|
546
|
|
925
EL’S COLLEGE
F ST. MICHA
ο
>
ἘἙ
ῷ
[4
τη
2
z
>
ΜΕ. AND MRS. WILLIAM KLASSEN
953 W. Cleveland Ave,
Elkhart, Indiana
John M. Kelly Library
Donated by
William Klassen
ano
Dona Harvey
The University of
St. Michaels College
Toronto, Ontario
δε art can Ln
THE EXPOSITOR’S
GREEK TESTAMENT
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
EDITOR OF ‘THE EXPOSITOR,” “ THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE,” ETC.
VOLUME IV.
NEW YORK |
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY
THE EXPOSITOR'S
Cheek TESTAMENT
I
THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES
TO THE THESSALONIANS
BY
JAMES MOFFAT, D.D.
II
THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES
TO TIMOTHY
AND
THE EPISTLE TO TITUS
BY
NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D.
III
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON
ἣν: Ἐ- OESTERDLEY,. M.A... B.D.
IV
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
BY
MARCUS DODS, D.D.
ν
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES
BY
W. E. OESTERLEY, M.A., B.D.
NEW YORK
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY
THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES OF
PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO THE
THESSALONIANS
VOL. IV, i
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/expositorsgreektO04nicouoft
INTRODUCTION.
§1. The Mission to Thessalonica.—The Christian inhabitants of
Thessalonica were mainly Greeks by birth and training (i. 9, cf. ii. 14;
Acts xiv. 15, xv. 19), who had been won over from paganism by the
efforts of Paul, Silvanus (Silas), and Timotheus (Timothy), during an
effective campaign which lasted for a month or two. It had opened
quietly with a three weeks’ mission in the local synagogue. Luke,
who by this time had left the trio, enters into no details about
its length or methods, adding merely that some of the Jews
believed, while a host of devout Greeks and a considerable number
of the leading women threw in their lot with the apostles. Luke is
seldom interested in the growth or fortunes of individual churches.
But, as the subsequent membership of the church, its widespread
influence and fame, its inner condition, and the resentment caused
by the success of the Pauline mission (continued from the house of
Jason, Acts xvii. 5) all imply, a considerable interval must have
elapsed before the time when the apostles were forced prematurely
to quit the place. Their stay was prolonged to an extent of which
Acts gives no idea; for Paul not only supported himself by working
at his trade but had time to receive repeated gifts of money! from
his friends at Philippi, a hundred miles away, as well as to engage
perhaps in mission work throughout Macedonia (i. 7) if not as far
west as Illyricum (Rom. xv. 19, cf. Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, 237
f.). Two or three months possibly may be allowed for this fruitful
mission at Thessalonica.
When the local πολιτάρχαι, at the instigation of Jews who were
nettled at the Christians’ success, finally expelled Paul and his
companions, the subsequent movements of the latter were governed
by a desire to keep in touch with the inexperienced and unconsoli-
dated Christian community which they had left behind them. The
summary outline of Acts xvii. 10-15 requires to be supplemented and
1 Probably this was one of the reasons which led to the imputation of mercenary
motives (ii. 5, 9).
4 INTRODUCTION
corrected at this point by the information of 1 Thess. ii. 17-iii. 6.
According to Luke, Silas and Timotheus remained at Beroea, under
orders to rejoin Paul as soon as possible. They only reached him at
Corinth (Acts xviii. 5), however. Now since Timotheus, as we know
from Paul, visited Thessalonica in the meantime, we must assume
one of two courses. (a) Leaving Silas at Beroea, Timotheus hur-
ried on to Paul at Athens, was sent back (with a letter ?) to Thessa-
lonica, and, on his return, picked up Silas at Beroea; whereupon
both joined their leader, who by this time had moved on suddenly to
Corinth. This implies that the plural in iii. 1 is the pluralis majesta-
ticus or auctoris (see on iii. 5), since Silas was not with Paul at
Athens. But the possibility of that plural meaning both Paul and
Silas, together with the silence of Acts, suggests (b) an alternative
reconstruction of the history, viz., that Timotheus and Silas jour-
neyed together from Beroea to Athens, where they met Paul and
were despatched thence on separate missions, Silas! perhaps to
Philippi, Timotheus at an earlier date to Thessalonica, both rejoining
Paul eventually at Corinth. In any case the natural sense of iii. 1, 2
is that Paul sent Timotheus from Athens, not (so e.g., von Soden,
Studien τι. Kritiken, 1885, 291 f.) that he sent directions from Athens
for his colleague to leave Beroea and betake himself to Thessalonica
(E. Bi., 5076, 5077).
From no church did Paul tear himself with such evident reluct-
ance. His anxiety to get back to it was not simply due to the feel-
ing that he must go on with the Macedonian mission, if at all
possible, but to his deep affection for the local community. The
Macedonian churches may almost be termed Paul's favourites.
None troubled him less. None came so near to his heart. At Thessa-
lonica the exemplary character of the Christians,’ their rapid growth,
1 This mission, or a mission of Silas (cf. iii. 5) after Timotheus to Thessalonica
itself, though passed over both by Luke and Paul, must be assumed, if the statement
of Acts xviii. 5 is held to be historical, since the latter passage implies that Paul was
not accompanied by Silas from Athens to Corinth. The alternative is to suppose
that he left Silas behind in Athens, as at Beroea. A comparison of 1 Thess. with
Acts bears out the aphorism of Baronius that efistolaris historia est optima historia ;
Luke’s narrative is neither clear nor complete.
?Renan (5. Paul, 135-139) praises the solid, national qualities of the Mace-
donians, “un peuple de paysans protestants; c’est une belle et forte race, laborieuse,
sédentaire, aimant sons pays, pleine d’avenir”. It was their very warmth of heart
which made them at once so loyal to Paul and his gospel, and also so liable to
unsettlement in view of their friends’ death (iv. 15 f.). Compare the description
of the Macedonian churches in von Dobschiitz’s Christ. Life in the Primitive Church,
pp. 8rf.
INTRODUCTION 5
their exceptional opportunities,! and their widespread reputation,
moved him to a pardonable pride. But, as he learnt, they had
been suffering persecution since he left, and this awakened sympathy
as well as concern for its effects on their faith. Unable to return
himself, he had at last sent Timotheus to them; it was the joyful
tidings (iii. 6) just brought by him which prompted Paul to send off
this informal letter, partly (i.) to reciprocate their warm affection,
partly (ii.) to give them some fresh instructions upon their faith and
conduct.
82. The First Epistle-—This two-fold general object determines
the course of the letter, which was written from Corinth? (Acts xviii.
11). It begins with a hearty thanksgiving for the success of the
mission at Thessalonica (i. 2-10), and this naturally passes into an
apologia pro vita sua (ii. 1-12) against the insinuations which he had
heard that local outsiders were circulating vindictively against the
character of the apostles. The Thessalonian church knew better
than to believe such sordid calumnies! The second reason for
thanksgiving is (ii. 13 f.) the church’s brave endurance of hard-
ship at the hands of their townsmen. ‘ Would that we could be
at your side! Would that we could uphold you and share the good
fight! But we cannot. It is our misfortune, not our fault.” Paul
ncw gives a detailed apologia pro absentia sua (ii. 17 f.), which ends
with praise for the staunchness of his friends during his enforced
absence. The latter part of the letter (iv. 1 f.) consists of a series
of shrewd, kindly injunctions for the maintenance of their position :
περὶ ἁγιασμοῦ (iv. 3-8), περὶ φιλαδελφίας (9 f.) περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων
(13-18), περὶ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν (v. 1-11). With a handful of
precepts upon social and religious duties, and an earnest word of
prayer, the epistle then closes. Its date depends on the view taken
of Pauline chronology in general; that is, it may lie between 48 and
1“ Nature has made it the capital and seaport of a rich and extensive district”
(Finlay, Byzantine Empire, book ii., chap. 1. 2). One of its great streets was part of
the famous Via Egnatia, along which Paul and his companions had travelled S.W.
from Philippi; thus Thessalonica was linked with the East and with the Adriatic
alike (cf. i. 7, 8), while its position at the head of the Thermaic Gulf made it a
busy trading centre for the Egean. Hence the colony of Jews with their synagogue.
It was a populous, predominantly Greek town, of some military importance, with
strong commercial interests throughout Macedonia (cf. i. 8) and even beyond. On
the far horizon, south-west, the cloudy height of Mount Olympus was visible, no
longer peopled by the gods, but, as Cicero put it, occupied merely by snow and
ice (cf. i. 6).
*This is proved not by ἐν ᾿Αθήναις (iii. 1, cf. 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8) but by the
reference to Achaia in 1 Thess. i. 7, 8.
6 INTRODUCTION
53 a.D., probably nearer the latter date than the former. The
epistle itself contains no reference to any year or contemporary
event, which would afford a fixed point of time. An ingenious at-
tempt has been made by Prof. Rendel Harris (Exp.5 viii. 161 f.,
401 f.; cf. B. W. Bacon’s Introd. to N.T., 73 f. and his Story of St.
Paul, 235 f.) to show that Timotheus had previously taken a letter
from Paul to the church, and that the canonical epistle represents
a reply to one sent from the church to Paul; the hypothesis is ten-
able, but the evidence is rather elusive. The use of καὶ, ¢.g., in
ii. 13, iii. 5, is not to be pressed into a proof of this: οἴδατε is not an
infallible token of such a communication ( = “ you have admitted in
your letter,” which Timotheus brought), and ἀπαγγέλλετε 1 is an un-
supported conjecture in 1. 9.
$3. The Position of the Local Church.—The occasion and the
significance of this epistle to the Christians of Thessalonica thus
become fairly clear.
(a) Paul and his friends had left them the memory and inspira-
tion of a Christian character. The epistle came to be written
because the legacy had been disputed.
The insinuations of some local Jews and pagans 2 against Paul’s
character were like torches flung at an unpopular figure ; they simply
served to light up his grandeur. Had it not been for such attacks, at
Thessalonica as at Corinth, we should not have had these passages
of indignant and pathetic self-revelation in which Paul opens his very
heart and soul. But this is the compensation derived by a cool and
later age. At the moment the attack was more than distasteful to
Paul himself. He resented it keenly on account of his converts, for
his enemies and theirs were trying to strike at these inexperienced
Christians through him, not by questioning his apostolic credentials
but by calumniating his motives during the mission and his reasons
for not returning afterwards. To discredit him was to shake their
faith. To stain his character was to upset their religious standing.
The passion and persistence with which he finds it needful to re-
pudiate such misconceptions, show that he felt them to be not simply
‘The ordinary reading gives quite a good sense: ἃ yap αὐτοὺς ἐχρῆν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν
ἀκούειν, ταῦτα αὐτοὶ προλαβόντες λέγουσι (Chrysostom). It is both arbitrary and
fanciful of Zahn (Einleittung, § 13) to mould such allusions into a theory that the
news had reached Asia, and that Paul was now in personal touch with envoys from
the churches of Galatia, to-whom he wrote Galatians before Silvanus and Timotheus
rejoined him at Athens.
2It is unreal to confine the calumnies to the one or to the other, particularly to
the pagans (so é.g., von Soden, pp. 306 f.; Clemen, Paulus, ii. 181 f.).
INTRODUCTION 7
a personal insult but likely to prove a serious menace to the interests
of his friends at Thessalonica. The primary charge against the
Christian evangelists had been treason or sedition; they were ar-
raigned before the local authorities for setting up βασιλέα ἕτερον (Acts
xvii. 6-8). But during his enforced absence (thanks to the success of
this manceuvre), further charges against Paul’s personal character
were disseminated. He was just a sly, unscrupulous, selfish fellow!
He left his dupes in the lurch! And so forth. Naturally, when he
comes to write, it is the latter innuendoes which occupy his mind.
The former charge is barely mentioned (ii. 12, God’s own kingdom, cf.
11 1 5}
Paul’s vindication of his character and conduct, which occupies
most of the first part of the epistle, is psychologically apt. He was
the first Christian the Thessalonians had ever seen. He and his
friends practically represented the Christian faith. It had been the
duty of the apostles to give not only instruction but a personal
example of the new life to these converts; thus their reputation
formed a real asset at Thessalonica. καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε
kai τοῦ κυρίου. If the local Christians were to lose faith in their
leaders, then, with little or nothing to fall back upon, their faith
in God might go (cf. iii. 5). It was this concern on their behalf?
which led Paul to recall his stay among them and to go over his
actions since then, with such anxious care (see notes on i. 4 ἢ,
ii, 1-11, 17 f., ii. 1-13).
(b) In addition to this, the Thessalonian community possessed
definite παραδόσεις, in the shape of injunctions or regulations as to
the faith and conduct of the Christian life (ii. 11, iv. 1, 12; ef.
2 Thess. ii. 5, 15, iii. 6). These were authoritative regulations, 8. as
the other epistles indicate (cf. ¢.g., 1 Cor. iv. 17) which had the sanc-
10On the ethical function of this self-assertion, as a means of inspiration and
education, see Exp, Ti., x. 445 f. The young Italian patriots who died, as they had
lived, confessing their faith in ‘‘God, Mazzini, and Duty.” are a modern case in
point. The example of τοῦ κυρίου implies that the Thessalonians were familiar with
the earthly trials and temptations of Jesus.
? The language of 1i. 1-10 must not be taken as if Paul had been blaming him-
self for having appeared to leave his friends in the lurch. It is not the sensitiveness
of an affectionate self-reproach but the indignant repudiation of local slanders which
breathes through the passage. The former would be a sadly post factum defence.
*The epistle itself (cf. v. 27) takes its place in the series; this verse (see note)
is perfectly intelligible as it stands and need not be suspected as the interpolation of
a later reader to emphasise the apostolic authority of the epistle (so Schmiedel and
others), much less taken (as e.g., by Baur, van der Vies, 106 f., and Schrader, der
Apostel Paulus, 36) to discredit the entire epistle. There is no hint of any clerical
organisation such as the latter theory involves.
8 INTRODUCTION
tion of apostolic tradition, and must have been based, in some cases,
upon definite sayings of Jesus. It is the Christian halacha of which
the later epistles give ample if incidental proof.
This suggests a further question. To what extent do the Thessa-
lonian epistles reveal (c) an acquaintance on the part of Paul and
the local church with the sayings of the Lord? The evidence
cannot be estimated adequately except in the light of the corrobora-
tive facts drawn from an examination of the other epistles, but it
is enough to bear the general consideration in mind, that no preoccu-
pation with the risen Christ and his return could have rendered Paul
absolutely indifferent to the historical data of the life of Jesus. 1
When he told the Thessalonians that Jesus was the Christ, they
could not believe without knowing something of Jesus. The wreath
of God they might have reason to fear. But 6 ῥυόμενος ? Who was
He to exercise this wonderful function? Where had He lived? Why
had He died? Had Herisen? And when was Hetoreturn? Some
historical content? had to be put into the name Jesus, if faith was to
awaken, especially in people who lived far from Palestine. The
Spirit did not work in a mental vacuum, or in a hazy mist of apoca-
lyptic threats and hopes. Hence, a priori, it is natural to assume
that such historical allusions to the life and teaching of Jesus may
be reflected in Paul’s letters, as they must have been present in his
preaching. This expectation is justified.
The coincidence of ii. 7 and Luke xxii. 27 is not indeed sufficient
to warrant any such inference, while the different meanings of καλεῖν
in ii, 12 and in the parable of Luke xiv. 15 f. (cf. ver. 24) prevent any
hypothesis of a connection. On the other hand ii. 14-16 certainly
contains a reminiscence of the logia preserved in a passage like Luke
xi. 48 ἢ, = Matt. xxiii. 32-34 (see the full discussion in Resch’s Parallel
Texte, ii. 278 f., iii. 209 f.), and, while the thought of iii. 3b-4 (cf.
i, 4-6) only resembles that of Luke ix. 22-24, just as iii. 13 may be
derived from an O.T. background instead of, necessarily, from syn-
optic logia like those of Mark viii. 38 = Matt. xvi. 27, a sentence such
as that in iv. 8 distinctly echoes the saying in Luke x, 16 (‘ l’allusion
1 This idea dominates von Soden’s brilliant essay in Theol. Abhandlungen C. von
Weizsdcker gewidmet (1892), pp. 113-167. More balanced estimates are to be found
in Keim’s ¥esus of Nazara, i., pp. 54f.; Titius, der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichts-
punkt der Seligkeit (tgoo), pp. 10-18, and M. Goguel, L’Apdtre Paul et Fésus
Christus (1904), pp. 67-99. The English reader may consult Sabatier’s Paul, pp,
76 f., and Dr. R. J. Knowling’s Witness of the Epistles (1892) where, as in his
Testimony of St. Paul to Christ (1905), the shallows as well as the depths of the
relevant literature are indefatigably dredged.
2Cf. Prof. Denney in DCG, ii. 394 f.
INTRODUCTION 9
est d’une netteté parfaite,” M. Goguel, p. 87). The well-known λόγος
Κυρίου of iv. 16 f. cannot be adduced in this connection without hesi-
tation (see note). But no possible doubt attaches to the evidence of
v. 1-3. The saying of Jesus which is echoed here has been preserved
in Luke xii. 39 (6 κλέπτης Epxetat)? and xxi. 34 (μή ποτε. . . ἐπιστῇ
ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ὡς παγίς), but the common original
seems to have been in Aramaic or Hebrew (so Prof. Marshall, Exp.‘
ii. 73 f.), since Paul’s ὥσπερ ἡ ὧδίν and Luke’s ὡς παγίς must reflect a
phrase like ban(5), which might be rendered either as ban (snare)
or as 2AM (travail), the latter echoing the well-known conception of
ἀρχὴ ὠδινῶν (cf. Mark xiii. 8). A further echo of the primitive evan-
gelic tradition is to be heard possibly in v. 6 (Matt. xxiv. 42), cer-
tainly in v. 13 (cf. Mark ix. 50). But the connection of v. 21 with
the agraphon, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται, is curious rather than vital.
In the second epistle, apart from coincidences like i. 5 ( = Luke
xx. 35) and iii. 3 ( = Matt. vi. 13), the allusions to the teaching of
Jesus are less numerous, although Resch hears the echo of a logion
in iii, 10 (Paulinismus, 409 f.), on most inadequate grounds. The
apocalyptic passage, ii. 1-10, contains several striking parallels to the
language of Matt. xxiv. (cf. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conception
of the Last Things, 55 f., 96 f.), but no literary relationship can
be assumed.
(d) Finally, before Paul left, he arranged for a kind of informal
organisation. An ordination of πρεσβύτεροι is not to be thought of,
but probably the earliest converts, or at any rate those who had
natural gifts, assumed an unofficial superintendence of the com-
munity, arranged for its worship and internal management, and
were careful that the sick and poor and young were looked after.
Otherwise, the movement might have been dissipated. Wesley, in his
journal (Aug., 1763), writes: ‘‘ 1 was more convinced than ever that
the preaching like an apostle, without joining together those that are
awakened, and training them up in the ways of God, is only begetting
children for the murderer. How much preaching has there been for
these twenty years all over Pembrokeshire! but no regular societies,
no discipline, no order or connection; and the consequence is, that
nine in ten of the once-awakened are now faster asleep than ever.”
Paul was alive to the same need. He was a practical missionary,
1 With Luke’s πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι (45) and μέθῃ (xxi. 34) compare the οἱ
μεθυσκόμενοι of τ: Thess. v. 7. Contrast also the ἐκφυγεῖν of xxi. 36 with Paul’s
οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν (v. 3). The phrase sons of light may well have been common
among the early Christians (cf. Abbott’s fohannine Vocabulary, 1782-1783).
10 INTRODUCTION
and, as these epistles show (cf. L., v. 12 f., II., iii. 6 f.), he knew better
than to leave his young societies with nothing more than the vague
memory of pious preaching. The local organisation was, as yet,
primitive, but evidently it was sufficient to maintain itself and carry
on the business of the church, when the guiding hand of the mission-
ary was removed (cf, Clem. Rom. xlii.), though the authority of the
leaders still required upon occasion the support and endorsement of
the apostles (see on v. 12).
84. The Character and Setting of the Second Epistle.—In
the second and shorter epistle, after congratulating the local
Christians especially on their patient faith (i. 1-4), Paul explains
that the trials and troubles which called this virtue into exer-
cise were but the prelude to a final relief and vindication at the ἀπο-
κάλυψις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (4-12). As the ardent expectation of this had,
however, produced a morbid excitement in some quarters, he sets him-
self (ii. 1-12) to weed out such mistakes and mischiefs by reminding
the church of his previous warning that the end could not come
until the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας attained its climax in a supernatural
and personal embodiment of evil, which would vainly challenge the
authority and provoke the interposition of the Lord. He then con-
cludes (ii, 13-17) with an expression of confidence in them, an appeal
for loyalty to his teaching, and a brief prayer on their behalf. Asking
their prayers, in return, for himself, he renews his expression of con-
fidence and interest (ili. 1-5); whereupon, with a word upon the
maintenance of discipline and industry, the epistle ends (ili. 6-18).
Assuming both epistles to have come from Paul,! we may unhesi-
tatingly place 2 Thess, after 1 Thess. The evidence for the opposite
order, advocated by Grotius in his Annotationes (ii, 715 f., based on
an antiquated chronology), Ewald (Yahrb. fiir bibl. Wiss. 1861,
249 f., Sendschreiben des Paulus, 19 f.), Laurent (Studien u. Kriti-
ken, 1864, pp. 497 f., N.T. Studien, 49 f.), and J. S. Chamberlain
(The Epp. of Paul the Apostle, 1907, 5 f.), breaks down upon examina-
tion. It is unnatural to find a reference to II. iii, 6-16 in I. iv. 10-11;
besides, as Bornemann points out (p. 495), if 2 Thess. is held to
betray all the characteristics of a first letter (Ewald), what about
II. ii. 15? There is no reason why such a criterion of genuineness
1 Qn the hypothesis that both are post-Pauline, Baur (Paulus, Eng. tr., ii. 336 f.
and van der Vies (de beiden brieven aan de Th., 1865, pp. 128-164) argue for the
priority of 2 Thess,, the lattér separating the two by the fall of Jerusalem ; van Manen
(Onderzoek naar de Echtheid van P. tweeden Brief an die Thess., 1865, pp. 11-25)
refutes both critics. The arguments for the canonical order are best stated by von
Hofmann (365), Ltinemann (160 f.), and Bornemann (492 f.) in their editions.
INTRODUCTION II
as that of II. iii. 17, should have occurred in the earliest of Paul’s
letters; in view of 11. 3, its appearance, after the composition of
1 Thess. and even of other letters, is psychologically valid. The
comparative absence of allusions in 2 Thess. to 1 Thess. (c/. however,
II. ii. 1 = I. iv. 17, etc.) is best explained by the fact that in the
second letter Paul is going back to elaborate part of his original oral
teaching in the light of fresh needs which had emerged since he
wrote the first epistle. In this sense, and in this sense only, 2 Thess.
anticipates the other letter. Finally, while I. ii. 17-iii. 6 does not
absolutely exclude the possibility of a previous letter, it cannot be
taken to presuppose one of the character of 2 Thess., least of al
when the letter is dated from Beroea (Acts xvii. 10, Ewald and
Laurent).
8. 5. Its Authenticity.—Since Paul Schmidt’s edition (see be-
low) and von Soden’s essay (Studien u. Kritiken, 1885, pp. 263-
310), with which the English reader may compare Jowett’s proof
(vol. i., pp. 4-17), it is no longer necessary to discuss the
authenticity of the first epistle, or even its integrity. Almost
the only passage where a marginal gloss may be reasonably
conjectured to have crept into the text is ii. 16.1 The second
epistle, however, starts a real problem, both on the score of its resem-
blance to the first epistle and of its divergence from the style and
thought of that or indeed of any other Pauline letter. Paul is still with
Silvanus and Timotheus (i. 1) at Corinth (iit. 2, reff. ; 1 Thess. ii. 15 f.),
writing presumably not long after the despatch of the former epistle
(ii. 15). Fresh information has reached him (iti. 11),? and his aim is
to repudiate further misconceptions of his teaching upon the Last
Things, as well as to steady the church amid its more recent ana-
baptist perils. Hence he writes in substantially the same tone and
along the same lines as before; anything he has to communicate is
practically a restatement of what he had already taught orally
(ii. 5, 15), not a discussion of novel doubts and principles. If any
change has taken place in the local situation, it has been in the
1 The terminus ad quem for the composition of the epistle, if it is genuine, is his
next visit to Thessalonica (Acts xx. 1, 2); most probably it was despatched before
Acts xviii. 12. Corinth is the only place where we know the three men were to-
gether at this period.
2 How, we are not told. Possibly Paul had been asked by the local leaders ta
exert his influence and authority against pietistic developments in the community
(iii. 14). The situation demanded an explicit written message; probably no visit of
Silvanus or Timotheus would have sufficed, even had they been able to leave Corinth.
Spitta’s theory (see below) implies that Timotheus had been in Thessalonica since
τ Thess, was written (ἔτι, ii. 5), but of this there is no evidence whatever,
12 INTRODUCTION
direction of shifting the centre of gravity from fears about the dead
to extravagant ideas entertained by the living. Hence, for one
thing, the general similarity of structure and atmosphere in both
epistles, and, upon the other hand, the sharper emphasis in the
second upon Paul’s authority.
Both features have raised widespread suspicion and elicited a
variety of reconstructions of the epistle’s date and object (cf. His-
torical New Testament, 142-146). The common ground of all such
theories is the postulate that 2 Thess. is the work of a later Paulinist,
during the age of Nero or of Trajan, who has employed 1 Thess. in
order to produce a restatement of early Christian eschatology, under
the aegis of the apostle, or to claim Paul’s sanction for an onslaught
upon Gnostic views. This is a fair hypothesis, which at first sight
seems to account adequately for several of the variations and resem-
blances between the two writings. When it is worked out in detail,
however, it becomes rather less convincing. Some chastening facts
emerge. Why, ¢.g., should such a writer fix on 1 Thess., and labori-
ously work on it? Then (i.) one serious preliminary obstacle is that
while pseudonymous epistles addressed ostensibly to individuals
(e.g., the pastorals) or to Christendom in general (e.g., 2 Peter) are
intelligible enough, the issue of such an epistle, addressed to a
definite church which had already a genuine letter of the apostle,
involves very serious difficulties. These are not eased by the light-
hearted explanation (so Schmiedel and Wrede?!) that the epistle was
really meant not for Thessalonica at all, but for some other community!
This is to buttress one hypothesis by another. Furthermore (ii.) the
style and vocabulary offer no decisive proof of a post-Pauline origin.
Of the ἅπαξ εὑρημένα, which are comparatively few, one or two, like
ἀποστασία (ii. 3), δίκη (= punishment, 1. 9, cf. Sap. xvili. 11, etc. Jude 7),
ἐνδοξάζομαι (i. 10, 12), ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι (i. 4 Pss.), τίνω (1. 9), περιεργάζομαι
(iti. 2, cf. Sir. iii, 23), σέβασμα (11. 4, cf. Sap. xiv. 20), and σημειοῦσθαι
(iii. 14), may be fairly ascribed to the influence of the LXX? upon
1In pp. 38 f. of his able pamphlet on Die Echtheit des zweiten Th. (1903). Wrede
knocks on the head (pp. 96 f.) the earlier theories (best represented by Schmiedel)
which dated the epistle in the seventh decade of the first century, but he does not
succeed better than Holtzmann or Hollmann in presenting any very satisfactory
theory of its origin δ. 100 A.D. His essay is carefully reviewed by Wernle (Gétt.
Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1905, 347 f.), who adheres to the Pauline authorship, as does
Clemen (Paulus, i., pp. 115-122). Kldépper’s article in defence of the epistle against
the older attacks (Theol. Studien u. Skizzen aus Ostpreussen, 1889, viii., pp. 73-140)
is almost as difficult to read as it is to refute.
? The absence of any explicit quotation from the LXX only throws into relief the
extent to which, especially in i. 5 f., O.T. language and ideas have been woven into
the tissue of the epistle (Acts xvii. 2, 3, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν).
INTRODUCTION 13
the writer’s mind. Similarly with εἵλατο (ii. 13) and ἰσχύς (i. 9). The
occurrence of ἐπιφάνεια (ii. 8), elsewhere only in the pastorals, is cer-
tainly striking, and were there more of these words, the case for a
later date would be reinforced. But there are not. Besides, the
construction of émd. here is different from those which occur in the
pastorals, and the latter are as likely to have copied 2 Thess. as vice-
versa, if any literary relationship has to be assumed. The vocabulary
thus, as is generally recognised, permits of no more than a non liquet
verdict. The style, upon the whole, has quite a Pauline ring about
it ; and, while this may be due to imitation, it would be uncritical to
assume this result without examining (iii.) the internal relation of the
two epistles. It is on this aspect of the problem that recent critics
are content to rest their case (so e.g., Wrede, 3-36, H. J. Holtzmann,
in Zeitschrift fiir die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1901, 97-108, and Holl-
mann, tbid., 1904, 28-38). The so-called (a) discrepancies need not
detain us long. The different reasons given by Paul for having sup-
ported himself (cf. on I. ii. 9; II. iii. 7) are not contradictory but
correlative; both are psychologically credible, as expressions of a
single experience. Greater difficulty attaches to the apparent change
of front towards the second advent. In I. v. 2, the advent is unexpected
and sudden ;! in II. ii. 3 f., it is the climax of a development. But
this discrepancy, such as it is (cf. on I. v. 3), attaches to almost all
the early Christian views of the end; to be instantaneous and to be
heralded by a historical prelude were traits of the End which were
left side by side not only by Jesus (cf. Matt. xxiv. 3 f., 23 f., 32 f.) ?
but by later prophets (cf. Rev. iii. 3 = vi. 1 f.). Im any case, Paul
was more concerned about the practical religious needs of his readers
than about any strict or verbal consistency in a region of thought
where Christian expectation, like the Jewish tradition to which it
generally went back, was as yet far from being homogeneous or
definite. The inconsistencies of the two Thessalonian epistles are
at least as capable of explanation when they are taken to be varia-
tions of one man’s mind at slightly different periods as when they are
1 Not simply for unbelievers, but for Christians. It is hardly fair to explain the
difference between the two epis.les by confining the suddenness of the advent to the
former. Hollmann is right in maintaining this against Jtilicher and others, but the
pseudonymity of 2 Thess. is by no means a necessary inference from it (see note
on v. 3).
3 This argument is not affected by the recognition of a small synoptic apocalypse
in this chapter; even so, the primitive and genuine tradition of the words of Jesus on
the end presents the same combination as the Thessalonian letters show. On the
general attitude of Paul to the political and retributory elements in the current or
traditional apocalyptic, cf. Titus, der Paulinisimus (1900), pp. 47 ἔν
14 INTRODUCTION
held to denote the revision and correction of Paul’s ideas by a later
writer who had to reconcile the apparent postponement of the Advent
with the primitive hope. This Baur himself is forward to admit
(Paulus, Eng. Tr., ii. 93). “It is perfectly conceivable that one and
the same writer, if he lived so much in the thought of the παρουσία as
the two epistles testify, should have looked at this mysterious sub-
ject in different circumstances and from different points of view, and
so expressed himself regarding it in different ways.’’ This verdict
really gives the case away. Such variations are hardly conceivable
if both epistles emanated from a later writer, but they are intelligible,
if Paul, living in the first flush and rush of the early Christian hope
is held to be responsible for them. (δ) The numerous and detailed
similarities between the two epistles might be explained by the
hypothesis that Paul read over a copy of 1 Thess. before writing
2 Thess., or that his mind was working still along the lines of thought
voiced in the former epistle, when he came to write the latter. The
first hypothesis is not to be dismissed lightly. The second can be
illustrated from any correspondence. It is true that apart from
ii. 1-12 the fresh material of 2 Thess. consists mainly in 1. 5-12, ii. 15,
iii, 2, 18, 14 ἔ, and that there is throughout the letter a certain
poverty of expression, a comparative absence of originality, a stiffness
in parts, and a stereotyped adherence to certain forms. But in the
treatment of a subject like this it was inevitable that some phrases of
self-repetition should recur, ¢.g., the @dtfus-group (i. 4-6), the πίστις-
group (i. 4, 10, 11, ii, 11-13, iii, 2, 3), ἐργάζεσθαι, etc. Parts of the
letter are unlike Paul. That is practically all we cansay. But parts
are fairly characteristic of him, and these not only outweigh the
others, but dovetail into the corresponding data of 1 Thess. Such
incidental agreements are too natural and too numerous to be the
artificial mosaic of a later writer.
The internal evidence of ii. 3-12 is no longer adduced as a crucial
proof of the un-Pauline origin of 2Thess. Indeed most recent critics
have given up this argument as primary. Fresh investigations into
the origins of gnosticism and of the semi-political variations in
primitive eschatology have undermined the older hypothesis which
relegated this prophecy to the latter part of the first or the opening
part of the second century, and it is only necessary to determine
which of the possible reconstructions is most suitable to the age of
Paul himself. On the whole, no solution of the apocalyptic prophecy
‘ The severer tone (iii. 6-15), as well as the more official tinge, of the letter were
as necessary now for the Thessalonians as they were soon to be for the Corinthians
(1 Cor. iv. 21, v. 3-5).
᾿
INTRODUCTION 15
in ii 3f. fits in with the data so well as the early theory that ὁ
κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον denote, not the episcopate as a restraint against
gnosticism (Hilgenfeld and others), but the Emperor and imperial
power of Rome (‘quis nisi Romanus status?” Tertullian, de Resurr.,
xxiv.). Paul had ample experience of the protection afforded by the
polity of the empire against the malevolence of the Jews, and he
apparently anticipated that this would continue for a time, until the
empire fell, But how could the fall of the empire be expected ?
The answer lies not so much in any contemporary feelings of panic
and dismay, as in the eschatological tradition, derived from a study
of Daniel, which was evidently becoming current in certain Jewish
and early Christian circles, that the empire represented the penulti-
mate stage in the world’s history. ‘And when Rome falls, the
world.” Hence the tone of reserve and cryptic ambiguity with
which Paul speaks of its collapse, ‘‘ne calumniam incurreret,
quod Romano imperio male optauerit, cum speraretur aeternum ”
(Aug., Civ. Dei., xx.; so Jerome on 2 Thess. ii. 6). The idea of
Rome’s downfall could not be spoken of, or at least written about,
openly. All that a Christian prophet could do was to hint that this
future Deceiver or pseudo-Messiah would prove too strong even for
the Restraining Empire, and that King Jesus would ultimately inter-
vene to meet and to defeat him. An entire change came over the
spirit of the dream, when, nearly half a century later the imperial
cultus in Asia Minor stirred the prophet John to denounce Rome as
the supreme antagonist of God. The empire, on this view, was no
providential restraint on τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας, but was herself
μυστήριον (Rev. xvii. 5), loathsome and dangerous and doomed. This
altered prospect lay far beyond the horizon of Paul. The imperial
worship had not yet become formidable, and to him the empire, with
its administrative justice, stood for a welcome, even though a tem-
porary, barrier against the antagonistic forces of Judaism. The
kingdom of God was not the opponent of the empire, but simply the
final conqueror of a foe who would prove too strong even for the
restraining control of Roman civilisation.
This interpretation of the restraining power! implies that the
supernatural antagonist issues from Judaism (so especially Weiss,
N.T. Theologie, ὃ 63). Here again patristric tradition seems to cor-
1Cf. Neumann’s Hifpolytus von Rom (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 41. The κατέχων is
not to be associated with any special emperor, not even with Claudius, whose name
has a curious resemblance to it. The theories which identify the Restrainer with
Vespasian (as a check on Nero Redivivus), Antichrist, or Domitian. depend on
ὦ priori conceptions of the epistle’s origin and aim.
16 INTRODUCTION
roborate it. Both Irenzus (adv. Haer., v. 25, i. 30, 2) and Hip-
polytus (de Antichristo, vi., xiv.) expressly state that antichrist is to
be of Jewish descent, and the later echoes of the tradition are as pro-
nounced (cf. Bousset’s Antichrist, pp. 24f., 127 ἢ 182f.; E. Bi.,
179 f.).1 Antichrist is to set up his kingdom in Judah ; his reign is
from Jerusalem, and the Jews are the dupes of his miraculous influ-
ence.2. The ἀποστασία, which Paul anticipates, implies a relation-
ship to God which could not be postulated of Christians, much less
of pagans in general who, ex hypothesis, “ knew not God” (i. 8). The
only deliberate anti-Christian movement, which Paul and his friends
had already experienced (ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται), was Jewish fanaticism ; its
professed zeal for the Law was really ἀνομία, as the apostle puts it
with a touch of scathing irony.
Paul is plainly operating with a Beliar(l)-saga3 in this passage,
If one could only be certain that Sibyll. iii. 63-73 represented a pre-
Christian Jewish fragment, as its context indicates, or that any
Christian interpolations were confined to minor phrases like ἐκ δὲ
Σεβαστηνῶν, we should have one clear trace of this saga. Belial there
works many signs (as in Sibyll. 11. 37, καὶ βελίαρ θ᾽ ἥξει καὶ σήματα
πολλὰ ποιήσει ἀνθρώποις), seduces many even of elect believers within
~udaism (πολλοὺς πλανήσει, πιστούς τ᾽ ἐκλεκτούς θ᾽ Ἑβραίους, ἀνόμους τε
καὶ ἄλλους ἀνέρας, οἵτινες οὔπω Θεοῦ λόγον εἰσήκουσαν), and is finally
turned up, together with his adherents. The suspicions of this pas-
sage’s Jewish character seem unjustified; it may be taken, with-
out much hesitation, as one reflection of the tradition which was in
1 Bousset often exaggerates the independence of patristic eschatological tradi
tion ; he fails to allow enough for the luxuriant fancies of a later age, which applied
the N.T. text arbitrarily to contemporary life. But on this point the evidence is fairly
decisive, viz., that the early fathers were not merely building on the text of 2 Thess.
ii. 3-6, when they spoke of Antichrist being a seducer whose false worship was set up
within a reconstructed temple at Jerusalem.
2 Professor Warfield (Exfos.® iv. 40 f.) regards the Jewish state as the divine
restraint upon the revelation of Rome’s self-deification. This view is more sensible
than that of the Restrainer as Christianity or the church (cf. Reimpell, Studien u.
Kritiken, 1887, 711-736), but it is difficult to see how Judaism could be said to im-
pose any check upon the imperial cultus; besides, is it likely that Paul would
have subtly combined a polemic against the obstinate antagonism of the Jews with
a theory of their unconscious protective services to the church ?
3See R. H. Charles’ edition of Ascensio Isaiae (pp. Ixii.-Ixiii.) and M. Fried-
linder’s Religiésen Bewegungen innerhalb des $udentums im Zeitalter Fesu (1905,
pp. 50f.). This would be corroborated if Beliar were shown to be, as the latter
writer argues (in his Der Antichrist, 1901), a pre-Christian embodiment of the Jewish
antinomian sect O°3°%- For a possible source of such traditions in Paul’s case
of. 2 Tim. iii. 8.
INTRODUCTION 17
Paul’s mind when he wrote 2 Thess, ii. 2 f. Belial is not indeed
named here, as he is in 2 Cor. vi. 15. But he is the opponent of
Jesus the true messiah. He appears in human form (cf. Asc. [5α.»
iv. 2: “ Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world will descend
. in the likeness of a man, a lawless king’’) as the arch-emissary
or agent of Satan. The latter, whom Paul here as elsewhere (in
consonance with Jewish tradition) keeps in the background, is the
supreme opponent of God; but as God’s representative is the Lord
Jesus Christ, so Satan’s active representative is this mysterious
figure, whose methods are a caricature of the true messiah’s (see
notes below on the passage). This is borne out by the contemporary
sense of Βελίαλ as ἄγγελος τῆς ἀνομίας (Asc. Isa., 11. 4, etc.) or ἀνομία
(ἀποστασία) in LXX. The man of lawlessness, whom Paul predicts,
is thus one of whom Belial is a prototype. Only, the apostle fuses
this παράνομος with the false messiah, originally a different figure,
who is represented as the incarnation of Satan, the devil in human
embodiment. That he expected this mysterious opponent to rise
within Judaism is not surprising under the circumstances. He was
in no mood, at this moment of tension, to think hopefully of the
Jews. They were a perpetual obstacle and annoyance to him,
ἄτοποι καὶ πονηρο. He had already denounced them as θεῴ μὴ
ἀρεσκόντων (I., ii. 15), and from this it was but a step to the position,
suggested by the tradition perhaps, that their repudiation of God’s
final revelation in Jesus would culminate in an ἀποστασία, which wel-
comed the last rival of Jesus as God’s messiah. His prophecy thus
embodies a retort... ‘“ You Jews hate and persecute us as apostates
from God; you denounce our Jesus as a false messiah. But the
1In Dan. viii. 23 f. when the cup of Israel’s guilt is full (πληρουμένων τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν), the climax of their punishment came in the person of Antiochus
Epiphanes, the presumptuous (ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ὑψωθήσεται, cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4) and
astute (τὸ ψεῦδος ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ ... καὶ δόλῳ ἀφανιεῖ πολλούς, cf. 2 Thess.
i.9, 11). Paul, like the rest of the early Christians, still looked for some immediate
fulfilment of this prophecy. In the contemporary malevolence of the Jews towards
the gospel he saw a sign of its realisation, asthe allusion in 1 Thess. ii. 16 (εἰς τὸ
ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας) indicates. The penal consequence of this atti-
tude must have also formed part of his oral teaching at Thessalonica, but he does
not mention it till local circumstances drew from him a reminder of the final Deluder
who must soon come (2 Thess. ii. 3 f.). It is important to notice this underlying
tradition, or application of tradition, in the apostle’s mind, on account of its bearing
upon the general harmony of the eschatology in the two epistles. Furthermore,
since the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the book of Daniel had made self-deification
a note of the final enemy. Any vivid expectation of the End, such as that cherished
by a Jewish Christian of Paul’s temperament, instinctively seized upon this trait of
the false messiah.
VOL. IV. 2
18 INTRODUCTION
false messiah will come from you, and his career will be short-lived
at the hands of our Christ.” Τὸ ἴῃς Christian the prophecy brought
an assurance that, while the coldest and darkest hour must precede
the dawn, the dawn was sure to come, and to come soon. Thus
in both epistles, but particularly in the second, the reader can
see the torch of apocalyptic enthusiasm, streaming out with smoke as
well as with red flame, which many early Christians employed to light
up their path amid the dark providences of the age. Paul is pro-
phesying—none the less vividly that he does so ἐκ μέρους.
Attempts have also been made, from various sides, to solve
the literary problem of the writing by finding in it (a) either a Pauline
nucleus which has been worked over, (b) or a Pauline letter which
has either suffered interpolation or (c) incorporated some earlier
apocalyptic fragment, possibly of Jewish origin. (a) According to Paul
Schmidt (Der erste Thess. nebst einem Excurs iiber den zweiten gleichn.
Brief, 1885, pp. 111 f.), a Paulinist in 69 a.p. edited and expanded a
genuine letter = i. 1-4, ii. 1-2a, ii. 13-iii. 18. But, apart from other
reasons, the passages assigned to Paul are not free from the very
feature which Schmidt considers fatal to the others, viz., similarity
to 1 Thess. And the similarities between ii. 3-12 and the apo-
calypse of John are very slight. The activity assigned to the editor
is too restricted; besides, ii. 8.12 is so cardinal a feature of the
epistle, that the latter stands or falls with it—so much so that it
would be easier, with Hausrath, to view the whole writing as a scaf-
folding which rose round the original Pauline nucleus of ii. 1-12.
Finally, the literary criteria do not bear out the distinction postu-
lated by both theories. (ὁ) The strongly retributive cast, the
liturgical swing, and the O.T. colouring, of i. 6-10 have suggested the
possibility of interpolation in this passage (McGiffert, E. Bi., 5054,
Findlay, p. lvii.), either as a whole or in part. This is at any rate
more credible than the older idea that ii. 1-12 embodies a Montanist
interpolation (J. E. C. Schmidt, Bibliothek fiir Kritik u. Exegese der
N.T., 1801, 385 f.) or ii. 1-9 a piece of Jewish Christian apocalyptic
(Michelsen, Theol., Tijdschrift, 1876, 213 f.). Finally (c) the large
amount of common ground between the Jewish and the primitive
Christian conceptions of eschatology is enough (see on ii. 5) to invali-
date Spitta’s lonely theory (Offenbarung des Foh., 497 f., and Zur
Gesch. und Litt. des Urchristentums, i. 139 f.) of a Caligula-apo-
calypse, due in part to Timotheus,! in ii. 2-12, or the idea of Pierson
1 Cf. Prof. G. G. Findlay’s refutation in Expos.® ii. 255 f., and Bornemann’s
paragraphs (pp. 492, 529 f.).
eee ee
INTRODUCTION 19
and Naber (Verisimilia, 1886, 21 f.) that a pre-Christian apocalypse
(i. 5-10, ii. 1-12, iii. 1-6, 14, 15) has been worked up by the unknown
Paul of the second century whom the Holland critics find so pro-
lific and indispensable.
The second epistle is inferior, in depth and reach, to the first,
whatever view be taken of its origin, but both are especially valu-
able as indications of the personal tie between Paul and his churches,
and as samples of the new literary form which the religious needs of
early Christianity created in the epistle. Dryden has hit this off in
his well-known lines upon the apostles and their communities :—
As charity grew cold or faction hot,
Or long neglect their lessons had forgot,
For all their wants they wisely did provide,
And preaching by epistles was supplied.
So great physicians cannot all attend,
But some they visit and to some they send.
Yet all those letters were not sent to all,
Nor first intended, but occasional—
Their absent sermons.
The Thessalonian epistles were written to supply the lack of further
personal intercourse and to supplement instruction already given.
They were not treatises designed to convey the original teaching of
the apostles ; they imply that, and they apply it along special lines,
but they are not protocols of doctrine (cf. note on 1 Thess. iv. 4).
At the same time, “ occasional”’ must not be taken to mean casual
or off-hand. Paul dictated with some care. His ideas are not im-
promptu notions, nor are they thrown out off-hand; they represent
a prolonged period of thought and of experience. Even these, the
least formal of his letters, though written for the moment’s need,
reflect a background of wide range and fairly matured beliefs.
Nevertheless, they are hardly “absent sermons”. “ Letters mingle
souls,’’ as Donne remarked, and 1 Thessalonians in particular is the
unpremeditated outpouring of a strong man’s tender, firm, and wise
affection for people whom he bore upon his very heart. It is the
earliest of Paul’s extant letters, and it delivers the simpler truths of
the Christian faith to us with all the dew and the bloom of a personal
experience which not only enjoined them but lived to impart them.
Both epistles show, as Jowett puts it, how Paul was “ ever feeling,
if haply he may find them, after the hearts of men”. ‘He is nota
bishop administering a regular system, but a person dealing with
other persons out of the fulness of his own mind and nature... .
If they live, he lives; time and distance never snap the cord of
20 INTRODUCTION
sympathy. His government of them is a sort of communion with
them; a receiving of their feelings and a pouring forth of his own.”
56. External Evidence, Text, and Literature of both Epistles.—
As both epistles are included not only in the Muratorian canon
but in Marcion’s strictly Pauline collection (Tert. adv. Marc.
v. 15; Epiph., Haer. xlii. 9), they must have been known and circu-
lated by the first quarter of the second century, although quotations
(mainly of the eschatological sections) do not emerge till Irenzeus
and Ter'ullian. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen used them,
and other evidence of their existence will be found in any text book
of the N.T. Canon. But the so-called allusions to 1 Thess. in the
earlier apostolic fathers are, for the most part, scanty and vague ;
e.g., of i. Sand iv. 2 in Clem., Rom. xlii. 3. Hermas, Vis. iii. 9, 10
(εἰρηνεύετε ἐν αὑτοῖς) might go back to Mark as easily as to Paul (cf.
on v. 13), though there is a similarity of context, while the general
correspondence of outline betw en iv. 14-16 and Did. xvi. 6 (revela-
tion of the Lord, trumpet, resurrection) may imply no more than a
common use of tradition, if not of Matt. xxiv. The use of the epistle
in the correspondence of Ignatius is probable, but far from certain ;
é.g., 1.6 in Eph. x. 3 (μιμηταὶ δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου σπουδάζωμεν εἶναι, different
context) ; ii. 4 in Rom. ii. 1 (οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀνθρωπαρεσκῆσαι, ἀλλὰ Θεῷ),
and v. 17 in Eph. x. 1 (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε, si vera lectio). There
is but one parallel in Barnabas, iv. 9 = Barn. xxi. 6 (γένεσθε δὲ θεο-
δίδακτοι, different context). This scarcity of allusions is not surpris-
ing. The comparative lack of doctrinal interest in the first epistle,
and its personal, intimate contents, would prevent it from being so
often read and cited as the other Pauline letters. The second epistle,
however, was evidently known to Justin Martyr (Dial. xxxii., cx.,
cxvi.) as well as to Polycarp who not only alludes to iii. 15 (in xi. 4,
“et non sicut inimicos tales existimetis’’) but misquotes i. 4 (in
quibus laborauit beatus Paulus, qui estis in principio epistulae eius,
de uobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis) as if it were addressed
to the Philippians (cf. Wrede, 92 f.); and such data prove the circu-
lation of 1 Thess. as well. The echoes of 2 Thess. in Barnabas (2
Thess. ii. 6 = Barn. xviii. 2; ii. 8, 12 = xv. 5) indicate rather more
than a common basis of oral tradition (so Rauch in Zeitschrift fiir die
Wissensch. Theologie, 1895, 458 f.), and, like the apocalypse of John,
it appears to have been circulated in Gaul before the end of the
second century (cf. letter from churches of Lyons and Vienne, Eus.
ΠΣ Bei We)
The text printed in this edition agrees generally with that of most
critical editors. To save space, all textual notes have been cut out,
INTRODUCTION 21
except where a variant reading bears directly on the exposition, or
possesses some independent interest. Since Alford published his
edition, the chief foreign commentaries have been those of von Hof-
mann (1869), Reuss (1878-9), Liinemann (Eng. tr., 1880) and Borne-
mann (1894) in Meyer's series, Schafer (1890), Zéckler (1894),
Zimmer’s Theologischer Commentar (1891), Schmiedel (Hand Com-
mentar, second edition, 1892, incisive and thorough), S. Goebel (second
edition, 1897), B. Weiss (second edition, 1902), Wohlenberg (in
Zahn’s Kommentar, 1903; sec. ed. 1908), and Lueken (in Die Schrif-
ten des N.T., 1905); in English, those of Eadie (1877), Alexander
(Speaker’s Comm., 1881), Dr. Marcus Dods (Schaffs Comm., iii.,
1882), Dr. John Hutchinson (1884), Dr. J. Drummond (Internat.
Hdbk. to N.T., ii., 1899), and Dr. Adeney (Century Bible, n. d.), with
three recent and able editions of the Greek text by Lightfoot (Notes
on Epp. of St. Paul, 1895, pp. 1-92), Prof. G. G. Findlay (Cambridge
Greek Testament, 1904), and Dr. G. Milligan (1908). Of the older
works, the editions of L. Pelt (1830), H. O. Schott (1834), and A.
Koch (on the first epistle, second edition, Berlin, 1855), in German,
together with those of Ellicott (fourth edition, 1880) and Jowett
(third edition, 1894), deserve special notice. Dr. Denney’s terse ex-
position (Expositor’s Bible, 1892), Lightfoot’s essay (Biblical Essays,
251-269), and E. H. Askwith’s Introduction to the Thessalonian
Epistles (1902), together with the articles of Lock (Hastings’ D.B.,
iv. 743-749) and A. C. McGiffert (E. Bz., 5036-5046), and Dr. W.
Gunion Rutherford’s translation (1908), will furnish the English
student with all necessary material for a general study of the epistles.
Zimmer’s monograph (Der Text der Thess. Briefe, 1893) and article
on 2 Thess. (Zeits. f. wiss. Theol., xxxi. 322-342) give a competent
survey of the textual data.
The abbreviations are for the most part familiar and obvious;
e.g., Blass = Neutest. Grammatik, Burton = Moods and Tenses
(1894), Deissmann = D.’s Bible Studies (Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1901),
DCG = Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1907-1908),
Ε. Bi. = Encyclopedia Biblica, Field = Otium Norvicense, part
iii. (1899), Moulton = J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek,
vol. i, (1906), Viteau = Viteau’s Etude sur le grec du N.T. (1893,
1896), Win = Schmiedel’s edition of G. B. Winer’s Grammatik
(Gottingen, 1894 f.). With regard to the references to Sap. (i.e., The
Wisdom of Solomon), it must be remembered that Paul in all likeli-
hood knew this writing at first hand.
ΠΡῸΣ @ESSAAONIKEIS A.
Ν bY Ν A , Ὁ i
I. 1, MAYAOE καὶ "Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Secoaho-* Cf. on 2
r. i. 19.
b A Ν A’ , 3 “ Ree ἢ TPA) x =
νικέων ἐν " Θεῷ πατρὶ Kai Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ : ° χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ b On ab
εἰρήνη.
sence of
article,
see Blass,
2. δ Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ ° πάντοτε περὶ " πάντων ὑμῶν, ἡ μνείαν δ 46. 6,
7510s
a a a 4
ποιούμενοι ‘emt τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν 3. " ἀδιαλείπτως, pynpoved-c See ont
ἃ So Col. i. 3.
CuapTeR I.—Ver. 1. Greeting.—As
any trouble at Thessalonica had arisen
over Paul’s character more than his
authority, or rather as his authority had
been struck through his character, he
does not introduce his own apostolic
rank or that of his colleagues (ii. 6) in the
forefront of this letter, which is intimate
and unofficial throughout. Silvanus is
put before Timothy as an older man and
colleague, and also as Paul’s special co-
adjutor in the local mission. Acts never
mentions Timothy in the Macedonian
mission till xvii. 14, where he appears
beside Silvanus. This does not mean
(Bleek) that Timothy took no part in the
work at Thessalonica; his intimate rela-
tions with the church forbid this supposi-
tion. Probably he is left unnoticed as
being a junior subordinate, till the time
comes when he can act as an useful agent
of his leaders.—éxxA. a pagan term ap-
propriated by Christianity. An implicit
contrast lies in the following words (so
in ii. 14): there were ἐκκλησίαι at Thes-
salonica and elsewhere (cf. Chrysostom
and Orig., Cels. III. xxix.-xxx.) which had
not their basis and being ἐν. . . Χριστῷ.
The latter phrase is a suggestive and
characteristic periphrasis for ‘‘ Christian,”
and the omission of the ἐν before κυρίῳ,
as of τῇ before ἐν, is enough to show
that the seven words form a unity instead
of a double antithesis to “pagan” and
“Jewish” respectively.—kxvpio Ἰησοῦ
Χριστῷ, a new κύριος (= dominus) for
ple like the Thessalonians who were
itherto familiar with the title as applied
to Claudius (cf. Wilcken’s Griechische
e Eph. v. 20.
Cor. i.3
and Eph.
1. 2.
f Eph. i. 16. Zv.17; hows, 1,9
Ostraka, 1899, s.v.) the emperor, or to
the God of the Jews (cf. Knowling’s Wit-
ness of the Epistles, 260 f.). See the
ample discussion in Kattenbusch, das
Afost. Symbol, ii. 596 f., with his note
(pp. 691 f.) on ἐκκλησία. The hope and
help of God implied that Christians must
hold together, under their κύριος. “No
Christian could have fought his way
through the great dark night of idolatry
and immorality as an isolated unit; the
community was here the necessary con-
dition for all permanent life” (Wernle,
Beginnings of Christianity, i. 189).
Vv. 2-10. Thanksgiving for the origin
and achievements of the church.—Ver. 2.
Whenever Paul was at his prayers, he
remembered his friends at Thessalonica ;
and whenever he recalled them his first
feeling was one of gratitude to God (see
iii. 9) for the Christian record which, as
individuals and as a church (πάντων) they
displayed of active faith (i. 4-10, ii. 13-16),
industrious love (iv. 9 f.), and tenacious
hope (v. 1-11). Andnot Paulalone. The
plural implies that all three missionaries
prayed together.—edyapiorotpev. The
greeting is followed, as in ordinary letters
of the period, by a word of gratitude and
good wishes. evx. is common in votive ἡ
inscriptions, in connection with thanks-
giving toa god. But while Paul, in dic-
tating his letter, starts with a conven-
tional epistolary form, the phrase imme-
diately expands loosely into μνημ - . .
θεοῦ (μνείαν mw. as frequently in ethnic
phraseology).
Ver. 3. ἀδιαλ. Neither distance nor
fresh interests make any difference to his
24
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ ἃ I.
A ~ lol Q ~ “-
hSeeon2 οντες ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς = ἀγάπης καὶ
Cor. ii. 4
and Heb. τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς Ἀ ἐλπίδος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
vi. 10-11.
With
gen. as
i ἔμ»
προσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν - 4. "" εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ | ἠγαπη-
Rom.v.2; μένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν" 5. ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ
cf. Win
§ 30. 12, 6. ἐγενήθη " εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν “λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν “ δυνάμει Kai ἢ ἐν
i)
οἶς Ὁ;
13 and
other side
in Il. i. 4. BEV
MCP ois,
BITS ἢ 13.
See Col.
iii, 12
and Deut. xxxiii. 12.
ἐν ὑμῖν δι᾿ ὑμᾶς.
m Blass, § 20, 1.
p “Αἱ most of rhetorical value” (Sx. Lang. N.T. 158).
i Σ ΟΟΓΟΧΙΟΣ.
§ 1, 1; ii. 13-14, and on 2 Cor. xi. 4.
affection; his life is bound up with their
welfare; his source of happiness is
their Christian well-being (cf. ii. 17-20,
iii. 7-10). The adverb (a late Greek for-
mation, cf. Expos., 1908, 59) goes equally
well with the preceding or with the fol-
lowing words; better with the former, on
the whole, as the participles then open
the successive clauses in 2, 3 and 4.—
ὑμῶν is prefixed for emphasis to the three
substantives which it covers, while the
closing ἔμπροσθεν . . . ἡμῶν (cf. ii. 19)
gathers up the thought of pwnpov.—
Faith in one sense is a work, but Paul
here (as in Gal. v. 6) means faith that
does work (opus opponitur sermoni inani,
Bengel), by producing a change of life
and a cheerful courage under trials. It
would be no pleasure to recall a merely
formal or voluble belief, any more than a
display of Christian love (cf. Col. i. 4)
which amounted simply to emotions or
fitful expressions of goodwill, much less
a hope which could not persist in face
of delay and discouraging hardships.
Ver. 4. The practical evidence of the
Spirit in their lives showed that God had
willed to enrol them among His chosen
people (note the O.T. associations of be-
loved by God and election), just as the
same consciousness of possessing the
Spirit gave them the sure prospect of
final entrance into the Messianic realm—
an assurance which (ver. 6) filled them
with joy amid all their discomforts. The
phenomenon of the Spirit thus threw
light backwards on the hidden purpose
of God for them, and forwards on their
prospect of bliss.—Recollections depend
on know'edge; to be satisfied about a
person implies settled convictions about
his character and position. The apostles
feel certain that the Thessalonian Chris-
tians had been truly chosen and called by
God, owing to (a) the genuineness and
Πνεύματι “Ayia καὶ “ πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθῶς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθη-
6. καὶ ὑμεῖς "μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε " καὶ
τοῦ Κυρίου, " δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν "θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ ᾿ χαρᾶς
n Gal, iii. 14. o Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 1-4, iv. 19-20.
q Clem. Rom, xlii. 3. τ Cf. Introd.
t Rom. xiv. 17; Gal. v. 22.
effectiveness of their own ministry at
Thessalonica, where they had felt the
gospel going home to many of the in-
habitants, and (Ὁ) the genuine evidence
of the Thessalonians’ faith; (a) comes
first in! ver. 5, (δ), 1ῺπἔΠὐὺ. ΟΣ [τ ΣῈ
Paul reverts to (a), while in ii. 13-16 (6)
is again before his mind. As the divine
ἐκλογή manifested itself in the Christian
qualities of ver. 3, Paul goes back to their
historical origin.
Ver. 5. ὅτι = “inasmuch as”.—rd
evayy. ἡμῶν, the gospel of which the
apostles, and by which their hearers,
were convinced. As the καθὼς clause in-
dicates, πληροφ. must here denote per-
sonal conviction and unfaltering confi-
dence on the part of the preachers. The
omission of the ἐν before πληρ. throws
that word and πνεύματι together into a
single conception, complementary to
δυνάμει, which here has no specific refer-
ence to miracles, but to the apostles’
courage (ii. 2), honesty and sincerity
(4,5), devotion (7, 8), earnestness (9), and
consistency (το). The effect of the Spirit
on the preachers is followed up (in ver.
6) by its effect on the hearers; and
this dual aspect recurs in ver. 9 (we and
you). év(om. Blass) ὑμῖν τε ‘among you”.
Ver.6. θλίψει .. . χαρᾶς, cf. for this
paradox of experience, Mazzini’s account
of his comrades in the Young Italy move-
ment: ‘‘ We were often in real want, but
we were light-hearted in a way and smil-
ing because we believed in the future”’.
The gladness of the primitive Christian
lay in the certainty of possessing soon
that full salvation of which the Spirit at
present was the pledge and foretaste.
In view of Ps. li. 13, 14 it is hardly correct
to say, with Gunkel (Wirkungen des
heiligen Geistes, 71), that this connection
of joy and the Spirit was entirely foreign
to Judaism.
.---το.
Πνεύματος ‘Aylou, 7. ὥστε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς " τύπον
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂ΣΑ
25
p er - ,
πᾶσι τοις πιστεύ- ur Pet. v.
ουσιν ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν TH Axata. 8. ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν γὰρ " ἐξήχη- Baa.
ται 6 λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν TH Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ
x Ν δον , ea Ν x x , 4
ἐν “παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ "πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, dot,
μὴ "χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι. 9.
Ξ 17.
Y ἀλλὰν az. λεγ.»
cf. Joel
bic
a > 4 4 Ν A (L
αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ "ἡμῶν ἀπ- 3 Macc.
54 a - lii. 2.
αγγέλλουσιν ὁποίαν " εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ πῶς “ἐπεστρέψατε w Biass, §
A > A “- A 9 13.
“ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, δουλεύειν Θεῷ 1 ζῶντι καὶ ® ἀληθινῷ x ζ + Coe.
το. καὶ *dvapévew τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ
τῶν νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦν, τὸν * ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ᾿ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης.
Philemon 5: = “the fact of your faith in God”.
Cf. Ps. cxx. (cxxi.) 8; LXX.
f See on Rev. vii. 2.
Β 1588. lix. 11, 20; Aisch., Eum., 243.
Rom. v. 9; cf. below, v. g (negat. side of ἐκλογή).
b i.e., us, apostles. c
(LXX). e Cf. Eph. ii, 12.
Only here in Paul.
M.T. 429, and on 2 Cor. i. 10. 1
1. 2%. Acts
xviii. τῇ.
y Rom. i. 8;
Clem.
om.
XXXV. 5,
a “people, wherever we go".
d See on Acts xiv. 15. Οἵ. Jer. iil. 22
g See on John vi. 57; Rev. iii. 7, etc.
i Phil. iii. 20. k Cf. Burton,
z iv. 9, V. I.
1For τύπους (NACGKLP, g, syr.p, Chrys., Theod., etc., Calvin, Schott,
Alexander, Koch, Wohl., Zim.), conformed to vpas, read rumov with BD* vss.
edd.
Ver. 8. ἡ πίστις .. . ἐξελ. (Rom. x.
18), by anacoluthon, reiterates for em-
phasis ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ... κυρίου (ὁ λόγος
τ. K. depending for its effectiveness on
the definite testimony of Christians).
Paul is dictating loosely but graphically.
The touch of hyperbole is pardonable
and characteristic (cf. Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor.
iv. 17; Col. i. 6); but the geographical
and commercial position of Thessalonica
see Introd., p. 5) must have offered
ample facilities for the rapid dissemina-
tion of news and the promulgation of the
faith, north and south, throughout Euro-
pean Greece (Encycl. Bibl., 1. 32). The
local Christians had taken full advantage
of their natural opportunities. Through
their imitation of the apostles (see Introd.,
p. 7) and of Christ (here as in 1 Peter
li. 19-21, in his sufferings), they had be-
come a pattern for others. The ἐν τῇ is
omitted before ᾿Αχαίᾳ here because M. and
A. are grouped together, over against
™. τ.--ὥστε . .. yap, the reputation of
the apostles rested upon solid evidence.
Ver.g. The positive and negative as-
pects of faith: ‘“‘ Videndum est ut ruinam
errorum sequatur aedificium fidei” (Cal-
vin).—éAn@iv@ = “real” as opposed to
false in the sense of ‘counterfeit ”.—
ζῶντι, as opposed to dead idols (see
above, p. 5) impotent to help their
worshippers. Elsewhere the phrase (cf.
I Tim. iii. 15; Heb. 111. 12) “implies a
contrast with the true God made prac-
tically a dead deity by a lifeless and
tigid form of religion” (Hort, Christian
Ecclesia, 173). Nothing brings home
the reality of God (i.e.,as Father, vv. 1-3)
to the Christian at first so much as the
experience of forgiveness.
Ver. 10. In preaching to pagans, the
leaders of the primitive Christian mission
put the wrath and judgment of God
in the forefront (cf. Sabatier’s Paul, 98
f.), making a sharp appeal to the moral
sense, and denouncing idolatry (cf. Sap.,
xiv., 12f., 22f.). Hence the revival they
set on foot. They sought to set pagans
straight, and to keep them straight, by
means of moral fear as well as of hope.
Paul preached at Thessalonica as he did
at Athens (Acts xvii. 29-31; see Har-
nack’s Expansion of Christianity, i. 108 f.)
and the substance of his mission-message
on the wrath of God is preserved in Rom.
i, 18—ii. 16. The living God is mani-
fested by His raising of Jesus from the
dead, His awakening of faith in Chris-
tians, and His readiness to judge human
sin in the hereafter. Seeberg (der Kate-
chismus der Urchristenheit, 82-85) finds
here an echo of some primitive Christian
formula of faith, but his proofs are
very precarious.—rév υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. This
marked them out from Jewish proselytes,
who might also be said to have turned
from idols to serve the living God. The
quiet combination of monotheism and a
divine position of Jesus is striking (cf.
Kattenbusch, of. cit., ii. 550 f.).—é« τῶν
οὐρανῶν ... ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν, both the hope
and the historical fact lay outside the
experience of the Thessalonians, but both
were assured to them by their experience
of the Spirit which the risen Jesus had
bestowed, and which guaranteed His final
work, Were it not for touches like the
26 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣΑ Il.
IT. 1. Αὐτοὶ γὰρ " οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί, Thy εἴσοδον ἡμῶν Thy πρὸς ὑμᾶς,
as1 Cor. ὅτι ἢ οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν" 2. ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες, καθὼς
Field, οἴδατε, ἐν “ Φιλίπποις, * ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα ἐν τῷ Θεῷ " ἡμῶν λαλῆσαι
bCf.i.5, πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ “ἀγῶνι.
3. ἡ γὰρ
Cor.xv. "ἡ παράκλησις ἡμῶν ἢ" οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης, οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας, οὐδὲ 1 ἐν
10.
c See on δόλῳ,
Acts xvi.
1g f.
d See on Eph. vi. 20 and Acts ix. 26; on form cf. Win. ὃ 5. 26 b.
g “appeal” (cf. Polyb. iii. 109, 6).
1 Cf. Gal. ii. 7.
hil. i. 30.
and xii. 16.
k 2 Macc. iv. 3.
4. ἀλλὰ καθὼς * δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ) πιστευθῆναι
e 1.0; II. i. 11-12. £ Ch:
h Sc. ἐστίν, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 8. i 2 Cor. iv. 2
1The second οὐδε (kSABCD*GP, min., etc., edd.) [cf. II. iii. 7-8] is preferable to
the v. 1. οὔτε (Pelt, Hofm., Wohl.); for ακαθαρσιας, Bentl. conj. “forte εξ ἄν.
ἀρεσκιας" [.6. ανθρωπαρεσκιας].
deeper sense of δουλεύειν, the celestial
origin of Jesus, and the eschatological
definition of ὀργή, one might be tempted
to trace a specious resemblance between
this two-fold description of Christianity
at Thessalonica and the two cardinal
factors in early Greek religion, viz., the
service of the Olympian deities (@epa-
πεύειν) and the rites of aversion (ἀπο-
πομπαί) which were designed to depre-
cate the dark and hostile powers of evil.
Paul preached like the Baptist judgment
tocome. But his gospel embraced One
who baptised with the Spirit and with
the fire of enthusiastic hope (cf. Cor. i.7).
CHAPTER II.—Vv, 1-12. An apologia
pro vita et labore suo.
Ver. 1. αὐτοί, as opposed to the a.
of i. 9.—yéyovev κιτ.λ.» Our mission was
a vital success, as its results still show.
ae its motives and methods were genuine
2-12).
Ver. 2. ‘‘ Though we had suffered—aye
and suffered outrage” in one town, yet
on we went to another with the same
errand; a practical illustration of Matt.
ΧΟ 33.
Ver. 3. γάρ: Our mission (whatever
that of others may be) is not the
outcome of self-seeking, otherwise it
would readily be checked by such un-
toward circumstances. Our confidence
is in God, not in ourselves; our work is
not self-appointed but a sacred trust or
commission, for which we are respon-
sible to Him (4). Hence, discourage-
ment and hesitation are impossible.
Paul argues that the very fact of their
cheerful perseverance at Thessalonica,
after their bad treatment. at Philippi,
points to the divine source and strength
of their mission; what impelled them
was simply a sense of lasting respon-
sibility to God, upon the one hand, and
an overpowering devotion to men upon
the other (cf. the δι᾽ ὑμᾶς of i. 5), for the
gospel’s sake. Had the apostles yielded
to feelings of irritation and despondency,
giving up their task in Macedonia, after
the troubles at Philippi, or had they con-
ducted themselves at Thessalonica in such
a way as to secure ease and profit; in
either case, they would have proved their
mission to be ambitious or selfish, and
therefore undivine. As it was, their cour-
age and sincerity were at once the evid-
ence and the outcome of their divine
commission.—wAdvys, ‘error’ (cf. Ar-
mitage Robinson on Eph. iv. 14). Their
preaching did not spring from some delu-
sion or mistake. Paul was neither fool
nor knave, neither deceived nor a deceiver
(δόλῳ). Nor was his mission a sordid at-
tempt (ἀκαθαρσίας) to make a good thing
out of preaching, the impure motive being
either to secure money (cf. πλεονεξίας
ver. 5, and ver. 9), or to gain a position
of importance (ver. 6) and popularity.
Cf. Tacit., Annal., vi, 21 (of Tiberius’
attitude to astrologers) ‘‘ si uanitatis aut
fraudum suspicio incesserat”. Both
features were only too familiar in the
contemporary conduct of wandering so-
phists, ἀρεταλόγοι, and thaumaturgists
(e.g., Acts xiii. 10, and Clemen’s article
in Neue Kirchl. Zeitschrift, 1896, 151 f.)
whose practices would also explain the
literal interpretation of ἀκ. (= sensual-
ity). But the context favours the associ-
ations of greed (cf. Eph. v. 3), as in the
case of πλεονεξία. On the persuasive-
ness of sincerity in a speaker, .e., the
extent to which his effectiveness depends
upon his hearers’ conviction of his own
earnestness and honesty, see Aristotle’s
analysis of ἠθικὴ πίστις (Rhet., ii. 1) and
Isocrates’ description of εὐνοίας δύναμις
(Orat., xv. 278, 279).
Ver. 4. ‘*As God, who tests our
hearts, has attested our fitness to be
1--8, ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A
27
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, οὕτω λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ “ds ἀνθρώποις "ἀρέσκοντες, ἀλλὰ πι Causal
“Θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν. 5. οὔτε γάρ ποτε ἐν λόγῳ eal ἐμῇ
Ῥ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, | @ ds οἴδατε, οὔτε ἐν “προφάσει πλεονεξίας " ἡ δά, το;
Θεὸς μάρτυς - 6. οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων * δόξαν, οὔτε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν vie
οὔτε " ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων, * δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι - rp ταὶ
7. ἀλλ᾽ ἐγενήθημεν “For ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, ὡς " ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ὃ =n
ἑαυτῆς τέκνα -' 8. οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν * εὐδοκοῦμεν * μεταδοῦναι re
ὑμῖν * οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, ᾿ ΠΗ only
u of a father ( i εν dain
ver. 11) ἴῃ 4.5. Hom
7) wiii. 1; see on Rom. xv. 26;
So. 2 Cor. vii. 5 (force of this example). y Cf.
Win.-Schm. § v. 136.
ἘΠ Οὐ V. 41-44.
4 “any pretext,” cf. on 2 Cor. xi. 12, ii. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 3.
2 8 ¢.g.1. 9. t Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 1 f.
» Xxiv. 770, Odyssey, ii. 234. v = ὅταν (Viteau, i. 217).
= “we were right willing”. x Rom. i. 11.
Burton, M.T. 481.
1 The important variant νηπιοι, which is even better attested (cf. WH ii. 128),
and is adopted, ¢.g., by Bentley, Lachm., Schrader, Jowett, Zimmer, Bisping, WH,
Lgft., and Wohl., probably arose from a not uncommon dittography of the final N in
the preceding word: nos “ properly implies the kindness of a superior” (Liddell
and Scott s.v.), whereas νηπιος has usually associations of immaturity in Paul.
entrusted with the gospel,” a character-
istic play on the word. The definite
commission of the gospel excluded any
weak attempt to flatter men’s prejudices
or to adapt oneself to their tastes.
Hence the thought of the following verse.
Ver. 5. ‘Never did we resort to
words of flattery” (in order to gain
some private end); cf. Arist., Eth. Ntk.,
iv. 6. ΑΒ self-interest is more subtle
than the desire to please people (which
may be one form of self-interest), the
appeal is changed significantly from x. o.
to θεὸς μάρτυς (Rom. i. 9) : “ auaritia aut
ambitio, duo sunt isti fontes ex quibus
manat totius ministerii corruptio”’ (Cal-
vin). Cf. Introduction, § r—on θεός and
6 θεός, cf. Kattenbusch, das Apost.
Symbol, ii. 515 f.
Ver. 6. To put a full stop after
ἄλλων, and begin a new sentence
with δυνάμενοι (so ¢.g., Vulgate, Cal-
vin, Koppe, Weizsacker, H. J. Gibbins,
Exp. Ti., xiv. 527), introduces an awk-
ward asyndeton, makes ἀλλὰ follow a
concessive participle very awkwardly, and
is unnecessary for the sense.
Ver. 7. ἐν βάρει εἶναι = “be men
of weight,” or “be a burden” on
your funds. Probably both meanings
are intended, so that the phrase (cf.
Field, 199) resumes the ideas of πλεον.
and ἀνθ. δόξαν (self-interest in its mercen-
ary shape and as the love of reputation)
which are reiterated in vv. 7-12, a defence
“οὗ the apostles against the charges, cur-
rent against them evidently in some
circles (probably pagan) at Thessalonica,
of having given themselves airs and un-
duly asserted their authority, as well as
of having levied or at any rate accepted
contributions for their own support.—
ἀπόστολοι were known to any of the local
Christians who had been Jews (cf. Har-
nack’s Expansion of Christianity, i. 66 f.,
409 f.), since agents and emissaries (ἀπόσ-
τολοι) from Jerusalem went to and fro
throughout the synagogues: but ἀ. Χρισ-
τοῦ was anew conception. The Chris-
tian ἀπόστολοι had their commission
from their heavenly messiah.—7mior (2
Tim, ii. 24); as Bengel observes, there
was nothing ex cathedra about the
apostles, nothing selfish or crafty or
overbearing. All was tenderness and
devotion, fostering and protecting care
in their relations ἴδ these Thessalonian
ristians.. :ir_hearts.
To eschew flattery (5) did not mean any
indifference to consideration and gentle-
ness, in their case; they were honest
without being blunt or masterful.—rpo-
φός, a nursing mother (cf. Hor., Ep. i.
4, 8). “In the love of a brave and faith-
ful man there is always a strain of
maternal tenderness; he gives out again
those beams of protecting fondness which
were shed on him as he lay on his
mother’s knee ’”’ (George Eliot). Ruther-
ford happily renders: ‘On the con-
trary, we carried ourselves among you
with a childish simplicity, as a mother
becomes a child again when she fondles
her children”.
Ver. 8. ὁμειρόμενοι (cf. Job iii. 21,
LXX; Ps. Ixii. 2, Symm.) = ‘‘ yearning
28 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A Il.
z Of.1 Cor. διότι " ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε.
ΧΙΙΙ, 5.
9. μνημονεύετε γὰρ, ἀδελφοί,
a Cf. Il. iii, τὸν " κόπον ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν " μόχθον: νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας " ἐργαζόμενοι
8 and 2
Cor. xi. πρὸς τὸ μὴ SémPaphoat τινα ὑμῶν, ἐκηρύξαμεν εἰς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγ-
27. nm is
b Cf, Acts γέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ.
xviii. 3
10. ὑμεῖς “μάρτυρες καὶ ὁ Θεός, ὡς t ὁσίως καὶ
c Cf. 2 Cor. δικαίως καὶ * ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐγενήθημεν, 11. καθ-
ili. 13 for
constr.
ἃ Cf. 2 Cor.
ii. 5.
άπερ οἴδατε, ὡς ἢ ἕνα ἕκαστον ὑμῶν, ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα ἑαυτοῦ, ἱπαρα-
καλοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ ' παραμυθούμενοι 12. καὶ ἢ μαρτυρόμενοι 1 εἰς τὸ
Q x, 0 A Qe a 2 “ A ἌΡ ,
13. Kat διὰ “τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως,
iCf. iv. τ and on 1 Cor. xiv. 3, with 2 Macc.
1 See on Phil. i. 27; ethnic phrase
n Cf. Il. ii. 14. o As well
r With λόγον, cf. Win. § 30. 12d.
τ sae ‘ περιπατεῖν ὑμᾶς Ἰ ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ “᾿ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν
ogress ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ " δόξαν.
Xx: 23:
f Only here
ane ὅτι παραλαβόντες “ λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν " τοῦ Θεοῦ " ἐδέξασθε οὐ
ἊΝ τὶ "λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον Θεοῦ, "ὃς καὶ
24.
g Cf. v. 23
(Clem. Rom. xliv. 4). ἢ See on Acts xx. 31.
xv. 8-9. k Eph. iv. 17; see on Acts xx. 26 and Gal. v. 3.
(Deissm. 248). m See on Rom. viii. 28. ix. 11 and Gal. v. 8.
asi. 2f. pi. 3. q Cf. Heb. iv. 2. ax. = id quod auditur.
8 Cf. i. 6. t t.e. the word.
1 μαρτυρομενοι (MSBDbCHKL, 17, 47, Chrys., Dam., etc., edd.) is preferable to the
passive variant μαρτυρουμενοι, a corrupt western reading which has been conformed
to παραμ.-
for, or, over”. evSox., for absence of
augment cf. W. H., ii. 161, 162.---διότι
causal (‘ for as much as”’), almost = γάρ
(as in Modern Greek).
Ver. 9. ‘‘ Paul means by the phrase,
night and day, that he started work be-
fore dawn; the usage is regular and fre-
quent. He no doubt began so early in
order to be able to devote some part of
the ‘day to preaching” (Ramsay, Church
τκπνφοςς
in Roman Empire, p. 85). Paul, to the
very last (cf. Acts xx. 29 f.), seems to
have been sensitive on this point of
independence.
Ver.10. ‘‘ We made ourselves yours”
(cf. 8), the dative going closely (as Rom.
vii. 3) with the verb, which is qualified
(as in τ Cor. xvi. 10) by the adverbs;
so Born., Findlay.-- ὑμῖν «.7.X. (dative
of possession). Paul had met other
people at Thessalonica, but only the
Christians could properly judge his real
character and conduct.
Ver. 11. καθάπερ, sharper than καθώς.
Viteau (ii. 111) suggests that k. o. is a
parenthesis, and ὡς a causal introductory
particle for the participles (‘‘ hearten-
ing,” ‘* encouraging,” ‘‘adjuring ”) which
in their turn depend on tptv . . . ἐγενή-
θημεν, but the likelihood is that in the
tush of emotion, as he dictates, Paul
leaves the participial clause without a
finite verb (so e.g., 2 Cor. vii. 5).---ὀς
πατήρ k.T-A. (cf. ὡς ἐὰν τροφός, 7). The
figure was used by Jewish teachers of
their relationship to their pupils. Cf.
e.g., the words of Eleazar Ὁ. Azarja to his
dying master, ‘“‘ Thou art more to Israel
than father or mother; they only bring
men into this world, whereas thou guid-
est us for this world and the next”.
Catullus, Ixxii. 4 (dilexi tum te non tan-
tum ut uulgus amicam, sed pater ut
natos diligit et generos).
Ver. 12. ἀξίως in this connection (see
references) was a familiar ethnic phrase.
C. Michel (in his Recueil d inscriptions
grecques, 1900, 266, 413) quotes two pre-
Christian instances with τῶν Qeav.—eis
τὸ, K.T.A., grammatically meaning either
the object or the content of the solemn
charge (cf. Moulton, 218 f.). The ethic
is dominated by the eschatology, as in
iii, 13, V. 23-
Vv. 13-16. Further thanksgiving for
their endurance of trial.
Ver.13. ‘And for this we also render
thanks, viz., that;” the καί, by a loose but
not unusual (cf. iii. 5; Rom. iii. 7, v. 3, etc.)
construction, goes not with the pronoun
but with the verb, or simply emphasises
the former (e.g., Soph., Oed. Col., 53,
520, εἴς.).---τοῦ θεοῦ comes in so awk-
wardly that one is tempted to regard it,
with Baljon and some other Dutch critics,
as a scribal gloss.
9-τ7.
" ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.
, , wor 2 “- a ~ “ ΣΥΝ > ~
ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, “τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν TH
τ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ ἸΙησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν
ἰδίων * συμφυλετῶν, " καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, 15. τῶν καὶ
ΠΡΟΣ @ESZAAONIKEIS A
29
14. ὑμεῖς “ γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἃ “15 made
opera-
tive” (cf.
Robin-
son’s
Ephes.
pp. 241 f.).
Proof and
A a iv:
τὸν Κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν Kai τοὺς * προφήτας } καὶ ἡμᾶς " ἐκ- result of
διωξάντων καὶ Θεῷ μὴ ἢ" ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,
16. “κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσι λαλῆσαι iva σωθῶσιν, eis τὸ
ἐνεργεῖ-
ται.
x w Gal. i. 22;
2Cor.i. 1.
x Only here
in N.T.
* ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε: ἔφθασε δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς in N
ἡ ® ὀργὴ ® εἰς τέλος].
17. Ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, ' ἀπορφανισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν πρὸς καιρὸν
ὥρας (ἢ προσώπῳ οὐ καρδίᾳ) ' περισσοτέρως ἐσπουδάσαμεν τὸ πρόσ-
49 (Acts xvii. 5-14). Cf, 2 Cor. xi. 24, 26.
Acts xvii. 5, xxii. 22.
xii. 27 and Gen. xv. 16.
b1 Cor. x. 33. Cf. on Eph. ii. 12.
d Cf. Burton, M.T. 411 and Moult. i. 219.
f Cf. Phil. iii. 16, etc.
= ‘*com-
patriots”.
y = ἅπερ.
z Matt. v.
12, xxiii.
c Lk. xi. 52;
e 2 Macc. vi. 14. Cf. Sap.
Lk, xiv. 21, xxi. 23. Cf. on Rom. i. 18.
h “ Utterly, completely” (Ps. Sol. i. 1, ii. 5; Joseph. B. J. vii. 8, 1), alm. = “‘to the bitter end"
(Abbott, Joh. Gramm. 2322).
3; 2 Cor. v. 12. 1 Gal. i. 14; 2 Cor. i. 12.
i Here only (N.T.): =“ bereft,” cf. Field 199 f.
k1 Cor. v.
10m. the Syrian interpolation wWrovs with SSABD*GP (min.), sah., cop., arm.,
aeth., Orig., Euth., edd., as an insertion by Marcion (Tert., cf. Nestle’s Einf. 253)
before προφητας.
Ver. 14. ptpynrati, and soon helpers
(Rom. xv. 26). The fact that they
were exposed to persecution, and bore
it manfully, proved that the gospel was
a power in their lives, and also that
they were in the legitimate succession
of the churches. Such obstacles would
_ as little thwart their course as they
had thwarted that of Jesus or of his
immediate followers. oupd. might in-
clude Jews (Acts xvii. 6), but Gentiles
predominate in the writer’s mind.—The
καί after καθώς simply emphasises the
comparison (as in iv. 5,13). As Calvin
suggests, the Thessalonians may have
wondered why, if this was the true re-
ligion, it should be persecuted by the
Jews, who had been God’s people. o.
is racial rather than local, but the local
persecution may have still been due in
part to Jews (cf. Zimmer, pp. 16 f.).
Ver. 15. ‘The Lord, even Jesus” (cf.
Acts ii. 36). mpod. may go either with
ἀἄποκτ. or with ἐκδιωξάντων.
Ver. 16. κωλυόντων κ.τ.λ., defining
(Luke xi. 52) from the Christian stand-
point that general and familiar charge
of hatred to the human race (ἐναντίων
x.t-A.) which was started by the exclu-
siveness of the ghetto and the synagogue.
--ἔφθασε x.1.d., ‘the Wrath has come
upon them,” apparently a reminiscence
of Test. Levi. vi. 11. This curt and
sharp verdict on the Jews sprang from
Paul’s irritation at the moment. The
apostle was in no mood to be concilia-
tory. He was suffering at Corinth from
persistent Jewish attempts to wreck the
Christian propaganda, and he flashes
out in these stern sentences of anger.
Later on (Rom. ix.-xi.) he took a kinder
and more hopeful view, though even this
did not represent his final outlook on the
prospects of Judaism. Consequently, it
is arbitrary to suspect vv. 14 (15)-16 asa
later interpolation, written after 70 A.D.
(cf. the present writer’s Hist. New Testa-
ment, pp. 625, 626). But the closing sen-
tence of ver. 16 has all the appearance of
a marginal gloss, written after the tragic
days of the siege in 70 A.D. (so ¢.g.,
Spitta, Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity,
i. 128, 129, Schmiedel, Teichmann, die
Paul. Vorstellungen von Auferstehung
u. Gericht, 83, Drummond, etc.). The
Jews, no doubt, had recently suffered,
and were suffering, as a nation in a way
which might seem to Paul, in a moment
of vehement feeling, a clear proof of con-
dign punishment (so e.g., Schmidt, 86-
go). But neither the edict of Claudius
nor the bloody feuds in Palestine quite
bear out the language of this verse. And
ὀργή is surely more than judicial har-
dening (cf. Dante’s Paradiso, vi. 88-93) ;
its eschatological significance points to
a more definite interpretation.
Ver. 17-CHAPTER III. Ver. 13. Paul’s
apologia pro absentia sud.
Ver. 17. πρὸς κ. ὥ., aS we both ex-
pected, but, as it turned out, for much
longer. προσ. οὐ κι, “not where I
30
m he 5, tov ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν ἐν πολλῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ.
7. α, Cf.
n.= “For
ΠΡΟΣ GESSAAONIKEIS A
II, 18-—19.
18. ™ διότι ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ " μὲν Παῦλος καὶ “ ἅπαξ καὶ “ δίς, καὶ ” ἐνέκοψεν
mypart”; ἡμᾶς 6 Σατανᾶς. 10. τίς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ ᾿ χαρὰ ἢ “ στέφανος
on
ab- i F a ~
sence of ᾿ καυχήσεως "(ἢ οὐχὶ Kal ὑμεῖς) ἔμπροσθεν Tod ‘Kupiou ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
δέ, cf.
Blass,
§ 77, 12.
o = “More χαρά.
than
once”
(Phil. iv. 16).
(LXX). s Blass, § 77, 11.
8, d. v 2 Cor. viii. 23, cf. 2 Cor. i. 14.
breathe; but where I love, I live’”’ (South-
well, the Elizabethan Jesuit poet, echo-
ing Augustine’s remark that the soul
lives where it loves, not where it ex-
ists); cf. Eurip., Ion, 251. The next
paragraph, ii. 17-iii. 13, starts from a
fresh imputation against the apostles’
honour. Paul, it was more than hinted
by calumniators at Thessalonica, had
left his converts in the lurch (cf. 18) ;
with him, out of sight was out of mind;
fresh scenes and new interests in the
South kad supplanted them in his affec-
tions, and his failure to return was inter-
preted as a fickle indifference to their
concerns, The reply is three-fold. (a)
Paul’s continued absence had been un-
avoidable (17 f.); he had often tried to
get back. In proof of this anxiety (b) he
had spared Timothy from his side for
a visit to them (iii. 1-5), and (c) Timothy’s
report, he adds (iii. 6 f.) had relieved a
hearty concern on his part for their wel-
fare; he thus lets them see how much
they were to him, and still prays for a
chance of re-visiting them (11). He was
not to blame for the separation; and, so
far from blunting his affection, it had
only whetted (περισσοτέρως) his eager-
ness to get back.
Ver. 18. ‘We did crave to reach
you,” διότι ( = because) not being re-
quired with the English stress on did.
The whole verse is parenthetical, syn-
tactically.— kat . . . Σατανᾶς. The
mysterious obstacle, which Paul traced
back to the ultimate malice of Satan,
may have been either (a) an illness
(cf. 2 Cor. xii. 7, so Simon, die Psycho-
logie des Apostels Paulus, 63, 64), (6) local
troubles, (c) the exigencies of his mission
at the time being (Grotius), or (4) a move
on the part of the Thessalonian poli-
tarchs who may have bound over Jason
and other leading Christians to keep the
peace by pledging themselves to prevent
Paul’s return (Ramsay’s St. Paul the
Traveller, 230 f., Woodhouse, E. Bi., 5047,
Findlay). Early Christian thought re-
p Cf. Gal. v. 7; Rom. xv. 22.
t Cf. Kattenbusch: das A post. Symbol, ii. 597 f.
fol A ὧν A Ἂν
ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ ; 20. ὑμεῖς γάρ ἐστε “HW "δόξα ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ
q Phil. iv. 1. r Cf. Prov. xvi. 31
u Win. § 18,
ferred all such hindrances to the devil as
the opponent of God and of God’s cause.
The words ἐν ᾿Αθήναις (111. 1) rule out
Zimmer’s application of (b) to the emer-
gency at Corinth, while the silence of
Acts makes any of the other hypotheses
quite possible, though (d) hardly fits in
with the ordinary view of the Empire in
II. ii. 2 f. and renders it difficult to see
why the Thessalonians did not under-
stand at once how Paul could not return.
The choice really lies between (a) and
(c). Kabisch (27-29), by a forced ex-
egesis, takes ver. 20 as the explanation
of this satanic manceuvre. Satan pre-
vented us from coming, in order to rob
us of our glory and praise on the last
day, by wrecking your Christian taith ;
he was jealous of our success among you.
Ver. 19. Of course we wanted to come
back, for (γάρ), etc. The touch of fine
exaggeration which follows is true to the
situation. Paul’s absence from the young
church was being misinterpreted in a
Sinister way, as if it implied that the
Achaian Christians had ousted the Thes-
salonians from his affections. You it
is, he protests, who but you (καὶ super-
fluous after 4, as in Epict. i. 6, 39; Rom.
xiv. Io, but really heightening the follow-
ing word, as in Rom. v. 7; almost =
‘“* indeed ”’ or ‘‘even”’)—you are my pride
and delight !---στέφανος, of a public
honour granted (as to Demosthenes and
Zeno) for distinguished public service.
The metaphor occurs often in the inscrip-
tions (cf. also Pirke Aboth, iv.9). Paul
coveted no higher distinction at the ar-
rival of the Lord than the glory of having
won over the Thessalonian church. Cf.
Crashaw’s lines to St. Teresa in heaven :
‘“*Thou shalt look round about, and see
Thousands of crown’d souls throng to be
Themselves thy crown”’.
Napovoia = royal visit (cf. Wilcken’s
Griech. Ostraka, i. 274 f.), and hence
applied (cf. Matt. xxiv.) to the arrival of
the messiah, though the evidence for the
111. 1—5. ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A
21
III. 1. Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες, "ηὐδοκήσαμεν ἢ" καταλειφθῆναι eva i.e, Paul
an liva-
᾿Αθήναις μόνοι 2. καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν Τιμόθεον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ nus, of. ii
συνεργὸν ° τοῦ Θεοῦ | ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸ “ στηρίξαι » Acts xxv,
A , a 14.
ἃ παρακαλέσαι "ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, 3. Td μηδένα ς 2 Macc.
viii. 7,
etc.,1 Cor.
ς a Ν
ὑμᾶς καὶ
® σαίνεσθαι 3 ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι ταύταις - αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ὅτι εἰς " τοῦτο
a a 111, 9.
ἱ κείμεθα - 4. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε " πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἦμεν, προελέγομεν ὑμῖν ὅτι α Ih. 17;
* μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε 5. διὰ τοῦτο ee
Ἢ κἀγώ μηκέτι στέγων ἔπεμψα " εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν, μή “ iL Ὁ ἧ
πως " ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων καὶ Peis κενὸν “ γένηται ὁ κόπος Pom 1.8;
; eres e).
f Cf. Viteau, i. 272; Blass, § 71, 2, opposition to preceding clause (cf. iv. 6). g Her€only(N.T.),
= “allured, beguiled ” or “‘ disturbed” (Diog. Laert. viii. 43: οἱ δὲ σαινόμενοι τοῖς λεγόμενοις ἐδάκρνον).
h i.e. τὸ θλίβεσθαι, cf. i. 6,11. 1. 5. i Phil. i. 16, k = “with " II. iii. 1, 10, etc. 1“We
Christians.” m Cf. on ii. 13. n Cf. on ii. 16. o Unrealised purpose, see Gal. ii. 2,
iv. 11, for mood; also Burton, M.T. 227. p Win. § 29, 2, b. q deliberative conjunctive.
1 For μῶν kat διακονον 7.0. και ovvepyov ἡμων (DcKL, syr.sch, Chrys., Theod.,
Dam., εἰ 6.), or μων και 8.7.0. (NSAP, min., vg., cop., syr.ptxt, arm., aeth., Euth.,
etc., Ti., 1'r., Bj., Zim.) read the original and harder Western text npwv και ovvepyov
7.8. (D*, d, e, 17, Amb. [B om. 7.6. so Weiss, Findlay], Lach., Al., Ell., WH
marg., Born., Schm., Wohl., Feine), from which the variants seem to have sprung.
Later scribes are more likely to have stumbled at 1.0. after συνεργον than to have
inserted it by a reminiscence of 1 Cor. iii. g.
2 For μ. σαινεσθαι (cf. Zahn, Einl. § 14, 2), Lach., Ernesti, and Verschuis (so
Alexander) conj. μηδὲν αἀσαινεσθαι (= χαλεπῶς φέρειν), a more than dubious passive
form of acaw, Beza and Bentley μηδενα σαλευεσθαι (ν.]. σευεσθαι, Bentl.), and
Holwerda μηδεν αναινεσθαι (= repent or be ashamed of); if any change is required
(but cf. Koch’s full note, 233-237), it would be in the direction of σιεινεσθαι
(Ξεσιαινεσθαι, to be disheartened, unnerved), the attractive reading of FG which is
preferred by Sophocles (Lex., s.v.), Reiske, and Nestle (Exp. Ti. xviii. 479, Preuschen’s
Zeitschrift, vii. 361-62, cf. Mercati, ibid. viii. 242).
xii, 17) confuses εἰ and au.
use of the term in pre-Christian Judaism
is scanty (Test. Jud. xxii.3; Test. Levi.
viii. 15; for the idea of the divine ‘‘ com-
ing” cf. Slav. En., xxxii, 1, xlii.5). This
is the first time the term is used by Paul,
but it was evidently familiar to the
readers. Later on, possibly through
Paul’s influence, it became an accepted
word for the second advent in early
Christianity.
CuHapTeR III.—Ver. 1. pyx., instead
of οὐκ.» to bring out the personal motive.
-- στέγοντες “able to bear” (cf. Philo,
Flacc., ὃ 9, μηκέτι στέγειν δυνάμενοι τὰς
ἐνδείας), sc. the anxiety of ii, τι f.—év
*A. μόνοι. Paul shrank from loneliness,
especially where there was little or no
Christian fellowship; but he would not
gratify himself at the expense of the
Thessalonians. Their need of Timothy
must take precedence of his.
Ver. 3. Cf. Artemid., Oneirocritica ii.
II, ἀλλότριοι δὲ κύνες σαίνοντες μὲν
δόλους καὶ ἐνέδρας ὑπὸ πονηρῶν ἀνδρῶν
[cf. 2 Thess. iii. 2] ἢ γυναικῶν [cf. Acts
xvii. 4] σημαίνουσιν.
G elsewhere (cf. Rom. xi. 26,
Ver. 4. Cf. Acts xvii. 3, 6, 13 ἢ
Ver. 5. Resuming the thought of iii.
I-3a, after the parenthetical digression
of 35, 4, but adding a fresh reason for the
mission of Timothy, viz., the apostle’s
desire to have his personal anxiety about
the Thessalonians relieved. It is need-
less to suppose (with Hofmann and
Spitta) that iii. 5 refers to a fresh mes-
seager or a letter (Wohl.) despatched by
Paul on his own account. As in ii. 18,
Paul passes to the singular, to emphasise
his personal interest in the matter; the
change of number, especially after the
generic use of the plural in 3, 4, does not
necessarily prove that the plural of ver.
1 means Paul alone. The dominating
anxiety of Paul was about their faith (5-
to). He was overjoyed to hear that they
retained “αὶ. kindly remembrance” of
himself, and he reciprocates their desire
for another meeting; but, while this un-
doubtedly entered into their general
Christian position, it is the former on
which unselfishly he dwells (cf. the
transition in τοῦ and 10b),—qmiotw
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A
ΠῚ. 6—13.
ΚΕΦ, ἡμῶν. 6. "ἄρτι δὲ ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ
ago,” ph Alaa ca ἡμῖν τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν καὶ ὅτι
8 Cf. Lk. i. ἔχετε μνείαν ἡμῶν ἀγαθὴν πάντοτε, ἐπιποθοῦντες ἡμᾶς ἰϑεῖν, *xad-
sedate ἃ dep καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς, 7. “ διὰ τοῦτο παρεκλήθημεν, ἀδελφοί, " ἐφ᾽
classical
sense of ὕμιν ἐπὶ πάσῃ ”
‘* bring-
ing good εως "
news'
a ii. τι, γὰρ *
8. ὅτι νῦν
-
c
tive =“by
this good.
news’
νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἢ
ν Cj.2Cor, Τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν ;
" Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ
24 (LXX), ευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς"
καὶ ' περισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας (καθάπερ
vii. 7.
w Job xv.
“we were
suffering
(cf. ver. 3.)
ἡ ζῶμεν, " ἐὰν ὑμεῖς “ στήκετε ἐν Κυρίῳ.
τῇ ἀνάγκῃ καὶ “θλίψει ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστ-
9. τίνα
3 , , ~ ~ > a“ Vee fee
Se aad od dates cate τῷ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἐπὶ
peanmip: πάσῃ τῇ Χαρᾷ ἡ a id δι᾿ ὑμᾶς ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, το’
ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ δεόμενοι “
εἰς τὸ ἰδεῖν “ ὑμῶν
Ττ'
ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿ἸΙησοῦς ὅ κατ-
12. ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ Κύριος " πλεονάσαι
as well a8 καὶ ἡμεῖς “eis ὑμᾶς) 13. εἰς τὸ ἱστηρίξαι “Spay τὰς καρδίας " ἀμέμ-
you ds
x Intensive πτοὺς ἐν °dyiwouvy, ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ Kai πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ
(cf. 2 Cor.
Vi. 9, xiii.
4: “uiui-
mus, hoc
est recte ualemus ” (Calvin).
iii. 23 (Theod.) and v. 13 below.
e Cf. iv. 16, and contrast ii. 18.
h Transit. as Num. xxvi. 54 rier etc.
k Sc. “ abound in love”. 1 Cf.
p Cf. iv. 17, ἡμεῖς. . . σὺν αὐτοῖς.
κιτιλ. “Initium omnium malarum ten-
tationum inconstantia animi est et parua
ad Deum confidentia” (De Imit. Christi,
i. 13, 5).-ἐέὲἐπείρασεν, with success, it 15
implied.
Ver. 8. The news put life and spirit
into Πΐτη.--- στήκετε, for construction cf.
Mark xi. 25 and Abbott’s Johan. Gramm.,
2515 (i). ἢ .
Ver. το. Another adaptation of ethnic
phraseology, cf. Griechische Urkunden,
1, 246, 12, νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐντυγχάνω
τῷ θεῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (a pagan papyrus from
second or third century, A.D.). The con-
nection of δεόμενοι κιτ.λ. with the fore-
going words is loose, but probably may
be found in the vivid realisation of the
Thessalonians called up before his mind
as he praised God for their constancy.
Timothy had told him of their loyalty,
but had evidently acquainted him also
with some less promising tendencies and
shortcomings in the church; possibly the
Thessalonians had even asked for guid-
ance on certain matters of belief and
practice (see below). Hence Paul’s eager-
ness to be on the spot again, not merely
for the sake of happy fellowship (Rom. i.
11), but to educate and guide his friends,
supplying what was defective in their
y =orayv, ii. 7.
Win. ὃ 5,19; Burton, M.7. 247, and Moult. i. 168.
c Il. ii. 2; constr. as in ii. 12.
f Cf. Win. § 18, 7, Moult. i. 179. 79.
i Transit. as 2 Cor. ix. 8; cf. ee thought Phil. i. 9.
above, ver, 2.
Viteau, II, 275), as v. 23; of. Phil. ii. 15, Clem. Rom. xliv. 6, Sap. Cf.
q Jude 14, cf. Everling: se “paul. Wacvoie (78-79).
παρουσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ μετὰ ἢ πάντων τῶν “ ἁγίων αὐτοῦ.
z II. ii. 15, late form, cf. Blass ὃ 65, 4";
Dehisa etc b Cf. Batt
d See note on v. 23.
ll. iiss; LEE
m See note on v. 23.
ii. 22.
n Proleptic (cf.
2 Cor. vii. 1.
faith. As this was impracticable in the
meantime, he proceeds to write down
some kindly admonitions. Thus τοῦ
forms the transition to the second part of
the letter; Paul, as usual, is wise enough
to convey any correction or remonstrance
on the back of hearty commendation. In
the prayer which immediately follows,
toa is echoed in 11, 100 in 12, 13, for the
maturing of the Thessalonian’s faith does
not depend on the presence of their
apostles. Whatever be the answer to
the prayer of 11, the prayer of 12, 13 can
be accomplished.
Ver. 11. κατευθύναι (optative), as al-
ready (Acts xvi. 8-10, xvii. 1). The
singular (cf. 11., ii. 16, 17) implies that
God and Jesus count as one in this con-
nection. The verb is common (e.g., Ep.
Arist., 18, etc.) in this sense of previdence
directing ‘human actions.
Vv. 12,13. The security and purity ot
the Christian life are rested upon its
brotherly love (so Ep. Arist. - 229) ; ; all
breaches or defects of ἁγιωσύνη, it is im-
plied, are due to failures there (cf. iv.
3, 6); even sensuality becomes a form of
selfishness, on this view, as much as im-
patience or resentment. This profound
ἀγάπη ‘is an ever-fixed mark That looks
IV. I— J.
ΠΡΟΣ @ESSAAONIKEIS A
33
IV. 1. "Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἢ ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν a “ Locutio
ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν “τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς
περιπατεῖν ἢ
σεύητε μᾶλλον - 2. οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν
διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἸΙησοῦ.
naris in Exp.5 viii. 2 il. ive 3.
5, Viteau, a Wie 8, 2. αἰ στοῦ,
on tempests and is never shaken;” it
fixes the believing man’s life in the very
life of God, by deepening its vital powers
of growth; no form of ἁγιωσύνη which
sits loose to the endless obligations
of this ἀγάπη will stand the strain
of this life or the scrutiny of God’s
tribunal at the end.—tpas δὲ, what
ever becomes of us.—dayiwv, either (a)
“saints”? (as II., i. το, De Wette, Hof-
mann, Zimmer, Schmidt, Everling, Ka-
bisch, Findlay, Wohl.), or (δ) “angels ”
(Ex. i. 9; Ps. Sol. xvii. 49, etc.. Hiihn,
Weiss, Schrader, Titius, Schmiedel,
Lueken), or (c) both (cf. 4 Esd. vii. 28,
xiv. 9; Bengel, Alford, Wohl., Askwith,
Ellicott, Lightfoot, Milligan). The remini-
scence of Zech. xiv. 5 (LXX) is almost de-
cisive for (b), though Paul may have put
another content into the term; πάν-
τῶν must not be pressed to support (c).
In any case, the phrase goes closely with
παρουσίᾳ. The ἅγιοι are a retinue.
CuapTER IV.-Ver. 1-CHAPTER V.-Ver.
II. Spectal instructions (iv. 1-12) on
chastity, etc.
Ver. 1. Resuming the thought of ii.
II, 12 as weil as of iii. 10-13. Cf. a pre-
Christian letter in Oxyrh. Papyri, iv. 294
(13 ἐρωτῶ σε οὖν ἵνα μὴ, 6 ἔ. ἐρωτῶ σε
καὶ παρακαλῶ σε). The ἵνα, repeated
often for the sake of clearness, is sub-final
(so II., iii. 12) = infinitive, cf. Moulton,
i. 206 f. Paul meant to write οὕτως καὶ
περιπατῆτε, but the parenthesis of praise
(x. καὶ a.) leads him to assume that and
to plead for fresh progress along the
lines already laid down by himself.
Ver. 2. Almost a parenthesis, as
Bahnsen points out in his study of 1-12
(Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1904, 332-358).
The injunctions (παραγγελίαι in semi-
military sense, as 1 Tim. i. 18) relate to
chastity (3-8) and charity, (9, 10), witha
postscript against excitement and idle-
ness (11, 12).—mwapayy. for the cognate
use of this term (cf. ver. 8) in the inscrip-
tions of Dionysopolis (ταραγγέλλω πᾶσιν
μὴ καταφρονεῖν τοῦ θεοῦ) cf. Exp. Ti.,
X. 150.---διὰ «.7.X., the change from the
év of ver. 1 does not mean that the Thes-
VOL. IV.
καὶ “ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, καθὼς kal περιπατεῖτε,
3. ' τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι ᾿θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃ
d And so (result),
proper-
antis ad
finem ”
(Grotius),
Test.
ΓΣ ν.
5; cf. on
2 Cor.
xiii. 11,
and Jan-
c On article in indir. questions, see Blass, ὃ 47.
e Contr. ii.15. f v.18, Ps. xxix. 5, etc.
ἵνα περισ-
salonians before their conversion got such
injunctions from Paul on the authority
of Christ, while afterwards they. simply
needed to be reminded of the obligations
of their union (év) with the Lord. No
strict difference can be drawn between
both phrases (cf. Heitmiiller’s Im Namen
$esu, 71 f.), though the διά lays rather
more stress on the authority. For Jesus
to command διά the apostles seems ta
us more natural than to say that the
apostles issue commands διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου,
but the sense is really the same. The
apostles give their orders on the authority
of their commission and revelations from
the Lord whom they interpret to His fol-
lowers (cf. Rom. xv. 30, xii. 2). But this
interpretation must have appealed to
the sayings of Jesus which formed part
of the παράδοσις (cf. Weizsiicker’s
Apostolic Age, i. 97, 120, ii. 39). Thus
8a is an echo of the saying preserved in
Luke x. 16.
Ver. 3. ἅγιασμός (in apposition to
τοῦτο, θέλημα without the article being
the predicate) = the moral issue of a life
related to the “Aytogs (cf. ver. 8), viewed
here in its special and negative aspect of
freedom from sexual impurity. The
gospel of Jesus, unlike some pagan cults,
e.g., that of the Cabiri at Thessalonica
(cf. Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, pp.
257 f.), did not tolerate, much less foster,
licentiousness among its worshippers.
At Thessalonica as at Corinth Paul found
his converts exposed to the penetrating
taint of life in a large seaport. As the
context indicates, ay. ὑμῶν = “the per-
fecting of you in holiness” (ay. in its
active sense, ὑμῶν genitive objective : so
Liinemann, Ellicott, Bahnsen). The ab-
sence of any reference to δικαιοσύνη is
remarkable. But Paul’s dialectic on justi-
fication was occasioned by controversies
about 6 νόμος which were not felt at
Thessalonica. Besides, the ‘ justified”
standing of the believer, even in that
synthesis of doctrine, amounted practi-
cally to the position assured by the posses-
sion of the Spirit to the Christian. In his
uncontroversial and eschatological mo-
34 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A IV.
€ Acts xv. ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ξ ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς “ πορνείας " 4. ὅ εἰδέναι
20; n
> in ae J [eee Nase a h A A
ofapposi- €KQOTOV υμων το εαυτου σκευος κτᾶσθαι ἐν
tion, as
ἱ ἁγιασμῷ καὶ * τιμῇ,
Acts xv. 5. μὴ ἐν ' πάθει " ἐπιθυμίας, καθάπερ “ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη " τὰ μὴ εἰδότα
28; Sap.
“Ὁ ~ » 0728p απ κα ’ ‘ eee ὙΠ) ~@q ’
ἢ. 16. τὸν Θεόν - 6. “τὸ ἢ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν “ ἐν τῷ “πράγματι
ΡΟΣ, εἰ ς
τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ - διότι *
” , x , ,
ἔκδικος Κύριος περι πάντων τούτων,
ae
i See Tob.
viii. 4-9,
and 1 Coe: vii. 39. k See Heb. xiii. 4 and Ignat. ad Polyk. v. 2. 1 4 Macc. 1. 35. m Cf.
on ii. 14. n From Jer. x. 25; cf. 11. i. 8: ““ whose characteristic is ignorance of God” (Win.
§ 20, 3 δ). © sc. τινα from ἕκαστον (4). p Cf. iii. 3, for the accus. infin. with neg. to denote
purpose. q Cf. on 2 Cor. vii. 11.
ments, Paul taught as here that the ex-
perience of the Spirit guaranteed the
believer’s vindication at the end (cf. i. 9,
10) and also implied his ethical behaviour
during the interval The comparative
lack of any allusion to the forgiveness
of sins (cf. ¢.g., iii. 5, 10, 13) does not
mean that Paul thought the Thessa-
lonians would be kept sinless during the
brief interval till the parousia (so Wernle,
der Christ u. die Siinde bei Paulus, 25-
32); probably no occasion had called
for any explicit teaching on this common-
place of faith (x Cor. xv. 3, 11).
Ver. 4. Paul demands chastity from
men ; it is not simply a feminine virtue.
Contemporary ethics, in the Roman and
Greek world, was often disposed to con-
done marital unfaithfulness on the part
of husbands, and to view prenuptial un-
chastity as ἀδιάφορον or at least as a
comparatively venial offence, particularly
in men (cf. Lecky’s History of European
Morals, i. 104 f., ii. 314 f.). The strict
purity of Christ’s gospel had to be learnt
(etSévar). — σκεῦος (lit. ‘ vessel ”) =
ἐκ wife ;”’ the rendering ‘‘ body ” (cf. Barn.
vii. 3) conflicts with the normal meaning
of κτᾶσθαι (‘‘ get,” “ acquire ; ᾿ of mar-
riage, LXX. Ruth iv. 10; Sir. xxxvi.
29, Xen., Symp., ii. 10). Paul views mar-
riage on much the same level as he does
in 1 Cor. vii. 2, 9; in its chaste and
religious form, it is a remedy against
sensual passion, not a gratification of
that passion. Each of you (he is ad-
dressing men) must learn (εἰδέναι = know
[how] to, cf. Phil. iv. 12) to get a wife of
his own (when marriage is in question),
but you must marry ἐν ἁγιασμῷ (as a
Christian duty and vocation) καὶ τιμῇ
(with a corresponding sense of the moral
dignity of the relationship). The two
latter words tend to raise the current
estimate, presupposed here and in ver. 6,
of a wife as the σκεῦος of her husband;
this in its turn views adultery primarily
as an infringement of the husband’s
rights or an attack on his personal pro-
r Ps. xciv. 1, cf. Sir. v. 3; Rom. xii. 19, and xiii. 4.
perty. Paul, however, closes by an em-
phatic word on the religious aspect (6-8)
of the question; besides, as Dr. Drum-
mond remarks, “is it not part of
his greatness that, in spite of his own
somewhat ascetic temperament, he was
not blind to social and physiological
facts?” It is noticeable that his eschat-
ology has less effect on his view of mar-
riage here than in 1 Cor. vii. Even were
κτᾶσθαι taken as = “ possess,” a usage
not quite impossible for later Greek (cf.
Field, 72), it would only extend the idea to
the duties of a Christian husband. The
alternative rendering (‘‘acquire mastery
of,” Luke xxi. 19) does not justify the
“body ” sense of σκεῦος.
Ver. 6. Compare the saying of rabbi
Simon ben Zoma (on Deut. xxiii. 25):
‘* Look not on thy neighbour’s vineyard.
If thou hast looked, enter not; if thou
hast entered, regard not the fruits; if
thou hast regarded them, touch them
not ; if thou hast touched them, eat them
not. But if thou hast eaten, then thou
dost eject thyself from the life of this
world and of that which is to come”
(quoted in Bacher’s Agada der Tannaiten,
2nd ed., 1903, i. 430). There is no
change of subject, from licentiousness
to dishonesty. The asyndeton and the
euphemistic ἐν τῷ πράγματι (not τῳ =
τινί, Win. 86 4d) show that Paul is still
dealing with the immorality of men, but
now as a form of social dishonesty and
fraud. The metaphors are drawn from
trade, perhaps as appropriate to a trading
community. While ὑπερβαίνειν may
be intransitive (in its classical sense of
ἐς transgress ’’), it probably governs ἀδελ-
φόν in the sense of “ get the better of,”
or “ overreach ;” πλεονεκτεῖν similarly =
‘‘overreach,”’ ‘“‘ defraud,” “take advant-
age of” (2 Cor. vii. 2, xii. 17, 18; Xen.,
Mem., iii. 5, 2; Herod. viii. 112). Com-
pare ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ
(Eph. iv. 19). The passage (with ver. 8)
sounds almost like a vague reminiscence
of Test. Asher, ii. 6: ὁ πλεονεκτῶν τὸν
4—I1.
καθὼς καὶ "προείπαμεν Spiv καὶ ᾿Ἥδιεμαρτυράμεθα.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ ἃ
35
7. οὐ yaps Cf. Win.
> “- ς oe a“ 13, 13.
ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς " ἐπὶ "ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ “ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. 8. "τοι-ε = gol
yapodv ὃ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν διδόντα τὸ
9. περὶ δὲ τῆς * φιλαδελφίας
οὐ " χρείαν ἔχετε " γράφειν ὑμῖν - 1 αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς "ἢ θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε
"εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους - 1ο. καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε αὐτὸ εἰς πάντας τοὺς
παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί,
A fol 9 A
Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ “Aytov "eis ὑμᾶς.
ἀδελφοὺς “ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ.
emnly
testified ”
(cf.1 Tim,
ν. 21).
u“Witha
view to”
(cf. Eph.
ii. 10):
object
and
terms.
“περισσεύειν μᾶλλον II. καὶ *hrdotipetobar “ἡσυχάζειν καὶ ἢ πράσ-., ogreral
Col. iii. 5, Eph. v. 3), Test. Jos. iv. 6.
x Heb. xii. 1. i
2 Cor. ix. 1; Heb. v. 12.
13; Ps. Sol. xvii. 35.
Berea, etc. e Active side of iii. 12.
guished for a quiet life,” ‘‘ strive to be quiet”.
business,” cf. Dem. Olynth. ii. 16.
vice” (as
w =eis (1 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. iv. 4; Win. § 50, 5).
y As in Ezek. xxxvii. 14 (LXX).
Ὁ Elaborated in Rom. v. 5; 2 Cor. v. 14, cf. Barn. xxi. 6; Isa. liv.
c Epexegetic infinitive, (Moult. 218-219) of object.
z See on Rom. xii. 10. a Blass, § 69, 5;
d Philippi,
See on 2 Cor. v. 9 and Rom. xv. 20 = “ te distin-
g Cf. II. iii. 12. h = “attend to your own
lov χ- exeTe γραφειν υμιν (N*AD¢, etc., edd.), an irregular but not uncommon
turn (“ you have no need of anyone to write you’
etc., to exopev x.T.A. (so Liinem., Lachm.,
), corrected in ycD*G, vg., Chrys.,
Blass, cf. i. 8), and in B to ειχομεν x.t.A.
(Weiss, Bahnsen), as in H to γραφεσθαι «.7.X. (from v. 1).
πλησίον παροργίζει τὸν Θεόν . . . τὸν
ἐντολέα τοῦ νόμου Κύριον ἀθετεῖ. Only
τὸν ἀνθ. here is not the wronged party
but the apostles who convey God’s
orders.—8r6tt «.t-A. = “since (cf. 11. 8)
the Lord is the avenger (from Deut. xxxii.
35; ¢f. Sap. xii. 12; Sir.xxx.6; 1 Macc.
xiii. 6, ἐκδικήσω περὶ ; 4 Macc. xv. 29) in
all these matters” (of impurity). How,
Paul does not explain (cf. Col. iii. 5, 6).
By a premature death (1 Cor. xi. 30) ?
Or, at the last judgment (i. 10)? not in
the sense of Sap. iii. 16, iv. 6 (illegitimate
children evidence at last day against their
parents) at any rate.
Ver. 8. Elsewhere (i. 5, 6) ἅγιον simply
denotes the divine quality of πνεῦμα as
operating in the chosen ἅγιοι of God,
but here the context lends it a specific
value. Impurity is a violation of the
relationship established by the holy God
between Himself and Christians at bap-
tism, when the holy Spirit is bestowed
upon them for the purpose of consecrat-
ing them to live His life (cf. 1 Cor. iii.
16, vi. 19). The gift of the Spirit here
is not regarded as the earnest of the
future kingdom (for which immorality
will disquality) so much as the motive and
power of the new [1{6.---διδόντα = “ the
giver of,” not implying continuous or
successive impartation ; present as in ch.
v. 24; Gal. v. 8. He not only calls, but
supplies the atmosphere and energy re-
uisite for the task.—aOetGv x.1.A. (cf.
il. 13) = contemns by ignoring such in-
junctions (2-6) in practical life, deliber-
ately sets aside their authority. Cf. Isa.
xxiv. 16, 17 f., οὐαὶ τοῖς ἀθετοῦσιν" of
ἀθετοῦντες τὸν νόμον, φόβος καὶ βόθυνος
καὶ παγὶς ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (nor shall any escape:
cf. below on ν. 3). In 2 Sam. xii. gf,
Nathan fixes on the selfishness of David’s
adultery and charges him especially with
despising the commandment of the Lord.
Vv. g-I0. περὶ φιλαδελφίας. One
might have expected that adultery,
especially when viewed as selfish greed
(cf. ver. 6), would have come under
¢., but the latter bears mainly here on
charity and liberality, a Christian impulse
or instinct which seems to have come
more naturally to the Thessalonians than
ethical purity. ‘‘A newcreed, like a new
country, is an unhomely place of sojourn,
but it makes men lean on one another
and join hands” (R. L. Stevenson).
Ver το. Their ἀγάπη was no paro-
chial affection, but neither was it to be
fussy or showy, much less to be made an
excuse for neglecting their ordinary busi-
ness (II, 12); this would discredit them
in the eyes of the busy outside public
(πρὸς = in intercourse or relations with)
and sap their own independence. Such
seems the least violent way of explaining
the transition in καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι K.7.d.
The church was apparently composed, for
the most part, of tradesmen and working
people (χερσὶν ὑμῶν, cf. Renan’s 5. Paul,
246 f.) with their families, but there may
have been some wealthier members,
whose charity was in danger of being
abused. Cf. Demos., Olynth., iii. 35: οὐκ
ἔστιν ὅπου μηδὲν ἐγὼ ποιοῦσιν τὰ τῶν
ποιούντων εἶπον ὡς δεῖ νέμειν, οὐδ᾽ αὐτ-
οὺς μὲν ἀργεῖν καὶ σχολάζειν καὶ ἀπορεῖν.
Ver. 11. ᾧφιλοτ. ἡσυχάζειν (οχγ-
26
i See on
1 Cor. ἐξ 2
xiv. 40. λαμεν" 12. ἵνα περιπατῆτε
k See on x pte
1Cor.v. Sevds χρείαν ἔχητε.
(Heb. v.
12, etc.).
m Cf. note
ΠΡΟΣ @ESSAAONIKEIS A
iva μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς “kai ot "λοιποὶ “οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.
IV.
σειν τὰ ἴδια Kal ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν, καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγεί-
᾿ εὐσχημόνως πρὸς "τοὺς ἔξω kal’ μη-
13. οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων,
14-
οὐ ii. τᾳ. εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη, ἢ οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς
n i.é. pa-
ans asin iS wees
ph. ii. 3, cf. Sap. ii. 1
“then it follows that”.
moron). The prospect of the second ad-
vent (iv. 13 f., v. I-10) seems to have
made some local enthusiasts feel that
it was superfluous for them to go on
working, if the world was to be broken
up immediately. This feverish symptom
occupies Paul more in the diagnosis of
his second letter, but it may have been
present to his mind here. For instances
of this common phase in unbalanced
minds compare the story of Hippolytus
(Comm. Dan., iv. 19) about a Pontic bishop
in the second century who misled his
people by prophesying the advent within
six months, and also a recent outburst of
the same superstition in Tripoli (West-
minster Gazette, Nov., 1899) where ‘“ the
report that the end of the world will
come on November 13” produced “an
amazing state of affairs. The Israelites
are sending their wives to pray in the
synagogues, and most workmen have
ceased work. Debtors refuse to pay their
debts, so that trade is almost paralysed.”
—kal πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια. Plato uses a
similar expression in his Republic, 496 D
(ἡσυχίαν ἔχων καὶ τὰ αὑτοῦ πράττων) ;
Ραξ of the philosopher who withdraws in
despair from the lawlessness of a world
which he is impotent to help (see also
Thompson’s note on Gorg., 526c).
Vv. 13-18. περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων.
Ver. 13. δὲ, after οὐ θέλομεν as a
single expression.—Affection for the liv-
ing has another side, viz., unselfish solici-
tude for the dead. Since Paul left,
some of the Thessalonian Christians had
died, and the survivors were distressed by
the fear that these would have to occupy
a position secondary to those who lived
until the advent of the Lord, or even that
they had passed beyond any such par-
ticipation at all. At Corinth some of
the local Christians felt this anguish so
keenly, on behalf of friends and relatives
who had died outside the church, that
they were in the habit of being baptised
as their representatives, to ensure their
final bliss (1 Cor. xv. 29). The concern
o Cf, Theogn. 567, Iph. Aul. 1250, Sap. ii. 22, iii, 18.
p 4.é.
of the Thessalonians, however, was for
their fellow-Christians, in the intermedi-
ate state of Hades. As the problem had
not arisen during Paul’s stay at Thessa-
lonica, he now offers the church a reason-
able solution of the difficulty (13-18).—
οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, contrast the
οἴδατε of iv. 2, v. 2, and compare the
ordinary epistolary phrases of the papyri
(Expos., 1908, 55) such as γεινώσκειν σε
θέλω (commonly at the beginning of a
letter, cf. Col. ii. 1; Phil, i. 12; 2 Cor.
i. 8, and with ὅτι, but here, as in τ Cor.
xii. I, with περί).---τῶν κοιμωμένων =
the dead in Christ (16), a favourite Jew-
ish euphemism (Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conc.
of Last Things, 247 f., and cf, Fries in
Zeitschrift fur neutest. Wiss. i, 306 f.),
not unknown to Greek and Roman litera-
ture.—ot λοιποὶ, κιτι.λ., cf. Butcher’s
Somc Aspects of the Greek Genius, pp.
153 f., 159 f. Hope is the distinguishing
€ Christi DS ERECT.
n
Ver. 14. Unlike some of the Corin-
thians (1 Cor. xv. 17, 18), the Thessa-
lonians did not doubt the fact of Christ’s
resurrection (et of course implies no
uncertainty). Paul assumes their faith
in it and argues from it. Their vivid and
naive belief in Christ’s advent within
their own lifetime was the very source
of their distress. Paul still shares that
belief (17).---διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is an unusual
expression which might, so far as gram-
mar is concerned, go either with τ. x.
(so. 4.5., Ellic., Alford, Kabisch, Light-
foot, Findlay, Milligan) or ἄξει. The
latter is the preferable construction (so
most editors). The phrase is not needed
(cf. 15) to limit τ. x. to Christians (so
Chrys., Calvin), for the unbelieving dead
are not before the writer’s mind, and,
even so, ἐν would have been the natural
preposition (cf. 16); nor does it mean
martyrdom. In the light of v. 9 (cf.
Rom. v. 9; I Cor. xv. 21), it seems to
connect less awkwardly with ἄξει, though
not = “at the intercession of Jesus”
I2—1I5.
* rods κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ "ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ.
ὑμῖν λέγομεν "ἐν λόγῳ " Κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ " περιλειπό-
μενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου “od pi)’ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμη-
i. 6 and Asc. Isa. iv. 16.
(Beza). t 2 Macc. i. 31, viii. 14, etc.
(Rutherford). Jesus is God’s agent wn
the final act, commissioned to raise and
muster the dead (cf, Stahelin, ¥ahrb. f.
ῬΑ Theol., 1874, τ80 f., and Schettler,
57 1). The divine mission of the Christ,
which is to form the climax of things,
involves the resurrection of the dead
who are His (v. το). Any general resur-
rection is out of the question (so Did.,
xvi. 6: ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν" οὐ πάντων
δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐρρέθη, ἥξει ὁ Κύριος καὶ
πάντες of ἅγιοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ).
Ver. 15. κυρίου. On the tendency of
the N.T. writers to reserve κύριος, with
its O,T. predicates of divine authority, for
Jesus, cf. Kattenbusch, of. cit., ii. 522.
Paul’s use of the term goes back to
Christ’s own claim to κύριος in the higher
sense of Mark xii. 35 f.—Aéyopev. Con-
trast the οἴδατε of v. 2 and the language
of iv. τ. Evidently Paul had not had
time or occasion to speak of such a con-
tingency, when he was with them.—év
λόγῳ κυρίου may mean either (a) a quota-
tion (like Acts xx. 35) from the sayings of
Jesus, or (δ) a prophetic revelation vouch-
safed to Paul himself, or to Silvanus (cf.
Acts xv. 32). In the former case (so,
among modern editors, Schott, Ewald,
Drummond, Wohl.), an ἄγραφον is cited
(Calvin, Koch, Weizsacker, Resch, Paul-
inismus, 238 f.; Ropes, die Spriiche Fesu,
153 f.; M. Goguel; van der Vies, 15-17;
O. Holtzmann, Life of f¥esus, 10; von
Soden) but it is evidently given in a free
form, and the precise words cannot (even
in ver. 16) be disentangled. Besides we
should expect τινι to be added. Unless,
therefore, we are to think of a primitive
collection (Lake, Amer. ¥ourn. Theol.,
1906, 108 f.) or of some oral tradition,
(6) is preferable. The contents of Matt.
xxiv. 31 (part of the small apocalypse)
are too dissimilar to favour the conjecture
(Pelt, Zimmer, Weiss) that Paul was
thinking of this saying as current per-
haps in oral tradition, and the O.T. an-
alogy of λόγος Κυρίου ( = God’s pro-
phetic word), together with the internal
probabilities of the case (Paul does not
remind them of it, as elsewhere in the
epistle) make it on the whole more likely
ΠΡΟΣ OESSAAONIKEIS A
37
= “ those
who have
fallen
asleep”
(Moult. i.
162).
r. Cf, Heb.
15. τοῦτο γὰρ
s LXX of 1 Kings xx. 35, " Domini nomine et quasi eo loquente”
u “by no means” (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 13).
v Sap. vi. 13, etc.
that Paul is repeating words heard in a
vision (cf. 2 Cor. xii. 9; so Chryst.,
Theod., etc., followed by Alford, de
Wette, Ellicott, Dods, Liinemann, Go-
det, Paret: Paulus und Fesus, 53 f.,
Simon: die Psychologie des Ap. Paulus,
100, Findlay, Lightfoot, Milligan, Lue-
ken). Cf. the discussion in Knowling’s
Witness of the Epistles, 408 f., and Feine’s
Fesus Christus u. Paulus, 178,179. Later
in the century a similar difficulty vexed
the pious Jew who wrote Fourth Esdras
(v. 41, 42: I said, But lo, O Lord, thou
hast made the promise to those who shall
be in the end: and what shall they do
that have been beforeus ...? And He
said to me, I will liken my judgment toa
ring ; as there is no slackness of those
who are last, so shall there be no swiftness
of those who are first). His theory
is that the previous generations of Israel
will be as well off as their posterity in the
latter days. Further on (xiii. 14 f.) he
raises and answers the question whether
it was better to die before the last days
or to live until they came (the phrase,
those that are left, * qui relicti sunt,” vii.
28 = Paul’s οἱ περιλειπόμενοι. His
solution (which Steck, in ¥ahrb. fir
prot. Theol,, 1883, 509-524, oddly regards
as the λόγος x. of τ Thess. iv. 15; see
Schmidt’s refutation, pp. 107-110) is the
opposite of Paul’s: those who are left are
more blessed than those who have died.
If this difficulty was felt in Jewish circles
during the first half of the century, it
may have affected those of the Thessa-
lonian Christians who had been formerly
connected with the synagogue, but the
likelihood is that Paul’s language is
coloured by his own Jewish training (cf.
Charles on Asc. Isa., iv. 15). The mis-
understanding of the Thessalonians,
which had led to their sorrow and per-
plexity, was evidently due to the fact
that, for some reason or another, Paul
had not mentioned the possibility of any
Christians dying before the second ad-
vent (so sure was he that all would soon
survive it), coupled with the fact that
Greeks found it hard to grasp what ex-
actly resurrection meant (cf. Acts xvii.
32) for Christians.
28
w Cf. iii.
Ir; not
XXiV. 91.
x Jude og:
to sum-
mon the
angels?
(iii. 13).
y 1 Cor. xv. μεθα.
2, from
joa ii. r
LXX); of. 4 Esd. vi. 23, etc.
c v. 10, II. i. 7; 2 Cor. iv. 14.
as in Mt, xxv. I. f Burton, M.T. 237.
81, etc. i 4.€. 15-17.
Ver. 16, κελεύσματι = the loud sum-
mons which was to muster the saints (so
in Philo, De praem. et poen., 19: καθάπερ
οὖν ἀνθρώπους ἐν ἐσχατιαῖς ἀπῳκισμ-
ένους ῥᾳδίως ἑνὶ κελεύσματι συναγάγοι ὁ
θεὸς ἀπὸ περάτων εἰς ὅ τι ἂν θελήσῃ
χωρίον), forms, as its lack of any genitive
shows, one conception with the φ. a.
and the o. @. (cf. DCG, ii. 766). The
archangel is Michael, who in Jewish
tradition not only summoned the angels
but sounded a trumpet to herald God’s
approach for judgment (e¢.g., in Afpoc.
Mosis, xxii.). With such scenic and real-
istic details, drawn from the heterogene-
ous eschatology of the later Judaism,
to_his
Paul seeks. to make intelligible
own mi to that of hi .
quite an_original fashion cf. Stahelin,
ahrb. f. deut. Theol.,
1874, Pp. 199-
218), the profound truth that neither death
nor any cosmic crisis in the future will
make any essential difference to the close.
eat ΠΡΎΣ οἱ το ῦτε i hi
Lord, Οὕτω πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα
(cf. v. 11; 2 Cor. v. 8; Phil. i. 20) : this is all
that remains to us, in our truer view of
the universe, from the naive λόγος κυρίου
of the apostle, but it is everything.
Note that Paul says nothing here about
any change of the body (Teichmann,
35 f.), or about the embodiment of the
risen life in its celestial δόξα. See
Asc. Isa., iv. 14-15: ‘*And the Lord will
come with His holy angels and with the
armies of the holy ones from the seventh
heaven ...and He will give rest to
the godly whom He shall find in the
body in this world.”
Ver. 17. ἐν νεφέλαις, the ordinary
method of sudden rapture or ascension to
heaven (Acts i. 9, 11; Rev. xi. 12; Slav.
En. ui. 1, 2).---ρπαγησόμεθα. So in
Sap. iv. τι, the righteous man, εὐάρεστος
τῷ θεῷ (1 Thess. iv. 1) γενόμενος ἠγα-
πήθη (τ Thess, i. 4), is caught up
(ἡρπάγη).---ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς. .. σὺν
Κυρίῳ, the future bliss is a re-union of
ΠΡΟΣ OESZAAONIKEIS A
z 1 Cor. xv. 15.
ἃ Post-classical form, Win. § 13, 10 cf. Sap. iv. 10.
IV. 16—18.
θέντας - 16. ὅτι "αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ * ἀρχαγγέλου
καὶ ἐν ᾽ σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ * οἱ νεκροὶ " ἐν
“Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον" 17. " ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες, οἱ
περιλειπόμενοι, “ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἅ ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς
ἀπάντησιν “ τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα, καὶ οὕτω πάντοτε σὺν Κυρίῳ ἐσό-
18. ‘dare * παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους "ev τοῖς λόγοις ! τούτοις.
a Blass, ὃ 47, 7. ὍΣ Cor. xv.7, 23.
e Genitive
Φ Ve II, is-17: Instrumental, as 1 Cor. iv.
Christians not only with Christ but with
one another.—eis ἀπάντησιν, a pre-
Christian phrase of the koiné (cf. eg.,
Tebtunis Papyri, 1902, pt. i., n. 43, 7,
παρεγενήθημεν εἰς ἀπάντησιν, K.T.A., and
Moulton, i. 14), implying welcome of a
great person on his arrival. What fur-
ther functions are assigned to the saints,
thus incorporated in the retinue of the
Lord (iii. 13; cf 2 Thess. i. 10),—
whether, ¢.g., they are to sit as assessors
at the judgment (Sap. iii. 8; 1 Cor. vi. 2,
3; Luke xxii. 30)—Paul does not stop to
state here. His aim is to reassure the
¢ i ects. of
thei
to give any c
future (so Matt. xxiv. 31; Did. x., xvi.).
Plainly, however, the saints do not rise
at once to heaven, but return with the
Lord to the scene of his final manifesta-
tion on earth (so Chrysost., Aug., εἴς).
They simply meet the Lord in the air, on
his way to judgment—a trait for which
no Jewish parallel can be found.—kat
οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα (no
more sleeping in him or waiting for
him).
Ver. 18. ἐν Tots λόγοις τούτοις. Paul
had an intelligible word upon the future,
unlike the Hellenic mysteries which
usually made religion a matter of feel-
ing rather than of definite teaching
(Hardie’s Lect. on Classical Subjects,
pp. 53f.). A pagan letter of consolation
has been preserved from the second
century (Oxyrh. Papyri, i. 115): ‘* Eirene
to Taonnophris and Philon good cheer!
I was as grieved and wept as much over
Eumoiros as over Didymas, and I did all
that was fitting, as did all my family.
. . . But still we can do nothing in such
a case. So comfort yourselves. Good-
bye.” One of Cicero’s pathetic letters
(ad. Fam., xiv. 2), written from Thessa-
lonica, speaks doubtfully of any re-union
after death (“‘haec non sunt in manu
nostra”).
Vv. 5. ΠΡΟΣ SESSAAONIKEIS A
39
V. 1. Περὶ δὲ τῶν " χρόνων καὶ τῶν " καιρῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ ἢ χρείαν a See on
ρ ΧΡ ρ » ΧΡ i
Ξ ΟΞ arenes x es Ἂν τ ἀν το Acts i. 7.
ἔχετε ὑμῖν γράφεσθαι - 2. " αὐτοὶ γὰρ “ ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι “ ἡμέρα b Cf. iv. 9.
Η e ‘ φ Ε t¢? 1 ς Cf. on el
Κυρίου " ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται: 3. ἦ ὅταν 1 λέγωσιν: Acts xviii
= 25.
**€ Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια, ἡ τότε ἢ αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ᾿ ἐπίσταται * ὄλε- ἃ Without
a article as
θρος 'owep ἡ ™ ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ, καὶ " οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν. in Phil. i.
a ne hte 6, το, ii.
4. ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν “ σκότει Piva ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς τὸ
κλέπτας 2 καταλάβῃ " 5. πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς " υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱο" ® alata
Saying in
718 £ Cf.rC Ezek. xili HER ἐς ΤΟΣ
39; cf. Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15. ἮΙ Cor.xv. 54. ΚΕ, Ezek. xiii. 10, XXi. 34. i Win.
ἃ 5, 10,c.; Sap. vi. 5. k “ Destruction” (II. i. 9). 1 Cf. En. 1xii. 4. m On form, cf.
Win. § 9, Io. n iv. 15; cf. Ps. Sol. xv. 9, and above on iv. 8. o Rom. ii. 19; cf. Hom.
Iliad, iii, το, κλέπτῃ δέ τε νυκτὸς ἀμείνω. p Conceived result (cf. Burton, M.T., 218-219) τε "" 86
that”. q Emphatic. τ From Lk. xvi. 8 (cf. En. cviii. 11)?
1 To the original asyndeton of οταν (SQ*AG, 17, 44, 47, 179, d, e, f, g, Syr.sch,
arm., aeth., Tert., Cyp., Jer., Orig., etc. ; so edd.), either yap (KLP, vg. Euthal.,
Dam.), or δε (\¥cBD, cop., Syr.p, Eus., Chrys., Theod., Schott, Findlay, WH marg.)
has been subsequently added. For woe p ἡ ὡδιν, Bentl. conj. ὠὡσπερει wS.ves.
2 «xXewtas (AB cop., so Bentl., Grot., Koch, Ewald, Renan, Jowett, Rutherford,
Lach., WH, Left.), seems to be smoothed away in the strongly attested variant and
correction κλεπτῆς (from ver. 2). Field (200-201) cites instances from Plutarch (e.g.,
Vit. Crassi, xxix., τὸν 8€ Κρασσον ἡμερα κατελαβεν) and Pausanias, to illustrate
nocturnal operations being surprised by the advent of the dawn. ‘7
word (κλεπτης) is still in his ears; to avoid repetition, he changes its use.
the reading κλεπτας gives a point to vot φωτος ” (Jowett).
“The echo of the
Lastly,
For another instance of
AB preserving the original reading, cf. Eph. i. 20.
CHAPTER V.—Vv. I-11.
χρόνων Kal τῶν καιρῶν.
Ver. 1. The times and periods are not
‘simply the broad course of time, of
which the ἡμέρα Κυρίον constitutes the
closing scene” (Baur) ; καιρός denotes
a section of time more definitely than
χρόνος, in Greek usage. “No nation
has distinguished so subtly the different
forms under which time can be logically
conceived. Χρόνος is time viewed in its
extension, as a succession of moments,
the external framework of action. ...
Καιρός, a word, which has, I believe,
no single or precise eqivalent in any
other language ... is that immediate
present which is what we make it; time
charged with opportunity’’ (Butcher,
Harvard Lect. on Gk. Subjects, pp. 117-
110). In the plural, especially in this
eschatological outlook, the phrase is little
more, however, than a periphrasis for
“when exactly things are to happen”.
Paul thought he needed to do no more
than reiterate the suddenness of the Last
Day. But, not long afterwards, he found
that the Thessalonians did require to have
the χρόνοι καὶ καιροί explained to them
in outline (II., ii. 2 f.).
Ver. 2. οἴδατε, referring to the teach-
ing of Jesus on this crucial point, which
Paul had transmitted to them (see Intro-
duction). >
περὶ τῶν
Ver. 3. ὅταν, κιτιλ., when the very
words, ‘ All’s well,” “ It is all right,” are
on their lips.—émiorarat, of an enemy
suddenly appearng (Isocrat., Evag.,
8 58 ἐπὶ τὸ βασίλειον ἐπιστάς, Herod.
iv. 203).—avrots, i.¢., while the Day
comes suddenly to Christians and un-
believers alike, only the latter are sur-
prised by it. Christians are on the alert,
open-eyed; they do not know when it
is to come, but they are alive to any
signs of itscoming. Thus there is no
incompatibility between this emphasis
on the instantaneous character of the
advent and the emphasis, in 11., ii. 3 ἢ,
on the preliminary conditions.
Ver. 4. From the sudden and unex-
pected nature of the Last Day, Paul
passes, by a characteristic inversion of
metaphor in κλέπτας, to a play of thought
upon the day as light. A double sym-
bolism of ἡμέρα, as of κοιμᾶσθαι, thus
pervades 4-8. Lightfoot cites a very
striking parallel from Eur., [ph. Taur.,
1025-1026.
Ver. 5. The present age is utter night
(τὸ sb>v), as contemporary
rabbis taught; the age to come is all day.
Meantime faith is to be held fast through
this night (cf. passages quoted in Schlat-
ter’s die Sprache u. Heimat des vierten
Evangelisien, 17, 18). viol φ. καὶ ὑ.
40
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A
Vv.
6 “Apa "οὖν ph "Ka-
: Si .. ἡμέρας " οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς " οὐδὲ σκότους.
. “ἴα,
155 of. x εὐδωμεν ὡς ot “ἥ λοιποί ἀλλὰ “ γρηγορῶμεν Kal ᾿νήφωμεν. 7. οἱ
om. Vv.
τὸ τες γὰρ καθεύδοντες νυκτὸς καθεύδουσι - καὶ οἱ 7 μεθυσκόμενοι νυκτὸς
u . On a
Eph.v.14. μεθύουσιν - 8. "ἡμεῖς δὲ "ἡμέρας ὄντες νήφωμεν, " ἐνδυσάμενοι
ν iv. 13.
w Cfonr “θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ περικεφαλαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας"
Cor. xvi. a
13; Με. 9. ὅτι οὐκ “Beto "ἡμᾶς ὃ Θεὸς εἰς “ὀργήν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς " περιποίησιν
XXiv. 42. , A , ae od A a a
x Seeonr σωτηρίας διὰ Tod Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 10. τοῦ ἀποθαν-
Pet. ν. 8. τ ν ς- κα J h _», - 3 a ig
y Win. § ὄντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, iva “eite γρηγορῶμεν, etre καθευδῶμεν, ‘apa σὺν
z Eph. vi, αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν. 11. διὸ " παρακαλεῖτς ἀλλήλους Kal οἰκοδομεῖτε
Rom ‘ii. εἷς τὸν ἕνα, καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε.
ΣΙ f;
a Constr. ; A
τὲ Win. § 30, 11, Ὁ. b Isa. lix. 17. c Cf. on Eph. vi. 14=“ coat of mail”. d x Pet. ii. 8.
e Emphatic, as opposed to οἱ λοιποί. Το τὸς g Cf. on Eph. i. 14; here active (= possess.)
as in II. ii. 14. Heb. x. 39.
k iv. 18,
ἡμέρας is a stronger and Semitic way of
expressing the. thought of ‘ belonging
to” (cf. ver. 8).
Ver. 6. To be alert, in one’s sober
benses (νήφειν), is more than to be
merely awake. Here, as in verse 8, the
Christians are summoned to live up to
their privileges and position towards the
Lord. ‘There are few of us who are
not rather ashamed of our sins and follies
as we look out on the blessed morning
sunlight, which comes to us like a bright-
winged angel beckoning us to quit the
old path of vanity that stretches its
dreary length behind us” (George Eliot).
In one of the Zoroastrian scriptures
(Vendidad, xviii. 23-25) the cock, as the
bird of the dawn, is inspired to cry, ‘‘ Arise,
Omen! ... Lo here is Bushyasta com-
ing down upon you, who lulls to sleep
again the whole living world as soon as
it has awoke, saying, ‘Sleep, sleep on,
O man [and live in sin, Yasht, xxii. 41]!
The time is not yet come.’ ”’
Ver. 7. Cf. Plutarch, De Istde, vi.,
Οἶνον δὲ of μὲν ἐν Ἥλιου πόλει θερα-
πεύοντες τὸν θεὸν οὐκ εἰσφέρουσιν τοπα-
ράπαν εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, ὡς οὐ προσῆκον ἡμέ-
ρας πίνειν, τοῦ κυρίου καὶ βασιλέως
ἐφορῶντος.
Ver. 8. ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα κ.τ.λ.»
the thought of ii. 12. 13 ; the mutual love
of Christians, which forms the practical
expression of their faith in God, is their
true fitness and equipment for the second
advent. Faith and love are a unity;
where the one goes the other follows.
They are also not merely their own coat
of mail, requiring no extraneous protec-
tion, but the sole protection of life against
indolence, indifference and indulgence.
They need simply to be used. If they
h Cf. for syntax, Rom. xiv. 8; Burton, M.T., 252-253.
1 unclassical, Blass, ὃ 45, 2; cf. 1 Cor. v. 6.
i iv. 17.
are not used, they are lost, and with them
the Christian himself. The transition to
the military metaphor is mediated (as in
Rom. xiii, 12, 13) by the idea of the
sentry’s typical vigilance.
Ver. 9. The mention of the future
σωτηρία starts Paul off, for a moment,
on what it involves (9, 10).
Ver. το. Life or death makes no dif-
ference to the Christian’s union and
fellowship with Jesus Christ, whose death
was in our eternal interests (cf. Rom. xiv.
7-9). For this metaphorical use of ypny.
εἴτε καθ. (different from that in 6), Wohl.
cites Plato, Symp., 203a : διὰ τούτου (i.e.
Eros) πᾶσα ἐστιν ἡ ὁμιλία καὶ ἡ διά-
λεκτος θεοῖς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ ἐγρη-
γορόσι καὶ καθεύδουσιν, as a possible
basis.
Ver. 11. The modification in the
primitive attitude of Christians to the
Parousia of Jesus is significant. Instead
of all expecting to be alive at that blessed
crisis, the inroads of death had now forced
men to the higher consolation that “it
did not make the least difference whether
one became partaker of the blessings of
that event in the ranks of the dead or of
the living. The question whether the
Parousia was to happen sooner or later
was no longer of paramount importance.
The important thing was to cultivate
that attitude of mind which the writer
of this epistle recommended” (Baur).—
οἰκοδομεῖτε, the term sums up all the
support and guidance that a Christian
receives from the fellowship of the church
(cf. Beyschlag’s N.T. Theology, ii. 232).
--καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε, another instance
(cf. iv. 1, 10) of Paul’s fine courtesy
and tact. He is careful to recog-
nise the Thessalonians’ attainments,
6—17.
$2. ™ ᾿ῬἘρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ,
ὑμῖν καὶ "προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ καὶ “νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς, 13.
καὶ " ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκπερισσῶς ἐν ἀγάπῃ διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτών.
14. "παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, Ign.
"εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A
41
π εἰδέναι τοὺς 5 κοπιῶντας ἐν m iv. 1, II
ll
ae
n Cf. Ps.
cxliv. 3
1 Cor.
xvi. 18
Smyrn. ix.
νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτάκτους, ” παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς * ὀλιγοψύχους, ἀντέ- o Gal. iv.
χεσθε τῶν ἀσθενών, 7 μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας.
τις "κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινὶ ἀποδῷ - ἀλλὰ πάντοτε τὸ ἢ" ἀγαθὸν διώ-
113; ἃ Οδει
uy 10.
p Cf. on
Rom.
15. ὁρᾶτε "μή
xii. 8.
κετε εἰς ἀλλήλους Kal εἰς πάντας. τό. πάντοτε “χαίρετε, 17. “ABta-q Sce on
r Phil. ii. 3; of. Thuc. iv. 5, εἰς.
iv. 14.
u Cf. 11. 11.
(so Plato, Gorg. 465 c).
x Exod. vi.g; Isa. lvii. 15; Sir. vil. 10, and Ps. Sol. xvi. 11. ©
a Prov. xx. 22 (Matt. v.44); Rom. xii.17. ἢ
ς Paul’s practice, 2 Cor. vi. 10; cf. Phil. iv. 4; Rom. xii. 12, and Col.i. 11.
clause (Burton, M.T. 209).
and helpful.”
Acts xx.
31; 1 Cor.
s Mk. ix. 50; 2 Cor. xiii. rz. t Ξ- ἀλλήλοις.
v Xen. Mem. III. i. 7. w ii, 11; Joh. xi. 19. 31.
y Seeon1 Cor. xiii.4. | z Object.
b =“ What is kind
d i. 3; cf. Ign. Eph. x.; Herm, Sim. ix. 11,7; Ep. Arist. 226 (τὸν Θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διαπαντός).
even while stirring them up to further
efforts.
Vv. 12-22. General instructions for
the church.
Ver. 12. These προΐϊστάμενοι are not
officials but simply local Christians like
Jason, Secundus, and perhaps Demas (in
whose houses the Christians met), who,
on account of their capacities or position,
had informally taken the lead and made
themselves responsible for the welfare
and worship of the new society. The
organisation is quite primitive, and the
triple description of these men’s functions
is too general to permit any precise de-
lineation of their duties (cf. Lindsay’s
The Church and the Ministry in the Early
Centuries, pp. 122f.). κοπιῶντας denotes
the energy and practical interest of these
people, which is further defined by προΐ-
σταμένους (a term with technical associa-
tions, to which ἐν κυρίῳ is added in order
to show that their authority rests on re-
ligious services) and νουθετοῦντας ( = the
moral discipline, perhaps of catechists,
teachers and prophets). An instinct ot
rebellion against authority is not confined
to any one class, but artisans and trades-
men are notorious for a tendency to suspect
or depreciate any control exercised over
them in politics or in religion, especially
when it is exercised by some who have
risen from their own ranks. The com-
munity at Thessalonica was largely re-
cruited from this class, and Paul, with
characteristic penetration, appeals for
respect and generous appreciation towards
the local leaders.
Ver. 13. “Regard them with a very
special love for their works’ sake” (so
thorough and important it is). ‘‘Be at
peace among yourselves” (instead of
introducing divisions and disorder by any
insubordination or carping).
Ver. 14. The particular form of in-
subordination at. Thessalonica was idle-
ness (for the contemporary use of ar. in
this sense, see Oxyrh. Papyri, ii. 1901,
p- 275). Similarly, in Olynth. iii. 11,
Demosthenes denounces all efforts made
to shield from punishment τοὺς drax-
τοῦντας, 4.¢., those citizens who shirk ac-
tive service and evade the State’s call for
troops.—éAtyotxous = “‘ faint-hearted ”
(under trial, i. 6, see references), avré-
χεσθε (cleave to, put your arm round),
ἀσθενῶν (ἰ.6., not in health only but
in faith or position, Acts xx. 35), pax.
π. wavras=do not lose temper or
patience with any (of the foregoing
classes) however unreasonable and exact-
ing they may be (cf. Prov. xviii. 14, LXX).
The mutual services of the community
are evidently not to be left to the mpoio-
τάμενοι, for Paul here urges on the rank
and file the same kind of social duties as
he implies were incumbent upon their
leaders (cf. vovOer. 12,14). If ἀδελφοί
here meant the mpotordpevor, it would
have been more specificially defined.
An antithesis between 12 and 14 would
be credible in a speech, not in a letter.
Ver. 15. The special circumstances
which called for forbearance (ver. 14) were
likely to develop a disposition to retaliate
upon those who displayed an ungenerous
and insubordinate spirit (e.g., the ἄτα-
xtot); but the injunction has a wider
range (εἰς πάντας, including their fellow-
countrymen, ii. 14).
Ver. 16. Tocomment adequately upon
these diamond drops (16-18) would be to
outline a history of the Christian experi-
ence in its higher levels. π᾿ χαίρετε, cf.
Epict., i. 16 (‘‘ Had we understanding,
ought we to do anything but sing hymns
and bless the Deity and tell of His bene-
fits? . . . What else can I do, a lame
40
t Cf.
15; cfr Eur
Rom. ν.
18, etc.
u Cf. on
Eph.v.14
v iv, το
wc:
as
ιν. 3.
ἢ For ab-
sence of article in this constr. see Field, 59-60 on the similar usage in Lk. vii. 30.
over”: μὴ with pres. imper. implies action already begun Moult. i. 122 f.
τς 70. νον:
i. 5, αῃὰ οὐ. τ Cor. xiv. 1.
(Job i. 1, 8, ii. 3).
q ii. 11, iv. 16.
Ὁ =“form” or “sort” (so Jos. Ant. x. 3).
r Only here (N.T.), = ὅλους (through and through).
ΠΡΟΣ OESSAAONIKEIS A ν.
eles ii pee προσεύχεσθε, 18. °év παντὶ ᾿ εὐχαριστεῖτε: “τοῦτο yap
jpa Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἢ" εἰς ὑμᾶς.
ἡέννυτε, 20. προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε - 21. πάντα 1 δὲ ᾿'δοκιμάζετε,
ὁ ἢ καλὸν κατέχετε" 22. ἢ ἀπὸ παντὸς ° εἴδους πονηροῦ ἢ ἀπέχεσθε.
23. ἸΑὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς " ὁλοτελεῖς - καὶ
19. τὸ πνεῦμα * ph
i ‘‘Give
k Contrast 2 Tim.
m 2 Cor. xiii. 7; Phil. i. ro. n Like Job
Pav. 35 ¢f. ΒΒ] αι σος
1 After wavra edd. add the disjunctive δὲ (with almost all MSS. and vss., also
Clem., Alex., Paed. iii. 12, 95, exc. δ᾿ ΔΑ, cop., sy™.sch), which became absorbed by
the first syllable of the following word. Blass (after K, min., etc.) δοκιμαΐζοντες.
old man, than sing hymns to God? ...
I exhort you to join in this same song.”’)
There is a thread of connection with the
foregoing counsel. The unswerving aim
of being good and doing good to all men,
is bound up with that faith in God’s un-
failing goodness to men which enables
the Christian cheerfully to accept the
disappointments and sufferings of social
life. This faith can only be held by
prayer, i.¢., a constant reference of all
life’s course to God, and such prayer must
be more than mere resignation; it im-
plies a spirit of unfailing gratitude to
God, instead of any suspicious or rebel-
lious attitude.
Ver. 17. ‘' Pray always, says the
Apostle; that is, have the habit of prayer,
turning your thoughts into acts by con-
necting them with the idea of the redeem-
ing God” (Coleridge, Notes on the Book
of Common Prayer), cp. iii. 11, v. 23.
Ver. 18. Chrysostom, who wrote : τὸ
Gel δηλονότι εὐχαριστεῖν, τοῦτο φιλοσό-
gov ψυχῆς, gave a practical illustration
of this heroic temper by repeating, as he
died in the extreme hardships of an en-
forced and painful exile, δόξα τῷ θεῷ
πάντων ἕνεκα. For thanksgiving even
in bereavement, cf. Aug., Conf., ix. 12;
and further, zbid., ix. 7 (tunc hymni et
psalmi ut canerentur, secundum morem
Orientalium partium, ne populus maeroris
taedio contabesceret, institutum est).
Ver. 19. τοῦτο x.t.A. The primary
reference is to εὐχαριστεῖτε, but the pre-
ceding imperatives are so closely bound
up with this, that it is needless to exclude
them from the scope of the 6éAnpa.—év
X.°l. This glad acceptance of life’s rain
and sunshine alike as from the hand of
God, Jesus not only exemplified (cf. con-
text of μιμηταὶ... τοῦ Κυρίου, i. 6)
but also enabled all who keep in touch
with him to realise. The basis of it
is the Christian revelation and experi-
ence; apart from the living Lord it is
neither conceivable nor practicable (cf.
R. H. Hutton’s Modern Guides of English
Thought, pp. 122 f.).
Ver. 20. As εὐχαριστεῖν was a special
function of the prophets in early Chris-
tian worship (cf. Did. x. 7), the transition
is natural. The local abuses of ecstatic
prophecy in prediction (2 Thess. ii. 2) or
what seem to be exaggerated counsels
of perfection (ver. 16 f.) must not be al-
lowed to provoke any reaction which
would depreciate and extinguish this vital
gift or function of the faith. Paul, with
characteristic sanity, holds the balance
even. Such enthusiastic outbursts are
neither to be despised as silly vapouring
nor to be accepted blindly as infallible
revelations. The true criticism of mpo-
φητεία comes (ver. 21) from the Christian
conscience which is sensitive to the καλόν,
the συμφέρον, the οἰκοδομή, or the
ἀναλογία τῆς πίστεως (cf. Weizsacker’s
Apost. Age, ii. 270 f.). But this criticism
must be positive. In applying the stand-
ard of spiritual discernment, it must sift,
not for the mere pleasure of rejecting the
erroneous but with the object of retaining
what is genuine.
Ver. 22. A further general precept,
added to bring out the negative side of
κατέχετε, κ.τ.λ.---πονηροῦ neut. abstract
= “of wickedness,” as Gen. ii. 9 (τοῦ
εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ .---
παντὸς «.7.X., perhaps an allusion to the
manifold ways of going wrong (Arist.,
Nik.| Eth., ii. 6 14, τὸ μὲν ἁμαρτάνειν
πολλαχῶς ἐστίν . .. τὸ δὲ κατορθοῦν
μοναχῶς).
Ver. 23. εἰρήνης, with a special allu-
sion to the breaches of harmony and
charity produced by vice (cf. connection
of iii. 12, 13 and iv. 3 f.), indolence, im-
patience of authority or of defects in one
18—28, ΠΡΟΣ OESZSAAONIKEISZ A
41
"ὁλόκληρον ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ "σῶμα ἀμέμπτιντας ἐν m iv. 1, II
Cf. Ps.
- , an , ε Lal > aA An , u -
υ ὃ - 13.2
τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμών ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τηρηθείη. 24. “ τὶ 3 aes
τὸς ὁ ᾿ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ὃς καὶ ™ ποιήσει. γῶν. sha
25. ᾿Αδελφοὶ, " προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμών. 26. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ‘ Loa Bs
ἀδελφοὺς πάντας ἐν 7 φιλήματι * ἁγίῳ. t &.. ἢ iv.
4 ea Ν , a iii. 21. or.
27. ἐνορκίζω 1 ὑμᾶς " τὸν Κύριον, ἢ ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν " ἐπιστολὴν α See
πᾶσι τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. ΠῚ =
28. % χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθ᾽ ὑμών. Sore
v See on1
Cor. i. 9.
w As Num. xxiii. 19; Ps. xxxvii. 5 (LXX).
1 Cor. xvi. 20; and Justin’s Apol. i. 65.
Acts xix. 13.
z Clem. Alex. Paed. III. ii. 81.
b Lk. iv. 16; Acts xv. 21; 2 Cor. iii. 15; Col. iv. 16.
x Ver. 17, II. iii. x. y See on Rom. xvi. 16;
a For constr. cf.
ΕἼ τ τος
1 Read evopxitw {only here N.T., = “adjure,” strengthened form of ορκιζω] with
ABD*, min., Euth., Dam. (edd.).
But om. aytois before αδελφοις with N*BDG,
min., d, e, f, g, aeth., Euth., Amb., Cassiod. (edd., exc. de Wette, Koch, Ellic.,
Weiss) ; the addition of aytots, like the omission of πασι, “entspringt vielleicht dem
hierarchischen Interesse, die Bibel nicht Allen zuganglich zu machen ” (Zimmer).
another (v. 13 f.), retaliation (v. 15), and
differences of opinion (v. 19 ἢ) Such
faults affect the σῶμα, the ψυχή and the
πνεῦμα respectively, as the sphere of that
pure and holy consciousness whose out-
come is εἰρήνη.---ὁμῶν, unemphatic geni-
tive (as in iii. 10, 13, cf. Abbott’s ¥ohan-
nine Grammar, 2559a) throwing the em-
phasis on the following word or words.
πνεῦμα is put first, as the element in
human nature which Paul held to be
most directly allied to God, while ψυχή
denotes as usual the individual life. The
collocation of these terms is unusual but
of course quite untechnical.—épéparrws
has almost a proleptic tinge = ‘ preserved
entire, (so as to be) blameless at the ar-
rival of,” which has led to the substitu-
tion, in some inferior MSS., of εὑρεθείη
for τηρηθείη (cf. textual discussion in
Amer. Four. Theol., 1903, 453 f.). The
construction is rather awkward, but the
general sense is clear, With thethought
of the whole verse compare Ps. Sol. xviii.
6: καθαρίσαι ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραὴλ . .. εἰς
ἡμέραν ἐκλογῆς ἐν ἀνάξει Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ,
also the description of Abraham being
preserved by the divine σοφία in Sap.
x. 5 (ἐτήρησεν αὐτὸν ἄμεμπτον θεῷ).
Ver. 24. The call implies that God
will faithfully carry out the process of
ἁγιάζεσθαι and τηρεῖσθαι (cf. Phil. i. 6),
which is the divine side of the human
endeavour outlined in the preceding verse.
Vv. 25-27. Closing words of counsel
and prayer.
Ver. 26. Neither here, nor above at
ver. 14, is there any reason to suppose
that Paul turns to address the leaders of
the local church (so e¢.g., Bornemann,
Ellicott, Alford, Askwith, Zimmer, Light-
foot, Weiss, Findlay) as though they
were, in the name of the apostle(s), to
convey the holy (i.e. not of convention or
human passion) kiss, which betokened
mutual affection (cf. Renan’s S. Paul,
262, DCG. i. 935, and E. Bi. 4254) in the
early Christian worship. This greeting
by proxy is not so natural as the ordinary
sense of the words; the substitution of
τ. &. π. for the more common ἀλλήλους
is intelligible in the light, ¢.g., cf. Phil.
iv. 21; and it would be harsh to postulate
so sharp a transition from the general
reference of v. 25 and v. 28. Even in
ver. 27 it is not necessary to think of the
local leaders. While the epistle would
naturally be handed to some of them in
the first instance, it was addressed to the
church; the church owned it and was
held responsible for its public reading at
the weekly worship.—aowv, like the
πάντας of ver. 26, simply shows Paul’s
desire to prevent the church from becom-
ing, on any pretext, a clique or coterie.
But the remarkable emphasis of the in-
junction points to a period when such
public reading of an apostolic epistle
was not yet a recognised feature in the
worship of the churches. Paul lays
stress upon the proper use of his epistle,
as being meant not for a special set, but
for the entire brotherhood (i.e., at Thes-
salonica, not, as Flatt thinks, in Mace-
donia). See that every member gets a
hearing of it at some meeting or other
(avay., timeless aor.), and thus knows
exactly what has been said. So Afoc.
Bar. \xxxvi.: ‘‘ when therefore ye receive
this my epistle, read it in your congre-
gations with care. And meditate thereon,
above all on the days of your fasts.”
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β
ΟΥ. 1.1.1. I. 1. *MAYAOX καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλο-
8
b Cf. 1 Cor.
XXXviii.
νικέων ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἡμών καὶ Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" 2. χάρις ὑμῖν
καὶ " εἰρήνη " ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς 1 καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ἢ Χριστοῦ.
3. "εὐχαριστεῖν “ ὀφείλομεν τῷ Θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμών, ἀδελφοί,
.. Cf : Ἶ ᾿
gee (καθὼς * ἄξιόν ἐστιν) ὅτι " ὑπεραυξάνει ἡ πίστις ὑμών Kat * πλεονάζει
iii. 16, iv.
II.
d See on 1
Cor. xvi.
Ὁ ἡμᾶς ἐν ὑμῖν ' ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς
ἡ ὅδ ἀγάπη ἑνὸς ἑκάστου πάντων ὑμών εἰς ἀλλήλους - 4. ὥστε αὐτοὺς
* ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ
4and a ς a con Q , A a a 4 τὰς a
Phil, i. 7, τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ
e Only here
in N.T.
f 2 Pet. i. 8.
with inf. as in I
i See 2 Cor. ix. 2.
8 In answer to prayer of I. iii. 12, iv. 9-10.
ike Fe
h As well as others (I. i. 8); ὥστε
k ¢.e. of Achaia, etc. Cf. 1. i. 3.
10m. ἡμῶν after warpos with BDP, 17, 40, 71, ἃ, e, Theoph., Pelag. (Al., Lachm,
WH, Findlay, Milligan, etc.), as a scribal addition from ver. 1.
CuaPTEeR I.—Vv. 1-8. The address
(i. I, 2) is followed first by a thanksgiving
(3-10) which passes into a prophetic piece
of consolation, and then by a brief
prayer (11, 12).
Ver. 3. περὶ ὑμῶν : Your thankless
situation (4 f.) only throws into more
brilliant relief your personal character
and bearing under adverse circumstances.
ὅτι is best represented by our colloquial
** because,’? which includes both the
causal and the objective senses of the
word; what forms matter for thanks-
giving is naturally the reason for thanks-
giving. ἀγάπη «.7.X., a period of strain
tires mutual gentleness (see on Rev. ii. 4)
as well as patience towards God (ver. 4),
since irritation and lack of unselfish con-
sideration for others (cf. iii. 6 ἢ may be
as readily produced by a time of tension
and severe anxiety as an impatient
temper of faith. Paul is glad and grate-
ful that suffering was drawing his friends
together and binding them more closely
to their Lord, instead of stunting the
growth of their faith and drying up
the flow of their mutual charity. Praise
comes as usual before blame. Paul is
proud of his friends, because suffering
has not spoiled their characters, as suffer-
ing, especially when due to oppression
and injustice, is too apt to 4ο.---ὀφείλομεν
(so Cic. ad. Fam., xiv. 2, gratiasque
egi, ut debui; Barn. v. 3, vii. 1), the
phrase is unexampled in Paul, but not
unnatural (cf. Rom. xv. 1, etc.); “the
form of duty is one which all thoughts
naturally take in his mind” (Jowett).
Ver. 4. The single article groups
ὑπομονὴ and πίστις as a single concep-
tion = faith in its special aspect of
patient endurance (cf. on Rev. xiii. 10),
faithful tenacity of purpose. M. Geb-
hardt, in his L’Italie Mystique (pp. 318f.),
observes that ‘‘ the final word of Uante’s
belief, of that ‘religion of the heart’
which he mentions in the Convito, is given
in the 24th canto of the Paradiso. He
comes back to the very simple symbol of
Paul, faith, hope and love; for him as for
the apostle faith is at bottom simply
hope.” Faith is more than that to Paul,
but sometimes hardly mo:e. The Thessa-
lonians are not to fear that they are hold-
ing a forlorn outpost. Neither man nor
God overlooks their courage (cf. Plato’s
Theaet., xxv., ἀνδρικῶς ὑπομεῖναι καὶ μὴ
ἀνάνδρως φεύγειν). Their founders and
friends at a distance are watching with
pride their resolute faith ; while in God’s
I, 1—8.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β
45
ταὶς θλίψεσιν αἷς ἀνέχεσθε, 5. " ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως Tod! Attract. fr
as or ὧν
Θεοῦ, " εἰς τὸ “ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς (Win. §
~ ~ ας 24, 4€).
καὶ πάσχετε: 6. " εἴπερ 3 δίκαιον παρὰ Θεῷ " ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς m Only here
ἧς a a κ᾿ in. Neds
θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς θλῖψιν 7. Kal ὑμῖν tots θλιβομένοις " ἄνεσιν ἡ μεθ᾽ for idea,
ΠΡ > au λύ a , > ῦ ἀπ᾽ 3 a > & Ὅλ see Phil
ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ “ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ dm οὐρανοῦ pet ἀγγέλων j 27-28
= . S
δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ 8. “ἐν πυρὶ φλογός, διδόντος " ἐκδίκησιν " τοῖς μὴ iii. 3 "πὴ
εἰδόσι Θεὸν καὶ τοῖς μὴ " ὑπακούουσι τῷ " εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου " Cf tit
ο See on
Acts v. 41
and xiv. 22.
ii. 5-6, 9, viii. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 17 f.
Isa. iv. 15 (quoted on I. iv. 16).
knows!” ut Cor. i. 7; Rom. ii. 5.
and on 1 Cor. iii. 13. A Hebraism.
x Cf. 1. iv. 5 (Jer. x. 25; Ps. Ixxviii. 6).
sure process of providence that fa.tn has
a destiny of its own, since it is bound up
with His eternal designs. Hope is only
mentioned once (ii. 16, cf. iii. 5) in this
epistle, for all its preoccupation with the
future. Faith covers almost all its con-
tents here.—6AtWeo.v more general than
Stwypois.—twép, as in L., iii. 2, is equiva-
lent to περί, with a touch of personal
interest (Abbott’s ¥ohannine Grammar,
p- 559; Meisterhans, Gramm. d. attischen
Inschriften, 182).
Ver. 5. ἔνδειγμα, in apposition to the
general thought of the preceding clause ;
it does not matter to the sense whether
the word is taken as an elliptic nominative
or an appositional accusative. ‘* All this
is really a clear proof of (or points to)
the equity of God’s judgment,” which
will right the present inequalities of life
(Dante, Purg., x. τος ἢ). Δικαία κρίσις
is the future and final judgment of 6-10,
whose principle is recompense (Luke xvi.
25); there is a divine law of compensa-
tion which will operate. This throws
back light upon the present sufferings of
the righteous. These trials, it is as-
sumed, are due to loyalty and innocence
of life; hence, in their divine aspect (ver.
5), they are the necessary qualification or
discipline for securing entrance into the
realm of God. They are significant, not
casual. Paul begins by arguing that
their very infliction or permission proves
that God must be contemplating a suit-
able reward and destiny for those who
endured them in the right spirit. εἰς τὸ
κιτιλ,, is thus a loose expansion (from
the common rabbinic phrase, cf. Dalman’s
Worte Fesu, 97 f.; E. Tr., 119) of one
side of the Six. κρίσις. The other side,
the human aspect of θλῖψις, then emerges
in ver.6. Since the Thessalonians were
suffering at the hands of men (τοὺς θλί-
Bovras, Isa. xix. 20), the two-handed
p See on Rom. iii. 30, viii. 9, 17 =“ since".
r From Isa. Ixvi. 2 (LXX).
ἔτ Thess. ii. 15; see below, iii. 2.
v Cf. LXX of Exod. iii. 2; Isa. xxix. 6, Ixvi. 6, 15 f.
w Ezek. xxv. 14 (LXX); Jer. xxv. 12; Deut. vii. 9.
y Cf. Rom. x. 16. Acts vi. 7; Clem. Rom. xlii. 4.
q Exod. xxiii. 22; see on Rom.
s Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 13; Asc.
‘““We need it too, God
engine of retribution (so Lam. iii. 64 f.;
Obad. 15; Isa. lix. 18, for ἀνταποδ.) must
in all fairness punish the persecutors (cf.
Sap. xi.g, 10). This is the only passage
in which Paul welcomes God’s vengeance
on the enemies of the church as an ele-
ment in the recompense of Christians.—
ὑπὲρ ἧς Kal πάσχετε: to see an intelli-
gible purpose in suffering, or to connect
it with some larger movement and hope,
is always a moral stay. “God gave
three choice gifts to Israel—the Torah,
the Land of Promise, and Eternal Life,
and each was won by suffering” (Bera
choth, 5a).
Ver. 7. After noting the principle of
recompence (5-74), Paul proceeds (7b-10,
to dwell on its time and setting, especi-
ally in its punitive aspect. He consoles
the Thessalonians by depicting the doom
of their opponents rather than (gc, το)
their own positive relief andreward. The
entire passage breathes the hot air of the
later Judaism, with its apocalyptic antici-
pation of the jus talionis applied by God
to the enemies of His people; only, Paul
identifies that people not with Israel but
with believers in Christ Jesus. He ap-
propriates Israel’s promises for men and
women whom Israel expelled and perse-
cuted.—The ἄγγελοι are the manifesta-
tion of Christ’s δύναμις, as the ἅγιοι
(saints not angels) are of his δόξα (ver. το) ;
the position of ayy. (cf. Win., § 80, 125)
tells against Hofmann’s interpretation of
Sw.=“host” (NIX, so LXX). Here
and in the following verses the divine
prerogatives (e.g., fiery manifestation and
judicial authority) are carried over to
Jesus.
Ver. 8. Those who know not God are
of course not pagans as such but im-
moral pagans, in the sense of Rom. i.
28 f. Those who refuse obedience to the
46 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β 1.
24 Mace. ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ - 9. οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν, "ὄλεθρον "αἰώνιον, " ἀπὸ
a From Isa. προσώπου τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, το. ὅταν
zi (XX), "ENO ° ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ καὶ “ θαυμασθῆναι ἐν πᾶσι
11; Lk. τοῖς πιστεύσασιν (ὅτι ἐπιστώθη 1 τὸ " μαρτύριον ἡμῶν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς) ἐν
ete, TH ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ.
“iva ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσῃ τῆς κλήσεως ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν
II. % εἰς ὃ καὶ προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν,
186).
ς Only here in N.T., cf. Ex. xiv. 4; Sir. xxxviii. 6, etc. ; Isa. iv. 2 f., xlix. 3. d Reminiscence
of Ps, Ixviii. 36; Ixxxix.8(LXX). Cf, Sir. xxxviii. 3; 4 Macc. xviii. 3. e Cf. 1 Cor. i. 6. f From
Isa. ii, 11 (17). g Cf. Col.i. 29. “It is to this our thoughts turn as we pray, etc." (Ruther-
ford). h Equivalent, as¢.¢. in LXX of Exod. ix. 16.
1 For επιστευθη Markland and Hort conj. ἐπιστωθη (so 31, 112), as if “the
Christian testimony (vv. 4-5) of suffering for the faith had been confirmed and sealed
upon the Thessalonians” (cf. Ps. xcii. 4 ἢ, LXX, θαυμαστος ev υψηλοις ο κυριος “τα
μαρτυρια σου ἐπιστωθησαν σφοδρα). πιστωθήτω is used (as here with em) of the
divine word in 1 Chron. xvii. 23 (cf. 2 Chron. ii. 9). The MSS. reading throws
επιστευθη to the front for emphasis, but it must go with ed μας. The point of the
sentence, as Left. admits, leads us to expect “a direct connexion between the
Thessalonians and a belief in the gospel rather than between the Thess. and the
preaching of the gospel,” so that μαρτύυριον is less vital to ep μας. No satisfactory
parallel can be quoted for either construction of ἐπιστευθη, however, and the likelihood
upon the whole is that it represents a primit.ve and natural corruption of ἐπιστωθη.
gospel are, as the repetition of the article
suggests, a different class of people, per-
haps drawn both from Jews and pagans.
But as Paul never seems to contemplate
the idea of any Jew failing to hear the
gospel (cf. Rom. x. 16 f.), the description
here applies principally to them.—év πυρὶ
φλογός, one of the most favourite real-
istic traits of the last judgment, in
apocalyptic Judaism (cf. passages in
Volz’s Fidische Eschatologie, 285, 286) ;
here it is simply a descriptive touch,
which Paul does not pause to elaborate
(cf. 1 Cor. iii. 13). The rather “ broad
and inflated” language (Weizsicker) of
the whole passage is probably due to the
subject, more than to Paul’s employ-
ment of Silvanus, himself a prophet (cf.
Acts xv. 32 and τ Thess. ii. 12-16), as his
amanuensis.
Ver.9. The overwhelming manifesta-
tion of the divine glory sweeps from be-
fore it (pregnant ἀπὸ) into endless ruin
the disobedient (Ps. lxxvi. 7) men who
(see Moulton, gt f.) shall pay the penalty
of (see Prov. xxvii. 12, LXX) eternal de-
struction (the common apocalyptic belief,
see Volz, $id. Eschat., 286 f.).
Ver. το. ἐπιστώθη, like the variant
ἐπιστεύθη, is suggested by πιστεύουσιν
(cf. a similar instance -in iii, 3). The
abrupt parenthesis (‘‘ you included—for ”’)
shows how Paul was thinking of the
Thessalonians especially, while he de-
picted the bliss οἱ the saints in general.—
ἐνδοξ., in one sense they were to be a
credit and honour to their apostles
(I., ii, 19 f.); in another, they were a
glory to Christ Himself, by their ripened
character—a Johannine touch (cf. John
xvii. 10, and ver. 12 of this chapter ; the
parallel between ἔργον πίστεως and John
vi. 29 is verbal).—®aup. = to be wondered
at (by whom? cf. Ezek. xxxix. 21, Eph.
iii. 10 ?) in (z.¢., by reason of, on account
of) belsevers ; for a partial parallel to the
phrase see Isa. Ixii. 6 (καὶ ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ
αὐτῶν θαυμασθήσεσθε). If ὅτι. ..
ὑμᾶς had been meant to give the reason
for θαυμασθῆναι (so Zimmer, Wohl.),
Paul would probably have put God’s wit-
ness instead of our witness, and expressed
the idea unambiguously ; the transition
from the πᾶσιν to the special case of the
Thessalonians becomes, on this construc-
tion, an anti-climax. The rhythmical
swing of 7b-10 suggests a reminiscence
or quotation of some early Christian lit-
urgical hymn, perhaps one of the pro-
phetic ψαλμοί which he had heard at
Corinth (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26).
Ver. 11. Kal KT... we pray as well
as render thanks (ver. 3) for you. Un-
able any longer to give the Thessalonians
their personal example and instructions—
the time for that had passed (ἐπιστώθη)---
Paul and his colleagues can still pray for
them. The duties of a preacher or
evangelist do not cease with the utter-
ance of his message. ἀξιώσῃ: one
proof that God deemed them worthy of
His kingdom lay in the discipline of
11.--τΆ. II. 1—2.
' εὐδοκίαν * ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως ᾿ ἐν δυνάμει" 12.
™ ἐνδοξασθῇ τὸ " ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ἸΙησοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν, “καὶ ὑμεῖς
° αὐτῷ, κατὰ τὴν χάριν ἢ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ ἡμῶν καὶ “ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β
ἰπ ὅπως i Contrast
11. 12;7 Cf;
ἐν on Rom.
x.1; Eph.
ACE
See on
3 a Sea ’ ( Sane, § AY ϑ ~k
II. 1. Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, "ὑπὲρ τὴς παρουσίας τοῦ Rom. xv.
Κυρίου 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἢ ἡμῶν " ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, 2. “ εἰς
τὸ μὴ “ταχέως *
σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ ὅ θροεῖσθαι,
μήτε διὰ πνεύματος, μήτε διὰ λόγου, μήτε Se " ἐπιστολῆς (ὡς ᾿ δι
14 and
Eph. v.9.
1 Col. i. 29.
m Cf. LXX;
of Isa.
Xxiv. 15,
Ezek. xxxix. 21.
pSover.11. ,
περί (an Ionism, cf. Meisterhans, Gramm.
XXiv. 31; 2 Macc. ii. 7, etc. I. iii. 10.
Sap. iv. 4.
Jos. Με. xi., xxxv. iSc. γεγραμμένης.
n = Person or character (cf. on Phil. ii. 9-10).
For x. without article, Τὰ Win. § 19. 13 d, § 18. 7.
. attisch, Inschrift. 182).
g Elsewhere in N.T., only in Matt. xxiv. 6 (= Mk. xiii. 7).
Ixvi. 5;
_. Mal.i.11;
o John xvii. 1, 10, 21 f.
a“‘with regard to,” =
b See oni.7. ς Cf. Matt.
e Gal. i. 6 = “hastily”. f See Acts xvii. 13;
h Forged? f.
1 Om. npev after Kuptov, with B, syr. (WH, Weiss, Findlay).
suffering by means of which He developed
their patient faith (4, 5), but Paul here
finds another proof of it in their broader
development of moral character and vital
religion (cf. 10). πᾶσαν includes ἔργον
as well as εὐδοκίαν; the prayer is for
success to every practical enterprise of
faith as well as for the satisfaction of
every aspiration and desire after moral
excellence. Compare Dante’s Paradiso,
xviii. 58-60. κλῆσις is “the position
you are called to occupy,” ‘ your voca-
tion,” as heirs of this splendid future—a
not unnatural extension (cf. Phil. iii. 14)
of its ordinary use ( = 1 Cor. i. 26, etc.).
This implies that a certain period of
moral ripening must precede the final
crisis. In ii. I-iii. 5, Paul proceeds to
elaborate this, in order to allay the fever-
ish excitement at Thessalonica, while in
iii. 6 f., he discusses the further ethical
disorders caused by the church’s too
ardent hope. The heightened misery of
the present situation must neither break
down their patience (4 f.), nor on the
other hand must it be taken as a proof
that the end was imminent.
Ver. 12. Here at any rate it is im-
possible to take χάριν in a universalistic
sense (so Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 225 f.),
as though it implied that Christians were
put on the same level as O.T. saints.
The idea is the merciful favour of God,
to the exclusion of human merit. The
main topic of the letter is now brought
forward ; ii. 1-2 gives the occasion for the
λόγος παρακλήσεως (3-12) which follows.
CuapTer II.—Ver. 1. ἐπισυν., a term
whose verb was already in use for the
muster of saints to the messianic reign.
—gak. ‘‘get unsettled”. Epictetus uses
ἀποσαλεύεσθαι for the unsettling of the
mind by sophistries (iii. 25), and the
nearest equivalent for vots here is our
“mind”. This mental agitation (aor.)
results in θροεῖσθαι = nervous fear
(Wrede, 48 f.) in prospect of the immin-
ent end.
Ver. 2. ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν, ‘‘ purporting to
come from us,” goes with ἐπιστολῆς
alone, for, while λόγος (Liinemann)
might be grouped under it, πνεῦμα can-
not. A visionary would claim personal,
not borrowed, authority for his revela-
tion. If ὡς 8. 4. went with the preceding
verbs (so Dods, Askwith, 92 f., Wohl. =
‘we are the true interpreters of Paul’s
meaning ’’), an active (as in ver. 3) not a
passive turn might have been expected
to the sentence.— ἐνέστηκεν = “ were al-
ready present”. The cry was, ὁ κύριος
πάρεστι. The final period had already
begun, and the Thessalonians were pro-
bably referred to their sufferings as a
proof of this. Paul could only guess the
various channels along which such a
misconception had flowed into the local
church ; either, ¢.g., πνεύματος, the hal-
lucination of some early Christian pro-
phet at Thessalonica; or λόγου, oral
statement, based in part perhaps on some
calculation of contemporary history or
on certain logia of Jesus; or ἐπιστολῆς,
i.¢., the misinterpretation of some passage
in r Thess. or in some lost letter of Paul.
Possibly Paul _imagined_an_ epistle had
been forged purporti i
or his companions, but we have no means
of knowing whether his suspicion was
allusion is quite credible within his life-
time. Such expectations may have been
excited in a more or less innocent fashion,
but Paul peremptorily (ver. 3) ranks
them all as dishonest; he is concerned
not with their origin but with their mis-
48
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β
εν δ
k Cf. 2 Cor. ἡμῶν),} ἢ ὡς ἢ ὅτι | ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου. 3. Μή τις ὑμᾶς
‘Oo
ΧΙ, ἂτ, “
the effect ™ ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον -
at".
ὅτι ™édv μὴ ἔλθῃ “ ἡ ἀποστασία
1 Εοπι. viii, Ῥ πρῶτον καὶ “ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς dvopias,? ὃ υἱὸς * τῆς
38, etc.
πὶ Aor.conj. ἀπωλείας, 4. 6 ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ " πάντα λεγό-
asin2
Cor. xi, μενον 8." θεὸν ἢ ᾿ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν “ εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι,
16; 1 Cor.
χνί τι, " ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶ θεός.
Sc. “τ
shall not
come” (ellipsis, as in. ver. 7). o “The well known.”
XXiv. 12. r Win. § 30, 6, b; cf. Deissm. 163;
in N.T., only in Acts xvii. 23 (Sap. xv. 17).
cf. Acts ii. 22; here = “ proclaim”.
u Matt. xxiv. 15.
> , a μι: Fal
5. OU μνημονεύετε OTL ETL ὧν
P = πρότερον (I. iv. 16). q Matt:
s 1 Cor.viii. 5. t Elsewhere
HD. Xs 5:
v By deeds as well as words,
10n ws δι npov Field (202) writes: “ Perhaps the apostle wrote ws δη ἡμῶν, as
pretending to be ours,” adding instances from Ast. Lex. Plat. to justify the latter’s
statement that ‘‘ cum irrisione quadam plerumque ponitur ws 8y”’.
2 The avopras of δ᾿ Β min., cop., arm., Euth., Dam., Tert., Amb. (Ti., Tr., WH,
Zim., Bj., Findlay, Lgft.), is preferable to the Western paraphrastic apaptias (Alford,
Ellic., Wohl., Weiss).
3 Bentl. conj. ἐπὶ παν To λεγομενον.
chievous effects upon the church (cf.
Matt. xxiv. 4). Probably his suspicions
of misinterpretation were due to his
recent experiences in Galatia, though
the Macedonian churches seem to have
escaped any infusion of the anti-Pauline
propaganda which soured Corinth not
long afterwards.
Ver. 3. καὶ ἄποκ., the apostasy and
the appearance (so of Beliar, Asc. Isa., iv.
18) of the personal anti-Christ or pseudo-
Christ form a single phenomenon. From
the use of ἡ ἀποστασία as a Greek
equivalent for Belial (LXX of 1 Kings
xxi. 13, A, and Aquila), this eschatolo-
gical application of the term would natur-
ally flow, especially as bysb3 WN
might well be represented by 6 ἄνθρωπος
τῆς ἀνομίας on the analogy of 2 Sam.
xxi, § (LXX)= Ps. xvii. (xvii): 54:
Lawlessness was a cardinal trait in the
Jewish figure of Belial, as was persecu-
tion of the righteous (i. 4, ii. 7, see Asc.
Tsa., ii. 5, etc.). The very order of the
following description (ἀπωλείας set be-
tween ἀνομίας and ὁ ἀντικείμενος, etc.,
unchronologically, but dramatically) sug-
gests that this incarnation of lawlessness
was a doomed figure, although he chal-
lenged and usurped divine prerogatives.
He is another Antiochus Epiphanes
(Dan. xi. 36, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα
θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα
λαλήσει, though Paul carefully safe-
guards himself against misconception by
inserting λεγόμενον in his quotation of
the words). This conception of a super-
natural antagonist to Jesus Christ at the
end is the chief element of novelty intro-
duced by Paul, from Jewish traditions,
into the primitive Christian eschatology.
The recent attempt of Caligula to erect a
statue of himself in the Temple at Jeru-
salem may have furnished a trait for
Paul’s delineation of the future Deceiver;
the fearful impiety of this outburst had
sent a profound shock through Judaism,
which would be felt by Jewish Christians
as well. But Paul does not identify the
final Deception with the Imperial cultus,
which was far from a prominent feature
when he wrote. His point is that the
last pseudo-Messiah or anti-Christ will
embody all that is profane and blasphem-
ous, every conceivable element of im-
piety ; and that, instead of being repudi-
ated, he will be welcomed by Jews as
well as pagans (cf. Acts xii. 21, 22).
Ver. 5. It was no after-thought, on
Paul’s part (the singular rules out
Spitta’s idea that Timothy wrote this
apocalyptic piece). Nor was it an idio-
syncrasy of his teaching. Especially
since the days of Antiochus Epiphanes
(Dan. vii., xi.; ο΄. Gunkel’s Schépfung u.
Chaos, 221 f.), a more or less esoteric
and varied Jewish tradition had pervaded
pious circles, that the last days would be
heralded by a proud uprising against
God. The champion of this movement
was no longer the Dragon or cosmic op-
onent of God, as in the older mythology
though traces of this belief still linger),
but an individual (6 ἄνομος) who incor-
porates human wickedness (τὸ μυστήριον
τῆς ἀνομίας) and infernal cunning in his
own person, and who essays to supplant
and suppress the worship of the true God,
by claiming divine honours for himself.
3-1Ο.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ B
49
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑμῖν ; 6. καὶ νῦν τὸ ἡ κατέχον * οἴδατε εἰς w -- κωλύον
τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ 7 καιρῷ.
ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται * τῆς ἀνομίας, " μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου y
γένηται: 8. " καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται
(Chrys.).
7. τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον x Matt.xiii,
II, etc.
“ Ap- 3
ε ες ointe
ὁ ἄνομος, ὃν ὁ Κύριος Season”
Dan.
3 a A im aA A (as
Ιησοῦς “ ἀνελεῖ 47 πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος 4 αὐτοῦ καὶ " καταργήσει xi. 20, 35).
τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ - 9. οὗ ἐστιν
ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ ᾿ σημείοις καὶ τέρασι * ψεύ-
Sous 10. καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ Ὧ ἀδικίας ἢ τοῖς ᾿᾿ἀπολλυμένοις,
* ἀνθ᾽ ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ᾿ ἐδέξαντο εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι
d From Isa. xi.
e See on 1 Cor. i. 28.
classical, Win. § 13, 5.
4Esd. xiii. 38.
of origin.
durative though the verb is,
i Cf. on 2 Cor. ii.15. k See on Acts xii. 23.
He is Satan’s messiah, an infernal cari-
cature of the true messiah. Cf. Asc. Isa.,
iv. 6, where it is said that Belial “ will
do and speak like the Beloved and he will
say, lam God and before me there has
been none”’.
Ver. 6. Well now, you know what
restrains him from being manifested (com-
ing fully into play and sight) before his
appointed season. Νῦν probably goes with
οἴδατε, not with τὸ κατέχον (as ¢.g., in
_John iv. 18, so Olshausen, Bisping, Wie-
seler, Zahn, Wrede), and καὶ viv is not
temporal, but ‘‘a mere adverb of pas-
sage” (Liinemann, Alford) in the argu-
ment (so with οἶδα in Acts iii. 17). Were
viv temporal, it would mean (a) that dur-
ing the interval between Paul’s teaching
and the arrival ot this letter fresh circum-
stances (so Zimmer) had arisen to throw
light on the thwarting of the adversary.
But of this there is no hint whatsoever
in the context. Or (δ), preferably, it
would contrast with the following év
@ αὐτοῦ καιρῷ, as an equivalent for
“already”? (Hofmann, Wobhl., Milligan,
etc.).
Ver. 7. yap, explaining οἴδατε, The
κατέχων is a fact of present experience
and observation, which accounts for the
ἀνομία being as yet a μυστήριον, opera-
ting secretly, and not an ἀποκάλυψις.
Paul does not say by whom (the ἄνομος
himself?) the restraint is removed.—
μόνον, the hiatus must be filled up with
some phrase like “it cannot be mani-
fested”. Its real character and full
scope are not yet disclosed. For ἄρτι
= viv, cf. Nigeli’s note in der Wort-
schdtz des Apostels Paulus (36, 37), and
for omission of ἄν, Blass, § 65, 10.
Ver. 8. ὅν, «.7.A., his career is short
and tragic. The apparition (cf. 1 Tim.
VOL. IV.
4 rk copied in Ps. Sol. xvii. 27, 41; ¢f. Job iv. 9,
, 92 Epexeg.
παρουσία κατ᾽ genit,
» a Gal. ii. το.
b Common
eschat.
formula
(cf. 1 Cor.
iv. 5,etc.).
c Post-
n
‘f. on 2 Cor. xii. 12; Matt. xxiv. 24. g Gen.
h Dat. incommodi (Blass, § 37, 2), as in 1 Cor. i. 18; cf. Moulton, 114-115 (“strongly
we see perfectivjty in the fact that the goal is ideally reached”).
1 Contrast I. i. 6, ii. 13.
vi. 14, etc., Thieme, Die Inschriften von
Magnesia, 34 f.) of Jesus heralds his
overthrow.—émipavelq = sudden appear-
ance of a deity at some crisis (cf. Diod.,
Sicul., i. 25), as the god in 2 Macc. ii. 21,
iii. 24, etc. ‘In hieratic inscriptions the
appearing of the god in visible form to
men is commonly expressed by the same
word” (Ramsay, Exp. Ti., x. 208). This
passage, with its fierce messianic antici-
pation of the adversary’s doom interrupts
the description of his mission which is
resumed (in ver. 9) with an account of
the inspiration (κατὰ), method (év) and
results (ver. 10), of this evil advent.
Galen (de facult. nat., 1. 2, 4-5) physio-
logically defines ἐνέργεια as the process
of activity whose product is ἔργον. The
impulse to ἐνέργεια is δύναμις. The
δύναμις of this supernatural delusion is
specially manifested in signs and wonders.
The power of working miracles in order
to deceive people (ver. 11) was an ac-
cepted trait in the Jewish and early
Christian ideas of such eschatological
opponents of God {ef. on Rev. xiii. 13,
and Friedlinder’s Geschichte d. jid.
Apolog., 493 f.).
Ver. το. ἀγάπη (cf. ver. 12) here, as
Luke xi. 42, with obj. gen. Cf. Asc.
Isa., iv. 15, 16: “ And He will give rest
{above, ch. i. 7] to the godly whom He
shall find in the body in this world, and to
all who because of their faith in Him
have execrated Beliar and his kings”.
ἀλήθεια, not = “truth” in the general
sense of the term (Liinemann, Lightfoot,
Zimmer) but = *‘the truth of the gospel”
(as usual in Paul) as against ἀδικία and
ψεῦδος (Rom. i. 15 f., ii. 8). The apostle
holds that the refusal to open one’s
mind and heart to the gospel leaves life
a prey to moral delusion ; judicial infatua-
4
50 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ B Il.
m See αὐτούς: II. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο “13d ὑτοῖς ὁ Θεὸ Ἁ
ΤΉΝ, ἧς : : π tere ὅποι 6 Θεὸς ἐνέργειαν enone
24-25, and εἷς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει - 12. iva “ κριθῶσι πάντες οἱ μὴ
m. 1.
24,26, 28, πιστεύσαντες τῇ " ἀληθείᾳ ἀλλ᾽ “ εὐδοκήσαντες TH " ἀδικίᾳ. 13.
εἴς. C »-"ἢ Ν > A n “- πούς :
nSap.v. Ἡμεῖς δὲ * ὀφείλομεν εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ Θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, * ἀδελ-
6-7. ἣν ὦ έ νος τς - t [ Sey u 1.8
© =xaraxp. Pol ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Κυρίου, ὅτι ἡ εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς “ ἀπαρχὴν | εἰς
(as Heb,
xiii, 4, σωτηρίαν ἐν ἥ ἁγιασμῷ " πνεύματος Kal πίστει ἀληθείας, 14. εἰς "5
δίς):
p See on
Rom.i.18,
a , ς a > n a
and1 Cor. TOU Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
xiii. 6.
ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ " εὐαγγελίου * ἡμῶν, εἰς " περιποίησιν δόξης
15. "ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, " στήκετε
aContrast καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς " παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε, εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾽,
ΠΑ ὁ
ris: : s Cf. 1.i. 4 {in similar connexion).
XXvi. 18,
position reflected in ver. 13.
thought of ii. 1-2.
u Rom. xi. 16, xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 20, etc.; v I. iv. 7-8.
x Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 3. y Cf
a Cf. I. iii. 8 and 1 Cor. xvi. 13.
t Alexandrian form (Win. ὃ 13, 13); cf. Deut.
i w 4.¢., general
ον; Ὃς zCf.I.v.€; resumes
b See iii. 6 and 1 Cor. xi. 2.
1 The singular variant awapynv, adopted by Lach., WH marg., Weiss (Left. ?)
from BGerP, min., f. vg., syr.p, Euth., Dam., etc., is preferable to the strongly
supported απ apyns (Pauline a. evp., in historical sense of Phil. iv. 15, Ac. xv. 7,
etc.). The Thessalonians or Macedonians are first-fruits, as contrasted with others
yet to follow (cf. iii. 1, and i. 4).
tion is the penalty of disobedience to the
truth of God in Christ.
Ver. 11. An echo of the primitive
Semitic view (still extant, cf. Curtis’s
Prim. Sem. Religion To-Day, pp. 69 f.),
that God may deliberatély lead men
astray, or permit them to be fatally in-
fatuated, as a penal discipline (cf. Ps.
Sol. viii. 15; Test. XII. Patr. Dan. ix.).
A modern would view the same pheno-
menon as wilful scepticism issuing in
superstition, or in inability to distinguish
truth from falsehood. Delusions of this
kind cannot befall believers (cf. Mark xiii.
22; Test. Issach. iii.) In Test. Napht.
ii. 3, idols are πνεύματα πλάνης (cf.
Test. Levi. iii. 3, etc.).
Ver. 12. Like the prophet John half
a century later (xiii. 2 f.), Paul distin-
guishes his anti-Christ or antitheistic
hero from the Satan whose campaign he
executes; but, unlike John, the apostle
has nothing to say about the fate of
Satan. The tools and the victims of
Satan are destroyed, and they alone.—
evSox. not with ἐν as usual, but with the
less common (cf. e.g., 1 Macc. i. 43, καὶ
πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Ισραὴλ ηὐδόκησαν τῇ λατ-
ρίᾳ αὐτοῦ) dative. ‘And the greater
number of those who shall have been
associated together in order to receive
the Beloved he [i.e., Beliar] will turn
aside after him” (Asc. Isa., iv. 9).
Ver. 13-CHAPTER III.-Ver. 5. Thanks,
prayers and counsels.
Ver. 13. God has chosen you (εἵλατο,
another LXX expression, implying that
Christians had now succeeded to the
cherished priviliges of God’s people) to
be saved, instead of visiting you with a
deadly delusion (10, 11) which ends in
judgment (12); your discipline is of sanc-
tification (contrast 128) and belief in what
is true (contrast II, 12a), these forming
the sphere and the scope (cf. r Tim. ii.
15, and for ἐν ἁγιασμῷ in this sense Ps.
Sol. xvii. 33) for salvation being realised.
Those who are sanctified and who truly
believe shall be saved. Cf. ver. 14 and
Apoc. Bar., liv. 21: “in fine enim saeculi
uindicta erit de iis qui improbe egerunt,
iuxta improbitatem eorum, et glorificabis
fideles iuxta fidem eorum”.—avevparos
may be either (2) = ‘‘ wrought by the
(holy) Spirit” (cf. 1 Peter i. 2), the divine
side of the human πίστει, or (δ) = “ οἵ
the spirit” (cf. I. v. 23; 2 Cor. vii. 1), as
of the heart (I., iii. 13). The absence of
the article is not decisive against the
former rendering, but the latter is the
more probable in view of the context;
the process of ἁγιασμός involves a love of
the truth and a belief in it (é.e., in the
true gospel) which is opposed to religious
delusions (cf. ii. 2).
Ver. 14. To be saved ultimately (12)
is to possess or rather to share the glory
of Christ (cf. I., ii. 12).
Ver. 15. The divine purpose does not
work automatically, but implies the co-
operation of Christians—in this case, a
resolute stedfastness resting on loyalty to
the apostolic gospel. In view of pass-
ages like 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 5, it is gratui-
tous to read any second-century passion
for oral apostolic tradition into these
words or into those of iii. 6.
ees
1-17. IL r-5- ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B
“ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς "καὶ δοὺς παράκλησιν
51
16. δ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν “Ingots Χριστὸς cl. v. 27.
d For order,
cf. 2 Cor.
xiii. 13.
Ξ αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν ἢ ἐν χάριτι, 17. ᾿ παρακαλέσαι ὑμῶν ε Cy. Rom.
τὰς καρδίας καὶ ' στηρίξαι * ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ ᾿ λόγῳ ' ἀγαθῷ.
III. 1. "Τὸ λοιπὸν, > προσεύχεσθε, ἀδελφοί, περὶ " ἡμῶν, ἵνα “ὁ 5-
λόγος τοῦ “ Κυρίου ἅ τρέχῃ καὶ " δοξάζηται καθὼς καὶ ἡ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 2.
καὶ iva © ῥυσθῶμεν ἀπὸ τών ἢ" ἀτόπων καὶ ἢ πονηρών ' ἀνθρώπων - * οὐ
πιστὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ Κύριος, ὃς
γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις. :
3.
ὑμᾶς καὶ > φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
° ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλομεν ποιεῖτε ἢ καὶ ποιήσετε.
Gad, vi. 1. al. iv. 1; Eph. vi. το.
contrast 2 Tim. ii. 9.
Ps. Sol. iv. 27.
unprincipled"’ Rutherford).
x. 16 with Acts xvii. 12, 34.
p Cf. I. iv. το.
ii. 3.
Ver. 16. αὐτὸς δὲ, perhaps with a
slight implicit apposition to the you or
we of the previous sentence.—ayamyoas
καὶ δοὺς, «.7.A., Connection as in John
iii, 16.—mwapdxAnow for this world,
ἐλπίδα for the world to come; all hope
is encouragement, but not vice-versa.
Ver. 17, in contrast to the disquiet and
confusion of ii.2. ἔργῳ as in i. 11, iii. 4,
7 f., λόγῳ as iii. 1,15; I.,i.8. See the
fulsome pagan inscription of Halicar-
nassus, which after giving thanks for the
birth of Augustus, σωτῆρα τοῦ κοινοῦ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους, declares that men
now are full of ἐλπίδων μὲν χρηστῶν
πρὸς τὸ μέλλον, εὐθυμίας δὲ εἰς τὸ παρόν.
Contrast also the κενὴ ἐλπίς of the im-
pious in Sap. iii. rz.
CuaPTER III.—Ver. 1. In addition to
offering prayers on their behalf, Paul asks
them to pray for the continued success of
the gospel (‘‘may others be as blest as
we are’’!) and (ver. 2), for its agents’
safety (Isa. xxv. 4, LXX, a reminiscence
of). The opponents here are evidently
(ii. τὸ f.) beyond hope of conversion ;
preservation from their wiles is all that
can be expected. For a speedy answer
to this prayer, see Acts xviii. 9 f. The
repeated use of 6 Κύριος in vv. 1-5, brings
out the control of God amid the plots and
passions of mankind.—artérev. The
general sense of the term is given by
Philo in his queer allegorising of Gen. iit.
9 (Leg. Alleg., iii. 17, ἄτοπος λέγεται
εἶναι ὁ φαῦλος) ; commonly it is used, as
elsewhere in the N.T., of things, but here
of persons, either as = ‘‘ill-disposed,”’ or,
in a less general and derivative sense =
**perverse” (cf. Nageli, der Wortschatz
bI. v. 25.
e In sense of Acts xiii. 48.
h See on Acts xxviii. 6; Isa. xxv. 4 (LXX); and on I. lii. 3, “ misguided and
i e¢.g.,in Corinth; cf. Acts xviii. 6 f. 2 Ti. iii. 13.
1Cf. i. το, Acts xviii. gf.
Vi 5, 8;
f Seeon2
Cor. "ἰς
ae
g Contant
1...
h = “ gra-
ciously.”
(ξ ΤῸ I. ii.
στηρεξει στ, 13...
4. “ πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἡ cpt.”
Χχῖν. 10;
Thuc. 1.
139,45
Ἢ est.
d Ps. cxlvii. 15, etc. (LX X),
g Cf. Rom. xv. 31; 2 Ti. iv. 17;
5. ὁ δὲ
61.1.8.
5 es ti ay
k Cf. Rom.
m ii. 17. n 2 Ti. iv. 18, 0 2Co.
des Paulus, p. 37), or “froward”. The
general aim of the passage is to widen
the horizon of the Thessalonians, by en-
listing their sympathy and interest on
behalf of the apostles. They are not the
only sufferers, or the only people who
need prayer and help.—od παντὸς ἀνδρὸς
εἰς Κόρινθόν ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦς, so ran the
ancient proverb. Paul writes from Cor-
inth that while everyone has the chance,
not all have the desire, to arrive at the
faith. ἡ πίστις is the faith of the gospel,
or Christianity. By a characteristic play
upon the word, Paul (ver. 3), hurries on
to add, ‘* but the Lord is faithful”. ὑμᾶς
(for which Bentley and Baljon plausibly
conjecture ἡμᾶς) shows how lightly his
mind rests on thoughts of his own i
as compared with the need of others. It
is impossible to decide, either from the
grammar or from the context, whether
τοῦ πονηροῦ is neuter or masculine.
Either sense would suit, though, if there
is a reminiscence here of the Lord’s
prayer (so Feine, ¥esus Christus u.
Paulus, 252 f., and Chase, Texts and
Studies, i. 3. 112 f.), the masculine would
be inevitable, as is indeed more probable
for general reasons (so ¢.g., Hofmann,
Everling, Ellicott, etc.)
Ver.4. πεποίθαμεν ( = we have faith),
still playing on the notion of πίστις.
Paul rallies the Thessalonians by remind-
ing them, not only of God’s faithfulness,
but of their friends’ belief in them.
Ver. 5. κατευθύναι, «.7.A. Paul no
longer (I., iti. 11) entertains the hope of
revisiting them soon. ‘‘ God’s love and
Christ’s patient endurance” (i.¢., the
ὑπομονή which Christ inspires and re-
52
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Β
ΠΙ.
qi Chron. Rapes 4 κατευθύναι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας εἰς τὴν * ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ
ee x
( Ἡ εἰς ὗπο ΟΡΏΨΡ τοῦ ἱστοῦ.
Ps. Sol. " νὴ ρ
xii. 6, bs
r Cf. ii
cf. Abbot Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
6. "Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, "ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου
ἃ στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἥἧ ἀτάκτως
Gramm. παριπατόν τος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβετε 1 παρ᾽ ἡμών.
s Cf. Pipi 7. αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε πώς δεῖ *
ad Polyk. 4,5 8.
5. ὑμῖν,
μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς - ὅτι οὐκ ἠτακτήσαμεν
ἡ οὐδὲ δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν παρά τινος, ἀλλ᾽ 7 ἐν κόπῳ
t See o 2 a
1 Cor. i, καὶ μόχθῳ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ μὴ * ἐπιβαρῆσαί
uSeeonz τινα Gav: 9. "οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς
Cor. viii. ν τύπον δώμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ ὃ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς. το. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἦμεν
Ore πρὸς ὑμᾶς, τοῦτο παρηγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι “ εἴ τις οὐ θέλει epydt-
loafer"
(Rutherford). w Cf. 1. i. 6, ii. 14, and on 1 Cor. iv. 16. 111.3;, γι} 8. y Cf.b. ii.
9, 2 Cor. xi. 27, Herm. Sim. v. δ, 2, etc., “toiling and moiling” (Rutherford) Zils εἶ g (witha
different motive). a See on x Cor. ix. 3-18, and 2 Cor. i. 24. b See on Phil. iii. 17. c Did.
xii. 3.
1 Read παρελαβετε, with BG, 43, 73, 80, g, goth., syr.p, arm., etc. (so Lach., Tr.,
WH, Bj., Weiss), or παρελαβοσαν (λαβοσαν D*) with Μ ΛΑ, ἃ) δ; τ΄, etc. ‘(Ti 1:
Al., Zim., Legft., Wohl., Findlay [Tr., WH, Lach., all in marg.]).
quires, cf. Ignat. ad. Rom., last words)
correspond to the double experience of
love and hope in ii. 16. It is by the
sense of God’s love alone, not by any
mere acquiescence in His will or stoical
endurance of it, that the patience and
courage of the Christian are sustained.
Cf. Ep. Arist. ., 195, ἐπὶ τῶν καλλίστων
πράξεων οὐκ αὐτοὶ κατευθύνομεν τὰ
βουλευθέντα - θεὸς δὲ τελειοῖ τὰ πάντων.
Connect with ver. 3 and cf. Mrs. Brown-
ing’s line, “1 waited with patience, which
means almost power ”.
Vv. 6-16. Injunctions upon church-
life and order.
Ver. 6. How necessary it was to pro-
mote ὑπομονή with its attendant virtues
of diligence and order at Thessalonica, is
evident from the authoritative (ἐν év. τ.
Κυρίου) tone and the crisp detail of the
following paragraph. Mapayy., like ἀτά-
κτως, has a military tinge (cf. on I. iv. 2,
and Dante’s Paradiso, xii. 37-45). στελλ.,
for his own sake (ver. 14), as well as for
yours: a service as well as a precau-
tion. The collective action of his fellow-
Christians, besides preserving (x Cor. v
6) themselves from infection—and no-
thing is so infectious as an insubordinate,
indolent, interfering spirit — will bring
home to him a sense of his fault. Light-
foot aptly cites the παράγγελμα of Ger-
manicus to his mutinous troops: ““ dis-
cedite a contactu, ac diuidite turbidos: id
stabile ad paenitentiam, id fidei uinculum
erit”’ (Tacit. Annal., i. 43).—The ἄτακτοι
of 6-12 are excitable members who “ break
the ranks” by stopping work in view of
the near advent, and thus not only dis-
organise social life but burden the church
with their maintenance. The apostles
had not been idle or hare-brained en-
thusiasts, and their example of an orderly,
self-supporting life is held up as a pattern.
Insubordination of this kind is a breach
of the apostolic standard of the Christian
life, and Paul deals sharply with the first
symptoms of it. He will not listen to
any pious pleas for this kind of conduct.
Ver. 8. Paul’s practice of a trade and
emphasis upon the moral discipline of
work are quite in keeping with the best
Jewish traditions of the period. Compare
e.g., the saying of Gamaliel IT. (Kiddusch.
i. 11): ‘He who possesses a trade is
like a fenced vineyard, into which no
cattle can enter, etc.”-—S8wpedvy = “for
nothing, gratis ”.
Ver. 9. The apostles had the right to
be maintained by the church, but in this
case they had refused to avail themselves
of it. The Thessalonians are not to mis-
construe their action.
Ver. 10. Precept as well as example
(DCG, ii. 2). As is perhaps implied in
ὅτι, εἰ . . . ἐσθιέτω is a maxim quoted
by the apostle, not from some unwritten
saying of Jesus (Resch) but from the
Jewish counterparts, based on Gen. iii.
19, which are cited by Wetstein, especi-
ally Beresch. rabba, xiv. 12: “ut, si non
laborat, non manducet”. Cf. Carlyle’s
Chartism, chap. iii (‘‘ In all ways it needs,
especially in these times, to be proclaimed
6—16.
εσθαι, μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω.
ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως, μηδὲν' ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ ° περιεργαζομένους.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Β
59
II. ἧ ἀκούομεν γάρ τινας περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀ “ We are
informed”
I2.
xi. 18).
τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις παραγγέλλομεν Kai ἱπαρακαλοῦμεν ἐν Κυρίῳ ἸΙησοῦ e For the
Χριστῷ “ἵνα μετὰ ἢ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν͵
13. ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοί, μὴ ᾿ἐγκακήσητε * καλοποιοῦντες.
τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ ἡμών διὰ THs ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον ™ σημει-
οὖσθε, μὴ " συναναμίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ, ἵνα “ ἐντραπῇ " 15. καὶ μὴ
ἐχθρὸν Ῥ ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ “ νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν.
Κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης " δῴη ὑμῖν τὴν εἰρήνην "διὰ παντὸς ἐν παντὶ
4
τρόπῳ.
k Only here in N.T.
Findlay, etc.) the present, Win. § 18, 4.
Tit. ii. 8. Pp cae oe xix, 11 (LXX).
without ay, asin 1
53, Ps. Sol. ii. 40, εἴς.
aloud that for the idle man there is no
place in this England... he that will
not work according to his faculty, let him
perish according to his necessity”). The
use of ἐν Κυρίῳ here andin 1x Cor. xi. 12
(cf. Matt. xix. 4 f.) proves, as Titius argues
(der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt
der Seligkeit, 1900, p. 105), that the
original divine ideas of the Creation are
fulfilled and realised in the light of
Christ’s gospel; the entire process of
human life culminates in the faith of
Christ, and therefore no unqualified anti-
thesis can be drawn between ordinary life
and Christian conduct.
Ver. 11. The γάρ goes back to ver. 6.
‘* Whereas I am told that some of your
number are behaving in 4 disorderly
fashion, not busy but busybodies,” fussy
and officious, doing anything but attend-
ing to their daily trade. ‘‘Ab otio ualde
procliue est hominum ingenium ad curi-
ositatem” (Bengel). The first persecu-
tion at Thessalonica had been fostered
by a number of fanatical loungers (Acts
xvii. 5). On the sensible attitude of the
primitive church to labour, see Har-
nack’s Expansion, i. 215 f. M. Aurelius
(iii. 4) warns people against idle, fussy
habits, but especially against τὸ περί-
€pyov καὶ κακόηθες, and an apt parallel
to this use of ἀτάκτως lies in Dem.
Olynth., iii. 34: ὅσα (funds or food) οὗτος
ἀτάκτως viv λαμβάνων (i.¢., takes with-
out rendering personal service in the
field) οὐκ ὠφελεῖ, ταῦτ᾽ ἐν log τάξει
λαμβανέτω.
Ver. 12. They are not directly δά-
dressed (contrast 6, 13).—peta ἡσυχίας,
in the homely sphere of work. The three
causes of disquiet at Thessalonica are (a)
parono-
rusia.see
> ass, §
14. εἰ δέ 82, 4, and
Deissm.
225.
f Sc.avrovs,
ὡς g Cf. on I.
16. αὐτὸς δὲ δῃ Cf. τς
Acts xi.
18.
iCf. on
al. vi.9;
Eph. iii.
1 #.e., not 1 Thess.(so Linemann, Schmiedel, Schafer) but (so Pait, Left.,
m Only here in N.T. n
q Cf. I. v. 14, 1 Cor. iv. 14, and 2 Cor. ii. 7.
eter i. 2; Hellenistic opt., Win. § 14, 10.
Cf. τ Cor. v. οἵ. o Cf.
r Opt.
8 = “continually” Lk. xxiv.
the disturbing effect of persecution, (δ)
the tension produced by the thought of
the advent of Christ, and (c), as an out-
come of the latter, irregularity and social
disorganisation in the community.
Ver. 13. ὑμεῖς δέ, whoever else drops
out of the ranks of industrious, steady
Christians.— py éyx., implying that they
had not begun to grow slack (Moulton,
122 f.). Perhaps with a special allusion
to the presence of people who abused
charity; generous Christians must not
forego liberality and help, arguing that it
is no use to succour any because some
will take advantage of the church’s
largess.
Ver. 14. ϑιὰ τ. ἔπ.» implying that the
matter ends with this letter (Weiss) ; Paul
has spoken his last word on the subject.
With this and the following verse, cf.
Did. xv. 3 (ἐλέγχετε δὲ ἀλλήλους μὴ ἐν
ὀργῇ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ
εὐαγγελίῳ - καὶ παντὶ ἀστοχοῦντι κατὰ
τοῦ ἑτέρου μηδεὶς λαλείτω μηδὲ παρ᾽
ὑμῶν ἀκουέτω, ἕως οὗ μετανοήσῃ).---
ἐντραπῇ» “be ashamed” ( = αἰδεῖσθαι
as often).
Ver. 15. Disapproval, as a means of
moral discipline, loses all its effect if the
offender does not realise its object and
reason (vov@ereire), or if it is tainted with
personal hostility.—as ἀδελφόν. Com-
pare the fine saying of Rabbi Chanina
ben Gamaliel on Deut. xxv. 3, that after
the punishment the offender is expressly
called brother, not sinner.
Ver. 16. εἰρήνην, as opposed to these
fears and troubles of the church. Κύριος
is probably, in accordance with Paul’s
usual practice, to be taken as = Jesus
Christ, but the language of ver. 5 and of
54 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ B
t Emphatic:
the cen-
ai as
well as
thesteady ἐπιστολῇ * * οὕτω γράφω.
members. a ye >
u Cf. ont
Cor. xvi.
ai, and 2
ΠῚ, 17—18.
ὁ Κύριος μετὰ " πάντων ὑμών.
17. 6“ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, ὅ ἐστι σημεῖον ἐν πάσῃ
18. ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ " πάντων ὑμῶν.
Cor. xiii. ie v Autograph as means of recognising authenticity, cf, Abbott, Joh. Gram.
icero’s
2691, and Catil, iii, 5, Plautus, Bacch.
I., v. 23, makes the reference to God quite
possible.
Vv. 17, 18. Conclusion. Paul now
takes the pen from his amanuensis, to
add the salutation in his own handwrit-
ing for the purpose of authenticating the
epistle (otherwise in 1 Cor. xvi. 21).
his, he observes, is the sign-manual of
his letters (cf. ii. 2), ¢.e., the fact of a
personal written greeting at the close,
not any form of words (like ver. 18), or
the use of the word “ grace,” or “" certum
quendam nexum literarium” (Grotius).
iv. 4, 78, etc.
The precaution is natural, in view of his
suspicion about unauthorised communica-
tions. Compare “the σεσημείωμαι (gener-
ally contracted into wean) with which so
many of the Egyptian papyrus-letters
and ostraca close” (Milligan, p. 130), or
the postscript in one’s own handwriting
(ξύμβολον) which guaranteed an ancient
letter (Deissmann : Licht vom Osten, 105).
pera (cf. ver. 16), the divine presence is
realised through the experience of Christ's
ace.
, INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE PASTORAL
BPISULES.
INTRODUCTION TO THE PASTORAL
EPISTLES.
PRELIMINARY.
TuHoseE who propose to read this exposition of the Pastoral Epistles
may find it convenient to be apprised at the outset of the conclusions
assumed in it concerning the genuineness and integrity of the Letters.
After a careful review of the arguments adduced by the traditionalists
and the anti-traditionalists, and after the devotion of considerable
thought to a minute study of the Epistles themselves, the present
writer finds it easier to believe that St. Paul was the author of them,
as they have come down to us, than that a Paulinist (assuming that
there ever was a special school of Pauline thought), sometime
between 90 and 120 a.p., worked up a few fragments of genuine
letters of his master into 2 Timothy and Titus, and then composed
1 Timothy in imitation of his own style. This second alternative
represents, broadly speaking, the theory of the anti-traditional school
of critics.
The only serious difficulties which preclude an unhesitating
acceptance of these letters, as they stand, as the composition of St.
Paul, lie in (1), the style, which, although fundamentally not un-
Pauline, presents undeniably certain obvious peculiarities which are
not found in any of the ten other Pauline letters, and (2) in the
writer’s outlook on religion—in particular, the relations of God and
Christ respectively to man’s salvation, and the place of faith and
works in the spiritual life—which seems to be that of one who had
travelled on the Pauline road (assuming that there was a public
highway that could be so described), further than we should have
deemed it possible in the years—few at most—which separate the
close of St. Paul’s life from the date of the Epistles of the first
Roman captivity. The main features of the landscape are the same,
but the distances are different.
On the other hand, this altered theological outlook, as well as
the writer’s concern about Church institutions, is responsible for the
58 INTRODUCTION
peculiar religious phraseology in so far as it does indeed differ from
features common to the earlier groups of letters; so that whatever
considerations help us to account for the former change will also
aid in the solution of the problem of style and vocabulary.
The other arguments against the Pauline authorship, based on:
(3) the impossibility of fitting into the Acts of the Apostles the
personal and local references in the Pastorals, (4) the all: ged marks
of the second century in the heresy which is combated, and (5)
the allegation that the details of Church organisation reflect the
policy of the dominant party of the early second century—are, it is
believed, assumptions for which there is no foundation. And, in
fact, (4) and (5) are not now insisted on by many of the anti-
traditional school, and will not be dealt with in this introduction.
Before passing on to a brief discussion of the style and the
historical setting of the Epistles, it will not be amiss to suggest
some considerations which may help, not indeed to solve the problem
before us, but to enable us to believe that it would not be a problem
at all could we only know a little more about the personal history
of St. Paul, and of the inner life of the Christian Church in the
first century. In the first place, we must remember that it was a
period of intensely vigorous and rapidly developing Church life. We
are so much accustomed to regard as normal Christian communities
in which nine-tenths of the professed adherents are spiritually only
half alive, that we find it difficult to realise what manner of thing
Church life was when every one took a keen interest in his religion,
and the spiritual life of every Church member was full and strong,
even if not always consistent. The years that elapsed between
Pentecost and 100 a.p. represent the infancy of the Church; and we
all know how momentous in their after consequences are a child’s
experiences during the first five or six years of its life. But the
first century was even more significant for the subsequent history of
the Church than is infancy in the case of a human being. The
development of the Church, as we experience it, at least in Europe,
is slow; looking back thirty years we can indeed perceive some
change; but in the first century a year wrought what it now takes
a generation to effect. What we know of the rapid development in
applied science in our own day supplies us with an experience
somewhat analogous to the growth of the Christian Church—
doctrinally and institutionally—in the first century. We have seen
in the space of ten, or even five, years a complete revolution in men’s
notions as to what is possible and reasonable in the rate of travel
on the high road or in the air.
INTRODUCTION 59
It was while the Church was thus rapidly taking shape that St.
Paul came into it; and, if we may judge from the extant evidence,
he quickly became the most powerful constructive force in it, But
there were other agencies at work, human, as well as Divine and
divinely inspired, and St. Paul was himself wrought on and shaped
as much, or more, than he shaped others. Always a student but
never a recluse, he shared to the full the common life of the un-
exclusive early Church. He did not “dwell apart,” though always
conscious that his innermost life was ‘‘hid with Christ in God”.
And not only did his life move with the Church’s life, but it was
brought into close touch with every possible human experience—
except those of domestic life—to a degree rarely equalled by any
other man. The label that correctly describes the contents of a
given human personality to-day may be, in some cases, not misleading
five or ten years hence; but St. Paul was not one of these constant
quantities. His personality was not that of a Milton, self-determining,
holding on its course “like a star,” unaffected by the storms of the
lower atmosphere; he was as sympathetic, and therefore open to
impressions from without, as if he had been a weak man. Of this
impressionableness and craving for sympathy we have abundant
evidence in the Epistles that are universally acknowledged to be
genuine. Sucha man is likely to undergo changes in mental outlook,
to become possessed by fresh ideals and conceptions, so as to be-
wilder less agile minds; and, of course, new thoughts require for
their expression words and phrases for which the man had no use
before. In the case of St. Paul, this is no imaginary supposition.
The difference between the Paul of Philippians and the Paul of
1 Timothy is not greater than, perhaps not as great as, between the
Paul of Thessalonians and the Paul of Ephesians. The fact just
noticed should put us on our guard against the easy assumption that
the normal Pauline presentation of the relations between God and
man is that found in the central group of his Epistles: Romans,
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians.
There is, however, a difference between the Pastorals and the
earlier letters for which the lapse of time alone cannot account, and
that is a diminution in force. The letters to Timothy and Titus are
certainly of apostolic quality; the ordinary reader, and still more
the student, who compares them with the best of the sub-apostolic
literature, can at once perceive the difference between what is inspired
and what is merely interesting, edifying, and even noble. Neverthe-
less, we miss in the Pastorals the exuberant vigour, the reserved
strength of the earlier letters. The explanation of this may well be
60 INTRODUCTION
that before St. Paul wrote these letters he had ceased to be an
elderly, and had, perhaps rapidly, become an old man. There is
nothing impossible in this supposition. The surprising thing is that
it has not been more generally recognised as a probable factor in the
solution of the problem presented by the Pastorals. When we think
of the intensity with which St. Paul had lived his life—always at
high pressure—and what a hard life it had been, it would be a
marvel indeed if old age with its diminished powers had not come
suddenly upon him.
We hold then that the author of the Pastorals was Paul; but
“Paul the aged”; much more aged, and more truly so, than when
he penned his note to Philemon. We may observe, as a sign of old
age, a certain inertia which makes him satisfied to express his meaning
in habitual, almost stereotyped, words and phrases ; words and phrases
which are only open to the objection—in itself unreasonable—that
we have heard them quite recently. The brain no longer responds
to the will to utter “ words that burn”; and it seems as fitful in the
origination of “thoughts that breathe’. It is not that St. Paul is
not truly inspired in the Pastorals. These letters satisfy the practical
test of inspiration, viz., their yield of matter for thought is never
exhausted by study. There are, moreover, several passages in them
that have touched the hearts of Christians in every age as nearly as
anything the apostle ever wrote. But even in these, perhaps more
in these than in less striking paragraphs—for ordinary details of
Church life must be dealt with in ordinary language—we detect a
failing of power in comparison with the Paul of the earlier letters:
the inspiration is as true, but it is not as strong; the heart and
arteries and veins do their duty, but the blood does not course so
quickly as in the days of youth. To put it quite plainly: the difficulties
that meet the student of the Pastoral Epistles lie rather in the
logical connexion of the paragraphs than in the profundity of the
thoughts expressed in them; and whatever obscurity there may be
in some of the expressions used is due in nearly every case to the
meagreness of our information concerning the circumstances of the
writer and of the Church.
In the earlier epistles, on the contrary, it often happens that the
apostle’s thoughts and conceptions are too great for expression. He
does not, indeed cannot, formulate them precisely; he gives them
the most adequate expression he can; and the Holy Spirit has
ever since been leading the Church to a constantly increasing com-
prehension of them. But in the Pastorals we do not meet any such
struggles between thought and language We are never conscious
INTRODUCTION 61
that we are present at the birth of some mighty principle which can
reach maturity only at the end of time. Great theological statements
concerning man’s salvation—not of the relation of Christ to the
universe—are formulated, not daringly sketched; the conceptions of
the mutual relations of God and man which are involved in these
statements are not new to the author; he has mastered them com-
pletely, and presents them with a finished expression which leaves
the reader satisfied. Take, for example, the statement of the wide-
ness of God’s saving purposes in 1 Tim. ii. 4-6; the summary of the
working out of the Incarnation in 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; the analysis of
the saving process in Tit. iii. 4-7. Here we have theological principles
in their classical expression; they do not need exegesis, they only
demand to be ‘‘ marked, learned, and inwardly digested ”.
Again, the apostle, in these letters is not only not creative; he
is displayed to us as receptive of the thoughts of other makers of
Christian theology, his contemporaries. When St. Paul wrote the
Pastoral Epistles, his own work as an originating constructive
theologian had come to an end; and there comes into clear view—
what had been hitherto veiled—the effect on him of the action of
the religious life of the communities in which he lived. It is a truth,
obvious when stated, yet sometimes ignored, that the thoughts about
religion current in the Christian Society of the first century, had not
been generated only by St. Paul, but by St. John and St. Peter and
others whose names and achievements we can only conjecture.
When we were young, we used to picture the Palestine of the
patriarchs as a land in which no person or thing except Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob and their flocks were of any significance; they
dominated the landscape as do the saints in medieval pictures.
When we grew older, it was almost disturbing to one’s faith to realise
that to the busy merchants and peasants of Palestine, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob were not persons of unusual importance. Yet, as
always happens, the truer account, unpalatable at first, is found to
be more suggestive and helpful than the older fancy. In like manner,
a realisation that St. Paul did not dominate the Church of his time,
as his history in the Acts and his epistles so largely dominate the
New Testament, will be found a helpful consideration.
The Church is a greater thing than the greatest saint or theologian
in it; and St. Paul could not have helped, even if he would, being
influenced by the Christianity, as actually lived, of the men and
women around him; and that in three ways at least. (1) His own
theology came back to him not quite the same as it had come from
his brain. It is not only the elements of matter that are subject to
62 INTRODUCTION
reaction in consequence of fusion; the same natural law operates in
the interaction of the thoughts of a thoughtmaker with the minds of
those to whom his thoughts are communicated. And, if we may
carry on the same analogy, the Church of St Paul’s time was unable
to take up, to hold in solution, the whole of the Pauline theology ;
a considerable amount of it was held in suspension to be absorbed
gradually by the Church in the course of the ages. (2) Again, as
has just been pointed out, the religious thought of the Christian
Society in which St. Paul lived was fed and stirred by other apostles,
of whom we can name St. John and St. Peter. It is surely not
unreasonable to suppose that these apostles spoke before they
wrote, that what they published was the most perfect expression
attainable by them of what they had been speaking about during the
whole of their ministry ; that, in fact, Johannine literature was, for
the Church of the first century, the final presentation, not the
origination, of Johannine thought and expression. Is it too much to
expect that those who study the writings contained in the New
Testament should cease to think of the authors of them as solitaries
who had no other means but books of acquiring ideas or a vocabulary,
and who, in turn, only influenced the thought and phraseology of
the men of their time by books or treatises composed at the close
of their lives. It is strange that men cannot see the Church, the
Society which conditioned, was not conditioned by, St. Paul, St. John
and St. Peter. This consideration is intended to prepare the reader
to be not astonished or perplexed by the occasional Johannine turns
of phrase that occur in the Pastorals, and which are noted in the
course of the exposition. (3) Furthermore, it must not be thought
strange that the Providence of God, the Holy Spirit Who guides
the Church, should have called the apostle Paul almost wholly away
from thoughts of the Church’s place in history and in the universe
to the administration of, and provision for, the daily needs of the
Church as actually experienced by man. Our own generation has
not been without examples of men summoned from the library of the
“great house” into less obviously inspiring chambers, which serve
the more material, but not less necessary, needs of the household.
Christians who think of the Church as a visible Divine Society with
a life on earth continuous to the end of time, cannot think that St.
Paul as reflected in the Pastorals is less worthy of admiration than
St. Paul as reflected in Romans. Nor will they be offended if they
find that his new preoccupation with ordinary Church life has left
a trace on his idiom; if, it may be, he has caught some of the current
INTRODUCTION 63
phrases of ordinary religious society. He is not less intelligible to
Timothy, or less truly himself.
THe STYLE OF THE LETTERS.
It was noticed in the beginning of this Introduction that the con-
sideration of most weight against the Pauline authorship of the
Pastoral Epistles is the style of the composition, which differs from
that of any of the groups of the other ten Pauline letters—the
genuineness of which is here assumed—by (a) the recurrence in them
of certain, almost stereotyped, forms of expression, (b) by a general
difference in the structure of sentences, and (c) by the absence from
them of alleged characteristic Pauline words. These three sorts of
variation are here enumerated in the order of tbeir importance. No
fair-minded traditionalist will be disposed to minimise the gravity of
the problem presented by these indisputable facts. On the other
hand, these acknowledged peculiarities must not be allowed to obscure
the equally undoubted fact that the Epistles present not only as
many characteristic Pauline words as the writer had use for, but
that, in the more significant matter of turns of expression, the style
of the letters is, as has been stated before, fundamentally Pauline.
This will be evident from an inspection of the references. Perhaps it
is true to say that the positive stylistic peculiarities of the letters—the
large number of unusual words,! the recurrent phraseology—deprive
of its just weight the counter argument based on its admittedly
Pauline element, just because this is normal, and does not strike the
eye. Itis atleast a strong argument on the traditionalist side, that the
un-Pauline style of the Pastorals was not commented on by the early
Greek Christian critics, as was the un-Pauline style of Hebrews, and
the un-Johannine style of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the
peculiarities of expression are not such as a clever imitator of St.
Paul’s style would introduce.
Taking up, in the first place, the recurrent words, terms and
phrases, it will be convenient to divide them into three categories.
A. Terms, or phrases, of the religious life of the Christian Society.
B. Polemical phraseology in reference to false teaching.
C. Favourite terms, or expressions, of the author’s.
It is not pretended that this classification can be carried out con-,
sistently ; but it seemed to be worth attempting. In particular it
1 Dean Bernard, Past. Efp., p. xxxvi., notes that the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα amount to
176, a number “ proportionately twice as great as in any other of St. Paul’s letters,”
64 INTRODUCTION
may deserve consideration whether we have not presented to us, in
the style of the Pastorals, a new, but not the less true, aspect of St.
Paul as a writer, no longer creating a Christian terminology, but
freely making use of the pnraseology he heard around him, towards
the formation of which he had been a principal, but not the only, con-
tributor. On the other hand, in so far as this supposition is true it
precludes our making use of the occurrence of certain phrases and
words in extant early writings, as proofs that the authors of those
writings had read the Pastoral Epistles.
In the following list of terms and phrases, a = 1 Timothy; b = 2
Timothy ; c= Titus; the numbers indicate the number of occurrences
of the term or phrase in the epistle. When the term or phrase is
not peculiar to the Pastorals, a reference is given to its occurrence
elsewhere, or “etc.” is added.
TERMINOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.
ἃν Ὁ:
ἢ ἀλήθεια, in a technical sense: a, 3; b, 4; c (2 Cor. iv. 2, δἔσ.);
ἡ διδασκαλία : A, The body of doctrine; absolutely, or with epithets
(see ὑγιαίνουσα) : a, 4; Ὁ, 2; c, 3.
ἡ διδασκαλία : B, The act of teaching: a, 3; Ὁ, c (Rom. xii. 7).
ἡ πίστις, fides quae creditur: a, 8; b, 2; c, 3.
πίστις [k.] ἀγάπη : a, 4; ὃ, 2; c (1 Thess. iii. 6, v. 8).
πίστις, ἀγάπη, ὑπομονή : a, [b], c.
ἡ ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία: a, Ὁ, c, 2. ὑγιαίνοντες λόγοι: a, Ὁ. ὑγιαί-
νειν τῇ πίστει : C, 2. λόγος ὑγιής: c. Cf. νοσῶν: a; γάγγραινα : Ὁ.
ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας and ἐπιγινώσκειν τ. ἀληθείαν: a, 2; b, 2; 6.
(Heb. x. 26; cf. Philem. 6).
[ἡ] εὐσέβεια: a, 7; b. κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν : a, 6. εὐσεβῶς ζῆν: Ὁ, c.
εὐσεβεῖν: a (Acts, 4; 2 Pet. 5).
σώφρων: a, 6, 3. σωφρονεῖν : ὁ (Mark ν. 15; Rom. xii. 3; 2 Cor. v.
13). σωφρονισμός : Ὁ. σωφρονίζειν : 6. σωφρόνως : 6. σωφροσύνη: a, 2
(Acts xxvi. 25).
ὃ νῦν αἰών: a, Ὁ, α.
ἐπιφάνεια : a, Ὁ, 8; c (2 Thess. ii. 8) (ἐπιφαίνειν : c, 2; Luke i. 79;
Acts xxvii. 20; cf. Acts ii. 20).
ὠφέλιμος : a, 2; Ὁ, c.
διάβολοι, adj.: a, Ὁ, c.
ἀρνεῖσθαι: a, Ὁ, 4; c, 2, etc., but not Paul.
a, b.
συνείδησις καθαρά: a, Ὁ (cuveid. ἀγαθή : a, 2; Acts xxiii. 1; 1 Pet.
iti.-16, 21).
ees
cope
INTRODUCTION 05
καθαρὰ καρδία: a, Ὁ.
πίστις ἀνυπόκριτος : a, Ὁ.
πίστις Kk. ἀγάπη ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ ἸΙησοῦ : a, Ὁ.
πίστις ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: a, b; etc.
καλός : qualifying adj. (not incl. καλὸν ἔργον): a, 9; b, 3 (esp.
καλὴ στρατεία, a, OF στρατιώτης, Ὁ, καλὸς ἀγών, a, Ὁ); etc., but not
Paul.
παγὶς : ἃ; τοῦ διαβόλου : a, Ὁ.
φεῦγε - δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην. . . πίστιν ἀγάπην: a, b.
ἀγωνίζομαι τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα : a, Ὁ.
παραθήκην φυλάσσειν: a, Ὁ, 2.
παρακολουθεῖν διδασκαλίᾳ : a, Ὁ.
ἄνθρωπος [τ.] Θεοῦ : 8, Ὁ.
a, ‘c.
καλὸν ἔργον, καλὰ ἔργα: a, 4; c, 4; etc., but not Paul.
gepvds: a, 2; c (Phil. tv. 8); or cepvoryns: a, 2; Ὁ:
σωτήρ (of God the Father, not incl. Tit. ii. 13): a, 3; c, 3.
b, Ὁ:
εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον : Ὁ.
πρὸς Ss » ἐξηρτισμένος : Ὁ.
5 99 39 ” ἀδόκιμοι: Cc.
9305-990), 19» ” ἑτοίμους : σ.
PECULIAR TO OWE LETTER,
ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ : a, 2.
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ : a, 2 (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή: 8,).
ἐπιλαβέσθαι τῆς ζωῆς : a, 2.
μακάριος (οὗ God): a, 2.
τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως, OF τῆς εὐσεβείας : a, 2.
πίστις K. ἀγάπη κ. ἁγιασμός, OF ἁγνεία : a, 2.
ἐπαισχύνεσθαι τί or τινά : Ὁ, 3 (Rom. i. 16, and five other ins.).
ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα (Last Day): Ὁ, 3 (Matt. 2; Luke, 3; 2 Thess. 1).
καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι: c, 2.
PoLEMICAL PHRASEOLOGY.
ἀληθεία : ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας : ἃ. περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν :
Ὁ. μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας : Ὁ. μηδέποτε εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθ.
ἐλθεῖν δυνάμενα: Ὁ. ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ: Ὁ. ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας τ,
ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν : bh. αποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν : C,
VOL. IV. 5
66 INTRODUCTION
νοῦς : διεφθαρμένων . . . τ. νοῦν: ἃ. κατεφθαρμένοι τ. νοῦν: Ὁ.
μεμίανται αὐτῶν... ὃ νοῦς : C.
πίστις : περὶ τ. πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν : ἃ. περὶ τ. πίστιν ἠστόχησαν : Δ.
ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τ. πίστιν: Ὁ. ἀποστήσονταΐί τινες τ. πίστεως : ἃ. ἀπεπλανή-
θησαν ἀπὸ τ. πίστεως : a. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 5, 19.
συνείδησις : κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν : ἃ. μεμίανται
αὐτῶν... ἡ συνείδησις: c. Cf. 1 Tim. i. δ, 19.
ἀστοχεῖν: ἃ, 2; b. See ἀλήθεια and πίστις.
ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν : Ὁ. ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν : c. Cf.
ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων, Ὁ.
βέβηλος : a, 8; Ὁ (Heb. xi. 16). (βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι : a, Ὁ).
γενεαλογίαι : a, C.
ἐκζητήσεις OF ζητήσεις : a, 2; b,c. (μωραὶ ζητήσεις : b, Cc.)
λογομαχεῖν and λογομαχία : a, Ὁ.
ματαιολογία and ματαιολόγος : a,c. Cf. ζητήσεις . .. μάταιοι, Cc
Epis: a, C.
μάχη: Ὀ: Ὁ:
μῦθος: a, 2; Ὁ; Ὁ (2 Pet... 16),
νόμος : a, 2; νομικός: C3 νομοδιδάσκαλος : a.
ἐπὶ πλεῖον προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας : b. οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον : Ὁ.
, τς x .-
προκόψουσιν επὶι TO χειρον = b.
AuTHor’s Favourite TERMS,
ΡΟ:
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος : a, Ὁ, 6.
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος κ. πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος : a, 2.
παραιτοῦ : a, 2; b,c.
οἶκος (household): ἃ, 5; b, 2; c (1 Cor. i. 16, εἰς.).
περί with accusative: a, 8; b, 2; c (Phil. ii, 23, εἴς.).
ἃ, Ὁ:
χάριν ἔχω ; a, Ὁ (Luke xvii. 9; Heb. xii. 28).
διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, Or τ. Κυρίου: a; Ὁ, 2.
εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ κ. ἀπόστολος. . . διδάσκαλος : a, Ὁ,
χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη : 8, Ὁ.
ὧν ἐστίν: a; Ὁ, 2.
a, 6.
ὡσαύτως : a, 4; 6, 2.
ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ ; a, C.
καιροῖς ἰδίοις : a, 2; C.
διαβεβαιοῦσθαι περί τινος : a, 6.
προσέχειν : ἃ, δ; 6. (προσέχειν μύθοις : a, 6.)
ee
INTRODUCTION ἡ 67
»,α.
σπούϑασον : Ὁ, 8; 6. (σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν : Ὁ, 2; c.)
περιΐστασο : Ὁ, c.
δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν : Ὁ, 2; c (Luke viii. 47; Acts xxii. 24; Heb. ii. 11).
b.
συνκακοπάθησον : Ὁ, 2.
The second difference in style by which the Pastoral Epistles are
marked off from the earlier letters may be given in the words of
Lightfoot.
The Syntax.
(a) “It is stiffer and more regular than in the earlier Epistles,
more jointed and less flowing. The clauses are marshalled together,
and there is a tendency to parallelism.”
ες 1 Tim. i. 9, ii. 1, 2, τῷ 16, iv. 12, 13, 15, v. 10, vi. 9, 11,
12, 13, 15, 18; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12, iii. 1-8, 10-13, 16, iv. 2,
4.5,7: Tit. i. 7, 8, 9, ii. 7, 12, iii. 1-3,
(Ὁ) ‘There is a greater sententiousness, an abruptness and
positiveness of form. Imperative clauses are frequent.
eg Phin vel 15: 10. V7, Oy 95 “Wi. 2,6, 11. 90}.
Wits dd, Pasay An oy de 0, bos 19 90 23) 1 P52, 16."
(Biblical Essays, p. 402.)
These differences in syntax are not unconnected with the small
variety and paucity of particles which are a negative feature of the
Pastorals. But neither characteristic is very astonishing, since in
point of fact, the Epistles are of the nature of episcopal charges,
authoritative, not argumentative ; enforcing disciplinary regulations,
not unfolding theological conceptions, or vindicating personal claims.
We come, in the last place, to state and consider the problem
presented by the purely negative characteristic of the style of
the Pastoral Epistles, the fact that we do not find in them
certain alleged characteristic Pauline words. Those who urge this
as a serious argument against the traditional belief as to the author-
ship of these letters do not seem to make allowance for the fact that
they are ex hypothesi dealing with a real man—not a machine; a
man who had travelled much, and had read much; who was con-
stantly coming into contact with fresh people, constantly confronted
with fresh problems of practical life. The vocabulary of such a man
is not likely to remain unaffected in its contents or use. Add to this,
68 INTRODUCTION
that each of the other letters which are ascribed to him arose out of
special circumstances, and deals almost exclusively with those
special circumstances, and that the circumstances which called
forth the letters to Timothy and Titus were, confessedly, quite
different from those out of which any of the other Pauline letters
arose. When these obvious facts are considered, it is difficult to
treat seriously an argument which assumes that St. Paul was
provided with only one set of words and terms; unalterable, no
matter to whom, or on what subject, he was writing.
It is not thus that non-Biblical compositions are critically
examined. We do not demand that Shakespeare’s Sonnets or
Cymbeline should exhibit a certain percentage of Hamlet words.
And the argument becomes all the more unreasonable when one
thinks how very small in extent is the extant literary work of St.
Paul: less than 150 small octavo pages in Westcott and Hort’s
edition, and of these the Pastorals occupy only fifteen. If we had
been privileged to hear St. Paul’s sermons, or to listen to his con-
versation, how many Pauline words, as shown in a concordance,
should we have heard ?
Antecedently, we should not expect that an author’s favourite
expressions would be distributed over the pages of his book like the
spots on a wall-paper pattern; nor is this notion confirmed when
we examine the list of Pauline words missing from the Pastorals,
as given by Holtzmann (Pastoralbriefe, p. 98, sqq.) and less fully by
von Soden (Hand-Commentar, p. 177 sqq.).
In the complete list of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, fifty
in all, as printed below, each group of cognate words, bracketed
together, is for argument’s sake, treated asa unit. And the numbers
indicate the number of times the word occurs in St. Paul’s Epistles.
The words that are spaced are those, which after an examination
of a concordance, can be plausibly claimed as characteristically
Pauline; that is to say, they are of comparative frequent occurrence,
and are found in at least three groups of his Epistles. It must be
allowed that the absence of all of these is surprising. The simplest ex-
planation is that some of them had passed out of St. Paul’s ordinary
vocabulary; and that, in the case of others, the subject matter of
the Pastorals did not demand their use. Some of them, obviously,
belong to the vocabulary of certain theological conceptions, others
to that of a writer’s temperament and temper.
For the purpose of analysis, it will be convenient to think of
the other ten epistles of St, Paul as falling into four groups,
υἱξ. ---
INTRODUCTION 69
(i.) 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
(ii.) Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal.
(iii.) Eph., Col., Philem.
(iv.) Philippians, which though it is one of group iii., as being one
of the epistles of the first Roman captivity, yet inasmuch as it was
written somewhat later, may be considered apart.
ἄδικος, 3, ἀκαθαρσία, 9, ἀκροβυστία, 19, (4moxadktmrery, 13,
ἀποκάλυψις, 13), ἀπολύτρωσις, 7, γνωρίζειν, 18, διαθήκη, 9 (δικαιοῦν,
27, δικαίωμα, 5), δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, 9, δοκεῖν, 18, ἕκαστος, 42, (ἐλευθερία,
7, ἐλεύθερος, 16, ἐλευθεροῦν, 5), (ἐν ἐέργει α, 8, ἐνεργεῖν, 17, ἐνέργημα,
2, ἐνεργής, 2), ἔξεστιν, 5, ἔργα νόμου, 9, κἀγώ, 27, καταργεῖν, 25,
κατεργάζεσθαι, 20, ((αυχᾶσθαι, 35, καύχημα, 10, καύχησις, 10),
κρείσσων, 4, μείζων, 4, μικρός, 4, μωρία, 5, (ὁμοιοῦν, 1, ὁμοίωμα, 5), ὁμοίως,
4, δρᾶν, 10, οὐρανός, 21, παράδοσις, 5, παραλαμβάνειν, 11, πατὴρ
ἡ μῶν, 7, outside salutations, πείθειν, 2, (τερισσεία, ὃ, περισσεύειν,
26, περίσσευμα, 2, περισσός, 2, περισσότερος, 6), wept
πατεῖν, 32, (πεποιθέναι, 12, πεποίθησις, 6), πλεονάζειν, 8, (πλεονεκτεῖν,
5, πλεονέκτης, 4, πλεονεξία, 6), οἱ πολλοί, 8, (πρ Gypa, 4, πρᾶξις, 3,
πράσσειν, 18), σπλάγχνα, 8, (cuvepyetv, 3, συνεργός, 12), σῶμα,
91, (ταπεινός, 8, ταπεινοῦν, 4), (τέλειος, 8, τελειότης, 1, τελειοῦν, 1),
υἱοθεσία, 5, υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ, 17, (ὑπακοή, 11, ὑπακούειν, 11), (φρονεῖν,
24, φρόνημα, 4, φρόνησις, 1, φρόνιμος, 5), φύσις, 11, χαρίζεσθαι, 16,
χρηστός, 3.
Of the fifty characteristically Pauline words no less than eleven
do not occur in groups i., iii., iv., viz., ἄδικος, δικαιοῦν, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ,
ἔξεστιν, ἔργα νόμου, μείζων, μικρός, μωρία, ὁμοίως, πείθειν, ot πολλοί. Of
these, ἄδικος is not found in 2 Cor. or Gal.; δικαιοῦν not in 2 Cor.
though twice in the Pastorals; while δικαίωμα only occurs in Rom. ,
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ not in 1 Cor. or Gal.; ἔξεστιν not in Rom. or Gal.,
ἔργα νόμου not in 1 Cor. or 2 Cor.; μείζων not in 2 Cor. or Gal.;
μικρός not in Rom.; μωρία only in 1 Cor. (while μωρός, also in 1 Cor.
(4), occurs in the Pastorals twice); ὁμοίως not in 2 Cor. or Gal.;
πείθειν not in Rom. or 1 Cor.; ot πολλοί not in Gal., but five times
in Rom. It is obvious, from these facts, that these eleven words
are not characteristically Pauline.
Of the others, four do not occur in groups 1. and iii., viz., ϑοκεῖν,
κρείσσων, ὁμοιοῦν, ταπεινός. Of these, δοκεῖν not in Rom. ; κρείσσω. not
in Rom., 2 Cor. or Gal. ; ὁμοιοῦν not in 1 Cor., 2 Cor. or Gal. ; and
ταπεινός not in 1 Cor. or Gal.
Seven do not occur in groups i. and iv., 07z., dxpoBuotia, ἀπολύτρω-
ots, διαθήκη, ἐλευθερία, υἱοθεσία, φύσις, χρηστός. Of these, ἀκροβυστία
not in 2 Cor.; ἀπολύτρωσις not in 2 Cor. or Gal. Of the ἐλευθερία
70 INTRODUCTION
group, ἐλεύθερος and ἐλευθεροῦν are not in 2 Cor., and ἐλευθεροῦν is not
in 1 Cor. υἱοθεσία not in 1 Cor. or 2 Cor.; φύσις not in 2 Cor.;
χρηστός not in 2 Cor. or Gal.; leaving διαθήκη (once in iii.) and
ἐλευθερία (twice in iii.) as the only words that are evenly distributed
in group ii.
Among those which do not occur in group i., v2z., γνωρίζειν,
κατεργάζεσθαι, σπλάγχνα, τέλειος, φρονεῖν, χαρίζεσθαι, we notice that of
the twenty instances οὗ κατεργάζεσθαι seventeen occur in Rom. and
2 Cor.; σπλάγχνα, not found in Rom., 1 Cor. or Gal., occurs three
times in Philem.; none of the τέλειος group is found in 2 Cor. or
Gal., while τελειοῦν and τελειότης are absent from Rom. and 1 Cor.
Of the thirty-four instances of the φρονεῖν group, one of which is
1 Tim. vi. 17, Rom. and Phil. account for twenty-five; φρόνημα is
only found in Rom., φρόνησις only in Eph., φρόνιμος only in Rom.,
1 Cor., and 2 Cor.; leaving γνωρίζειν and χαρίζεσθαι fairly repre-
sentative words.
It remains to notice a few of these characteristically Pauline words
which are not found in Philippians, viz.: ἀκαθαρσία, καταργεῖν, ὁρᾶν,
παράδοσις, πλεονεκτεῖν, and υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ. ἀκαθαρσία is not found in
1 Cor.; καταργεῖν does, in point of fact, occur in 2 Tim. ; ὁρᾶν, found
in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does not occur in 2 Cor. or Gal., παράδοσις not in
Rom. or 2 Cor.; none of the πλεονεκτεῖν group is found in Gal., while
πλεονεκτεῖν and πλεονεξία are both absent from 1 Cor., and πλεονέκτης
from 2 Cor. Of the seventeen places where our Lord is called υἱὸς
[τ. Θεοῦ,] eleven are found in Rom. and Gal.
In the whole list, then, there are twenty-seven words, or more
than half, the absence of which from the Pastorals obviously need
call for no remark. The following facts with regard to the distribution
of some of the others are suggestive ; and diminish, if they do not
wholly remove, the difficulty of the problem before us. ἕκαστος (42)
occurs twenty-two times in 1 Cor.; of the ἐνέργεια group (29) three
members are not found in Rom., 2 Cor., or Gal., i.¢., ἐνέργεια,
ἐνέργημα, ἐνεργής ; neither is ἐνέργεια found in 1 Cor. Of the twenty-
seven occurrences of κἀγώ, more than half, nineteen, are found in
1 Cor. and 2 Cor. Of the καυχᾶσθαι group (55) more than half,
twenty-nine, occur in 2 Cor; παραλαμβάνειν (11) is not found in Rom.
or 2 Cor. πατὴρ ἡμῶν, apart from its common use in salutations,
is found three times in 1 Thess., twice in 2 Thess., and once each in
Gal. and Phil. Of the περισσεία group (39), none is found in Gal. ;
three not in 1 Cor., 1.6., περισσεία, περισσός and περίσσευμα ; two not
in Rom., 7.¢., περίσσευμα and περισσότερος. On the other hand, nearly
half, seventeen, of the total is found in 2 Cor. (which has also περισσο-
INTRODUCTION 71
τέρως seven times), seven occur in 1 Cor. and five in Phil. Neither
πεποιθέναι Nor πεποίθησις Occurs in 1 Cor. ; πεποίθησις not in Rom. or
Gal. Here again seven cases belong to 2 Cor. and seven to Phil.
Of the πρᾶγμα group (25), thirteen belong to Rom., which has ten
out of the eighteen occurrences of πράσσειν. Neither of the συνεργεῖν
group (15) occurs in Gal.; yet its distribution is otherwise fairly
even. The distribution of σῶμα (91) is remarkable. Just more than
half, forty-six, of its occurrences are found in 1 Cor.; chap. vi. having
eight, chap. xii, eighteen, chap. xv., nine. Neither ὑπακοή nor
ὑπακούειν occur in 1 Cor. or Gal, ; ὑπακούειν not in 2 Cor.
An analysis of the list of Pauline particles that are not found in
the Pastoral Epistles yields the same general result; that is to say,
the great majority of them are confined to group ii. of the Epistles ;
and that is explained by the fact that that group is the most argu-
mentative and controversial, and the subject matter demands the
employment of inferential and similar particles. Thus dpa (15), ἕνεκεν
(6), ἴδε (1) ἰδού (9, of which 6 are in 2 Cor.), ποῦ (10, 8 of which are
in 1 Cor.), παρά, acc. (14), are not found outside group ii.; ἔπειτα (11,
7 of which are in 1 Cor.), μήπως (10), οὔτε (34, of which 22 are in 4
verses), are only in group ii. and in 1 Thess. The following also
do not occur in groups i and iii: ἄχρι (ii. 12, iv. 2), οὔπω (ii, 2, iv. 1)
πάλιν (ii. 25, iv. 3). The following do not occur in group iii.. διότι (10:
i. 3, ii. 6, iv. 1), €umpooOey (7: i. 4, ii. 2, iv. 1), ἔτι (15: i. 1, ii, 13,
iv. 1). The distribution of the others is as follows: ἀντί (5: i, 2, ii.
my atl. 1) ἄρα. οὖν (1220-4. 2.11: 9. ati, 1); διό: (27, 1. 2; ὦ 18; τὶς Ὁ;
iv. 1), ὅπως (9: i. 1, 11. 7, iii. 1), οὐκέτι (15: ii. 13, ili, 2), ἐν παντί (16:
i. 1, ii. 11, of which 10 are in 2 Cor. ; iii. 2, iv. 2), ποτέ (does occur
in Tit., otherwise 19: i. 1, ii. 8, iii. 9, iv. 1), ὥσπερ (14: i. 1 ii. 13),
σύν (38: i. 4, ii. 21, iii. 9, iv. 4). There are twenty-four char-
acteristically Pauline particles in the above enumeration. Of these,
ten are not found in group 1., fifteen are not found in group iii., and
in fact, in the epistles of the first Roman captivity (groups iii. and
iv.), which are about half as long again as the Pastoral Epistles,
particles are very sparingly used ; διό, ἐν παντί and σύν alone being at
allcommon. It may be proper to note here in connexion with the
absence of σύν from the Pastorals, that twice, in 2 Tim. iv. 11 and Tit.
iii. 15, μετά is used where the other Pauline letters have σύν; other
wise the usage of μετά in the Pastorals does not differ from that of
St. Paul e!sewhere. Another noteworthy feature in the Pastorals
is the absence of the article, especially before common Christian
terms. This peculiarity, and also the deficiency in particles, may
be possibly due to the amanuensis employed by St. Paul at this
72 INTRODUCTION
time. See Dean Bernard, Past. Epp. p. xli., and Milligan, Thessa-
lonians, p. 126.
HisToRICAL SETTING OF THE EPISTLES.
It is altogether unneccessary for any one now to restate the
arguments which prove that the references to persons and places in
the Pastorals cannot be accommodated to the history of St. Paul and
of his companions as given in the Acts. The “historical contra-
dictions”” are marshalled with crushing force by Lightfoot in his
Biblical Essays, p. 403 sqq. Critics of the anti-traditional school
who accept, as genuine Pauline fragments, those sections of the
Pastorals in which the personal and local references occur are
obliged to allocate these references to different parts of the Acts;
and, even so, the explanations given are forced and unconvincing.
It must then be clearly understood that our claim of the Pastorals
for St. Paul is based on the assumption that his ministry was pro-
longed for at least two years beyond the date of the close of the
Acts. If St. Paul was martyred immediately, or very soon, after the
expiration of the two years’ confinement mentioned in Acts xxviii,
30, then he did not write the Pastoral Epistles or any portion of
them. This is a vital point ; and demands at least a brief discussion
of the main arguments in favour of the traditional opinion. Sup-
posing that the Pastorals were not in our hands, and the question
were asked, Was the two years’ confinement in Rome mentioned
in Acts xxviii. 30, followed by St. Paul’s execution, or by his re-
lease ?—the answer must be that all the positive evidence available
is in favour of the latter alternative. There are three lines of argu-
ment: (1) the way in which the Acts ends; (2) the evidence of the
epistles written during, or towards the end, of those two years ; (3) ex-
ternal testimony.
(1) It ought to be unnecessary to observe that the author of the
Acts knew what happened at the end of those two years. We can
only guess why he stopped where he did; yet some guesses have
more probability than others. There were limits to the size of books
in those days. On the supposition that St. Luke knew of a sub-
sequent ministry of his master’s, the close of the Roman captivity
would be a suitable point at which to bring vol. i. of the Acts toa
conclusion, whether regard be had to considerations of space, or of
literary fitness; the arrival at Rome being the fulfilment of the
apostle’s intention announced in Acts xix. 21. On the other hand,
if St. Luke knew that St. Paul’s two years’ confinement had been
followed at once by his execution, the historian’s omission to mention
INTRODUCTION 73
it cannot be accounted for. A brief record would have been all that
was necessary, and this would not have added unduly to the length
of the book.
Salmon’s explanation (Introduction, p. 312) that “why St. Luke
has told us no more is, that he knew no more; and that he knew no
more, because at the time nothing more had happened—in other
words, that the book of the Acts was written a little more than two
years after Paul’s arrival at Rome,” will not commend itself to many
scholars. It seems more natural to suppose that both the Gospel
and the Acts were published after St. Paul’s death. Literary men
do not always succeed in completing their designs before they die ;
and the later the date we assign to Acts, the greater is the probability
that St. Luke died before he had reduced to literary form his memories
of the Apostle’s post-Roman-captivity history.
Passing now to an examination on this point of the third group
of St. Paul’s Epistles, the evidence afforded by them is distinctly
favourable to the supposition that St. Paul was released after the
two years of Acts xxviii. 30. We must of course avoid the error
into which some fall, of imagining that every foreboding or declared
intention recorded in a narrative, or preserved in a published letter,
would have been suppressed by the editor if it had not been realised.
And accordingly we can only infer from the tone of Philippians and
Philemon that, in St. Paul’s judgment, when he wrote these letters,
the prospect of his release was favourable. No other inference can
be drawn from “I know that I shall abide, yea, and abide with you
all, for your progress and joy in the faith ” (Phil. 1. 25); “1 trust in
the Lord that I myself also shall come shortly” (ii. 24); ‘‘ Prepare
me also a lodging: for I hope that through your prayers I shall be
granted unto you” (Philem. 22). Contrast with these passages the
tone of 2 Timothy, which is that of a man who knew that his days
were numbered, and that the end was not far off.
What seems to be a natural conclusion from the internal evidence
of Acts xxviii. and of Philippians and Philemon is confirmed by the
tradition of the early Church as it is expressed by Eusebius, H. E.,
ii., 22: “Paul is said (λόγος ἔχει), after having defended himself to
have set forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and to have
entered the same city a second time, and to have there ended his
life by martyrdom. Whilst then a prisoner, he wrote the Second
Epistle to Timothy, in which he both mentions his first defence, and
his impending death.”’ It is to be noted that there is no contrary
tradition ; nor is it easy to see what end could have been served by
the invention of this one.
74 INTRODUCTION
There are two passages in earlier writers which are adduced as
proof that St. Paul at one time visited Spain. Since it is impossible
to find room for such a journey within the period covered by the
Acts, these passages, if accepted as proofs of the expedition to Spain,
are therefore proofs of a missionary activity of St. Paul subsequent
to the date of the close of the Acts. In the Letter of Clement of
Rome to the Corinthians, § 5, the writer speaks of Peter and Paul
as contemporary martyrs ; and Paul he describes as κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν
τε TH ἀνατολῇ Kal ἐν τῇ δύσει. . . δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον Kal
ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών.
It is difficult to believe that a native of Rome, writing from Rome,
would speak of the world’s capital as ἡ δύσις Or τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ; Nor
did Corinth lie so far to the east of Rome as to justify such a rhe-
torical expression (see Lightfoot’s note zm loc.). Nor can we argue
from the opening of the following chapter—‘ Unto these men of holy
lives was gathered (συνηθροίσθη) a vast multitude’’—that Clement
meant to date the fury of Neronic persecution as subsequent to the
martyrdom of St. Paul. Writing about thirty years after ‘‘ the great
tribulation,” he mentions the martyrs in order of dignity. In any
case, he mentions Peter’s death before that of Paul; yet this was
never considered an argument against the tradition that the two
apostles were martyred together; nor would it be felt as a serious
objection to the recent theory that St. Peter outlived St. Paul by
many years.
The following passage from the Muratorian Canon, in its obscure
simplicity, reads like a fragment of a genuine tradition rather than
a literary figment based on Rom. xv. 28: ‘Acta autem omnium
apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophilo
comprendit, quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicuti et
semote passionem [perh, semota passione] Petri euidenter declarat,
sed et profectionem [perh. profectione] Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam
proficiscentis”’ (text as given by Westcott, Canon. N.T., p. 535). The
argument is unaffected even if the words from “ passionem” be de-
rived from the early second century Actus Petri cum Simone. See
James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii., xi., and Dean Bernard, Pastoral Epp.,
p. xxx. These considerations force us to the conclusion that the as-
sumption that St. Paul’s life ended where St. Luke’s history termin-
ates is arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence that is available. It
remains to present to the reader a conjectural outline (based on
Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, p. 223) of St. Paul’s movements between
his release and his second Roman imprisonment.
(1) A journey from Rome to Asia Minor. It is natural to suppose
INTRODUCTION 75
that he visited Philippi and Colossz, in accordance with the intima-
tions cited above from Phil. and Philem. Perhaps he now visited
Crete.
(2) A journey to Spain; perhaps passing through Dalmatia and
Gaul (Ὁ) (2 Tim. iv. 10). Possibly on this journey he became aware
of the convenience of Nicopolis in Epirus as a centre for work.
(3) Last journey Eastward, Visits Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3). The
dispute with Hymenzeus and Alexander the smith, and the services
of Onesiphorus (1 Tim. 1. 20; 2 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14) perhaps now took
place. Leaves Timothy in charge of the Church at Ephesus. Visits
Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3).
[1 Timothy.]
Visits Crete; leaves Titus in charge; returns to Asia (as hoped in
1 Tim. iii. 14, iv. 13).
[ Titus. |
Passes through Miletus (2 Tim. iv. 20), Troas (2 Tim. iv. 13),
where perhaps he was arrested, Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20). In any
case he never reached Nicopolis as anticipated in Tit. iii. 12. It is
here assumed that the winter mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 21, is the same
as that of Tit. iii. 12.
[2 Timothy.]
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
With regard to the external attestation to the Pastoral Epistles, it
must be acknowledged that some early heretics, who acknowledged the
genuineness of the other letters attributed to St. Paul, rejected these.
Basilides, who flourished in the reign of Hadrian (117-138 a.p.), is
the first who is said to have done so. Clement Al. (Strom. ii. 11)
states that some, Gnostics apparently, were actuated in this decision
by dislike of the expression ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις in 1 Tim. vi. 20: ὑπὸ
ταύτης ἐλεγχόμενοι τῆς φωνῆς ot ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιμόθεον
ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς. On the other hand, the extant fragments of
another Gnostic, Heracleon, contain an allusion to 2 Tim. ii. 13:
ἀρνήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν οὐδέποτε δύναται (Clem. Al., Stvom. iv. 9). The
Canon of Marcion, which contained only his own edition of the
Gospel according to St. Luke and ten of St. Paul’s epistles, of course
did not include the Pastorals; but Tatian (died about 170) did not
wholly follow him in this, since he regarded Titus as certainly
genuine. ‘‘ Hanc vel maxime Apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvi
pendens Marcionis, et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt,
assertionem”’ (Jerome, Prol. in Tit.). In the same context, St.
76 INTRODUCTION
Jerome declares that these adverse judgments were not critical in
any true sense, but merely arbitrary: ‘‘cum haeretica auctoritate
pronuntient et dicant, Illa epistola Pauli est, haec non est”. How-
ever that may be, there is at least no trace in the writings of the
Church controversialists of arguments of a critical nature; whereas
in the dispute as to the authorship of Hebrews, Clement Al. and
Origen were compelled to discuss the problem presented by its un-
Pauline style. In any case, the fact that the rejection of the Pastorals
by some heretics was noted amounts to a positive testimony in their
favour by the contemporary Church.
From the time of Irenzeus, Clement Al. and Tertullian '—that is,
practically from the time that N.T. books are quoted by their
author’s names-—until the year 1804, when Schmidt in his Jntro-
duction denied the genuineness of 1 Timothy, no one, Christian or non-
Christian, doubted that the Pastoral Epistles were genuine letters of
the Apostle Paul. They are included in all MSS., Versions and
Lists of the Pauline Epistles without exception, and in the same
order (i.e., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Tit.). An interesting exception as regards
the order meets us in the Muratorian Fragment: ‘‘ Uerum ad Phile-
monem unam, et ad Titum unam, et ad Timotheum duas pro affectu
et dilectione; in honore tamen ecclesiae catholicae in ordinatione
ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt’’. The composer of this
catalogue here arranges the groups of four personal letters of St.
Paul in rough chronological order. As 2 Tim. was obviously the last
letter that St. Paul wrote, the two to Timothy are placed last, Titus
being joined to them as evidently dealing with kindred topics.
It remains that the reader should have placed before him the
traces, more or less distinct, of the Pastoral Epistles in the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers, and of the pre-Irenzeus period.
CLEMENT OF Rome. Ad Cor. 1. (A.d. 95.)
§1(1 Tim. νὶ. 1). ὥστε TO... ὄνομα ὑμῶν μεγάλως βλασφη-
μηθῆναι.
§1(1 Tim. ν. 17). τιμὴν τὴν καθήκουσαν ἀπονέμοντες Tots...
πρεσβυτέροις.
1 {1 Tim, ii. 9, 11; Tit. ii, 4). yuvargiv... στεργούσας
καθηκόντως τοὺς ἄνδρας ἑαυτῶν ἔν τε TH κανόνι τῆς ὑποταγῆς
ὑπαρχούσας τὰ κατὰ τὸν οἶκον σεμνῶς οἰκουργεῖν ἐδιδάσκετε, πάνυ
σωφρονούσας.
᾿ς census) Maer. Ῥταοῖ τας 107 53: 16.5.7. ΜΙ τς 5. πῖν,. 3, 48) ὄν. 16 3.
Clem. Al., Stvom. i. p. 350. Tert., de Praescr. 6, 25. Adv. Marcion., v. 21
INTRODUCTION ii
§ 2 (1 Tim. vi. 8). τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι.
*§ 2 (Tit. iii, 1). ἕτοιμοι εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν.
§ 7 (1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7). ὁ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ἀγὼν ἐπίκειται.
§ 7 (1 Tim. 11. 3, v. 4). ἴδωμεν. .. τὶ προσδεκτὸν ἐνώπιον
τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς.
*§ 26 (Tit. it. 10). αὐτῷ δουλευσάντων ἐν πεποιθήσει πίστεως
ἀγαθῆς.
§ 29 (1 Tim. ii. 8). προσέλθωμεν οὖν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι ψυχῆς,
ἁγνὰς καὶ ἀμιάντους χεῖρας α ἴροντες πρὸς αὐτόν.
* § 32 (Tit. ill. 5-7). πάντες οὖν ἐδοξάσθησαν... οὐ δι᾽ αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν
ἔργων αὐτῶν ἢ τῆς δικαιοπραγίας ἧς κατειργάσαντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ θελήματος
αὐτοῦ.
*§ 37 (1 Tim. i. 18. στρατευσώμεθα οὖν. ... ἐν τοῖς ἀμώμοις
προστάγμασιν αὐτοῦ.
§ 42 (1 Tim. Π|. 10). καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσ-
αντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους.
*§ 45 (2 Tim. i. 8). τῶν ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει λατρευ-
ὄντων.
§ 47 (1 Tim. vi. 1). ὥστε καὶ βλασφημίας ἐπιφέρεσθαι τῷ
ὀνόματι Κυρίου. ;
§ 55 (2 Tim. ii. 1). γυναῖκες ἐνδυναμωθεῖσαι διὰ τῆς χάρι-
τος τοῦ Θεοῦ.
§ 55 (1 Tim. 1. 17). Θεὸν τῶν αἰώνων.
§ 61 (1 Tim. :. 17). βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων.
To these we may add, perhaps, the prayer for Kings in 88 60, 61,
in conformity with the direction given in 1 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. iii. 2, and
in those places only of the N.T.
On a review of these passages, it must in candour be admitted
that those marked with an asterisk seem to be the only ones that
suggest a literary dependence on the Pastorals. The others, it may
be plausibly maintained, are simply illustrations of that current re-
ligious phraseology which the Pastorals themselves reflect. Taken all
together, they prove that Clement’s mind was at hoie in the
religious world to which the Pastorals belong; but while the present
writer believes that Clement was as familiar with these letters as he
was with 1 Cor., he cannot affirm such a position to be wholly free
from uncertainty.
IGNATIUS (circ. A.D. 110).
* Magn. § 8 (Tit. i. 14, iii, 9). μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις μηδὲ
μυθεύμασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσιν: εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν
κατὰ ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι.
78 INTRODUCTION
δ᾽ 11 (1 Tim. i. 1). πεπληροφόρησθε ἐν τῇ γεννήσει κ. τ. πάθει x. τ.
ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου - πραχθέντα
ἀληθῶς κ. βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡ μῶν.
Trall, Inscr, and § 2 have also $esus Christ our hope.
Polyc. ὃ 2 (2 Tim. ii. 25). τοὺς λοιμοτέρους ἐν πραύτητι ὑπό-
τασσε.
BE 2 (2. Tims. ἵν. δὲ is δ} 1. 10 Ὁ 5. 2). ψῆ Φε, ὡς Θεοῦ
ἀθλητής τὸ θέμα ἀφθαρσία καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, περὶ ἧς καὶ σὺ
πέπεισαι.
§ 8 (1 Tim. 1. 8, vi. 3). ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή σε κατα-
πλησσέτωσαν.
*§ 3 (2 Tim. it. 12). ἕνεκεν Θεοῦ πάντα ὑπομένειν ἡμᾶς δεῖ, ἵνα καὶ
αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὑπομείνῃ.
§ 8 (( Tim. i. 17). τὸν ἀόρατον.
*§ 4 (1 Tim. vi. 1, 2). δούλους καὶ δούλας μὴ ὑπερηφάνει "
ἀλλὰ μηδὲ αὐτοὶ φυσιούσθωσαν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πλέον δουλευ-
έτωσαν.
*§ 6 (2 Tim. ti. 4). ἀρέσκετε ᾧ στρατεύεσθε, ἀφ᾽. οὗ καὶ
τὰ ὀψώνια κομίζεσϑε.
5. 7 Tit: {1 1.2. Tima 91}: ἕτοιμοί ἐστε εἰς εὐποιΐαν
Θεῷ ἀνήκουσαν.
The echoes of the Pastorals are especially remarkable in the
Epistle to Polycarp; and it is peculiarly worthy of remark that in
this letter, which was admittedly a personal communication from
Ignatius to Polycarp, the writer passes from exhortations to Polycarp
himself—and those too of a very delicate nature—to general ex-
hortations addressed to the whole Church. Contrast e.g. § 5 with
§ 6; and in the middle of a section addressed to the whole Church
he interposes a personal appeal to Polycarp. This illustrates admir-
ably a feature in the Pastorals which has been alleged as a serious
objection to their acceptation as genuine letters; 1.6. the interming-
ling of personal matter with directions and exhortations addressed to
the Church.
Potycarp, Ad Phil. (circ. a.p. 110).
*§ 4(1 Tim. vi. 10, 7). ἀρχὴ δὲ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαρ-
γυρία. εἰδότες οὖν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἰσηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἔχομεν.
§ 5 (2 Tim. ii. 12): ἐὰν πολιτευσώμεθα ἀξίως αὐτοῦ, καὶ συμβασ-
ιλεύσομεν αὐτῷ.
8.8 (1 Tim. i. 1). προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν . . - ὅς
ἐστι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
INTRODUCTION 79
*§ 9 (2 Tim. iv. 10). οὐ yap τὸν viv ἠγάπησαν αἰῶνα.
*§ 12 (J Tim. ii. 2, iv. 15). Ovate etiam pro regibus et potest-
atibus et principibus . . . ut fructus vester manifestus sit in omnibus,
THe Acts oF Marryrvom oF PotycarP (A.D. 155 or 156).
§ 10 (1 Tim. ii, 2; Tit. iii. 1). δεδιδάγμεθα γὰρ ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναις τιμὴν . . . ἀπονέμειν.
There can be no question that in the Letter οὗ Polycarp to
tiie Philippians we have express citations from 1 and 2 Timothy.
It is, to say the least, difficult to believe that a man like Polycarp,
who had been a disciple of the Apostle John, and who, when he
wrote this letter, was bishop of Smyrna and in full vigour of life,
would have made such honourable use of letters which had been
compiled by an unknown Paulinist a few years before. We regard
the evidence of Polycarp as a fact of capital importance; for it
removes any possible doubt that may hang over inferences drawn
from Ignatius; and it supports us in our belief that the Pastoral
Epistles were also known to Clement of Rome. For the sake of
completeness, we may add echoes of the Letters in other extant
second century Christian Literature. The three passages cited
from the Epistle of Barnabas are not of necessity based on our
Letters; and the same may be said of the four quotations from
Justin Martyr, with the possible exception of that from Dial. § 47.
THE SO-CALLED SECOND EPISTLE OF CLEMENT OF ROME
(circ. 120-140 a.p.).
§ 7 (2 Tim. it. 4, 5). ἀγωνισώμεθα, εἰδότες ὅτι. . . οὐ πάντες
στεφανοῦνται, εἰ μὴ οἱ πολλὰ κοπιάσαντες καὶ καλῶς ἀγωνισάμενοι. ..
ὁ τὸν φθαρτὸν ἀγῶνα ἀγωνιζόμενος, ἐὰν εὑρεθῇ φθείρων... ἔξω βάλλεται
τοῦ σταδίου.
§ 8 (1 Tim. vi. 14, 12) τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καὶ τὴν
σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τὴν ζωὴν ἀπολάβωμεν.
8 17 (Tit. ii, 12). μὴ ἀντιπαρελκώμεθα ἀπὸ τῶν κοσμικῶν
ἐπιθυμιῶν.
§ 20 (1 Tim. 1. 17). τῷ μόνῳ Θεῷ ἀοράτῳ . .. ἡ ϑόξα κιτιλ.
THE So-cALLED EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (A.D. 70-132).
§ 7 (2 Tim. iv. 1). εἰ οὖν 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὧν Κύριος καὶ μέλλων
κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἔπαθεν.
§ 12 (1 Tim. iii. 14), ἡ παράβασις διὰ τοῦ ὄφεως ἐν Eda ἐγένετο.
§ 12 (1 Tim. 1..16). υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. .. ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς"
80 INTRODUCTION
THe EpistL—E To DioGnetus (circ. Α.Ὁ. 150).
*§ 4 (1 Tim. iti, 16). τὸ δὲ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν θεοσεβείας μυσ-
τήριον μὴ προσδοκήσῃς δύνασθαι παρὰ ἀνθρώπου μαθεῖν.
*§ 9 (Tit. ii. 4). ἦλθε δὲ ὁ καιρὸς ὃν Θεὸς προέθετο λοιπὸν φανερῶσαι
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ χρη στότη τα καὶ δύναμιν ( τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης φιλανθρω-
πίας καὶ ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ), οὐκ ἐμίσησεν ἡμᾶς. .. ἐλεῶν αὐτὸς τὰς
ἡμετέρας ἁμαρτίας ἀνεδέξατο, αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.
§ 11 (1 Tim. tii. 16). [μαθηταῖς] οἷς ἐφανέρωσεν & Λόγος φανείς.
This and the following section do not really belong to the Epistle.
Justin Martyr (circ. 140 a.p.).
Dial. § 7 (1 Tim. iv. 1). τὰ τῆς πλάνης πνεύματα καὶ
δαιμόνια δοξολογοῦσιν.
§ 35 (1 Tim. iv. 1). ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτους εἶναι ἄνδρας, ὁμολογοῦντας ἑαυτοὺς
εἶναι Χριστιανοὺς καὶ . . . Ἰησοῦν ὁμολογεῖν... Χριστόν, καὶ μὴ τὰ ἐκείνου
διδάγματα διδάσκοντας ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς πλάνης πνευμάτων.
* 8. 47 (Tit. iii. 4). ἡ γὰρ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ
Θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄμετρον τοῦ πλούτου αὐτοῦ τὸν μετανοοῦντα. . . ὡς δίκαιον
. ἔχει. :
5. 118 (2 Tim. iv. 1). ὅτι κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν ἁπάντων αὐτὸς
οὗτος ὁ Χριστός, εἶπον ἐν πολλοῖς.
THE Acrs oF PAavuL AND THeEcLA (not later than 170 a.p.).
* § 14 (2 Tim. ii. 18). λέγει οὗτος ἀνάστασιν γενέσθαι, ὅτι ἤδη
γέγονεν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔχομεν τέκνοις. Note also the use in this work of the
names Demas and Hermogenes as ὑποκρίσεως γέμοντες, § 1, and Onesi-
phorus as seeking Paul, § 2.
ATHENAGORAS (circ. 176).
Legatio, 16 (1 Tim. vi. 16). πάντα γὰρ ὁ Θεός ἐστιν αὐτὸς αὐτῷ, φῶς
ἀπρόσιτον.
* 37 (1 Tim. ii. 2). τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἤρεμον καὶ
ἡσύχιον βίον διάγοιμ εν.
TueEopotus (Excerpta ex Scriptis Theodoti, Clem. Al. p. 350).
(1 Tim. vi. 16). καὶ ὁ μὲν φῶς ἀπρόσιτον εἴρηται.
THE ἘἜΡΙΞΣΤΣΕ OF THE CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND Lyons (circ.180).
* Euseb. WE. γον (1 Fim πὶ. .15}: ἐνέσκηψεν ἡ ὀργὴ . .. εἰς
Ἄτταλον Περγαμηνὸν τῷ γένει, στύλον καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῶν ἐνταῦθα
ἀεὶ γεγονότα.
INTRODUCTION 81
* (1 Tim. vi. 13). ὁ δὲ... MoBewds . . . ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα ἐσύρετο
«+ « ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀπεδίδου τήν καλὴν μαρτυρίαν.
Euseb, H.E. ν. 3 (1 Tim. iv. 8, 4). ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, μὴ χρώμενος
Tots κτίσμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ. . . πεισθεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης πάντων
ἀνέδην μετελάμβανε καὶ ηὐχαρίστει τῷ Θεῷ.
THEOPHILUS ΟΕ ANTIOCH (circ. 181).
*ad Autol. i. 1 (2 Tim. iii! 8). φράσις εὐεπὴς τέρψιν παρέχει...
ἀνθρώποις ἔχουι τὸν νοῦν κατεφθαρμένον.
*ad Autol. ii. 16 (Tit. iii. 5; 1 Tim. ii. 4 (?)). ἔτι μὴν καὶ εὐλογήθη
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων γενόμενα, ὅπως ἡ καὶ τοῦτο εἰς δεῖγμα τοῦ
μέλλειν λαμβάνειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν διὰ ὕδατος
καὶ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας πάντας τοὺς προσιόντας τῇ
ἀληθείᾳ.
ad Autol. τ. 14 (Tit. iii. 1; Tim. ii. 2). ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ τοῦ ὑ πο-
τάσσεσθαι ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις, καὶ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν κελεύει
ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεῖος λόγος, ὅπως ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν.
THe INTEGRITY OF THE LETTERS.
It is scarcely too much to say that but for the difficulty presented
by their style, and the assumption that St. Paul never left Rome
alive, no one would have suspected these letters of being a com-
pilation. But inasmuch as no one has been found to deny the
bona fide Pauline character of some sections of them—at least in 2
Timothy—those who impugn the genuineness of the letters as they
have come down to us have been compelled to exercise much
ingenuity in attempts to apportion the matter of the letters between
St. Paul and the compiler or compilers. For an account of their
schemes the student is referred to the articles on these epistles in
Hastings D. B., and the Encyclopedia Biblica, and for a fuller
account, to Moffatt’s Historical N. T.
To those who agree that the problem presented by the style and
the historical setting of the Pastorals is unsolved, but not insoluble,
all attempts to decompose these letters will seem unprofitable.
There is sound sense in the old scholastic maxim: “ Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”. The case of the Pastorals is
not like that of 2 Corinthians, in which plausible reasons may be
alleged for theories of dislocation. There is no difficulty in presenting
such an outline of 1 Tim. or 2 Tim. or Tit. as will show it to be a
single letter, with as much unity of purpose as a bona fide letter—
not a college essay—can be expected to have.
VOL, IV. 6
82 INTRODUCTION
But even were we-to grant, one moment, that the style and
historical considerations must preclude a Pauline authorship for
them, yet, the next moment, we find ourselves confronted by more
serious objections to the theory of compilation. To begin with, the
historical difficulty presented by the personal and local references in
the admittedly Pauline sections is insurmountable, on the hypothesis
that the whole of St. Paul’s history is contained in the Acts.
Again, without using violent language about ‘‘ forgery,” it is not
easy to explain why the alleged compiler should pretend to be St.
Paul. The ascription of a book to an honoured name was not a
precedent condition to its acceptance or acceptability in the primitive
Church. Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, and the
Epistle to Diognetus do not claim anyone as their authors. Whoever
it was that produced the Pastorals, he was just as good a practical
Christian as St. Paul himself; and he had no compelling reason to
hide his identity. The case of 2 Peter is different. That epistle,
whoever wrote it, was always reckoned a disputed book.
Again, how are we to explain the honourable use, certainly by
Polycarp, and probably by Clement of Rome and Ignatius, not to
mention other later second century writers, of a work which only ap-
peared, ex hypothesi, not earlier than 90 a.p.? And, further, if these
epistles are due to a compiler, he must have been an extraordinarily
clever man, and quite capable not only of supplementing the Pauline
fragments, but of editing them. Now by the year 90 a.p. Timothy’s
name had become venerated in the Church. Is it likely that a
Churchman of that time, writing too, as is alleged, with an ecclesi-
astical bias, would have permitted the publication of letters which
certainly give the impression of Timothy as a not very heroic per-
son? The treatment of Linus (2 Tim. iv. 21) raises a similar question,
A tradition, which no one has ever questioned, names Linus as the
first bishop of Rome; the subordinate position he occupies in this
letter is, as Salmon has noted (Introd. N.T. p. 411), quite intelligible
if St. Paul was the author of it. It is, on the other hand, extremely
unlikely that an editor of the year 90 a.p., who had no scruple in
writing in St. Paul’s name, would not have given Linus a more pro-
minent place.
These are a few of the difficulties which may be urged on the
traditional side in this ‘‘ contest of opposite improbabilities "’.
INTRODUCTION 83
ANALYSIS OF 1 TIMOTHY.
“Guard the Deposit.”
A. i. 1,2. Salutation.
B. i. 3-20: The Crisis, and the Men—Paul and Timothy.
(a) The Crisis: 3-11.
(1) 3-7. The motive of the letter is to provide Timothy with a memoran-
dum of previous oral instructions for the combating of those who
mischievously and ignorantly endeavour to oppose the Law to the
Gospel.
(2) 8-11. This opposition is really factitious; inasmuch as the Law and
the Gospel are, both of them, workings of law, God’s law, the final
cause of which is right conduct.
(2) The Men: 12-20.
(1) 12-17. Paul’s own spiritual history illustrates the fundamentally iden-
tical moral basis of the Law and the Gospel. Paui had been “" faith-
ful,” trustworthy, while under the Law; therefore Christ pardoned
his violent opposition to the Gospel, because it was due to ignorance,
though a sinful ignorance. Moreover, this whole transaction—the
triumph of Christ’s long-suffering over Paul’s sinful antagonism—has
an enduring value. It is an object lesson to encourage to repentance
sinners to the end of time. Glory be to God!
(2) 18-20. The present charge to Timothy, although its immediate excit-
ing cause is the recent action of Hymenzus and Alexander and their
followers, ought not to be new in its substance to Timothy. It is
practically identical with what the prophets gave utterance to at his
ordination.
C. ii., iii, The foundations of Sound Doctrine.
False teaching is most effectually combated indirectly; not by controversy,
with its negations, but by quiet, positive foundation work on which true views about
God and Man can be based. We begin then with :—
(a) ii. r—iii. 1 a. Public Prayer.
(1) ii. 1-7. Its universal scope; and the Divine sanction for catholicity in
human sympathy.
(2) ii. 8—iii.1 a. The Ministers of Public Prayer: men, not women; with
a judgment as to the true function of Woman in the Church and in
Society.
(5) iii. 1 6-16. The Ministry of the Divine Society.
(1) 1 5-7. The qualifications of the episcopus.
(2) 8-10, 12, 13. The qualifications of the deacons. ᾿
(3) τι. The qualifications of women Church-workers. ΕΝ
(4) 14-16. Caution to Timothy lest he should be tempted to think these
details trivial, in comparison with more obviously spiritual things.
The importance of rules depends on the importance of that with
which they are concerned. The Church, for whose ministers rules
have been just laid down, is the greatest Society in the world: human.
yet divinely originated and inspired; the House of God; an extensior,
of the Incarnation.
84 INTRODUCTION
D. iv. A fresh word of prophecy (see i. 18) addressed to Timothy in his present
office.
(a) 1-5. The false teaching more clearly defined as a spurious asceticism.
This is condemned, a priori, by considerations (1) of the declared charac-
ter and object of the material creation, and (2) of the purifying effect of
benedictions.
(8) 6-16. The spurious asceticism, however, as it manifests itself in practice,
is best combated (1), 6-10, by the Church teacher showing an example
in his own person of genuine holiness, and (2), 11-i6, by active pastoral
care, courageous outspokenness and the diligent cultivation of all God-
given ministerial graces.
Ε. v. 1—vi. 19. This naturally suggests the specification of directions for ad-
ministration of the Church by a Father in God.
(a) v.1, 2. He must not deal with his people en masse, but individually. He
cannot treat alike old men and young men, elder women and younger
women.
(δ) v. 3-16. There is one class of the laity in particular which, because they
have a special claim on the Church, need a discriminating care: the
widows. The Church cannot afford to support all widows, nor would it
be right to relieve their relatives, if they have any, of responsibility for
them. Consequently, none can be entered on the list for relief but those
over a certain age, and who have a good record for consistent Christian
lives. Young widows had better marry again.
(6) v. 17-25. The questions of Church finance and discipline, as they con-
cern widows, suggest recommendations on the same subjects, as they
concern the presbyters: (1) 17, 18, finance; (2) 19-25, discipline, with,
23, a parenthetical personal counsel to Timothy, suggested by the word
pure in 22.
(4) vi. 1,2. Ruling principles for the conduct of Christians who are slaves,
towards heathen and Christian masters respectively.
(e) vi. 3-19. A right judgment in all these matters which affect our daily
life depends on right basal convictions as to the true values of things
material and spiritual.
(1) 3-10. The false teachers reverse the true order: théy regard religion
as a sub-section of the world; whereas the world has its own place—
an honourable place—as subordinate to religion.
(2) 11-16. A solemn adjuration to Timothy to adhere to the principles just
laid down; and
(3) 17-19. to urge the observance of them upon the well-to-do members
of the Christian Society.
F, vi. 20-21. Final appeal, summing up the perennial antagonism between
oy character (the natural fruit of the faith) and mere intellectualism,
ANALYSIS OF 2 TIMOTHY.
Sursum Corda.
A. i. 1, 2. Salutation.
B. i. 3—ii. 13. Considerations which should strengthen Timothy’s moral
courage (a, b, c, d, e), interspersed with appeals to his loyalty (a, B, γ, δ, €).
INTRODUCTION ὃς
(a) 3-5. Paul’s thoughts of, and prayers fer, him; and Paul’s recognition of
Timothy’s faith.
(5) 6,7. An objective fact in Timothy’s own spiritual history : his ordination ;
since when there is available for his use, Power, Love, and Discipline,
the gifts of God.
(a) 8-10. An appeal based on thoughts of the Gospel, as the power of
God.
(c) 12, 12. Paul’s own steadfastness.
(8, y) 13, 14. Appeals based on loyalty to the human teacher, and to the
Divine Spirit.
(4) 15. The deterrent example of the disloyal of Asia.
(e) 16-18. The stimulating example of Onesiphorus.
(δ) ii. 1, 2. An appeal for the provision of a succession of loyal teachers.
(e) ii. 3-13. An appeal based on ‘‘the Word of the Cross”’; z.e., Suffering
is the precedent condition of glory. This is exemplified in the earthly
analogies of the soldier, the athlete, and the field-labourer ; in the actual
experiences of Jesus Christ Himself, and of Paul.
C. ii. 14-26. General exhortations to Timothy as a Church teacher, as regards
(a) 14-18, the positive and negative subject-matter of his instructions ; (δ) 19-21, the
true and optimistic conception of the Church in relation to all teachers, true and
false ; (c) 22-26, the personal equipment of the true teacher, and his treatment of the
erring,
D. iii. r—iv. 8. A word of prophecy setting forth—
(a) iii. t-9. The practical shortcomings of the false teachers.
(b) iii. 0-17, A recalling of Timothy’s past spiritual history: (1) 10-13, the
conditions under which his discipleship began; (2) 14-17, the holy per-
sons by whom, and the sacred writings on which, his youth had been
nourished.
(c) iv. x-8. A concluding solemn adjuration to play the man while there is
time. As for Paul, the contest is over, the crown is in sight; there is a
crown for Timothy, too, if he takes Paul’s place.
E. iv. g-22. Personal details: Instructions, 9, 11, 13, 21; News about other
members of the Pauline comradeship. 10, 11, 12, 20; A warning, 14, 15; A reminis-
cence and a confident hope, 16-18; Salutations and greetings, 19, 21; Final
benediction, 22.
ANALYSIS OF TITUS.
“ Maintain Good Works.” .
A. i. 1-4. Salutation.
B. i. 5-16. The position of affairs in Crete, which (a), 5-9, necessitates that
the foundation of Church organisation—the presbyterate—be well and truly laid; in
view of (δ), 10-16, the natural unruliness and bad character of the people, aggra-
vated by Jewish immoral sophistries.
C. ii. r—iii. 11. Heads of necessary elementary moral instruction for the Cretan
folk.
(a) ii. 1-10. For aged men and aged women; for young women and young
men—and what is said about these latter applies also to Titus—and
slaves.
86 INTRODUCTION
(5) ii. 11-15. The eternal sanction for this insistence on the practice of ele-
mentary virtues is the all-embracing scope of the Gospel of God’s Grace;
which has been visibly manifested, with its call to repentance, its assur-
ance of help, and its certain hope.
(c) iii. 1,2. Obedience to the civil authority is also a Gospel virtue.
(4) iii. 3-7. These instructions are not given in a spirit of superiority. We
ourselves were once in as bad moral condition as are the Cretans, if
not worse, until we came to know, and test the love of God, unmerited
and saving.
(e) iii. 8-11. In conclusion, the sum of all is: Let the people maintain good
works, and shun useless speculations. Let Titus not be lax in dealing
with leaders of the false teaching.
D. iii. 12,13. Personal instructions.
E. iii. 14. Concluding summary, repeating the teaching of 8-11.
F. iii. 15. Final salutation.
THE Text.
The text which is printed above the exposition is in the main
that of Westcott and Hort. Ina very few cases other readings have
been adopted in this text (see e.g. 1 Tim. ii. 8; Tit. ii. 4, iii. 9); and
in some places their punctuation has been modified.
The apparatus criticus is based on that of Tischendorf’s eighth
edition. The readings of the Old Latin fragments, r, Cod. Frisin-
gensis, have been added, and the references to m (Speculum) have
been given according to the edition by Weihrich in the Vienna
Corpus Script. Eccles. Lat. Of the uncial MSS. cited by Tisch., E,
(Cod. Petropolitanus, or Sangermanensis, ix. or x.) has not been
noted, since it is merely a transcript of D,. On the other hand, it
has been thought best to cite both F, and G,, since it is not certain
that the latter is a copy of the former, though both are derived from
one exemplar.
Only the most important cursives are mentioned in these notes.
The reader will understand that the attestation of KLP carries with
it, in most cases, that of the great bulk of the cursive MSS. Neither
has it been thought advisable to cite the more obscure versions.
Even if their readings were critically ascertained they would not
carry much weight. For a similar reason patristic citations are
sparingly used. Subjoined is a list of the authorities cited in the
critical notes.
sy, Cod. Sinaiticus, iv. St Petersburg.
A, Cod. Alexandrinus, v. London.
C, Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus, v. Paris. It does not contain 1
Tim. i. 1-iii. 9, μυστη | prov.
D (D,), Cod. Claromontanus, vi. Paris.
INTRODUCTION 87
Ε (P,), Cod. Augiensis, ix. Trinity College, Cambridge.
G (G,), Cod. Boernerianus, ix. Dresden.
H (H;), Cod. Coislinianus, vi. Fragments. Those that contain
portions of the Pastorals are in Paris and Turin. It only con-
tains: 1 Tim. iii. 7-13, vi. 9-13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1-9; Tit. i. 1-3, 15—
ii. 5, iii, 13-15.
I (I?), Cod. Tischendorfianus (Petropolitanus, Tisch.), v. St.
Petersburg. Contains only Tit. i. 1-13.
K (K,) Cod. Mosquensis, ix. Moscow.
L (L,), Cod. Bibliothecae Angelicae, ix. Rome.
P (P,), Cod. Porphyrianus, ix. St. Petersburg.
Of the Old Latin MSS. cited, d, e, f, g are the Latin portions of
the bilingual uncials, D,, E,, F, and G, respectively. πὶ is the treatise
entitled Speculum, practically a catena of texts or testimonia, formerly
ascribed to St Augustine. r is the Cod. Frisingensis, v. or vi.
(Munich) fragments, containing inter alia, 1 Tim. 1. 12—ii. 15; v.
18—vi. 13.
The only MSS. of the Vulgate cited are Cod. Amiatinus (am.),
A.D. 716, Plorence, and Cod. Puldensis (fuld.) a.p. 541-546, Pulda
in Germany.
The other versions are indicated as follows :-—
syrresh (Tisch., syrsh) = Peshitto Syriac.
syrhel (Tisch., syr?) = Harkleian Syriac.
syrr = both Syriac Versions.
boh (Tisch., cop.) = Bohairic Egyptian.
sah = Sahidic Egyptian.
arm = Armenian.
go = Gothic.
For a complete bibliography of the Pastoral Epistles the reader is
referred to the articles, “Timothy, Epistle to,” and ‘‘ Titus, Epistle to,”’
by W. Lock, in Hastings’ D.B., vol. iv., pp. 775, 785, and the articles
‘Timothy and Titus (Epistles),” by J. Moffatt, in the Encyclopedia
Biblica. To the articles themselves—the former temperately con-
servative, the latter, uncompromisingly anti-traditional—the present
writer is much indebted. Diligent use has also been made of the
labours of the following commentators on the continuous text: St.
Chrysostom’s Homilies, full of good sense and practical wisdom,
Bengel, pithy, direct and spiritual; Ellicott, a sound grammarian
from the classical Greek standpoint, and therefore useful as a warn-
ing against possible pitfalls, but very dry ; Alford, still most service-
able as the variorum edition of a.p. 1865; J. H. Bernard (Cambridge
Greek Testament) whose notes on the ethical language of the Epistles
88 INTRODUCTION
are most illuminating, and H. von Soden, in the Hand-Commentar,
remarkable for subtle verbal analysis ; but his exegesis is vitiated by
his critical position as to the authorship and date of the letters.
Suspicion and hatf-heartedness do not make for profound exposition.
Plummer’s large treatment of certain sections, in the Expositor's
Bible, has been found helpful and suggestive. Field's Notes (alas, too
few!) on Trans. N.T. are indispensable; and H. P. Liddon’s analysis
of 1 Timothy is masterly.
On the general subject of the Epistles, Salmon’s Introduction
N.T. (p. 397 sqq.), Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays (xi., xii.), Wace’s In-
troduction in the Speaker’s Commentary, J. H. Bernard’s Introduc-
tion (Cambridge Greek Testament), Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe,
and Hort’s $udaistic Chistianity and Christian Ecclesia have been
largely made use of. It has not, however, been thought necessary,
especially when space had to be considered, to specify in every case
the authority for the sentiment expressed, or the explanation adopted.
In any case, the Church, in the long run, acts on the counsel of
Thomas ἃ Kempis: “ Non quaeras quis hoc dixerit: sed quid dicatur
attende”’ (De Imit. Christi, i. 5).
September, 190g.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ ἃ
I. 1. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ "ἀπόστολος " Χριστοῦ " Ἰησοῦ 1 ὃ" κατ᾽ " ἐπιταγὴν 3 5 3 Cori, 1,
Ρ
Θεοῦ “σωτῆρος “ἡμῶν καὶ ὃ
Cor. i. 1, Tit. i. 1.
ii. 10, iii. 4.
Χριστοῦ “Incod* τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, Col.
211
Ὁ Rom. xvi. 26, Tit. i. 3.
εἴν;
ἴτ;
m. i.
Ty Cfar
c Jude 25, cf. 1 Tim. ii. 3, iv. 10, Tit. i. 3,
1So $QDFGP, 80, one other, d, f, g, fuld., boh., syrhel; "Ino. Χριστ. AKL, am.,
syrpesh, arm.
3 ἐπαγγελίαν NY.
31η8. Κυρίου DcKL; om. AD*FGP, 17, 31, seven others, d, f, g, vg., ΡΌ., ΒΥῚΤΤ.;
sah., boh., arm.
4So AD*FGP, 17, five others, ἃ, f, g, am., fuld, go., sah., syrr.; “Ino.
Χριστ. NDcKL, boh., arm.
CHAPTER I,.—Vv. 1-2. SALUTATION.—
Ver. 1. ἀπόστολος Xp. “Ino. The use
of this official title is an indication that
the Pastoral Epistles were not merely
private letters (ctr. Παῦλος δέσμιος Xp.
*Inc., Philem. 1), but were intended to
be read to the Churches committed to
the charge of Timothy and Titus re-
spectively. The phrase means simply
one sent by Christ, not primarily one
belonging to Christ. Cf. Phil. ii. 25,
where Epaphroditus is spoken of as ὑμῶν
ἀπόστ., and 2 Cor. viii. 23, ἀπόστ-
ἐκκλησιῶν. ἀπόστ. Xp. “Ino. is also
found in 2 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col. i. x,
2 Tim. i. 1; ἀπόστ. “Ino. Xp. in τ Cor.
i. 1, Tit. i. 1. The difference in the use
Fesus Christ and Christ Fesus seems to
be this: in each case the first member
of the compound name indicates whether
the historical or the notional idea of the
Person is chiefly in the writer’s mind.
Fesus Christ briefly expresses the pro-
position, “ Jesus is the Christ ’’; it em-
bodies the first theological assertion
concerning Jesus; it represents the
conception of the historical Jesus in
the minds of those who had seen Him.
St. John, St. Peter and St. James employ
this name when speaking of our Lord.
But in Christ ¥esus, on the other hand,
the theological conception of the Christ
predominates over that of the actual
Fesus Who had been seen, felt and
heard by human senses. Accordingly
we find Christ Fesus in every stage of
the Pauline Epistles ; and, as we should
expect, more frequently in the later than
in the earlier letters. In almost every
instance of the occurrence of $esus
Christ in the Pastoral Epistles the
thought of the passage concerns the
humanity, or historical aspect, of our
Lord. Thus in Tit. i. 1, “4 servant of
God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,”
we could not substitute Christ $esus
without weakening the antithesis. See
note there. St. Paul, here as elsewhere,
claims to have been as truly sent by
Christ as were those who were apostles
before him.
κατ᾽ ἐπίταγήν : in obedience to the
command. ‘The full phrase κατ᾽ ἐπιτ.
0. σ. ἡμῶν occurs again (τοῦ σωτ. Hp.
θεοῦ) in a similar context in Tit. i. 3;
κατ᾽ ἐπιτ. τοῦ αἰωνίου @ in Rom. xvi.
26. In1 Cor. vii. 6, 2 Cor. viii. 8, κατ᾽
ἐπιτ. is used in a different sense.
St. Paul more commonly refers the
originating cause of his mission to the
will of God (r Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 15
EB phe το ΟΣ 13s2\Lini: (1,2): te
would hardly say through the will
of Christ, θέλημα being used of the
eternal counsel of the Godhead; but in-
asmuch as the command is the conse-
quent of the will, he can speak of his
apostleship as being due to the command
89
90
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A 1.
d Phil.iv.3, 2. Τιμοθέῳ *yvnotw " τέκνῳ ‘év ' πίστει - χάρις, " ἔλεος, εἰρήνη ἀπὸ
ιἴ. 1
“δ. 4. A a
cf.2 Cor. Θεοῦ Πατρὸς 1 καὶ Χριστοῦ
viii. 8,
Phil. ii.
20, Ecclus. vii. 18.
Ver. 4, 1 Tim. ii. 7, Tit. iii. 15.
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. 3. Καθὼς
e 1 Cor. iv. 17, ver. 18, 2 ΤΊΣ). ἐν 2, ii. 1, Tit. i. 4. Philem. 10, 3 John 4.
g 2 Tim. i. 2, 2 John 3, Jude 2.
lIns. ἡμῶν NcDcKLP, syrr., sah.
of Christ Jesus, as well as of God the
Father. In this matter Jesus Christ is
co-ordinated with God the Father in
Gal. i. 1; while in Rom. i. 4, 5, Paul’s
apostleship is ‘through Jesus Christ
our Lord” only. On the other hand, in
Tit. i. 3, St. Paul says he was intrusted
with the message ‘‘according to the
commandment of God our Saviour”’.
Here it is to be noted that the command
proceeds equally from God and Christ
Jesus. This language could hardly have
been used if St. Paul conceived of Christ
Jesus as acreature. Moulton and Milli-
gan (Expositor, vii., vii. 379) com-
pare St. Paul’s use of ἐπιταγή as a
Divine command with its technical use
in heathen dedicatory inscriptions. We
cannot, with Chrys., narrow the ‘‘com-
mandment of God” to the specific date
of St. Paul’s commission by the Church,
whether in Acts xiii. 2 or on an earlier
occasion. St. Paul claimed that he had
been ‘‘separated from his mother’s
womb ”’ (Gal. i. 15).
θεοὺ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν: Westcott on I
John iv. 14 has an instructive note on
the Biblical use of the term σωτήρ.
‘The title is confined (with the excep-
tion of the writings of St. Luke) to the
later writings of the N.T., and is not
found in the central group of St. Paul’s
Epistles.” It may be added that in the
Lucan references (Luke i. 47, of God;
ii, 11, Acts v. 31, xiii. 23, of Christ) the
term σωτήρ has not primarily its full
later evangelical import, and would be
best rendered deliverer, as in the con-
stant O.T. application of the term to
God. Perhaps the same is true of Phil.
iii. 20, and Eph. v. 23, where it is used
of Christ. On the other hand, apart
from 6 σωτὴρ τ. κόσμου (John iv. 42; I
John iv. 14), the conventional evangeli-
cal use is found: of God the Father in
(a) τ Tim. i. 1, Jude 25, θεὸς σωτὴρ
ἡμῶν: (δ) τ Tim. ii. 3, Tit. i. 3, ii. 10,
ili. 4,6 σωτὴρ ἡμῶν θεός ; (c) τ Tim. iv.
10, σωτήρ in apposition to θεός in the
preceding clause; of Christ, in (a) 2
Tim. i. το, ὃ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Χριστὸς
Ἰησοῦς ; (6) Tit. i. 4, iii. 6, Xp. “Ino. ὁ
σωτὴρ ἡμῶν; (c) 2 Pet. i. 11, ii. 20, iii.
18, ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν καὶ σωτὴρ “Ino. Xp.;
(4) 2 Pet. iii. 2, ὁ Κύριος καὶ σωτήρ.
To the (6) class belong, perhaps, Tit. 11.
13, 2 Pet. i. 1, 6 [μέγας] θεὸς [ἡμῶν] καὶ
σωτὴρ [ἡμῶν] ησ. Xp.; but see note on
ΠΕΣ ας ts:
In the text, there is an antithesis be-
tween the offices of God as our Saviour
and of Christ Jesus as our hope. The
one points to the past, at least chiefly,
and the other to thefuture. In speaking
of the saving action of God, St, Paul
uses the aorist. 2 Tim. i. 9, Tit. ii. 11,
iii. 4,5. He saved us, potentially. See
further on ch. ii. 3. God, as the Council
of Trent says (Sess. vi. cap. 7), is the
efficient cause of our justification, while
Jesus, ‘‘our righteousness,” besides
being the meritorious cause, may be
said to be the formal cause; for ‘‘the
righteousness of God by which He
maketh us righteous”? is embodied in
Jesus, Who ‘‘ was made unto us...
righteousness and sanctification’? (1
Cor. i. 30). We advance from salvation
to sanctification; and accordingly we
must not narrow down the conception
Christ Fcsus our hope to mean “ the
hope of Israel ’’ (Acts xxiii. 6, xxviii. 20) ;
but rather the historical manifestation of
the Son of God as Christ Jesus is the
ground of our ‘“‘hope of glory’’ (Col. i.
27). Our hope is that “the body of our
humiliation will be conformed to the
body of His glory” (Phil. iii. 20, 21).
See also Eph. iv. 13. Our hope is that
‘¢we shall be like Him” (1 John iii. 2,
3). See also Tit. ii. 13, προσδεχόμενοι
τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα. For this vivid
use of an abstract noun compare Eph.
ii. 14, αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν.
Ignatius borrows this noble appella-
tion: Magn. 11; Trall. inscr., ‘‘ Jesus
Christ Who is our hope through our
resurrection unto Him’; Trail. 2,
ἐς Jesus Christ our hope ; for if we live
in Him, we shall also be found in Him”.
See also Polycarp, 8.
Ver. 2. γνησίῳ qualifies the compound
τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει; just as in Tit. i. 4 it
qualifies τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν. As
in the relation of the heavenly Father to
those who are His children by adoption
and grace, some are ‘“‘led by the Spirit
of God,’ and so are genuine sons of
2-5
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
ΟΙ
παρεκάλεσά σε ' προσμεῖναι ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, πορευόμειος εἰς Μακε- br Cor. xvi.
δονίαν, ἵνα ἢ παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ
32= Mark viii. 2, Acts xviii. 18.
12,1 Tim. iv. 11, v. 7, Vi- 13) 17.
God, so in the filial relationships of
earth—physical, spiritual, or intellectual
—some sons realise their vocation, others
fail to do so. γνήσιος (and γνησίως,
Phil. ii. 20) is only found in the N.T. in
Paul. See reff. It might be rendered
lawful, legitimate, as γυνή γνησία means
“lawful wife’? (Moulton and Milligan,
Expositor, vii., vi. 382). Dean Bernard
(comm. in loc.) cites an interesting parallel
from Philo (de Vit. Cont. p. 482, ed.
Mangey), where ‘“‘ the young men among
the Therapeutae are described as minis-
tering to their elders καθάπερ υἱοὶ
γνήσιοι.᾽᾽ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει: The parallel
from Tit. i. 4 quoted above proves that
πίστις here is the faith,as A.V. Absence
of the article before familiar Christian
terms is a characteristic of the Pastorals.
Cf. x Cor. iv. 15, ‘‘In Christ Jesus I
begat you through the gospel”. See
also Gal. iv. 19, Philem. 10; and, for
the term τέκνον as applied to Timothy,
see reff. St. Paul ‘begat him through
the gospel”? on the first missionary
journey. He was already a disciple in
Acts xvi. 1. Nothing can be safely
inferred from the variation ἀγαπητῷ
in 2 Tim. i. 2 for γνησίῳ. The selection
from among these semi-conventional
terms of address is influenced by passing
moods of which the writer is not wholly
conscious; but a pseudepigraphic author
would be careful to observe uniformity.
ἔλεος as an element in the salutation
in addition to χάρις and εἰρήνη is only
found, in the Pauline Epistles, in 1 and
2 Timothy. Seereff. ‘‘ Mercy” is used
in an informal benediction, Gal. vi. 16,
“Peace be upon them, andmercy”’. Ben-
gel notes that personal experience of the
mercy of God makes a man a more effici-
ent minister of the Gospel. See vv. 13,
16, 1 Cor. vii. 25, 2 Cor. iv. 1, Heb. ii. 17.
See also Tobit vii. 12 (pg) ὁ κύριος...
ποιήσαι ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἔλεος x. εἰρήνην and
Wisd. iii. 9, iv. 15, χάρις κ. ἔλεος τοῖς
ἐκλεκτοῖς αὐτοῦ. If one may hazard a
conjecture as to what prompted St. Paul
to wish mercy to Timothy rather than to
Titus, it may be a subtle indication of
the apostle’s anxiety as to Timothy’s
administrative capacity. Another varia-
tion in the salutation in Titus is the
substitution of Saviour for Lord. This
calls for no comment.
‘érepodiB8acKadeiv, 4. μηδὲ
12. 2 Cor.
viii. 6, ix.
5, xii. 18.
i Matt. xv.
Κι Cor. vii. 10, xi. 17, 1 Thess. iv. 11, 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10
11 Tim. vi. 3 only, not LXX.
Note the anarthrous θεὸς πατήρ as
in all the Pauline salutations, with the
exception of 1 Thess., where we have
simply χάρις ὑμῖν κ. εἰρήνη. In Colos-
sians the blessing is only from God the
Father. ἡμῶν is added to πατρὸς except
in 2 Thess. and the Pastorals.
Vv. 3-7. THE MorTIvE oF THIS LETTER:
to provide Timothy with a written memo-
randum of previous verbal instructions,
especially with a view to novel specu-
lations about the Law which sap the
vitality of the Gospel ; the root of which
is sincerity, and its fruit, love.
Ver. 3. καθώς: The apodosis supplied
at the end of ver. 4 in the R.V., so do I
now, is feebler than the so do of the A.V.
We need something more vigorous. St.
Paul was more anxious that Timothy
should charge some, etc., than that he
should merely abide at Ephesus. This
is implied in the A.V., in which so do=
stay there and be a strong ruler.
An exact parallel occurs in Mark i. 2.
Similar anacolutha are found in Rom.
v. 12, Gal. ii. 4, 5, 6, Eph. iii. 1.
παρεκάλεσά oe: It is far-fetched to
regard this word as specially expressive
of a mild command, as Chrys. suggests.
παρακαλεῖν constantly occurs, and with
very varying meanings, in the Pauline
Epistles. διεταξάμην is used in the cor-
responding place in Tit. i. 5, because
there the charge concerns a series of
injunctions.
προσμεῖναι : ut vemaneres (Vulg.).
The word (see Acts xviii. 18) naturally
implies that St. Paul and Timothy had
been together at Ephesus, and that St.
‘Paul left Timothy there as vicar apostolic.
πορευόμενος refers to St. Paul, not to
Timothy, as De Wette alleged. The
grammatical proof of this is fully gone
into by Winer-Moulton, Gram. p. 404,
“If the subject of the infinitive is the
same as that of the finite verb, any attri-
butes which it may have are put in the
nominative’’.
It is unnecessary here to prove that it
is impossible to fit this journey of St.
Paul to Macedonia, and Timothy’s stay
-at Ephesus connected therewith, into
the period covered by the Acts. ;
τισίν: tives is intentionally vague.
The writer has definite persons in his
mind, but for some reason he does not
92
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A Ι.
m Acts viii: ™ προσέχειν ἢ μύθοις καὶ “ γενεαλογίαις " ἀπεράντοις, αἵτινες “ ἐκ-
6, 10, 11:
xvi. 14,1 ζητήσεις ἴ * παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ " οἰκονομίαν δ Θεοῦ τὴν ‘ ἐν
Tim. iii.
Servor, 13.
Tit. i. 14, Heb. ii. 1, vii. 13, 2 Peter i. 19.
isd. xvii. 4, Ecclus. xx. 19.
Mace. ii. 9.
8 1 Cor. ix. 17, Eph. i. 10, iii. 2, 9, Col. i. 25.
(Sead)
TLOTEL.
ni Tim. iv. 7, 2 Tim. iv. 4; Tit. i. 14; 2 Pet. i. 16,
o Tit. iii. 9 only, not LXX.
q Here only, not LXX, see 1 Tim. vi. 4.
t See ver. 1.
p Here only, N.T., Job xxxvi. 26, 3
Ei Lime Vi. τὸ, vit. 1107, etc.
1So WA, 17, three others; ζητήσεις DFGKLP.
350 SAFGKLP, boh., syrhcl-txt, arm.; οἰκοδομίαν Dc, 192, Dam. txt; οἰκοδομήν
D*, Iren., go., syrpesh and hel-mg; qgedificationem ἃ, f, g, m5°, vg. See Eph. iv. 29.
choose to specify them. To do so, in
this case, would have had a tendency to
harden them in their heresy, ‘‘ render
them more shameless”’ (Chrys.). The
introduction of the personal element into
controversy has a curiously irritating
effect. For this use of τινες see 1 Cor.
Lv. 18, 2 Cor. i. t,x. 2; Galia.7, 11,12,
% Dim; ἃ, δ. Τὸ, v.15; Vi. ΤΟΙ 21.2 Lim.
ii. 18.
μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν : This compound
occurs again in 1 Tim. vi. 3, and means
to teach a gospel or doctrine different
from that which I have taught. ἕτερος
certainly seems to connote difference in
kind. Gal. i. 6, ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ
οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, and 2 Cor. xi. 4, illus-
trate St. Paul’s language here. The
heresy may have been of recent origin,
and not yet completely systematised—
heresy of course does not aim at finality
—but St. Paul does not mean to deal
gently with it. It was to him false and
accursed (cf. Gal. i. 8, 9). His forebod-
ings for the church in Ephesus (Acts xx.
29, 30) were being fulfilled now. Hort
(Fudaistic Christianity, p. 134) compares
the διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις of
Heb. xiii. 9.
St. Paul elsewhere uses compounds
with érepo, ¢.g., 2 Cor. vi. 14, ἑτεροζυ-
yetv; and more remarkably still, when
quoting Isa. xxviii. ΣΙ in 1 Cor. xiv. 21,
he substitutes ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις for διὰ
γλώσσης ἑτέρας of the LXX. The
word is found in Ignat. ad Polyc. 3, ot
δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι εἶναι Kal érepo-
διδασκαλοῦντες.
Ver. 4. μηδὲ προσέχειν: nor to pay
attention to. This perhaps refers
primarily to the hearers of the érepo-
διδάσκαλοι rather than to the false
teachers themselves. See reff.
μύθοις καὶ yeveadoyiats ἀπεράντοις:
“ Polybius uses both terms in similarly
close connection, Hist. ix. 2, 1’ (Ell.).
Two aspects of, or elements in, the one
aberration from sound doctrine.
Some light is thrown upon this clause
by other passages in this group of letters
(τ Τῆς 1.2057, νι 7,4, 20:5 2D: 11:
Τὰν τὸς; (235 τῷ 3.5. Lit. ts, Το, 04, εἶ ἢ
The myths are expressly called Jewish
(Tit. i. 14), and this affords a good
argument that νομοδιδάσκαλοι and vdpos,
ἱπ τ Vim. 1.5.3 3η6 ΤΊΣ 111.9, reter.to
the Mosaic Law, not restricting the term
Law to the Pentateuch. Now a con-
siderable and important part of the
Mosaic legislation has relation only to
Palestine and Jerusalem; it had no
practical significance for the devotional
life of the Jews of the Dispersion, with
the exception of the community that
worshipped at Hierapolis in Egypt.
There is a strong temptation to mystics
to justify to themselves the continued
use of an antiquated sacred book by a
mystical interpretation of whatever in it
has ceased to apply to daily life. Thus
Philo (De Vit. Contempl. § 3) says of
the Therapeutae, ‘“ They read the holy
Scriptures, and explain the philosophy
of their fathers in an allegorical manner,
regarding the written words as symbols
of hidden truth which is communicated
in obscure figures”. Those with whom
St. Paul deals in the Pastoral Epistles
were not the old-fashioned conservative
Judaisers whom we meet in the Acts and
in the earlier Epistles; but rather the
promoters of an eclectic synthesis of the
then fashionable Gentile philosophy and
of the forms of the Mosaic Law. μῦθοι,
then, here and elsewhere in the Pas-
torals (see reff.), would refer, not to the
stories and narrative of the O.T. taken
in their plain straightforward meaning,
but to the arbitrary allegorical treatment
of them.
γενεαλογίαι may similarly refer to the
genealogical matter in the O.T. which is
usually skipped by the modern reader;
but which by a mystical explanation of
the derivations of the nomenclature
could be made to justify their inclusion
in a sacred book, every syllable of which
might be supposed antecedently to
contain edification. This general inter-
pretation, which is that of Weiss, is
4—6.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A
5.
5. Τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς “ παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ ἡ καθαρᾶς " kap-u Acts v.28,
δίας καὶ ” συνειδήσεως “' ἀγαθῆς καὶ * πίστεως “" ἀνυποκρίτου -
τινὲς "ἀστοχήσαντες " ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ἢ ματαιολογίαν, 7. θέλοντες
v. 8,2 Tim. ii. 22.
xii. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 6, Jas. iii. 17, 1 Pet. i. 22.
vii. 19, viii. 9.
of Tit. i. το.
supported by Ignat. Magn. 8, ‘‘ Be not
seduced by strange doctrines nor by
antiquated fables (ἑτεροδοξίαις μηδὲ
μυθεύμασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς), which are
profitiess. For if even unto this day we
live after the manner of Judaism (κατὰ
ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν), we avow that we
have not received grace,”’ Hort main-
tains that γενεαλογίαι here has a derived
meaning, ‘“‘all the early tales adherent,
as it were, to the births of founders”
(see Fudaistic Christianity, p. 135 sqq.).
On the other hand, Ireneus (Haer.
Praef. τ and Tertullian (adv. Valentin.
3; de Praescrift. 33) suppose that the
Gnostic groupings of aeons in genealo-
gical relationships are here alluded to.
It was natural that they should read the
N.T. in the light of controversies in
which they themselves were engaged.
ἀπεράντοις: endless, interminatis
(Vulg.), infinitis (m.), because leading
to no certain conclusion. Discussions
which do not concern realities are inter-
minable, not from their profundity, as
the ocean is popularly speaking un-
fathomable in parts, but because they
lead to no convincing end. One end or
conclusion is as good as another. The
choice between them is a matter of taste.
αἵτινες : qualitative, they are of such
α kind as, the which (R.V.).
ἐκζητήσεις: Questionings to which no
answer can be given, which are not
worth answering. See reff. on vi. 4.
Their unpractical nature is implied by
their being contrasted with οἰκονομία
θεοῦ. Life is a trust, a stewardship,
committed to us by God. Anything that
claims to belong to religion, and at the
same time is prejudicial to the effectual
discharge of this trust is self-condemned.
παρέχουσι: παρέχω is used here as in
the phrase κόπους παρέχω.
It will be observed that οἰκονομία is
here taken subjectively and actively (the
performance of the duty of an οἰκονόμος
entrusted to a man by God; so also in
Col. i. 25); not objectively and passively
(the dispensation of God, t.e., the Divine
plan of salvation). The Western reading
οἰκοδομήν or οἰκοδομίαν, aedificationem,is
easier; but the text gives adeeper meaning.
w Acts xxiii. 1, 1 Tim. i. 19, 1 Pet. iii. 16, 21.
ai Tim. v. 15, vi. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 4, Heb. xii. 13.
Xvi. 24, I
6. ὧν Thess. iv.
2, ver. 18,
not LXX,
v Ps. 1. (li.)
12, Matt.
x2 Tim..i. §- y Rom.
Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 18 only, N.T., Ecclus.,
b Here only, not LXX
zt
τὴν ἐν πίστει: This is best taken as in
the faiths cf. ver. 2, 11:7; Τίς ΤΠ 15:
The trust committed to us by God is
exercised in the sphere of the faith.
The aposiopesis at the end of ver. 4 is
due to an imperative need felt by St.
Paul to explain at once, and develop
the thought of, οἰκονομία θεοῦ. The
true teaching—that of the apostle and of
Timothy—would be the consequence of
the charge given by Timothy and would
issue in, be productive of, an οἰκονομία
θεοῦ. This oikovop. θ. is the object
aimed at, τέλος, of the charge; and is
further defined as love, etc.
This is the only place in Paul in which
τέλος means the jinal cause. In every
other instance it means termination, re-
sult, 1.€. consequence. 1 Peter i. g is
perhaps an instance of a similar use.
The charge is referred to again in ver.
18. See also r Thess. iv. 2. The ex-
pressed object of the charge being the
comprehensive virtue, love, it is strange
that Ellicott should characterise this
exegesis as ‘‘ too narrow and exclusive ”’.
Bengel acutely observes that St. Paul
does not furnish Timothy with profound
arguments with which to refute the
heretics, because the special duty of a
church ruler is concerned with what is
positively necessary. The love here
spoken of is that which is ‘‘ the fulfilment
of the law” (Rom. xiii. 10); and its
nature is further defined by its threefold
source. Heart, conscience, faith, mark
stages in the evolution of the inner life
of a man. Heart, or disposition, is
earlier in development than conscience ;
and faith, in the case of those who have
it, is later than conscience.
καθαρὰ καρδία is an O.T. phrase. See
reff. συνείδησις is καθαρά in τ Tim. iii.
9, 2 Tim. i. 3; it is ἀγαθή in reff.; καλή
in Heb. xiii. 18; it occnrs without any
epithet in 1 Tim. iv. 2, Tit. i.15. πίστις
ἀνυπόκριτος occurs again 2 Tim. i. 5;
and the adj. is applied to ἀγάπη, Rom.
xii. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 6. See other reff. It is
evident that no stress can be laid on
the choice of epithets in any particular
passage.
Ver. 6. ὧν; i.e., the disposition, con-
94
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
Le
cLukev. τ7, εἶναι “ νομοδιδάσκαλοι, μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσιν, μήτε περὶ
Acts v. 34 ᾿Ξ
not ΠΧ Κ᾿ τίνων ἃ διαβεβαιοῦνται.
d Tit. iii. 8,
ὃ. Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι καλὸς ὁ
ς
νόμος ἐάν τις
ἣν ἢ , a 1 ide A J ὃ , ό οὐ
aot ΧΧ, αὐτῷ “νομίμως χρῆται 9. εἰδὼς τοῦτο, OTL δικαίῳ νόμος οὔ
e 2 Tim. ii.
5, 4 Macc. vi. 18 only.
1 80 SDFGEL;
science, and faith as qualified. τινὲς :
see note on ver. 3. ἀστοχήσαντες :
(aberrantes, Vulg.; recedentes, m’;
excedentes, m®°), ἴῃ the other passages
where this word occurs the A.V. and
R.V. have erred ; here swerved. They
missed the mark in point of fact. It may
be questioned whether they really had
aimed at a pure heart, etc. But having
missed, being in fact ‘‘corrupted in
mind”? vi. 5; ‘* branded in their con-
science,” iv. 2; and ‘reprobate con-
cerning the faith,” 2 Tim. iii. 8, they
did not secure as their own love, prac-
tical beneficence, but its exact opposite,
empty talking, vanitloguium, Tit. i. ro.
The content of this empty talking is
analysed in Tit. iii. 9.
It is more natural to suppose that ὧν
is governed by ἀστοχήσαντες (Huther,
Grimm, Alf.) than by ἐξετράπησαν (Elli-
cott). ἀστοχεῖν is used absolutely with
περί elsewhere in the Pastorals ; but in
Ecclus, it governs a genitive directly.
ἐκτρέπεσθαι governs both gen. and acc. ;
the latter in vi. 20.
Moulton and Milligan, Exfosttor, vii.,
vii. 373, quote examples of ἀστοχέω from
papyri (ii. B.c. ii, A.D.) in the sense “" fail ”
or“ forget,” ¢.g., ἀστοχήσαντες τοῦ
καλῶς ἔχοντος. ἐξετράπησαν introduces
anew metaphor: they had turned aside
out of the right path.—pararodoyta:
Here only ; but ματαιολόγοι occurs, Tit.
i. 10. See vi.20 : ‘* Vanitas maxima, ubi
de rebus divinis non vere disseritur,
Rom. i. 21 ”’ (Bengel).
Ver. 7. νομοδιδάσκαλοι: The Mosaic
or Jewish law is meant. See Tit. iii.
g. The term is used seriously, of official
teachers of the law, in reff.
μὴ νοοῦντες, κιτιλ. : Though they
understand neither, etc. The participle
is concessive, and pe is here subjective,
as usual, expressing St. Paul’s opinion
about them. For the sentiment cf.
vi. 4, I Cor. viii. 2. λέγουσιν refers to
the substance of their assertions, while
διαβεβαιοῦνται (affirmant, see Tit. iii.
8) is expressive of the confident manner
(R.V.) in which they made them. They
did not grasp the force either of their
own propositions (hence resulted βέβηλοι
κενοφωνίαι), or the nature of the great
χρήσηται AP, 73.
topics—Law, Philosophy, etc.—on which
they dogmatised, hence their inconsist-
encies, ἀντιθέσεις τοῦ ψευδωνύμου
γνώσεως (vi. 20). On the combination
of the relative and interrogative pro-
nouns in one sentence, see Winer-Moul-
ton, Grammar, p. 211.
Vv. 8-11.. And yet this alleged an-
tagonism of the Law to the Gospel is
factitious: the Law on which they insist
is part of law in general; so is the
Gospel with which I was entrusted. The
intention of both is to a large extent
identical : to promote right conduct.
Ver. 8. οἴδαμεν, as in Rom. vii. 14,
1 Cor. viii. 1, 4, introduces a concession
in the argument. καλὸς 6 νόμος was a
concession made by St. Paul, Rom. vii.
16, also Rom. vii. 12, ὁ μὲν νόμος ἅγιος.
It is possible that it had been objected
that his language was inconsistent with
his policy. It may be questioned whether
καλός, in St. Paul’s use of it, differs
from ἀγαθός, as meaning good in appear-
ance as well as in reality. For the use
of καλός in the Pastorals, see notes on
i. 18 and iii. 1. τις has no special re-
ference to the teacher as distinct from
the learner. The law is καλός in its
own sphere; but Corrupto optimi pes-
sima ; ‘*Sweetest things turn sourest
by their deeds”. νομίμως here means
in accordance with the spirit in which
the law was enacted. It does not
mean lawfully in the usual acceptation
of that term. St. Paul impresses the
word into his service, and does it vio-
lence in order to give an epigrammatic
turn to the sentence. In 2 Tim. ii. 5,
νομίμως has its ordinary meaning in
accordance with the rules of the game.
χρῆται: In Euripides, Hipp. 98 νόμοις
χρῆσθαι means “to live under laws”.
Ver.g. εἰδώς refers to τις, as know-
ing this (R.V.). For the expression cf.
οἶδας τοῦτο, 2 Tim. i. 15 and Eph. v. 5.
νόμος : Although νόμος when anarthrous
may mean the Mosaic Law, the state-
ment here is perfectly general (so R.V.).
The Mosaic Law does not differ in the
range of its application, though it may
in the details of its enactments, from
law in general, of which it is a sub-
division. Law is not enacted for
7—I10.
κεῖται, ἦ ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ * ἀνυποτάκτοις,
ΠΡῸΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
95
* ἀσεβέσι ὃ" καὶ " ἁμαρτωλοῖς, f Mark xv.
48 (?) =
ἀνοσίοις καὶ * βεβήλοις, 'watpodwats καὶ ™ μητρολῴαις, " ἀνδρο- Luke
ες xxii. 37=
φόνοις, 10. πόρνοις, “ ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἢ ἀνδραποδισταῖς, “ ψεύσταις, Is. liii. τα,
r ον 2 ase , 8 ’ , Acts 11.23,
ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον TH " ὑγιαινούσῃ " διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται, x Cor. ix.
21 (4), 2
Thess. ii.
8, 2 Pet. ii. 8. g Tit. i. 6, 10, Heb. ii. 8, not LXX. h Prov. xi. 31, 1 Pet. iv. 18. i2 Tim.
iii. 2, only, N.T. k t Tim. iv. 7, vi. 20,2 Tim. ii. 16, Heb. xii. 6 only, N.T. 1 Here only,
not LXX. m Here only, not LXX. n Here only N.T., 2 Macc. ix. 28. ΟἹ Cor. vi. 9,
not LXX. _p Here only, not LXX.
τ Here only N.T., cf. Matt. v. 33.
Tit. ii. 8, Tit. i. 13, ii. 2.
a naturally law-abiding man (dative
of reference). δίκαιος is used here in
the popular sense, as in “1 came not to
call the righteous’’. It is unnecessary
to suppose that St. Paul had his theory
of justification in his mind when writing
this ; though of course those who ‘‘ are
led by the Spirit’? are δίκαιοι of the
highest quality, κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ
ἔστιν νόμος (Gal. v. 18 544., 23). The
enumeration of those whom legislators
have in view when enacting laws natur-
ally begins with ἄνομοι, of whom the
ἀνυπότακτοι, unruly, those who deli-
berately rebel against restriction of any
kind, are the extreme type. There is no
special class or quality of crime involved
in the terms ἄνομος and ἀνυπότακτος.
As the series advances, the adjectives
indicate more definite and restricted
aspects of lawlessness: the first three
pairs represent states of mind; then
follow examples of violations of specific
enactments. Since St. Paul is here
dealing with the law of natural religion,
it is not safe to deepen the shade of
ἀσεβής, x.7.A. by looking at the concep-
tions they express in the light of the
Lord.
ὃ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλός is a pair of
epithets familiar from its occurrence in
Prov, xi. 31 (quoted τ Pet. iv. 18. See
also Jude 15). The ἀσεβής is one whose
mental attitude towards God Himself is
that of deliberate irreverence ; the BéBy-
λος acts contumeliously towards recog-
nised expressions or forms of reverence
to God.
Alford and Ellicott, following a hint
from Bengel, suppose that in the series
commencing πατρολῴαις St. Paul is
going through the second table of the
Decalogue. It is an argument against
this that when St, Paul is unquestion-
ably enumerating the Commandments,
Rom. xiii. 9, he places the command
against adultery before that against
murder (so Luke xviii. 20; Jas ii. 11;
Philo, De Decalogo, xxiv. and xxxii. ;
Tert.de Pudic, v., all following LXX (B)
q Rom. iii. 4, Tit. i. 12, Rev. xxi. 8? John (2), 1 John (5).
82 Tim. iv. 3, Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 3,2 Tim. i. 13,
of Deut. chap. v.). There is therefore no
necessity to give πατρολῴας the weak
rendering smiter of a father (R.V. m.) in
order to make the word refer to normal
breaches of the Fifth Commandment,
It can, of course, both by derivation and
use, be so rendered, The Greek word,
like parricide in Latin and English, may
be applied to any unnatural treatment of
a parent.
The apostle is here purposely specify-
ing the most extreme violations of law,
as samples (καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον) of what
disregard of law may lead to. The
healthy, wholesome teaching of Christ
is of course in opposition to such enor-
mities; it is also in opposition to the
false teachers ; these teachers have failed
to attain to a pure heart, etc. Conse-
quently, although professing to teach
the Law, they find themselves in op-
position to the essential spirit of law.
Let them, and those who listen to them,
take care lest their teaching inevitably
issue in similar enormities.
Ver. το. ἀνδραποδισταῖς, plagiariis
(Vulg.), includes all who exploit other men
and women for their own selfish ends;
as πόρνοις and ἀρσενοκοίταις include all
improper use of sexual relations.
διδασκαλία means the body of doc-
trine, the apostolic Summa Theologia.
The noun is used absolutely, 1 Tim. vi.
I, Or with varying epithets: ὑγιαίνουσα,
sana (here, 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, ii. 1);
καλή, bona (1 Tim. iv. 6); κατ᾽ εὐσέ-
Bevav, secundum pietatem (1 Tim. vi. 3) ;
pov (2 Tim. iii. 10); τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
θεοῦ (Tit. ii. 10).
It means the act of teaching in Rom.
XM; 7; XV. ΑἹ 1 1M>:2V.¥3, 20, Vi. 27,2
Tim. iii. 16, Tit. ii. 7, The term occurs
fifteen times in the Pastoral Epistles in
a technical Christian sense. This is in
the writer’s mind even in 1 Tim. iv. 1,
διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων. It is found
four times in the other Pauline Epistles.
Of these Rom. xii. 7 is the nearest ap-
proach to the special connotation here.
With ὑγιαίνουσα (see reff.) compare
96
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A 1,
ti Tim. vii 11. κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ ᾿ μακαρίου Θεοῦ, ὃ " ém-
15. a a
uKom, iii, στεύθην ἐγώ. 12. 1” Χάριν " ἔχω τῷ * ἐνδυναμώσαντί 5 με Χριστῷ
2, 1 Cor.
ii,-7, 2
4; Tit. i. 4.
hil. iv. 13, 2 Tim. ii. 1, 2 Tim. iv. 17.
2 Thess. ili. 15.
ix.17,Gal. Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ὅτι
v Luke xvii. 9, 2 Tim. i. 3, Heb. xii. 28.
*muotév pe “ἡγήσατο, θέμενος iS
w Acts ix. 22, Rom. iv. 20, Eph. vi. 10,
x Heb. xi. 11, ef. Acts xxvi. 2, Phil. ii. 3, 1 Thess. v. 13,
1Ins. καὶ DKL, d, go., syrr.; om. kat ΔΕῸΡ, 17, 31, 67**, 80, 238, five others,
f, g, vg., boh., arm.
? ἐνδυναμοῦντι διὸ", 2, 17, three others, Thphyl.
ὑγιαίνοντες λόγοι (1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim.
i. 13), λόγος ὑγιής (Tit. ii. 8), and
ὑγιαίνειν (ἐν) τῇ πίστει (Tit. i. 13, ii. 2).
The image is peculiar to the Pastoral
Epistles; but it is not therefore un-
Pauline, unless on the assumption that
a writer never enlarges his vocabulary
or ideas. Healthy, wholesome admirably
describes Christian teaching, as St. Paul
conceived it, in its complete freedom
from casuistry or quibbles in its theory,
and from arbitrary or unnatural restric-
tions in its practice. The terms νοσῶν
as applied to false teaching (1 Tim. vi.
4), and possibly yayypatva (2 Tim. ii. 17)
were suggested by contrast. See Dean
Bernard’s note on this verse.
Ver. II. κατὰ Td εὐαγγέλιον, K.T.A.,
refers to the whole preceding sentence
and is not to be connected with 88ac-
καλίᾳ only, which would necessitate τῇ
κατὰ, «.7.A. This reading is actually
found in D,* d, f, g, Vg., Arm., quae est
secundum, etc. Von Soden connects
with δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται.
Inasmuch as unsound teaching had
claimed to be a εὐαγγέλιον (Gal. i. 6),
St. Paul finds it necessary to recharge
the word with its old force by distinguish-
ing epithets. εὐαγγέλιον had become
impoverished by heterodox associations.
The gospel with which St. Paul had
been entrusted was the gospel of the
glory of the blessed God. Cf. “the
gospel of the glory of Christ,” 2 Cor. iv.
4. The gospel concerning the glory, etc.,
which reveals the glory. And this glory,
although primarily an attribute of God,
is here and elsewhere treated as a blessed
state to which those who obey the gos-
pel may attain, and which it is possible
to miss (Rom. iii. 23, v. 2, xv. 7. See
Sanday and Headlam on Rom. iii. 23).
The phrase is not, as in A.V., an expan-
sion of ‘‘ The gospel of God,” Mark i.
14, etc., ‘the gospel of which God is the
author,” τῆς δόξης being a genitive ot
quality=glorious. (Compare Rom. viii.
21, 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 6,18; Col. i. x1,
27,5 Lite 5}. 15}:
μακαρίου: Blessed as an epithet of
God is only found here and in vi. 15,
where see note. Grimm compares the
μάκαρες θεοί of Homer and Hesiod. But
the notion here is much loftier. We
may call God blessed, but not happy ;
since happiness is only predicated of
those whom it is possible to conceive of
as unhappy.
ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ: This phrase occurs
again’ Tit. 1.3. Cf. Rom. iii. 2,1 Cor.
Whe 17, nGrals, i970 tL NeSSiy ies 4s) 151;
Paul does not here allude to his particu-
lar presentation of the gospel, as in Gal.
ii. 7; nor is he thinking specially of
God’s goodness to him in making him a
minister, as in Rom. xv. 16, Eph. iii. 8,
Col. i. 25; he is merely asserting his
consistency, and repudiating the charge
of antinomianism which had been brought
against him.
Vv. 12-14. I cannot mention my part
in the furtherance of the gospel without
expressing my gratitude to our Lord for
His forgiveness of my errors and His
confidence in my natural trustworthi-
ness, and His grace which gave me
strength to serve Him.
Ver. 12. This parenthetical thanks-
giving, which is quite in St. Paul’s
manner, is suggested by ὃ ἐπιστεύθην
ἐγώ. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 9 sqq., Eph. iii. 8.
χάριν ἔχω: see note on 2 Tim. i. 3.
ἐνδυναμώσαντι: The aor. is used be
cause the writer’s thoughts pass back to
the particular time when he received
inward strength increasingly, Acts ix.
22. In Phil. iv. 13 the present participle
is appropriate, because he is describing
his present state. The word ἐν-
δυναμοῦσθαι is only found in N.T. in
Paul and Acts ix. 22. Is it fanciful to
suppose that Luke’s use of it in Acts
was suggested by his master’s account
of that crisis ? ὅτι: because.
πιστόν : trustworthy, as a steward is
expected to be, 1 Cor. iv. 2, See ref.
There is, as Bengel remarks, a touch of
ἀνθρωποπάθεια, of anthropomorphism or
accommodation, in πιστόν pe ἡγήσατο.
ΣΙ--Ἴ 5.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
97
διδκοντυν 13. τὸ πρότερον ὄντα 27 βλάσψημον καὶ “διώκτην Katy 2 Tim. iit
δ ὑβριστήν - ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην, ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ -
14.: Hess only
1C
Ὁ ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις “ τοῦ " Κυρίου " ἡμῶν μετὰ ἜΡΟΝ oe 9, Gai.
ἀϑ καὶ 9 ἀγάπης Iris “ἐν * Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 15. “Πιστὸς ὃ “ὁ bat it,
6, not
a Rom. i. 30 only (N.T.).
Rev. xi. 15.
Tit. ii. 2, cf.
iii. 8, cf.
d 2 Tim. i. 13.
it. i. 9, Rev. xxi. 5, xxii. 6.
b Here only, not LXX.
EX.
c2 Tim. i. 8, Heb. vii. (14, 2 Pet. iii, 15,
e Col. i. 4,1 Thess. iii. 6, v. 8,1 Tim. ii. 15, vi. ταν 2 Tim. ii. 22,
Gal. v. 6, Eph. vi. 23, 1 Tim. iv. 12, Rev. ii. 19.
fr Tim. ili, 1, 1V, 9,2 Tim. 1. x5, bit
150 NAD*FGP, 17, 47, 67**, 80, three others; τὸν DcKL.
3 Ins. we A, 73, δ.
3 Humanus τ, Latin MSS. known to Jerome, Ambrst., Julian pel., Aug.
The Divine Master knew that His
steward Paul would be trustworthy.
Paul, not unnaturally, speaks as if God’s
apprehension of him were of the same
relative nature as his own hope of final
perseverance.
θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν: The fact that
Christ employed Paul in His service was
a sufficient proof of His estimate of him.
διάκονος and διακονία are used in a gen-
eral sense of St. Paul’s ministry also in
Rom. xi. 13, 1 Cor. iii. 5, 2 Cor. iii. 6, iv.
αν. 28, vi. 3, Eph;1ii.:7,, Col.1;.:23,, 25:
Cf. Tim. ἐν, ΣΟΥ τ tv, 5,\1%, ΤΌΘ
nature of it is exactly defined in Acts xx.
24, ‘to πρώ the gospel of the grace
of God”. /
Ver. 13. ὄντα: concessive: ‘ though I
was,” etc. βλάσφημον: a blasphemer.
The context alone can decide whether
βλασφημεῖν is to be rendered rail or
blaspheme. It was against Jesus per-
sonally that Paul had acted (Acts ix. 5,
xxii. 7, xxvi. 14). This brings into
stronger relief the kindness of Jesus to
Paul. ὑβριστής, rendered insolent (R. EL
Rom. i. 30, covers both words and dee
of despitefulness. Injurious is sufficiently
comprehensive, but, in modern English,
is not sufficiently vigorous.
ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην : Obtaining mercy does
not in this case mean the pardon which
implies merely exemption from punish-
ment; no self-respecting man would value
such a relationship with God. Rather St.
Paul has in his mind what he has ex-
pressed elsewhere as the issue of having
received mercy, viz., to have been granted
an opportunity of serving Him whom he
had injured. Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 25, xv. 10,
2 Cor. iv. I.
ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα: A possible echo of
the Saying from the Cross recorded in
Luke xxiii. 34, οὐ yap οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.
See also John xv. 21, xvi. 3, Acts ili. 17,
xiii. 27, 1 Cor. ii. 8. There is a remark-
able parallel in The Testaments of the
VOL. IV.
Twelve Patriarchs (Judah xix. 3, ἠλέησέ
pe ὅτι ἐν ἀγνωσίᾳ τοῦτο ἐποίησα) dated
by Charles between 109-106 B.c.
ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ does not so much qualify
ἀγνοῶν, as correct a possible notion that
all ignorance must be excusable. St.
Paul declares, on the contrary, that his
was a positive act of sinful disbelief;
but “where sin abounded, grace did
abound more exceedingly,” ὑπερεπερίσ-
σευσεν ἣ χάρις, Rom. ν. 20.
Ver. 14. ὑπερπλεονάζειν only occurs
here in N.T.; but St. Paul constantly
uses compounds with ὑπέρ. The com-
parative force of the twép—grace out-
weighing sin—is brought out in Rom. v.
15 544. ἴῃ these passages at least it 18 not
true, as Ellicott maintains, that ὑπέρ has
a superlative (abound exceedingly) force.
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν: The expression our
Lord (without the addition of ¥esus
or Fesus Christ), common in modern
times, is rare in N.T. See reff. In 2
Peter iii. 15 it is not certain if the refe-
rence is to Christ, the Judge, or to the
Father who determines the moment of
His coming. In Rev. xi. 15 God the
Father is meant.
Faith and love which is in Christ
¥esus occurs again in 2 Tim. i. 13. In
both places the singular relative is im-
properly used for the plural. It is one
of the writer’s habitual phrases; and
therefore we cannot suppose any special
relevance to the context in either of its
constituent parts, though here Bengel
contrasts faith with the unbelief; and
love with the blasphemer, etc., of ver. 13.
Faith and love, are the inward and
outward manifestations respectively of
the bestowal and realisation of grace.
πίστις ἐν Xp.’Ino. occurs Gal. iii. 26,
I Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iti. 15. πίστις and
ἀγάπη are also associated (in this order)
in the first six reff.
Vv. 15-17. The dealings of Christ with
me, of course, are not unique. My ex-
οϑ
14, ix. 39, Xi. 27, xii.]46, xvi. 28, xviii. 37.
perience is the same in kind, though not
’ in degree, as that of all saved sinners.
Christ’s longsuffering will never under-
go a more severe test than it did in my
case, so that no sinner need ever despair.
Let us giorify God therefor.
Ver. 15. πιστὸς ὁ λόγος: The com-
plete phrase, πιστὸς ... ἄξιος recurs
in i Tim. iv. 9; and πιστὸς ὁ λόγος in
Ey ΤΣ, 2 Lim. 11: ὕὖὦ Ἐπὶ ἢ 8:
The only other places in the N.T. in
which πιστὸς is applied to λόγος in the
sense of that can be relied on are Tit.
i. 9, ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν
πιστοῦ λόγου; Rev. xxi. 5, xxii. 6, οὗτοι
οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί.
In Tit. i. 9 the πιστὸς λόγος cannot
mean an isolated saying, but rather the
totality of the revelation given in Christ.
Of the other five places in which the
phrase occurs there are not more than
two in which it is possible to say with
confidence that a definite saying is re-
ferred to, i.¢., here, and perhaps 2 Tim.
ii. 11. In the other passages, the ex-
pression seems to bea brief parenthetical
formula, affirmative of the truth of the
general doctrine with which the writer
happens to be dealing. See notes in
each place.
πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος: Field (Notes
on Trans. N.T. p. 203) shows by many
examples from Diodorus Siculus and
Diog. Laert. that this phrase was a com-
mon one in later Greek. He would render
ἀποδοχή by approbation or admiration.
See also Moulton and Milligan, Exposi-
tor, vii., vi. 185. ἀπόδεκτος occurs I
Tim. ii. 3, v. 4; ἀποδέχεσθαι in Luke and
Acts.
Other examples in the Pastorals of the
use of was (=summus) with abstract
nouns (besides ch. iv. 9) are x Tim. ii. 2,
ἘΣ; il. 41: Ve 2; Vie Fy 2 Τί, ἵν, 2. Mite il.
10; 15) 11]. 2.
Xp. "Ino. ἦλθεν---σῶσαι : This is quite
evidently a saying in which the apos-
tolic church summed up its practical be-
lief in the Incarnation. ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν
κόσμον, as used of Christ, is an expres-
sion of the Johannine theology ; see reff.
It is the converse of another Johannine
expression, ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς... (07
ὁ πατὴρ) εἰς τὸν κόσμον: John iii. 17,
x. 36, xvii. 18, 1 John iv.g. εἰσερχόμενος
els τὸν κόσμον is used in the same asso-
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A L.
ciation, Heb. x. 5. εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν
κόσμον is used of sin, Rom. v. 12;
ἐξέρχεσθαι eis τ. x. of false prophets in
1 John iv. 1, 2 John 7.
When we say that this is a Johannine
expression, we do not mean that the
writer of this epistle was influenced by
the Johannine literature. But until it
has been proved that John the son of
Zebedee did not write the Gospel which
bears his name, and that the discourses
contained in it are wholly unhistorical,
we are entitled, indeed compelled, to
assume that what we may for conveni-
ence call Johannine theology, and the
familiar expression of it, was known
wherever John preached.
With ἦλθεν . . . σῶσαι cf. Luke
xix. Io, ἦλθεν. . . σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός.
For the notion expressed in ἁμαρτωλοὺς
σῶσαι cf. Matt. i. 21, ix. 13; see also
John xii. 47, ἦλθον . . . ἵνα σώσω τὸν
κόσμον ; John i. 29, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἅμαρ-
τίαν τοῦ κόσμου; and τ John ii. 2.
The pre-existence of Christ, as well as
His resistless power to save, is of course
assumed in this noble summary of the
gospel.
ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ: In the experi-
ences of personal religion each indivi-
dual man is alone with God. He sees
nought but the Holy One and his own
sinful self (cf. Luke xviii. 13, por τῷ
ἁμαρτωλῷ). And the more familiar a
man becomes with the meeting of God
face to face the less likely is he to be
deceived as to the gulf which parts him,
limited, finite, defective, from the Infinite
and Perfect. It is not easy to think of
anyone but St. Paul as penning these
words; although his expressions of self-
depreciation elsewhere (1 Cor. xv. 9,
Eph. iii. 8) are quite differently worded.
In each case the form in which they are
couched arises naturally out of the con-
text. The sincerity of St. Paul’s humility
is proved by the fact that he had no
mock modesty; when the occasion com-
pelled it, he could appraise himself;
e.g., Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16, 2 Cor. xi. 5,
xii. 11, Gal. ii. 6.
Ver. 16. ἀλλά: This is not adversative,
but rather continues from ver. 13, and
develops the expression of self-deprecia-
tion. The connexion is: “1 was such a
sinner that antecedently one might doubt
16—17. ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A 99
διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην, ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ | ἐνδείξηται Χριστὸς “Incois 11 (of God)
om. 1X,
‘ k ~
τὴν " ἅπασαν * μακροθυμίαν, πρὸς ᾿ ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων 17, 22.
Ei i naan. Eph ity,
πιστεύειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ εἰς " ζωὴν Maidnoy. 17. τῷ δὲ " βασιλεῖ " τῶν k 2 Tim. iv,
> Ἂς 2, cf. Col.
" αἰώνων, “ ἀφθάρτῳ,3 Ὁ ἀοράτῳ, “ μόνῳ 3 θεῷ, τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς i he
2 Tim. iii.
10.
m John iv. 14, 36, vi. 27, xii. 25, Acts xiii. 48, Rom. v. 21, 1 Tim.
n Tob. xiii. 6, 10, Enoch ix. 4, Rev. xv. 3, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 15. o Wisd.
p Col. i. 15, Heb. xi. 27. q John v. 44, Jude a5.
2 Tim. i. 13 only, not LXX.
vi. 12, Tit i. 2, iii. 7, etc.
xii. 1, xviii. 4, Rom. i. 23.
aon AD, Bae 47, 80, six others, d, f, τ, vg., go., sah.; "Ino. Xptor. NKLP, 37,
δὰ is ἃ
3 ἀθανάτῳ D*, inmortali ἃ, f, τ, vg., go., syrhcl-mg; FG, g, σ (incorruptibili) add
8+, 80., Syt & ip
ἀθανάτῳ after ἀοράτῳ.
31η5. σοφῷ NcDbcKLP, go., syrhcl (from Rom. xvi. 27); om. σοφῷ δ ΓΑ ΕΘ,
17, 37, one other, Latt., sah., boh., syrpesh,
whether I could be saved or was worth
saving. But Christ had a special object
in view in extending to me His mercy.”
διὰ τοῦτο, followed by ἵνα and refer-
ring to what follows, occurs in Rom. iv. 16,
2 Cor. xiii. το, Eph. vi. 13, 2 Thess. ii.
11, Philem. 15. See also Rom. xiii. 6.
ἐν ἐμοί is used as in Gal. i. 16, 24, and
as ἐν ἡμῖν in τ Cor. iv. 6. I was an
object lesson in which Christ displayed
the extent of His longsuffering.
πρώτῳ: Alford correctly says that the
foll. μελλόντων proves that St. Paul here
combines the senses first (A.V.) and as
chief (R.V.).
τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν: the utmost
longsuffering which he has (Blass,
Grammar, p. 162). Here r renders
axpo0. longanimitatem. Chrys., fol-
Peed by Alf. and ΕἸ]., explains, ‘‘ Greater
longsuffering He could not show in any
case than in mine, nor find a sinner that
so required all His longsuffering; nota
part only”. If there had been only one
soul of sinful man to save, it would have
needed the Incarnation to save that soul.
In St. Paul’s case, conversion had been
preceded by a long internal struggle on
his part, and patience on Christ’s part:
“It is hard for thee to kick against the
goad”’. ἅπας only occurs in the Pauline
epistles again in Eph. vi. 13. Its use
‘is confined principally to literary docu-
ments”? (Moulton and Milligan, Exposi-
tor, vii. vi. 88).
πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων:
The use of the genitive here is paralleled
exactly in 2 Peter ii. 6, ὑπόδειγμα ped-
λόντων ἀσεβεῖν, “an example unto those
that should live ungodly””; and 1 Cor.
x. 6, ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν ;
also r Tim. iv. 12, where see reff. It
does not mean as R.V. (an ensample of
them), that St. Paul was the first speci-
men of Jesus’ work of grace, but rather
as A.V. (a pattern to them), that no
one who ever afterwards hears the gra-
cious invitation of Christ need hang back
from accepting it by reason of the great-
ness of his sin, when he has the example
of St. Paul before him (so Chrys.). The
ὑποτύπωσις, of course, is the whole
transaction of St. Paul’s conversion in
all its bearings, ad informationem eorum
qui credituri sunt ili (Vulg.). Bengel
compares Ps, xxxii. 5, 6, ‘‘ Thou forgavest
the iniquity of my sin. For this let
every one that is godly pray unto thee,”
etc.
πιστεύειν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ: πιστεύειν is us-
ually followed by εἰς and the acc., or the
simple dat. But ἐπί with acc., and ἐν
are also found. The construction in the
text is due to an unconscious recollection
of Isaiah xxviii. 16 (also quoted Rom. ix.
33, X- II, 1 Peter ii. 6); and no other
explanation need be sought. The only
other certain instance of the same con-
struction is Luke xxiv. 25. The critical
editors reject it in Matt. xxvii. 42.
Ver. 17. This noble doxology might
be one used by St. Paul himself in one
of his eucharistic prayers. It is signifi-
cant that in the Jewish forms of thanks-
giving Ὡ ΣΤ To is of constant
occurrence. See reff., and θεὸς τῶν ai.in
Ecclus. xxxvi. 22. Bengel’s suggestion
(on ch. i. 4) that there is a polemical
reference to the aeons of Gnosticism is
fanciful and unnecessary. βασιλεύς, as
a title of God the Father, is found in vi.
15 and Rev. xv. 3, a passage of which
Swete says (comm. in loc.), “The thought
as well as the phraseology of the Song
n strangely Hebraic”. Cf. Ps. ix. 37
x. 16).
ἀφθάρτῳ: The three adjectives ἀφθά-
100
See ver. 5. αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων "
8 Luke xii.
48, xxiii.
46, Acts
xiv. 23,
xX. 32, 2 Tim. ii. 2, 1 Pet. iv. 19.
ἀμήν.
ρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ are co-ordinate epi-
thets of θεῷ, to God immortal, invisible,
unique.
ἄφθαρτος, immortal, as an epithet of
God, occurs Rom. i. 23 (cf. Wisd. xii. 1,
τὸ yap ἄφθαρτόν gov. . . πνεῦμά ἐστιν
ἐν πᾶσιν, and Moulton and Milligan,
Expositor, vii., vi. 376). It is expanded in
vi. 15 sq., who only hath immortality,
just as ἀοράτῳ becomes whom no man
hath seen, nor can see (for the thought,
see John i. 18, Col. i. 15, Heb. xi. 27,
I John iv. 12), and μόνῳ becomes the
blessed and only potentate. For the
epithet pdvos, used absolutely, see reff.
and also Ps. Ixxxvi. 10, John xvii. 3,
Rom. xvi. 27.
τιμὴ καὶ δόξα: This combination in a
doxology is found Rev. iv. 9, δώσουσιν. .-
δόξαν kal τιμὴν ; ν. 13, ἣ τιμὴ Kal ἡ δόξα.
In St. Paul’s other doxologies (Gal. i. 5,
Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Phil. iv. 20, Eph.
iii. 21, 1 Tim. vi. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 18), with
the exception of 1 Tim. vi. 16 (τιμὴ καὶ
κράτος), τιμή is not found; and he
always has 4 δόξα (see Westcott, Addi-
tional Note on Heb. xiii. 21).
Vv. 18-20. The charge that Iam giving
you now is in harmony with what you
heard from the prophets at your ordi-
nation. It only emphasises the funda-
mental moral relations of man to things
unseen and seen. The rejection of these
principles of natural religion naturally
issues in a perversion of revealed religion,
such as caused the excommunication of
Hymenaeus and Alexander.
Ver. 18. ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν is
partly resumptive of ver. 3; it is the
positive aspect of what is there nega-
tively expressed; but as it concerns
Timothy directly, it has a reference for-
ward to ἵνα στρατεύῃ; k.t.A., and to the
general contents of the epistle. Bengel
refers it to παραγγελίας, ver. 5. Peile
to πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, k.T.A.
παρατίθεμαί σοι: The use of this
word, as in Luke xii. 48, 2 Tim. ii. 2,
suggests that the mwapayyeAfa is more
than an injunction of temporary urgency,
that it is connected with, if not the same
as, the παραθήκη (depositum) of τ Tim.
vi. 20, etc.
τέκνον Τιμόθεε: There is a peculiar
affectionate earnestness in this use of
the persona] name, here and in the con-
t See ver. 2.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A I.
18. Ταύτην τὴν * παραγγελίαν "παρα-
τίθεμαί σοι, " τέκνον Τιμόθεε, κατὰ τὰς “ προαγούσας ἐπὶ σὲ προφη-
ur Tim. v. 24.
clusion of the letter (vi. 20). Cf. Luke
x. 41, Martha, Martha; xxii. 34, Peter;
John xiv. 9, Philip; xx. 16, Mary. For
τέκνον See note on ver. 2.
κατὰ τὰς . . . προφητείας, K.T.A.: By
the prophecies, etc., are meant the utter-
ances of the prophets, such as Silas (and
not excluding St. Paul himself) who
were with St. Paul when the ordination
of Timothy became possible; utterances
which pointed out the young man as a
person suitable for the ministry, led
the way to him (R.V.m.). So Chrys.
There is no need to suppose that any
long interval of time elapsed between
the first prophetical utterances and the
laying on of hands. In any case, similar
prophecies accompanied the act of ordi-
nation. This explanation agrees best
with the order of the words, and is in
harmony with earlier and later references
to the extraordinary function of prophets
in relation to the ministry in the apos-
tolic church. Thus in Acts xiii. 1, 2, the
imposition of hands on Paul and Barna-
bas—whether for a special mission or to
a distinct order it matters not—was at
the dictation of prophets. And Clem.
Alex. (Quis Dives, 42) speaks of the
Apostle John, κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα κληρ-
ώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος σημαινο-
μένων. In the same sense may be under-
stood Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. 42: ot
ἀπόστολοι. . . καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρ-
χὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι,
εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους.
It is evident from iv. 14 that the pro-
phecy accompanying the laying-on of
hands was considered at least contribu-
tory to the bestowal of the charisma; it
is natural to suppose that it was of the
nature of a charge to the candidate. St.
Paul here says that his present charge
to Timothy is tn accordance with, in the
spirit of, and also in reinforcement of
(iva στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς) the charge he
had originally received on an occasion of
peculiar solemnity. This is a stimulat-
ing appeal like that of 2 Tim. iii. 14,
“knowing of whom thou hast learned
them”:
Ellicott disconnects προαγούσας from
ἐπὶ σέ; but ‘‘ forerunning, precursory,”’
is pointless as an epithet of predictions,
though guite appropriate [as applied to
ἐντολή in Heb. vii. 18; and the notion
18—20.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
IOI
, A
tetas, ἵνα “ στρατεύῃ 1 ἐν αὐταῖς τὴν καλὴν “ στρατείαν, 19. ἔχων ν τ Cor. ix.
, A a
πίστιν καὶ * ἀγαθὴν * συνείδησιν, ἥν τινες 7 ἀπωσάμενοι * περὶ * τὴν
7, 2 Cor.
X59,2
im. ii. 4.
; τὴ
"πίστιν " ἐναυάγησαν - 20. ὧν ἐστὶν Ὑμέναιος καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος, οὖς w 2 Cor. x.
b Ἂν a A - -
παρέδωκα ἢ τῷ > Σατανᾷ ἵνα “ παιδευθῶσι μὴ * βλασφημεῖν. x See ver. 5.
y Acts xiii,
- . . eee - 46.
zi Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iii. 8. a 2 Cor. xi. 25 only, not LXX. b 1 Cor. v. 5. c Acts vii.
22, xxii. 3,1 Cor. xi. 32, 2 Cor. vi. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 25, Tit. ii. 12.
d Matt. ix. 3=Mark ii. 7, Matt.
xxvi. 65, John x. 36, Acts xiii. 45, xviii. 6, xxvi. 11.
1 στρατεύσῃ N*D*.
of ‘‘ prophecies uttered over Timothy at
his ordination . . . foretelling his future
zeal and success” is unnatural.
ἵνα otpatedy ... THY καλὴν στρα-
τείαν : The ministry is spoken of as a
warfare, militia, “the service of a
στρατιώτης in all its details and par-
ticulars ” (Ell.). See reff., and an in-
teresting parallel in 4 Macc. ix. 23, ἱερὰν
kK. εὐγενῆ στρατείαν στρατεύσασθε περὶ
τῆς εὐσεβείας.
ἐν αὐταῖς: in them, as in defensive
armour. (Winer Moulton, Grammar, p.
484). Cf. Eph. vi. 14, 16, for a similar
use of ἐν.
καλός is characteristic of the Pastorals,
in which it occurs twenty-four times as
against gixteen times in the other
Pauline Epistles. It has ἃ special
Christian reference in such phrases as
the present, and as qualifying στρα-
τιώτης, 2 Tim. ii. 3; ἀγών, τ Tim. vi.
12, 2 Tim. iv. 7; διδασκαλία, τ Tim. iv.
6; ὁμολογία, τ: Tim. vi. 12, 13: wapa-
θήκη, 2 Tim. i. 14; διάκονος, τ Tim. iv.
6. Moreover, the use of the word in
these epistles is also different from that
found in the earlier epistles: (a) it is
used asa qualifying adjective twelve times
in the Pastorals (excluding καλὸν ἔργον,
καλὰ ἔργα) viz., in addition to the reff.
already given, 1 Tim. iii. 7, 13, vi. 19.
This use is not found in the other Pauline
Epistles. (b) As a predicate it occurs twice,
viz., I Tim. i. 8, iv. 4, as against once
elsewhere in Paul, Rom. vii. 16. On the
other hand, τὸ καλόν is not found in the
Pastorals, though five times elsewhere
(Rom. vii. 18, 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 7; Gal. vi.
9; 1 Thess. v. 21); nor καλά (Rom. xii.
17; 2 Cor. viii. 21); nor καλόν (Rom. xiv.
ars: ὐξεν, 6, Vil. Σ, 8, 26, 1x. 15:
Gal. iv. 18); but τοῦτο καλόν occurs
chap. ii. 3 (Tit. iii. 8) as well as in 1
Cor. vii. 26. See also note on chap. iii.
ii
Ver. 19. ἔχων: It is best perhaps to
suppose that the metaphor of warfare is
“not continued beyond στρατείαν ; else
we might render, holding faith “8 a
shield, cf. Eph. vi. 16. But ἐν αὐταῖς
implies that the prophecies included
every piece of defensive armour. So
ἔχων here simply means possessing, as
Π 1 Pim: fil.) 9;22 ΓΙ 1. 53) 111-5:
Rom. ii. 20, 1 Cor. xv. 34, 1 Pet. iii. 16.
συνείδησιν : see note on ver. 5.
τινες : see note on ver. 3.
ἀπωσάμενοι : The indictment against
the moral standard of the false teachers
is here expressed more severely than
above in ver. 6. There they are said to
have ‘“‘missed” or “neglected”? faith,
etc.; but here that they thrust it from
them (R.V., cf. Acts xiii. 46) when it im-
portuned for admittance into their hearts.
‘*Recedit invita. Semper dicit, Noli me
laedere”’ (Bengel).
περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν : Another
change of metaphor: they suffered moral
shipwreck, so far as the faith is con-
cerned. ‘*When the life is corrupt, it
engenders a doctrine congenial to it”
(Chrys.). We are not justified in inter-
preting suffered shipwreck as though it
meant that they were lost beyond hope
of recovery. St. Paul himself had suf-
fered shipwreck at least four times (2
Cor. xi. 25) when he wrote this epistle.
He had on each occasion lost everything
except himself. For the construction,
cf. wept τὴν πίστιν [ἀλήθειαν] ἠστόχη-
σαν τ Tim. ‘vic Υ) 2 "Tim. ἢν, 152
ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν, 2 Tim. iii. 8.
περί with acc. is used in a somewhat
similar sense in Mark iv. 19, Luke x. 40,
41, Acts xix. 25, Phil. ii. 23 (the only in-
stance in Paul outside the Pastorals) 1x
Tim. vi. 4, Tit. ii. 7.
Hymenaeus and Alexander were the
ringleaders of those who had suffered ship-
wreck. There is no sufficient reason to
suppose that this Hymenaeus is different
from the heretic of the same name in 2
Tim. ii. 17, where his error is more pre-
cisely defined. The identification of
Alexander with Alexander the smith of
2 Tim. iv. 14 is more precarious.
Ver. 20. ots παρέδωκα τῷ Σατανᾷ:
I have delivered (A.V.) expresses more
ΤῸ2
a Rom. xii.
προσευχάς, ° ἐντεύξεις, *
Eph. iv. 1. ἢ χα» ξεις,
b Lukev. 33,
Phil. i. 4. ς 2 Macc. iv. 8, τ Tim. iv. 5.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A
Il.
II. 1. "Παρακαλῶ "οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ὃ ποιεῖσθαι > δεήσεις,
εὐχαριστίας, ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ΄---
dx Cor. xiv. 16, Phil. iv. 6.
1 παρακάλει, obsecra, D*FerG, d, g (not τ), sah.
accurately than I delivered (R.V.) the
force of the aorist followed by the sub-
junctive: they were still under sentence
of excommunication (see Field in loc.).
The theory of the relation of the Church
to non-Christians which underlies this
phrase is expressed in r John v. 19, ἐκ
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν
τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται. The ἐξουσία τοῦ
Σατανᾶ was “the darkness” over against
“the light” of the Kingdom of God
(Acts xxvi. 18). The conception is not
popular among modern Christians. The
two kingdoms, if there are two, have
interpenetrated each other. The phraseo-
logy, here and in the parallel, 1 Cor.
v. 5,is based on Jobii. 6, ἰδοὺ παραδίδωμί
go. αὐτόν. The name Σατανᾶς also
occurs in chap. v. 15 and in eight other
places in the Pauline Epistles.
ἵνα παιδευθῶσι : The apostolic severity
was not merely punitive; it was also
corrective. The intention, at least, of
excommunication was. ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα
σωθῇ, ΤΙ Cor. v. 5. So Chrys. We
must not therefore render here, sarcastic-
ally, that they may learn, A.V., but
that they might be taught or in-
structed. At the same time, it is un-
natural to assume with Bengel that the
χαιδεία was intended to keep them from
blaspheming at all; St. Paul hoped that
it might prevent a repetition of the sin.
The term has more of the association of
discipline here and in 1 Cor. xi. 32, 2
Cor. vi. g, than in the other references.
βλασφημεῖν: It is absurd to suppose
that St. Paul here refers to a railing
disparagement of his own apostolic
claims.
CuapTeR II.—Vv. 1-7. In the first
place, let me remind you that the
Church’s public prayers must be made
expressly for all men, from the Emperor
downwards. This care for all becomes
those who know that they are children
of a Father who wishes the best for all
His children. Heis one and the same
to all, and the salvation He has provided
in the Atonement is available for all. My
own work among the Gentiles is one in-
stance of God’s fetching home again His
banished ones.
Ver. I. παρακαλῶ οὖν: This is re-
sumptive of, and a further development of
the wapayyeAia of i. 18. See reff. St.
Paul here at last begins the subject
matter of the letter. The object of
παρακαλῶ is not expressed; it is the
Church, through Timothy.
πρῶτον πάντων is to be connected with
παρακαλῶ: The most important point in
my exhortation concerns the universal
scope of public prayer. The A.V. con-
nects πρῶτ. πάντ. with ποιεῖσθαι, as
though the framing of a liturgy were in
question,
ποιεῖσθαι is mid. The mid. of ποιεῖν
is not of frequent occurrence in N.T. ;
it is found chiefly in Luke and Paul,
For the actual expression δεήσεις ποιεῖσ-
ται, see reff,, and Winer-Moulton, Gram-
mar, p. 320, note, and Deissmann, Bible
Studies, trans, p. 250.
There is of course a distinction in
meaning between δεήσεις, προσευχάς,
ἐντεύξεις, supplications (in special
crises) prayers, petitions; that is to
say, they cannot be used interchangeably
on every occasion ; but here the nuances
of meaning are not present to St. Paul’s
mind: his object in the enumeration is
simply to cover every possible variety of
public prayer. This is proved conclu-
sively by the addition εὐχαριστίας,
which of course could not be, in any
natural sense, for all men. But every
kind of prayer must be accompanied by
thanksgiving, Phil, iv. 6, Col. iv. 2. On
ἔντευξις, see Moulton and Milligan, Ex-
positor, vii., vii. 284, and Deissmann,
Bible Studies, trans. p. 121. The reten-
tion of thanksgivings in the reference to
this verse in the opening of the Anglican
prayer For the whole state of Chrisi’s
Church is scarcely justified by referring it
to God’s triumphs of grace in the lives of
the faithful departed. Less unnatural is
the explanation of Chrysostom, that ‘ we
must give thanks to God for the good
that befals others ”’.
προσευχή and δέησις (in this order)
are combined, Eph, vi. 18, Phil. iv. 6;
and in chap, v. 5 in the same order as
here.
ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων : The blessed
effects of intercessory prayer on those
who pray and on those for whom prayer
I—2.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
103
2. ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν " ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, ἵνα * ἤρεμον © 2 Macc.iii.
καὶ * ἡσύχιον " βίον ' διάγωμεν ἐν πάσῃ " εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ ' σεμνότητι -
g 1 Pet. iii. 4. ,2 Ti
38, 3 Macc. i. 3, iv. 8, vi. 35, Tit. 11]. 3.
2 Tim. iii. 5, Tit. i. 1,2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7, iii. 11.
is made is urged with special reference
to the circumstances of the early Church
by Polycarp, Phil. 12; Tert. Apol. § 30;
ad Scapulam, §2; Justin Martyr, Afol. i.
17; Dial. 35. “Νο one can feel hatred
towards those for whom he prays... -
Nothing is so apt to draw men under
teaching, as to love and be loved”
(Chrys.).
Ver. 2. ὑπὲρ βασιλέων: Prayer for
all men must be given intensity and
directness by analysis into prayer for
each and every sort and condition of
men, St. Paul begins such an analytical
enumeration with kings and all that
are in high place; but he does not pro-
ceed with it. This verse 2 is in fact an
explanatory parenthesis, exemplifying
how the prayer “for all men” is to
begin. The plural kings has occasioned
some difficulty ; since in St. Paul’s time,
Timothy and the Ephesian Church were
concerned with one king only, the Em-
peror. Consequently those who deny
the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals
suppose that the writer here betrays his
consciousness of the associated emperors
under the Antonines. But, in the first
place, he would have written τῶν
βασιλέων: and again, the sentiment was
intended as a perfectly general one, ap-
ἔνε to all lands. St. Paul knew of
ingdoms outside the Roman empire to
which, no doubt, he was sure the Gospel
would spread; and even within the
Roman empire there were honorary
βασιλεῖς whose characters could seriously
affect those about them. The plural is
similarly used in Matt. x. 18 and parallels.
On the duty of prayer for kings see
jer. xxix, 7, Ezra vi. 10,. Bar. i. 11, 1
Macc, vii. 33, Rom. xiii. 1, Tit. iii. 1, 1
Pet. ii. 13.
Such prayer was a prominent feature
in the Christian liturgy from the earliest
times to which we can trace it (e.g.,
Clem. Rom, ad Cor. i. 61). It is speci-
ally noted in the Apologies as a proof of
the loyalty of Christians to the Govern-
ment, ¢.g., Justin Martyr, Afol. i. 17;
Tert. Apol. 30, 31, 39; Athenagoras,
Legatio, p. 39. Origen, Cont. Cels. viii.
12
ἐν ὑπεροχῇ: in high place (R.V.).
The noun occurs in an abstract sense,
h Luke viii. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 4, 1 John ii. 16. _i Ecc ς
k Acts iii. 12, 1 Tim. iii. 16, iv. 7, 8, vi. 3, 5, 6, 11,
11, 1 Cor.
εἶς τ.
f Es, iii. 13
only.
i Ecclus. xxxviii, 27, 2 Macc. xii.
12 Macc. iii. 12, 1 Tim. iti. 4, Tit. ii. 7.
καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας, 1 Cor. ii.
1; but the verb is found in this associa-
tion: Rom. xiii. 1, ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχού-
gas; I Pet. ii. 13, βασιλεῖ ὡς
ὑπερέχοντι. The actual phrase τῶν ἐν
ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων is found in an inscription
at Pergamum “after 133 B.c.”’ (Deiss-
mann, Bible Studies, trans. p. 255).
ἵνα ἤρεμον: This expresses not the
reason why prayer was to be made for
kings, but the purport of the prayer
itself. Cf. Tert. Apol. 39, ‘‘Oramus
etiam pro imperatoribus, pro ministeriis
eorum ac potestatibus, pro statu seculi,
pro rerum quiete’’. So Clem. Rom. ad
Cor. i. 60, δὸς ὁμόνοιαν Kal εἰρήνην
ἡμῖν... -ὥστεσώζεσθαι ἡμᾶς] ὑπηκόους
γινομένους. . . τοῖς ἄρχουσιν καὶ
ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, and esp.
§6z. Von Soden connects ἵνα, «.t.A.
with παρακαλῶ.
ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος, tranquil and
quiet (R.V.), perhaps refer to inward
and outward peace respectively. See
Bengel, on 1 Pet. iii. 4. ἡσυχία also
has an external reference where it occurs
in N.T., Acts xxii. 2, 2 Thess. iii. 12, ὁ
Tim. ii, 11, 12. ἠρεμέω is found in a
papyrus of ii. a.D. cited by Moulton and
Milligan, Expositor, vii., vii. 471.
διάγω is used in the sense of passing
one’s life, absolutely, without βίον ex-
pressed, in Tit. iii. 3.
ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ κ. σεμνότητι: with as
much piety and earnestness or seriousness
as is possible. This clause, as Chrys.
points out, qualifies the prayer for a
tranquil and quiet life. εὐσέβεια and
σεμνότης, piety and seriousness, belong to
the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles,
though eve. occurs elsewhere; see reff.
In the Pastorals εὐσέβεια is almost a
technical term for the Christian religion
as expressed in daily life. It is used
with a more general application, religious
conduct, in τ Tim. vi. 11 and in 2 Peter.
It and its cognates were “ familiar terms
in the religious language of the Imperial
period” (Deissmann, Bible Studies,
trans. p. 364). σεμνότης is rather gravi-
tas, as Vulg. renders it in Tit. ii. 7, than
castitas (Vulg. here and r Tim. iii. 4)
just as σεμνός is a wider term than pudt-
cus as Vulg. always renders it (Phil,
iv. 8; x Tim. iii. 8, 11; Tit. ii. 2). The
104
m τ Cor. vii. Sask
26, cf. Tit.
iii.
ni Tim. v.
4 Only,
not LXX.
o Rom. xiv.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
ἃ τρῦτο! καλὸν καὶ " ἀπόδεκτον
“ ἐπίγνωσιν ἃ ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.
II
ο
ἐνώπιον “ τοῦ ἢ σωτῆρος
P ἡμῶν “Θεοῦ, 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς
. Εἷς γὰρ Θεός, εἷς καὶ * μεσίτης
γὰρ μ ἢ
22,1 Cor. i. 29, 2 Cor. iv. 2, vii. 12, Gal. i. 20, 1 Tim. v. 4,21, vi. 13, 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1, cf. Rom. iii
20, 2 Cor, viii. 21. p See 1 Tim. i. x.
iv. 3.
lIns. yap
ΝΑ, 17, 67**, boh., sah
A.V. honesty is an older English equiva-
lent for seemliness. cepvds and σεμνότης
connote gravity which compels genuine
respect.
Ver. 3. τοῦτο: i.e, prayer for all
men.
καλόν : not to be joined with ἐνώπιον,
but taken by itself, as in reff. See note
oni. 18. ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ
occurs again, v. 4. Prayer for all men
approves itself to the natural conscience,
and it is also in accordance with the re-
vealed will of God.
θεοῦ is almost epexegetical of σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν. Our Saviour, if it stood alone,
might mean Christ; but it is God the
Father that is the originating cause of
salvation. See note oni. 1.
Ver. 4. ‘*The grace of God hath ap-
peared, bringing salvation to all men”
(Tit. ii. rr) as was foreshadowed in the
OuT..3 2:2 Ps. lxvit..2,-* Thy, saving
health among all nations”’. God is, so
far as His inclination or will is con-
cerned, ‘“‘the Saviour of all men,” but
actually, so far as we can affirm with
certainty, “οἵ them that believe” (1
Tim. iv. 10). These He saved, ἔσωσεν
(2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. ili. 5), t.e., placed in a
state of being saved. But here St. Paul
does not say θέλει σῶσαι, but θέλει
σωθῆναι; for by His own limitation of
His powers, so far as they are perceived
by us, the salvation of men does not
depend on God alone. It depends on
the exercise of the free will of each
individual in the acceptance or rejection
of salvation (so Wiesinger, quoted by
Alf.; and, as Bengel notes on ἐλθεῖν,
non coguntur), as well as on the co-
operation of those who pray for all men;
and, by so doing, generate a spiritual
atmosphere in which the designs of God
may grow.
It is also to be observed that since
salvation means a_ state of being
saved, there is no difficulty in the
knowledge of the truth following it
in the sentence, as though it were a
consequence rather than a precedent
NCDFGKLP, d, f, g, mror,
q 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7, Tit. i. 1, Heb. x. 26, cf. 1 Tim.
r Gal. iii. 19, 20, Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24.
I, vg. (enim), go., Syrr., arm.; om. yap
condition. This is indeed the order in-
dicated in the Last Commission: ‘“ bap-
tising them . . . teaching them ”’ (Matt.
XXVill. Ig, 20). So that there is no need
to suppose with Ell., that καὶ eis...
ἐλθεῖν was ‘suggested by... the enun-
ciation of the great truth which is con-
tained in the following verse”’.
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν : This
whole phrase recurs in 2 Tim. iii. 7.
For ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας see reff. In
Heb. x. 26 both words have the article.
It has been shown by Dean Armitage
Robinson (Ephesians, p. 248 sqq.) that
ἐπίγνωσις is not maior exactiorque cog-
nitio; but, as distinguished from γνῶσις
‘‘which is the wider word and expresses
‘knowledge’ in the fullest sense, ἐπί-
γνωσις is knowledge directed towards a
particular object, perceiving, discerning,
recognising”’. Cf.2 Macc. ix. 11, ἤρξατο
oe εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἔρχεσθαι. ᾿ἀληθεία
occurs fourteen times in the Pastorals;
and often with a special Christian refer-
ence, like 8805 and εὐσέβεια. See e.g. in
addition to this place, 1 Tim. iii. 15, iv. 3,
Vie 15, 2 Dims ἀπ Ὑ8.,...1}. 8. νοι Lit:
i. 14. It is a term that belongs to the
Johannine theology as well as to the
Pauline.
Ver. 5. This emphatic statement as to
the unity of the Godhead is suggested
by the singular σωτῆρος just preceding.
The εἷς neither affirms nor denies any-
thing as to the complexity of the nature
of the Godhead; it has no bearing on
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity;
it simply is intended to emphasise the
uniqueness of the relations of God to
man. The use of one, with this inten-
tion, is well illustrated by Eph. iv. 4-6,
ἐν σῶμα, x.t.A. The current thought of
the time was conscious of many σωτῆρες.
In contrast to these, St. Paul emphasises
the uniqueness of the σωτήρ and θεός
worshipped by Christians. The contrast
is exactly parallel to that in t Cor. viii.
6, εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοί, καὶ κύριοι πολλοί"
ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ . . . καὶ εἷς
κύριος “Ina. Xp. The question as to the
3—6.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
105
Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, 6. ὃ " δοὺς " ἑαυτὸν 5 Gal. i. 4,
* ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ ἣ μαρτύριον 1 Y καιροῖς " ἰδίοις, 7.
3 >
33, 1 Cor. i. 6, ii. 1, 2 Thess. i. 10, 2 Tim. i. 8
cf. τ Pet. ii. 8.
aH Tit. ii. 145
εἰς t Here only-
not LX
u Acts iv.
vi Tim. vi. 15, Tit. i. 3. w2 Tim. i. 11,
10m. τὸ μαρτύριον A; καὶ papt. *; οὗ TO μαρτ. Karp. ἰδ. ἐδόθη D*FerG, d,
δ, Ambrst., datum est; 67**, 80, 115 ins. ov.
His verbis nec praeponendum est cuius, nec postponendum con-
jirmatum est; haec enim consulto a patribus omissa sunt”.
temporibus suis.
of vg. reads confirmatum est.]
mutual relations of the Persons of the
Godhead had not arisen among Chris-
tians, and was not present to the writer’s
mind. Indeed if it had been we could
not regard the epistle as a portion of
revealed theology. Revealed theology
is unconscious. The prima facie distinc-
tion here drawn between εἷς θεός and εἷς
μεσίτης would have been impossible in a
sub-apostolic orthodox writer.
Again, the oneness of God has a bear-
ing on the practical question of man’s
salvation. It is possible for all men to
be saved, because over them there are
not many Gods that can exercise pos-
sibly conflicting will-power towards
them, but one only. See also Rom. iii.
30. One Godhead stands over against
one humanity; and the Infinite and the
finite can enter into relations one with
the other, since they are linked by a
εσίτης who is both God and man.
τ is noteworthy that μεσίτης θεοῦ x.
ἀνθρώπων is applied to the archangel
Michael in The Test. of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Dan. vi. 2.
ἄνθρωπος explains how Christ Jesus
could be a mediator. He can only be an
adequate mediator whose sympathy with,
and understanding of, both parties is
cognisable by, and patent to, both.
Now, although God’s love for man is
boundless, yet without the revelation of
it by Christ it would not be certainly
patent to man; not to add that one of
two contending parties cannot be the
mediator of the differences (Gal. iii. 20).
See also Rom. v. 15. Again, we must
note that ἄνθρωπος (himself man, R.V.,
not the man, A.V.) in this emphatic
position suggests that the verity of our
Lord’s manhood was in danger of being
ignored or forgotten.
Ver. 6. ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτόν : The Evangel-
ists record our Lord’s own declarations
that His death was a spontaneous and
voluntary sacrifice on His part, Matt.
xx. 28=Mark x. 45, δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν
αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. Cf. John
x. 18; and St. Paul affirms it, Gal. i. 4,
[Lucas Brug.: “ Testimonium
One at least of MSS.
τοῦ δόντος ἐαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν
ἡμῶν; Tit. ii. 14, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν K.T.A. (παραδίδωμι is used in Gal.
ii. 20, Eph. v. 2, 25). We may note that
this statement necessarily implies not
only the pre-existence of our Lord, but
also His co-operation in the eternal
counsels and purpose of the Father as
regards the salvation of man.
Alford is provably right in saying that
δοῦναι ἑαυτόν, as St. Paul expresses it,
suggests more than δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν
αὐτοῦ. The latter might naturally be
limited to the sacrifice of His death; the
former connotes the sacrifice of His life-
time, the whole of the humiliation and
self-emptying of the Incarnation. The
soundness of this exegesis is not im-
paired by the probability that τὴν ψυχὴν
αὐτοῦ may be nothing more than a
Semitic periphrasis for ἑαυτόν. See
J. H. Moulton, Grammar, vol. i. p. 87,
who compares Mark viii. 36, ζημιωθῆναι
τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, with Luke ix. 25,
ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπολέσας ἢ ζημιωθείς.
ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων: If we are
to see any special force in the ἀντί, we
may say that it expresses that the λύτρον
is equivalent in value to the thing pro-
cured by means of it. But perhaps St.
Paul’s use of the word, if he did not coin
it, is due to his desire to reaffirm our
Lord’s well-known declaration in the
most emphatic way possible. λύτρον
ἀντὶ merely implies an exchange; ἀντί-
Avtpov ὑπέρ implies that the exchange
is decidedly a benefit to those on whose
behalf it is made. As far as the sugges-
tion of vicariousness is concerned, there
does not seem to be much difference
between the two phrases.
τὸ μαρτύριον, as Ellicott says, “15 an
accusative in apposition to the preceding
sentence,”’ or rather clause, 6 Sots...
πάντων. So ΕΑΝ. Bengel compares
évSerypa, 2 Thess. i. 5; cf. also Rom.
xii. τ. The great act of self-sacrifice is
timeless ; but as historically apprehended
by us, the testimony concerning it must
be made during a particular and suitable
106 ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A Li:
x2 Timi τὸ " ἐτέθην ἐγὼ "κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος---΄ ἀλήθειαν 7 λέγω,1 * οὐ
τ. 5. ὀ᾿ψεύδομαι---" διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ὃ ἐν ἢ πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 8. “ Βού-
y John viii. Ε
ΠΡ Ἢ 1, cf. 2 Cor. xii. 6. z Rom. ix. 1, 2 Cor. xi. 31, Gal. i. 20. a 2)Lim. i, 11. b See
1 Tim. i. 2.
c 2 Cor. i. :7, Phil. i. 12, 1 Tim. v. 14, Tit. iii. 8.
1 Add ἐν Χριστῷ (from Rom. ix. 1) *DcKL, 17, 37, many others, go., arm.
period of history, z.e., from the descent
of the Holy Spirit upon the apostolic
company (Acts i. 8) until the Second
Coming (2 Thess. i. 10). The temporal
mission of the Son of God took place
‘*when the fulness of the time came’’
(Gal. iv. 4); it was an οἰκονομία τοῦ
πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν (Eph. i. το).
The testimony is of course borne by God
(1 John v. g-11), but He uses human
agency, the preachers of the Gospel.
καιροῖς ἰδίοις : See reff. The analogy
of Gal. vi. 9, καιρῷ yap ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν,
suggests that we should render it always
in due season. The plural expresses
the fact that the bearing of testimony
extends Over many seasons; but each
man reaps his own harvest only once.
In any case, the seasons relate both to
the Witness and that whereof He is a
witness : ‘‘ his own times” and “its own
times” (R.V.).
The dative is that “of the time where-
in the action takes place,’’ Ell., who
compares Rom. xvi. 25, χρόνοις αἰωνίοις
σεσιγημένου.
Ver. 7. εἰς 8: 501]. τὸ μαρτύριον, or
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, as in the parallel passage,
2) τῶν ἀ Ὑτ.
The phrase εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ x.
ἀπόστολος [καὶ] διδάσκαλος is repeated
in 2 Tim. i. 11, as ἀλήθειαν... ψεύδομαι
occurs again Rom. ix. 1; but there we
have the significant addition [λέγω] ἐν
Χριστῷ. For similar asseverations of
the writer’s truthfulness see Rom. i. 9,
2 Cor. xi. 10, xii. 19, Gal. i. 20.
There is nothing derogatory from the
apostle in supposing that the personal
struggle in which he had been for years
engaged with those who opposed his
gospel made him always feel on the
defensive, and that his self-vindication
came to be expressed in stereotyped
phrases which rose to his mind when-
ever the subject came before him, even
in a letter to a loyal disciple.
κῆρυξ is used in the N.T. of a preacher
here, and twice elsewhere; see reff.
But κήρυγμα and κηρύσσω are con-
stantly used of Christian preaching. Cf.
esp. Rom. x. 15, πῶς δὲ κηρύξωσιν ἐὰν
μὴ ἀποσταλῶσιν ; Bengel takes it in the
sense of ambassador; cf. 2 Cor. v. 20.
διδάσκαλος: διδάσκαλοι, in the tech-
nical Christian sense, are mentioned in
Acts xili. 1, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29, Eph, iv. 11.
Here and in 2 Tim. i. 11 the term is used
in a general signification. St. Paul does
use διδάσκειν of his own ministerial func-
tions: 1 Cor. iv. 17, Col. i. 28, 2 Thess.
Hers:
ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ: It is best to
take both these words in connexion with
διδάσκαλος, and objectively, in the faith
and the truth (see on ch. i. 2). It is
no objection to this view that the article
is not expressed; the anarthrousness of
common Christian terms is a feature of
these epistles. Others, with Chrys., take
both terms subjectively, faithfully and
truly. Ellicott “refers πίστις to the
subjective faith of the apostle, ἀλήθ. to
the objective truth of the doctrine he
delivered’’. This does not yield a natural
sense,
Harnack notes that the collocation of
ἀπόστολος, διδάσκαλος is peculiar to
the Pastorals and Hermas (Sim. ix. 15,
16, 25; Vis. ili. 5, ‘‘ The apostles and
bishops and teachers and deacons”’).
Harnack opines that ‘‘Hermas passed
over the prophets because he reckoned
himself one of them”. But the opinion
of Lietzmann, which he quotes, seems
sounder: Hermas ‘conceives this προφ-
ἡτεύειν as a private activity which God’s
equipment renders possible, but which
lacks any official character”? (Mission
and Expansion of Christiantty, trans.
vol. i. p. 340).
Vv. 8—iii. ra. The ministers of public
prayer must be the men of the congre-
gation, not the women. A woman’s
positive duty is to make herself con-
spicuous by good works, not by per-
sonal display. Her place in relation to
man is one of subordination. This is
one of the lessons of the inspired narra-
tives of the Creation and of the Fall.
Nevertheless this does not affect her eter-
nal position. Salvation is the goal alike
of man and woman. They both attain
supreme blessedness in the working out
of the primal penalty imposed on Adam
and Eve.
Ver. 8. βούλομαι οὖν: οὖν is resumptive
of the general topic of public worship
7-.9.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
107
λομαι οὖν * προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας " ἐν " παντὶ " τόπῳ, * ἐπαίροντας d 1 Cor. xi.
¥ ὁσίους * χεῖρας ἢ χωρὶς ' ὀργῆς καὶ * διαλογισμοῦ,1
4, 5s 13,
9. ᾿ ὡσαύτως 2 ὃ
Cor. i. 2.
ει
γυναῖκας ἐν ἢ καταστολῇ " κοσμίῳ “ μετὰ " αἰδοῦς καὶ ἢ σωφροσύνης 2 Cor. ii.
14,1
f Luke xxiv. 50.
ii, 14. 11 Tim. iii. 8, 11, v. 25, Tit. ii. 3, 6.
xii. 9, τ Tim. iii. 2.
x2 _ g Tit. i. 8, Heb. vii. 26, Rev. xv. 4, xvi. 5.
Mark iii. 5, Rom. xii. 19, xiii. 4, 5, Eph. iv. 31, Col. iii. 8, Jas. i. 19, 20.
o Here only N.T., 3 Macc. i. 19, iv. 5.
Thess. i.8
h Phil. ii. 14, 1 Tim. v. 21.
Rom. xiv. 1, Phil.
ἐς 188, Ὑχὲν 9: n Eccles.
p Acts xxvi. 25, ver. 15.
m Here only
1So N*ADKLP, d, f, m2s,81, r, vg., go., sah., arm.; διαλογισμῶν pycFerG,
17, 47, 67**, 80, nineteen others, g, boh., syrr.
Ins. καὶ S¢DFGKL, d, f, g, mr, r (autem et), vg., go., sah., boh., syrr., arm. ;
om καὶ \\*AP, 17, 71.
3 Ins. τὰς DbcKL.
from which the writer has digressed in
vv. 3-7. βούλομαι οὖν is found again in
v. 14. In both places, βούλομαι has the
force of a practical direction issued after
deliberation, See also reff. On the con-
trary, θέλω δέ is used only in reference to
abstract subjects. See Rom. xvi. 19, I
Cor. vii. 7, 32, xi. 3, xiv. 5. προσεύχ-
εσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας: that the men should
conduct/public worship. Perhaps Bengel
is right in understanding 1 Peter iii. 7
in the same sense. See reff. for προσ-
εὔχεσθαι in this special signification.
τοὺς ἄνδρας: the men of the community
as opposed to the women, ver. 9 (R.V.).
There is no specific restriction of the
conduct of worship to a clergy.
ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ: to be connected with
what precedes: the directions are to
apply to every Church without excep-
tion; no allowance is to be made for
conditions peculiar to any locality; as it
is expressed in 1 Cor. xiv. 33, 34, ὡς ἐν
πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, αἱ
γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν.
The words do not mean in any place,
as though fixed places for worship were
a matter of indifference; neither is there
any allusion, as Chrys. explain it, to the
abolition by Christ of the restriction of
worship to one place, Jerusalem, as in
John iv. 21. ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας:
This is not directly intended to enjoin a
particular gesture appropriate to prayer,
but merely avoids the repetition of
προσεύχεσθαι. To uplift the hands in
prayer was customary: 1 Kings viii. 22,
Ps. xxviii., 2 etc., Isa. i. 15, Clem. Rom.
ad Cor.i. 29. The men that are to have
the conduct of the public worship of the
Church must be upright men who have
clean hands, hands that are holy (Job.
xvii. 9; Ps. xxiii. (xxiv.) 4; Jas. iv. 8).
For ὅσιος as an adj. of two terminations,
compare Luke ii. 13, Rev. iv. 3. See
Winer-Moulton, Grammar, p. 8o.
4 κοσμίως SQcDer*FG, 17.
χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ: This
indicates the two conditions necessary to
effectual prayer : freedom from irritation
towards our fellow-men (Matt. vi. 14,
15, Mark xi. 25), and confidence towards
God (Jas. i. 6; Luke xii. 29). διαλογισμός
has the sense of doubt in Rom. xiv. 1.
This sense (A.V. doubting) is that given
to the term here by Chrysostom (ἀμφι-
erin and Theodoret (πιστεύων ὅτι
Hn). The rendering disputing (R.V.)
disceptatio (Vulg.) merely enlarges the
notion conveyed in ὀργή. The reff. to
ὀργή are places where it is spoken of as
a human affection.
Ver.9. Having assigned to the men
the prominent duties of the Church, St.
Paul proceeds to render impossible any
misconception of his views on this sub-
ject by forbidding women to teach in
public. But he begins by emphasising
what is their characteristic and proper
glory, the beauty of personality which
results from active beneficence.
The essential parts of the sentence are
ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας .. . κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς
. . » δι᾿ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. Both προσεύχεσ-
θαι and κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς depend on
βούλομαι, as does ὡσαύτως, which intro-
duces another regulation laid down by
the apostle. In the Christian Society,
it was St. Paul’s deliberate wish that
the men should conduct public worship,
and that the women should adorn the
Society and themselves by good works.
This verse has no reference to the de-
meanour of women while in Church. It
is inconsistent with the whole context
to supply προσεύχεσθαι after γυναῖκας.
The connexion of ἐν καταστολῇ---
σωφροσύνης has been disputed. Ellicott
takes it as “a kind of adjectival predica-
tion to be appended to yuvaixas,”’ stating
what is the normal condition of women,
who are to superadd the adornment of
good works. But it is more natural to
108
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
Ri;
4 Tit. ii, το, ἃ κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν " πλέγμασιν καὶ 1 * χρυσίῳ 2 ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ
1 Pet. iii.
ἱματισμῷ “ πολυτελεῖ, το. ἀλλ᾽ ---ὃ " πρέπει γυναιξὶν ” ἐπαγγελλο-
r Here onl ἢ
not LXX μέναις " θεοσέβειαν---δι᾿ "épywv "dyabdv. τι. Γυνὴ ἐν “ἡσυχίᾳ
81 Pet. li.
3,Rev. “povOavérw ἐν πάσῃ " ὑποταγῇ. 12. διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ 8 οὐκ
XVil. 4 :
t Luke vii.
25, ix. 29, John xix. 24, Acts xx. 33.
Heb. ii. 10, vii. 26. wi Tim. vi. 21, Tit. i. 2.
10, 2 Tim. fi. 21, iii. 17, Tit. i. 16, iii. 1.
u Mark xiv. 3, 1 Pet. iii. 4.
, z Acts xxii. 2, 2 Thess. ili. 12.
b Wisd. xviii. 16, 2 Cor. ix. 13, Gal. ii. 5, 1 Tim. iii. 4.
v Eph. νυ, 3; Lit. ii. 1;
x Here only N.T., cf. John ix.31. ΟΥἋ Tim.v.
a1 Cor. xiv. 35.
14 DcKL, f, m81, τ, vg., go., sah., syrhel,
2So AFGP, 17, 31, 47, 80, a few others; χρυσῷ NDKL.
3 yuv. δὲ διδάσκ. KL.
connect it directly with κοσμεῖν, with
which ἐν πλέγμασιν, x.7.A. is also con-
nected as well as δι᾽ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν ; the
change of preposition being due to the
distinction between the means em-
ployed for adornment and the resultant
expression of it. The effect of the prac-
tice of good works is seen in an orderly
appearance, etc.
ὡσαύτως is a word of frequent occur-
rence inthe Pastorals. Seereff. Except
in v. 25, it is used as a connecting link
between items in a series of regulations.
The use of it in Rom. viii. 26, 1 Cor. xi.
25 is different.
καταστολή, as Ellicott says, “‘conveys
the idea of external appearance as prin-
cipally exhibited in dress’. It is “ de-
portment, as exhibited externally, whether
in look manner or dress”. The com-
mentators cite in illustration Josephus,
Bell. μά. ii. 8, 4, where the καταστολὴ
K. σχῆμα σώματος of the Essenes is de-
scribed in detail. The Latin habitus is
a good rendering, if we do not restrict
that term to dress, as the Vulg. here,
habitu ornato, seems to do. But ordinato
(r) hits the meaning better.
κόσμιος is applied to the episcopus in
iii. 2. It means orderly, as opposed to
disorderliness in appearance. κοσμίως
(see apparat. crit.) would be a ἅπαξ dey.
both in Old and New Testament. pera
αἰδοῦς: with shamefastness and self-
control or discreetness: the inward char-
acteristic, and the external indication or
evidence of it.
For σωφροσύνη, see Trench, Synonyms,
N.T. The cognate words σωφρονίζειν,
Tit. ii. 4; σωφρονισμός, 2 Tim. i. 7;
σωφρόνως, Tit. 11. 12; σώφρων, τ Tim.
iii. 2, Tit. i. 8, ii. 2, 5, are in N.T. pecu-
liar to the Pastoral Epistles; but σωφρο
γεῖν, Tit. ii. 6, is found also in Mark,
Luke, Rom., 2 Cor. and 1 Pet. See Dean
Bernard’s note here.
ἐν πλέγμασιν, «.7.A.: The parallel in
I Pet. iii. 3, ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν
Kal περιθέσεως χρυσίων, ἢ ἐνδύσεως
ἱματίων κόσμος, is only a parallel. The
two passages are quite independent. The
vanities of dress—of men and women—is
common topic.
Ver. 10. ἀλλ᾽ ὃ πρέπει: It has been
assumed above that δι᾽ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν is
to:be connected with κοσμεῖν. In this
case ὃ πρέπει---θεοσέβειαν is a parenthe-
tical clause in apposition to the sentence.
It is, however, possible, though not so
natural, to connect δι᾽ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν with
éwayy. θεοσ. So Vulg., promittentes
pietatem per bona opera. Then 6 would
mean καθ᾽ ὃ, or ἐν τούτῳ ὅ (Math.), and
the whole clause, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ--- ἀγαθῶν, would
be an awkward periphrasis for, and repeti-
tion of, ἐν καταστολῇ---σωφροσύνης.
ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι usually means to pro-
mise as in Tit.i. 2; but here and in vi.
21 to profess.
θεοσέβεια : ἅπ. Aey., but the adj. θεοσε-
βής occurs John ix, 31.
διά is instrumental, as in iv. 5, 2 Tim.
1/6; 10, 14, i125; “iv; 175; Dit. aii. 25,- 6,
not of accompanying circumstances, as
in x Tim. ii. 15, iv. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 2.
ἔργων ἀγαθῶν : see note on chap. iii. 1.
Ver. 11 544. With these directions
compare those in 1 Cor. xiv. 33-35.
ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ : with complete sub-
jection [to their husbands]. Cf. Tit. ii. 5.
Ver. 12. διδάσκειν: This refers of
course only to public teaching, or to a
wife’s teaching her husband. In Tit. ii. 3
St. Paul indicates the natural sphere for
woman’s teaching. [ΠῚ Cor. women are
forbidden λαλεῖν in the Church. The
choice of terms is appropriate in each
case.
αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός: dominari in vir-
um, to have dominion over (R.V.). ‘‘ The
adj. αὐθεντικός is very well established
in the vernacular. See Nageli, p. 49
10—I5.
ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ “ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν *Houxia.
Αδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος “ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα -
ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ * ἐξαπατηθεῖσα 1 ἐν " παραβάσει γέγονεν.
f Rom. vii. 11, xvi. 18, 1 Cor. iii. 18, 2 Cor. xi. 3, 2 Thess. ii. 3.
iii. 19, Heb. ii. 2, ix. 15.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
109
13.¢ Here only
ee ot LES
14. και Αδὰμ οὔκ d Gen. ii. 7,
om. ix.
15.
e Eph. v. 6,
Jas. i. 26.
20.
g Rom. ii. 23, iv. 15, v. 14, Gal
1 ἀπατηθεῖσα WcDb? cKL.
. . . the Atticist warns his pupil to use
αὐτοδικεῖν because αὐθεντεῖν was vulgar
(κοινότερον). .. αὐθέντης is properly
one who acts on his own authority,
hence in this context an autocrat”
Oe and Milligan, Expositor, vii., vi.
374)-
ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι: dependent on some such
verb as βούλομαι implied, as opposed to
οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω.
Ver. 13. It would not be fair to say
that St. Paul’s judgment about the rela-
tive functions of men and women in the
church depended on his belief as to the
historicity of the Biblical story of the
Creation. He certainly uses this account
in support ofhis conclusions; yet suppos-
ing the literal truth of the early chapters
of Genesis, it would be possible to draw
quite other inferences from it. The first
specimen produced of a series is not al-
ways the most perfect. The point in
which Adam’s superiority over Eve
comes out in the narrative of the Fall is
his greater strength of intellect; there-
fore men are better fitted for the work of
public instruction. ‘The woman taught
once, and ruined all” (Chrys.). Eve’s
reasoning faculty was at once overcome
by the allegation of jealousy felt by God,
an allegation plausible to a nature swayed
by emotion rather than by reflection.
The Tempter’s statement seemed to be
supported by the appearance of the fruit,
as it was rendered attractive by hopes of
vanity to be gratified. Adam’s better
judgment was overcome by personal
influence (Gen. iii. 17, ‘Thou hast
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife’’) ;
he was not deceived. But the intel-
lectual superior who sins against light
may be morally inferior to him who
stumbles in the dusk.
᾿Αδὰμ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη: The elder
should rule. A more profound statement
of this fact is found in x Cor. xi. 9, οὐκ
ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ
γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα.
πλάσσειν is the term used in Gen. ii. 7
and expresses the notion of God as a
potter, Rom. ix. 20. (am here has
figuratus.)
Ver. 14. ἡ δὲ γυνή: St. Paul says 4
γυνή rather than Eta, emphasing the sex
rather than the individual, because he
desires to gives the incident its general
application, especially in view of what
follows. So Chrys.
ἐξαπατηθεῖσα : It is doubtful if we are
entitled to render this, as Ell. does, being
completely deceived, In 2 Cor. xi. 3 St.
Paul says ὁ ὄφις ἐξηπάτησεν Etav, where
there is no reason why he should not
have used the simple verb. St. Paul uses
the compound verb in five other places,
the simple verb only once (see reff.).
So that the simplest account that we
can give of his variation here, and in
2 Cor. xi. 3, from the 6 ὄφις ἠπάτησέν
pe of Gen. ili. 13, 15. that the compound
verb came naturally to his mind.
ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν: Inasmuch as
παράβασις is used οἵ Adam’s transgres-
sion in Rom. v. 14, it may be asked,
What is the force of St. Paul’s apparent
restriction here of the phrase to Eve?
Might it not be said of Adam as well,
that he ἐν παραβ. yéyovev? To which
St. Paul would perhaps have replied that
he meant that it was woman who first
transgressed, in consequence of having
been deceived. ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ
ἁμαρτίας, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀποθνήσκομεν
πάντες. Ecclus. xxv. 24. This notion
of coming into a state of sin at a definite
point of time is well expressed by γέγονεν.
For γίνεσθαι ἐν cf. ἡ διακονία. ..
ἐγενήϑη ἐν δόξῃ (2 Cor. iii. 7); ἐν λόγῳ
κολακίας ἐγενήθημεν (τ Thess. ii. 5).
Ver. 15. σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνο-
yovias: The penalty for transgression,
so far aS woman is concerned, was ex-
pressed in the words, ‘‘I will greatly
multiply thy sorrow and thy conception ;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”
(Gen. iii. 16). But just as in the case of
man, the world being as it is, the sen-
tence has proved a blessing, so it is in
the case of woman. ‘In the sweat of
thy face shalt thou eat bread” expresses
man’s necessity, duty, privilege, dignity.
If the necessity of work be ‘‘ a stumbling-
block,”” man can “‘make it a stepping-
stone” (Browning, The Ring and the
IIo
h Here
only, not
LXX, οἵ.
1 Tim. v.
14.
i John viii.
31, XV.
10, 2 Tim. iii. 14, 1 John iv. 16, 2 John 9.
"λόγος.
1 ἀνθρώπινος D*, humanus d, m47, g (humanus ἐ fidelis), Ambrst., Sedul.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGCEON A
σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς ™Texvoyovias, ἐὰν ' μείνωσιν
k See 1 Tim. i. 14.
t Thess. iv. 3, 4,7, 2 Thess. ii. 13, Heb. xii. 14, 1 Pet. i. 2.
Ill,
i>
εν =
\
πίστει και
᾿ἀγάπῃ καὶ ᾿ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ "᾿ σωφροσύνης: III. 1. " Πιστὸς; 6
1 Rom. vi. 19, 22, 1 Cor. i. 30,
m Ver. g. a Seer Tim i. 15.
Simi-
larly Aumanus is the rendering in chap. i. 15 in r, Aug., Julianpelag apud Aug.
Jerome comments adversely on this rendering (Ep. 24 ad Marcell.).
Book, The Pope, 413), Nay, it is the only
stepping-stone available to him. If St.
Paul’s argument had led him to empha-
sise the man’s part in the first transgres-
sion, he might have said, ‘‘ He shall be
saved in his toil,” his overcoming the
obstacles of nature.
So St. Paul, taking the common-sense
view that childbearing, rather than public
teaching or the direction of affairs, is
woman’s primary function, duty, privilege
and dignity, reminds Timothy and his
readers that there was another aspect
of the story in Genesis besides that of
woman’s taking the initiative in trans-
gression: the pains of childbirth were her
sentence, yet in undergoing these she
finds her salvation. She shall be saved
in her childbearing (R.V.m. nearly).
That is her normal and natural duty;
and in the discharge of our normal and
natural duties we all, men and women
alike, as far as our individual efforts can
contribute to it, ‘work out our own
salvation’’.
This explanation gives an adequate
force to σωθήσεται, and preserves the
natural and obvious meaning of τεκ-
voyovia, and gives its force to τῆς. διά
here has hardly an instrumental force
(as Vulg. per filiorum generationem) ; it
is rather the διά of accompanying cir-
cumstances, as in 1 Cor. iii. 15.
σωθήσεται . . . Sa πυρός. It remains
to note three other explanations :—
(1) She shall be ‘preserved in the
great danger of child-birth ”’.
(2) Women shall be saved if they bring
up their children well, as if rexvoyovia =
texvotpodia, So Chrys.
(3) She shall be saved by means of
the Childbearing ‘‘of Mary, which gave
to the world the Author of our Salvation ”’
(Liddon). ‘The peculiar function of
her sex (from its relation to her Saviour)
shall be the medium of her salvation”’
(Ellicott). The R.V., saved through the
childbearing, is possibly patient of this
interpretation. No doubt it was the
privilege of woman alone to be the
medium of the Incarnation. This mira-
culous fact justifies us perhaps in pressing
the language of Gen. iii. 15, ‘‘ thy seed,”
and in finding an allusion (though this is
uncertain) in Gal. iv. 4, γενόμενον ἐκ
γυναικός ; but woman cannot be said to
be saved by means of a historic privilege,
even with the added qualification, “if
they continue,” etc. See Luke xi. 27,
28, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare
thee. . . . Yea, rather, blessed are they
that hear the word of God,”’ etc.
ἐὰν μείνωσιν : This use of μένειν with
év and an abstract noun is chiefly Johan-
nine, as the reff. show.
The subject of μείνωσιν is usually
taken to be γυναῖκες ; but inasmuch as
St. Paul has been speaking of women
in the marriage relation, it seems better
to understand the plural of the woman
and her husband. Compare 1 Cor. vii.
36 where γαμείτωσαν refers to the παρ-
θένος and her betrothed, whose existence
is implied in the question of her marriage.
If this view be accepted, then πίστις,
ἀγάπη, and ἁγιασμός refer respectively
to the duties of the man and wife to God,
to society, and to each other: faith to-
wards God, love to the community, and
sanctification in their marital relations.
See chap. iv. 12 where these three
virtues are again combined. See ver.
9 for σωφροσύνη.
CuaPTeR III.—Ver. 1. πιστὸς 6
λόγος: This refers to the exegesis of
Genesis which has preceded. (So
Chrys.). We may compare Barnabas,
§ 9, where, after an allegorical explana-
tion of Abraham’s 318 servants, the
writer exclaims, οὐδεὶς γνησιώτερον
ἔμαθεν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ λόγον - ἀλλὰ οἶδα ὅτι
ἄξιοί ἐστε ὑμεῖς. See note on i. 15.
Vv. 1 6-13. The qualifications of the
men who are to be ministers; and first
(a) of the episcopus (1 5-7) secondly (δ)
of the deacons (8-13) with a parentheti-
cal instruction respecting women church-
workers (11).
1---2.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ ἃ
ΕΙῚ
ad»
Εἴτις ἐπισκοπῆς “ὀρέγεται, *kadod *épyou "ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2. *Set *ody b Here only
in this
τὸν ἐπίσκοπον © ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, ἢ μιᾶς ἢ γυναικὸς ἢ ἄνδρα, ἱνηφά- sense,
10, Heb. xi. 16.
f Acts i. 21.
ii. 2, not LXX.
εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς; k.T.A.: Having given
elementary directions concerning the
scope of public prayer, and the ministers
thereof, St. Paul now takes up the
matter of Church organisation. He
begins with the office of the episcopus,
or presbyter, because that is of the very
essence of Church order. On the ques-
tion as to the terms presbyter and
episcopus, it is sufficient here to state
my Own conclusion, that they represent
slightly different aspects of the same
office, pastoral and official ; aspects which
came naturally into prominence in the
Jewish and Greek societies respectively
which gave birth to the names. This
seems the obvious conclusion from a
comparison of Acts xx. 17, 28; Phil.i. 1;
Ἔ1Ε 1: 6.7 5. Ὁ 1Π|. 15} 2445.55 ΝΖ)
1 Pet. v. x, 2; Clem. Rom. ὁ Cor. 44;
Polycarp, 5; Clem. Al. Quis Dives, § 42.
ὀρέγεται ... ἐπιθυμεε: The R.V.
(seeketh . .. desireth) indicates to the
English reader that two distinct Greek
words are used; a fact which is con-
cealed in the A.V. (desire. . . desireth).
So Vulg. has desiderat in both places;
but τη, cupit. . . desiderat. ὀρέγεσθαι,
which occurs again in vi. 10 of reaching
after money, is not used in any deprecia-
tory sense. Field (in loc.) notes that
“it has a special application to such
objects as a man is commonly said to
aspire to”. The sanity of St. Paul’s
judgment is nowhere better seen than in
his commendation of lawful ambition.
A man may be actuated by a variety of
motives; yet it is not inevitable that
those that are lower should impair the
quality of the higher; they need not in-
terpenetrate each other. In any case,
St. Paul credits the aspirant with the
noblest ideal: He who aspires to be an
episcopus desires to perform a good work,
“Est opus; negotium, non otium. Acts
xv. 38, Phil. ii. 30”? (Bengel).
καλοῦ ἔργου : καλὸν ἔργον and καλὰ
ἔργα (see reff.) are not peculiar to the
Pastorals (Matt. v. 16, xxvi. 10= Mark
xiv. 6; John x. 32, 33); but, as the refer-
ences show, the phrase is found in
them only of the Pauline Epistles. On
the other hand, ἔργα ἀγαθά occurs six
times in the Pastorals. See reff. on
chap. ii. το. We perceive in the use
of it a qualification of the earlier de-
di Tim. v. 10, 25, vi. 18, Tit. ii. 7, 14, iii. 8, 14.
gi Tim. v. 7, vi. 14, not LXX.
Acts i. 20.
ΟἽ Tim. vi.
e Here only in Pastorals.
h Ver. 12, Tit. i. 6. ix Tim. iii, rr, Tit
preciation of the works of the Law,
induced by a natural reaction from the
abuse of that teaching.
Ver. 2. With the qualifications of the
episcopus as given here should be com-
pared those of the deacons, ver. 8 sqq.,
and those of, the episcopus in Tit. i.
6 sqq.
δεῖ οὖν. . . ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι. The
ἐπισκοπή being essentially a good work,
“ bonum negotium bonis committendum”’
(Bengel). The episcopus is the persona
of the Church. It is not enough for
him to be not criminal ; he must be one
against whom it is impossible to bring
any charge of wrong doing such as could
stand impartial examination. (See
Theodoret, cited by Alf.). He must be
without reproach (R.V.), irreprehensible
(Trench), a term which involves a less
exacting test than blameless (A.V.) ; the
deacon (and the Cretan episcopus) must
be ἀνέγκλητος, one against whom no
charge has, in point of fact, been brought.
No argument can be based on the
singular τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, here or in Tit.
i. 7, in favour either of the monarchical
episcopate or as indications of the late
date of the epistle; it is used generically
as ἣ χήρα, ch. v. 5; δοῦλον Κυρίου, 2
Tim. ii. 24.
The better to ensure that the episcopus
be without reproach, his leading charac-
teristic must be self-control. In the first
place—and this has special force in the
East—he must be a man who has—
natural or 'acquired—a high conception
of the relations of the sexes: a married
man, who, if his wife dies, does not
marry again. Men whose position is less
open to criticism may do this without
discredit, but the episcopus must hold up
a high ideal. Second marriage, which
is mentioned as a familiar practice (Rom.
vii. 2, 3), is expressly permitted to Chris-
tian women in 1 Cor. vii. 39, and even
recommended to, or rather enjoined upon,
young widows in 1 Tim. v. 14.
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, of course, does
not mean that the episcopus must be, or
have been, married. What is here for-
bidden is digamy under any circum-
stances. This view is supported (a) by
the general drift of the qualities required
here in a bishop; self-control or temper-
ance, in his use of food and drink, pos-
ἘΤ2
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
HH:
k Tit, i. ἧς λιον, "σώφρονα, ' κόσμιον, ἢ φιλόξενον, " διδακτικόν, 3. μὴ “ πάροινον,
Se : Fim. μὴ “ πλήκτην,͵ ἀλλὰ ? ἐπιεικῆ, “ ἄμαχον, * δ ἘΑΑΘΡΎΝΘΟΥ; 4. τοῦ ἰδίου
m Tit 1.8, 1 οἴκου "καλῶς * προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ἥ ὑποταγῇ μετὰ πάσης
Pet. iv.
not LX
οἵ. Rom, xii. 13, Heb. xiii. 2.
iv. ree Tit. iii, 2, Jas: ‘iii, 17,/x. Pet. ii. 18.
s Ver. 12, 1 Tim. v. 17.
i 8, 14. Ὁ See x Tim. ii. 11.
n 2 Tim. ii. 24, not LXX.
q Tit. iii. 2, not LXX.
t Rom. xii. 8, 1 Thess. v. 12, 1 Tim. iii. 12, v. 17, cf. Tit
o Tit. i. 7, not LXX. p Phil
r Heb. xiii. 5, not
1Ins. μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ 37, very many others.
μ σχροκερθῃ Υ
sessions, gifts, temper; (b) by the corre-
sponding requirement in a church widow,
ν. 9, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, and (c) by the
practice of the early church (Apostolic
Constitutions, vi. 17; Apostolic Canons,
16 (17); Tertullian, ad Uxorem, i. 7: de
Monogam. 12; de Exhort. Castitatts, cc.
7,13; Athenagoras, Legat. 33; Origen,
in Lucam, xvii. p. 953, and the Canons of
the councils, e.g., Neocaesarea (A.D. 314)
can. 7. Quinisext. can. 3).
On the other hand, it must be conceded
that the patristic commentators on the
passage (with the partial exception of
Chrysostom)—Theodore Mops. Theo-
doret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome
—suppose that it is bigamy or polygamy
that is here forbidden. But commenta-
tors are prone to go too far in the eman-
cipation of their judgments from the pre-
judices or convictions of their contempo-
raries. In some matters ‘‘the common
sense of most” is a safer guide than the
irresponsible conjectures of a conscien-
tious student.
νηφάλιον : temperate (R.V.). A.V. has
vigilant here, following Chrys.; sober in
ver. 11, and Tit. ii. 2, with vigilant in
margin. As this quality is required also
in women officials, ver. 11, and in aged
men, Tit. ii. 2, it has in all probability a
reference to moderate use of wine, etc.,
and so would be equivalent to the μὴ
οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας of the diaconal
qualifications, ver. 8. ἐγκρατῆ is the
corresponding term in Tit. i. 8. The adj.
only occurs in these three places; but
the verb νήφειν six times; in 1 Thess.
v. 6, 8, and in τ Peter iv. 7, it is used of
the moderate use of strong drink.
σώφρονα: soberminded (R.V.), serious,
earnest. See note onii.g. Vulg., pru-
dentem here and in Tit. ii. 2, 5; but
sobrium in Tit. i. 8. Perhaps σεμνός
(ver. 8) is the quality in deacons that
corresponds to σώφρων and κόσμιος in
the episcopus,
κόσμιον: orderly (R.V.), perhaps dig-
nified in the best sense of the term.
ordinatum (m*"). ‘Quod σώφρων est
intus, id κόσμιος est extra” (Bengel).
The word is not found in Titus.
φιλόξενον: This virtue is required in
the episcopus also in Tit. i. 8, but not of
the deacons, below; of Christians gene-
rally, 1 Peter iv. 9, 1 Tim. v. τὸ (q.v.),
Rom. xii. 13, Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 2, 3 John 5.
See Hermas, Sim. ix. 27 (‘ Bishops, hos-
pitable persons (φιλόξενοι), who gladly
received into their houses at all times the
servants of God without hypocrisy”’).
This duty, in episcopi, ‘was closely
connected with the maintenance of ex-
ternal relations,” which was their special
function. See Ramsay, Church in the
Roman Empire, p. 368.
διδακτικόν, as a moral quality would
involve not merely the ability, but also
the willingness, to teach, such as ought
to characterise a servant of the Lord, 2
Tim. ii. 24. The notion is expanded in
Tit. i.g. The deacon’s relation to theo-
logy is passive, ver. 9.
Ver. 3. μὴ πάροινον (no brawler, ἘΝ.
quarrelsome over wine, R.V.m.), and μὴ
πλήκτην are similarly coupled together
in Tit. i. 7. παροινία means violent
temper, not specially excited by over-
indulgence in strong drink. In the time
of Chrysostom and Theodoret manners
had so far softened that it was felt
necessary to explain the term πλήκτης
figuratively, of ‘some who unseasonably
smite the consciences of their brethren”’.
But see 2 Cor. xi. 20.
GAN’ ἐπιεικῆ, ἄμαχον : gentle, not con-
tentious. This pair, again, of cognate
adjectives is repeated in the general
directions as to Christian conduct, Tit.
iii. 2, Compare 2 Tim. ii. 2 4 (of the
servant of the Lord). The eS cspondiag
episcopal virtues in Titus (i. 7) are py
αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον.
EaAbpyager: In Titus the correspond-
ing episcopal virtue is μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ.
See note on ver. 8 and Tit. ἜΝ ἢ
Ver. 4. τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου: Although
ἴδιος commonly retains in the N.T. the
emphatic sense own, yet there can be no
doubt that examples occur of the later
weakened sense in which it means simply
αὐτοῦ, ¢.g., I Cor. vii. 2. We are not
therefore justified in insisting on the em-
phatic sense, own, here or in ver. 12,
3—6.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOCEON A
1132
* σεμνότητος,---". εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου * προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ν See τ
Tim. ii. 2
" ἐκκλησίας * Θεοῦ * ἐπιμελήσεται ;—6. μὴ 7 νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ * τυφω- νν Ver. 15,
x Luke x. 34, 35.
vi. 1, Tit. ii. 5,9. See J. H. Moulton
Grammar, vol. i. p.87 sqq.,and Expositor,
Vi., iii. 277, and Deissmann, Bible Studies,
trans. p. 123 54. οἶκος also means house-
hold, t Cor. i. 16 and in the Pastorals.
προϊστάμενον: προΐστασθαι is per-
haps used, here and in ver. 12, because
it would naturally suggest church govern-
ment. See reff., and Hermas, Vis. ii. 4;
Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 65. A different
use is found in Tit. iii. 8, 14, καλῶν
ἔργων προΐστασθαι, where see note. The
domestic qualification, as we may call it,
of the episcopus, also applies to deacons
(ver. 12) and to the Cretan episcopus
{{π|:: 16):
_ τέκνα ἔχοντα : Alford cannot be right
in supposing that τέκνα is emphatic. It
would be absurd to suppose that a man
otherwise suited to the office of an epis-
copus would be disqualified because of
childlessness. The clause is parallel to
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα : if the episcopus be
a married man, he must not be a diga-
mist ; if he have children, they must be
ἐν ὑποταγῇ.
ἐν ὑποταγῇ--σεμνότητος : with the
strictest regard to propriety, see note on
chap. ii. 2. Most commentators join
these words closely together. The
σεμνότης of the children in their extra-
family relations being the outward and
visible expression of the ὑποταγή to
which they are subject in domestic life.
This is a more natural reference of
σεμνότ. than to the general household
arrangements, ‘‘ ut absit luxuria” (Ben-
gel). On the other hand, there is much
force in Dean Bernard’s remark that
“σεμνότης is hardly a grace of child-
hood.” He connects ἔχοντα μετὰ trac.
σεμν. This seems to be supported by
ver. 8, διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς and
ver. 11. Von Soden takes a similar view.
Ver. 5. The argument is akin to that
stated by our Lord, Luke xvi. 10. ‘‘ He
that is faithful in a very little is
faithful also in much, etc.” It is
all the more cogent inasmuch as the
Church is the house of God. The point
is resumed in ver. 15. Alf. quotes a
sentence from Plato in which both
προστῆναι and ἐπιμελεῖσθαι are used of
the government of a family ; nevertheless
it is not fanciful to suppose that we have
here a deliberate interchange of terms,
VOL. IV.
y Here only, N.T.
see note
: " as here.
zi Tim. vi. 4, 2 Tim. iii. 4, not LXX.
προστῆναι being, as we have seen above,
almost a technical term to express
Church government ; while ἐπιμελ. ex-
presses the personal care and attention
of a father for his family. See the use
of the verb in Luke x. 34, 35, and of
ἐπιμέλεια in Acts xxvii. 3.
ἐκκλησία θεοῦ is also found in ver. 15.
ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ occurs nine times in
Pauli(r hess. 2 bhess: ΤΙ 'Cor.s2
Cor.; Gal.). The omission of the article
before θεοῦ is characteristic of the Pas-
torals. The phrase is found also in St.
Paul’s apostolic charge to the episcopi
of Ephesus in Acts xx. 28.
Ver. 6. Verses 6 and 7 have nothing
corresponding to them in Titus, or in
the qualifications for the diaconate in
this chapter.
μὴ νεόφυτον κ-.τ.λ. : not a recent con-
vert. γεόφυτος in O.T. is used literally
of a young plant (Job xiv. 9; Ps. cxxvii.
(cxxviii.) 3; cxliii, (cxliv.) 12; Isa. v. 7).
For its use in secular literature, see
Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. p. 220.
The significance of this qualification
is apparent from its absence in the
parallel passage in Titus. It is evident
that Church organisation in Crete was
in a very much less advanced state than
in Ephesus. On the first introduction of
the Gospel into a country, the apostles
naturally ‘‘ appointed their first fruits to
be bishops and deacons’’ (Clem. Rom. i.
§ 42; Acts xiv. 23), because no others
were available; and men appointed in
such circumstances would have no
temptation to be puffed up any more
than would the leaders of a forlorn hope.
But as soon as there came to be a
Christian community of such a size as
to supply a considerable number of men
from whom leaders could be selected,
and in which office might be a natural
object of ambition, the moral risk to
γεόφυτοι of early advancement would be
areal danger. It is difficult to avoid at
least a passing attack of τύφωσις, it
you are promoted when young.
τυφωθείς : τυφόω comes from τῦφος,
the primary meaning of which is smoke
or vapour, then conceit or vanity which
befogs a man’s judgment in matters in
which he himself is concerned. The
R.V. always renders it puffed up. Vulg.
here, in superbiam elatus,
114
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOOEON A Ill.
at Tim. vi θεὶς εἰς κρίμα " ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ " διαβόλου. 7. δεῖ δὲ 1 Kal “ μαρτυρίαν
9, Heb.
Tr
b Biph.iv.ay, t
Vi. II, I
Tim. iii. 7,
2 Tim. it.
26. ς Tit. i. 13 only, in Paul.
g 2 Tim. ii. 26. h See 1 Tim. ii. 9.
1Ins. αὐτὸν DKLP, d, f, m47, vg.
κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου: κρίμα is |
best taken in the sig. condemnation, as in
Rom. iii. 8, Rev. xvii. 1, and τοῦ
διαβόλου as objective genitive: ‘ Lest
he be involved in the condemnation which
the devil incurred,” or, the judgment
pronounced on the devil, whose sin was,
and is, pride. See Ecclus. x. 13, 2 Pet.
ii. 4. So most commentators, especially
the ancients. On the other hand, τοῦ
διαβόλον in ver. 7 is the subjective geni-
tive, a snare laid by the devil; and it
is possible to render κρίμα τ. διαβ. the
accusation brought by the devil, or a
judgment effected by the devil, who
may succeed in this case, though he
failed in that of Job. This is however
not a natural translation; and it is to be
observed that ἐμπίπτειν in reff. expresses
a final doom, not a trial, such as that of
temptation or probation. Dean Bernard
takes τοῦ διαβόλου as subjective genitive
in both verses ; and in the sense of slan-
derey: the judgment passed by the
slanderer; the snare prepared by the
slanderer.
τοῦ διαβόλου : St. Paul uses this name
for the Evil Spirit three times in the
Pastorals and twice in Eph. (see reff.) ;
ὃ πονηρός in Eph. vi. 16; ὁ Σατανᾶς
elsewhere eight times. διάβολος, with-
out the article, means slanderer in ver.
11 and reff. there.
Ver. 7. τῶν ἔξωθεν : of ἔξω in Mark
iv. τι (ἔξωθεν, W.H. m.) means those
who came into contact—more or less
close—with Jesus, but who were not His
disciples. In the Pauline use (see reff.)
it means the non-Christian Society in
which the Church lives. St. Paul’s atti-
tude towards them that are without is
one of the many proofs of his sanity of
- judgment. On the one hand, they are
emphatically outside the Church; they
have no locus standi in it, no right to
interfere. On the other hand, they have
the law of God written in their hearts;
and, up to a certain point, their moral
instincts are sound and their moral
judgments worthy of respect. In the
passage before us, indeed, St. Paul may
καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ “ τῶν “ ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς " ὀνειδισμὸν " ἐμπέσῃ καὶ
ὁ παγίδα “τοῦ ὃ" διαβόλου.
8. Διακόνους ἢ ὡσαύτως | σεμνούς,3
ἶ d Mark iv. 11, 1 Cor. v. 12, 13, Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 12.
e Rom. xv. 3 (Ps. Ixix 10), Heb. x. 33, xi. 26, xiii. 13.
f Rom. xi. 9 (Ps. Ixix. 23), 1 Tim. vi. 9.
i Phil. iv. 8, 1 Tim. iii. 11, Tit. ii. 2.
20m. cepvovs δὰ ἢ, three cursives.
be understood to imply that the opinion of
‘those without” might usefully balance
or correct that of the Church. There is
something blameworthy in a man’s char-
acter if the consensus of outside opinion
be unfavourable to him; no matter how
much he may be admired and respected
by his own party. The vox populi, then,
is in some sort a vox Dei; and one can-
not safely assume, when we are in an-
tagonism to it, that, because we are
Christians, we are absolutely in the
right and the world wholly in the wrong.
Thus to defy public opinion in a superior
spirit may not only bring discredit,
ὀνειδισμός, on oneself and on the
Church, but also catch us in the devil’s
snare, viz., a supposition that because
the world condemns a certain course of
action, the action is therefore right and
the world’s verdict may be sately set
aside.
We cannot infer with Alford and von
Soden, from the absence of another pre-
position before παγίδα, that ὀνειδισμόν
also depends on τοῦ διαβόλου. It would
not be easy to explain satisfactorily ὀνειδ.
τ. διαβόλου.
Ver. 8. διακόνους ὡσαύτως:
εἶναι.
For ὡσαύτως, see on ii. 9.
σεμνούς: grave. ‘The word we
want is one in which the sense of gravity
and dignity, and of these as inviting
reverence, is combined”’ (Trench). See
note on ver. 2. The term is used in
reference to women workers and old
men.
μὴ StAdyous: Persons who are in an
intermediate position, having in the
same department chiefs and subordinates,
are exposed to a temptation to speak of
the same matter in different tones and
manner, according as their interlocutor
is above or below them. So Theodoret,
ἕτερα μὲν τούτῳ ἕτερα δὲ ἐκείνῳ
λέγοντες. Polycarp (8 5) has the same
phrase of deacons. Lightfoot there
suggests the rendering tale-bearers. Per-
haps insincere. Cf. δίγλωσσος, Prov
xi. 13, etc.
5.0. Set
7—I1.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
115
. - , We pet 1 ~ m Ret yee Ὶ a
οἴνῳ ᾿πολλῷ “᾿ προσέχοντα αἰσχροκερδεῖς, kHere only,
μὴ “διλόγους, μὴ “οἴνῳ > “προσέχοντας, μὴ " αἰσχροκερδεῖς, kHere only
9. ἔχοντας τὸ " μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν ἢ καθαρᾷ ἢ συνειδήσει.
καὶ οὗτοι δὲ 3 δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἶτα * διακονείτωσαν, " ἀνέγ-
h
κλητοι ὄντες. 1:1. γυναῖκας
ἐρεῖ απ 21 Pet: v2.
p 2 Tim. i. 3.
13, I Pet. iv. 11, not LXX.
3, Tit. ii. 3.
μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας : Less
ambiguously expressed than νηφάλιος in
the case of the episcopus. A similar
direction is given about women, Tit. ii.
3, μὴ otv. πολ. δεδουλωμένας. :
μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς: This negative
qualification is demanded of the epis-
copus in Tit. i. 7. See reff. The ren-
dering not greedy of filthy lucre is
unnecessarily strong; the αἰσχρότης
consists, not in the source whence the
gain comes, but in the setting of gain
before one as an object in entering the
ministry. Not greedy of gain ia cel
the writer’s meaning. The κέρδος be-
comes αἰσχρόν when a man makes the
acquisition of it, rather than the glory
of God, his prime object. On the other
hand, the special work of deacons was
Church finance; and no doubt they had
to support themselves by engaging in
some secular occupation. They would
thus be exposed to temptations to mis-
appropriate Church funds, or to adopt
questionable means of livelihood. If
such circumstances were contemplated,
not greedy of filthy lucre might be an
allowable rendering. In Crete, the epis-
copus would seem to have also performed
the duties of the deacon; consequently
he is required to be μή αἰσχροκερδής.
ἔχοντας : See note on chap. i. 19.
Ver. 9. τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως:
the faith as revealed, is the same as τὸ
τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ver. 16. In the
earlier epistles of St. Paul τὸ μυστήριον
is a revealed secret, in particular, the
purpose of God that Jew and Gentile
should unite in one Church. The notion
of a secret is still prominent, because the
revelation of it was recent; but just as
revelation passes from a phase of usage
in which the wonderful fact and manner
of the disclosure is prominent to a stage
in which the content or substance of
what has been revealed is alone thought
of, so it was with μυστήριον; in the
Pastorals it means the revelation given
in Christ, the Christian creed in fact.
See Dean Armitage Robinson, Ephesians,
P- 234 544., and Lightfoot on Col. i. 26.
ὡσαύτως ᾿ σεμνάς, μὴ “διαβόλους,
PO. ἘΠῚ 11; ἢ,
cf.1 Tim.
V. 23.
m Seer
Tim. i. 4.
n Tit..1,:3,
not LXX,
o Ver. 16, 1 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 1, Eph. vi. 19, Col. i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3.
4 : Cor. xi. 28, xvi. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 22, xiii. 5, 1 Thess. ii. 4.
8 3 Macc. v. 31, 1 Cor. i. 8, Col. i. 22, Tit. i. 6, 7.
r Acts xix. 22, ver.
t 2 Tim. iii.
It was not the function of a deacon to
teach or preach; it was sufficient if he
were a firm believer. ἐν. καθ. συνειδ. is
connected with ἔχοντας. Hort (Chris-
tian Ecclesia, p. 201) approves of the
expl. given by Weiss of τὸ pvor. 1.
πίστ.» ‘‘the secret constituted by their
own inner faith’’. This seems unnatural.
Ver. το. δοκιμαζέσθωσαν : Chrys. notes
that this corresponds to the provision μὴ
γεόφυτον in the case of the episcopus.
This testing of fitness for the office of
deacon may have been effected either by
(a) a period of probationary training,—
if the injunction in v. 22, “ Lay hands
hastily on no man,’ has reference to
ordination, it is another way of saying
δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον,- οἵ by (b) the
candidates producing what we should
call testimonials of character. Such
testimonials would attest that a man was
ἀνέγκλητος, 7.¢., that no specific charge
of wrong-doing had been laid against
him (unblamed is Hort’s rendering).
Until a man has proved his suitability
for a post by administering it, this is the
most that can be demanded. Each step
subjects a man’s character to a fresh
strain. If he comes out of the trial un-
scathed, he is entitled to be called avemi-
λημπτος. It is sign:ficant that in Tit. i.
6, 7, where the ordination of presbyters,
or episcopi, with no antecedent diaconate
is contemplated, this elementary and
superficial test, that they should be
ἀνέγκλητοι, is mentioned. See note on
ver. 2. In a normal condition of the
Church, episcopi are chosen from those
whose fitness is matter of common
knowledge.
διακονείτωσαν : For instances of this
absolute technical sense of the word see
reff.
Ver. τι. γυναῖκας: Sc. δεῖ εἶναι, not
governed by ἔχοντας (ver. 9). These are
the deaconesses, ministrae (Pliny, Ef. x.
97) of whom Phoebe (Rom, xvi. 1) is an
undoubted example. They performed for
the women of the early Church the same
sort of ministrations that the deacons did
for the men. In confirmation of this
116
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
III.
u Seever.2." γῃφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν. 12. διάκονοι ἔστωσαν ἥ μιᾶς ἣ γυναικὸς
v Ver. 2,
Tit. i.6. Υ ἄνδρες, τέκνων “ καλῶς “ προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων - 13. ob
w See ver. 4. τ
x See ver. γὰρ καλῶς
10.
y Here only,
N.T.
view it should be noted that ὡσαύτως is
used in introducing a second or third
member of a series. See onii.g. The
series here is of Church officials. Again,
the four qualifications which follow cor-
respond, with appropriate variations, to
the first four required in deacons, as re-
gards demeanour, government of the
tongue, use of wine, and trustworthiness,
And further, this is a section dealing
wholly with Church officials. These
considerations exclude the view that
women in general, as R.V. apparently,
are spoken of. If the wives of the
deacons or of the clergy were meant, as
A.V., it would be natural to have it un-
ambiguously expressed, ¢.g., by the addi-
tion of αὐτῶν.
διαβόλους: slanderers. While men
are more prone than women to be
δίλογοι, double-tongued, women are
more prone than men to be slanderers.
See Tit. ii. 3. The term is predicated in
2 Tim. iii. 3, not of men, but as charac-
terising the human race, ἄνθρωποι, in
the last days.
νηφαλίους : see note on ver. 2.
πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν: It may be that, as
Ell. suggests, this has a reference to the
function of deaconesses as almoners, a
possible inference from Constt. Afost. iii.
16. But more probably it is a compre-
hensive summary with a general refer-
ence, like πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους
ἀγαθήν, Tit. ii. το.
Ver. 12. As the episcopi were natur-
ally drawn from the ranks of the deacons,
the diaconate was a probation time, in
the course of which the personal moral
qualifications for the ἐπισκοπή might be
acquired. See notes on wv. 2 and 4.
Ver. 13. From what has been noted
above on St. Paul’s teaching in relation
to men’s lawful aspirations, it will appear
that it is not necessary to explain away
the obvious meaning of this clause in
accordance with a false spirituality which
affects to depreciate the inducements
of earthly rewards. The-parable of the
talents (Matt. xxv. 21), implies Christ’s
approval of reasonable ambition. Nor is
this to be answered by a statement that
‘*the recompense of reward”’ to which we
are permitted to look is heavenly and
Spiritual. For the Christian, there can
*Staxovnoavtes 7 βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν * περιποιοῦνται
z Luke xvii. 33, Acts xx. 28, 1 Macc. vi. 44, etc.
be no gulf fixed between the earthly and
the heavenly; at least in the category
of things which are open to him, as a
Christian, to desire. The drawing of such
distinctions is akin to the Manichaean dis-
paragement of matter.
The βαθμὸν καλόν which the man
may acquire who has served well as a
deacon is advancement to the presbyter-
ate or episcopate. SoChrys. The R.V.,
gain to themselves a good standing, does
not necessarily imply an advance in rank,
but an assured position in the esteem of
their fellow-Christians. We know that
among the many who possess the same
rank, whether in church or state, some
from their character and abilities gain a
standing that others do not.
Some modern commentators follow
Theodoret in giving a purely spiritual
force to βαθμόν, i.¢., ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι βίῳ,
“(ἃ good standing place, viz., at the
Great Day” (Alf.); ‘‘the step or degree
which a faithful discharge of the διακονία
would gain in the eyes of God” (EIl.).
Alf. lays emphasis on the aor. part. as
viewing the διακονία from the stand-
point of the Day of Judgment; but it is
equally suitable if the standpoint be that
of the day on which they receive their
advancement. There is more force in
his emphasis on the present, περιποιοῦ-
vrat, they are acquiring. This interpre-
tation does not seem to be in harmony
with the context. The qualifications
that are noted in ver. 12 have relation
to the effectual administration of the
Church on earth. It would be harsh to
affirm that one who was a digamist and
who could not keep his household in
order would suffer for it in the Day of
Judgment, however unsuitable he might
be for office in the church.
πολλὴν παρρησίαν: a Pauline phrase.
See reff. In these passages mapp. means
confidence, without reference to speech.
Although Ell, renders the clause
‘great boldness in the faith that is in
Christ Jesus,’’ he explains the boldness
as resting on faith in Christ Jesus, and
as descriptive of the believer’s attitude
in regard to, and at, the Day of Judg-
ment. Seer John iv. 17. If we reject
his explanation of βαθμόν, it would be
natural to interpret wapp., «.T.A., of a
12-—I5.
, “-
καὶ "πολλὴν " παρρησίαν ἐν ἢ πίστει " τῇ " ἐν " Χριστῷ " Ἰησοῦ.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
117
14. 2 2 Cor. iii.
Ταῦτά σοι γράφω, ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ce! “ ἐν “ τάχει,2 15. ἐὰν δὲ Philem§
“Bpaduve, ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ " ἀναστρέφεσθαι, ἥτις
b 2 Tim. iii
15, cf.2
Tim.i.r
ἐστὶν * ἐκκλησία *Oeod ζῶντος, στύλος καὶ * ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. ς Rom. xvi
Acts xii. γ, xxii. 18, xxv. 4, Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6.
ee ii. 3, Heb. x. 33, xiii. 18, 1 Pet. i. 17, 2 Pet. ii. 18.
cf.
1 Cor. vii. 37, xv. 58, Col. i. 23.
20, Luke
xviii. 8,
e2Cor. i. 12
g Here only, not LXX
d2 Pet. iii. 9 only, N.T.
f See ver. 5.
1 Om. πρὸς σὲ FerGer, 67**, two others, arm; f, g ins. after cito.
2 ἐν τάχει ACD*P, 17, two others; τάχιον SDcFGKL.
3 Ins. oe D*, d, f, vg., arm.
confident public expression of the faith,
such as would belong to an experienced
Christian who had gained a good
standing, and had, in consequence, no
temptation to be 8iAoyos. Von Soden
connects ἐν πίστει with περιποιοῦνται,
ef. 2 Tim. i. 13.
Vv. 14-16. These general directions
will serve you as a guide in the adminis-
tration of the Church until you see me.
Your charge is one of transcendent im-
portance. The Church is no human in-
stitution : it is the household of God, and
also the means whereby the power of the
Incarnation is available for man’s use.
Ver. 14. This verse makes it clear that
Timothy’s position was a temporary one;
he was acting as St. Paul’s representative
at Ephesus to ‘‘ put them in remembrance
of his ways which be in Christ”’ (1 Cor.
iv. 17).
ταῦτα has a primary reference to the
preceding directions regarding public
prayers and Church officers; but it na-
turally includes the following supple-
mentary remarks. For this use of γράφω,
in place of the epistolary aorist, see es-
pecially 2 Cor. xiii. 10, also 1 Cor. xiv.
37, 2 Cor. i. 13, Gal. i, 20.
ἐλπίζων... βραδύνω is parenthetical ;
and expresses at once an excuse for the
brevity and incompleteness, from one
point of view, of the directions, and also
an expectation that they are sufficient to
serve their temporary purpose.
ἐν τάχει: τάχιον, which is read by
Tisch., is, according to Blass (Grammar,
PPp- 33, 141, 142), an instance of the in-
tensive or elative use of the comparative:
cf. βέλτιον 2 Tim. i. 18. This view is
rejected by Winer-Moulton (Grammar,
p- 304) and Ellicott; but their explana-
tions are far-fetched: ‘‘More quickly,
sooner, than thou wilt need these in-
structions,” ‘“‘ sooner than I anticipate”.
See also J. H. Moulton, Grammar, vol. i.
ῬΡ. 78, 79, 236.
Ver. 15. ἵνα εἰδῇς... ἀναστρέφεσθαι:
It is a matter of indifference whether we
render how men ought to behave them-
selves (R.V.), or how thou oughtest to
behave thyself (A.V.; R.V. m.). It was
Timothy’s duty to carry out the apostle’s
directions, directions relating to the
life, ἀναστροφή, of the Church. His
ἀναστροφή would necessarily react on
that of the Church. See the Western in-
terpolation in afparat. crit.
οἴκῳ θεοῦ: the household, perhaps,
rather than the house, of God. In view
of the prevailing paucity of articles in
these Epistles, one cannot lay stress on
the absence of τῷ before οἴκῳ, so as to
render, a house of God such as is the
Church, etc. οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ is al-
ways found elsewhere. The Church is
God’s οἶκος, Heb. iii. 6; God’s κατοι-
κητήριον, Eph. ii. 22; a ναὸς ἅγιος,
Eph. ii. 21; ναὸς θεοῦ, 1 Cor. iii. 16, 2
Cor. vi. 16; a μεγάλη οἰκία, of which
God is the δεσπότης, 2 Tim. ii. 20; an
οἶκος πνευματικός, I Pet. ii. 5.
The body of the Church, τὸ σῶμα
ὑμῶν, is a ναὸς ἁγίου πνεύματος (1 Cor.
vi. 10); and the human body of Jesus
was a ναός (John ii. 21); but it is not in
accordance with Scriptural language so
to describe the body of any individual
Christian.
οἴκῳ . . . ἥτις: “ The noun which
forms the predicate in a relative sen-
tence, annexed for the purpose of expla-
nation (és . . . ἐστίν), sometimes gives
its own gender and number to the rela-
tive, by a kind of attraction” (Winer-
Moulton, Grammar, p. 206).
θεοῦ ζῶντος : A constant phrase, oc-
curring again iv. Io.
στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα x.7.A.: The view
of Gregory Nyssen and Greg. Naz. that
στύλος here refers to Timothy does not
need refutation, although an early refer-
ence to this passage in the Letter of the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne (Eus.
118 ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A Ill.
ς 16. καὶ ἢ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς ' εὐσεβείας " μυστήριον "
Mace. 6). 85 2 epavepaOy ἐν σαρκί, ™ ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, " ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις,
1 seer
h Here only,
Tim. ii. 2.
k See note. 1 le
xi. 19 = Luke vii. 35, Luke vii. 29.
6, 7, 8, Heb. ix. 28.
1 John i. 31. Heb. ix. 26, 1 Pet. i. 20, 1 John i. 2, iii. 5, 8. m Ps. 1. (li.) 6, Matt.
n Luke xxiv. 34, Acts ix. 17, xiii. 31, xxvi. 16, 1 Cor. xv. 5,
1So Q*cA*C*FerGer, 17, 73, 181, sah., boh., syrhcl-mg, go., Or.int, Epiph., Theod.
Mops., Cyr. Al. Liberatus Diaconus (circ. 560 A.D.), Breviarium causae Nest. et
Eutych., 19, says, ‘‘ Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus, ab
imperatore Anastasio dicitur expulsus, tanquam evangelia falsasset, & maxime
illud apostoli dictum: qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu. Hunc enim
immutasse, ubi habet ὅς, id est, gui, monosyllabum graecum, littera mutata O in
© vertisse, ἃ fecisse, OC, id est deus, ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem”’; a
relative is found in syrpesh, syrhcl-txt, arm., all Latin Fathers; 6 D*, quod, d, f, g,
vg.; θεὸς pye(xii))CcDcKLP, Chrys., Thdrt., Euthalius, Damasc., Thphl., Oec.,
Didymus, Greg. Nyss.
H. E. v. 1) applies στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα
to the martyr Attalus. στύλος has of
course a personal reference in Gal. ii. 9;
cf. also Rey. iii. 12; but it is childish to
suppose that metaphors have a constant
value in the Bible. Holtzmann’s sug-
gestion that στύλος is in apposition to
ϑεοῦ is rightly rejected by von Soden.
The clause is, of course, in apposition
to ἐκκλησία which is by a kindred meta-
phor called in 2 Tim. ii. 19 6 στερεὸς
θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ. This latter passage
suggests that we should here render
ἑδραίωμα ground or basis rather than
stay (R.V. m.). ἑδραῖος is rendered
steadfast elsewhere. See reff. and es-
pecially Col. i. 23 (τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ
ἑδραῖοι), civ. Hort, Christian Ecclesia,
. 174.
ἡ The truth, ἣ ἀλήθεια, has, as has been
already stated, a technical Christian con-
notation in the Pastorals, and has not a
wider reference than the Christian reve-
lation, which is the truth in so far as
it has been revealed. The Church, of
the old covenant or of the new, is the
divinely constituted human Society by
which the support and maintenance in
the world of revealed truth is conditioned.
Truth if revealed to isolated individuals,
no matter how numerous, would be dis-
sipated in the world. But the Divine
Society, in which it is given an objective
existence, at once compels the world to
take knowledge of it, and assures those
who receive the revelation that it is in-
dependent of, and external to, themselves,
and not a mere fancy of their own.
Bengel puts a full stop at ζῶντος and
removes it after ἀληθείας, making rd...
μυστήριον the subject of the sentence,
and στύλος. . . μέγα the predicate,
The mystery, etc., is the pillar, etc.,
and confessedly great,” μέγα being used
as in x Cor. ix. 11, 2 Cor. xi. 15, the whole
expression being equivalent to πιστὸς 6
λόγος Kal πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος. He
quotes from Rabbi Levi Barcelonita and
Maimonides parallel expressions con-
cerning precepts of the Law, “funda-
mentum magnum et columna valida
legis,” and a striking phrase from Iren-
zeus, Haer. iii. 11, 8, Columna autem
et firmamentum ecclesiae est evangelium,
στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον.
Ver. 16. The connexion of thought
lies in a feeling that the lofty terms in
which the Church has been just spoken
of may demand a justification. The
truth of which the Church is στύλος καὶ
ἑδραίωμα is not a light thing nor an in-
substantial fabric; the truth is, more
expressly, τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον,
the revelation to man of practical reli-
gion; and, beyond yea or nay, this
truth, this revelation, is great. Whether
you believe it or not, you cannot deny
that the claims of Christianity are
tremendous.
μέγας is rare in Paul: (Rom. ix. 2; 1
Cor. ix. 11, xvi. 9; 2 Cor. xi. 15; Eph. v.
32; 1 Lim. vi. 63:2 Lim, ἢἰ. 20: Vit. 11; £3),
The nearest parallel to the present pas-
sage is Eph. v. 32, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο
μέγα ἐστίν. See note on ver. 9. On
εὐσέβεια, see chap. ii. 2.
If we assume that ὅς is the right read-
ing, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that what follows is a quotation by St.
Paul from a primitive creed or summary
of the chief facts to be believed about
Jesus Christ. And one is tempted to
conjecture that another fragment of the
same summary is quoted in τ Pet. iii. 18,
θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ
πνεύματι. ὅς, then, does not form part of
the quotation at all; it is simply intro-
15---ἰοὯῦ.
“ἐκηρύχθη “ ἐν “ ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη “ ἐνο ap ii. 2.
i, 23. p Mark xvi. 19, Acts i. 2, 11, 22.
ductory, and relative to the subject,
Jesus Christ, whose personality was, in
some terms, expressed in an antecedent
sentence which St. Paul has not quoted.
As the passage stands, there are three
pairs of antithetic thoughts: (1) (a) the
flesh and (δ) the spirit of Christ, (2) (a)
angels and (b) Gentiles—the two ex-
tremes of the rational creation, (3) (a)
the world and (b) glory. In another
point of view, there is a connexion be-
tween 2 a and 3 ὁ, and between 2 ὃ and
3 a. Again, we may say that we have
here set forth (1) the Incarnation in
itself, (2) its manifestation, (3) its conse-
quence or result, as affecting man and
God.
The antithesis between the σάρξ and
πνεῦμα of Christ is drawn, in addition to
I Pet. iii. 18, also in Rom. i. 3, 4. τοῦ
γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος AavelS κατὰ
σάρκα, τοῦ δρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν
δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. We
cannot leave out of account in discussing
these passages the parallel in 1 Pet. iv.
6, εἰς τοῦτο yap Kal νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη
ἵνα κριθῶσι μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί
ζῶσι δὲ κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι. The
πνεῦμα of Christ, as man, in these pas-
sages means His human spirit, the natur-
ally permanent spiritual part of a human
personality. See also 1 Cor. v. 5.
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: He who had
been from all eternity “in the form of
God” became cognisable by the limited
senses of human beings, ἐν ὁμοιώματι
σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. viii. 3), became
manifest in the flesh, capt éyévero (John
i. 14). φανεροῦν is used in connexion
with Christ in four associations in the
N.T. :-
(1) as here, of the objective fact of the
Incarnation: John i. 31 (?), Heb. ix. 26,
1 Pet. i. 20, r John i. 2 (bis), iii. 5, 8.
(2) of the revelation involved in the
Incarnation: Rom. xvi. 26, Col. i. 26, iv.
4, 2 Tim. i. 10, Tit. i. 3. N.B. in Rom.
and Col. the verb is used of a μυστήριον.
(3) of the post-resurrection appear-
ances of Christ, which were, in a sense,
repetitions of the marvel of the Incarna-
tion, as being manifestations of the
unseen: Mark xvi. 12, 14, John xxi. I
(bis), 14.
(4) of the Second Coming, which will
be, as far as man can tell, His final
manifestation: Col. iii. 4, τ Pet. v. 4, I
John ii. 28, iii. 2.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOOGEON A
119
. 2 Cor.
i. 19, Col.
q Luke ix. 31,1 Cor. xv. 43, Phil. iv. 19, Col. iii. 4,
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι: proved or
pronounced to be righteous in His higher
nature. The best parallel to this use of
δικαιοῦν is Ps. 1. (li.) 6, ὅπως ἂν δικαιω-
θῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου, also Matt. xi. 19
= Luke vii. 35. We are not entitled to
assume that the ἐν has the same force
before πνεύματι that it has before σαρκί;
the repetition of the preposition is due
to a felt need of rhythmic effect. If we
are asked, When did this δικαίωσις take
place? we reply that it was on a review
of the whole of the Incarnate Life. The
heavenly voice, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα, heard
by human ears at the Baptism and at the
Transfiguration, might have been heard
at any moment during the course of those
“sinless years’. He was emphatically
ὁ δίκαιος (Acts iii. 14, xxii. 14; 1 John
ii. 1. See also Matt. iii. 15; John xvi.
10.) It is enough to mention without
discussion the opinions that πνεύματι
refers (a) to the Holy Spirit, or (δ) to
the Divine Personality of Christ.
ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις: Ellicott points out
that in these three pairs of clauses, the
first member of each group points to
earthly relations, the second to heavenly.
So that these words ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις
refer to the fact that the Incarnation
was “8 spectacle to angels’”’ as well as
‘to men’’; or rather, as Dean Bernard
notes (Comm. in loc.), ὥφθη and ἐκηρύχθη
mark the difference in the communica-
tion of the Christian Revelation to
angels—the rational creatures nearest to
God—and to the Gentiles—farthest from
God. ‘The revelation to Gentiles is
mediate, by preaching. . .; the revela-
tion to the higher orders of created
intelligences is immediate, by vision.”
It was as much a source of wonderment
to the latter as to the former. See 1
Pet. i. 12. The angels who greeted the
Birth (Luke ii. 13), who ministered at
the temptations (Matt. iv. rz, Mark i.
13), strengthened Him in His agony
(Luke xxii. 43), proclaimed His Resur-
rection and stood by at the Ascension,
are only glimpses to us of ‘‘a cloud of
witnesses ’’ of whose presence Jesus was
always conscious (Matt. xxvi. 53).
ὥφθη is usually used of the post-
resurrection appearances of Christ to
men. See reff.
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ: This was in
itself a miracle. See 2 Thess. i. 10,
John xvii. 21.
I20
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A
IV.
eee: «δόξῃ. IV. τ. Τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα " ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ἢ ὑστέροις καιροῖς
b Matt. xxi. ὃ ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως,
1 only,
N.T.
c Luke viii.
13,2 Tim.
ii. 19, Heb. iii. 12.
2 Thess, ii. 11.
g Here only, not LXX.
d See 1 Tim.i. 4.
καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων 2. ἐν * ὑποκρίσει * ψευδολόγων,
4 προσέχοντες πνεύμασι " πλάνοις |
be KEKQU-
e Here only as adj., cf. 2 John 7, Eph. iv. 14»
f 2 Macc. vi. 25, Gal. ii. 13, Matt. xxiii, 28, Mark xii. 15, Luke xii. 1, 1 Pet. ii. 1
h Here only, not LXX.
1 πλάνης P, 31, 37, twenty-four others, vg. (erroris), go., arm.
Winer-Moulton notes (Grammar, Ὁ.
326) that ἐπιστεύθη cannot be referred
to πιστεύειν X@ but presupposes the
phrase mor. Xév. Cf. 2 Thess. i. το.
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ: This is the verb
used of the Ascension. See reff. Cf.
ἀνάλημψις Luke ix. 51.
ἐν δόξῃ: ἐν has, in this case, a preg-
nant sense, εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἐστὶν ἐν δόξῃ
(Ell.). See also reff., in which ἐν δόξῃ
is a personal attribute of the glory that
surrounds and transfigures a glorified
Spiritual person; but in this place δόξα
means the place or state of glory; cf.
Luke xxiv. 26, ἔδει ... τὸν Χριστόν
. « » εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ.
CHAPTER IV.—Vv. 1-5. Over against
the future triumph of the truth, assured
to us by the finished work of Christ, we
must set the opposition, grievous at pre-
sent, of the Spirit of error. His attacks
have been foreseen by the Spirit of holi-
ness. They are just now expressed in a
false spirituality which condemns God’s
good creatures of marriage and food.
Ver. 1. τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα: The Apostle
here passes to another theme, the mani-
festation of religion in daily life. The
connexion between this section and the
last is as indicated above. There is a
slightly adversative force in the connect-
ing δέ.
The Sphirit is the Holy Spirit Who
speaks through the prophets of the New
Dispensation, of whom St. Paul was
one. Here, if the following prophetical
utterance be his own, he speaks as if
Paul under the prophetic influence had
an activity independent of Paul the
apostle.
ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς : The latter times,
of course, may be said to come before the
last days, ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (Isa. ii. 2,
eActs ii. 17, Jas. v. 3, 2 Pet. iili.3; καιρὸς
ἔσχατος, I Pet. i.5; €ox. χρόνος, Jude 18).
But a comparison with 2 Tim. iii. 1,
a passage very similar in tone to this,
favours the opinion that the terms were
not so distinguished by the writers of
the N.T. In this sort of prophetical
warning or denunciation, we are not in-
tended to take the future tense too
strictly. Although the prophet intends
to utter a warning concerning the future,
yet we know that what he declares will
be hereafter he believes to be already
in active operation. It is a convention
of prophetical utterance to denounce
sins and sinners of one’s own time (τινες)
under the form of a predictive warning.
Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 3, ἔσται yap καιρὸς, k.T.A.
It gives an additional impressiveness to
the arraignment, to state that the guilty
persons are partners in the great apos-
tacy, the culmination of the world’s
revolt from God.
τινες is intentionally vague. See note
on 3: Tim. 1.12: ΕΒ ΠΟΙ ΒΩ. “asin
Rom. iii. 3, of an indefinite number.
πνεύμασι πλάνοις : As the Church is
guided aright by the Spirit of truth, He
is opposed in His beneficent ministra-
tions by the Spirit of error, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς
πλάνης (1 John iv. 6), who is τὸ πνεῦμα
τοῦ κόσμου, whose agents work through
individuals, the ‘‘many false prophets
who have gone out into the world”? (1
John iv. 1).
διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων must be, in
this context, doctrines taught by de-
mons, a σοφία δαιμονιώδης (Jas. iii.
15). See Tert. de Praescr. Haeret. 7.
The phrase does not here mean doc-
trines about demons, demonology. Still
less are heresiarchs here called demons.
This is the only occurrence of δαιμόνιον
in the Pastorals. In Acts xvii. 18 the
word has its neutral classical meaning,
‘ta divine being,” see also ver. 22; but
elsewhere in the N.T. it has the LXX
reference to evil spirits. For διδασκ.
see note on chap. i. Io.
Ver. 2. ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων: The
three genitives Ψψευδολ. κεκαυστ. Kod.
are coordinate, and refer to the human
agents of the seducing spirits and demons.
ἐν ὑποκρίσει depends on πνεύμασι and
διδασκαλίαις. The spirits work, and the
teachings are exhibited, in the hypocrisy
of them that speak lies; and this hypo-
crisy finds detailed expression in regula-
tions suggested by a false asceticism.
3% .
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@GEON A
I21I
στηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, 3. κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ' ἀπέχεσθαι i Acts xv.
9, I
* βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς ' μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς Thess. iv
k Rom. xiv. 15, 20, 1 Cor. viii. 8, 13, Heb. xiii. 9.
Although the ψευδολόγοι are included
in the τινες . . « προσέχοντες, yet there
is a large class of persons who are merely
deceived ; who are not actively deceiving
others, and who have not taken the initi-
ative in deceit. These latter are the
Ψψευδολόγοι. For this reason it is better
to connect ἐν ὑποκρίσει with προσέχοντες
Ell., von Soden) rather than with
ποστήσονται (Bengel, Alf.), though no
doubt both verbs refer to the same class.
ἐν ὑποκρίσει of course is not adverbial
as A.V., speaking lies in hypocrisy. This
could only be justified if ψευδολόγων
referred to δαιμονίων. The absence of
an article before ὑποκρίσει need cause
no astonishment.
Ψψευδολόγων: This word expresses per-
haps more than ψεύστης the notion of
definite false statements. A man might
be on some occasions and on special
points a ψευδολόγος, a speaker of that
which is not true, and yet not deserve to
be classed as a ψεύστης, a liar.
κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνεί-
δησιν: These speakers of falsehood are
radically unsound. They are in worse
case than the unsophisticated heathen
whose conscience bears witness with the
law of God (Rom. ii. 15). The con-
science of these men is_ perverted.
κεκαυστ. may mean that they are past
feeling, ἀπηλγηκότες (Eph. iv. 19), that
their conscience is callous from constant
violation, as skin grows hard from sear-
ing (A. V., R.V. m., so Theodoret); or it
may mean that these men bore branded
on thetr conscience the ownership marks
of the Spirit of evil, the devil’s seal (ctr.
2 Tim. ii. 19), so perhaps R.V.; as St.
Paul “‘bore branded on his body the
marks of Jesus”’ (Gal. vi. 17), as ‘‘ Christ’s
bondservant”’ (1 Cor. vii. 22). (So
Theophylact). Either of these interpre-
tations is more attractive than that of
Bengel, followed by Alford, who takes it
to mean that the marks of crime are
burnt into them, so that they are self-
condemned. See Tit. i. 15, iii. 11.
There is no special force in ἰδίαν (see
on chap. iii. 4), as though a course of
deceiving others should, by a righteous
judgment, result in a loss to themselves
of moral sensitiveness.
Ver. 3. κωλυόντων γαμεῖν: Spurious
asceticism, in this and other departments
of life, characterised the Essenes (Joseph.
3,1 Pet.
the ae
1 Here only, not LXX.
Bell. Fud. ii. 8, 2) and the Therapeutae
(Philo Vit. Contempl. § 4), and all the
other false spiritualists of the East; so
that this feature does not supply a safe
ground for fixing the date of the epistle.
At the same time, it is not likely that this
particular heresy was present to St. Paul’s
mind when he was writing 1 Cor. vii.
25-40; see especially 38, ὁ ph γαμίζων
κρεῖσσον ποιήσει; but similar views are
condemned in Col., see especially Col. ii.
16, 21, 22. See also Heb. xiii., iv. St.
Paul had come to realise how tyrannous
the weak brother could be; and he had
become less tolerant of him.
ἀπέχεσθαι : The positive κελευόντων,
commanding, must be supplied from the
negative κελευόντων μή, commanding not
Ξε κωλυόντων.
d. f. g. Vulg. preserve the awkward-
ness of the Greek, prohibentium nubere,
abstinere a cibis. But Faustus read
abstinentes, and Origen int. et abstinentes
se a cibis. Epiphanius inserts παραγ-
γέλλουσιν after βρωμ., and Isidore in-
serts καὶ κελευόντων before amex., which
was also suggested by Bentley. Theo-
phylact inserts similarly συμβουλευόντων.
Hort conjectures that ἀπέχεσθαι is a
primitive corruption for ἢ ἅπτεσθαι or
καὶ γεύεσθαι. He maintains that “no
Greek usage will justify or explain this
combination of two infinitives, adverse
to each other in the tenor of their sense,
under the one verb κωλυόντων ; and their
juxtaposition without a conjunction in a
sentence of this kind is at least strange”.
Blass, however (Grammar, p. 291) alleges
as a parallel κωλύσει ἐνεργεῖν καὶ [sc.
ποιήσει] ζημιοῦν from Lucian, Charon,
§2. Another instance of zeugma, though
not so startling as this, is in ii. 12, οὐκ
ἐπιτρέπω. . . εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. See
also 1 Cor. x. 24, xiv. 34 (T.R.). For
tS alan as used in this connexion, see
reff.
ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν, x.7.A.: It has been
asked why St. Paul does not justify by
specific reasons the use of marriage, as
he does the use of food. The answer
seems to be that the same general argu-
ment applies to both. The final cause
of both is the same, i.¢., to keep the race
alive; and man is not entitled to place
restrictions on the use of either, other
than those which can be shown to be in
accordance with God’s law.
122
τα Ολα Τίπι. πιστοῖς καὶ
11,
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
™ ἐπεγνωκόσι “Thy ™ ἀλήθειαν.
IV.
4. ὅτι πᾶν " κτίσμα
4. x :
Ὁ Jas. i. 18. Θεοῦ καλόν, καὶ οὐδὲν ° ἀπόβλητον μετὰ εὐχαριστίας " λαμβανόμενον -
ev. v.13, a Σ a
viii. 9. 9 5. ἁγιάζεται γὰρ διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ “ ἐντεύξεως. 6. Ταῦτα
o Here only,
not :
p Mark xv. 23, John xiii. 30, xix. 30, Acts ix. 19, Rev. xxii. 17. q See 1 Tim. ii. 1.
μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας is one mand of the Mosaic Law. St. Paul
complex conception. This expresses the
ideal use, truly dignified and human, of
food. See Rom. xiv. 6, ὁ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ
ἐσθίει, εὐχαριστεῖ yap τῷ θεῷ; and 1 Cor.
χ, 30, εἰ ἐγὼ χάριτι μετέχω, τί βλασφη-
μοῦμαι ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εὐχαριστῶ; St.
Paul of course does not mean that
believers only are intended by God to
partake of food. His argument is an
ἃ fortiori one. ‘‘ Those that believe,”
etc., are certainly included in God’s in-
tention. He who makes His sun to rise
on the evil is certainly well pleased to
make it rise on the good.
Again, St. Paul does not merely desire
to vindicate the use of some of God’s
creatures for them that believe, but the
use of all of God’s creatures, so far as
they are not physically injurious. ‘‘ God
saw every thing that he had made, and
behold, it was very good,” καλὰ λίαν
(Gen. i. 31).
For the association of μετάλημψις
compare the phrase μεταλαμβάνειν τρο-
js, Acts ii. 46, and reff. on 2 Tim. ii. 6.
τοῖς πιστοῖς ; dat. commodi, as in Tit.
i. 15, where see note.
τὴν ἀλήθειαν means, as elsewhere in
these epistles, the Gospel truth in gene-
ral, not the truth of the following state-
ment, πᾶν κτίσμα; K.T.d.
Ver. 4. ὅτι wav κτίσμα: This is the
proof of the preceding statement, con-
sisting of (a) a plain reference to Gen. i.
31, (δ) a no less clear echo of our Lord’s
teaching, Mark vii. 15 (Acts x. 15), also
re-echoed in Rom. xiv. 14, Tit. i. 15.
λαμβανόμενον: This verb is used of
taking food into one’s hand before eat-
ing (in the accounts of the feeding of the
multitudes, Matt. xiv. 19g= Mark vi. 41;
Matt. xv. 36= Mark viii. 6, also Luke xxiv.
30, 43) as well as of eating and drinking.
See reff. Perhaps it is not fanciful to
note its special use in connexion with
the Eucharist (1 Cor. xi, 23; Matt. xxvi.
26 (bis) 27; Mark xiv. 22, 23; Luke xxii.
10). ‘
καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον : The statement
of Gen. i. 31 which is summed up in
Every creature of God is good might be
met by the objection that nevertheless
certain kinds of food were, in point of
fact, to be rejected by the express com-
replies that thanksgiving disannulis the
Law in each particular case. Nothing
over which thanksgiving can be pro-
nounced is any longer included in the
category of things tabooed. It is evident,
from the repetition of the condition, pera
εὐχαριστίας AapB., that St. Paul re-
garded that as the only restriction on
Christian liberty in the use of God’s
creatures. Is it a thing of such a kind
that I can, without incongruity, give
thanks for it?
Field regards οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον here
as a proverbial adaptation of Homer’s
saying (Il. Γ. 65): οὕτοι ἀπόβλητ᾽ ἐστὶ
θεῶν ἐρικυδέα δῶρα.
For κτίσμα see reff. κτίσις is found
in Rom. (7), 2 Cor. (1), Gal. (1), Col. (2) ;
but in these places creation is the best
or a possible rendering. κτίσμα means
unambiguously thing created.
Ver. 5. ἁγιάζεται : The use of the pre-
sent tense here supports the explanation
given of ver. 4, and helps to determine
the sense in which λόγος θεοῦ is used.
The food lying before me at this moment,
which to some is ἀπόβλητος, is sanctified
here and now by the εὐχαριστία. See
1 Cor. x. 30.
λόγος θεοῦ and évrevgis (see note
on ii. 1) are in some sense co-ordinate
(almost a hendiadys), and together form
elements in a εὐχαριστία. If St. Paul
had meant by λόγος θεοῦ, the general
teaching of Scripture, or the particular
text, Gen. i. 31, he must have said
ἡγίασται. At the same time, the written
word was an element in the notion of
the writer. λόγος θεοῦ has not here
merely its general sense, a divine com-
munication to man; it rather determines
the quality of the évrevéis, as a scriptural
prayer; a prayer in harmony with God's
revealed truth. The examples that have
come down to us of grace before meat
are, as Dean Bernard notes here, “‘ packed
with scriptural phrases ”’.
The best commentary on this verse
is the action of St. Paul himself on the
ship, when, having ‘taken bread, he
gave thanks to God in the presence of
all; and he brake it, and began to eat”’
(Acts xxvii. 35).
Although there is not here any direct
,“-,.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
123
"ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καλὸς ἔσῃ διάκονος Χριστοῦ “Incod,! τ Here only
(N.T.) in
* ἐντρεφόμενος Tots λόγοις τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας this
μ γοις τῇ τῆς καλῆ
“4 t
Ὦ
2 Tim. iii. 10.
παρηκολούθηκας.53 7. τοὺς δὲ
sense.
ἃ βεβήλους καὶ * ypaddets s Here only,
not LXX,
t Luke i. 3,
u See 1 Tim. i. 9. v Here only, not LXX
1 Ἰησ΄. Χριστ. De, 17, 31, 47, many others, am., syrpesh,
3 ἧς A, 80, one other.
3850 NADKLP; παρηκολούθησας CFG.
reference to the Sacrament of the Eucha-
rist, it is probable that thoughts about it
have influenced the language; for the
Eucharist is the supreme example of
all benedictions and consecrations of
material things. And if this be so, the
passage has light thrown on it by the
language of Justin Martyr and Ireneus
about the Prayer of Consecration; ¢.g.,
Justin, Afol. i. 66. ‘As Jesus Christ
our Saviour, by the word of God (διὰ
λόγου θεοῦ) made flesh, had both flesh
and blood for our salvation, so we have
been taught that the food over which
thanks have been given by the word of
prayer which comes from him (τὴν δι᾽
εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ wap αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστη-
θεῖσαν tpodyv)—that food from which
our blood and flesh are by assimilation
nourished—is both the flesh and the
blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”.
Similarly Irenzus (Haer. v. 2, 3), ‘‘ Both
the mingled cup, and the bread which
has been made, receives upon itself the
word of God, and the Eucharist becomes
the body of Christ” (ἐπιδέχεται τὸν
λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία
σῶμα Χριστοῦ). Perhaps by the word
of prayer which comes pom him Justin
means a formula authorised by Christ.
It must be added that the Prayer Book
of Serapion, bishop of Thmuis in Egypt,
circ. A.D. 380, contains an epiclests in
which we read, ‘‘O God of truth, let thy
holy Word come to sojourn on this bread,
that the bread may become Body of the
Word, and on this cup, that the cup may
become Blood of the Truth” (Bishop
J. Wordsworth’s trans.).
A comparison of these passages sug-
gests an association in the thought of
the primitive Church of the Holy Spirit
and the λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ.
Vv. 6-10. The spread of these mis-
chievous notions among the brethren is
most effectively discouraged by a demon-
stration in the person of the minister
himself of the positive teaching of the
Gospel as to practical life. We are as-
sured, and declare our confidence by our
lives, that Christianity differs essentially
from theosophy in that it has respect to
the eternal future, as well as to the pass-
ing present.
Ver. 6. ταῦτα: repeated in ver. 11,
refers to all the preceding directions, but
more especially to the warnings against
false asceticism.
ὑποτιθέμενος : (remind, suggest) is a
somewhat mild term, as Chrys. points
out; but in some circumstances sugges-
tion is more effectual than direct exhor-
tation.
διάκονος Xp. “Ino. seems emphatic, a
deacon, not of the Church, but of Christ
Jesus, who is the Chief Pastor.
ἐντρεφόμενος: The present tense is
significant, “meaning to imply constancy
in application to these things” (Chrys.),
“ever training thyself” (Alf.). ‘The
present . . . marks a continuous and
permanent nutrition’ (Ell.). The pro-
cess begun from his earliest years, 2
Tim. i. 5, iii. 15, was being still main-
tained.
ἡ πίστις and ἡ διδασκαλία denote
respectively the sum total of Christian
belief, conceived as an ideal entity, and
the same as imparted little by little to.
the faithful. See note on i. ro.
ἡ παρηκολούθηκας : There is a similar
use of this verb in 2 Tim. iii. 10, where
see note. Alford attempts to give the
word here the same force as in Luke i. 3,
by rendering the course of which thou
hast followed. The A.V., whereunto
thou hast attained, expresses also the
sense of achievement which we find in
Luke 1... It seems better, however, to
associate the word with the notion of
discipleship; so R.V., doctrine which
thou hast followed until now.
Ver. 7. W. H. place a comma after
παρηκολούθηκας and a full stop after
mapattov; so R.V. nearly. But as
παραιτοῦ is an imperative, as in reff. in
Pastorals, it is best taken as antithetic
to γύμναζε. :
γραώδεις: The μῦθοι, in addition to
their profane nature, as impeaching the
124
w Seer
Tim. i. 4.
x,x. Lim: v;
11, 2 Tim.
ii, 23, Tit." εὐσέβεια πρὸς πάντα
111. 10.
Heb. xii. ‘Luts τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης.
25. Ἀ
y 2 Μακε χ πάσης " ἀποδοχῆς © ἄξιος.
15, Heb.
v. 14, Xii. |
ai Pet. li. 14. |
only. c Jas. iv. 14.
vii. 1, Heb. δ 6.
il, τό, cf, x Tim. v.29.
z See Tim. ii. 2.
£2 Tim. i. 1.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
a4 Macc. i. 32, iii. 1, Luke iii. 22.
d 2 Tim. iii. 16, Tit. iii. 8, not LXX.
i g See 1 Tim. i. 15.
IV.
~ μύθους *mapattod, “ γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς " εὐσέβειαν - 8. ἡ
γὰρ "σσωματικὴ ὃ" γυμνασία “ πρὸς “ ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ἧ“ ὠφέλιμος - ἡ δὲ
« ὠφέλιμός ἐστιν, “ἐπαγγελίαν “ ἔχουσα
9. “πιστὸς " ὁ λόγος Fal
3 A 4 lk fat bY
IO. εἰς TOUTO yap KOTILW LEV και
Ὁ 4 Macc. xi. 20
e Cf. Different use in 2 Cor.
h Matt. xi. 28, Col. i. 29, Phil.
lIns. καὶ FerGKL.
goodness of the Creator, were absurd,
unworthy of a grown man’s considera-
tion. See note on chap. i. 4. Hort’s
view (Fudaistic Christianity, p. 138)
that βεβήλους here merely means “the
absence of any divine or sacred char-
acter’’ does not seem reasonable.
παραιτοῦ: refuse, turn away from, as
n Heb. xii. 25. Alf. renders excuse
thyself from, as in Luke xiv. 18 (bis),
1g. Decline would be a better rendering.
In addition to the reff. given above,
παραιτέομαι occurs in Mark xv. 6, Acts
xxv. 11 (a speech of St. Paul’s), Heb. xii.
19.
γύμναζε: There is here an intentional
paradox. Timothy isto meet the spurious
asceticism of the heretics by exercising
himself in the practical piety of the
Christian life. See chap. ii. 2. The
paradox is comparable to φιλοτιμεῖσθαι
ἡσυχάζειν of 1 Thess. iv. 11. The true
Christian asceticism is not essentially
σωματική, although the body is the
means by which the spiritual nature is
affected and influenced. Although it
brings the body into subjection (1 Cor. ix.
27), this is a means, not an end in itself.
Ver. 8. σωματικὴ γυμνασία: The
parallel cited by Lightfoot (Philippians,
Ῥ- 290) from Seneca (Ef. Mor. xv. 2, 5)
renders it almost certain that the primary
reference is to gymnastic exercises (as
Chrys., etc., take it); but there is as cer-
tainly in σωματικὴ γυμνασία a connota-
tion of ascetic practices as the outward
expression of the theories underlying
the fables of ver. 7. παραιτοῦ elsewhere
in the Pastorals is followed by reasons
why the particular thing or person
should be avoided. The teaching is
identical with that in Col. ii. 23. St.
Paul makes his case all the stronger by
conceding that an asceticism which ter-
minates in the body is of some use. The
contrast then is not so much between
bodily exercise, commonly so called, and
piety, as between piety (which includes a
discipline of the body) and an absurd
and profane theosophy of which discipline
of the body was the chief or only prac-
tical expression.
πρὸς ὀλίγον: to a slight extent; as
contrasted with πρὸς πάντα. πρὸς
ὀλίγον means for a little while in Jas.
iv. 14. This notion is included in the
other. The R.V., for a little is am-
biguous; perhaps intentionally so. In
view of the genuine asceticism of St.
Paul himself, not to mention other ex-
amples, it is unreasonable to think him
inconsistent in making this concession.
ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς ; If we take
ἐπαγγελία to signify the thing promised
(as in Luke xxiv. 49, Acts i. 4, xiii. 32),
rather than a promise, we can give an
appropriate force to the rest of the
sentence. A consistent Christian walk
possesses, does not forfeit, that which
this life promises; in a very real sense
“it makes the best of both worlds’’.
ἔχω will then have its usual meaning;
and ζωῆς is the genitive of possession, as
in Luke xxiv. 49, Acts i. 4 (ἔπ. τοῦ
πατρός). Itis not the genitive of apposi-
tion, piety promises life. That which is
given by life to Christians is the best
thing that life has to give. Won Soden
compares πάντα ὑμῶν, I Cor. iii. 21 sq.
Bacon’s saying ‘‘ Prosperity is the bless-
ing of the Old Testament; Adversity is
the blessing of the New”’ is only half a
truth. If religion does not make us
happy in this life, we have needlessly
missed our inheritance (see Matt. vi. 33;
Mark x. 30). On the other hand, though
piety does bring happiness in this
life, the exercise of it deliberately with
that end in view is impious; as Whately
said, ‘ Honesty is the best policy, but
the man who is honest for that reason is
not honest ’’.
Ver.9. πιστὸς---ἄξιος : This is paren-
thetical and retrospective. The teaching
of ver. 8 is the λόγος. So Chrys.
Ver. 10, yap, as in the parallel 2
8—12.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
125
᾿ ἀγωνιζόμεθα,; ὅτι " ἠλπίκαμεν 3 ἐπὶ Θεῷ ζῶντι, ὅς ἐστιν 'owrhp ix Cor. ix.
πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν.
δίδασκε.
10,1 Tim. v. 5, vi. 17. 1 See x Tim. i. 1.
1 Thess. i. 7, 2 Thess. iii. 9, Tit. ii. 7, 1 Pet. v. 3.
11. ἢ Παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ
12. μηϑείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω, ἀλλὰ " τύπος
25, Col. i.
29, 1 Tim.
vi. 12, 2
Tim. iv. 7.
k John v.45,
Cor. 1.
2
m See 1 Tim. i. 3. ni Cor. x. 6, Phil. iii. 17,
1 So &*ACFerGerKk, 17, 31, 47, five others; ὀνειδιζόμεθα NQcDLP, ἃ, f, g, vg., 50.»
syrr., boh., arm.
2 ἠλπίσαμεν D*, 17.
Tim. ii. 11, introduces a statement in
support of the judgment, πιστὸς ὁ λόγος.
εἰς τοῦτο: i.e., with a view to the ob-
taining the promised blessings of life.
The best commentary on this is what
St. Paul said in an earlier epistle, ‘‘ As
sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing ; as poor,
yet making many rich; as having no-
thing, and yet possessing all things”
(2 Cor. vi. Io).
κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα express St.
Paul’s personal experience of what the
profession of Christianity involved. It
was then an almost universal experience,
see Acts xiv. 22; but is not of necessity
a concomitant of the exercising of one-
self to godliness. The two words are
similarly combined Col. i. 29, eis ὃ καὶ
κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος. κοπιᾶν is usually
used by St. Paul of ministerial labours:
his own, 1: Cor. xv. 10, Gal. iv. 11, and
those of others, Rom. xvi. 12,1 Cor.
xvii 20, to Phesss.v.cr2: 1 Lim, vee 17
but this restriction is not necessary, nor
would it be suitable here. See reff.
For ὀνειδιζόμεθα (var. lect.) cf. Matt.
v. Ir= Luke vi. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 14.
ὅτι ἠλπίκαμεν, κιτιλ.: This was at
once an incentive to exertion, and thus
correlative to ἐπαγγελία ζωῆς, and in
itself a part of the thing promised, the
ἐπαγγελία. A consciousness that we
are in an harmonious personal relation
with the living God lifts us into a sphere
in which labour and striving have no
power to distress us.
ἠλπίκαμεν: we have our hope set on
(R.V.). The same use of the perfect
of this verb, ‘‘ expressing the continu-
ance and permanence of the ἐλπίς
(Ell.), is found in the reff. In addition,
ἐλπίζω is also followed by ἐπί with the
dat. in Rom. xv. 12 (Isa. xi. 10) and 1
Tim. vi. 17; by ἐπί with the acc. in 1
Tim. v. 5, 1 Pet. i. 13; by εἷς with an
acc, in John v. 45, 2 Cor. i. ro, 1 Pet.
iii. 5; and by ἐν followed by the dat. in
1 Cor. xv. Ig.
θεῷ ζῶντι : As indicated above, this is
said in relation to ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς. To
know the living God is life eternal (John
xvii. 3).
ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων, K.TA.:
Saviour of all (τὸν πάντων σωτῆρα)
occurs in Wisd. xvi. 7. Cf. Saviour of
the world, John iv. 42.
The prima facie force of μάλιστα cer-
tainly is that all men share in some
degree in that salvation which the πιστοί
enjoy in the highest degree. Compare
the force of μάλιστα in Acts xxv. 26,
Gal. vi. 10, Phil. iv, 22, 1 Tim. v. 8, 17,
2 Lim. Avet3 3 Dit. 1. ΤΌ;
The statement is more unreservedly
universalist in tone than chap. ii. 4 and
Tit. ii. τα ; and perhaps must be qualified
by saying that while God is potentially
Saviour of all, He is actually Saviour of
the πιστοί. It is an argument a minori
ad majus (as Bengel says) ; and the un-
qualified assertion is suitable. If all
men can be saved, surely the πιστοί are
saved, in whose number we are included.
It is better to qualify the statement thus
than, with Chrys. and Bengel, to give to
σωτήρ a material sense of God’s relation
to all men, as the God of nature; but a
spiritual sense of His relation to them
that believe, as the God of grace. See
notes on ch. i. I; ii. 4.
Vv. 11-16. Silent example or mild
suggestion will not do in every case.
There are many occasions when it will
be necessary for you to speak out, with
the authority given to you at your or-
dination. At the same time, do not
forget that the charismatic gift will
die if it be neglected. Give yourself
wholly to the cultivation of your char-
acter; so will you save yourself and
those committed to your charge.
Ver. τι. παράγγελλε: In point of
time, teaching precedes commanding.
The tone of command can only be used
in relation to fundamentals which have
been accepted, but are in danger of being
forgotten. Similar directions recur in
v. 7 and vi. 3.
Vor. 12. μηδείς.---καταφρονείτω
(‘‘ Libenter id faciunt senes inanes,”’ Ben-
126
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
ΙΝ.
© Gal. i. 13, γίνου τῶν πιστῶν ἐν λόγῳ, ἐν ° ἀναστροφῇ, ἐν ἢ ἀγάπῃ; ἐν ἢ πίστει,
Eph. iv. μ
22, Ηερ. ἐν “ ἁγνίᾳ.
xiii. 7, ἂς
Jas. iii.13, κλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ.
I Pet. (6),
2 Pet. (2).
13. ἕως ἔρχομαι *mpdcexe TH " ἀναγνώσει, TH παρα-
14.
ὴ " ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ “ χαρίσματος, ὃ
μὴ "ἀμ χαρίσμ
r Seer Tim.i. 4. s Acts xiii. 15, 2 Cor. iii. 14.
u Rom. i. 11, xii. 6, 1 Cor. i. 7, vii. 7, xii. 4, 9, 28, 30, 31, 2 Tim. i. 6,1 Pet. iv. to.
1 Add ἐν πνεύματι ΚΡ. See 2 Cor. vi. 6.
p See x: Tim. i. 14. qiTim.v.2only,N.T. .
t Heb. ii. 3. i
gel). Many, probably, of the Ephesian
presbyters were older than Timothy.
For μηδείς in this position, cf. 1 Cor.
iil. 18; x. 243 Eph. v. 6%<Col. t:.184
Tit. ii, 15; Jas. 1. 13. καταφρονέω
connotes that the contempt felt in the
mind is displayed in injurious action.
(See Moulton and Milligan, Expositor,
vi., vili. 432). The meaning of this
direction is qualified by the following
ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου, κιτιλ. It means,
Assert the dignity of your office even
though men may think you young to
hold it. Let no one push you aside asa
boy. Compare the corresponding direc-
tion Tit. ii. 15, μηδείς σου περιφρονείτω.
On the other hand, St. Paul shows
Timothy “a more excellent way’ than
self-assertion for the keeping up of his
dignity : Give no one any ground by any
fault of character for despising thy
youth.
σου depends on τῆς νεότητος. Field
supports this by an exact parallel from
Diodorus Siculus. The two genitives do
not, in strict grammar, depend on
katadpov., despise thee for thy youth.
τῆς νεότητος: St. Paul had met
Timothy on the second missionary jour-
ney, dated by Harnack in a.p. 47, and by
Lightfoot in A.D. 51. About the year 57,
St. Paul says of Timothy, ‘‘ Let no man
despise him” (x Cor. xvi. 11). x Tim.
may be dated not more than a year before
St. Paul’s martyrdom, which Harnack
fixes in a.p. 64, and Lightfoot in a.p. 67.
The question arises, Could Timothy’s
γεότης have lasted all that time, about
fifteen or sixteen years? We must
remember that we have no information
about Timothy’s age when he joined St.
Paul’s company. But if he had been
then fifteen or sixteen, or even seventeen,
νεότης here need cause no difficulty.
Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, Part II.
vol. i. p. 448) adduces evidence from
Polybius and Galen to show that a man
might be called véos up to the age of
thirty-four or thirty-five. In any case,
the terms “ young ” and “old” are used
relatively to the average age at which
men attain to positions in the world.
Forty is reckoned old for a captain in
the army, young for a bishop, very young
for a Prime Minister. In an instructive
parallel passage, Ignatius commends the
Magnesians (§3) and their presbyters
for not presuming upon the youth of
their bishop. For Timothy’s compara-
tive youth, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 22, tas δὲ
γεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε.
τύπος γίνου: For the sentiment, com-
pare reff. and 1 Cor. iv. 16, Phil. iv. 9.
τύπος is followed by the genitive of
the person for whose edification the
τύπος exists in 1 Cor. x. 6, τ Pet. v. 3.
In the following enumeration, λόγος is
coupled with ἀναστροφή as words with
deeds (Rom. xv. 18; Col. iii. 17). These
refer to Timothy’s public life; while
love, faith and purity refer to his private
life, in reference to which they are found
in conjunction in 11. 15.
Ver. 13. ἕως ἔρχομαι: For ἕως with
present indic, instead of fut. see Winer-
Moulton, Grammar, p. 370. Cf. Luke
xix. 13, John xxi. 22, 23.
ἀνάγνωσις, παράκλησις, διδασκαλία
are the three elements in the ministry of
the word: (a) reading aloud of Scripture
(Luke iv. 16; Acts ΧΙ, 15; 2 Cor. iii. 14,
see Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, vii.,
v. 262); (b) exhortation based on the
reading, and appealing to the moral sense
(2 Tim. iv. 2 ; Justin Martyr, Afol. i. 67) ;
(c) teaching, appealing to the intellect,
see note on chap. i. το. Exhortation
and teaching are similarly joined in
Rom. xii. 7, 8, and 1 Tim. vi. 2.
Ver. 14. μὴ ἀμέλει: J. H. Moulton
(Grammar, vol. i. p. 122 sqq.), distingui-
shes (a) μή with the pres. imperat, “ Do
not go on doing so and so,” e.g., 1 Tim.
ν. 22, 23, from (δ) μή with the aor. sub-
junctive, ‘Do not begin to do it” (1 Tim.v.
I; 2 Tim.i. 8). In this case, μὴ ἀμέλει
is equivalent to πάντοτε μελέτα.
Timothy’s χάρισμα lay in his commis-
sion to rule and in his powers as a
preacher. The χάρισμα was given by
God; in this particular case the formal
and solemn assumption of its use was
accompanied by the indication of proph-
ecy addressed to the ear, and by the
13--τό, V.1.
ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ “Ὑὸ ἐπιθέσεως
” πρεσβυτερίου.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝΑ
127
"r@v “ χειρῶν τοῦ v Acts viii.
18, 2 Tim.
15. ταῦτα “μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, ἵνα cou ἡ ἰ. 6, Heb.
5 a vi. 2.
᾽ προκοπὴ " φανερὰ "ἢ πᾶσιν. τό. "ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ καὶ τῇ διδασ- w Here only
in this
, i Se wee eer, A a \ x , \
kaia ETTLULEVE QUTOLS *° TOUTO yap ποίων Και σεαυτον σώσεις Καὶ sense.
τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου.
x Acts iv. 25
{8.11 χὴν
y Phil. i. 12,
V. 1. Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ " ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα, ” 25,
1 John iii. το.
Col. i. 23. a Here only, not LXX.
a Luke xiv. 7, Acts iii. 5, xix. 22.
z Rom.i. 19,
Gal. v. 19,
Ὁ Acts xiii. 43 (T.R.), Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23,
1Ins. ἐν DcKLP.
laying on of hands addressed to the eye.
See Acts xiii. 1-3.
Winer-Moulton notes, p. 471, that the
instrument, as such, is never expressed
by μετά in good prose. Here, with,
amid imposition of hands (conjointly
with the act of imposition). μετά is
here equivalent to διά in the sense given
above, i.¢., of accompanying circum-
stances,
2 Tim. i. 6 is usually reconciled with
this passage by saying that the body of
presbyters was associated with St. Paul
in the laying on of hands. But there is
no reason to suppose that the same trans-
action is referred to in both places.
Here the charismata refer to preaching
and teaching; but in 2 Tim., to the ad-
ministrative duties committed to Timothy,
as it is reasonable to suppose, by St.
Paul alone, when he appointed him his
representative. Note that διά is used of
St. Paul’s imposition of hands (2 Tim. i.
6), μετά of that of the presbyters, here.
This suggests that it was the imposition
of hands by St. Paul that was the in-
strument used by God in the communica-
tion of the charisma to Timothy.
πρεσβυτέριον: elsewhere in N.T.
(Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5) means the
Jewish Sanhedrin; but Ignatius uses the
term, as here, to indicate the presby-
ters in a local Church (Trail. 7, 13;
Philadelph. 7, etc.).
Ver. 15. ταῦτα: i.¢., reading, exhorta-
tion, teaching. μελέτα: practise, exercise
thyself in, rather than meditari. So
R.V., Be diligent in. (Bengel compares
γύμναζε ver. 7.) Cf. Psal. i. 2, ἐν τῷ
γόμῳ αὐτοῦ μελετήσει, “In his law will
he exercise himself,” P.B.V., quoted by
Prof. Scholefield.
ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι: To the parallels
cited by Wetstein, ἐν τούτοις ὁ Καῖσαρ
+ + + ἦν (Plut. Pomp. p. 656 6), ‘‘ Omnis
in hoc sum’’ (Horace Efzstles, i. 1,11) and
Alford: ‘‘ Totus in illis’’ (Horace, Sat. i.
9, 2), we may add ἐν φόβῳ Κυρίου ἴσθι,
Prov. xxiii.17. Timothy’s progress mani-
fest to all would secure his youth from
being despised: cf. Matt. v. 16.
φανερὰ ἦ: This expression is quite
Pauline; see reff.; but St. Paul more
frequently has φανερὸς γενέσθαι, x Cor.
ἘΠῚ Τὰ, Χἰ 19, XLV. 2557 ill. 8 3;
Ver. 16. ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ, κιτιλ.: The
teacher must needs prepare himself be-
fore he prepares his lesson. A similar
thought is conveyed by the order of the
words in Gen. iv. 4, ‘‘The Lord had
respect unto Abel and to his offering”’.
ἐπέχειν (see reff. and Moulton and Mil-
ligan, Expositor, vii., vii. 377) has a quite
different signification in Phil. ii. 16. Cf.
Acts xx. 28, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς.
τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ: Thy teaching (R.V.).
The doctrine (A.V.) can take care of
itself. See note on i. 10. αὐτοῖς is
neuter, referring to the same things as
ταῦτα; not masc., ‘Remain with the
Ephesians,” as Grotius supposed, a view
tolerated by Bengel.
σεαυτὸν σώσεις: cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 9.
CHAPTER V.—Vv. 1-16. The wise
Church ruler must understand how to
deal with his people individually. Each
age and condition needs separate treat-
ment: old men, young men; old women,
young women. Widows in particular
need discriminating care; since some of
them may have to be supported by the
Church; and we must not let the Church
be imposed on, nor give occasion for
scandal, Accordingly Church widows
must be at least sixty years old, and be
of good character.
Ver. 1. πρεσβυτέρῳ is best taken as a
term of age, seniorem (Vulg.). This
view is supported by the ὡς πατέρα,
πρεσβυτέρας, νεωτέρας. The term
νεωτέρους might possibly refer to a sub-
ordinate Church officer. In Acts v. 6 it
is susceptible of that meaning; but in
the subsequent narrative (Acts v. 10) ot
γεώτεροι who are in attendance on the
Apostles are merely νεανίσκοι.
128
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
Υ.
ΒΉετς οηἱν, vewtépous ὡς ἀδελφούς, 2. " πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας, νεωτέρας ὡς
N.T.
ἔθεον Tim. ἀδελφὰς ἐν πάσῃ ° ἁγνείᾳ.
lv. 12.
3. Χήρας τίμα τὰς “ὄντως χήρας. 4.
ἁ Mark xi. εἰ δέ τις χήρα τέκνα ἢ " ἔκγονα ἔχει, μανθανέτωσαν ' πρῶτον τὸν
32,1 Tim
᾿ἴδιον οἶκον ᾿ εὐσεβεῖν καὶ " ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς
h ,
προγόνοις "
νι, 19. a A a
eHereonly, Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν 2! ἀπόδεκτον " ἐνώπιον " τοῦ " Θεοῦ. 5. ἡ δὲ ' ὄντως
NOT
h 2 Tim. i. 3 only, N.T. iz Tim.
Vv. 55 16,
La Macc.
(5), Sus. 64, Acts xvii. 23. g Here only, N.T., not LXX.
ἘΠ ἢν k See x Tim. ii. 3. 1 See ver. 3.
1 μανθανέτω two cursives, d, f, m82, vg. (except am* = discant).
2 Ins. καλὸν kal 37, many others, boh., go., arm. See chap. ii. 3.
ἐπιπλήξῃς : Treat harshly. The more
usual ἐπιτιμᾶν occurs 2 Tim. iv. 2.
παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα: Respect for age
must temper the expression of reproof of
an old man’s misdemeanours. vewrépovs
and the following accusatives in ver. 2
are governed by some such verb as treat,
behave towards, deal with, implied in
ἐπιπλήξῃς and παρακάλει.
Ver. 2. ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνίᾳ: with the
strictest regard to purity, or perhaps
propriety. Christians, Athenagoras tells
us (Legat. 32), considered other Chris-
tians, according to their age, as sons and
daughters; brothers and sisters; fathers
and mothers. Ellicott quotes Jerome’s
maxim, ‘“‘Omnes puellas et virgines
Christi aut aequaliter ignora aut aequa-
liter dilige”’ (Epist. 52, 5, p. 259). Com-
pare de Imitatione Christi, i. 8, ‘‘ Be not
a friend to any one woman, but recom-
mend all good women in general to God”.
Ver. 3. τίμα: It is ditticult to fix pre-
cisely the force of τιμάω in this con-
nexion. On the one hand, the passage
(vv. 3-8) is a part of the general direc-
tions as to Timothy’s personal relations
to his flock. Respect, honour, would,
then, render the word adequately. On
the other hand, vv. 4 and 8 show that
the question of widows’ maintenance,
as a problem of Church finance, was
in the apostle’s mind; and he goes on,
in ver. g, to lay down regulations for
the admission of widows to the number
of those who were entered on the Church
register for support. Perhaps respect
was first in the writer’s mind, while the
term used, τίμα, easily lent itself to the
expression of the notion of support, which
immediately suggested itself. Similarly
Chrys. (τῆς τῶν ἀναγκαίων τροφῆς),
comparing ver. 17, where. τιμή has the
sense of pay, cf. Ecclus. xxxviii. 1, Matt.
xv. 4-6, Acts xxviii. 10. Honora beneficiis
is Bengel’s comment.
τὰς ὄντως : Those who really deserve
the name of widows are (1) those who
have no younger relatives on whom they
have a claim for support, (2) those who
conform to certain moral and spiritual
requirements detailed below.
Ver. 4. Exyova: offspring ought to be
the best rendering of this. It has a
wider connotation than children and
narrower than descendants.
pavOavérwoav: It ought not to be
necessary to say that the subject of this
verb is τέκνα ἢ ἔκγονα, only that Chrys.
Theod, Vulg. and ἃ agree in referring it
to the class χῆραι. (‘Requite them in
their descendants, repay the debt through
the children,” Chrys.; ‘‘Discat primum
domum suam regere.” See critical note.)
Similarly Augustine says of his mother
Monica, ‘‘ Fuerat enim unius viri uxor,
mutuam vicem parentibus reddiderat,
domum suam pie tractaverat”’ (Confes-
stones, ix. 9). This can only be regarded
as a curiosity in exegesis.
πρῶτον: The first duty of children is
filial piety. οἶκον, which is usually cor-
relative to parents rather than children,
is used here ‘‘to mark the duty as an act
of family feeling and family honour”
(De Wette, quoted by EII.).
εὐσεβεῖν (domum pie tractare, m®)
with a direct accusative is also found in
reff. Ellicott supplies an appropriate
illustration from Philo, de Decalogo, § 23,
‘‘ where storks are similarly said εὐσεβεῖν
and γηροτροφεῖν᾽".
προγόνοις: When the term occurs
again, 2 Tim. i. 3, it has its usual mean-
ing forefather. It is usually applied to
forbears that are dead. Here it means
parents, grandparents, or great-grand-
parents that are living; and this use of
it was probably suggested by “xyova, a
term of equally vague reference. Plato,
Laws, xi. p. 932, is quoted for a similar
application of the word to the living.
τοῦτο γάρ, «.T.A.: Besides being en-
joined in the O.T., our Lord taught the
same duty, Mark vii. 16-13= Matt. xv.
4-6. See also Eph. vi. 1, 2.
Ver. 5. ἤλπικεν ἐπί: hath her hope set
on. See on iv. 10, the analogy of
2--ο.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
129
χήρα καὶ ™ μεμονωμένη " ἤλπικεν ἐπὶ Θεὸν 2 καὶ ° προσμένει ταῖς m Here
only, not
δεήσεσιν Kal ταῖς προσευχαῖς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας - 6. ἡ δὲ Ῥσπατα- LXX
n See1 Tim.
λῶσα ζῶσα τέθνηκεν. 7. καὶ ταῦτα * παράγγελλε, ἵνα * ἀνεπίλημπτοι ἵν. το.
>
ωσιν.
a ,
et,* τὴν “ πίστιν
vw2 ἈΠ ἂν , ,
npyyntTar και ἐστιν ἀπίστου χειρων.
o Wisd. iii.
8. εἰ δέ τις " τῶν "ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα > *oikeiwy οὐ “mpovo- ο, Acts xi.
23, Xiii.43.
9. Χήρα p Ecclus.
A ε a πΞ Χχι. ’
"καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς Ezek avi.
q See 1 Tim. 1 3. r See x Tim. iii. 2.
1.19. το Rom. xii. 17, 2 Cor. viii. 21.
2 Tim. ii. 12, 13, Tit. i. 16.
s John i. 11, xiii. 1, Acts iv. 23.
v Rev. ii. 13.
x Here only, N.T.
49, Jas. v.
5.
_ 6 ΔΙ. vi. το, Eph.
w 2 Tim. iii. 5, Tit. ii. 12, cf. also
lIns. τὸν NCADKL; om. τὸν N*CFGP.
2So NcACKLP, ἃ, e, f, m25, 82, 110, vg.; Κύριον S9*Der*.
3 Ins. τῶν CDbcK LP.
480 NcACDcLP; προνοεῖται S*D*FGK, one cursive.
fa favours the omission of the article
ere.
προσμένει: She is like Anna, νηστεί-
ais καὶ δεήσεσιν λατρεύουσα νύκτα καὶ
ἡμέραν (Luke ii. 37). προσκαρτερεῖν is
more usual in this connexion, ¢.g., Rom.
xii. 12. Οὐ] τνν 2:
ΕἸ]. notes that Paul always has the
order νυκτ. καὶ fp. as here. Luke has
also this order, with the acc., but fp. καὶ
γυκτ. with the gen. In Rev. the order is
ἡμ. καὶ νυκτός.
Ver. 6. σπαταλῶσα : The modern term
fast, in which the notion of prodigality
and wastefulness is more prominent than
that of sensual indulgence, exactly ex-
presses the significance of this word.
The R.V., she that giveth herself to plea-
Sure, is stronger than the A.V. A some-
what darker force is given to it here by the
associated verb in ver. 11, καταστρηνιά-
σωσιν. The Vulg. is felicitous, Quae in
deliciis est, vivens mortua est. The ex-
pression is more terse than in Rev. iii.
1, ‘* Thou hast a name that thou livest
and thou art dead”. Cf. Rom. vii. 10,
24, Eph. iv. 18. Wetstein quotes in
illustration from Stobaeus (238), as de-
scriptive of a poor man’s life of anxiety,
πένης ἀποθανὼν φροντίδων ἀπηλλάγη,
ζῶν γὰρ τέθνηκε.
Ver. 7. ταῦτα is best referred to ver.
4, with its implied injunctions to the
younger generation to support their
widows.
ἀνεπίλημπτοι : i.e, all Christians
whom it concerns, not widows only.
Ver. 8. The Christian faith includes
the law of love. The moral teaching of
Christianity recognises the divine origin
of all natural and innocent human affec-
tions. The unbeliever, i.e., the born
heathen, possesses natural family affec-
VOL. IV.
tion; and though these feelings may be
stunted by savagery, the heathen are not
likely to be sophisticated by human per-
versions of religion, such as those de-
nounced by Jesus in Mark vii. ΕἸ]. says.
“It is worthy of notice that the Essenes
were not permitted to give relief to their
relatives without leave from their ἐπί-
τροποι, though they might freely do so
to others in need ; see Joseph. Bell. μά.
11. 5. 632?
The Christian who falls below the best
heathen standard of family affection is
the more blameworthy, since he has,
what the heathen has not, the supreme
example of love in Jesus Christ. We
may add that Jesus Himself gave an
example of providing for one’s own,
when He provided a home for His
mother with the beloved disciple.
ot ἴδιοι are near relatives: οἱ οἰκεῖοι,
members of one’s household. One of the
most subtle temptations of the Devil is
his suggestion that we can best comply
with the demands of duty in some place
far away from our home. Jesus always
says, Do the next thing; ‘‘ Begin from
Jerusalem”, The path of duty begins
from within our own house, and we must
walk it on our own feet.
οἰκείων: The omission of the article
in the true text before οἰκείων precludes
the possibility of taking the word here in
the allegorical sense in which it is used
in Gal. and Eph.: ‘the household of the
faith”; ‘‘ the household of God”’.
προνοεῖ : This verb is only found else-
where in N.T. in the phrase προνοεῖσθαι
καλά, Rom. xii. 17, 2 Cor. viii. 21 (from
Prov. iii. 4, προνοοῦ καλὰ ἐνώπιον
Κυρίου καὶ ἀνθρώπων).
Ver. 9. καταλεγέσθω : St. Paul passes
naturally from remarks about the duty of
130
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
V.
y Acts vi. 3, γυνή, 10. ἢ ἐν * ἔργοις * καλοῖς 7 μαρτυρουμένη, εἰ * ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν,
X. 22, ΧΧῚΪ.
12, Heb. εἰ " ἐξενοδόχησεν, εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν, εἰ
xi. 2, 30.
zSeex Tim.
re a Here only, not LX X.
iii. 4, 2 Thess. i. 6, 7, Heb. xi. 37.
Church members to their widowed rela-
tives to specific rules about the admis-
sion of widows to the roll of Church
widows (see Acts vi. 1). The χήρα of
this ver, is 4 ὄντως χήρα of vv. 3 and 5,
who was to receive consideration and
official recognition. These widows had
no doubt a ministry to fulfil—a ministry
of love, prayer, intercession, and giving
of thanks (Polycarp, 4) ; but it is difficult
to suppose that St. Paul, or any other
practically minded administrator, would
contemplate a presbyteral order of wi-
dows, the members of which would enter
on their duties at the age of 60, an age
relatively more advanced in the East
and in the first century than in the West
and in our own time. We may add that
the general topic of widows’ maintenance
is resumed and concluded in ver. 16.
In the references to widows in the
earliest Christian literature outside the
N.T. (with the exception of Ignatius
Smyrn. 13) they are mentioned as objects
of charity along with orphans, etc. (Ig-
natius, Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 4; Polycarp,
4; Hermas, Vis. ii. 4, Mand. viii., Sim.
i. v. 3, ix. 26, 27; Justin, Afol. i. 67).
None of these places hints at an order of
widows. The subject cannot be further
discussed here; but the evidence seems
to point to the conclusion that the later.
institution of widows as an order with
official duties was suggested by this pas-
sage. The history of Christianity affords
other examples of supposed revivals of
apostolic institutions.
Ell., who follows Grotius in seeing
in this verse regulations respecting an
ecclesiastical or presbyteral widow, ob-
jects to the view taken above that it is
‘highly improbable that when criteria
had been given, ver. 4 54., fresh should
be added, and those of so very exclusive
a nature: would the Church thus limit
her alms?”
But ver. 4 sq. does not give the criteria,
or qualifications of an official widow;
but only describes the dominant charac-
teristic of the life of the ‘‘ widow indeed,”
viz., devotion ; and again, the Church of
every age, the apostolic not less than
any other, has financial problems to deal
with. Charity may be indiscriminating,
but there are only a limited number of
b Here only, not LXX.
d 1 Macc. (2), ver. 16 only.
* θλιβομένοις * ἐπήρκεσεν,
ς 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 8, vii. 5, 1 Thess.
widows for whose whole support the
Church can make itself responsible; and
this is why the limit of age is here so
high. At a much younger age than 60
a woman would cease to have any tempt-
ation to marry again.
Lightfoot has important notes on the
subject in his commentary on Ignatius,
Smyrn. §§ 6, 13 (Apost. Fathers, part ii.
vol. ii. pp. 304, 322). See also, on the
deaconess widow, Harnack, Mission and
Expansion of Christiantty, trans. vol. i.
p- 122. The opinion of Schleiermacher
that deaconesses are referred to here is
refuted (1) by the provision of age, and
(2) by the fact that they have been dealt
with before, iii. 11.
According to Bengel, the gen. ἐτῶν
depends on χήρα, μὴ ἔλαττον being an
adverb, “οὗ 60 years, not [655 ἢ.
γεγονυῖα: It is best to connect this
with the preceding words, as in Luke ii.
42, καὶ Ste ἐγένετο ἐτῶν δώδεκα. In
favour of this connexion is the conside-
ration that in the parallel, iii. 2, μιᾶς
γυναικὸς ἄνδρα stands alone, and that it
γεγονυῖα were to be joined with what
follows, it would most naturally follow
γυνή. As a matter of fact, this trans-
position is found in P.; and this con-
nexion is suggested in D, two cursives,
ἃ, f, g, m™!, Vulg. (quae fuerit (g fuerat)
unius viri uxor) go, boh, syrr, Theodore
Mops., Theodoret, and Origen.
ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή : The Church widows
must conform to the same ideal of the
married life as the episcopi. See Tert.
ad uxorem, i. 7, ‘‘Quantum fidei de-
trahant, quantum obstrepant sanctitati
nuptiae secundae, disciplina ecclesiae et
praescriptio apostoli declarat, cum diga-
mos non sinit praesidere, cum viduam
allegi in ordinem [al. ordinationem], nisi
univiram, non concedit.”’
Ver. το. ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη:
ἐν with μαρτυρεῖσθαι means in respect
of. See reff. and Moulton and Milligan,
Expositor, vii., vii., 562.
It is characteristic of the sanity οἱ
apostolic Christianity that as typical ex-
amples of ‘good works,” St. Paul in-
stances the discharge of commonplace
duties, ‘‘the daily round, the common
task”. For ἔργα καλά see on chap, iii. 1.
εἰ ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν: As has been just
rIo—tIlI.
εἰ παντὶ "ἔργῳ " ἀγαθῷ * ἐπηκολούθησεν.
Ἐ παραιτοῦ: ὅταν γὰρ ἢ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
131
II. νεωτέρας δὲ χήρας eSeer Tim:
ll. 10,
kataotpnvidswaw! τοῦ Χριστοῦ, γαμεῖν f Josh. xiv.
14.
See1 Tim.
Ν ξ
iv. 7. h Here only, not LXX.
1So NCDKL; καταστρηνιάσουσιν AFGP, 31.
explained, the εἰ is not so much depen-
dent on καταλεγέσθω as explanatory of
ἐν ἔργοις kad. papt. The rendering of
the Vulg., d, f, g, Amb., filios educavit,
is better than that of m™!, nutrivit, or
Ambrst. enuivivit. It is not child-birth
so much as the “ Christianly and virtu-
ously bringing up of children,” her own
or those entrusted to her charge, that St.
Paul has in his mind. Tert. de Virg. vel.
9, alluding to this passage, says, ‘‘ Non
tantum univirae, id est nuptae, aliquando
eliguntur, sed et matres et quidem edu-
catrices filiorum, scilicet ut experimentis
omnium affectuum structae facile norint
ceteras et consilio et solatio iuvare, etiut
nihilominus ea decucurrerint, per quae
femina probari potest”. The later Church
widows, among other duties, had the
care of the Church orphans (cf, Hermas
aero viii.; Lucian, de morte Peregrini,
12).
ἐξενοδόχησεν : Hospitality is a virtue
especially demanded in a condition of
society in which there is much going to
and fro, and no satisfactory hotel ac-
commodation. The episcopus must be
φιλόξενος (iii. 2, where see note).
el ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν: If the strangers
were also “saints,’?’ members of the
Christian Society, they would naturally
receive special attention. The mistress
of the house would act as servant of the
servants of God (cf. Gen. xviii. 6; 1 Sam.
xxv. 41). Unless we assume the un-
historical character of St. John’s Gospel,
it is natural to suppose that the story
told in John xiii. 5-14, and the Master’s
command to do as He had done, was
known to St. Paul and Timothy. The
absence of an article before πόδας ‘‘is
due to assimilation to aylwv” (Blass,
Grammar, p. 151, note 2).
εἰ παντὶ---ἐὺπηκολούθησεν cuts short
any further enumeration of details, if
in short, she has devoted herself to good
works of every kind. There is an exact
parallel to this use of ἐπακολουθέω in Josh.
xiv. 14, 86 τὸ αὐτὸν [Caleb] ἐπακολου-
θῆσαι τῷ προστάγματι Κυρίου θεοῦ ἸΙσ-
ραήλ. The word also means to “ check”
or ‘‘ verify”? anaccount. In Mark xvi. 20,
“the signs ‘endorse’ the word’? (Moul-
ton and Milligan, Expositor, vii., vii. 376).
So here it may connote sympathy with,
and interest in, good works, without
actual personal labour in them.
Ver. 11. There are two main factors
in the interpretation of this verse: (1) a
general Church regulation—not laid
down by St. Paul but found in existence
by him—that a widow in receipt of
relief should be ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή; and
(2) his determination to make provision
that no scandal should arise from broken
vows. The notion was that there was
a marriage tie between Christ and the
Church widow. This would be her first
faith, her earliest and still valid plighted
troth. Cf. Rev. ii. 4, τὴν ἀγάπην cov
τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες (οὗ the Church at
Ephesus).
vewtépas may be rendered positively,
young.
παραιτοῦ : reject. This verb is used
of ‘profane and old wives’ fables” (iv.
7), of ‘‘foolish and ignorant question-
ings” (2 Tim. ii. 23), of ‘‘a man that is
heretical” (Tit. ili. 10); so that, at first
sight, it seems a harsh term to use in
reference to ‘young widows’’. But the
harshness is explained when we remem-
ber that St. Paul is speaking, not of the
widows in themselves, but as applicants
for admission to the roll of specially
privileged Church widows. Ina Church
still immature as to its organisation and
morale the authorities would be only
courting disaster were they to assume
the control of young widows, a class
whose condition gave them independ-
ence in the heathen society around them.
καταστρηνιάσωσιν: Cum enim
luxuriatae fuerint [in deliciis egerint,
τὴ 101] in Christo (Vulg.).
The word denotes the particular char-
acter of their restiveness. It was under-
stood with this sexual reference in Pseud.
Ignat. ad Antioch. τι, at χῆραι μὴ
σπαταλάτωσαν, ἵνα μὴ καταστρηνιάσωσι
τοῦ λόγου. στρῆνος (over-strength),
wantonness or luxury occurs Rev. xviii.
3; στρηνιάω, Rev. xviii. 7, 9, to wax
wanton, live wantonly, or luxuriously,
The preposition κατά, with the genitive,
has the sense against, of opposition, as
in καταβραβεύω, καταγελάω, καταδικάζω,
κατακαυχάομαι, κατακρίνω, etc.
Χ32
Mark vii. θέλουσιν, 12.
9, Luke
Vii. 30,
Gal. ii. 21,
iii. 15,
Heb. x.28.
k Acts xxiv.
26, Col. iv. 3, Philem. 22.
xix. 13, Heb. xi. 37.
For ὅταν with the subjunctive or in-
dicative, see Winer-Moulton, Grammar,
p- 388. The subjunctive, as in the text, is
the normally correct way of expressing a
contemplated contingency.
τοῦ Χριστοῦ: Here only in the Pas-
torals.
γαμεῖν θέλουσι: θέλειν has here an
emphatic sense, as in John vil. 17; and
its association here supports the view
that it ‘‘ designates the will which pro-
deeds from inclination,’ as contrasted
with βούλομαι, ‘‘the will which follows
deliberation”? (Thayer’s Grimm, s.v.).
γαμεῖν is used of the woman also, ver.
14, Mark x. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 28, 34.
Ver. 12. ἔχουσαι κρίμα: deserving
censure. There is no special force in
ἔχουσαι, as Ell. explains, ““ bearing about
with them a judgment, viz., that they
broke their first faith”. This seems
forced and unnatural. ἔχειν κρίμα is
correlative to λαμβάνεσθαι κρίμα (Mark
xii. 40; Luke xx. 47; Rom. xiii. 2; Jas.
iii, 1). They have condemnation be-
cause, etc., habentes damnationem quia
(Vulg. m). κρίμα of course by itself
means judgment ; but where the context,
as here, implies that the judgment is a
sentence of guiltiness, it is reasonable so
to translate it.
τὴν πρώτην πίστιν: This has been
already explained. On the use of πρῶτος
for πρότερος see Blass, Gram. p. 34.
ὁ Ἢ βάν. Νὰ annulled, irritam fecerunt
(Vulg. m).
Ver. 13. ἅμα δὲ καί is Pauline. See
reff.
It is best to assume an omission of
elvat, not necessarily through corruption
of the text, as Blass supposes (Gram. p.
247). On the example cited by Winer-
Moulton, Gram. p. 437 from Plato,
Euthyd. p. 276 ὃ, ot ἀμαθεῖς ἄρα σοφοὶ
μανθάνουσιν, and Dio. Chrys. lv. 558,
Field notes, ‘“‘ Although the reading in
Plato may be doubtful, there is no doubt
of the agreement of St. Paul’s construc-
tion with later usage”’. Field adds two
from St. Chrysostom T. vii. p. 699 a: τί
οὖν; ἂν παλαιστὴς pavOdvys ; T. ix. p.
259 δ: εἰ ἰατρὸς μέλλοις μανθάνειν. He
notes that the correlative phraseology,
Βιδάξαι (or διδάξασθαι) τινὰ τεκτάνα,
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
1 Matt. xii. 36, xx. 3, 6, Tit. i. 12, Jas. ii. 20, 2 Pet. i. 8.
n Here only, N.T.; see note.
Vv.
ἔχουσαι κρίμα ὅτι τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ' ἠθέτησαν.
13. " ἅμα " δὲ " καὶ ' ἀργαὶ μανθάνουσιν, ™ περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας,
οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀργαὶ ἀλλὰ καὶ " φλύαροι καὶ ° περίεργοι, λαλοῦσαι 9 τὰ
m Acts
o Not LXX;; see note. Pilitsierx.
χαλκέα, ἱππέα, ῥήτορα, is to be found in
the best writers.
It is impossible to connect μανθ.
meptepx. as Vulg., discunt circuire domos ;
for, as Alf. says, “μανθάνω with a parti-
ciple always means to be aware of, take
notice of, the act implied in the verb ”’,
Here, 4.5.» the meaning would be “ they
learn that they are going about,”’ which is
absurd. Bengel’s view, that μανθάνουσι
is to be taken absolutely, is equally im-
possible: ‘‘ being idle, they are learners,”’
the nature of the things they learn to be
inferred from the way they spend their
time. Von Soden connects pavé. with
τὰ μὴ δέοντα ; suggesting that they learnt
in the houses referred to in 2 Tim. iii. 6
what was taught there (ἃ μὴ δεῖ, Tit. i.
II).
περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας: These last
words may possibly refer to the house to
house visitation, going about (R.V.),
which might be part of the necessary
duty of the Church widows; but which
would be a source of temptation to young
women, and would degenerate into
wandering (A.V.).
οὐ μόνον δὲ . . . ἀλλὰ καί is a Pauline
use of constant occurrence. See Rom.
Ve 3; ΤΣ τς 23; 1X. 10; 2: Οὐχ γι}. 7,
viii. 19; Phil. ii. 27 [od . . . δὲ μόνον];
2 Tim. iv. 8 Also in Acts xix. 27, 3
Macc. iii, 23.
ἀργαί, φλύαροι, περίεργοι: A series
of natural causes and consequences.
The social intercourse of idle people is
naturally characterised by silly chatter
which does not merely affect the under-
standing of those who indulge in it, but
leads them on to mischievous interfer-
ence in other people’s affairs.
φλύαροι:: φλυαρεῖν is found in 3 John
10, prating. φλύαρος is an epithet ot
φιλοσοφία in 4 Macc. v. 10; and in
Prov. xxiii. 29 (Ne) φλναρίαι ὁμιλίαι
ἐνφιλόνικοι are among the consequences
of excessive wine-drinking.
περίεργοι: See 2 Thess. iii. 11, μηδὲν
ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους.
In Acts xix. 19 τὰ περίεργα, curious arts,
means the arts of those who are curious
about, and pry into, matters concealed
from human knowledge, impertinent tq
man’s lawful needs.
12—16.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
133
Pur Ῥδέοντα. 14. “ βούλομαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαμεῖν, * τεκνογονεῖν, 4 Seer Tim.
δι ii. 8.
" οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, μηδεμίαν “ἀφορμὴν * διδόναι τῷ ° ἀντικειμένῳ ™ λοι- τ Here only,
not LXX
δορίας *xdpw- 15. ἤδη γάρ τινες 7 ἐξετράπησαν 1 ὀπίσω τοῦ Σατανᾶ: οὔ. τ Tim:
Ε A ll. 15.
16. εἴ τις 5 πιστὴ ἔχει χήρας * ἐπαρκείτω 3 αὐταῖς, καὶ μὴ " βαρείσθω s Hereonly,
ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἵνα ταῖς " ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέσῃ.
2 Cor. xi. 12, Gal. v. 13. u 2 Cor. v. 12.
9, Phil. i. 28. w I Pet. iii. 9 only, N.T.
5, 11, John iii. 12, Jude 16.
not LXX.
t Luke xi.
54, Rom.
vii. 8, 11,
v2 Thess. ii. 4, cf. Luke xiii. 17, xxi. 15, 1 Cor. xvi.
x Luke vii. 47, Gal. iii. 19, Eph. iii. 1, 14, Tit. i.
y See 1 Tim. i. 6.
z See ver. ro. a See note. b See ver. 3.
1 ἐξετράπ. τινες AFerG, g.
2Ins. πιστὸς ἢ DKL, d, fuld., syrr.
3So CDKLP; ἐπαρκείσθω SA[FG], 17.
λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα expresses the
positively mischievous activity of the
φλύαροι, as περίεργοι. Compare Tit.
i, τι, διδάσκοντες i μὴ δεῖ. In both
passages μή is expressive of the impro-
priety, in the writer’s opinion, of whatever
might conceivably be spoken and taught;
whereas τὰ οὐ δέοντα would express
the notion that certain specific improper
things had, as a matter of fact, been
> Ag See Winer-Moulton, Gram. p.
3.
Ver. 14. βούλομαι οὖν: See note on
r Tim. ii. 8.
vewrépas: The insertion of χήρας be-
fore νεωτέρας in about 30 cursives, Chrys.
Theodoret, John Damasc., Jerome, is a
correct gloss (so R.V.). The whole
context deals with widows, not with
women in general, as A.V. and von
Soden.
γαμεῖν : There is nothing really incon-
sistent between this deliberate injunc-
tion that young widows should marry
again, and the counsel in 1 Cor. vii. 8,
that widows should remain unmarried.
The widows here spoken of would come
under the class of those who “have not
continency’’; not to mention that the
whole world-position of the Church had
altered considerably since St. Paul had
written 1 Cor.
οἰκοδεσποτεῖν : well rendered in Vulg.,
matres-familias esse. The verb is only
found here in the Greek Bible, but oixo-
δεσπότης frequently occurs in the Synop-
tists. It is the equivalent of οἰκουργούς,
Tit. ii. 5.
τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ : The singular (see ref.)
does not refer to Satan, but is used gene-
rically for human adversaries. The
plural is more usual, as in the other reff.
Cf. ὃ ἐξ ἐναντίας, Tit. ii. 8.
λοιδορίας χάριν is connected of course
with ἀφορμήν, not with βούλομαι, as
Mack suggests, “1 will . . . on account
of the reproach which might otherwise
come on the Church’”’.
For the sentiment cf. vi. 1, Tit. ii. 5, 8,
I Peter ii. 12, iii, 16. In all these places
the responsibility of guarding against
scandal is laid on the members of the
Church generally, not specially on the
Church rulers. The construction of
χάριν here is not quite the same as in
Gal. iii. το, Tit. i. rr, Jude 16. Here it
is an appendage to the sentence, expla-
natory of ἀφορμὴν διδόναι.
Ver. 15. τινες: See note on i. 3.
ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ Σ.: This is a
pregnant phrase, meaning They have
turned out of the way [of life and light]
and have followed after Satan”’, “The
prepositional use of ὀπίσω, which is
foreign to profane writers, takes its origin
from the LXX (Hebr. my)” (Blass,
Gram. p. 129). The primary phrase is
ἔρχεσθαι [also ἀκολουθεῖν or πορεύεσθαι)
ὀπίσω τινός. For ὀπίσω in an unfavour-
able sense cf. Luke xxi. 8, John xii. 19,
Acts v. 37, xx. 30, 2 Peter ii. 10, Jude 7,
Rev. xiii. 3. The phrase, no doubt, refers
to something worse than a second mar-
riage.
Ver. 16. εἴ τις πιστή: This is one of
those difficulties that prove the bona fide
character of the letter. We may explain
it in either of two ways: (1) It not un-
frequently happens that the language in
which we express a general statement is
unconsciously coloured by a particular
instance of which we are thinking at the
moment. St. Paul has some definite
case in his mind, of a Christian woman
who had a widow depending on her, of
whose support she wishes the Church to
relieve her, or (2) the verse may be an
afterthought to avoid the possibility of
the ruling given in vv. 4, 7, 8 being sup-
posed to refer to men only. Von Soden
explains it by the independent position
134
c See1 Tim.
iii. 4.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A ν.
17. Οἱ “καλῶς “ προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς “ ἀξιού-
d Heb. iii. 3, σθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ " κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ - 18. ᾿ λέγει
Χ. 29.
e See note —
on 1 Tim. iv. 10.
of married women indicated in ver. 14
and Tit. ii. 5. The phrase ἔχει χήρας
may be intended to include dependent
widowed relatives, aunts or cousins, who
could not be called προγόνοι.
βαρείσθω. Compare the use of βάρος,
t Thess. ii, 6, δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ;
οὗ ἐπιβαρέω, τ Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii.
8: ἐτα τ αν ΣΝ 2 Cor. xii. 16; ἀβαρής,
2 Cor. xi.9: ᾿
This verse proves that the κατάλογος
of widows here in view was primarily at
least for poor relief.
Vv. 17-25. What I have been saying
about the support of widows reminds me
of another question of Church finance:
the payment of presbyters. Equity and
scriptural principles suggest that they
should be remunerated in proportion to
their usefulness. You are the judge of
the presbyters; in the discharge of this
office be cautious in accusing, and bold
in rebuking. I adjure you to be im-
partial. Do not absolve without deli-
berate consideration. A lax disciplinarian
is partner in the guilt of those whom he
encourages to sin. Keep yourself pure.
I do not mean this in the ascetic sense;
on the contrary, your continual delicacy
demands a stimulant. But, to resume
about your duties as a judge, you need
not distress yourself by misgivings; you
will find that your judgments about men, ,
even when only instinctive, are generally
correct.
Ver. 17. The natural and obvious
meaning of the verse is that while all
presbyters discharge administrative func-
tions, well or indifferently, they are not
all engaged in preaching and teaching.
We distinguish then in this passage
three grades of presbyters: (1) ordinary
presbyters with a living wage; (2) eff-
cient presbyters (κοπιῶντες, I Thess. v.
12); (3) presbyters who were also
preachers and teachers. Cf. Cyprian
(Epist. 29), presbyteri doctores. It must
be added that Hort rejects the distinction
a: (2) and (3) (Christian Ecclesia,
. 196).
ὴ ὁ διδάσκων and ὁ παρακαλῶν were
possessors of distinct and recognised
charismata (Rom, xii. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 8,
28, 29, xiv. 6).
προεστῶτες : See note on 1 Tim. iii. 4.
διπλῆς τιμῆς: Remuneration is a
better rendering of τιμή than pay, as
f Rom. ix. 17, x. 11, οὕ. Mark xv. 28.
less directly expressive of merely mone-
tary reward. Liddon suggests the
rendering honorarium. On the one
hand, διπλῆς certainly warrants us
in concluding that presbyters that
ruled well were better paid than those
that performed their duties perfunctorily.
Bengel justifies the better pay given to
those that ‘‘ laboured in the word, etc.,”
on the ground that persons so fully oc-
cupied would have less time to earn their
livelihood in secular occupations. On
the other hand, we must not press the
term double too strictly (cf. Rev. xviii.
6, διπλώσατε τὰ διπλᾶ). πλείονος
τιμῆς (Theod.) is nearer the meaning
than “double that of the widows, or of
the deacons, or simply, liberal support”
(Chrys.). The phrase is based, according
to Grotius, on Deut. xxi. 17; in the
division of an inheritance the first-born
received two shares, cf. 2 Kings ii. 9.
The custom of setting a double share of
provisions before presbyters at the love
feasts (Constt. Ap. ii. 28) must have
been, as De Wette says, based on a mis-
understanding of this passage.
ἀξιούσθωσαν implies that what they
were deemed worthy of they received.
κοπιῶντες: There is no special stress
to be laid on this, as though some
preachers and teachers worked harder in
the exercise of their gift than others.
λόγῳ: The omission of the article,
characteristic of the Pastorals, obscures
the reference here to the constant phrase
speak, or preach the word, or the word
of God.
διδασκαλίᾳ : See note on chap. i. ro.
Ver. 18. If this verse is read without
critical prejudice, it implies that in the
writer’s judgment a quotation from Deut.
xxv. 4 and the Saying, ἄξιος, «.7.A.
might be coordinated as ἡ γραφή; just
as in Mark vii. 10, Acts i. 20, and Heb. i.
10, two O.T. quotations are coupled by
ἃ καί. For this formula of quotation, in
addition to the reff., see John xix. 37;
ΚΟΥ ἦν, 85» χε 25) δ᾽. 10... 30% Jas; ii.
23: Ὁ: 05s
The question then arises, Is ἄξιος,
«.T.A. a proverbial saying carelessly or
mistakenly quoted by St. Paul as 4
γραφήν or, Was St. Paul familiar with
its presence in a written document, an
early gospel, the subject of which was so
sacred as to entitle it to be called ἡ
17—19.
ΠΡῸΣ TIMO@EON A
135
γὰρ “ἡ γραφή, Body ἀλοῶντα οὐ " φιμώσεις 3 - καὶ, “Aftos ὁ ἐργάτης g Οὐ. Matt.
xx:
τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
iv. 35,1 Pet. ii. 15.
h John xviii. 29, Tit. i. 6, not LXX.
ii. 12,
19. κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου " κατηγορίαν ph‘ παρα- 34, Mark
1. 25, iv.
39, Luke
i Acts xxii. 18
Ἰοὺ φιμ. βοῦν ado. ACP, 17, 37, 80, five others, f, vg., boh., syrpesh, arm.
γραφή The question has been pre-
judged by supposed necessary limitations
as to the earliest possible date for a
gospel; and many have thought it safest
to adopt Stier’s statement that ἄξιος,
κιτιλ. was a common proverb made use
of both by our Lord (Luke x. 7; Matt. x.
10), and by St. Paul. In that case, it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that St.
Paul forgot that it was not ἣ γραφή; for
here it is not natural to take ἄξιος, x.T.X.,
as a supplementary or confirmatory
statement by the writer in the words of
a well-known proverb. The proverb, it
it be such, is rather the second item in
ἡ γραφή, just as in 2 Tim. ii. 19, the
‘seal’? consists of (a2) ‘The Lord
knoweth them that are his,” and (6)
‘* Let every one that nameth,” etc. Our
Lord no doubt employed proverbs that
were current in His time, e.g., Luke iv.
23, John iv. 37. In both these cases
He intimates that He is doing so; but
He does not do so in Matt. x. 10, or Luke
x. 7. Besides, while the variation here be-
tween Matt. (τῆς τροφῆς) and Luke (τοῦ
μισθοῦ) is of the same degree as in other
cases of varying reports of Sayings from
Q common to Matthew and Luke, yet
such variation in wording is not likely in
the case of a well-known proverb. We
may add that it is difficult to know to
what ruling of Christ reference is made
in τ Cor. ix. 14 if it be not this Saying.
Critical opinion has recently grown in-
clined to believe that much of the gospel
material which underlies the Synoptists
was put into writing before our Lord’s
earthly ministry closed. (See Sanday,
The Life of Christ in Recent Research,
p- 172.) The only question, therefore, is
not, Could St. Paul have read the Evan-
gelic narrative? but, Could he have co-
ordinated a gospel document with the
written oracles of God, venerated by
‘every Hebrew as having a sanctity all
their own? The question cannot be
considered apart from what we know to
have been St. Paul’s conception of the
person of Jesus Christ. We may readily
grant that it would be a surprising thing
if St. Paul thought of the writings of
any contemporary apostle as ‘‘ Scripture,”
as 2 Pet. iii. 16 does; but since he be-
lieved that Christ was “the end of the
Law” (Rom, x. 4), it would be surprising
were he not to have esteemed His words
to be at least as authoritative as the
Law which He superseded.
The order in Deut. xxv. 4 is od up.
βοῦν ado. The same text is quoted, 1
Cor. ix. 9 in the form od κημώσεις βοῦν
ἀλο. (B*D*FG). St. Paul’s treatment
of the command, as pointing to an analogy
in the life of human beings, does not need
any defence. Our just repudiation of the
spirit in which he asks in 1 Cor., “15 it
for the oxen that God careth?’’ must
not blind us to the large element of truth
in his answer, “‘ Yea, for our sake it was
written’’.
Ver. 19. The mention of καλῶς
προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι, and of what
was due to them, naturally suggests by
contrast the consideration of unsatisfac-
tory presbyters. Yet even these were to
be protected against the possibility of
arbitrary dismissal. They were to have
a fair trial in accordance with the pro-
visions of the Old Law, Deut. xix. 15
(see also Deut. xvii. 6, Num. |xxxv. 30.
This requirement of two or three wit-
nesses is used allegorically in 2 Cor. xiii.
1. Cf. John viii. 17, Heb. x. 28.) It has
been asked, Why should this, the or-
dinary rule, be mentioned at all? The
solution is to be found in a consideration
of the private, unofficial, character of the
Christian Church when this epistle was
written. The Church was altogether a
voluntary society, unrecognised by the
state. The crimes of which its governors
could take cognisance were spiritual; or
if they were such as were punishable by
the ordinary state law, the Church was
concerned only with the spiritual and
moral aspect of them, that is to say, so
far as they affected Church life. There
were then no spiritual courts, in the
later sense of the term. No Church
officer could enforce any but spiritual
punishments. In these circumstances,
the observance of legal regulations would
not be a matter of necessity. Indeed a
superintendent who was jealous for the
purity of the Church might feel himself
justified in acting even on suspicion,
when the question arose as to the dis-
missal of a presbyter.
ἐκτὸς et μή: This phrase arises from a
126
k 1 Cor. xiv- δέχου, ἢ ἐκτὸς ‘ei
5, XV. 2.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
Xu ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων.
Υ.
20. τοὺς 2
1 Acts xix. ἁμαρτάνοντας | ἐνώπιον ' πάντων ἔλεγχε, ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον
10, ΧΧΨΗ, ὦ
14,:1V. 1:
nSee1Tim.
3.
οἱ Pet. i. 1, ii. 6, 9, 2 John i. 13.
ii, τά. Deki.) ii 8.
21. ™Atapaptupopat " ἐνώπιον " τοῦ " Θεοῦ καὶ ὃ Χριστοῦ
Ιησοῦ ὁ καὶ τῶν " ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων, ἵνα ταῦτα Ῥ φυλάξῃς “ χωρὶς
I p Matt. xix. 20(= Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21), Luke xi. 28, John
x1i. 47, Acts vii. 53, Xvi. 4, xxi. 24, Rom. ii. 26, Gal. vi. 13, 1 Tim. vi. 20, 2 Tim. i. 14. i
q Phil.
1Om. ἐκτὸς-μαρτύρων Latin MSS. known to Jerome, also apparently Cyp. and
Ambrst.
2 Ins. δὲ AD*, ἃ, f, g, autem (not τ), go.; ins. δὲ after dpapt. FG.
3 Ins. Κυρίου DcKLP, go., syrr.
blend of εἰ μή and ἐκτὸς εἰ. Examples of
its use are cited from Lucian. Alford
notes that similar ‘‘ pleonastic expres-
sions such as χωρὶς εἰ, or εἰ py, are
found in later writers such as Plutarch,
Dio Cassius, etc.”. Deissmann cites an
instructive example for its use in the
Cilician Paul from an inscription of Mops-
uestia in Cilicia of the Imperial period
(Bible Studies, trans. p. 118). See reff.
ἐπὶ... μαρτύρων: This seems an
abbreviation for ἐπὶ στόματος papt.
So RV. Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 1, Hebr.
TY YH “2Y . It is a different use from
ἐπὶ in the sense of before (a judge),
Mark xiii. 9, Acts xxv. 9, 10. See Blass,
Gram. p. 137.
Ver. 20. τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας: It
cannot be certainly determined whether
this refers to offending presbyters only or
to sinners in general. In favour of the
first alternative, is the consideration that
it seems to be a suitable conclusion to
ver. 19; and the vehemence of the ad-
juration in ver. 21 receives thus a justifica-
tion. It demands greater moral courage
to deal judicially with subordinate offi-
cials than with the rank and file of a
society.
On the other hand, the sequence of
thought in these concluding verses of the
chapter is not formal and deliberate. ΑἹ-
though it has been shown above that wv.
17-25 form one section, marked by one
prominent topic, the relation of Timothy
to presbyters, it cannot be maintained
that the connexion is indisputably obvious;
and the use of the present participle sug-
gests that habitual sinners are under dis-
cussion. One is reluctant to suppose
that such men would be found amongst
the presbyters of the Church.
ἐνώπιον πάντων: At first sight this
seems opposed to the directions given by
our Lord, Matt. xviii. 15, ‘‘Shew him
4 Ἴησ. Χριστ. DCF KLP, go., syrr., arm.
his fault between thee and him alone”;
but the cases are quite different: Christ
is there speaking of the mutual relations
of one Christian with another, as brothers
in the household of God; here St. Paul
is giving directions to a father in God, a
Christian ruler, as in 2 Tim. iv. 2, Tit. i.
13, ii, 15. Moreover, as Ell. points
out, Christ is speaking of checking the
beginning of a sintul state, St. Paul is
speaking of persistent sinners, ὦ
ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ, κιτ.λ.: Cf. Deut.
xiii. II.
Ver. 21. διαμαρτύρομαι: It is easy to
see that St. Paul had not perfect confi-
dence in the moral courage of Timothy.
He interjects similar adjurations, vi. 13,
2 Tim. iv.1. In x Thess. iv. 6 we can
understand διεμαρτυράμεθα to mean that
purity had been the subject of a strong
adjuration addressed by the apostle to
his converts.
τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων: The epithet
elect has probably the same force as
holy in our common phrase, The holy
angels. Compare the remarkable par-
allel, cited by Otto and Krebs, from
Josephus, B. ζ΄. ii. 16, 4, μαρτύρομαι δὲ
ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμῶν τὰ ἅγια Kal τοὺς ἱεροὺς
ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρίδα τὴν
κοινήν, and Testament of Levi, xix. 3,
μάρτυς ἐστι κύριος, κ. μάρτυρες of
ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, κ. μάρτυρες ὑμεῖς. The
references to angels in St. Paul’s
speeches and letters suggest that he had
an unquestioning belief in their benefi-
cent ministrations; though he may not
have attached any importance to specu-
lations as to their various grades.
We are safe in saying that the elect
angels are identical with “the angels
which kept their own principality” (Jude
6), ‘‘that did not sin” (2 Pet. ii. 4).
Ellicott follows Bp. Bull in giving
ἐνώπιον a future reference to the Day of
Judgment, when the Lord will be at-
20—22.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A
137
τ προκρίματος, μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ " πρόσκλισιν.: 22. Χεῖρας " ταχέως τ Here only,
no .
μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει, μηδὲ “ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις “ ἀλλοτρίαις " σεαυτὸν 5 Here only,
ii. 2. u 2 Jobn 11.
not LXX.
t 2 Thess.
v Rom. xiv. 4, xv. 20, 2 Cor. x. 15, 16, Heb. ix. 25.
1So NFGK, 47**, 67**, many others, d, f, δ, τη vg.; πρόσκλησιν ADLP, 17, 31,
37, 47", 80, more than fifty-four others.
tended by ‘ten thousands of His holy
ones’’ (Jude 14). But this seems an eva-
sion due to modern prejudice. ἐνώπιον
implies that the solemnity of the charge
or adjuration is heightened by its being
uttered in the actual presence of God,
Christ, and the angels. Perhaps one
may venture to suppose that these are
thought of as in three varying degrees
of remoteness from human beings, with
our present powers of perception. God
the Father, though indeed ‘‘ He is not far
from each one of us,” ‘‘ dwells in light
unapproachable”’ ; Christ Jesus, though
in one sense He dwells in us and we in
Him, is for the most part thought of as
having His special presence at the right
hand of the Majesty in the heavens; but
the angels, though spiritual beings, are
akin to ourselves, creatures as we are,
powers with whom we are in immedi-
ate and almost sensible contact, media
perhaps through which the influences of
the Holy Spirit are communicated to us.
ταῦτα refers to all the preceding dis-
ciplinary instructions.
προκρίματος : dislike, praejudicium.
πρόσκλισιν : partiality (nihil faciens
in aliam partem declinando, Vulg.).
Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 21, has the phrase
κατὰ προσκλίσεις. The reading πρόσ-
κλησιν is almost certainly due to itacism.
It could only mean “ by invitation, i.e.,
the invitation or summons of those who
seek to draw you over to their side’
(Thayer’s Grimm).
Ver. 22. Our best guide to the meaning
of χεῖρας... ἐπιτίθει is the context,
and more especially the following clause,
μηδὲ... ἀλλοτρίαις. μηδέ constantly
introduces an extension or development
of what has immediately preceded; it
never begins a new topic. Now the in-
junction Be not partaker of other men’s
sins is certainly connected with the
disciplinary rebuke of sin, and refers of
course to definite acts of sin committed
in the past, as well as to their conse-
quences or continuation. The whole
procedure is outlined: we have the accu-
sation in ver. 19, the conviction and sen-
tence in ver. 20, and—in the true Pauline
spirit—repentance and reconciliation in
this verse; and the topic of ministerial
treatment of sin is resumed and continued
in ver. 24 54. Wecan hardly doubt that
St. Paul had in his mind Lev, xix. 17,
“Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour
and not bear sin because of him,” καὶ οὐ
λήμψῃ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίαν. To witness
in silence an act of wrong-doing is to
connive at it. If this is true in the
case of private persons, how much more
serious an offence is it in the case of
those to whom government is committed?
See 2 John 11, 6 λέγων yap αὐτῷ χαίρειν
κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονη-
ροῖς.
χεῖρας. .. ἐπιτίθει is then best re-
ferred to imposition ot hands on recon-
ciled offenders, on their re-admission to
Church communion. Eusebius (H. E,
vii. 2), speaking of reconciled heretics,
says, ‘‘The ancient custom prevailed
with regard to such that they should
receive only the laying on of hands with
prayers,” μόνῃ χρῆσθαι τῇ διὰ χειρῶν
ἐπιθέσεως εὐχῇ. See Council of Nicea,
can. 8, according to one explanation
of χειροθετουμένους, and Council of
Arles, can. 8.
This was used in the case of penitents
generally. So Pope Stephen (ap. Cy-
prian, Ef. 74), “ Si qui ergo a quacunque
haeresi venient ad vos, nihil innovetur
nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illis
imponatur in paenitentiam’’. See Bing-
ham, Antiquities, xviii. 2, 1, where the
15th Canon of the Council of Agde (a.p.
506) is cited: ‘ Poenitentes tempore quo
poenitentiam petunt, impositionem ma-
nuum et cilicium super caput a sacerdote
consequantur.” The antiquity of the
custom may be argued from the consider-
ation that imposition of hands was so
rominent a feature in ordination, that it
is not likely that its use would have been
extended to anything else if such exten-
sion could not have claimed unquestioned
antiquity in its favour. If the explana-
tion of this verse given above—which is
that of Hammond, De Wette, Ellicott,
and Hort—be accepted, we have here the
first distinct allusion to the custom of
receiving back penitents by imposition of
han
138
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
Vv.
w2 ai xi. ἁγνὸν “ τήρει. 23. μηκέτι " ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ ” χρῶ διὰ
9, Jas. i. : a
27, of. x Tov ᾿ἀτόμαχον" καὶ τὰς "πυκνάς σου ἣ ἀσθενείας. 24. τινῶν
im. ,
14, 2 Tim. ἀνθρώπων αἱ ἁμαρτίαι “ πρόδηλοί εἰσιν, “mpodyouca: eis κρίσιν,
iv. 7.
x Here only
N.T., Dan. i. 12, LXX. y Here only (N.T.) of food. z Here only, not LXX. a Here
only, N.T., as adj. b Matt. viii. 17, Luke v. 15, viii. 2, xiii. 11, 12, John v. 5, xi. 4, Acts XXviii. 9,
ἃ I me ii. 3, Gal. iv. 13. c ae 24, 25, Heb. vii. 14, Judith viii. 29, 2 Macc. iii. 17, xiv. 39.
x Tim. i. 18.
1Ins. cov DcFGKL, f, g, vg., go., sah.,
ἃ; τ:
Timothy is bidden to restrain by deli-
berate prudence the impulses of mere
pity. A hasty reconciliation tempts the
offender to suppose that his offence can-
not have been so very serious after all;
and smoothes the way to a repetition of
the sin. ‘*Good-natured easy men’
cannot escape responsibility for the dis-
astrous consequences of their lax admini-
stration of the law. They have a share
in the sins of those whom they have
encouraged to sin. Those who give
letters of recommendation with too great
facility fall under the apostolic condem-
nation.
On the other hand, the ancient com-
mentators —Chrys., Theod., Theoph.,
Oecumen.—refer χεῖρας ἐπιτίθει to hasty
ordinations; and in support of this,
the generally adopted view, it must be
granted that ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν undoubtedly
refers to ordination in iv. 14, 2 Tim. i. 6.
If we assume the same reference here,
the intention of the warning would be
that Timothy will best avoid clerical
scandals by being cautious at the outset
as to the character of those whom he
ordains. The clause in iii. 10, καὶ οὗτοι
δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, would, in
this case, have the same reference; and
we should explain ἁμαρτίαι ἀλλότριαι
as possible future sins, for the commis-
sion of which a man’s advancement may
give him facilities, and responsibility for
which attaches, in various degrees of
blameworthiness, to those who have ren-
dered it possible for him to commit them.
σεαυτόν is emphatic, repeating in brief
the warning of the previous clause.
ayvév: The context demands that the
meaning should not be chaste (castum
Vulg.), as in Tit. ii. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 2; but
pure in the sense of upright, honourable,
as in 2 Cor. vii. 11, Phil. iv. 8, Jas. iii. 17.
Net 23. μηκέτι ὑδροπότει: An ade-
quate explanation of this seemingly ir-
relevant direction is that since there is
a certain degree of ambiguity in ayvés,
St. Paul thought it necessary to guard
against any possible misunderstanding
boh., syrr,, arm.; om. σον SAD*P, 17,
of Keep thyself pure: “1 do not mean
you to practice a rigid asceticism; on
the contrary, I think that you are likely
‘to injure your health by your complete
abstinence from wine; so, be no longer
a water-drinker, etc.’ So Hort, who
thinks that this is “ not merely a sanitary
but quite as much a moral precept”
(Fudaistic Christianity, p. 144). This
explanation is preferable to that of Paley
who regards this as an example of “the
negligence of real correspondence...
when a man writes as he remembers:
when he puts down an article that occurs
the moment it occurs, lest he should
afterwards forget it’? (Horae Paulinae).
Similarly Calvin suggested that σεαυτὸν
-π-ἀσθενείας was a marginal note by
St. Paul himself. Alford’s view has
not much to commend it, viz., that
Timothy’s weakness of character was
connected with his constant ill health,
and that St. Paul hoped to brace his
deputy’s will by a tonic.
For this position of μηκέτι cf. Mark
ix. 25, xi. 14, Luke viii. 49, John v. 14,
viii. 11, Rom. xiv. 13, Eph. iv. 28; and
see note on chap. iv. 14.
διὰ τὸ στόμαχον: Wetstein’s happy
quotation from Libanius, Epist. 1578
must not be omitted: πέπτωκε καὶ ἡμῖν
ὁ στόμαχος ταῖς συνεχέσιν ὑδροποσίαις.
Ver. 24. The connexion of this general
statement is especially with ver. 22. The
solemn warning against the awful conse-
quences of an ill-considered moral judg-
ment on those condemned was calculated
to overwhelm a weak man with anxiety.
Here the apostle assures Timothy that in
actual practical experience the moral diag-
nosis of men’s characters is not so per-
plexing as might be supposed anteced-
ently. The exegesis of προάγουσαι and
ἐπακολουθοῦσιν depends on the view we
take of κρίσις ; vis., whether it refers to
a judgment passed by man in this world,
or to the final doom pronounced by God
in the next. κρίσις is used of such a
judgment as man may pass, in John viii.
16, 2 Peter ii, 11, Jude 9; though the
23—25. ΥἼ. 1.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
139
τισὶν δὲ καὶ " ἐπακολουθοῦσιν - 25. ᾿ ὡσαύτως ' καὶ τὰ " ἔργα * τὰ Mark xvi.
© καλὰ 2 “ πρόδηλα, καὶ τὰ ἢ ἄλλως ἔχοντα κρυβῆναι οὐ δύνανται."
20, Pet.
ii. a1, cf.
ver. I0.
VI. 1. Ὅσοι εἰσὶν "ὑπὸ "ζυγὸν δοῦλοι τοὺς ἰδίους " δεσπότας f Seex Tim.
x = ie ii. 9.
πάσης τιμῆς ἀξίους " ἡγείσθωσαν, “ ἵνα “wh τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ gSeer Tim.
N.T.
24 (Isa. lii. 5).
lIns. δὲ AFG, f, g, go.
a Ecclus. li. 26, Zech. iii. 9, Jer. xxxiv. (xxvii.) 8, 11.
2,2 Tim. ii. 21, Tit. ii. 9, 1 Pet. ii. 18, 2 Pet. ii. 1.
Aint.
h Hereonly,
b Luke ii. 29, 1 Tim, vi. 1,
c See 1 Tim. i. 12. d Tit. ii. 5, Rom. ii.
3 τὰ καλὰ ἔργα KL.
3 Add ἐστι KL; add εἰσὶ DFGP, 17, 6γ", five others.
480 ADP, 17, 47, 67, more than thirty-five others; δύναται SFGKL.
word is more frequently used of the
Great final Judgment. If, as is generally
allowed, these verses, 24 and 25, are
resumptive of ver. 22, the κρίσις here
indicated is that of the Church ruler,
Timothy in this case, deciding for or
against the admission of men to com-
munion (or to ordination). It is evident
that the final Judgment of God, which
no one can certainly forecast, cannot
help or hinder a decision made in this
life by one man about another. The
meaning, then, of the clause is as fol-
lows: In the case of some men, you
have no hesitation as to your verdict;
their sins are notorious and force you to
an adverse judgment. With regard to
others, your suspicions, your instinctive
feeling of moral disapproval, comes to be
confirmed and justified by subsequent
revelation of sins that had been con-
cealed, This is, in the main, the expla-
nation adopted by Alford. ;
awpdSnror: Not open beforehand (A.V.),
but evident (R.V.), manifesta sunt (Vulg.)
as in Heb. vii. 14 (neut.). The προ is not
indicative of antecedence in time, but of
publicity, as in προεγράφη, Gal. iii. 1.
προάγουσαι: It is best to take this in
a transitive sense, as in Acts xii. 1, xvii.
5, xxv. 26, of bringing a prisoner forth
to trial. Here the object of the verb is
understood out of τινῶν ἀνθρώπων. The
men are in the custody of their sins,
which also testify against them. In the
other case, the witnesses—the sins—do
not appear until the persons on trial
have had sentence pronounced on them.
We supply εἰς κρίσιν after ἐπακολου-
θοῦσιν.
Ver. 25. ὡσαύτως here, as in chap. ii.
9, naturally introduces an antithesis to
what has gone before; and this deter-
mines the meaning of τὰ ἄλλως ἔχοντα ;
not as ἔργα which are not καλά, but as
ἔργα καλά which are not πρόδηλα; and
justifies the R.V. rendering, There are
good works that are evident. The next
clause is parallel to the corresponding
part of ver. 24: Sins and good works
alike cannot be successfully and indefi-
nitely concealed; they follow—are dis-
closed some time or other in justification
of—the κρίσις of men. The literal ren-
dering in R.V. m., The works that are
good are evident, could only be de-
fended by laying emphasis on καλά,
“good in appearance as well as in
reality’; but καλὰ ἔργα is of frequent
occurrence in these epistles without any
such special signification; see on iii. 1;
and this rendering deprives ὡσαύτως of
any force. Von Soden thinks that we
have here a reference to the sayings in
Matt. v. 14-16.
CuapTer VI.—Vv. 1-2. The duty of
Christian slaves to heathen and Christian
masters respectively.
Ver.1. The politico-social problem of
the first ages of Christianity was the
relation of freemen to slaves, just as the
corresponding problem before the Church
in our own day is the relation of the
white to the coloured races. The grand
truth of the brotherhood of man is the
revolutionary fire which Christ came to
cast upon earth. Fire, if it is to minister
to civilisation, must be so controlled as to
be directed. So with the social ethics of
Christianity; the extent to which their
logical consequences are pressed must be
calculated by common sense. One of
the great dangers to the interests of the
Church in early times was the teaching
of the gospel on liberty and equality,
crude and unqualified by consideration of
the other natural social conditions, also
divinely ordered, which Christianity was
called to leaven, not wholly to displace.
The slave problem also meets us in
Eph. vi. 5, Col. iii. 22, Tit. ii. 9, Philem.
I Pet. ii. 18. In each place it is dealt
with consistently, practically, Christianly.
The difficulty in this verse is ὑπὸ
140
e Ps. Ixxvii. ἡ διδασκαλία ἅ βλασφημῆται.
(Ixxviii.)
τι, Wisd.
Xvi. II, 24,
2 Macc.
vi. 13, ix.
26, 4 ᾿
Macc. viii. 17, Acts iv. 9.
ζυγόν. Thecontrast in ver. 2, of δὲ mor.
ἔχ. Seam. seems to prove that a δοῦλος
ὑπὸ ζυγόν is one that belongs to a heathen
master. The R.V. is consistent with
this view, Let as many as are servants
under the yoke. The heathen estimate
of a slave differed in degree, not in kind,
from their estimate of cattle; a Christian
master could not regard his slaves as ὑπὸ
ζυγόν.
τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπότας: The force of
ἴδιος was so much weakened in later
Greek that it is doubtful if it amounts
here to more than αὐτῶν. See on iii. 4.
δεσπότης iS more strictly the correla-
tive of δοῦλος than is κύριος, and is used
in this sense in reff. except Luke ii. 29.
St. Paul has κύριος in his other epistles
(Rom. xiv. 4; Gal. iv. 1; Eph. vi. 5, 9;
Col. iii. 22, iv. 1); but, as Wace acutely
remarks, in all these passages there is a
reference to the Divine κύριος which
gives the term a special appropriateness.
πάσης τιμῆς ἀξίους, worthy of the
greatest respect.
ἵνα μὴ--βλασφημῆται: The phrase
“blaspheme the name of God’’ comes
from Isa. lii. 5 (cf. Ezek. xxxvi. 20-23).
See Rom. ii. 24, 2 Pet. ii. 2, See note
on v. 14. The corresponding passage in
Tit. ii. το, ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν, supports
Alford’s contention that the article here is
equivalent to a possessive pronoun, His
doctrine. On the other hand, the phrase
does not need any explanation; the doc-
trine would be quite analogous to St,
Paul’s use elsewhere when speaking of
the Christian faith. For διδασκαλία, see
note on i. 10.
Ver. 2. A Christian slave would be
more likely to presume on his newly
acquired theory of liberty, equality and
fraternity in relation to a Christian
master than in relation to one that was
aheathen. The position of a Christian
master must have been a difficult one,
distracted between the principles of a
faith wbich he shared with his slave, and
the laws of a social state which he felt
were not wholly wrong. 1 Cor. vii. 22
and Philem. 16 illustrate the position.
μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν : serve them all
the more, magis serviant (Vulg.).
For this use of μᾶλλον cf. Rom. xiv.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
VI.
2. οἱ δὲ πιστοὺς ἔχοντες " δεσπότας
μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν, ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν - ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν,
ὅτι πιστοί εἰσιν καὶ ἀγαπητοὶ οἱ τῆς " εὐεργεσίας * ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι.
f x Macc. ii. 48, 2 Macc. xiv. 15, Luke i. 54, Acts xx. 35.
13, τ Cor. v. 2, vi. 7,9, Eph. iv. 28, v.
11. Ignat. Polyc. 4 says of Christian
slaves, μηδὲ αὐτοὶ φυσιούσθωσαν, ἀλλ’
εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πλέον δουλευέτωσαν.
ὅτι πιστοί, κιτιλ.ι: The Christian
slave is to remember that the fact of his
master being a Christian, believing and
beloved, entitles him to service better,
if possible, than that due to a heathen
master. The slave is under a moral ob-
ligation to render faithful service to any
master. If the spiritual status of the
master be raised, it is reasonable that the
quality of the service rendered be not
lowered, but rather idealised. ‘‘ The
benefit is the improved quality of the ser-
vice, and they that partake of or enjoy it
are the masters” (Field z loc.). So
Vulg., qut beneficit participes sunt.
εὐεργεσία has its usual non-religious
signification, as in Acts iv. g. It does
not indicate the goodness of God in
redemption, as suggested in A.V., in-
fluenced no doubt directly by Calvin and
Beza, though the explanation is as old
as Ambr., because they are faithful and
beloved, partakers of the benefit. On
the other hand, it is more natural to use
εὐεργεσία of the kindness of an employer
to a servant or employee, than of the ad-
vantage gained by the employer from his
servant’s good-will. Accordingly Chry-
sostom takes it here in the former sense,
the whole clause referring to the slaves.
Von Soden, taking εὐεργεσία similarly,
renders, as those who occupy themselves
in doing good. No doubt the best reward
of faithful service is the acquisition of a
character of trustworthiness and the grate-
ful love of the master to whom you are
invaluable; but it is rather far-fetched to
read this subtle meaning into the passage
before us. In support of the view taken
above, Alford quotes from Seneca, De
Beneficiis, iii. 18, a discussion of the query,
** An beneficium dare servus domino pos-
sit?’? which Seneca answers in the
affirmative, adding further: ‘‘ Quidquid
est quod servilis officii formulam excedit,
quod non ex imperio sed ex voluntate
praestatur, beneficium est”. See Light-
foot, Philippians, 270 sqq., St. Paul and
Seneca.
ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι: ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι
properly means to lay hold of, hence
"-4.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
14.
Ταῦτα δίδασκε kal παρακάλει. 3. εἴ τις " ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ gSeerTim.
1
* προσέρχεται 1 ‘4
Ae
τῇ "κατ᾽
Κριστοῦ, καὶ
m See 1 Tim. iii. 6.
8 (bis) oo.
only, not LXX, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 14.
l προσέχεται N*.
to help, as in reff.; and the Harclean
Syriac gives that sense here. Like our
English word apprehend, it passes from
an association with the sense of touch to
an association with the other senses or
faculties which connect us with things
about us. Field (én loc.) gives examples
of the use of ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι as expres-
sive of a person being sensible of anything
which acts upon the senses, ¢g., the
smell of a rose. The Peshitta agrees
with this. Alford renders mutually
receive, by which he seems to intend the
same thing as Ell., who suggests that awri
has “8 formal reference to the reciprocal
relation between master and servant”.
Field rejects this because “receive in ex-
change” is ἀντιλαμβάνειν, and the ex-
amples cited by Alf. are middle only in
form.
δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει : See note on
iv. 13.
Vv. 3-21. Thoughts about the right
use of wealth are suggested by the slave
problem, a mischievous attitude towards
which is associated with false doctrine.
If a man possesses himself, he has
enough. This possession is eternal as
well as temporal. This is my lesson for
the poor, for you as a man of God (and I
solemnly adjure you to learn and teach
it}, and for the rich.
_ Ver. 3. ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ: See note on
3:
καὶ μὴ: Blass (Gramm. p. 514) notes
this case of μή following εἰ with the in-
dicative (supposed reality) as an abnor-
mal conformity to classical use. The
usual N.T. use, εἰ .. . od, appears in
I Tim. iii. 5, v. 8. In these examples,
however, the οὐ is in the same clause as
a not separated from it, as here, by a
καί.
προσέρχεται: assents to. The noun
προσήλυτος, proselyte, “one who has
pome over,” might alone render this use
af προσέρχομαι defensible. But Ell.
gives examples of this verb from Irenzus
ind Philo; and Alf. from Origen, which
tompletely justify it. The reading προ-
n Mark xiv. 68, Acts (9), Heb. xi. 8, Jas. iv. 14, Jude 10.
p John iii. 25, Acts xv. 2, 7, xxv. 20, 2 Tim. ti. 23, Tit. ili. 9, not LXX.
ὑγιαίνουσι ‘Adyots, Tots τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ h Sce note.
ΚῚ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ, 4. ™ τετύφωται,
~ , im. 1.
μηδὲν " ἐπιστάμενος, ἀλλὰ ° νοσῶν περὶ " ζητήσεις Kal “ λογομαχίας, k Tit. i. τ.
i2 Tim. i.
1 Seer Tim.
ii. 2.
ο Wisd. xvii.
q Here
So Bentley conj. from Latin adquiescit.
σέχεται, which seems to derive support
from the use of προσέχειν, i. 4, Tit. i. 14,
has not exactly the same force; “ to give
heed,” or “attend to,” a doctrine falls
short of giving in one’s adhesion to it.
ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις : See on i. Io.
τοῖς τοῦ Κυρίου: This is in harmony
with St. Paul’s teaching elsewhere, that
the words spoken through the prophets
of the Lord are the Lord’s own words.
It is thus we are to understand Acts xvi.
7, “The Spirit of Jesus suffered them
not,’ and 1 Cor. xi. 23, “I received of
the Lord,” etc. The words of Jesus,
“He that heareth you heareth me”
(Luke x. 16) have a wider reference than
was seen at first.
τῇ κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ: See
ref. and notes on i. 10, ii. 2.
Ver. 4. τετύφωται: inflatus est (d,
m>°, r); superbus est (Vulg.). See oniii. 6.
γοσῶν: morbidly busy (Liddon), lan-
guens (Vulg.), aegrotans (m*°). His
disease is intellectual curiosity about
trifles. Both doting and mad after (AIf.)
as translations of voo@v, err by excess of
vigour. The idea is a simple one of sick-
ness as opposed to health. See on i. ro.
arept: For this use of περί see on i. 19.
ζητήσεις : See oni. 4.
λογομαχίας: It is not clear whether
what is meant are wordy quarrels or
quarrels about words. The latter seems
the more likely. There is here the
usual antithesis of words to deeds. The
heretic spoken of is a theorist merely ; he
wastes time in academic disputes; he
does not take account of things as they
actually are. On the other hand, it is
interesting and suggestive that to the
heathen, the controversy between Chris-
tianity and Judaism seemed to be of this
futile nature (see Acts xviii. 15, xxiii. 29,
xxv. IQ).
φθόνος, ἔρις are similarly juxtaposed
Rom. i. 29, Gal. v. 20, 21, Phil. i. 15.
The plural épets is a well-supported
variant in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 20. In
Tit. iii. g it is the true reading; but
in other lists of vices (1 Cor. iii. 3%
142
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ A
VL
τ Here only, ἐξ ὧν γίνεται φθόνος, ἔρις, βλασφημίαι, "ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί, 5.
8 Here only, " διαπαρατριβαὶ 2 " διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἅ ἀπεστερη-
not LXX
τ Here only μένων τῆς ἀληθείας, “ νομιζόντων “ πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν | εὐσέβειαν.
metaph.,
cf. Luke
xii. 33, 2
Gorsiv. ’
16, Rev. viii. 9, xi. 78.
(2), Acts (7), I Cor. vii. 26, 36.
ver. 5. y See 1 Tim. ii, 2.
1So NAKsiIP, 17, many others, syrpesh, sah., boh., arm. ;
others, d, f, g, m5°, r, vg., go., syrhel,
2 παραδιατριβαὶ a few cursives.
u Mark x. 19, 1 Cor. vi. 7, 8, vii. 5, Jas. v. 4 (?).
w Wisd. xiii. 19, xiv. 2 only; verb, Wisd. xv. 12 only.
z 2 Cor. ix. 8, cf. Phil. iv. rz.
6. Ἔστιν δὲ " πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ " εὐσέβεια μετὰ “ αὐταρκείας " 7.
v Matt. (3), Luke
x See
ἔρεις DFGL, 47, some
3 Add ἀφίστασο ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων DetcKLP, ms50, Discede ab eiusmodi, sytr.,
arm.
2 Cor. xii. 20, Phil. i. 15) the singular is
found.
_ βλασφημία also occurs in a list of sins,
/ Eph. iv. 31, Col. iii. 8.
/ ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί: ὑπόνοια (only here
in N.T., but ὑπονοέω in Acts xiii. 25,
xxv. 18, xxvii. 27, all in neutral sense, to
suppose) has sometimes the sense of sus-
picton. See examples given by Ell. The
phrase here does not mean wicked or un-
worthy thoughts of God—the class of
mind here spoken of does not usually
think about God directly, though an un-
worthy opinion about Him underlies their
life—but malicious suspicions as to the
honesty of those who differ from them.
Ver. 5. διαπαρατριβαί: The force of
the διά is expressed in the R.V., wrang-
lings, which denotes protracted quarrel-
lings, perconfricationes (τ), conflictationes
(d, Vulg.). Field (én loc.) comparing
διαμάχεσθαι, διαφιλοτιμεῖσθαι, etc.,
prefers the sense of reciprocity, mutual
irritations, gallings one of another
(A.V.m.), “as infected sheep by contact
communicate disease to the sound”
(Chrys.). wapaStarpiBal (T.R.), perverse
disputings, is given a milder sense by
Winer-Moulton, Gram. Ὁ. 126, “mis-
placed diligence or useless disputing ’’.
διεφθαρμένων τὸν νοῦν: cf. κατεφθ-
appévor τὸν νοῦν, 2 Tim. iii. 8, the acc.
being that of the remoter object. Cf., for
the notion, τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν
φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς
ἀπάτης, Eph. iv. 22, also 1 Cor. xv. 33,
2 Cor. xi. 3, Jude ro.
ἀπεστερημένων: privati. ἀποστερέω
conveys the notion of a person being
deprived of a thing to which he has a
right. See reff. This is expressed in
R.V., bereft of. The truth was once
theirs ; they have disinherited themselves.
The A.V., destitute of, does not assume
that they ever had it.
γομιζόντων, K.T.A.: since they sup-
pose. For this use of the participle
Bengel compares Rom. ii. 18, 20, 2 Tim.
ii, 2x, Heb. vi. 6.
πορισμόν: a means of gain, quaestus,
The commentators quote Plutarch, Cato
Major, § 25, δυσὶ κεχρῆσθαι μόνοις
πορισμοῖς, γεωργίᾳ Kal φειδοῖ.
τὴν εὐσέβειαν : not godliness in gene-
tal, pietatem (Vulg.), but the profession of
Christianity, culturam Dei (τα δῦ). See
ii. 2. Allusions elsewhere to those who
supposed that the gospel was a means
of making money have usually reference
to self-interested and grasping teachers
(2*Con oxi 125 sai I7 18: Lite ers 2
Pet. ii. 3). Here the significance of the
clause may be that the false teachers de-
moralised slaves, suggesting to slaves
who were converts, or possible converts,
that the profession of Christianity in-
volved an improvement in social position
and worldly prospects. The article be-
fore evoeB. shews that the A.V. is wrong,
supposing that gain is godliness.
Ver. 6. The repetition of πορισμός in
a fresh idealised sense is parallel to the
transfigured sense in which νομίμως is
used in i. 8.
αὐταρκείας : not here sufficientia
(Vulg.), though that is an adequate ren-
dering in 2 Cor. ix. 8. St. Paul did not
mean to express the sentiment of the
A.V. of Eccles. vii. 11, Wisdom is good
with an inheritance’. Contentment does
not even give his meaning. Contentment
is relative to one’s lot; αὐτάρκεια is
more profound, and denotes indepen-
dence of, and indifference to, any lot; a
man’s finding not only his resources in
himself, but being indifferent to every-
thing else besides. This was St. Paul’s
condition when he had learnt to be
αὐτάρκης; Phil. iv. 11. “Lord of him-
self, though not of lands” (Sir. H. Wot.
5—9.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOCEON A
143
οὐδὲν γὰρ εἰσηνέγκαμεν eis τὸν κόσμον,1 ὅτι οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι «τ Macc.vi
δυνάμεθα - 8. ἔχοντες δὲ " διατροφὰς 5 καὶ " σκεπάσματα, τούτοις biiere ony.
“ἀρκεσθησόμεθα. 9. οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν “ ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς « Luke
πειρασμὸν καὶ " παγίδα 5 καὶ ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς * ἀνοήτους 4 καὶ
*BdaBepds, αἵτινες ἢ βυθίζουσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ᾿ ὄλεθρον καὶ
ii. 26.
xii. 4, Luke v. 7 only.
f Luke xziv. 25, Rom. i. 14, Gal. iii. 1, 3, Tit. iii. 3.
i 1 Cor. v. 5,1 Thess. v. 3, 2 Thess. i. 9 only, N.T.
14, Heb.
xiii. ¥
. dSee1 Tim.
iii. 6.
e1 Tim. iii.
, 2 Tim.
g Prov. x. 26 only. 2 Macc.
‘Ins. δῆλον RecDbcKLP; ins. ἀληθὲς D*, verum (quoniam) ἃ, verum (quia) m98,
haud dubium (quia) f, vg., [hlaut dubium, verum tamen fuld., verum Cyp., go., syrr.;
om. δῆλον $*AFG, 17, g, τ, vgsome MSS, sah., boh., arm.
80 WAL, f, vg.; διατροφὴν DFGKP, d, g, m98, τ (victum).
δ Ins. τοῦ διαβόλου D*FG, 37m, 238, ἃ, f, g, m98 (not τὴ, vg. (not am.), go.
*avévnrous 2, two others, d, f, g, vg., Cyp., Ambrst. (inutilia) m98 (quae nihis
prosunt) τ (stulta).
ton). See chap. iv. 8. The popular as
opposed to the philosophical use of
αὐτάρκεια, as evidenced by the papyri,
is simply enough. See Moulton and
Milligan, Expositor, vii., vi. 375.
Ver. 7. The reasoning of this clause
depends on the evident truth that since a
man comes naked into this world (Job. i.
21), and when he leaves it can “take
nothing for his labour, which he may
carry away in his hand” (Eccles. v. 15;
Ps. xlix. 17), nothing the world can give
is any addition to the man himself. Heis
a complete man, though naked (Matt. vi.
25; Luke xii. 15 ; Seneca, Ep. Mor. lii. 25,
“Non licet plus efferre quam intuleris”’).
Field is right in supposing that if
ϑῆλον, as read in the Received Text, is
spurious, yet “there is an ellipsis of
δῆλον, or that ὅτι is for δῆλον ὅτι. L.
Bos adduces but one example of this
ellipsis, 1 John iii. 20: ὅτι ἐὰν κατα-
γινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία, ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν
ὁ θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν; in which, if an
ellipsis of δῆλον before the second ὅτι.
were admissible, it would seem to offer
an easy explanation of that difficult text.”
Field adds two examples from St. Chry-
sostom. Hort’s conjecture that “ ὅτι is
no more than an accidental repetition of
the last two letters of κόσμον, ON being
ead as OTI” is almost certainly right.
Ver. 8. ἔχοντες δέ: The δέ has a
slightly adversative force, guarding against
a too literal conclusion fiom ver. 7. It is
true that “ unaccommodated man ” (Lear,
iii. 4) is “a man for a’ that,” yet he has
wants while alive, though his real wants
are few.
σκεπάσματα: may include clothes
and shelter, covering (R.V.), tegumen-
tum (r), quibus tegamur, as the Vulg. well
puts it; but the word is used of clothing
only in Josephus (B. §. ii. 8.5; Ant. xv.
9,2). So A.V., raiment, ἃ, vestitum (so
Chrys.).
Jacob specifies only “ bread to eat and
raiment to put on” (Gen. xxviii. 20);
but the Son of Sirach is more indulgent
to the natural man (Ecclus. xxix. 21,
xxxix. 26, 27).
ἀρκεσθησόμεθα: This future is impera-
tival, or authoritative, as Alf. calls it.
He cites in illustration, Matt. v. 48,
ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι. From this
point of view, the R.V., We shall be
therewith content, cf. reff., is preferable
to his rendering (which is equivalent to
R.V. m.), With these we shall be suffi-
ciently provided (cf. Matt. xxv.9; John
vi. 7; 2 Cor. xii. 9).
Ver. 9. οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι: St. Chry
sostom calls attention to the fact that
St. Paul does not say, They that are
rich, but They that desire to be rich
(R.V.), they that make the acquisition of
riches their aim. The warning applies to
all grades of wealth: all come under it
whose ambition is to have more money
than that which satisfies their accustomed
needs. We are also to note that what is
here condemned is not an ambition to
excel in some lawful department of human
activity, which though it may bring an
increase in riches, develops character,
but the having a single eye to the ac-
cumulation of money by any means.
This distinction is drawn in Prov. xxviii.
20: “A faithful man shall abound with
blessings: But he that maketh haste to
be rich shall not be unpunished”.
ἐμπίπτουσιν. Wetstein notes the
close parallel in the words of Seneca:
“ Dum divitias consequi volumus in mala
144
k Matt. vii. * ἀπώλειαν.
xiii. 22. o Here only, not LXX
2 Tim. iii. 10, 14, iv. 5, Tit. ii. 1.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
x. a
. “ περιέπειραν ἢ ὀδύναις πολλαῖς.
14 Macc. i. 26, ii. 15 (?), cf. 2 Tim. iii. 2.
: p Rom. ix. 2 only, N.T.
VI.
το. pila yap πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστὶν ἡ * φιλαργυρία "
ἧς τινὲς ™ ὀρεγόμενοι " ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς
11. Σὺ “δέ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε ' Θεοῦ,
m See 1 Tim. iii. 1. n Mark.
q Rom. xi. 17, 20, xiv. 10,
1 Ins. τοῦ all except Q*A, 17.
multa incidimus” (Ef. 87). Cf. also
Jas. i. 2, πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε
ποικίλοις. πειρασμόν refers rather to
the consequencess of one’s money-grub-
bing spirit on others, παγίδα to its
disastrous effect on one’s own character.
ἀνοήτους Kal BAaBepas: The desires
in question are foolish, because they can-
not be logically defended; they are hurt-
ful, because they hinder true happiness.
See Prov. xxiii. 4, “ Weary not thyself to
be rich”.
αἵτινες : qualitative, such as.
βυθίζουσιν: The word is found in its
literal signification in Luke v. 7. Moul-
ton and Milligan (Expositor, vii., vi. 381)
illustrate its use here from a papyrus of
cent. I B.C., συνεχέσι πολέμοις κατα-
βυθισθεῖϊσαν] τὴν πόλιν. Bengel notes
on ἐμπίπτ. βυθίζ., “incidunt : mergunt.
Tristis gradatio.”” We must not lose sight
of eis. Destruction and perdition are not,
Strictly speaking, the gulf in which the
men are drowned. The lusts, etc., over-
whelm them; and the tssue is destruction,
etc. See reff. on ἀπώλειαν.
Ver. 10. ῥίζα, «.r.A.: The root of all
evils. The R.V., a root of all kinds of
evil is not satisfactory. The position of
ῥίζα in the sentence shows that it is em-
phatic. Field (in Joc.) cites similar ex-
amples of the absence of the article
collected by Wetstein from Athenzus,
vii. p. 280 A (ἀρχὴ καὶ ῥίζα παντὸς
ἀγαθοῦ ἡ τῆς γαστρὸς ἡδονή), and Diog.
Lert. vi. 50; and adds five others from
his own observation. It is, besides, un-
reasonable in the highest degree to expect
that, on the ground of his inspiration, St.
Paul’s ethical statements in a letter should
be expressed with the precision of a text
book, When one is dealing with a de-
grading vice of any kind, the interests of
virtue are not served by qualified asser-
tions.
φιλαργυρία: avaritia (τ) rather than
cupiditas (d, m, Vulg.). The use of this
word supports the exposition given above
of ver. 9. Love of money, meanness
and covert dishonesty where money is
concerned, is the basest species of the
genus πλεονεξία.
ἧς: In sense the relative refers to
ἀργύριον, understood out of φιλαργυρία,
with which it agrees in grammar. The
meaning is clear enough; but the expres-
sion of it is inaccurate. This occurs
when a man’s power of grammatical ex-
pression cannot keep pace with his
thought. Alf. cites as parallels, Rom.
viii. 24, ἐλπὶς BAewopévn, and Acts xxiv.
15, ἐλπίδα... ἣν καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι
προσδέχονται.
τινες: See note on ch. i. 3.
ὀρεγόμενοι: reaching after (R.V.) ex-
presses the most defensible aspect of
coveting (A.V.).
ἀπεπλανήθησαν: peregrinati sunt (τ)
erraverunt (d, Vulg.). The faith is a
very practical matter. Have been led
astray (R.V.) continues the description
of the man who allows himself to be the
passive subject of temptation. Chrys.
illustrates the use of this word here from
an absent-minded man’s passing his des-
tination without knowing it.
περιέπειραν: inseruerunt se. The
force of wept in this compound is inten-
sive, as in περιάπτω, περικαλύπτω, πε:
ρικρατής, περικρύπτω, περίλυπος.
ὀδύναις πολλαῖς: There is a touch of
pity in this clause, so poignantly descrip-
tive of a worldling’s disillusionment.
Vv. 11-16 are a digression into a per-
sonal appeal. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 1, iii. ro,
TAs νι τ8ὲ
Ver. 11. ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ: It argues
a very inadequate appreciation of the
fervour of the writer to suppose, as
Theod. does, that this is an official title.
The apostrophe is a personal appeal,
arising out of the topic of other-worldliness
which begins in ver. 5. Timothy, as a
Christian man, had been called to a
heavenly citizenship. He was a man of
God, t.e., a man belonging to the spiritual
order of things with which that which is
merely temporal, transitory and perishing
can have no permanent relationship.
The term occurs again, with an admit-
tedly general reference, in 2 Tim. iii. 17.
In any case Man of God, as an official
title, belonged to prophets, the prophets
of the Old Covenant; and we have ng
10—12,
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
145
ταῦτα " φεῦγε - "δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην, * εὐσέβειαν, ἃ πίστιν, ἢ ἀγάπην, τι Cor. vi.
"ὑπομονήν, ” πραὔπάθιαν.;
12. “" ἀγωνίζου 7 τὸν " καλὸν 7 ἀγῶνα
18, Χ, Χ4;
2 Tim. 11.
2 3 a a ? a > > 22.
τῆς πίστεως - " ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς " αἰωνίου " ζωῆς, εἰς ἣν 2 ἐκλήθης, καὶ 5 Rom. ix.
"ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν “ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων.
v. 15, 2 Tim. ii. 22, Heb. xii. 14, z Pet. iii. 11. 4
v Rom. ee 2 Cor. vi. 4, xii. 12, Col. i. 11, 2 Tim. iii. το, Tit. ii. 2, 2 Pet. i. 6, etc.
not LX
xii. 1.
x See 1 Tim. iv. ro.
zr Tim. vi. 19.
30, 31, xii.
13, Xiv. 19,
1 Cor. xiv.
1,1 Thess
u See 1 Tim. i. 14.
w Here only,
t See x Tim. ii. 2.
y 2 Tim. iv. 7, cf. Phil. i. 30, Col. ii. 1, 1 Thess. ii. 2, Heb.
a See 1 Tim. i. 16. i
Rom. x. 9, 10, Tit. i. 16, Heb. xi. 13, xiii. 15, etc.
errs i. 20, ix. 22, xii. 42, Acts xxiii. 8,
c Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23.
1So N*AFG[P]; πρᾳότητα [SycD*] DcKL, [31].
2 Ins. καὶ 37, some others, syrhcl c.*
proof that Timothy was a prophet of the
New Covenant, though he was an evange-
list (2 Tim. iv. 5), and possibly an apostle
(1 Thess. ii. 6).
ταῦτα: i.¢., φιλαργυρία and its at-
tendant evils. Love of money in minis-
ters of religion does more to discredit
religion in the eyes of ordinary people
than would indulgence in many grosser
vices.
It is to be noted that φεῦγε" δίωκε δὲ
δικαιοσύνην, πίστιν, ἀγάπην recurs in 2
Tim. ii. 22. The phraseology is based
on Prov. xv. 9, διώκοντας δὲ δικαιοσύνην
ἀγαπᾷ, and is thoroughly Pauline, as
the reff. prove. The six virtues fall per-
haps into three pairs, as Ell. suggests:
“δικαιοσ. and εὐσέβ. have the widest
relations, pointing to general conformity
to God’s law and practical piety [cf
σωφρόνως κ. δικαίως x. εὐσεβῶς, Tit. ii.
12]; πίστις and ἀγάπη are the funda-
mental principles of Christianity; trop.
and πραῦπ. the principles on which a
Christian ought to act towards his gain-
Sayers and opponents’. As a group,
they are contrasted with the group of
vices in vv. 4 and 5; but we cannot
arrange them in pairs of opposites. We
may add that πίστις results in ὑπομονή
Fas.'i; 33 Rom. v..3; 2 Thess. i.-43.2
pas Mi. τοῦ Tit. 11. 2; Heb.:-xii. 1), as
ἀγάπη does in πραὔπάθεια. ὑπομονή is
sustinentia (τ here, and Vulg. in 1 Thess.
i. 3) rather than patientia (ἃ and Vulg.
here).
πίστις, ἀγάπη, and ὑπομονή are also
combined in Tit. ii. 2; cf. 2 Tim. iii. το,
also 2 Pet. i. 5-7, where εὐσέβεια, with
other virtues, forms part of the group.
Ver. 12. dywvifov . . . ἀγῶνα: There
is evidence that ἀγωνίζομαι ἀγῶνα had
become a stereotyped expression, perhaps
from the line of Euripides: καίτοι καλόν
γ᾽ ἂν τόνδ᾽ ἀγῶν᾽ ἠγωνίσω (Alcestis, 648
or 664). See an Athenian inscription
quoted by Moulton and Milligan, Ex-
VOL. IV.
positor, vii., vi. 370. Nevertheless the
metaphor has its full force here, and in
2 Tim. iv. 7: Engage in the contest
which profession of the faith entails ; it
is a noble one. Allusions to the public
games are notoriously Pauline (x Cor. ix.
24; Phil. iii. 12). The present impera-
tive indicates the continuous nature of
the ἀγών, while the aor. ἐπιλαβοῦ ex-
presses the single act of laying hold of
the prize (so ver. 19). It does not seem
an insuperable objection to this view that
καταλαμβάνω is the word used in x Cor,
ix. 24, Phil. iii. 12. On the other hand,
Winer-Moulton (Gram., p. 392) argues
from the asyndeton (cf. Mark iv. 39) that
ἐπιλαβοῦ, κιτιλ. forms one notion with
ἀγωνίζου; that “it is not the result of
the contest, but itself the substance of
the striving’. Yet in ver. 19 (ἵνα ἐπιλά-
βωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς) there is nothing
in the context suggestive of struggle.
els ἣν ἐκλήθης : We are called to eter-
nal life (1 Cor. i. 9; 1 Pet. v. 10); it is
placed well within our reach; but it is not
put into our hands; each man must grasp
it for himself.
καὶ ὡμολόγησας, «.7.A.: This clause
has no syntactical connexion with what
has preceded. It refers to ἀγῶνα, the
contest on which Timothy entered at his
baptism, when he was called, enrolled as
a soldier in the army of Jesus Christ (2
Tim. ii. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 7), and professed
fidelity to his new Leader (his response to
the divine call) before many witnesses.
ὁμολογία is perhaps best referred to a
formal profession of faith, here as in the
reff. Cyril Jer., when recalling the bap-
tismal ceremonies to the newly baptised,
says in reference to their profession of
belief in the Trinity, ὡμολογήσατε τὴν
σωτήριον ὁμολογίαν (Cat. xx. 4).
In the primitive Church the baptism of
an individual was a matter in which the
Church generally took an interest and
part. The rule laid down in The Didache,
| fe)
146
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
VI.
dSeerTim. 13. ὁ Παραγγέλλω cor! “" ἐνώπιον " τοῦ 2 " Θεοῦ τοῦ * ζωογονοῦντος ὅ
1,3. - a a“
eSeerTim. τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ +
163.
1 Sam. ii. is
6, Luke xvii. 33, Acts vii. 19.
1Om. σοι δ ΕΘ, 17 [g, praecipio tibi t contestor].
~ β » ae ,
τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου
g John v. 32,1 John v. 10, with acc.
270m. τοῦ N.
880 ADFGP, 17, 31, four others; ζωοποιοῦντος KL.
480 ADKLP, 17, 31, 37, many others, d, vg., go., syrhcl, armcodd; "Ina. Χριστ.
SFG, more than five cursives, f, g, syrpesh, sah., boh., armed.
7, shows this: “ Before the baptism let
him that baptizeth and him that is bap-
tized fast, and any others also who are
able”. Also Justin Martyr, Afol. i. 61,
ἡμῶν συνευχομένων καὶ συννηστευόντων
αὐτοῖς. These passages explain “the
many witnesses’? of Timothy’s good
confession, It is not so natural to refer
the good confesston toacrisis of persecu-
tion, or to his ordination. The epithet
καλήν here and in the following verse
does not characterise the particular act
of confession made by Timothy or by
Christ, but refers to the class of confes-
sion, its import, as Ell. says.
Ver. 13. παραγγέλλω σοι: St. Paul
passes in thought from the past epoch in
Timothy’s life, with its human witnesses,
among whom was the apostle himself, to
the present probation of Timothy, St.
Paul far away; and he feels impelled to
remind his lieutenant that there are Wit-
nesses of his conduct whose real though
unseen presence is an encouragement as
well as a check. See on v. 21.
ζωογονοῦντος : This word has the sense
preserve alive,as R.V.m. Seereff. A
good example from O.T. is 1 Sam. ii. 6,
Κύριος θανατοῖ καὶ ζωογονεῖ. The word
has here a special appropriateness. Ti-
mothy is stimulated to exhibit moral
courage by an assurance that he is in the
hands of One whose protective power is
universal, and by the example of One
who, as Man, put that protective power
to a successful test, and was “ saved out
of death” (Heb. v. 7).
τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν must have the
same reference here as in the preceding
verse. We have seen that in the case of
Timothy, it means his baptismal profes-
sion of faith in God as revealed by Jesus
Christ. In the case of Jesus Himself it
is best understood of His habitual sense
of His heavenly Father’s presence and
protection, which found its supreme ex-
pression on the Cross eat xxiv. 46).
μαρτυρήσαντος: Although Jesus, as
Man, and His followers make the same
ὁμολογία, yet their respective relations
to it are different. paptupéw indicates a
power of origination and authentication
which ὁμολογέω does not. The utter-
ances and acts of Jesus, as Man, are
human; yet He spoke and acted as
no other man ever did. Matt. xvii. 27
(‘‘ That take, and give unto them for me
and thee,” not “for us’) and John xx.
17 (“I ascend unto my Father and your
Father,”’ etc. not our Father or our God)
illustrate very well this difference be-
tween Jesus and His brethren in relations
which they share alike. This is why
St. Paul does not here use épodoyéw
ὁμολογίαν of Christ, but employs instead
the unusual paprupéw ὁμολογίαν. Jesus
is ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, Rev. i. 5, 6 papr.
6 πιστ. Kal ἀληθινός, Rev. iii. 14. Ben-
gel suggests that the two verbs indicate
the attitudes ot the bystanders in each
case: ‘“‘confessus est, cum assensione
testium: testatus est, non assentiente
Pilato”. The Vulg. treats τὴν «Kak.
ὅμολ. as an acc. of closer specification,
qui testimonium reddidit sub Pontio
Pilato, bonam confessionem.
ἐπὶ Ποντίου MetAdrov: With the ex-
planation of the ὁμολογία of Jesus which
has just been given, it would be natural
to render this, with the Vulg., under
Pontius Pilate; and this view is fa-
voured by the change from ἐνώπιον, ver.
12, to ἐπί, and by the likelihood that this
is a fragment of acreed. Yet the render-
ing before Pontius Pilate (Chrys., etc.), is
not inconsistent with the notion that the
ὁμολογία in one sense was made all dur-
ing our Lord's ministry ; for undoubtedly
from one point of view it was when Jesus’
life was hanging in the balance, depend-
ing on the decision of Pontius Pilate, that
His trust in the protective love of His
Father was most tried. His calm repose
of soul on the assurance of God’s wise
and good disposition of events is well
illustrated by His words as recorded in
John xix. 11, “Thou wouldest have no
power against me, except it were given
thee from above”. Until it has been
been proved that the Fourth Gospel is
not a record of facts, it is reasonable to
suppose that St. Paul and his contem-
13—15.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A
147
Πειλάτου thy καλὴν ἢ ὁμολογίαν, 14. ᾿τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν h See ver.
12
" ἄσπιλον ' ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς " ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν iz Tim. iv.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 15. ἣν " καιροῖς "ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ
19, 2 Pet. iii. 14, not LXX.
li. 13. n Seer Tim. ii. 6.
poraries were acquainted with the general
account of the trial of Jesus as therein
described.
Ver. 14. τηρῆσαι «.7.A.: The phrase
τηρεῖν τὴν ἐντολήν, Tas ἐντολάς OF τὸν
λόγον, τοὺς λόγους is a common one;
found in Matt. xix. 17, and especially in
the Johannine writings; but wherever it
occurs it means to obey or observe a
command or a saying; whereas here
it means to preserve intact. Perhaps
the two meanings were present to the
apostle’s mind; and no doubt in actual
experience they merge one into the other ;
for a tradition is only preserved by obedi-
ence to the demand which it makes for
observance. This use of the verb and the
similar τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα, 2 Tim. iv.
7, mutually illustrate each other. τὴν
ἐντολὴν τηρεῖν is probably equivalent to
Thy παραθήκην φυλάσσειν, understand-
ing the tradition or deposit in the most
comprehensive moral and spiritual sense,
in which it is nothing else than “the law
of the Gospel (cf. 4 wapayyeXia, i. 5),
the Gospel viewed as a rule of life” (so
Ell. and Alf.). St. Paul would not have
distinguished this from the charge given
to Timothy at his baptism. Cyril Jer.
(Cat. v. 13), in quoting this passage, sub-
stitutes ταύτην τὴν παραδεδομένην πίστιν
for ἐντολήν. This interpretation is per-
missible so long as we do not divorce
creed from character.
ἄσπιλον ἀνεπίλημπτον : These epithets
present a difficulty somewhat similar to
that presented by τηρῆσαι. ἄσπιλος is
a personal epithet (though applied to
οὐρανός, Job. xv. 15, Symm.); and so is
ἀνεπίλημπτος. See reff. on both. Al-
ford shows, after De Wette, by examples
from Philo and Plato, that ἀνεπίλ. may
be applied to impersonal objects, such as
τέχνη, TO λεγόμενον. Nevertheless al-
though it would be intolerably awkward
to refer the adjectives to we—the ordinary
construction with τηρεῖν being that the
qualifying adj. should belong to its ob-
ject, e.g., 1 Tim. v. 22; Jas. i. 27; 2 Cor.
xi. 9 (Alf.)—yet St. Paul had the personal
reference to Timothy chiefly in his mind
when he chose these words as qualifying
ἐντολήν; and the R.V., which places a
comma after commandment, possibly is
1 See x Tim. iii. 2.
o1 Tim. i. 11.
s «τ 8δὲ
μακάριος καὶ note.
k Jas. i. 27,
re ῃ 1 Ῥεξ, ἃ.
m 2 Thess, ii. 8, 2 Tim. i. 10, iv. 1, 8, Tit,
intended to suggest a similar view. The
man and the word are similarly identified
in the parable of the Sower (Matt. xiii.
1g, etc.). If Timothy “keeps himself un-
spotted”’ (Jas. i. 27) and “without re-
proach,” the ἐντολή, so far as he is
concerned, will be maintained flawless.
The Ancient Homily which used to be
attributed to Clem. Rom. contains a sen-
tence written in a similar tone (§8),
τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν Kal τὴν
σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τὴν ζωην ἀπολά-
Bopev.
μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας, κιτ.λ.: Death
may mark the close of our probation
state; but we shall not render the ac-
count of our stewardship until the
ἐπιφάνεια. When the Pastorals were
written the ἐπιφάνεια had in men’s
thoughts of it receded beyond each man’s
death. At an earlier period Christians
set it before them as men now set death.
In 2 Thess. it. 8 the compound phrase
occurs ἐπιφάν. τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ.
ἐπιφάνεια is the term used in the Pas-
toral Epistles (see reff.); but the Second
Coming of Christ is called παρουσία in
1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv.
15, Vo 253, 2 [Π655,.1.1. Inv2 ΤΙ
1g, ἐπιφάνεια includes the first manifesta-
tion of Christ in the flesh; and this ap-
plication of the term is in exact
correspondence with its use in heathen
sacred associations, where it denoted ‘a
conspicuous appearance or intervention
of the higher powers on behalf of their
worshippers”. The title ἐπιφανής, as-
sumed by the Seleucidz, meant a claim
to be worshipped as an incarnation of
Zeus or Apollo, as the case might be (see
Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, vii.,
vii. 380).
Ver.15. καιροῖς ἰδίοις : See note on ii.
6. In due season may refer primarily
either to the appropriateness of the occa-
sion of the ἐπιφάνεια or to the supreme
will of the δυνάστης. The wording of
the discouragement given by Jesus, in
Acts i. 7, to those who would pry into
the future makes it natural to suppose
that this latter notion chiefly was in St.
Paul’s mind here (καιροὺς ots ὁ πατὴρ
ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ). We may per-
haps put it thus: A devout mind recog-
148
Ecclus.
xlvi. 5, 16,
2 Macc.
(8), 3 5
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
VI.
μόνος P Δυνάστης, ὁ “Βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ Κύριος τῶν
* κυριευόντων, 16. ὁ μόνος ἔχων " ἀθανασίαν, φῶς * οἰκῶν “ ἀπρόσιτον,
a 2
Mace. (4). ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται - ᾧ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ κράτος
qCy slim, 57, <
i. 17, αἰώνιον - ἀμὴν.
r Luke xxii.
25.
s Here only
Wisd. (5), 4 Macc. (2).
v. 11, Jude 25, Rev. i. 6, v. 13. ΟΥ̓ 2
only, not LXX, οὗ. Rom. xi. 20, xii. 16.
nises the providential ordering of past
events as having taken place at the time
best fitted for them, and shrinks from the
presumption of guessing the appropriate
time for future events. Thus there is no
presumption in saying “ When the fulness
of the time came, God sent forth his
Son’’; and when the time is ripe, He
will send Him again (Acts iii. 20).
δείξει : Ell. well explains the force of
this verb from John ii. 18, τί σημεῖον
δεικνύεις ἡμῖν ; The last ἐπιφάνεια will be
the final proof offered by God to the
human race.
The terms of this magnificent char-
acterisation of God are an expansion of
the epithets in the doxology in i. 17 q.v.
μακάριος: See on i. 11. Philo (de
Sacrific. Abelis et Caini, p. 147) has the
remarkable parallel, περὶ θεοῦ τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου, καὶ ἀφθάρτου, καὶ ἀτρέπτου,
καὶ ἁγίου, καὶ μόνου μακαρίου.
δυνάστης is found as a title of God in
the Apocrypha. See reff., esp. 2 Macc.
iii, 24, ὃ ... δυνάστης ἐπιφανίαν
μεγάλην ἐποίησεν. It occurs in the
ordinary sense, Luke i. 52, Acts viii.
27. The choice of the phrase μόνος
Suv. here was perhaps suggested by
the thought of His absolute and irre-
sponsible power in arranging the times
and seasons for the affairs of men.
It is unnecessary to seek any special
polemical object in μόνος, as exclusive of
dualism. As has been already suggested
(on i. 17), the predications of glory to
God that occur in these epistles are prob-
ably repeated from eucharistic prayers
uttered by St. Paul in the discharge of
his prophetic liturgical functions.
ὁ βασιλεύς, κιτιλ.: The Vulg. renders
rather inconsistently, Rex regum et
Dominus dominantium. So also in Rev.
xix. 16. Itis not quite obvious why the
phrase is varied from the usual βασιλεὺς
βασιλέων (2 Macc. xiii. 4; Rev. xvii. 14,
xix. 16) and Κύριος [τῶν] Κυρίων (Deut.
Χ. 17; Ps. cxxxvi..3; ΕΠΟΟΝ τς 4). Per-
haps the participle gives new vigour to a
phrase that had lost its freshness.
17. Tots πλουσίοις ἐν "TO
t Rom. (4), 1 Cor. (3).
Tim. iv. 10, Tit. ii. 12.
τ νῦν * αἰῶνι
παράγγελλε μὴ 7 ὑψη-
u Here only, not LXX. vi Pet. iv. 11
i x See x Tim. i. 3. y Here
Ver. 16. ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν:
God the Father is the subject of this
whole attribution; and it is the Catholic
doctrine that He alone has endless exist-
ence as His essential property. (οὐσίᾳ
ἀθάνατος οὐ μετουσίᾳ, Theod. Dial. iii.
Ρ- 145, quoted by ΕἸ]... God the Son
and God the Holy Spirit are co-eternal
with the Father; but Their life is derived
from and dependent on His. This is
expressly declared by Christ of Himself,
* As the Father hath life in himself, even
so gave he to the Son also to have life in
himself’’ (John v. 26). On this Westcott
notes: “The Son has not life only as
given, but life in Himself as being a
spring of life.. .. The tense (gave)
carries us back beyond time’’. Accord-
ingly, the creed of Czsarea, which formed
the basis of that adopted at Nicea, spoke
of the Son as Ζωὴν ἐκ Ζωῆς ; a doctrine
sufficiently expressed in the other phrase,
Φῶς ἐκ Pwrds, which has survived.
φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον: This is a
grander conception than that in Ps. civ.
2, ‘* Who coverest thyself with light as
with a garment’. Here, if one may
venture so to express it, the Person of
God is wholly concealed by His dwelling,
which is light; and this dwelling is itself
unapproachable. Josephus, Ant. iii. 5. 1,
says that God was thought to dwell in
Mount Sinai, φοβερὸν καὶ ἀπρόσιτον.
(See also Philo, de Vita Mosis, ii. [iii.] 2
cited by Dean Bernard).
ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων: None of
men; only the Son (John i. 18; Matt. x1.
27. Clea}.
κράτος: For this word in doxologies
see reff.
Ver. 17. ἐν τῷ viv αἰῶνι: It is the
present contrast, not that between riches
in this world and riches in the world to
come (as Chrys.), that the apostle has in
mind. Those who have money may, as
well as those “‘that are poor as to the
world,” be “rich in faith, and heirs of the
kingdom, εἰς." (Jas. ii. 5). The passage
indicates that the Church had affected
Society more widely in Ephesus than it
16—19.
hodpovety,! μηδὲ
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON A
149
“ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου " ἀδηλότητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ 3 8 zSeer Tim:
lv. το.
Θεῷ * τῷ " παρέχοντι ἡμῖν ὅ πάντα “ πλουσίως ὅ εἰς ὅ ἀπόλαυσιν, 18. a Here only,
“ ἀγαθοεργεῖν, πλουτεῖν ἐν ἦ ἔργοις
b
f
κοινωνικούς, 19. ᾿ ἀποθησαυρίζοντας ἑαυτοῖς * θεμέλιον καλὸν ‘eis
not LXX
καλοῖς, " εὐμεταδότους εἶναι, bx Tim. i.
4, Luke
vii. 4,
fol a Acts
τὸ ' μέλλον, ἵνα ™émAdBwvtar τῆς " ὄντως ἴ ζωῆς. xxviii. 2,
Col. iv. 1.
a Me . ς Col. iii. 16,
Tit. iii. 6, 2 Pet. i. 11, not LXX. d 3 Macc. vii. 16, Heb. xi. 25 only. e Acts xiv. 17, not
LXX. f Seex Tim. iii. 1. g Here only, not LXX. h Here only, not LXX. i Ecclus.
iii. 4 only. k Rom. xv. 20, 1 Cor. iii. 10, 11, 12, Eph. ii. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 19, Heb. vi. x. 1 Luke
Xiii. 9. m 1 Tim. vi. 12. n See 1 Tim. v. 3.
1 ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν NY.
2éy DcKL.
3Ins. τῷ ADcCKLP; om. τῷ δ ΕΘ, three cursives arm.
4 Ins. [τῷ]ζῶντι DKL, d, e, m22, vg. (am. not fuld*), syrr.
5Ins. τὰ A, 37, a few others.
6 πλουσίως πάντα a few cursives.
had at Corinth when St. Paul wrote,
“ Not many mighty, not many noble, are
called” (1 Cor. i. 26). It is to be ob-
served that the expression ὃ viv αἰών is
only found in N.T. in the Pastoral
Epistles (see τε). ὁ αἰὼν otros is the
expression elsewhere in N.T. (Matt. xii.
32; Luke xvi. 8, xx. 34; Rom. xii. 2; I
Cor. i. 20, ii. 6 (bis), 8, iii. 18; 2 Cor. iv.
4; Eph.i. 21). Both represent the Rab-
binic sq Ὁ "> the present age, ag
contrasted with SI ody, the age
to come. St. Paul also has ὁ κόσμος
οὗτος in τ Cor. iii. 19, v. 10, vii. 31, and
ὁ viv καιρός in Rom. iii. 26, viii. 18, xi.
5, 2 Cor. viii. 14. See Dean Armitage
Robinson’s note on Eph.i. 21. It does
not follow that because these are render-
ings of the same Hebrew expression,
they meant the same to a Greek ear. In
the three places in which ὁ viv αἰών
occurs it has a definite material physical
sense; whereas 6 αἰὼν otros has a more
notional ethical force.
ἠλπικέναι ἐπί: have their hope set on.
See note on iv. 10. For the thought
compare Job. xxxi. 24, Ps. xlix. 6, lii. 7,
Prov. xi. 28, Mark x. 24.
ἠλπικ. ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι: This
vigorous oxymoron is not quite parallel
in form to ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς, Rom. vi. 4,
as Ell. suggests. There ζωῆς is a further
definition of the καινότης, the prominent
notion. This is a rhetorical intensifying
of riches which are uncertain; πλούτου
is the prominent word. ‘When the
genitive stands before the governing noun,
it is emphatic” (Winer-Moulton, Gram.
p- 240). For the thought cf. Prov. xxiii.
5, Xxvii. 24.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ θεῷ : God who cannot change,
who abides faithful, is contrasted with the
uncertainty of riches which are unreal.
Τ αἰωνίου DcKLP.
“τῷ παρέχ. πάντα πλουσίως : cf. Acts
Χιν. 17,
εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν: This is a greater con-
cession to the sensuous view of life than
the εἰς μετάλημψιν of iv. 3. It ap-
proaches the declaration of the Preacher
that for a man to “eat and drink, and
make his soul enjoy good in his labour
. . . is from the hand of God” (Eccles.
ii. 24), “the gift of God” (Eccles. iii. 13,
v. 19). No good purpose is served by
pretending that God did not intend us to
enjoy the pleasurable sensations of phy-
sical life. After all, things that have
been enjoyed have served their purpose;
they have “perished,” yet “with the
using’? (Col. ii. 22). Obviously, they
cannot take God’s place as an object of
hope.
Ver. 18. ἀγαθοεργεῖν : corrects an
ae misunderstanding of εἰς ἀπό-
avow. πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς: see
note on iii. 1. Cf. εἰς θεὸν πλουτῶν,
Luke xii. 21.
εὐμεταδότους : facile tribuere (Vulg.),
ready to impart (cf. the use of
μεταδίδωμι in Luke iii. τὰ; Rom. i. 11,
xii. 8; Eph. iv, 28; 1 Thess. ii. 8).
κοινωνικούς : This does not mean soci-
able (A.V. m.), ready to sympathise (R.V.
m.), as Chrys., and Thdrt. explain it, but
ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες,
Rom. xii. 13 (cf. Gal. vi. 6; Phil. iv.
15). A good illustration of the general
sentiment is Heb. xiii. 16, τῆς δὲ
εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε.
Von Soden notes that the thought in
εὐμεταδ. is of the needs of others, in
κοινων. of the imparting of one’s own,
Ver. 19. ἀποθησαυρίζοντας : The true
hoarding produces, as its first result, a
good foundation, which will entitle a
man to grasp the prize, which is true
life, the only life worth talking about,
150
0 2 Tim. i.
12, 14, Cf.
Lev. vi. 2, τὰς
4, Tob. x.
δίας ;
acc. iii. 10, 15. See 1 Tim. v. 21.
ii. 16. t 2 Tim. ii. 16, not LXX.
1 παρακαταθήκην many cursives.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
q See 1 Tim. i. 6.
Ὁ Here only, not LXX.
VI.
20. Ὦ Tipdbee, τὴν “ παραθήκην 1°? φύλαξον, 4 ἐκτρεπόμενος
τ βεβήλους "" κενοφωνίας ὁ καὶ “ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς " ψευδωνύμου
r See 1 Tim. i. 9. s 2 Tim.
v Here only, not LXX.
* καινοφωνίας FG, a few cursives, d, e, f, g, m5°, vg. (vocum novitates).
Stability is the essential characteristic of
a foundation. There is a contrast im-
plied between the shifting uncertainty of
riches, as a ground of hope, and the firm
and permanent foundation of a Christian
character. (So, nearly, Theod.)
In-enious conjectures have been sug-
gested for θεμέλιον ; but it is safe to say
that the mixture of metaphors—due to
the condensation of language—does not
distress those who read in a devout
rather than ina critical spirit. For the
sentiment cf. Matt. vi. 19, 20. There is
some support given to the conjecture of
Lamb-Bos, θέμα λίαν, by the parallel
from Tobit iv. 8 sq. cited by Bengel,
μὴ φοβοῦ ποιεῖν ἐλεημοσύνην - θέμα yap
ἀγαθὸν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ εἰς ἡμέραν
ἀνάγκης. See, on the other hand, what
Ecclus. i. 15 says of Wisdom, pera
ἀνθρώπων θεμέλιον αἰῶνος ἐνόσσευσεν.
θεμέλιος is used metaphorically also in
reff. It is to be observed that in 2 Tim.
ii, 19 there is again a confusion of imagery:
the foundation has a seal.
eis τὸ μέλλον is found in a slightly
different sense (thenceforth), Luke xiii. 9.
ἐπιλάβωνται : See on ver. 12.
τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς: the life which is life
indeed, an expression which is one of the
precious things of the ἈΝ. It is ‘the
life which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. i. 1).
For ὄντως see ν. 3.
Ver. 20. As Ell. points out, this con-
cluding apostrophe, like the last para-
graph in 2 Cor. (xiii. rr sqq,), is a sum-
mary of the whole epistle.
On the intensity of the appeal in the
use of the personal name see on i. 18.
τὴν παραθήκην : depositum. The term
occurs in a similar connexion with φυλά-
oow, 2 Tim. i. 14, and also in 2 Tim. i.
12, where see note. Here, and in 2 Tim.
i. 14, it means, as Chrys. explains, 4
πίστις, τὸ κήρυγμα; so Vincent of
Lerins, from whose Commonitorium (c.
22) Alf. quotes. ‘“ Quid est depositum ?
id est, quod tibi creditum est, non quod a
te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod ex-
cogitasti ; rem non ingenii, sed doctrinae;
non usurpationis privatae, sed publicae
traditionis . . . catholicae fidei talentum
inviolatum illibatumque conserva... .
Aurum accepisti, aurum redde: nolo mihi
pro aliis alia subjicias: nolo pro auro aut
impudenter plumbum, aut fraudulenter
aeramenta supponas.” That the “ de-
posit” is practically identical with the
“charge,” ch. i. 5, 18, ‘the sound doc-
trine,” 1. 10, ‘the commandment,” vi. 14,
is indicated by the use of the cognate
verb παρατίθεμαι in i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 2,
and the correlative παρέλαβες, Col. iv. 17,
and even more by the contrast here be-
tween it and “the knowledge falsely so
called”’.
ἐκτρεπόμενος : turning away from,
devitans.
τὰς βεβήλους Kevohwvias: In 2 Tim.
ii. 16 the Vulg. has vaniloquia. The
rendering vocum novitates found here in
Vulg. and O.L. represents the variant
Katvodwvias. The term does not differ
much from ματαιολογία, i. 6, which is
also rendered vanilogutum.
ἀντιθέσεις : In face of the general an-
arthrous character of the Greek of these
epistles it is not certain that the absence
of an article before ἀντιθ. proves that it
is qualified by βεβήλους. The meaning
of ἄντιθ. is partly fixed by κενοφωνίας,
to which it is in some sort an explanatory
appendix; but it must finally depend
upon the signification we attach to
τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. The epithet
Ψψεύυδων. is sufficient to prove that γνῶσις
was specially claimed by the heretics
whom St. Paul has in his mind. That it
should be so is in harmony with the other
notices which we find in these epistles
suggestive of a puerile and profitless
intellectual subtlety, as opposed to the
practical moral character of Christianity.
We are reminded of the contrast in 1
Cor. viii. 1, “ Knowledge puffeth up, but
love buildeth up”. Hort (¥udaistic
Christianity, p. 139 544.) proves that
γνῶσις here and elsewhere in N.T.
(Luke xi. 52; Rom. ii. 20 sq.) refers to
the special lore of those who interpreted
mystically the O.T., especially the Law.
Knowledge which is merely theoretical.
the knowledge of God professed by those
who “ by their works deny Him” (Tit. i.
20—2I.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON A
I51
γνώσεως, 21. ἦν τινες “ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι * περὶ * τὴν * πίστιν 7 ἦστό- w τ Tim. ii.
χησαν.
‘H χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.1
10.
iii. 8.
y Seer Tim.
i. 6.
1So SAF erGP, 17, g (vobiscum t tecum) boh.; μετὰ σοῦ DKL, ἅ, 6, f vg., syrt.y
arm. ; sah. om. ἧ χάρ.
> 17 add πρὸς Τιμόθεον a.
ὑμῶν; add ἀμήν SgcDbcK LP, e, f, vg., syrr., boh.
To this D adds, érAnpwOn: ἄρχεται πρὸς Τιμόθεον
B, similarly FG. A, etc., have πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἃ ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας ; to which
K adds, ἥτις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανῆς, similarly L. P has a sub-
scription like that of A, substituting Νικοπόλεως for Λαοδικείας.
16), is not real knowledge. The ἀντιθέ-
gets then of this spurious knowledge
would be the dialectical distinctions and
niceties of the false teachers. Perhaps
inconsistencies is what is meant. For an
example of ἀντίθετος in this sense, see
Moulton and Milligan, Exposttor, vii., v.
275. Something more detinite than (a)
oppositions, i.e., objections of opponents
(so Chrys. Theoph. and von Soden, who
compares ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, 2 Tim. ii.
25) is implied; but certainly not (b) the
formal categorical oppositions between
the Law and the Gospel alleged by
Marcion.
Ver. 21. τινες : See note on i. 3.
ἐπαγγελλόμενοι : See note on ii. 10.
περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν : See notes
on i, 6, 19, and reff.
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν : An argument in support of
the pera σοῦ of the Received Text is
that μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν is indisputably the right
reading in the corresponding place in
2 Tim. and Tit., and might have crept
in here by assimilation. ΕἸ]. has reason
on his side when he maintains that the
plural here is not sufficient to prove that
the epistle as a whole was intended for
the Church. ‘The study of papyri letters
will show that the singular and the plural |
alternated in the same document with
apparently no distinction of meaning”
(Moulton, Expositor, vi., vii. 107). The
colophon in the T.R., “The First to
Timothy was written from Laodicea,
which is the chiefest city of Phrygia
Pacatiana,’”’ has a double interest: as an
echo of the notion that this is the Epistle
from Laodicea (Col. iv. 16), a notion
sanctioned by Theophyl.; and the men-
tion of Phrygia Pacatiana proves that the
author of the note lived after the fourth
century, towards the close of which that
name for Phrygia Prima came into use.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B
aSeerTim. I, 1. MAYAOX "ἀπόστολος " Χριστοῦ "Ἰησοῦ" " διὰ > θελήματος
1.1.
b Rom. xv.” Θεοῦ κατ᾽ “ἐπαγγελίαν “ζωῆς τῆς “ἐν Χριστῷ “Ἰησοῦ 2. Τιμοθέῳ
2, 1 Cor. be Ἂς
rhea Cor.*dyamnta “τέκνῳ - χάρις, “ἔλεος, εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ
i. 1, viii. δὲ Ν 2 rae
5, Eph. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 2 τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.
A. I, Col. 3» a “- ‘ > ~
it. 3. “Χάριν ξἔχω τῷ Θεῷ, ᾧ " λατρεύω ἀπὸ * προγόνων ἐν ἢ καθαρᾷ
ς 1 Tim. iv
8.
d Rom. viii. 2. δι Cor. iv. 14, 17, Eph. v. 1, see 1 Tim. i. 2. f See 1 Tim. i. 2. g See 1 Tim.
eh os h Acts xxiv. 14, xxvii. 23, Rom. i. 9, Phil. iii. 3. i See 1 Tim. v. 4. Κι Tim. iii. 9-
l’Ino. Χριστ. AL, 37, most others, vg., go., syrhcl, arm.
2So WKcADFGKL, d, f, g, vg., go., sah., boh., syrhcl, arm.; Κυρίου “Ino. Χριστ.
§§*, 17, 37 (so also two cursives, syrpesh, which om. foll. τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν).
3 Add pov D*, 17, one other, d, e, fuld., go., sah.
CHAPTER I.—Vv. 1, 2. Salutation.
Ver. 1. ἀπόστολος Xp. "Ino. See note
on 1 Tim. i. 1.
διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ: This formula is
found also in 1 and 2 Cor. Eph. and Col.
See note on 1 Tim. i. 1, where it is
pointed out that while the same ἐπιταγή
may be said to be issued by God the
Father and God the Son, θέλημα is al-
ways used of the Father’s eternal purpose
as regards the salvation of man (Rom. ii.
18, xii. 2; 2 Cor. viii. 5; Gal. i. 4; Eph.
i, §s.9;:12 3, οι: ὍΣ iv. τῶν 1 Thess, 1v.
3, v. 18, etc.). St. Paul believed that his
own commission as an apostle was a part
of God’s arrangements to this end, one
of the ways in which the Will manifested
itself.
κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς, κιτιλ.: To be
connected with ἀπόστολος. His apostle-
ship was for the accomplishment of the
promise, etc. See Rom. i. 5, ἐλάβομεν
«νος. ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν
πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. For the force of κατά
with acc. see Winer-Moulton, Gram.
p. 502. The notion is more largely ex-
pressed in the corresponding passage of
Tit. (i. 2), ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἣν
ἐπηγγείλατο . . . θεός. We must not
suppose that there is any limitation
in the reference of the expression here.
The mention of “the promise of the life
which is in Christ Jesus” (Gal. ii. 19,
20) is not intended as a consolation to
Timothy (as Chrys., Bengel), nor was it
even specially suggested by his own near
approaching death. The preciousness of
that promise is never whoily absent from
the minds of Christians ; though of course
it comes to the surface of our conscious-
ness at crises when death is, or seems to
be, imminent.
Ver. 2. ἀγαπητῷ: On the variation
here from γνησίῳ, which occurs in τ Tim.
i. 2 and Tit. i. 4, see the note in the
former place. Ver. 5 (‘‘the unfeigned
faith that is in thee”) proves that St.
Paul did not wish to hint that Timothy
had ceased to be his γνήσιον τέκνον.
Timothy is St. Paul’s τέκνον ἀγαπητόν
also in 1 Cor. iv. 17. ἀγαπητός is com-
plete in itself: it does not require the
explanatory addition, ἐν πίστει, or κατὰ
κοινὴν πίστιν.
χάρις, κιτιλ.: See note on 1 Tim. i. 2.
Vv. 3-7. I know that your weak point
is deficiency in moral courage. Be
braced, therefore, by the assurance that
I am constantly thinking with thankful-
ness and prayer about your genuine and
inborn faith; and by the fact that the
gift of the Holy Spirit which you re-
ceived at ordination was that of power
and love and discipline.
Ver. 3. χάριν ἔχω: The expression of
thanksgiving in the exordium of an
L I—5 .
Κ συνειδήσει, ὡς ᾿ ἀδιάλειπτον
δεήσεσίν μου νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, 4.
μένος σου τῶν δακρύων, ἵνα χαρᾶς 7 πληρωθῶ, 5. *
1 Thess. i. 2, iii. 6, Philem. 4.
(3), Luke (6 ohm ; [τὰ ὯΝ Heb. (4, of which 3 are O.T. ), 2 Pet. (1), Jude (1), ΠΕΣ (2).
᾿ Ὁ Θ r Ps, Ixx, (Ixxi.) 6, Wisd. xvi. 11, 2 Macc. vi. 17, 2 Pet. i. 13, iii. r only.
only in Pastorals.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON B
™ ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ ™
153
™ μνείαν ἐν ταῖς 1 Rom. ix. 2,
not LXX.
° ἐπιποθῶν ° σε " ἰδεῖν, ἢ μεμνη- πὶ 1 we
iii
ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν 1 n Rom. i.
Eph. i. τ
Phil. i. 3,
o Rom. i. 11, Phil. ii. 26, 1 Thess. iii. 6. p 1 Cor. xi. 2, Matt.
q Here
1 λαμβάνων NCDKL.
Epistle is usually prefaced by St. Paul
with εὐχαριστῶ (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4,
Phil. i. 3, Philem. 4; εὐχαριστοῦμεν
Οὐ 2, -Chesss 1 2: οὐ παύομαι
εὐχαριστῶν, ph. τ τὸ: εὐχαριστεῖν
ὀφείλομεν, 2 Thess. i. 3). A comparison
of these passages makes it evident that
χάριν ἔχω is to be connected with
ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν, K.T.A.; ὡς ἀδιάλειπ-
τον--πληρωθῶ being 4 parenthetical
account of St. Paul’s state of mind about
his absent friend, while pepvnpévos—
δακρύων is also a parenthetical clause.
The thanksgiving is for the grace of God
given to Timothy (cf. esp. 1 Cor. i. 43 1
Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3); and the ex-
pression of thankfulness is called forth
whenever St. Paul calls him to mind, un-
ceasingly in fact. The use of χάριν ἔχω
ini Tim. i, 12 is not a parallel case to
this. The phrase is quoted from the
papyri by Dean Armitage Robinson, Ephe-
sians, p- 283.
ᾧ λατρεύω ἀπὸ προγόνων κ.οτιλ.:
Two thoughts are in St. Paul’s mind:
(2) the inheritance of his religious con-
sciousness from his forefathers, and (δ)
the continuity of the revelation of God;
the same light in the New Covenant as
in the Old, only far brighter.
If St. Paul had been asked, When did
you first serve God? he would have
answered, Even before God separated
me from my mother’s womb for His ser-
vice. St. Paul was conscious that he
was the result of generations of God-
fearing people. His inborn, natural
instincts were all towards the service of
God. (See Acts xxii. 3, xxiv. 14; Rom.
χε τ 2 COL. ΧΙ 22; Phil. 1015-5).
Moreover St. Paul always maintained
that the Gospel was the divinely ordained
sequel of Judaism; not a new religion,
but the fulfilment of “the promise made
of God unto our fathers” (Acts xxvi. 6 ;
see also xxiii. 6, xxiv. 14).
ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει:
claim he makes, Acts xxiii. I, xxiv. 16;
¥'Cor.‘iv..45 2 Cor. 1, 12; 1 Thess. ‘ii.
10; and for the language here see note
oni Tim.i. 5. ὡς is best rendered as
Compare the
(Winer-Moulton, Gram. p. 561, where
Matt. vi. 12, Gal. vi. 10 are cited in
illustration). The R.V. how (so Alf.)
implies that the cause for thankfulness
is the unceasing nature of St. Paul’s
remembrance of Timothy; the A.V.
that (quod, Vulg.) refers the cause to the
remembrance itself. Rom. i. g is not a
parallel instance of ὡς.
ἀδιάλειπτον---δεήσεσίν pov: A regular
epistolary formula, as is evidenced by
the papyri; though no doubt in St.
Paul’s case it corresponded to reality.
See his use of it in reff. and Dean Armi-
tage Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 37 sq., 275
544. eSp. p. 279, 54. on the formula μνείαν
ποιεῖσθαι, from which this passage is a
remarkable variation.
γυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας is connected by the
R.V. with ἐπιποθῶν. In τ Thess. ii. 9,
iii. 10, the phrase unquestionably is con-
nected with what follows. On the other
hand, ini Tim. v. 5 it comes at the end
of aclause; andin this place the A.V.
connects it with rats δεήσεσίν pov. This
is certainly right, on the analogy of 1
Thess. iii. 10, where see Milligan’s note.
Alf. and Ell. connect it with ἀδιάλειπτον
ἔχω.
ἐπιποθῶν σε ἰδεῖν : a Pauline expres-
sion. See reff. ἰδεῖν is not expressed
in 2 Cor. ix. 14, Phil. i. 8, ii. 26.
Ver. 4. μεμνημένος. “δακρύων: Paren-
thetical. St. Paul’s longing was made
keener by his recollection of the tears
Timothy had shed at their last parting.
So Chrys. fixes the occasion. We are
reminded of the scene at Miletus, Acts
xx. 37. Bengel, comparing Acts xx. 19,
thinks that reference is rather made to an
habitual manifestation of strong emotion.
At that time, and in that society, tears
were allowed as a manifestation of emo-
tion more freely than amongst modern
men of the West.
χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ: For wAnpdw with a
genitive, cf. Rom. xv. 13, 14. It takesa
dat., Rom. i. 29, 2 Cor. vii. 4, ο΄. Eph.
v. 18; an acc., Phil. 1. EX, Col.1,:9.
Ver. 5. ὑπόμνησιν λαβών: Having
been reminded. Not to be connected
154
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON B L
sSeerTim. τῆς ἐν σοὶ " ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως, ἥτις ᾿ ἐνῴκησεν πρῶτον ἐν τῇ
1
t See note. @ μάμμῃ σου Awidt καὶ τῇ μητρί σου Εὐνίκῃ, ἡ πέπεισμαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ
u 4 Macc,
Xvi. 9
only.
v Rom. viii.
38, Xiv. 14, XV. 14, Ver. 12.
x 1 Cor. iv. 17.
ἐν σοί. 6. “δι᾿ “ ἣν
with the clause immediately preceding,
as R.V.m. ὑπόμνησις, a reminder, i.e.,
an act of recollection specially excited
by a particular person or thing, thus
differs from ἀνάμνησις, which is self-
originated (so Ammonius Grammaticus,
quoted by Bengel). Ell. compares for
the thought Eph. i. 15. For this use of
λαμβάνω, cf. Rom. vii. 8, 11 (ἀφορμὴν
X.), Heb. 1. 3 (ἀρχὴν A.), xi. 29, 36
(πεῖραν λ.), 2 Pet. i. 9 (λήθην λ.). The
fact that St. Paul received this reminder
of Timothy’s faith suggests that there
were other aspects of his conduct—pos-
sibly as an administrator—which were
not wholly satisfactory. His unfeigned
faith made up for much.
ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν K.T-A.: ἐνοικέω is used
in Rom. viii. 11 and 2 Tim. i. 14 of the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and in
Col. iii. 16 of the Word of Christ. In 2
Cor. vi. 16, ἐνοικήσω is added in the
quotation from Ley. xxvi. 12 to ἐνπερι-
πατήσω. Tisch. and ὙΝΕ.. read
ἐνοικοῦσα for οἰκοῦσα in Rom. vii. 17.
Timothy’s faith was hereditary as St.
Paul’s was. πρῶτον does not mean
that Lois was the first of her family to
have faith, but that it dwelt in her, to St.
Paul’s knowledge, before it dwelt in
Timothy. It is to be observed that it is
implied that the faith of God’s people be-
fore Christ came is not different in kind
from faith after Christ has come.
Pappy: an infantile equivalent in
early Greek for μήτηρ, is used in later
Greek for τήθη, grandmother. It occurs,
e.g.,in 4 Macc. xvi. 9, οὐκ ὄψομαι ὑμῶν
τέκνα, οὐδὲ μάμμη κληθεῖσα μακαρισθή-
σομαι. See also Moulton and Milligan,
Expositor, vii., vii. 561.
Λωίδι : Since Timothy’s father was a
Greek, and his mother a Jewess (Acts
xvi. I), we 'may conclude that Lois was
the mother of Eunice (see art. in Hast-
ings’ D. B.).
Εὐνίκῃ : See art. in Hastings’ Ὁ. B.,
where Lock notes that the curious read-
ing of cursive 25 in Acts xvi. I, vids
γυναικός τινος ᾿Ιουδαίας χήρας, and the
substitution of χήρας for ᾿Ιουδαίας in
Gig., fuld. “‘ may embody a tradition of
her widowhood ”’.
πέπεισμαι: The other examples of St.
“aitlay *dvapipvyokw σε ἢ ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ
w Luke viii. 47, Acts xxii. 24, 2 Tim. ἱ. 12, Tit. i. 13, Heb. ii. 11.
y Gen. xlv. 27, i Macc. xili. 7 only.
Paul’s use of this word (see reff.) give no
support to the notion ot Thdrt. (followed
by Alf.) that πέπεισμαι here has the
force of our I am sure, I am certain,
when we wish to hint gently that we
desire reassurdnce on the point about
which we express our certainty. In all
the places in which St. Paul uses
πέπεισμαι he is anxious to leave no
doubt as to his own certitude. Never-
theless, in this case, it was quite poss.ble
for him to be perfectly certain that un-
feigned faith animated Timothy, and at
the same time to have misgivings (ver. 7)
as to Timothy’s moral courage in deal-
ing with'men. We supply ἐνοικεῖ after
σοι.
Ver. 6. δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν : not so much
‘*because I am persuaded of thine un-
feigned faith’? (Theoph., Thdrt.), as,
‘*because this faith does of a surety
dwell in thee”. We are most fruitfully
stimulated to noble action, not when we
know other people think well of us, but
when their good opinion makes us recog-
nise the gifts to us of God’s grace. Faith,
as well as salvation, is the gift of God,
Eph. ii. 8. Except in this phrase (see
reff. and Acts xxviii. 20), αἰτία is not
found elsewhere in Paul. It is common
in Matt., Mark, John, and Acts,
ἀναζωπυρεῖν : In both places cited
in reff.—the only occurrences in the
Greek Bible—the verb is intransitive:
his, or their, spirit revived. Chrys. well
compares with the image suggested by
ἀναζωπυρεῖν (‘ stir into flame,’’) “ quench
not the Spirit,’ 1 Thess. v. 19, where by
“the Spirit’? is meant His charismatic
manifestations of every kind. It is in-
teresting to note in this connexion that
ἀναζωπυρεῖν φαντασίας is opposed to
σβεννύναι in M. Antoninus, vii. 2 (quoted
by Wetstein).
τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ : This expression
refers to she salvation of the soul by
God’s grace, in Rom. vi. 23, xi. 29. The
narrower signification, as here, of a gift
given to us to use to God’s glory is χάρι-
σμα ἐκ θεοῦ, 1 Cor. vii. 7, or more usually
simply χάρισμα. The particular nature
of the gift must be determined by the
context. In this case it was a charisma
that was exercised in a spirit not of fear-
6--8.
~
"χάρισμα "τοῦ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
*@cod ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς
55
" ἐπιθέσεως " τῶν zSeer Tim.
iv. 14, and
" χειρῶν μου - 7. οὐ yap ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς πνεῦμα ἢ δειλίας, ἀλλὰ note here.
a See1 Tim.
δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ “ σωφρονισμοῦ. 8. Μὴ οὖν “ ἐπαισχυνθῇς iv. 14.
τὸ “μαρτύριον ‘tod ᾿ Κυρίου ἡ ἡμῶν μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν © δέσμιον αὐτοῦ -
ἃ Mark viii. 38= Luke ix. 26, Rom. i. 16, 2 Tim. i, 16, Heb. xi. 16, cf. ver. 12.
See 1 Tim. i. 14. g See note.
~ bHereonly,
NEE.
c Here only,
not LXX,
e See 1 Tim. ii. 6.
} δουλείας 238, two others, Didymus, Clem. Al., Chrys., by a confused recollec-
tion of Rom. viii. 15.
fulness. We can scarcely be wrong,
then, if we suppose the charisma of
administration and rule to be in St.
Paul’s mind rather than “ the work of an
evangelist ’’ (ch. iv. 5). So Chrys., ‘* for
presiding over the Church, for the work-
ing of miracles, and for every service ”’.
διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως---μου:; See note on
1 Tim. iv. 14, where it is pointed out
that we have no right to assume that
hands were laid on Timothy once only.
Thus Acts ix. 17 and xiii. 3 are two such
occasions in St. Paul’s spiritual life.
There may have been others.
Ver. 7. οὐ yap ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν: The γάρ
connects this statement with the exhorta-
tion preceding in such a way as to sug-
gest that God's gift “‘to us” of a spirit
of power is in the same order of being
as the charisma imparted to Timothy by
the laying on of St. Paul’s hands. The
question is, then, To whom is reference
made in ἡμῖν Wecan only reply, The
Christian Society, represented by the
apostles on the Day of Pentecost. {The
aor. ἔδωκεν points to a definite occasion).
Then it was that the Church began to
receive the power, δύναμις, which had
been promised (Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 8)
by the Lord, and realised by the apostles
collectively (Acts iv. 33; 1 Cor. iv. 20, v.
4), and individually (Acts vi. 8; 1 Cor. ii.
43; 2 Cor. vi. 7, xii. g). Whatever special
charismata are bestowed on the ministers
of the Church at ordination, they are a
part of the general stream of the Pente-
costal gift which is always being poured
out by the ascended Lord.
πνεῦμα δειλίας: It is simplest to take
πνεῦμα here as a comprehensive equiva-
lent to χάρισμα, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 12,
ζηλωταί ἐστε πνευμάτων. God did not
infuse into us fearfulness, etc. The gen.
after πνεῦμα, in this and similar cases,
Rom. viii. 15 (δουλείας, υἱοθεσίας), xi. 8
(κατανύξεως), τ Cor: iv. 21, Gal. vi. 1
(πραύτητος), 2 Cor. iv. 13 (πίστεως),
Eph. i. 17 (σοφίας, x.7.A.), expresses the
prominent idea, the term πνεῦμα adds
the notion that the quality spoken of is
not self-originated. The personal Holy
Spirit is not meant unless the context
names Him unambiguously, as in Eph.
1: 15:
δειλία: fearfulness, timidity, timor.
This is the right word here, as δουλείας is
the right word in Rom.vili.15. It is curious
that in Lev. xxvi. 36, where B has δουλείαν
A ἅς. have δειλίαν. See apparat. crit.
There was an element οἱ δειλία in
Timothy’s natural disposition which must
have been prejudicial to his efficiency as
a Church ruler. For that position is
needed (a) force of character, which if
not natural may be inspired by conscious-
ness of a divine appointment, (δ) love,
which is not softness, and (c) self-discip-
line, which is opposed to all easy self-
indulgence which issues in laxity of
administration. cwdpovicpod:sobriectatis.
Better active, as R.V., discipiine, first of
self, then of others. See Blass, Gram-
mar, p. 61.
Vv. 8—ii. 2. The leading thoughts in
this section are (a) the Day of reward
and judgment which is surely coming
(12, 18), (6) the unreasonableness there-
fore of cowardly shame (8, 12, 16), and
(c) the necess ty that Timothy should
guard the deposit and hand it on (14-
ii. 2).
2 not ashamed, therefore, of the Gos-
pel to which our Lord was not ashamed
to testify; nor be ashamed of me, who
am in prison because of testimony borne
to Him and it. Share our sufferings in
the strength given by God, whose power
is displayed in the Gospel of life of which
I was appointed a preacher. This is the
direct cause of my present lot; but I am
not ashamed; for I know the power of
Him to whom I have committed myself
in trust. Do you imitate His faithfulness ¢
guard the deposit committed to you. I
am not asking you to do more than some
others have done. You know Onesi-
phorus and his work as well as I do.
When all turned their backs on me, he
was not ashamed to make inquiries for
me; and, finding me in prison, he con-
156
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOCEON B I.
ha Tim. ii. ἀλλὰ ἢ συνκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ, 9. τοῦ
3, not
LXX.
σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν,
28, ἰχ. τι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν ' πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ
i Rom. viii.
Eph. i. 11,
111. II.
stantly cheered me by his visits. May
God bless him and his! Do you, then,
welcome the strengthening grace of
Christ, and provide for a succession of
faithful teachers to preserve intact the
sacred deposit of the faith.
Ver. 8. μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς : The Say-
ing of Jesus (Mark viii. 38 = Luke ix. 26)
was probably in St. Paul’s mind. He
alludes to it again, ii.12. The aor. subj.
with μὴ forbids the supposition that
Timothy had actually done what St.
Paul warns him against doing (Winer-
Moulton, Grammar, p. 628, and J. H.
Moulton, Grammar, vol. i. p. 122 sq.).
See note on 1 Tim. iv. 14. Personal ap-
peals are a feature of this epistle cf. ver.
Fy 1.5.3; Τοῦ 1 14s 1V 091) 25555
τὸ μαρτύριον τ. Κυρίου: Testimony
borne by our Lord, His words, His ethi-
cal and spiritual teaching, by which
Christianity has influenced the ideals
and practice of society. The gen. after
μαρτύριον is best taken as subjective.
See 1 Cor. i. 6, ii. 1; 2 Thess. i. ro.
τοῦ Κυρίον ἡμῶν: See note on r Tim.
is ΣᾺ:
ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ : This does not
mean one made prisoner by the Lord, but
one who belongs to the Lord and is a
prisoner for His sake. There is nothing
figurative about δέσμιος. St. Paul calls
himself ὁ δέσμ. τ. Xp. Ino. in Eph. iii.
1, S€op. Xp. “Ino. Philem. 1 and ο.
The idea is more clearly expressed in
ὁ δέσμ. ἐν Κυρίῳ Eph. iv. 1. He is a
prisoner; he is also ‘in Christ”. The
expression also suggests the thought
that his earthly imprisonment is ordered
by the Lord, not by man. The present
captivity is alluded to again in ver. 16
and ii. 9. It is not the same figure as in
2 Cor. ii. 14, “ God which always leadeth
us in triumph in Christ’? as His captives.
See Lightfoot on Col. ii. 15.
συνκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ : Foin
us [the Lord and me] in our sufferings
for the Gospel’s sake. More than once
in this epistle St. Paul declares that he is
suffering (πάσχω, ver. 12; κακοπαθῶ, ii.
9). He has said, “ Be not ashamed .. .
of me’’; but he has just coupled the
testimony of the Lord with his own; and
further on (ii. 8) Jesus Christ is noted as
the great illustration of the law, ‘No
cross, no crown’’. See note there. It is
best then to give a wider reference than
pot to the συν in συνκακοπάθ. The
R.V., Suffer hardship with the gospel
is needlessly harsh. The dat. τῷ evay-
γελίῳ is the dativus commodi.
κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ must be connected
with συνκακοπάθ. ; and this suggests that
the power of God here means power
given by God, as in 2 Cor. vi. 7, 1 Pet.
i. 5, ‘the power that worketh in us”
(Eph. iii. 20), the assured possession of
which would brace Timothy to suffer
hardship. Alf. and EIl., following Bengel,
take it subjectively: the power of God
displayed in our salvation (as in Rom.
i. 163 1 Cor. 1. 18, 24,.11. δ... 2 Cor. ΧΙ):
But St. Paul could scarcely exhort Tim-
othy to display a degree of fortitude com-
parable to God’s active power. The next
verse, τοῦ σώσαντος, K.T.A., is not a
detailed description of God’s power to
save, but a recalling of the fact that
Timothy had actually experienced God’s
saving grace in the past. This consider-
ation would stimulate Timothy to play
the man.
Ver. 9. τοῦ σώσαντος, x.T.A.: The
connexion, as has been just remarked, is
that our recognition at our baptism of
God’s saving and calling grace—He
saved us and called us at a definite point
of time (aor.)—ought to strengthen our
faith in the continuance in the future of
His gifts of power to us. On the insist-
ence in this group of epistles on God’s
saving grace, see notes on 1 Tim. i. I, ii. 4.
καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ: To a holy
calling, 1.e., to a life of holiness, is less
ambiguous than with a holy calling,
which might mean “a calling uttered by
a Holy One,” or ‘in holy language”’.
κλῆσις does not here mean the invitation
(as in Rom. xi. 29), but, when qualified
as here by an adj., it means the condition
into which, or the purpose for which, we
have been called (so 4 ἄνω κλ., Phil. iii.
14, ἐπουράνιος κλ., Heb. iii. 1; and cf.
1 Cor. vii. 20). We have been ‘‘called
to be saints,’’ Rom. i. 7, ‘called into the
fellowship of God’s Son,” 1 Cor. i. 9.
ov κατὰ τὰ ἔργα: The sentiment is
more clearly expressed in Tit. iii. 5,
οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων . . ..& ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς.
There is an echo in both places of the
controversy, now over, concerning works
and grace. Perhaps κατά is used in this
pais ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
157
Ιησοῦ * πρὸ * χρόνων " αἰωνίων, 10. ' φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς Κα Te 2,
e m.
Ἢ ἐπιφανείας “Tod “owripos “av " Χριστοῦ " Ἰησοῦ,; ° καταργή- ἀν. as.
σαντος μὲν τὸν 5 θάνατον ἢ φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ὅ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ on 1 Tim,
111. τό.
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 11. ἢ εἰς "ὃ " ἐτέθην "ἐγὼ "κῆρυξ " καὶ ἀπόστολος m 5εετ
καὶ * διδάσκαλος.32
3 1 5} , 2 ’ coy, a
OUK επαισχύνομαι * οἶδα γὰρ ῳ πεπίστευκα, και πέπεισμαι οτι
12. "δι᾿ "ἣν "αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω ἀλλ’ 14.
Tim. vi.
n Tit. i. 4,
ἐΐ, 13, Ui.
?
> , (?).
“Suvards “éotw τὴν “παραθήκην pou “ φυλάξαι εἰς " ἐκείνην "τὴν οἱ oe ν.
τη ραϑήκην μ γὴν “ τῇ us
p i Cor. iv. 5, Eph. iii. 9.
r See x Tim. ii. 7.
v See ver. 5.
1 Tim. vi. 20.
s See ver. 6. t
Heb
ii. 14.
ᾳ Wisd. (2), 4 Macc. (2), Rom. ii. 7, 1 Cor. xv. 42, 50, 53, 54, Eph. vi. 24.
ere only in Pastorals.
_w Luke xiv. 31, Rom. iv. 21, xi. 23, Tit. i. 9, cf. Heb. xi. 19, Jas. iii. 2,
y 2 Thess. i. το, 2 Tim. i. 18, iv. 8.
u Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) 6, cf. ver. 8.
x See
150 Ὁ ΑΒ", d, e, sah.; "Ino. Χριστ. SCCDcFGKLP, all cursives, f, g, vg., 850.»
boh., syrr., arm.
2 Add ἐθνῶν (from 1 Tim. ii. 7), all except S9*A, 17.
clause to mark more vividly the antithesis
to the next, κατὰ ἰδ. mpd0., in which its
use is more normal. See Eph. ii. 8, οὐκ
ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον.
ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν, κ.τ.λ.:
The grace in which the divine purpose
for man expresses itself was given to
mankind before times eternal; mankind,
sons of God, being summed up, concen-
trated, in the Son of God, whom we
know now as Christ Jesus. In Him was
present, germ-wise, redeemed humanity,
to be realised in races and individuals in
succeeding ages.
We have here the same teaching about
the Church and Christ as is more fully
given in Ephesians and Colossians (see
especially Eph. i. 4). In Rom. xvi. 25
the antithesis between a reality veiled in
the past and now unveiled, or manifested,
is expressed in language very similar
to that of the passage before us: κατὰ
ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις
σεσιγημένου φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν.
πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων: expresses the
notion of that which is anterior to the
most remote period in the past conceiv-
able by any imagination that man knows
of.
Ver. το. φανερωθεῖσαν : See note on
t Tim. iii. 16. Bengel calls attention to
the fit juxtaposition of illustria verba:
φανερωθεῖσαν, ἐπιφανείας, φωτίσαντος.
διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας, κιτιλ.: See on I
Tim. vi. 14. The ἐπιφάνεια here must
not be referred to the Incarnation, con-
sidered as having taken place at a parti-
cular moment in time. It includes it;
the ἐπιφάνεια began then; and will
be continued, becoming ever brighter
and clearer, until its consummation, to
which the term ἐπιφάνεια is elsewhere
restricted.
καταργήσαντος : We cannot, because
of the absence of an article before the
participles, safely translate, when he
brought to nought, rather than, who
brought to nought. Abolished does not
express the truth. Christians all ‘taste
of death’’ as their Master did (John viii.
52, Heb. ii. g), though they do not
“‘see” it; and they are confident that
they too will be ‘saved out of death’’
(Heb. v. 7). Death for them has lost its
sting (Heb. ii. 14, 15). It need not cause
any difficulty that here the undoing of
death is spoken of as past, whereas in
1 Cor. xv. 26, 54, it is ‘‘the last enemy
that shall be abolished” (see Rev. xx
14). We have a parallel in John xvi.
11, ‘‘ The prince of this world hath been
judged”.
τὸν θάνατον: Alf, following Bengel,
sees a special force in the art.—‘“‘as if he
had said Orcum illum”.
φωτίσαντος: To be connected with
διὰ τοῦ evayyeAlov. The Gospel is that
by which the presence of Christ, the
light, is apprehended. That light does
not create life and incorruption: it dis-
plays them.
ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν: Immortality or
Incorruption defines the life more clearly.
Ver. 11. εἰς ὃ éréOny,ix.t.X.: See 1
Tim. ii. 7, where these words are also
found, and the note on x Tim. i. 11.
Ver. 12. δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν: i.¢., because I
am a preacher of the Gospel. Cf. Gal.
v. II.
οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι: Non confundor. I
am not disappointed of my hope, as in ref.
wenlorevka... πέπεισμαι: The per-
fects have their usual force. For πέπεισ-
μαι see Rom. viii. 38 and note on ver. 5.
τὴν παραθήκην pov is best taken as
that which I have deposited for safe
=
158 ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β 1.
zSeer Tim. 7 ἡμέραν.
i. 16. i soa
aSeer Tim. ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν ἢ πίστει ἢ
13. *“Ymotimwow ἔχε
5 ὑγιαινόντων "λόγων ὧν παρ᾽
καὶ " ἀγάπῃ "τῇ "ἐν " Χριστῷ ἢ Ἰησοῦ.
δὲ Τίμα. 1, 14. τὴν καλὴν “ παραθήκην 1 “ἦ φύλαξον διὰ Πνεύματος “Ayiou τοῦ
14. a a
cSeer Tim, " ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν tiv. 15.
V1. 20.
ν. 21. e Rom. viii. 11.
Οἶδας τοῦτο ὅτι ἡ ἀπεστράφησάν pe
f Matt. v. 42, 2 Tim. iv. 4, Tit. i. 14, Heb. xii. 25.
1 παρακαταθήκην 47, many others.
keeping. Cf. the story of St. John and
the robber from Clem, Alex. Quis Dives,
§ 42, quoted by Eus. H. E. iii. 23, τὴν
παρακαταθήκην ἀπόδος ἡμῖν. Here it
means ‘‘my soul’’ or ‘‘ myself,” cf. Ps.
xxx. (xxxi.) 6, εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσο-
μαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, Luke xxiii. 46, 1 Pet.
ἵν. 19, I Thess. v. 23. This explana-
tion of παραθήκην harmonises best with
ἐπαισχύνομαι, πεπίστευκα, and φυλάξαι.
The whole verse has a purely personal
reference. Nothing but a desire to give
παραθήκη the same meaning wherever
it occurs (1 Tim. vi. 20, g.v.; 2 Tim. i. 14)
could have made Chrys. explain it here
as ‘‘the faith, the preaching of the Gos-
pel”. So R.V.m., that which he hath
committed unto me. ‘‘ Paulus, decessui
proximus, duo deposita habebat: alterum
Domino, alterum Timotheo committen-
dum,” Bengel. This exegesis compels
us to refer ᾧ to God the Father.
εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν: The day of
judgment and award, 1 Cor. iii. 13.
Ver. 13. ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε: A resump-
tion of the exhortation which was broken
off in ver.g. This command is strictly
parallel to that which follows: wor.
ὑὕγιαιν.---ἤκουσας corresponds to, and
is the external expression of, τὴν Kak.
παραθήκην; ἔχε corresponds to φύλαξον ;
and ἐν πίστει--- Ἰησοῦ to διὰ-- ἡμῖν.
ὑποτύπωσιν ὑγιαινόντων λόγων : The
gen. is that of apposition: a pattern,
sc. of faith, expressed in sound words.
The phrase marks an advance on the
μόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως (Rom. ii. 20) or
μόρφ. εὐσεβείας (2 Tim. iii. 5). It hap-
pily suggests the power of expansion
latent in the simplest and most primitive
dogmatic formulas of the Christian faith.
xe has the same strengthened signifi-
cation as in r Tim. i. 19, where see note.
ὑγιαινόντων λόγων: See note on 1
Tim. i. ro.
Gv... ἤκουσας: Alf. notes that the
use of ὧν rather than ἣν shows that
ὕγιαιν. Ady. and not ὑποτύπ. is the chief
thing in St. Paul’s mind. It is obvious
that Timothy could not have heard the
ὑποτύπωσις, which is a concept of the
mind expressed in many sound words
heard on various occasions. As to the
translation, von Soden agrees with Hort,
who insists on “the order, the absence
of τὴν, and the use of éye”’ as compelling
us to render, “ Hold as a pattern,” etc.
This rendering would favour Hort’s con-
jecture that “ΩΝ isa primitive corrup-
tion for ON,” i.e., ‘Hold as a pattern
of sound words the word which thou hast
heard,’”’ etc. But the absence of the
article is such a marked feature in the
Pastorals that no argument can be based
on it here.
Bengel calls attention to the change
in order in ii. 2. Here, παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκου-
σας, the emphasis being on St. Paul’s
personal authority; there, ἤκουσας παρ᾽
ἐμοῦ, because of the antithesis between
ἤκουσας and παράθου.
ἐν πίστει, κιτ.λ.: See note on 1 Tim.
i. 14. This clause must be joined with
ἔχε, not with ἤκουσας, nor with ὑγιαιν.
Aoy. only: as given in faith, etc. (von
Soden),
Ver. 14. τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην: The
faith, which is a ὑποτύπωσις in relation
to the growing apprehension of it by the
Church, is a παραθήκη, deposit, in the
case of each individual. On the constant
epithet καλός see 1 Tim. i, 18, and on
παραθήκη I Tim. vi. 20. There is a
special force in καλήν here, as distin-
guishing the precious faith from τὴν
παραθήκην μου of ver. 12.
φύλαξον διὰ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου: φυλάσ-
σειν is more than ἔχειν: it implies here
final perseverance; and that can only be
attained through the Holy Spirit. God
must co-operate with man, if man’s
efforts are to be successful. Cf. ‘‘ Work
out your own salvation. . . for it is God
which worketh in you” (Phil. ii. 12, 13).
Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου : This verse and Tit.
iii, 5 are the only places in the Pastorals
in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned.
Ver. 15. οἶδας τοῦτο: There is a per-
sonal appeal for loyalty in this reminder.
The whole paragraph, with its examples
cited of disloyalty and loyalty, was in-
tended as an object lesson to Timothy.
13—18.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
159
πάντες οἱ ἐν TH ᾿Ασίᾳ- ὧν ἐστὶν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης. 16. " δῴη ¢ sees
Td),
® ἔλεος ὁ Κύριος τῷ ᾿Ονησιφόρου οἴκῳ -
καὶ τὴν ᾿ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ " ἐπαισχύνθη,: 17. ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν
Ῥώμῃ ᾿' σπουδαίως 2 ἐζήτησέν pe καὶ εὗρεν "---ἰ8. δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ
vii.20. hHereonly,N.T. i Eph. vi. 20.
1 ἐπῃσχύνθη δ᾿ "Κ.
ἀπεστράφησάν pe: The reff., with the
exception of chap. iv. 4, are parallel to
this use of the verb.
πάντες must not be pressed: it is the
sweeping assertion of depression. If it
had been even approximately true, Timo-
thy would have had no church to admini-
ster. On the other hand, something less
serious than apostasy from the faith may
be alluded to, such as personal neglect of
the apostle (cf. iv. 16, πάντες pe ἐγκατέ-
Xevtrov, and the contrast of Onesiphorus’
conduct with theirs in the next verse), a
thing which to uswho see St. Paul through
the halo of centuries of veneration seems
painfully hard to understand. But it is
abundantly plain that apostles did not
during their lifetime receive that univer-
sal and unquestioning reverence from
their fellow-Christians which we would
have antecedently supposed could not
have been withheld from them. Cf. 3
John 9.
οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ: Asia means the Roman
province, which included Mysia, Lydia,
Caria, great part of Phrygia, the Troad,
and the islands off the coast.
This statement is most naturally ex-
plained of a defection in Asia of natives
of Asia. Plummer conjectures that St.
Paul had applied by letter from Rome for
help to some leading Asiatic Christians,
and had been refused. Of course it is
possible that St. Paul refers to something
that had taken place in Rome (so Bengel,
who compares chap. iv. 16). But all who
are in Asia would be a strange way of
referring to some Asiastics who had been
in Rome and had returned to Asia; and
though οἶδας τοῦτο is naturally under-
stood as mentioning something of which
Timothy had knowledge only by report,
we cannot be sure that St. Paul intended
here to distinguish οἶδας from γινώσκεις.
Perhaps the defection had taken place
during an absence of Timothy from Asia.
Nothing else is known certainly of Phy-
gelus and Hermogenes.
Ver. 16. δῴη ἔλεος, K.T.A.: δίδωμι
ἔλεος, like εὑρίσκω ἔλεος, is a Hebraism.
Seereff. The correlative, λαμβάνω ἔλεος
k See ver. 8.
ὅτι πολλάκις pe ἢ ἀνέψυξεν
Mic.
1 Luke vii. 4, Phil. ii. 28, Tit. iii. 13.
2 σπουδαιότερον DeKL; σπουδαιότερως A, two cursives.
occurs Heb. iv. 6. ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά
τινος (Luke i. 72, x. 37; Jas. ii. 13) is a
similar phrase. Here, we should say,
May God bless so and so. “eos does
not correspond to any special sin.
τῷ Ὃν. οἴκῳ : This household is saluted
in iv. 1g. It is most natural to suppose
that Onesiphorus himself was dead, both
from this expression and from the pious
wish in ver. 18. Prayer for living friends
is normally and naturally in regard to
objects which will be realised here in
earth. The evidence of 2 Macc. xii. 44,
45, proves that an orthodox Jew of our
Lord’s time could have prayed for the
dead. A full discussion of the question
must embrace a consideration of the
final cause of prayer, and of the nature of
that which we call death. See reff. to
recent literature on this subject in Mil-
eo art. Onesifhorus in Hastings’
Do 8:
ἀνέψυξεν: The comprehensive term
refresh expresses the notion admirably.
They are ‘‘the blessed of God the
Father”? to whom the King shall say,
“41 was in prison, and ye came unto
me’”’ (Matt. xxv. 36. See Heb. x. 34,
xiii. 3). For St. Paul’s appreciation of
the pleasures of friendly intercourse, see
Rom. xv. 32, 1 Cor, xvi. 18, 2 Cor. vii.
13, Philem. 7, 20.
ἐπαισχύνθη : For other examples of the
absence of the temporal augment cf.
Luke xiii. 13 (ἀνορθώθη A B D, etc.);
xxiv. 27, John vi. 18, Acts ii, 25,
Rom. ix. 29 (ὁμοιώθημεν A F G L P).
Ver. 17 γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ: The
reference is most likely to the apostle’s
first Roman imprisonment, Eph. vi. 20,
Whichever it was, πολλάκις implies that
it had lasted some time.
Ver. 18. It is immaterial whether we
explain ὁ Κύριος, in this verse, of God
the Father, the source of judgment, or of
God the Son, the instrument of judg-
ment. It is far-fetched to suppose that
the repeated Κύριος . . . Κυρίου refer to
different divine Persons. Huther’s expl.,
followed by Alf.,seems the best, that δῴη ὁ
Κύριος had become so completely a for-
160
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
Il,
,
m Gen. xix. Κύριος ™ edpetv ™ ἔλεος παρὰ Kupiou! ἐν " ἐκείνῃ " τῇ " ἡμέρᾳ---καὶ
19, Num.
xi. 15,
Judg. vi.
17, Dan.
ὩΣ ἘΜ
ἴῃ, 38), ix.
3.
n See ver.
12.
oO 1 Pet. i. 12, iv. 10, with acc.
ἂχ Cor. xv. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 16, iii. 5.
a Seer Tim. i. 2.
t
ὅσα ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ " διηκόνησεν, βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις.
II. 1. Σὺ οὖν, "τέκνον μου, ἢ" ἐνδυναμοῦ ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν
a? A a a” 3 > A A ,
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ" 2. καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων
ταῦτα “παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις οἵτινες “ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ
b See 1 Tim. i, 12. ς Seer Tim. i. 18.
1 θεῷ D*, d,e.
mula that the recurrence did not seem
harsh.
καὶ ὅσα «.T.A.:
afterthought.
διηκόνησεν : The verb is used with a
perfectly general reference here, as in
Heb. vi. Io.
βέλτιον: The comparative here is in-
tensive or elative. See Blass, Grammar,
pp. 33,141,142. Other examples are in 1
Tim. iii. 14 (Tisch.) and in the Received
Text of ver. 17 of this chapter.
CHAPTER I].—Ver. 1. σύ: emphatic,
asin iz Tim. vi. 11 and ch. iii. 10; but the
appeal is not primarily that Timothy
should imitate Onesiphorus, or learn by
the example of Phygelus and Hermo-
genes, but rather marks the intensity of
the apostle’s anxiety for the future con-
duct of Timothy in the Church; and
similarly οὖν is resumptive of all the
considerations and appeals for loyalty in
chap. i.
τέκνον : See note on 1 Tim. i. 2.
ἐνδυναμοῦ ἐν, κιτιλ.: The thought is
resumed from i. 8, 9, and expanded in wv.
3-13. The closest parallel is that in
Eph. vi. 10, ἐνδυναμοῦσθε ἐν Κυρίῳ,
κιτλ, See note on i Tim. i. 12 and
reff., esp. Rom. iv. 20, Phil. iv. 13.
Although the verb is passive, as indicated
in the R.V., those who are, or who are
exhorted to be, strengthened are not
merely passive recipients of an influence
from without. The act of reception in-
volves man’s co-operation with God.
Compare ‘‘ Abide in me, and I in you”
(John xv. 4). The perfection of God’s
power is conditioned by the weakness of
man (2 Cor. xii. 9).
τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν Xp. “Inc.: The two
passages, 2 Cor. xii. 9, and Eph. vi. ro,
alluded to in the last note, explain this.
Grace here has its simplest theological
meaning, as the divine help, the un-
merited gift of assistance that comes
from God.
Ver. 2. St. Paulis here contemplating
an apostolical succession in respect of
This clause is an
teaching rather than of administration.
It is natural that in the circumstances of
the primitive Church the building up of
converts in the faith should have occupied
a larger place in the Christian conscious-
ness than the functions of an official
ministry; but the historical continuity
of the ministry of order is of course in-
volved in the direction here. St. Paul
would have been surprised if any other
conclusion had been drawn from his
words. In any case, the Providence of
God sees further than do His servants.
ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ: See note oni.
13.
διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων : not per multos
testes (Vulg.), but coram multis testibus
(Tert. de Praescript. 25). The usual
Greek for ‘‘in the presence of witnesses ”’
is ἐπὶ μαρτύρων ; but διὰ θεῶν μαρτύρων
is quoted from Plutarch (see Field, in
loc.).
The διὰ is that of accompanying cir-
cumstances. The reference is to a
solemn traditio of the essentials of the
faith on the occasion of Timothy’s or-
dination, rather than his baptism. The
former reference seems clear from the
parallel drawn between St. Paul's com-
mittal of the faith to Timothy and
Timothy’s committal of it to others.
On the other hand, a comparison of τ
Tim. vi. 12 favours the view that this
refers to a formal public instruction at
baptism. Reasons have been already
suggested against the identification of
the laying-on of hands of r Tim. iv. 14
with that of 2 Tim. i. 6. Otherwise it
would be natural to suppose that the
many witnesses were the members of
the presbytery who were joined with St.
Paul in the ordination of Timothy. But
there is no reason why the reference
should be thus restricted. The action
was a public one, “in the face of the
Church’. So Chrys., “‘ Thou hast not
heard in secret, nor apart, but in the
presence of many, with all openness of
speech’. The view of Clem. Alex.
1I—6.
ἑτέρους διδάξαι.
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.3
k Here only, N.T.
ΕΣ 1 Here only, not LXX.
ii. 7, 9 only, N.T. im. i
o See Tim. i. 8.
1 σὺ οὖν κακοπάθ. CcDcKL, syrhcl-txt, go,
(Hy fot. vii. ed. Potter, ii. p. 1015) that
the πολλοὶ μάρτυρες mean testimonies
from the Law and the Prophets is only a
curiosity of exegesis.
παράθου: See note on 1 Tim. 18.
πιστοῖς : trustworthy, carries on the
figure of the faith as a deposit. It is
possible, as Bengel suggests, that the
injunctions in vv. 14-21 have reference to
these ministers.
ἱκανοί: qualified. Seereff. δυνατός,
in Tit. i. 9, expresses capability as proved
by experience.
Vy. 3-13. The condition of all success
is toil; toil which may involve pain.
Think of the price of a soldier’s victory,
the conditions of an athlete’s crown, of
a field-labourer’s wage. Our Lord Jesus
Himself, as man, is the great Exemplar
of this law. I am another. This is a
faithful saying ; and therefore we sing,
“We shall live with Him because we
died with Him, etc.”.
Ver. 3. συνκακοπάθησον : Take thy
part in suffering hardship (R.V.m.).
This general reference is better than to
supply μοι, as ΚΝ. See note on it 8.
στρατιώτης : cf. συνστρατιώτης, Phil.
ii. 25, Philem. 2.
Ver. 4. στρατευόμενος : militans Deo
(Vulg.). Soldier, in the sense of a person
belonging to the army, not soldier on
service, as R.V., which makes the same
error in Luke iii. 14 marg. (See Expositor,
vi., Vii. 120).
ἐμπλέκεται : implicat se (Vulg.). The
verb is used in a similar metaphor, 2
Pet. ii. 20, but in a more adverse sense
than here. A soldier, who is bound to
go anywhere and do any thing at the
bidding of his captain, must have no ties
of home or business. The implied coun-
sel is the same as that given in 1 Cor.
vii. 26-34, with its warnings against Cis-
traction between the possibly conflicting
interests of the Lord and of this life.
Note the use of ἀρέσκω in 1 Cor. vii.
32°34.
VOL. IV.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B
4. °XuvkaxoT@d@yncov! ὡς καλὸς
4. οὐδεὶς ὅ στρατευόμενος
' βίου " πραγματίαις, ἵνα τῷ ᾿ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ.
καὶ “G09 τις, οὐ " στεφανοῦται ἐὰν μὴ “ νομίμως "' ἀθλήσῃ.
τὸν κοπιῶντα γεωργὸν δεῖ πρῶτον τῶν καρπῶν " μεταλαμβάνειν.
m Here only, not LXX, cf. Heb. x. 32.
p Acts. ii. 26, xxvii. 33, 34,
rt
161
‘ στρατιώτης ε ϑες 4 Tim.
1
* ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ f Here only
. in Paul.
5. ἐὰν δὲ g Seer Tim.
i183
6. h 2 Pet. ii.
20 only,
N.T.
i Seer Tim.
ii. 2.
n Heb.
eb. vi. 7, xii. 10.
3 Ἴησ. Χριστ. DcKL, syrpesh,
ἀρέσῃ: that he may be of use to (see
Milligan on 1 Thess. ii. 4).
Ver. 5. The sequence of images
here—the soldier, the athlete, the field-
labourer—affords an interesting illustra-
tion of repetition due to association of
ideas. ‘The soldier and the field-labourer
are combined in 1 Cor. ix. 7-10; the
athlete appears in 1 Cor. ix. 24 5644. And
the present passage has light thrown
upon it from the earlier epistle, in which
the various figures are more fully de-
veloped.
The connexion between the thought of
the soldier and the athlete lies in the
word νομίμως (see note on 1 Tim. i. 8);
and the exact force of νομίμως will ap-
pear from a reference to 1 Cor. ix. 25,
‘‘ Every man that striveth in the games
is temperate in all things”. No one
can be said to comply with the rules of
the contest who has not undergone the
usual preliminary training. One illustra-
tion from those cited by Wetstein will
suffice, that from Galen, comm. in
Hifpocr. i. 15: οἱ γυμνασταὶ καὶ οἱ
γομίμως ἀθλοῦντες, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ ἀρίστου
τὸν ἄρτον μόνον ἐσθίουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ
δείπνου τὸ κρέας.
Ver. 6. The difficulty in this verse is
that the principle here laid down seems
to be employed in 1 Cor. ix, 7,9, as an
argument from analogy in support of the
liberty of Christian ministers to enjoy
some temporal profit from their spiritual
labours ; whereas here St. Paul is urging
a temper of other-worldliness. It is suf-
ficient to say that there is no practical
inconsistency between the two passages ;
‘each man hath his own gift from God,
one after this manner, and another after
that”. There is a time to insist on one’s
liberty to ‘‘use the world,” and there is a
time to warn ourselves and others that
self-repression is necessary to keep our-
selves from “using it to the full”. The
main connexion here lies in the word κοπι-
ὥντα, which is emphatic; while πρῶτον,
162 ΠΡΟΣ TIMOCEON B II.
q Mark xii, 7, νόει 81 λέγω- δώσει2 γάρ σοι ὁ Κύριος
8. "μνημόνευε Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐκ
33, Luke “|
47, I TOOL.
«σύνεσιν ἐν
Eph.iii.4, σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ, " κατὰ " τὸ " εὐαγγέλιόν "μου - 9. ἐν ᾧ " κακοπαθῶ
Col. i. 9,
ii. 2. μέχρι "δεσμῶν ὡς " κακοῦργος - ἀλλὰ 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται.
9,1 Thess.
li. 9, Rev. xviii. 5 (with acc.).
s Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25.
u Acts xx. 23, xxvi. 29, Phil. i. 7, 13, 14, 17, Col. iv. 18, Philem. 10, 13.
t Jonah iv. 10,2 Tim. iv. 5, Jas. v. 13, only.
v Luke xxili. 32, 33, 39-
1So \y*ACFerGP, 17, g go., syrpesh; ἃ ΟΡ ΚΙ, d, ¢, f, vg., boh., syrhcl, arm.
“δῴη CcKLP.
which is also emphatic, expresses in the il-
lustration from the yewpyds the idea cor-
responding to τῷ στρατ. ἀρέσῃ; and to
στεφανοῦται in the others respectively.
The labourer receives his hire, no matter
how poor the crop may be: his wages are
the first charge on the field. Cf. γῆ...
τίκτουσα βοτάνην εὔθετον ἐκείνοις δι᾿
ots καὶ γεωργεῖται (Heb. vi. 7); his
reward is sure, but then he must really
labour. “ The fruits” are the reward of
faithful labour in the Lord’s vineyard,
the ‘well done!” heard from the Cap-
tain’s lips, ‘‘the crown of glory that
fadeth not away’’. We must not press
all the details of an allegory.
Ver. 7. νόει ὃ λέγω: Intellige quae dico
(Vulg.), Grasp the meaning, cautionary
and encouraging, of these three similes.
Cf. “Ὁ speak as to wise men; judge ye
what I say’’ (1 Cor. x. 15), and the use
of the verb in 1 Tim. i. 7.
δώσει, «.t.A.: If you have not suffi-
cient wisdom to follow my argument,
“ask of God, who giveth to all men liber-
ally ” (Jas. i. 5).
μνημόνευε ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν---Δανείδ:
These words form rather the conclusion
of the preceding paragraph than the be-
ginning of a new one. St. Paul in press-
ing home his lesson, passes from figures
of speech to the great concrete example
of suffering followed by glory. And as
he has, immediately before, been laying
stress on the certainty of reward, he gives
a prominent place to éynyeppévov ἐκ
νεκρῶν. Jesus Christ, of the seed of
David, ‘‘ Himself man” (1 Tim. ii. 5),
is the ideal soldier, athlete, and field-
labourer; yet One who can be an ex-
ample tous. It is not the resurrection
as a doctrinal fact (A.V.) that St. Paul
has in mind, but the resurrection as a
personal experience of Jesus Christ, the
reward He received, His being “ crowned
with glory and honour, because of the
suffering of death”? (Heb. ii. 9). It is
not τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν (Acts
xvii. 18), but ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐγηγερμένον, the
perfect (as in r Cor. xv. 4, 12, 13, 14, 16,
17, 20) preserving the notion of the perma-
nent significance of that personal experi-
ence of Jesus. In the other passage,
Rom. i. 3, in which St. Paul distinctly
alludes to our Lord’s human ancestry,
the phrase τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος
Δανεὶδ has a directly historical and pole-
mical intention, as expressing and em-
phasising the human nature of Christ in
antithesis to His Divinity. Here ἐκ
omepp. A. merely expresses the fact of
His humanity. We cannot affirm with
certainty that the phrase has the Mes-
sianic import that Son of David has in
the Gospels.
κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pov: The Gospel
preached by me. See reff., and τὸ εὐ. τὸ
εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (Gal. i. 11; 1 Cor.
xv. I), which of course is identical in
substance with τὸ ev. . . . ὃ ἐπιστεύθην
ἐγώ (1 Tim. i. 11). The verity both of
Christ’s humanity and of His resurrection
was emphasised in the Gospel preached
by St. Paul. This is brought out by the
punctuation of R.V.
Ver. 9. ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ: in which
sphere of action, cf. Rom. 1. 9, 2 Cor. x.
14, Phil. iv. 2. The connexion seems to
be that St. Paul is now indicating that
he himself, in his degree, is an imitator
of Jesus Christ.
ὡς κακοῦργος (see reff.): malefactor
(R.V.). Evil doer (A.V.) does not so
vividly express the notion of criminality
implied in the word. Ramsay notes that
the use of this word here marks “ exactly
the tone of the Neronian period, and... -
refers expressly to the flagztia, for which
the Christians were condemned under
Nero, and for which they were no longer
condemned in Α.Ὁ. 112” (Church in the
Roman Empire, p. 249). Compare 1 Pet.
iv. 15.
ἀλλὰ---οὐ δέδεται: We have the same
contrast between the apostle’s own re-
stricted liberty and the unconfinable
range of the Gospel in Phil. i. 12, 14, and
2 Tim. iv.17. There is no reference, as
i
γι 2.
10. διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τοὺς “ ἐκλεκτούς, ἵνα
σωτηρίας "τύχωσιν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ἸΙησοῦ μετὰ " δόξης 7 αἰωνίου.
II. "πιστὸς "ὁ “λόγος - εἰ γὰρ "σσυναπεθάνομεν, καὶ
12. εἰ ὑπομένομεν, καὶ “ συνβασιλεύσομεν - εἰ 4 ἀρνησόμεθα,2 κἀκεῖνος
z See 1 Tim. i. 15.
2 Cor. vii. 3, not LXX.
1 οὐρανίου f, vg., syrhcl-mg, arm.
Chrys. supposes, to the liberty permitted
to St. Paul to preach the kingdom of
God in his prison, as during the first
imprisonment (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). The
clause here is a natural reflective paren-
thetical remark,
Ver. το. διὰ τοῦτο: The knowledge
that others had been, and were being,
saved through his ministry was regarded
by St. Paul as no small part of his reward.
Thus, the Churches of Macedonia were
his ‘‘crown,”’ as well as his ‘joy’ (Phil.
iv. 1, 1 Thess. ii. 19). He had already
in sight his “crown of righteousness”’.
This consideration suggests that we
should refer διὰ τοῦτο to what follows
rather than to what immediately precedes
(ὁ λόγος... δέδεται). So Alf., who cites
in illustration Rom. iv. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 10,
1 Tim. i. 16, Philem 15. On this view,
we have completely displayed the con-
formity of Jesus Christ and of St. Paul
to the conditions of success exemplified
in the soldier, the athlete, and the field-
labourer.
πάντα ὑπομένω: as Love does, 1 Cor.
xiii. 7. Ellicott rightly points out that
Christian endurance is active, not passive:
pain is felt as pain, but is recognised as
having a moral and spiritual purpose.
διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς: St. Paul was
much sustained by the thought that his
labours and sufferings were, in the provi-
dence of God, beneficial to others (2 Cor.
1.0; Xo XE ἜΡΙΣ ΗΝ 1 X34) eu. ὙΣ
Col. 1. 24; Tit. i. 1). ‘The elect” are
those who, in the providence of God’s
grace, are selected for spiritual privileges
with a view directly to the salvation of
others, as well as of themselves. The
absolute phrase as here is found in Matt.
xxiv. 22, 24= Mark xiii. 20, 22; of ἐκλεκτοὶ
αὐτοῦ in Matt. xxiv. 31= Mark xiii. 27 (9),
Luke xviii. 7; ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ in Rom. viii.
33, Col. iii. 12, Tit. i. 1; ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς ἐν
Κυρίῳ in Rom. xvi. 13.
καὶ αὐτοί: they also (as well as I). It
would be no Paradise to St. Paul “to
live in Paradise alone”. Compare his
supreme expression of selflessness in
Rom. ix. 3.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@GEON B
a Ecclus. xix. 10, Mark xiv. 31, 2 Cor.
οἱ Esd. viii. 26, 1 Cor. iv. 8 only.
163
. > .
και GUTOLW See note.
1% Luke xx.
35, Acts
XXiv. 3,
XXvi. 22,
XXxVvii. 3,
Heb. viii.
6, Xi. 35.
yi Pet.v.10.
b Rom. vi. 8,
Ὁ συνζήσομεν -
vii. 3 only.
ᾧ See 1 Tim. v. 8.
3 ἀρνούμεθα SCDKLP, d, 6.
σωτηρίας μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου : Salva-
tion may be enjoyed in part in this life;
it will be consummated in eternal glory.
See ref., and 2 Cor. iv. 17.
Ver. 11. πιστὸς ὁ λόγος : The teach-
ing or saying referred to is “the word
of the cross” as set forth by simile and
living example in the preceding verses,
4-11. So R.V.m._ This is an exactly
parallel case to 1 Tim. iv. 9. Here, as
there, γάρ introduces a reinforcement of
the teaching.
εἰ yap συναπεθάνομεν, κιτιλ.: The
presence of γάρ does not militate against
the supposition that we have here a frag-
ment of a Christian hymn. A quotation
adduced in the course of an argument
must be introduced by some inferential
particle; see on 1 Tim. iv. το. On the
other hand, it is questionable if εἰ apvy-
σόμεθα, x.7.X. is suitable in tone to a
hymn; and St. Paul’s prose constantly
rises to rhythmical cadences, ¢.g., Rom.
vili. 33 sqq., 1 Cor. xiii. We have here
contrasted two crises, and two states
in the spiritual life: συναπεθάνομεν and
ἀρνησόμεθα point to definite acts at defi-
nite times; while ὑπομένομεν and ἀπισ-
τοῦμεν indicate states of being, more or
less prolonged.
εἰ συναπεθάνομεν καὶ συνζήσομεν:
The two verbs are coupled also in 2 Cor.
vii. 3; but the actual parallel in thought
is found in Rom. vi. 4, 5,8. We died
(aor., R.V.) with Christ at our baptism
(Rom. vi. 8; Col. iii. 3), which, as normally
administered by immersion, symbolises
our burial with Christ and our rising
again with Him to newness of life (Rom,
vi. 4; Col. ii. 12). The future, συνζή-
σομεν; must not be projected altogether
into the resurrection life; it includes and
is completed by that; and no doubt the
prominent notion here is of the life to
come; but here, and in Rom. vi. 8, it is
implied that there is a beginning of eter-
nal life even while we are in the flesh,
viz. in that newness of life to which we
are called, and for which we are enabled,
in our baptism.
Ver. 12. εἰ ὑπομένομεν καὶ συνβασι-
164 ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B Il.
e ΠΕ iii. 1, ἃ ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς - 13. εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει - ἀρνή-
onhn xiv.
26,2 Pet. σασθαι yap} ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται.
i. 12, Jude τὴ Ε = Ἂ
5. : 14. Ταῦτα " ὑπομίμνησκε, * διαμαρτυρόμενος "ἐνώπιον © τοῦ " Θεοῦ,2
f Seer Tim. Η͂ by, - 3 é 24 ade i , é \ xk a A
δ. μὴ “λογομαχεῖν, ὃ ἐπ᾽ ὁ οὐδὲν “χρήσιμον, ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν
ἔϑεει Tim.
ii. 3.
Β Here only, not LXX, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 4. i Here only, N.T. k 2 Pet. ii. 6 only, N.T.
10m. yap NK, d, e, vg., go., syrhcl, arm.
350 SWCFG, 37, 67*, 80, 238, and about thirteen other cursives, f, g, boh.,
sythcl-mg, arm.-ap.-Gb., Chrys., Thphyl., Amb., Pelag.; Κυρίου ADKLP, most
cursives, d, e, vg., go., syrpesh et hel-txt, arm.-ap.-Treg., Chrys., Euthal., Thdrt.,
Dam., Thphyl., Ambrst., Prim.
ϑλογομάχει AC*, d, e, f, g, vg.
λεύσομεν : See Matt. xxv. 34; Luke xxii.
28, 29; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. viii. 17; 2
Thessi1.5 3: Rev. 1.6, xx. Ἂς
el ἀρνησόμεθα, K.7-A.: An echo of our
Lord’s teaching, Matt. x. 33. See also
2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4. ‘‘ The future con-
veys the ethical possibility of the action”’
Ell.
( Ven 13. el amorotpev: It is reason-
able to hold that the sense of ἀπιστέω
in this place must be determined by the
antithesis of πιστὸς μένει. Now πιστός,
as applied to God, must mean faithful
(Deut. vii. 9); one who ‘“keepeth truth
forever” (Ps; οχῖνι, 6.2. (ΟΥὶ 1.5.18);
1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3; Heb. x.
23, xi. 11). There is the same contrast
in Rom. iii. 3, “ Shall their want of faith
(ἀπιστία) make of none effect the faith-
fulness (πίστιν) of God?” But while
we render ἀπιστοῦμεν, with R.V., are
faithless, we must remember that un-
reliability and disbelief in the truth were
closely allied in St. Paul’s conception of
them.
ἀρνήσασθαι yap—od δύναται : Being
essentially the unchangeable Truth, He
cannot be false to His own nature, as we,
when ἀπιστοῦμεν, are false to our better
nature which has affinity with the Eter-
nal, A lie in word, or unfaithfulness in
act, is confessedly only an expedient to
meet a temporary difficulty; it involves
a disregard of the permanent element in
our personality. The more a man real-
ises the transitory nature of created
things, and his own kinship with the
Eternal, the more unnatural and unneces-
sary does falsity in word or deed appear
to him. It is therefore inconceivable
that God should lie (Num. xxiii. 19; 1
Sam. xv. 29; Mal. iii. 6; Tit. i. 2; Heb.
vi. 18). The application of the clause here
is not that ‘‘ He will not break faith with
us ’’ (Alf.), but that the consideration of
our powerlessness to affect the constancy
4 els NCDKL.
of God our Father should brace us up to
exhibit moral courage, as being His
“true children ’’.
Vv. 14-26. Discourage the new false
teaching by precept andexample. There
is no need, however, that you should
despair of the Church. It is founded
upon a rock, in spite of appearances.
Take a broad view of the case: the
Church is not the special apartment of
the Master from which things unseemly
are banished; it is a great House with
places and utensils for every need of
life. This great House differs from
those of earth in that provision is made
for the promotion of the utensils from
the basest use to the Master’s personal
service.
Ver. 14. ταῦτα has special reference
to the issues of life and death set out in
vv. 11-13. There is no such prophylactic
against striving about words as a serious
endeavour to realise the relative import-
ance of time and of eternity. ‘He to
whom the eternal Word speaks is set at
liberty from a multitude of opinions”
(De Imitatione Christi, i. 3).
ὑπομίμνησκε: sc. αὐτούς, as in Tit.
iis τὸ
διαμαρτυρόμενος : See on τ᾽ Tim. v.
ai.
ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ : It is an argument
in favour of this reading that ἐνώπιον
Κυρίου only occurs once in Paul (in a
quotation), in 2 Cor. viii. 21.
λογομαχεῖν : See on r Tim. vi. 4.
ἐπ᾿ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον and ἐπὶ καταστ-
ροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων are coordinate, and
describe the negative and the positive
results of λογομαχία. The subject of
this λογομαχία is probably identical with
that of the μάχαι νομικαί of Tit. iii. 0,
which were ‘unprofitable and vain”.
ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ; K.T.A. : contrast λόγος
+ + + ἀγαθὸς προς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας,
Eph. iv. 29; and compare the antithesis
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β
13—16. 165
> 1 : , m , a a ~ : :
ἀκουόντων. 15. ‘omovsacov σεαυτὸν ™Sdéxinov *mwapactigat τῷ! 2 Tim. iv.
“- 3 > a Η a 9, 21, 11|.
Θεῷ, ἐργάτην ° ἀνεπαίσχυντον, ἢ ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. iii. ταν
= verb also
16. τὰς δὲ 3 βεβήλους “ κενοφωνίας 1 " περιίστασο - ** ἐπὶ ** πλεῖον Gal (,
+ (I),
I These.
(1), Heb. (x), 2 Pet. (3).
m Rom. xiv. 18, xvi. 10, 1 Cor. xi. 19, 2 Cor. x. 18. xiii. 7, Jas. i. 12.
n Matt. xxvi. 53s Luke ii. 22, Acts i. 3, ix. 41, xxiii. 33, Rom. vi. 13, 16, 19, xii. 1, 1 Cor. viii. 8, 2 Cor.
iv. 14, xi. 2, Eph. v. 27, Col. i. 22, 28. ο
a Tim. vi. 20, see 1 Tim. i. 9.
+ 9.
1 καινοφωνίας FG, novitates vocum or verborum ἃ, e, g, m5°.
between καθαίρεσις and οἰκοδομή in 2
Cor. xiii. Io.
It should be added that ἐπ᾽ οὐδὲν
χρήσιμον is connected closely with
λογομαχεῖν (or λογομάχει) by Cyr. Alex.,
Clem. Alex., and the Bohairic version.
The Clementine Vulg. renders unam-
biguously, ad nihil enim utile est; so
F.G, add γάρ.
In addition to the weight of adverse
textual evidence against the reading
λογομάχει, it is open to the objections
that tatra—@eot, disconnected with
what follows, is a feeble sentence ; and
that μαρτύρομαι and διαμαρτύρομαι in
Paul are always followed and completed
by an exhortation, ¢.g., Eph. iv. 17; 1
Tim. Ὁ, Σ᾽ 2 Tim: tv. i:
Ver. 15. σπούδασον: Give diligence
to present thyself (as well as thy work)
to God, approved.
ἀνεπαίσχυντον: Chrys. takes this to
mean a workman that does not scorn to
put his hand to anything ; but it is better
explained as a workman who has no
cause for shame when his work is being
inspected. In any case, the word must
be so explained as to qualify épydatns
naturally ; and therefore it cannot be in-
terpreted by a reference to i. 8 (ph
ἐπαισχυνθῇς), of the shame that may
deter a man from confessing Christ.
ὀρθοτομοῦντα : ὀρθοτομέω is found in
reff. as the translation of sys (Piel)
direct, make straight, make plain. “He
shall direct thy paths,” “ The righteous-
ness of the perfect shall direct his way’’.
This use of the word suggests that the
metaphor passes from the general idea of
a workman to the particular notion of
the minister as one who “ makes straight
paths” (τροχιὰς ὀρθάς) for the feet of
his people to tread in (Heb. xii. 13).
The word of truth is “ The Way” (Acts
ix. 2, etc.). Theodoret explains it of a
ploughman who drives a straight furrow.
Similarly R.V. m. (1), Holding a straight
course in the word of truth. Chrys., of
cutting away what is spurious or bad.
Alf. follows Huther in supposing that
Here only, not LXX.
r Tit. iii. 9.
p Prov. iii. 6, xi. 5 only.
8 Acts iv. 17, XX. 9, XXiV. 4. t 2 Tim.
See 1 Tim. vi. 20.
the idea of cutting has passed out of this
word, as it has out of xatvoropety, and ren-
ders, rightly administering, as opposed
to ‘‘adulterating the word of God”
(2 Cor. ii. 17). Other examples of words
which have wholly lost their derivational
meaning are πρόσφατος and συκοφαντέω.
Theimagery underlying the A.V., R. V.m.
(2), rightly dividing, is either that
of the correct cutting up. ofa Levitical vic-
tim (Beza), or a father (Calvin), or steward
(Vitringa), cutting portions for the food
of the household. The R.V., handling
aright, follows the Vulg., recte tractan-
tem, and gives the general sense well
enough. The use of ὀρθοτομία in the
sense of orthodoxy, in Clem. Al. Strom.
vii. xvi., and Eus. H. Ε. iv. 3, is probably
based on this passage.
Ver. 16. κενοφωνίας: See on 1 Tim.
vi. 20. Here, as Bengel suggests, κενο-
is contrasted with ἀληθείας, dwvias with
λόγον.
περιίστασο: shun, devita,“ Give them
a wide berth” (Plummer), also in Tit.
iii. 9. In these places περιίστασθαι
has the same meaning as ἐκτρέπεσθαι,
Tim. vi. 20. In fact Ell. cites from
Lucian, Hermot. ὃ 86, ἐκτραπήσομαι καὶ
περιστήσομαι, where the two verbs are
evidently used as indifferent alternatives.
Where περιίστημι elsewhere occurs
(N.T.), viz., John xi. 42, Acts xxv. 7, it
means “ to stand around ’”’.
ἐπὶ πλεῖον, «.t.A.: Those who utter
“babblings ” (subject of προκόψουσιν)
are not, as is sometimes supposed,
merely negatively useless; they are
positively and increasingly mischievous,
In iii. 9, οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον, the
situation is different. When a man’s
ἄνοια has become manifest to all, he has
lost his power to do mischief to others;
on the other hand there is no limit to
the deterioration of “evil men and im-
postors’”’ in themselves, προκόψουσιν
ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον (iii. 13).
ἀσεβείας : genitive after ἐπὶ πλεῖον.
The commentators compare Joseph. Bell.
Fud. vi. 2,3. προὔκοψαν cig τοσοῦτον
166 ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β 1
u Luke ii, γὰρ ‘" προκόψουσιν " ἀσεβείας "
52, Rom.
17. καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ds “ ydyypatwa
xiii. 12, “νομὴν ἕξει - ὧν ἐστὶν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φιλητός, 18. οἵτινες περὶ THY
ΝῚ
Gal. 1: τὰ, ,
4 Tim.iii, ἀλήθειαν 7 ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες 1 ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι, καὶ
13, not z
Ux, ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν. 19. 6 "μέντοι "ἢ στερεὸς ° θεμέλιος
v Rom. i. 18 a τς pt
xi. 26, Tit. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕστηκεν, ἔχων τὴν ὁ σφραγῖδα ταύτην, Ἔγνω Κύριος τοὺς
ii. 12, Jude
15, 18.
w Hore only, not LXX. x John x. 9 only, N.T. y See x Tim. i. 6. z John ii. 15, Tit.
i. 11 only, N.T. a John (5), Jas. ii. 8. Jude 8. b Heb. v. 12, 14, 1 Pet. v. 9. c See Tim.
vi. 19. ἃ Rom. iv. 11, 1 Cor. ix. 2, Rev. ix. 4, etc.
1 Ins. τὴν ACDKLP, and almost all other authorities; om. τὴν δῷ ΕὉ, 17.
παρανομίας. Charles thinks προκόψου-
σιν ἐπὶ κακῷ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, Test. of Twelve
Patriarchs, Judah, xxi. 8, the source of
this phrase; but it is merely a parallel.
Ver. 17. ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει:
spread, R.V.m., ut cancer serpit, Vulg.
Ell. compares Ovid. Metam. ii. 825,
“solet immedicabile cancer Serpere, et
illaesas vitiatis addere partes’’. Alf.
supplies many illustrations of νομήἥ as
“the medical term for the consuming
progress of mortifying disease”.
Harnack (Mission, vol. i., pp. 114, 115)
illustrates copiously this conception of
moral evil from the writings of the early
fathers.
Ὑμέναιος kal Φίλητος. This Hymen-
aeus is perhaps the same as he who is
mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 20. Of Philetus
nothing is known from other sources.
Ver. 18. οἵτινες implies that Hymen-
aeus and Philetus were only the more
conspicuous members of a class of false
teachers.
περὶ--ἠστόχησαν: See notes on I
Tim. 1.6, τὸ:
λέγοντες, «.7.A.: There can be little
doubt that the false teaching here alluded
to was akin to, if not the same as, that
of some in Corinth a few years earlier
who said, *“* There is no resurrection of
the dead”’ (1 Cor. xv. 12). What these
persons meant was that the language of
Jesus about eternal life and a resurrec-
tion received its complete fulfilment
in our present conditions of existence,
through the acquisition of that more ele-
vated knowledge of God and man and
morality and spiritual existence gener-
ally which Christ and His coming had
imparted to mankind. This sublimest
knowledge of things divine is, they said,
a resurrection, and the only resurrection
that men can attain unto. These false
teachers combined a plausible but false
Spirituality, or ‘sentimentality, with an
invincible materialism; and they at-
tempted to find support for their material-
istic disbelief in the resurrection of the
body in a perverse misunderstanding of
the Christian language about “ newness
of lite” (Rom. vi. 4; ΟΝ. 11..12, tii. τὴ:
“Esse resurrectionem a mortuis, agni-
tionem ejus quae ab ipsis dicitur veritatis”
(Irenzeus;,, σι ti. 31, 2. ef. πιεῖ ὧδ
Resurr. 19); an achieved moral experi-
ence, in fact; not a future hope. The
heresy of Marcion, on the other hand,
while denying the future resurrection of
the body, affirmed positively the immor-
tality of the soul; cf. Justin Martyr, Dial.
80. ‘Marcion enim in totum carnis
resurrectionem non admittens, et soli
animae salutem repromittens, non quali-
tatis sed substantiae facit quaestionem”’
(Tert. adv. Marcionem, v. 10).
τινων: See note on 1 Tim. i. 3.
Ver. 1g. ‘* We will not fear. The city
of God... shall not be moved” (Ps.
xlvi. 2, 4; ¢f. Heb. xii. 28). The Church
of the New Covenant is like the Church
of the Old Covenant: it has an ideal
integrity unaffected by the defection of
some who had seemed to belong to it.
“They are not all Israel, which are of
Israel. . . . All Israel shall be saved”
(Rom. ix. 6, xi. 26). ‘They went out
from us, but they were not of us; for if
they had been of us, they would have
continued with us” (1 John ii. 19). The
Church, as existing in the Divine Know-
ledge, not as apprehended by man’s in-
tellect, is the firm foundation of God
(R.V.), 2. 6., that which God has firmly
founded. It is called here θεμέλιος τοῦ
θεοῦ rather than οἶκος τ. θεοῦ, so as to
express the better its immobility, unaf-
fected by those who ἀνατρέπουσι, k.T.A.;
cf. στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας (1
Tim. iii. 15). There can hardly be an
allusion to the parable with which the
Sermon on the Mount closes, Luke vi.
48,49. With στερεός compare the use
of otepedw, Acts xvi. 5, and of στερέωμα,
Col. ii. 5.
ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα: It was noted on
17—20.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B
167
ὄντας αὐτοῦ, καὶ “᾿Αποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ * ὀνομάζων τὸ ‘ ὄνομα ε 8:6: Tim.
Kupiou.!
lv. I.
20. ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὔκ ἐστιν μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ f Acts xix.
ἀργυρᾶ ἀλλὰ καὶ “ ξύλινα καὶ " ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν ἃ δὲ
13, Rom.
XV. 20,
Eph. i. 21.
g Rev. ix.20
h 2 Cor. iv.
1 Χριστοῦ a few cursives. 7
I Tim. vi. 19 that in the two places in
which θεμέλιος occurs in the Pastorals,
there is a condensation of expression
resulting in a contusion of metaphor.
Here the apostle passes rapidly from the
notion of the Church collectively as a
foundation, or a building well founded,
to that of the men and women of whom it
is composed, and who have been sealed
by God (see reff. and also Ezek. ix. 4;
John’ vi. :275° 2. Cori. 22; pho. 13,
iv. 30; Rev. vii. 3, 4, 5-8). They are
marked by God so as to be recognised
by Him as His; and this mark also serves
as a perpetual reminder to them that
“they are not their own,” and of their
consequent obligation to holiness of life
(1: Cor. vi. 19, 20). There is no allusion
to the practice of carving inscriptions
over doors and on pillars and foundation
stones (Deut. vi. 9, xi. 20; Rev. xxi. * 4).
The one seal bears two inscriptions, two
mutually complementary parts or aspects:
(a) The objective fact of God’s superin-
tending knowledge of His chosen; (δ)
the recognition by the consciousness of
each individual of the relation in which
he stands to God, with its imperative call
to holiness.
Ἔγνω Κύριος «.t.A.: The words are
taken from Num. xvi. 5, ἐπέσκεπται καὶ
ἔγνω ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, ‘In the
morning the Lord will shew who are
His”. The intensive use of know is
lilustrated by Gen. xviii. 19, Ex. xxxiii.
12,17, Nah. i. 7, John x. 14, 27, 1 Cor.
viii. 3, xiii. 12, xiv. 38, R.V.m., Gal. iv. 9.
᾿Αποστήτω «.T.A.: The language is
perhaps another echo of the story of
Korah: ᾿Αποσχίσθητε ἀπὸ τῶν σκηνῶν
τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν σκληρῶν τούτων - - -
μὴ συναπόλησθε ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ
αὐτῶν. καὶ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς
Κόρε (Num. xvi. 26, 27). But Isa. lii. 11
is nearer in sentiment, ἀπόστητε ἀπόσ-
ante, ἐξέλθατε ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀκαθάρτου
μὴ ἅψησθε, . . . of φέροντες τὰ σκεύη
Κυρίου, cf. Luke xiii. 27. Also Isa. xxvi.
13, Κύριε, ἐκτὸς σοῦ ἄλλον οὐκ οἴδαμεν,
τὸ ὄνομά σου ὀνομάζομεν. The spiritual
logic of the appeal is the same as that of
Gal. v. 25, ‘‘ If we live by the Spirit, by the
Spirit let us also walk”. Bengel thinks
that ἀπὸ ἀδικίας is equivalent to ἀπὸ
posttor, vi., vii. 117.
ἀδίκων, the abstract for the concrete; cf.
ver. 21, “ purge himself from these’’.
Ver. 20. Although the notional Church,
the corpus Christi verum, is unaffected
by the vacillation and disloyalty of its
members, nevertheless (δὲ) the Church
as we experience it contains many un-
worthy persons, the recognition of whom
as members of the Church is a trial
to faith. The notional Church is best
figured as a foundation, which is out of
sight. But the idea of the superstructure
must be added in order to shadow forth
the Church as it meets the eye. It is a
house, a Great House too, the House of
God (1: Tim. iii. 15), and therefore con-
taining a great variety of kinds and qual-
ity of furniture and utensils. On οἰκία,
a whole house, as distinguished from
olxos, which might mean a set of rooms
only, a dwelling, see Moulton in Ez-
There are two
thoughts in the apostle’s mind, thoughts
which logically are conflicting, but which
balance each other in practice. These
are: (1) the reality of the ideal Church,
and (2) the providential ordering of the
actual Church. Until the drag-net is full,
and drawn up on the beach, the bad fish
in it cannot be cast away (Matt. xiii. 47,
48). This is the view of the passage
taken by the Latin expositors, ¢.g., Cy-
prian, Ep. lv. 25. The explanation of the
Greek commentators, that by the ‘“ great
house”? is meant the world at large,
is out of harmony with the context. It
is to be observed that St. Paul expresses
here a milder and more hopeful view of
the unworthy elements in the Church
than he does in the parallel passage in
Rom. ix. 21, 22. There ‘‘ the vessels un-
to dishonour” are “vessels of wrath
fitted unto destruction’’. Here they are
all at least in the Great House, and all
for some use, even if for less honourable
purposes than those served by the vessels
of gold and silver; and the next verse
suggests that it is perhaps possible for
that which had been a “vessel unto dis-
honour” to become fit for honourable use
in the Master’s personal service. We
are reminded of the various qualities of
superstructure mentioned in 1 Cor. iii. 12,
‘gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay,
168
k Pr
1
Tim. iv.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON B
xxi. 13, σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, Hytacpévoy,! ἢ εὔχρηστον τῷ ᾿᾿ δεσπότῃ, εἰς
IL.
ce γον οἷς ἀτιμίαν. 21. ἐὰν οὖν τις ᾿ ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται
™ πᾶν
xiii. 13, 2™ ἔργον ™ ἀγαθὸν " ἡτοιμασμένον. 22. τὰς δὲ “ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας
11, Ῥ φεῦγε" PSiwxe δὲ δικαιοσύνην, “ πίστιν, ᾿ ἀγάπην, εἰρήνην μετὰ 2
m 2 Tim. iii.
17, Lite i, ᾿
16, iii. 1, see 1 Tim. ii. ro.
p See x Tim. vi. 11. q See x Tim. i. 14.
13, 14, 1 Cor. i. 2, x Pet. i. ry.
v See x Tim. vi. 4. w See 1 Tim. iv. 7.
τῶν * ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν Κύριον ἐκ " καθαρᾶς * καρδίας.
n Rev. ix. 7, 15, with eis; cf. Tit. iii. 1.
r Acts Vii. 59, ii. 21, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16, Rom. x. 12,
s See x Tim. i. 5.
23. τὰς δὲ
* μωρὰς καὶ " ἀπαιδεύτους *’ ζητήσεις ” παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσι
ο 3 Macc. iv. 8 only.
τ Tit. iii. 9. u Here only, N.T.
1 Ins. καὶ ScC*DbcK LLP, f, vg., sah., syrhcl, arm.
2Ins. πάντων ACFerG, 17, 31, 73, three others (FG, 73 om. foll. τῶν), g, sah.,
syrhcl, See 1 Cor. i. 2.
stubble”. See also Wisd. xv. 7. Field,
Notes, in loc., suggests that δεσπότης
here is best rendered the owner. See
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 15 and vi. 1.
Ver. 21. St. Paul drops the metaphor.
The general meaning is clear enough,
that a man may become “heaven’s con-
summate cup,” σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς (Acts ix.
15), if he “‘ mistake not his end, to slake
the thirst of God”. When we endue
the vessels with consciousness, it is seen
that they may “rise on stepping-stones
of their dead selves to higher things’’.
The tis has been, it is implied, among
the “vessels unto dishonour’’. ‘ Paul
was an earthen vessel, and became a
golden one. Judas was a golden vessel,
and became an earthen one’”’ (Chrys.).
Bengel supposes that the ἐάν τις is an
exhortation to Timothy himself. This is
suggested in R.V. of ver. 22, “ But flee,”
etc. The reference in τούτων is not
quite clear. It is best perhaps to ex-
plain it of the false teachers themselves,
‘* vessels unto dishonour,” rather than of
their teaching or immoral characteristics,
though of course this is implied. The
thoroughness of the separation from the
corrupting environment of evil company
is expressed by the éx- and ἀπό. Where
ἐκκαθαίρω occurs again, 1 Cor. v. 7, the
metaphor (leaven) also refers to the re-
moval of a corrupting personal element.
There the person is to be expelled; here
the persons are to be forsaken. ἡγια-
σμένον is the equivalent in actual experi-
ence of the simile σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, as
εἰς πᾶν---ἡτοιμασμένον is of εὔχρηστον
τῷ δεσπότῃ. Comparer Cor. yi. 11, “And
such were some of you: but ye were
washed [lit. washed yourselves], but ye
were sanctified” (ἡγιάσθητε).
ἡτοιμασμένον : “ Even though he do
not do it, he is fit for it, and has a capa-
city for it’ (Chrys.). Cf. Eph. ii. 10,
κτισθέντες. . . ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς ols
προητοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περι-
πατήσωμεν; and reff.
Ver. 22. vewreptxds ἐπιθυμίας:
“Every inordinate desire is a youthful
lust. Let the aged learn that they ought
not to do the deeds of the youthful’.
(Chrys.). This is sound exegesis ; yet it is
reasonable to suppose that Timothy was
still of an age to need the warning in its
natural sense. See x Tim. iv. 12. He
has just been cautioned against errors of
the intellect; he must be warned also
(δὲ) against vices of the blood.
φεῦγε" δίωκε δὲ, x.7.A.: See note on 1
Tim. vi. 11.
εἰρήνην : to be joined closely with the
following words, cf. Heb. xii. 14. While
avoiding the company of evil men, he is
to cultivate friendly relations with those
who are sincere worshippers of the same
God as himself. ot ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸν
Κύριον, i.¢., Christ, is almost a technical
term for Christians. See reff. It comes
ultimately from Joel ii, 32 (iii. 5).
ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας is emphatic. See
Mite ὦν 18:16.
Ver. 23. ἀπαιδεύτους: ignorant. An
ignorant question is one that arises from
a misunderstanding of the matter in dis-
pute. Misunderstandings are a fruitful
source of strife. Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 4.
παραιτοῦ : refuse, i.e., Such questions
will be brought before you: refuse to
discuss them, The A.V., avoid might
mean merely, Evade the necessity of
meeting them.
γεννῶσι: There is no other instance
of the metaphorical use of this word in
the N.T.
μάχας: in the weaker sense of conten-
tion, quarrel, as in 2 Cor. vii. 5, Tit. iii.
9; but not Jas. iv. 1.
21---26. III.1.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
169
μάχας. 24. δοῦλον δὲ Κυρίου οὐ δεῖ μάχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ 7 ἤπιον εἶναι x 2 Cor. vii-
πρὸς πάντας, * διδακτικόν, " ἀνεξίκακον, 25. ἐν ἢ πραύτητι ° παιδεύοντα
5, Tit. iii.
9, Jas. iv.
τοὺς “ ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, μή ποτε δώῃ; αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς © μετάνοιαν y τ Thess.
* εἰς ᾿ ἐπίγνωσιν ᾿ ἀληθείας, 26. καὶ ξ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς ἢ τοῦ * δια-
βόλου * παγίδος, ' ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα.
ll. 7, not
z i Tim. iii.
2, not
LXX
III. 1. Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε 3 ὅτι ἐν "ἐσχάταις "ἡμέραις ” ἐνστήσονται a Here only,
ii. 19.
iii. 13, 1 Pet. iii. 15.
vii. 9, 10 (Paul).
v. 10 only, N.T.
c See 1 Tim. i. 20.
f See 1 Tim. ii. 4.
18 @NcDcKLP, 17, many others.
g Here only, not LXX.
a Acts ii. 17 (Joel iii. 1), Jas. v. 3, 2 Pet. iii. 3.
viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 26, Gal. i. 4, Heb. ix. 9.
not LXX,
cf. Wisd.
b x Cor. iv. 21, 2 Cor. x. 1, Gal. v. 23, vi. 1, Eph. iv. 2, Col. iii. 12, Tit. iii. 2, Jas. i. 21,
d Here only, not LXX. e Rom. ii. 4, 2 Cor.
hr Tim. iii. 7. i Luke
b 2 Thess. ii. 2, ¢f. Rom.
2 γινώσκετε A [FerG, 17, one other γινώσκεται], 238, two others, g.
Ver. 24. δοῦλον δὲ Κυρίου: here is
used in its special application to the
ministers of the Church. On the general
teaching, see 1 Thess. ii. 7, 1 Tim. iii. 3,
Tit. iii. 2.
ἥπιος, as Ell. notes, implies gentleness
in demeanour, πραὕτης meekness of dis-
position. “Gentle unto all men, so he
will be apt to teach; forbearing towards
opponents, so he will be able to correct ”’
(Bengel).
Ver. 25. τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους : They
who err from right thinking are to be
dealt with as tenderly and considerately
as they who err from right living. Cf.
Gal. vi. 1, καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν
πνεύματι πραὔτητος. See also chap. iv.
2, andreff. Field takes ἀντιδιατίθεσθαι
as equivalent to ἐναντίως διατίθεσθαι,
“to be contrariwise or adversely af-
fected”. Similarly Ambrosiaster, ¢os
qui diversa sentiunt. Field notes that
‘the only other example of the compound
verb is to be found in Longinus περὶ
ὕψους, xvii. τ᾽. The A.V, and R.V. take
the word here as middle, them that oppose
themselves, eos qui resistunt [veritati]
(Vulg.). von Soden finds in this word the
key to the meaning of ἀντιθέσεις, 1 Tim.
vi. 20.
μήποτε
εἴποτε.
δώῃ: The subjunctive seems a syn-
tactical necessity. See J. H. Moulton,
Grammar, vol. i. pp. 55, 193, 194, Blass,
Grammar, p. 213. On the other hand, W.
H. text, and Winer-Moulton, Grammar, p.
374, read δῴη, optative.
μετάνοιαν: It is certainly implied
that false theories in religion are not un-
connected with moral obliquity and faulty
practice. See Tit. i. 15, 16, iii. 11.
Ver. 26. ἀνανήψωσιν is to be con-
nected with eis τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα. Com-
(not elsewhere in Paul) =
pare ἐκνήψατε δικαίως, 1 Cor. xv. 34.
éxe(vov then refers to ὁ θεός, and θέλημα
will have its usual force as the Will of
God (see 1 Pet. iv. 2): That they who
had been taken captive by the devil may
recover themselves (respiscant, Vulg.) out
of his snare, so as to serve the will of
God. This is Beza’s explanation and
that of von Soden (nearly), who com-
pares αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, 2 Cor. x. 5. It
has the advantage of giving a natural
reference to αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου respec-
tively, which are employed accurately in
iii. 9. The paradoxical use of ζωγρέω in
Luke v. ro must not be taken as deter-
mining the use of the word elsewhere.
Of the other explanations, that of the
A.V. and Vulg., which supposes an in-
elegant but not impossible reference of
both αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου to τοῦ διαβόλου,
is preferable to the R.V., following Wet-
stein and Bengel, which refers αὐτοῦ
back to δοῦλον Κυρίου, and dissociates
ἐζωγρημένοι from παγίδος, with which it
is naturally connected. The reference of
αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου to the same subject, as
given in the A.V., is paralleled by Wisd.
i. 16, συνθήκην ἔθεντο πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι
ἄξιοί εἰσιν τῆς ἐκείνου μερίδος εἶναι.
CHAPTER III.—Vv. 1-9. Evil times
are upon us; we have indeed amongst
us specimens of the perennial impostor,
worthy successors of Jannes and Jam-
bres. The shortlived nature of their
success, will be, however, patent to all.
Ver.1. ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσον-
ται: Although St. Paul had abandoned
his once confident expectation that the
Lord would come again during his own
lifetime, it is plain that here, as in 1
Tim. iv. 1, he regards the time now pre-
sent as part of the last days. See ἀπο-
τρέπου .. . εἰσιν ot ἐνδύνοντες, vv. 5, 6.
The prophetical form of the sentence isa
170
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β
III,
EMeths vie καιροὶ “χαλεποί: 2. ἔσονται γὰρ ot ἄνθρωποι * φίλαυτοι, " φιλάρ-
28 only,
Nits:
Wisd. iii.
,, YuPOts ἐ ἀλαζόνες, ξ ὑπερήφανοι, ἢ βλάσφημοι, γονεῦσιν ᾿᾿ἀπειθεῖς,
19, xvii. ἡ ἀχάριστοι, ' ἀνόσιοι, 3. “ ἄστοργοι, " ἄσπονδοι, ° διάβολοι, ” ἀκρα-
II, xix. τὸ,
ΤΣ 33uk: Tels, 4 ἀνήμεροι, " ἀφιλάγαθοι, 4.
2, 2 Macc.
Rom. i. 30, Jas. iv. 6 = 1 Pet. v. 5 (Prov. iii. 4).
ἯΣ,.3.
31, not LXX.
q Here only, not LXX.
t Acts xix. 36, Prov. x. 14, xiii. 3, Ecclus. ix. 18.
w Here only, not LXX,
n Here only, not LXX.
rhetorical way of saying that things are
going from bad to worse. The same ac-
count is to be given of 2 Pet. iii. 3; Jude
18. St. John says plainly, “It is the last
hour” (1 John ii. 18). See note on 1
Tim. iv. 1.
ἐνστήσονται : will be upon us, insta-
bunt (Vulg.).
χαλεποί: grievous (R.V.); but not
necessarily perilous (A.V.) to those who
feel their grievousness.
Ver. 2. of ἄνθρωποι: mankind in gene-
ral, not of ἄνδρες. This list of human
vices should be compared with that given
in Rom. i. 29 sqq.; ἀλαζόνες, ὑπερήφανοι,
γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἄστοργοι are common
to both passages. φίλαντοι appropri-
ately heads the array, egoism or self-
centredness being the root of almost
every sin, just as love which “ seeketh
not its own” (1 Cor. xiii. 5) is “the
fulfilment of the law’? (Rom. xiii. 10).
φιλαυτία is used favourably by Aris-
totle in the sense of self-respect (Nic.
Eth. ix. 8.7). But “once the sense of
sin is truly felt, self-respect becomes an
inadequate basis for moral theory. So
Philo (de Prof. 15) speaks of those who
are φίλαυτοι δὴ μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι ᾿"
(Dean Bernard, in loc).
φιλάργυροι: covetousness (πλεονεξία,
Rom. i. 29) naturally springs from, or is
one form of, selfishness; but we cannot
suppose with Chrys. that there is a simi-
lar sequence intended all through.
Other compounds of φιλ.- in the Pas-
torals, besides the five that occur here,
are φιλάγαθος, Tit. i. 8, φίλανδρος,
φιλότεκνος, Tit. ii. 4, φιλανθρωπία, Tit.
ili. 4, φιλόξενος, τ Tim. iii. 2, Tit. i. 8.
ἀλαζόνες, ὑπερήφανοι: elati, superbi.
The ἀλαζών, boastful, betrays his char-
acter by his words; the ὑπερήφανος,
haughty, more usually by his demeanour
and expression.
βλάσφημοι: abusive, railers (R.V.);
not necessarily blasphemers (A.V.).
e Luke xvi. 14, 4 Macc. ii. 8 only.
k Luke vi. 35, Wisd. (1), Ecclus. (2), 4 Mace. (1).
o See 1 Tim. iii. 11.
τ Here only, not ΤΧΧ 6)» biti s;
"προδόται, " προπετεῖς, “ τετυφω-
in μένοι, “ φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ “ φιλόθεοι, 5. ἔχοντες “ μόρφωσιν
f Rom. i. 30 only, N.T. g Lukei. 51,
her. Lim. 1 153. i Rom. i. 30, cf. Tit. i. 16,
1 See x Tim. i. 9. m Rom. i.
p Prov. xxvii. 20 only.
s Luke vi. 16, Acts vii. 52.
ἃ See x Tim. iii. 6. v Here only, not LXX.
x Rom. ii. 20 only, not LXX.
γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς and ἀχάριστοι natur-
ally go together; since, as Bengel ob-
serves, gratitude springs from filial duty.
Ver. 3. ἄστοργοι: without natural
affection, sine affectione. This and the
three preceding adjectives appear to have
teference to domestic relations.
ἄσπονδοι: implacable, sine pace (ab-
sque foedere, Rom. i. 31); not truce-
breakers (A.V.), which would be ἀσύν-
θετοι, Rom. i. 31; the ἄσπονδος refuses
to treat with his foe at all.
διάβολοι: A.V.m. here and in Tit. ii. 3,
has makebates. See note on 1 Tim. iii.
Il.
ἀκρατεῖς : without self-control (R.V.)
rather than incontinent (A.V.). The
latter word has a purely sexual refer-
ence, *‘"ereas ἀκρατεῖς, as Chrys. notes,
is uz. ‘with respect both to their
tongue, and their appetite, and everything
else”. It is naturally coupled with
ἀνήμεροι, fierce, immites. ‘Simul et
molles et duri”’ (Bengel).
ἀφιλάγαθοι: No lovers of good
(R.V.), the good being “things true,
honourable, just, pure, lovely, and of
good report’’ (Phil. iv. 8. The positive
φιλάγαθος, Tit. i. 8, has the same refer-
ence. It is a characteristic of the hea-
venly Wisdom (Wisd. vii. 22). The
A.V. in both places narrows the reference
to persons: Despisers of those that are
good; A lover of good men. The
Vulg. sine benignitate, benignum, does
not express the active positive force of
the Greek. φιλάγαθος and ἀφιλάργυρος
are applied to the Emperor Antoninus in
a papyrus of ii. A.D. which also uses the
term ἀφιλοκαγαθία (perh. = ἀφιλοκαλο-
καγαθία) of Marcus Aurelius (Moulton
and Milligan, Expositor, vii., vi. 376).
Ver. 4. προδόται: has no special re-
ference to persecution of Christians.
τετυφωμένοι: See note onr Tim. iii.
Ver. 5. ἔχοντες (see note on Tim. i.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
2—8.
171
εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ "δύναμιν αὐτῆς "ἠρνημένοι " καὶ τούτους " ἀπο- y See 1Tim.
τρέπου. 6. ἐκ τούτων γάρ εἰσιν ot “ ἐνδύνοντες εἰς τὰς οἰκίας Kal zx Cor. ii.
* αἰχμαλωτίζοντες 1 " γυναικάρια ‘ σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις, * ἀγόμενα
Χμ γυναικάρ ρευμένα duap γόμε
ἢ ἐπιθυμίαις ™ ποικίλαις, 7. πάντοτε μανθάνοντα καὶ μηδέποτε * eis
Κ ἐπίγνωσιν * ἀληθείας * ἐλθεῖν δυνάμενα.
N.T., 4 Macc. i. 33, ete. c Here only, N.T.
᾿ f Prov. xxv. 22, Judith xv. 11, Rom. xii. 20.
e Here only, not LX
1 Cor. xii. 2, Gal. v. 18. h Tit. iii. 3.
40, Heb. ii. 4, xiii. 9, Jas. i. 2, 1 Pet. i. 6, iv. 10.
5, iv. 19,
20, I
Thess. i.
5, Heb.
a vii. 16.
8. ὃν τρόπον δὲ ᾿Ιαννῆς aSeexTim.
ν. 8.
b Hereonly,
d Luke xxi. 24, Rom. vii. 23, 2 Cor. x. 5.
ii g Rom. ii. 4, viii. 14,
i Matt. iv. 24 (7. νόσοις) = Mark i. 34 = Luke iv.
k See 1 Tim. ii. 4.
1 αἰχμαλωτεύοντες [Eph. iv. 8] DCKL; add τὰ a few cursives. ͵
19) μόρφωσιν, κιτιλ.: Habentes speciem
quidem pietatis. We have an exact
parallel in Tit. i. 16, θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν
εἰδέναι, Tots δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται. They
were professing Christians, but nothing
more; genuine Christians must also be
professing Christians. This considera-
tion removes any difficulty that may be
felt by a comparison of this passage with
Rom. ii. 20, where it is implied that it is
a point in the Jew’s favour that he has
τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως Kal τῆς
ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. The μόρφωσις,
embodiment, is external in both cases,
but not unreal as far as it goes. The
ineffectiveness of it arises from the co-
existence in the mind of him who “‘ holds”
it of some other quality that neutralises
the advantage naturally derivable from
the possession of the μόρφωσις in
question. In this case, it was that
they of whom St. Paul is speaking hada
purely theoretical, academic apprehen-
sion of practical Christianity (εὐσέβεια,
see 1 Tim. ii. 2), but a positive disbelief in
the Gospel as a regenerating force. Com-
pare what St. John says of the rulers
who believed on Jesus but did not con-
fess Him (John xii. 42, 43). They too
were φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι. In
Romans the case is similar: the posses-
sion of an admirable moral code did not
make the Jew’s moral practice better than
that of the Gentile (see Sanday and
Headlam on Rom. ii. 20). There is
therefore no necessity to suppose with
Lightfoot that “the termination -wots
denotes the aiming after or affecting the
μορφή (Fournal of Class. and Sacr.
Philol. (1857), iii. 115).
δύναμιν: the opposition between
μόρφωσις and δύναμις here is the same
as that between δύναμις and σοφία in τ
Cor. ii. 5, or Adyos, I Cor. iv. 19, 20, I
Thess. i. 5; see also Heb. vii. 16.
ἠρνημένοι : To deny a thing or a per-
son involves always more than an act of
the mind; it means carrying the negation
into practice. See on x Tim. v. 8.
καί: perhaps refers back to ii. 22, 23.
Ver. 6. évduvovres: who insinuate
themselves into houses [which they over-
throw], Tit. i. rz. ‘* Observe how he
shows their impudence by this expres-
sion, their dishonourable ways, their
deceitfulness’’ (Chrys.). παρεισέδνησαν
(Jude 4) and παρεισῆλθον (Gal. ii. 4) are
similar expressions.
γυναικάρια: = Mulierculas. Chrys.
acutely implies that the victims of the
crafty heretics were “silly women” of
both sexes: ‘“‘ He who is easy to be
deceived is a silly woman, and nothing
like a man; for to be deceived is the
part of silly women”. St. Paul, how-
ever, refers to women only.
σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις : overwhelmed,
rather than burdened (βεβαρημένα)
(Field). Is there any contrast implied
between the diminutive, indicating the
insignificance of the women, and the load
of sins which they carry? De Wette
(quoted by Alf.), notes that a sin-laden
conscience is easily tempted to seek the
easiest method of relief.
ποικίλαις: There is no great dif-
ficulty in diverting them from the right
path, for they are inconstant even in vice.
Ver. 7. πάντοτε μανθάνοντα: They
have never concentrated their attention
on any spiritual truth so as to have
learnt it and assimilated it. They are
always being attracted by “" some newer
thing,” τι καινότερον (Acts xvii. 21), and
thus their power of comprehension be-
comes atrophied.
Sérore: For negatives with the
participle, see Blass, Grammar, p. 255.
els ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας : See on xr Tim.
ii.
vee 8. The apostle now returns
from the γυναικάρια to their seducers,
whom he compares to the magicians
who withstood Moses and Aaron, both
172
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
III.
1 Acts xiii, καὶ ᾿Ιαμβρῆς 1 ' ἀντέστησαν Μωυσεῖ, οὕτως καὶ οὗτοι | ἀνθίστανται
8, etc.,
Rom. ix.
19, xiii. 2,
Gal. ii.11,° Thy ὃ πίστιν.
TH ἀληθείᾳ, ἄνθρωποι ™katepOappévor τὸν νοῦν, " ἀδόκιμοι " περὶ
9. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ " προκόψουσιν " ἐπὶ " πλεῖον, ἧ γὰρ
iv. 15, ete. " ἐξ δ
m Here ΤΟ. "Σὺ "δὲ "ππαρηκολούθησάς 2 pou τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, τῇ “ ἀγωγῇ,
only,
ΝΣ
1 Tim. vi. 5 n Rom. i. 28, 1 Cor. ix. 27, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6, 7, Tit. i. 16, Heb. vi. 8. οἱ Tim. i.
10, Vi. 21. p See 2 Tim. ii. 16. isd. xv. 18, xix. 3, etc., Luke vi. 11 only, N.T. r 3 Macc.
iii. 19, vi. 5 only. s See 1 Tim. vi. 11.
(2), 2 Macc. (3), 3 Macc. (1).
1 Μαμβρῆς FG, d, e, f, g, m5°, vg., go.
t See 1 Tim. iv. 6.
u Here only, N.T., Esth.
380 NAC [FG, ἠκολούθησας], 17; παρηκολούθηκας DKLP. See x Tim. iv. 6.
in their hostility to the truth and in their
subsequent fate. St. Paul is the earliest
extant authority for the names; but of
course he derived them from some
source, written (Origen), or unwritten
(Theodoret), it isimmaterial which. But
the former theory is the more probable.
The book is called by Origen (in Matt.
p- 916, on Matt. xxvii. 8), fannes et Mam-
bres liber, and is perhaps identical with
Penitentia Famnis et Mambrae con-
demned in the Decretum Gelasii. Pliny,
whose Natural History appeared in A.D.
77, mentions Jannes along with Moses
and Lotapis (or Jotapis) as Jewish Magi
posterior to Zoroastes (Hist. Nat. xxx.
1). He is followed by Apuleius, Afol. c.
go. Numenius (quoted by Eusebius
(Prep. Ev. ix. 8) mentions Jannes and
Jambres as magicians who resisted
Moses. In the Targ. of Jonathan on
Ex. vii. 11, the names are given as
ΘΖ D5, Janis and Jamberes ;
but in the Talmud as Ὁ ΥῚ NOM,
Jochana and Mamre. It is generally
agreed that Jannes is a form of Jochan-
an (Johannes), and that Jambres is from
the Hiphil of Fp yy to rebel. For the
legends associated with these names, see
art. in Hastings’ D. B.
ἀντέστησαν: The same word is used
of Elymas the Sorcerer, Acts xiii. 8. The
οὕτως refers rather to the degree of their
hostility than to the manner in which
it was expressed, i.e., by magical arts.
At the same time, it is possible that
magic was practised by the false teachers ;
they are styled impostors, γόητες, in ver.
13; and Ephesus was a home of magic.
See Acts xix. 19.
κατεφθαρμένοι Tov νοῦν :. cf. τ Tim. vi.
5, StepOapp. τὸν νοῦν. This is the
Pauline equivalent for the Platonic “lie
in the soul”. κατεφθ. is not coordinate
with ἀδόκ. ; the latter is the exemplifica-
tion of the former.
ἀδόκιμοι: reprobate. The A.V.m.
gives the word here, and in Tit. i. 16, an
active force, of no judgment, void of
judgment. For περί with the acc. see
on i Tim, i. 19.
Ver. 9. οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον:
There is only a verbal inconsistency be-
tween this statement and those in ii. 16
and iii. 13, where see notes, The mean-
ing here is that there will be a limit to
the success of the false teachers. They
will be exposed, found out; those to
whom that fact is apparent will not be
imposed on any more. In ii. 16, the in-
creasing impiety of the teachers and the
cancerous growth of their teaching is
alleged as a reason why Timothy should
avoid them. In ver. 13, προκόψουσιν
ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον does not indicate success
in gaining adherents, but simply advance
in degradation. ‘Saepe malitia, quum
late non potest, profundius proficit”’
(Bengel).
ἄνοια: dementia (ταῦ) is nearer the
mark than insipientia (Vulg.).
ὡς καὶ ἡ ἐκείνων éyévero: “ Aaron’s
rod swallowed up their rods’? (Ex. vii.
12); they failed to produce lice (vii. 18).
“And the magicians could not stand be-
fore Moses because of the boils; for the
boils were upon the magicians’’ (ix.
11. During the plague of darkness,
“they lay helpless, made the sport of
magic art, and a shameful rebuke of their
vaunts of understanding ”’ (Wisd. xvii. 7).
Vv. 10-17. I am not really uneasy
about your steadfastness. You joined
me as a disciple from spiritual and moral
inducements only. The persecutions
you saw me endure you knew to be typi-
cal of the conditions of a life of godliness.
Stand in the old paths. Knowledge of
the Holy Scriptures on which your grow-
ing mind was fed is never out of date as
an equipment for the man of God.
Ver. το: παρηκολούθησας : See on I
Tim. iv. 6. Thou didst follow (R.V.)
9-14.
τῇ "προθέσει, τῇ πίστει, TH ” μακροθυμίᾳ, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ * ὑπομονῇ,
με "ἐρύσατο ὁ Κύριος.
“ἃ εὐσεβῶς 1 “ἐν " Χριστῷ " Ἰησοῦ ΄“ διωχθήσονται.
ἄνθρωποι καὶ " γόητες ἢ
: πλανώμενοι.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
173
v Acts xi.
- ns - 2 23, XXVii.
II. τοῖς " διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασιν, οἷά μοι ἐγένετο ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ, 13.
cet
ἐν ᾿Ικονίῳ, ἐν Λύστροις, οἵους 7 διωγμοὺς "ὑπήνεγκα καὶ ἐκ πάντων Tim. i. 16,
Ἢ — YP ih is a ein. 4. Con Th
12. καὶ πάντες δὲ ot θέλοντες “ζῇν 6, Gal. v
22, Eph.
13. πονηροὶ δὲ iv. 2, Col.
ἊΣ - 1. II, ll.
προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, ᾿ πλανῶντες καὶ 12, 2 Tim
1 1 = τ΄ ἴς ξι.θ <a iv, 2, Heb.
14. ᾿ σὺ 'Sé ™udve ™év οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ " ἐπιστώθης, yi! 12, Jas.
v. 10 (of
- : 2 man).
y Acts xiii. 50, xom. viii. 35, 2 Cor. xii 10, 2 Thess. 1.4. z Rom. viii.
x See 1 Tim. vi. rr.
18, 2 Cor. i. 5, 6, 7, Phil. iii. το, Col. i. 24, Heb. 11. το, x. 32, 1 Pet. iv. 13, v. 9, etc, not LXX.
a 1 Cor. x. 13, 1 Pet. ii. 19, only, ΝΟΥ.
2 Tim. iv. 17, 18, 2 Pet. ii. 7, 9.
cf. Gal. ii. 20.
only, not LXX.
i. 8, ii. 26, iii. 7, Rev. (7), etc.
1 Tim. vi. 11. m See r Tim. ii. 15. n
h See 2 Tim. ii. 16.
Ὁ Matt. vi. 13, Rom. xv. 31, 2 Cor. i. 10,2 Thess. iii. 2,
ς Tit. ii. 12. :
f Matt. v. 10, 11, John xv. 20, 1 Cor. iv. 12, 2 Cor. iv. 9, Gal. v. 11, etc.
i Matt. xxiv. 4, 5, 11, 24 (= Mark xiii. 5, 6), x John
k Matt. xviii. 12, Tit. iii. 3, Heb. v. 2, 1 Pet. ii. 25, etc.
Here only, N.T.
d4 Macc. vii. 21 only. e Rom. vi. 11,
g Here
See
1So WAP, 17, 37, two others; εὐσεβῶς ζῆν CDFGKL.
‘s susceptible of the meaning ‘‘ Thou
wert attracted as a disciple to me on
account of”. It is not necessarily im-
plied that Timothy had copied his master
in all these respects. The A.V., Thou
hast fully known, follows the A.V. of
Luke i. 3. This translation fails to bring
out the appeal to Timothy's loyalty
which underlies the passage. The aorist
is appropriate here, because St. Paul is
recalling to Timothy’s recollection the
definite occasion in the past when the
youth cast in his lot with him. He
is not thinking, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6,
of Timothy’s consistent discipleship
up to the moment of writing. Bengel
quotes aptly 2 Macc. ix. 27, παρακολου-
θοῦντα τῇ ἐμῇ προαιρέσει. (So cod.
Venetus: A has συνσταθέντα for παρα-
nod.) This limitation of the reference
explains why St. Paul mentions only the
places in which he suffered on his first
missionary journey.
διδασκαλίᾳ: See note on τ Tim. i. το.
ἀγωγῇ: conduct (R.V.). The AV.,
manner of life has perhaps reference
to guiding principles of conduct rather
than to the external expression of them,
which is meant here.
προθέσει: For πρόθεσις in this sense
of human purpose see reff. Here it
means what St. Paul had set before him-
self as the aim of his life. In Rom. viii.
28,1. 11, Eph. ἢ, τὰ, iti. 11, 2 Tim. 1.9
the word is used of God’s eternal purpose
for man.
ὑπομονῇ : See on 1 Tim. vi. 11.
Ver. 11. ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ : Acts xiii. 14, 45,
50; Ἰκονίῳ : Acts xiv. 1, 2,5; Avorpots:
Acts xiv. 6, 109.
οἵους Siwypovs : There is no necessity
to supply, with Alf., ‘* Thou sawest”’.
kal: and yet. The verse is ah echo
of Ps. xxxiii. (xxxiv.) 18, ὁ Κύριος ...
ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτῶν ἐρύσατο
αὐτούς. See also reff.
Ver. 12. This verse is an interesting
example of the effect of association of
ideas. St. Paul’s teaching after his per-
secutions at Antioch, etc., had strongly
emphasised this topic. St. Luke (Acts
xiv. 22) actually repeats the very words
used by the preachers, ‘ Through many
tribulations we must enter into the king-
dom of God”. Consistency in the life
in Christ must necessarily be always op-
posed by the world. θέλοντες is em-
phatic, as Ell. notes, “ whose will is”.
Cf. Luke xiv. 28, John vii. 17.
εὐσεβῶς of course qualifies ζῇν, as in
Tit. ii. 12. There is a similar extension
of thought, from self to all, in iv. 8.
Ver. 13. πονηροὶ δὲ: The antithesis
seems to be between the apparent dis-
comfiture of those who wish to live in
Christ (their persecution being after all
almost a means conditional to their at.
taining their desire), and the paradoxical
success of evil men; they advance in-
deed ; but only in degradation ; proficient
in peius (Vulg.). See notes on ver. 9 and
ii. 16.
ΧΕ γόητες, impostors (R.V.), seductores,
exactly expresses the term. γοητεία
occurs 2 Macc. xii. 24, where it means
trickery.
πλανώμενοι: cf. Tit. iii. 3. Those
who deceive others impair, in so doing,
their sense of the distinction between
truth and falsehood, and thus weaken
their power of resistance to self-deceit,
and to imposition by others.
προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον: See on
ver. g.
Ver. 14. σὺ δὲ μένε: Both σύ and μένε
are in strong contrast to the πονηροὶ
174
oEcclus. εἰδὼς παρὰ τίνων ἔμαθες,
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β
III.
15. καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ °Bpépous 3 ἱερὰ
(1),1 , > [2
Macc, (1), γράμματα οἶδας τὰ δυνάμενά σε " σοφίσαι " εἰς "σωτηρίαν διὰ
2
Macc,
4 Macc.
(1), Luke (5), Acts vii. 19, x Pet. ii. 2.
r Ps, xviii. (xix.) 7, civ. (cv.) 22, CXviii. (cxix.) 98.
Rom. i. 16, x. 1, 10, 2 Cor. vii. 10, Heb. ix. 28, xi.
p 1 Cor. ix. 13 only, N.T.
"πίστεως ‘ris ‘év ᾿ Χριστῷ "᾿Ιησοῦ. 16. πᾶσα γραφὴ “θεόπνευστος
q John vii. 15, Acts xxvi. 24.
s Phil. i. 19, 2 Thess. ii. 13, 1 Pet. i. 5, ii. 2, cf.
a. t 1 Tim. iii. 13. u Here only, not LXX.
150 NAC*FerGP, 17, one other, d, e, g; τίνος CcDKL, f, vg., go., boh., syrr.,
arm.
2Ins. ra AC*DCKLP; om. τὰ ΟΡ ΕΘ, 17, arm.
ἄνθρωποι and προκόψουσιν of ver. 13.
The exhortation is illustrated by 2 John
9, πᾶς 6 προάγων, καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν
τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει.
The conservatism here enjoined concerns
more especially the fundamental ethical
teaching common to the Old Covenant
and the New. For the idiom, see note
on τ Tim. ii. 15.
ἐν ols ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης: ἃ, sup-
plied out of ἐν οἷς, is the direct object of
ἔμαθες, and remoter object of ἐπιστώθης.
ἐπιστώθης: The Latin versions blun-
der here, quae . .. credita sunt tibi.
This would be the translation of ἐπιστ-
ev0ns. πιστόομαί τι means to have re-
ceived confirmation of the truth of a’
thing. Bengel, rendering “ fidelis et
firmus es redditus,’’ compares Ps. Ixxvii.
(Ixxviii.) 8, οὐκ ἐπιστώθη μετὰ τοῦ
θεοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῆς, and 37, οὐδὲ ἐπισ-
τώθησαν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ αὐτοῦ.
εἰδὼς παρὰ τίνων ἔμαθες : It has to be
remembered that St. Paul is speaking of
moral, not intellectual, authority. The
truths for which St. Paul is contending
were commended to Timothy by the
sanction of the best and noblest person-
alities whom he had ever known or heard
of. The characters of Timothy’s revered
parent and teachers—of Eunice, Lois,
the prophets, and Paul, to enumerate
them in the order in which they had
touched his life—had been moulded ina
certain school of morals. Their charac-
ters had admittedly stood the test of life.
What more cogent argument could Tim-
othy have for the truth and reasonable-
ness of their moral teaching ?
Ver. 15. καὶ ὅτι : dependent on εἰδώς.
For the change of construction, von Soden
compares Rom. ix. 22, 23; 1 Cor. xiv. 5.
Timothy’s knowledge of things divine
was derived not merely from persons, but
from sacred writings; and, perhaps, as
Theophylact notes, the two points are
emphasised: (a) that the persons were of
no ordinary merit, and (δ) that his know-
ledge of Scripture was conterminous with
the whole of his conscious existence.
He could not recall a period when he had
not known sacred writings. This is the
force of the hyperbolic ἀπὸ βρέφους.
ἱερὰ γράμματα : sacras litteras, sacred
writings (R.V.). For this use of γράμ-
pata see John vii. 15, and Moulton and
Milligan, Expositor, vii., vi. 383. The
force of this peculiar phrase is that
Timothy’s A B C lessons had been of
a sacred nature. The usual N.T. equi-
valent for the Holy Scriptures ee)
is at γραφαί or ἡ γραφή (once ypada
ἅγιαι, Rom. i. 2); but St. Paul here deli-
berately uses an ambiguous term in order
to express vigorously the notion that
Timothy’s first lessons were in Holy
Scripture. τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα is found
in Josephus, Antig. Prooem 3 and x. ro,
4, and elsewhere. Cf. παραναγνοὺς τὴν
ἱερὰν βίβλον (2 Macc. viii. 23). There
may be also an allusion to γράμματα of
the false teachers which were not ἱερά.
See on next verse.
aodioat: instruere, cf. Ps. xviii. (xix.)
8, ἣ μαρτυρία Κυρίου πιστή, σοφίζουσα
γήπια. Also Ps. οἷν. (cv.) 22, cxviii.
(cxix.) 98. The word is chosen for its
O.T. reference, and also because of its
strictly educational association.
εἰς σωτηρίαν : a constant Pauline
phrase. See reff.
διὰ πίστεως : to be joined closely with
σοφίσαι. Cf. de Imitatione Christi,
iii. 2, “Let not Moses nor any prophet
speak to me; but speak thou rather, O
Lord God, who art the inspirer and en-
lightener of all the prophets; for thou
alone without them canst perfectly in-
struct me, but they without thee will
avail nothing. They may indeed sound
forth words, but they do not add to them
the Spirit. . . . They shew the way, but
thou givest strength to walk in it,”’ etc.
Ver. 16. In the absence of any extant
Greek MS. authority for the omission of
καί before ὠφέλιμος, we may assume
that the early writers who ignored it did
so from carelessness. The sentence then
15---17. IV.1.
kai! " ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς “ ἐλεγμόν,2 πρὸς * ἐπανόρ- ν See
θωσιν, πρὸς 7 παιδείαν "τὴν *év " δικαιοσύνῃ -
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β
178
- Tim.iv.8
17. ἵνα "ἄρτιος ἡ 6 w Here
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, " πρὸς " πᾶν " ἔργον " ἀγαθὸν “ ἐξηρτισμένος. Ne
IV. τ. "Διαμαρτύρομαι ὃ " ἐνώπιον > τοῦ " Θεοῦ καὶ * Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
y Eph. vi. 4, Heb. xii. 5, 7, 8, rr.
2 iim. ii. 21 and 1 Tim. ii. 10.
b See x Tim. ii. 3.
z Tit. iii. 5, cf. Eph. iv. 24.
ς Exod. xxviii. 7, Acts xxi. 5 only.
x1 Esd.
viii. 52, I
Macc.xiv.
34 only.
a Here only, not LXX. b See
a See 1 Tim. v. 21.
1Om. καί bef. ὠφέλιμος f, vgcle. boh., syrpesh,
380 NWACFG, 31, 80, two others; ἔλεγχον DKLP.
3 Ins. οὖν ἐγὼ DcKL, syrhel.
‘Ins. τοῦ Κυρίου DcKL, go., syrpesh and syrhcl c,*
δ Ἴησ. Χριστ. DcKL, vgcle, syrr., arm.
is best taken as a repetition and expan-
sion of that which has just preceded;
θεόπνευστος corresponding to ἱερά, and
ὠφέλιμος, K.7.A., to σοφίσαι, κ.τ.λ.:
Every writing which is inspired by
God is also profitable. γραφή of course
has exclusive reference to the definite
collection of writings which St. Paul
usually designates as ἣ γραφή or αἱ
γραφαί; but it is used here in a partitive,
not in a collective sense. A parallel case
is John xix. 36, 37, ἣ γραφή ... ἑτέρα
γραφή. Hence the rendering writing or
passage is less free from ambiguity than
scripture (R.V.). The nearest parallel
to this ascensive use of καί, as Ellicott
terms it, is Gal. iv. 7, εἰ δὲ vids, καὶ
κληρονόμος. See also Luke i. 36, Acts
xxvi. 26, xxviii. 28, Rom. viii. 29.
θεόπνευστος: If there is any polemical
force in this adj., it is in reference to
heretical writings, the contents of which
were merely intellectual, not edifying.
In any case, the greatest stress is laid on
ὠφέλιμος. St. Paul would imply that
the best test of a γραφή being θεόπν-
εὐστος would be its proved serviceable-
ness for the moral and spiritual needs of
man. See Rom. xv. 4, 2 Pet. i. 20, 21.
This, the R.V. explanation of the pas-
sage, is that given by Origen, Chrys.,
Thdrt., syrr., the Clementine Vulg.,
Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis
est ad docendum etc. [The true Vulg.
text, however, is insp. div. et utilis ad
doc.} The other view (A.V., R.V.m.),
which takes καὶ as a simple copula,
Every Scripture is inspired and profitable,
is open to the objection that neither in the
antecedent nor in the following context
is there any suggestion that the inspira-
tion of Scripture was being called in
question; the theme of the passage be-
ing the moral equipment of the man of
God. For this view are cited Greg.
Naz., Ath. It is to be added that it is
possible to render πᾶσα γραφή, the
whole of Scripture, on the analogy of
Matt. 11. 3, πᾶσα “lepdcoAvpa (Eph.
ii. 21 cannot be safely adduced as a case
in point); but it is unnecessary and un-
natural.
διδασκαλίαν (see notes on 1 Tim. i.
10) and ἐλεγμόν represent respectively
positive and negative teaching. Simi-
larly ἐπανόρθωσιν and παιδείαν have re-
lation respectively to “the raising up of
them that fall,” and the disciplining the
unruly ; ad corrigendum, ad erudiendum
(Vulg.). ;
τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ: a παιδεία which
is exercised in righteousness. Compare
the dissertation on the παιδεία Κυρίου,
Heb. xii. 5 544. παιδεία in reff. is used
in relation to children only.
Ver. 17. ἄρτιος: perfectus, completely
equipped for his work as a Man of God.
τέλειος would have reference to his per-
formance of it. ᾿ :
ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος: see on 1 Tim. vi.
11. The Man of God has here a primary
reference to the minister of the Gospel.
πρὸς πᾶν, K.T.A.: see ii. 21; and, for
this use of πρός, 1 Pet. iii. 15, 2 Cor.
ii. 16, x. 4, Eph. iv. 29, Heb. v. 14
and on ἐξαρτίζω, Moulton and Milligan,
Expositor, vii., vii. 285. _
Cf. the use of καταρτίζω, Luke vi. 40,
2 Cor. xiii. 11, Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. v. to.
CuapTer IV.—Vv. 1-8. I solemnly
charge you, in view of the coming judg-
ment, to be zealous in the exercise of
your ministry while the opportunity lasts,
while people are willing to listen to your
admonitions. Soon the craze for novelty
will draw men away from sober truth to
fantastic figments. Do you stand your
ground. Fill the place which my death
will leave vacant. My course is run, my
crown is awaiting me. ‘‘ My crown” did
176
ΠΡΟΣ TIMO@EON B
IV.
cSeerTim. τοῦ μέλλοντος Kpivew! ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ 2 τὴν “ ἐπιφάνειαν
vi. 14.
d Luke (7), αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ" 2. κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, * ἐπίστηθι
ὴ fp γ στη
Acts (11),
1 Thess.
Vv. 3,2 a
τ ἵν. 5." μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ. 3.
e Ecclus.
XViii. 22,
Mark xiv. 11 only, ve Σ Cor, xvi. 12.
(7), Mark (9), Luke (12), Jude 9.
Biting) its
1 κρῖναι FG, 17, 67**, six others.
f Ecclus. xxxv. (xxxii.) 4, only. cf. Phil. iv. ro.
h See 1 Tim. i. 16 and 2 Tim. iii. 10. i
“ εὐκαίρως *dxaipws, ἔλεγξον, © ἐπιτίμησον, παρακάλεσον, ἐν ἢ πάσῃ
ἔσται γὰρ καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ᾿ ὑγιαινούσης
g Matt.
ix Tim. i. τὸ (g.v.),
2 κατὰ ScDcKLP, vegcle, go., syrr., arm.
ὃ ἐπιτίμ. παρακαάλ. NcACDerKLP, syrhcl, arm. ; παρακάλ, ἐπιτίμ. N*FG, 37,
one other, d, e, f, g, vg., go., boh.; om. παρακάλ. syrpesh,
Isay? Nay, there is a crown for you,
too, and for all who live in the loving
longing for the coming of their Lord.
Ver. 1. Διαμαρτύρομαι: See on x Tim.
v.21. As the adjuration follows imme-
diately on warnings against a moral
degeneration which had already set in
and would increase, it is appropriate that
it should contain a solemn assurance of
judgment to come.
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν:
This was a prominent topic in St. Paul’s
preaching (Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16;
1 Cor. iv. 5). κρῖναι is the tense used
in the Creeds, as in 1 Pet. iv. 5. (Tisch.
R.V.). See apparat. crit.
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς : To be understood
literally. See x Thess. iv. 16, 17.
τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν: per adventum ipsius
(Vulg.). The acc. is that of the thing
by which a person adjures, as in the case
of ὁρκίζω (Mark v. 7; Acts xix. 13; cf. 1
Thess. v. 27). The use of διαμαρτύρομαι
with an acc. in Deut. iv. 26, xxxi. 28, is
different, διαμαρτ. ὑμῖν σήμερον τόν τε
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. “I call heaven
and earth to witness against you.”
Heaven and earth can be conceived as
personalities, cf. Ps. 1. 4; not so the
appearance or kingdom of Christ. On
ἐπιφάνεια see note on r Tim. vi. 14.
βασιλείαν: The perfected kingdom,
the manifestation of which will follow
the second ἐπιφάνεια.
Ver, 2. κήρυξον: In r Tim. v. 21
Stapapr. is followed by ἵνα with the
subj.; in 2 Tim. ii. 14 by the inf. Here
the adjuration is more impassioned ;
hence the abruptness; this is heightened
also by the aorists.
ἐπίστηθι: Insta, Be at hand, or Be
ready to act. ἐπίστ. etx. ἀκ. qualifies
adverbially κήρυξον; while the follow-
ing imperatives, ἔλεγξον, x.T.A., are vari-
ous departments of ‘preaching the
word”’,
εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως : opportune, impor-
tune (Vulg.). So few καιροί remain
available (see next verse), that you must
use them all. Do not ask yourself, ‘Is
this a suitable occasion for preaching?”
Ask rather, ‘‘ Why should not this be a
suitable occasion?” ‘Have not any
limited season ; let it always be thy sea-
son, not only in peace and security and
when sitting in the Church” (Chrys.).
Similar expressions are cited by Ben-
gel, ¢.g., dignaindigna ; praesens absens ;
nolens volens. We need not ask whether
the reasonableness, etc., has reference to
the preacher or the hearers. The direc-
tion is to disregard the inclinations of
both.
ἔλεγξον : Taking this in the sense
convict, Chrys. comments thus on the
three imperatives, ‘‘ After the manner
of physicians, having shown the wound,
he gives the incision, he applies the
plaister”’.
ἐπιτίμησον : “ The strict meaning of
the word is ‘to mete out due measure,’
but in the N.T. it is used only of cen-
sure’, So Swete (on Mark i. 25), who
also notes that with the exceptions of
this place and Jude 9, it is limited to the
Synoptists.
παρακάλεσον: See on i Tim. iv. 13.
ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ : This
qualifies each of the three preceding im-
peratives; and πάσῃ belongs to διδαχῇ
as well as to paxp., with the utmost
patience and the ‘most painstaking in-
struction.
διδαχῇ: “ (teaching) seems to point
more to the act, διδασκαλία (doctrine)
to the substance or result of teaching”
(Ell.). In the only other occurrence of
διδαχή in the Pastorals, Tit. i. 9, it
means doctrine.
Ver. 3. ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας : See
note on 1 Tim. i. το.
ἰδίας : ἴδιος here, as constantly, has
merely the force of a possessive pronoun.
See on 1 Tim. iii. 4.
2—6.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
177
διδασκαλίας οὐκ *dvéfevrar, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας 1 k Heb. xiii.
ἑαυτοῖς | ἐπισωρεύσουσιν διδασκάλους
22, etc.
ἢ κνηθόμενοι τὴν "ἡ ἀκοήν, 4.1 Here only,
not ΧΧ.
καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ᾿ ἀκοὴν ° ἀποστρέψουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς m Here
Ῥ μύθους 3“ ἐκτραπήσονται. 5. "σὺ
σον, ἔργον ποίησον “εὐαγγελιστοῦ, τὴν διακονίαν σου ᾿πληροφόρησον.
τ δὲ "νῆφε ἐν πᾶσιν, * κακοπάθη-
only, not
LXX.
n Matt. xiii.
14=Acts
XXViii. 26
6. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη “ σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς " ἀναλύσεώς pou? (isa.vi.g),
Thess, ii. 13, Heb. iv. 2, v. 11, 2 Pet. ii. 8.
q See 1 Tim. 1. 6. r See 1 Tim. vi. 11.
t See 2 Tim. ii. ϑ'
w Phil. ii. 17 only, N.T.
1 ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἰδίας KL.
ἐπισωρεύσουσιν: coacervabunt (Vulg.).
‘* He shews the indiscriminate multitude
of the teachers, as also their being elected
by their disciples ’’ (Chrys.).
κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοήν: prurientes auri-
bus (Vulg.). The same general idea is
expressed in πάντοτε μανθάνοντα (iii. 7).
Their notion of a teacher was not one
who should instruct their mind or guide
their conduct, but one who should gratify
their zsthetic sense. Cf. Ezek. xxxiii.
32, “ Thou art unto them as a very lovely
song of one that hath a pleasant voice,
ἄς." The desire for pleasure is insati-
able, and is increased or aggravated by
indulgence; hence the heaping up of those
who may minister to it. Ell. quotes ap-
propriately from Philo, Quod Det. Pot.
21, ἀποκναίουσι γοῦν [ot σοφισταὶ]
ἡμῶν τὰ ὦτα.
Ver. 4. The ears serve as a passage
through which the truth may reach the
understanding and the heart. Those
who starve their understanding and heart
have no use for the truth, and do not, as
they would say, waste hearing power
on it.
μύθους : See note on 1: Tim. i. 4.
Ver. 5. vie: Be sober (R.V.). So-
brius esto (d). vigila (Vulg.) [but Vulg.
Clem. inserts sobrius esto at end of verse].
So A.V., watch, and Chrys. Sober is
certainly right in 1 Thess. v. 6, 8; but in
I Pet. i. 13, iv. 7, and perhaps v. 8, to be
watchful or alert seems more appropriate.
ἔργον εὐαγγελιστοῦ: The office of
evangelist is mentioned Acts xxi. 8,
Eph. iv. 11. The evangelist was an
itinerant preacher who had not the
supervising functions of an apostle, nor
the inspiration of a prophet; though both
apostle and prophet did, inter alia, the
work of evangelist. This was in all like-
lihood the work to which Timothy had
originally been called. St. Paul here
reminds him that in the faithful perform-
VOL. IV.
u Acts xxi. 8, Eph. iv. 11 on‘ty, not LXX.
x Here only, not LXX.
1 Cor, xii.
17, 1
o See 2 Tim. i. 15. p See 1 Tim. i. 4.
81 Thess. v. 6, 8, 1 Pet. i. 13, iv. 7, v. 8, not LXX.
v Luke i. 1, 2 Tim. iv. 17.
2 ἐμῆς ἀναλύσεως DKL.
ance of what might seem to be subordi-
nate duties lies the best preservative of
the Church from error. Note, that the
office of an episcopus is also an ἔργον,
1 ΤΙ ΗΠ Δ ols Cor, xvi, 10, Phil. 31,
30, Eph. iv. 12, 1 Thess. v. 13.
τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον:
fulfil. According to Chrys., this does
not differ from πλήρωσον. See Col. iv.
17, Acts xii. 25. For διακονία, ministry
ΟἹ service in general, see 1 Tim. i. 12.
Ver. 6. The connexion from ver. 3
seems to be this: The dangers to the
Church are pressing and instant; they
can only be met by watchfulness, self-
sacrifice, and devotion to duty on
the part of the leaders of the Church,
of whom thou art one. As for me,
I have done my best. My King is
calling me from the field of action to
wait for my reward; thou canst no longer
look to me to take initiative in action.
This seems to be the force of the em-
phatic ἐγώ and the connecting γάρ.
ἤδη σπένδομαι: jam delibor (Vulg.).
The analogy of Phil. ii. 17, σπένδ. ἐπὶ
τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ (where see
Lightfoot’s note), is sufficient to prove
that St. Paul did not regard his own
death as a sacrifice. There the θυσία is
the persons of the Philippian con-
verts (cf. Rom. xii. 1, xv. 16) ren-
dered acceptable by faith, and offered up
by their faith. Here the nature of the
θυσία is not determined, possibly not
thought of, by the writer. The reason
alleged by Chrys. for the absence here of
the term θυσία is ingenious: “ For the
whole of the sacrifice was not offered
to God, but the whole of the drink-offer-
ing was.” It is immaterial to decide
whether the imagery is drawn from the
Jewish drink-offerings, or heathen liba-
tions. Lightfoot quotes interesting
parallels from the dying words of Seneca:
“stagnum calidae aquae introiit resper-
12
178
y Seever.2.7 ἐ éoTykev.
zSee1 Tim. b >
vi. 12 and ”°
1 Tim? iv. ~
10.
a Acts xiii,» κ. ἢ
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B
7. "τὸν "καλὸν * ἀγῶνα
IV.
1 κ᾿»
ἠγώνισμαι, τὸν "ἢ δρόμον
τετέλεκα, τὴν πίστιν ὅ τετήρηκα - 8. “λοιπὸν ᾿ ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ
τῆς δικαιοσύνης "στέφανος, ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἢ ἐκείνῃ
ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ ' δίκαιος ' κριτής “ οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐμοὶ ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν
b Act Ἢ
cts Xx. a ~
24. τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν * ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ.
ς Matt. x.
23, Luke
Xli. 50, xviii. 31, xxii. 37, John xix. 28, 30, Acts xiii. 29, 2 Cor. xii. 9, etc.
and vi.14. 42 Cor. xili. 11,1 Thess, iv. 1.
v. 4, Rev. ii. 10. h See 2 Tim. i. 12.
i Ps. vii. 11, 2 Macc. xii. 6, 41. k
d See 1 Tim. v. 22
gi Cor. ix. a5. Jas. i. 12, 1 Pet.
ee 1 Tim. vi. 14.
f Col.i. 5, etc.
1 ἀγῶνα τὸν καλὸν DKLP.
gens proximos servorum, addita voce,
libare se liquorem illum Fovi Liberatori”
(Tac. Ann. xv. 64), and from Ignatius,
‘“« Grant me nothing more than that I be
poured out a libation (σπονδισθῆναι) to
God, while there is yet an altar ready”
(Rom. 2).
τῆς ἀναλύσεως : There is no figure of
speech, such as that of striking a tent or
unmooring a ship, suggested by ἀνά-
λυσις. It was as common a euphemism
for death as is our word departure.
See the verb in Phil. i. 23, and, besides the
usual references given by the commenta-
tors, see examples supplied by Moulton
and Milligan, Expositor, vii., v. 266.
The Vulg. resolutionis is wrong. Dean
Bernard calls attention to the “ verbal
similarities of expression”? between this
letter to Timothy and nine divi writ-
ten when Timothy was with St. Paul,
viz., σπένδομαι, ἀνάλυσις here and
ἀναλῦσαι, Phil. i. 23, and the image of
the race; there (Phil. iii. 13, 14) not
completed, here finished, v. 7.
ἐφέστηκεν : instat (Vulg.), is come
(R.V.), is already present, rather than is
at hand (A.V.), which implies a post-
ponement. For similar prescience of
approaching death compare 2 Pet. i. 14.
Ver. 7. τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἠγώνισμαι :
See note on σὲ Tim. vi. 12. The follow-
ing τὸν δρόμον, «.t-A., makes this refer-
ence to the games hardly doubtful.
τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα : cursum consum-
mavi (Vulg.). What had been a purpose
(Acts xx. 24) was now a retrospect. To
say ‘‘ My race is run,’ is not to boast,
but merely to state a fact. The figure is
also found in 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 12.
The course is the race of life; we must
not narrow it, as Chrys. does, to St.
Paul’s missionary travels.
τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα : As in ii. 21, St.
Paul passes from the metaphor to the
reality. For the force of τηρέω here,
see note on r Tim. vi. 14; and cf. Rev.
xiv. 12, of τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ τὴν πίστιν ᾿Ιησοῦ. The faith is
a deposit, παραθήκη, a trust which the
Apostle is now ready to render up to
Him who entrusted it to him. There is
no real inconsistency between the tone
of this passage and that of some in
earlier epistles, ¢.g., Phil. iii. 12, sqq.
St. Paul is merely stating what the grace
of God had done for him. A man does
well to be distrustful as regards his use
of the years of life that may remain to
him ; but when the life that he has lived
has been admittedly lived “in the faith
which is in the Son of God” (Gal. ii.
20), mock modesty becomes mischievous
ingratitude.
Ver. 8. λοιπόν: For what remains.
The R.V. renders it besides in 1 Cor. i.
16, moreover in 1 Cor. iv. 2. The notion
of duration of future time is not in the
word any more than in the French du
reste. St. Paul means here “I have
nothing more to do than to receive the
crown’’. λοιπόν has the sense of in
conclusion in 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 1 Thess. iv.
1, and does not differ from τὸ λοιπὸν as
used in Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1;
or τοῦ λοιποῦ as used in Gal. vi. 17,
Eph. vi. ro. The meaning of τὸ λοιπόν
in 1 Cor. vii. 29, Heb. x. 13 is henceforth.
ἀπόκειται: reposita est (Vulg.). Cf
Col. i. 5, διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην
ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and, for the senti-
ment, I Pet. i. 4.
ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος : The
whole context demands that this should
be the possessive genitive, The crown
which belongs to, or ts the due reward of,
righteousness, the incorruptible crown
οὔτ Cor. ix. 25. The verbal analogies of
στέφ. τῆς ζωῆς, James i. 12, Rev. ii. 10,
and στέφ. τῆς δόξης, 1 Pet. v. 4, sup-
port the view that it is the gen. of
apposition ; but it is difficult on this sup-
position to give the phrase an intelligible
meaning. ‘Good works, which are the
7—11.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B
179
9. '™ Σπούδασον " ἐλθεῖν ™mpds ™ pe ταχέως - 10. Δημᾶς γάρ See2 Tim
pe " ἐγκατέλιπεν ' ἀγαπήσας ° τὸν
ll. 15.
ονῦν “ αἰῶνα, καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς πὶ T it. iii.
12.
Θεσσαλονίκην, Κρήσκης εἰς Γαλατίαν,2 Τίτος εἰς Δαλματίαν 3." 11. τ Josh. i. ὁ,
xxi. (xxii.) 1, Isa. i. 4, 2 Cor. iv. 9, Heb. x. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 16.
Ps. xv.
(xvi.) το,
o See I. Tim. vi. 17.
1So S[D*] Ksil. most cursives ; ἐγκατέλειπεν ACDbeFGLP, 17, 47*, one other.
3 Γαλλίαν SSC, 23, 31, 39, 73, 80, am*, Eus., H. E. iii. 4, 8.
8 Δελματίαν C, 2, 67**, eleven others; Aeppariav A.
fruits of Faith and follow after Justifica-
tion. . . are pleasing and acceptable to
God in Christ” (Art. xii.). It is to be
noted that ore. τῆς Six. is applied to
the golden fillet worn by the high priest
in the Tests. of Twelve Patriarchs, Levi,
viii. 2.
ἀποδώσει : reddet (Vulg.). As long as
we agree to the statement that Moses
ἀπέβλεπεν εἰς τὴν μισθαποδοσίαν (Heb.
xi. 26), it seems trifling to dispute the
retributive force of ἀπο- in this word. Of
course “ the reward is not reckoned as of
debt, butas of grace”’. St. Paulcould say,
“It is a righteous thing with God to
recompense (ἀνταποδοῦναι). . . ἴο you
that are afflicted rest with us” (2 Thess. i.
6, 7), see also Rom. ii. 6.
ἐν ἐκείνῃ TH ἡμέρᾳ : see oni. 12.
ὁ δίκαιος κριτής : The notion expressed
in this phrase goes back to Gen. xviii.
25. For the actual words, see reff.
οὐ μόνον δὲ... ἀλλὰ Kal: see on I
Tim. v. 13.
τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ:
The ἐπιφάνεια here meant is the Second
Coming of Christ. . Those who love it do
not fear it, for ‘‘ there is no fear in love”
(1 John iv. 18); they endeavour to make
themselves increasingly ready and fit for
it (τ John iii. 3); when they hear the
Lord say, “I come quickly,” their hearts
respond, ‘Amen; come, Lord Jesus”
(Rev. xxii. 20). The perfect tense is
used because their love will have con-
tinued up to the moment of their receiving
the crown, or because St. Paul is thinking
of them from the standpoint of the day
of crowning.
Vv. g-12. Come to me as speedily as
youcan. Iam almost alone. Some of
my company have forsaken me; others
I have despatched on business. Bring
Mark with you. I have use forhim. τ
Ver. 9. ταχέως : more definitely ex-
pressed in ver. 21, “ before winter ’’.
Ver. 10. Demas had been a loyal
fellow-worker of the apostle (Philem.
24; Col. iv. 14). Chrys. supposes that
Thessalonica was his home. It is futile
to discuss the reality or the degree of
his blameworthiness. Pussibly he alleged
acallto Thessalonica. All we know is
that St. Paul singles h/m out among the
absent ones for condetanation.
ἐγκατέλιπεν: dereliquit (Vulg.), for-
sook, not merely left. See reff. The
aorist points to a definite past occasion
now in St. Paul’s mind.
ἀγαπήσας τὸν viv αἰῶνα: See τ Tim.
vi. 17. It is just possible that Bengel is
right in seeing an intentional deplorable
contrast (‘luctuosum vide antitheton ”’)
between this expression and ver. 8.
εἰς Θεσσαλονίκην : Lightfoot (Biblical
Essays, p. 247) alleges other reasons for
the supposition that Demas hailed from
Thessalonica, viz., He ‘is mentioned
next to Aristarchus, the Thessalonian in
Philem. 24, and. .. the name Demetrius,
of which Demas is a contract form,
occurs twice among the list of politarchs
of that city’’.
Κρήσκης εἰς Γαλατίαν: sc. ἐπορεύθη.
Crescens and Titus are not reproached
for their absence. This passage, with
the variant Γαλλίαν (see apfparat. crit.),
is the source of all that is said about
Crescens by later writers.
Γαλατίαν : That this means the Roman
province, or the region in Asia Minor (so
Const. Apost. vii. 46) is favoured by the
consideration that all the other places
mentioned in this context are east of
Rome. On the other hand, if we assume
that St. Paul had recently visited Spain
(Clem. Rom. τ Cor. 5; Muratorian
Canon), it would naturally follow that
he had visited Southern Gaul en route,
and Crescens might plausibly be sup-
posed to have gone to confirm the
Churches there. So Euseb. H. E. iii. 4,
Epiph. Haeres. li. 11, Theodore and
Theodoret, h. 1.
Tiros εἰς Δαλματίαν : This statement
suggests that Titus had only been a tem-
porary deputy for St. Paulin Crete. On
the spelling of the name Dalmatia in
apparat. crit., see Deissmann, Bible
Studies, trans. p. 182.
Ver. 11. Λουκᾶς: Nothing can be
more natural than that ‘ the beloved
180 ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β IV.
pActsxx. Λουκᾶς ἐστὶν μόνος pet ἐμοῦ.
13, 14,
xxiii. 31. σεαυτοῦ - ἔστιν γάρ μοι “ εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν.
13. τὸν * φελόνην ὃν " ἀπέλιπον 2 ἐν Τρῳάδι
q See 2 Tim.
ii.21. ἀπέστειλα εἰς Ἔφεσον.
r Here only
Μᾶρκον " ἀναλαβὼν dye! μετὰ
12. Τυχικὸν δὲ
not LXX. παρὰ Κάρπῳ ἐρχόμενος φέρε, καὶ τὰ *BiBAia, μάλιστα τὰς “pep-
8. 2 Tim. iv.
20, Tit. i.
5, Jude 6.
t Luke iv. 17, 20, John xx. 30, xxi. 25, Gal. iii. 10, etc.
u Here only, not LXX.
1 ἄγαγε A, 31, 47, 238, five others.
3 80 NDKsil., many cursives; ἀπέλειπον ACFGLP.
physician’”’ and historian should feel
that he of all men was in his place beside
St. Paul when the end was co nearly
approaching. The pévos is relative to fel-
low-labourers in the gospel. St. Paul had
many friends in Rome (ver. 21).
Μᾶρκον: St. Paul was now completely
reconciled to John Mark who had, be
fore Col. iv. 10 was written, vindicated
and justified the risk Barnabas had run
in giving him a chance of recovering his
character (see Acts xiii. 13, xv. 38).
ἀναλαβών: assume (Vulg.). Take up on
your way. Assumere is also the Latin
in Acts xx. 14, xxiii. 31, but suscipere in
xx. 13. It is implied that Mark was
somewhere on the line of route between
Ephesus and Rome; but we do not know
the precise place.
ἄγε pera σεαυτοῦ: This phrase is
illustrated from the papyri by Moulton
and Milligan, Expositor, vii., v. 57.
εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν: As Mark
was the ἑρμηνευτής of St. Peter, render-
ing his Aramaic into Greek, so he may
have helped St. Paul by a knowledge of
Latin. διακονία, however, does not ne-
cessarily include preaching. It is char-
acteristic of St. Paul that he should not
regard “the ministry which he had re-
ceived from the Lord Jesus” as “ accom-
plished’’ so long as he had breath to
‘* testify the gospel of the grace of God”
(Acts xx. 24).
Ver. 12. Τυχικὸν δέ, κιτιλ.: The δέ
does not involve a comparison of Tychi-
cus with Mark, as both εὔχρηστοι (so
Ell.) ; but rather distinguishes the cause
of Tychicus’ absence from that of the
others. Demas had forsaken the apostle ;
and Crescens and Titus had gone, per-
haps on their own initiative; Tychicus
had been sent away by St. Paul himself.
For Tychicus, see Acts xx, 4, Eph. vi.
21, 22, Οοἷ« ἵν 758, Lit. 1. 12: δπᾶ
the art. in Hastings’ Ὁ. B.
εἰς Ἔφεσον: If the emphasis in the
clause lies on ἀπέστειλα, as has been
just suggested, the difficulty of harmonis-
ing eis Ἔφεσον with the common belief
that Timothy was himself in chief autho-
tity in the Church at Ephesus is some-
what mitigated. St. Paul had mentioned
the places to which Demas, etc., had
gone; and even on the supposition that
St. Paul knew that Tychicus was with
Timothy, he could not say, “1 sent away
Tychicus ’? without completing the sen-
tence by adding the destination. This
explanation must be adopted, if we sup-
pose with Ell. that Tychicus was the
bearer of First Timothy. If he were the
bearer of Second Timothy, ἀπέστειλα
can be plausibly explained as the epis-
tolary aorist. On the other hand, there
is no reason why we should assume that
Timothy was at Ephesus at this time.
Other local references, ¢.g., i. 15, 18, and
iv. 13 are quite consistent with a belief that
he was not actually in that city. Perhaps
“Do the work of an evangelist ”’ (iv. 5) is
an indication that he was itinerating.
Ver. 13. I want my warm winter cloak
and my books.
τὸν φελόνην: The φελόνης, or φαι-
λόνης, by metathesis for φαινόλης, was
the same as the Latin faenula, from
which it is derived, a circular cape which
fell down below the knees, with an open-
ing for the head in the centre. (So
Chrys. on Phil. ii. 30; Tert. De orat.
xii.). The Syriac here renders it a case
for writings, a portfolio, an explanation
noted by Chrys., τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔνθα
τὰ βιβλία ἔκειτο. But this is merely a
guess suggested by its being coupled with
βιβλία and μεμβράνας.
Τρῳάδι: Even if Timothy was not in
Ephesus, he was in Asia, and travellers
thence to Rome usually passed through
Troas. Perhaps St. Paul had been ar-
rested at Troas, and had not been allowed
to take his cloak, etc. This is a more
plausible supposition than that he was
making a hurried flight from Alexander,
as Lock conjectures, Hastings’ D. B.,
iv. 775, @
Κάρπῳ: See art. in Hastings’ D. B.
τὰ βιβλία would be papyrus rolls in
use for ordinary purposes, while the
12—16.
Bpdvas.
--- ἀποδώσει]
* φυλάσσου, "λίαν γὰρ ἡ ἀντέστη 2 τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις.
τῇ πρώτῃ μου "ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι
x Luke xii. 15, Acts xxi. 25, 2 Pet. iii. 17.
z See 2 Tim. 11]. 8. i
Ὁ Acts v. 21, xxi. 18, x xiii. 35, xxiv. 24, XXV. 7.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B
181
14. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὁ “ χαλκεὺς πολλά μοι κακὰ * ἐνεδείξατο " v Here only
αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ----Ἴ 5. ὃν καὶ σὺ wGen.l.15,
17; (δέι) 2
Cor. viii.
24, Tit. ii.
10, iii. 2,
Heb. vi.
16. Ἐν
παρεγένετο," ἀλλὰ πάντες
b
10, II.
y Matt. (4), Mark (4), Luke (1), 2 John 4, 3 John 3.
a Acts xxii. 1, xxv. 16, 1 Cor. ix. 3, 2 Cor. vii. 11, Phil. i. 7, 16. 1 Pet. iii. 15.
150 WACDFG, 17, 31, 37, 67**, 80, 108, nine others, f, g, vgclem., go., syrpesh,
boh. arm.; ἀποδῴη DcK(8wer)L, most cursives, d, e, am., fuld.
3 ἀνθέστηκε SQCDCKLP.
more costly μεμβράναι contained, in all
likelihood, portions of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, hence μάλιστα (see Kenyon,
Textual Crit. of N. T. p. 22). We
know that St. Paul employed in study the
enforced leisure of prison (Acts xxvi. 24).
We may note that, like Browning’s
Grammarian, he did not allow his normal
strenuous life to be affected or diverted
by the known near approach of death.
Vv. 14,15. Beware of Alexander the
smith.
Ver. 14. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὁ χαλκεύς: It
is probable that this is the Alexander
mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 20, and it is pos-
sible that he may be the Jew of that
name who was unwillingly prominent in
the riot at Ephesus (Acts xix. 33, 34).
χαλκεύς: does not mean that he
worked only in copper. The term came
to be used of workers in any kind of
metal (see Gen. iv. 22, LXX).
πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο: Multa
mala miht ostendit (Vulg.). His odium
theologicum expressed itself in deeds as
well as in words. For this use of ἐν-
δείκνυμαι, compare reff. Moulton and
Milligan (Expositor, vii., vii. 282) cite
from a papyrus of ii. A.D. πᾶσαν πίστιν
por ἐνδεικνυμένῃ.
ἀποδώσει: The future indic. is cer-
tainly attested by a greater weight of
external evidence than the optative.
The moral question raised by the clause
is quite independent of the mood and
tense used: it is, Was the future punish-
ment of Alexander, which St. Paul con-
sidered equitable, a matter of more
satisfaction than distress to the apostle ὃ
The answer would seem to be, Yes. And,
provided that no element of personal
spite intrudes, such a feeling cannot be
logically condemned. If God is a moral
governor; if sin is a reality ; those who
know themselves to be on God’s side
cannot help a feeling of joy in knowing
that evil will not always triumph over
8 συμπαρεγένετο SCDKLP.
good. The sentiment comes from Deut-
xxxii. 35, as quoted in Rom. xii. 19, ἐγὼ
ἀνταποδώσω. The exact wording is
found in Ps. Ixi. (lxii.) 13, σὺ ἀποδώσεις
ἑκάστῳ κατὰ Ta ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Cf. Ps.
xxvii. (xxviii.) 4; Prov. xxiv. 12.
Ver. 15. φυλάσσου: For this sense
of φυλάσσω with a direct object, see reff.
We infer that Alexander was in Timothy’s
vicinity.
ἡμετέροις λόγοις: The λόγοι were
expressions of doctrine common to all
Christians with St. Paul; hence ἥμε-
τέροις.
Vv. 16-18. I have spoken of my pre
sent loneliness. Yet 1 have no justifica-
tion for depression; for since I came to
Rome I have had experience, at my pre-
liminary trial, that God is a loyal protec-
tor when earthly friends fail. And so I
have good hope that He will bring me
safe through every danger to His hea-
venly kingdom.
_Ver. 16. The reference in my first
defence seems at first sight somewhat
uncertain, since ver. 17 states the issue of
that “defence”’ to have been that “ the
message was fully proclaimed, and all the
Gentiles heard it”. This would agree
with the circumstances of the trials before
Felix and Festus, a direct result of which
was that Paul was enabled to “" bear wit-
ness also at Rome”? (Acts xxiii. rr). On
this view, the apostle would be recalling
a signal past instance in which God had
overruled evil for good. On the other
hand, it is a fatal objection to this refer-
ence of the phrase that when he was at
Czsarea he seems to have been kindly
treated by his friends as well as by the
officials. And, moreover, the sentence
reads like a piece of fresh information.
This latter consideration is also an argu-
ment against referring it to the first
Roman imprisonment (as Euseb. H. E.
ii. 22), though the very similar sentiments
of Phil. i. 12, 13, render the identification
182
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β
ΙΝ.
cSeever.10.ne " ἐγκατέλιπον ἷ "---μὴ αὐτοῖς “ λογισθείη.---17. ὃ δὲ Κύριόν μοι
d Rom. ii.
26, iv.
passim., 2
*rapéory καὶ * ἐνεδυνάμωσέν pe, ἵνα δι᾿ ἐμοῦ 5 τὸ © κήρυγμα ἢ πληρο-
Ὅοτ.ν. 19, φορηθῇ καὶ ἀκούσωσιν 2 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - καὶ ᾿' ἐρύσθην ἐκ στόματος
Gen. xv. a
6. Ps. A€ovtos.2 18. ῥύσεταί με ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς * ἔργου "ἢ πονηροῦ
Xxxi.
(xxxii.) 2. ae
e Acts xxvii. 23, Rom. Xvi. 2. f See 1 Tim. i. 12. h See ver.
i See 2 Tim. iii. 11.
k John iii. 19, vii. 7, Col. i, 21, x
1 Cor. i. 21, Tit. i. 5.
Soha iii, 12.
1So $D*Ksil., most cursives; ἐγκατέλειπον ACDbcFGLP,
3 ἀκούσῃ KL.
plausible. But in this latter case again
the language of Philippians has no traces
of forsakenness. We decide therefore
that St. Paul is here referring to the
preliminary investigation (prima actio)
which he underwent after he arrived at
Rome a prisoner for the second time,
and which resulted in his remand. He
was now writing to Timothy during the
interval between his remand and the
second, and final, trial. But if we thus
explain “ my first defence,” how are we
to interpret ἵνα δι᾽ ἐμοῦ, «.t.A.? The
explanation will be suggested by a com-
parison of such passages as Rom. xv. 10,
‘From Jerusalem, and round about even
unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the
gospel of Christ”; Col. i. 23, ‘The
gospel which ... was preached in all
creation”. We annex a territory by the
mere act of planting our country’s flag
on a small portion of its soil; so in St.
Paul’s thought a single proclamation of
the gospel might have a spiritual, almost
a prophetical, significance, immeasurably
greater than could be imagined by one
who heard it. ‘* Una seepe occasio max-
imi est momenti’’ (Bengel). It is to be
noted too that παρέστη and ἐνεδυνάμωσεν
refer to the occasion of the “first de-
fence,’’ and St. Paul does not say that
the Lord set him free; so that we are
obliged to explain ἵνα δι᾽ ἐμοῦ, «.7.A. of
St. Paul’s bold assertion of his faith in
Christ on that occasion, which however
was a public one, not like his previous
private teaching to those who came to
him ‘“‘in his own hired dwelling” (Acts
XXViii. 30).
παρεγένετο: adfuit (Vulg.), supported
meas “advocatus’’. The verb is used of
appearing in a court of justice in reff. It
simply means to come or arrive in 1 Cor.
xvi. 3. This complaint is difficult to
reconcile with ver 21. Perhaps here St.
Paul is referring to old friends on whom
he had a special claim.
Ver. 17. παρέστη: The Lord was my
‘* patronus,”’ cf. Rom. xvi. 2. But the
3 Ins. καὶ DcFerGKLP, g, syrrt.
word is used in a purely local sense of
the felt presence of a Divine Being in reff.
in Acts.
ἐνεδυνάμωσεν : See note on 1 Tim. i.
12.
πληροφορηθῇ : impleatur (Vulg.). As
long as there had been no public procla-
mation of the gospel by Paul himself in
Rome, the function of κῆρυξ had not
been completely fulfilled by him.
ἐρύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος: This is
most naturally understood as an echo of
Ps, xxi.(xxii.) 22, σῶσόν pe ἐκ στόματος
λέοντος. ῥῦσαι occurs in the verse pre-
ceding. And what follows in the LXX
seems to point to the most satisfactory
expianation of the apostle’s meaning,
Kal ἀπὸ κεράτων μονοκερώτων τὴν
ταπείνωσίν μου. διηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομα
σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, κιτιλ. If St.
Paul had not been strengthened to com-
plete his κήρυγμα, his failure would have
been his ταπείνωσις. As it was, he was
delivered from that calamity, and enabled
to declare God’s name to the Gentiles.
It is impossible, in view of ἤδη σπένδομαι
(ver. 6), to suppose that delivery from
death is implied. πρώτῃ (ver. 16) proves
that the apostle was aware that a second
trial was awaiting him, the issue of
which he knew would be his execution.
It is still more in:possible to suppose
that literal wild beasts are meant. Paul’s
Roman citizenship secured him from that
degradation. The Greek commentators
take ‘“‘ the lion ᾽ to mean Nero, “ from his
ferocity ’’ (Chrys.). Cf. Esth. xiv. 13, of
Ahasuerus; Joseph. Antigq. xviii. 6, 10, of
Tiberius. It is no objection to this
exegesis that the article is omitted before
λέοντος, since, as we have seen, there is
none in the Psalm. But deliverance
from that lion’s mouth would be equiva-
lent to acquittal by the Roman govern-
ment; and it is evident that St. Paul
was well aware that his sentence had
been only deferred.
Ver. 18. ἔργου πονηροῦ: The form of
the clause may be modelled on the peti-
17—21.
ΠΡΟΣ TIMOGEON B
183
καὶ σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον - ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἷς 1 See ver.13.
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν aidvwv: ἀμήν.
Τί πη ϊ.15.
19. Ἴλσπασαι Πρῖσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν καὶ τὸν ᾿Ονησιφόρου οἶκον.
20. Ἔραστος ἔμεινεν ἐν Κορίνθῳ - Τρόφιμον δὲ ᾿ ἀπέλιπον 1 ἐν
Μιλήτῳ ἀσθενοῦντα.
21. ᾿᾿ σπούδασον πρὸ χειμῶνος ἐλθεῖν.
1 80 $DFGKsil., most cursives; ἀπέλειπον CLP, 17, 31, 47", one other.
tion in the Lord’s Prayer, ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς
ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ; but the addition of
ἔργου proves that the deliverance spoken
ofis not from an external Evil Personality,
but from a possible evil deed of the
apostle’s own doing. The expression
has always a subjective reference. See
reff. This exegesis is in harmony with
the view taken above of ‘the mouth of
the lion”. Failure to be receptive of the
strengthening grace of the Lord would
have been, in St. Paul’s judgment, an
‘evil deed,” though others might easily
find excuses for it. Chrys. takes a similar
view of ἔργου πονηροῦ, but gives it a
wider application: ‘He will yet again
deliver me from every sin, that is, He
will not suffer me to depart with con-
demnation”. This view is also sup-
ported by what follows, σώσει, x.1.A.
At one moment the apostle sees the
crown of righteousness just within his
grasp, at another, while no less confi-
dent, he acknowledges that he could not
yet be said ‘‘to have apprehended”,
σώσει eis: shall bring me safely to,
saluum faciet (Vulg.). ‘‘Dominus est
et Liberator, 1 Thess. i. 10, et Salvator,
Phil. iii. 20” (Bengel).
βασιλείαν... ἐπουράνιον: That the
Father’s kingdom is also the Son’s is
Pauline doctrine. ἐπουράνιος became a
necessary addition to βασιλεία as it be-
came increasingly evident that the king-
dom of heaven which we see is very
different from the kingdom of heaven to
be consummated hereafter. It is difficult
not to see a connexion between this
passage and the doxology appended in
primitive times to the Lord’s Prayer, ὅτι
σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ
ἡ ϑόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
ᾧ ἡ δόξα: The doxology, unmistakably
addressed to Christ, need only cause
a difficulty to those who maintain that
‘*God blessed for ever” in Rom. ix. 5
cannot refer to Christ, because St. Paul
was an Arian. Yet Rom. xvi. 27, 1 Pet.
iv. II, not to mention 2 Pet. iii. 18, Rev.
i. 6, v. 13, are other examples of doxo-
logies to the Son.
Vv. 19-22. Final salutations.
Ver. 19. Πρῖσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν: The
same unusual order, the wife before the
husband, is found in Rom. xvi. 3, Acts
xviii. 18, 26, but not in Acts xviii. 2,
1 Cor. xvi. 19. ‘‘ Probably Prisca was of
higher rank than her husband, for her
name is that of a good old Roman family
[the Acilian gens]. Aquila was probably
afreedman. The name does indeed occur
as cognomen in some Roman families ; but
it was also aslave name, for a freedman of
Maecenas was called (C. Cilnius) Aquila”
(Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 268,
269; see also Sanday and Headlam,
Romans, p. 118 sqq.).
τὸν ᾿νησιφόρου οἶκον: Their names
are inserted after ᾿Ακύλαν from the Acts
of Paul and Thecla, by the cursives 46
and τοῦ: Λέκτραν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ
καὶ Σιμαίαν καὶ Ζήνωνα τοὺς υἱοὺς
αὐτοῦ.
Ver. 20, Ἔραστος ἔμεινεν : The name
Erastus is too common to make probable
the identification of this companion of St.
Paul’s and the οἰκονόμος, treasurer, of
Corinth, who joins in the apostle’s salu-
tation in Rom. xvi. 23. It is not ante-
cedently likely that a city official could
travel about as a missionary. On the
other hand, it is probable that this Eras-
tus is the same as the companion of
Timothy mentioned in Acts xix. 22. It
is to be observed that St. Paul here re-
sumes from ver. 12 his explanation of
the absence from Rome of members of
his company whose presence with their
master at this crisis would have been
natural. It is possible that Erastus and
Trophimus were with St. Paul when he
was arrested the second time, and that
they remained in his company as far as
Miletus and Corinth respectively.
Tpédipov: See Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29, and
the art. in Hastings’ D. B.
ἀσθενοῦντα: Paley’s remark is never
out of date, ‘‘ Forgery, upon such an
occasion, would not have spared a
miracle” (Horae Paul. Philippians 2).
Chrys. notes, ‘* The apostles could not
do everything, or they did not dispense
miraculous gifts upon all occasions, lest
more should be ascribed to them than
was right”.
Ver. 21. πρὸ χειμῶνος: “ That thou
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ B IV. 22.
᾿Ασπάζεταί σε Εὔβουλος καὶ Πούδης καὶ Λίνος καὶ Κλαυδία καὶ οἱ
ἀδελφοὶ πάντες.}
χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.
22. Ὁ Κύριος 2 μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου. ἡ
10m. πάντες οἷ, 17.
380, ὁ Κύριος, SQ*FerG, 17, one other, g; ins. Ἰησοῦς A, 31, one other; ins.
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς SCCDKLP, d, e, f, vg., syrr., boh., arm.
SIns. ἀμήν ScDKLP, d, e, vg., syrr.; add πρὸς Τιμόθεον QC, 17; πρὸς T.
β΄ ἐπληρώθη D; ἐτελέσθη wp. T. B’ FG; mp. T. β΄ ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας A; mp.
T. β΄’ éypader ἀπὸ Ρώης P; wp. T. δευτέρα " τῆς Ἐφεσίων ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκοπον
χειροτονηθέντα " ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ρώμης, ὅτε ἐκ δευτέρου παρέστη Παῦλος τῷ Καίσαρι
“Ῥώμης Νέρωνι Κ, many cursives, similarly L.
be not detained,” sc. by storm (Chrys.).
This seems less urgent than ταχέως of
ver. 9, and we may infer that St. Paul
did not expect his final trial to take place
for some months.
Εὔβουλος : Nothing else is known of
this good man.
Πούδης καὶ Λίνος καὶ Κλαυδία: Light-
foot (Apostolic Fathers, part i. vol. 1.
pp. 76-79) has an exhaustive discussion
of the various ingenious theories which,
starting with the assumption that Pudens
and Claudia were man and wife—a sup-
position opposed by the order of the
names—have identified them with (1)
Martial’s congenial friend Aulus Pudens,
to whom the poet casually “ imputes the
foulest vices of heathenism,’’ and his
bride Claudia Rufina, a girl of British
race (Epigr. iv. 13, xi. 53), (2) “8 doubt-
ful Pudens and imaginary Claudia”? who
have been evolved out of a fragmentary
inscription found at Chichester in 1722.
This appears to record the erection of a
temple by a Pudens with the sanction of
Claudius Cogidubnus, who is probably
a British king who might have had a
daughter, whom he might have named
Claudia, and who might have taken the
name Rufina from Pomponia, the wife
of Aulus Plautius, the Roman commander
in Britain, This last supposition would
identify (1) and (2). It should be added
that in Const. Apost. vii. 46 she is mother
of Linus. See also arts. Claudia and
Pudens in Hastings’ D. B.
Linus is identified by Irenzus with
the Linus whom SS. Peter and Paul
consecrated first Bishop of Rome (Haer,
iii. 3). See also art. in Hastings’ D. B.
Ver. 22. μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου:
This expression, with ὑμῶν for σου,
occurs in Gal. vi. 18, Philem. 25; but in
both those places it is “ The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with,” etc. Herea
very close personal association between
the Lordand Timothy is prayed for. Dean
Bernard compares the conclusion of the
Epistle of Barnabas, ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης
καὶ πάσης χάριτος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
υμων.
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν: See note on 1 Tim. vi. 21.
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
I. 1. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ δοῦλος Θεοῦ, "ἀπόστολος δὲ " Ἰησοῦ Εἰ aie a Seer Tim
κατὰ πίστιν ” ἐκλεκτῶν ἢ Θεοῦ καὶ " ἐπίγνωσιν ° ἀληθείας ὅ τῆς “ κατ᾽ b Rom, viii.
δ εὐσέβειαν 2. ἐπ᾽ *
ἐλπίδι ** ζωῆς
d = Tim. vi. 3.
τ αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ it ra.
e See 1 Tim. ii. 2.
3, Col.
ς ie 1 Tim.
f Tit. iii. 7. g Seer Tink i i. 16.
1 Χριστ. Ino. A, 108, two others, fuld., boh., syrhel; om. Ἰησοῦ Der’.
CuaPpTER I.—Vv. 1-4. Salutation, in
which the place of the Gospel in eternity
and in time is largely expressed.
Ver. 1. δοῦλος θεοῦ: The only parallel
to this phrase in the opening tormula of
any other epistle in the N.T. is James i.
1; but there it is, “" James, a servant of
God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” It
is no less obvious than necessary to note
that this variation from St. Paul’s formula
δοῦλος “Ino. Xp. (Rom. i. 1; Phil. i. 1)
would not be likely in a pseudepigraphic
writing.
ἀπόστολος δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: See
note on τ Tim. i. τ, The δέ is not
merely copulative, as in Jude 1; but
marks the antithesis between the two
aspects of Paul’s relationship to the
Supreme: between God as known to his
fathers, and as recently manifested in the
sphere of history.
κατὰ πίστιν x.T.A.: to be connected
with ἀπόστολος only. It is natural to
suppose that κατά has the same force
here as in 2 Tim. i. 1, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν
ζωῆς, where see note. His apostleship
was for the confirmation of the faith of
God’s elect, and for the spreading of the
knowledge, etc., etc. We take κατά as
= for or in regard to; and expand
it according to the exigencies of the
context. Here God’s elect does not
mean those whom God intends to select;
but those who have been externally
selected, and who consequently possess
faith. See reff. and Acts xiii. 48. They
do not need that it should be generated
in them, but that it should be fostered.
See note on 2 Tim. ii. 10. Contrast
ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν
πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Rom. i. 5, where
the Gospel-propagation function of his
apostleship is indicated.
The rendering here of the Vulg. and
of the English versions, according to
the faith, etc., secundum fidem, pre-
serves the common meaning of κατά,
but does not stand examination. St.
Paul’s office as apostle was not depen-
dent in any way on the faith or know-
ledge of human beings, as it was on
the will or command of God or Christ.
The final cause of it was the faith and
knowledge of men.
ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας: See on 1 Tim.
ii. 4.
εὐσέβειαν: See on 1 Tim. ii. 2.
Ver. 2. ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι κιτιλ.: This is best
taken in connexion with the preceding
clause, κατὰ πίστιν... εὐσέβειαν. The
faith and the knowledge there spoken of
have as their basis of action, or energy,
the hope of eternal life. Cf. x Time
16. Compare the use of ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι in
Acts xxvi. 6; Rom. iv. 18, viii. 20; 1 Cor.
ix. Io. On the other hand, we must
not exclude a remoter connexion with
ἀπόστολος. A comparison of the parallel
passage in 2 Tim. i. 1 suggests that the
succession of clauses here, κατὰ πίστιν
. κηρύγματι, is a full and detailed
expansion of κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν... ἐν
Xp. “Inc.
ἀψευδής: qui non mentitur.
on 2 Tim. ii. 13.
ἐπηγγείλατο: See Rom. i. 1, iv. 21;
Gal. iii. το.
ἐπηγγείλατο ... πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
ἐφανέρωσεν δέ: The same antithesis is
expressed in 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 (g.v.) ; Rom.
See note
186
ΠΡΟΣ TITON I,
h Wisd. vii. ἢ ἀψευδὴς Θεὸς ' πρὸ ' χρόνων ' αἰωνίων, 3. * ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ ' καιροῖς
17 only.
iSee2zTim.'i8loug τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν ™
ο
κηρύγματι ὃ " ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ “ κατ᾽
1. Qe A A a a
k Rom. xvi.°é€mitayhvy τοῦ ἢ σωτῆρος ἢ ἡμῶν " Θεοῦ, 4. Τίτῳ Tyvnoiw * τέκνῳ
26, Col. i
26,2Tim.KaTa κοινὴν πίστιν - χάρις καὶ
i. 10, see
εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ
τ Tim. iii." Χριστοῦ "᾿Ιησοῦ 2 * τοῦ "σωτῆρος " ἡμῶν.
16 note.
SeerTim. 5. Τούτου "χάριν " ἀπέλιπόν ὃ σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ “λείποντα
ii. 6. ;
τῇ See 2 as :
Tim. iv. 17. n See 1 Tim. i. 11. o See 1 Tim. i. 1. See 1 Tim. i. 1. q Seer Tim.
i, 2. rSeerTim.i.2. 58 See 2 Tim. i. 10. τ Eph. iii. 1, 14, see 1 Tim. v. 14. u See
2 Tim. iv. 13. v Luke xviii. 22, Tit. iii. 13, Jas. i. 4, 5, ii. 15.
1 ἔλεος ACHKL, syrhel,
xvi. 25; Col. i. 26. From different points
of view, one may say that eternal life
was promised, and given, to man in
Christ before times eternal; though the
revelation of this purpose and grace
could not be made until man was
prepared to receive it, καιροῖς, at
seasons, occasions, epochs ot time as
relative to man’s comprehension.
Ver. 3. ἐφανέρωσεν τὸν λόγον: For
φανερόω see note on x Tim. iii. 16. We
must observe that no N.T. writer speaks
of a manifestation of the gift of eternal
life (1 John i. 2 refers to the personal
Incarnate Life). God’s message con-
cerning it, which is the revelation of a
divine secret purpose, is manifested.
See Col. iv. 4 in addition to the last reff.
given on ἐπηγγείλατο. περὶ ἧς may be
supplied bef. ἐφανέρωσεν (von Soden).
καιροῖς ἰδίοις. See on τ Tim. ii. 6 and
vi. 15. The rendering his own seasons
suits the context here.
τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι: Note
the distinction here indicated between
the substance of the revelation (λόγος)
given by God, and the form of it as ex-
pressible (κήρυγμα) by the human prea-
cher. It is parallel to the use of λόγος
and λαλία in John viii. 43.
ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ has τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
Κιτιλ. as its antecedent in 1 Tim. i. 11,
where see note.
κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ:
See note on r Tim. i. 1. There the
order is θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. Here θεοῦ
is epexegetical of σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, as
Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is in chap. ii. 13. κατ᾽
ἐπιταγὴν is to be taken with ὃ ἐπιστεύθην
ἐγώ, which is another way of expressing
the notion of ἀπόστολος. On σωτήρ as
a title of God, see notes on 1 Tim. i. 1,
ii. 4.
Ver. 4. γνησίῳ τέκνῳ: See note on 1
Tim; ἵν 2:
3 Κυρίου Ἰησ. Χριστ. DCFGKLP, f, g, 5γττ.
8 κατέλιπόν ΦΟΌΟΚ[,Ρ, κατέλειπον]. ;
κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν, like ἐν πίστει in
1 Tim. i. 2, qualifies τέκνῳ, but is less
ambiguous than ἐν πίστει. It must not
be restricted to a faith shared only by
St. Paul and Titus; but, like the κοινὴ
σωτηρία (Jude 3), it is common to all
Christians who “have obtained a like
precious faith with us” (2 Pet. i. 1).
χάρις κιτιλ.: See on 1 Tim. i. 2.
σωτῆρος: for the more usual κυρίου,
τ Tims is 23.2 Τί. ἢ. ὦ. The Father
and the Son are here co-ordinated as
Saviours.
Vv. 5-9. As I left you in Crete to carry
out completely the arrangements for the
organisation of the Church there, which
I set before you in detail, let me remind
you of the necessary qualifications of
resbyters [since the presbyter is the
sal element in the Church Society].
Ver. 5. ἀπέλιπον: The force of ἀπο-
λείπω here will be apparent if we com-
pare 2 Tim. iv. 13, 20. It means to
leave behind temporarily something or
someone; καταλείπω is often used of a
permanent leaving behind. St. Paul’s
language favours the supposition that
the commission given to Titus was
that of a temporary apostolic legate
rather than of a permanent local presi-
dent.
ἐπιδιορθώσῃ: It is possible that ἐπί
has here its original force, so as to imply
that St. Paul had begun the correction
of deficiencies in the Cretan Church, and
that Titus was to carry it still further.
(So Bengel.) It seems to have been
taken in this sense by A.V.m., which
renders τὰ λείποντα things that are left
undone. If we may judge from this
letter, Christianity was at this time ina
very disorganised state in Crete. Titus
is to ordain presbyters, as the foun.
dation of a ministry; whereas the task
committed to Timothy at Ephesus was to
3---8,
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
187
" ἐπιδιορθώσῃ,; καὶ " καταστήσῃς " κατὰ 7 πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς w Here
ἐγώ σοι "διεταξάμην - 6. εἴ τίς ἐστιν " ἀνέγκλητος, ὃ μιᾶς "ἢ γυναικὸς
᾿ ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστὰ μὴ ἐν “ κατηγορίᾳ “ ἀσωτίας ἢ "ἀνυπότακτα.
7. Set γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον " ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς Θεοῦ * οἰκονόμον,
μὴ " αὐθάδη, μὴ > ὀργίλον, μὴ ' πάροινον, μὴ ᾿ πλήκτην, ph " αἰσχρο-
κερδῆ, 8. ἀλλὰ | φιλόξενον, ™ φιλάγαθον, "σώφρονα, δίκαιον, ° ὅσιον,
y Luke viii. 1, 4, Acts xv. 21, xx. 23.
bi Tim. iii. 2, 12. c See 1 Tim. v. 19.
1Tim.i.9. £1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, 1 Pet. iv. 10.
iSee1 Tim. iii.3. kSeer Timiii.8. 1See
iii. 3. n See 1 Tim. iii. 2. o See 1 Tim. ii. 8.
z1 Cor. Vii. 17, ix. 14, Xi. 34, Xvi. I.
ἃ Eph. v. 18, 1 Pet. iv. 4, <4 Luke xv. 13,
1 See 1 Tim. iii. 2.
only, not
LXX.
x Matt.
XXiv. 45,
Tes
uke xii.
42, 44)
XXV. 21,
23, Acts
vi. 3, Heb.
v. I, Vil.
28, viii. 3.
a See I Tim. iii. 10.
hH 1 NI
᾿ A ere on ry he
m Wisd. vii. 22 only, of. ἃ Tim.
g 2 Pet. ii. 10 only, N.
1 ἐπιδιορθώσῃς AD*FG (D* ἐπανορθωσης ; FG δειορθωσης).
continue the organisation of presbyters
(episcopt) and deacons which was already
in full working order. It is significant
that καθίστημι is used of the institution
of a new order of ministry in Acts vi. 3.
καί introduces the chief point in the
ἐπιδιόρθωσις.
κατὰ πόλιν: in every city. See reff.
The number of presbyters is not speci-
fied; the meaning is that the order of
presbyters should be established all over
the island.
σοι διεταξάμην: disposui tibs (Vulg.),
appropriately used of a number of specific
directions on one general subject. Com-
pare Acts xxiv. 23, where the verb is used
in reference to three distinct instructions
given to the centurion in reference to
Paul.
Ver. 6. ἀνέγκλητος : See notes on I
Tim. iii. 2, 10.
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ: See on 1 Tim.
iii. 2.
τέκνα πιστά: It must be supposed
that a Christian father who has unbeliev-
ing children is himself a recent convert,
or a very careless Christian. The fact
that St. Paul did not think it necessary
to warn Timothy that such men were
not eligible for the presbyterate is a
proof that Christianity was at this time
more firmly established in Ephesus than
in Crete. ; ἜΣ ΤΌΣ
ἐν κατηγο ἀσωτίας γυπό-
sally It te doniteant that the moral
requirements of the pastor’s children are
more mildly expressed in 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5,
12. There it is the father’s power to
keep order in his own house that is em-
phasised; here the submission of the
children to discipline and restraint.
Ver. 7. τὸν ἐπίσκοπον: On the use of the
singular as a generic term see on 1 Tim.
iii. 2. Here, where the thought is of
the various official functions of the minis-
ter, the official title is appropriate.
ἀνέγκλητον : See notes on 1 Tim. iii. 2,
Io.
θεοῦ οἰκονόμον: a steward appointed
by God (Luke xii. 42; 1 Cor. ix. 17), in
the house of God (1 Tim. iii. 15), to dis-
pense His mysteries and manifold grace
(1 Cor. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 10). θεοῦ is
emphatic, suggesting that the steward
of such a Lord should conform to the
highest ideal of moral and spiritual
qualifications.
αὐθάδη: self-assertive, arrogant.
Vulg. has here superbum, but more accu-
rately in 2 Pet. ii. 10, stbi placentes.
ὀργίλον: passionate, iracundum (Vulg.).
The ὀργίλος is one who has not his pas-
sion of anger under control.
__.wapowoyv, πλήκτην: See on 1 Tim.
ii. 3.
μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ: This negative qua-
lity is required in deacons, 1 Tim. iii. 8.
Persons who are concerned in the ad-
ministration of small sums must be such
as are above the commission of petty
thefts. There are no regulations here
laid down for deacons; so we are entitled
to conclude that in Crete, at this time,
presbyters performed the duties of every
Church office. Hence they should have
the appropriate diaconal virtue. See
note on 1 Tim. iii. 8. On the other
hand, it may be objected against this
inference that in1 "et. v. 2 μὴ αἰσχρο-
κερδῶς is used of the spirit of the ideal
presbyter.
Ver. 8. φιλόξενον : See on τ Tim. iii. 2.
φιλάγαθον: In Wisd. vii. 22, the
πνεῦμα which is in σοφία is φιλάγαθον,
loving «what is good. The epithets which
immediately precede and follow φιλά-
γαθον in Wisd. have no reference to
persons, with the exception of φιλάνθ-
ρωπον. Itseems best, with the R.V., to
give the words as wide a reference as
possible; see on ἀφιλάγαθοι, 2 Tim.
iii. 3.
188 ΠΡΟΣ TITON Ι,
p Hersonly.” ἐγκρατῆ; 9. ᾿ ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ Thy διδαχὴν "πιστοῦ " λόγου,
ote, Cf. \ a a , ~ ε
Acts xxiv. ἵνα "δυνατὸς "ἡ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ “διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ * ὑγιαινούσῃ
25, Gal. ν
23,2 Pet. καὶ τοὺς “dvTtAéyovtas ἐλέγχειν.
i.6,1Cor. ,
10. Εἰσὶν yap πολλοὶ 1 Y ἀνυ-
vii. ο, ix. πότακτοι, ἣἷ ματαιολόγοι καὶ * φρεναπάται, μάλιστα 3 7 ot " ἐκ " τῆς ὃ
25. - A >
a Matt: vi. 7 περιτομῆς, 11. os Set " ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους " ava-
24 =Luke
αν! 15; Ὁ ἶ
Thess, v. 14, Isa. lvi. 4.
2 Tim. iv. 3, Tit. ii. 1. ἃ
only, not LXX, cf. 1 Tim. i. 6.
2, Gal. ii. 12, Col. iv. 11. z Here only, not
1Ins. καὶ DFGKL, d, e, f, g, vg.
r See x Tim. i. 15.
Ὁ Acts xiii. 45, xxviii. 19, 22, Tit. ii. 9.
x Here only, not LXX, but cf. Gal. vi. 3.
s See 2 Tim. i. 12. ἐσ Tim. i. 10 (q.v.),
v Seer Tim. i. 9. w Here
y Acts x. 45, Xi.
XX. a See 2 Tim. ii. 18.
2Ins. δὲ CDer.
3So NCD%*, 1, 17, one other; om. τῆς ADCFGKLP.
σώφρονα: See notes on 1 Tim. ii. 9
and iii. 2.
ἐγκρατῆ : The noun ἐγκράτεια occurs
Acts) χχὶν: 28. Gal. v. 221 2 Pet. τς 6,
where to the rendering temperance
the R.V.m. gives the alternative self-
control. The verb ἐγκρατεύομαι in 1
Cor. vii. g is to have continency, but in
I Cor. ix. 25 to be temperate generally.
The word differs from σώφρων as having
a reference to bodily appetites, while
σώφρων has reference also to the desires
of the mind. ἐγκράτ. concerns action,
σωφρ. thought.
Ver. 9. 'avrexdpevov: holding firmly
to. ἀντέχομαι is stronger than ἔχειν, as
used in a similar connexion, 1 Tim. i.
Ig, etc., etc. The R.V. holding to cor-
rectly suggests the notion of withstand-
ing opposition, which is not so clearly
felt.in the A.V. holding fast. ‘‘ Hav-
ing care of it, making it his business”
(Chrys.).
δυνατός : See note on 2 Tim. ii. 2.
τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου:
the faithful word which is in accord-
ance with the teaching. It is indi-
cative of the weakening of the phrase
πιστὸς λόγος that St. Paul strengthens
and defines it here by κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν.
It was noted on 1 Tim. i. 15 that πιστὸς
λόγος here means the totality of the re-
velation given in Christ; and ἡ διδαχή is
to be taken passively, as equivalent to
ἡ διδασκαλία, as employed in these
epistles. It is tautological to take it
actively, the word which is faithful
as regards the teaching of others; for
that is expressed in what follows.
παρακαλεῖν---ἐλέγχειν : Cf. 2 Tim iv.
2 for this combination. The shepherd
must be able to tend the sheep, and to
drive away wolves. :
ὑγιαινούσῃ : See on 1 Tim. i. το.
διδασκαλία here, as frequently, is a body
of doctrine. So R.V., in the sound
doctrine. The A.V., by sound doctrine,
would refer to the faith as applied in its
various parts to particular needs.
τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας : It is only a coin-
cidence that where this word occurs in
Acts it is in reference to ¥ewish oppon-
ents of the Gospel.
Vv. 10-16. I have just mentioned
rebuke as a necessary element in a presby-
ter’s teaching. ‘This is especially needful
in dealing with Cretan heretics, in whom
the Jewish strain is disagreeably pro-
minent. Alike in their new-fangled
philosophy of purity, and in their preten-
sions to orthodoxy, they ring false.
Purity of life can only spring from a pure
mind; and knowledge is alleged in vain,
if it is contradicted by practice.
Ver. 10. The persons spoken of here
were Christian Jews. of ἐκ περιτομῆς
(without τῆς, see crit. note) has this
meaning in reff. (in Acts x. 45 it is
qualified by the addition of πιστοί). Rom.
iv. I2,is not really an instance of the
phrase. That they were at least nomin-
ally Christians is also implied by the
epithet ἀνυπότακτοι. We cannot call
those persons unruly on whose obedience
we have no claim.
ματαιολόγοι : ματαιολογία occurs in
1 Tim. i. 6.
φρεναπάται: seductores. The verb
occurs in Gal. vi. 3.
μάλιστα: it is probable that there
were very few false teachers who were
not “οἵ the circumcision ”’.
Ver. 11. ots Set ἐπιστομίζειν : guos
oportet redargui, whose mouths must be
stopped by the unanswerable arguments
of the orthodox controversialist. This is
the result hoped for from the ‘“ convic-
tion,’’ of ver. 9.
ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν : pervert
whole families (Alf.); Moulton and
Milligan give an apt illustration from a
papyrus of second cent. Β.0., τῆς πατ-
9--14.
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
189
τρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες "ἃ "μὴ " δεῖ “ αἰσχροῦ “ κέρδους * χάριν. ὃ τ Tim. v.
ΕἸ - A a 13. fe
12. εἶπέν! τις ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἴδιος ᾿αὐτῶν προφήτης, Κρῆτες deter Cor. xi.
, ἔψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ὃ" ἀργαί.
ἐστὶν ἀληθής. ἢ δι᾿ * a ᾿ξ
ΤΟ 5. Ὁ γα σι
εν TH
me ,
υὑγιαινώσιν
e Seer Tim. v. 14.
V. 13. i See 1 Tim. iii. 7. ee 2
xi. 22 only. m Tit. ii. 2, see 1 Tim. i. τὸ,
1 Ins. δὲ $9*G, f, g, boh; ins. yap 115.
ρικῆς oixlas ... ἔτι ἔνπροσθεν ἄρδην
[ἀϊνατετραμμένης δι᾽ ἀσ[ζω]τίας (Ex-
positor, vii., v. 269). This suggests the
rendering upset. The whole family
would be upset by the perversion of one
member of it.
ἃ μὴ Set: Normally, οὐ is used in rela-
tive sentences with the indicative. Other
exceptions will be found in 2 Pet. i.g, 1
John iv. 3 (T.R.). It is possible that
the force of μή here is given by translat-
ing, which (we think) they ought not.
If the teaching had been absolutely in-
defensible by any one, he would have
said, ἃ οὐ Set. See Blass, Grammar, Ὁ.
254.
αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν : The three reff.
on αἰσχροῦ, the only other occurrences in
N.T. of this adj., are instances of the
phrase αἰσχρόν ἐστι. The reference is to
the claim to support made by itinerating
or vagrant prophets and apostles such as
are referred to in the Didache, cc. 11, 12,
and alluded to in 2 Cor. xi. 9-13. Allsuch
abuses would exist in an aggravated form
in Crete, the natives of which had an evil
reputation for αἰσχροκέρδεια, according to
Polybius, ὥστε παρὰ μόνοις Κρηταιεῦσι
τῶν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων μηδὲν αἰσχρὸν
νομίζεσθαι κέρδος. (Hist. vi. 46. 3, cited
by Ell.). They get a bad character also
from Livy (xliv. 45), and Plutarch (Paul.
Acmil. 23). The Cretans, Cappadocians,
and Cilicians were τρία κάππα κάκιστα.
Ver. 12. προφήτης: It is possible
that St. Paul applies this title to the
author of the following hexameter line
because the Cretan false teachers were
self-styled prophets. There was a
Cretan prophet once who told plain
truths to his countrymen. The whole
line occurs, according to Jerome, in the
περὶ χρησμῶν of Epimenides, a native of
Cnossus in Crete. The first three words
are also found in the Hymn to Zeus by
Callimachus, who is the prophet meant
according to Theodoret ; and the rest has
a parallel in Hesiod, Theogon. 26,mo.péves
™ariotel, 14.
f Mark xv. 20 ( Tisch.), 2 Pet. iii. 3.
kS ἜΡΩΣ ἀν 0.
6, xiv. 35,
Eph. v.
ὉΠ:
13. ἡ ‘paptupia αὕτη
12,
αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ᾿ ἀποτόμως, ἵνα Tim. iii.
na 3 Can 8,1 Pet.v.
μὴ " προσέχοντες ᾿Ιουδαϊκοῖς 2:
d Phil. i. 21,
iH:
g Seer Tim. i. ro. h See 1 Tim.
1 Wisd. v. 22, 2 Cor. xiii. 10, cf, Rom.
n Seer Tim. i. &
*Om. ἐν §§*, 47, one other.
ἄγραυλοι, κάκ᾽ ἐλέγχεα, γαστέρες olove
It is generally agreed that St. Paul was
referring to Epimenides. This is the
view of Chrys. and Epiph., as well as of
Jerome. It was Epimenides at whose
suggestion the Athenians are said to
have erected the “anonymous altars,”
i.e., ᾿Αγνώστῳ Θεῷ (Acts xvii. 23), in the -
course of the purification of their city
from the pollution caused by Cylon, 596
B.c. He is reckoned a prophet, or pre-
dictor of the future, by Cicero, de Divin.
i. 18, and Apuleius, Florid. ii. 15, 4.
Plato calls him θεῖος ἀνήρ (Legg. i. p.
642 D).
ψεῦσται: The particular lie which
provoked the poet’s ire was the claim
made by the Cretans that the tomb of
Zeus was on their island. Here, the
term has reference to ματαιολόγοι, etc.
γαστέρες ἀργαί: The R.V., dle glut-
tons, is more intelligible English than
the A.V., slow bellies, but does not so
adequately represent the poet’s mean-
ing. He has in his mind the belly, as it
obtrudes itself on the beholder and is a
burden to the possessor, not as a recep-
tacle for food. Alf. quotes aptly Juvenal,
Sat. iv. 107, “ Montani quoque venter
adest, abdomine tardus’’.
Ver. 13. δι᾽ ἣν aitiav: See on2 Tim.
i. 6
ἀποτόμως : severely. The noun drro-
τομία, severitas, occurs Rom. xi. 22.
See Moulton and Milligan, Expositor,
vii., vi. 102:
ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν : See note on τ Tim. i.
1o. The intention of the reproof was
not merely the securing of a controversial
triumph, but “το bring into the way of
truth all such as have erred, and are
deceived’. ἵνα expresses the object
aimed at in the reproof, not the substance
of it.
Ver. 14. προσέχοντες: see on 1 Tim:
i. 4. The word implies the giving one’s
consent, as well as one’s attention.
*lovdSaixots: This determines the
190
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
I, 15—16
orTim.i.g-* μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἢ ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
Ρ See2 Tim:
ἣν 15s
q Luke xi.
41, Rom.
χιν, 20. ”
τ John xviii, ἡ συνείδησις.
28, Heb.
ar 15,
ude 8, >
λα Tim,” ἀγαθὸν * * ἀδόκιμοι.
vi. 12.
tSee1 Tim.
v. 8.
iii.3. w See 2 Tim. ii. 21 and 1 Tim. ii. 10.
tdpvodvrat, " βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες Kal
u Prov. xvii. 15, Ecclus. xli. 5, 2 Macc. i. 27 unly.
15. “πάντα “καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς - τοῖς Se " μεμιαμμένοις καὶ
ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ "μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ
16. Θεὸν "ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοιϑ
ὶ " ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς “ πᾶν " ἔργο"
v Luke i. 17, 2 Tim. iii. 2, Tit.
x See 2 Tim. iii. 8.
lIns. μὲν ScDcKL, syrhel; ins, yap boh, syrpesh,
nature of the μῦθοι referred to in these
epistles. See on 1 Tim. i. 4.
ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων :
We are naturally reminded of Mark vii.
7, 8, with its antithesis between the
ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων and ἐντολὴν τοῦ
θεοῦ, and Col. ii. 22, where the same
passage of Isaiah (xxix. 13) is echoed.
But here the antithesis is not so strongly
marked. The commandments are de-
preciated, not because their authors are
men, but because they are men who
turn away from the truth, impure men
(In 1 Tim. iv. 3 “they that believe and
know the truth’ are men whose thoughts
are pure). The truth here, as elsewhere
in the Pastorals, is almost a Christian
technical term. It can hardly be doubted
that the ἐντολαί referred to were of the
same nature as those noted in Col. ii. 22,
arbitrary ascetic prohibitions.
Ver. 15. πάντα καθαρὰ x.t.A.: This
is best understood as a maxim of the
Judaic Gnostics, based on a perversion of
the Saying πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν
(Luke xi. 41... Cf. Rom. xiv. 20; Mark
vii. 18.). St. Paul accepts it as a truth,
but not in the intention of the speaker ;
and answers, τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις κιτ.λ.
The passage 15 thus, as regards its form,
parallel to x Cor. vi. 12 sqq., where St.
Paul cites, and shows the irrelevancy of,
two pleas for licence: ‘All things are
lawful for me,’? and ‘“ Meats for
the belly, and the belly for meats ”’.
τοῖς καθαροῖς is of course the dat.
commodi, for the use of the pure, in
their case, as in the parallels, Luke xi.
41, 1 Tim. iv. 3; not in the judgment
of the pure, as in Rom. xiv. 14.
τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις, κιτ.λ. : The order
of the words is to be noted: their moral
obliquity is more characteristic of them
than their intellectual perversion. The
satisfaction of natural bodily desires (for
it is these that are in question) is, when
lawful, a pure thing, not merely innocent,
in the case of the pure; it is an impure
thing, even when lawful, in the case of
“them that are defiled’. And for this
reason: their intellectual apprehension
(νοῦς) of these things is perverted by
defiling associations ; “ the light that is in
them is darkness ;”’ and their conscience
has, from a similar cause, lost its sense
of discrimination between what is inno-
cent and criminal. That any action with
which they themselves are familiar could
be pure is inconceivable to them. ‘“‘ When
the soul is unclean, it thinks all things
unclean”? (Chrys.). The statement that
the conscience can be defiled is signifi-
cant. While conscientious scruples are
to be respected, yet, if the conscience be
defiled, its dictates and instincts are un-
reliable, false as are the song-efforts of
one who has no ear for music.
Ver. 16. θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι :
“We know God”; that was their pro-
fession of faith. They “ gloriedin God,”
Rom. ii. 17. This is an allusion to the
Jewish pride of religious privilege. ἡ
Weiss points out that this phrase alone
is sufficient to prove that the heretics in
question are not the Gnostics of the
second century (Hort, ¥udaistic Chris-
tianity, p. 133). See the use of the phrase
in Gal. iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 5. Compare 2
Tim. iii. 5, “ Holding a form of godli-
ness, but having denied the power there-
of’; also 1 John ii. 4. There is here
the constant antithesis between words
and deeds.
τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις Apvodvrar: Their lives
give the lie to their professions; ‘“‘ They
acted as if this Supreme Being was a
mere metaphysical abstraction, out of all
moral relation to human life, as if He
were neither Saviour nor Judge”’ (J. H.
Bernard comm. in loc.).
πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν : See note on
Ὦ δε; 17.
ἀδόκιμοι: worthless, unfit.
on 2 Tim. iii. 8.
See note
1I. 1—4. ΠΡΟΣ
TITON 191
II. τ. "Σὺ "δὲ λάλει ἃ " πρέπει τῇ " ὑγιαινούσῃ “ διδασκαλίᾳ. « 8εε : Τίπι.
vi. II.
2. ‘mpeoBuras “νηφαλίους εἶναι, ‘ σεμνούς, " σώφρονας - ἢ ὑγιαίνον- b Seer Tim.
τας ἢ
τῇ "πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ᾿ὑπομονῇ. 3.
᾿ ὡσαύτως ἐν ᾿ καταστήματι " ἱεροπρεπεῖς,, μὴ °SiaBddous, μηδὲ 2
ii. 10.
ἈΚ πρεσβύτιδας cx Tim. i.
Io (φ.υ.),
2 Tim. iv.
bite Ὁ
Poivw ἢ πολλῷ “ δεδουλωμένας, ἢ καλοδιδασκάλους, 4. ἵνα " σωφρο ἁ ἬΤΕΣ: a
iii. 2. f See 1 Tim. iii. 8.
1 Tim. vi. 11. k 4 Macc. xvi. 14 only.
ix. 25, xi. 20 only. o See i Tim. iii. 11.
15, ix. 19, Gal. iv. 3, 2 Pet. ii. 19.
g Seer Tim. iii. 2.
1 See 1 Tim. ii. 9.
p Seer Tim. iii. 8.
r Here only, not LXX.
Philem.g.
eSee1 Tim.
h Tit. i. 13, see 1 Tim. i. ro. i See
m 3 Macc. v.45 only. n4 Macc.
Rom. vi. 18, 22, 1 Cor. vii.
s Here only, not LXX.
1 ἱεροπρεπεῖ CH**, 17, 31, 37, two others, d, e, f, g, m1, vg. (in habitu sancto),
boh., syrr. (but not syrhcl-mg), arm.
380 $9*AC, 73; μὴ NCDFGHKLP, vg. See 1x Tim. iii. 8.
CuHaPTER II.—Vvy. 1-10. In the face
of this immoral teaching, do you con-
stantly impress the moral duties of the
Gospel on your people of every age and
class. Thereis an ideal of conduct ap-
propriate to old men and old women
respectively—the latter have moreover
special duties in the training of the
young women—and young men. _ En-
force your words by personal example.
Slaves, too, must be taught that they
share in responsibility for the good name
of the Gospel.
Ver. 1. σὺ δὲ: See reff., and note on
I Tim. vi. τσ. Titus is to be as active in
teaching positive truth as the heretics
were in teaching evil.
λάλει: emphasises the importance of
oral teaching.
ἢ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ: See on 1
Tim. i. Io.
Ver. 2. The heads of moral instruc-
tion which begin here are more unmis-
takably intended for the laity than are
the similar passages in Tim. That it
should devolve on the apostle’s legate
to give popular moral instruction is per-
haps another indication of the less-
developed state of the Church in Crete
than in Ephesus and its neighbourhood.
πρεσβύτας: senes; SC. παρακάλει
(ver. 6).
γηφαλίους : sober, sobrit; temperate
(R.V.) in respect of their use of strong
drink. Chrys. explains it to be vigilant,
as does the Syriac, and A.V. m.; but the
homely warning seems more appropriate.
See note on 1 Tim. iii. 2.
σεμνούς : see note on x Tim. iii. 8.
σώφρονας : see notes on r Tim. ii. 9,
and iii. 2. For ὑγιαίνειν followed by
dat. see i. 13. πίστις, ἀγάπη, ὑπομονή
are constantly grouped together (see
on I Tim. vi. 11); and this suggests that
πίστις here is subjective, not objective,
as in the similar phrase i. 13. See note
on I Tim. i. Io.
Ver. 3. πρεσβύτιδας : correlative to
πρεσβύτας, as πρεσβυτέρας is to πρεσ-
βυτέρῳ in τ Tim. v. 1, 2.
ὡσαύτως: See on I Tim. ii. 9.
ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς : reverent
in demeanour, ἈΝ. καταστολή in τ Tim.
ii. 9 has an almost exclusive reference to
dress. Demeanour (R.V.) is better than
behaviour (A.V.), which has a wide re-
ference to conduct, in all respects and
on all occasions. Deportment, which
includes a slight reference to dress,
would be the best rendering, only that
the word has become depreciated.
ἱεροπρεπεῖς perhaps =8 πρέπει γυναιξὶν
ἐπαγγελλομέναις ee (rt Tim. ii.
Io); but in itself the word does not
guarantee more than the appearance of
reverence. Wetstein gives, among other
illustrations, one from Josephus (Azz. xi.
8, 5), describing how Jaddua, the high
priest, went out in procession from Jeru-
salem to meet Alexander the Great,
ἱεροπρεπῆ καὶ διαφέρουσαν τῶν ἄλλων
ἐθνῶν ποιούμενος τὴν ὑπάντησιν.
μὴ διαβόλους : See on 1 Tim. iii. 11,
and 2 Tim. iii. 3.
δεδουλωμένας: The A.V., not given
to much wine, makes no difference be-
tween this and προσέχοντας, which is
the verb in the corresponding phrase,
in the list of moral qualifications of
deacons, t Tim. iii. 8. It is proved by ex-
perience that the reclamation of a woman
drunkard is almost impossible. The
best parallel to this use of δουλόω is 2
Pet. ii. 19, 6 γάρ τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ
δεδούλωται. Cf. also the other reff.
καλοδιδασκάλους : Not only “by dis-
course at home,” as Chrys. explains, but
by example.
Ver. 4. σωφρονίζουσιν. The only
other examples of tva with a pres. indic,
192
t Positive γίζουσιν 1 τὰς " νέας “ φιλάνδρους εἶναι, “ φιλοτέκνους,
here only
in this
sense.
u Hereonly, Spdow, * ἵνα "μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ * βλασφημῆται.
not LXX.
v4 Macc: Tépous
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
Il,
5. "σώφρονας,
ἁγνάς, “' οἰκουργούς,2 " ἀγαθάς, " ὑποτασσομένας " τοῖς "ἰδίοις 7 ἀν-
6. τοὺς νεω-
"ὡσαύτως παρακάλει ἢ" σωφρονεῖν - 7. περὶ πάντα σεαυτὸν
χν. , , 6, A μι ~
ipa * παρεχόμενος “ τύπον " καλῶν ° ἔργων, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ * ἀφθορίαν,3
via also 4
Mace. (5)
only. w Here only, not LXX.
18, r Pet. iii. 1, ee 1 Cor. xiv. 34, Eph. v. 24.
b Mark v. 15 (=Lu
i. 4, also Acts xvii. 31, xxii. 2, xxviii. 2.
ii. 18 (17) only.
x Matt. xx. 15, Rom. v. 7, 1 Pet. ii. 18.
6 viii. 35), Rom. xii. 3, 2 Cor. v. 13, 1 Pet. iv. 7, not LXX.
d See x Tim. iv. 12.
y Eph. v. 22, Col. iii.
a See 1 Tim. ii. 9.
c See 1 Tim.
f Haggai
z See x Tim. vi. 1.
e See 1 Tim. iii. 1.
180 \y*AFGHP, two cursives; σωφρονίζωσι ScCDKL.
2So W*ACD*FG ; οἰκουρούς ScCDcCHKLP, syrhcl-mg-gr,
8 ἀδιαφθορίαν KycDcL, syrhcl-mg-gr ; ἀφθονίαν FG.
in Paul are 1 Cor. iv. 6 (φυσιοῦσθε) and
Gal. iv. 17 (ζηλοῦτε). These may be
cases of an unusual formation of the
subj., both being verbs in -όω. γινώσ-
kopev, I John ν. 20, is another instance.
Train is the excellent rendering of
the ΕΝ. The A.V., teach... to be
sober, although an adequate rendering
elsewhere, leaves φιλάνδρους εἶναι dis-
connected. Timothy is bidden (1 Tim.
v. 2) παρακαλεῖν . . . νεωτέρας himself;
but this refers to pastoral public moni-
tions, not to private training in domestic
virtues and duties, as here.
τὰς νέας: There is no other instance
in the Greek Bible of véos, in the posi-
tive, being applied to a young person;
though it is common in secular litera-
ture. There is possibly a certain fit-
ness in the word as applied here to
recently married women, whom the
apostle has perhaps exclusively in view.
φιλάνδρους : “ This is the chief point
of all that is good in a household”’
(Chrys.). One of the three things in
which Wisdom “ was beautified’’ is “a
woman and her husband that walk to-
gether in agreement” (Ecclus. xxv. 1).
φιλοτέκνους : “She who loves the
root will much more love the fruit”
(Chrys.). φιλάνδρῳ καὶ φιλοτέκνῳ is
cited from an “epitaph from Pergamum
about the time of Hadrian” by Deiss-
mann, who gives other references to
secular literature. (Bible Studies, trans.
P- 255 54.).
Ver.5. οἰκουργούς : workers at home.
Field says that ‘the only authority for
this word is Soranus of Ephesus, a
medical writer, not earlier than the
second century,” οἰκουργὸν kai καθέδριον
διάγειν βίον; but the verb is found
in Clem. Rom., ad Cor. i. 1, γυναιξίν. . .
τὰ κατὰ τὸν οἶκον σεμνῶς οἰκουργεῖν
ἐδιδάσκετε. οἰκουρούς, keepers at home,
domum custodientes (ἃ m®!) domus curam
habentes (Vulg.), though constantly found
in descriptions of virtuous women, is a less
obviously stimulating epithet. Mothers
who work at home usually find it a more
absorbing pleasure than ‘‘ going about
from house to house”’ (1 Tim. v. 13).
But the “worker at home” is under a
temptation to be as unsparing of her
household as of herself; and so St. Paul
adds ἀγαθάς, benignas, kind (R.V.), rather
than good (A.V.). For this force of
ἀγαθός, see reff.
ἰδίοις : ἴδιος (sez on τ Tim. iii. 4) is
not emphatic: it is simply, their hus-
bands. The ἴδιος merely differentiates
husband from man.
ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ βλασφημῆ-
ται: For λόγος, as used here, the more
usual word is ὄνομα (from Isa. [1]. 5).
See reff. on 1 Tim. vi. 1; and also Jas. ii.
7, Rev. xiii. 6, xvi. 9. ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀλη-
θείας, in 2 Peter ii. 2, is equivalent to 6
λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ here. The practical worth
of a religion is not unfairly estimated by
its effects on the lives of those who pro-
fess it. If the observed effect of the
Gospel were to make women worse wives,
it would not commend it to the heathen;
“for the Greeks judge not of doctrines
by the doctrine itself, but they make the
life and conduct the test of the doctrines ”’
(Chrys.). See note oni Tim. v. 14.
Ver. 6. ὡσαύτως: see on 1 Tim. ii. 9.
Ver. 7. περὶ πάντα is joined with the
preceding words by Jerome and Lucifer
(ut pudici [sobrit] sint in omnibus), fol-
lowed by Tischendorf and von Soden.
For this use of περί, see on 1 Tim. i. 19.
St. Paul’s usual phrase is ἐν παντί (fifteen
times in all; ten times in 2 Cor.; not in
Pastorals), or ἐν πᾶσιν (ten times, five of
which are in the Pastorals: 1 Tim. iii.
6—10. IPOS TITON
193
ξ σεμνότητα,; 8. λόγον " ὑγιῆ ᾿᾿ἀκατάγνωστον, ἵνα ὁ * ἐξ " ἐναντίας gSeer Tim.
11, 2.
ἐντραπῇ μηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν 2 περὶ ἡμῶν ὃ ἢ φαῦλον. 9. δούλους hSeer Τίπι.
ns i, το.
ἰδίοις " δεσπόταις 4 ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν, “ εὐαρέστους εἶναι, μὴ iz Macc.iv.
47 only.
» ἀντιλέγοντας, 10. ph® “᾿νοσφιζομένους, ἀλλὰ "πᾶσαν * πίστιν ὃ κ Mark xv.
39 (differ-
5 a ent appli-
cation). 12 Thess. iii. 14. m John iii. 20, v. 29, Rom. ix. 11, 2 Cor. v. 10, Jas. iii. 16.
n See x Tim. vi. 1. o Rom. xiv. 18, 2 Cor. v. 9. p See Tit. i. 9. q Acts v. 2, 3. rx Cor.
ΧΙΙΙ. 2.
1Ins. ἀφθαρσίαν DcKL, 37, more than thirty others, syrhcl-mg gr, arm; ins.
ἁγνείαν C, 80, three others, syrhcl, arm.
? λέγειν bef. φαῦλον KL.
3 ὑμῶν A, many cursives, boh.
4 δεσπ. ἰδ. ADP, 238, four others, d, e, f, vg.
5 μηδὲ CbhDer*FerGer, 17.
S πίστ. πᾶσ. KL; πᾶσ. ἐνδεικ. ior, Fg'G g; om. πίστιν δ᾿", 17.
τι 2. Dim. Ἧς 7, Ὧν. 5.7 11 lle, LO)
also εἰς πάντα, 2 Cor. ii. 9; κατὰ πάντα,
Coli) 20; 22:
σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον: The
middle is appropriate with σεαυτὸν ; see
reff. given by Deissmann, Bible Studies,
trans. p. 254; but with ἀφθορίαν, etc.,
the active would seem more natural, as
in reff. For τύπον, see 1 Tim. iv. 12,
and for καλὰ ἔργα, see τ Tim. iii. 1.
This exhortation, following νεωτέρους
K.T.A., and also ver. 15, suggest that
Titus was comparatively young.
διδασκαλία here is not doctrine (A.V.),
but teaching; thy doctrine (R.V.), in-
cluding the person of the teacher as
well as what he says. See note on 1
‘Tim. 1. 10:
ἀφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, sincerity...
impresstveness, integritatem ... gra-
vitatem. See on 1 Tim. ii. 2. These
refer respectively to the principles and
the manner of the teacher, while Adyov,
κιτιλ., describes the matter of his teach-
ing.
Ver. 8. ἀκατάγνωστον : to which no ex-
ception can be taken. See Deissmann,
Bible Studies, Trans. p. 200. ὑγιῆ
implies the conformity of the doc-
trine taught with the Church’s stan-
dard (see note on 1: Tim. i. 10), while
ἀκατάγνωστον has reference to the man-
ner of its presentation to the hearer.
ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας : The heathen opponent,
official or unofficial, ὁ ἀντικείμενος (1
Tim. v. 14), of ἀντιδιατιθέμενοι (2 Tim.
ii. 25), not the Devil himself (Chrys.).
ἐντραπῇ: vercatur (Vulg.); but con-
fundatur, as in 2 Thess. iii. 14, would be
a better rendering here. An antagonist
who finds that he has no case “looks
foolish,” as we say.
φαῦλον: usually applied to actions.
See reff. The clause means having no-
thing evil to report concerning us: not,
VOL. IV.
as the English versions, having no evil
thing to say, which might be explained
as, ‘‘ being unable to abuse us”’.
Ver. 9. δούλους: sc. παρακάλει, ver. 6.
For the general topic, and the term
δεσπότης, cf. τ Tim. vi. 1.
ἐν πᾶσιν: joined as in text by Jerome,
Ambrosiaster and m%? with ὑποτάσσ. It
is in favour of this that ἐν πᾶσιν else-
where in the Pastorals (see note on ver.
7) is at the end of a clause; also that in
similar contexts we have ἐν παντί (Eph.
v. 24) and κατὰ πάντα (Col. iii. 22)
joined with ὑποτάσσω and ὑπακούω.
evapéorovs: A Pauline word. Alf.
notes that it is a servant’s phrase, like
the English “to give satisfaction”’.
This acute remark brings the present
passage into harmony with St. Paul’s
usage in the reff., in which it is used
of persons, of men in their relation to
God. εὐάρεστον is used of a sacrifice,
‘*acceptable,” in Rom. xii. 1, Phil. iv.
18; cf. Heb. xii. 28 ; τὸ εὐάρεστον, “ that
which is well pleasing,” in Rom. xii. 2,
Eph, v. τὸς Col. iii. 20, Heb. xiii. 21.
Jerome’s view that evap. is passive,
‘*contented with their lot,’’ is not satis-
factory.
μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας ; non contradicentes
(Vulg.). Ell. thinks that more is im-
plied than pert answers (A.V. answering
again); rather ‘“‘ thwarting their masters’
plans, wishes, or orders’’. See ch. i. 9.
This is the connotation of gainsaying
(R.V., A.V.m.).
Ver. το. ph νοσφιζομένους : non frau-
dantes (Vulg.), not purloining. The par-
ticular form of theft implied is the
abstraction or retention for oneself, of a
part of something entrusted to one’s
care.
πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν:
displaying the utmost trustworthiness.
There is a similar phrase in ch. iii. 2,
13
194
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΤΟΝ
Il,
“sSee2Tim.* ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν, ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν thy? τοῦ " σωτῆρος
lv. 14.
tSeer Tim. ' ἡμῶν ἡ Θεοῦ " κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν.
11
uSeer Tim.
ii.
Ac
11. “Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ “χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ 3 " σωτήριος ὁ πᾶσιν
v Lubei.79, ἀνθρώποις 12. 7 παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς, ἵνα " ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν " ἀσέβειαν
ts
xxvii. 20, καὶ τὰς ἢ κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας “ σωφρόνως Kai δικαίως καὶ ὁ εὖ σεβῶς
Tit. iii. 4.
w 2 Cor. “ee
viii, 9, x Here only, N.T., Am. v. 22, Wisd. i, 14, 3 Macc. (2), 4 Macc. (2) only. _y See τ Tim.
i. 20. zSee 1 Tim.v.8 aSee2Tim. ii. 16. Ὁ Heb.ix.1,not LXX. ς Wisd. ix. 11
only. d See 2 Tim. iii. 12.
1 πᾶσαν ἐνδεικ. ἀγαθην $Q*; πᾶσ. ἐνδεικ. ἀγάπην 17.
20m. τὴν KLP.
3 Ins. 4 CeDbeKLP,
4 σωτῆρος Y*, TOU σωτῆρος ἡμῶν FG, f, g, vg. (am. om. ἡμῶν), boh.
πᾶσαν ἐνδεικ. πραὔτητα. See note on 2
Tim. iv. 14. On this use of πᾶς, see on
1 Tim. i. 15. πίστιν has a qualifying
adj. elsewhere, ¢.g., ἀνυπόκριτος (1 Tim.
1: 6502: Lim. 1.0.5:, Cf. China. 2 ΒΟΌΣ ΤΩΣ
Jude 20), but the addition of another adj.
after mas is unusual. In Clem. Rom.
1 Cor. 26 πίστις ἀγαθή is rendered by
Lightfoot honest faith ; but honest fidelity
would be an odd expression. Von Soden
would give ἀγαθή here the sense of kind,
wishing well, as in ver. 5, and as a con-
trast to ἀντιλεγ., as πίστιν is to vod.
W.H. suggest that the original reading
here was πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγάπην.
See apparat. crit.
διδασκαλίαν : See note on x Tim. i. Io.
Θεοῦ refers to God the Father. See
i. 3. Von Soden takes it here as objective
genitive; the διδασκαλία being set forth
in wv. I-14.
κοσμῶσιν: cf. τ Tim. ii. 9, κοσμεῖν
ἑαυτάς. . . δι᾽ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. The
διδασκαλία, though really practical, can
be plausibly alleged to be mere theory;
it must then, by good works, be rendered
attractive to them that are without. Cf
Matt. v. 16, Phil. ii. 15.
Vv. 11-15. The justification of this in-
sistence on the universal necessity for
right conduct is the all-embracing scope
of the saving grace of God, which has
visibly appeared as a call to repentance,
a help to amendment of life, and a stimu-
lus to hope. Christ’s gift of Himself
for us constrains us to give ourselves
wholly to Him. Insist on these things,
as authoritatively as possible, in every
department of your teaching.
Ver. 11. The emphatic word is πᾶσιν.
The connexion is with what has immedi-
ately preceded. Norankor class or type
of mankind is outside the saving influence
of God’s grace. Chrys. concludes a
striking picture of the adverse moral
environment of slaves with, ‘It is a
difficult and surprising thing that there
should ever be a good slave”’.
ἐπεφάνη: See note on x Tim. vi. 14.
The grace of God (also iii. 7) is His
kindness and love of man (iii. 4). It
appeared (iii. 4) (a) as a revelation, in
the Incarnation, and also (δ) in its visible
results; and so it is both heard and
recognised (Col. i. 6). Accordingly
Barnabas could see it at Antioch (Acts
xi. 23). It is possible to stand fast in it
(r Pet. v. 12), and to continue in it (Acts
xiii. 43). It is given to men, to be dis-
pensed by them to others (Rom. i. 5,
Eph. iii. 2.7); and if men do not respond
to it, they are said to fall short of it
(Heb. xii. 15). Here it is described in
its essential power and range, σωτήριος
πᾶσιν avOp., . . . appeared, bringing
salvation to all men (so R.V.; A.V.m).
This connexion of the words is favoured
by the fact that ἐπεφάνη is used abso-
lutely in iii. 4.
Ver. 12. παιδεύουσα. erudiens (Vulg.),
corripiens (d). Grace is potentially
σωτήριος as regards all men; actually
its efficacy is seen in the disciplining of
individuals one by one; ἡμᾶς, to begin
with. See notes on 1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 4, iv.
to. So Chrys. makes tva depend on
ἐπεφάνη more directly than on παιδεύο-
voa: “Christ came that we should
deny ungodliness.” The connexion,
then, is ἐπεφάνη ... ἵνα. . . ζήσωμεν.
“The final cause of the Revelation in
Christ is not creed, but character” (J. H.
Bernard). It is of course possible (and
this is the view usually held) to join
παιδεύουσα ἵνα ; the ἵνα introducing the
object (instructing us, to the intent that,
denying, etc., R.V.), not the content
(teaching us that denying, etc., A.V.)
of the παιδεία.
ἀρνησάμενοι . . . ζήσωμεν . . . προσ-
ΠΡΟΣ
11--- 13.
ζήσωμεν ἐν “τῷ °
TITON 195
νῦν " αἰῶνι, 13. ᾿ προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν eSeex Tim.
vil. 17.
ἐλπίδα καὶ © ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ > σωτῆρος f Mark xv.
43, Luke
ii. 25, 38,
xii. 36, xxiii. 51, Acts xxiii. 21, xxiv. 15, Heb. xi. 35, Jude 21. (It means receive in Luke xv. 2,
Rom. xvi. 2, Phil. ii. 29, Heb. x. 34.)
δεχόμενοι represent three successive
stages in the Christian life. The force
of the aorist participle must not be lost
sight of, though it may be pedantic to
mark it in translation. ἀρνησάμενοι
κιτιλ., synchronises with the ‘death
unto sin’? which precedes the definite
entry on newness of life, while προσϑε-
χόμενοι expresses the constant mental
attitude of those who are living that new
life.
ἀρνησάμενοι: This indicates the re-
nunciation of the Devil, of the vanity of
this world, and of all the sinful lusts of
the flesh. ἀρνέομαι means here fo re-
pudiate, renounce all connexion with.
Cf. ἀποθέμενοι, τ Pet. ii. 1. See on i
Tim. v. 8.
τὴν ἀσέβειαν: εὐσέβεια being Chris-
tian practice (see below, εὐσεβῶς ζήσω-
μεν), ἀσέβεια is heathen practice, the
non-moral life.
τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας : saecularia
desideria (Vulg.), ‘“‘the desires of the
flesh and of the mind” (Eph. ii. 3),
“the lusts of men” (1 Pet. iv. 2); op-
posed to σωφρ. καὶ δικαίως; such as
have relation to no higher sphere than
that of the visible world. They are
analysed in 1 John ii. 16.
σωφρόνως: The reference of the three
adverbs is well explained by St. Bernard:
“ sobrie erga nos ; juste erga proximos;
pie erga Deum”.
Ver. 13. προσδεχόμενοι x«.7.X., as al-
ready stated, describes the glad expect-
ancy which is the ruling and prevailing
thought in the lives of men looking for
their Lord’s return (Luke xii. 36), προσ-
δεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Jude 21). Cf. Rom. viii.
#9; x Cor. i. 73, Phil. ii. 20; x Theas.
4.104. Heb. 1x. 28: ἃ Pet. 1; 12. Isa.
xxv. 9 is the basal passage. Cf. Acts
xxiv. 15, ἐλπίδα ἔχων εἰς τὸν Θεόν, ἣν
καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι προσδέχονται. In this
quotation ἐλπίδα is the mental act,
while the relative ἥν is the realisation of
the hope. ἐλπίς is also passive—the
thing hoped for—in Gal. v. 5; Col. i. 5;
¥. Tim. 1. x.
ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης: The Second
Coming of Christ will be, as we are as-
sured by Himself, ‘in the glory of His
Father” (Matt. xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38).
g See 1 Tim. vi. 14.
See 2 Tim. i. ro.
‘“‘ We rejoice in the hope of the glory of
God” (Rom. v. 2, a passage which sup-
ports the view that δόξης here is depend-
ent on ἐλπίδα as well as on ἐπιφάνειαν).
von Soden takes ἐπιφάνειαν as epexegeti-
cal of ἐλπίδα. The Second Coming of
Christ may, therefore, be regarded as an
ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης Θεοῦ, even though
we should not speak of an ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ
Πατρός, while ἐπιφάνεια ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
is normal and natural (see on 1 Tim. vi.
τὴν τῆς δόξης having then an intelli-
gible meaning, weare not entitled to treat
it as merely adjectival, the glorious ap-
pearing (A.V.). The genitival relation
does not differ in this case from τῇ
ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ in 2
Thess. ii. 8. See also note on 1 Tim.
i. 11. Again, there does not seem any
reason why τοῦ σωτῆρος, K.T-A., here
should not depend on ἐπιφάνειαν, on the
analogy of 2 Tim. i. 10. This may be
thought too remote. In any case, the
conception of the Second Coming as an
occasion of manifestation of two δόξαι,
that of the Father and of the Son, is
familiar from Luke ix. 26, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἑν
τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ Kal τοῦ πατρὸς, K.T.A.
On the whole, then, we decide in favour
of the R.V.m.in the rendering of this
passage, appearing of the glory of the
great God and our Saviour $esus Christ.
The grammatical argument—“ the iden-
tity of reference of two substantives
when under the vinculum of a common
article’”’—is too slender to bear much
weight, especially when we take into
consideration not only the general ne-
glect of the article in these epistles but
the omission of it before σωτήρ in 1
Tim. i. I, iv. το. Ellicott says that
“μεγάλου would seem uncalled for if ap-
plied to the Father”. To this it may
be answered that (a) the epithet is not
otiose here; as marking the majesty of
God the Father it is parallel to the ds
ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν, K.t.A., which recalls the
self-sacrificing love of the Son; both
constituting the double appeal—to fear
and to love—of the Judgment to come.
(5) Again, St. Paul is nowhere more
emphatic in his lofty language about
God the Father than in these epistles;
see 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 15, 16.
This is the only place in the N.T. in
196
TIPO TITON
Il.
i Seer Tim." ἡμῶν ἢ Χριστοῦ ἢ Ἰησοῦ, 14. ὃς ᾿᾿ ἔδωκεν ' ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα
il. 6.
kLuke λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πά ἀνομίας, καὶ ᾿ ί © λαὸν
eat. pwon ἡμᾶς ons μίας, καὶ "καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸ
I Pet. i.
18. 1 Acts xv. 9, 2 Cor. vii. 1, Eph. v. 26 Heb. ix. 14, Jas. iv. 8, 1 Johni. 7,9.
180 NX*FerG, g, boh.; “Ino. Χριστ. SCACDKLP, all cursives, d, e, f, vg., syrr.
arm.
which péyas is applied to the true God,
although it is a constant predicate of
heathen gods and goddesses, e.g., Acts
xix. 28. (See Moulton and Milligan,
Expositor, vii., vii. 563). In view of the
fact that the most probable exegesis of
Rom. ix. 5 is that 6 ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς
εὐλογητὸς, K.T.A. refers to Christ, it
cannot be said that ὁ μέγας Θεός, as
applied to Him, is un-Pauline. But the
proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be
God Incarnate do not lie in a few disput-
able texts, but in the whole attitude of
his soul towards Christ, and in the doc-
trine of the relation of Christ to mankind
which is set forth in his epistles. St.
Paul’s ‘declarations of the divinity of
the Eternal Son” are not studied, as
Ellicott admits that this would be if the
R.V. rendering (our great God and
Saviour, ¥esus Christ) be adopted. To
this it may be added that the Versions,
with the exception of the Aethiopic, agree
with R.V.m. ἘΠῚ. cites on the other
side, of ante-Nicene writers, Clem.
Alex., Protrepi. 87, and Hippolytus,
—quoted by Wordsworth—besides the
great bulk of the post-Nicene fathers.
The text is one which would strike the
eye of a reader to whose consciousness
the Arian controversy was present; but
it is safe to say that if it had read τοῦ
σωτῆρος, the μεγάλου would have ex-
cited no comment. Consequently the
papyri (all vii. a.p.) cited by J. H. Moul-
ton (Grammar, vol. i. p. 84) ‘which
attest the translation our great God and
Saviour as current among Greek-speak-
ing Christians ’’ are too late as guides to
St. Paul’s meaning here. The similar
problem in 2 Peter i. 1 must be discussed
independently. At least, even if it be
granted that the R.V. there is correct,
and that 2 Peter i. r is an example of the
transference to Christ of the language
used of deified kings “in the papyri and
inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial
times,’’ it does not follow that the’ same
account must be given of Tit. ii. 13.
Ver. 14. ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν K.T.A.:
see note on 1 Tim. ii. 6.- As already
observed, this is an appeal from the con-
straining love of Christ to the respond-
ing love of man,
λυτρώσηται: deliver. The language
is borrowed from Psalm cxxix. (cxxx). 8
αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐκ πασῶν
τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ. The material sup-
plied by this passage for a discussion of
the Atonement is contained in ἔδωκεν - « -
ἡμῶν, not in λυτρώσηται. See Dean
Armitage Robinson’s note on Eph. i. 14.
ἀνομίας: Lawlessness is the essence
of sin (1 John iii. 4), self-assertion as op-
posed to self-sacrifice which is love.
Love, which is self-sacrifice, is a dissol-
vent of self-assertion or sin. And to
what degree soever we allow the love of
Christ to operate as a controlling prin-
ciple in our lives, to that degree we are
delivered from ἀνομία, as an opposing
controlling principle.
καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαόν: This is a preg-
nant expression for “ purify and so make
them fit to be his people”. St. Paul has
in mind Ezek. xxxvil. 23, “I will save
them out of all their dwelling places,
wherein they have sinned, and will
cleanse them: so shall they be my people,
and I will be their God”, ῥύσομαι
αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν
ὧν ἡμάρτοσαν ἐν αὐταῖς, καὶ καθαριῶ
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαὸν, k.T.A.
There is in καθαρίσῃ an allusion to
Holy Baptism, which is explicit in ili. 5.
Cf. Eph. v. 26, ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθα-
ρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι.
λαὸν περιούσιον: populum acceptabilem
(Vulg.). A people for his own possession
an is the modern equivalent of a pecu-
iar people (A.V.). λαὸς περιούσιος is
the LXX for 59D Dy. mAb
means “a valued property, 2 peculiar
treasure’ (feculium), and occurs first in
Exodus xix. 5, “ Ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me.” Here the LXX inserts
λαός, possibly from the references in
Deut., in which the combination aba
Dx is found. ΓΤ ΔῸ alone occurs in
Malachi iii. 17 (εἰς περιποίησιν) and in
Ps. cxxxv. 4 (εἰς περιουσιασμόν). The
LXX of Mal. iii. 17 is echoed in Eph. i.
14, els ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως,
(where see Dean Armitage Robinson’s
note) and r Pet. ii. 9, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν,
in which λαός is a reminiscence of the
14—15. III. 1-3.
Ἢ περιούσιον, " ζηλωτὴν °Kadav ° ἔργων.
παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε μετὰ πάσης ” ἐπιταγῆς"
φρονείτω.
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
197
a Ἂς
15. ταῦτα λάλει καὶ πι Exod.
xix. 5,
xxiii. 22,
Deut. vii.
6, xiv. 2,
xxvi. 18.
μηδείς σου Ἵπερι-
III. 1. " Ὑπομίμνησκε αὐτοὺς ἢ" ἀρχαῖς 1 >* ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσε- π Acts xxi.
σθαι, “ πειθαρχεῖν, °! πρὸς " πᾶν "““ ἔργον "" ἀγαθὸν * ἑτοίμους εἶναι,
2. μηδένα βλασφημεῖν, ἢ ἀμάχους εἶναι, ἢ ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν * éyBerk-
20, xxii. 3,
1 Cor. xiv.
12, Gal. i,
14,1 Pet.
νυμένους " πραύτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. 3. Ἦμεν γάρ ποτε oSeer tim
καὶ ἡμεῖς ' ἀνόητοι, ™ ἀπειθεῖς, " πλανώμενοι, “ δουλεύοντες " ἐπιθυ- » rc
q 4 Macc. vi. 9, xiv. 1 only.
Rom. xiii. 1, 2, 3.
1 Tim. ii. 10.
1 Tim. vi. 9.
p 2 Tim. iii. 6.
h See 1 Tim. iii. 3.
a See 2 Tim. ii. 14.
ἃ Acts v. 29, 32, xxvii. 21.
ii i See 2 Tim. iv. 14.
m 2 Tim. iii. 2, Tit. i. 16, etc.
1.
or. vii.
6, 2 Cor.
viii. 8.
c Luke xxiii. 7,
fx Pet. ii, 18. g See
k See 2 Tim. ii. 25. 1 See
n See 2 Tim. iii. 13. o Rom. vi. 6.
b Luke xii. 11, xx. 20.
e See 2 Tim. ii. 21.
1Ins. καὶ DcKLP, d, e, f, m94, vg-, syrr., boh., arm.
LXX of the passages in Exod. and Deut.
Perhaps περιούσιος refers to the treasure
as laid up, while περιποίησις refers to it
as acquired.
ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων : See Eph. ii. το ;
1 Pet. i. 15; Heb. x. 24.
Ver. 15. See on 1 Tim. iv. 12.
ταῦτα is best connected with λάλει
only, and referred to the positive instruc-
tions of chap. ii., “ the things which befit
the sound doctrine”; while παρακάλει
and ἔλεγχε represent the two main func-
tions of the pastor. See i. 9.
ἐπιταγῆς: authority, imperio; πάσης
émit:: in the most authoritative manner
possible ; not to be connected with ἔλεγχε
only.
μηδείς σου περιφρονείτω: another way
of saying μετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς. Do
not permit thine authority to be despised,
Be consistent. See x Tim. iv. 12.
CHAPTER III.—Vv. 1-2. As your
Cretan folk are naturally intractable,
be careful to insist on obedience to the
constituted authorities, and on the main-
tenance of friendly relations with non-
Christians.
Ver. 1. With these instructions as to
duty towards civil authority, compare
Rom. xiii. 1 sqq., 1 Pet. ii. 13 544. It is
perhaps significant of the difference be-
tween Crete and the province of Asia, as
regards respect for law, that in 1 Tim.
ii. I-3, reasons are given why we should
pray for rulers, while here the more ele-
mentary duty of obedience is enjoined.
Polybius (vi. 46. 9) remarks on the sedi-
tious character of the Cretans.
ὑπομίμνησκε: See note on 2 Tim. ii.
14.
ἀρχαῖς: ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι are
coupled in this sense in Luke xii. 11;
ἀρχή and ἐξουσία in the abstract, Luke
xx. 20. The two words are coupled
together as names for ranks of angels in
Ephy 11.20, “yi.. 12, ‘Col. 1. “x6, ii. x0,
15; with δύναμις, τ Cor. xv. 24, Eph. i.
31; ἀρχαί, alone, Rom. viii. 38.
πειθαρχεῖν: (dicto obedire) is best
taken absolutely, and with a wider refer-
ence than the preceding clause: 7.6.,
as R.V., to be obedient, rather than merely
to obey magistrates (A.V.).
πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν. See reff.
Ver. 2. ἀμάχους . . - ἐπιεικεῖς:
coupled as qualifications of the episco-
pus, i Tim. iii. 3.
πᾶσαν πραὕὔτητα : the greatest possible
meekness. Compare Eph. iv. 2; 1 Pet.
iii. 15.
Vv. 3-7. Cretans who hear this epistle
need not feel hurt as though I were
thinking of them with exceptional ἡ
severity. We were such ourselves until
we came to know the love of God, un-
merited and saving and sanctifying and
perfecting.
Ver. 3. ἦμεν γάρ ποτε καὶ ἡμεῖς :
The connexion is: you need not sup-
pose that it is hopeless to imagine
that these wild Cretan folk can be re-
claimed. We ourselves are a living
proof of the power of God’s grace.
Eph. ii. 3 544. is an exact parallel. Cf.
also 1 Cor. vi. 11, Eph. v. 8, Col. iii. 7,
1 Pet. iv. 3.
ἀνόητοι: insipientes, foolish, in the
sense in which the word is used in
Proverbs (e.g. xvii. 28), without under-
standing of spiritual things.
πλανώμενοι: The analogy of 2 Tim.
iii. 13 suggests that this is passive,
deceived, not neuter, errantes (Vulg.),
though of course there are many ex-
198
ΠΡΟΣ. TITON
IIL.
ese , nw
q Luke viii. plats καὶ “ ἡδοναῖς " ποικίλαις, ἐν " κακίᾳ καὶ "φθόνῳ * διάγοντες,
14, Jas.iv.
Bet.ii
et. ii. 13. iE
τ: Rom. i. 29, φιλανθρωπία * ἐπεφάνη τοῦ
x Pet. ii.1.
*otuyytol, " μισοῦντες " ἀλλήλους.
4. ὅτε δὲ ἡ “ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ
Υ σωτῆρος "ἡμῶν "Θεοῦ, 5. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων
sSeerTim. τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ 1 ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ "κατὰ *Td " αὐτοῦ
ii. 2.
t Here only, * ἔλεος 2 ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ ὃ "λουτροῦ ἢ παλινγένεσίας καὶ “ ἀνακαι-
not LXX
u Matt. xxiv.
v Rom. ii. 4, xi. 22 ter., Eph. ii. 7 (Paul elsewhere 4 times).
x See Tit. ii. rr.
a Eph. v. 26 only, N.T., Cant. iv. 2, vi. 5, Ecclus. xxxi. (xxxiv.) 25.
c Rom. xii. 2 only, not LXX, cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16, Col. iii. το.
10.
N.T., Esth. (1). 2 Macc. (2), 3 Macc. (2).
i. 3.
only, not LXX.
1 ὧν CbDcKLP.
amples of this latter sense in the
ΝΟ:
ποικίλαις : See note on 2 Tim. iii. 6.
διάγοντες : sc βίον, as in τ Tim. ii. 2.
στυγητοί κιτιλ.: odibiles, odientes
invicem (Vulg.). This marks the stage
of degradation, before it becomes hope-
less: when vice becomes odious to the
vicious, stands a self-confessed failure to
produce happiness.
Ver. 4. χρηστότης καὶ φιλανθρωπία:
(benignitas . . . humanitas) is a con-
stant combination in Greek. See many
examples supplied by Field. Here it ex-
presses the notion of John iii. 16, οὕτως
yap ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον K.T.A.
and of Eph. ii. 4-6. Perhaps also, as
von Soden suggests, the kindness of God
is here contrasted with the unkindness of
men to each other; cf. Eph. iv. 31, 32.
χρηστότης is a Pauline word, used of
God also in reff. φιλανθρωπία is especi-
ally used of the beneficent feelings of
divine beings towards men; more rarely
of the relations between man and man,
as in Acts xxviii. 2. Diogenes Laert.,
quoted by Alf., distinguishes three kinds
of φιλανθρ. (1) geniality of manner,
(2) helpfulness, (3) sociability.
ἐπεφάνη : See note on r Tim. vi. 14.
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ : θεοῦ, as in i.
3, li. 10, is epexegetical οἵ σωτῆρος.
Ver. 5. The ἡμεῖς and ἡμᾶς refer to
the same persons as those mentioned in
verse 3, #.¢., the apostles and those who
have had a similar experience. The
verse may be paraphrased as a state-
ment of fact thus :—God saved us by
Baptism, which involves two complemen-
tary processes, (a) the ceremony itself
which marks the actual. moment in time
of the new birth, and (δὴ) the daily,
hourly, momently renewing of the Holy
Spirit, by which the spiritual life is sup-
ported and fostered and increased. And
the moving cause of this exceeding kind-
ness of God was not any merits of our
own, but His mercy
3 τὸν . . . ἔλεον ὥΌΟΚΙ,.
w Acts xxviii. 2 only,
y Seer Tim.i. 1. zi Pet.
b Matt. xix. 28
3 Ins. τοῦ A.
οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων : ἐκ here, as in Rom iii.
30, expresses the source. See also the
emphatic repetition in Gal. ii. 16 of οὐκ
ἐξ ἔργων νόμους The δικαιοσύνη here
is that which we can call our own, ἡ ἐκ
γόμου (Phil. iii. 9). Its existence as
δικαιοσύνη must not be denied; but
it does not pass as current coin in the
kingdom of God. It has indeed no
saving value whatever. Accordingly
there is no question here as to whether
we did, or did not do, works which are
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. ‘‘ Not the labours of my
hands can fulfil Thy law’s demands.”
See note on 2 Tim. 1. g.
Bengel, comparing Deut. ix. 5, refers
the negative to each term in the clause:
we had not been ἐν 8ux.; we had not
done ἔργα ἐν δικ.; we had no works
through which we could be saved. But
this exegesis is too much affected by the
controversies of the sixteenth century.
The A.V., which we have done, con-
fuses the thought by a suggestion that
the works referred to are those “after
justification ”.
τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ : δικαιοσύνη is the
sphere in which the works were done,
and to which they are related.
kata... ἔλεος: The phraseology
is borrowed from Ps. cviii. (cix.) 26,
σῶσόν pe κατὰ τὸ μέγα ἔλεός cov. A
remarkable parallel is furnished by 1
Pet. i. 3, ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος
ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς ; and also by 2 Esdr.
viii. 32, ‘‘ For if thou hast a desire to
have mercy upon us, then shalt thou be
called merciful, to us, namely, that have
no works of righteousness ”.
ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς: The N.T. seldom
diverts attention from the main lesson
to be taught from time to time by not-
ing qualifications, even necessary ones.
Here St. Paul is speaking only about the
efficient and instrumental and formal
causes of salvation, without any thought
of man’s part in co-operation with God.
It is as when teaching the principles of
4--5.
νώσεως } Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου, 6. οὗ
t
> A “ A
Ἰησοῦ *Xpiotod ‘tod
Féxeivou * χάριτι
ἐκ αἰωνίου. 8. ' Πιστὸς 16 ' λόγος "
iii. 24.
1 Tim. i. 16. 1 See 1 Tim. i. 15.
1Ins. διὰ D*FG, d, e, Ε-
mechanics, we do not confuse the be-
ginner’s mind by making allowances for
friction, etc. Here, as in Rom. vi. and
1 Pet. iii. 21, it is assumed that man co-
operates with God in the work of his
own salvation. On the force of the
aorist, ἔσωσεν; see note on 1 Tim. ii. 4.
διὰ λουτροῦ: the washing. λουτρόν
may mean the water used for washing,
or the process ttself of washing. The
R.V.m. laver would be λουτήρ. See
Dean Armitage Robinson’s note on Eph.
v. 26.
παλινγενεσίας: This defines the na-
ture of the λουτρόν which God employs
as His instrument in effecting the salva-
tion of man; not any λουτρόν whatever,
but that of new birth. It is sufficient
to observe here that much of the con-
troversy about regeneration might have
been avoided had men kept before them
the analogy of natural birth, followed as
it is immediately, not by vigorous man-
hood, but by infancy and childhood and
youth
ἀνακαινώσεως: The genitive ἀνακαι-
γώσεως depends on διὰ (which is actually
inserted in the Harclean Syriac; so
R.V.m., and through renewing), not
on λουτροῦ, as apparently Vulg., per
lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis
Spiritus Sancti, f. Boh. Arm., fol-
lowed by R.V. The λουτρόν, the ‘wash-
ing, secures a Claim on the Holy Spirit
for renewing, just as birth gives a child
aclaim on society for food and shelter ;
but unless we are compelled to do other-
wise, it is best to keep the two notions
distinct. Birth, natural or spiritual, must
be a definite fact taking place at a par-
ticular moment; whereas renewing is
necessarily a subsequent process, con-
stantly operating. Without this renew-
ing the life received at birth is at best in
a state of suspension. The references
to ἀνακαίνωσις and ἀνακαινοῦν, and the
similar passage, Eph. iv. 23, show that
the terms are always used of those who
are actually living the Christian life.
Ver. 6. οὗ ἐξέχεεν : Joel iii. x (ii. 28) is
the passage alluded to. Cf. in addition
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
Ὁ κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν 3
h Rom. iv. 14, viii. 17, Gal. iii. 29, iv. 7, Heb. vi Je: ii. 5.
m See 1 Tim. ii.
199
9 ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς " πλουσίως διὰ d Actsii. 17,
8, 33
~ - , I
ἐσωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 7. ἵνα " δικαιωθέντες ἐτῇ (=Joel
᾿ ITER 9 i
ἐλπίδα } * ζωῆς e Sees I te
>
KaT
καὶ περὶ τούτων ™ βούλομαί ce f See 4 Tim.
1. 10.
g Rom.
i Tit. i. 2. k See
2 γενώμεθα SQCDcKL.
to reff. given above, Acts x. 45, Rom. v.
5, Gal.iv. 6. The οὗ refers of course
to πνεύματ. ay. by attraction, not to
ἀνακαινώσεως. All gifts of the Holy
Spirit that come through Jesus Christ are
a continuation of the Pentecostal out-
pouring. The aorist is due to the
Apostle’s thought of that occasion, al-
though the ἡμᾶς shows that the im-
mediate reference is to the experience of
St. Paul and other Christians.
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: to be connected
with ἐξέχεεν. See John xv. 26, Acts ii.
33. The finished work of Jesus Christ
was the necessary pre-condition to His
effusion of the Holy Spirit.
Ver. 7. ἵνα, κιτιλ.: It is not quite
certain, whether this expresses the object
of ἐξέχεεν or of ἔσωσεν. The former
connexion brings out best the climax of
the passage. κληρονόμοι marks the
highest point to which man can attain
in this life. See reff. The two pre-
ceding stages are marked by λουτρὸν
παλινγενεσίας and ,ἀνακαίνωσις, while
δικαιωθέντες . . . χάριτι is an expression
in theological language of the simpler
κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔ ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς. The
grace by which man is justified is usually
spoken of as that of God the Father, Rom.
ili. 24; and so ἐκείνου, not αὐτοῦ, is used
as referring to the remoter antecedent.
κληρονόμοι: According to the analogy
of the other passages where it occurs,
this word is best taken absolutely ; or, if
the notion must be completed, we may
understand θεοῦ. The term would not
need any elucidation to one of St. Paul’s
company. It is also an argument against
connecting κληρ. ζωῆς αἰωνίου (R.V.m)
that ἔλπις ζωῆς αἰωνίου occurs in i. 2;
and Gal. iii. 29, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρ.»
is parallel.
Vv. 8-11. To sum up what I have
been saying: Belief in God is not a mat-
ter of theory or of speculation, but of
practice; it must be accompanied by
good works. This true religion unites
the beautiful and the profitable. On the
other hand, foolish speculations and con-
troversies about the law are profitless
200
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΟΝ
Ill.
Ἀ τ Tim.i7, ἢ διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ἵνα “ φροντίζωσιν ἢ καλῶν " ἔργων ἢ προΐστασθαι ot
not
ο Here only, 1" πεπιστευκότες ! "Θεῷ.
"ταῦτά ἐστιν 2 "καλὰ καὶ ὑ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς
p Tit.iii, τ4, ἀνθρώποις. 9. “ μωρὰς δὲ “" ζητήσεις καὶ ἡ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις ὃ
see 1 Tim,
Mle Σς
καὶ "μάχας Yvopids "περιίστασο, εἰσὶν yap " ἀνωφελεῖς kat μάταιοι.
Acts xv. , A ΝΣ
qi xvii. 10. ἢ αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν " νουθεσίαν 4
27, xix. 18,
XXi. 20, 25. a ;
τ Gen. xv. 6 (Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iii. 6, Jas. ii. 23), 1 John v. 10. s Cf. x Tim. ii. 3. t See 1 Tim.
iv. 8. u 2 Tim. ii. 23. v See 1 Tim. vi. 4 w See r Tim. i. 4. x See 2 Tim. ii. 23.
y Here only in this sense (see ver. 13), not LXX. z See 2 Tim. ii. 16. a Heb. vii. 18, Prov
xxviii. 3, Wisd. i. 11, Isa. xliv. 10, Jer. ii. 8 onl: b Here only, not LXX. ex Corsx:
11, Eph. vi. 4, Wisd. xvi. 6 only.
1 Ins. τῷ most cursives.
2Ins. ra DcKLP.
3So NcACKLP, d, e, f, δ, m5°, vg, boh, syrr, arm; ἔριν δ" [DerFerGer, eperv)}
Jerome once.
ὁ μίαν νουθ. καὶ[ἢ] δευτ. DeFetG [D*, d, e, καὶ δύο], g; om. καὶ δευτέραν MSS.
known to Jerome, m50, Iren. lat., Pamph. lat., Ruf., Tert., Cyp., Lucif., Aug.,
Amb., Ambrst.
and unpractical. Do not parley long
with a confirmed schismatic. If he does
not yield to one or two admonitions, reject
him altogether. It is beyond your power
to set him right.
Ver. 8. πιστὸς ὁ λόγος. Here it is
evident that 6 λόγος does not refer to
any isolated Saying, but to the doctrinal
statement contained in verses 4-7 regarded
as a single concept—as we, when we
speak of The Incarnation, sum up in one
term a whole system of theology—while
τούτων refers to the various topics in-
dicated in that statement, not to the
practical teaching of ii. 1—iii. 7.
βούλομαι: see note on 1 Tim. ii. 8.
διαβιβειντύθαι: Here the Vulg. has
confirmare; ἃ has affirmare, as in 1 Tim.
i. 7, where see note.
ἵνα: It is most significant and sug-
gestive that the apostle held that good
works were most certainly assured by a
theology which gives special prominence
to the free unmerited grace of God. This
is made plainer in the R.V. (to the end
that), than in the A.V. (that).
φροντίζωσιν : curent (am.), curam
habeant (fuld).
καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι: occupy
themselves in good works, bonis operibus
esate: (Vulg.). Prostare would have
een a better translation, since the πρό
in this use of προΐστασθαι is derived from
bodily posture rather than from
superiority in station. ‘From the prac-
tice of the workman or tradesman stand-
ing before his shop for the purpose of
soliciting customers ... we arrive at
the general meaning of conducting or
managing any matter of business.” So
Field, who also points out that the R.V.
m., profess honest occupations (similarly
A.V.m on ver. 14) is open to the serious
objection that καλὰ ἔργα everywhere
else in N.T., as well as in secular
authors, means “ good works” in the
religious or moral sense.
ot πεπιστευκότες θεῷ: This simple
phrase is used designedly in order to ex-
press the notion that profession of the
recently revealed Gospel is indeed merely
a logical consequence and natural de-
velopment of the older simple belief in
God.
ταῦτα : The antithesis in the following
papas δὲ ζητήσεις proves that these
things refers to the subject-matter of
Titus’ pronouncements (διαβεβαιοῦσθαι),
and means this enforcement of practical
religion.
καλά: is to be taken absolutely, as in
the parallel 1 Tim. ii. 3, and is not to be
connected with τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.
Ver. 9. ζητήσεις and γενεαλογίαι are
associated together in 1 Tim. i. 4 (where
see notes). Here they are co-ordinated ;
there the γενεαλογίαν are one of the
sources whence ζητήσεις originate. The
nature of the ἔρεις here deprecated is
determined by the context. ἔρεις indi-
cate the spirit of contentiousness; μάχαι
the conflicts as heard and seen. On
μάχαι, see 2 Tim. ii. 23. The μάχαι
γομικαί are no doubt the same as the
λογομαχίαι of τ Tim. vi. 4. Speaking
broadly, the controversy turned on the
attempt to give a fictitious permanence
to the essentially transient elements in
the Mosaical Law.
περιΐστασο: See note on 2 Tim. ii.
16.
ἅάταιοι: Here, and in James i. 26,
μάταιος is an adjective of two termina-
tions; yet ματαία occurs 1 Cor. xv. 17;
ματαίας, τ Peter i. 18.
Ver. 10. αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον: St.
9--13.
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
201
ἅ παραιτοῦ, II. εἰδὼς ὅτι " ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ator eal
ὧν ἢ αὐτοκατάκριτος.
12. Ὅταν πέμψω ᾿Αρτεμᾶν πρός σε ἢ Τυχικόν, " σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν
πρός με εἰς Νικόπολιν - ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἢ κέκρικα * παραχειμάσαι.
ii. 15.
12, xxviii. 11, Cor. xvi. 6, not LXX.
Paul passes from the _ reprehensible
opinions to the man who propagates
them. He is the same kind of man
as the φιλόνεικος of τ Cor. xi. 16; or
“he that refuseth to hear the church”’
of Matt. xviii. 17; heis of “them which
cause divisions and occasions of stum-
bling,” Rom. xvi. 17. The term αἵρεσις
is applied in a non-offensive sense to
the sects of Judaism, Acts v. 17, xv.
5, xxvi. 5. St. Luke represents the
Jews as so speaking of the Christian
Church (Acts xxiv. 5, xxviii. 22), and St.
Paul as resenting this application of the
term (Acts xxiv. 14). The Apostle him-
self uses the word in an unfavourable
sense (1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20), as does
2 Pet. ii. 1. A comparison of 1 Cor. xi.
1g with x John ii. 19 suggests that
αἵρεσις involved the formation of a sepa-
rate society (so R.V.m. here, factious),
not merely the holding of aberrant
opinions, or the favouring a policy dif-
ferent from that of the Church rulers.
The νουθεσία addressed to a member of
such a αἴρεσις would be of the nature
of a verbal remonstrance, pointing out
the essentially unchristian character of
needless separation. It is evident that
the aipertxds ἄνθρωπος would be beyond
any Church discipline. The permission
of asecond attempt at reconciliation is
probably not unconnected with our
Lord’s counsel, Matt. xviii. 15.
mwapaitov: Have nothing to do with
him. Seenoteoni Tim.iv. 7. Theword
does not necessarily imply any formal
excommunication. Such procedure
would be unnecessary. Excommunica-
tion has no terrors for those who de-
liberately separate themselves. ‘“‘ Monere
desine. quid enim iuvat? laterem la-
vares’’ (Bengel).
Ver. 11. εἰδώς : since thou mayest know.
ἐξέστραπται: subversus est. Argu-
ment with a man whose basal mental
convictions differ from your own, or
whose mind has had a twist, is mere
waste of breath.
αὐτοκατάκριτος : proprio iudicio con-
demnatus (Vulg.). He is self-condemned
because his separation from the Church
is due to his own acknowledged act. He
h Acts iii. 13, xx. 16, xxv. 25, xxvii. 1, 1 Cor. ii. 2, vii. 37, 2 Cor. ii. 1.
e Deut.
XXXii. 20,
etc., here
only, N.T
13. f Hereonly,
not LXX.
g See2Tim.
i Acts xxvii.
cannot deny that his views are antagon-
istic to those which he once accepted as
true; he is condemned by his former,
and, as St. Paul would say, his more
enlightened self.
Vv. 12-14. Come to me, as soon as
you can be spared. Forward Zenas and
Apollos. Let our friends in Crete re-
member that fruitfulness in good works
is the one thing needful for them.
Ver. 12. ὅταν πέμψω πρός ce: It is
natural to suppose that Artemas or
Tychicus would take the place of Titus
as apostolic legate in Crete. This tem-
porary exercise of apostolic superintend-
ence marks a stage in the development
of monarchical local episcopacy in the
later sense.
᾿Αρτεμᾶν: The name is “Greek,
formed from Ἄρτεμις perhaps by con-
traction from Artemidorus, a name com-
mon in Asia Minor” (W. Lock, art. in
Hastings’ D. B.).
Τυχικόν : See note on 2 Tim. iv. 12.
Νικόπολιν: The subscription in the
later MSS. at the end of the epistle,
ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως τῆςΜακεδονίας,
follows the Greek commentators (Chrys.,
Theod., etc.), in identifying this Nico-
polis with that in Thrace, on the Nestus ;
but makes a stupid mistake in not per-
ceiving that éxet proves that St. Paul
was not at Nicopolis when the letter was
written. If we suppose that the situation
of St. Paul, when writing 2 Tim., must
have been somewhere between Dalmatia,
Thessalonica, Corinth, Miletus, Ephesus
and Troas, then Nicopolis ad Nestum
would meet the needs of the case. But
the more important Nicopolis in Epirus
has found more favour with modern
scholars (see art. by W. M. Ramsay in
Hastings’ D.B.).
παραχειμάσαι: It is possible that the
winter is that mentioned in 2 Tim. iv.
21. The apostle was not always per-
mitted to exercise the gift of prophecy, in
the sense of being able to foretell future
events. From this point of view, There
I have determined to winter may be com-
pared with the earlier I know that ye all
.. . Shall see my face no more (Acts xx. 25).
Ver. 13. νομικόν: In the absence of
ΠΡΟΣ TITON
1Π1, 14—15.
Ὁ... Ἐν ρα ,
οἱ ° ἡμέτεροι
15. ᾿Ασπάζονταί σε οἱ pet ἐμοῦ πάντες"
Ἢ χάρις μετὰ πάντων
202
k Matt-xxii, Ζηνᾶν τὸν "νομικὸν καὶ ᾿Απολλὼν 1 ᾿' σπουδαίως ™mpdmepipor, ἵνα
35, Luke a τς ὲ
(7) cf μηδὲν αὐτοῖς " λείπῃ. 14. μανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ
ver. 9. y fs ε
1See2Tim. ἢ καλῶν ἢ“ ἔργων " προΐστασθαι εἰς τὰς " ἀναγκαίας "χρείας, ἵνα
ἷ. Ξ
mActsxv. μὴ ὦσιν “ἄκαρποι.
3» XX. 38, 3 AY u a Caer v v ,
xxi. 5, ἄσπασαι τοὺς “ φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς ” ἐν “ πίστει.
Rom. xv. . . 3
24,1 Cor, ὕμων.
xvi. 6,11,
2 Cor. i.
16, 3 John 6. n See Tit. i. 5. o Here only. p Ver. 8.
180
CD*cH**KLP, d, e, f, vg.
*DbH* one cursive; ᾿Απολλωνα FG; g (apollo t apollonem) ; ᾿Απολλώ
Ξλίπῃ ΜΙ)", 37, 47", about thirteen others.
Ins. ἀμήν ScDbcFGHKLP, e, f, g, vg. (not fuld.), syrr.
Add πρὸς Τίτον 0, 17, to which D adds ἐπληρώθη; AP add ἐγράφη ἀπὸ
Νικοπόλεως ; FG have ἐτελέσθη ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Titov; K has πρὸς Titov τῆς
Κρητῶν ἐκκλησίας πρῶτον ἐπίσκοπον χειροτονηθέντα, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως τῆς
Μακεδονίας. Similarly HL.
any example of this word being used as
the equivalent of legisperttus (Vulg.),
jurisconsultus or jurisperttus, it seems
est to assume that Zenas was a γομικός
in the usual N.T. sense, an expert in
the Mosaic Law.
᾿Απολλὼν : For Apollos, see article in
Hastings’ D. B.
πρόπεμψον : set forward on their
journey, praemitte; but deduco is the
rendering where the word occurs else-
where. See reff.
Ver. 14. The δέ does not mark an
antithesis between οἱ ἡμέτεροι and the
persons who have just been mentioned,
but is rather resumptive of verse 8; re-
peating and emphasising at the close of
the letter that which St. Paul had most
at heart, the changed lives of the Cretan
converts. of ἡμέτεροι of Course means
those of our faith in Crete.
καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι: See on
verse 8.
εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας χρείας : The best
commentary on this expression is I
Thess. iv. 9-12. Although καλῶν ἔργων
προΐστασθαι does not mean to profess
honest occupations, yet it is plain from
St. Paul’s letters that he would regard
the earning one’s own bread respectably
as a condition precedent to the doing
of good works. The necessary wants
to which allusion is made are the main-
tenance of oneself and family, and help-
ing brethren who are unable to help
themselves (Acts xx. 35; Rom. xii. 13;
Eph. iv. 28). This view is borne out by
the reason which follows, ἵνα μὴ dow
ἄκαρποι. See John xv. 2, Phil. iv. 17,
Col..1. 10, 2 Ῥδ ἃ 8;
Ver. 15. Final Salutation.
ot per ἐμοῦ : The preposition is dif-
ferent elsewhere in Paul: of σὺν ἐμοὶ
πάντες ἀδελφοί, Gal. i. 2; of σὺν ἐμοὶ
ἀδελφοί, Phil. iv. 21. of per’ αὐτοῦ is a
constant phrase in the Synoptists. There
is a similar use of peta in Acts xx. 34 (a
speech of St. Paul’s), and in 2 Tim. iv.
Il.
τοὺς φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει; The
faith (see note on 1 Tim. i. 2) is that
which binds Christians together more or
less closely. Timothy and Titus were
St. Paul’s τέκνα ἐν πίστει ; others were
more distantly related to him, though of
the same family, “the household of
faith’.
Dean Armitage Robinson (Ephesians,
p. 281) gives several examples from papyri
of similar formulas of closing, especially
two, which read, domdfov . . . τοὺς
φιλοῦντες oe (Or ἡμᾶς) πρὸς ἀληθίαν.
This suggests the rendering here, those
who love us truly.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL
TO
PHILEMON
INTRODUCTION,
§ I. Authorship, Place and Date.—The external evidence for the
authenticity of this Epistle is sufficiently strong; it is included among
the Pauline writings in the collection of Marcion; Tertullian men-
tions this in his Adv. Marc. v. 42. It is also mentioned, in connexion
with the Pastoral Epistles, in the Muratorian Fragment. Origen
ascribes it to St. Paul (Hom. in Matth. xxxiii., xxxiv.); Eusebius
reckons it among the ὁμολογούμενα (ΗΠ. Ε. iii. 25); Jerome, in his com-
mentary on the Epistle, mentions the fact that its genuineness was
disputed by some because it did not treat of doctrinal matters; he
holds that it would not have been received by the Church from the
beginning unless it had been St. Paul’s. The fact that it is not
mentioned in the sub-apostolic literature cannot excite suspicion, for
its shortness and the character of its contents sufficiently account
for this non-mention. The internal evidence is equally strong; the
Epistle bears the impress of the Pauline spirit throughout; and one
has only to compare the vocabulary and style with those of the other
Pauline Epistles to be convinced at once that St. Paul wrote it. Very
few among modern scholars reject its Pauline authorship ; van Manen,
for example, finds a difficulty in the “surprising mixture of singular
and plural both in the persons speaking and in the persons addressed.
This double form points at once to some peculiarity in the composi-
tion of the Epistle. It is not a style that is natural to any one who
is writing freely and untrammelled, whether to one person or many”
(Encycl. Bibl. col. 3695). Such a futile objection is self-condemna-
tory; but he continues: ‘‘ Here, as throughout the discussion, the
constantly recurring questions as to the reason for the selection of
the forms, words, expressions adopted, find their answer in the ob-
servation that the Epistle was written under the influence of a perusal
of ‘Pauline’ epistles, especially of those to the Ephesians and
Colossians ’’ (ibid.). That is as much as to say that the fact that a
writer is writing in his usual style is presumptive evidence that his
style is being imitated by someone else! The minute verbal com-
parisons which yan Manen tabulates between this and the other
i i
a
206 INTRODUCTION
Pauline (he would write ‘ Pauline’) Epistles constitutes a strong
proof of identity of authorship between them. Objectors like the
writer mentioned are, of course, exceptional; as Jiilicher says, “ the
all but universal judgment is that Philemon belongs to the least
doubtful part of the Apostle’s work” (Intr. to the N. T. p. 127).
The Place of writing and the Date of the Epistle are mutually
determining ; St. Paul was in prison when he wrote it, therefore the
Epistle must have come either from Czsarea (Acts xxiv.-xxvi.), or
from Rome (Acts xxviii. 30) ; the time of these two imprisonments was
_A.v. 58-63 ; the vast majority of writers are agreed that the group of
Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians and to Philemon
were written from Rome (see, for the reasons for this view, Lightfoot’s
Philippians, pp. 30 ff.) ; this would narrow the date of our Epistle
down to somewhere between a.p. 60-63. As to the question whether
Philemon was written early or late within this period, this depends
upon the answer to the question as to whether the Epistle to the
Philippians should be placed early in the Roman captivity and the
three other Epistles later, or vice versa, for it is generally allowed
that the Epistle to the Philippians stands alone, the other three were
written and despatched at or about the same time. For a full
discussion of these questions reference must be made to Lightfoot’s
Philippians, pp. 30-46; here it will have to suffice to say that the
most probable year for the date of Philemon is a.p. 62.
§ II. Occasion and Contents.—Although the Epistle is not the
only one of St. Paul’s addressed to an individual which has come
down to us, it is the only one of a, mainly, private character ; for
although in the opening salutation Apphia, Archippus and the Church
in Philemon’s house are addressed as well as Philemon himself,
nevertheless the contents of the Epistle deal with a personal matter.
The nearest parallel in the N.T. is 3 John, addressed to “ Gaius the
beloved’’. The Epistle is an appeal made by St. Paul to Philemon
on behalf of the runaway slave, Onesimus. Philemon was a citizen
of Colossz (cf. Col. iv. 17, Philem. 2, 10-12, and see Col. iv. 9); the
Word was most likely preached here during the period which St.
Paul spent at Ephesus, from which centre his influence extended
widely (see Acts xix. 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19); Philemon was among the
converts made by St. Paul himself (see Philem. 19), and he evidently
became a zealous worker, since St. Paul applies the title συνεργός to
him; that he was loving and hospitable is clear from wv. 5-7.
Onesimus, the immediate cause of the Epistle, who had run away
from his master, also became a convert of St. Paul’s (ver. 10); from
ver. 18 it would almost seem as though he had committed a theft ;
INTRODUCTION 207
if so, the reason of his having run away would have been fear of
punishment. St. Paul’s influence upon him must have been strong to
have induced him to return. The name Onesimus, like Philemon, is
Phrygian; for some reason or other Phrygian slaves were regarded
with contempt: φρὺξ ἀνὴρ πληγεὶς ἄμεινον καὶ διακονέστερος (mentioned
by Vincent as being quoted by Wallon, Hist. de l’esclavage dans
Vantiquité, ii. 61, 62). The name was very commonly given to
slaves, and appears over and over again on inscriptions as the name
of a slave or a freedman. .
The letter in which St. Paul intercedes for Onesimus was sent
by Tychicus, who was going to Colosse and Laodicza with other
letters from him to the churches there. Nothing could exceed the
affectionate tactfulness displayed in the Epistle; the delicate way
in which St. Paul combines the appeal to all that is best in
Philemon with a gentle, yet distinct assertion of his own authority
(see vv. 8, 9, 21) is very striking. The Epistle is a witness to the
high demands which Christianity makes upon men; and the way
in which it teaches the universal brotherhood of man together with
the eternal truth that one man is better than another—or worse—
and that therefore class distinctions lie within the nature of things;
this is another side of its permanent value. The power of the Gospel
and the noble character of St. Paul are the two notes sounded
throughout ; or, as Lightfoot so well expresses it, the special value
of the Epistle lies in the fact that “ nowhere is the social influence of
the Gospel more strikingly exerted, nowhere does the nobility of the
Apostle’s character receive a more vivid illustration than in this ac-
cidental pleading on behalf of a runaway slave”.
§ II]. Slavery, fewish and Roman.—The question of slavery so
obviously suggests itself in connexion with this Epistle that a short
section on the subject seems called for. It is not enough to refer
only to Roman slavery, although Onesimus was a slave and Philemon
a master under the Roman régime ; for St. Paul was a Hebrew, and
the Hebrew conception of slavery must, therefore, be taken into
account as well. ‘‘ Slavery was practised by the Hebrews under the
sanction of the Mosaic law, not less than by the Greeks and Romans.
But though the same in name, it was in its actual working ’—and,
we may add, in its whole theory and conception—‘“ something wholly
different " (Lightfoot, Philemon, p. 319). The Hebrew laws regard-
ing slavery were exceedingly humane, for Hebrew slaves belonged to
the Covenant people, for which reason also they were regarded as
members of their owner’s family; they therefore had their social, as
well as their religious rights. A Hebrew slave could not be kept
208 INTRODUCTION
as such for more than six years at the outside, unless he himself
wished it ; the laws concerning the redemption of a slave are very
explicit. But owing to the conditions of society in ancient times
there can be no doubt that a slave was, as a rule, much better off in
a servile condition than if he were free; it was for this reason that
the Hebrews had a special law laying down the procedure in the
case of those who desired to continue bondmen “for ever”. Ac-
cording to Jer. xxxiv. 8-24, however, permanent enslavement of Heb-
rew men and women is strongly denounced as a sin which will bring
about national disaste’ According to Lev. xxv. 45, 46, the Hebrew
was permitted to buy Gentile slaves, who became personal property
and were inherited by the owner’s children. But the owner’s power
over his slaves was strictly limited by the law; if he punished a
slave in such a way as to cause permanent bodily injury the slave
gained his freedom as compensation ; if a master chastised his slave
so as to cause his death, he was treated as a murderer. Then, again,
according to Hebrew law, a slave who had escaped was not to be
delivered up again to his master. St. Paul cannot, of course, be
accused of having broken this law in the case of Onesimus, since the
latter returned voluntarily; but it is, however, possible that when
St. Paul wrote, ‘‘ For perhaps he was therefore parted from thee for
a season, that thou shouldest have him for ever,” he had in mind the
law of the slave’s voluntary return to his master in order to remain
his “‘ bondman for ever ” (Deut. xv. 16, 17), and thought of how that
law had been “ fulfilled” by the teaching of Christ (see Matt. v. 17).
Much ancient traditional matter is contained in Talmudical writ-
ings ; it is, therefore, interesting to note one or two daia in these on
the subject of slaves; it is said, for example, that the master of a
Hebrew slave (man or woman) must place him on an equality with
himself ‘‘ in meat and drink, in lodging and bed-clothes, and must act
towards him in a brotherly manner,” so that a saying is preserved in
Kiddushin, 20a that, ‘‘ whosoever buys a Hebrew slave buys a master
for himself”. Again, the law concerning the escaped slave, referred
to above, is in the Talmud construed as applying to one who flees
from a place outside the Holy Land into it; but the slave must give
the master from whom he has fied a bond for his value; if the master
refuses to manumit the slave by deed, the court protects the former
bondman in his refusal to serve further (Gittin, 45a). According to
Rabbinical teaching a runaway slave who is recaptured must make good
the time of his absence; if this is traditional and ancient law, which
is very probable, it throws an interesting side-light upon our Epistle ;
in the first place, it may, in part, have been the reason for St. Paul’s
INTRODUCTION 209
insistence on the return of Onesimus to his master; and in the se-
cond place, it may have some bearing on the words in vv. 18, 19
‘‘ But if he hath wronged thee at all, or oweth thee aught, put that
to mine account; I Paul write it with mine own hand, I will repay
it’; these last words are perhaps meant literally, the reference being
to manual labour, or the like, which St. Paul was prepared to under-
take in order to make up for the time lost by Onesimus, this lost
time having presumably occasioned loss to Philemon. For the above
see further Exod. xxi. 2-11, Lev. xxv. 39-54, Deut. xv. 12-18, xxiii.
16, 17 (15, 16 R.V.); Hamburger, Real-Encycl. des Fudenthums 1.
p. 947; $ewish Encycl. xi. 404 ff.
These few data are sufficient to show the spirit of mercy and
fellow-feeling which characterised Jewish slavery.
Utterly different from this was the Roman system; this i is well
described in Lighfoot’s Colossians and Philemon, pp. 320 ff., and
with great minuteness in Wallon’s Hist. de l’esclavage dans l’anti-
quité (2nd ed.), which is the chief authority on the subject. For
details concerning slavery in the Roman empire recourse must be
had to these works; and for a description of the appalling moral
effects of the institution upon both masters and slaves, see Vincent’s
Commentary, pp. 163 ff. While there were undoubtedly exceptions,
cp., ¢.g., the letter written by the younger Pliny (Ep. ix. 21), quoted
by Lightfoot, op. cit. p. 316, the general rule was that the Roman
system was, practically, the antithesis of the Jewish.
St. Paul’s attitude towards slavery must be understood in the
light of the Jewish system; this contained within itself the germs of
the Christian conception of man, which was bound sooner or later
to prove fatal to slavery. ‘‘ When the Gospel taught that God had
made all men and women upon earth of one family; that all alike
were His sons and His daughters; that, whatever conventional dis-
tinctions human society might set up, the supreme King of Heaven
refused to acknowledge any; that the slave, notwithstanding his
slavery, was Christ’s freedman, and the free, notwithstanding his
liberty, was Christ’s slave; when the Church carried out this prin-
ciple by admitting the slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to
kneel side by side with his master at the same holy table ; when, in
short, the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor
free’ was not only recognised, but acted upon, then slavery was
doomed”’ (Lightfoot, of. cit. p. 325).
§ IV. Literature :—
Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 1884.
Von Soden, “ Philemon,” in Holtzmann’s Hand Kommentar, 1891
VOL. IV. 14
210 INTRODUCTION
Vincent, “ Philemon,” in the International Critical Commentary,
1897.
The articles on Philemon in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible and
Cheyne’s Encycl. Biblica.
For the abbreviations in the Apparatus Criticus see the Intro
duction to St. fames. The Greek text is that published by Nestle,
1907.
ΠΡΟΣ ®IAHMONA!
I. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ "δέσμιος 2 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὃ " ἀδελφὸς a Acts
, A OF - 3 Ν
Φιλήμονι τῷ “ ἀγαπητῷ ὅ καὶ
> ~ 4 AS ον , an
ἀδελφῇ * καὶ ᾿᾿Αρχίππῳ τῷ
ἀ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν, 2. καὶ ᾿Απφίᾳ
, Xxili. 18,
ΤῊ Eph. iii.
I
ξ συνστρατιώτῃ ἡμῶν καὶ ἢ τῇ Kat’ bCol.i.r.
ς Acts xv.
25, Rom.
Xvi. 9. d Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil ii. 25, Col. iv. 11, 3 John 8. e Rom. xvi. 1 Cor. vii. 15,
ix. 5. f Col. iv. 9, 17, 2 Tim. ii. 3. g Phil. ii. 25, ef. 2 Tim. ii. 3. h Col. iv. 15.
Ἰεπιστολη mp. pir. KL,
3 4 αδελφω D*E.
4ayarnty DKL, rec.; + charissimae
Dam.
Ver. 1. δέσμιος Xp. ἴἸησ.: to
St. Paul an even more precious title than
the usual official ἀπόστολος Xp. "Iyo.;
cf. ν. 13, ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγ.;
“they were not shackles which self had
riveted, but a chain with which Christ
had invested him; thus they were a
badge of office. . . ” (Lightfoot) This
title of honour is chosen, and placed in
the forefront of the Epistle, not with the
idea of touching the heart of Philemon,
but rather to proclaim the bondage in
which every true Christian must be,
and therefore also the “ beloved fellow-
worker” Philemon. The title is meant,
in view of what follows in the Epistle, to
touch the conscience rather than the
heart.—TtpéGeos: associated with
St. Paul in Acts xix. 22, 2 Cor. i. 1, Phil.
i. 1, Col. i. 1; his mention here points
to his personal friendship with Phile-
mon.—é ἀδελφός: often used by the
Apostle when he desires to be especially
sympathetic ; here, therefore, the empha-
sis is intended to be upon the thought
of the brotherhood of all Christians;
this is significant in view of the object of
the Epistle.— tAy pove: See Intr., § II.
π-συνεργῷ: when they had worked
together cannot be said with certainty;
perhaps in Ephesus or Colossae. Prob-
ably what is meant is the idea of all
Christians being fellow-workers.
Ver. 2. ᾿Απφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ: A
Phrygian name, often occurring on Phry-
gian inscriptions. It is most natural to
2amoa ολος D*E*; δουλος 338,
Vulg., Pesh., Syrhark, Chrys., Theod.,
suppose that she was the wife of Philemon:
but she must have occupied also, most
{πεῖν, a quasi-official ἘΞ in the
urch ;_ τῇ ἀδελφῇ, coming between
συνεργῷ and συνστρατιώτῃ;» suggests
this, especially when one remembers the
important part the ministry of women
played in the early Church, cf. the
labours, ¢.g., of Mary, Tryphaena and
Tryphosa, Persis, in connexion with
whom the semi-technical term κοπιᾶν is
used (see 1 Thess. v. 12, x Tim. v. 17,
for the use of this word), and Prisca; on
the whole subject see Harnack, The
Mission and Expansion of Christianity,
i. - 122 f., 161 f., 363 f. (1908).—
ρχίππῳ: there is nothing to show
that he was the son of Philemon, rather
the contrary, for why should the son be
addressed in a letter which dealt with
one of his father’s slaves? The inclu-
sion of his name must be due to the fact
that he occupied an important position
in the local church (cf. the words which
follow in the text), which was thus, in a
certain sense, included in the responsi-
bility with regard to Onesimus. Archip-
ccupied, apparentl ore impor-
17, pos τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν
Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς, .---ἰξ Philemon
had occupied any such official position
mention would certainly have been made
of it), but this would be most unlikely to
have been the case if the latter had been
the father of the former. It is more
212
ΠΡΟΣ ®IAHMONA
3—
iRom. i. 18 οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ ἢ" 3. χάρις ὑμῖν Kal εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς
1 Cor. i. 4.
Phil. i. 3, ἡμῶν 1 καὶ Κυρίου ᾿ἸΙησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
rThess.i. τ,
2,2 Thess, TAVTOTE
i. 3.
kRom.i.10, cou τὴν | ἀγάπην καὶ ™ τὴν
Eph. i. 16,
1 Thess.
i. 2. 1 Phil. i. 9. m 1 Tim. i. 19.
10m. δ". Ε
natural to regard him as the head of the
local Church, who lived in the house
where the members met for worship (cf.
Theodoret’s words, quoted by Lightfoot:
ὁ δὲ"Αρχιππος τὴν διδασκαλίαν αὐτῶν
ἐπεπίστευτο). -- συνστρατιώτῃ:
only elsewhere in N.T., Phil. ii. 25, but for
the metaphor ¢f. 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 1 Tim. i.
18, 2 Tim. ii. 3, 4,—xKal τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον
o sent Of, Actes “xi, 12, Rom:: αν: 5»
1 Cor. xvi. 19, Col. iv. 15. Up to the
third century we have no certain evi-
dence of the existence of church
buildings for the purposes of wor-
ship; all references point to private
houses for this. In Rome several of the
oldest churches appear to have been
built on the sites of houses used for
Christian worship ; see Sanday and
Headlam, Romans, p. 421, who quote
this interesting passage from the Acta
Fustini Martyris, § 2 (Ruinart) : “ Quae-
sivit Praefectus, quem in locum Christiani
convenirent. Cui respondit Justinus, eo
unumquemque convenire quo vellet ac
posset. An, inquit, existimas omnes nos
in eundem locum convenire solitos ?
Minime res ita se βαρεῖ. . . Tunc
Praefectus: Age, inquit, dicas, quem in
locum conveniatis, et discipulos tuos
congreges. Respondit Justinus: Ego
prope domum Martini cuiusdam, ad bal-
neum cognomento Timiotinum, hactenus
mansi.”
Ver. 3. χάρις... «εἰρήνη: Cf.
Rom. i. 7, the usual Pauline greeting
(exc. I. 2 Tim.) ; it is a combination of the
Greek salutation, χαίρειν, and the
Hebrew one, OY). In the N.T.
the word εἰρήνη expresses the spiritual
state, which is the result of a right
relationship between God and man.
According to Jewish belief, the establish-
ment of peace, in this sense, was one
ain functions of the Messiah
(cf. Luke 11. 14), it was herein that His
mediatorial work was to be accomplished.
--πατρὸς: see note on Jas, iii. 9. The
phrase ἀπὸ Θεοῦ . . . Χριστοῦ expresses
the essence of Judaism and Christianity.
i 3 lat - - ἰ
4. ᾿Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου
* μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου," 5. ἀκούων
πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις ἢ ™ πρὸς ” τὸν κύριον
n Cf. 1 Thess. i. 8.
εἰς ACD*, WH.
Ver. 4. πάντοτε: belongs to evxa-
ριστῶ, cf. Eph. i. 16, Phil. i. 3, Col. i. 3, 4.
Ver.5. ἀκούων: probably from Epa
phras, see Col. i. 7, 8, iv. 12 (Lightfoct).
--τὴν ἀγάπην. . .: i¢, the faith
which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love which thou showest
to all the saints. ‘The logical order,”
says Lightfoot, “is violated, and the
clauses are inverted in the second part
of the sentence, thus producing an ex-
ample of the figure called chiasm; see
Gal. iv. 4,5. This results here from the
apostle’s setting down the thoughts in
the sequence in which they occur to him,
without paying regard to symmetrical
arrangement. The first_and Prominent
thought is Philemon’s love. 15 _sug-
ests the mention of his faith, as the
ource This
again requires a reference to the object
of faith. And then, at length, comes the
deferred sequel to the first thought—the
range and comprehensiveness of his
love.’—mrfortv: not ‘ faithfulness,”
but “faith”? (belief), cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 13,
Gal. v. 6,1 Thess. i. 3.-)ὡχσρὸς . « «εἰς:
the difference in these propositions is note-
worthy, πρὸς refers to the “faith” to
: SS.
ints; both are developed in vv.
6, γ---τοὺς ἁγίους: St. Paul intends
Onesimus to be thought of here. The
original significance of the title ἅγιος, as
applied to men, may be seen in such a
phraseas, “Ye shall be holy, for I, the Lord
your God, am holy”’ (Lev. xix. 2). To the
Jew, like St. Paul, the corresponding root
in Hebrew connoted the idea of something
set apart, t.e., consecrated to the service
of God (cf. ¢g., Exod. xxii. 31 [29]).
The ἁγίοι constituted originally the
ἐκκλησία; and just as, according to the
meaning underlying the Hebrew equiva-
lent of the word ἅγιος, separation for
God’s service was the main conception,
so, according to the root-meaning of
ἐκκλησία, it connoted the idea of the
body of those “called out,” and thus
separated from the world.
9. ΠΡΟΣ ®IAHMONA
213
Ἰησοῦν] καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς “ἁγίους, 6. ὅπως ἡ P κοινωνία τῆς ο Eph. ἵ. τ,
ν ΑΓ Ὁ ΑΝ ΘΕ ΟΥΑΙ
πιστεώς σου “ ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ᾿ ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς 2 ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ 3» Phil. ii. 1.
, 41 Cor. xvi.
ἐν ἡμῖν 4 εἰς Χριστόν: 5 7. χαρὰν γὰρ “moddhv ἔσχον Kal 3,9, Gal.
. . ἃ a , “ t 5 ss A v. 6, Heb.
παράκλησιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, ὅτι τὰ “σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων iv. 12.
. Ν at 1 Cor. i.6
8. Διό, πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ Eph.i.r7,
nA Col. i. 29.
9. διὰ τὴν 8. 2 Cor. vii.
A A a ε - , 2
ἀγάπην 3 μᾶλλον " παρακαλῶ, τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς Παῦλος " πρεσβύτης, Thess, ti
6
" ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ, “Ὑαδελφέ.
2 “
“" παρρησίαν ἔχων 8 “ ἐπιτάσσειν σοι τὸ 7 ἀνῆκον.
t 1 Cor. Xvi.
v Gal.
y Eph.
8, 2 Cor. vi. 12, vii. 13, 15, Phil. i. 8. u Matt. xi. 28, 1 Cor. xvi. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 13.
vi.18. δ -w 2 Cor. iii. 12, Eph. iii. 12, Phil. i. 20. x Mk. i. 27, vi. 27, 39, ix. 25.
v. 4, Col. iii. 18, z Eph. iv. 1. a Luke i. 18, Tit. ii. 2.
1+ χριστον D!, aeth. 2 + epyov FG, a, c, e, g, Vulg. *Om. AC.
4 uptv SSFGP, curss., Syrr., Vulga, rec. 5 Ἰησουν cl FGKLP, πὶ, Vulg.
Syapiv KL, a, Vulgr, rec., Chrys., Theod., Dam., Thl.
ΤΊ exopev πολλεν DCKL, a, m, Pesh., Syrhark, Vulgr, rec.; πολλεν exw a.
8 Habentes VulgF!. 9αναγκην A.
Ver. 6. ὅπως: belongs to μνείαν elsewhere in the N.T. only in Ephes. Υ.
σου ποιούμενος ...V. 5 is, aS it were, in 4, Col. iii. 18.
brackets. It would be more usual to have Ver. 9. τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς: ““τοι-
iva here.—xotvwvia: the reference is οὗτος can be defined only by a following
to identity of faith; the fellowship among adjective, or by οἷος, ὅς, ὅσος, or ὥστε
the saints, cf. Phil. i. 5. The word 185. with the infinitive; never by as” (Vin
ed_of i - cent). It seems, therefore, best to take
xv. 26, 2 Cor, viii. τοιοῦτος ὧν as referring to. . . μᾶλλον
xi, 16. : . 6, Col. 1. 29, παρακλῶ, which is taken up again in the
--ἐπιγνώσει: the force of thiswordis next verse; ὡς Παῦλος. . . Ἰησοῦ must be
seen in Phil. 1. 9.--παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ: regarded as though in brackets; τοιοῦτος
cf. Rom. xii. 2, xvi. 19, Col. i. 9.—€v 4p. ὧν would then mean “one who beseeches”’.
ets Xp.: it is not only a question of --πρεσβύτης : this can scarcely be in
men who benefit by “every good thing,”
but also of the relationship to Christ;
cf. Col. iii. 23.
ov: the a 565
Omen O
᾿ Otist expres
he moment of joy whic!
St.Paul experienced when he heard
this good news about Philemon.—ra
σπλάγχνα: regarGed as the seat of
the emotions.—av .wémwavtat: the
compound “ expresses a temporary relief,
the simple παύεσθαι expresses a final
cessation” (Lightfoot).—aSeAqpé€: the
lace of the word here makes it emphatic.
Ver. ὃ, Διό: i.¢., because of the good
that he has heard concerning Philemon ;
he .nust keep up his reputation.—é t-
άσσειν: “toenjoin,” or “command” ;
the word is used “rather of commanding
which attaches to a definite office and
relates to permanent obligations under
the office, than of special injunctions
for particular occasions” (Vincent).—r ὃ
ἀνῆκον: the primary meaning of the
verb is that of “having arrived at,” or
“ reached’; and, ultimately, that of fulfil-
ling a moral obligation. The word occurs
reference to age, for which γέρων would
be more likely to have been used ; besides,
in Acts vii. 58, at the martyrdom of St.
Stephen, the term νεανίας is applied to
St. Paul. Lightfoot in his interesting
note on this verse, says: “ There is rea-
son for thinking that in the common
dialect πρεσβύτης may have been written
indifferently for πρεσβευτής in St. Paul’s
time; and if so, the form here may be
due, not to some comparatively late
scribe, but to the original autograph
itself or to an immediate transcript”;
and he gives a number of instances of
the form πρεσβύτης being used for πρεσ-
Bevryjs. If, as seems very likely, we
should translate the word “ambassador ”
here, then we have the striking parallel
in the contemporary epistle to the
Ephesians, vi. 20, ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν
ἁλύσει. Deissmann (Licht vom Osten,
Ῥ- 273) points out that both the verb
πρεσβεύω, and the substantive πρεσ-
Bevrys, were used in the Greek Orient
for expressing the title of the Legatus of
the emperor. Accepting the meaning
“ ambassador” here, the significance of
214
b 1 Cor. iv.
14, Gal.
iv. 19, I
Tim. i. 2.
ct Cor. iv.
15, Gal.
iv. 19.
aR hil, χὴν»
τὸν ἢ
12. ὃν 8 ἀνέ
Ἄνα
ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΉΜΟΝΑ
~ Δ 9 “
ἐμοῦ " τέκνου, ὃν “ ἐγέννησα 5 ἐν τοῖς
=) " ε ὶ δὲ ‘
ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον Fyuvi δὲ καὶ
ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν," ὁ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὁ τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα᾽
I0—
νυνὶ δὲ Kat δέσμιος Χριστ ) “Ingod,! 10. παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ
*Seapot;,> “ Ονήσιμον, 11.
4 ‘ eed , hi
σοι καὶ ἐμοὶ “ EUXpHOTOY,
7
e Col.iv.9.13. ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἢ κατέχειν, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι
f Gal. i. 13.
g@ Col. i. 21.
Ὦ 2 Tim. ii. 21. i Luke xxiii. 11.
10m. Inoov D!; Ιησου χριστου rec,
3+ μου NcCDEKLP, a, Syrr., rec.
k Luke iv. 22.
2 Pr. eye A, m.
4Om. και AKCDKLP, Pesh., rec., WH.
5—5 ἀνεπεμψα " ov Se avtov DE, a, rec.; remisi tibi.
&—6 Ut Vulga; id est Vulgr.
Tu autem illum Vulg.
7 + προσλαβου CD, a, rec. (cf. v.17); + suscipe Vulg.; the Pesh. reads “ my
son” for τα ena omh.
the passage is much increased; for
Christ’s ambassador had the right to
command, but in merely exhorting he
throws so much more responsibility on
Philemon. The word “ambassador ”
would be at least as strong an assertion
of authority as “apostle”; to a Greek,
indeed, more so.—Séoptos: perhaps
mentioned for the purpose of hinting that
in respect of bondage his position was not
unlike that of him for whom he is about
to plead; cf. the way in which St. Paul
identifies himself with Onesimus in wv.
I2.. . αὐτόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὰ ἐμὰ
σπλάγχνα, and17... ὡς éué.—Xprorod
Ἰησοῦ: belongs both to πρεσβύτης and
to δέσμιος, cf. v. 1, Eph. ili. 1, iv. 1, 2
Abies ets
Ver. 10. ὃν ἐγέννησα: cf. Sanhe-
drin, xix. 2 (Jer. Talm.), “If one teaches
the son of his neighbour the Law, the
Scripture reckons this the same as if he
had begotten him”’ (quoted by Vincent).—
Ὀνήσιμον: one would expect ᾽Ονησί-
μου it is attracted to ὃν... instead of
agreeing with τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου. He is
to be ὀνήσιμος in future, no longer ἀνόνη-
τος.--ἄχρηστον: am. dey. in N.T.,
but used in the Septuagint, Hos. viii. 8,
2 Macc. vii. 5, Wisd. ii. 11, iii. 11, Sir. xvi.
I, xxvii. 19. As applied to Onesimus the
reference must be to something wrong
done by him; the fear of being punished
for this was presumably his reason for run-
ning away from his master.—vuvi δὲ:
a thoroughly Pauline expression, cf. v.
Q;, Rom. vi, 22, 1 Ὁ; 17... Ἐν: 23) 25. Ἅ
Cor. v. II, etc.—evxpyortrov: only
elsewhere in N.T. in 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv.
Xs :
Ver. 12. ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι: the
aorist, in accordance with the epistolary
Style. It is clear from these words that
Onesimus himself was the bearer of the
letter, cf. Col. iv. 7-9. On St. Paul’s in-
istence that Onesimus should return to
his master, see Intr. § III.—atrév: note
the emphatic position of this word, cf.
Eph. 1. 22.—€pa: again emphatic in
thus preceding the noun.
Ver. 13. ἐγὼ: a further emphatic
mode of εχργεββιοη.--ἐβουλόμην:
βούλεσϑαι connotes the idea of purpose,
θέλειν simply that of willing. The differ-
ences between the tenses—éBovAduny
and ἐθέλησα (ver. 14)—is significant ;-
“the imperfect implies a _ tentative,
inchoate process; while the aorist de-
scribes a definite complete act. The will
stepped in and put an end to the inclina-
tions of the mind” (Lightfoot).—x« a τ έ-
xeuv: “to detain,” directly opposed to
ἀπέχῃς in ver. 15. Deissmann (Op cit,
p. 222) points out that κατέχω is often
used in papyri and on ostraka of binding,
though in a magical sense.—twép σοῦ:
“in thy stead,” the implication being that
Philemon is placed under an obligation
to his slave; for the force of ὑπὲρ as illus-
trated on the papyri, etc., see Deissmann’s
important remarks on pp. 105, 241 ff. of his
work already quoted.—8 taxovq: used
in the Pauline Epistles both of Christian
ministration generally (Rom. xi. 13; 1
Cor. xii. 5; Eph. iv. 12) and in special:
reference to bodily wants, such as alms
can supply (1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4).
--ἐν τοῖς δεσμ. τοῦ evayy.: i.¢.,
the bonds which the Gospel had tied, and
which necessitated his being ministered
υπίο.--τοῦ εὐαγγελίου: see Mark
i, 14, 15 and cf. Matt. iv. 23; Christ
uses the word often in reference to the
Messianic Era. ‘ The earliest instances
of the use of εὐαγγέλιον in the sense of
a book would be: Did. 8, 11, 15 bis; Ign.
19.
ΠΡΟΣ ®IAHMONA
215
ἰδιακονῇ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 14. χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς! Matt.
ππ γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ " ἀνάγκην τὸ
ἀγαθόν σου ἦ ἀλλὰ Kata! ἑκούσιον.
Ῥ ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς ὥραν, ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν “ ἀπέχης, 16. οὐκέτι ὡς
δοῦλον 3 ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον,2 " ἀδελφὸν ὁ ἀγαπητόν, " μάλιστα ἐμοί, 5.
"πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ καὶ “ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ “ἧ ἐν κυρίῳ.
ἔχεις “ κοινωνόν, * προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ.
Ε
σε ἢ "ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ " ἐλλόγα "5
Phil. iv. 18. r Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, 9.
iii. 16. v Rom. xvi. 2, Phil. ii. 29.
3, XV. 7. y Matt. xx. 13, 1 Cor. vi. 8.
11,2 Thess. iii. 17.
10m. D. +? Oni, F,
Philad. 5, 8 (Sanday, Bampton Lectures,
Ρ- 319).
Ver. 14. With the thought of this
verse cf. 2 Cor. ix. 7, 1 Peter v. 2.--ὡὼὗς
κατὰ ἀνάγκην: “St. Paul does not
say κατὰ ἀνάγκην but ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην.
He will not suppose that it would really
be constraint; but it must not even wear
the appearance (ὡς) of being so. cf. 2
Cor. xi. 17, ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ ” (Lightfoot).
Ver. 15. ἐχωρίσθη: avery delicate
way of putting it—mwpds ὥραν: cf. 2
Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5—atdveov: there
is no reason why this should not be taken
in a literal sense, the reference being to
Onesimus as ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, not as
δοῦλον.--ἀπέχῃς: cf. Phil. iv. 18, al-
though the idea of restitution is prominent
here, that of complete possession seems
also to be present in view of αἰώνιον and
ΜΙΝ ἄγαπ., but see further Intr., §
1Π.
Ver. 16. οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον: no
longer in the character ofa slave, accord-
ing to the world’s acceptation of the
term, though still a slave (see, however,
the note on v. 21); but the relationship
between slave and master were in this
instance to become altered.—_réa@ δὲ
μᾶλλον - . « : i.e. more than most of
all (which he had been to St. Paul) to
thee.—With the thought of the verse
cf. 1 Tim. vi. 2.
Ver.17. €xers... : for this use of
ἔχω cf. Luke xiv. 18, Phil. ii. 29.—
κοινωνόν: for the idea see Rom. xii.
13, xv. 26 f., 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13, Gal. vi.
6, Phil. iv. 15, Tim. vi. 18, Heb. xiii. 16.
--προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ: of.
τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα in ν. 12. An interest-
ing parallel (given by Deissmann, of.
cit. pp. 128 f.) occurs in a papyrus of the
second century, written in Latin by a
wi Cor. x. 18, 20.
z Matt. xviii. 28.
3Om. i.
XXVii. 55,
Acts xix.
22, Rom,
XV. 25,
Heb. vi.
10.
m Acts xx.
15. “τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο
9. 4 n 2 Cor. ix
I7- εἰ ouv pe 7, Heb.
vii. 12.
18. εἰ δὲ τι 7 ἠδίκησέν o Rom. v.7.
3 a - pi Cor. vii.
19. " ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἢ its
q Matt. v.
tae 16, vi. 2,
s 1 Tim. iv. ro. t Rom. xi. 12, 24. ui Tim.
x Acts xxviii. 2, Rom. xiv. 1,
a Rom. v. 13. b Gal. vi.
4 ελλογει KL, rec.
freedman, Aurelius Archelaus, to the
military tribune, Julius Domitius: ‘ Al-
ready once before have I commended
unto thee my friend Theon. And now
again, I pray thee, my lord, that he may
be in thy sight as I myself” (ut eum
ant’ oculos habeas tanquam me),
Ver. 18. εἰ δὲ τι: as Lightfoot says,
the case is stated hypothetically, but
the words doubtless describe the actual
offence of Onesimus.—éAAdya: only
elsewhere in N.T. in Rom. v. 13; it
occurs on the papyri (Deissmann, of.
cit. p. 52), “to reckon unto”; here,
in the sense: “put it down to my ac-
count”.
Ver. 19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος: “ The in-
troduction of his own name gives it the
character of a formal and binding signa-
ture, cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2
Thess. iii. 17” (Lightfoot)—éypawa
τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί ἀποτίσω: ἔγρ. epis-
tolary aorist, cf. 1 Pet. ν. 12, 1 Johnii. 14,
21, 26. Deissmann (op. cét., p. 239) calls
attention to the large number of papyri
which are acknowledgments of debt
(Schuldhandschrift); a stereotyped phrase
which these contain is, “I will repay,”
usually expressed by ἀποδώσω ; in case
the debtor is unable to write a representa-
tive who can do so expressly adds, “I
have written this for him”. The following
is an example: “... which we also will
repay . . . besides whatever else there
is (ἄλλων ὧν) which we owe over and
above ... 1, Papos, write it for him,
because he cannot write”. See also
Deissmann’s Neue Bibelstudien, p. 67,
under χειρόγραφον. It seems certain
from the words ἔγραψα... (cf. aiso
‘vy. 21) that St. Paul wrote the whole of
this epistle himself; this was quite ex-
ceptional, as he usually employed an
216
ΠΡῸΣ ®IAHMONA
20—
c2Cor.ix. ἐμῇ χειρί, > ἀποτίσω * Siva μὴ λέγω “ σοι ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι προσο-
4
d Phil. iv. 3. φέιλεις.}
e Cf. Sir. .
XXX. 2.
f Rom. xvi.
2.9...
g Phil. i.14.
σόν pou τὰ σπλάγχνα *év Χριστῷ.
σου ἔγραψά σοι, ἐιδὼς ὅτι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἃ ὅ λέγω ποιήσεις.
20. “val, ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ σου “ ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ ᾿ ἀνάπαυ-
2. 21, πεποιθὼς τῇ " ὑπακοῇ
22. ἅμα
h Rom. i. 5. δὲ Kat” ' ἑτοίμαζέ μοι " ξενίαν " ἐλπιζω γὰρ ὅτι ' διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν
τ εν 1
15, X.5, 6, ὕμω
Heb. v. 8
ἢ χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν. .
᾿Ασπάζεταί: σε " Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ
51
τ Pet. 1.2, συναιχμάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 24. ἢ Μάρκος, “᾿Αρίσταρχος,
14, 22.
i2 Lim. ii.
a1, 1 Cor. ii. 9, Heb. xi. 16.
ili. 14, xxvii. 24, 1 Cor. li. 12.
iv. 10. q Acts xxvii. 2.
i+ ev κυριω D*E*,
30 DE, a, rec.
amanuensis ; the quasi-private character
of the letter would account for this. See,
further, Lightfoot’s note on Gal. vi. 11.
--ἀποτίσω: a stronger form than the
more usual ἀποδώσω. As a matter of
fact St. Paul, in a large measure, had
repaid whatever was due to Philemon
by being the means whereby the latter
received his slave back, but see Intr. § III.
—iva μὴ λέγω σοι: akind of men-
tal ejaculation, as though St. Paul were
speaking to himself; the σοι does not
properly belong to the phrase; cf. 2 Cor.
ix. 4.--καὶ σεαυτόν: the reference is
to Philemon’s conversion, either directly
due to St. Paul, or else indirectly
through the mission into Asia Minor,
which had been the means whereby
Philemon had become a Christian; in
either case St. Paul could claim Phile-
mon as his spiritual child in the sense
that he did in the case of Onesimus
(see v. 10).—pot προσοφείλεις:
‘“‘thou owest me over and above”. See
further, on ὀφειλή, Deissmann, Neue
Bibelst., p. 48, Licht vom Osten, pp.
46, 239. Let
Ver. 20. ναί: cf. Phil. iv. 3, vat
ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ.---ἀ ὃ ελ φ έ: an affectionate
appeal, cf. Gal. iii. 15, vi. τ-τϑ. --ἐγώ:
“The emphatic ἐγώ identifies the cause
of Onesimus with his own ” (Lightfoot).
—cov ὀναίμην : adm. dey. in N.T.,
it occurs once in the Septuagint (Ecclus.
xxx. 2), and several times in the Igna-
tian Epp. (Eph. ii. 2, Magn. ii. 12, Rom.
v. 2, Pol. i. 1, vi. 2). "Ov. is a play on
the name Onesimus, lit., “ May I have
profit of thee’’; Lightfoot says that the
common use of the word ὀναίμην would
suggest the thought of filial offices, and
gives a number of instances of its use.
It is the only proper optative in the
N.T. which is not in the third person
(Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, p-
k Acts xxviii. 23.
n Col. i. 7, iv. 12.
m Acts
1 Rom. xii. 3, Gal. i. 18, Phil. i. 19.
p Col
o Rom. xvi. 7, Col. iv. 10.
2 κυριω EK, a, rec.
4 ασπαΐονται KL, a, rec.
195)._avamavoov: see note on v. 7.
—év Χριστῷ : St. Paul refers to the
real source from which the ἀναπαύειν
gets its strength.
Ver. 21. τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου: ahint
regarding the authority which St. Paul
has a right to wield.—éypawa: see
note on v. 19.---ὖ πὲρ ἅ: as it stands this
is quite indefinite, but there is much point
in Lightfoot’s supposition that the
thought of the manumission of Phile-
mon was in St. Paul’s mind; “ through-
out this epistle the idea would seem to
be present to his thoughts, though the
word never passes his lips. This re-
serve is eminently characteristic of the
Gospel. Slavery is never directly at-
tacked as such, but principles are incul-
cated which must prove fatal to it.”—
λέγω: note the tense here, a very vivid
touch after ἔγραψα.
Ver. 22, Gpa... ἐ.4.,) at the same
time that he does what he is going to do
for Onesimus. éroipalé por: Light-
foot’s remark that “‘ there is a gentle com-
pulsion in this mention of a personal visit
to Colossae,” does not seem justified in
view of the stress that St. Paul lays on
Philemon’s action being wholly voluntary,
see vv. I0, 14; it is more probable that
this is merely an incidental mention of
what had been planned some time before,
namely another missionary journey to
Asia Minor and Greece (see Phil. ii. 24),
without any thought of influencing
Philemon’s action thereby.—feviay :
only here and in Acts xxviii. 23, in the
Nii.
Ver. 23. συναιχμάλωτος: lit.
‘“‘a prisoner of war,’’ used metaphorically
like συνστρατιώτης, see note on ver. 2;
cf. Rom. xvi. 7, where the word is usd
in reference to Andronicus and Junius.
Ver. 24. Μάρκος: i.¢., John Mark,
of. Acts xii. 25, xv. 37, Phil, iv, 10; he
25. ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΜΘΝΑ 217
᾿Δημᾶς, "Λουκᾶς, ot "συνεργοί μου. 25. Ἢ "χάρις τοῦ " κυρίου 1 τ Col.iv. 14.
3 - be ae Σ ἘΣ ΕΝ ἃ s Rom. xvi.
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετα του πνευμᾶτος υμῶων. 3,9, 21,
τ΄ Cor.tit.
9.
t Col. iv. 18. u Gal. vi. 18, Phil. iv. 23, 2 Tim. iv. 22.
14 ἡμῶν Vulg., rec. 7 + ἀμὴν SC, πὶ, Vulg., rec.
Subscr.: πρὸς Φιλημονα (και Απφιαν δεσποτας Ονησιμου και προς Αρχιππον
το νδιακονον τῆς εν Κολοσσαις εκκλησιας) eypady απὸ Ρωμης (δια Ονησιμου
οἰκετου). [AAAa δη και μαρτυς Χριστου γεγενηται ο μακαριος Ονησιμος ev TH
Ῥωμαιων πόλει ἐπι Τερτουλλου τηνικαυτα τὴν ἐπαρχικὴν εξουσιαν Siesereas τη
Tav σκελων κλασει τὴν ψηφον υπομεινας του μαρτυριον].
and Aristarchus were Jewish-Christians 2 Tim. iv. 22.—tpo@v: the reference is
(Col. iv. 11)—Anpas, Λουκᾶς; Gen- both to those addressed by name in the
tile Christians (cf. Acts xvi. 10, xx. 5,6, opening of the Epistle, as well as to the
xxi. 15, xxvii. 2); the formernameisacon- members of the local Church, see verse
traction of Δημήτριος (Col. iv.14;2Tim. 2. This final verse is a reiteration of
iv. I0). the grace pronounced in verse 3.
Ver. 25. ‘H xapes: of. Gal. vi. 18,
THE EPISTLE
TO THE
HEBREWS
δ νὃ»
INTRODUCTION.
HIsToRY OF THE EpistLtE. The early history of this Epistle has
already been so fully narrated in various accessible volumes, that a
bare outline may here suffice. Its chief interest is the illustration
it gives of the difficulties which an anonymous book had to overcome
before it won for itself a place in the Canon. The significance of
the story of its fortunes may be gathered from the statement of
Eusebius:! “ Paul’s fourteen Epistles are well known and undisputed.
It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected
the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church
of Rome on the ground that it was not written by Paul.” The
Church, that is to say, looked with suspicion, or at any rate hesita-
tion, on any candidate for canonical honours which had not the
authentication of apostolic authorship, And although the Epistle to
the Hebrews really won for itself a place in the Canon by its intrinsic
merit, by its cardinal importance as the final adjustment of the
Jewish and Christian dispensations, as well as by its marked ability
and felicitous style, yet it had to steal into its place under the cloak
of an apostle, and it is doubtful whether it would have won universal
acceptance had it not been attached, loosely enough it is true, to the
collection of Paul’s Epistles. Even though there was no certainty
regarding its authorship in any part of the church, and in some parts
a distinct and expressed conviction that it was not from the hand of
Paul, yet obviously it was too rich a treasure to lose; and because it
was not unworthy of the great apostle nor wholly alien from his way
of thinking, it was allowed to attach itself to his Epistles, and so,
happily, found a place in the Canon.
The difficulty to which Eusebius alludes, as experienced by the
Western or Latin, Church, was of ancient date. For although the
earliest traces of the use of the Epistle are found in Clement of
Rome (c. 96 a.p.) who betrays familiarity with it, yet no Western
writer of the second century acknowledges it as canonical. It was
not included in the collection of Pauline Epistles which Marcion
ΤῊ. Ἑ-, ii. 8.
222 INTRODUCTION
formed in the first half of that century, and Tertullian, though object-
ing to his omission of the Pastoral Epistles, makes no remark upon
his rejection of Hebrews. In the latter half of the century Roman
opinion is represented by the Muratorian canon, which makes no
mention of the Epistle at all, unless, as some have fancied, it is
alluded to as that “ad Alexandrinos’”.! The prevalent Roman
Opinion is represented by the presbyter Caius who did not accept the
Epistle as Pauline.? According to Photius, Hippolytus also denied
the Pauline authorship; and in the earliest Old Latin Version the
Epistle was omitted.
In the North African branch of the Latin Church not only was
the Pauline authorship denied, but the Epistle was definitely ascribed
to Barnabas. Tertullian (De Pudic., c. 20) in citing Hebrews vi. 4-8
claims for the Epistle only a subordinate authority [“idoneum con-
firmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum ”’] because it was
written not by an apostle, but by a “comes apostolorum,” whom he
unhesitatingly speaks of as Barnabas.
Meanwhile, however, in the Eastern Church the Pauline author-
ship was maintained. The Syrian Church accepted the Epistle into
its earliest canon; and even if translated by a different and later
hand than the other Epistles, this cannot be ascribed to any reluct-
ance to receive it as canonical? In Alexandria towards the close of
the second century it is accepted as Pauline by Pantaenus and
Clement.* But as criticism was cultivated with some diligence in
this Church, it could not escape notice that both in its anonymity
and in its style this Epistle differed from those of Paul. The absence
of the usual Pauline address Pantaenus explained as due to the
modesty of the Apostle, who would not even seem to usurp the place
which belonged to the Lord Himself as Apostle of the Hebrews.°
Clement accounted for the difference in style by the supposition that
the Epistle was originally written by Paul in Hebrew and afterwards
translated by Luke, while the absence of signature is referred to the
natural fear lest the name of the Apostle of the Gentiles might repel
Hebrew readers. The opinion in which the Church of Alexandria
in general rested may be gathered from the words of Origen :° “If I
1 Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fictae
ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura, quae in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non
potest ; fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit.”
2Euseb., H. E., vi. 20. Jerome, De Vir. IIil., c. 59.
3 Dr. Bewer (A. $. T., April, 1900, p. 358) dates its introduction to the Syrian
canon in the third century.
‘Euseb., H. E., vi. 14. 5 Adopted by Jerome, Ef. ad Gal.
© Euseb., H. E., vi. 25.
INTRODUCTION 223
gave my opinion, | should say that the thoughts are those of the
Apostle, but the phrasing and composition are those of some one
who remembered what the teacher had said. If then any church
holds this Epistle to be Paul’s, let it be commended for this. For
not without reason (εἰκῆ) have our predecessors (ot ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες)
handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the Epistle, in truth God
knows. The account that has reached us is, that some say it was
written by Clement who became bishop of the Romans, while others
ascribed it to Luke, the author of the Gospel and Acts.”
Unsatisfactory as such a decision was, the idea that the Epistle
was Paul’s generally! prevailed over the whole Church, so that from
the fifth century to the reformation, there were few who took the
trouble to inquire. The conversion of the Latin Church to this
opinion was mainly due to the influence of Augustine and Jerome.
The formule under which the latter writer cited the Epistle reveal
his personal dubiety. ‘The Epistle which, under the name of Paul,
is written to the Hebrews.” ‘‘He who writes to the Hebrews.”
“The Apostle Paul, or whoever else wrote the Epistle to the Heb-
rews.” “The Apostle Paul in the Epistle to Hebrews, which the
Latin custom does not receive.” He mentions that the Greek writers
accept it as Paul’s, although many ascribe it either to Barnabas or
Clement.? It would apparently, have taken little to persuade Jerome
that the latter opinion was well-grounded, for he had himself noticed
a striking similarity between the Epistle of Clement and that to the
Hebrews.’ In short, we find that Jerome acted in regard to this
Epistle on the principle he carried through his formation of the Vul-
gate canon, the principle that it was better to include than to exclude
a good book and that prevalent opinion must be allowed a great
weight.
Instructive also is Augustine’s treatment of the Epistle. Some-
times he reckons it among Paul’s, sometimes he cites it anonymously
[‘‘epistola quae ad Hebraeos inscribitur,” or “est’’]; sometimes he
calls attention to the doubts entertained regarding it by others, but
professes that for his part he is moved by the authority of the Eastern
Churches. The facile and uncritical spirit of the time is conspicuous
in the manner in which the councils of North Africa dealt with this
1 For exceptions in the Western Church, see Westcott On the Canon, p. 401.
2“ Licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur,” Ep. ad.
Dardanum. }
3“*Clemens scripsit . . . utilem epistolam .. . quae mihi videtur characteri
epistolae, quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos fertur, convenire,” De Vir. Illus,
ο. 15.
224 INTRODUCTION
Epistle. Inthe council of Hippo in 393, while Augustine was still
a presbyter, and in the third council of Carthage, held in 398, the
prevalent dubiety regarding the authorship of Hebrews found ex-
pression in the enumeration of the New Testament books, “of the
Apostle Paul, thirteen Epistles, of the same to the Hebrews, one’”’.
But in the fifth council of Carthage, in 419, where Augustine was
also present, this feeble and meaningless distinction is abandoned
and the enumeration boldly runs, “ of the Epistles of Paul in number
fourteen”,
It is not easy to determine how much or how little we are justi-
fied in concluding from these early opinions and traditions. That
the ecclesiastical voice gradually settled upon the great name of
Paul, if it does not do much credit to the critical sagacity of the
Early Church, at least shows that no other name was satisfactory.
That Clement should have been mentioned as a possible author,
naturally results from the abundant and free use he makes of the
Epistle, as well as from his friendship with Paul, and his position as
a writer of repute. That Paul’s still more prominent ally, Barnabas,
should have been credited with the Epistle was possibly the result
of its quite superficial resemblance to the well-known and widely-
read but spurious Epistle of Barnabas, Evidently, however, it is the
Epistle itself which must divulge the secret of its authorship if we
are at all to ascertain it.
Authorship. The bare reading of the Epistle suffices to convince
us that the Pauline authorship may be set aside as incredible. The
style is not Paul’s, and this Apostle although using an amanuensis,
undoubtedly dictated all his letters. The Epistle to the Hebrews
reveals a literary felicity not found elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment. The writer is master of his words, and perfectly understands
how to arrange each clause so that every word shall play its full
part in conveying with precision the meaning intended. He knows
how to build up his sentences into concise paragraphs, each of which
carries the argument one stage nearer to its conclusion. He avoids
all irrelevant digressions. His earnestness of purpose never betrays
him into carelessness of language, but only serves to give edge and
point to its exact use. In all this he markedly and widely differs
from the tempestuousness of Paul. As Farrar says: “The writer
cites differently from St. Paul; he writes differently; he argues
differently ; he thinks differently; he declaims differently ; he con-
structs and connects his sentences differently; he builds up his
paragraphs on a wholly different model. St. Paul is constantly
mingling two constructions, leaving sentences unfinished, breaking
INTRODUCTION 225
into personal allusions, substituting the syllogism of passion for the
syllogism of logic. This writer is never ungrammatical, he is never
irregular, he is never personal, he never struggles for expression; he
never loses himself in a parenthesis; he is never hurried into an
anacoluthon. His style is the style of a man who thinks as well as
writes in Greek; whereas St. Paul wrote in Greek but thought in
Syriac.” The same difference was felt by those who themselves
used the Greek language. Thus Origen! says: “That the verbal
style of the Epistle entitled ‘to the Hebrews’ is not rude like the
language of the Apostle who acknowledged himself ‘ rude in speech,’
that is, in expression ; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one
who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will ac-
knowledge.” 2
But if the style puts it beyond question that Paul cannot have
been the immediate author of the Epistle is it not possible to believe
with Origen that “the thoughts are those of the Apostle”? This
also must be answered in the negative. There is in the Epistle no-
thing discordant with Pauline doctrine, but its argument moves on
different lines and in a different atmosphere from those with which
the Apostle to the Gentiles makes us familiar. This is most readily
discerned when we consider the attitude held by the two authors re-
spectively to the fundamental idea of Jewish religion, the Law.
Paul views the Mosaic economy mainly as a law commanding and
threatening. The writer to the Hebrews views it rather as a vast
congeries of institutions, observances and promises. To the one
writer the Law is mainly juridical; to the other it is ceremonial.
To the ardent spirit of Paul athirst for righteousness, the Law with
its impracticable precepts had become a nightmare, the embodiment
of all that barred access to God and life. The grace of Christianity
throwing open the gates of righteousness was the antithesis and
1Euseb., H. E., vi. 25.
3“. Diversity of style is more easily felt by the reader than expressed by
the critic, without at least a tedious analysis of language; one simple and
tangible test presents itself, however, in the use of connecting particles, inas-
much as these determine the structure of sentences. A minute comparison of
these possesses therefore real importance in the differentiation of language.
Now in the Epistles of St. Paul εἴ τις occurs fifty times, εἴτε sixty-three, wore
(in affimative clauses) nineteen, εἶτα (in enumerations) six, εἰ δὲ καὶ, four, εἴπερ
five, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ three, εἴγε four, μήπως twelve, μηκέτι ten, pevotvye three, ἐάν
eighty-eight times, while none of them are found in the Epistle except ἐάν and
that only once (or twice), except in quotations. On the other hand, ὅθεν which
occurs six times and ἐάνπερ which occurs three times in the Epistle are never
used by St. Paul.” Rendall’s Theol. of Hebrew Christianity, p. 27,
VOL, IV. 15
226 INTRODUCTION
abolition of the law. But to this writer, brought up in a more
latitudinarian school and of a quieter temperament, the law was not
this inexorable taskmaster, but rather a system of type and symbol
foreshadowing the perfect fellowship with God secured by Christianity
and revealed in Him. Both writers have the same question before
them: What gives Christianity its power to bring men into harmony
with God and thus constitutes it the universal, permanent religion?
What precisely is the relation of this new form of religion to that
out of which it sprang and which it supersedes? Paul boldly
enounces the incompatibility of faith and works, of grace and merit,
of Christianity and the Law. This writer, adopting a method anda
view more likely to conciliate the Jew, aims at exhibiting the work
of Christianity as that towards which the previous economy had been
striving, that the two are essentially connected, and that without
Christianity Judaism remains imperfect.!
So that Pfleiderer’s remark is justified, when he says, ‘‘ this is a
thoroughly original attempt to establish the most essential results of
Paulinism upon new presuppositions and in an entirely independent
way—a way which proceeds upon lines of thought regarding the
constitution of the universe which were widely spread amongst the
educated people of that time, and which necessarily had far greater
power of diffusing enlightenment than the dialectic of the old Pauline
system which was so highly wrought up to an individual standpoint.” 2
Here and there the ideas and expressions of Paul seem to be
coloured by the Alexandrian system and manner of thought, which,
as Pfleiderer says, influenced the entire educated world of the time;
but in the mind of Paul there lay a deeper soil in which had been
sown the governing ideas of Palestinian or Pharisaic theology. The
work and person of Christ are presented under different categories
by the two writers: the priestly function, which is absent or almost
so from the letters of Paul, dominates the thought of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. In keeping with this, the idea of sacrifice which
colours the whole of the latter Epistle, only occasionally emerges in
the Pauline writings. So too it is the kingly state of the risen Christ
which occupies the one writer, while in the mind of the other it is a
priestly exaltation that is conspicuous. And thus the δικαιοῦν of
Paul becomes in Hebrews ἁγιάζειν, or καθαρίζειν or τελειοῦν ; and
the leading religious terms “faith” ‘‘ grace” and so forth have
1Cf. Ménégoz (Théol. de l'ep. aux Heb., 190) ‘‘ L’un abolit la Loi, l'autre la
transfigure ”; and p. 197, the one was revolutionist, the other evolutionist. See
also Holtzmann, N.T. Theol., ii., p. 286 ff. Verhaltniss zum Paulinismus.
2 Paulinism, E. Tr., ii., 53.
INTRODUCTION 227
one meaning in Paul and another in this Epistle. Evidently the sug-
gestion that Luke was on this occasion Paul’s interpreter is quite
insufficient to satisfy the conditions,!
If the Epistle cannot be ascribed to Paul, must we fall back upon
Tertullian’s statement,? and accept Barnabas as the author? This
solution cannot be said to have ever been prevalent in the early
Church, notwithstanding the meagre references unearthed by Prof.
Bartlet and Mr. Ayles. Over against these references may be set
the significant words of Jerome, who designates this ascription of
authorship as ‘“juxta Tertullianum,” apparently implying that in all
his vast store of information he had found no one else holding this
opinion. Origen, too, knows nothing of such a tradition. It was,
however, revived in the seventeenth century by the Scottish scholar,
Cameron, and in more recent times has found supporters in Ritschl,
Weiss, Renan, Salmon and Vernon Bartlet. Zahn, who formerly
advocated the same authorship, is now less certain. The claims of
Barnabas are also urged with fulness and force by Mr. Ayles in an
essay devoted to this object. There can be no doubt that Barnabas
answers many of the requirements which must be met by any pre-
sumed author of the Epistle. He belonged to the circle of Paul and
was a man of character and of capacity; he was a Levite and as
such predisposed to consider the Christ and His work in its bear-
ing on the Old Testament ritual ;> he was a native of Cyprus where
good Greek was spoken, and at the same time was well known and
influential in the Church at Jerusalem. The tradition that Mark,
his nephew, introduced the Gospel into Alexandria, might be pressed
to indicate some connection with that centre of thought. This, how-
ever, tells also against his authorship, for it is unaccountable that
Barnabas’ name should have been lost in the Church where his
nephew presided. It must also be kept in view that the association
1 The similarities to the usage of Luke in the vocabulary of the Epistle have
been examined with final thoroughness by Prof. Frederic Gardiner in the
Fournal of Soc. of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis for June 1887. See also Alexander’s
Leading Ideas of the Gospels, 3rd ed., pp. 302-324; and W. H. Simcox in the
Expositor for 1888.
2 De Pudicitia,c. 20. ‘‘Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo
satis auctoritati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore
(1 Cor. ix. 6); et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocry-
pho Pastore moechorum.”
3 Expositor, 1902.
4 Destination, Date and Authorship of Ep. to Heb. (Cambridge, 1899).
5 For supposed mistakes regarding the Temple and its service, cf. Zahn, ii.,
55,156,
228 INTRODUCTION
of Barnabas with the Church at Jerusalem only tells in his favour
if that be considered the destination of the Epistle. It is, of course,
a mere accident that his designation, υἱὸς παρακλήσεως (Acts iv. 36)
should correspond with the description of this Epistle as a λόγος
παρακλήσεως (Heb. xiii. 22).
Harnack, who had previously! considered it probable that
Barnabas was the author, has recently? in a forcible and brilliant
manner urged the claims of Prisca and Aquila. In their favour are
such points as these: that the letter proceeds from a highly cultured
teacher, answering to the description given in Acts xviii. 26 of Aquila
and Prisca; that it was written by one who belonged to the Pauline
circle, as there is no doubt that this couple did (Rom. xvi. 3 συνεργοί) ;
that the writer was associated with Timothy, as Aquila and Prisca
were for eighteen months in Corinth as well as in Ephesus (cf. 2
Tim. iv. 19); that he belonged to one of the house-churches in Rome
(to which presumably the Epistle was addressed) and that he had
taught there—which corresponds with what we know of Aquila and
Prisca (see Acts xviii. 2, Rom. xvi. 3); that behind the writer of the
Epistle there is some one or more with whom he associates himself
in a common “ we,” for in the letter there are not merely the literary
‘“‘we’’ and the ‘‘ we”’ which includes writer and readers, but a third
use of the pronoun embracing some unnamed person or persons as
uniting with the writer in what hesays. “If on the ground of these
arguments it be considered probable that the Epistle to the Hebrews
is to be referred to this couple, it may then be asked whether Prisca
or Aquila wrote it. And if the predominant position of the woman,
witnessed by both Paul and Luke, be considered, as well as the in-
contestable fact that she was foremost in winning Apollos, the balance
must incline in favour of her authorship.” It is thus he accounts
for the most paradoxical feature in the history of the Epistle, the
loss of the author’s name. This disappearance is at once accounted
for, if Prisca was even partly the author, for Paul’s prohibition of
female teaching in the Church had taken deep root.
That there is in these arguments not merely ingenuity, but much
that deserves consideration, will not be denied. Indeed, so careful
and sound a scholar as Bleek almost convinced himself that Aquila
was the author of the Epistle, and expresses surprise that his claims
should not have been urged.* But there are grave difficulties in the
' Chronologie, p. 477-479.
?Preuschen’s Zeitschrift, vol. i., 16-41.
3Hebrder-brief, i., 421, 422. Harnack’s claim to originality [niemand an sie
gedacht hat] is valid only so far as Prisca is concerned.
INTRODUCTION 229
double, predominantly feminine authorship advocated by Harnack.
A single authorship is unquestionably demanded by certain expres-
sions in the Epistle, as τί ἔτι λέγω, xi. 32; ἵνα τάχιον ἀποκατασταθῶ
ὑμῖν, xiii. 19; and the singulars in xiii. 22, 23. It is not possible to
construe these singulars as referring to more than one writer: but it is
quite possible to construe the plurals of the Epistle as reterring to the
single writer or to the writer uniting himself with his readers. And
that this one writer should have been Prisca is certainly improb-
able, both on account of Paul’s prohibition which so good a friend
as Prisca would observe, and because the writer seems to have been
one of the ἡγούμενοι, which Prisca could not have been. The im-
pression made by the Epistle is that it proceeds from a masculine
mind; and if the Epistle is due to either we should suppose Aquila
was more likely to undertake such a task. The familiarity which
existed between this couple and Apollos might be supposed to ac-
count for the Alexandrian colouring of the Epistle.
The name of Apollos was suggested by Luther! who apparently
had either heard or read that this authorship had been advocated
by others. It has received the suffrages of scholars so competent
as Bleek, Tholuck, Hilgenfeld, Liinemann, Reuss, Pfleiderer, Alford,
Farrar and Plumptre. In Acts xviii. 24 Apollos is described as an
Alexandrian Jew, a learned man, mighty in the Scriptures, who had
been instructed in the way of the Lord and who spoke and taught
with accuracy the things concerning Jesus. Passing from Ephesus,
where he first appears in Christian history, to Achaia ‘he helped
them much who had believed through grace, and powerfully con-
futed the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that
Jesus was the Christ”. Paul also testifies to his influence as a
teacher and probably indicates that his special function was that of
carrying to maturity those who had already received the truth. The
words ‘‘ Paul planted, Apollos watered’”’ bear this interpretation, and
agree with what is said in Acts of his peculiar work. Certainly
all this remarkably corresponds with the characteristics of the
writer to the Hebrews, who certainly was a Jew of the Alexandrian
school, a man of marked ability and culture, whose special training
fitted him to build up in the faith and to find in the Scriptures
1 Autor Epistolae ad Hebraeos, quisquis est, sive Paulus, sive, ut ego
arbitror, Apollo”? (Com. on Gen.); and in his sermon on 1 Cor iii. 4 ‘‘ the Ep.
Heb. is certainly his” [Apollos’]. In another sermon he says “ Some suppose
the Epistle to be Luke’s, some refer it to Apollos”’ [‘‘etliche meinen, sie sei 8.
Lucas, etliche S. Apollo”). The most thorough presentation of the claim of
Apollos is that by Plumptre in the first vol. of the Expositor.
230 INTRODUCTION
proof that Jesus was the Christ. This, plainly, does not prove
that Apollos was the author, but it lends plausibility to the hypo-
thesis.
Destination. Here, again, however, we find the authorship im-
plicated with the destination of the Epistle. The only places with
which we know Apollos to have been connected are Ephesus, Corinth
and Crete. The first named city was swarming with Jews and was
also impregnated with Alexandrianism. Corinth resembled it in the
former and possibly also in the latter characteristic, for the preach-
ing of Apollos had certainly found in that city a very responsive hear-
ing; and it is the only place in which we have any positive reason
to believe that he resided for any length of time. But evidently he
was a man who moved about (Tit. iii. 13); and it is not improbable
that he may have visited Rome. Evidently, however, if we are to
come any nearer to a determination of the authorship, we must first
of all try to ascertain the destination of the letter.
We may put aside the idea that it was not addressed to any
particular Church but was a homily written for all whom it might
concern. This idea has been plausibly stated by Reuss. “The
Epistle to the Hebrews,” he says, “is not a letter properly so called
written in view of a local necessity; and the few personal and cir-
cumstantial details added on the last page were certainly not the
reasons which prompted the author to write. This book may have
been already penned and actually concluded when occasion offered
to make it useful to a particular circle of Christians and in reference
to whom he may have added the 13th chapter. The ‘ Hebrews’
whose name is inserted by the care of a later reader (also truly in-
spired) are not, as has been imagined, the members of some isolated
community, as e¢.g., the Church at Jerusalem; they are Jewish
Christians in general, considered from a theoretical point of view.”
This view has been adopted by Lipsius and others, and at the first
blush it may seem to have something to say for itself, for letters do
not usually begin without giving the name of the writer and of his
correspondents. But the idea that the entire document is a treatise
written in the study without definite reference to any particular group
of Christians, is contradicted not merely by the personal references
of the 13th chapter, but by the occurrence throughout the Epistle
of expressions which have no meaning if not so addressed. Indeed,
no Epistle more exclusively concentrates itself upon a definite and
actual condition, nor more definitely recognises that its readers have
passed through and are passing through well-marked experiences.
INTRODUCTION 231
The writer’s references in v. 12; vi. 9; x. 32; xii. 4; could only
have been made to a definite group of Christians.!
This consideration is sufficient to prove that the title πρὸς Ἑβραίους
without further designation is too indefinite to have been affixed to
his letter by the author himself. Weizsacker, indeed, is extrava-
gant when he brands the inscription as “‘ the unhappy conjecture of
a later time,’ but we may unhesitatingly adopt Robertson Smith’s
language, and say that it is “hardly more than a reflection of the
impression produced on an early copyist”. The suggestion of Prof.
Nestle? that it may indicate that the Epistle was addressed to the
συναγωγὴ Αἰβρέων or ᾿Εβρέων in Rome is interesting, but obviously if
the writer of the Epistle had himself addressed it to a synagogue
of Jewish Christians in Rome, he could not have written merely “to
Hebrews,” but must have more definitely identified them by some
further designation. In short, we cannot from this address derive
any assistance in determining the Church to which the Epistle was
addressed.
But that the inscription is right in so far as it declares that the
letter was destined for Hebrew Christians has generally, though
not universally, been acknowledged. The scope of the Epistle pre-
supposes a profound attachment to the Mosaic dispensation. Not
only is the Old Testament the common ground from which material
can be drawn and on which the discussion can proceed, but the
argument is one which can scarcely be conceived as addressed to
Gentiles. It may almost be said with Dr. Bruce: “ If the readers
were indeed Gentiles, they were Gentiles so completely disguised in
Jewish ideas and wearing a mask with so pronounced Jewish features
that the true nationality has been successfully hidden for nineteen
centuries’. Or more summarily we may say with Reuss: ‘For
this writer there are no Gentiles”. To Gentile ears some of the
expressions used in the Epistle would be unintelligible, others would
be offensive. To the former class belong such exhortations as, “ Let
us go forth unto Him without the camp ”’; to the latter, “ Not of angels
doth He take hold, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold”’.
In spite of this, however, many eminent critics in recent times
have reached the persuasion that the letter was addressed not to
Hebrew, but to Gentile Christians. Schiirer, Weizsaicker, von
Soden, Jiilicher, McGiffert are of this opinion. They are chiefly
influenced by the consideration that the list of rudimentary doctrines
1See Burggaller’s criticism of Wrede’s “Das literarische Ratsel des Heb-
raerbriefes ” in Preuschen’s Zeitschrift for 1908.
2 Expository Times for June, 1899.
212 INTRODUCTION
given in chap. vi. are such as would rather be taught to Gentile
catechumens than to Jewish converts. No doubt the doctrines there
mentioned would be taught to Gentiles, but surely the contrast
between faith in God and faith in dead works is peculiarly appropriate
to Jews; and it was also the Jew rather than the Gentile who re-
quired explanation regarding the relation of Christian baptism to
other lustrations. Besides, it must not be overlooked that the
doctrines here enumerated are the ‘‘ rudiments of Christ,”’ and there-
fore nothing specifically Jewish could be mentioned. They are that
common ground or “ foundation” which underlay the specially Chris-
tian teaching.
Difficulty has also been found in the phrase ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος
(iii. 12). This expression, it is felt, is more appropriate to a relapse
to idolatry than to Judaism. But the very point of the whole Epistle
is that an abandonment of Christianity is an abandonment of God;
that in it God has finally spoken and that to neglect this revelation
is to neglect God. In using this particular phrase the writer has
not in view the end to which unbelief may lead them, but the fact
that unbelief is apostasy from the living God, whether the unbeliever
be Jew or Gentile.
These difficulties then are not insuperable, although they are pos-
sibly too cavalierly treated by Westcott, who pronounces that “ the
argument of von Soden, who endeavours to show that the Epistle was
written to Gentiles, cannot be regarded as more than an ingenious
paradox by any one who regards the general teaching of the Epistle
in connection with the forms of thought in the Apostolic age”’.
Where, then, were these Jewish Christians resident ? The places
most generally approved are Jerusalem, Antioch, Czsarea, Rome.
In favour of the Jewish metropolis there is not much to be urged.
To no Church on earth would it be so inappropriate to say that they
had received the Gospel at second-hand (ii. 3). Many of its members
must have been in direct communication with the Lord. Neither
could it with any truth be said of the Church of Jerusalem that she
had not been instrumental in teaching others (v. 12). This Church
was also a poor community which itself required rather than afforded
aid: whereas the society addressed in the Epistle had been con-
spicuous for charity (vi. 10; x. 34). It also seems most unlikely that
if the Church at Jerusalem was addressed, no allusion should be
made to the Temple. Neither is it probable that any one, himself a
member of the Church at Jerusalem, should prefer Greek to Aramaic
as his medium of communication.
As Antioch was the scene of a considerable part of the labours of
INTRODUCTION 233
Barnabas it naturally suggests itself as the destination in connection
with his supposed authorship of the Epistle. The Hebrew Christians
in that city must have been very much in his care, and certainly
they required some such exposition as is given in the Epistle, of the
relation of Judaism to Christianity. And some critics, even while dis-
missing the claims of Barnabas, are inclined to find in Antioch the
group of Jewish Christians to which the Epistle was addressed.
Thus Mr Rendall} sums up his inquiry in the following terms: “To
one of these great Syrian cities, perhaps to Antioch itself, I conceive
the Epistle to have been addressed ; for there alone existed flourish-
ing Christian Churches, founded by the earliest missionaries of the
Gospel, animated with Jewish sympathies, full of interest in the
Mosaic worship, and glorying in the name of Hebrews; who never-
theless spoke the Greek language, used the Greek version of the
Scriptures and numbered amongst their members converts who had,
like the author, combined the highest advantages of Greek culture
with careful study of the Old Testament and especially of the sacri-
ficial Law.’”’ But could a Church which had actually started the
great mission of Paul and Barnabas and in which other teachers
abounded be open to the rebuke of chap. v. 11 ff.?
Recently critical opinion has decidedly veered towards Rome as
the only possible destination. First suggested by Wetstein it is now
advocated by Alford, Holtzmann, Zahn and many others. The clause
in the Epistle which inevitably suggests this destination is the greet-
ing in xiii. 24, ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας “they of Italy
(the Italians) salute you”. This clause shows that the Epistle was
either written from or to Italy. But it is difficult to believe that
the words were intended to convey a greeting from Italians in their
own country to the writer’s correspondents, For if the writer was
in Italy, he was in some particular locality, and this place he would
more naturally have named instead of using the general term “ Italy”.
Certainly the more natural and satisfactory interpretation of the
words is that which supposes that the writer who himself is a member
of the Church he addresses is surrounded by those who also recog-
nise Italy as their home and who seek to send greetings to their
friends in Rome.
Nor does anything in the Epistle contradict this idea. That
there was a large Jewish element in the Roman Church appears
both from Acts and Romans, and is not denied. It has sometimes
been thought that Jewish Christians in Rome could not be expected
1 Epistle to Hebrews, p. 69.
234 INTRODUCTION
to take so much interest in the Temple-worship or be so concerned
about its observance as this Epistle requires ; but, as Principal Pair-
bairn long ago pointed out, colonists idealise the institutions of their
mother-country more than its resident population, and it is an ideal-
ised, not an actual worship that is here described. It is also to be
considered that it was in Rome both in the time of Paul and in the
second century that in many subtle ways Judaism sought to assert
itself and to absorb or expunge Christianity. The fact too that it is
in Rome we find the first traces of the use of the Epistle (by Clement)
has some weight.
Zahn still further narrows the destination and identifies the re-
cipients of the letter as a small circle of Christians in a large city, a
house-church alongside of which there was another or several other
such churches in the same city. They have an assembly of their
own (x. 25), perhaps also rulers of their own (xiii. 17), although the
rulers of the whole Church of the city are also their rulers, and there-
fore greetings are sent to all the rulers and to all the Saints (xiii. 24).
He is not aware of any place which so well answers to these re-
quirements as one of the house-churches in Rome mentioned in the
Epistle of Paul to that Church (chap. xvi). To one of these, possibly
to that mentioned in Romans xvi. 14, this Epistle was probably
addressed.
The Roman destination may seem to carry with it the authorship
of Aquila, for this Jew who was himself so well instructed that he
was able to instruct Apollos was intimately associated with Rome
and with one of the house-churches there (Romans xvi. 3-5). And
indeed all that we know of Aquila seems to fit the conditions as well
as any other name that has been suggested.
It is impossible then to dogmatise regarding the authorship of
this Epistle, and at present it is best frankly to confess our ignor-
ance. But we may adopt the language of Prof. Rhys Roberts in
dealing with the similar case of Longinus on the Sublime and say
that “while it is good science to refuse to hazard any conjecture
which our information does not warrant, it is good science also to
decline to follow some critics in abandoning all hope of ever seeing
a solution of this knotty problem. Let us rather recognise that we
are confronted with one of those stimulating and fruitful uncer-
tainties which classical research so often presents to its votaries—
uncertainties which are stimulating because there is some possibility
of removing them, and fruitful because in any case they lead to the
more thorough investigation of the obscurer bye-ways of history and
literature.” Or we may adopt the words of Dr. Davidson in dealing
INTRODUCTION 235
with the similar problem of the authorship of the Book of Job:
‘There are some minds that cannot put up with uncertainty, and
are under the necessity of deluding themselves into quietude by
fixing on some known name. There are others to whom it is a
comfort to think that in this omniscient age a few things still
remain mysterious. Uncertainty is to them more suggestive than
exact knowledge. No literature has so many great anonymous
works as that of Israel. The religious life of this people was at
certain periods very intense, and at these periods the spiritual energy
of the nation expressed itself almost impersonally, through men who
forgot themselves and were speedily forgotten in name by others.”
And if we cannot name, we can at least partially describe the author.
For his letter reveals a man who was not an Apostle but a scholar
of the Apostles; a man of the second Christian generation (genea-
logisch nicht chronologisch, as Harnack says); a Hellenist yet a
member and teacher of a Jewish Christian church; a Paulinist with
some tincture of Alexandrian culture, though his treatment of
Scripture differs toto coelo from Philo’s; a friend of Timothy and
at the time of writing in the company of Italian Christians.
Aim. But it is not the locality so much as the condition of the
readers that chiefly concerns us. And as we read the Epistle it be-
comes apparent that the danger which roused the writer to inter-
pose was not such definite and grave heresy as evoked the Epistle to
the Galatians or that to the Colossians, nor such entangling heathen
vices and difficult questions of casuistry as imperilled the Corinthian
Church, but rather a gradual, almost unconscious admission of
doubt which dulled hope and slackened energy. They had professed
Christianity for some time (v. 12); and the sincerity of their profes-
sion had been proved by the manner in which they had borne severe
persecution (x. 33, 34). They had taken joyfully the spoiling of
their possessions; they had endured a great conflict of sufferings.
But they found the long-sustained conflict with sin (xli. 4) and the
day-by-day contempt and derision they experienced as Christians
(xiii. 13), more wearing to the spirit than sharper persecution.
Consequently their knees had become feeble to pursue the path of
righteous endurance and activity, their hands hung limply by their
side as if they were defeated men (xii. 12‘. They had ceased to make
progress and were in danger of falling away (vi. 1-4, iii. 12) and were
allowing an evil heart of unbelief to grow in them. No doubt this
listless, semi-believing condition laid them open to the incursion of
“divers and strange teachings ”’ (xiii. 9) and in itself was full of peril.
To restore in them the freshness of faith the writer at every
236 INTRODUCTION
part of the Epistle exhorts them to steadfastness and perseverance.
“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (xi.
23). ‘Cast not away your confidence” (x. 35). “If any man draw
back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him” (x. 38). Or, what
may be taken as the hortatory motto of the Epistle, “ We are become
partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence
firm unto the end” (iii. 14). That they may have encouragement to
do so, he shows them at large the good ground they have for confi-
dence. ‘The fruits of faith in their fathers are recapitulated in the
eloquent eleventh chapter. But especially is Jesus exhibited as the
great leader in faith. ‘Consider Him lest ye be weary and faint in
your souls” (xii. 8). His supremacy and trustworthiness are ex-
pounded in detail, and especially the eternal sufficiency of His sacri-
fice and intercession is dwelt upon.
Evidently, then, the persons addressed were in the mental and
spiritual condition common in every age of the Christian Church, a
condition of languor and weariness, of disappointed expectations,
deferred hopes, conscious failure and practical unbelief. They were
Christians but had slender appreciation of the glory of their calling,
misconstrued their experience, and had allowed themselves to driit
away from boldness of hope and intensity of faith. Dr. Bruce de-
scribes them as persons who never had “insight into the essential
nature and distinctive features of the Christian religion”’; and if by
“insight ’’ he means such perception of the greatness of Christ
as causes men to rejoice in serving and suffering for Him, his de-
scription is correct. But he seems less exact when he goes on to
say ‘‘ No greater mistake, I believe, can be committed (though it is
a common fault of commentators) than to assume that the first
readers were in the main in sympathy with the doctrinal views of
the writer”. Some points, no doubt, which the writer adduces
were new to the readers. The manner in which the paragraph re-
garding Melchisedec is introduced proves this. But we cannot there-
fore conclude that the whole conception of Christ as Priest was
new to them; nor can we suppose that they had never thought of
Christ as the Son through whom the final revelation was made and
the eternal covenant mediated. Rather they had failed to con-
sider what these great truths involved. Hence the writer bids them
give ‘‘the more earnest heed to the things they have heard”’ (ii. 1),
and throughout the Epistle he returns to his favourite admonition
‘‘Consider Him,” let your minds penetrate more deeply into His
significance. They had ceased to have that keen interest in truth
which prompts contemplation and inquiry, and they now held what
INTRODUCTION 252.)
they had been taught so externally that they were in danger of
wholly losing their faith and becoming practical apostates. They
had fallen under the power of the present and visible, and were
giving to appearance and shadow the value that belonged only to
the eternal reality.
The aim of the writer then was to open up the true significance
of Christ and His work, and thus to remove the scruples, hesitations
and suspicions which haunted the mind of the Jewish Christian
embarrassing his faith, lessening his enjoyment, and lowering his
vitality. The Jew who accepted Jesus as the Christ had problems
to solve and difficulties to overcome of which the Gentile knew
nothing. A transition of equal moment and encompassed by so
much obscurity men have rarely, if ever, been summoned to make.
It is easy for those who look back upon it as an accomplished fact to
see that there was no real breach of continuity between the old
religion and the new; but that was not readily perceived by those
whose whole life and experience were marked by the turmoil and
instability which accompanied the abandonment of old forms, the
acceptance of new ideas, the building on other foundations. Brought
up in a religion which he was persuaded was of Divine authority the
Jew was now required to consider a large part of his belief and wor-
ship as antiquated. Accustomed to pride himself on a history
marked at various stages by angelic visits, Divine voices, and miracu-
lous interventions, he is now invited to shift his faith from institu-
tions and venerable customs to a Person, and this a Person in
whom earthly glory is suggested only by its absence and in whom
those apparently most qualified to judge could discover nothing but
imposture which merited a malefactor’s death. Cherishing with
extraordinary enthusiasm, as his exclusive heritage, the Temple with
all its hallowed associations, its indwelling God, its altar, its august
priesthood, its complete array of ordinances, he is yet haunted by
the Christian new-born instinct that there is an essential lacking in
all these arrangements and that for him they are irrelevant and
obsolete. A blight has suddenly fallen on what was brightest in his
religion, a blight he can neither dissipate nor perfectly justify.
For the Jewish Christian must have found it quite beyond his
power to understand the relation of the old to the new. Already
indeed it had become apparent that in Jesus prophecy had been ful-
filled. He had been accepted as the predicted Messiah partly
because it was beyond dispute that in Him a correspondence was
found to the figure more or less clearly defined in the Old Testa-
ment. This no doubt hinted that there was some strong and vital
238 INTRODUCTION
connection between the two faiths. But what relation did this
Messiah hold to the Mosaic institutions? That was a more difficult
problem. The difficulty of it is appreciated when we consider that a
large section of the Christian Church judged the old to be irreconcil-
able with the new, and went so far as to maintain that the God of
the Old Testament was antagonistic to the God who revealed Himself
in Christ. And even the more moderate section of the Church found
difficulty in answering the questions: What was to be thought of the
Jewish ordinances and of the Jewish Scriptures which enjoined
them? Ifthe ordinances were set aside, could the Scriptures which
contained them be retained? In what sense had Christ fulfilled the
law, the ceremonial? He had not beena Priest. He had not as-
sumed the Priest’s function,but the Rabbi’s. He had not been born in
a priestly family. A sacrifice, perhaps, in some sense, He had been.
To the Jew, in short, Christ must have created as many problems
as He solved. The unquestioning faith that is guided by healthy in-
stincts and can relegate to the future all intellectual explanations
and reconcilements is not given to every one; and many a Jewish
Christian must have passed those first days in painful unrest, drawn
to trust Jesus by all that He knew of His holiness and truth and yet
sorely perplexed and hindered from perfect trust by the unexpected
spirituality of the new religion, by the contempt of his old co-re-
ligionists, by the enforced relinquishment of all outward garnishing
and glory, and by the apparent impossibility of fitting the gorgeous-
ness of the old and the bareness of the new into one consistent
whole. To this miserable and weakening condition of spirit the
writer appeals and aims at removing it by giving them a fuller insight
into the relation of Christianity to Mosaism, and especially by illus-
trating the unique supremacy of Christ and the finality of His work.
He makes it his aim to show that every name, every institution,
every privilege, which had existed under the old economy survived in
the new, but invested with a higher meaning and a truer glory—a
meaning and a glory, new indeed in themselves, but yet for the first
time fulfilling the great purpose of God which from the first had
been dimly shadowed forth. “The first was taken away only in
order that the second might be introduced.”’!
To this task he necessarily brought his own philosophical pre-
suppositions. Trained in Alexandrian thought he cherished the
Platonic? conception of the relation of the seen to the unseen. It
“1Das Christenthum bringt nichts, was nicht schonim A. T. angelegt, ver-
heissen und vorgebildet gewesen ware” (Holtzmann, N. T. Theol., ii., 287).
2 Timaeus, 28 C.; Rep. 597; Philo, Mundi Op., 4; De Vita Mosis, p. 146,
INTRODUCTION 239
was his inalienable conviction that the visible world is merely pheno-
menal, the temporary form or manifestation of the invisible, arche-
typal world which alone is real and eternal. In the Epistle these
two worlds are continually related by contrast. The unseen world
[πράγματα οὐ βλεπόμενα xi. 1] is the eternal counterpart of this
present order of things [αὕτη ἡ κτίσις ix. 11]; the reality, of which
earthly things are but the shadow [σκία viii. 5]. The visible
heaven and earth are one day to pass away, “as things that have
been made” [ὡς πεποιημένων xii. 27], but this only in order that the
eternal things which cannot be removed may remain alone existent.
On this broad philosophical basis, itself unshakable as the eternal
things, the writer builds his argument. Here he finds the key to the
essential distinction between Mosaism and Christianity, as well as
the proof of the superiority and finality of the latter. The Mosaic
dispensation belongs to the seen and temporal, the Christian to the
unseen and eternal. In the one there is a tabernacle “made with
hands”; a sanctuary of this world, equipped and furnished with
material objects; the sacrifices are of bulls and goats; the rest ap-
pointed cannot be eternal, because it is in a visible earthly land; their
holy city is one which can be profaned by Roman armies; above all,
their priesthood is dependent on the flesh. How manifest that all
these things belong to the earthly temporal order. The whole dis-
pensation is involved with things visible, tangible, material, evanescent.
But Mosaism was not wholly useless. It was a shadow of the
good things to come: and to these real, eternal things Christ in-
troduces men. Christ Himself, being Son of God, belongs to the
eternal order. In Him we have throughout to do not with external
ceremonies and temporal arrangements, but with what is spiritual ;
in Him we come into touch not with imperfect revelations of God
made through symbol and human medium, but with the very image
of God. He mediates between God and man in virtue of His con-
nection with both. He leads men into the true relation to God by
Himself perfectly fulfilling the human life of obedience to God’s will.
His priesthood or power to carry His human brethren with Him into
the heavenly life, springs out of His personal worth! wrought by
discipline to a perfected condition. He is priest in virtue not of
what is of the flesh, not by inherited office, but by virtue of His
sympathy with men and His personal stainlessness. He enters the
presence of God not in an earthly tabernacle nor with the blood of
bulls and goats but with His own blood, bringing men and God
together by the pure and perfect surrender of Himself to God. This
sacrifice though made on earth was yet made in the eternal order,
240 INTRODUCTION
because made in spirit, in a spirit which necessarily belongs not to
this visible and transitory order of things but to the eternal and real,
or as the writer says, “through eternal spirit ”.
That which this writer finds common to the new and the old
forms of religion is the purpose of God to bring men into fellowship
with Himself, or, in other words, the covenant idea. With this
writer religion is the harmony of God and man. He thinks of God,
not like Paul, as a Judge before whose bar man must somehow be
cleared of guilt, but as entering into covenant with man and provid-
ing for the maintenance of this covenant by sacrifice. In history
he sees two great epochs in the promotion of this fellowship distin-
guished by the efficacy with which it is effected. For the covenant
being between the holy, heavenly God and His unholy creature, it
will not be quite easy to form or to maintain. It involves at any
rate two things, that the will of God in the matter be made known,
and that man be separated from his sin. it involves, that is to
say, that the covenant be effectively mediated and especially in this
respect that it be secured that man shall be cleansed from his sin
and fitted for true and lasting fellowship with God. So essential
is this, that each form of the covenant may be judged by the effi-
ciency with which it accomplishes this. If the arrangements for
bringing man into real and abiding union with God are imperfect,
then this colours with imperfection the covenant to which these
arrangements belong ; if, on the other hand, such arrangements are
made as actually cleanse the conscience and renew the character
then this determines the perfectness of the covenant in which these
arrangements are comprised.
Hence the importance which this writer attaches to priesthood
and sacrifice. It is by these the nature and efficacy of every
covenant between God and man must be determined. If one cove-
nant only provides for a ceremonial purification and a symbolic
introduction to God, this of itself stamps that covenant as inferior
to one which provides for a spiritual cleansing and a real union
If with one of the covenants there is identified a priesthood which
is merely hereditary and therefore fieshly and professional, while
the other rests on a natural and spiritual priesthood that offers a
real spiritual sacrifice, the sacrifice of self, in contrast with the
sacrifice of bulls and goats, there can be little hesitation in deter-
mining whether of these two is the eternal covenant. It is the
writer’s aim to exhibit this distinction. He knows that if only his
readers can once see the real glory of Christ and His religion all
their doubts will vanish. and accordingly he proceeds to send them
INTRODUCTION 241
such an exposition of that glory as is in point of fact a magnificent
apologetic for Christianity from the Jewish point of view.
The relation thus established between the former and the latter
dispensation may tend to an undervaluing of the old, and lead to
the idea that ‘‘the Jew was simply the keeper of a casket which
he could not unlock, an actor in a symbolical representation which
to him conveyed little or no meaning”’. It must be borne in mind,
therefore, that the arrangements of the Old Testament were primarily
for the religious use of the Jews themselves. Their religion was not
devised for the intellectual employment or diversion of persons
who can now look back upon it, nor altogether for the religious
edification of such persons, but primarily for the religious edification
of the Jews themselves. They needed a religion as much as we do,
They needed assurance of God and His favour, and some means of
access to Him and this they found in their religion of type and
symbol. To them as to us a gospel was preached (iv. 2). Through
the symbolic arrangements of their earthly tabernacle they learned
real truth and were brought into fellowship with the eternal. Not
that they understood what the physical arrangements of their religion
typified, but that they did understand what they symbolised. The
Old Testament ritual was instructive not in so far as it was typical,
but in so far as it was symbolical. A symbol is an embodied idea,
or what we nowadays call an “object lesson”; an idea rendered
visible in a material sign or in an external action. A type not only
expresses an idea, but looks forward to a time when this idea shall
receive its perfect expression. As Mr. Litton! defines it “ἃ type
is a prophetic symbol”. “ Every true type is necessarily a symbol,
that is, it embodies and represents the ideas which find their fulfil-
ment in the antitype; but every symbol is not necessarily a type;
a symbol may terminate in itself, and point to nothing future; it
may even refer to something past.” Now it cannot be supposed
that the contemporaries of Moses or Moses himself understood what
was prefigured by their ritual. But if they did not understand their
ritual as a collection of types, they certainly did understand it asa
system of symbols. The tabernacle itself was both a symbol and
a type. It was a symbol that God dwelt with men, ever in their
midst, sharing their fortunes, forgiving their sin, and bestowing bless-
ing. This symbol every child could read. But it was also a type, a
symbol with a prophecy wrapped up in it, a symbol giving promise
that the truth taught in it would one day find its perfect, eternal
manifestation. This could at the best be but imperfectly understood.
1 Bampton Lectures, Ρ. 82.
VOL. IV. 16
242 INTRODUCTION
But the writer to the Hebrews looking back upon the preparation
for Christ can see how this and that prefigured Him who was to
come. Every Old Testament institution, ceremony, person or thing
in which a principle or idea was embodied which was afterwards
embodied in Christ and His Kingdom may legitimately be called
“typical”. To the Jews themselves these types were helpful not
because they threw light upon the person and work of Christ, but
because they then and there communicated those very ideas which
were subsequently expressed in their reality in Jesus. The institu-
tion of sacrifice, e.g., was useful to them not because it taught them
to look for a Messiah who should die for their sins—for it had no
such effect—but because it then and there communicated the very
ideas and the very hopes which the death of Christ expressed—in
a dim and unsatisfactory way no doubt, as this writer is careful to
show, but still adequately as a first lesson in the holiness and for-
giveness of God.
Keeping in view the aim of the writer to convince his readers
that the new Christian order of things is an advance on the old
Mosaic order, and is indeed the final and universal form of religion,
the course of thought is easily followed. The Mediator of the new
covenant is first of all compared with the Mediators of the old, with
prophets, angels, Moses, Joshua, Aaron, and this comparison oc-
cupies the first seven chapters. The writer then proceeds to exhibit
the evanescence of the old covenant and the superiority of the new
(viii. 6-13), and of the true God-pitched tabernacle and its sacrifice to
the first man-made tabernacle with its arrangements and offerings
(ix. 1-x. 18). On this demonstrated superiority and finality of the
covenant which Christ has mediated the writer founds a forcible
appeal and exhorts his readers to hold fast their profession and to
use the access to God provided for them (x. 19-25). This exhorta-
tion he enforces by warnings (x. 26-31), by awakening remembrances
of better times (32-39), by the rapid, sugggestive and eloquent pre-
sentation of their predecessors in faith (xi.), and especially of Him
whose example in faith and endurance is perfect (xii. 1-4), and by
illustrating the reasonableness of hopefully submitting to present
trouble as discipline sent by the heavenly Father (xii. 5-13). They
are further urged to diligence in sanctification by the consideration
that awful as were the sanctions of the old law, those of the new
covenant are immensely more awful, that indeed our God is a con-
suming fire (xii. 14-29). The closing chapter contains miscellaneous
but relevant admonitions.
Date. The chief index to the date of the Epistle is its relation
INTRODUCTION 243
to the destruction of the Temple. The impression one receives
from its perusal is that the sacrifices and other services of the
Temple were still being performed. If particular passages are ex-
amined, this impression is deepened. It is quite true that the use
of the present tense (as in Heb. ix. 6, viii. 4, etc.) does not always
imply an actual present. The use of this tense by Clement (Ep. c.
41) in describing ordinances which in his day were certainly obso-
lete puts this beyond question. But of course the use of the pre-
sent generally implies the existence of the object spoken of at the
time of the speaker; and it is not easy to suppose that if the
Temple and its worship had already been abolished, this writer
could use such language as we find in c. x. 1, 2; ‘they can never
with the same sacrifices year by year which they offer continually
make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have
ceased to be offered?”’ And as Ménégoz! says: “ C’est précisément
existence du culte levitique qui offrait des dangers pour la fidelité
des chretiens. Aprés la destruction du Temple ce danger avait dis-
paru, du moins en majeure partie.’’ Besides, it is impossible to sup-
pose that a writer wishing to demonstrate the evanescent nature of
the Levitical dispensation, and writing after the Temple services
had been discontinued, should not have pointed to that event as
strengthening his argument. It would appear, then, that the |
Epistle must have been written while the Temple was yet standing,
that is, prior to the year a.p. 70.
Accordingly Salmon dates the Epistle in 63; Ménégoz places it
in 64-67. The year 66 or thereabouts is adopted by Riehm, Liine-
mann, Hilgenfeld, Weiss, Beyschlag, Schiirer, Godet, Westcott.
Bleek prefers the year 68 or 69. Harnack, Pfleiderer, von Soden,
Holtzmann and McGiffert bring it down to some date between a.p.
81 and 96.
Commentaries. Full lists of commentaries on the Epistle are
easily accessible in Bible Dictionaries or in Delitzsch’s Comment-
ary. A selection is given by von Soden in the Hand-commentar.
Here it must suffice to name the most outstanding. Among the
patristic commentators Chrysostom is unquestionably the most valu-
able, always sensible and well expressed. Of medizval writers
Primasius, Atto Vercellensis and Herveius may be consulted with
advantage.? Calvin, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel will inevitably
be used in the study of this Epistle, as of any part of the New
1La Theol. de l’ep. etc., p. 40.
2On these and others see Riggenbach’s Die dltesten lateinischen Komm: Zum
Hebrderbrief in Zahn’s Forschungen.
244 INTRODUCTION
Testament. At the foundation of all more recent elucidation of the
Epistle lies Bleek’s great work, Der Brief an die Hebréer erlautert
(1828-1840), the most comprehensive and scholarly, and in all re-
spects one of the best commentaries on any book of the New Testa-
ment. Of almost equal value is Weiss’ contribution to the revised
Meyer. Delitzsch though not so exact is generally suggestive and
always rich in material, while his knowledge of the Old Testament
enables him to enter into the author’s point of view. Westcott,
largely indebted to Bleek, is, as always, full and accurate. Vaughan
is of great use for ascertaining the precise meaning and biblical
usage of words. Davidson (Clark’s Bible-class Hand-books) pene-
trates to the meaning of the writer better than any other commen-
tator. Peake (Jack’s Century Bible) rivals him in this and has a
rare gift of compact lucidity. No better book could be conceived or
is needed for English readers. Nothing better has been written on
the Epistle than his chapter on its teaching.
Other works such as those by Owen, Peirce, Moses Stuart,
Tholuck, Hofmann, McCaul, Lowrie and von Soden will be found
helpful, and each has a merit of its own. And naturally the great
collectors of illustrative material, Wetstein and Schoettgen, Kypke,
Elsner and Raphel will be used. The parallels from Philo have
been carefully collected by Carpzov. Where Anz is named, the
reference is to his Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem
vulgarem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita in the Disserta-
tiones Philologicae Halenses, vol. xii., part ii, (1884).
Riehm’s Lehrbegriff des Hebréerbriefes is a classic, a monument
of German industry and comprehensiveness, full of detail but never
wearisome, always lighting up old meanings with fresh flashes of in-
sight. Bruce’s presentation of the substance of the Epistle (The
Ep. to the Hebrews, Clark) is characteristically vigorous and full of
elevated thought and enriching ideas. An excellent book on The
Theology of the Epistle has also been issued by Dr. George Milligan.
And quite indispensable to the student is La Theologie de l’Epitre
aux Hebreux, by Eugéne Ménégoz.
AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT.
I. GREEK UNCIALS.
N Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, Saec. iv. Complete.
A Alexandrinus Londinensis, Saec. v. Complete.
B Vaticanus Romanus, Saec. iv. Defective from ix. 14—end. [‘‘Manus multo
recentior supplevit, Heb. ix. 14-xiii. 25, quae Mico Italus ipsius codicis con-
lator Bentleio jubente contulit et Tischendorfius aliquoties notavit siglo b.”
Gregory’s Prolegomena, p. 418.]
INTRODUCTION 245
C Ephraemi Parisiensis, Saec. v. Wants i. 1 πολυμερως---πνευματος aytov ii. 4.
vii. 26 apravros—peoutys ix. 15. x. 24 πῆς και καλων--μιανθωσιν πολλοι
xli. 15.
D Claromontanus Parisiensis Nationalis 107, Graeco-Latinus. [“ Latina inprimis
in epistula ad Hebraeos errores multos praebent” Gregory.] Saec. vi.
Heb. xiii. 21-23 is lost. Beza, to whom we owe the earliest notice of this
Codex describes it as of equal antiquity with his copy (D) of the Gospels,
and tells us it was found at Clermont, near Beauvais. Many hands have
revised it.
Ἑ Petropolitanus, Graeco-Latinus, Saec. ix. Wants Heb. xii. 8 wavres—vpov,
xiii. 25. A faulty copy of Ὁ after it had been more than once corrected.
Fa Coislinianus Parisiensis, Saec. vii. Contains x. 26.
H Coislinianus Parisiensis nationalis 202, Saec. vi. The leaves of this MS. are
still scattered, some at Paris, some at Moscow, some at St. Petersburg,
some at Mt. Athos, others elsewhere. It contains of Hebrews, chapters ii.,
His stiva X:
Moscuensis, Saec. ix. Complete.
Angelicus Romanus, Saec. ix. Complete to xiii. 10 eovovav.
Londin, Hamburg (Scrivener’s Codex Ruber, so called from beautifully bright
red colour of the ink), Saec. ix. Contains i. I-iv. 3, and xii, 20-xiii. 25.
‘“‘Textu ad optimos testes hic codex accedit.” Gregory, cf. Scrivener, p.
184-85.
Ν Petropolitanus, Saec. ix. Contains v. 8-vi. Io.
O Fragmenta Mosquensia, Saec vi. (ἢ Contains x. 1-3, 3-7, 32-34, 35-38.
Scrivener.
P Porfirianus Chiovensis, Saec. ix. Complete. xi. 9, ro illegible.
The first verse of the Epistle has been edited by Messrs. Grenfell & Hunt from
a fragment in Lord Amherst’s collection of papyri. It is in a small uncial hand of
the early fourth century. It reads ἡμῶν after πατράσιν.
arn
II, GREEK CURSIVES.
Of the large number of cursives cited by Tischendorf, it may suffice to mention
the Codex Colbertinus of the Imperial Library of Paris, collated by Tregelles, and
cited as 17 [33 of the Gospels]. It belongs to the eleventh century, and is of great
value. Another MS. which was collated by Tregelles and highly valued by him is
the Codex Leicestrensis of the fourteenth century, and cited under the sign 37.
Gregory also marks 47, Oxon. Bodl. Roe, as ‘‘bonae notae”. It also was collated
by Tregelles.
III, VERSIONS.
The Old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peshitto and Harklean Syriac, the Coptic
and fragments of the Sahidic and Bashmuric versions, together with the Armenian
and #Ethiopic are available for the ascertainment of the text of the Epistle. [For
remarks on these versions, see Westcott’s Com., Introduction.]
ΠΑΥΛΟΥ͂ TOT ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ͂
Η ΠΡΟΣ
EBPAIOYS EMISTOAH.!
I. τ. *MOAYMEPQE καὶ πολυτρόπως
πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων 2 τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλά-
πάλαι ὃ Θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς a Num. xii.
6,8; Eph.
i.10; Gal.
ἕν, ἡ:
1 The title should be simply ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ. See Introd.
2T.R. with 47, and some versions; ἐσχατου with SABDEKLMP, 17, etc.
CuapTeR I.—Vv. 1-3. The aim of
the writer is to prove that the old Cove-
nant through which God had dealt with
the Hebrews is superseded by the New;
and this aim he accomplishes in the first
place by exhibiting the superiority of the
mediator of the new Covenant to all
previous mediators, The Epistle holds
in literature the place which the Trans-
figuration holds in the life of Christ.
Former mediators give place and Christ
is left alone under the voice ‘“‘ Hear ye
Him”. With this writer, Jesus is before
all else the Mediator of a better Coven-
ant, viii.6. But ‘ Mediator’ involves the
arranging and accomplishing of every-
thing required for the efficacy of the
Covenant ; the perfect knowledge of the
person and purposes of Him who makes
the Covenant with men and the com-
munication of this knowledge to them;
together with the removal of all obstacles
to man’s entrance into the fellowship
with God implied by the Covenant. This
twofold function is in these first three
verses shown to be discharged by Christ.
He as Son speaks to men for God and
thus supersedes all previous revelations;
while, instead of appointing a priest who
can only picture a cleansing, and accom-
plish a ceremonial purity, He becomes
Priest and actually cleanses men from
sin, and so effects their actual fellowship
with God.
Ver. 1. In sonorous and dignified terms
the writer abruptly makes his first great
affirmation: ‘“‘God having spoken...
spoke”. ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας . . . ἐλά-
λησεν, for, however contrasted, previous
revelations proceeded from the same
source and are one in design and in
general character with that which is final.
In the N.T. λαλεῖν is not used in a dis-
paraging sense, but, especially in this
Epistle, is used of God making known
His will. See ii. 2, iii. 5, v. 5, etc. God
spoke, desired to be understood, to come
into communication with men and there-
fore uttered Himself in intelligible forms,
and succeeded, all through the past, in
making Himself and His will known to
men. He had not kept silence, allowing
men to feel after Him if haply they
might find Him. He had met the out-
stretched hand and guided the seeker.
And this “speaking” in the past was
preparatory to the final speaking in
Christ ; ‘* God having spoken.......spoke.”.
The earlier revelations _prepara-
distinguished
_tion for ater but were di
from it_in four particulars—in..the.time,
in_the recipients, in the agents, in the
manner.
“πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως
‘‘in many parts and in many ways”.
The alliteration is characteristic of the
author, cf. v. 8, v.14, vii. 3, ix. 10, etc.
For the use of the words in Greek
authors see Wetstein. πολυμερῶς points
to the fragment: char
revelations. ey were given piece-meal,
bit by bit, part by part, as the people
needed and were able to receive them.
The revelation of God was essentially
progressive; all was not disclosed at
once, because all could not at once be
247
248
understood. One aspect of God’s nature,
one element in His purposes, reflected
from the conditions of their time, the
prophets could know ; but in the nature
of things it was impossible they should
know the whole. They were like men
listening to a clock striking, always get-
ting nearer the truth but DIL to wait
till the whole was heard. Man can only
know in part, ἐκ μέρους, τ Cor. xiii. [A
fine illustration will be found in Brown-
ing’s Cleon, in lines beginning: ‘‘ those
divine men of old time have reached,
thou sayest well, each at one point the
outside verge,” etc..] The ‘speaking ” of
God to the fathers was conditioned by
the capacity of the prophets. His speak-
ing was also πολυτρόπως [cf. Odyss. i. τ.
Ανδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον]
not in one stereotyped manner but in
modes varying with the message, the
messenger, and those to whom the
word is sent. Sometimes, therefore, God
spoke by an institution, sometimes by
parable, sometimes in a psalm, sometimes
in an act of righteous indignation. For,
as Peake says, “the author is speaking
not of the forms in which God spoke to
the prophets, but of the modes in which
He spoke through them to the fathers.
The message took the form of law or
prophecy, of history or psalm; now it
‘was given in signs, now in types.” So
Hofmann. These features of previous
revelations, so prominently set and ex-
pressed so grandiloquently, cannot have
been meant to disparage them, rather to
bring into view their affluence and plia-
bility and many-sided application to the
growing receptivity and varying needs
of men. He wins his readers by sug-
gesting the grandeur of past revelations.
But it is at the same time true, as Calvin
remarks, ‘‘ varietatem fuisse imperfec-
tionis notam”. So Bengel, ‘“‘Ipsa pro-
phetarum multitudo indicat, eos ex parte
prophetasse””’. These characteristics,
while they encouragingly disclosed God’s
purpose to find His way to men, did
yet discredit, as inadequate for perfect
achievement, each method that was tried.
The contrast in the new revelation is
implied in the word ἐκάθισεν, indicating
that the work was once for all accom-
plished.
The next note of previous revelations
is found in πάλαι “ of old,” not merely
“in time past” as A,V.; marking the
time referred to in λαλήσας as contrasted
with the writer’s present, and gently
suggesting that other methods of speak-
ing might now be appropriate. Already
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY= i;
in 2 Cor. iii. 14 the Mosaic covenant is
spoken of as ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη cf. viii.
13. Here πάλαι is contrasted with ἐπ᾿
ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, “at the
last of these days,” [‘‘ Aufs Ende dieser
Tage,” Weizsacker], t.e., in the Messianic
time at the close of the period known to
the Jews as ‘‘this present time or age”’.
The expression is used in the L*X
indifferently with ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τ. ἡμερῶν
or ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις to translate
DWT OMAN (see Isa. ii. 2
Gen. xlix. 1; Num. xxiv. 14), which was
used to denote either the future indefin-
itely or the Messianic period, ‘‘ the
latter days” in which all prophecy was
to find its fulfilment. Bleek quotes
Kimchi as saying: “ Ubicunque leguntur
‘Beaharith Hayamim’ ibi sermo est de
diebus Messiae”. And Wetstein quotes
R. Nachman: “ Extremum dierum con-
sensu omnium doctorum sunt Dies
Messiae’”’. It was this Jewish usage
which the N.T. writers followed in
speaking of their own times as “ the
last days;” ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τ. χρόνου
(Jude 18); ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τ. ἡμερῶν (2
Pet. iii. 3); ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τ. χρόνων
(1 Pet. i. 20); and in this Epistle, ix. 26,
Christ is said to have appeared ἐπὶ
συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. The first Advent
as terminating the old world and in-
troducing the Messianic reign was
considered the consummation. The
introduction of the word τούτων is
suggested by the Jewish division of the
world’s course into two periods: ‘“ This
Age” (Ha-Olam MHazzeh) and The
Coming Age (Ha-Olam Habbah). The
end of “‘ this age”’ or ‘‘these days” was
signalised by the coming of the Messiah,
the new revelation in Christ. More
effectually than the Jews themselves
expected has the Advent of the Messiah
antiquated the old world and opened a
new period.
The temporal contrast is further
marked by the words τοῖς πατράσιν
(ver. 1) and ἡ μ tv (ver. 2). Former revela-
tions had been made to “ the fathers,”’ z.¢.,
of the Jewish people, as in John vii. 22;
Rom. ix. δ, xv. 8; 2 Pet. iii. 4. More.
frequently) “our. ‘your,’ -§ their,” 18
added, as in Acts iii. 13, 25; Luke vi. 53.
But it is idle to urge, with von Soden,
the absence of the pronoun as weighing
against the restriction of the term in this
place to the Jewish fathers. ἡμῖν ‘‘to
us” of these last days, of the Chinstian
dispensation.
The determining contrast between the
\ I—3-
\
λησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, 2. > ὃν ἔθηκε κληρονόμον πάντων,
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
249
δι᾿ οὗ καὶ b Ps. ii. 8;
τοὺς Matt. xxi.
αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν, 3. “ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης Kal χαρακτὴρ 85: Gort
i. 16.
Col. i. 15, 7; Phil. ii.6; Apoc. iv. 11.
- 3; Eph.
iii. g; Col.
c viii. 1 et ix. 12, etc., et xii. 2; Pse cx. 13 Sap. vii. 26; Joan. i. 4, et xiv. 9; 2 Cor. iv.4;
1T.R. in DbKLP with other MSS. and versions; και erounoev τ. atwvas in
SABD%, etc., E, etc.
two revelations is found in this, that in
the one God spoke ἐν τοῖς προφήταις,
while in the other He spoke év vig.
‘‘The prophets” stand here, not for the
prophetic writings as in Jo. vi. 45; Acts
xiii. 40, etc.; but for all those who had
spoken for God, and especially for that
“great series of men from Abraham and
Moses onwards who had been the organs
of revelation and were identified with it
(cf. the Parable of the Wicked Husband-
men). The prep, @v_is not used in
)
its instrumental sense (οἷς Habak, ii. 1
nor is it = διὰ, it brings God closer to
the hearers of the prophetic word, and
implies that what the prophets spoke, God
spoke. SoHofmannand Weiss. [‘‘Ipse
in cordibus eorum dixit quicquid illi foras
vel dictis vel factis locuti sunt hominibus,”
Herveius.] The full significance of év is
seen in ἐν υἱῷ. évvig without the
article must be translated ‘in a son”’ or
“ἴῃ one who is a son,” indicating the
nature of the person through whom this
final revelation was made. The revelation
now consisted not merely in what was
said [προφήταις] but in what He was
[vids]. This revelation was final because
: who ἴῃ all He is and does,
reveals the Father. By uttering Himself
He expresses God. A Son who can be
characteristically designated a son, carries
in Himself the Father’s nature and does
not need to be instructed in purposes
which are also and already His own, nor
to be officially commissioned and em-
powered to do what He cannot help
doing. ‘Noman knoweth the Son but
the Father; neither knoweth any man
the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him”
(cf. John i. 18). The whole section on
“The Son of God” in Dalman’s Die
Worte Fesu should be read in this
connection. ‘ Son” is here used in its
Messianic reference, as the quotations
cited in vv. 5,6 prove. The attributes
ascribed to the Son are at the same time
Divine attributes. [So Baur and Pfleiderer.
Ménégoz denies this]. The writer appar-
ently experiences no difficulty in attaching
to one and the same personality the
creating of the world and the dying to
cleanse sin.
The Son is described in six particulars
which illustrate His supr: _His
fitness to reveal the Father: (1)) His
Weiss and others understand this of the
actual elevation of Christ, on His ascen-
sion, to the Lordship ofall. [‘* Dass der
Verfasser bei diesen Worten an den
erhéhten Christus gedacht habe, halten
wir far unzweifelhaft,’’ Riehm, p. 295].
But the position of the clause in the
verse and the subsequent mention of the
exaltation in ver. 3 rather indicate that
ἔθηκεν has here its ordinary meaning
(see Elsner and Bleek) of ‘‘ appointed,”
and that the reference is to Ps. ii. 8
δώσω σοι ἔθνη τὴν κληρονομίαν σου
κιτιλ., SO Hofmann. Through this Son
God is to accomplish His purpose. The
Son is to reign over all. The writer lifts
the thought of the despondent to Christ’s
triumph and Lordship. In the Parable of
the Wicked Husbandmen Christ speaks
of Himself as Heir. It is involved in
the Sonship; Gal. iv. 7. It is not
simply possessor but possessor because
of a relation to the Supreme. The
Father could not be called κληρονόμος.
Dalman shows that the 2nd Psalm
‘*deduces from the filial relation of the
King of Zion to God, that universal
dominion, originally proper to God, is
bequeathed to the Sonasan inheritance,”
Worte ¥esu, p. 220, E. Tr. 268. Cf. also
Matt. xi. 27, πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ
πατρός μου. [Chrysostom says the use of
the term brings out two points τὸ τῆς
υἱότητος γνήσιον, kal τὸ τῆς κυριότητος
ἀνιπόσπαστον.] The inheritance is not
fully e»tered upon, until it can be said
250
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY= L,
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε TA πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως
αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ; καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν,
1T.R. in DCEKLM ai! pler, d, 6, Syrutr ;
47.
3 Omit ἡμῶν with ΘΑ ΒΌ Ε ΜΡ,
that “ the kingdom of the world is become
the Kingdom of our Lord and of His
Christ,” Rev. xi. 15. Cf Heb. ii. 8.
But by His incarnation He came into
touch with men and poured His life into
human history, at once claiming and
securing His great inheritance.
δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶ-
vag “through whom also He made the
world,” ‘‘per quem fecit et secula”’ (Vulg.),
‘durch Welchen er auch die Weltzeiten
gemacht hat” (Weizsacker). ‘‘Secula et
omnia in iis decurrentia” (Bengel). Weiss
thinks it quite improbable that so pure a
Greek writer should use αἰῶνας in the
rabbinical sense as = “ world,” and he
believes that the Greek interpreters are
right in retaining the meaning ‘‘ world-
periods”. But in xi. 3 it becomes
obvious that this writer could use the
The
in creation is not the mass or magnifi-
cence of the material spheres but the
evolution of God’s purposes. through.the
ages. The mind staggers in endeavour-
ing to grasp the vastness of the physical
universe but much more overwhelming is
the thought of those times and ages and
aeons through which the purpose of God
is gradually unfolding, unhasting and
unresting, in the boundless life He has
called into being. Hewhois the end and
aim, the heir, of all things is also their
creator. The καὶ brings out the propriety
of committing all things to the hand that
brought them into being. The revealer
is the creator, Jo. i. 1-5. He only can
guide the universe to its fit end who at
first, presumably with wisdom equal to
His power, brought it into being. [‘‘ Cette
idée d’un étre céleste chargé de r€aliser la
pensée créatrice de Dieu est une idée
philonienne; elle a pénétré dans le
Judaisme sous |’influence de la philosophie
grecque” (Ménégoz). It is true that
this is a Philonic idea (see numerous
passages in Carpzov, Bleek, McCaul and
Drummond) but we may also say with
omit δι eavrov with SSABDbP, 17, 46*,
Weiss “ Die philonischen Aussagen . .
gehoren gar nicht hierher”. Certainly
Philo never claimed for a definite his-
torical person the attributes here enum-
erated.] For the Son’s agency in Creation
see John i. 2; Col. i. 15. Grotius’ ren-
dering “‘ propter Messiam conditum esse
mundum”’ is interesting as iliustrating
his standpoint, but would require δι᾽ ὅν.
Ver.3. ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα... ..
‘* Who being effulgence of His glory and
express image of His nature.” The
relative ὃς finds its antecedent in vie,
its verb in ἐκάθισεν ; and the interposed
participles prepare for the statement of the
main verb by disclosing the fitness of
Christ to be the revealer of God, and
to make atonement. The two clauses,
av... φέρων re, are closely bound to-
gether and seem intended to convey the
impression that during Christ’s redemp-
tive activity on earth there was no ken-
osis, but that these Divine attributes lent
-mean
either what is flashed forth, or what is_
flashed back : either “ ray” or “reflection”.
Calvin, Beza, Thayer, Ménégoz prefer
the latter meaning. Thus Grotius has,
‘*repercussus divinae majestatis, qualis
est solis in nube”. ers,
on the other hand, unifor the
Wesen erzeugt”’. Philo’s use of the
word lends colour to this meaning when
3: ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
he says of the human soul breathed
into man by God that it was ἅτε τῆς
μακαρίας καὶ τρισμακαρίας φύσεως
ἀπαύγασμα. So in India, Chaitanya
taught that the human soul was like a
tay from the Divine Being; God like a
blazing fire and the souls like sparks that
spring out of it. In the Arian contro
versy this designation of the Son was
appealed to as proving that He is eter-
nally generated and exists not by an act
of the Father’s will but essentially. See
Suicer, s.v. As the sun cannot exist or
a lamp burn without radiating light, so
God is essentially Father and Son. τῆς
᾿δόξης αὐτοῦ. God’s glory is all that
belongs to.him as God, and the Son is the
effulgence of God’s glory, not only a
single ray but as Origen says : ὅλης τῆς
δόξης. Therefore the Son cannot but
reveal the Father. Calvin says: ‘‘ Dum
igitur audis filium esse splendorem Pater-
nae gloriae, sic apud te cogita, gloriam
Patris esse invisibilem, donec in Christo
refulgeat’’. As completing the thought
of these words and bringing out still
more emphatically the fitness of the Son
to reveal, it is added καὶ χαρακτὴρ
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. χαρακ-
τήρ, 45 its form indicates, originally
_meant_the cutting agent [χαράσσειν],
the tool or person who engraved. In
common use, however, it usurped the
place of χάραγμα and denoted the im-
press or mark made by the graving tool,
especially the! mark upon a coin which
determined its value; hence, any dis-
tinguishing mark, identifying a thing or
person, character. ‘‘ Express image”
translates it well. The mark left on wax
or metal is the “‘ express image”’ of the
_ seal or stamp. It is a reproduction of
each characteristic feature of the original.
ὑποστάσεως rendered “person” in
A.V.; ‘ substance,” the strict etymo-
logical equivalent, in R.V. To the
English ear, perhaps, “nature” or “ es-
sence”’ better conveys the meaning. It
has not the strict meaning it afterwards
acquired in Christian theology, but de-
notes all that from which the glory
springs and with which indeed it is
identical. [We must not confound the
δόξα with the ἀπαύγασμα as Hofmann Ν
and others do. The ὑπόστασις is the
nature, the δόξα its quality, the ἀπαύγ-
ασμα its manifestation.] There is in the
Father notning which is not reproduced
in the Son, save the relation of Father to
Son. Meénégoz objects that though a
mirror perfectly reflects the object before
it and the wax bears the very image of
251
the seal, the mirror and the wax have
not the same nature as that which they
represent. And Philo more than once
speaks of man’s rational nature as τύπος
τις καὶ χαρακτὴρ θείας δυνάμεως, and
the ἀπαύγασμα of that blessed nature,
see Quod deter. insid., c. xxiii.; De Opif.
Mundi, c.li. All that he means by this
is, that man is made in God’s image.
But while no doubt the primary signific-
ance of the terms used by the writer to
the Hebrews is to affirm the fitness of
Christ to reveal God, the accompanying
expressions, in which Divine attributes
are ascribed to Him, prove that this fit-
ness to reveal was based upon. com-
munity of nature. The two clauses, ds
to αὐτοῦ, have frequently been accepted
as exhibiting the Trinitarian versus the
Arian and Sabellian positions; the Sabel-
lians accepting the ἀπαύγασμα as repre-
senting their view of the modal manifes-
tation of Godhead, the Arians finding it
possible to accept the second clause, but
neither party willing to accept both
clauses—separate or individual existence
of the Son being found in the figure of
the seal, while identity of nature seemed
to be affirmed in ἀπαύγασμα. [ὑπόστ-
ασις was derived from the Stoics who
used it as the equivalent of οὐσία, that
which formed the essential substratum, τὸ
ὑποκείμενον, of all qualities. The Greek
fathers, however, understood by it what
they termed πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον and
affirmed that there were in the Godhead
three ὑποστάσεις. The Latin fathers
translating ὑπόστασις by substantia
could not make this affirmation. Hence
arose confusion until Gregory Nazianzen
pointed out that the difference was one
of words not of ideas, and that it was due
to the poverty of the Latin language. See
Suicer, s.v.; Bleek in loc.; Bigg’s Chris-
tian Platonists, p. 164-5; Dean Strong’s
Articles in ἜΤΟΣ. for rgor on the His-
tory of the Theological term Substance ;
Calvin Inst., 1., 13, 2; Loofs’ Leitfaden,
p- 109 note and Ὁ. 134.]
φέρων τε τὰ πάντα. -. “and
upholding all things by the word of His
power”. The meaning of ν is seen.
in such expressions as that of Moses in
Jum, xi. 14 οὐ δυνήσομαι ἐγὼ μόνος
φέρειν πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, where
the idea οἵ being responsible for their
government and guidance is involved.
So in Plutarch’s Lucullus, 6, φέρειν τὴν
πόλιν of governing the city. In Latin
Cicero (pro Flac., 37) reminds his judges
“ sustinetis rempublicam humeris vestris”.
See Bleek. In Rabbinic literature, as
252
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
Ἶς
Eph.i. 21; he : ᾿ a : ,
. Phil, tivo: ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, 4. “TocodTw κρείτ-
10.
Schoettgen shows, God is commonly
spoken of as “portans mundum,” the
Hebrew word being 20 In Philo,
the Logos is the helmsman and pilot of
all things (De Cherub.) τῷ ῥήματι, by
the expression of His power, by making
His will felt in all created nature,The_
suggest that the whole course of nature
and history, when rightly interpreted,
reveals the Son and therefore the Father.
The responsibility of bringing the world
to a praiseworthy issue depends upon
Christ, and as contributing to this work
His earthly ministry was undertaken.
For the notable thing He accomplished
as God’s Son, the use He made of fiis
dignity and power, is expressed in the
words, καθαρισμὸν τ. ἁμαρτιῶν
ποιησάμενος “having accomplished
purification of the sins”. This was as
essential to the formation of the covenant
as the ability rightly to represent God’s
mind and will. This_ itself was the
supreme revelation of God, and it was
only after accomplishing this He could
sit down at God’s right hand as one who
had finished the work of mediating the
eternal covenant. ποιησάμενος, the mid.
voice, supersedes the necessity of δι᾽
ἑαυτοῦ. e aorist part. implies that the
cleansing referred to was a single definite
act performed before He sat down, and
in some way preparatory to that Exalta-
tion. The word receives explanation in
subsequent passages of the Ep. vii. 27,
ix. 12-14. καθαρισμός as used in LXX
suggests that ΕΝ referred to
means the removal of guilt and its
consciousness. The worshippers were
aa by cleansing to appear before
God.
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ... “sat down
at the right hand of the Majesty on
high”. ἐκάθισεν seems to denote that
the work undertaken by the Son was
satisfactorily accomplished; while the
sitting down ἐν δεξιᾷ x.7.d. denotes
entrance upon a reign. The source of
the expression is in Ps. cx. 1 (cited v.
13) where the Lord says to Messiah
κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν pov, and this not only as
τῶν γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων, Sow διαφορώτερον παρ᾽ αὐτοὺς κεκληρο-
introducing Him to the place of security
and favour, but also of dignity and
power. ‘‘The King’s right hand was
the place of power and dignity, belonging
to the minister of his authority and his
justice, and the channel of his mercy,
the Mediator in short between him and
his people” (Rendall). Cf. Ps. Ixxx. 17.
In contrast to the ever-growing and never
complete revelation to the fathers, which
kept the race always waiting for some-
thing more sufficing, there came at last
that revelation which contained all and
achieved all. But the expression not
only looks backward in approval of the
work done by the Son, but forward to
the result of this work in His supremacy
over all human affairs. μεγαλωσύνη
is ascribed to God in Jude 25 and in
Deut. xxxii. 3 δότε μεγαλωσύνην τῷ Θεῷ
ἡμῶν. Cf. also Clem., Εῤ., xvi. Here
it is used to denote the sovereign
majesty inherent in God (cf. xii. 2; Mk.
xiv. 62). The words ἐν ὑψήλοις are
connected by Westcott and Vaughan
with ἐκάθισεν. It is better, with Beza
and Bleek, to connect them with peyad-
ωὠσύνης, for while in x. 12 and xii. 2,
where it is said He sat down on the
throne of God, no further designation is
needed; in viii. 1, as here, where it is
said that He sat down on the right hand
of the Majesty, it is felt that some
further designation is needed and ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς is added. No local region is
intended, but supreme spiritual influence,
mediation between God, the ultimate
love, wisdom and sovereignty, and this
world. This writer and his contemporary
fellow-Christians, had reached the con-
viction here expressed, partly from
Christ’s words and partly from their
own experience of His power.
Vv. 4—ii. 18. The Son and the Angels.
Ver. 4, although forming part of the
sentence 1-3, introduces a subject which
continues to be more or less in view
throughout chaps i. and ii. The
exaltation of the Mediator to the right
hand of Sovereignty is in keeping with
His designation as Son, a designation
which marked Him out as superior to
the angels. Proof is adduced from the
O.T. To this proof, in accordance with
the writer’s manner, a resulting admoni-
tion is attached, ii. 1-4. And the
remainder of chap. ii. is occupied with an
‘explanation of the reasonableness of the
4—5.
νόμηκεν ὄνομα.
σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; " καὶ πάλιν, ““᾿Εγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ
incarnation and the suffering it involved ;
or, in other words, it is explained why if
Christ is really greater than the angels,
He had to be made a little lower than
they.
τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος
“9... Βανίηρ become as much superior
to the angels as He has obtained a more
excellent namethan they”. The form of
comparison here used, roo. . . « ὅσῳ is
found also, vii. 20-22, viii. 6, x. 25; also in
Philo. κρείττων is one of the words most
necessary in an Epistle in which com-
parison is never out of sight. The Son
became (γενόμενος) greater than the an-
gels in virtue of taking His seat at God’s
right hand. This exaltation was the
result of His earthly work. It is as
Mediator of the new revelation, who has
cleansed the sinful by His death, that He
assumes supremacy. And this is in keep-
ing with and in fulfilment of His obtain-
ing the name of Son. Thisname κεκλη-
ρονόμηκεν, He has obtained, not ‘von
Anfang an” as Bleek and others say, but
as Riehm points out, in the O.T. The
Messiah, then future, was spoken of as
Son; and therefore to the O.T. reference
is at once madein proof. The Messianic
Sonship no doubt rests upon the Eternal
Sonship, but it is not the latter but the
former that is here in view.
In support of this statement the writer
adduces an abundance of evidence, no
fewer than seven passages being cited
from the O.T. Before considering these,
two preliminary objections may first be
removed. (1) To us nothing may seem
less in need of proof than that Christ
_who has indelibly impressed Himself
on mankind is superior to the angels
who are little more than a picturesque
adornment of earthly life. But when this
writer lived the angels may be said to
have been in possession, whereas Christ
had yet to win His inheritance. More-
over, as Schoettgen shows (p. 905) it was
usual and needful to make good the pro-
position, “‘ Messias major est Patriarchis,
Mose, et Angelis ministerialibus”. Prof.
Odgers, too, has shown (Proceedings of
Soc. of Hist. Theol., 1895-6) that quite pos-
sibly the writer had in view some Jewish
Gnostics who believed that Christ Him-
self belonged to the angelic creation and
had, with the angels, a fluid personality
ΠΡῸΣ EBPAIOYS
253
5. “Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέ ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων, ““Υἱός μου εἶ &% 55 2
Sam. vii.
14; 1 Par.
xxii. τὸ et
xxviii. 6;
Ps. ii. 7; Acts xiii. 33.
and no proper human nature. In any
case it was worth the writer’s while to
carry home to the conviction of his con-
temporaries that a mediation accom-
plished by one who was tempted and
suffered and wrought righteousness, a
mediation of an ethical and spiritual kind,
must supersede a mediation accomplished
by physical marvels and angelic minis-
tries. (2) The passages cited from the
Old Testament in proof of Christ’s
superiority although their immediate his-
torical application is disregarded, are con-
fidently adduced in accordance with the
universal use of Scripture in the writer’s
time. But it must not be supposed that
these passages are culled at random.
With all his contemporaries this writer
believed that where statements were
made of an Israelitish king or other
official in an ideal form not presently
realised in those directly addressed or
spoken of, these were considered to be
Messianic, that is to say, destined to find
their fulfilment and realisation in the
Messiah. These interpretations of Scrip-
ture were the inevitable result of faith in
God. The people were sure that God
would somehow and at some time fulfil
the utmost of His promise.
The first two quotations (ver. 5) illus-
trate the giving of the more excellent
name; the remaining quotations exhibit
the superiority of the Son to angels, or
more definitely the supreme rule and im-
perishable nature of the Son, in contrast
to the perishable nature and servile func-
tion of the angels.
Ver. 5. τίνι yap εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ayy-
λων .. . “ For to which of the angels
did he ever say My Son art Thou, I
this day have begotten Thee?” τίνι to
what individual; wore in the whole
course of history. The angels as a class
are called “ Sons of Elohim” in the
OT. (Gen,vi.. 25, Ps. xxix, 2, booux. 7;
Jobi.6). But this was not used in its
strict sense but merely as expressive of
indefinite greatness, nor was it addressed
to any individual. εἶπεν, the subject un-
expressed, as is common in citing Scrip-
ture (2 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii, 16; Eph. iv. 8,
etc.). Winer and Blass supply 6 θεός,
others ἡ γραφή. Warfield, who gives
the fullest treatment of the subjectless
use of λέγει, φησί, and such words
254
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ ἸΕ
f Ps. xcvii. εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν ; ᾿ 6. foray δὲ πάλιν εἰσ-
7; Rom.
vil. 2935 ἀγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς Thy οἰκουμένην, λέγει, “Kat προσκυνη-
I
Col. i.
(Presb. and Ref. Rev., July, 1899)
holds that either subject may be sup-
plied, because “under the force of their
conception of Scripture as an oracular
book it was all one to the N.T.
writers whether they said ‘God says’ or
‘Scripture says’.” Here, however, the
connection involves that the subject is
ὁ θεός. The words cited are from Ps. ii.
7 and are in verbal agreement with the
LXX, which again accurately represents
the Hebrew. The psalm was written to
celebrate the accession of a King, Solo-
mon or some other; but the writer, see-
ing in his mind’s eye the ideal King,
clothes the new monarch in his robes.
The King was called God’s Son on the
basis of the promise made to David
(2 Sam. vii. 14) and quoted in the follow-
ing clauses: The words ἐγὼ σήμερον
γεγέννηκά σε do not seem to add much
to the foregoing words, except by em-
phasising them, according to the ordinary
method of Hebrew poetry. σήμερον is
evidently intended to mark a special oc-
casion or crisis and cannot allude to the
eternal generation of the Son. In its
original reference it meant “1 have be-
gotten Thee to the kingly dignity’. It
is not the beginning of life, but the en-
trance on office that is indicated by yey-
έννηκα, and it is as King the person
addressed is God’s Son. Thus Paul, in
his address to the Pisidians (Acts xiii. 33),
applies it to the Resurrection of Christ;
cf. Rom. i. 4. The words, then, find
their fulfilment in Christ’s Resurrection
and Ascension and sitting down at God’s
right hand as Messiah. He was thus
proclaimed King, begotten to the royal
dignity, and in this sense certainly no
angel was ever called God’s Son.
This is more fully illustrated by another
passage introduced by the usual καὶ
πάλιν (see x. 30, and Longinus, De Subl.,
chap. iv, etc.). ᾿Εγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ els
πατέρα ..-, words spoken in God’s
name by Nathan in reference to David’s
seed, and conveying to him the assurance
that the kings of his dynasty should ever
enjoy the favour and protection and
inspiration enabling them to rule as
God’s representatives. This promise is
prior in history to the previous quotation,
and is its source; see 2 Sam. vii. 14.
ἔσομαι εἰς is Hellenistic after a Hebrew
model. See Blass, Gram., p. 85. ;
Ver. 6. ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ .. -
‘© And when He shall again have brought
the first-begotten into the world [of men],
He says, ‘‘ And let all God’s angeis wor-
ship Him’’. Having shown that “" Son”’ is
a designation reserved tor the Messiah
and not given to any of the angels, the
writer now advances a step and adduces
a Scripture which shows that the relation
of angels to the Messiah is one of
worship. It is not easy to determine
whether πάλιν merely indicates a fresh
quotation (so Bleek, Bruce, etc.) as in
ver. 5; or should be construed with
eloayayy. On the whole, the latter is
preferable. Both the position of πάλιν
and the tense of εἰσαγ. seem to make
for this construction. The ‘bringing
in’ is still future. Apparently it is to
the second Advent reference is made;
cf. ix. 28. To refer eioay. to the incar-
nation, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Bengel,
Bruce (see esp. Schoettgen); or to the
resurrection with Grotius; or to an
imagined introduction of the Son to
created beings at some past period, with
Bleek, is, as Weiss says, “ sprachwidrig”’.
Rendall remarks: “ The words bring in
have here a legal significance; they
denote the introduction of an heir into
his inheritance, and are used by the LXX
with reference to putting Israel in
possession of his own land both in the
time of Joshua and at the Restoration
(Exod. vi. 8, xv. 17; Deut. xxx. 5).”
This throws light not only on etoay. but
also on πρωτότοκον and οἰκουμένην, and
confirms the interpretation of the clause
as referring to the induction of the
first-born into His inheritance, the world
of men. σπρωτότ. is used of Christ (τὴ) in
relation to the other children of Mary
(Luke ii. 7; Matt. i. 25); (2) in relation
to other men (Rom. viii. 29; Col. i. 18);
(3) in relation to creation (Col. i. 15).
Nowhere else in N.T.is it used absol-
utely; but cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 27. “I will make
him first-born,” #.¢., superior in dignity
andcloserinintimacy. λέγ ει, the present
is used because the words recorded in
Scripture and still unfulfilled are meant.
These words, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν ...
occur verbatim in Moses’ song (Deut.
xxxii. 43). In the Alexandrian text, from
which this writer usually quotes, we find
υἱοὶ Θεοῦ (v. Swete’s LXX), but in a
copy of the song subjoined to the Psalter
this MS. itself has ἄγγελοι. The words
are not represented in the Hebrew, and
6---ὃ.
σάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι cod”.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
255
7. ἙΚαὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς κε Ps. civ. 4.
ἀγγέλους λέγει, ““Ὃ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ
τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα ᾿᾿- 8. ἢ" πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱὸν, “ “Oh Ps. xlv.6.
are supposed by Delitzsch to have been
added in the liturgical use of Moses’
song. The part of the song to which
they are attached represents the coming
of God to judgment, a fact which further
favours the view that it is the second
Advent our author has in view.
Ver. 7. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους
λέγει. . . . The πρὸς μὲν of this verse is
balanced by πρὸς δὲ in ver. 8; andin both
πρός is to 'be rendered ‘‘ with reference
to,” or “ of” as in Luke xx. 19; Rom. x.
21; Xen., Mem., iv. 2-15. Cf. Winer,
Ρ. 505: and our own expression “ speak
to such and such a point”. ὁ ποιῶν
«.T.A. cited from Ps. civ, 4, Liinemann
and others hold that the Hebrew is
wrongly rendered and means ‘‘who
maketh winds his messengers” not ‘* who
maketh His angels winds”. Calvin, too,
finds no reference to angels in the words.
He believes that in this Hymn of Creation
the Psalmist, to illustrate how God is in
411 nature, says “‘ who maketh the winds
his messengers,”’4.¢., uses for his purposes
the apparently wildest of natural forces,
and “flaming fire his ministers,” the
most rapid, resistless and devouring
of agents controlled by the Divine hand.
Cf. Shakespeare, ‘“ thought-executing
fires’, The writer accepts the LXX
translation and it serves his purpose of
exhibiting that the characteristic function
of angels is service, and that their form
and appearance depend upon the will of
God. This was thecurrent Jewish view.
Many of the sayings quoted by Schoett-
gen and Weber suggest that with some
of the Rabbis the belief in angels was
little more than a way of expressing
their faith in a spiritual, personal power
behind the forces of nature. ‘“ When they
are sent on a mission to earth, they are
wind: when they stand before God they
are fire.” The angel said to Manoah,
“T know not after what image I am
made, for God changes us every hour ;
why, then, dost thou ask after my name ὃ
Sometimes He makes us fire, at others
wind; sometimes men, at other times
angels.” Sometimes they appear to
have no individual existence at all, but
are merely the light-radiance or halo of
God’s glory. ‘‘ No choir of angels sings
God’s praises twice, for each day God
creates new hosts which sing His praises
and then vanish into the stream of fire
from under the throne of His glory whence
they came.” Cf. also the Book of
Jubilees, ii. 2. ‘‘On the first day He
created the heavens which are above and
the earth and the waters and all the
spirits which serve before Him—the
angels of the presence, and the angels of
sanctification, and the angels of the
spirit of the winds, and the angels of the
spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and
of snow and of hail, and of hoar frost,
and the angels of the voices of the
thunder and of the lightning, and the
angels of the spirits of cold and of heat,
and of winter and of spring, and of
autumn and of summer, and of all the
spirits of His creatures which are in the
heavens and on the earth, the abysses
and the darkness, eventide and the light,
dawn and day which He hath prepared
in the knowledge of His heart.” One
thing all these citations serve to bring
out is that the angels were merely
servants; like the physical forces of
nature they were dependent and perish-
able. In contrast to these qualities
are those ascribed to the Son.
Ver.8. πρὸς δὲ τὸν vidv...,,
the quotation being from Ps. xlv. in which
the King in God’s kingdom is described
ideally. The pointsin the quotation which
make it relevant to the writer’s purpose are
the ascription of dominion and perpetuity
to the Son. The emphatic words, there-
fore, are θρόνος, eis τὸν αἰῶνα, ῥάβδος,
and παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου. [1{ 4065 not
matter, therefore, whether we translate
‘Thy throne is God” or ‘‘ Thy throne, O
God,” for the point here to be affirmed is
not that the Messiah is Divine, but that
He has a throne and everlasting do-
minion. Westcott adopts the rendering
“God is thy throne,’’ and compares Ps,
Ixxi, 43) Isa; xxvi. 43: ἘΞ ΧΟ Ἔν xl. ταν
Deut. xxx. 27. He thinks it scarcely
possible that ‘God ” can beaddressed to
the King. Vaughan, on the other hand,
says: “ Evidently a vocative. God is
thy throne might possibly have been said
(Ps. xlvi. τὴ: thy throne is God seems an
unnatural phrase. And even in its first
(human) application the vocative would
cause no difficulty (Ps. Ixxxii.6; John x.
34, 35). Weiss strongly advocates this
construction, and speaks of the other as
quite given up. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τ.
αἰῶνος, “tothe age of the age,” “for
256
ΠΡῸΣ. EBPAIOY2 1.
θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος 1+ ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ
Acts x. 38. ῥάβδος " τῆς βασιλείας σου.
3.9. ᾿ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην, καὶ
ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν - διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ Θεός σου, ἔλαιον
k ΡΒ. οἷ. 45. ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους gou.” 10. “Kal, “Σὺ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς,
1 Insert καὶ with NABD*E*M, 17.
2T.R. in DEKLP al fere omn; ἢ paBSos ev0. ραβδος with ΑΒΜ.
ϑαυτου in 4B; σου in ADEKLMP.
ever and ever,” “to alleternity.” Cf. Eph.
iii. 21, εἰς πάσας τ. γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τ.
αἰώνων, and the frequent εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ.
αἰώνων. See others in Vaughan or Con-
cordance. ‘The aim of all these varie-
ties of expression is the same; to heap
up masses of time as an approximation
to the conception of eternity” (Vaughan).
kat ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος
ῥάβδος τ. βασιλείας σου. The
less strongly attested reading [see notes]
gives the better sense: The sceptre of
thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness.
The well -attested reading gives the
sense: ‘The sceptre of uprightness is
the sceptre of thy kingdom”. The ever-
lasting dominion affirmed in the former
clause is now declared to be a righteous
tule. An assurance of this is given in the
the further statement.
Ver. 9. ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύ-
vnv -. + “ Thou lovedst righteous-
ness and didst hate lawlessness, therefore
God, thy God, anointed thee with oil
of gladness above thy fellows.” The
quotation is verbatim from LXX of
Ps. xlv. 8 [the Alexand. text reads
ἀδικίαν in place of ἀνομίαν, so that the
author used a text not precisely in
agreement with that of Cod: Alex. 2.
Weiss]. The anointing as King is
here said to have been the result [διὰ
τοῦτο] of his manifestation of qualities
fitting him to rule as God’s representative,
namely, love of right and hatred of
iniquity. [ἀνομία is used in 1 John iii.
4, as the synonym and definition of
ἁμαρτία. ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.
It is contrasted with δικαιοσύνῃ in 2 Cor.
vi, 14, τίς yap μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ
ἀνομίᾳ;:] It is the Messiah’s love of
righteousness as manifested in His
earthly life which entitles Him to so-
vereignty. ὁ Θεός is taken as a vo-
Cative here, as in ver. 8, by Liinemann,
Weiss and others; and 6 Θεός σου as
the direct nom. to ἔχρισε. Westcott
thinks that the ἔλαιον ἀγαλλ. re-
fers “ποῖ to the solemn anointing. to
royal dignity but to the festive anointing
on occasions of rejoicing ”. So Alford.
Davidson, on the other hand, says: ‘As
Kings were anointed when called to the
throne, the phrase means made King”.
So, too, Weiss and von Soden. But the
psalm is not a coronation ode, but an
epithalamium ; the epithalamium, in-
deed, of the ideal King, but still a festive
marriage song (vv. 10-17), to which the
festal ἔλαιον ayaX. is appropriate. The
oil of exultation is the oil expressive of
intense joy (cf. ver. 15 of the psalm).
The only objection to this view is that
God is said to be the anointer, but this
has its parallel in Ps. xxiii. 5.; and
throughout Ps. xlv. God is considered
the originator of the happiness depicted
(cf. ver. 2). Whether the marriage re-
joicings are here to be applied to the
Messiah in terms of vv. 16 and 17 of the
psalm is doubtful. The verse is cited
probably for the sake of the note of
superiority contained in παρὰ τοὺς
μετόχους σου. In the psalm the
μέτοχοι are hardly other Kings; rather
the companions and counsellors of the
young King. In the Messianic applica-
tion they are supposed by Bleek, Pierce,
Alford, Davidson, Peake, etc., to be the
angels. It seems preferable to keep the
term indefinite as indicating generally the
supremacy of Christ (cf. Ps. xlv. 2).
—f[mapa ‘‘ From the sense of (1) beside,
parallel to, comes that of (2) in compari-
son with ; and so (3) in advantageous
comparison with, more than, beyond”’.
Vaughan].
Ver. 10. In wv. 10-12 the writer intro-
duces another quotation from Ps. 102 (in
LXX tor, 25-7). The quotation is ver-
batim from the LXX except that σὺ is lifted
from the fifth to the first place in the
sentence, for emphasis, and that a
second ὡς ἱμάτιον is inserted after
αὐτούς in ver. 12. With the introduc-
tory καὶ Weiss understands πρὸς τὸν
υἱὸν λέγει, as in ver. 8. He is also of
opinion that the writer considers that the
words were spoken by Jehovah and that
κύριε, therefore, must be the Messiah.
9--14.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
257
Κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἱ 1Εδα. li. 6;
2 Peter iii.
οὐρανοί" 11. ᾿᾿ αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, od δὲ διαμένεις - καὶ πάντες ὡς 7, το.
X. 12, 18,
m
ἱμάτιον παλαιωθήσονται, 12. καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον ἑλίξεις 1 αὐτοὺς 52. εἰ xii.'2;
καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται᾽" σὺ δὲ ὃ αὐτὸς εἶ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσι ᾿᾿.
13. ἢ Πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἴρηκέ ποτε, ““ Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου,
ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου ;᾿᾿ 14. " οὐχὶ
πάντες εἰσὶ λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα, εἰς διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμενα διὰ
ῬΒ, χ᾿ τὸ
Matt. xxii.
44; Marc,
xii, 36:
Luc. xx.
42; Acts
ποθ
Cor. xv.
25; Eph.
i. 20.
n Ps..xxxiv. 7, et xci. 11.
᾿ελιξεις ABDcCKLMP, Vulg., WH; αλλαξεις §9*D* 43, Tisch.
2 Insert ws tratiov with ΑΒ", d, e.
has the appearance of a homoioteleuton.
This is possible, but it is not necessary
for the justification of the Messianic refer-
ence. This follows from the character of
the psalm, which predicts the manifestation
of Jehovah as the Saviour of His people,
even though this may only be in the far
future (see ver. 13: ‘‘ Thoushalt arise and
have mercy upon Zion. . .. So the
heathen shall fear the name of the Lord,
etc.”) Prof. B. W. Bacon of Yale has
investigated this matter afresh and finds
that, so far from the application of these
verses to the Messiah being an audacious
innovation, or even achieved, as Calvin
says, “ pia deflectione,” ‘ the psalm itself
was a favourite resort of those who sought
in even pre-Christian times for proof-texts
of Messianic eschatology’’; also that
“we have specific evidence of the appli-
cation of vv. 23, 24 to the Messiah by
those who employed the Hebrew or some
equivalent text” and finally that by the
rendering of τὰ} in ver. 24 (English ver-
23) by respondit or ἀπεκρίθη ‘‘ we have the
explanation of how, in Christian circles
at least, the accepted Messianic passage
could be made to prove the doctrine that
the Messiah is none other than the pre-
existent wisdom of Prov. viii. 22-31,
“through whom,”’according to our author,
ver. 2, ‘* God made the worlds.” Indeed,
we shall not be going too far if with
Bruce we say: “It is possible that the
writer (of Heb.) regarded this text (Ps.
Cii. 25-27) as Messianic because in his
mind creation was the work of the pre-
existent Christ. But it is equally possible
that he ascribed creative agency to Christ
out of regad to this and other similar
texts believed to be Messianic on other
grounds.” See Preuschen’s Zeitschrift
Sir N. T. Wissenschaft, 1902, p. 280.
In vv. 13 and 14, we have the final
contrast between the place of the Son and
VOL. TY.
Tisch. with KLMP omits as a gloss. It
that of the angels in human redemptive
history. This contrast is connected by
the form of its statement with ver. 5 (‘‘to
which of ‘the angels, etc.”). There it
was the greater name that was in question,
here it is the higher station and function.
πρὸς τίνα δὲ «.7.A. “But to which
of the angels has He at any time said
...?” implying that to the Son He has
said it, as is proved by the citation from
Ps. cx. On this psalm (see note on ver. 9).
Séconnects thisver. with ver. 8, and stands
in the third place as frequently in classics
when a preposition begins the sentence
(Herod., viii., 68, 2; Thuc., i., 6; Soph.,
Philoct., 764. See examples in Klotz’
Devarius, Ὁ. 379). κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν
pov, see ver. 3; ἐκ δεξ. is not classical,
but frequent in Hellenistic Greek, see re-
ferences. ἕως ἂν 66... . ‘ Until I set
thine enemies as a footstool for thy feet.”
ὑποπόδιον is a later Greek word used
in LXX and N.T. The figure arose from
the custom of conquerors referred to in
Josh. x. 24. Here it points to the com-
plete supremacy of Christ. This attained
sovereignty is the gauge of the World’s
consummation. The horizon of human
historyis the perfected rule of Jesus Christ.
It is the end for which all things are now
making. Whereas the angels are but the
agents whose instrumentality is used by-
God for the furtherance of this end.
οὐχὶ πάντες εἰσὶ λειτουργικὰ
πνεύματα. . .. “Are they not all
ministering spirits sent forth to serve for
the sake of those who are to obtain
salvation?” They have no function
of rule, but are directed by a higher
will to promote the interests of those
who are to form Christ’s kingdom.
This is true of all of them [πάντες] what-
ever hierarchies there be among them.
λειτουργικὰ, cf. v. 5. λειτουργός
17
258
τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν ;
ΠΡΟΣ ἘΒΡΑΤΘῪΣ
11:
Διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ
18 Fate
περισσοτέρως ἡμᾶς προσέχειν τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι, μή ποτε παρα-
with its cognates has come to play a
large part in ecclesiastical language.
It is originally ‘a public servant”; from
Aetros,an unused adjective connected with
λαός, meaning ‘‘what belongs to the
people” and ἔργον. It occurs frequently
in LXX, sometimes denoting the official
who attends on a king (Josh. i. 1), some-
times ‘angels (Ps. ciii. 21), commonly the
priests and Levites (Neh. x. 39), ot ἱερεῖς
οἱ λειτουργοί, and Is. Ixi.6. In N.T.
it is used of those who render service to
God or to Christ or to men (cf. Lepine’s
Ministers of fesus Christ, p. 126). εἰς
διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμενα, pre-
sent part., denoting continuous action.
κε Sent forth”; therefore as servants by
a higher power (cf. Acts i. 25, διακονίας
ταύτης K. ἀποστολῆς). Διακονία origin-
ally means the ministry of a body servant
or table servant (cf. Luke iv. 39; Mark
i. 13, οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ) and
is used throughout N.T. for ministry
in spiritual things. μέλλοντας
might almost be rendered “destined”
as in Matt. iii. 7, xi, 14, xvi. 27, xvii. 12,
etc. κληρονομεῖν, see on ver. 4.
σωτηρίαν in theciassics means either
preservation or deliverance. In N.T. the
word naturally came to be used as the
semi-technical term for the deliverance
from sin and entrance into permanent
wellbeing effected by Christ. See Luke i.
7177. Johniiv..22% Acts1v. 12, ΧΟ ΤΩ)
Rom. i. 16, etc. In ii. 3 the salvation
referred to is termed τηλικαύτη. Cf.
Hooker’s outburst, Eccles. Pol., i., iv., 1,
and Sir Oliver Lodge (Hibbert ¥ournal,
Jan., 1903, p. 223): ‘If we are open toin-
fluence from each other by non-corporeal
methods, may we not be open to influence
from beings in another region or of an-
other order? And if so, may we not be
aided, inspired, guided by a cloud of wit-
nesses—not witnesses only, but helpers,
agents like ourselves of the immanent
God?” On guardian angels, see Charles’
Book of F¥ubilees, Moulton in ¥. T. S.,
August 1902, and Rogers’ edition of
Aristoph., Eccles., 999, and the Orphic
Fragment quoted by Clement (Strom., v.)
Σῷ δὲ θρόνῳ πυρόεντι παρεστᾶσιν πολυ-
μόχθοι “Ayyedor οἷσι μέμηλε βροτοῖς ὡς
πάντα τελεῖται. Cf. Shakespeare’s
“ Angels and ministers of grace defend
ἘΞ
CHAPTER II.—Vv. 1-4. From this
proved superiority of the Son to the
angels the writer deduces the warning
that neglect of the salvation proclaimed
by the Lord Himself and attested by
God in miracles and gifts of the Holy
Ghost will incur heavier punishment
than that which was inflicted upon
those who neglected the word spoken
by angels.
Ver. 1. Διὰ τοῦτο: “on this ac-
count,” because God has now spoken
not through prophets or angels, but
through a Son. Set... ἡμᾶς: “ we
must give more excessive heed”’.
“ Alibi utitur verbo ὀφείλειν debere : hic
Set ofortet. Illud dicit obligationem:
hoc, urgens periculum’’; Bengel, who
also remarks on 1 Cor. xi. 10, ὀφείλει
notat obligationem: δεῖ necessitatem ;
illud morale est, hoc quasi physicum;
ut in vernacula, wir sollen und mussen”’,
Here then it is the logical necessity that
is prominent. περισσοτέρως is to
be joined not with δεῖ as in Vulg. (and
Bengel), ‘‘abundantius oportet obser-
vare,” but with προσέχειν. The adverb
occurs in xiii. 19 and six times in 2 Cor,;
the adj. frequently in N.T. περισσοτέρως
[περιττοτέρως] occurs in Diod. Sic.,
ΧΗ. 108, τὰ περ. εἰργασμένα ; also in
Athenaeus, v., p. 192 F. κλισμὸς περιτ.
κεκόσμηται. The comparative is here
used with reference to the greater at-
tention due to the revelation than if it
had been delivered by one of less posi-
tion. Atto Vercell. suggestively, ‘‘Quare
abundantius ... Nonne et illa Dei
sunt et ista?” His answer being that
those who had been brought up to
reverence the O.T. might be apt to de-
spise the new revelation. προσέχειν
never in N.T. and only once in LXX
(Job vii. 17) has the added τὸν νοῦν
usual in classics. As προσέχειν is com-
monly used of bringing a ship to land,
this sense may have suggested the
παραῤῥνῶμεν. ἡμᾶς, including him-
self, but meaning to indicate all who
in these last days had heard the revela-
tion of Christ. τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν:
“the things heard,” the great salvation
first preached by the Lord, ver. 3 ; cf. Acts
viii. 6, xvi. 14. He means to disclose the
significance of what they have already
heard, rather than to bring forward new
truth. ποτε wapappvapev:
“lest haply we drift away”. μή ποτε,
as Hoogeveen shows, occurs in N.T. as
= ne quando and also as = ne forte; but
I—4.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
259
ρρυῶμεν.: 2. "εἰ γὰρ ὃ δι᾽ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο « Deut.
βέβαιος, καὶ πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παρακοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδικον μισθα-
XXxVii. 26;
Acts vii.
ποδοσίαν, 3. " πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεθα τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες Sar δὶ το,
σωτηρίας ; ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὑπὸ τῶν
Ὁ xii. 25;
Matt. iv.
17; Marc.
ἕν χὰ:
lqwapapvepev with NAB*D*LP, 17, 47, 115. Bleek favours the T.R. See also
the forms given by Veitch.
in clauses expressing apprehension, as
here, it can always be rendered “lest
perchance”. [‘‘In Hellenistic Greek
μήποτε in a principal clause means
‘perhaps,’ in a dependent clause ‘if
perchance,’ ‘if possibly,’” Blass, p. 212.]
παραῤῥυῶμεν is 2nd aor. subj. pass.
(with neuter meaning) of παραῤῥέω, I
flow beside or past; as in Xen., Cyrop.,
iv. 52, πιεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ παραῤῥέοντος
ποταμοῦ. Hence, to slip aside; as in
Soph., Philoct., 653, of an arrow slipping
from the quiver; in Xen., Anab., iv. 4, of
snow slipping off; lian, V. H., iii. 30,
of a coarse story unseasonably slipping
into a discreet conversation; and in
medical writers, frequently of food slip-
ping aside into the windpipe. Origen
(Contra Celsum, 393) says the multitude
need fixed holy days, ἵνα μὴ τέλεον
παραῤῥυῇ, ‘that they may not quite
drift away”. See also Prov. iii. as Arg
μὴ παραῤῥυῇς, τήρησον δὲ ἐμὴν βουλήν.
Ver.2. εἰ γὰρ ὁ δι᾽ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς
λόγος. . .. An a fortiori argument de-
tived from the notoriously inevitable
character of the punishment which over-
took those who disregarded the Law.
“The word spoken through angels” is
the Law, the characteristic and funda-
mental form under which the old re-
velation had been made. The belief
that angels mediated the Law is found
in Deut. xxxiii. 2; Acts vii. 53; Gal. iii.
190; Josephus, Ant., xv. 53. ἐγένετο
βέβαιος: “proved steadfast,” inviol-
able, held good; as in Rom. iv. 16, of
the promise εἰς τὸ εἶναι βέβαιαν τὴν
ἐπαγγελίαν. The sanctions of the law
were not a mere brutum fulmen. This
appeared in the fact that πᾶσα
παράβασις - .. “every transgres-
sion and disobedience”. παράβασις is
transgression of a positive command:
παρακοή is neglect to obey. Grotius
renders wapak. by ‘“contumacia” which
may be involved; but Béhme is right
in his note ‘‘non commissa solum, sed
omissa etiam”. The inflictions, whether
on individuals, as Achan, or on the
whole people, as in the wilderness-
generation, were “a just recompense,”
not an arbitrary, or excessive punish-
ment. For μισθαποδοσία classical
writers use μισθοδοσία.
Ver. 3. πῶς ἡμεῖς. . . « “ How shall
we’”’—to whom God has spoken through
the Son, i. 2—‘ escape (ἔνδικον μισθ.
prob. in final judgment, as in x. 27) if we
have neglected (the aorist ἀμελήσαντες
suggesting that life is looked at as a
whole) so great a salvation ?””— the salva-
tion which formed the main theme of
the new revelation. The meaning of
ἀμελήσαντες is best illustrated by Matt.
xxii. 5, where it is used of those who dis-
regarded, or treated with contempt, the
invitation to the marriage-supper. The
guilt and danger of so doing are in pro-
portion to the greatness of the announce-
ment, and this is no longer of law but of
life, cf. 2 Cor. iii. The word now spoken
is vastly more glorious and more fully
expressive of its Author than the Law,
‘‘Non erat tanta salus in V.T., quanta
est in gratia quam Dei filius nobis
attulit’”’ (Atto Vercell:). The “ great-
ness” of the salvation is involved in the
greatness of Him who mediates it (i. 4),
of the method employed (ii. 10), of the
results, many sons being brought to glory
(ii. το). But one relevant aspect of its
greatness, the source and guaranteed
truth of its proclamation is introduced
by ἥτις, which here retains its proper
qualitative sense and may be rendered
“inasmuch asit...”. ‘Its object is to
introduce the mention of a characteristic
quality, which explains or emphasises
the thing in question” (Vaughan). It
was the trustworthiness of the new re-
velation of salvation which the Hebrews
were beginning to question. The law
had proved its validity by punishing trans-
gressors but the majesty and certainty
of the recent proclamation were doubtful.
Therefore the writer insists that it is
“very great,” and illustrates its trust-
worthiness by adducing these three feat-
tures: (1) its original proclamation by
the Lord, (2) its confirmation by those
who heard Him, (3) its miraculous certi-
260
¢ Marc. xvi. ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη,
20; Acts
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
IL,
4. “ συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ Θεοῦ
ii. 22, et H Ὶ δ ‘ , Creat
im et σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασι Kal ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι, καὶ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου
xiv. 3,
xix. igh μερισμοῖς, κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν.
1 Cor. x:
4,7, 11.
fication by God. [This is not contra-
dicted by Bleek’s “ Das tyAux., tantae
talisque salutis, verweist an sich wohl
nicht auf den nachfolgenden relativen
Satz,” nor by Weiss’ ‘ Das ἥτις hangt
weder sprachlich noch sachlich mit τηλικ.
zusammen.”] ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα
λαλεῖσθαι, lit: “having received a
beginning to be spoken” = “having be-
gun to be spoken,” or ‘‘ which was first
proclaimed”. ἀρχὴν AaB.,acommon
phrase in later Greek, see Stephanus and
Wetstein. In Polybius of a war “ taking
itsrise’’, In ΖΕ] ἴδῃ, V.H., ii. 28. πόθεν
τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβεν ὅδε ὁ νόμος, ἐρῶ. It is
used here to indicate with precision the
origin of the proclamation of the revela-
tion about which they are feeling un-
certain. λαλεῖσθαι refers back to ver.
2and alsotoi. 1. διὰ to be connected
with ἀρχὴν AaB.; it is used instead of
ὑπὸ because God is throughout viewed
as the ultimate source of revelation.
τοῦ Κυρίου, “the Lord” supreme
over angels, and whose present exaltation
reflects dignity and trustworthiness on
the revelation He made while on earth.
The salvation which they are tempted to
neglect was at first proclaimed not by
angels sent out to minister, not by ser-
vants or delegates who might possibly
misapprehend the message, but by the
Lord Himself, the Supreme. The source
then is unquestionably pure. Has the
stream been contaminated ? God testifies
to its purity. There is only one link be-
tween the Lord and you, they that heard
Him delivered the message to you, and
God by witnessing with them certifies its
truth. The main verb is ἐβεβαιώθη
which looks back to βέβαιος of ver. 2,
and compares the inviolability of the one
word or revelation with that of the other.
We must not, he argues, neglect a gospel
of whose veracity and importance we
have assurance in this, that it was first
proclaimed by the Lord Himself and that
we have it on the authority of those who
themselves heard Him, and who there-
fore were first-hand witnesses who had
also made experimental verification of its
validity. For ἀκουσάντων though with-
out an object expressed, plainly means
those who heard the Lord, cf. Luke i. 1.
εἰς ἡμᾶς is rendered by Theophy-
lact διεπορθμεύθη εἰς ἡμᾶς βεβαίως, it
has been conveyed to us in a trustworthy
manner. To their testimony was added
the all-convincing witness borne by God,
συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος TOV θεοῦ.
The word is found in Aristotle, Philo and
Polybius, xxvi. 9, 4, παρόντων δὲ τῶν
Θεττάλων kal συνεπιμαρτυρούντων τοῖς
Δαρδανίοις. Also in Clement, Εῤ., c.
Xxili., συνεπιμαρτυρούσης τῆς γραφῆς ;
but only here in N.T., cf. 1 Pet. v. 12;
Rom. ii. 15, viii. 16, ix. 1. The sense is
found in Mark xvi. 20, ἐκήρυξαν παντα-
χοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν
λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθ-
ούὔντων σημείων. This witness was borne
σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν “by
signs and wonders,”’ the two words re-
ferring to the same manifestations (re
καὶ closely uniting the words), which in
one aspect were “‘signs’”’ suggesting a
Divine presence or a spirtual truth, and
in another aspect “wonders” calculated
to arrest attention. [The words are
similarly conjoined in Polybius, Plut-
arch, Alian, Philo and Josephus.] καὶ
ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν “and various
miracles,” lit. powers, as in Matt. xi. 21,
καὶ οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλάς.
Bleek thinks it is not the outward mani-
festations but the powers themselves that
are here meant. This, he thinks, is sug-
gested by the connexion of the word with
πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς, ““ distribu-
tions of the Holy Spirit”. The genitive
is genitive objective, ‘‘ distributions con-
sisting of the Holy Spirit”. The remark-
able character of the Charismata and the
testimony they bore to a Divine presence
and power are frequently alluded to in the
N.T. and are enlarged upon in 1 Cor.
xii. 14. Paul uses the same argument as
this writer in Gal. iii. 1-4. The article
is wanting before πνεύματος in accord-
ance with the usage noted by Vaughan,
that it is generally omitted when the
communication of the Spirit is spoken of,
cf. Luke ii. 25, John vii. 39, with John
xiv. 26, Acts xix. 2 with 6. μερισμός
only here and in a different sense in iv.
12; the verb is common. St. Paul uses
it in connection with the distribution of
spiritual gifts in Rom. xii. 3, 1 Cor. vii.
17. No one thought himself possessed
of the fulness of the Spirit, only a pépos.
These distributions or apportionings,
being of the Spirit of God, are necessarily
4—6.
5. Οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξε τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, d i.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
261
2, 4,8;
Peter
περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν. 6. " διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις λέγων, ““ Τί ἐστιν 511. 13.
made κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν ““ accord-
ing to His [God’s] will”. In x Cor. xii.
11 the will is that of the Spirit. ‘Non
omnibus omnia dabat Deus, sed quae et
quantum et quibus vellet, Eph. iv. 7”
(Grotius). [θέλησις only here in N.T.,
but ten times in LXX. Pollux calls it a
“‘vulgarism ” ἰδιωτικόν. On the substi-
tution of nouns in -pa for nouns in -ots,
see Jannaris’ Hist. Gram., p. 1024, and
cf. x. 7, ix. 36, xiii. 21, so that in the pre-
sent passage the choice of the active form
is deliberate.] The clause is added to
enforce the writer’s contention that all
the Charismata with which his readers
were familiar were not mere fruits of
excitement or in any way casual, but
were the result of a Divine intention
to bear witness to the truth of the gos-
pel.
Vv. 5-18. Having sufficiently brought
out the permanence and sovereignty of
the Son by contrasting them with the
fleeting personality and ministerial func-
tion of angels, the author now proceeds
to bring the supremacy of the Son into
direct relation to the Messianic adminis-
tration of ‘*the world to come,” the
ideal condition of human affairs; and to
explain why for the purposes of this ad-
ministration it was needful and seemly
that ‘‘ the Lord” should for a season ap-
pearin a form “a little lower than the
angels”. The world of men as it was
destined to be [4 οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα]
was a condition of things in which man
was to be supreme, not subject to any
kind of slavery or oppression. And if
the Jew asked why, in order to bring this
about, the appearance of the Son in so
apparently inglorious a form was neces-
sary; if he asked why suffering and
death on His part were necessary, the
answer is, that it was God’s purpose to
bring, not angels, but many human sons
to glory and that as there is but one path,
and that a path of suffering, by which
men can reach their destiny, it was be-
coming that their leader should act as
pioneer in this path. His path to glory
must be a path in which men can follow
Him; because it is from the human level
and as man that He winsto glory. More
particularly His sufferings accomplish
two objects: they produce in Him the
sympathy which qualifies Him as High
Priest, while His death breaks the power
which kept them enslaved and in fear.
{On this section Robertson Smith’s papers
e Ps. viii. 4,
et cxliv. 3.
in the Expositor, 1881-2, should be con-
sulted.]
Ver. 5. Οὐ yap ἀγγέλοις. - . . ‘* For
not toangels”’. With yap the writer pro-
ceeds to clinch the exhortation contained
in vv. 1-4, by exhibiting the ground of
it. Under the old Covenant angels had
been God’s messengers, but this mode of
mediation has passed away. The οἰκου-
μένη μέλλουσα is not subject to them.
It is the Son as man who now rules
and to whom attention must be given.
ὑπέταξεν. . . ‘did He’’—that is God
—subject the world to come of which we
are speaking, ἣ οἰκουμένη, not κόσμος,
but the inhabited world. So used in
Diod. Sic., i. 8 καθ᾽ ἅπασαν τ. oik-
ουμένην, wherever there were men.
From the O.T. point of view ‘the
world to come” meant the world under
Messianic rule, but in this Epistle the
Messianic Kingdom is viewed as not yet
fully realised. The world to come is
therefore the eternal order of human
affairs already introduced and rendering
obsolete the temporary and symbolic
dispensation. Calvin accurately defines
it thus: ‘‘ Non vocari orbem futurum
duntaxat, qualem e resurrectione spera-
mus, sed qui coepit ab exordio regni
Christi, Complementum vero suum habe-
bit in ultima redemptione.” It is the
present world of men regenerated, death
and all that is inimical to human pro-
gress abolished ; a condition in which all
things are subjected to man. The re-
pudiation of angels as lords of the world
to come implies the admission that the
obsolescent dispensation had been sub-
ject to them. So in Deut. xxxii. 8:
ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ayy-
έλων θεοῦ, cf. Dan. x. 13-21 and Book of
Fubilees,xv. 31. Cf. the pages in which
Robertson Smith expands the remark
that “το be subordinated” to the angelic
dispensation is the same thing as to be
‘*made under the law” (Expositor, 1881,
p. 144 ff.). Hermas (Vis., iii. 4, 1) repre-
sents the Church as being built by six
angels whom he describes as being the first
created ols παρέδωκεν ὁ Κύριος πᾶσαν
τὴν κτίσιν αὐτοῦ, αὔξειν καὶ οἰκοδομεῖν
καὶ δεσπόζειν τῆς κτίσεως πάσης.
Ver 6. διεμαρτύρατο δὲ πού τις λέγων:
“Βα some one in ἃ certain place solemnly
testifies, saying’’. The indefinite formula
of quotation is used not because doubt
existed regarding the authorship of the
psalm, nor because the writer was citing
262
Ps. viii. 6;
Matt.
xXviii. 18; a
1 Cor. xv, Τιμῇ
25) 27; a
Han cx χειρῶν σου!" 8.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
ἱ πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.᾿
Il.
ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι μιμνήσκῃ αὐτοῦ ἢ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ
αὐτόν; 7. ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους - δόξῃ καὶ
ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτὸν, καὶ κατέστησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν
᾽
1This clause καὶ κατέστησας is omitted from B, and the sense favours the
Omission,
from memory, but rather as a rhetorical
mode of suggesting that his readers
knew the passage well enough. So
Chrysostom: δεικνύντος ἐστίν, αὐτοὺς
σφόδρα ἐμπείρους εἶναι τῶν γραφῶν.
Philo frequently uses an indefinite form of
quotation: this identical form in De
Ebriet., 14 (Wendland, ii. 181) εἶπε yap
πού tis. Cf. Longinus, De Sub., ix. 2
γέγραφά που. Here only in the Epistle
is a quotation from Scripture referred to
its human author. τί ἐστιν ἄνθρω-
wos... . The quotation is from Ps.
viii. and extends to ποδῶν αὐτοῦ in
ver. 8. It illustrates the greatness of man
in three particulars.
I. ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾽
ἀγγέλους.
2. δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν.
3. πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν
ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.
And the author goes on to say that in
Jesus the two former elements of man’s
greatness are seen to be fulfilled (He is
made a little lower than the angels, and
He is crowned with glory and honour),
while the third is guaranteed because
Jesus has tasted death for every man
and so subdued even it, the last enemy,
and therefore all things, under his feet.
In Ps. viii. as in so many other
poets and prose writers (see Pascal’s
chapter on The Greatness and Littleness
of Man, A. R. Wallace’s Man’s Place in
the Universe and Fisk’s Destiny of Man),
it is the dignity put upon man which fills
the writer with astonishment. When
Sophocles in the Antigone celebrates
man’s greatness, πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ κοὐδὲν
ἀνθρώπου δεινότερον πέλει, he excepts
death from subjection to man, ἽΑιδα
Perey φεῦξιν οὐκ ἐπάξεται. Here the
ebrew poet excepts nothing. But
only by Christ was he justified. Man’s
real place is first won by Christ. pupv%-
σκῃ αὐτοῦ Thouart mindful of him”
for good as in xiii. 3. Man, the subject
of satire and self-contempt, is the object
of God’s thought. υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου
Ξε ἄνθρωπος of the first clause. In
the Heb. Wiss and DUN]: ἐπισκ-
ἔπτῃ ‘‘visit,” generally as a friend (Mat.
xxv. 36, James i. 27) frequently of phy-
sician visiting sick; in judgment, Jer. v.
9, 29. ‘The day of visitation,” ἡμέρα
ἐπισκοπῆς, in good sense, Luke xix. 44;
for chastisement, Isa. x. 3; cf. I Pet. ii. 12.
‘In Jer. xv. 15 we have the two words
μνήσθητί pov καὶ ἐπίσκεψαί pe.
Ver. 7. That God has been mindful
of man and visited him is apparent in
the three particulars now mentioned.
βραχύ τι is “a little,” either in material,
or in space, or in time. In x Sam. xiv.
29, ἐγευσάμην βραχύ τι τ. μέλιτος. In
Isa. lvii. 17, of time, 8’ ἁμαρτίαν βραχύ
τι ἐλύπησα avrov. So in N.T., of at-
erial, Jo. vi. 7; of space, Acts xxvii. 28;
of time Acts, v. 34. So in classics, v.
Bleek. The original of the psalm points
to the translation : “‘ Thou didst make him
little lower than the angels” [in the Heb.
ΤΟΝ “than God”]. There
seems no reason to depart from this
meaning either in this verse or in ver. g.
So Alford and Westcott, but Davidson
and Weiss and several others are of
opinion that as the words are in ver. 9
applied to the Messiah, whose superiority
has been so insisted upon, an allusion to
His inferiority would be out of place;
‘‘and that the phrase should be used of
degree in one place and time in another,
when the point of the passage lies in the
identity of the Son’s history with that
of man, is an idea only puerile”
(Davidson), But on any rendering the
inferiority of Jesus to angels so far as
dying goes is granted, and there is no
reason why the sense of degree should
not be kept in both clauses. δόξῃ καὶ
τιμῇ frequently conjoined, Rev. xxi. 26;
Σ᾿ ΤΙ, 675 Lbucyd., ἐν: 86, ΕΠ"
Num., 51; Lucian Somn., 13.
Ver. 8. πάντα ὑπέταξας.. . . “ Thou
didst put all things under his feet.” In
the psalm ‘‘all things’? are defined as
“6 all sheep and oxen, yea and the beasts of
the field, the fowl of the air, and the
fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes
through the paths of the sea”’. But to
our author the scope of the ‘‘all” has
7—9. ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
263
? “- a -
Εν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ
ἀνυπότακτον: νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγ-
μένα.
been enlarged by the event. His argu-
ment requires an absolutely universal
subjection, so that everything obstructive
of man’s ‘‘ glory” may be subdued. And
having seen this achieved by Christ, he
is emboldened to give to “all” this
fullest content. The one point he seeks
to make good is that “in subjecting all
things to him, he has left nothing, and
therefore not the οἰκουμένη péd-
λουσα, unsubjected to him”. The
“world to come” is under human do-
minion and administration. The angels
are left behind; there is no room for
angelic government. But this very sov-
ereignty of man is precisely that which
we do not see visibly fulfilled: ‘‘ for the
present (νῦν) we do not yet see all
things subjected to him”. True, says
the author, but we do see Jesus who for
the suffering of death (or that He might
suffer death) has been made a little lower
than angels, crowned with glory and
honour that by God’s grace He might
taste death for every man. In other
words, we see the first two items of man’s
supremacy, as given in the psalm, fulfilled,
and the third guaranteed. Jesus was (1)
made a little lower than angels ; (2) was
crowned with glory and honour; and
(3) by dying for every man has removed
that last obstacle, the fear of death
which kept men in δουλεία and hindered
them from supreme dominion over all
things. The construction of the sentence
is much debated. But it must be ad-
mitted that any construction which makes
the coronation subsequent to the tasting
death for every man, is unnatural; the
ὅπως depends upon ἐστεφανωμένον.
And the difficulty which has been felt in
giving its natural sense to this clause has
been introduced by supposing that δόξῃ
καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφ. refers to the heavenly
state of Jesus. On this understanding it is
of course difficult to see how it could be
said that Jesus was crowned in order to
taste death. But as undoubtedly the
first clause, ἠλαττουμένον βλέπομεν,
refers to the earthly life of Jesus, it is
natural to suppose that the second clause,
which speaks of his being crowned, also
refers to that life. The tenses are the
same. But if so, what was the crowning
here referred to? It was His recognition
9. “τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν g Actsii.s3;
ἸΙησοῦν, διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, me
Phil. ii
8, 9.
as Messiah, as the true Head and King
of men. He was thus recognised by
God at His baptism and at the Trans-
figuration [in connection with which the
same words δόξῃ x. τιμῇ are used, 2 Pet.
i, 16-18] as well as by His disciples at
Caesarea Philippi. It was this crowning
alone which enabled Him to die a
representative death, the King or Head
for His people; it was this which fitted
Him to taste death for every man. He
was made a little lower than the angels
that He might suffer death; but He was
crowned with glory and honour that
this very death might bring all men to
the glory of supremacy which was theirs
when the fear of death was removed;
see v.14, 15. Fora fuller exposition of
this view of the verse, see Expository
Times, April, 1896. χάριτι θεοῦ, “ by
God’s grace,” to men, not directly to
Jesus. It is remarkable that Weiss, an
expert in textual criticism, should adopt
the reading χωρὶς θεοῦ “ apart from God”
finding in these words a reference to the
cry on the cross “‘ My God, My God, etc.”’.
The other meaning put upon the words,
‘‘except God,” needs no comment. The
Nestorians used the reading to prove
that Christ suffered apart from His
Divinity (‘ divinitate tantisper deposita
οὐ συνῆν ἡ θεότης ”’ ) but such a meaning
can hardly be found in the words.
ὑπὲρ wavros, these are the emphatic
words, bringing out the writer’s point
that Christ’s victory and supremacy were
not for Himself alone, but for men.
[Chrysostom strikingly says: οὐχὶ τῶν
πιστῶν μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal τῆς οἰκουμένης
ἁπάσης" αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ πάντων
ἀπέθανεν " τί δὲ, εἰ μὴ πάντες ἐπίστευ-
σαν; αὐτὸς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ πεπλήρωκε.
γεύσηταιθανάτου “he might taste
death,” 4.¢., actually experience death’s
bitterness. The Greek commentators
suppose the word is chosen to bring out
the shortness of our Lord’s experience
of death, μικρὸν ἐν αὐτῷ ποιήσας
διάστημα. This seemsincorrect. [The
rule, sometimes laid down,, that γεύεσθαι
followed by an accusative means to
partake freely, and by a genitive spar-
ingly, cannot be universally applied. The
ordinary distinction observed in the use
of verbs of sense that they take the
264
Βν. 9. et xii. 8 3 tol ὸ , 4
oe ὅπως χάριτι Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ' παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.3
2;
xxiv. 26,
46; Acts
iii. 15, et -
v. 31; Rom. ii. 36; Phil. ii. 8, 9.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
II.
10, ἢ Ἔπρεπε
γὰρ αὐτῷ, 80 ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς
1T.R. is read in almost all the MSS. and versions and adopted by all editors.
But χωρις Θεου is found in M, 67**, Origen.
2 Hic versus multas difficultates interpretationi affert.
Fortasse v. gb (οπως . .
@avarov) corruptus vel interpolatus est’’ (Baljon).
accusative of the nearer, the genitive of
the remoter source of the sensation is
much safer.] The expression γεύεσθαι
θανάτου does not occur in the classics,
although we find yev. μόχθον in Soph.,
Trachin.,1103,where the Scholiast renders
by ἐπειράθην, in Antig., 1005, where Jebb
renders ‘“‘ proceeded to make trial of,” in
Eurip., Hecuba, 375, with κακῶν and in
Plato, Rep.,475 with wavros μαθήματος.
Vv. 10-18. The humiliation of tbe
Son justified; ‘‘a condensed and pregnant
view of the theory of the whole work of
Christ, which subsequent chapters de-
velop, eludicate, and justify dialectically,
in contrast or comparison with the O.T.
. «. The ultimate source of all doubt
whether the new dispensation is superior
to the old is nothing else than want of
clear insight into the work of Christ, and
especially into the significance of His
passion, which, to the Jews, from whom
the Hebrew Christians of our Epistle
were drawn, was the chief stumbling-
block in Christianity. Here, therefore,
the writer has at length got into the
heart of his subject, and, leaving the
contrast between Christ and the angels,
urges the positive doctrine of the identi-
fication of Jesus with those that are
his—his brethren, the Sons of God
whom He sanctifies—as the best key
to that connection between the passion
and glorification of Chr st which forms
the cardinal point of N.T. revelation”
(Robertson Smith). To this it may
only be added that in order to prove
man’s supremacy and justify Psalm
viii., it was essential that the writer
should show that Christ was man, iden-
tified with humanity.
In justification then (justification intro-
duced by yap) of the subjection of Jesus
to the πάθημα θανάτου, the writer pro-
ceeds to say ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ “it befitted
Him”. The expression, says Carpzov,
is ‘‘ frequentissima Philoni phrasis’’;
but in Scripture, at least in this sense, it
stands alone: cf. Jer. x. 7; Ps. Ixv. 1.
Aristotle (Nic. Eth., iv. 2-2: Burnet, p.
173) says that what is befitting is rela-
tive to the person, the circumstances and
the object [τὸ πρέπον δὴ πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ
ἐν ᾧ καὶ περὶ 8}. The object here in
view, the ‘‘ bringing many sons to glory,”
needs no justification. As Tertullian
(adv. Marcion, ii. 27) says: ‘‘nihil tam
dignum Deo, quam salus hominis’. But
that the means used by God to accom-
plish this end was not only fit to bring
it about but was also πρέπον θεῷ, in
other words, that Christ’s humiliation
and death were in accordance with the
Divine nature, is the point the writer
wishes to make good. ‘‘ The whole
course of nature and grace must find its
explanation in God, and not merely in an
abstract Divine arbitrium, but in that
which befits the Divine nature’. This
matter of Christ’s suffering has not been
isolated in God’s government but is of a
piece with all He is and has done; it has
not been handed over to chance, acci-
dent, or malevolent powers, but is part
of the Divine rule and providence; it is
not exceptional, unaccountable, arbitrary,
but has its root and origin in the very
nature of God. God acted freely in the
matter, governed only by His own nature.
‘“ Man has not wholly lost the intuitive
power by which the fitness of the Divine
action, its correspondence to the idea
standard of right which his conscience
certifies and his reason approves, may be
recognised ’’ (Henson, Disc. and Law,
p. 56). “It is worth noting that the
chief value of Anselm’s view of the Atone-
ment lies in the introduction into the-
ology of the idea of what befits God—
the idea, as he puts it, of God’s honour.
Anselm fails, however, by thinking rather
of what God’s honour must receive as
its due than of what it is seemly for
God in His grace to do, and thus his
theory becomes shallow and _ inade-
quate” (Robertson Smith). The writer
does not say ἔπρεπεν θεῷ but ἔπρεπεν
αὐτῷ δι᾽ ὃν τὰ πάντα Kal δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“Him on account of whom are all
things and through whom are all
things,” who is the reason and the
cause of all existence; in whom, there-
to—rr.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
265
δόξαν ἀγαγόντα, τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων i x. το, 14;
τελειῶσαι. 11. 16
fore, everything must find its reason and
justification. ‘ Denn wenn um seinet-
willen das All ist, also Alles seinen
Zwecken dienen muss, und durch ihn
das All ist, also nichts ohne sein Zuthun
zu Stande kommt, so muss man bei
Allem, was geschieht, und somit auch
bei dem Todesleiden fragen, wiefern es
ihm angemessen ist” (Weiss). The
purpose of God is expressed in the
words: πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν
ἀγαγόντα “in bringing many sons
to glory”. The accusative ἄγαγ. (al-
though referring to αὐτῷ) does not re-
quire us to construe it with ἀρχηγὸν.
That is a possible but clumsy construc-
tion. The use of υἱοὺς implies that the
Father is the subject and leads us to ex-
pect that the action of God will be men-
tioned. And this construction, in which
the dative of the subject becomes an ac-
cusative when an infinitive follows, is
not unknown, but is merely a species
of attraction—the infinitive drawing the
noun into the case appropriate. Cf.
Acts xi. 12, xv. 22; Lukei. 74. Examples
from the classics in Matthiae, 535. The
aorist participle has led the Vulgate
to translate ‘* qui multos filios in gloriam
adduxerat,” needlessly, for ‘“‘the aorist
participle is sometimes used adverbially
in reference to an action evidently in a
general way coincident in time with the
action of the verb, yet not identical with
it. The choice of the aorist participle
rather than the present in such cases is
due to the fact that the action is thought
of, not as in progress, but as a simple
event or fact (Burton, M. and T., 149).
πολλοὺς υἱοὺς “many” is not used
with any reference to the population of
the world, or to the proportion of the
saved, but to the one Son already cele-
brated. It was God’s purpose not only
to have one Son in glory, but to bring
many to be partakers with Him. Hence
the difficulty; hence the need of the
suffering of Christ. But it is not merely
πολλοὺς but πολλοὺς υἱοὺς suggesting
the relationship dwelt upon in the suc-
ceeding verses. τὸν ἀρχηγὸν T.
σωτηρίας ... the author [pioneer]
of their salvation indicating that feature
of Christ’s relation to the saved which
determined His experience, ‘“‘ the Captain
of their salvation”. R.V.has “ author”
following Vulg. Chrysostom has ἀρχηγὸν
τουτέστι τὸν αἴτιον, and so Robertson
τε yap ἁγιάζων καὶ ot ἁγιαζόμενοι, ἐξ ἑνὸς πάν- 26.
Acts xvii.
Smith, “it is hardly necessary to put
more meaning into the phrase than is
contained in the parallel expression of
v. 9”. So Bleek, Kiibel and von Soden.
But the word is select, and why select, if
not to bring out precisely this, that in
the present case the cause is also the
leader, ‘‘ that the Son goes before the
saved in the same path”. He is the
strong swimmer who carries the rope
ashore and so not only secures His own
position but makes rescue for all who
will follow. ‘ The ἀρχηγός himself first
takes part in that which he establishes”
(Westcott). One of the chief points in
the Epistle is that the Saviour is also
ἀρχηγός. The word is commonly used
of founders of tribes, rulers and com-
manders, persons who begin anything in
become the source of anything, but or
this Epistle (xii. 2) it has over and
above the sense of “pioneer”. διὰ
παθημάτων τελειῶσαι, ‘to per-
fect through sufferings”. τελειῶσαι is
to make τέλειον, to bring a person or
thing to the appropriate τέλος, to com-
plete, perfect, consummate. In the
Pentateuch it is regularly used to denote
the consecration of the priests. In the
N.T. this consecration is no formal set-
ting apart to office, but a preparation
involving ethical fitness. So that here
the word directly denotes making perfect
as leader of salvation, but indirectly and
by implication making morally perfect.
And this moral perfection, requisite in
one who was to cleanse sinners (note
σωτηρίας) and lead the way to glory,
could only be proved and acquired through
the sufferings involved in living as man,
tempted and with death to face. There-
fore διὰ παθημάτων, “a plurality of
sufferings” not merely as in ver. 9 τὸ
πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου. Cf. ver. 18. The
glory indeed to which this captain of
salvation leads is the glory of triumph
over temptation and all that tends to
terrify and enslave men.
Ver. 11. In the eleventh verse the
writer proceeds to explain wherein con-
sisted the fittingness (τὸ πρέπον) of per-
fecting the ἀρχηγόν through sufferings.
It lies in the fact that He and those He
leads are brothers. In wv. 11-13 it is
shown that this is so, and in the suc-
ceeding verses the writer points out
what is involved in this brotherhood.
ὁ ἁγιάζων and of ἁγιαζόμενοι are to be
266
kPs. xxii, τες " δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς καλεῖν,
22,25; 2
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
IL
12.
Sam.xxii, ἡ λέγων, ““᾿Απαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκ-
LE al κλησίας ὑμνήσω ce”. Καὶ πάλιν, “᾿Εγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾽
taken as present participles, so usually
are, in the timeless substantlve sense.
ἁγιάζειν means (1) to set apart as be-
longing to God, in contradistinction to
κοινός, belonging to every one. So in
Gen. ii. 3, of the seventh day, and in
Exodus of the mountain, the tent, the
altar. It is especially used of persons
set apart to the priesthood or to any
special work (Exod. xxx. 30; Jer. i. 5;
John x. 36). Through the O.T. cere-
monial the whole people were thus
ἡγιασμένοι, set apart to God, admitted
to His worship. Inthis Epistle the word
is used with much of the O.T. idea cleav-
ing to it, and is often rather equivalent to
what we understand by “justify” than
to “sanctify”. Cf. x. 10. It signifies
that which enables men to approach God.
But (2) it is in N.T. more and more felt
that it is only by purification of character
men can be set apart for God, so that this
higher meaning also attaches to the word.
In the present verse ἁγιάζων introduces
the priestly idea, enlarged upon in ver. 17.
ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες “allofone”. There
is much to be said for Calvin’s interpre-
tation ‘‘ of one nature,’ or Cappellus’ “ of
one common mass”’. Certainly Bleek’s
reason for rejecting such renderings—
that ἐξ can only signify origin, is incor-
rect. ‘* Greek often uses the prepositions
of origin (ἐκ, ἀπό) when we prefer those
of position or direction, as in ἐξ ἀπροσ-
Soxyrov, on a sudden, ἐξ ἀφανοῦς, in a
doubt, ἐκ μιᾶς χειρός, with one hand”
(Verrall on Choeph., line 70). In N.T.
ἐκ frequently expresses the party or class
to which one belongs (Jo. iii. 31). And
cf. τ Cor.x. 17. It might be urged from
xi. 12 that this writer had he meant
parentage would have said ἀφ᾽ ἑνός.
Nevertheless the meaning seems to be
“οὗ one father”. The πολλοὺς υἱοὺς
of ver. 10, and the δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν which
follows make for this sense. And the
argument of ver. 14, that because Christ
was brother to men He therefore took
flesh, proves that ἐξ ἑνὸς cannot mean
‘fof one nature’. The fact that He and
they are ἐξ ἑνὸς is the ground of His
incarnation, He was Son and Brother
before appearing on earth. The words
then can only mean that the “ many
sons” who are to be brought to glory
and the ‘“‘Son” who leads them are of
one parentage. The sonship in both
cases looks to the same Father, and
depends on Him and is subject to the
same laws of obedience and development.
But what Father is meant? Not Adam
(Beza, Hofmann, etc.); Weiss argues
strongly for Abraham, appealing to ver.
16 and other considerations; but the
fact that in ver. 14 the incarnation is
treated as a result of the brotherhood,
seems to involve that we must understand
that God is meant ; that before the incar-
nation Christ recognised His brotherhood.
“ On this account,” because His parentage
is the same, ‘“‘ He is not ashamed to call
them brothers’. He might have been
expected to shrink from those who had
so belied their high origin, or at the best
to move among them with the kindiy
superior professionalism of a surgeon
who enters the ward of an hospital solely
to heal, not to live there; but He claims
men as his kin and on this bases His
action (cf. xi. 16).
Ver. 12. In proof that He is not
ashamed to take his place among men
as a brother three passages are adduced
from the O.T. in which this relationship
is implied. These passages are so con-
fidently assumed to be Messianic that
they are quoted as spoken by Christ
Himself, λέγων, The fact that words
of Jesus spoken while He lived on
earth are not quoted can scarcely be
accepted as proof that the Gospels were
not in existence when this Epistle was
written, for even after the middle of the
second century, the O.T. was still the
“Scripture” of the Christian Church.
The first quotation is from the twenty-
second Psalm applied to Himself by
our Lord on the cross. The LXX
διηγήσομαι is altered to ἀπαγγελῶ, The
significant words in the first clause are
τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς pov; and the significance
of the second clause consists in the
representation of the Messiah as taking
part in the worship of God in the con-
gregation. This is one particular form
in which His brotherhood manifests itself.
For the passages cited not merely affirm
the brotherbood, but also exhibit its
reality in the participation by the Messiah
of human conditions.
Ver. 13. The two quotations cited in
the thirteenth verse are from Isa. viii. 17,
18. There they are continuous, here they
are separately introduced, each by the
12—14.
αὐτῷ".
6 Θεός".
ν 1 ~
αἵματος, καὶ
τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τουτ-
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
14. ἢ Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκε σαρκὸς καὶ
267
13. ‘Kat πάλιν, 1800 ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν 1 Esa. viii.
x
18; Joan.
X. 29, et
Xvii. 6, 9,
αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τι, 12.
m Esa. xxv.
8; Ose.
xiii. 14;
oan.
14; 1 Cor. xv. 54,55; Phil.ii.7; 2 a i. 10.
1T.R. in KL, f, vgcle; awar. x. capkos in $}BCDEMP, 17, 37, 47, 137-
usual καὶ πάλιν, because they serve to
bring out two distinct points. In the
first, the Messiah utters his trust in God,
and thereby illustrates His sonship and
brotherhood with man. Like all men
He is dependent on God. As Calvin
says: ‘‘since He depends on the aid of
God His condition has community with
ours”, In the second part, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ not
only calls attention to Himself as closely
associated with the παιδία; but also,
as Weiss thinks, intimates His readiness
to obey, as if “Here am I”. This
obedience He shares with those whom
God has committed to His care, God’s
παιδία and His brothers. Cf. Jo. vi. 37;
39, xvii. II.
Vv. 14-16. This saving brotherhood
involved incarnation and death. For,
as it has ever been the common lot of
the παιδία to live under the conditions
imposed by flesh and blood, subject to
inevitable dissolution and the shrinkings
and weaknesses consequent, He also,
this Son of God, Himself (καὶ αὐτὸς)
shared with them in their identical
nature, thus making Himself liable to
death; His intention being that by
dying He might render harmless him
that used death as a terror, and thus
deliver from slavery those who had
suffered death to rule their life and
lived in perpetual dread. κεκοινώνηκεν
«+» μετέσχεν perf. and aor.; the one
pointing to the common lot which the
παιδία have always shared, αἵματος καὶ
σαρκός, usually (but not always, Eph. vi.
12) inverted and denoting human nature
in its weakness and liability to decay
(Gal. i. 16, etc., and especially 1 Cor.
xv. 50); the other, expressing the one
act of Christ by which He became a
sharer with men in this weak condition.
He partook, but does not now partake.
[Wetstein quotes from Polyaenus that
Chabrias enjoined upon his soldiers when
about to engage in battle to think of the
enemy as ἀνθρώποις αἷμα καὶ σάρκα
ἔχουσιν καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως ἡμῖν
κεκοινωνηκόσι.) This human nature
Christ assumed παραπλησίως, which
Chrysostom interprets, οὐ φαντασίᾳ οὐδὲ
εἰκόνι ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθείᾳφτ. It means not
merely ‘in like manner,” but “in
absolutely the same manner”; as in
Arrian vii. 1, 9, σὺ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὧν,
παραπλήσιος τοῖς ἄλλοις, Herod. iii.
104, σχεδὸν παραπλησίως ‘almost
identical’’; see also Diod. Sic., ν. 45.
τῶν αὐτῶν, i.e., blood and flesh.
The purpose of the incarnation is ex-
pressed in the words ἵνα διὰ τοῦ
θανάτον . .. ἦσαν δουλίας. He took
flesh that He might die, and so destroy
not death but him that had the power
of death, and deliver, etc. The double
object may be considered as one, the
defeat of the devil involving the de-
liverance of those in bondage. The
means He used to accomplish this
object was His dying (διὰ τ. θανάτου).
How the death of Christ had the result
here ascribed to it, we are left to con-
jecture; for nowhere else in the Epistle
is the deliverance of man by Christ’s
death stated in analogous terms. We
must first endeavour to understand the
terms here employed. καταργήσῃ:
‘“‘might render inoperative” (ἄεργον),
“bring to nought”. Sometimes ‘“de-
stroy” or ‘put an end to” as in 1
Cor. xv. 26 ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται
ὁ θάνατος. τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα
τοῦ θανάτου, “him who has the
power of death, that is, the devil,”
τὸν διάβολον (διαβάλλω, 1 set
asunder, put at variance) used by LXX
to render yow in Job i. ii. and Zach. iii.,
it
etc.; Zardv is used in 1 Kings xi. In
N.T. both designations occur frequently.
But the significance for our present pas-
sage lies in the description ‘him who
has the power of death”. ἔχειν τὸ
κράτος is classical, and κράτος with
the genitive denotes the realm within
which or over which the rule is exer-
cised, as Herod., iii. 142, τῆς Σάμον r.
κράτος. In connection with this uni-
versal human experience of death he uses
his malign influence, and the striking
vision of Zech. iii. shows us how he does
268
ΠΡῸΣ EBPAIOYS
Il,
Ὁ Luc.i. 74; ἐστι, τὸν διάβολον, 15. “kat ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου
Rom. viii.
15.
διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας.͵
16. οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγ-
1 δουλιας in ἢ ΟΕ ΗΡ ; δουλειας in ABCD), εἰς., E**KLM.
so. He brings sins to remembrance, he
appears as the accuser of the brethren, as
the counsel for the prosecution. Thus
he creates a fear of death, a fear which
is one of the most marked features of
O.T. experience. Both Schoettgen and
Weber produce rabbinical sayings which
illustrate the power of a legal religion to
produce servility and fear, so that the
natural expression of the Jew was, “In
this life death will not suffer a man to be
glad”. Life, in short, with sin unac-
counted for, and with death viewed as
the punishment of sin to look forward to,
is a δουλεία unworthy of God’s sons.
This indeed is expressly stated in ver. 15.
The δουλεία which contradicts the idea of
sonship and prevents men from entering
upon their destiny of dominion over all
things is occasioned by their fear of
death (φόβῳ, the dative of cause) as that
which implies rejection by God. [Among
the races whose conscience was not edu-
cated by the law, views of death varied
greatly. These will be found in Geddes’
Phaedo, pp. 217, 223; and cf. the open-
ing paragraphs of the third Book of the
Republic, as well as pp. 330 and 486 B.
Aristotle with his usual straightforward
frankness pronounces death φοβερώτατον.
On the other hand, many believed
τεθνάμεναι βέλτιον ἢ βίοτος ; Hegesias
was styled ὁ πεισιθάνατος, and by his
persuasions and otherwise suicide became
popular; and death was πὸ longer
reckoned an everlasting ill, but ‘ portum
potius paratum nobis et perfugium”.
Wholly applicable to the present passage
is Spinoza’s “homo liber de nihilo minus
quam de morte cogitat’”’. Cf. Philo,
Omn. sap. liber, who quotes Eurip.,
τίς ἐστι δοῦλος τοῦ θανεῖν ἄφροντις
év;] This then was the bondage which
characterised the life (διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν)
of those under the old dispensation; the
bondage in which they were held (ἔνοχοι
= évexdpevor, ‘held’ or “ bound,” “‘ sub-
ject to,’? see Thayer, s.v.), and from
which Christ delivered τούτους ὅσοι, not
as if it were a restricted number who
were delivered, but on the contrary to
mark that the deliverance was coexten-
sive with the bondage. ἀπαλλάξῃ, used
especially of freeing from slavery [exx.
from Philo in Carpzov, and cf. Isocrates
οὗτος ἀπήλλαξεν αὐτοὺς τοῦ δέους
τούτου. In the Phaedo frequently of
soul emancipated from the body.] How
the Son wrought this deliverance διὰ
τοῦ θανάτου can now be answered; and
it cannot be better answered than in the
words of Robertson Smith: “ΤῸ break
this sway, Jesus takes upon Himself that
mortal flesh and blood to whose infirmi-
ties the fear of death under the O.T.
attaches. But while He passes through
all the weakness of fleshly life, and,
finally, through death itself, He, unlike
all others, proves Himself not only
exempt from the fear of death, but
victorious over the accuser. To Him,
who in His sinlessness experienced every
weakness of mortality, without diminu-
tion of his unbroken strength of fellow-
ship with God, death is not the dreaded
sign of separation from God’s grace (cf.
ver. 7), but a step in his divinely appointed
career; not something inflicted on Him
against His will, but a means whereby
(διὰ with genitive) He consciously and
designedly accomplishes His vocation as
Saviour. For this victory of Jesus over
the devil, or, which is the same thing,
the fear of death, must be taken, like
every other part of His work, in connec-
tion with the idea of His vocation as
Head and Leader of His people.” In
short, we see now what is meant by
His tasting death ‘‘for every man,” and
how this death guarantees the perfect
dominion and glory depicted in Psalm
viii. All the humiliation and death
are justified by the necessities of the
case, he concludes, ‘For, as I need
scarcely say, it is not angels (presumably
sinless and spiritual beings, πνεύματα,
i. 14) He is taking in hand, but He is
taking in hand Abraham’s seed (the
dying children of a dead father; ‘also
dergleichen sterbliche und durch Todes-
furcht in Knechtschaft befangene Wesen,’
Bleek). δήπου: frequently in classics,
as Plato, Protagoras, 309 C. ov yap
δήπου ἐνέτυχες, “for I may take it for
granted you have not met” (Afol., 21 B).
τί ποτε λέγει ὁ θεός . . . φάσκων ἐμὲ
σοφώτατον εἶναι ; οὐ γὰρ δήπου ψεύδεταί
ye, ‘for, at any rate, as need hardly be
said, he is not saying what is untrue”.
ἐπιλαμβάνεται : “lays hold to help” or
simply “ succours,” with the idea of tak-
ing a person up to see him through, Cf,
15—17.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
269
γέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται. 17.
“ὅθεν ὥφειλε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι, ἵνα ἐλεήμων oiv. 15, et
γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι
Sir.,iv. 11. 4 σοφία .. . ἐπιλαμβάνεται
τῶν ζητούντων αὐτήν, and the Scholiast
on Aesch., Pers., 742, ὅταν σπεύδῃ τις
eis καλὰ ἢ εἰς κακά, ὁ θεὸς αὐτοῦ
ἐπιλαμβάνεται. Castellio was the first
to propose the meaning “ help” in place
of ‘‘assume the nature οὗ, and Beza
having urged the latter rendering as
being that of the Greek fathers, goes
on to say, ‘‘quo magis est execranda
Castellionis audacia qui émwiAap. con-
vertit ‘opitulatur,’ non modo falsa, sed
etiam inepta interpretatione, etc.”. It
has been suggested that θάνατος might
be the nominative which would give quite
a good sense, but as Christ is the subject
both of the foregoing and of the suc-
ceeding clause it is more likely that this
affirmation also is made of Him. It is
certainly remarkable that instead of say-
ing ‘‘ He lays hold of man to help him,”
the writer should give the restricted
σπέρματος “AB. Von Soden, who sup-
poses the Epistle is addressed to Gentiles,
thinks the writer intends to prepare the
way for his introducing the priesthood of
Christ, and to exhibit the claim ot Chris-
tians to the fulfilment of the prophecies
made to Abraham (cf. Robertson Smith),
but this Weiss brands as ‘‘eine leere
Ausflucht”. Perhaps we cannot get
further than Estius (cited by Bleek):
‘* gentium vocationem tota hac epistola
prudenter dissimulat, sive quod illius
mentio Hebraeis parum grata esset, sive
quod instituto suo non necessaria”’. Or,
as Bleek says, “es erklart sich aus dem
Zwecke des Briefes”’.
Ver.17. 8@ev[six times in this Epistle;
not used by Paul, but cf. Acts xxvi. 19]
‘wherefore,’ because He makes the seed
of Abraham the object of His saving
work, ὥφειλεν, “He was under obliga-
tion”. ὀφείλω is “used of a necessity
imposed either by law and duty, or by
reason, or by the times, or by the
nature of the matter under considera-
tion” (Thayer). Here it was the nature
of the case which imposed the obli-
gation κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελ-
dots ὁμοιωθῆναι “to be made like
His brothers in all respects,” and there-
fore, as Chrysostom says, ἐτέχθη,
ἐτράφη, ηὐξήθη, ἔπαθε πάντα ἅπερ
ἐχρῆν, τέλος ἀπέθανη. He must be a
real man, and not merely have the
appearance of one. He must enter into
v.2; Phil.
ii. 7.
the necessary human experiences, look
at things from the human point of view,
take His place in the crowd amidst the
ordinary elements of life. ἵνα introduces
one purpose which this thorough incar-
nation was to serve. It would put Christ
in a position to sympathise with the
tempted and thus incline Him to make
propitiation for the sins of the people.
[τοῦ λαοῦ, also a restricted Jewish desig-
nation.] The High-Priesthood is here
first mentioned, and it is mentioned as
an office with which the readers were
familiar. The writer does not now
enlarge upon the office or work of the
Priest, but merely points to one radical
necessity imposed by priesthood, ‘‘mak-
ing propitiation for the sins of the
people”; and he affirms that in order to
do this (ets τὸ) he must be merciful and
faithful. ἐλεήμων as well as πιστὸς is
naturally construed with adpxtepeds, and
has its root in Exod. xxii. 27, ἐλεήμων
γάρ εἶμι, the priest must represent the
Divine mercy ; he must also be πιστὸς,
primarily to God, as in iii. 2, but thereby
faithful to men and to be trusted by them
in the region in which he exercises his
function, τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, the whole
Godward relations of men. The ex-
pression is directly connected with
ἀρχιερεὺς, by implication with πιστὸς,
and it is found in Exod. xviii. 19, γίνου
σὺ τῷ λαῷ τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν. For neat
analogies cf. Wetstein. εἰς τὸ ἱλάσ-
κεσθαι, “for the purpose of making pro-
pitiation,” εἰς indicating the special
purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming
Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met
with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “ pro-
pitious,’’ “ merciful,”” means “1 render
propitious to myself”. In the classics it
1s followed by the accusative of the person
propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt.
In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice
as the translation of 55. The only
instance in which it is followed by an
accusative of the sin, as here, is Ps,
Ixiv. (Ixv.) 3, Tas ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ
ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present
passage, it only occurs in Luke xviii. 13,
in the passive form ἱλάσθητί po τῷ
ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings v. 18. The
compound form ἐξιλάσκομαι, although
it does not oceur in N.T., is more fre-
quently used in the LXX than the simple
270
piv. 15,16. τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ.
a iv. 14, et
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
II, r8—III. τ,
18. Ῥὲν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρα-
vi. 20, εἰ σθεὶς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι.
viii. 1, et
ἔχουσ:
Rom
III. 1. "ὍΘΕΝ, ἀδελφοὶ
ere
verb, and from its construction some-
thing may be learnt. As in profane
Greek, it is followed by an accusative of
the person propitiated, as in Gen. xxxii.
20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι
τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις
κτλ. ; Zech. vii. 2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν
Κύριον, and viii. 22, τὸ πρόσωπον
Κυρίου, also Matt. i. 9. It is however
also followed by an accusative of the
thing on account of which propitiation
is needed or which requires by some rite
or process to be rendered acceptable to
God, as in Ecclus. iii. 3, iii. 30, v. 6, xx.
28, etc,, where it is followed by ἀδικίαν,
and ἁμαρτίας ; and in Lev. xvi. 16, 20,
33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον,
τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezek. xlv. 20
by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times
in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί,
defining the persons for whom propitia-
tion is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὃ
ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ
τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there
is apparent a transition from the idea of
propitiating God (which still survives in
the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of
exerting some influence on that which
was offensive to God and which must be
removed or cleansed in order to com-
plete entrance into His favour. In the
present passage it is Tas ἁμαρτίας τοῦ
λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full
expression of God’s favour, and upon
those therefore the propitiatory influence
of Christ is to be exerted. In what
manner precisely this is to be accom-
plished is not yet said. “The present
infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed.
The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12
— 14) is here regarded in its continuous
present application to men (cf. c. v. I, 2"
Westcott. (See further on ἱλάσκεσθαι
in Blass, Gram., p. 88; Deissmann’s Neue
Bibelstud., Ὁ. 52; and Westcott’s Epistle
of St. ohn, pp. 83-85.) τοῦ λαοῦ the
historical people of God, Abraham’s
seed; cf. Matt. i. 21; Heb. iv. 9, xiii. 12.
Ver. 18. ἐν ᾧ yap πέπονθεν. . .. He
concludes this part of his argument by
explaining the process by which Christ’s
becoming man has answered the pur-
pose of making Him a merciful and
faithful High Priest. The explanation
is “non ignara mali miseris succurrere
ἅγιοι, κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι,
8, Phil. κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Χρισ-
1
disco”. ἐν ᾧ is by some interpreters
resolved into ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι = whereas ; by
others into ἐν τούτῳ 6 = wherein; the se-
cond construction has certainly the ampler
warrant, see τ Pet. ii. 12; Gal.i. 8; Rom.
xiv. 22; but the former gives the better
sense. It is also contested whether the
words mean, that Christ suffered by
being tempted, or that He was tempted
by His sutferings. Both statements of
course are true; but it is not easy to
determine which is here intended. Are
the temptations the cause of the suffer-
ings, or the sufferings the cause of the
temptations? The A.V. andthe R.V.,
also Westcott and others, prefer the
former; and from the relation of the
participial πειρασθείς to the main verb
πέπονθεν, which naturally indicates the
suffering as the result of the temptation,
this would seem to be the correct in-
terpretation. Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford
and Davidson, however, prefer the other
sense, Alford translating: ‘‘ For He
Himself, having been tempted, in that
which He hath suffered, He is able to
succour them that are (now) tempted”’.
Davidson says: ‘ These sufferings at
every.point crossed the innocent human
instinct to evade them; but being laid
on Him by the will of God and in pur-
suance of His high vocation, they thus
became temptations’’, Dr. Bruce says:
“Christ, having experienced temptation
to be unfaithful to His vocation in con-
nection with the sufferings arising out
of it, is able to succour those who, like
the Hebrew Christians, were tempted
in similar ways to be unfaithful to their
Christian calling”. The interpretation
has much to recommend it, but as it
limits the temptations of Christ to those
which arose out of His sufferings, it
seems scarcely to fall in so thoroughly
with the course of thought, especially
with v. 17. δύναται, cf. iv. 15, ν. 2.
CHAPTER III. 1.-CHaprerR IV. 13.—
Chapters iii. and iv. as far as ver. 13, form
one paragraph. The purpose of the writer
in this passage, asin the whole Epistle, is
to encourage his readers in their allegiance
to Christ and to save them from apostacy
by exhibiting Christ as the final mediator.
This purpose he has in the first two
chapters sought to achieve by compar-
Ππ|..-τ.
ing Christ with those who previously
mediated between God and man,—the
prophets who spoke to the fathers, and
the angels who mediated the law and
were supposed even to regulate nature.
He now proceeds to compare Jesus with
him round whose name gathered all that
revelation and legislation in which the
Jew trusted. Moses was the ideal medi-
ator, faithful in all God’s house. Under-
lying even the priesthood of Aaron was
the word of God to Moses. And yet,
free channel of God’s will as Moses had
been, he was but a servant and in the
nature of things could not so perfectly
sympathise with and interpret the will of
Him whose house and affairs he adminis-
tered as the Son who Himself was lord of
the house.
He therefore bids his readers encourage
themselves by the consideration of His
trustworthiness, His competence to ac-
complish all God’s will with them and
bring them to their appointedrest. But
this suggests to him the memorable break-
down of faith in the wilderness genera-
tion of Israelites. And he forthwith
strengthens his admonition to trust Christ
by adding the warning which was so
legibly written in the fate of those who
left Egypt under the leadership of Moses,
but whose faith failed through the great-
ness of the way. It was not owing to
any incompetence or faithlessness in
Moses that they died in the wilderness
and failed to reach the promised land.
It was ‘‘ because of their unbelief” (iii.
Ig). Moses was faithful in all God’s
house, in everything required for the guid-
ance and government of God’s people and
for the fulfilment of all God’s purpose
with them: but even with the most trust-
worthy leader much depends on the
follower, and entrance to the fulness of
God’s blessing may be barred by the un-
belief of those who have heard the pro-
mise. The promise was not mixed with
faith in them to whom it came. But
what of those who were led in by Joshua ?
Even they did not enter into God’s rest.
That is certain, for long after Joshua’s
time God renewed His promise, saying
“To-day if ye hear His voice, harden
not your hearts”. Entrance into the
land, then, did not exhaust the promise of
God; there remains over and above that
entrance, a rest for the people of God,
for ‘‘ without us,” #.e., without the revela-
tion of Christ the fathers were not perfect,
their best blessings, such as their land,
being but types of better things to come.
Therefore let us give diligence to enter
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
271
into that rest, for the word of God’s pro-
mise is searching; and, by offering us
the best things in fellowship with God,
it discloses our real disposition and affini-
ties.
The passage falls into two parts, the
former (iii. 1-6) exhibiting the trust-
worthiness of Christ, the latter (iii. 7-iv.
13) emphasising the unbelief and doom of
the wilderness generation.
Ver. 1. “O60 ev, “ wherefore,” if through
Jesus God has spoken His final and sav-
ing word (i. 1), thus becoming the Apostle
of God, and if the high priest I speak of
is so sympathetic and faithful that for the
sake of cleansing the people He became
man and suffered, then “ consider, etc.”.
The πιστός of ver. 17 strikes the keynote
of this paragraph. Here for the first
time the writer designates his readers,
and he does so in a form peculiar to him-
self (the reading in 1 Thess. v. 27 being
doubtful) ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι, “ Christian
brethren,” literally “brethren conse-
crated,” separated from the world and
dedicated to God. Bleek quotes from
Primasius: “ Fratres eos vocat tam carne
quam spiritu qui ex eodem genere erant ”.
But there is no reason to assign to
ἀδελφοὶ any other meaning than its
usual N.T. sense of “ fellow-Christians,”
cf. Matt. xxiii. 8. But there is further
significance in the additional κλήσεως
ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι; “ partakers
of a heavenly calling ” (cf. of κεκλημένοι
τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας, ix. 15) sug-
gested by the latent comparison in the
writer’s mind between the Israelites called
to earthly advantages, a land, etc., and his
readers whose hopes were fixed on things
above. ‘In the word ‘ heavenly’ there
is struck for the first time, in words at
least, an antithesis of great importance in
the Epistle, that of this world and heaven,
in other words, that of the merely mate-
rial and transient, and the ideal and
abiding. The things of the world are
material, unreal, transient: those of
heaven are ideal, true, eternal. Heaven
is the world of realities, of things them-
selves (ix. 23) of which the things here
are but ‘copies’” (Davidson). κατα-
νοήσατε, “consider,” “bring your
mind to bear upon,” *‘ observe so as to
see the significance,” as in Luke xii. 24,
κατανοήσατε τοὺς κόρακας, though it is
sometimes, as in Acts xi. 6, xxvii. 39,
used in its classical sense “ perceive”,
A “confession ”’ does not always involve
that its significance is seen. Consider
thentév... Ἰησοῦ ν΄“ the Apostle and
high priest of our confession, Jesus,” the
272
bver.5; τὸν 1 Ἰησοῦν" 2.
Num, xii. ὺ ae Ne ie
7. ἐν ὅλῳ TO οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ.
ς Zach. vi. ἌΣ 5
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
Ili.
Ὁ πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτὸν, ds καὶ Μωσῆς ?
4. " Πλείονος γὰρ δόξης οὗτος ὃ παρὰ Μωσῆν
1 lel
13) Matt. ἠξίωται, καθ᾽ ὅσον πλείονα τιμὴν ἔχει τοῦ οἴκου 6 κατασκευάσας
xvi. 18.
1 Delete Χριστον with SABC*D*MP, 17, 34, 47.
2 Μωσῆς in NABDEM ; Μωυσῆς in CKLP, 17.
3 outros δοξης in RABCDEP; δοξης ovros KLM.
single article brackets the two designa-
tions and Bengel gives their sense: “τὸν
ἀποστ. eum qui Dei causam apud nos
agit. τὸν 4px. qui causam nostram apud
Deum agit”. These two functions em-
brace not the whole of Christ’s work,
but all that He did on earth (cf. i. 1-4).
The frequent use of ἀποστέλλειν by our
Lord to denote the Father’s mission of
the Son authorises the present application
of ἀπόστολος. It is through Him God
has spoken (i. 1). Moses is never called
ἀπόστολος (a word indeed which occurs
only once in LXX) though in Exod. iii.
10 God says ἀποστείλω σε πρὸς Φαραώ.
Schoettgen quotes passages from the
Talmud in which the high priest is termed
the Apostle or messenger of God and of
the Sanhedrim, but this is here irrelevant.
καὶ ἀρχιερέα, a title which, as ap-
plicable to Jesus, the writer explains in
chaps. v.-vill. τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν,
“οὗ our confession,” or, whom we, in
distinction from men of other faiths,
confess; chiefly no doubt in distinction
from the non-Christian Jews. ὁμολογία,
as the etymology shows, means ‘‘of one
speech with,” hence that in which men
agree as their common creed, their con-
fession, see ref. As Peake remarks: “1
this means profession of faith, then ‘the
readers already confess Jesus as high
priest, and this is not a truth taught
them in this Epistle for the first time’.”
[Carpzov quotes from Philo (De Somn.):
ὁ μὲν δὴ μέγας ᾿Αρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας,
but here another sense is intended.]
Ἰησοῦν is added to preclude the possi-
bility of error. ᾿Ιησοῦς occurs in this
Epistle nine times by itself, thrice with
Χριστός.
Ver. 2. The characteristic, or par-
ticular, qualification of Jesus which is to
hold their attention is His trustworthi-
ness or fidelity. πιστὸν ὄντα might
be rendered “as being faithful”. The
fidelity here in view, though indirectly
to men and encouraging them to trust, is
directly to Him who made Him, sc.,
Apostle and High Priest. τῷ ποιή-
σαντι αὐτόν. The objection urged
by Bleek, Liinemann and Alford that
ποιεῖν Can mean ‘appoint’? only when
followed by two accusatives is not valid.
The second accusative may be under-
stood; and in 1 Sam. xii. 6 we find
Κύριος ὁ ποιήσας τὸν Μωυσῆν καὶ τὸν
᾿Ααρών, words which may have been in
the writer’s mind. The Arian transla-
tion, ‘‘to Him that created Him,”’ is out
of place. Appointment to office finds
its correlative in faithfulness, creation
scarcely suggests that idea. The fidelity
of Jesus is illustrated not by incidents
from His life nor by the crowning proof
given in His death, nor is it argued from
the admitted perfections of His character,
but in accordance with the plan of the
Epistle it is merely compared to that of
Moses, and its superiority is implied in
the superiority of the Son to the servant.
He was faithful ‘‘as also Moses in all
His house,” this being the crowning in-
stance of fidelity testified to by God
Himself, ὁ θεράπων pov Μωυσῆς ἐν ὅλῳ
τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός εστι (Num. xii. 7),
where the context throws the emphasis
on ὅλῳ. ‘The ‘house of God’ is the
organised society in which He dwells”
(Westcott), cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15. Weiss
says that the words ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ
“necessarily belong’’ to πιστὸν ὄντα.
This is questionable, because the writer’s
point is that Jesus is faithful not “in”
but ‘‘ over” the house of God (ver. 6).
Ver 3. The reason is now assigned
why Jesus and His fidelity should eclipse
in their consideration that of Moses. The
reason is that ‘‘this man” (otros, ‘the
person who is the subject of our con-
sideration”) ‘‘has been and is deemed
worthy of greater glory (‘amplioris
gloriae,’ Vulg. πλείονος, qualitative as in
xi. 4) than Moses, in proportion as he
that built the house has more honour
than the house.” The genitive follows the
comparative πλείονα. The “ greater
glory” is seen in the more important
place occupied by Him in the fulfilment
of God’s purpose of salvation. This glory
of Jesus is as much greater than that of
Moses, as the cause is greater than the
effect, the builder than the house. [The
principle is stated by Philo (De Plant.,
2—5.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY>
273
αὐτόν - 4. ‘amas γὰρ οἶκος κατασκευάζεται ὕπό twos: ὁ δὲ τὰ πάντα d2 Cor. v.
κατασκευάσας, Θεός.
c. 16. In Wendland’s ed., ii. 147) 6
κτησάμενος TO κτῆμα τοῦ κτήματος
ἀμείνων καὶ τὸ πεποιηκὸς τοῦ γεγονότος,
and by Menander and other comic poets
as quoted by Justin (Afol., i. 20) μείζονα
τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ σκευαζομένου.
Weiss, however, is of opinion that it is
not a general principle that is being
stated, but that τοῦ οἴκου refers directly
to the house of God.] ὃ κατασκευάσας
includes all that belongs to the comple-
tion of a house, from its inception and
plan in the mind of the architect to its
building and furnishing and filling witha
household. Originally the word means
to equip or furnish, κατασκευάζειν τὴν
οἰκίαν τοῖς σκεύεσιν, Diog. L. v. 14.
So συμπόσιον κατασ. Plato, Rep., 363
C. σκεύεσιν ἰδίοις τὴν ναῦν κατεσκεύα-
σα, Demosth., Polyc., 1208. Thence, like
our word “furnish” or ‘“ prepare,” it
took the wider meaning of “‘ making’? or
“building’”’ or “providing”. Thus the
shipbuilder kataox. the ship; the mason
κατασ. the tower. So in Heb. xi. 7
κατεσκεύασε κιβωτόν, cf. τ Peter iii.
20. (Further, see Stephanus and Bleek).
In the present verse it has its most
comprehensive meaning, and includes
the planning, building, and filling of
the house with furniture and with a
household. The household is more
directly in view than the house. The
argument involves that Jesus is iden-
tified with the builder of the house,
while Moses is considered a part of the
house. It is the Son (who in those last
Days has spoken God’s word to men
through the lips of Jesus), who in former
times also fulfilled God’s purpose by
building His house and creating for Him
a people. And lest the readers of the
epistle should object that Moses was as
much the builder of the old as Jesus of
the new, the writer lifts their mind from
the management of the system or Church
to the creation of it.
Ver. 4. πᾶς yap οἶκος . . « θεός.
‘For every house ts built by someone,
but he that built all is God.’ Over and
above the right conduct of the house
there 1s a builder. No house, no religious
system, grows of itself; it has a cause in
the will of one who is greater than it.
There is a “someone” at the root of all
that appears in history. And He who
planned and brought into being wavra,
VOL. IV.
5. "καὶ Μωσῆς μὲν πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ
17; Eph.
e ver. 2;
Deut. xviii. 15, 18.
‘‘ all,” whether old or new, is God. The
present development of this divine house
as well as its past condition and equip-
ment is of God. And Christ, the Son,
naturally and perfectly representing God
or the builder, and by whose agency
God created all things (i. 2) is therefore
worthy of more honour than Moses.
The argument is not so much elliptical
as incomplete, waiting to be supple-
mented by the following verses in which
the relation of Jesus to God and the
relation of Moses to the house are
exhibited. ‘‘It is argued that a house-
hold must be established by a house-
holder; now God established the uni-
verse, and therefore he is the supreme
householder of the universal household
or Church of God, and in that household
Jesus, as His perfect representative, is
entitled to receive glory corresponding”
(Rendall).
Ver. 5. καὶ Motos. . . . Another
reason for expecting to find fidelity in
Jesus and for ascribing to Him greater
lory. Moses was faithful as a servant
tn the house (év), Christ as a Son over
(ἐπὶ) his house. θεράπων denotes a free
servant in an honourable position and is
the word applied to Moses in Num. xii.
7. [‘‘Apud Homerum nomen est non
servile sed ministros significat volun-
tarios, nec raro de viris dicitur nobili
genere natis” (Stephanus). It is especi-
ally used of those who serve the gods.
See Pindar Olymp. iii. 29.] Both the
fidelity and the inferior position of Moses
are indicated in the words which occur
like a refrain in Exodus: “" According to
all that the Lord commanded, so did
he”. Nothing was left to his own
initiative ; he had to be instructed and
commanded; but all that was entrusted
to him, he executed with absolute exact-
ness. The crowning proof of his fidelity
was given in the extraordinary scene
(Exod. xxxvii.), where Moses refused to
be “made a great nation” in room of
Israel. He is said to have been faithful
εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων. The
meaning is, the testimony to his faith-
fulness which God had pronounced was
the guarantee of the trustworthiness of
the report he gave of what the Lord
afterwards spoke tohim. This meaning
seems to be determined by the context
in Numbers xii. ‘* My servant Moses
18
274
f Matt.xxiv. αὐτοῦ,
13; 1 Cor
iii. 16, et δὲ, ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, οὗ
vi. 19; 2
Cor. vi.
16; Eph.
ii. 21,22, κατάσχωμεν.
1 Tim.
iii. 15; 1
Peter ii. 5. g ver. 15, et iv. 7; Ps. xlv. 7.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
ITI,
ὡς θεράπων, εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων - 6. * Χριστὸς
1 οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, ἐάνπερ 2 τὴν
παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν ὃ
7. "Διὸ, καθὼς λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, “Σήμερον
1T.R. in SABC; og in D*M, 6, 67** d, ε, f, Vulg. (quae domus sumus nos).
2T.R. in cACDcE**KL; eav in Q*BDE*MP, 17, d, e, f, Vulg.
5 ΝῊ bracket pexpt τελους βεβαιαν and Weiss rejects the words with Β. AU
the other great uncials insert the words.
. . . is faithful in all my house. I will
speak to him mouth to mouth, apparently
and not in dark speeches.” Grotius
says “αἴ pronuntiaret populo ea quae
Deus ei dicenda quoquo tempore man-
dabat’’. Bleek and Davidson refer the
μαρτύριον to Moses notto God. ‘“ He
was a servant for a testimony,i.e., to bear
testimony of those things which were to
be spoken, #.e., from time to time revealed.
Reference might be made to Barnabas
Vili. 3, εἰς papt. τῶν φυλῶν. The
meaning advocated by Calvin, Delitzsch,
Westcott and others is attractive. They
understand the words as referring to the
things which were to be spoken by Christ,
and that the whole of Moses’ work was
for a testimony of those things. Thus
Westcott translates ‘for a testimony of
the things which should be spoken by
God through the prophets and finally
through Christ”. This gives a fine
range to the words, but the context in
Numbers is decisively against it. The
idea seems to be that Moses being but
a θεράπων needed a testimonial to his
fidelity that the people might trust him ;
and also that he had no initiative but
could only report to the people the words
that God might speak to him. In con-
trast to this position of Moses, Χριστὸς
ὡς vids ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ,
Christ’s fidelity was that of “a Son
over his house’’. It was not the fidelity
which exactly performs what another
commands and faithfully enters into and
fulfils His will. It is the fidelity of one
who himself is possessed by the same
love and conceives the same purposes as
the Father. The interests of the house
and the family are the Son’s interests.
‘We are His house” and in Christ we
see that the interests of God and man, of
the Father and the family areone. [Gro-
tius quotes the jurisconsults: ‘‘ etiam
vivente patre filium.quodam modo do-
minum esse rerum paternarum”.] But
this house so faithfully administered by
Bleek thinks them genuine.
the Son Himself is the body of Christian
people, οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, we are
those on whom this fidelity is spent.
The relative finds its antecedent in
αὐτοῦ. The “ house of God” is, in the
Gospels, the Temple; but in 1 Pet. iv.
17 and x Tim. iii. 15 it has the same
meaning as here, the people or Church
of God. ‘* Whose house are we,” but
with a condition ἐὰν τὴν παρρη-
olav ... κατάσχωμεν, “if we
shall have held fast our confidence and
the glorying of our hope firm to the
end’. For, as throughout the Epistle,
so here, all turns on perseverance. παρ-
ρησία originally ‘frank speech,” hence
the boldness which prompts it. Cf. iv.
16, x. 19, 35; 80. in Paul and John.
καύχημα, not as the form of the word
might indicate, “the object of boast-
ing,” but the disposition asin 1 Cor. v. 6:
ov καλὸν τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν and 2 Cor.
ν. 12: ἀφορμὴν διδόντες ὑμῖν καυχή-
ματος. [cr the interchange of βρῶσις
and βρῶμα in Jo. iv. 32, 34, and Jan-
naris, Hist, Gk. Gram., 1021 and 1155.]
Whether ἐλπίδος belongs to both sub-
stantives is doubtful. The Christian’s
hope of a heavenly inheritance (ver. 1), of
perfected fellowship with God, should be
so sure that it confidently proclaims
itself, and instead of being shamefaced
glories in the future it anticipates. And
this attitude must be maintained μέχρι
τέλους βεβαίαν, until difficulty and trial
are past and hope has become possession.
βεβαίαν In agreement with the remoter
substantive, which might give some
colour to the idea that the expression
was lifted from ver. 14 and inserted here ;
but Bleek shows by several instances
that the construction is legitimate.
CuapTER III. 7—IV. 13. The great
instance in history of the disaster which
attends failure of faith is adduced as a
warning to the faltering Hebrews.
Διὸ, “wherefore,” since it is only by
holding fast our confidence to the end,
%
6—g.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
275
ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, 8. "ph σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας h Exod.
ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασμῷ, κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἐν
τῇ ἐρήμῳ, 9. οὗ ἐπείρασάν με ol πατέρες ὑμῶν, ἐδοκίμασάν pe, καὶ
Xvii. 2;
Num. xx.
13.
1T.R.ygcDcKL al pler, f, vg. ; ev δοκιμασια with S*ABCD*EMP, 17, 73, 137.
that we continue to be the house of
Christ and enjoy His faithful oversight,
cf. ver. 14. Διὸ was probably intended to
be immediately followed by βλέπετε (ver.
12) ‘wherefore take heed,’ but a
quotation is introduced from Ps. xcv.
which powerfully enforces the βλέπετε.
Or it may be that διὸ connects with μὴ
σκληρύνητε, but the judicious bracketing
of the quotation by the A.V. is to be
preferred. The quotation is introduced
by words which lend weight to it, καθὼς
λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, a form of
Citation not found elsewhere in exactly
the same terms, but in x. 15 we find the
similar form μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ Gy. Cf. also ix. 8. Agabus uses it of
his own words (Acts xxi. 11). In 1 Tim.
iv. I we have τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει
cf. Rev. ii.-iii, ‘It is characteristic of
the Epistle that the words of Holy
Scripture are referred to the Divine
Author, not to the human instrument”
(Westcott). The Psalm (95) is ascribed
to David in iv. 7 as in the LXX it is
called αἶνος ὠδῆς τῷ Δαυίδ, although
in the Hebrewit is not soascribed. The
quotation contains vv. 7-11.
Σήμερον, to-day” is in the first
instance, the “to-day’’ present to the
writer of the psalm, and expresses the
thought that God’s offers had not been
wlthdrawn although rejected by those to
whom they had long ago been made.
But Delitzsch adduces passages which
show that σήμερον in this psalm was
understood by the synagogue to refer to
the second great day of redemption.
“The history of redemption knows but
of two great turning points, that of the
first covenant and that of the new”
(Davidson). And what the writer to the
Hebrews fears is that the second
announcement of promise may be dis-
regarded as the first. Force is lent to
his fears by the fact that the forty years
of the Messiah’s waiting from 30-70 A.D.,
when Jerusalem was to be destroyed,
were fast running out. The fate of the
exasperating Israelites in the wilderness
received an ominous significance in
presence of the obduracy of the genera-
tion which had heard the voice of Christ
Himself.
ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσ-
τε, “if ye shall hear His voice” (R.V.,
Vaughan); not “if ye will hearken to
His voice.” The sense is, “If God
should be pleased, after so much in-
attention on our part, to speak again,
see that ye give heed to Him”.
Ver. 8. μὴ σκληρύνητε, the pro-
hibitory subjunctive, v. Burton, p. 162.
“The figure is from the stiffening by
cold or disease, of what ought to be
supple and pliable” (Vaughan). [The
verb occurs first in Hippocrates, cf. Anz.
342.] It is ascribed to τὸν τράχηλον
(Deut. x. 16), τὸν νῶτον (2 Kings xvii.
14), τὴν καρδίαν (Exod. iv. 21), τὸ
πνεῦμα (Deut. 11. 30). Sometimes the
hardening is referred to the man, some-
times it is God who inflicts the hardening
as a punishment. Here the possible
hardening is spoken of as if the human
subject could prevent it. τὰς καρδίας,
the whole inner man. ὡς ἐν T@..
ἐρήμῳ. This stands in the psalm asthe
translation of the Hebrew which might be
rendered: [‘‘ Harden not your hearts]as at
Meribah, as on the day of Massah in the
wilderness,”’ Meribah being representedby
παραπικρασμός and Massah by πειρασ-
pos. The tempting of God by Israel in
the wilderness is recorded in Exod. xvii.
1-7, where the place is called ‘‘ Massah
and Meribah”. This occurred in the
first year of the wanderings. παραπικρασ-
μός is found only in this psalm (although
παραπικραίνειν is frequent) its place
being taken by λοιδόρησις in Exod. xvii.
7 and by ἀντιλογία in Num. xx. 12. It
means ‘‘ embitterment,” ‘‘ exacerbation,”
“exasperation”. κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν
is rendered by the Vulgate ‘‘ secundum
diem,” rightly. Itmeans ‘after the
manner of the day”. Westcott, however,
prefers the temporal sense.
Ver. 9. οὗ ἐπείρασάν pe...
‘‘ where your fathers tempted me,” z.¢., in
the wilderness. Others take οὗ as =
“with which,” attracted into genitive by
πειρασμοῦ. ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ, “in
pntting me to the proof”. καὶ εἶδον
.«. -ἔτη, “and saw my works forty
years,” the wonders of mercy and of
judgment. In the psalm τεσσ. ἔτη are
joined to προσώχθισα, διὸ being omitted.
The same connection is adopted in
ver. 17.
276
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
1Π,
εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη το. διὸ προσώχθισα τῇ
γενεᾷ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ εἶπον, ᾿Αεὶ πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ - αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐκ
i Num. χὶν. ἔγνωσαν τὰς ὁδούς pou’ II.
21; Deut. Y τ af
i, 34.
ὡς ὥμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ pou, Εἰ εἰσελεύ-
σονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν pou.” 12. βλέπετε, ἀδελφοὶ, μή ποτε
ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας, ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ
Θεοῦ ζῶντος - 13. ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν,
Ver. το. διὸ προσώχθισα,
“wherefore I was greatly displeased”’.
In the psalm the Hebrew verb means
“I loathed,” elsewhere in the LXX it
translates verbs meaning “1 am disgusted
with,” “I spue out,” “1 abhor,” cf. Lev.
xxvi. 30, [from ὄχθη a bank, as if from a
river chafing with its banks; or related
to ἄχθος and ἄχθομαι as if “ burdened ”’.]
αὐτοὶ δὲ. ... Theinsertion of αὐτοὶ
δὲ shows that this clause is not under
εἶπον, but is joined with the preceding
προσώχθ. ‘I was highly displeased,—
but yet they did not recognise my ways.”
Ver.11. ὡς ὥμοσα. “As 1 sware,”
t.e., justifying my oath to exclude them
from the land. εἰ εἰσελεύσονται,
the common form of oath with et which
supposes that some such words as “ God
do so to me and more also” have
preceded the “if”. The oath quoted in
Ps. xcv. is recorded in Num. xiv. 21-23.
εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν pov, “into
my rest,” primarily, the rest in Canaan,
but see on chap. iv.
Ver. 12. Βλέπετε ἀδελφοὶ μήπ-
ote. ... “Take heed lest haply ” as in
xii. 25, Col. ii. 8, for the more classical
opare py. It is here followed by a
future indicative as sometimes in classics.
ἔν τινι ὑμῶν, the individualising, as
in ver. 13 indicates the writer’s earnestness,
whether, as Bleek supposes, it means
that the whole Christian community of
the place is to be watchful for the
individual, may be doubted; although
this idea is confirmed by the παρακαλεῖτε
ἑαυτοὺς of ver. 13. What they are to be
on their guard against is the emergence
of καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν
“οὖ ζῶντος, a wicked heart of unbelief
manifesting itself in departing from Him
who is a living God. ἀπιστίας is
the genitive of quality = a bad, unbeliev-
ing heart ; whether the wickedness pro-
ceeds from the unbelief, or the unbelief
from the wickedness, is not determined.
Although, from the next verse it might
be gathered that unbelief-is considered
the result of allowed sin: i.¢., it is when
the heart is hardened through sin, it
becomes unbelieving, so that the psycho-
logical order might be stated thus: sin,
a deceived mind, a hardened heart,
unbelief, apostasy. The main idea in
the writer’s mind is that unbeliefin God’s
renewed offer of salvation is accompanied
by and means apostasy from the living
God. In the O.T. Jehovah is called
‘*the living God” in contrast to lifeless
impotent idols, and the designation is
suggestive of His power to observe,
visit, judge and succour His people. In
this Epistle it occurs, ix. 14, x. 31, xii. 22.
To object that the apostasy of Jews from
Christianity could not be called ‘‘ apostacy
from God” is to mistake. The very
point the writer wishes to make is just
this: Remember that to apostatize from
Christ in whom you have found God, is
to apostatize from God. It is one of the
ominous facts of Christian experience that
any falling away from high attainment
sinks us much deeper than our original
starting point.
Ver. 13. To avoid this, παρακαλεῖ
τε ἑαυτοὺς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην
ἡμέραν, “ Exhort one another daily ”.
ἑαυτούς is equivalent to ἀλλήλους,
see Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 13. ἄχρις
οὗ τὸ Σήμερον καλεῖται, “as long
as that period endures which can be
called ‘to-day’”. ἄχρις denotes a
point up to which something is done;
hence, the term during which something
is done as here. τὸ σήμερον =the
word “to-day”. Bengel says, ‘“‘Dum
Psalmus iste auditur et legitur”; but
this is less likely. The meaning is, So
long as opportunity is given to hear
God’s call. ἵνα py... ἁμαρτίας,
‘lest any of you be rendered rebellious
through sin’s deceit ”; perhaps the mean-
ing would bebetter brought out by trans-
lating “lest any of you be rendered re-
bellious by sin’s deceit”. [On sin’s deceit
cf.‘ Nemo repente pessimus evasit ” ; and
the striking motto to the 35th chap.
of The Fortunes of Nigel.] Sin in heart
or life blinds a man to the significance
and attractiveness of God’s offer.
Ver. 14. μέτοχοι yap.... Inver. 6
the writer had adduced as the reason of
his warning (βλέπετε) that participation
ro—16,
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
277
ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖται, ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνθῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ
τῆς ἁμαρτίας - 14. ἢ μέτοχοι γὰρ γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐάνπερ κὶ Rom. viii
τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν, 15.
17.
ἱἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι, ““ Σήμερον ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκλη- 1 ver. 7.
, AY , ers | ε A - 7)
ρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασμῷ.
16. Τινὲς 1 γὰρ
ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου
1T.R. with LMP, 37; τίνες in agreement with τίσι of vv. 17, 18; and with the
sense. See Bengel in loc.
in the salvation of Christ depended on
continuance in the confident expectation
that their heavenly calling would be
fulfilled; and so impressed is he with
‘the difficulty of thus continuing that he
now returns to the same thought, and
once again assigns the same reason for
his warning: ‘‘ For we are become par-
takers of Christ, if we hold the beginning
of our confidence firm to the end’.
Delitzsch, Rendall, Bruce and others
understand by μέτοχοι, “partners” or
fellows”? of Christ, as if the faithful
were not only the house of Christ (ver. 6)
but shared His joy in the house. It may
be objected that μέτοχοι in this Epistle
(15. 14. πὸ τὸ Vict.) vic 4) Vile 35X11. 8)
is regularly used of participators in
something, not of participators with
someone. In i. 9, however, it is not so
used. The idea of participating with
Christ finds frequent expression in Scrip-
ture. See Matt. xxv. 21; Rev. iii. 21.
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the article may link
this mention of Christ’s name with that
in ver. 6; and, if so, μέτοχοι will naturally
refer to companionship with Christ in
His house. This companionship we
have entered into and continue to enjoy
[yeyévapev] on the same condition as
above (ver. 6) ἐάνπερ τὴν ἀρχὴν...
“1Ὲ at least we maintain the beginning of
our confidence firm to the end”. ὑπο-
στάσεως is used by LXX twenty times
and represents twelve different Hebrew
words [Hatch in Essays in Bibl. Greek
says eighteen times representing fifteen
different words, but cf. Concordance].
In Ruth i. 12, Ps. xxxix. 8, Ezek. xix. 5
it means “ ground of hope” [its primary
meaning being that on which anything is
based], hence it takes the sense, “hope”
or ‘‘confidence”’. Bleek gives examples of
its use in later Greek, Polyb., iv. 50, ot
δὲ Ῥόδιοι θεωροῦντες τὴν τῶν Buflav-
τίων ὑπόστασιν, so vi. 55 οἵ Horatius
guarding the bridge. It also occurs in
the sense of ‘fortitude,’ bearing up
against pain, v. Diod. Sic., De Virt.,
p- 557, and Josephus, Ant., xviii. 1. Con-
fidence the Hebrews already possessed
[ἀρ χὴν]; their test was its mainienance
to the end [réAovs], i.¢., till it was
beyond trial, finally triumphant, in Christ’s
presence.
Ver. 15. ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι. .. «
“ While it is said to-day, etc.” The
construction of these words is debated.
Bleek, Delitzsch, von Soden and others
construe them with what follows, begin-
ning at this point a fresh paragraph.
The meaning would thus be: “ Since it
is said, ‘To-day if ye hear his voice,
harden not, εἴο., who are meant, who
were they who heard and provoked?”
This is inviting but the yap of ver. 16 is
decidedly against it. Davidson con-
nects ἐν τῷ Aey. with what immediately
precedes: ‘“‘‘if we hold fast... unto
the end, while it is said,’ #.¢., not during
the time that it is said, but in the pres-
ence and consciousness of the saying,
Harden not, etc. . . . with this divine
warning always in the ears”. Similarly
Weiss. Westcott connects the words
with ver. 13, making 14 parenthetical.
Either of these constructions is feasible.
It is also possible to let the sentence
stand by itself as introductory to what
follows, taking μὴ oKAnp. as directly
addressed to the Hebrews, not as merely
completing the quotation: ‘‘ While it is
being said To-day if ye hear His voice,
harden not your hearts as in the provoca-
tion”. The λέγεσθαι thus contains only
the clause ending with ἀκούσητε.
Ver. 16. τίνες yap ἀκούσαντες
παρεπίκραναν: ‘“ For who were they
who after hearing provoked?” He pro-
ceeds further to enforce his warning that
confidence begun is not enough, by show-
ing that they who provoked God and fell
in the wilderness had begun a life of
faith and begun it well. For the answer
to his question is ‘‘ Nay did not all who
came out of Egypt with Moses?” They
were not exceptional sinners who fell
away, but all who came out of Egypt,
διὰ Μωσέως.
26; 1 Cor.
x. 5, etc.,
ude v. >
Ὁ Num. xiv. ἀπιστίαν.
30, Deut.
1, 34, 35:
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
III, 17—19. IV. 1
17. ™riot δὲ προσώχθισε τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη ; οὐχὶ
τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ; 18. " τίσι δὲ
᾿ ὥμοσε μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς
ἀπειθήσασι; 19. καὶ βλέπομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν εἰσελθεῖν δι᾽
IV. τ. φοβηθῶμεν οὖν μή ποτε καταλειπομένης 1 ἐπαγ-
γελίας εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν
1T.R. ABCDcKLMP; καταλιπομενης δ᾿ Ὠὅ,
the whole mass of the gloriously rescued
people whose faith had carried them
through between the threatening walls
of water and over whom Miriam sang
her triumphal ode. ἀλλά adds force to
the answer, as if it were said, It is asked
who provoked, as though it were some
only, but was it not all? πάντες, for
it is needless excepting Joshua and Caleb.
Ver. 17. τίσι δὲ προσώχθισε.
... ‘And with whom was He angry
forty years?” taking up the next clause
of the Psalm, v. το. Again the question
is answered by another “ Was it not with
them that sinned?” [ἁμαρτήσασιν :
“This is the only ‘form of the aorist
participle in N.T. In the moods the
form of ἥμαρτον is always used except
Matt. xvill. 15, Luke xvii. 4, ἁμαρτήσῃ:
Rom. vi. 15.” Westcott, cf. Blass, p.
43-] It was not caprice on God's part,
nor inability to carry them to the pro-
mised land. It was because they sinned
[see esp. Num. xxxii. 23] that their ‘“ car-
cases fell in the wilderness”. ὧν τὰ
κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. These
words are taken from Num. xiv. 29, 32,
where God utters the doom of the wilder-
ness generation. κῶλον, alimb or mem-
ber of the body [Esch., Prom., 81; Soph.,
O.C., 19, etc.]; hence a clause of a sen-
tence (and in English, the point which
marks it). Used by the LXX to translate
“AH, cadaver. Setting out from Egypt
with the utmost confidence, they left
their bones in the desert in unnamed and
forgotten graves; not because of their
weakness nor because God had failed
them but because of their sin.
Ver. 18 τίσι δὲ Gove...
‘“‘And to whom swore He that they
should not enter into His rest, but to
them that obeyed not?” The real cause
of their exclusion from the rest prepared
for them was their disobedience. Cf.
especially the scene recorded in Num.
xiv. where Moses declares that as
ἀπειθοῦντες Κυρίῳ they were excluded
from the land. At the root of their dis-
obedience was unbelief.
Ver. 19. They did not believe God
could bring them into the promised land
in the face of powerful oppositicn and so
they would not attempt its conquest when
commanded to go forward. They were
rendered weak by their unbelief. This
is pointed out in the concluding words
kat βλέπομεν . - « where the em-
phasis is on οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν, they
were not able to enter in, the reason
being given in the words δι᾽ ἀπιστίαν.
The application to the Hebrew Christians
was sufficiently obvious. They were in
danger of shrinking from further conflict
and so losing all they had won. They
had begun well but were now being
weakened and prevented from complet-
ing their victory ; and this weakness was
the result of their not trusting God and
their leader.
Between chapters iii. and iv. there is
no break. The unbelief of the wilder-
ness generation is held up as a warning,
and its use in this respect is justified by
the fact that the promise made to them
is still made, and is a “ living’ word
which reveals the inmost purposes of the
heart and is inevitable in its judgment.
Ver. 1. φοβηθῶμεν οὖν, “let us then
fear,” the writer speaks in the name of
the living generation, “lest haply, there
being left behind and still remaining a
promise to enter [ἐπαγγελίας εἰσελθεῖν ;
cf. ὥρα ἀπιέναι, Plato, Afol., p. 42] into
His (i.e., God’s) rest, any of you (not
ἡμῶν) should fancy that he has come too
late for it; δοκῇ ὑστερηκέναι. Of these
words there are three linguistically pos-
sible translations.
1. Should seem to have fallen short.
2. Should be judged to have fallen
short.
3. Should think that he has fallen
short or come too late.
TLe argument of the passage favours
the third reading, for it aims at strength-
ening the belief that the promise does
remain and that the readers are not
born too late to enjoy it. ‘ Gloomy
imaginations of failure were rife among
the Hebrews” (Rendall). These perse-
IV. 2—6.
ὑστερηκέναι.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
279
2. καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι, καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι "
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους, μὴ συγκεκραμένος 1
τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν. 3. " εἰσερχόμεθα 3 γὰρ εἰς τὴν κατά- ΡΒ. xcv.
II.
παυσιν ot πιστεύσαντες, καθὼς εἴρηκεν, “Ὡς ὥμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ pou,
Εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν pou,” καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ
καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων. 4. " Εἴρηκε γάρ που περὶ τῆς υ Gen. 1.4;
ἑβδόμης οὕτω, “Kal κατέπαυσεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπὸ
πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ he
5. καὶ ἐν τούτῳ πάλιν, “Εἰ εἰσελεύσονται
Exod. xx.
II, et
xxxi. 17,
εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν pou’. 6. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀπολείπεταί τινας εἰσελθεῖν
εἰς αὐτὴν, καὶ ot πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέντες οὐκ εἰσῆλθον δι᾽ ἀπείθειαν,
1T.R. 31, 41, 114, d, e, vg.cle [συγκεκερασμενος in δῷ exegetisch allein haltbar
(Weiss)]; συγκεκερασμενους in ABCD*M, Theod. - Mops. ;
DcEKLP.
συγκεκραμενους
2T.R. in $BDEKLMP, d, 6; ειἰσερχωμεθα in AC, 17, 37" f, vg., Primas.
cuted Christians who had expected to
find the fulfilment of all promise in
Christ, found it hard to believe that
‘rest’? was attainable in Him. The
writer proceeds therefore to prove that
this promise is left and is still open.
καὶγάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι. .. . ‘ For
indeed we, even as also they, have had
a gospel preached to us.” We should
have expected an expressed ἡμεῖς, but its
suppression shows us that the writer
wishes to emphasise ednyyeA. To us as
to them ἠέ is a gospel that is preached ;
and the καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι, ‘‘ even as they
also had,” brings out the fact that under
the promise of a land in which to rest,
the Israelites who came out of Egypt
were brought in contact with the re-
deeming grace and favour of God. The
expression reflects significant light on
the inner meaning of all God’s guidance
of Israel’s history. They received this
rich promise laden with God’s intention
to bless them, “ but the word which they
heard did them no good, because in
those who heard, it was not mixed with
faith’. [For συγκεκ. see the Phaedo,
p. 954. The accusative is best attested
(see critical note), but the sense ‘ not
mixed by faith with those who heard,”
i.e., Caleb and Joshua, is most im-
probable.] Belief, then, is everything.
In proof of which our own experience
may be cited: “ For we are entering
into the rest, we who have believed”.
This clause confirms both the state-
ments of the previous verse: ‘we have
the promise as well as they,”’ for we are
entering into the rest [note the emphatic
position of εἰσερχόμεθα]; and “ the
word failed them ξολ κα of their lack of
faith,” for it is our faith [οἱ πιστεύσαντες]
which is carrying us into the rest. This
fact that we are entering in by faith is
in accordance with the utterance quoted
already in iii. 11, καθὼς εἴρηκεν, Ὡς
Gpooa ... “1 sware in my wrath, they
shall not enter into my rest, although
the works were finished from the foun-
dation of the world’’. This quotation
confirms the first clause of the verse.
because it proves two things: first, that
God had a rest, and second, that He
intended that man should rest with Him,
because it was ‘fin His wrath,” justly
excited against the unbelieving (cf. iii.
9, 10), that He sware they should not
enter in. Had it not been God’s original
purpose and desire that men should
enter into His rest, it could not be said
that “in wrath’? He excluded some.
Their failure to secure rest was not due
to the non-existence of any rest, for
God’s works were finished when the
world was founded. This again is con-
firmed by Scripture, εἴρηκεν yap
wov, viz., in Gen. ii. 2 top Ἐχοᾶ. xx, 12,
xxxi. 17), where it is said that after the
six days of creation God rested on the
seventh day from all His works. That
God has a rest is also stated in the
ninety-fifth Psalm, for these words “" they
shall not enter into my rest” prove that
God had a rest. The emphasis in this
second quotation (ver. 5) is on the word
be
Ver. 6. The writer now, in vv. 6-9,
gathers up the argument, and reaches his
conclusion that a Sabbatism remains for
God’s people. The argument briefly is,
God has provided a rest for men and has
promised it tothem. This promise was
280
cil. 7.15; 7.
Ps.xcv.7. Ὁ
οὔτον χρόνον -
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
τν:
“ πάλιν τινὰ ὁρίζει ἡμέραν, “Σήμερον,᾽᾿ ἐν Δαβὶδ λέγων, μετὰ τοσ-
καθὼς etpytat,! “Σήμερον ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοὺ ἀκού-
σητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ",. 8. Εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς
κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας " 9.
ἄρα ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1ο. ὁ γὰρ εἰσ-
ελθὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ τῶν
᾿ προειρηται in NACD*E*P, d, ε, f, vg., Copt., Arm.; εἰρηται in DcE**KL.
not believed by those who formerly heard
it, neither was it exhausted in the bring-
ing in of the people toCanaan. For had
it been so, it could not have been renewed
long after, as it was. It remains, there-
fore, to be now enjoyed. “Since, there-
fore, it remains that some enter into it
and those who formerly heard the good
news of the promise did not enter, owing
to disobedience.” kecckstwarat. there
remains over as not yet fulfilled. In v. 9.
σαββατ. is the nominative, here τινας
εἰσελθεῖν might be considered a nomina-
tive but it is better, with Viteau (256), to
construe it as an impersonal verb fol-
lowed by an infinitive. From the fact
that the offer of the rest had been made,
or the promise given, ‘it remains ” that
some (must) enter in. But a second fact
also forms a premiss in the argument.
viz.: that those to whom the promise
had formerly been made did not enter in;
therefore, over and above and long after
(μετὰ too. χρόνον) the original procla-
mation of this gospel of rest, even in
David's time, again (πάλιν), God ap-
points or specifies a certain day (τινὰ
ὁρίζει ἡμέραν) saying “To-day”. This
proves that the offer is yet open, that the
promise holds good in David’s time.
The words already quoted (καθὼς
προείρηται) from the 95th Psalm prove
this, for they run, “ To-day, if ye hear
His voice,” etc. They prove at any
rate that the gospel of rest was not ex-
hausted by the entrance into Canaan
under Joshua, “ for if Joshua had given
them rest, God would not after this speak
of another day”. The writer takes for
granted that the ‘ To-day” of the Psalm
extends to Christian times, whether be
cause of the life (ver. 12) that is in the
word of promise, or because the refer-
ence in the Psalm is Messianic. ‘‘ This
‘voice’ of Ged which is ‘ heard’ is His
voice speaking to us in His Son (i. 1)
and this ‘To-day’ is ‘the end of these
days’ in which He has spoken to us in
Him, on to the time when He shall come
again (iii. 13). In effect God has been
‘heard’ speaking only twice, to Israel
and to us, and what He has spoken to
both has been the same, —the promise of
entering into His rest. "Israel came short
of it through unbelief; we do enter into
the rest who believe (iv. 3)’ (Davidson).
At all events, the conclusion unhesita-
tingly follows: “ Therefore there remains
a Sabbath-Rest for the people of God”.
apa though often standing first in a sen-
tence in N.T. cannot in classical Greek
occupy that place. Σαββατισμός, though
found here only in Biblical Greek, occurs
in Plutarch (De Superstit, c. 3). The
verb σαββατίζειν occurs in Exod. xvi. 30
and other places. The word is here em-
ployed in preference to κατάπαυσις in
order to identify the rest promised to
God’s people with the rest enjoyed by
God Himself on the Sabbath or Seventh
Day. [So Theophylact, ἑρμηνεύει πῶς
σαββατ. ὠνόμασε τὴν τοιαύτην κατά-
παυσιν" διότι, φησὶ, καταπαύομεν καὶ
ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἡμετέρων,
ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ θεός, καταπαύσας ἀπὸ τῶν
ἔργων τῶν εἰς σύστασιν τοῦ κόσμου,
σάββατον τὴν ἡμέραν ὠνόμασεν.] To
explain and justify the introduction of
this word, the writer adds ὁ yap εἰσελθὼν
ale sas if he said, I call it a Sabbatism,
because it is not an ordinary rest, but
one which finds its ideal and actual ful-
filment in God’s own rest on the Seventh
Day. It is a Sabbatism because in it
God’s people reach a definite stage of
attainment, of satisfactorily accomplished
purpose, as God Himself did when crea-
tion was finished. ὁ yap εἰσελθὼν, who-
ever has entered, not to be restricted to
Jesus, as by Alford, eis τ. κατάπαυσιν
αὐτοῦ, into God’s rest, καὶ αὐτὸς «.T.A.
himself also rested from his (the man’s)
works as God from His.”
The salvation which the writer has
previously referred to as a glorious do-
minion is here spoken of as a Rest. The
significance lies in its being God’s rest
which man is to share. It is the rest
which God has enjoyed since the creation.
From all His creative work God could
? —It.
ἔργων αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁ Θεός.
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν, ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὗπο-
12. “Lav γὰρ ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ
δείγματι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπειθείας.
évepyijs,! καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον, καὶ διϊκνού-
μενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς τεῦ καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
281
II. Σπουδάσωμεν οὖν d Eccl. xii.
1r; Esa.
xix.2; Jer.
Xxiii. 29;
1 Cor. xiv.
24,25; 2
Cor. x. 4,
5; Eph.
vi. 17.
ΤΕ, in S$ACDEHKLP;; evapyns in B.
2 sgABCHLP omit re.
not be said to rest till, after what cannot
but appear to usa million of hazards, man
appeared, a creature in whose history
God Himself could find a worthy history,
whose moral and spiritual needs would
elicit the Divine resources and exercise
what is deepest in God. When man
appears God is satisfied, for here is one
in His own image. But from this bare
statement of the meaning of God’s rest it
is obvious that God’s people must share
it with Him. God’s rest is satisfaction
in man; but this satisfaction can be per-
fected only when man is in perfect har-
mony with Him, His rest is not perfect
till they rest in Him. This highly
spiritual conception of salvation is in-
volved in our Author’s argument. Cf.
the grand passage on God’s Rest in Philo,
De Cherubim, c. xxvi., and also Barnabas
xv., see also Hughes’ The Sabbatical
Rest of God and Man.
Ver. 11. The exhortation follows
naturally, ‘‘ Let us then earnestly strive
to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall
in the same example of disobedience ”.
The example of disobedience was that
given by the wilderness generation and
they are warned not to fall in the same
way. πέσῃ ἐν is commonly construed
“fall into,” but it seems preferable to
render “ fall by” or “in”; πέσῃ being
used absolutely as in Rom. xiv. 4, στήκει
ἢ πίπτει. Vaughan has ‘lest anyone
fall [by placing his foot] in the mark
left by the Exodus generation”. ὑπόδειγ-
pa is condemned by Phrynichus who
Says : οὐδὲ τοῦτο ὀρθῶς λέγεται"
παράδειγμα Adye. “1π Attic ὑποδείκ-
νυμι was never used except in its
natural sense of show by implication ;
but in Herodotus and Xenophorit signi-
fies to mark out, set a pattern.’ Ruther-
ford’s Phryn., p. 62. Cf. viii. 5 of this
Epistle with John xiii, 15 for both mean-
ings. It is used in James v. 10 with
genitive of the thing to be imitated.
In vv. 12 and 13 another reason is
added for dealing sincerely and stren-
uously with God’s promises and especially
with this offer of rest. ζῶν yap ὁ
λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, “for the word of
God is living,” that word of revelation
which from the first verse of the Epistle
has been in the writer’s mind and which
he has in chaps, iii., iv. exhibited as a word
of promise of entrance into God’s rest.
Evidently, therefore, 6 λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is
not, as Origenand other interpreters have
suppo:ed, the Personal Word incarnate
in Christ, but God’s offers and promises.
Not only is the ydp, linking this clause
to the promise of rest, decisive for this
interpretation; but the mention of 6
λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς in ver. 2 and the promin-
ence given in the context to God’s
promise make it impossible to think of
anything else. To enforce the admoni-
tion to believe and obey the word of God,
five epithets are added, which, says
Westcott, ‘‘mark with increasing clear-
ness its power to deal with the individual
soul. There is a passage step by step
from that which is most general to that
which is most personal.” It is, first,
ζῶν, “living” or, as A.V. has it, ‘ quick”.
Cf. τ Pet. i, 23, avayeyevvnpévor.. .
διὰ λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος, and
ver. 24 τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου μένει εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα. The meaning is that the word re-
mains efficacious, valid and operative, as
it was when it came from the will of God.
‘It is living as being instinct with the
life of its source’ (Delitzsch). It is also
évepyis, active, effective, still doing the
work it was intended to do, cf. Isa. 55-11.
τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίσ-
τόμον, “sharper than any two-edged
sword”, top. ὑπὲρ is a more forcible
comparative than the genitive; cf. Luke
xvi. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 13. The positive
τομός is found in Plato Tim. 61 E. and
elsewhere. δίστομος double-mouthed, i.¢.,
double-edged, the sword being considered
as a devouring beast, see 2 Sam, xi. 25,
καταφάγεται ἣ μάχαιρα. A double-edged
sword is not only a more formidable
weapon than a single-edged, offering less
resistance and therefore cutting deeper
(see Judges iii. 16 where Ehud made for
282
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
ΙΝ.
e Ps. xxiii. μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας - 13. " καὶ οὔκ
13, 14,15,
et χχχιν. ἐστι
15, et xc.
8, et
cxxxix,
II, 12;
Ecclus. xv. 19.
himself μάχαιραν δίστομον a span long,
and cf. Eurip., Helena, 983), but it was a
common simile for sharpness as in Prov.
V. 4, ἠκονημένον μάλλον μαχαίρας δισ-
τόμου, whetted more than ἃ two-edged
sword; and Rev. i. 16, ῥομφαία δίστομος
ὀξεῖα. The same comparison is used by
Isaiah (xlix. 2) and by St. Paul (Eph. vi.
17); but especially in Wisdom xviii. 15,
‘*Thine Almighty Word leaped down
from heaven . . . and brought thine un-
feigned commandment as a sharp sword,
This sharpness is illustrated by its action,
διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ
Ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶντε
καὶ μυελῶν, an expression which does
not mean thatthe word divides the soul
from the spirit, the joints from the mar-
row, but that it pierces through all that
isin man to that which lies deepest in
his nature. ‘It is obvious that the
writer does not mean anything very
specific by each term of the enumeration,
which produces its effect by the rhetorical
fullness of the expressions ” (Farrar). For
the expression cf. Eurip., Hippol., 255
πρὸς ἄκρον μυελὸν ψυχῆς. But it is in
the succeeding clause that the significance
of his description appears; the word is
Κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐνν-
οιῶν καρδίας “judging the concep-
tions and ideas of the heart”. The word
of God coming to men in the offer of
good of the highest kind tests their real
desires and inmost intentions. When
fellowship with God is made possible
through His gracious offer, the inmost
heart of man is sifted; and it is infallibly
discovered and determined whether he
truly loves the good and seeks it, or
shrinks from accepting it as his eternal
heritage. The terms in which this is
conveyed find a striking analogy in Philo
(Quis. Rer. Div. Haer., p. 491) where
he speaks of God by His Word ‘ cutting
asunder the constituent parts of all
bodies and objects that seem to be
coherent and united. Which [the word]
being whetted to the keenest possible
edge, never ceases to pierce all sensible
objects, and when it has passed through
them to the things that are called atoms
and indivisible, then again this cutting
instrument begins to divide those. things
which are contemplated by reason into
κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ γυμνὰ καὶ τετρα-
Χηλισμένα τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος.
untold and indescribable portions.” Cf.
p- 506. In addition to this (καὶ), the
inward operation of the word finds its
counterpart in the searching, inevitable
inquisition of God Himself with whom
we have to do. ‘No created thing is
hidden before Him (God) but all things
are naked and exposed to the eyes of
Him with whom we have to do.”
τετραχηλισμένα has created diffi-
culty. τραχηλίζω is a word of the games,
meaning “το bend back the neck” and
so ‘‘to overcome’. In this sense of
overmastering it was in very common
use. In Philo, e.g., men are spoken of as
τετραχηλισμένοι ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. This
meaning, however, gives a poor sense in
our passage where it is followed by τοῖς
ὀφθαλμοῖς. Chrysostom says the word
is derived from the skinning of animals,
and Theophylact, enlarging upon this
interpretation, explains that when the
victims had their throats cut, the skin
was dragged off from the neck downwards
exposing the carcase. No confirmation
of this use of the word is given. Perizon-
ius in a note on A¢lian, Var., Hist., xii.
58, refers to Suetonius, Vitell., 17, where
Vitellius is described as being dragged
into the forum, half-naked, with his hands
tied behind his back, a rope round his
neck and his dress torn; and we are further
told that they dragged back his head by
his hair, and even pricked him under the
chin with the point of a sword as they
are wont to do to criminals, that he
might let his face be seen and not hang
his head. [So, too, Elsner, who refers to
Perizonius and agrees that the word
means resupinata, manifesta, eorum
quasi cervice ac facie reflexa, atque
adeo intuentium oculis exposita, genere
loquendi ab iis petito, quorum capita
reclinantur, ne intuentium oculos fugiant
et lateant; quod hominibus qui ad
supplicium ducebantur, usu olim accid-
ebat.” Cf. ‘‘Sic fatus galeam laeva
tenet, atque reflexa Cervice orantis
capulo tenus applicat ensem. Virgil, Zn.
X. 535.] Certainly this bending back of
the head to expose the face gives an
excellent and relevant sense here. The rea-
son for thus emphasising the penetrating
and inscrutable gaze of God is given in
the description appended in the relative
13--15.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
281
14. “Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν, διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, ἴ iii. 1, et
Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας.
ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ' ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν,
νἱ. 20, εἰ
vii. 26, et
viii. 1, et
ix. I1, 24,
et x. 23.
517
15. Od yap
Esa. liii. 9; Luc. xxii. 28; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. ii. 7; 1 Peter ii. 22; 1 Joan. iii. 5.
1 συμπαθ, in BCDcCEKLP; συνπαθ, in NAB*CD*H.
clause; it is He πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὃ
λόγος, which, so far as the mere words
go, might mean “of whom we speak”
(cf. i. 7 and v. 11), but which obviously
must here be rendered, as in A.V., “ with
whom we have to do,” or “ with whom is
our reckoning,” cf. xiii. 17.
From iv. 14 to x. 15 the writer treats of
the Priesthood of the Son. The first
paragraph extends from iv. 14-v. 10, and
in this it is shown that Jesus has the
qualifications of a priest, a call from God,
and the sympathy which makes inter-
cession hearty and real. The writer’s
purpose is to encourage his readers to
use the intercession of Christ with con-
fidence, notwithstanding their sense of
sinfulness. And he does so by reminding
them that all High priests are appointed
for the very purpose of offering sacrifice
for sin, and that this office has not been
assumed by them at their own instance
but at the call of God. It is because
God desires that sinful men be brought
near to Him that priests hold office. And
those are called to office, who by virtue
of their own experience are prepared to
enter into cordial sympathy with the
sinner and heartily seek to intercede for
him. All this holds true of Christ. He
is Priest in obedience to God’s call.
The office, as He had to fill it, involved
much that was repugnant. With strong
crying and tears He shrank from the
death that was necessary to the fulfil-
ment of His function. But His godly
caution prompted as His ultimate prayer,
that the will of the Father and not His
own might be done, Thus by the things
He suffered He learned obedience, and
being thus perfected became the author
of eternal salvation to all that obey Him,
greeted and proclaimed High Priest for
ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ver. 14. Ἔχοντες οὖν... “ Having
then a great high priest who has passed
through the heavens, Jesus the Son of
God, let us hold fast our confession.”
οὖν resumes the train of thought started
at iii. 1, where the readers were enjoined
to consider the High Priest of their con-
fession. But VE Weiss and Kiibel.
μέγαν is now added, as in x. 21, xiii. 20,
that they may the rather hold fast the
confession they were in danger of letting
go. The μέγαν is explained and justified
by two features of this Priest: (1) He
has passed through the heavens and
entered thus the very presence of God.
For διεληλ. τ. οὐρανούς cannot mean, as
Calvin renders “ qui coelos ingressus
est”. As the Aaronic High Priest passed
through the veil, or, as Grotius and
Carpzov suggest, through the various
fore courts, into the Holiest place, so
this great High Priest had passed through
the heavens and appeared among eternal
realities. So that the very absence of
the High Priest which depressed them,
was itself fitted to strengthen faith.
He was absent, because dealing with the
living God in their behalf. (2) The
second mark of His greatness is indi-
cated in His designation Ἰησοῦν τὸν
υἱὸν τ. Θεοῦ, the human name suggest-
ing perfect understanding and sympathy,
the Divine Sonship acceptance with the
Father and pre-eminent dignity. xpar-
Gpev τ. ὁμολογίας. ‘Our confession”
primarily of this great High Priest, but
by implication, our Christian confession,
fs fie 3;
as 15. Confirmation both of the
encouragement of ver. 14 and of the fact
on which that encouragement is founded
is given in the further idea: οὐ yap
ἔχομεν ... “for we have not a high
priest that cannot be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities, but has been
tempted in all points like us, without
sin”. He repels an idea which might
have found entrance into their minds,
that an absent, heavenly priest might not
be able to sympathise. Συνπαθέω [to
be distinguished from συνπάσχω which
occurs in Rom. viii. 17 and 1 Cor. xii.
26, and means to suffer along with one,
to suffer the same ills as another] means
to feel for, or sympathise with, and
occurs also in x. 34, and is peculiar in
N.T. to this writer but found in Aristotle,
Isocrates and Plutarch, and in the touch-
ing expression of Acts of Paul and
Thekla, 17, ὃς μόνος συνεπάθησεν πλα-
γωμένῳ κόσμῳ. Jesus is able to sym-
pathise with ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν “ our
234
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
IV. 16.
h X19, etc.; πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. τό.
om. Vv.
2, 25;
Eph. ii.
18, et iii. 12.
infirmities,” the weaknesses which under-
mine our resistance to temptation and
make it difficult to hold fast our con-
fession : moral weaknesses, therefore,
though often implicated with physical
weaknesses. Jesus can feel for these
because πεπειρασμένον κατὰ πάντα καθ᾽
ὁμοιότητα, He has been tempted in
all respects aS we are. κατὰ πάντα,
classical, ‘in all respects,” cf. Wetstein
on Acts xvii. 22; and Evagrius, v. 4, of
Christ incarnate, ὁμοιοσπαθῆ κατὰ πάντα
χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, cf. 11. 17. καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα
may either mean “according to the like-
ness of our temptations,” or, “in accord-
ance with His likeness to us”. The
latter is preferable, being most in agree-
ment with ii. 17. So Theophylact,
καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα τὴν ἡμετέραν, τουτέστι
παραπλησίως ἡμῖν, cf. Gen. i. II, 12;
and Philo, De Profug., c. 9, κατὰ τὴν
πρὸς τἄλλα ὁμοιότητα. The writer
wishes to preclude the common fancy
that there was some peculiarity in Jesus
which made His temptation wholly
different from ours, that He was a
mailed champion exposed to toy arrows.
On the contrary, He has felt in His own
consciousness the difficulty of being
righteous in this world; has felt pressing
upon Himself the reasons and induce-
ments that incline men to choose sin
that they may escape suffering and
death ; in every part of His human con-
stitution has known the pain and conflict
with which alone temptation can be
overcome; has been so tempted that
had He sinned, He would have had a
thousandfold better excuse than ever
man had. Even though His divinity
may have ensured His triumph, His
temptation was true and could only be
overcome by means that are open to all.
The one difference between our tempta-
tions and those of Jesus is that His were
χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. Riehm thinks this ex-
pression is not exhausted by declaring
the fact that in Christ’s case temptation
never resulted in sin. It means, he
thinks, further, and rather, that tempta-
tion never in Christ’s case sprang from
any sinful desire in Himself. So also
Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, etc. But if
Theophylact is right in his indication of
the motive of the writer in introducing
the words, then it is Christ’s successful
resistance of temptation which is in the
*qpocepxopela οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα λά-
foreground; ὥστε δύνασθε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν
ταῖς θλίψεσιν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας διαγε-
νέσθαι.
Ver. τ6. προσερχώμεθα οὖν....
“Let us, therefore [1.6., seeing that we
have this sympathetic and victorious
High Priest] with confidence approach
the throne of grace”. προσέρχεσθαι is
used in a semi-technical sense for the
approach of a worshipper to God, as in
LXX frequently. Thus in Lev. xxi. 17
it is said of any blemished son of Aaron
ov προσελεύσεται προσφέρειν τὰ δῶρα
τοῦ Θεοῦ αὐτοῦ, and in the 23rd ver.
ἐγγιεῖ is used as an equivalent, cf. Heb.
vii. 19. The word is found only once in
St. Paul, τ Tim. vi. 3, and there in a
peculiar sense; but in Heb. it occurs
seven times, and generally in its more
technical sense, vii. 25, x. 1, 22, xi. 6.
It had become so much a technical term
of divine worship that it can be used, as
in x. I, 22, without an object. Here, as
in vii. 25, it is followed by a dative τῷ
θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, the seat of supreme
authority which by Christ’s intercession
is now characterised as the source from
which grace is dispensed. Premonitions
Οἱ this are found in O.T.; for although
in Ps. xcvi. (xcvii.) 2 and elsewhere we
find δικαιοσύνη καὶ κρίμα κατόρθωσις
τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, yet in Isa. xvi. 5 we
read διορθωθήσεται μετ᾽ ἐλέους θρόνος.
Philo encourages men to draw near to
God by representing “ the merciful, and
gentle, and compassionate nature of Him
who is invoked, who would always rather
have mercy than punishment” (De Ex-
secy., c. ix). There is also something in
Theophylact’s remark: Avo yap θρόνοι
εἰσὶν, ὁ μὲν νῦν χάριτος, ... ὁ δὲ τῆς
δευτέρας παρουσίας θρόνος οὐ χάριτος
+ + + ἀλλὰ κρίσεως. Similarly Ατίο :
“Modo tempus est donorum: nemo de
se ipso desperet”. They are to ap-
proach peta παρρησίας, for as Philo
says (Quis. Rer. Div. Haer., 4):
φιλοδεσπότοις ἀναγκαιότατον ἡ παρρη-
σία κτῆμα; and inc. 5. παρρησία φιλίας
συγγενές. The purpose of the approach
is expressed in two clauses which Bleek
declares to be “ganz synonym”.
This, however, is scarcely correct. As
is apparent from the next verse, the
‘“‘ obtaining mercy” refers to the pardon
of sins, while the ‘finding grace ’’ im-
plies assistance given. So Primasius,
Wid:
ΠΡῸΣ EBPAIOY=
5
285
βωμεν EXeov,! καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν. V. 1. *wasaii.17, et
vill. 3.
γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος, ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται
τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά Te? καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν:
1T.R. in CbDcEL; εἐλεος NABC*D*KP.
‘‘ The exx. of interchange of -ος masc.
Decl. ii., and -og neut. Decl. iii., have somewhat increased in number [in N.T. Greek]
in comparison with those in the classical language” (Blass, Gram., p. 28, E. Tr.).
2 8wpa τε with NACDcEKLP; τε omitted by BDb, vg., ‘‘ut offerat dona, et sacri-
ficia pro peccatis ”.
quoted by Westcott ‘“‘ut misericordiam
consequamur, id est remissionem pecca-
torum, et gratiam donorum Spiritus
Sancti”. ἔλεος and χάρις are, however,
constantly conjoined (v. Hort on 1 Pet. i.
2). The close connection of χάριν with
βοήθειαν suggests that ἔλεος is the more
general and comprehensive term, and
that χάρις is becoming already more
associated with particular manifestations
of ἔλεος. There may be ἔλεος, where
there isnoxapis. We first obtain mercy
and then find grace. εὑρίσκειν is every-
where in LXX used with χάριν in this
sense, translating NY. εἰς εὔκαι-
ym ἡ
pov βοήθειαν ‘for timely help”; assist-
ance in hours of temptation must be
timely or it is useless. For βοήθεια cf.
ii. 18; and for the whole verse, see
Bishop Wilson’s Maxim: “ The most
dangerous ofall temptations is to believe,
that one can avoid or overcome them by
our own strength, and without asking
the help of God”’.
CHAPTER V.—Ver. 1. Πᾶς yap ἀρχιε-
ρεὺς . - - yap introduces the ground of
the encouraging counsel of iv. 16, and
further confirms iv. 15. [But cf. Beza:
**Itaque yap non tam est causalis quam
inchoativa, ut loquuntur grammatici ” ;
and Westcott: ‘“ the γάρ is explanatory
and not directly argumentative ”.] The
connection is: Come boldly to the throne
of grace; let not sin daunt you, for
every high priest is appointed for the
very purpose of offering sacrifices for sin
(cf. viii. 3). This he must do because he
is appointed by God for this purpose,
and he does it readily and heartily be-
cause his own subjection to weakness
gives him sympathy. πᾶς dpxvep.
“Every high priest,” primarily, every
high priest known to you, or every or-
dinary Levitical high priest. There is no
need to extend the reference, as Peirce
does, to ‘‘ others who were not of that
order”. ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος,
“being taken from among men,’ not,
“ who is taken from etc.,” as if defining
a certain peculiar and exceptional kind
οἱ high priest. It might almost be ren-
dered “since he is taken from among
men’’; for the writer means that all
priesthood proceeds on this foundation,
and it is this circumstance that involves
what is afterwards more fully insisted
upon, that the high priest has sympathy.
For AapB. cf. Num. xxv. 4, viii. 6. On
the present tense, see below. Grotius
renders ‘ segregare, ut quae ex acervo
desumimus ”, Being taken from among
men every high priest is also appointed
not for his own sake or to fulfil his own
purposes, but ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται,
“15. appointed in man’s behalf”; not
with Calvin, ‘‘ordinat ea quae ad Deum
pertinent,” taking καθ. as middle. The
word is in common use in classical
writers. ‘* The customariness [implied
in AapB. and καθ.}] applies not to the
action of the individual member of the
class, but to that of the class asa whole”.
Burton, M. and T., cxxiv. τὰ πρὸς τὸν
θεόν, “in things relating to God”; an
adverbial accusative as in Rom. xv. 17.
See Blass, Gram., p. 94; and cf. Exod.
xviii. 19, γίνου σὺ τῷ λαῷ τὰ πρὸς τὸν
θεόν. In all that relates to God the high
priest must mediate for men ; but he is
appointed especially and primarily, tva
προσφέρῃ ... ἁμαρτιῶν, ‘that he may
offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins”.
Were there no sins there would be no
priest. The fact that we are sinners,
therefore, should not daunt us, or prevent
our using the intercession of the priest.
προσφέρειν, technical term, like our
‘‘offer’”?; not so used in the classics,
δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας, the same combina-
tion is found in viii. 3 and ix. 9 with the
same conjunctions. Δῶρα as well as
θυσίαι include all kinds of sacrifices and
offerings. Thus in Lev. i. passim, cf.
ver. 3: ἐὰν ὁλοκαύτωμα τὸ δῶρον αὐτοῦ.
It is best, therefore, to construe ὑπὲ
ἅμαρτ. with προσφέρειν and not wit
θυσίας ; cf. ver. 3 and x. 12. So Bleek
and Weiss against Grotius and others;
é.g., Westcott, who says: “ The clause
286
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
V.
bii.18,et 2, ἢ μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι kal πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ
iv. 15, et
vii. 28.
C Vii. 27;
αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν - 3. “Kal διὰ ταύτην ὀφείλει, καθὼς
Lev.ix.7, περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ 2 προσφέρειν ὑπὲρ ὃ ἁμαρτιῶν.
d Exod. oe δ
xxviii.; 1 Par. xxiii. 13; 2 Par. xxvi. 16, etc.
4. δ Καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ tis λαμβάνει τὴν τιμὴν, ἀλλὰ ὁ καλούμενος *
1T.R. read by CCDcEKL; δι αὐτὴν by ABC*D*P, 7, 17, 80.
2T.R. with SACDcEKLP; αὐτου with BD*, 219.
3 ymep in CCDcEKL ; περι in $ABC*D*P and in Levit. xvi. 6 and 15.
4 Omit art. with NABC*DEK;; insert art. CbLP.
ὑπὲρ Gp. is to be joined with θυσίας and
not with προσφέρῃ as referring to both
nouns. The two ideas of eucharistic and
expiatory offerings are distinctly marked.”
Ver. 2. μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος : ‘as
one who is able to moderate his feeling”.
The Vulgate is too strong: “ qui con-
dolere possit”; Grotius has: ‘‘ non in-
clementer affici’?; Weizsacker: ‘als
der billig fauhlen kann”; and Peirce:
‘“‘who can reasonably bear with”. As
the etymology shows, it means “to be
moderate in one’s passions”. It was
opposed by Aristotle to the ἀπάθεια of
the Stoics. [Diog. Laert., Arist.: ἔφη
δὲ τὸν σοφὸν μὴ εἶναι μὲν ἀπαθῆ
μετριοπαθῆ δέ: not without feeling, but
feeling in moderation; and Peirce, Tho-
luck, and Weiss conclude that the word
was first formed by the Peripatetics ;
Tholuck expressly ; and Weiss, ‘‘ stammt
aus dem _ philosophischen Sprachge-
brauch”. Cf. the chapter of Philo (Leg.
Allegor., iii., 45; Wendland’s ed., vol. i.
142) in which he puts ἀπάθεια first and
μετριοπάθ. second; and to the numerous
exx. cited by Wetstein and Kypke, add
Nemesius, De Natura Homints, cxix.,
where the word is defined in relation to
grief. Josephus (Ant., xii. 3, 2) remarks
upon the striking self-restraint and mod-
eration (μετριοπαθησάντων) of Vespasian
and Titus towards the Jews notwith-
standing their many conflicts.] If the
priest is cordially to plead with God for
the sinner, he must bridle his natural
disgust at the loathsomeness of sen-
suality, his impatience at the frequently
recurring fall, his hopeless alienation
from the hypocrite and the superficial, his
indignation at any confession he hears
from the penitent. This self-repression
he must exercise τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι καὶ
πλανωμένοις : “the ignorant and err-
ing’. The single article leads Peirce
and others to render as a Hendiadys =
τοῖς ἐξ ἀγνοίας mAav., those who err
through ignorance. ἄγνοια is not fre-
quent in LXX, but in Ezek. xlii. 13, and
also in chaps. xliv. and xlvi., it translates
DWN, but in Lev. v. 18 and in Eccles.
v. 5 it translates maqaw which in Lev.
iv. 2 and elsewhere is rendered by
ἀκουσίως. A comparison too of the
passages in which the word occurs seems
to show that by “sins of ignorance’”’ are
meant both sins committed unawares or
accidentally, and sins into which a man
is betrayed by passion. They are op-
posed to presumptuous sins, sins with
a high hand ἐν χειρὶ ὑπερηφανίας,
7 DA (Num. xv. 30), sins which
constitute a renunciation of God and for
which there is no sacrifice, cf. x. 26.
ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθ-
ένειαν : “since he himself also is com-
passed with infirmity,” giving the reason
or ground of μετριοπ. δυνάμενος. περί-
κειμαι, ‘I lie round,” as in Mk. ix. 42,
Luke xvii. 2 with περί and in Heb. xii. 1
with dative. In Acts xxviii. 20, τὴν
ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι, it is used pas-
sively as here, followed by an accusative
according to the rule that verbs which in
the active govern a dative of the person
with an accusative of the thing, retain the
latter in the passive. See Winer, p. 287,
and Rutherford’s Babrius. The priests,
living for the greater part of the year in
their own homes, were known to have
their weaknesses like other men, and
even the high priests were not exempt
from the common passions. Their gor-
geous robes alone separated them from
sinners, but like a garment infirmity clung
around them. ‘‘ How the very sanctity
of his office would force on the attention
of one who was not a mere puppet priest
the contrast between his official and his
personal character, as a subject of solemn
teflection”’ (Bruce).
Ver. 3. καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ... ἀμαρτιῶν
‘‘and because of it is bound as for the
people, so also for himself to offer for
sins”. Vaughan recommends the dele
2—6.
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καθάπερ: καὶ ὁ 2
5
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY>
287
᾿Ααρών. 5. " οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς “ "δ᾽ sa
οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασε γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν,
“γΐός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε ᾿᾿-
ἑτέρῳ λέγει, ““ Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ ”.
Joan. viii.
t ‘ i 54; Acts
6. ᾿ καθὼς καὶ ἐν xiii. 33.
ἔν}. 17:
Ps. cx.
1 καθαπερ in SCCbDDcEKLP; καθωσπερ in ὁ ΑΒ", 17.
3 Delete o with ABCD, etc., and in conformity with this writer’s usage.
tion of the stop at the end of ver. 2. The
law which enjoined that the high priest
should on the Day of Atonement sacri-
fice for himself and his house (ἐξιλάσεται
περὶ αὐτοῦ Kal τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ) before
he sacrificed περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, is given in
Lev. xvi. 6, 15.
Ver 4. καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαμβάνει τὴν
τιμήν “And no one taketh to himself
this honourable office.” καί introduces
a second qualification of the priest,
implied in καθίσταται of ver. 1, but now
emphasised. An additional reason for
trusting in the priest is that he has not
assumed the office to gratify his own
ambition but to serve God’s purpose of
restoring men to His fellowship. All
genuine priesthood is the carrying out of
God’s will. The priest must above all
else be obedient, in sympathy with God
as well as in sympathy with man. God’s
appointment also secures that the suitable
qualifications will be found in the priest.
The office is here called τιμή, best
translated by the German ‘“‘ Ehrenamt”
or ‘‘ Ehrenstelle .” For τιμή meaning an
office see Eurip., Helena, 15 ; Herodot., ii.
65, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδέκεται τὴν
τιμήν ; and especially Aristotle, Pol., iii.
IO, τιμὰς yap λέγομεν εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς.
Cf. Hor. i. 1, 8 “" tergeminis honoribus ”.
Frequently in Josephus τιμή is used of
the high priesthood, see Antiq., xii. 2-5,
iv. I, etc. ; and the same writer should be
consulted for the historical illustration of
this verse (Antiq., iii. 8-1). In this
remarkable passage he represents Moses
as saying ἔγωγε . - - ἐμαυτὸν ἂν τῆς
τιμῆς ἄξιον ἔκρινα . .- . νῦν δ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁ
Θεὸς ᾿Ααρῶνα τῆς τιμῆς ταύτης ἄξιον
ἔκρινε. The nolo episcopari implied in
the words is amply illustrated in the case
of Augustine, of John Knox, and especi-
ally of Anselm who declared he would
rather have been cast on a stack of
blazing faggots than set on the archie-
piscopal throne, and continued to head
his letters ‘‘ Brother Anselm monk of
Bec by choice, Archbishop of Canterbury
by violence”. On the other hand, see
the account of the appointment by his
own act (αὐτόχειρ) of the priest king in
Aricia, in Strabo v. 3-12 and elsewhere.
ἀλλὰ καλούμενος . . . καθώσπερ καὶ
᾿Ααρών. ‘but when called by God as in
point of fact even Aaron was”. If the
article is retained before kad. we must
translate “ but he thatis called,” καλούμε-
γος ‘in diesem amtlichen Sinne nur hier,”
says Weiss, but see Matt. iv. 21, Gal. i. 15.
For Aaron’s call, see Exod. xxviii. 1 ff.
Schottgen and Wetstein appositely quote
from the Bammidbar Rabbi “* Moses said
‘to Korah and his associates :—If my
brother Aaron took to himself the priest-
hood, then ye did well to rebel against
him; but in truth God gave it to him,
whose is the greatness and the power and
the glory. Whosoever, then, rises against
Aaron, does he not rise against God?”
It is notorious that the contemporary
priesthood did not fulfil the description
here given.
Ver. 5. οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς. . . . “50
even the Christ glorified not himself to
be made a high priest.” [So hat auch
der Christus nicht sich selbst die
Herrlichkeit des Hohenpriestertums
zugeeignet,’’ Weizsiacker.] The desig-
nation, “the Christ,” is introduced,
because it might not have seemed so
significant a statement if made of
‘“‘ Jesus”. It was not personal ambition
that moved Christ. He did not come in
His own name, nor did He seek to
glorify Himself. See John viii. 54; v.
31, 43; xvii. 5, and passim. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ
λαλήσας . . - Μελχισεδέκ. “but He
[glorified Him to be made a priest]
who said, Thou art My Son, I this
day have begotten Thee; as also in
another place He says, Thou art a priest
for ever after the order Melchizedek”’.
The question here is: Why does the
writer introduce the quotation from the
2nd Psalm at all? Why does he not
directly prove his point by the quotation
from the Messianic rroth Psalm? Does
he mean that He who said, Thou art my
Son, glorified Christ as priest in saying
this? Apparently he does, otherwise the
καὶ in καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ would be un-
warranted. By introducing the former
of the two quotations and designating
288
g Matt.
xxvi. 38,
etc., et
xxvii. 46,
50; Marc,
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
Vv.
7. "Ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, δεήσεις Te καὶ ἱκετηρίας
πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου, μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς
Xiv. 33, 36, et xv. 34, 37; Luc. xxii. 42, εἰ xxiii. 46; Joan. xii. 27, et xvii. 1.
God as He that called Christ Son, or
nominated him to the Messianic dignity,
which involved the priesthood, he shows
that the greater and more comprehensive
office of Messiahship was not assumed
by Christ at His own instance and
therefore that the priesthood included in
this was not of His own seeking, but of
God’s ordaining; cf. Weiss. Bleek says
the reference to Psalm ii. is made to
lessen the marvel that God should glorify
Christ as priest. Similarly Riehm ‘‘ dass
Christus in einem so unvergleichlich
innigen Verhaltnisse zu Gott steht, dass
seine Berufung zum Hohepriesteramt
nicht befreundlich sein kann;” and
Davidson, ‘‘It is by no means meant
that the priesthood of Christ was
involved in His Sonship (Alford), an a
priori method of conception wholly
foreign to the Epistle, but merely that
it was suitable in one who was Son,
being indeed possible to none other (see
oni. 3).” Bruce thinks the writer wishes to
teach that Christ’s priesthood is coeval
with His Sonship and inherent in it.
κατὰ τὴν τάξιν “after the order; ”
among its other meanings τάξις denotes
a class or rank, “ordo qua _ dicitur
quispiam senatorii ordinis, vel equestris
ordinis’’. Thus in Demosthenes, οἰκέτου
τάξιν οὐκ ἐλευθέρου παιδὸς ἔχων, in
Diod. Sic., iii. 6, ot περὶ τὰς τῶν θεῶν
θεραπείας διατρίβοντες ἱερεῖς, μεγίστην
καὶ κυριωτάτην τάξιν ἔχοντες. In the
subsequent exposition of the Melch.
priesthood it is chiefly on eis τὸν αἰῶνα
that emphasis is laid.
Ver 7. ὃς . . - ἔμαθεν . - - καὶ ἐγένετο.
In these verses the writer shows how
much there was in the call to the
priesthood repugnant to flesh and blood;
how it was through painful obedience,
not by arrogant ambition he became
Priest. The main statement is, He
learned obedience and became perfect
as Saviour. ὃς ἐν τ. ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς
αὐτοῦ ‘who in the days of His flesh,”
and when therefore He was like His
brethren in capacity for temptation and
suffering; cf. ii. 14. δεήσεις . . -
προσενέγκας “having offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying
and tears unto him that was able to
save him from death”. προσενέγκας
has sometimes be,» supposed to refer
to the προσφέρειν of ver. 3, and to havea
sacrificial sense. It was such an offering
as became His innocent ἀσθένεια. As
the ordinary high priest prepared himself
for offering for the people by offering
for himself, so, it is thought, Christ was
prepared for the strictly sacrificial or
priestly work by the feeling of His own
weakness. There is truth in this. Weiss’
reason for excluding this reference is
“dass ein Opfern mit starkem Geschrei
und Thranen eine unvollziehbare Vor-
stellung ist”’, Cf. Davidson, p. 113, note.
προσῷφ. is used with δέησιν in later
Greek writers: instances in Bleek,
δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας, these words
are elsewhere combined as in Isocrates,
De: Pace, 46... -Polybius,1ii; 112,85: cf:
Job. xl. 22. The relation of the two
words is well brought out in a passage
from Philo quoted by Carpzov: γραφὴ
μηνύσει pov τὴν δέησιν ἣν ave
ἱκετηρίας προτείνω. Cf. Eurip., Iph.
Aul., 1216. ἱκετηρία [from ἵκω I come,
ἱκέτης one who comes as a suppliant]
is originally an adjective = fit for sup-
pliants, then an olive branch [sc. éAata,
or ῥάβδος] bound with wool which the
suppliant carried as a symbol of his
prayer. The conjunction of words in
this verse is for emphasis. These suppli-
cations were accompanied peta κραυγῆς
ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων “ with strong crying
and tears,” expressing the intensity of
the prayers and so the keenness of the
suffering. The ‘strong crying ”’ is strik-
ing. Schdttgen quotes: ‘There are
three kinds of prayers, each loftier than
the preceding: prayer, crying, and tears.
Prayer is silent, crying with raised voice,
tears overcome all things.” Itis to the
scene in Gethsemane reference is made,
and although “tears ’’ are not mentioned
by the evangelists in relating that scene,
they are implied, and this writer might
naturally thus represent the emotion of
our Lord. The prayer was addressed
πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ
θανάτου ‘to Him that was able to save
Him from death,” which implies that the
prayer was that Christ might be saved
from death [‘‘ Father if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me”’] but also suggests
that the prayer was not formally answered
—else why emphasise that God had power
to answer it? σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου. The
7—9.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
289
καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας, καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, 8. h Phil. ii.6,
h
prayer recorded in Mark xiv. 36, and the
anticipation of Gethsemane alluded to
in John xii. 57 [Πάτερ σῶσόν pe ἐκ τῆς
Spas ταύτης] are sufficient to show
that itis deliverance from dying that is
meant. Milligan, however, says: ‘Christ
is thus represented as praying not that
death may be averted, but that He may
be saved ‘out of it,’ when it comes.”
Westcott thinks the word covers both
ideas and that in the first sense the
prayer was not granted, that it might be
granted in the second. It is preferable
to abide by the simple statement that
the passion of Christ’s prayer to escape
death was intensified by the fact that He
knew God could deliver Him by twelve
legions of angels or otherwise. His
absolute faith in the Father’s almighty
power and infinite resource was the very
soul of his trial. καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ
τῆς εὐλαβείας ‘‘and having been heard
on account of His godly reverence”.
εὐλάβεια [from εὖ λαβεῖν to take good
hold, or careful hold] denotes the cautious
regard which a wise man pays to all the
circumstances ofan action. Thus Fabius
Cunctator was termed εὐλαβὴς. And in
regard to God εὐλάβεια means that re-
verent submission to His will which cau-
tion or prudence dictates. [See Prov.
xxvili. 14 and the definitions by Philo.
Quis. Rer. Div. Haer., 6.] That ἀπό fol-
lowing εἰσακουσθεὶς means in Biblical
Greek ‘‘on account of” we have proof
in Job xxxv. 12 and Luke xix. 3, as
well as from the frequent use of ἀπό in
N.T. to denote cause, John xxi. 6; Acts
xii. 14, etc. In classical Greek also ἀπό
is used for propter, see Aristoph., Knights,
1. 767 ὡς ἀπὸ μικρῶν εὔνους αὐτῷ θωπ-
ευματίων γεγένησαι. See also the Birds,
1. 150. The cautious reverence, or reverent
caution—the fear lest He should oppose
God or seem to overpersuade Him—
which was heard and answered was
expressed in the second petition of the
prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will
but thine be done”. And ἀπό is used
in preference to διά, apparently because
the source of the particular petition is
meant to be indicated, that we may
understand that the truest answer to this
reverent submission was to give Him the
cup to drink and thus to accomplish
through Him the faultless will of God.
To have removed the cup and saved Him
from death would not have answered
the εὐλάβεια of the prayer. The meaning
VOL. IV.
etc.
καίπερ ὧν υἱὸς, ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθε τὴν ὑπακοὴν, 9. ᾿ καὶ τελειω- ; ii. το.
of the clause is further determined by
what follows.
Ver. 8. καίπερ ὧν vids ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽
ὧν ἔπαθε τὴν ὑπακοήν [having been
heard . . .] although He was a son He
learned obedience from the things He
suffered. The result of his being heard
was therefore that he suffered, but in
the suffering He learned obedience,
perfect unison with the will of God for
the salvation of men so that He became
aperfected Priest. He learned obedience
καίπερ ὧν vids: “ this is stated to obviate
the very idea of assumption on his part”
(Davidson). Perhaps, therefore, we should
translate, with a reference to ver. 5,
‘‘although He was Son”. Although Son
and therefore possessed of Divine love
and in sympathy with the Divine
purpose, He had yet to learn that
perfect submission which is only acquired
by obeying in painful, terrifying cir-
cumstances. He made deeper and deeper
experience of what obedience is and
costs. And the particular obedience
[τὴν twax.] which was required of Him
in the days of His flesh was that which
at once gave Him perfect entrance into
the Divine love and human need. It is
when the child is told to do something
which pains him, and which he shrinks
from, that he learns obedience, learns to
submit to another will. And the things
which Christ suffered in obeying God’s
will taught Him perfect submission and
at the same time perfect devotedness to
man. On this obedience, see Robertson
Smith in Expositor for 1881, p. 424.
καίπερ is often joined with the participle
to emphasise its concessive use [see
Burton, 437], as in Diod, Sic., iii. 17,
οὗτος ὁ βίος καίπερ Sv παράδοξος.
ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθε, a common form of
attraction and also a common proverbial
saying, of which Wetstein gives a
number of instances; Herodot. i. 207;
ZEsch., Agam., 177, πάθει μάθος, De-
mosth., 1232 τοὺς pera τὸ παθεῖν pav-
θάνοντας. Carpzov also quotes several
from Philo, as from the De Somn., 6
παθὼν ἀκριβῶς ἔμαθεν, and De Profug.,
25. ἔμαθον μὲν ὃ ἔπαθον. see also Blass,
Gram., p. 299 E. Tr.
Ver. 9. καὶ τελειωθεὶς . .. αἰωνίου
‘‘and having [thus] been perfected
became to all who obey Him the source
{originator] of eternal salvation”. τελει-
ωθείς (v. ii. 10) having been perfectly
equipped with every qualification for the
19
290
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
Vv.
Geis ἐγένετο τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ πᾶσιν αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου.
10. προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελ-
χισεδέκ.
II. Περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὃ λόγος καὶ δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, ἐπεὶ
priestly office by the discipline already
described. Several interpreters (Theo-
doret, Bleek, Westcott) include in the
word the exaltation of Christ, but
illegitimately. The word must be in-
terpreted by its connection with ἔμαθεν
ὑπακοήν ; and here it means the com-
pletion of Christ’s moral discipline,
which ended in His death. He thus
became αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου author,
or cause of eternal salvation, in fulfilment
of the cali to an eternal priesthood, ver. 6
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and ver. το. αἴτιος fre-
quently used in a similar sense from
Homer downwards, as in Diod. Sic., iv. 82,
αἴτιος ἐγένετο τῆς σωτηρίας. Aristoph.,
Clouds, 85, οὗτος γὰρ ὁ θεὸς αἴτιός μοι τῶν
κακῶν. Philo, De Αργὶ., 22, πᾶσι τοῖς
ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ with a reference
to τὴν tak. of ver. 8. The saved must
pass through an experience similar to the
Saviour’s. Theirsalvation is in learning to
obey. Thus they are harmonised to the
one supreme and perfect will. This is
reversely given inii. ro.
Ver. 10. προσαγορευθεὶς . . . Med-
χισεδέκ “styled by God High Priest
after the order of Melchizedek”’. ““προσ-
ἀγορεύειν expresses the formal and
solemn ascription of the title to Him
to whom it belongs (‘addressed as,’
‘styled’)’’ (Westcott). ‘‘ When the Son
ascended and appeared in the sanctuary
on High, God saluted Him or addressed
Him as an High Priest after the order of
Melchizedek, and, of course, in virtue of
such an address constituted Him such
an High Priest” (Davidson). Originally
called to the priesthood by the words of
Ps. cx., He is now by His resurrection
and ascension declared to be perfectly
consecrated and so installed as High
Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
It may be doubted, however, whether
the full meaning of προσαγορεύειν “ad-
dress’’ should here be found. The com-
moner meaning in writers of the time is
“named” or “called”. Thus in Plutarch’s
Pericles, iv. 4, Anaxagoras, ὃν Νοῦν προσ-
nySpevov, xxvii. 2, λευκὴν ἡμέραν
ἐκείνην προσαγ., xxiv. 6, of Aspasia,
Ηρα προσαγορεύεται. and viii. 2 of
Pericles himself, Ὀλύμπιον . . . προσ-
αγορευθῆναι. So in Diod. Sic., i. 51,
of the Egyptians, τάφους ἀϊδίους οἴκους
προσαγορεύουσιν. It cannot be certainly
Ἂ
concluded either from the tense or the
context that this “naming” is to be
assigned to the date of the ascension
and not to the original appointment.
The emphasis is on the words ὑπὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ, not by man but by God has Christ
been named High Priest; and on κατὰ
. » » Μελχ. as warranting αἰωνίου.
The passage v. 11 to vi. 20 is a di-
gression occasioned by the writer’s re-
flection that his argument from the
priesthood of Melchizedek may be too
difficult for his hearers. In order to
stimulate attention he chides and warns
them, pointing out the danger of back-
wardness. He justifies, however, his
delivery of difficult doctrine notwith-
standing their sluggishness, and this on
two grounds: (1) because to lay again
the foundations after men have once
known them is useless (vi. 1-8); and (2)
because he cannot but believe that his
readers are after all in scarcely so despe-
rate a condition. They need to have
their hope ‘renewed. This hope they
have every reason to cherish, seeing that
their fathers have already entered into
the enjoyment of it, that God who can-
not lie has sworn to the fulfilment of the
promises, and that Jesus has entered the
heavenly world as their forerunner. Ver.
11-14. Complaint of their sluggishness
of mind.
Ver. 11. περὶ ot. “ Of whom,” not,
as Grotius (cf. Delitzsch and von Soden)
“De qua,” of which priesthood. It is
simplest to refer the relative to the last
word Μελχισεδέκ; possible to refer it
to ἀρχιερεὺς . .. MeAx. The former
seems justified by the manner in which
c. vii. resumes οὗτος yap ὁ Medx. No
doubt the reference is not barely to Mel-
chizedek, but to Melchizedek as type of
Christ’s priesthood. Concerning Mel-
chisedek he has much to say πολὺς ἡμῖν
ὁ λόγος, not exactly equivalent to ἡμῶν
ὁ λόγος, but rather signifying “the ex-
position which it is incumbent on us to
undertake”. [Cf. Antigone, 748, ὃ γοῦν
λόγος σοι πᾶς ὑπὲρ κείνης ὅδε. The
exposition is necessarily of some extent
(c. vii.), although of his whole letter he
finds it possible to say (xiii. 22) διὰ
βραχέων ἐπέστειλα. It is also δυσερμη-
veuvtos ‘difficult to explain,” ‘hard to
render intelligible,” ‘‘ininterpretabilis ”
1I0—Iz.
νωθροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς.
καλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον, πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς, τίνα 1
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
291
12. " καὶ γὰρ ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσ- k 1 Cor. iii.
1,2,3}:}}ἃᾧἷ
Peter ii.2.
τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ - Kal γεγόνατε χρείαν
1 τίνα as in Syr., vg., “quae sint elementa”.
So Origen, Jerome, Augustine,
Cyril. τινὰ Lachmann, WH, Baljon; after CEcumenius and as giving better sense.
‘* Theory is the guide of practice, practice the life of theory’? (Roberts, Clavis
Bibliorum).
(Vulg.) ; used of dreams in Artemidorus,
τοῖς πολλοῖς δυσερμήνευτοι (Wetstein),
This difficulty, however, arises not wholly
from the nature of the subject, but rather
from the unpreparedness of the readers,
ἔπεὶ νωθροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς “see-
ing that you are become dull of hear-
ing’. νωθρός = νωθής [see Prom, Vinct.,
62] slow, sluggish; used by Dionysius
Hal., to denote λίθου φύσιν ἀναίσθητον,
ἀκίνητον. But Plato was said to be
νωθρός in comparison with Aristotle.
Babrius uses the word of the numbed
limbs of the sick lion and of the
‘‘stupid”’ hopes of the wolf that heard
the nurse threaten to throw the child
to the wolves. tats ἀκοαῖς “in your
sense of hearing.” Both in classical and
biblical Greek ἀκοή has three meanings,
“the thing heard,” as in John xii. 38;
‘‘the sense of hearing,” as in 1 Cor.
xii. 17; and “the ear,” as in Mark vii.
35, ἠνοίγησαν αὐτοῦ αἱ ἀκοαί ; cf.
Plummer on Luke, p. 194. Here the
ear stands for intelligent and spiritual
reception of truth. γεγόνατε, ‘‘ye are
become,” and therefore were not always.
It is not a natural and inherent and
pardonable weakness of understanding
he complains of, but a culpable incapa-
city resulting from past neglect of oppor-
tunities.
Ver. 12. καὶ yap ὀφείλοντες. . . -
“For indeed, though in consideration of
the time [since you received Christ] ye
ought to be teachers, ye have need again
that some one teach you the rudiments of
the beginning [the elements] of the
oracles of God.”—8.a τὸν χρόνον, cf.
ii. 3, x. 32; how long they had pro-
fessed Christianity we do not know, but
quite possibly for twenty or thirty years.
Those who had for a time themselves
been Christians were expected to have
made such attainment in knowledge as
to become διδάσκαλοι. This advance
was their duty, ὀφείλοντες. Instead of
thus accumulating Christian knowledge,
they had let slip even the rudiments, so
far at any rate as to allow them to fall
into the background of their mind and
to become inoperative. Their primal need
‘“‘ The interpreter needs oratio, meditatio, tentatio.”
of instruction had recurred. The need
had again arisen, τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς
τινὰ ‘“‘of some one teaching you,” the
genitive following χρείαν, as in ver. 12
and in x. 36. The indefinite pronoun
seems preferable, as the form of the sen-
tence requires an expressed subject to
bring out the contrast to εἶναι διδάσ-
Kalo, and to ὑμᾶς. τὰ στοιχεῖα. . -
Θεοῦ. The meaning of τῆς ἀρχῆς would
seem to be determined by τῆς ἀρχῆς τ.
Χριστοῦ in vi. 1, where it apparently
denotes the initial stages of a Christian
profession, the stages in which the ele-
ments of the Christian faith would
naturally be taught. Here, then, “the
beginning of the oracles of God’”’ would
mean the oracles of God as taught in
the beginning of one’s education by these
oracles. This of itself is a strong enough
expression, but to make it stronger τὰ
στοιχεῖα is added, as if he said ‘the
rudiments of the rudiments,” the A BC
of the elements. τῶν λογίων τ. θεοῦ,
“‘oraculorum Dei, t.e,, Evangelii, in quo
maxima et summe necessaria sunt Dei
oracula, quae et sic dicuntur, 1 Peter iv.
11” (Grotius). The ‘Oracles of God”
sometimes denote the O.T., as in Rom.
iii. 2, Acts vii. 38; but here it is rather
the utterance of God through the Son
j. 1), the salvation preached by the Lord
a 3) (so Weiss). καὶ γεγόνατε χρείαν
οντες γάλακτος. . . “and are be-
come such as have need of milk and not
of solid food,” ‘‘ et facti estis quibus lacte
opus sit, non solidocibo” (Vulgate). For
the metaphor, cf. 1 Peter ii. 2; 1 Cor.
iii, 1-3, a strikingly analogous passage,
cf. John xvi. 12, and the Rabbinic term
for young students ‘ Theenekoth ”
“ Sucklings ” (Schoettgen). The same
figure is found in Philo, De Agric., ii.
(Wendland, vol. ii., p. 96) ἐπεὶ δὲ νηπίοις
μέν ἐστι γάλα τροφή, woe: δἰ τὰ
ἐκ πυρῶν πέμματα" καὶ ψυχῆς κ.τιλ.
Abundant illustrations from Greek litera-
ture in Wetstein. Instead of becoming
adults, able to stand on their own feet,
select and digest their own food, they
had fallen into spiritual dotage, had
entered a second childhood, and could
292
11 Cor. iii ἔχοντες γάλακτος, καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς.
2, εἴ xiv.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
Ν. 13—14.
13. ‘Was γὰρ ὁ μετέχων
20; Eph γάλακτος, ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης " νήπιος γάρ ἐστι - 14. τελείων
iv. 14.
only receive the simplest nourishment.
Milk represents traditional teaching, that
which has been received and digested by
others, and is suitable for those who
have no teeth of their own and no suf-
ficiently strong powers of digestion.
This teaching is admirably adapted to
the first stage of Christian life, but it
cannot form mature Christians. For this,
στερεὰ τροφή is essential.
Ver. 13. πᾶς yap... νήπιος γάρ
ἐστι. ‘For every one who partakes of
milk [as his sole diet] is without ex-
perience of the word of righteousness ;
for he is a babe.” The reference of
γὰρ is somewhat obscure. It seems in-
tended to substantiate the last clause of
ver. 12: ‘‘ Ye cannot receive solid food,
for you have no experience of the word of
righteousness”. But he softens the state-
ment by generalising it. Every one that
lives on milk is necessarily unacquainted
with the higher teaching, which is now
λόγος Sux. ἄπειρος having no experi-
ence of, ignorant; as κακότητος ἄπειροι,
Empedocles in Fairbanks, Phil. of
Greece, p. 202. ἄπειρος ἀγρεύειν, Ba-
brius, Ixix. 2 ; ἅπ. τοῦ ἀγωνίζεσθαι, An-
tiphon, Jebb, p. 8. λόγου δικαιοσύνης,
with teaching of righteous conduct the
suckling has nothing to do; he cannot
act for himself, but can merely live
and grow; he cannot discern good and
evil, and must take what is given him.
Righteousness is not within the suck-
ling’s horizon. He cannot as yet be
taught it; still less can he be a teacher
of it (ver. 12) νήπιος γάρ ἐστι, for he
cannot even speak [vyn-éros=infans], he
is an infant. The infant can neither
understand nor impart teaching regard-
ing a life of which he has no experience,
and whose language he does not know.
Indirectly, this involves that the higher
instruction the writer wished to deliver
was important because of its bearing on
conduct. [Other interpretations abound.
Chrysostom and Theophylact understand
the reference to be either to the Christian
life or to Christ Himself and the know-
edge of His person. Others, as Beza,
Liinemann, and many others, take it as
a periphrasis for Christianity or the
Gospel, inasmuch as the righteousness
which avails with God is precisely the
contents of the Gospel”. Riehm also
thinks that the Gospel is meant, “ be-
δέ ἐστιν ἡ στερεὰ τροφὴ, τῶν διὰ Thy ἕξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρια yeyupva-
cause it leads to righteousness’’, West-
cott understands it of the “teaching
which deals at once with the one source
of righteousness in Christ, and the means
by which man is enabled to be made
partaker of it”. The view of Carpzov,
and also that of Bleek, is governed by
the connection of Melchizedek with
righteousness in vii. 2.]
Ver. 14. τελείων Se... . “ But solid
food is for the mature, those who, by
reason of their mental habits, have their
senses exercised to discern good and
evil.” τέλειος commonly opposed in
classical and Biblical Greek to vijmtos;
as in Polyb. v. 29, 2, ἐλπίσαντες ὡς
παιδίῳ νηπίῳ χρήσασθαι τῷ Φιλίππῳ,
εὗρον αὐτὸν τέλειον ἄνδρα. Cf. Eph.
iv. 13; and Xen., Cyr., viii. 7,3. They
are here further defined as tov...
κακοῦ. ἕξις [from ἔχω, as habitus from
habeo], a habit of body, or of mind; as
in Plato, Laws (p. 666), τὴν ἐμμανῆ ἕξιν
τῶν νέων. Also, p. 966, ᾿Ανδραπόδου yap
τινα ov λέγεις ἕξιν. Aristotle (Nic. Eth.
ii. 5) determines that virtue is neither a
δύναμις nor a πάθος, but a ἕξις, a
faculty being something natural and
innate, while virtue is not. Plutarch
(Moral., 443), following him, defines
ἕξις as ἰσχὺς .. . ἐξ ἔθους éyywwopevn,
which resembles Quintilian’s definition
(x. 1, 1), “ firma quaedam facilitas, quae
apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur’”’. Aristotle
(Categor., viii. 1) distinguishes ἕξις from
διάθεσις, τῷ πολὺ χρονιώτερον εἶναι Kal
μονιμώτερον, but elsewhere he uses the
words as equivalents. Longinus (xliv. 4)
uses it of faculty. ἕξις, then, is the
habitual or normal condition, the dis-
position or character; and the expres-
sion in the text means that the mature,
by reason of their maturity or mental
habit, have their senses exercised, etc.
αἰσθητήρια: “senses”. Bleek quotes
the definition of the Greek lexico-
graphers and of Damascene τὰ ὄργανα
ἢ τὰ μέλη δι᾽ ὧν αἰσθανόμεθα. So
Galen in Wetstein, “organs of sense”.
Here the reference is to spiritual faculties
of perception and taste. γεγυμνασμένα
+ + + πρὸς διάκρισιν - . ., “exercised so
as to discriminate between good and
evil,” i.e., between what is wholesome
and what is hurtful in teaching. [Wet-
stein sag from Galen, De Dignot.
Puls., μὲν yap τὸ αἰσθητήριον ἔχει
NSA:
, , a a » A
σμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε Kal κακοῦ.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
293
VI. 1. Διὸ
ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον, ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώ-
γεγυμνασμένον ἱκανῶς οὗτος ἄριστος ἂν
εἴη γνώμων.] The child must eat what
is given to it; the boy is warned what to
eat and what to avoid; as he grows, his
senses are exercised by a various experi-
ence, so that when he reaches manhood
he does not need a nurse or a priest to
teach him what is nutritious and what
is poisonous. The first evidence of
maturity which the writer cites is ability
to teach; the second, trained discern-
ment of what is wholesome in doctrine.
The one implies the other. Cf. Isa. vii.
16, πρὶν γνῶναι τὸ παιδίον ἀγαθὸν ἢ
κακόν, and Deut. i. 39. Chrysostom
says οὐ περὶ βίου ὁ λόγος .. . ἀλλὰ
περὶ δογμάτων ὑγιῶν καὶ ὑψηλῶν
διεφθαρμένων τε καὶ ταπεινῶν ; the
whole passage should be consulted.
CuapTer VI.—Ver. 1. Διὸ ‘“ where-
fore,” i.e., because beginnings belong
to a stage which ought long since to
have been left behind (v. 12), ἀφέντες
- - » let us abandon [give up] the
elementary teaching about Christ and
press on to maturity. [Of the use
of ἀφιέναι in similar connections Bleek
gives many instances of which Eurip.,
Androm., 393 may be cited: ἀλλὰ τὴν
ἀρχὴν ἀφεὶς πρὸς τὴν τελευτὴν ὑστέραν
οὖσαν φέρῃ. ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα
φερώμεθα is an expression which was
in vogue in the Pythagorean schools.
[Westcott and Weiss press the passive.
“The thought is not primarily of per-
sonal effort... but of personal sur-
render to an active influence.” But
φέρομαι is used where it is difficult to
discover a passive sense.] It is ques-
tioned whether the words are merely the
expression of the teacher’s resolution to
advance to a higher stage of instruction,
or are meant as an exhortation to the
readers to advance to perfectness. David-
son advocates the former view, Peake
the latter. It would seem that the author
primarily refers to his own teaching.
The context and the use of λόγον favour
this view. He has been chiding them
for remaining so long ‘“ babes,” able to
receive only ‘milk’; let us, he says,
leave this rudimentary teaching and pro-
ceed to what is more nutritious. But
with his advance in teaching, their ad-
vance in knowledge and growth in char-
acter is closely bound up. What the
writer definitely means by τὸν τ. ἀρχῆς
«. Χριστοῦ λόγον, he explains in his
detailed description of the “ foundation,”
which is not again to be laid. It consists
of the teaching that must first be given
to those who seek some knowledge of
Christ. Westcott explains the expression
thus : ‘‘the word, the exposition, of the
beginning, the elementary view of the
Christ” ; although he probably too nar-
rowly restricts the meaning of “the be-
ginning of Christ ” when he explains it as
“ the fundamental explanation of the ful-
filment of the Messianic promises in Jesus
of Nazareth”, Weiss thinks the writer
urges abandonment of the topics with
which he and his readers had been occu-
pied in the Epistle [‘‘ also des bisherigen
Inhalts des Briefes’”.] But this is not
necessarily implied, and indeed is excluded
by the advanced character of much of the
preceding teaching. What was taught
the Hebrews at their first acquaintance
with the Christ must be abandoned, not
as if it had been misleading, but as one
leaves behind school books or founda-
tions : ‘non quod eorum oblivisci unquam
debeant fideles, sed quia in illis minime
est haerendum”’. Calvin : as Paul says,
τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος, Phil. iii.
13. μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι
“not again and again laying a founda-
tion’. θεμέλιον possibly a neuter (see
Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 119) as in Acts
xvi. 16; certainly masculine in 2 Tim. ii.
19; Heb. xi. 10; Rev. xxi. 14, Ig twice.
καταβαλλ. the usual word for expressing
the idea of “laying” foundations, as in
Dionys. Hal., iii. 69; Josephus Azt., xv.
II, 3; metaphorically in Eurip., Helena,
164 ; hence καταβολὴ κόσμου, the founda-
tion of the world. follow six par-
ticulars in which this foundation consists.
arlous arrangements and interpretations
have been offered. Dr. Bruce says : ‘‘ We
are tempted to adopt another hypothesis,
namely, that the last four are to be re-
garded as the foundation of the first two,
conceived not as belonging to the founda-
tion, but rather as ar superstructure, _
“On this view we should have to render
‘Not laying again a foundation for re-
pentance and faith, consisting in instruc-
tions concerning baptisms, laying on of
hands, resurrection, and judgment.’ In
favour of this construction is the reading
διδαχήν found in B, and adopted by
Westcott and Hort, which being in op-
position with θεμέλιον suggests that the
four things following form the foundation
294
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
μεθα: μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν
ἔργων, καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ Θεὸν, 2. βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς, ἐπιθέσεώς τε
1T.R. in $ACDEKL, vg.; διδαχην in B.
of repentance and faith.”” But Dr. Bruce
returns to the idea that six articles are
mentioned as forming the foundation,
and Westcott, although adopting the
reading διδαχήν, makes no use of it.
Balfour (Central Truths) in an elaborate
paper on the passage suggests that only
four articles are mentioned, the words,
βαπτισμῶν . . . χειρῶν being introduced
parenthetically, because the writer can-
not refrain from pointing out that repent-
ance and faith were respectively taught
by two legal rites, baptism and laying
on of hands. The probability, however,
is, as we shall see, that six fundamentals
‘dead’. All acts of a man in himself,
separated from God, are ‘ dead works ’.”
Davidson thinks that this is “ hardly
enough,” and adds ‘‘ they seem so called
because being sinful they belong to the
sphere of that which is separate from the
living God, the sphere of death (ii. 14,
etc.)”. Rather it may be said that dead
works are such as have no living connec-
tion with the character but are done in
Such repentance was
are intended, and that they are not so
especially necessary in Jewish Christians.
non-Christian as is sometimes supposed. καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν, the counterpart
These six fundamentals are arranged in
ee pairs, the first of which is μετανοίας
« - » Θεόν “ repentance from dead works _
_and faith toward God”. Repentance
and faith are conjoined in Mark i. 15;
Acta ‘xx; (20s) ef: 1 Thess. 1. Ὁ: Eney
are found together in Scripture because
they are conjoined in life, and are indeed
but different aspects of one spiritual act.
A man repents because a new belief has
found entrance into his mind. Repent-
ance is here characterised as ἀπὸ νεκρῶν
ἔργων. Many explanations are given.
(‘‘Hanc vero phrasin apud scriptores
Judaicos mihi nondum occurrisse lubens
fateor” (Schoettgen).] The only other
place where works are thus designated is
‘ix. 14, where the blood of Christ is said
to cleanse the conscience from dead
works and thus to fit for the worship o
the Tiving God ; on. which
remarks εἴ τις ἥψατο τότε νεκροῦ ἐμιαί-
‘veto* καὶ ἐνταῦθα εἴ τις ἅψαιτο νεκροῦ
ἔργου, μολύνεται διὰ τῆς συνειδήσεως,
as if sins were called dead simply be
cause they defile and unfit for God’s
worship. [On this view Weiss re-
marks, “‘ wenigstens etwas Richtiges zu
Grunde ”.] Others think that ‘‘dead”
here means ‘‘ deadly” or ‘ death-bring-
ing”; so Peirce; or that it is meant
that sins have no strength, are “ devoid
ife and power”; so Tholuck, Alford;
or are “‘ vain and fruitless ” (Liinemann).
Hofmann says that every work is dead
in which there is not inherent any life
_from God. Similarly” Westcott, who
says: “ There is but one spring of life
and all which does not flow from it. is
of the preceding. The abandonment of
formal, external righteousness results
from confidence in God as faithful to
His promises and furnishing an open
way to Himself. What is meant is not
only faith in God’s existence, which of
course had not to be taught to a Jew,
but trust in God. Faith is either eis,
πρός, ἐν, or ἐπί as union, relation, rest,
or direction is meant (Vaughan).
Ver. 2. The next pair, βαπτισμῶν
διδαχῆς ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν ““ instruc-
tion regarding washings and laying on
of hands’. ‘‘ The historical sequence
is followed in the enumeration”. Some
interpreters make all three conditions
directly dependent on θεμέλιον, “ founda-
tion of baptisms, teaching, and laying on
of hands”. Bengel makes διδαχῆς de-
pendent on Bawr. He says: “᾿βαπτι-
σμοὶ διδαχῆς erant baptismi, quos qui
suscipiebant, doctrinae sacrae Judaeorum
sese addicebant. Itaque adjecto διδαχῆς
doctrinae distinguuntur ἃ lotionibus
ceteris leviticis”. Similarly Winer
(Gramm., p. 240) : “If we render Bar.
8.8. baptisms of doctrine or instruction,
as distinguished from the legal baptisms
(washings) of Judaism, we find a support
for this designation, as characteristically
Christian, in Matt. xxviii. 19, βαπτί-
> A , >
σαντες αὐτούς... .. διδάσκοντες αὐὖὐτ-
κα 4
ovs”. It is better to take the words as.
uivalent to διδαχῆ απτισμῶν.
In N.T. i sed of
stian baptism or of John’s baptism,
while Barr is u ο
washings as in ix. τὸ and Mk. vii. 4.
[ΟΡ Blass, Gramm., p. 62. Josephus,
2—4. {
χειρῶν, ἀναστάσεώς te! νεκρῶν, καὶ κρίματος αἰωνίου.
τοῦτο ποιήσομεν,2 ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπῃ ὁ Θεός.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
295
2. δ καὶ ® Acts
xviii. 21;
DAS) ὰ 1 Cor. iv.
4. "᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ ps βὰν
iv. 15.
b x. 26; Matt. xii. 31,45; Joan, iv. 10; 2 Peter ii, 20; 1 Joan v. 16.
1 τε in S$ACDcEKL, vg.; omitted in BD gr. P, and rightly rejected by τσ, WH
and Weiss.
2T.R. in SBKLN, 17, d, 6, f, vg., etc. ;
cative agrees better with ἐάνπερ, κ-τ.λ.
(Ant., xviii. 5, 2) uses βαπτισμός of John’s
baptism.] Probably, therefore, ‘‘ teach-
ing about washings” would include in-
struction in the distinction between the
various Jewish washings, John’s baptism
and that of Christ (cf. Acts xix. 2); and
this would involve instruction in the
cleansing efficacy of the Atonement
made by Christ as well as in the work
of the Holy Spirit. It was very necessary
for a convert from Judaism to understand
the difference between symbolic and real
lustration. The reference of the plural
must, therefore, not be restricted to the
distinction of outward and inward bap-
tism (Grotius), nor of water and spirit
baptism euss) nor of infant and adult
baptism, nor of the threefold immersion
nor, as Primasius, ‘‘ pro varietate acci-
pientium”. ἐπιθέσεώς Te χειρῶν Closely
conjoined to the foregoing by te be-
cause the “laying on of hands ” was
the accompaniment of baptism in Apos-
tolic times. ‘‘As through baptism the
convert became a member of the House
of God, through the laying on of hands
he received endowments fitting him for
service in the house, and an earnest
of his relation to the world to come
(vi. 5)” (Davidson, cf. Delitzsch). The
laying on of hands was normally accom-
panied by prayer. Prayer was the essen-
tial element in the transaction, the laying
on of hands designating the person to
whom the prayer was to be answered
and for whom the gift was designed.
Cf. Acts xix. 1-6; viii. 14-175; ΧΙ, 3;
vi. 6; and Lepine’s The Ministers of
Fesus Christ, p. 141-4. In_Apostolic.
times baptism apparently meant that the
baptised eer in and gave himself to
Christ, while the laying on_of hands
meant that the Holy Ghost was conferred
upon him. In baptism as now adminis-
tered both these facts are outwardly repre-
sented. ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν καὶ
κρίματος αἰωνίου: “resurrection of
the dead and eternal judgment,” “ con-
stituting the believer’s outlook under
which he was to live’ (Davidson). The
genitives depend on διδαχῆς, not on
ποιησωμεν in ACDEP, Arm. The indi-
θεμέλιον, as Vaughan. The phrase ἀνά-
στασις νεκρῶν naturally includes all the
dead both righteous and unrighteous (see
John v. 29 and Acts xxiv. 15. κρίμα
though properly the result of κρίσις is
not always distinguished from it, see
John ix. 39; Acts xxiv. 25; and cf.
Heb. ix. 27). It is “eternal,” timeless in
its results. These last-named doctrines,
although not specifically Christian, yet
required to be brought before the notice
of a Jewish convert that he might dis-
entangle the Christian idea from the Jew-
ish Messianic expectation of a resurrec-
tion of Israel to the enjoyment of the
Messianic Kingdom, and of a judgment
on the enemies of Israel (Cf. Weiss).
Ver. 3. καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν : “and
this will we do,” that is, we will go on
to perfection and not attempt again to
lay a foundation. So Theoph.: τὸ ἐπὶ
τὴν τελειότητα φέρεσθαι. And Prima-
sius: “et hoc faciemus, ζ7.4., et ad
majora nos ducemus, et de his omnibus
quae enumeravimus plenissime docebimus
nos, ut non sit iterum necesse ex toto et
a capite ponere fundamentum”. Hof-
mann refers the words to the participial
clause, an interpretation adopted even by
von Soden [‘‘namlich abermal Funda-
ment Einsenken’’] which only creates
superfluous difficulty. The writer, feel-
ing as he does the arduous nature of the
task he undertakes, adds the condition,
ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπῃ ὃ Θεός, “if God per-
mit”. The addition of wep has the effect
of limiting the condition or of indicating
a sine qua non; and may be rendered “1
only,” “if at all events,” ‘if at least”.
This clause is added not as if the writer
had any doubt of God’s willingness, but
because he is conscious that his success
depends wholly on God’s will. Cf. Cor.
xvi. 7.
Vv. 4-6 give the writer’s reason for not
attempting again to lay a foundation.
It is, he says, to attempt an impossibility.
The statement falls into three parts : (1).
A description of a class of persons τοὺς
ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας . . . Kal παραπ-
εσόντας. (2) The statement of a fact re-
296
garding these persons ἀδύνατον πάλιν
ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν. (3) The cause
of this fact found in some further char-
acteristics of their career ἀνασταυροῦντας
. « « παραδειγματίζοντας.
Ver. 4. First, the description here
given of those who have entered upon
the Christian life is parallel to the de-
scription given in vv. 1, 2 of elementary
Christian teaching; although the par-
allel is not carried out in detail. The
picture, though highly coloured, is some-
what vague in outline. ‘The writer’s
purpose is not to give information to us,
but to awaken in the breasts of his first
readers sacred memories, and breed godly
sorrow over a dead past. Hence he ex-
presses himself in emotional terms such
as might be used by recent converts
rather than in the colder but more exact
style of the historian” (Bruce). ἀδύνα-
τον yap: The γὰρ does not refer to the
immediately preceding clause (Delitzsch)
but points directly to τοῦτο ποιήσομεν
and through these words to ἐπὶ τὴν red.
φερώμεθα, the sense being ‘‘Let us go
on to perfection and not attempt to lay
again a foundation, for this would be
vain, seeing that those who have once
begun and found entrance to the Chris-
tian life, but have fallen away, cannot be
renewed again to repentance, cannot
make a second beginning. τοὺς ἅπαξ
φωτισθέντας, “those who were once
enlightened”. τοὺς includes all the par-
ticiples down to παραπεσόντας, which
therefore describe one class of persons;
and it is governed by ἄνακαινίζειν.
ἅπαξ: “once for all” semel (not πότε =
quondam) may be taken as remotely
modifying the three following participles
as well as φωτισθ. Its force is that
“once” must be enough; no πάλιν can
find place; and it refers back tc πάλιν of
ver. 1, and forward to πάλιν of ver. 6.
φωτισθέντας is used in this absolute way
in x. 32 where a comparison with ver. 26
indicates that it is equivalent to τὸ λαβεῖν
τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας. Cf. also
2 Cor. iv. 4and Eph.i. 18. Thesource of
the enlightenment is τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν
ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, the result is
repentance and faith, ver. 1. Hatch re-
fers to this passage in support of his con-
tention that the language and imagery
of the N.T. are influenced by the Greek
mysteries (Hibbert Lect., pp. 295-6). ‘*So
early as the time of Justin Martyr we
find a name given to baptism which
comes straight from the Greek mysteries
—the name ‘enlightenment’ (φωτισμός,
φωτίζεσθαι). Itcame to be the constant
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
VI.
technical term.” But as Anrich shows
(Das antike Mysterienwesen, p. 125)
ὠτισμός was n echnical
terms of the mysteries [‘‘ Der Ausdruck
φωτισμός begegnet in der Mysterienter-
minologie nie und nirgends”.] The
word is of frequent occurrence in the
LXX, see esp. Hos. x. 12. φωτίσατε
ἑαυτοὺς φῶς γνώσεως [‘* Ausdruck und
Vorstellung sind alttestamentlich ”}. Of
course it is the fact that φωτισμός was
used by Justin and subsequent fathers to
denote baptism (vide Suicer, s.v.), and
several interpret the word here in that
sense. So the Syrian versions; Theo-
doret and Theophylact translate by
βάπτισμα and λουτρόν. For the use
made of this translation in the Montanist
and Novatian controversies see the
Church Histories, and Tertullian’s De
Pudic., c. xx. The translation is, how-
ever, an anachronism. [In this connec-
tion, the whole of c. vi. of Clement’s
Paedag. may with advantage be read.
ἐφωτίσθημεν " τὸ δ᾽ ἐστιν ἐπιγνῶναι τὸν
Θεόν. . . . Βαπτιζόμενοι φωτιζόμεθα-
φωτιζόμενοι υἱοποιούμεθα" υἱοποιούμενοι
τελειούμεθα.]
cn ane ise τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρ-
ανίου, ‘“‘and tasted the heavenly gift”.
yevoap. here as elsewhere, to know ex-
perimentally; cf. ii. g; Matt. xvi. 29.
The heavenly gift, or the gift that comes
to us from heaven and partakes of the
nature of its source, is according to
Chrys. and Cécum: “The forgiveness
of sins” ; and so, many moderns, David-
son, Weiss, etc.; others with a slight
difference refer it to the result of for-
giveness ‘‘ pacem conscientiae quae con-
sequitur peccatorum remissionem "ἡ (Gro-
tius). Some finding that δωρεά is more
than once (Acts ii. 38, x. 45) used of the
Holy Spirit, conclude that this is here
the meaning (Owen, von Soden, etc.) ;
while Bengel is not alone in render-
ing, ‘Dei filius, ut exprimitur (ver. 6.)
Christus, qui per fidem, nec non in sacra
ipsius Coena gustatur”. Bleek, con-
sidering that this expression is closely
joined to the preceding by τε, concludes
that what is meant is the gift of enlight-
enment, or, as Tholuck says, “ the δωρεά
is just the Christian φῶς objectively
taken”. The objection to the first of
these interpretations, which has much in
its favour, is that it is too restricted; the
last is right in emphasising the close
connection with φωτισθ., for what is
meant apparently is the whole gift of
redemption, the new creation, the ful-
ness of life eternal freely bestowed, and
4—5-
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
297
τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας, γευσαμένους Te τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου,
καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου, 5. καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους
made known as freely bestowed, to the
“enlightened”. Cf. Rom. v.15; 2 Cor.
ix. 15. καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας Πνεύ-
ματος ἉΑγίου, ‘‘ and were made partakers
of the Holy Ghost”; a strong expres-
sion intended to bring out, as Westcott
remarks, “the fact of a personal character
gained; and that gained in a vital devel-
opment”. The bestowal of the Spirit is
the invariable response to faith. The
believer is πνευματικός. In chap. x. 29,
when the same class of persons is des-
cribed, one element of their guilt is stated
to be their doing despite to the Spirit of
grace. Grotius and others refer the
words to the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit; rather it is the distinctive source
of Christian life that is meant. It is
customary to find a parallel between the
two clauses of ver. 2, Bamwr. 818. ἐπιθέσ.
τε χειρῶν and the two clauses of this
verse γευσαμ. kat μετόχους. There are,
however, objections to this idea.
Ver. 5. καὶ καλὸν yevoapévous.. .
‘and tasted God’s word that itis good’’.
ῥήματα καλά in LXX (vide Josh. xxi. 43)
are the rich and encouraging promises
of God, cf. Zech. i. 13, ῥήματα καλὰ
καὶ λόγους παρακλητικούς. Here it
probably means the Gospel in which
all promise is comprehended ; cf. 1 Pet.
i. 25, ῥῆμα Κυρίου. .. τοῦτο δέ ἐστι
ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς.
Persons then are here described who
have not only heard God’s promise, but
have themselves tasted or made trial of
it and found it good. They have
experienced that what God proclaims
finds them, in their conscience with its
resistless truth, in their best desires by
quickening and satisfying them. The
change from the genitive, δωρεᾶς, to
the accusative, ῥῆμα, after yevo. is
variously accounted for. Commonly,
verbs of sense take the accusative of the
nearer, the genitive of the remoter
source of the sensation; but probably
the indiscriminate use of the two cases
in LXX and N.T. arises from the
tendency of the accusative in later
Greek to usurp the place of the other
cases. Yet it is not likely that so
careful a stylist as our author should
have altered the case without a reason.
That reason is best given by Simcox
(Gram., p. 87), “ γεύεσθαι in Heb. vi. 4, 5,
has the genitive, where it is merely a
verb of sense, the accusative where it is
used of the recognition of a fact—Kahdv
being (as its position shows) a predicate ”’.
With this expression may be compared
Prov. xxxi. 18, ἐγεύσατο ὅτι καλόν ἐστι
τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι. Bengel’s idea that the
genitive indicates that a part, while
accusative that the whole was tasted,
may be put aside. Also Hofmann’s idea,
approved by Weiss, that the accusative
is employed to avoid an accumulation
of genitives. δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶ-
γος ““δηά [tasted] the powers of the age
to come” [that they were good, for
καλάς may be supplied out of the
καλόν of the preceding clause; or the
predicate indicating the result of the
tasting may be taken for granted]. Suv-
dpets is so frequently used of the powers
to work miracle imparted by the Holy
Spirit (see ii. 4, 1 Cor. xii. 28; 2 Cor.
xii, 12; and in the Gospels passim) that
this meaning is generally accepted as
appropriate here. See Lunemann. αἰὼν
μέλλων is therefore here used not exactly
as in Matt. xii. 32, Eph. i. 21 where it is
contrasted with this present age or
world, but rather as the temporal
equivalent of the οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα
of chap. ii. 5, cf. also ix. σὰ, x. i.; and
Bengel’s note. It is the Messianic age
begun by the ministry of Christ, but
only consummated in His Second
Advent. A wider reference is sometimes
-found in the words, as by Davidson:
‘* Though the realising of the promises
be yet future, it is not absolutely so;
the world to come projects itself in
many forms into the present life, or
shows its heavenly beauty and order
rising up amidst the chaos of the present.
This it does in the powers of the world
to come, which are like laws of a new
world coming in to cross and by and by
to supersede those of this world. Those
‘“* powers,” being mainly still future, are
combined with the good word of promise,
and elevated into a distinct class, corre-
sponding to the third group above, viz. :
resurrection and judgment (ver. 2).”
The persons described have so fully
entered into the spirit of the new time
and have so admitted into their life the
powers which Christ brings to bear upon
men, that they can be said to have
‘tasted’? or experienced the spiritual
forces of the new era.
Ver. 6. καὶ παραπεσόντας, “and fell
away,” i.¢., from the condition depicted
298
ΠΡΟΣ ἘΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
VI.
Θεοῦ ῥῆμα, 6. δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, καὶ παραπεσόντας,
πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν, ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν
by the preceding participles; ‘ grave
verbum subito occurrens” (Bengel). The
word in classical Greek has the meaning
“fall in with” or “fall upon” ; in Poly-
bius, “to fall away from,’ ‘to err,”
followed by τ. ὁδοῦ, τ. ἀληθείας, τ.
καθήκοντος ; also absolutely ‘‘to err”.
In the Greek fathers the lapsed are called
οἱ παραπεπτωκότες οἵ οἱ παραπεσόντες.
The full meaning of the word is given in
ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν of x. 39. The
translation of the A.V. and early Eng:
lish versions “if they shall fall away,”
although accused of dogmatic bias, is
justifiable. It is a hypothesis that is
here introduced. Thus far the writer
has accumulated expressions which pre-
sent the picture of persons who have
not merely professed the Christian faith
but have enjoyed rich experience of its
peculiar and characteristic influence, but
now a word is introduced which com-
pletely alters the picture. They have
enjoyed all these things, but the last
thing to be said of them is that they
have ‘‘fallen from” their former state.
The writer describes a condition which
he considers possible. And of persons
realising this possibility he says ἀδύνατον
+++ πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν,
‘*it is impossible to renew [them] again
to repentance,” “impossible,”’ not “ diffi-
cult” [as in the Graeco-Latin Codex
Claromontanus, “‘difficile”]; impossible
not only to a teacher, but to God, for in
every case of renewal it is God who is
the Agent. [Bengel says “ hominibus
est impossibile, non Deo,” and that
therefore the ministers of God must
leave such persons to Him and wait
for what God may accomplish “per
singulares afflictiones et operationes”’.
But cf. x. 26-31.) πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν,
πάλιν is not pleonastic, but denotes
that those who have once experienced
ἀνακαινισμός cannot again have a like
experience. It suggests that the word
ἄνακαιν. involves, or naturally leads on
to, all that is expressed in the participles
under ἅπαξ from φωτισθέντας to αἰῶνος
of ver. 5. A renewed person is one who
is enlightened, tastes the heavenly gift,
and so on. But as the first stone in the
foundation was μετάνοια (ver. 1), so here
the first manifestation of renewal is in
μετάνοια. The persons described cannot
again be brought to a life-changing re-
pentance—a statement which opens one
of the most important psychological
problems. The reason this writer as-
signs for the impossibility is given in
the words ἀνασταυροῦντας .. . παρα-
δειγματίζοντας, “ crucifying [or “seeing
that they crucify”’] to themselves the
Son of God, and putting Him to open
shame”. Edwards understands these
participles as putting a hypothetical
case, and renders ‘‘they cannot be re-
newed after falling away if they persist
in crucifying, etc.”. This, however, re-
duces the statement to a vapid truism,
and, although grammatically admissible,
does not agree with the οὐκέτι of the
parallel passage in x. 26. The mitiga-
tion of the severity of the statement is
rather to be sought in the enormity and
therefore rarity of the sin described,
which is equivalent to the deliberate
and insolent rejection of Christ alluded
to in x. 26, 29, and the suicidal blas-
phemy alluded to in Mk. iii. 29. On
the doctrine of the passage, see Harless,
Ethics, c. 29. In classical and later
Greek the word for “crucify” is not
σταυρόω (of which Stephanus cites only
one example, and that from Polybius),
but ἀνασταυροῦν, so that the ἀνα does
not mean ‘‘again” or ‘afresh,’ but
refers to the lifting up on the cross, as
in ἀναρτάω or ἀνασκολοπίζω. In the
N.T. no doubt σταυρόω is uniformly
used, but never in this Epistle; and it
was inevitable that a Hellenist would
understand ἄνασταυρ. in its ordinary
meaning. There is no ground therefore
for the translation of the Vulg. “ rursum
crucifigentes,” although it is so com-
monly followed. Besides, any crucifixion
by the Hebrews [€avrots] must have been
a fresh crucifixion, and needs no express
indication of that feature of it. The
significance of ἑαυτοῖς seems to be ‘‘so
far as they are concerned,” not “to
their own judgment” or “to their own
destruction”. The apostate crucifies
Christ on his own account by virtually
confirming the judgment of the actual
crucifiers, declaring that he too has
made trial of Jesus and found Him no
true Messiah but a deceiver, and there-
fore worthy of death. The greatness of
the guilt in so doing is aggravated by
the fact that apostates thus treat τὸν
υἱὸν τ. Θεοῦ, cf. x. 29. καὶ wapa-
δειγματίζοντας, the verb is found in
Numb. xxv. 4, where it implies ex-
6—8.
τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
299
7. γῆ yap ἡ πιοῦσα τὸν ἐπ᾽
αὐτῆς πολλάκις ἐρχόμενον ὑετὸν, καὶ τίκτουσα βοτάνην εὔθετον
ἐκείνοις δι’ οὖς καὶ γεωργεῖται, μεταλαμβάνει εὐλογίας ἀπὸ τοῦ
Θεοῦ 8. ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους, ἀδόκιμος καὶ κατά-
posing to ignominy or infamy, such as
was effected in barbarous times by
exposing the quarters of the executed
criminal, or leaving him hanging in
chains. Archilochus, says Plutarch
(Moral., 520), rendered himself in-
famous, ἑαυτὸν παρεδειγ.» by writing
obscene verses. The verb is therefore a
strong expression; ‘‘put Him to open
shame” excellently renders it. ‘ This
was the crime the Hebrew Christians
were tempted to commit. A fatal step
it must be when taken; for men who
left the Christian Church and went back
to the synagogue became companions
of persons who thought they did God
service in cursing the name of Jesus”
(Bruce).
Vv. 7 and 8 present an analogy in
nature to the doom of the apostate.
Ver. 7. γῆ yap ἡ πιοῦσα... .. ὑετόν,
‘*For land which drank in the rain that
cometh oft upon it”; this whole clause
is the subject of vv. 7 and 8; the
subject remains the same, the results are
different. It might almost be rendered,
in order to bring out the emphasis on
yi» “ For, take the case of land”. Such
constructions are well explained by
Green (Gram., 34): ‘The anarthrous
position of the noun may be regarded as
employed to give a prominence to the
peculiar meaning of the word without
the interference of any other idea, while
the words to which the article is prefixed,
limit by their fuller and more precise
description the general notion of the
anarthrous noun, and thereby introduce
the determinate idea intended.” The
comparison of human culture with
agriculture is common. Cf. especially
Plut., De Educ. Puer., c. 3; and the
remarkable lines of the Hecuba, 590-596.
To make the comparison with the
persons described in vv. 4, 5 apt, the
advantageous conditions of the land are
expressed in ἧ πιοῦσα «7.4. The
abundant and frequently renewed rain
represents the free and reiterated bestowal
of spiritual impulse; the enlightenment,
the good word of God, the energetic
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which the
Hebrews had received and which should
have enabled them to bring forth fruit
to God. πιοῦσα, as in Anacreon’s
ἡ γῆ μέλαινα πίνει, and Virgil’s (Ecl.
iii. 3) ““βαΐ prata biberunt”. Bengel’s
note, ‘‘non solum in superficie”’ brings
out the meaning. The aorist expressing
a completed past contrasts with τίκτουσα
and ἐκφέρουσα continuous presents. καὶ
τίκτουσα ... γεωργεῖται, “and pro-
duces herbage meet for those on whose
account also it is tilled”. This is one
of the possible results of the natural ad-
vantage. τίκτουσα βοτάνη are found in
classic Greek. See examples in Wetstein
and Bleek. εὔθετον originally ‘con-
veniently situated ” and hence ‘‘ suitable”
‘* fit” as in Luke ix. 62. ἐκείνοις follows
εὔθετον, not τίκτουσα. The measure ofa
field’s value is its satisfying the purpose
of those on whose account it is tiiled.
δι᾽ ots, “for whose sake” or ‘* on whose
account,” not, as Calvin, ‘‘quorum
opera”; not the labourers, but the
owners are intended or those whom the
owners mean to supply. καὶ γεωργεῖται,
καὶ introduces a consideration which
“brings into relief the naturalness of
the τίκτειν βοτάνην εὔθετον éxeivors”’
(Liinemann). Westcott seems to lean
to Schlichting’s explanation: ‘ The
laborious culture of the soil seems to
be contrasted with its spontaneous
fruitfulness”. Cf. the “justissima
tellus” of Vergil, Georg. ii. 460. Land
so responding to the outlay put upon
it μεταλαμβάνει εὐλογίας ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ,
“partakes of a blessing from God”,
God’s approval is seen in the more and
more abundant yield of the land. The
reality here colours the figure.
Ver. 8. ἐκφέρουσα δὲ. . . “but if
it brings forth thorns and thistles it is
rejected and nigh unto a curse and its
end is burning”. The other alternative,
which corresponds to the possible state
of the Hebrews, is here introduced.
With all its advantages, the land may
prove disappointing, may not stand the
sole test (ἀδόκιμος) of land, its production
of a harvest. ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβ. fre-
quently conjoined in LXX, Gen. iii. 17,
Hos. x. viii, and expressive of useles¢
and noxious products. [rp{Bodos, fre-
quently τριβελής, three pointed, ana
originally meaning a caltrop]. ἀδόκιμος
is used under the influence of the
personal reference rather than of the
300
¢ Prov. xiv. ρας ἐγγὺς, ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσιν.
A ’ , > A o “
καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, el καὶ οὕτω λαλοῦ-
31; Matt.
X. 42, εἰ
χχν. 40;
Marc. ix. μεν.
41; Joan.
xiii. 20;
Rom. iii.
4; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 6, 7.
" ν , i}
ἀγαπητοὶ, τὰ κρείττονα
Io.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
ΥἹ.
9. Πεπείσμεθα δὲ περὶ ὑμῶν,
“οὐ γὰρ ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, καὶ
τοῦ κόπου 2 τῆς ἀγάπης ἧς ἐνεδείξασθε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, διακονή-
1 κρεισσονα is better authenticated than κρειττονα.
2? T.R. in DcE**KL, Copt., Chrys., Thdrt., a gloss from 1 Thess. i. 3; του κοπον
omitted in SABCD*E*P, d, e, f, vg., Basm., Syr., Arm., Aeth.
figure. κατάρας ἐγγύς with a reference
to Gen. iii, τὸ ἐπικατάρατος 4 γῆ, and
suggested by the εὐλογίας of the
previous verse. Wetstein quotes from
Aristides the expression κατάρας ἐγγύς,
and from the ἐγγύς Chrys. and Theophy].
conclude, rightly, that the curse is not
yet in action. ὁ yap ἐγγὺς κατάρας
δυνήσεται καὶ μακρὰν γενέσθαι. ἧς
τὸ τέλος. What is the antecedent? γῆ,
say the Geeek commentaries, Bengel,
Riehm, Delitzsch, Liinemann, Alford;
κατάρας, say Stuart, Bleek, Weiss, von
Soden. The former seems distinctly
preferable. Cf. Phil. iii. 19, ὧν τὸ τέλος
ἀπώλεια. But here it is εἰς καῦσιν
instead of καῦσις “for burning,’ it
serves for nothing else, and is thus
contrasted with the use served by the
productive land. The burning has with
an excess of literality been ascribed to
the soil itself, and therefore the example
of Sodom and Gomorrah has been
adduced. But Grotius is right who finds
a metonymy: “de terra dicitur quod
proprie iis rebus convenit quae terrae
superstant”. Reference may be made
to Philo, De Agric. c. 4: ἐπικαύσω
Kai τὰς ῥίζας αὐτῶν ἐφιεῖσ᾽ ἄχρι τῶν
ὑστάτων τῆς γῆς φλογὸς ῥιπήν. Cf
John xv. 6. Certainly it points not to a
remedial measure, but to a final destruc-
tive judgment.
Verses g-12, sudden transition, char-
acteristic of the author, from searching
warning to affectionate encouragement.
“ Startled almost by his own picture”
he hastens to assure the Hebrews that
he is convinced it does not represent
their present condition. On the contrary
he recognises in their loving care of
Christ’s people a service God cannot
overlook and which involves “ salvation”.
They have only to abound in hope as
already they are rich in love, and they
will no longer be slothful and inanimate
but will reproduce in their lives the
faith and endurance which have brought
others into the enjoyment of the
promised and eternal blessing.
Ver. 9. πεπείσμεθα Se... . ‘ But of
you, beloved, we are persuaded things
that are better and associated with salva-
tion, though we thus speak.” ‘‘ Alarm
at the awful suggestion of his own pic-
ture (vv. 4-8) causes a rush of affection
into his heart” (Davidson). He hastens
to assure them that he does not con-
sider them apostates, although he
has described the apostate condi-
tion and doom. ‘‘ This is very like
St. Paul’s way of closing and soften-
ing anything he had said that sounded
terrible and dreadful” (Pierce). Cf.
2 Thess. ii. 13: Eph. iv..20; Gal..v.
10. “ The form [πεπείσμεθα] implies
that the writer had felt misgivings and
overcome them” (Westcott). περὶ ὑμῶν
is emphasised, and the unique (in this
Epistle) ἀγαπητοί is introduced to re-
assure them and as the natural expres-
sion of his own reaction in their favour.
τὰ κρείττονα “ things better” than those
he has been describing (neither limiting
the reference to the condition, although
necessarily it is mainly in view, nor to
the doom, although the σωτηρίας indi-
cates that it also is in view); and things
indeed that so far from being κατάρας
ἐγγύς are ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας closely allied
to salvation. [Cf. Hamlet’s ‘no relish
of salvation in it.’’] ἐχόμενα = next,
from ἔχομαι. I hold myself to, adhere.
So locally Mark i. 38, εἰς τὰς ἐχομένας
κωμοπόλεις: temporally, Acts xxi. 26,
τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμερᾷ, here, as in Herodotus,
Plato, and Lucian, “ pertaining to,” so
Herod., i. 120, Ta τῶν ὀνειράτων ἐχόμενα.
εἰ καὶ and καὶ ei generally retain in
N.T. their distinctive meanings.
Ver. 10. οὐ yap G8ixos.... “ For
God is not unrighteous to forget your
work and the love which ye shewed to-
ward His name in that ye ministered
and still do minister to the saints.” He
recognises in their Christian activities
(ἔργου ὑμῶν) and in their practical chari-
ties (τῆς ἀγάπης) things that are asso-
ciated with salvation, because God’s
justice demands that such service shall
9---.:2.
σαντες τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ διακονοῦντες.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
301
II. ἐπιθυμοῦμεν δὲ ἕκαστον
ὑμῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδὴν πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς
ἐλπίδος ἄχρι τέλους. 12. ἵνα μὴ νωθροὶ γένησθε, μιμηταὶ δὲ
τῶν διὰ πίστεως καὶ μακροθυμίας κληρονομούντων τὰς ἐπαγγελίας.
not be overlooked. God will bless the
field which already has yielded good
fruit. He will cherish Christian principle
in those that have manifested it. To
him that hath shall be given. Cf.
especially Phil. i. 6. On the doctrinal
bearing of the words, see Tholuck in
loc. It is impossible to think of God
looking with indifference upon those who
serve Him or affording them no help or
encouragement. τῆς ἀγάπης ἧς. . .
the love which found expression in per-
sonal service (διακονήσαντες) to Chris-
tians (ἁγίοις), and of which examples
are specified in x. 34, was love eis τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, because it was prompted
not by natural relationship or worldly
association but by the consideration that
they were God’s children and people.
Ver 11. ἐπιθυμοῦμεν δὲ. . . . You
have manifested earnest love, cultivate as
earnestly your hope ; that is what I desire.
The translation should therefore be “ But
we desire”. ἕκαστον ὑμῶν, ‘each one
of you,” not merely as Chrysostom
interprets πολλὴ 4 φιλοστοργία καὶ
μεγάλων καὶ μικρῶν ὁμοίως κήδεται, not
as Bruce, “The good shepherd goeth
after even one straying sheep”; but
directly in contrast to the whole body
and general reputation of the Church
addressed. The writer courteously im-
plies that some already showed the zeal
demanded; but he desires that each in-
dividual, even those whose condition
prompted the foregoing warning, should
bestir themselves. Cf. Bengel’s “non
modo, ut adhuc fecistis, in communi”.
τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδὴν . ..
τέλους. The same earnest diligence
[σπουδή in exact opposition to νωθροί of
v. II, vi. 12] which had been given to
loving ministries, he desires they should
now exercise towards a corresponding
perfectness of hope—a hope which should
only disappear in fruition. πληροφορία
*‘ hic non est certitudo, sed impletio sive
consummatio, quo sensu wAnpod. habe-
mus, Col. ii. 2, δὲ τ Thess. i. 5, mAnpo-
φορεῖν 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17” (Grotius).
Alford insists that the subjective sense
of the word is uniform in N.T. and
therefore translates “ the full assurance ”’.
But the objective meaning, ‘‘ complete-
ness,” certainly suits Col. ii. 2 wav τὸ
πλοῦτος τ. πληροφορίας τ. συνέσεως
and is not unsuitable in Heb. x. 22 and
1 Thess. i. 5, while the verb πληροφορεῖν,
at least in some passages, as 2 Tim. iv.
5, has an objective sense. Besides, in
the case before us, the one meaning
involves the other, for, as Weiss himself
says, hope is only then what it ought to
be when a full certainty of conviction
(eine volle Ueberzeugungsgewissheit) ac-
companies it. See also Davidson, who
says “fulness or full assurance of faith
and hope is not anything distinct from
faith and hope, lying outside of them
and to which they may lead; it is a con-
dition of faith and hope themselves, the
perfect condition”. ἄχρι τέλους the
hope was to be perfect in quality and
was also to be continuous ‘‘to the end,”
z.e., until it had accomplished its work
and brought them to the enjoyment of
what was hoped for. The words attach
themselves to ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδήν.
Ver. 12. ἵνα μὴ νωθροὶ γένησθε:
“that ye become not sluggish,” “be
not, misses the fine delicacy of the
writer” (Alford). ‘ The γένησθε, point-
ing to the future, stands in no contra-
diction with γεγόνατε at v.11. There,
the sluggishness of the intellect was
spoken of; here, it is sluggishness in
the retaining of the Christian hope”
(Liinemann). Sluggishness would result
if they did not ‘‘ manifest diligence”.
μιμηταὶ δὲ τῶν ...: “but imitators of
those who, through faith and patient
waiting, are now inheriting the pro-
mises”. The positive aspect of the
conduct that should accompany culti-
vation of hope. They were not the
first who had launched into that ap-
parently shoreless ocean. Others be-
fore them had crossed it, and found
solid land on the other side. There
are many who are fairly described as
KAnpov. Tas ἐπαγγελίας. Whether alive
or now dead, they have entered on
possession of that good thing which
they could not see but which God had
promised. Alford, apparently following
Peirce, denies that κληρονομούντων can
mean ‘“‘ who are inheriting,” and renders
‘‘who are inheritors”. To this con-
clusion he is led, as also Peirce, by the
consideration that in c. xi. it is said of
202
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
VI.
dGen. xii, 13. ἃ Τῷ γὰρ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπαγγειλάμενος ὁ Θεὸς, ἐπεὶ κατ᾽ οὐδενὸς
3, et xvii.
4,et xxiietxe μείζονος ὀμόσαι, ὥμοσε καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, 14. λέγων, ““Ἦ phy! εὐ-
16, 17;
Ps. ἐν. ο; λογῶν εὐλογήσω σε, καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ oe”
Luc. i. 73.
᾽
15. καὶ οὕτω
1T.R. in KL*, al pler and Greek fathers; εἰ μην in ΑΒ ἜΡ, 17, 23, 31, 47",
71, 137; εἰ μη in CDbLcon, d, e, ἢ, vg., Ambr., Primas. nisi.
Bleek is of opinion
that εἰ μήν is a corrupt form resulting from the mixture of the classical ἦ μήν and
the Hebraizing et μή.
But Deissmann (Neue Bibelstud., p. 34) adduces examples of
ei μήν from the Papyri, which prove that it is not a merely Biblical form.
Abraham and the other heroes of faith
that they did not receive the promise.
But it is also indicated in the same
passage that by the coming of Christ
the fulness of the promise was fulfilled.
It was only “without us” of the Chris-
tian period that the patriarchs were
imperfect. Those who are presently
enjoying the promises attained their
present victory and joy, διὰ πίστεως
καὶ μακροθυμίας. Necessarily, they
first had to believe the promises, but
faith had to be followed up by patient
waiting. Alford translates μακροθ. by
‘-endurance,” but this word rather re-
presents ὑπομονή, while μακροθ. indi-
cates the long-drawn-out patience which
is demanded by hope deferred.
Vv. 13-20. Reasons for diligently
cultivating hope and exercising patience,
thus becoming imitators of those who
have patiently waited for the fulfilment
of the promises, the reasons being that
God has made the failure of the pro-
mises impossible, and that already
Jesus has passed within the veil as our
forerunner.
Ver. 13. Τῷ yap ᾿Αβραὰμ. ... ‘For
when God made promise to Abraham,
since he could sware by none greater,
He sware by Himself, saying, etc.”
Abraham is introduced because to him
was made the fundamental and compre-
hensive promise (cf. Luke i. 73, and Gal.
iii.) which involved all that God was
ever to bestow. And in Abraham it is
seen that the promise is secure, but that
only by patient waiting can it be in-
herited. It is secure because God
pledged Himself to perform it. The
promise referred to in ἐπαγγειλάμενος
seems to be that which was confirmed
by an oath, and which is recorded in
Gen. xxii. 16-18, κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὥμοσα
κιτιλ, But Westcott prefers to consider
that previous promises are referred to, as
in Gen. xii. 3, 7, ΧΕΙ. 14, XV. 5, xvii. 5.
The aorist participle éwayy. admits of
either construction. ἐπεὶ κατ᾽ οὐδενὸς
“ον ὀμνύω followed by κατά as fre-
quently in classics (Arist., Frogs, 94)
and LXX, Isa. xlv. 23, Amos iv. 2, viii.
7, Zeph. i. 5, Matt. xxvi. 63. See refer-
ences. εἶχε. . . ὀμόσαι, ἃ classical use
of ἔχειν from Homer downwards, ‘to
have means or power to do,” ‘to be
able’. The greater the Being sworn
by, the surer the promise. Cf. Lon-
ginus, De Subl., c. 16, on swearing by
those who died at Marathon. ὥμοσε
καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, how this oath was given,
and how the knowledge of it was con-
veyed to men, this writer does not say.
But it was' somehow conveyed to the
mind of Abraham that the fulfilment of
this promise was bound up with the life
of God; that it was so implicated with
His purposes that God could as soon
cease to be, as neglect the fulfilment of
it. Lying as it did at the root of all
further development, and marking out
as it did the true end for which the
world exists, it seemed to be bound up
with the very being of God. Paul’s way
of expressing a similar idea is more con-
gruous to our ways of looking at things,
cf. 2 Cor. i. 20. Cf. Philo’s discussion
in De Leg. Allegor., iii. 72, 3.
Ver. 14. The oath runs εἰ μὴν
εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω oe... . “Surely
blessing I will bless thee, and multi-
plying I will multiply thee.” ‘“Sen-
tences which denote assurance . . . are
in classical Greek introduced by ἦ μήν,
which in the Hellenistic and Roman
period is sometimes written in the form
of εἶ (accent ?) μήν ; so in the LXX and
in a quotation from it in Heb. vi. 14”
(Blass, Gram., p. 260); and cf. Jannaris,
Hist. Greek Gram., 2055. μήν is used
to strengthen asseveration, suitably
therefore in oaths. On the emphatic
participle in imitation of the Hebrew
absolute infinitive, see Winer, sec. 45,
8, p. 445. The oath here cited was a
promise to bless mankind, a promise
that through all history God’s gracious
purpose should run; that, let happen
what might, God would redeem and
bless the world.
Ver. 15. καὶ οὕτω paxpodupioas . .
‘“‘and thus having patiently waited he
13—17.
μακροθυμήσας ἐπέτυχε τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.
κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσι, καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς
περισσότερον βουλόμενος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπι-
βεβαίωσιν ὃ ὅρκος - 17. ἐν ᾧ
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
993
ἄνθρωποι μὲν 1 γὰρ ε Exod.
xxii. II.
16:
δεῖξαι τοῖς κληρονόμοις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς
1 Omit μεν with SABD*E*P, 47, d, ε, f, vg.; T.R. in CDcE**KL, al pler, Cop.,
Aeth., Chr., Thdrt.
[Abraham] obtained the promise”. οὕτω,
in these circumstances; that is, thus
upheld by a promise and an oath. The
oath warned him of trial. It would not
have been given had the promise been a
trifling one or had it been destined for
immediate fulfilment. μακροθυμήσας,
having long kept up his courage and his
hope. Delay followed delay ; disappoint-
ment followed disappointment. He was
driven out of the promised land, anda
barren wife mocked the hope of the
promised seed, but he waited expectant,
and at length ἐπέτυχε τῆς ἐπαγγελίας,
for although it was true of him, as of
all O.T. saints, that he did mot obtain
the promise, [μὴ λαβόντες τὰς ἐπα-
γγελίας, xi. 13; οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν
ἐπαγγελίαν, xi. 39], but could only
wave his hand to it and salute it
at a distance, yet the initial fulfilment
he did see and was compensated for all
his waiting by seeing the beginnings of
that great history which ran on to the
consummate performance of the promise
in Christ. Bleek and Rendall understand
by ἐπέτυχε . . . ‘‘ obtained from God a
promise of future blessing,” and not the
thing itself. But in this case μακροθυμή-
σας would be irrelevant. He had not to
wait for the promise, but for its tulfil-
ment,
Ver. 16. ἄνθρωποι yap, «.t.A. “ For
men swear by the greater.’”” The pro-
cedure of God in confirming His promise
by an oath is justified by human custom,
and the confident hope which God’s
oath warrants is justified by the fact
that even a human oath ends debate.
ἄνθρωποι refers back to ὃ Θεός of ver.
13 and forward to ver. 17. τοῦ μείζονος,
him who is greater than the persons
taking the oath, the idea of an oath
being that a higher authority is appealed
to, one of inviolable truth and power
to enforce it. καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς. ..
and ofall gainsaying among them an
oath is an end for confirmation”. “ The
oath has two results negative and
positive ; it finally stops all contradiction;
and it establishes that which it attests”
(Westcott). On BeBatwous as a technical
term, see Deissmann, Bibl. Studies,
Ρ- 104. ἀντιλογία is rendered by
‘strife’? in A.V., and by “dispute” in
R.V.; and this meaning is found in
Exod. xviii. 16; Deut. xix. 17 of δύο
ἄνθρωποι ols ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἣ ἀντιλογία.
But in the other instances of its use
ΠΝ τὶ -Heb. vii. 7, xi. 33. Jud. xi, τῇ
has the meaning of “contradiction” or
‘‘ gainsaying”. So also in Polybius
XxvVilil. 7, 4: πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν
ἀνίσταντο πολλοί. It is this sense
which suits the context here, as it is
not a strife between God and man
which is in question. Besides, eis
βεβαίωσιν is more congruous with this
meaning. The meaning is that when
one man disputes the assertion of
another, an oath puts an end to the
contradiction and serves for confir-
mation. So Davidson, Westcott, Weiss,
etc. πάσης is added not to indicate
the universal deference paid to the oath
(Bleek), but the completeness of its
effect ; no room is left for contradiction.
ὁ ὅρκος the generic article, best trans-
laed “an oath’’. πέρας an end or
limit, as in Ps, cxix.,96, πάσης συντελείας
εἶδον πέρας; and Ps. cxlv. 3 τῆς pey-
αλωσύνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστι πέρας. eis
βεβαίωσιν almost in the technical sense
of a guarantee. See Deissmann’s inter-
esting treatment of the word in
Bibelstud., pp. 100-104. On the verse
Calvin remarks: “hic locus docet
aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi
usum esse legitimum. Quod obser-
vandum est contra homines fanaticos qui
regulam sancte jurandi, quam Deus lege
sua praescripsit, libenter abrogarent.”’
Ver. 17. ἐν ᾧ περισσότερον. . -.
“Wherefore God, being minded more
abundantly to demonstrate to the heirs
of the promise the immutability of His
purpose, interposed with an oath.” ἐν
@ = 818 (Theoph.), and see Winer, 484. It
might be rendered ‘“‘quae cum ita
sint,” or “this being so”. The oath
having among men this convincing
power, God disregards the insult implied
in any doubt of His word and conde-
scending to human infirmity confirms
304
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ VI
αὑτοῦ, ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, 18. ἵνα διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ἀμεταθέτων,
ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι Θεὸν, ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν οἱ
καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαι τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος - 19. ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν
His promise by an oath. περισσότερον
neuter adjective for adverb (ii. 1) is to be
construed with ἐπιδεῖξαι, the meaning
of the comparative being ““ abundantius
quam 5 ne juramento factum videretur ”
(Bengel). Carpzov renders by ‘ex
abundanti,” and cites Philo, De Abra-
hamo c. 46 where the word of God
is said to become an oath, ἕνεκα τοῦ τὴν
διάνοιαν ἀκλινῶς καὶ παγίως ἔτι μᾶλλον
ἢ πρότερον ἐρηρεῖσθαι. τοῖς κληρονόμ-
ous, not exclusively the O.T. nor ex-
clusively the N.T. heirs, neither Jews
nor Gentiles, but all; see ix. 3, and Gal.
lili, 29. τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς
αὐτοῦ, the unchangeable character of
His purpose. [ἀμετάθ. 3 Macc. v. 1, 12;
Polybius with ἐπιβολή, ὁρμή; διάληψις,
For use of adjective see Rom. ii. 4, viii.
3; 1 Cor. i. 25, etc. Winer, p. 294.]
ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, μεσιτεύω, belonging
to later Greek, ‘‘to act as mediator,”
but sometimes used transitively ‘to
negotiate,” as in Polybius xi. 34, 3.
Other examples in Bleek. Here, however,
it is used intransitively as in Josephus,
Ant., vii. 8, 5. So the margin of A.V.
‘‘interposed himself by an oath,” im-
proved in R.V. “interposed with an
oath”. Cf. Josephus Ant., iv. 6, 7; ταῦτα
δὲ ὀμνύοντες ἔλεγον καὶ θεὸν μεσίτην ὧν
ὑπισχνοῦντο ποιούμενοι. “God des-
cended, as it were, from His own
absolute exaltation, in order, so to
speak, to look up to Himself after the
manner of men and take Himself to
witness; and so by a gracious con-
descension confirm the promise for the
sake of its inheritors” (Delitzsch).
‘He brought in Himself as surety, He
mediated or came in between men and
Himself, through the oath by Himself”
(Davidson).
Ver. 18. The motive of this procedure
on God’s part has already been indicated
in βουλόμενος, but now it is more fully
declared. ἵνα διὰ δύο . . . ἐλπίδος
“ that by two immutable things in which
it is impossible for God to lie, we may
have a strong encouragement, who fled
for refuge to hold fast the hope set
before us”. The two immutable things
are God’s promise and His oath. It is
impossible for God to break His promise,
impossible also for him to falsify His
oath. Both of these were given that
even weak men might have strong en-
couragement. The emphasis is on
ἰσχυρὰν, no ordinary encouragement.
Interpreters are divided as to the con-
Struction of κρατῆσαι, CEcumenius,
Bleek, Liinemann, and others maintain-
ing its dependence on παράκλησιν; en-
couragement to hold fast the hope;
while others, as Beza, Tholuck, Del-
itzsch, Weiss, construe it with κατα-
φυγόντες as in A.V. “ who have fled
for refuge to lay hold upon the hope”’.
If this latter construction be not adopted,
καταφυγ. is left undefined and must be
taken in an absolute sense, which is un-
warranted. It is the word used in the
LXX (Deut. iv. 42, xix. 5; Josh. xx. g)
for fleeing from the avenger to the
asylum of the cities of refuge. So here
Christians are represented as fleeing
from the threatened danger and laying
hold of that which promises safety.
κρατῆσαι (aor. of single act) must there-
fore be rendered ‘‘to lay hold of” and
not, as in iv. 14, “hold fast”. The
former meaning is much more frequent
than the latter. τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος,
the hope, that is, the object of hope is
set before us as the city of refuge was
set before the refugee and it is laid hold
of by the hope it excites. προκειμ. is
used of any object of ambition, ‘de
praemiis laborum accertaminum’”’ (Wet-
stein, with examples). Cf. Col. i. 5,
τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς.
Ver. 19. ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν. ..
‘‘which [hope] we have as an anchor
of the soul both sure and steadfast, and
entering into that which is within the
veil”. An anchor was in ancient as
well as in modern times the symbol of
hope; see Aristoph., Knights, 1224 (1207)
λεπτή τις ἐλπίς ἐστ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἧς ὀχούμεθα.
“A slender hope it is at which we
ride,’ and Aisch., Ag., 488: πολλῶν
ῥαγεισῶν ἐλπίδων many hopes being
torn away [like the flukes of anchors].
Cf. Paley in loc. Kypke quotes a say-
ing attributed to Socrates: οὔτε ναῦν ἐξ
ἑνὸς ἀγκυρίου οὔτε βίον ἐκ μιᾶς ἐλπίδος
δρμιστέον. The symbol appears on an-
cient coins. ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν,
unfailing and firmly fixed; negative and
positive, it will not betray the confidence
reposed in it but will hold firm. ἀσφ.
καὶ BeB., Wisdom, vii. 23. Cebet., Tab.,
31. Bleek, Vaughan, Westcott, and
(a>
18—zo,
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
305
ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῇ τε καὶ βεβαίαν, καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ
ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, 20.
*Smou πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ὁ iii. τ, εἰ
iv. 14, et
εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς viii. τ, et
1X. II.
x 2A
TOV αιἰωνα.
others refer these adjectives to ἥν, not
to ἄγκυραν, It seems much more
natural to refer them with Chrys.,
Theoph., etc. to ἄγκυραν. Cf. Vulg.:
‘Quam sicut anchoram habemus anime
tutam ac firmam, et incedentem,” and
Weizsiacker “in der wir einen sicheren,
festen Anker der Seele haben, der hinein-
reicht,’” etc. καὶ εἰσερχομένην . . .
The anchor has its holding ground in
the unseen. Some interpreters who re-
fer the former two adjectives to the
anchor, find so much strangeness or
awkwardness in this term if so applied
that they understand it directly of the
hope itself. But as Davidson and Weiss
show, the eioepy. gives the ground of
the two former adjectives; it is because
the anchor enters into the eternal and
unchangeable world that its shifting or
losing hold is out of the question. (But
cf. also ver. 16). No doubt the figure is
now so moulded to conform to the
reality that the physical reference is
obscure, unless we think of a ship being
warped into a harbour on an anchor
already carriedin. Cf. Weiss. That to
which the figure points is obvious. It
is in the very presence of God the anchor
of hope takes hold. The Christian hope
is fixed on things eternal, and is made
sure by God’s acceptance of it. [Alford
quotes from Estius: “ sicut ancora
navalis non in aquis haeret, sed terram
intrat sub aquis latentem, eique infig-
itur; 1ta ancora animz spes nostra non
satis habet in vestibulum pervenisse,
id est, non est contenta bonis terrenis et
visibilibus; sed penetrat usque ad ea,
quae sunt intra velum, videlicet in ipsa
sancta sanctorum; id est, Deum ipsum
et coelestia bona apprehendit, atque in
iis figitur”.] τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ κατα-
πετάσματος, the holy of holies, the very
presence of God. καταπέτασμα (in non-
biblical Greek παραπέτασμα) is used in
LXX of either of the two veils in the
Temple (JOD or mp, Exod. xxvi.
37; Num. iii. 26; and Exod. xxvi. 31; Lev.
iv. 6) but κάλυμμα, according to Philo,
De Vit. Mes., iii. 5, was the proper
designation of the outer veil, καταπέτ.
being reserved for the inner veil; and in
this sense alone it is used in N.T. as
ix. 3; Matt. xxvii. 51. See Carpzov in
VOL. IV.
loc. and Kennedy’s Sources of N.T.
Greek, 113. τὸ ἐσώτερον τ. x. is there-
fore the inmost shrine into which the
Jewish worshipper could not enter but
only the High Priest once a year. For
the expression see Exod. xxvi. 33, etc.
Ver. 20. The holding-ground of the
anchor of hope, the real presence of
God, is further described in the words
ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν
Ἰησοῦς, “‘whither as forerunner for us
entered Jesus”. ὅποι does not occur
in N.T, or LXX, ὅπου taking its place,
as in English “‘ where” often stands for
‘whither ἢ; see Matt. viii. το, Luke ix.
57, James iii. 4. So, too, occasionally, in
Attic; examplesin Bleek. πρόδρομος
as an adjective, ‘‘running forward with
headlong speed,” see Jebb’s note on
Soph., Antig., 107; as ἃ substantive
‘scouts’? or “advanced guard” of an
army, Herodot., i. 60, and Wisdom. xii.
8, ἀπέστειλάς τε προδρόμους τοῦ
στρατοπέδου σον σφῆκας. The more
general meaning is found in Num. xiii,
21, ἡμέραι ἔαρος, πρόδρομοι σταφυλῆς,
Isa. xxviii. 4. The idea may be illus-
trated by ii, ro, Col. i. 18, 1 Cor. xv. 23.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν goes better with πρόδρομος---
which requires further definition—than
with εἰσῆλθεν, although Bleek, Weiss
and others prefer to join it to the verb.
Ἰησοῦς, the human name is used, be-
cause it is as man and having passed
through the whole human experience
that Jesus ascends as our forerunner.
His superiority to the Levitical priest
is disclosed in the word πρόδρομος.
When the Levitical High Priest passed
within the veil he went as the repre-
sentative, not as the forerunner of the
people. Hence indeed the veil. In
Christ the veil is abolished. He enters
God’s presence as the herald and
guarantee of our entrance. The ground
of this is given in the concluding clause,
κατὰ τὴν τάξιν... αἰῶνα, “having
become [becoming] an High Priest for
ever after the order of Melchizedek”.
Jesus carries our hope with Him to the
realities which lie within the veil, be-
cause it is as our High Priest who has
made atonement for sin that He is now
at God’s right hand. By His death He
secured for us power to enter, to follow
where He has gone before. The parti-
20
206
a Gen. xiv.
18, etc.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
VIL.
VII. 1. *OYTOE γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ
. Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, 6! συναντήσας ᾿Αβραὰμ ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ THS
1T.R. only in C*LP, marked “suspected” by WH; og in ΜΑΒΟΣΌΕΚ, 17,
apparently arising from the ow following, “ ein fiir unseren Verf. unmégliches, vollig
unmotivirtes Anakoluth” (Weiss). Alford accepts og with the anacoluthon.
ciple does not determine the precise
point at which He became High Priest,
before or contemporaneously with His
passing through the veil.
CuapPTeR VII. The subject of Christ’s
priesthood is resumed; the interpolated
admonition (v. 11-vi. 20) having been
skilfully brought round to a second men-
tion of Melchizedek. The chief reason
for introducing the priesthood of Mel-
chizedek as the type of Christ’s priest-
hood was that it was “for ever”. The
Aaronic priesthood was successional, this
single; and in this sense “for ever”.
There were, however, other reasons. The
first question with a Jew who was en-
joined to trust to Christ’s priestly media-
tion, would be, What are His orders?
He belonged to a tribe “ of which Moses
had spoken nothing concerning priest-
hood”. He might or might not be the
true heir to David’s throne; but if He
was, did not this very circumstance ex-
clude him from the priestly office? Was
it credible that the nation had been en-
couraged rigorously to exclude from the
priesthood every interloper, only in order
that at last this rigidly preserved order
should be entirely disregarded? This
writer seizes upon the fact that there
was a greater priest than Aaron men-
tioned in Scripture—a priest more
worthy to be the type of the Messianic
priesthood, because he was himself a
king, and especially because he be-
longed to no successional priestly order
but was himself the entire order. This
idea of a priesthood superseding that of
Levi’s sons found its way into Scripture
through the hymn (Ps. cx.) which cele-
brated the dignity (as priest-king) of
Simon the Maccabee. Bickell has shown
that the first four verses of the Psalm are
an acrostic on the name Simon, YW,
When the Maccabees displaced the
Aaronic priesthood, they found their
justification in the priestly dignity of
Melchizedek, and assumed his style,
calling themselves “‘ priests of the Most
High God”. Cf. Charles, Book of
Fubilees, pp. lix. and 191. The chapter
may be divided thus :—
I. Characteristics of Melchizedek, 1-
Io.
1. In himself as depicted in Scrip-
ture, I-3.
2. In his relation to Levi and his
line, 4-10.
II, Inadequacy of Levitical priesthood
in comparison with the Mel-
chizedek priesthood of Christ,
II-25.
1. Levi being provisional, Mel-
chizedek being permanent,
11-14.
2. Official and hereditary: per-
sonal and eternal, 15-19.
3. Without oath: with oath,
therefore final, 20-22.
4. Plural and successional: sin-
gular and enduring, 23-25.
III. Summary of the merits of the
new Melchizedek Priest, Jesus.
Vv. 1-3. Description of Melchizedek as
he appears on the page of Scripture, in
five particulars with their interpretation.
Ver. 1. Οὗτος yap ὁ Μελχισεδέκ ...
μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. γὰρ closely
connects this passage with the immed-
iately preceding words ἄρχ. .. - αἰῶνα
and introduces the explanation of them.
‘“* For this Melchizedek [mentioned in Ps.
cx. and who has just been named as that
priest according to whose order Christ
is called to be Priest] remains a priest
continually.” This is the statement on
which he wishes to fix attention. It is
the “‘for-everness” of the priesthood
which he means especially to insist
upon. The whole order is occupied by
himself. This one man constitutes the
order. He succeeds no one in office and
no one succeeds him. In this sense he
abides a priest for ever. Between the
subject Melchizedek and the verb μένει;
there are insertedfive historical facts taken
from Gen. xiv., with their interpretation.
[On the historicity of Gen. xiv., see
Buchanan Gray in Expositor, May, 1898,
and Driver, Authority and Archaeology,
pp. 45 and73. Seealso Beazley’s Dawn
of Modern Geography, ii. 189; and esp.,
Boscawen’s First of Empires, c.vi.] βασ-
ιλεὺς Σαλήμ, the description given in this
verse is taken verbatim [with the needed
I—2.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
307
κοπῆς τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν - 2. ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ
πάντων ἐμέρισεν ᾿Αβραάμ: πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς
δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης"
grammatical alterations] from Gen. xiv.
17, 18, 19. Whether Salem stands for
Jerusalem or for Salim in the vale of
Shechem, John iii. 23, has been disputed
from Epiphanius downwards. See Bleek,
who contends that Jerusalem cannot be
meant because Jebus was its old name.
This, however, is now denied, see Moore,
SFudges, p. 413, who says that the
common opinion that Jebus was the
native name of the city, has no real
ground in O.T. Inthe Amarna tablets
Urusalim is used and no trace is found
of any name corresponding to Jebus.
But it is not the locality that is impor-
tant, but the meaning of Salem. tep-
evs ... “priest of the Most High
God”. According to Aristotle (Pol.,
iii. 14), the king in heroic times was
general, judge and priest. Cf. Virgil
(42n., iii. 80) Rex Anius, rex idem
τ hominum, Phoebique sacerdos,”’ and see
Gardner and Jevon’s Greek Antiq., 200,
201. The ideal priesthood is also that
ofaking. rot Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου.
In N.T. ‘the Most High God” is
found in the mouth of Demoniacs, Mark
v: 7; Luke viii. 28; of. also Acts xvi. 17
and vii. 58, also Luke i. 32, 35, 70, vi.
35. It was a name known alike to the
Canaanites, Phoenicians and Hebrews.
See Fairbairn, Studies in the Philosophy
oj Religion, p. 317. ὕψιστος was
also a title of Ζεύς, Pind., xi. 2. Cf
also Dalman, Words of Fesus, p. 198;
and especially Charles’ edition of Book
of Fubilees, pp. 191, 213, who shows that
it was the specific title chosen by the
Maccabean priest-kings. ἀπὸ τῆς
κοπῆς “from the slaughter,” rather
* overthrow” ; “‘ Niederwerfung ” (Weiz-
sicker); ‘‘clades rather than caedes”’
(Vaughan) translating in Genesis xiv. 17,
nia. τῶν βασιλέων “the
kings”; well-known from Gen. xiv.,
viz.: Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer
and Tidal, #.e., Khammurabi, Eriaku,
Kudurlachgumal and Tudchula. But
Boscawen (First of Empires, p. 179)
disputes the identification of Amraphel
with Khammurabi. The monuments
show us that these kings were contem-
poraries two thousand three hundred
years B.c., and furnish many interesting
particulars regarding them; see Driver
in Authority and Archaeology, pp. 39-45.
καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν, asserting thus at
once his superiority (ver. 7) and his
priestly authority.
Ver. 2. ᾧκαὶ Sexatnv... “to
whom also Abraham divided a tenth of
411 (the spoil]. The startling conclusion
which this act carried with it is specified
in vv. 4-10. The offering of a tithe of
the spoils to the gods was a custom of
antiquity. See Wetstein for examples and
especially Arnold’s note on Thucydides,
iii. 50. ‘* Frequently the ἀναθήματα were
of the nature of ἀπάρχαι, or the divine
share of what was won in peace or war.
. . . The colossal statue of Athena
Promachos on the Athenian Acropolis
hill was a votive offering from a tithe of
the booty taken at Marathon ” (Gardner
and Jevon’s Greek Ant., 181.) For the
O.T. law of tithe see Num. xvill. 21-24;
Lev. xxvii. 30-32. In offering to Mel-
chizedek a tithe Abraham acknowledged
him as priest.
The following clauses ought not to be
in brackets, because they are inserted as
indicating the ground of the main affirma-
tion, μένει εἰς TO Sunvenés. The name
and description of Melchizedek already
given are now interpreted, and are so
interpreted as to illustrate the clause
ἀφωμοιωμένος τῷ υἱῷ Tod Θεοῦ and
thus prepare for the closing statement.
i deli μὲν Eppnvevdpevos...
‘being first, by interpretation, King of
righteousness and then also King of
Salem, which is King of peace”. The
form of the sentence is_ significant.
(Cf. Plutarch, Timoleon, iv. 4, τοῦ δὲ
Τιμοφάνους πρῶτυν μὲν αὐτῶν κατα-
γελῶντος, ἔπειτα δὲ πρὸς ὀργὴν ἐκφερο-
μένου] first” by his very name, “then”
by his actual position; probably the
peace of his kingdom is considered as
a consequence of its righteousness.
Righteousness and peace are character-
istic properties of the Messianic King-
dom. ‘In his days shall the righteous
flourish; and abundance of peace so
long as the moon endureth,” Ps. Ixxii.
7; similarly Isa. ix. 6,7; Zech. ix. 9; cf.
Rom. v. 1; Eph. ii. 4, 15, 17. In Gen.
xiv. 18 the name and title occur together
obwi th prysabn. The chiet
point in this is that the priest is alsoa
king. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ayeveaddynros
‘‘ without father, without mother, with-
308
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
VIL.
3. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, dyeveaddyntos: μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν, μήτε
Gen. xiv.
Ρ oo εὶς τὸ διηνεκές.
ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων - ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς
4. " Θεωρεῖτε δὲ πηλίκος οὗτος, ᾧ Kai! δεκάτην
1T.R. in SACDcE**KLP, vg., Syrt, Arm.; omit καὶ with BD*E*, d, e, Syrsch,
Cop. Apparently καὶ has been introduced from verse 2.
out genealogy,’’ that is, he stands in
Scripture alone, no mention is made of
an illustrious father or mother from
whom he could have inherited power and
dignity, still less can his priestly office
and service be ascribed to his belonging
to a priestly family. It is by virtue of
his own personality he is what he is; his
office derives no sanction from priestly
lineage or hereditary rights; and in this
respect he is made like to the Son of
God. Of course it is not meant that in
point of fact he had neither father nor
mother, but that as he appears in Scrip-
ture he is without father. [τὸ δὲ ἀπάτωρ
K.T.A. οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν αὐτὸν πατέρα
ἢ μητέρα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐν τῇ θείᾳ
γραφῇ κατὰ τὸ φανερώτατον ἐπωνομ-
άσθαι. Epiphanius in Wetstein.] On
Philo’s use of the silence of Scrip. see
Siegfried’s Philo., p. 179. Philo is quite
aware that this kind of interpretation
will be said γλισχρολογίαν μᾶλλον ἢ
ὠφέλειάν τινα ἐμφαίνειν (De Somn., ii.
45). ἀπάτωρ, Wetstein quotes from
Pollux.: ὁ μὴ ἔχων μητέρα, ἀμήτωρ,
ὥσπερ ἡ ᾿Αθηνᾶ - καὶ ἀπάτωρ, ὴ
πατέρα ἔχων, ὡς ὁ Ἥφαιστος.
Apollo was αὐτοφυὴς, ἀμήτωρ. Other
examples in Wetstein. In a slightly
different sense the word occurs in Iph.
in Taur., 863; in Soph, Elec., 1154 we
have μήτηρ ἀμήτωρ ; and Ion (Eur. Jon,
100) says of himself ὡς yap ἀμήτωρ
ἀπάτωρ τε γεγώς.
Ver.3. ἀγενεαλόγητος, resolved
in ver. 6 into ph γενεαλογούμενος, does
not occur in classical nor elsewhere in
Biblical Greek. The dependence of
Levitical priests on genealogies and their
registers is illustrated by Neh. vii. 64.
μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν . - .- “having
neither beginning of days nor end of
life,” t.e., again, as he is represented in
Scripture. No mention is made of his
birth or death, of his inauguration to his
office or of his retirement from it. The
idea is conveyed that so long as priestly
services of that particular type were
needed, this man performed them. He
is thus the type of a priest who shall in
his single person discharge for ever all
gered functions. ἀφωμοιωμένος
ὲ τῷ υἱῷ τ. Θεοῦ “but made like
to the Son of God’. δὲ attaches this
clause to the immediately preceding,
“ having neither etc., ” but in this respect
made like to the Son of God, see i. 2, ix.
14 andi. 10,12. ‘‘ Such a comparison is
decisive against attributing these char-
acteristics to Melchisedek ina real sense.
They belong to the portrait of him, which
was so drawn that he was ‘ made like”’
the Son of God,—that by the features
absent as well as by the positive traits
a figure should appear corresponding to
the Son of God and suited to suggest
Him” (Davidson). μένει ἱερεὺς
els τὸ διηνεκές “abideth a priest
continually ἡ. This statement, directly
resting upon the preceding clause, is that
towards which the whole sentence (vv.
I, 3) has been tending. It is the per-
manence of the Melchisedek priesthood
on which stress is laid. See below.
εἰς τὸ Sinvexés is not precisely “ for
ever,” but ‘“‘for a continuance,” or per-
manence. Appian (De Bell. civ., 1. 4)
says of Julius Czesar that he was created
Dictator εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, permanent
Dictator. ‘The permanent character of
the priesthood is here described, not its
actual duration” (Rendall). It was not
destined to be superseded by another.
Bruce is not correct in saying: ‘“ The
variation in expression (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές
instead of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, vi. 20) is pro-
bably made out of regard to style, rather
than to convey a different shade of
meaning’, But he gives the sense
well: “If he had had in history, as
doubtless he had in fact, a successor in
office, we should have said of him, that
he was the priest of Salem in the days
of Abraham. As the case stands, he is
the priest of Salem.”
Vv. 4-10. Superiority of Melchizedek
to Levitical priests. The argument is:
Ver. 4. Θεωρεῖτε δὲ πηλίκος οὗτος.
“* But observe how great this man was.”
His greatness is recognisable in his re-
ceiving tithes of Abraham, and in giving
him his blessing, cf. vv. 1, 2. These
3—6.
᾿Αβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων ὁ πατριάρχης.
ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευὶ τὴν ἱερατείαν λαμβάνοντες, ἐντολὴν ἔχουσιν ἀπο-
Sexatodv τὸν λαὸν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τουτέστι, τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῶν,
καίπερ ἐξεληλυθότας ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος ᾿Αβραάμ- 6. 76 δὲ μὴ γενεα.
points are emphasised by several details.
The first evidence of greatness is that
it was no less a man than Abraham
who gave him a tithe of the spoils ¢
δεκάτην, κιτιλ. ᾿Αβραὰμ is in em-
phatic place, but the emphasis is multi-
plied by the position of ὁ πατριάρχης.
It is as if he heard some of his readers
saying, ‘*‘ He must be mistaken, or must
refer to some other Abraham and not the
fountain of all our families and of Levi
and Aaron”. He adds ὁ warp. to in-
dicate that it is precisely this greatest
of men to whom the people owe even
their being, of whom he says that Mel-
chizedek was greater. ἀκροθινίων
is perhaps chosen also for the purpose
of magnifying the gift. The Greeks
after a victory gathered the spoils in a
heap, θῖνι, and the top or best part of
the heap, ἄκρον, was presented to the
gods. Cf. Frazer’s Pausanias, v. 281.
Ver.5. The significance of this tithing
is perceived when it is considered that,
although the sons of Levi take tithes of
their brethren, this is the result of a mere
legalappointment. Those who pay tithes
are, as well as those who receive them,
sons of Abraham. Paying tithes is in
their case no acknowledgment of per-
sonal inferiority, but mere compliance
with law. But Abraham was under no
such law to Melchizedek, and the pay-
ment of tithes to him was a tribute to
his personal greatness. καὶ adds a
fresh aspect of the matter. of μὲν ἐκ
τῶν υἱῶν Aevt... “those of the
sons of Levi who receive the priestly
service have an ordinance to tithe the
people in accordance with the law, that
is, their brethren, although these have
come out of the loins of Abraham”.
Not all the tribe of Levi, but only the
family of Aaron received (cf. v. 4)
the ἱερατεία (also in Lk. i. 9), which
Bleek shows to have been used by
classical writers of priestly service,
while ἱερωσύνη was used of the
priestly office. See vv. II, 12, 24.
&mwoSexatotv, “The best MSS.
make the infinitive of verbs in -déw to
end in -otv”’ (Westcott and Hort, G., T.
ii., sec. 410, and cf. Jannaris, Greek
Gram., 851). The verb occurs only in
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
309
ο a ε Α
. καὶ οἱ μεν ςο Num.
5 κ XViii. 21,
26; Deut.
Xviii. I;
Josh. xiv.
4; 2:Par.
XXXi- 5.
ἃ τ Gen.
χῖν.19,20; Rom. iv. 13; Gal. iii. 16.
Biblical Greek, the classical form being
Sexatevw. κατὰ τὸν νόμον follows
ἀποδεκ. τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῶν,
«.t.A. Not their fellow-Levites, although
it is true that the Levites tithed the
people, and the priests tithed the Levites
(Num. xviii. 21-24 and 26-28), but the
words are added in explanation of λαόν
in order to emphasise the fact that the
priests exacted tithes not in recognition
of any personal superiority. Those who
paid tithes were Abraham’s descendants
equally with the priests; it was merely
the law which conveyed the right to
tithe their brethren καίπερ é ξελη λυ-
θότας ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος ᾿Αβραάμ.
Ver. 6. In striking contrast, ὁ δὲ
μὴ yeveadoyovpevos... “but
he whose genealogy is not counted
from them hath taken tithes of
Abraham, and blessed [see below] him
that hath the promises”. yeveahoyéw
is classical Greek, meaning, to trace
ancestry, see Herod. ii. 146. ἐξ
αὐτῶν, not “from the sons of Israel”
(Epiphanius in Bleek), but “from the
sons of Levi,” ver. 5; and who therefore
had no claim to tithe appointed by law,
and yet tithed Abraham. καὶ τὸν
ἔχοντα, in Vulgate “qui habebat”’;
in Weizsacker ‘‘der die Verheissungen
hatte,” not “hat”; so Vaughan cor-
rectly, ‘‘The possessor of”. ‘Him
who owned the promises.” Cf. Burton,
124 and 126. εὐλόγηκε; on the per-
fects of this verse and of this Epistle
(viii. 5, xi. 5, etc.), Mr. J. H. Moulton
asks, “ Has anyone noticed the beautiful
parallel in Plato, Afol., 28 c., for the
characteristic perfect in Hebrews, de-
scribing what stands written in Scrip-
ture? ὅσοι ἐν Τροίᾳ τετελευτήκασι (as
is written in the Athenian’s ‘ Bible’) is
exactly like Heb. vii. 6, xi. 17, 28” (Ex-
positor, April, 1901, p. 280). Vaughan
also says: ‘‘ The ραπται (so to say)
quickens the dead, and gives to the
praeterite of the history the permanence
of a perfect”. Yes; but to translate by
the perfect sacrifices English idiom to
Greek idiom. See Burton, 82, ‘* When
the Perfect Indicative is used of a past
event which is by reason of the con-
text necessarily thought of as separated
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
VIL,
λογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν, δεδεκάτωκε Tov! ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς
7. χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας τὸ ἔλαττον
8. καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας ἀποθνή-
ἐκεῖ δὲ, μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ.
9. καὶ, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, διὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Λευΐ ὁ δεκάτας λαμβάνων
210
ἐπαγγελίας εὐλόγηκε "
ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται.
σκοντες ἄνθρωποι λαμβάνουσιν -
e Gen. xiv.
18. δεδεκάτωται " 10.
1 τον inserted in ADb, etc., E**KLP, Chr.,
57, 109.
from the moment of speaking by an
interval, it is impossible to render it
into English adequately”. The point
which the writer here brings out is that,
although Abraham had the promises, and
was therefore himself a fountain of bless-
ing to mankind and the person on whom
all succeeding generations depended for
blessing, yet Melchizedek blessed him;
and as the writer adds :—
Ver. 7. χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας
- + εὐλογεῖται. ‘And without any
dispute the less is blessed of the
greater.”” Therefore, Abraham is the
less, and Melchizedek the greater. The
principle [expressed in its widest form
by the neuter] applies where the blessing
carries with it not only the verbal expres-
sion of goodwill, but goodwill achieving
actual results. But man blesses God in
the sense of praising Him, or desiring
that all praise may be His. So God is
ὁ εὐλογητός, Mk. xiv. 61. Cf. 2 Cor.
ΧΙ. 31,-etc,
Ver. 8. Another note of the superiority
of Melchizedek. καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας
...“Απά here men that die receive
tithes, but there one of whom it is
witnessed that he liveth.” ὧδε ‘here,’
i.é.,in this Levitical system with which
we who are Hebrews are familiar, ἐκεῖ,
“there”? in that system identified with
that ancient priest. ἀποθνήσκοντες
ἄνθρωποι, “dying men,” who there-
fore as individuals passed away and gave
place to successors, and were in this
respect inferior to Melchizedek, who,
so far as is recorded in Scripture, had
no successor. Giving to the silence
of Scripture the force of an assertion,
the writer Speaks of Melchizedek as
μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ; a person
of whom it is witnessed; note absence
of article. So Theoph.,. ὡς μὴ μνημο-
νευομένης τῆς τελευτῆς αὐτοῦ παρὰ τῇ
γραφῇ. Westcott distinguishes between
the plural of this verse, δεκάτας, appro-
priate to the manifold tithings under the
“ἔτι yap ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρὸς ἦν, ὅτε συνήν-
Thdrt.; omitted in Δ ΒΟΌ ΕΝ", 17, 23,
Bleek omits because ‘‘ gemass dem Sprachgebrauche des Verfassers’’.
Mosaic system and the singular, δεκάτην;
of ver. 4, one special act.
Ver. 9. Kal ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ‘“‘ And, I
might almost say,” adding a new idea
with a phrase intended to indicate that
it is not to be taken in strictness. It is
frequent in Philo,see examples in Carpzov
and add Quis rer. div. her., 3. Adam’s
note on Plato, Afol. Soc., 17a, is worth
quoting “ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν i. 4. paene
dixerim: in good authors hardly ever, if
at all=ut ita dicam. The phrase is
regularly used to limit the extent or
comprehension of a phrase or word. It
is generally, but by no means exclusively,
found with οὐδείς and πάντες, οὐδεὶς ὡς
ἔπος εἰπεῖν ‘hardly anyone’; πάντες
ὡς €.eim@.=nearly everyone.” A signifi-
cant use occurs in the Republic, p. 3418,
where Socrates asks Thrasymachus
whether in speaking of a “ Ruler” he
Means τὸν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἢ τὸν ἀκριβεῖ
λόγῳ. The phrase is discussed at great
length by Raphel. The further idea is,
that “through Abraham even Levi, he
who receives tithes, has paid tithes,”
the explanation being ἔτι yap ἐν τῇ
ὀσφύϊ... “for he [Levi] was yet in
the loins of his father [Abraham] when
Melchizedek met him,” Isaac not yet
having been begotten. There was a
tendency in Jewish theology to view
heredity in this realistic manner. Thus
Schoettgen quotes Ramban on Gen.
v. 2 “God calls the first human
pair Adam [man] because all men
were in them potentially or virtually
[virtualiter]”. And so some of the
Rabbis argued ‘“Eodem peccato, quo
peccavit primus homo, peccavit totus
mundus,quoniam hic erat totus mundus.”
Hence Augustine’s formula “ peccare |
in lumbis Adam,” and his explanation
“omnes fuimus in illo uno quando
omnes fuimus ille unus” (De Civ. Dei,
xiii. 14). On Traducianism see Loofs’
Leitfaden, p. 194.
Vv. «11-14. The imperfection of
7--:3.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
411
τησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ. τι. *EL μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς f ver. 18,19
Σ ii. 21
Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν" ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ ' νενομοθέτητο - τίς
ἔτι χρεία, “κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ᾽
᾿ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ
οὐ “Kata τὴν τάξιν ᾿Ααρὼν ᾿ λέγεσθαι ; 12. μετατιθεμένης γὰρ τῆς
ἱερωσύνης, ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ νόμου μετάθεσις γίνεται.
13. ἐφ᾽ ὃν γὰρ
1T.R. in DcE**K, Chrys., Thdrt.; ew αὐτῆς in $ABCD*E*LP, 17, 31, 37, 46, 73,
118,
?T.R. in DcEKL ; vevopoSernrat in SABCD*P.
the Levitical priesthood, and by impli-
cation of the whole Mosaic system,
proved by the necessity of having a
priest of another order.
Ver. Ir. εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις. . -.
“If then there was [or had been]
perfecting by means of the Levitical
priesthood—for upon it [as a basis] the
people have received the law—what fur-
ther need was there [or would have been]
that another priest should arise after
the order of Melchisedek and be styled
not after the order of Aaron?” εἰ μὲν
οὖν introduces a statement of some of
the consequences resulting from the
introduction of a priest of another order.
It argues the failure of the Levitical
priesthood to achieve τελείωσις.
“ Perfection is always a relative word.
An institution brings perfection when it
effects the purpose for which it was
instituted, and produces a result that
corresponds to the idea of it. The
design of a priesthood is to bring men
near to God (ver. 19), and this it effects
by removing the obstacle in the way,
viz. men’s sin, which lying on their
conscience impedes their free access to
God; compare ix. 9, x. 1, 14” (David-
son). On the rendering of ἦν see Son-
nenschein’s Greek Gram., 355, Obs. 3.
ὁ λαὸς yap ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς vevopobérn-
ται, the omitted clause is ‘‘and we
are justified in demanding perfectness
from the priesthood,” because it is the
soul of the entire legislation. All the
arrangements of the law, the entire
administration of the people, involves
the priesthood. If there is failure in
the priestly service, the whole system
breaks down, It was idle to give a
law without providing at the same time
for the expiation of its breaches. The
covenant was at the first entered into
by sacrifice, and could only be main-
tained by a renewal of sacrifice. The
priesthood stood out as the essential
part of the Jewish economy. γομοθετεῖν
to be a νομοθέτης used in classics some-
times with dative of person, as in LXX,
Exod. xxiv. 12, τὰς ἐντολὰς as ἔγραψα
γομοθετῆσαι αὐτοῖς. Sometimes it is
followed by accusative of that which is
ordained by law. The use of the passive
here is peculiar, cf. also viii. 6. The
vépos contained in the word, and ex-
pressed separately in ver. 12, is not the
bare law contained in commandments,
but the whole Mosaic dispensation.
τίς ἔτι χρεία, this use of ἔτι is
justified by an instance from Sextus
Empiricus quoted by Wetstein: τίς ἔτι
χρεία ἀποδεικνύναι αὐτά; ἕτερον; not
ἄλλον but another of a different kind.
ἀνίστασθαι so Acts vii. 18, ἀνέστη
βασιλεὺς ἕτερος and cf. the transitive
use in Acts ii. 24, 32, ili. 22, 26, vii.
37. καὶ οὐ. .«.λέγεσθαι. The
negative belongs rather to the description
x. τ. τάξιν "A. than to the verb and
Burton’s rule (481) applies. ‘‘ When a
limitation of an infinitive or of its subject
is to be negatived rather than the
infinitive itself, the negative οὐ is some-
times used instead of py.” λέγεσθαι
“be spoken of” or ‘‘ designated ”’.
Ver. 12. μετατιθεμένης yap... .
“‘ For if the priesthood is changed, there
is of necessity a change also of thelaw”’.
Or, This change of priesthood being
made, as it is now being made, a change
of the law is also being made. The
connection is: What need was there for
a new priesthood? It must have been
a crying need, for to change the priest-
hood is to change all. It means nothing
short of revolution. Chrysostom rightly
τοῦτο δὲ πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας, Ti ἔδει
καινῆς διαθήκης;
Ver. 13. This enormous change is in
fact being made. ἐφ᾽ ὃν yap A€ye-
ται Ttavta.... “For He with refer-
ence to whom this [110th Ps. 4] is said
hath partaken of another tribe from
which no man hath given attendance at
the altar”. Here for the first time
definitely in this chapter the writer in-
troduces the fulfilment of the Psalm.
It was spoken of the Messiah, and He
did not belong to the tribe of Levi, but
4312
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
VIL.
λέγεται ταῦτα, φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκε
gEsa.xi.r;7@ θυσιαστηρίῳ: 14. ὅ πρόδηλον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξ ᾿Ιούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ
Matt. i. 2,
etc; Luc. Κύριος ἡμῶν, εἰς ἣν φυλὴν οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης Μωσῆς ἐλάλησε.
15. Καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα
iii. 33.
1T.R. in DcKL ; περι repewy ovdev in δὰ", etc., ABC*D*EP, 17, d, e (de sacerdot-
ibus nihil), arm.
φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν, has
thrown in his lot with, or become a
member of (cf. ii. 14) a tribe of a different
kind from the Levitical (ver. xi. rz, 12)
being characterised by this, that from it
aq’ ἧς issuing from which, not ἐξ, [as in
ver. 14] no one has given attendance at
the altar. [Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13; Acts xx.
28; Hdt., ix. 33, γυμνασίοισι; Thuc., i.
15, Tots ναυτικοῖς ; and the equivalent in
1: Cor. ix. 13, of τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ προσ-
eSpevovres.] It is doubtful whether the
perfect μετέσχηκεν can bear the meaning
put upon it by Vaughan: ‘‘a striking
suggestion of the identity of Christ in
heaven with Christ upon earth’. So
too Weiss. It might seem preferable to
refer it with Burton (88) to the class of
perfects which in the N.T. have an aorist
sense, γέγονα, εἴληφα, ἔσχηκα. So
Weizsacker “ gehérte”; the Vulgate,
however, has ‘‘de alia tribu est,” and
cf. ἀνατέταλκεν of ver. 14. But the per-
fects are best accounted for as referring
to the statement of the previous verse.
This great change is being made, for he
of whom the 110th Psalm was spoken
has actually become a member of another
tribe. The result reaches to the change
of priesthood.
Ver. 14. He now proceeds to name
the tribe πρόδηλον yap Sti... . “ For
it is evident that out of Judah our
Lord has sprung, concerning which tribe
Moses said nothing about priests’”’.
With πρόδηλον may be compared δήπου
of ii. 16. The facts of our Lord’s birth
were so far known that everyone con-
nected Him with Judah. The accounts
of Matthew and Luke were accepted
(cf. Rev. v. 5). This fact of his origin
would naturally militate against His
claims to be Priest; but this writer here
skilfully reconciles them with Scripture.
Weizsacker translates by ‘“‘langst be-
kannt” giving to πρό the temporal
meaning. On Clem., ad Cor., xii., Light-
foot says: “It may be a question in
many passages whether the preposition
denotes priority in time or distinctness.”
Wetstein quotes from Artemidorus καὶ
ἐφάνη πρόδηλον τὸ ὄναρ μετὰ τὴν
ἀπόφασιν and from Polyaenus τί καὶ
χρὴ γράφειν; πρόδηλον γάρ. ἀνατέ-
ταλκεὲν is possibly a reminiscence of
Zech, vi. 12, ᾿Ιδοὺ ἀνὴρ ᾿Ανατολὴ ὄνομα
αὐτῷ - καὶ ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀνατελεῖ,
a passage referred to by Philo, see Carp-
zov inloc. εἰς ἣν φυλὴν, “εἰς is applied
to the direction of the thought, as Acts
ii. 25. Δαυὶδ λέγει εἰς αὐτόν, aiming at
Him, E. i. 10, v. 32.” Winer, 49, and
so in Dion. Hal., πολλοὶ ἐλέχθησαν εἰς
τοῦτο λόγοι, and cf. our own expression,
“He spoke fo such and such points”’.
Vulg. translates “‘in quatribu”. What-
ever Moses spoke regarding priests was
spoken with reference to another tribe
and not with reference to Judah.
Vv. 15-19. Imperfection of the Levi-
tical priesthood more abundantly proved
by contrast with the nature of the Mel-
chizedek priest.
Ver. 15. καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατά-
δηλόν ἐστιν. “And more abundantly
still is it evident” [Weizsacker excel-
lently ‘Und noch zum_ Ueberfluss
weiter liegt die Sache klar”'. What
is it that is more abundantly evident?
Weiss says, It is, that an alteration of
the priesthood has been made. Simi-
larly Vaughan, ‘‘ And this insufficiency
and consequent supersession of the Levi-
tical priesthood is still more conclusively
proved by the particular designation of
the predicted priest (in Ps. cx. 4) as a
priest, etc.”. So too Westcott. But
from the twelfth verse the argument has
been directed to show that there has
been a change of law, and this argument
is continued in ver. 15. This change of
law is evident from the fact that Jesus
belongs to the non-Levitical tribe of
Judah, and yet more superabundantly
evident from the nature of the new priest
who is seen to be no longer “ after the
law of a carnal commandment”. So
Bleek after GEcumenius, Davidson, Farrar
and others. κατάδηλον, quite evident,
as in Xen., Mem., i. 4, 14, οὐ yap πάνυ
σοι κατάδηλον ; Wetstein quotes from
Hippocrates, ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον κατάδηλον
γίνεται. In πρόδηλον the preposition
has the force of ‘‘ob”’ in “obvious ”’; in
14—17.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
313
Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, 16. ὃς οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς
σαρκικῆς γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου - 17. ἢ μαρ- ἢ ν- 6; Ps.
a 9 ac > 2A x ” CX. 4.
Tupet” yap, “Ὅτι σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν MeAxioedeK”’.
1 ΤΕ. in CcorrDcEK ; σαρκινῆς in NABC*D*LP.
2T.R. with CDcE**KL; μαρτυρειται in SABD*E*P,
κατάδηλον the preposition strengthens.
εἰ κατὰ, κιτιλ, “if as is the case” or
“since” (cf. ver. 11) ‘after the likeness
of Melchizedek” the κατὰ τ. ταξιν of
previous verses changed now into κατὰ t.
ὁμοιότητα, because attention is directed
to the similarity of nature between Mel-
chizedek and this new priest.
Ver. 16. ὃς οὐ κατὰ νόμον .-. . -
ἀκαταλύτου, “who has become such
not after the law of a fleshen ordinance
but after the power of an indissoluble
life”. This relative clause defines the
“likeness to Melchizedek,” and brings
out a double contrast between the new
priest and the Levitical—the Levitical
priesthood is κατὰ νόμον, the other κατὰ
δύναμιν, the one is dependent on what
is σαρκίνη, the other on what belongs
to ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος. These contrasts
are significant. The Levitical priesthood
rested on law, on a regulation that those
should be priests who were born of
certain parents. This was an outward
νόμος, a thing outside of the men them-
selves, and moreover it was a νόμος
σαρκίνης ἐντολῆς, regulating the priest-
hood not in relation to spiritual fitness
but in accordance with fleshly descent.
No matter what the man’s nature is nor
how ill-suited and reluctant he is to the
office, he becomes a priest because his
fleshly pedigree is right. Thenew priest
on the contrary did what He did, not
because any official necessity was laid
upon Him, but because there was a
power in His own nature compelling and
enabling Him, the power of a life which
death did not dissolve. The contrast is
between the official and the personal or
real. All that is merely professional
must be dispossessed by what is real.
Hereditary kings gave way to Cromwell.
The Marshals of France put their batons
in their pockets when Joan of Arc ap-
peared. For the difference between
σάρκινος and σαρκικός see Trench, Syn-
onyms, 257, who quotes the reason as-
signed by Erasmus for the use of the
former in 2 Cor, iii. 3, “‘ut materiam
intelligas, non qualitatem”’. The enact-
ment was σαρκίνη inasmuch as it took
to do only with the flesh. It caused the
priesthood to be implicated with and
dependent on fleshly descent. Opposed
to this was the inherent energy and
potentiality of an indissoluble or inde-
structible life. The life of the new priest
is indissoluble, not as eternally existing
in the Son, but as existing in Him
Incarnate and fulfilling priestly func-
tions. The term itself “indestructible”
used in place of “eternal,” directs the
thought to the death of Jesus which
might naturally seem to have threatened
it with destruction. His survival of
death was needful to the fulfilment of
His functions as priest (see ver. 25).
The meaning and reference of the term
is brought out by the contrast of ver. 28
between “‘ men who have weakness’’ and
υἱὸν eis τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον. ‘“ Un-
questionably that which enables the Son
to be Messianic King and High Priest of
men is His rank as Son. But it is true
on the other hand that it is as Son come
in the flesh that He is King and Priest.
And the expression ‘ hath become priest’
(ver. 16) points to a historical event. It
is, therefore, probable that indissoluble
life is attributed to Him not in general
as the eternal Son, but as the Son made
man.”
Ver. 17. That Jesus carries on His
work perennially is proved by Scripture.
‘For it is witnessed Thou art a priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek,”
not merely as in ver. 11, κατὰ τ. τάξιν M.,
although this itself involves the per-
petuity of the priesthood, but expressly
and emphatically εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Vv. 18
and 1g taking up the idea of ver. 16
affirm the negative and positive result of
the superseding of the fleshly ordinance
by the power of an indestructible life.
On the one hand there is an ἀθέτησις
προαγούσης ἐντολῆς, “a setting
aside of a foregoing enactment,” that
namely which is referred to in ver. 17,
and on the other hand, there is “a
further bringing in of a better hope”.
ἐπεισαγωγὴ κρείττονος ἐλπ-
ίδος, the ἐπί in ἐπεισαγωγή balances
προαγούσης, and indicates that the better
hope was introduced over and above all
that had already been done in the same
314
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
VII.
i Gal. iv.9. 18. ᾿᾿Αθέτησις μὲν γὰρ γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς, διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς
iv. 16;
Joan. i.
ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές - 19. " οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος " ἔπει-
σαγωγὴ δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπίδος, δι᾿ ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ Θεῷ.
20. Καὶ
ax, 28,et καθ᾽ ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας - ‘ot μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας
iii. ? Lal c lel
Ephoi. εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες, 21. ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας, διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος
18, et iii.
12; Gal. ii. 16. ΤΡ. 0 χ: 2:
behalf of bringing men to God. The
μὲν ... δὲ indicate that the sentence
must thus be construed, and not as
rendered in A.V. The reason of this
replacement of the old legal enactment
is given in the clause, διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς
ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές “on account of
its weakness and uselessness’’. This
arrangement depending on the flesh was
helpless to achieve the most spiritual of
achievements, the union of man with
God, the bringing together in true
spiritual fellowship of sinful and earthly
man with the holy God. So Paul found
that arrangements of a mechanical and
external nature were ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ
στοιχεῖα, Gal. iv. 9. ‘The wselessness
(unhelplessness) of the priesthood was
proved by its inability to aid men in
that ἐγγίζειν τῷ Θεῷ, which is their
one want” (Vaughan). The ordinance
regulating the priesthood failed to ac-
complish its object; and indeed this
characterised the entire system of which
it was a characteristic part. οὐδὲν
yap ἐτελείωσεν ὃ νόμος, “ for
nothing was brought to perfection by
the law”. The law made beginnings,
taught rudiments, gave initial impulses,
hinted, foreshadowed, but brought no-
thing to perfection, did not in itself pro-
vide for man’s perfect entrance into God’s
fellowship. Therefore there was intro-
duced that which did achieve in perfect
form this reconcilement with God, viz.:
a better hope, which is therefore defined
as δι᾽ ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ Θεῷ, “by which
we Be near τον ”, The law ren
(Exod. xix. 21) διαμάρτυραι τῷ λαῷ
μήποτε ἐγγίσωσι πρὸς aie. Θεόν: The
“better” hope is that which springs
from belief in the indestructible life of
Christ and the assurance that that life is
still active in the priestly function of
intercession. It is the hope that is
anchored within the veil fixed in Christ’s
person and therefore bringing us into
God’s presence and fellowship.
Vv. 20-22. Another -element in
the superiority of the covenant estab-
lished upon the priesthood of Jesus is
that in the very manner of the institution
of His priesthood it was declared to be
permanent. The long parenthesis of
ver. 21 being held aside the statement
of 20-22 reads thus: “ And [introducing
a fresh consideration] in proportion as
not without an oath [was He made
priest] . . . in that proportion better is
the covenant of which Jesus has become
the surety”. The parenthesis of ver.
21 is inserted to confirm by an appeal to
Scripture [Ps. cx. 4] the fact that by the
swearing ofan oath theMelchizedek priest
was appointed, and to indicate the
significance of this mode of appointment,
vtz.:; that repentance or change of plan
is excluded. That is to say, this
priesthood is final, eternal. And the
superiority of the priesthood involves
the superiority of the covenant based
upon it. The oath signifies therefore
the transition from a piovisional and
temporary covenant to that which is
eternal. καθ᾽ ὅσον. This form of
argument is frequent in Philo, see Quis.
Rev. Div. H., 17, etc. οὐ χωρὶς
δρκωμοσίας, ‘‘not without oath-
swearing ’’; the clause may be completed
from that which follows, ‘‘has he been
made priest,” as in A.V., although
Weiss maintains that this is ‘‘ sprach-
widrig” and that the broken clause
“kann natiirlich nur aus dem Vorigen
erginzt werden’’, But it is most natural
and grammatical to complete it from
the sentence in which it stands: “As
not without an oath, so of a_ better
covenant has Fesus become surety”,
The parenthesis thus furnishes the
needed ground of this statement. He
became surety by becoming priest, and
as priest he was constituted with an
oath. of μὲν yap “ For the one [that
is, the Levitical priests] εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς
γεγονότες “have been made priests”
Vaughan renders “are having become
priests—are priests having become so”,
So Delitzsch, Weiss and von Soden,
Westcott says: ‘* The periphrasis marks
the possession as well as the impartment
of the office ;” and on the “ periphrastic
conjugation” see Blass, sec. 62; Ste-
phanus Thesaurus s.v. εἰμί, and cf. Acts
18---22.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
315
πρὸς αὐτὸν, “ Ὥμοσε Κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται, Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς
τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ
1%. 22. Ἢ κατὰ τοσοῦτον 2 πὶ viii. 6.
1 T.R. in ΟΑΘΈΕΚΨΡΡ, d, e, Copt., Syrutr, Aeth.; om. κατα τ. ταξιν Μελχ. with
ΝΗ ΒΟ, 17, 80, f, vg., Sah., Basm., Arm.
?T.R. SQcD°EKL ; τοσουτο with
ΝΜ ΑΒΟ, 17, 23, 39, 115. Both forms found in
Attic though τοσουτον is more frequent. See Blass, Gram., p. 36.
xxi. 29, ἦσαν yap προεωρακότες.]. ὁ δὲ
μετὰ Spx. “but the other [the new
priest] with an oath,” pera of course not
being instrumental, but ““ interposito
jurejurando”’; where and how this oath
is to be found is next explained, it is διὰ
τοὐλέγοντος ... “through Him
that saith to him. The Lord sware and
will not repent, Thou art,” etc. There
is no call to translate πρὸς αὐτόν
‘in reference to Him’’; neither is there
any difficulty in referring the words
ὥμοσε . . . μεταμελ. toGod. “ Though
the words are not directly spoken by
the Lord, they are His by implication.
The oath is His ” (Westcott). On the
distinction between petavoéw and pera-
μέλομαι see Trench, Synonyms, 241. “ He
who has changed his mind about the
past is in the way to change everything ;
he who has an after care may have little
or nothing more than a selfish dread of
the consequences of what he has done.”
This, however, does not apply to the
LXX (from which the quotation of this
verse is taken) where both words are
used to translate OM .Cf. 1 Kings xv.
29 and 35. κατὰ τοσοῦτο “by so
much,” that is, the superiority of the new
covenant to the old is in the ratio of
eternity to time, of what is permanent
and adequate to what is transitory and
provisional. κρείττονος διαθή-
«ns “of a better covenant” [‘‘id est,
non infirmae et inutilis. Frequens in hac
epistola epitheton,xpeitrwy, item αἰώνιος,
ηθινὸς, δεύτερος, διαφορώτερος,
ἕτερος, ζῶν, καινὸς, μέλλων, νέος,
πρόσφατος, τέλειος ᾿ (Bengel)], here
first mentioned in the Epistle, but
whose character and contents and
relation to the “ foregoing”? covenant
are fully explained in the following
chapter. Here already its “" betterness ”
is recognisable in this, that it supersedes
the older, and is itself permanent
because perfectly accomplishing the
purposes of a covenant.
Ver. 22. διαθήκη in classical Greek
means a disposition (διατίθημι) of one’s
goods by will; frequent in the orators
and sometimes as in Aristoph., Birds, 439,
a covenant. In the LXX it occurs
nearly 280 times and in all but four
passages it is the translation of TTD
“covenant”. (See Hatch, Essays in
Bibl. Greek, 47.) Itis used indifferently
of agreements between men and ot
contracts or engagements between God
and man. See Introduction and on ix.
16 and Thayer s.v. Of this “better
covenant” Jesus “has become and is”
[γέγονεν] €yyvos “surety”. €yyvos is
explained in the Greek commentators by
ἐγγνητής; which is the commoner of the
two forms, at least in later Greek.
éyyvos occurs several times in the
fragments from the second century B.c.
given in Grenfell and Hunt’s Greek
Papyri, series ii.; also in the fragments
from first century A.D. given in the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri. It isnot the exact
equivalent of μεσίτης (found in a similar
connection viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24) which
is a more comprehensive term. It has
been questioned why in this place éyyvos
is used, and Peirce answers: ‘‘I am apt
to think he was led to this by his having
just before used the word éyyifopev, and
that he did it for the sake of the
paronomasia’”’. And Bruce says: ‘‘ There
is literary felicity in the use of the word
as playfully alluding to the foregoing
word iLopev. There is more than
literary felicity, for the two words
probably have the same root, so that we
might render éyyvos., the one who insures
permanently near relations with God.”
More likely he chose the word because
his purpose was not to exhibit Jesus as
negotiating the covenant, but especially
as securing that it should achieve its
end. It has been debated whether it is
meant that Jesus was surety for men to
God, as was held by both Lutheran and
Reformed writers,or with others (Grotius,
Peirce, etc.), that He was surety for God
to men [‘ His being a surety relates to
His acting in the behalf of God towards
us and to His assuring us of the divine
favour, and to His bestowing the benefits
promised by God” (Peirce)] or, with
Limborch, Baumgarten and Schmid (see
Bleek) that he was surety for both
416
κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος ᾿ἸΙησοῦς.
n ix. 24;
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
VIL.
23. Καὶ οἱ μὲν,
kom. viii, πλείονές εἰσι γεγονότες ἱερεῖς,Σ διὰ τὸ θανάτῳ κωλύεσθαι παρα-
Gea
im. ii. 5; μένειν " 24. ὁ δὲ, διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀπαράβατον
1 Joan ii. »
2. εχει
τὴν ἱερωσύνην - 25. " ὅθεν καὶ σώζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται
1T.R. in QcACCDEKLP; καὶ κρειττονος in Ὁ ΒΟ".
2 γεγονοτες ante tepets with ἡ ΒΓΡ ; post ιερεις in ACDE, 17, d, ε.
parties. There is no reason to suppose
that the writer particularised in any of
these directions. He merely wished to
express the thought that by the appoint-
ment of Jesus to the priestoood, the
covenant based upon this priesthood
was secured against all failure of any of
the ends for which it was established.
Vv. 23-25. Another ground of the
perfectness of the new priesthood is
found in the continued life of the priest,
who ever lives to make intercession and
can therefore save completely, whereas
the Levitical priests were compelled by
death to give place to others.
Ver. 23. καὶ, as above, ver. 20, in-
troducing a new element in the argu-
ment. of pév, as in ver. 21, the
Levitical priests, πλείονες ... ‘‘ have
been made priests many in number,”
not many at one and the same time
[Delitzsch], although that also is true,
but many in succession, as is shown by
the reason assigned διὰ τὸ θανάτῳ
κωλύεσθαι παραμένειν “* be-
cause of their being prevented by
death from abiding” “in their office,”
Peirce, as CEcumenius, ἐν τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ
ϑηλονότι. Others think that remaining
in life is meant. Possibly πλείονες is
used instead of πολλοί, because there is
a latent comparison with the one con-
tinuing priest, or with those already
priests; always more and more. He,
on the contrary, 6 δὲ, by reason of his
abiding for ever ἀπαράβατον ἔχει
τὴν ἱερωσύνην “has his priesthood
inviolable,’’ that is, no other person can
step into it. The form of expression is
similar to that used by Epiphanius of
the Trinity, ἡ δὲ ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν
φύσιν. The meaning of ἀπαράβ. is
contested, some interpreters (Weiss,
etc.) supposing that it signifies ‘‘inde-
feasible,” or ‘“‘ untransmitted”’ or “non-
transferable”. Indeed, Gicumenius and
Theophylact translate it by ἀδιάδοχον.
But in every instance of its. occurrence
given by Stephanus and Wetstein it has
a passive sense, as νόμος, ὅρκος, etc.,
ἀπαράβ., and means unalterable or in-
violable. This suits the present passage
perfectly, and returns upon the thought
of ver. 3, that the new priest is sole and
perpetual occupant of the office, giving
place to no successor. ὅθεν, ‘‘ whence,”
1.6.7) because of His having this absolute
priesthood; His saving power depends
upon His priesthood. He is able καὶ
σώζειν εἰς τὸ παντελές, “even to save
to the uttermost,’ not to be referred
merely to time as in Vulgate ‘in per-
petuum,” and Chrysostom, οὐ πρὸς τὸ
παρὸν μόνον φησὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐν τῇ
μελλούσῃ ζωῇ. If referred to time, it
might mean either ability to save the
individual eternally, or to save future
enerations. Peirce joins it with
ὕύναται, and renders ‘‘ whence also he
is perpetually able to save”. But the
phrase uniformly means ‘‘completely,”
“thoroughly,” as in Luke xiii. τὰ of
the woman, μὴ δυναμένη ἀνακύψαι εἰς
τὸ παντελές and in the examples cited
by Wetstein. This, as Riehm shows (p.
613, note), includes the idea of per-
petuity. The Levitical priests could not
80 save: no τελείωσις was achieved by
them; but everything for which the
priesthood existed, everything which is
comprised in the great [ii. 3] and eternal
[v. 9] salvation, the deliverance [ii, 15]
and glory [ii. 10] which belong to it,
are achieved by Christ. The objects of
this saving power are τοὺς προσερ-
xopévovs δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ,
“those who through Him approach
God”; “through Him” no longer re-
lying on the mediation of Levitical
priests, but recognising Jesus as the
“new and living way,” x. 19-22. This
complete salvation Jesus can accom-
plish because πάντοτε ζῶν .. . αὐτῶν,
“ever living to intercede on their
behalf’. The particular mode in which
His eternal priesthood applies itself to
those who through Him approach God
is that He intercedes for them, thus
effecting their real introduction to God’s
presence and their acceptance by Him,
and also the supply of all their need out
of the Divine fulness. ἐντυγχάνειν, ‘to
meet by chance,” “το light upon,” takes
as its second meaning, “to converse
23—26.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
317
τοὺς προσερχομένους δι᾿ αὐτοῦ TH Θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ evtuy-oiv. 14,15,
χάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.
26. “ τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ' ἀρχιερεὺς,
et ix. 243
Rom. viii.
ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, Kal ΤΣ
1 ΤΕ. in ΜΒ ΟΚΕΡ it vg. ; insert και before ἐπρεπεν ABDE, Syrutr.
with” (followed by dative), hence “το
entreat one to do something” (Plut.,
Pomp., 55; Ages., 25), and when fol-
lowed by περί (Polyb., iv. 76, 9) or by
ὑπέρ (Plut., Cato Maj., 9) “to inter-
cede”. (See Liddell and Scott.) It is
not the word itself, but the preposition
following, that gives the idea of inter-
cession. The word with a different pre-
position can be used in the sense of
appealing against, as in Rom. xi. 2,
ὡς ἐντυγ. τ. Θεῷ κατὰ τ. ᾿Ισραήλ, see
also 1 Mac. xi. 25. With ὑπέρ it occurs
in Rom. viii. 27, 34, and with περί in
Acts xxv. 24. Christ, then, treats with
God in our behalf; and He lives for
this. As His life on earth was spent in
the interests of men, so He continues to
spend Himself in this same cause. He
ever lives, and being “the same yester-
day, to-day and for ever” (xiii. 8) His
present fulness of life is devoted to
those ends which evoked His energies
while on earth. He secures that the
fulness of Divine resource shall be avail-
able for men. “All things are ours.”
This intercession is not the same as the
Atoning sacrifice and its presentation
before God, which was accomplished
once for all (ix. 26, x. 18); but it is
based upon the sacrifice which is also
to men the guarantee that His inter-
cession is real, and comprehensive of all
their needs. [Cf. Sir Walter Raleigh’s
Pilgrimage.)
Vv. 26-28. - A summary description of
the Melchizedek ideal priest, drawn in
contrast to the Levitical High Priest,
and realised in the Son who has been
perfected as Priest forever. Melchizedek
is here dropped, and the priesthood of
the Son is now directly contrasted with
that of the Aaronic High Priest.
Ver. 26. Τοιοῦτος yap...
ἀρχιερεύς. “Such seems to refer
to the Melchizedek character delineated
in the preceding part of the chapter, or
to all that was said of the nature and
character of the Son from iv. 14 on-
ward. The sense will not differ if it
be supposed to refer to the epithets and
statements that follow, for these but
summarise what went before” (David-
son and others). But it must not be
overlooked that ὃς (ver. 27) is one of
the usual relatives after τοιοῦτος (cf.
viii. 1, and Soph., Antig., 691, λόγοις
τοιούτοις ols; cf. also Longinus, De
Sublim., ix. 2. So that Farrar’s state-
ment on chap. viii. 1, “ τοιόσδε is pro-
spective, τοιοῦτος is retrospective,” is
incorrect), and that the adjectives ὅσιος,
κιτιλ. prepare for and give the ground
of the statement made in the relative
clause. The sentence therefore reads:
“So great a high priest as need not
daily, etc., ... became us,” ἡμῖν
ἔπρεπεν, not, as in viii. I, τοιοῦτον
ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα (cf. iv. 14, 15), because
the writer wishes to draw attention to
the needs of those for whom the priest
was appointed [ἡμῖν emphatic] and his
suitableness to those needs. We, being
what we are, sinful and dependent on
the mediation of others, need a priest in
whom we can wholly trust, because He
Himself is holy, separate from sinners,
without human weakness. Westcott’s
distribution of the terms is _ neat,
although of doubtful validity. ““ Christ
is personally in Himself Aoly, in rela-
tion to men guileless, in spite of contact
with a sinful world, undefiled. By the
issue of His life He has been separated
from sinners in regard to the visible
order, and, in regard to the invisible
world, He has risen above the heavens”’.
ὅσιος frequently in the Psalms, where
it translates “}D{7) denotes personal
holiness, while ἅγιος and ἱερός express
the idea of consecration. [See Trench,
Synon.] Weiss, however, says: “ὅσιος,
ein Synonym von ἅγιος ᾿᾿ (Vulg., Ps. iv.
4, xvi. 10) “bezeichnet die religidse
Weihe des Gottangehérigen ” (Tit. i. 8,
1 Tim. ii. 8). Peirce understands that
here the word means “merciful”. But
this is scarcely consistent with N.T. usage.
ἄκακος, ‘‘innocent,” and frequently with
the idea of inexperience which attaches
to the English word [οὖς the definition
which Trench, Synon., p. 197, quotes
from Basil; and see also the use of
ἀκακία in Ps. xxxvi. 37, and of ἄκακοι in
Ps. xxiv. 21. Its use in Jer. xi. 19 is
significant, ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον
ἀγόμενον τοῦ θύεσθαι. Here the word
seems to point to that entire absence of
evil thought and slightest taint of malice
318
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
Vil
ΡΥ. 8, ot ix. ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος - 27. ἢ ὃς οὐκ ἔχει Kab” ἡμέραν
1 ᾿ ᾿
X. 12:
Lev. ix. 7
ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ ot ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν
᾽ A lol “ ~
et xvi. 6, θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ - τοῦτο yap ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ,
ΙΙ-
qii.10,et ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας.}
V. Ty 2,9:
28. “ὁ νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν
ἀρχιερεῖς, ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν - ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ
τὸν νόμον, υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον.
1T.R. with BDEKLP; mpoceveyxas in NA, 17, 73, 80, Cyr est 93.
which might prompt disregard of human
need. ὅσιος denotes His oneness with
God, ἄκακος His oneness with His
fellow-men. He is not separated from
them, or rendered indifferent by any
selfishness. Neither has His contact
with the world left any soil; He is
ἀμίαντος, “stainless,” and so fit to
appear before God. Cf. the stringent
laws regarding uncleanness and blemish
laid down for the Levitical priests in
Lev. xxi. 1, xxii. 9. And as the high
priest in Israel was not permitted to go
out of the sanctuary nor come near a
dead body, though of his father or
mother (Lev. xxi. 11, 12), and as the
later law enjoined a seven-days’ separa-
tion of the high priest before the day
of Atonement (Schoettgen in loc.), so
our Lord fulfilled this symbolic isolation
by being in heart and life κεχωρισμένος
ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν. If there is any-
thing in the symbol, then this separation
occurred before the sacrifice was made,
and as a preparation for it, but almost
all modern interpreters (Grotius, Bengel,
‘‘separatus est, relicto mundo,” Peirce,
Tholuck, Bleek, Alford, Davidson, Ren-
dall, von Soden, but not Milligan) refer
the separation to His exaltation. ‘In
virtue of His exaltation He is now for
evermore withdrawn from all perturbing
contact with evil men” (Delitzsch).
Being co-ordinate with the previous
adjectives, while the ὑψηλότερος γεν. is
added by καὶ, it would seem that κεχωρ.-
refers to the result achieved by His
earthly life with all its temptations. By
the seclusion of the high priest it was
hinted that before entering God’s pres-
ence the priest must be isolated from
the contamination of human intercourse:
there must be a period of quarantine;
but our High Priest has carried through
all the confusion and turmoil and de-
filement and exasperation of life an
absolute immunity from contagion or
stain. He was with God throughout,
and throughout was separated by an
atmosphere of His own from sinners.
καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν
γενόμενος, “and made higher than
the heavens,” which apparently has a
meaning similar to iv. 14, ‘‘We havea
great High Priest who has passed through
the heavens,” cf. also Eph. iv. το. It is
not ‘‘and has been set,” but γενόμενος,
has by His own career and character
attained that dignity. It is by right, as
the necessary result of His life, that
He is above the heavens. ‘He is
now become, strictly speaking, as to
His mode of being, supra-mundane”
(Delitzsch). [For the word, cf. Lucian,
Nigr., 25, ἑαυτὸν ὑψηλότερον λημμάτων
παρέχειν, to show himself superior to
gains.] ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾽ ἡμέραν
ἀνάγκην . .. “who does not need
daily, like the high priests, to offer
sacrifices first for His own sins, then for
the people’s ; for this He did once for all
by offering Himself”. As shown by the
relative, this is the main affirmation to
which the preceding clauses lead up.
The one offering of Christ is contrasted
with the continually repeated offerings
of the Levitical high priests; and His
Sonship priesthood to which He was
instituted by an oath is set over against
the service of men who had first to be
cleansed from their own defilements be-
fore they could sacrifice for the sins of
the people. In the words καθ᾽ ἡμέραν,
when κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν (x. 1) might have
been expected, a difficulty has been
found. It was on the Day of Atone-
ment, once a year, that the high priest
offered first for himself and then for the
people, see ix. 7. Accordingly, several
interpreters, such as Bleek, Lunemann,
Davidson, adopt the idea that the writer
blends in one view the ordinary daily
sacrifice and the sacrifice of the day of
Atonement. Others again, as Hofmann,
Delitzsch, Alford, maintain that the
position of καθ᾽ ἡμέραν shows that it
belongs only to ὃς [Christ], not to of
ἀρχιερεῖς, so that the sentence really
means: ‘Who has not need day by
day, as the high priests had year by
27—28.
year”. Weiss renders this interpreta-
tion more probable by pointing out that
the words have a reference to πάντοτε
ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν of ver. 25. His
intercession is continuous, from day to
day, but in order to accomplish it He
does not need day by day to purify
Himself and renew His sacrifice. Cf.
also the seven days’ purification of the
high priest on entering his office, Exod.
xxix. 13-8. θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, a
phrase resulting from the carrying up of
the sacrifice to the raised altar, and only
found in Hellenistic, frequently in LXX.
The more usual word in this Epistle
(twenty times and frequently in LXX)
is προσφέρειν. “ἀναφέρειν properly
describes the ministerial action of the
priest, and προσφέρειν the action of the
offerer (Lev. 11. 14, 16, vi. 33, 35), but the
distinction is not observed universally ;
thus ἀναφέρειν is used of the people (Lev.
xvii. 5), and προσφέρειν of the priests
(Lev. xxi. 21)” (Westcott), πρότερον
-.. €wetra, as in v. 3, “they must
first offer for themselves, because they
may not approach God sin-stained ; they
must also offer for the people, because
they may not introduce a sin-stained
people to God” (Weiss). τοῦτο yap
mwoinoev... This, i.¢., offering for
the sins of the people. But it must be
borne in mind that this writer keeps in
view that Christ also had a preparation
for His priestly ministry in the sinless
temptations and sufferings He endured,
vv. 7-Ic. The emphasis is on ἐφ άπα ξ,
in contrast to the καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, and
the ground of the ἐφάπαξ is given in
ἑαυτὸν dvevéykas, an offering
which by the nature of the case could
not be repeated, ix. 27, 28, and which
by its worth rendered repetition super-
fluous. This difference between the new
priest and the old is based upon their
essential difference of nature, ‘“‘ For the
law appoints as high priests men who
have weakness,” which especially gives
the reason, as in v. 3, why they must
sacrifice for themselves. In v. 3 the
weakness is ascribed to the same source
as here; the high priest is ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
λαμβανόμενος. In ς. 5, however, the tact
that the high priest is taken from among
men is introduced chiefly for the sake of
illustrating his sympathy: here it is in-
troduced in contrast to υἱόν of the next
clause, which is thus raised to a higher
than human dignity. For had this con-
trast not been intended, τούς would have
been used, and not ἀνθρώπους. The law
only made provision for the appointment
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
319
of priests who had human weakness:
the word of the oath (already explained
in vv. 20-22), τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον;
“which [oath-swearing] came after the
law,” and therefore showed that the
law needed revisal and supplementing
[{‘‘ Debent posteriora in legibus esse per-
fectiora’’ (Grotius)]. It might have been
argued that the Law coming after Mel-
chizedek introduced an improved priest-
hood. It is therefore worth while to point
out that the adoption of the Melchizedek
priesthood as the type of the Messianic
was subsequent to the Law, and conse-
quently superseded it. υἱὸν εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον [appoints],
“ἃ son who has been made perfect for
ever”. υἱὸν, without the article, be-
cause attention is called to the nature
of the new priest, as in i. 1. ‘‘ Son,”
in the fullest sense, as described in i,
1-4, and in contrast to ἀνθρώπους. He
also, though a Son, became man, and
was exposed to human temptations, but
by this experience was “ perfected”? as
our Priest. Cf. vv. 7-10. ‘For ever
perfected” is directly contrasted with
the sinful yielding to infirmity exhibited
by the Levitical priests, and must there-
fore be referred to moral perfecting, as
explained in chap. v. This perfectness
of the Son is confirmed and sealed by
His exaltation; He is for ever perfected
in the sense, as Grotius says, “αἴ nec
morti nec ullis adversis subjaceat”. Cf.
ix. 27, 28. The A.V. translates ‘‘ conse-
crated,” which Davidson denounces, with
Alford, as “ altogether false”. But this
translation at any rate suggests that it is
perfectness as our priest the writer has
in view; and the use of τελειόω in Lev.
xxi, 10 and other passages cannot be
thus lightly set aside.
CuaPTER VIII.—Vv. 1-6. The idea of
Christ’s priesthood, merely suggested in
i. 3, expressly affirmed in ii. 17, has
been from iv. 14 onwards enlarged upon
and illustrated. It has been shown that
Christ is a priest, called by God to this
office and proclaimed by God as High
Priest. The superiority of His orders
as belonging not to the hereditary
Aaronic line, but as being ‘‘after the order
of Melchisedek,” has also been exhibited.
Passing now from the person and
qualifications of the Priest, the author
proceeds in chap. viii. to illustrate his
greatness from a consideration of the
place of His ministry. It is in heaven
He is seated, a minister of the real
tabernacle, not of that which had been
pitched by Moses as an image and
220 ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY= Vill.
ai. 5, 13, εἰ VIII. 1. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν
lll. I, 6 a A a , 2 os
iv. 14,et ἀρχιερέα, ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς
vi. 20, et
ix, 11, et xii.2; Eph.i.2o; Col. iii. x.
symbol of it. The priesthood to which although as contrasted with τοιόσδε this
God called Him must be a heavenly is its proper meaning; but here, as
ministry, for were He on earth He would frequently in classics [Soph., Antig., 691,
not even be a priest, not to say a High λόγοις τοιούτοις ols σὺ μὴ τέρψει κλύων,
Priest. His ministry, therefore, being in and Demosth., p. 743, followed also by
the heaven of eternal realities, is a ὥστε] it finds its explanation in ὃς
“better ministry,” in accordance with ἐκάθισεν [τοιοῦτον weist naturlich nicht
the fact that he is mediating a “ better riickwdrts sondern vorwirts auf den
covenant’’. dasselbe erlauternden Relativsatz. Weiss. ]
Ver. 1. κεφάλαιον ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, The greatness of the High Priest is
not, as A.V., ‘‘ Now of the things which manifested by the place where He
we have spoken this is the sum” (cf. ministers. His greatness is revealed in
Grotius. ‘post tot dicta haec esto his sitting down at the right hand of
summa”), but with Field ‘“‘Now to the Majesty in the heavens. Westcott
crown our present discourse” or with thinks that the thought of a High Priest
Rendall ‘‘ Now to crown what we are who... ‘is King as well as priest is
saying”. κεφάλαιον is used to denote clearly the prominent thought of the
either the sum, as of numbers addedup sentence”. And Moulton on x. 12
from below to the head of the column says: ‘“‘ The words ‘sat down’ (Ps. cx.
where the result is set down, and in this 1), add to the priestly imagery that of
sense it is here understood by Erasmus, kingly state”. But undoubtedly Weiss
Calvin and A.V.; or, the chief point as_is right in saying “ Durch den Relativsatz
of a cope-stone or capital ofa pillar, as_ soll nicht auf die kénigliche Herrlichkeit
L : Christi hingewiesen werden”. The
πολλὰ καὶ κεφάλαιον, of Συρακόσιοι, writer means to magnify Christ’s priest-
x.t.A. Other examples in Field’s O.N., hood by reminding his readers that it is
to which add Plutarch, De Educ. Puer., exercised “‘in the heavens”; as he says
8, ἐν πρῶτον καὶ μέσον καὶ τελευταῖον in ix. 24 he has passed εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν
ἐν τούτοις κεφάλαιον ἀγωγὴ σπουδαία. οὐρανόν into heaven itself, the very
This latter sense alone satisfies the presence of God and eternal reality, the
present passage, and also agrees better ultimate, highest possible. On the
with ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις for ἐπὶ must words cf. note on i. 3. ἐκάθισεν is con-
here be taken in a quasi-local sense, as_ sidered by Buttmann to be one of those
Vaughan paraphrases ‘“‘as a capital aorists which stand for the perfect (see
upon the things which are being said— his instructive remarks on the aversion
as a thought (or fact) forming the to the perfect, Gram., p. 198) ; but this
headstone of the argument—we add may be doubted, as the sitting is not
this”. Cf. Luke xvi. 26 καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι mentioned as the permanent attitude,
τούτοις. That λεγομένοις is in the but merely as suggesting the exaltation
present is manifestly no objection to of the High Priest, and the finality of
this rendering. The absence of the His purification of sins, as in i. 3.
article before κεφάλ. does not involve, as Augustine, De Fide et symbolo, 7, warns
Liinemann supposes,thatthe writermeans against the suggested anthropomorphism
“ἃ main point” among others, for such of the words “sitteth at the right hand”
words do not in similar situations require and says ‘‘ ad dextram intelligendum est
the article, cf. Demosth.,p. 924, τεκμήριον dictum esse, in summa beatitudine, ubi
δὲ τούτου. κεφάλαιον is most easily justitia et pax et gaudium est’. Here,
construed as a nominative absolute (cf. however, it is rather Christ’s majesty
Buttmann, p. 381) not, as Bruce, “an that issuggested, andas Pearson on this
accusative in apposition with the follow- clause of the Creed says, ‘‘ The belief of
ing sentence’. τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα Christ’s glorious session is most neces-
-.. ‘so great a High Priest have we sary in respect of the immediate conse-
as took His seat (or, is‘set down) on quence which is his most gracious
the right hand of the throne of the intercession,” rather his availing inter-
Majesty in the heavens”. τοιοῦτον, not, cession. Cf. Hooker, Book V., chap.
as Farrar and Rendall, ‘‘retrospective,” 55.
I—4.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
321
οὐρανοῖς, 2. " τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς, καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς," ᾿᾿ Bi th,
ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ Κύριος, kal? οὐκ ἄνθρωπος.
τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται - ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν
3. “πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς ΤΑΝ ΣΝ
v.2.
τι καὶ τοῦτον ὃ προσενέγκῃ. 4. εἰ μὲν γὰρ 3 ἦν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἦν
ἱερεὺς, ὄντων τῶν ἱερέων 8 τῶν προσφερόντων κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὰ δῶρα,
1ADcE**KLP, ξὶ vg., Copt., insert kat; Ὁ ΒΌ Ἐπ 17, d, 6, omit και.
?T.R. in DcEKL Syrp, Arm.; ovv in $ABD*P, 17, 73, 80, 137, d, e, f, vg.
3 T.R. in DcE**KL Syrutr, Chrys.; ABD*E*P, 17, 73, 137, ἃ, e, f, vg. omit των
ιερεων.
Ver.2. τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς
..... “a minister of the [true] holy place
and of the true abernacle which the
Lord pitched, not man”. τῶν ἁγίων
not = τῶν ἡγιασμένων as CEcumenius
translates, but as in ix. 8, 12, 25; x. 19;
xiii, II = ἅγια ἁγίων of ix. 3. In ix.
2, 3, the outer part of the tabernacle is
called ἅγια, the inner ἅγια ἁγίων, but
ver. 8 is conclusive proof that ἅγια with-
out addition was used for the holiest
place. λειτουργὸς cf. note oni. 14.
καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, the ideal,
antitypal tabernacle; ἀληθ. used as in
the fourth gospel in contrast not to what
is false, but to what is symbolical. It is
to be taken with ἁγίων as well as with
σκηνῆς. Cf. Bleek; and see ix. 11, τῆς
μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χει-
ροποιήτου, which is the equivalent of
the clause added here, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ
Κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος. See also Mark
xiv. 58 and the striking words of Wisdom
ix. 8. In a different sense in Numb.
xxiv. 6, ὡσεὶ σκηναὶ ἃς ἔπηξε Κύριος.
According to the fifth verse, man pitched
a tabernacle which was a shadow of the
true, and the very words in which was
uttered the command so to do, might
have reminded the people that there was
a symbolic and a true tabernacle.
Ver. 3. πᾶς yap ἀρχιερεὺς. ...
“ For every High Priest is appointed for
the offering of gifts and sacrifices, and
therefore it was necessary that this man
also have something to offer”. That
Christ is in heaven as a λειτουργός, as
an active minister in holy things, is
proved by the universal law, that every
High Priest is appointed to offer gifts and
sacrifices. Christ is not idle in heaven,
but being there as High Priest He must
be offering something; what that is, He
has told us in vii. 27, but here no em-
phasis is on the what, but merely on the
fact that He must be offering something,
must be actively ministering in heaven
as a λειτουργός. [Bruce therefore over-
looks vii. 27 in his interpretation: ‘‘ He
VOL. IV.
is content for the present to throw out
the remark: ‘This man must have some-
thing to offer,’ and to leave his readers
for a while to puzzle over the question,
What is it?”] With ἀναγκαῖον some
have understood ἦν rather than ἐστὶ
*‘necesse fuit habere quod offerret ”
(Beza) followed by Westcott, etc., on the
ground that the reference is to our Lord’s
presentation to the Father of His finished
sacrifice. But it is better to give the
word a merely logical and subjective
force; it is a necessary inference that
this man, etc. Behind and beyond this
lies no doubt the reference to Christ’s
sacrifice. As the High Priest could not
enter into the Holiest without the blood
of the victim (ix. vii.), so must Jesus
accomplish His priestly office by offering
His own blood (ix. 12). For the words
of the former part of the verse see note
on vi. I.
Ver. 4. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ γῆς . . . “And
indeed if He were on earth He would
not even be a priest, since there are those
who according to law offer the gifts’’.
μὲν οὖν = et quidem (Devarius, p. 125)
or, it might be rendered ‘“ If however,”
see Hermann’s Viger, p. 442. Vaughan
says: “ The οὖν is (as usual) in accord-
ance with the above statement ; here,
namely, that He must have something to
offer”’. The apodosis in ver. 6. νυνι Se.
The argument is, given or assumed as
already proved that Christ is our High
Priest, it must be in Heaven He exer-
cises His ministry, for if He were on
earth, He would not even be a priest, not
to say, a High Priest. [As Bleek has it,
“ er wiirde nicht einmal Priester sein,—
geschweige denn Hohe priester”.] He
could not be a priest, because the priestly
office on earth is already filled. The
law [κατὰ νόμον], which can not be
interfered with, regulates all that con-
cerns the earthly priesthood (vii. 12), and
by this law He is excluded from priestly
office, not being of the tribe of Levi
(vii. 14). τὰ δῶρα “the gifts” further
21
422
dx.1;
Exod.
Acts
44; Col. φησι, ‘
ii. 17.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
VIII.
5. οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσι τῶν ἐπουρανίων, —
XIV. 405 ΚΕΧΡΉΜΤΗῦΤΩΣ meats μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνὴν, “Ὅρα;
᾿ γάρ
“ποιήσῃς πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῷ
1T.R. in minuscules ; ποιήσεις in NABDEKLP.
emphasises the rigorous prescriptions of
the law. The absence of the article
before νόμον does not necessitate though
it ie a the translation ‘according
to law”’
Ver. 5. οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι . . .
“priests who serve a suggestion and
shadow of the heavenly things, even as
Moses when about to make the taber-
nacle was admonished, for ‘See,’ He
says, ‘that thou make all things after the
pattern shown thee in the Mount’”.
οἵτινες with its usual classifying and
characterising reference, priests distin-
guished by the fact that they serve a
shadow. λατρεύουσιν, originally
to work for hire, from λάτρις, ὦ
hired servant (Soph., Trach., 70, etc.),
but used especially in classics, LXX, and
N.T. of service of God. It is followed
by the dative of the person served (see
reff.) Heb. ix. 14, xi. 28, and xiii, τὸ
as here of τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. ὑπο-
δείγματι, Phrynichus notes, ὑπό-
δειγμα - οὐδὲ τοῦτο ὀρθῶς λέγεται "
παράδειγμα λέγε. To which Rutherford
adds, ‘‘In Attic ὑποδείκνυμι was never
used except in its natural sense of show
by implication ; but in Herodotus and
Xenophon it signifies to mark out, set a
pattern”. The meaning of ὑπόδειγμα
accordingly is ‘‘a sign suggestive of
anything,” ‘a delineation,” ‘ outline,”
perhaps ‘‘suggestion”’ would satisfy the
present passage. σκιᾷ, “an adumbra-
tion of a reality which it does not em-
body " (Vaughan). A shadow has no
substance in itself, no independent ex-
istence. It merely gives assurance that
there is a reality to cast it, but itself is
nothing solid or real. So the tabernacle
gave assurance of the existence of a real
dwelling of God which itself was not.
Cf. x. 1,and Col. ii. 17. τῶν ἐπουρ-
aviwy, as in ix. 23 τὰ ὑποδείγματα τῶν
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς . . . αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπου-
ράνια, heavenly things, in a comprehen-
sive sense. καθὼς κεχρημάτι-
σται . -- καθὼς, te. the description
of the Mosaic tabernacle as a shadow of
the heavenly accords with the directions
given to Moses in its erection. Ke x-=
ρημάτισται, χρηματίζω (from
χρῆμα) originally means ‘to transact
business,” ‘‘ to advise” or ‘‘ give answer
to those asking advice” ; hence ‘‘ to give
a response to those who consult an
oracle’; then, dropping all reference to
a foregoing consultation, it means ‘‘to
give a divine command”’ and in passive
to be commanded; see Thayer. The
perfect tense is explained by Delitzsch
thus: “45 thou Moses hast received (in
our Scriptures) the divine injunction
(which we still read there)”. But cf.
Burton, M. and T., 82. ἐπιτελεῖν, not,
to complete what was already begun;
but to realise what was determined by
God ; cf. Num. xxiii. 23, and Heb. ix. 6;
so that it might be rendered ‘to bring
into being”. “Opa γάρ φήσιν ... He
now cites the authoritative injunction
referred to and which determines that
the earthly tabernacle was but a copy
of the heavenly. γάρ of course belongs
to the writer, not to the quotation, and
φησιν has for its nominative the Θεός
implied in κεχρημάτισται. ποιήσεις.
The words are quoted from Exod.
xxv. 40 (adding πάντα and substituting
δειχθέντα for δεδειγμένον) and are a
literal rendering of the Hebrew, so that
nothing can be gathered from them re-
garding N.T. usage. The future indica-
tive being regularly used as a legal im-
perative (an unclassic usage) it natur-
ally occurs here. κατὰ τὸν τύπον,
a stamp or impression (τύπτειν) struck
from a die or seal; hence, a figure,
draft, sketch, or pattern. How or in
what form this was communicated to
the mind of Moses we do not know.
‘In the Mount,” 2.e., in Sinai where
Moses retired for communion with God,
he probably pondered the needs of the
people to such good purpose that from
suggestions received in Egypt, together
with his own divinely guided concep-
tions, he was able to contrive the taber-
nacle and its ordinances of worship. It
is his spiritual insight and his anticipa-
tion of his people’s wants which give
him his unique place in history. And it
is both to trifle and to detract from his
greatness to say with some of the Rabbis
(vide Schoettgen) that models of the Ark
and the candlestick and the other equip-
ment descended from heaven, and that
Gabriel in a workman’s apron showed
him how to reproduce the articles shown,
ad in
Spe”? 6.
κρείττονός ἐστι διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις
7. Et γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν
νενομοθέτηται.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
323
"νυνὶ δὲ ϑιαφορωτέρας τέτευχε λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ Kale vii. 22; 2
Cor. iii.6.
1 τέτευχε with NCBDcE; τετυχε with N*AD*KL, 80, 116; τετυχηκεν with P, 17.
Veitch gives τετυχηκα as the Homeric form, τετευχα Arist. and Demosth.; tetvxa
here and in Diod., “late if correct”.
Ver. 6. vuvi 8... “But, as it is,
He hath obtained a more excellent min-
istry, by how much He is also mediator
of a better covenant, which has been
enacted upon better promises.” νυνὶ δὲ,
i.e., He not being on earth, the δὲ
pointing back to μὲν in ver. 4. For νυνὶ
δὲ in its logical significance, cf. ix. 26;
xi. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 20; Arist. Ethics, I.
iv.4. διαφορωτέρας λειτουργ-
fas, more excellent, as what is heavenly
or real is more excellent than what is
earthly and symbolic. ὅσῳ καὶκρείτ-
τονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσ-
ίτης, the ministry being a part of the
work of mediating the better covenant,
it must participate in the superior excel-
lence of that covenant. And the superi-
ority of the covenant consists in this,
that it has been legally based on better
promises. Had Paul so connected the law
and the promises, a quip might have been
supposed; but this writer uses vevop. in
its ordinary sense without any allusion to
its etymology. What these “better
promises” are he shows in wv. 8-12.
ἥτις introduces the explanation of the
κρείττονος, almost equivalent to ‘‘inas-
much as it has been, etc.” The μεσίτης
(cf. xii. 24) is more comprehensive than
the ἔγγυος of vii. 22, although μεσίτης is
Hellenistic for the Attic peréyyvos, and
in Diod. Sic. iv. 54 μεσίτης has exactly the
sense of €yyvos. The full title in 1 Tim.
ii. 5 μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων presents
the mediator as one who negotiates for
both parties, and is something more than
a guarantor. Moses was μεσίτης of the
first covenant (Gal. iii. 19; Exod. xx.
19); so that as already intimated in iii. 1,
Christ absorbed in His ministry the work
of both Moses and Aaron.
Vv. 7-13. A justification of the es-
tablishment of a better covenant, on the
grounds (1) that the first covenant was
not faultless; (2) that Jeremiah had
predicted the introduction of a new
covenant (a) not like the old, but (δ)
based upon better promises; and (3) that
even in Jeremiah’s days the first covenant
was antiquated by the very title ‘‘new”
ascribed to that which was then promised.
Ver. 7. εἰγὰρ ἡπρώτη... “For
if that first had been faultless, no place
would have been sought for a second.”
ἡ πρώτη sc. διαθήκη. πρώτη for
προτέρα as in Actsi. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 47»
and this epistle passim. The covenant
did not accomplish the purpose for which
it was enacted; it did not bring men into
spiritual and permanent fellowship with
God. Cf. vii. 11, 19; Gal. iii. 20. otk
ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος.
“‘ There would not have been—as we know
there was—any demand for a second”
(Farrar). Probably, however, ἐζητεῖτο
refers to God’s purpose, [‘‘ Inquisivit Deus
locum et tempus opportunum”’ (Herveius)]
not to man’s craving; although necess-
arily the two must concur. τόπος is fre-
quently used in the sense of ‘‘room”’ “‘ op-
portunity” in later Greek, Rom. xv. 23;
Luke xiv.19; and cf. especially Rev. xx.
Il. τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς. μεμφόμενος
yap... ‘For finding fault with them
He says, Behold, there come days, etc.”
The yap obviously refers to ἄμεμπτος
and justifies it, ‘‘For it is with fault
finding, etc.” But now the object of the
blame is slightly changed. ‘There is a
subtle delicacy of language in the insen-
sible shifting of the blame from the cov-
enant to the people. The covenant
itself could hardly be said to be faultless,
seeing that it failed to bind Israel to
their God; but the true cause of failure
lay in the character of the people, not in
the law, which was holy, righteous and
good’’ (Rendall). This is the simplest
construction and agrees with the ascrip-
tion ofblamein ver. 9. Thayer says ‘‘it is
more correct to supply αὐτήν, ͵.6., διαθή-
«nv, which the writer wishes to prove
was not faultless, and to join αὐτοῖς
with λέγει᾽. No doubt this would be
more logically consistent, but the ques-
tion is, What did the writer say? He
seems not to distinguish between the
covenant and the people who lived under
it. The old covenant was faulty because
it did not provide for enabling the people
to live up to the terms or conditions of
it. Jt was faulty inasmuch as it did not
sufficiently provide against their faulti-
ness. Ἰδοὺ, κιτιλ, The quotation which
here occupies five verses is taken from
324
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
VII.
f Jer. xxxi. δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος. 8. *peudpdpevos γὰρ αὐτοῖς! λέγει, “180d,
a ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει Κύριος, καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ιούδα διαθήκην καινήν - 9. οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην
ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς
χειρὸς αὐτῶν, ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου - ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ
a erie ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ pou, κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγει Κύριος.
et e e ς , a , Ae > S x
νηΐ ὃ. 10. ἔδτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς
lavrous with KcBDcEL; avrovs in δ ΠΑ ἾΚΡ, 17, 39, 114, 137, Thdrt., Chrys.
Jeremiah xxxviii. 31-34 in LXX, xxxi.
31-34 A.V. ἡμέραι ἔρχονται isa
frequent formula in Jeremiah. καὶ ‘‘The
ubiquitous Hebrew and, serving here
the purpose of the ὅτε which might have
been expected” (Vaughan). συντελ-
έσω, the LXX has διαθήσομαι, and
Augustine (De Sfir. εἰ Lit. xix.) thinks
this word (consummabo) is chosen for
the sake of emphasising the sufficiency
of the New Covenant. So Delitzsch:
“Our author seems here to have pur-
posely selected the συντελέσω to express
more clearly the conclusive perfecting
power of the new covenant of the gos-
pel.” So, too, Weiss, who also calls
attention to the fact that it is followed
by ἐπὶ as in the expression συντελ. 7.
ὀργὴν ἐπὶ. .. But in the face of the
occurrence in Jer. xxxiv. 8, (LXX, xli. 8)
of the expression συντελέσαι διαθήκην
πρὸς ..., it is precarious to maintain
that our author in selecting this word
meant more than ‘‘complete a covenant’”’,
ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ .- .»
comprehensive of the whole people of
God. Their blameworthy rupture had
not severed them from God’s grace and
faithfulness. διαθήκην καινήν, the
expression first occurs in our Lord’s
institution of the sacrament, τοῦτο τὸ
ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τ. αἵματί
βου, repeated in 1 Cor. xi. 25. In 2 Cor.
lii. 6, the καινὴ διαθ. is contrasted with
τ. παλαιᾶς 100. of ver. 14. The new
covenant is also called véa in xii. 24;
καινή properly meaning new in charac-
ter, véa young or new in date. As in
ver. 7 the condemnation of the old im-
plied a promise of the new; so in ver.
xiii., the promise of the new is considered
as involving the condemnation of the old.
Ver.g. οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην . . .
“Not according to the covenant which I
made with their fathers.” These words
express negatively wherein the καινότης
of the covenant consists. It was not to
be a repetition of that which had failed.
It was to be framed with a view to
avoiding the defects of the old. It must
not be such a covenant as dealt in
symbols and externals. That former cov-
enant is further defined in the words
ἣν ἐποίησα . . ., a clause which is
intended to remind the readers that it
was through no lack of power or grace
on God’s part that the covenant had
failed. His intention and power to fulfil
His part was put beyond doubt by the
deliverance from Egypt. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ
ἐπιλαβομένου pov τ. χειρὸς
αὐτῶν . . . ‘“sicut nutrix apprehendit
manum parvuli, vel qui de fovea per
manum attrahit aliquem sive secum
ducit’’ (Herveius). The construction
determined by the Hebrew, which, how-
ever, has the infinitive not the participle,
is, according to Winer (710) ‘perhaps
unusual, but not incorrect.’’ Buttmann,
however, (316) condemns it as “‘a perfectly
un-Greek construction” and ‘nothing
more than a thoughtless imitation of the
original Hebrew, of which πὸ other
similar example is to be found in the
N.T.” Cf. Baruch, ii. 28 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐν-
τειλαμένου σου, K.T.A. Cf. Viteau, Gram.
p- 209-10. On ἐπιλαβ. see ii. 16. ὅτι
αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν “ because they
continued not in my covenant, and I
regarded them not, saith the Lord’.
Both parties abandoned the covenant and
so it became null. Bengel’s note on this
clause is this: ‘‘ Correlata, uti ver. 10, ex
opposito: Evo eis in Deum, et illi erunt
mthi in populum; sed ratione inversa:
populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis
prius: in novo omnia et incipit et perficit
Deus”. The pronouns are emphatic in
both clauses kayo péAnoa αὐτῶν
representing 55 5 Sp va YIN)
which in A.V. is rendered “although
I was an husband to them.’ Grotius
suggests a variant in the Hebrew as
giving rise to the translation ἠμέλησα
but it seems to be justified by an analo-
gous Arabic expression (see Moses Stuart
in loc. and Bleek).
Ver. το. ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη
ἣν διαθήσομαι . . .« “For this is
8—rI.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
325
ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου eis τὴν διάνοιαν
αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς - καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς
>
εἰς Θεὸν, kat αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν.
ΠῚ Χ ΡΘΕ |
σιν ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον
λέγων, Γνῶθι τὸν Κύριον: ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσί με, ἀπὸ μικροῦ 27.
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ,
It. Ξ καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξω- h ΤΑΣ Ὰ
45, 65.
1 Joan. ii.
1T.R. in P, f, vg., SyrP-mg; πολιτὴν in SABDEKL, d, e, Copt.
the covenant which I will covenant with
the house of Israel after those days, saith
the Lord.” The ὅτι justifies the differ-
entiation of this covenant from the Sinai-
tic, and the ascription to it of the term
“new”. It also introduces the positive
aspect of the newness of the covenant.
This consists in three particulars. It is
inward or spiritual; it is individual and
therefore universal; it is gracious and
provides forgiveness. μετὰ τὰς tp έ-
ρα5 ἐκείνας, i.e., after the days,
spoken of ver. 8, have arrived. διδοὺς
νόμους pov... The LXX (vat.)
has διδοὺς δώσω, but this writer omits
δώσω in x. 16 as well as here. The par-
ticiple cannot be attached either to διαθή-
σομαι or to ἐπιγράψω without intolerable
harshness. We must, therefore, suppose
that the writer was simply quoting from
the Alexandrian text which omits δώσω
(so also Q = Codex Marchalianus), and
does not concern himself about the ele-
gance or even correct grammar of the
words. See Buttmann, p.291. γόμους
pov. ‘The plural occurs again in the
same quotation, x. 16, but not elsewhere
in the N.T.; nor does the plural appear
to be found in any other place of the LXX
as a translation of min ” Westcott.
εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν. ‘In Aristotle
διάνοια includes all intellect, theoretical
and practical, intuitive and discursive”
(Burnet’s Nic. Eth., p. 276). Platodefines
it in Soph. 263 E thus: 6 μὲν ἐντὸς τῆς
Ψυχῆς πρὸς αὑτὴν διάλογος ἄνευ φωνῆς
γιγνόμενος. In N.T. it is sometimes
used for the “ mind,”. as in Eph. iv. 18,
ι Pet. i. 13, 2 Pet. iii. 1; sometimes for
the thoughts produced in the mind, Eph.
ii. 3; sometimes for the inner man gener-
ally, as in Lukei. 51, Col. i. 2t. And
in this sense here. καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας
αὐτῶν “and on their heart”. καρδίας
may be either genitive singular, or accusa-
tive plural, both constructions being found
after γράφειν ἐπὶ. The meaning is that
God’s law, instead of being written on
tables of stone, should under the new
covenant be written on the spirit and
desires of man. “ Unde significavit eos
non forinsecus habere, sed ipsam legis
justitiam dilecturos” (Atto). This ‘ better
promise” involves a new spirit, effecting
that man’s own will shall concur with the
divine. Cf. 2 Cor. iii.3. καὶ ἔσομαι
avtots... ‘and I will be to thema
God, and they shall he to me a people”.
For the distinction between the Hebraistic
construction ἔσομαι eis and the legitimate
Greek εἶναι or γένεσθαι εἰς see Buttmann,
p- 150. This of course was the aim of
the old covenant as well, and is expressed
in the original promise, Exod. vi. 7: ‘I
will take you to myself as my people, and
I shall be to you a God’’. See also
Jerem. vii. 23. xi. 4. This is the ultimate
statement of the end or aim of all religion.
Ver τσ. καὶ οὐ ph διδάξωσιν.
...Απά they shall not teach, each
man his fellow-citizen and each man his
brother, saying, ‘ Know the Lord,’ for all
shall know me from small to great among
them”. This second ‘better’ promise
follows on the first as its natural con-
sequence. The inward acceptance of
God’s will involves the knowledge of God.
In the new covenant all were to be
“taught of God” (Isa. liv. 13, Jo. vi. 45)
and independent of the instruction of a
privilegedclass. Under the old covenant,
none but the educated scribe could under-
stand the minutiz of the law with which
religion was identified. The elaborate
ritual made it impossible for the private
individual to know whether a ram or a
pigeon was the appropriate sacrifice for
his sin, or whether his sin was mortal or
venial. A priest had to be consulted.
Under the new covenant intermediates
were to be abolished. The knowledge of
God was to lie in the heart alongside of
the love of parent or friend, and would
demand for its expression no more ex-
ternal instruction than those primal, in-
stinctive and home-grown affections. οὐ
μὴ διδάξωσιν, “ The intensive οὐ μὴ
(of that which in no wise will or shall
happen) is sometimes—indeed most com-
monly—joined with the conjunctive aor-
ist, sometimes with the conjunctive
present, sometimes also with the indicative
future”. Winer, p. 634, who also dis-
cusses Hermann’s canon and Dawes’
regarding this form. εἰδήσουσιν, for
226
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
VIII. r2—13. IX. Σ,
12. ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις
Rom. xi. αὐτῶν ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν -
27. 2 ‘ A An 8. δὶ "Ν A A 5». αὶ » συ
αὐτῶν, καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ
ett.” 13. Ἐν τῷ λέγειν “Καινὴν, πεπαλαίωκε τὴν πρώτην - τὸ δὲ
ἘΠΕ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ,
a Exod,
xxv. 8.
IX. τ. *EIXE μὲν οὖν kai? ἡ πρώτη σκηνὴ 2 δικαιώματα λατρείας,
1 καὶ in SADEKLP, d, ς, f, vg., SyrP, Arm.; om. in B, 3, 38, 52, Syrsch, Copt.,
Thphyl.
2 σκήνη omitted in S,ABDEKLP, f, vg., and by T., Tr., WH, R.; found in 47,
73» 74, 80, 137, Thdrt.
this form of the future Veitch (p. 216)
quotes Homer, Theognis, Herodotus,
Isocrates. ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως pey-
άλου, an expression commonly used in
LXX to denote universality, Gen. xix.
11, where possibly it is equivalent to ἀπὸ
veavioxou ἕως πρεσβυτέρου of ver. 4;
I Sam. xxx. 10, where it is used of spoils
of war. Gesenius (117, 2) understands
the adjectives as superlatives.
Ver. 12. ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς
ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν. . . “For! will be
merciful to their iniquities, and their sins
will I remember no more.” This third
better promise is united to the former by
ὅτι, showing that the forgiveness of sins
or God’s grace is fundamental to any
possible renewal and maintenance of
covenant.
Ver. 13. ἐν τῷ λέγειν Karvy.
“In saying ‘New,’ He hath antiquated
the first; and that which is antiquated
and growing old is near extinction [lit.
disappearance].”” That is to say, by
speaking in the passage quoted, ver. 8, of
a new covenant, God brands the former
as old. Thus even in Jeremiah’s time
the’ Mosaic covenant was disparaged.
The fact that a new was required showed
that it was insufficient. It was con-
demned as antiquated. And that which
is antiquated and aged has not much
longer to live. πεπαλαίωκεν, the
active is found in LXX, Job. ix. 5; xxxii.
I5, etc.; the mid. is common, in Plato
and elsewhere in the sense of “ growing
old”. ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ, cf. ἐγγὺς
κατάρας, vi. 8. ἀφανισμός, is suggestive
of utter destruction, abolition; thus in
Polyb. v. ΤΙ, 5 it is joined with ἀπώλεια.
Cf. Diod. Sic. v. 32, ἀποκτείνουσιν, ἢ
κατακαίουσιν, ἤ τισιν ἄλλαις τιμωρίαις
ἀφανίζουσι.
CHAPTER ΙΧ. Ver.1-14. The insuffi-
ciency of the first covenant is further
illustrated from the character of its
ordinances. For it was not devoid of
elaborate and impressive appointments
and regulations for worship, but these
only pictured their own inefficiency. Es-
pecially did the exclusion from the holiest
place of all but the High Priest, who
himself could only enter once a year. and
with blood, signify that so long as these
ordinances remained there could be no
perfect approach of the worshipper to
God. But this approach was achieved
by Christ who ministered in the tabernacle
not made with hands, and by His own
blood cleansed the conscience and thus
brought men into true fellowship with God.
CHAPTER IX. Ver. 1. Εἶχε μὲν
οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη ... “Even the
first covenant, however, had ordinances
of worship and the holy place suitable to
this world,” 2.6., as hinted in viii. 2, a
tent pitched by man, constructed with
earthly materials, “ of this creation,” ver.
11.,and thus appealing to sense. Farrar
renders ‘“‘and its sanctuary—a material
one”. οὖν is continuative, and might
almost be rendered “το resume’. μὲν
find its correlative δὲ in ver. 6; the first
covenant had, indeed, a sanctuary with
elaborate arrangements, but after all it
was only a symbol. That διαθήκη, not
σκηνή; 15 to be understood after πρώτη;
is demanded by the context and is now
universally recognised. So Chrysostom,
ἡ πρώτη, τίς ; ἡ διαθήκη. Of the read-
ing σκηνή Calvin says, ‘‘ nec dubito, quin
aliquis indoctus lector, pro sua inscitia
. . . perperam addiderit.” εἶχε at first
sight seems to require us to date the
epistle after the destruction of Jerusalem,
but it is quite possible that, as Delitzsch
says, the writer is looking back upon the
old from the platform of the new coven-
ant. ‘The author in saying had merely
looks back from his own historical posi-
tion to the Mosaic tabernacle and its or-
dinances, which are everywhere assumed
as the standard of the O.T. things;
the past ‘had’ no more implies that the
O.T. ministry had passed away in fact or
even in principle, than the present ‘go
in’ (ver. 6) implies the reverse” (David-
son.) δικαιώματα λατρείας. δικ-
2—3.
, Ψ
τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν"
ἡ ἥ τε λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ i πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων: ἥτις
3. μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ ἡ
λέγεται ἅγια".
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
327
2. ᾿Σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη, ἧ πρώτη, ἐν Ὁ Exod.
χχν. 30,
et xxvi.I,
etc., et
XXxxvi. I,
etc.; Lev.
XXiv. 5.
1 Add αγιων AD*E, d, e.
αιώματα is used, because the writer wishes
to draw attention to the fact that the
ritual of the first covenant was divinely
appointed. He does this because he
means to point out (vv. 8, 9) that the
Holy Spirit intended these arrangements
to be a parable of their own incompetence
and transitory nature. κοσμικόν is
best illustrated in Rendel Harris’ Teach-
ing of the Apostles, p. 71 ff. He has
collected a number of passages from
early Christian writers which show that
a “cosmic ’’ mystery or symbol was “a
symbol or action wrought upon the stage
of this world to illustrate what was doing
or to be done on a higher plane”. His
quotation from Athanasius is especially
convincing Ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσ-
σεται τῷ κυρίῳ, οὕτω καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες
τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν πᾶσι. ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν γὰρ
τῶν κοσμικῶν, ἐὰν θέλωμεν, καὶ τὰ ἄνω
γοοῦμεν. This significant word standing
at the close of the sentence sufficiently
indicates the incompetence of the whole.
The first covenant had its holy place but
it was κοσμικόν. For the same reason
he goes on to enumerate the articles con-
tained in the ἅγιον. He wishes to bring
before us the care with which all its
arrangements were made: nothing was
haphazard and meaningless. The suc-
ceeding verses are indeed the resumption
of viii. 5, ‘‘ See that you make all things
according to the type shown thee in the
mount ’”’.
Ver2. σκηνὴ yap κατεσκευά-
a0... “For a tent was constructed,
the fore-tent, in which were”’ its appro-
priate contents. ox yv%,atent. ‘Ob-
servandum est in primis hanc description-
em non ad templum sed ad tabernaculum
accommodari; quia nimirum noster hic
scriptor ea proprie quae Moses secundum
exemplar ipsi in monte propositum
fabricavit, cum rebus ipsis coelestibus
comparat”’ (Beza). On the construction
in which the noun is first conceived
indefinitely and is then more clearly
defined by the attributive, whose import
thus receives special prominence, see
Winer, p. 174. ἧ πρώτη, the outer,
that .into which anyone first entered,
twice the size of the inner and entered
from the east (see Macgregor on Exodus,
and appendix by Gillies on construction
of tabernacle). Large tents were usually
divided into an outer and an inner, a
first and a second. And a tent being
windowless, ἡ λυχνία was a necessary
article of furniture; the lamp-stand, or
‘“‘candlestick”” reminding men that the
light of day, the light common to all, was
not sufficient to guide toGod. Cf. Exod.
XXV. 31-39; and Zech., c. iv. καὶ ἡ
τράπεζα for the making of the table
instructions are recorded in Exod. xxv.
23-30, concluding with the injunction
‘Thou shalt set upon the table show-
bread before me alway.” In Lev. xxiv.
6 it is called “πε pure table,” because
made of “pure” gold. καὶ ἡ πρόθ ε-
σις τῶν ἄρτων “and the setting
forth of the loaves” called in Exod. xl.
23 (P.) ‘‘loaves of the setting forth”. In
Exod. xxv. 30 the command is given
ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τ. τράπεζαν ἄρτους ἐνωπ-
tous ἐναντίον μου, the loaves here being
called =} >) ond bread of the face or
presence. In Lev. xxiv. 5-9 minute in-
structions for their composition are given
and for their ‘‘setting forth,’ and it is
added ἔσονται eis ἄρτους εἰς ἀνάμνησιν
προκείμενα τ. Κυρίου. ἴπ τ Chron. the
loaves are called τ. προθέσεως translating
np WwrrAT ond breadofthe row. On
the meaning of the ‘‘show bread” see
Robertson Smith’s Religion of the Semites,
207 ff. ‘*The table of show bread has its
closest parallel in the lectisternia of an-
cient heathenism, when a table laden
with meats was spread beside the idol.”
‘But the idea that the gods actually
consume the solid food that is deposited
at their shrines is too crude to subsist
without modification beyond the savage
state of society; the ritual may survive,
but the sacrificial gifts . . . will come to
be the perquisite of the priests”. Cf.
Warde Fowler’s Roman Festivals, 215-20.
ἥτις λέγεται ἅγιαι. “The qualita.
tive relative directs attention to the features
of the place which determine its name as
‘Holy’” (Westcott). ἅγια is neuter
plural, as in ver. 3. So Theodoret
rejecting the reading ἁγία. For thisname
see Lev. x. 4; Num. iii. 22; but in LXX
always with the article, here omitted,
possibly, to bring out more prominently
the holy character of the place.
Ver. 3. peta δὲ τὸ δεύτερον
228
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
ΙΧ,
c Exod. χνι, λεγομένη ἅγια ἁγίων, 4. “χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον, καὶ τὴν
33, et xxv.
10, 21, et
XXvi. 33,
κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης περικεκαλυμμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίῳ, ἐν ἡἧ
εἰ xxxiv. στάμνος χρυσῇ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος ᾿Ααρὼν ἡ βλαστή-
29; Num
XVii. 105
t Reg. viii. 9; 2 Par. v.10.
καταπέτασμα. “And after the
second veil the tent which is called ‘ Holy
of Holies,’”’ not, as Westcott, ‘a tent
[was prepared] which is called,’ for “ when
attributives are placed after with the
article, the article before the substantive
is dropped” (Buttmann, p. 92). The
participle with the article as usual takes
the place ofa relative clause. μετὰ in
a local sense [non-classical, Blass, p. 133],
which is here closely akin to the tem-
poral = after the entrant has passed the
second veil. The second veil separated
the Holy place from the Holy of Holies,
and as being the significant veil was
sometimes spoken of without δεύτερον,
simply as τὸ καταπέτασμα, see chap. vi.
19; Mat. xxvii. 51, etc. Instructions for
making and hanging it are given in Exod.
xxvi, 31-35 ; and in ver. 36 the outer veil
is described. The outer veil is sometimes
called καταπέτασμα but more commonly
ἐπίσπαστρον, Exod. xxvi. 36, xxxv. 15
etc. The inner tent was called the ἅγια
ἁγίων, translating Dw? wrap which
in Hebrew idiom is equivalent to a super-
lative.
Ver. 4. χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμ-
ιατήριον. . . .« The inner tent is char-
acterised by its furnishings, a golden
altar of incense and the ark of the coven-
ant. θυμιατήριον is rendered both
in A.V. and R.V. by “‘censer” following
the Vulgate, ‘‘aureum habens thuribu-
lum ;” Grotius ‘‘ up: hic non est mensa,
sed impositum mensae batillum;”’ and
others. In doing so the usage of the
LXX is followed, for in 2 Chron. xxvi. 19,
Ezek. viii. 11, 4 Mac. vii. r1—the only
instances of its occurrence—it renders
NO =
incense’ is rendered by θυσιαστήριον
θυμιάματος, see Lev. iv. 7, 1 Chron. vii.
49, etc. But Philo (p. 512 A, 668, C),
Josephus Ant., iii. 6, 8, and the versions
of Symmachus and Theodotion in Exod.
xxxi. use θυμιατήριον for “altar of in-
cense’’. Besides, the form of the word
indicates that it could be used of any-
thing on which incense is‘ offered. It
was, therefore, understood of the ‘‘ altar”
by Clement Alex. and other fathers; by
Calvin, who says, ‘(quo nomine altare
censer; while ‘altar of
suffitus vel thymiamatis potius intelligo
quam thuribulum ;”’ and by most modern
scholars. As has frequently been urged
it is incredible that in describing the fur-
niture of the tabernacle there should be
no mention of the altar of incense. Diffi-
culty has been felt regarding the position
here assigned to it, for in fact it stood
outside the veil; and the author has been
charged with error. But the change from
ἐν ἡ of ver. 2 to ἔχουσα is significant,
and indicates that it was not precisely
its local relations he had in view, but
rather its ritual associations, ‘its close
connection with the ministry of the Holy
of Holies on the day of atonement, of
which he is speaking” (Davidson). The
altar was indeed so strictly connected
with the Sancta Sanctorum that in the
directions originally given for its construc-
tion this was brought out (Exod. xxx. 1-6).
‘* Thou shalt set it before the veil (ἀπέ-
γαντι τ. καταπετάσματος) that is over
the ark of the testimony,” and in ver. ro,
‘it is most holy (ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων) to the
Lord”. In x Kings vi. 20 it is also said
of Solomon that he made the altar ot
incense kata πρόσωπον τοῦ δαβὶρ “in
front of the oracle,’’ which, brings it
into direct connection with the ark
Cf. also 1 Kings ix. 25. χρυσοῦν,
although made of shittim wood it was
overlaid with gold and is often called
“golden”. Here emphasis is laid upon
its golden appearance as being worthy of
itsuse. καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν. .. ‘and
the ark of the covenant covered all over
with gold”. κιβωτός, a box or chest
(in Aristoph. Wasps, 1056, wardrobe) or
ark (a word still used in Scotland, where
the meal-chest is known as the meal-ark).
In LXX and N.T. appropriated to the
chest in the Holy of Holies or to the ark
in which Noah was rescued. For its con-
struction see Exod. xxv. το. περικεκ.
πάντοθεν χρυσίῳ representing “ in-
side and outside”’ ἔσωθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν
χρυσώσεις αὐτήν of Exod. xxv. II.
Here called τῆς διαθήκης because
in it were kept af πλάκες τ. δια-
θήκης ‘the tables of the covenant” on
which were written the ten command-
ments, the sum of the terms to which the
people swore on entering the covenant.
Therefore called in Exod. xxxi. 18 πλάκες
4—6.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
329
σασα, καὶ αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης - 5. ὅδ᾽ ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς Xepou-d Exod.
Bip? δόξης, κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον - περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστι νῦν
xxv. 18.
λέγειν κατὰ μέρος. 6. “ Τούτων δὲ οὕτω κατεσκευασμένων, εἰς μὲν ε Num.
τὴν πρώτην σκηνὴν διαπαντὸς εἰσίασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς τὰς λατρείας ἐπι-
xxviii. 3.
1 χερουβειν in BDcE; χερουβειμ AP, 37. The LXX also has the same variants.
μαρτυρίου. These tables were, in LXX,
first spoken of as πυξία (τὰ πυξία τὰ
λίθινα, Exod. xxiv. 12). They are called
πλάκες in Exod. xxxi. 18. Paul also uses
this word in contrasting the stone tables
of the Law with the σάρκιναι πλάκες of
the heart. In 1 Kings viii. 9 it is stated
that when Solomon’s Temple was dedi-
cated these tables were the sole contents
of the ark. In the tabernacle, however,
as here described the ark also contained
στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα Td pav-
va “4 golden jar containing manna,”
as directed in Exod. xvi. 33, 34, Moses
said to Aaron λάβε στάμνον χρυσοῦν
éva, where it is masculine; in Aristoph.
Plut. 545, feminine (see Stephanus, s.v.).
Usually it was of earthenware and used
for holding wine, honey, etc. τὸ μάννα
in Exod. μάν is the form used; in the
other héoks μάννα. καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος
᾿Ααρὼν ἡ βλαστήσασα, as related
in Num. xvii. 1-10, when the rods of the
tribes were laid up before the Lord to
determine who were the legitimate priests,
ἰδοὺ ἐβλάστησεν 4 ῥάβδος ᾿Ααρὼν. Chrys-
ostom remarks that the contents of the
ark were venerable and significant memor-
ials of Israel’s rebellion; the tables of the
covenant for the first were broken on ac-
count of their sin; the manna reminding
them of their murmuring; the rod that
budded of their jealousy of Aaron.
ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς χερουβεὶν
δόξης...“ Andover it [the ark] Cheru-
bim of glory, overshadowing the mercy-
seat’’ [‘‘obumbrantia propitiatorium”
(Vulg.)]. According to Exod. xxv. 18-22,
the Cherubim were to be two in number,
made of gold, one at each end of the ark,
looking towards one another, and over-
shadowing the mercy seat with their
wings [συσκιάζοντες ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου]. The Cheru-
bim seem to have symbolised, in the
manner of the Assyrians and Egyptians,
the creatures of God, all that is best in
creation, by a combination of excellences
found in no single creature. In Ezekiel,
i. to they have four faces, of a man, a
lion, an ox, and an eagle, representin
respectively intelligence, strength, stead-
fastness, rapidity. But cf. Davidson, p.
173 and Cheyne’s art. in Encycl. Bibl.
δόξῃς, the Cherubim are here called
“of glory,” probably because closely
attached to and, as it were, attendant
upon, the place of the manifestation of
the divine glory. [‘‘Als Trager der
Herrlichkeit, in welcher die géttliche
Gnadengegenwart sich kund that”
(Weiss).] τὸ ἱλαστήριον. In Exod.
xxv. 17 Moses is instructed to make a
golden cover [n>] to be laid upon
the lid of the ark, and this instruction
the LXX renders by the words ποιήσεις
ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα χρυσίου καθαροῦ.
The word ἐπίθεμα alone, without any
qualifying adjective, would have been an
adequate translation of nb, for both
words mean “acover”. But ἐπίθεμα
is nowhere else used in the LXX to
translate med, which is regularly
translated by ἱλαστήριον, although this
word does not express the idea ofa material
covering. [Philo more than once remarks
upon this. In De Profug., 19, in speaking
of symbols, he says τῆς ἵλεω δυνάμεως τὸ
ἐπίθεμα τῆς κιβωτοῦ, καλεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ
ἱλαστήριον. And in Vit. Mos. iii. 68,
ἧς ἐπίθεμα ὡσανεὶ πῶμα τὸ λεγόμενον
ἐν ἱεραῖς βίβλοις ἱλαστήριον͵)] The
reason of this usage is to be found in the
fact that this “‘cover’” was sprinkled
with blood on the day of atonement, and
came, therefore, to be associated with the
covering of sin. Indeed, the Hebrew
word which denotes the material covering
is that which is regularly used to express
the covering ofsin. The original ἐπίθεμα
thus became a ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα and
finally ἱλαστήριον. (See Deissmann,
Bibelstud. p. 121-132.) wept Gv...
μέρος “of which we cannot now speak
in detail”. ἔστιν, ascommonly in classi-
cal Greek = ἔξεστι. κατὰ μέρος =one
by one. Examplesin Wetstein and Bleek
(see especially Plato, Theaet. 1578, where
it is opposed to ἄθροισμα).
Vv. 6-10. Significance of these ar-
Tangements.
Ver. 6. τούτων δὲοὕτως κατεσ-
κευασμένων . .. “And after these
things had been thus furnished, into the
fore-tent, indeed, the priests enter con-
330
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
ΙΧ,
f ver. 25; τελοῦντες - 7. ᾿ εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ μόνος ὁ dp-
Χ
Lev. xvi.
2,15, 34.
tinually in the performance of their
services, but into the inner the High
Priest alone once a year not without
blood.” This is the particular δικαίωμα
λατ. (ver. 1) to which he wishes to direct
attention, the inaccessible sacredness of
the inner chamber, as revealed in the
constant openness of the outer-tent, the
mysterious closeness of the inner. κατ-
εσκευασμένων perfect; the arrange-
ments were made with a view to the
abiding service of the first covenant.
διαπαντὸς, continuously, opposed to
ἅπαξ. ver.7. εἰσίασιν present tense,
as in Homer, Aristoph., Plato, Xenophon.
It is not easy to determine whether this
present implies the contemporaneous
continuance of the services referred to.
Tholuck thinks Bleek very ‘ unreason-
able” in concluding that it involves that
the ark and the services connected with it
were extant; but Bleek after reconsider-
ation, finds himself unable to yield the
point to ‘Freund Tholuck”’. Davidson
says, “Τῆς present ‘go in’ does not
imply that the Levitical service still
continued when this was written; the
present is that of the recordin Scripture.”
The Vulgate shows its preference by
tendering “‘ introibant”. The truth seems
to be that although the temple services
were yet upheld, the use of the present
tense here and in vv. 7, 11, etc., does not
involve that. τὰς λατρείας ἐπιτε-
λοῦντες, not, as Vulg., ‘‘ sacrificiorum
officia consummantes,”’ for these rather
belonged to the court of the priests ; but
“‘ performing their services ’’ of trimming
the lamp and offering incense; see
Edersheim, The Temple; Its ministry,
etc., p. 130-140. ἐπιτελεῖν is used in
Herod. and in Diod. Sic., and in Philo,
for the accomplishing of religious services
but it is not so used in the LXX.
Ver. 7. εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν
ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ . .. The law
is given in Lev. xvi., both negatively and
positively; negatively in ver. 2 μὴ εἰσ-
πορευέσθω πᾶσαν ὥραν εἰς τὸ ἅγιον
ἐσώτερον τ. KaTatreTaopatos—promis-
cuous or continuous, daily entrance was
forbidden; and positively, in ver 34 ἅπαξ
τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, t.e.. one day each year,
viz., on the day of Atonement, the tenth
of the seventh month the High Priest is
to enter. On that day the High Priest
was to enter the Holiest at least thrice,
first with the incense, then with the blood
xxx. 10; Xlepeds, οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, ὃ προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ
of the bullock which atoned for his own
sins and those of his house, and finally
with the blood of the goat for the sins of
the people. μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς in
contrast with of ἱερεῖς of ver. 6. This
point is also emphasised by Philo, De
Mon., p. 821 E., where he says that the
things inside the veil were hidden from
everyone πλὴν ἑνὶ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ, and by
Josephus (Bell. ¥ud.v. 5, 7) εἰσήει ἅπαξ
kat’ ἐνιαυτὸν μόνος. See also Lev. xvi.
17. The law was emphasised by the
destruction of Nadaband Abhu, Lev. x.
1. The Holiness of the Presence and
the difficulty of access was further il-
lustrated and enforced by the demand
that sacrifice should open the way οὐ
χωρὶς αἵματος. This blood was
offered, z.¢., sprinkled with the finger on
the ἱλαστήριον, first, the blood of the
calf to cleanse from his own sins, and
then, the blood of the goat to atone for
the people’s sins. [ἑαυτοῦ is manifestly
under the direct government of ὑπὲρ and
does not follow ἀγνοημάτων. This word
does not occur in Lev. xvi.; on the con-
trary the strongest words are used, ἄνο-
μία, ἁμαρτία, ἀδικία, but cf. v. 2.]
These three points, then, bring out the
impossibility of free access to the Presence;
not διαπαντὸς but ἅπαξ τ. ἐνιαυτοῦ;
not οἱ ἱερεῖς promiscuously, but μόνος 6
ἀρχιερεύς ; not freely, but οὐ χωρὶς atp-
atos. This was the δικαίωμα λατρείας
which could not be neglected under pain
of death. What did it signify? τοῦτο
δηλοῦντος τ. πνεύματος. ..
“ this the Holy Spirit signifying, that the
way into the Holy of Holies has not yet
been made manifest, while the fore-tent
has still a place”. δηλοῦντος, the
Holy Spirit is viewed as the author of the
ritual and as meaning to teach by every
part of it. Vaughan compares 1 Pet. i.
rr and adds, “ As there O.T. prophecy, so
here O.T. ritual, is ascribed to the Holy
Spirit.’ τὴν τ. ἁγίων ὁδὸν “the
way into the Holiest’’ as in νι. 2. Ac
cess to the Holy of Holies being thus
barred was an intimation that the true
access to God had not yet been furnished
and that therefore worship and fellowship
with God (that is, religion) were not yet
perfect. [Cf. Theoph. 4 τ. ἁγίων ὁδός,
τουτέστιν ἡ εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν εἴσοδος.
Weiss, “der Weg zum _ himmlischen
Heiligthum’”’.] So long as the fore-tent
(τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς) has an appointed
7—I0.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
334
λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων, 8. ®todro δηλοῦντος τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ “Aytou, g x., το, 20;
, “-“ a A ες , ean μι “-“ , a
μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν, ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς 6.
Joan. xiv.
ἐχούσης στάσιν - 9. ἢ ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, h Acts xiii.
καθ᾽ dv! δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται, μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συν-,
a A
είδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα, 10.
μασι καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, καὶ δικαιώμασι 2 σαρκὸς, μέχρι
9g; Gal,
og 28 , ν ae
μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασι καὶ πό- N
xix. 7,
εἴς.
2ovin DtEKLP; ἣν in ΑΒ", 17, 27, 71, 73, 137, f, vg-
3 δικαιωμασι in DcEKL, f, vg., SyrP; δικαιωματα (sine καὶ) in SsABP, 6, 17, 27,
31; 73, 137:
place as part of the Divine arrangements
for worship (ἐχούσης στάσιν as in Polyd.
v. 5, 3) this signifies that the very Pre-
sence of God is inaccessible. The very
object of the division of the Tabernacle
into two rooms, an outer and an inner,
was to impress men with the fact that
the way of access had not actually been
disclosed (πεφανερῶσθαι). Hence the
appropriateness of the rending of the veil
as the symbol that by the perfected work
and sacrifice of Christ the new and living
way (x. 20) was opened.
Ver.9. ἥτις παραβολὴ eis...
“for this is a parable for the time [then]
present,” for the contemporary period.
ἥτις has for its antecedent σκηνῆς. This
is the simplest construction (Cf. Winer,
p- 207). That suggested by Primasius
and Vaughan—* Which thing (the fact of
there being a πρώτη σκηνὴ separate from
the Holy of Holies) was a parable”—is
grammatically admissible. eis τ. καὶι-
pov τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, “for the time
being”. In the usual division of time
into past, present and future, the present
was termed ὁ éveords. But present to
whom? Several interpreters reply, To
those living under the Christian dispensa-
tion. So especially Delitzsch and Alford.
But N.T. usage, and especially the usage
of this Epistle which speaks of the Chris-
tian dispensation as ‘‘the coming age”’
(vi. 5), ‘‘the future world” (ii. 5), indi-
cates that ‘‘the present time” must refer
to the O.T. period. Besides, the opposi-
tion to καιρὸς διορθώσεως points in the
same direction; as also does the clause
under καθ᾽ ἥν. εἰς is here ‘“ with refer-
ence to”. And the meaning is, that the
outer tent which did not itself contain
God’s presence, but rather stood barring
access to it, was a parable of the entire
dispensation. In other words, this Taber-
nacle arrangement was a striking symbol
of the Mosaic economy which could not
of itself effect spiritual approach and
abiding fellowship with God. The Le-
vitical δικαιώματα themselves, on the
ground of which all these arrangements
proceed, emphatically declared their own
inadequacy. Wrapped up in them was
the truth that they could not bring the
worshipper into God’s presence. καθ᾽
ἣν δῶρά re... “in accordance with
which [parable] are offered both gifts
and sacrifices that cannot perfect him
that doth the service as regards con-
science, being only ordinances of the
flesh resting upon meats and drinks
and divers washings, imposed until
a time of rectification”. καθ᾽ ἣν-
referring to παραβολὴ ; it is in accord-
ance with the parabolic significance of
the Tabernacle and its arrangements, that
gifts and sacrifices were otfered which
could only purge the flesh, not the con-
science. μὴ δυνάμεναι, Winer’s note
(p. 608) is misleading. Cf. Jebb’s Ap-
pendix to Vincent and Dickson’s Modern
Greek, p. 340. ‘In later Greek, py
tended to usurp the place of ov,’’ especi-
ally with participles. Cf. Blass, 255.
κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι
means, to give to the worshipper the
consciousness that he is inwardly cleansed
from defilement and is truly in commu-
nion with God; to bring conscience finally
into peace.
Ver. το. μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν
-. - μόνον evidently introduces the
positive aspect of the virtue of the “ gifts
and sacrifices,” thus more closely defining
μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι
. . . the gifts and sacrifices are not able
to bring the worshipper into a final rest
as regards conscience, only having effect
so far as regards meats and drinks and
divers washings—ordinances of the flesh,
not of the conscience, imposed until a
time of rectification. The change of
preposition from κατὰ to ἐπὶ need excite
no surprise (cf. Aristotle’s frequent change
of preposition, ¢.g., Eth. Nic., iv. 3, 26);
and here there is a slight distinction in
the reference. ἐπὶ has frequently the
meaning ‘in connection with,” ‘ with
regard to” asin Luke xii. 52; John xii.
332
kili. αν et, καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα.
iv. 14,6
viii. 1.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
IX.
11. ἘΧριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος
vi. 20, et ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ' ἀγαθῶν, διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας
1 μελλοντων in $ADcEKLP, f, vg., Copt., Basm., Syrp.mg ; γενομένων in BD*, d,
e, Syrp text,
than vice versd.
16; Acts xxi. 24 [see especially Donald-
son’s excellent treatment of this pre-
position (Greek Gram., p. 518) showing
that with the dative it signifies absolute
superposition, ἴ.6., rest upon, or close to,
hence addition, subsequence and suc-
cession, then ‘‘that which is close by us
as a suggesting cause, accompaniment,
motive, or condition”, ἐπὶ τοῖς τ. φίλων
ἀγαθοῖς φαιδροὶ γιγνόμεθα, “we are
cheerful on account of the prosperity of
our friends”. ὀνομάζοι δὲ πάντα ταῦτα
ἐπὶ ταῖς δόξαις τοῦ μεγάλου ζώου ““Ῥυΐ
were to give all these things names from
in accordance with) the opinions of the
great monster” (Plato, Rep. 493,¢).] The
meaning then is that the virtue (δυνάμεναι)
of the gifts and sacrifices is only in
relation to defilements occasioned by eat-
ing and drinking or neglecting the enjoined
purifications. δικαιώματα σαρκὸς
may either be construed as a contemptuous
exclamation appended, or it may be
softened by οὖσαι “whichare”. μέχρι
καιροῦ διορθώσεως ‘“usque ad
tempus correctionis”. διόρθωσις is
a making straight or right; used by
Hippocrates of reducing a fracture, by
Aristotle of repairing roads and houses,
by Polybius of paying debts, of education,
etc. It means, putting things right,
bringing matters into a satisfactory
state, and is thus used of the introduction
of the new covenant, in confirmation of
viii. 8. No term could better express
this writer’s view of the characteristic of
Messianic times.
Ver. 11. Χριστὸς δὲ wapayev-
épevos.. . “ But Christ having arrived
a High Priest of the good things that were
to be, He, through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands,
that is, not of this creation, nor yet
through blood of he-goats and calves, but
through his own blood, entered once for
all into the Holy of Holies, and obtained
eternal redemption.” The main thought
of the verse is that Christ has obtained
eternal redemption; the δὲ, therefore,
which introduces it, refers to the inability
of the Levitical gifts and sacrifices to
perfect the worshipper. The greater
efficiency of Christ’s ministry results from
its being exercised in a more perfect
tabernacle and with a truer sacrifice.
But the former was more likely to be changed into the latter reading
παραγενόμενος, scarcely, as Vulg.
‘“assistens”’ rather ‘having arrived,”
as in Matt. ii. 1, iii. 1, 13; and frequently
in Luke andActs. Cf. Isa. Ixii. 11. ᾿Ιδού
σοι 6 σωτὴρ παραγίνεται ... Here it is
in fulfilment of the expectation aroused
by μέχρι. ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν ped.
“The genitive gives the subject of the
high priestly action. High Priest, con-
cerned about, ministering tn, securing and
applying by His ministry τὰ μέλλ. ἀγαθά.
The genitive here is nearly equivalent to
the accusative τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in ii.
17’? (Vaughan). The good things that
were to be under the new covenant are
specified in viii. 10-12; they surpassed all
expectation, however. “The High
Priest’? of the good things coming, is a
notable title. Possibly it is only equiv-
alent to ‘‘High Priest of the new
covenant,’ the contents being used to
stand for the whole dispensation, but
more probably the writer has in view the
slender benefits obtained by the Levitical
High Priest, and contrasts them with the
illimitable good mediated by Christ. διὰ
τῆς... σκηνῆς .. .οὐ ταύτης
τῆς κτίσεως. The meaning of διὰ
in ver. 11 favours the understanding of it
here not in a local (Weiss, etc.) but an
instrumental sense, ‘‘ by means of”. It
was because He was High Priest not in the
earthly but the heavenly tabernacle that
He was able to secure these great results.
No doubt διὰ in a similar connection in
iv. 14 and x. 20 is used locally. But this
sense is not so applicable here. Christ is
represented here as the High Priest
ministering in the tabernacle, not passing
through it (Cf. Davidson and Westcott).
τῆς μείζονος καὶ TeX. σκην ἢ 9»
the tabernacle greater and more perfect
than that which has been described in the
preceding verses, and which has itself
been mentioned as the scene of Christ’s
ministry, viii.2. This tabernacle is “ not
made with hands” od χειροποιήτου,
as in ver. 24; equivalent to ἣν ἔπηξεν 6
Κύριος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, viii. 2. Our Lord
characterised the temple as χειροποίητον,
Mark xiv. 58. Being of human manu-
facture, viii. 2, it could be only a symbolic
dwelling for God and a symbolic worship
was appropriate. The words οὐ ταύ-
τῆς τῆς κτίσεως are added in ex-
11--- 13.
σκηνῆς, οὐ χειροποιήτου, τουτέστιν, οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως,
' οὐδὲ δι᾿ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων, διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος εἰσ-
ἤλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.
γὰρ τὸ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων καὶ σποδὸς δαμάλεως ῥαντίζουσα
planation, although, as Bleek remarks,
they are certainly no clearer than the
words they are meant to explain. They
are, however, more significant; for they
point out that the tabernacle in which
Christ ministers does not belong to this
world at all, has no place among created
things and is thus in striking contrast to
the ἅγιον κοσμικόν of ver. 1. It must,
however, be acknowledged that Field
(Otium Norv., p. 229) has shown reason
for believing that we should translate
* not of ordinary erection”. “ By ταύτης
I understand vulgaris, quae vulgo dici-
tur” ; and κτίσις he sees no occasion to
take in any other sense than that in
which κτίζειν is commonly applied to a
city (3 Esd. iv. 53) or to the tabernacle
itself (Lev. xvi. 16). This meaning of
ταύτης, though warranted by the LXX
cited by Field is, however, rare; and the
sense is a little flat, whereas the other
interpretation is full of significance.
Ver. 12. οὐδὲ δι αἵματος τρά-
yov... Not only was the place of
ministry different, the sacrifice offered
also was different. ‘‘ Not without blood,”
could the High Priest make his annual
entry (ver. 7), but it was with the blood
of a calf for himself and of a he-goat for
the people. In LXX of Lev. xvi. the
τράγος is uniformly called χίμαρος but
in Aquila’s version τράγος is used in ver.
8 and in Symmachus in wv. 8 and το.
διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίον αἵματος, “So
only could He enter for us. As the
Eternal Son He has a right there; as the
High Priest of man, He enters in virtue
of the sacrifice of Himself”? (Vaughan).
ἐφάπαξ, as in vii. 27, in contrast to the
ever-recurring annual entrance; and pre-
paring the way for the statement of the
lastclause, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑρ-
άμενος. Rutherford (New Phryn., p.
215) says εὑράμην for εὑρόμην represents
a common corruption of late Greek, but
Veitch seems to think instances of its oc-
currence in Attic have been tampered
with. See Tholuck in loc.; and Blass,
G.G., p. 45. Probably the aorist parti-
ciple here expresses the result of the ac-
tion of the main verb, εἰσῆλθεν. “ But
it is possible that εἰσῆλθεν is used to
describe the whole High Priestly act,
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
333
Ὑ 2 Ἰχ τὸ:
Acts Xx.
28; Eph.
7s Col:
i. 14 I;
Peter 1.
19; Apoc.
i. 5, et v.
et
13.
2 9.
m x. 4; Lev. xvi. 14,16; Num. xix. 2, 4.
including both the entrance into the holy
place and the subsequent offering of the
blood, and that εὑράμενος is thus a par-
ticiple of identical action. In either case
it should be translated not having ob-
tained as in R.V. but obtaining or and
obtained” (Burton M. & T., 66). [Weiss
accurately ‘‘ Der nachgestellte Participi-
alsatz driickt aus, was in und mit diesem
Eingehen geschah”’.] On the use of the
Mid. in N.T. see Thayer, s.v. Here it
can only mean that Christ obtained sal-
vation by offering Himself. λύτρωσις
must, in consistency with the passage, be
understood of the deliverance from guilt
which enabled the worshipper to enter
God’s presence. From this flow all other
spiritual blessings. It is here termed
αἰωνία in contrast to the deliverance
achieved by the Levitical High Priest,
which had to be repeated year by year.
Christ obtained a redemption which was
absolute and for ever valid.
Ver. 13. et yap τὸ atpa... For
if the blood of goats and bulls and an
heifer’s ashes sprinkling the unclean
purify as regards the cleanness of the
flesh, how much rather shall the blood of
the Christ, who through eternal spirit
offered Himself without blemish to God,
cleanse your conscience from dead works
to serve the living God.”” The writer thus
justifies the affirmation of ver. 12 that by
offering His own blood Christ obtained
eternal redemption. σποδὸς Sapah-
ews, the law of purification with the
ashes of the δάμαλις πυῤῥὰ ἄμωμος is
given in Num. xix., where we find the
characteristic words of this verse, σποδός,
ἄμωμος, ayvile, ῥαντισμός, καθαρός,
but κοινοῦν (not used in LXX) is replaced
by ἀκάθαρτος. κεκοινωμένου ς,
‘made common,” i.e., profane, cere-
monially unclean. Defilement was con-
tracted by touching a dead body, or enter-
ing into a house in which a corpse was
lying, or touching a bone or a tomb; and
to enter the Tabernacle while thus defiled
was to incur the penalty of being cut off
from Israel. The water in which lay the
ashes of the burned heifer was therefore
provided for purification (t8wp ῥαντισμοῦ)
and by using it the worshipper was again
rendered fit for entrance to the worship of
uc. i. γ4;
i is
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
ΙΧ,
τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα, 14.
πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυ-
13; Eph. a a a a
V.2; Gai. Tov προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ Θεῷ, καθαριεῖ Thy συνείδησιν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ
i. 4, et ii.
20; Tit.
ii. 14; 1 Peter i. 19, et iii. 18, et iv. 2; 1 Joan. i. 7; Apoc. i. 5.
God. ῥαντίζουσα governs κεκοιν. and
is not to be translated as if it were a pas-
sive; so Vulg., ‘“‘aspersus inquinatos
sanctificat” (cf. Calvin and Bengel).
ἁγιάζει, the meaning is determined by
its use in Num. xix., where it signifies the
removal of ceremonial defilement: the
taking away of that which rendered the
person “common” or “profane,” and
the qualifying him for again worshipping
God. ‘This ἁγιασμός extended πρὸς
THY τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα,
“ἴῃ the direction of’’ (vi. rr) or “in rela-
tion to” (ii. 17, v. 1) (cf. Weiss). The
flesh is here opposed to ‘ the conscience”
of ver. 14. It was only the flesh that
was defiled by attending to the dead; and
only the flesh that was cleansed by the
prescribed sprinkling. Defilement and
cleansing were alike symbolic. It was
within a well-defined ceremonial limit
these sacrifices and washings availed.
What kind of water, no matter how mixed
with heifer’s ashes, could reach and wash
the soul ?
Ver. 14. πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα
τοῦ Χριστοῦ. . -. - The Levitical
sacrifices had their congruous effect, the
sacrifice of Christ must also have its ap-
propriate result. The blood offered was
not of bulls and goats but of “the
Christ ;”’ it was not with another’s blood
(vicarious, ver. 25) but with His own He
entered God’s presence. His was not a
bodily sacrifice but διὰ πνεύματος αἰω-
viov. ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου
+ - » Θεῷ. This clause is inserted to
justify the efficacy of the blood of Christ
in cleansing theconscience. It had virtue
to cleanse the conscience because it was
the blood of one ‘‘ who through eternal
spirit offered Himself blameless to God’’.
How are we to understand διὰ tv. aiw-
véov? Riehm considers it a parellel ex-
pression to that of vii. 16, κατὰ δύναμιν
ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, and that it is here
used to bring out the idea that Christ
having an eternal spirit was thereby able
to perform the whole work of atonement,
not merely dying on the cross but passing
through that death to present Himself
before God. So too Davidson, Weiss and
others. This involves that προσήνεγκεν
refers not to the cross but to the appear-
ance before God, subsequently to the
death. And it does not account for the
absence of the article. It seems more
relevant to the passage and more con-
sistent with the purpose of the clause (to
show the ground of the efficacy of the
blood of Christ) to understand the words
as expressing the spiritual nature of the
sacrifice which gave it eternal validity.
It had superior efficacy to the blood of
bulls and goats because it was not of the
flesh merely, but was expressive of the
spirit. It is the spirit prompting the
sacrifice and giving it efficacy, which the
writer seeks to indicate. Over against
the “ ordinances of the flesh ” which made
the slaughter of animals compulsory and
a mere matter of letting material blood,
he sets this wholly different sacrifice
which was prompted and inspired by
spirit and belonged wholly to the sphere
of spiritual and eternal things. [Spiritus
opponitur conditioni animantum ratione
carentium (ver. 13, Bengel); ‘‘ bezeichnet
das Lebensprinzip, in dessen Kraft, von
dem beseelt und angetrieben Christus sich
opferte”’ (Kiibel)]. It was the spirit
underlying and expressed in the sacrifice
which gave it all its potency. Spirit is
eternal and can alone be efficacious in
eternalthings. ἑαυτὸν. The Levitical
High Priest, as stated in ver. 25, entered
the holy place ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ, but
Christ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. Also goats
and calves were of no great value, but
what Christ offered was of infinite value.
Two points are brought out by ἑαυτόν.
(1) He offered not a vicarious victim;
but, as Priest, offered the only true sacri-
fice, Himself. Therefore His blood had
cleansing efficacy. (2) He offered not a
cheap animal, but the most precious of
sacrifices. προσήνεγκεν, 7.¢., on the
cross; for the clause is an explanation of
the value of the blood. Cf. ver. 28.
ἄμωμον without blemish, perfect, as
required in the Levitical sacrifices, but
now with an ethical significance, and
therefore possessing an ethical validity.
This explains how the blood of Christ
should not merely furnish ceremonial
cleanness but καθαριεῖ τὴν συν-
εἰδησιν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργ-
wv, a characterisation of sins suggested
by the context. Works that defile; as
the touching of a dead body defiled the
:4---1ῇ7.
νεκρῶν ἔργων, εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν Θεῷ ζῶντι ; 15.
θήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστὶν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου, εἰς ἀπολύτρω-
σιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν
λάβωσιν ot κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
399
ο Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δια-ο xii. 243
cts xiii.
39; Rom.
ili. 25, et
V.63°1
Tim. ii.
ὅπου yap Sia- 5; 1 Peter
θήκη, 16. θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου - 17. »δια- » Gal. iit
15.
worshipper. Works from which a man
must be cleansed before he can enter
God’s presence. A pause might be made
before ἔργων, from dead—(not bodies but)
works. [xa@api{w, Hellenistic; see Anz.
Subsidia, 374. Inclass. καθαίρω is used,
as in Herod. i, 44, τὸν αὐτὸς φόνου ἐκά-
θῃρε, and sch. Choeph. 72.] This
cleansing is preparatory to the worship
of the living God els τὸ λατρεύειν
θεῷ ζῶντι. The living God, who is
all life, can suffer no taint of death in His
worshippers. Death moral and physical
cannot exist in His presence. Aatpev-
εἰν, “ad serviendum, in perpetuum,
modo beatissimo et vere sacerdotali”
(Bengel).
Ver.15. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, “And on
this account,” that is to say, because, as
stated in ver. 14, Christ’s blood cleanses
the conscience from dead works and thus
fits men to draw near to God, διαθήκης
καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, “He is
mediator of a new covenant”, The old
covenant with sacrifices which could only
cleanse the flesh allowed sins to accumu-
late. But Christ, as above stated, obtained
cleansing from sins, and so laid the
essential foundation of a new covenant,
viii. 12. ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου
.. . “that a death having taken place for
deliverance from the transgressions [com-
mitted] under the first covenant, those
who have been called might receive the
promised eternal inheritance”. Even
under the old covenant this inheritance
had been promised. A gospel had been
preached to them, and they had been
invited, iv. 2. God being during that
period the covenant God of the people,
this involved eternal good. But until
their transgressions were atoned for they
could not receive the inheritance. The
sacrifices under the old covenant could
not atone for sin, therefore a new cove-
nant with a death which could atone was
necessary; in order that such a death
having taken place and their sins being
removed they might receive fulfilment of
the promise. The retrospective reference
of the death of Christ is here affirmed; as
in xi. 40 it is stated that without us,
i.e., without the Christian dispensation,
the O.T. believers could not be perfected,
The words of κεκλημένοι, therefore,
include not only the | ati addressed
but all who had lived under the O.T.
dispensation. ἀπολύτρωσιν . . -
παραβάσεων, the genitive is of the
object from which redemption is achieved,
and ἐπὶ is scarcely ‘‘against” as in
Vaughan, but rather ‘‘in the time of,” as
in ix. 26, Phil. i. 3.
Ver. 16. ὅπου yap διαθήκη . .-
The meaning of these words is doubtful.
In the LXX διαθήκη occurs about 280
times and in all but four instances trans-
lates FMA, covenant. In classical and
Hellenistic Greek, however, it is the
common. word for ‘‘ will” or “ testament”
(see especially The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,
Grenfell and Hunt, Part I., 105, etc.,
where the normal meaning of the word
appears also from the use of ἀδιάθετος
for “intestate” and μεταδιατίθεσθαι for
“to alter a will”). Accordingly it has
been supposed by several interpreters that
the writer, taking advantage of the
double meaning of διαθήκη, at this point
introduces an argument which applies to
it in the sense of “ will’ or ‘‘ testament,”
but not in the sense of ‘‘ covenant’’; as
if he said, ‘‘where a testamentary dis-
position of property is made, this comes
into force only on the decease of the
testator”. θάνατον ἀνάγκη pép-
εσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου “it is
necessary that the death of him who
made the disposition be adduced’. On
the very common omission of the copula
in the third singular indicative see Butt-
mann, p. 136. φέρεσθαι, “‘necesse est
afferri testimonia de morte testatoris”
(Wetstein). For passages establishing
its use as a term of the courts for the
production of evidence, etc., see Field in
loc. and especially Appian, De Bell. Civil.
ii. 143, διαθῆκαι δὲ τοῦ Καίσαρος ὥφθη-
σαν φερόμεναι. (See also Elsner in loc.)
φέρειν is apparently even used for ‘to
register” in the Oxy. Papyri, Part II., 244.
The reason of this necessity is given in
ver.17. διαθήκη yap ἐπὶ νεκροῖς
βεβαία. . . ‘‘for a testament is of
force with reference to dead people, since
it is never of any force when the testator
is alive”. On this interpretation the
336
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
rm.
θήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μή mote! ἰσχύει Ste ζῇ ὁ
διαθέμενος.
q Exod.
: σται.
XXiv. 5,6;
18. ὅθεν οὐδ᾽
19. “λαληθείσης γὰρ πάσης ἐντολῆς κατὰ νόμον 2 ὑπὸ
ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐγκεκαίνι-
Lev. xvi. Mwiicéws παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων καὶ τράγων,
14,15, 18.
μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου κοκκίνου καὶ ὑσσώπου, αὐτό τε τὸ βιβλίον
1 μη ποτε ΟΑΌΞΕΚΕΡ; py tore δα Ἶ".
2T.R. in §9*; insert art. with ΟΠ "ς,
words mean that before the inheritance,
alluded to in ver. 15, could become the
possession of those to whom it had been
promised, Christ must die. He is thus
represented asa testator. The illustration
from the general law relating to wills or
testaments extends only to the one point
that Christ’s people could inherit only on
condition of Christ’s death. The reason
of Christ’s death receives no illustration.
He did not die merely to make room for
the heir. The objections to this interpre-
tation are (1) the constant Biblical usage
by which, with one doubtful exception in
Gal. iii., διαθήκη stands for ‘‘ covenant,”
not for ‘will’. On this point see the
strong statement of Hatch, Essays in
Bibl. Greek, p. 48. ‘‘There can be little
doubt that the word must be invariably
taken in this sense of ‘‘ covenant” in the
N.T., and especially in a book which is so
impregnated with the language of the
LXX as the epistle to the Hebrews”’.
(2) His argument regarding covenants
receives no help from usages which
obtain in connection with testamrents
which are not covenants. The fact that
both could be spoken of under the same
name shows that they were related in
some way; but presumably the writer
had in view things and not merely words.
To adduce the fact that in the case of
wills the death of the testator is the
condition of validity, is, of course, no
proof at all that a death is necessary to
make a covenant valid. (3) The argu-
ment of ver. 18 is destroyed if we
understand vv. 16, 17 of wills; for in this
verse it is the first covenant that is
referred to.
But is it possible to retain the meaning
covenant”? Westcott, Rendall, Hatch,
Moulton and others think it is possible.
To support his argument, proving the
necessity of Christ’s death, the writer
adduces the general law that he who
makes a covenant does so at the expense
of life. What is meant becomes plain in
the 18th verse, for in the covenant there
alluded to, the covenanting people were
received into covenant through death.
That covenant only became valid ἐπὶ
vexpots over the dead bodies of the vic-
tims slain as representing the people.
Whatever this substitutionary death may
have meant, it was necessary to the rati-
fication of the covenant. The sacrifices
may have been expiatory, indicating that
all old debts and obligations were can-
celled and that the covenanters entered
into this covenant as clean and new men;
or they may have meant that the terms of
the covenant were immutable; or that
the people died to the past and became
wholly the people of God. In any case
the dead victims were necessary, and
without them, χωρὶς αἵματος, the coven-
ant was not inaugurated or ratified.
Great light has been thrown on this pas-
sage by Dr. Trumbull in his Blood Coven-
ant, in which he shows the universality of
that form of compact and the significance
of the blood. The rite of interchanging
blood or tasting one another’s blood, in-
dicates that the two are bound in one
life and must be all in all to one an-
other. On the whole, this interpretation
is to be preferred. Certainly it connects
much better with what follows. For
having shown that by dead victims all
covenants are ratified, the writer proceeds
ὅθεν οὐδ᾽ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς; αἵμ-
ατος ἐνκεκαίνισται, ‘wherefore
not even the ἢγϑί, δι πουρ imperfect
and temporary—‘ was inaugurated with-
out blood,” #.e., without death. [The per-
fect here as elsewhere in Hebrews is
scarcely distinguishable from the aorist.}
Proof that this statement regarding the
first covenant is correct he forthwith gives
in vv. 19-20.
Verio. λαληθείσης γὰρπάσης
ἐντολῆς. ... “For when Moses had
spoken to the people every command-
ment of the law,” this being the need-
ful preliminary, that the people might
clearly understand the obligations they
assumed on entering the covenant, he
then took the blood of the calves and the
goats, etc. In Exod. xxiv. 3 ff., an ac-
count is given of the inauguration of the
first covenant, To that narrative certain,
18—22,
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
337
καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν éppdytice, 20. "λέγων, “Τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆςτ Exod.
διαθήκης ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεός ᾿- 21.
χχίν. 8:
" καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δὲ Matt.
xXvi. 28.
καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας τῷ αἵματι ὁμοίως ἐρράντισε. 22: Exod.
"καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον, καὶ χωρὶς
additions of no importance are here made.
In Exodus no mention is made of goats,
only of μοσχάρια. (See Westcott on
this discrepancy.) Probably this addition
is due to an echo of wy. 12, 13. Water,
which was added to the blood to prevent
coagulation or possibly as a symbol of
cleansing; (cf. Jo. xix. 34; 1 Jo. v. 6)
scarlet wool, κόκκινος, so called from
κόκκος “the grain or berry of the ilex
coccifera’’ used in dyeing (cf. Lev. xiv. 4)
and the hyssop or wild marjoram on which
the wool was tied, are all added as asso-
ciated with sacrifice in general, and all
connected with the blood and the sprink-
ling. ἐράντισεν here takes the place of
the κατεσκέδασε of Exodus and the action
is not confined to the people as in the
original narrative but includes αὐτὸ τὸ
βιβλίον, the book itself, that is, even
the book in which Moses had written
the words of the Lord, the terms of the
covenant. Everything connected with the
covenant bore the mark of blood, of death.
Again, in ver. 20, instead of the ἰδοὺ of
the LXX, which literally renders the
Hebrew we have τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα κ.τ.λ.,
a possible echo of our Lord’s words in
instituting the new covenant, and instead
of διέθετο of Exod. xxiv. 8 we have éve-
τείλατο corresponding with the ἐντολή of
ver. 19.
Ver.21. καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν 82...
“And he also in like manner sprinkled
with the blood the tabernacle and all the
instruments of the service”. The taber-
nacle, however, was not yet erected when
the covenant was instituted. Delitzsch
supposes that a subsequent though kin-
dred transaction is referred to; and colour
is given to this supposition by the separa-
tion of this verse from ver. 19. But
against it is the article in τῷ αἵματι,
“the blood,” apparently the blood de-
fined in vv. 19 and 20; although it is just
possible the writer may have meant ‘the
blood”? which formed part of the means
of service. Neither was it by Moses but
by Aaron the tabernacle and the altar
were sprinkled with blood and so cleansed
on the day of Atonement. When first
erected } σκηνὴ καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύ
αὐτῆς were anointed with oil (Exod. xl.
g) but Josephus records a tradition that it
VOL. IV.
xxix. 36;
Lev. viii.
15, Ig, et
Xvi. 14. t Lev. xvii. 11.
was consecrated not only with oil but
also with blood (Ant. iii. 8, 6). It seems
that the author adopts this tradition, and
ascribes to Moses at the original consecra-
tion of the tabernacle the cleansing rites
which afterwards were annually per-
formed by Aaron on the day of Atone-
ment.
Ver. 22. καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι
πάντα. . . ‘And one may almost say
that according to the law all things are
cleansed with blood, and without blood-
shedding is no remission”. σχεδὸν
qualifies the whole clause and not only
πάντα. Whether it qualifies both clauses,
as Bleek, Weiss and others suppose, is
more doubtful. Westcott and Delitzsch
confine its reference to the first clause.
ἐν αἵματι “with blood” the usual
instrumental ἐν. πάντα, all things,
especially, of course, those that were
used in God’s worship or brought into
His tabernacle. Water was used for
cleansing from certain pollutions. κατὰ
τὸν vépov,it was not only a contrivance
of man but the law of God which enacted
that cleansing must be by blood. καὶ
χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας, “without
blood-shedding,” a word which occurs
only here in Bibl. Greek. See Steph-
anus s.v. In all the instances cited in
Stephanus it means the shedding of blood.
Rendall, then, is quite wrong in main-
taining (after Tholuck and De Wette)
that it means, not the shedding but the
outpouring of the blood at the foot of the
altar. ‘‘The essential idea attached to
the one act was destruction of life, of
the other devotion of the same life to God.
Hence the typical significance of the two
acts was also quite distinct; outpouring
of blood typified in fact, not physical
death, but spiritual martyrdom by the
surrender of a living will to God in
perfect obedience even unto death”.
Weiss is strictly accurate in his remark,
“αἷμ. kann ohne eine lokale Naherbe-
stimmung nicht die Ausgiessung des
Blutes am Altare bezeichnen”. The
evidence is furnished by Bleek. The
words, if not suggested by, inevitably
recall our Lord’s words (Matt. xxvi.
28) τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά pov τῆς
διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον
22
338
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
ΙΣ,
αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις. 23. ᾿Ανάγκη οὖν τὰ μὲν ὗπο-
δείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τούτοις καθαρίζεσθαι -
poh ee
, rie
oan. ii.2
1 ἐπουράνια κρείττοσι θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας.
αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ
24. “ οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειρο-
΄ποίητα ἅγια εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Χριστὸς,; ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς
αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν, νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ
1T.R. CeDb,cEKLP; om. ο with ΦΑΟ ", 17, 71, 118.
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Cleansing was
required of everything connected with
God’s worship, because it was stained
through contact with men. And that
this stain was guilt is implied in the use
of ἄφεσις. It is by remission of sin the
stain is removed. And according to the
great law of Lev. xvii. 11, this remission
was attained by the shedding of blood τὸ
yap αἷμα ἀντὶ ψυχῆς ἐξιλάσεται.
ἄφεσις is used absolutely only here and
in Mark iii. 29; elsewhere it is used with
ἁμαρτιῶν or παραπτωμάτων. In Luke
iv. 18 it signifies “‘release”’.
Vv. 23-28. The necessity of cleansing
the heavenly sanctuary and the efficiency
and finality of Christ’s one sacrifice.
Ver. 23. ἀνάγκη οὖν τὰ μὲν
ὑποδείγματα... “It was necessary,
therefore, that the copies indeed of the
heavenly things be cleansed with these,
but the heavenlies themselves with better
sacrifices than these.” ἀνάγκη οὖν,
the οὖν carries to its consequence ver.
22; and the necessity arises from the
injunction of the law there mentioned.
μὲν ὑποδ. the μὲν . .. δὲ show
that the second clause is that to which
attention is to be given, the first clause
introducing it. The statement is almost
equivalent to “As it was necessary .
so it was nece . The ὑποδείγ.
are the tabernacle and its furnishings, in
accordance with viii. 5; which see. rov-
τοις, viz., the things mentioned in ver.
19. αὐτὰ δὲτὰ ἐπουράνια. Ifthe
copies were cleansed by material rites,
realities being spiritual and eternal can
only be cleansed by what is spiritual and
eternal, cf. ver 14. κρείττοσιν
θυσίαις, the plural is suggested by
τούτοις, and states an abstract inference.
But do the “ heavenlies”’ need cleansing ?
Bruce says, “I prefer to make noattempt
to assign a theological meaning to the
words. I would rather make them
intelligible to my mind by thinking of the
glory and honour accruing even to heaven
by the entrance there of ‘the Lamb of
God’. I believe there is more of poetry
than of theology in the words. For the
writer is a poet as well as a theologian,
and on this account, theological pedants,
however learned, can never succeed in
interpreting satisfactorily this epistle”’
But it is scarcely permissible to exclude
at this point of the author’s argument
the theological inference that in some
sense and in some relation the heavenlies
need cleansing. The earthly tabernacle,
as God’s dwelling, might have been
supposed to be hallowed by His presence
and to need no cleansing, but being also
His meeting-place with men it required
to be cleansed. And so our heavenly
relations with God, and all wherewith
we seek to approach Him, need cleans-
ing. In themselves things heavenly need
no cleansing, but as entered upon by
sinful men they need it. Our eternal
relations with God require purification.
Ver.24. οὐ yap εἰς χειροποίη-
τα. ..- The connection, indicated by
yap, is “I say αὐτὰ τὰ ἐπουράνια, for it
is not into a holy place constructed by
man that Christ has entered, but into
heaven itself”. Others prefer to con-
nect this verse with κρείττοσιν θυσίαις.
“Better sacrifices’? were needed, for
not into, etc. The humanly constructed
tabernacle, being made after the divine
pattern, viii. 5, is here) called ἀντί-
Tuma τῶν ἀληθινῶν. According
to viii. 5 a τύπος of the heavenly realities
was shown to Moses, and what he con-
structed from that model was an ἀντί-
τυπον, answering to the type. But as
here used with τῶν ἀληθ., ἀντίτυπα (in
agreement with ἅγια) must mean what
we usually speak of as a type, that which
corresponds to and prefigures. In the
only other instance of its occurrence,
1 Pet. iii. 21, it has the converse meaning,
the reality of baptism which corresponds
to or is the antitype of the deluge. The
ἀντίτνυπα are contrasted with αὐτὸν
τὸν οὐρανόν, heaven itself [αὐτὸν in
contrast to the mere likeness or copy]
the ultimate reality, the presence of
spiritual and eternal things. ‘*Coelum
in quod Christus ingressus est, non est
ipsum coelum creatum quodcunque fuerit,
sed est coelum in quo Deus est etiam
quando coelum creatum nullum est, ipsa
23—26.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
$39
ἡμῶν - 25. “οὐδ᾽ ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτὸν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς Vv ver. 73
εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ: 26. “ ἐπεὶ xxx. το;
ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου -
ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας,2 διὰ τῆς θυσίας
Ἢ Lev. xvi
viv! 8€ ἅπαξ 2, 34.
wz =, x
II; .
το; Gal.
iv. 4.
ἃ ψυνι in SACP, 37, 39, 47, 73; νυν in DEK.
2T.R. CDcEKL; insert τῆς with NAP, 17, 73.
gloria divina” (Seb. Schmidt in Del-
itzsch). viv ἐμφανισθῆναι -. .- -
“ον to appear openly before the face
of God in our behalf’. νῦν “now,”
after His completed work on earth, and
as his present continuous function; in
contrast both to the past ministries, in
which face to face communion was im-
possible, and to Christ’s reappearance to
men, ver. 28. ἐμφανισθῆναι τ.
προσώπῳ τ. θεοῦ. The meaning
of ἐμφανίζω is most clearly seen from
such passages as Exod. xxxiii. 18, Jo.
xiv. 21. In the passive it means “to
be manifest,” “to appear openly” or
clearly,” ‘to show one’s self,” as in
Mat. xxvii. 53 of the bodies of the saints,
ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. The infinitive
is the infinitive of designed result com-
mon in N.T., as in classics, especially
after verbs of motion, cf. Mat. ii. 2, xi. 8,
etc. The aorist may here be used to de-
note that ‘the manifestation of Christ, in
whom humanity is shown in its perfect
ideal before the face of God is ‘one act
at once’”; but this is doubtful. The
force of éuday. is strengthened still more
by the emphatic +. προσώπῳ τ. θεοῦ.
In the earthly sanctuary the law was τὸ
πρόσωπόν pov οὐκ ὀφθήσεται (Exod.
xxxiii. 23) but ἐν νεφέλῃ ὀφθήσομαι ἐπὶ
τ. ἱλαστηρίου (Lev. xvi. 2). In Ps. xlii.
2 we find indeed πότε ἥξω καὶ ὀφθ-
ήσομαι τ. προσώπῳ τ. θεοῦ; but this is
the non-literal expression of a poet. In
the present passage the words are not the
loose expression of the ordinary wor-
shipper but are meant to be taken literally.
And the intentionally emphatic character
of the whole phrase is best accounted for
by the fact that the darkness and clouds
of incense in the old sanctuary were
meant as much to veil the unworthiness
of the priest from God as the glory of
God from the priest. Now Christ ap-
pears before God face to face with no
intervening cloud. Perfect fellowship is
attained by His perfect and stainless offer
ing of Himself. All is clear between God
and man. For it is ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν “for
us’ He enters this presence and fellow-
ship; not that He alone may enjoy it,
but that we may enter into the rest and
blessedness that He has won for us.
Ver. 25. οὐδ᾽ ἵνα πολλάκις. ....-
“ΝΟΣ yet [did He enter in] in order to
offer Himself repeatedly,” that is, He did
not enter in for a brief stay from which
He was to return to renew His sacrifice.
Westcott holds that the “ offering” cor-
responds with the offering of the victim
upon the altar, not with the bringing of
the blood into the Holy of Holies. He
refers to ver. 14 ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν, to
ver. 28, and also to x. 10, Similarly
Weiss and others. Butin ix. 7 προσφέρει
distinctly refers to the bringing in and
application of the blood in the Holy of
Holies, and the context of the present
passage seems decidedly to make for the
same interpretation. The sequence of the
ἵνα clause after εἰσῆλθεν; the analogy
presented in the clause under ὥσπερ ; and
the consequence stated under ἐπεὶ (ver. 26)
all combine in favouring this meaning.
The High Priest enters the Holiest annu-
ally, but Christ’s entering in was of
another kind, not requiring repetition.
The reason for the reiterated entering in
of the High Priest, as well as the possi-
bility of it, is given in the words év
αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ. ἐν: “The High
Priest was, as it were, surrounded, envel-
oped, in the life sacrificed and symbolic-
ally communicated’ (Westcott). It is
safer to take ἐν in its common instru-
mental sense : the blood was the instru-
ment which enabled the High Priest to
enter. The reason why the entrance had
to be annually renewed is given in x. 4.
The same contrast between αἷμα ἀλλ-
ότριον and αἷμα ἴδιον is found in ix. 12.
A sacrifice of blood not one’s own is
necessarily imperfect, Christ’s entrance
to God being διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος and
διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου had eternal effi-
cacy.
Ver. 26. ἐπεὶ ἔδει atrdv...
‘Since in that case he must often have
suffered since the creation.” If Christ’s
one offering of Himself were not eternally
efficacious, if it required periodical
renewal, then this demanded periodical
sacrifice. It was ‘not without blood”
340
τ Matt.
i αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται.
xXxvi. 28:
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
ΙΧ, 27—28.
27. καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
Rom. ν. ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις - 28. * οὕτως 1 ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ
6, 8, 15, et
vi. 10; τ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς
Peter iii
18,
᾿ ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν.
1 Insert και with SACDEKLP.
the entrance was made, and if the
entrance required repetition, so must the
sacrifice be repeated. And as sin pre-
vailed ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου,
the παθεῖν must also date from the first.
The contrast is with the one offering ἐπὶ
συντελείᾳ κιτιλ' “If his offering of
Himself were not independent of time
and valid as a single act, if it were valid
only for the generation for whom it is
immediately made, then in order to benefit
men in the past, He must have suffered
often, indeed in each generation of the
past” (Davidson). νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ. ..-
‘*But now once at the consummation of
the ages He has been manifested for sin’s
abolition by His sacrifice”. γυνὶ, ‘as
things are,” in contrastto the casesupposed
in ver. 25, the possibility of His repeated
entrance and sacrifice. For the word, see
viii. 6. ἅ π a & not πολλάκις, vv. 25, 26; and
this, ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων
[for ἐπὶ in this use see Winer, p. 489] at
that period of history in which all that
has happened since the foundation of the
world (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) finds its
interpretation and adjustment. If there
was to be one sacrifice for all generations,
the occurrence of that sacrifice itself
marked the period as the consummation.
It closes the tsa of symbolism, ex-
pectation and doubt, suggesting, perhaps,
the word πεφανέρωται for Christ’s appear-
ance, as that which was dimly fore-
shadowed, blindly longed for. εἰς
ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας, The
object of Christ’s appearance, the abolition
of sin, made the repetition of His sacrifice
unnecessary. In vii. #8 ἀθέτησις is used
of permanent displacement, removal, or
setting aside, that is, abolition. τῆς
ἁμαρτίας of sin, in its most general
and comprehensive sense, all sin. This
was the great object of Christ’s manifesta-
tion, the annulling of sin, its total
destruction, the counteraction of all its
effects. This wasto be accomplished διὰ
τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ “through His
sacrifice,” the simple subjective genitive.
The sentence draws attention not to the
nature of the sacrifice, but to its three
characteristics, that it was made once for
tall, in the consummation, for sin’s aboli-
tion.
Ver. 27. καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον . . . “And
inasmuch as it is reserved for men once
to die and, after this, judgment, so, also,
Christ, εἰς." To confirm his statement
that Christ’s sacrifice was ‘‘ once for all,’’
he appeals to the normal conditions of
human death. To men generally, τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις, it is appointed once to die,
men are not permitted to return to earth
to compensate for neglect or failure, but
immediately succeeding upon death, if not
in time, yet in consequence, follows
judgment. The results of life are entered
upon. So Christ died but once and the
results will be apparent in His appearing
the second time without sin unto salva-
tion. ἀπόκειται “15 reserved’ as
in Longinus’ De Subl. ix. 7, ἡμῖν
δυσϑαιμονοῦσιν ἀπόκειται λιμὴν κακῶν ὃ
θάνατος, cf. iii. 5; also Dion. Hal. v. 8,
ὅσα τοῖς κακούργοις ἀπόκειται παθεῖν,
and especially 2 Tim. iv. 8. What is
destined for all men is not simply death,
but ἅπαξ G08. once to die. Cf. the
fragment of Sophocles θανεῖν yap οὐκ
ἔξεστι τοῖς αὐτοῖσι δίς. μετὰ δὲ
τοῦτο κρίσις “after this,” but how
long, the author does not say. ‘Man
dies once, and the next thing before him
is judgment. So Christ died once and
the next thing before Him is the Advent”
(Vaughan).
Ver. 28. οὕτως. The comparison
extends to both terms, the once dying
and the judgment. ([Cf. Kiibel, ‘‘die
Korrespondenz ist nicht bloss die der
gleichen Menschennatur, sondern das,
dass mit dem Tod das, was das Leben
bedeutet, abgeschlossen, fertigist”’]. The
results of the life are settled. And in
Christ’s case the result is that He appears
the second time without sin unto salva-
tion, the sin having been destroyed by His
death. ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς corre-
sponds to ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν of ver. 27. The
passive is used to be more in keeping
with the universal Jaw expressed in
ἀπόκειται of ver. 27. Though the
“‘ offering ’’ as we have seen includes both
the death and the entrance into the
Holiest with the blood, it is the death
which is here prominent. els τὸ
πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας,
‘*to bear the sins of many”. Westcott
οἶα
X. 1. "ΣΚΙΑΝ γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν,
αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
341
οὐκ a viii. 5, εἰ
1 i%-95 Col.
ii. 17.
ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, οὐδέποτε δύναται 3 τοὺς mpocepxo-
ΤῊ Ρ add αντων.
2 T.R. in D*, etc., EHKL, d, e, f, vg., Basm., Copt.; δυνανται in ΑΟΏΌΡΡ.
says, ‘‘ the burden which Christ took upon
Him and bore to the cross was ‘the sins
of many’ not, primarily, or separately
from the sins, the punishment of sins.”
But in what intelligible sense can sins be
borne but by bearing their punishment?
In Numbers xiv. 33, ¢.g., it is said ‘‘ your
sins shall be fed in the wilderness forty
years καὶ ἀνοίσουσι τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν,
where the same verb is used as here
to express the idea of suffering punishment
for the sins of others. πολὰ ὦν, although
it wa» the death of but one, cf. Rom. v.
12-21, but probably only a reminiscence
of Isa. viii. 12. αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν
ἀνήνεγκε. ἐκ δευτέρου . . - ἃ βεοοπά
time He shall appear, ὀφθήσεται, visible
to the eye. The word is probably used
because appropriate to the appearances
after the resurrection, cf. Luke xxiv. 34,
Actsiix: (17; ΠΤ, 1 ΟΥ 5, 6,.7, 8
where ὥφθη is regularly used. But on
this “‘second’’ appearance His object
is different. He will come not εἰς τὸ
πολ. ἄνεν. ἁμαρτίας, but χωρὶς ap. εἰς
σωτηρίαν irrespective of sin, not to be ἃ
sin offering but to make those who wait
for Him partakers of the great salvation,
ii. 3, of. x. 37-39; and ix. 12, rots
αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις “There
may be an illusion to the reappearance of
the High Priest after the solemn cere-
monial in the Holy of Holies on the day
of atonement to the anxiously waiting
people” (Vaughan). Cf. Luke i. 21,
The word is used in 1 Cor. i. 7 and Phil.
iii. 20 of the expectation of the second
advent, andin 2 Tim. iv. 8 is varied by
the beautiful expression ‘‘ they that have
loved His appearing”’.
CHAPTER X.—Vv. 1-18. Finality of
Christ’s one sacrifice. The law merely
presents a shadow of the essential spiritual
blessings and does not perfect those who
seek God through it. Its sacrifices there-
fore must be continually repeated and the
consciousness of sins is annually revived,
for animal blood cannot take sins away.
Accordingly, when Christ comes into the
world He says, “Sacrifice and offering
Thou wouldst not, 1 am come to do Thy
will”. He proclaims the uselessness of
O.T. sacrifices, that He may clear the
ground for “the offering of the body of
Christ’. This is the great distinction
between Christ and all other priests,
They stand daily ministering, He by one
offering has perfected those who approach
God through Him.
Vv. 1-4. The sacrifices of the law in-
adequate.
Ver.1. Σκιὰν yap éxwv... The
yap intimates that we have here a further
explanation of the finality of Christ’s
one sacrifice (ix. 28) and therefore of its
superiority to the sacrifices of the law.
The explanation consists in this that the
law had only ‘‘a shadow of the good
things that were to be, not the very
image of the things”. Σκιὰν is in the
emphatic place, as that characteristic of
the law which determines its inadequacy.
“Α shadow ” suggests indefiniteness and
unsubstantiality; a mere indication that
a reality exists. εἰκών suggests what is
in itself substantial and also gives a true
representation of that which it images.
“The εἰκών brings before us under the
conditions of space, as we can understand
it, that which is spiritual” (Westcott).
So Ktbel, etc. The contrast is between
a bare intimation that good things were
to be given, and an actual presentation of
these good things in an apprehensible form.
It is zmplied that this latter is given in
Christ; but what is asserted is, that the
law did not present the coming realities in
a form which brought them within the
comprehension of the people. [Bleek
cites from Cicero, De Off., iii. 17, 69, ‘‘ nos —
veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam et
expressam effigiem nullam tenemus, um-
bra et imaginibus utimur”’.]
That the law possessed no more than
a shadow of the coming good was exhi-
bited in its constantly renewed sacrifices.
κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν belongs to ταῖς αὐταῖς
θυσίαις, “with the same annually re-
peated sacrifices,’ further explained and
emphasised by the relative clause, ἃς προσ-
φέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, “which they
perpetually offer”. οὐδέποτε δύναται
- » « the law can never with these per-
petually renewed offerings perfect the
worshippers”. “No repetition of the
shadow can amount to the substance”
Devence)- The proof is given in the
‘ollowing words, ver. 2: ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύ-
342
μένους τελειῶσαι.
ΠΡῸΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
Χ,
2. ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι, διὰ
τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας, ἅπαξ
Βἶχ. 13; Kexadapyévous!-
Levi: θ PP 5
14; Num. ἐγιαυτόν " 4.
XIX. ἃ.
Ρε.: αἱ: 6,
7, et 1. 8,
3. GAN ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ
» ἀδύνατον γὰρ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων ἀφαιρεῖν
ἁμαρτίας. 5. “Διὸ εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον λέγει, “ Θυσίαν καὶ
etc.; Esa, προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω por 6. ὁλοκαυτώματα
i. 11; Jer
vi. 20;
Amos v
“kal περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ εὐδόκησας 2: 7. τότε εἶπον, ᾿Ιδοὺ ἥκω - ἐν
* κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ - τοῦ ποιῆσαι, ὁ Θεὸς, τὸ
1 κεκαθαρισμενους δ ΘΠΕΉΚΡ, 17, 37, 71.
3 ηυδοκησας in ACD*HP, 37, 73.
σαντο προσφερόμεναι. The constant
renewal of the yearly round of sacrifices
proves that they were inefficacious, for
had the worshippers once been cleansed
they would have had no longer any con-
sciousness of sins and would therefore
have sought no renewal of sacrifice.
ἐπεὶ, “since,” if the O.T. sacrifices had
perfected those who used them. προσ-
φερόμεναι corresponding to προσφ-
έρουσιν, and τοὺς λατρεύοντας to τοὺς
προσερχομένους οἵ previous verse.
ἅπαξ κεκαθ., that is, once delivered from a
sense of guilt, cf. ix. 14, where συνείδησις
is also used in same sense as here, the
consciousness of sin as barring approach
to God. The sinner once cleansed may,
no doubt, be again defiled and experience
a renewed consciousness of guilt. But
in the writer’s view this consciousness is
at once absorbed in the consciousness of
his original cleansing. Cf. John xiii. ro.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν atrais.... So far from these
O.T. sacrifices once for all cleansing the
conscience and thus perfecting the wor-
shippers, “by and in them there is a
yearly remembrance of sins,” that is, of
sins not yet sufficiently atoned for by any
past sacrifice. Cf. Num. v. 15. θυσία
μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν,
and Philo, De Plantat., ‘25, at θυσίαι
ipl age daca Tas ἑκάστων ἀγνοίας,
«.t.A. This remembrance of sins is κα τ᾽
ἐνιαυτόν, which is most naturally re-
ferred to the annual confession of the
whole people on the day of Atonement.
The remembrance was not of sins pre-
viously atoned for but of sins committed
since the previous sacrifice; there was no
perception that any previous atonement
was sufficient for all sin. The under-
lying ground of this inadequacy being
expressed in ver. 4. ἀδύνατον yap.
- - - “For it is impossible that the blood
of oxen and goats should take away sins”.
This obvious truth needs no proof. There
is no relation between the physical blood
of animals and man’s moral offence. Cf.
the Choephori of Eschylus, 70, “all
waters, joining together to cleanse from
blood the polluted hand, may strive in
vain”. ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας, “to
take away sins,” in the sense of removing
their guilt as in Num. xiv. 18, Lev. x. 17,
Rom. xi. 27.
Vv. 5-10. The adequacy of Christ’s
sacrifice as fulfilling God’s will. διὸ
“wherefore,” “such being the ineffective-
ness of the sacrifices of the law and the
condition of conscience of those under
them,” ‘when He—that is ὁ Χριστός
ix. 28 to whom alone εἰσερχόμ. is
applicable—comes into the world,” refer-
ring generally to His incarnate state, not
to His entrance on his public ministry.
λέγει, the words are quoted from Ps.
xl. 6-8 and put in the mouth of Christ
although the whole Psalm cannot be
considered Messianic, ¢f. ver. 12. In
what sense can λέγει be used of Christ ?
It is not meant that He was present in
the psalmist and so uttered what is here
here referred to Him. This idea is
negatived by εἰσερχόμ. It was when
incarnate he used the words. Neither is
it merely meant that by his conduct Christ
showed that these words were a true
expression of his mind. Rather, the
words are considered prophetic, depicting
beforehand the mind of Christ regarding
O.T. sacrifice, and His own mission. In
several O.T. passages God’s preference
for obedience is affirmed (1 Sam. xv. 22,
Ps. 1. 8, Micah, Isa. i. 11, Hosea, vi. 6)
but this psalm is here selected because the
phrase “δ body hast thou prepared for
me” lends itself to the writer’s purpose.
In the Psalm, indeed, sacrifice is contrasted
with obedience to the will of God. A
body is prepared for Christ that in it He
may obey God. But it is the offering of
this body as a sacrifice in contrast to the
animal sacrifices of the law, which this
writer emphasises (ver. ro). ‘‘ The con-
2—9.
θέλημά cou’.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
343
8. ᾿Ανώτερον λέγων, ““Ὅτι θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν 1
καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἠθέλησας οὐδὲ εὐδόκησας ᾿"-
θυσιας και προσφορας in δ ΓΑΟΒΡ, 17, 23, d, ¢, f, vg., Sah., Copt.; T.R. in
NcDcEKL, Aeth.
trast is between animal offerings and the
offering of Himself by the Son. And
what is said is that God did not will the
former, but willed the other, and that the
former are thereby abolished, and the
other is established in their room, and as
the will of God is effectual. The passage
in the epistle is far from saying that the
essence or worth of Christ’s offering of
Himself lies simply in obedience to the
will of God. It does not refer to the
point wherein lies the intrinsic worth of
the Son’s offering, or whether it may be
resolved into obedience unto God. Its
point is quite different. It argues that
the Son’s offering of Himself is the true
and final offering for sin, because it is the
sacrifice, which, according to prophecy,
God desired to be made’’ (Davidson).
The writer, in citing Ps. 40, follows
the LXX, slightly altering the construction
of the last clause by omitting ἠβουλήθην,
and thus making τοῦ ποιῆσαι depend
upon ἥκω, “Ι am come to do thy will’’.
Cf. ver. 9.
θυσίαν καὶ προσφοράν repre-
senting WTI ΓΞ of the Psalm,
animal sacrifice and meal offering. Cf.
Ephes. v. 2. οὐκ ἠθέλησας “thou
didst not will,’ a contrast is intended
between this clause and τὸ θέλημά σον of
the last clause of ver. 7. σῶμα δὲ κατ-
ηρτίσω por “but a body didst Thou
prepare for me,” implying that in this body
God’s will would be accomplished. Cf.
ver. 10. The words are the LXX ren-
dering of sb nm”) DTN, “ ears
didst Thou dig [or open] for me’’. The
meaning is the same. The opened ear
as the medium through which the will of
God was received, and the body by
which it was accomplished, alike signify
obedience to the will of God. δλοκαυ-
τώματα Kal περὶ ἁμαρτίας
representing (TNT) ΟῚ» of the
psalm, whole burnt offering and sin-
offering. περὶ Gpapr. occurs frequently
in Leviticus to denote sin offering, θυσία
being omitted. οὐκ ηὐδόκησας
“thou didst not take pleasure in”.
τότε εἶπον. Then,” that is, when it
was apparent that not by animal sacrifices
or material offerings could God be
propitiated, “1 said, Lo! I am come to
do Thy will, O God,” to accomplish that
purpose of Thine which the sacrifices of
the O.T. could not accomplish. That this
is the correct construction is shown by ver.
g. For construction, cf. Burton, M. and
T., 397 ; and Prof. Votaw, Use of Infin. in
N. Τ. ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται
περὶ ἐμοῦ “in a book [lit. ina roll ofa
book] it has been written concerning me”’.
κεφαλίς denoting ‘a little head” was
first applied to the end of the stick on
which the parchment was rolled, and from
which in artistically finished books two
cornua proceeded. [See Bleek, Rich’s
Dict. of Antig., and Hatch’s Concordance}
In the Psalm the phrase is joined with the
previous words and might be read, “Lo!
I am come, with a roll of a book written
for me,” in other words, with written
instructions regarding the divine will as
affecting me. The words can hardly
mean that in Scripture predictions have
been recorded regarding the writer of the
Psalm. This, however, may be the
meaning attached to the words as cited
in the epistle, although it is quite as
natural and legitimate to retain the
original meaning and understand the
words as a parenthetical explanation that
Christ acknowledged as binding on Him
all that had been written for the instruction
of others in the will of God. But the
likelihood is that if the writer was not
merely transcribing the words as part of
his quotation without attaching a definite
meaning to them, he meant that the
coming of the Messiah to do God’s will
had been written in the book of God’s
purpose. (Cf. Ps lvi. 9.)
Ver. 8. The significance of the quota-
tion is now explained. ‘“ He takes the first
away, that he may establish the second.”
He declares the incompetence of the O.T.
sacrifices to satisfy the will of God, in
order that he may make room for that
sacrifice which is permanently to satisfy
God. ᾿Ανώτερον, “Higher up,” here
meaning “in the former part of the quo-
tation,” nye ge ἢ to and contrasted
with τότε in ver.9. λέγων, i.e., Christ,
the subject of εἴρηκεν and ἀναιρεῖ. This
is necessitated by λέγει in ver. 3. Yet it
is not Christ directly, but the mind of
Christ uttered by God in Scripture. εἴρ-
κεν, perfect, as expressing that which
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
Χ,
ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον, ἵνα τὸ
344
αἵτινες κατὰ τὸν νόμον προσφέρονται - 9. τότε εἴρηκεν, ““᾿Ιδοὺ ἥκω
τοῦ ποιῆσαι, ὁ Θεὸς, τὸ θέλημά cou’.
dix.12. δεύτερον στήσῃ 10. a ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν οἱ 2 διὰ
τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ.
11. Καὶ
πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ὃ ἕστηκε καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν, καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολ-
λάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἅμαρ-
10 θεος omitted in τ ΓΑΟΘΌΕΚΡ, 17, d, e, Sah., Copt.
2 or omitted in NRACD*E*P, 17, 47, 73-
3 T.R. in NDEKL, 17, 47, d, e, f, vg.; ἀρχιερεὺς in ACP, Syrsch et p, Basm., Arm.
permanently fulfils the will of God.
ἀναιρεῖν is used in classic Greek of
the destruction or abolition or repeal of
laws, governments, customs, etc.
Ver.10. ἐν ᾧ θελήματι . . . “in
which will,” that is, in the will which
Christ came to do (ver.g), ‘‘ we have been
made fit for God’s presence and fellow-
ship by means of the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all’. The will
of God which the O.T. sacrifices could
not accomplish was the “ sanctification ”
of men, that is, the bringing of men into
true fellowship with God. This will has
been accomplished, we have been cleansed
and introduced into God’s fellowship
through the offering of the body of Christ.
By the use of the word προσφορᾶς the
writer shows that it was not a mere
general obedience to the will of God he
had in view, but the fulfilment of God’s
will in the particular form of yieldi
Himself to a sacrificial death. His obedi-
ence in order to become an atoning sacri-
fice took a particular form, the form of
“tasting death for every man”. [Fora
different view see Bruce in loc. and
Gould’s N.T. Theol., p. 169. On the
other hand see Riehm and Macdonell’s
Donellan Lectures, Ὁ. 49-59.] τοῦ
σώματος ‘I. Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ,
the offering of the body must of course
be taken in connection with ix. 14, διὰ
πνεύματος αἰωνίου and also with the de-
fining words ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἐφάπαξ
is added in contrast to the note of in-
feriority attaching to the O.T. sacrifices,
as given in ver. I, their need of continual
renewal.
Vv. 11-14. That Christ’s one sacrifice
has accomplished its end of bringing men
to God is illustrated by His sitting down
at God’s right hand.
Ver. 11. καὶ introduces a new aspect
of the finality of Christ’s sacrifice, to wit,
that ‘‘whereas every priest stands daily
ministering and often offering the same
sacrifices,—inasmuch as they are such as
never can take sins away—this man hay-
ing offered one sacrifice for sins for ever
sat down on God’s right hand, henceforth
waiting till is enemies be set as a footstool
for his feet. For by one offering He
hath perfected for ever the sanctified.”
The argument is in this statement ad-
vanced a step. For although the three
points urged in vv. 1-4 are here still in
view, vtz., that ‘the Levitical service
consists of repeated acts (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν,
kat’ ἐνιαυτόν) and these the same (ai
αὐταὶ θυσίαι) and essentially ineffective
(οὐδέποτε δύνανται, «.t.A), yet it is
now the action of the priest rather than
the nature of the sacrifice that comes to
the front, and the finality of Christ’s
offering is argued from the historical fact
that He was not any longer standing
ministering but had sat down as one who
had quite finished His work. Thereforein
ver. 14 τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς
ἁγιαζομένους takes the place οἵ hy-
ασμένοι ἐσμὲν of ver. το. Nothing fur-
ther requires to be done to secure in per-
petuity the fellowship of man with God.
In the one sacrifice of Christ there is
cleansing which fits men to draw near
to God, to enter into covenant with Him,
and there is also ground laid for their
continuance in that fellowship. The
future (εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς) is provided for as
well as the past. Limborch quoted by
Bleek says “ perficit, #.e., perfecte et plene
a peccatorum reatu liberavit, ita ut in
perpetuum sanctificati sint et ulteriore
aut nova oblatione non indigeant’’.
“His one offering gathers up into itself
both the sacrifice that inaugurates the
covenant, and all the many sacrifices
offered year by year to maintain it and
to realise it; it reaches the idea which
they strove towards in vain, and by reach-
ing it for ever sets them aside” (David-
son).
In ver. 11 the more expressive περιελεῖν
replaces ἀφαιρεῖν of ver. 4. It means
“0 take away something that is all
10--20.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
345
τίας - 12. “αὐτὸς δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς ci. 5,13, et
τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 13. τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος
ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.
γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.
Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: μετὰ γὰρ τὸ προειρη-
vill, I;
14. μιᾷ
15.
κέναι,2 τό. “f Adry ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ τὰς f viii. 8;
ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν,
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διανοιῶν ὃ αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς -
ver. xxxi.
t, etc.
Tau} om. xi.
I7. καὶ τῶν ἅμαρ- 97.
τιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ “ ἔτι. 18. Ὅπου ε ": 8, 12;
Oan. X.
δὲ ἄφεσις τούτων, οὐκ ἔτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας.
9, et xiv.
Rom
6; ς
19. " Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ν΄ 2:ΕρΒ.
ἐν τῷ αἵματι ᾿Ιηυοῦ, 20. ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ
ii. 13, 18,
et iil. 12.
1 ovtos in NACD*EP, d, e, f, vg.
3 epyxevar in SACDEP, it, vg.
8 ἐπι τὴν διανοιαν in SACDer*P, 17, 47, 73-
4 μνησθησομαι in R*ACD*, 17.
round” as ϑέρματα σωμάτων, a garment,
the covering of a letter. In Gen. xli.
42 it is used of Pharaoh taking off his
ring. The phrase therefore suggests that
man is enwrapped in sin; or if this is to
press too hard the etymological meaning,
it at least suggests complete deliverance.
οὗτος cf. ili.3 and viii.3. εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς
cannot be construed with προσενέγκας
but must be taken with ἐκάθισεν. “To
say of the Levitical priests that they
προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς (ver. 1) is
appropriate; to say of Christ that He
προσήνεγκεν εἰς τὸ διην. is almost a self-
contradiction” (Vaughan). εἰς τὸ διη-
νεκὲς ἐκάθισεν balances ἕστηκεν καθ᾽
ἡμέραν, and cf. especially 1.3. No doubt
the usual position of εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς is
after the word it qualifies, x. 1-14 and
Vii. 3. τοὺς ἁγιαζ. has no time reference,
of. ii. I.
Vv. 15-18. Proof from Scripture that
the one sacrifice of Christ, the mediator
of 8 new covenant is final.
er. 15. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν . .. “And
the Holy Spirit a asi arises to us,”
that is, that the one offering of the Son is
final, for under the new covenant there is
no further remembrance of sins. ἡμῖν is
more naturally construed as a dativus
commodi than as the object of μαρτυρεῖ.
pera γὰρ τὸ εἰρηκέναι. “ For after saying
... ” we expect the apodosis to begin
and the sentence to be concluded by an
introductory ἔπειτα λέγει or τότε (cf.
ver. 9), but ver. 17 is not so introduced.
The sense, however, is unmistakable.
After defining the covenant in its in-
wardness and spirituality (v. c. viii. 10),
the writer introduces that feature of it
which specially serves his present purpose
καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν . . . οὐ μὴ μνησθήσο-
μαι ἔτι, “And I will never any more
remember their sins and their trans-
gressions”. The conclusion is obvious,
“ But where there is remission of these,
there is no longer offering for sin”. For
the terms of the new covenant see viii.
8-12. agate ibd ore is here used in-
stead of μνησϑῶ of LXX and of viii. 12,
because the writer emphasises the exten-
sion of the forgetting to all futurity.
Cuaps. X. 19—XI1. 29. Exhortation to
use the access to God opened by Christ
and to maintain faith in Him in spite of
all temptation to fall away.
Cap. X. 19-25. Exhortation to draw
near to God, to hold fast the Christian
hope, and to encourage one another.
Ver. 19. Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί.
-. . “ Having then, brethren, confidence
for the entrance into the holiest by the
blood of Jesus, a way which He inaugur-
ated for us fresh and living, through the
veil, that is, His flesh.’’ For the form of
the sentence cf. iv. 14. παρρησίαν
els τὴν εἴσοδον, cf. iii. 6 = iv. 16
προσερχώμεθα μετὰ παρρησίας, aiso
Eph. ih. 12. ἐν § ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν
καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν. εἴσοδος may
either mean an entrance objectively con-
sidered, or the act of entering. Weiss
adopts the former meaning, compelled as
he supposes by the ὁδὸν which follows in
apposition and referring to Jud. i. 24 and
Ezek. xxvii. 3. He would therefore
346
ΠΡΟΣ ἘΒΡΆΙΟΥΣ
X.
h iv. 14, 16. ζῶσαν, διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τουτέστι, τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, 21.
i Ezech
xxxvi.25; "Kal ἱερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 22.
Eph
12;
i. 6
translate “boldness as regards the en-
trance”. The objection to this inter-
pretation is the meaning put upon els
which more naturally expresses the object
or end towards which the παρρησία is
directed, the entering in, not merely the
object about which the παρρησία is exer-
cised. Cf. 2 Cor. vii. το, μετάνοιαν εἰς
σωτηρίαν. But cf. Winer on eis. The
expression in ix, 8, τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν,
also favours Weiss’s interpretation. τῶν
ἁγίων as the Greek commentators remark,
here means “heaven”. ἐν τ᾿ αἵματι
Ἰησοῦ, on the whole, it is better to join
these words not with παρρησίαν but with
εἴσοδον. Bleek sees a reference to ix.
25,6 ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια ἐν
αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ. ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν
ἡμῖν 686v... “The new and living
way which He inaugurated [or dedicated]
for us.” The antecedent of the clause is
εἴσοδον, and this way into the holiest is
here further described as first used by
Christ that it might be used by us. For
ἐγκαινίζειν means to handsel, to take the
first use of a new thing. See Deut. xx.
5. He has entered within the veil as our
πρόδρομος (vi. 19, 20) and has thus
opened a way for us. It is πρόσφατον,
recent, fresh. The lexicographers are
agreed that, originally meaning fresh-
slain and applied to νεκρός, πρόσφατος
came to be used of flowers, oil, snow, mis-
fortune, benefits, in Sirac. ix. 10, of a
friend; in Eccles. i.9 οὐκ ἔστι πᾶν πρόσ-
φατον ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. It was a way
recently opened. Christ was the first who
trodthat way. \Vetstein, who gives many
examples of the use of the word, cites also
from Florus, i. 15, 3, an interesting an-
alogy : ‘* Alter [Decius Mus] quasi monitu
deorum, capite velato, primam ante aciem
diis manibus se devoverit, ut in con-
fertissima se hostium tela jaculatus,
novum ad victoriam iter sanguinis sui
semita aperiret”. καὶ ζῶσαν, not as
a way that abides (Chrys., etc.) nor as
leading to life eternal (Grotius, etc.), nur
as a way which consists in fellowship
with a Person (Westcott), but as effective,
actually bringing its followers to their
goal. Cf. iv. 12. So Davidson and
Weiss. διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος,
a further characteristic of the way, it
passed through the veil, that is, His flesh,
which must first be rent before Christ
could pass into the holiest. ‘‘ This beauti-
‘ προσερχώμεθα
Tacs μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, ἐρραντισμένοι τὰς
ful allegorizing of the veil cannot, of
course, be made part of a consistent and
complete typology. It is not meant for
this. But as the veil stood locally before
the holiest in the Mosaic Tabernacle, the
way into which lay through it, so Christ’s
life in the flesh stood between Him and
His entrance before God, and His flesh
had to be rent ere He could enter”
(Davidson).
Ver. 21. καὶ ἱερέα μέγαν. The
opened way into the holiest is not the
only advantage possessed by the Christian,
he has also ‘‘a great priest,” cf. iv. 14
ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν. .. προσ-
ερχώμεθα. Philo (Leg. ad Gai., p. 1035)
calls the High Priest ὁ μέγας ἱερεύς, and
so Lev. xxi. 10, Num. xxxv. 25. But it is
not to the fact that He is High Priest
that this designation here points, but to
His greatness as Son of God and as one
who has passed into the Holy Presence.
Especially is His greatness manifested in
His administration ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον
τοῦ θεοῦ, over God’s house (cf. tii. 6)
that is, over those heavenly realities which
replace the house of God on earth, and
necessarily over those for whom the priest
is appointed to minister τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν
v. I).
Wer, 22. Being thus secure of an ac-
ceptable entrance προσερχώμεθα, “let us
keep approaching,” that is, to God (vii.
25, x1. 6); a semi-technical term. μετὰ
ἀληθινῆς καρδίας, “with a true
heart”’ (cf. Isa. xxxviii. 3), not with a
merely bodily approach as if all were
external and symbolic, but with that
genuine engagement of the inner man
which constitutes true worship. Chry-
sostom has χωρὶς ὑποκρίσεως. Davidson
has ‘with fundamental genuineness’’;
but it is the genuineness which is elicited
in presence of realities. καρδία is inter-
preted in τ Pet. iii. 4, 6 κρυπτὸς τῆς
καρδίας ἄνθρωπος. It is the inevitable
qualification of one who comes ἐν πλη-
ροφορίᾳ πίστεως, “in full assur-
ance of faith,” believing not only that
God is (xi. 6) but that a way to His favour
and fellowship is opened by the Great
Priest. To engender this full assurance
has been the aim of the writer through-
out the Epistle. ῥεραντισμένοι - ..
λελουσμένοι. These participles ex-
press not conditions of approach to God
which are yet to be achieved, but con-
21—25.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
347
καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς" 23. * καὶ λελουμένοι τὸ σῶμα k iv. τᾷ; 1
ὕδατι καθαρῷ, κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ " πιστὸς
Cor. i. 9;
1 Thess.
γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος - 24. καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς παροξυσ- 1 eages
μὸν ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων, 25. ᾿ μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες Thy ἐπισυν- Peter iii.
ditions already possessed, “our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our
body washed with pure water”. Both
participles must be construed with προσ-
ερχώμεθα. The obvious connection of
‘heart’ and “body” forbids the attach-
ment of λελουσμένοι to κατέχωμεν. To
connect both participles with κατεχ. is
equally impossible. “"προσέρχεσθαι is a
technical liturgical word, and sprinkling
and washing are liturgical acts of prepara-
tion” (Delitzsch). Possibly the mention
of sprinkling and washing is an echo of
the injunctions of Exod, xxix. 4, 21, xxx.
20, xl. 30, prescribin g similar preparation
for the priestly functions. Our heart or
inner man by the application of the αἷμα
ῥαντισμοῦ (cf. τ Pet. i. 2) is delivered
from the consciousness of guilt (ix. 14) ;
our body by the application of the purify-
ing water of baptism becomes the symbol
of complete purity. ‘Sprinkled with
that blood which speaketh evermore in
the heavenly sanctuary, and washed with
baptismal water sacramentally impreg-
nated with the same, we are at all times
privileged to approach by anew and living
way the heavenly temple, entering by
faith its inner sanctuary, and there pre-
senting ourselves in the presence of God”
(Delitzsch). Cf especially Ps. li. 6-7,
and Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, c. 80 (p. 383)
where ceremonial purifications are ex-
plained on the principle that the Pure and
Undefiled must be worshipped by the pure
in body and soul.
Ver. 23. A second branch of the ex-
hortation is given in the words κατ-
éxopev τὴν ὁμολογίαν. . . “Let
us hold fast and unbending the confession
of our hope,” as in iii. 6. Cf. also vi. 11.
For as yet in this life the fulness of bless-
ing which comes of fellowship with God
is not experienced, the perfected salvation
and the heavenly country (xii. 22-23) are
yet to be reached. But these are the
contents of the Christian hope, and this
hope is confessed and maintained in pres-
ence of a commonplace, scoffing and
alluring world. It is to be maintained for
the best of all reasons: πιστὸς yap 6
ἐπαγγειλάμενος. The promises of God
are necessarily the ground of hope, συ.
vi. 12. These promises cannot fail, be-
cause God cannot lie, vi. 18.
9, II, 14.
Ver. 24. To the exhortation to faith
and hope he adds an exhortation to love:
καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους, “and
let us consider one another,’’ taking into
account and weighing our neighbour’s
circumstances and especially his risks, but
this with a view not to exasperating
criticism but eis παροξυσμὸν aya-
πη ς» ‘“‘ with a view to incite them to love
and good works,” acknowledging honest
endeavour and making allowance for im-
perfection. παροξυσμός is “stimulation”
either to good or evil. In Acts xv. 39 it
is used of angry irritation, as in LXX,
Deut. xxix. 28, Jer. xxxix. 37. So in
medical writers of a paroxysm. But fre-
quently in classics the verb is used of
stimulating to good as in Plato, Epzst. iv.
p. 321 and in Xen. Cyrop. 6, 2, 5, Tove
τους ἐπαινῶν παρώξυνε. Isocrates, ad
Demon., etc. The writer, in vi. 9-10, has
set his readers a good example of this
considerate incitement. In order to fulfil
his injunction they must not neglect
meeting together for Christian worship
and encouragement μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες
τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν. Delitzsch
suggests that the compound word is used
instead of the simple συναγωγή in order
to avoid a word with Judaic associations;
but συναγωγή might rather have sug-
gested the building and formal stated
meetings, while ἐπισυν. ἑαυτῶν denotes
merely the meeting together of Christians,
That these meetings were for mutual
edification is shown bythe ἀλλὰ wapa-
καλοῦντες. Some made a practice
of neglecting these meetings, whether
from fear of persecution or from scorn or
from business engagements. Cf. Jude,
18-20, and Moberly’s Minist. Priesthood,
p- 14. This good custom of meeting to-
gether and mutually exhorting one an-
other was to be all the more punctually
and zealously attended to, ὅσῳ βλέ-
πετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν,
“εἴη proportion as ye see the day drawing
near”. “The day” is of course the day
of the Lord’s return (ix. 28), the day of
days. The Epistle being written in all
probability a year or two before the des-
truction of Jerusalem, the signs of the
coming day which could be “seen” were
probably the restlessness, forebodings of
coming disaster, and initial collisions with
348
vi. 4;
Num. xv.
xii. 31; 2
Peter ii.
20, 21; 1
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
X.
αγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισὶν, ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες " Kal τοσούτῳ
30; Matt. μᾶλλον ὅσῳ βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν.
26. ™“Exouciws γὰρ
ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας,
oanv.16, οὐκ ἔτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία: 27. 5 φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκ-
zech.
XXXVI. 5;
Sophon i.
,
18, et iii, TLOUS.
8
Sox} κρίσεως, καὶ πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναν-
28. “ ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Μωσέως, χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν ἐπὶ δυσὶν
o Num. xxxv. 30; Deut. xvii. 6, et xix. 15; Matt. xviii. 16; Joan viii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 1.
the Romans which heralded the great
war,
Vv. 26-39. Dreadful result of falling
from faith.
Ver. 26. Ἑκουσίως yap apap-
τανόντων ἡμῶν... .. “For if we
go on sinning wilfully after receiving the
knowledge of the truth, there no more
remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain
dreadful waiting for judgment and a fury
of fire which is to devour the adver-
saries.”” yap, introducing an additional
reason for the preceding exhortation.
The emphasis is on ἑκουσίως ; and the
present tense of ἅμαρτ. must not be over-
looked. Cf. τῶν ἀκουσίων ἁμαρτημάτων
καταφυγὴν εἶναι τοὺς βωμούς, Thuc. iv.
98. Wilful sin, continued in, means
apostasy, repudiation of the covenant.
Cf. vi. 6, καὶ παραπεσόντας, and v. 2,
τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν, and iii. 12. Apostasy
can only occur μετὰ τὸ AaPetv...
a condition which is explained in detail in
chap. 6. Without this preceding know-
ledge of the covenant its wilful repudia-
tion is impossible. Those spoken of in
ver. 25, 45 having abandoned meeting
with their fellow Christians, and possibly
as having neglected, if not renounced,
the confession of their hope, were perhaps
alluded to here, as on their way to apos-
tasy. They are warned that they are
drifting into an irredeemable condition,
for to those who have repudiated and
keep repudiating the one sacrifice of
Christ, οὐκέτι wept ἁμαρτίων
ἀπολείπεται θυσία. The only
sacrifice has been rejected, and there is
no other sacrifice which can atone for the
rejection of this sacrifice. “The meaning
is not merely that the Jewish sacrifices to
which the apostate has returned have in
themselves no sin-destroying power, nor
even that there is no second sacrifice
additional to that of Christ, but further
that for a sinner of this kind the very
sacrifice of Christ itself has no more aton-
ing or reconciling power” (Delitzsch).
That this is the meaning is shown by the
positive assertion of what the future does
contain, a terrifying prospect of waiting
for inevitable judgment. The expression
is not equivalent to φοβερᾶς ἐκδοχὴ κρί-
σεως, which, as Bleek remarks, would not
be so impressive. φοβερός means either
‘causing fear’’ or ‘‘ feeling fear’’; ‘ scar-
ing” or “affrighted”. Here it is used
in the former sense. ἐκδοχὴ occurs else-
where only in the sense of receiving
something or of the acceptation or inter-
pretation of a word; but ver. 13 and ix.
28 guide to the meaning given by the
Vulg. expectatis. The τις by leaving the
expectation indefinite heightens the terror
of it. The imagination is allowed scope.
κρίσεως is general, but immediately sug-
gests πυρὸς ζῆλος μέλλοντος, the
destined fire; for which see 2 Thess. i. 8-
to. “Fiery indignation” very well ren-
ders πυρὸς ζῆλος, an anger which ex-
presses itself in fire. The expression is
derived from such O.T. phrases as Ps.
Ixxix. 5 ἐκκαυθήσεται ὡς πῦρ ὁ ζῆλός
σον. Cf. Zeph. i. 18 and Deut. iv. 21.
This fiery anger is destined to devour the
adversaries , as in Isa. xxvi. 11 ζῆλος λήψ-
εται λαὸν ἀπαίδευτον, καὶ νῦν πῦρ τοὺς
ὑπεναντίους ἔδεται, and Ixiv. 2 κατα-
καύσει πῦρ τοὺς ὑπεναντίους. Cf. also
Isa. xxx. 27 ἣ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ ὡς πῦρ
ἔδεται, a natural figure used by Homer
and others. ὑπεναντίους, see Lightfoot
on Col. ii. 14, who shows that it means
‘direct, close, persistent opposition ”’.
Ver. 28. ἀθετήσας τις νόμον.
- - . “Any one who has set aside Moses’
law dies without mercy on the evidence of
two or three witnesses,” in accordance
with the law laid down in Deut. xvii. 6
regarding apostasy; although capital
punishment was not restricted to this sin.
For ἀθετεῖν cf. 1 Thess. iv. 8; and Isa.
xxiv. 16, οὐαὶ τοῖς ἀθετοῦσιν, of ἀθε-
τοῦντες τὸν νόμον, also Ezek. xxii. 26.
ἀθέτησις is used absolutely in r Sam.
xxiv. 12, ἐπὶ... μάρτυσιν, of.
ix.17; ἀποθν ή πῆ τε τὴ wees θὰ the tense
does not carry with it the inference that
the law was still being enforced. It may
only mean “he dies”’ according to the
law as it stands. χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν,
to emphasise the inexorableness of the
26—32.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
349
4 .
ἢ τρισὶ μάρτυσιν ἀποθνήσκει" 29. "ἢ πόσῳ Soxeite χείρονος ἀξιωθή- px Cor. xi.
σεται τιμωρίας 6 τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καταπατήσας, καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς
διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος
ἐνυβρίσας ; 30. “ οἴδαμεν γὰρ τὸν εἰπόντα, ““᾿Εμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ
ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει Κύριος ᾿- καὶ πάλιν, “Κύριος κρινεῖ τὸν λαὸν
> a?
αὐτου.
31. φοβερὸν τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας Θεοῦ ζῶντος.
q Deut.
XXxii. 35,
36; Rom.
xii. 19.
r Gal. iii. 4;
Phil. i.
32.
*’Avapipynokeade δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας, ἐν als φωτισθέντες πολλὴν Col. ti. t
law and the inevitable character of the
doom. Cf. Josephus, c. Apion, ii. 30, 6
νόμος ἀπαραίτητος and Ignatius, ad
Eph. c. 16,
Ver. 29. πόσῳ δοκεῖτε xelpo-
νος. ... “Of how much sorer punish-
ment, think ye, will he be counted worthy,
who, etc.”” The argument of ii. 1-4 and
xii. 25. By the parenthetically interjected
δοκεῖτε he appeals to their own sense of
proportion and fitness ; although the judg-
ment alluded to in ἀξιωθήσεται is not
theirs but God’s. 6... καταπατ-
yoas... The guilt of the apostate
which justifies this sorer punishment is
detailed in three particulars. He has
trampled on the Son of God. The high-
est of Beings who has deserved best at
his hands is spurned with outrageous
scorn. καὶ τὸ αἷμα... ἡγιάσθη
‘and has reckoned the blood of the cov-
enant with which he was sanctified, a
common thing”. ‘The blood of the
covenant” is the blood of Christ (cf.
ix. 15 ff., xiii, 20); here it is thus desig-
nated because repudiation of the coven-
ant is in question. This blood is the
purifying agent by which men are fitted
for the fellowship and service of God, and
so brought within the covenant. Cf.
ἡγιάσθη with ἁγιάζει of ix. 13 and καθ-
aptet of ix. 14. This sole means of puri-
fication, the sanctifying virtue of which
the supposed apostate has experienced,
he now counts κοινὸν, common or
unclean. [The Vulg. has “ pollutum,”
the Old Latin “communem”. Chry-
sostom ἀκάθαρτον ἢ Td μηδὲν πλέον ἔχον
τῶν λοιπῶν; and so Kiibel, “ which has
no more worth than the blood of other
men”. All these meanings lie close to
one another. Cf. Mark vii. 2, Acts x.
14. Whatis “common” is unsanctified,
ceremonially unclean.] The third point
in the heinousness of the sin of apostasy
is τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυ-
βρίσας, “and has insulted the spirit
of grace”. This seems the direct an-
tithesis to ‘Moses’ law” of ver. 28.
The spirit of grace is the distinctive gift
of Christian times, and is not only the
Pauline but the universal antithesis to
the law. To have blasphemed this
gracious Spirit, who brings the assurance
of God’s presence and pardon, and gifts
suited to each believer, is to renounce all
part in things spiritual. Cf. vi. 4, ii. 4;
Eph. iv. 7.
Ver, 30. οἴδαμεν yap τὸν εἰπόντα.
- - . “For we know Him who said, ven-
geance is mine, I will repay.” The
certainty of the punishment spoken of is
based upon the righteousness of God.
“We know whoit is that said ’’; it is the
living God (v. 31). The quotation is
from Deut. xxxii. 35 not as in the LXX
but as given in Rom. xii. 19 where it is
used as an argument for the surrender of
private vengeance. In Deut. LXX the
words are Ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀντ-
αποδώσω. The second quotation, κρινεῖ
κύριος . . . is from the following verse
where the words intimate God’s pro-
tecting care of His people, using κρινεῖ
in the sense common in O.T. Delitzsch
thinks that sense may be retained here,
but this is less relevant and consistent
with the passage. Cf. Ecclus. xxvii. 28
ἡ ἐκδίκησις ὡς λέων. and xxvili. 1.
φοβερὸν τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν. . .. “Itis
dreadful to fall into the hands of the
living God”. Where David (2 Sam.
xxiv. 14) prefers to do so [ἐμπεσοῦμαι δὴ
εἰς χεῖρας κυρίου] it is because he knows
his chastisement will be measured and
that no unjust advantage will be taken.
The dreadfulness of the impenitent’s
doom arises from the same certainty that
absolute justice will be done. As Judge,
God is “the living God,” who sees and
has power to execute just judgment, cf.
ἢ 12; Xi. 22) ef. cits 20,
Ver. 32. As in the parallel passage
in chap. 6, the writer at ver. 9 suddenly
turns from the presentation of the terri-
fying aspect of apostasy to make appeal
to more generous motives, so here he
now encourages them to perseverance
by reminding them of their praiseworthy
ast. As Vaughan remarks, the thought
is that of Gal. iii.3. ἀναμιμνήσκε-
σθε δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας,
350
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
Χ.
5 ΡΒ. 1. 7, ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων - 33. " τοῦτο μὲν, ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ
et iv. 14.
Matt. v.
12, et vi.
20, et xix. γενηθέντες " 34.
21; Lu
-
θλίψεσι GeatpiLdpevor> τοῦτο δὲ, κοινωνοὶ τῶν οὕτως ἀναστρεφομένων
" καὶ γὰρ τοῖς δεσμοῖς ἱ μου συνεπαθήσατε, καὶ τὴν
xii, 33; ἁρπαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς προσεδέξασθε, γινώσκοντες
Actsv. »
41, et xxi. ἔχειν
5.9 Σ
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονα ὕπαρξιν ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ μένουσαν.
35:
Thess. i." μὴ ἀποβάλητε οὖν τὴν παρρησίαν ὑμῶν, ἥτις ἔχει μισθαποδοσίαν
14; 1
Tim. vi. 19; Jac. i. 2. u Matt. x. 32.
1 T.R. in NWDcEHKLP, d, e,,Aeth.; δεσμιοις AD* ἢ, vg., Syrutr, Copt., Arm.
-.. ‘But recall the former days, in
which after being enlightened ye endured
much wrestling with sufferings”. dva-
pip, ‘remind yourselves,” as in 2 Cor.
vii. 15. See Wetstein’s examples, where
the genitive not the accusative follows the
verb, and M. Aurelius, v.31. τὰς wpé-
τερον Hp. [as in Thucyd., vi. 9 ἐν τῷ
πρότερον χρόνῳ.] days separated from
the present by some considerable interval,
as is implied in v.12. They are further
described as ἐν als φωτισθέντες
as in vi. 4; equivalent to “receiving the
knowledge of the truth,’’ ver. 26. It was
the new light in Christ, shed upon their
relation to God and on their prospects,
which enabled them to endure much
wrestling or conflict with sufferings.
ἄθλησις in the next generation came to
mean “martyrdom,” as in Mart. of S.
Ignatius, chap. 4. [For the genitive
cf. “certamina divitiarum,” Hor. Epp.,
i. 5 8.] What these sufferings were
is described in two clauses, they were
partly in their own persons, partly in
their sympathy and voluntary sharing
in the suffering of others, τοῦτο μὲν .. .
θεατριζόμενοι, τοῦτο δὲ κοινωνοὶ . . -
For the distributive formula, “ partly,”...
“ partly,” see abundant examples from the
classics in Wetstein. See also Plutarch’s
Them., v. 4. It may be rendered “as
well by,” “as by”. θεατριζόμενοι,
‘made a spectacle,” [ὥσπερ ἐπὶ θεάτρου
παραδειγματιζόμενοι, Theophyl., cf. 1
Cor. iv. g], literally true of the Christians
who were expose to wild beasts in the
amphitheatre. See Renan’s L’Antéchrist,
pp. 162 ff., “A la barbarie des supplices
on ajouta la dérision”. But here it was
not by lions and leopards and wild bulls
they were attacked, but ὀνειδισμοῖς
τε καὶ θλίψεσιν, “reproaches and
distresses,” ‘“opprobriis δὲ tribulationi-
bus” (Vulg.). ὀνειδισμός is frequent
in LXX, and several times in the phrase
λόγοι ὀνειδ. In this Epistle it occurs
again in xi. 26 and xiii. 13, and cf. τ Pet.
iv. 14. Some who have not directly suf-
fered persecution in these forms suffered
by sympathy and by identifying them-
selves with those who were experiencing
such usage, τῶν οὕτως ἀναστρε-
φομένων. Cf. Phil. iv. 14. Farrar
renders well, ‘‘who lived in this condi-
tion of things’. In what sense they
became κοινωνοί is immediately ex-
plained; they sympathised with those
who were imprisoned and welcomed the
violent seizure of their possessions. «at
yap, as always, must here be rendered
“For indeed,” “for in point of fact,”
proving by more definite instances that
they had become partakers with the per-
secuted. They had felt for the 1m-
prisoned, as was possibly alluded to in
vi. 10,and as they are in xili. 3 exhorted
still to do. Cf. Mat. xxv. 36, which pro-
bably formed a large factor in the pro-
duction of that care for the persecuted
which characterised the early Church.
They had also suffered the loss of their
goods. ἁρπαγὴν, the violent and unjust
seizure, as in Mat. xxiii. 25, Luke xi. 39.
ἁρπαγὴ ὑπαρχόντων occurs in Lucian
and Artemidorus. SeeStephanus. That
which enables them to take joyfully the
loss of their possessions is their con-
sciousness that they have a possession
which is better and which cannot be
taken away. γινώσκοντες ἔχειν
ἑαυτοὺς [for ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς] If the
true reading is ἑαυτοῖς then the meaning
is easy “knowing that you have for
yourselves”. If we read ἑαυτοὺς, this
may mean, as Davidson, Westcott and
others suppose, “knowing that you have
yourselves a better possession”. But
this seems not very congruous with the
writer’s usual style. It is more likely that
the writer uses the emphatic ‘you your-
selves” in contrast to those who had
robbed them and now possessed their
goods. Sovon Soden. Or it may mean
“ye yourselves” in contrast to the pos-
session itself of which they have been
deprived, ye yourselves however stripped
of all earthly goods.
Ver. 35. μὴ ἀποβάλητε οὖν τὴν παρ-
ρησίαν ... ‘Cast not away, then, your
33—39-
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
351
μεγάλην. 36. “ὑπομονῆς γὰρ ἔχετε χρείαν, ἵνα τὸ θέλημα τοῦ v Luc. xxi.
Θεοῦ ποιήσαντες, κομίσησθε τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.
37. “ Ἔτι γὰρ μικ- w Hab. ii. 3
ρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, “ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ. 38. ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἢ 6: Tuc.
ἐκ πίστεως ; ζήσεται: καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή
xviii. 8;
Rom. i.
17; Gal.
iii. 11; 1 Peter i.6, et y. 10; 2 Peter iii. 8.
1In B of LXX pov follows πίστεως, in A it follows δικαιος. B gives the more
probable reading. In the text of Hebrews T.R. omits pov with DEH**KLP. pov
is inserted after δικαιος in NAH", f, vg., Arm., Clem., Thdrt. Cp. Rom. i. 17, Gal.
iii, II.
confidence, for it has great recompense
of reward”. The exhortation begun in
ver. Ig is resumed, with now the added
force springing from their remembrance
of what they have already endured and
from their consciousness of a great pos-
session in heaven. A reason for holding
fast their confidence is now found in the
result of so doing. It has great reward.
μισθαποδοσία used in ii. 2 of requital of
sin, here and in xi. 26 of reward. Cf.
Clem. ad Cor. 6, yépas yevvaiov, and
Wisdom iii. 5. Therefore, μὴ ἀπο-
βάλητε, do not throw it away asa worth-
less thing you have no further need of.
Retain it, ὑπομονῆς yap ἔχετε χρείαν,
“for ye have need of endurance,” of main-
taining your hopeful confidence to the
end under all circumstances. Without
endurance the promise which secures to
them the enduring possession cannot be
enjoyed, for before entering upon its en-
joyment, the whole will of God concern-
ing them must be done and borne. ἵνα
τὸ θέλημα τ. θεοῦ ποιήσαντες κομίσησθε
τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, Davidson and Weiss
agree in thinking that “the will of God
is His will that they should hold fast their
confidence”. Rather, that accepting all
privation, as they once did (ver. 32) and
recognising all they were called to en-
dure as God’s will concerning them, they
should thus endure to the end (c/. iii. 6)
and so receive the promised good (ἔπαγ-
γελία = the thing promised as in vi. 12,
15). κομίσησθε, the verb properly means
to carry off or to recover what is one’s
own. See Mat. xxv. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10;
Heb. xi. 13, 19, 39. And their entrance
on the reward of their endurance will not
long be delayed ἔτι yap μικρὸν
ὅσον Scov.... “For yet a little
a very little—while and He that cometh
will have come and will not delay.”
[“Ἐ5 ist noch ein Kleines, wie sehr, wie
sehr Klein ” (Weiss), “noch eine kleine
Zeit, ganz Klein” (Weizsdcker). “ Ad-
huc enim modicum aliquantulum”
(Vulg.). “For yet a little—ever so little
—wnile” (Hayman)]. The phrase μικ-
ρὸν ὅσον ὅσον is found in Isa. xxvi. 20,
“60, my people . . . hide thyself for a
very little, till the indignation be over-
past”. The double ὅσον is found in
Aristoph. Wasps, 213, where however
Rogers thinks the duplication due to the
drowsiness of the speaker. Literally it
means “4 little, how very, how very”.
The following words from 6 ἐρχόμενος
to ἐν αὐτῷ are from Heb. ii. 3-4, with
some slight alterations, the article being
inserted before ἐρχόμενος, οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ
instead of the less forcible words in
Hebrews, and the two clauses of ver. 4
being transposed. In Habakkuk the con-
ditions. are similar. God’s people are
crushed under overwhelming odds. And
the question with which Habakkuk opens
his prophecy is ἕως τίνος κεκράξομαι
Kal ov μὴ εἰσακούσεις; The Lord as-
sures him that deliverance will come and
will not delay. By inserting the article,
the writer of Hebrews identifies the de-
liverer as the Messiah, ‘“‘the coming
One”. Cf. Mat. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19; Jo.
vi.14. 6 δὲ Slxaros.... “And the
just shall live by faith,” #.e., shall survive
these troublous times by believing that
the Lord is at hand. Cf. Jas. v. 7-9.
kat ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, “andifhe
withdraw himself” or “shrink”. The
verb, as Kypke shows, means to shrink
in fear,and it is thus used in Gal. ii, 12.
It is the very opposite of παρρησία.
Accordingly it is thoroughly displeasing
to God, whose purpose it is to bring men
to Himself in confident hope. But the
idea that any of the “‘ Hebrews” can be
in so ignominious and dangerous a posi-
tion is at once repudiated. ἡμεῖς
“But as for us we are not of those who
shrink (literally of shrinking) to perdition
but of faith to the gaining of the soul”.
That is, we are not characterised by a
timid abandonment of our confession -
(ver. 23) and confidence. Cf. 1 Thess.
v. 5. What such timidity leads to (εἰς
ἀπώλειαν, cf. Acts viii. 20; Rom. ix. 22)
is hopeless perdition. Cf. M. Aurelius
on the δραπέτης, x. 25. ὁ φοβούμενος
352
> α DP?
μου ἐν αὐτῷ.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
X. 39--ΧΙ.. .
39. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν,
2 Rom. viii. ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς.
24; 2Cor.
iv. 18." ΧΙ. ἃ:
δραπέτης. But we are of faith whose
end is περιποίησις ψυχῆς the ac-
quisition of one’s soul. Very similar is
Luke xxi. 19, “ΒΥ your endurance win
your souls”. See also James v. 20, and
t Thess. ν. 9. Like our word ‘“‘acquisi-
tion” περιποίησις sometimes means the
acquiring as ini Thess. v. 9 and 2 Thess.
ii. I4; sometimes the thing acquired. as
in Eph. i. 14. [In Isocrates, 2nd Ep.,
occurs the expression διὰ τὸ περιποιῆσαι
THY αὐτοῦ ψυχήν (Wetstein)].
Cuaps. XI. 1—XII. 3. That the
Hebrews may still further be encouraged
to persevere in maintaining faith the
writer exhibits in detail its victories in
the past history of their people and
especially in the life of Jesus. (Cf.
Sirach, 44-50.)
Ver.1. Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπ-
ιζομένων ὑπόστασις . - - “Now
faith is assurance of things hoped for,
proof [manifestation] of things not
seen”. When ἔστι stands first in a
sentence it sometimes means ‘‘ there ex-
ists,” as in John v. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 44. But
it has not necessarily and always this
significance, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 6; Luke viii.
11; Wisdom vii. 1. There is therefore
no need to place a comma after πίστις
as some have done. The words describe
what faith is, although nota strict defini-
tion. ‘“ Longe falluntur, qui justam fidei
definitionem hic poni existimant: neque
enim hic de tota fidei natura disserit
Apostolus, sed partem elegit suo instituto
congruentem, nempe quod cum patientia
semper conjuncta sit” (Calvin). ὑπό-
στασις, literally foundation, that which
stands under; hence, the ground on
which one builds a hope, naturally glid-
ing into the meaning “ assurance,” “ con-
fidence,” as in iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xi. 17;
Ruth i. 12; Ps. xxxix. 7, ἡ ὑπόστασίς
ov παρὰ σοί ἐστιν. “EXeyxos regu-
arly means ‘‘ proof”. See Demosthenes,
passim; especially Agt. Androtion, p. 600,
ἔλεγχος, ὧν ἂν εἴπῃ tis καὶ τἀληθὲς
ὁμοῦ δείξῃ. It seems never to be used
in a subjective sense for ‘‘ conviction,”
* persuasion”; although here this mean-
ing would suit the context and has been
adopted by many. To say with Weiss
that the subjective meaning must be
given to the word that it may correspond
with ὑπόστασις is to write the Epistle,
not to interpret it. Theophylact renders
"ἜΣΤΙ δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων
the clause φανέρωσις ἀδήλων πραγ-
μάτων. Faith is that which enables us to
treat as real the things that are unseen.
Hatch gives a different meaning to both
clauses: ‘ Faith is the ground of things
hoped for, #.¢., trust in God, or the con-
viction that God 1s good and that He will
perform His promises, is the ground
for confident hope that the things hoped
for will come to pass. . . . So trust in
God furnishes to the mind which has it
a clear proof that things to which God
has testified exist, though they are not
visible to the senses.” The words thus
become a definition of what faith does,
not of what it is. Substantially the
words mean that faith gives to things
future, which as yet are only hoped for,
all the reality of actual present existence;
and irresistibly convinces us of the reality
of things unseen and brings us into their
presence. Things future and things
unseen must become certainties to the
mind if a balanced life is to be lived.
Faith mediating between man and the
supersensible is the essential link be-
tween himself and God, “ for in it lay the
commendation of the men of old,” ἐν
ταύτῃ yap ἐμαρτυρήθησαν of πρεσβύ-
τεροι. That is, it was on the ground of
their possessing faith that the distin-
guished men of the O.T. received the
commendation of God, being immortal-
ised in Scripture. It might almost be
rendered ‘‘ by faith of this kind,” answer-
ing to this description. ἐν ταύτῃ has an
exact parallel in x Tim. v. το, the widow
who is to be placed on the Church
register must be ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς pap-
τυρουμένη, well-reported of on the score
of good works. of πρεσβύτεροι»
those of past generations, men of the
O.T. times; as Papias [Euseb., H.E.,
iii. 39] uses the term to denote the
“Fathers of the Church” belonging to
the generation preceding his own. The
idea that faith is that which God finds
pleasure in (x. 38) and is that which truly
unites to God under the old dispensations
as well as under the new is a Pauline
thought, Gal. iii. 6. This general state-
ment of ver. 2 is exhibited in detail in the
remainder of the chapter; but first the
writer shows the excellence of faith in
this, that it is by it that we recognise that
there is an unseen world and that out of
things unseen this visible world has taken
ΧΙ. 4.
ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.
βύτεροι.
εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπόμενα 1 γεγονέναι.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
b n , a Lg θ ‘ IA ce a
τὸ: ἰστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ,
853
2. ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἵ mpec-b Gen. i. τ;
Ps. xxxiii.
6; Rom.
᾿ iv. αν 4
4. "Πίστει Peter iii.
πλείονα θυσίαν “ABeX παρὰ Κάϊν προσήνεγκε τῷ Θεῷ, BV ἧς ἐμαρ-ς ΣῊΝ 24;
τυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος, μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ -
en. iv.
4, 10;
Matt.
xxiii. 35.
1ro βλεπομενον in SAD*E*P, 17, d, 6, Copt., Aeth.; T.R. in DcE**KL, f, vg.,
Syrutr, Arm.
rise. This idea is suggested to him be-
cause his eye is on Genesis from which
he culls the succeeding examples and it is
natural that he should begin at the be-
ginning. “ Beforeexhibiting how faith is
the principle that rules the life of men in
relation to God, down through all history,
as it is transacted on the stage of the
world, the author shows how this stage
itself is brought into connection with God
by an act of faith” (Davidson). By faith
we perceive, with the mental eye νοοῦμεν,
cf. Rom. i. 20, that the worlds (αἰῶνας, cf.
i. 2; the visible world existing in time,
the temporary manifestation of the unseen
is meant, see i, 10, 11) have been framed
(κατηρτίσθαι, as in x. 5, σῶμα δὲ κατ-
npticw μοι. In xiii, 21 καταρτίσαι
ὑμᾶς, “perfect you” as in Luke vi. 40;
2 Cor. xiii. rr; xr Thess. iii. 10. The
word is perhaps used in the present con-
nection to suggest not a bare calling into
existence, but a wise adaptation of part to
part and ofthe whole to its purpose) by
God’s word, ῥήματι θεοῦ. This is
the perception of faith. The word of God
is an invisible force which cannot be per-
ceived by sense. The great power which
lies at the source of all that is does not
itself come into observation ; we perceive
it only by faith which is (ver. 1) ‘the
evidence of things not seen”. The result
of this creation by an unseen force, the
word of God, is that ‘‘ what is seen has
not come into being out of things which
appear”, εἰς TO... γεγονέναι.
εἰς τὸ with infinitive, commonly used to
express purpose, is sometimes as here
used to express result, and we may legiti-
mately translate ‘‘so that what is seen,
etc.” Cf. Luke v.17; Rom. xii. 3; 2 Cor.
viii. 6; Gal. iti. 17; x Thess.ii.16. Cf.
Burton, Μ΄. and T., 411. μὴ ἐκ φαι-
γομένων, the Vulgate renders “ ex invisibili-
bus,” and the Old Latin “ex non appar-
entibus” having apparently read ἐκ μὴ
dav. τὸ βλεπόμενον the singular
in place of the plural of T.R.and Vulgate,
presents all things visible as_ unity.
Had the visible world been formed out of
VOL. IV.
materials which were subject to human
observation, there would have been no
room for faith. Science could havetraced
it to its origin. Evolution only pushes
the statement a stage back. There is still
an unseen force that does not submit
itself to experimental science, and that is
the object of faith. To find in this verse
an allusion to the noumenal and phen-
omenal worlds would be fanciful.
Ver. 4. πίστει πλείονα θυσ-
ίαν. .... “ΒΥ faith Abel offered to
God a more adequate sacrifice than
Cain.” πλείονα literally “more,” but
frequently used to express “higher in
value” ‘“‘ greater in worth,” as in Mat. xii.
41, 42. πλεῖον ᾿Ιωνᾶ ὧδε, Luke xii. 23;
Rev. ii. 19. Does the writer mean that
faith prompted Abel to make a richer
sacrifice, or that it was richer because
offered in faith? Many interpreters pre-
fer the former alternative; [‘‘ Der grossere
Wert seines Opfers ruhte auf dem Glau-
ben, der Herzenshingabe, die ihn das
Beste der Herde wiahlen liess” (Kiibel).]
and the choice of the word πλείονα is
certainly in favour of this interpretation.
δι’ ἧς épaprupyOn... “through
which he was certified [or attested] as
righteous”. It is questioned whether ἧς
is the relative of θυσίαν or of πίστει.
The succeeding clause which states the
ground of the attestation, ἐπὶ τ. δώροις,
determines that it refers to θυσίαν. God
bore witness ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ,
which 1s explained in Genesis iv. 4 where
it says ἐπεῖδεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ Αβελ καὶ ἐπὶ
τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ. God looked favour-
ably on Abel and on his gifts. How this
favourable reception of his offering was
intimated to Abel we are not told; but
by this testimony Abel was pronounced
δίκαιος, not “justified” in the Pauline
sense but in the general sense “a righteous
man”; as in Mat. xxiii. 35 ἀπὸ τοῦ
αἵματος “ABeA τοῦ δικαίου. But this is
not all that faith did for Abel, for καὶ
δι αὐτῆς ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλεῖ,
‘and through the same he, though dead,
yet speaks,” i.e, speaks notwithstanding
23
354
eee καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλεῖται.
24; Eccl. | Ε
xliv. 16, τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ ‘
et xlix.14. Wie
. eos:
e Gen. vi.
ΠΡῸΣ EBPAIOY=2
ΧΙ.
5. “Πίστει ᾿Ενὼχ μετετέθη
δῖον bY ς
“οὐχ εὑρίσκετο, διότι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ
πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηται ““ εὐηρεστηκέναι
an na? Ἂν 5 le A A
13; Eccl. τῷ Θεῷ "- 6. χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον εὐαρεστῆσαι : πιστεῦσαι
xliv..17<
Rom. iii.
22; Phil.
iii. 9.
a , “ ᾿Ξ eS δ
γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι ἐστὶ, καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν
αὐτὸν μισθαποδότης γίνεται.
7. “Πίστει χρηματισθεὶς Νῶε περὶ
1 nuptoketo in ΑΒΕ.
death. His death was not the end of him
as Cain expected it to be. Abel’s blood
cried for justice. The words of xii. 24
are at once suggested, αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ
κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Αβελ, where
the blood of sprinkling is said to speak to
better purpose than the blood of Abel.
This again takes us back to Gen. iv. Io.
“ The voice of thy brother’s blood cries to
me from the ground.” The speaking re-
ferred to, therefore, is not the continual
voice of Abel’s example but the voice of
his blood crying to God immediately after
his death. Cf. 8. ix. 12 and cxvt. 15.
“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the
death of His saints.” In the case of
Abel, then, the excellence of faith was
illustrated in two particulars, it prompted
him to offer a richer, more acceptable
offering, and it found for him a place in
God’s regard even after his death.
Ver. 5. Πίστει Ἐνὼχ μετετέθη. . . .
“ΒΥ faith Enoch was translated so that
he did not see death; and he was not
found, because God had translated him.
For before his translation he had witness
borne to him that he had pleased God
well; but without faith it is impossible
to please Him well.” In the dry cata-
logue of antediluvian longevities a gem
of faith is detected. What lay at the root
of Enoch’s translation? Faith, because
before he was translated he was well-
pleasing to God, which implies that he
believed in God, or as Chrysostom neatly
puts it: πῶς δὲ πίστει μετετέθη ὁ Ἐνώχ;
ὅτι τῆς μεταθέσεως ἡ εὐαρέστησις αἰτία,
τῆς δὲ εὐαρεστήσεως ἡ πίστις. In
Ecclus. xliv. 16 he is exhibited as ὑπό-
δειγμα μετανοίας ταῖς γενεαῖς. μετετέθη
‘‘was transferred,” removed from one
place to another, as in Acts vii. 16, cf.
also Gal. i. 6, Jude 4. In Ecclus. Ixix.
14 it is represented by ἀνελήφθη ἀπὸ τῆς
γῆς. The succeeding clauses imply that
his body disappeared. How the tradition
arose we have no means of knowing, cf.
Suicer, i. 1130, and the Bible Diction-
aries. τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν may either imply
purpose or result. For the former see
Mat. ii. 13, Luke ii. 24, Phil. iii. 10; for
the latter, Mat. xxi. 32, Acts vii. 19, Rom.
vii. 3, Heb. x. 7. The use of the passive
μετετέθη favours the supposition that
result is here expressed, and throughout
the sentence it is the translation that is
prominent rather than the escape from
death, which is introduced rather as an
explanation of μετετέθη. καὶ οὐχ ηὗρ-
ίσκετο. .. . These words are verbatim
from the LXX of Gen. v. 24, and are
quoted for the sake of bringing out clearly
that God was the author of the transla-
tion. (Cf. the misquotation in Clem. Εῤ.»
chap. 9, οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῦ θάνατος.)
God translated him, and this is proved by
the fact that preceding the statement of
his translation Scripture records that he
pleased God well, where the Hebrew has
“he walked with God”. χωρὶς δὲ
πίστεως ἀδύνατον εὐαρεστῆς-
σαι. “Βαϊ without faith it is impossible
to please Him well.” The ground of
this proposition is given in the following
words: πιστεῦσαι yap Set τὸν
προσερχόμενον. - . . “For he who
cometh to God must believe that He ex-
ists and that to those who seek Him He
turns out to be a rewarder.” To please
God one must draw near to Him (τὸν
προσερχόμενον in the semi-technical
sense usual in the Epistle), and no one
can draw near who has not these two
beliefs that God is and will reward those
who seek Him. So that Enoch’s faith,
and the faith of every one who approaches
God, verifies the description of ver. 1:
the unseen must be treated as sufficiently
demonstrated, and the hoped for reward
must be considered substantial.
Ver. 7, Πίστει χρηματισθεὶς
Noe... “ΒΥ faith Noah, on being
divinely warned of things not as yet seen,
with reverential heed prepared an ark to
save his household.” Both here and in
Mat. ii. 12, 22 xpypar. is translated
“warned of God,” although “ divinely
instructed” as in vili. 5 is admissible in
all the passages. πίστει must be con-
strued with εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασεν
and these words must be kept together,
although some join εὐλαβηθεὶς with
5--8,
ΠΡῸΣ EBPAIOYS
300
τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων, εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασε κιβωτὸν εἰς σω-
, “ An a
τηρίαν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ - δι᾿ ἧς κατέκρινε τὸν κόσμον, Kal τῆς κατὰ
πίστιν δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο κληρονόμος.
᾿Αβραὰμ ὑπήκουσεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὸν τόπον ὃν ἤμελλε λαμβάνειν εἰς
8. Πίστει καλούμενος 1 f Gen. xii.
1,4; Act#
vii. 2.
1 o kadoupevos in AD* 17, Arm., a reading which Calvin censures as “ nimio dilutum
ac frigidum”.
the preceding words. τῶν μηδέπω
Bren, i.e., the flood; cf. Gen vi. 14.
εὐλαβηθεὶς here used in preference to
φοβηθεὶς because it is not a timorous
dread of the catastrophe that is signified,
but a commendable caution springing
from regard to God’s word. In obedi-
ence to this feeling he prepared an ark
[κιβωτὸν used of the ark of the covenant
in ix. 4, and of Noah’s ship in Gen. vi. 15,
because it was shaped like a box witha
roof. In Wisdom x. 4 it is spoken of as
‘‘ worthless timber,” to magnify the salva-
tion accomplished by its means. δι᾽ εὐτε-
Rots ξύλου τὸν δίκαιον (Σοφία) κυβ-
ερνήσασα and in Wisdom xiv. 7 it 15
ξύλον δι᾽ οὗ γίνεται δικαιοσύνη.) This
ark he built for the saving of his family;
as in Gen. vii. 1 God says to Noah,
εἴσελθε σὺ Kal πᾶς ὁ οἶκός cov. By
this faith [δι᾽ ἧς] and its manifestation in
preparing the ark, “he condemned the
world”; of which the most obvious
meaning is that Noah’s faith threw into
relief the unbelief of those about him.
Cf. Mat. xii. 41. But to this, Weiss ob-
jects that in Hebrews κόσμος is not used
to denote the world of men. He there-
fore concludes that what is meant is that
Noah by building the ark for his own
rescue showed that he considered the
world doomed, thus passing judgment
upon it. Certainly the former meaning
is the more natural and the objection of
Weiss has little weight. A second result
of his faith was that “he entered into
possession of the righteousness which
faith carries with it”. The original signi-
ficance of κληρονόμος is here, as often
elsewhere, left behind. It means little
more than ‘‘owner”. But no doubt
underneath the word there lies the idea,
familiar to the Jewish mind, that spiritual
blessings are a heritage bestowed by God.
ἡ κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνη is
rendered by Winer (p. 502) ‘‘the righ-
teousness which is in consequence of
faith” and he instructively compares Mat.
xix. 3, ἀπολῦσαι Thy γυναῖκα κατὰ πᾶσαν
αἰτίαν, and Acts iii, 17, κατ᾽ ἄγνοιαν
érpatare. The first statement in the
history of Noah (Gen. vi. 10) is, Νῶε
ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος, τέλειος Sv ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ
αὐτοῦ, τῷ θεῷ εὐηρέστησε Νῶε. Cf.
Wisdom x. 4. In Genesis the warning
of God is communicated to Noah because
he was already righteous; in Hebrews a
somewhat ditferent aspect is presented,
Noah “became” righteous by building
the ark in faith. He was one of those
who διὰ πίστεως ἠργάσαντο δικαιοσύ-
γὴν» Ver. 33.
From ver. 8 to ver. 22 the faith of the
patriarchs is exhibited, cf. Ecclus. xliv. 19.
Ver. 8. Πίστει καλούμενος ᾿Αβραὰμ.
.... “ By faith Abraham on being called
to go out to a place which he was to
receive as an inheritance, obeyed and
went out not knowing whither he was
going.” καλούμενος, as in Mark i. 20
and Isa. li. 2, ἐμβλέψατε ᾿Αβραὰμ ...
ὅτι els ἦν, Kal ἐκάλεσα αὐτόν. The
present, not κληθεὶς, expresses the idea
that no sooner was the call given than it
was obeyed [‘dass er, so wie der Ruf
an ihn ging, gehorsamte” (Bleek)]. The
same idea is expressed by the immediate
introduction of ὑπήκουσεν, which more
naturally would come at the end of the
clause, and thus allow ἐξελθεῖν (cf. Gen.
xii. 1; Acts vii. 2) to follow καλούμενος.
The faith of Abraham appeared in his
promptly abandoning his own country on
God’s promise of another, and the strength
of this faith was illustrated by the cir-
cumstance that he had no knowledge
where or what that country was. He
went out μὴ ἐπιστάμενος ποῦ ἔρχεται.
The terms of the call (Gen. xii. 1) were
ἔξελθε. .΄. καὶ δεῦρο εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν av
σοι δείξω. It was, therefore, no attrac-
tive account of Canaan which induced
him to forsake Mesopotamia, no ordinary
emigrant’s motive which moved him, but
mere faith in God’s promise. ‘ Even
still the life of faith must be entered on in
ignorance of the way to the inheritance, or
even what the inheritance and rest in each
one’s particular case will be, and of the
experiences that the way will bring. This
is true even of ordinary life” (Davidson).
This did not exhaust the faith of Abra-
ham. Further πίστει παρῴκησεν. . . -
“ By faith he became a sojourner in a land
[his] by the promise as if it belonged to
another, dwelling in tents, along with
356
κληρονομίαν, καὶ ἐξῆλθε μὴ ἐπιστάμενος ποῦ ἔρχεται.
Giii. 4, et
xii. 22,
xiii. 14;
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=S
ΧΙ.
9. Πίστει
, > ‘ a a > , ε > , 9 A
παρῴκησεν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν, ἐν σκηναῖς
εἰ κατοικήσας μετὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ τῶν συγκληρονόμων τῆς ἐπαγ-
Apoc.xxi, γελίας τῆς αὐτῆς “ 10. © ἐξεδέχετο γὰρ τὴν τοὺς θεμελίους ἔχουσαν
2. , BN
h Gen. xvii. πόλιν, ἧς τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς ὁ Θεός.
ΣΟ, δὲ xxi.
2; Γαδ. ἃς
36; Rom
Iv. Ig.
Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs with him of the
same promise.” παρῴκησεν, as in
Acts vii. 6, πάροικον ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ,
dwelt alongside of the proper inhabitants.
Cf. Gen. xvii. 8 and passim. εἰς in
its common pregnant sense, Jo. xxi. 4;
Acts viii. 40; Pet. v. 12 and especi-
ially Acts vii. 4. He lived in the pro-
mised land, ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν, as if it be-
longed to some other person; neither did
he make a permanent settlement in it but
dwelt in tents, shifting from place to
place, the symbol of what is temporary,
See<lsas Xxxvill. 12: 2 Οὐ. ν, Δ. he
presence of his son and grandson must
continually have prompted him to settle.
They were included in the promise, but
they too were compelled to move with
him from place to place. But how did
this evince faith? It did so by showing
that he had given a wider scope and a
deeper significance to God’s words. He
was content to dwell in tents, because he
locked for “the city which has the founda-
tions”. ἐξεδέχετο yap tiv...
πόλιν. ‘For he expectantly waited for
thecity.” ἐκδέχομαι (Jas. ν. 7, ὃ γεωργὸς
éxSex., Acts xvii. 16; 1 Cor. xi. 33) oc-
curs in Soph. Phil., 123, where Jebb says:
“The idea of the compound is ‘be ready
for him,’ prepared to deal with him the
moment he appears”. The city is des-
cribed as one ‘‘ that has the foundations”
which the tents lacked, and which accord-
ing to xlii. 14 is by implication not only
μέλλουσαν but μένουσαν. In xii. 22 it is
called “the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem,’”’ and in Gal. iv. 26
ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ. A city was the
symbol of a settled condition, as in Ps.
cvii. 7, πόλις κατοικητηρίου. Cf. the
interesting parallel in Philo. Leg. Alleg.,
iii.-xxvi., p. 103, πόλις δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθὴ καὶ
πολλὴ καὶ σφόδρα εὐδαίμων, τὰ γὰρ
δῶρα τοῦ θεοῦ μεγάλα καὶ τίμια. It is
further described as ἧς τεχνίτης καὶ
δημιουργὸς ὁ θεός, “whose constructer
and maker is God”. τεχνίτης is used of
the silversmiths in Acts xix. 24, of God as
Maker of the world in Wisdom xiii. 1 and
xiv. 2, τεχνίτης δὲ σοφίᾳ κατεσκεύασεν.
,
11. ἢ Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα δύναμιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος
. 3 ν᾿ ΕΥ̓ 4 ΄ μὴ > ‘ Q ς “2 Ν
ἔλαβε, καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας ἔτεκεν, ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν
Perhaps “‘artificer” comes nearest to the
meaning. δημιουργός, originally one
who works for the people, but applied by
Plato (Rep., p. 530) to God; and so, very
often in Josephus and Philo (see Krebs. in
loc.). For the use of the title among the
Gnostics, see Mansel, Gnostic Heresies,
p- 19. In Clement, E#., 20, we have ὁ
μέγας δημιουργὸς καὶ δεσπότης τῶν
ἁπάντων. In 2 Macc. iv. I, τῶν κακῶν
δημιουργὸς. ‘“ Maker” most adequately
translates the word. Wetstein shows
that τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς was not an
uncommon combination and aptly com-
pares Cicero (De Nat. D., i. 8) “ Opi-
ficem aedificatorem mundi”. The state-
ment of this verse shows that Abraham and
other enlightened O.T. saints (cf. chap.
iv.) understood that their connection with
God, the Eternal One, was their great
possession, of which earthly gifts and
blessings were but present manifestations.
Ver.11. Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα. . ..
“ΒΥ faith Sarah herself also received power
to become a mother even when past the age,
since she counted Him faithful who had
promised.” καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα is rendered
by Vaughan, Sarah ‘‘in her place” as
[Abraham] in his; she on her part. The
reference of αὐτὴ is disputed; it has been
understood to mean “Sarah the unfruit-
ful”. In Ὁ. στεῖρα is added; or, as
Chrysostom and Bengel, “ vas infirmius,”
the weaker vessel. Delitzsch thinks that
as in Luke xx. 42, xxiv. 15, it merely
means “50 Sarah likewise”. But ap-
parently the reference is to her previous
unbelief. By faith she received strength
εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος, “the act of
the husband not of the wife” (see a score
of passages in Wetstein), hence Bleek,
Farrar and several others prefer to under-
stand the words of “the founding of a
family,” citing Plato’s πρώτη καταβολὴ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων. But if εἰς be taken in
the same sense as in x. 10, “as regards”
or “in connection with” or ‘with a view
to,” the difficulty disappears. [ΟἿ Weiss
who says the words signify ‘nicht ein
Thun, zu dem sie Kraft empfing, sondern
die Beziehung in welcher sie ein Kraft
9---13.
ἐπαγγειλάμενον.
νενεκρωμένου, καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλήθει, καὶ ὡσεὶ
2 ς a 4 ~ a πον ,
ἄμμος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης ἡ ἀναρίθμητος.
πίστιν ἀπέθανον οὗτοι πάντες, μὴ λαβόντες 1 τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, ἀλλὰ ὁ᾽,
, 3 395. » Ν , 2 Wee Ae
πόρρωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες, καὶ πεισθέντες 5 καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι, καὶ ὁμο-
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
357
12. ‘8d καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήθησαν, καὶ ταῦτα i Gen. xv.
Ὁ ΦΕΡΧ ΧΙ»
17; Rom,
k NOLES
13. “ Κατὰ k Gen. xxiii.
et xlvii.
1 Par.
ΧΧΙ͂Χ, 16:
Ps. xXxXix5
12, et
cxix. 19; Joan. viii. 56.
1 T.R. in QcDEKL; μὴ κομισάμενοι in $Q*P, 17, 23, 71; μη προσδεξαμενοι in A.
* kat πεισθεντες omitted in SADEKLP, and verss.
bediirfte, wenn dasselbe ftir sie wirksam
werden sollte”. Cf. also Gen. xviil. 12.]
Her faith was further illustrated (καὶ =
and this indeed) by the circumstance that
she was now παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας, the
comparative use of παρά frequent in this
Epistle. For a woman who in her prime
had been barren, to believe that in her
decay she could bear a son was a triumph
of faith. Cf. Gen. xviii. 12-13, ἐγὼ δὲ
γεγήρακα. But she had faith in the pro-
mise (cf. vi. 13-18), ‘‘ wherefore also there
were begotten of mie—and him as good
as dead—[issue! a3 the stars of heaven in
multitude and as the sand by the sea-
shore innumerable”. Probably the καὶ is
to be construed with διὸ as in Luke i. 35;
Acts x. 29, etc. ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς, that is, Abra-
ham (cf. Isa. li. 2, εἷς ἦν); καὶ ταῦτα, a
classical expression, see Xenophon, Mem.,
ii. 3, and Blass, Gram., p. 248. ve-
vexpwpévov, dead” so far as regards the
begetting of offspring, cf. Rom. iv. 10.
καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα, a nominative to éyev.
may be supplied, ἔκγονοι or σπέρμα.
For the metaphors cf. Gen. xxii. 17.
ἄστρον is properly a constellation, but
used commonly for “a star”. χεῖλος
found in the classics in same connection.
Ver. 13. Not only in life was the faith
of the patriarchs manifested, it stood the
test of death, κατὰ πίστιν ἀπέθα-
γον οὗτοι πάντες, in keeping with
their faith (see Winer, p. 502) these all
(that is Abraham, Sarah, Isaacand Jacob)
died, and the strength of their faith was
seen in this that although they had not
received the fulfilment of the promises
(ver. 39 and x. 36) they yet had faith
enough to see and hail them from afar.
As Moses endured because he saw the
Invisible (ver. 27) so the patriarchs were
not daunted by death because they saw
the day of Christ (John viii. 56), that is to
say, they were so firmly persuaded that
God’s promise would be fulfilled that it
could be said that they saw the fulfilment.
They hailed them from afar, as those on
board ship descry friends on shore and
wave a recognition. [Wetstein cites from
Appian, De Bell. Civ., ver. 46, p. 110
where it is said that the soldiers τὸν
Καίσαρα πόῤῥωθεν ὡς αὐτοκράτορα
ἠσπάσαντο.] “Such an ἄσπασμός we
have in the mouth of the dying Jacob
(Gen. xlix, 18): For Thy salvation have
I waited, Jehovah” (Delitzsch). This
they might have done had they merely
believed that the promises would be ful-
filled to their descendants, but that their
faith extended also to their own enjoy-
ment of God’s promise was testified by
their confessing that so far as regards the
land (τῆς γῆς) of Canaan they were pil-
grims and foreigners. This confession
was made no doubt by their whole con-
duct, but as the aorist indicates it was
made verbally by Abraham on the occa-
sion of Sarah’s death (Gen. xxiii. 4),
πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος ἐγώ εἰμι ped”
ὑμῶν, cf. xlvii.9, etc. The article before
γῆς, together with the sense of the pas-
sage, shows that the land of promise,
Canaan, was meant. ἐπὶ γῆς in the
same connection is used for ‘‘the earth,”
cf. τ Chron, xxix. 15. Philo (De Agri-
cult., p. 196) refines upon the same idea,
παροικεῖν οὐ κατοικεῖν ἤλθομεν " τῷ yap
ὄντι πᾶσα μὲν ψυχὴ σοφοῦ πατρίδα μὲν
οὐρανὸν, ξένην δὲ γῆν ἔλαχεν. Cf. De
Conf. Ling., p. 331. But such a con-
fession implies that those who make it
(οἱ yap τοιαῦτα λέγοντες) have not yet
found but are in search of a fatherland,
πατρίδα ἐπιζητοῦσιν. [Cf. Rom. xi. 7,
ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν.
Frequent in N.T., to seek, search for.
“ The ἐπὶ is that of direction, as the ἐκ in
ἐκζητεῖν (ver. 6) is that of explanation”
A ig sp -] The acknowledgment, cheer-
ul or sad, that such and such a land is
not the home-country makes it manifest
(ἐμφανίζουσιν, Jo. xiv. 21, Acts xxiii. 15)
that they think of and have in view and
are making for a land which they can call
their own. [Si hic peregrinantur, alibi
patria est ac fixa sedes” (Calvin).] And
that this home-country of their desire is
not that from which Abraham and the
patriarchs were really derived (Mesopo-
358
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY2
XI.
λογήσαντες ὅτι ξένοι kal παρεπίδημοί εἰσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 14. οἱ yap
τοιαῦτα λέγοντες, ἐμφανίζουσιν ὅτι πατρίδα ἐπιζητοῦσι. 15. καὶ εἰ
1 Exod. iii.
6; Matt.
xxii. 32;
Acts vii.
32.
m Gen.
xxii. 2,
etc.; Eccl
xliv. 20.
yap αὐτοῖς πόλιν.
μὲν ἐκείνης ἐμνημόνευον ad’ ἧς ἐξῆλθον," εἶχον ἂν καιρὸν ἀνακάμψαι "
16. ' νυνὶ 2 δὲ κρείττονος ὀρέγονται, τουτέστιν ἐπουρανίου * διὸ οὐκ
ἐπαισχύνεται αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς, Θεὸς ἐπικαλεῖσθαι αὐτῶν - ἡτοίμασε
17. ἢ Πίστει προσενήνοχεν ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ
᾿πειραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀνα-
1T.R. in NcDcE**KL; εξεβησαν in δα ΔΕ Ρ, 17, 73.
2 T.R. in minusculis; νυν in }ADEKLP.
tamia) and which they had abandoned,
(ἀφ᾽ >, ἐξέβησαν) is also evident, because
had they cherished fond memories of it
they would have had opportunity (etxov
ἂν καιρὸν, cf. Acts xxiv. 25; 1 Macc. xv.
34. The imperfects indicate that this
was continuous) to return (ἀνακάμψαι,
Mat. ii. 12; Luke x. 6; Acts xviii. 21;
frequent in LXX). νῦν δὲ, “but as the
case actually stands ” (viii. 6, ix. 26; 1 Cor.
xv. 20, etc.) putting aside this idea that
it might be their old home they were
seeking, κρείττονος ὀρέγονται, τοῦτ᾽
ἔστιν ἐπουρανίου, it is a better, that is,
a heavenly they aspire after. That which
in point of fact provoked in the patriarchs
the sense of exile was that their hearts
were set on a better country and firmer
settlement than could be found anywhere,
but in heaven. And because they thus
proved that they were giving to God
credit for meaning by His promises more
than the letter indicated, because they
measured His promises by the spirit of
the promises rather than by the thing pro-
mised, He is not ashamed of them, not
ashamed to be called their God; and the
proof that He is not ashamed of them is,
that He prepared for them a city. The
patriarchs showed that they understood
that in giving these promises God be-
came their God; therefore God was not
ashamed of them, and this showed itself
especially in His naming Himself “the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”
(Exod. iii. 15). Cf. with this verse, viii. τὸ
and Mat. xxii. 31, 32. And that He was
truly their God He showed by preparing
for them a city which should justify the
expectations which they had based upon
His power and goodness.
Ver.17. Πίστει προσενήνοχεν
᾿Αβραὰμ. ... “ΒΥ faith Abraham
when tried offered up Isaac, yea he who
had accepted the promises, to whom it
had been said, In Isaac shall thy seed be
called, offered his only son.” The perfect
προσενήνοχεν, Blass (Gram., 200) says
“can only be understood as referring to
the abiding example offered to us”.
Similarly Alford, Westcott, Weiss, etc.
Surely it 1s better to have regard to Bur-
ton’s statement, ‘‘ The Perfect Indicative
is sometimes used in the N.T. of a simple
past fact where it is scarcely possible to
suppose that the thought of existing
result was in the writer’s mind”. And in
Jebb’s Appendix to Vincent and Dickson’s
Gram. of Mod. Greek (p. 327, 8) it is
demonstrated that ‘‘later Greek shows
some clear traces of a tendency to use the
Perfect as an Aorist”. τὸν is probably
here intended not merely to indicate the
case of the indeclinable *loaax (Vaughan),
cf. vv. 18, 20, but to call attention to
the importance of Isaac; and this is
further accomplished in the succeeding
clause which brings out the full signific-
ance of the sacrifice. It was his only son
whom Abraham was offering (προσέφερε
imperfect in its proper sense of an un-
finished transaction) and therefore the
sole link between himself and the fulfil-
ment of the promises to which he had
given hospitable entertainment (ἀναδεξά.-
μενος, 2 Macc. vi. 19). ‘‘ The sole link,”
because, irrespective of any other children
Abraham had had or might have, it had
been said to him (πρὸς ὃν, denoting Abra-
ham not Isaac), In Isaac shall a seed be
named to thee (Gen. xxi. 12); that is to
say, itis Isaac and his descendants who
shall be knownas Abraham’s seed. Others
are proud to count themselves the des-
cendants of Abraham but the true ‘‘ seed”
(κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα, cf. Gal. iii. 16,
29) to whom along with Abraham the
promises were given was the race that
sprang from Isaac, the heir of the pro-
mise. No trial (πειραζόμενος as in Gen.
xxii. 1, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπείρασε τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ and
cf. Gen. xxii. 12) could have been more
severe. After long waiting the heir had
at last been given, and now after h's
hope had for several years rooted itself in
this one life, he is required to sacrifice
14-24.
ΤΡῸΣ EBPAIOY=
999
δεξάμενος, 18. " πρὸς ὃν ἐλαλήθη, “Ὅτι ἐν ᾿Ισαὰκ κληθήσεταί coun Gen. xxi.
σπέρμα "-
“ ,
Θεὸς, ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο.
μελλόντων εὐλόγησεν 2 ᾿Ισαὰκ τὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ τὸν Ἠσαῦ.
12; Rom.
19. λογισάμενος ὅτι καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν éyeiperw! δυνατὸς ὁ ix.7; Gal.
iii. 29.
20. “ Πίστει περὶ o Gen.
XXVii. 27
21. ?Mia- 40. ;
ΝΥ Pe 4 p Gen.
Tet Ἰακὼβ ἀποθνήσκων ἕκαστον τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ιωσὴφ εὐλόγησε >> Kal” xivii. 31,
, ὮΝ 4 ,. ᾿ς ~ cv 5 > ~
προσεκύνησεν CTL TO AKPOV τὴς ῥάβ OU αὐτου.
et xlviii.
22. “Πίστει Ἰωσὴφ 5, 15, 16,
A δ νι ΕΓ) A tain? ‘ > , ‘ x A 20.
τελευτῶν περὶ τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐμνημόνευσε, Kal περὶ TOY g Gen. 1. 24.
ὀστέων αὐτοῦ ἐνετείλατο. 23. * Πίστει Μωσῆς γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη τρί-
μηνον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, διότι εἶδον ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον - καὶ
οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸ διάταγμα “ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως.
1 ἐγειρειν in SDEKL; eyerpar in AP, 17, 71.
3 ηυλογησεν in ADE, 17.
that life and so break his whole connec-
tion with the future. No greater test of
his trust in God was possible. He con-
quered because he reckoned (λογισάμενος
‘* expresses the formation of an opinion by
calculation or reasoning, as in Rom. viil.
18; 2 Cor. x. 7”’ (Vaughan).), that even
from the dead God is able to raise up—a
belief in God’s power to do this univers-
ally, see John v. 21. This belief enabled
him to deliver his only son to death.
“Whence (ὅθεν, 7.¢., ἐκ νεκρῶν, although
several commentators, even Weiss, render
it ‘wherefore’) also he received him
back (ἐκομίσατο, for this meaning see
Gen. xxxviii. 20 and passages in Wet-
stein) in a figure (ἐν παραβολῇ, not
actually, because Isaac had not been dead,
but virtually because he had been given
up todeath. He had passed through the
likeness of death, and his restoration to
Abraham was a likeness of resurrection.
(Whoever wishes to see how a simple ex-
pression may be tortured should consult
Aiford’s long note on this place.)
Ver. 20. Πίστει περὶ μελλόντων. ...
‘* By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau
in regard to things future,” as is recorded
in the well-known passage, Gen. xxvii.
Isaac thus in his turn exhibited a faith
which could be described as ἐλπιζομένων
ὑπόστασις. “ΒΥ faith Jacob when dying
(ἀποθνήσκων cf. καλούμενος, ver. 8, and’
πειραζόμενος, ver. 17: the participle il-
lustrates ver. 13 and also reminds the
reader that Jacob before he died saw his
children’s children inheriting the promise
(“τῆν two sons are mine,” Gen. xlviii. 5)
blessed each of the sons of Joseph.
ἕκαστον τ. υἱῶν, that is, he gave each an
individual blessing, crossing his hands,
laying his right on the head of Ephraim
the younger, his left on Manasseh, thus
r Exod.i.
16, et ii.
2; Acts
vii. 20.
s Exod. 1i.
$0,135.18.
1xxxiv.Io.
24. " Πίστει Μωσῆς
2 ηυλογησεν in A, 17, 37-
4 δογμα in Avi, 34.
distinguishing between the destiny of the
one and that of the other and so more
abundantly illustrating his faith. καὶ
προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου
αὐτοῦ, ‘and worshipped leaning upon
the top of h.s staff’. The words are
from the LXX rendering of Gen. xlvii. 31
where after Joseph had sworn to bury his
father in Canaan, ‘Israel worshipped,
etc.”. His exacting this promise trom
Joseph was proof of his faith that his
posterity would inherit the land of pro-
mise. The LXX translating from an un-
pointed text read ΓΘ 1 the staff and
not as it is now read (TOT the bed,
(as in xlviii. 2). The meaning in either
case is that in extreme bodily weakness,
either unable to leave his bed or if so
only able to stand with the aid of a staff,
his faith was yet untouched by the slight-
est symptom of decay. ‘The idea of
προσκυνεῖν is that of reverence shown in
posture” (Vaughan). Here Jacob “ wor-
shipped” in thankful remembrance of the
promise of God and that his son had
accepted it.
Ver. 22. S'milarly Joseph when he in
his turn came to the close of his life
(τελευτῶν, from Gen. 1. 16, καὶ éredev-
τησεν ᾿Ιωσὴφ)τηδάε mention of the exodus
of the children of Israel (‘* God will surely
visit you and will bring you out of this
land to the land concerning which God
sware to our fathers,” Gen. 1. 24) and
ve commandment concerning his bones
(ye shall carry up my bones hence with
you,” Gen. 1. 25. For the fulfilment of
the command see Josh. xxiv. 32).
Vv. 23-31. The writer passes from the
patriarchal age to the times of Moses
and the Judges.
260
ΠΡΟΣ; EBPAIOYS
ΧΙ.
μέγας γενόμενος ἠρνήσατο λέγεσθαι υἱὸς θυγατρὸς Φαραὼ, 25.
μᾶλλον ἑλόμενος συγκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἢ πρόσκαιρον
t Exod. x.
ἔχειν ἁμαρτίας ἀπόλαυσιν: 26. μείζονα πλοῦτον ἡγησάμενος τῶν
28,29,et ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ θησαυρῶν τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ - ἀπέβλεπε γὰρ
ΧΙ, 31, 3 Ν ,
εἰς THY μισθαποδοσίαν.
u Exod. xii.
3, 21, 22.
First the faith of the parents of Moses
(τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ. in Stephanus’
Thesaur, several examples are given of
the use of πατέρες for ‘father and
mother,” parents; and consider Eph. vi.
4 and Col. iii. 21) is celebrated. This
faith was shown in their concealing
Moses for three months after his birth
and thus evading the law that male
children were to be killed, called in
Wisd. xi. 7 νηπιοκτόνον διάταγμα. They
did not fear this commandment of the
king. It did not weigh against the
child’s beauty which betokened that he
was destined for something great. Their
faith consisted in their confidence that
God had in store for so handsome a child
an exceptional career and would save him
to fulfil his destiny. In Acts vii. 20
Stephen calls him ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ, extra-
ordinarily beautiful (cf. Jonah 111. 3) or as
Philo, De Mos., p. 82, ὄψιν ἀστειοτέραν
ἢ κατ᾽ ἰδιώτην, indicating that he had a
corresponding destiny. Moses himself
when he had grown up (μέγας γενόμενος,
as in Exod. ii. ΣΙ paraphrased by Stephen
(Acts vii. 23) ὡς δὲ ἐπληροῦτο αὐτῷ
τεσσαρακονταετὴς χρόνος.) refused to be
called a son of a daughter of Pharaoh.
The significance and source of this re-
fusal lay in his preferring to suffer ill-
usage with God’s people rather than to
have a short-lived enjoyment of sin.
συνκακ., the simple verb in ver. 37, also
xili. 3; the compound here only. τῷ λαῷ
τοῦ θεοῦ, it was because they were God’s
people, not solely because they were of
his blood, that Moses threw in his lot
with them. It was this which illustrated
his faith. He believed that God would
fulfil His promise to His people, little
likelihood as at present there seemed to
be of any great future for his race. On
the other hand there was the ἁμαρτίας
ἀπόλαυσις, the enjoyment which was
within his reach if only he committed the
sin of denying his people and renouncing
their future as promised by God. For
“the enjoyment to be reaped from sin”
does not refer to the pleasure of grati-
fying sensual appetite and so forth, but
θεὶς τὸν θυμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως -
28. " Πίστει πεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν πρόσχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος,
27. ἡ Πίστει κατέλιπεν Αἴγυπτον, μὴ φοβη-
τὸν γὰρ ἀόρατον ὡς ὁρῶν ἐκαρτέρησε.
to the satisfaction of a high ambition
and the gratification of his finer tastes
which he might have had by remaining
in the Egyptian court. Very similarly
Philo interprets the action of Moses, who,
he says, ‘“‘esteemed the good things of
those who had adopted him, although
more splendid for a season, to be in reality
spurious, but those of his natural parents,
although for a little while less conspicu-
ous, to be true and genuine” (De
Mose, p. 86). That which influenced
Moses to make this choice was his esti-
mate of the comparative value of the
outcome of suffering with God’s people
and of the happiness offered in Egypt.
μείζονα πλοῦτον ... εἰς THY μισϑαπο-
δοσίαν, ‘‘since he considered the re-
proach of the Christ greater riches
than the treasures of Egypt; for he
steadily kept in view the reward”. The
reproach or obloquy and disgrace, which
Moses experienced is called ‘‘ the reproach
of the Christ’? because it was on ac-
count of his belief in God’s saving pur-
pose that he suffered. The expression is
interpreted by our Lord’s statement that
Abraham saw his day. It does not
imply that Moses believed that a per-
sonal Christ was to come, but only that
God would fulfil that promise which in
point of fact was fulfilled in the coming
of Christ. The writer uses the expression
rather with a view to his readers who were
shrinking from the reproach of Christ
(xiii. 13), than from the point of view of
Moses. Several interpreters (Delitzsch,
etc.) suppose that in virtue of the
mystical union Christ suffered in his
people. But, as Davidson says, ‘this
mystical union cannot be shown to be
an idea belonging to the Epistle, nor is
this sense pertinent to the connection.”
(So Weiss, ‘die vorstellung liegt un-
serem Briefe fern”.) Weiss’ own in-
terpretation is ingenious: ‘“‘ The O.T.
church was created by the pre-existent
Messiah to be the people who were
destined to introduce through Him per-
fect salvation ; therefore each maltreat-
ment of this people was contempt of
25—31.
ἵνα μὴ ὃ ὀλοθρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα θίγή αὐτῶν.
έβησαν τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς - ἧς πεῖραν λαβόντες οἱ
Αἰγύπτιοι κατεπόθησαν.
κυκλωθέντα ἐπὶ ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας.
απώλετο τοῖς ἀπειθήσασι, δεξαμένη τοὺς κατασκόπους μετ᾽ εἰρήνης.
1 ολεθρευων in ADE.
Him as unable to avenge and deliver
His people”. To say that it means
merely ‘“‘the same reproach that Christ
bore” scarcely satisfies the expression.
The ‘‘ treasures of Egypt’ must be sup-
posed to include all that had been ac-
cumulated during centuries of civilisa-
tion. ἀπέβλεπεν, he habitually kept in
view the reward. Cf. Xen., Hist., vi. 1,8
ἡ σὴ πατρὶς εἰς σὲ ἀποβλέπει, also Ps.
xi. 4, Philo, De Ofif., p. 4. κατέλιπεν
Αἴγυπτον, “he forsook Egypt,” and fled
to Midian. That this flight and not the
Exodus is meant appears from the con-
nection of the clause both with what
precedes and with what follows. It ex-
hibits the result of his choice (ver. 26),
and it alludes to what preceded the
Passover (ver. 28). The word éxap-
τέρησεν, denoting long continued endur-
ance also suits better this reference.
The only difficulty in the way of accept-
ing this interpretation is found in the
words μὴ φοβηθεὶς τὸν θυμὸν τοῦ βασιλ-
έως, because, according to Exod. ii. 15,
the motive of his flight was fear of the
king. ἐφοβήθη δὲ Μωυσῆς. But what
is in the writer’s mind is not Pharaoh’s
wrath as cause but as consequence of
Moses’ abandonment of Egypt. His
flight showed that he had finally re-
nounced life at court, and in thus indi-
cating by this decisive action that he was
an Israelite, and meant to share with his
people, he braved the king’s wrath.
This he was strengthened to do because
he saw an invisible monarch greater than
Pharaoh. Vaughan seems the only in-
terpreter who has precisely hit the
writer’s meaning: ‘tthe two fears are
different, the one is the fear arising from
the discovery of his slaying the Egyptian,
the other is the fear of Pharaoh’s anger
on discovering his fight. He feared and
therefore fled: he feared not, and there
fore fled.” Having fled and so cutting
himself off from all immediate oppor-
tunity of helping his people, ἐκαρτ-
épnoev, “he steadfastly bided his
time,” because he saw the Invisible,
being thus an eminent illustration of
faith as ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. The
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
361
20)" Πίστει δι- v Exod.xiv.
21, 22.
30. “Πίστει τὰ τείχη Ἱεριχὼ ἔπεσε,2 w Jos. vi.
20.
31. * Πίστει ραὰβ ἡ πόρνη οὐ συν- x Jos. ii. 1,
et vi. 23;
2 emecav in SAD*P, 17, 23, 71.
aorist gathers the forty years in Midian
into one exhibition of wonderful per-
severance in faith. It was the upper
form of the school which disciplined
Moses and wrought him to the mould of
a hero. Another point in his career at
which faith manifested itself was the
Exodus, πεποίηκεν τὸ πάσχα, ““ he hath
celebrated the Passover”. Alford says
the perfect is used on account of the
Passover being “ἃ still enduring Feast”.
But it is Moses’ celebration of it that the
perfect represents as enduring. The
classical treatment of the question, Has
ποιεῖν a sacrificial meaning in the N.T.?
will be found in Prof. T. K. Abbott’s
Essays. ποιεῖν is regularly used of
‘“‘keeping” a feast ; and this is a classical
usage as well. Cf. Exod. xii. 48, xxiii.
16, xxxiv. 22; 2 Chron. xxxv. 17-19. τὸ
πάσχα originally the paschal lamb,
Exod. xii. 21, καὶ θύσατε τὸ πάσχα,
Mark xiv. 12 τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον, hence the
feast of Passover as in Luke xxii. 1. It
is written φασέκ throughout 2 Chron.
xxx. and xxxv., also in Jer. xxxviii. 8.
Kal τὴν πρόσχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος, “and
‘the affusion of the blood” the sprinkling
of the blood on the door posts as com-
manded in Exod. xii. 7, 22, the object
being that the destroyers of the first-
borns might not touch them. As θιγγάνω
is followed by a genitive in xii. 20 it is
probable that the writer here also meant
it to govern αὐτῶν while πρωτότοκα fol-
lows ὀλοθρεύων. 80 Κ΄. 6 ὀλοθρεύων
is taken from Exod. xii. 23. πρωτότοκα,
first-borns of man and also of beasts,
Exod. xii. 12. αὐτῶν is naturally re-
ferred to ‘the people of God,” ver. 25.
It was a noteworthy faith which enabled
Moses confidently to promise the people
protection from the general destruction.
On their part also there was the mani-
festation of a strong faith. διέβησαν
τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν . ..
‘they passed through the Red sea as if
on dry land”. The nominative must be
taken out of αὐτῶν. διέβησαν, the
usual term for crossing a river or a space.
The Red sea is in Hebrew ‘“‘the Sea of
[red] weeds”. διὰ ξηρᾶς γῆς as in
362
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
ΧΙ.
y Διά. ἵν. 6, 2.5, ¥Kat τί ἔτι λέγω ; ἐπιλείψει γάρ με διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ
et vi. II,
et xi. 1, et Γεδεὼν, Βαράκ τε καὶ Σαμψὼν καὶ ᾿Ιεφθάε, Δαβίδ τε καὶ Σαμουὴλ
xii, 7,et
xiii. 24; 1
Sam. i. 20, et xii. 17, etc., et xiii. 14, et xvii. 45.
Exod, xiv. 29 ἐπορεύθησαν διὰ ξηρᾶς ἐν
μέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης, also xv. 19; and
cf. the various impressions in the Psalms
which celebrate the great deliverance.
The greatness of the people’s faith is
accentuated by the fate of the Egyptians,
whose attempt to follow was audacity
and presumption not faith. ἧς πεῖραν
AaBdévres... ‘of which [.6., of the
sea] making trial the Egyptians were
swallowed up,” Exod. xv. 4 κατεπόθησαν
ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ. Another instance
of the faith of the people and its effects
is found in the fall of the walls of Jericho.
The greatness of the faith may be meas-
ured by the difficulty we now have in
believing that the walls fell without the
application of any visible force. God’s
promise was, πεσεῖται αὐτόματα τὰ
τείχη», and believing this promise the
people compassed the city seven days.
The greatness of their faith was further
exhibited in their continuing to compass
the city day after day, for in the promise
(Josh. vi. 1-5) no mention is made of
any delay in its fulfilment and the
natural inference would be that the walls
would fall on the first day. That none
should have felt foolish marching day
after day round the solid walls is beyond
nature. κυκλωθέντα, see Josh. vi.
6,14 and foréwt ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας, Josh.
vi. 14. ‘* When applied to time, ἐπί de-
notes the period over which something
extends, as Luke iv. 25, ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία,
during three years” (Winer, p. 508).
The fall of Jericho and the extermination
of its inhabitants suggest the escape of
Rahab. ἡ πόρνη; in its strict meaning
(“ἰδία meretrix” (Origen), ‘‘ fornicaria”
(Irenaeus), is introduced to emphasise
the power of faith; she did not perish
along with the disobedient (iii. 18) ;
ἀπειθήσασιν, they knew that the
Lord had given the land to Israel (Josh.
ii. 9, 10) but did not submit themselves to
the acknowledged purpose of Jehovah.
Rahab acted upon her belief in this pur-
pose and instead of delivering up the
spies as enemies of her country ‘“re-
ceived them with peace,” that is, as
friends, risking her life because of her
faith.
Vv. 32-40. Summary of the achieve-
ments of faith in the times subsequent to
Joshua.
Ver. 32. At this point the writer sees
that he cannot pursue the method he has
been following and give in detail all the
signal manifestations of faith, which are
recorded in the annals of his people. τί
ἔτι λέγω, “ what shall I further say?”
deliberative subjunctive (cf. Rom. i. 15,
etc.) the writer questioning how he is to
handle the numberless instances that
rise before his mind. He cannot give
them all,éwmtdet wer pe yap...‘ for
time will fail me if I recount in detail”.
(Julian, Orat., i. p. 341 Β. ἐπιλείψει pe
τἀκείνου διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος). ἐπι-
λείψει με ἡ ἡμέρα is frequent, see many
examples in Wetstein. Cf. Virgil, n.,
vi. 121, quid Thesea magnum, quid
memorem Alciden? ‘a favourite device
for cutting short a long list” (Page).
διηγούμενον means to relate with par-
ticularity, see Luke viii. 39, ix. 10; Acts
ΧΙ. 17; Gen. xxix. 13. On Gideon see
Judges vi.-vlii; Barak chronologically
earlier, chap. iv, v; Samson, xili-xvi;
Jephthah, who also preceded Samson,
xi, xii. Samuel is considered as the first
of the prophets asin Acts iii. 24 and xiii. 20.
ot covers vv. 33, 34, although not every
particular cited, while διὰ πίστεως
refers to all the verbs to end of 38. This
expression supplants the persistent πίστει
of vv. 3-31, mainly for euphony. κατ-
ηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας, ‘sub-
dued kingdoms,” as is recorded of the
Judges and David, who also ἠργάσαντο
δικαιοσύνην, which seems to refer to
their righteous rule, although the same
expression is never used in the LXX
except of personal righteousness (Ps. xv.
2) but of David it is thrice said that he
was ποιῶν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην, 2 Sam.
viii, 15; 1 Chron. xviii. 143. Jer. xxiii. 5;
and of Samuel testimony is borne that
he judged righteously, 1 Sam. xii. 3.
ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν, ‘obtained pro-
mises” not ‘the promise” of Messianic
salvation (cf. ver. 39) but promises given
on special occasions, cf. Josh. xxi. 45;
Judges vii. 7, xiii. 5; 1 Kings viii. 56.
φραξαν στόματα λεόντων, cf
Daniel vi. 22, ἐνέφραξε τὰ στόματα τῶν
λεόντων, also Judges xiv. 5,6; 2 Sam.
xvii. 34, xxiii. 20. ἔσβεσαν δύναμιν
πυρός, probably the rescue of Shadrach,
Meshach and Abednego was suggested
by the allusion to Daniel. δύναμιν is
explained by the words of Dan. iti. 22,
ἡ κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ἐκ περισσοῦ. ἔφυ-
32—30.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
363
s ~ n . .
Kal τῶν προφητῶν: 33. "οὗ διὰ πίστεως κατηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας, z Judic. xiv.
εἰργάσαντο ' δικαιοσύνην, ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν, ἔφραξαν στόματα
λεόντων, 34. "ἔσβεσαν δύναμιν πυρὸς, ἔφυγον στόματα paxaipas,”
ἐνεδυναμώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, ἐγενήθησαν ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέμῳ,
παρεμβολὰς ἔκλιναν ἀλλοτρίων - 35.
στάσεως τοὺς νεκροὺς αὐτῶν - ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν, οὐ προσ-
δεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν -
36. “ ἕτεροι δὲ ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι δὲ δεσ-
6; 1 Sam.
XVii. 3452
Sam. viii.
I,et x. 10,
et xii. 29
Dan. vi.
Ἂ 22.
» ἔλαβον γυναῖκες 3. ἐξ ἀνα- ἃ Judic. vii.
21, εἰ xv.
15:1 Sam.
Xiv.1,etc.,
et xx. 1
1 Reg.xix,
Tete, <2
Reg. vi.
16, et xx.
7; 1 Par. xxii. 9; Job xlii. 10; Ps. vi. 8, et Ixxxix.20, etc.; Esa. xxxviii. 21; Dan. iii. 25.
bi Reg. xvii. 23; 2 Reg. iv. 36; 2 Mac. vi. 19, 28, et vii.; Acts xxii. 25.
l ηργασαντο in τὸ ἡ 47*.
c Jer. ΣΧ, 2:
2 paxatpns ΑΒ"; paxatpas (more classical) in DCEKLP.
3 yuvatkas in ΝΑ".
γον orépatapayaipns, “escaped
the edge of the sword” of which there
are many instances recorded, as 1 Sam.
xvili. 11; 1 Kings xix. 2; 1 Mac. ii. 28.
ἐδυναμώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας
+ + + ‘out of weakness became strong,
waxed mighty in battle, routed the armies
of aliens,” having in view, possibly, the
deliverance recorded in Judges iv. by
Deborah, where παρεμβολή (ver. 16, etc.)
is used of the army. Reference may also
be made, as von Soden suggests, to the
Maccabean deliverances. [παρεμβολή,
t Macc. iii. 3, 15, 17, etc.; ἄλλοτρ. ii. 7.]
On several occasions in Israel’s history
the three clauses received abundant illus-
tration.
Ver.35. ἔλαβον γυναῖκες. . . -
** Women received their dead by resurrec-
tion,” as is narrated of the widow of
Sarepta, 1 Kings xvii. 17-24, and the
Shunamite, 2 Kings iv. 34. ἄλλοι δὲ
ἐτυμπανίσθησαν. . . “others were
beaten to death”. τύμπανον (sc. τύπ-
avov from tv. strike) a drum, τυμπανίζω,
I beat. From the expression in 2 Mac.
vi. 17, 28, ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον, it might be
supposed that some instrument more
elaborate than a rod was meant and
Josephus speaks of ‘*a wheel” as being
used. But that it was substantially a
beating to death is proved by what is said
of Eleazar (2 Mac. ii. 30), μέλλων ταῖς
πληγαῖς τελευτᾶν, εἶπε. That Eleazar
and the seven brethren (2 Mac. vii.) are
alluded to is obvious, for it was character-
istic of them that they died οὐ προσ-
δεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν,
not accepting the offered deliverance.
Eleazar was shown a way by which he
could escape death (2 Mac. vi. 21), and
the seven brethren also were first inter-
rogated and would have escaped death
had they chosen to eat polluted food.
They endured martyrdom, not accepting
the escape that was possible, ἵνα κρείτ-
Tovos ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν, “that they
might obtain a better resurrection,” “‘ unto
eternal life—‘ better’ than that spoken of
in the beginning of the verse, to a life
that again ended” (Davidson, Weiss, von
Soden). How fully the resurrection was
in view of the seven brethren is shown in
the saying of the second: ‘‘the King of
the world shall raise us εἰς αἰώνιον ava-
βίωσιν ζωῆς ; of the third who when his
hands were cut off declared that he would
receive them again from God; of the
fourth, who in dying said, ‘‘It is good,
when put to death by men, to look for
hope from God to be raised up again by
Him ;” and the youngest said of them all,
‘“‘ they are dead under God’s covenant of
everlasting life”.
Ver. 36. ἕτεροι δὲ . . . introducing a
different class of victories achieved by
faith, although ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων,
**mockings and scourgings” were en-
dured by the martyrs who have just been
mentioned (2 Mac. vii. 7 and vii. 1).
πεῖραν ἔλαβον, see ver. 29. ἔτι δὲ
δεσμῶν .. . . “yea, moreover of bonds
and prison”; as the examples in Bleek
prove, ἔτι δὲ is commonly used to express
a climax (cf. Luke xiv. 26); and such im-
prisonment as was inflicted, e¢.g., on Jere-
miah (xxxviti. 9) was certainly even more
to be dreaded than scourging. ἐλιθ-
άσθησαν, “they were stoned,” as
was Zechariah, son of Johoiada, 2 Chron.
xxiv. 20 (Luke xi. 51). There was also a
tradition that Jeremiah was stoned at
Daphne in Egypt. ἐπρίσθησαν, “ they
were sawn asunder,” a cruel death some-
364
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
ΧΙ,
dx Reg.xxi. μῶν καὶ φυλακῆς" 37. ὅ ἐλιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπειράσθησαν,
13;2Reg
i.8;Matt.év φόνῳ μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον - περιῆλθον ἐν μηλωταῖς, ἐν αἰγείοις
iii. 4.
δέρμασιν, ὑστερούμενοι, θλιβόμενοι, κακουχούμενοι: 38. ὧν οὐκ ἦν
” ε , 2 fe , ao” 4 ,
ἄξιος ὁ κόσμος - ἐν ἐρημίαις πλανώμενοι καὶ ὄρεσι καὶ σπηλαίοις
ever.2, καὶ ταῖς ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς.
320. " Καὶ οὗτοι πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ
τῆς πίστεως, οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, 40. τοῦ Θεοῦ περὶ
ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι προβλεψαμένου, ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσι.
1T.R. in ADcEK d, e, f, vg., Copt., Arm, In other MSS. the order varies. ‘‘ Pos-
sibly ἐπειράσϑησαν is only a reduplication of ἐπρίσθησαν . .
. but it may with at
least equal probability be a primitive corruption of some other word”’ (Hort).
times inflicted on prisoners of war (2 Sam.
xii. 31; Amosi. 3, ἔπριζον πρίοσι σιδη-
pots). The reference is probably to
Isaiah who according to the Ascensio Is.
(i. 9, v- I) was sawn asunder by Man-
asseh with a wooden saw. Cf. Justin,
Trypho, 120, (πρίονι ξυλίνῳ ἐπρίσατε)
and Charles’ Ascension of Isatah. Within
our own memory some of the followers of
‘the Bab suffered the same death. ἐπει-
ράσθησαν, “were tempted”. Alford
says, ‘‘ 1 do not see how any appropriate
meaning can be given to the mere endur-
ing of temptation, placed as it is between
being sawn asunder and dying by the
sword”. He would therefore either omit
the word as a gloss on ἐπρίσθησαν or
substitute ἐπρήσθησαν. That is a tempt-
ing reading because not only was one of
the seven brothers (2 Mac. vi. vii. 5) fried,
but those who sought to keep the Sabbath
in a cave (2 Mac. vi. 11) were all burned
together by order of Philip, Antiochus’
governor in Jerusalem. At the same
time, the reading, ‘‘ were tempted” gives
quite a good sense, for certainly the most
fiendish element in the torture of the
seven brothers was the pressure put on
each individually to recant. ἐν φόνῳ
μαχαίρης ἀπέθανον, “died by sword-
slaughter,” for ἐν ᾧφ. pax. see Exod. xvii.
13; Num. xxi. 24, etc.; and for ame. ἐν
see Jer. xi. 22. xxi.9. Examples of this
death abounded in the Maccabean period.
περιῆλθον ἐν μηλωταῖς, “they
wandered about in sheepskins,” (as the
mantle of Elijah is called in 2 Kings ii. 8,
ἔλαβεν ᾿Ηλιοὺ τὴν μηλωτὴν αὐτοῦ), or
even ‘‘in goatskins,” a still rougher
material. This dress they wore not as a
professional uniform, but because “ desti-
tute,” ὑστερούμενοι as in Luke xv.
14. ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι, Phil. iv. 12 καὶ
περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι, ‘ hard-
pressed,” θλιβόμενοι, as in 2 Cor.
iv. 8 θλιβόμενοι ἀλλ᾽ οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι,
κακουχούμενοι, “maltreated,” see ver.
25. Gv οὐκ ἦν ἄξιος ὁ κόσμος, “of
whom the world was not worthy”. ‘‘ The
world drove them out, thinking them un-
worthy to live in it, while in truth it was
unworthy to have them living in it”
(Davidson). Vaughan aptly compares
Acts xxii. 22. After this parenthetical
remark the description is closed with
another participial clause, ἐπὶ ἐρη-
plats wmAavepevor... “ wander-
ing over deserts and mountains, and in
caves and in the holes of the earth,” veri-
fied τ Kings xviii. 4; 2 Macc. v. 27 where
it is related of Judas and nine others,
ἀναχωρήσας eis τὴν ἔρημον, θηρίων
τρόπον ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι διέζη. Cf. also
2 Mac. x. 6, ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς σπη-
λαίοις θηρίων τρόπον ἦσαν νεμόμενοι.
In the Ascensio Isaiae, ii. 7, 12, Isaiah
and his companions are said to have spent
two years among the mountains naked
and eating only herbage.
Ver. 39. καὶ οὗτοι πάντες, “ And
these all,” that is, those who have been
named in this chapter, ‘although they
had witness borne to them through their
faith,” as has been recorded (ver. 2-38),
‘* did not receive the promise,” that is, as
already said in ver. 13, they only foresaw
that it would be fulfilled and died in that
faith. But this failure to obtain the ful-
filment of the promise was not due to any
slackness on the part of God nor to any
defect in their faith; there was a good
reason for it, and that reason was that
‘God had in view some better thing for
us, that without us they should not be
perfected”. The κρεῖττόν τι is that
which this Epistle has made it its busi-
ness to expound, the perfecting (reAe-
ὠθῶσιν) of God’s people by full communion
with Him mediated by the perfect revela-
tion (i. 1) of the Son and His perfect
covenant (viii. 7-13), and His better sacri-
fice (ix. 23). And the perfecting of the
people of God under the O.T. is said to
have been impossible, not as might have
37—39. ΧΙ]. 1.
XII. 1. “TOITAPOYN καὶ ἡμεῖς τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον a x. 36;
ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων, ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα καὶ Thy εὐπερίστατον
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
305
Kom. vi.
4, et xii.
12; 1 Cor,
ix. 24; 2
Cor. vii. χα; Eph. iv. 22; Phil. iii. 13, 14; Col. iii. 8; 1 Peter ii. 1, et iv. 2.
been expected “ apart from the Son,” but
χωρὶς ἡμῶν, because the writer has in
view the history of the Church, the rela-
tion of the people of God in former times
to the same people in Messianic times.
CuaPTeR XII.—Ver. 1. Τοιγαροῦν
καὶ ἡμεῖς. . . . “ Wherefore, as we have
so great a cloud of witnesses encompas-
sing us, let us likewise lay aside every
encumbrance and sin that clings so close
and run with endurance the race that is
set before us, looking to the leader and
perfecter of faith, even Jesus, who for
the joy set before him endured a cross
despising shame and has sat down at the
right hand of the throne of God.” τοι-
yapoty, ‘wherefore then’? more formal
and emphatic than the usual, διὰ τοῦτο,
διὸ, ὅθεν, οὗν. καὶ ἡμεῖς, we in our
turn, we as well as they, and with the
added advantage of having so many
testimonies to the good results of faith.
νέφος used frequently in Homer and else-
where, as ‘‘nubes” in Latin and “ cloud”
in English to suggest a vast multitude.
μαρτύρων, “ witnesses,” persons who by
their actions have testified to the worth of
faith. The cloud of witnesses are those
named and suggested in chap. xi.; per-
sons whose lives witnessed to the work
and triumph of faith, and whose faith
was witnessed to by Scripture, cf. xi. 2,
4, 5. This cloud is περικείμενον, be-
cause, as the writer has just shown, look
where they will into their history his
Hebrew readers see such examples of
faith. Itis impossible to take μάρτυρες
as equivalent to θεαταί. If the idea of
‘*spectator”’ is present at all, which is
very doubtful, it is only introduced by
the words tpéxwopev... ἀγῶνα. The
idea is not that they are running in
presence of spectators and must there-
fore run well; but that their people’s
history being filled with examples of
much-enduring but triumphant faith, they
also must approve their lineage by show-
ing a like persistence of faith. ὄγκον
ἀποθέμενοι πάντα, ὄγκος, a mass
or weight or burden (= φόρτος), hence
a swelling or superfluous flesh [cf. es-
pecially Longinus, iii. 9, κακοὶ δὲ ὄγκοι
καὶ ἐπὶ σωμάτων καὶ λόγων. and from
Hippocrates in Wetstein, καὶ γὰρ δρόμοι
ταχεῖς, καὶ γυμνάσια τοιαῦτα, σαρκῶν
ὄγκον καθαίρει.] The allysion therefore
is to the training preparatory to a race
by which an encumbering superfluity of
flesh is reduced. The Christian runner
must rid himself even of innocent things
which might retard him. And all that
does not help, hinders. It is by running
he learns what these things are. So
long as he stands he does not feel that
they are burdensome and hampering.
καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον apap-
τίαν. Of the difficult word εὐπερ-
Chrysostom gives two interpretations;
‘“‘ which is easily avoided,” and “ which
easily encompasses or surrounds us”.
In the sense of “avoid” the verb περι-
ἹἸστάσθαι occurs in 2 Tim. ii. 16 and Tit.
ili. 9, but it is scarcely credible that in
the present context such an epithet could
be applied to sin. The second interpre-
tation has been generally accepted [“ cir-
cumstans nos peccatum ” (Vulg.); “qui
nous enveloppe si aisément”; ‘die
Siinde, die immer zur Hand ist” (Weiz-
sicker)]. This meaning suits the con-
text and the action enjoined in do-
θέμενοι, suggesting, as it does, the trail-
ing garment that encumbers the runner.
The article τὴν does not point to some
particular sin, but to that which char-
acterises all sin, the tenacity with which
it clings toa man. We might suppose
from the word itself that it alluded to sin
as an enemy encompassing from well-
chosen points of vantage, but this does
not suit the figure of the race nor the
ἀποθέμενοι. [Porphyry, de Abstin., says
γυμνοὶ δὲ καὶ ἀχίτωνες ἐπὶ τὸ στάδιον
ἀναβαίνωμεν ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς Ὀλύμπια
ἀγωνισόμενοι. ‘ Ut cursores vestimenta
non solum abjiciunt, nudique currunt,
verum etiam crebris exercitationibus, ne
corpus nimis obesum et ineptum red-
datur, efficiunt: ita et vos omnia im-
pedimenta in studio virtutis, et tarditatem
vestram crebris meditationibus vincite”
(Wetstein).] δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς, after the nega-
tive preparation comes the positive de-
mand for endurance, cf. x. 36. Tpéxwpev
. ». ἀγῶνα, asin Herod. viii. 102, πολ-
ois ἀγῶνας Spapdovrar of Ἕλληνες.
προκείμενον, [frequent with ἀγών,
as in Arrian’s Efict., ili. 25, οὐ yap ὑπὲρ
πάλης καὶ παγκρατίου ὁ ἀγὼν πρόκειται.
Cf. Orestes of Eurip., 845, and Ignatius
to Eph., c. 17. τοῦ προκειμένου Liv.)
appointed, lying before us as our destined
266
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΒΡΑΙΟΥ͂Σ
XII.
bi. 3,13, et ἁμαρτίαν, δι᾿ ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα" 2.
ii. 10, et
viii. 1;
Luc. xxiv.
26, 46;
Acts ili.
31; Phil
" ἀφορῶντες εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν Ἰησοῦν, ds
ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς, ὑπέμεινε σταυρὸν, αἰσχύνης κατα-
15,etv. φρονήσας, ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκάθισεν.1
a: ἀναλογί-
3: τιν θ κ᾿ x , ς ἘΣ ν a a >
ii. 8, εἰς; σασθε γὰρ τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀμαρτωλῶν εἰς
a Peters οἷν ὦ
Ν αὐτον
ci Cor. x;
13.
1 κεκαθικεν in SADEKLP.
ἀντιλογίαν, ἵνα μὴ κάμητε ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν éxudpevor.
4. “οὔπω μέχρις αἵματος ἀντικατέστητε πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν
2 εις εαυτον AP Vulg.; εἰς εαυτους ἡ ΟΕ". [** Looks like the conceit which some
reader wrote upon his margin’’ (Davidson).]
trial. This let us run, not waiting fora
pleasanter, easier course, but accepting
that which is appointed and recognising
the difficulties as constituent parts of the
race. Success depends on the condition
attached &GhopOvtTes... Ἰησοῦν,
fixing our gaze on Him who sets us the
example (ἀρχηγὸν) of faith, and exhibits
it in its perfect form (τελειωτής), who
leads us in faith and in whom faith finds
its perfect embodiment. ἀρχηγός pro-
perly means one to whom anything owes
its origin (cf. ii. 10), but here it rather
indicates one who takes the lead or sets
the example most worth following. Jesus
is the ἀρχηγὸς τῆς πίστεως because he
is its τελειωτής. In Him alone do we
see absolute dependence on God, implicit
trust, what it is, what it costs, and what
it results in. (Hence the human name
Ἰησοῦν.) On Him therefore must the
gaze be fixed if the runner is to endure,
for in Him the reasonableness, the
beauty, and the reward of a life of faith
are seen. Faith manifested itself in
Jesus, especially in His endurance of the
cross in virtue of His faith in the result-
ing joy beyond. ὃς ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης
αὐτῷ xapas ... ἀντί here as in ver.
16 denotes the price paid, or reward
offered, ‘‘in consideration of”. There
was a joy set before Jesus, which nerved
Him to endure. This joy was the sitting
in the place of achieved victory and
power, not a selfish joy, but the con-
sciousness of salvation wrought for men,
of power won which he could use in their
interests. This hope or confident expec-
tation so animated Him that He endured
the utmost of human suffering and
shame. The shame is mentioned αἷσ-
χύνης καταφρονήσας, because
His despising of it manifests a mind fixed
on the glory that was to follow and
filled with it.
Ver.3. ἀναλογίσασθε yap. . .. The
reason for fixing the gaze on Jesus is
given. That reason being found in the
τοιαύτην. This so great contumely and
opposition endured by Jesus the Hebrews
are to consider, “to bring into analogy,
think of by comparing” with their own
and so renew their hopeful endurance.
Tov... ἀντιλογίαν, “Him who
has endured at the hands of sinners such
contradiction against Himself.” The
desire on the part of several interpreters
to put a stronger meaning into ἀντιλογία
—although quite unsupported by usage—
reveals a feeling that verbal abuse or
contradiction was a much less severe
trial than such as are enumerated in
chap. xi. But not only was it this
ἀντιλογία which brought Christ to the
cross and formed the αἰσχύνη of it, but
it was the repudiation of His claims
throughout His life which formed the
chief element in His trial. It was pre-
dicted (Luke ii. 34) that He would be a
σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον, full of signific-
ance misinterpreted, full of God rejected.
It was precisely this general rejection
and contempt from which the Hebrews
were themselves suffering. They were
finding how hard it was to maintain a
solitary faith contradicted and scorned
by public sentiment. Think then, says
this writer, of Him who has endured at
the hands of sinners so much more pain-
ful contradiction ‘‘ against Himself”.
ἴναμὴ κάμητε . . . “that ye wax
not weary, fainting in your souls”.
ψυχαῖς may be construed either with
κάμητε or with ἐκλυόμενοι ; better with
the latter. [Polybius, xx. 4, 7, speaking
of the demoralisation of the Boeotians
says that giving themselves up to eating
and drinking, οὐ μόνον τοῖς σώμασιν
ἐξελύθησαν ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς.]
Ver.4. Οὔπω μέχρις αἵματος.
- .- ‘Not yet unto blood have ye re-
sisted in your contest with sin.” Bengel
says: “a cursu venit ad pugilatum”.
Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24-27. But this is doubtful,
2—7 .
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
367
ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι, 5. “xual ἐκλέλησθε τῆς παρακλήσεως, ἥτις ὑμῖν d Job v. 17
ὡς υἱοῖς διαλέγεται - ““Υἱέ pou, μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας Κυρίου, μηδὲ
6. ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος παιδεύει *
” 4 , ey a ”
μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται.
ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος.
μένετε, ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται
Prov. iii.
11, 12;
Αρος. iii.
19.
7. Ei! παιδείαν ὕπο-
ες
6 Θεός: τίς γάρ ἐστιν
lyin minusculis; εἰς in NADKLP, Vulg.
μέχρις aiparos([Theoph., ἄχρι θαν-
άτου, cf. Rev. xii. 11.] Does this mean,
Ye have not yet become a martyr church,
suffering death in Christ’s cause ; or does
it mean, Ye have not yet resisted sin in
deadly earnest? The interpretation is
determined by the connection. Jesus
endured the ἀντιλογία of sinners even to
blood, the death of the cross; the He-
brews have not yet been called so to
suffer in their conflict, a conflict which
every day summons them to fresh resist-
ance against the sin of failure of faith
and apostasy. ‘‘‘Sin’is not here put
for sinners, nor is it sin in their perse-
cutors; it is sin in themselves, the sin of
unbelief, which is here regarded as their
true antagonist, though of course the ex-
cesses of their persecutors gave it its
power against them” (Davidson and
Weiss).
Vv. 5-17. The Hebrews are reminded
that their sufferings are tokens of God’s
fatherly love and care.
Ver. 5. καὶ ἐκλέλησθε. . . . “ And
ye have clean forgotten the exhortation,
which speaks to you as to sons, My Son,
etc.”. καὶ introduces a fresh considera-
tion. Calvin, Bleek and others treat the
clause as an interrogation, needlessly.
The παράκλησις is cited from Prov. ili.
11, and includes vv. 5 and 6, The only
divergence from the LXX is the insertion
of pov after vié. But Bleek calls atten-
tion to the fact that the Hebrew of the last
clause stands, according to the present
punctuation, my ja NR ako =
and as a father the son in whom he
delights. The LXX instead of AND
have read al the Piel of a8 to
feel pain, and so to cause pain; cer-
tainly a better sense. In the Book of
Proverbs the speaker identifies himself
with wisdom, and here the words are
justifiably viewed as Divine. ὀλιγώρει
is classical, meaning ‘make light of,”
“εἰ neglect,” “despise”. παιδεία is dis-
cipline, or correction, or the entire train-
ing and education of childhood and
youth, And it is here urged that by the
trials and difficulties of life God trains
His children ; that to view sufferings in
separation from God and to be oblivious
of God’s design in them is disastrous;
and that despondency and failure of faith
under suffering are inappropriate, for
trials are not evidence of God’s displea-
sure, but on the contrary tokens of His
love, the uniform discipline to which
every son must be subjected, ὃν yap
ἀγαπᾷ... the emphasis falling on
ἀγαπᾷ. ὃν παραδέχεται, “whom
He takes to Him as a veritable son,
receives in his heart and cherishes”
(Alford). The word is similarly used in
Polybius, xxxvili. 1, 8. [The same pas-
sage from Proverbs is cited by Philo (De
Cong. Erud. gratia, p 544) who adds,
οὕτως ἄρα ἡ ἐπίπληξις καὶ νουθεσία
καλὸν νενόμισται, ὥστε δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἡ πρὸς
θεὸν ὁμολογία συγγένεια γίνεται " τί γὰρ
οἰκειότερον υἱῷ πατρὸς ἢ υἱοῦ πατρί;
Cf. Menander’s ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ
παιδεύεται, and Seneca’s De Providentia
where the same comparison is elaborated,
and the great principle laid down ‘non
quid, sed quemadmodum feras, inter-
est ᾽.]
Ver. 7. The inference from the pas-
sage cited is obvious, eis παιδείαν
ὑπομένετε, “itis for training ye are
enduring (are called to endure), as sons
God is dealing with you”. [προσφέρεται
is common; as in Xenophon, οὐ γὰρ
ὡς φίλοι προσεφέροντο ἡμῖν; and in
Josephus, ὡς πολεμίοις προσεφέροντο.
Their sufferings are evidence that God
considers them His sons and treats them
as such; for what son is there whom
his father does not correct? τίς ya
vids... similar in form to Matt. vil.
9, τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος ;—ei δὲ
χωρίς. . .. Whereas did they receive
no such treatment, were they tree from
that discipline of which all (God’s chil-
dren) have become partakers (as illus-
trated in chap. xi.) then in this case they
are bastards and not sons; their freedom
from the discipline which God uniformly
accords His children would prove that
they were not genuine sons,
368
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=2
XII
υἱὸς ὃν οὐ παιδεύει πατήρ; 8. εἰ δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας, ἧς
Num. xvi. μέτοχοι γεγόνασι πάντες, ἄρα νόθοι ἐστὲ καὶ οὐχ υἱοί.
22, εἴ
9. “εἶτα
xxvii. 16; τοὺς μὲν τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας εἴχομεν παιδευτὰς, καὶ ἐνετρε-
Eccl. xii.
1,7; Esa, πόμεθα - οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑποταγησόμεθα, τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων,
Ivii. τό,
Zach. xi. καὶ ζήσομεν ; 10. οἱ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας, κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν
I. a a a
αὐτοῖς, ἐπαίδευον - ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον, εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς
ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ.
II. πᾶσα δὲ παιδεία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ
δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι, ἀλλὰ λύπης " ὕστερον δὲ καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν τοῖς
1WH read μὲν with $Q*P, 17, 21, d; δὲ is found in ΜΟΑΌΟΚΙ,, f, Vulg., etc.
(“None of the particles are satisfactory, though δέ was sure to be introduced”
(Hort).]
Ver. 9. With εἶτα a fresh phase of
the argument is introduced. [Raphel in
loc. is of opinion that εἶτα here as fre-
quently in the classics is “ nota inter-
rogantis cum vehementia et quasi indig-
natione quadam”; but it gives a better
construction if we take it in the sense of
“further” as in 1 Cor. xii. 5, 7, and
Mark iv. 28, πρῶτον χόρτον, εἶτα στάχυν,
εἶτα πλήρης σῖτος.] The argument is,
“the fathers of our flesh we used to
have as trainers, and we had them in
reverence; shall we not much rather be
subject to the Father of our spirits and
live?” The article before πνευμάτων
makes it probable that there is no refer-
ence to angels but only an antithesis to
τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν. The position of the
two words σαρκός and πνευμάτων con-
firms this. καὶ ζήσομεν is unex-
pected, and is inserted to balance καὶ
ἐνετρεπόμεθα [on this verb see Anz. p.
269] in the rhythm of the sentence.
The thought is that only by subjection
to the Father of our spirit can we have
life. Delitzsch maintains that this verse
strongly favours the theory of Creationism
and quotes Hugo de S. Victore, ‘‘ Nota
diligenter hanc authoritatem, per quam
manifeste probatur, quod animae non
sunt ex traduce sicut caro”. It is safer
to say with Davidson, “It is as a spirit,
or on his spiritual side, that man enters
into close relation with God; and this
leads to the conception that God is more
especially the Author of man’s spirit, or
Author of man on his spiritual side,
and to designations such as those in
Num. xvi. 22”. Modern science scouts
Creationism ; although if Wallace’s idea
of the evolution of man be accepted it
might find encouragement.
Ver. τὸς οἱ μὲν γὰρ, ὁ... Lhe
reasonableness of the appeal of ver. 9 is
further illustrated by a comparison of
the character and end in the earthly and
heavenly fathers’ discipline respectively.
The earthly fathers exercised discipline
for a few days in accordance with what
commended itself to their judgment as
proper; a judgment which could not be
infallible and must sometimes have hin-
dered rather than helped true growth;
but the heavenly Father uses discipline
with a view to our profit that we may
partake of his holiness. Two notes of
imperfection characterise the discipline
of the fathers of our flesh. (1) It is
πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας, “for a few
days,” i.e., during the brief period of
youth, It must cease when manhood is
attained, whether or not it has attained
its end. (2) It is κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν
αὐτοῖς, subject to misconception both
of the end to be reached and the means
by which it can be attained. Incontrast
to this second feature the discipline of
the Father of our spirit is without fail
ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον, ‘for our advantage,”
which is defined in els τὸ μεταλαβ-
ety τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ, “that
we may partake of His holiness,” in
which the contrast to the incomplete
Ver.11. πᾶσα δὲ watdSeia....
Another encouragement to endure chas-
tening: if it is allowed to do its work
righteousness will result. ‘Now all
chastisement for the present indeed
seems matter not of joy but of grief,
afterwards however it yields, to those
who are disciplined by it, the peaceable
fruit of righteousness”. [πᾶσα, as
Chrys. says, τουτέστι καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη
καὶ ἡ πνευματική.) πρὸς τὸ παρόν,
see Thucyd., ii. 22. οὐ δοκεῖ. ..
λύπης, Chrys. καλῶς εἶπεν" οὐ δοκεῖ.
οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι λύπης ἡ παιδεία, ἀλλὰ
μόνον δοκεῖ, see Bleek. Chastisement
is here viewed as an opportunity for
cultivating faith and endurance and to
those who use the opportunity and are
exercised and trained by it, δι᾽ αὐτῆς
8—15.
δι᾿ αὐτῆς yeyupvacpevors ἀποδίδωσι δικαιοσύνης.
παρειμένας χεῖρας καὶ τὰ παραλελυμένα γόνατα ἀνορθώσατε ᾿᾿-
καὶ “ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς ποσὶν Spay,” ἵνα μὴ τὸ χωλὸν
ἐκτραπῇ, ἰαθῇ δὲ μᾶλλον.
τὸν ἁγιασμὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὸν Κύριον - 15. "ἢ ἐπισκοποῦν-
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
369
2. f Διὸ ot τὰς f Esa, xxxv.
3-8 Mate. γι
8; Rom.
xii. 28; 2
Tim. ii22,
14. "Εἰρήνην διώκετε μετὰ πάντων, Kath iii. 12:
Deut.
xxix, 18;
Acts xvii.
13; 2 Cor. vi.; 1 Gal. v, 12.
1 ποιησατε in Q°CADKL ; ποιειτε in QQ*P, 17.
γεγυμνασμένοις, it necessarily
yields, renders as the harvest due, ἀἁ π ο-
δίδωσιν, as its fruit increased righ-
teousness of life. But why “ peaceful”
εἰρηνικὸν Probably because the re-
sult of the conflict (γεγυμνασμένοις) and
victory is peace in God and peace of con-
scieng¢e. It is a peace which can only
be attained by those who have used their
trials as a discipline and have emerged
victorious from the conflict.
Ver. 12. διὸ τὰς wapetpévas
».. “ Wherefore” introducing the im-
mediate application of this encouraging
view of trials, “lift up” to renew the
conflict, ‘‘the nerveless hands” fallen to
your side and “the paralysed knees”.
ἀνορθώσατε seems at first sight more ap-
propriate to χεῖρας than to γόνατα
(Vaughan) but it is here used in the
general sense of “restore,” ‘renew the
life of”; as in Soph., O.T., 46-51, ἀσφ-
αλείᾳ τήνδ᾽ ἀνόρθωσον πόλιν. It might
be rendered “revive”. Probably the
writer had in his mind Isa. xxxv. 3,
ἰσχύσατε, χεῖρες ἀνειμέναι καὶ γόνατα
παραλελυμένα. In Sir. xxv. 23 the wo-
man that does not increase the happiness
of her husband is χεῖρες παρειμέναι καὶ
γόνατα παραλελυμένα, in other words,
makes him despair and cease from all
effort. So here, the hands hang down
in listless consciousness of defeat. καὶ
Tpoxtas ὀρθὰς ... “and make
straight paths for your feet, that that
which is lame be not turned out of the
way but rather be healed”, The words
are quoted from Prov. iv. 26, ὀρθὰς
τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσί, and if ποιήσ-
ate is retained they form ἃ hexameter
line. The whole verse forms an admoni-
tion to the healthier portion of the church
to make no deviation from the straight
course set before them by the example of
Christ, and thus they would offer no
temptation to the weaker members [τὸ
χωλὸν, the lame and limping] to be turned
quite out of the way, but would rather
be an encouragement to them and so
afford them an opportunity of being
healed of their infirmity. [A number of
VOL, IV.
interpreters take ἐκτραπῇ in the sense of
“dislocated”. Thus Davidson, ‘‘ The
words ‘turned out of the way’ mean in
medical writers ‘dislocated,’ and this
gives a more vigorous sense and forms a
better opposition to ‘be healed’. Incon-
sistency and vacillation in the general
body of the church would create a way
so difficult for the lame, that their lame-
ness would become dislocation, and they
would perish from the way; on the other
hand, the habit of going in a plain path
would restore them to soundness.” This
is inviting, but there is much against it.
(1) The medical use of ἐκτρέπομαι is
rare (see Stephanus) and not likely to
occur here. (2) When used in a general
sense ἰαθῇ is an appropriate antithesis;
thus in Niceph. Call. (see Stephanus)
occur the words ᾿Ιωάννῃ τῷ Ἱεροσολύμων
πατριάρχῃ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐκτραπεῖσαν ἰᾶ-
ται. (3) The passage in Proverbs from
which the former part of the verse is cited
goes on thus: “Turn not aside to the
tight hand nor to the left”.] Immedi-
ately after these words follows a clause
which guides to the interpretation of
εἰρήνην διώκετεμετὰ πάντων,
“God will make thy ways straight and
will guide thy goings in peace”; and a
considerable part of the counsels given
in the context in Proverbs concerns the
maintenance of peaceful relations with
others. The circumstances of the He-
brews were fitted to excite a quarrelsome
spirit, and a feeling of alienation towards
those weak members who left the straight
path. They must not suffer them to be
alienated but must restore them to the
unity of the faith, and in endeavouring
to reclaim them must use the methods of
peace not of anger or disputation. καὶ
τὸν ἁγιασμόν .. . “and the conse-
cration without which no one shall see
the Lord”. The ἁγιασμός which this
Epistle has explained is a drawing near
to God with cleansed conscience (x. 14,
22), a true acceptance of Christ’s sacri-
fice as bringing the worshipper into fel-
lowship with God.
Ver. 15. ἐπισκοποῦντες μή
24
370
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
XII.
Gen. xxv. Tes μή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ " μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας
33; Eph.
v.3; Col. ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ, καὶ διὰ tadtys} μιανθῶσι πολλοί"
iii. 5; 1
16. ‘pH
Thess. iv. τὶς πόρνος, ἢ βέβηλος, ὡς Ἡσαῦ, ds ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδοτο ὃ τὰ
3. ᾿
kGen, πρωτοτόκια αὑτοῦ.
XXvii. 34,
etc,
17. “tore yap ὅτι καὶ μετέπειτα θέλων κληρο-
1T.R. in ΜΜΌΚΙ; δι avrys AP, 17, 47.
2T.R.in DKLP; ot πολλοι in WA, 17, 47.
3T.R. SDKLP, 17; awedero AC.
τις taotepov... “watching” “ tak-
ing the oversight’”’ (thoroughly scrutinis-
ing as in the case of sick persons,”
Chrys.) addressed not to the teachers or
rulers but to all. The object of this
supervision is to prevent the defection of
any one of their number. “As if they
were travelling together on some long
journey, in a large company, he says,
Take heed that no man be left behind; I
do not seek this only, that ye may arrive
yourselves, but also that ye should look
diligently after the others ’’ (Chrys.), and
cf. M. Arnold’s In Rugby Chapel. μή
τις ὑστερῶν .. . may be construed
either by supplying 17. or by supposing a
break at θεοῦ (so Davidson), or by carry-
ing on the τις ὑστερῶν to ἐνοχλῇ. The
simplest seems to be the first: “lest any
be failing ( = fail) of the grace of God,”
t.e., lest he never reach the blessings
which the grace of God offers. Cf. iv. 1.
Another contingency to be guarded
against by careful watching is expressed
inpy tes ῥίζα wexplas... words
borrowed from Deut. xxix. 18, μή τίς
ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χολῇ
καὶ πικρίᾳ, “lest any root of bitterness
springing up trouble you”. As in Deu-
teronomy so here the bitter root which
might spring up and bring forth its
poisonous fruit among them, was one of
their own members who might lead them
astray or introduce evil practises and so
the whole community [ot πολλοί] might
be defiled [μιανθῶσιν], z.c., rendered unfit
for that approach to God and fellowship
with Him to which they were urged in
the preceding verse. A little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump, Gal. v. 9,
where also it is a person that is referred to.
Ver. 16. μή τις πόρνος - . -
specific forms in which roots of bitter-
ness might appear among them. πόρνος
is to be taken in its literal sense and not
as signifying departure from God [but cf.
Weiss]. Neither is it to be applied to
Esau, in spite of the passages adduced
by Wetstein to show that he was com-
monly considered a fornicator, and of
Philo’s interpretation of “hairy” as
‘‘intemperate and libidinous”; v. Del-
itzsch. From xiii. 4 it appears that for-
nication was one of the dangers to which
these Hebrews were exposed. ἢ βέβ-
λος ὡς Ἠσ αὖ, a profanity which was
especially betrayed in his bartering for a
single meal [ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς] his own
rights of primogeniture. Esau lightly
parting with his religious privileges and
his patrimony for a present gratification
is an appropriate warning to those who
day by day were tempted to win comfort
and escape suffering by parting with their
hope in Christ. The warning is pointed
by the fate of Esau. tore yap ὅτι
καὶ μετέπειτα. -. “for ye know
that even though he was afterwards
desirous to inherit the blessing he was
rejected, though he sought it with tears;
for he found no place of repentance”.
‘« The term ‘ repentance’ is here used not
strictly of mere change of mind, but of a
change of mind undoing the effects of a
former state of mind” (Davidson). In
other words, his bargain was irrevocable.
The words must be interpreted by the
narrative in Genesis (xxvii. 1-41), where
we read that some time after the sale of
the birthright (μετέπειτα) Esau sought
the blessing with tears (xxvii. 38, dve-
Bénoe φωνῇ Ἠσαῦ καὶ ἔκλαυσεν) but
found his act was unalterable. The les-
son written on Esau’s life as on that of
all who miss opportunities is that the
past is irreparable, and however much
they may desire to recall and alter it,
that cannot be. It was this which the
writer wished to enforce. If now, through
any temptation or pressure, you let go
the benefits you have in Christ, you are
committing yourselves to an act you can-
not recall. It must also be observed that
the author is confining his attention to
the one act of Esau, not pronouncing
on his whole life and ultimate destiny.
[μετανοίας τόπον. So Pliny, Ep., x. 97»
‘‘ poenitentiae locus ;’’ and Ulpian, D3-
gest., xl. Tit. 7, “poenitentiae haeredis is
locum non esse” (Wetstein)}.
r6—109.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
371
νομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν, ἀπεδοκιμάσθη - μετανοίας γὰρ τόπον οὐχ! Exod. xix.
εὗρε, καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν.
10, etc., et
XX. 19;
Deut. v.
18. ‘OG γὰρ προσεληλύθατε ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει,} καὶ κεκαυμένῳ 25.
m Exod.xx.
πυρὶ, καὶ γνόφῳ, καὶ σκότῳ, καὶ θυέλλῃ, 19. “Kai σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ, το; Deut.
καὶ φωνῇ ῥημάτων, ἧς οἱ ἀκούσαντες παρῃτήσαντο μὴ προστεθῆναι
ν. 5, 24, et
xviii. 16.
1 T.R. DerKL, 37, 116; omit opet SAC, 17, 47, f, Vulg., Cod., Opt., Syr. Pesch.
Vv. 18-29. In this paragraph we have
the climax of the Epistle. Its doctrine
and its exhortation alike culminate here.
The great aim of the writer has been to
persuade the Hebrews to hearken to the
word spoken by God in Christ (i. 1, ii.
1-4). This aim he still seeks to attain
by bringing before his readers in one
closing picture the contrast between the
old dispensation and the new. The old
was characterised by material, sensible
transitory manifestations; the new by
what is supersensible and eternally stable.
The old also rather emphasised the inac-
cessible nature of God, His unapproach-
able holiness, His awful majesty, and
taught men that they could not come
near; the new brings men into the very
presence of God, and though He be
“Judge of all” yet is He surrounded
with the spirits of perfected men. But as
the writer seeks to quicken his readers
to a more zealous faith He shows also
the awful consequences of refusing Him
that speaketh from heaven. Not the fire
and smoke of Sinai threaten now to con-
sume the disobedient, but “ our God is a
consuming fire”; not a symbolic and
material element threatened, but the very
Eternal and All-pervading Himself. And,
returning to the idea with which he com-
menced the Epistle and so making its
unity obvious, the writer contrasts the
voice that shook the earth with the in-
finitely more terrible voice that shakes
the heavens also, that terminates time
and brings in eternal things.
Ver. 18. Οὐ yap προσεληλύθ-
ate... “For ye have not approached,”
assigning a further reason for the pre-
vious exhortation. Your tathers drew
near [ Deut. iv. 11, προσήλθετε kal ἔστητε
ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος] to hear God’s word. The
word is used in its general sense, and
the idea of drawing near as an accepted
worshipper is not intended. Ψψηλα-
φωμένῳ . . . As MS. authority re-
moves ὄρει; the construction is doubtful.
The R.V. renders “ the mount that might
be touched,” indicating that “ the mount”
isnotin the text. This is justified by the
antithetic clause, ver. 22, ἀλλὰ προσε-
ληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει, which already was
in his mind. Others translate “ye are
not come to a palpable and kindled fire,”
which is grammatically possible, but
open to the objection that ‘a palpable
fire,” a fire that can be touched is pre-
cisely what this fire was not, and it is
an awkward mode of expressing a
‘“‘ material’’ fire. A third rendering is
“Ye are not come to that which can
be touched and is kindled with fire”.
κεκαυμένῳ πυρὶ, ‘that burned with fire”
is in agreement with Deut. iv. 11, τὸ ὄρος
ἐκαίετο wupl ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ " σκότος,
γνόφος, θύελλα ; see also Deut. v. 22,
23, ix. 15; Ἐχοα. xix. 18, “The: “gloom
and mist and tempest (or hurricane) and
the blast of trumpet (Exod. xix. 16, φωνὴ
τῆς σάλπιγγος ἤχει μέγα) and voice of
words ” (Deut. iv. 12, ἐλάλησε Κύριος
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρὸς φωνὴν
ῥημάτων) are enumerated to accentuate
the material and terrifying character of
the revelation on which the O.T. dis-
pensation was founded. The regularly
recurrent καὶ gives emphasis to this
enumeration; all the features of the
manifestation were of the same character.
The article is omitted before each par-
ticular, because each is introduced not
for its own sake but for the general effect.
From ἧς to ἔντρομος (ver. 21) describes
the terror induced by these manifesta-
tions, (1) first in the people (ot ἀκού-
σαντες) who begged that not a word
more should be added to them (προστε-
θῆναι suggested by Deut. v. 25 and xviii,
16, οὐ προσθήσομεν ἀκοῦσαι Thy φωνὴν
Κύριου, “we will not any more hear,
etc.,”) for they could not endure that
which was being commanded, “If even
a beast touch the mountain it shall be
stoned”’ (Exod. xix. 12, 13); and (2) also
in Moses, for, so terrifying was the ap-
pearance that Moses said, “1 am ex-
tremely afraid (Deut. ix. 9) and tremble’’.
(ἔκφοβός εἰμι was uttered by Moses when
God’s anger was roused by the people’s
idolatry; Stephen (Acts vii. 32) uses
ἔντρομος γενόμενος of Moses at the burn-
ing bush.)
372
ΠΡΟΣ ΒΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ
XII.
n Exod.xix. αὐτοῖς Adyov: 20. " οὐκ ἔφερον γὰρ τὸ διαστελλόμενον, “Κἂν θηρίον
13.
o Gal. iv.
θίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους, λιθοβοληθήσεται, ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται
1 2?
26; Apoc. 21. καὶ, οὕτω φοβερὸν ἦν τὸ φανταζόμενον, Μωσῆς εἶπεν, “"ExpoBds
iii, 12, et
xxi, 2, 10, εἰμι καὶ Evtpopos:”” 22. “ ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει, καὶ πόλει
1 This clause occurs in none of the uncials—the sole authority is ‘‘nonnulli
minusculi’’,
Ver. 22. The Christian standing and
attainment are now described in contrast
with the Jewish. Ye are brought into
the fellowship of eternal realities, 4 A-
AG προσεληλύθατε, “but ye have
drawn near” (already you have entered
into your eternal relation to the unseen)
to Σιὼν ὄρει, “in the twenty-three pas-
sages in the LXX where the two words
are combined the order is uniformly ὄρος
Σιὼν and not Σιὼν ὄρος. Evidently here
the ‘Zion mountain’ is mentally con-
trasted with another, the ‘Sinai moun-
tain’. And thus the omission of ὄρει in
the revised text of ver. 18 is virtually
supplied’? (Vaughan). The ideal Zion
is the place of God’s manifestation of
His presence (Ps. ix. 11, lxxvi. 2) but
also of His people’s abode (Ps. cxlvi. 10;
Isa. i. 27 and passim). It is therefore
impossible to find another particular of
the enumeration in πόλει θεοῦ ζῶν-
τος Ἰερουσαλὴμ érovpavia, as
if the former were “the transcendent
sphere of God’s existence where He is
manifested only to Himself,” and the
latter ‘“‘the place where His people
gather and where He is manifested to
them”. (Cf. Isa. Ix. 14, κληθήσῃ πόλις
Κυρίου, Σιών) ; the mount and the city
are viewed together as the meeting-place
of God and His people, where the “liv-
ing God” manifests fully His eternal
fulness and sufficiency. It is “the heav-
enly Jerusalem” (cf. Gal. iv. 26, ἡ ἄνω
Ἱερουσαλήμ and Rev. xxi. 2, ἣ πόλις ἡἧ
μέλλουσα [καὶ μένουσα], xiii. 14) as being
not the earthly and made with hands
but the ultimate reality [cf. the beautiful
description in Philo, De Som., ii. 38, and
the Republic, ix. p. 592, where after
declaring that no such city as he has
been describing exists on earth Plato
goes on to say, ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ tows
παράδειγμα ἀνάκειται τῷ βουλομένῳ
ὁρᾶν καὶ ὁρῶντι ἑαυτὸν γι γουάζοιν,
Also the fine passage in Seneca, De Otio,
chap. 31, on the two Republics.] καὶ
μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων, and to myriads
of angels, the usual accompaniment of
God’s glory and ministers of His will, as
in Deut. xxxii. 2; Rev. v. 11; and Dan.
vii. 10, μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν
αὐτῷ. The construction of the following
words is much debated. (1) πανηγύρει
καὶ ἐκκλησ. may be construed in apposi-
tion with pup. ἀγγέλων, to myriads of
angels, a festal gathering and assembly
of the first-born enrolled in heaven; or,
(2) a new particular may be introduced
with καὶ ἐκκλησ. ; or, (3) a new par-
ticular may be introduced with πανηγύ-
pet, ‘‘to myriads of angels, to a festal
gathernig and assembly of the first-born.”
On the whole, the first seems preferable.
For although angels are not elsewhere
called the “ first-born” of God, they are
called “sons of God” (Job. i. 6, ii. 1,
XXXVI. 7. GeN.a Vie Ὁ, 4 ΒΒ. Ιχχχῖχ: 6)
and the designation is here appropriate
to denote those who are the pristine in-
habitants of heaven. Cf. the first choir
of Angelicals in the “ Dream of Geron
tius,”’ who sing :—
“Τὸ us His elder race He gave
To battle and to win,
Without the chastisement of pain,
Without the soil of sin”;
and Augustine in De Civ. Dei, x. 7, ‘cum
angelis sumus una civitas Dei. . . cujus
pars in nobis peregrinatur, pars in illis
opitulatur”. πανήγυρις, meaning a
festal gathering of the whole people, and
ἐκκλησία meaning the assembly of all
enrolled citizens, seem much more applic-
able to angels. They are enrolled as
citizens (&woyey. see the Fayim and
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, passim) in heaven,
and welcome the younger sons now in-
troduced. The myriads of angels which
on Sinai had made their presence known
in thunders and smoke and tempest, terri-
fying the people, appear now in the
familiar form ofa well-ordered community
in the peaceable guise of citizens rejoicing
over additions to their ranks (Luke xv.
10). Kat κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων,
“and to a Judge who is God of all,”’ and
by whose judgment you must therefore
stand or fall (cf. x. 27, 30, 31). Among
the realities to which they had been
introduced this could not be omitted. He
who is God of all living is the ultimate
20—25.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
373
Θεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ, καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων, 23. pLuc.x.20
Ρ , \ > , , > “ ,
πανηγύρει και ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένων,
Ν - A ~ ,
καὶ κριτῇ Θεῷ πάντων, καὶ πνεύμασι
*kal διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ “Inood, καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρείττονα |
25. ᾿Βλέπετε μὴ παραιτήσησθε τὸν
λαλοῦντι παρὰ tov? ᾿Αβελ.
λαλοῦντα. εἰ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι οὐκ
σάμενοι χρηματίζοντα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς οἱ τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν
3᾿ 8 a a “ lod
ἔφυγον," τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς παραιτη- 2
viii. 6, et
ix. 15, et
X. 22, et
χί
Gen. iv.
10; Exod.
xxiv.8; 1
Tim. ii.5;
rt Peter i.
, ,
δικαίων τετελειωμένων, 24.
fii. 3, et x.
28.
1T.R. 17, 47; κρειττον SACDKLMP, d, f, Vulg.
2T.R. in SACDKMP, d, f, Vulg.; παρα το in L, Ὁ, 106, 108.
3T.R. NcDcKLM, Thdrt.; εξεφυγον in N*ACP, 17, 57, 118, Chr. 419.
reality, and the Hebrews have been
brought near not only to His city with its
original inhabitants, but to Himself; and
to Himself as allotting without appeal
each soul to its destiny. καὶ mwvev-
pao... . “and to spirits of just men
made perfect,” “spirits,” as in 1 Pet. iii.
19, of those who have departed this life
and not yet been clothed with their
resurrection body. δικαίων τετε-
λειωμένων is largely illustrated by
Wetstein who quotes many examples
of ‘justi perfecti” from the Talmud.
It is perhaps more relevant to refer to
xi, 4 and to the whole strain of the
Epistle whose aim it is to perfect the
righteousness of the Hebrews, see
chap. vi. Of course O.T. and N.T.
saints are referred to. But as without
us, 4.¢., without sharing in our advan-
tages, they could not be perfected, xi.
40, there is at once introduced the recent
covenant (νέας ‘new in time,” not, as
usual, καίνης ‘‘ fresh in quality,”) because
the idea first in the writer’s mind is not
the opposition to the old but the recent
origin of the new. (But cf. Col. iii. 9;
1 Cor. v. 7). It is remarkable that the
Mediator of this covenant is here called
by his human name “Jesus”. The
reason probably is that already there is
in the writer’s mind the great instrument
of mediation, αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ,
“blood of sprinkling”. In mediating
the old covenant Moses, λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα
κατεσκέδασε τοῦ λαοῦ, Exod. xxiv. 8.
[αἷμα ῥαντισμοῦ, however, does not
occur in LXX, though ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ
is found four times in Numbers]. But in
ix. 19 this writer replaces κατεσκέδασε
with the more significant ἐράντισεν ; cf.
ix. 13. In Pet. i. 2 we have ῥαντισμὸν
αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The ‘blood
of sprinkling” is therefore the blood by
which the new covenant is established,
see xiii. 20, αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου, this
blood having the power to cleanse the
conscience, ix. 14, x. 22. It cleanses be-
cause it speaks better than Abel’s, xpetr-
τον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Αβελ for while
that of Abel cried for vengeance [Gen. iv.
10, φωνὴ αἵματος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου Bog
πρός με ἐκ τῆς γῆς) that of Jesus is a
message of salvation, the κρεῖττόν τι of
xi. 40. But it may be adverbial. ‘“‘TIlle
flagitabat ultionem, hic impetrat remis-
sionem” (Erasmus).
Ver. 25-29. A final appeal. The
readers are warned against being deaf
to God’s final revelation, for if even
the revelation at Sinai could not with
impunity be disregarded, much less can
the revelation which has reached them
and which discloses to them things
eternal and God in His essential majesty.
Ver. 25. βλέπετε (in the same sense
and in a similar connection in iii. 12) μὴ
παραιτήσησθε, “See that you refuse
not”—as those mentioned in ver. 19 did
--τὸν λαλοῦντα, “ Him that speaketh,”
i.e., God as in i. 1 and the close of this
verse; “for if those did not escape
(punishment) when they refused Him
that made to them divine communications
on earth, how much less shall we who
turn away from Him who does so from
heaven”? The argument is the same as
in ii. 3. Those who at Sinai begged to
be excused from hearing did so in terror
of the manifestations of God’s presence.
But this is taken both as itself rooted in
ignorance of God and aversion, and also
as the first manifestation of a refusal to
listen which in the history of Israel was
often repeated. Punishment followed
both in the Sinai generation, iii. 7-19,
and in after times. The speaking ἐπὶ
γῆς; t.¢., at Sinai (and through the pro-
eyes i. I) is contrasted with speaking
π᾿ οὐρανῶν, which can only mean speak-
ing from the midst of and in terms of
eternal reality, without those earthly
374
8 ver. 19;
Agg. ii. 6,
me
t Ps. cii.26;
Matt.
XXIV. 35;
2 Peter
iii. 10.
ἀποστρεφόμενοι, 26. "οὗ ἡ
Ν Ἂ 3 ῬΟΥ͂Σ
και τὸν ουὐρᾶνον.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOYS
τὴν μετάθεσιν, ὡς πεποιημένων, ἵνα μείνῃ τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα.
XII. 26---20.
δ δ κι δον , σι Ss
φωνὴ Thy γῆν ἐσάλευσε τότε, viv δὲ
ἐπήγγελται, λέγων, “Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ
27. " Τὸ δὲ, “Ἔτι ἅπαξ,᾿᾿ δηλοῖ τῶν σαλευομένων
28.
ur Peter ii," διὸ βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάνοντες, ἔχωμεν χάριν, δι᾿ ἧς
v Deut, iv, λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ Θεῷ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας.} 29.
24, et ix. a ~ , ’
ny ‘kal yap ““ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ καταναλίσκον ”’.
1 T.R. is only supported by KL, Chrys.; ευλαβειας και δεους in KQ*ACD", 17, 71, 73+
symbols which characterised the old
revelations, vv. 18, 19. The revelation
in the Son is a revelation of the essential
Divine nature in terms that are eternally
trueand valid. Cf. ix.14, διὰ πνεύματος
alwviov. The difference between the two
revelations is disclosed in their results or
accompaniments; of the former, τότε,
it is said } φωνὴ τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσεν,
‘*the voice shook the earth,” even that
symbolic and earthly manifestation was
well fitted to convey just impressions of
‘God’s holiness; [ἔδωκε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ,
ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ Ps. xivi. 5, also Ps. xviii.
7 and in Ps. lxviii. 8, γῆ ἐσείσϑη ; Jud.
Vv. 4, 5, sometimes as in Ps. cxiv. 7 more
explicitly ἀπὸ προσώπου Κυρίου ἐσαλεύ-
θη ἡ γῆ.] The expression sets forth not
only the majesty of God who speaks, but
also the effects that follow in agitation
and alteration [οἷ the Antigone line 163,
τὰ μὲν δὴ πόλεος θεοὶ πολλῷ σάλῳ
σείσαντες]. νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελται, “ But
now he has promised”—the passive used
in middle sense as in Rom. iv. 21—the
promise is in Hag, ii. 6, 7, where under
this strong figure the new order of things
introduced by the rebuilding of the temple
is announced. (Cf. Sir. xvi. 18, 19)
λέγων, Ἔτι ἅπαξ . . . saying, “ Yet
once (or, Once more) I will shake not
only the earth but also the heaven”.
And what the writer especially sees in
this promise is declared expressly in ver.
27, τὸ δὲ Ἔτι ἅπαξ δηλοῖ. . . “the
expression ‘once more’ indicates the
removal of what has been shaken as of
what has been made (created), that what
is not shaken may abide”. The ἅπαξ
indicates the finality of this predicted
manifestation of God—only once more
was he to reveal Himself. This revela-
tion has made known to us and put us in
possession of that which is eternal, so
that when all present forms of existence
pass away (cf. i. 11, 12), what is essential
and eternal] may still be retained. Under-
lying the interpretation which the writer
gives to ἅπαξ is the belief that some
time things temporal must give place to
things eternal; else he could not have
argued that the final “shaking” was to
be equivalent to a removal, (pera Oe-
σις, change of place in xi. 5; but in vil.
12 removal, displacement; and so here)
or destruction of the heavens and the
earth. The words ὡς πεποιημένων
show that he considered that all that had
been made might or would be destroyed,
as ini. 10, “the works of God’s hands
shall perish”. (Cf. γένεσις φθορᾶς
ἀρχή]. ἵνα is dependent on μετάθεσιν,
transitory things are removed that the
things that are eternal may appear in
their abiding value. διὸ, seeing that
these perishable things must pass away
‘let us who are receiving a kingdom (a
realm in which we shall be as kings,
Luke xii. 32, xxii. 29; Rev. i. 6) that is
immovable and inalienable have grace”
(iv. 16, xii. 15). Many interpreters
(Weiss, Westcott, Weizsacker, Peake)
render ἔχωμεν χάριν as in Luke xvii. 9;
1 Tim. i. 12, “let us feel and express
thankfulness” which is a very suitable
inference to draw from “ our receiving an
immovable kingdom” and is relevant also
to the following clause. But as χάρις
is used by this writer in iv. 16 of God’s
helping favour, and as the tis ὑστερῶν
ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ of ver. 15 is
still in view, it seems simpler and more
adequate to render as A.V. It is God’s
grace, δι᾽ ἧς λατρεύωμεν . . . “by
means of which we may acceptably serve
God [λατρεύωμεν as in ix. 14, possibly in
a broader sense than mere worship] with
reverence (v. 7) and fear”. An addi-
tional or recapitulating reason is given in
the closing words, “" For indeed our God
is a consuming fire,” words derived from
Deut. iv. 24. The fire and smoke which
manifested His presence at Sinai (ver.
18) were but symbols of that consuming
holiness that destroys all persistent inex-
cusable evil. It is God Himself who is
the fire with which you have to do, nota
mere physical, material, quenchable fire.
SIU. τ ἃς
XIII. 1. "Ἧ @1AAAEASIA μενέτω.
λανθάνεσθε-: 2. διὰ ταύτης γὰρ ἔλαθόν τινες ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους:
3. “μιμνήσκεσθε τῶν δεσμίων, ὡς συνδεδεμένοι τῶν κακουχουμένων,
,
4. τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ ἡ
ε ‘ > \ 7 td
ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματι.
1; Rom. xii. 13; 1 Peter iv. 9. c Matt.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
375
a Rom. xii.
10; Eph.
Looe Se Pes
eter i.
22, et ii,
17, et iii.
8, et iv. 8.
Ὁ Gen. xviii.
I, et xix,
xxv. 36; Rom. xii. 15; Col. iv. 18; 1 Peter iii. 8.
" τῆς φιλοξενίας ph ém-
1 κακοχουμ. in DCKLMP.
CHAPTER XIII. In this chapter we
find exhortations apparently springing
out of a desire to arrest symptoms of a
tendency to hide their Christian profes-
sion disowning their teachers and fellow
Christians and resenting the shame and
hardship incident to the following of
Christ.
Vv. 1-6. Exhortations to social mani-
festations of their Christianity. ‘H φιλ-
αδελφία μενέτω. “Let love of the
brethren continue”; it existed (vi. 10)
and so, as Chrys. says, he does not write
Γίνεσθε φιλάδελφοι, ἀλλὰ, μενέτω ἡ rd.
In the general decay of their faith ten-
dencies to disown Christian fellowship
had become apparent, x. 24, 25. This
might also lead to a failure to recognise
the wants of Christians coming from a
distance, therefore hospitality is urged;
not as a duty they did not already prac-
tise, but, gently, as that which they
might omit through forgetfulness and as
that which might bring them a message
from God: τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ
ἐπιλανθάνεσθφε, “Entertainment of
strangers do not neglect; for thus some
have entertained angels unawares,” as in
Gen. xviii.-19; Jud. vi. 11-24, xiii. 2-23
[For testimonies to the hospitality of
Christians Bleek refers to Lucian, De
Morte Peregrin., chap. 16 and to the
49th Epistle of Julian, On the hospit-
ality of the East see Palgrave’s Essays,
p-246-7.] ἔλαθόν τινες Eevicavres though
a common classical idiom, occurs no-
where else in the N.T. Some of their
fellow Christians might be in even more
needy circumstances and therefore
Ver. 3. μιμνήσκεσθε (ii. 6) τῶν
δεσμίων (x. 34), “ Be mindful of those
in bonds” (Matt. xxv. 36). This also
they had already done (x. 34). The
motive now urged is contained in the
words ὡς συνδεδεμένοι, “as having
been bound with them,” as fellow-
prisoners. The ὡς ἐν σώματι of the next
clause might invite the interpretation,
‘for we also are bound as well as they,”
and colour might be given to this by the
Epistle to Diognetus, chap. 6. χριστια-
vol κατέχονται μὲν ὡς ἐν φρουρᾷ τῷ
κόσμῳ; but more likely the expression is
merely a strong way of saying that all
the members of Christ’s body suffer with
each, τ Cor. xii. 26. τῶν κακουχου-
μένων, “the maltreated,” cf. xi. 37;
you must be mindful of these ‘‘as being
yourselves also in the body,” #.¢., not
emancipated spirits, and therefore liable
to similar ill-usage and capable of sym-
pathy. [A striking illustration of the
manner.in which the early Christians
obeyed these admonitions may be found
in the Apology of Aristides: ξένον ἐὰν
ἴδωσιν, ὑπὸ στέγην εἰσάγουσι καὶ xal-
ρουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ὡς ἐπὶ ἀδελφῷ ἀληθινῷ «
οὐ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ἀδελφοὺς ἑαυτοὺς
καλοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ψυχήν. The
Syriac Apology adds ‘If they hear that
any of their number is imprisoned or
oppressed for the name of their Messiah,
all of them provide for his needs”. Ac-
cordingly in the Martyrdom of Perpetua
we read that two deacons were appointed
to visit her and relieve the severity of
her imprisonment.] It is interesting to
find that Philo claims for Moses a φιλα-
δελφία towards strangers, enjoining sym-
pathy, ὡς ἐν διαιρετοῖς μέρεσιν ἕν ζῶον,
as being all one living creature though in
diverse parts; and in De Spec. Legg. 30
he has ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἑτέρων σώμασιν αὐτοὶ
κακούμενοι. Westcott gives from early
Christian documents a collection of in-
teresting prayers for those suffering im-
prisonment.
Ver.4. τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν wa-
σιν. “Is ἔστω or ἐστί to be supplied ?”
Probably the former, as in ver. 5, “ Let
marriage be held in honour among all”.
As a natural result of holding marriage
in honour, its ideal sanctity will be
violated neither by the married nor by
the unmarried. Therefore the καὶ links
the two clauses closely together and has
some inferential force, ‘‘ and thus let the
bed be undefiled” [μιαίνειν τὴν κοίτην
occurs in Plutarch to denote the viola-
tion of conjugal relations. Used with
γυναῖκα in Ezek. xviii. 6, xxiii. 17]. The
next clause shows in what sense the
376
ΠΡΟΣ; EBPAIOYS
XIII.
5. ἃ ἀφιλάρ-
αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν,
xxxi.6,8; OU μή σε ἀνῶ, οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω 1" - 6. * ὥστε θαρροῦντας
ΡΣ Ἢ
r Pat;
XXViii.20; = ἐν
Prov. xv. μοι ἄνθρωπος.
16; Matt.
55 ε “-- , . ‘ 4 > , , ,
ἡμᾶς λέγειν, “Κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηθὸς, καὶ οὐ φοβηθήσομαι τί ποιήσει
7. *Mynpovedete τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν, οἵτινες ἐλά-
vi. 25,34. Λησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ - ὧν ἀναθεωροῦντες τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς
Phil. iv.
ες
"
καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτὸς, καὶ εἰς τοὺς
9. "διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ περιφέρεσθε 8"
~ a ,
11;1Tim, ἀναστροφῆς, μιμεῖσθε τὴν πίστιν.
vi. 6, εἴς. 8 > r= Ἢ θὲ 2
e Ps. Ivi. 4, - Ingots Χριστὸς χθες
Tr, εἰ IA
cXviii. 6, αἰῶνας.
f ver. 17.
g Jer. xxix.
8; Matt. xxiv. 4; Joan. vi. 27; Rom. xiv. 17, et xvi. 17; Eph. iv. 14, et v. 6; Col. ii. 8, 16;
2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 3; 1 Joan.iv.1.
1 εγκαταλειπω in SACDcKLMP, 17.
2 €xOes in NAC*D*M; χθες in C3DcKL.
3T.R. in KL, 47; παραφερεσθε in SACDMP, 17, 23, 37, 73.
words are to be taken. William Penn’s
saying must also be kept in view: “lfa
man pays his tailor but debauches his
wife, is he a current moralist?”’ For
marriage as a preventative against vice,
cf. τ Cor. vii. and 1 Thess. iv. 4. Weiss
gathers from the insertion of this injunc-
tion that the writer is not guided in his
choice of precepts by the condition of
those to whom he is writing but by
“ theoretical reflection”. But in the face
of xii. 16, this seems an unwarranted
inference. mwépvovs...6 θεός.
Fornicators may escape human condem-
nation, but God (in emphatic position)
will judge them.
Ver. 5. Asin Eph. ν. 5 and elsewhere
impurity and covetousness are combined,
so here the precepts of ver. 4 lead on
to a warning against love of money:
ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος, “let your
turn of mind [disposition] be free from
love of money, content with what you
have”. [ὁ τρόπος frequently in classical
writers in this sense, as Demosthenes, p.
683, αἰσχροκερδὴς 6 τρόπος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.
Other examples in Kypke. ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς
παροῦσι was also commonly used to
denote contentment with what one has.
Examplesin Rapheland Wetstein.] This
contentment has the firm foundation of
God’s promise; αὐτὸς yap εἴρηκεν, “ for
Himself hath said,” é.e., God. Οὐ μή
σε ave . .. The quotation is from
Deut. xxxi. 5, where however the third
person is used. Similar promises, simi-
larly expressed, occur in Gen. xxviii. 15;
Deut. xxxi. 8; Josh. i. 5; 1 Chron. xxviii.
zo. Philo (De Conf. Ling., chap. 32,
not 33 as in Bleek and Davidson) gives
the quotation literatim as in the text
here. ὥστε θαρροῦντας ἂς
λέγειν, “so that we boldly say, The
Lord is my helper, I will not fear”. In
Prov. i. 28 wisdom at the gates of the
city θαῤῥοῦσα λέγει. The words quoted
under λέγειν are from Ps. cxviii. 6, the
first word Κύριος and the last ἄνθρωπος
being brought into strong contrast.
Vv. 7-16. The Hebrews are exhorted
to keep in remembrance their former
leaders, to abide steadfastly by their
teaching, to rid themselves of the ideas of
Judaism, to bear the shame attaching to
the faith of Christ, to persevere in good
works, Mynpovevete τῶν ἡγου-
μένων ὑμῶν. .. “Have in remem-
brance them who had the rule over you,
especially as they are those who spoke to
you the word of God”. μνημον. might
be used, as in xi. 22 and Gal. ii. x, τῶν
πτωχῶν μνημ..» Of keeping living persons
in mind (and so Rendall) but what fol-
lows makes it more likely that it here
refers to the past. These deceased lead-
ing men were the persons alluded to in ii.
3 and iv. 2, who first ‘‘spoke” the word
of the gospel to the Hebrews and who
were now no longer present. The word
ἡγούμενοι, occurring also in wv. 17 and
24 andin Acts xv. 22 (and cf. Sir. xxx.
18, of ἡγούμενοι ἐκκλησίας) is a general
term for leading and influential men in
whom some undefined authority was
vested. Official status was not yet de-
fined and official titles were not yet
universal. The chief reason why they
are to be held in remembrance is given in
the clause under οἵτινες, ‘for they are
they who”. But an additional reason is
5—I4.
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
red
καλὸν γὰρ χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν, οὐ βρώμασιν, ἐν οἷς οὐκ h Exod.
ὠφελήθησαν οἱ περιπατήσαντες.ἢ
- a - τῶν 2 , ε a τὶ ,
οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες.
γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζώων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ
1ο. Ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον, ἐξ
ΧΧΙΧ. 14;
Lev. iv.
12, 21, et
ov vi. 30, et
Xvi. 27;
Num. xix.
Lic
ἀρχιερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίεται ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς
12. ᾿ διὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαὸν,
ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε. 13. τοίνυν ἐξερχώμεθα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς ἡ
παρεμβολῆς, τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν αὐτοῦ φέροντες " 14. "οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν
i Joan. xix.
17, 18.
Xt. 10. ΤΟΣ
Mich. ii.
10; Phil.
iii. 20.
1 περιπατουντες in K9*AD*.
suggested in the following clause, ὧν
ἀναθεωροῦντες .. - “whose faith
imitate as you closely consider the issue
of their manner of life”. ὧν follows
ἀναστροφῆς. ἀναθεωρέω in Theophrastus
and Diodorus Siculus is explicitly con-
trasted with the simple verb to denote ἃ
keener and more careful observation.
We cannot therefore render, as naturally
we might, “look back upon”. ἔκβασιν,
in 1 Cor. x. 18 has the meaning “‘ escape” ;
but in Wisd. ii. xvii., as here, it denotes
the end of life with a distinct reference to
the manner of it, as illustrating the man’s
relation to God. The leading men
among the Het-ew Christians had,
whether by martyrdom (as Weiss, etc.)
or not, sealed their teaching and exhibited
a faith worthy of imitation. Ver. 8 gives
force both to ver. 7 andtover.g. Imitate
their faith, for the object of faith has not
changed nor passed away. “*Inoovs
Χριστὸς ex Ges... . “Jesus Christ
yesterday and to-day is the same, yea
and for ever.” ὁ αὐτὸς exactly as in
Plutarch’s Pericles, xv. 2, where in des-
cribing the influence of success upon
Pericles it is said οὐκέθ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν, he
was no longer the same. ἐχθὲς is the
proper Attic form, χθές the old Ionic, see
Rutherford’s New Phryn., 370. ‘* Yester-
day and to-day,” in the past and in the
present Jesus Christ is the same, and He
will never be different. Therefore, δι-
δαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις
μὴ παραφέρεσθε. ““Βε not carried
away by teachings various and unheard
of, and foreign.” wapadep. is used
in Diodorus and Plutarch of being swept
away by a river in flood; cf. wapapvapev
of ii. 1. The teachings against which the
Hebrews are here warned are such con-
structions of Old Testament institutions
and practises as tended to loosen their
attachment to Christ as the sole media-
tor of the New Covenant. These teach-
ings were “various,” inasmuch as they
laid stress now on one aspect, now on
another of the old economy [bald in
der Schriftgelehrsamkeit, bald in pein-
licher Gesetzseserfiillung, bald im Op-
ferkult, bald in den Opfermahlzeiten ”
(Weiss)]. They were ξέναι both as being
novel and as being irreconcileable with
pure Christian truth. καλὸν yap χάριτι.
. . » “For it is good that by grace the
heart be confirmed, not by meats.” The
present wavering unsatisfactory condi-
tion of the Hebrews is to be exchanged
for one of confidence and steadfastness
not by listening to teachings about meats
which after all cannot nourish the heart,
but by approaching the throne where grace
reigns and from which it is dispensed,
iv. 16. From the following verse (ver.
10) in which sacrificial food is expressly
mentioned, it would appear that the refer-
ence in οὐ βρώμασιν is not to asceticism
nor to the distinction of clean and un-
clean meats, but to sacrificial meals.
These are condemned by experiment as
useless, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφελήθησαν
“0. ‘which were of no avail to those
who had recourse to them” (Moffatt).
Cf. the ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές of vii. 18.
Sacrificial meals are also shown to be
irreconcileable (ξέναι) with the Christian
approach to God, for our (the Christian)
altar is one from which neither worship-
pers nor priests have any right to eat.
The point he wishes to make is, that in
connection with the Christian sacrifice
there is no sacrificial meal. As in the
case of the great sacrifice of the Day of
Atonement the High Priest carried the
blood into the Holy of Holies, while the
carcase was not eaten but burned outside
the camp; so the Christian altar is not
one from which food is dispensed to priest
and worshipper. of τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύ-
ovres refers to the Christian worship-
pers. The figure introduced in θυσια-
στήριον is continued in these words. To
reter them to the O.T. priests is to shatter
the argument. Literally the words mean
“they who serve the tabernacle,” that is,
378 ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY= XIII.
| Lev. vi ὧδε μένουσαν πόλιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπιζητοῦμεν. 15. ᾿ Δι᾿
12: 5.1.
23, et Hi. αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διαπαντὸς τῷ Θεῷ, τουτέστι,
19; Ose. : ae Ὲ Ξ
ay 3] καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. 16. “ris δὲ εὐ-
pa. v. ΄
20: I ποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε - τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις
Peter ii.5.
m 2 Cor. ix. εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ Θεός.
Τὰν Phu:
iv. 18.
n ver. 7;
Ezech.
iii, 18, et
XXxXiii. 2,
τῆ. " Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν, καὶ ὑπείκετε - αὐτοὶ yap
ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, ds λόγον ἀποδώσοντες " ἵνα μετὰ
8; Phil. ii. 29; Σ Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. v.17; 1 Peterv. 5.
the priests, cf. viii. 5. The peculiarity,
he says, of our Christian sacrifice is that
itis not eaten. Then follows in support
of this statement an analogy from the
O.T. ritual ὧν yap εἰσφέρεται
Cowv.... “For the bodies of those
animals, whose blood is brought into the
holy place by the High Priest as an offer-
ing for sin, are burned outside the camp.”
Cf. Lev. iv. 12, 21. In conformity with
this type (διὸ καὶ *Incots) Jesus, that He
by His own blood might purify the people
from their sin, suffered outside the gate.
“The burning of the victim was not in-
tended to sublimate but to get rid of it.
The body plays no part in the atoning
act, and has in fact no significance after
the blood has been drained from it. The
life, and therefore the atoning energy,
resides in the blood and in the blood
alone. On the writer’s scheme, then,
no function is left for the body of Jesus.
It is ‘through his own blood,’ that he
must ‘sanctify the people’. It is thus
inevitable that while the writer fully
recognises the fact of the Resurrection of
Christ (ver. 20), he can assign no place to
it in his argument or attach to it any
theological significance” (Pease). The
suffering ἔξω τῆς πύλης 15 equivalent to
the αἰσχύνη of xii. 2; the ignominy of
the malefactor’s death was an essential
element in the suffering. The utmost
that man inflicts upon criminals he bore.
He was made to feel that he was outcast
and condemned. But it is this which
wins allmen to Him. τοίνυν ἐξερχ-
ώμεθα πρὸς αὐτὸν. .. “let us
therefore go out to him outside the camp
bearing his reproach”. Cf. xi. 26. Do
not shrink from abandoning your old
associations and being branded as out-
casts and traitors and robbed of your
privileges as Jews. This is the reproach
of Christ, in bearing which you come
nearer to Him. And the surrender of
your privileges need not cost you too
much regret, “ for we have not here (on
earth) an abiding city, but seek for that
which is to be,” that which has the
foundations, xi. 10, the heavenly Jeru-
salem, xii. 22. That which is spiritual
and eternal satisfies the ambition and
fills the heart. Cf. Mark iii. 35; Phil. iii.
20. The want of recognition and settle-
ment on earth may therefore well be
borne.
Ver. 15. δι᾽ αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀναφέρωμεν.
. . « Going without the camp as believers
in the virtue of Christ’s atoning sacrifice,
and bearing His shame as those who
seek to be identified with Him, we are
brought near to God and are disposed to
offer Him a sacrifice of praise (Lev. vii.
2 ff.). The δι᾽ αὐτοῦ is in the emphatic
position ; “ through Him” and not through
any Levitical device. And this Christian
sacrifice is not periodic, but being spiritual
is also continual (διαπαντὸς) That
there may be no mistake regarding the
material of the sacrifice of praise, an ex-
planation is added: τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν καρπὸν
χειλέων, ‘that is to say, the fruit of lips
(cf. Hos. xiv. 3) celebrating His name”.
Thayer gives this translation, supposing
that ὁμολογ. is here used in the sense of
ἐξομολογέω, Ps. xlv. 17, etc.; cf. also
i Esdr. ix. 8. But the sacrifice of praise
which can be rendered with the lips is
notenough. ‘“ Be not forgetful of bene-
ficence and charity for with such sacri-
fices God is well pleased.”
Vv. 17-End. The conclusion of the
Epistle.
Ver. 17. ‘Obey your rulers and sub-
mit; for they watch for your souls, know-
ing they are to give account, that they
may do this with joy not with lamenta-
tion—for this would be profitless to
you.”
Having exhorted the Hebrews to keep
_in mind their former rulers and adhere to
their teaching, the writer now admonishes
them, probably in view of a certain
mutinous and separatist spirit (x. 25)
encouraged by their reception of strange
doctrines, to obey their present leaders,
and yield themselves trustfully (ὑπείκετε)
I5—18.
ΠΡῸΣ EBPAIOY=
379
χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσι, καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες : ἀλυσιτελὲς yap ὑμῖν
τοῦτο. 18. Προσεύχεσϑε περὶ ἡμῶν -
to their teaching—an admonition which,
as Weiss remarks, shows that these
teachers held the same views as the
writer. The reasonableness of this in-
junction is confirmed by the responsi-
bility of the rulers and their anxious
discharge of it. They watch, like wake-
ful shepherds (ἀγρυπνοῦσιν), or those
who are nursing a critical case, in the
interest of your souls (ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν
ὑμῶν) to which they may sometimes seem
to sacrifice your other interests. They
do this under the constant pressure of a
consciousness that they must one day
render to the Chief Shepherd (ver. 20) an
account of the care they have taken of
His sheep (ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες).
Obey them, then, that they may dis-
charge their responsibility and peform
these kindly offices for you (τοῦτο refer-
ring not to λόγον ἀποδώσοντες as
Vaughan, etc., which would require a
much stronger expression than ἀλυσι-
τελές, but to ἀγρυπνοῦσιν) joyfully and
not with groaning (στενάζοντες, the
groaning with which one resumes a
thankless task, and with which he con-
templates unappreciated and even op-
posed work). And even for your own
sakes you should make the work of your
tulers easy and joyful, for otherwise it
cannot profit you. Your unwillingness
to listen to them means that you are out
of sympathy with their teaching and that
it can do you no good (ἀλυσιτελὲς yap
ὑμῖν τοῦτο).
Ver. 18. προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν.
- -. Both the next clause and the next
verse seem to indicate that by ἡμῶν the
writer chiefly, if not exclusively, meant
himself; the next clause, for he could
not vouch for the conscience of any
other person; the next verse because one
principal object or result of their prayer
was his restoration to them. Request
for prayer is common in the Epistles,
1 Thess. v. 25; 2 Thess, iii. 1; Rom. xv.
30; Eph. vi. 18; Col. iv. 3. The reason
here annexed is peculiar. ‘The allusion
to his purity of conduct, and strong as-
sertion of his consciousness of it, in
regard to them and all things, when he
is petitioning for their prayers, implies
that some suspicions may have attached
to him in the minds of some of them.
These suspicions would naturally refer
to his great freedom in regard to Jewish
practises” (Davidson), But notwith-
standing ver. 23 it may be that he was
πεποίθαμεν γὰρ, ὅτι καλὴν
under arrest and shortly to be tried and
naturally adds to his request for prayer a
protestation of his innocence of all civil
offence. [καλῶς ἀναστραφῆναι occurs
in Perg. Inscrip., v. Deissmann, p. 194,
E. Tr.] The writer was conscious of a
readiness and purpose to live and con-
duct himself rightly in all circumstances.
This gives him confidence and will lend
confidence to their prayers. He is more
urgent in this request (περισσοτέρως
παρακαλῶ) because he is desirous to be
quickly restored to them; implying that
he in some sense belonged to them and
that the termination of his present exile
from them would be acceptable to them
as well as to him. [The verb ἄποκαθ.
first occurs in Xenophon, see Anz. p
38.]
While asking their prayers for himself
the writer prays for them: 6 δὲ θεὸς
τῆς εἰρήνης. . .«.. He prays to the
God of peace (cf. 1 Thess. v. 23 ; 2 Thess.
iii, 16; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii.
τα} Ῥηχ ενο j j :
G ies _in it the guarantee that a
termination s
ΠΕΣ wall. Elis Love of peace is. shown in
nothing more than in His concluding an
eternal covenant will This coven-
ant was sealed when “ our Lord Jesus,”
having laid down his life for the sheep,
was brought up from the dead in virtue
of the perfect and accepted sacrifice (év
αἵματι διαθήκης). Elsewhere in the
Epistle the blood is spoken of as giving
entrance to the presence of God, here as
delivering from that which prevented
that entrance. As Vaughan says: ‘ The
arrival in the heavenly presence for us
in virtue of the atoning blood is here
viewed in its stavt from the grave...
It was in virtue of the availing sacrifice
that Christ either left the tomb or re-
entered heaven.” ἐν αἵματι δια-
θήκης is therefore more naturally con-
nected with ἀναγαγών than with τὸν
ποιμένα, although the two connections
are closely related. It was as the Great
Shepherd that Jesus gave His life for the
sheep and by this act established for ever
His claim to be the Shepherd of His
people. Itis this claim also that guar-
antees that He will lose none but will
raise them up at the iast day (cf. John
xv.). [It is probable that the phrasing
of this verse was influenced by Zech. ix.
7, σὺ ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης σον ἐξαπέ-
280
ΠΡΟΣ EBPAIOY=
XIII.
συνείδησιν ἔχομεν, ἐν πᾶσι καλῶς θέλοντες ἀναστρέφεσθαι - το.
Ἅ, lol “ “ - ~
περισσοτέρως δὲ παρακαλῶ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, ἵνα τάχιον ἀποκατασταθῶ
ὑμῖν.
o Esa. xiv,
τ"
Ezech,
20. “ Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν τὸν ποιμένα
τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου, τὸν Κύριον
XXXiV. 23; a ns mn a
Zach. 1x, ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν, 21. " καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὶ Epyw! ἀγαθῷ, εἰς
11; Joan. 4 An a θέλ. > A a. 2 t Vata. 4 9», s
x.11; τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ποιῶν 2 ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον
Acts ii. 3 πιὰ ἢ A a ες t > N aA a 22
24; αὐτοῦ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ - ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
1 Peter ii. dus
25, et v. 4. tal he
2 Cor. 111, a a A a
= 5; Phil, 22. Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρα-
li. 13.
KAyjoews* καὶ γὰρ διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν.
23. Γινώσκετε
τὸν ἀδελφὸν Τιμόθεον ὅ ἀπολελυμένον, μεθ᾽ οὗ, ἐὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται,
ΜΌΝ, d, f, vg. omit epyw; CDcKMP,
epyw kat λογω ayalw.
27NQ*AC*, 17* read avtw ποιων; 71 reads αὐτὸς ποιων.
Syrsch, Arm., Aeth. insert epyw. A has
T.R. is found in
ScCbDKMP. [WH say that ‘‘there can be little doubt that αὐτὸς ποιῶν is the
true reading’’.]
3 ἡμῶν is found in $ACD*M, 17, 37, 47, 71, vg.
στειλας δεσμίους σου ἐκ λάκκου οὐκ
ἔχοντος ὕδωρ, and by Isa. Ixiii. 11, ποῦ
ὃ ἀναβιβάσας ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης τὸν ποι-
μένα τῶν προβάτων.) The prayer follows,
καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς, “ perfectly equip you”
(cf. xi. 3) ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ, “in every
good work,” that is, enabling you to do
every good work and so equipping you
eis τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα ad-
τοῦ, “ for the doing of His will,” ‘doing
in you that which is well pleasing in His
sight through Jesus Christ” (cf. Phil. ii.
13). The words διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
are apparently attached not exclusively
to τὸ εὐάρεστον x.T.d., but to the whole
clause and especially to καταρτίσαι ; it
is through Jesus, now reigning as Christ,
that all grace is bestowed on His people.
The doxology may be to the God of
peace to whom the prayer is addressed,
more probably it is to Jesus Christ, last-
named and the great figure who has been
before the mind throughout the Epistle.
Ver. 22. The writer adds, in closing,
a request that the Hebrews would take in
good part his ‘‘ word of exhortation ”—a
request which implies that they were in
an irritable state of mind, if not against
the writer, then because their own con-
science was uneasy. As a reason for
their bearing with his exhortation he
urges its brevity “for indeed (kat yap) I
have written (ἐπέστειλα as in Acts xv. 20)
to you with brevity” (διὰ βραχέων, cf.
δι᾿ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, r Pet. v. 12). To
them it might seem that he had said too
much; his own feeling was that he had
been severely cramped by the limits of a
letter.
Ver. 23. γινώσκετε τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν.
- . . “Know that our brother Timothy
has been released” (ἀπολελυμένον, for
example of this use of the participle, see
Winer, sec. 45, 4b). Evidently Timothy
had been under arrest; where, when, or
why is not known. The information is
given because it would interest these
Hebrew Christians, who were therefore
friends of his, not Judaizers. pe@ οὗ
. .. “with whom, if he come soon, I
will see you”. He takes for granted
that Timothy would at once go to them;
and he speaks as one who is himself free
or is immediately to be free to determine
his own movements. [τάχειον, = θᾶττον,
a comparative in the sense of a positive;
a classical usage; and cf. John xiii. 27,
ὃ ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον.) The usual
greetings are added. Epistolary form re-
quired this (see the Egyptian papyri) but
in view of what the writer has said regard-
ing the rulers, and in view of the πάντας
here expressed, it may be supposed that
the formula was here filled with signifi-
cant contents. Who was to convey the
salutations? Or, in other words, who
was directly to receive the letter? Pro-
bably one or two of the leading men
representing the Church. This would
account for the πάντας. The greetings
were not on the writer’s part only. οἱ
ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, ‘ they of Italy” joined
109-23.
μὴ cia
ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς.
πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους.
ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. ἀμήν.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΛΑΙΟΥΣ
281
24. ᾿Ασπάσασθε πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν, καὶ
ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας.
25.
Πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου.
in them. The form of expression is that
which is ordinarily used to denote natives
of a place, as in Luke xxiii. 50; John i.
44, xi. 1; Acts xvii. 13, etc. Winer says
(p. 785): ‘*a critical argument as to the
place at which the Epistle was written
should never have been founded on these
words”. Vaughan is certainly wrong in
saying that the more natural suggestion
of the words would be that the writer is
himself in Italy and speaks of the Italian
Christians surrounding him. The more
natural suggestion, on the contrary, is
that the writer is absent from Italy and
is writing to it and that therefore the
native Italians who happen to be with
him join him in the salutations he sends
to their compatriots.
The Epistle closes with one of the usual
formulae, ‘‘ Grace be with you all”.
—- ~~
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES
INTRODUCTION.
I. AurHorsuip AND Date.—§ 1, External Data. That parts, at
all events, of this Epistle were known and cited by very early Church
writers seems certain. It is, however, precarious to build too much
upon the fact that similarities of thought and expression are found
between this Epistle and other early writings. Such similarities do
not necessarily prove anything more than that the thought-move-
ments of the times were exercising the minds of many thinkers and
writers. If, that is to say, it is found that various writings belonging
to the early ages of Christianity contain thoughts, words, and even
sentences which are also seen to occur in this Epistle, it would be
arbitrary to assume that this fact necessarily proved the influence of
the latter upon the former, or vice-versa; and it would, moreover, be
dangerous to use this assumption as a basis upon which to found
conclusions regarding the date and authorship of the Epistle. We
are far from denying ihat the similarities referred to may denote
indebtedness on the part of the writer of our Epistle to the writings
in question, or vice versa—as, for example, in the case of Sivach—
but in such cases there must be no doubt as to whether the parti-
cular writing is earlier or later than our Epistle. A concrete example
will make our meaning clear. Some writers regard the similarity of
language between the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and St.
Fames as evidence that the latter influenced the former, and this is
regarded as evidence in favour of an early date of our Epistle. Thus
Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 320, note), says that the language of the
writer of the Testaments on the subject of the law of God is ““ formed
on the model of the Epistle of St. James,” and he refers to Ewald,
who makes a similar remark; again, on p. 221, note, he says in
reference to this pseudepigraph: “On the whole, however, the
language in the moral and didactic portions takes its colour from
the Epistle of St. James”. So, too, Mayor (The Epistle of St. fames,
p. iv.) speaks of the writer of this work as one “ who seems to have
been much influenced by the teaching and example of St. James,”
and a large number of quotations are given to prove this contention,
VOL, IV. 25
386 INTRODUCTION
Now, Charles, who may justly be claimed as our leading authority
on all that concerns the Pseudepigrapha, has shown conclusively
in his edition of the Testaments (1908) that this work was written
originally in Hebrew in 109-106 B.c.; the Jewish additions he regards
as belonging to the years 70-40 B.c., and in its Greek form it
appeared “at the latest” in 50 a.p.; the thirty Christian interpola-
tions (approximately) belong probably to different dates, but scarcely
any of these come into consideration in the present connection (see
pp. l.-Ixv.); instances of St. fames probably utilising the Testaments
are given on p. xc. Or, to mention another instance, the similarities
between St. James and the Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement of
Rome are likewise pointed to as a proof of the early date of St.
James, because Clement (end of first century and beginning of
second century) was influenced by it; but the most striking part of
this similarity is the way in which each deals with the subject of
faith and works. This subject was, however, one of the funda-
mental causes of difference between Jews and Christians at all
times (indeed, the minds of thinking Jews were exercised by it
before the Christian era), and it is dealt with in a number of other
works of various dates—Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testa-
ment of Abraham, Apoc. of Baruch, 2 (4) Esdras, Book of Enoch,
and often in the later Jewish literature ;—therefore it is difficult to
see why St. fames necessarily influenced Clement on a subject
which was so much in evidence in a large variety of writings ; and
the statement of Mayor, that “‘the fact that Clement balances the
teaching of St. Paul by that of St. James is sufficient proof of the
authority he ascribes to the latter” (p. lii.), seems a little too strong,
especially as St. James is not mentioned by name in Clement. Similari-
ties are also found between St. $ames and pseudo-Clement, the
Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistles of Ignatius, Hermas,
Justin Martyr, the Epistle to Diognetus, Irenzus, Theophilus, Ter-
tullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Clementine Homilies; all
these authorities, ranging from the first century to the former half of
the third, are often pointed to as showing their recognition of our
Epistle, because they show the marks of its influence upon them.
The possibility of such indebtedness is not denied, but in the
majority of cases it cannot be said that the similarities prove it; nor
do they necessarily prove the canonicity, and still less the authorship
of our Epistle, especially as not in one single instance is the Epistle
mentioned by name in the authorities mentioned above. The earliest
writer, as far as is known, who refers to the Epistle definitely as
Scripture, and as having been written by St. James, is Origen
INTRODUCTION 387
(d. 254 a.p.). His testimony is as follows: In his commentary on
St. fohn xix. 6 he refers to our Epistle in the words, . . , ὡς ἐν τῇ
φερομένῃ ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστολῇ ἀνέγνωμεν, a phrase which obviously sug-
gests doubt as to its authorship, though apparently it is quoted as
Scripture. On the other hand, passages from our Epistle are quoted
as the words of “James the Apostle” on at least five occasions ; and
besides this, there are a number of cases in which direct quotations
from it are clearly regarded as Scripture. This is, moreover,
definitely asserted in his Comm. in Ep. ad Rom., iv. 1, and in
Hom. in Lev., ii. 4. On four occasions St. James is mentioned by
name, once as the “ brother of the Lord”. Further, quotations, more
or less distinct, from our Epistle are found in the Constitutiones
Apostolicae (fourth century, but containing earlier material), and in
Lactantius (c. 300 a.p.). The next important writer who gives direct
evidence on the subject is Eusebius (c. 270-340 a.p.). In speaking of
the Catholic Epistles, and after referring to the martyrdom of James
the Just, he says: “ The first of the Epistles styled Catholic is said
to be his. But I must remark that it is held to be spurious (νοθεύεται).
Certainly not many old writers have mentioned it, nor yet the Epistle
of Jude, which is also one of the Epistles called Catholic. But
nevertheless we know that these have been publicly used with the rest
in most churches ”’ (H.E., ii. 23). Then, again, in enumerating the list
of New Testament books (H.E., iii. 25), he says: “ Among the contro-
verted books (ἀντιλεγόμενα), which are nevertheless well known and
recognised by many (γνωρίμων ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς), we class the Epistle
circulated under the name of James’’. In spite of this, however,
Eusebius prefaces a quotation from the Epistle (v. 13) with the
words, λέγει γοῦν ὃ ἱερὸς ᾿Απόστολος (Comm. in Ps. i.), and later
on in the same work he refers to another passage from the Epistle
(iv. 2) as Scripture (. . . τῆς γραφῆς λεγούσης ...). At the same time
it will be wise not to build too much upon these last two references.
In a case like this, where the writer would, if anything, be biassed
in favour of ascribing Apostolic authorship to the Epistle, a passage
which casts doubt upon its genuineness is really more weighty
evidence than one in the opposite direction ; moreover, a book which
went by a certain name might well be quoted by Eusebius in accor-
dance with the common acceptation, without his adding, each time
he mentioned it, his doubts concerning the correctness as to its title.
Upon the whole, the evidence of Eusebius, though uncertain, seems
to point to our Epistle as being genuine Scripture, but not as having
been written by St. James. This uncertain testimony is repeated
by Jerome (born c. 330-350 a.p.), who says in his De Viris
488 INTRODUCTION
Illustr., ii.: “Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini... unam
tantum scripsit epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est, quae et
ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim
tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem’”’ (quoted by Westcott,
Canon of the N.T., p. 452); elsewhere, however, Jerome quotes
from the Epistle as from Scripture. This evidence, therefore, runs
on somewhat the same lines as that of Eusebius; and when it is
remembered that these two writers stand out as the two greatest
authorities of antiquity on the subject of the Canon, it must be con-
ceded that their witness ought almost to be regarded as final. It is
worth recalling that recently Jerome's status asa reliable witness has
been greatly strengthened by the discovery of a gospel-fragment!
which in the MS. in which it has been discovered forms a part of the
Longer Ending of the canonical Gospel of St. Mark. “ Writing
against the Pelagians in 415-416 (C. Pelag., ii. 15), Jerome quoted
a passage which ‘in some copies [of the Latin Gospels] and especi-
ally in Greek codices’ followed immediately after St. Mark xvi. 14
[the words are then given]; hitherto Jerome’s statement has been
entirely without support; now at length it has been recovered in the
Greek. ...’2 Three other facts of importance must be recorded
regarding the external data as to authorship; they concern the
question of canonicity, and therefore indirectly that of authorship.
The Muratorian Fragment, which “may be regarded on the whole
as a summary of the opinion of the Western Church on the Canon
shortly after the middle of the second century ’’ (Westcott, op. cit.,
p. 212), omits St. ames in its list of canonical writings. Secondly,
our Epistle is not included in the Syriac version of the N.T. brought
to the Syrian Church by Palit, bishop of Edessa, at the beginning
of the third century; “the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse
formed no part of the old Syriac version. In the Peshitta this defect
is partially supplied by a translation of James, 1 Peter and 1 John,
in agreement with the usage of Antioch as represented by Chry-
sostom” (Burkitt in Encycl. Bibl, iv. col. 5004); Prof. Burkitt quotes
Addai, 46: “The Law and the Prophets and the Gospel . . . and
the Epistles of Paul... and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles—
these writings shall ye read in the Churches of Christ, and besides
these ye shall read nothing else’’; and adds, “" Neither in Aphraates
nor in the genuine works of Ephraim are there any quotations from
the Apocalypse or the Catholic Epistles.” And thirdly, our Epistle
1 See the Biblical World, pp. 138 ff. (1908).
2 Swete in the Guardian, 1st April, 1908; see also Swete, Zwei neue Evangelien-
fragmente, p. 9 (1908); Gregory, Das Freer-Logion, pp. 25 ff, (1908).
INTRODUCTION 389
does not figure in the ‘‘ Cheltenham List’. The first time that the
Epistle appears to have been officially recognised as canonical was at
the council of Carthage 397 a.p.}
The balance of the historical evidence of the first three and a
half centuries is thus distinctly against St. James having been the
author of this Epistle. If we had external evidence alone to go
upon we should assuredly be compelled to follow what seems to
have been the opinion of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome; that is to
say that, while on the whole regarding the Epistle as canonical, it
is difficult to believe that St. James can have been the author.
If the Epistle was written by St. James, it is almost universally
granted that it must have been the St. James who presided at the
council of Jerusalem—‘‘ James the Lord’s brother”—who was the
author (see § 2 below), the claims of any other of this name being
too inconsiderable to be seriously thought of; but in this case it
is difficult to account for the fact that doubt was thrown upon the
canonicity of the Epistle for so long, and still more difficult is it to
account for the fact that the name of St. James was not connected
with it from the beginning. The position of authority which the
Apostle held in the early Church (Acts xii. 17; Gal. i. 18, 19), the
important fact of his having already inspired an Epistle (Acts xv.
19, 20), and the traditions concerning him in later times (see
Josephus, Antig. xx. ix. 1; Eusebius, H.E. II. 23), all lead to the
supposition that if the Epistle had really been written by him
it would have been accepted as genuine and canonical from the
first, in which case the doubtful expressions of Origen, Eusebius,
and Jerome, and the adverse testimony of the Old Syriac Version
and the Muratorian Pragment would have been impossible.
On the other hand, it must be allowed that there are strong
a priori arguments in favour of St. James’ authorship. The position
held by him in the early Church compels one to expect writings from
him ; the head of the mother-Church of Christendom would, of all
people, be the most obvious one from whom one would look for
communications of one kind or another to daughter-churches. Still
more within the natural order of things would be an Epistle of a
general character—something in the form of an encyclical—addressed
not to any particular local Church, but to the whole body of believers ;
the fact that this one is addressed to the Dispersion only strengthens
the argument, because, in the earliest days, the nucleus of the
1Jt was also accepted by the somewhat earlier but much less important Council of
Laodicea, about 363 A.D.
390 INTRODUCTION
Christian congregations was formed by those who were Jews by race.
Secondly, there is the analogy of the Epistle inspired by him at the
Council of Jerusalem , this fact proves that the Apostle recognised
it to be within his province to inspire—if nothing more—communica-
tions to distant Churches, this particular epistle was addressed to
Gentiles, whose conversion lay more particularly within the province
of St. Paul, the more reason, therefore, that Jewish converts should
also be written to by the head of the Church of Jerusalem, the city
which these had always looked upon as their ‘‘ Mother ’’. And then,
thirdly, although, as we have already seen, the early patristic evidence
is not in favour of St. James’ authorship, we are bound to recognise
the fact that there was a tradition as early as the beginning of the
third century which brought the name of St. James into connexion
with this Epistle.
It is fully realised—and the point needs emphasis—that weighty
arguments can be adduced against both sets of considerations men-
tioned above; it is just the most perplexing thing regarding this
Epistle that whether an early or a late date be contended for, whether
the authorship of St. James be insisted on, or that of some other,
unknown, writer, no conclusive argument can be put forth on either
side ; nothing has yet been said on either side which has forced con-
viction on the other. It must be allowed, further, that the objections
raised against the contentions on either side are, in almost every
instance, strong, and are not to be brushed aside offhand. Con-
siderations of space forbid even an enumeration of the many argu-
ments which are urged on either side, recourse must be had to the
more comprehensive Commentaries for this; but the fact is certainly
noteworthy that, no matter how strong the arguments put forth on
either side, valid objections can be urged against one and all; either
position taken up seems so strong from one point of view, and is yet
so weakened from another point of view. The one positive conclu-
sion to be drawn from this seems to be the paradoxical one that both
are right ; that is to say, that an Epistle, which is embodied in our
present one, was originally written by St. James, and that to it were
added subsequently other elements. This is a procedure which could
be paralleled by other examples, spurious additions made to authen-
tic documents, in perfect good faith, being not unknown—e.g., the
Longer Ending of St. Mark’s Gospel. Proof for this contention is as
little forthcoming as for the various other theories that have been
suggested, but it would at least account for the conflicting evidence
of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome; and when we come to deal with
the internal evidence of the Epistle, it will be seen to account for
INTRODUCTION 391
more than one perplexing feature. It is at best a faute de mieux and,
for the present, does not profess to be anything more.
§ 2. Internal Data.—The writer of the Epistle calls himself James,
and in addressing the “ twelve tribes of the Dispersion ” shows him-
self to have been a man of more than ordinary authority. According
to the evidence of the New Testament, there was only one James
who occupied a position of authority such as is implied in this
Epistle, namely, ‘‘James, the Lord’s brother”; thus in Gal. i.
18, 19, St. Paul tells of how after the three years’ retirement
which followed after his conversion, he went and saw St. Peter
and ‘‘James the Lord’s brother”; in Acts xii. 17 we read that
when St. Peter had been released from prison he said to his friends:
“Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren” ; again, in
Gal. ii. 9 St. Paul recounts the action of ‘‘ James, and Cephas,
and John, who were reputed to be pillars,” and who, on seeing that
grace had been given to him, offered to him and Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship, ‘‘that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they
?
unto the circumcision’; and further, in the same passage, ver. 12,
the mention of certain men ‘‘ who came from James” marks him out
asaleader. Then, and perhaps most important of all, there is the
account in Acts xv. 4-29 of the council at Jerusalem, at which the
leading part is taken by St. James.1 Once more, in Acts xxi. 18 the
position of importance which St. James occupied is again clearly
seen in that when St. Paul and his companions had returned to
Jerusalem after their missionary journey they were first received,
apparently informally, by the brethren, and then on the following
day ‘‘they went unto James, and all the elders were present’’ ; these
words plainly imply something in the nature of an official, formal
reception. Lastly, in 1 Cor. xv. 7, St. Paul speaks of the special
appearance of our Lord after His resurrection to St. James. It is
certainly worth particular notice that among these references to St.
James the most important are supplied directly or indirectly by St.
Paul ; this fact should of itself be sufficient to show the improbability
of any conscious antagonism between the teaching on the subject of
faith and works as contained respectively in the Pauline Epistles
and that of St. James—assuming the latter to be authentic, At all
events, the leading position held by St. James which these passages
reveal, makes it in the highest degree probable that the James men-
tioned in the opening verse of our Epistle is to be identified with
‘*¢ James the Lord’s brother ”’.
Note how his very words in Acts xv. 20 are incorporated in the letter which he
sent (verse 29).
302 INTRODUCTION
The next point in the internal evidence to emphasise is the simi-
larity to be observed between the letter inspired by St. James,
together with his speech, at the council of Jerusalem, and certain
parts of the Epistle which bears his name. The most important of
these are as follows :—
(i.) The salutation, χαίρειν, Acts xv. 23, Jas. i. 1; this form is
found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts xxiii. 26.
(ii.) The words, τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, in Jas. 11. 7,
which can only be paralleled in the New Testament by those in Acts
xv. 17: ἐφ᾽ ods ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομα pou ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς.
(iii.) The occurrence of the word ὄνομα in a specially pregnant
sense, Jas. ii. 7, v. 10, 14, and Acts xv. 14, 26; this is not used else-
where in the New Testament in quite the same sense.
(iv.) The pointed allusions to the Old Testament, which are
characteristic of St. James’ speech, viz., Acts xv. 14, 16-18, 21,
also play an important part in the Epistle, or at least in certain parts
of it.
(v.) The affectionate term ἀδελφός, which occurs so often in the
Epistle (1 2, 9. 16. 19... 5, 101: περ 13 vets v7.9, 10,1219), 18
also found in Acts xv. 13, 23; especially noticeable is the verbal
identity between Jas. ii. 5, ἀκούσατε ἀδελφοί pou, and Acts xv. 13,
ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ ἀκούσατέ pou.
(vi.) Other verbal coincidences are: ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, Jas. i. 27, Acts
xv. 14; τηρεῖν and διατηρεῖν, Jas. i. 27, Acts xv. 29; ἐπιστρέφειν, Jas.
v. 19, 20, Acts xv. 19; ἀγαπητός, Jas. i. 16, 19, 11. 6, Acts xv. 25. In
some of these cases too much stress must not be laid upon the
similarities ; but it is certainly striking that in the rather restricted
scope which the short passage in Acts offers there should, neverthe-
less, be so many points of similarity with portions of the Epistle. The
fact almost compels us to recognise the same mind at work in each,
though this does not necessarily apply to the whole of the Epistle
ascribed to St. James.
Further internal evidence as to authorship is afforded by indica-
tions which point to the writer as having been a Jew. And the first
point that strikes one here is the copious use of the O.T. which is
characteristic of the writer. There are, it is true, only five direct
verbal quotations, viz.,i. 11 from Isa. xl. 7; ii. 8 from Lev. xix. 18;
ii. 11 from Exod. xx. 13.14; ii. 23 from Gen. xv. 6; iv. 6 from Prov.
iii. 34; but the atmosphere of the O.T. is a constituent element of
the Epistle ; for over and above the O.T. events which are mentioned,
there is an abundance of clear references to it, which shows that
the mind of the writer was saturated with the spirit of the ancient
INTRODUCTION 393
Scriptures. Some of the most obvious of these references are the
following: i. 10, see Ps. cii. 4-11; ii. 21, see Gen. xxii. 9-12; ii, 23,
see Isa. xli. 8, 2 Chron. xx. 7; ii. 25, see Josh. ii. 1 ff.; iii, 6, see
Prov. xvi. 27; iii. 9, see Gen. 1. 26; iv. 6, see Job xxii, 29; v. 2,
see Job xiii. 28; v. 11, see Job 1. 21-22, ii. 10; v. 17-18, see 1 Kings
xvii. 1, xviii. 41-45. Further, there is the use of the specifically
Israelite name for God, “Jehovah Sabaoth” (v. 4), and the refer-
ences to Law (Torah) in 11. 8-12, iv. 11; this use of νόμος, 1.6.,
without the article, is in accordance with the extended use of the
word Torah among the Jews, meaning as it does, not only the Law
given on Mount Sinai, not only the whole of the Pentateuch, but
also the entire body of religious precepts in general (see especially ii,
12, where right speaking and acting in general are included under
proper Torah-observance). The reference to yéewva in iii, 6, is also
a distinct mark of Jewish authorship; and the way in which the
prophets are spoken of in v. 10 points in the same direction, It is
to be observed that the use of the O.T. is wide, all three of the
great divisions of the Jewish Canon—Law, Prophets, and Writings—
being represented.
But what speaks still more for Jewish authorship is the accumu-
lation of many small points indicative of Hebrew methods of thought,
expression, and phraseology ; examples of this abound in the Epistle,
indeed its ‘“ Hebraic” colouring is one of its most pronounced
characteristics. While it will not be necessary to give exhaustive
lists, some examples of the different categories of the small points
just referred to must be offered.
(i.) There are a number of instances in which the Greek is
reminiscent of Hebrew phraseology; it is not meant by this to imply
that a Hebrew text was the original form of such passages and
phrases, but only that the Greek form of the expression of thought
seems to be moulded from a Hebrew pattern, 1.6., that the mind of
the writer was accustomed to express itself after the manner of one
to whom Hebrew ways of thinking were very familiar, and who in
writing Greek, therefore, almost unconsciously reverted to the
Hebrew mode. The point of what has been said will perhaps
be best realised when it is seen how naturally, in a number of
instances, a Hebrew equivalent of the Greek suggests itself, e.¢.;
ii, 7 . . . τὸ καλὸν 6 opa τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, it will be seen
that the Hebrew equivalent of this sounds more natural ;
ody sy) TW DWT ΟΡ 1 ii, 18... a τ
σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην, although there is no fault to find with
the Greek, a Hebrew equivalent suggests itself almost spontaneously :
394 INTRODUCTION
nbwn ‘oy yn" pidwin . . . ; the same may be said of the
following: 1.12, . . . τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, OVTTIT MY 1.19...
βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, piyad ΓΙ. Στὸ τ;
ii. 12, οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε, ἽΝ) ᾿Ξ ἸΏ; ii. 28, ἐλογίσθη
αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, aot sb-avinn : ili. 18, καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης,
TYPIST IND: iv. 10, ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον Κυρίου, TT spd sbpuin:
iv. 13, dye viv ot λέγοντες... , v. 1, dye νῦν ot πλούσιοι, for this
mode of address cf. Am. vi. 1, rea DINWI NWI; v. 3 ὁ ἰὸς
αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται, nis 93 onxdn ΓΙ τον 8;
στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, oad INOS; v. 10, 14, ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου,
mim ΟΞ; v. 17, προσηύξατο τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, VOD NT snbab ess
It is not suggested that in these, as well as in a number of other
cases, the Greek is a translation from the Hebrew; but it will not
be denied that the form of the Greek does suggest the Hebrew
idiom, and therefore that the writer was a Jew.!
(ii.) Secondly, the well-known predilection for assonance on the
part of Hebrew writers appears in this Epistle, and is further
illustrative of the “* Hebraic” colouring of it ; this is noticeable both
in the repetition of the same words or roots, as well as in the tendency
to alliteration ; so marked a feature of the Epistle is this that it is
met with in almost every verse, and therefore only a few examples
need be given: i. 4, ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι. i. 13;
μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ TetpadLopar: ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς
ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν. i, 19, ... βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι
βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. iii, 6, καὶ φλογίζουσα τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως
καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. ili. 7, πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις...
δαμάζεται. . . τῇ φύσει. iii, 18,. .. ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποι-
οὖσιν εἰρήνην ἰν. 8, ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐγγίσει ὑμῖν. iv.
11. μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων ἀδελφοί: ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ
ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει
νόμον: εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου ἀλλὰ
κριτής ... Ve 7-8, μακροθυμήσατε οὖν ἀδελφοί
1 We are not forgetting Deissmann’s very true words: “ὟΝ 8 have come to recog-
nise that we had greatly over-estimated the number of Hebraisms and Aramaisms in
the Bible. Many features that are non-Attic and bear some resemblance to the
Semitic and were therefore regarded as Semiticisms, belong really to the great class
of international vulgarisms, and are found in vulgar papyri and inscriptions as well
as in the Bible” (The Philology of the Greek Bible, pp. 62 f., 1908); but it is not the
language so much as the mode of thought, which, when expressed in Hebrew, is so
often reminiscent of O. T. phraseology, to which we refer.
INTRODUCTION 395
μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἕως λάβῃ πρόϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον. μακροθυμήσατε
καὶ ὑμεῖς... The following are some good instances of alliteration:
i. 2, πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις. iii, 5
μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶν καὶ μεγάλα αὐχεῖ. iii. 8, τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς
δαμάσαι δύναται. iv. 8, καθαρίσατε χεῖρας... ἁγνίσατε καρδίας. How
thoroughly in the Hebrew fashion this repetition of words and
alliterative tendency is may be seen by observing a few examples,
taken quite at random, from the O.T., ¢.g., Am. vi. 7, 13; Isa. ix. 5;
Nah. i. 2; Ps. cxix. 13, cxxii. 6, etc., etc.
(iii.) Instances of pleonastic phraseology in the Epistle must also
be regarded as witnessing to Jewish authorship ; among such are the
following: 1.8, ἀν ἢ ρ δίψυχος, corresponding to the Hebrew WN;
the same is seen in i, 12, μακάριος ἀνὴρ ds... Cf. Ps. i 1,
TWN WNT WN ; i. 19, ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος : i. 7, μὴ yap οἰέσθω
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. .. ; 1. 28, οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι.. -;
11. 2, ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος. Suggestive of Hebrew phraseology, again
are such passages as ili, 7, τῶν ἵππων τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα
βάλλομεν εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν ; iv. 2, οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ
τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς. Reminiscent of Hebrew thought are
also the words in i. 15, ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν ; for the
similar idea see Ps. vii. 14, Behold he travaileth with iniquity, yea
he hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood ; so, too,
the words in 11. 7, βλασφημοῦσιν τὸ ὄνομα. .. ; here, moreover, the
omission of the preposition should be noticed; then also, in v. 7, the
familiar πρόϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον (cf. Jer. v., 24, Bipoay mW Οὐδ)» and
in v. 17, the regular Hebraism προσευχῇ προσηύξατο Sann ban):
(iv.) The Hebraic character of the Epistle is further illustrated
by a certain terse and forcible way of putting things, reminding one
often of the prophetic style, e¢.g., ii. 3, Sit thou here in a good place,
and in the same verse, Stand thou there; iv. 2 ff., Ye lust and
have not ; ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain ; ye fight and war ;
ye have not because ye ask not. ... Ye adulteresses, know ye not
that the friendship of the world ts enmity against God? iv. 7, Be
subject, therefore, unto God ; but resist the devil. ν. 1, Go to now,
ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon
you. Then, again, the way in which vivid pictures are presented in
few but pregnant words is also illustrative of the same prophetic
style, e.g., in i, 6, the picture of the man who doubts; in ii. 2, of
the rich man and the poor man entering the synagogue; and in v.
4, of the defrauded labourers. Under this heading must also be
mentioned the distinctive way in which the writer of the Epistle
396 INTRODUCTION
frames many of his sentences ; generally speaking they are short and
simple, which points, perhaps, to a natural habit of forming them
on the Hebrew or Aramaic pattern; indirect statement is never
expressed by the infinitive, but only by ὅτι with the indicative; the
simple structure: will be seen from the following instances: i. 3,
γινώσκοντες ὅτι. . . κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν. i. 7, μὴ yap οἰέσθω. ..
ὅτι λήμψεται . . - li. 20, θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι... ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν
ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν ; ii. 24, ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνδρωπος. ii. 19,
σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς θεός ἐστιν. ii, 22, βλέπεις ὅτι ἣ πίστις συνήργει. -.
iil., 1, . . . εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα. iv. 5, δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς
ἡ γραφὴ λέγει. . . 5 ν. ll, . . εἴδετε ὅτι πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὁ Κύριος.
This fact of there being no subordination of sentences, but only co-
ordination is very suggestive of the simple Hebrew construction of
sentences. Mention should also be made of the entire absence of
the optative mood in the Epistle. On the other hand, we have in-
stances of the prophetic perfect, in v. 2, σέσηπεν and γέγονεν, in v. 3,
κατίωται : and also of the gnomic aorist, ¢.g., 1. 2, ἀνέτειλεν, where the
Hebrew idiom is imitated, see Isa. xl., 7, .. Aas bay ὙΠ wa,
Further, the extended use of the word ποιεῖν is extremely sug-
gestive of Hebrew usage, ¢.g., ii. 13, ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ μὴ
ποιήσαντι ἔλεος, the phrase sounds more natural in Hebrew: ...
Son mynd rwind; i. 22, γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου, Hebrew:
ἜΣΤΙ WY VT, of. i. 25; ii, 8, καλῶς ποιεῖτε, Hebrew: ΓΟ Ὁ
JANN, cf ii, 19; iii, 12, μὴ δύναται συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, Hebrew:
om mys maxsno yy Sovn; iii, 18, τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην
Hebrew: ody ‘wy: iv. 13, . . . καὶ ποιήσομεν exer ἐνιαυτὸν. . ..
Hebrew: MW OW πὴ... And, once more, the extended use
of διδόναι in v. 18, is also in accordance with the Hebrew idiom.
Lastly, there are a few other minor points which seem to betray
greater familiarity with Hebrew than with Greek idiom; among
these are; the use of the genitive of quality, e.g., 1. 15, ἀκροατὴς
ἐπιλησμονῆς, ii. 4, κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ili. 6, κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
(See Vorst, Hebr. . . . pp. 244 ff.); the lax use of number, e.g., ii.
15, ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν... ; fii. 14, εἰ ἐριθίαν ἔχετε
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν... ; iii, 10, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία
καὶ κατάρα; the use of the article is inconsistent; and the disregard of
cases 15, in some instances, irregular, é.g., iii. 9, καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
(acc, instead of dat.), v. 6, κατεδικάσατε τὸν δίκαιον (acc. instead of
gen.) cf. Mayor in loc. While allowing due weight to “ international
vulgarisms,”’ one cannot help feeling that many of these features
INTRODUCTION 397
point to a Jewish atmosphere of thought, and a Jewish mode of
expression.
From all that has been said, therefore, it must be clear that the
author of our Epistle was a Jew; as far as it goes, this evidence is in
the direction of favouring the authorship of St. James; though it is, of
course, far from being in any sense conclusive. But while the internal
evidence, so far, speaks distinctly in favour of St. James being the
writer of the Epistle, there are some other weighty considerations
which point in the opposite direction. Firstly, one might reasonably
have expected in an Epistle written by St. James that the fact of his
having been the brother of the Lord would have been specially men-
tioned ; this, one might think, would have been insisted on for its own
sake, quite apart from the authority and prestige which the mention
of it would have conferred upon the writer. Though the fact would
have been well known in his immediate surroundings, or even through-
out Palestine, and would therefore not have necessitated mention in
an Epistle addressed to Palestinian congregations, it was different
when, as in the present case, the scattered churches of the Dispersion
were being written to; the more authoritative the name of the person
who addressed them, the more effective would be the influence of the
Epistle uponthem. The occurrence of the Lord’s name in the open-
ing verse of the Epistle—‘‘a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ ”—offered a natural and obvious opportunity for the mention
of the writer’s close tie to Him. In reply to this it may well be said
that after the resurrection of Christ, and the consequent proclama-
tion of His Divinity to all the world, there would be a natural and
very seemly hesitation, on the part of those who were His relations
after the flesh, to assert this tie; but this argument is to some
extent weakened by the words in John xix. 25-27, which were
written later than our Epistle (on the assumption of St. James
authorship): ‘‘ But there were standing by the Cross of Jesus His
mother and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and
Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and
the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother
”; if St. John could record thus distinctly the relationship
between our Lord and the Blessed Virgin so long after, there does
not seem sufficient reason why St. James should not have referred
to his own relationship with our Lord. Apart, however, from the
non-mention of this relationship, one might, at any rate, have expected
a reference to apostleship in the opening verse of the Epistle ; for
that St. James was regarded as an apostle in the early Church is
clear from 1 Cor. xv. 7, Acts xv. 22, Gal. ii. 8, 9. A second reason
398 INTRODUCTION
for questioning the authorship of St. James is the absence of any
references to the great outstanding events connected with our Lord’s
Person—His manner of life on earth, His sufferings and death, His
resurrection and ascension. There are special reasons for expecting
to find such references in this Epistle—assuming it to have been
written by St. James. It is almost impossible to believe that one
who had known Christ, and had been an eye-witness of His doings
and a hearer of His teaching, should maintain such absolute silence
on these things when addressing a letter to fellow-believers which
touches otherwise on such a large variety of subjects. lf there was
one thing of paramount importance in the early days of Christianity
it was that the fact of Christ’s resurrection should be proclaimed ;
one has but to remember how often reference is made to this in the
Acts—about twenty-five times—how it is mentioned or implied in all
the Pauline Epistles, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as in
I Peter and 1 and 2 John, to realise the conviction and practice of
the other apostles in this; and yet St. James, to whom had been
vouchsafed a special manifestation of the risen Lord, can write an
Epistle to Jewish-Christians who were scattered abroad without the
slightest reference, implicit or explicit, to this cardinal tenet of the
faith! The fact of the Epistle being addressed to the Dispersion
makes this omission all the more strange; for on the assumption
that St. James wrote it, z.e., that it was probably the earliest in date
of all the books of the New Testament, there must have been many
among those addressed who would require strengthening in their
belief, or who would possibly have heard of the resurrection for the
first time from a “ pillar” of the Church, supposing it had been men-
tioned ; and, therefore, one might reasonably have expected to have
found it occupying a central position in the Epistle. It is fully
realised that to argue from omissions is not always safe ; it is, how-
ever, impossible not to be struck by the omissions referred to if the
Epistle was written by St. James. On the assumption of a late date,
at all events for the bulk of the Epistle, when the main tenets of the
faith, such as the resurrection, were regarded as “ first principles ”’
and were meant rather for ‘“ babes ”’ in faith (cf. Heb. vi. 1 and con-
text), these omissions would not cause surprise; but they would be
very difficult to account for on the assumption of St. James’ author-
ship, which would imply a date prior to c. 63 a.p. for its composi-
tion. In reply to this it may well be urged that in Acts xv. we have
an instance of an Epistle written in the earliest ages of Christianity
in which no references to the cardinal tenets of the faith are found ;
but in an Epistle like this (Acts xv. 23 ff.), written for one specific
INTRODUCTION 399
purpose, and therefore of small scope, such references cannot well
be expected. The possibility is conceivable that a similar letter,
though addressed to a different class of hearers, may have constituted
the original form of the Epistle that now bears the name of St.
James; in this case the absence of the references spoken of above
would be quite comprehensible.
Another omission which is likewise difficult to account for on the
assumption of the authorship of St. James, is that of any direct refer-
ence to Christ as the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy. ForaJew
writing to Jewish-Christians in the earliest ages of Christianity such
an omission is incomprehensible. The insistence on the Messiahship
of our Lord would be the first step in the propagation of the faith
among Jews; and if an Epistle of this length and comprehensive
character in the subjects touched upon had been written by St.
James he could scarcely have omitted some reference, though but a
passing one, to the Messiah Whom he had seen and known. The
question as to whether our Lord was the promised Messiah or not
was one which was naturally surging in the minds of Jews in those
early days ; the question, “ Art Thou He that should come ?”’ per-
plexed the minds of many others long after the time of the Baptist ;
for Jews it was all-important, for everything depended upon it. The
fact, therefore, that the Messiahship of Jesus is taken for granted in
the Epistle (see i. 1, ii. 1) proves that these Jews of the Dispersion
regarded this truth as axiomatic ; and this would be almost impossible
to understand among Jews of the Dispersion in the earliest ages
of Christianity, if the conditions of the time are taken into considera.
tion; the only way whereby this could be brought within the bounds
of probability would be to restrict the meaning of Dispersion, but
this would be arbitrary and without justification, seeing that in our
Epistle the word is used without qualification, and, therefore, evi-
dently intended to mean what was ordinarily understood by it.
A further objection urged against the authorship of St. James is the
improbability of one in such a humble walk in life as a Galilzan peas-
ant, the son of Mary and Joseph, being able to pen an Epistle of this
kindin Greek. The writer of the Epistle displays a considerable know-
ledge of the Greek Wisdom literature, of various N.T. books, and of
other Greek writings. It may be said in reply that opportunities for
learning Greek were not wanting in Palestine, and the fact of
humble birth was certainly no hindrance to the acquiring of know-
ledge among the Jews. But in a case like this, in which proof either
for or against is not forthcoming, one must to a large extent be
guided by a balance of probabilities. As far as our knowledge goes
400 INTRODUCTION
there was really nothing to induce St. James to learn Greek; there
is no evidence for supposing that he extended his evangelistic efforts
beyond the confines of Palestine; on the contrary, the evidence is
in the other direction; as overseer of the Church in Jerusalem his
activity must have been almost, if not altogether, exercised among
those of his own race. Moreover, it is certain that the Palestinian
Jewish teachers altogether discouraged everything that tended to the
spread and influence of the Greek spirit, for they rightly (from their
point of view) regarded it as a menace to orthodox Judaism (see
Bergmann, fFiidische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,
p. 80, etc.); and for a Jew to go to heathen assemblies to learn
was, to say the least, improbable in Palestine. As an apostle of the
circumcision (Gal. ii. 9) in Palestine the various dialects of the
Palestinian vernacular were amply sufficient for St. James’ purposes.
It must also be confessed that, even granting that St. James knew
Greek, the large acquaintance with some of the Pauline Epistles
which the writer of our Epistle shows is against the authorship of
St. James; for how was St. James to gain such an intimate know-
ledge of these without having them before him? It is certain that
in those early days there were not many copies of them, and what-
ever copies there were would be needed outside of Palestine rather
than inside; nor is it quite clear why St. James should have required
them at all. These Epistles must have been treasured by the
Churches addressed as their special possession; copies of them are
not likely to have been circulated generally until they had become
authoritative documents in the Church at large, and this can
scarcely have been the case until close upon the end of the first
century at the earliest. The two Epistles that come into considera-
tion are Romans, written from Corinth in c. 58 a.p., and Galatians,
probably slightly earlier, perhaps from Antioch (or Ephesus ?) ;
these are the earliest dates that can be assigned to them, acd as
St. James was martyred probably in 63 a.p., there certainly does
not appear to have been sufficient time for them to have reached
that stage of importance in the eyes of Christians generally for
copies to have been circulated outside of the particular congrega-
tions addressed. This argument does not appeal, of course, to those
who hold that St. Paul was indebted to St. James’ Epistle. On
the other hand, the analogy of the letter inspired by St. James in
Acts xv. suggests the possibility that something of the same kind
may have been repeated; but in this case we should look for some-
thing more homogeneous than the Epistle (in its entirety) which at
present bears his name,
INTRODUCTION 401
Turning now more specifically to the question of date, we have,
firstly, the entire absence of any reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem. This can either imply that the Epistle was written some
time before that event, or else some considerable time after. It is
an argument which is conclusive neither for an early nor for a late
date, and can only be used to emphasise the correctness of a result,
concerning the date, reached on other grounds. There is, however,
one consideration which suggests (though it certainly cannot be said
to amount to proof) an early date; the words in v. 7-9, especially
“stablish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand,” are,
in view of such a passage as Mark xiii. 14-37—-see especially verses
28 ff.—more natural from one who was writing before the Fall of
Jerusalem. Again, the silence in our Epistle regarding the great
controversy on the question of the admission of Gentiles into the
Church may well be used as an argument in favour of an early date,
though it may also imply the opposite. Silence on this subject,
which clearly agitated the Church to such an extent as to shake the
very pillars (cf. Gal. 1i 11 ff.) can only be satisfactorily explained on
one of two hypotheses ; either the Epistle was written before this
controversy arose, or else it was not written until so long after that
there was no occasion to refer to it. It is, therefore, an argument
which can be used both in favour of an early and a late date, and is
thus, like that just referred to, inconclusive. But see further on this
below. In the next place, the data to be gathered from the Epistle
as to the order and constitution of the Church are important in
seeking to fix an approximate date. The meeting-place for worship
of the Jewish-Christians to whom the Epistle is addressed is called
the “‘Synagogue’’; from this it has been argued that the Epistle
was written at a time when Christian and Jewish places of worship
had not yet become differentiated ; if, it is said, the Epistle had been
written, say, during the first half of the second century, such place
of meeting would have been termed ἐκκλησία. In reply to this, how-
ever, it can be urged that συναγωγή is used of a distinctively Chris-
tian assembly, ¢.g., by Hermas in Mand., xi. 9. Again, in iii. 1
mention is made of “many teachers,” and in v. 14 of the “elders
(or presbyters) of the Church” (τῆς ἐκκλησίας) ; that no reference is
made to “bishops” or ‘‘ deacons” points to an undeveloped consti-
tution of the Church, and therefore to an early date for the Epistle ;
moreover, the expression ‘“‘many teachers” may imply a time when
regular church officers for this purpose had not yet been ordained.
But, on the other hand, it can be argued that the existence of
“elders of the Church” does point to an organised system, and that
VOL, IV. 26
402 INTRODUCTION
the ‘‘many teachers” is better understood at a time when the
number of Christians had greatly increased. Here, again, the argu-
ment on either side is inconclusive. Once more, the condition of the
Churches to which the Epistle is addressed has not unnaturally been
pointed to as not suggestive of the very early years of Christianity ;
the earnestness and zeal which one might expect in those of the
first generation of Christians is conspicuously lacking among those
addressed ; the impression gained as to the characteristics of these
is disappointing—the unbridled tongue, worldliness, quarrelling,
jealousy, a mercenary spirit, despising of the poor, flattering the rich,
lust, and an entire absence of the wisdom that is from above, with
the virtues which this brings in its train. This argument is extremely
well answered by Mayor (pp. cxxviii. ff.), who gives a number of
examples showing that a similar state of morals was exhibited in
other newly-formed Christian communities ; but his answer is not
conclusive, for some of the examples cited—Ananias and Sapphira,
Simon—are so obviously exceptional ; others, such as the murmuring
of Hellenistic Jews against the Hebrews because their widows were
neglected in the daily ministration, and the jealousy between Jews
and Gentiles mentioned in Acts xv., and the case of those who had
not heard ‘‘whether there be any Holy Ghost,” are not, strictly
speaking, analogous. Moreover, a difference must be made between
recently converted Jews and those among the Gentiles who became
Christians; among the former there had always been a previous
training in moral discipline, which was not the case with the
Gentiles ; the characteristics, therefore, alluded to above, which are
spoken of in reference to Jewish-Christians sound stranger than if
Gentile-Christians were in question. If, on the other hand, the
Epistle—or those parts of it which come into consideration in this
connection—was written after Christianity had been established for
two or three generations, the conditions described would be more
comprehensible.
The conditions just referred to must, in part, have been the cause
of the predominantly ethical character of the Epistle ; morals rather
than religion sound the dominant note, and for an Epistle like this
to have been written during the Apostolic age, when religious fervour
was So pronounced, is certainly a little difficult of explanation. The
attempts to solve this problem which have been made only bring into
relief the incongruousness of the need of such a tone in an Epistle
written in the middle (or shorty after the middle) of the first century ;
for it differs utterly in this respect from other Apostolic writings. It
is, of course, true to say that “no Apostolic writing fails to exhibit
INTRODUCTION 403
the moral interest as the consistent aim of all doctrine and instruc-
tion ; the appeal for conduct corresponding to the new teaching is
the regular conclusion of all doctrinal exposition ”’ ;1 but the Apostles,
as the same writer truly observes, always start from ‘“ the new reve-
lation of the nature of man’s dependence on God and God’s work in
man, which was contained in the Life, the Death, the Resurrection
of the Lord Jesus,” ? and this is just what is left aside—or perhaps,
more correctly, taken for granted—in our Epistle; but in an Apos-
tolic writing we legitimately look for the foundation-truths to be at
least as prominent as the ethical standard which is based upon them.
The argument based on this fact speaks for a late date. Next, a
subject already dealt with, namely, the ¥udaic tone of the Epistle, is
sometimes put forward in favour of an early date; but this charac-
teristic could be used in support of any date from 200 B.c.-200 a.p.,
to give the narrowest margin ; the argument, therefore, is wholly
inconclusive. More to the point is that based upon the mention
of the Diaspora. For the “twelve tribes of the Dispersion” to be
addressed presupposes a widely-spread Christianity, such as would
require many years to permit it to have developed itself, so that the
use of the phrase in reference to Jewish-Christians almost compels
one to postulate a late date for the bulk of the Epistle. The only
reply forthcoming to refute this contention is to restrict the meaning
of the term “ Dispersion”; but, as already pointed out above, the
Epistle gives us no authority for this, and what the Jews meant by
the twelve tribes of the Dispersion is so well known that this reply
ought scarcely to be considered. Then, on the other hand, the absence
of all reference to the Temple and its worship has been used as an argu-
ment that the Temple no more existed, and that therefore the Epistle
must at any rate be later than the year 70a.p. This argument, how-
ever, seems quite inconclusive, for, unless for some specific purpose,
why should it be mentioned in an Epistle to Jewish-Christians ?
Finally, it is worth inquiring whether the silence of the Epistle
concerning the two great distinctive marks of Judaism—viz., Circum-
cision and the Sabbath—throws any light upon the question of date.
The opinion had been directly expressed by St. James that circum-
cision was unnecessary for Gentile-Christians (Acts xv. 19, cf. xv. 5) ;
on the other hand, Jewish-Christians would, of course, have been
circumcised, in the first generation ; but there must have arisen at
an early stage the question as to whether the children of Jewish-
Christians should be circumcised or not; it can hardly be doubted
1 Parry, A Discussion of the General Epistle of St. ames, p. 93.
2 Ibid.
404 INTRODUCTION
that the congregations in the Dispersion to whom our Epistle was
addressed comprised a certain number of Gentile- as well as Jewish-
Christians, and the latter must have known that the former were not
circumcised, neither they nor their children, and therefore the ques-
tion must have arisen as to which was the right course; it was a
subject with which St. Paul had had to deal (1 Cor. vii. 18); as soon
as the two classesof Christians began to associate, it must have become
necessary to have some uniformity in this matter; it concerned the
children more especially. On the assumption of an early date for
the Epistle one might almost have a right to expect some reference
to the question on account of its importance in the eyes of Jews,
whereas on the assumption of a late date, when the usage of non-cir-
cumcision had been in vogue for some time, the silence on the subject
would be natural. It is, perhaps, worth while pointing out that the
question was probably to some extent complicated by the fact that
baptism, as well as circumcision, was practised among the Jews, as
regards proselytes, both before and after the founding of Christianity ;
during the first centuries of Christianity it became a burning ques-
tion among the Rabbis whether circumcision without baptism was
sufficient; some maintained that baptism alone sufficed. These
were things concerning which the scattered congregations of the
Dispersion must, in these early years of the planting of the faith,
have needed guidance. As regards the Sabbath, some authoritative
expression of opinion would also seem to have been demanded if
the Epistle were of early date; those who had only comparatively
recently become Christians might be expected to have required some
guidance as to the observance of the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day;
even if both were observed, as was probably the case among the early
Jewish-Christians, questions as to the relative importance of each
can scarcely have been wanting when one remembers the punctilious-
ness in all that concerns observances which is so characteristic of the
Jew. The silence on these two subjects is, of course, inconclusive as
to date; all that can be said is that, assuming an early date for the
Epistle, some reference to them might reasonably be expected, while
if it were written about 125-130 a.p. this silence would be natural.
The net result, then, of these considerations as to authorship
and date appears to be as follows: A great deal is to be said in
favour of St. James’ authorship, and, therefore, in favour of an early
date ; at least as much is to be said in favour of a late date (say the
first or second quarter of the second century), and, therefore, against
the authorship of St. James. Against every argument adduced in
favour of either view serious objections can be urged ; but then these
INTRODUCTION 405
objections, again, can for the most part be upset by counter-arguments.
In view of such a perplexing state of affairs it is extremely difficult,
perhaps impossible, to reach a satisfactory conclusion ; one thing is
quite clear, and that is, that the advocates of either contention have
a great deal to urge in support of their position, and that, therefore,
dogmatic assertion regarding either is precarious, and belittling of
the adversaries’ arguments uncalled for. Any conclusion reached
must, for the present, be tentative; and, therefore, the view here
held is provisional—the view, that is to say, that the name of St.
James attaching to the Epistle is authentic, but that, in the first
instance, the Epistle was a great deal shorter than as we now possess
it; sections being added from time to time, probably excerpts from
other writings, or adaptations of these. Indeed, it is possible that
we have here something in the shape of text and commentary, the
latter being enlarged as time wenton. Ifone remembers how, on an
infinitely larger scale, of course, the comments of the words of Scrip-
ture by degrees became the Mishna, the comments on these the
Gemara, and how ultimately the ponderous mass known as the
Talmud came into being, the possibility of this intensely Jewish
Epistle having grown by a process of comments, which ultimately
came to be regarded as part of the Epistle itself, will be realised.
One or two tentative examples of the supposed process will be given
in III. on the analysis of the Epistle. This view does not profess to
be anything more than theory, it is probably incapable of proof ; but
it has, at least, the merit of justifying the position both of those
who advocate an early as well as those who believe in a late date for
the Epistle.
II, Lrrerary CHARACTERISTICS.—These have to a large extent
been already dealt with; but a brief reference to three other points
is demanded on account of their special importance.
(i.) One of the most striking features of the Epistle is the extended
acquaintance with the Wisdom literature which it exhibits. Many
instances of this will be found in the Commentary, here it must suffice
to indicate by references some of the more important and striking
examples ; the following passages should be compared together:
i. 5, Sir. i. 1, 26, Wisd. vi. 14, vii. 14, 15; i. 8, Sir. i. 28, ii. 12, v. 9:
i. 12, Wisd. v. 16; i. 18, Sir. xv. 11-15 (especially in the Hebrew
original), xv. 20; i. 19, Sir. v. 11 (the words ‘‘and let thy life be
sincere,” which are inserted by A.V., are found neither in the Hebrew
nor the Greek; their absence makes the agreement between the
words in Jas. and this passage closer), i, 29, iv. 29, v. 13; i. 27,
Sir. vii. 34-36, cf. iv. 10; ii. 6, Wisd. ii. 10 (in the Greek) ; iii. 2,
406 INTRODUCTION
Sir. xiv. 1, xix. 16, xxv. 8, xxxvii. 18; iii. 5, 6, Sir. v. 13, 14, viii. 3
xxviii. 11; iii. 8, Sir. xxviii. 16-18; iii. 10, Sir. xxviii. 12 (see also
context); iii. 18, 17, Wisd. vii. 22-24; wv. 4, Sir. iv. 1-6, xxxiv. 22;
¥. 7,.Sir. vi. 193 v.16, Sir. ty. 263: v.47, Sir. -xlvitt, 3:(¢7.. context):
These are very far from being exhaustive, and only two books of the
Wisdom literature have been referred to, whereas points of contact
are to be found in several others. This knowledge and sympathy
with the Wisdom literature suggest a Hellenistic rather than a Pales-
tinian Jew.
(ii.) A second literary characteristic, and one which is further
indicative of Hebraic colouring (see above), is to be found in the
large number of parallelisms which the Epistle contains. This well-
known Hebrew literary characteristic appears sometimes more clearly
than at others in the Epistle, but a few of the most obvious examples
are the following :—
1.9, 105, Let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate ;
And the rich in that he is made low.
ΓΝ ὑτὴ Then the lust, having conceived, beareth sin ;
And the sin, being full-grown, bringeth forth death.
1:17: Every good gift and every perfect boon is from above,
Coming down from the Father of lights,
With Whom can be no variation,
Nor shadow that is cast by turning.
i. 19,20. But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow
to wrath ;
For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of
God.
22: Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers ouxly,
Deluding your own selves,
iii. 11,12. Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening
sweet and bitter water ?
Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs ?
See, further, iv. 7, 10, v. 4,5, 9. This, too, is in the style of much of
the Wisdom literature, and reminds one often of the Book of Proverbs
especially.
(iii.) Lastly, one cannot fail to be struck by the number of words
—a large number when the shortness of the Epistle is considered—
which are either dm. λεγ. in the New Testament, or very rarely found,
outside the Epistle, in the Septuagint or New Testament; this de-
notes a knowledge of Greek literature and of the Greek language
generally, which is very noticeable ; attention is drawn to such words
INTRODUCTION 407
in the Commentary whenever they occur. For other literary char-
acteristics see I. § 2.
III. Anatysis of THE Epistte.—The vast majority of commen-
tators are agreed that no consistent scheme is presented in this
Epistle, but that it contains rather a number of unconnected sayings
which are for the most part independent of one another. The
analysis of the Epistle shows the correctness of this view in the
main.! In some cases it is possible that a thought-connection of a
secondary character exists which is not at once apparent; by a
thought-connection of a secondary character is meant, when in two
succeeding sections a subordinate, not the main, thought of the
earlier is taken up and dealt with in the later; an example may be
seen in the two sections i. 2-4,i.5-8; the main thought in the
former is the being joyful in temptations, the subject of patience is a
subordinate thought, and still more so, that of lacking in nothing ;
but it is this last which is taken up in the succeeding section and
attached to the thought of lacking in wisdom ; so that, although it is
perfectly true to say there is no genuine connection between these
two sections, yet there is a secondary connection. It is improbable
that the two sections come from the same writer, because they are
lacking in real mental sequence ; and yet a semblance of sequence is
apparent ; if both came from the same writer one would either expect
a genuine sequence of thought if the two were intended to be con-
nected, or else a clear indication of each being self-contained. As
they stand, it looks as though the former were a text, and the latter
a comment upon it, very much like the similar process which occurs
incessantly in the Mzshna.2_ The next section, i. 9-11, deals with the
subject of rich and poor; it stands in an isolated position here, but
is intimately connected with the later section, ii. 1-13. With i. 12-16
we have another instance of what looks like text and comment; the
subject is that of temptation, and comes most naturally after i. 4;
the text is contained in ver. 12, the following verses then comment on
the nature of temptation. This is an instructive instance illustrative
of the theory of the authorship of the Epistle here tentatively advo-
cated (see above) ; for on comparing the simple, straightforward char-
acter of ver. 12 with the intricate chain of thought in the two following
verses, it is almost impossible to postulate identity of authorship.
1 Parry’s attempt to show that the Epistle is ‘a very careful and logical exposition
of a single theme” (of. cit. p. 6) is ingenious, but much too artificial to carry convic-
tion.
? Catch-words, it would seem, played their part in the formation and grouping of
sections.
408 INTRODUCTION
i. 17 belongs to the preceding, possibly (see IV. § 1), and 1. 18 seems to
be a comment on the “ Father oflights’’. i. 195-20 forms an isolated
saying. A self-contained section on the subject of practical religion
follows in i. 21-25, to which vv. 26,27 form an addition. ii. 1-13
has already been referred to; it is followed by a section (ii. 14-26) of
deep interest on the subject of faith and works, to which iii. 13-18
belong, according to the subject-matter. iii. 1-12 is a self-contained
passage dealing with the subject of self-control as regards the tongue.
If these first three chapters show a want of homogeneity, the last two
do so in an even more pronounced way; the various sections are
clearly divided off, showing no connection with each other, the whole
forming a collection of extracts, apparently ; thus, iv. 1-10 contains
warnings and exhortations concerning the practical religious lile ;
iv. 11,12 is a short section on the need of observing the second great
commandment of the Law; iv. 13-17 lays stress on the uncertainty
and fleeting character of earthly life; v. 1-11 is an eschatological
section, and extremely practical ; v.12, which prohibits swearing, is
almost a quotation from the Sermon on the Mount; v. 13-18 gives
directions concerning the visitation of the sick; and the abrupt
ending v. 19, 20 speaks of the reward of those who convert sinners
from their evil ways.
It will thus be seen that the Epistle is for the most part a collec-
tion of independent sections ; some of these were evidently originally
intended to be comments on the Apostle’s words, possibly added by
one or more of the elders of the churches addressed for the benefit of
the members; others seem to be wholly independent, and not to have
had anything to do with the Epistle in the first instance. The various
elements of which the Epistle is now composed have to a large extent
become so intermingled that the attempt to differentiate between
them seems hopeless. But, generally speaking, we should look for
the simplest, most direct and straightforward parts as being those
which would be the most likely words of the Apostle ; so that such
parts as i. 13-16 and ii. 14-26 can hardly be regarded as from the
same hand as, ¢.g., ii. 1-13 (in the main).
IV. Some JewisH Doctrines ConsiDERED.—As is often men-
tioned in the notes, there are some points of Jewish theology which
figure rather prominently in this Epistle ; there are above all two
subjects, specifically Jewish, which play an important part, and there-
fore a brief consideration of these will not be out of place here :—
(i.) The Fewitsh doctrine of the Yetser hara‘.—Speculations as to
the origin of sin were rife among Jewish thinkers at all times ; the
perplexity which is so plainly apparent in the words of St. Paul
INTRODUCTION 409
(Rom. vii. 22-23), For I delight in the law of God after the inward
man ; but I see a different law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin
which is in my members, had been felt by many long before his day.
The origin of the existence of the “law of sin in the members,”
which asserted itself in spite of the ardent desire of men to be
free from its power, was the great problem which had to be solved.
The result was the theory, based upon the observed facts of
experience, that within man, as part of his created being, there
were two tendencies: the tendency towards good, Yetser ha-tob
(a7 72), and the tendency towards evil, Yetser hara‘ (yan 32).
But whence originated these two tendencies? If they both formed
part of man’s nature from the beginning, it followed that their
creation was due to God; there was, of course, no difficulty about
ascribing the creation of the good tendency to Him, but that He
should have created anything evil was obviously a difficulty. The
varying thoughts and speculations on the subject will perhaps best
be seen by giving a few illustrations as examples. In Sir. xv. 14, 15,
we have these interesting words, according to the Greek Version:
“Ἧς made man from the beginning, and left him in the power of his
will ” (ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ) ; ‘if thou willest, thou wilt observe
the commandments, and to exhibit faithfulness is a matter of thy
good pleasure” (καὶ πίστιν ποιῆσαι εὐδοκίας) ; the significance of these
words is only realised when they are read in the Hebrew, viz., ‘‘God
[this is the reading of the Syriac and Latin as well] created man
from the beginning; and He delivered him into the hand of him who
took him for a prey (prim); and He gave him over into the power
of his will (ΟΜ), here it is clear that the second clause is an
explanatory gloss (it is wanting in the Greek), the object being to
indicate that to be in the power of the Yetser (which is here clearly
used in reference to the evil tendency) is equivalent to being in the
power of Satan. This is important as showing that the evil tendency
is not ascribed to divine creation, but that over against the good
which God created in man there is an opposition of evil which is
due to the activity of Satan. This thought of opposing tendencies
is apparent elsewhere in the same book, ¢.g., xxxiii. 15: ‘Good is
set against evil, and life against death; so is the godly against the
sinner. So look upon all the works of the Most High; there are
two and two, one against another” (the Hebrew of these verses is
not extant); here the writer comes perilously near ascribing the
creation of evil to God; but in another passage the question is left
410 INTRODUCTION
open, xxxvii. 3: “ O evil tendency (Yy7 7), why wast thou made to
fill the earth with thy deceit?” It is, at all events, not directly
ascribed to God; these pathetic words remind one of those of St.
Paul in Rom. vii. 24. The same hesitation to assert that God
created evil is observable in a curious passage from the pseudepi-
graph called The Life of Adam and Eve (Apocalpyse of Moses),
§19;1 this describes the origin of evil, and tells of how in the
garden of Eden Satan took the form of an angel, but spoke “through
the mouth of the Serpent,” and aroused within Eve the desire to
eat of the fruit of the tree that stood in the middle of the garden;
first of all, however, we are told that he made her swear that she
would give of the fruit to Adam as well; then the text goes on:
‘“When he (i.e., the Serpent) had, then, made me swear, he came
and ascended up into it (1.6., the tree). But in the fruit which he
gave me to eat he placed the poison of his malice, namely, of his
lust ; for lust is the beginning of all sin. And he [other authorities
read “1 bent down the bough to the earth, then 1 took of the fruit
and ate.” Here the origin of evil in man is satisfactorily accounted
for; its existence in Satan is taken for granted, and no attempt is
made to follow it up further back. Noticeable here, too, is the way in
which lust is brought into connection with the origin of sin; this is
an idea which seems to have been widely prevalent in Jewish circles,
the lust of Satan towards Eve being describcd as the beginning of
sin in the world (See Sanhedrin, 59 b ; Sotah,9b; Febamoth, 103 ὃ ;
Abodah Zara, 22 b; Bereshith Rabba, c. 18, 19); so that it is very
interesting to read in our Epistle, after i, 13,14 (which will be
referred to presently), in which the impulse to sin in man is dealt
with, the words: “ ... when he is drawn away by his own lust,
and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin;
and the sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death”. This
thought of a relationship between sin and death is graphically
illustrated in the $erusalem Targum to Gen. iii. 6, where it is
said that at the moment in which Eve succumbed to temptation
she caught sight of Sammael, the angel of death. Other theories
as to the origin of sin were that it was brought into existence
by man, ¢.g., Enoch xcviii. 4, “Sin has not been sent upon the
earth, but man himself has created it,” this is the teaching, appar-
ently, in Jas. i. 14; in ch. Ixxxv. of the same book it is taught that
fallen angels were the originators of sin (cf. Bereshith Rabba,
c. 24; Yalkut Shim. Beresh., 42). None of these theories was,
1 The two works run parallel to a large extent.
INTRODUCTION 411
however, satisfactory; none really gave the answer to the problem
that was constantly presenting itself; if, for a moment, the con-
tention was put forth that man himself originated sin, a very
little thought showed that this, too, was untenable, for the very
nature of the “evil tendency” forbade the idea that man could
have created it. Therefore, at a very early period, comparatively
speaking, the teaching which afterwards became crystallised in
Rabbinical writings, must have been put forth,—the logical, if
dangerous, doctrine, that God, as the Creator of all things, must
have also created the Yetser hara‘, the “evil tendency”; thus in
Bereshith Rabba, c. 27, it is definitely stated that God created the
Yetser hara‘; in Yalkut Shim. Beresh., 44-47, the Almighty is made
to say: “1 grieve that I created man of earthly substance; for had I
created him of heavenly substance he would not have rebelled
against me”; again ibid. 61: “It repenteth me that I created the
Yetser hara‘ in man, for had I not done this he would not have rebelled
against me’’; and in Kiddushin, 30b, we read: “1 created an evil
tendency (Yetser ra‘). I created for him (i.e., for man, in order to
counteract this) the Law as a means of healing. If ye occupy
yourselves with the Law, ye will not fall into the power of it (ἐδὼ
the Yetser ra‘). Once more, according to Bammidbar Rabba, c. 22,
we are told of how God created the good and the evil tendencies:
the former was placed in man’s right side, the latter in his left side.
In other passages it is pointed out that the Yetser tob is Wisdom
and Knowledge of the Law (Weber, Fiidische Theologie, p. 218).
The danger of such a doctrine is obvious, a danger which could not
be more vividly illustrated than in the words of St. Paul, Rom. vii.
15-24: “ .. . but if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the
Law that it is good. So now it is no more | that do it, but sin which
dwelleth in me. . . . but if what I would not, that I do, it is no more
I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me, . . . ἢ; that teaching like
this, taken with the belief that the evil tendency was created by God,
would be perverted was almost inevitable; it was the existence of
such perversions which must have called forth the words in i. 13 ἢ,
of our Epistle: “ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted
of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself
tempteth no man ... ”; then, possibly, the words in verse 17 of
the same chapter, ‘“‘ Every good gift and every perfect boon is from
above ...” refer to the Yetser ha-tob, and are intended to exclude
the belief that the Yetser hara‘, whereby men were tempted, came
from God.
(ii.) The Fewish Doctrine of Works,—There are, according to
412 INTRODUCTION
Rabbinical teaching, two categories of good works: i. Mitzvéth
(MND) lit. “ commandments ” ; these consist in observances of the
Torah ; ii, Works of love, of which the most important is almsgiving,
indeed so high does this stand that it has the technical name of ΓΤ
(“ righteousness ”’); these two categories comprise the whole body
of DAW OWI" (‘ good works’), the former representing man’s
duty to God, the latter His duty to His fellow-creatures ; cf. Matt.
xxii. 36-40, “* . . . Thou shalt love the Lord thy God . . . thy neigh-
bour as thyself. On these two commandments hangeth the whole
law and the prophets.”” According to Jewish teaching, there are
certain works of obligation; good works done over and above these
are of free-will, and by these justification in the sight of God is at-
tainable. There are two classes of men, those who do a sufficient
number of good works to be justified in the sight of God—these are the
DTW “the righteous ’’—and those who do not—these are the
oy, ‘the wicked”; these two are differentiated on earth, for it
is said in Sanhedrin, 47 a, that a YW may not be buried by the side
of a "7%: But besides these two classes, there is an intermediate
one, the “ones between” (0931392), who are half good and half
bad; these can, by adding one good work, become reckoned among
the “ righteous” on the Day of Atonement (Résh hashshana, 16 δ).
The O°)" 18—the ‘‘ righteous ’—were regarded as being in a state of
Ms} (Zeckth), which meant that their accumulation of good works
was great enough to enable them to stand justified in the sight of God.
In addition to this there was also the doctrine of MAN Md}
(‘* merit of the fathers’), according to which the works of super-
erogation of departed ancestors went to the account of their de-
scendants. The being in a state of Zecith entitled a man, per se, to
what was technically known as \DW {MND lit. “the gift of reward”
(cf. Debarim rabba, c. 2); and this applied to earthly reward as well
as to reward hereafter. So that good works demanded reward from
God; thus it is said in Yalkut Shim. Beresh., 109, that it is by right
that a man is rewarded with the good things in the Garden of Eden,
because he has won them for himself. Justification by faith comes
only so far into consideration in that it is reckoned among the
OW ΟΣ Ὁ (“ good works ”), which, like all others, goes to swell
the list of a man’s MVD cf. das. ii. 24, ‘‘ Ye see that by works a
man is justified and not only by faith ”’.
INTRODUCTION 413
There is, at bottom, an intimate connection between the doctrine
of the good and evil ‘‘ tendency,” dealt with above, and the doctrine
of works ; for it was by man’s free-will that the good tendency was
put into action which resulted in the accomplishment of good works;
and it was by man’s free-will that the evil tendency was resisted, and
this constituted per se a mitzvah ; cf. Kiddushin, 39 Ὁ, 40a, where it is
taught that the desire to do a mitzvah (i.e., the calling of the good
Yetser into action) is reckoned as though it were actually accom-
plished ; and the temptation to do a sinful act (.e., the motion of the
evil Yetser) if resisted likewise constitutes a mitzvah. It was, per-
haps, almost inevitable that the danger would arise of taking merit
for good deeds, i.e., for exercising the good tendency, while repu-
diating responsibility for the often involuntary assertion of the evil
tendency ; that, however, the danger did arise does not admit of
doubt ; it was naively illogical, for while the exercise of the good
tendency, resulting in good works, was regarded as solely due to
human initiative—such a thing as “‘ prevenient grace” did not come
into account, cf. Eph. ii. 8-10—the evil tendency came to be looked
upon as a human misfortune, and not of the nature of guilt in man,
cf. Jas. i. 13, where this is combated.
These facts should be taken into consideration in seeking to
realise the significance of some passages in our Epistle; thus, in
i. 2-4, 12, we have Jewish teaching pure and simple, and the fact
goes to substantiate the opinion that these verses, at all events, must
be very early ; one could not conceive them in the mouth of St.
Paul, cf. 1 Cor. x. 13, Rom. ii. 4, whose teaching on this subject,
though apparently more developed, is really fully in accordance with
that of Christ ;1 on the other hand, we have in ii. 10 (‘‘ For whoso-
ever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is
become guilty of all”) a principle which is certainly not that of
normal Jewish teaching. On the very important section, ii. 14-26,
see the notes in the Commentary, and what has been said above.
Lastly, in v. 19, 20, we have again a thought which is especially
Jewish ; that a man should be able to “ cover a multitude of sins”
by virtue of his good deed is directly anti-Christian, because it makes
the forgiveness of sins a matter which a man can effect, and thus
wholly antagonistic to the doctrines of Grace and Atonement. On
the word “to cover,” the English equivalent for the Hebrew 55;
see Church and Synagogue, April 1908, pp. 43-45.
1 As an example of this see the writer’s article, ‘‘ The Parable of the Labourers
in the Vineyard,” in the Expositor, April, 1908.
414 INTRODUCTION
V. THe Apparatus Criticus.—The following are the authorities,
together with their abbreviations, which have been utilised :—
1. UNCIALS :— 3
& Cod. Sinaiticus (iv. cen.).
2 Cod. Patiriensis (v. cen.), containing only iv. 14-v. 20.
A Cod. Alexandrinus (v. cen.).
B Cod. Vaticanus (iv. cen.).
C Cod. Ephraemi (v. cen.), wanting from Jas. iv. 3 to the
end.
K, Cod. Mosquensis (ix. cen.), cited as K.
L, Cod. Angelicus Romanus (ix. cen.), cited as L.
P, Cod. Porfirianus (ix. cen.), cited as P; much illegible
in Jas. 11. 13-21,
2. CURSIVES :—
Cited by their numbers, but only when they offer readings
of interest; curss=the consensus of a number of
cursives.
3. VERSIONS :—
The Old Latin :—
m the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum (viii. or ix.
cen.).
ff Cod. Corbeiensis (vi. cen.).
s Frag. Vindobonensia (vi. cen.); wanting in v.
11-20.
The Vulgate :—
The two most important MSS. are :—
Vulg* Cod. Amiatinus (vili. cen.).
Vulg’ Cod. Fuldensis (vi. cen.).
Latt =the consensus of the Latin versions,
The Syriac Versions :—
Pesh=Peshitta (belongs to the first half of the
v. cen.).
Syr'*=A Syriac Lectionary written in the dialect most
probably used by our Lord (vi. cen.). Of Jas. it
contains only i. 1-12.
Syr™ = The Harklean Syriac (vii. cen.).
Syrr =the consensus of the Syriac versions.
INTRODUCTION 4I5
The Armenian Version (v. cen.).*
The Coptic (Bohairic) Version (vi.-vii. cen.).*
The Ethiopic Version (iv. cen.).*
The Sahidic Version (iii. cen.):*
4. CyurcH FATHERS :—
Cyr=Cyril of Alexandria (v. cen.).
Dam =John Damascene (viii. cen.).
Did = Didymus of Alexandria (iv. cen.)
Oec = Oecumenius (xi. cen.).
Orig = Origen (iii. cen.).
Thi = Theophylact (xi. cen.).
5. Prinrep EpItTIons:—
rec=Textus Receptus.
Ti=Tischendorf.
Treg = Tregelles.
WH = Westcott and Hort.
W = Weiss.
The Greek text used in the following pages is that published by
Nestle, 1907.
VI. Lirerature.—The following selected list of Commentaries,
etc., only takes account of the more recent works; for a full biblio-
graphy recourse must be had to Mayor’s enumeration :—
Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, 1887.
Beyschlag, Der Brief des $acobus, 1888.
Plummer, St. fames, in the ‘‘ Expositor’s Bible,” 1891.
Weiss, Die Katholischen Briefe . . . 1892.
Spitta, Der Brief des Fakobus, 1898.
» Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristenthums,
ii., 1896.
Von Soden, Hand-Commentar .. . 1899.
Parry, A Discussion of the General Epistle of St. fames,
1903.
Grafe, Die Stellung und Bedeutung des F$akobusbriefes in
der Entwickelung des Urchristenthums, 1904.
Knowling, The Epistle of St. James, in the “ Westminster
Commentaries,” 1904.
Carr, The Epistle of St. ames, in the “ Cambridge Greek
Testament for Schools and Colleges,” 1905.
* These dates refer to the century in which the versions were probably first
made, not to any extant MSS. of them.
4ιό INTRODUCTION
Mayor, The Epistle of St. ames, 1906.
Patrick, fames, the Lord’s Brother, 1906.
See also the Introductions of Salmon, Scrivener, Weiss, Zahn,
Holtzmann, and Gregory.
The following is a selection of some valuable articles :—
Adeney, in the Critical Review, July, 1896.
Brickner, in the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie,
1874,
Cone, in Encycl, Bibl. art. “ James (Epistle) ”’.
Fulford, in Hastings’ Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, art.
“ James”.
Moffatt, in the Expos. Times, xiii. pp. 201-206, “The
Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees”.
Mayor, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, artt. “James,”
“James, General Epistle of”.
Sieffert, in Herzog’s Realencyclopidie, art. “ Jacobus’.
Simcox, in The $ournal of Theological Studies, July, 1901.
Von Soden, in $ahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie,
1884.
Weiss, in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, May, June, 1904.
But perhaps of the greatest help of all are the many side-lights
to be gathered from the study of such works as the following :—
Bergmann, $éidische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen
Zeitalter, 1908.
Bousset, Die Religion des $udenthums im neutestament-
lichen Zeitalter, 1903.1
Bichler, Der galildische ‘Am-ha’Ares des zweiten $ahr-
hunderts, 1906.
Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1908.
Ἔ The Book of Enoch, 1893.
Dalman, Die Worte Fesu, 1898.
Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 1895.
τ: Neue Bibelstudien, 1897.
Fiebig’s series of Ausgewdhlte Mischnatractate, 1905, etc.
Friedlander, Die religidsen Bewegungen innerhalb des
SFudenthums im Zeitalter Fesu, 1905.
Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in
the First Three Centuries (Engl. trans. by Moffatt)
1908.
Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 1906.
1A new edition of this book has appeared.
INTRODUCTION 417
Resch, Agrapha, 1906.
Schirer, History of the $ewish People in the Time of
Fesus Christ (Engl. trans. by Macpherson, Taylor, and
Christie), 1890, etc.
Smend, Die Weisheit des $esus-Sirach, 1906.
Taylor’s edition of Pirge Aboth, ‘Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers,” 1897.
Weber, ¥Fiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und
verwandter Schriften, 1897.
The Talmudical works of Wiinsche, Bacher, Strack, Fiebig,
etc.
1 A new edition of this work has appeared.
VOL [ν. 27
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ. ὦ
I. 1. ΙΑΚΩΒΟΣ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 2 " δοῦλος raise Acts xii.
δώδεκα " φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ “ διασπορᾷ ὃ
Phil.'i.z; ὙῚ ἴα 4 Ῥ δι. ἰο τ; 766861..7. cf. 1 Pet. i. 16; 4 Tim:: il, 42).
d Deut, xxxii. 26; 1
e 2 Macc. ix. 19; Acts xv. 23.
xxvi. 17; cf. Matt. xix. 28.
I, XV. 23, Xxiii. 6.
17; of.
Matt. xiii.
5.
b one inxs
(Luke xxii. 30; Acts
Pet. i. 1; John vii. 35; οὐ. Acts ii. 5-11, viii.
* χαίρειν.
1Inscr. + ἐπιστολὴ BKP, curss., om. δῷ ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ Tov aytov αποστολον
ιακωβου L, Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli Vulg. (Epistulae Catholicae
Vulga), ew. του απ. taxwBov Pesh.
? T9107 Pesh., Syrlec,
CuHaPTER I,—Ver. 1. Ἰάκωβος: A
very common name among Palestinian
Jews, though its occurrence does not
seem to be so frequent in pre-Christian
times. Some noted Jewish Rabbis of this
name lived in the earliest centuries of
Christianity, notably Jacob ben Korshai,
a “ Tanna” (i.e., “" teacher’? of the Oral
Law) of the second century. The Eng-
lish form of the name comes from the
Italian Giacomo. θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Only Κυρίου here
can refer to Christ; in Gal. i. σ the dif-
ferentiation is made still more complete
. . » διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατ-
pos τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. On
the other hand, in John xx. 28, we have
ὁ Κύριός pov καὶ ὁ Θεός pov. But the
disjunctive use of καὶ in the words before
us does not imply a withholding of
the divine title from our Lord, for the
usage of Κύριος in the N.T., especially
without the article, when connected with
Χριστός, is in favour of its being regarded
as a divine title, see ¢g., 1 Cor. i. 1-3,
ete. Hellenistic Jews used Κύριος as a
name for God; the non-use of the article
gains in significance when it is remem-
bered that ὁ Κύριος, ““ Dominus,” was a
title given to the early Roman Emperors
in order to express their deity, γι Acts
xxv. 26, where Festus refers to Nero as
ὁ Κύριος. The Palestinian Syriac Lec-
tionary (containing, as generally con-
ceded, the dialect which our Lord spoke),
as well as the Peshitta, read ‘‘ Our Lord,”
the expression used in the Peshitta in
saad POMS Sree syztee
Matt. viii. 25, Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα,
and in xx. 33, Κύριε, ἵνα ἀνοιγνῶσιν οἱ
ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν ; both instances of divine
power being exercised. Χριστοῦ: the
use of this title, applied to Jesus without
further comment, speaks against an early
date for the Epistle; in a letter written
to Fews during the apostolic age it is
inconceivable that the Messiah should
be referred to in this connection without
some justification; Jewish beliefs con-
cerning the Messiah were such as to
make it impossible for them to accept
Jesus as the Messiah without some
teaching on the subject; this would be
the more required in the case of Jews of
the Dispersion who could not have had
the same opportunities of learning the
truths of Christianity as Palestinian
Jews. The way in which the title is
here applied to our Lord implies that the
truth taught was already generally ac-
cepted. The absence of the article also
points to a late date. δοῦλος : Gener-
ally speaking, to the Jew δοῦλος (72),
when used in reference to God, meant a
worshipper, and when used with refer-
ence to men a slave; as the latter sense
is out of the question here, ϑοῦλος must
be Gidasion! as meaning worshipper,
in which case the deity of our Lord
would appear to be distinctly implied.
ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ἐν τῇ δια-
σπορᾷ: the “twelve tribes” was
merely a synonym for the Jewish race
(ἔθνος ᾿Ιονδαίων), but there was a real
420
f Phil. iii.
ITAKQBOY I
2. Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ᾿ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν ὃ πειρασμοῖς 1
Erich.
Matt.v. περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, 3. γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ ἢ δοκίμιον 3 ὑμῶν ὃ τῆς
2.
gi Pet.i.6.
h Rom. v. 4; 1 Pet. i. 7.
1 Add NNO Pesh.
distinction between the Jews of the Dis-
persion and the Palestinian Jews. The
latter were for the most part peasants or
artisans, while the former, congregated
almost wholly in cities, were practically
all traders (cf. iv. 13). In each case
there was a restricted circle of the
learned. The connection of the Dia-
spora-Jews with Palestine became less
and less close, until at last it consisted
of little more than the payment of the
annual Temple dues; with very many
one visit in a lifetime to Jerusalem suf-
ficed, and this was of course entirely dis-
continued after the Destruction, when
the head-quarters of Jewry became cen-
tred in the Rabbinical academy of Jabne.
From the present point of view, it is
very important to bear in mind, above
ali, two points of difference between
Palestinian and Diaspora-Jews, (1) Lan-
guage, (2) Religion. (1) Among the
tormer, Aramaic had displaced Hebrew ;
Aramaic was the language of everyday
life, as well as of religion (hence the
need of the Methurgeman to translate
the Hebrew Scriptures in the Syna-
gogues); among the latter Greek was
spoken. It is not necessary to insist
upon the obvious fact that this difference
of language brought with it a corre-
sponding difference of mental atmosphere;
the Jew remained a Jew, but his way
of thinking became modified. (2) Their
contact with other peoples brought to
the Diaspora-Jews a larger outlook upon
the world; at the same time, they could
not fail to see the immeasurable superi-
ority of their faith over the heathen cults
practised by others. This resulted on
their laying greater stress on the essen-
tials of their faith; the ethical side of
their religion received greater emphasis,
the spirituality of belief became more
realised, and it therefore followed of
necessity that universalistic ideas grew,
so that proselytism became, at one time,
a great characteristic among the Dias-
pora-Jews ; Judaism contained a message
to all peoples, it was felt; and thus the
particularistic character of Palestinian
Judaism found no place among the Dias-
pora-Jews. But, at the same time, the
Bible of these Jews, which exercised an
2 δοκιμον 284,
5 Om. Syrlec,
immense influence upon their thought
and literature, was Hebraic in essence
though clothed in Greek garb; hence
that extraordinarily interesting pheno-
menon, the Hellenistic Jew. In view of
what has been said it is interesting to
note that two outstanding characteristics
of the Epistle before us are: Hebraic
thought and diction expressed in Greek
form, and the emphasis laid on ethics
rather than on doctrine. The meaning
of διασπορά is quite unambiguous, and
there is no justification for restricting it
to the Eastern Dispersion; it includes
the Jews of Italy, Macedonia, Greece,
Asia Minor and, above all, Egypt, as
well as of Asia. For further details see
Esther iii. 8, viii. 9, ix. 30, x. 1; Acts ii.
g-11; Syb. Orac., iii. 271; Josephus,
Antiq. XIV., vii. 12; Contra Ap., 1. 22,
etc., etc. yaiperv: Cf. Acts xv. 23,
xxiii. 26, the only other occurrences of
this form of salutation in the N.T.
“ Historically there is probably no ellipsis
even in the epistolary χαίρειν" (Moulton,
Grammar of N.T. Greek (1), p. 180). It
is ofinterest to note that in the Epistle in-
spired by St. James (Acts xv. 23) this form
of salutation is used; it would, however, be
precarious to draw deductions as to au-
thorship from this, for the use of the infini-
tive for the imperative is quite common
in Hellenistic Greek; as Moulton says:
“We have every reason to expect it in
the N.T., and its rarity there is the only
matter of surprise” (Ibid.). The Peshitta
and Syrlec have the Jewish form, Shalém.
Ver. 2 Πᾶσαν χαράν: Cf. Phil.
ii, 29, μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς: the render-
ing in Syrlec, which is rather a paraphrase
than a translation, catches the meaning
admirably : PONT WIS 7523
STIN> “With all joy be rejoicing my breth-
ten.” ἡγήσασθε: the writer is not to
be understood as meaning that these trials
are joyful in themselves, but that as a
means to beneficial results they are to be
rejoiced in; it is the same thought as
that contained in Heb. xii. 11: πᾶσα μὲν
παιδεία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ δοκεῖ
χαρᾶς εἶναι ἀλλὰ λύπης, ὕστερον δὲ
καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν τοῖς δι᾽ αὐτῆς γε-
γυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσιν δικαιοσύνης.
1—4.
,
Tlotews! ᾿ κατεργάζεται * ὑπομονήν.
IAKQBOY
421
ς $s .
4. ἡ 8é? ὑπομονὴ epyor Sars
τέλειον ἐχέτω,3 ἵνα ἦτε ' τέλειοι καὶ ἢ ὁλόκληροι, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπό- xxi. το.
ii. 7; Heb. x. 36; 2 Pet. i. 6; 2 Thess. i. 4.
1 Om. τῆς πιστεως B3 (hab Β1), 81, ff, Syrhk,
k Luke viii.
15; Rom
m Thess. v. 23.
Om. Vulga,
1Cf. iii. 2; Matt. v. 48.
3 Some lat. MSS. read habet others habeat.
ἀδελφοί pov: this term of address
was originally Jewish; in Hebrews ΓΝ
is used, in the first instance, of those born
of the same mother, ¢.g., Gen. iv. 2, etc. ;
then in a wider sense of a relative, δι;
Gen. xiv. 12, etc.; and in the still more
extended meaning of kinship generally,
é.g., of tribal membership, Num. xvi. 10;
as belonging to the same people, e.g.,
Exod. ii. 11; Lev. xix. 7, and even of a
stranger a) 3) sojourning among the
people, Lev. xix. 34; it is also used of
those who have made a covenant to-
gether, Am. i. 9; and, generally, of friends,
2 Sam. i, 26, etc.; in its widest sense it
was taken over by the Christian com-
munities, whose members were both
friends and bound by the same covenant
(cf. the origin of the Hebrew word for
“covenant,” FI, from the Assryo-
Babylonian Bivitu which means “a fet-
ter”). This mode of address occurs fre-
quently in this Epistle, sometimes the
simple ἀδελφοί without pov (iv. 11, v. 7,
9, 10), sometimes with the addition of
ἀγαπητοί (i. 16, 19, ii. 5). πειρασ-
μοῖς: ἴῃ νν. 12 ἢ, πειρασμός obviously
means allurement to wrong-doing, and
this would appear to be the most natural
meaning here on account of the way in
which temptation is analysed, though the
sense of external trials, in the shape of
calamity, would of course not be ex-
cluded; “it may be that the effect of
external conditions upon character should
be included in the term” (Parry). It is
true that the exhortation to look upon
temptations with joy is scarcely com-
patible with the prayer, “ Lead us not
into temptation ” (Matt. vi. 13; Luke, xi.
4) or with the words, “ Pray that ye enter
not into temptation” (Matt. xxvi. 41;
Luke xxii. 40; see too Mark xiv. 38;
Luke xxii. 46; Rev. iii. 10); but, as is
evident from a number of indications in
this Epistle, the writer’s Judaism is
stronger than his Christianity, and ow-
ing to the Jewish doctrines of free-will
and works, a Jew would regard tempta-
tion in a less serious light than a
Christian (see Introduction 8 ᾽ν). Most
pointedly does Parry remark: “ There is
a true joy for the warrior when he meets
face to face the foe whom he has been
directed to subjugate, in a warfare that
trains hand and eye and steels the nerve
and tempers the will . .. ”; this is pre-
cisely the Jewish standpoint; while the
Christian, realising his sinfulness and
inherent weakness, and grounded in a
spirit of humility, reiterates the words
which he has been taught in the Lord’s
Prayer. This passage is one of the many
in the Epistle which makes it so difficult
to believe that it can all have been written
by St. [4π|6ε5.--περι πέσητε: thecon-
nection in which this word stands in the
few passages of the N.T. which contain
it supports the idea that in πειρασμοῖς ex-
ternal trials are included (Luke x. 30;
Acts xxvii. 41).--ποικίλοις: Cf. τ
Pet. 1. 6., ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς,
Pesh. adds πολλοῖς, cf. 3 Macc. ii. 6,
ποικίλαις kal πολλαῖς δοκιμάσας τιμω-
ρίαις.
Ver.3. γινώσκοντες: “ recognis-
ing”; this seems to be the force of the
word γιγνώσκω in Hellenistic Greek (see
Lightfoot, Ep. to the Galatians, p. 171);
if so, it comes very appositely after
ἡγήσασθε.--τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς
πίστεως: according to instances of
the use of the word δοκίμιον given by
Deissmann (Neue Bibelstudien, pp. 187 ff.)
it means “ pure” or “ genuine”; it is the
neuter of the adjective used as a substan-
tive, followed by a genitive; the phrase
would thus mean: “ That which is gen-
uine in your faith worketh ... ἢ; this
meaning of δοκίμιον makes 1 Pet. i. 7
clearer and more significant; cf. Prov.
xxvii. 21 (Sept.); Sir. ii. 1 ff. On πίστις
see ver. 6.—katepydflerart; em-
phatic form of ἐργάζεται, “ accom-
plishes”.—tmwopovyv: the word here
means “the frame of mind which en-
dures,” as distinct from the act of endur-
ing which is the meaning of the word in
2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4. Philo calls ὑπομονή
the queen of virtues (see Mayor, in loc.),
it is one which has probably been no-
where more fully exeplitied than in the
history of the Jewish race.
Ver. 4. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον
τέλειον ἐχέτω: “But let endurance
have its perfect result”; the possibility
422
ni Kgs. πὶ, μένοι.
9, ΧΙ. 12;
Prov. ii.
-δ.
Matt. vii.
IAKQBOY 1
5. Εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν "λείπεται σοφίας, " αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ
ὑιδόντος ἢ Θεοῦ } πᾶσιν “ ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ " ὀνειδίζοντος, καὶ δοθήσεται
pSw.i. 1, 26, xxxix.6; Wisd. vi. 14, 22, vii. 13; cf. Job xxxii.8; Prov. viii. 17, xxviii. 5.
q Rom. xii, 8, τ Sir.xli. a2.
l σον Θεον του διδοντος A.
of losing heart is contemplated, which
would result in something being lacking ;
the words recall what is said in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jos.
ii. 7. “ For endurance (μακροθυμία) is a
mighty charm, and patience (ὑπομονή)
giveth many good things”. Cf. Rom. v.
3.—tva ἦτε τέλειοι: Cf. Matt. v.
48, xix. 21; see Lightfoot’s note on the
meaning of this word in Phil. iti. 15,
“the τέλειοι are in fact the same with
πνευματικοί" (Ep. to the Philippians, p.
153). That in the passage before us it
does not mean perfect in the literal sense
is clear from the words which occur in iii.
2 (assuming that the same writer wrote
both passages), πολλὰ πταίομεν ἅπα-
ντες. “The word τέλειος is often used
by later writers of the baptised” (Mayor).
—éAdKAnpor: Cf. Wisd. xv. 3; in its
root-meaning ὁλόκληρος implies the “ en-
tire lot or destiny,” so that the under-
lying idea regarding a man who is ὁλό-
κληρος means one who fulfils his lot;
here it would mean ‘those who fully
attain to their high calling’. —év
μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι : this is merely
explanatory of ὁλόκληροι.
Ver. 5. There is no thought-connec-
tion between this verse and what has pre-
ceded, it is only by supplying something
artificially that any connection can be
made to exist, and for this there is no
warrant in the text as it stands (see
Introduction III.). In ver. 4 ὑπομονή
has as its full result the making perfect of
men, so that they are lacking in nothing ;
when, therefore, the next verse goes on
to contemplate a lacking of wisdom,
there is clearly the commencement of a
new subject, not a continuation of the
same one. The occurrence of λειπόμενοι
and λείπεται, which is regarded by some
as a proof of connection between the two
verses, denotes nothing in view of the
fact that the subject-matter is so different ;
moreover, there is a distinct difference in
the sense in which this word is used in
these two verses; coming behindhand in
what one ought to attain to is quite differ-
ent from not being in possession of the
great gift of wisdom; this difference is
well brought out by the Vulgate render-
ing: “ ,.. in nullo defictentes. Si quis
autem vestrum indiger sapientia. . .”—
εἰδέτις ὑμῶνλείπεταισοφίας
Cf. iti. 13-17; the position assigned to
Wisdom by the Jews, and especially by
Hellenistic Jews, was so exalted that a
short consideration of the subject seems
called for, the more so by reason of the
prominence it assumes in this Epistle.
It is probable that the more advanced
ideas of Wisdom came originally from
Babylon; for, according to the Baby-
lonian cosmology, Wisdom existed in
primeval ages before the creation of the
world; it dwelt with Ea, the god of
Wisdom, in the depths of the sea (cf.
Prov. viii. 22-30); Ea the creator was
therefore guided by Wisdom in his crea-
tive work (see Jeremias, Das alte Testa-
ment im Lichte des alten Orients, pp. 29,
80); in Biblical literature Wisdom be-
came the all-discerning intelligence of
God in His work of Creation; as it was
needed by God Himself, how much more
by men! Hence the constant insistence
on its need which is so characteristic of
the book of Proverbs. This laid the
foundation for the extensive Hokmah (or
Wisdom) literature of the Hellenistic
Jews, which exercised also a great influ
ence upon the Jews of later times. Under
the influence of Greek philosophy Wis-
dom became not only a divine agency,
but also assumed a personal character
(Wisd. vii. 22-30). According to the
Jerusalem Targum to Gen. i. 1 Wisdom
was the princip ε whereby God created
the world. Generally speaking, in the
later Jewish literature Wisdom refers to
worldly knowledge as distinct from reli-
gious knowledge which is all comprised
under the term Torah (“Law”); and
therefore Wisdom, unlike the Torah, was
not regarded as the exclusive possession
of the Jews, though these had it in more
abundant measure, ¢.g., it is said in
Kiddushin, 49 δ: ‘Ten measures of wis-
dom came down from heaven, and nine of
them fell to the lot of the Holy Land”.
On the other hand, Wisdom and the
Torah are often identified.—airetra:
for the prayer for Wisdom, cf. Prov.
ἐϊ, 3.705. Wiad. νὴ), ix. 4} Sits. ΧΟ,
li, 13; in the Epistle of Barnabas xxi. 5,
it says: ὁ Θεὸς δῴη ὑμῖν σοφίαν. ..
ὑπομονὴν --παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος
θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς: there is an in-
5.-. ἃ
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
423
αὐτῷ. 6. "αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν "διακρινόμενος - ὁ γὰρ 1 5 Mark xi.
διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν " κλύδωνι 2 θαλάσσης ὃ ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζο-
7+ μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὅτι λήμψεταί ὁ τι ὅ
μένῳ.
21.
1 Autem, ff, Vulgr.
*Amerat KLP, curss.
teresting parallel to this thought in the
opening treatise of the Talmud, Bera-
choth, 58 ὃ: ““ Blessed art Thou, O Lord
our God, King of the universe, Who hast
imparted of Thy wisdom to flesh and
blood”; the point of the words “ flesh
and blood” is that the reference is to
Gentiles as well as Jews, corresponding
thus to the πᾶσιν in the words before us.
The force of ἁπλῶς lies in its sense of
“singleness of aim,” the aim being the
imparting of benefit without requiring
anything in return; the thought is the
same as that which underlies Isa. lv. 1,
Ho, every one that thirsteth ... come,
buy wine and milk without money and
without price, t.e., it is to be had for the
asking.—p} ὀνειδίζοντος : the addi-
tion of this is very striking ; it is intended
to encourage boldness in making petition
to God; many might be deterred, owing
toa sense of unworthiness, from approach-
ing God, fearing lest He should resent
‘presumption, The three words which
express the method of Divine giving—
πᾶσιν, ἁπλῶς, ph dvediLovros—must
take away all scruple and fear; cf. Heb.
iv. 16, Let us therefore draw near with
boldness unto the throne of grace. . . .—
καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ: Cf. Matt. vii.7.
Ver..6. ἐν πίστει: πίστις, as used
in this Epistle, refers to the state of mind
in which a man not only believes in the
existence of God, but in which His
ethical character is apprehended and the
evidence of His good-will towards man
is acknowledged; it is a belief in the
beneficent activity, as well as in the per-
sonality, of God; it includes reliance on
God and the expectation that what is
asked for will be granted by Him. The
word here does not connote faith in the
sense of a body of doctrine. This idea of
faith is not specifically Christian ; it was,
and is, precisely that of the Jews; with
these Emiinah) is just that
esate ᾿ ἐᾷ sith is expressed
in what is called the “ Creed of Maimon-
ides,’ or the “Thirteen principles of
faith”; it is there said: “I believe with
perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be
His name, is the Author and Guide of
everything that has been created, and that
24;1 Tim.
ii. 8; of.
eb. x.
22.
εὖ dis ae
att. xxi
M
u Luke viii. 24; Eph. iv. 14; cf. Matt. xi. 7; Isa. lvii. 20.
2 Add et s.
5Om. Na, 36, s.
3—3 Transp., Pesh.
He alone has made, does make, and will
make all things”. In Talmudical litera-
ture, which, in this as in so much else,
embodies much ancient material, the
Rabbis constantly insist on the need of
faith as being that which is “ perfect
trust in God”; the méchiisaré ’amanah,
t.¢., “those who are lacking in faith,”
(of. Matt. vi. 30, ὀλιγόπιστοι =
TIVON 53299) are held up to rebuke;
it 1s saidin So/ah, ix. 12 that the disappear-
ance of “‘men of faith” will bring about
the downfall of the world. Faith there-
fore, in the sense in which it is used in
this Epistle, was the characteristic mark
of the Jew as well as of the Christian.
In reference to αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστε:
Knowling draws attention to Hermas,
Mand., ix. 6, 7; Sim., v. 4, 3.—_pydev
Staxpivdépevos: διακρίνεσθαι means
to be in a critical state of mind, which is
obviously the antithesis to that of him
who has faith ; it excludes faith ipso facto ;
Cf. Matt. xxi. 21, If ye have faith and
doubt not (ph διακριθῆτε) . . .; Aphra-
ates quotes as a saying of our Lord’s:
“Doubt not, that ye sink not into the
world, as Simon, when he doubted, began
to sink into the sea”.—€otxevy κλύ-
δωνι θαλάσσης: a very vivid pic-
ture ; the instability of a billow, changing
from moment to moment, is a wonder-
fully apt symbol of a mind that cannot
fix itself in belief. ἔοικεν occurs only
here and in ver. 23 in the N.T., κλύδων
only elsewhere in Luke viii. 24.--- ν ε-
μιζομένῳ: a number of verbs are used
in this Epistle ending in -fw, viz.,
ὀνειδίζω, ῥιπίζω, παραλογίζομαι, φλογ-
Le, ἐγγίζω, καθαρίζω, ἁγνίζω, ἀφανίζω,
θησαυρίζω, θερίζω, στηρίζω, μακαρίζω ;
the word before us is one of the six-
teen used in the Epistle which do not
occur elsewhere in the N.T., nor in
the Septuagint.—jrmwtLopéve@ : from
ῥιπίς a “fan”; it occurs here only in the
N.T., but cf. Dan. ii. 35 (Septuagint),
καὶ ἐρρίπισεν αὐτὰ ὁ ἄνεμος ; the word
is not used in Theodotion’s version.
With the verse before us cf. Eph. iv. 14.
- «« κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι
παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας.
Ver.7. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω, etc.: γὰρ
424
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ 1.
vCf.iv.8; παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, 8. ἀνὴρ 32 “ δίψυχος, “ ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις
DIL Τὰν ey at hte eves
v.9,10.; Ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ.
cf. 1 Kgs.
Xviii. 21;
Ps. cxix. 113 (Heb.); Sir. ii. 12; Matt. vi. 24.
14, iv. 6,
9. *Kavydobw δὲ 6° ἀδελφὸς ὁ
ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ
w 2 Pet. ii. 14; οἵ. iii. 16. x Cf. ii. 13, iii.
1 With comma, Ti., Weiss; with stop, Treg.; without punctuation, WH.
2 Add yap 33.
almost in the sense of διὰ τοῦτο. The
verb occurs very rarely, see John xxi. 25;
Phil.i. 17. There is aring of contempt
in the passage at the idea of a man with
halting faith expecting his prayer to be
answered. ἄνθρωπος is used here in
reference to men in general; ἀνήρ in the
next verse is more specific; in this Epistle
ἀνήρ occurs usually with some qualifying
word.—trotd Κυρίου: obviously in
reference to God the Father on account
of the τοῦ 818. Θεοῦ above. -
Ver. 8 δίψυχος: Although this
word is not found in either the Septua-
gint or elsewhere in the N.T. (excepting
in iv. 8) its occurrence is not rare other-
wise; Clement of Rome, quoting what
he calls 6 προφητικὸς λόγος, says: Ta-
λαίπωροί εἰσιν of δίψυχοι, of διστά-
ἵοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ. . . (Resch., Agrapha,
p- 325 [2nd ed.]); the word occurs a
number of times in Hermas, ¢.g., Mand.,
ix. I, 5, 6, 7; xi. 133 80 too in Barn,,
xix. 5, and in Did., iv. 4, as well as in
other ancient Christian writings and in
Philo. The frame of mind of the ἀνὴρ
Sipvxos is equivalent to a “ double
heart,” see Sir. i. 25, μὴ προσέλθῃς αὐτῷ
(i.e., the fear of the Lord) ἐν καρδίᾳ
δισσῇ; this is precisely the equivalent
of the Hebrew aby a? in Ps. xii. 3,
which the Septuagint unfortunately trans-
lates literally, ἐν καρδίᾳ καὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ.
In Enoch xci. 4 we have: “ Draw
not nigh to uprightness with a double
heart, and associate not with those of
a double heart”; as the Greek version
of this work is not extant it is impossible
to say for certain how “double heart”
was rendered, On the construction here
see Μαγοι.--ἀκατάστατος ἐν πά-
wars ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ : this is
severe, and reads as if the writer had
some particular person in mind, The
double-hearted man is certainly one who
is quite unreliable. ᾿Ακατάστατος, which
occurs only here and in iii. 8 (but see
critical note) in the N.T., is found in the
Septuagint, though very rarely; in Isa.
liv, tr we have Ταπεινὴ καὶ ἀκατάστα-
Tos οὐ παρεκλήθης, where the Hebrew
3 Om. B, 65, Arm, WH in brackets.
for ἀκατάστ. (MID) means.“ storm-
tossed”. In the verse before us the
word seems to mean unreliability, the
man who does not trust God cannot be
trusted by men; this probably is what
must have been in the mind of the writer.
—év πάσαις, etc.: a Hebrew expres-
sion for the course of a man’s life in the
sense of his “manner of life” (ἀναστ-
ροφή, see iii. 13) see Prov. iii. 1, ἐν
πάσαις ὁδοῖς σου γνώριζε αὐτήν (Hebrew
αὐτόν), ἵνα ὀρθοτομῇ τὰς ὁδούς σου.
The sense of the expression is certainly
different from ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ in
ver. II which refers to the days of a
man’s life.
Vv. 9-11. An entirely new subject is
now started, which has no connection
with what has preceded; such a connec-
tion can only be maintained by supplying
mental links artificially, for which the
text gives no warrant. Vv. 9-11 deal
with the subject of rich and poor; they
may be interpreted in two ways; on the
one hand, one may paraphrase thus:
Let the brother who is “humble,” 2.¢.,
belonging to the lower classes and there-
fore of necessity (in those days) poor,
glory in the exaltation which as a Chris-
tian he partakes of; but let him who was
tich glory in the fact that, owing to
his having embraced Christianity, he is
humiliated (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 10-13), “let the
rich brother glory in his humiliation as a
Christian ” (Mayor)—taking ταπείνωσις,
however, as having the sense of self-
abasement which the rich man feels on
becoming a Christian, This interpreta-
tion has its difficulties, for it is the rich
man, not merely his riches, who “ passes
away’; 80, too, in ver. 11; moreover, if it
is a question of Christianity, ὕψει and
ταπεινώσει cannot well both refer to it,
since they are placed in contrast; this
seems to have been felt by an ancient
scribe who altered ταπεινώσει to πίστει
in the cursive 137 (see critical note
above), thinking, no doubt, of ii. 5, οὐχ 6
θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς TH κόσμῳ
πλουσίους ἐν πίστει . . - It seems wiser
to take the words as they stand, and to
9-Ὃ1.
Ὁ A
ὕψει αὐτοῦ, το. ὁ δὲ "πλούσιος ἐν τῇ " ταπεινώσει 1
b
ὡς "ἄνθος χόρτου" " παρελεύσεται.
b—b Isa. xl. 6,7; 1 Pet. i. 24; of. Ps. cii. 4,11; Job xiv. 2.
IAKQBOY /
425
αὐτοῦ, Stuy Matt.
Xxiii. 12.
11. ἀνέτειλεν γὰρ ὁ mes sl
x. .
ς Cf. 1 Cor. ti. 31.
1 πιστει 137.
seek to interpret them without reading
in something that is not there, especially
as the writer (or writers) of this Epistle is
not as a rule ambiguous in what he says;
in fact, one of the characteristics of the
Epistle is the straightforward, transparent
way in which things are put. Regarded
from this point of view, these verses simply
contain a wholesome piece of advice to
men to do their duty in that state of life
unto which it shall please God to call
them ; if the poor man becomes wealthy,
there is nothing to be ashamed of, he is
to be congratulated ; if the rich man loses
his wealth, he needs comfort,—after all,
there is something to be thankful for in
escaping the temptations and dangers to
which the rich are subject; and, as the
writer points out later on in ii. x ff., the
rich ave oppressors and cruel,—a fact
which (it is well worth remembering) was
far more true in those days than in these.
Ver.g. καυχάσθω: it is noticeable
that this word is only used in the Pauline
Epistles, with the exception in this verse
and in iii. 14, iv. 16; it is used, generally,
in a good sense, as here and iii 14,
though not in iv. 16.—6 ἀδελφός: see
note on ver. 2..-ταπεινός: cf. Luke i.
52, refers to the outward condition of a
man, and corresponds to the Hebrew
“J and WY, which like ταπεινός, can
refer both to outward condition and char-
acter; the latter is the meaning attaching
to ram. iniv.6, In Sir. xi. r we read:
σοφία ταπεινοῦ ἀνύψωσεν κεφαλήν, καὶ
ἐν μέσῳ μεγιστάνων καθίσει αὐτόν. Cf.
Sir. x. 31 (Hebrew).
Ver. το. ὁ πλούσιος: equally a
“ brother” ; Ζ the whole section ii. I-13
below.—@s ἄνθος χόρτου -.- .: these
words, together with ἐξήρανεν τὸν χόρ-
τον, etc., in the next verse, are adapted
from the Sept. of Isa, xl. 5-8, . . . καὶ
εἶπα τί βοήσω; Πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος, καὶ
πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώπου ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου "
ἐξηράνθη 6 χόρτος καὶ ὁ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν,
τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν μένει εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα, which differs somewhat from the
Hebrew. It is an interesting instance
of the loose way in which scriptural
texts were made use of without regard
to their original meaning; the prophet
refers to πᾶσα σάρξ, whereas in the
verse before us the writer makes the
words refer exclusively to the rich, cf. the
words at the end of the next verse, οὕτως
Kal 6 πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ
μαρανθήσεται. To the precise Western
mind this rather free use of Scripture
(many examples of it occur in the
Gospels) is sometimes apt to cause sur-
prise; but it is well to remember that
this inexactness is characteristic of the
oriental, and does not strike him as in-
exact ; what he wants in these cases is
a verbal point of attachment which will
illustrass the subject under discussion;
what the words originally refer to is, to
him, immaterial, as that does not come
into consideration. χόρτος in its
original sense means “an enclosure” in
which cattle feed, then it came to mean
the grass, etc., contained in the enclosure,
cf. Matt. vi. 31.--7παρελεύσεται:
equally true of rich and poor, cf. Mark
ΧΙ, 31 for the transient character of all
things, see also iv. 14 of this Epistle.
Ver.11. ἀνέτειλεν: the “gnomic”
aorist, 1.6.) expressive of what always
happens; it gives a ‘‘more vivid state-
ment of general truths, by employing a
distinct case or several distinct cases in
the past to represent (as it were) all
possible cases, and implying that what
has occurred is likely to occur again
under similar circumstances” (Moulton,
Pp. 135, quoting Goodwin) ; he adds, “ἴῃς
gnomic aorist ... need not have been
denied by Winer for Jas. i. 11 and 1 Pet.
i, 24”. The R.V. gives the present, in
accordance with the English idiom, but
clearly the Greek way is the more exact;
the same applies to Hebrew, though this
particular verb does not occur in the cor-
responding passage in either the Septua-
gint or the Massoretic text; an example
may, however, be seen in Nah. iii. 17. 6
ἥλιος ἀνέτειλεν, καὶ ἀφήλατο, καὶ οὐκ
ἔγνω τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς (see R.V.).—odyv
τῷ καύσωνι: the east wind which
came from the Syrian desert, it was a hot
wind which parched the vegetation and
blighted the foliage of the trees; the
Hebrew name OVP TN) “ the
wind of the east,” or simply Dov,
expresses the quarter whence it comes,
426
d Matt. xx. σὺν τῷ :
12; Luke
Sis $55
e pores
[IAKQBOY 1:
καύσωνι] καὶ ἐξήρανεν τὸν ὀ TOV. Ξκαὶ τὸ ἄνθος
᾽
αὐτοῦ, ἐξέπεσεν καὶ ἡ eur έπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ * ἀπώ-
ρ
‘om Isa. Aeto* Ξοὕτως καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις ὃ αὐτοῦ δ μαρανθή-
ΧΙ. 7 «
f—f Quoted σεται.2. 12. “Μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὅς ὑπομένει ᾽ ὃ πειρασμόν, ὅτι
from Dan,
xii. 12.
g Cf. v. 11.; 1 Pet. iii. 14; Prov. iii. 11,
1 Add Suo ff.
5.3 Syrlec om, nat τὸ ανθος αὐτου εξεπεσεν, and ovrws Kat... μαρανθησεται.
3 Om. 609.
δεαυτου Cl(vid),
4Om. B.
δποριαις WA, 40, 89, 97, Thl.; inactu ff.
TavOpwios A, 708, 104.
8 vropevy 13, m, υπομεινη 134, sustinuerit, ff.
the Greek καύσων, “burner,” de-
scribes its character, see Hos. xiii. 15;
Ezek. xvii. 10; it became especially
dangerous when it developed into a
storm, on account of its great violence,
see Isa. xxvii. 8; Jer. xviii. 17; Ezek.
xxvii. 26.---ὶ ξέπεσεν : the equivalent
Hebrew word is a, which like the
cognate root in other Semitic languages,
contains the idea of dying, cf..Isa. xxiv.
4, Χχνΐ. 1ρ.--εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προ-
σώπον αὐτοῦ: pleonastic; προσ. is
used mostly in reference to persons, ¢.g.,
in Sir. it occurs twenty-eight times, and
only in two instances to things other than
persons, viz., xxxviii. 8, καὶ εἰρήνη παρ᾽
αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἐπὶ προσώπου τῆς γῆς [He-
ΕΝ marg., however reads ΙΝ spl
6... ἀπὸ προσώπου πολέμου
[Hebrew text, however, ΣΤ Ἃ py]:
εὐπρέπεια does not occur elsewhere in
the N.T.; see Sir. xlvii. 10, its only
occurrence in that book.—év ταῖς
πορείαις αὐτοῦ: see above ver. 8.
-π-μαρανθήσεται: only here in N.T.
Vv. 12ff. The section vv. 12-16 is
wholly unconnected with what immedi-
ately precedes; it takes up the thread
which was interrupted ati. 4. Ini. 2-4
the brethren are bidden to rejoice when
they fall into temptations because the
purifying of their faith which this results
in engenders ὑπομονήν, and if ὑπομονή
holds sway unimpeded they will be lack-
ing in nothing. But it is, of course, a
prime condition here that those who are
tempted should not succumb; the re-
joicing is obviously only in place in so
far as temptation, by being resisted,
strengthens character; therefore the
writer goes on to speak. (ver. 12) of the
blessedness of the man who fulfils this
first condition, who endures (ὃς ὑπομένει)
temptation, for he shall receive the crown
of life, the reward of those in whom
ὑπομονή has had its perfect work. It is
this intimate connection between i. 2-4
and i. 12 ff. which induces one to hazard
the conjecture that they were not originally
separated by the intervening verses, which
deal with entirely different subjects, and
which therefore interrupt the thought-
connection clearly existing between the
two passages just mentioned.—In ver. 13
the occurrence of the words: ‘“ Let no
man say when he is tempted, I am
tempted of God,” show that this view
was actually held, indeed the belief was
very widely prevalent and had been for
long previously, ¢.g., in Sir. xv. 11 ff. it is
said: ‘Say not thou, It is through the
Lord that I fell away; for thou shalt not
do the things that he hateth. Say not
thou, It is he that caused me to err; for
he hath no need of a sinful man. .
He himself made man from the begin-
ning, and left him in the hand of his own
counsel ...”; to say, with some com-
mentators, that there is no reference here
to any definite philosophical teaching,
and that the words only express a natural
human tendency to shift the blame for
evil-doing in a man from himself to God,
is an extraordinary position to take up;
the tendency to shift blame is certainly
natural and human, but it is not natural
to shift it on to God; either on to fellow-
men, or on to Satan, but not on to God!
But besides this, nobody conversant with
the teaching of Judaism during the cen-
turies immediately preceding the com-
mencement of the Christian era, and
onwards, could for a moment fail to see
what the writer of the Epistle is referring
to; a writer who in a number of respects
shows himself so thoroughly au fait with
the thought-tendencies of his time (i. 5,
iii. 13-18, ii. 14-26, ver. 19-20 besides the
passage before us) was not likely to have
been ignorant of the fact that among all
the thoughtful men of his day the great
question of the origin of evil was being
oe
12—13,
IAKQBOY
427
δόκιμος " γενόμενος λήμψεται τὸν στέφανον τῆς ᾿ ζωῆς, ὃν * ἐπηγγεί- Β Rom. χυΐ"
Io.
hato! τοῖς ἰ ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν.
13. "᾿ Μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ 2 Θεοῦ πειράζομαι ὃ - ὁ
γὰρ Θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν, πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα."
X. 22, xix. 28, 29.
1 Add o κυριος KLP, Syrhk,, Thl., Oec.,
© θεος Syrlec, Pesh., Vulg., Copt., Aeth.
Ξυπο δ᾿ 69. 5. Tentatur ff, Vulg.
constantly speculated upon. The words
with which this section concludes—“ Be
not deceived, my beloved brethren ”—
show that there was a danger of those
to whom the Epistle was addressed being
led astray by a false teaching, which was
as incompatible with the true Jewish
doctrine of God as it was with the
Christian; indeed, on this point, Jewish
and Christian teaching were identical.
The subject referred to in this section,
vv. 12-16, is dealt with more fully in the
Introduction IV., § 1, which see.
Ver. 12, Μακάριος ἀνήρ: this
pleonastic use of ἀνήρ is Hebraic; cf. Ps.
i. 1, where the expression {NTF WE
“Ὁ, the blessedness of the man...”
is rendered μακάριος ἀνήρ by the Sep-
tuagint—twopéver: carries on the
thought of ὑπομονή in ver. 4; the absence
of all reference to divine grace entirely
accords with the Jewish doctrine of
works, and is one of the many indications
in this Epistle that the writer (or writers)
had as yet only imperfectly assimilated
Christian doctrine, see further Introduc-
tion IV., 82.--πειρασμόν: see note
on i, 2.--δόκιμος γενόμενος : for
Sox. see note on i. 2; cf. Luther’s ren-
deting: ‘‘nachdem er bewahret ist,”
which contains the idea of something
being preserved, i.¢., the genuine part,
after the dross (as it were) has been
purged away.—rév στέφανον τῆς
ζωῆς: Wisdom and the Law (Torah)
are said to be an ornament of grace to
the head (Prov. i. 9), and Wisdom
“shall deliver unto thee a crown of
glory” (Prov. iv. 9); in Pirge Aboth vi. 7
this is said of the Torah, of which it is also
said in the same section, ‘‘She is a tree
of life to them that lay hold upon her”
(Prov. iii. 13); in Sir. xv. 6 it is said that
a wise man shall “inherit joy, and a
crown of gladness (there is no mention
of a crown in the Hebrew), and an ever-
lasting name,” cf. xxxii. (xxxv.) 2. In the
Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Lev. iv.
I, we read: “Be followers of his com-
i Rev. ii.10
cf. Wisd.
att.
cf.
11 Cor.ii. 9. m—m Οἵ. Sir. xv. 11, 12, 20.
etc., rec. + κυριος C, 4, 13(vid), 127, +
passion, therefore, with a good mind,
that ye also may wear crowns of glory”;
of. Asc. of Isaiah, vii. 22, viii. 26, ix.
10-13. The Hebrew PAY is used
both in a literal and HAR ὐθρὰ (for
the latter see, ¢.g., Job xix. 9) it is pro-
bably in a figurative sense that the word
is here used.—_3v ἐπηγγ. τοῖς ἀγαπ.
αὐτόν: the insertion of ὁ Θεός or ὃ
Κύριος is found only in authorities of
secondary value. The words λήμψεται
τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς bv ..., in-
troduced by ὅτι (cf. in next verse ὅτι
ἀπὸ θεοῦ... refer perhaps to a saying
of our Lord’s which has not been
preserved elsewhere; the thought seems
to be present in such passages as 2
EiM.oul.. 5. ἦν, δ. 1° Pet. ν. 4: Rev. ἣν
ΧΟ; Mil; Li,.1V.04,, Vi. 2% cfs 1 Core ix, 28;
which makes it all the more probable
that the words were based ultimately on
some actual “Logion” of Christ (cf.
Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30; cf. too,
the following words which occur in the
Acta Philippi: ... μακάριός ἐστιν ὁ
ἔχων τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἔνδυμα λαμπρόν αὐτὸς
γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λαμβάνων τὸν στέφανον τῆς
χαρᾶς ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ, see Resch,
Αργαῤκα(2), p. 280). Against this it
might be urged that mention would
bably have been made of the fact if the
words were actually those of our Lord, in
the same way in which this is done in
Acts xx. 35, where St. Paul directly
specifies his authority in quoting a saying
of Christ. There is an interesting pas-
sage in the History of Barlaam and
Fosaphat, quoted by James in ‘ The
Revelation of Peter,” p. 59, which runs:
“ And as he was entering into the
gate, others met him, all radiant with
light, having crowns in their hands which
shone with unspeakable beauty, and such
as mortal eyes never beheld; and when
Josaphat asked: ‘ Whose are the exceed-
ing bright crowns of glory which I see?’
‘One,’ they said, ‘is thine’”.
Ver. 13. Μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος
λεγέτω: In view of the specific doc-
428
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ i
nMatt.v. 14. ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας " ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ
28.
02 Pet. ii. 3 δελεαζόμενος “15. Petra ἡ 2
ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν,
14, 18, a
p—pCf.Ps. ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία " ἀποτελεσθεῖσα ἀποκύει ὃ “ θάνατον.
vii. 14.
q Cf. Rom.
Vv. 12.
10m. 5.
trine which is being combated in these
verses, it is probable that the verb πει-
ράζω is here used in the restricted sense
of temptation to lust, and not in the
more general sense (πειρασμοῖς ποικί-
λοις) in which πειρασμός is used in i. 2.
This view obtains support from the re-
peated mention of ἐπιθυμία in vv. 14, 15.
The tendency to a sin which was so
closely connected with the nature, the
lower nature, of man (cf. Rom. vii. 23)
would, on this very account, be regarded
by many as in the last instance referable
to the Creator of man; that this belief
was held will be seen from the authorities
cited in the Introduction IV., §1. On
this view πειραζόμενος refers to tempta-
tion of a special kind, ἐπιθυμία ; cf.
Matt. v. 28, πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα
πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι . . .; 1 Pet. ii. 11,
᾿Αγαπητοί, παρακαλῶ ... ἀπέχεσθαι
τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἵτινες στρα-
τεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς; ἵν. 2-3. ..
εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ
θελήματι Θεοῦ. .. Sri: Cf. the par-
allel use of 5S) in Hebrew.—ael-
ραστός ἐστι κακῶν: ““ Untempt-
able of evil’’; see Mayor’s very inter-
esting note on ἀπείραστος ; the word
does not occur elsewhere in N.T., nor in
the Septuagint. If the interpretation
of this passage given above be correct,
the meaning here would seem to be that
itis inconceivable that the idea should
come into the mind of God to tempt men
to lust; the ‘‘ untemptableness” has per-
haps a two-fold application: God cannot
be tempted to do evil Himself, nor can
He be tempted with the wish to tempt
men. The word in its essence is really
an insistence upon one of the fundamental
beliefs concerning the Jewish doctrine
of God, viz., His attribute of Holiness
and ethical purity ; the teaching of many
centuries is summed up in the third of
the “Thirteen Principles” of Maimon-
ides: “I believe with perfect faith that
the Creator, blessed be His name, is not
a body, and that He is free from all the
accidents of matter, and that He has not
any form whatsoever”. The Peshitta
rendering of this clause, from which one
might have looked for something sug-
20m. C.
5 ἀποκυεῖ WH.
gestive, is very disappointing and en-
tirely loses the force of the Greek.—
πειράζει, etc., see Introduction IV.,
§ 1.
Ver. 14. ἕκαστος δὲ weipale-
ται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας:
according to this the evil originates in
man himself, which would be the case
more especially with the sin of lust;
with regard to temptation to sin of an-
other character see 1 Thess. iii.5,...
μή πως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς 6 πειράζων, who
is doubtlessly to be identified with Satan.
--ἐξελκόμενος καὶ Serealdpe-
vos: describes the method of the work-
ing of ἐπιθυμία, the first effect of which
is “to draw the man out of his original
repose, the second to allure him to a
definite bait” (Mayor). ἐξελκ. is in its
original meaning used of fishing, SeAeal.
of hunting, and then of the wiles of the
harlot; both the participles might be
transferred, from their literal use in appli-
cation to hunting or fishing, to a meta-
phorical use of alluring to sensual sin,
and thus desire entices the man from his
self-restraint as with the wiles of a
harlot, a metaphor maintained by the
words which follow, ‘conceived,’ ‘ bear-
eth,’ ‘bringeth forth’; cf. 2 Pet. ii. 14,
18, where the same verb is found, and
Philo, Quod omn. prob. lib., 22, ‘driven
by passion or enticed by pleasure’”
(Knowling).
Ver. 15. εἶτα: continuing the des-
cription of the method of the working of
ἐπιθυμία.-- ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦ-
σα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν: With this
idea of personification, cf. Zech. v. 5-11,
where the woman “sitting in the midst
of the ephah” is the personification of
Wickedness; and for the metaphor see
Ps, vii. 15 (Sept.), ἰδοὺ ὠδίνησεν ἀνομίαν,
συνέλαβεν πόνον καὶ ἔτεκεν ἀδικίαν.
Since ἐπιθυμία is represented as the
parent of ἁμαρτία it can hardly be re-
garded as other than sinful itself; indeed,
this seems to be taught in the Targum of
Jonathan (a Targum which had received
general recognition in Babylonia as early
as the third century A.p., and whose ele-
ments therefore go back to a much earlier
time) in the paraphrase of Isa. Ixii. 10,
14—I7.
IAKQBOY
429
16. Mi)’ "πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί pou ἀγαπητοί. 17. "Πᾶσα * δόσις r 1 Cor. vi.
ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα “ τέλειον "ἄνωθέν ἐστιν 3 καταβαῖνον ὃ ἀπὸ 4 Eph. v.6.
8 .
ἦν. το; John iii. 27; x Cor. iv. 7.
ili, 15,17; John iii. 3.
1 unde 13.
where it says that the imagination of sin
is sinful, cf. Jer. Targ. i. to Deut. xxiii.
II; this is evidently the idea in the words
before υ8δ.-ἀἀποτελεσθεῖσα : this
word does not occur elsewhere in the
N.T., and only very rarely in the Septua-
gint, cf. 1 Esdras, v. 7, ἀπεκώλυσαν τοῦ
ἀποτελεσθῆναι (A reads ἐπιτελεσθ.) Thy
οἰκοδομήν; 2 Macc. xv. 39... - οἶνος
ὕδατι συνκερασθεὶς ἤδη Kal ἐπιτερπῆ
τὴν χάριν ἀποτελεῖ. . .; it refers here
to sin in its full completeness, Vulg., cum
consummatum fuerit. The passage re-
calls Rom. vi. 28, τὰ yap ὀψώνια τῆς
ἁμαρτίας θάνατος. Mayor quotes the
appropriate passage from Hermas, Mand.,
iv. 2. ἣ ἐνθύμησις αὕτη Θεοῦ δούλῳ
ἁμαρτία μεγάλη - ἐὰν δέ τις ἐργάσηται
τὸ ἔργον τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦτο, θάνατον
ἑαυτῷ κατεργάζεται. Just as ἐπιθυμία
and θάνατος belong together, and the
latter testifies to the existence of the
former, so πίστις and ἔργα belong to-
gether, and the latter proves the existence
of the former; see ii. 22, ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἧ
πίστις ἐτελειώθη.--ἀποκύ ει: only here
and in ver, 18 in the N.T., it only occurs
once in the Septuagint, 4 Macc. xv. 17, &
μόνη γύναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν ὁλόκληρον ἀπο-
κυήσασα.- θάνατον: in Tanchuma,
Bereshith, 8, it is taught that Adam’s sin
was the means of death entering into the
world, so that all generations to the end
of time are subject to death; this teach-
ing is, of course, found in both early and
late Jewish literature; but it probably is
not this to which reference is made in the
passage before us. In seeking to realise
what the writer meant by death here one
recalls, in the first place, such passages
as Rom. ν. 21: As sin reigned in death,
even so might grace reign through right-
eousness unto eternal life through Fesus
Christ our Lord; cf. vi. 21, vii. 24; John
v. 24: He that heareth my word, and
believeth him that sent me, hath eternal
life, and cometh not into judgement, but
hath passed out of death into life ; cf. viii.
51, 52; 1 John iii. 14: We know that we
have passed from death unto life: see
also Rom. vii. 24; 2 Cor.i.g, 10; 2 Tim.
i. 10; and Jas. v. 20,... shal! save a
soul from death , . .; it seems clear that
tMatt. vii. 11; Phil. iv. 15.
20m. #7, eorw, WH.
δ καταβαινων A, 13; κατερχομενον 278,
‘ παρα K, curss.
in passages like these death is not used
in its literal sense, and probably what
underlies the use of the word is that which
is more explicitly expressed in Rev. ii. 11,
He that overcometh shall not be hurt of
the second death; xx.6... Over these
the second death hath no power; xxi. 8,
But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and
abominable, and murderers, and forni-
cators ... their part shall be in the lake
that burneth with fire and brimstone;
which is the second death. But there is
another set of passages in which death is
used in its literal sense; these should be
noted, for it is possible that they may
throw light on the use of θάνατος in the
verse before us :—Matt. xvi. 28, Verily I
say unto you, there be some of them that
stand here, which shall in no wise taste of
death, till they see the Son of Man coming
in his Kingdom, almost the identical
words occur in Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27;
the belief in the near advent of Christ
witnessed to by such passages as 1 Cor.
xi. 26; 2 Thess. ii. 1, etc., shows that the
possibility of not dying, in the literal
sense of the word, was entertained; for
those who were living would know that
when Christ, who had overcome death,
should be among them again, there could
be no question of death. The belief in
the abolition of death when the Messiah
should come was held by Jews as well as
by Christians, see ¢g., Bereshith Rabba,
chap. 26, Wajjikra Rabba, chap. 30.
The possibility may therefore be enter-
tained that the writer of this Epistle is
contemplating death in its literal sense,
which those Christians will not escape
in whom ἐπιθυμία holds sway, but which
they are able to escape if they remain
faithful until the return of Christ; that
this is expected in the near future is clear
from v. 7, Be patient, therefore, brethren,
until the coming of the Lord .. . stablish
your hearts ; for the coming of the Lord is at
hand.—p} πλανᾶσθε: i.e.,as regards
the false teaching concerning the cause
of sin in their hearts, The affectionate
ending, ‘* My beloved brethren” witnesses
to the earnestness of the writer’s feelings.
Ver. 17. The following saying of ΚΕ,
Chaninah (first century, A.D.) is preserved:
430
# Job xxv. τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ἥ' φώτων, παρ
cf.t
Jona i.5. ᾿ ἀποσκίασμα.58. 18.
x Mal. iii.
IAKQBOY Ι.
ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι "“παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς 2
"βουληθεὶς 4 "ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας,"
εἰς τὸ εἶναι " ἡμᾶς “ ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ ὃ κτισμάτων.
a—a Johni. 13; 1 Pet. i. 23. b Cf. Eph.
6; cf.
am xiii.
19.
y Wisd. vii.18. | z Johniii. 3; cf. Phil. ii. 13.
i. 12. c Jer. ii. 3; Rev. xiv. 4; Rom. viii. 19-23.
leoriv NP, 36.
5 αποσκιασματος KYB.
2 Modicum obumbrationis ff.
4 Add enim, Vulg., pr. avros yap 40.
5 eavrov S°ACP, 105; WH altern. reading.
”
TW YT IIT PS NMI Ἢ δὲ
+ ΡΝ ῬῸ («R. Chaninah said, ‘No
evil thing cometh down from above’”.).
On the possible connection between this
verse and the preceding section, see
Introduction IV., ὃ τ.---πᾶσα δόσις
ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον:
Mayor remarks on this: ‘It will be ob-
served that the words make a hexameter
line, with a short syllable lengthened by
the metrical stress. I think Ewald is
right in considering it to be a quotation
from some Hellenistic poem... . The
authority of a familiar line would add
persuasion to the writer’s words, and ac-
count for the somewhat subtle distinction
between S00. ay. and δω. reX.”. In Theo-
dotion’s version of Daniel ii. 6, occur the
words: ... δόματα καὶ δωρεὰς .. .,
which represent jum and -yOy35
in the corresponding Aramaic (the Septua-
gint has another reading) ; the distinction
between these two is perhaps that the
former refers to gifts in the ordinary
sense, while the latter is a gift given in
return for something done, #.e.,a reward;
but it cannot be said that the Greek re-
flects this distinction, though it is worthy
of note that Philo makes a special dis-
tinction between them, “ inasmuch as the
latter noun is much stronger than the
former, and contains the idea of great-
ness and perfection which is lacking in
the former; Philo, De Cherub., 25; and
so De Leg. Alleg., iii. 70, where he ap-
plies to the latter noun the same epithet
‘perfect’ as in the Greek of the verse
before us” (Knowling).—avew@év ἐσ-
τιν: it is a question whether one should
read: ‘* Every good gift . . . from above
comes down from . . .,” so the Peshitta;
or “Every good gift . . . is from above,
coming down from . . .”; Mayor thinks
that on the whole ‘‘ the rhythm and bal-
ance of the sentence is better preserved
by separating ἐστι from καταβαῖνον" .--
ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων:
Cf. on the one hand, Sir. xliii. 9, Κάλλος
οὐρανοῦ, δόξα ἄστρων, κόσμος φωτίζων,
ἐν ὑψίστοις Κύριος ; and, on the other 1
John i. 5,6 Θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία
ἐν αὐτῷ οὔκ ἐστιν οὐδεμία. There can
be no doubt that in the passage before
us this double meaning of light, literal
and spiritual, is meant.—_ rapadAay7:
only here in the N.T., and in 4 Kings ix, 24
(Septuagint) ; it is rendered spor
in the Peshitta, a word which is used vari-
ously of “change,” ‘‘caprice,” and even
“apostasy ” (see Brockelmann, Lez. Syr.,
s.v.). In Greek, according to Mayor, the
word may be taken ‘‘ to express the con-
trast between the natural sun, which varies
its position in the sky from hour to hour
and month to month, and the eternal
source of all light”.—trpowfs ἀποσκί-
ασμα : neither of these words is found
elsewhere in the N.T., and the latter
does not occur in the Septuagint either ;
the former is used in the Septuagint of
the movements of the heavenly bodies,
Deut. xxxiii. 14: καὶ καθ᾽ ὥραν yevnp-
άτων ἡλίου τροπῶν . . .; cf. Job xxxviii.
33. The meaning of the latter part of
the verse before us is well brought out
by Luther: ‘ Bei welchem ist keine Ver-
anderung noch Wechsel des Lichts und
Finsterniss”. If, as hinted above, there
is a connection between this verse and
the section i. 5-8, the meaning may per-
haps be expressed thus: When, in answer
to prayer, God promises the gift of wis-
dom, it is certain to be given, for He does
not change; cf. for the thought, Rom. xi.
29, ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρτὰ χαρίσματα καὶ
ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Ver. 18. Again we have a verse with-
out any connection between what pre-
cedes or follows; the words ἴστε, -
φοί μου ἀγαπητοί of ver. 19 seem to
belong to ver. 18. As we have seen,
ver. 17 most probably contains a quota-
tion; the possibility of ver. 18 being alsoa
loose quotation, from some other author,
should not be lost sight of; it would ex-
18—21.
[IAKQBOY
431
19. }"lore,? ἀδελφοί pou ἀγαπητοί; Ἔστω $23 πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁ δι. v.11
es. V.
ταχὺς εἰς τὸ Ἥ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ “λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς “ ὀργήν" ᾿
e Cf. iii. 2;
ε A
20. “ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται." 5 21. Prov. x.
διὸδ ἢ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ᾿ ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν δ " κακίας ἐνὶ 25.
ccles. v.
29, iv. 29, v. 13. f Prov. xiv. 29; cf. Eccles. vii. 9; Eph. iv. 26. g—g Col. iii. 8, τ ΑΞ
iv. 22; Col. iii. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 1; cf. Acts xv. 9; Heb. xii. 1. i Rev. xxii. 11. k Tit: iti:.3.
1- και νυν αδελφοι ἡμων ActhP; eore αδελφοι ἡμων και Aethr,
Ξωστε KLaP, Syrhk, Thl., Οες., etc.; tore ΜῈ} rec. PMN) Pesh.; add δε A.
ὅ και ἐστω A, 13; om. δε KLP?, Syrhk, Pesh., Arm., Thl., Oec., etc., rec.
‘ov κατεργ. C*KaLP, Thl., Oec., etc., rec. ; 5 63.
5 Pr. et ff.
plain, asin the case of ver. 17, the abrupt
way in which it is introduced; the ἴστε,
taken as an indicative, might well imply
that the writer is referring his readers to
some well-known writing, much in the
same way as St. Paul does in Acts xvii.
28, ἐν αὐτῷ yap ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ
ἐσμέν, ὡς καί τινες τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιη-
τῶν εἰρήκασιν" “τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος
ἐσμέν. For the general thought of the
verse cf. 1 John iii. 9 —BovArAnOets
ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀλη-
θείας: this is strongly suggestive of an
advanced belief in the doctrine of Grace,
cf. John xv. 16. οὐχ ὑμεῖς pe ἐξελέξασθε,
GAN’ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς. The rare
word ἀπεκύησεν is, strictly speaking,
only used of the mother. “It seems
clear that the phrase has particular refer-
ence to the creation of man, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα
ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν. This was
the truth about man which God’s will
realised in the creation by an act, a
λόγος, which was the expression at once
of God’s will and man’s nature” (Parry).
--ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ
κτισμάτων: ἀπαρχή = FY
used in reference to the Torah in She-
moth Rabba, chap. 33; see further below;
the picture would be very familiar to Jews;
just as the new fruits which ripen first
herald the new season, so those men who
are begotten λόγῳ ἀληθείας proclaim a
new order of things in the world of
spiritual growth; they are in advance of
other men, in the same way that the first-
fruits are in advance of the other fruits of
the season. Rendel Harris illustrates
this very pointedly from actual life of the
present day in the East: ‘ When one’s
soul desires the vintage or the fruitage
of the returning summer, chronological
advantage is everything. The trees that
are a fortnight to the fore are the talk
and delight of the town” (Present Day
ὁ περισσευμα A, 13, 68.
Ten.
Papers, May, 1901, ‘‘ The Elements of a
Progressive Church”),
Vv. 19-20. Another isolated saying,
strongly reminiscent of the Wisdom litera-
ture; the frequent recurrence (see below)
of words of this import suggests that here
again the writer is recalling to the minds
of his hearers familiar sayings.
Ver.19. ταχὺς els τὸ ἀκοῦσαι
βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι: Cf. Sir.
V. II, γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου, καὶ
ἐν μακροθυμίᾳ φθέγγου ἀπόκρισιν; see
iv. 29, xx. 7. A similar precept is quoted
in Qoheleth Rabba, v. 5 (Wiinsche) :
“ Speech for a shekel, silence for two; it
it is like a precious stone”; cf. Taylor’s
ed. of Pirge Aboth, p. 25.--βραδὺς
εἰς ὀργήν: Cf Eccles. vii. το (ΚΕΝ. 9),
μὴ σπεύσῃς ἐν πνεύματί σου τοῦ θυμοῦ-
σθαι, ὅτι θυμὸς ἐν κόλπῳ ἀφρόνων ἀνα-
παύσεται: see, too, Prov. xvi. 32. Mar-
goliouth (Expos. Times, Dec. 1893) quotes
a saying which, according to Moham-
medan writers, was spoken by Christ:
“ Asked by some how to win Paradise,
He said: ‘Speak not atall’. They said:
‘We cannot do this’, He said then:
‘Only say what is good’.” It must be
remembered that the Arabs are the most
foul-mouthed people on earth.
Ver. 20. ὀργὴ yap, etc. : Man's
wrath is rarely, if ever, justifiable; even
“just indignation ” is too often intermixed
with other elements; and frequently the
premisses on which it is founded are at
fault. Man, unlike God, never knows all
the circumstances of the case. On the
subject of anger, see Matt. v. 21, 22, and
cf. the Expositor, July, 1905, pp. 28 ff.
Vv. 21-25 form a self-contained section.
By putting away all impurity the “ im-
lanted word” can influence the heart;
ut it is n not only to hear the
word but also to act in accordance with it.
Ver. 21. ἀποθέμενοι: used in
432
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ ἢ
Lith 13; of. πραύτητι 1 Ἰδέξασθε τὸν ™ ἔμφυτον λόγον τὸν " δυνάμενον 2 σῶσαι τὰς
8. XXV.
9. υχὰς ὑμῶν." 8
m Wisd. μ Roe
xii. 10.
n—n Acts xiii. 26; Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. xv. 2; Eph. i. 13; 2 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. ii. 3.
26; Rom. ii. 13.
22. γίνεσθε δὲ “ ποιηταὶ λόγου, καὶ μὴ ἀκροαταὶ
ο Matt. vii.
1 Add σοφιας P, add καρδιας Thl., πραυτητι Weiss.
2 Qui potestis ff.
ϑημων La.
ἄνομον C3, 38a, 73, 83, Aeth., Thl.
Heb. xii. x of putting off every weight
preparatory to “running the race that is
set before us”; the metaphor is taken
from the divesting oneself of clothes.—
pumwaptla: not elsewhere in the N.T.
or Septuagint; the Syriac has sdoasw
which is the same word used in Ezek.
xliv. 6 for the Hebrew JY “ abom-
ination,” meaning that which is abhorrent
to God; usually it has reference to idol-
atrous practices, but it occurs a number of
times in the later literature in reference to
unchastity, this more especially in Pro-
verbs. The adjective is used in Zech. iii.
4 of garments, and cf. Rev. xxii. 11,
where the meaning is “filthy”. The
word before us, therefore, probably means
“filthiness” in the sense of lustful im-
purity—mweptogelav κακίας: not
merely “excess” in the sense of the
A.V. “‘superfluity” and the R.V. “ over-
flowing,” because κακία in the smallest
measure is already excess. The phrase
seems to mean simply “ manifold wicked-
ness”; this has to be got out of the
way first before the “implanted word”
can be received.—év wrpavtyre: this
must refer to the meekness which is the
natural result of true repentance. Cf.
Matt. iv. 17, Repent ye, for the Kingdom
of Heaven is at hand.—rbv ἔμφυτον
λόγον: ἔμφυτος occurs only here in
the N.T.; in Wisd. xii. τὸ we have, οὐκ
ἀγνοῶν ὅτι πονηρὰ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῶν καὶ
ἔμφυτος ἣ κακία αὑτῶν. Mayor holds
that the expression must be understood
as “the rooted word,” i.e., a word whose
property it is to root itself like a seed in
the heart, cf. Matt. xiii. 21, οὐκ ἔχει δὲ
pilav ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; and Matt. xv. 13, πᾶσα
φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ pov
6 οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται; and cf. iv.
Esdr. ix. 31, “" Ecce enim semino in vobis
legem meam, et faciet in vobis fructum et
glorificabimini in eo persaeculum”. The
meaning “ rooted word” agrees admirably
with the rest of the verse, and seems to
give the best sense, see further below.
--τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς
ψυχὰς ὑμῶν: Chr Pet.i.g., τὸ τέλος
τῆς πίστεως σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. The
words before us leave the impression that
those to whom they were addressed could
not yet be called Christians; πᾶσαν
ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας, which
they are enjoined to put off, implies a
state far removed from even a moderate
Christian ideal; and the “rooted word,’
which is able to save their souls, has
evidently not been receiv:d yet. On
the subject of the “rooted word” being
able to save souls, see further under
ΨΕΓῚ 22:
Ver. 22. γίνεσθε: perhaps best ex-
pressed by the German “ Werdet,” though
Luther doe* aot render it 80.---ποιηταὶ
λόγου, καὶ, etc.: Taylor quotes an
appropriate passage from the Babylonian
Talmud: “On Exod. xxiv. 7 which ends
(lit.), We will do and we will hear, it is
written (Shabbath, 88a) that “when
Israel put we will do before we will hear,
there came sixty myriads of ministering
angels, and attached to each Israelite two
crowns, one corresponding to we will do,
and the other to we will hear; and when
they sinned there came down a hundred
and twenty myriads of destroying angels
and tore them off” (quoted by Mayor,
p- 67). The duty of doing as well as
hearing is frequently insisted upon in
Jewish writings. See, further, Matt. vii.
24, etc. As to the precise meaning to be
attached to λόγος opinions differ; but the
mention twice made of hearing the word
makes it fairly certain that in the first
instance— whatever further meaning it
connoted—reference is being made to the
reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue;
further, the mention, also twice made, of
the doing of the word makes it a matter of
practical certainty that the reference is to
the Torah, the Law; the fact that Jews
are being addressed only emphasises this.
For the attitude of the Jews towards the
Torah during the centuries immediately
preceding Christianity and onwards, see
Oesterley and Box, The Religion and
Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 135-151;
here it must suffice to say that it was
regarded as the final revelation of God
for all time, that it was the means of
salvation, and that its practice was the
22—23:
IAKQBOY
433
povov! Prapadoyifsuevor ἑαυτούς 2- 23. “ ὅτι 3 εἴ τις * ἀκροατὴς p Col. ii. 4.
a q—
λόγου * ἐστὶν Kai od " ποιητής, οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι ὅ τὸ 14-26,
1 povov axpoarat S$ACKLP, Oec., Ti.
5 Om. A, 13. 4 vopov 83.
highest expression of loyalty towards
God. Jews who had from childhood been
taught to regard the Torah in this light
would have found it very difficult to dis-
card the time-honoured veneration ac-
corded to it, and there was no need to do
so, seeing the place that Christ Himself
had given to it (Matt. v. 17-18, vii. 12,
xii. 5, xix. 17, xxiii. 3; Luke x. 26, xvi.
17, 29), and provided that its teaching in
general was regarded as preparatory to
the embracing of Christianity. The in-
tensely practical writer of this passage
realised that those to whom he was writ-
ing must be drawn gently and gradually,
without unduly severing them from their
earlier belief, which, after all, contained
so much which was identical with the
new faith, The Torah, which had been
rooted in their hearts and which was to
them, in the most literal sense, the word
of God, was the point of attachment be-
tween Judaism and Christianity; it was
utilised by the writer in order to bring
them to Christ, the “ Word” of God in a
newer, higher sense. All that he says
here about the λόγος was actually the
teaching of the Jews concerning the
Torah, the revealed word of God; and
all that he says was also equally true,
only in a much higher sense, of the teach-
ing of Christ, the “ Word” of God,—
this latter, higher conception of the
“ Word of God,” the » Was one
with which Pclisaiste Vere ues quite
familiar;—what has been said can be
illustrated thus :—
In ver. 18 it is said, “Of his own will
he brought us forth by the word of
truth”; the Jews taught that they were
the children of God by virtue of the Torah.
In ver. 21 it is said, “ Wherefore putting
away all filthiness . . . receive the rooted
word”; according to Jewish ideas, purity
and the Torah were inseparable, it was
an ancient Jewish belief that the Torah
was the means whereby lust was annihil-
ated inaman. In the same verse, the
expression ἔ os λόγος can have a
two-fold meaning in reference to the
Torah ; either it contains an allusion to
the belief that the Torah was implanted,
like Wisdom, in God Himself from the
very beginning, hence the expression
VOL, IV.
Cf. ii.
att. vii.
Luke vi. 46-49. r Ronse 13.
9 Aliter consiliantes ζῇ,
5 κατανουντες (sic) S39).
M WN (“beginning”) used of the
Torah ; or else the writer is referring to
the teaching of the Torah which was
implanted, and therefore rooted, in every
Jew from the earliest years. Once more,
it is said that this word is able to save
souls. Among the Jews it was an
axiom that the Torah was the means of
salvation; to give but one quotation
illustrative of this ancient belief, in
Wajjikra Rabba, 29 it is written:
min xbox ovr ΤῸΝ pr
(“Torah is the only way that leadeth
to life”). And finally, as already re-
marked, the necessity of being doers as
well as hearers of the Torah is a common-
place in Jewish literature. For many
illustrations showing the correctness of
what has been said, see Weber, Fiidische
Theologie (2nd Ed.), pp. 14-38, Bousset,
Die Religion des Fudenthums (1st Ed.),
pp. 87-120, the various editions of Midra-
shim translated by Wiinsche in “ Biblio-
theca Rabbinica,” and the handy collection
being issued under the editorship of Fie-
big, entitled “ Ausgewahlte Mischnatrac-
tate”. It will have been noticed that all
that the writer of this passage says about
λόγος as applicable to the Law, or Torah,
is equally applicable, only in a much higher
sense, to Christ; this will be obvious and
need not be proved by quotations. But
it is interesting to observe that τὸ πησυι
precisely the same thing was done by
our Lord Himself, as recorded by St.
John in the fourth Gospel; He adapted
Jewish teaching on the Torah and ap-
plied it to Himself; for details of this,
see Oesterley and Box, of. cit., pp. 139 ff.
It will be noticed that in our Epistle the
writer presently goes on to substitute
νόμος (Torah) for λόγος, ver. 25; this is
very significant; the “perfect law of
liberty,” and the “royal law,” both refer
to the Torah as perfected by the “ King
of the Jews”.—waparoyt{épevor
ἑαυτούς: i.¢., deceiving the heart, as
it is ressed in ver. 26; the rebuke
shows the intimate knowledge on the
part of the writer of the spiritual state of
those to whom he is writing.
Ver. 23. οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ.
ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ: With the thought here
28
434
s 1 Cor.
ΧΙ, 12; 2
Cor. iii.8. ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθεν,
t1Pet.ir2., ‘
u ΚΞ ii. 12; TWApPQku
ο:
x Cf. Heb. iv. x. y iii. 2, 3.
10m. τῆς γενεσεως Pesh., et al.
kat εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο ὁποῖος ἦν.
ἡ μακάριος ὃ ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ
σκὸς εἶναι, μὴ " χαλιναγωγῶν ὃ "γλῶσσαν ἑαυτοῦ ὃ ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ I.
πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως | αὐτοῦ ἐν "ἐσόπτρῳ 24. κατενόησεν yap?
25. ὃ δὲ
5 ἔσται.
26. Εἴδ τις " δοκεῖ θρη-
z iii. 6; Ps, xxxiv. 13 (14 in Heb.); Ps. cxli. 3.
2Om.f/.
8 Add ev autw Vulg. (om. Vulg¥), Pesh., Syrhk, Arm.
«Pr. ovros KLP, Pesh., Arm., Thl., Oec., rec.
5—5 In operibus suis ff.
6 Add δε CP, Pesh., latt., Copt., Treg.
7 Add ev υμιν KL, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.
8 χαλινων Β.
contained, cf. Pseudo-Cyprian in De duo-
bus mont., chap. 13: “Ita me in vobis
videte, quomodo quis vestrum se videt in
aquam aut in speculum” (Resch., of. cit.,
Ῥ- 35), cf. τ Cor. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. iii, 18.—
τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐ-
τοῦ: Cf. Jud. xii. 18, πάσας τὰς ἡμέ-
ρας τῆς γενέσεως, “all the days of the
natural life,” yev. being used of unen-
during existence; if this is the meaning
here, it is used “to contrast the reflexion
in the mirror of the face which belongs to
this transitory life, with the reflexion, as
seen in the Word, of the character which is
being here moulded for eternity” (Mayor).
In ver. 24, ‘“ forgetteth what manner of
man he was” makes it improbable that
the reference is to the “natural face,”
because a man would probably have some
idea as to what his features were like.
If πρόσωπον is here used in the sense of
“ personality” (as in Sir. iv. 22, 27, vii.
6, x. 5, xlii. 1, etc.) then the reference
would perhaps be to a man looking into
his conscience, #.¢., “the personality at
its birth,” before he had become sin-
stained; this being what he was origin-
ally meant tobe. The Peshitta simplifies
the matter by omitting τῆς γενέσεως, and
is followed in this by some minor authori-
nar eR bd Ze Cf. Sir. xis τις
καὶ ἔσῃ αὐτῷ ὡς ἐκμεμαχὼς ἔσοπτρον ;
and Wisd. ot 26. aie ᾿
Ver. 24.Ψ. KatTevénoev... ἀπε-
λήλυθεν: gnomic aorists, see note on
ἀνέτειλεν, Ver. II.
Ver.25. παρακύψας: in Sir. xiv.
20 ff. we read, Μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ἐν
σοφίᾳ τελευτήσει . . . ὁ παρακύπτων
διὰ τῶν θυρίδων αὐτῆς. The word means
literally to “ peep into’ with the idea of
eagerness and concentration, see Gen.
®avrov NACKL, Oec., Ti., Treg., WH (altern. reading).
xxvi. 8; Mayor says that the παρὰ ‘“‘ seems
to imply the bending of the upper part of
the body horizontally”; if this is so the
word would be used very appropriately
of a man poring over a roll of the Torah.
—eis νόμον τέλειον .. .: see
above ver. 22.--οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπι-
λησμονῆς; εἰς. : Cf. with this what is
quoted as a saying of our Lord in the
Doctrina Addae: “Thus did the Lord
command us, that that which we preach
before the people by word we should
practise in deed in the sight of all”
(Resch., of. cit., p. 285). — émeAn-
σμονῆς : does not occur elsewhere in
the N.T., and only very rarely in the
Septuagint; see Sir. xi. 27, κάκωσις Spas
ἐπιλησμονὴν ποιεῖ tpvdys.—év τῇ
ποιήσει αὐτοῦ: only here in the
N.T., cf. Sir. xix. 18 (20 in Greek), πᾶσα
σοφία φόβος Κυρίου, καὶ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ
ποίησις νόμου ; and li. 19, καὶ ἐν ποιήσει
μου (ΒΝ read λιμοῦ) διηκριβασάμην
(this clause does not exist in the Hebrew,
and is probably a doublet) ; cf. Sir. xvi. 26.
Vv. 26, 27. Although these verses are
organically connected with the preceding
section, they are self-contained, and deal
with another aspect of religion. While
the earlier verses, 19b-25, emphasise the
need of doing as well as hearing, these
speak of self-control in the matter of the
tongue. At the same time it must be
confessed that these verses would stand
at least equally as well before iii. x ff.—
δοκεῖ: the danger of regarding the af-
pearance of religion as sufficient was the
greater inasmuch as it was characteristic
of acertain type of “religious” Jew, cf.
Matt. vi. 1, 2, 5, 16; it must not, how-
ever, be supposed that this represented
the normal type; the fact that the need of
24—27. 1101.
καρδίαν ἑαυτοῦ,: τούτου 2 μάταιος ἡ "θρησκεία.
καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ ὅ " Θεῷ καὶ ὅ πατρὶ Τ αὕτη ἐστίν, " ἐπι- " fi. 9:
IAKQBOY
435
27. θρησκεία “ a Acts xxvi.
ιν.
σκέπτεσθαι “ ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας ἃ ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, " ἄσπιλον 20; 1 Cor.
ἑαυτὸν ὃ ἑ τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου.
II. 1. ἌΔΕΛΦΟΙ μου, μὴ ἐν "προσωπολημψίαις 19 ἔχετε τὴν ἢ πί-
xxxi. 17-18; Isa. i. 17; Sir. iv. 10; 2 Macc. iii. το, viii. 28, 30.
Vv. 22; 1 John v. 18; Rom. xii. 2.
i. 17 ; Jude 16. Ὁ Mark xi. 22.
XV. 24
Col. ii. 4.
ς Sir. vii.
35; Matt,
xxv. 36.
d—d Jo
e Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 14. 1 Tim
a Deut. i. 17, x. 17; Prov. xxiv. 23; 2 Cor. v. 16; 1 Pet
Vavrov SACKL, Oec., Ti., Treg., WH (altern. reading).
2 rou SL 3 θρησκια αὶ Ti.
*Opnokia $§ Ti., add yap A, 70, 83, 123, Pesh.; add δὲ Syrhk, latt., Copt.; add
autem Κ΄.
5 Om. to N!C?KL, curss., 40, 73, 99, Ti.
δ Om. και gg, 126, a, ff, Pesh., Aeth.
ϑσεαυτον A, Aeth. 9 ex CP.
reality in religion is so frequently insisted
upon by the early Rabbis shows that their
teaching in this respect was the same as
that of this writer.—@pyoKds: Hatch,
as quoted by Mayor, ὁ βου κέ θα θρησκεία
as “religion in its external aspect, as
worship or as one mode of worship
contrasted with another”; this agrees
exactly with what has just been said.
θρησκός does not occur elsewhere in
the N.T. nor in the Septuagint. —
χαλιναγωγῶν: (B reads χαλινων).
Not found elsewhere in the N.T. or in
the Septuagint; χαλινός is used in Ps.
xxxi. (Heb. xxxii.) g in the Septuagint, as
well as in the versions of Aquila and
Quinta; for the thought cf. Ps. xxxviii.
(Heb. xxxix.) 2, cxl. (Heb. cxli.) 3, though
the word is not used in either of these
last two passages. Mayor quotes the in-
teresting passage from Hermas, Mand.,
xii, 1. ἐνδεδυμένος τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν
ἀγαθὴν μισήσεις τὴν πονηρὰν ἐπιθυμίαν
καὶ χαλιναγωγήσεις αὐτήν.--κγλῶσσαν
ἑαυτοῦ ; the reference is to the three-
fold misuse of the tongue, slander, swear-
ing and impure speaking; see Eph. v. 3-6.
Ver. 27. θρησκεία καθαρὰ ..-
αὕτη ἐστίν... .: ΑΒ illustrating this,
Dr. Taylor (Expos. Times, xvi. 334) quotes
the Ποίμανδρος of Hermes Trismegistos :
καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ θεός, TO wav...
τοῦτον τὸν λόγον, ὦ τέκνον, προσκύνει
καὶ θρήσκευε. θρησκεία δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ μία
ἐστί, μὴ εἶναι κακόν. Cf. too, the fol-
lowing from the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Jos. iv. 6: “The Lord willeth
not that those who reverence Him should
be in uncleanness, nor doth He take plea-
sure in them that commit adultery, but
in those that approach Him with a pure
7Pr.tw A; om. ff.
10 An rars KLP, curss,
heart and undefiled lips”.—émwtok é we
τεσθαι ὀρφανοὺς καὶ
αὐτῶν: this was reckoned among the
oon min “practice of kind-
nesses,” which are constantly urged in
Rabbinical writings, e.g., Nedarim, 39),
40a; Ket., 50a; Sanh., τοῦ. Cf. too,
Sir. iv. 10, γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς πατήρ,
καὶ ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῶν. In the
Apoc. of Peter, ὃ 15, occur these words:
οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ πλουτοῦντες Kal τῷ
πλούτῳ αὐτῶν πεποιθότες καὶ μὴ ἐλε-
ήσαντες ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀμε-
λήσαντες τῆς ἐντολῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cf.
also the 4οε. of Paul, § 35.
CuapTeR II.—Vv. 1-13 take up again
the subject of the rich and poor which
was commenced in i, 9-11.
Ver. I. phe e+ ἔχετε: the impera-
tive, which is also found in all the ver-
sions, seems more natural and more in
accordance with the style of the Epistle
than the interrogative form adopted by
WH.—év προσωπολημψίαις:
the plural form is due to Semitic usage,
like ἐξ αἱμάτων in John i. 13; cf. Rom,
ii, 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25.--τὴν
πίστιν τοῦ Kuplov...: the mem
tion of the “faith of Christ” is brought
in in a way which shows that this was a
matter with which the readers were well
acquainted, The phrase must evidently
mean the new religion which Christ
gave to the world, i.e. the Christian
faith—_r 4s δόξης: the intensely Jew-
ish character of this Epistle makes it
reasonably certain that the familiar Jew-
ish conception of the Shekinah is what
the writer is here referring to. The She-
kinah (from the root jw “to dwell”)
“36
c1Cor.ii, στιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 1 τῆς “ δόξης.2
TAKQBOY
Th,
2. ἐὰν γὰρ ὃ
Acts vii. εἰσέλθῃ εἰς ὁ συναγωγὴν ὁ ὑμῶν ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι “λαμ-
2.
ἃ Acts vi.
9, etc.; Heb. x.25. e Luke xxiii. rz.
1 Χριστου, WH (altern. reading).
2 Pesh. places τῆς δοξης after πιστιν,, 80 too 69, 73, 4, ¢; it is om. by 13, Sahy
and rendered ‘‘honeris” by /, though the Vulg. reads “gloriae”’.
Sons ;
3 Autem ff.
enoted the visible presence of God
dwelling among men. There are several
references to it in the N.T. other than in
this passage, Matt. ix. 7; Luke ii. 9;
Acts vii. 2; Rom. ix. 4; ¢f. Heb. ix. 5;
so, too, in the Targums, e.g., in Targ.
Onkelos to Num. vi. 25 ff. the “ face (in
the sense of appearance or presence) of
the Lord” is spoken of as the Shekinah.
A more materialistic conception is found
in the Talmud, where the Shekinah ap-
pears in its relationship with men as one
person dealing with another; e.g., in Sota,
3b, it is said that before Israel sinned
the Shekinah dwelt with every man sever-
ally, but that after they sinned it was
taken away; cf. Sota, 17a, where it is
said: ‘“ Man and wife, if they be deserv-
ing, have the Shekinah between them”;
so, too, Pirge Aboth., iii. 3: “ Rabbi
Chananiah ben Teradyon [he lived in the
second century, A.D.] said, Two that sit
together and are occupied in words of
Torah have the Shekinah among them”
(cf. Matt. xviii. 20); see further Oesterley
and Box, Of. cit., pp. 191-194. The She-
kinah was thus used by Jews as an in-
direct expression in place of God, the
localised presence of the Deity. ‘In the
identification of the Shekinah and cognate
conceptions with the incarnate Christ, ‘a
use is made of these ideas,’ as Dalman
says, ‘which is at variance with their
primary application’. It marks a speci-
fically Christian development, though
the way had certainly been prepared
by hypostatising tendencies” (Box, in
Hastings’ DCG., ii. 622a). That Christ
was often identified with the Divine She-
kinah may be seen from the examples
given by Friedlander, Patristische und Tal-
mudische Studien, pp. 62 ff. If our inter-
pretation of δόξα here is correct, it will
follow, in the first place, that the mean-
ing of the phrase . . . Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τῆς δόξης is free from ambiguity, viz.,
“,.. Have faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Shekinah” (literally “ the
glory”); this is precisely the same
thought that is contained in the words,
WH read τῆς
4 Pr. τὴν S2AKLP, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.
“, . . who being the effulgence of his
glory ... (Heb. i. 2-3). And, in the
second place, this rendering shows that
the words are an expression of the Divinity
of our Lord; cf. Bengel’s note: “ τῆς
δόξης : est appositio, ut ipse Christus
dicatur 4 δόξα". [Since writing the
above the present writer finds that Mayor,
Ῥ. 78, refers to Mr. Bassett’s comment
on this verse, where the same interpreta-
tion is given, together with a number of
O.T. quotations; it seems scarcely pos-
sible to doubt that this interpretation is
the correct one.]
Ver. 2. els συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν:
as the Epistle is addressed to the twelve
tribes of the Dispersion no particular
synagogue can be meant here; it is a
general direction that is being given.
In the N.T. the word is always used of a
Fewish place of worship; but it is used
of a Christian place of worship by Her-
mas, Mand., xi. 9. ... ες συναγωγὴν
ἀνδρῶν δικαίων. .. Kal ἔντευξις γένη-
ται πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν
ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων. Harnack (Expansion
«ον i. 60) says: “I know one early Chris-
tian fragment, hitherto unpublished, which
contains the expression: Χριστιανοί re
καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι Χριστὸν ὁμολογοῦντες ”.
This latter may well refer to a place of
worship in which converted Gentiles and
Jewish-Christians met together. And this
is probably the sense in which we must
understand the use of the word in the
verse before us. The Jewish name for
the synagogue was ODII M2
(“house of assembly”); according to
Shabbath, 32a, the more popular designa-
tion was the Aramaic name NOY MI
(“house of the people”); Hellenistic
Jews used the term προσευχή = οἶκος
προσευχῆς as well as συναγωγή.---δλνὴρ
χρυσοδακτύλιος, etc.: Cf Sir. xi.
2, μὴ αἰνέσῃς ἄνδρα ἐν κάλλει αὐτοῦ, καὶ
μὴ βδέλυξῃ ἄνθρωπον ἐν δράσει αὐτοῦ.
For ἀνήρ see note on ver. 7. χρυσο-
δακτύλιος does not occur elsewhere in
the N.T. nor in the Septuagint; cf. Luke
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
ait 437
πρᾷ, εἰσέλθῃ δὲ Kat? πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, 3. ᾿ἐπιβλέψητε Be? Lukei. 48.
ἐπὶ τὸν φοροῦντα τὴν ἐσθῆτα τὴν " λαμπρὰν καὶ εἴπητε" od κάθου : xxiii, τι.
ὧδε καλῶς, καὶ τῷ πτωχῷ εἴπητε: σὺ στῆθι exert ἢ κάθου ὑπὸ δ noe ue
τὸ Srromddidv? pou,® 4. οὐ " διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐγένεσθε τ Matt. xv.
κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν ' πονηρῶν; 5. ᾿Ακούσατε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί. k Eph. i. 4:
i
ΕἸ ςε ks A
οὐχ ὁ Θεὸς * ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ 10 πλουσίους ἐν ' πίστει 27,
ο
pry
28; cf.
b
XXXiv. 19.
1 Prov. iii. 7; Luke xii. 21; 2 Cor. viii.g; Rev. ii. 9.
1 δε και is rendered “autem” by 77.
3 καὶ emtBA. SAKL, Oec., Ti., Treg., rec.
4 Pon post καθου 2°B, ff, WH marg.
3 Add αντω KLP, Vulg., Oec.
5 Pr. ὧδε SEC*KLP, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.
Sem. BSP, 13, 29, 69, a, c, d, Pesh., Arm., Sah.
7 Add των ποδων A, 13, Vulg., Syrr., Aeth.
8 Eorum 5.
* Pr. και KLP, a, Thl., Oec., rec. B}, 7, WH marg. do not make it interrogative
10 του κοσμον A?C2KLP, a, Pesh.; του κοσμου τουτου Aeth., Oec.; ev Tw κοσμο
τουτω 29, Vulg.; pr. ev 27, 43, 64, om. 113.
XV. 22. λαμπρᾷ, probably in reference to
the fine white garment worn by wealthy
]ενβ.--πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆ-
τι: ῥυπαρός occurs elsewhere in the N.T,
only in Rev. xxii. 11 (cf. 1 Pet. iii, 21)
and very rarely in the Septuagint, see
Zech. iii. 3, 4; in the Apoc. of Peter we
have, in 815, .. - γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες
ῥάκη ῥυπαρὰ ἐνδεδυμένοι . . .—There is
nothing decisive to show whether the
rich man or the poor man (presumably
not regular worshippers), who are thus
described as entering the Synagogue,
were Christians or otherwise; on the as-
sumption of an early date for the Epistle
they might have Leen either; but if the
Epistle be regarded as belonging to the
first half of the second century non-
Christians are proba. ly those referred to;
but it would be futile to attempt to
speak definitely here, for a good case can
be made out for any class of worshipper.
Ver.3. ἐπιβλέψητε: “look upon
with admiration,” the exact force of the
word is conditioned by the context; it
quite expresses the Hebrew DQ JID,
the meaning of which varies according to
the context, ¢.g., in Ps, xxv. 16 (Sept. xxiv.
16) it is “to look graciously,” in Deut. ix.
27, “to look sternly”.—od κάθου ὧδε
καλῶς: the reference is to the kind of
seat rather than toits position; chairs, or
something corresponding to these, were
provided for the elders and scribes (cf.
Matt. xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 39; Luke xi. 43),
and would no doubt have been offered to
persons of rank who might enter, while
the poorer men would sit on the floor,
which is indeed clearly implied by the
words ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν pov. The
official who directed people to their seats
was called the pn (Chazzan) i.e., the
man who “had charge”; we read of the
existence of this official in the Synagogue
within the Temple precints in Jerusalem
(Yoma, vii. 1).
Ver. 4. οὐ StexplOnre ἐν ἑαυ-
tots: ‘Are ye not divided among your-
selves”? The Peshitta uses the word
yoann: the same as that used in Luke
xi. 17. ‘‘ Every Kingdom divided against
itself.” The reference in the verse be-
fore us might be to the class distinctions
which were thus being made, and which
would have the effect of engendering envy
and strife, and thus divisions. -κριταί:
the Peshitta has the interesting rendering
Nowy) (instead of the usual word
for “judge” $3""T), which comes from
the root meaning “" to divide”’.—8rado-
γισμῶν πονηρῶν: Cf. Matt. xv. 19,
ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἔρχονται διαλογισμοὶ
πονηροί: genitive of quality, “judges
with evil surmisings,” viz., of area
up the unity of the worshippers by dif-
ferentiating between their worldly status ;
the writer is very modern! διαλογισμοί
is generally used in a bad sense, cf.
Luke v. 21, 22; Rom. i. 21.
Ver. 5. ᾿Ακούσατε, ἀδελφοί
pov ἀγαπητοί : This expression,
which one would expect to hear rather ina
vigorous address, reveals the writer as one
i was also an impassioned speaker ;
438
m Matt.
XXV. 34.
p Matt.v.3; σιν ἢ αὐτόν; 6. ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠτιμάσατε τὸν πτωχόν.
Luke vi.
20, xii. 32.
οἱ. 12,
IAKQBOY
p Exod. xx.6; 1 Cor. ii. 9; ¢f. Prov. viii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 8.
II.
καὶ ™ κληρονόμους τῆς " βασιλείας 1 ἧς ° ἐπηγγείλατο 2 τοῖς ἀγαπῶ-
οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι
ᾳν.6; τ Cor. xi. 22.
l ἐπαγγελιας ΜΊΑ (cf. Heb. vi. 17).
2 Pr. o eos Pesh.
cf. in the same spirit, the frequent
ἀδελφοί, and especially, ἄγε viv, iv.
13, v. ἱ-τ-πἐξελέξατο: a very signi-
ficant term in the mouth of a Jew when
addressing Jews; cf. Deut. xiv. 1-2, Υἱοί
ἐστε Κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν . . . ὅτι λαὸς
ἅγιος εἶ Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ σου, καὶ σὲ ἐξελέ-
ξατο Κύριος ὁ θεός σου γενέσθαι σε αὐτῷ
λαὸν περιούσιον . .- . cf. Acts. xiii. 17;
I Cor. 1. 27. There is an interesting say-
ing in Chag. 9b where it is said that
poverty is the quality most befitting
Israel as the chosen people.—mr TwXxovs
τῷ κόσμῳ: i.¢., poor in the estimation
of the world; the reading τοῦ κόσμον or
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ loses this point; cf.
Matt.x. 9; Luke vi. 2ο.--πλουσίους
ἐν πίστει: “ Oblique predicate”
(Mayor). Inthe Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Gad. vii. 6 we read: ‘‘ For
the poor man, if, free from envy, he pleas-
eth the Lord in all things, is blessed
beyond all men” (the Greek text reads
πλουτεῖ which Charles holds to be due
to a corruption in the original Hebrew
text which reads Wr?) =
τός ἐστι). See, for the teaching of our
Lord, Matt. vi. 19; Luke xii.2r. Πίστις
is used here rather in the sense of trust
than in the way in which it is used in
ii, I.—kAnpovépovs τῆς Paci
λείας: the Kingdom must refer to that
of the Messiah, see v. 7-9, and Matt. xxv,
35, δεῦτε of εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός pov
κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν
βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, but
not Matt. v. 3 which treats of a different
subject. It is of importance to remember
that the Messianic Kingdom to which
reference is made in this verse was orig-
inally, among the Jews, differentiated
from the ‘‘ future life ” which is apparently
referred to in i. 12, . . . λήμψεται τὸν
στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς
ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. There was a distinc-
tion, fundamentally present, though later
on confused, in Jewish theology, between
the “Kingdom of Heaven” over which
God reigns, and that of the Kingdom of
Israel over which the Messiah should
reign. An integral part of the Messianic
hope was the doctrine of a resurrection
μακαρισ-
ϑουχι AC}, a, c, 69, 180.
(cf. Isa. xxiv. 10; Dan. xii. 2). This first
assumed definite form, apparently, under
the impulse of the idea that those who
had suffered martyrdom for the Law
(Torah) were worthy to share in the
future glories of Israel. In the crudest
form of the doctrine the resurrection was
confined to the Holy Land—those buried
elsewhere would have to burrow through
the ground to Palestine—and to Israel-
ites. And the trumpet-blast which was
to be the signal for the ingathering of
the exiles would also arouse the sleeping
dead (cf. Berachoth, τοῦ, 4 Esdras iv.
23 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 16).
According to the older view, the Kingdom
was to follow the resurrection and judg-
ment; but the later and more widely held
view was that a temporary Messianic
Kingdom would be established on the
earth, and that this would be followed
by the Last Judgment and the Resurrec-
tion which would close the Messianic
Era. This was to be followed by a new
heaven and a new earth. In the eschat-
ological development which took place
during the first century B.c. Paradise
came to be regarded as the abode of the
righteous and elect in an intermediate
state; from there they will pass to the
Messianic Kingdom, and then, after the
final judgment they enter heaven and
eternal life. In our Epistle there are
some reflections of these various concep-
tions and beliefs, but they have entered
into a simpler and more spiritual phase.
That the reference in the verse before us
is to the Messianic Kingdom seems in-
dubitable both on account of the mention
of the ‘‘Lord Jesus Christ” (Messiah)
with which the section opens, showing
that the thought of our Lord was in the
mind of the writer, and because of the
mention of the “" Kingdom,” and also on
account of the direct mention of the com-
ing of the Messiah as Judge, later on in
v. 7-9. And if this is so then we may
perhaps see in the words ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο
a reference to Christ.
Ver. 6. ἠτιμάσατε: Cf, though
in an entirely different connection, Sir.
X. 23, οὐ δίκαιον ἀτιμάσαι πτωχὸν συνε-
τόν (δίκαιον is absent in the Hebrew);
6—7.
F καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν,} καὶ αὐτοὶ *
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
439
ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς 'κριτήρια ; τ Wisd. ἢ.
Be 3, οὶ
7. οὐκ 38 αὐτοὶ " βλασφημοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν “ ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν * ἐφ᾽ s Acts xvi.
19
3, Xiii. 50, xvii. 6, xviii. 12.
cf. Jer. vii. 10; Mal. i, 11.
lypas ΜΊΑ, 109, 20, 65, Ti.
8 και A, c, 13, Syrhk, Aeth.
the R.V. “ dishonoured” accurately repre-
sents the Greek, but the equivalent
Hebrew word would be better rendered
‘“‘ despised” which is what the A.V. has.
“ Dishonouring ” would imply the with-
holding of a right, “‘despising” would
be rather the contempt accorded to the
man because he was poor. There can
be little doubt that it is the former which
is intended here, but the idea of the latter
must also have been present.—ov x οἱ
πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν
ὑμῶν : the rich here probably refer to
wealthy Jews, though it does not follow
that “ there could have been no question
of rich F$ews if the city and the temple
had fallen” (Knowling), for the Epistle
was addressed to Jews of the Dispersion,
the bulk of whom were not affected, as
far as their worldly belongings were con-
cerned, by the Fall of Jerusalem. On
the other hand, the possibility of the
reference being to rich Jewish-Christians,
or Gentile-Christians, cannot be dis-
missed off-hand, for on the assumption of
a late date for the Epistle it is more
likely that these would be meant. The
writer is taxing his hearers both with bad
treatment accorded to the poor, as well
as pusillanimity with regard to the rich.
The word καταδυν. only occurs once
elsewhere in the N.T., Acts x. 38, ...
πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ
τοῦ διαβόλου; but fairly frequently in
the Septuagint, ¢.g., Am. viii, 4; Wisd.
ii. τὸ, xv. 14. The accusative ὑμᾶς,
which is the reading of WA, etc., is in
accordance with the frequent usage of
the Septuagint, where καταδυν. often
takes an accusative instead of the geni-
tive.—atrolt: ‘The pronoun αὐτὸς is
used in the nominative, not only with the
meaning ‘self’ when attached to a sub-
ject, as in classical Greek, but also when
itself standing for the subject, with a less
amount of emphasis, which we might
render ‘he for his part,’ or ‘it was he
who,’ as in the next clause; it is disputed
whether it does not in some cases lose
its emphatic force altogether, as in Luke
xix, 2, xxiv. 31” (Mayor). ἕλκουσιν:
See Matt. x. 7, 18. Cf. Acts xvi. 109,
uz Tim. vi. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 14; cf. Acts xiii. 45.
t Acts viii.
v Acts Xv. 17,
2 αντοι και 5.
4 ἐπικεκληθεν C},
. . » ἐπιλαβόμενοι τὸν Παῦλον καὶ τὸν
Σίλαν εἵλκυσαν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐπὶ τοὺς
ἄρχοντας.--κριτήρια: Cf. τ Cor. vi.2,
4, either Jewish (cf. the Peshitta rendering
ΝΟΥ FVD) tribunals or Gentile ones.
Ver. 7. βλασφημοῦσιν: for the
force of the word cf. Sir. iii. 16, ὡς
βλάσφημος ὁ ἐγκαταλιπὼν (the Greek
is certainly wrong here, the Hebrew has
ΓΙ» “he that despiseth”) πατέρα.
Cf. Rom. ii. 24, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽
ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Isa.
lil. 5); the word in the N.T. is sometimes
general in its application, of evil speaking
with regard to men (in the Afoc. of Peter
the phrase, of βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν
τῆς δικαιοσύνης occurs twice, 7, 13); at
other times, specifically with reference to
God or our Lord.—_r6 καλὸν ὄνομα
τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς: the name
here (especially in view of καλόν) must be
** Jesus” (Saviour), for the Jews would not
be likely to have blasphemed the name of
‘*Christ” (Messiah) ; in Acts iv. 10-12 it is
alsothe name of “Jesus,” concerning which
St. Peter says: Neither is there any other
name under heaven, that is given among
men, wherein we must be saved. τὸ ἐπικλ.
ἐφ. tp. is a Hebraism, in Am. ix. 12 we
have: ΓΤ opt sap? vty
which the R.V. renders (incorrectly):
‘“‘which are called by my name,” it
should be: ‘*Over whom my name was
called,” as rendered by the Septuagint,
excepting that it repeats itself unneces-
sarily, ἐφ᾽ obs ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά pov
ἐπ’ αὐτούς. The Peshitta, too, has,
ὙΨΓΝῚ NID NOW so that the
R.V. rendering here is incorrect, though
the margin has ‘which was called
upon you”. The idea which the phrase
expresses is very ancient; a possession
was known by the name of the pos-
sessor (originally always a god), this
was the name which was pronounced
over, or concerning, the land; in the
same way, a slave was known under the
name of his master, it was the name
under whose protection he stood. And
440
IAKQBOY
hy.
w Matt.xxii. ὑμᾶς ; 8. εἰ μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε “ Baothikdy! κατὰ τὴν * γραφήν"
38; John
x Cf. ii. 23.
y—y Quoted
from Lev. xix. 18; cf. Rom. xiii. 9.
; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ceauTdyv,”” καλῶς ποιεῖτε.
9. εἰ δὲ "προσωπολημπτεῖτε,3 ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε, ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ
z Deut. i. 17.
1 βασιλικον τελειτε C, Syrhk; τον Bac. P.
2ws σαυτον B; ws εαὔτον 4, 25, 28, 31, 36, Thl.; ws εαυτους a.
3 -Anwrecte KLP.
so also different peoples were ranged
under the names of special gods; this
usage was the same among the Israelites,
who stood under the protection of Jahwe
—the name and the bearer were of course
not differentiated. This, too, is the mean-
ing here; it does not mean the name
that they bore, or were called by, but the
name under whose protection they stood,
and to which they belonged Parallel to
it was the marking of cattle to denote
ownership. (See, in reference to what
has been said, Deut. xxviii. 10; 2 Sam.
xii. 28; Jer. vii. 10), In the passage be-
fore us there is not necessarily any refer-
ence to Baptism, though it is extremely
probable that this is so; Mayor quotes
Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, πρὶν φορέσαι τὸν
ἄνθρωπον τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ
νεκρός ἐστιν - ὅταν δὲ λάβῃ τὴν σῴραγ-
ἴδα (baptism) ἀποτίθεται τὴν νέκρωσιν
καὶ. ἀναλαμβάνει τὴν ζωήν. Resch (of
cit. p. 193) quotes a very interesting pass-
age from Agathangelus, chap. 73, in
which these words occur: . . . kal εἰπὼν
ὅτι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπικέκληται ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς,
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ναὸς τῆς θεότητός μου.
In the passage before us, the omission
of all mention of the name, which would
have come in very naturally, betrays
Jewish usage; as Taylor truly remarks
(Pirge Aboth., p. 66): “A feeling of
reverence leads the Jews to avoid, as far
as possible, all mention of the Names of
God. This feeling is manifested . . . in
their post-canonical literature, even with
regard to less sacred, and not incom-
municable Divine names. In the Talmud
and Midrash, and (with the exception of
the Prayer Books) in the Rabbinic writ-
ings generally, it is the custom to abstain
from using the Biblical names of God,
excepting in citations from the Bible;
and even when Elohim is necessarily
brought in, it is often intentionally mis-
spelt...” It should be noted that this
phrase only occurs once elsewhere in the
N.T., and there in a quotation from the
O.T., quoted by St. James in Acts xv.
17.
Ver. 8 μέντοι : “nevertheless ”
there is a duty due to all men, even the
rich are to be regarded as “‘ neighbours,”
for the precept of the Law, ‘“‘ Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. xix.
18), applies to all men.—_vépov βασι-
λικόν: “There is no difficulty in the
anarthrous νόμος being used (as below, iv.
11) for the law of Christ or of Moses on
the same principle that βασιλεύς could be
used for the King of Persia, but the addi-
tion of an anarthrous epithet should not
have been passed over without comment,
as it has been by the editors generally”
(Mayor). The reference is to the Torah,
as is obvious from the quotation from
Lev. xix. 18, and therefore βασιλικόν---ἰ
this was the original reading—must refer
to God, not (in the first instance) to
Christ; the Peshitta reads: ‘‘ the law of
God”.—reXetre: in Rom. ii. 27 we
have the phrase νόμον τελεῖτε.--τὴν
γραφήν: cf. τ Cor. xv. 3 κατὰ τὰς
γραφάς. On a papyrus belonging to the
beginning of the Christian era, the phrase
κατὰ THY γραφήν is used ina legal sense
in reference to a contract, i.e., something
that ts binding (Deissmann, Neue Bibelst.,
Ρ. 78). When used in reference to the
Torah, as here, it was of particular signi-
ficance to Jews who, as the “people of
God” were bound by the Covenant.—
καλῶς ποιεῖτε: Cf. Acts xv. 29; 2
Pet. i. 19.
Ver. 9. προσωπολημπτεῖτε:
see note onii. 1; the word does not occur
elsewhere in the N.T. nor in the Septu-
agint; cf. Lev. xix. 15; Deut. xvi. 19.—
ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε: thestrength
οἱ the expression is intended to remind
his hearers that it is wilful, conscious
sin of which they will be guilty, if they
have this respect for persons on account
of their wealth. It is well to bear in
mind that the conception of sin among the
Jews was not so deep as it became in the
light of Christian teaching.—é Ae y x 6 p-
evo: i.e., by the words in Lev. xix. 15.,
μὴ θαυμάσῃς πρόσωπον δυνάστον.---
παραβάται: the verb παραβαίνω
8—r2,
IAKQBOY
441
τοῦ νόμου ὡς παραβάται. το. ὅστις; γὰρ; ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ, a ili. 2; 2
" πταίσῃ “ δὲ ἐν " ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων “ ἔνοχος.
“Suh μοιχεύσῃς, εἶπεν καὶ: μὴ φονεύ σῃς 6:
χεύεις, φονεύεις ὃ δέ, γέγονας 5 παραβάτης 10 νόμου.
= Pet. i. 10;
11. ὃ γὰρ εἰπώνδ- {ude 24.
ses a8 b Matt. v.
εἰ δὲ οὐ ὅμοι- το.
ς Mark iii.
12. οὕτως
λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε ὡς διὰ νόμου " ἐλευθερίας μέλλοντες κρίνε- dd Quoted
from
1Qui f. 3 Autem Vulg,
Exod, xx.
13, 14; οἵ. Deut. v. 17, 18. εἶ, 25.
ϑτηρησει KLP; πληρωσει A, a, c, 63, 69, Syrhk; πληρωσας τήηρησει 13; τελεσει
66, 73.
ἄπταισει KLP,
7 potxevorers ἴ,.
® eyevov AB,
5 evtrras A.
precisely expresses the Hebrew ΣΝ
**to cross over”; cf. Rom. ii. 25, 27;
Gal. ii. 18; Heb. iil. 2, ix. 15, and see
Matt. xv. 2, 3. To cross over the line
which marks the “way” is to become a
transgressor.
Ver. το. τηρήσῃ: τηρεῖν is used
here with a force precisely corresponding
to the Hebrew ΔΙ when used in re-
ference to the Law, or a statute, the
Sabbath, etc. ; the idea is that of guard-
ing something against violation.—7 τ a-
toy δὲ ἐν ἑνί: πταίειν = the Hebrew
bys, ‘to stumble over” something;
the picture is that of a παραβάτης stum-
bling over the border which marks the
way; cf. the oft-used expression in
Jewish writings of making a “‘ hedge” or
“fence” around the Torah, e.g., Pirge
Aboth., i. 1. With the verse before us
cf. Sir. xxxvii. 12,... ὃν ἂν ἐπιγνῷς
συντηροῦντα ἐντολάς ... καὶ ἐὰν πτα-
ίσῃς συναλγήσει σοι, and νεῖ. 15 καὶ
ἐπὶ κἄσι τούτοις δεήθητι Ὑψίστου ἵνα
εὐθύνῃ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τὴν ὁδόν cov.—év
ἑνί: usedin a pregnant sense, “in one
matter” or “in any single point”.—
γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος: While
there are a certain number of passages in
Rabbinical writings which are in agree-
ment with this teaching (e.g., Bemidbar
Rabb., ix.on Num. v. 14; Shabbath, 70b ;
Pesikta, 50a; Horaioth, 8b; quoted by
Mayor), there can be no doubt that the
predominant teaching was in accordance
with the passage quoted by Taylor (in
Mayor, of. cit., p. 39) from Shemoth
Rabb. xxv. end: “The Sabbath weighs
against all the precepts”; as Taylor
goes on to say: “If they kept it, they
were to be reckoned as having done all;
if they profaned it, as having broken all”.
8—6 Transp. C, 69, Syrhk, Arm., Thl.
8—8 Transp. 15, 70, Arm,; -σεις K, ΤῊ]. ; -ons LP.
10 αποστατῆς A.
Rashi teaches the same principle. This
is quite in accordance with the Jewish
teaching regarding the accumulation of
NYY (“ commandments,” i.¢., observ-
ances of the Law); a man was regarded
as “righteous” or “evil” according to
the relative number of or evil
deeds laid to his eccoanle δ1}: το δον were
balanced against the bad; according as to
which of the two preponderated, so was
the man reckoned as among the righteous
or the wicked (see the writer's article in
the Expositor, April, 1908, “‘ The Parable
of the Labourers in the Vineyard”).—
πάντων is equivalent to all the precepts
of the Torah. For ἔνοχος cf. Matt. xxvi.
66; x Cor. xi. 27; Gal. iii. 10; see also
Deut. xxvii. 26, and Resch, of. cit., p. 47.
Ver. Ir. μὴ μοιχεύσῃ ς; etc.: for
the order of the seventh commandment
preceding the sixth, cf, the Septuagint
(Exod. xx. 13, 14), and Luke xviii. 20;
Rom. xiii, 9. With this mention of
adultery and murder together should be
compared 88 9, 10 of the Apoc. of Peter;
in the former section the punishment of
adulterers is described, in the latter that
of murderers, while in § 11 mention is
made of the children who were the victims
of murder, Possibly it is nothing more
than a coincidence, but the fact is worth
drawing attention to that in the Afoc. of
Peter (or, more strictly, in the extant
remains of this) the punishment is des-
cribed only of those who had been guilty
of evil speaking (blasphemy), adultery,
murder, and the wealthy who had not had
pity upon widows and orphans, These
are the sins upon which special stress is
laid in our Epistle; other sins receive
only incidental mention,
Ver. 12. οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ
οὕτως ποιεῖτε: When one thinks of
442
f—f Job
xxi. 6-11;
σθαι.
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ Il.
13. *H yap? κρίσις ἀνέλεος 3 τῷ ph ποιήσαντι ἔλεος ὃ"
Prov. xxi. " κατακαυχᾶται * ἔλεος ὅ κρίσεως. ἢ
13; Ezek.
XXXV, Il;
Matt. v.
7, Vi. 15,
14. Τί τὸ 5 "ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ tis” ἔχειν
XViii. 29, 34, 35, XXV. 45, 46; Mark xi. 26; Luke vi. 38, xvi. 35; cf. Rom.i.31. g i. 9; iii. 14.
h x Cor, xv. 32.
1 Autem ff.
2 avidkews L, a, Chrys., Thl., rec., non miserebitur, δ΄.
3 ehKeov Καὶ
4 κατακαυχασθω A, 13, 27, a, Copt.; κατακαυχατε B; κατακαυχασθε C?ras,
Pesh., + Se \Q2A, 13, + autem, Vulg., a, 7, Syrr., Oec.
5 eXeov CKL, Oec.
Tus λεγη AC, Tregme.
the teaching of our Lord in such passages
as Matt. v. 22, 28, where sinful feelings
and thoughts are reckoned as equally
wicked with sinful words and acts, it isa
little difficult to get away from the im-
pression that in the verse before us the
teaching is somewhat inadequate from the
Christian, though not from the Jewish,
point of view.—8.a νόμον édevd-
epias: See above i. 22, 25, and cf.
John vii. 32-36.—péAAovres κρίνε-
σθαι: cf. ver. 7, 8, and especially ver.
9, ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν.
Ver. 13. ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος;
εἰσ: Cf. Matt. vs. 7, 1, xvili.28:ff.,
xxv. 41 ff. For the form ἀνέλεος see
Mayor,inloc. The teaching occurs often
in Jewish writings, ¢.g., Sir. xxviii. 1, 2, 6
ἐκδικῶν παρὰ Κυρίου εὑρήσει ἐκδίκησιν,
καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ διαστηριῶν
διαστηρίσει. ἄφες ἀδίκημα τῷ πλησίον
σου, καὶ τότε δεηθέντος σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι
σον λυθήσονται. Test. of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Zeb. viii. 1-3 : “ Have, there-
fore, yourselves also, my children, com-
passion towards every man with mercy,
that the Lord also may have compassion
and mercy upon you. Because also in
the last days God will send His compas-
sion on the earth, and wheresoever He
findeth bowels of mercy He dwelleth in
him. For in the degree in which a man
hath compassion upon his neighbours, in
the same degree hath the Lord also upon
him” (Charles); cf. also vi. 4-6. Shab-
bath, 1276: “ He who thus judge others
will thus himself be judged”. Jbid.,
151b: “He that hath mercy on his
neighbours will receive mercy from
heaven ; and he that hath not mercy
on his neighbours will not receive mercy
from heaven”. Cf. also the following
from Ephraem Syrus, Ofp., 1. 308 (quoted
by Resch. of. cit., p. 197): καὶ μακάριοι
οἱ éhejoavres, ὅτι ἐκεῖ ἐλεηθήσονται"
καὶ οὐαὶ τοῖς μὴ ἐλεήσασιν, ὅτι οὐκ
ἐλεηθήσονται.--ποιήσαντι: this use
6 Om. το BC}, Arm., Tregmg; WH.
of ποιεῖν is common in the Septuagint
and corresponds to the Hebrew ΓΟ;
it is often used with ΓΤ (“kindness”).
ππκατακαυχᾶται: “triumphs over”,
Vv. 14-26. On this section see Intro-
duction IV.,§ 2. There are a few points
worth drawing attention to, in connection
with the subject treated of in these verses,
before we come to deal with the passage
in detail: (1) πίστις here means nothing
more than belief in the unity of God, cf.
ver. 20 τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν ...;
this is a very restricted use of the word,
both according to Hebrew and Greek
usage. The Hebrew ΣΝ means
primarily “ faithfulness,” “ steadfastness,”
“ reliability,” and is used in reference to
God quite as much as in reference to
men. This is also the force of the verb
Jor > it is only in the Hiph‘al that
the meaning “ to believe in,” in the sense
of “to trust,” arises. The use of πίστις
in the Septuagint varies; mostly it cor-
responds to ΓΝ» but not infre-
quently this latter is rendered ἀληθεία,
é.g-, Psa. Ixxxviii. (lxxxix.) 34, 50, xcvii.
(xcviii.) 3, though in each of these cases
Aquila and Quinta render πίστις. In
Sir. xli. 16, πίστις is the rendering of the
Hebrew [AYN (“truth”), while in xlv.
4, xlvi. 15 it corresponds to ΓΝ
in the sense of “ reliability”. ' In a
xxxvii. 26 the Greek is obviously corrupt,
πίστις stands there for the Hebrew
TDS (“glory”), which is clearly more
correct. But the most interesting pas-
sage on the subject in Sir. from our
present point of view is xv. 15 : ἐὰν θέλῃς,
συντηρήσεις ἐντολάς, kal πίστιν ποίη-
σαι εὐδοκίας : of which the Hebrew
iss TsO Wawn ySmn oN
waza ΓΟ ms («1 it
be thy will thou dost observe the
13--15.
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
443
ἔργα δὲ μὴ ᾿ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις ; σῶσαι αὐτόν ; 15. ἐὰν 3: i 93;
1 Add sola, ff; add sine »peribus, Sah.
3 Add δε ACDKL, curss., Vulg., rec.
commandment, and it is faithfulness to
do His good pleasure”; the context
shows that it is a question here of man’s
tree-will). Here πίστις is used in a dis-
tinctly higher sense than in the passage
of our Epistle under consideration. In
so far, therefore, as πίστις is used in the
restricted sense, as something which de-
mons as well as men possess, it is clear
that the subject is different from that
treated by St. Paul in Romans; and
therefore the comparison so often made
between the two Epistles on this point
is not @ propos. (2) That which gave
the occasion for this section seems to
have been the fact that, in the mind of
the writer, some of the Jewish converts
had gone from one extreme to another
on the subject of works. Too much
stress had been laid upon the efficacy
of works in their Jewish belief; when
they became Christians they were in
danger of losing some of the excellences
of their earlier faith by a mistaken sup-
position that works, not being efficacious
per se (which so far was right) were there-
fore altogether unnecessary, and that the
mere fact of believing in the unity of
God was sufficient. Regarded from this
point of view, there can, again, be no
question of a conflict with Pauline teach-
ing as such. The point of controversy
was one which must have agitated every
centre in which Jews and Jewish-Chris-
tians were found. In this connection it
is important to remember that the “ faith
of Abraham” was a subject which was
one of the commonplaces of theological
discussion both in Rabbinical circles as
well as in the Hellenistic School of
Alexandria; regarding the former, see the
interesting passage from the Midrashic
work, Mechilta, quoted by Box in Hast-
ings’ D.C.G., ii. 5686. The error of run-
ning from one extreme into another, in
matters of doctrine, is one of those things
too common to human nature for the
similarity of language between this
Epistle and St. Paul’s writings in deal-
ing with the subject of faith and works
to denote antagonism between the two
writers, (3) The passage as a whole
betrays a very strong Jewish standpoint;
while it would be too much to say that it
could not have been written by a Chris-
tian, it is certainly difficult to understand
how, ¢.g., ver. 25 could have come from
the pen of a Christian. (4) It is neces-
sary to emphasise the fact that this pas-
sage cannot be properly understood with-
out some idea of the subject of the Jewish
doctrine of works which has always played
a supremely important part in Judaism;
for this, reference must be made to IV.,
§ 2 of the Introduction, where various
authorities are quoted.
Ver. 14. τί τὸ ὄφελος: B stands
almost alone in omitting τό here; in
1 Cor. xv. 32, the only other place in the
N.T. where the phrase occurs τό is in-
serted. A somewhat similar phrase oc-
curs in Sir, xli. 14, ... τίς ὠφελία ἐν
ἀμφοτέροις; the abruptness of the words
betrays the preacher.—&S8eA pol pov:
a characteristic mode of address in this
Epistle. With ἀδελφός cf. in
Rabbinical literature. — ἔ es i =o the
Hebrew Τἢ (literally ‘ command;
ments,” #.¢., fulfilling of commandments) :
see Introduction IV., 8 2.--πίστις.
$.¢., as expressed in the Shema‘ (Deut. vi,
4 ff.): “ Hear O Israel, the Lord our God,
the Lord is One...”; this was the
fundamental tenet of the Jewish faith,
and that it 15. this to which reference is
made, and not the Christian faith, is
obvious from ver. 19 which contains the
essence of the δλερια'.--σῶσαι : the
belief in the efficacy of works among
the Jews has always been very strong;
the following quotations express the
traditional teaching of Judaism on the
subject: “He that does a good work in
this world, in the world to come his good
work goes before him;” Sofa, 36, in
Kethuboth, 67b we have the following :
“© When Mar Ukba lay a-dying, he asked
for his account; it amounted to 7000
Zuzim (i.e., this was the sum-total of his
almsgiving). Then he cried out: ‘The
way is far, and the provision is small’
(i.e., he did not think that this sum would
be sufficient to ensure his justification in
the sight of God, and thus gain him salva-
tion) ; so he gave away halt of his fortune,
in order to make himself quite secure.”
Again, concerning a righteous man who
died in the odour of sanctity, it is said, in
Tanchuma, Wayyakel, i.: “ον much
alms did he give, how much did he study
the Torah, how many Mitsvoth (i.e,
444
k Luke iii, ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ *
IAKQBOY
τι;
ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφη-
Ir; cf. a a > ς “ 3
Lev. xxv. μέρου τροφῆς, 16. ‘etn? δέδ τις’ αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν: ὑπάγετεϑ ἐν
b
35; Jo
xxii. 6,
XXxxi. 19, 20. 1—1 1 John iii. 17, 18. |
1 Add ὡσιν ALP, m, Thl., Oec., rec.
4στι Net,
3 και evn A, 13, a.
‘commandments,’ see above) did he ful-
fil! He will rest among the righteous.”
It is also said in Baba Bathra toa, that
God placed the poor on earth in order to
save rich men from Hell; the idea, of
course, being that opportunities for doing
Miizvoth were thus provided. In a
Curious passage in the Testament of
Abraham, chap. xvi., it is saidthat Than-
atos met Abraham and told him that he
welcomed the righteous with a pleasant
look and with a salutation of peace, but
the sinners he confronted with an angry
and dark countenance; and he said that
the good deeds of Abraham had become
a crown upon his (Thanatos’) head.
In Wisdom, iv. 1 we have, .. . ἀθανασία
yap ἐστιν ἐν μνήμῃ αὐτῆς (ἀρετῆς),
ὅτι καὶ παρὰ Θεῷ γινώσκεται καὶ παρὰ
ἀνθρώποις. Cf. Enoch ciii. 1-4.
Ver. 15. In accordance with the very
practical nature οὐ the writer, he now
proceeds to give an illustration of his
thesis which is bound to appeal; he must
have been a telling preacher.—éav: the
addition of δέ is fairly well attested, but
the reading of BX§ where it is omitted is
to be ρῥγεξεσσεά.- -ἀδ εὰ φή: the specific
mention of ‘“‘sister”’ here is noteworthy ;
it is the one point in this passage which
suggests distinctively Christian influence.
This is apparently the only place in the
Bible in which “sister” is mentioned in
this special connection.—yupwvol: Cf.
Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Zeb. vii.
1-3; “I saw a man in distress through
nakedness in winter-time, and had com-
passion upon him, and stole away a gar-
ment secretly from my father’s house
(another reading is ‘my house’), and
gave it to him who was in distress. Do
you, therefore, my children, from that
which God bestoweth on you, show com-
passion and mercy without hesitation to
all men, and give to every man with a
good heart. And if you have not the
wherewithal to give to him that needeth,
have compassion for him in bowels of
mercy” (Charles). Of course it is not
literal nakedness that is meant in the
passage before us; in the case of men
the Hebrew O99 (= γυμνός), while
often used in a literal sense, is also fre-
3 εὐπει $Y}.
5 yraye C} vid, 63.
quently used in reference to one who was
not wearing a YM (= χιτών) and thus
appeared only in OID, “ under-gar-
ments,” see Am. ii. 6; Isa. xx. 2 f.; Job
xxii. 6, xxiv. 7-10. In the case of women,
the reference is likewise to the US5)
though in this case the garment was both
longer and fuller than that of men; at
the same time, it is improbable that the
“sister” would have appeared without a
veil, unless, indeed, we are dealing with a
venue which is altogether more Western;
this is a possibility which cannot be
wholly excluded.ALetmépevor: must
be taken with ὑπάρχωσιν as the addition
of ὦσιν is poorly attested.—édynpépov
τροφῆς: “the food for the day”; the
words express the dire necessity of those
in want. Cf. Matt. vi. 11, Τὸν ἄρτον
ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον,
and Nestle’s note on ἐπιούσιος in Hast-
ings’ D.C.G., ii. 58a. ἐφήμερος does not
occur elsewhere in the N.T. or the Septu-
agint.
Ver.16. ὑπάγετε,θερμαίνεσθε;
χορτάζεσθε : these words do not
seem to be spoken in irony; this is clear
from the τί τὸ ὄφελος. They are spoken
in all seriousness, and it is quite possible
that those whom the writer is addressing
were acting upon a mistaken application
of Christ’s words in Matt. vi. 25 tf., Be not
anxious for your life, what ye shall eat,
or what ye shall drink ; nor yet for your
body, what ye shall put on. ... Be not
therefore anxious, saying, What shall we
eat? or, What shall we drink? or,
Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For
after all these things do the Gentiles
seek ; for your Heavenly Father knoweth
that ye have need of all these things. It
was entirely in accordance with their idea
of πίστις that these people should leave
to their Heavenly Father what, according
to both Jewish and Christian teaching,
it was their duty todo.—_p} δῶτε δὲ:
“The plural is often used after an in-
definite singular” (Mayor).—rTra ἐπι-
TH Sera τοῦ σώματος: onlyherein
the N.T., but often found in classical
writers; Mayor gives instances.—rt τὸ
ὄφελος: in the earlier passage in which
16—19.
IAKQBOY
445
εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ Sate! δὲ αὐτοῖς 3 τὰ ἐπι- 1--| τ John
τήδεια 8 τοῦ σώματος, τί τὸ
ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα," νεκρά ἐστιν
iii, 17, 18.
ὄφελος 3' 17. οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, m Rom. ix.
καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν.
δινκ , a
σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, κἀγὼ ἔργα “ywo®-8 ϑεῖξόν μοι thy πίστιν σου 9
18. ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ ™ τις ᾽α εἶ 13.
o Gal. ν. 6
cf. Matt.
‘110 oA ” »Η ii. i
Χωρὶς τοῦ ἔργων,1} 12 κἀγώ σοι " δείξω 18 ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου 14 Thy pit Gare
7 Ὁ
πίστιν. 15 12 19, Ῥ σὺ 16 πιστεύεις ὅτι 17 εἷς ἐστιν 18 ὁ Θεός. καλῶς “HS
1 Dederit ζ΄. 7 eis.
*Om. to BC’, Arm., Tregmg, WH.
‘—® Tu operam habes ego fidem habeo ff.
9 Om. 68, ff.
S exw, Weiss; exw. WH.
11 Add gov CKL, a, Aeth., Thl., rec.
12—12 Et ego tibi de operibus fidem ff.
18 δειξω σοι ACKL, Syrr., Thl., Oec. Tregmg,
15 Add μου AKLP, m Vulg., Syrr., Copt., Aeth., Thl., Oec., rec.
3 Alimentum ff.
5 epya exn L, Arm., Thl., Oec.
7 exets; WH (altern. reading).
10 ex KL, m., Thl., rec.
14Om. Latt. (hab 5), Syrbk,
16 Om. s.
M—17 εὶς Qeos εστιν ; B, 69, a, c, Thl., Tregmg, WH; εἰς 0 Qeos ἐστιν: C Syrhk,
Weiss, WH (altern. reading) ;
18 Om. ff.
this phrase occurs there is no question of
irony, it is a direct fallacy which is being
combated; in this verse, too, the writer
is correcting a mistaken idea, this comes
out clearly in the next verse.
Ver. 17. οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις
+ + «: just as faith without works is dead,
80 this spurious, quiescent charity, which
is content to leave all to God without any
attempt at individual effort, is worthless.
ππκαθ᾽ ἑαυτήν: the Vulgate in semet-
ipsa brings out the force of this; such
faith is, in its very essence, dead; cf. the
Peshitta.
Ver. 18.—&AN ἐρεῖ τις: these
words, together with the argumentative
form of the verses that follow, imply that
a well-known subject of controversy is
being dealt with. ’AAN’ ἐρεῖ tis is a
regular argumentative phrase, used of an
objection. ‘“ Instead of the future the
optative with ἄν would be more common
in classical Greek, but the latter form is
rather avoided by the Hellenistic writers,
occurring only eight times in the N.T.,—
thrice in Luke, five times in Acts”
(Mayor).—@x evs: the interrogative here
suggested by WH does not commend
itself, as the essence of the argument is
the setting-up of two opposing and
definite standpoints —Ka&y@®: In the
N.T. καί “ often coalesces with ἐγώ (and
its oblique cases), ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖθεν, ἐκεῖνος,
and ἄν; but there are many exceptions,
and especially where there is distinct co-
ordination of ἐγώ with another pronoun
or a substantive. There is much division
of evidence” (WH, The N.T. in Greek,
ο Geos εις ἐστιν K?L, Did., Occ.
II. App., p. 145).—8etEév μοι τὴν
πίστιν σου .. .: πίστις is not used
quite consistently by the writer; faith
which requires works to prove its exist-
ence is not the same thing which is
spoken of in the next verse as the posses-
sion of demons; the difference is graphic-
ally illustrated in the account of the
Gadarene demoniac; in Luke viii. 28 the
words, What have I to do with thee,
Fesus, thou Son of the Most High God,
express a purely intellectual form of faith,
which is a very different thing from the
attitude of mind implied in the words
which describe the whilom demoniac, as,
sitting, clothed and in his right mind, at
the a of Fesus (ver. 35).—With the
whole verse cf. Rom. iii. 28, iv. 6.
Ver. 19. σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι els
ἐστιν ὁ θεός: Cf. Mark xii. 29, 1 Cor.
viii. 4,6; Eph.iv. 6. The reading varies,
see critical note above; the interrogative
is unsuitable, see note on ἔχεις in the
preceding verse. Somewhat striking is
the fact that the regular and universally
accepted formula (whether Hebrew or
Greek) among the Jews is not adhered
to; the Septuagint of Deut. vi. 4, which
corresponds strictly to the original, runs:
Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,
and this is also the exact wording in Mark
xii. 29, The stress laid on Κύριος ( =
ΓΤ) in the original is very pointed,
the reason being the desire to emphasise
the name of Jahwe as the God of Israel
(note the omission of the article before
Κύριος) ; it sounded a particularistic note.
The elimination of Κύριος in the verse
446
a 4
qxCor.x. ποιεῖς " καὶ τὰ “ δαιμόνια " πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν.
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
EI,
20. θέλεις
20.
see bY -“Ἔ ΄-“-
τ Matt. viii. δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε " κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις ᾿ χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή
28, 29;
Mk.v.2 |
—7; Luke iv. 33, 34; Acts xvi. 16, 17, xix. 15.
Matt. v. 22. t Rom. iii. 28.
lvexpa SAC*KLP, Vulg., Pesh., Syrhk,
before us, and the emphatic position of
ὁ Θεός,, is most likely intentional, and
points to a universalistic tendency, such
as is known to have been a distinctive
characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism. To
Jews of all kinds belief in the unity of
God formed the basis of faith; this unity
is expressed in what is called the Shema‘
(Deut. vi. 4 ff.), ze. ‘‘ Hear,” from the
opening word of the passage referred to;
strictly speaking, it includes Deut. vi.
4-9, xi. 13-21; Num. xv. 37-41, though
originally it consisted of the one verse,
Deut. vi. 4. From the timeof the Exile,
according to Berachoth, i. 1, the recita-
tion of the Shema‘ every morning and
evening became the solemn duty of all
true Jews. To the present day it is the
confession of faith which every Jew
breathes upon his death-bed. It is said
of Rabbi Akiba, who suffered the martyr’s
death, that he breathed out at the last
the word “One” in reference to the
belief in the Unity of God as contained
in the Shema‘ (Ber., 616). A few in-
stances may be given from Jewish litera-
ture in order to show the great import-
ance of and honour attaching to the
Shema‘: ‘*They cool the flames of Gehin-
nom for him who reads the Shema‘”
(Ber., 156); ‘‘ Whoever reads the Shema‘
upon his couch is as one that defends
himself with a two-edged sword” (Meg.,
3a); it is saidin Ber,, i. § 2, that to him
who goes on reading the Shema‘ after the
prescribed time no harm will come; in
Suk., 42a, it is commanded that a father
must teach his son to read the Shema‘ as
soon as he begins to speak. The very
parchment on which the Shema‘ is written
is efficacious in keeping demons at a
distance.—The single personality of God
is frequently insisted upon in the O.T.,
Targums, and later Jewish literature; in
the latter this fundamental article was
sometimes believed to be impugned by
Christian teaching concerning God, and
we therefore find passages in which this
latter is combated (see, on this, Oesterley
and Box, of. cit., p. 155); inthe Targums
all anthropomorphisms are avoided, since
they were considered derogatory to the
Divine Personality. We must suppose
that it was owing to this intense jealousy
8 Judg. ix. 4 (Sept.); 1 Cor. xv. 36; of.
Copt., Arm., Aeth., Oec., rec.; vacua ff.
wherewith the doctrine of the Unity of
God was guarded that in the passage
before us there are no qualifying words
regarding the Godhead of Christ; when
St. Paul (1 Cor. viii. 6) enunciates the
same doctrine, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν els θεὸς ὁ
πατήρ, he is careful to add, καὶ εἷς
Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Such an addi-
tion might well have been expected in
the verse before us; its omission must
perhaps be accounted for owing to the
very pronounced Judaistic character of
the writer.—kxar@s woveis: it is im-
possible to believe that there is anything
ironical about these words; as far as it
went this belief was absolutely right; the
context, which is sometimes interpreted
as showing the irony of these words,
only emphasises the inadequacy of the
belief by itselfi—ra δαιμόνια πισ-
τεύουσιν kat φρίσσουσιν : one
is, of course, reminded of the passage,
Luke viii. 26 ff. (= Matt. viii. 28 ff.),
already alluded to above: δέομαί σου,
μή pe βασανίσῃς, or, more graphically,
in the parallel passage, ἔκραξαν Aéyov-
τες, τί ἡμῖν Kal σοί, vie τοῦ Θεοῦ ; ἦλθες
ὧδε πρὸ καιροῦ βασανίσαι ἡμᾶς ; cf.
Acts xix. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 18. On demons
see the writer’s article in Hastings’
D.C.G.. i. 438 ff.—Mayor gives some in-
teresting reminiscences of these words in
other early Christian writings, ¢.g., Justin,
Trypho, 49, εἰο.--φρίσσουσιν : am
λέγ. in the N.T.; literally ‘‘to bristle,”
cf. Job iv. 35; the very materialistic
ideas concerning evil spirits which is so
characteristic of Jewish Demonology
would account for an expression which is
not, strictly speaking, applicable to im-
material beings. One of the classes
of demons comprised the O° YW
(‘‘ hairy ones”), in reference to these the
word φρίσσουσιν would be extremely
appropriate (see further, on’ Jewish beliefs
concerning demons, the writer’s articles
in the Expositor, April, June, August,
1907).
Ver. 20. The words of this and the
following verses, to the end of ver. 23,
belong to the argument commenced by
a supposed speaker—GAX’ ἐρεῖ τις--- ; it
is all represented as being conducted by
£0—22.
ἐστιν; 21. ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη,
IAKQBOY
ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ “θυσιαστήριον; 9-12.
b
22. βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις “ συνήργει ' τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν
17.
1 συνεργει δ ἸΑ, Ti., Treg., communicat #7.
one man addressing another, the second
person singular being used; with the
ὁρᾶτε of ver. 24 the writer of the Epistle
again speaks in his own name, and, as it
were, sums up the previous argument.
—Oéders δὲ γνῶναι: “Dost thou
desire to know,” i.¢., by an incontro-
vertible fact; the writer then, like a skil-
ful disputant, altogether demolishes the
position of his adversary by presenting
something which was on all ds re-
garded as axiomatic. As remarked above,
the question of Abraham’s faith was a
subject which was one of the common-
places of theological discussion in the
Rabbinical schools as well as among
Hellenistic-Jews; this is represented as
having been forgotten, or at all events, as
not having been taken into account, so
that the adversary, on being confronted
with this fact, must confess that his
argument is refuted by something that
he himself accepts. It is this which gives
the point to ὦ ἄνθρωπε xevé. For xevé
the Peshitta has sworn “ feeble,” in
its primary sense, but also ‘‘ignorant,”
which admirably expresses what the
writer evidently intends. Both Mayor and
Knowling speak of κενός as being equi-
valent to Raca (Matt. v. 22), but the two
words are derived from different roots, the
former from a Grk. root meaning “to be
empty,” the latter from a Hebr. one mean-
ing ‘‘to spit” [see the writer’s article in
the Expositor, July, 1905, pp. 28 ff.]; κενός
has nothing todo with Raca.—apy%:
the reading νεκρά is strongly attested ;
the Corbey MS. makes a pun by reading
‘‘vacua,” after having written “Ὁ homo
vacue”, ᾿Αργή is not so strong as γεκρά;
cf. Matt. xii. 36, wav ῥῆμα ἀργόν.
Ver. 21%. “ABpadp ὁ πατὴρ
ἡμῶν: A stereotyped phrase in Jewish
literature—otK ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαι-
ὦθη: the writer is referring to the
well-known Jewish doctrine of YD}
(Zeciith), on this subject see Introduc-
tion IV., § 2.--ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ
+++: 0n this subject an example of
Jewish haggadic treatment may be οἱ
interest: ‘““When Abraham finally held
the knife over his beloved son, Isaac
seemed doomed, and the angels of heaven
shed tears which fell upon Isaac’s eyes,
causing him blindness in later life. But
their prayer was heard. The Lord sent
Michael the archangel to tell Abraham
not to sacrifice his son, and the dew of
life was poured on Isaac to revive him.
The ram to be offered in his place had
stood there ready, prepared trom the
beginning of Creation (Aboth, v. 6).
Abraham had given proof that he served
God not only from fear, but also out of
love, and the promise was given that,
whenever the ‘Akedah [=the “ bind-
ing,” #.¢., of Isaac] chapter was read on
New Year’s day, on which occasion the
ram’s horn is always blown, the descend-
ants of Abraham should be redeemed
from the power of Satan, of sin, and of
oppression, owing to the merit of him
whose ashes lay before God as though
he had been sacrificed and consumed,”
Pesif. R., § 40 (quoted in ¥ewish Encycl.,
i. 87a). It is interesting to notice that
even in the Talmud (e.g., Ta‘aniz, 4a) the
attempted sacrifice of Isaac is regarded
also from a very different point of view,
such words as those of Jer. xix. 5; Mic.
vi. 7, being explained as referring to this
event (see further Proceedings of the Soc.
of Bibl. Arch., xxiv. pp. 235 ff.).
Ver. 22, βλέπεις ...: as these
words are the deduction drawn from
what precedes, it is better to take them
in the form of a statement, and not as
interrogative.— πίστις συν ήρ ye:
this implies a certain modification, with
regard to πίστις, of the earlier position
taken up by the writer, for in ver. 21 he
says: “Was not Abraham our father
justified by works?” no mention being
made of faith; while here faith is ac-
corded an equal place with works; cf.
Gal. v. 6, be αν: δι᾽ ἀγάπης évepyou-
μένη» concerning which words Lightfoot
says that they “bridge over the gulf
which seems to separate the language
of St. Paul and St. James. Both assert
a principle of practical energy, as opposed
to a barren, inactive theory”. On ovv-
Hpyet see Test.of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Gad., iv. 7, ‘‘ But the spirit of love worketh
together with the law of God...”
(Charles). —kat ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ
πίστις ἐτελειώθη: it is obvious
that “ faith” is used here in the highest
sense, not merely as an attitude of mind,
448
w Cf. τ
Thess. i. ξ
3; John λέγουσα"
vi. 28, 2
IAKQBOY
Il.
ἔργων “4 πίστις ἐτελειώθη, 23. καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἣ "γραφὴ ἡ
PY 7 ; 2
Υἐπίστευσεν δὲ2 ᾿Αβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογί-
9 lel Lol
xiv. 5, 681.σθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην," καὶ *idos* Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. 24.
iii. 8; x
Tim. v.18;
x Pet. ii. 6. y-y
z 2 Chron, xx. 7; Isa. xli. 8; cf. Wisd. vii. 27.
1 ετελειωθη ; Treg.
8 Domino f.
but as a God-given possession. It must,
however, be further remarked that if the
Judaism of the Jewish-Christian writer of
this part of the Epistle had been some-
what less strong, the words under con-
sideration would probably have been put
a little differently; for according to the
purely Christian idea of faith, works,
while being an indispensable proof of its
existence, could not be said to perfect it,
any more than the preaching of the faith
could be said to perfect the preacher’s
belief; though works are the result and
outcome of faith, they belong, never-
theless, to a different category.
Ver. 23. There is somellittle looseness
in the way the O.T. is used in these
verses; in ver. 21 mention is made of the
work of offering up Isaac, whereby, it is
said (ver. 22), faith is perfected; then it
goes straight on (ver. 23) to say that the
Scripture was fulfilled which saith, ‘‘ Abra-
ham believed.. ”; this reads as though
the quotation were intended to refer to
the offering up of Isaac,—the proof of
perfected faith; but as a matter of fact
the quotation refers to Abraham’s belief
in Jehovah’s promise to the effect that the
seed of Abraham was to be as numerous
as the stars of heaven. In the O.T., that
is to say, there is no connection between
the quotation from Gen. xv. 6 and the
offering-up of Isaac. This manipulation
of Scripture is strongly characteristic of
Jewish methods of exegesis.—é wigat-
ευσεν δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ .. .: the N.T.
= Septuagint, which differs from the
Hebrew in reading τῷ Θεῷ instead of τῷ
κυρίῳ,, and the passive ἐλογίσθη for the
active. Faith, according to Jewish teach-
ing, was a good deed which was bound
to bring its reward; it was one of those
things which demanded a reward; the
phrase ΣΝ MYDS (“the merit of
faith, 7.e., ‘* trustfulness ”) occurs in
Beresh. Rabba, chap. 74, where it is par-
allelto FTV MSF (“the merit of
[keeping] the Law”); merit, that is to
say, is acquired by trusting God, just as
merit is acquired by observing the pre-
uoted from Gen. xv. 6; cf. 1 Macc. ii. 52; Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6
2 Om. δε L, latt. (hab 5).
4 δουλος 60.
cepts of the Torah; the man who has
acquired sufficient merit is in a state of
Zecith, t.e., in that state of righteousness,
attained by good works, wherein he is in
a position to claim his reward from God.
Very pointed, in this connection, are the
reiterated words of Christ in Matt. vi. 5,
16, ‘ Verily, I say unto you, they have
received their reward”.—ofAogs θεοῦ:
Cf. 2 Chron. xx. 7; Isa. xli. 8; Dan. iii.
35 (Septuagint); in Sir, vi. 17 the Septu-
agint reads: ὁ φοβούμενος Κύριον εὐθύ-
γει φιλίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅτι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν οὕτως
καὶ ὁ πλησίον αὐτοῦ ; the Hebrew has:
‘“‘ For as He Himself is, so is His friend,
and {as is His name, so are his works”
(‘‘ works” must refer, most likely, to the
“friend,” not to God); the Syriac runs:
“They that fear God show genuine
friendship, for as He Himself is, so are
His friends, and as is His name, so are
His works”. In the Book of F¥ubilees,
xix. 9, it says in reference to Abraham:
‘For he was found faithful (believing),
and was written down upon the heavenly
tablets as the friend of God”; this is
repeated in xxx. 20, but from what is said
in the next verse it is clear that all those
who keep the covenant can be inscribed
as “friends” upon these tablets. Deiss-
mann (Bibelstudien, pp. 159 f.) points
out that at the court of the Ptolemies
φίλος was the title of honour of the
highest of the royal officials. In Wéisd.
vil. 27 the “friends of God” is an ex-
pression for the “righteous”. The
phrase φίλος Θεοῦ, therefore, while in
the first instance probably general in its
application, became restricted, so that
finally, as among the Arabs, ‘the friend
ot God,” Khalil Allah, or simply El
Khalil, became synonymous with Abra-
ham. Irenzus, iv. 16, iv. 34, 4, refers to
Abraham as ‘‘the friend of God,” but he
does not mention our Epistle; if a refer-
ence to this was intended it is the earliest
trace of an acquaintance with it. See,
further, an interesting note of Nestle’s
in the Expository Times, xv. pp. 46 f.;
cf. Gen. xviii. 17 where the Septuagint
23—26. III. x.
TAKQBOY
449
a ΓῚ 1 » a
ὁρᾶτε dt.) ἐξ ἔργων "δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.3" a—a Heb.
25. ὁμοίως 8 Sé4 καὶ
πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων 10 ἑνεκρά ἐστιν.
III. 1. Μὴ πολλοὶ " διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί μου, εἰδότες
x. 38, and see 1 Kgs. viii. 46.
Ἶ 5 e ii. το.
20, 21; I Cor. xi. 31; 1 Tim. i. 7.
l ro.wuy KL, Oec.
ϑουτως C, Pesh., Copt., Arm., Aeth.
f ii, 17.
" Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων " ἐδικαιώθη» b—b Josh.
ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους ὅ καὶ ἑτέρᾳ ® ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα ἢ; 26.
ὥσπερ γὰρ ὃ τὸ σῶμα "χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν, οὕτως καὶ ἢ ἡ
ii. 4, xv.
6, 17.
ς 2 Macc.
i. 10;
Acts xiii.
1; 1 Cor.
xi. 34;
Heb. xi.
ἌΣ.
d Cf. Luke
a Cf. i. 19; Matt. xxiii. 8; Rom. ii.
2 povov; Treg.
‘Om. C, ff, Pesh., Copt., Arm.
δ κατασκοπους CKmgL, Pesh., Arm., exploratores ex XII. tribus filiorum israhel HE
6 Pr. per 77, pr. ex's. 7 Pr. eos ff.
*Om. B, Pesh., Arm., Aeth., WH (placed in mg.), autem f, Orig.
9 Οἱ. Κ΄.
reads, οὐ μὴ κρύψω ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ τοῦ
παιδός μου ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, which is quoted
by Philo with τοῦ φίλον pov instead of
τοῦ m. pov. In the MS., 69 φίλος in
the verse before us is rendered δοῦλος
(see critical note above).
Ver. 24. ὁρᾶτε: The argument be-
tween the twosupposed disputants having
been brought to a close, the writer ad-
dresses his hearers again, and sums up in
his own words.—pé6voyv: the writer, by
using this word, allows more importance
to faith than he has yet done; there is
not necessarily any inconsistency in this,
the exigencies of argument on contro-
versial topics sometimes require special
stress to be laid on one point of view to
the partial exclusion of another in order
to balance the one-sided view of an op-
ponent.
Ver. 25. Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη: It must
probably have been the position already
accorded to Rahab in Jewish tradition
that induced the writer to cite an example
like this. In Mechilta, 646, it is said
that the harlot Rahab asked for forgive-
ness of her sins from God, pleading on
her own behalf the good works she had
done in releasing the messengers. The
attempts which have been made to ex-
plain away the force of πόρνη are futile.
Ver. 26. πνεύματος; Spitta’s sug-
gested reading, κινήματος, is very in-
genious, but quite unnecessary; ΓΤ is
often used of “ breath,” and the Greek
equivalent, πνεῦμα, is also used in the
same way in the Septuagint.
CHAPTER III.—Vv. 1-18 form a self-
contained section; the subject dealt with
is the bridling of the tongue, see above
i. 19, 26, 27.
VOL. IV.
10 Pr. των ACKLP, Thl
Oec., Tregmg,
Ver.1. Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι
γίνεσθε: the Peshitta reads: “Let
there not be many teachers among you”;
both the Greek version, which implies
that the “ teachers” belonged to the con-
gregation of the faithful, as well as the
Syriac, which implies that “ teachers” from
outside were welcomed,—cf. Pseud-Clem.,
De Virginitate, i. 11 . . . quod dicit Scrip-
tura, “Ne multi inter vos sint doctores,
fratres, neque omnes sitis prophetae .. .”
(Resch., of. cit., p. 186),—bear witness to
what we know from other sources to have
been the actual facts of the case. It is
the greatest mistake to suppose that
διδάσκαλοι here is equivalent to Rabbis
in the technical sense. In the Jewish
‘Houses of Learning” (i.¢., the Syna-
gogues, for these were not exclusively
places of worship) whether in Palestine
or in the Dispersion (but more so in the
latter), there was very little restriction in
the matter of teachers; almost anyone
would be listened to who desired to be
heard. We have an example of this in
the case of our Lord Himself, who found
no difficulty in entering into Synagogues
and teaching (Matt. xii. 9 ff., xili. 54;
Mark i. 39; Luke vi. 14 ff., etc., etc.),
although His presence there must have
been very distasteful to the Jewish
authorities, and although on some occa-
sions the ordinary hearers altogether dis-
sented from what He taught (¢.g., John
vi. 59-66); the same is true of St. Peter,
St. John, and above all of St. Paul. In
the case of St. Paul (or his disciples)
we have an extremely interesting in-
stance (preserved in the Babylonian
Talmud, Meg., 26a) of an attempt, a
successful attempt, made on one oc-
casion to stop his teaching; it is said
29
450
Ὁ ii. το.
c—c i. το;
Sir. xiv.
τι αι χ τοὶ
xxv, 8,
8, αγωγῆσαι Kai ὅλον τὸ σῶμα.
xxxvi. 18.
IAKQBOY
III.
ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα.:Σ 2. πολλὰ γὰρ 3 πταίομεν " ἅπαντες "
“et τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει,3 ἃ οὗτος “ "τέλειος ἀνήρ," δυνατὸς ὅ χαλιν-
3. εἰ δὲ ὁ τῶν ἵππων τοὺς © χαλινοὺς
d Matt. xii,eig τὰ στόματα ἴ βάλλομεν εἰς 8 τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν," καὶ ὅλον
37.
δὲ: ἃς
g Ps. xxxii.g; xxxix. 9.
᾿ληψομεθα KLP, curss., sumitis Vulg. (accipiemus /).
2 Autem ff. 3 Non erat 7.
4 Add erit 7.
5 Suvapevos NY, curss., Cyr., Thl.; add re Cvid,
δ e.Se yap δῷ (om. yap $82); ιδε CP, curss., Syrhk, Arm., Sah., Thl.; Δ NTT Pesh.
7 ro otopa A, curss., Pesh., Syrhk, Arm.
ὃ προς AKLP, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.
ϑημιν avtous AC, curss., Tregmg; om. ἡμῖν 7).
that the Synagogue of the Alexandrians
(mentioned in Acts vi. 9), which was
called ‘“‘the Synagogue of those of Tar-
sus,” t.¢., the followers of St. Paul, was
bought up by a Tannaite (‘‘ teacher”) and
used for private purposes (see Bergmann,
Fidische Apologetik im neutestamentl.
Zeitalter, p. g). Like the Athenians
(Acts xvii. 21), many inquiring Jews were
always ready to hear some new thing,
and welcomed into their houses of learn-
ing teachers of all kinds (cf. Acts xv. 24;
1 Tim. i. 6, 7). The following would not
have been said unless there had been
great danger of Jews being influenced by
the doctrines condemned: “All Israelites
have their part in the world to come,
. .. but the following (Israelites) have
no part therein,—he who denies that the
Resurrection is a doctrine the foundation
of which is in the Bible, he who denies
the divine origin of the Torah, and (he
who is) an Epicurean” (Samh., xi. 1;
quoted by Bergmann, of. cit., p.9). The
custom of Jews, and especially of Hellen-
istic Jews, of permitting teachers of various
kinds to enter their Synagogues and ex-
pound their views, was not likely to have
been abrogated when they became Chris-
tians, which was in itself a sign of greater
liberal-mindedness. The διδάσκαλοι,
therefore, in the verse before us, must, it
is held, be interpreted in the sense of
what has been said. The whole passage
is exceedingly ‘interesting as throwing
detailed light upon the methods of con-
troversy in these Diaspora Synagogues ;
feeling seems to have run high, as was
natural, mutual abuse was evidently
poured forth without stint, judging from
the stern words of rebuke which the
writer has to use (ver. 6). On the διδάσ-
καλοι in the early Church see Harnack,
Expansion... i. pp. 416-461.—et8 6-
τες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα A ό-
μεθα: Cf. Pirge Abate Ae ΔΕ:
multiplies words occasions sin”; i, 12.
‘‘Abtalion said, Ye wise, be guarded in
your words; perchance ye may incur the
debt of exile, and be exiled to the place
of evil waters; and the disciples that come
after you may drink and die, and the
Name of Heaven be profaned”; Taylor
comments thus on these words:
‘¢Scholars must take heed to their doc-
trine, lest they pass over into the realm
of heresy, and inoculate their disciples
with deadly error. The penalty of un-
truth is untruth, to imbibe which is
death”. λημψόμεθα: the writer does
not often associate himself with his
hearers as he does here; the first person
plural is only rarely found in the Epistle
(cf. wratopev in the next verse).
Ver. 2. πταίομεν: see note above
on this word ii. to.—ei τις ἐν λόγῳ
ot πταίει: Cf. Sir. xix. 16, τίς οὐχ
ἥμαρτεν ἐν τῇ γλώσσῃ αὐτοῦ ;--τέλ-
ειος: see noteon i. 4.--όδἀν ήρ: see note
oni. 12.--καλιναγωγῆσαι: see note
on i. 26.—Kkat ὅλον τὸ σῶμα: it is
quite possible that these words are meant
literally; the exaggerated gesticulation of
an Oriental in the excitement of debate
is proverbial; that the reference here is
to even more than this is also quite with-
in the bounds of possibility, cf John
xviii. 22; Acts xxiii, 2, 3.
Ver. 3. et δὲ: this is the best at-
tested reading, but see Mayor’s admirable
note in favour of the reading ἴδε yap.—
τῶν ἵππων: “The genitive is here
put in an emphatic place to mark the
comparison. It belongs both to χαλινούς
and to στόματα, probably more to the
former as distinguishing it from the
human bridle, so we have ἄχρι τῶν
χαλινῶν τῶν ἵππων, Apoc. xiv, 20, ἐπὶ
2—6.
TAKQBOY
451
τὸ σῶμα αὐτῶν petdyouev.! 4. ἰδοὺ 2 καὶ τὰ πλοῖα, τηλικαῦτα ὅ5 Acts
ὄντα καὶ ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν“ ἔλαυνόμενα, μετάγεται ὑπὸ ἐλαχίστου j Acts xiv-s.
" πηδαλίου ὅ ὅπου ἡ ᾿ ὁρμὴ Τ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος βούλεται 8ὅ - 5. οὕ- :
τως ὃ καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶν καὶ 10 μεγάλα * αὐχεῖ.10 ἰδοὺ
Ps, xii. 3,
; lxxiii.
ε 9; Sir.
XXViii. 10.
ἡλίκον 11 πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει - 6. καὶ 1: ἡ γλῶσσα 18 ' wip, ἣν psa lt
1 μεταγομεν avtwy A, 13.
2 ede 24.
4 Pr. tam 7; oxAnpev avepwv AL, curss.
ἡ; .. 7; Sir.
viii. 8; cf. Prov. xii. 18, xv. 1,2
3 Pr. τα B.
ὅτ Ὁ Et ubicumque diriguntur volumptate eorum qui eas gubernant ff.
® Add av ACKLP, curss., Thl., Oec., Tregmg, rec.
7Om. ἡ oppy 5.
* woautws A, 5.
8 BovAnrat ACKP; βουληθη 13.
10—10 μεγαλαυχει SQC2KL, curss., Thl., Oec.
1} ohtyov AIC?KL, curss., Syrr., Sah., Copt., Arm., Aeth., pusillum ff.
ΤΑ τες 91:
14 Weiss punctuates: πυρ.
τὸν χαλινὸν τοῦ ἵππου, Zech. xiv. 20.
Cf. Ps, xxxii. 9᾽ (Mayor). Knowling
draws attention to Philo who “ speaks of
the easy way in which the horse, the most
spirited of animals, is led when bridled,
De Mundi Ofif., p. το "π--καὶ ὅλον
τὸ σῶμα. ..: Cf. what was said in the
preceding verse.
Ver. 4. τηλικαῦτα: Cf. 2 Cor.
i. 10; Heb. ii. 3; Rev. xvi. 18, the only
other N.T. passages in which the word
occurs.—m3 yn Sadiov: only elsewhere
in N.T. in Acts xxvii. 40.—6 pp.q : only
elsewhere in the N.T. in Acts xiv. 5, used
there, however, in the sense of a rush of
people. The graphic picture in this verse
gives the impression that the writer gives
the result of personal observation.
Ver. 5. ἡ yA@ooa...:; For this
idea of the independent action of a mem-
ber of the body taken as though person-
ality were attached to it see Matt. v. 29,
30, Xv. 10; it is quite in the Hebrew style,
cf. in the O.T. the same thing in connec-
tion with anthropomorphic expressions.
Moffatt (Expository Times, xiv. p. 568)
draws attention to Plutarch’s essay, De
Garrulitate, 10, where the union of
similar nautical and igneous metaphors
(as in Jas. iii. 4-6) is found; ‘the
moralist speaks first of speech as beyond
control once it is uttered, like a ship
which has broken loose from its anchorage.
But in the following sentence, he comes
nearer to the idea of James by quoting from
a fragment of Euripides these lines :—
Μικροῦ yap ἐκ λαμπτῆρος ᾿Ιδαῖον λέπας
Πρήσειεν ἣν τις καὶ πρὸς ἄνδρ᾽ εἰπὼν
a,
Πύθοιντ᾽ ἂν ἀστοὶ wavres. ”"—
15 ΤΊ, punctuates thus: avamtet ἡ γλωσσα,.
καὶ μεγάλα αὐχεῖ: ἅπ. . in
N.T.; the same would apply to ἔφα alter-
native reading (see critical note above)
peyadavyxet. In Sir. xlviii, 138 we have,
καὶ ἐμεγαλαύχησεν ὑπερηφανίᾳ αὐτοῦ.
Mayor most truly remarks: ‘ There is no
idea of vain boasting, the whole argument
turns upon the reality of the power which
the tongue ”; this fully bears
out what has been implied above, that this
section has for its object the attempt to
pacify the bitterness which had arisen
in certain Synagogues of the Diaspora
owing to controversies aroused by the
harangues of various “ teachers”.—i 80v
ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ava-
πτει: at the risk of being charged with
fancifulness the surmise may be per-
mitted as to whether this picture was not
suggested by the sight of an excited audi-
ence in some place of meeting ; when an
Eastern audience has been aroused to a
high pitch, the noise of tongues, and
gesticulation of the arms occasioned by
the discussion following upon the oration
which has been delivered, might most
aptly be compared to a forest fire; the
tongue of one speaker has set ablaze all
the inflammable material which contro-
versy brings into being. The possibility
that the writer had something of this kind
in his mind should not be altogether ex-
εἰυάεά.---ἀνάπτει occurs in the N.T. else-
where only in Luke xii. 49; Taylor
hjeces by Mayor) says: ‘On fires
indled by the tongue see Midr. Rabb.
on Lev. (xiv. 2) xvi. where the words are
almost the same as those in St. James,
quanta incendia lingua excitat !”
Ver. 6. See critical note above for
suggested differences in punctuation.—
452
m Matt. χν. κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας,
FX, 18, ΤΟΙ͂Σ eer ΤΗΣ ξ
IAKQBOY
ΠῚ,
ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν,
of. xii. 36, ἡ 3 ™ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα καὶ φλογίζουσα τὸν " τροχὸν τῆς γενέ-
37; Jude
23.
n Ps. Ixxvii, 18 (Heb.); Eccles. xii. 6.
1 Add ovtws P, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.; add ovtws kat L, τοῦ.
καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα wip: this metaphor
was familiar to Jews, see Prov. xvi. 27,
.. . And in his lips there is as a scorch-
ing fire; the whole of the passage Sir.
XXVili. 8-12 is very @ ne especially ver.
II, ἔρις κατασπευδομένη ἐκκαίει πῦρ,
καὶ μάχη κατασπεύδουσα ἐκχέει αἷμα.
Knowling refers to Psalms of Sol. xii. 2-
4, where the same metaphor is graphically
presented, but the reference is to slander,
not to the fire engendered by public con-
troversy ; ver. 2 runs: ‘‘ Very apt are the
words of the tongue of a malicious man,
like fire in a threshing-floor that burns
up the straw” (the text in the second
half of the verse is corrupt, but the
general meaning is clear enough).—kKat
ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς
ἀδικίας . .. τῆς γεέννης: Carr
has a very helpful note on this difficult
verse, he says: ‘‘a consideration of the
structure of the sentence, the poetical
form in which the thoughts are cast, also
throws light on the meaning. From this
it appears that the first thought is resumed
and expounded in the last two lines,
while the centre doublet contains a paral-
lelism in itself. The effect is that of an
underground flame concealed for a while,
then breaking out afresh. Thus φλογί-
fovoa and φλογιζομένη refer to wip, and
σπιλοῦσα to κόσμος, though grammatic-
ally these participles are in agreement
with γλῶσσα .”—6 κόσμος τῆς ἀδι-
κίας: This expression is an extremely
difficult one, and a large variety of inter-
pretations have been suggested ; the real
crux is, of course, the meaning of κόσμος.
In this Epistle κόσμος is always used in
a bad sense, i. 27, ii. 5, iv. 4. In the
Septuagint ὁ κόσμος is several times the
rendering of the Hebrew $Q%, “host”
(of heaven, i.e., the stars, etc.), see Gen.
ii. 1; Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3; there is no He-
brew word which corresponds to κόσμος,
properly speaking ; and it would therefore
be no matter of surprise if a Jew with
a knowledge of Hebrew should use κόσμος
in a loose sense. In the N.T. αἰών is
often used in the same sense as κόσμος,
e.g., Matt. xii. 32; Mark iv. 19; Eph. 1.
21, of this world; here again it is mostly
in an evil sense in which it is referred to,
whether as αἰών or κόσμος. It is, there-
2 και SN, Ti.
fore, possible that κόσμος might be used
in the sense of αἰών, by a Jew, but as
referring to a sphere not on this earth.
Schegg (quoted by Mayor) interprets the
phrase, ‘“‘the sphere or domain of ini-
quity,” and though this is not the natural
meaning of κόσμος, this cannot be urged
as an insuperable objection to his inter-
pretation; we are dealing with the work
of an Oriental, and a Jew, in an age long
ago, and we must not therefore look for
strict accuracy. If κόσμος may be re-
garded as being used in the sense of αἰών,
which is applicable to this world or to the
world to come, then Schegg’s ‘domain -
of iniquity ” might refer to a sphere in the
next world. When it is further noticed
that the tongue is called “fire,” and that
this fire has been kindled by 4 yéevva, the
place of burning, it becomes possible to
regard the words ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
as a symbolic expression of Gehenna (see
further below, under τῆς yeévwns).—
καθίσταται: ‘is set,” i.¢., “is consti
tuted”. Mayor says: ‘‘It is opposed to
ὑπάρχω, because it implies a sort ot
adaptation or development as contrasted
with the natural or original state; to
γίγνομαι, because it implies something
of fixity’.—h σπιλοῦσα: otros
means a ‘‘stain,” cf. Jude 23.--φ λογί-
Covoa: am. dey. in N.T., cf. Wisd. iii.
28.--τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως.
““(Π6 wheel of nature,” i.e., the whole
circle of innate passions; the meaning
is that this wrong use of the tongue en-
genders jealousy, and faction, and every
vile deed, cf. ver. 16. For the different
interpretations of the phrase see Mayor.—
φλογιζομένηρὑ πὸ τῆς γεέννης:
In Jewish theology two ideas regarding
the fate of the wicked hereafter existed,
at one time, concurrently; according to
the one, Hades (Sheol) was the place to
which the spirits of all men, good as well
as bad, went after death; at the resurrec-
tion, the good men arose and dwelt in
glory, while the wicked remained in
Sheol. According to a more developed
belief, the place of the departed was not
the same for the good and the bad; the
former went toa place of rest, and awaited
the final resurrection, while the latter
went to a place of torment; after the
7-. ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
453
σεως ' καὶ “ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. 7. πᾶσα yap? φύσις ο Luke xvi.
θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε3 καὶ ἐναλίων δαμάζεται καὶ p Matty,
δεδάμασται ὁ τῇ φύσει rH ἀνθρωπίνῃ, 8. τὴν 886 γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς 7 q Ps. cal. 3;
δαμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων. ἀκατάστατον ὃ κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ 1θα-
νατηφόρου.
αὐτῇ καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς "καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ
1 Add ἡμῶν §, 7, 25, 68, Vulg., Pesh., Aeth.; γεεννης Thl., Occ.
4Om. και δεδαμασται. Pesh.
3 Om. A, curss., Arm.
5 Add autem ff. 6 Om. ff.
Eccles. x.
11 ; ¢f.Sir.
iti
9. ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Κύριον καὶ πατέρα, καὶ ἐν 7-23.
τῖ--τ Quoted
from Gen.
i. 27.
3 Autem ff.
7 δυναται Sap. avOp. SAKP, 69, 133, a, c, Tregme, Ti.; Suv. avOp. Sap. L, curss.,
Arm., Copt., Thl., Oec.
5 axatacyxetov CKL, curss., Pesh., Cyr., Dam., Thl., Oec., rec.
®@eov KL, curss., Vulg., Syrhk, Epiph.,
resurrection the good enter into eternal
bliss, the wicked into eternal woe, but
whether these latter continue in the same
place in which they had hitherto been, or
whether it is a different piace of torment,
is not clear. A realistic conception of
the place of torment arose when the
‘*Valley of Hinnom” (D307 = ἡ
yéevva), was pointed out as the place in
which the spirits of the wicked suffered ;
but very soon this conception became
spiritualised, and there arose the belief
that the Valley of Hinnom was only the
type of what actually existed in the next
world. The fire which burned in the
Valley of Hinnom was likewise trans-
ferred to the next woriu; hence the
phrases: yéevva τοῦ πυρός, κάμινος
τοῦ πυρός, etc. Cf. iv. Esdr. vii. 36;
Rev. ix. I, etc.
Vv. 7, 8. These verses, are, of course,
not to be taken literally; their exaggera-
tive character rather reminds one of the
orator carried away by his subject. But
it must be remembered that to the Oriental
the language of exaggeration is quite
normal. Moreover, this enumeration of
various classes of animals was familiar
from the O.T., and would be uttered as
stereotyped phrases often are, it being
well understood that the words are not to
be taken au pied de la lettre; e.g., a very
familiar passage from the Torah runs:
καὶ ὁ τρόμος ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ φόβος ἔσται ἐπὶ
πᾶσιν τοῖς θηρίοις τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ
πάντα τὰ ὄρνεα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ
πάντα τὰ κινούμενα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ
πάντας τοὺς ἰχθύας τῆς θαλάσσης (Gen.
ix. 2); and one who shows so much
familiarity with the Wisdom literature
would be well acquainted with what tra-
Thl., Oec.
dition had imputed to Solomon: ἐλάλησε
περὶ τῶν κτηνῶν Kal περὶ τῶν πετεινῶν
καὶ περὶ τῶν ἑρπετῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν
ἰχθύων (1 Kings iv. 33), cf. Gen. i. 26
(i. 27 is quoted in the next verse) ; Deut.
iv. 17, 18; Acts x. 12.
Ver. 9. ἐν αὐτῇ: this is Hebrew
usage, cf. εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρῃ,
Luke xxii. 49; ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ,
Rev. vi. 8: --εὐλογοῦμεν: this use is
Hellenistic. Both in speaking and writ-
ing the Jews always added the words
NWT 7773 (“ Blessed [be] He”) after
the name of God; cf. Mark xiv. 61, where
6 εὐλογητός is used in reference to God.
--τὸν Κύριον καὶ πατέρα: the
reading Κύριον can scarcely be right;
Θεόν is not, it is true, well attested (see
critical note), but it is required on ac-
count of the καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ ; neither
the combination τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα nor
τὸν Κύριον καὶ πατέρα is in accordance
with ordinary Jewish usage; the exact
phrase does not occur in the Bible else-
where, the nearest approach being Tobit
xiii. 4, . . « καὶ Θεὸς αὐτὸς πατὴρ ἡμῶν
εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. Cf. Isa. lxiii. 16,
σὺ Κύριε πατὴρ ἡμῶν, and τ Chron. xxix.
10, εὐλογητὸς εἶ, Κύριε, ὁ Θεὸς ᾿Ισραὴλ,
ὁ Πατὴρ ἡμῶν. Although the Jews fre-
quently speak of God as “ Father,” it is
usually in a different combination, pro-
bably the most usual being ‘‘ Our Father”
alone, or “Our Father and King”; in
the great prayer called the ‘‘ Sheméneh
‘Esreh” (‘* Eighteen” [Nineteen] Bles-
sings), which was formulated in its
final form about the year 110 A.D., each
of the forty-four petitions which it con-
tains begins with the words: Abinu
Malkénu* (‘Our Father, our King”).
* To be distinguished from the “*Abinu Malkénu” prayer used in the penitential
portion of the Jewish Liturgy.
454
IAKQBOY
ΠῚ,
5-- Cf. Sir. γεγονότας" 10. "ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία καὶ
XXVili. 12.
οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί μου, ταῦτα οὕτως γενέσθαι.
II. μήτι
ἡ πηγὴ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς * ὀπῆς βρύει τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν ; 12. μὴ
δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα ; 1 οὔτε
κατάρα."
t Heb. xi.
38.
ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ 1 ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ.
u Gal. vi. 4.
v ii, 18,
13. Tis? " σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν ; " δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς
1—1 oytws ovte αλυκον γλυκυ C%, latt., Pesh.; ουτως ουδεμια πηγη αλυκον και
yAuxvKL, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.
2Om. K, curss.; pr. ev 7, curss.
Πατήρ is always used in reference to God
in order to emphasise the divine love;
and in the passage before us a contrast is
undoubtedly implied between the love of
the Father towards all His children, and
the mutual hatred among these latter.—
καταρώμεθα: this word shows that the
special sin of the tongue which is here
referred to is not slander or backbiting
or lying, but personal abuse, such as
results from loss of temper in heated con-
troversy. Cf. Rom. xii. 13, εὐλογεῖτε καὶ
μὴ καταρᾶσθε, and see the very appro-
priate passage in the Test. of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Benj. vi. 5, ἣ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια
οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσσας εὐλογίας καὶ
κατάρας.--τοὺς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν
Θεοῦ γεγονότας: quoted, appar-
ently from memory, from Gen. i. 26,
where the Septuagint reads, kat’ εἰκόνα
ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ; the Hebrew
"7 (ὁμοίωσις) is synonymous with
DDL (εἰκών). The belief that men are
made in the material likeness of God is
taught both in Biblical and post-Biblical
Jewish literature ; philosophers like Philo
would naturally seek to modify this. An
interesting passage which reminds one
of this verse is quoted by Knowling from
Bereshith, R. xxiv., Rabbi Akiba (born in
the middle of the first century A.D.), in
commenting on Gen. ix. 6, said: ‘‘ Whoso
sheddeth blood, it is reckoned to him as
if he diminished the likeness” ; then re-
ferring presently to Lev. xix. 18 (Thou
shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any
grudge against the children of thy people,
but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy-
self), he continues, ‘Do not say: ‘after
that I am despised, let my neighbour also
be despised’. R. Tanchuma said, ‘If
you do so, understand that you despise
him of whom it was written, in the like-
ness of God made He him’.” ‘The lesson
is that he who curses him who was made
in the image of God implicitly curses the
prototype as well.
Ver. το. ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόμα-
τος: This incongruity is often rebuked
in Jewish literature; it was the more
needed because in earlier days it was not
regarded as reprehensible, cf. Prov. xi.
26, XxiV. 24, Xxvi. 2, xxx. IO, etct.—
εὐλογία kat κατάρα: this does not
imply a combination of blessing and cur-
sing, as though such a combination were
condemned, while either by itself were
allowable (Mayor); it simply means that
the mouth which blesses God when utter-
ing prayer, curses men at some other
times, e.g., during embittered contro
versy.—o¥v χρή: Ga. dey. in N.T.
Ver. τι. μήτι ἡ πηγὴ --- τὸ
πικρόν: these words show that the
writer is thinking of the real source
whence both good and evil words come;
cf. Matt. xii. 34, 35: Ye offspring of
vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good
things ? for out of the abundance of the
heart the mouth speaketh .. .; cf. ἐν τῇ
καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν below ; βρύει does not occur
elsewhere in the N.T. or the Septuagint ;
and ὀπή is only found elsewhere in the
N.T. in Heb. xi. 38, cf. Exod. xxxiii. 22;
πικρόν is only used here and in ver. 14
in the N.T.; cf. Sir. iv. 6,... κατα-
ρωμένου γάρ oe ἐν πικρίᾳ ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ.
Ver. 12. With the whole verse cf.
Matt. vii. 16, 17; for the use of ποιεῖν
see Matt. iii. 10, wav δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν
καρπόν ...; ἅλυκόν does not occur
elsewhere in the N.T. or Septuagint,
though in Num. iii. 12, Deut. iii. 17,
etc., we have the phrase 4 θάλασσα ἡ
ἁλυκή = the Dead Sea. ‘ There is great
harshness in the construction μὴ δύναται
ποιῆσαι ; οὔτε ποιῆσαι. If the govern-
ment of δύναται is continued, we ought
to have 4 for οὔτε followed by a ques-
tion ; otherwise we should have expected
an entirely independent clause, reading
ποιήσει for ποιῆσαι (Mayor).
Ver. 13. Τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπι-
στήμων ἐν ὑμῖν: The writer's appeal
r10—16.
IAKQBOY
455
"ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν "πραύτητι σοφίας. 14. 7 εἰ δὲ 1 wGal.i.r3
"ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ " ἐριθείαν 3 ἐν
cf. Pet.
τῇ καρδίᾳ ὅ ὑμῶν, μὴ κατα- if. 12.
x i. ar.
καυχᾶσθε * > καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. 15. οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ὙῸ ii 365
h. iv
ἡ σοφία ἢ ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη,
a Gal. ν. 20. b i. 1γ, iii, 17.
ΧΗΣ, 13; 1 Cor. iii. 3. f Gal. ¥. 20.
? Add apa AP, curss,
ς Cf. τ Cor. ii. 6, 7.
᾿ ἀλλὰ ὁ “ ἐπίγειος, * ψυχική, ϑαιμονι- 31: πρώ.
ώδης- 16. ὅπου yap? "ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία,8 ἐκεῖ 9. © ἀκαταστασία
xiii. 13;
Acts v.17.
zI . ii,
dt Cor. ii. 14. © Acts v.13; Rom.
g 1 Cor. xiv. 33.
Ξερειθιαν B!; ερειθειαν A, ἐριθιαν 13, ror, WH.
* rats καρδιαις Ny, curss., Latt., Syrr., Copt., Arm,
* xavyaoGe A, curss.
ὅδ: τῆς αγηθ. και ψευδ. $91, Ti.; κατα τῆς αληθ. και ψευδ. δ᾿, Pesh.
δ αλλ ACKLP. * Autem ff.
δ εριθεια B!; ερειθεια B?; εἐριθια 13, ror, WH; ἐρεις C; epis Ρ,
9 + καὶ SA, curss., Weiss.
to the self-respect of his hearers. σοφός
and ἐπιστήμων (the latter does not occur
elsewhere in the N.T.) are connected in
Deut. i. 13, where in reference to judges
it is said, δότε αὐτοῖς ἄνδρας σοφοὺς καὶ
ἐπιστήμονας καὶ συνετούς, of. Deut. iv.
6; Isa. ν. 21.—éx τῆς καλῆς ava-
στροφῆς: Cf. τ Pet. ii. 12, dva-
στροφή is literally a “turning back,”
but later connotes “ manner Of life”. Cf.
ἃ quotation from an inscription from Per-
gamos (belonging to the second century
B.C.) given by Deissmann, in which it is
said concerning one of the royal officials :
ἐν πᾶσιν κα[ιροῖς ἀμέμπτως καὶ ἀδ)εῶς
ἀναστρεφόμενος (op. cit., p. 83). ---ἐν
πραύτητι σοφίας: cf. with the
whole of this verse Sir. iii. 17, 18,
Τέκνον, ἐν πρᾳύτητι τὰ ἔργα σου διέ-
ξαγε, καὶ ὑπὸ a δεκτοῦ dya-
πηθήσῃ. Ὅσῳ μέγας εἶ, τοσούτῳ ταπει-
γοῦ i νθτῳ καὶ ἔναντι Κυρίου εὑρήσεις
χάριν. The pride of knowledge is always
a subtle evil, cf. 1 Cor. viii. x.
Ver. 14. εἰ δὲ ζῆλον πικρὸν
ἔχετε καὶ
δίᾳ ὑμῶν: 5 makes it quite clear
that what has been referred to all along
is controversial strife; the bitter use of
the tongue which the writer has been
reprobating is the personal abuse which
been heaped upon one another by
the partisans of rival schools of thought.
ζῆλον is mostly used in a bad sense in
the N.T., though the opposite is some-
times the case (e.g., 2 . xi. 2; Gal. i,
14); the intensity of feeling which had
been aroused among those to whom the
Epistle was addressed is seen by the
words ζῆλον πικρόν, with the latter word
in an emphatic position ; they form a strik-
ing contrast to rpairnt: σοφίας. The
word ἐριθείαν, derived from ἔριθος “a
“τ ai ἧς ἐν τῇ καρ-
i
hireling,” means “ party-spirit”.—p%
κατακαυχᾶσθε: the malicious tri-
umphing at the least point of vantage
gained by one party was just the thing
calculated to embitter the other side; this
was a real “lying against the truth,”
because such petty triumphs are often
gained at the expense of truth.
Ver. 15. οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σο-
φία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη: The
wisdom referred to,—acute argumentl
subtle distinctions, clever controversia,
methods which took small account of
truth so long as a temporary point was
gained, skilful dialectics, bitter sarcasms,
the more enjoyed and triumphed in
if the poisonous shaft came home and
rankled in the breast of the opponent,—
in short, all those tricks of the unscru-
pulous controversialist which are none
the less contemptible for aang. clever,—
this was wisdom of a certain kind; but,
as expressed by the writer of the Epistle
with such extraordinary accuracy, it was
earthly (ἐπίγειος) as opposed to the wis-
dom which came down from above, it
was human (ψυχική, é.¢., the domain
wherein all that is essentially human
holds sway) in that it pandered to self-
esteem, and it was demoniacal (Sa:po-
νιώδης) in that it raised up the “very
devil” in the hearts of both opposer and
ο Nowhere is the keen know-
ledge of human nature, which is so char-
acteristic of the writer, more strikingly
di- played than in these wv. 15, 16.
Ver. 16. πᾶν φαῦλον A at apah
this sums up the matter; cf. John iii. 20,
πᾶς yap ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ
φῶς, and with this one might compare
again the words in our Epistle, i. 17,
πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ . . . ἄνωθέν ἐστιν
καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων.
Ν a “ a
kat πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα.
6, 7.
k Cf. iv. 8;
ΜΗ ‘ a A
2Cor. vii, καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, ° ἀδιάκριτος, ἢ ἀνυπόκριτος.3
στ Phil
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
11. 17---ἰϑ. ΙΝ.
17. ἡ δὲ ἢ ἄνωθεν 1 σοφία πρῶτον μὲν
* ἁγνή ἐστιν, ἔπειτα ' εἰρηνική, ™ ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής,2
μεστὴ " ἐλέους,
18. ἑ καρπὸς “ δὲ
. , 5 A a
v.8;1 δικαιοσύνης ὃ ἐν " εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην.
Tim. v.
22; 1 Pet.
111: 2.1
N. iii. 3.
] Ae xii, II.
p Rom. xii. 9. .4 18
8.2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii. 9.
m Phil. iv. 5.
1 Dei ff.
in n Gal. v. 22; cf. Luke vi. 36.
q Is. xxxii. 17; Am. vi. 12; Gal. vi. 8; Phil. i. 11; Heb. xii. 12.
IV. τ. ΠΟΘΕΝ ὅ " πόλεμοι καὶ πόθεν ἴ μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν ; οὐκ ἐντεῦ-
ΟἿΣ. 4; of. 2 Cor. v. 16.
ii τ Matt. v. 9.
2 + Bonis consentiens Vulg. (om. Vulga).
3 Pr. καὶ KL, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.; pr. inreprehensibilis /f.
4ProWN.
70m. KL, curss., Vulg., rec.
Ver. 17. ἡ δὲ ἄνωθεν σοφία:
the divine character of wisdom is beauti-
fully expressed in Wisd. vii. 25, ἀτμὶς
γάρ ἐστιν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως, καὶ
ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης
εἰλικρινής.--ἀγνή: in Wisd. ix. το, the
prayer is uttered that God would send
forth wisdom “out of the holy heavens
... ἢ; of that which is thus holy the
first characteristic would be purity, the
two ideas are inseparable; it is also pos-
sible that in the mind of the writer there
was the thought of the contrast between
purity and the sin which he knew some
of his hearers to be guilty of (see above,
the notes on i. 12 ff., iv. 3, 4).—elpnv-
tx; only elsewhere in the N.T. in
Heb. xii. 11; cf. Prov. iii. 17, where it is
said of wisdom that “all her paths are
peace”. The word is evidently chosen
to emphasise the strife referred to in an
earlier verse.—é weeuxys: the word is
meant as a contrast to unfair, unreason-
able argument, cf. Pss. of Sol. v. 14.—
εὐπειθής : this word, again, implies a
contrast to the unbending attitude of self-
centred controversialists; it does not oc-
cur elsewhere in the N.T.—peory
ἐλέους kal καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν: the
exact reverse of the cursing and bitterness
of which some had already been con-
victed; in Wisd. vii. 22, 23, wisdom is
spoken of as having a spirit which is:
φιλάγαθον . . . φιλάνθρωπων .---ἀ ὃ ι-
άκριτος: Cf. διακρίνομαι above (i. 6,
ii. 4) which, as Mayor points out, makes
it probable that we must understand the
adjective here in the sense of “ single-
minded”; perhaps one might say that
here it means almost ‘‘ generous,” in con-
trast to the unfair imputations which
might be made in acrimonious discus-
sion; the word occurs here only in the
Ν.Τ.--ἀνυπόκριτος: Cf. τ Pet. i.
5 Pr, τῆς K, Oec.
8 Pr, et s.
22; ‘‘genuine,” as contrasted with the
spurious “‘ earthly ” wisdom.
Ver. 18. The keynote of this verse is
peace, as contrasted with the jealousy,
faction and confusion mentioned above;
peace and righteousness belong together,
they are the result of true wisdom, the
wisdom that is from above; on the other
hand, strife and ‘‘ every vile deed” belong
together, and they are the result of the
wisdom that is “ earthly, ψυχική, demoni-
acal”.
CHAPTER IV.—Vv. 1 ff. These verses
reveal an appalling state of moral de-
pravity in these Diaspora congregations ;
strife, self-indulgence, lust, murder, covet-
ousness, adultery, envy, pride and slander
are rife; the conception of the nature of
prayer seems to have been altogether
wrong among these people, and they ap-
pear to be given over wholly to a life of
pleasure. It must have been terrible for
the writer to contemplate such a sink of
iniquity. On the assumption, therefore,
of unity of authorship for this Epistle, it
is absolutely incomprehensible how, in
view of such an awful state of affairs, the
writer could commence his Epistle with
the words: “" Count it all joy, my brethren,
when ye fall into manifold temptations”.
It is held by some that the writer is, in
part, using figurative language; thus,
Mayor and Knowling do not think that
the adultery referred to is meant literally ;
but in view of the mention of the “ plea-
sures that war in your members,” and of
the injunctions ‘‘Cleanse your hands,”
‘“« Purify your hearts,” it is difficult to be-
lieve that the writer is speaking figura-
tively. Is one to regard the words in
ii. rr (*‘ For he that saith, Do not commit
adultery, said also Do not kill . . . ”) as
figurative also? And i. 14, 15? Cf.
Acts xv. 20, 29. Moreover, it is one of
I—a.
- b a “- ley a)
θεν, ἐκ τῶν " ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν "τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν“; b rif
- A od
2. ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε!ϊ- 4 φονεύετε 2 καὶ "ζηλοῦτε, καὶ οὐ 1
; =
δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν " μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε.
1 Habebitis ff.
® kat οὐκ
[From here to end of Ep. C is wanting.]
the characteristics of the writer that he
speaks straight tothe point. Itis true that
in the O.T. adultery is sometimes used
in a figurative sense, meaning unfaith-
fulness to Jahwe; but it is well to re-
member that such a use is quite excep-
tional; out of the thirty-one passages in
which adultery is spoken of, in only five
is a figurative sense found. In the N.T.
there are only two possible cases of a
figurative use apart from the verse before
us (Matt. xii. 39 = xvi. 4, Mark viii,
38). The word ‘to commit fornication ”
(πὸ) occurs oftener, in the O.T., in a
figurative sense; but in comparison with
the vastly larger instances of a literal
sense, the former must be regarded as
exceptional. But even granting that this
particular word is figuratively used, there
is still a terrible list of other sins, the
meaning of which cannot be explained
away; these are more than sufficient to
bear witness to the truly awful moral con-
dition of those to whom the Epistle is
addressed. On the assumption of an
early date for our Epistle, the low state
of morals here depicted is extremely diffi-
cult to account for. In a community
which had recently received and accepted
the new faith, with its very high ideals,
one would naturally look for some signs
of new-born zeal, some conception of
the meaning of Christianity, some reflex
of the example of the Founder; religious
strife, owing to a mistaken zeal, one can
understand; isolated cases of moral de-
linquency are almost to be expected;
but the collective wickedness of a new-.
born Christian community,—this would
be quite incomprehensible; and it is
clear from the verses before us that the
writer is not singling out exceptions. In
a second or third generation the com-
munity living among heathen surround-
ings might conceivably become so con-
taminated as to have lost its genuinely
Christian character; with the lapse of
years there is an inevitable tendency to
deteriorate, until a new spirit of discipline
is infused. It seems more in accord-
ance with known facts, and with common-
[AKQBOY
cf. Rom. vi. 13.
457
uke viii.
14; 2 Pet.
oy wie 3 < Meas
οὐκ ἔχετε * διὰ τὸ μὴ c—c Rom.
vil. 23:1
Ρει. i. 11;
dv. 6. e 1 Cor. xii. 31.
ἢ hovevere. kat WH (altern. reading); φθονειτε και Erasmus.
εχ. NP, curss., Latt., Syrr., Arm., Aeth., Thl., Oec., Ti.; add δε rec.
sense, to regard the people to whom this
Epistle (or part of it) was addressed as
those who had deteriorated from the high
ideal set by their fathers and grand-
fathers, and to see in the writer one who
sought to inspire a new sense of discip-
line and morals into the hearts of his
Jewish-Christian brethren. — Vy. 1-10
form a self-contained whole, dealing with
the general state of moral depravity in
the community (presumably the writer
has more particularly one community in
view), and ending with a call to repent-
ance. Vv. 11, 12 form another indepen-
dent section, belonging in substance to
ii, I-13. Vv. 13-17 form again a separate
section without any reference to what
precedes or follows.
Ver, 1. πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι:
the former refers to the permanent state
of enmity, which every now and then
breaks out into the latter; like war and
battles. —€v ὑμῖν: comprehensive.—
ἐντεῦθεν: lays special stress on the
place of origin, which is seen in the
following words: ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν
ὑμῶν : ἡδοναί is sometimes used of the
lusts of the flesh, ¢.g., in the Lette? τᾷ
Aristeas (Swete, Intro. to O.T. in Greek,
p- 567), in answer to the question : ‘*‘ Why
do not the majority of men take pos
session of virtue”? it is said: “Ὅτι
φυσικῶς ἅπαντες ἀκρατεῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς
ἡδονὰς τρεπόμενοι γεγόνασιν. Cf. 4
Macc. vi. 35; Luke viii. 14; Tit. iti. 3;
2 Pet. ii. 13.-ττ.ῶὥῶν στρατενομένων
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν : the same
thought is found in 1 Pet. ii. rr, παρα-
καλῶ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν
αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς,
cf. Rom. vii. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 7.
Vv. 2, 3. ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ
éxere...: It must be confessed that
these verses are very difficult to under-
stand ; we have, on the one hand, lusting
and coveting, murdering and fighting;
and, on the other hand, praying. Mur-
dering and fighting are the means used
in order to obtain that which is coveted;
yet in the same breath it is said that the
reason why the coveted things are not
458
f Prov. i.
2
ὭΣ a; οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλί ῦ
ἐν. 14. ία τοῦ
h Matt, vi.
IAKQBOY
IV.
αἰτεῖσθαι buds: 3. tairetre καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε, διότι κακῶς “ αἰτεῖ-
g Rom. viii. σθε, ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἢ ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν δαπανήσητε.: 4. ᾿ μοιχαλίδες,2 οὐκ
Κ κόσμου 3 ' ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν “; "ὃς ἐὰν ὅ
οὖν © βουληθῇ φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου, ἐχθρὸς ἴ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθίσταται."
εἶν 5. ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ ἢ" γραφὴ λέγει - πρὸς φθόνον ὃ ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ
att. vi.
; Luke
vi. 26; 1 Jm. ii. 15. 1 Rom. viii. 7; Eph. ii. 15. m—m Jn. xv. 19: xvii. 14; Gal. i. 10.
Ὁ ii. 23.
1 καταδαπανησητε δῷ]; δαπανησετε B, Weiss.
2 Pr. μοιχοι kat N*KLP, curss.; μοιχοι Latt. (exc. 7), Pesh., Copt., Aeth., Arm.
ὅτου Kogpov τουτου NY, 68, Vulg., Pesh., Arm., Aeth.
4 ἐστιν τω Θεω SQ, Copt., Ti.
5 Om. os δῷ ; os av $2AKL, curss., Thl., Oec., Treg.
δ Om. L, curss. 7 εχθρα NY’, 7.
obtained is because they are not asked
for! Is it intended to be understood
that this lust (in the sense, of course,
of desiring) and covetousness are not
gratified only because they had not been
prayed for, or not properly prayed for?
This is what the words mean as they
stand; but can it ever be justifiable to
pray for what is evil? There is some-
thing extraordinarily incongruous in the
whole passage, which defies explanation
if the words are to be taken in their
obvious meaning. Only one thing seems
clear, and that is a moral condition which
is hopelessly chaotic.—Carr says that
‘*these two verses are among the ex-
amples of poetical form in this Epistle” ;
perhaps this gives the key to the solution
of the problem. It may be that we have
in the whole of these verses 1-10 a string
of quotations, not very skilfully strung
together—a kind of ‘‘ Stromateis "—taken
from a variety of authorities, in order to
make this protest against a disgraceful
state of affairs more emphatic and authori-
tative.—o ovevere: the reading pbovei-
ve cannot be entertained if any regard is
to be paid to MS. authority; even if ac-
cepted it would not really simplify matters
much.—{nAotre: refers rather to per-
sons, ἐπιθυμεῖτε to things.
Ver. 3. αἰτεῖτε .. . αἰτεῖσθε:
There does not seem to be any difference
in meaning between the active and middle
here: “If the middle is really the stronger
word, we can understand its being brought
in just where an effect of contrast can be
secured, while in ordinary passages the
active would carry as much weight as
was needed” (Moulton, of. cit., p. 160) ;
cf. Mark vi. 22-25, x. 35-38; 1 John v. 15.
--δαπανήσητε: Cf. Luke xv. 14, 30;
Acts xxi, 24.
8 Neyer προς $6. A, curss., Arm.
Ver. 4. μοιχαλίδες: the weight
of evidence is strongly in favour of this
reading as against potxol καὶ potxa-
λίδεςς The depraved state of morals to
which the whole section bears witness
must in part at least have been due to
the wickedness and co-operation of the
women, so that there is nothing strange
in their being specifically mentioned in
connection with that form of sin with
which they would be more particularly
associated.—otxn otSare... καθ-
(oratat: what seems to be in the
mind of the writer is John xv. 18 ff...
εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἦτε, ὁ κόσμος ἂν τὸ
ἴδιον ἐφίλει - ὅτι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμος dv οὐκ
ἐστέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ
κόσμου, διὰ τοῦτο μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος
.-«ς-τκαθίσταται;: “isconstituted”;
cf. the Vulgate constituitur.
Ver. 5. ἡ γραφὴ λέγει πρὸς
φθόνον - « «1 this attributing of person-
ality to Scripture is paralleled, as Light-
foot points out (Gal, iii. 8), by the not
uncommon Jewish formula of reference
TIN TWD “ Quid vidit”. According
to Lightfoot the singular γραφὴ in the
N.T. ‘‘ always means a particular passage
of Scripture; where the reference is
clearly to the sacred writings as a whole,
as in the expressions, ‘ searching the
Scriptures,’ ‘learned in the Scriptures,’
etc., the plural γραφαί is universally
found. eg., Acts xvii. 11, xviii. 24, 28.
. . « ‘H γραφὴ is most frequently used
in introducing a particular quotation, and
in the very few instances where the quo-
tation is not actually given, it is for
the most part easy to fix the passage
referred to. The biblical usage is fol-
lowed also by the earliest fathers, The
transition from the ‘Scriptures’ to the
3-7.
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
459
“πνεῦμα ὃ "κατῴκισεν! ἐν ἡμῖνξ; 6. μείζονα δὲ «δίδωσιν χάριν" ὁ Gal. v.17
Gen.
582d λέγει: “ὁ Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς vi. 5, viii
δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. .3. 7. ὑποτάγητε οὖν ® τῷ Θεῷ " ἀντίστητε δὲ
21; Num.
Xi. 29.
q—q Quoted
from
Prov. iii. 34( Sept.); cf. Matt. xiii. 12; Job xxii. 29; Ps. cxxxviii.6; Prov. xxix. 23; Matt. xxiii.
12. Luke i. 52; 1 Pet. v. 5.
1 κατωκησεν KLP, curss., Latt., Syrr., Copt., Thl., Oec., rec.
Ξημιν, Ti., vobis ζ΄.
5 avriraccere Β.
3—* Om. LP, curss.
δ Om. ουν 7.
4 Add κυριος 5, 16.
7Om. δε KLP, curss., Thl., Oec., rec.
‘Scripture’ is analogous to the transition
from τὰ βιβλία to the ‘Bible’” (ébid.,
ΡΡ- 147 f.). In the present instance the
“ Scripture” is nowhere to be found in the
O.T.; it is, however, reflected in some
Pauline passages, Gal. v.17, 21, and cf.
Rom. viii. 6,8; 1 Cor. iii. 16: 4 yap
σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ
πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός (Gal. v.17);
τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν (1 Cor,
iii. 16). It is difficult not to see a Pauline
influence in our passage; and what is
certainly noteworthy is the fact that the
two Agrapha which the Epistle contains
(i. 12 and the one before us) are both
closely connected with St. Paul, i. 12 =
2 Tim. iv. 8; iv. 5= Gal. v. 17. But
that which is conclusive against the
“‘ Scripture ” here referring to the O.T. is
the fact that the doctrine of the Spirit is
not found there in the developed form in
which it is represented here; the pro-
nounced personality of the Spirit as here
used is never found in the O.T. The
reference here must be to the N.T., and
this is one of the many indications which
point to the late date of our Epistle, or
parts of it. As early a document as the
Epistle of Polycarp (r1o A.D.) refers once
to the N.T. quotations as ‘‘ Scripture” ;
and in the Epistle of Barnabas (about
98 A.D. according to Lightfoot, but re-
garded as later by most scholars) a
N.T. quotation is prefaced by the for-
mula ‘It is written”.—_wpds φθόνον
éwiwoGet...: on this very difficult
text see, for a variety of interpretations,
Mayor’s elaborate note; the best render-
ing seems to be that of the R.V. mar-
gin: “That Spirit which he made to
dwell in us yearneth for us even unto
jealous envy”. The words witness to
the truth that the third Person of the
Holy Trinity abides in our hearts striving
to acquire the same love for Him on our
part which He bears for us. It is a most
striking passage which tells of the love
of the Holy Spirit, as (in one sense) dis-
tinct from that of the Father or that of
the Son; in connection with it should be
read Rom. viii. 26-28; Eph. iv. 30; 1
Thess, v. 10.
Ver. 6. μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν
χάριν: these words further emphasise
the developed doctrine of the Spirit re-
ferred to above; they point to the nature
of divine grace, which is almost illimitable.
These verses, 5, 6, witness in a striking
way to the Christian doctrine of grace,
and herein breathe a different spirit from
that found in most of the Epistle.—é
@eds...xapuv: Cf. Sir. x. 7, 12,
18; Pss. of Sol. ii. 25, iv. 28; the quota-
tion is also found in 1 Pet. v. 5; taken
with the preceding it teaches the divinity
of the Holy Spirit. Ephrem Syrus quotes
this as a saying of Christ’s (Ofp. iii. 93
E., ed. Assemani; quoted by Resch, of.
cit., p. 199).
Ver. 7. ὑποτάγητε otv τῷ
Θεῷ: Cf. Heb. xii.9, οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον
ὑποταγησόμεθα τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμά-
των καὶ ζήσομεν. It is not a question of
subjection either to God or the devil, but
rather one of the choice between self-will
and God’s will; it is the proud spirit that
has to be curbed.—avriornre δὲ
τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ag’
ὑμῶν: the two ideas contained in these
words are very Jewish; in the first place,
the withstanding of the devil is repre-
sented as being within the competence of
man ; the more specifically Christian way
of putting the matter is best seen by
comparing the words before us with the
two following passages: Luke x. 17,
Ὑπέστρεψαν δὲ... ντες " κύριε,
καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια ὑποτάσσεται ἡμῖν ἐν
τῷ ὀνόματί σου. And the passage
in 1 Pet. v. 6 ff. which is parallel to the
one before us, is prefaced by the words,
‘*Casting all your anxiety upon Him,
because He careth for you,” and
followed by the words, “And the God
of all grace . . . shall Himself one
fect, stablish, strengthen you”. The
460
τ Ἐρῃ. vi. τῷ " διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται 1
3X58 αν δ aera
Pet. v. 8, ἐγγισει “ ὑμιν.
5 2 Chron.
xv.2; Zech. i. 3; Luke xv. 30; cf. Lam. iii. 57.
1 Jn. iii. 8.
1 φευξετε Β! (-ται B?).
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
IV.
ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν 8. "ἐγγίσατε τῷ Ocd,? καὶ
"καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁμαρτωλοί, καὶ " ἁγνίσατε
t Isa. i. 16. Ὁ Jerciv.14s "1 Pet. 1; 22:
? D(omi)no s Vulg?; ad dominum ff; add et ipse 7.
δ ἐγγιει Treg., Ti.
difference between the Jewish and
Christian doctrines of grace and free-
will here cannot fail to be observed.
It is useless to cite the words, ‘‘ Be sub-
ject unto God,” as indicating divine
assistance in withstanding the devil, be-
cause the subject of thought in either
passage is quite independent; the mean-
ing is not that ability to withstand the
devil is the result of being subject to
God; but two courses of action are en-
joined, in each of which man is repre-
sented as able to take the initiative —In
the second place, the representation of
Satan (the devil) here is altogether
Jewish; the Hebrew root from which
“Satan” comes (‘yA 1) means “to op-
pose,” or “to act as an adversary”; the
idea is very clearly brought out in Num.
xxii. 22, where the noun is used: And the
Angel of f$ahwe placed himself in the
way for an adversary (literally “for a
Satan”). This is precisely the picture
represented in the words before us; the
ancient Hebrew idea of something in the
way is to some extent present in the
Greek ὁ διάβολος, from διαβάλλω “το
throw across,” ἐ.6., the pathway is im-
peded (cf. Eph. iv. 27, vi. 11). Jewish
demonology was full of intensely material-
istic conceptions ; the presence of demons
in various guise, or else invisible, was
always feared; primarily it was bodily
harm that they did; the idea of spiritual
evil, as in the passage before us, was later,
though both conceptions existed side by
side. The words under consideration
are possibly an inexact quotation from
Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Naphth.
viii. 4, “1 ye work that which is good
my children . . . and the devil shall flee
from you”. Knowling quotes an inter-
esting parallel in Hermas, Mand., xii. 5, 2,
where in connection with the devil it is
said, “If ye resist him he will be van-
quished, and will flee from you dis-
graced”’, -
Ver. 8. ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ, καὶ
ἐγγίσει ὑμῖν: here, again, we have
what to Christian ears sounds rather like
a reversal of the order of things; we
should expect the order to be that ex-
pressed in such words as, ‘Ye did not
choose me, but I chose you ” (John xv. 16).
The words before us seem to be a quota-
tion (inexact) from Hos. xii. 6 (Sept.),
o + + ἔγγιζε πρὸς τὸν θεόν σου διὰ παν-
τός. The Hebrew phrase ~by was
is a technical term for approaching God
for the purpose of worship, ¢.g., Exod.
Mix: 225° 161. χχχ: 21,5, ἜΖΕΙς,, xliv, 13.
There is an extraordinary passage in
Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Dan. vi.
I, 2 which runs, ‘‘And now, fear the
Lord, my children, and beware of Satan
and his spirits. Draw near unto God
and to the angel that intercedeth for you,
for he is a mediator between God and
man” (the latter part here is not a Chris-
tian interpolation). ---καθαρίσατε
χεῖρας: Cf. Ps. xxiv. 4, ἀθῷος χερσὶ
καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ . . .; in Hos, i.
16 we have, λούσασθε, καθαροὶ γένεσθε,
and in Sir. xxxviii. 10, ἀπόστησον wAnp-
μελίαν καὶ εὔθυνον χεῖρας, Kal ἀπὸ
πάσης ἁμαρτίας καθάρισον καρδίαν. In
each case it is a metaphorical use of
language which otherwise expressed the
literal ritual washing; the former, taken
from the latter, was in use at least as
early as exilic times—apaptwrol:
the close connection with this word and
the δίψυχοι which follows almost imme-
diately recalls the language in Sir. v. 9,
. . » οὕτως ὃ ἁμαρτωλὸς ὁ δίγλωσσος.
--ἁγνίσατε καρδίας: the thought
of these, as well as οἵ the preceding
words, is an adaptation of Ps. Ixxii. (Ixxiii.)
13, “Apa ματαίως ἐδικαίωσα τὴν καρδίαν
μου, καὶ ἐνιψάμην ἐν ἀθῴοις τὰς χεῖράς
μου. Theverb ἁγνίζω (ΓΤ) means
originally to sanctify oneself preparatory
to appearing before the Lord by separat-
ing oneself from everything that might
cause uncleanness; the idea of separating
oneself is still present in the passage
before us, because mourning implied tem-
porary withdrawal from the world and
its doings. Mayor quotes in connection
with this verse, Hermas, Mand., ix. 7,
καθάρισον τὴν καρδίαν cov ἀπὸ τῆς
διψυχίας.--δίψνχοι: Cf. Hos. x. 2,
8---τσ,
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
461
, ,
kapSias,' " δίψυχοι. 9. ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ 3 " πενθήσατε 8 Kal4 vi. 18.
w Matt.v.4.
KAatoate>: ὁ γέλως ὑμῶν eis πένθος peratpamjrw® cal ἡ χαρὰ κα Wisd.
εἰς * κατήφειαν.
ὑμᾶς.
II. Μὴ "καταλαλεῖτε 9 ἀλλήλων, ἀδελφοί - 910 ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελ-
φοῦ ἢ 11" κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον * τ΄
1 Add vestra ff.
Ὅτ Ti
20m. ff.
Zvil. 4.
10. "ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ὃ καὶ ὑψώσειγ τ Pet’ ν.
zi Pet. ii.
1; Eph.
iv. 91.
a Matt. vii.
3 Miseri ff.
5 Om. kat κλαυσατε 15, curss., Pesh.
"μεταστραφητω AKL, curss., Oec., Ti., Treg., WH (altern. reading).
7 Add ουν §, 56.
9-9 αδελφοι pov αλληλων A, curss.
and in addition to the passages referred
to above, i. 8, cf. Barnabas xix. 5, οὐ μὴ
διψυχήσῃς, πότερον ἔσται ἢ οὔ, and the
identical words in Did. iv. 4.
Ver. 9. ταλαιπωρήσατε: am
Aey. in N.T. cf. Mic. ii. 4; Jer. iv. 13;
“undergo hardship”; it was ἃ recog-
nised tenet in Jewish theology that self-
inflicted punishment of any kind was a
means of reconciliation, e¢.g., in Mechilta,
76a, the words of Ps. Ixxxix. 32 (33 in
Heb.), 1 will visit their transgression
with the rod, and their iniquity with
stripes, are interpreted to mean that the
pain suffered under liberal chastisement
is one of the means of reconciliation
with God; for instances of how chastise-
ment has reconciled men to God, see
Baba mezia, 84α ὃ.--πενθήσατε καὶ
κλαύσατε: these words are found to-
gether in 2 Esdras xviii. 9 (= Neh. viii.
g); and in Luke vi. 25 we have, ovat ὑμῖν
οἱ γελῶντες viv, ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ
κλαύσετε. Repentance (AWN) was,
according to Jewish teaching, also in
itself another of the means of reconcilia-
tion —6 γέλως ὑμῶν eis πένθος
μετατραπήτω: μετατραπ. Gr. ey.
in. N.T.; cf. Am. viii. το, καὶ μεταστρέψω
τὰς ἑορτὰς ὑμῶν els πένθος.--καὶ ἡ
χαρὰ εἰς abe ade : Cf. Jer. xvi.
g; Prov. xiv. 13; the words express the
contrast between the loud unseemly
gaiety of the pleasure-seeker, and the
subdued mien and downcast look of the
penitent. κατήφειαν occurs only here in
the N.T.; it is often found in Philo.
Ver το. ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον
Κυρίου καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς: Cf.
Sir. ii. 17, οἱ φοβούμενοι Κύριον ἑτοιμ-
άσουσι καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ
ταπεινώσουσι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν, and cf.
iii. 18; in the Test. of the Twelve Patri-
archs, Jos. xviii. 1, we read, “‘If ye also,
therefore, walk in the commandments of
8Pr. του D, curss., Weiss.
10 Frater. ff.
1 καὶ KL, curss., rec. et ff.
the Lord, my children, He will exalt you
there (#.¢., on high), and will bless you
with good things for ever and ever”,
Although the actual word is not men-
tioned in these vv. 7-10, it is obvious that
they constitute a call to repentance.
Both as establishing a proper relation-
ship towards God, and as a means of
bringing about that relationship, the need
of repentance had always been greatly
insisted on by Jewish teachers; in Pirge
Aboth, ¢.g., iv. 15, it is said, ‘* Repent-
ance and good works are asa shieldagainst
punishment”; and Taylor quotes Bera-
choth, 17a, ‘It was a commonplace in
the mouth of Raba that, The perfection
of wisdom is repentance,” cf. Bereshith
Rabba, \xv.; Nedarim, 325, etc., etc.
Vv. 11,12. The subject οἱ these verses,
speaking against and judging others,
is the same as that of the section ii.
1-13; they follow on quite naturally
after vv. 12, 13 of that chapter, while
they have nothing to do with the con-
text in which they now stand. They
constitute a weaving together of several
quotations, much after the style of the
section which precedes,
Ver. τ᾿. Μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλ-
λήλων, ἀδελφοί, εἰς. : this speaking
against one another must be taken to-
gether with the judging of one another ;
it is a question of deciding who is and
who is not observing the Torah; some of
the brethren were evidently arrogating to
themselves the right of settling what did
and what did not constitute obedience to
the Torah, and those who, according to
the idea of the former, were not keeping
the Torah, were denounced and spoken
against. Difficulties of this kind were
bound to be constantly arising in a com-
munity of Jewish-Christians; if unnum-
bered differences of opinion with regard
to legal observances was characteristic,
462
br Mace. εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ
ii. 67;
IAKQBOY
2l1b
ποιητὴς νόμου ἀλλὰ κριτής.
IV;
12. εἷς
Rom. ii, ἐστιν “ νομοθέτης ? καὶ “ κριτής, ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ " ἀπολέσαι "
13.
c Is. xxxiii, σὺ δὲ ὁ τίς εἶ, 6 κρίνων ὅ τὸν * πλησίον δ ;
22.
d Matt. vii.
13. ®"Aye” νῦν ot λέγοντες - " σήμερον ἢ ὃ αὔριον πορευσόμεθα 9
I “~
e Matt.x, εἰς τήνδε Thy πόλιν Kal ' ποιήσομεν 30 ἐκεῖ 11 ἐνιαυτὸν 12 καὶ * ἐμπορευ-
8,
28.
f Rom. ii. 1,
xiv. 4. gv.i.
lovxert KP, curss.
3Om. και κριτῆης KL, curss., rec.
δος κρινεις KL, curss., rec.
h Prov. xxvii. 1; Luke xii. 18-20.
i Matt. xx, 12. k 2 Pet. ii. 3.
2 Pr. o AKL, curss., Ti., Treg.. WH mg.
4Om. δε Sah., Arm., Oec., rec.
S erepov KL, curss., rec.; add ott οὐκ ev avOpwrw αλλ ev Θεω τα διαβηματα
avOpwirov κατευθυνεται K, curss.
7 Jam ff.
9 πορευσωμεθα AKL, curss., Thl.
11Qm, A, 13, Cyr.
as we know it to have been, of Rabbin-
ism, it was the most natural thing in the
world for Jewish-Christians to differ upon
the extent to which they held the Torah
to be binding. The writer of the Epistle
is finding fault on two counts; firstly,
the fact of the brethren speaking against
one another at all, and secondly, their
presuming to decide what was and what
was not Torah - observance. — kaTa-
λαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον:
the reason why speaking against and
judging a brother is equivalent to doing
the same to the Law is because the Law
has been misinterpreted and misapplied ;
the Law had, in fact, been maligned; it
had been made out to be something that
it was not. It is not a general principle,
therefore, which is being laid down here,
viz.: that speaking against a brother or
judging a brother is always necessarily
speaking against and judging the Law;
these things are breaches of the Law, but
not necessarily for that reason denuncia-
tion of it; the point here, as already re-
marked, is a maligning of the Law by
making it out to be something that it was
not. It is not a general principle, but a
specific case, which is referred to here.—
εἰ δὲνόμον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιη-
τὴς .«. «κριτής: here again it is a
specific case which is referred to; as a
general principle the statement would be
contrary to fact, for it is possible to give
a judgment upon the Law, in the sense of
criticising it, or even to denounce it, and
yet obey it; the Rabbis were constantly
discussing and giving their judgments on
points of the Law, and were nevertheless
earnest observers of its precepts. When
a man misinterpreted the Law, and then
8 xa. AKLP, curss., Cyr., Thl., Oec., rec.
10 ποιήσωμεν NAKL, curss., Treg.
12 Add eva AKL, curss., Syrr., Arm., Cyr., Thl., Oec., rec.
acted upon that misinterpretation, and de-
nounced others who did not do likewise,
then he was truly not a doer of the Law,
but a judge,—and a very bad one too.
Ver. 12. εἷς ἐστιν νομοθέτης
καὶ κριτής; the words are intended
to show the arrogant impertinence of
those who were judging their neighbours
on a misinterpretation of the Law. The
word νομοθέτης does not occur elsewhere
in the N.T., though νομοθετέω and vopo-
θεσία do; cf. Ps. xxvii. 11.—6 δὺυν-
dpevos σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι:
Cf. Matt. x. 28, τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν
καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ- and Luke
νὶ. 9.--σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων τὸν
πλησίον: we find very similar words
in Rom. xiv. 4, σὺ tis εἶ ὁ κρίνων ἀλ-
λότριον οἰκέτην; In Pirge Aboth, i. 7,
we read, “ Judge every man in the scale
of merit,” t.¢., Give every man the bene-
fit of the doubt (Taylor); cf. Shabbath,
1276, ‘‘He who thus judges others will
thus himself be judged”.
Vv. 13-17 form an independent section
entirely unconnected with what precedes
or follows. The section is very interest-
ing as giving a picture of the commercial
εἰρη ek The Jews of the Disper-
sion had, from the outset, to give up agri-
cultural pursuits ; since for the most part
they congregated in the cities it was
commerce in which they engaged chiefly.
A good instance of the Diaspora-Jew
going from city to city occurs in Josephus,
Antiq., xii. 2-5 (160-185), though the
period dealt with is far anterior to that
of our Epistle. Egypt was, of course,
the greatest centre of attraction, and
many wealthy Jews were to be numbered
among the large Jewish population of
I2—15.
σόμεθα ; καὶ κερδήσομεν 3:
᾿εμπορευσωμεθα KL, curss,
IAKQBOY
14. οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε ὃ τῆς
ριον “- ποίαδ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶνϊ; ἀτμὶς γάρ éore® ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον
φαινομένη, ἔπειτα καὶ 10 ἀφανιζομένη.,
Ξκερδησωμεν KL, curss.
463
au- 1-- . το;
ob vii. 7;
15. ἀντὶ Tod λέγειν Spas:
3 emoravrat P, 68.
‘ro τῆς avp. KL, curss., Latt., Pesh., Sah., Copt., Thl., Oec., Treg., Ti.; ra
avp. AP, 7, 13, 69, 106, a, c, Syrhk, Tregmg, WH (altern. reading). ai ie
5 Add yap $3°AKLP, curss., Tregmg (WH altern. reading) ; add autem ff.
®Om. B.
7 qpev 13, 69, Syrhk, Thl.; # runs on without the interrogative.
8Om. atpts yap ἐστε $2; Om. yap A, Vulg., Copt.; momentum enim est 7).
Vulg., Copt., Thi. read ἐστιν; ΑΚΡ, curss. read eorau. εὐ
90 πη. ἡ ΒΡ, WH.
10 Pr, δε, ΡΖ, curss.; δὲ Sah., Thl., Oec. ; om. 36, 38, 69, Syrhk, Copt.
Alexandria; Philo speaks of Jewish ship-
owners and merchants in this city (In
Flaccum, viii.). When such Jews em-
braced Christianity there would be, ob-
viously, no reason for them to give up
their calling. It must, however, be con-
fessed that both this section and the
following read far more naturally as ad-
dressed to Jews than to Jewish-Chris-
tians.
Ver. 13.—Aye: this expression of dis-
approval occurs only here and in v. 1 in
the N.T.; although it is used here and
there in the Septuagint, it is the render-
ing of different Hebrew words; one may
compare, though it is not the equivalent
of ἄγε, the Aramaic expression of disap-
proval po NN (“Ah you!” literally
* Woe unto you”). “Aye is used with
either a singular or a plural subject, cf.
Jud. xix. 6; 2 Kings iv. 24.—o 4 pepov
ἢ αὔριον πορευσόμεθα: Cf. Prov.
xxvii. I, μὴ καυχῶ τὰ εἰς αὔριον, οὐ γὰρ
γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα. There
is a Rabbinical saying, in Sanhed., τοοῦ,
which runs: “Care not for the morrow,
for ye know not what a day may bring
forth. Perhaps he may not be [alive] on
the morrow, and so have cared for a world
that does not exist for him” (quoted by
Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 539); οὗ.
Luke xii. 16 ff.; xiii. 32, 33.--ἐμ πο-
ρευσόμεθα: 2 Pet. ii, 3 is the yen'd
other passage in the N.T. in which this
word occurs; it means primarily “ὁ to
travel,” then to travel for the purpose of
trading, and finally “to trade” simply.—
id doe tebed shoe a rare form; “the At-
tic is κερδανῶ, with aorist éxépSava,
Ion. and late Attic xepSyco; aorist
ἐκέρδησα; the latter occurs often in the
N.T.” (Mayor).
Ver. 14. οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστα-
σθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον: “Ye are they
that know not ...”; it is the contrast
between the ignorance of men, with the
consequent incertitude of all that the
morrow may bring torth, and the know-
ledge of God in accordance with Whose
will (cf. ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ in the next
verse) all things come to pass.—rola 4
ζωὴ ὑμῶν; “Of what kind is your
life” ? The reference here is not to the
life of the wicked, but to the uncertainty
of human life in general ; the thought of
the ungodly being cut off is, it is true,
often expressed in the Bible, but that is
not what is here referred to; it is evi-
dently not conscious sin, but thoughtless-
ness which the writer is rebuking here.—
ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε: the reading ἐστε,
in preference to ἐστι or ἔσται, makes the
address more personal; ἀτμὶς is often
used for “ ee ϑυς e.g., Acts ii. 17; of.
Ps. cii. 3 (4), ἐξέλιπον ὡσεὶ καπνὸς al
ἡμέραι pov; the word only occurs here
in the N.T., in Acts ii. 19 it is a quota-
tion from Joel ii. 30 (Sept.) iii. 3 ( eb.).
In Job vii. 7 we have p πνεῦ-
μά pov ἡ ζωή, cf. Wisd. ii. 4; the ren-
dering “breath” instead of “vapour”
does not commend itself on account of
the former being invisible, and the point
of the words is that man does appear for
a little time (πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη) and
then disappears, cf. Wisd. xvi. 6.—
ἀφανιζομένη: the word occurs,
though in a different connection, in Sir.
xlv. 26.
Ver. 15. ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς:
“A classical writer would rather have
said δέον λέγειν or οἵτινες βέλτιον ἂν
εἶπον" (Μαγοτ). ---ἐὰν ὁ κύριος Oe
λήσῃ: Cf. Berachoth, 17a, “It is re
ἜΡΩΣ and known before Thee that our
will is to do Thy will” (quoted by Taylor,
ἐκεῖνο.
ii. 16.
01 Cor. v: 6; cf. 2 Cor. vii. 4.
TAKQBOY
_ ἐὰν ὁ Κύριος ™Oedjon,! καὶ ζήσομεν 23 καὶ ®
16. νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς " ἀλαζονίαις ἴ ὑμῶν: πᾶσα
“ καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά ἐστιν.
ΙΝ,
ποιήσομεν ὁ τοῦτο ἢ
8
17. " εἰδότι οὖν 9 καλὸν ποιεῖν
. καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ 11 ἐστιν.»
p—p Luke xii. 47, 48; Jn. ix. 41, xv. 22; Rom. xiv. 23; 2 Pet. ii.
21; cf. Rom. i. 20, 21, 32, ii. 17, 18, 23; 1 Tim. i. 13.
1 θελη BP, 69, a, d, Tregmg, WH.
Ξζησωμεν KLO, curss., Cyr., Thi., Oec.; pr. si Vulg. (om. s Vulga).
3Om. Vulg., Pesh., Sah., Copt., Arm., Aeth, Cyr.
4 ποιησωμεν KLO, curss., Thl., Oec.
ὁ kaTakavxacde SQ, 7.
Samraca NY.
op. cit., p. 29); cf. John vii. 17, ἐάν τις
θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται
...ἴ|π the Hebrew commentary on a
curious little work called The Book of the
Alphabet of Ben Sira there occur the
words DOW Δ ON: te, “If the
Name (= God) wills”; and it is said
that this formula should never be omitted
when a man is about to undertake any-
thing. This passage occurs in the com-
ment on the eleventh proverb of the
“ Alphabet,” which runs: “The bride
enters the bridal chamber and, neverthe-
less, knows not what will befall her”.
The formula, “If the Name wills,” is,
according to Ginsberg, of Mohammedan
origin, “ for the use ot formulas was in-
troduced to the Jews by the Moham-
medans”. The formula is, of course, not
Ben Sira’s, as it forms no part of the
work ascribed to him; the commentary
in which it occurs belongs to about the
ear ooo probably (see Fewish Encycl.,
li, 678 f.). Cf., further, Acts xviii. 21, τοῦ
θεοῦ θέλοντος, 1 Cor. iv. 19, ἐὰν ὁ κύριος
θελήσῃ; and in Pirge Aboth, ii. 4 occur
the words of Rabban Gamliel (middle of
third century 4.D.), “Do His will as if
it were thy will, that He may do thy will
as if it were His will. Annul thy will
before His will, that He may annul the
will of others before thy will” (Taylor).
--καὶ ζήσομεν cal... both life
and action depend upon God’s will.
Ver. 16. νῦν δὲ: “but now,” é.e., as
things are; cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 6, viv δὲ,
ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν ἔλθω... .---καυχᾶσθε
ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονίαις ὑμῶν: those
vauntings were, of course, not on account
of following out their own will in despite
of the divine will, but because of the
thoughtlessness which did not take God’s
will into account, and therefore boasted
of the ability of following one’s own
9 Scientibus autem ff.
5 Totum comma deest s.
Tadafoveracs B°K, Treg., Weiss; superbia Κ΄.
10 Facientibus ff. 11 TIlis ff.
bent. Both are bad, but conscious op-
position to the will of God would, of
the two, be worse. ᾿Αλαζονίαις comes
from ἀλαζών which is literally a ‘‘ wan-
derer,” then it comes to mean one who
makes pretensions. Cf. Prov. xxvii. I, μὴ
καυχῶ τὰ εἰς αὔριον, οὐ yap γινώσκεις
τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα: the word occurs
only here and in 1 John ii. 16 (ἣ ἀλαζονεία
τοῦ βίου) in the ΝΙΡΤ.--πᾶσα καύχη-
σις τοιαύτη . - .«: boasting ofthis
kind must be evil because it forgets God,
and unduly exalts self.
Ver. 17. Although this verse may be
regarded as standing independent of what
has preceded, and as being in the form of
a more or less inexact quotation, it is
quite permissible to take it with what has
gone before. Those to whom the words
have been addressed had, to some extent,
erred through thoughtlessness; now that
things have been made quite plain to
them, they are in a position to know how
to act; if, therefore, in spite of knowing
now how to act aright, the proper course
is neglected, then it is sinful. This
seems to be the point of the words of this
verse.—T he words are perhaps an echo of
Luke xii. 47, ἐκεῖνος δὲ ὁ δοῦλος ὁ γνοὺς
τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ ἑτοι-
poet ἢ ποιήσας πρὸς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ
αρήσεται πολλάς. With καλὸν ποιεῖν
cf. Gal. vi. 9, τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ
ἐνκακῶμεν.--Ὡμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν:
for the converse of this, namely, doing
what is wrong in ignorance—in which
case it is excusable—see Acts iii. 17,
‘“‘ And now, brethren, I wot that in ignor-
ance ye did it, as did also your rulers”;
Ι Tim. i 13, “. . . howbeit, I obtained
mercy, because I did it ignorantly in un-
belief”.—It is, however, quite possible
that we have in these words the enuncia-
tion of the principle that sins of omission
16—17. V.1.
IAKQBOY
465
V. τ. "ἌΓΕ viv οἱ ὃ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε 1 ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς a iv. 13.
. V8 Σ 5
Prov. xi.
28; Luke vi. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 9
1 κλαυσονται 13.
are as sinful as those of commission;
when our Lord says, “. . . these things
ought ye to have done, and not to have
left the other undone” (Matt. xxiii. 23),
it is clear that the sins of omission are
regarded as wilful sin equally with those
of commission, cf. Matt. xxv. 41-45.
There is always a tendency to reckon the
things which are left undone as less
serious than actually committed sin; this
was certainly, though not wholly so, in
Judaism. It is exceptional when we read,
for example, in 1 Sam. xii. 23, “ God for-
bid that I should sin against the Lord in
ceasing to pray for you”; asa rule sins
of omission are regarded as venial, ac-
cording to the Jewish doctrine, and are
not punishable. The conception of sin
according to Rabbinical ideas is well seen
in what is called the ‘Al Chét (i.e., “ For
the sin,” from the opening words of each
sentence in the great Widdui [“* Confes-
sion ᾿ said on Yom Hag tad [‘‘ the Day of
Atonement ”]); in the long list of sins
here, mention is made only of committed
sins. In the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma,
viii. 6) it is said that the Day of Atone-
ment brings atonement, even without
repentance, for sins of omission; in
Pesikta, 7b the words in Zeph. i. 12, “1
will search Jerusalem with candles, and
I will punish the men. . .,” are com-
mented on by saying, ‘not by daylight,
nor with the torch, but with candles, so
as not to detect venial sins,” among these
being, of course, included sins of omis-
sion. Although this is, in the main, the
traditional teaching, there are some ex-
ceptions to be found, «¢g., Shabbath,
545; “** Whosoever is in a position to
prevent sins being committed by the
members of his household, but refrains
from doing so, becomes liable for their
sins.’ The same rule applies to the
govenour of a town, or even of a whole
country” (see ¥ewish Encycl., xi. 378).
Having regard to the very Jewish char-
acter of our Epistle, it is quite possible
that in the verse before us the reference
is to this subject of sins of omission.
CuapTerR V.—Chap. V. contains five
distinct sections; of great interest is the
fact that the first two—1-6, 7-11—deal
respectively with Jewish and Christian
Eschatology ; this subject will be dealt
with presently ; ver. 12 is a short section
VOL, IV.
containing an adaptation of some words
from the ‘Sermon on the Mount”;
13-18 deals with the subject of the visita-
tion of the sick in the early Church;
while vv. 19, 20 bring the Epistle to an
abrupt termination with a very pro-
nounced utterance upon the Jewish doc-
trine of works. Each of these sections
is self-contained, and it would be im-
possible to have a clearer or more pointed
illustration than this chapter offers of the
‘* patchwork ” character of our Epistle.
It will not be necessary, in dealing with
the very large subject of Jewish Eschat-
ology, to do more than indicate very
briefly its connection with the section
vv. 1-6 of this chapter; at the same time,
a slight reference to its leading ideas is
essential, as some of these are referred
in this passage; one of these is the
punishment about to overtake the wicked
—who are often identified with the rich
—in the ‘“‘last days”. Jewish Eschato-
logy, or the “‘ Doctrine of the last things,”
is based on the teaching of the O.T.
prophets Ppehan the ‘‘Day of the
Lord,” or, as the phrase runs, “ the last
day,” or ‘last time”; another formula
which occurs frequently is “in those
days”. ‘ By the time of the New Testa-
ment period Judaism was in possession
of most, if not all, of its eschatological
ideas. These had been developed during
the two eventful centuries that immedi-
ately preceded the rise of Christianity.
It was these centuries which saw the
rise of the Apocalyptic Movement with
its vast eschatological developments that
were essentially bound up with the doc-
trine of a future life, and a belief in
a judgment after death, with rewards and
punishments” (Oesterley and Box, op.
cit., p. 211). The four outstanding su
jects that the eee of the = —
comprises are: (I e signs of the a
sack of the δ Ate Era moths
atter took the place of the “ Day of the
Lord” in the development of eschato-
logical thought, (2) the actual advent of
the Messiah, together with the great
events that should then come to pass,
viz., the ingathering of Israel and the
resurrection of the dead; (3) The judg-
ment upon the wicked; (4) The blesse
ness of the righteous (Cf. the writer’s
The Doctrine of the Last Things). In
30
466
ς Ron. iii.
16.
d Matt. vi.
19, 20
IAKQBOY
“ ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις.}
Ve
2. ὃ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν ὅ σέ-
1 Add υμιν νῷ, 5, 8, 25, Vulg., Pesh., Copt., Arm., Aeth.
the passage before us (vv. 1-6) three of the
above are referred to, viz., the Messianic
Era; the punishment of the wicked, and
(implicitly) the blessedness of the righ-
teous. In ver. 3 the phrase ἐν ἐσχάταις
ἡμέραις points indubitably to the times
of the Messiah; the language is that of
Fewish Eschatology based on prophetic
teaching (cf. Isa. ii. 2; Mic. iv. 1; Hos.
πὸ δὲς Joel απ τ Am;-vill,: T1,71X... 215
Zech. viii. 23). In vv. 1, 3 the punish-
ment of the wicked is referred in the
words, κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς
ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις :
> « «καὶ 6 ἰὸς αὐτῶν ... φάγεται τὰς
σάρκας ὑμῶν ὡς πῦρ; as illustrating this
cf. Book of Enoch xcvi. 8, ‘* Woe unto
you mighty who violently oppress the
righteous, for the day of your destruction
will come; in that time many happy
days will come for the righteous, then
shall ye be condemned”; xciv. 7, 8, 9,
‘Woe to those that build their houses
with sin ...; and those who acquire
gold and silver will perish in judgment
suddenly. Woe to you, ye rich, for ye
have trusted in your riches... . Ye have
committed blasphemy and unrighteous-
ness, and have become ready for the day
of slaughter and the day of darkness and
the day of the great judgment”; xcv. 7,
“Woe to you sinners, for ye persecute
the righteous . . .; xcvi, 4, ‘‘ Woe unto
you, ye sinners, for your riches make you
appear like the righteous . . . and this
word shall be a testimony against you”
many other similar quotations could be
given, the striking resemblance in thought
and language with our passage cannot
fail to be observed ; see further below,
ver. 1. And lastly, in ver. 6, there is an
implicit reference to the happiness of the
righteous, in the words, κατεδικάσατε,
ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον οὐκ ἀντιτάσ-
σεται ὑμῖν; that is to say, the righteous
can afford to suffer such ill-treatment
because he knows that the time of
essedness is coming for him; this is
also frequently referred to in the ‘Book of
Enoch, 4.8.» xcvi. 1, “Be hopeful, ye
righteous ; for suddenly will the sinners
perish before you, and ye will have lord-
ship over them according to your desires ;
3, Wherefore, fear not, ye that suffer; for
healing will be your portion”. The non-
mention in our passage of the actual
advent of the Messiah by name was
characteristic of Jewish usage at certain
periods, and is significant here. On the
other hand, the section comprising vv.
7-11 is wholly Christian; the utterly
different tone and language of this, as
compared with the section wv.1-6, cannot
be accounted for by saying that the one
is addressed to the wicked, the other to
the righteous ; because in the latter there
is a distinct reference to those who are in
danger of being judged on account of
murmuring against one another (ver. 9).
But there are one or two points whereby
the respectively Jewish and Christian
form ot Eschatology may be clearly dis-
cerned. (1) The language on which
Jewish eschatological ideas are based is
that of the prophets; the section vv. 1-6
is steeped in O.T. phraseology; on the
other hand, the actual references to the
Advent in wv. 7-11 are in N.T. language;
the O.T. references in this section have
nothing to do with the Advent. (2) It is
characteristic of Jewish Eschatology that,
generally speaking, there is indefinite-
ness as to when the Messianic Era will
be inaugurated; it differs herein some-
what from the prophetical teaching,
owing, as a matter of fact, to the rise
of apocalyptic conceptions: on the other
hand, the Christian, like the prophetical,
view of the Advent is that it will take
place in the very near future (‘*..
behold the judge standeth at the door ἢ,
(3) In Jewish pre-Christian eschatological
literature the Messianic Era is frequently
depicted without any reference to the
personality of the Messiah; on the other
hand, in the N.T., it is the rule that
when the second Advent is referred to
Christ is mentioned under the titles of
the “Son of Man” or the “Lord” (cf.
Matt::x. 25. χυ γν, 42. χνν 27, 28, xix,
28, xxv. 31-33, etc., Phil. iv. . 5; 6 κύριος
ἐγγύς, τ Cor. xvi. 22, μαρὰν ἀθά, and
see Didache, x. 6, εἴ τις ἅγιός ἐστιν,
ἐρχέσθω + εἴ τις οὐκ ἐστί, μετανοείτω "
μαρὰν ἀθά. ἀμήν). (4) Besides there be-
ing no reference to the personality of the
Messiah in the Jewish eschatological
section there is the further contrast be-
tween it and the Christian section that in
the latter the distinctively Christian ex-
pression ἧ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου twice
occurs; against this the Jewhh section
2-3. IAKQBOY 467
σηπεν, Kat τὰ "ἱμάτια ὑμῶν ᾿σητόβρωτα γέγονεν: 3. ὁ Χρυσὸς © C/. ii, 2.
ὑμῶν 1 καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος " katiwrat,! καὶ ὁ ids αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν
Bar.vi.12;
Job xiii.
28.
g Sir.xii.11,
1—1 katiwTat Kat o apyupos ΑΖ, 13.
makes use of the distinctively Jewish title
for God, the “ Lord of Sabaoth”.
It is thus difficult to resist the con-
clusion that we have here, in the section
wy. 1-6, a passage which did not origin-
ally belong to the Epistle at all, but was
taken or adapted from some Jewish
eschatological work; it will be generally
acknowledged that this section has
absolutely nothing specifically Christian
about it. That the writer Jescnralec ?)
should have incorporated ihis in his
Epistle is quite natural, seeing that he
was writing to Jews; equally as natural
is it that he should, as a Christian writ-
ing to (Jewish-) Christians, add the de-
veloped Christian form of the same sub-
ject, interspersing it with O.T. references
for the sake of his hearers [see further,
Bk. of F$ubilees, i. 29, v. 12, xxiii. 26-30;
Enoch, x. 13, xvi. 1; Ass. of Moses, i. 18,
x. 13; Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Reuben, vi. 8; Apoc. Bar. xxvii. 15, xxix.
8, lvi. 2; 4 Esdr. ix. 5].
Ver. 1. “Aye viv: See above iv. 13.
π-κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ
ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς
ἐπερχομέναις: according to the
original prophetic conception these
“‘miseries” which were to overtake the
wicked, were to come to pass in the
“‘ Day of the Lord,” t.e., during the Mes-
sianic Era; this belief became extended
during the development of ideas which
took place during the two centuries pre-
ceding the Christian Era. Whatever the
reasons were which brought about the
belief, it is certain that the expression
‘those days” came to be applied to a
certain period which was immediately to
precede the coming of the Messiah ; with-
out doubt a number of prophetical pas-
sages were regarded as suggesting this
(see below). The descriptions given of
these “days,” which are to foretell the
advent of the Messiah, belong to apo-
calyptic conceptions; in their general
outline the “signs” of these times are
identical. Prophetical passages such as
the following laid the foundation : “ The
iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin
is laid up in store. The sorrows of a
travailing woman shall come upon him
. ..”; then, on the other hand, “I will
ransom them from the power of the
grave; I will redeem them from death
...” (Hos. xiii. 12-14); again, “...
The day of thy watchmen, even thy visi-
tation, is come; now shall be their per-
plexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye
not confidence in a guide. .. for the
son dishonoureth the father, the daughter
riseth up against her mother . . . a man’s
enemies are the men of his own house”
(Mic. vii. 4-6); another characteristic
which played a great part in the later
apocalypse is contained in Joel ii. τὸ ff.,
“the earth quaketh before them; the
heavens tremble; the sun and the moon
are darkened, and the stars withdraw their
shining. .. . Cf. Zech. xiv. 6 ff.; Dan.
xli. I, etc., etc. Throughout the immense
domain of apocalyptic literature these
themes are developed to an enormous
extent; they are familiar to us from the
Gospels, Matt. xxiv., xxv.; Mark xiii. 14-
27; Luke xxi. g-19. In Jewish literature
references to them also occur with fre-
quency ; this period is called the time of
“ travail,” and more specifically, the
‘“‘birth-pangs,” or “sufferings” of the
Messiah—Cheble ha-Meshiach, or Cheblo
shel Mashiach, see Pesikta rab., xxi. 34;
Shabbath, 118a; Sanhedrin, 96b, 97a,
etc., etc. See further Oesterley, The
Doctrine of the Last Things, chap. vii.
The great diffusion and immense popu-
larity which the apocalyptic literature
enjoyed makes it certain that the writer
of our Epistle was familiar with the sub-
ject; the “miseries,” therefore, referred
to in the passage before us may quite
possibly have reference to the sufferings
which were to take place in the time of
travail preceding the actual coming of
the Messiah.—dAoAvLovres: only
here in the N.T., but fairly frequent in
the Septuagint, Isa. xiii. 6; Joel i. 5,
13; Jer. iv. 8, etc.; in the first of these
assages the connection is the same as
ere, . . - ἐγγὺς yap ἡμέρα κυρίου, and
see Luke vi. 24, ‘‘ Woe unto you rich
. . +’ which is strongly reminiscent of
the verse before us.
Ver. 2. The use of the Hebraic pro-
phetic ects in this passage is another
mark of Jewish authorship. ὁ πλοῦτος
ὑμῶν : this cannot refer to wealth in
the abstract because this would be out of
harmony with the rest of the verse which
468
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
Υ.
h Cf, Prov. ἔσται ' καὶ φάγεται 3 τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν ὡς ὃ ἢ" πῦρ. ᾿ἐθησαυρί-
XV1. 27.
iRom. 4.5; σατεῦ ἐν * ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις."
τῶν ἀμησάντων τὰς ™xdpas ὑμῶν ὁ ἀφυστερημένος 9 ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν "Ὁ
cf. Mic.
Matt. vi.
19.
k Cf. v. 8, 9.
Luke xxi. 21.
10m. 5.
4 Add o Aeth., Thl.
θημεραις ἐεσχαταις A,
I Lev. xix. 13; Job xxiv. 10,11; Jer. xxii. 13; Sir. iv. 1, xxxiv. 22.
2 φαινετε NO},
5 Add vobis iram Vulg. (om. 5, om. iram Vulg®).
‘Pr. et 7,
4. ἰδοὺ ὁ ᾿μισθὸς ὃ τῶν ἐργατῶν
m Cf.
3 Pr, o vos APO, curss.
8 Mercedes ff.
9 απεστερημενος ABP, curss.; ἀποστερημενος KL; quod abnegastis f.
10 Om. ad υμων 7).
speaks of literal destruction; we have
here precisely the same idea, as to actual
destruction, as that which occurs in the
eschatological passage Enoch, xcviii. 1
ff., where in reference to foolish men
“in royalty, and in grandeur, and in
power, and in silver and in gold, and in
purple .. .,” it says that “they will per-
ish thereby together with their posses-
sions and with all their glory and their
splendour ".- -σέσηπεν : Gm. Aey. in
N.T., cf. Sir. xiv. 19, wav ἔργον σηπόμε.
γον ἐκλείπει.--σητόβρωτα: dw. rey
in N.T., cf. Job xiii. 28, παλαιοῦται
ὥσπερ ἱμάτιον σητόβρωτον ; Sir. xlii. 13,
ἀπὸ γὰρ ἱματίων ἐκπορεύεται σής. For
the torm of the word cf. σκωληκόβρωτος
in Acts xii. 23.
Ver. 3. κατέωται: in Sir. xii. 11
we have καὶ γνώσῃ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τέλος
κατίωσεν in reference to a mirror; the
Hebrew, which is followed by the Syriac,
is corrupt, but evidently read son,
which is the same word used in the pre-
ceding verse (ἰοῦται) ; the Hebrew word
may perhaps be used in the sense of
“filth” (see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon,
s.v.), and possibly this more general
term is what was originally intended in
the verse before us, since gold cannot
strictly be said to rust. The word occurs
in one other passage viz., in Sir., xxix.
10, but unfortunately the Hebrew for this
is wanting. The force of the κατα is in-
tensive.—6 ἰὸς : used in iii. 8 of the
poison of the tongue, in a figurative sense;
the meaning “rust” is secondary.—els
μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται: this meta-
phor is quite in the Hebrew style; “ty
( = μαρτύριον), though generally used of
persons, is in a fair number of instances
used of inanimate things in the O.T.; ¢f.
in the N.T. Mark vi. 11; Luke ix. 5.—
φάγεται: a Hellenistic form, unclas-
sical, cf. Sir. xxxiii, 23 (Sept.) wav βρῶμα
φάγεται κοιλία, cf. xi. 19, xlv. 21 (Sept.).
—Tas σάρκας ὑμῶν: “The plural
σάρκες is used for the fleshy parts of the
body both in classical and later writers
. . while the singular σάρξ is used for
the whole body” (Mayor); in the Sep-
tuagint we meet with a similar phrase in
a number of cases, ¢.g., Mic. iil. 3.
«ν΄. κατέφαγον τὰς σάρκας τοῦ λαοῦ
μου; 2 Kings ix. 36; in these and other
instances the Hebrew ΩΣ ( = σάρξ)
is always in the singular (unlike “ blood,”
which is often used in the plural).—a¢
πῦρ: this comparison must probably
have been suggested by the fact that fire,
in a literal sense, often figures in apo-
calyptic pictures, cf., ¢.g., Enoch, cii. 1,
‘And in those days when He brings a
ievous fire upon you, whither will ye
ee, and where will ye find deliver-
ance?” xcviii. 3, where mention is made
of ‘‘ the furnace of fire,’’ x. 13, ‘‘ the abyss
of fire”; this idea arose originally be-
cause “ Gehenna” was conceived of as
the place of torment, and a fire in the
literal sense was constantly burning in
the valley of Hinnom ; the fire in the place
of torment is referred to in Matt. xxv. 41
τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, Mark ix. 44 ὅπου 6
σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ
σβέννυται, Jude 7 πυρὸς aiwviov...
See Carr’s interesting note on ὡς πῦρ.
ἐθησαυρίσατε.---δν ἐσχάταις ype
pats: see prefatory note to this chapter.
Ver.4. ἰδοὺ : this interjection, though
good Attic, is used by some N.T. writers
with a frequency which is unclassical,
(Mayor) ¢.g., in this short Epistle it occurs
six times, while on the other hand St. Paul
uses it only nine times (once in a quota-
tion) in the whole of his writings; its
frequent occurrence is a mark of Jewish
authorship, as Jews were accustomed to
the constant use of an equivalent inter-
jection (>) in their own tongue,
—é μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν: μισθός
occurs several times in Sir, in the sense
4—5-
IAKQBOY
469
kpdLe,! καὶ ai " βοαὶ τῶν θερισάντων εἰς τὰ Sta Κυρίου °ga-n Deut.
βαὼθ εἰσελήλυθαν.3
o Rom. ix. 29; Rev. xviii. 5.
(Sept.) ; ff. 1: Tim. v. 6.
Ezek, xxxiv. 3.
1 Clamabunt ff.
r Luke xxi. 34.
5. Pérpudjoate ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὃ “ ἐσπατα-
λήσατε, "ἐἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν év* ἡμέρᾳ "σφαγῆς.
p Cf. Job xxi. 13; Luke xvi. 19, 25; 2 Pet. ii. ἢ
XXiv. 14,
15; Is.v.9;
Job xxxi.
3-40; ε΄.
Rend, {
23.
q Am. vi.
8 Quoted from Jer. xii. 3; cf. 1 Sam. ix. 12, 13
3 εἰσεληλυθασιν SKL, curss. ; εἰσεληλυθεν A; εἰσεληλυθεισαν I.
Om. και A, 73, Copt.
of reward, but not in that of wages due;
in the same book ἐργάτης occurs twice
(xix. 1, xl. 18), but in neither case with the
meaning ‘agricultural labourer,’ which
is its usual meaning in the N.T., cf. Matt.
ix. 37, but on the other hand Luke. x 7,
ἄξιος ὃ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.---
τῶν ἀμησάντων: am. dey. in N.T.;
whatever difference of meaning there
may have been originally between ἀμᾶν
and θερίζειν they are used as synonyms
in the Septuagint, and the same is true,
according to Mayor, of classical Greek.
--τὰς χώρας ὑμῶν: often, as here,
used in the restricted sense of “ fields,”
cf. for the variety of meaning which it
can bear the three instances of its occur-
rence in Sir. x. 16, xliii. 3, xlvii. 17; for
its meaning of “fields,” both in singular
and plural, see Luke xii. 16, xxi. 21;
John iv. 35.—6 ἀφυστερημένος
ἀ φ᾽ ὑμῶν: “which is kept back by
you,” “on your part,” or as Mayor ren-
ders as an alternative, “comes too late
from you"; the ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν is not really
required, it is omitted by ff. The with-
holding of wages due was evidently a sin
of frequent occurrence, see Lev. xix. 13;
Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job xxiv. 10; Mic,
fii. 10; Jer. xxii. 13; Prov. iii. 27, 28;
Mal. iii. 5; Sir. xxxi. (xxxiv.) 22; Tob.
iv. 14.—& vor. only here in N.T.—
κράζει: a thoroughly Hebraic idea
which occurs several times in the O.T.,
cf. for the “crying out” of inanimate
things, Gen. iv. 10; Job xxiv. 12; Ps,
Ixxxiv. 2; Prov. viii. 1; Lam. ii, 18;
Hab, ii, 11.—at Boat: only here in
N.T., cf. Exod. xi. 23.—els τὰ ὦτα
κυρίου σαβαώθ: quoted from Isa.
ν. 9; one of the many marks in this sec-
tion, vv. 1-6, which suggest that it did not
originally belong to the N.T.; it is cer-
tainly extraordinary that the usual Septu-
4 ws ev N®AKLA, curss.
δημεραις A.
agint rendering, Κύριος παντοκράτωρ or
ὁ Κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων, is not used here;
though it is true σαβαώθ is sometimes
transliterated, it is nevertheless excep-
tional. ‘ Jahwe Sabaoth” was the an-
cient Israelite name of Jehovah as war-
god.
Ver.5. ἐτρυφήσατε: am. dey. in
N.T.; it occurs in Sir. xiv. 4 for the
Hebrew ἈΠ Σ which means ‘‘ to revel,”
followed by 3. Luther translates: Ihr
habt wohlgelebet, *‘ Ye have lived well ” ;
but the German word “schwelgen” so
exactly describes the Greek that one
wonders why he did not adopt it; the
English “to revel’? comes nearest to it,
and this is the R.V. rendering of the
word in the Sir. passage referred to.
τρυφᾶν with its compounds is used in a
good as well as in a bad sense; for the
former see Ps. xxxvii. 4, 11; Isa. lv. 2,
Ixvi. 11; Neh. ix. 25.—éwl τῆς γῆς:
the contrast is between their enjoyment
of the good things of the earth and what
their lot is to be hereafter; cf. Luke
xvi. 25, ‘‘Remember that thou in thy
lifetime receivedst thy good things, and
Lazarus in like manner evil things; but
now he is comforted, and thou art in
anguish”.—éowaradryoarte; only
elsewhere in N.T. in 1 Tim. v. 6; it
occurs in Ezek. xvi. 49 of the women of
Jerusalem who are compared to those of
Sodom; see also Sir. xxi. 15; the com-
pound κατασπ. occurs in Am. vi. 4;
Prov. xxix. 21; neither the word itself
nor its compound is used in a good sense,
expressing as it does the living of a life
of wanton self-indulgence.—26 pépare
τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν: this use of καρ-
δία is thoroughly Hebraic, Δ being
used in a very wide sense in Hebrew,
cf. Ps. civ. 1g, “... and bread
*This is not biblical Hebrew, which would be }539P77 (Isa. Ixvi. 11), or
pe) (Neh. ix. 25); 39) occurs in the Targums, but means there “to shout
r joy”.
470
IAKQBOY
Vv.
tHos.i.6 6. κατεδικάσατε,: ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον - οὐκ ᾿ὑὩ ἀντιτάσσεται
(Sept.). n
u Luke xxi. Upiv.8
19; Be
x. 36.
vI Thess.
ii. 19.
w Matt.
XXi. 33.
x Sir. we 19.
1 Add et f7.
Κυρίου.
2 δικαιον. WH.
that strengtheneth man’s heart” πὸ
which does not differ from Ἢ" in mean-
ing), cf. Jud. xix. 5.—év ἡμέρᾳ σφα-
Ὑ ἢ ς : there is something extremely signi-
ficant in this quotation from Jer. xii. 3,
because Jeremiah uses this expression
(a0 DY) as the day of judgment ;
and not only so, but this prophet had also
coined a new word for Gehenna, viz.,
“Geharégah” = ‘“‘the valley of slaugh-
ter” (Jer. vii. 32. xix. 6). These expres-
sions—“ day of slaughter” and “valley
of slaughter ’””— belong to Jeremiah
(Enoch, xvi. 1 quotes the expression καὶ
ἀπὸ ἡμέρας καιροῦ σφαγῆς). and in using
the words “day of slaughter”’ the writer
of ou- Epistle is undoubtedly giving them
the meaning that they had originally;
the passage before us probably means
that these luxurious livers will be revel-
ling in self-indulgence on the very day
of judgment, cf. our Lord’s words in
Luke xvii. 27 ff., “‘They ate, they drank
. -. and the flood came and destroyed
them all... after the same manner
shall it be in the day that the Son of
man is revealed”. The tense ἐθρέψατε
is in accordance with Hebrew usage of
regarding a thing in the future as having
already taken place; it is wholly in the
prophetic style.
Ver. 6. κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύ-
gate τὸν δίκαιον: this expresses
what must often have taken place; the
prophetical books often refer to like
things; there is no reason for regarding
this as some specific case of judicial
murder. Cf. Am. ii. 6,7, v. 12; Wisd. ii.
το ff. The antithesis between the ΟΝ
(‘righteous ”) and yyy (“ wicked Ἧ 1
a commonplace in Jewish theology.—
οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν : the
statement of fact here, instead of the
interrogative as read by some authorities,
is more natural, and more in accordance
with the prophetical style which is so
characteristic of this whole passage. This
picture of patient acquiescence in ill-
treatment is really a very vivid touch, for
it shows, on the one hand, that the
7. “Μακροθυμήσατε οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἕως τῆς “παρουσίας τοῦ
ἰδοὺ ὁ “ γεωργὸς * ἐκδέχεται τὸν τίμιον καρπὸν τῆς γῆς
Sup; WHme. 4Om. ουν s.
down-trodden realised the futility of
resistance; on the other, that their hopes
were centred on the time to come.
With the whole of this section cf.
the words in The first book of Clement,
which is called The Testament of our
Lord Fesus Christ, 12: ‘‘ The harvest is
come, that the guilty may be reaped and
the Judge appear suddenly and confront
them with their works”.
Vv. 7-11. The section 7-11 is a Chris-
tian adaptation of the earlier Jewish con-
ception of the Messianic Era; in place
of at ἐσχάται ἡμέραι there is ἣ παρουσία
τοῦ Κυρίου, the one a specifically Jew-
ish, the other a specifically Christian ex-
pression; the two expressions, which re-
‘present, as it were, the titles of Jewish
and Christian Eschatology respectively,
are sufficient to show the difference of
venue regarding these two sections. It
is characteristic of one type of apo-
calyptic literature that the central figure
of the Messiah is not mentioned, while
another type lays great emphasis on the
Messianic Personality; vv. 1-6 represents
the former of these; that it contains no
trace of Christian interpolation is the
more remarkable in that it is utilised by a
Jewish-Christian writer and is incorpor-
ated in Christian literature. The fact is
additional evidence in favour of its being
a quotation,—one of several which our
Epistle contains. It is christianised by
the addition to it of vv. 7-11, which,
though interspersed with O.T. reminis-
cences, is specifically Christian. A
similar christianising of Jewish material
by adding to it is found, though on a
much smaller scale, in Rev. xxii. 20,
᾿Αμήν ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ, which forms a
response to the preceding ναί, ἔρχομαι
ταχύ. Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (in Encycl.
Brit., art. “‘ Midrash”) discovered that
the Hebrew equivalent of the words ᾿Αμήν
ἔρχου (= NO pos) indicated acros-
tically a primitive hymn, which still ap-
pears in all the Jewish prayer books, and
is known from its opening words as ’Ex
Kelohenu (“ There is none like our God”;
see Singer’s The Authorised Daily Prayer
6—o.
IAKQBOY
471
* μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ 1 ἕως 5 λάβῃ "'πρόϊμον" καὶ ὄψιμον." Υ Sir. xviii,
8. μακροθυμήσατε καὶ ὑμεῖς, "στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὅτι ἡ
b , a , »
παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου ἤγγικεν.
Jer. v. 24; Joel ii. 23; Zech. x. x.
cf. Rom. ide Il. 3 Ἢ
ar Thess. ii. 16, iii. 13.
11; Luke
viii. 15,
> Xviii. 17.
9. μὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί, κατ z Deut. xi.
14; Job
XXiX. 23
b Heb. x. 25; 1 Pet. iv.7
avrov KL, curss., Thl.; om. Vulg., Arm.
3 Add av ΝΥ ΡΞ, 13, rec. ; add ov curss.
* Add verov AKLP, curss., Pesh., rec.; add καρπὸν N° (καρπον τον $8), Copt.
ἄπρωιμον B3KL, curss.
5 Add fructum ff.
8 Add ουν NL, 9.
7 Add μου Ad, 13, pon post; αλληλων NL, Syrr., Thl., Oec., Ti.; om. K, 15, 16.
Book, p. 167). This hymn consists of five
verses of four lines each; the first word
of each line in the first verse begins with
> of the second verse with 99, of the
third with 5, of the fourth with Ἢ, and of
the fifth with §y, thus making a four-fold
repetition of the formula Ὁ &
(= ‘Amen, Come”). This formula is
the short title of the hymn referred to
and “is actually written instead of the
hymn in the place where it is to be used
after the Additional Service for the New
Year, and again towards the conclusion
of the additional service for the eighth
day of Solemn Assembly ..., at the
end of the Feast of Tabernacles ”’ (Taylor,
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
pp. 78 ff., and see Box in Church and
Synagogue, iii., pp. 41 ff.). The formula
“Amen Bo” belonged to Jewish Es-
chatology, and possibly took its origin
from the phrase QA Ὁ ἽΝ (= “ The
age to come,” a common expression for
the Messianic Era); it is christianised
by the Jewish-Christian writer in the
Apocalypse by the addition of κύριε
Ἰησοῦ, just as in the passage before us
the second, obviously Christian, section
vv. 7-11, is added on to the former, quite
as obviously Jewish, in order to make the
whole Christian.
Ver.7. Μακροθυμήσατε οὖν:
the verb, as well as the adjective, is used
both of God and man, e¢.g., Rom. ii. 4;
2 Cor. vi. 6; it expresses the attitude of
mind which is content to wait; when
used of God it refers to His long-suffering
towards men (e.g., Sir. xviii. 11); it is
possible that in the present connection
this is also implied in view of ver. 9.—
Perhaps οὖν was added in order to join
it on to the preceding section; it is
omitted by the OL MS.s.—éws τῆς
παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου: see above,
introductory words to this section. Πα-
ἀξίνα does not occur in the Septuagint,
ing (with τοῦ Κυρίου) specifically
Christian ; but with τοῦ Θεοῦ, instead of
τοῦ Κυρίου, it occurs in Test. of the
Twelve Patriarchs, Jud. xxii. 2, ἕως
παρουσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης
(the words are omitted in the Armenian
Version).—6 γεωργός: Cf. Sir. vi. 18;
Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Issach.
v.3 ἢ --καρπόν: used in the sense of
produce of the soil”.—€ws λάβῃ:
the context shows that the subject must
be ‘‘the earth,” not “the fruit,” for the
simple reason that the fruit is not in
existence when the “former” rains des-
cend; the great importance of the
“former” rains (called both Fy and
) was that they moistened the
ΠΥ ον about the month of
October) after it had been hardened by
the blazing summer sun, and thus en-
abled it to receive the seed; without the
‘* former ’’ rains to moisten the earth one
might as well sow seed on rocks, The
subject might possibly be ‘‘ the husband-
man’ as he may be said in a certain
sense to receive the rain, but the most
obvious subject, and that upon which
the meaning of the verse most naturall
depends, is the earth_wpdédtpov eat
ὄψιμον: Cf. Deut. xi. 14, and often,
my:
cs ae στηρίξατε τὰς καρδί-
as: a Hebrew idiom, 3% “YD; in
the O.T. mostly of strengthening the
body with ἴοοά.---ἧ παρουσία τοῦ
Κυρίον ἤγγικεν: see above; cf
Matt. iii. 2; Luke xxi. 28; Phil. iv. 6;
r Pet. iv. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv.
15; I Johni. x8.
Ver.g. μὴ orevalere: “A streng-
thened ression for μὴ καταλαλεῖτε
iv. rx” (Carr); it refers to the inward
feeling of grudge against another. The
word shows that it is not only the righ-
teous who are addressed in this section.—
472
IAKQBOY
V.
“2 (4) Eedr. ἀλλήλων ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε] - ἰδοὺ ὁ " κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν *Oupav? ἕστηκεν.
ο7. τ Pet. 10.
iv.5; Rev.
ΧΧΙΪ, 12.
d Matt. ΠΟ Τὶ
xxiv. 33: Κυρίου. Τὰ
Mark xiii. 112
τὴ: cf.1 τὰς
OF. iv. 5.
ἰδοὺ 'μακαρίζομεν τοὺς
"τὴν ὑπομονὴν "Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε, καὶ τὸ τέλος 13 Κυρίου etdere, 4
" ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε, ἀδελφοί,6 τῆς κακοπαθείας ἴ καὶ τῆς
ἐμακροθυμίας 8 τοὺς δ προφήτας, ot " ἐλάλησαν ἐν" τῷ 19 ὀνόματι
Κὑπομείναν-
eJohn xii, ὅτι “πολύσπλαγχνός}δ ἐστιν ὁ Κύριος" καὶ "οἶ κ-
15; Heb
iv.11;2 τίρμων. 12. Πρὸ πάντων δέ,}7 ἀδελφοί ° pou,!® μὴ ὀμνύετε, μήτε
Ῥεῖ, ii. 6.
£ Col. i. x75
g Matt. v.
12.
h 2 Pet. i. 21.
1 Job i. 21, 22, ii. 10.
v. 34°37; cf. Mal. iii. 5; Heb. vi. 16.
3 Januam ff.
i—i Cf. Dan. xii. 12.
1 κατακριθητε 2:
ὅλαβετε.. . .
AaBere A, 13, Aeth.
5 Add pov NKL, 13, rec.
8 Add exere N°A, 13, Aeth.
10 Om.rw δ, Chrys.
D See Matt. v. ro.
m—m Ps. ciii. 8, cxi. 4; cf. Num, xiv. 18.
τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε Thy γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον - ἤτω δὲ 1" ὑμῶν τὸ
k Matt. x. 22; Col. i. 11.
n Luke vi. 36. o—o Matt,
3 Stat ff. 4 Add Se 2:
και τῆς μακροθυμιας εχετε (lectio ex duabus confusa) 1; om.
7 κακοπαθιας ΒΡ, WH; καλοκαγαθιας N.
Om. ev AKLO, curss.
11 Pr, του 2.
12 yropevovtas KL 2, curss., Copt., Arm., Aeth., Thl., Oec., rec.
13 ἔλεος 27, 29.
14 ere ABSLP, curss.
15 πολυευσπλαγχνος curss., Thl.
16 Om. o Kuptos KL, curss.; om. o B, WHmg, Weiss.
17 ovy $"; om. K, curss.
19 Add ο λογος Νὰ", 8, Copt., Aeth.
ὃ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστη-
κεν: Cf. Rev. {|. 20. For the idea of
the Judge standing at the door see Matt.
xxiv. 33, .. . γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν
ἐπὶ θύραις, xxv. Io ff. (the parable of the
Ten Virgins). In its origin the idea
is antique; cf. the following from the
Mishna (Ab. iv. 16): ‘This world is as
if it were a vestibule to the future world;
prepare thyself in the vestibule, that thou
mayest enter the reception-room” ; this
saying is one of Jacob of Korsha’s who
lived in the second century 4.D.—éo τη-
κεν : for the tense see above.
Ver. το. ὑπόδειγμα: Cf. Sir. xliv.
16 and especially John xiii. 15, ὑπόδ.
ἔδωκα ὑμῖν. . . of our Lord—ris
κακοπαθείας : dm. dey. in N.T. cf. 4
Macc. ix. 8. It means ““ endurance” rather
than the R.V. “suffering”; this goes
better with μακροθυμίας, “ patience”’.
The rendering “ endurance’’ has support
from the papyri, see Deissmann, Neue
Bibelst., pp. 91 f—év τῷ ὀνόματι:
although this use of the phrase is paral-
leled by its use in the papyri (see Deiss-
mann, Bibelst., pp. 143-5: Neue Bibelst.,
pp- 25, 26), it is more probable that in this
case it comes through the Septuagint
from the Hebrew OUI 5 of. above ii. 7.
18 Om. pov 2.
Ver. 11. μακαρίζομεν: Cf. 4
Macc. xviii. 13, used in reference to
Daniel—’1@B: Job occupies a high
place of honour in post-biblical Jewish
literature, cf. the pseudepigraphic work
“The Testament of Job”.—r6 τέλος
Κυρίου : the final purpose of Jehovah
with regard to Job; it could not refer to
Christ, for the whole passage is dealing
with O.T. examples.—7 ok Vo wAayx-
vos: Gm. dey. in N.T.—oixtippev:
only elsewhere in N.T. in Luke vi. 36;
cf. Sir. ii. τὰ and often in the Septuagint.
Ver. 12. Πρὸ wavrwv...: The
most natural way of understanding these
words would be to take them in connec-
tion with something that immediately
preceded, but as there is not the remotest
connection between this verse and the
section that has gone just before, this is im-
possible here ; the verse must be regarded
as the fragment of some larger piece; it
is not the only instance in this Epistle of
a quotation which has been incorporated,
only in this case the fragmentary char-
acter is more than usually evident. That
it is not a quotation from the Gospel, as
we now have it (Matt. v. 33-37), must be
obvious, for if it were this, it would
unquestionably approximate more closely
Io—I4:
IAKQBOY
473
vai val, καὶ τὸ 00 οὔ, iva μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν! wéonte.° 13. “ Κακοπαθεῖ p2 Cor. i.
A irae . Ags, Wed
τις ἐν 2 ὑμῖν ; προσευχέσθω - εὐθυμεῖ tis; ᾿ψαλλέτω. 14. ἀσθενεῖ 3 q Ps. 1. 15.
> ea lol
τις ἐν ὑμῖν; προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς " πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας,"
‘ > 5 -
καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὅ * ἀλείψαντες ὃ ἐλαίῳ ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ
1 εἰς υποκρισιν ΚΙ, ΡΖ, curss., rec. (ed. Steph.).
4 Om. τῆς ἐκκλησιας 77.
ΡΥ ΘΕ:
r Rom. xv.
9; 1 Cor.
Xiv. 15;
Eph.v.19;
Col. iii.
16.
8 Acts xi. 30. t Mark vi. 13; cf. xvi. 18.
1Ex ff.
Savrous δ).
8 Add avrov NAKL, curss., Treg.
to the original; on the other hand, its
general similarity to the Gospel passage
proves that there must be a relationship
of some kind between the two. Pro-
bably both trace their origin to a saying
of our Lord’s which became modified
in transmission, assuming various forms
while retaining the essential point. An
example of a similar kind can be seen by
comparing together Matt. x. 26; Luke
viii. 17 and the fourth of the New Oxy-
rhynchus Sayings: Λέγει Ἰησοῦς Πᾶν τὸ
μὴ ἔμπροσθεν τῆς ὄψεώς σου καὶ τὸ
κεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ σοῦ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται.
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν
γενήσεται καὶ τεθαμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἐγερ-
θήσεται (Grenfell and Hunt’s τγεβίογα-
tion). In any case the verse before us
must originally have been preceded by a
context which contained various precepts
of which this was regarded as the most
important, on account of the words πρὸ
πάντων.--μὴ Spvvere...: this was
a precept enjoined by many of the more
devout Jews; Pharisees avoided oaths
as much as possible, the Essenes never
swore; a very good pre-Christian ex-
ample of the same precept is contained
in Sir. xxii, g-11, Ὅρκῳ ph ἐθίσῃς τὸ
στόμα σου, kal ὀνομασίᾳ τοῦ aylov μὴ
συνεθισθῇς . . . ἀνὴρ πολύορκος πλη-
σθήσεται ἀνομίας... .--ἤτω: Cf. τ Cor.
xvi. 22, the only other occurrence of this
form in the N.T.
Ver. 13. κακοπαθεῖ: See note on
v. 10; it refers perhaps rather to mental
worry or distress, while ἀσθενεῖ refers to
some specific bodily ailment.—ed @ v pet:
only found elsewhere in Acts xxvii. 22, 25
in the N.T.—WaAdAérwa: refers both
to playing on a stringed instrument (Sir.
ix. 4) and to singing (Eph. v. 19), and is
also used of singing with the spirit (1 Cor.
xiv. 15).
Ver. 14. ἀσθενεῖ. . .προσκα-
λεσάσθω, εἰς. : Cf. Sir. xxxviil. 14, καὶ
γὰρ αὐτοὶ Κυρίου δεηθήσονται, ἵνα εὐο-
δώσῃ αὐτοῖς aye καὶ ἴασιν χάριν
VOL. IV.
ἐμβιώσεως. In regard to the practice of
primitive Christianity in the matter of
caring for the sick Harnack says: ‘* Even
from the fragments of our extant litera-
ture, although that literature was not
written with any such intention, we can
still recognise the careful attention paid
to works of mercy. At the outset we
meet with directions everywhere to care
for sick people, 1 Thess. v. 14.... In
the prayer of the Church, preserved in
the first epistle of Clement, supplications
are expressly offered for those who are
sick in soul and body (1 Clem. lix., τοὺς
ἀσθενεῖς ἴασαι . . . ἐξανάστησον τοὺς
ἀσθενοῦντας, παρακάλεσον τοὺς ὀλιγο-
Ψψυχοῦντας). . . . Epistle of Polycarp,
vi. 1; Justin Martyr, Ixvii....’'; he
also quotes Lactantius, Div. Inst., vi. 12:
“‘ Aegros quoque quibus defuerit qui ad-
sistat, curandos fovendosque suscipere
summae humanitatis et magnae opera-
tionis est” (Expansion .. . 1. 147 f. first
English ed.). A like care was character-
istic of the Rabbis, who declared it to be
a duty incumbent upon every Jew to visit
and relieve the sick whether they were
Jews or Gentiles (Git., 61 a, Sotah, 14 a);
“the Haberim, or Hasidic associations,
made the performance of this duty a
special obligation” (¥ewish Encycl., xi.
327)).--τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς
ἐκκλησίας: both the words “" presby-
ters’? ( = “priest’’) and “ecclesia” were
taken over from the Jews, being the
Greek equivalents for D537} and rT:
While, however, the word πρεσβύτερος
was, without question, in the Christian
Church taken over from the 7} in the
Jewish Church, it is well to recall the
extended use which attached to it accord-
ing to the evidence of the papyri. The
phrase ὃ πρεσβύτερος τῆς κώμης occurs
on a papyrus belonging to the time of
the Ptolemies, and is evidently an official
title of some kind; of πρεσβύτεροι is
found together with ἱερεῖς of an idola-
30."
474 ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ Vv.
u Cf, Acts Kupiou.}
ix. 40,
xxviii. 8, ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος - κἂν ἁμαρτίας ἡ
and see
Matt.ix.2.
v Matt. ix. 21, 22.
15. καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ 2 τῆς " πίστεως “odoe τὸν κάμνοντα, Kal
> "πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται *
w Is. xxxiii. 24; Mark ii. 5; Luke v. 20; οὗ. σ Jn. v. 16.
1Qm. του Κυριον BA, Orig., Tregm ; tu xv €. WH place it in brackets.
3 nv Ἃ.
trous worship (c. 40 B.C.); and in the
second century A.D. οἱ πρεσβύτεροι
occurs in reference to “elders” of villages
in Egypt. The Septuagint translators
were therefore probably using in this case
a word which had a well-known technical
sense. Deissmann believes it possible,
therefore, that the Christian congrega-
tions of Asia Minor got the title of πρεσ-
βύτερος from the minor officials who
were so called, and not necessarily from
the Jewish prototype (Of. cit., pp. 153
f.). This might well be the case in vari-
ous centres, though not all (as for ex-
ample, Babylonia), of the Diaspora, but
not in Palestine. It is, of course, an
open question as to whether our Epistle
was written from Palestine or not; see,
further, Deissmann (Neue Bibelst. pp.
60 ff.). As regards ἐκκλησία, Harnack
remarks that “originally it was beyond
question a collective term (é.¢., b>);
it was the most solemn expression of the
Jews for their worship as a collective
body, and as such it was taken over by
the Christians. But ere long it was ap-
plied to the individual communities, and
then again to the general meeting for
worship. ... Its acquisition rendered
the capture of the term ‘synagogue’ a
superfluity, and once the inner cleavage
had taken place, the very neglect of the
latter title served to distinguish Christians
sharply from Judaism and its religious
gatherings even in terminology. ...
Most important of all, however, was
the fact that ἐκκλησία was conceived of,
in the first instance, not simply as an
earthly but as a heavenly and transcen-
dental entity” (of. cit., pp. τι ff.);
«bo (usually rendered ἐκκλησία in
LXX) denotes «1c community in relation
to God, and consequently is more sacred
than the profaner ΓΤ) (regularly trans-
lated by συναγωγή in the LXX)....
Among the Jews ἐκκλησία lagged far
behind συναγωγή in practical use, and
this was all in favour of the Christians
and their adoption of the term” (ibid.).
In the verse before us it is the combina-
tion of these two terms, of πρεσβύτεροι
τῆς ἐκκλησίας which points to a de-
2 προσευχὴ P, curss.
4 αφεθησονται P, 7.
veloped organisation among the com-
munities of the Diaspora, and therefore
to a late date for this part of the Epistle.
—areipavres ἐλαίῳ: a common
Jewish usage, see Isa. i. 6; Mark vi.
13; Luke x. 34. As oil was believed to
have the effect of curing bodily sick-
ness, so it became customary to use it
preparatory to Baptism, possibly with the
idea of its healing, sacramentally, the
disease of sin; that it was joined to
Baptism as an integral part of the sacra-
ment is certain. Prayer was, of course,
an indispensable accompaniment. — ἐν
évépatt...: Cf. Mark xvi. 17;
Luke x. 17; Acts iii. 6, 16, iv. 10, xvi.
18; and on the formula, the note above,
lik 7.
Ver. 15. ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως:
Cf. Matt. xxi. 22.--σώσει: for this
sense cf. Matt. ix. 22; Mark v. 23; John
xi, 12.--κάμνοντα : in this sense only
here in the N.T., though it is used in a
somewhat similar sense in Hebrew xii. 3.
—éyepet: it seems most natural to take
this as referring to the sick man being
raised up from his bed of sickness, though
the use of κάμνειν in Heb. xii. 3 suggests
the possibility of spiritual comfort being
also included.—6 Κύριος : this must
probably refer to Christ, though the O.T.
reference in the context would justify the
contention that Jahwe is meant.—x« Gv.
Cf. Mark xvi. 18; Luke xiii. 9, as show-
ing that this does not necessarily mean
“even if’.—apaptlas ἡ πεποι-
HKos ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ: Cf. Sir.
XXXVili. 9, το, Τέκνον, ἐν ἀρρωστήματί
σου μὴ παράβλεπε, ἀλλ᾽ εὖξαι Κυρίῳ,
καὶ αὐτὸς ἰάσεταί σε" ἀπόστησον πλημ-
μελίαν καὶ εὔθυνον χεῖρας, καὶ ἀπὸ
πάσης ἁμαρτίας καθάρισον καρδίαν ;
The Jewish belief on this subject
may be illustrated by the following:
in Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Simeon, ii. τὶ ff., because Simeon
continued wrathful against Reuben, he
says, ‘‘ But the Lord restrained me, and
withheld from me the power of my
hands; for my right hand was half
withered for seven days”; in Gad. v. 9 ff.
the patriarch confesses that owing to his
hatred against Joseph God brought upon
15—18.
αὐτῷ.
εὐχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων, ὅπως " ἰαθῆτε."
ἩΡΕΡΥ ΜΕΝ: 17. " Ἡλείας ὅ
TAKQBOY
475
16. * ἐξομολογεῖσθε οὖν 1 ἀλλήλοις Tas ἁμαρτίας," καὶ προσ- x Sir. iv. 26.
y Matt. xiii.
πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἢ 15: ΤῈ
εἴ
ἄνθρωπος ἦ Ἦν ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν, καὶ Heb. xii.
προσευχῇ προτοῦ τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, καὶ οὐκ ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 22 €or. i.6;
ἐνιαυτοὺς “ τρεῖς καὶ μῆνας ἕξ: 18. καὶ ὁ πάλιν * προσηύξατο, καὶ ὁ
οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν ἴ καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐβλάστησεν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς.
24; 1 Pet. iii. 12.
15; Rev. xi. 6. c Luke iv. 25.
az Kgs. xvii. 1, xviii. 1; Acts xiv. 15.
di Kgs. xviii. 42, 45; 2 (4) Esdr. vii. 39.
1 Lim. ii,
Dea ἐς
Gen. xviii.
23-32; Jn.
ix. 31;
Acts viii.
Ὁ Cf. Sir. xlviii. 2,5, Luke xxii.
10m. L, curss., #, Arm., Aeth.; δε 107, Pesh.
27a παραπτωματα KL, curss., Pesh., Orig. Thl., Oec.; add υμων L, 69, a, c, ff,
Vulg., Syrr., Copt., Aeth.
3 ευχεσθε SQKLP, curss., Thl., Oec., Treg., Ti., WH (altern. reading).
4 Ut remittatur vobis 7).
5 Sed 7.
him a disease of the liver, ‘and had not
the prayers of Jacob my father succoured
me, it had hardly failed but my spirit had
departed”. That sin brings disease was,
likewise in the later Jewish literature, an
article of faith, indeed here one finds speci-
fied what are the particular sicknesses
that particular sins bring in their train.
According to Rabbinical teaching there
are four signs by means of which it is
possible to recognise the sin of which a
man has been guiity: dropsy is the sign
that the sin of fornication has been com-
mitted, jaundice that of unquenchable
hatred, poverty and humiliation that of
pride, liver complaint (?) (= DN)
that of back-biting. In Shabbesye 55 4,
it says: ‘* No death without sin, no chas-
tisement without evil-doing,” and in
Nedarim, 41 a it says: “ No recovery
without forgiveness’. Leprosy may be
due to one of eleven sins, but most pro-
bably to that of an evil tongue (see
Weber, Fiidische Theologie, pp. 245 f.).
Ver. 16. ἐξομολογεῖσθε . - -
ἁμαρτίας : see critical note above.
Confession of sins has always played an
important part in Judaism; the O. =
word for confession of sins is TWh)”
the later term, which denotes more par-
ticularly the liturgical form of confession,
is ΤΟ. Private as well as public con-
fession was enjoined, and many forms of
confession, both general and particular,
exist, among others one for the sick; it
was the duty of the Rabbis to urge the
sick person to confess his sins. Confes-
sion is regarded as a meritorious act:
5 HAtas SAB*KLP, curss.
7 εδωκεν verov A, 13, 73, Latt., Treg., Ti., WHmg,; «8. τον ver. δῷ.
according to Sanhedrin, 103 a, it has the
effect of enabling the worst sinners to
inherit everlasting life (see, among other
authorities, Hamburger’s Realencycl. des
Fudent, article “" Siindenbekenntniss ”.).
For the custom of the early Church GE
Didache, iv. 14, xiv. 1---προσεύχε-
σθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων: the need of in-
tercessory prayer is strongly emphasised
in O.T., N.T. and the later Jewish litera-
ture, see above and the next note.—
πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου
ἐνεργουμένη : one is reminded of the
well-known instance of Rabbi Johanan
ben Zakkai (end of first century, a.D.)
who, when in need of the prayers of a
righteous man on behalf of his sick child,
said, ““ Although I am greater in learning
than Chaninah, he is more efficacious in
prayer; I am, indeed, the Prince, but he
is the steward who has constant access
to the King ” (Berachoth, 346). A curious
saying of Rabbi Isaac is contained in
Febamoth, 64a: ‘The prayer of the
righteous is comparable to a pitchfork ;
as the pitchfork changes the position of
the wheat so the prayer changes the dis-
position of God from wrath to mercy”
(quoted in Fewish Encycl., x. 169). With
δικαίου cf. δίκαιον in ver. 6. On évep-
youpévn see Mayor’s elaborate note.
Ver. 17. Ἡλείας: Elijah plays an
immense part in the later Jewish litera-
ture, see Hamburger, of. cit., article
“Elias”. With his mention here cf.
Sir. xlviii. 1 ffm powevyx q προσηύ-
ξατο: : Hebraism cf. Luke xxii. 15;
John iii. 29, etc., etc.
Ver. 18. With this and the preceding
* This word is sometimes used as meaning praise given to God by the act of
confession of sins, cf. Rvle, Esra .. ., p. 132.
ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
476 V. 1ο-2ο,
e-eCf.Gal. 10. “᾿Αδελφοί pou,! ἐάν τις ἐν ὑμῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς 2 ἀληθείας καὶ
f Matt. ᾿ ἐπιστρέψῃ τις αὐτόν," 20. γινώσκετε ὅτι ὃ ὁ " ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν
g Ps. "1. 13 ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ ὁ " σώσει 5 1S ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου δ καὶ
(15 in ᾿
Heb .); “καλύψει πλῆθο ῶν.8
Mal, ἡ δ; ¥ ἢθος ἁμαρτιῶν
cf. Prov
xi. 30. ἢ Rom. xi. 14; of. xiii. 9. i Acts xxvii. 37. k Cf. Prov. x. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 8, and
see Ps, xxxii. 1, lxxxv. 2; Rom. iv. 7.
10m. L, curss., Did., Oec., rec. 2 Add οδου τῆς δ᾽, 5, Pesh., Copt.
3 γινωσκετω ort SBAKLP, Treg., Ti., WHmg; om. ff, Sah.
4Om. ff. 5 Salvat 7, Orig.; salvavit Vulg¥.
S—6 env ψυχὴν A, 73, Arm.; om. αὐτου KL, curss., Sah., Orig., Thl., Oec., Treg.;
pon avtov post θαν. B, 77, Aeth., Weiss, WHmg.
Ἰκαλυπτει Vulg., Orig., Dam. 8 Peccati 7; add αμὴν 40.
Subscr. taxwBov B; επιστολη ιακωβου SQ; taxwBov εἐπιστολη A, 40, 67, 177:
taxwBov ἀποστολου ἐπιστολη καθολικη P, 63; τελος TOV αγιου ἀποστολου takwBor
ἐπιστολη καθολικὴ L; τέλος τῆς ἐπιστολῆς του αγιου ἀποστολου ιακωβου τοι
αδελφοθεου 38; explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei ff; most MSS. have no subscr.
verse cf. Ta‘anith, 24 ὃ, where we are
told of how Rabbi Chaninah, on being
caught in a shower of rain, prayed:
‘*Master of the Universe, the whole
world is pleased, while Chaninah alone
is annoyed”; then the rain immediately
ceased, On arriving home he prayed:
“Master of the Universe, shall all the
world be grieved while Chaninah enjoys
his. comfort?’”? Whereupon the rain
came down again (see F$ewish Encycl.,
vi. 215).
Ver. 19. πλανηθῇ: “ The passive
aorist is used with a middle force in
classical writers, as well as in the LXX,
Deut. xxxii. 1; Ps. cxix. 176; Ezek.
xxxiv. 4” (Μαγνου). --- ἀπὸ τῆς ἀλη-
ϑείας: Cf. Mark xii. 14, . . . ἐκ’
ἀληθείας τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ διδάσκεις,
this seems to be the way in which
ἀληθεία is here used, cf. John iii. 21, v.
33; Vii. 32.--ἐπιστρέψ ῃ : excepting
here (and in the next verse) and Luke i.
16, 17 this word is always used intrans-
itively in the N.T. (cf. however Acts
xxvi. 18).
Ver. 20. γινώσκετε: taking this
as an indicative one may regard the
words that follow as a quotation, a course
which commends itself owing to the com-
paratively large number of quotations
with which the Epistle abounds; at the
same time it must be remembered that the
weight of MS. evidence is in favour of
yiwookéro.— kahvwper... (Hebrew
“\D5) cf. τ Pet. iv. 8, one of the strongest
of the many marks of Jewish authorship
which the Epistle contains; according to
Jewish doctrine good works balance evil
ones; the good work of converting a
sinner is reckoned here as one of the
most efficacious in obliterating evil
deeds; on the whole subject see Intro-
duction IV., § 2.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRKSS
ΡΟ ΡΨ Ψ Ψ ΓΑΎ ΤΣ
ΑΙΙΛ 4 ὦ anne
μων δ]
icenN eae
ἐξ
peste
othe 2,
aac Veh a τῖν
eke : ἢ Rates I rete
ate aeerieti : :
CES : “ff
ak pe