dAn@ivde Oedc, he certainly has in view in this warning, if not altogether,
yet principally, the untrue mental images of those teachers. It is only if
so taken, that the warning to keep themselves from idols forms the appro-
priate conclusion of the whole Epistle.
1 That the apostle here also means the ree able, as the foregoing contains no reference to
mundariae, inasmuch as man is attached to = them.
them (Myrberg), is eo much the more improb-
Digitized by Google
THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF THE
APOSTLE JOHN.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.— GENUINENESS.
THE testimony of’ the ancient Church is not very certain. The first
mention of the Second Epistle is found in Clemens Alex. and Irenaeus.
The former calls the First Epistle the greater (Strom. ii. 15, ed. Potter), and
says in the Adumbrat.: secunda Joannis epistola, quae ad virgines scripta est,
simplicissima est; scripta vero est ad quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine.
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i. 163) quotes the passage 2 John 11, with the words:
"lwavyyc, 6 Tod Kuplou uadnric, éxérecve ty Karadixny altar, unde Ya:pely abral¢ v9’ Nucv
Aéyeodat BovAnOeic’ 6 ydp Aéywv abroic, gnoi, xaipev, «.r.A.; he further adduces
(iii. 16, 8) the passage 2 John 7, 8, but by mistake, as a passage of the First
Epistle. From this it follows, that at the time of these Fathers the Second
Epistle was not merely known in the Church, but was also received
as an Epistle of the Apostle John. If the remark of Eusebius (H. E., vi. 14),
that Clemens Alex. commented on all the Catholic Epistles, be correct, then
the Third Epistle was known to him also; according to the statement of
Cassiodorus, however (comp. my Commentary on Second Peter, Introd., § 2,
p. 291 ff.), this is at least uncertain. — Origen likewise knew several
Epistles of John; for in the Eighth Homily on Joshua he says, addit et
Joannes tuba canere per EPISTOLAS 8UA8: yet he did not express himself
quite certainly about the apostolic origin of the Second and Third Epistles,
as is seen from his words in Euseb. (H. E., vi. 25): "ludvyne . . . xaradédosre
d¢ xai bmorodjy navy ddlywyv orixev’ Eorw dé wai devrtpay xal rpitny, bei ob navreg
gaol yvnoiour eivas ravrac; that the canonicity of these Epistles was doubted, is
not contained in these words. — His disciple Dionysius Alex., in his polemic
against the genuineness of the Apocalypse, according to Eusebius (H. E.,
iii. 25), appealed not only to the First, but also to the Second and Third
627
628 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
Epistles of John. His words are: 6 dé ebayyedsorie obde rig naboAKig mpotypaper
éavrov Td Svoua . . ., GAA’ obdé tv Ti evTépa pepopévy 'lwavvov nal rpity . . ., 6 "ludvyne
dvouacr? mpdxesraz. According to Ebrard, in the word gepouévyn a doubt is
meant to be expressed as to the apostolic authorship of the two Epistles :
this, however, is erroneous; gepouévy is only added because the Epistles were
accepted as apostolic, without bearing the name of the Apostle John, as even
Eusebius (7. E., iii. 25) calls the First Epistle rv gepopévyy 'lwavvov mporépay,
although he was convinced of its composition by the apostle (Diisterdieck) ;
and, besides, how could Dionysius have appealed to those two Epistles if he’
had doubted their apostolic origin ?— The Epistles are nowhere mentioned
by Tertullian and Cyprian; but that the Second Epistle at least was known
in the North African Church at the time of the latter as a canonical writing,
is clear from the fact that, at a synod held at Carthage on the subject
of the baptism of heretics, the bishop Aurelius appealed to the passage
2 John 10. — The Peshito originally contained of the Catholic Epistles only
the Epistle of James, First Peter, and First John; the Syrian Ephraem, —
on the other hand, quotes the Second and Third of John as well as the rest
of the Catholic Epistles. — The testimony of the Muratorian Fragment is
not quite certain; after a passage is quoted in it from the First Epistle, it
is stated, after the mention of some spurious writings: epistola sane Jude et
superscriptio Joannis duas in catholica habentur, and then, ut (or et) sapientia
ab amicis Salumonis in honorem ipsius scripta. It is possible that by duas
(duae) the First and Second Epistles are meant; yet it is more probable
that he understood by it the Second and Third Epistles (Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Braune: comp. also Laurentius, Neutest. Studien, p. 205). From
the following words: wt (or et) sapientia, etc., it is not to be inferred, with
Diisterdieck, that the author regarded the two Epistles as spurious. — Euse-
bius (H. E., iii. 25) says: rav 0’ avtieyouévu . . . 7 dvouatouévy devrépa xal rpity
"lwavvov, eire rob ebay yedorod Tvyxavovoa, eire Tov érépov duwvipov éxeivy; he there-
fore reckoned them among the first class of the Antilegomenoi (comp.
Guericke, p. 606 ff.), and thereby proves that their canonical authority was
not uncontested; but by the addition ecire, «.7.4., by which he does not want
to confirm the doubt as to their canonicity, he expresses the uncertainty
whether the Epistles were composed by John or by another of the same
name, namely, the Presbyter John. In the Antioch school they were re-
fused acceptance; Theodosius Mops. is said to have rejected them on the
testimony of Leontius Byz.; Theodoret does not mention them; and in
the Homily on Matt. xxi. 28, ascribed to Chrysostom, it is said, riv devripay
al tpirny of narépes Groxavovifovr. For the rest, after the time of Eusebius
INTRODUCTION. 629
their canonicity was undisputed; but that doubts still obtained in regard to
their apostolic origin, is proved by Jerome, who, in his Catal. Script. Eccl.,
chap. 9, s.v. Papias, says: scripsit Joannes et unam epistolam, quae ab universis
ecclestasticis et eruditis viris probatur, reliquae autem duae, quarum principium
SENIOR . . . JOANNIS PRESBYTERI asseruntur; and in chap. 18 calls this
view an opinio, quam a plerisque retulimus traditam. The, generally speaking,
infrequent quotation of these Epistles, as well as the hesitation in the decision
as to their canonicity and apostolicity, are easily explained, partly by their
character, partly by the designation of the author (6 tpro3irepoc) which is pre-
fixed. From the fact, however, that the oldest authorities, Clemens Alex. and
Irenaeus, quite unhesitatingly cite them, at least the Second Epistle, as writ-
ings of the Apostle John, it may be concluded that in the most ancient tradi-
tion they were regarded as apostolical Epistles, and that it was only at a later
date that they were ascribed by many, perhaps only on account of the super-
scription, to the Presbyter John, whom Papias (Euseb. iii. 39) calls a wadnri¢
rov xupiov, but definitely distinguishes from the Apostle John. In the Middle
Ages the authorship of the Apostle John was not disputed. Erasmus first
again regarded the Presbyter John as the author of the Epistles; the same
view was afterwards expressed and defended by Grotius, J. D. Beck (Observ.
Crit.-Exeget., Specim. J.), Fritzsche (“‘ Bemerkk. tiber die Br. Joh.,” in Henke’s
Museum fiir Religionswissenscha/ft, iii. part 1), Ammon (Leben Jesu, i. p. 45 ff.),
and others. Almost all modern commentators and critics (Liicke, De Wette,
Brickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Ewald,! Bleek, Braune), on the
other hand, have with more or less confidence decided in favor of their apos-
tolic authorship; against which Ebrard again ascribes them to the Presbyter
John. It is extraordinary, that the same reasons are alleged for both views;
namely, (1) the character of the style, (2) the self-designation of the author
by 6 mpeoBitepoc, and (3) the connection with Diotrephes. (1) As far as
the style is concerned, the Second Epistle has unmistakably a pronounced
Johannean impress. This is less the case with the Third Epistle; yet even
this, which at any rate has the same author as the Second Epistle, bears in
itself, in particular expressions and ideas, traces of the same peculiarity
(comp. Liicke, Braune, Diisterdieck). According to Ebrard, the correspond-
ences are to be explained by “allusions and certain reminiscences,” while the
peculiar style of the author of the two Epistles appears in the section
1 According to Ewald’s idea (Geech. Jer., only theee two have been accidentally pre-
vil. 219), John in Ephesus, in anewer to urgent served. Comp. also Ewald's Joh. Schriften,
demands, wrote several letters to particular _p. 605.
churches and persons, of which, however,
e
630 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
vv. 5-10 of the Third Epistle, and this deviates altogether from that of the
Apostle John. But that the elsewhere well-known diction of John is not
reflected in this section, may be very well explained by the fact that he is
treating of quite special circumstances, and that, too, only in hints, and with
the greatest possible brevity; but that in 2 John 5, 12, and 3 John 11, there
is “an intentional allusion to particular dicta of the First Epistle,” and that
in 2 John 86, 7, 9, such dicta “are almost exactly quoted,” are assertions
which cannot be proved, as the agreements may just as well, at least, have
their origin in the identity of the author. (2) As, according to the distinct
testimony of Papias (in Euseb., H. E., iii. 99), the existence of a presbyter
named John, who was & paénric of the Lord, cannot be doubted, it is natural
to regard him as the author of the Epistle, who calls himself 6 zpeo3urepoc.
But as Papias designates this John as 6 mpes3vrepoe merely to distinguish
him from the previously mentioned (Apostle) John, it cannot be inferred
from his words that “6 xpeoBirepoc” was in itselfa name denoting the non-
apostolic John. If this was not the case, how then could this John venture
to call himself xar’ toy#v ‘6 mpec3irepop”? Ebrard thinks that, as the two
Johns lived in Ephesus, the non-apostolic John was in his intimate circle
called “the Presbyter” in distinction from the Apostle, and that “it is easily
intelligible from this how the Presbyter John would, in his confidential
private circles, use this designation as a stamped @oin;” but, besides,
Ebrard appeals to the fact that the small filial churches in the neighbor-
hood of the city, the single members of the presbytery established in the
mother church, and hence those small churches which had gathered round
the Kyria and Caius and Diotrephes, had been handed over to the care of
of the Presbyter John, “so that according to his officia] position he was ‘ the
Presbyter’ to these churches.” Ebrard thus gives two explanations, of
which, however, only one could be valid;! moreover, both explanations are
based on uncertain assumptions. — Liicke and Diisterdieck (similarly Briick-
ner and Braune) with justice show that the name, 6 zpeoGirepoc, would not
have been suitable for the Presbyter John without the addition of his proper
name. But how does the case stand in this respect with the Apostle John?
Oecumenius says: rot bri yepatde Ov Hen Eypawe ravrac, # nal éxioxorov Kadwv éavtoy
da Tov npeoGurépov; the former view, which is defended by Piscator, Lange,
Carpzovius, Sander, Bleek, etc., has the form of the word against it; if John
wanted to describe himself as “the old man,” it is not conceivable why he
1 For, if John used the name because it was to whom he was writing; and if he did It for
a coin once stamped for him, then he did not __ the latter cause, then plainly he did not do it
use it to describe his special position to thuse for the former.
INTRODUCTION. 631
did not write 6 yépwy, 6 npeoBirne, or similarly, especially as 6 xpeaBirepog was
already in use as an official name; even apart from the fact that the desig-
nation would only vaguely state who the author was, the expression must
certainly be taken, with Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune,
as an Official name. For this purpose it was quite suitable to the Apostle
John, as he was connected with the churches in question not merely as
an apostle, but had entered into a special (episcopal) relationship towards
them. He undertook the same position towards them as, immediately after
the apostolic age, the bishop occupied towards the churches subordinate to
him. Hence John might have called himself 6 ézioxoroc, but he could not, as
in his time both expressions denoted the same position; though in later
times, when in the ecclesiastical organization bishops and presbyters were
definitely distinguished from one another, the former were still frequently
described by the name oi mpecBirepa.!1— (3) In the Third Epistle there is
reference to a relationship of Diotrephes to the author of the Epistle, which,
if this was the Apostle John, must certainly be regarded as strange. It
seems more easy of explanation if, as Ebrard thinks, the author was an
Ephesian presbyter to whose oversight the churches, in which Caius and
Diotrephes were prominent members, had been intrusted; but in the first
place this supposition lacks historical foundation, and, secondly, a still
greater degree of violence would belong to the case if Diotrephes “ prated
with malicious words” against a man who was not only a member of the
Ephesian presbytery, but also had to exercise an oversight over those
churches, and who as an immediate paéyric rod xupiov certainly enjoyed great
respect. If Diotrephes was capable of that, then his ambition — which in-
deed may lead to the most extreme steps — might have induced him to
despise even the dignity of an apostle. Besides, the particular circum-
stances are much too unknown by us for it to be justifiable for us on their
account to deny the Apostle John the authorship of the Epistle. — The
assertion that the prohibition contained in 2 John 10, 11, contradicts the
loving disposition of the Apostle John, is with justice rejected by Ebrard,
and that, too, with the suitable remark, “the love of the Apostle John was
that sort of love which does not want to please, but to save souls; and hence
he meets the lie not with careless connivance, but with firm confession of
the truth and other discipline.”
1 When Ebrard says that wpecfvrepos can- fore follow that an apostle might not assume
not have been a title of the apostles, he {s 80 ~—s to particular churches eucha position as would
far right, as an apostie, as such, was not des- make this name suitable to him.
ignated by that name; but it does not there-
Baur (in the work quoted above) regards these two Epistles, as he does
the First Epistle, as writings of Montanist origin. He proceeds from the
fact that they both have one author, and that the second was written to
the church to which Caius (to whom the Third Epistle is directed) belonged,
and is no other than the Epistle mentioned in 3 John 9: in this church,
‘ Baur further says, a schism had taken place; the one part, with Diotrephes
at their head, had refused ecclesiastical fellowship to the church to which
the author of the Epistle belonged; the other part, on the contrary, were in
agreement with this church; and that, although the cause of that schism
is not evident from the Epistles themselves, it is nevertheless clear that it is
conformable to a time at which there had already occurred between several
churches too lively differences about questions of the highest interest for
the Christian mind. From these premises Baur concludes that the Second
Epistle “was written to the Montanistically disposed section of the Roman
Church ;” and that Diotrephes is the symbolic description of the bishop of
Rome, not indeed, as Schwegler (Montanismus, p. 284) supposed, of Victor
(for Irenaens and Clemens Alex. already knew both Epistles), but of an
earlier bishop, perhaps Soter, or Anicet, or Eleutheros. Baur in this proof
lays a special weight upon the partisanship of the writer of the Epistle,
which had gone so far that he describes the followers of Diotrephes just as
heathen (8 John 7) (!). Baur finds the main support of his view in the
passage of Clemens Al. cited above: Secunda Joannis ep., quae ad virgines
scripta est, simplicissima est. Scripta vero est ad quandam Babyloniam
Electam nomine, significat autem electionem ecclesia sanctae; he holds that
in these words Clemens refers the name 'Exjexr# to the idea of the Church,
inasmuch as the predicate of holiness is appropriate to it; that this quite
corresponds to the idea of the Montanists, whose first demand of the Ec-
clesia was that she should be, as the “sponsa Christi,” vera, pudica, sancta ;
that the name Babylonia is to be allegorically understood of the city of
Rome (as in 1 Pet. v. 18), where there were divided opinions in regard to
Montanism. It does not require to be pointed out, how very much arbitrary
and extraordinary modes of interpretation are heaped up in this statement.
Quite apart from this, Baur’s assertion places Clemens in the most wonderful
contradiction with himself: on the one hand, Clemens exactly specifies the
Second Epistle as written by the Apostle John; and on the other hand, —
though in an obscure way, — he is said to have stated that it was of Mon-
tanist origin. And then, what could have induced a Montanist to invent
epistles under the pretended name of the apostle, which do not contain
any thing of Montanist character at all? Did he want to put the authority
INTRODUCTION. 633
of John in the scale against the bishop of Rome? But the Epistle could
not in any way have been used for that purpose, as it must have been clear
to any one that John could not have written against Soter (or Anicet, or
Eleutheros). The Montanists, however, have taken so little advantage of
these Epistles for their interests, that the Montanist Tertullian never once
mentions them! — Hilgenfeld assigns the appearance of the Second and
Third Epistles, as that of the First Epistle, to the post-apostolic age: yet he
does not seek their explanation in the interest of the author on behalf of
Montanism, but he thinks that the Second Epistle is an “excommunicatory
writing,” by which, in the form of the epistles which the Christian churches
interchanged, an “official apostolic condemnation ” was meant to be uttered
against the fellowship with the Gnostic false teachers; and that the Third
Epistle is an émoroad cvcrarian which originated in the church of John, and
had the object of vindicating for that church the right to the circulation
of such commendatory epistles, which the strict Jewish Christians would
allow only to their patron James, as the author had known “the usefulness
of such a regular passport” in the storms of Gnosticism. These hypoth-
eses, according to which the circumstances hinted at in the Third Epistle
are a pure invention, can, however, only be regarded as make-shifts to
explain, as well as is possible, the origin of the two Epistles, which Hil-
genfeld, for the same reasons as those for which he denies the genuineness
of the First Epistle, thinks it is impossible to regard as memorials of the
apostolic age.
SEC. 2.—CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLES ; TIME
AND PLACE OF THEIR COMPOSITION.
The Second Epistle begins with the inscription, which, after mentioning
the writer and the receiver of the Epistle, contains the greeting of bene-
diction. It is addressed, according to the most probable explanation of
the word «xvpig (see the commentary on ver. 1), to a Christian church, to
which the author expresses his joy that its members are walking in truth,
with which he connects an exhortation to mutual love, which he confirms
by a reference to the appearance of false teachers whc deny that Jesus
is the Christ, come in the flesh. After he has mentioned the abiding in
the doctrine of Christ as the condition of fellowship with God, he forbids the
brotherly reception of the opponents of this doctrine, because thereby we
would make ourselves guilty of fellowship with their evil deeds. The
conclusion of the Epistle contains a justification of its shortness, and the
delivery Of the greeting Irom the church in which the apostle is.— Lhe
design of the Epistle accordingly lies in the danger which threatened the
church through the false teachers, and of which the author wanted to
warn the church in few words before he could come to it himself.
The Third Epistle also begins with an inscription, in which Caius (see
on ver. 1) is mentioned as the receiver of it. After the wish that Caius
may have prosperity, the apostle expresses his joy that he—according to
the testimony of some brethren —is walking in the truth, and praises him
especially on account of his active display of love towards strange brethren,
whom he then recommends to his further care, because they went forth for
Christ’s sake, and it is a duty to receive such.— Then he mentions the
arbitrary procedure of Diotrephes, who withheld from the church a letter
written to it by him, made evil speeches against him, and opposed the
reception of the brethren; in connection with which the author expresses
his intention to come and bring him to account. After an exhortation
not to follow that which is evil, but that which is good, the apostle gives
Demetrius (the probable bearer of this Epistle) a good testimonial, justifies
himself for the shortness of his writing, and, after a short benediction,
concludes by giving the greeting of friends and sending greeting to friends.
The design of the Epistle accordingly was furnished by an incident which
had occurred in the church of Caius. Some strange missionary brethren,
who had found a friendly reception from Caius, had come to the apostle.
The latter had written on their behalf to the church to which Diotrephes
also belonged ; but Diotrephes, with insolent expressions against the apostle,
had opposed the reception of those brethren, and had even cast out of the
church those who did not agree with him. This Epistle is now meant to
serve the purpose of confirming Caius in the continuation of his manifes-
tations of love, as well as of intimating to him the near arrival of the
apostle. — Ewald’s ideas, that both Epistles were addressed to one and
the same church, that Diotrephes had specially interested himself in the
false teachers, and that the Third Epistle was written to Caius from fear
lest the Second Epistle might have been withheld from the Church by
Diotrephes, are to be regarded as mere conjectures, which cannot be proved
from the contents of the two Epistles.
The Place and Time of their Composition are unknown in the case of both
Epistles; yet it is not unlikely that 2 John 12 and 3 John 14 refer to a
tour (perhaps one and the same) of inspection (especially as Eusebius,
H. E., iii. 24, describes such a tour of inspection made by John from
Ephesus), and that the Epistles were written in Ephesus.—As in the
INTRODUCTION. 685
Second Epistle the same false teachers are referred to that are spoken of
in the First Epistle, it is probable that the places at which these two
Epistles were composed are not far remote from one another.1 — The
remark of Eichhorn, that in the Second Epistle a more vigorous spirit is
displayed than in the First, is no less incorrect than the idea that the
“rigorous” (!) prohibition in 2 John 10, 11, indicates the still youthful old
age of the apostle.
1 According to Ebrard, the Second Epistle the similarities are the result of a backward
appeared at a later date than the First; the reference, is only certain if the two Epistles
proof of this he finds in the fact that the proceed from diferent authors.
former refers back to the latter. But that
636 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
"Iwdvvov érictoAy Sevrépa.
THE superscription is shortest in B and &: (wavvou .; in some codd. xadoAinA
is added to émoroA7; in some rod émt orndoi¢ comes after "lwavvov; in G it runs:
tov dyiov droorédov ’lwavvov tov deoddyov. In the Elz. ed., the superscription
runs: "lwavvov tov anoorddAoy émtaroAn xaBodixy devrépa; the Rec. is énicroAp 'Iwavvov
devrépa,
Ver. 1. cal obx tye], Rec. The reading ob« éyd dé in A, 73, Syr., Thph.,
owes its origin to the desire to mark the antithesis more sharply (Diisterdieck);
Ebrard regards the Rec. as a correction, made in order to make the Second and
the First Epistles conformable in style. Scarcely credible. G reads: xai ovx éya
6. — Ver. 2. The reading in A, évoccoivcay, instead of uévovaay, is too feebly
attested for us to regard it, with Ebrard, as the correct one; it has probably
arisen in order to avoid the tautology which uévovoay appears to form with the
following. — Ver. 3. The Elz. ed. reads forat ped’ bud», which is attested by
B, G, &, etc., several versions, etc. It is possible that jucv arose from the
immediately preceding (so Braune), but just as likely that j7uov was changed to
tuay, because the former did not seem appropriate for the greeting; the weight
of authorities is in favor of #ueov,—Instead of apa, X* reads d76 (sol.). —
Before ‘Inco Xp., the Rec. has xvpiov, which is found in G, K,x&. In A, B,
etc., xupiov is wanting (Lachm., Tisch.); Bengel, Briickner, Sander, are in favor
of the genuineness of xvpiov; yet the later insertion of it seems more probable
than the omission. — The airot of & between rod viov and rov rarpé¢ must be
regarded as a clerical error. — Ver. 4. & (sol.) has instead of éAdg3ouev the third
person, éAasov, — B omits rod before narpog, — Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. ypagu,
‘we must read ypdagwy, according to A, B, G, K, &, etc. — Lachm. has xacvay
before ypa¢wy, which is not adequately attested by A, X, Vulg. — Ver. 6. In the
second part, the succession of the words varies; in G, ®, most of the min., etc.,
abrn tariv 9 évroAn (Rec.) is found; in A, B, K, etc., on the other hand, airy 7
tyroAn éortv (Lachm., Tisch.); it is possible that the Rec. has been formed in
accordance with the preceding airy éoriv 9 ayarn. It is to be noticed that & has
before abrn a xai, and after tvroA7 an atrvd, and also that in the same cod. iva
is found before xaGec, so that an epanalepsis occurs here. — Instead of tepirar7re,
N reads xepiraryjonre. — Ver. 7. The most probable reading is é§#AGov, according
to A (éAGav, Tisch.), B, *® (Lachm.); the Rec. eio7AGov, according to G, K,
etc., is a correction; comp. 1 John ii. 19, iv. 1, and 8 John 7.— Ver. 8. The
Rec., according to G, K, has amodéocumev... elpyacaueda. . . aroAdGoper.
Cod. A, and & read: amoAێonre (N*, aroAjobe) . . . eipyacacbe . . . atoAaPnte:
this reading, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is regarded as the original reading
by Liicke, De Wette, Reiche. Cod. B reads: amodéonre (according to Bentley’s
collation; Griesb. gives dvoAéentat, which is also given by Tisch., bracketed,
however) .. . elpyaoipeda . . . amoAd3ere; De Wette regards this reading as a
VERSE 1. | 637
combination of the reading of A with the Rec.; Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune
(also the 2d ed. of this comm.) regard the reading in B as the original. It is
certainly the one by which the origin of the variotis readings can be easily
explained; yet the circumstance that it is almost only found in B (Reiche: lectio
codicis B in nullis aliis subsidiis inventa est, nisi quod Syr. p. in m. et Sahid.
ejus sensum expressit) must render it doubtful. Of the two others, that of A
and &, at any rate, deserve the preference. Bengel would arbitrarily read:
Grodéonre . . . elpyaoaode . . . anoAdBouev, which is only found in Cod. 34. —
Ver. 9. tapaBaivuy}. Rec., according to G, K, etc., Syr., Thph., Oec. (Reiche).
Lachm. and Tisch. read instead of it, mpouywy, which is attested by A, B, &,
etc., and the readings praecedit and procedit in several codd. of the Vulg.
(against which, in the printed Vulg. and Lucif., is recedit). The opinion of
Matthaei and Licke, that mpoaywy arose out of the paraphrase which appears in
the scholia: daxaywy éavrov, which also occurs in Oecumenius, is unfounded;
this explanation rather points to pocywy as the original reading. — The Rec.
(according to G, K, etc., several vss., Thpb., Oec.) has, both after the first and
after.the second év ry didayj, the addition rod Xptorot; Lachm. and Tisch.
have the addition only after the first; so in A, B, &, several min., Vulg., etc.;
this is to be regarded as the correct reading. —It is doubtful whether viov or
rarépa comes first in the following sentence; the Rec., retained by Lachm., is:
roy marépa xal rdy vidy; this is found in B, G, K, &, etc., several vss., Thph.,
Oec.; Tisch., on the other hand, following A and several vss., has accepted rd»
vidyv cai rdv wmarépa; but this appears to be a change effected on account of
tv rg dd, rod Xptorod, — Ver. 11. 6 yap Aéywr}, Rec., according to G, K, almost
all min., Thph., Oec. (Tisch. 2); instead of it Tisch. 7 (similarly Lachm.),
according to A, B, &, reads 6 Aéywy yap, which, as unusual, might be prefer-
able. Tisch. 7 remarks: ydp tertio loco positum fere ubique a plerisque testibus
in secundum locum translatum. — Tisch. has omitted ydp after avrg, although
it is wanting only in K, several min., and Oec. — Ver. 12. x® has éxw; &,, how-
ever, fyuv. —Instead of iAwigu yap, Rec. (Lachm.), according to A, some
min. and vss., Tisch., following B, G, K, 8, many min., etc., reads: adda
éAniCw; this reading is the original one; the context might easily lead to the
change of GAAa into yap. — yevéoba:]. This reading, recommended by Gries-
bach, has been accepted also by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. éAgeiv (according
to G, K, etc.) is a correction. Instead of crduza mp, or., R* reads: oTOmart Tpd¢
oToua.—7 xapa Huey). Rec., according to G, K, &, etc., Tisch.; instead of it,
Lachm., following A, B, etc., Vulg., etc., reads: 9 xyapa tucv; tuov perhaps is
preferable; the preceding judc¢ might easily lead to the change into nua, —
Instead of J wexAnpwuévn, Rec., according to A, G, K, all min., etc. (Tisch.),
the reading of B, &, Vulg., is remAnp. J (Lachm.). — The Rec., following G, K,
etc., adds for conclusion du7v, a later addition. —In various codd., a subscrip-
tion is found which runs most briefly in A, B, &, thus: ‘lwdvvov 3, The Cod.
62 adds the words mpd [Iap8ovc (comp. on 1 John).
Vv. 1-8. Superscription of the Epistle.
Ver. 1. 6 mpeoBirepur]. The definite article restricts the general idea
mpeaBurepoc to a particular person, to whom this epithet is specially appro-
priate. That this is most probably the Apostle John, see Introduction,
sec. 1. The reflection on his age may have led the apostle to write, not
6 émoxoror, but 6 mpeosirepoc. —éxAenTy xvpig xal roig réxvog abtic]. The inter-
638 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
pretation of these words has from the earliest times been very diverse,
according as either éxAexry or xvpia has been regarded as a proper noun, or
both words have been considered as appellatives. The first opinion (Lyranus,
a Lapide, Lorinus, Cappellus, Grotius, Wetstein, etc.) has been with justice
given up by modern commentators; it is clearly enough opposed not only by
the mode of its conjunction with xvpia, but also by ver. 13. The second view,
according to which «vpia is the proper noun, is found as early as in Athana-
sius, and afterwards in Bengel, Carpzovius, Heumann, Krigel (Commentatio de
xvpia Johannis, Lips., 1758), Paulus, Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, Guericke,
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, etc. That Kupia appeared as a feminine proper
name, is not to be doubted; see Grutteri, Jnscriptt. p. 1127, num. xi.; comp.
Heumann: Poecile de Cyria Johannis: but if this view be taken, not only is
the adjective éxAexr7? strange, as it never is assigned to any individual in the
N. T. as a single predicate except in Rom. xvi. 13 (where, however, éy xupiy
is put along with it), but also its connection with the proper noun, instead
of Kupig rg éxAectg: comp. 3 John 1; Phil. i. 1,2; Rom. xvi. Liicke, it is
true, refers to 1 Pet. i. 1: &«Aexroic mapenwWiuoee; but here the case is different,
as maperiéjuoc is not a proper noun, as even Briickner admits, though he
nevertheless falls back on a “familiar carelessness” in this case.1 The
third interpretation is found in Luther (“the elect woman”), Ilornejus,
Wolf, Rittmeier (Diatriba, de electa domina, Helmst., 1706), Baumgarten-
Crusius, Sander, etc. According to Epictetus, chap. 62: ai yvvaines evéve ad
resoapeoxaidexa été tnd Tov dvdpdw xupiat xadovvra, Women might certainly be
called xvpia:; but this was plainly only a polite address, corresponding not to
the German Frau (woman), but to the German Herrin (lady). It hardly
corresponds with the apostolic dignity of the author, however, to describe
the receiver of the Epistle in the superscription by this name of a conven-
tional politeness.2 But the opinion of Knauer (Stud. u. Krit., 1833, Part 2,
p. 452 ff.), that by éxAexr) xvpia is to be understood Mary, the mother of
Jesus, lacks any tenable foundation (see Liicke on this passage). — Already
at an early date «vpia was taken as a symbolic description of the Christian
Church; so Jerome (Ep. zi. ad Ageruchiam) and the Scholiast I. (éxAexray
xupiay Aéye rv bv tol Témy éxwAnoiav), and later Calovius, Whiston, Michdelis,
Augusti, Hofmann (in his Weissagung u. Erfillung, I. p. 321, and in his
Schrifibew., I. p. 226 ff.), Hilgenfeld (1855), Ewald, etc. It is true the
word does not elsewhere appear in this signification; but according to its
connection with Him who is 6 xépeor, the Church may certainly be called
xvpia in its relationship to the individual members.* Both the contents of
1 According to Ewald, it is ‘foolish to
think ’’ that ‘‘ the apostle is here writing to an
individual woman.”’
3 Againat the distinction between the ex.
pressions Frau and Herrin, Braune adduces
the etymology of the former word (Frau,
feminine of fro = Herr); this is quite irrele-
vant here, however, as it is not the German,
but the Greek, expressions, that are in ques-
luon; it is the distinction between yu»y and
avpta. That Frau originally corresponded to
the expression «xvpia, is certain, —the word is
even yet frequently used in this sense, — but
it does not therefore follow that the Greek
xvpta became so much weakened in usage as
the German word Frau.
3 Hofmann recalis the description of the
Church In the Apocalypse as the vundéq and
the yuyy. Wheu Ebrard objects to this, that
the Church In contrast with the ‘Lord’ te
VERSE 1. 639
the Epistle, which is lacking in the slightest individual reference to a single
person, and the way in which John speaks to the receivers of the Epistle
and passes judgment on them (comp. what follows in this verse; further,
vv. 4, 5, 8, 10); and, finally, the way in which the sister and her children
are mentioned,! — are no less opposed to the opinion that the Epistle was
written to one particular woman, than they are in favor of the opinion that
it was directed to a Christian church: only «vpia must not be regarded as
the name of honor of any one particular church (according to Serrarius of
the Corinthian church, or according to Augusti of that of Jerusalem); it is
rather a name suitable for every church, by which, therefore, that church
could also be described to which the Epistle is directly addressed.2—xat
toicg réxvotc avrhc]. If «vpia is a description of the church, the réxva are
her individual members. The representation of the Church as a mother,
and of her members as her children, occurs elsewhere also; comp. Gal.
iv. 26. — ov¢ tyd ayand tv dAndeia}. If we take «vpia as a proper noun, then
obc indicates that by réxvo only sons are to be understood; but why then
does not the apostle write xa? roi¢ vioic avrg? If the réxva are the members
of the church, however, then ois is used here exactly as rexvia pov, ob¢ in Gal.
iv. 9; comp. also Matt. xxviii. 19: ra févn . . . atrovg. Suitable though the
masculine is to denote all church-members, it would be just as unsuitable to
denote members of one family, if this consisted not merely of sons, but —
as Braune here supposes—of daughters also. és is used emphatically,
inasmuch as the apostle wants to bring out Ais intimate relationship to the
members of the Church. — éy dAnéeig in its connection with dyara is not = év
Tp GAndeig, as if the (Christian) truth were thereby indicated as the element
in, which love has its existence (Bengel, Diisterdieck) ; but it is used adverb-
ially, not, however, to emphasize the sincerity of the love, but, as the word
itself states, the truth of the love (Ebrard: “I love thee with that love which
is a love in truth;” similarly Liicke: “it is the real Christian love that is
meant;” and Braune).—«a? ob« éyO povoc, GAAG wavrec}. All who have
known the truth share with the apostle love to the réxva of the avpla. This
addition also goes to show that xvpia is not a proper noun; for, how could
the children of an individual woman be regarded as an object of the love of
all believers? Bengel, with whom Diisterdieck agrees, remarks indeed on
this, communio sanctorum; but the apostle’s mode of expression presupposes
not ‘the lady,” but the obedient handmaild, it
must be remembered that she is here spoken
of not in regard to her subordinate relation.
ship to Christ, but fn regard to her superior
relationship to her individual members.
1 De Wette also says: ‘‘ The way in which
her sister and her sister’s children are mev-
tioned is favorable to the idea that a single
Christlan church le meant.”’
2 That the Eplatle is directly addreseed to a
particular church, is evident from ver. 12; tho
want of references to individual circumstances
may perhaps be explained by the fact that it
also had an encyclical design: that the author,
however, “ had in view the whole of orthodozw
Christendom" (Hilgenfeld), is just as little
appropriate to this Epletie as to the First. —
Braune’s considerations are of hittle impor-
tance: the name of the church might be
omitted, because the bearer of the Epistle
knew to what charch he had to tako it;
éxAectTH io by no means aneuitable with cupa
™ «xndnoia, according to 4 éy BaBvAwm ovre-
xrextH (by which the church is certainly to be
understood) ; it has not been asserted that the
relationship of the mother in Gal. iv. 26 has
been given to a single church.
640 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
an actual knowledge about one another. Several commentators accordingly
have recourse to a weakening of the idea navrec,)1 which, however, is arbi-
trary. — dAjdea is the divine truth, of which the believer becomes a partaker
in Christ. The emphasis of 4476¢e:a both here and in ver. 2 is caused by
the antithesis to the mAavo (ver. 7). The bracketing of the words «xa? ovx
oa» THY GAndeav, “spoils the clearness of the connection, and is also logically
not quite correct, because ver. 2 refers not only to éyw, but also to mavrec”
(Liicke).
Ver, 2 states the cause of the love. —d:a riv GAndecav Tey pévovoay
év fpiv]. The idea pévew signifies here, as in the First Epistle, firm, sure
existence. —In juiv the apostle includes the loving and the loved (so also
Braune).— The dyamgy év dAn@eig is based on the possession of the aajvera.
— Carpzovius incorrectly connects these words with ver. 3.— By the addi-
tion, xa? e6’ quwy Eora: ei¢ tov aidva, the imperishable endurance of fellowship
with the truth is declared (Diisterdieck, Braune), and it is not merely the
wish for it that is expressed (Liicke, Ebrard). By pera (as distinguished
from é) the objectivity of the truth is indicated (Braune). The irregularity
of the construction, inasmuch as the finite verb is used instead of a participle
(comp. A. Buttmann, p. 327 [E. T., 382]; Winer, p. 533 [E. T., 578]),
serves to give prominence to the idea.
Ver. 3. The formula of greeting. It agrees substantially with that
which is found in most of the N. T. Epistles; the prefixed fora: weg’ fuav
(inv), however, is peculiar; the future indicates the wish as a certain
expectation, which is based on the immediately preceding statement (Diister-
dieck). If we take the reading jew (see the critical notes), the apostle
includes himself along with the readers of the Epistle, which indeed does
not elsewhere occur in the salutatory formulae; pera = “ with.” — yapec,
tacos, eipavn, just as in 1 and 2 Tim. and Tit. 1.4.2— awapa Oeod warpog).
Instead of sapu, atv is elsewhere regularly used in this connection, as & reads
here also; on the difference of the two prepositions, see Winer, p. 342 (E. T.,
364 f.).— To @cob rarpoc, fudy is always added by Paul, except in the Pastoral
Epistles. God is here called raryp, first of all in His relation to Christ, but
also with the consciousness that in Christ He is the Father of believers also.
—xal mapa ‘lnc, Xp. rot viov row rarpog, similarly in the other Epistles
of the N. T., only that here the sonship of Christ is specially indicated ; the
repetition of the preposition brings out the independence of the Son along
with the Father. — The last addition, é aanéeig xai dyary, is peculiar to John;
the dA, and dydry are the two vital elements (Baumgarten-Crusius: funda-
41 Hornejus: *‘Omnes fideles, non quidem
qui in toto orbe tum temporis erant, sed qui
In illla partibus et simul Dominam illam et
liberos ejus norant.” — Lilcke: ‘‘ waves, «.7.Acy
i.e., all Christians (perhaps of this place?)
who know the Kyria and her children; "’
Braune agrees with this explanation, but
would regard ‘‘as included, even those who
would later become acquaiuted with her’’ —
which is clearly unsultable.
2 The explanation of these words given on
1 Tim. 1. 2 is regarded as unsatisfactory by
Dusterdieck, although it is in substantial
agreement with his own, only that it ie not
exprossly stated that xapis means ‘ grace,"
éAcos “mercy,” and ecpyyy * peace,” — which
is surely self-evident, — but only tho relation
of the tbree ideas to one another, which is
often erroneously interpreted, ie poluted out.
VERSES 4, 5, 6. 641
mental features) of the believer, in which the divine manifestations of grace,
mercy, and peace have to work (Diisterdieck) : “the words contain an ind}
cation of the contents of the whole Epistle ” (Ebrard) ; a Lapide erroneously
supplies: ut perseveretis vel ut crescatis. Grotius wrongly defines the relation-
ship when he says: per cognitionem veri et dilectionem mutuam, nam per haec
in nos Dei beneficia provocamus, conservamus, augemus, in the first place, év is
not = per; and, in the second place, our conduct is not the cause of the
divine xdpec, x.7.4., but the relationship is the converse.
Ver. 4. The Epistle begins with the assurance of joy at the conduct of
those to whom it is addressed. The preface to most of the Pauline Epistles
is similar. This verse refers back to the preceding év dAyéeig; ver. 5, on the
other hand, to iv dydry.—éxapqv Aiav; not, “I have greatly rejoiced”
(Luther); the aorist is to be kept in its own meaning. The apostle is speak-
ing historically of the time at which he had the experience which he states
in the following words. —éri eipyxa ix roy téxvwv cov mepimarovvTag
iv dAn@cia). é rav réxv. is not = 1a réxva cov; it is indicated by the é
that John could not boast the meperareiv év ad. of all,! but not that “he had
not become acquainted with all” (Diisterdieck). Braune’s observation is
erroneous, that, “as the article is wanting with zeperarovyrac, it is not indi-
cated that the other children were not walking év aa.” With mepxarey iv,
comp. John viii. 12; 1 John i. 6, 7; 3 John 3, 4, and several other passages.
—eipn«a indicates a previous meeting with the children of the «upia — and
hence a previous sojourn of the apostle in the church to which he is writing ;
incorrectly, Sander: “I have found as the result of my examination ;” the
preterite éydpyv does not suit this interpretation. — If x«vpia be a proper
noun, it remains uncertain where the apostle met with her children. Luicke,
on account of ver. 12, considers it unlikely that the apostle had been in
the family; “‘he seems to have met the réxva soniewhere else without the
mother ” (so also Braune). Not only this uncertainty, but also the circum-
stance that John does not express himself further about the children who
are not walking in the truth, indicates that he is not speaking of a family,
but of a church, which is erroneously disputed by Braune.—x«adog évroagy
#AaBoperv]. xabioc (which is not to be taken here, with Ebrard, argumenta-
tively = “ because indeed”) does not more particularly define the repirareiy
in itself, as if év dAndeig were only added adverbially for confirmation = “who
in truth walk as,” etc.; but xa#wc refers to the wepirareiv év dAnd., and GAZOea
is Christian truth, as in ver. 3; thus, “tho are walking in the truth, according
as we received commandment” (Diisterdieck). By this, however, we are not
to understand one particular commandment, but the obligation which is
contained in the Christian faith to walk in the truth. mapa rot rarpos,
see ver. 3; the intervention of the Son is implied.
Vv. 5,6. nat viv épwred cel. viv is used here, not ainparally: but
logically. Disterdieck refers it to the immediately preceding subordinate
clause, xa0d¢, «.7.4.; Ebrard, on the other hand, to the idea eipyxa, x.7.4,; but
1 Ebrard, appropriately: “It is a delicate § which he has to express in a mere cane tiation
way in which the presbyter covers the blame af praise.”
642 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
it is more correctly referred to éydpny, «.7.2.; the joy which the apostle felt is
the cause of his present request (so also Briickner and Braune). John says
towrd instead of the usual rapaxadd, a8 the request is suitable to the church,
as & xupia. —oby Oo ivToAdY ypdguy cot Katvy, x.7.A.]. Comp. 1 John
ii. 7. —iva dyanipyev cAAndrovc, dependent on épwrs, comp. John xvii. 15, not
on évroAjy Eyouev (Baumgarten-Crusius), “for this is used in a subordinate
clause merely, and égpwra would be without connection and without object ”
(Briickner). ta states here also not merely the purpose, but the substance
of the request (contrary to Braune).— Ver. 6. «al airy... iva]. The same
construction, 1 John v. 3. The apostle is not distinguishing the command-
ment of love from the other commandments (De Wette), but is describing
the walking according to the commandments of God as the substance and
essence of love; with justice, for, in the first place, only that love is moral —
or, more particularly, Christian — in its character, which is founded on obe-
dience toward God, and therefore “consists in the fulfilment of the com-
mandments of God that regulate our relationship to our neighbor” (Ebrard) ;
and, in the second place, the aim of all the divine commandments is nothing
else than love. Briickner, Braune, and others here interpret 4 dyar7 incor-
rectly of “Christian love simply,” including also the love of God and Christ ;
the close connection of this sentence with the preceding one (% dyany clearly
refers back to Iva dyanipev GaAnAove) compels us to understand #% ayan7 of
Christian brotherly love. The thought last expressed is specially empha-
sized by the following words. According to the reading, airy % évrodp éore,
we must translate: ‘* This commandment is (consists in this), as ye have heard
Jrom the beginning (no other than this), that ye should walk ty airg." —7 bvroAaa
resumes the preceding rd¢ évroAd¢ abrod:; the transition from the plural to the
singular is not difficult; comp. 1 John iii. 22, 23. — iva states the substance
of the commandment, and é airy refers to dyarn (De Wette-Briickner, Liicke,
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune), and not to évroaq (Sander); for this would
not only give an inadmissible tautology, but would also be contrary to John’s
mode of expression, in which the phrase mepirareiv év rg évroag does not appear.
— By the intervening clause xafdc hxovoare, “a subordinate definition of the
évroan”’ (Liicke, De Wette) is not given, but it is observed that the readers
have heard from the beginning what is the substance of the divine com-
mandment; the apostle thereby refers back to what was said in ver. 5 (so
also Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Briickner, Braune). The circle that results from
this interpretation only serves to bring clearly out the identity of brotherly
love and obedience toward God.
Ver. 7. In this verse the apostle addresses himself to the warning against
the false teachers, whom he first more particularly characterizes. The or,
with which the verse begins, indicates that the foregoing exhortation to
1 KUatlin incorrectly interprets (p. 218): firmation in the context. — Ebrard unjuatifiably
“The old commandment, that we should love _ asserts that the obscurity of the expression in
one another, means nothing else than that we _— this verse Is to be explained by the fact that
should abide in what He bas commanded usto the apostle intentionally alludes to eomc pas-
believe.” That évroAj here denotes the com- sages of the Firet Epistle, with which be
mand to believe (1 John fff. 23), finds no con- assumes the Kyria to be familiar.
VERSE 8. 643
mutual love has its origin in the fear of their being disturbed by the influ-
ence of the false teachers; but it is not to be inferred from this that dr is
grammatically dependent on épwrd oe. It would be grammatically. possible
also to regard this verse as the premise on which ver. 8 is based (Grotius,
Carpzovius), but such a construction is at variance with the peculiarity of
John’s diction. —dre moAaot sAdvor}]. The expression rAdvor does not else-
where appear in John; comp. on the other hand, Matt. xxvii. 68; 2 Cor.
vi. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 1; instead of it in 1 John ii. 26: of zAavavrec tua. — With
this passage may be compared 1 John ii. 18 ff., iv. 1. —é&£&%A 60» [elopAGor]
el¢ rdv xécuov does not denote separation from the church; xécpo¢ does
not here form the antithesis of the éxxAnoia rod Ocod; the sense is rather the
same here as in John iv.1. The difference between elo7A10. and 2&8. is
only this, that by the latter expression the point of departure is more defi-
nitely indicated. —oi pH duoAoyodvrec, x.r.A., comp. 1 John iv. 2, 3; on
the N. T. usage of the article before the participle after roAAoi, comp. Buttm.,
p. 254 (E. T., 296); u% ouoroyely = dpveitcoar, The pF is not to be ex-
plained, with Winer (p. 450 [E. T., 483]), by the fact that the participie
refers to a representative class (= quicumque non profitentur), but it is used
just as in 1 John iv. 3: 6 ud duodoyei; see on this passage. —’Inaovv Xpeordy
épyduevov év capxi is to be taken just as the words 1 John iv. 2, that run
almost exactly similarly. The present participle épxyéyevov, instead of which
éAndvééra 18 used there, expresses the idea in itself — apart from the idea of.
time; comp. John vi. 14. Bengel, incorrectly, qui veniebat, with an appeal
to 3 John 3, for in this passage épyouévwy and yuaprepoiyrur, by their close
connection with éydpyy, are distinctly indicated as imperfect participles; such
a connection does not exist here, nor are we to interpret, with Baumgarten-
Crusius, “ He who.was to come.” Still more incorrectly Oecumenius takes it
as future participle, referring it to the second coming of Christ. —otré¢
toriv b mAdvog xal b dvrixptoroc). ovrog refers back to of pu} duodoyoivres,
x.t.A, By 6 mAavog the apostle resumes the preceding mAdva; by 6 dvri-
xptorog he adds a new characteristic. — The definite article indicates these
ideas as familiar to the readers; the antichrist of whom they have heard,
comp. 1 John ii. 18. — The singular is here used in collective signification
(Liicke); the many are the antichrist, inasmuch as the same mveiya ric
rAdvn¢ is in all; comp. further, the remarks on 1 John ii. 18.
Ver. 8. The warning against the deceivers. — BAénere tavroic, ‘take heed
to yourselves ;"" BAérecv with the refl. pron. besides here only in Mark xiii. 9.
— The construction iva after BAénew only in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 besides; by Iva it
is not the purpose (“take heed to yourselves, sc. of them, so that”), but the
immediate object of their foresight that is stated (contrary to De Wette;
Braune, and A. Buttm., p. 209).! — iva, «.r.4.]. Whatever may be the correct
reading, the thought remains essentially the same: the apostle warns his
1 Braune here adduces various passages of _—nected is absolute or relative (requiring sup-
the N. T. in order to vindicate for the particle plement), and he has not reflected that if the
iva the meaning of purpose (‘eo that”); but clause beginning with iva forms the supple-
he has not paid attention to the distinction ment of the preceding verbal idea, iva cannot
whether the verbal Idea with which waiscon- be = “so that.”
644 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
readers not to let themselves be deprived, by the false teachers, of the
. blessing of which they became partakers through the evangelistic work.
With the reading eipyacdueda those who have worked are John and his asso-
ciates; that év tiv, or a similar phrase, must be put along with it for more
particular definition (Lucke), is unfounded, as this more particular definition
lies in the context itself. with the reading cipydoacde, on the other hand, it
is the work of the receivers of the Epistle themselves that is meant, who
should just as little come short of the attainment of the blessing as the
former.— The object of épyafea6ar, indicated by 4, is not exactly the scodog,
which is also spoken of, but the work directly effected by the labor, the
result or the fruit of it. Fruit had been obtained in the church by means
of the work (fruit of knowledge, love, etc.); it was of importance that they
should not again be deprived of this fruit; this is expressed by ua adrodc-
onte: their loss may also, however, be considered as a loss to those who had
worked among them by the preaching of the gospel, so that, as far as
the sense is concerned, the Rec. droAéauwpev is perhaps justifiable; but the
reading amodéonra, “that they (4) may not be lost,” also gives good sense,
so that no cause exists for regarding it, with Liicke, as a mere clerical error.
— If, however, that which was directly obtained by the work be lost again,
then the future reward (s:086¢) promised to Christians also disappears;
therefore the apostle antithetically adds: aAAad wicddv nAHpN GmroAasnre,
With the reading amoAd3upev we might be disposed to understand by the
reward the heavenly gift which the apostle himself had to expect on account
of his work; but he could not be deprived of this by the conduct of those
among whom he had labored, as it depends not on the result, but on the
faithfulness of the work; by :066¢, therefore, must certainly be understood
the reward which those to whom John is writing have to expect; for this,
however, the reading droAd@Byre is plainly more suitable than avzoAd3upev
(so also Briickner). — xioddv xAapy is not = woddv moAvy (Carpzovius),. but
“full reward;” by rA7p7 it is not meant that if they did not exhibit faith-
fulness they would receive only an imperfect reward, nor even that up to
the present they had only received a part of the reward (Grotius, Aretius,
Ebrard), but that the reward which, if they exhibit faithfulness, they shall
obtain, is a quite full reward, in which there is nothing lacking (Diisterdieck,
Briickner).
Ver. 9 brings out clearly the importance of abiding in the truth. — wag 6
mpoaywy Kai ui?) uévuv], mpoayev and pévew form a natural antithesis; xpodyew in
the neuter sense, “to advance farther,” siguifies here, in reference to ddayy,
“to advance beyond the limits of the (Christian) doctrine,” and contains an
ironical allusion to the pretensions of the false teachers to have advanced
to a higher degree of knowledge.! The Rec. mapaa:msy means: “to pass by
any thing;” we must supply along with it either ray ddarxfv (according to
the analogy of mapaBaivew riv évroAqv, Matt. xv. 3), or amd (ex) rig dedaxie 3
comp. Acts 1. 25: dmooroAne ag’ (Rec. &&) a¢ mapé3y ‘loidac. It is clearly
1 When Braune rejecte this with the re. not conaider in what connection the above was
mark. “there is a bitter truth jo fact,” he did said.
VERSE 10. 645
unwarrantable to supply the idea évrodq out of ver. 7.— Kal ud) péevuv by
ty dtdaxyg rod Xpeorov; comp. John viii. 31: uévew tv rd Aoyw to éug;
2 Tim. iii. 14.— rod Xproros is not the objective (Sander, Ebrard, etc.),
but the subjective genitive (Diisterdieck, Ewald, Braune); the doctrine
which, proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles. — @zdv ot
Eyes; comp. 1 John ii. 23. The doctrine of Christ is the truth; he who has
not the truth has not God; for in its deepest source the truth is the living
God Himself. Weiss (p. 29) unsatisfactorily interprets fye:v of the mere
“ possession in knowledge,” in place of which, on p. 77, however, he says,
“the possession effected by means of the contemplative knowledge of
Christ,” as if the latter were identical with the former. By the following
sentence the same thought is expressed positively, and is completed by
rdv viov, Which is the cause of changing Qecoc to rarip.)
Ver. 10. Warning against fellowship with false teachers. e2 rec Epxerac
mpd¢ wads]. The more particular definition of the ric is contained in the
following: «ai... gépe. The particle «i is used here because “the case is
put as if actual” (Winer). The author assumes the épyeoda as really
occurring, and in reference to it gives the command: yp) Aaudavere; if he had
regarded the coming as a thing which might only possibly occur, he would
have put éav; hence it is unsuitable to say that ef re¢ is un-Johannean
(Ebrard), “for it cannot be un-Johannean to assume a case as a reality”
(Braune).— «al ravryv riv dedaxhv ov gépe] rr. r, ced., namely, the dd, rod
Xprorov. The phrase gépecv r. ded. only here in the N. T.; comp. the
classical uidov, ayyediny pepe tivi. — On ob after ei, see Al. Buttm., p. 299
(E. T., 348). Grotius rightly says: non de tis qui alient semper fuerunt ab
ecclesia (1 Cor. v. 10), sed de ws qui rolunt fratres haberi et doctrinam evertunt.
It is only with this interpretation that the prohibition of the apostle can be
correctly understood. — ui Aau@avere abroy ele oixiay is to be understood of the
hospitable reception into our house, which is to be accorded to the brethren
as such; the apostle therefore forbids the brotherly reception of such as
bring not the doctrine of Christ, but another doctrine opposed to it, and are,
accordingly, assiduous in asserting the latter. The limitation of the pro-
hibition to the relationship of gAogevia (Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2) finds no
support in the words of the apostle. Now such a xpiow was so much the
more necessary, the more the false teachers sought to abuse the Christian
hospitality, in order to gain for themselves access to the churches; comp.
2 Tim. iii. 6. —xal yaipew aire jo) Aeyere]. It is arbitrary to limit this prohi-
bition, with Clemens Alex., to the salutatio, quae fiebat, postquam surgebatur
ab oratione solemni velut gaudii et pacis indicium, as well as to interpret it in
that degree of generality which a Lapide gives it when he says: vetat hic
Joh. omne colloquium, omne consortium, omne commercium cum haereticis ; just
as little is it to be interpreted, with Vitringa (De Synag. vet., p. 759), of the
excommunication proper. This prohibition is in closest connection with
1 According to Ebrard, this verse je a quo- _— tions, the existence of which can otherwise be
tation of the pasaage 1 John 11.23. But that explained only by arbitrary conjectures in an
this is not so is shown by the manifold devia- = artiticial way.
646 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the preceding, and similarly refers to ei ruc Epyeras mpd byiic, «.7.A,3 it is
meant to strengthen the former; not merely the hospitable reception into
the house, but also the friendly greeting of the false teacher, if he comes
as a Christian brother, is not to take place! (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew.,
ii. 2, p. 339). The word yxaipew, as a formula of salutation, appears
frequently both in the classics and also in the N. T., especially in Epistles ;
see Wah! on this word.
Ver. 11. Confirmation of the preceding prohibition. —é Aéyuv yap abro
xaipew]. The apostle mentions only this one thing, because what he says
about it is self-evident in regard to the rest also. —xovwvei roig Epyou abrod
toig movnpoic, 1.e., inasmuch as the yaipew Aéyew is not merely an outward
display of politeness, but an expression of an intimate relation of fellow-
ship.— By ra épya ra novnpé we are to understand, of course, the false
doctrine, but, at the same time, along with this the whole evil character of
the false teachers, which was very closely connected with their doctrine.?
Ver. 12. Justification of the shortness of the Epistle. — moda Eyuv tuiv
ypapecv, says the apostle, conscious as he was of having only given a few
brief hints of that which was agitating his mind. —oix é3ovAneqy dia xaprov
nal uéAavoc]. From the idea ypdgeyv the more general idea of communication
is to be supplied. — ydprn¢ “ is the Egyptian paper (papyrus), and probably
the finer augustan sort, which served for letters (Hug, Einl., i. 106);”
De Wette. — nédav, besides here, only in 3 John 13; 2 Cor. ili. 3. The
following words: dAAd tAri~w, state the reason of obx éBovAz6nv; by dAAd the
reason is expressed in the form of an antithesis. — yevéoda: mpdc dude}. In
the phrase: yiyveo@at mpog, the ideas of motion, and of rest, are both
included; comp. ytyv. els, Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15; the construction with mpc:
1 Cor. xvi. 10; comp. John x. 35; Acts x. 13, etc. —xal oripa mpd croua
Aadijoa]. An imitation of the Hebrew M2->X 79, Num. xii. 8; comp.
mpoownov mpdg xpoowror, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Similar combinations in the classics
also; Xen., Mem., ii. 6, 32, oroua mpdc ordua is used of a kiss. —iva @ yxapa,
x.t.4,; comp. 1 John i. 4. With the reading jyucw (see the critical notes)
mutual joy is meant; comp. Rom. i. 11, 12.
Ver. 13. Presentation of the greeting from the children of the «vpia’s
sister. If xvpia were @ proper noun, we would have to suppose that the
view, then perhaps impossible, that man even
1 Ebrard contradicts bimself when, in op-
position to the interpretation given here, he
first maintains that xapew Aéyeww here is the
** quite general idea of the greeting of conven-
tional politeness,” and afterwards interprets:
‘‘He who greets such a false teacher, I.e.,
keep) un personal acquaintance and conven-
tional intercourse with him."
2 De Wette’s remark, justly rejected by
Briickner, is utterly erroneous: “This prohi-
bition finds its justification in polemic zeal,
and the necessity for defence against what
seemed fatal to the maintenance of the Church.
We, with the sure foundation of the Christian
Church, and in accordance with the higher
in his errors atill remains man,and an ob-
ject of esteem and love, see in it impatience.”
— Difficult though It may be under present
circumstances, considering the development
which doctrine has taken, in many particular
cases rightly to apply what Is here said by
John, yet it must still be regarded as a valid
maxim, not only that the Christian should
remain conscious of the antithesis between
anti-Christianity and Christianity, but also
that he should not deny this consciousnees in
his conduct towards his neighbor. — Besser
unjustifiably seeks to make use of the expres-
sion of the apoetie as a weapon against union.
VERSE 13. 647
sister had either already died, or was not with her children near the apostle,
as he would otherwise certainly have mentioned her.—Such uncertain
hypotheses are removed by the correct explanation of «vpia; now it is self-
evident that the dd219% is the church from which John wrote this Epistle,
— and the réxva, therefore, are its individual members; on rij¢ éxAcxrif¢, comp.
ver. 1.
648 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
"Iwdvvov émioroAn tpirn. :
The superscription runs in B, &: ‘ludvvov 7; in C: ‘lw. émoroad y; in G:
bricroAn Tpitn Tov ayiov urooroAou ‘lwavvov; in the Elzev. ed.: ‘lwavvov rov amocrd/ou
émLoTOAH KaGoAiKy Tpit.
Ver. 3. 8 omits yap. — Ver. 4. In some min. is found, plainly as a correction,
ravtne instead of rots wr, — Instead of éxw, B (teste Mzjo) has éxwy (not men-
tioned by Buttm.), and instead of yapay, B, 7, 35, Vulg., etc., read yap; Buttm.
has retained the Rec. — Instead of the Rec. év aAnéeia (according to C**, G, K,
N, Thph., Oec.), A, B, C*, etc., read év tg ad., which Lachm. and Tisch. have
accepted; the omission of the article is explained by the preceding év aA., ver. 3.
— Ver. 5. épyacy]. Rec., according to B, C, G, K, S, all the min., Thph., Oec.
(Tisch.), Lachm., following A, Vulg. (operaris), has accepted épyaéy, which,
however, appears to be only an alteration on account of the present toui¢, —
Instead of xa? cig rove gevovg (Rec., according to G, K, etc.), xai rovro gévoug
must be read, with A, B, C, &, etc., most of the versions, Lachm., and Tisch. —
Ver. 6. Ewald arbitrarily conjectures: off éuapripyoa.— The reading of C,
moinoag npoméuwperc, is clearly a correction.— Ver. 7. After dvouarog the
Elzev. ed., following several min. and some vss., has evrov, which is found in
none of the greater MSS. (nor, according to Tisch. 7, in B). Buttm. has
accepted this airov, and that, too, as the reading of B; Tisch. 2 also ascribes it
to this codex, but with the remark: e sil. collat. Reiche says: Lachm.: falso
codicem B pro C abrov citat. Codicem B atrov non habere nunc e Maji atque
Kuenii et Cobeti edit. constat.—On the reading ¢§A@av (Lachm., Tisch. 7),
comp. 2 John 7. — Instead of édvav, Rec., according to G, K, etc., Lachm. and
Tisch. have with justice accepted é@xov, which is the reading of A, B, C, &,
and many others; Reiche, however, regards é@vwy as the original reading. —
— Ver. 8. drodaufavev}. Rec., following C**, G, K, etc. Instead of it A, B,
C*, &, etc., read trodau3avery, which Lachm. and Tisch. have accepted, and in
favor of which Reiche also declares himself. Both words are, in the significa-
tion in which they are here used, a7. Aeyoueva; the overwhelming authorities are
in favor of txoA, — Instead of ty dAndeig, N* reads ty éxaAnoia, clearly a correc-
tion. — Ver. 9. After fypawa, A, B, C, 8 (Lachm., Tisch.), read ts. The Rec.
is only supported by G, K, some min., etc.! Two min., 29, 66%, have av tr;
and some others dv without tc; the Vulg.: scripsissam forsitan. These readings
have arisen from an erroneous interpretation of the thought. — Ver. 10. Instead
of BovAopuéevoue is found in C, several min., Vulg.: émedexouévouc; a correc-
2 Reiche incorrectly says: ‘‘ Lectionesvariae reads ¢ypawas (Reiche), has not been ob-
a rec. discedentes singulae non satis testatae served either by Tischendorf 7 or by Butt-
sunt,’ whereas the overwhelming evidences mann. Should it be the case, it must be
decide in favor of re being original. That B regarded merely as a clerical error.
VERSES 1, 2. 649
tion, In &, the preposition é is wanting before ri¢ éxxAnciac. — Ver. 11. The dé
between 6 and xaxorowy (Rec.) is, according to almost all the authorities, to be
deleted; it was interpolated to mark the antithesis. — Ver. 12. In Cod. C, to
the words rig aAndelac, rig éxxAnoiag xai is further prefixed. In A the reading
is uncertain; according to the statement of Tisch., A®* probably reads éx« «xAn-
oiac instead of dAndeiac; Lachm. states the reading thus: ‘‘dAn . . . @a¢ corr.
A,... 6ta¢ pr. A.’”? —oidare]. Rec., according to G, K, etc., several vss., Thph.,
Oec. (Tisch.). In A, B, C, 8, Vulg., etc., on the other hand, is found oidac,
which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm. accepted. —If the overwhelming
evidences were not for oida¢, we might regard it as a correction, as oldare
seemed objectionable in an Epistle addressed to one person. — Ver. 13. Instead
of ypagery (Rec., according to G, K, etc., Oec.), the reading of A, B, C, &, etc.,
almost all versions, Thph.: ypapa: oo, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is to be
preferred. — The reading in A, obx éBovAg6n», instead of ob GfAu, has origi-
nated in 2 John 12. — Though the Rec. (according to G, K, etc., Thph., Oec.)
has ypaya: at the close of the verse, A, B, C, &, etc., here read ypagevy, which is
justly accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. The pronoun oo is put after the verb in
A, etc., Vulg., etc. (Lachm.); most of the authorities, however, decide in favor
of its position before the verb (Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of the Rec. idecv ce
(G, K, &, several versions, etc.), oe (deiv is probably to be read, with A, B, C,
ete. (Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 15. Instead of of ofAo, A has of adeAgoi;
clearly a correction. —X8, sol., has domaoa: for domdafov. —Only a few codd.
(G, some min., etc.) have at the close the word au7v.— The subscription runs
in A, B, &, ‘lwavvov y; in G, éxuroA) y Tov dyiov dmocrodAov ’lwavvov; in other
codd., still more prolix.
Ver. 1. Superscription. On 6 rpecBirepoc, see the Introd., sec. 1.
With regard to the person of Caius, nothing particular is known; that he is
identical with one of two (or three) Caiuses who are mentioned as friends
and helpers of the Apostle Paul (comp. Acts xix. 29, xx. 4; 1 Cor. i. 14;
and Rom. xvi. 23), is at least improbable.! It is also uncertain whether
he is the same person as the Caius who, according to the Constitt. Apositol.,
vii. 46, is said to have been appointed by John as bishop in Pergamos (Mill.,
Whiston). That he was presbyter of the Church (Kostlin), does not follow
from ver. 8. The apostle expresses his love to Caius in the epithet ro dya-
mrp; how sincere it was, is shown by the fact that he not only adds: dv éa
dyana ty dAnoeia (comp. with this 2 John 1), but also addresses him three
times in the Epistle by dyaznré. On év dA. Oecumenius here well observes:
év GAnOeia dyang 6 xara Kiptov ayaroy évdiabéty ayany.
Ver. 2. Instead of with the usual formula of greeting, the Epistle begins
with a wish for the welfare of Caius.— wep? navruv]. mavtwy is not mascu-
line (Paulus’ “on account of all, i.e., for the good of all”), but neuter.
Several commentators, Beza, Castellio, Wahl, Liicke (first edition), Ewald,
Diisterdieck, etc., interpret rep? ravrav=mrpd ravrwy here, and connect it
1 Litcke thinks that if he was one of these, however, regards it as probable that he was
he would only be the Caius of Derbe (Acts the same as the Caius mentioned in 1 Cor. {.
xx. 4); yet he states no reason for this opin- 14, whom he distinguishes as the Corinthian
fon, but merely refers to Wolf's Curae; Wolf, Caius from the Caius of Derbe.
650 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
with ebyoua; but usus loquendi and thought are opposed to this. Although
wepi in some passages in Homer indicates precedence, yet this signification is
utterly foreign to the LXX. and the N. T.; besides, it is not to be supposed
that the apostle would have so specially emphasized the wish referring to
the external circumstances of life; mept ravruv, with most of the commen-
tators (even Liicke, second edition), is rather to be connected with oe evo-
dotadar (though not with tyaivew) in its usual signification, “in regard to
all things.” In reply to the objection which has been made out of the posi-
tion of the words, Liicke with justice remarks: “it is put first with rhetor-
ical emphasis, corresponding to 4 yvx7, which is compared with it, at the
end.” — ebyoua, it is true, means also “to pray” (Jas. v. 15), but usually,
“to wish,” so here also; that with John it was an ebyeoba: mpdc rov Gedy, is
self-evident. — oe evodotadac nal tyuivew]. evododaba:r, besides here, is
only found in Rom. i. 10 and 1 Cor. xvi. 2; in both passages it means, “to
be fortunate” (see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); similarly it signifies here also pros-
perity; comp. the detailed account of the usage of the word in the classics
and in the LXX. by Liicke and Diisterdieck on this passage. — The apostle
wishes that it may go well and happily with Caius in all external circum-
stances; that it is just these he has in view in xdyru», is clear from the con-
trasted yvx7. By means of tyaivery (= “to be tn health,” comp. Luke v. 31,
vii. 10, and other passages) one element of the general ebodoicta is brought
specially out. It is not to be inferred from the wish which is expressed, that
Caius had been ill (Diisterdieck). — xa@dg etododrai cov 7 yuxn}. By the pros-
perity of the soul of Caius, to which the external welfare was to correspond,
it is not the natural condition, as the sequel shows, but the Christian state
of salvation, that is to be understood. |
Ver. 3. Confirmation of the foregoing statement. — éyapyv ydp Alay, see
on 2 John 4. When and why the apostle felt such a joy, is stated in the two
following participial sentences, of which, however, as far as the sense is con-
cerned, the first is subordinate to the second; & Mons: lorsque les freres qui
sont venus ont rendu témoignage. — uaprupeiv, with the dative of the thing,
“to testify of any thing;” comp. vv. 6, 12; John iii. 26, v. 33, xviii. 37. —
By oov rg cAndeig it is not the truth in the objective sense (Calovius: veritas
evangelii) in so far as Caius had received it, but the truth in the subjective
sense, that is to be understood (so also Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.):
the inner Christian life, which is born of the truth, is itself truth; some
commentators incorrectly limit the idea to a single element of it; e.g.,
Lorinus to liberalitas.— The addition, xa@d¢ od tv dAndeia neperatei¢ (comp.
2 John 4), serves as an explanation of the preceding: “namely how thou,”
etc. In the fact that the brethren testified that Caius was walking in the
truth, they bore a testimony to the truth that was in him. The sentence is
not “a direct sentence” (Baumgarten-Crusius: “as thou indeed art living
in accordance with the truth”) by which “John adds his testimony to that
of the brethren (Besser) in order to confirm it” (Ebrard), but “an indirect
sentence ” (Briickner) dependent on paprypotvrwy, on which a special emphasis
is laid, as also the dxovw in ver. 4 shows (so also Diisterdieck, Braune). i
is emphatically used in contrast to those who do not walk év dAngeig.
VERSES 5, 6. 651
Ver. 4 serves as confirmation of éydpyv Aiav.—pelorepav]. Grotius: est
ad intendendam significationem comparativus e comparativo factus; similar
formations occur in the classical language of poets and later writers; see
Winer, p. 67 [E. T., 69]; in the N. T., comp. Eph. iii. 8.— robrwy ob« Ew
Xapay iva, x.7.A. — “I have not a greater joy than this, that;” rottwv is not used
for rairnc, but “as an indefinite word is to be connected with the more
definite iva” (Liicke); some commentators incorrectly supply “4” before
iva. Johu xv. 13 is to be compared with this passage; only that ratrne is
used there, but it does not refer, however, to something preceding, but finds
its explanation in the following tva.1—ra iuad réxva, not “all Christians ;”
but neither merely the converts of John, but the members of the churches
which were under the special fatherly direction of the apostle (so also
Braune).
Vv. 5, 6. Praise of Caius for his ¢Aofevia, induced by that which he ex-
hibited towards the brethren (ver. 3). — mordv rouic & édv, x.7.A.J. By mordv
the conduct (moic) of Caius, which he had shown towards the brethren,
is described as faithful, i.e., corresponding to the Christian profession.
Ebrard’s view, that mordv roiv is = the classical mordv (= rior) movicbat
in the sense of “to give a pledge of faithfulness, a guaranty,” cannot be
grammatically justified. By édy (= dv) the idea is generalized : “every thing
whaterer.” — elg rode adeAgode al rodro évove]. With the construction épyifecbas
eis, comp. Matt. xxvi. 10. By «a? rotro it is brought out that the ddeAgoi to
whom Caius is showing his love are 4v0.; even with the reading «at el¢ rove
gévovg the thought remains the same: «ai, namely, is epexegetically used =
“and that too;” as the gévo were Christians, they cannot be distinguished
from the ddeAgoi. Liicke takes xai in a specializing sense, “and particularly
or especially ;” but it is not brotherly love in general, but just the g:Aogeria,
that is the subject here. That is to say, the apostle in this praise has
specially in view what Caius had done to the brethren who had come to
him (the Ap.: ver. 3), and who are also spoken of in vv. 6 and 7; these,
however, were £évo..2— Ver. 6. of uapripnoday cov tH dyary évortov éexxAnoiac ].
That oi “dissociates the concrete representation of some from the generic
representation of gé»o.” (De Wette), is incorrect: it rather refers directly to
the previously mentioned strange brethren. By évomov éxxAnoiag we are not
to think of the church to which Caius belonged, but of that in which John
was sojourning. —ob¢ xaddc root, x.7.A,]. The same brethren that had
come from Caius to John wanted to return thither again, in order from
thence to continue their missionary journey (ver. 7). Jobn now recom-
mends them to the loving care of Caius. —oi¢ are not others (De Wette),
1 In opposition to Meyer, who says on the
passage cited, ‘‘the usual view, according to
which iva is taken as the explavation of ravrnes,
does not correspond to the idea of purpose
which ie contained in iva,’ it may be observed
that in the usua loguendi of the N. T., iva bas
by no means retained the idea of purpose in
ite diatinctness, and often serves, in reference
to the demonstrative pronoun, to state the
meaning of the latter. ;
® The present worets is not opposed to this
view, as it would seem to be; It is explained
by the fact that the apostie regards the single,
special case, as an evidence of the ¢iAogenca of
Calus in general.
652 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
but the same as were spoken of in the preceding sentence. The combina-
tion of the future modoec and the aorist participle xpoméuwar is strange, as
the two verbs do not denote two different actions, but the xaddc mouiy
consists in the nporéurev; it is different in Mark xiii. 13, Acts xxiv. 25, .
Rom. xv. 28, where two different actions are placed in connection with one
another, and the aorist participle is used in the sense of the fut. exacti (see
Winer, p. 321 [E. T., 342]). This has not been properly noticed by the
commentators. The explanation of Diisterdieck: “The aorist form is to
be explained by the fact that the good deed will consist in this, that Caius
will have worthily brought the brethren forward,” does not solve the diffi-
culty, as the good deed consists in the bringing them forward itself. The
apostle may have used the aorist, however, in the feeling that “the action of
Caius is only completed when he has accomplished the equipment and escort
of the brethren” (Braune). The same connection is found in Eurip., Orest.,
1210 ff.: ebruyfoouev . . . Eddvrec, which Matthiae (Ausf. Gramm., second
edition, p. 1087) translates, “if we are so fortunate as to take;’! in
accordance with which we may translate here also, “thou shalt act worthily
to accompany them.” Luther, incorrectly, “thou hast done well that thou
hast sent them on their journey;” in the revised edition, 1867, correctly,
“thou shalt do well if thou sendest them on their journey.” Ebrard
arbitrarily conjectures, éroincas. —It 1s quite evident from the connection
with the sequel, that by nada rocgjoece John wants to encourage Caius to the
nporéune. The reading rowjoac mporéupere means: “whom thou, after thou
hast treated them well, shalt bring forward on their journey.” With xarde
rouiv, comp. Acts x. 13, Phil. iv. 14; with xponéumew = “to fit out for a
journey,” Rom. xv. 24, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 16, Tit. iii. 138. — dgiug rod Geod (comp.
1 Thess. ii. 12; Col. i. 10) does not belong to xad. romoec, but to mporéppac
= “as worthy of God, with all care and love” (Liicke).
Ver. 7. Confirmation of the exhortation that has been uttered: the
brethren deserve such help, for, etc. émép yap rod dvéuaroc &HA8av). With
the Rec. reading, évouaroe abrov, abrod refers back to roi Oeod; but this abvrov
is to be regarded as an interpolation; 1d dvoua (without airov) is neither
“the Christian doctrine or religion,” nor “the name of the brethren ”’
(Paulus: “because they were called missionaries”), but “the name of
Christ” (Liicke, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Braune, etc.), as
in Acts v. 41 (according to the correct reading); comp. also Jas. ii. 7, and
Ignatii ep. ad Ephes., cap. 3 and 7. — txép is here used in the same sense as
in Rom. i. 6, and éépyec@a: as in Acts xv. 40 (Liicke, De Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Sander, Braune, etc.); so that the sense is: for the sake of the
name of Christ, i.e., for the spread of it, they went forth (as missionaries).
Several commentators (Beza, Schmidius, Bengel, Carpzovius, Wolf) connect
éénAGav with dnd rdv LOvixcy [F6vuv] in the sense: expulsi sunt a paganis: but
this idea is arbitrarily imported into 2¢7A@av;? besides, the connection with
1 The whole passage in Euripides runs: — 2 Grotius, indeed, correctly connects aro
nkes 3 es ocxove Epptovy rivos xpovov; r. €0y, with AaywBavorres, but loterprets éfyA-
ws raAAa y’ ecmas, ecwep evrvxyncopey, @ov: *“‘a Judaea ejecti sunt per Judaeos ina-
naddAra@ , cAorvres caxuuvoy avociov Sorw. credulos; ’ the erroneous idea that the apostle
VERSES 8, 9, 10. 653
and 7. é0v. is unsuitable, because then the words pnddy AauBavovres remain too
indefinite. The assertion of Wolf, that AauBavew is not construed with dzd,
is refuted by Matt. xvii. 25. By the addition, undév AapBavovrec dnd rov
t@vixav, the necessity of assisting these brethren is brought out. The present
participle is either used in the imperfect sense (ver. 3), or—as is more
probable — it is used in order to indicate the pndév Aau3dvew amd tr. tov. as the
maxim of these missionaries (so also Diisterdieck and Braune). It is very
usual to regard this maxim as the same as that which Paul took for his, and
of which he speaks in passages like 1 Cor. ix. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff., xii. 16 ff.;
1 Thess. ii. 9 ff.; but dd roy éOvxcv (= 26vuv, comp. Matt. vi. 7, xviii. 17)
does not suit this: the maxim of Paul was not to make the care for his
support an obligation on the churches among which he labored, but here it
is heathen that are spoken of. It was by these that these missionary brethren
would not allow themselves to be assisted, because they did not want to
build up Christ’s work by the wealth of the heathen, but trusted to Chris-
tians that in Christian love they would provide for them what was needful.!
Ver. 8 indicates “the highest point of view for Christian gAofevia”
(Liicke). — fete obv]. fuei¢ emphatically forms the antithesis to of i@veoi;
as they take nothing from the Gentiles, we Christians are bound to take an
interest in them ; dgeiAopuev drodauBaverv rode roxobrous], broAauBavecy is just
as little used in the N. T., in the sense of hospitable reception (Oec.
trodéxeoda:) as the dmoAau Gaver» that is found in the Rec. In the classics
it appears (but not droAaudavev) both in this meaning and in the modified
signification, “to support” (so in Strabo: of ebrropos rove évdeeic droAauBavover) ;
so it is to be taken here also, and in connection with it the play upon words,
between AauBavovres and bro... AauPdvery, must not be overlooked. — iva
auvepyot yewopueba 7H GAndeia]. Confirmation of dgeiAouer. The dative rg dAné.
is not dependent on ow; Vulg., ut cooperatores simus veritatis; Luther, “so
that we may be helpers of the truth” (so Grotius, Bengel, Besser, etc.); but
it is the dative of reference, and ovy refers back to rodc rovobrove (Briickner,
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune): “so that we may be their fellow-workers for
the truth; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 28, Col. iv. 11, where instead of the dative
the preposition ele is used.
Vv. 9,10. Notice of Diotrephes. — fypaya re rg éxxAnoia]. The rt, which
according to the authorities is probably genuine, does not serve, as Liicke
rightly remarks, to intensify = “something important,” but rather to weaken
= “something, a little.” — The reading, Eypawa dv (Vulg.: scripsissem forsitan),
has originated in the idea that the apostle would not write an epistle, of the
unsuccessfulness of which he was previously convinced. The church to
which the apostle wrote is not that from which the brethren (ver. 7) went
forth (Bengel, Besser), but that to which Caius belonged. The opinion
that this writing is the so-called First Epistle of John (Wolf, Storr, etc.) is
just as untenable as the view that it is the Second Epistle of Johu (Ewald,
considered the Jewe as the antithesis of the 1 Ewald: unsuitably deduces this maxim
Gentiles has clearly led him to this arbitrary from the command of Christ, Matt. x. 8-10,
interpretation.
670 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
from the falling away from Christ which had taken place among so many;
see. ver. 4; comp. also John xvii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 5.— Although é& 6¢@ zarpi
cannot be grammatically connected with rernpquévorc, and although it pri-
marily belongs to jyarnpévor, yet it indicates by whom the preservation has
taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater ... Christo... donavit et asservavit
huc usque, ne ab impostoribus seducerentur et perirent. — xAnroi¢, a designation
in the Pauline sense of those who have not only heard the gospel, but have
embraced it by faith; see Meyer on 1 Cor. 1.24. Ver. 2. fog, x.r.4.]. The
word éAgoc is used in the formula of salutation only here and in the Pastoral
Epistles. The addition xa? adyamn is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the
three terms is thus to be understood: ieo¢ is the demeanor of God toward
the xAnroi; eipqvn their condition founded upon it; and daydary their demeanor
proceeding from it as the effect of God’s grace. Accordingly dyary is used
here as in Eph. vi. 23 (see Meyer in loco); only here the love is to be limited
neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to God (Calov, Wiesinger).
Still dyamy may also be the love of God to the xAnroic; comp. ver. 21 and
2 Cor. xiii. 18 (14) (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, De Wette-Briickner,
Schott, and others). No ground of decision can be derived from rAnévvbein.
With the reading jyarnuévor the second explanation merits the preference,
although the position of this expression after eipyvn is somewhat strange.
On rAnévv6ein, see 1 Pet. i. 2; this form is apparently derived from Dan.
iii. 81.
Vv. 3, 4. Statement of the reason which determined Jude to write this
Epistle: comp. on this 2 Pet. i. 12 f.,-iii. 1 £. —dyannroi, found at the begin-
ning of an Epistle only here and in 3 John 2. — rdcay onovdyy noroipevor, x.7.A.].
Giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, I felt constrained
to write to you, exhorting you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Pricaeus, Lachmann, Buttmann, put a comma after the first and after the
second tpiv, 80 that wep? . . . owrnpiag is connected with dvuyxqv icxorv, and
napaxaduy, etc., is separated from ypdyasz. Most expositors, on the contrary,
as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, De Wette, Wiesinger, etc., connect zepl owrnpias
with the preceding ypagev, and unite mapaxuddy with ypdya. Not only the
position of the words, but also the train of thought, decides for this latter
arrangement; for since, according to ver. 4, the dvéyxn, inducing the author
to write this Epistle, consisted in the appearance of wicked men, so it is
evidently more suitable to connect ypaya: with tapaxadey éraywvifecta, having
special reference to it, than with the general idea mepi ri¢ xowije owrnpiacs, Par
ticularly as the contents of the Epistle are any thing but a treatise concern-
ing the common salvation.!_ The preceding participial clause states in what
condition Jude was when the dvayxqv tyeev came upon him; the omovd7 to
write already existed when the entrance of certain ungodly men constrained
him not to write generally epi ri¢ xowi¢ owrnpias, but to compose such a
1 The translation of the Vulg.: ‘‘omnem _ his larger edition of the N. T., punctuated it
solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de com- aa he has done in the Greek text; in other
muni vestra salute necease habui scribere vobis editions of the Vulgate, on the contrary, the
depraecans supercertari,’’ etc., may also be other punctuation is found.
punctuated iu both ways. Lachmann has, in
VERSE 3. 671
hortative epistle as the present. Some expositors incorrectly think that the
évayxn had its reason in the oxovd7 (Erasmus: fantum mihi studium fuit, ut non
potuerim non scribere vobis); others, that to the oovd7 the dvayxg supervened
as a new point; so Hornejus: cum summum mihi esset studium scribendi ad vos
aliquid de communi nostrum omnium salute, etiam necessitas insuper scribendi
imposita fuit, quae autem illa sit, statim addit (so also Calvin and others).
De Wette (with whom Briickner agrees) considers that Jude by the first
clause expresses that “he had been engaged on the composition of a longer
and more comprehensive Epistle (the loss of which we have to lament),
when he was for the time called away from that work in order to write the
present Epistle;” but the expression xdcav oxovdiv nooipevoc does not neces-
sarily involve actual writing.’ — oxovdyy moicéa is only found here in the
N. T. (2 Pet. i. 5: omovddy racav rapetodéper ; prologue to Ecclus.: nxpoogépew
riva orovd7v); the meaning is, to be eagerly solicitous about something; it may
refer both to mental activity and to external action; here the former is the
case. Luther’s translation, “after I purposed,” is too flat; Meyer’s is
better: “since it lies pressingly upon my heart.” —doay serves, as fre-
quently, for the strengthening of the idea.— The participle so:vipevoc, in
connection with the aorists foyov ypaya, is to be taken as the imperfect
participle. Stier incorrectly translates: “when engaged in it I would take
diligence.” It expresses the activity which took place, when the action
expressed by the finite verb occurred, and therefore must not be resolved,
with Haenlein, into the perfect or pluperfect. — repi rig cowie gydv owrnpiag
states on what Jude intended to write. On xowjc, comp. Tit. 1.4; 2 Pet. i. 1.
There is no reason to refer the idea, with Semler, to the Jews and Gentiles,
as the object common to both. — ouwrnpia, not the doctrine of salvation (Jach-
mann), but the salvation iteelf, acquired by Christ for the world, and applied
to believers. The explanation of Beza: de tis QUAE AD nostram omnium
salutem PERTINENT, deviates from strict precision, a8 owrypia itself is indi-
cated by Jude as the object of writing. Schott incorrectly explains owrnpia,
state of salvation, possession of salvation. — dvayxnv toxov]. Comp. Luke xiv. 10,
xxiii. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 37. The explanation of Grotius is inaccurate: nihil
potius habui, quod scriberem, quam ut, etc. The translation of Luther is too
flat: “I considered it necessary ;” for in dvdyxqv tye is contained the idea
of an objective necessity founded on duty, circumstances, etc. (De Wette,
Wiesinger, Schott). The meaning here is: The entrance of false teachers
constrained me, made me to recognize it as necessary. On the one hand,
Semler inserts a strange reference, paraphrasing it, accidit interea LNOPI-
NATO, ut statuendum mihi... esset; and, on the other hand, Schott, who,
in order to emphasize the contrast between the two members of the sentence,
1 De Wette Incorrectly appeals for this
supposition to Sherlock (in Wolf), who thus
explains it: ‘‘dilecti, animus mibi erat, ecri-
bere ad vos de communibus doctrinis et spe
evangelll ad fidem vestram et Jeau Christi cog-
nitionem amplificandam; jam vero coactum
me video, uf hoc inatitutum deseram et ad
cavendum praesens periculum, vos exhorter,
ut serio teneatis eam quac voble tradita est,
doctrinam, contra faleos doctores, quos clan-
culum audio irrepsisse.”” What De Wette
regards as accomplished, or in the act of being
accomplished, Sherlock considers only as
intended. e
672 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
finds in dvayx. toxov the thought expressed that Jude wrote this Epistle
unwillingly, contrary to his tnclinalion. — ypawa: tuiv xapaxaAcy). wapaxadcy is
closely united to ypapa:, as indicating the kind of writing to which the
author felt constrained by circumstances; therefore no comma is to be put
after tiv. —tnayuvieoda: rp... miore]. émaywvifecba, & Gr. Ary., 28 ovvabAte,
Phil. i. 27, connected with the dative of the object which is contended for;
Stier: “to fight for the faith;” comp. Ecclus. iv. 28: dyuvifew epi. — xiore
is not = doctrina, system of doctrine ; nor yet does it here denote the subjec-
tive quality of the believing disposition; but that which is believed by
Christians (roi¢ dyioc), the objective contents of faith. Schott is incorrect
in explaining it, “the conduct arising from faith;” for the notion of con-
duct does not suit rapadofeioy. The explanation, the way of salvation (Hof-
mann), is also wanting in correctness; it is not proved by Gal. iii. 23. — As
the subject to rapadoseicy, by whom the communication or transmission was
effected, God (Bengel) is not here to be thought of, but the apostles, as ver. 17
shows; 2 Pet. ii. 21; Luke i. 2 (comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 2, 23, xv. 3); yet the
author does not name them, becauge “ he is not concerned here with the per-
sonal instruments, but with the mode and manner of transmission contained
in éxag” (Schott). roi¢ dyiog are not the apostles (Nic. de Lyra), but Chris-
tians. — dzaf brings prominently forward the fact that as it once took place,
so there is now an end to the napddooy; Bengel: nulla alia dabitur fides.
Jachmann incorrectly explains it by #dn, olim, jam, appealing to ver. 5 and
Heb. vi. 4. According to Hofmann’s view, ézag is used “ with reference to
the preceding intention of Jude to present to the readers a writing having
the common salvation as its object; but this reference is not indicated.!
Ver. 4. Compare 2 Pet. ii. 1-3. — wapeaédvoay yap, the reason of dviyxny
Esyov. napetcédvoay marks the entrance of false teachers into the church as a
secret and unauthorized creeping-in of such as do not properly belong to it,
but are internally foreign to it (comp. Gal. ii. 4: wapeicaxro, explained by
the scholiasts by dAAérpm); it is synonymous with sapeotpyeofar; comp.
2 Tim. iii. 6. — river dvépwra]. In the same indefiniteness the false teachers
are also mentioned in 1 Tim. i.6. Arnaud observes: “le mot reves a quelque
chose de méprisant, comme dans Gal. ii. 12; so also Wiesinger and Schott;
this is possible; but the appeal to Gal. ii. 12 is unjustified. That the ex-
pression dv@pwr is used in order to bring forward the fact that they “with
their entrance into the church remained in their natural state” (Schott), is
highly improbable. Hofmann unnecessarily separates rivec from dvépuror,
taking dvdpuro, ol, x.7.2., a8 in apposition to rivec.—oi mdAa: mpoyeypaupévor ei¢
totto 7d xpiua]. By the participle with the article, a peculiar circumstance
worthy of remark, concerning these men, is brought forward (Winer, p. 127
[E. T., 189 f.]); but not as Schott, after Rampf, arbitrarily maintains, “a
mark perfectly clear to the readers is given for the recognition of those who
are meant;” the article being equivalent to tsti, those nutortious men. — xpoye-
1 When Hofmann maintains that ver. 4 not also another besides an apostle have cher-
could only buve been written by an apostle, ished the design to address a writing to Chrie-
he cvidently, proceeds too far; for, why could tans reepecting the common faith?
VERSE 4. 673
ypaupévor}. The preposition xpo in this verb indicates either antea, earlier,
before,—thus always in the N. T.; see Gal. iii. 1 (comp. Meyer in loc.);
Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3,— or palam. If it has this last meaning, then xpo-
ypagew signifies “to announce something publicly by writing;” thus in an
entirely special sense proscribere ; accordingly Wolf explains it: qui dudum
sunt accusati et in hoc judicium (el¢ rovro rd xpiua) vocati. Yet this is inaccu-
rate, as the peculiar idea of proscribere is not retained; for, if retained, it
would not suit ei¢ 7. 7. xpiua. Yet more arbitrarily Wahl explains xpoypagerv
by designare. Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others have correctly taken xpo
here as a preposition of time. According to Isa. iv. 8, LXX.: of ypagévre¢
eis Suv, the sense might be: those who are written before (as in God's book
of fate, and consequently destined) eig robto rd xpiua (Calvin: haec metaphora
inde sumpta est, quod aeternum Dei consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salu-
tem, Liber vocatur); but the term réda is unsuitable, as it is never in the
N. T. used of God’s eternal counsels. mpoypagety is here rather to be under-
stood entirely as in the adduced passages of the N. T.; and with De Wette
@ pregnancy of expression is to be assumed ; thus, those who are already before
by writing destined to this judgment. Hofmann explains mpuyeypaypéevoe accord-
ing to John i. 46 compared with v. 46 (ypigew reva = yp, rept riwog): “those
of whom it is written before;” and then eic rovro r. xp. = “in reference to
this judgment;” but with regard to the former it is to be remarked, that
the form of expression here is different from John i. 46; and with regard
to the latter, that by it a weakening of the preposition in its direct connec-
tion with npoyeypaypévor takes place.1 Oecumenius refers this to the proph-
ecies concerning future false teachers contained in the Epistles of Paul and
Peter. Grotius, Schott, Hofmann, and others point particularly to 2 Pet. ii.
But wéAa combined with zpoyeyp. evidently points back to an earlier period,?
so that only older prophecies can be meant, namely, the prophecies and types
of the O. T., and perhaps particularly the prophecies contained in the Book
of Enoch: see ver. 14 (so also Wiesinger). Against Calvin and Beza, who
find the idea of the decretum aeternum here expressed, Bengel remarks: non
innuitur praedestinatio, sed scripturae praedictio. — ei¢ rovro rd xpiuza}. Although
xpiua in itself is not equivalent to xardxpiua, yet here a condemnatory judg-
ment is meant; rovro, namely, that which Jude has in view, and which is
indicated in the following verse; Stier: “for this judgment, which I now
announce to them;” Arnaud: il y @ rovro, parceque cette punition est objet
qui Voccupe. It is incorrect, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to refer rovro rd
xpiua tO mapeotdvoav, as something including judgment in itself; or, with
Schott, to the “damnable error of those men,” specified in the words rv row
Ooi, «.7.4.; for neither the entering-in nor the error can in themselves be
1 Luther’s translation: ‘there are certain
men crept in, of whom it is written before, to
thie punishment,” by which spoyeyp. is sepa-
rated from e¢ tr, 7. «p., ls contradicted by the
natural verbal connection.
* Schott and Hofmann contest the fact that
waAa points to an earlicr period. waAa:, which
** generally indicates the past in contrast to the
present” (Pape), may certainly be used when
that past Is not distant (comp. Mark xv. 44) ;
but, on the one hand, this use of the term is
rare; and, on the other hand, it is not here
applicable, as the reference to the past gener.
ally ie already contained in the spo of the
compound verb; waAa: here can only be put to
mark this past as lying In the distanco.
674 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
called a xpiua, —dcefeic to be taken by itself; not to be united with of mpoye-
ypauuévos (against Tischendorf, who has placed no comma before daeSeic).
The ungodliness of these men is further indicated, according to its nature, by
the participial clauses which follow (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 6). — ray rod cod guew
xapw, x.7.2., who pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousness. yapec, not =
doctrina gratiae (Vorstius), nor evangelium (Grotius), nor fides catholica nobis
gratis data (Nicolas de Lyra); but grace itself as the proffered gift of God in
the forgiveness of sin and redemption from the law; so also Wiesinger,
Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It is incorrect to explain the idea by “the life of
grace" (De Wette-Briickner), or by “the ordinances of grace” (Schott).
quay, belonging to rov Geni, is to be understood as an expression of the feel-
ing of sonship; Bengel: nostri, non impiorum. —In weruribévrec ei¢ aotAyetay,
aoe?y. is either the purpose of the change of the grace of God, or that into
which grace is changed. In the former case peratc@nu here would in itself
have a bad subsidiary meaning (De Wette: “who pervert the grace of our
God for the purpose of licentiousness "’); but it never elsewhere so occurs
in the N. T. Accordingly, the second explanation is better (Briickner),
according to which the meaning is: they have converted the yap, which
God gave to them, into something different, namely doé2)ea; inasmuch as
liberty was converted by them into lasciviousness ; comp. Gal. v. 13; 1 Pet.
ii. 16; 2 Pet. ii. 19. —«ai rdv pévov deonéryy nai xiptov quay ‘1, Xp. apvovuevor].
In 2 Pet. ii. 1 the epithet deondry¢ is used of Christ; this favors the combi-
nation of rdv uéruy deonorny as an attribute with ‘Ina Xp (so De Wette,
Schmidt, Rampf, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann). But, on the
one hand, in every other place this word denotes God, and, on the other
hand, deonrdrys would hardly be distinguished from the word xipios, if both
were to be referred to Christ,1 add to this that yovoc elsewhere expresses
the unity of the divine nature; comp. Jude 25; John v. 44, xvii. 3; Rom.
xvi. 27; 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 15, 16; Rev. xv. 4; against which view Schott
incorrectly urges 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Eph. iv. 5. For these reasons, it is
more probable that rdv povoy deorérny is not an appellation of Christ, but a
designation of God (Briickner); comp. 1 John ii. 22: 6 dpvovpevor rdv rarépa
cai tov viov (also Enoch x\lviii. 10 is to be compared: “they have denied the
Lord of the spirits and His Anointed’). No argument against this expla-
nation can be drawn from the want of the article before xipsv; see author's
commentary on Tit. ii. 3 (Winer, p. 121 ff. [E. T., 130)),? which is in an
unjustifiable manner denied by IIofmann. The denial may be considered
1 Hofmann gives the distinction of these
two ideas as follows: ‘‘ Christ is our decrorns,
as we are His property bound to His service,
He is our «xvpcos, as His will is the standard of
ours.” But if this be correct, it fe not in favor
of Hofmann, but against him, because Jude
would then in an incomprehensible manner
make the weaker idea to follow upon the
stronger.
2 When Wiesinger and Schott appeal for
their explanation to the fact that the relation
to God is already expressed in the preceding
clause, and that therefore it wouJd be unsuita.
ble to express it here again, it is to be obeerved
that in that clause the relation to Christ ie aleo
indicated, elnce the grace of God is communi.
cated through Christ; also, there is no reason
why Jude should not have indicated perari@e-
vac as a denial both of Jesus Christ and of
God. Whilet Schott grants that the expres-
sion ‘the only master” may only refer to
God, he eo interpreta the article rov before
povoy 8eon., that be explains it as equivatent
to ** be who is.”
VERSE 5. 675
as either practical (comp. Tit. i. 16) or theoretical. Since throughout this
Epistle the carnal and godless disposition of these men is brought forward,
it is most probable that Jude at least had the first kind of denial specially
in view. At all events, such explanations as those of Grotius: “ abnegabant
Jesum, quia eum dicebant hominem natum ex homine,” are to be rejected, as
Jude never reproaches his adversaries with such a definite erroneous doctrine.
Ver. 5. From this verse to ver. 7 we have three examples, as repre-
sentations of the judgment whijch threatens those mentioned in ver. 4.
Compare with this 2 Pet. ii. 4-6. —dtmouvina dé tude Buidoua). dé is used
metabatically (as a mere particle of transition); not in order to put
brouvioa in contrast to wapaxadcw (ver. 3), which is only to be justified by
the explanation of Schott, that “Jude intends not properly to exhort the
readers, but by wapaxadciv he means only that he will remind them.” spac
is not the subject, but the object to dxouvicar; comp. 2 Pet. i. 12 (Rom. xv.
15). — eiddrag [iuac] anak marta}, eiddrag is either in an adversative sense =
xainep eldorag (De Wette); or, which is to be preferred on account of anag
the statement of the reason of tzopvioa.1—anag is not to be united per
hyperbaton with owoas; also not = first, so that detrepov corresponding to it
would be = secondly, and both referred to eidsrac (Jachmann); but azag
belongs to eidorac, and 1d devtepov to axwdecev. Hornejus incorrectly explains
drat by jampridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous qui l'avez su une fois); it has
here rather the same meaning as in ver. 8, rendering prominent that a new
teaching is not necessary (De Wette, Stier, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Schott,
Hofmann). — ravra; according to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia ad _ salutem
necessaria; better, every thing which is an object of evangelical teaching,
here naturally with particular reference to what directly follows, to which
alone the robro of the Rec. points.?— drt 6 xipsog (‘Inooic) Ady . . . aweoac). dre
belongs not to eiddrac xavra, byt to trouvipcar. — With the reading (6) ‘Inoote
(Stier calls it, “without example, and incomprehensibly strange”) Jude
here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does in 1 Cor. x. 4
(comp. also 1 Pet. i. 11), according to which all the acts of divine revelation
are done by the instrumentality of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer
of God. The name 'Iqonic, by which Christ is designated in His earthly
and human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might have so
used it from the consciousness that the eternal Son of God and He who
was born of Mary is the same Person (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 5).
With the reading xtpwc—certainly the more natural — which De Wette-
Briickner and Hofmann prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider 'Iycot¢
as the original — a designation of God is to be understood. —Aaov]. That
by this the people of Israel is meant, is evident; the article is wanting,
because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved as an entire people, with
2 Nicolas de Lyra: ‘“* commonere autem vos but he erroneousty thinks that awaé with ¢idé.
volo et non docere de novo; et subditur ratio; ras indicates “this knowledge is meant as a
Bengel : “causa, cur admoneat duntaxat: quia knowledge effected by a definite individual
jam esciant, semelque cognitum habeant;” eo act,” and that awef is to be understood of the
also Wiesinger and Schott. inatruction given in Second Peter.
3 Schott, iudeed, explains wavra correctly ;
676 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
reference to the following rovc u) moreboavrac.! — 1d debrepov is to be retained
in its proper meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra,
and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, apres), nor, with Grotius
and Wolf, as = ez contrario. It indicates that what was said in the preceding
participial sentence, namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt,
is considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The definite
statement of what this second is, is usually derived from the preceding
owcac, and by it is accordingly understood a second deliverance; but there
are different views as to what deliverance is meant. In this commentary
the deliverance of the people from the wilderness was designated as this
second deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only so that
those who believed not did not attain to it, but were destroyed by God in
the wilderness (so, in essentials, Stier, Briickner, Wiesinger). On the other
hand, Schmidt (Bibl. Theologie, ii.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann, understand
by it the deliverance effected by Christ; whilst they regard as the punish-
ment falling on unbelievers, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow
of the Jewish state. But both explanations are arbitrary: for, first, it is
unauthorized to refer 7d devrepov only to owcar and not to é yi Alyimrov cHoac;
and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliverance is not at all indicated.?
Whilst, then, Jude thinks on the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he
does not mention a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed
not, as the second deed following the first. But this second is not indicated
as a single deed, and therefore by it is to be understood generally what
befell the unbelieving in the wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt;
what this was, is expressed in the words rov¢ py) morevoavrac dnddecev. It is
arbitrary to refer this, with Ritsch], only to the history recorded in Num.
xxv. 1-9; and still more arbitrary to refer it, with Fronmiiller, to the Baby-
lonish captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 16 ff.). Compare, moreover, with this
verse, Heb. iii. 16-19. — rove uy morevoavtac}]. On ua, with participles, see
Winer, p. 449 f. (E. T., 482); comp. ver. 6: rods 4) rypjoavrag. It is to be
observed, that in the corresponding passage, 2 Pet. ii., instead of this ex-
ample, the deluge is named.
Ver. 6. A second example taken from the angelic world. As God
spared not the people rescued from bondage, so neither did He spare the
angels who left their habitation. This also was an admonitory represen-
tation for Christians, who, in the face of the high dignity which they
possessed by redemption, yielded themselves to a life of vice. — ayyéAovg re
rove ph Tpnoavras, «.t.A., is, according to the construction, as the re indicates,
closely connected with the preceding. —dyyéAove without the article con-
1 Calvin observes: ‘nomen populi bonori-
fice capitur pro gente sancta et clecta, ac si
diceret, nihil illle profuisse, quod singulari
privilegio in foedus assumpti eesent;” but
were thie correct, avroy would at least have
been added.
2 Against Winer’s explanation, p. 576
(E. T., 620): ‘‘the verb connected with ro
8evrepor should properly have been cv«c «owe
(aAAa, «.7.A.); the Lord, after having saved,
the second time (when they needed His help-
ing grace) refused them this saving grace, and
left them to destruction.” But there is voth-
ing Indicated in the context of a state of being
in want of grace.
VERSE 6. 677
sidered generally; the participle connected with the article indicates the
definite class of angels who are here meant. For the understanding of
this verse the following points are to be observed: (1) By the twofold
participial clause rove u) . . . apyqv and dnodinovracg . . . oixnrnpwv, something
sinful is attributed to the angels (2 Pet. ii. 4: dyaprncdyruv), on account of
which the punishment expressed by ei¢ xpiow . . . rerypnxe was inflicted upon
them; (2) The two clauses py... dAdz . . . 80 correspond, that the second
positive clause explains the first negative clause; and (3) what Jude says of
the angels corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the
Book of Enoch. — rove ya) rnpoavrag rv tavtoy apxqy, «.7.A.). doy; must here
denote something which the angels by forsaking rd idov oixnrypeov did not
preserve, but gave up or slighted. Bat by arod, rd id, oiant., according to
the Book of Enoch xii. 4,! is meant their forsaking of heaven, and their
descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men (so also
Hofmann); but not, as Hornejus and others think, the loss of the heavenly
dwelling, which they drew upon themselves by conspiring against God;
which would militate against the first observation. — By dpy7 expositors
understand either the original condition (origo: Calvin, Grotius, Hornejus,?
and others), or the dominion which originally belonged to them (Bengel, De
Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Briickner thinks that the meaning
dominion passes over into that of origin). According to the first explanation,
the term is too indefinite, both in itself and in reference to the second
parallel clause. It is in favor of the second explanation, that in the N. T.
angels are often designated by the name dpy#, apyai; as also the prevailing
idea among the Jews was, that to the angels a lordship belongs over the
earthly creation. By this explanation, also, the two clauses correspond ;
instead of administering their office as rulers, they forsook their heavenly
habitation, and thus became culpable. The explanation, according to
which dpx? éavrey denotes not the dominion of the angels, but the dominion
of God, to which they were subjected, is both against linguistic usage and
against the context. — cig xprow . . . rernpnxev]. Statement of the punish-
ment. This also corresponds with the expression in the Book of Enoch,
where in chap. x. 12 it is said; “Bind them fast under the mountains of
the earth . . . even to the day of judgment . . . until] the last judgment
will be held for all eternity.® — rerjpnxev is in sharp contrast to pu} mpzcav-
1 “ Announce to the watchers of heaven,
who forsook the high heaven and their holy
eternal abodes, and have corrupted themselves
with women;” xv. 3: ‘‘ Wherefore have ye
forsaken the high and holy and eternal heaven,
and have slept with women?” ... lIziv.:
‘* These are the angels who have gone down
‘from heaven to earth;”’ and other passages.
Gen. vi. 2 lies at the foundation of this tradi.
tion, the explanation of which ie to this day
contested. Whilst Hofmann explains the ex.
pression DONT ‘)3 as a designation of
the angels, Ferd. Philipp! decidedly rejects
this explanation.
* Hornejus, after John viii. 44, designates
as the ortyinal condition here meant, veritas,
1.e., innocentia et sanctitas. Stier thinks
“that the original condition wae at the same
time the ground of their nature and condition
in God, or, as it is now perbaps called, the
principle of their true life. They preserved
not themeclves in God, whilst they surren-
dered and lost the proper puse ground of their
glorious being.”
$ Comp. aleo x. 4: “ Bind Az&zél, and put
him in darkness,” xiv. 5, xx!. 10, etc. In the
Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar tt is said :
**Postquam fill! Dei fillos genuerunt, sumsit
678 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
rac: thé perfect expresses an action begun in the past and continued in the
present. The mode of retention is more precisely stated by deapoic didiorg bxd
Gopov]. By didiog the chains by which they are bound are designated as
eternal, and incapable of being rent. wd gogov]. fopoc only here and ver.
13, and in the parallel passages, 2 Pet. ii. 4 and 17; comp. also Wisd. xvii.
2;} usually oxoroc, the darkness of hell; uxé is explained by conceiving the
angels in the lowest depths of hell, covered with darkness.?_ In rerjpyxev is
not contained the final doom which will only take place at the general
judgment; therefore: lg xpicw peyadnc nuépac]. ey. juépa, Without any
further designation, used of the last judgment only here; the same adjec-
tive, as an attribute of that day, in Acts ii. 20; Rev. vi. 17, xvi. 14.
Ver. 7. Third example: the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha and
the cities about them, which, however, is not co-ordinate with the preceding
two, but is closely connected with the last mentioned, “whilst bere both
times a permanent condition is meant, which a similar sin has had as its
consequence, whereas dmddecev (ver. 5) states a judgment of God already
past” (Hofmann’s Schriftb., I. p. 428). —o¢ is not to be connected with the
following ouoiuc, ver. 8; nor is dn, ver. 5, to be connected with irouvzca . . .
BovAouac (De Wette) = how instead of “that;” it refers rather to what
directly precedes = like as (Semler, Arnaud, Hofmann, Briickner, Wiesinger,
Schott, and others; Luther: as also), whilst ver. 7 confirms dyyéouc . . .
rernpnxev by the comparison with what befell Sodom and Gomorrha: God
retains the angels kept unto the day of judgment, even as Sodom and
Gomorrha mpoxewrar deiypa, «7.4. With the connection with izouy, Bova.
(ver. 5) a preceding xa: would hardly be necessary, also the words rdv dpuoov
rovtatg indicate the close connection with ver. €.— Z06doua xai Téuoppa fre-
quently adduced in the O. and N. T. as examples of the divine judgment;
see, for example, Rom. ix. 29.—xai ai mepi airag méAeg, according to Deut.
xxix. 23; Hos. xi. 8, Adinah and Zeboim. —rdyv dpowy tpuroy rovrow éxmop-
eos Deus et ad montem tenebrarum perduxit, dus non est locus, quo fuclusi sint diaboli;
ligavitque in catenis ferreis, quae usque ad
medium abyss] maguae pertingunt.”
1 Comp. also Hesiod, Theog., v. 729, where
it is suid: —
"Eva Geoi Tirnves brd Cody npcevta
Kexpudarac, BovAnas Aros vedeAryeperao
Xwpy év etpwerri.
? There is an apparent difference between
what is here said, and the representations of
the N. T. elsewhere, according to which Satan
and his ayyeAo have even now their residence
in the air (Eph. fi. 2, or in the upper regions,
€y Toig €wovpamocs, Eph. vi. 12), and although
already judged by Christ (John xvi. 11), yet
QS KogHoxparopes exercise power over unbe-
Hevers, and also lay snares for believers, in
order to bring them again into subjection.
Expositors, in general, have attempted to rec-
oncile this by referring this continued activity
of the Devil to the special permission of
God; Calvin, otherwise: ‘‘ porro nobis fipgen-
simpliciter enim docere voluit Ap., quam
misera ait eorum conditio... nam quocunque
pergant, secum trabunt sua vincula et suis
tenebris obvoluti manent.” Dictiein remarks
on 2 Pet. ii. 4: ‘* Not only Tartarus, but also
the chains of darkness, are to be understood
in a local and corporeal sense, but not of such
a locality, or of such av imprisonment in that
locality, us would require an exclusion from
our locality, or an incapability of movement
through our locality.” But all these artificial
explanations are to be rejected, inasmuch as
Jude does not speak of Satan and his angela,
but of a definite class of angels, to whom, in
agreement with the Book of Enoch, he refers
Gen. vi.2. This is correctly observed by Hof-
mann, Wiesinger, and Schott, with whom
Briickner appears to agree; on the other hand,
F. Philippi (p. 140) observes: ‘Jude speaks
here of the original fall of the angela from
pride, not of their union with earthly women.”
VERSE 7. 679
veboasat}], robro¢ may grammatically be referred to Zod. «x. Tou. (or, by synesis,
to the inhabitants of these cities; so Krebs, Calvin, Hornejus, Vorstius,
and others); but by this construction the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha
would only be indirectly indicated. Since, also, rotros¢ cannot refer to the
false teachers, ver. 4, because, as De Wette correctly remarks, the thought
of ver. 8 would be anticipated, it must refer to the angels who, according
to the Book of Enoch, sinned in a similar way as the inhabitants of those
cities (thus Herder, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, De Wette, Arnaud, Hof-
mann, and others). — éxxopvevoaca, the sin of the inhabitants, is designated
as the action of the cities themselves. The verb (often in the LXX., the
translation of 3!; also in the Apocrypha) is in the N. T. a ax. Aey. The
preposition é serves for strengthening the idea, indicating that “one by
mopveveer becomes unfaithful to true moral conduct” (Hofmann), but not
that “he goes beyond the boundaries of nature” (Stier, Wiesinger, and
similarly Schott). — xal ameAdoveat oriaw oapnds érépag]. The expression dnépy.
émou tivog is found in Mark i. 20 in its literal sense; here it has a figurative
meaning; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10, ropetecdar om.; Jer. li. 5; Ecclus. xlvi. 10. —
Arnaud: ces mots sont ici un euphémisme, pour exprimer Cacte de la prostitution.
In a6 is contained the turning aside from the right way. Oecumenius
thus explains the import of cdpé érepa: adpxa dé érépav, Ty dbpyva piaww AtyEe, O¢
uh mpd avvovotay yevéorug ouvredovoay; 80 also Briickner and Wiesinger. Stier,
Schott, Hofmann, proceed further, referring to Lev. xviii. 23, 24, and
accordingly explaining it: “not only have they practised shame, man with
man, but even man with beast" (Stier). Only this explanation corresponds
to capxdc érépas, and only by it do the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 6, ex-
pressed by cx, and the explanation: rdv dGuaoy rpomey rovruc, receive their true
meaning. The capé of men was érépa coupé to the angels, as that of beasts is
to men. In the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 6, the sin of the cities is not
stated — mpixevrat deiyua mupo¢ aiwviov dianv bréxovoa), mpdxevrar: they lie
before the eyes as a deiyuu; not, “inasmuch as the example of punishment in
its historica! attestation is ever present” (Schott); but, inasmuch as the Dead
Sea continually attests that punishment, which Jude considers as enduring.
There is a certain boldness in the expression, as properly it is not the cities
and their inhabitants who are xpdxevra. The genitive nupdc aiwviov may
grammatically depend both on deiyua and on dixnv. Most expositors (par-
ticularly Wiesinger, Schott, Bruckner) consider the second construction as
the correct one, but hardly rightly: as, (1) deiyza would then lose its exact
definition; (2) wip aidvov always designates hell-fire, to which the con-
demned are delivered up at the Jast judgment (see Matt. xxv. 41); (3) the
juxtaposition of this verse with ver. 6, where the present punitive condition
of the angels is distinguished from that which will occur after the judginent,
favors the idea that the cities (or rather their inhabitants) are here not
designated as those who even now suffer the punishment of eternal jire.1
1 Wlesinger incorrectly observes that “by fire,” since precisely the contrary is the case.
this connection we must also assume thatthose $Wiesinger arrives at this erroneous assumption
angels aleo suffer the punishment of eternal by taking decyua as equivalent to example. It
680 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
But Jude could designate the cities as a deiyza of eternal fire, considering
the fire by which they were destroyed as a figure of eternal fire. Hofmann
correctly connects mvpd¢ alwviov with deiyua, but he incorrectly designates
deiyza up, aiwy. a8 & preceding apposition to dixyy: “it may be seen in them
(detyza = exhibition) what is the nature of eternal fire, inasmuch as the fire
that has consumed them is enduring in its after-operations;” by this
explanation nip cidvov is deprived of its proper meaning. With dicyy
tréxovoat the fact is indicated that they have continually to suffer punish-
ment, since the period that punishment was inflicted upon them in the time
of Lot;! corresponding to what is said of the angels in ver. 6.— deiyya in
N. T., am. Aey. (Jas. v. 11, and frequently: inddeyua), not = example, but
proof, testimony, sign. onézyev likewise in N. T., dx, Aey.; 2 Macc. iv. 48,
Cnuiav wréyew (2 Thess. i. 9, diay riew).
Ver. 8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10.
— duoiwc, i.e., similarly as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc. — névro: expresses here
no contrast (so earlier in this commentary: “notwithstanding the judgment
which has come on those cities on account of such sins”), but it serves, as
Hofmann correctly observes, appealing to Kiihner’s Gramm., II. p. 694,
“simply for the strengthening of the expression, putting the emphasis on
duvivg ; those men, says Jude, actually do the same thing as the Sodomites.”
—al otro refers back to rivec drOpwrot, ver. 4. — ewvrveatiuevoe Only here and
in Acts ii. 17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according to Joel
iii. 1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bretschneider’s explanation,
“ falsis oraculis decepti vel falsa oracula edentes,” is wholly arbitrary. Most
expositors unite it closely with the following cupxa juaivover, and understand
it either de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or of voluptuous
dreams, appealing to Isa. lvi. 10 (LXX., évurviagéuevoe xoirqy, an inaccurate
translation of the Hebrew 0°33¥ D'N), or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecu-
menius). Jachmann (with whom Briickner agrees) understands it generally
= “sunk in sleep, i.e., hurried along in the tumult of the senses,” appealing
to the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 10 (é éméuyia). Similarly Calvin: est meta-
phorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad
umnem turpiludinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations the expres-
sion is only referred to the first clause of the following sentence; but this is
opposed to the construction: it refers to both clauses, —else it would have
been put directly with psaivovet, — and denotes the condition in which and
out of which they do those things which are expressed in the following
clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only the negative point of
évuridgecdat, the want of a clear consciousness ;? the positive point is chiefly
is aleo entirely erroneous when it je asserted
that rupds aiwnov éixn is an evident type of
hell-fire, since wup aiwvoy ts itself hell-fire.
To be compared with thie is 3 Macc. ii. 56: ov
- « « Zodomctas.. . wupi... arepdActas, wapae
Secyua Tog dmtywwoudvos xatacrygas; and
Libanius fo reference to Troy: «xeira: wapa-
Secyna dvetox.as rupds aiwviov.
1 There is no necessity to derive this repre-
sentation from Wisd. x. 7, and the various
phenomena which lead to the supposition of a
subterranean fire at the Dead Sea (see Winer’s
Bibl. Realw.: todtos Meer).
2 Hornejus: ‘tam inslpientes sunt, ut quasi
lethargo sopiti non tantum impure vivant,”
etc.; Arnaud: “qui agiesent sans savoir ce
qu’ ils font.”
VERSE 8. 681
to be observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their own
perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths and warnings of the
divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fronmiiller, Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner,
Hofmann).! The reference to Isa. xxix. 10, LXCK.: wendrixev bude xipwc xara-
vogewr, is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the discourse
is not above a punitive decree of God. — cdpxa pév puaivovor, not ther flesh, ©
but generally the flesh, both their own and that of others: the thought refers
back to ver. 7: éxropvetcaca, etc. — xvpiornra d2 dberobor, ddgac d2 BAangnpovor,
announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident
connection of thought with ver. 10, where the words 0a d2 gvoixis . . . pbei-
povrac refer back to cdpxa piv yuaiv., 80 xvpiorys and ddfa: can only be here such
things as suit the words cc ot« oldacw. It is thus incorrect to understand
them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and
others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius),? or of human authorities
generally, the two words being either taken as designations of concrete per-
sons, or one of them as a pure abstraction; Arnaud: par xvpwrnra wl faut
entendre Uautorité en général et par ddgac les dignités quelconques, les hommes
meéritant, par leur position, le respect et la considération.— Both expressions are
to be understood as a designation of supermund#e powers. Almost all
recent expositors agree in this, although they differ widely in the more
definite statement. These different explanations are as follows: (1) «vpe-
orn is taken as a designation of God or Christ, and doga: as a designation of
the good angels (Ritschl); (2) the good angels ure understood in both ex-
pressions (Briickner) ; (3) xvpwry¢ is understood in the first explanation, but
dofu is explained of the evil angels (Wiesinger); (4) both expressions are
understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In order first cor-
rectly to determine the idea xuptorne, the relation of ver. 8 to what goes before
is to be observed. The judgments which have befallen the people (ver. 5),
the angels (ver. 6), and the cities (ver. 7), are by Jude adduced as a testi-
mony against the Antinomians (otra, ver. 8) mentioned in ver. 4, evidently
because these persons are guilty of the same sins on account of which those
judgments occurred. Since cdpxa puaivovar evidently points back to éxropvet-
caca, ver. 7, and further to dcéAyeav, ver. 4, it is most natural to refer xvpid-
tnta abetovaw to jo) morebovrac, ver. 5, and, further, to rdv povov deomérnv .. .
dpvovpevor, ver. 4. Consequently, by xupeorn¢ —if one takes rdv povov deonéryy
as a designation of God — is to be understood the Godhead ; or, if one under-
stands r. uw. d. as @ predicate to ’Ina. Xp., Christ. If, now, it is assumed that
défa is an idea corresponding to xupiérnc, and to be taken along with it, then
by it the good angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked
that the clause dogac dé SAacgnyoiaw is separated from the preceding clause by
dé; and that ver. 9 leads to a different understanding of doga. When in
1 «Those here spoken of are wakeful dream- _that by «vpcéryc may aleo be understood » Tov
ers, so that they, when they should perceive «ara Xpicrdy pvornpiov reAevry, and by sofas -
with their wakeful senses, have only dreams, also 7 wadaia &iabyjan cai 9 yea; OD 2 Pet. fi.
and what they dream they esteem as the per- 10 he observes: dofas, Aroe ras Oeias Syor Suva-
ception of the wakeful spirit.” pets, Kas Tas exxAnoragtinas apxds.
3 Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking
682 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
ver. 9 it is said of the archangel Michael that he dared not xpicw éreveyxeiv
PAaognuiac agaiust the Devil, this Bsacgnyiac evidently refers back to BAacgn-
povow, ver. 8, consequently the two ideas dogac and duiBodoc are brought
together, so that from this the preference must be given to the explanation
which understands by ddga¢ the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. That
not ouly dogaz, but also xupirne, is a designation of evil powers, Schott incor-
rectly appeals to the fact that in 2 Pet. ii. 10, and also here, the unchaste,
carnal life of the false teachers is connected with their despising or rejection
of xvpiérn¢; for although it is presupposed that the recognition of the rever-
ence for xupirn¢ might restrain these men from the abuse of their fleshly
nature, yet it does not follow from this that only evil spirits can be meant,
since also the recognition of the reverence for the divine power restrains
from the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by God. To the
identification of xvpury¢ and dégas— whether good or evil angels are to be
understood — not only is the form of the expression opposed, Jude not unit-
ing the two clauses by xai, but, as already remarked, separating them by dé,?
but also the difference of the conduct of the Autinomians, whilst they de-
spise (dserotav; 2 Pet.: xaragpovovaw) the xvpedryc, but blaspheme the dogaz.
The clearer this separation and distinction are kept in view, the less reason
is there against deriving the exact meaning of ddga: from ver. 9 (2 Pet. ii. 10
from ver. 11), and consequently against understanding by it evi angels
(comp. Hofmann); only it must not be affirmed that Jude has used the
expression dofa: as a name for the evil angels as such, but only that, whilst
so naming angels generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident
from ver. 9. That these may be understood by this designation, cannot be
denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul in Eph. vi. 12 names
them ai dpyai, al é£oveia:, of xospoxparopec, and says of them that they are év roi¢
érovpaviow, —dberovow . . . BAaodnpovov]. The first expression is negative, the
second positive; the Antinomians manifested the despising of «upurn¢ by
the carnal licentiousness of their lives, whilst they fancied themselves
exempt by yap (ver. 4) from the duty of obedience to the will of God (or
Christ) as the xipic requiring a holy life; but their blasphemy of the ddga
consisted in this, that, on the reproach of having in their immorality fallen
under diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impotent beings.
REMARK. — According to Ritschl’s opinion, the actions which Jude here
asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only the guilt of their forerunners
(namely, the Israelites, ver. 5; the angels, ver. 6; and the Sodomites, ver. 7),
and his expressions can therefore only be understood in an indirect and meta-
phorical sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the second
clause of ver. 10, that the Antinomians understood relations to be understood
spiritually dvaumir Oe ra dAoya Joa, f.e., that they considered the blessings prom-
ised in the kingdom of heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so
understanding the relation of ver. 8 to the preceding, that défac BAucg. is to be
referred back to ver. 7, «vptor. afer. to ver. 6, and capxd juaiv to ver. 5. According
1 Also in 2 Pet. if. 10, ddfas ov rpéuovow xaradpovourtas by the intervening roAuwrei
PAacdnmovvres is separated from xvpidryros = avdaders.
VERSE 9. . 683
to his view, Jude finds the guilt of the Sodomites (ver. 7) to consist in this,
that by the design of practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them;
the guilt of the angels (ver. 6) in this, that they undervalued their own domin-
ion; and the guilt of the Israelites (ver. 5) in this, that they had criminal
intercourse with the impure daughters of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of
the Antinomians consisted in this: (1) that they regarded immorality as a
privilege of the kingdom of God, which they have in common with the angels;
(2) that by referring their immoral practice to the kingdom of God, they showed
a depreciation of the dominion which belongs to Christ, or to which they them-
selves are called; and (3) that by their dceAyea they were guilty of the defile-
ment of those connected with them in the Christian Church. But both the
explanation of the second clause of ver. 10, where there is no mention of the
blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and the statement of the relation of ver. 8
to what goes before, is incorrect, since in ver. 7 the Sodomites and the other
cities are reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual doing; in
ver. 6 the not preserving their dpy7, and the forsaking of their olxyrjpiov, are
indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, but specially on this account, because
they did it—as rdv dyowv rpdrov roiroc, ver. 7, shows —for the sake of éxzop-
vedey; and, lastly, in ver. 5 the criminal intercourse with the daughters of
Moab is not indicated as the reason of their arudAew, but their unbelief (4
miotevovrag). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly rejected the explanation
of Ritsch] as mistaken. — The view of Steinfass, expressed on 2 Pet. ii. 10, that
the blasphemy of the dofa by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to
constrain the angels by charms to love-intrigues, is, apart from all other con-
siderations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter nor in Jude is there
any reference to charms and love-intrigues with the angels.
Ver. 9 places in a strong light the wickedness of this blasphemy (comp.
2 Pet. ii. 11). They do something against the digu, which even Michael
the archangel did not venture to do against the Devil.—6 6d Miyaga 6
apyuyycyoc]. Michael, in the doctrine of the angels, as it was developed
during and after the captivity by the Jews, belonged to the seven highest
angels, and was regarded as the guardian of the nation of Israel; Dan.
xii. 1, 799 3-5 ayn SUA Iw; comp. x. 13, 21; in the N. T. he is
only mentioned in Rev. xii. 7. In the Book of Enoch, chap. xx. 5, he
is described as “one of the holy angels set over the best part of the human
race, over the people.” — dpydyyedog only here and in 1 Thess. iv. 16 (Dan.
xii. 1, Ixx., 6 dpyuv 6 péyac).} — bre rH d1a3dAw, «.7.4.]. This legend is found
neither in the O. T., nor in the rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of
Enoch; Jude, however, supposes it well known. Oecumenius thus explains
the circumstance: Aéyera: roy Mixya)a .. . ty tov Muctuc tagg dedenxovnxévar’ Tob
yap dtajoAov rovro ue) Karadeyouévuv, GAA’ émigépavrocg EyxAnua did rdv rot Alywrriov
govov, we abrod évrog rou Muofuc, xal du) rovTo pH) ovyyupriobut alto tuxeiv rig evtipov
ragic. According to Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6, the grave of Moses was
given to the special custody of Michael. This legend, with reference to
the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as
1 See Winer’s Bibl. Reallez.: Angel, Michael.
684 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Oecumenius states it, “out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside
of the Scriptures” (Stier).1 According to Origen (epi dpyéw, iii. 2), Jude
derived his account from a writing known in his age, dvdBacw tod Mucéuc.}
Calvin, and others, regard oral tradition as the source; Nicolas de Lyra,
and others, a special revelation of the Holy Ghost; and F. Philippi, a
direct instruction of the disciples by Christ, occasioned by the appearance
of Moses on the mount of transfiguration. De Wette has correctly observed
that the explanation is neither to be derived from the Zendavesta (Herder),
nor is the contest to be interpreted allegorically (saya Mworws = the people
of Israel, or the Mosaic law). — dtaxpwvipevoc duezéyero]. The juxtaposition of
these synonymous words serves for the strengthening of the idea; by
- deAéyero the conflict is indicated as a verbal altercation. — otx érdAunoe, he
ventured not. — xpiow énevéyxew BAacgnuiacg]. Calovius incorrectly explains it
by: ultionem de blasphemia sumere, the words refer not to a blasphemy
uttered by the Devil, but to a blasphemy against the Devil, from which
Michael restrained himself. — xpiow éxupépey denotes a judgment pronounced
against any one (comp: Acts xxv. 18: alriay émipéperr). — xpiow Bracgnpiac is
& judgment containing in itself a blasphemy. By Aaog., that saying —
namely, an invective —is to be understood by which the dignity belonging
to another is injured. Michael restrained himself from such an invective
against the Devil, because he feared to injure his original dignity; instead
of pronouncing a judgment himself, he left this to God. Herder: “ And
Michael dared not to pronounce an abusive sentence.” — ddA’ elev: émeteuqoas
aot xipuoc, the Lord rebuke thee; comp. Matt. xvii. 18, xix. 18, ete. According
to Zech. iii. 1-3, the angel of the Lord spoke the same words to the Devil,
who in the vision of Zechariah stood at his right hand as an adversary of
the high priest Joshua (LXX. : émirqujoas xipeog tv cot duiBore).
Ver. 10. Description of the false teachers with reference to ver. 8 in
contrast to ver. 9; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 12. — They blaspheme, dca pév obx oldact,
what they know not: the supermundane, to which the dééaz, ver. 8, belong, is
meant. Hofmann: “they know about it, otherwise they could not blas-
pheme it; but they have no acquaintance with it, and yet in their ignorance
judge of it, aud that in a blasphemous manner ” (comp. Col. ii. 18, according
to the usual reading). Those expositors who understand xvpiéryra and dégac
of human authorities, are at a loss for an explanation of the thoughts here
expressed; thus Arnand: il est assez difficile de preciser, quelles étaient ces
1 Schmid (Bibl. Theol., II. p. 149), Luth-
ardt, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 340),
Schott, Wiesinger (less definitely), think that
the conflict consisted {pn Michael not permitting
the Devil to exerciaze his power over the dead
body of Moses, but withdrawing It from cor.
ruption; for which an appeal is made to the
fact that ‘God had honored Moses to eee in
the body a vision of His entire nature” (Hof-
mann), and also that ‘* Moses was to be a type
of the Mediator conquering death” (Schott),
and that Moses appeared with Christ on the
mount of transfiguration. In his explanation
of this Epistle, Hofmann expresses himsaelf
to this effect, that Satan wished to prevent
‘‘ Moses, who shared in the impurity of death,
and who had been a sinful man, from being
miraculously buried by the holy hand of God
(through Michael).”
2 8ee on this apocryphal writing, F. Phi-
Hpp! (Das Buch Heroch, p. 166-191) who
ascribes the composition of it to a Christian in
the second century, and assumes that he was
induced to it by this 9th verse in the Epistle of
Jude; this at all events is highly improbable.
VERSE 11. 685
choses qu'ignoraient ces impies. —éca d& gvotic txioravrat, a contrast to what
goes before; corresponding to cdpxa praivover, ver. 8, only here the idea is
carried farther. Jachmann explains it: “the passions inherent in every
one;” but this does not suit ézicravraz. De Wette, correctly. the objects of
sensual enjoyment; to which the oapé (ver. 8) especially belongs. By ¢votic
(an, dey. = of nature) dc ra ddoya {oa is prominently brought forward the fact
that their understanding is not raised above that of the irrational animals,
that to them only the sensual is something known. There is no distinction
between eidéva: and émicracéu, as Schott thinks, that the former denotes a
comprehensive knowledge, and the latter a mere external knowing (“they
understand, namely, in respect of the external and sensual side of things,
practically applied”); but these two verbs obtain this distinctive meaning
here only through the context in which they are employed by Jude (comp.
Hofinann). — év robrog gbeipovra:], é», more significant than da, designates
their entire surrender to these things. — ¢@ecipovraz. Luther, they corrupt
themselves; better, they destroy themselves, namely, by their immoderate
indulgences. In Luther’s translation the words dc ra dAcya fa are incor-
rectly attached to this verb.
Ver. 11. The author interrupts his description of these ungodly men by
a denunciation on them, which he grounds by characterizing them after the
example of the ungodly in the O. T. (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 15 ff.).—obai atroi¢].
The same denunciation frequently occurs in the discourses of Jesus: “at
once a threatening and a strong disapproval” (De Wette). With this ovai
Jude indicates the judgment into which the Antinomians have fallen; it
refers back to vv. 5-7. Wiesinger incorrectly understands it only as a mere
“exclamation of pain and abhorrence.”! This denunciation of woe does
not occur with an apostle; frequently in the O. T. — dr rg 66 rob Kaiv trop-
eb@ncav}. On the phrase: rg 6dp tivo ropevecdas, comp. Acts xiv. 16. (Acts
ix. 31:. 0p. rH $68 1. xupiov.) 1p dp is to be understood locally (see Meyer
on the above passages), not “instrumentally ” (Schott), which does not suit
LxopevOnaav, — tropebénoav; preterite (Luther and others translate it as the
present), because Jude represents the judgment threatened in cial avroig as
fulfilled (De Wette-Briickner). Schott incorrectly explains it: “they have
set out, set forth.” Many expositors find the similarity with Cain to consist
in this, that, whereas he murdered his brother, these by seduction of the
brethren are guilty of spiritual murder; so Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius
(Cain fratri vitam caducam ademit ; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam), Calovius,
Hornejus, Schott, and others. But this conversion into the spiritual is
arbitrary, especially as the desire of seduction in these men is not specially
brought forward by Jude. Other expositors, adhering to the murder com-
mitted by Cain, think on the persecuting zeal of these false teachers against
believers ; so Nicolas de Lyra, sequuntur mores et studia latronis ex invidia et
Gvaritia persequentes sincerioris theologiae studiosos. As the later Jews re-
1 Hofmann correctly observes: “ova has 21). Asnot the first but the second is the
evil in view, whether it be in the tone of com- case here, Hofmann should not have rejected
passion which bewails it (Matt. xxifl.15),or the explanation of De Wette.
of indignation which imprecates it (Matt. xi.
686 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
garded Cain as a symbol of moral scepticism, so Schneckenburger supposes
that Jude would here reproach his opponents with this scepticism; but
there is also no indication of this in the context. De Wette stops at the
idea that Cain is named as “the archetype of all wicked men;” 80 also
Arnaud? and Hofmann; but this is too general. Briickner finds the point
of resemblance in this, that as Cain out of envy, on account of the favor
shown to Abel, resisting the commandment and warning of God, slew his
brother, so. these false teachers resisted God, and that from envy of the
favor shown to believers. But in the context there is no indication of
the definite statement “from envy.” It is more in correspondence with the
context to find the tertium compar. in this, that Cain, in spite of the warning
of God, followed his own wicked lusts. Fronmiiller: “The point of com-
parison is acting on the selfish impulses of nature, in contempt of the
warnings of God.” —xal rg wAivy rod Badadu pucdow eexb@yoav). mAdyn, aS a
sinful moral error, denotes generally a vicious life averted from the truth;
comp. Jas. v. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 18 (Ezek. xxxiii. 16, LXX., translation of
WD). éxyeiooae in the middle, literally, to issue forth out of something,
construed with ele 7; figuratively, to rush into something, to give one’s self up
with all his might to something (Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 491, 3; ec #dornv
éxxvdévrec; several proof passages in Wahl, Elsner, Wetstein); it is less
suitable to explain the verb according to Ps. Ixxiii. 2, where the LXX. have
égext0n as a translation of 125¥ = to slip (Grotius: errare). The dative rj
TAdvy 18 = el¢ thy rAGvyv; Schott incorrectly explains it as dativus instrumen-
talis, since égexi@noay requires a statement for the completion of the idea.
The genitive ,zsodob is, with Winer, p. 194 (E. T., 206), to be translated :
for reward (see Grotius in loco); so that the meaning is: “they gave
themselves up for a reward (i.e., for the sake of earthly advantage, thus
from covetousness; Luther: ‘for the sake of enjoyment’) to the sin of
Balaam;” thus most interpreters, also Briickner, Wiesinger, Hofmann.
De Wette, on the contrary, after the example of Erasmus, Vatablus, and
others, explains Badady as a genitive dependent on rot juodov; the dative 7%
nAavy a8 = by means of the error; and éfexyiénoav as an intransitive verb =
“to commit excesses, to give vent to.” Accordingly, he translates the
passage as follows: “ By (by means of ) the error (seduction) of the reward
of Balaam, they have poured themselves out (in vice).” So also Hornejus:
deceplione mercedis, qua deceptus fuit Balaam, effusi sunt.2 But this con-
struction is extremely harsh, the ideas mAavn and égexi@noay are arbitrarily
interpreted, and the whole sentence, so interpreted, would be withdrawn
from the analogy of the other two with which it is co-ordinate.® Schott
construes the genitive with rAévg, whilst he designates it “as an additional,
1 Arnaud: “J. compare seulement, d’une
maniére trés générale, ses adversaires & Cain,
sous le rapport de la méchanceté."
2 Calvin: “‘dixit (Ap.), instar Bileam mer-
cede fulsse deceptos, quia pietatis doctrinam
turpis lucri gratia adulterant; sed metaphora,
qua utitur, aliquanto plus exprimit; dixit enim
effusos esse, quia acilicet instar aquae diffiu-
entie projecta sit eorum intemperies.
8 ‘*The parallelism of the three clauses
requires that r7 wAdvp é€exv@ncar ehould re-
main together, accordingly the genitive is
equivalent to avyri wcoOou ” (Stier).
VERSE 11. 687
and, as it were, a parenthetically added genitive for the sake of precision,”
and for this he supplies a rAdvy: “the error of Balaam, which was an error
determined by gain.” This construction, it is true, affords a suitable sense,
but it is not linguistically justified: it is entirely erroneous to take juo6od
as in apposition to Badaitu= dc micbdv frydnnoev, 2 Pet. ii. 15 (Fronmiiller,
Steinfass). — De Wette, chiefly from Rev. ii. 14, finds the point of resem-
blance in this, that “ Balaam as a false prophet and a seducer to unchastity
and idolatry, and contrary to the will of God, went to Balak, and that he is
also: particularly considered as covetous and mercenary.” But there is no
indication that the men of whom Jude speaks enticed others to idolatry.
Hofmann observes thet this clause calls the sin of those described as “a
devilish conduct against the people of God, the prospect of a rich reward
being too alluring to Balaam to prevent him entering into the desires of
Balak to destroy the people of God;” but in this explanation also a refer-
ence is introduced not indicated by the context. That Jude had primarily
in view the covetousness of Balaam, p:od0d shows; blinded by covetousness,
Balaam resisted the will of God; his resistance was his 926v7, in which, and
in the motive to it, the Antinomians resembled him (Briickner, Wiesinger) ;
whether Jude had also in view the seduction to unchastity (comp. Num.
xxxi. 16; Fronmiiller), is at least doubtful; and it is still more doubtful to
find the point of resemblance in this, that the Antinomians “had in view a
material gain to be obtained by the ruin of the Church of God” (Schott). —
Kai TH avTidoyia tov Kopé améAovro]. ayvtioyia, contradiction; here, seditious
resistance. u7dAovro does not mean that “they lost themselves in the avriA.
of Korah,” but “that they perished;” accordingly, rj avrAnyig is the
instrumental dative. The point of resemblance is not, with Nicolas de
Lyra, to be sought in this, that the opponents of Jude formed propter
ambitionem honoris et gloriae sectas erroneas; or, with Hornejus, that they
assuined the munus Apostolorum ecclesiae doctorum; or, with Hofmann, that
they, as Korah (“ whose resistance consisted in his unwillingness to recognize
as valid the law of the priesthood of Aaron, on which the whole religious
constitution of Israel rested”), “desired to assert a liberty not restricted :”
but it consists in the proud resistance to God and His ordinances, which the
Antinomians despise. By Schott’s explanation: “that they opposed to
the true holiness a holiness of their own invention, namely, the holiness
alleged to be obtained by disorderly excess,” a foreign reference is intro-
duced.! The gradation of the ideas éd0¢, xAdvy, cvtioyia, in respect of
definiteness, is not to be denied; but there is also a gradation of thought,
for although the point about which Cain, Balaam, and Korah are named is
1 Ritech! finds the point of resemblance
between the Antinomiane and the three named
religious conduct” of Cain; and it is incorrect
that the utterance of the curse wilied by
in this, “that they, as theee, undertook to
worship God {in a manner rejected by Him.”
But it is erroneous that ‘the Korahites exhib-
ited their assumption of the priesthood by the
presentation of an offering rejected by God; ”
it is incorrect that by odcs is indicated “the
Balaam is to be considered as a religious trans-
action. Moreover, in the description of the
Antinomians there is no trace indicating that
their view wae directed to a particular kind of
worship.
688 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
one and the same, namely, resistance to God, yet this appears in the most
distinct manner in the case of Korah.
Ver. 12. A further description of these false teachers; comp. 2 Pet. ii.
13, 17. —obroi elow [of] tv raig ayémae tov ondadec]. In the reading ol, syre¢
is either (with De Wette) to be supplied; thus, “these are they who are
omAddec In your dydmac;” or ol- is to be joined to ovvevwyobpevor (comp. vv.
16, 19; so Hofmann). That by dyara the love-feasts are to be understood,
is not to be doubted. Erasmus incorrectly takes it as = charitas, and Luther
as a designation of alms.— The word omAddec is usually explained = cliffs (so
also formerly in this commentary). If this is correct, the opponents of Jude
are so called, inasmuch as the love-feasts were wrecked on them (De Wette-
Briickner, Wiesinger), i.e., by their conduct these feasts ceased to be what
they ought to be; or, inasmuch as they prepared destruction for others, who
partook of the love-feasts (Schott, and this commentary). It is, however,
against this interpretation, that omAdp does not specially indicate cliffs, but
has the more general meaning rocks (Hofmann: “ projecting interruptions of
the plain”), and the reference to being wrecked is not in the slightest degree
indicated.1— Stier and Fronmiiller take omaAddec as = oridor, 2 Pet. ii. 13; this
is not unwarranted, as omAdc, which is properly an adjective (comp. oxopde,
guydc, Aoyac), may be derived as well from omidog = filth (comp. »% omAae =
clayey soil; so Sophocles, 7rach., 672, without y7), as from omido¢p = a rock
(comp. wodvemadc). In this case omAddes may either be taken as a substan-
tive = what is filthy, spots (these are spots in your agapé; so Stier and Fron-
miiller), or as an adjective, which, used adverbially (see Winer, p. 438, 464),
denotes the mode and manner of cuvewwxeicda: (80 Hofmann). The former
construction merits the preference as the simpler. — Apart from other consid-
erations, omiAo: «al pouo in 2 Peter are in favor of taking omdAddec here in the
sense of oxida. — cuvevwxotpeva]. The verb etwreicfa:? has not indeed by itself
a bad meaning, signifying to eat well, to feast well; but it obtains such a mean-
ing here by the reference to the agape. The avy placed before it may either
refer to those addressed, with you, see 2 Pet. ii. 18, where tuiv is added to
the verb (Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann); or to those here de-
scribed by Jude, feasting together, i.e., with one another. Against the first
explanation is the objection, that according to it the ebwzeio#a: in their agape
would render those addressed also guilty (so formerly in this commentary) ;
but against the second is the fact that the Libertines held no special love-
feasts with one another, but participated in those of the church. The
passage, 2 Pet. ii. 13, is decisive in favor of the first explanation. — The
connection of d¢éfuc is doubtful; De Wette-Briickner, Arnaud, Schott,
1 The explanation of Arnaud: “ les rochers
continuellement battus par les flote de la mer
et soulllés par son écume” (after Steph.:
owiAas), is unsuitable; sloce, when the Lib.
ertines are called cliffs, this bappens not
because they are bespattcred and defiled by
others, but because others are wrecked on
them. °
2 An explanation of this word is found
in Xenophon, Memorabilia, Ub. ill.: éArcye
(namely, Socrates) 5¢ «ai we 1d evexaccOar éy
7H ‘AOnvaiwy yAwrrn dcGiaw edAotro. Td 82 ev
mpooneicOa, edn, dxi rp ravTa doBiay driva
pire Thy puxny, wire Td cua Avwoin, mare
bvoevpera ein; aore nai rd cimxeicbar Trois
nogpiwg ctacrapudvorg dveriOer, However,
evwxeicGas sometimes occurs in classical
Greek in a bad sense.
VERSE 12 689
Fronmiiller, unite it with cvvevwyoipevor; Erasmus, Beza, Wiesinger, Hof-
mann, with éavrode nomaivovtes. In this commentary the first connection
was preferred, “because the idea ovvevwx. would otherwise be too bare.”
This, however, is not the case, because if the verse is construed as it is by
Hofmann, it has its statement in what goes before; but if omaAddec is taken
as a substantive, as it is by Stier and Fronmiiller, then ovvevwy, is more pre-
cisely determined by the following dgéBuc . . . romaivovres, whilst it is said
that they so participate in the agape that their feasting was an dgdSu¢ morpai-
vew éavrovc. Erasmus takes the latter words in a too general sense: suo
ductu et arbitrio viventes; Grotius, Bengel, and others give a false reference
to them after Ezek. xxxiv. 2, understanding “that these feed themselves
and not the church” (comp. 1 Pet v. 2), and accordingly Schneckenburger
thinks specially on the instructions which they engage to give: but this
reference is entirely foreign to the context. According to De Wette, it is a
contrast to “whilst they suffer the poor to want” (1 Cor. xi. 21); yet there
is also here no indication of this reference. — vegédac avedpa is to be under-
stood no more of the agapé (De Wette, Schott), but generally. veg. arudp,
are light clouds without water, which therefore, as the addition td dvéuuv
mapagepouevaa Makes prominent, are driven past by the wind without giving
out rain; comp. Prov. xxv. 14. This figure describes the internal emptiness
of these men, who for this reason can effect nothing that is good; but it
seems also to intimate their deceptive ostentation;! the addition serves for
the coloring of the figure, not for adducing a special characteristic of false
teachers; Nicolas de Lyra, incorrectly: quae a ventis circumferuntur, i.e.,
superbiae motibus et vanitatibus. — Iu the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 17, two
images are united, mnyal dyvdpos nai duixAa: id AaiAanoc tAavvouevas. — Accord-
ing to the reading zepepepouevas, the translation would be, “driven hither and
thither; "’ xapagepdueva: denotes, on the other hand, driven past. A second
figure is added to this first, by which the unfruitfulness (in good works)
and the complete deadness of these men are described; in the adjectives the
gradation is obvious. — dévdpa pOivorupwa are not a particular kind of trees,
such as only bear fruit in autumn, but trees as they are in autumn, namely,
destitute of fruit (De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). It is arbi-
trary to desert the proper meaning of the word, and to explain gé@worupiwa
according to the etymology of gé@ivew by arbores quarum fructus perit illico =
Jrugiperdae (Grotius; so also Erasmus, Beza, Carpzov, Stier: “which have
cast off their fruit in an unripe state”). —dxapra; not “whose fruit has
been taken off” (De Wette), but “which are without fruit” (Briickner).
Whether they have had fruit at an earlier period, aud are now destitute of
it, is not said. “The impassioned discourse proceeds from marks of unfruit-
fulness to that of absolute nothingness” (De Wette). dic drodavovra}. Beza,
Rosenmiiller, and others arbitrarily explain dig by plane, prorsus. Most
expositors retain the usual meaning: yet they explain the idea twice in dif-
3 Calvin: ‘* Vanam ostentationem taxat, §daturos se doctrinam aalvificam, sed veritate
quia nebulones isti, quum multa promittunt, destituuntur et quovis circumaguntur doc-
intus tamen aoridj sunt.” Bullinger: ‘“‘Habent trinae vento.”
enim speciem doctorum veritatis, pollicentur
690 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
ferent ways; either that those trees are not only destitute of fruit, but also
of leaves (so Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others); or that they bear no fruit,
and are accordingly rooted out; or, still better, dic is to be referred to the
fact that they are not only fruitless, but actually dead and dried up.1 That
Jude has this in his view, the following éxpewhévra shows. Several exposi-
tors have incorrectly deserted the figure here, and explained this word either
of twofold spiritual death (Beza, Estius, Bengel, Schneckenburger, Jachmann,
Wiesinger, Schott), or of death here and hereafter (80 Grotius: neque hic
bonum habebunt exitum, neque in seculo altero), or of one’s own want of spir-
itual life and the destruction of life in others. All these explanations are
without justification. éxpweévra is in close connection with dig dmvvarévra ;
thus, trees which, because they are dead, are dug up and rooted out,? thus
incapable of recovery and of producing new fruit (Erasmus: quibus jam
nulla spes est revirescendi). This figure, taken from trees, denotes that those
described are not only at present destitute of good works, but are incapable
of producing them in the future, and are “on this account rooted out of the
soil of grace” (Hofmann). It is incorrect when Hofmann ® in the applica-
tion refers dic dtoGavévra to the fact that those men were not only in their
early heathenism, but also in their Christianity, without spiritual life.
There is no indication in the context of the distinction between heathenism
and Christianity. Arnaud observes not incorrectly, but too generally : tous
ces mots sont des metaphores énergiques pour montrer le neant de ces impies, la
legereté de leur conduite, la stérilité de leur foi et V'absence de leurs bonnes wucres.
Ver. 13. Continuation of the figurative description of those false teachers.
The two images here employed characterize them in their erring and dis-
ordered nature. —«iuara dypia Oaddcons, x.7.A.]. Already Carpzov has cor-
rectly referred for the explanation of these words to Isa. lvii. 20; the first
words correspond to the Hebrew 02) 0°3; the following words: éra¢gpifovra
rag éavrav aloxivac, to the Hebrew 0°0! WDI 1D") WAI, only Jude uses the
literal word where Isaiah has the figurative expression.— éna¢piferv, properly,
to foam over. Luther well translates it: which foam out their own shame. —
aicxivas, not properly vices (De Wette); the plural does not necessitate this
explanation, but their disgraceful nature, namely, the shameful ém@vpiac
which they manifest in their wild lawless life; not “their self-devised wis-
dom” (Schott).— From the fact that the Hebrews sometimes compared
their teachers to the sea (see Moses, Theol. Samar., ed. Gesenius, p. 26), it
is not to be inferred, with Schneckenburger and Jachmann, that there is
here a reference to the office of teachers; this is the more unsuitable as the
opponents of Jude hardly possessed that office. — dorépes tAavgra]. These
two words are to be taken together, wandering stars; that is, stars which
1 Fronmiiller, incorrectly: “trees which
have at different times suffered fatal injury by
frosts or from insects.”
* Fronmiiller, linguistically incorrect:
‘‘trees which still remain in the earth, but
which are shaken loose by their roots.”’
8 “Tf, when they became Christians, a fresh
sap from the roots, by which they were rooted
in the soil of divine grace, appeared to estab-
lish them {ip a new life out of their heathen
death fn sin, yet this new life was to them only
a transition into a second and now hopeless
death.”’
VERSES 14, 18. 691
have no fixed position, but roam about. The analogy with the preceding
metaphors requires us to think on actual stars, with which Jude compares
his opponents; thus on comets (Bretschneider, Arnaud, Stier, De Wette,
Hofmann) or on planets (so most of the early commentators, also Wiesinger).
The latter opinion is less probable, because the xAavacda of the planets is
less striking to the eye than that of the comets. It is incorrect “in the
explanation entirely to disregard the fact whether there are such dorépe¢
mAavita in heaven or not” (so earlier in this commentary, after the example
of Schott), and to assume that Jude, on account of their ostentation (Wie-
singer, Schott), designates these men as stars, and by rAavira: indicates their
unsteady nature. De Wette incorrectly assumes this in essentials as equiv-
alent with wjavavre¢ xai xAavepevor, 2 Tim. iii? 18. Bengel thinks that we
are in this figure chiefly to think on the opaqueness of the planets; but such
an astronomical reference is far-fetched. Jachmann arbitrarily explains
azrépec = gworipec, Phil. ii. 15, as a designation of Christians. Several ex-
positors also refer this figure to the teaching of those men, appealing to
Phil. ii. 15 and Dan. xii. 3;1 but the context gives no warrant for this. —
ole 6 Gogoe rob oxdrouc eic alava retnpyta}. This addition may grammatically be
referred either to what immediately precedes, thus to the dorétpec nAaviyrat,
or to the men who have been described by the figures used by Jude. It is
in favor of the first reference (Hofmann: “Jude names them stars passing
into eternal darkness, comets destined only to vanish”), that a more precise
statement is also added to the preceding figure; thus the addition t7d dvéuuw
mapagepouevat to vedéAa avudpa,x.r.A, But it is against it, that the expression
chosen by Jude is evidently too strong to designate only the disappearance
of comets, therefore the second reference is to be preferred (Wiesinger;
comp. ver. 6), which also the parallel passage in 2 Pet. ii. 17 favors. The
addition of the genitive rot oxérouc to 6 Yopoc serves to strengthen this idea.
Vv. 14,15. The threatening contained in the preceding verses is con-
firmed by a saying of Enoch. — éxpogirevoe dt xal rotrouw). «al refers either to
tovrac: “of these as well as of others;” according to Hofmann, of those
who perished in the deluge; or it is designed to render prominent érpog,
tovrog in reference to what has been before said: “yea, Enoch also has
prophesied of them.” Hofmann, in an entirely unwarrantable manner,
maintains that there can be no question that «ai puts its emphasis on the
word before which it stands. — xpogyretery generally with rep! bere construed
with the dative, as in Luke xviii. 31, in reference to these. — &Bédouoc ard "Addy
’"Evox]. &3douoc has hardly here the mystical meaning which Stier gives it:
“The seventh from Adam is personally a type of the sanctified of the seventh
age of the world, of the seventh millennium, of the great earth sabbath.”
Also in the Book of Enoch, he is several times expressly designated as “the
seventh from Adam” (Ix. 8, xciii. 8); not in order to characterize him as
the oldest prophet (Calvin, De Wette, and others), but to mark his impor-
tance by the coincidence of the sacred number seven (Wiesinger, Schott).
1 Bo already Oecumentus: B8oxovrres cig rias udvov rou xupiov ddpovrar dcypnarew (Hor-
dyycdov Geuris peracxnmarigerOar ...dawevay- nejus and others).
692 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
The saying of Enoch here quoted is found, partly verbally, at the beginning
of the Book of Enoch (i. 9): “ And behold He comes with myriads of saints
to execute judgment on them, and He will destroy the ungodly and judge
all flesh concerning all things which the sinners and‘ ungodly have committed
and done against Him.”! These words are taken from a speech in which
an angel interprets a vision which Enoch has seen, and in which he an-
nounces to him the future judgment of God.
The question, from what source Jude has drawn these words, is very differ-
ently answered by expositors. It is most natural to conceive that he has taken
them from the Book of Enoch; but then this pre-supposes that this book,
although only according to its groundwork, is of pre-Christian Jewish, and not
of Jewish-Christian origin, which is also the prevailing opinion of recent critics.
Hofmann, who denies the pre-Christian composition of the book, says, ‘‘ Jude
has derived it, in a similar manner as the incident between Michael and Satan,
from a circle of myths, which has attached itself to Scripture, amplifying its
words.”’? Yet, on the other hand, it is to be observed that it is difficult to
conceive that oral tradition should preserve such an entire prophetic saying.
F. Philippi thinks that Enoch in Gen. v. 22 is characterized as a prophet of
God, and, as such, prophesied of the impending deluge; and that Jude, by
reason of a deeper understanding of Gen. v., could add the exposition already
become traditionary, and speak of a prophecy of Enoch, the reality of which
was confirmed to him by the testimony of the Holy Ghost ; or that this prophecy
of Enoch was imparted to the disciples by Christ Himself, when the already
extant tradition concerning Enoch might have afforded them occasion to ask
the Lord about Enoch, perhaps when he was engaged in delivering His eschato-
logical discourses. But both opinions of Philippi evidently rest on suppositions
which are by no means probable. As an example of the method by which the
older expositors sought to rescue the authenticity of the prophecy, let the expo-
sition of Hornejus suffice: haec quae Judas citat, ab Enocho ita divinitus
prophetata esse, dubium non est; sive prophetiam illam ipse alicubi scripsit et
scriptura illa vel per Noam ejus pronepotem in arca, vel in columna aliqua
tempore diluvii conservata fuit sive memoria ejus traditione ad posteros propa-
gata, quam postea apocrypho et fabulosa illi libro autor ejus inseruerit, ut
totum Enochus scripsisse videretur.
ly dyiaw pvpiiow; comp. Zech. xiv. 5; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Heb. xii. 22;
(uvpisow dyyéAwy) Rev. v. 11.— Ver. 15. osjoat xpiow; see Gen. xviii. 25;
John v. 27.—rove doeBeic]. The pronoun atrav, according to the Rec.,
would refer to the people of Israel. — dv 4oé3ncav; the same verb in Zeph.
iii. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 6; here used as transitive; comp. Winer, p. 209 (E. T.,
222). The frequent repetition of the same idea‘is to be observed: doeBeic,
dorBeiac, hoéBnoav, and finally again doeBel¢; a strong intensification of un-
godliness. — rév oxAnpov}. oxAnpoc, literally, dry, hard, rough; here in an
ethical sense, ungodly, not equivalent to surly (Hofmann); in a somewhat
1 The passage thus stands In De Sacy’s et litigat cum omnibus carnalibus pro omnibus
version: “et venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, quae fecerunt et operati sunt contra eum pec-
ut faciat judicium super eos et perdat impios _—catores et impii.”
VERSE 16. 693
e
different sense, but likewise of sayings, the word is used in John vi. 60. —
car’ avrov is by Hofmann in an unnecessary manner attached not only to
éAaAnoav, but also to joéByoav, in spite of Zeph. iii. 11, where it is directly
connected with 70éBncav, which is not here the case. The sentence emphat-
ically closes with dyapruxo deeseic, which is not, with Hofmann, to be
attracted to what follows.
- Ver. 16. A further description of the false teachers attached to the
concluding words of the prophetic saying: réw oxAnpéw wv eAdAnoay Kar’ avo;
comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19. — ovroi cio, as in vv. 10 and 19 with special emphasis.
— yoyyvorai]. ax, dey. in N. T.; the verb is of frequent occurrence; Oecume-
nius interprets it: of 62’ édévra xul drappnotdoruc TH Svoapecroupévy Enipepgopevoe.
Jude does not say against whom they murmur; it is therefore arbitrary
to think on it as united to a definite special object as rulers (De Wette),
or, still more definitely, ecclesiastical rulers (Estius, Jachmann). Briickner
correctly observes that “the idea is not to be precisely limited.” Every
thing which was not according to their mind excited them to murmuring.
The epithet peupivorpor (am. Acy.), dissatisfied with their lot, gives @ more precise
statement; denoting that they in their pretensions considered themselves
entitled to a better lot than that which was accorded to them. The parti-
cipial clause, xara rac éniOuulag abrov nopevduevor, is added to the substantive,
which, whilst it unfolds the reason of their dissatisfaction and murmuring,
at the same time expresses a kind of contrast: they were dissatisfied with
every thing but themselves. Calvin: qui sibi in pravis cupiditatibus indulgent,
simul difficiles sunt ac morosi, ut illis nunquam satisfiat. The view of Grotius
is entirely mistaken, that Jude has here in view the dissatisfaction of the
Jews of that period with their political condition. —xai 1d créua aitév Aare
trépoyxa)], unépoyxa only here and in the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 18.
Luther: “proud words” (verba tumentia, in Jerom., contra Jovian., 1. 24);
comp. Dan. xi. 36, LXX.: «at Audjoe trépoyxa; such words are meant
which proceed from pride, in which man exalts himself, in contrast to
the humility of the Christians submitting themselves to God. To this
the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii. 18) also points, where the expression
umépoyxa refers to boasting of éAevéepia. A participial clause is again added
to this assertion, as in the former clause, likewise expressing a kind of
contrast: Oavpdlovres mpdownra Ogedciag xapw. The expression @avydlew mpdowra
is in the N. T., am. Aey.; in the O. T., comp. Gen. xix. 21, LXX.: éaipaca
gov 1d mpdownov; Hebrew, *}0 8); in other passages the LXX. have AauBavew
rd mp. In Lev. xix. 15, the LXX. translate ‘29 8) by AcuP. rd mp.; on the
other hand, ‘23 VI) by 6avudfeew 1d mpdowrov. Whilst in the first passage
the friendly attitude of God toward Abraham is expressed, in the second
passage it has the bad meaning of partiality. It has also this meaning
here: it is to be translated to render admiration to persons (Herder: to
esteem; Arnaud: “admirer, honorer”). In this sense Oavpifecy occurs in
Ecclus. vii. 29.1 This partial treatment of persons consisted in the flattering
1 Comp. Lysias, Orat. 31, where it fe eald = rots dyabovs Oavpdde, aAAd’ loow éavroy wapdxec
of death: ovre yap rovs wovnpovs Urepopg, ovTe §=—«_ Baa.
694 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
td
homage of those who hoped for some advantage from them, as dgedeiac ydpew
shows. It is unwarranted, with Hofmann, to interpret G@avudlev xptcwna:
“to gratify and to please a person.” Proud boasting and cringing flattery
form indeed a contrast, but yet are united together. Calvin: magnilo-
quentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fastuose jactent: sed interea ostendit liberali esse
ingenio, quia serviliter se dimittant. — davpaforrec is not parallel with ropevouevas,
but refers in a loose construction to aitév; by this construction the thought
gains more independence than if davuufovruy were written. — dgedeiag yapea
belongs not to the finite verb, but to the participle.
Vv. 17, 18. Jude now turns to his readers, comforting! and exhorting
them in reference to the ungodly above described; see 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3. —
tueic dé, an emphatic contrast to those above mentioned. — pvqodnre presup-
poses the words meant by Jude known to the readers, as learned from the
apostles. — rov pyudtwy tov xpoetpnuévev]. pia; the word as an expression of
thought. The xpo in mpoeipnuévwv designates these words not as those which
predict something future, but which were already spoken before (so also
Hofmann). — ond rev anooréAwy, «.7.4.]. Jude would hardly have so expressed
himself were he himself an apostle, which several expositors certainly do
not grant, explaining this mode of expression partly from Jude’s modesty
and partly from the circumstance that, except himself and John, the other
apostles were already dead. — Ver. 18. dre tAeyov ipiv]. iviv here renders it
probable that Jude means such sayings as the readers had heard from the
mouth of the apostles themselves; yet the words which follow are not
necessarily to be considered as a literally exact quotation, but may be a
compression of the various predictions of the apostles concerning this
subject.2 — in’ éoxdrov [rov] xpovov]. A designation of the time directly
preceding the advent of Christ. In the reading rod xpovov, toxétov is the
genitive neuter, as in Heb. i. 1. — gcovra: iuzaixta:, only here and in 2 Pet.
iii. 3, a word occurring only in later Greek; the LXX. have translated
paoyn by éur., as they render Soynn by éunaizecv. Mockers, that is, men
to whom the holy (not merely the resurrection, Grotius) serves for mockery.
Aakeiv imépoyxa 18 & eurailew of the holy (which Hofmann without reason
denies); this is naturally united with a surrender to their own lusts;
therefore xara rag éaurdy ériBupiag mopevduevos tov acepecv]. tév doesecv, an
echo of the saying of Enoch, is placed emphatically at the close, in order to
render prominent the character and aim of émivyia.— That the apostles
in their writings frequently prophesied of the entrance of heretical and
ungodly men into the church, is well known; comp. Acts xx. 29; 1 Tim.
iv.1; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff.; yet éuaiger is not elsewhere stated as a characteristic
3 Why Jude should not have intended to
comfort his readers by reminding them of
what the apostles bad, at an earlier period,
said of the appearance of these men, as he here
describes them, cannot be perceived (against
Hofmann)
2 Entirely without reason, Schott maintains
that the intervening words, Ste éAcyow viv,
prove that Jude will here give a verbal quota-
tion, and that this must be a writing earlier
directed to the readers. ore €A, Um. simply
introduces the statement of the contents of
the pjuara which were earlier spoken by the
apostles. The plural] is not to be referred to
one apostic, and the verb does not in the least
degree indicate that this word was written.
VERSE 19. 695
mark of these men; this is only the case in 2 Pet. iii. 83, where, however,
the mockery is referred only to the denial of the advent of Christ.
Ver. 19. Final description of the false teachers, not specially, but
according to their general nature. —otroi elorv, parallel with ver. 16. — of
Grodwpilovrec. The article marks the idea as definite. “these are they who,”
etc. — drodiopifecv, a word which occurs only in Aristotle’s Polit., iv. 8, 9, is
here very differently explained; with the reading éavroi¢ it would most
naturally be taken as equivalent to separate; thus, “who separate them-
selves from the church, whether internally or externally ” (Wahl); without
favroic it is explained either as = (lo secede (Fronmiiller), or = to cause
separations and divisions, namely, in the church (Luther: “who make
factions ;"" De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger; so also in this commentary).
Neither explanation is, however, justified from the use of the word diopifery.
It is still more arbitrary, with Schott, to explain it: “who make a dis-
tinction, namely, between the pneumatical (Pneumatikern), as what they
consider themselves, and the psychical (Psychikern), as what true Christians
regard them;” for there is no indication of such a distinction made by
them. If we base the explanation on the significance of copifew, the word
may be understood as = to make definitions. But in this case what follows
must be closely connected with it, by which the mode and manner of their
doing so is stated, namely, that they do so as psychical men, whe are without
the mvetua. Hofmann gives to the verb the meaning: “ to determine (define)
something exactly in detail,” and then assumes that the preceding genitive
tov woeBeav depends on ol dmodwopifouevot, which may well be the case, because
& participle standing for a substantive may as well as a substantive govern
the genitive. According to this explanation, Jude intends to describe those
men as persons “ who make impieties the object of an exercise of thought
exactly defining every thing, and so are the philosophers of impieties.”
This explanation is condemned by the harsh and artificial construction
which it requires.1— yuytxol, rvedza uh Exovrec), mvevua is not man’s natural
spirit,? for Jude could not deny this to his opponents; and to explain xa
Zxovrec in the sense, “I might say that they have no spirit at all” (Fron-
miiller), 1s completely arbitrary. It is rather to be understood of the Holy
Spirit (De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Hofmann); the want of the article
and of an epithet, such as dyiov or Geod, is no objection against this interpre-
tation, since the simple word rveiua is often used in the N. T. as a desig-
' Certainly the dependent genitive may
precede the governing substantive; but thie
union is here rendered impossible by the inter.
vening ofro:. A participle aleo, taken as a
substantive, may sometimes govern a genitive;
but this is only found with the neuter, and then
only rarely. Add to this that obroi ciow here
corresponds to the ovroi ciouy in vv. 16 and 12,
and accordingly muat stand at the beginning
of the sentenee.
2 Schott explains wvetyza as “ aptritual life
in the distinctive character of ite being, that it
is self-controlled in personal self.conscious-
nees and self-determination,”’ and so equiva-
lent to ‘free personality of the spirit” (!);
but this free personality, Schott further ob-
serves, je not denied to them in the sense aa
“if they were actually deprived of it,” but
only that it **does not attalo permanence and
reality in actual performance.” This dis-
torted interpretation is contradicted by the
fact that Jude simply denies to them rrevua
éxeuy.
696 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
nation for the objective Holy Spirit. It is erroneous to affirm that by this
interpretation the conclusion of the description is too flat, for nothing worse
can be said of a man who desires to be esteemed a Christian than that he
wants the Holy Spirit. Moreover, only so understood does mveiua 1) Exovrec
correspond to the preceding wuyxoi, to which it is added as an explanation;
yuyxoi they are, inasmuch as their natural spiritual life left to itself is
under the unbroken power of the odpé; see 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; Jas. iii. 15.
‘REMARK. — Schott attempts to prove that the three verses, 12, 16, and 19,
beginning with otrm, refer to the threefold expression contained in ver. 11,
namely, in this manner: that the Antinomians, in showing themselves to be
omdAddec in their agapé (ver. 12) resembled Cain; that in being yoyyvoral yepyi-
potpot, and out of greed for material gain indulging in mercenary flattery (ver.
16), they resembled Balaam; and that in establishing a self-invented, ungodly
sanctity in opposition to the divinely appointed and divinely effective Christian
sanctity (ver. 19), they resembled Korah. This juxtaposition, however, is any
thing but appropriate, resting, on the one band, on incorrect explanations; and,
on the other hand, on the arbitrary selection of separate points. It is incorrect
to affirm that the similarity of the Antinomians with Cain consisted in this,
that what he did corporally they did spiritually ; there is contained in this
rather a distinction than a similarity. It is arbitrary to bring forward only the
last clause of ver. 16, which reproaches the Antinomians with flattery, and
which may also be found in Balaam; whereas the other expressions in the
verse do not suit in the least degree. And, lastly, it is erroneous so to interpret
ver. 19 that the Antinomians were accused of the setting-up of a false sanctity; ©
even were this correct, yet the sanctity claimed by them is of a totally different
nature from that to which Korah and his company laid claim.
Vv. 20, 21. Exhbortation to the readers respecting themselves. — ipeic de,
dyarntoi, as in ver. 17, in contrast to the persons and conduct of those men-
tioned in the last verse. — ézo:xodopobvrec, x.7.A.]. The chief thought is con-
tained in the exhortation éavrode tv ayary Oecd tnproare, to which the preceding
brotxodouotyres . . . mpocevxouevor is subordinate, specifying by what the fulfil-
ment of that exhortation is conditioned. Yet it is asked, whether rpocev-
xouevor is connected with éomodoyoivrec, or is annexed as an independent
sentence to the following imperative; and whether év mv, dyiyv is to be united
with érouod. or With mpoorvxyouevor. These questions are difficult to decide
with perfect certainty. Woiesinger and Schott, apparently correctly, unite
dy mv. dy. With mpocevyouevor, and these taken together with what follows.
Hofmann, on the other hand, unites év zvetyart ayiy with what goes before,
and xpocevyéuevo: with what follows. In this construction, however, the
structure of the participial clause becomes too clumsy; also é mv dy, be-
comes superfluous, a8 érotxodouely éavrov¢ cannot take place otherwise than
év nvetuart dy. It is true, Hofmann observes that éy my, dy. is superfluous
with mpocevydpuevo, and that Jude could not intend to say how they should
pray, but that they should pray. But this is erroneous, for rypeiv éavroi¢ here
mentioned depends not only on this, that one should pray, but that one
should pray rightly, that is, &» x», dy. Wiesinger correctly observes, that
VERSES 2, 21. 697
the first clause gives the general presupposition; the second, on the other
hand, the more precise statement how rypjoare has to be brought about. —
77 dywrary ipav rior}. Both the adjective and the verb show that siori¢ is
here meant not in a subjective (the demeanor of faith, Schott), but in an
objective sense (Wiesinger: “appropriated by them indeed as their personal
possession, yet according to its contents as mapadofeica;” so similarly Hof-
mann). — érocxodouoivtes éavtoic¢}. When verbs compounded with émi are
joined with the dative, as here, this for the most part is used for évi r:, more
rarely for éxi ri (see Winer, p. 400 f. [E. T., 480]). If the first is here the
case, then érotxodoueiy tg riate is to be interpreted, with Wiesinger: “ build-
ing on rior, so that miorg is the foundation which supports their whole
personal life, the soul of all their thinking, willing, and doing” (so also
hitherto in this commentary);! comp. 1 Cor. ili. 12: éo:modopeiv ent rdv Bepe-
duov rovrov. If, on the other hand, the second is here the case, then it is to
be explained, with Hofmann, “their faith is the foundation which supports
their life; and accordingly, in the further development of their life it should
ever be their care that their life rests upon this foundation ;” comp. Eph.
ii. 20: btrouxodounGévres Ext ro Oeuedip tov axocrdAwy. The first is, however, to
be preferred, because, as already remarked, with these verbs the dative
mostly stands for éxi rm. Both explanations come essentially to the same
thing. — éavroi¢ is not here = dA2fAove; the discourse is indeed of a general,
but not precisely of a mutual, activity; éavrove with the second person creates
no difficulty; comp. Phil. ii. 12.—év mvebyuar dyiy mpocevysuevn]. The ex-
pression pocevy, tv rv. ay., it is true, does not elsewhere occur, but similar
combinations are not rare (Aadeiv év mv, dy., 1 Cor. xil. 3; see Meyer in loc.);
it means so to pray that the Holy Spirit is the moving and guiding power
(Jachmann, unsatisfactorily: “ praying in consciousness of the Holy Ghost”);
comp. Rom. viii. 26. — éavrove év cyamp Oeovd tnphoare], Oeov may either be the
objective genitive (Vorstius: charitas Dei passiva, i.e., qua nos Deum diligi-
mus; so also Jachmann, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others), or the subjective
genitive, “the love of God to us” (so De Wette, Schott, Wiesinger, Fron-
miiller); in the latter case the thought is the same as in John xv. 9, 10;
this agreement is in favor of that interpretation, nor is the want of the
article opposed to it (against Hofmann). This keeping themselves in the
love of God is combined with the hope of the future mercy of Christ, which
has its ground, not in our love to God, but in God’s love to us (comp. Rom.
v. 8 ff.). — mpoadeyopevoe rd EAeog rov xvupiov, «.7.A.]. On mpoodex., Tit. ii. 15. —
10 Edeog rou Kupiov quay is the mercy which Christ will show to His-own at His
coming. Usually the idea fAcop is predicated not of the dealings of Christ,
but of God; in the superscriptions of the Pastoral Epistles and of the Second
Epistle of John, it is referred to God and Christ. — ele (wiv aldvov may be
joined either with geo (De Wette), or with mpoodeyoueve (Schott), or with
rnpnoare (Stier, Hofmann); since the imperative clause forms the main point,
1 wins je the foundation, the @eudAcos on ~=— at the bottom fs that they are not yet on all
which Christians should build themselves sides of their life on this foundation.
(more and more), by which the representation
698 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
the last-mentioned combination deserves the preference, especially as both in
npoodéxectac and in fog 'Ina, Xp. the reference to Gn) aldvoc is already con-
tained. The prominence here given to the Trinity, rveipa dywv, cds, "Inootg
Xptoréc, as frequently in the N. T., is to be observed. With the exhortation
contained in vv. 20, 21, Jude has accomplished what he in ver. 3 stated to be
the object of his writing.
Vv. 22, 23. The exhortations contained in these verses refer to the con-
duct of believers toward those who are exposed to seduction by the doepeic
(ver. 4) (De Wette); not toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche),
for these are of such a kind (ver. 12) that the church should have nothing
to do with them. The best-attested text is that which codex A affords: xai
oig piv éAéyyere dtaxpivopévorg* ob¢ dé adlere ix mupdc dprdforrec, abc de éAecire
(Lachmann and Tischendorf, édedre) é $63y; see critical remarks. —oi¢ piv
. . . od¢ dé instead of rove udv . . . rave dé, See Winer, p. 100. According to
this reading, three classes of the seduced are distinguished, and toward each
& special conduct is prescribed. It is, however, asked whether, as Briickner,
Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the
curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis ad . . | insana-
biles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur. Reiche);
or conversely from the incurable to the curable. In reference to the first
class it 13 said: ob¢ pév éAéyyere dtaxpwouévouc]. The verb éAéyxew denotes to
rebuke some one’s sins by punishing him. The object for which this is done
is not indicated in the word itself; it may be to lead the sinner to the
acknowledgment of his sins, and thus to repentance, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24;
2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 13; or it may also be condemnation, comp. particularly
Jude, ver. 15 (John xvi. 8; Tit. i. 9). The explanation of Oecumenius is
incorrect: gavepotre roig mdow riv doé3ecav avrav. Those who are to be pun-
ished are denoted dcaxpivouévove. Both the translation of the Vulgate, judi-
catos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius, xaxelvoug ef uv amodderavra: bucy
éAéyxere, are incorrect. draxpiveoGac signifies in the N. T. either to contend,
which is here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to morevew; comp. Matt.
xxi. 21; Mark xi. 283; Rom. iv. 20; especially Jas. i. 6. This last passage
shows that, although not equivalent to dmoreiv, it denotes the condition in
which dmoria has the preponderance over mior, the latter being a vanishing
point.! It is evident that Jude does not consider the d:axpevéuevo as wreak
believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he will employ no other
method than éAéyxev (not mapaxadelv, or something similar) ; those seduced
are in his view such as (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves.?
In reference to the second class it is said: ob¢ d@ odfere Ex mupds apmacovrec].
Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred from the conduct to be
observed towards them. Toward those belonging to this class a odie is to
1 When Hofmann says, “that diaxpivecOa. make thia distinction, that ye compasalonate
cannot have this meaning, requires no proof,’"® some;” or, more exactly, ‘‘ compassionate the
he makes an entirely groundless assumption. one, making a distinction,’”’ namely from oth-
2 In the reading of the Rec.: ofs wév dAceire = ers. But dcaxpiyduevos must be passive, since
Staxpiydueror, we are obliged to explain &ia- not d&caxpiverOar, but only dvaxpivery bas the
xpiverOa: as = distinguished. Luther: ‘and meaning to distinguish. :
VERSES 22, 23. 699
be employed, but of such a nature as is more precisely stated by éx mupd¢
dpnagovrec]. éx mupéc is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius,
Fronmiiller), but zip is the present destruction, in which they already are
(Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); dymafecv denotes hasty, almost violent, snatch-
ing out, and indicates that those are already in extreme danger of perdition;
comp. Amos iv. 11; Zech. iii. 2. Distinguished from the dcaxpevopuevore, the
second class are to be considered as those who have not yet lost the faith,
but have, through fellowship with the Antinomians, been enticed to their
licentious life; these are to be rescued. ocXere is evidently in contrast to
tizyxere, and denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue,
provided one snatches them with violence, and tears them out of this fellow-
ship. In reference to the third class, Jude prescribes éAeeiv (on the form
éAedre, see Winer, p. 82 [E. T., §85]). This verb in the N. T. never means
only “to have compassion” (Schott), but always to compassionate one with
helpful love, as also fAcoc is always used only of active compassion; so that
with dAecire the exact contrary is said to what Luther finds expressed, when
he explains it: “let them go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with
them.” By this is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by
which the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. As this
éAeeiv makes a fellowship necessary with those upon whom it is exercised,
Jude defines the same more precisely by év 968); accordingly, they must not
be wanting in foresight, lest they suffer injury themselves, and he adds the
participial sentence as an explanation of this é 963y: moobvrec wat, «.7.A.?
This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third class as those who are
indeed already involved, but who, by active compassion, may again be re-
established; it is not so bad with them as with those toward whom only
éxéyxev ig to be employed; but also it is not yet so bad as with those who
can only be rescued by hastily snatching them.
Hofmann considers the reading of &: xal oi¢ uév éAedre dtaxptvoutvoug ob¢ de
ouXtre ix mupdc dprufovrec, ob¢ dé tAedte ¢v 963, as the correct one. In his expla-
nation of this reading he distinguishes not three, but only two classes, assuming
that only the first, but not the second oi¢ dé stands opposed to od¢ pvév; and that
this latter od: dé is to be considered rather as a resumption of the object men-
tioned in ov¢ wév, This opinion is, however, erroneous, since, according to it,
the third ot¢ is understood differently from the first and second ofs, namely, as
a pure relative pronoun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, “‘é» g63y is
explained as a consequence, united with an imperative éAedre to be taken from
obs thedre:’? ““whom ye compassionate, them compassionate with fear.’? Also
1 Schott is entirely mistaken when he says
that «Aey denotes here ‘‘a compassion which
has, and may have, ite definite peculiarity no
longer in an impulee to help, but only ina fear
of acting wrongly, and in consequence of re.
ceiving injury;’’ in other words, a compaseion
which is no compassion.
3 According to the reading of the Rec., dy
ooBy belongs to cwiere. Some expositors
(Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly ex.
plain it of the fear of the persons to be res-
cued; correctly Arnaud: “c’est & dire, pre-
nant garde que, tout en cherchant & les con-
vertir, ile ne vous séduisent pas vous-mémes.”
Reiche tnoorrectly, with the reading A, sepa-
rates ey $68@ from éAcare, and joins it with
psoouvres, whilst it would attract to it a very
superfluous addition.
700 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
the explanation of the first member of the sentence: “‘the readers are to com-
passionate the one with distinction,” is to be rejected, since it has against it
N. T. usage, according to which daxpivecOa: is never used as the passive of
c&axpivew in the sense of ‘to distinguish.’’
The addition psootvree xa? rdv ard rig capnde bomAwptvor y:téva! is correctly
explained by Oecumenius: zxpocAauBaveobe . . . abrove .. . pera goBov, meptoxerré-
pevor patuc f mpdolmpc Tobruy .. . Adune buiv yévyra alria.—kxai, even, gives
greater emphasis to the thought. The expression ray yréva is to be under-
stood in a literal, and not in a figurative sense (Bullinger: eruvias veteris
Adami, concupiscentias et opera carnis’. xrov is the undergarment worn next
the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact with the flesh unclean by
unchastity, etc., is itself soiled (omAéw only here and in Jas. iii. 6); comp.
Rev. iii. 4. — This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by
means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of those men.?
Vv. 24, 25. Conclusion of the Epistle by a doxology. — rp dé duvapéyy).
The same commencement of the doxology in Rom. xvi. 28. — ipa]. Were
atrovc the correct reading, we could hardly do otherwise than refer it to the
last-mentioned oi¢ dé, to which it is unsuitable, as they are not arraoros, who,
as such, require only guvadocev. That Jude actually wrote airoic, but that “in
the flight of devotion he has turned from his readers, and speaks of them
in the third person ” (De Wette), is highly improbable. — dmraiorove]. am. Aey.,
literally, who strikes not against; then figuratively, who stumbles not, does
not offend; here in the moral sense as mraiv, Jas. ii. 10, iii. 2; Vulgate:
sine peccato. —xal arioat xatevoriov rig Goén¢ abrod dudpove]. Schott correctly
remarks on «ai: The second effect is the ultimate result of the first, so that
xai might be rendered by and so, and accordingly. 6o§a is here the glory of
God, as it will be manifested at the day of judgment. On orijoa ducpore,
comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Col. i. 22; 1 Thess. iii. 13. The meaning is: “who can
effect it that ye may appear as duwuo before His judgment-seat.” — iv éyaAA-
dcet mentions the condition in which Christians will then be found; comp.
1 Pet. iv. 18.— Ver. 25. pny Ged, see ver. 4; John v. 44; Rom. xvi. 27;
1 Tim. i. 17. — owrhpe fucy marks, in connection with é:a "Iycotd Xp., the essen-
tial Christian element in the idea of God; on owrfp as a designation of God,
comp. 1 Tim. i. 1. Schott incorrectly joins pévw Ged with ourfpe judy, as if
it meant, “to Him who alone is God, in such a manner that He is our
Saviour;” and the reason which he assigns, “because pévoc Ged¢ is never
used by itself, but always occurs as a designation of God relative to other
attributes,” is contradicted by John v. 44; also by 1 Tim. i. 17 and Jude
ver. 4.—dia 'Iyo. Xpiorod belongs to owripe Apav (Schott), not to doga, «.r.A.
(Wiesinger) ; in this latter case it would be put after éfovoia, — doga, peyaAu-
1 Both in the reading of the Rec. andinthe 1 Cor. v. 6!).
reading of C, this addition ie surprising; one 2 Calvin: * vult fideles non tantum cavere a
may regard it, with Jachmann, as the ad- _vitiorum contactu, eed ne qua ad eos contagio
versative reason of gw¢ere (though ye hate); pertingat, quicquid affine est ac vicinum,
or, with De Wette, as the real reason (since fugiendum esse admonet.”
ye hate, for which De Wette appeals to
VERSES 2%, 25. 701
obvn, «.7.A.]. 66a and xparoc occur frequently in the New-Testament doxol-
ogies (see 1 Pet. iv. 11); peyadwotvy aud éfovoia only here; peyadwoivn
corresponds to the Hebrew 533; comp. Deut. xxxii. 8, LXX.: dive peyadw-
civny TH O&O huav.— xpd navTdc Tov aidvoc]. By these words, wauting in the
Rec., the idea of eternity is expressed in the most comprehensive manner.
Not éorw, but éori (De Wette, Schott), is to be supplied; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11.
— dufv, the usual conclusion of doxologies, as in Rom. i. 15; 1 Pet. iv. 11,
etc.; it stands in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, probably also
in 2 Peter, as here, at the end of the Epistle.
ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
I.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1.
1. The salutation of this Epistle differs in the form of expression from those
which are found in the letters of Paul: (a) in that Paul in all his epistles,
except 1 and 2 Thessalonians, describes himself as an apostle (so generally), or
as a servant of Jesus Christ, while James calls himself a servant of God and the
Lord Jesus Christ, but does not designate himself as an apostle; (6) in that
James addresses a wide-extended body of Christians, not those limited within a
particular city or district; (c) in that James uses the word yaipew, which Paul
never employs. In the Pauline salutations this verb is only suggested by the
words which bear in them the contents of it: ‘Grace and peace to you.” —
2. The absence of the word dsoroAo¢ does not prove that the author was
not an apostle, for Paul does not always use this title in speaking of himself
(comp. Phil. fi. 1, where only the word dovAoc is found, and 1 and 2 Thessa-
lonians, where there is no descriptive word). But if James who was the head
of the church in Jerusalem, was not the same person as James the son of
Alpheus, it is probable that he, and not the apostle, was the writer of the
Epistle: jirst, because the character of the letter answers to the character which
is given of him in the early writings; and, secondly, because his position as
related to Jewish Christians was such as to make it more probable that he
would address them. —3. That he was not the same person with James the son
of Alphseus, {s indicated by the reasons presented by Huther in his Introduction.
The reason, therefore, why he omits the word apostle, is that he did not belong
to the apostolic company. But it may be regarded as somewhat remarkable,
if he was, in the strict sense, the brother of the Lord, that he should not have
given himself this title, which, as it would seem, would have added authority
to his words. The only satisfactory explanation which can be given of the
omission of the title is, that, after the death and ascension of Jesus, the earthly
relationship sank into a kind of insignificance, as the Divine glory of Jesus
impressed itself more deeply on the minds of all His disciples alike. We see
Jesus Himself thus rising in His thought above the earthly and family relation,
as He committed His mother at the crucifixion, not to her own sons, but to
John the son of Zebedee (comp. John xix. 25-27). May we not find in the very
phrase which James uses (a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ)—a
703
704 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
phrase which so completely separates Jesus from himself, and so closely unites
Him with God—an indication that he appreciated the change, as we might
say, from the earthly to the heavenly relationship? The time had come, long
before this letter was written, when the words of Jesus were realized in their
full meaning: ‘* Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother,
and sister, and mother.’’ — 4. The expression, ‘‘ to the twelve tribes which are of
the dispersion, ’’ is to be understood, with Huther, as showing that the readers
for whom the letter was designed were Jewish Christians living outside of
Palestine.
II.
Vv. 2-18.
1. The Epistle has no introductory passage corresponding with those which
are found in the Pauline letters. It begins with exhortations and statements
respecting trials, which prepare the way for all that follows. The emphasis on
the word joy in the opening exhortation may be accounted for by the contrast
between this idea and the idea naturally connected with mewpacuot, The writer
would urge the readers to consider that which seems to be only an evil and dis-
tressing, a matter altogether of joy. It is possible, however, that the position of
xapuy in the sentence may be owing to some intended connection in the writer's
mind between this substantive and the verb xaipey, As he sends the readers a
greeting which involves the thought of joy, he exhorts them to count even their
trials as grounds of rejoicing. — 2. The mepacpoi here referred to, being described
by the adjective mouido, are doubtless the various kinds of trials or tests of
character which were likely to befall the readers. ‘To a considerable extent,
they were connected with persecutions or evils which came upon the Christians
of that time from without, and thus they answer to the @Aiwer of Rom. v. 3.
But there is nothing in the words here used which limits the reference to
these. The correspondence of vv. 2, 3,with the passage in Rom. v. 3, 4, how-
ever, cannot fail to be noticed. — The verb zepizéayre, to fall into so as to be
encompassed by, suggests the idea of a complete involvement in the testing
trials of which the writer speaks. It was this involvement in the trials which
made these trials, in an especial sense and degree, a testing of the readers’ faith
(rd doxipcov rig miotews),—3. The participle yiwwoxovres is causal, and is to be
rendered since you know, rather than whilst you may know, as Huther gives it.
It gives the ground on which they may well count the falling into trials a matter
of joy.
4. T2 doxiuwov is regarded by Grimm as equivalent in this place to 70 doxtpager,
the proving or testing. This explanation of the word is given by many com-
mentators, as intimated by Huther in his note, and is favored by A. R. V. and
A. V. It is also favored by Beyschlag in his edition of Huther. It is clear,
however, that in 1 Pet. i. 7,—the only other passage in the N. T. in which the
word occurs, — it is to be understood as approvedness. It is thus equivalent to
doxiuzy, as that word is probably to be explained in Rom. v. 4. The double use of
the verb doxiuafery by the N. T. writers, and the double possibility of its mean-
ing, make the decision as to the meaning of the noun here quite difficult.
Whichever explanation is adopted, the main idea of the passage will not be
greatly changed. If dox. means prdving, the readers are reminded that the
proving or testing of their faith, which comes through the tepaovot, works out
the result of steadfastness. If, on the other hand, it means approvedness, their
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 705
tested or approved faith, which is the effect of the retpacuoi, is declared to
accomplish the same result.—In Rom. v. 4, steadfast endurance is repre-
sented as working out tested character; here, tested character, approved faith,
works out steadfast endurance. The two statements are alike true. Steadfast-
ness in trials naturally leads to the result of a character which is approved as
the consequence of tests which it has successfully met, and then the latter
enables the man more easily and victoriously to persevere in his endurance. —
5. The thought of ver. 4, which is set forth in the form of a new exhortation,
is closely related to that of ver. 3 as subordinate to ver. 2. The trials serye to
test and establish faith; faith as thus tested serves to further steadfast endur-
ance; the perfect development of endurance is essential to the perfect develop-
ment of the man in the Christian life. The Christian readers may, therefore,
well count it all joy when they fall into manifold testing trials, because these
lie, in this way, in the line of the growth of complete character. The épyov of
tropuovn is that in and by which it works out its legitimate and natural result.
—6. The end in view of the réAeov tpyov of trouovy is that the man may be
réAevoc xai dAoKAnpoc; the former of these words referring rather to the development
towards the limit of completeness, the latter to the filling out to the fulness of
character in all its parts, while the following phrase presents the latter idea on
its negative side.
7. The fifth verse is probably connected in thought with those which pre-
cede, and immediately with the fourth. This is Indicated by the verb Acireras
following Aetnouevm, The supposed case of lacking wisdom is made prominent
among the possible wants or deficiencies, because wisdom lies near the founda-
tion of all development towards completeness, and so is necessary in that line of
development in which the tests and trials particularly referred to in this passage
work to their best result. — Wisdom, as the word is here used, seems to
mean that fundamental element of the Christian life which, in itself, sets the
possessor of it apart from the evil world; the true apprehension of things, which
works out into right living. If one is fully endowed with this, there is a guid-
ing principle in the soul which will lead to the right use of all things, and will
be the means of developing the man toward perfection. With this wisdom, the
man will make even the xrpacpoi work out the end of trouov}; that is, will turn
the things which seem to be only evil, into good and a cause of joy. —8. In
case of felt deficiency, the Christian reader is directed to ask God for the supply
of the want, and the assurance of receiving such supply is given him. It fs
worthy of notice, that the words of the writer are all in the line of the joyous
greeting which the writer offers to his Christian brethren. They may count
the apparent evils of their experience a matter of joy, for they bring, when met
and used with the true wisdom, the steadfast endurance which tends towards
perfection of character; and if there is any want of this wisdom, nothing needs
to be done but to ask it from God, who will certainly and liberally give it. The
freeness and fulness of God’s giving are represented here by very striking
expressions, —the adverb &tAwc, simply, conveying the idea, as Grimm happily
expresses it, of being ‘‘led solely by his desire to bless’? (the idea of liberal
giving, suggested in the translation of A. V. and R. V., is rather implied, in a
secondary way, than distinctly set forth, in the Greek word); and the participle
évewilovtoc, reproaching, upbraiding, presenting the thought of such reproaches
as connected with unworthiness on the part of the petitioners to ask for gifts,
or possibly with their failure to profit by past gifts, or their want of thankful-
ness in receiving them, or even with the number of such gifts already bestowed,
7C6 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
as would indicate a want of readiness to give, and as were often uttered by men
when asked for help or favor. No such reproaches are experienced as we ask’
of God. The confidence in God’s willingness to answer prayer, which Jesus
awakened in the minds of his disciples, continued with them ever afterwards,
The legal James, as well as the loving John, was prepared to say to every
Christian, as the Lord Himself had done, ‘‘ Ask, and ye shall receive.’’ The
soul in want had but to ask of God for the filling-up of its imperfection, and
the promise was, ‘‘it shall be given.’? —9. The asking, however, must be in
faith. This is put in the form of a new exhortation (ver. 6); but evidently
the exhortation is intended, in its connection with what precedes, to indicate
the manner in which the gift just mentioned should be sought. The faith, also,
should be with no doubting. The explanation of undév diaxpivouevog given -by
Huther is the true one. This is shown by the words which describe the doubter
in the following clause. The mind is not to be drawn this way and that, by
questionings or uncertainties, with a prevailing tendency to believe that the
answering gift will not be given in response tothe prayer. The petitioner’s
faith must correspond to the Divine impulse towards giving.
10. The second sentence of ver. 6 gives a reason for the exhortation to ask
with no doubting. The meaning of this sentence seems, however, to go beyond
the limits of the participial clause yuydév diaxp. The latter clause is connected
immediately with the matter of faith in the act of prayer, but this second sen-
tence apparently covers the sphere of the inward life. The Christian should
ask in faith with no wavering in his mind, for the man whose whole mind is in
this wavering and doubting state does not possess the calm and peaceful inner
life which is the true condition of the child of God. The Christian life is
a life of trust; it is the calmness and confidence of the untroubled sea. The
doubter, or the man who is in a wavering state, is necessarily thrown out of
this condition — like the waves which are driven and tossed by the winds — and
is, therefore, without one of the prime characteristics of the Christian life.
Particularly as connected with prayer, he is without an element which is made
prominent and essential in the conditions of the promise of answers to prayer.
The man who prays in this doubting way has, therefore, no right to expect the
fulfilment of his request (ver. 7).—11. Ver. 8, which is an appositional and
explanatory supplement to the expression that man of ver. 7, and thus to the
expression he that doubteth of ver. 6, sets forth still more emphatically the same
idea as the ground of the exhortation of ver. 6a. Such a man has, as it were,
two souls, and accordingly will be likely to move in opposite directions in his
life and conduct, — now with impulses towards God, now towards the world,
but, by reason of the want of firm and established faith, prevailingly and finally
towards the world.—12. Vv. 9-11 seem necessarily to be connected with the
passage which precedes, because the subject of tetpacpyoc is continued in ver. 12.
In themselves, however, they apparently turn to a new subject. The explana-
tion which appears to meet the demands of the case most satisfactorily is that
which makes 6 adeAgde 6 raed refer to the Christian in his depressed condition
as viewed from the standpoint of the world’s judgment, — poverty, slavery,
ignoble birth, etc., — and 6 rAovows to the rich as a prominent class among the
exalted men of the unbelieving world; and that which supplies with 6 wAovow¢
the indicative of xavyccda: from the previous imperative, making ver. 10a an
affirmative sentence. In that age the outward, earthly condition of the
majority of believers must, in itself and by reason of the oppressions experi-
enced from the rich and powerful of the world, have constituted, in a peculiar
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. TOT
sense and measure, a tepasuoc, such a one as was most likely to disturb and
distress the minds of Christian believers. The writer singles out this peculiar
mewacuoe as a special example, and bids the believer who is subjected to it
rejoice in that exaltation which Christianity brings to him in this condition,
through his new and higher life, and the hope of the future glory; whereas the
rich man of the world, on the other hand, rejoices in what is really his humilia-
tion, for his glory is a perishing one.—13. With this understanding of vv.
9-11, the connection of ver. 12 with those verses becomes apparent. The stead-
fast endurance, under the repacyucs alluded to, works out the result of the
consummated and completed exaltation —that which belongs to the heavenly
world. And so of all similar steadfast endurance: blessed is the man who has
it and manifests it; for when the result in character is fully accomplished, and
the man has become approved, he will receive the crown of life, i.e., eternal life
as his crown and reward.
14. At ver. 13 the thought turns to the other side of the matter of metpacudr,
the drawing towards sin. God may bring us, or suffer us to be brought, into
circumstances which may bear with them a solicitation to evil, and He may
allow this in order to strengthen character through steadfast endurance. But the
solicitation to evil itself does not come from Him. The thought here, as also in
the former case, is presented in the form of an exhortation. This is doubtless
to be explained in connection with the prevailing hortatory character of the
Epistle. In vv. 14, 15, however, the construction changes to affirmative and
declaratory sentences, a fact which shows the underlying purpose of the writer,
and the movement of his main thought. —15. The connection of ameipacro¢g in
this passage with weipaouocg and mepugw seems to show that, in the writer’s use of
the word, the idea of temptation is to be discovered. It thus means cannot be
tempted with (R. V. text), rather than wnétried in (R. V. marg.). With either
sense of the word, however, this clause is introduced as a proof that we cannot
properly say that we are tempted of God. As God cannot be tempted by evil,
He cannot tempt any one to evil; or, if the other meaning be adopted, as God
is untried, unversed in evil things, as His inner life is wholly outside of the
sphere of evil, He cannot be a solicitor to evil: evil must have a source like
itself. —16. The good side of reipaopoc, its impelling power towards vnopova,
its working force in the development of right character towards perfection,
comes from God. He puts the testing trials in the way of His followers as they
move along their course; and He does this in order that they may be strength-
ened. But the bad side of metpacud¢ has no connection with Him. On the con-
trary, He is the source of good only, and of all good. The bad side must be
allied with evil, and this lies in the heart of man, — in the desire or lust which
moves the man to sin.—1%7. The writer does not carry sin back in these
words to its final and earliest source. As Alford remarks, he takes up the
matter at a point lower down the stream than Paul does in the Epistle to
the Romans, or, we may add, than Christ does as represented in the Gospel of
John, and in contrast to the originating of sin, in any given case or man, by a
solicitation to evil from God, he declares that the cause of the sin is the lust of
the man, which, in the tepaauoc, lays hold of the bad side, and leads the whole
man after itself. —18. By Oavarog in ver. 15, there can be little doubt that
eternal death is meant. Beyschlag in his edition of Huther denies this, and
makes the word mean spiritual death. The reason of the introduction of this
word is probably twofold: first, in order to complete the development of the
idea of the bad side of repacuog; and, secondly, in order to present the contrast
708 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
between the result on the good side ({w7, ver. 12), and that on the bad side
(@avaroc, ver. 15). —19. Vv. 16, 17, are closely connected with what precedes;
ver. 18 forms a transition to what follows. Ver. 16 calls special attention to
the statement of ver. 17 as showing the impossibility of an originating of temp-
tation by God. Be not deceived or led astray in your thoughts on the matter,
says the writer; so far is it from being true, that God ever solicits man to evil,
that, on the other hand, every good comes from Him, and in Him there is no
variableness.’ He moves unchangeably towards good.
20. With respect to the peculiar expressions in the closing part of ver. 17,
the following suggestions seem to be well founded: (a) There is a reference to
the heavenly bodies (the stars, etc.) in the words used, and yet the language is
not strictly astronomical throughout the entire sentence. This is evident from
the fact that napaAAayy is not employed as an astronomical term (apaddAasic is
the technical term). (b) The word dmooxiucua must be understood as meaning
a dark shadow cast by a body which has its dark side towards the observer, or
which intervenes between him and the light. The rendering of the Authorized
Version, shadow of turning, cannot therefore be correct. (c) The word rpo77¢
does not appear to be used in a special technical sense except of the points or
times at which there is an apparent turning of the course, as in the case of the
sun at the solstices. It must therefore, as it would seem, refer to such a turn
or revolution of the body as would cause a shadow to be cast. (d) In calling
God the Father of lights, the writer apparently intends to compare Him with
the heavenly bodies, and represent Him as not only the author and maker of
them, but also as a greater light belonging, in the figurative representation, in
the same class. — We may believe, therefore, that he means to say that God
is a light or illuminating body which never, by reason of revolution or turning,
casts a dark shadow, but which sheds forth unchanging brightness. <All good
in the spiritual sphere is in the region of light. Evil is darkness. The great,
unchanging, ever-undimmed light can have no dark shadow. God can never
solicit to evil. —21. Ver. 18 is related to what precedes, as showing how God
of His own will bestows the greatest of all good gifts, and the fundamental one
for the human soul. As related to what follows, it prepares the way for the
exhortations which are introduced in the succeeding verses. Of the words in
this verse, 3ovAnder¢ has a certain special emphasis. It carries back the whole
matter to the self-moved will of God, and thus serves to show that, as the great-
est and most all-comprehensive good is purposed and determined by Hin, it is
certainly true that no temptation can proceed from Him. This is made still
further evident by the fact that the spiritual begetting of Christians is with a
view to the consummation of His great plan for the whole world. They are to
be the first-fruits, as it were, of the new creation for which all things are wait-
ing. —It is doubtful whether we are to regard 7udg, as some, including Bey-
schlag in his edition of Huther, do, as meaning the Christians of that day who
were the beginnings of the Church. More probably it may refer to Christians
in general, or to the readers as representatives of Christians generally. Proba-
bly atiouzarwy includes all the creatures of God, and the thought is of the final
and universal blessedness, after the subjugation of all enemies, even including
death, the last of all. The bringing of Christians, or of the Christians of that
time, into the life of faith and holiness, is the beginning of the result which
will be realized in its fulness at the end.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 709
III.
Vv. 19-27.
1. The exhortation of ver. 19 follows as a consequence from the statement
of ver. 18. This relation is expressed in the most simple way, if the reading
ote of the T. R. is adopted; and this fact, as well as the peculiar variations
in the different authorities (core, eorw, core), may be regarded as in some degree
favoring that reading. The external evidence, however, is so strongly in favor
of ‘ore, that it seems almost necessary to accept it as the original text. The
connection of the verses, with this reading, is through this verb as forming an
independent and intermediate clause, which probably refers to ver. 18, and
prepares the way for ver. 19b. This verb, if thus understood, is an indicative,
and means you know, or are well aware of this; that is, that God, of His own
will, etc. Beyschlag rejects Huther’s view of the connection, and joins the
words in thought with what precedes.—2. As God gives us the new life by
means of the word of truth, it becomes every one to be swift to hear (ver. 19h-
21), and to hear obediently, turning what one hears into action (ver. 22ff.).
This is the substance of the main thought as developed in what follows. Along
with this, however. it would seem that the writer must have had in mind some
special tendency on the part of the readers whom he was addressing to assume
the position of teachers and to contend against others. In this way only is it
easy to account for the added words, slow to speak, slow to wrath. This Epistle
seems to be characterized, in some measure, by the insertion or addition of such
more special points, while, at the same time, the main thought moves on ina
continuous line of development. —3. Ver. 20 gives the reason for the last words
of ver. 19: slow to wrath. Wrath does not work or produce the righteousness
of God. Righteousness is to be understood here, not in the peculiar sense which
belongs to the Pauline Epistles, but in the ordinary sense, — conformity to what
ought to be, orto be done. The genitive Ocod sets forth the righteousness as
- that which is demanded or approved by God, and is perhaps to be most simply
explained as a possessive genitive carrying with it this idea. This righteousness
is that which appertains to the new life to which God brings us, and hence
whatever does not work to the end of producing it is to be avoided. —4. cd
(ver. 21) points back to ver. 20, but the exhortation which is introduced by it
goes out beyond the matter of avoiding dpyy7, to the laying aside of all «axca,
Not improbably, we should, with Huther, Alford, and some others, connect
purapiay with the genitive xaxiac; so R. V., all filthiness and overflowing of
wickedness, as opposed to A. V., all filthiness, and superfluity of, etc. If so, the
word #u7. is used as indicating the polluting character of sin, its defilement,
while sepoceiav designates its abundance. We should lay aside that evil or
wickedness which is so abundant within us and so defiling in its influence.
Alford says, ‘‘ It is very possible that the agricultural] similitude in éugutog may
have influenced the choice of both these words, puw. and wenoc. The ground
must be ridded of all that pollutes and chokes it, before the seed can sink in
and come to maturity; it must be cleaned and cleared.’ —5. The connection
of ver. 21 with the immediately preceding verses may indicate that mpatryrt is
here used in the sense of gentleness, rather than meekness, in contrast to dpyjv
(ver. 19). This is the view of most of the recent commentators. It is not
necessary, indeed, to take the word in this sense; but if, as is not :mprobably
the case, the expression bridleth not his tongue, in ver. 26, is to be explained in
710 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
connection with dpyf7, the argument in favor of this interpretation is a strong
one, —6. The adjective fugvrov is used, probably, because the establishing of
the word in the sou] is that by which the new life is made to begin and grow.
This implanted word is able to save the soul.
7. Ver. 22 presses the necessity of so receiving the word as to carry it out
into conduct and life. The doiny of the word here spoken of has reference,
partly at least or prominently, to that doing of Christian duty which belongs to
the relation of the man to others. This seems to be indicated by the épy7 and
mpavtn¢, by the expressions bridleth not his tongue and visit the fatherless, and
by what is set forth in the following parts of the Epistle. The subjective, inte-
rior, hearty reception of the word (denoted by déao@e) involves the addition of
doing to hearing. The man who satisfies himself with the latter only deludes
himself, as by a false reckoning or reasoning (apadoyifec6at); see this verb as
used in Col. ii. 4, where the word m@avodoyig is added. —8. The contrast in
vv. 23-25 seems not to be between two mirrors, or two men looking into two
different mirrors, but between the chance or careless looking to see one’s face
in a mirror, and the close examination of a law ora moral system to know its
teachings and to compare one’s character and actions with what it describes or
demands. The man who does the former has no earnestness in his action.
The impression is a passing one, and what he sees takes no hold upon the inner
life. But he who does the latter must be affected by what he sees, and must
put in practice what is discovered by his careful and continuous study. The
word rapaxvpas of ver. 25 is a strong one, denoting a bending-down to look into,
an intent, earnest looking; and to this is added the strong word tapapeivac,
which denotes a continuous, persistent action in this looking. Such looking
must affect conduct, and must lead to blessing. — 9. The expression, the perfect
law, refers to the gospel as giving the rule and description of the true life. The
adjective réAeov seems to be used as connected with the fact that this rule is
complete for the life which reaches perfection. The law is called the law of
freedom, probably because the perfect life, in its relation to law and duty, must
‘be a life of freely-given obedience, —a service of love. Paul and James draw
near to each other at this point, though they may seem, in some views of their
thinking, to approach the central truth from opposite sides.—10. Vv. 26, 27,
carry on the general thought of the preceding verses, — religion as related to the
doing of the work set forth in the perfect law of liberty, — and suggest promi-
nently (in ver. 26) the idea first brought forward in the words slow to speak,
ver. 19. — Of the words in these two verses, doxefi has the sense of thinks or
fancies (see 1 Cor. iii. 18, Gal. vi. 3, ete., in which passages the idea of deceiv-
ing one’s self is also expressed, as it is here); Opnox6¢ and O@pnoxeia are words
designating religion as connected originally with the fear of God, if the com-
monly assumed derivation from rtpéw is accepted; the latter word seems to be
connected with external manifestations of religion, worship, etc., — possibly the
words are selected here because the writer has in mind the religious life as an
active and outgoing life: visiting the fatherless, etc. ; mapa Oep, in the judgment
of God, as God looks upon it; the reference to visiting the fatherless and widows
in their affliction —the calamities which befall them —is by way of illustration,
giving one of the many acts which manifest and are the forth-putting of the
religious life; the keeping one’s self unspotted from the world, on the other
hand, goes out beyond the sphere of these externa] acts, and covers the whole
inward and outward living.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 711
IV.
CHAPTER II.
Vv. 1-13.
1. The writer passes at this point to a more particular exhortation in the
line of Christian duty, —the first in a series of exhortations which occupy
the larger part of the Epistle. The exhortations bear upon failings or sins by
which the readers were especially characterized, and are to the end of avoiding
them and practising the opposite virtues. The writer opens this new passage
with the words adeAgot uov. The frequency with which these words of address
are used in this letter is very noticeable, and shows the hortatory character of
it. There is no prominence given to the discussion of truths for their own sake.
Such discussion, if occurring at all, is only incidental to the pressing of some
duty or to the appeal to the reader to conform in one point or another to the per
fect law. —2. The word tpoowroAnuynax is placed in an emphatic position. This
may possibly be accounted for by a connection in thought with the ministering
or refusal to minister to the afflicted and weak, i. 27. But not improbably there
is a marked turn in the thought here to a new point of duty, and the emphasis
on the word is only for the sake of calling special attention to this point. —
3. éxere tv miotiv — Probably the writer has in mnjud the thought of the latter
part of the chapter, where he sets forth the deadness of faith without works.
To his mind, the Christian faith moved, in a peculiar sense and measure, in the
sphere of works, and the man who Indulged in sin or violated obligations and
duties, held the faith in — that is, in the midst of, or as if involved in or with —
the sin in question. —4. The genitive rov xvpiov is probably objective: faith in;
but possibly it is a possessive genitive, the faith being regarded as belonging to
the Lord, in that He taught it as the essential thing in His teaching. The geni-
tive r7¢ doéy¢, on the other hand, is, on the whole, satisfactorily and most simply
explained as a characteristic genitive following rov xvpiov. Though a peculiar
and unusual construction, involving difficulties, this is the least difficult of all
the constructions proposed. The phrase as thus explained is not a formal dox-
ology, and perhaps it does not necessarily involve as much as such doxologies
do. But it certainly approaches them in force, and may be regarded as sugges-
tive with reference to the thought of the immediate disciples and brethren of
the Lord respecting the fitness of the ascription of praise and worship to Him.
5. The double supposition of vv. 2, 3, is evidently intended to be understood
as realized in both its parts. It is put in the form of a mere supposition, and is
doubtless only one instance illustrative of the matter of respecting persons, which
is under consideration. The passage itse]f, however, and other allusions to the
relations to the rich in later verses or chapters, make it probable that the illus-
trative example is brought forward because it was well known in the experience
of the readers. —6. As to the question whether the rich man of ver. 2 is to be
regarded as a Christian or not, the suggestions of Huther appear to be decisive,
as showing that he is not a Christian. The probability indicated in connection
with |. 10, 11, is so greatly strengthened by this verse and by what follows, that the
correctness of this view must be admitted. —7. The past tenses in ver. 4 are
used, we may believe, because the writer thinks of such cases as actually having
occurred, and therefore likely to occur. For this reason he puts the supposition
in the form, If there shall have come... did you not, etc. The verb dtaxpidnre
is rendered in A. V., Are ye not partial (in yourselves, év éavroic); in R. V. text,
712 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Are ye not divided; in R. V. marg., Do ye not make distinctions (text, in your
own mind ; marg., among yourselves). The question as to the meaning of this
verb is somewhat difficult of determination. The use of the verb in i. 6, and
the more common usage of the N. T. in cases where the middle and aorist
passive occur, favor the meaning doubt ; and if this is the meaning, the explana-
tion given by Huther in his note is probably the correct one. It must be admitted,
however, as we think, that this idea of doubting, as equivalent to ‘‘a contradic-
tion of their faith, according to which external glory and riches are nothing,’’ is
not quite parallel with the doubting of i. 6, and that a more distinct and direct
expression of such contradiction, had this been the writer’s idea, would have
been more natural and simple. On the other hand, if it is allowable to adopt
the signification given to the verb in R. V. marg., make distinctions, the expres-
sion becomes very simple, and the sentence falls naturally into harmony with
itself and with the general thought of the passage. The interpretation of év
éavroi¢ will follow that of dcaxprOnte: if the verb has the former of the two mean-
ings alluded to, the preposition is to be taken in the sense of in; if the verb has
the latter signification, the preposition means among. Grimm and the recent
commentators generally agree substantially with Huther respecting the verb. —
8. There can be little doubt that the genitive diaAoy:ouev rovypor is a descriptive
or characteristic genitive, and that the substance of meaning is, as given in
R. V., judges with evil thoughts, or, as Grimm gives it, judges who follow per-
verse opinions, reprehensible principles. The Christian who made such distinc-
tions and discriminations, favoring the rich as against the poor, was, in his
judgments and principles which were the result of his reflection (dcaAoytouoi),
in opposition to the true Christian idea. This is proved by the following verse
(ver.5). The argument here is similar to that which Paul urges in 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.
Their own experience as to the Divine calling would plainly show the impropriety
of their conduct in this matter. The similarity of this passage to the one in
1 Cor., as well as the general underlying thought of the passage itself, favors the
view that in faith denotes the sphere in which the persons spoken of were rich,
— poor in the view of the world and according to the world’s standard of judg-
ment, but rich in the Christian sphere and according to the standard of the
kingdom of God. —9. The writer now sets forth the behavior of the rich to-
wards the Christians as a second reason why the latter should not honor them
in the way indicated. The rich oppress and persecute them, and blaspheme the
name of Christ which is called upon them at the beginning of their Christian
life. The conduct here spoken of is such as could hardly be descriptive of rich
persons connected with the Church; and these verses (5-7) seem, therefore,
clearly to show, by the contrasts and statements which they contain, that the
unchristian rich are the persons referred to throughout the entire passage. The
evidence for this view thus becomes stronger as the passage moves forward, and
the reference to the same class of persons in the later part of the Epistle accords
with and confirms what is here said. —10. The view of Huther, that in vv. 8, 9,
the writer ‘‘ meets the attempt which his readers might perhaps make to justify
their conduct toward the rich by the law of love’’ seems improbable. The
readers would hardly attempt to justify conduct which made such a distinction
between men, by appealing to the law of love, which required them to love every
one as themselves, —a love which evidently must apply to the poor equally with
the rich. It seems more probable that the writer is, as Alford says, guarding
his own argument from misconstruction. The rich should be treated, indeed,
according to the principles of the law of love; but this is a widely different thing
sin, — a violation of the law of love.
11. The word yévro, to which Huther assigns the meaning assuredly or cer-
tainly, has, not improbably, a mild adversative sense. It should probably be
rendered however, rather than as in R. V. howbeit. It suggests the contrast
connected with the possible misconstruction alluded to. —12. Being convicted
hy the law as transgressors — The law here spoken of is the whole Mosaic law
as viewed on the side of duties towards our fellow-men, —that portion of the
Mosaic law which, as Paul says in Rom. xiii. 10, Gal. v. 14, is fulfilled and
summed up in the command, ‘* Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’’? This
command gathers up into itself every thing in the treatment of others which is
demanded by its spirit, and consequently it is transgressed by any act, or manner
of acting, which is contrary to the love required. The proof which follows in
vy. 10, 11, is illustrative, showing that such a single violation is a transgression
of the whole law. —13. The view of Huther with respect to obrwc¢ of ver. 12—
that it refers backward, rather than simply to the following oc — is to be regarded
as correct. The case seems to be parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 24. In closing the para-
graph, the writer gives a genera] exhortation which covers and includes the
particular matter discussed in the preceding verses, and, at the same time,
reaches out to the entire circle of action and speech:in the Christian life. The ,
law of liberty here spoken of is undoubtedly the same with that mentioned in
i. 25, and this law is characterized by the same descriptive word for the same
reason as in the foriner case. The gospel rule is one which is fulfilled by a
freely-given obedience. This law, which can be truly fulfilled only in this way,
—the law of love obeyed in the free and hearty spirit of love,—is the one by
which the Christian is to be judged; and hence he should be careful that in every
thing he yields obedience to it. And he should do this because (ver. 13) the
merciful judgment, which is the ground of hope as connected with the Christian
system, gives way to the opposite in the case of one who contradicts the Chris-
tian spirit by violating the law of love. In the case of one who, on the other
hand, is governed by that law, mercy which forgives and justifies prevails over
judgment, and secures the man the offered blessing.
Vv.
Vv. 14-26.
1. The turn in the thought at this point seems to be connected with the
general underlying idea of the Epistle, that true religion is that only which
shows itself in acts and life, and, more immediately and particularly, with the
suggestion of the preceding verses which refer to judgment. The justifying
judgment, which comes through mercy, is not to be expected on the ground of a
mere dead faith. The faith which is the animating principle of the Christian
life, and which saves the soul, is one which works in the line of obedience to
the law of love. —It would seem evident, that in connection with the conduct
alluded to in the preceding verses, and at the close of chap. i., there must have
been a doctrine or claim on the part of many of the readers whom the writer
addresses, that faith apart from works was all-sufficient. The writer combats
this doctrine, first, by presenting an illustrative example from the ordinary
course of life—a case of need which might present itself for relief; and
secondly, by pointing to the history of Abraham — the great historic case of
Abraham.—2. That the faith which is here spoken of is a mere belief, a faith
different from that which Paul has in mind in his Epistles (e.g., Gal. v. 6),
seems evident from all the indications of the passage. The difference between
Paul and James is not that the latter affirms the faith of the former to be dead,
while the former affirms it to be the living and life-giving principle of the true
life. Paul holds that faith has a working, as well as a believing, element. In
other words, the Pauline faith is trust; it is a uniting force as between the
soul of man and God. The Pauline faith proved its existence by works; it
was not a mere belief of a proposition, such as the proposition or truth, that
God is one. The two writers thus regard the living faith and the dead faith
in the same way: the question of life and death here, as everywhere, being
the question of the presence or absence of the working element. But James,
by reason of the exigencies of his discussion, is speaking of a dead faith, while
Paul has always occasion to refer to living faith.
8. The question as to justification is more difficult. So far as the necessity
of a living faith to justification is concerned, the two writers would seem to
agree that it is necessary. But does James teach a doctrine inconsistent with
Paul’s position, that justification is through faith alone? Is the statement
respecting Abraham in this passage inconsistent with what is implied or
declared in Romans, chap. iv.? On this point the following suggestions may be
offered: (a) Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, was contending
against Judaizing partisans, who insisted that all, even the Gentile converts,
should conform to the whole Mosaic system, and that they could not be justified
without this. He maintained the sufficiency of faith for justification, and
declared that there was no justification by works, because there was no such
thing in human experience as a perfect and complete fulfilment of the law.
The Christian system, according to him, was a system of free forgiveness on
the ground of faith. Faith was the first movement of the soul, in turning from
enmity to God, towards a friendly relation to Him. This first movement of the
soul involved an element of love, which, as the life and activity of the soul
went forward, would result in good works, f.e., in conformity of the whole life
to the will of God. The act of forgiveness and justification on God’s part,
however, was, to his view, coincident with the act of faith; and the man, being
justified when he believed, had only to go forward thereafter under the impulse
of the love-element connected with his faith. —(b) James, on the other hand,
was contending in this Epistle against persons who held that faith without the
love-element was all that was necessary. These persons held that a mere belief
which had no effect upon conduct, a faith which could give no evidence of its
existence as a transforming and elevating power in the life, was sufficient to
secure justification. —(c) With reference to the case of Abraham as mentioned
by James, and the use which he makes of it, it will be noticed that the sacrifice
of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2) was later in point of time than the statements that faith
was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. xv. 6), and that he was called the
friend of God (probably founded upon Gen. xviii. 17); also, that the act of sacrifice
is spoken of as completing or perfecting the faith, and the words of Gen. xv. 6
are said to have been thereby fulfilled; also, that the conclusion drawn in the
twenty-fourth verse must be interpreted in consistency with the declaration of
the O. T., which places the justification before the act of sacrifice, and may
naturally be interpreted (not to say, must be interpreted) in such a way as to
understand and not by faith only, as meaning not by such faith as the writer
of the Epistle has in mind in his discussion. In view of these considerations,
eye | ME ies gata monn earn HON te ea Agee ne Fup vantare es SaeF ee Nye gees UNEe Name GEM PL Fy eG et ager P ae Sen ty gies: meters Mea tpeng me ly Saree on | may) GI SN Gh QM Nocatee cetcang use waa red og rts BOae nat
Abraham, at a time which preceded not only the sacrifice of Isaac, but even the
birth of this heir of the promises; and that when he speaks of his justification
by works in connection with the sacrifice, he cannot mean to deny that he was
justified when he first exercised faith.—(d) The true position of James, there-
fore, seems to be this: that, when the test time for the man’s faith comes, —
the test which determines whether the faith is a living or a dead one, — justi-
fication depends on whether the faith displays its living force by an act of
obedience and love. In other words, justification is on the ground of a faith
which is a living, loving, active principle. —It is indeed true, as Huther says,
quoting from Wieseler, that it is one thing to say, to be justified by faith
which is proved by toorks, and another thing, to be justified by works in which
Saith is proved. But it must be borne in mind, that we are not dealing here
with abstract theological propositions. The writer of this Epistle is guided
in his use of language by the circumstances of the case, the character and
position of the persons against whom he {fs contending, etc. What he says is
to be judged accordingly; and, when viewed from this standpoint, the difference
between the two statements is not of that marked and distinct character which
may be observed when they are considered as theological propositions. —(e) The
correctness of the view which is in the line of these suggestions is confirmed
by all the indications of the passage. The fact that faith without works is
illustrated by the empty saying to a destitute brother, Go in peace, without
doing any thing for his relief; the impossibility, which is clearly hinted at, of
showing or proving the existence of real faith, except by such works as would
be naturally prompted by it; the description of faith apart from works, as
similar to that which the demons have; the statement that faith apart from
works is barren; the points already set forth in connection with the case of
Abraham; the comparison between faith apart from works, and the body
without the animating and vivifying power of the spirit, —all these things
exhibit the writer’s idea of the faith which he regards as so insufficient and
worthless, and show what he means when he says that a man is justified by
works, and not only by faith.
4. With respect to individual words and phrases, the following suggestions
may be offered: (a) The abrupt turn in the question, ri rd dpedoc (ver. 14), is
calculated to arrest the attention of the reader, and bring him at once to the
very centre of the subject. —(v) R. V. renders 9% miorie of ver. 140, that faith.
Huther denies this force of the demonstrative pronoun to the article In this
place. It would seem doubtful, to say the least, whether the demonstrative
force can be insisted upon. —(c) The word owoa refers, no doubt, to future
salvation, and this word, accordingly, suggests that the writer is referring
throughout the passage to that justification which is connected with the
securing of salvation for a man who has the opportunity to put his faith in
exercise; that is, that he is not limiting his thought to the first moment of
forgiveness, when the man is set right before the judgment of God with
reference to his past sins. —(d) Huther is hardly justified in insisting on our
regarding yopraceo@e and Oeppaiveote as in the middle voice, on the ground that
only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite. The point seems to be
simply, that there is an empty expression of good wishes, but no corresponding
action, and not that the destitute brother might warm or satisfy himself. —
(e) The remark of Huther in his note on ver. 17 {s worthy of special notice:
‘* From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has not works, it is evident
716 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
that by these works is not meant something which must be added to faith, but
something which grows out of faith; the épya here treated of are works of
faith, in which are the germs of faith.’’ Paul and James alike have in mind a
working faith, a faith which works through love, which is alive with a living
energy. —(f) The objections which Huther urges against making the person
referred to in the expression, aAA’ épei ric, “Sa vir sapiena et intelligens, to whom
James assigns the part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his
opponent,” are worthy of consideration, but they do not appear to be decisive.
His own explanation must be regarded, as artificial and improbable. Beyschlag,
in his edition of Huther, rejects Huther’s explanation. The use of dAAd even in
Paul’s writings is such that a somewhat wide range must be given to its mean-
ing and force in some cases. It seems sometimes to be nearly equivalent to our
word nay, as used in sentences of this sort; and to express a contrast, not,
indeed, to the form of words immediately preceding, but to an underlying idea
or a suggested thought. If it can be understood in this way here, the thought
of the sentences moves forward simply and easily. So far from faith, apart
from works, having any living force, a man may say, ‘‘Show me,” ete. The
remark of Huther, that it cannot be perceived why James should express his
own opinion in the person of another, who is entirely indefinite, can hardly be
regarded as of serious importance; for the statement that some one, or any one,
may urge what is thus said has a certain force which the same thing presented
as from the writer himself might not have. — The objections to the view which
makes the re a person who opposes the position taken by James, seem to be
insuperable. — (g) Ver. 19 is apparently connected with what precedes, and ver.
20 opens the new stage in the argument, founded upon the case of Abraham,
ete. The article of faith which is fundamental is taken'as an example, — the
belief that God is one, —and it is shown, that, without any thing growing out
of it in works and life, it amounts to nothing more than even the demons have.
The verb which is added with regard to the demons (¢piccovow) expresses
apparently the opposite idea to cocoa of ver. 14, and the thought moves, in
connection with owoa and its opposite, to the éduaméy of ver. 21.—(h) The
justification of Abraham here spoken of is, as we may say, connected with that
of which Paul speaks in Romans, chap. iv., and Galatians, chap. iii., through
the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 17 f.), where the writer of that
Epistle says, ‘“‘ By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac,’’ etc. The
offering of Isaac was a fruit of faith, a work growing out of it; and as viewed
from the side of faith with, or without, works, Abraham was justified by works.
The justification would not have been realized, had there been no working
energy in the faith. This working energy manifested itself in action, when
the demand came for the sacrifice.
(i) The statement of ver. 22 accords with and confirms this view of the mat-
ter. Faith co-operated with Abraham’s works, in the sense that it was the
inspiring principle which caused them to be done; and, on the other hand, it
was itself completed by them in the sense that, if there had been no outworking
force showing itself when the opportunity and summons came, the faith would
have been, and would have proved itself to be, an imperfect and even a dead
thing. It was in this way, and in this sense, that the Scripture passage in Gen.
xv. 6 found its real and perfect fulfilment. In this light of the passage, and
with this explanation, there is no real contradiction between Paul and James.
This very passage of Genesis on which Paul founds his doctrine of justification
by faith was actually fulfilled in the sense that the faith was made complete,
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 717
and the justification was assured and made manifest, when the faith had put
forth its living energy in act. The word éreAew6@y refers to the perfecting of faith
in the realization of its force in action; the verb érAnpoéy refers, in a similar
way, tothe fulfilment of the Scriptural words in the realization and sealing, as it
were, of the justification. — (j) The twenty-sixth verse repeats in substance the
statement of ver. 20, or verbatim if we read vexpé instead of apy7 in that verse;
but it adds the comparison of the body and spirit. The character of the faith
of which the writer is speaking is mnost clearly indicated by these two verses.
The faith which is entirely apart from works is like the body without the spirit;
it is dpy7, without working energy, because it is vexpa, having in it no animating
and inspiring force. —(k) All things in the passage thus combine to show the
truth of what Huther says in his closing remarks upon the chapter, — namely,
that James did not design to make an attack upon Paul's doctrine. It does not,
however, seem quite as clear that he may not have referred to some misappre-
hending or misappropriation of it, or that the Epistle belongs to’ the earlier
apostolic times. This latter view is, nevertheless, not improbable.
VI.
CHAPTER III.
Vv. 1-12.
1. It is evident that, as Huther says, the writer passes at the beginning of
this chapter to a new subject. Apparently the empty faith which characterized
those whom the preceding chapter had referred to, had the influence which it
often has: as it had no living force and energy leading to the appropriate
works of the Christian life, it exerted its force, if such it might be called, in the
way of assuming to teach others. Talking and teaching took the place of work-
ing. The exhortation which he gives, therefore, follows appropriately after the
passage relating to living and dead faith. —2. The verb yivec6e seems to be used
here because the writer would dissuade them from entering upon the course indi-
cated. The word osdoi is explained correctly by Beyschlag in his edition of
Huther, Be not in great numbers teachers; that is, do not be seeking the office
and work of teachers, as if this were the thing to be aimed at by the great mass
of Christians. The connection of thought in the following verses seems to be
this: that as we all offend in many points, and the higher the position volun-
tarily assumed the greater the condemnation, it is unbecoming to thrust one’s
self forward in the way mentioned. Ver. 8 then adds the peculiar danger of
offence as connected with the tongue, — an idea evidently suggested by the desire
of the readers to become teachers, but yet it goes beyond this particular subject
to the general matter of the sins of the tongue. —3. The suggestion that the
man who controls his tongue is able also to control his whole body, is hardly to
be understood in its most direct and full meaning; but as conveying the idea
that the contro] of the tongue is so difficult, that one who succeeds in gaining
this will show power enough to make him equal to the emergency of meeting
the temptations to sin which come in connection with any other part of the
man. The word body seems to be used because tongue, one of the members of
the body, has been used. This is a sufficient account of its introduction, but it
is possible that the thought of the members of the body as the avenues through
which temptations come into the soul, and appetites and desires go out, may have
been In the author’s mind. — 4. The comparison of ver. 5 has, indeed, a certain
relation to the illustration of ver. 8, as well as that of ver. 4, but its immediate
718 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
reference {s evidently to the latter. The words uweydAa abyei (or, if that be the
true reading, utyaAavyei) are regarded by Grimm as denoting a kind of haughty
language which stirs up strife. This would seem to be indicated by the passage
which follows, and may be regarded as the correct view, rather than the view
which would hold that abyei is simply substituted for mocei because the tongue is
the member spoken of. —5. Ver. 50 f. unfolds what is suggested by wsyada abyei.
The sense of the first 7Aixov is how small; for, even if this is not the direct
signification of the word as here used, the thought of the whole passage would
lead us to interpret the phrase, how great a fire kindles how great a wood, by
measuring the greatness in the former case by contrast with that in the latter.
If it is understood otherwise, the sentence is out of harmony with: the tongue
is a little member, etc. The word tAyv probably means forest here, as in R. V.
marg., rather than wood, as in R. V. text.
6. As between the construction of ver. 6 given in R. V. text, And the tongue
is a fire; the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which, etec.,
and that given in R. V. marg., And the tongue is a fire, that world of iniquity ;
the tongue is among our members that which, etc., the decision is probably to be
made in favor of the former, because in this way the thought of the clauses
best divides itself. That the tongue is a fire, is a statement which naturally
follows upon ver. 5) ; and as thus following, it has in itself a marked emphasis
and solemnity which arrest attention. Then the thought moves on with a cor-
responding solemnity in a sentence which is explanatory of this brief affirmation,
and gives a justification for it: The world of iniquity, the tongue is,etc. Huther
takes the other view on grounds which seem hardly sufficient. He objects to the
construction as difficult, and as isolating too much the first thought, and also
because there is no correct meaning unless the words 9 yA. wip are closely con-
nected with what follows. There is no difficulty, if the close nnion with 54 is
noticed, and this close union accounts for what Huther regards as the isolating
of the first thought. The last point made by Huther falls away with the other
two. Beyschlag objects to Huther’s explanation, and favors the other. —
7. The word xécuoc, whichever view of the sentence is taken, is undoubtedly used
in the sense of the sum or totality of unrighteousness, The tongue is thus con-
ceived of because, in the line of the writer’s present thought, it appears as if
the source of all evils. The idea of sum is designedly expressed with greatest
emphasis by the use of this particular word xoonoc, the world. This sum of evil
is in the tongue, making it a consuming fire on every side for the man himself
and for others. —8. xa@ictraras—On this verb see Additional Notes in the
Amer. edition of Meyer’s Commentary on Romans, v. 19. The tongue is set
(or sets itself) in the midst of (among) the members as that which, etc. The
sense of xadicrarat as here used is most clearly seen in connection with iv. 4 and
2 Pet. i. 8. It is substantially equivalent to éori (see iv. 4, where the two verbs
are used in parallel sentences); but possibly has the additional idea of: caused
to appear as — shown to be — what it really is. The ‘‘is’’ notion, is, however,
the most prominent one, so far as the truth or fact declared 3 concerned.
9. The tongue is spoken of as set on fire by Gehenna, apparently because of
the violence of expression given forth by it, and the impulse given thereby to
various sorts of sin which the writer now has in mind, as he is speaking espe-
cially of the tongue. In another connection, and with a more full survey of
sin in all {ts lines and sources, he might, no doubt, have limited his expressions
more exactly. — The words gAoyifovea tiv rpoxdv rie yevécewc have a certain paral-
lelism with the preceding participial clause, and so far there is a measure of
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 719
probability that rpoy. yevéo. refers to the course of the individual life, — the
wheel of birth or human origin. This probability, however, can hardly be con- -
sidered as sufficient in itself to determine the question. Nevertheless, it appears
to the writer of this note, that, if this view of the matter is adopted, the harmony
of the clauses with each other, and the unity of the thought as presented in
the figures, is most successfully realized. The only other view worthy of serious
consideration is that of R. V. text: the wheel of nature, the orb of creation (Alf.,
etc.), or that mentioned in Grimm’s N. T. Lex.: the wheel of life or existence’
(like the English word ‘‘ machinery’’).—10. The yap of ver. 7 introduces that
verse and the following as a justification of the statements which precede, and
especially as a ground for the strong expression in the last participial clause of
ver. 6. The untamable character of the tongue, its restless evil character, full
of deadly poison, is the evidence that it is set on fire by Gehenna, that it is
moved and impelled in its evil by the author of evil. The words a restless eril,
full, etc., are to be explained with Winer and Huther as independent, and a
sort of exclamation, rather than as a sentence introduced by it is.—11. The
true explanation of ver. 9 ff. is connected with the fact that these evils and sins
which arise from the tongue are those which the writer has observed among the
’ Christian readers whom he is addressing. They have fallen into sins in this
regard which are illustrative of the power of evil connected with the tongue;
and he warns them of the deadly character of such evil in its possible develop-
ment, in order that he may arrest the progress of what may become unconquer-
able, if not restrained. Possibly this whole passage may be related to the closing
part of the preceding chapter in the way which seems to be suggested by Neander,
who says, ‘‘The show of piety James opposes in all its forms. Such is that
pious cant, in which, along with praise to God in words, are mingled a hateful
censoriousness and bitter denunciation of men, in whom God’s image is to be
honored. James exposes the inherent inconsistency of such conduct, which to
his view is mere hypocrisy.’’ And he adds, ‘‘Thus does James express the
ground-thought of this whole Epistle (in these verses, 9-12), namely, that all
turns on the inward temper from which the whole life takes its direction.’’
The view of some writers, that ver. 9 is an exemplification of the restlessness or
unsteadfastness of the tongue, is much less probable than that which is thus
given, and which takes hold upon the underlying thought of the whole context.
—12. The word yp7 here seems to refer to that necessity which is connected
with the fitness of things, and so to be equivalent to our word ought in such
sentences. This contrariety to fitness is set forth by the illustrations which
follow and which are taken from things familiar to all in nature.
VII.
Vv. 13-18.
1. There is apparently a certain connection between this passage and the
exhortation of ver. 1, as related to the verses which follow. The claim of
wisdom and kuowledge was naturally united with the disposition to become
teachers; and that contentiousness, etc., which accompanied this claim, mani-
fested itself, no doubt, in the outspeaking of boasting, and of bitter opposition,
by which the destructive power of the tongue was displayed. There is also, as
we may not improbably be justified in holding, a certain connection with the
closing part of chap. ii., such as is indicated in the words of Neander, ‘‘ As
James has contended against a false faith, unaccompanied by works, so does
720 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
he, in like manner, against that knowledge and wisdom in divine things, which
does not make itself known by a living activity in a corresponding course of
life.’ In this latter view of the passage, it becomes a third presentation of the
necessity of such correspondence to the true Christian life, faith, speech, wis-
dom, all being manifested by the appropriate outworking of the inner principle.
—2. The two adjectives ocogé¢ and émtorjuwy are here used, apparently, as in
‘substance equivalent to each other, the latter being added only as emphasizing
the idea of the former. This is indicated by the fact that, in the development
of the thought in the following verses, cogia alone appears. — 3. The substitution
of the word works instead of wisdom, in the second part of ver. 13, is not
improbably to be accounted for in connection with the reference in the passage
to oppositions and peace as the results of the false and true wisdom. The
readers who were disposed to claim wisdom should show out of—that is, by,
because springing out of —a good manner of life, the corresponding results, in
the particular line here suggested, the opposite of bitter envying and strife;
and they should do this in the sphere of the working of that meekness which
appertains to wisdom in its truest and genuine sense. The word mpatrnc, as |
here used, means meekness; but there may be, perhaps, in connection with the
context, a suggestion, in a subordinate way, of the other idea of the word,
namely, gentleness. —4. The arrangement of the thought in ver. 14 is the
reverse of that in ver. 13. If you claim wisdom, show it in its appropriate
fruits (ver. 13); if, on the other hand, you manifest what is opposite in your
feelings and spirit and acts, do not glory in your wisdom, and lie against the
truth (ver. 14). The opposite results, in the attitude towards one another, to
that to which the meekness of wisdom would lead, are jealousy and faction,
or selfish partisanship. The compound verb xaraxavyacbe suggests the idea of
glorying in wisdom over against, or to the disparaging or injury of others.
The expression, lie not againat the truth, is not in the proper sense tautological;
at least, the addition of the last words is not without a certain solemnity and
emphasis. The claim of wisdom on the*part of such persons was a glorying
against others, and was a lie against the inward truth of the soul, or perhaps,
taking the word objectively, against the truth in the objective Christian sense,
as Wiesinger holds.
5. The relation of xarepyouévn (ver. 15) to the sentence is shown by its
contrast with éiyewoc, It is a descriptive adjective. The wisdom whose fruit
is jealousy and bitterness is not one that comes down from above, but earthly.
The demonstrative pronoun avry evidently points to the sort of wisdom sug-
gested by the words of ver. 14, and the proof which is given in ver. 16 goes
back directly to the language of the fourteenth verse. The adjective émiyeog is
the direct contrast to avwhev xarepyouévn, while the two following adjectives are
added as giving further characteristics which belong to the earthly wisdom.
This adjective éiyeog, according to its strict and original meaning, describes
the wisdom as having its whole existence, its origin and life as it were, on the
earth. It is not connected with, and does not belong in the sphere of, that
part of the man which has communication with heaven and the Divine Spirit.
It is of the voi¢ only, as distinguished from the mtpua, It is puyiay, as
contrasted with mvevuaricy, belonging to that part of the man, in his intelligent
life, which is open only to the visivle and sensible and earthly. It is what
Paul calls the wisdom of this age, and to which he alludes in its contrast with
the higher wisdom which he presents to the full-grown Christians in the
passage dealing with this subject in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. T21
4
James, however, adds another descriptive word, datuoviadnc, demon-like, devilish,
because he has prominently in mind, as Paul has not in the passage referred
to, the evil spirit which is connected with this wisdom, and which manifests
itself in jealousy and selfish factiousness. Beyschlag thinks the word does not
mean so much as devilish, which would be dtaBodux7,. —6. The making promi-
nent of dxaracracia in ver. 16 is evidently connected with the manifestation of
this among those to whom he was writing. This word denotes an unstable
and unsettled condition, and may mean more or less in this line of thought,
according to the circumstances or demands of the individual case. Thus in
1 Cor. xiv. 33, its use is suggested by a disorderly condition which might arise
in the church meetings, from the too-abundant exercise of the gift of tongues,
without accompanying interpretation; while in Luke xxi. 9, it refers to the
commotions connected with tumults and wars. Here the reference is to that
which underlies the thought of the whole chapter.—7. The wisdom from
above is described by a succession of words, the main pointing of which is in
the direction opposite to axaracracia, (nAog mixpoc, ipOria, It is first described as
dyv7. This word, at least in its N. T. use, seems, as Trench remarks, to move
along a somewhat different line from dyoc, which is a kindred word, and to
have in it the idea of purity, rather than of separation and thus consecration
to God. The heavenly wisdom is pure in the large and full sense, it is free from
all that is impure, it is the source of every good thing, not every evil. This is
its first and fundamental characteristic. Then it is e/pnuayn, as Grimm renders
the word, peaceable, pacific, loving peace; émeuayc, gentle, having a sweet
reasonableness; ebre:é7¢, pliant or compliant, easy to be persuaded, not disposed
to contend persistently; weory tAgovg aal xaprov ayudar, full of mercy or com-
passionate feeling and good fruits. The suggestion of compassionate feeling
seems to be by way of contrast to the jealousy, etc., which is the fruit of the
other kind of wisdom. adtdxperog; this word 1s rendered by R. VY. text, without
variance, and by R. V. marg., in two ways, either without doubtfulness, or
without partiality. The decision as to the meaning is difficult, but the choice
seems to lie between the first and second meaning mentioned. The preceding
words are favorable to the first view, the following word to the second. The
first view seems ou the whole to be preferable, because of the general thought
which apparently occupies the writer’s mind. dvvmoxperoc, without bypocrisy;
this final word marks the wisdom as free from all that pretence and falseness
which characterize those who have an empty, dead faith, etc., and who have
been already referred to. —8. dixatootyne is here used in its ordinary, not in its
peculiar Pauline sense, and the genitive is appositional. This view of the
word, which is favored by Huther and others, accords best with the whole
course of thought in the passage. The fruit which springs from the sowing
in character and life is a fruit of right living, when it is sown in the sphere of
peace, in the way and spirit of peace, and such fruit results for those who make
peace.
VIII.
. CHAPTER IV.
Vv. 1-12.
1, There is a certain abruptness in the opening of this chapter, and yet
evidently a connection between it and that which immediately precedes. The
idea of peace, as related to and the result of the wisdom from above, in con-
trast with the bitterness, etc., springing from the earthly wisdom, suggests
722 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
the abrupt and even indignant expressions which now follow. The wars and
fightings refer, no doubt, to violent and unseemly contendings among them-
selves; but the passage has such a vehemence of denunciatory rebuke, that we
may believe its expressions to have a rhetorical strength which the writer did
not measure by the literal facts. So when he uses the word ¢ovevere, and speaks
of the readers as [adulterers and] adulteresses. The connection of sin, as it
outwardly displays itself, with the desire and inward movement of the heart, are
set forth as in chap. 1.—2. The word #d6vwyv seems to be used in the sense of
desires for pleasure (see ver. 3), and is substituted for ém@vuiwy, because the
writer has the idea of ver. 3 especially in mind. These desires for pleasures
war (Alf. says, campaign, have their camp, and, as it were, forage about; and
this is not improbably the sense of the word as here employed) in your
members. The following three sentences present the condition into which
these desires for pleasures bring men; the going-out of desire without gaining -
possession of what is desired; then, the whole series of evil desires and acts,
from envy or jealousy up to murder; and then, the fighting and warring which
characterize and make up the life of a community full of bitter jealousy and
the factious spirit. Having thus set forth the condition, the writer gives the
reason why they do not have the things which may give them satisfaction,
namely, because they do not ask of God except for the purpose of expending
upon their pleasures what they would wish to receive. —3. The reading
potxyadidec, as against potxoi nai puotyadidec, is so strongly supported that it is
probably to be accepted. If so, the feminine form is used, as we may believe,
because of the relation of the church to God, as presented many times in the
O. T. The members of the church are conceived of as, in a sense, sustaining
this same relation. Beyschlag also holds that the word refers to the individual
members of the church. The explanatory marginal note added in A. R. V.
gives, accordingly, the true sense, and is helpful to the common reader: ‘‘ That
is, who break your marriage vow to Gad.’? —4. Know ye not, etc. (ver. 4).—
This confident inquiry which is equivalent, as in similar cases in the Pauline
Epistles, to an emphatic affirmation of the fact, presses upon the thought of
the readers, that, if they desire and act after this manner, they cannot expect to
receive any thing from God. The genitives xoouov and 6eov express an objective
relation. The verb é3ovA7én is the word minded of the English version, and
denotes the inclination and disposition as turned in a certain direction.
xaftorara ig evidently parallel with éorc in this verse, and certainly approxi-
mates most closely to itin meaning. The centering of the life in the will, the
disposition and inclination of the whole inner man, is indicated in this place,
as it is in many parts of the N. T. This is the N. T. doctrine. The friendship
of the world is enmity to God; whoever therefore has his mind set in the
direction of the world is placed by that very fact in the condition of an
enemy of God; he is constituted such by the action of his own will and
purpose; he becomes such ipso facto, and thus ts such. Beyschlag holds that
here and in Rom. v. 19, xa@iorara: = éori, as not unfrequently in classic Greek.
—5. Or:—this 7 is like that which we find often in Paul’s writings, and intro-
duces the following sentence, which is put in the form of a question, as the
only supposition possible, unless the preceding one is admitted; the question
implying that they cannot hold this supposition. The force of these verses,
therefore, is as follows: Whoever... maketh himself an enemy of God.
This you must admit, or you must suppose that the Scripture speaks in vain
when it says what is in ver. 5b. But this you cannot suppose.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 723
6. The words of ver. 5d are regarded as a question, according to the render-
ing of R. V. text. The exact meaning and translation of this part of ver. 5 are
uncertain, but the second marginal rendering of R. V. gives that which seems,
not improbably, to present the true sense : That Spirit which He made to dwell
in us yearneth for us even unto jealous envy. If this is correct, the idea of the
sentence is in harmony with the context, and with the peculiar construction
with 7. Since the Spirit which God makes to dwell in us longs for us even unto
jealous envy, it must be that the man who is minded to be a friend of the world
will be an enemy of God. — The first marginal rendering of R. V. is that which
Huther prefers, and no serious objection can be urged against it: The spirit
which He made to dwell in us, He yearneth for even unto jealous envy. In this
case, the subject of the two sentences, 5) and 6a, is the same; and in this fact
an argument may perhaps be found for this view of 5b.—7. The view which
holds that A¢éyec of ver. 5 means says, not speaks, and that the pd 9dovoy, «.7.2.,
depends on it, is the simplest and best, —the explanation being that the writer
gives first the substance of the idea of what the O. T. says, and then makes a
particular citation in ver. 6) as supporting the statement of ver. 6a.—8. But
he gives greater grace, i.e., greater because of, and in proportion to, this jealous
envy. Wherefore, i.e., it is on account of the fact stated, that the O. T. uses
the language quoted. God gives grace, because of His desire and longing unto
jealous envy, to those whom he loves; but, for the same reason, He resists the
proud, His enemies, those who are minded to be friends of the world. These
verses thus support and strengthen that which underlies the suggestions of
ver. 1 ff.
9. Ver. 7 (ovv) draws the conclusion from the preceding context in the form
of exhortations. In the first two of these exhortations there is, in a certain
sense, a corresponding positive and negative, which are in the immediate line
of the preceding thought and expressions. They should submit themselves to
God, and thus, in the exercise of the humility just alluded to in the O. T. quo-
tation, place themselves in accord with God's yearning desire, and should resist
the Devil, the prince of the world, under whose dominion they would come by
turning towards friendship with the world. Such resistance will be successful,
for the very reason that to those who submit to God He gives a grace propor-
tioned to His desire for them. To the exhortation to resist the Devil, is added
the assurance that they will be successful in their effort, —he will flee from
them; while on the other hand, to the exhortation to submit themselves to God,
which is now put in another form, though in substance it is the same thing, is
joined the promise that the corresponding blessing will come: draw near to Him,
and He will draw near to you. The positive and negative sides of the first and
fundamental exhortation are presented in vv. 7, 8a. In ver. 8d we find an exhor-
tation to that which is an essential accompaniment or antecedent of drawing
near to God. This is addressed to sinners and to those who have a double soul
or mind, as it were, divided between God and the world. Apparently, the
writer addresses the Christian readers thus because of their non-conformity to
the duties and requirements of their Christian profession, as indicated in the
preceding part of the Epistle. — 10. The exhortations in ver. 9 set forth what is
necessary with reference to past conduct, as connected with the cleansing, etc.,
mentioned in ver. 8b. These, again, are expressed in the same vigorous, strong
language which characterizes the Epistle throughout: Be wretched, and mourn
and weep; let your laughter be turned, etc. — The word «ar7¢eca, not found else-
where in the N. T.,‘is compounded of «are with the sense of downward, and ra
i.e., the feeling of humiliation. — The final exhortation returns to the one at the
heginning, and expresses distinctly what is there put in the form of submission,
—humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord; and then the promise is, in sub-
stance, renewed: and He shall exalt you. xvpiov is to be regarded, with Huther,
as referring to God, not Christ, because of the reference to God throughout the
immediate context.
11. To these exhortations, which move along the line of the main thought
of the chapter thus far, and bring it to its end, the writer now appends a new
exhortation, not to speak against one another. The connection here is some-
what uncertain. Possibly, there is a return to the general thought of conten-
tions, etc., at the end of chap. iii. and beginning of chap. iv.; possibly, he
reminds them that, even in reference to the desires for worldly things, they
should not be too ready to condemn one another. The speaking against in-
volves a censorious judgment. The reason given for the exhortation is akin to
that suggested by Paul in Rom. xiv. 4, where the words correspond substantially
with those in ver. 12b of this chapter. James, however, first introduces the
statements of ver. 11bc. The one who speaks against a brother speaks against
and judges the law. The law here referred to is the law of love, —that is, either
the Christian law itself, or the O. T. law which is fulfilled and filled out in its
complete meaning, so far as duties to one another are concerned, by the loving
one’s neighbor as one’s self. —12. The view of Huther respecting ver. lic is to
be regarded as correct. The man who judges the law puts himself in a-position
above the law, and instead of doing what it requires, which is his duty as a man,
he becomes a judge in and of himself, usurping thus a function which does not
belong to him. This function of judge appertains to Him alone who is the law-
giver, and who is able to assign the destiny of men. The words 6 dvvauevor,
x.7t.4.. in the construction of the sentence, belong to the subject, being apposi-
tional to and explanatory of eic. The last words of ver. 12, as following these,
press the impropriety of such judgment of one another very emphatically.
IX.
CHAPTER IV. 13—CHAPTER V. 6.
Vv. 18-17.
1. These verses seem to form one section of the Epistle, which is divided by
the close of chap. iv. into two sub-sections. These two sub-sections have refer-
ence, the first to the presumptuous confidence in the certainty of future oppor-
tunities for work and success which those devoted to worldly gain seem often to
have; and the second, to the oppressions, etc., of selfish rich men, upon whom a
woe is denounced. The connection of this passage with what precedes seems
less evident than in the case of former passages; but the thought may be re-
garded as following along the general line of the exhortation not to love the
world, or the things of the world. Whether the rich here alluded to are those
in the church, or outside of it, is a question of some difficulty. Huther takes
the latter view. This harmonizes with the probable reference of nAotowr, in
chap. ii., and is favored by the fact that the language which the writer uses
appears almost too strong for any proper application to Christians. At the
same time, the Epistle is addressed to Christians, and it would seem that some
- application to them must be intended. Perhaps the true view is that the writer
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 725
is addressing professedly Christian rich men, but with the vigorous and denun-
clatory language which characterizes him, and which is due to his abhorrence
of all worldliness, and his deep sense of its inconsistency with the righteousness
of true Christian living. If this be not the correct view, we may believe that he
intends, while warning the worldly rich, to apply the same admonition to the
Christian readers, so far as any of them may be led away to the same actions
and wrong-doing. — 2. The phrase dye viv arrests attention, and demands the
thought of the persons addressed upon the subject presented. The repetition
of this phrase in v. 1, inasmuch as it is used nowhere else, seems, as Huther
also suggests, to indicate a close union between the two sub-sections; and per-
haps, also, it indicates that the movement of the writer’s thought, even from the
beginning of iv. 13, is towards the xAavoare of v. 1, and the declarations which
follow in the subsequent verses, —38. The view of Huther with respect to ryvde,
with which R. V. and some other commentators, as well as Buttmann (N. T.
Gram.), agree, is in all probability correct. The sentence in which this word
occurs may be supposed to contain the very words which the men referred to
would use: having a particular city in mind, they would naturally speak of it
as this city.
4. Westcott and Hort adopt the reading which omits ra before ri¢ atpwv and
yap following svia, The meaning thus becomes, You know not of what sort the
life of the morrow will be ; i.e., what will be your condition and circumstances,
The other reading, which separates woia from ti¢ atpwr, gives to the sentence
more of that nervous force which belongs to this author, and brings out more
distinctly the uncertainty of life. The yap following soia is probably to be
omitted. In the following clause, éore is supported by the best authorities.
What sort of thing is your life? A thing full of uncertainty, for you are a
vapor, appearing for a little time and then vanishing away. That this is the
true sense of the passage, is also indicated by ver. 15, which is founded upon
what is implied in zoia 7 (wh iuov. —5. The particle viv, in ver. 16, seems to be
equivalent to: as the case now stands; as the fact of the case is. The word dda-
Coveiace denotes the confident boasting and assurance which belong to such pre-
sumptuous planning and action as that which has been referred to. All glorying
in such presumptuousness is wicked. Thus far, he has only called attention to
and rebuked this disregard of God, with reference to the question of the continu-
ance of life. —6. Ver. 17 evidently contains in its. words a general statement;
but by reason of its position at the end of one part of a section of the Epistle, it
must have a particular application to the matter referred to in the verses imme-
diately preceding. The meaning of the verse, therefore, as here introduced,
must he, that, inasmuch as they knew what was right in this matter of the
uncertainty of the future, and yet, notwithstanding this knowledge, acted as —
they did, they were guilty of actual sin. This verse is introduced by ovv as a
conclusion from what goes before. This conclusion-element in the sentence
seems to belong to the special application, rather than the general truth. The
general truth can hardly be supposed to result as an inference from what has
been here said about their thoughtlessness and presumptuousness as to the un-
certainty of life. The special application, on the other hand, results naturally,
and the sentence, as such an inference, becomes an impressive rebuke of their
sin. In this way, also, the verse becomes a kind of transition passage, carrying
the thought over to the severer rebuke and denunciation which fill the opening
verses of the following chapter.
726 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
X.
CHAPTER V.
Vv. 1-6.
". The address now turns to the rich. These are either the same persons
with those addressed in iv. 18, only speaking of them in another light, or a
portion of the class there mentioned who had acquired wealth. It would seem
from the severity of the language here used, as well as from certain individual
expressions in vv. 4-6, that the writer has in mind persons who were not merely
trading, etc., with presumptuous disregard of the possibility of the ending of
life, or of the power of God over their lives, but were also guilty of oppression,
and other acts of injustice, towards the poor. The passage is denunciatory of
judgment. Precisely what the judgment here referred to is, may be questioned,
— whether the expressions give a figurative presentation of the final condemna-
tion which will come upon them from God, or whether, on the other band, they
refer to the calamities which were expected immediately to precede the second
coming of the Lord, or, if the Epistle was written before that event, those which
were realized in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. —8. The simi-
larity of this passage in its general style to some of the denunciatory passages
in the O. T. prophetic writings will not fail to be noticed. The writer of this
Epistle evidently resembled the prophets in character. His words here rise into
the poetic region of the prophetic books, and our interpretation of them is
doubtless to be affected by this fact. The language used, however, plainly indi-
cates great calamities impending in the way of Divine judgment, in view of
which they might well do what he calls upon them to do, namely, weep and
how] for the miseries that were just before them. The present participle
érepyouévar, as well as the expressions, in the last days, ver. 3, and, Be patient
until the coming of the Lord, implies the nearness of the things to which he
refers, and the two last-mentioned expressions show that they were those
which preceded the Lord’s coming.
9. The things mentioned in vv. 2, 8, are the calamities or the results of the
calamities. Their riches waste away and are destroyed, and this destruction
will be a testimony of the destruction which awaits themselves. The connec-
tion of o¢ rp with the following words, which is favored by Westcott and Hort,
seems much less simple and natural than the connection with what precedes.
The latter view of the sentences is adopted by R. V., A. V., and most of the
recent interpreters. The references to O. T. passages, which Huther makes in
his note, are sufficient to establish the probability of this view. —10. The ex-
pression, You are laying up treasures in the last days, is apparently to be under-
stood as meaning that they were doing that which was unsuitable and wrong:
it was the time for repentance, and taking heed to the commands of God. —
11. From this reference to the destruction and worthlessness of their riches in
the times of judgment, the writer turns to the setting-forth of some of the
wrongs or sins of which they were guilty, and which would bring the judgment
as their result. Mention is made of three of these, as Huther remarks in his
notes; namely, injustice and oppression as related to the laborers employed by
them, their wanton luxury and self-indulgence, and their condemnation of the
righteous. The first two of these points stand in contrast to each other. The
third has reference apparently to another subject, their treatment of the right-
eous servants of God; and by reason of the words of the seventh verse, we may
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 727
believe that some of the Christian readers may have been sufferers from this
treatment. — 12. The view of Huther, which makes a certain kind of parallelism
between in the last days (ver. 3), and in the day of slaughter (ver. 5), and thus
refers the latter to the time of the Divine judgment, appears, on the whole, to
be the correct view. — 13. The expression rév dixatoy is undoubtedly the singular,
individualizing, as we may say, the plural. This use of the singular is in
accordance with the style of the passage, —the denunciatory and prophetico-
poetic style. An especial emphasis is gained by this individualization. The
language here used might fitly be employed as describing the experience of
Christ; but the definiteness of the application of al] the other phrases in these
verses to the particular rich men whom the writer has in mind, and the exhor-
tation of the following verse, which is addressed to the particular Christian
readers to whom the letter is written, show that it does not refer to Him.
U
XI.
Vv. 7-12.
1. This passage contains (vv. 7-11) an exhortation to patience, which is
drawn as an inference or conclusion (ovv) from the verses which precede.
These verses present the idea of the condemnatory judgment of God against the
rich oppressors as speedily approaching. In the last clause of the sixth verse,
the idea of the non-resistance of the righteous who suffer from the oppressions
and persecutions is presented. The exhortation, however, passes beyond the
limits of these particular evils, to all the trials and sufferings to which, as
Christians, they were at that time exposed, and urges the readers to endure
them patiently, and also, bravely to persevere until the coming of the Lord.
This is urged upon them by the example of the tiller of the soil, who watches
for the growth of the seed which he has planted, and waits patiently for the
two seasons of rain. In the same way as he exercises patience, the: readers
should have it, steadfastly enduring until the end; and they should strengthen
and establish their hearts in confidence, because the coming of the Lord (has
drawn near) is near at hand. This repeated reference to the nearness of the
coming of the Lord, and the striking distinctness of the language used, make
this passage one of the prominent ones in the N. T., as bearing upon the
question of the view of the apostolic writers as to the time of that event. It
must be admitted that it would seem strange to exhort the members of a
Christian church, in our day, to have patient endurance, with respect to the
trials befalling them, until the parousia, the coming of the Lord. The
ordinary preacher does not regard that event as near enough to make it
natural for him to employ such language. The question, which is one of
much interest, must be determined by a careful and candid examination of
each passage in which reference is made to the subject, and by a comparison
of what are in this way discovered to be the views and expectations of the
several N. T. writers. It is clear, from the declaration made by Christ in Acts
i. 7, that the exact time of the coming was not revealed to the disciples. How
early they placed it, can only be decided by what they say, and the general tenor
of their teaching on the subject.
2. The verb ornpigare expresses, in substance, the opposite or affirmative,
which corresponds with the paxpo@vyjoare, as setting forth the more negative
side of the same idea. They should endure with patience until] the coming of
the Lord, and should establish their hearts in strength and confidence because
728 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
it was at hand. —3S. The exhortation of ver. 9, by reason of its position between
vv. 7, 8, and vv. 10, 11, must be in the line of thought of all these verses. The
murmuring against one another, referred to, is apparently an unfavorable judg-
ment or accusation of which the Christian readers were guilty in their relation
to each other. Huther thinks that this murmuring was the result of an irrita-
bility towards one another incident to the experience of all in the oppressions of
the rich. Whether this limitation is to be accepted, is doubtful, though it may
be suggested by the early verses of the chapter. It would not, however, be out
of accordance with the custom of the N. T. writers, in such passages, to pass
from the particular case first mentioned to other cases of a more general char-
acter. The correspondence of the thought here with that in Matt. vii. 1 is
noticed by many, and is quite manifest. —4. The expression, “ Behold, the judge
stands before the doors,” must be understood, in the connection of the verses, as
involving the idea which is suggested by the last words of ver. 8. The judge is
Christ. —5. Ver. 10 passes in its thought over ver. 9 to vv. 7, 8, and belongs
in connection with the idea of the verb paxpodvpeiv of those verses. The em-
phatic position of txodetyyza is thus accounted for. The example of the prophets
should influence the readers to endure with patience, as, in another way, the
waiting of the husbandmen should influence them to the same end. In pre-
senting this txddetyza of paxpotuuia, the writer speaks of it also as an example of
xaxorabiac, the suffering of evil, because it was the enduring patience under sim-
jlar circumstances or experiences which he would press as the ground of his
exhortation. The prophets, who are here, no doubt, the prophets of the O. T.,
are spoken of as those of /AdAnoav év tH ovouutt Tov xvpluv. By these words, the
writer apparently intends not merely, as Huther holds, to mark them as stand-
ing opposed to the world, as the readers do, but as persons who were especially
honored of God by the commission to speak in His name, and yet were subjected
to the experience of suffering. —6. The text of the best authorities, in ver. 11,
reads dmoueivavrac; and this seems the more natural reading in this place, where
the preceding reference is to the prophets, and the following one is to Job. It
is of the O. T. examples of patient endurance that the writer speaks. The fact
that we count these heroic men of the past happy, is a reason why we should
imitate them in their uaxpuévyia and vrouov7. —7. The case of Job is added as
the most prominent one in the O. T., in that the story of it fills the entire book
bearing his name, and every hearer (7xovcare) of the O. T., as it was read in the
synagogues, must have been impressed by it. In a peculiar manner also,
the record of it gave the resultant blessing from God, in connection with which
the paxapouoc which we utter is pronounced. The word v7ouov7 here, as in all
other places, means more than patience: it carries in it the idea of steadfast
endurance under, and notwithstanding, all trials or sufferings. —8. The end of
the Lord is to be understood, with Huther, as the end which God gave him
after, and as the result of, his patient endurance. The question as to whether
evdere or dere is the true reading, is one of some difficulty, owing to the nearly
equal weight of external authorities on both sides. The most simple way of
understanding the sentence, however, would seem to be that which makes the
whole a reference to the knowledge or conviction connected with the case of
Job; and, if this be the case, eidere (corresponding with #xoveare) and the union
of this verb with the preceding words, would appear to be the most probable
text and construction of the sentence. The particle or: is to be understood as
meaning that or how that. This explanation accords with the rendering of the
sentence which is given in R V. The verb éor of the last clause of the verse
is the propositional present.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 729
). The tenth verse properly forms a paragraph in itself, and introduces a
new subject. The phrase xpd nuvrwy presents the exhortation with respect to
swearing as one which the writer would especially impress upon his readers.
Whether these words, however, can be pressed so far as to involve the idea that
the writer would insist upon this as the first and most urgent exhortation of
the whole Epistle, may be questioned. —10. The similarity of this verse to
Matt. v. 84-36 is very striking, and is noticeable in several points: (a)
duviere (James), uy) dudoa: dAwe (Matthew); (6) neither by heaven, nor by the
earth (James and Matthew); nor by any other oath (James); nor by Jerusalem,
nor by thy head, giving examples of other oaths (Matthew); 7Tw de tyov rd ral,
val, xai Td ob, ob (James): forw dé 6 Adyor tudor vai vai, o) ob (Matthew). There
can scarcely be a doubt that James bases his language here on that of Jesus.
The same question arises here as in Matthew, whether the intention is to
prohibit all oaths, or only the oaths which were frequent in daily conversation.
It will be observed that in both cases (Matthew and James), the swearing
by God is not mentioned, unless — which seems improbable —it is included by
James under the phrase by any other oath. It will also be observed that the
passage in Matthew indicates a feeling of the solemnity of an oath by God on
the part of the Jews, which might naturally exclude this from the oaths
referred to and prohibited. The fact that solemn asseverations are added to
simple assertions by the N. T. writers themselves, at times, may also indicate
that an absolute prohibition of every thing beyond the mere yea and nay was
not intended. At the same time, in the perfected state of the Divine kingdom,
it can hardly be supposed that oaths will be known; and Jaws such as those in
Matt. v., which are expressive of the inmost principles of the Divine govern-
ment, set forth what is according to the standard of that perfected state. The
question is certainly one of no inconsiderable difficulty. The view of Meyer,
Bleek, etc., is that Christ’s prohibition is absolute and universal; and with them
Beyschlag seems to agree substantially, so far as the universality of the prohi-
bition is concerned. These writers (Meyer, Bleek, etc.) hold that it has reference
to the ideal state of His kingdom, ‘‘ while in the present incomplete temporal
condition of Christianity, as well as in the relation to the world in which it is
placed, and to the existing relations to public law to which it conforms itself,
the oath has its necessary indeed, but conditional and temporary, existence.’’
It would seem that James must be speaking with a more particular reference to
practical evils surrounding him, and not so much from the standpoint of the
ideal state of the kingdom, and that he therefore has in mind the oaths used
in ordinary life and conversation. —11. As for the construction of 1d vai, vai,
x.7.A,, in this verse in James, it is certainly possible to take the sentence either
as R. V. text or as R. V. margin has it: either, let your yea be yea, and your
nay, nay; or, let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay. Westcott and Hort
apparently understand the words in the latter way. If the latter view be
adopted, the correspondence with Matthew is closer than it is on the other
explanation; but, taken in the former way, the difference between James’s
sentence and Christ’s, as given by Matthew, belongs rather to the accidents,
than to the essentials of the prohibition. Perhaps the best explanation is that
given by R. V. marg., and the article may refer to the well-known expression,
yea, yea, nay, nay, in the Sermon on the Mount. —12. The clause a...
séonte is not found in Christ’s words, but it expresses what may be easily
inferred from them. The judgment here referred to is the condemnatory
judgment of God.
ints ate fie Q
Vv. 13-20.
1. These closing verses of the Epistle call the attention of the readers to
several points which have no immediate connection with ver. 12, or with the
verses which precede that verse. ‘Their connection with one another, it may
be added, is not very close and immediate. The first exhortations have
reference to the opposite experiences of suffering or sickness, and of joy or
gladness. Both in suffering and joy the expression of the heart is to be
directed towards God, either in prayer or the singing of psalms. Then the.
words turn to the case of sickness. Here the elders are to be called in,
apparently as connecting the earnest desire of the church with that of the sick
person. The prayers of the elders are regarded as the efficacious clement in
the case (ver. 15); how far the anointing with oil is looked upon as having
healing power, is not made clear. The assurance of healing is given in an
absolute way; but all such sentences with regard to the removal of physical
evils, etc., need to be interpreted with a constant remembrance of the suprem-
acy of the will and wisdom of God. The word save is almost certainly to be
taken, with Huther, in the sense of: will lead to his recovery from the sickness.
This is indicated by the following clause: the Lord will raise him up, as well
as by the fact that the forgiveness is spoken of, in the closing sentence of the
verse, as if a distinct thing. —2. ovv of ver. 16 makes this verse a conclusion, or
inference, drawn from the preceding. Neander says that as James ‘‘ regards
the presbyters in the light of organs of the church, so he holds all other
Christians in such a relation, as members of one body, that they should
mutually pray for one another in bodily and spiritual need, should confess
their sins to one another, and pray for the forgiveness of each other's sins.”’
The close connection of this verse with ver. 15 seems to make it probable that
Huther was right in his earlier editions of his commentary, in making /a@jre
refer to the healing of physical maladies, but it is possible that the author of
the Epistle means to give this word a wider range of meaning. —3. R. V. agrees
with Huther in translating évepyouyévy (ver. 17), in its working. The example
of Elijah is introduced, as is that of Job a few verses earlier, and also that of
the prophets, because it was an instance of the remarkable power of prayer
which occurred in the history of one of the great characters of the O. T.
times, and was well known to all from the reading of the O. T. in the
synagogues. The explanation of the difference in the counting of time between
James and the O. T., referred to by Iluther as favored by Benson, would seem,
on the whole, to be a satisfactory one. It is evident, at all events, that Luke
(iv. 25) and James have the same statement as to the time, and we may believe
that, in some way, the three years and a half were recognized, at this period, as
the interval in question. The error, if it be such, is not at all vital to the point
here in hand. What Huther has to say, in his note, respecting the twofold
prayer of Elijah, is sufficient to meet any difficulty that may be suggested. —
4. The final exhortation of the Epistle has reference, apparently, to the Christian
brother who has been led astray from the truth. This is indicated by & vtyiv,
and its position in the sentence. The connection with the general exhortation
to pray for one anotheris thus natural, and the words are in the same line of
brotherly love. — The multitude of sins covered in the case supposed are those
of the one who is restored from his wanderings. — The closing of the Epistle
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 731
with these words seems abrupt, but is perhaps such as we might have looked for,
from the character of the writer, as we see it manifested in the whole course
of the letter. It is an abruptness which leaves the reader with an urgent
bidding to help and to save.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
XIIL
CHAPTER L.
Vy. 1, 2.
1. The general characteristics of the salutation correspond with those of
Paul’s Epistles; yet there are certain peculiarities, as, indeed, there are in the
different letters of that apostle. The correspondence in phraseology with what
is found in the Pauline Epistles is in many places in this Epistle noticeable
and striking; and there is considerable evidence in connection with this fact to
show that Peter may have been a reader of some of those Epistles, and have
been affected in his own writing by them.—2. The persons addressed are
evidently Christians (éxAexroic), and Christians living in Gentile regions where
the Jews were scattered. That the readers were not wholly of the Jewish-
Christian body, is indicated by several passages in the Epistle (e.g., i. 14, ii. 10);
but it would seem probable that they were partly or mainly such, and that they
may be described as they are, because they were in places whither Jews had
gone forth from their own land, and where they had found a dwelling-place.
They are described also as tapenidnuo, that is, persons who come from another
country to a particular region to dwell there beside the natives of the region.
They are looked upon thus as strangers in the districts alluded to, belonging to
the class who had gone thither from Palestine, and were Christian converts.
—3. The word éxdexroi¢ is defined and further developed in its idea by three
phrases: (a) xa1d mpoyvwatv Geov marpoc, the election was in accordance with the
foreknowledge of God the Father; the word mtpoyyvwow denoting foreknowledge,
and carrying back the choice of these persons to be recipients of the great
Divine blessing to that foreknowledge of God, which, in the order of thought,
preceded His pre-determining purpose and decree. —(b) &v ay:aoum mvevparoc,
the election moved, so to speak, to its result in the sphere of sanctification
which comes from the Holy Spirit. — (c)ei¢ traxowy xal pactiopdv aipuarog 'I, X.,
the end in view of the election was obedience and sprinkling, etc. The obedi-
ence here spoken of seems to Indicate the moral side of the Christian life, the
result of faith as it works through love, and the sprinkling, etc., to the side of
Divine forgiveness and the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. The two
things together make up the full idea of the Christian life as viewed on the
subjective and objective side. —4. The last sentence of ver. 2 introduces the
word wAnbuvdein, which we do not find in the Pauline salutations. As Huther
remarks, however, this word occurs in 2 Pet. i. 2, and Jude 2, and it may
perhaps be suggestive as to the relations of the three Epistles to one another.
ALY s
Vv. 8-12.
1. The opening words of ver. 3 are found in Eph. i. 3, with a similar con-
struction of 6 with a past participle following immediately afterwards. Paul,
however, turns the thought of the reader, in connection with the ascription of
praise, especially towards the choice and fore-ordination of God, which Peter has
alluded to in his words of salutation. Peter directs his attention rather to hope
and the future inheritance, as connected particularly with the resurrection of
Christ from the dead. God is spoken of as having begotten us again to a living
hope, ete., by which the apostle seems to mean that the new life into which we
are brought by the Divine influence, so far as it moves out into the sphere of
hope of the future blessedness in heaven, is made a real experience to us by
means of the resurrection of Christ. The hope is called living, because it ‘‘ has
vital power in itself, and exerts the same upon the soul’’ (Thayer’s Grimm’s
Lex.). —2. The preposition ei¢, at the beginning of ver. 4, is, in a certain sense,
parallel with the same preposition in ver. 3, and in a certain sense it is not.
Grammatically, and in the construction of the long sentence, it is so; but in the
thought, the hope looks forward to the inheritance, and we are begotten of God
to a hope which is realized finally in the actual possession of the inheritance. —
3. The verb t7pé& seems to be used here in the sense of dwéxe¢uat in Col. i. 5,
2 Tim. iv. 8. The inheritance is kept in reserve in heaven during the period of
hope. Huther holds that the perfect participle here suggests the idea of the
nearness of the time when the inheritance will be received, but this may be
pressing the force of the tense too far. —4. The word gpoupovuévove is used in
Gal. iii. 23 of those who were kept in ward, in a kind of guardianship, until the
faith-system should be fully revealed. The condition under the law was pre-
paratory and educational with reference to the gospel. Here the idea seems
rather to be that of preservation by being guarded, and thus protected from
dangers and disaster, with a view to, and until the attainment of, the blessing
designed for us in the future. The word is the same as that which is used by
Paul of the guarding of the city of Damascus to prevent his escape. The foun-
dation meaning is the same in all cases, but the peculiar shade of meaning or
the special application is determined by the context. The guarding takes place
in the sphere of God’s power: it is accomplished by the exercise of that power.
It is accomplished also by means of faith, in that faith in the person guarded is
that by means of which God is able, in accordance with His plan of salvation,
to keep him safe until the end. —5. The preposition ei¢ before owrnpiuy carries
with it, perhaps, both the idea of for and until; or it may mean with reference
to, leaving the idea of until to be suggested by the sentence as a whole. A
salvation (R. V.), rather than salvation (A. V.), is to be understood as the
meaning of cwrypiav. The phrase ready to be revealed answers to the idea of
the participle reserved (ver. 4).
6. The phrase év xaipo éayatw evidently refers to the time of the final realiza-
tion of salvation; that is, the time of the ending of the world, and of the second
coming of Christ. The ending of the aidv otro¢ was to be followed by the
entrance of the saints upon the consummated blessedness of the kingdom. — 7.
The question as to the reference of the relative 3 of ver. 6, as it seems to the
writer of this note, is to be determined in connection with that respecting the
present or future sense of ayaAjaode. If the verb is to be regarded as a present,
the relative more naturally refers to the thought of the preceding. sentence; but
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 788
if the verb has a future sense, » refers most probably to éoyarw xaip>. That the
verb is a future in sense, or, rather, the present carried forward to the future
standpoint, is not certain; but this seems, on the whole, to be the most probable
supposition. It is certainly more difficult to explain the aorist participle Avrn-
Gévrec, the use of dprt, the participles xopuéuevoe (ver. 9) and dedofacpévy (ver. 8),
if the verb has the full present sense in this verse and ver. 8, than if it is the
present as of afuture time. If © refers to xaipo toxuty, this carrying forward
of the present in ver. 6 is somewhat easily accounted for: and yet it must be
admitted, that in both verses a future tense would be more natural if the
intended meaning were future; and in ver. 8, the immediate connection be-
tween dyaxdre, which is an undoubted present in signification, and dyaAAciode,
furnishes an argument of considerable force for the present sense in the case of
the latter verb. The confidence with which some writers affirm the future sense
passes beyond the state of the arguments on the two sides. At the most, there
is but a certain greater measure of probability in favor of this view. —If ayaAu-
aode of ver. 6 is to be taken as the ordinary present, the aorist Avrndévrec is best
explained as referring to an actual experience of trial and temptation which had
befallen the readers in the past, and out of which they had now come. In this
case, év J is best translated wherein, referring to the words, a‘salvation, etc., of
the preceding verse. —8. On the word doxiuov, see Note II. 4, on Jas. i. 3. —
9. The construction of the adjective toAurizorepov is somewhat doubtful. Huther
takes it with evpe9, and the points which he urges against its appositional con-
nection with 10 doxiswov buov ti¢ niotews are worthy of serious consideration. By
reason, however, of the position of this adjective and its accompanying words in
the sentence, and the fact that ei¢ &raivoy, x.7.4., forms a sufficient defining phrase
for the verb, it seems, on the whole, better to give the adjective the appositional
relation referred to, as is done by R. V. and A. V. This apposition is with
. doxigiov grammatically, but in thought it is with the compound idea approved-
ness of faith, if this meaning be given to the phrase, or with tiorewc, if doxipcov
is regarded as meaning proof or proving. More probably the former meaning is
to be given to dox. r. mor.; and thus approved faith, or tested faith, is declared to
be a more precious thing than gold that perishes. The force of dé doxtualopévov
is probably not though it is tried by fire, but and, or and yet, etc. The fact that
gold, a thing which perishes, is tested by fire, is put in comparison with faith;
and thus is suggested the idea of the naturalness of such testing by trials, and
even fiery trials, as has been alluded to in the case of the Christian believer.
The verb evpeéy is equivalent here to be proved or shown to be. [Kiihl] holds that
the meaning of doxiysoy is means of testing or proving. He regards the thought
of the apostle as in substance this: If fire has value as a means of testing,
because by it gold, which {s perishable, is proved to be a precious thing; much
more value must the Avza or sufferings have as a means of testing, inasmuch
as by them faith, an imperishable thing, is proved to be real faith.] .
10. The apparent parallelisin of dyamdre and dyaAAcdode, when we consider
these verbs in themselves, and in connection with the participles inserted be-
tween them, constitutes a strong argument for regarding tle latter verb as fully
present in its signification, like the former. The following participles, dedo-
faopévy and xouCouevot, point toward the future sense. The adjective avexAadyry
is claimed by Keil to have, as distinguished from dppfry or dAaAnrw, a meaning
more suited to describe the future heavenly joy, inexpressible, unspeakable, too
great to be expressed in human language. In view of these last points, if
indeed the last of all be admitted, and of the considerations connected with
134 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ver. 6, there is a somewhat greater probability that the future sense is to be given
in both cases to ayadA:dooe, than that it refers to a present experience. [{Kihl
regards the verb ayadArdode, in both verses, as present in signification. ] —11. The
explanation of téAo¢ and owrnpiav given by Huther is correct. The former word
means that to which faith is directed, that to which it looks and in which it
ends; the latter, the completed salvation, salvation in its fully realized state in
eternity, that salvation which is revealed in the last time. —12. The object of
vv. 10-12 seems to be to set forth with emphasis before the minds of the readers,
what a glorious and precious thing the assurance of this salvation, as before
them in the future, is, by calling to their remembrance the earnest searching
and inquiry of the O. T. prophets with reference to it. The prophets are
described as having prophesied respecting the grace which ‘‘ was destined for,
or toas to come to, you:”’ that is, the believers of the Christian period, to which
number the readers of the Epistle belonged. They were thus enlightened as to
what was to come (the yap rod Geod), though they did not understand it in all
its fulness, But they were not enlightened as to the time and circumstances, —
they were searching into the depths of an unsolved and unrevealed problem,
when they inquired what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which
was in them did point unto, when it testified, etc. The rule of prophecy, as we
may call it, both in the O. T. and the N. T., was to reveal to the prophet, more
or less clearly, the matter to which the prophecy had reference, but to conceal
the time,—both tiva, what it should be, and zoiov of what sort, with what
attendant circumstances, surroundings, etc., etc. This fact may have an impor-
tant bearing on the question as to whether the apostles may, or may not, in con-
sistency with the fact of their inspiration, have been under a misapprehension
with respect to the time of the second coming. We may remember that Jesus
Himself said to them (Acts i. 6), ‘‘It is not for you to know the times or the
seasons, which the Father has set within His own authority.’’ —13. The expres-
sion, the Spirit of Christ, as used in-this passage, is, like the expression in 1 Cor.
x. 4, the rock was Christ, an indication that the apostles believed in the pre-
existence of Christ. —14. The expression ra ei¢ Xptordv muOquara is to be regarded
as referring to the sufferings which were destined or appointed for Christ Him-
self, and the glories (plural) correspond with the sufferings. The Spirit testified
within these prophets, and through them, of these experiences awaiting Christ,
and He also revealed to them the fact that in their ministration of these things,
—that is, their fulfilment of the prophetic office in announcing what was made
known to their minds, — they were doing this work for those who should follow
in the Christian period. The things which they prophesied are those which
had been now announced to the readers by the same Holy Spirit, through the
preachers of the gospel.
XV.
Vv. 18-25.
1, &6, with which this passage opens, refers backward to the general thought
of the preceding verses, This thought is that of the certainty and assurance of
the salvation which was ready to be revealed in the last time. In view of this
thought, the exhortations of the Epistle, which begin at the thirteenth verse,
are urged. The passage from ver. 3 to ver. 12 is introductory in its character,
like the introductions of the Pauline Epistles; and, like them, it is opened by
an ascription of praise to God for His goodness in bestowing the blessing
which is especially referred to. —2. The exhortations begin with one which
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 735
urges hope upon the readers (éAxicare). This is the fundamental exhortation
of the Epistle, as the idea of hope is its fundamental idea. With this verb,
according to Huther and most commentators, the adverb reAeiug is to be con-
nected. This is probably the correct view of the matter, and the exhortation
is to have a hope which has no intermingling of doubt or fear. Westcott and
Hort join the adverb with v7govrec; but there seems to be no special reason for
adding the word to this participle, for being sober, in such a case, necessarily
carries with itself the idea of being perfectly suber. This participle in the
present tense indicates that sober-mindedness is to be the permanent abiding
state in which the fulfilment of the more special] exhortation should (aorist
participle and imperative) take place. The aorist éAzioare, followed by éri
with the accusative, is well translated in R. V. by set your hope perfectly on
the grace, etc. —3. That the view of Huther, with respect to the phrase the
grace, etc., is correct, is shown by the principal indications of the verse itself,
and of the preceding context: thus the verb hope, and the expression set
your hope on, which point to the future; the revelation of Jesus Christ, which
is the revelation at His second coming; the connection through 6 with the
preceding verses, which point forward to the future; and the third verse, which
gives the keynote to the thought of the entire passage which it opens. The
words yapty and ¢gepouévnv, which are urged against this view, are reconcilable
with it in the way suggested by Huther. —4. Ver. 14 introduces a second
exhortation, subordinate to this first and leading one; an exhortation, the
development of which is carried forward as far as the end of the twenty-first
verse. This exhortation is to holiness. They should live, not after their former
manner before their conversion, but in accordance with that holiness which God
Himself set before them, and called them to. The passage opens with a call
tpon them to act in this way, because it was befitting that Christians should
do so. As Christians, they were, and should be, children of obedience, that is,
persons whose source of character is obedience, whose distinctive characteristic
this is; and as such persons, they should live after the manner which is indi-
cated, because this is the command of God. The word ovoynuarifouevo: is parallel
with nara rdv aad, ... Gytov, in the way of contrast, and gives the idea of manner;
but it seems necessary to connect it with yev7tyre, or a word suggested by that
verb, instead of taking it as Huther does. — 5. The simplest and most natural
construction of «ard rdv , . . aytov (ver. 15), is that of R. V. marg., by which
ayiov is regarded as a noun, and «xadécavra as a descriptive adjective. This
construction seems, also, to give the simplest character to the sentence: Like, or
after the pattern of, the Holy One who called you, do you also become holy,
etc., because it is written, Ye shall be holy, for Iam holy. [Kihl] regards 60 of
ver. 13 as referring either to vv. 10-13, or to the whole thought of the preceding
passage. He agrees with Huther in connecting reAciug with éAnicare, With
respect to gepouévny he holds a different view from Huther, regarding it as a
present participle in sense, as well as in form, and taking év amoxadiwpe: in close
connection with xapiv, He thus would not carry forward the thought wholly
into the future, but would centre it upon the present and permanent manifes-
tation of grace. |
6. Ver. 17 connects with the exhortation of vv. 14-16 another, which seems
to be subordinate to it, and, strictly speaking, a part of it. The holy manner
of living involves, in our relation to God, that we should live, during this
sojourn on earth, in that fear which bears in remembrance the thought of Him
as an impartial judge. This fear has reference to sin, and thus the exhortation
736 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
is a part of the general one, to live the holy life. The time of the sojourning 1s
mentioned, apparently, with a view to the critical character of it, as related to
the final result; and perhaps, also, with reference to the brevity of it, as pre-
ceding the time of judgment.—7%. Ver. 18 gives a reason for the preceding
exhortation, by reminding the readers of their knowledge that they were
redeemed from their vain manner of life by the precious blood of Christ. It
cost the blood of Christ to buy them out of their former way of living ; surely
they should with holy fear follow the opposite way of living, now that they had
been called of God.—8. The former manner of life is spoken of as handed
down from the fathers. This word zarponapadorov, and also the word paraiac,
seem more adapted to describe Gentiles (heathen) than Jews (persons educated
under the O, T.); but they do not prove that the readers must have been
Gentiles. —9. The reference in the word lamb (ver. 19) to Isa. liii. 7, supposed
by Huther, is not improbably the correct reference. This seems to be the
reference intended in John i. 29. The placing of the words o¢ Guvov, x.1.A.,
before the word Xjiorod, seems to give an emphasis both to them and to it. —
10. The participle tpoeyvwouévov corresponds with the substantive mpdyywow of
ver. 1. In both cases, the word is chosen which carries back the fore-ordination
to the foreknowledge, and the meaning, accordingly, is not fore-ordained, in the
strictest sense of that word. In the formation of the Divine plan, the mission
and sacrifice of Christ were foreseen and foreknown, as involved in the plan,
and were predetermined in its adoption. This was before the foundation of the
world, in eternity past; the manifestation of Christ was in the closing period
of the aay ovroc, the end of the tines. —11. The manifestation of Christ is
declared to have been made on account of the readers as believers, and to the
end that their faith and hope might be in God. At the end of the passage,
the thought is thus brought back to the point from which the beginning was
made in ver. 13. Huther agrees with Weiss and others, against the majority
of commentators, in translating Gore rv miorw bud nal tAnida el¢ Oedv: so that
your faith is (may be) at the same time hope in God. If this rendering is
adopted, — and it would seem not improbable that it should be, —the return to
the idea of hope, which is that of ver. 13, and the governing one of the Epistle,
becomes more emphatically marked. [Kiihl remarks that the words redeemed
Svom your vain manner of life, etc., do not present the idea of the ransoming
from guilt by the payment of a price, as elsewhere in the N. T.; but of ran-
soming from the slavery to sin. The sinful life held the readers as slaves before
their conversion. Of the word mporyywouévov, he says that the meaning is,
foreknown as the one who alone would be qualified to be the Messiah and
Redeemer. He agrees with Huther in his construction of the clause core,
x.t.A., Of ver. 21.]
12. The third exhortation given In vv. 22-25 may also be regarded as, in a
sense, subordinate to that of ver. 14, which exhorts to holiness; but it is not as
fully so as is the second one, that of vv. 17-21. The connection with the idea
of ver. 14 ff. seems to be indicated by the first words of ver. 22. These words
point to purification through obedience as preparatory to the fulfilment of the
duty of loving one another. The preposition e/¢ denotes the end in view of
the purification, this particular end being mentioned because of the exhorta-
tion which is to follow. The adverb é«xrevég means, ds Alford has it, with the
energies on the stretch. On this word, and on é« xapdiac, as Huther remarks,
the chief emphasis lies. —13. The participle avayeyerynuévar is equivalent to:
since you are (have been) born again of incorruptible seed. This incorruptible
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ~ 787
seed is best taken as referring to the spiritual force, the Divine Spirit, which is
the originating power of the new life. This power works through the word of
God. The grounds mentioned by Huther, as opposing this view, do not seem
to be decisive against the general indications of the N. T., that the Holy Spirit
is the origin of the spiritual life. The word of God, which here means the
gospel, is spoken of as living and abiding, as, in the O. T. citation, it is said
to abide forever. The force of these words is indicated by the contrast set
forth in the cited passage. They suggest the permanent and ever-continuing
energy of that power by means of which the Spirit brings about the new life in _
the soul. {Kiihl regards ver. 22 as beginning a new section which extends as far
as fi. 10, the thought of ver. 22 being resumed in ii. 1, after the long quotatior
from the O. T. He assents to Huther’s view, that the seed refers to the word of
God, and not to the Spirit. He holds, with Huther, that éxrevog ayamjoare is to
be understood as conveying the twofold idea of perseverance and intensity;
and he regards the latter as the fruit of the living word, and the former, of
the abiding word.]
XVI.
CHAPTER II.
Vv. 1-10.
The beginning of this chapter is immediately connected with the close of
the preceding one, ovv, therefore, referring backward to the idea expressed in
avayeyevunuévot, x.7.A, As they were begotten again to a new and spiritual life,
they should lay aside every thing that was opposite to and inconsistent with
it, and should give themselves to that which would develop its power within
themselves. With respect to the words and phrases of these first ten verses of
the second chapter, the following points may be especially noticed: 1. The
laying aside of the evil was, strictly, to precede the sending forth the desires
after the good; the soul being cleared, as it were, in preparation for the coming
action and the changed life. Substantially, however, the two things were
contemporaneous. — 2. The word xaxia is to be understood here in the more
limited sense of malice, according to Huther, Alford, Keil, etc.; but R. V. text
renders it, in the more general sense, wickedness, and there seems to be no
sufficient reason against understanding it in this way. If it is thus understood,
it ts a general word, to which the following words, as designating particular
evils, are subordinate. —3. The expression dptiyévvnra Spégn is rightly under-
stood by Huther as indicating that the readers were, in view of the goal of
manhood yet afar off, but recently born again. The connection between
apttyévyyta and avayeyevynuévoc ig evident. The whole thought is moving in the
sphere of the idea of the new birth. —4. The adjective Aoy:xov is most naturally
taken in the same sense in which it is used in Rom. xii. 1, the only other
passage in which the word occurs in the N. T. It is nearly equivalent to
spiritual. Strictly speaking, it seems to designate the thing spoken of, as not
to be understood in the physical or material sense, but as pertaining to the
region of the mind or reason, or the higher and spiritual part of the man.
Of course the precise shade of idea will almost necessarily vary in different
connections, but the same notion lies at the basis of the word in all cases of
this character. In Dr. Thayer’s Lexicon, the phrase 2oycx? Aarpeia, in Romans,
is explained as the worship which is rendered by the reason or soul; the phrase
Aoyixdv yuda in this passage, the milk which nourishes the soul. The adjective
738 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ddokuv conveys the idea of unadulterated, and thus pure. The connection of
the passage seems to show clearly that yada refers to the word of the Lord; and
this word of the Lord, the gospel, is by the two defining adjectives described
as unadulterated, i.e., unmingled with any thing which takes away from or
obscures its truth, such as wrong teachings, etc., and as spiritual, i.e., pertaining
to the life and growth of the soul in the spiritual sphere. For this they were to
send forth the ardent desires of their souls. —5. The end in view which they
should have -in the outgoing of these desires was, that in the sphere of this
word they might grow, as in the development of the natural life, from birth
towards maturity, unto-the full experience and realization of salvation (eé¢
owtnpiav), —6. elzep, if this, and not e, be adopted as the true reading (ver. 3),
carries with it, according to its general use, the idea of a supposition assumed
to be a fact, and apparently also, according to what seems to be the usage in
the N. T., the idea of a supposition which the writer holds to be rightly thus
assumed. More probably, however, « is the true text here. By this con-
ditional clause the apostle supports his exhortation énc7é@noare, as a suitable
and natural one. [Kiih] agrees with Huther as to the meaning of xaxia, He
regards o¢ of ver. 2, as equivalent to since, and not the particle of comparison.
The o¢ clause thus involves a declaration of a fact with respect to the readers,
—since you are new-born babes. The addition of dprryévyyra must be due, he
thinks, to the desire on the writer’s part to emphasize the idea of recent
entrance upon the Christian life; dors being the prominent element in the
word, distinguishing it from the kindred Gpéo7. He finds an indication here,
accordingly, that the letter could not have been written to Pauline churches
which had been already established for a generation. He supposes Aoyixorv to
be connected here with Adyoc, word, and the meaning to be, milk which proceeds
from the word of God. The reference, he thinks, is to Christ as the nourishing
force of the new life. He is presented to us in the word. ]
7. The relative 4»y (ver. 4) refers to «vpoc, and connects this new exhortation
with the one which precedes. In fact, we may say that the second exhorta-
tion is an outgrowth of the first, and, in a sense, is a part of it. The figure
passes from that of the growth of a man towards maturity to that of a building
in process of erection; and, as the figure changes, the thought moves outward
from the development of the individual believer to the development of the whole
body of believers united together in the church. ‘Ov refers to Christ evidently,
as is shown by the following words; in the O. T. passage on which the words
el éyebsac0e, x.7.A,, are founded (Ps. xxxiv. 9), 6 xbptoc refers to God. The sugges-
tion arising from this fact, with respect to the view which the apostle had of
Christ, is worthy of consideration. —8. The participle mpocepyouevac does not
have the meaning which it has in Heb. vii. 25, and other passages where it refers
to approaching God in worship or in seeking for His favor ; but it has the sense
rather, of drawing near to Christ in the way of communion in heart and life with
Him. —9. Christ is called a stone, because the figure is that of a building of which
He is a part, and, in a peculiar sense, the foundation. He is afterwards spoken
of as the corner-stone. The epithet living is used, apparently, because the writer
desires to keep the mind of the reader fixed upon the fact that the building is
one of living men, and because Christ is possessed of and imparts that life
which is needed for all who are to be built as stones into the building. They
come to Him, a living stone, and become themselves, in their connection with
Him, living stones. —10. As to the question whether vixodoveicde is an indicative
or an imperative, the latter supposition seems on the whole to be preferred,
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 739
because of the general hortatory character of the passage, and because in this
way the change of the figure is most easily explained ; the same exhortation
in substance is given, only under the forms of expression involved in the two
figures. R. V. takes the other view, and regards the verb as indicative. —
11. There can be no doubt that the true text in ver. 5 reads el¢ before lepdrevyua,
and thus, that this phrase {is not appositional to olxo¢ mvevyareoc. The él¢ is
either to be connected with the preceding olxodoueioGe olx. rv.: be ye built upa
spiritual house to the end of being a holy priesthood; or, with olx. mv., a spiritual
house for a holy priesthood. The infinitive avevéyxa: sets forth the end in view
of the whole combined expression which precedes. — 12. The quotation from
the O. T. is evidently introduced as giving an additional] ground of, and an addi-
tional impressiveness to, the exhortation; and it is the passage from which the
idea of the stone, and of its character and relation to the building, is borrowed.
In the verses which include this quotation, 6-10, the verb mepeyve is used intran-
sitively, and, according to Buttmann, is equivalent to it runs or stands written;
— tin is probably to be explained in the sense of honor, and the meaning is, to
you appertains the honor which is connected with this honored position given
by God to the chief corner-stone. The words roi¢ moretovov are added evidently
as uniting this clause with 6 morevwv of the cited passage; of of ver. 8 refers to
the persons designated by ameorovay, and is substantially equivalent to for they,
as it is rendered in R. V.; ro Avyw is, on the whole, to be joined with azecdotvrec
rather than the verb, —they stumble through disobedience to the word;— ec 6
refers not to the compound idea of the verb and the participial clause which
immediately precede, but to the verb only, as Huther takes it, —the stumbling
is the principal idea of the O. T. words; — éré@noav were set or appointed, —this
verb seems to indicate that for which they were appointed in the providential
arrangement of God, as set forth in the prophecy. —13. The words of ver. 9,
which describe the persons referred to in tmeic, i.e., the Christian readers of the
Epistle, are borrowed from different passages in the O. T.; and thus the quoted
passage of ver. 6 is continued, in the explanation given, as far as ver. 10. Of
the words in ver. 9, the three which present the idea of a people or nation are
to be understood in the same sense, the object being rather to emphasize one
idea than to present minor distinctions. The idea of the royal priesthood is
nearly akin to the other, as the conception which the apostolic writers had of
the Christian believers in the Messianic kingdom was thaf of a peculiar people
made up of kings and priests. The expression Aad¢ ei¢ reptroinotw is equivalent,
in substance of meaning, to a people especially belonging to God, or God’s own
in a peculiar sense. The particle dzw¢ introduces the following words as express-
ing the design of the preceding, i.e., of the fact that the believers are, and
become by their believing, a chosen race, etc. This design is, that they may tell
out, show forth, the excellences or moral perfections of God. These moral
perfections are seen in the fact that He called them out of darkness into His
marvellous light. In the use of the words darkness and light, Peter draws near
to the idea which John has in his first Epistle; but the words have here some-
what less of their purely internal or subjective meaning, if it may be so expressed,
and more of the objective sense — the darkness of their heathen condition, and
the light of the gospel. |Kiihl calls attention to the force of the present parti-
ciple mpooepyouevr (ver. 4) as indicating a continuous, constant drawing near
to Christ, on the part of the Christian. We should draw near to Him as the
living stone, in the conviction that He is the living stone. He regards olxodo-
ueicde as a present indicative. He joins the words el¢ leparevya ayiov immedi-
740 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ately with olxog rm». In the words of vv. 9, 10, he finds a reference to believing
Jews as distinguished from unbelieving Jews, not to Gentile believers as con-
trasted with Jewish unbelievers. He thus finds this verse according with his
view as to the persons to whom the Epistle was addressed. ]
XVII.
Vv. 11-25.
1. In the first two of these verses a more general exhortation is given, which
is followed by more special ones having reference to various relations in life.
The general exhortation may perhaps be regarded as forming a transitional
passage which, in a certain sense, closes the preceding paragraph, and, in a
certain sense, opens the following one. Ver. 11, in its bidding to abstain from
fleshly lusts, is in the line of ver. 1, laying aside all evil, etc. Ver. 12, on the
other hand, in its reference to seemly behavior in their Christian living, sug-
gests that which lies at the foundation of all] the exhortations which follow, and
which bear upon right and fitting conduct in several spheres or relationships of
human life. There is, however, an independent element in these verses, as is
shown by the special mention of the relation of the believers to the heathen
among whom they lived, and the influence which their conduct might have upon
these heathen. —2. The exhortation of these two verses is based, in a certain
measure, upon the fact that the readers are mapotxo: and raperidnuo, These two
words seem to be used here, instead of the one or the other alone, for the sake of
expressing the idea common to both with greater emphasis. The readers were
strangers and sojourners in the world. They were living as such among the
Gentiles who surrounded them, and who were the citizens of the world, at
home in it and having its spirit. They should for this reason lay aside all evil,
and abstain from fleshly desires (those desires which arise from the sinful and
evil element in man), and should act in the way which befitted the new life
upon which they had entered. —aizevec may be a causal word, since they ; or it
may be used here as designating these desires as belonging to the class of things
which war against the soul. —3. The participle Zyovrec, in its grammatical con-
struction, belongs to the subject of azéyeo@at, and should be in the accusative
case. It is placed in the nominative to give the tuought greater prominence and
emphasis. The adjective xuAjy is predicative, as Huther also says; and the word
avaorpoonyv refers to the whole manner of life. «ad7v seems to mean good, in the
sense of fair, beautifw, honorable, seemly,—such as would become Christian
believers who realized that their home was in heaven. The end in view of this
seemly behavior, as related to the heathen around them, was to be, that, in the
very matter (év) in which these heathen were wont to speak against the readers
as evil-doers, they might, by observing their good works, be led to glorify God.
As Canon Cook says, ‘‘ Christians were specially autacked by Gentiles, generally
at the instigation of Jews, on political grounds, as enemies of the state (comp.
Acts xvii. 6, 7); on religious grounds, as atheists, f.e., rejecting the objects of
heathen worship; on ethical grounds, as introducing unlawful customs, and,
as it was believed, abominable impurity’’ (Acts xvi. 10). The thought of the
apostle seems to be, that in the very things which characterized the Christians
as turning aside from the heathen around them, and which led to charges against
them as evil-doers or malefactors, they should so conduct themselves, — living
in the true Christian, seemly manner, and abstaining from all fleshly desires, —
that the heathen themselves, being eye-witnesses, spectators, of their good
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 741
works, would be influenced to give glory to God. By the power of their life
they would thus turn the hearts of the heathen. The day of visitation is to be
explained of the time when God’s mercy should be brought to them.
4. With ver. 13 begins the series of exhortations having reference to vari-
ous relations in life, —those of subjects of civil] government to their rulers,
servants to their masters, wives to their husbands, etc. It can scarcely be
doubted, that these exhortations are suggested here as a part of the seemly
behavior of the Christian believers in the presence and midst of their heathen
surroundings and enemies. The same liability or tendency on the part of Chris-
tians, by reason of the doctrine of their equality in Christ and before God, to
disregard the obligations of civil or family law, which we observe as we read the
letters of Paul, may not improbably be seen here. The similarity of the exhor-
tations given in these verses to those which Paul gives in the Epistles to the
Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, is quite noticeable,—the language even
corresponding in considerable measure with that of Paul,—and by reason of
this fact the reader may be referred to the annotations on the passages in those
Epistles, a few points only being specially mentioned here. —5. The word «rice
is peculiar to Peter, and it seems to be used in the classical sense of instituting
or establishing something, — ordinance or institution. Paul speaks of the civil
powers as ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1). Peter here speaks of them as in the
light of a human institution. Huther explains this word human as meaning,
applying to human relations ; and in this way there is no difference between Paul
and Peter. Keil and Hofmann have the same view. Alford, Grimm, and others
regard the word as equivalent to instituted by men. According to this view, the
expression of Peter is supposed to refer to government, etc., from the human
side, an institution organized and maintained by men; while Paul’s expression
evidently describes it from the side of its divine origin and authority. Either
explanation of the word seems to be allowable. The argument presented by
Huther and Keil, as connected with «riCev and its derivatives, as applied to God,
not to man, is worthy of consideration, but is hardly decisive. —6. The explana-
tion of dia xipiov given by Huther, ‘‘ because such is Christ's will,” is doubtless
correct. —7. Paul evidently refers to the higher magistrates, those possessing
the power of condemning to death, but without special designations: Peter
makes such designations, —of the king or Roman emperor, the governors of
provinces. But it will be noticed that both Peter and Paul represent the magis-
trates as appointed of God for the same purpose, — the punishment of evil-doers
and the praise of those that do well. Peter adds, as connected with the thought
of his Epistle and the circumstances of his readers, a sentence giving the ground
of the exhortation, which borders closely upon the words of ver. 12, This fact
shows what has been said above, that the verses beginning with ver. 13 grow
out of vv. 11, 12. —8. Ver. 16 reminds us of the Pauline thought. The Chris-
tian readers were free, but they were bondservants of God. They were to yield
their obedience to the earthly powers as those who were in this condition. It
was to be a free service rendered in submission to God's will. They were to be
conscious of their freedom as Christians, but were to limit the exercise of their
freedom by their sense of obligation to obey God. They were thus not to use
their freedom as a covering for wickedness, —as Huther says, seek to conceal
their wickedness by boasting of their Christian freedom, — but through due sub-
jection to the civil] magistrates were, in this line as in others, to behave in a
seeinly way among the Gentiles. —9. Ver. 17 does not correspond precisely with
Rom. xiii. 7, but we can scarcely fail to be reminded of that verse as we read the
742 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
words of this one. Both verses suggest the idea of the obligation to render to
each and all the respect and honor, etc., which are justly due tothem. [Kibl
seems to favor the view of Alford, Grimm, and others, with respect to av@puxivg
(ver. 13). He regards xipiov (ver. 13) as referring not to Christ, but to God,
because of ver. 15a, and the connection of this verse with that verse, and the
one which follows it. The words o¢ éAcbOepot, x.t.A. (ver. 16), he would not
connect immediately with tzoraynre, as Huther does, but would join them
with ver. 15, and would hold that there is a change of construction from the
accusative case to the nominative, as in ver. 12 (comp. ver. 11).]
10. Following upon the exhortation relative to the duty to civil magistrates,
exhortations are given bearing upon social or family relations; and first, with
regard to servants. Probably oxéra, though meaning domestic servants, as
distinguished from dotAo, slaves, is here used as equivalent to the latter word.
The word ¢00¢ is found in the Pauline exhortations addressed to slaves, —in
Ephesians, with fear and trembling ; in Colossians, fearing the Lord. Here
the word evidently does not have the peculiar sense of the compound phrase in
Ephesians. Whether it means the fear of the Lord, is more open to question.
On the whole, it seems more probable that it refers to that reverence for author-
ity which belonged to the position of the slave as related to the master. The
reference to the two kinds of masters is peculiar to Peter. The following
verses show that the apostle felt that the special need of the exhortation existed
in the case of those who had perverse or froward masters; but they may also be
regarded, in connection with other allusions in the Epistle to sufferings and
trials, as indicating that, among the evils which befell the readers fur whom the
Epistle was designed, a prominent one in the case of slaves was that which
came from such masters. At this point, the thought turns aside from what we
discover in similar passages in the Pauline writings, and the writer is apparently
dealing with persons who were in a somewhat different condition of things.
(Kiihl thinks that the word oixérac Is used instead of dotAoc, probably, because
the apostle desired to turn the readers’ minds, from the beginning, to the
household and family relationships. He regards é& xavrt $08 as referring to
the same thing as dia atpeov (ver. 13), and did rHv ovveidgow tov Geov; thus the fear
of God.]
11. The most simple explanation of ydpic (ver. 19) is that of Grimm, this
wins for us Gud’s favor; which is also the explanation of Huther, except that
he takes faror in the general sense, this causes favor. The word Avnac in the
conditional clause seems to be used of the things which cause Ai77, and thus
cause the persons experiencing them to be in the condition indicated by Avr7-
Gévrec of chap. i. ver. 6. tmogépet, bears patiently ; nacywv, when in the experience
of suffering unjustly or undeservedly. —12. Ver. 21. el¢ rovro refers to the patient
endurance of suffering inflicted wrongfully. The call to the Christian life was
peculiarly, in those days, a call which brought the person to whom it came {nto
the experience of trials, persecutions, etc., and which summoned him to this
experience as a test of faith, which, being met successfully, resulted in praise
and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ (i. 7). —13. “Ore gives the
ground of el¢ rovro éxAnéyre. The Christian is called to undergo, according to his
measure, what Christ underwent. The suffering of Christ on behalf of His
people is presented here, also, in the special light of an example which He left
behind Him peculiarly for them (the tiv is in the position of emphasis), to
the end that they should follow close upon His footsteps. By going through
the experiences of suffering which they should be called to meet, the disciples
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 7438
of Christ would be brought into inward likeness to Himself; and, knowing this,
He left behind Him the example of His own endurance for the purpose of
accomplishing the desired result. —14. In vv. 22, 23, two points with respect
to Christ are set forth, which correspond with what has been urged upon the
servants: He did no wrong, and yet, when He suffered, He endured patiently.
The first of these points is brought forward in the language of Isaiah, chap. liii. ;
and the second one is so expressed, as Huther also says, as to show that the
apostle’s mind was recalling and dwelling upon that chapter of the prophecy. —
The object of wapedidov is probably His cause, or the decision in the case; more
probably the former. —15. Ver. 24. This verse can hardly be regarded as alto-
gether in the line of the two which precede it. The writer seems, rather, in his
dwelling upon Isa. liii., to think of what Christ did and suffered for His followers,
and to be so impressed by his thought of this as to lead him to present it before
his readers as the source of all their Christian life. The thing which He did
for us is expressed in the words, bore our sins in His own body upon the tree
(as R. V. text reads); or, carried up our sins... to the tree (as R. V. marg.
reads). This was the way in which He suffered on our behalf. The vicarious
suffering and death of Christ are here plainly set forth; but precisely how His
death provided the way for our forgiveness, and deliverance from the penalty
of sin, can hardly be determined from this expression alone, without taking
into account the many other passages of the N. T. which have a more or less
immediate bearing upon the subject. — 16. The end in view of Christ’s suffering
for us in the manner indicated was, that we, having died to sins, might live to
righteousness. The participle droyevouevn is here used in the same sense: as
anodvioxev, which Paul uses in a similar construction with the dative duaprig,
Rom. vi. 2,— dying to sin, in the sense of completely terminating our relations
to it. —17. Ver. 25 gives the ground of the preceding clause immediately; but,
more remotely, that of the main thought of ver. 24 in its bearing upon the
Christian readers. [Kuhl holds that dvjveyxev of ver. 24 is to be understood as
meaning carried up. Jesus carried up our sins upon the cross, and thus took
them away from us. He regards this as made clear by the use of én? 1d €dAo»,
instead of émi rp gvAy.]
XVIII.
CHAPTER IIL
Vv. 1-12.
1. The exhortations addressed to wives and husbands are in the same line
with those addressed to servants, and, like them, are connected with ver. 12 of
the preceding chapter. The exhortation to wives is the same which we find in
the Pauline Epistles; and in the Epistle to Titus, if. 5, the same reason, substan-
tially, is given which is urged here, though on the negative side, and with a more
general reference: that the word of God be not blasphemed. Here the duty
of subjection on the part of the wives is presented with reference to its
effect upon the husbands, to the end that any of them who may be unbelievers
may be won over to the Christian faith, and thus to reverence and obedience to
the word of God. The exhortation to submission was especially needed by
reason of the state of society at that period, and because of the possible influence
of the doctrine of equality in the Christian life upon conduct in social and
family relationships. — 2. «al e/, eren if, implies that such cases were not common,
and it is evident that the apostolic writers regarded marriage between believers
744 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
and the heathen around them with disfavor. The ground of the exhortation
here given is the same, only having the necessary limitations of the case, with
that presented for all good conduct in ii. 12; —3. The words avev Aoyov are somne-
what doubtful as to their meaning. R. V. and A. V. render them, without the
word, and thus, apparently, make the sense of the clause to be: that they may
be gained or won for the Christian life without the intervention or use of that
word to which they refuse obedience. There is evidently a certain improbability
in this explanation, arising from the fact that there is no article with Adyov,
Though not decisive as an argument against this view, this fact is worthy of
serious consideration; for the parallelism with ro Adyy, if this were the intended
meaning, would seem to make the insertion of the article natural, if not neces-
sary, in this case. Huther, Alford, De Wette, and others hold that the phrase
means without word, and is equivalent to without preaching to them and ezhort-
ing them. Some have carried this so far as to make it mean absolute silence in
the mnatter, on the part of the wives; but this appears to be unnecessary. The
view of Huther escapes the difficulty of the first-mentioned view, and yet, at
the same time, it keeps the word Avyov in near relation to Aoyy. On the whole,
it seems to offer the best and simplest explanation. Canon Cook says that the
preposition here used implies that the husbands had rejected the word. That
they had rejected it, is evident from the sentence as a whole; but as avev Avyou
qualifies the verb xepdn6jcovra, it seems necessary to view this phrase as refer-
ring to the manner in which the husbands are to be won over —in a similar way
to that in which dw ri¢ davacrpogi¢ is to be understood. —4. The participle
éxonrevoavrec, corresponding with the participle of the same verb in ii. 12, is to
be explained in the same way. In the foundation meaning of the word, they
are conceived of as being eye-witnesses of the pure and modest and becoming
behavior of their wives. In describing this behavior the writer uses the expres-
sion év ¢6Gy: it was to be in the sphere of ¢030¢. This word represents that
reverential fear which, in the higher and more complete sense, is its signification
oftentimes when it is applied to the Christian’s fear of God, and not the fear
which involves terror or being afraid. Coupled with-.fear, R. V. and A. V.
{Kiihl agrees with Huther respecting the expression avev Aoyou (ver. 1). He
affirms that it cannot refer to the word, as meaning the gospel, because there is
no definite article, and says that it is added to give further emphasis to did ri¢
avaotpognc. He holds that ¢o3y (ver. 2) means feur of God, and not, as Huther
says, a shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband. }
5. The words with regard to the adornment of the women correspond in
some measure with those in 1 Tim. ii. 9 ff. The words used, however, are
mainly different. The construction adopted by R. V., which supplies the word
«xoouoc before forw, and also supplies a second forw before o xpurrodc, «.7.A., of
ver. 4, is the simplest and best. The explanation of é 16 dg@uptw, which Is
given by Huther, on the other hand, seems better than that of R. V., which
supplies the word apparel after it. The meaning appears to be this: Let it
{the adorning) be the hidden man of the heart in (which it abides and lives in,
as it were) the imperishable region or element of a meek and quiet spirit. The
adorning is the heart abiding in this condition of spirit. —6. Vv. 5, 6, give a
reason for urging this exhortation, which is drawn from the example of the
holy women of the O. T. history, of whom Sarah is especially mentioned, as
being the wife of Abraham with whom the covenant was made and who was
thus the father of all believers. —7. The word ayadorootca: is, in all probability,
to be connected with éyev7j@yre, as Huther and R. Y. text take it, and not with
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 745
troracoduevaz, as R. V. marg. suggests, —the latter word being too remote, con-
sidering the peculiar character of the sentence. This word dyaéorowtca is better
regarded as equivalent to if you do good, than as indicating the evidence that
they have become children of Sarah. The thought of the passage suggests as
the meaning here: you are her children, if you do good, etc. mronow is to be
taken objectively; and it refers, no doubt, to the treatment which Christian
women might have reason to fear, at times, on the part of their heathen hus-
bands. —8. The exhortation to husbands is founded on the same general idea
which we find in other passages on the same subject. The language used here,
however, is mainly different from what we find elsewhere. The word cuvowovvreg
refers to the whole domestic life of husbands with their wives; xara yvooy in
accordance with knowledge, intelligence, understanding; this phrase seems to
be more definitely explained by the words which follow: o¢ daveveotépw, x.7.A.; To
yuvaxeiy depends on ovvotxovyres, as Huther also says; this seems to be the
simplest construction, not only for the reason suggested by Huther, that cvvos,
requires a nearer definition, which is more readily found in a word expressed
in the sentence than in one to be supplied, but also because the two clauses
beginning with o¢ are most readily explained if the first one is connected with
ovvoix., and the second with dxovéuovrec, If svyxAnpovoyore is the true reading,
this parallelism of the two participles, each with its o¢ clause, is even more
probable than with ovyxAnpovouot; xupirog Gwijc, the grace of life, i.e., the gift of
the Divine grace which consists in eternal life; el¢ 7d uy éyxotreodar rac mpocevyac
tucv: this denotes the end in view of the whole sentence. By the opposite
course to that here urged upon them, the husbands would hinder the union
with their wives in prayer, and thus the growth and development of religious
life in themselves and their wives. —9. In the verses which follow the exhorta-
tion to husbands, the thought passes to what is more general and comprehensive,
the new passage forining a kind of conclusion to the hortatory verses from ii. 11
to this point. Thus we have the expression ro réAog, As Huther remarks, these
verses (8 ff.) ‘‘deal with the relations of Christians towards each other, and
towards those who are inimically disposed to them.”’ In this way the connection
of the passage with the thought of ij. 12 is made manifest. The several words
of ver. 8 express the ideas of harmony, sympathy, love, humility, ete., which
are the normal results of the Christian spirit, as believers live together and
have relations to each other; those of ver. 9 suggest the thought of the ill-treat-
ment which believers were likely to receive from those outside of their own
number. These latter they should bless, in the way of kind words and actions,
or more probably in the way of invoking blessings from God upon them, and
this because, in their call to the Christian life, they were themselves called to
the inheritance of blessing from God.—10. The quotation from Ps. xxxiv.
serves tle purpose of emphasizing the exhortation which immediately precedes,
and seems to be selected because of two things: first, the turning away from
evil action and evil speaking, to which it refers ; and, secondly, the suggestion
contained in it of the Divine favor as resting upon those who thus turn away
from evil and do good, and of the Divine wrath as falling upon those who do not
thas turn. The thought in the passage from the Psalms js evidently more
general in its meaning and reference than the single application which is here
made of it. The passage serves, however, the purpose of impressing the
thought here in mind upon the attention of the readers. This quoted passage
also carries the thought easily forward to that which is introduced in ver. 18
and what follows. |Kihl rejects the construction of ov fcrw (ver. 8) which
746 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Huther favors, and supplies xéouoc as suggested in this note. He would also
supply xoouw with év upbdapry, He would connect dyaforowioa (ver. 6) with
éyevnonte, but would not regard it, as Huther does, as showing the mark by
which the women proved themselves children of Sarah; nor again as meaning,
Uf you do good. He would take éyevnénre as futurum exactum: whose children
you will have become through the fact that you do good.]
XIX.
Vv. 18-22.
1. This passage is evidently connected in thought with that which precedes,
and is a more full drawing-out of the matter of right conduct in the midst of
sufferings and persecutions at the hands of enemies and unbelievers. The
attitude and behavior which should characterize the readers is presented more
impressively, together with the encourageiments for such behavior; and then
the example of Christ is set forth as the greatest of all encouragements. No
real harm, the apostle says to his readers, could befall any of them in their
suffering for righteousness’ sake. —2. The word xaxoowy probably means, do
real harm or evil. The negative which is implied in this question is supported
and confirmed by the words of the following verse, although these, according to
the form of the sentence, are placed in contrast to the idea of xaxwowr, aAAa is
equivalent to on the contrary ; ei xul, if even, if it goes so far as, if it prove even
to be the fact that, you suffer; macyore refers to the suffering of persecution,
etc., but is used, as we may believe, as purposely conveying a different idea
from that which is intended to be set forth in xaxoouv, The Christian may
suffer in the muoyew sense, and yet be puaxapic.—3, The expression fear not
their fear, is probably to be interpreted according to the view which takes ¢oor
objectively: do not be agitated by the fear which they excite. The words
sanctify, etc., stand in contrast with this expression. The word sanctify
conveys the idea of so holding Christ as Lord, in and before the mind, as to
bring the man into the attitude of reverential awe before Him. With this
sanctifying of Christ in their hearts, the believers should be ready, instead of
being troubled, or in dread, because of their adversaries, to give an answer to
every one who demanded a reason for the hope which was In them. This
giving of an answer was, however, to be with meekness and fear, i.e., with that
meekness which was becoming to Christians, and that reverential fear which
we may fitly feel in making any claim in our relations of God. —4. The words
-having a good conscience (ver. 16), are best explained as connected with the
leading thought, which is that of giving an answer, or making an apologetic
defence; this answer was to be given while the person had a good conscience,
a conscience void of offence, a consciousness of that right state of the life
which would disarm the adversaries in their attacks. The good conscience
thus corresponds, on the inward side, to the good manner of life, on the out-
ward side. —5. The seventeenth verse (ydp) gives the ground for the sixteenth.
In this verse, and the sixteenth also, the thoughts suggested in ii. 12 are
evidently in the writer’s mind, the emphasis on suffering evil being, however,
somewhat greater here. The underlying thought of maintaining the good life
in the midst of, and in spite of, evils which are experienced at the hands of
unbelievers, is manifest throughout this entire passage, which had its beginning
at ii. 12. ‘The correspondence between the verses now immediately before
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. TAT
us, and those commencing with if. 19, where the application of what is con-
tained in ii. 11, 12, is made to the special case of servants, will be noticed by
every careful reader. —6. The case of Christ is again brought forward, as
furnishing the great example, and as the encouraging and strengthening fact
on the fuundation of which their own action and attitude should find support.
The special point made prominent with respect to Christ is, that He suffered as
a righteous person in the way of, and because of, doing good. He suffered for
the sins of men, Himself a righteous person taking the place of unrighteous
persons, and to the end that He might bring those who had been unright-
eous near to God. [Kiihl is disposed to take gofov (ver. 14) in the subjective
sense: do not fear with the fear of them, do not be afraid of them. He allows
the possibility, however, of the other explanation. He agrees with Huther in
regarding éxovreg (ver. 16) as not co-ordinate with é@roguo, but subordinate to
it. He regards xpeitrov (ver. 17) as meaning, not better, but, more puwerful,
stronger, in the sense of more profitable, or useful to an end in view. He
thinks the reference is not to what the Christian gains for himself from the
suffering, but to what is effected for ‘‘those who revile the Christian’s good
manner of life’’ (ver. 16). This he thinks is indicated as the true meaning of
the verse by the yap, which connects ‘it with ver. 16. There is, accordingly, a
certain parallelism in thought here with ii. 12.)
Up to this point the comparison with the case of Christ seems to be carried
forward, but with ver. 18) the thought turns more exclusively to Christ’s own
experience and work in connection with, and following upon His death. The
immediate connection of the words of ver. 18) with the death of Christ, which
is brought before the reader’s mind, in ver. 18a, in the expression: suffered for
sins, would seem to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that these words refer to
His experience as related to that event. He was put to death in the flesh, but
made alive in the spirit. The parallelism of contrast in these two clauses
shows that the phrases in the flesh and in the spirit must be interpreted accord-
ing to the same principles. They refer thus to two divisions, as we might say,
or rather aspects, of Christ's life and being. Quoad cupg, He was put to death;
qguoad mvevua, He was made alive. In respect to the earthly and perishable
side of His nature, according to which He was subject to the law of death,
Gavarwieic is true of Him. In respect to the higher and imperishable side, on
the other hand, the spiritual side, His experience as connected with His dying
is described by the word (woromdei¢, It is plain, therefore, that, in ver. 18, the
starting-point for the two statements which it contains is the time of Christ's
death. It is evident also, that the limit of the thought in vv. 21, 22, which
close this half paragraph, is the resurrection of Christ, His ascension, and His
life at the right hand of God in heaven. A strong probability arises from these
facts, that what is predicated of Him in the words which intervene between
ver. 18) and vv. 21, 22, refers to what took place after, and not before, His
death. If this be so, we find in this fact the first point which may bear upon
the determination of the meaning of ver. 19. [Kiihl agrees mainly with Huther
in respect to the words @avarwOel¢ capi and worombeic nvevuart. He holds that in
the latter expression the (wor. involves the idea of the receiving of the spiritual
body. Christ did not continue a mere spirit, but He received at His resurrec-
tion the coua mvevyarixov, by means of which, as the organ of the mvevya, He
was thereafter in a condition to carry forward His activity with relation to men.
Christ had a mvetya which had in itself the capacity and power to be thus
{woru: 76ei¢. }
T48 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
7. The words év © of ver. 19 must of necessity, as it would seem, refer to
mvevuart, It was, then, in the sphere of the rvevua part of Christ’s nature, and
not in that of the cap part, that what is mentioned in vv. 19, 20, was done by
Him. This expression in itself, as thus explained, may not indeed be incon-
sistent with a spiritual proclamation before the time of the incarnation, that
is, in the days of Noah. But if wliat has been said above of the time of vv.
19-22 is correct, the connection of © with mveiyare here must exclude such an
explanation of the meaning. —8. The participle mopevéei¢ may be determined
in its meaning, so far as the probabilities of the case are concerned, by two
considerations: first, by the indication which the word itself gives of an actual
movement or going of the person himself who is mentioned —if a preaching
through or in the person of another were intended, the verb éxypusev would
have been all that was either necessary or natural in the case; and secondly, by
the evident meaning of the same participle in ver. 23, where a personal going
of Christ Himself is alluded to. It would scarcely seem possible that, in a
connected passage no longer than the one now under consideration, the same
participial form of such a verb as this would be used in two different senses,
without any explanation or suggestion of such difference in the form of
expression, or the surrounding words. This participle in ver. 19, accordingly,
is to be understood — such, at least, are the linguistic and grammatical proba-
bilities of the case — as referring to a personal going on the part of Christ, for
the purpose of a personal proclamation. No such personal going, in the sense
corresponding to His going into heaven, spoken of in ver. 22, took place before
the incarnation. —9. The word é«xnpvgev indicates what Christ did. The prob-
abilities as to its meaning may be seen from the following facts: (a) This word,
which in itself has an indefinite meaning, to proclaim as a herald, without
specifying the sort of proclamation, occurs in the N. T. about sixty times.
Among all the instances of its occurrence, there is none in which the idea of a
proclamation of judgment or condemnation is expressed. The word is used
almost exclusively of preaching the gospel, and this is the case in every
instance in which Christ stands either in the subjective or objective relation
to the proclamation. The kindred words «7pv§ and x7jpvypua (at least, with the
exception of two cases, where the preaching of Jonah is spoken of, on which
see below) are used with reference to the making known of the gospel, or,
in a single instance, 2 Pet. ii. 5, of righteousness. The probability as to
the meaning of the verb in this case, as connected with usage, must therefore
be regarded as overwhelmingly strong against any other signification than
preaching the gospel. —(b) This probability is strengthened by the use of the
verb ebnyyeAio6n in iv. 6, provided that we are to consider that verse as having
any close relation to this. —(c) It is also strengthened, in some measure, by
the fact that the thought of Christ throughout all the remainder of the passage,
vy. 18-22, is that of saving, and not of condemning men.
10. The expression roi¢ év gvdAaxy mvetpacw is to be explained, as it would
seem, by observing two points: first, the word zvevzuow is most naturally
interpreted through its connection with mvevyuar: of ver. 18, and that word
suggests a contrast to oapxi; it would seem, therefore, most reasonable to
understand these spirits to be disembodied spirits, or spirits of those who had
already met physical death; secondly, as there is no particle, such as viv, to
indicate that the meaning is, spirits who are now in prison, and especially
nothing to indicate that the writer means persons who were alive in this world
at the time of the preaching, but whose spirits are now (at the time of his
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 749
writing) in prison, it is most reasonable, not to say necessary, to believe that
the condition of the persons as disembodied spirits, and the time of their
imprisonment, are to be determined in accordance with the time of the verb;
that is, they were already disembodied spirits at the time when Christ preached
tothem. As disembodied spirits in prison, they must have been in prison in
the spirit-world, not in this world; and as having the gospel preached to them,
they cannot as yet have been finally condemned. —11. The word aze@joaow is
antecedent in point of time to éxnpuSev, It is claimed by some that it can only
be immediately antecedent; and, therefore, that the time of the preaching must
have been nearly coincident with the time of the disobedience. This claim
may, however, be questioned or denied, with reference to the aorist participle
when employed as descriptive of particular persons, and especially in a case
like this, considering the defining of the time of the participle by sore 6re,
x.7.A, But even if it be allowed, in case the participle is merely descriptive,
this fact will by no means decide the question, because the participle may mean
although they were disobedient, and in this sense may undoubtedly be carried
back far beyond the time of txjpvgev, Wiesinger, as mentioned by Huther, and
some others, take the participle in this sense: although, etc. Moreover, the
absence of the article with azei@noacv is not to be regarded as excluding the
construction which makes it substantially equivalent to who were once disobe-
dient, as R. V., A. V., and many commentators explain the word. See Huther’s
remark in answer to Hofmann, in his note on ver. 19 (4). Affirmations with
respect to the impossibility of the use of a participial construction by a N. T.
writer, with a particular meaning, should be made only with the greatest caution,
and especially in cases where the great majority of scholars have not found the
alleged difficulty. As regards the omission of the article, even greater caution
should be exhibited. As Winer remarks, ‘‘ Whether the article is to be used or
omitted before the participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of the
writer.”’” And Buttmann most fitly adds, ‘“‘In the endeavor to lay down fixed
laws respecting the use of the article, many a learned and laborious inquiry has
already come to naught. A writer’s sovereign pleasure does not allow itself to
be curtailed, whenever it seems good to him to depart even from a well-founded
grammatical law.’’? A living writer has a living force within him, and at times
he answers the grammarian, who would fetter him with never-yielding rules,
as Paul answered the Jews: I am not under bondage to the letter, but in the
freedom of the spirit. —12. The close connection of tore dre, shows that these
two words together define the time, and the position of ore shows that the
fact or thing whose time is thus defined is that which is indicated by azei@noacw,
and not that Indicated by é«7pufev. — 18. The dre clause involves the statement
that the men who are alluded to lived, and also were disobedient, in the time of
Noah, and before the flood came. They sinned during the period when God
was, in that age, waiting with long-suffering.
The examination of this passage which is thus set forth is purely exegetical,
and is connected wholly with the natural meaning of the words, and their
relation to the sentences and the paragraph. The purpose of these notes is
exegetical, not doctrinal. If the suggestions offered are well-founded, they
show that, with respect to every word and phrase, the probability of the case
favors the interpretation of the passage, which makes it declare, that, after His
death and before His resurrection, Christ went to the place where the persons
mentioned were in their disembodied spiritual state, and there preached the
gospel to these persons, i.e., the persons who were disobedient in the time of
Noah, when, etc. It is to be observed, that the passage does not extend the
statement beyond the case of these particular persons. That it suggests the pos-
sibility of such an extension of the Divine grace, is the most that can be affirmed.
The view of this passage, other than that above given, which meets the least
difficulties as connected with the several probabilities mentioned, is that which
holds to the above explanation in all particulars, except with reference to
éxnovéev: but makes this verb contain the idea of a praedicatio damnatoria, a
proclamation by Christ to these spirits in prison of their coming final condem-
nation. It is claimed, on behalf of this view, that the verb x7ptccecy is, in itself,
a verb of indefinite meaning in regard to such a point as this, that it conveys
simply the idea of proclaiming as by a herald, and that the character of the
proclamation must be determined by the context. It is also claimed, that in
some passages in the N. T. there are indications of the designed application
of this idea of proclamation (expressed by this verb, or the kindred nouns) to
threatened punishment. Thus Jonah’s «ypvyua is spoken of in Matt. xii. 41,
Luke xi. 32: and in 2 Tim. iv. 2, the words fAcygov and émripnoov are added to
xnovéor, showing that a part of the proclamation was of this character. It is
to be observed, however, that the passages in Matthew and Luke do not refer to
Christ’s preaching; and that Jonah’s proclamation was, as the sequel showed,
and also these verses themselves indicate, with a view to repentance; and in the
case of 2 Timothy, the rebuking, etc., is only a part of the gospel preaching,
subordinate to the end of securing the salvation of those to whom it is addressed.
As stated above, wherever Christ is either the subject or the object of the verb
" xnpvooev, in the N. T., the verb is substantially equivalent to evay)eAicer. This
fact seems to the writer of this note to determine the probability of its meaning
in the present instance, and to exclude the idea of a praedicatio damnatoria.
The view of the passage which makes it refer to a preaching of Christ, in
and through the person of Noah, before the flood, or to “‘a gracious activity
on the part of the pre-incarnate Christ, a preaching in the form of the Divine
warnings of the time, the spectacle of the building of the ark, etc.,’’ encounters
all the improbabilities and difficulties mentioned. The only grammatical or
linguistic point which has been held to be decisive in favor of this view, is that
connected with the aorist participle de@j0acrv, which has been already alluded
to in the earlier part of this note. The decisiveness of this point is not admitted
by the great majority of interpreters. The position taken by the advocates of
this view, in general, is, so far as the sentence in itself is concerned, that which
makes the reference to a preaching in the time of Noah possible, rather than
necessary, the point mentioned with respect to the aorist participle not being
insisted upon.
The discussion of the passage thus far has dealt with the words and phrases
of the passage itself. There are considerations derived from the context, or the
New Testament elsewhere, which have a bearing on the question which is pre-
sented by ver. 19, and which ought to be candidly weighed before coming toa
decision. The first of these is the fact, that an allusion to a preaching of Christ
to these persons, long after their death, seems quite remote from the direct line
of thought in the context. With regard to this point, the following remarks
may be made: (a) that such remoteness, it must be admitted, impresses the
mind of the reader at the first view of the passage; (b) that on any other expla-
nation of the passage, however, somewhat of the same remoteness is evident.
The real difficulty in the case is to explain how the writer is led to introduce
here any allusion to Noah, the flood, the men of that age, and the subject of
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 751
baptism as antitypical of the flood. It seems strange to find the words of vv.
19-21 connected with the thought of ver. 18a, and what precedes ver. 18. If
we can account for the allusion to Noah’s time, etc., we may perhaps as easily
account for the reference to a preaching to the persons of that age after Christ’s
death, as for a similar reference to a preaching before Noah’s death. The
attempts to explain the allusion to this matter by those who hold that the
preaching followed Christ’s death, have been as successful, to say the least, as
those of the interpreters who hold the other view. Compare, for example, what
is said as to this point by Alford, on the one side, and by the writer (Professor
Salmond) in Schaff’s Pop. Comm. on the other. — The second of the considera-
tions drawn from outside of the passage is connected with the general indications
of the N. T. as to the question whether the offer of salvation or the proclama-
tion of the gospel is made to men after death. With respect to this point, the
writer of this note would say: (a) that, in his judgment, the general] impression
produced upon the mind of the candid reader of the N. T. is, that the apostolic
writers and Christ Himself do not continue the offer of salvation beyond the
present life; (¥) that they lay an emphasis, at times, on the present life as
the period for securing salvation, or on death as the limit, which is most easily
explained if we hold that such was their teaching; (c) that the few passages
(leaving the present one, as being here under discussion, out of view) in which
the opportunity for recovery after death may be suggested as a possibility, can
be satisfactorily explained without making them convey this idea, and that, not
improbably, they should be thus explained; the candid scholar, however, will, in
this case as in all others, carefully and justly estimate the force of al] passages,
on whichever side of the question they may seem to give their evidence; (d) that
the absence of any definite and full unfolding of the condition of things in the
period following death, which, at least so far as details are concerned, is notice-
able throughout the New Testament, may have its proper weight in determining
our view of doubtful passages; and that the absence of allusions to the interme-
diate state between death and the last judgment may also be justly taken into
consideration; (e) that there may have been reasons in the Divine mind, for the
presentation of the gospel after death to those persons who lived in the time of
the flood, which are unknown to us, and which did not, and do not, exist in the
case of other persons; and that an exception to the general law, made in their
case, does not necessarily prevent the existence of such a generai law for all
other men, which places the limit of the opportunity for salvation at death;
(f) that the possible hint of a future opportunity for some other men beyond
the particular class mentioned, which this verse may be supposed to suggest,
and which can hardly be denied as a possibility, if the preaching was to the
spirits in prison after Christ’s death, must be most carefully compared with and
adjusted by other passages, which seem more or less distinctly to declare the
opposite, before any doctrine as to such opportunity is accepted or believed by
the New-Testament interpreter because of the statement of this passage. These
points must all be fairly and fully considered in estimating the force of the gen-
era) teaching of the N. T. as bearing against that interpretation of ver. 19 which
makes it mean, that Christ preached to the departed spirits of the men of Noah's
time after His own death. — A third point, connected with what is outside of the
present context, is the fact that in 2 Pet. ii. 6, Noah is spoken of as a preacher
of righteousness (x7puxa dixawoabvnc), in connection with a statement as to the
bringing of the flood upon the ungodly; and a somewhat kindred idea, though
without the word «fpvé, is presented in Heb. xi. 7. If the authorship of 2 Peter
152 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
by the apostle is to be admitted, the allusion in that Epistle to Noah as a
preacher, and that, too, in a passage having some similarity to the present one,
may possibly serve to indicate what he intended to say here; and even if the
Petrine authorship of the second Epistle is rejected, the two passages in
Hebrews and 2 Peter may show something of the habit of thought, in this
regard, of the earliest Christian writers. This argument must not be pressed
beyond the limits of its proper force. The same writer does not always follow
the same line of thinking in such allusions. What his sentence legitimately
means is far more indicative of his present thought, than what he says else-
where and at another time. And especially is it true that one writer may
deviate, in such a matter, from the forms of expression of other writers.
The passage, it must be confessed, is one beset with difficulties, and involved
to some extent in obscurity. It becomes those who deal with it in the matter
of doctrinal statements, or doctrinal controversies and questionings, to approach
it and study it with the calm, unprejudiced, teachable, and peaceable spirit of
the most candid and reverential exegetical scholar.
[Kiih] holds that the connection of the words shows the reference of év @ (ver.
19), to be only to mvetyart, The apostle accordingly says that Christ went &
mvetpari, and not (worondeic rvevuart, to the doing of what is indicated by éx7pugev,
x.7.A, As Christ, when He was in the condition described by Qwo7. ™., was no
longer év mvevyari, but év couart mvevpatixng, and as He was, while yet on earth,
not év 7v., but év oapxi, the time referred to in this expression must be the time
between His death and His resurrection. If this position is correct, the refer-
ence to a preaching through Noah, or in Noah’s time, is excluded by the words
themselves. — With respect to the spirits in prison, Kith] holds that the phrase
describes the present condition of the spirits at the time of the preaching,
gudaxg referring to Hades, He differs slightly from Huther, in that he regards
it as impossible to decide whether the reference is to the whole kingdom of the
dead, or to that part of it which serves as the abode for the souls of the ungodly
until the day of judgment. If iv. 6 is connected with this passage, he thinks
the reference 18 to the former. — He regards ropev@eic as indicating a real, as it
were, spatial, going. — The verb «nptcoew is here, he says, as everywhere in the
N. T., the technical expression for that proclamation of the gospel which offers
salvation; and thus he regards the end in view of the proclamation as being the
same with that of the preaching of the gospel on earth, — namely, to present
the offer of salvation to those spirits.
The view which holds that the preaching was a praedicatio damnatoria,
he declares to be wholly arbitrary, and apparently connected with an idea of
the passage, which is contrary to the true one, —namely, that the prominent
thought of the verses is that of judgment, whereas it is, in fact, that of the
blessed results of Christ’s death, and of the Messianic salvation. In connection
with the past tense of the verb éxjpvgev, and the past participle sopevGeic, he
holds that the participle ame@7cacv with wore must be pluperfect in sense, and
that the meaning must be, he preached to the spirits which had been formerly
disobedient, etc., and not, he preached to them when they were, etc.; with the
latter idea, the writer would have joined roré with éxjpvgev.— As the result of
his exegesis of the passage, Kiihl holds: (a) that Christ, as tvevua, went to
Hades, and preached there to the spirits; (b) that the time of His thus going
and preaching was between His death and His resurrection; (c) that the
purpose of His preaching was to offer salvation to all the spirits, without
exception. That all the spirits are meant by the apostle’s words, he regards as
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 758
indicated by the absence of the article before are@ycanv, The article, he
thinks, would have been necessary if the writer had meant only the disobedi-
ent ones of Noah’s time. The true meaning is, as he holds: He preached to
the spirits in prison, to such He preached as had been disobedient, etc. The
reference is, accordingly, to all, with a certain special designation of the men
of Noah’s time. This special designation he explains in connection with the
fact that the contemporaries of Noah are viewed in the N. T. (comp. Matt.
xxiv. 37f., Luke xvii. 26f.) as typical of mankind, as fallen deeply under the
power of sin. The participle dreéjoaow has, he thinks, a certain special
emphasis: to the spirits, etc., yea, even to such as, etc. ]
14. The remark of Huther with respect to ver. 20 is worthy of special notice,
and is in accordance with what is undoubtedly the fact in the case, namely, that
‘* the stress is laid, not so much on the judgment which overtook unbelievers in
the flood, as on the deliverance of the few.’? The whole passage is illustrative
of the statement that Christ suffered for sins, that He might bring men to God;
in other words, of His work to the end of salvation. —15. The view which
Huther takes of the preposition da as being instrumental, rather than local, is
probably correct. The few who entered into the ark were borne safely on by
the water, and thus, in a certain sense, were saved by means of water. This is
indicated by the statement of the next verse, which presents the idea of water
. (in connection with baptism) as saving us. The presentation of the water of
baptism as the antitype of the water of the flood, must be regarded as a com-
parison or antitypical correspondence which reaches, as it were, the limits of the
figurative; and a part of the special difficulty and obscurity of this whole pas-
sage — not to say, the very centre of it—is to be found here. The point of the
comparison would seem to be connected with the fact that the water bearing up
the ark was the means of saving Noah and his family. Ina similar way, water,
as the means by which baptism takes place, is also the the means by which the
Christian is, as it were, borne safely into his Christian life and salvation. That
the water, in the second case, is not the primary means or the direct cause of the
salvation, as also it was not in the first case, is proved by the words which
follow, which words show that the actual saving element of Christian baptism
is not found in the water, but in the state of the mind towards God. It was the
entrance into the ark which was the salvation of Noah’s family, and it is union
of heart with God which is the salvation of the believer. The expression, not
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, indicates that what the writer has in
mind is not what water, in itself, can accomplish.
16. The question as to the meaning of érepornua is one which cannot be
answered with confidence. On the whole, it seems to the writer of this note,-
that the word question most probably represents the meaning of the Greek
word. This is confessedly the meaning in classical Greek, and appears to be
not inconsistent with the general thought of the sentences. The preposition ec,
being added to the noun, naturally carries the meaning to the point either of
making it equivalent to question directed towards, or inquiry after. With
either of these meanings, the genitive ovvedjcews dyadi¢ is to be regarded as a
subjective genitive. The idea of the whole sentence would seem, accordingly,
to be this: that baptism, with its application of water, does not find its true sig-
nificance in a cleansing of the outward man, but in the movement of the pure
inner man towards God. Whether this movement is represented as a question-
ing of the soul directed towards God, or an inquiry and seeking of the soul after
Him—in either case, the same general condition of the soul is indicated. Per-
154 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
haps inquiry after is the most simple and best rendering, as corresponding with
érepwrav cic, The objection urged by Huther, that the idea is thus incomplete,
inasmuch as the contents of the question or request are not stated, is not one of
serious importance, because the reader, with either of these two nearly-allied
meanings of éneporqua, will readily understand what movement of the soul is in
the writer’s thought. —17. The phrase d¢ dvaordceur is best connected with owe.
Baptism, In the sense indicated, saves the believer by means of the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ is referred to here, apparently, for
two reasons: first, because this great fact is the ground on which the results of
His death are secured, and the life of the Christian in union with God is carried
forward in its development; and, secondly, because the author has the desire to
set forth the facts with regard to Christ’s own experience, from His suffering
of death for sin to His exaltation at the right hand of God. [Kiihl agrees with
Huther in regarding d:@ of ver. 20, as instrumental. — He holds that by the
words éxepwrnua, x.t.A, (ver. 21), baptism is described as a request addressed to
God, for power and strengthening to the end of dyaSomowiv, on the ground of
which dya@. we can have a good conscience. The connection of the thought
of the good conscience with good action, which is suggested in ver. 16, appears
in another form here, even though there may be no immediate connection
between the two verses. — He agrees with Huther in connecting &' dvactaceuc
with cocker. ]
XX.
CHAPTER IV.
Vv. 1-6.
1. These verses contain a new exhortation in the line of what precedes, and
one which takes up the thought of Christ’s suffering, as set forth in iii. 18. In
this passage, ovv evidently connects the new exhortation with the reference to
Christ’s death, according to the flesh; capxi is the dative of reference: so far
forth as the oap£ is concerned; é7Aicacée is used because the thought is of
defence against the assaults of persecution, etc.; évvov is perhaps best trans-
lated by thought, with the sense as given by Huther: ‘‘they should not refuse
the thought of, like Him, suffering according to the flesh,’’ but there is some
reason to believe that the word may mean mind, in the sense of disposition of
mind. Alford holds that it means intent or resolution, and appeals to Eur. Hel.
1012, and Isocr. p. 112d; 6 za@ov, «.7.A., seems to have a certain reference to
the first words of ver. 1, but not to be limited, in its application, to Christ; these
words appear, rather, to be an encouragement to the readers to be ready to suffer,
by reason of the thought that the result of such suffering in the course of true
Christian living is a ceasing of subjection to the power of sin. The believer
ceases from his connection with sin, after a kindred manner to that in which
Christ ceased from His (widely different) relation to it. —2. The phrase e¢ rd
pnxért, x.7.4., of ver. 2, is, no doubt, rightly explained by Huther as connected
with érAicace. It expresses the end in view of the exhortation. If the readers
armed themselves with the same thought, as related to sufferings in the right-
eous Christian life, which was in Christ, they would cease to live in accordance
with, as governed by the rule of, the lusts of men, and would be governed by
the will of God. The ém:@vuiat here referred to are evidently the unholy desires
of men apart from God, and especially those which characterized the lives of
the heathen, by whom the readers were surrounded, and which are indicated in
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 155
ver. 3.—3. The contrast of the time past to the remaining time shows clearly
the correctness of Huther’s remark, that oapxi denotes here, as in ver. 1, the
earthly human nature, to which the mortal body belongs. The third verse is
introduced as a ground or reason for the pnxéte Bidoat, x.7.A. It would seem to
indicate that a considerable proportion, at least, of the readers had been
heathen before their conversion. [Kuh] agrees with Huther that fvvouy (ver. 1)
means thought. He regards wémavra: as in the middle voice: he has ceased
from sin. The idea of Peter, as here expressed, does not correspond with that
of Paul in Rom. vi.; the thought of Paul being that of a dying in the spiritual
sense, while that of Peteris of suffering according to the flesh. The word
madov, in both parts of the verse, is used with reference to outward sufferings.
— Kiihl thinks the expression to have wrought the will of the Gentiles (ver. 3)
is an indication that before their conversion, the readers were not Gentiles, but
Jews. It was the Jews only who were prepared by special Divine revelations,
and bound thereby to live, not according to human desires, but to the Divine
will. The word aGéu:roc, he regards, also, as appropriate only for Jews. ]
4. The words év 6 of ver. 4 are translated by A. V. and R. V. by wherein,
and if this may be regarded as meaning: their astonishment that you do not go
on in the same course, and with a similar excess of riot with themselves, arises
and moves in the sphere of this fact, —this explanation may be the best one.
The sense would thus approach closely towards Huther’s explanation, who
makes év 5 mean: because, or on account of the fact that, you have thus
walked, they are surprised that, etc. If the English versions refer by wherein
to the former heathen life of revellings, etc., and make it limit the words, run
not to the same excess of rivt, the meaning given by them is less in accordance
with the sentence than that given by making év @ equivalent to because. The
genitive absolute yu ovvrpexovtur, x.7.A., is causal. —5. Ver. 5 points to the
judgment awaiting these heathen revilers, as a thing which, when under per-
secution, under the injury coming from being defamed, etc., the Christian
readers should bear in mind. The enemy was not alwgys to triumph, or to
have power against them: God was their avenger, their support, and the
mighty power on their side; and the day of judgment was to come. — The
phrase rq éroiuus éxovrt indicate’ the nearness of the judgment, according to its
most natural interpretation, and may thus have a bearing upon the question as
to Peter's view with regard to the parousia. [Kih] agrees with Huther that
év 3 (ver. 4) is to be understood as meaning because. — He holds that vexpoi of
ver. 5 refers to all the dead, and that the apostle has in mind, and makes prom-
inent, the universality of the judgment.]
6. The living and dead mentioned in ver. 5 are thus described, apparently,
with reference to the matter and time of the judgment; and thus the meaning
is, that the Lord will judge all, whether they be living at the time of judgment,
or whether they have died before that time. There is no necessary limitation
of the expression to the revilers, etc., here spoken of; but from the general
character of the words, the thought suggested is, that, as the judgment is to be
passed upon all, whether living or dead, it will come upon these men. —7. Ver.
6 is introduced by yap, as a ground of what js said in ver. 5. It is evident that
in ver. 6 the case of the vexpo is made the subject of thought, the Govrec being
no longer in mind. The statement of the verse is, that something was done
or occurred to the dead to the end of their being judged, and thus they are
brought under the xpivac of the preceding verse. The thing which was thus
done is set forth in the word cv7y)eAiobn, and the purpose of this verb is
756 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
presented in the iva clause. The determination of the writer’s meaning must
depend, or partly depend, on the true explanation of this verb, as affected by
what follows the final particle. It will be noticed that the verb is in the aorist
tense. It must therefore, as it would seem, refer to a time past, either as
related to the time of writing the sentence, or as related to the time of judg-
ment. The fact that vexpotv¢ of ver. 5 is used of those who shall be dead at the
time of the judgment may favor the latter reference; but the natural under-
standing of a past tense, which sets forth a fact, as indicating a fact which
is already past when the word is written, points most strongly to the former
reference. When we add to the fact of this natural understanding of the
tense, the striking presentation of a certain class of persons, belonging to the
O. T. history, in the earlier part of the passage which closes with the present
verse, —namely, the men who lived just before the flood, ili. 19,—the case
becomes much stronger for this first view of the meaning. There seem,
therefore, to be weighty reasons to believe that, in this verse, the apostle is
speaking again of those whom he has mentioned already, and that he alludes
to the same thing in ebyyyetic#y to which he alluded in éxgpvéev in iii. 19. If
this is correct, the verb evyyy. determines the meaning of the verb é«qpvéev, and
the time of the act indicated by both is one and the same.—8. The word
vexnoi¢c of ver. 6 is, in its form, as unlimited as vexpotc of ver. 5; but it does not
seem to follow from this necessarily, that it is actually, according to the writer’s
thought, as unlimited in its application. The expression, in both cases, is not
of vexpoi, but vexpoi, and thus the persons referred to are described according to
the peculiarity of their condition, rather than as the whole of aclass. In such
a form of expression, the whole class may be designated, or it may not be:
the decision will depend on the suggestions of the sentence or the context. In
ver. 5 all the indications of the sentence point to the word as denoting the
whole company of the dead, but in ver. 6 the suggestions already made may
show that a more special reference is intended. —It ought to be remarked,
however, that, while this word in ver. 6 may refer to a special section of the
dead, it is contrary to all the indications of the passage to make it mean, in
the one verse, persons who are dead in a different sense from that in which the
persons mentioned in the other verse are dead, — ver. 6 meaning the spiritually
dead, and ver. 5 the physically dead. —9. The reader should observe that, in the
éva clause, the first verb is in the aorist tense, and the second in the present.
This fact is significant, and seems to show that the words iva xpiQcow do not
prove the preaching to have taken place before the death of the persons referred
to. Rather does the form of the sentence in this regard indicate the correct-
ness of Huther’s view of it: that while xpi@cov and (cow are grammatically
co-ordinated, the former verb holds, in the thought, a subordinate position,
and that the meaning of the clause is: in order that they, after the flesh,
indeed, judged by death, may live according to the spirit. As Canon Cook
says, the term «pony ‘is evidently used with reference to their previous state,
not to the time of the announcement.’’ He also says, ‘‘ The Greek makes a
distinction between the two propositions: the former does not apply to the
effect of the tidings, but to the condition of those who were addressed; the
next proposition, but live, tells us what was the ultimate and perfect effect
upon those who were prepared to receive it.”’—10. The datives capxi and
mvevuart are to be explained as datives of reference: so far forth as the flesh, or
the spirit, is concerned; as regards the flesh, or the spirit. The expressions
xara dvéponoug, xara Oedv, mean after the manner of men, God, in such a manner
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 757
as corresponds with the nature of man and the law of his being, —-in such a
manner as answers to the life of God and as He imparts His own life to men.
[Kiih] holds that the special emphasis in ver. 6 is on vexpoi¢. This is clear, as
he thinks, both from the repetition of this word, and from the «ai, This «ai
points to the contrast to the @yrec, to whom also the gospel is preached; and as
these (ovrec are the same as those in ver. 5, the vexpot in this verse must be the
same with the vexpoi in ver. 5. All the dead are referfed to here, as in the pre-
vious verse, and thus the gospel, he thinks, is declared to be preached to all the
dead. — The explanation of «pido: and (wor, and of the iva clause, in which
these verbs are found, which is favored by Huther, is adopted by Kiihl. — The
idea lying at the foundation of the thought of ver. 6, in its connection with
ver. 5, is, as he thinks, that a judgment of the dead is to be thought of only in
case the possibility of salvation is given them through the proclamation of the
gospel. }
In the consideration of this whole passage from ili. 18 to iv. 6, it is impor-
tant to keep in remembrance the fact, that the apostle has in mind not only an
exhortation for his readers in the midst of persecutions and revilings, and an
encouragement for them as connected with Christ’s experience and His work,
but that he has also the desire to set forth the experience of Christ for its own
sake, as connected with His glorification, and His work, in itself, as leading
to the end of life and salvation. These two things are interwoven together
throughout the passage, and the interpreter who does not bear this in mind is
liable to misapprehension of the apostle’s thought. — The work of Christ
is represented here, as it is everywhere in the N. T., as tending towards the
salvation of men. He suffered, that they might be forgiven, and delivered
from sin. He rose again, that the new life might be secured within them. He
ascended to the right hand of God, exalted above the highest powers, that His
people and His kingdom might be forever triumphant. The bearing of this
upon the two difficult verses iii. 19 and iv. 6, whatever our final decision as
to their meaning may be, will be carefully estimated by all who properly
examine them as parts of this passage.
XXI
Vv. 7-11.
1. The seventh verse sets forth, In a brief and distinct statement, the near-
ness of the end of all things. This statement seems to be suggested by the
thought of the approaching judgment; and in this way the discourse passes on
from what precedes to this new paragraph. The exhortations of this paragraph
are directed, in the first place, towards that sober-mindedness, love to one an-
other, etc., which are befitting in view of the nearness of the end, and secondly,
to that devotion to the use of the peculiar gifts and duties belonging to each
believer, as an individual, which may promote the glory of God, —a thing which
also becomes the believer, especially as the time of the end draws near. —2. The
two verbs, cwgpovnoare and »7pare, are kindred in meaning: the former is ren-
dered by R. V., be of sound mind; the latter, be sober. Both verbs convey the
idea of that sober and temperate condition of mind, which restrains and governs
all undue passion, and abides in a serious thought of life, its duties and its mean-
ing. The words ei¢ mpooevyac, which designate the end in view of the verb vinpare,
bring before us the thought of that communion with God in prayer, which is so
758 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
often presented in the N. T. as the very atmosphere of the Christian’s life. —
3. The expression po ravruy is not to be regarded as setting love above prayer;
for the comparison is not with prayer, but with sober-mindedness. Expressions
of this character, we may believe, are not to be pressed to the absolute literal-
‘ness and fulness of their meaning. They are used many times, no doubt, as
indicating what the writer regards as most important to be urged in connection
with some special point which he has in mind at the time, and occasionally even
with a mere rhetorical earnestness. The love which he would urge them to
have is intense, on the stretch, fervent; and he would press this upon them
with special emphasis, because love covers a multitude of sins. The remark of
Leighton on this verse probably gives the true idea of the meaning: ‘‘ Hatred
stirs strife [the first words of the O. T. passage (Prov. x. 12) from which not
improbably this verse is borrowed], aggravates, and makes the worst of all; but
love covers, etc.; it delights not in undue disclosing of brethren’s failings, doth
not eye them rigidly, nor expose them willingly to the eyes of others.’’
4. The exhortation to hospitality follows naturally upon that which urges to
love, as this was one of the prominent forth-puttings of love at that period of
the history of the Church. The expression avev yoyyvoyod is really involved
in the idea of geAdgevox, — loving hospitality is without murmuring or complain-
ing, an ungrudging gift of Christian brotherly love.
5. The exhortations with respect to the yapiouara correspond closely, though
much of the language used is different, with what is said by Paul in Rom. xii. 6 ff.
These verses (10, 11) may indicate the true view respecting Peter’s language in
such cases, — that it was possibly affected in some measure by his knowledge of
what Paul had written, but that it was not borrowed from Paul, and that the
thought was suggested by the needs of the readers for whom he wrote, by which
he was himself impressed. — What Paul expresses in Romans and 1 Corinthians
by the verb uepifw, — the distribution of the gifts according to the measure of the
grace of God bestowed in each gift, —is here hinted at by Peter, apparently, in
the word zotxiAnc. —6. Peter specializes only two gifts, one in the line of the
teacher’s or prophet’s office; the other, in that of the diaconate. With regard
to the individual words of the eleventh verse, it may be observed, that Aadd isa
general word which may cover the utterances both of the-diddoxadog and the
mpogntns ; that Aoy:a evidently here means words or utterances communicated by
God, thus teachings and revelations; ‘cxyvog means strength or ability (‘‘to the
extent of one’s ability,”’ Grimm), which is regarded as supplied in every case
by God according to His own will; év maow means in all things, rather than in
all persons, the reference being to the varied things suggested by the preceding
words respecting the gifts; ¢, in the duxology, is to be understood as referring
to God, as Huther and most recent commentators take it. The doxological
passages in the N. T. almost universally refer to God, and here God is mani-
festly the prominent subject of thought. Though it is evidently possible to
refer the relative to 'Inoov Xporov, and this is the nearest name in the sentence,
Christ is so entirely secondary in the sentence, the instrumental agent through
whom the glory comes to God, that the ascription of glory to Him at the close
of the whole paragraph is altogether improbable. [Kiihl, like Huther, connects
the exhortation to sobriety and sound-mindedness, through the particle ov
(ver. 7), with the thought of the nearness of the end. The participles and
adjectives of the following clauses, he would regard as grammatically depend-
ent on cugpovycare xal vayure, The turn of thought from ver. 8 to ver. 9 Is
from forgiving love to ministering and serving love. The word xapioza (ver. 10)
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 159
does not refer, he thinks, to extraordinary gifts, but to the capacity to use
one’s ordinary gifts for the service of others, and the good of the church. —
Inasmuch as the words did ‘Igcov Xporod (ver. 11) hold a subordinate position
as related to the verb doga{yrat, which contains the principal idea, Kiih) regards
it as impossible to refer the doxology to Christ. ]
XXIL
Vv. 12-19.
1. The apostle now passes to a further line of exhortation with respect to
suffering under persecution, showing by this repeated reference, and the careful
and solemn drawing-out of the matter, how largely this subject was occupying
his mind. The introduction of the word dyaryroi again at this place may be
intended to give emphasis to the new presentation of this urgent request and
demand. —2. The subject is opened by bidding the readers not to think it
strange that they should meet with severe trials. The dative ry tupdce is a
dative used with this verb, and seems to mean at or with reference to. The
participle ycvouevy is present, and indicates that the fiery trial is now happening,
orcoming upon them. The ripwor is evidently here used of the persecutions,
etc., which, as a refiner’s fire, were designed of God to be for a proving or test-
ing of their Christian character. —3. In contrast to such a thought of these
trials as strange, they should, so far forth as (xa@v) they participated in Christ’s
sufferings by undergoing experiences of a similar character, rejoice in order
that, etc.,—that is, they should be in that state of joy in their sharing of
Christ’s sufferings which is the legitimate preparation for the joy hereafter, at
the time of the revelation of His glory, in the participation in that glory. The
participle ayaAAwpevo, with exultant joy, gives not only a characteristic of
the heavenly rejoicing, but also therewith an incitement to the preparation
for it. —4. Ver. 14 adds an encouragement to obey the exhortation, which is
founded on the proof, which their suffering in the name of Christ gives, that
they have the Divine Spirit resting upon them. The Divine Spirit is also called
the Spirit of glory, as we may believe, because the gpostle’s thought is of the
glory of the future as the ground of the exultant joy of the future. The Spirit
whose characteristic is glory, and who thus can give it, rests permanently upon
suffering followers of Christ, and thus the joy of the future is assured, because
the glorifying process is ever going forward towards its consummation at the
end. —5. yup of ver. 15 is best taken with Alford, as giving the ground for
the supplied thought: ‘I say, In the name of Christ,” for it is not of the suffer-
ing indicated in ver. 15, but of that indicated in ver. 16, that the macarism can
be uttered and the glory now and hereafter can be predicated. —6. The peculiar
word adAorpioerioxnotog occurs nowhere else in the N. T., and seems somewhat
strange as connected with such words as “thief” and “murderer.” The connec-
tion apparently indicates such an interfering in the way of attempted oversight,
etc., as would be likely to provoke hostility, and thus bring violent treatment
from the other (heathen) party upon themselves. The word meptepyacouevos,
which Paul uses in 2 Thess. fif. 11, is a kindred word, and is nearly, though
perhaps not precisely, equivalent in meaning. [Kiih] regards the passage from
ver. 12 to ver. 19 as a new section with which chap. v. is closely connected,
and the suggestions in which refer to sufferings, etc., within the church, and
occasioned by persons who were in the membership of the church. — He regards
760 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
the use of the words fevisecde and févov as indicating the early date of the
Epistle, —a time when such experiences might be looked upon as strange or
surprising. — He agrees with Huther in taking yup of ver. 15 as equivalent to
that is to say, or namely, and not as a causal particle. }
7. The term xotorcavocg occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only in Acts xi. 26,
xxvi. 28. Whether it is here used as a mere designation of the believers as
followers of Christ, or whether, on the other hand, the idea of scorn or con-
tempt lies in the name as used by those outside of the church, may be ques-
tioned. The verb which follows, let him not be ashamed, may indicate the
latter. The second of the two imperatives, let him glorify God, indicates that
he should praise God that he is thus permitted to suffer for the sake of Christ.
The phrase to évouatt rovry may mean, in the sphere of this name of Chris-
tian, or of the name of Christ. The év, in either case, means in (in the sphere
of) in the sense of on account of. —8. The particle 6r: of ver. 17 introduces the
reference to the judgment as the ground for not being ashamed, but for glorify-
ing God. The word xa:poc suggests the idea of the appointed time as already
at hand; and the writer apparently conceives of the persecutions, etc., which
serve the end of severely trying and testing the Christians, as the beginning of
that judgment of God which is to be consummated at the parousia, and to
result in the final condemnation of the ungodly. He thus takes into his thought
the whole epoch of the parousia, if it may be so designated, including the calam-
ities, etc., preceding it, as well as the parousia itself, and its attendant events.
This passage furnishes strong evidence, therefore, that the writer regarded him-
self and his readers as being already in the last times. —9. The preposition aro
conveys the idea of the moving of the judgment from its beginning-point, the
house of God, towards the unchristian world. The same thought is presented
in mporov ag’ fuov, — The word réAoc means the final result, that which will be
the issue of the judgment for the disobedient and unrighteous. — MoAc, scarcely,
apparently refers to the difficulty of passing the judgment. As Keil says, the
believer is not free from sin before God, who tries the reins and hearts, but
comes short of the glory of God, and cannot, therefore, base his salvation on
his own good works and his own merits; but owes it only to the Divine grace,
which forgives his sins, — ot gaveirat ; where will he appear? j.e., he will not
be able to appear at all as standing before God In the judgment. This question
is equivalent to an emphatic negative, as frequently in the Pauline Epistles. —
10. The omission of o¢ in ver. 19 before moro xtiorg, is in accordance with the
best authorities, and the expression gains by means of it its best form. The
readers are exhorted in the midst of their sufferings to commit their souls in
well-doing to a faithful Creator. These sufferings are in accordance with the
will of their Creator; and, as they trust in Him, Ie will be faithful to them in
the fulfilment of His plan for their salvation. The phrase év uya@orote indicates
the sphere within which their life and action shoul! be, as they commit them-
selves to the protection of God; and, being placed where it is at the end of the
sentence, and of the whole section on the matter of suffering, it emphatically
turns the thought again to the main idea of doing good, and not evil, and thus
leaves the impression of this idea as the final impression on the reader’s mind.
[Kihl thinks the words in this name may refer either to the name Christian or
Christ, but is apparently inclined to favor the latter reference. — He regards the
words where will he appear as indicating that the ungodly will, as Keil says, go
away from the Divine judgment ei¢ dmadAetav, — He connects «al, of ver. 19, with
macxovrec, and not, a8 Huther does, with dore, The latter construction is not
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 761
found in the N.T., he says. He thinks the thought here presented is in the
sphere of the earliest Christian teaching, wherein that which is specifically
Christian sometimes, in a remarkable way, retires into the background. }
XXIIL
CHAPTER V.
Vv. 1-7.
1. There can be but little doubt that in ver. 1 the apostle addresses official
elders. This is indicated both by the fact that he speaks of himself as cupmpeoBi-
tepo¢, a word which can hardly apply to age only, and by what he calls upon the
persons addressed to do, and not to do, —to tend che flock of God as shepherds,
and to exercise oversight; and, on the other hand, not to lord it over the charge
committed to them. On the contrary, when he addresses the vewrepo: in ver. 5,
since there were no officials bearing this designation, he must mean the younger
in years; and by tpecGurépow, in the same verse, he must mean the elder in years.
The change in the sense of psofurépa¢ from that of the same word in ver. 1 is
far less improbable than the use of the adjective vewrepoe to designate the
younger ministry, or the church as contrasted with the elders. The word zpecfi-
Tepes, as employed in the N. T., has two meanings; the word vewrepoc but one.
We should determine the signification of the word which has a double possi-
bility of meaning, in a case like this, by the one which has only a single mean-
ing. —2. The exhortation to the elders to do their work is founded, by the
particle ovv, on what goes before; possibly on the idea suggested by ayatoroug
of iv. 19, possibly on this idea as being, in a sense, the basis of the whole
thought from iii. 14 onward. —8. Peter calls himself a fellow-elder, as John, in
the second and third Epistles, speaks of himself as the elder, because in the
essential idea of oversight, and of the tending of the flock, he was in the same
position with the elders. In one sense, as an apostle he was above them, and in
the exercise of a higher function; but in another, they and he were substantially .
alike. We can hardly fail to be reminded, by the apostle’s exhortation here, of
the bidding which Jesus gave to him after His resurrection, John xxi. 16.—
4. That he was also a witness of the sufferings of Christ, is mentioned as a part
of his likeness to the other elders. This word uapris, according to the common
use in the N. T., means rather a bearer of testimony than an eye-witness. As
used by Peter respecting himself, however, we may believe that it carried within
it to his own mind, and also to the minds of his first readers, the latter idea in
connection with the former. He was one of those apostles to whom Jesus said,
‘*‘ And ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.’
— 5. The allusion to the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that shall be revealed,
connects this passage with the closing part of chap. iv.; and this fact may indi-
cate, that, in his exhortation to the elders to shepherd or tend the flock of God,
he had in mind, as a thing of some prominence, the bringing them under the
influence of thoughts such as those with the presentation of which the preced-
ing chapter closes. [Kiih] regards the first words of ver. 1 as substantially
equivalent to: presbyters among you, i.e., if there are such among you who are
eldest in years. He finds here an indication that Peter thought it possible that
in many of the churches there might be no presbyters, and thus an indication
of the early date of the Epistle. — He regards the word udprvc as not referring
to the fact, that, as an apostle, he had been an eye-witness of the sufferings of
T62 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Christ, but only as meaning a witness, in the sense that he bore tes.imony of
them. The emphasis in respect to the witnessing is found in the fact that he is
a participator in the sufferings. — He thinks the vewrepo: here spoken of were a
particular body, or class of young men, who were assigned to duties in subordi-
nation to the elders (presbyters)].
6. The participle émoxorotvrec is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.,
but is accepted by Tischendorf, R. V., and most of the best recent commen-
tators. If read, this verse becomes one among the several passages tending to
prove that the two titles éwicxonog and npeoBurepog belonged to the same office,
and were, in this sense, equivalent to each other. —7. The proper discharge of
the duty of the office of elder is set forth by means of three contrasts: the first,
that it should be with willingness, and not by constraint; i.e., the elder should
be moved by an inward impulse, and not by a compelling influence from outside
of himself; the second, that it should be with the readiness and zeal of a warm-
hearted soul (out of love to the thing itself, as Huther says), and not under the
influence of base avariciousness (alozpoxepda¢ is strictly equivalent to aicypod
xépdov xapiv, Tit. i. 11, which passage Huther refers to); the third, that it should
be with the desire of inspiring and helping the members of the churches by the
example of their own Christian living, and not in the way of exercising authority
and being oppressive governors. The apostle thus carefully guards against the
idea of an authoritative priesthood, lording it over the church. The elder is to
be a shepherd, tending the flock with a loving oversight. He is to be moved by
no desire of authority, but to be an example to those under his pastoral charge,
and to be moved by the noblest and most unselfish impulses only to earnest
effort and care. — The word «Ajpwy is explained as a plural correctly by Huther.
It refers to the several congregations under the charge of the several elders. —
8. Following the exhortation, we find the assurance of reward given to the
elders. The reward is the doa, which is referred toin ver. 1. It is called here
an amarantine crown. The adjective is explained by Huther and others as
derived from the substantive audpavroc, and thus as meaning strictly amaranth-
ine. This flower was the unfading flower, and so the idea is that the crown
or garland is to be unfading, —the glory, which is the crown, is to be endless.
[Kiihl agrees with Huther as to the derivation and meaning of duapavtivor, and
also as to the relation of the genitive dugg to orégavov, — The chief shepherd is
Christ; under Him are the presbyters, as shepherds; the owner and lord of the
flock is God.]
9. The exhortation now passes to the younger Christians, and is to the end
of a submissive demeanor; and thus, that they should exhibit the spirit of
humility in their relation to those who were advanced in life beyond themselves.
This idea of humility seems to pervade the whole passage. It manifests itself
prominently in the undé xaraavpcetovres of ver. 3, in the trorayyre of ver. 5, and
in the tarecvoppocvvny of the second exhortation in ver. 5. This uniting idea of
humility may account, as Huther holds that it does, for the use of the adverb
duoiwe, at the beginning of ver. 5. But this adverb may simply suggest, that, as
the exhortation to fulfil appropriate duties has been given to one class, s0 now a
similar exhortation to fulfil a certain other appropriate duty is given to another
class. — 10. The thought moves outward from individual classes to all, and
the particle de becomes thus nearly equivalent to the yea of R. V. The dative
GAAjAow seems, on the whole, to be explained satisfactorily as a dative of refer
ence after the expression 1Hv tamewopponivny tyxouBadoaode; but the explanation
favored by Huther, which connects the words mavre¢ dé GAAjAuw with the preced-
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 763
ing sentence, and makes wavrec, like vedrepot, the subject of the verb vzordynre,
is certainly a possible one, against which no serious objection can be urged.
The suggestions made by Huther with reference to éyxouSwoac6e, are probably
to be accepted, and the word is to be rendered as in R. V.: gird yourselves with
humility, — bind it closely about you as a garment. —11. In vv. 6, 7, the idea
of the sufferings which the Christian readers were cailed upon to endure is again
clearly suggested, and the course which they should take, as already set forth in
iv. 19, is once more impressively urged upon their thought. The issue of all
their sufferings would be their exaltation to glory when the appointed time should
come; and the anxiety with which their hearts were likely to be filled, in con-
nection with their trials and persecutions, might be laid upon God; they might
trustfully and peacefully commit their souls to Him, their faithful Creator,
because their welfare and salvation were a care to Him. The distinction in the
words used here may be noticed: in the human mind, it is anxiety; in the Divine
mind, it is care, He careth for you. — The aorist émippipaytes, perhaps, conveys
the idea of an act once for all. The whole anxiety of life was to be cast upon
God by one great act of confidence and trust in His perpetual care of the trusting
soul, [Kiihl regards dpoiwe (ver. 5) as indicating. only that the exhortation of
this verse corresponds with the one which precedes, without finding, in the
adverb, the suggestion which Huther presents. — The connection of ver. 8 with
ver. 7 he thinks to be this: This confidence (ver. 7) should not be like a carnal
security, but the Christian should be, after casting his care, etc., as well as
before, always sober and watchful (ver. 8).]
XXIV.
Vv. 9-11.
1. The thought now turns from the sufferings to the one who originates
them by inspiring his followers to contend against the kingdom of God. The
adversary, the Devil, is to be resisted. To this end, especially, must the
Christian readers be sober and watchful. The Devil is represented as roaming
about, like a wild beast, with the intent to destroy all those whom he can seize
upon, and by the power of persecution, etc., can draw away from the Christian
faith. The way to withstand his assaults and resist his power is, to be firm,
established immovably, in the faith which the believer has in his soul. Faith
is here, as elsewhere, subjective faith. R. V. text renders ry siore, in your
Saith.—2. The participle eidoreg is causal; it presents a ground on which they
may thus resist the Devil, and an encouragement to do so. This ground of
encouragement is the knowledge that the same sufferings are being accom-
plished, — that is, are in process of being brought to their end, and to the issue
which is designed in the plan of God for His people, — with reference to, for,
in the case of, their Christian brotherhood in the world. The consciousness of
the fact that the heavenly kingdom at the end is to be entered only after a
course of testing and trial, is a strength to the Christian in every age, when he
is called upon to endure. —3. The expression ra abra trav raénuctwy seems to be
used, instead of rd abrd wa@npara, in order, as De Wette says, to emphasize
peculiarly the idea of sameness. —4. The assurance and promise of the result
and issue of the sufferings are still again set forth. The God who called you unto
His glory will not abandon His purpose. Whom He called, these He will glorify.
The suffering will continue daiyov, which seems here to refer to time, a little
164 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
while; the result will be permanent. This result is set forth in three words,
perfect, establish, strengthen; or if GeueAuwcat, which is doubtful, be admitted
into the text, a fourth word is added, settle, as on a firm foundation. All
these words seem to express a single idea, and the reference of them all is,
apparently, to the establishment of character in holiness, and against all
assaults of enemies and of evil, rather than to the reward in glory of the
heavenly life: God Himself will secure this result (atr6¢); He careth for you.
—5. The word xparog is peculiarly appropriate in the doxology following this
tenth verse, and is more impressive without the doubtful word doga, which is
omitted by Tisch. and Westcott and Hort, than with it. [Kiihl takes adeAgoryre
as a dative of reference (dativ. incommodi). The doxology of ver. 11 he compares
with that in iv. 11; but he thinks that the thought is concentrated here upon
the idea of xparos, by means of which God is able to accomplish what He wishes
to bring to pass. ]
XXV.
Vv. 12-14.
1. In these concluding verses, the writer refers to his letter briefly, as Paul
does sometimes at the end of his epistles, and then offers salutations from
those with whom he was now living. Then follows the apostolic benediction. —
2. On the words and phrases of this passage, the following suggestions may be
offered: (a) Silvanus is, in all probability, the person of this name mentioned
by Paul. —(b) The words o¢ Aoyifoua: are more naturally connected with rod
miotov adeAgov, than, as Huther prefers, with 0’ dAiywv. These words do not
mean as I suppose, as A. V. renders, but as I account him (R. V.), or, as I
judge or think, by reason of my knowledge of him. It is an expression of
assurance, not of doubt. —(c) This ts the true grace of God. If we read oryre,
as the external evidence shows that we should, it seems probable that it is an
imperative, as R. V. takes it. If this be the true view, the word this refers
most naturally to what precedes, and the simplest and best explanation of the
meaning, as it appears to the writer of this note, is this: At the close of
the epistle, the apostle looks back, as it were, over its whole thought, and he
finds everywhere, at the foundation of it, this idea of the Divine grace. His
epistle has been called the epistle of hope. The hope is founded on the grace.
He says to his readers: This grace which I have set before you throughout my
letter, the grace on which all Christian hope rests, and on which it may securely
rest, is the true grace of God. This I testify to you, as I exhort you. Stand
fast and firmly in this grace. —(d) With respect to ver. 11, the writer of these
notes would only say, that #7 cuvexAexrf appears to him to designate a church, and
not an individual, Peter’s wife, or some other Christian woman; that Babylon
is to be understood literally, and not figuratively as if referring to Rome; and
that Mark is the one spoken of in the Acts, and in the Second Epistle to
Timothy, and 1s the author of the Gospel which bears this name, — the word son
being used here in a figurative, spiritual sense. The remarks of Huther in his
note on this verse, and in his Introduction to the Epistle, with respect to Baby-
lon and Rome, may be commended to the attention of the reader. But the
question of Peter’s relation to Rome is one which requires, for its full discus-
sion, much more space than is given to it in this commentary. Whether he
was ever in that city, or not, the question of the present verse is simply the
- question as to the place where this Epistle was written. [Kuhl connects os
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 765
Aoyifouat with rov xicrob ddeAgod.—-He regards el¢ fv arfre as an impossible
reading, because the relative sentence must be only a further description of the
_ particular yapeo to which radryy refers, and cannot be of a hortatory character. —
He thinks the word cvvexAexr7 is to be understood as referring to a church, and
this church is, as he holds, the one in Babylon, which word is to be taken in its
literal sense, and not as a figurative or symbolic designation of Rome.]
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
XXVI.
CHAPTER LI.
Vv. 1-11.
1. The salutation of this epistle is in some points like that of 1 Peter, but
in some it is different. The differences, however, do not seem to be such as
necessarily to suggest any difference in the authorship of the two letters. The
addition of the name Simon, or Simeon, was not unnatural in the case of an
old man who was drawing near his end, and, in view of it, was in a paternal
and affectionate way addressing his readers. The addition of dobAc¢ to andcro-
docs, if any explanation of this is needed, may readily be accounted for in a
similar way. That the readers should be spoken of in the more general
manner which we observe here, instead of being described according to their
places of abode as in 1 Peter, can hardly be regarded as occasioning difficulty,
especially when we consider the indication in chap. iif. ver. 1.—2. The parti-
ciple Aayotory denotes an obtaining by a divine allotment, and regards the
Christian condition of the readers as a gift of God. Faith is subjective faith
here, as generally inthe N. T. It is simply placed in an objective relation to
the participle. The pronoun #yuiv refers to the writer and his fellow-aposties; at
least, this is a natural reference, and all that Js necessary to meet the demands
of the case. This pronoun, as a dative, depends on the loo¢ idea in the adjec-
tive /coriuov, and the use of this adjective seems to be occasioned by the sense
of the value of faith to every believer, which the writer had, and the sense of
fairness in the equal allotment to all believers as they come into possession
of the same faith. This sense of equal allotment is carried into a more full
expression of it by the addition of the words ¢v dxatocivy, «.r.A. That daocivn
has here its ordinary, rather than its peculiar Pauline sense, is indicated both
by the immediately preceding words with which it is connected, and by the fact
that we do not obtain faith through justification, but justification through faith.
The word here draws near to the idea of justice, that is, it suggests the thought
of righteousness in its dealing equally and fairly with all.
8. With reference to the words rob Oeod fucv nal cuwripog "Ina0b Xpiorod, and
the question whether they Involve a declaration that Jesus Christ is ed¢, the
reader may be referred to the Additional Note of the American editor of
Meyer’s Commentary, Epistle to Titus, chap. fi. 13, the passage most nearly
parallel with this, in which the arguments on both sides of the question are
766 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
presented. The points which are peculiar to the present passage are: (a) that
pov is here placed after 9eov, and not after owr#poc; this pronoun cannot, there-
fore, have a limiting and defining force for the latter noun, and thus supply the
place of an independent article distinguishing owr7p from @eo¢ as a different
person; (b) that in this epistle there are four cases seemingly parallel with
this, where the phrases 6 xtpwe nai owrnp, 6 xbpiog Kai owryp ‘1, Xp., or 6 Kvpiog Quav
xai owrhp ‘I. Xp. are used, namely, i. 11, ii. 20, iii. 2, 18, and in all these the two
words joined by xa? under a single article, are evidently appellatives relating to
one and the same person; (c) that, on the other hand, in the verse which
follows the present one (ver. 2), Qeo¢ and Xpiordéc are evidently separated, though
with a different arrangement of words, as two distinct persons. The different
arrangement of the words in ver. 2 is pressed by those who claim that ver. 1
applies the name 9¢6¢ to Christ; but the change from Oed¢ to xtptoc in the pas-
sages referred to under (b) is urged, after a similar manner, against the force of
those passages in the argument, by those who deny this application in ver. 1. —
In the R. V., the English revisers, both here and in Tit. il. 18, read our God
and Saviour (in Titus, our great God); the American revisers, on the other
hand, adopt the other view, and read our God and the Saviour here, the great
God and our Saviour in Tit. il. 13.
4. The same form of salutation, xyape¢ xal eipyry rAnOvvbein, is found here
which is used in 1 Peter; but the remaining words of ver. 2 are peculiar to this
passage. ‘Ev émyvwoe indicates that this grace and peace should be in and
through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ. The word éziyywore seems to
denote a more full knowledge than is meant by the simple yroor; but sometimes
the two words appear to be used in substantially the same sense, and this may
not improbably be the case here. Possibly, however, it has its full significance
here, and the apostle may ask for his readers that grace and peace which are
connected with the fulness of knowledge, towards which fulness, at the close
of the Epistle, fii. 18, he exhorts them to grow.
5. Huther regards of (ver. 3) as beginning a new sentence and paragraph;
so do Alford, Tischendorf, Keil, and others. Westcott and Hort, Lachmann,
and others, place a comma after jucv of ver. 2 (R. V., a semicolon), and con-
tinue the sentence begun in ver. 2 to the end of ver. 4. The fact that all the
apostolic greetings in all the other epistles are complete in themselves, and form
@ paragraph or sentence by themselves, to which Huther alludes, is a point
worthy of consideration. It must be admitted, however, that the «ai of ver. 5
seems to be the beginning of an independent sentence, and not to be a conclu-
sion from the preparatory and incomplete sentence contained in vv. 3,4. With
some doubts, the writer of this note favors Huther’s view, believing that the
xat dé of ver. 5 may be accounted for as an irregular construction, occasioned by
the length and involved character of the protasis portion of the long sentence,
and by the thought of ver. 5, as something added on the readers’ own part to
what had been done and made possible for them by God or Christ. —6. Which-
ever view we take of the connection of vv. 8, 4, the particle o¢ is best translated
by seeing that (as R. V.). The objective reason for the exhortation in ver. 4, as
Huther remarks, is characterized by o¢ as a subjective motive. It is the not
unfrequent construction of o¢ with the genitive absolute. The word ravra in
the passage introduced by «¢ is placed first for the purpose of marked emphasis.
As the divine power has given us all things which pertain to life and godliness, we
may well, on our part, give all diligence to develop all the virtues of the godly
life, adding one to another and building up one upon another. —7. The refer-
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 167
ence of abrov seems to the writer of this note, provided we hold God and Christ
to be distinguished from one another in ver. 1, to be rather to God than to
Christ, to whom Huther refers it, because God is, in that case, clearly the most
prominent subject in the preceding verses. If, however, Jesus Christ is spoken
of as God in ver. 1, He takes the first place in the thought, and the pronoun
naturally refers to Him. The objection which Huther urges from the improba-
bility that the author would use the adjective divine, if he were speaking of God,
is worthy of consideration, but can hardly be considered decisive. —8. The
arrangement in the sentence of td mpd¢ Cuwhy xal evoéBeav as related to navra is
noticeable. It is almost as if the writer had his thoughts so filled with a sense
of the blessedness of piety, that he thought it to be everything, and so he said
all things, but afterwards, bethinking himself, he added, ‘‘I mean those which
pertain to piety.”’ Of the two words (w7v and evoeseav, the former denotes the
spiritual life of the soul, and the latter that life viewed in the light of its out-
going towards God: piety or godliness; or perhaps, with Huther, the former is
to be taken as conveying the idea of blessedness, and the latter, that of conduct
as pertaining to the spiritual life. The preposition pd¢ is used here in the
sense of tending or leading to. These things which tend to life and piety have
been given us by God, and we are to use and appropriate them.
9. dedwpnuévnc is a deponent middle form, with the sense of the active. The
gift is bestowed upon us dia rig éxtyvocewct, —this word seems to refer to that
more full knowledge of God which belongs to the believer, as contrasted with the
unbeliever. It is by means of this knowledge alone, that the gift, in the actual
realization of it, is made possible to the human soul. — The one who called us is
God, of whom this phrase is everywhere used in the N. T. —diad dogn¢ nai aperic
refers to God’s dofa and dper7. By means of these the call comes to us in an
effectual way. The word «per7 is taken by Grimm and some commentators
as meaning power. It thus becomes a kindred word to dofa, or perhaps an
explanation of the particular sense in which dogfa is here used. As we find the
idea of power, however, expressed in the verse by another word (divauic), and as
dvéa in itself, in such a sentence, naturally suggests this idea, it may perhaps
seem better to regard dper7 as referring to God’s moral perfection, and doga to
His natural perfection. This accords with the view of Bengel. The glorious
attributes of God in both lines unite in the accomplishing of His plan, which
finds its realization in the call which brings us into the new life and the divine
kingdom. — 10. é&’ ov (ver. 4) is more naturally referred to ddfn¢ xa? dperi¢, than
to Trad mpdc Cun aai evo,, as Huther takes it; and if, as is probable, the subject
here is God, and not Christ, the objection made by Huther to this reference is
removed. The very great and precious promises, which are connected with the
full attainment of the perfected spiritual life, are given through the same glory
and virtue through which the call bringing us into that life comes tous. The
promises here referred to are perhaps best taken as including all the promises
connected with Christ and His kingdom, — both those which were fulfilled at
and after His first coming, and those which are to be fulfilled at and after the
second coming. —11. Act rovrwy refers to éxayyéAuara, This is probably the cor-
rect view, both because of the fact that this word is the nearest and natural
antecedent, and because of the prominence which the promises have in the
thought of the writer. The promises have been given to us, the writer says, in
order that, by means of them, you (the readers) may become partakers in the
divine nature. The view of Huther, that iva yévns6e means that you might
become, and thus carries the participation into the present as well as the future,
768 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
is possibly correct, but not necessarily so. The aorist subjunctive may be used
in such cases with no marked distinction from the present. —The expression
divine nature refers to the spiritual nature or character of God, with its perfect
holiness, of which through the faith and love of the Christian life we become
partakers, in the sense that the Christian life is a communication of God to
man. The words are to be understood of the divine nature, rather than of a
divine nature, the definite article being unnecessary because the divine nature
is but one. —12. The words amogvyovrec, x.7.A., denote that which Is attendant
upon the becoming, etc., and involved in it. The man who becomes a partaker
of the divine nature, in the sense in which the promises are intended to make
him so, has escaped already from the corruption which is in the world in lust.
— The preposition év before éx:évuig denotes the sphere or element in which the
corruption in the world has its existence, its origin, and its continuance. R. V.
translates, by lust. The corruption here referred to may be both physical and
moral; but the connection would seem to show that the latter, rather than the
former, \s what the writer has especially in mind.
13. The explanation of aird rovro (ver. 5) given by Huther is the one more
generally adopted by interpreters at present, —the meaning being the same as
if the preposition da were inserted before the words. The reference in these
words is to the main thought of vv. 3, 4; that is, that God has given all things
that pertain to life and godliness, including the idea of the gift of the promises,
with their purpose and design. The Christian is, in view of all this, to make
all effort on his own part. — 14. Tlapeccevéyxavrec, bringing in alongside of what
is thus done for you, I.e., adding on your part, as R. V. renders it, all diligence.
’"Emxopnynoare, furnish or supply. The Christian readers are exhorted to supply
or provide, on their part, what corresponds to, and naturally grows out of, that
which God bestows. The preposition év, in each of the cases in vv. 5-7, Is to be
translated in; and it marks that which is designated by the following word, in
each case, as the condition in which the soul is supposed to be when the call is
for a new supply, or the virtue which is already possessed, and in the possession
of which the further development is to be carried on. The first of the points
mentioned is faith. This is placed first, because faith is the foundation of all
Christian life. It is assumed as existing when the Christian begins his work of
providing the other things mentioned. The word émxopnyjoare is not prefixed
to it, because it is obtained as a gift from God; see ver. 1, rof¢ loorimov nuiv Aazov-
ow niorv,—(a) In faith, in the possession of faith, and that condition of the
soul’s life which is indicated by it, furnish or provide virtue. —(b) The word
virtue, as here used, seems to be nearly equivalent to Christian manliness, moral
energy, the strength and courage of the soul: it is that which gives working-
power to the soul, and thus gives life to faith, and perfects it on the out-going
side, — the love side, where it develops its energy in good works. —(c) In virtue,
knowledge is to be provided. Knowledge here means, by reason of its position
in the order of the words, knowledge which guides and directs the working of
faith as possessed of «per7, By the supply of this, when the soul is already &
Gpery, the character is built up and built out towards its perfect development.
It is moved along the right course, and away from the wrong course, so far as
all the forth-putting of the energies of faith is concerned. —(d) Next in order
comes self-control. The putting in exercise, {f we may so speak, of this guiding
and directing knowledge, must be in accordance with the regulating power of
self-government, or the movement of the life under the influence of the apery
of iors, as affected by yyoouy, may not be restrained and well-ordered as it
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 769
should be. — (e) In the possession of self-control, the Christian is also to furnish
or supply steadfast endurance. The thought seems here to comprehend all that
goes before: faith, as putting forth all the outgrowths which have been men-
tioned, is also to develop into this new excellence; this being the characteristic
of faith which secures its permanence and its final reward. Steadfast endurance
under trials, temptations, etc., is the legitimate fruit and result growing out of
self-control. —(f) Piety or godliness is placed next to steadfast endurance. If
that piety which trusts and reverently regards and fears God is not the develop-
ment of the soul’s life, when in the sphere of endurance, the truly patient and
loving element is lost out of the latter, — that which makes it a Christian virtue,
as distinguished from the mere courageous endurance of a man of the world. —_
(y) Piety is, according to the writer’s progress of thought, to develop into, or in
the line of, love of the Christian brethren. This is a turning of the thought into
a particular line, indeed; but such a turning is very natural and very character-
istic of the apostolié writers. The movement of love to God and Christ in a
development of itself towards that brotherhood of men, of which God is the
Father, in a peculiar sense, and Christ is the head, was brought to the minds of
all the apostles by the last command of Jesus, given to them on the evening
of the Lord’s Supper, and was, no doubt, made to appear always of peculiar
importance to them by reason of the circumstances and condition in which the
company of believers was then placed. — (i) Brotherly love is now widened into
love, which here, as it would seem, must mean love to all men. The virtues
named grow, each one of them, out of the one already attained, and the develop-
ment in the line of holy character and life is first God-ward, and then man-ward.
15. Vv. 8, 9, are introduced as giving a reason, set forth on the positive and
negative side, for the exhortation to supply these virtues with all diligence. It
is an added reason, beyond the one indicated by aird rovro of ver. 5 and con-
tained in vv. 3, 4; but it does not stand in precisely the same relation to the
thought of vv. 5-7. As connected with vv. 3, 4, the writer exhorts (vv. 5-7) his
readers to do their part in the cultivation of character, because God has, on :
His part, done so much to make it possible for them to become like Himself.
As connected with vv. 8, 9, he exhorts them (vv. 5-7) to cultivate the character
in the line of these virtues, because these virtues help them onward in and
towards that knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the means of realiz-
ing the participation in the Divine nature to which they are called of God. —
16. With reference to the words in vv. 8, 9, the following points may be noticed:
(a) mAeovagovra, if taken in the sense given by Briickner, Wiesinger, Alford, and
others, multiplying, increasing, becoming more, may perbaps follow somewhat
more naturally the suggestion of development and growth which is contained in
vv. 5-7. But the simple idea of abounding, which Huther favors, is all that the
verb necessarily implies, and the other meaning cannot be insisted upon. —
(b) apyote and axdapxovg seem to be substantially equivalent to each other, only
presenting the common idea under different figures or relations. —(c) «a6isrjow
— This passage shows clearly the use of this verb in the sense of rendering or
making, or, at least, of that setting of a person or thing in a position and condi-
tion in which he, or it, actually is by reason of that which belongs to the nature
or life, and which comes out of it. The bearing of this instance of the use of
the verb in the important passage, Rom. v. 19, is worthy of consideration. —
(d) eg fs the preposition looking towards an end. The knowledge of Christ is
the end towards which the activity and fruitfulness of the Christian life tend. —
(e) ydp of ver. 9 is used where we might have expected dé; by the use of this
770 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
particle here, as in some other similar instances in the N..T., the negative side.
of the matter is made a proof of the positive side. — (/) The correspondence of
éorw with xaftornov, as indicating the meaning of the latter word, should not
be overlooked. —(g) puwmdafwv seems to be added as a sort of limitation and
explanation‘of rug/oc¢: he is blind in the sense that, and because, he is short-
sighted, — seeing only what is near, and not the distant realities of the heavenly
. life, ete. — (hk) The cleansing of his old or former sins is that which was given
him personally at the beginning of the Christian life. —17. 4:6 points back to
vv. 8, 9, and on the ground of what has been presented in those verses the exhor-
tation of ver. 10 is given. This exhortation, though not precisely the same as
that in vv. 5-7, is evidently in the same line, and, substantially, to the same end.
For this reason, perhaps, the writer uses the word omovddcare, corresponding
with orovdny of ver. 5. The word udAdov connects itself with the two opposite
facts or results stated in the immediately preceding verses; according to the
quotation given by Alford, quae cwm ita sint, impensius. — 18, The explanation
of the word election here, which is given by Huther, seems to the writer of this
note to be very probably the correct one, and for the reasons which he suggests.
The éxAoy7 ‘is the election effected by the «Ajow [not that which precedes it],
i.e., the separation of those who are called from the world, and the translation
of them into the kingdom of God.’’ —19. The thought of ver. 11, which closes
the paragraph, reminds us of the latter part of vv. 3, 4, the promises and their
final design, and brings before us the fulfilment of the purpose of those promises
in the entrance into the eternal kingdom of Christ. - The connection with vv. 5-7
is also manifest. As the Christian ‘supplies’? the virtues in the development
of the Christian life, Christ ‘‘ supplies’? the consummation at the end.
XXVII.
Vv. 12-21.
1. Aw of ver. 12 points back to ver. 11, i.e., to ravra rowtvrec, which points
to onovddoare 3e3aiav , . . moiofa. As the taking of this course on their part
was the means of securing the entrance into the kingdom which is spoken of,
the writer is impelled, on account of this fact, to remind and exhort the readers,
The form of expression which he uses, if the reading adopted by the best textual
critics is correct (ueAAjow), is quite peculiar, being found elsewhere in the N. T.
but once in a similar construction. The reading of the T. R. (aueA7ow) would
seem, at first sight, more simple and natural. The external evidence, however,
is strongly opposed to this reading. Perhaps the rendering given by R. V. for
ueAAnow, I shall be ready, fully meets the idea of the word, but there may be
somewhat more of purpose and intention in it, J shall have it in mind. Huther
apparently regards the compound expression “eAAjow broumrvaoxev as a mere
circumlocution for the simple future. The things respecting which the writer
affirms that he shall have the intention or the readiness, on all occasions, to
remind them, are those presented in vv. 4-11. The reason for this intention or
readiness, so far as he is personally concerned, is set forth in the later verses
of the chapter. This action on his part is not, indeed, necessary, as if the
readers were unacquainted with the gospel or weak in their convictions; but be
feels it to be fitting, and he has the impulse towards it, notwithstanding the
fact that they were altogether in the opposite condition. The apostolic exhor-
tations are sometimes given because of the failures and the very imperfect
development of Christian life and character which were seen in the churches.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 71
Sometimes, on the other hand, as is the case here, they were not given for this
reason. They were given, rather, for the purpose of impelling forward by a
stronger incentive, or by a renewed and earnest suggestion of the truth, those
who had already a firm standing inthe truth. The words used here, and the
manner in which this putting them in remembrance of what they knew is set
forth, are such as might be expected in the case of a man in advanced life, who
was looking forward to his death as near at hand. —2. The particle dé at the
beginning of ver. 13 is the and of continuous discourse, rather than the adversa-
tive but. The contrast with the clause immediately preceding, efdorag, x.7.A.,
which is supposed by some to be indicated by the particle, is not to be regarded
as occasioning its use. This contrast is, as shown by the «aimep, with the begin-
ning of ver. 12; and ver. 13 unites itself with this earlier clause of the twelfth
verse. The adjective d:aaiov means right: in accordance with what ought to be.
I shall have the intention or readiness always to remind you, and I think it
right that I should remind you. — dicyeipev, to thoroughly waken up, stir up; év
tuouvnoe, in the sphere of, in the way of, reminding.
3. Ver. 14 gives the subjective reason for the 7yetuac dixasov, because I know.
It was his knowledge of the approach of his death, — his consciousness of the
fact of its nearness or its suddenness, — which made the apostle feel] that it was
right for him to be ready always to press the truths and duties upon his Chris-
tian brethren, no matter how well they might be acquainted with them. As
for the meaning of raxw7, there is a difference of opinion on the question
whether the word here means soon or sudden. Perhaps the rendering of R. V.,
which cometh swiftly, which takes hold upon both ideas, may best satisfy the
demands of the case. The reference in the clause beginning with «a@u¢ is, in
all probability, to what Jesus said to Peter in John xxi. 18. In that passage
there is an allusion to a death by violence, and nothing further. The prophecy
of such a death might suggest the idea of suddenness; but it would not, in itself,
suggest that of nearness. Nevertheless, when we consider the form of expres-
sion which Jesus used, ‘‘ when thou shalt be old,’”’ etc.,— we may readily see
how Peter, after he had become old, might, on the ground of this expression,
refer to his death as impending in the near future. —4. Aé xai of ver. 15, more-
over also. The connection is evidently with the thought of vv. 12, 13; not only
will he endeavor to waken up their remembrance of these things by repeating
them as occasion may offer, but he will give diligence (axovdaow, comp. vv. 5, 10)
that they may, on every occasion, be able to cal] them to remembrance after his
decease. ‘Exucrore, on each occasion as it arises. This word, as Huther and
other commentators hold, is to be united with éyev.—5. The particle yup of
ver. 16 introduces the reason for oxovdasw, and through this, as we may say,
more remotely for all that he has said of his desire and purpose to put them in
remembrance, from ver. 12 onward. The consciousness of the truth of the facts
and teachings which they proclaimed, was the underlying reason of the earnest
proclamation of them which the apostles made.
6. The word ptdoe probably finds its main force in the contrast which it
presents to the idea set forth by the words eye-witnesses of His majesty. It may
be, however, — and this view would seem to be not unreasonable, —that, as Dr.
Luinby remarks, the apostle refers, in these fables, ‘‘to the heathen stories of
the appearance of the gods among men, or to some of the Gnostic figments con-
cerning emanations from the Divinity.’’ Of course, if the Epistle is by Peter,
and his death is to be placed before the year 70, the ‘‘Gnostic figments’’ must
be developments in that line which were not beyond those which are, perhaps,
T7T2 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
discoverable in the Epistle to the Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. —7, The
words divayuic and mapovoia, since the latter is regularly used of the second com-
ing, are both of them probably to be explained of the exalted and triumphant
state of Christ, and not of His earthly life. These words do not refer to the
Transfiguration scene; but the fact that Peter and his two fellow-apostles were
eye-witnesses of His majesty, as then exhibited, gives the apostle the assurance
that His power and coming are facts of the future. —8. The fact that the
scene here spoken of is referred to as being on the holy mountain, and that
the words, This is my beloved Son, etc., are given, which were heard at that time,
is decisive evidence that the writer refers to the Transfiguration. The word
peyadeorne, therefore, is used to designate that visible manifestation of the glory
of Christ which was witnessed by Peter, James, and John, at that time. The
writer speaks of himself and his fellow-apostles as having been éromta:, a word
which possibly refers, as Huther also allows, to the scene as involving a witness-
ing of what was hidden from others, a vision of the mysterious grandeur and
glory of Christ. As the verb érorretey is found twice in the First Epistle of
Peter without any special meaning of this sort, it may be that the substantive
is used hcre with the simple idea expressed by the verb in those instances, and
has no significance as connected with its use as a terminus technicus.—9. Ver. 17
is introduced by yap as giving, in connection with ver. 18, the justification of
the words of ver. 16, yap being causal (for), as in ordinary cases, rather than
explanatory (that is), as Huther takes it. The construction, also, is better taken
as Winer takes it substantially, than as Huther takes it. The simplest explana-
tion seems to be this, that the writer gives, in ver. 18, the conclusion of the
participial sentence of ver. 17, the fact on which he wished to lay stress, —
the construction being changed either purposely or accidentally. The fact
which he wishes to present is, that he himself and his fellow-apostles heard the
voice from heaven which followed the manifestation of the glory; and thus
the evidence of the hearing of the words was added to that of the vision. —
10. The genitive absolute, owri¢ tvexdeionc, is explanatory of the honor and glory,
but is perhaps best taken as indicating time: when there came, or was borne, a
_ voice of such a sort (as that mentioned in the following words) to him from or
by the majestic glory. —11. And this vnice we heard borne out of heaven: This
is the point on which the writer would lay emphasis, as connected with the
evidence, that in making known the power and coming of Jesus he was not
following cunningly-devised fables. The and at the beginning of ver. 18 con-
nects the hearing of the voice with the fact of its utterance. — On the expression
the holy mount, Alford justly says: ‘‘ De Wette is partly right when he says that
this epithet ‘holy’ shows a later view of the fact than that given us in the
evangelistic narrative; but not right when he designates that later view as
wunderglaubigere (more ready to believe in miracles). The epithet would
naturally arise when the gospel history was known, as marking a place where
a manifestation of this Divine presence and glory had taken place. The place
whereon Moses stood, is said, in Exodus, to be holy ground. So that really all
we can infer from it is, that the history was assumed to be already well known;
which is one entirely consistent with the probable date of the Epistle.’’
12. Vv. 19-21 add to what precedes a setting-forth of the prophetic evidence,
or declaration. In this passage there are several points which may be particu-
larly noticed as bearing upon the interpretation: (a) The question as to what
the xai at the beginning of ver. 19 connects the passage with, must depend, in
some measure, on the explanation of the several words in the passage. The
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 173
connection, however, when we consider this question by itself, would seem
almost necessarily to be either between éyouev (ver. 19) and éyvwpicapev of ver. 16,
or nxuvoayuev of ver. 18. The latter would appear to be the more correct view,
because the writer seems to be moving in his thought along the line of the proof
of the fact, that what is proclaimed by the apostolic preachers is the truth. —
(b) SeBacorepov, by reason of its position, is evidently predicative: we have the
prophetic word more sure. The question as to what, in the thought of the
writer, follows these words, more sure, is left by him in uncertainty, and conse-
quently cannot be answered with absolute confidence. It would seem, however,
from the emphasis placed upon the word by its position, and from the close
connection of the sentences, that the writer’s meaning is a more sure proof than
the one already mentioned. If this is the right view, the prophetic declarations |
of the O. T., which are fulfilled in Christ, are regarded and set forth by the
writer as an evidence of even greater strength and certainty than that of
the vision on the mountain. This may be readily believed, because the long
course of prophecies fulfilled, which could be understood and appreciated by
every Christian for himself, would carry the greatest weight. The hearing of
the voice came to a few, and was the evidence of one event to which they bore
testimony. The fulfilment of prophecy was the realization in fact of God’s
revelations respecting His plan. This interpretation accords well with all that
follows, and is free from the objections which may be urged against other expla-
nations of the meaning. If it be not adopted, the one to be preferred is that of
De Wette and others, ‘“‘the prophetic word is more stable to us from the fact
that we saw and heard.”’ —(c) -The words of ver. 19, which speak of the Jamp
shining, etc., are to be explained in view of the fact that the readers are called
upon to give heed to this light in the present, and until a clearer light shall come
in the. future; and that this clearer light is spoken of under the figure of.the
dawn and the day-star. The meaning of the words would thus seem to be: that
the light of prophecy, as pointing to Christ and fulfilled in Him, should be the
illumination and guide of their souls, until the beginning of that time when
every thing should be made clear. The fulness of this time is the parousia ; the
beginning of it is the near approach of that period, when the signs of the final
and complete redemption are made manifest beyond doubt. — 13. Ver. 20
presents that which would strengthen the readers in their giving heed to the
prophetic word, and which, at the same time, constituted a reason for it. The
explanation of this verse given by Huther is the best and most satisfactory one:
No prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who
utters the prophecy) interpretation of the future. This explanation satisfies
the demands of the sentence itself, and brings it into most natural and easy
connection with what follows. The yup of ver. 21 gives the ground justifying
the statement of ver. 20; and this ground is, that the prophecies were given not
by the will of man, but by the inspiring power of God. This proves that the
prophecy, in any and every case, does not arise out of the interpretation of
the future which the prophet makes for himself; and so, as being not humanly,
but divinely, originated, it demands for itself the most careful and constant
consideration and regard. — The explanation given by Grimm and others: ‘* No
one can explain prophecy by his own mental power (it is not a matter of subjec-
tive interpretation); but to explain it one needs the same illumination of the
Holy Spirit in which it originated,”’ suits the words of the sentence itself, and
is consistent with what follows; but the connection with ver. 21 is not so simple
and natural] as in the case of the other explanation.
TT4 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXVIII.
CHAPTER II.
Vv. 1-11.
1. The opening verses of this chapter seem to form a sort of contrast to the
closing ones of the preceding chapter. Besides, and in contrast with, the true
prophets of the O. T. times, there arose also among the people of Israel false
prophets. This connection of the chapters accounts for the placing the state-
ment respecting the O. T. false prophets in the principal part of the sentence.
If the main thought and purpose of the passage are considered, {it is evident that
the statement concerning the false teachers is the one of most importance, and
the one for which the verse is introduced. In this view of the verse, the first
clause should have been opened by the particle as, or according as, and the o¢
of the second clause should have been replaced by oitwr. —2. With respect to
the word wpevdodidaoxada, the view of Huther, with whom Keil also agrees, is
probably to be preferred, ‘‘ persons who falsely give themselves out as teachers.”’
The fact that they are also teachers of what is false, is plainly declared in the
clause which immediately follows this word. It is said of these teachers, that
they shall be, not that they are, and that they shall privily bring in, etc., napeo-
agovow; while, in Jude, it is said that they have already crept in unawares or
privily, napecoedvoay, This difference is one which can be most readily accounted
for, if Jude be regarded as the later writer of the two. That which it is said
that they will introduce, is called aipésec, This passage seems to be the one
which favors, more than any other in the N. T., the view that this word was
used in the sense of heresy within the period of the apostolic writers. It is,
however, at the most, only somewhat probable that this meaning should be
given here. As these persons enter into the church life by a side gateway, as
it were, and in a secret manner, so they may be properly said to introduce
into the church, in the same side and secret manner, those divisions which
result from their entrance and influence. The genitive azwdeiac, on either sup-
position as to the meaning of aipéoecc, is a descriptive genitive which sets forth
the objective relation: which tend or lead to destruction. —3. It may be fairly
questioned whether the view, that dpvoipevor is equivalent to this participle with
éoovra, is not as free from difficulties as that which takes «ai as equivalent to
even, and holds to a double participial construction. By regarding dpvoipu. asa
verb, the sentence is made a simple one, the aai being the connecting particle
and. If neither of the participles can be taken as equivalent to a verb, the view
of Huther is doubtless to be adopted. With Huther’s view of xai apvovu., there
is a certain additional probability derived from these words, which seem thus to
become explanatory, that aipéoec¢ is used in the sense of heretical opinions
or doctrines. But no decisive argument could be drawn from this source. —
4. There seems to be an intentional emphasis in the use of arwAcay at the end
of ver. 1, as related to the amwdciac which precedes. They bring upon them-
selves the destruction to which the alpéce¢ introduced by them into the church
naturally lead. This destruction will be, in their case, sudden.
5. Ver. 2 adds the result of what these teachers do, in the action of others.
If we regard Jude as the later writer, we may explain the introduction of the
word doeAyeiace by the commentary, as it were, which Jude gives. Jude says
(ver. 4), Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying, etc. These
followers are led by that teaching which makes grace an incitement to indul-
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 775
gence in sin, to imitate their teachers in such indulgence. A’ ot¢ probably
refers to the moAAoi, The writer’s purpose is to describe the teachers and their
evil influence; and the setting forth of this following on the part of many, on
account of whom (i.e., of whose following thus) the way of the truth will be
evil spoken of, serves to show what this evil influence is. —6. Ver. 3 describes
the false teachers as moved by covetousness, and trying to ‘‘ make merchandise”’
of the Christians by feigned words, I.e., as Huther well explains mAaoroi¢, deceit-
Sully-invented words. This verse seems to show that ver. 2 is intended rather
to form a part of the description of the teachers and their work, than to speak
of the followers in and for themselves alone. — 7. The difference between ver. 3)
and Jude ver. 4 will be noticed. It may perhaps be said with propriety, that, of
the two writers, the later one would more naturally speak of the false teachers,
after they had appeared, as npoyeypaypévoc cig rd xpiua trovro, This cannot, how-
ever, be insisted upon.
8. Ver. 4 introduces the examples from the O. T., etc., by way of direct
proof of what has just been said (yép). In Jude, the examples are evidently
intended to serve the same purpose, but they are introduced more formally,
and, as it were, independently. The passage is also carried forward in the way
of condition (e) and conclusion, instead of being presented, in this respect also,
in a more complete independence, as Jude gives it. As to the examples them-
selves in the two Epistles, see Note on Jude, ver. 5 ff. (a) The first example
in this Epistle corresponds with the second one given in Jude. In the presen-
tation of it, the writer simply speaks of the angels referred to as having sinned,
without alluding to the special fact mentioned in the other Epistle. The state-
ment of what befell them is substantially the same, —that they are reserved in
darkness for judgment. The chief peculiarity of Peter’s expression is found
in the word raprapwoac, The word Tartarus is held by some to be equivalent to
Gehenna, by others (as Huther) to mean an intermediate place of punishment.
The latter view is perhaps the more correct one. —(b) The second example does |
not correspond with the first in Jude, but seems to occupy its place. If 1 Pet.
fii. 19 is explained of the preaching of Christ through Noah, there may be some
connection between this passage and that one; but evidently there is a reference
in 1 Peter to something more than {s here presented. —(c) The third example
answers to the third in Jude. The presentation of this example is, however,
quite different in its details from that which Jude gives; especially, in that the
characterization of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is less particular in Peter.
and, also, in that the case of Lot is set forth here, as it is not in Jude. Peter
takes pains to bring out the deliverance of the righteous, as well as the punish-
ment of the wicked, while Jude limits himself to the latter; see ver. 9 of this
chapter. — The word regpwoac seems to indicate the way in which the condemna-
tion was inflicted, or possibly a fact attendant upon the condemnation. Huther
appears to be correct in regarding xataorpogy as the dative of reference. The
statement with respect to the condemnation may be indicative of Jude’s mean-
ing in the corresponding passage (ver. 7), namely, that the eternal fire there
referred to is the fire which destroyed Sodom, and not the fire of Gehenna. —
9. The words of ver. 9 form the apodosis of the conditional passage covering
vv. 4-8; and in the development of the main thought, the yap of ver. 4 belongs
with the idea expressed in oidev, x.7.4., of ver. 9. The whole matter of these
examples, therefore, which results in the establishment of the proposition of
ver. 9, is connected, through this resniting conclusion, with ver. 3b, as a proof
(yap, ver. 4) of the statement that the judgment of these false teachers does
T76 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
not linger or slumber. The manner in which the thought of ver. 10 is intro-
duced, as compared with Jude, ver. 8, is somewhat strikingly indicative of the
differences between the two Epistles, which are found in connection with
the marked correspondences. On the general idea of the passage, see note on
Jude, ver. 8 ff. — 10. On ver. 11, see note on Jude, ver. 9. The expression
greater in might and power means, probably, greater than men; that is, than
these persons of whom the writer is speaking. This is the natural suggestion
of the sentence, rathér than greater than other angels, which is Huther’s
explanation.
XXIX.
Vv. 12-22.
1. At ver. 12, the thought turns to the more detailed presentation of these
false teachers in their immorality, etc. The difference between this Epistle and
that of Jude, in these verses, consists largely in tRe greater detail here, and the
greater emphasis of denunciation in Jude. This latter element in Jude possibly
points to a later date for the Epistle; a time when what was looked forward to
in Peter’s words was actually realized in Jude’s surroundings. The severity of
Jude’s language in vv. 10-13 is almost unequalled in any writing. — 2. Of the
words in the passage, the following are found in exactly or nearly the same form
in both Epistles: diuvya (wa ; guoixa (aoc, Jude); v ol¢ ayvoovow BAaognpovvrec (doa
obx oidanw BAaconuovvtec, Jude); év t7 Gop abrav cal eapycovra: (év rovTone POei-
povra, Jude); oid (omAudes, Jude); amarace or ayanan (dayanag, Jude); cvvevw-
xovpevo: the reference to Balaam, with the idea of hire; mnyal dvudpur (vegéAas
avudpor, Jude); ouixAas vd Aaidamocg EAavvopevar (vegéAu tnd avéeuwy mapapepoyevat,
Jude); off 6 Gopog rob oxdrove (ei¢ aiwva, Jude) terypytat; brépoyxa, The parts
peculiar to Peter are as follows: (a) the word yeyevrnuéva following dGAoya (ou
and connected with gvoca: born mere animals, or connected with el¢, «.7.4.: born
to adwoe according to their nature, — ei¢ GAwow is to be regarded as passive in
sense, to be taken and destroyed ; (b) the peculiar variation in the representation
that they will be destroyed: Jude saying that they rail at what they know not,
and what they understand naturally, like the irrational creatures, in these things
they are destroyed ; while Peter has: as irrational creatures, railing in matters
whereof they are ignorant (they) shall in their destroying surely be destroyed.
The form in Peter has here possibly the appearance of a later working-over of
the sentence, but no positive affirmation can be made; the explanation of 9@op¢
as destruction, rather than the active destroying, is probably to be preferred;
(c) the phrase copuovpevor (adixovpevor) peoddv adxiac. The reading here is doubt-
ful, but the word ddixotpevoe gives no very satisfactory meaning, since the
suffering of wrong or injustice, as the reward for doing the same, seems scarcely
to be an idea which the author would express with regard to these persons; and
that the words are not suited to express the general idea of experiencing evil as
the reward for doing it to others, is shown by Huther in his foot-note, in which
he comments on Hofmann’s view. — (a) dor fyobuevor tiv bv jyuépa tpvonv. The
explanation given by Huther to év quépe, referring it to the present life as con-
trasted with the future, seems to the writer of this note improbable, because
some other and less doubtful expression would have been at the author’s com-
mand, had he wished to set forth this idea. It seems more simple to make the
words mean, as in A. V. and R. V., in the daytime, extending their indul-
gences and pleasures into the working time (the day), as well as the quiet and
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. T77
resting time (the night). —(e) On omidos, omAddec, dmaratc, dydmatc, see notes on
Jude, ver. 12. The word év7pugevrec is added in Peter.
(f) Ver. 14. The several phrases of this verse, which are not found in Jude,
serve to set forth the sensuality, covetousness, and evil and enticing influence
of the false teachers. The sensual character of these men is referred to, however,
by Jude, though not in this immediate connection. — (y) The compressing of
the statement with respect to Balaam, and the addition, as if by way of compen-
sation, of the cases of Cain and Korah, may suggest that Jude worked over, and
worked on the foundation of, what Peter says. On the alleged discrepancy in the
last words respecting the case of Balaam, which is the chief difficulty connected
with the passage, Alford remarks: ‘‘ A discrepancy has been discovered between
this and the Mosaic account, seeing that it was the angel, and not the ass, from
whom the rebuke came, the ass having merely deprecated ill-treatment at
Balaam’s hands. But the apostle evidently regards not so much the words
of the rebuke uttered, as the miraculous fact, as being the hinderance. It was
enough to prevent his’ going omward, when the dumb animal on which he rode
was gifted with speech to show him his madness.’ —(h) Ver. 17 corresponds
with vv. 120, 13, of Jude; but, evidently, Jude draws out the description more
extendedly, and sets it forth with a much stronger denunciatory emphasis.
Peter presents in two figurative expressions the empty and restless character of
the false teachers. Jude has four such expressions, adding to what Peter says
a picturing of their useless and destructive character; see note on Jude, ver. 13.
— (i) The words, uttering great swelling words of vanity, are placed in a different
connection from that in which Jude puts the nearly corresponding words of his
ver, 16. Jude inserts before the passage containing these words, the quotation
from Enoch’s prophecy, and seems to make a new beginning, as it were, of his
description with the verse of which these words constitute a part. In his six-
teenth verse, Jude represents the teachers as walking after their own lusts ;
Peter represents them as enticing in the lusts of the flesh, dy lasciviousness,
_ those who are just escaping from those who live in error, and adds the words,
promising them liberty, while they themselves are bond-servants of corruption.
Peter thus sets forth their action and evil influence as regards others, while Jude
speaks only of their own personal life and behavior. The indication of this pas-
sage is rather towards the working-over in Peter of what is found in Jude, than
the opposite. — (j) At ver. 20 the two writers cease to move together, and Peter
joins what he says in this verse very naturally to what has just been declared
in ver. 19. There can be but little doubt that Huther is correct, as against
Hofmann, with regard to the reference of axoguyévrec, x.7.A., of ver. 20, to the
false teachers. The writer adds these verses as setting forth the idea of destruc-
tion in the case of these men, to which he had alluded in other terms before th's
point. This passage corresponds in some measure, so far as the matter of fall-
ing away is concerned, with those in Heb. vi. 4-6, x. 26 ff., and is perhaps more
difficult of explanation, in this respect, than either of those passages. — (k) The
word righteousness, in ver. 21, is to be understood in its ordinary, not its peculiar
Pauline or forensic, sense. It means the actual righteousness belonging to the
true Christian life, as évroA7 means here the commandment appertaining to that
life, its moral law. As the writer in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
says: ‘That which in a doctrinal point of view is ‘the way of truth’ (ver. 2 of
this chapter), is in a moral point of view ‘the way of righteousness.’ ”’
The question as to the priority in time which arises respecting the Epistle
of Jude and this Epistle is, so far as it is connected with this chapter, one of
178 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
much difficulty; but to the writer of this note, the probability, on the whole, —
as the several verses are carefully compared, — seems to be on the side of the
priority of 2 Peter.
XXX.
CHAPTER III.
Vv. 1-7.
1. The third chapter constitutes, as Huther says, a third section of the
Epistle, which is directed against the deniers of Christ. At the same time,
there is an evident and close connection with what immediately precedes; and
what the writer has now to say, belongs in that general line of description of the
false teachers and doubters to which the Epistle is so largely devoted. —2. It is
evident that the writer refers in ver. 1 to the fact that he had already addressed
another letter to the readers. This reference does not, of course, necessarily
point to 1 Peteras the other letter; but, when taken in connection with the
allusions to himself as the apostle, there can be no question that, in the use of
the expression employed here, the writer means to indicate that Epistle as the
earlier one. —3. The object or design which the writer has in view in the two
Epistles, he declares to be that to which he has already given expression by the
use of the same phrase, deyeipey év vrouvyoe, in chap. i. ver. 18, together with
the words dependent on this phrase. It is to be observed that the clauses begin-
ning with rovro zpwrov ywwwoxovrec contain what is subordinate to the remembrance,
etc., and thus, what is not the contents of the design, if this expression may be
allowed, but, at the most, a secondary element connected with it. There is,
therefore, nothing in the setting forth of the design of the Epistle here which is
inconsistent with the design for which the First Epistle of Peter was written.
4. The more particular statement of this design is contained 1n the words of
ver, 2, that you should remember, etc.; these words, however, are not to be
limited to the matter of the rising-up of doubters and mockers, but they refer to
the more general idea of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The things
which they should remember are described as the words of the prophets (of the
O. T., as we must believe) and the commandment of the Lord. The meaning
of this compound phrase must be determined, as it would seem, by the principal
word contained in it. This word, evidently, is évroAj¢, which cannot justly be
regarded as exhausted by the idea of the following verse, but must, at the least,
include what Huther speaks of, ‘‘the command to lead a Christian life in expec-
tation of the second coming of Christ.’’ Perhaps it may have an even more
extended meaning than this, and may cover the whole sphere of Christian duty,
though this is less probable. The prophetic word also, as may be seen in i. 19,
relates to the glory and majesty of Christ, which are to be fully realized, indeed,
at and after His second coming, but which are manifested, before that time, in
the course of the development of the kingdom which He is carrying forward.
While there fis more, therefore, of the thought of the second coming in this
Epistle than in the first, the great thought of both bears upon that which is
only consummated and perfected at that time.
5. With respect to the words of ver. 2, the reader may be referred to the
note on the corresponding passage in Jude (ver. 17). The similarity and dis-
similarity in the expressions here used, as compared with what we find in that
verse, are equally striking. Here only, we have the allusion to the prophets,
the word spoe:pyuévwv, which in Jude is applied to the apostles’ words, being
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 179
here used of those spoken by them. The position of the phrase respecting the
prophets, before that which relates to Christ and the apostles, makes it sub-
stantially certain that the O. T. prophets are meant. This is confirmed, also,
by the allusion to the O. T. prophets in i. 19, in connection with the reference
to the apostles in i. 16-18. — The expression which is here used of the apostles
is also peculiar, as compared with what is found in Jude. According to all the
best authorities, tucv should be read here. But whether we read tov, or with
T. R. quov, the position of the word in the sentence is different from that in
Jude, and this difference is one of much importance. In Jude, the pronoun is
placed after xvpiov, and by reason of this fact the apostles are spoken of in the
third person, in such a way as apparently to set them altogether apart from
the writer himself. In this Epistle, on the other hand, the pronoun is con-
nected with azoordAwy, If the true reading is tydy, as it doubtless is, your
apostles, it may indeed point to the apostles as distinct from himself, but the
expression is not inconsistent with a reference to himself as one of the number.
If jnuwv is the correct reading, and the meaning is as given In the A. V., he
places himself among the apostolic company. It is only when we read 70,
and make it dependent on dzooréAwy, that he certainly excludes himself: our
apostles. While, therefore, it is possible, with either reading, that there is an
indication here that the author was not an apostle, it is only possible, while in
Jude the most natural understanding of the words points to such a conclusion.
— The peculiar expression, ‘‘the-of-your-apostles-commandment of the Lord
and Saviour,’’ is to be accounted for, probably, by the desire which the writer
had to represent the commandment, with a certain emphasis, as being both from
the Lerd and from the apostles, in contrast with the words of the O. T. proph-
ecies which had been spoken by the prophets. The words tev aroordAwy byov
are a kind of adjective phrase belonging to évroAj¢, and in respect to prominence
are secondary to Tob xupiov xul owrnpoc; the meaning being the commandment of
the Lord and Saviour communicated to you by or through your apostles.
6. The correspondence of ver. 3 with Jude, ver. 18, will be noticed, and it
will be observed that the language in Peter is such as may naturally describe a
future which lies beyond the time of the writing of the epistle, while in Jude
the expression is most naturally understood as a reference to a past foretelling
of events then future, but now partly or wholly realized. —7. Ver. 4 presents
a special matter which is not alluded to in Jude. The doubt respecting the
coming of the Lord, because of the fact that the fathers had died, and no
change or sign of the end had been seen, could only belong to a time, as it
would seem, near the close of the apostolic period, or later than that epoch. It
will be noticed, indeed, that the time of the appearance of these doubters is
placed in the future, by the verb which {s used. Ver. 5, however, seems to refer
to them as already, in some sense and measure at least, present in or around the
church. If we are to infer from ver. 5 that the future time mentioned had
already come, this passage suggests a difficulty in placing the epistle within the
lifetime of Peter, in case his death occurred at a date very near the time of
Paul's death. But perhaps we are not obliged to interpret the passage in this
way. That doubters as to the second coming may have lived as early as the
year 68, is by no means impossible, but the placing of the ground of their doubts
in the partieular fact alluded to in ver. 4, is that which suggests the difficulty.
If we can, with any propriety, carry the time of the present verb Aavéave: forward
to the standpoint of the future éAetowvra, the difficulty may perhaps be avoided.
—8. The fathers here referred to are those of the generation or generations
780 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
immediately preceding. There is evidently a combined construction in the
latter part of ver. 4, the thought being, that the permanent continuance of
things, observable since the beginning of the creation, is still observable since
the death of the fathers, — we see, these men said, what has always been seen;
no change, no sign of the end, and of His coming.
XXXII.
Vv. 5-10.
1. In these verses the writer answers and refutes the assertion of the scoff-
ers: First, in vv. 5-7, by a reference to the history of the creation, and the flood,
as given in the O. T. As at that early time the world, which had been created
and preserved by the word of God, was destroyed by the flood, so the world
that now is, is reserved for destruction by fire. —2. The explanation of 6éAovra¢
and tovro, given by Huther, is not generally favored. He refers rovro to the
contents of the preceding statement, and makes it dependent on @éAovrac, to
which he assigns the meaning assert (desiring it to be so, holding as an opinion),
Sor, whilst they assert this, it is hidden from them that, etc. This explanation
involves a meaning which, though possible for 0éAorrag, is not found in the use
of that word elsewhere in the N. T.; and it seems less simple than the more
common interpretation, which gives @éAovrac the adverbial force, which so often
belongs to such participial words in connection with Aavéaver. Were it not for
these objections, Huther’s view would be a satisfactory and successful explana-
tion of the words. —3. On ver. 5b, Alford says, ‘‘é§ idarog, because the waters
that were under the firmament were gathered together into one place, and the
dry land appeared, and thus water was the material out of which the earth was
made: d’ tdaroc, because the waters above the firmament, being divided from
the waters below the firmament, furnishing moisture and rain, and keeping
moist the earth, are the means by which the earth cvvicrara,’? On the whole,
this is, perhaps, as satisfactory an explanation of this somewhat difficult clause
as can be given. —4. 4’ ov.— The reference of ov is probably to the two things
previously mentioned, —the word of God, which was the creating force that
brought the heavens and earth into being, and the water, which was the material
agency, so to speak, through which the result was accomplished. The two
things which brought the then world into existence effected its destruction,
and so in the case of the present heavens and earth. They are kept in store
by the same powerful word of God. The idea of the passage is, that there is a
reserving of them for destruction by fire, as of old by the flood. The dative
mupi seems to be most naturally connected with re@avptopévor, for fire, Tnpovpevor
being limited by the following words only. —5. Vv. 8-10 contain the second
point which the writer urges: The time-element in God’s plans and dealings is
far different from what it is in those of men. But let titis one thing not escape
you: The verb here corresponds with that in ver. 5. Though they forget, and
if @éAovrag be rendered adverbially, wilfully forget, the lesson which might be
learned from the world in the time of the flood, they should by no means lose
sight of the fact here mentioned. Possibly there may be in the contrast here
an argument of slight force in favor of Huther’s view of 0éAorrag (ver. 5); the
contrast being, more naturally, between forgetting and not forgetting, than
between wilfully forgetting and not forgetting. —6. The genitive tig éxayyeAiag
of ver. 9 is probably to be explained, with Huther, as depending immediately
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 781
upon the verb, but R. V. and A. V. give the most successful English translation.
The following phrase is, perhaps, best rendered: count, or account it, |.e., the
Lord’s failure to fulfil the promise of the coming, slackness. iyudc refers to
the readers, but as representative of all men, as is indicated by mavrac, which
follows in the next clause. —7. Ver. 10 contains a renewed affirmation, closing
this refutation of the scoffers and doubters, that the day of the Lord will
certainly come, and come suddenly and unexpectedly. The statement of this
verse, and the repetition of it, substantially, in the verses which follow, present
more distinctly before the mind than almost any other passage in the N. T.,
perhaps than any other passage, the idea of a physical destruction or transfor-
mation of the present visible heavens and earth, and their renewal in the future
as the abode of righteousness. If taken literally, the whole passage would
seem to suggest, also, the idea that the righteous will live hereafter, in the
future period referred to, on the earth. The language, however, is of a poetic
order, and it may be intended only as a figurative setting-forth of the change to
the future blessedness. —8. Huther’s explanation of oroxeia is probably correct,
the dvvayero ray ovpavav of Matt. xxiv. 20. The idea is that the heavens and their
constituent parts, the earth and what fills it, will be burned up and dissolved.
XXX. :
Vv. 11-18.
1, On the foundation of what is asserted in ver. 10, the writer now presses
his closing exhortations upon his readers. The genitive absolute which opens
ver. 11 is evidently causal in its character; and the present tense of the parti-
ciple seems to be expressive of the certainty of that which has just been declared
respecting the future. —2. The word torarov¢ is undoubtedly, as Huther also
takes it, exclamatory, and the sentence goes forward to the end of ver. 12. The
word orebdovrac is best understood in the sense of hastening: they should not
only look for, but should (by their piety, etc.) hasten, the coming of the day of
God. Grimm, R. V. text, and others, regard the participle as meaning desiring
earnestly. — de’ fv, on account of which day, or which coming of the day. The
Lord’s day, when it comes, will be attended by, and will occasion the results
indicated. —3. Aco of ver. 14 refers to what immediately precedes, that fs, the
coming of the day of God, with what it involves. The verb evped7va refers to
the time of the coming; and the words in peace are probably to be explained
of that state of peace between the soul and God which may be reached in its
perfection when the Lord comes. — 4. The words, and account the long-suffer-
tng of our Lord salvation, are a recalling of the thought of ver. 9, the desire
of the writer being to impress his readers, as he closes, with a deep sense of
the meaning of God’s mercy in any delay of the end. —5. The allusion to Paul’s
writings in vv. 15, 16, is quite difficult of determination. To the writer of this
note, the following points seem probable: (a) That a particular letter or class of
letters is referred to in typawev tyulv, which was addressed by Paul to readers
of the same general region with those here addressed: thus, of the letters which
have been preserved to us, those to the Ephesians and Colossians are most prob-
ably the ones indicated. — (hb) That the reference is not simply to the one thought
of the day of the Lord, etc., as here set forth, but to Paul’s exhortations to
blameless living in view of the shortness of life, the end, etc. —6. With respect
to the expression, the other scriptures, all that it seems necessary to find in It
182 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
is a comparison of Paul’s writings with the other writings which were read by
the Christian readers of this Epistle, and by the persons alluded to as wresting
them, etc. It does not prove that the author places Paul’s letters on the same
level of authority with the O. T. Scriptures, or even that an established collec-
tion of Christian writings, such as we now have in the N. T., had already been
fully completed when this letter was written. It does, however, seem to recog-
nize some such writings as already having a certain acknowledged authority.
The bearing of this matter upon the date of the Epistle can hardly be considered
as decisive, but is deserving of serious consideration. —%7. The ward zpoyivo-
oxovre¢ seems to refer to a foreknowledge on the part of the Christian readers,
which was gained through the declarations of this Epistle, or which was thereby
renewedly established in their minds. —8. The doxology at the end of this
Epistle is one of the two or three in the N. T. which are applied to Christ, all
others being doxologies toGod. The reference to Christ here is beyond question.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
XXXII.
CHAPTER I.
Vv. 1-4.
1. The similarity between the opening passage of this Epistle and that of
the Gospel of John will be noticed by every attentive reader. At the very
beginning the two books meet each other; and these first sentences carry in
themselves evidence that the writer of the Gospel was also the author of this
letter. The relation of the two books, in the order of time, may be open to
discussion; but, whatever may be the decision of this question, there can be
little doubt, it would seem, that, in the order of thought and development, the
Epistle comes later than the Gospel. The Epistle is, as it were, the develop-
ment of thoughts, the historical foundation of which is presented by the Gospel,
in its biographical record of Jesus’ life. This relation of the later work to the
earlier makes it antecedently probable that the writer, in his use of the word
Logos, in ver. 1, has reference to the personal Logos, of whom he speaks in the
first verses of the Gospel.—2. The central thought of the Epistle is that of
Sw. This Gw7 is that which God has,—the light-life, in which there is no
darkness. This (#7 was manifested in a person, so that it could be observed
and studied, like an ordinary life. The revelation of it through this person was
the means by which the realization of it in all other persons could be most
easily and fully accomplished. It was through the fellowship with Jesus Christ,
that the fellowship with the Father was to be attained. —3. Such being the
author’s thought, it was natural that he should make very prominent, at
the beginning, the fact of the manifestation of the life in Jesus, as he and his
fellow-disciples had seen it. The peculiar repetition and emphasis of his
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 783
expressions are characteristic of his style, as seen both in the Gospel and
elsewhere in the Epistle. By this means, he would impress upon the minds of
his readers that the life had been actually lived in his own presence.
4, With reference to the individual words and expressions used in these first
four verses, the following suggestions may be offered: (a) By the words 6 fv aw’
apx7¢, we are carried in thought to the év dpyg in the first verse of the Gospel.
That the reference is to the eternal existence of the Logos, is indicated also by
the fact, that, in ver. 2, the life predicated of the Logos is said to have been with
the Father in the same sense, apparently, as that indicated in the Gospel i. 1.
The form of expression, 4 mpd¢ rdv marépa, is 80 precisely like the yy mpod¢ rdv Gedy
of John i. 1, that it can hardly be interpreted in a different way. We have,
therefore, in these verses, the two thoughts of the prologue of the Gospel, —the
existence in the indefinite, eternal past, and the manifestation in personal form
in the present. — (b) The form of words used, 96 #7 an’ apyic, 6 axnxdapuev , . . wepl
tov Adyov, as distinguished from the direct predications respecting the Logos
which we find in the Gospel, is to be explained in connection with the differ-
ence between the two books. The writer is not here making statements with
reference to the Logos, as to what He was, etc., but is preparing to set forth
the life which dwelt in Him, and which was manifested in and through Him.
The Logos was and became, he says in the Gospel ; but here: what was, etc.,
concerning the Logos, we declare and announce to you who read. _ 4s con-
nected with the same fact, we may easily account for the use of in’ apyi¢ instead
of é¢v apxy. The existence of the Logos was in the beginning; but that which
the apostles announce respecting the manifestation of the light.life, in and
through the Logos, is that which was from the beginning, and which has now
been revealed in His personal life on earth.—(c) The addition of Jw7¢ as a
descriptive genitive to Adyov, and the fact that in other writings of the N. T. we
find such expressions as the word of truth, the word of the kingdom, etc., refer-
ring to the Gospel, can hardly be considered as decisive grounds for denying to
Aéyos here the personal sense. Nor can the use of Adyoc without such a defining
genitive, in the three or four places in John’s Gospel where the personal Logos is
spoken of, be urged as conclusive. The prominence which the writer here evi-
dently desires to give to the idea of ¢w7, as connected with Jesus Christ, accounts
sufficiently for the addition of this word; and the evident suggestion of person-
ality in the verbs of vv. 1, 2, turns the reader’s mind most naturally and directly
to the personal Logos. The writer’s thought moves after a somewhat similar
manner to that which is noticeable in his Gospel (yet of course with differences
belonging to the character of the two books), from a reference to the Logos,
who appeared in the world in the presence of the disciples, to Jesus Christ, the
manifested Logos in a human personality. —(d) The word handled, of ver. 1,
may possibly refer, as some indeed hold that it does, to what occurred after the
resurrection of Jesus. It seems doubtful, however, whether there is any such
definite and particular reference, and whether, on the other hand, there is any
thing more in this repetition of substantially the same idea than a special
emphasis which the writer would give to his statement, and perhaps a certain
distinct recalling, in the two aorist tenses, of the personal experience of the
disciples during the lifetime of the Lord. Ver. 2 seems to present the strict
order of time and tenses: The life was manifested; we have seen it; we bear
witness, and announce to you. —(e) The correspondence in the idea of (of and
Swh alwvioc, which is noticeable in John’s Gospel, is evident here. The life of the
soul — the light-life, which is like God’s life—is in itself, and as soon as it is
184 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
possessed, eternal life, according to this writer’s view of it. This eternal life was
in the Logos; it was manifested in Jesus; it was imparted by Him to the apostle
and his fellow-disciples, with whom Jesus lived in His earthly life; through the
possession of it they came into fellowship — into a real and vital participation in
the eternal life, the light-life— with Jesus, and with God Himself. The apostle
now announces it to the readers that they also may, in union with himself, have
participation in the same life. —(f) If in ver. 4 tudv is the true text, it would
seem probable that the apostle’s thought is connected with the idea that the
fellowship in life with God and Christ is the completeness of the joy of the soul.
The idea suggested in John xv. 10, 11, may be compared with that of this verse.
On the other hand, if 7c is the true text, the meaning would seem to be this:
that the apostle’s joy would be made complete, if his readers should enter into
the same fellowship into which he had himself entered, and that, so far as he is
himself concerned, he writes to the end of making his joy in this way complete.
The «ai of this verse, in either case, adds the expression of this purpose (iva) to
that previously mentioned.
XXXIV.
Vv. 5-10.
1. After the introductory passage, vv. 1-4, the apostle begins the develop-
ment of his thought in the Epistle by stating the great fundamental truth which
lay at the basis of his message to the readers; the truth that the Divine life is
light, a perfect and complete light, in which no darkness at all is intermingled.
This message was the great revelation given by Jesus, and heard from Him.
The manifestation of the Logos in Jesus Christ was to the end of bringing
life to men, or of bringing men to life. The true life is God’s life, and this life
is light. Man is to gain this life by coming into fellowship with God in His
life. The end is to be attained as the apostle himself had attained it, by
putting one’s self under the influence and teaching of Jesus Christ, and thus
growing into His likeness. The gateway by which one truly enters within the
sphere of this influence and teaching is faith. —2. The same contrast between
light and darkness is found here as in the prologue of John’s Gospel. Darkness
is the sphere of tbe sinful world’s life. The man who walks in the darkness
has no fellowship with God, no participation in God’s life. —3. This writer,
like the other writers of the N. T., has the idea of sin as possessing and having
control over men. Like them, he writes for the purpose of showing the way
out of the sinful life, and into the opposite. But his mode of conception, and
his phraseology, are affected by the peculiar character of his mind and soul.
He is of the introvertive, contemplative, inward class. Life thus seems to him
a growth into the likeness of God—a movement of the soul out of darkness
and sin into light—a coming into and progress in communion with God—a
receiving into one’s self the light-life, until at length all the darkness is
expelled. To say, therefore, that we have fellowship with God, and yet to live
and walk in the darkness, is a contradiction in terms. The man who does this
is outside of the sphere of truth; he isa liar. There is no true living except as
the life rises above the darkness into the light, that is, except as the soul’s life
moves upward towards God’s life, and transfers the latter into itself. —4. The
addition of the peculiar expression, and we do not the truth, to the word we lie,
is in accordance with the style of John. The Epistle keeps very prominently
before the mind of the reader, even from the beginning, the idea that the true
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 785 ©
life is one which manifests itself in action; that the true faith and love are the
faith and love which have a working force in them. The truth is something to
be done, as well as to be believed. But the doing is, to his thought, the natural
forth-putting of the inward vitality. The inward life, as he dwelt in it for
himself, and concentrated his thinking upon it, was an inward life; and, there-
fore, it was necessarily also an energizing power for the doing of all that to
which the belief naturally led in action.
5. If, however, we walk in the light (ver. 7) as He is in the light, the light-
life has begun within us. The word as, in this verse, can hardly be regarded as
indicating measure or degree. It conveys rather the idea of correspondence in
the facts of the case. The light-life is perfect and complete in God; it may be
partial and incomplete in Christian men; nevertheless it is the same life, and
the latter walk in the light as, j.e., as really as, (and with the same fact lying
at the basis of the statement), God Himself lives in the light. —6. Instead of
saying in ver. 7, we have fellowship with Him, which expression we might
naturally expect as answering to ver. 6, the writer uses the words, we have
fellowship with one another. This change of expression is to be accounted for,
as we may believe, by the fact that the two ideas of union with God and union
with one another, which are first suggested in ver. 8, seem to be in the writer’s
mind in the development of bis whole thought. — 7. The addition of the words,
and the blood of Jesus, etc., is in the line of the thought hinted at above in
connection with the expression, as He is in the light. The Christian believer
enters, when he comes into union with God by faith, into the sphere of the
light. But the influence and power of the light upon his soul become gradually
greater. There is still somewhat of remaining sin,—the lingering of the
element of darkness, in which he had previously had his life’ The indication
of this verse seems evidently to determine the reference of the word sin to be
to this sin which still abides with the Christian after the beginning of his new
life. As the Christian enters within the light-sphere, and comes into fellowship
with God, the blood of Jesus, which was made effective for him in his passing
out of his old condition, is also continually made effective in removing the
sinful element which remains.—8. The reference of the word sin, thus deter-
mined in ver. 7, is, by the connection of thought, determined also in ver. 8; and
the view of Huther and others here is correct, that the writer is alluding to sin
as belonging to the Christian after he has entered upon the Christian life. As
Huther remarks: ‘‘ Even though as Christians, who are born of God, we have
no longer sin [see iii. 9] in the sense that xeper. év tO oxdree ts true of us, never-
theless we do not yet cease to have sin; if we deny this, if we maintain that
we have no sin at all, then what John says in the following words {is true of
us.”? —9, The denial that we have sin — that sin still has remaining influence
over us, and an abiding force as a principle — is a denial of the true fact of the
case. It is such a contradiction of the reality as proves that the truth has not
found entrance into the soul and its life. With such a denial, therefore, the
soul places itself outside of the true path along which it must pass from
the darkness into the light — tAaveyev: it puts itself on the wrong road, and
goes astray from the truth.
10. The true course, on the other hand, is confession, which acknowledges
the fact and power of sin, and seeks to be delivered completely. When the
soul moves along this course, the promises are fulfilled; as the soul is forgiven,
80 also it Is cleansed. It is cleansed from all unrighteousness, until the light-
life becomes perfect and complete. —11. This cleansing, as well as the forgive-
ge een TR RN NN ER MEANS ONY ARNE FECES GUERNSEY IR CUE OAUAUIES ULC
God’s faithfulness and righteousness are pledged to its accomplishment. The
idea of righteousness here, like that of faithfulness, is related, no doubt, to the
thought of God’s promise of salvation to the one who confesses, etc. After
such a promise, His righteousness requires Him to fulfil it, the conditions
having been fulfilled. But not improbably, in all such expressions as this, the
N. T. writers —and especially one who penetrated so deeply into the central
thoughts of the Christian system, and reflected so constantly upon the life of
the human soul in its relation to God, as did the writer of this Epistle and the
Fourth Gospel —had a conception of the righteousness of God as connected
with the very life and being of God. It is, as we may say, of the essence of
God’s life, that when the finite, dependent, created life draws near to itself,
with the desire and effort to pass out of the darkness into the light, it should
open itself helpfully and forgivingly. The conformity of God’s nature to what
it ought to be, and what it must be if it is true to itself, — that is, His righteous-
ness, in the strictest sense of the term, — requires that He should forgive and
purify the one who confesses his sins. He can be no more faithful to Himself,
than He can be to His promise, if He fails to do all this for the soul which
truly turns towards Him. — 12. It is because of this deeper thought of God’s
righteousness, as we may believe, that the writer presses the subject upon the
reader’s attention, and it is in the line of this thought that he develops the idea
of the fundamental necessity of the union of the loving and believing soul with
God, in various ways, throughout the Epistle. — 18. Ver. 10, as Alford remarks,
is not a mere repetition, but a confirmation and intensification, of ver. 8. The
denial of sin puts us in an absolute contradiction of God, and outside of the
whole sphere of His word. The whole plan of God revealed in the Gospel is
founded upon the fact of sin, and of sin which needs to be forgiven, and from
the power of which the soul needs to be perfectly cleansed. — By these strong
contrasts, among which this last one is especially emphatic, the apostle lays the
foundation of what he has to say in the following chapters. The light-life is to
‘be secured, if the soul is to be saved. In order to the entrance upon the light-
‘life, there must be a passing out of the darkness. To this end, the fact of sin
must be acknowledged, and the cleansing through the blood of Christ must be
realized.
XXXV.
CHAPTER II.
Vv. 1-6.
1. The word ratra, of ver. 1, refers primarily to what is said in i. 5-10; ina
secondary sense, it may refer also to the entire contents or message of the
Epistle. The apostle announces to his readers the great fundamental truth
which he has to proclaim, the truth that the Divine life is the light-life in which
no darkness at all is intermingled; and he sets forth the way by which this
Divine life is opened to and secured by the human soul, namely, by passing out
of the sphere of darkness and walking in the light, in order that the end to be
attained may be realized in the case of these Christian readers. The man who
walks in the darkness is wholly outside of the sphere of the light; he knows
nothing of the true life. But the man who turns from the darkness towards
the light, will still have some element of sin remaining with him, which, as
he comes more and more into the fulness of the light-life, will pass away, yet
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 787
which needs, so long as it remains, to be forgiven and cleansed. This is accom-
plished through Christ and the efficacy of His blood. — The truth, therefore,
is, that the way to life for the human soul {s the conforming of its life to the
Divine, the living and walking in the light; and the way out of the darkness
is through forgiveness and purification. This the writer announces to his
readers, he now says, to the end that they may not sin; that is, that they may
become free from the sin which remains, and thus may come into the perfect
light. The verb sin here is in the aorist tense, and, as Canon Westcott remarks,
‘*the thought is of the single act, not of the state;’’ ‘‘the apostle is’’ not
‘‘simply warning his disciples not to draw encouragement for license from the
doctrine of forgiveness. His aim is to produce the completeness of the Christ-
like life.”’ But with the setting-forth of this aim, which carries with it an
urgent exhortation, the apostle connects the encouraging assurance that, in
case the Christian who is ready to yield to the exhortation falls into any act
of sin (the aorist tense again), there is an advocate with the Father, and a pro-
pitiation for sin. —2. The word sapixAnroc, as here used, undoubtedly has the
sense of advocate. Jesus is the one ‘‘called to the side or aid’’ of men,
(the original significance of the word), in this particular way of aiding. On
the general use and meaning of this adjective-noun, some suggestions are offered
in the Additional Notes to the American edition of Godet’s Commentary on
the Gospel of John, chap. xiv. The meaning in John's Gospel is there held
to be helper, as including the ideas of teaching, revealing the truth, etc.
The Paraclete spoken of in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit; here, it is Christ.
The offices of the two are somewhat different, but they both stand in the rela-
tion of helpers, —the former being teacher, guide, comforter, as He is referred to
in John xiv.-xvi.; the latter, as here referred to, being an advocate before the
tribunal of God. Some prominent writers, however, hold that the word means
advocate in the Gospel, as certainly as in the Epistle. —3. The adjective dixaov
seems to have a certain predicative character: as being righteous, and not to be
a simple descriptive word, the righteous. This word evidently refers to Jesus as
having exhibited perfect righteousness in His earthly life and in His character
asaman. As having such righteousness, He is fitted to present His offering
for sin, and to become the advocate for those who sin. The four points which
Huther presents, in his ‘‘ Remark’’ at the end of his note on ver. 1, are worthy
of notice as setting forth, according to his own expression, the chief elements
which are the result of the apostle’s statement.
4. The statement of ver. 2, that Christ is the propitiation, etc., is added by
kai as co-ordinate to what precedes, This verse, therefore, is not expressed in
the form of a ground or reason for the preceding verse; it is, on the other hand,
an additional declaration, which brings out the thought that the same one who
is the advocate is also Himself the propitiation. This co-ordination of the sen-
tences serves to show that the deliverance from sin, even from its beginning to
its end, is due to Christ, and is secured by Him. The advocate presents His
propitiatory offering of Himself in His plea before the tribunal. By that offer-
ing He opens the way of forgiveness for all men, if they will accept it. By His
advocacy He gains for His followers the result for which He undertook His work
as a Saviour. —5. Ver. 3 seems to indicate the relation in which vv. 1, 2, stand
to each other, according to the writer’s thought, so far forth as ver. 2 is universal
and ver. 1 applies to the believer. Ver. 2 presents, in the clearest language, the
declaration that the atonement is universal forall men. Ver. 1 limits the advo-
cacy to the case of the believer. Ver. 3 declares that that true knowledge of
788 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Christ, which is connected with the realized result of the application of the
propitiatory offering to the individual soul, is gained and possessed only by those
who come into union with Him by obedience. — This third verse, however,
brings before the mind of the reader the importance and necessity, also, of not
sinning (ver. 1), that is, of passing completely out of the dominion of sin and
darkness, in order to the full possession of the true life. The knowledge here
spoken of is that knowledge which John has in mind in his writings, and which
is connected with his mode of thought and conception. To know God is to be
in that union and communion of the soul’s life with Him, which gives to one
soul a true and full apprehension of another. It is not love or friendship, but
it is the knowledge which belongs within the sphere of love and friendship.
Paul, in passages like 1 Cor. viii. 2, 3, 1 Cor. xiii. 12, seems to hesitate to affirm
such knowledge on man’s part, while in this life. To know God, or rather to
be known by Him, he would say. I shall hereafter fully know, as I was while
in this life myself fully known. But John, with his tendency to abide in the
soul’s inmost living, and in his joyful experience of the growth of the soul
in the society and under the influence of Jesus, feels that this knowledge is
realized now — in its beginnings and its early stages indeed, but yet truly. The
eternal life is begun already. The reality is already in possession of the soul;
the growth towards the fulness is to be ever onward in the future. —6. The
necessity of obedience to the existence of this knowledge belongs to the relation
of man to God as a creature under moral obligation, and is also connected with
the fact that the light-life, in which is no darkness at all, is God’s life. Man
must, therefore, come into complete conformity of will with God, if he would
enter into the completeness of the light-life. To pretend to know God, without
obedience, is a contradiction in terms. The man who makes this pretence and
claim is a liar, a person in whom the truth has no place.
7. The intimate and vital connection between love and knowledge, which is
manifest everywhere as appertaining to this apostle’s thought, is evident in this
passage. The love of God (ver. 5) is, as Huther also affirms, love to God, the
genitive being objective. When the Christian believer keeps the word, that is,
when he keeps and fulfils the commandments of God, his love to God, in the
union of friendship as between two souls, is perfected; and by means of this
perfect obedience, manifesting, and growing out of, perfected love, we know
that we are in Him in the inmost life of the soul. —8. Ver. 6 turns the thought
to Christ, and suggests that which lies at the foundation of the entire Epistle;
namely, that, as Christ is the revelation to the world of the light-life in God,
men must imitate Christ, and live after His way of living, and be in fellowship
with Him, if they are to come into the possession of the life which God has. —
9. The verses from i. 5 to ii. 6 serve to show the relation in thought, if not
indeed, also, in the date of the two books, between the Epistle and the Gospel.
We have here most evidently, as it would seem, the truth which the apostle
formulated as the result of his meditations on what Christianity had laid open
to him. In the Gospel, on the other hand, we find what is set forth as the
words of Christ in His conversations with His disciples and the people. If
the latter is regarded as the record of what grew, in the progress of the writer’s
thinking, into the formulated thought, the most natural and simple account of
the two books is given. But if we change the supposition, and make the
Gospel grow out of, or find its foundation in, the Epistle, we have what is most
improbable, not to say inexplicable, as the result.
4
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 789
XXXVI.
Vv. 7-11.
1. The view of Huther respecting the connection of these verses with those
which precede seems to be correct: that in these verses we have a more partic-
ular statement of the nature and import of rypeiv rag évroAdc atbrod or of mepirareiv
Kadoc éxeivoc wepeeturnoe. The close union between the love of God and the love
of one’s brother is central to the Johannean thought; and, by reason of this
fact, a special prominence is given to the latter kind of love, as the fulfilment
of the commands of God. This apostle had no idea of an inward life which
had no outward forth-putting of itself in action. The true inward life was,
in a certain sense, every thing to him. He meditated upon it, and watched its
growth in himself, with intense interest. The light-life of the soul was, to his
thought, the in-breathing, as it were, of the light-life of God, and was to be
developed by communion with God and Christ. But this light-life was, in his
conception, as truly as it could have been in that of any other of the apostles, a
living, outgoing life. Love which loved no one, and was not ready to do good
to any one, had nothing of the essence of love in it. The love of the soul to
God proves itself by love to the brethren. —2. This being the case, we may
easily account for what seems, at the first sight, to be a somewhat abrupt turn
at the beginning of ver. 7. But when it is borne in mind, that, in a sense, the
central command of all is that of love, it cannot be considered strange, that, at
this point, the apostle should pass from what he has said of the light-life, and of
the way into it and in It, tothis command. Moreover, it is to be remembered that
he has called the thought of the reader to Christ in His relation to the opening
of the new life and to the growth of the soul in it. It would seem not un-
natural, therefore, that he should bring to their minds the command which
Christ, at the time of His separating from His disciples, gave to them as the
guide and ruling power of their future life. Love to one another because of
and inspired by love to Him; love to one another, therefore, which would bring
them into closest union with Him, and thus bring them into the life which He
revealed to the world: this was the commandment which was at once new and
old, and was the suin and centre of all commands.
3. The commandment here referred to is evidently that of love to one’s
brother. It is called a new commandment in ver. 8, and not a new one in
ver. 7. The explanation of the latter expression is indicated by the closing
words of the seventh verse. The command was not new, because, and in the
sense that, the readers had heard it from the beginning of their knowledge of
the Christian life. It was a part of the message which came to them from
Christ, the revealer of the light-life, through the apostolic preachers. It was
new in another sense. This seems, again, to be indicated by the words which
form the latter part of ver. 8. It is new, in that, as it enters into human expe-
rience, and is realized in its fulfilment in each individual reader through the
passing-away of the darkness, and the shining of the light for and in him, it
becomes that new commandment for each one, which it was for the twelve
when it was first given by Jesus. —4. The antecedent of the neuter relative 4 is
the évroAj7v. This commandment as true, that is, as realized in its fulfilment
in Him and in you, —in Christ and His followers in their individual and suc-
cessive experience, and thus in and through the union between Him and them,
—is a new commandment. — 5. The relation of the or clause, in which 6r, no
790 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
doubt, means because, is to the 5 éorev clause which precedes. It is because the
darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining, that this com-
mandment is fulfilled in the experience of Christ’s followers as united with
Himself. —6. We find now, in vv. 9-11, another instance of the peculiar repe-
tition of positive and negative sentences, or sentences which present the same
idea on opposite sides, which has been already noticed, and is so characteristic
of this Epistle and this writer. This repetition is evidently for the purpose of
emphasis, centering, still more impressively than before, upon love to the Chris-
tian brother, what had been previously said of keeping the word and the coin-
mands of God. Comp. 6 Aéywv of this verse with the same expression in ver. 4,
and also the other correspondences in the parallel verses 4-6 and 9-11.—7. The
phrase fu¢ dprt seems to be added to the other words as emphatically calling
attention to the fact, that up to the very moment (and at that moment) when
the person says this, he is still completely outside of the light-life, and in the
opposite sphere. On the other hand, the man who loves his brother has a per-
manent dwelling of the soul in the light. The apparently designed contrast
between ver. 10 and ver. 11 seems to show that the last clauses of the two
verses are intended to have a relation to each other. The figure in the closing
part of ver. 12 is evidently like that in the words used by Jesus in John xii. 35, —
the traveller who attempts to make his journey in the darkness, and who cannot
see his pathway before him, and, therefore, does not know whither he is going.
When the figure is transferred in its application to the spiritual condition of the
man, of course the darkness belongs to the interior life; and so, in the opposite
case (ver. 10), it is natural to say that the occasion of stumbling which would
exist in the other condition does not exist in him. The occasion of stumbling
is, strictly speaking, as Huther says, that which entices to sin.
XXXVII.
Vv. 12-14.
1. This passage is apparently of a transitional character in the movement
from what precedes towards what follows, or of an introductory character as
related to what follows. The former is perhaps the better light in which to
view it. The message which is heard from Christ, and is announced to the
readers, is that which relates to the light-life (i. 5ff.). The way to the light-
life is through the forgiveness of sins, and the cleansing by means of the blood
of Jesus (i. 7, 9, ii. 1f.). In order to the living this life in the light, we must
keep the commandments of God (ii. 3ff.). These commandments are, in a
certain peculiar sense, centered and gathered up in the new command given by
Jesus Himself, the command to love one another (il. 7ff.). To the carrying-
out of this movement out of the darkness into the light, which is thus set
forth, it is necessary that the love of the world should be put aside (ii. 15 ff.).
The thought thus passes on continuously from i. 5, to ii. 17. In this continuous
passage is inserted, just before the last section of it, the address, as we may
call it, to the readers, which covers these verses now under consideration
(12-14).
2. In this address to the readers, the following points are especially worthy
of notice: (a) The classes of persons addressed are the same in the two parts of
the passage, except so far as the change of the word rexvia (ver. 12) to xacdia
(ver. 13c) may possibly indicate a change of persons. The probability, how-
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 791
ever, is that no such change is indicated. The correspondence in the other
cases tends to show that the same persons are intended here. The same thing
is implied by the use of macdka in ver. 18, which apparently has the same sense,
substantially, and is used of the same persons, as rexvia, in other parts of
the Epistle. — () The persons intended by these two words are probably the
whole body of Christian readers, whom the writer addresses. This is indicated,
first, by the fact that both words, as elsewhere used by this apostle, both in his
Epistle and his Gospel, have reference to believers, without regard to the
question of age. It is indicated, secondly, by the fact to which Alford calls
attention, that the three terms in each case are arranged in an order which is
neither that of ascending nor descending age —children, fathers, young men.
—(c) The distinction in meaning between rexvia and nadia may lie in the fact,
that the former is a word bearing in itself more of the element of tenderness
or affection. Westcott thinks that the former word carries in it the idea of
kinsmansbip, the latter that of subordination. John speaks in the use of the
former, he says, as sharing the nature of those to whom he writes; in the use
of the latter, as placed in a position of authority over them. This is possible,
but doubtful. Such a distinction can hardly be insisted upon in John xxi. 5,
as compared with John xiii. 33. Moreover, there would seem to be no special
reason for such a change of words in these sentences, which convey substantially
the same idea in all other respects. Perhaps the change is a mere rhetorical
one. —(d) The two forms of the verb ypugey (aorist and present) are, not im-
probably, best explained by Huther. They are substantially repetitions of the
same thought, as we may believe, in view of the general character of the verses.
But they are possibly to be accounted for in connection with the epistolary use
of the aorist, as related to the present, after the manner suggested by Diister-
dieck; the present referring to the immediate act of writing, the aorist to the
reader’s act of reading when complete, and both referring to the whole Epistle.
—(e) There can be no doubt that in the words fathers and young men, the
apostle intends to address the older and youriger members of the Christian
body. The two classes are included in the term rexvia or maidia; these words
being words of affection, as from an apostle and chief leader of the church. —
(f) The reasons given fur writing, in the several cases, do not pass beyond
the limits of a particular circle of thought and expression. With respect to the
Texvia and mada, we find two expressions: because your sins have been forgiven
you, and because you know the Father. These two things, the forgiveness of
sins, and the knowledge of the Father, are connected together, in that the
former is the entrance-way into the Christian life, and the latter is the essence
of it (as viewed from the standpoint of John, with reference to the truth that
God is light) and also In that they both come to the soul through Christ. The
apostle addresses his letter, which contains that central truth which he had
himself learned from Christ, to all his Christian readers, because they have
gained entrance into the new life, and are living in its atmosphere and its light.
They have already come to the knowledge of God, and are abiding in it. —
(y) The division into older and younger, which is indicated by rarépes and veavi-
oxo, ig a not unnatural one, and is suggested in the writings of other N. T. writers.
If this Epistle was written as late as the year 80 or 90, there must of course
have been many believers among the Christian company, to whom its author
was writing, who were advanced in years, as well as many who were young.
The fathers are spoken of, both in ver. 13 and ver. 14, as knowing rav an’ apr.
There can be no doubt that by this phrase the apostle means Christ. There
NBER MI SEN BU EL CE MEN MAUI Ig CO SU TV UUAELE UU ARE, VESEY VEEL WEY J EUTS LIED UY Sie see rey
have the same sense here as in i. 1, and thus that the eternal existence of the
Son is referred to. That this knowledge is predicated of the fathers, while
the young men are spoken of as having overcome or conquered the evil one, is
in itself an indication that the apostle means by it a full knowledge, such as
belongs to the fully developed state of the Christian life. It is not merely true,
in their case, that they have overcome the evil one, and given the word of God
an abiding-place in their hearts; but the conflict is long since over, and they are
now living in the more complete development of the life which consists in the
knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ His Son. —(h) In the second allusion
to the young men, two clauses are added: because you are strong, and the worl
of God abides in you. The word strong here denotes spiritual strength, but is
doubtless connected with the idea of strength as characteristic of youth. ‘The
young soldier,’’ says Westcott, ‘‘is strong as having the personal qualifications
for his work; and the word of God abideth, etc., so that he is in living contact
with the source of life.’’
‘
XX<XVIII.
Vv. 15-17.
1. These verses are closely connected with those which precede; and, if the
explanation suggested above is correct, they form the closing part of the passage,
in the midst of which vv. 12-14 are inserted by way of transition. To the
fulfilment of the commands of God, and the great duty of love, —to the carrying
forward and perfecting of that life which opens with forgiveness, and moves on
in the sphere of the knowledge of God, —it is essential that the love of the
world should cease. —2. The world, as the expression is here used, evidently
means the world conceived of as apart from God, and as drawing away thought
and love from Him, when it draws thought and love towards itself. This is
evident from ver. 150, which declares that the love of the world, when dwelling
in the soul, excludes from the soul the love of God. It is also evident from
ver. 16. This latter verse indicates, that by the expression: the world, the
apostle means those things, like the vainglory of life, which especially excite
the desires of men, and turn them from the service and love of God. It will
be noticed that ver. 16 is connected with ver. 15 by 67; and thus the fact
that every thing like the vainglory, etc., is not of the Father, is made a proof
of what goes before. This relation of the sentences is decisive of the writer’s
meaning.
8. The things which the apostle selects as representative of ray 7d tv 16 xdopy
are evidently indicative of what is in his mind; but it is scarcely to be supposed
that he means to cover the whole of worldly human desire by the words, or that
he {is particularly careful to make accurate divisions into kinds or classes of
desire. His object is rather to make clear to the reader what is the character
of those things which he refers to under the head of the world. This is not a
place for critical distinctions, but for combined and total impression. The
genitives capxdc and 6¢#aAucv are both of them subjective genitives, as Huther
says, and present the flesh and the eyes as the source of the desires. The flesh
is the fleshly or carnal nature opposed to God, and is the most general word here
used. It would seem almost impossible to take the flesh, in this place, in any
other sense than that in which John uses it, elsewhere, in its contrast to the
spiritual and divine life. The eyes must be connected with the matter of seeing,
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 798
and thus the desires here alluded to are those which come from seeing, and they
are desires for the things seen. The vainglory of life apparently (the word being
derived fromn aAa{uv, which contains the idea of boasting or bragging) seems to
refer to that pomp, power, distinction of any sort, belonging to the earthly and
outward life, in connection with which a man becomes filled with pride, and a
sense of exaltation above others about him. This vainglory of life, and the
things which are seen by the eye, make up a large share of that which fills
the hearts and hopes of the men of the world, so far as they are raised above mere
animal desire and passion. Of this latter sort of desire and passion, the apostle
is probably not speaking in this passage. His thought is of the life of the soul
in its higher regions, as we may say; and his question as to the true life is,
whether the man is animated by that love which goes out towards God, or, on
the other hand, by that love which goes out towards the higher (rather than the
lowest) things which belong to the world. The desire for these higher things
of the world (and not only that for the lowest) is, as opposed to the love of
God, the desire of the flesh; and It is not from (having its source in) the
Father, but from the world. What is said in these few sentences is presented
as setting forth what, in the view of the writer of this note, is the true meaning
and thought of these phrases and of the passage in which they occur. The
note of Huther is worthy of careful reading. —4. The statement of ver. 17,
** And the world is passing away,’’ is an added thought, simply joined by «ai
with what precedes, but it seems to give an additional] reason for not loving the
world and the things in it. The suggestion of Huther, that this expression has
reference to the thought of the parousia as near at hand, is favored by ver. 18
and ver. 28, if these verses are to be interpreted as suggesting this thought. If
the N. T. writers had this idea of the nearness of Christ’s second coming, all
thoughts of the passing away of the present condition of things must have had
@ peculiarly deep impressiveness to their minds, which, so far as this point is
concerned, is unknown to us. But whether John had this thought of the near-
ness of the parousia, or not, we must believe, that to a mind like his, which
dwelt so much upon the soul’s life, and so little upon the outward life in
comparison with it, the fact that the world, and the desires to which it gives
rise, are passing by and passing away, must have been deeply impressive. This
fact made the great distinction, in his view of the matter, between the inner
and the outer life, between that Divine friendship into which he had himself
entered long since, and the giving-up of the soul to the desire of those things
which are in the world, and which make up, in a sense, the idea of the world.
—5. The last clause of ver. 17 sets forth the opposite idea to that of the first
part. But now we have the personal form: He that does the will of God abides
Jor ever. In this clause, two points may be noticed: First, that there is a
return at the end of the paragraph to the idea of doing the commandments of
God, the sum of what He wills, His will; and, secondly, that the introduction
of the personal form is most natural here, as the mind of John was dwelling,
first of all, and last of all, on personal life. Not simply does the doing of God’s
will lead to eternal life, but he that does it continues in his personal life for
ever.
794 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXXIX.
Vv. 18-25.
1. At this point, the apostle turns to a warning against the many antichrists
who have already appeared. The connection of this passage with what goes
before may be noticed, with reference to the general progress of the thought,
and also with respect to the immediate relation of the sentences. In the latter
respect, the connection is evidently with ver. 17. The thought of the world
as passing away leads to the thought of the last hour as present. In the former
point of view, the exhortation to avoid the love of the world, as essential to
the fulfilling of the commands of God, easily brings to mind the suggestion of the
antichrists who impersonate the worldly spirit in its opposition to God. After
setting forth what the antichrists are, in contrast to the true believers, he urges
the readers, in the last verses of the chapter, to abide in Christ, and thus to be
prepared, in their inner life, to meet Him, at His coming, with joy and confi-
dence, and not with shame. The thought thus moves forward, in a direct
progress, from the preceding chapter towards the following one. — 2. The
expression the last hour is kindred to the last days, the end of these days, etc.,
found elsewhere. It has, perhaps, some connection, in John’s .use of it, with
the word pa, which is frequently used in his Gospel, where it refers to the time
of Christ’s death. This usage of John, as well as the definiteness in the word
itself, would seem to give the word a more limited and particular reference than
the other expressions alluded to have, and thus to indicate that the apostle
looked upon the period or time to which he refers as the final critical season
before the end. The precise reference will be determined according to the view
which may be held with respect to the idea of the apostles concerning the time
of the second coming. If John looked for the coming at an early day, the
expression the last hour will, of course, have a peculiar force and emphasis.
Huther takes this view, as also do many other commentators.
3. The term antichrist occurs only in this Epistle, and the Second Epistle of
John, but the person or power indicated by it appears elsewhere. As Huther
remarks, the same person is undoubtedly referred to here, who is spoken of in
2 Thess. ii. 3 as the man of sin. The reader may be referred to the notes of
Meyer on 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff., and also to the Additional Notes in the Amer. ed.
of Meyer, for suggestions on this subject. It is evident from John’s statement,
as it is from Paul’s, that the N. T. writers either looked upon the antichrist as
a particular person, or that they personified the enmity and opposition, which,
arising in and going out from the Church, in the way of apostasy, was, in their
view, to appear not long before the Lord’s second coming, — the great consum-
mation of evil in its assault upon the kingdom of God. This great personage,
or development of evil, was to be immediately preceded, it would seem, by other
and minor developments in the same line, and preparing the way for it; and
many of these, the apostle here says, had already appeared. The characteristic
feature of these many antichrists must be regarded as that which also belongs
to the one great antichrist himself, namely, the denial that Jesus is the Christ.
They take the position which is fundamentally opposed to the Christian system
and doctrine. —4. The appearance of these many immediate precursors of the
antichrist proves that the last hour has come. The language here used can
hardly be explained, except by supposing that John believed some great crisis to
be already at hand, and some great movement or event in the triumph of the
Divine kingdom to lie in the immediate future, which should, at least In some
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 795
sense, be the coming of the Lord. This Epistle being written in his advanced
life, perhaps in his extreme old age, the nearness of the great event was
jmpressed deeply upon his mind. The correspondence between this passage and
Matt. xxiv. 24, etc., seems to indicate what the idea of the apostle was with
regard to the coming, and that which should precede it. —5. These persons, to
whom the writer alludes as having already appeared, are declared to have gone
out from the church. This statement would seem to imply, that, in some
marked degree and manner, they had separated themselves from the body of
true believers. The same is indicated. also, by the ueuevipxecoay of the following
sentence. —6. The simplest construction of GAA’ iva is that which Is first given
by Huther in his note, the iva being made dependent on é&/A6av to be supplied
after (va. This iva carries with it the idea of the Divine purpose.
7. Ver. 20 is probably to be taken, with Huther, as preparatory to what
follows, rather than as in contrast with what precedes, although a certain
element of contrast may be indicated by tueic. The apostle calls the attention
of the readers to the fact that, as true Christian believers, they have the anoint-
ing which consists in the gift of the Holy Spirit; and that, being led into all the
truth by Him, they know all things within its limits. He reminds them, also,
that of course, as fundamental to the idea of knowing the truth, they know that
no lie is of the truth. The fact of their possession of this knowledge, not their
want of it, is the ground of his writing to them respecting the antichrists, etc.
The holy one mentioned in ver. 20 is probably Christ (John xvi. 7). —8. Ver. 22.
By the question, Who is the liar ? the apostle presents the central point of oppo-
sition to the Divine truth, and introduces the attitude of these false teachers
towards Christ as directly hostile to, and contradictory of, the essential Chris-
tian teaching. To deny that Jesus is the Christ, is to deny the whole truth of
Christianity, and to set one’s self outside of the revelation of the eternal life.
Westcott says, ‘‘The phrase by which St. John describes the master-falsehood
as the ‘denial that Jesus is the Christ,’ itself marks the progress of Christian
thought. In the earliest stage of the Church, the words would have expressed
a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus from the Jewish point of view. They now
answer to a later form of opinion. A common ‘Gnostic’ theory was that ‘the
seon Christ’ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and left Him before
the passion. Those who held such a doctrine denied that ‘Jesus was the
Christ;’ and in so denying, denied the union of the Divine and human in one
person. This heresy St. John signalizes here.’? Undoubtedly, at the time of
John’s writing, the foreshadowings, or early beginnings, of Gnosticism, were
manifest, and against such ideas John directed his words. But the words
which he here uses contain in themselves, and independent of all changes of
ideas on the part of adversaries, the fundamental thought of the Christian doc-
trine: Jesus is the Christ. The man'who denies this, is outside of the Christian
system. He who, in the full and wide meaning of the word, confesses it, is a
Christian. —9. The apostle connects this denial that Jesus is the Christ, imme-
diately with the denial of the Son and the Father. The central and vital relation
of the belief that Jesus is the Christ, to the union of the soul with God, which
is the idea of life in the Johannean thought, is brought out in the closing sen-
tence of ver. 22; and the essential and intimate connection between the confession
or denial of the Son, and the inward possession of the Father as the life-power
of the soul, is set forth in ver. 23. In the immediate relation of ver. 23 to
ver. 22b, the former (ver. 23) is a ground justifying the statement of the latter
(ver. 220).
796 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR
10. These verses, in respect to denial and confession, are followed by an
exhortation addressed to the readers. The word tuei¢ (ver. 24) has the same
emphasis in the way of contrast as in ver. 20. That which you heard from the
beginning: This refers evidently, in the connection in which the words stand,
to that fundamental truth, here alluded to, which had been made known to
them by the apostle in his preaching; that is, the truth of Jesus as the Christ,
the Son of God, and of the light-life (the union of the soul with God) as secured
through believing in Him. He exhorts the readers to let this truth abide within
them; and assures them that, if it does abide thus, they will themselves abide in
the Son and in the Father. The relation of the Epistle to the Gospel of John
is seen in such passages as this. We find, in the Epistle, the doctrine and truth
as it had dwelt and worked in the writer’s mind; in the Gospel, the sayings of
Jesus during His lifetime, on which the doctrine rested, and in which it was
first set forth. —11. The reference in airy of ver. 25, seems to be to the assur-
ance just given in the verb meveire: You shall abide in the Son and in the
Father, if that which you heard ffom the beginning abides in you. Of this I
give you a solemn assurance, and I am authorized so to do, for: This permanent
abiding in the Father and the Son is the very thing which Jesus Himself prom-
ised us, and the very thing which he meant by eternal life. Interpreted in this
way, the verse forms a most fitting close to the succession of verses at the end
of which it stands; and the explanation of the paragraph, or half-paragraph,
opened by ratra fypawa of ver. 26, is most simple and natural. The break in
connection, and the necessary supply of something as an intermediate thought,
which Huther admits as involved in his interpretation (making airy refer to
(why aiwviov, and the sense to be: ‘‘ eternal life is the promise which He has given
us’’), are strong and, as it seems to the writer of this note, decisive arguments
against Huther’s view.
XL.
Vv. 26-28,
1, These verses form a conclusion to the preceding section, which began
with ver. 18; and they take up anew, and press upon the mind of the readers,
the thoughts which have been suggested, —that of the antichrists, that of the
anointing from the Holy One, that of abiding in Christ, and that of the coming
of Christ, which follows after ‘‘the last hour.’? —2. The antichrists are here
spoken of as of mAavovrec, that is, they are viewed from the side of their influ-
ence on the Church, rather than that of their denial that Jesus is the Christ.
In contrast to them, their attempted work and position, the readers are once
more spoken of with reference to the anointing with the Holy Spirit which they
had received. As this impartation of the Spirit, and the guidance into the
knowledge of the truth, which results from it, remain with them as their perma-
nent possession, they do not need to be taught by another teacher; they only
need to be reminded of the fact of the appearance and working of the anti-
christs, that they may see them in their true character, and may refuse to yield
to their misleading influence. On the contrary, as this anointing which comes
by the gift of Christ, j.e., the Holy Spirit, teaches them with that complete and
perfect truthfulness in which there is no intermingling at all of what is false,
they will surely abide in Christ, not being led astray from Him. The entire
part of the sentence following 4/A< of ver. 27, from os to édidasev, is to be regarded
as the protasis, ueveire being the apodosis, and the simplest explanation of the
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 197
cada édidagev is, that it is added to indicate that what is continually taught by
the anointing {fs the same thing which was taught from the beginning, from the
time when the gift of the Spirit was first made. — 3. As to the question of
the reading at the end of ver. 27, — whether peveire or pévere, — the oldest
authorities are unanimous in favor of the latter, and it is now generally adopted.
If this is the true text, the verb is to be regarded, with Huther, as an indicative,
The apostle affirms in this verse, and exhorts in the next. He affirms here
(making his statement in a general present), as true of the readers, that which
must necessarily, and will certainly, be true of them when they are viewed as
fully possessed of the Spirit, and under His teaching and guiding influence.
—4, The pévere of ver. 28 is clearly an imperative; for the apostle now turns to
an exhortation, with a view to the result which he hopes for in the future,
iva, x.7.A.—5. The weight of authorities is such that we must adopt tay, rather
than drav, as the true reading; and this reading may perhaps indicate that the
apostle thought of the coming as possibly, or not improbably, near at hand, —
in case it takes place while we are still in the earthly life, to which the exhor-
tation uévere applies. It may, however, be only the éay which merely puts the
supposition in a less positive form than ¢i.
XLI.
VER. 20—CHAPTER IIL 10a.
1. Huther and many commentators think that a new leading section of the
Epistle begins with ver. 29, and this seems to be the fact. The new life is
the life of righteousness. This thought has been suggested before, in connec-
tion with the keeping of the commandments of God. The special development
of righteousness in the matter of love to one’s brother has also been hinted at.
But the apostle now proceeds to a more direct and full unfolding of the idea,
and connects it with the thought of the sonship to God, in which the Christian
grows continually more and more into the Divine likeness. —2. If ye know that
he is righteous: This conditional sentence takes up the idea of knowing the
truth, which has been predicated of the Christian, and puts forth a funda-
mental element of this knowledge. In case you know this fundamental truth,
says the apostle,—and this you should and must know, if you are truly
taught by the Holy Spirit, — you also know (or, taking the verb as an impera-
tive, knowo ye, be assured) that every one that doeth righteousness is begotten
of Him. The light-life in man springs from, and is in the likeness of, the light-
life in God. This sentence contains, thus, a statement and declaration which
the writer makes the foundation of what he has to urge upon the readers in the
following verses.
CHAPTER III.
3. Following upon the declaration of the truth, that the one who does right-
eousness is begotten of God (ii. 20), we find an expression of wonder and
thankfulness in view of the love of God, which gives to man this relation to
Himself. This is the substance of ver. 1, when It is viewed with reference
to its words and the form of the sentence; and to give expression to these
feelings, was undoubtedly the primary object in writing the words. But in the
development of the main thought, in its progress from ver. 20 onward, this
198 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
verse calls attention to the fact that we are children of God, as preparatory to
the setting-forth of the idea of our growth, as children, into the complete
likeness of God. And this idea is presented with especial reference to the end,
when the consummation shall be realized, in order that the legitimate influence
of the hope of this consummation on the growth of the soul in righteousness,
and its movement away from sin, may be pressed upon the reader. —4. The
character of the expression, as one of wonder and thankfulness, is distinctly
seen in its form and words. The desire to give forth such an expression deter-
mines the abruptness of the sentence, and the use of idere, The use of réxva,
instead of vio¢, which occurs also elsewhere in John, is natural here, because the
idea is related immediately to the yeyévynrac of ii. 29. Comp. Johni. 12. It is
the child-relationship, which is connected with birth, that is at the foundation of
this whole passage. — 5. The word called here does not signify, to have the name
of, without being in reality what we are called; but it means simply that we
have this name bestowed upon us. The emphasis on the éouev, for the purpose
of which it is added to the sentence, is not, therefore, that of being, as opposed
to being called without being, but that of confident affirmation of the fact, on
the foundation of which the name is given to us. —6. The last sentence of ver. 1
corresponds with thoughts and statements contained in Christ’s language, as
given in the Gospel of John. This sentence, though not expressed in the form
directly adapted to this end, really sets forth a confirmation of the truth of the
nai touev, That we are the children of God, is proved by the fact that the sinful
world, which lives in the sphere of the darkness, does not recognize and appre-
hend us in our life, as it did not recognize and apprehend Him. This incapacity
of the world to apprehend our life, shows that we have a life outside of its
sphere, — the light-life, which is beyond the limits of the darkness.
7. The word eat’rov must, almost necessarily, refer to God, because of the
connection with the preceding sentence. This word seems likewise to govern,
by its meaning and reference, the words avrg, abrov, and ixeivoc in vv. 2, 3, and
alsu to determine the question as to the subject of ¢avepw6y of ver. 2, — at least,
if that verb should be understood as having a personal subject, which is
probably the correct view. All these words must point to God, not Christ.
The true explanation of this matter is, as we may believe, after the following
manner: The underlying thought of the Epistle, as we have seen, {is that of the
life of the human soul as coming into the likeness of, and participation in,
the life of God, —the life in which there is no darkness at all. The turning
of the soul towards the growth of its life into and in this likeness is, therefore,
what is constantly before the writer’s mind. The eternal life is this life in
likeness to, and union with God. God is thus the one who occupies the central
and first place in the whole development of the thought. Christ is the one who
brings the message respecting this life of God, and reveals it. It is through
Christ that we attain to the life, by believing in Him, and imitating Him, and
growing into His likeness. But the consummation at the end, like the first
beginning, is the possession of the life of God, the light-life. This life is to be
perfected, we know not precisely in what manner, through the clearer and more
perfect manifestation of God, which will take place hereafter, and through the
fact that, by seeing Him as He is, we shall become in the more perfect sense
like Him. God is thus naturally the one who is made most prominent every-
where; and He fs, for the reason indicated, presented as the subject of thought
here. The word ¢avepw67, which, under ordinary circumstances, would more
naturally be used of the manifestation of Christ, as in ii. 28, is thus here used
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 199
with reference to God. The revelation of the future is, according to the
underlying thought of the Epistle, the revelation and manifestation of God.
8. The use of the verb gavepw67 is to be observed in its connection with
épavepoon of the preceding sentence, and gavepwiy of ii. 28. Its connection
with the former may be regarded as showing that the idea of clear revelation
is contained in it, and its connection with the latter apparently suggests the
thought that this clear revelation will be made, or at least begin, at the parou-
sia. The employment of the word to denote the more complete manifestatian
of God, as the fulness of the light-life, is readily accounted for in the light of
this relation to the context. — 9. Huther, Haupt, Alford, and other commenta-
tors, regard ti éodpueta (it) as the subject of gavepwty. This would correspond
with the subject of the preceding ¢pavepon, but the sense of the passage would
thus seem not to be in accordance with the suggestion of the context. This
suggestion is, that hereafter we shall be like Him: this we know, although we
do not know precisely what we shall be. To make this knowledge, or this
likeness, dependent on the fact of the making manifest to us precisely what we
shall be, is outside of the line of thought, and such an idea would seem to carry
an improbability in itself. The whole progress of the Christian life, in John’s
idea of it, is one thing, the development in the likeness of God. The future is
not to be different from the present, except in the circumstances of the living,
and the measure of the development. We know, therefore, that our life is to
be this development, independently of any future manifestation as to precisely
what we shall be. — The thought, then, which fills the apostle’s mind and heart,
is this: that we are children of God, and are to be so forever. We do not know,
indeed, what may be our condition in every respect, or what precisely we shall
be in the future time, which is beyond the limits of the present life; but we do
(now) know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him in the more
full and complete sense, for we shall see Him more fully and completely as He
is.—10. The particle viv of ver. 2 is the temporal particle, the now being
contrasted with the future indicated by the not yet. The fact that we are now
children of God is the great fact which carries with it the essential life of the
future, leaving only the question as to precisely what we shall be, in our new
condition and circumstances hereafter, in uncertainty. —11. The likeness to
God, of which the apostle speaks, must be realized in the soul of the one who,
being already a child of God, shall hereafter see Him as He is, for he has within
him that principle of life which only needs the seeing in order to the likeness.
In this way John himself, as we see in his Gospel, grew into the likeness of
Jesus by seeing Him, and so into the likeness of God. The seeing is repre-
sented as the condition, not the consequence, of the likeness, and this represen-
tation accords with the Johannean idea throughout. — 12. The question raised
by some writers as to the possibility of seeing God the Father, as connected
with the words: No man hath seen or can see God, —is one which does not
properly arise here. The expressions have reference to that spiritual compre-
hension of the light-life of God, which is, according to all indications in the
N. T., revealed in heaven to the saints. As Alford says, ‘‘The incapacity to
behold the Creator,’’ in the sense In which this incapacity is declared in some
passages kindred to the one referred to, ‘‘does not prevent the vision, as far as
it can reach, being clear and unclouded; being, to the utmost extent of which
our glorified nature is capable, o¢ écriv, a true and not a false vision of God.’’
13. Ver. 3 forms a transition from vv. 1, 2, to ver. 5 ff., and thus brings the
thought back to the opening of this section, ii. 20. The hope of such a sight of
800 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
God, and such a likeness to Him, naturally works in every one who has it, to the
end of making him purify himself, that is to say, cleanse himself from every
polluting power and influence, and bring himself more and more into the likeness
of the Divine purity. —14. Ka@dg éxetvoc dyvég tory, The word éxtivoc here Is
referred by THuther and most interpreters to Christ. This corresponds with
ii. 6, where there is a similar change of pronouns, avrd¢ and éxeivoc, There would
seem to be no serious difficulty in supposing that the writer turns in his thought
here from God to Christ (indicating the change of subject by the change of
pronouns), and particularly when it is considered that the revelation of God’s
purity is in and through Christ, in so far as it is made to the man who is
purifying himself during the period of the hope spoken of. The close relation
of Christ to God, and the fact that Christ reveals the (w? aiwvoc, must be borne
in mind in all our interpretation of passages like this. No doubt, the author
passed without difficulty from the one thought to the other, and had in his mind,
as a combined idea, God in Christ, so that he could easily make one prominent at
one time, and, not long afterwards, give a similar prominence to the other. It
is in this way, if the explanation advocated above is correct, that the author's
thought passes, in connection with the verb gavepow, from Christ, as the subject
in ii. 28, to God, as the subject in ili. 2, and again to Christ in iii. 5. Such
changes are incidental to the development of the thoughts which form the basis
of the Epistle, and are specially characteristic of this author. — 15. The object
of ver. 4 ff., as related to the verses immediately preceding, is to give prominence
to the idea of the necessity of purifying one’s self, as set forth in ver. 3, by
presenting the incompatibility of the opposite course with that seeing and
knowing the Divine life, as manifested in Christ, which is the essence of the
light-life. As related to il. 29, these verses, 4 ff., add emphasis to the thought
which underlies that verse, — namely, that righteousness is necessary to the idea
of sonship to God, — by showing what the opposite of righteousness is, and the
irreconcilability of this opposite with the character of Christ, and the life in
Him. The verses have thus a twofold relation; but, in each of the two
connections, they express substantially the same idea, and point to the same
end. — 16. The word avoyia, as here employed, means violation of law, and the
law which the apostle has in mind is, apparently, that law of God which is
universal in its application, and is designed to govern the whole man and the
whole life. It is not the Mosaic law, but, so far as related to that law, it is
the Mosaic law spiritualized, i.e., carried into the inmost feelings and thoughts
of the soul, and extended over every movement of the inner man. It is the law
which sets forth the idea of righteousness given by Christ in Matt. v. 17 ff., and
elsewhere in His teachings. Sin is violation of this law, and every one who
‘*does sin,’’ instead of ‘doing righteousness,” does what is a violation of it.
A man who does sin, therefore, — who violates the divinely given law of life, —
cannot be begotten of God In the spiritual sense; he cannot be a child of God.
17. Ver. 5 is introduced as confirming what is said in the preceding verse,
by calling the readers’ attention to the fundamental and well-known truth of
Christ’s mission in this regard, and also of His personal life. And yuu know,
the apostle says. The and connects this well-known fact with the proposition
of the preceding verse, which rests upon the contrariety of sin and righteousness.
He was manifested, etc., —the very object of His appearance in the flesh, and
of the manifestation of God in Him, was that He might take away sins; and
His character was in complete consistency with His work, —in Him was no sin.
—18. The relation of ver. 6 to ver. 5, though it is not expressed in this way by
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 801
an inferential particle, such as ov», is that of a conclusion. If sin is violation of
the Divine law, and if Christ came to take away sins, and in Him personally sin
had no dwelling-place, it follows that the one who abides in Him does not sin,
and, on the other hand, that the one who sins does not abide in Him, — has not
even seen Him, or known Him. This is true of every one, in each of the two
opposite cases. — The relation of the verbs see and know is probably to be
explained in accordance with what has been already indicated as the thought of
John. As he himself lived in the society and friendship of Jesus and came to
know Him, in the true sense, by seeing Him (and thus the seeing and knowing
have reference to the inward life of Jesus); so his idea of the knowledge of
Christ, and of God, is the idea of a knowledge which comes from the contem-
plation of the Divine life. The man who sins—so far is he from abiding in
Christ — has not even seen Him in this inward and true sense, and has not
attained, as yet, to that knowledge of Him which comes by seeing, and is
essential to abiding. —19. After the development of the thought thus far, the
apostle returns to the thought of ii. 29, pressing it still more solemnly upon
their attention: Little children, let no man lead you astray in this matter;
the man who doeth righteousness, and he only, is righteous. The inward life
must put forth its vital energy and force in the doing of righteousness; if it does
not, it is not, in John’s view, the true inward life at all. Much as he dwelt upon
the inner life, and much as he dwelt within his own inner life, he contemplated
it only as a life having in itself this vital energy. And so he again sets forth the
negative statement corresponding with this positive one, that he may give the
latter yet more emphasis, — he that doeth sin is of the Devil. — 20. Even as He
is righteous. The comparison here is probably with reference to the reality of
righteous character and living, and not to the measure and degree of righteous-
ness. The man who does righteousness has the life-principle of righteousness
within him, even as God has. The man who “ does sin,”’ on the other hand, is
of the Devil; that is, his inner life-principle has its origin in the Devil, who, in
his whole life, moves and acts in the sphere of sin even from the beginning.
21. The last clause of ver. 8 is added as impressing the thought still further:
The very purpose for which the Son of God was manifested was, that He might
destroy the works of the Devil. The Christian idea of righteousness must,
therefore, be in accordance with what has been said in this passage. — 22. The
statement of ver. 9a is substantially what has been previously indicated, but it
is put in the reverse order. This new order of arrangement is due, no doubt, to
the statement of ver. 8a. As the one who commits sin is of the Devil, so he
who is begotten of God does not commit sin. The fundamental cause of this
not sinning is presented in the ore clause; it is because the life-giving principle
received from God, which is exclusive of sin and which fs the principle of right-
eousness, abides in such aman. If it does not dwell in him, the divinely given
life is not there. And, as showing this more emphatically, the words are added:
And he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. The cannot here is that
which appertains to the new life within the man; so far as that life and life-
principle are concerned, the continuance of sin is impossible. This is the very
fact and ground on which the question, who are the children of God, and who are
the children of the Devi), is determined. The sin-destroying life element in the
former, and its outworking into action, make manifest the child-relationship to
God. The absence of all this, and the presence of the opposite, show forth the
similar relationship to the Devil.
802 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
t XLII.
Vv. 100-24.
1. The additional idea found in this passage {s brotherly love. As he desires
to speak of this particularly, the apostle unites it with what precedes by
repeating, in the negative form, the proposition just made respecting righteous-
ness, whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ; and then adds — concen-
trating thereby, upon this point, the main thought of the reader — and he who
loveth not his brother. Brotherly love, therefore, is given the same prominence
in the great matter of righteousness here as in chap. fi. (comp. il. 7-11). —2. Ver.
11 gives the proof of ver. 10b: Because, etc. It is because this is the message
sent from God to men in and through Jesus Christ, — the Divine message which
the readers had heard from the beginning. The readers had heard this message or
announcement as a continuous tradition, and as a fact of the Christian preaching
ever since the evening of the Last Supper, when Jesus uttered these words in
the presence of the eleven faithful disciples. The message which the writer and
his fellow-apostles had heard from Jesus, as the incarnate Logos revealing the
Cw? aiwvioc, was that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. The central
element of the light-life is love. In the sphere of righteousness, therefore,
which is the outworking and result of the light-life, love is the primary thing;
the command to love one another is (ii. 7-11) the sum of all commandments.
The man who does not have brotherly love, therefore, is truly declared to be no
child of God, because he has not taken into himself the foundation-message
from heaven, in this its central element. He is animated by an opposite spirit,
and inspired by an opposite life-principle, after the manner of Cain. The
Divine message is not of such a feeling, or action, as this: not as Cain was
of the evil one, and slew his brother. To this statement is added the reason of
the slaying; or, if we express it in other words, the life-principle out of which
the act sprang is set forth as showing the complete contrast to the life-principle
of which the message speaks. Cain’s works were evil, Abel’s righteous; by
reason of this fact, recognized by the former, the hatred which ended in murder
entered his soul.
3. The verses 10a-12 inclusive are introductory to 13 ff., in which the matter
of brotherly love is presented in its wider relations and contrasts. The hatred
of the world is a thing to be expected, and not to be wondered at; for the life-
principle in the world is the same with that which was in this first murderer of
the O. T. history. This life-principle will inevitably work out into feeling and
action; it will lead to hatred of the brother, and thus to that which lies at the
basis of the act of murder; and it will lead to such hatred, because the works of
those who have this life-principle are evil, while those of the men who have
the divine life-principle are righteous, and because this fact is recognized by the
world. So true is this, and so little reason is there for wonder at the world’s
hatred, that, on the other hand, the very ground of our knowledge that we have
passed out of death, darkness, the sphere of the world, into the light, is the
fact that love of the brethren has found its dwelling-place in our hearts. So
soon as this love thus finds its dwelling-place within us, we have passed out of
death into life; the result is already accomplished; the eternal life is begun.
The apostle emphasizes his thought here, as in other places, by repeating it in
different forms: He that loveth not abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his
brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 8038
in him. —4. The fact, that, in the story in Genesis, the reason for the murder
indicated in ver. 12 is not distinctly set forth, need occasion no difficulty here.
The mere facts are given in the O. T. record. The historian had this as his
object. But the apostle, with his tendency to penetrate the inward life, goes
beneath the facts and the act to discover the cause, and this becomes plain to
him as he looks for it in and through the facts. What he thus does with respect
to the case of Cain is in accordance with that penetration into the heart which is
manifested in ver. 15. It is also akin to that which Jesus does as He carries the
several provisions of the Mosaic system, in the Sermon on the Mount, into their
application to the earliest and inmost feeling of the soul, which finally develops
into the outward act.
5. In ver. 16, the passage passes to a new half-paragraph, and the writer
declares that we reach our knowledge, our true apprehension of love, in the
sphere of the fact that Christ laid down His life for us. This greatest mani-
festation of love shows what love is; and the movement of the Christian life,
when we see this manifestation, and learn the lesson of it, is to imitate the
love thus exhibited, and, in this way, to make it truly and effectively our own.
—6. The true explanation of the words, we ought to lay down our lives for the
brethren, is to be found in connection with the seventeenth verse, which speaks
of having compassion upon and helping those who are in need. The highest
possible exhibition of love is placed in close connection with one of the common.
cases of ordinary life; and we must believe that this is in order to cover, as it
were, the whole sweep of love; not to make laying down one’s life for another
a frequent duty, or a test of love, but to point, with emphasis, from this possible
duty of extreme self-sacrifice to the urgent and constant duty of self-sacrifice
and loving service in the minor things.
7. We may believe that there is a close connection of thought between the
end of ver. 17 and the first part of ver. 16. If Christ, who came into the world
to reveal the Divine life and life-principle, gave the great and final manifestation
of them by laying down His life for us, it must be impossible that in the heart of
him who has not even the compassion referred to in ver. 17, the love of God
can have found its dwelling-place. The love of God is understood here by
Huther to mean love to God; so Haupt, Alford, and others. This view is
supported by iv. 20. Westcott regards it as ‘‘the love of which God is at once
the object, and the author, and the pattern.”” If we are to consider the present
context only, it would seem to the writer of this note that the genitive feod is
rather subjective, than objective. God’s love, which was manifested in Jesus,
in the act of laying down His life for men, cannot be in the heart which is
compassionless. The apostle is here entering into the principles of things. He
is penetrating the centre of the Christian life in its opposition to the world’s life.
It would appear to be natural under these circumstances that he should consider
whether God’s love—the Divine love-principle—has its abode in the heart.
But it may be that iv. 20 is decisive.
8. The exhortation of ver. 18, which evidently has a certain degree of inde-
pendence, is naturally enough connected with the words of ver. 17. The next step
beyond the closing of the heart there indicated, is the giving expression in words,
yet in words only, to the feeling of compassion or of love in its other outgoings.
But this, again, is not the love which springs from the Divine life-principle.
There must be a manifestation of love in act, when such action is calied for.
The addition of yAdooy to Acyw is partly due to the desire for greater emphasis,
as we may believe; but the suggestion of Huther may be regarded as also giving
804 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
a part of the true reason for it; namely, that it is ‘‘ epexegetically added, in
order to mark the externality of the love, inasmuch as it points out that by Acyog
here only the outward word is meant.’? The word truth is added to deed, no
doubt, because the writer wished to emphasize the fact, and to place it, as we
may say, distinctly before the reader’s eye, that love is love in truth only when
it has within itself the active force; just as faith works on its love side, or, if not,
is a dead faith. 9. The weight of manuscript autbority favors the future yrwoo-
ueGa in ver. 19, and this accords with zeioouey, which is probably to be explained
as a co-ordinate verb, the two clauses being parallel. The future is that of con-
clusion, as Huther remarks, — the condition being that which is suggested by é»
tovrw, which phrase refers to the thought of the preceding verse. The verb
yvwooueda may be used here as equivalent to oldazev of ver. 14, or it may carry
in it the idea of reaching the knowledge by a process of thought. Westcott says
it is ‘‘the knowledge which comes through outward experience,’’ and is ‘‘in
contrast with the knowledge which belongs to the idea of faith,’’ ver. 14
(ofdauev).
10. The relation of ver. 20 to ver. 19 has been a matter of much discussion.
The simplest construction, as it seems to the writer of this note, is that which
is adopted by R. V. for the text: namely, that which places a comma after
meioouev, and joins the following dre with éav, making these two words equivalent
to as to whatever or whereinsoever. This explanation of dr: éav accords with
Col. iii. 17, as Huther holds, in accordance with most of the best authorities.
The explanation of or: as because, involves a double because in the two clauses,
the second being a mere repetition of the first, which is highly improbable. The
same difficulty occurs if we explain drt as that. — With the explanation given, it
appears altogether probable that the sentence is to be interpreted as suggesting
the thought of God’s mercy and forgiveness. The meaning of the apostle
seems, accordingly, to be this: By the fact of our having love in deed and truth,
we come to the knowledge that we are of the truth, and we are enabled to assure
or convince our hearts before God, whereinsoever our heart may condemn us,
because (we know that) God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things.
Love is the fulfilment of the law, the fulfilment of the command which gathers
up into itself all others. If we have love, therefore, we are assured that God,
who knows all things, knows the existence of this all-fulfilling and satisfying
principle within us, and thus knows that we are of the truth, even though our
own hearts may accuse us of occasional sins or failures. —11. Regarding the
above as the true explanation of vv. 19, 20, the explanation of ver. 21 will be
affected or determined by it. This verse must be viewed rather as the converse
of the preceding, while the main thought yet moves on in the same line, than as
the direct reverse or opposite of that main thought. Two suppositions are made
— one of the case where the heart accuses or condemns; the other, of the case
where it does not. In the former case, we may assure our hearts, because God
sees farther and more deeply than they do; He knows all things, and knows the
existence of the love-force within us. In the latter case, on the other hand, we
have the boldness of confidence, — not needing to assure ourselves only by the
thought, that God penetrates into the depths of the life to discover the vital
principle, —and, boldly asking, we receive what we ask. The conception of
the apostle thus seems to be that of the existence of love in both classes or
conditions of which he speaks; but, in the one case, there is a consciousness
of shortcomings, while, in the other, a fulfilment of all obligations, and a con-
sciousness of this fact, are supposed.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 805
12. In ver. 23, the writer makes a new turn in the thought. He moves
backward, as we may say, to the foundation principle of the Christian life,
namely, faith. Faith works through love. The entrance or doorway into the
light-life is faith. That this is John’s idea, as truly as it is Paul’s, is made
manifest both in his Gospel and in this Epistle. As he began his own Chris-
tian course by believing Jesus to be the Christ, so he places believing at the
beginning for every disciple of Jesus and every child of God. ‘The right to
become children of God’’ is given ‘‘to those who believe’? —such is his doc-
trine. Here faith is spoken of as God's commandment, because the thought
has been upon the fulfilling of the commandments, in the preceding context.
It is, in the deep sense in which this author uses his language, and in relation
to the essential life of the soul, a commandment; that is, the expression of
God’s will that the light-life should be entered by means of that outgoing of the
soul towards God which is the necessary condition of all experience of the light-
life. Faith is the commandment of God, the summing-up of the commandments
of God; as in the Gospel of John (vi. 28, 29), when the multitude asked Jesus
what they must do to work the works of God, the answer was: This is the work
of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.—13. The expression,
believe the name, etc., is found only in this place, and is to be explained in
accordance with the fact that the name is regarded, in the scriptural usage, as the
representative before others of the person —that by which the person is made
known. — 14. The words love one another are introduced in ver. 23 because
they contain the thought which has pervaded the preceding context. The true
view of the verse is, not that these words are added to the expression respecting
faith, but that the writer, still keeping his mind upon love, goes back to that
foundation principle which displays its energy through love, and thus adds the
thought of this, which had not been previously set forth.—15. In ver. 24,
the writer returns once more to the idea of abiding in hin, which has been made
so prominent, and declares that he who keeps the commandments, which are
summed up in faith and love, thus abides. This abiding is also a dwelling of
God in the believer, and the assurance of this is given in the gift of the Spirit,
which had been made to all believers.
XLII.’
CHAPTER IV.
Vv. 1-6.
1. The thought turns again, at the beginning of the fourth chapter, to the
false prophets or antichrists. This seems to be suggested or occasioned by
the reference to the Holy Spirit, in ill. 24, as the evidence within the believer
of his abiding life in God. The verse mentioned is the first one in which the
Holy Spirit is alluded to in the Epistle; and as He is placed in such a relation
to the knowledge of the believer respecting his union with God, it is natural
that the reader’s mind should be directed, at this point, to the importance of
testing and determining whether the Holy Spirit is the one which indeed dwells
within him. We find an cxhortation given, accordingly, which is kindred to
the one hinted at by Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 1-3, and possibly also in 1 Thess.
v. 19-21. It is noticeable, also, that the confession of Jesus Christ is made the
decisive test here, as in 1 Corinthians, though the confession is carried more
definitely to the point of His having come in the flesh. This is, doubtless, due
806 - ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
to the particular false doctrine against which John was contending; perhaps,
as Hluther thinks, it was the Cerinthian Docetism. —2. The central truth, the
denial of which is the evidence of the spirit of ‘Antichrist, is declared by
the apostle to be the truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. When we
pass into the depths of the Johannean thought, and beyond and beneath the
oppositions to, or of, the particular adversaries whom he may have had in mind,
we may believe that this truth was central to his apprehension, because Jesus as
come in the flesh, the Divine Logos as manifested in the person of this Divine
man, was the revelation of the light-life of God in our human life. The way of
access to that light-life was only by seeing this revelation as thus made, and
by imitating and growing into the likeness of the life thus exhibited. To deny
this central truth, was therefore, in his view, to place one’s self in antagonism
to Christianity and to Christ Himself. Whoever did so, as a prophet or teacher,
became thereby, as it were, an antichrist. The antichrist would be but the full
development of such denial and antagonism, the complete manifestation of the
spirit which each one of such prophets and teachers showed forth in himself. It
is a most striking fact, and one most suggestive to the candid reader of John’s
writings (the Gospel and Epistle alike), that whenever we reach the innermost
recess of his thinking, and of his own soul’s life as displayed in his thought, we
find that the reality of Jesus’ earthly life (His life as a man and a friend, who bas
in Himself the life of God to reveal to the world) is the central and fundamental
thing. It was thus central and fundamental to his thought, —and this is the
only explanation which can be given when we view all the phenomena, — because
he had himself lived with Jesus, had seen in Him the revelation of the Divine
light-life, had grown into the light-life by contemplating Him and imitating
Him, had sat at His feet, and had learned of Him by drawing into his own soul
the influence which came from the soul of Jesus. —3. Vv. 1-3 set forth the
means of testing the spirits, so far as the confession of Christ is concerned.
Vv. 4-6, on the other hand, give the means of testing them by the character of
their teachings, and of those who accept their teachings. We find in these
latter verses the same thought which is clearly presented in John’s Gospel.
The one who knows God, and is susceptible to the influence of the Divine truth,
accepts it when it is presented. He hears those who proclaim this truth.
Those who belong to the world, on the contrary, hear the teachers who are
of the world. By the character of ‘those who listen joyfully and receptively to
the teaching which is given, the character of the teaching itself may be deter-
mined, whether it is of God or of the world. By this me&’ns we are enabled to
know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.—4. The spirit of error or of
truth, therefore, is tested and proved by the answer to two questions: first,
whether the confession made by it is, or is not, the confession that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh; and secondly, whether those who are animated by the
principles of the world, or by Divine principles, receive its teachings with
readiness into their lives.
5. These last three verses (4-6) are introduced by the words, Ye are of God.
These words seem to have a connection of thought with the words of ver. 1,
and are thus placed with emphasis at the beginning of the new verses, partly as
giving a strong ground why the Christian readers should not believe every spirit,
but test them as to whether they are of God. You should thus test before you
believe, because you are of God. Partly, however, we are to account for these
words as connected with the contrasts of the three verses themselves, and they
are placed emphatically at the beginning, as making prominent at the outset
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 807
the position of the Christian believers. —6. The connection of vv. 4-6 with
what precedes is confirmed by the words, and have overcome them, etc. These
words carry back the reader’s mind necessarily to the last part of ver. 1. The
verb vevixyxare reminds us of the last words of Jesus (John xvi. 33) addressed to
His disciples at the supper. Huther seems to be correct in his view of this verb,
that it signifies not merely that the Christian readers had the strength of Christ
as a mighty force within them, or that they were sure of final success; but that
they had already overpowered the false prophets by their Christian fidelity, their
faith and love. Huther is also correct in making 6 év tyiv refer to God, rather
than Christ. —7. It is probable that 7ueics of ver.6 refers to the apostolic teachers,
because of the change from the second person (tpeic) in ver. 4 to the first person
here. This view is confirmed by the word axote: which follows. If this be
correct, 7ueis are the teachers, who, being heard and accepted in their teachings
by the iueig who are éx rov deov, are shown to be themselves é« rov devi,
XLIV.
Vv. 7-16 a.
1. Beginning with ver. 7, the apostle develops more fully than before,
throughout the remainder of this chapter, and the earlier part of the next, the
relation of love and faith to the light-life. This is presented in iff. 28, as
the idea and essence of the commands of God, and now it is unfolded at length.
While in one sense, therefore, no new leading thought is brought forward in
the section which is now opened, there is a progress and development which
add to the impressiveness of the Epistle. Beginning with ver. 7, and ending
with v. 12, we have one section which is divided into two parts, iv. 7-21 and
v. 1-12, the former treating of love, and the latter of faith. —2. Ver. 7 opens
with the exhortation to love one another; the exhortation, that is, to fulfil that
one of the two things presented as making up the commandment of God, to
which Jesus called the thought of the apostles. on the last evening of His life,
and the allusion to which is found in the closing words of iil. 23.
3. The ground on which the exhortation is urged is, that love is of God.
The preposition é« denotes the source; the love-principle has its origin in God,
and, as a consequence, the presence of love in a man’s heart is the proof that
he is spiritually begotten of God, and has the true spiritual knowledge of God.
On the other hand, where love is absent, this true knowledge of God is absent.
In connection with this latter statement, the ground on which It is affirmed is
given, —a repetition of that mentioned in ver. 7, and yet put in a stronger
form: God is love. Not only has love its source and fountain in Him, but the
very essence of His own life is love. As in chap. i. 5, it is said that God is
light, so here it is said that He ts love; and this fs a fitting expression, as in a
sense equivalent to the former one, because the light-life is animated by the
principle of love. —4. Having presented the thought that love is of God and
that God is love, the writer now turns to the setting-forth of the way in which
God has manifested His love, and of the evidence thus given that the source of
love is in God Himself. The words év juiv are most naturally connected with
épavepwin; and they convey the idea that there was not only a display of God’s
love to us, or before our minds, but within us, so that it became a manifestation
to and in the inmost life of the soul. The fact that God has sent His only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him, is the great fact
WHICH GUI LUICS LO PIUVE 11 AMS UrUSVUl, UY & PCE UL LE WULUS ALU WOrAS OF
Jesus, and also the great fact on which his own inner life rested. It was
natural, therefore, that, in addressing his Christian readers, he should say,
‘was manifested in us.”? —5. The thought of the tenth verse seems to be this:
that love proves its divine origin by this manifestation. The sending of the
Son to be the propitiation for our sins, is an indubitable proof that love, as it
appertains to Christian thought, does not begin in us as loving God, but in God
as loving us. —6. But if God manifests such love to us, if such love comes
forth from the Divine source of love, the exhortation certainly presents itself
with most impressive force, — we ought to love one another. The passage con-
taining the exhortation thus rounds itself into completeness at the end. —
7. The twelfth verse evidently makes an abrupt turn, and yet the general thought
of the section seems to move on to the close of the chapter. We may believe
the idea of the apostle to be this: that while the sight of God is and has ever
been denied to men, there is an inward apprehension of Him, —such an I{nti-
mate union with Him that we abide in Him and He abides in us, — provided
we have that love to one another which is, as it were, the sum of His com-
mandments. The foundation and growth of this love-principle, whereby we
come into this close union with Hin, is, first, the sight which the writer and
fellow-apostles had of the fact that God sent His Son into the world, and their
testimony to it; secondly, the confession that Jesus is the Son of God; and
thirdly, the consequent belief and knowledge of the love which God has in
us. Thus love is perfected, and the Christian comes into the likeness of Christ:
as He is, 80 are we in this world. Confidence in the day of judgment is secured,
and through perfected love all fear is removed.
8. The correspondence of ver. 12a and John i. 18, cannot fail to be noticed.
It is evident, however, that the connection and thought in this passage are
different from what is noticeable in that verse of the Gospel. The contrast in
the Gospel is between the inability of man to see God, and the revelation of
Him by the incarnate Logos. Here it is, as we may say, between the outward
and inward vision. If we love one another, we have the inward vision. We
have, and know that we have, the indwelling of God within us. The words of
ver. 126 and ver. 13 answer closely to what has been said before, but in con-
nection with ver. 12a they are brought out in a new light.—9. The words 7
ayarn aitod are to be interpreted as meaning: the love which has its source in
God, and is infused into and implanted in the believer as the life-principle
within him. This love is in the completed and perfected state in us, as we love
one another according to the measure of Christ’s command. Love, by reason of
its very nature, goes out towards others; so with the Divine love-principle, as it
enters into and abides in the souls which open themselves to receive it. —
10. Ver. 13 gives the statement of iil. 24, but it gives this statement as a part of
the contrast to the words: ‘‘No one hath beheld God at any time.’’? We do
not see God, but we have in the possession of the Spirit the proof that we have
Him dwelling in us. —11. With ver. 14 begins the presentation of the develop-
ment of the love-principle by which we are brought into union with God. Men
have not seen God at any time; the disciples of Christ have not seen Him, any
more than other men. But the latter have what supplies for them the place of
sight, in that which is brought to them through Christ. The earliest disciples
have beheld in their seeing of Him, and communion with Him, the great truth
that God has sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world. This truth is the
fundamental one with relation to the inward sight. The apostle and his fellow-
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 809
apostles had seen, heard, handled, the Word of life, and thus had known the
revelation of God and of God’s life. This revelation was to the end of the sal-
vation of man (owrypa tod xéouov), and thus was the revelation of the Divine
life for the realizing of eternal life in men. The testimony continually borne
(uaprupoduev) by these apostles, who had thus seen, heard, handled, etc., sets the
great truth before men for their acceptance; and those who willingly receive it
give expression to their faith by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God. This
confession is the beginning of the true Divine life in their souls, because it
answers in their case to the seeing, hearing, and handling, which was permitted
to those who were associated with Jesus in His daily living when on earth.
The striking correspondence in the thought here, with that which is set forth
in John xx. 30, 31, will be observed by the careful reader. The whole record
of John’s Gospel was given in order that those who should read it might, in
view of the testimony of the writer to what he had heard and seen, believe
that Jesus is the Son of God, and believing might have life. Confession
resting upon a belief founded upon testimony, which testimony was based upon
sight and experience: this is the order of the Johannean thought, as to the
beginning and growth of the Christian life, the life of light and love, in which
God abides in the soul, and the soul in God. With the confession the life begins,
and it moves onward from that beginning. The confession, however, is only
the outward voice answering to the inward faith, and so the true beginning is
faith. And the life is thus begun for every one who makes the confessior on
the basis of the belief (d¢ éav).
12. With respect to individual words or phrases in ver. 11 ff., the following
suggestions may be made: (a) @eov of ver. 12 has its prominent position as
connected with the impossibility of actually seeing God Himself, in contrast
with the inward union with and vision of Him, which come through love, faith,
confession, etc. —(b) év rovrw (ver. 13) seems to refer forward to the second dre
clause. The sure evidence of the existence of the Divine love in us, and thus
of our abiding in God and His abiding in us, is the gift of the Spirft to every
believer. —(c) Queic (ver. 14) evidently refers to the apostolic preachers. — (d)
Testimony founded upon sight is, so far as the apostolic preaching is concérned,
the keynote both of the Epistle and of the Gospel of John (comp. Ep. i. 1;
Gosp. i. 14). —(e) The word owrypa, which is here a predicative appositional
word, does not occur elsewhere in John’s writings, except in the Gosp. iv. 42.
The idea that Jesus is the Saviour of the world is an idea vitally related to the
whole thought of John; but it is, as it were, incidental to the peculiar character
of his inward life, and the peculiar line of thinking in his two great works,
that Jesus is presented by him more prominently in His relation to God and to
the (uw?) aiovoc, than in the light of a Saviour and Redeemer. —(/) The words
éyveoxapuey xal imorevoauev (ver. 16) correspond with those found in John vi. 69, in
the reverse order. The order in the Gospel is the order of growth and develop-
ment, belief moving forward to knowledge. But when the Christian believer
is looking from the standpoint of an already developed life, and is stating a
truth of the soul’s experience, as the apostle is doing here, the order is not
essential, — the two things are united in one, as it were, and the emphasis of
the soul’s experience is given forth in the expression, J know and believe. —
(y) The love which God has inus: This is the love which is exhibited and proved
in the great fact of the sending of the Son as a Saviour, and it is spoken of as in
us, because it takes up its abode in our hearts, as the life-principle within us.
810 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLV.
Vv. 160-21.
1. The last part of ver. 16 forms a connecting link between ver. 16a, the
close of the preceding passage, and ver. 17. the opening of the following one.
The two passages, however, form rather half-paragraphs than paragraphs, since
the thought of love as the life-principle of the Divine life in the soul moves on
to the end of the chapter. —2. The reference of év rovry, of ver. 17, to what
precedes is, on the whole, to be preferred. It is in that love-union between God
and man which makes the life of man to be an abiding of his.soul in God, and
an abiding of God in his soul, that the perfecting of love is realized. The words
Hed’ nuav, with us, instead of év guiv, in us (ver. 12), are almost necessarily to be
explained, as it would seem, as involving somewhat of that idea of union which
has been previously presented. The phrase hints at the notion of God’s dealing
with us, and his co-operation with us in the matter of the perfecting. The iva
clause sets forth the end towards which this perfecting of love works. This end
is confidence, or boldness, in the day of judgment. — The sentence is differently
explained by Huther and some other interpreters, and év rovrw is regarded as
referring to, and explained by the tva clause. Love is perfected in the fact that
we have boldness in the day of judgment. The idea of boldress, and casting
out fear, is thus made the one idea to which every thing else is subordinate. —
3. The sentence beginning with 57 (ver. 17) gives the ground of the boldness or
confidence; it is founded on the fact, that, as He is, so are we in this world.
The words év tr. xoou. rovr. belong with éouév only, not also with éort, Huther
regards the phrase, as He is, as meaning as He is in this matter of lore; that is,
we have love as our life-principle, even as He has it as His eternal life-principle.
This would seem to be the natural suggestion of the context, and there is appar-
ently no reason for going beyond this suggestion simply because the phrase
happens to be in the general and unlimited form. Some interpreters refer the
likeness here indicated to the whole character of Christ. This whole character,
however, has its centre in the love-principle; and, according to the writer’s
present line of thought, he is speaking of the life as viewed in relation to its
central and vital principle. — 4. Ver. 18 is added by way of carrying out and
emphasizing the idea of boldness in the day of judgment as connected with
perfected love. Fear and love are inconsistent with each other. When love is
perfected, therefore, fear must be excluded. The incompatibility of fear with
love is grounded on the fact that fear has xoAaow, This word, as connected with
its use in Matt. xxv. 46, and in the Septuagint, means punishment. As following
upon the mention of the day of judgment in ver. 17, it must be understood, it
would seem, in the sense of that punishment which follows the day of judgment,
Fear has within itself, carries with it, and brings forward into the present, this
punishment, in and through the painful apprehension of it.
5. There can be but little doubt that the true text In ver. 19 is ayazdéyev,
without the added airév of the T. R. We love, the apostle says, because He
first loved us. This statement is evidently made as preparatory to the two
following verses. The fact that love in us is the offspring of God’s love — that
love, as an active and out-working principle in us, is due to His love as manifested
in act towards us — makes it essential to the real life of our love, that it should
go out towards our brethren. The man who claims to have love as his life-
principle, and to have this life-principle in action towards God, while it is not
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 811
‘in action, but is even replaced by its opposite, in relation to the brethren, knows
nothing of true love. Such exercise of love to the brethren is, moreover, the
command, and even the sum of the cominands, of God.
XLVI.
CHAPTER VY.
Vv. 1-5.
1. There seems to be a manifest and close connection between ver. 1 of this
chapter, and ver. 21 of the chapter which precedes. This is indicated by the
correspondence in the fundamental] thought of ver. 1b and ver. 21b, and also by
the bringing-forward of the idea of the children of God, and the fulfilment
of God’s commandments, in the following context. Alford holds that this
connection is so close as to indicate, that, in the words every one that believes,
etc., the apostle refers to the ddeAgor. This view of Alford, however, must
probably be rejected, and we must regard the apostle as setting forth anew,
and with renewed emphasis, the.two great and united principles which lie at
the basis of the true life: faith and love. By believing, the man enters into the
relationship of a child to God; he is begotten of God, according to the language
here used. ‘The natural and necessary result of this relationship of a child to
a father is love, —love to the father, and love to the other children who are
begotten of him. God’s child must love God’s children. The phrase mag 6
mioretwy accordingly refers, as does wdc 6 dyaroéy, to the Christian believer, whose
duty to love his brethren is under discussion, and rov yeyevynuévoy alone refers to
the brother. —2. We have, in ver. 2, a reversing of what is indicated in chap. iv.
There the thought is: If we love the brethren, we nay be sure that we love God;
here it is: If we love God, we may know that we love the brethren. The
explanation of this change seems to be twofold: First, it is a case similar to
that of éyvoxapuev cal wencoreixauev in iv. 16: in the Christian life, the proof
moves in both directions; and, secondly, the writer is desiring here to bring out
the inseparable connection between love to the brethren and love to God: if we
love God, we love the brethren; and so truly is this the fact, that, whenever
we have love to God which is real and genuine, so that we keep His command-
nents, we have therein the knowledge that we love the brethren also. —38. The
idea of love to the brethren as the fulfilment of the commands of God, is
evidently still in the writer’s mind. For this reason it is, that he adds, ver. 3:
The love of God is the keeping of His’ commandments. If, therefore, we
love God, we must keep the great command, and, with the presence of this love
in our hearts, we shall keep it, and fulfil {ts call to love. —4. The mark of
punctuation, which should be placed after rnpopuev (ver. 3), cannot be determined
with certainty. It seems to the writer of this note most natural to place a
comma here, as Westcott does, and thus to join this clause closely to the
preceding. Love to God is that keeping of His commandments which finds
them not burdensome. R. V. places a colon here; Tischendorf, a colon; Alford,
a period. In any case, it is probable that a comma should be placed at the end
of ver. 3. The first clause of ver. 4 is thus immediately connected with the last
words of ver. 3, and presents the reason why the commands are not grievous or
burdensome, — namely, because the one who is begotten of God overcomes the
world. The overcoming of the power which stands in opposition to God places
the man in a new condition. The enmity which belongs to the world has passed
away from him, and love has entered into its place. The loving spirit conquering
all opposition, the commands are fulfilled in love, and are no longer a burden.
5. Ver. 4b sets forth faith as the victory which overcomes the world. Faith
is said to be the victory, because it involves in itself the overcoming of the world.
When the man believes, he turns in his whole life from the world to God. At
this point, the apostle comes back to the idea of faith, which opens the chapter,
and which is also presented as the foundation of the new life, in iii. 23, and in
the idea of confession, in chap. iv. The necessity of faith is emphasized, in
ver. 5, by the significant question, Who is he, etc., which is equivalent to No
one but he. — If we examine carefully the latter part of chap. iv., and these early
verses of chap. v., we can scarcely fail to see that the apostle brings out the two
great essential principles of the Divine life in the soul, love and faith, and that,
while in accordance with the natural development of his thought, he makes love
especially prominent, and also gives it the first place in the preceding chapter,
he is at pains to show that faith is the primary element of the life in chap. v.,
and that it is through faith that the life begins. The man who believes is
begotten as a child of God; when he is thus begotten, he loves. Faith works
through love; it puts forth into action the love-force which is in itself. — In this
closing sentence of the first paragraph of chap. v., the bellef is again represented
as belief that Jesus is the Son of God. The thought in which the Gospel of
John ends is the great and all-powerful conviction of the apostle’s life. — The
word faith, as a substantive, occurs in the Gospel and Epistle only in ver. 4;
the writer turns again to the verbal form in ver. 5.
XLVII.
Vv. 6-12,
1. At this point the apostle turns to a new and distinct presentation of Jesus,
and the testimony respecting Him, to the reader’s mind. This more special
presentation naturally follows after the words of vv. 4, 5; and it becomes by
reason of its position, and the preparation made for it through the development
of all the thoughts of the Epistle, a most impressive statement of the author's
belief. —ovros. This one who is the object of the Christian confession, and the
faith in whom involves the belief that He is the Son of God, is the one who
came, in the fulfilment of the Messianic promises (6 éAduv—6é tpyopuevoc), by
means of water and blood, Jesus Christ. The historical person Jesus, who is the
Christ, is also the Son of God. To believe that this person is the Son of God,
is the door of entrance into union of soul with God, i.e., into the Divine life, for
all men, even as such belief had been the entrance-way into the experience of
the blessedness of that life for the apostle himself. The correspondence of this
sixth verse, in its relation to ver. 5, with the first part of the closing verse of
the Gospel of John, xx. 31, is most clearly manifest. —2. The reference in the
water and blood is almost certainly to the baptism and death of Jesus. By
means of these two things, which began and ended His life, He came — in the full
sense of His divine mission. Whether there is any allusion or meaning in the
words beyond this, is questionable. As to the two suggestions which are most
frequently made: that there is an allusion to John xix. 34, or an allusion to the
sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it may be remarked that no such
use is made of the fact mentioned in John xix., in the context surrounding that
verse, as is made here of the water and blood. In John xix., indeed, the fact
‘THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 813
that blood and water came from the side of Jesus may be, not improbably,
included as an element in the evidence presented by the story of which it is a
part, (though it seems to be only a minor element); but there is no such marked
distinction made between the water and the blood, as related to the evidence, as
is here set forth (ver. 8), and there was apparently no such separation in the two
things in the event itself; and, again, it may be remarked, that, as John makes
no reference to the Lord’s Supper in his Gospel (unless it be in chap. vi., which
is altogether improbable), it seems unlikely that in this Epistle, which is so
closely connected in its thought with the Gospel, he would make so much of It.
—3. The second part of ver. 6: not by water only, but by water and blood, is
evidently designed to bring out with emphasis the fact, that the two together
are the essential elements in the case, and that the latter is included with the
former, and is prominent. It is probable that this statement has reference to
some particular error of the time and region in which John was writing, and
not improbable that this error, as Huther and several other interpreters hold,
was that of the Docetans, as explained by Huther in his note. The thought
of the apostle is, that in the mission of Christ to the world, and His office and
work in the world, His death is the consummation and the great event. With-
out the atoning death, the work was not accomplished.
4, The «ai which opens the third part of ver. 6 joins the following statement
immediately to the preceding one. This close connection is due to the fact that
the testimony of the Spirit is a testimony to the truth just mentioned, and also,
as we may believe, to the fact that the writer is intending, in the next verse, to
unite the water and blood with the Spirit as witnesses. The Spirit is, beyond
any reasonable doubt, the Holy Spirit. He is spoken of here as the witness;
that is, the one whose great office it is to bear testimony, and in whom the
highest testimony abides. The Spirit is the truth. He takes the place of
Christ, after the death of Christ, and He is the revelation of the truth, as Christ
was during His earthly life. As having in Himself the truth, He guides the
human soul to the knowledge of the truth, and thus becomes an ever-continu-
ing witness. That to which the Spirit bears testimony, so far as this passage is
concerned, is the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and consequently that eternal
life is in Him. The second point, however, is only made prominent in the fol-
lowing verses, and that which is here especially referred to is the first point.
This reference to ver. 5 (Jesus is the Son of God) seems better than that of
Huther, who makes the Spirit testify to the first part of ver. 6. Huther, how-
ever, regards the main truth which the apostle desires to bring out in the whole
context as being the truth expressed in the words: Jesus the Son of God is the
Christ. —5. The emphasis of ver. 7, in its relation to the thought of the passage,
lies in the last words: and the three agree in one. The unity in the testimony
of the three witnesses is the point which is urged with special force, as proving
the truth which {fs set forth. This agreement in the testimony confirms the
truth of the thing to which the testimony is given. This thing is the statement
of the last words of ver. 5, or the doctrine that Jesus is the Sdn of God. The
prominent position given to zpeic, in the first part of ver. 7, may be accounted
for by the fact that the water and blood, which had not been alluded to in ver. 6
as witnesses, are now brought forward under that aspect. This would seem to be
a sufficient reason for the emphasis; but it may be, as some writers think, that
there is a reference here to the provision of the Mosaic law, that two or three
witnesses establish the truth of an alleged fact. In the latter case, the idea
of the apostle is, we may believe, that the testimony fills out the demands of
4
814 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
human law, with respect to testimony, to the full measure. This reference,
however, must be regarded, as Huther also says, as quite doubtful.
6. The discussion as to the genuineness of the disputed words in vv. 7, 8,
has reached a point, at present, where substantially all competent and candid
scholars are agreed that they are to be rejected from the text. The facts of the
case, so far as the external evidence is concerned, are presented briefly in
Huther’s textual note at the beginning of the chapter. The internal evidence,
if not equally strong with the external, is very strong as bearing against the
words. The introduction of the statement that there are three who bear wit-
ness in heaven, and that the three are one, is unconnected with the development
of the thought of the context and the chapter. This thought, so far as the
matter of fact or truth is concerned, is: Jesus is the Son of God; so far as
the matter of evidence is concerned, the design of the passage Is clearly to set
forth the evidence which is brought before the minds of men by the water and
the blood (i.e., by the great facts at the beginning and end of the ministry of
Jesus), and by the Holy Spirit as working in the soul and bearing testimony to
it. The passage speaks thus of a truth which is to be apprehended by men
in their earthly life, and of evidence which is presented to them here on earth.
The fact that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are three bearing wit-
ness in heaven, and that they are one, does not suggest evidence of the same
sort; but, so far as it indicates evidence at all, it suggests what is of quite a
different kind. This fact comes to the mind in a different way, and is, as we
may say, apprehended in its force only after the truth, that Jesus is the Son of
God, has been accepted and believed. The difficulties presented by Huther in
his Remark at the end of ver. 7 are also very serious and weighty. The fact
that the first three are spoken of as bearing witness in heaven, takes the words
out of the connection of the passage, which necessarily, as we may say, turns
upon testimony as given on earth. Moreover, the ninth verse bears strongly
against the genuineness, either because, as is urged by Huther, these disputed
words, if admitted, make it unintelligible what witness Is meant by the uaprupia
tov Geov of this verse; or, because, if we regard the witness of God here alluded
to as the witness of the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, the contrast must be
with the testimony of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, as the witness of
men, whereas this latter is evidently not a human, but rather a divine testi-
mony. The un-Johannean character of the expression, the Father and the
Word, is worthy of consideration. In ‘connection with the external evidence,
attention may be called to the extreme improbability that such a formal state-
ment involving the doctrine of the Trinity, if originally belonging to the Epistle,
could by any means have disappeared from all the Greek MSS. from the fourth
to the fifteenth century.
7. The purpose of ver. 9 is to set forth the value of the Divine testimony,
and, consequently, to insist upon the credit which should be given to it. The
conditional clause refers to the fact that human testimony is received as satis-
factory and sufficient evidence, according to the common custom of mankind.
If this be so, urges the apostle, we ought to receive with a deeper conviction,
and a more immovable belief, the testimony of God; for it is greater, i.e.,
greater in its authority and value. There can be no doubt that this verse has
a certain connection with what immediately precedes; and that thus the force
of the evidence mentioned as a divinely-given evidence is pressed upon the
attention of the readers. This is to be affirmed, whatever may be the direct
and special reference of ? uaprupla rod Geod. With reference to this question,
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 815
the following suggestion is offered as best satisfying the conditions of the pas-
sage: namely, that the writer passes, in the progress of the verses here, from the
objective side of the evidence for the Divine Sonship of Jesus to the subjective
side. The objective side is that presented in ver. 6, the Spirit and the water
and the blood. The subjective side is brought forward in ver. 11, the eternal
life within the soul, given to the sou] and possessed by it. But these are, really,
not two different things, but two different sides or aspects of the same thing.
Jesus Christ, who was seen, heard, handled, is the eternal life. The experi-
ence of what He is within the soul is the other side — the corresponding internal
manifestation of what is borne witness to by the great facts of His earthly career,
and by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and afterward.
—8. The force and connection of ver. 9b are uncertain. The simplest and most
natural construction of the sentence, however, would seem to be that which
makes dr: explanatory of air, and gives to the words this meaning: The witness
of God (of which the apostle is speaking in the argument) is this, that, etc. ; that
is, when I speak in this passage of the testimony of God, I mean the fact
that He has borne testimony concerning His Son. This fact, that He has thus
testified to His Son through the Spirit, the water, and the blood, is a ground of
conviction for us which is of more force and value than any human testimony
could be. If this is the true view of the meaning, the connection through ére
with what immediately precedes, may be believed to be this: I call your atten-
tion to the greater value of the Divine testimony, because, in this matter which
I have just mentioned, there exists that Divine testimony which God gives to
men.
9. At ver. 10, the writer turns towards the interna] side of the matter, which
is fully and distinctly set forth in ver. 11. The transition is made through the
word believeth. The man who believes on the Son of God, as made known by
this testimony and evidence, thereby transfers the evidence, as it were, from
without himself to within himself. The testimony becomes an internal posses-
sion, an inward experience. This idea is presented more emphatically by means
of the contrasted negative statement of the latter part of the verse, according to
the peculiar style of this writer. —10. Ver. 11. This verse is to be immediately
connected in thought with ver. 12. The full idea on the internal side is brought
out In the two verses as taken together. The witness or testimony, says ver. 11,
is this: that God gave to us eternal life, and this life isin His Son. The testi-
mony that Jesus jis the Son of God (ver. 5) becomes, as it passes towards and
into the internal sphere, the testimony that God has bestowed upon us, in and
through Hiin, eternal life. Whether the clause and this life is in His Son is to
be regarded as independent and co-ordinate with the first clause: The witness is,
etc., or is dependent on drt, and is thus referred to as a part of the testimony, is
uncertain. Huther, and most recent commentators who express an opinion on
the subject, take the former view. There is, however, at least one strong reason
in favor of the latter view, namely, that the real testimony which is given in
John’s Gospel, and which, we may believe, was brought to his,own mind by
the water and the blood and the Spirit, was not simply that God gave us eternal
life, but also, that this life is in His Son. This was the truth which John
learned from the Divine testimony, and we may believe that it was also the
truth which he intended to proclaim to his readers as the Divine testimony.
This view of the sentence seems also to the writer of this note to make the
progress of the thought in vv. 10-12 most simple and natural: he that believes
that Jesus is the Son of God, and so believes on Him, has the external testi-
816. ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
mony transferred, as it were, to the internal sphere within himself (ver. 10);
this testimony now passing to the mind and becoming internal is, that God
gave us eternal life, and that this life is in His Son (ver. 11); he that possesses
the Son as indwelling in himself has, accordingly, as his own possession, as the
actual experience of his own soul, the eternal life.
'
XLVIIL.
Vv. 13-21.
1. The correspondence of ver. 13 with John xx. 81 is very noticeable, and
we can scarcely doubt that in this verse the apostle turns to the closing of his
Epistle. The reference in raira éypapa is probably to the entire Epistle, though
there are certain parts of it, and particularly the last section, which present the
idea of eternal life more distinctly than others. The purpose of the Gospel is
stated, in the verse just mentioned, to be this: That the readers may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, they may have
life in His name; that of the Epistle is here given in the words: That you may
know that you have eternal life,— you that believe on the name of the Son
of God. To produce faith, was the object of the apostle’s record of the life of
Jesus. To give the knowledge of their actual and present possession of eternal
life, to those who already had faith, was his desire and design in writing this
letter to his Christian brethren. In the order of progress with relation to
Christian living, therefore, as well as in the order of the development of thought,
the Epistle follows the Gospel. We may believe that it followed the Gospel also
in time. — The possession of the knowledge that we have eternal life is the
fulfilling of our joy (chap. i. ver. 4). The end of the Epistle, in this sense,
corresponds with the beginning. —2. Ver. 14 adds, through «ai, which opens
the verse, a result or out-working of the knowledge mentioned in ver. 18 in a
special line, —that line of communion with God in which our petitions for
ourselves and our Christian brethren go forth towards Him, and thus in that
line or sphere in which the support and joy and peace of our life are to be
found. The knowledge produces or becomes, in this line or sphere, confidence
towards God. This confidence is explained or defined in the following words,
that, if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us; and if we know
that He hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which
we have asked of Him. The Christian believer has confidence, founded upon
his possession of the Divine life—the light-life—in the soul, that his future
prayers will be answered, and that his past prayers have been answered. He
knows, that, as his desire and will are conformed to God’s will, the real and
fundamental petition in every prayer, that God’s will may be done, Is answered
in his own experience and life. All things work together for his good as he
loves God; his joy is made full as his fellowship is with the Father and with the
Son. — 3. Ver. 16 changes the thought from prayer in general to fprayer for
the sinning brother. This change, and the introduction of this reference to the
fellow-Christian, may be connected with the thought of brotherly love which is
80 prominent in the Epistle. We may believe, however, that the new verses
(16, 17) are suggested partly in connection with some special dangers which
belonged to the time and surroundings of those to whom the apostle was
writing. The fact that the prayer here spoken of is limited to the case of
sinning, and that the sin unto death is made prominent, is confirmatory of this
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 817
view. The prominence of the sin unto death is indicated, not only by reason
of the fact that it is distinctly mentioned, but also by the special exception of
it which is made in the other parts of the verses.
4. The sin unto death is left by the writer without further definition. This
fact would seem to indicate that the phrase was understood, or likely to be
understood, by the readers to whom the Epistle was addressed. With regard to
the question what sin is referred to, it may be said: (a) That it is evidently
a sin which might be committed by Christians; it is the brother, not the
unbeliever, who is conceived of as possibly sinning thus; (b) That it would
seem to be probable, rather than otherwise, not to say certain, that it must be a
sin which is indicated, or alluded to, in the Epistle itself; the writer would
scarcely introduce with such abruptness, and so near the close of his letter,
a reference to such a sin without any explanation of its meaning, or any
development of thought respecting it, unless there had been something in the
earlier part of the Epistle which could throw light upon it; (c) That the words
npo¢ Qavarov are to be understood as conveying the idea that the sin certainly
leads to death; this is shown by the fact, that, in the sense of mere tendency
towards death, the expression pdc¢ davarov is applicable to all sin, whereas what
is here spoken of is evidently a particular kind of sin; (d) That the death here
mentianed is the death which is contrasted with (w7, and must accordingly be
understood in the sense of eternal death; (e) That the sin unto death has a
certain individuality in it, if, indeed, it is not a special and particular sin. The
general form of the sentence setting forth this sin, and the sinning which is
opposite to this, makes it improbable that the division here made is between
two equal or great classes of sins, but rather indicates that there is a single
exception. If, in view of these several points, we examine the Epistle for the
suggestions which it may give, we find that it makes peculiarly prominent one
sin, which, if committed, shows that the person guilty of it, though in the
. company of Christian believers, is not of them, and is not of God. This sin is
that denial of the Son which involves in itself the denial of the Father (ii. 22),
and that denial that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, which shows the spirit
of antichrist (iv. 3). Huther claims, that, if the apostle had meant this sin
only, he would have designated it plainly. But this depends on the special
thought and purpose which the writer had in mind. He may have intended to
present the sin here in this particular light, after having already designated it
by the use of clear and definite descriptive words; and his desire may have been
to use the words here employed, because he wished to Jimit the matter of
petitions for others at the point which is determined by ob pd¢ Gavaroy and mpd¢
6uvarov, It seems most probable, therefore, that the sin which involves the
spirit of antichrist is the one which is referred to in this expression. The
Christian who is guilty of this sin falls away utterly, and is in the condition of
apostasy. This passage would seem to border, therefore, on Heb. vi. 4 ff.,
x. 26 ff.; rather than on Mark fii. 22, where the scribes said, He hath Beelzebub,
etc., and Jesus declared the sin agaiyst the Holy Spirit (ver. 29) to be unpar-
donable.
5. The language of ver. 16 is peculiar in some respects: (a) With reference
to sin not unto death, the word airjoe is used, while, in connection with the sin
unto death, the word employed is épwr7cy. The former is the stronger word in
itself; the two corrgsponding nearly to our ask, in the sense of demand, and of
request, But as both are here used with respect to prayer, and as we find in
John xvi. 26 the same two words used of praying or petitioning, it may be
818 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
regarded as doubtful whether the change from the one verb to the other is
anything more than a rhetorical change. —(b) The subject of doce is, by the
peculiarity of the sentence, left in uncertainty. Huther regards it as the same
with the subject of aitjce; so Haupt, Alford, Moulton, and others. Westcott
and others, on the other hand, make God the subject of dwor, There seems to
be no serious objection to the view of Huther; and, if it is adopted, the sentence
moves forward in a more simple and direct way. In this case, the word aire
refers to the sinning brother; and the verb dwoe means, shall give through his
intercession with God. In this case, also, the dative roi¢ duapravove is in an
appositional relation to avr, only extending the thought from the individual] to
all who are in a similar condition. —(c) The expression ov mepl éxeivng Aéyu iva
tpwrfoy deserves special notice. The author does not prohibit prayer in case of
the sin unto death; he simply excludes this from what he is speaking of in the
earlier part of the verse. This failure to prohibit such prayer may, perhaps, be
regarded as hinting at the possibility of repentance even in case of this sin, as
the language in Heb. vi. 4-6 and x. 26 ff. may be explained; see Additional
Notes to Meyer’s Comm. on Heb., Amer. ed., pp. 550 f., 662 f. If this is so,
this sin here referred to cannot be the unpardonable sin spoken of, Mark iii. 29;
and the stpd¢ @avarov cannot involve an absolute certainty of death for every
individual who commits it, i.e., the absolute impossibility of repentance and
pardon. But all that the expression distinctly declares is, that the writer is not
speaking of prayer for this sin, when he gives the assurance that the Christian
who asks on behalf of his brother duapr. du. uy xp. tr. av. shall secure the
blessing for which he asks.
6. The connection of ver. 17 is evidently with what goes before; but precisely
what the connection of thought is intended to be, is a point of some difficulty,
and one on which interpreters have differed. It would seem that two things
must be observed, in order to a decision of the question: first, that the subject
before the writer’s mind is intercessory prayer for other Christians, who are
sinning; and, secondly, that the form of the sentences of this verse indicates
the including of the class of sins here mentioned, as a part of that which is
meant by the general word sin. If we take these two things into consideration,
the result will follow, that the verse is added with reference to what precedes, as
showing the wideness of the sphere within which intercessory prayer may be
offered, without including the case of sin unto death. — We may believe, how-
ever, that this verse has also a forward look; and, in this view of it, it suggests
the idea of sin as covering all unrighteousness, and being mainly not unto
death. It may thus cling to the Christian believer in some degree; but when
the Christian is viewed in the light of the ideal of his life, ‘‘he who has been
begotten of God does not sin.”? The Epistle thus returns at the end to a
thought kindred to that of its beginning; see chap. {. vv. 6-8.—JIn this view
of the matter, ver. 18, with what follows, may be regarded as gathering up the
thought which the writer would impress upon his readers as the beginning and
ending of his Epistle. The Son of God, jn the person of Jesus Christ, is come
into the world to give eternal life through the knowledge of God, —the life
which is originated by a Divine force, and which has its being in the sphere of
the Divine light-life. —7. The three verses 18-20 begin, each of them, with the
word olfdayuev, The statements which they contain are thus presented with a
special formality, and even solemnity, as setting forth fundamental known
truths. The three points are arranged here in a pecullar order, and, as we may
believe, with a view to the final iropression which the apostle desires to make.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 819
We know that the one who fs begotten of God does not sin, —the light-life is
not intermingled with darkness; we know that we, who are Christian believers,
are of God— we thus are those who possess the light-life which is free from
sin; we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding
that we may know God —and thus we are in God, through being in His Son.
8. As to individual words and phrases in these three verses, the following
points may be noticed: (a) The first clause of ver. 18 is a repetition of what
is said in iii. 9, except in the substitution of auaprave: for duapriav roui, and
presents what is evidently an essential element in the Johannean thought. —
(b) The second and third clauses have not appeared in the earlier part of the
Epistle. They set forth that by means of which, or the process by which,
the result is accomplished, but in the form of a contrast to the idea of sinning,
presented in the first clause. The text is doubtful in the second clause, some
authorities reading avrvv, and some éavrov, If éavrov is read, 6 yevyndeic refers
to the same person as o yeyevynuévoc of the first clause, and the thought is: he
that was begotten of God (the aorist referring to the definite time and event of
the new birth) keeps himself, and (the result is, —so that this end is reached,
namely, that) the evil one touches him not. If, on the other hand, avroy Is
read, 6 yevvneic may most naturally be referred to Christ, and the meaning is,
that Christ is a guardian power, keeping him, and (so that) the evil one is not
able to get any hold upon him. —(c) The words 6 rovnpd¢ ovy amrera: avrud may
remind us of John xiv. 30: ‘“‘he has nothing in me.’’ They indicate that the
evil one doer not touch the man who is thus guarded or kept, so far that any
defilement of the soul, or any power of sin in the soul, is the result. —(d) The
first part of ver. 19 sets forth the fact that “‘ we,”’ f.e., the Christian readers, are
of the class of persons of whom the words begotten of God can be predicated.
The second part of the verse presents the fact, in contrast with this, that the
unconverted world lies within the sphere and under the power of the evil one.
That ro rovnp® means the evil one, and not evil, is rendered almost certain by
the preceding 6 ovnpoc. —(e) de (ver. 20) is perhaps equivalent to moreover, but
perhaps it is adversative, expressing a contrast to the last part of ver. 19. The
fact that the Son of God is come and has given, etc., is the means by which we
pass out of the sphere and dominion of the evil one into the new life, in which
he has no power over us, and is thus the means by which, as born of God, we
do not sin. —(f) xe presents the incarnation as a permanent fact on which
Christian faith and life depend. The word duroa means understanding; ‘‘the
divinely empowered inner sense by which we judge of things divine,”’ as Alford
says. This inner sense has been given to believers, that they may know Him
who answers to the true idea of God. As the result of this knowledge, we are
in Him that is true, instead of being in the power of the evil one. The expres-
sion év rd vi abrov can hardly be an appositional explanatory phrase, defining
the One who is true to be the Son. This is clear from the fact that the Son is .
declared, in the beginning of the verse, to have been the means of our coming
to know Him that is true, and also from the avrov, which must, as it would
seem, point back to rdv GAndwov, r@ aAnfirg, as its antecedent. The expression
must, therefore, be equivalent to even in His Son, or inasmuch as (Huther) we
are in His Son; by virtue of (Alford) being in His Son. In either case, the idea
in the writer’s mind seems to be this: that we come into the realization of an
indwelling in God, so soon as, and through the fact that, we are in the realiza-
tion of such an indwelling in His Son. —(g) The reference of ovrog, in the last
sentence of ver. 20, to Christ, is to be rejected, because of the distinction made
820 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
in the preceding clauses between 6 dAn&véc and 6 vidc, and also the distinction
carefully maintained throughout the Epistle between God the Father and
Christ. It is also to be rejected, because of the similarity in the general thought
of these verses and that of John xvii. 3, where the only true God and Jesus
Christ are spoken of in their distinction from each other. The difficulty in the
way of referring ovrog to God the Father, which arises from the fact that God
has already been declared to be 6 dAnéivéc, and that thus there would be a
tautological sentence here, is removed when we consider that these words are
a kind of formal closing of the whole thought of the Epistle, —a setting-forth,
as it were, of the truth which the Epistle rests upon. God as the possessor and
revealer of the light-life, which is the eternal life, —this is the thought upon
which all the other thoughts are founded. It is not strange that the author
should say at the end of these last verses, and as preparatory to his final exhor-
tation: This One who is true, who is brought to our knowledge through Jesus
Christ His Son, is the true God, —the one only God who answers to the true
and complete idea of God; and He is eternal life, in the sense that He has it in
' Himself, and we attain to the possession of it by coming into the knowledge of
Him. — (h) The last verse of the Epistle contains an exhortation which might
readily follow after the last sentence of ver. 20. The idols are referred to, it
would seem, as Pepresentalie: of heathenism. They are the false deities, as
opposed to the true.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
XLIX.
Vv. 1-13.
1. The designation 6 zpeoBirepos, which is found in the second and third
Epistles of John, is peculiar, as compared with the absence of any designation
whatever in the Gospel and the first Epistle. It can hardly be insisted upon,
however, that a writer—and even one who has such striking individuality of
style and expression as the author of the Gospel and First Epistle -has— shall
always completely hide his personality. If these two letters were addressed to
individuals, as the third Epistle evidently was, it might be very natural for the
writer to give himself the title here employed, with which, as knowing him,
they would be familiar. Peter in his first Epistle (v. 1), speaks of himself as
ouunpeopvrepoc, in connection with an exhortation to the elders in general. In
the region where John lived, and especially in the period of his old age, he may
readily have been reverentially known as the elder, and may, by reason of his
position as the last survivor of the apostles, have spoken of himself, with a
certain distinction from all others around him, as 6 speaSirepoc, If the general
characteristics of the books can be regarded as in harmony with the authorship
by the Apostle John, the fact that we find this.title in these Epistles, and the
name John in the Book of Revelation, can hardly be regarded as inconsistent
with such authorship. —2. As to the question to whom the second Epistle is
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 821
addressed, the writer of this note is disposed to give the answer: It is a Chris-
tian woman by the name of Kyria, who was in relations of friendship with the
apostle. The arguments urged by Huther against this view do not seem to be
decisive. On the other hand, the fact that Kyria is a known proper name; the
great similarity in forms of expression between this Epistle and the third,
which was evidently addressed to an individual; the allusion to the elect sister,
and to the children of the two; and the applicability of the expression, I have
found of (some of) thy children walking in truth, to members of a family, part
of which only might be Christian, rather than to a body of Christian believers,
seem strongly to favor the idea that the letter was written to an individual, and
not to a church. —38. The phrase év aAndeig of ver. 1 seems to be adverbial in its
character, and to mean in truth, i.e., with a love which truly deserves the name.
In ver. 4, on the other hand, it draws nearer to the phrase év ry caAnOeia (3 John
4, comp. 3 John 3). —4. The phrase, all those who know the truth, is probably
to be referred to those in the writer’s neighborhood when he wrote. The love
which is spoken of as going out from the Christians to these Christians is
declared to be on account of the truth which abides in all Christians (7uiv);
and, the writer adds, it (the truth) shall be with us forever. The character of
this sentence and thought is Johannean.
5. The words of ver. 4, as Westcott remarks, ‘‘ appear to refer to an experi-
ence of the writer in some other place than that to which the ‘lady’ belonged.”
— The explanation of év dAnOeig and of the xa@u¢ clause, in its relation to this
phrase, which is given by Huther, is better than that which Westcott gives,
who makes é dAn@. adverbial, and connects xa@uc with meptnurovytas, and not
with zep. év dA, —6. The correspondence of the thought in vv. d, 6, with what
we find in the First Epistle, is very striking, and is of such a character as to show
sameness of authorship. —7. At ver. 7, the thought turns, as in the First Epistle
iii, 24-iv. 3, from the keeping of the commandments, as summed up in love to
one another, to the deceivers and antichrists who do not confess that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh. The participle épyouevoy is present and descriptive,
coming ; éAndAvéora (1 John iv. 2) is perfect and temporal, having come, that he
is come.—8. The exhortation of ver. 8 evidently refers to the danger arising
from the possible evil influence of these deceivers. This exhortation looks toa
negative and a positive end—on the negative side, not to lose the results in
Christian development, etc., which had been wrought for them by the apostle
and his helpers in the preaching of the gospel; on the positive side, the recep-
tion of the full reward which such Christian development, if it should go on to
perfection, would secure in the future. —9. The participle tpouywv (ver. 9) is
taken by Alford as meaning going before as a teacher or leader; R. V. marg.,
taketh the lead. It seems better, however, to regard it as meaning going for
ward beyond, and not abiding in (uévwv), the teaching which comes from Christ.
—10. Vv. 10, 11, add to the exhortation to be on their guard against suffering
the evil influences of the false teachers to affect their Christian life and growth
injuriously, a bidding that they should not give a hospitable reception to any
person who should come to them not bringing the teaching of Christ. The
class of persons here referred to are those who come with another doctrine, and
with the design and purpose of subverting the gospel. The energy of the lan-
guage is to be explained in connection with the denial, on the part of these
persons, of that which the apostle regarded as the fundamental Christian truth;
see the First Epistle. — 11. On ver. 12, see notes on 3 John vv. 13, 14.—12. The
fact that the children only, and not the elect sister herself, are spoken of in
822 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ver. 13 as giving the salutation, is regarded by some as favoring the idea that
the letter is addressed toachurch. But this fact seems to be easily explained
if the elect sister was no longer living, or if her children only were in the place
where the apostle was; and, if thus explicable, it affords no evidence that the
letter was not written to an individual.
THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
L.
Vv. 1-15.
1. The words sep? wavrwv are to be explained as Huther explains them, in
respect to all things, in all things ; ebodovcba, in the passive, means to be pros-
perous, as in Rom. {. 10; vyiverv may possibly refer to bodily health, but more
probably it {s used in a figurative sense, as further carrying out the idea of
evodovatat; xafuc, the measure and standard of the prosperity which the apostle
desires for his friend, is that of the prospering of his soul in the Divine life.
The verb ebxyoua: near the beginning of this sentence may mean wish, and it may
mean pray. Not improbably, R. V. is correct in giving it the meaning J pray.
—2. Ver. 3 is introduced as a ground or reason for ver. 2, The joy which the
apostle had in learning of the Christian walk and life of Gaius is a fact which
justifies his statement of his wish or prayer for the prosperity of the latter as
his soul prospers. The participle épyouévw» may perhaps be explained, with
Westcott, as meaning when they came from time to time; but it may also be
regarded, with Alford, as timeless, and merely conveying the reason of éxap7v.
—38. The phrase év aAnéeig, in ver. 3, seems to be equivalent to the same expres-
sion in 2 John, ver. 4, and not to the same words used adverbially in ver. 1
and 2 John, ver. 1. Truth is here equivalent to the truth, only that it is
expressed in a more general and less definite way. —4. The true text in ver. 4
probably reads yapay. Westcott and Hort, with B, read zap. If the latter
reading is adopted, the meaning of the word is probably favor, or gift of the
Divine grace.
5. The first matter for the setting-forth of which the letter seems to have
been written, is that of hospitality to Christian brethren. The apostle begins
this by expressing his approval of Gaius for what he has done or is doing in this
way, and then he commends to him the duty as one befitting the Christian life.
The words of approval begin with thou doest a faithful work: the word faithful
here seems to mean in accordance with Christian faith. —6. Ver. 6b intimates
that these stranger-brethren are about to go back in their missionary journeying
to Gaius. The account of the aorist participle with the future verb seems to be
this: that the apostle conceives of his friend as immediately fulfilling the duty
of hospitality indicated by the participle, so soon as there is a call for it, and
with this thought he says, thou wilt do well in having discharged this duty. —
THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 8238
7. Ver. 7 gives the reason for ver. 60. It is the common reason for Christian
love: because those towards whom the love is exhibited are united with Christ,
are living and working for Him, and loving Him. The name here is, doubtless,
the name of Christ. But in addition to the going forth on behalf of His
name, the writer adds, as a ground of the hospitable reception and kindly
service, the fact that these men took nothing from the Gentiles; they were
working for Christ, and would receive nothing from those who did not believe
in Him.
8. The second main point in the letter is the case of Diotrephes, and the
suggestions connected with it. In this part of the Epistle, vv. 9-12, the follow-
ing points may be noticed: (a) éypawa, ver. 9, refers to a letter already written
to the church of which Gaius was a member.—(b) On giAonmpurevuv Westcott
remarks: ‘‘ It is of interest to compare the two sources of failure noticed in the
two Epistles, rpouyev (2 John 9) and ¢Aorpureduy, the undue claims to intel-
lectual progress and to personal authority. There is nothing to indicate that
Diotrephes held false opinions; his ambition only is blamed.’’? Whether Dio-
trephes was a presbyter or not, is uncertain; but it seems evident that he was a
prominent man in the church to which Gaius belonged, and that he was disposed
to assume prominence and authority. —(c) The word éidexera in verse 9 means
receives, apparently in the sense of recognizing the apostle’s authority. The
same word in ver. 10 is used In the more ordinary sense of receiving, as in the
way of hospitality, etc. —(d) The verb éxPadAre is indicative of special authority,
or at least of special Influence, as belonging to Diotrephes. — (e) In ver. 11, on
the foundation of the case of Diotrephes, the apostle urges Gaius in general to
imitate, not what is evil, but what is good; and then apparently brings forward
the example of Demetrius as illustrative of the latter. —(/) The closing parts
of vv. 11, 12, are characteristic of John; and they are so artlessly so, that the
candid reader will not fail to see in them an evidence of the Johannean
authorship of the letter.
9. The end of this Epistle corresponds very closely with that of the Second
Epistle. The verb e‘yov here, as distinguished from éywv in 2 John, seems to
call attention to the fact, somewhat more definitely, that he had the things
to write before he began. The expression of the things omitted, he leaves for
a personal communication. yiyveoéu of 2 John 12 involves the idea of coming
to; ideiv of this Epistle, that of being with and seeing. The friends are, appar-
ently, personal Christian friends. There is no salutation at the beginning of
this Epistle, as there is in the second. It is given here at the end: Peace be
unto thee. r
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
LIL
Vv. 1, 2.
1. That the Judas who wrote this Epistle was one of the four brothers
mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 8, is beyond any considerable doubt. That
these four brothers were brothers, and not cousins of Jesus, is probable, by
reason of the fact that they are called dadeAgoi, and are found in the narrative
of the Gospels in connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus, as if they were
members of her family. The probabilities of the case, in every respect, seem to
favor this view. They were, thus, sons of Joseph and Mary, or of Joseph by a
previous marriage. The James, accordingly, whose brother this Judas was,
is the James mentioned in the Acts as the head of the church in Jerusalem, and
the James who wrote the Epistle which is assigned to a person of this name.
Judas was. apparently, from the order in which the names of the brothers
are given in the lists, younger than James. The reason why, although being
a brother of the Lord, he does not speak of himself as such, is the same with
that which is mentioned in the notes on Jas.i.1. The fact that he speaks of
himself as brother of James, seems to indicate that he stood on an inferior posi-
tion, or was less known and recognized, than James, who took rank with tne
leading apostles. — 2. It can hardly be doubted that «Ayroi¢ is “here the substan-
tive word to which the participles belong as descriptive adjectives. The called
are beloved and preserved. They are beloved in God the Father; the prepo-
sition in denotes, strictly, the sphere within which the love takes place or has its
being, but the usage of the N. T. writers shows that the one by whom they are
loved is God. The suggestion of this peculiar phrase seems to be, that as they
are by their Christian life in that sphere in which God insplres, and, by His
Spirit, dwells in the man, they are also the objects of that love which abides in
God, and moves outward from Him to holy souls. ‘They are kept for Jesus
Christ; the dative here denotes, apparently, the one in whose behalf, and for
. whom, as a permanent possession and glory, they are preserved by God. The
love of God will secure for those who are called the blessing of the future, —
the called will be glorified, as Paul intimates; but they will’ be thus glorified,
because of. the relation of God the Father to His Son, —they are kept for Jesus
Christ. — 3. The salutation is peculiar in that it omits the word grace, and adds
the word love. There can be but little doubt that mercy refers to that which , \
goes forth from God to man, and that peace indicates the state of the human
soul which follows upon the experience of the Divine mercy, and which belongs
to the relation of the soul to God. Love, as following after these words which
speak of God’s movement towards man and man’s position towards God, may,
not improbably, be intended to suggest the idea of the relation between man
and man, the abounding of love being essential to the perfected Christian state.
It is possible, however, that love may be added as taking up the thought of the
participle beloved in the preceding verse, and may refer to the love of God to
Men, one special manifestation of which is mercy. Huther prefers the latter
view, if fyannptvos is to be adopted as the true reading in ver. 1.
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 825
LIL
Vv. 3, 4.
1. These two verses, following the salutation, form a kind of introduction
to the Epistle, and they give the special reason which led the author to write it.
This reason was the appearance, on the stage, of certain false teachers who
were endangering the faith of Christians. The great similarity between the
characteristics of these false teachers and those of the heretics described in the
Second Epistle of Peter is manifest to every careful reader. They have evidently
already appeared at the time of the writing of this Epistle. In the case of
2 Peter (see Notes on that Epistle), there seems to be a sort of double statement,
—now, as if they had already appeared (ii. 17 ff.); and again, in the way of
prophecy, that they were to be expeeted and would appear in the future
(ii. 1 ff.). If the statement of 2 Peter can be properly regarded as altogether
relating to the future, a strong argument may be found, in connection with this
fact, in favor of the view that the date of the Epistle of Jude was later than
that of 2 Peter. —2. The correspondence thus indicated between the two
Epistles would seem to show that they were addressed to substantially the same
circle of readers. In neither of the two Is there any specia] designation of the
readers as to their residence, the only indication in 2 Peter being that which is
found in iii. 1, which points towards the same persons as those addressed in
1 Peter, who were residents of the region of Asia Minor. In this Epistle, the
readers are simply addressed as cyamyroi, which word marks them as Christians,
but gives no further hint respecting them. —3. In order to the understanding
of ver. $, we may notice, that, inasmuch as the phrase foyov aviyxny, «.7.2.,
evidently contains the main thought of the verse, the participle tomiyuevo¢ must
be determined, in its time, by the verb éoxuv, It was while or when he was
giving diligence to write to the readers of the Epistle respecting the common
salvation, that he felt constrained. The pres. part. goes back, as a continuous
present, to the time of the verb, and covers that time, but does not pass forward
beyond the limits of that time. The writer seems to imply, therefore, that he
had had, for some time, a desire, and was at the point of putting that desire
into action, to write to them a letter with regard to the common salvation.
This term is a general one, and, as such, is possibly inclusive of all which might
with propriety be covered by it, whether in the matter of fact, or doctrine, or
method, or explanation of any sort. While in this state of mind, the presence
and working of the false teachers made him feel it to be necessary to turn his
exhortation into the line of thought which he now follows. It became the
readers, in view of the existing dangers, to contend earnestly for the faith.
4. The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. This passage is
the strongest one in the N. T. favoring the view that 7 ziorie has sometimes the
strictly objective sense, the system of faith, or Christian doctrine. If this is
the meaning intended by the writer, this fact would tend to show that the
Epistle was written in the later, rather than the earlier part of the apostolic
period. The word faith, in almost every case of its occurrence in the N. T.,
means subjective faith, The movement towards the objective sense was,
naturally and necessarily, a gradual one. It is, indeed, doubtful, whether the
full objective meaning is intended in this verse. More probably the word, as
here used, appears in what may be considered a transitional state; and the view
of Huther is substantially correct, that it means not system of doctrine, but the
826 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
objective contents of faith, that which Christians believe. The reference is
rather to the fundamental essential truth of salvation by Christ, than to the
collection of doctrines making up what is commonly called a theological system.
— 5. The word a7aé apparently carries with it the idea of once for all, because
of its connection with tepadoGeioy, and the contrast implied in the context.
The participle, by reason of what is said in ver. 17, is probably to be completed
in its thought by the words by the apostles. —6. The evil or danger indicated
in ver. 4 is clearly one lying in the moral region. The men alluded to were
themselves ungodly; and they were turning the grace of God, not into some
wrong belief, but into wrong conduct and life. These persons are spoken of as
coming in among the Christian body in a secret and stealthy way, by a side-door,
as it were (comp. Gal. ii. 4); and this idea is, by the position of the words, set
forth with especial emphasis. The insidious character of the evil influence, as
well as its existence, is that. which constrains the writer to address the Christian
brethren on this subject.
7. The words describing what the false teachers do and teach are'those of
the two participial clauses which form the last part of the verse. But before
stating this, the writer inserts a phrase which marks their character and destiny.
It is not quite certain whether a comma is to be placed before aceBeic, as Huther
and several commentators hold, making this word an independent designation;
or whether, on the other hand, no comma is to be inserted, and az¢3. is to be
immediately connected with of rpoyeyp. The emphasis is greater if we take the
former arrangement of the sentence. In view of what follows in later verses,
and also of the strict and proper meaning of mpoyeyp., it can hardly be questioned
that this participial phrase refers to these persons, not as predestined to
condemnation in the eternal counsels and purpose of God, but as corresponding
with cases mentioned in the O. T., and thus being of the number of those with
regard to whom the O. T. utters its predictions; comp. 2 Pet. fi. 1. The words
this judgment, which evidently here suggest the idea of condemnatory judgment,
refer to what is indicated or set forth in the following verses. Vv. 5-16 suggest
the condemnation, while they, at the same time, describe the characteristics
of the persons, and they do so by calling attention to the O. T. times.
8. Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master
and Lord, Jesus Christ. — There are evidently two points presented here, but
the two things mentioned have a close relation to each other. The grace of
God must, as it would seem, by reason of its contrast with aoéAyeva, mean here,
not the doctrine of grace, or of the way of salvation through faith, but the actual
Divine grace or favor itself. They turned this grace itself, which came to them
in the offer of forgiveness, into a means of indulgence in gross immorality. The
progress of error had passed from doctrine into life. These persons also denied
the Lord. Rejecting the right idea and influence of the grace which Jesus
revealed, it was a natural sequence that they should move onward to the denial
of Jesus Himself. As the word @e6y, following deororyy, is to be omitted from
the text by reason of the preponderance of external evidence against it, we may
connect deoxoryy with Jesus Christ. The arguments on both sides of the
question are suggested by Huther in his note. The very close correspondence
between this Epistle and 2 Peter, and the fact that in that Epistle (ii. 1) the
word is undoubtedly used of Jesus, seem, on the whole, to overbalance the
suggestions of Huther on the other side. Both possibilities of explaining
the words which follow apvovpevo: should, however, be recognized, as they are
in R. V. text and marg. This word dpvotpz. seems to denote a denial both in
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 827
doctrine and practice ; but, so far as it is the former, it is rather a denial of Him
as regards the truth which He taught, and the revelation of God which He
made, in their bearing upon life, than a denial of His Messianic office, or of His
Divine nature, or peculiar relation to God.
LITI.
Vv. 5-16.
1. The writer begins this passage, as Huther remarks, by referring to three
examples of judgment which may serve to set forth the character of the «piua
mentioned in ver. 4. These three examples are drawn from the history of the
Egyptians, from the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from that of the fallen
angels. In 2 Peter, where similar examples are cited for the same purpose, the
case of the Egyptians is omitted, and that of the people at the time of the flood
is inserted. This change would, in itself, be a slight indication that the one
writer did not copy from the other, or at least did not depend on the other,
but only a slight one; for, in case of such dependence, it is evident that the later
of the two might feel that the substitution of one historical occurrence for
another would be more adapted to his purpose, or more impressive. — 2. The
word azag is probably best translated once for all; and the participial clause in
which it occurs intimates that all this past record was fully known to them, so
that they needed only to be reminded of it, in any of its parts, in order to
appreciate the force of its application. — Huther regards the reading 'Incot¢, in
ver. 5, as possibly correct, though he admits its strangeness. It would seem to
the writer of this note, that, while its presence in some very ancient authorities
may be easily accounted for by reason of the allusion to Jesus in ver. 4, this
reading is quite improbable for two reasons; namely: First, because this O. T.
record is much more naturally connected with God than with Christ; this is
the connection generally found in the N. T., and it seems to be found in the
remainder of this Epistle taken as a whole; and secondly, because there is
manifestly no such occasion here, as we find in 1 Cor. x., for bringing forward
Christ as the One who was with the Israelites or the O. T. saints. If we read
6 xvpioc without the addition of ‘Ijovtc, the reference is, no doubt, to God. —
8. The adverbial word devrepov is well explained by Dr. Angus, in Schaff’s
Pop. Comm., as the next thing he did. Huther is probably correct in giving a
somewhat extended reference to the dealing with those who did not believe, but
the passage in Num. xxv. 1-9 may, nevertheless, be prominent in the writer’s
thought.
4. The words respecting the angels are slightly different from those of the
corresponding passage in 2 Peter, where the passage (ii. 4) reads: If God
spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and
committed them to pits [or chains] of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
For the word sinned, Jude uses the expression, kept not rv éavrav apxyv; this
expression inay probably set forth what their sin consisted in, or that by which
it was accompanied. That apy7 has here the meaning dominion, principality,
rather than first estate, original condition, is now adinitted by many, or most,
of the best commentators. This meaning is, as Huther remarks, the ordinary
meaning of the word in the N. T., when it is used of angels; and it is, to say
the least, as fully consistent as the other interpretation with the clause which
follows. The reference in this following clause may probably be to what is
sMCUUVUMNCG th Urehi. Vie 1 He, DUD UIC IGN BUARC USCU 22 LMC POMallader OF CHE Verse
is so connected with that of the Book of Enoch, and of other writings outside
of the O. T., and it is of such a poetic or figurative character, that the interpreter
is called upon, by this fact, to exercise much care in his explanation and
application of the words. —5. The word didiow, in this sense, does not occur
elsewhere in the N. T., except in Rom. i. 20, where it is applied to God. It is
derived from de; but, so far as the statement of the verse is concerned, the
always idea may be limited to covering the period until the day of judgment.
The keeping or guarding of these angels fast-bound, so that there may be no
escape, until the time when condemnation Is passed upon them, is the thought
in the author’s mind. Whether they are to be kept bound in chains after that
thme, or whether some other result of the condemnatory judgment is to befall
them, is not stated; and it is natural that it should not be, for the purpose of the
passage is to show, by these examples, the certainty that condemnation will
come, and not what the particular final consequences of it are to be. In
2 Peter, according to what may be the best text, they are said to be committed
to pits of darkness in reserve for judgment. The word Tartarus is used only in
2 Peter. Professor Salmond, in Schaff’s Pop. Comm. on that Epistle, says,
and apparently with reason, ‘‘ Peter has in view {in the use of this word in the
passage in question] neither Hades, the world of the departed generally, nor
Gehenna, hell, in the sense of the place of final judgment, but the intermediate
scene or state of penalty.”
6. The fact that Sodom and Gomorrah are spoken of as having in like
manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange
flesh, is favorable to the view that the reference to the angels is connected with
Gen. vi., but also especially with the Book of Enoch. In 2 Peter we do not
find this special designation of the sin of Sodom. This is to be accounted for,
no doubt, in connection with the different purpose of the two writers, and the
fact that in 2 Peter the allusion to Sodom does not follow immediately after
that which is made to the angels. The word a/ovioc, as used by Jude with
reference to Sodom, is employed in a sense kindred to that in which we speak
of the everlasting hills. The endless fire of the future, as that expression has
been sometimes used with reference to final Divine punishment, is manifestly
not intended here; for the reference is to the destruction of earthly cities, not
of souls. The expression of Jude is substantially equivalent, no doubt, to
that in 2 Peter: turning them into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow.
Through this overthrow, and the suggestions which it was calculated to give,
God made (2 Peter) them, set them forth as (Jude), an example. — That the
words of eternal fire depend on the word punishment in Jude (R. V. text), and
not on the word example (R. V. marg.), is held, as Huther remarks, by most
expositors. The reasons which Huther urges in favor of the other view are
worthy of serious consideration; but they do not seem to be sufficient, in view
of the fact that these cities were destroyed by an actual fire, which, so far as
their longer existence was concerned, was perpetual in its destructive power;
and the word endless, as used of the angels, is descriptive only of what precedes
the judgment; eternal fire after that is only hinted at, not declared in terms.
The corresponding passage in 2 Peter, which reads, ‘‘turning the cities into
ashes, condemned them with an overthrow,’’ bears also in favor of the view
that the fire in Jude is the actual (earthly) fire which destroyed, and thus con-
stituted the punishment of, Sodom and Gomorrah, and not the fire of Gehenna.
The suggestion of Huther, that zip aiwmov always designates hell-fire, can hardly
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 829
be insisted upon, when it is remembered that this expression occurs but three
times in the N. T. (the other two instances being Matt. xviii. 8 and xxv. 41, in
both which cases the phrase is ei¢ 1d rip Td aiwvior).
7. The word uévro: in ver. 8 is translated yet by R. V., as if this verse were
in contrast to what precedes, and as if the thought were: notwithstanding these
warning examples. But more probably the view of Huther is correct, that it
serves for a strengthening of the expression: ‘‘ these men actually do the same
thing as the Sodomites.’”’ —8. The word évunviatouevos seems to refer to the
thoughts and imaginings of these men in their sin and opposition to God,
which are connected with and result in the pollution of the flesh, and the
despising of dominion, etc. The argument of Huther with respect to «upornra,
as referring to God or Jesus Christ, is forcible, and this view of the word seems
to be correct; but the suggestions which he makes with regard to déga¢, as
referring to evi] angels because of ver. 9, are not to be considered as a sufficient
support for that view. The repetition of the dé may be accounted as following
the line of the wév . . . dé, and not as indicating a marked difference in the two
sentences: set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities. More probably, dvga¢
' refers to the angelic powers (good angels), as connected with the Divine lordship
(xuptétnra), —9. The reference to the action of Michael, here spoken of, is
apparently for the purpose of showing the impropriety of the conduct of these
men by calling to mind the fact that the great archangel did not act in this way
even towards Satan. The story here alluded to was probably a Jewish tradition,
familiar to the writer and the readers. Whether true in fact, or not, it fully
answered the writer’s purpose as an illustration; that it was a tradition having
no foundation in fact, may not be affirmed, but it was legitimate for Jude to
use it as a well-known story. The corresponding passage in 2 Peter seems
to refer to the bringing of a railing judgment either against these daring
persons or against the doa, and in elther case it has a more general character
than this in Jude, but may be, in some way, ‘connected with the same story.
The explanation of xpiau BAacgquiug given by Huther is doubtless correct. —
10. Ver. 10 presents the attitude and action of these false teachers in relation to
two points, which answer to what is said of them in ver. 4. These men really
rejected, in their general discourse and action, the authority of God, and gave
themselves up to lust and sensual indulgence. They combined the self-conceit
of scepticism with its tendency to immorality, when it works towards its worst
results. What belonged to the region above their intellectual sphere, they
reviled and despised; but not only this: what lay within the region of their
earthly apprehension, they used only for the lowest ends, as if they were mere
animals.
11. Ver. 11 comes In at a later point in the description of these persons given
in 2 Peter, and apparently more in the natural order. Here, in the vehemence
of the writer’s denunciation of them, he breaks in with these words as the
ground of pronouncing a ‘‘ woe upon them.” The allusion in 2 Peter is’ only
to Balaam, that to Cain and Korah being omitted. Dr. Lumby regards this
verse in Jude as having in it a sort of climax, and possibly his view is correct.
He says: ‘‘These teachers were [so the writer of the Epistle would affirm]
envious of men and perverse towards God, like Cain; they were teachers of
error, and willing to work evil and lead others to it, for gain’s sake, as was
Balaam; and their ambitions self-seeking led them to resist all authority, after
the manner of Korah.’’ It may be, however that the general resemblance to
these persons is intended, without the idea of a climax. The word perished, in
830 ° ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
the last clause of the verse, seems to be used as anticipatory of their final fate;
they had given themselves up to the course indicated so wilfully and completely,
that the final result for them was, as it were, already secured and become a
reality.
12.. The correspondence, in the description which immediately follows this
denunciatory passage, with 2 Pet. ii. 13, will be noticed; and yet there seems to
be a kind of compression in the language here and elsewhere in Jude’s descrip-
tion, and an indignant intensity, which surpasses what we find in the other
Epistle, and which suggests the thought that the writer of this letter had seen
the life and workings of these false teachers, towards whom the author of the
other Epistle had only looked forward as likely to arise in the future, or, at
the most, as in the beginning of their development in the matter of the evils
indicated. — 13. The word omdAddec (ve... 12) takes the place in Jude of omido in
2 Peter, according to the best authorities, and the word dydama¢ in Jude has
in some manuscripts drarue substituted for it in 2 Peter. omAdde¢ is generally
understood to mean rocks, and this seems probably to be the correct meaning of
the word. That the word may, however, be substantially equivalent to o7iAo,
can hardly be doubted (see Huther’s note), and the R. V. is justified in inserting
the alternative meaning spots in the margin. If the former signification of the
word is adopted, the suggestion of the idea of hidden rocks is not improbably
contained in it; and thus the idea of danger from these men, and from the
character of their influence, is set before the reader’s mind. The other mean-
ing, being adopted, only brings to mind the thought of defilement and dis-
figurement. The love-feasts are alluded to, apparently, as the times of a sacred
fellowship among the Christian believers, when they were observed with the
right feeling and spirit. What is here referred to is a far greater development
of what was manifested in Corinth: see 1 Cor. xi. 20ff. In 2 Peter these
persons are spoken of as revelling in the love-feasts, if ayamrac is the true
reading there; or in their deceivings, if amaray is to be regarded as the correct
text (so Sin., A*, C, K, L, P, and some other authorities). The reference in
both Epistles, whatever be the true text, is clearly to what occurred at these
feasts, in which the members of the churches united, and which, in their right
use and purpose, were holy meetings. Only with the reading axcras they are
represented as gaining their ends, etc., by deceit. The word cuvevwzoupevo: is
common to both Epistles; vuiv, however, is added in 2 Peter. R. V. translates
in the same way in both cases, and this is very probably correct; but evidently,
as Huther intimates, the ovwv in Jude may mean together, or with each other.
Without fear indicates the bold manner in which they took this course, having
no fear of God’s righteous displeasure or punishment. Whether d¢63u¢ is to be
connected with the participle which precedes it, or that which follows it, is
uncertain. R. V. gives the latter connection, and perhaps this is the preferable
way of understanding the words. It would seem that the word totualvovrec must
point to the position of these men as in some sense professed teachers or leaders,
who act solely, and possibly in the way of deceit, for their own advantage.
14. In the following words, by a fourfold figure, the writer represents these
men as empty, restless, useless, destructive teachers of the worst sort. Clouds
without water, carried along by winds: these words indicate their emptiness,
and the fact that, being thus empty, they are borne along anywhither, and
consequently are unsafe to follow. Nothing comes from them, and they move
in no one direction. Autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the
roots: the idea of no good coming from them is presented again here, and it is
e
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 831
added that the life-power which gives the possibility of fruit is gone. They are
fruitless: they have lost the life-principle out of themselves, and they have
become as trees which, because they are fruitless and also lifeless, are plucked
up by the roots. The utter impossibility of any good spiritual result proceeding
from them is thus most emphatically set forth. Wild waves of the sea, foaming
out their own shame: this strong figure seems to represent the restless move-
ment of these men in the course of immorality, wherein they show forth, by the
excess of lust and evil, their shameful character, as the tossing waves break
forth into foam. Wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has
been reserved for ever: whether the writer refers here to comets which appear
for a time and then pass away from sight, is not certain; but not improbably
this is the case. Perhaps the reference is to meteors. The strong and intense
poetic rhetoric of these expressions, and the fact that in all the preceding cases
the figure is carried throughout all the words, may lead us to doubt whether the
last phrase, for whom [which], etc., is to be referred to the false teachers, except
so far as an application of them is thus made as part of the figure. More
probably, it would seem that the writer represents these stars which break their
way across the heavens, as going down to endless night, and being utterly
extinguished. But, in the way of application of the figure, there must be some
force in these words, as indicating the final result for these men. — By these
four figures, as Dr. Angus says, ‘‘all that is mischievous, useless, disastrous, in
sea or land or sky, becomes in turn the symbol of the character and destiny of
these men.’’ —15. R. V. translates rotrow, of ver. 14, to these; but it is quite
commonly understood in the sense of with reference to these, as Huther also
takes it, comparing Luke xviii. 31. This construction in such a sentence is
undoubtedly peculiar and uncommon. The writer closes these denunciatory
figures by applying to the false teachers the prophetic words of Enoch, which,
through their position as following the last clause of ver. 13, make the most
solemn application of that clause. The question as to the origin of these words
— whether they are derived from the Book of Enoch, which we now possess, but
with the language of which they do not perfectly correspond, though they are
very strikingly similar, or whether they belonged to an oral tradition which
came down to the apostolic times, and orought words spoken, or supposed to be
spoken, by Enoch —is one of considerable difficulty. To the writer of this
note, the derivation from the Book of Enoch seems more probable.
16. Ver. 16 seems to be an additional description of the false teachers sug-
gested to the writer, in the excitement of his feeling against them, by the closing
words of the quotation from Enoch’s prophecy. They are murmurers, he says,
complainers, walking after their own lusts. The word ‘‘complainers’’ strictly
conveys the idea of dissatisfaction or fault-finding with their lot, and, in connec-
tion with yoyyvoral, can scarcely have any other reference than to murmuring and
complaining against God (comp. the preceding verse: “hard things spoken against
him ’’), — The remaining words of this verse present again the idea of their lust
and immorality, their self-conceit and vanity, exalting themselves, as Huther
says, ‘‘in contrast to the humility of the Christians submitting themselves to
God,’’ and their readiness to give honor to persons of high position, etc., from
whom they might hope for some good for themselves. They utter complaints
against God, and refuse to have that humility and submission before Him which
they are ready to have, in outward show and form at least, in the presence of
those who are exalted in the world. The selfishness of this respect for men is -
distinctly expressed: for the sake of advantage.
832 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
That there is a nervous energy, and a vehemence of denunciation also, in
this whole passage, as compared with the passage in 2 Peter, the words of which
are so largely similar, the attentive reader who looks carefully at the two will,
as the writer of this note cannot doubt, be ready to admit. Whether this
characteristic of Jude’s style is due to the character of his mind, or whether it
is to be explained, on the other hand, by the fact that he was in the presence
of these men, while the other writer was only speaking prophetically of the
future, is a noint more difficult of determination.
- LIV.
v. 17-23.
1. The writer opens this passage with a call upon the readers to remember
the prophetic words of the apostles, respecting persons of the character of these
false teachers. This prophetic declaration, being borne in mind, would tend to
strengthen them against the evil influence of these men. The words t7d roy
azoorvAwy seem, a8 Huther suggests, hardly consistent with the supposition that
Jude was himself an apostle. Certainly the expression is less easily reconciled
with such a supposition, than are the words in the Book of Revelation (xxi. 14)
and in 2 Peter (iii. 2), which are sometimes compared with them. In the pas-
sage in Revelation, the writer is looking forward to the future and final blessed-
ness of the Church, and is writing in the prophetico-poetic style. That in such
a passage he should speak of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem as
having upon them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, can scarcely
be regarded as strange, when we consider the well-understood and universally
acknowledged prominence of the apostles as the leaders of the whole Christian
company, —a leadership which, of course, they were conscious of themselves,
and which they did not hesitate to claim. In 2 Peter, on the other hand, where
the language is very nearly what it is here, the difference in the expression is
such as to make the use of it by an apostle less improbable, if we read tpov in
the text, as we should, according to the great majority of the authorities which
have most weight. ‘*The commandment of the Lord and Saviour given by
your apostles,’’ is an expression which Peter or John might have used, it would
seem, as one of a body of bishops might speak of ‘‘ your bishops.”” But Jude’s
language: ‘‘The words spoken formerly by the apostles of our Lord Jesus
Christ, how that they said to you,” is of a different sort. This language, how-
ever, if it be admitted that it proves Jude not to have been an apostle, does not
prove that the writer of the Epistle was not Judas the brother of James, who
was the Lord’s brother. The bearing of the verse, in this respect, would be
only on the apostolic position of the two brothers, and so on the exact relation-
ship which they sustained to the Lord. — 2. The probability with respect to the
text in ver. 18 favors écxarov rod xpovov, and, if this be correct, the meaning is:
at the end of the time. The expression sets forth in another form the same
idea which {fs found in 2 Pet. iil. 3, én’ éoyarwv xpovwy. The closing days of the
ante-Messianic age were a time when these developments of evil were anticipated
by the N. T. writers, as connected with the words of Christ in the eschatological
discourses, etc. The presentation of the matter in 2 Peter is slightly different,
the words respecting the mockers being made dependent on a participle ywo-
oxovrec, so that the readers are exhorted to remember the words spoken by the
prophets, etc., knowing that the mockers will appear in the last days. This
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 833
difference in the manner of representation is, perhaps, indicative in some slight
degree of the relation in time between the two Epistles ; Jude writing after
they had appeared, and Peter before. — The words tov aoeBev form a descrip-
tive genitive, lusts of impieties, as more emphatic than an adjective.
8. In vv. 19-23, the writer adds a brief conclusion, in which he sums up
what the readers should do with regard to their own life, and in respect to those
who were, or might be, misled by the false teachers. This passage he opens by
a repetition, in a summary statement, of the characteristics of these teachers
themselves. The word arod.pifovrec is placed first, and probably means causing
divisions. This occasioning of divisions, or making of factions, was the natural
result of their doctrines and action; and it was the point which might properly
be made most prominent, as, in bringing his Epistle to its close, the author
desired to tell his readers what to do in maintaining the real life of the Church.
The word wuyxot is explained by its connection with rvevua un Exovrec; and both
of these expressions, one on the negative and the other on the positive side, set
forth, in a genera] and comprehensive way, their unchristian character. They
belong in the sphere which is outside of the teaching, influence, and power of
the Divine Spirit, and in the sphere of the animal or sensual, or fhe natural as
distinguished from the spiritual. This adjective puyia7 occurs in Jas. iii. 15,
where it is placed between éziyesog and datwovuwdne; in the present case, by reason
of the language used, in earlier verses, in describing these persons, it possibly
borders more nearly on the idea of the latter of these two words than the
former, but more probably it has its more general meaning. They lived only in
the earthly natural life. —4. Ver. 20 stands in a kind of contrast to ver. 19,
tyei¢ being opposed to ovro, The two participial clauses which are found in
ver. 20, as well as the one in ver. 21, are subordinate to the verb ryp7aare, though
not in precisely the same way. The one beginning with éxonodoyotvres expresses
the antecedent condition, on the basis of which they were to keep themselves in
the love of God; that which follows, praying in the Holy Spirit, sets forth the
means, or a means, by which the end was to be secured; and the one in ver. 21,
looking for the mercy, etc., presents an attendant circumstance or accompanying
state, —they should keep themselves, etc., with an attendant waiting for and
expectation of the mercy of the Lord.—5. The word more, in ver. 20, is
_ regarded by Huther as used in an objective sense, but apparently as denoting
the objective contents of faith rather than the system of doctrine. If this is the
correct view in ver. 3, it is so, not improbably, here also. But it does not seem
necessary, if we consider this verse in itself alone, to give the word this sense,
for the character and life can certainly be built upon subjective faith, and
subjective faith may properly be described by the adjective holy, or most holy;
faith is a holy thing. — The emphatic position of év rv, dyiw may be accounted
for as connected with the wveiya py Exovre¢ predicated of the false teachers.
Perhaps, however, the writer reverses the order of the two participial clauses on
mere rhetorical grounds. — The love of God bere spoken of is probably, but not
certainly, God’s love towards them, rather than theirs towards Him. It is, as
Huther remarks, in God’s love to us, that the hope of the future mercy of Christ
has its ground. — The connection of eg GwAv aiomov with ropacate, which Huther
favors, is, perhaps, the most natural one, but possibly Alford is right in joining
the phrase with the combined idea of rypyoare and mpocdexouevor,
6. Vv. 22, 23, add to the exhortation addressed to the readers with reference
to the growth of their own life in the present exposure to the dangerous
influence of these false teachers, a series of exhortations respecting the manner
834 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
in which they should deal with persons who might be affected by that influence,
The three classes of persons alluded to, are apparently arranged according to
the measure in which they are supposed to be influenced, beginning with those
in whose case the measure is least. This must, at least, be held to be the true
view, if éAedre is the correct reading in ver. 22, as opposed to éAéyyere. With the
other reading, the question of the order is more doubtful. According as the
former or the latter text is adopted, the meaning of the participle d:axpivopevove
will, or may, vary; in the former case, this participle -must probably have the
meaning being in doubt (R. V. text), but possibly it may mean, as R. V. marg.,
while they dispute with you; in the latter case, the latter meaning is almost
certainly the true one. The verb éAéyxere, if read, is to be translated refute
(A. R. V. marg.) or convict, including the idea of overcoming in argument, and
a consequent rebuke and condemnation. This latter seems to be the sense of
the verb in ver. 15. The most natural progress of the sentences here, as well as
what may be regarded as, on the whole, the preponderating external testimony,
favors the other text-reading. The verb éAeare being adopted as the text, and
the participle being understood to mean being in doubt, we may understand the
writer’s exhortation to be as follows: that the Christian readers should have
compassionate feeling and corresponding action towards those of the first class;
as they were in a state of doubt and wavering only, such an attitude towards them
might bring them to the right course: secondly, that they should save those of
the second class by snatching them out of the fire; these persons had gone much
farther astray than those of the preceding class, and more vigorous measures
were needed for them, yet still measures prompted by compassion: thirdly, that
they should have a compassionate feeling toward those making up the third
class; but this feeling should move or be exercised in the sphere of fear, with a
hatred of that which was defiling them, and which would defile all who have any
share in it. These last-mentioned persons are, by reason of these added words,
presented as those with whom even compassionate intercourse was attended by a
certain danger. —7. With respect to the individual words or phrases in vv. 22,
23, it may be said, (a) that the use of dtaxpivouevoc in ver. 9, where it undoubtedly
means disputing, favors the view that it is used in the same sense here; but the
well-known use of this word, elsewhere, in the other sense (doubting) justifies
sufficiently its use by Jude with this meaning, and the progress of the sentences,
as explained above, is favorable to this use of the word, with the reading éAedre
or tAecire, (b) The phrase snatching them out of the fire seems to indicate, on
the one hand, the great difficulty, and, on the other, the possibility, of rescuing
the persons referred to. The word fire is only indicative of danger and deadly
evil, and of the difficulty of rescue, and has apparently no direct reference here
to eternal fire or the punishment of the future world. (c) The last clause of
ver. 23 is correctly explained by Huther. The yrov, the undergarment, ‘‘is to
the author the symbol of whatever, by means of external contact, shares in the
moral destruction of those men.’’ In this connection, the reference is, as we
may believe, to the greater, rather than the minor evil of this sort. Iuther,
however, disagrees with the view expressed in this note respecting the three
classes, and would rather regard them as arranged in a reverse order to that
which has been suggested here. — Wordsworth supposes that there may be some
connection between the last clause of ver. 23 (so far as the suggestion of the
thought and the expression are concerned) and Zech. iii. 2-4. This, however,
is doubtful.
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 8385
LV.
Vv. 24, 25.
1. The Epistle closes with a doxology which, in its general form, resembles
that at the end of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. xvi. 25u, 27), and which, in
its opening thought, is nearly related to the thought of this whole Epistle, and
particularly of the last preceding verses (20-23). In its resemblance to Rom. xvi.,
we have the words, to Him who is able to guard you (stablish you, Rom.), to the
only [wise] God our Saviour through Jesus Christ be glory (to the only wise God
through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory, Rom.). The word cogd in Jude is
omitted by the best authorities, and the words da "I. Xp. 7. cup, nuov, which are
not found in T. R., are supported by the weightiest evidence. —2. The word
atraioroug, which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., is particularly adapted to
this place; and the consummation at the end, for which this @vAaar bude arraio-
tov¢ prepares and preserves the Christian readers, is presented in the following
words. The preposition év before dyaAddoe denotes the sphere or condition
in which the orjoas duwpovg will have its action or result; and so the condition in
which the persons who are thus set before God blameless, will be in connection
with, and as the issue of, the orjoa:.—3. Huther takes dia ’I. X. as belonging to
Cwripe Quay, our Saviour through Jesus Christ, and this is not improbably the
correct view. —4. The fulness of the form of the doxology is noticeable, as
compared with other doxologies in the N. T., and particularly the fulness of the
form of expression pd mavrdc tod alwvoc xal viv xal el¢ mavrag tod¢ aicvar, The
past, the present, and the future are united, — from everlasting and to everlast-
ing. With respect to the verb to be supplied in the doxology, — whether éori
or éorw, — the prayer or wish-element, which belongs to the very idea of a doxo-
logical sentence, and the probabilities appertaining to most such sentences, favor
the supply of ferw; while the argument urged by De Wette in favor of éori, that
a prayer that glory may be before all time is out of place and fitness, is worthy
of consideration. It is doubtful, however, whether the sentence is to be looked
at in this way. Not improbably, in giving his thought and desire an extension
over all time or eternity, he simply offers his prayer that, throughout all, glory
may be given, without thinking of the accurate fitting of his words in the
manner supposed.
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
TWO WEEK BOOK
DO NOT RETURN BOOKS ON SUNDAY
DATE DUE
Form 7079 6-52 30M 5
A SSO, BA
TT
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