Skip to main content

Full text of "The expositor's Greek Testament"

See other formats




| 
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