Skip to main content

Full text of "Notes on Epistles of St. Paul from unpublished commentaries"

See other formats 


* Sor 


Ἀ 
Υ 
Ἐν μα ὡς 


AMA 
ti 
Re Ne 
μ᾿ 
Dexa 


+ 
ν᾽ 


ΟΝ 
ἔς 



































Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/notesonepistlesoOOlighuoft 











NOTES 


ON 


ΒΕ ΘΟ LES-oOTr oe PAGE 


FROM 


UNPUBLISHED COMMENTARIES. 


NOTES 


ON 


EPISTLES OF ST PAUL 


FROM 





UNPUBLISHED COMMENTARIES 


BY THE LATE 


iv Β΄ LIGHTFOOT, ‘(D:Ds-B.C.L., LL-D., Bip - 


ἸΣΘᾺΒ BISHOP OF DURHAM. 4 


PUBLISHED BY 
THE TRUSTEES OF THE LIGHTFOOT FUND. 





Dondon: 


MACMILLAN AND CO. 
AND NEW YORK. 


1895 
[All Rights reserved.] . 


| "Ἢ AO Cah 


ong} ie 


= 





St πον YR 
tts sh | PRINTED BY J. fen σαν, | na 
ATE MEET a. 





ae tuetrecs ae: Sec ae 


me 
ag 
G 


notou 
ον tA “Zs oe 
TAOS WA! TNA 


0: 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 


HE present.work represents the fulfilment of the under- 

taking announced in the preface to ‘ Biblical Essays’ a 
year and a half ago. As that volume consisted of introduc- 
tory essays upon New Testament subjects, so this comprises 
such of Dr Lightfoot’s notes on the text as in the opinion of 
the Trustees of the Lightfoot Fund are sufficiently complete 
to justify publication. However, unlike ‘Biblical Essays,’ 
of which a considerable part had already been given to the 
world, this volume, as its title-page indicates, consists entirely 
of unpublished matter. It aims at reproducing, wherever 
possible, the courses of lectures delivered at Cambridge by 
Dr Lightfoot upon those Pauline Epistles which he did not 
live to edit in the form of complete commentaries. His 
method of trusting to his memory in framing sentences in 
the lecture room has been alluded to already in the preface 
to the previous volume. But here again the Editor’s difficulty 
has been considerably lessened by the kindness of friends 
who were present at the lectures and have placed their note- 
books at the disposal of the Trustees. As on the previous 
occasion, the thanks of the Trustees are especially due to 
W. P. Turnbull, Esq., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, 
Cambridge and now one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of 
Schools, and to the Rev. H. F. Gore-Booth, Rector of Sacred 
Trinity, Salford; and the notes lent for the present work by 
the Right Reverend F. Wallis, D.D., Senior Fellow of Gonville 


vi INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 


and Caius College and Lord Bishop of Wellington, New 
Zealand, and by the Rev. A. Lukyn Williams, Chaplain and 
Head of the London Mission of the Jews’ Society, have 
been of great service. Those who attended Dr Lightfoot’s 
lectures will recollect that he was accustomed to deliver 
them slowly, thus rendering it possible for a fast writer to 
take them down almost word for word. The materials thus 
rendered available have been carefully compared with the 
original draft. The Editor feels confident that the result 
may be accepted as representing with fair accuracy the 
Bishop’s actual words. 

The above explanation applies to the notes on the Two 
Epistles to the Thessalonians, and on the first seven chapters 
(for no more is here published) of the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians and of the Epistle to the Romans. In the case 
of the fragment of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. i. 
I—14) no qualification is necessary; for in this case the 
Bishop’s manuscript is written out fully, just as he intended 
it for publication in his contemplated edition of that Epistle. 
It thus represents his final judgment on these verses. 

In a few places, quotations, carefully specified, have been 
inserted from Dr Lightfoot’s book ‘On a Fresh Revision of 
the English New Testament’ (3rd Edition with an additional 
appendix, 1891), a work which, though published with a 
special purpose, yet contains a great amount of New Testa- 
ment exegesis of permanent value. 

The Trustees gladly take the opportunity of again ex- 
pressing their thanks to the officers and workmen of the 
University Press for their intelligent criticism and their un- 
failing courtesy. 

|. aeons 


CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
Feast of the Conversion of St Paul, 1895. 


λα. ee σις a; τς 


EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE 
LATE JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, LORD BISHOP OF 
DURHAM. 


“T bequeath all my personal Estate not hereinbefore other- 
“wise disposed of unto [my Executors] upon trust to pay and 
“transfer the same unto the Trustees appointed by me under 
“and by virtue of a certain Indenture of Settlement creating 
“a Trust to be known by the name of ‘ The Lightfoot Fund 
“for the Diocese of Durham’ and bearing even date herewith 
“but executed by me immediately before this my Will to be 
“administered and dealt with by them upon the trusts for the 
“purposes and in the manner prescribed by such Indenture 
“of Settlement.” 


EXTRACT FROM THE INDENTURE OF SETTLEMENT OF ‘ THE 
LIGHTFOOT FUND FOR THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM.’ 


“WHEREAS the Bishop is the Author of and is absolutely 
“entitled to the Copyright in the several Works mentioned in 
“the Schedule hereto, and for the purposes of these presents 
“he has assigned or intends forthwith to assign the Copyright 
“in all the said Works to the Trustees. Now the Bishop 
“doth hereby declare and it is hereby agreed as follows :— 

“The Trustees (which term shall hereinafter be taken to 
“include the Trustees for the time being of these presents) 


Vili © EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT’S WILL. 


“shall stand possessed of the said Works and of the Copy- 
“right therein respectively upon the trusts following (that is 
“to say) upon trust to receive all moneys to arise from sales 
“or otherwise from the said Works, and at their discretion 
“from time to time to bring out new editions of the same 
“ Works or any of them, or to sell the copyright in the same or 
“any of them, or otherwise to deal with the same respectively, 
“it being the intention of these presents that the Trustees 
“shall have and may exercise all such rights and powers in 
“respect of the said Works and the copyright therein re- 
“spectively, as they could or might have or exercise in re- 
“lation thereto if they were the absolute beneficial owners 
“thereof... 

“The Trustees shall from time to time, at such discretion 
“as aforesaid, pay and apply the income of the Trust funds 
“for or towards the erecting, rebuilding, repairing, purchas- 
“ing, endowing, supporting, or providing for any Churches, 
“Chapels, Schools, Parsonages, and Stipends for Clergy, and 
“other Spiritual Agents in connection with the Church of 
“England and within the Diocese of Durham, and also for 
“or towards such other purposes in connection with the said — 
“Church of England, and within the said Diocese, as the 
“Trustees may in their absolute discretion think fit, provided 
“always that any payment for erecting any building, or in 
“relation to any other works in connection with real estate, 
“shall be exercised with due regard to the Law of Mortmain; 
“it being declared that nothing herein shall be construed as 
“intended to authorise any act contrary to any Statute or 
“other Law.... 

“In case the Bishop shall at any time assign to the 
“Trustees any Works hereafter to be written or published by 
“him, or any Copyrights, or any other property, such transfer 


“Te ee ee 


OO ae  :Ἵ:].» 


= 


ΨΥ" 


- EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT’S WILL. ix 


“shall be held to be made for the purposes of this Trust, and 
“all the provisions of this Deed shall apply to such property, 
“subject nevertheless to any direction concerning the same 
“which the Bishop may make in writing at the time of such 
“transfer ; and in case the Bishop shall at any time pay any 
“money, or transfer any security, stock, or other like property 
“to the Trustees, the same shall in like manner be held for 
“the purposes of this Trust, subject to any such contempo- 
“raneous direction as aforesaid, and any security, stock or 
“property so transferred, being of a nature which can lawfully 
“be held by the Trustees for the purposes of these presents, 
“may be retained by the Trustees, although the same may 
“not be one of the securities hereinafter authorised. 

“The Bishop of Durham and the Archdeacons of Durham 
“and Auckland for the time being shall be ex-officio Trustees, 
“and accordingly the Bishop and Archdeacons, parties hereto, 
“and the succeeding Bishops and Archdeacons, shall cease to 
“be Trustees on ceasing to hold their respective offices, and 
“the number of the other Trustees may be increased, and the 
“power of appointing Trustees in the place of Trustees other 
“than Official Trustees, and of appointing extra Trustees, 
“shall be exercised by Deed by the Trustees for the time 
“being, provided always that the number shall not at any 
“time be less than five. 

“The Trust premises shall be known by the name of 
“*The Lightfoot Fund for the Diocese of Durham.’” 


ἘΣ sh 
EY “ai ἀν ὅσοι ee δε δὴ ρ" 
ΕΠ ρῶν ἢ ee oe τὶ opti. sein σου tae 
4 ; “gi ee rik Ves ie eae eyeedei fh αλλ bes πὶ, ΠΝ er 
πε τ pip oath 2 ἀπ}. 7.0); 19 ot Tops ainios: ene: Want nee j 
. rah ul Pals, ad. PTO AME, SRL ph Haas aptey, #5 "Send ] 
- “shamaiend ἠδ GS-07 had -ὦ 3 
ae & ὅθ. aon = tiny ἈΘΒ, δ avery | pisraict . “ 
“τ ἀϊμιήν τοί ΠΣ τ eos Srvsn 2 to. sete en ob 
Berend eer ! Tiese pin. 5 : ite ieee 
staat, SEF ΤΠ Heusdrts “ate 
seseivodian: rafters t:] 
met, 1 be meumkght- 
—AoMaet T TPR 


ees se ple tie aie μοόθβα ss ase 


59} ΤΡῚΣ “2 ele vos: Fyrby 
‘hing gui ΨΥ wy 4. ag 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


> 
ο᾿ 


PAGES 
THE First EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY . . .. - I—92 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ., ° ° + 93—136 


THE First EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY (Chaps. I—VII) . 137—235 





IV. Tue EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY (Chaps. I—VII) . 237—305 


VY. Tue EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
COMMENTARY (Chap. I, 1—14) . . «© « 307—324 


INDICES . : ; ᾿ A Ἶ ‘ - ; . 325—336 


“PTET VOD (Aq idee “Ss 


+ . 


tee Te “Sara τ 7 ae 
BATES a Pad ace 7 
. REF Tt egerio) ἐσ vee ie ae 


~~ wis ART ur i 
RBS) aT eae a 


«ὦ JETT ΡῈ οἵ 
se) 8. ταν 





ae 
4 





THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. 


. DS iw ἊΣ 
Ζ HE SECOND APOSTOLIC JOURNEY. 


bene 
_ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


LL. EP. I 


SURELY I COME QUICKLY. 


Surely He cometh, and a thousand voices 

Shout to the saints and to the deaf are dumb; 
Surely He cometh, and the earth rejoices, 

Glad in His coming, Who hath sworn, I come. 


Ad hoc regnum me vocare, 
Juste Judex, tu dignare, 
Quem expecto, quem requiro, 
Ad quem avidus suspiro. 





ANALYSIS. 


I. SALUTATION. i. I. 


1. NARRATIVE PORTION. i. 2—iii. 13. 

i. The Apostle gratefully records their conversion to the Gospel and 
progress in the faith. i. 2—ro. 

ii. He reminds them how pure and blameless his life and ministry 
among them had been. ii. 1—12. 

iii. He repeats his thanksgiving for their conversion, dwelling especially 
on the persecutions which they had endured. ii. 13—16. 

iv. He describes his own suspense and anxiety, the consequent mission 
of Timothy to Thessalonica, and the encouraging report which he 
brought back. ii. 17—iii. το. 

v. The Apostle’s prayer for the Thessalonians. iii. 11—13. 


III. HORTATORY PORTION. iv. I—v. 24. 

Warning against impurity. iv. r—8. 

Exhortation to brotherly love and sobriety of conduct. iv. g—12. 

Touching the Advent of the Lord. iv. 13—v. 11. 

(z) The dead shall have their place in the resurrection. iv. 13—18. 

(2) The time however is uncertain. v. 1—3. 

(Ὁ Therefore all must be watchful. v. 4—11. 

iv. Exhortation to orderly living and the due performance of social 
duties. v. 12—15. 

v. Injunctions relating to prayer and spiritual matters generally. 
ν. 16—22. 

vi. The Apostle’s prayer for the Thessalonians. v. 23, 24. 


Ἐξ ἘῚ το 


1ν. PERSONAL INJUNCTIONS AND BENEDICTION. v. 25—28. 


‘oh fe ae as 


Ae; 





᾿ p> ole" > 
ρει a Hee oe 
ie, ἊΝ Leila 4, 
“τῷδε ee αν nw ΝΥΝ Meme Wik 


‘ 


Pal) seed IVT 7 wy) < Heri, γέ ee ty 



















Pi a. (4 ΤᾺ batt ou aye? 258 ἣν Youd alas 


Ἂ» hol wr μὰ δ ἡ τάν. 


' ͵ 1 ieee 
te a ati hi ein ἐς wil ween’ eA 





οὗν“ - » fe: ψ i 7 0 ; 
fey Oe rosy ita vate 
ΡΟΝ ἀρ Ser Atte 


ΝΣ nieve a at 












rm 





CHAPTER I. 


"1. SALUTATION, i. 1. 


THE prefatory salutations in all the acknowledged Epistles of St Paul 
are the same in their broad features, though exhibiting minor variations 
often very significant. These variations may most frequently be traced 
to the peculiar relations existing between the Apostle and those whom he 
addresses. Even in other instances where the motives which have 
influenced the choice of the particular expression are too subtle to be 
apprehended, the differences of expression are still significant from a 
chronological point of view, as denoting a particular epoch in the 
Apostle’s life. We have examples of both kinds in the salutation to 
the Epistle; of the former in the omission of any allusion to his 
Apostleship, of the latter in the expression τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. 

In this salutation the Apostle attaches the names of Silvanus and 
Timotheus to his own. They were staying with him at Corinth at the 
time when the letter was written (see Acts xviii. 5, 2 Cor. i. 19), and 
as they were joint founders of the Thessalonian Church (see Acts xvi. 
I—3, xvii. 4, 10, 14), are naturally named in conjunction with him. The 
degree of participation in the contents of the letter on the part of those, 
whose names are thus attached, will vary according to the circumstances 
of the case. Here, for instance, the connexion is close; for Silvanus and 
Timotheus (the former especially) stood very much in the same position 
as St Paul himself with respect to the claim which they had on the 
obedience of their Thessalonian converts: and thus the Apostle through- 
out uses the plural ‘we beseech,’ ‘we would not have you ignorant’ (iv. 1, 13). 
On the other hand, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the name of 
Sosthenes appears with that of St Paul in the introductory salutation 
simply as a Corinthian brother who was with St Paul at the time. 
Accordingly, as he did not stand in any position of authority, he has no 
special connexion with the contents of the Epistle, and does not reappear 
again directly or indirectly, but the Apostle at once returns to the 
singular, ‘7 thank my God’ (1 Cor. i. 4). 


6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {I. τ᾿. 


The name of Silvanus is placed before that of Timotheus, not only 
because he held a superior position in the Church generally—he was a 
leading man among the brethren ἀνὴρ ἡγούμενος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (Acts xv. 
22), while Timotheus was only a young disciple (Acts xvi. 1 sq.)—but also 
because he took a more prominent part in founding these very churches 
of Macedonia (Acts xvi. 19, 25, 29, xvii. 4, 10). 

1. Παῦλος] On the omission of the official title ἀπόστολος in both 
Epistles to the Thessalonians, as well as in those to the Philippians and 
to Philemon, see the note on Phil. i. 1. 

Σιλουανός)] So called wherever he is mentioned by St Paul (eg. 
2 Thess. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 19), is to be identified with Silas of the Acts. 
This appears from the identity of situation ascribed to the two in 
the historical narrative and the allusions in the Epistle. Later tradition 
distinguishes Silas from Silvanus, making the former Bishop of Corinth, 
the latter of Thessalonica. The multiplication of persons is not un- 
common in ecclesiastical legends, where it was necessary to make up 
a list of bishops—though in the parallel instance of Epaphras and 
Epaphroditus there is better ground for the distinction of persons. 

The name Silas is contracted from Σιλουανός, as Λουκᾶς from Aovxavos, 
Tlappevas from Παρμενίδης, Annas from Δήμαρχος or Δημήτριος, this con- 
traction applying equally to Greek and Latin names and without 
respect to their termination. See the note on Νυμφᾶς (Colossians, 
p. 242), where instances are given from inscriptions. Similar con- 
tractions are found in classical writers also, ᾿Αλεξᾶς for ᾿Αλέξανδρος, 
Κτῆσις for Κτησίας, Nix for Νικίας, Σίβυρτις for ᾿"Σιβύρτιος (see the 
examples given in Schoemann on Isaeus p. 274 quoted by Koch p. 50). 
Waddington (Voyage en Asie-Mineure, 1853, p. 32) instances the form 
*Apras (Thuc. vii. 33, Boeckh C. Δ G. 111. no. 3960 4) as a further contraction 
of *Aprepas, itself contracted from ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος. Letronne (Recueil des 
Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, 1848, 11. p. 54) gives among other 
examples Μηνᾶς for Μηνόδωρος, Κλεοπᾶς for Κλεόπατρος, Znvas for Ζηνόδωρος, 
and a number of words in -as contracted from -éas, Πρωτᾶς, Φιλωτᾶς, 
*Aptoras, Swras, Σαυρᾶς etc., with genitives in -aros. On the other hand 
Jerome (de nom. Heér. s.v.) considers Silas to be the original Hebrew 
name my>vi equivalent to ‘apostolus’; comp. his commentary on Gal. i. 1 
(Op. vil. p. 374). It appears as a Jewish name in Josephus (Amzé. xiv. 3. 
2, xviii. 6. 7, xix. 7. 1), and in inscriptions, e.g. Boeckh C. 7. G. Tl. no. 
4511 Σαμσιγέραμος ὁ καὶ Σείλας (Emesa). The name Silvanus also is not 
uncommon in inscriptions; it occurs e.g. Orelli no. 2566 and on an 
inscription found at Ancyra (Boeckh III. no. 4071). 

Silas first appears in the narrative of the Acts in the account of the 
Apostolic Congress (xv. 22), on which occasion he is employed with 
Judas, as bearer of the letter to the Gentile Christians at Antioch. He 
subsequently accompanies St Paul, as it would appear, during the whole 
of his second missionary journey, only parting from him in order to 





. 
. 


i al 


I.1.] © FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 7 


maintain his intercourse with the Macedonian Churches (see Biblical 
Essays, p. 245 sq.). He is not mentioned as accompanying St Paul, 
when the Apostle left Corinth at the close of this second missionary 
journey, nor is his name found subsequently in St Luke’s narrative. He 
was obviously a Jewish Christian (Acts xvi. 20), but, like St Paul, a 
Roman citizen (Acts xvi. 37, 38). Hence his Roman name Silvanus. 
The Silvanus mentioned as the bearer of St Peter’s first Epistle (1 Pet. v. 
12) is probably the same person, but the name is too common to allow of 
the identity being pressed. See on this point Bleek, Heér. I. B, p. 408, 
and on Silas generally Cellarius, dssert. de Sila viro apost. 1773, referred 
to by Koch ad /oc., Cureton, Syriac Gospels, Ὁ. viii.. Zimmer, Jahré. Καὶ 
Prot. Theol. 1881, p. 721, Jiilicher 2d. 1882, p. 538, Seufert Zedttsch. /. 
Wiss. Theol. XXVIII, 1885, p- 350, and Klépper, Theol. Stud. τε. Skizz. 
1889, Ρ. 73 54. 

Τιμόθεος] Timotheus appears prominently in ten out of the thirteen 
Epistles of St Paul, the exceptions being Galatians, Colossians and 
Titus. Having joined St Paul about a year before this, his earliest 
Epistle, was written, he remained with him with occasional interruptions 
to the end of his life. 

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ O.] This form of address is peculiar to the five earliest of 
St Paul’s Epistles, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. 
His later letters to Christian communities are addressed τοῖς ἁγίοις or 
τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, or in some similar way. Until a satisfactory explanation is 
given of this variation, we must be content with its significance as a 
chronological mark. Dr Jowett accounts for the omission in the later 
Epistles as follows, ‘perhaps because to the Apostle, in his later years, 
the Church on earth seemed already passing into the heavens’ (Zhe 
Epistles of St Paul, τ. p. 43, 2nd ed.). 

Θεσσαλονικέων] The history of Thessalonica and of the establishment 
of Christianity there is treated fully in Bzb/ical Essays, pp. 235 sq., 251 sq. 

ἐν Θεῷ warpl...Xpiorg] It is doubtful whether these words should be 
taken (1) with τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ©., as denoting the sphere in which the Church 
moved ; or (2) separately, as applying to the word understood in the 
ellipsis, whether χαίρειν or γράφουσι. The clause ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς «.t.A. is 
probably not genuine: otherwise it would decide in favour of the first 
construction by which a meaningless tautology would be avoided. On 
the other hand the absence of the article τῇ before ἐν Θεῷ κιτιλ. is by no 
means decisive against the first construction, for the New Testament 
usage is far from uniform in this respect; see ii. 14, iv. 16, 2 Thess. iii. 
14, and the note on Gal. i. 13 (ἀναστροφήν wore). On the whole probably 
we should connect with τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ; for frst it is more in accordance 
with St Paul’s manner, in designating those whom he addresses, to add 
some words expressive of their calling in God and Christ, as a comparison 
with the salutation in his other Epistles will show; and secondly the word 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ can scarcely have been stamped with so definite a Christian 


8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {I. τ. 


meaning in the minds of these recent and early converts to the Gospel, as 
to render the addition of the words ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ «.r.A. superfluous. As 
St Chrysostom says, who adopts the construction here preferred in his 
comment on the passage, it was necessary to distinguish it from πολλαὶ 
ἐκκλησίαι καὶ ᾿Ιουδαϊκαὶ καὶ ΕἙλληνικαί. See e.g. 1 Thess. ii. 14, and the note 
there on the word ἐκκλησία. 

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη], This peculiarly Christian greeting is generally 
regarded as a blending together of the heathen form of salutation 
χαίρειν, and the Jewish pyby. But χάρις has only the very slenderest 
connexion with χαίρειν in respect to meaning, though derived from a 

lcommon root. Χάρις is the source of all real blessings, εἰρήνη their end 
and issue. 

This is the form of greeting adopted in all St Paul’s Epistles (with 
the exception of those to Timothy), and in the Epistles of St Peter. 
In the two Pastoral Epistles above, and in 2 Joh. 3, the form is χάρις, ἔλεος, 

| εἰρήνη. Perhaps it is no idle fancy to trace in the additional touch of 
tenderness communicated by ἔλεος in these later Epistles a sense of the 

_ growing evils which threatened the Church. Clement of Rome begins 
his genuine epistle with the salutation χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ παντοκράτορος 
Θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πληθυνθείη, probably following the First Epistle of 
Peter, which he quotes frequently. On the other hand, in the Ignatian 
Epistles the regular expression is πλεῖστα χαίρειν. 


2. NARRATIVE PORTION, i. 2—iii. 13. 


i. Grateful record of their conversion and progress (i. 2—10). 


2. In almost all the Epistles of St Paul the salutation is followed 
immediately by a thanksgiving, generally in the form εὐχαριστῶ, εὐχαρι- 
στοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ (in 2 Thess. εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν), but twice (2 Cor. and 
Ephesians) εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός. This was always St Paul’s first thought 
(πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ, Rom. i. 8), and how lofty a view he took οὗ the 
duty of thanksgiving appears from 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 11, 12, and below 
v. 16, where see note. This thanksgiving is omitted only in the Pastoral 
Epistles (with the exception of 2 Timothy, where it is found in a modified 
form) and Galatians. In the Epistle last mentioned its place is occupied 
by a rebuke Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτω ταχέως κιτιλ. In this, as in other cases (see 
e.g. above on ver. 1), the expressions in our Epistle most resemble those 
in the Philippian letter in the strength of language and the earnest reite- 
ration of the sentiment: see PAilifpians, pp. 66, 82. Pelagius well 
marks: ‘In indesinenti oratione, memoriae quantitas et dilectionis 
ostenditur, quam eorum merita postulabant.’ 

Dr Jowett points to this passage (i. 2—10) as thoroughly characteristic 


I.2.) _ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 9 


of St Paul’s style. He remarks admirably: ‘A classical or modern 
writer distinguishes his several propositions, assigning to each its exact 
relation to what goes before and follows, that he may give meaning and 
articulation to the whole. The manner of St Paul is the reverse of this. 
He overlays one proposition with another, the second just emerging 
beyond the first, and arising out of association with it, but not always 
standing in a clear relation to it’ (I. p. 45). 

εὐχαριστοῦμεν] ‘We,’ i.e. Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. On this word 
it may be remarked, as to (1) z¢s occurrence, that it seems to be very rare 
in authors of the classical period and no instance has been pointed out 
of it in Attic Greek. It appears in Hippocrates 2. 11. p. 1284, σώζων 
ἀνθρώπους κεραυνοῖς evxapiornra, and in inscriptions, especially a very old 
one Boeckh, C. 7. G. I. no. 34, and in the decrees (if they be genuine) 
attached to Demosthenes (e.g. p. 257, 2, the ψήφισμα Χερρονησίτων in the 
de Corona, p. 92). ἙΕὐχάριστος however is found in Xen. Cyrof. viii. 3. 49 
and ἀχαριστεῖν is common. (2) J¢s use. The original meaning of the 
verb is ‘to do a good turn to,’ hence ‘to return a favour,’ ‘to be grateful’; 
but the sense ‘to express gratitude’ seems to be confined to later writers 
from the time of Polybius onwards. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, I. p. 18. 
In Demosth. de Cor. 92 οὐκ ἐλλείψει εὐχαριστῶν καὶ ποιῶν ὅ τι ἂν δύνηται 
ἀγαθόν, it is unnecessary to assign this meaning to the word. 

The exact punctuation of these verses is doubtful. If the second 
ὑμῶν (after μνείαν) were genuine, the first clause would naturally end with 
περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν. But ὑμῶν is not read by NAB etc. and should be 
omitted here and in Eph. i. 16. Accordingly the words περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν 
are better taken with what follows; because the words μνείαν ποιούμενοι 
cannot well stand alone, but need some explanation, such as is found e.g. 
in Plato, Protag. 317 E, where they are constructed with the genitive. It 
is more difficult to determine whether ἀδιαλείπτως is to be taken with 
what precedes or what follows. A comparison with Rom. i. 9 ὡς ἀδιαλείπ- 
Tos μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαι Supports the former view: but in all such cases 
the requirements of the sentence itself are a safer guide than parallel 
passages ; and the position of the words seems at first sight to favour 
the construction with μνημονεύοντες as the Greek commentators appear 
generally to have done. But on the whole it is more forcible to connect 
the word with what goes before, and this view is borne out by 2 Tim. i. 3 
ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ μνείαν. 

μνείαν ποιούμενοι)]η While μνήμη is ‘memory’ generally, μνεία is 
‘remembrance’ in a special case, and may be defined to be ‘the direction 
of μνήμη to some particular object.’ Thus, while μνήμη may be used for 
μνεία, it is not true conversely that μνεία can take the place of μνήμη. 

Μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι is found in three other passages of St Paul (Rom. i. 9, 
Eph. i. 16, Philem. 4), and always, as here, in connexion with prayer. In 


2 Peti. 15 the words are μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι. Bruder indeed mentions a 





_v. 1 μνείαν, but it has very little textual support. It is questionable 


Io FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 2. 


whether μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι means ‘to remember,’ or ‘to mention.’ Either 
sense would equally suit the passages where the phrase occurs. In 
favour of ‘remember’ it may be urged (1) that μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι has 
certainly this sense in 2 Pet. 1. c., and (2) that in a parallel passage in 
2 Tim. i. 3 St Paul speaking in the same way of his thanksgiving uses 
μνείαν ἔχειν, which can only mean ‘to remember.’ On the other hand, 
Plato (Protag. 317 E, Phaedr. 254 A) employs μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι for ‘to 
mention,’ and so do other writers (e.g. AZschines and Andocides). It is 
safer therefore to give the phrase this meaning in St Paul. Certainly it 
makes better sense here, ‘making mention incessantly, as we remember.’ 
It will be seen that this signification of ‘mention’ is not contained in 
μνεία, but is derived from ποιεῖσθαι. For μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι in the sense of 
‘making mention’ comp. Clem. Hom. i. 16 παντὰ γὰρ.. ἡμῖν ἀντέβαλε 
BapvaBas, σχεδὸν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τὴν ἀγαθήν σου ποιούμενος μνήμην. 

ἀδιαλείπτως] See the note on v. 17. 

3. μνημονεύοντες] ‘remembering. The word is sometimes translated 
‘making mention of’; but verbs of ‘informing’ (according to Winer, § 30, 
10, p. 257 ed. Moulton) are never found in the New Testament with a 
simple genitive but with περί, and μνημονεύειν is always used by St Paul 
in the sense of ‘remember’ (Gal. ii. 10, Col. iv. 18; comp. Eph. ii. 11, 
2 Thess. ii. 5, 2 Tim. ii. 8). 

ὑμῶν] is the possessive genitive referring to all three clauses which 
follow—rod ἐργ. τ. 7., τοῦ Kom. τῆς ἀγ., τῆς ὑπομ. τῆς ἔλπ. 

τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως κιτλ The three genitives πίστεως, ἀγάπης; 
ἐλπίδος are best regarded as cases of the same kind describing the 
source—‘the work which comes of faith, the labour which springs from 
love, the patience which is born of hope.’ This triad of Christian graces 
is distinctly enunciated by St Paul in 1 Cor. xiii. 13 only, but the same 
conception underlies the Apostle’s language frequently, even where the 
words are not directly mentioned. The combination is especially to be 
noticed as occurring in this his earliest Epistle. The same order is 
found in Col. i. 4, § ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν...καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην. ..διὰ τὴν 
ἐλπίδα and in Gal. v. 5, 6, where see note. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. 
xiii. 13 the sequence is different, ἀγάπη being placed last. Each order is 
equally natural in its place. Here we have frst faith, the source of all 
Christian virtues, secondly love, the sustaining principle of Christian life, 
lastly hope, the beacon-star guiding us to the life to come. This 
prominence given to hope is in accordance with the pervading tenour of 
the Thessalonian Epistles, where the Apostle is ever leading the minds of 
his hearers forward to the great day of retribution (see 1 Thess. v. 8, 
where again the triad is found). ᾿Ἐλπὲὶς is closely connected with σωτηρία 
(1 Thess. v. 8) and with δόξα (Rom. v. 2, Col. i. 27), and indeed is some- 
times used as equivalent to ἐλπίς σωτηρίας ‘the hope of glory, of salvation,’ 
e.g. Acts xxiii. 6 (a speech of St Paul’s) περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν 
ἐγὼ κρίνομαι. In 1 Cor. xiii, 13, on the other hand, the prominent position 


a υν. ὧς . 


a 


I. 3.] ' FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. If 


is given to ἀγάπη, which alone shall abide when faith is swallowed up in 
sight and hope is dissolved in fulfilment. On the fundamental distinction 
of the two graces in the present passage Severianus (in Cramer’s Catena) 
says well, ἡ μὲν πίστις ἐγείρει πρὸς καμάτους, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη ἐπιμένειν ποιεῖ τοῖς 
πόνοις. Compare Ignatius Polyc. 6 ἡ πίστις ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ ἀγάπη ὡς 
δόρυ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ ὡς πανοπλία, and Polycarp’s own words (Pil. 3) πίστιν, 
ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν, ἐπακολουθούσης τῆς ἐλπίδος, προαγούσης τῆς 
ἀγάπης, where προαγούσης is used in reference to ἐλπίς, not to πίστις, for 
πίστις precedes ἀγάπη : see Ign. Ephes. 14 ἀρχὴ μὲν πίστις, τέλος δὲ ἀγάπη. 
In the Epistle of Barnabas the same triad is also found, § 1, ὅτε μεγάλη 
πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη ἐγκατοικεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αὐτοῦ. See the notes on 
Col. i. 5, Polyc. 1. c. and comp. Reuss Zhéol, Οὐγόέ. 1v. 20, vol. 11. 
p- 219. : 

On the order of these results (ἔργον, κόπος, ὑπομονὴ) see Rev. ii. 2 
οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν gov. The words are 
distinguishable in meaning, and are arranged in an ascending scale as 
practical proofs of self-sacrifice. "Ἔργον is simply active work ; κόπος is a 
greater exhibition of earnestness, for it is not work only but fatiguing 
work ; ὑπομονὴ is higher evidence still, for it involves a notion of indignity 
offered, of suffering undergone without any present countervailing result. 
Thus it is βασιλὶς τῶν ἀρετῶν, as Chrysostom says (see Trench, V. 7. Syz. 
§ liii. p. 197 ed. 9). 

On the appropriateness of the results to the graces, notice that ἔργον is 
elsewhere represented as the practical fruit and evidence of faith, see 
Gal. v. 6, James ii. 18 ; κόπος is closely connected with ἀγάπη in Rev. 1. c., 
where in ver. 4 τὴν ἀγάπην cov τὴν πρώτην seems to be a direct reference to 
τὸν κόπον of ver. 2 (see also a v. 1. in Heb. vi. 10, where however the words 
τοῦ κόπου should probably be omitted). Again ὑπομονὴ ‘the patient 
endurance which bides its time’ implies the existence of hope, comp. 
Rom. viii. 25 ἐλπίζομεν δ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα and xv. 4; and indeed 
is sometimes found where we should expect ἐλπίς, as in 2 Thess. iii. 5 εἰς 
τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Tit. ii. 2 τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, TH ὑπομονῇ. 
See the note on Ign. Rom. 10 ἐν ὑπομονῇ Ἴ. X., and on the distinction 
between ὑπομονὴ and μακροθυμία the note on Col. i. 11. 

τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν I. X.] As it would be somewhat harsh to make these 
words depend on all three words πίστεως, ἀγάπης, ἐλπίδος, we must suppose 
the parallelism of the three clauses interrupted by the third being 
lengthened out by means of the explanatory words rod Κυρίου «.r.X., 1.6. 
‘the hope of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 

ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν] Is this clause to be taken (1) with 
μνημονεύοντες, Or (2) with rod ἐργοῦ...Χριστοῦ, or (3) only with τῆς ὑπομονῆς 
οὐ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ In favour of the first view may be urged the fact that 
in iii. 9 we have ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν in a similar connexion. But on 
the other hand μνημονεύοντες ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ would be unnecessarily 
tautological after εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ, nor is it easy to see why ἔμπροσθεν 


[2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 3: 


τοῦ Θεοῦ should stand so late in the sentence. Again the two other 
constructions are much more in accordance with the general use of 
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, appealing to God’s witness and 
judgment of conduct concealed from, or misinterpreted by men. It is 
thus equivalent to ‘ your righteous conversation in the sight of God.’ It 
is less easy to choose between (2) and (3). On the whole, if rod Κυρίου 
np. Ἶ. Χ. is restricted to τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος, the same restriction 
probably applies to ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ ‘the patient endurance of hope 
which reposes in the coming of Christ and is manifested in the sight of 
God.’ The words ἔμπροσθεν rod Θεοῦ καὶ 1. np. are then complementary to 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as so frequently in St Paul, e.g. 2 Cor. ii. 17 κατέναντι 
Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν (so again xii. 19); and the expression closely 
resembles 1 Thess. iii. 13, ἀμέμπτους ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν 
ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ. The sentence for the sake of the 
parallelism should have closed with éAmidos; but St Paul runs off, so to 
speak, on the third clause of the triplet, to introduce the hallowed names 
in and through and for whom all good things are done. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν] ‘before Him, who is not only our Supreme 
Ruler, but has also all the tenderness and affection of a father towards us, 
who watches all our actions with a fatherly solicitude.’ See note on 
Gal. i. 4, where the same phrase occurs, and comp. ver. 4, ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ 
Θεοῦ. 

εἰδότες] ‘for we know, giving the reason, whereas the previous 
participles explain the circumstances, of εὐχαριστοῦμεν. 

_ 4. ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ] ‘beloved by God, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 13, 
ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Κυρίου, where see the note. Both expressions occur in 
the LXX., ry. ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, Sir. xlv. 1; Hy. ὑπὸ Κυρίου, Deut. xxxiii. 12, 
Sir. xlvi. 13. The construction of the E.V. is quite inadmissible, though 
supported by some respectable commentators ancient and modern. 

ἐκλογήν] On this word, which is never used in the New Testament 
in the sense of election to final salvation, see the note on Col. iii. 12 
ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

5. ὅτι] is generally translated in this passage with the E.V. ‘for.’ 
But the meaning which the phrase εἰδέναι τι ὅτι universally bears in the 
New Testament, and the idiomatic character of the expression, seem 
decisive in favour of the interpretation ‘knowing the circumstance or 
manner of your election, how that.’ Comp. Acts xvi. 3, Rom. xiii. 11, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 15, 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4, and below ii. 1. So προγιγνώσκειν ὅτι Acts xxvi. 5: 
βλέπειν ὅτι, τ Cor. i. 26 βλέπετε τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν ὅτι οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ «.r.d., 
and see the note there. 

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν] ‘the gospel we preach’; as in Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 
2 Cor. iv. 3, 2 Tim. ii. 8, and see the note on 2 Thess. ii. 14. 

els (v. 1. πρὸς) ὑμᾶς] Both readings eis and πρὸς are supported by 
parallel passages. For els compare Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15, xxviii. 6, and 
especially Gal. iii. 14, from which passages it will appear that γίγνεσθαι 





I.5.] .- FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 13 


els is ‘to arrive at,’ ‘reach.’ For πρὸς see 1 Cor. ii. 3, κἀγὼ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ 
ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόμῳ πολλῷ ἐγενόμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ‘exhibited myself in my 
dealings with you, which seems however to suggest taking ἐν λογῷ with 
ἐγενήθη here ‘exhibited itself not in word only’ (compare 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8) ; 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς meaning apud vos, But γένεσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς would be a legitimate 
_ construction. However in this passage manuscript evidence is un- 
_ doubtedly in favour of «is. On the fundamental difference between εἰς 
and πρὸς see the notes on 2 Thess. iii. 9 and Philem. 5 πρὸς τὸν Κύριον 
Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, and comp. Winer, ὃ 49, p. 494, Meyer on 
1 Cor. ii. 3. 

ἐν λόγῳ μόνον... πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ] The preposition should probably 
be repeated before each substantive, except πληροφορίᾳ, though the Ms. 
authority is not unanimous on this point. Each word is an advance upon 
the preceding, and the repetition of καὶ ἐν expresses this gradation. Comp. 
ἀλλὰ in 2 Cor. vii. 11. 

The passage may be paraphrased thus: ‘ Our preaching was not mere 
declamation, a hollow and heartless rhetoric: in it there was earnestness 
and power. Yet this is not enough. There may be a power which is not 
from above, a fearful earnestness which is not inspired by God. Not 
such was ours, for we preached in the Holy Spirit. Still even the holiest 
influences may be transitory, the noblest inspirations may waver from 
lack of faith. Far otherwise was it with us, for we preached in a deep 
conviction of the truth of our message, in a perfect assurance of the 
ultimate triumph of our cause.’ 

λόγῳ] The same opposition of λόγος and δύναμις is found in 1 Cor. 
li. 4 καὶ ὁ λόγος pov καὶ τὸ κήρυγμά μου οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως. 

ϑύναμει] has here no direct reference to the working of miracles, which 
would require the plural δυνάμεσι (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 10, Gal. iii. 5). There are 
but few allusions in St Paul to his power of working miracles, partly 
because he assumes the fact as known to his hearers, and partly because 
doubtless he considered this a very poor and mean gift in comparison 
_ with the high spiritual powers with which he was endowed. Compare a 

similar case, 1 Cor. xiv. 18. 

πληροφορίᾳ] Πληροφορία and πληροφορεῖν are found seven times in 
St Paul and only three times in the rest of the New Testament (Luke i. 1, 
Hebr. vi. 11, x. 22). The noun, which occurs in Clem. Rom. 42 μεταπλη- 
podopias πνεύματος, is not found in the Lxx., but the verb appears once, 
Eccles. viii. 11 ἐπληροφορήθη καρδία υἱῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῦ ποιῆσαι 
τὸ πονηρόν, where the corresponding Hebrew is 35 hp ‘the heart was 
full to do etc.’ πληροφορία may mean either (1) ‘fulfilment,’ or (2) ‘con- 
viction, assurance.’ The meaning (1) must be discarded, because St Paul 
is still speaking of the character of the message, not yet of the acceptance 
of it. Πληροφορία is therefore ‘conviction, confidence’ on the part of 
St Paul and his fellow-preachers. For mAnpodopia see the note on 


14 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 5. 


Col. ii. 2; for πληροφορεῖν the note on Col. iv. 12. The words seem to 
be confined almost exclusively to biblical and ecclesiastical writings. 

καθὼς οἴδατε] He appeals to the Thessalonians themselves to bear 
witness to the character of his preaching ; comp. ii. 5. Thus καθὼς οἴδατε 
must not be regarded as correlative to εἰδότες above, Such a corre- 
spondence could only confuse the order of thought in the passage. 

ἐγενήθημεν] Not ἦμεν ‘we were,’ but ἐγενήθημεν ‘we became, were made’ 
by the transforming power of Christ. On the distinction of γίγνεσθαι and 
εἶναι see the notes on Col. i. 18 ἵνα γένηται and 1 Cor. i. 30 ἐγενήθη, with 
references in both places to Christ. 

6. καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτλ] The fact of their election by God was evinced in 
two ways; first by the divine character of the message imparted to them 
(ver. 5), and secondly by their sincere acceptance of it: in other words, 
not only by the offer of the Gospel, but by their response to the offer. 
This last evidence is given in the words καὶ ὑμεῖς x.r.A. which, though 
logically dependent on εἰδότες τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὅτι, are thrown into the form of 
an independent sentence as regards their grammatical structure. 

καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου] For the spirit in which these words are added to 
soften and qualify the preceding expression μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν see 1 Cor. xi. I 
μιμηταί pov γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ. 

δεξάμενοι x.7.d.] ‘inasmuch as ye received the word, explaining the 
feature in which the invitation consisted. They endured tribulation with 
a holy joy, as Paul had set them the example, who, after the pattern of 
Christ, rejoiced in his sufferings (Col. i. 24). The degree in which the 
believer is allowed to participate in the sufferings of his Lord, should be 
the measure of his joy; see 1 Pet. iv. 13 καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
παθήμασι, χαίρετε. On the privilege of sharing in Christ’s sufferings, 
comp. Phil. i. 29 ὅτε ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ ov μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν 
πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν, Where see the note. 

θλίψει] The persecutions instigated by the Jews in Thessalonica 
(Acts xvii. 5 sq.) doubtless continued long after the Apostle had left, for 
the pertinacity with which they followed St Paul to Berea (Acts xvii. 13) 
shows their determination ; see Biblical Essays, p. 262 sq. But though 
the Jews were the instigators, the heathen population did not stand aloof, 
as appears from 1 Thess. ii. 14. 

Πνεύματος ‘A-ylov] ‘proceeding from, inspired by the Holy Ghost.’ 

7. τύπον] ‘an ensample of a Christian community.” The singular 
is more forcible than τύπους, and should be read, though τύπους has 
strong support. Comp. for the expression and for the singular number 
Barnabas 19. 7 ὑποταγήσῃ κυρίοις ὡς τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ. 

πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] Used substantively, ‘to all believers, without 
any special reference of present time. 

ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ] The repetition of the preposition and 
article is in place here, because St Paul speaks of them as two distinct 
provinces, ‘not only in Macedonia, but also in the neighbouring province 








I.8.] “. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, I5 


of Achaia’; but in the next verse ἐν τῇ is correctly omitted by some of 
the best authorities, because there the two are classed together, in 
opposition to the rest of the world. 

The peninsula of Greece under the Roman dominion included parts 
of three provinces—Macedonia, Achaia, and Illyricum. 

8. ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν] i.e. ‘spreading from you onward,’ ‘Amo is simply local 
here. 

ἐξήχηται] ‘has sounded forth, like thunder. A strong word and 
especially used in this metaphor: Pollux i. 118 ἐξήχησεν βροντή, comp. 
Ecclus. xl. 13 ὡς βροντὴ μεγάλη ἐν ὑετῷ ἐξηχήσει, where the goods of the 
unjust are said to exhaust their power, to roar themselves out, as thunder 
in rain. ‘Non verba sed tonitrua’ says Jerome of St Paul’s writings : he 
seems to hear them as he reads them. The verb appears to be a middle 
here. ἣν ᾿ 

ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου) This expression occurs again in 2 Thess. iii. 1 
(cf. ἐν λόγῳ Κυρίου, τ Thess. iv. 15 and note there). Comp. also τὸ ῥῆμα 
Κυρίου, I Pet. i. 25, and ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Col. iii. 16 (on the meaning 
of which last passage see the note ad /oc.). Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is tolerably 
frequent in St Paul. Are these genitives then, Θεοῦ, Κυρίου, subjective or 
objective? 1.6, do the expressions mean ‘the word uttered by God, the 
message of the Lord,’ or ‘the tidings which speak of God, of the Lord’? 
An answer seems to be supplied to this question by the fact that the 
expressions are derived from the Hebrew prophets, e.g. Is. xxxviii. 4, 
‘Then came the word of the Lord unto Isaiah,’ which is equivalent to 
‘thus saith the Lord’ of the following verse, and is rendered in the LXx. 
λόγος Κυρίου. This Old Testament usage is decisive in favour of the 
subjective use here. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ κιτ.λ.} The opposition is restricted to ἐν τῇ Mak. x. 
"Ax. and ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ as the position of ov μόνον shows. It does not 
extend also to ὁ λόγος rod K. and ἡ πίστις ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, as Some would 
take it. 

The sentence, if grammatically regular, would have stopped at ἐν παντὶ 
τόπῳ. But the addition of a new subject and predicate (ἡ πίστις... ἐξελήλυθεν) 
should create no difficulty in St Paul, whose characteristic earnestness is 
often exhibited in thus lengthening out a sentence in order to enforce a 
lesson or dwell upon an important fact. See e.g. ver. 3 above. 

ἀλλὰ] The omission of καί, besides being best supported by the Mss. 
(e.g. B, which shows the superiority of its reading over the received text by 
omitting also ἐν τῇ before ᾿Αχαίᾳ above), is also internally more probable, 
as preparing us for the new form which the sentence is to take. Had 
it stopped with ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, then ἀλλὰ καὶ would have been more 
natural. 

ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ] The favourable position of Thessalonica situated as it 
was on the Via Egnatia, and its mercantile importance, will explain the rapid 
spread of the tidings ; see Biblical Essays, p.254 sq. Wieseler (Chronol. 


16 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 8. 


Ρ. 42) suggests that St Paul may have learnt from Aquila and Priscilla, 
who had recently arrived at Corinth from Rome (Acts xviii. 2), that the 
faith of the Thessalonians was known there. The expression ἐν παντὶ 
τόπῳ is of course not to be pressed. For a similar hyperbole see Col. i. 6 
ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, Rom. i. 8 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, Phil. i. 13 τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, 
and 2 Cor. ii. 14, where the same expression ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ occurs. 

ἐξελήλυθεν] ‘has spread abroad.’ Comp. Rom. x. 18, 1 Cor. xiv. 36, where 
the verb is found in the same sense. 

9. αὐτοὶ] ‘of themselves’? Their minds are so full of the subject that 
unasked they proffer us the information. 

The substantive to which αὐτοὶ is to be referred is contained implicitly 
in ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, i.e, ‘strangers from all parts.’ 

εἴσοδον] ‘ approach, access. We are tempted by the recollection of St 
Paul’s favourite metaphor of a door being opened (1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 
12, Col. iv. 3, where see the note: comp. Acts xiv. 27 a reference to St 
Paul’s language) to take εἴσοδος here in a metaphorical sense ‘access to 
your hearts’: but a comparison of ii. 1 renders the literal meaning more 
probable. 

πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων] showing that the majority at least of the 
Thessalonian converts were heathen and not Jews : comp. 1 Thess. ii. 14, 
16. That this was the case appears likewise from the fact that St Paul 
refrains from any direct allusions to the Old Testament, which would 
certainly have occurred had he been addressing Jews chiefly or prose- 
lytes. Again, had the mass of the converts been Jews or proselytes the 
expression would have been not πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν but πρὸς τὸν Κύριον. 
Contrast Acts ix. 4 ris εἶ, Κύριε the cry of the proselyte Saul with xv. 19 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Gedy: and comp. Gal. iv. 8 οὐκ εἰδότες 
Θεὸν of the Galatian idolaters, Acts xiv. 15 ἀπὸ τούτων τῶν ματαίων 
ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπὶ Θεὸν ζῶντα in St Paul’s speech to the people at Lystra. 

Θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ] ‘a living and real God’: as opposed to the 
phantom and senseless gods of the heathen. See Acts xiv. 15, already 
cited. The E.V. here by translating ‘the living and true God’ has 
weakened the passage, just as some Greek transcribers in Acts lc. by 
writing τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ζῶντα for Θεὸν ζῶντα followed by the Textus Receptus. 
The word ἀληθινὸς occurs in this passage only in St Paul’s writings : it is 
found as ἃ v.l. in Heb. ix. 14 εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν Θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ, doubt- 
less from a reminiscence of this passage. On the difference between 
ἀληθὴς and ἀληθινὸς see Trench, WV. 7. Syz. ὃ 8, p. 26. 

10. καὶ ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν] This appeal well 
illustrates the doctrinal teaching of this Epistle. It is thus, ‘ Live a holy 
life, that you may be prepared to meet your Lord.’ In St Paul’s later 
Epistles, his appeal generally assumes a different form, ‘Christ died for 
you: therefore die with Him to sin.’ Both the one lesson and the other 
have their office in the instruction of the Church through all ages, 
addressing themselves to different minds, and frames of minds—the one 


= Se oe 


a ΨΝΝΝΝΝΝΒΝΝΒΟ ΝΙΝ 


Τ 10.) “. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 17 


making itself heard where the other would be ineffective. The ‘coming 
of the Lord’ is the refrain, as it were, with which St Paul clenches 
paragraph after paragraph in this Epistle. See Azdlical Essays, p. 224 
sq., where the characteristics of the groups of the Pauline Epistles are 
treated at length. 

οὐρανῶν] The plural οὐρανοὶ is not classical. Neither was the Latin 
caeli which, though occurring once in Lucretius for a special reason 
(11. 1097 caelos omnes, where see Munro’s note), is condemned by Julius 
Cesar in Aulus Gellius xix. 8. 3—5. On the other hand the Hebrew 
equivalent has no singular, the plural being always used, with a reference 
perhaps to successive heavens receding one beyond the other (2 Cor. 
xii. 2 ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ) ; see Koch’s note here. 

ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν] This clause is generally considered to be added 
as a decisive proof of His Sonship, as in Rom. i. 4. It seems however to 
be appealed to here rather as an earnest of His coming again in judgment 
and of the general resurrection, ‘ He will judge the world in righteousness 
by that man whom he hath ordained: whereof he hath given assurance 
unto all men in that he raised him from the dead,’ Acts.xvii, 31, in 
St Paul’s speech before the Areopagus which was delivered within a few 
months of the writing of this Epistle. The parallel therefore from this 
almost contemporaneous speech may fairly be allowed to decide the train 
of thought here, even if the context were not so strongly. in favour of this 
interpretation. he bi 

Ἰησοῦν τὸν pudpevov x.7.A.] 1.6. Jesus, Who, as His name betokens, is 
our deliverer etc., an allusion to the meaning of the name Jesus, ‘the 
Saviour.’ In Isai. lix. 20 cited in Rom. xi. 26, ὁ ῥυόμενος is the. LXx. 
translation of 9812. So also in Gen. xlviii. 16, and ὁ ῥυσάμενος frequently 
(Isai. xliv. 6, xlvii. 4, xlviii. 17, xlix. 7, 26, liv. 5, 8). 

τῆς ὀργῆς] used thus absolutely of the divine wrath, as in ii. τό, 
Rom. iii. 5, v. 9, ix. 22, xiii. 5. Compare especially Rom. xii. 19, δότε τόπον 
τῇ ὀργῇ where τῇ ὀργῇ cannot refer to one’s adversary, for it is not a 
question of his wrath, but of his injustice. The difficulty of the phrase 
has led to explanatory glosses, 1 Thess. ii. 16 rod Θεοῦ, Rom. iii. § αὐτοῦ. 

τῆς ἐρχομένης] ‘which ἐς even now approaching.” Comp. v. 2 ἡμέρα 
Κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται, Eph. v. 6 ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας, Col. iii. 6 δ᾽ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ. τοῦ Θεοῦ. The 
word may refer either to the present and continuous dispensation or to the 
future and final judgment. The present ἔρχεσθαι is frequently used to 
denote the certainty, and possibly the nearness, of a future event, e.g. 
Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence ὁ ἐρχόμενος is a designation of the 
Messiah: see Winer ὃ xl. p. 332, and Brdlical Essays, p. 149. 


L. EP, 2 


CHAPTER II. 


ii. Character of the Apostle’s life and ministry among them (ii. I—12). 


1. St Paul in the former chapter had alluded to two proofs, which 
convinced him of the election of the Thessalonians, firs¢ the conduct of 
the preachers (ver. 5), and secondly the reception of the message by the 
hearers (vv. 6—10). He now enlarges on the same topics, and in the 
same order, speaking of the preachers (ii. I—12), and of the hearers 
(vv. 13 sq.), but of the latter more briefly, because he had already spoken 
at some length on this head, while he had dismissed the other topic 
more summarily. 

Αὐτοὶ γὰρ] The explanation of yap is to be cea rather in the train of 
thought which was running in the Apostle’s mind, than in the actual 
expressions: ‘I speak thus boldly and confidently as to my preaching, 
Jor I have a witness at hand. You yourselves know, etc.’ There seems 
to be no contrast implied in αὐτοὶ to the external testimony alluded to in 
i..8, 9. Such a contrast would only interfere with the explanation of 
yap. The emphatic position of αὐτοὶ is quite characteristic of this group 
of Epistles ; comp. iii. 3, v. 2, 2 Thess. iii. 7. 

κενὴ] Not ‘fruitless, ineffective’ (udraios), but ‘hollow, empty, wanting 
in purpose and earnestness.’ The context shows that κενὴ must refer to 
the character of the preaching, not to its results; in fact οὐ κενὴ is equiva- 
lent to the οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει of i. 5. Κένος and μάταιος 
nowhere occur together in the New Testament, though in 1 Cor. xv. 14, 
17 (κενὸν τὸ κήρυγμα---ματαία ἡ πίστις) they appear in close proximity; but 
they are found in combination in Clem. Rom. 7 ἀπολείπωμεν τὰς κενὰς 
καὶ ματαίας φροντίδας, where the former epithet points to the quality, the 
latter to the aim or effect of the action. For instances of the combination 
in the Lxx. and classical Greek see the note on Clem. Rom. Lc. 

γέγονεν] ‘has proved, has been found, not as E.V. ‘was.’ Does the 
perfect here glance obliquely at the lasting effects of his preaching, or 
does it imply that his sojourn in Thessalonica was recent? On the 


former supposition we may compare 2 Cor. xii. 9 εἴρηκεν, on the latter 
2 Cor, ii. 13 ἔσχηκα. 





II. 2. - FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 19 


2. ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες «.7.A.] ‘On the contrary, though we had had a 
foretaste of what awaited us in the sufferings and indignities which we 
underwent, as ye know, at Philippi, yet were we nothing daunted but 
were bold, etc. Our courage under adverse circumstances is a sufficient 
proof that there was nothing hollow, specious or unreal in our preach- 
ing.’ 

προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες] ‘having before been maltreated and that 
with contumely. The force of the preposition mpo- in the first 
participle is carried on to the second, or rather the preposition having 
been expressed in the first instance, it is unnecessary to repeat it. Comp. 
probably 1 Cor. xvi. 16 παντὶ τῷ συνεργοῦντι καὶ κοπιῶντι, where καὶ κοπιῶντιε 
is equivalent to ὥστε καὶ κοπιᾶν. For this classical idiom of an additional 
feature comp. Demosth. Conon p. 1256 ὑβρισθείς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, καὶ 
παθὼν ὑπὸ Κόνωνος qboted by Wesstein, and such passages as Soph. Azz. 
537 καὶ συμμετίσχω καὶ φέρω τῆς αἰτίας where see Blaydes’ note. 

ὑβρισθέντες] ie. we experienced not only bodily suffering (παθόντες), but 
indignity superadded. This word ὑβρισθέντες indicates the same feeling 
which prompted St Paul, on the occasion especially alluded to, to demand 
that the magistrates should in person escort himself and Silas from prison, 
ov yap" ἀλλὰ ἐλθόντες αὐτοὶ ἡμᾶς é€ayayérwoay, Acts xvi. 37. It was the 
consciousness of an zmdignity offered. St Paul was not above (or, should 
we not say, below) entertaining a sense of what was due to his personal 
dignity. His social position had been contemned. It was in the essence 
of ὕβρις that it could not be done to slaves: Ar. Rhez. ii. 24, ὃ 9 (p. 1402) 
εἴ τις φαίη τὸ τύπτειν τοὺς ἐλευθέρους ὕβριν εἶναι, Demosth. Micostr. 
Pp. 1251 & εἰ καταλαβὼν αὐτὸν ἐγὼ πρὸς ὀργὴν δήσαιμι ἢ πατάξαιμι ὡς δοῦλον 
ὄντα, γραφήν με γράψαιντο ὕβρεως, with the comment of Meier and 
Schémann “421. Proc. p. 325. Thus this one word embodies the incident 
in the Acts. It was the contumely which hurt St Paul’s feelings arising 
from the strong sense of his Roman citizenship. 

ἐν Φιλίπποι:] See Acts xvi. 19—40, Phil. i. 30. 

ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα λαλῆσαι] Comp. Eph. vi. 20. On παρρησία (παν- 
pnoia, so Steph. Thes.), the boldness of speech which suppresses nothing, 
see on Col. ii. 15, and Eph. iii. 12. The verb παρρησιάζεσθαι however is 
always found in the New Testament in connexion with speaking, and so 
it is best to translate it here ‘were bold of speech’ (and so Eph. vi. 20), 
not simply ‘took courage.’ 

ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν] ‘This boldness however was not our own. We were 
courageous in our God, in spite of our sufferings and yet in some sense 
by reason of them. For we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that 
the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us (2 Cor. iv. 7). 
For when I am weak, then am I strong (2. xii. 10).’ 

λαλῆσαι] Not equivalent to ὥστε λαλῆσαι (‘we were bold of speech, so 
that we told’}; but simply the objective infinitive, as the run of the 
sentence points to a closer connexion with ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα, ‘we were 


2—2 


20 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [II. 2. 


bold of speech to tell.’ Aadeiv is stronger than λέγειν, see Trench WV, 7. 
Syn. ὃ 76, p. 286. 

'τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ] Is τοῦ Θεοῦ the objective or the subjective 
genitive? Or is it not idle in many cases, and perhaps in this, to seek to 
limit the genitive to one sense, when it is in itself comprehensive, and 
includes several senses, all of which will suit the context? Certainly, 
whatever may be the case with the corresponding phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (Gal. i. 7), the subjective genitive seems more natural with τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. 

ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι] ‘amidst much conflict, i.e. beset by much opposition. 
The Christian sufferer is an athlete who contends for the victor’s chaplet. 
Sometimes the ἀγὼν takes the form of an outward, as Phil. i. 30; some- 
times, as Col. ii, 1, of an internal conflict. The allied words ἀθλεῖν, 
ἄθλησις occur in this connexion in 2 Tim. ii. 5, Heb. x. 32, and the idea is 
constantly present to St Paul’s mind. The metaphor was speedily taken 
up: eg. Clem. Rom. 5 ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς, Ign. 
Polyc. 1, 2, 3 πάντων τὰς νόσους βάσταζε ὡς τέλειος GOAnTHs...vApEe ὡς Θεοῦ 
ἀθλητής: τὸ θέμα ἀφθαρσία... μεγάλου ἐστὶν ἀθλητοῦ τὸ δέρεσθαι καὶ νικᾶν, 
where see the notes and also that on Ign. EPA. 3 (ὑπαλειφθῆναι). 

3. ἡ yap παράκλησις] ‘1 said that we were bold in our God, and that 
it was the Gospel of God we preached, and I said rightly. For our appeal 
is not to be traced to error or impurity or to any human passions, or 
human imperfections. It has received the sanction of God, and His 
commission is upon us.’ Παράκλησις may perhaps be translated ‘ appeal’ : 
it is an exercise of the powers of persuasion, either in the way of 
(1) comfort, or (2) encouragement, or (3) exhortation, according as the 
reference is to (1) the past, what has happened, (2) the present, what is 
happening, or (3) the future, what is to happen. 

οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης] “12 does not arise from error.” Πλάνη is used either in 
an active sense ‘deceit,’ ‘the leading astray,’ or in a passive ‘error,’ ‘ the 
being led astray.’ But in the New Testament it seems always to have 
the latter meaning, and this is better suited to the context here. For 
ἐκ πλάνης will thus be distinguished from ἐν δόλῳ. The preposition ἐκ as 
opposed to ἐν likewise points to this meaning. False teachers are ‘de- 
ceived’ as well as ‘deceivers’ (2 Tim. iii. 13 πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι). 

οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας] ‘207 yet from impurity, i.e. from sensuality. This 
disclaimer, startling as it may seem, was not unneeded amidst the im- 
purities consecrated by the religions of the day. The meaning of the 
Hebrew or rather Phoenician words WP fem. MVP from WIP ‘to be 
holy’ (Deut. xxiii, 18), properly ‘the consecrated ones,’ tells its own 
terrible tale. St Paul was at this very time living in the midst of the 
worship of Aphrodite at Corinth, and had but lately witnessed that of 
the Cabiri at Thessalonica (see Biblical Essays, p. 257 sq.). The 
religion of Rome, again, though in its origin far purer than those of 
Greece or the East, had been corrupted from extraneous sources ; and we 


SO ee a ae eer αι θὰ, 


— yr ψῃυ-- 





ϑυεανψον Sine 


—e ee ee 


Iil.4.]~ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 21 


need not go farther than the Roman moralists and satirists to learn how 
much of the vice and impurity. which hastened the decline of Rome was 
due to the introduction of foreign religious systems. How naturally prone 
the early converts were to sensualize even the religion of Christ may be 
inferred from many passages in St Paul’s Epistles (e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 3 
where the ‘idea of holiness is regarded as almost equivalent to abstinence 
from the commission of fornication’: see Jowett I. p. 88), and is seen in 
the monstrous aberrations of some forms of Gnosticism, i.e. of Simon 
Magus. 

The word ἀκαθαρσία is frequently interpreted in this passage to mean 
*covetousness’ (comp. the Latin sordes, sordidus); but no instance, is 
produced to show that ἀκαθαρσία, ἀκάθαρτος are ever used in this sense. 
In 1 Esdras i. 42 indeed ἀκαθαρσία is used of the spoliation of the temple, 
but here the word points to the defilement, not to the avarice involved 
in the act. In Barnab. 19. 4 οὐ μή σου ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξέλθῃ ἐν 
ἀκαθαρσίᾳ τινῶν the context shows that the language is not a warning 
against preaching for money, but against ruining the effectiveness of 
preaching by personal impurity. By the analogy of the figurative 
language of the O.T. ἀκάθαρτος in the mouth of a Jew might get to mean 
‘idolatrous, profane,’ but scarcely ‘sordid, avaricious.’ There is as little 
ground for asserting conversely that πλεονεξία is equivalent to ἀκαθαρσία: 
see note on Col. iii. 5. For ἀκαθαρσία of the pollution of the temple see 
Test. xii. Patr. Zev 15. 

οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ] The better supported reading οὐδὲ, if not actually required 
for grammatical reasons (see Hermann Ofusc. III. 143), gives a much better 
sense than ovre. Each clause disclaims an entirely distinct motive, and 
therefore the disjunctive particle οὐδὲ is preferable: ‘not from error, nor yet 
from impurity, nor again in guile.’ See the note on Gal. i. 12. 

4. ἀλλὰ] On the contrary, so far from its being due to human 
passions and imperfections, it is in accordance with the test which we 
have satisfied in the sight of God. 

'δεδοκιμάσμεθα] The word δοκιμάζειν signifies properly to examine an 
object with a view to its satisfying a certain test, and hence naturally 
glides into the meaning ‘to approve.’ In δεδοκιμάσμεθα this latter 
signification is prominent, in τῷ δοκιμάζοντι it is kept in the background. 
Still, as Trench remarks (VV. 7. Syn. § 74, p. 278 sq.), there is always the 
underlying sense not merely of a victorious coming out of trial, but of 
the implication that the trial is itself made in the expectation that the 
issue would: be favourable—an implication wanting in the word πειράζειν. 
Thus the word most nearly approaches the classical sense of ἀξιοῦν. 

πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον] “20 be trusted with the gospel, ‘to have the 
gospel committed to us.” For the construction see Rom. iii. 2, 1 Cor, ix. 
17, Gal. ii..7, 1 Tim. i. 11, Tit. i. 3, 2 Thess. i. 10 (v. 1). Not only do 
verbs which in the active take an accusative of both person and thing 
retain the latter in the’ passive, e.g. 2 Thess: ii. 15 παραδόσεις as ἐδιδάχθητε: 


22 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IL. 4. 


but also those which in the active are constructed with a dative of the 
person and an accusative of the thing, e.g. πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον here, 
and Acts xxviii. 20 τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι, see Winer ὃ xxxii. p. 287. 

οὕτως] ‘accordingly, in accordance therewith,’ 1.6. with this commis- 
sion, answering to καθώς. This correspondence of καθώς, καθάπερ, and οὕτως 
is frequent in the New Testament: comp. e.g. in St Paul, 2 Cor. viii. 6, 
x. 7, Col. iii. 13. Ὡς has no dependence on οὕτως. For though ovras...ds 
‘in such a manner...as’ is a frequent combination in St Paul, οὕτως here 
cannot well refer both to καθὼς and ὡς, inasmuch as it would require to be 
taken in two different senses. It is better therefore to treat οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις 
k.7,A. as an independent clause, explanatory of καθὼς... οὕτως. For this use 
of ὡς comp. especially 2 Cor. vi. 8—1Io. 

ἀνθρώποις dpérxovres] Compare Gal. i. 1o and the notes on Col. i. 10 
(ἀρέσκειαν), iii. 22 (ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι). 

τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν] It has been maintained by some (e.g. Conybeare ind 
Howson II. p. 95 note I, p. 419 note 3) that St Paul uses ‘ we’ ‘ according 
to the idiom of many ancient writers’ where a modern writer would use 
41.) Or as it is expressed elsewhere, ‘He uses ἐγὼ frequently interchange- 
ably with ἡμεῖς, and when he includes others in the ἡμεῖς he specifies it.’ 
On this point the following facts may be worthy of consideration. (1) 
The Epistles which are written in St Paul’s name alone are the Romans, 
Galatians, Ephesians, 1, 2 Timothy, and Titus. In all of these the 
singular is used when the writer is speaking in hisown name. The plural 
is never so used. It is only employed where he speaks of himself as the 
member of a class, whether embracing either the other preachers of the 
Gospel (Gal. i. 8, ii. 9), or the persons to whom the letter is addressed, or 
the whole body of Christians generally. (2) Of the other Epistles, those 
to Philippians and to Philemon (after the opening salutation) adhere to 
the singular throughout. The others use the plural. In 1 Corinthians 
the plural occurs every now and then, It is very common in 2 Corinthians, 
and in 1, 2 Thessalonians it is very seldom departed from. As a general 
tule we may say that wherever the communication is more direct and 
personal, there the singular is used; wherever it is more general, the 
plural is preferred. (3) In every instance where the plural is used, we 
find that it will apply to those who are associated with the Apostle, as 
well as to the Apostle himself. (4) There are passages where it is quite 
impossible to refer the plural to St Paul alone without making havoc of 
the sense. The passage in the text is one of these instances. 2 Cor. vii. 3 
προείρηκα γὰρ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἐστὲ εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν καὶ συνζῆν is 
another instance. For though no one will deny that a king or a reviewer 
may employ the plural ‘we’ with propriety, it may fairly be questioned 
whether the one would talk of ‘our crowns’ or the other of ‘our pens,’ 
when only one of each class was meant. And thus, though the Apostle 
might say ‘ we,’ he could not call himself ‘ Apostles’ ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι 
(1 Thess, ii. 6) or speak of his ‘hearts.’ (5) In other passages St Paul’s own 





II.6.) . FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 23 


language shows that by the use of the plural he does generally include 
more than himself, for in particular cases where he refers to himself 
personally he takes care to substitute the singular for the plural or in 
some other way to qualify the expression. Thus below ii. 18 διότι ἠθελή- 
σαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis, καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς 6 
Σατανᾶς, St Paul is careful to distinguish himself from the others who are 
included in the plural—‘we were desirous of visiting you (for my own 
part I have entertained the desire more than once), but Satan hindered us.’ 
We may conclude therefore that a case for an epistolary plural in St Paul’s 
Epistles has not been made out. 

5. ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν] ‘were we found employed in words’ 
etc. For the construction γίγνεσθαι ἐν compare 1 Tim. ii. 14, and see 
the note on i. 5. ' 

κολακείας, πλεονεξίας} are probably subjective genitives, ‘the words, 
which flattery uses, the pretext of which avarice avails itself.’ It is 
objectionable to apply a different sense of the genitive to the two clauses 
when the same will hold. Κολακεία, a word which occurs here only in the 
New Testament, is defined both by Theophrastus (Cav. 2) and Aristotle 
(Eth. Nic. iv. 12) to involve the idea of selfish motives. It is flattery not 
merely for the sake of giving pleasure to others but for the sake of self- 
interest. The words of Aristotle are ὁ δὲ ὅπως ὠφέλεια τις αὑτῷ γίγνηται 
εἰς χρήματα καὶ ὅσα διὰ χρημάτων, κόλαξ. For πλεονεξία see Col. iii. 5. 

π εἰ} ‘pretext’ The word πρόφασις (from προφαίνω) signifies 
generally the ostensible reason for which a thing is done (comp. Joseph. 
Ant. xvi. 6. 5 quoted in Wetstein); sometimes in a good sense (e.g. Thuc. 
i, 23, vi. 6 ἀληθεστάτη πρόφασις), but generally otherwise, the false or 
pretended reason as opposed to the true, and so, as here, ‘a pretext,’ and 
takes the genitive. 

Θεὸς μάρτυς] He had appealed to the Thessalonians themselves (καθὼς 
οἴδατε) to testify to his outward conduct (ἐν Χόγῳ κολακείας). Of his 
inward motives (προφάσει πλεονεξίας) God alone could bear witness. So 
Chrysostom and others interpret the passage. Comp. ver, 10, where we 
have the double appeal ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες καὶ ὁ Θεός, 

6. There is a slight difference in the force of the prepositions ἐξ 
ἀνθρώπων, ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, which may be expressed by the paraphrase ‘to 
extract (ἐξ) glory from men,’ ‘ deriving ἐξ (ἀπὸ) either from you or, etc.’ 
Ἔκ is the preposition which would naturally be attached to ζητοῦντες : and 
for an explanation of the adoption of ἀπὸ in the next clause we need not 
perhaps go farther than the natural desire of a change, though ἀπὸ brings 
the source (¢x) more prominently forward as an agent. Compare John 
xi. I ἀπὸ BnOavias, ἐκ τῆς κώμης x.7.A.. where Bethany is perhaps the 
district which would explain the ἀπό. See Winer § xlvii. p. 453 sq. On the 
other hand, Rom, iii. 30 should not have been classed by Winer among 
these examples, for there is a marked emphasis in the change of expression 
from ἐκ πίστεως to διὰ τῆς πίστεως. 


24 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ΠῚ. 6. 


δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι κιτιλ.7 ‘though we might have been burdensome, 
oppressive. What sense are we to attribute to ἐν βάρει εἶναι here? Does 
it refer to the levying of pecuniary aid, or to the assumption of authority 
and the.exaction of respect to one’s office? In other words, does it refer 
specially to ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας, or rather to ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων 
δόξαν ὃ — In favour of the former sense is the fact that the kindred phrases 
in’ St Paul are used in this connexion : comp. ver. 9 πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαΐ 
twa ὑμῶν repeated again 2 Thess. iii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 16 κατεβάρησα, xi. 9 
ἀβαρῇ ἐμαυτὸν ἐτήρησα. On the other hand the position of δυνάμενοι ἐν 
βάρει εἶναι in close connexion with ζητοῦντες δόξαν speaks strongly on 
behalf of the other sense, and βάρος, like ὄγκος, can fairly have this mean- 

ing. See.2 Cor..iv. 17 βάρος δόξης and comp. Diod. Sic. iv. 61 διὰ τὸ βάρος 

τῆς πόλεως, where the writer is speaking of Athens. Perhaps it is safer to 
assign to ἐν βάρει εἶναι a comprehensive meaning, including both these 
royal prerogatives, so to speak, of the apostleship, the assertion of 
authority and the levying of contributions. On the supplies sent to him 
from Philippi at this time see the note on Phil. iv. 16. 

ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι] ‘dy virtue of our office as Apostles of Christ’ So 
‘strongly does St Paul assert the right of the teacher to be provided for 
by the taught, that writing to the Corinthians he, with a touch of irony, 
expresses his fear lest, by having failed to assert this claim, he might 
have led them to question his authority (2 Cor. xi. 7 sq.). 

The twofold anxiety displayed here to indicate his own disinterested- 
ness and at the same time not to compromise his rightful claims as an 
Apostle, is expressed so entirely in the spirit of St Paul that it is strange 
such a proof of the authenticity of the Epistle could be overlooked by 
those who have denied the Pauline authorship. 

7. νήπιοι] ‘children, babes.’ This is by far the best supported read- 
ing, being found in SBC*D* FG it. vg. cop. a/., nor does it present any con- 
siderable difficulty. The inversion of the metaphor which it introduces, 
the Christian teacher being first compared to the child and then to the 
mother, is quite in St Paul’s manner: e.g. v. 2, 4 where the day of the 
Lord is compared to a thief and then the idea is reversed and the unpre- 
pared Christians become the thieves (ὡς κλέπτας καταλάβη, the true 
reading). Compare also the use which is made of the allegory of the 
vailed face of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 13—-16), where the vail is represented 
‘first-as:on the law, then as on the hearts of the Jewish nation ; of the 
metaphor of second marriage (Rom. vii. 1 sq.) where we should expect not 
ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νομῷ (ver. 4) but ὁ νόμος ἐθανατώθη ὑμῖν ; and of the idea 
of the triumphal procession in 2 Cor. ii. 14 sq., where the Apostles are 
compared, first to the captives led in triumph, then to the odour of the 
incense : see for a less striking example Rom. vi. 5, and the notes on Gal. 
ii. 20, iv. 19. St Paul’s earnestness and rapidity of thought led him to 
‘work his metaphor to the utmost, turning it about and reapplying it, as it 
suggested some new analogy. It was of no importance to him, as it 


Τὶ 





11, 8.] - FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 25 


would be to a modern writer, that his image should cut clean. This 
disregard of rhetorical rules it was which made his ‘speech contemptible’ 
(2 Cor. x. 10 ὁ λόγος ἐξουθενημένος, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, 4). Rhetorical rules 
were as nothing to him compared with the object which he had in view. 

The word νήπιοι was read here by Origen Matzh. i. p. 375 ed. Huet 
(quoted by Bentley Cri#. Sacr. p. 61) ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐγένετο νήπιος καὶ παρα- 
πλήσιος τροφῷ θαλπούσῃ τὸ ἑαυτῆς παιδίον καὶ λαλούσῃ λόγους ὡς παιδίον 
διὰ τὸ παιδίον, followed by Pelagius facti sumus parvuliz. So too Clement 
of Alexandria (Paed. i. 5. 19 p. 108) quotes the passage as given in the text, 
and explains the distinction between the two words thus: οὐκ ἐπὶ ἀφρόνων 
τάττεται TO νήπιον, νηπύτιος μὲν γὰρ οὗτος, νήπιος δὲ ὁ νεήπιος, ὡς ἤπιος ὁ 
ἁπαλόφρων, οἷον ἤπιος νεωστὶ καὶ πρᾷος τῷ τρόπῳ γενόμενος : compare also 
Paed. i. 6 p. 117. Compare also Irenzus (iv. 38,2) speaking of Christ, διὰ 
τοῦτο συνενηπίαζεν υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειος dv τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ....διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
νήπιον οὕτω χωρούμενος, ὡς ἄνθρωπος αὐτὸν χωρεῖν ἠδύνατο. The same 
reading ἤπιοι for νήπιοι occurs in A on Eph. iv. 14, showing the readiness 
with which the words would be confused. 

On the other hand, ἤπιοι makes very excellent sense, as this is a word 
specially used to express ‘fatherly tenderness,’ e.g. Hom. Od. ii. 47 πατὴρ 
δ᾽ ὡς ἤπιος ἦεν, comp. 71. xxiv. 770. It occurs 2 Tim. ii. 24 δοῦλον Κυρίου 
ov δεῖ μάχεσθαι ἀλλὰ ἤπιον εἶναι, where again the variant νήπιον is found. 

ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν] not simply ἐν ὑμῖν or παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, but more fully, ‘as though 
I were one of you, mixing freely among you.’ The expression here used 
indirectly hints at the terms of equality on which the Apostle placed 
himself with his converts : comp. St Luke xxii. 27 of his Master ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν 
μέσῳ ὑμῶν εἰμὶ ὡς ὁ διακονῶν. 

If νήπιοι is the correct reading, a colon should be placed after ἐν μέσῳ 
ὑμῶν : if ἥπιοι is adopted, perhaps even then it should be so punctuated. 
It may however be a question in this case, whether ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς x... 
should not be connected with what goes before, though it has an apodosis 
of its own. For such a construction see Soph. Ajax 839. 

ὡς ἐὰν θάλπῃ] For ὡς ἂν see Hermann on Soph. Ajax 1096, and comp. 
Winer ὃ xlii. p. 385 ; on ἐὰν for ἂν see Winer ὃ xlii. p. 390. 

τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα] Thus by τροφὸς here is meant a mother who suckles 
and nurses her own children. This use is not unclassical: e.g. Soph. 
Ajax 849 γέροντι πατρὶ τῇ τε δυστήνῳ τροφῷ. Theocr. xxvii. 66 γυνὰ μάτηρ 
τεκέων τροφὸς (see Steph. 76:. 5. v.). 

8, ὁμειρόμενοι) This is the best supported reading and the word 
occurs also in Job iii. 21 (LXx.), Psalm Ixii. 2 (Symmachus), in both 
passages however with the same variety of reading (ἱμείρεσθαι) as here. 
Two explanations are given of the form. F7rst, that it is derived from 
ὁμοῦ and εἴρειν, and means ‘to be attached to’ (so Theophylact and 
others). To this there are two objections: (1) that the verb would in 
this case take a dative instead of a genitive. Perhaps the instances of 
συλλαμβάνεσθαι, ἅπτεσθαι, etc. are not exact enough parallels to meet this 


26 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ΠῚ. 8. 


objection. (2) That verbs compounded with ὁμοῦ are always derived 
from substantives as ὁμοδρομεῖν, ὁμευνετεῖν, ὁμιλεῖν, etc. and there is no 
substantive to which to refer ὁμείρεσθαι. Secondly, as the form μείρεσθαι 
(Ξ ἱμείρεσθαι) is found in Nicander 7her. 402, it is supposed that dpeipe- 
σθαι is a lengthened form from this, as ὀδύρομαι from δύρομαι, ὀκέλλω from 
κέλλω, etc. Against this it is urged that no instance is adduced of a verb 
so lengthened by an aspirated vowel. But on the other hand too much 
stress must not be laid on this in the New Testament, where ἐλπὶς for 
instance is written éAmis (see note on Phil. ii. 23 ἀφίδω). In this case the 
word may have arisen from ipeipeoOa by an imperfect articulation of a 
very short vowel, as in the case of Κολασσαεῖς for Κολοσσοεῖς ; or lastly the 
reading may be ὀμειρόμενοι (Lobeck Pazh. 1. 4. I p. 72). 

εὐδοκοῦμεν] The imperfect tense. On the omission of the augment 
see Lobeck Phryn. pp. 140, 456; but the best manuscripts of the New 
Testament are not agreed on this point, and probably ηὐδοκοῦμεν should 
be preferred here. On the verb εὐδοκεῖν see the note on Col. i. 19. It is 
not found in the writers of the classical epoch. 

kal τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς] ‘40 give even our own lives. The simple verb 
δοῦναι is to be understood from the compound μεταδοῦναι of the former 
clause. For the zeugma compare Kiihner, 11. p. 606, and on the word 
Ψυχὴ see note on 1 Thess. v. 23. 

ἀγαπητοὶ] The metaphor is still preserved in the term which is 
specially used of an only or favourite child (see e.g. Hom. Od. ii. 365 
μοῦνος ἐὼν ἀγαπητὸς x.t.A.) and consecrated in this sense by its application 
to the Son of God Himself; comp. Matt. iii. 17, and the note on νήπιοι 
above (ver. 7). On the term ὁ ἀγαπητός, as a complete title in itself, see 
the note on Coll. iv. 14. 

9. μνημονεύετε γὰρ] referring to εὐδοκοῦμεν μεταδοῦναι ras ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς. 
‘You will not regard this declaration of our readiness to lay down our 
lives as a mere idle vaunt, for you have a proof of our self-sacrificing spirit 
in the recollection of our toils and labours when among you.’ Or the yap 
may refer back to ver. 5. 

τὸν κόπον Kal τὸν μόχθον] ‘our foil and our struggling. The words 
occur together also in 2 Thess. iii. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27 (so too in Hermas 
Sim. v. 6.2), and we must seek for some distinction of meaning between 
the two expressions. 

Kéros (from κόπτω) is properly a ‘ blow’ or ‘ bruise,’ and hence signifies 
‘wear and tear,’ the fatigue arising from continued labour, and hence the 
labour which brings on lassitude. 

In μόχθος on the other hand the leading notion is that of struggling — 
to overcome difficulties. It is connected with μόγος, μόγις and perhaps 
μόλις, μῶλος, in all of which words the same idea is prominent. Thus 
κόπος is passive, μόχθος active, and the distinction may perhaps be repre- 
sented by the two words ‘toil and moil.’ See Trench Seven Churches, 
p- 65. Ἴ 








_ Il.10.) ~ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 27 


γυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας K.t.A.] This clause is added, as an epexegesis of τὸν 
κόπον ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν μόχθον, and therefore has no connecting particle. 
Some even of the best Mss, have supplied the apparent deficiency with 
yap. ‘Laborem manuum nocte et fatigationem verbi die: caeterum 
semper operabatur, quando docebat’ says Pelagius. 

The explanation of the order νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας is not to be sought in 
the fact that the Jews, as did also the Athenians (Plin. Vat. Hist. ii. § 79), 
commenced their reckoning with sunset. For we find the Jewish writers, 
both in: the Old and New Testaments, frequently adopting the reverse 
order ‘ day and night’ (e.g. Jer. xvi. 13, xxxiii. 25) ; while the Romans, who 
reckoned from sunrise, as often as not speak of ‘night and day’ (e.g. Cic. 
de fin. i. 16. 51, de orat. i. 16, 260, Czesar de bell. Gallic. v. 38. 1). 

The latter however is the order always observed by St Paul (Lobeck 
Paral. Ὁ. 62 sq.), and by Luke in the expression νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν (e.g. Luke 
ii. 37), but not when he uses the genitive (e.g. Luke xviii. 7). St John, 
who uses the genitive only, always employs the order ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, 
and his style is the most Hebraic of New Testament writers. 

ἐργαζόμενοι] St Paul himself doubtless worked while at Thessalonica 
at his trade of tent-maker, on which we find him employed at Corinth 
about the time when this Epistle was written (Acts xviii. 3). It was a 
recognized custom of every Jewish parent, enforced by many maxims of 
the Rabbins, to teach his son a trade. This fact therefore does not imply 
any inferiority of social position in the case of St Paul (see the note on 
2 Thess. iii. 10, where St Paul reiterates this proof of his disinterestedness). 
The choice of this particular trade was probably determined by the fact 
that canvas for tents was largely manufactured from the goat’s hair of his 
native country from which it got its name cé/ictum (Conybeare and 
Howson, I. p. 58). 

St Paul however during his stay at Thessalonica was not entirely 
supported by the labour of his own hands. He more than once received 
contributions from Philippi (Phil. iv. 15). In the same way, while at 
Corinth, he received contributions from Macedonia to make up a sufficient 
sum to support him, see 2 Cor. xi. 9, where τὸ ὑστέρημά μου means ‘ what 
was wanting, after 1 had plied my trade.’ Besides Thessalonica and 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 3), we find him labouring with his own hands also 
at Ephesus (Acts xx. 34). 

On the bearing of these facts on the question of the length of his stay 
at Thessalonica, see Biblical Essays p. 259. 

10. ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες kal ὁ Θεὸς] ‘You are witnesses of our outward 
actions, God of our inward thoughts.’ See ver. 5. 

ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως] ‘how holily towards God and how justly towards 
men. The two words often occur together and represent, ὁσίως one’s 
duty towards God, δικαίως one’s duty towards men. See Plato Gorg. 
P. 507 B καὶ μὴν περὶ μὲν ἀνθρώπους τὰ προσήκοντα πράττων δίκαι᾽ ἂν πράττοι, 
περὶ δὲ θεοὺς ὅσια (comp. 7 ἀδί. p. 176 B), and so St Paul’s contemporary 


28 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {II. 10. 


Philo ὁσιότης μὲν πρὸς Θεὸν δικαιοσύνη δὲ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους θεωρεῖται. Simi- 
larly Marcus Antoninus says (vii. 66) of Socrates that he was δίκαιος τὰ 
πρὸς ἀνθρώπους, ὅσιος Ta πρὸς θεούς. Cf. Luke i. 75, Tit. i. 8, Ephes. iv. 24, 
where see Wetstein. It is not intended however to be implied that this 
meaning always attaches to δίκαιος, which in its technical legal sense is 
used of righteousness before God, i.e. having fulfilled the terms of the 
compact with Him, but only generally and more especially when distin- 
guished from ὅσιος. See Trench WV. 7. Syn. § Ixxxviii. p. 328. The combi- 
nation is found in Clem. Rom. 48 κατευθύνοντες τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁσιότητι 
καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ and [2 Clem.] 5 τὸ ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως ἀναστρέφεσθαι, where 
see the notes. In the present passage the correspondence is inverted 
by chiasmus, ὁσίως referring to ὁ Θεός, δικαίως to ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες. 

ἀμέμπτως] is more comprehensive, including both ὁσίως and δικαίως 
contemplated from the negative side. The word is coupled with ὁσίως in 
Clem. Rom. 44 as descriptive of a blameless Christian ministry. 

ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] If this dative could mean ‘in the opinion of, 
then all difficulty arising from τοῖς πιστεύουσιν would cease. The sense 
would then be, ‘much as our conduct has been misinterpreted by the 
unbelievers, at least in the sight of you who believe’ etc. But the sense 
would be sacrificed to get over this one difficulty, for St Paul would then 
be made to say ‘We call you to witness (and God also), how in your 
opinion we acted holily, etc.,’ which is inconceivably flat and unmeaning. 
The sense ‘towards you who believe’ is at once a very natural interpre- 
tation of the Greek and better suits the context. 

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν͵]͵ Not that his conduct had been otherwise towards 
unbelievers, but that believers had a special claim upon him. There was 
here an additional motive for uprightness. Comp. Gal. vi. 10, ‘ Let us do 
good unto all men, but especially unto them who are of the household 
of the faith.’ Thus the words are especially connected with ἀμέμπτως. 
The Apostle’s obligations had been loyally fulfilled. 

ἐγενήθημεν]! For this use of γίγνεσθαι with an adverb ‘ how holily we 
conducted ourselves, etc.’ see on i. 5. Ἐγενήθημεν is here not a simple 
copula, but has a fuller meaning, ‘we presented ourselves, behaved our- 
selves’: comp. I Cor. xvi. 10 iva ἀφόβως γένηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς. See Kriiger’s 
Sprachlehre § 62. 2, p. 269 (cited by Koch). For this idiomatic use 
comp. Thucyd. ii. 14 χαλεπῶς αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐγεγόνει, and see Matth. 
Gr. Gr. ii. § 309 c. 

11. The construction in the sentence beginning with ὡς ἕνα ἕκαστον 
κιτιλ. is defective from the absence of a finite verb. There are two ways 
of supplying the ellipsis, either (1) by a verb such as ἐνουθετοῦμεν to govern 
ἕνα ἕκαστον, Or (2) by understanding ἐγενήθημεν with παρακαλοῦντες καὶ 
παραμυθούμενοι, in which case these participles have a double accusative 
ἕνα ἕκαστον and ὑμᾶς. This double accusative would present no difficulty ; 
for even if no exact parallel is to be found in St Paul, it is still so entirely 
after his manner, that it would need no such support. The real difficulty 





II. 12.) . FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 29 


in this construction consists in the harshness of ἐγενήθημεν παρακαλοῦντες: 
and probably the correct explanation is to supply some such verb as évou6e- 
τοῦμεν suggested above. The sentence is so suspended by the insertion 
of the participial clause, that the finite verb which ought to close the 
sentence is lost sight of. On ellipses in St Paul see Journal of Class. 
and Sacr. Philol. iii. p. 85. 

ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα] It is remarked by the commentators from St Chry- 
sostom downwards, on ver. 7, that when the Apostle wishes to dwell 
on his tenderness and affection for his converts he uses the figure of a 
mother ; while here, where he is dwelling on his teaching and advice, he 
adopts that of a father as more appropriate. ‘ Parvulos nutrix fovet: 
proficientes vero pater instituit’ says Pelagius. 

παρακαλοῦντες kal παραμυθούμενοι] Compare 1 Cor. xiv. 3 ὁ δὲ προφη- 
τεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν καὶ παράκλησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν. Perhaps 
there is this difference that παρακαλεῖν is ‘to exhort to a particular line of 
conduct,’ while παραμυθεῖσθαι is rather ‘to encourage to continue in a 
course.’ The sense ef ‘consolation’ which some would here attribute to 
παραμυθεῖσθαι is not more inherent in this word than in παρακαλεῖν. See 
above, ii. 3 (with the note), below v. 14 παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς.. -παραμυθεῖσθε 
τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους, Col. ii. 2, and the notes on παράκλησις and παραμύθιον 
(Phil. ii. 1). 

paprupépevor] This is a better supported reading than μαρτυρούμενοι, 
and is certainly required by the sense. The distinction between paprv- 
pete Oa (the passive of μαρτυρεῖν) ‘to be borne witness to,’ and μαρτύρεσθαι 
‘to invoke witnesses’ and so ‘to appeal to as in the sight of witnesses, to 
charge, protest,’ ought not to require restatement: for it holds equally in 
classical authors, and in the New Testament without, so far as I am 
aware, a single exception. Compare e.g. Rom. iii. 21 μαρτυρούμενοι ὑπὸ 
τοῦ νόμου with Gal. v. 3 μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ x.r.A. and see 
note there. Μαρτυρεῖσθαι, the middle, seems to be used for the active in 
Lucian de Sacr. c. 10 (1. p. 534), but with a sort of middle sense, ‘ testifies 
in himself, bears evidence in himself.’ Probably at a later period the two 
words were confused, and hence the various readings in the MSS. here and 
in Acts xxvi. 22, where however the preponderance of authority is de- 
cidedly in favour of μαρτυρόμενος the right reading. Μαρτύρεσθαι bears the 
same relation to μαρτυρεῖν as ἔρεσθαι to ἐρεῖν. 

12. τοῦ καλοῦντος] the present participle, as below, v. 24, though the 
aorist is more frequently used. Either tense may be employed indiffer- 
ently. Compare Gal. i. 6 ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς with Gal. v. 8 ἐκ τοῦ 
καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς. The fact that we never find the present of the finite verb 
in this sense, but always a past tense, as ἐκάλεσεν, κέκληκεν, ἐκλήθητε, 
suggests as the true explanation of the present participle that it is used 
substantively, without any idea of time, referring to the person and not 
the act, ‘your-caller’ like ὁ τίκτων etc. See note on Gal. i. 23 ὁ διώκων 


ἡμᾶς ποτέ. 


30 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [Π. 12. 


τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν] not the future heavenly kingdom of Christ, but 
the actual spiritual kingdom of which they were present members. Comp. 
2 Thess. i. 5 τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is a state of things which has 
already begun. Δόξαν on the other hand points to the glorious develop- 
ment of that kingdom in which they hoped to participate hereafter. 


iii. Repetition of thanksgiving at their conversion and patience under 
persecution (ii. 13—16). 


13. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘for this reason, ‘seeing that we have bestowed so 
much labour and affection upon you, we are the more thankful that we 
have laboured to some purpose.’ This seems better than referring διὰ 
τοῦτο solely to the dependent clause τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς κιτιλ. which is not 
prominent enough to introduce it. A new paragraph may be supposed to 
begin at ver. 13. 

καὶ ἡμεῖς] ‘we also, we on our part—as you bear witness to our devotion 
in your service, so we im return thank God that you have listened to our 
teaching.’ The words καὶ ἡμεῖς correspond in some sense to αὐτοὶ yap 
οἴδατε (ii. 1); and fitly introduce the new paragraph, in which St Paul 
turns away from the teachers to speak of the taught. The same expres- 
sion occurs in Col. i. 9, where see the note. 

παραλαβόντες ἐδέξασθε] Any attempt to translate these words into the 
corresponding English, as e.g. παραλαμβάνειν ‘to take,’ δέχεσθαι ‘to accept,’ 
tends to exaggerate the distinction. Nevertheless it must not be lost 
sight of. Δέχεσθαι implies a slight degree of acquiescence or appropriation, 
or at least consciousness, which is absent in παραλαμβάνειν ; or in technical 
language, while παραλαμβάνειν denotes simply the objective fact, δέχεσθαι 
presents the subjective aspect of the act of receiving. Compare Demosth. 
F. L., p. 384 οὐκ ἐδέξαντο οὐδ᾽ ἔλαβον ταῦτα of τῶν Θηβαίων πρέσβεις, ‘ they 
did not snap at nor would they even accept the money,’ and Xen. Cyrof. 
i. 4. 26 τοὺς μέντοι λαβόντας καὶ δεξαμένους τὰ δῶρα λέγεται ᾿Αστυαγεῖ 
ἀπενεγκεῖν, quoted by Koch. See also the commentators on the parable 
of the sower, Luke viii. 13 μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τὸν λόγον, and Mark iv. 16 
pera χαρᾶς λαμβάνουσιν αὐτόν. The distinction is significant here: ‘when 
the word of hearing was delivered to you, you took it to yourselves as the 
word of God.’ See Acts xi. 1, where the word δέξασθαι is coupled with 
τὸν λόγον, as here, and the note on Col. ii. 6. 

λόγον ἀκοῆς] The word ἀκοῆς is not an idle addition here, but derives 
its force from the accompanying expressions ἐδέξασθε and ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται. 
‘The word of hearing was delivered to you, but it became something 
more than the word of hearing to you. You appropriated it. It sank 
into your hearts, and produced fruits in your practice.’ The phrase ὁ λόγος 
τῆς axons occurs also in Heb. iv. 2 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς 
ἐκείνους, μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν, where, as here, it 





11.14.1]. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 31 


stands in contrast to the faithful reception of the Gospel. Compare also 
Rom. x. 17 dpa ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ. 

παρ᾽ ἡμῶν] naturally attaches itself to παραλαβόντες, and not to ἀκοῆς, a 
harsh construction which however has found favour with many. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ] is emphatic by its position, and is intended to deprecate any 
false deduction from παρ᾽ ἡμῶν. ‘Ye received the word of hearing from 
us, albeit it came in fact from God.’ Tod Θεοῦ is therefore a subjective 
genitive ‘ proceeding from God, having God for its author,’ as its emphatic 
position requires; and not ‘about God, of which God is the object,’ as we 
might otherwise be disposed to take it. CM&cumenius explains the phrase 
rightly παρ᾽ ἡμῶν μὲν παρελάβετε, οὐχ ἡμέτερον δὲ ὄντα, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The 
Apostle betrays a nervous apprehension that he may be unconsciously 
making claims for himself ; the awkwardness of the position of the words 
τοῦ Θεοῦ is the measute of the emphasis of his disclaimer. 

οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων] ‘Ye received it not as the word of men, but as etc.’ 
i.e. ‘with the respect and obedience due to it, as the word of God. It was 
to you in your welcome of it the word of God’ For the omission of ὡς 
comp. Kiihner II. p. 226, Lambert Bos E/iifs. p. 781 ed. Schafer 1808. That 
this is the sense of the passage appears not only from the general context, 
but especially from the phrase καθὼς ἀληθῶς ἐστίν, which would be rendered 
meaningless if the words were translated, ‘ye received not the word of 
men, but the word of God,’ as it is taken by some. 

ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ] Thisis to be referred not to Θεός, but to Adyos; for, 
Jirst, St Paul observing a very significant distinction always uses the 
active ἐνεργεῖν of God, and so by contrast of the spirit of evil (Ephes. 
ii. 2), and the middle ἐνεργεῖσθαι in other cases (see the note on Gal. 
v. 6): and, secondly, the natural sequence in the passage is preserved 
by taking the verb with Adyos. (1) The word received into the ears, 
(2) the word appropriated in the heart, (3) the word fructifying in good 
works—these are the stages which the Apostle here expresses. 

ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] Πίστις and ἀκοὴ are contrasted in the passages 
cited above in the note on λόγον ἀκοῆς. This passage, like Gal. v. 6, 
πίστις δ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (ἰσχύει), supplies the link which connects the 
teaching of St Paul on faith and works with that of St James. 

14. ὑμεῖς γὰρ] ‘for you showed signs of the active working of the 
Gospel, in the persecution which you endured.’ 

ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ κιτ.λ.)}] This passage, implying an affectionate 
admiration of the Jewish Churches on the part of St Paul, and thus 
fully bearing out the impression produced by the narrative in the Acts, 
is entirely subversive of the theory maintained by some and based on a 
misconception of Gal. ii. and by the fiction of the Pseudo-Clementines, of 
the feud existing between St Paul and the Twelve. The staunchest main- 
tainer of this theory by a sort of 2εζζζζο principiz uses this passage as a 
strong argument against the authenticity of the Epistle (Baur Paulus 
p. 482 sq.). 


32 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS,  [II. 14. 


τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν] The word ἐκκλησία, as most other terms relating to the 
ministry and organization of the Christian community, e.g. ἐπίσκοπος, 
λειτουργία, is borrowed from the civil polity of the heathen, their 
religious terms having been so indelibly stamped with a meaning of their 
own as to render them unavailable for the purposes of Christianity. 
Just in the same way, at a later stage, for the most part the basilicas, not 
the temples, were employed for Christian worship. At the same time 
however, though this was the original and prominent signification of the 
ἐκκλησία, it was not unknown as applied to religious assemblies among 
the Jews, e.g. Acts vii. 38 ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, and is in fact the word 
used to translate 27), e.g. in Psalm xxii. 22. We must remember 
however that in the theocracy ‘ political’ and ‘religious’ were convertible 
terms. And, though the word συναγωγὴ was used for a meeting in a 
fixed place for purposes of prayer by the Jews and even by the Jewish 
Christians (James ii. 2), so that the heretical Ebionite sect clung to the 
term for some centuries (Epiphan. xxx. 18 συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλέουσι τὴν 
ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν), still the word ἐκκλησία might fairly 
apply to a Jewish religious assembly. Hence it was not sufficient to 
describe the Christian communities in Judzea as ai ἐκκλησίαι, or even as 
ai ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ Θεοῦ, for these expressions would apply equally well to 
the Jews ; but it was necessary to specify them as ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ‘the 
Christian Churches in Judza.’ The same fear of misapprehension is 
observable elsewhere, e.g. Gal. i. 22 ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας ταῖς ἐν 
Χριστῷ, where see the note : see above, i. 1; and further in the next note. 

ἐν Χριστῷ *"Incod] Not to be taken with μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, but with τῶν 
ἐκκλησιῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ. The absence of the article is no objection 
(see i. 1, iv. 16). The reason why these words are added is given in the 
last note, and applies equally to the parallel passages, Gal. i. 22, 1 Cor. 
i. 2, which serve to explain the construction here. 

καὶ ipets...xat αὐτοὶ] The comparison is strengthened by the insertion 
of καὶ in both clauses. Compare Eph, v. 23 ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστός (where see 
Ellicott’s note), Rom, i. 13 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν. 
Καὶ αὐτοὶ ‘they themselves,’ to be understood from τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν k.t.A. 

συμφυλετῶν] That the Gentiles are here meant is clear from the 
marked opposition to ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, further enforced as it is by ἐδίων. 
Though the Jews appear in the Acts as the chief persecutors of St Paul 
at Thessalonica, yet we cannot doubt that the course of events was the 
same there as elsewhere; the opposition to the Gospel instigated by the 
Jews was taken up by the native population, without whose cooperation 
the Jews would have been powerless. The words συμφυλετῶν, Ἰουδαίων 
denote rather national than religious limits. Thus συμφυλετῶν would 
include such Jews as were free citizens of Thessalonica. See Paley, 
Horae Paul, ix. 5. 

Upon the word the grammarians remark that the earlier writers adopt 
the simple forms in this and similar cases, e.g. φυλέτης, πολίτης, δημότης 


II. 15.]_. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 33 


(Arist. Av. 367 ὄντε ξυγγενῆ καὶ φυλέτα), and that the compounds συμφυ- 
λέτης, συμπολίτης, συνδημότης are of later introduction. This is true asa 
general rule, but the word συμφυλέτης is apparently an exception, oc- 
curring in Isocr. Panathen. 27 (p. 263 A) if the reading be not doubtful. 
See Lobeck Phryn. pp. 172, 471, Herodian p. 471, ed. Lobeck, and the 
note on Gal. i. 14 συνηλικιώτας. 

. καθὼς] is equivalent here to ἅπερ, and corresponds to ra αὐτὰ above, 
‘the same...as.’ See Lobeck Phryz. p. 426 sq., Kiihner ii. p. 571. 

15. What account can we give of this digression on the conduct of 
the Jews, so unexpected and startling at first sight? What was the 
impulse at work in the Apostle’s mind? A ready answer to these 
questions suggests itself in the circumstances of this period of his life. 

At no other time probably did he suffer more from the hostility of the 
Jews. They had drivén him from Thessalonica, had tracked him out at 
Berea, and expelled him thence, and they still continued their persecution 
_ of him at Corinth on the occasion of the visit during which these Epistles 
were written. They were to him therefore the embodiment of the 
opposition to the Gospel, the very type of Antichrist himself. 
τῶν καὶ τὸν Κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων «.7.d.] ‘who killed both the Lord $esus 
_ and the prophets’ Καὶ before τὸν Κύριον couples it with καὶ τοὺς προφήτας. 
. The emphatic word from its position in the sentence is not τὸν Κύριον, as 
ΐ is generally assumed, but Ἰησοῦν, ‘they killed the Lord, for they killed 
_ Jesus.’ Compare St Peter’s words in Acts ii. 36 ὅτι καὶ Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ 
Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε, where the 
emphatic words are placed last; and above i. 10, where a like prominence 
is given to the name. 

Kal τοὺς προφήτας] They are the same from first to last. They killed 
the Lord Jesus in the end, as they had killed the prophets before Him, in 
whose case at least they could not plead the excuse of ignorance 
(Matt. xxiii. 29 sq.). Thus the parable of the Unjust Husbandmen 
applies to them. 

Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 15) accuses Marcion of inserting ἰδίους in the 
text before προφήτας (‘ swos adjectio haeretici’) with the intent to show that 
the prophets belonged not to the Church of Christ, but to the Jews. 
Tertullian however is so reckless in his charges against Marcion, that 
no stress can be laid upon this as a fact. The authority of the MSS. is 
certainly in favour of omitting ἰδίους, and there is a tendency to the 
_ insertion of the word elsewhere, e.g. iv. 11, Ephes. iv. 28 (where possibly 
it may stand), v. 24. This is a transcriber’s trick for the sake of pre- 
cision, and is quite innocent of any doctrinal bias. See the note on 
_ Col. iii. 18 τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, where again ἰδίοις is an unwarrantable insertion. 
ἐκδιωξάντων] A.V. ‘persecuted.’ More than this, ‘ersecuted and 
_ drove us out, stated generally, but doubtless with a special reference 
(which would be caught up by his readers) to his expulsion from Thessa- 
lonica (Acts xvii. 5—10). 


L. EP. 3 











34 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ΠῚ. 15. 


πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις évavriwv] This expression at once recals the 
language of Tacitus (His¢. v. 5) speaking of the Jews ‘adversus omnes 
alios hostile odium.’ Nor is this a mere resemblance of expression, 
though the two phrases are not coextensive. The spirit in which Tacitus 
so describes them may be inferred from the account given by Juvenal 
(xiv. 103, 104) of this unfriendly race, which denied even the commonest 
offices of hospitality to strangers—‘non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra 
tenenti, Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos. Comp. Philostr.. 
Vit. Apoll. Tyan. v. 33 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι βίον ἄμικτον εὑρόντες, καὶ ois μήτε κοινὴ 
πρὸς ἀνθρώπους τράπεζα μήτε σπονδαὶ μήτε εὐχαὶ μήτε θυσίαι πλέον ἀφεστᾶσιν 
ἡμῶν ἣ Σοῦσα x.r.d., Diod. Sic. xxxiv. I τοὺς Ἰουδαίους μόνους ἁπάντων ἐθνῶν 
ἀκοινωνήτους εἶναι τῆς πρὸς ἄλλο ἔθνος ἐπιμιξίας καὶ πολεμίους ὑπολαμβάνειν 
πάντας κιτιλ. St Paul on the other hand views their hostility to mankind 
as exemplified in their opposing the extension of the Gospel to the 
Gentiles (see next note). But both the one and the other characteristic— 
their exclusiveness in the matter of spiritual privileges, and their selfish 
narrowness in the common things of life—were due to the same unloving 
and illiberal spirit, all the more odious in that it was a caricature and an 
unnatural outgrowth of the isolated purity of their old monotheism. 

16. κωλνόντων] ‘22 that they hinder us.’ This clause is most naturally 
taken as explanatory of πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων, otherwise it would have 
been τῶν κωλυόντων Or καὶ κωλυόντων. This was the ground of the 
opposition of the Jews to St Paul as recorded in the Acts, elsewhere 
(xiii. 48 sq.), and at Thessalonica itself (xvii. 5 ζηλώσαντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι 
K.T.A.)» 

᾿ λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν] is capable of two interpretations, either (1) ‘to 
speak to them, to the end that they may be saved’ or (2) ‘to tell them to 
be saved,’ as if the infinitive had been used. The latter, though not a 
classical usage of ἵνα, is quite legitimate in New Testament (see Winer, 
§ xliv. p. 420 sq.), and in modern Greek its equivalent νὰ has displaced 
the infinitive in common use. Here however the former sense seems 
required to give force to the passage, and is borne out by corresponding 
passages in St Paul: e.g. 1 Cor. x. 33, where the same phrase occurs ; 
see also the note on ν. 4. 

ἀναπληρῶσαι} Not exactly equivalent to the simple verb πληρῶσαι, ‘to 
fill the measure’ ; but ‘to fill τῴ the measure’ of their sin, implying that 
the process of filling had already begun, drop after drop being poured 
into the cup of their guilt. Compare the Lxx. of Gen. xv. 16, where the 
word is a translation of nby. On the other hand in Gal. vi. 2 ἀναπλη- 
ρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ the idea of completeness is uppermost ; see 
the note there. 

εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι] ‘so as to fulfil’? The preposition εἰς with the 
infinitive in the New Testament generally, it is true, signifies the purpose 
‘with a view to,’ ‘in order to,’ but it sometimes expresses nothing more 
than the consequence ‘so that.’ Comp. e.g. 2 Cor. viii. 6 eis τὸ mapaxa- 











II. 161 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 35 


λέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον x.r.d., and perhaps Hebr. xi. 3. We cannot therefore 
insist in this passage on the idea of a conscious intention on the part of 
the Jews, or even of a divine purpose overruling their conduct, though 
the latter is not an improbable interpretation either grammatically or 
theologically. 

πάντοτε] “αὐ all times;’ by the persecution of the prophets before 
Christ, by the persecution of Christ Himself, and by the persecution of 
His disciples after Him. Πάντοτε is condemned by the Atticists; see 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 103, Moeris, p. 319. 

ἔφθασεν δὲ] This verb occurs seven times in the New Testament. In 
five of these the construction is φθάνειν ἐπὶ or eis, the exceptional cases 
being 1 Thess. iv. 15, 2 Cor. x. 14, and in all seven passages but 1 Thess, 
iv. 15 φθάνειν means ‘to arrive.’ The original notion of anticipation, or 
surprise is sometinies weak in the New Testament, as 2 Cor. x. 14, 
Phil. iii. 16; but here it may well bear that meaning, compare also 
Matt. xii. 28. 

It is doubtful whether ἔφθακεν or ἔφθασεν is the right reading. The 
perfect is easier of explanation, denoting a judgment which had already 
arrived but was not yet completed. The aorist however has somewhat 
the stronger support from the manuscripts, and is usually explained 
either (1) as a prophetic anticipation, but there is no prophetic colouring 
in the diction here ; or (2) as a reference to the foreordained counsels of 
God, but there is nothing in the expression itself, or the context, to lead 
to such an interpretation. If therefore we prefer this reading, it is better 
to adopt (3) the simple explanation that it denotes merely past time, 
without any thought of the continuance of the action itself or of its effects 
(the notion conveyed by the perfect), such continuance however not being 
negatived, and in fact it must from the circumstances of the case be 
understood. There may however be a special reference to the act of 
infatuation on the part of the Jews evidenced by slaying the Saviour. 
Their conduct towards our Lord may well be regarded by the Apostle as 
the beginning of the end. In the Zest. xiz Patr. Levi 6 the passage is 
quoted with the reading ἔφθασεν. 

ἡ ὀργὴ] See the note on i. 10, and compare ἡ ἡμέρα (om. ἐκείνη), 
1 Thess. v. 4, Heb. x. 25. 

εἰς τέλος] ‘fo the uttermost’? This meaning of εἰς τέλος is indeed 
unsupported elsewhere in the New Testament, where apparently it always 
signifies ‘to the last, ‘for ever,’ as John xiii. 1; comp. Ignat. Zphes. 14 
ἐάν τις εὑρεθῇ εἰς τέλος. It is however frequent in the Lxx. (e.g. Ps. xii. 1), 
and elsewhere, e.g. Ep. Barnabas, ὃ 19. 11 εἰς τέλος μισήσεις τὸν πονηρόν, 
Hermas 7s. 3. 10. 5 ἱλαρὰ εἰς τέλος. The sense ‘at last’ would be appro- 
priate here, ‘at last they were overtaken in the midst of their wicked- 
ness;’ but the only biblical passage quoted in support of this meaning 
(Luke xviii. 5) is capable of another interpretation. For the sentiment 
comp. Wisdom xix. I τοῖς δὲ ἀσέβεσι μέχρι τέλους ἀνελεήμων θυμὸς ἐπέστη. 

What was this divine judgment, which the Apostle speaks of as 

3235. 2 


36 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {II. 16. 


having already fallen on the Jews? We might be tempted to think that 
he foretold the final overthrow of the nation and the destruction of their 
city and temple. But this is an inadequate explanation. There is no 
sign of any kind that the inspiration of the Apostle here assumes a 
directly predictive character. There is no prophetic colouring in the 
passage. On the contrary, he spoke of some stern reality which was 
already working before his eyes: and even to one not gifted with an 
Apostle’s prophetic insight, yet endowed with average moral sensibilities, 
there was enough in the actual condition of this nation to lead him to 
regard them as suffering under a blow of divine retribution. There were 
the actual physical evils, under which they were groaning. There was 
the disorganization of their internal polity. There was their utter dis- 
regard of all moral distinctions, to which their own historian Josephus 
draws attention. There was above all their infatuated opposition to the 
Gospel, than which no more decisive proof of judicial blindness, or it 
might be of conscious and headlong precipitation into ruin, could be 
conceived by the Christian mind. The maxim ‘Quem deus vult perdere, 
prius dementat’ is not a Christian maxim; but it has a Christian counter- 
part, in that those who ‘like not to retain God in their knowledge, God 
gives over to a reprobate mind’ (Rom. i. 28). God’s wrath then was 
no longer suspended ; it had already fallen on the once hallowed, but 
now accursed, race. We may suppose moreover that the prophecies of 
our Lord relating to the destruction of Jerusalem were floating before 
St Paul’s mind—prophecies dim and vague indeed and, we may fairly 
assume, not fully understood even by St Paul—but sufficiently portentous 
to arouse fearful anticipations. They would give new meaning and 
importance to the actual evils of which he was an eyewitness. The end 
was not yet, but the beginning of the end was come. For a similar 
anticipation compare i. Io. 


iv. Anxiety of St Paul on their behalf, until reassured by the 
report brought by Timothy (ii. 17—iii. 10). 


17. ἡμεῖς δὲ] ‘But we.’ To return from this digression about the 
Jews (vv. 15, 16) and speak once more of ourselves. 

ἀπορφανισθέντες] ‘ bereft of and separated from,’ as children deprived 
of their parents. 

The word ὀρφανὸς (Latin ‘orbus’), though most frequently applied to 
the bereavement of a child who has lost a parent, is in itself quite general 
in meaning, denoting the loss of any friend or relation and including 
the bereavement of a parent. Probably however here the best and most 
touching sense is to render as above, carrying out the Apostle’s metaphor 
of νήπιοι ii. 7 and to translate, ‘we are like children who have lost their 
parents.’ See Esch. Choeph. 249, where the word occurs in this sense. 
In any case, the aspect of the word here would not be perceptibly in- 
fluenced by ἀδελφοί; see above ver. 9. 





oro 


If. 18] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 37 


πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας] ‘for the measure of a season, i.e. for a brief period. 
This is a stronger expression than πρὸς καιρὸν and πρὸς ὥραν, both of 
which phrases are found in St Paul (1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5, 
Phil. 15). 

On καιρὸς see the note on v. 1. The word dpa is connected with ὅρος, 
denoting properly ‘a limited time.’ The signification of an hour is of 
comparatively late introduction, dating from about the second century B.c. 

προσώπῳ ov καρδίᾳ] is parenthetical, and qualifies the expression 
ἀπορφανισθέντες, ‘though in one sense we are always with you’: comp. 1 
Cor. v. 3 ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι, παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, and Col. ii. 1, 2, 5 (with 
the notes). 

περισσοτέρως] here, as always in St Paul, is strictly comparative, 
referring to ἀπορφανισθέντες. ‘Separation, so far from weakening our desire 
to see you, has only increased it. When we could see you day by day, our 
yearning was not sointense.’ On the word itself see Gal.i. 14 (with the note). 

18. διότι] ‘decause. This is the best supported reading and is 
generally translated ‘therefore,’ as if διό : comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6, where also it 
is the best supported reading. But it is questionable whether it can bear 
this meaning, though Fritzsche on Rom. i. 18 (1. p. 57) adopts this view, 
translating it ‘hanc ob rem.’ Elsewhere in the New Testament, as always 
in classical writers, the word has one of three meanings, either (1) ‘ox 
what account; (2) ‘because, or (3) ‘that, but never ‘therefore.’ This 
distinction from διὸ is due to the indefiniteness of ὅτι. If διότι then be 
the right reading, it must be taken ‘ because, 1.6. ‘in proof whereof,’ ‘that.’ 
Διότι in the sense of ὅτι ‘that’ occurs in several spurious documents in 
Demosthenes, e.g. de Corona pp. 279, 284, 290. 

ἐγὼ μὲν ἸΤαῦλος κιτ.λ.} ‘I Paul at least desired it more than once, 
whatever may be the feelings of Silvanus and Timotheus.’ The 
suppressed clause with dé might have run οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι περὶ ἑαυτῶν λεγέ- 
τωσαν. For this suppression of the second member compare Col. ii. 23 
ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας (with the note). Thus ἐγὼ is not 
coextensive with ἡμεῖς. The genius of the language will not admit it. 

The words ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος then do not simply give the subject of 
ἠθελήσαμεν, for then μὲν would be robbed of any meaning, but they explain 
and qualify the general assertion ‘we desired ;’ and the following words 
καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς must be taken, not with ἠθελήσαμεν, but with ἐγὼ μὲν 
Παῦλος, for the order shows that the μὲν clause includes them. Accordingly 
the comma in the E. V. after ‘ Paul’ should be omitted. On the whole 
question of St Paul’s supposed use of the epistolary plural, see above, ii. 4. 

καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ Sis] Not necessarily ‘twice only,’ but ‘more than once,’ 
‘again and again” Comp. Phil. iv. 16 (with the note). 

ἐνέκοψεν] On this word see the note on Gal. v. 7. The same metaphor 
is employed below, iii. 11 κατευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν. 

ὁ Σατανᾶς] with a genitive Σατανᾶ, is the form always found in the New 
Testament, except possibly 2 Cor. xii. 7, where some manuscripts read 
2aray indeclinable. Theophil. ad Avt. ii. 28, 29 has Saray and Σατανᾶς in 


38 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {II. 18. 


two successive chapters. Saray is the pure Hebrew form DY, Σατανᾶς seems 
to be derived from the Aramaic “3%. The shorter form is found in 
1 Kings xi. 14, the longer form in Ecclus. xxi. 27, 

It is idle to enquire what was the nature of this hindrance. The most 
likely conjecture refers it to the opposition of the Jews. Or it might have 
been some illness, with which the Apostle was afflicted. Or again many 
other solutions are conceivable. The ‘temptation in the flesh’ alluded to 
elsewhere (Gal. iv. 14) refers to the same period in St Paul’s life. Weare 
tempted at once to connect it with the thorn in the flesh which St Paul 
represents as ‘an angel of Satan given to buffet him’ (2 Cor. xii. 7). But 
Satan works in many ways; and even if we were sure that the hindrance 
was the same in both cases, we are still far from a result, for the ‘thorn in 
the flesh’ is an expression which itself admits of more than one explanation. 
See the note on St Paul’s infirmity in the flesh (Galatians, p. 186 sq.). 

19. χαρὰ, στέφανος] He uses similar language in addressing the 
other great Church of Macedonia, which he regarded with even greater 
affection, Phil. iv. 1 ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόθητοι, χαρὰ καὶ στέφανός 
pov. For the ideas conveyed by the word στέφανος and its distinction 
from διάδημα, see the note on the passage, and add to the references 
there given 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8, Ep. Vienn. et Lugd. ἐχρῆν γοῦν τοὺς γενναίους 
ἀθλητὰς... ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν μέγαν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας στέφανον, and a little below of 
Blandina μέγαν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἀθλητὴν Χριστὸν ἐνδεδυμένη.. «καὶ dC ἀγῶνος 
τὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας στεψαμένη στέφανον (Routh 10. S. I. pp. 309, 311). 

ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ κιτιλ. St Paul is not speaking here of the prospect οὗ a 
réward or of any selfish rejoicing or triumph. The Thessalonians are 
his hope and joy, and the crown of his glory, as a child is of its parent. 
So Chrysostom: ris οὐκ ἄν ἐπὶ τοσαύτῃ πολυπαιδίᾳ καὶ εὐπαιδίᾳ ἀγάλλοιτο; 

στέφανος καυχήσεως]7 A phrase borrowed from the Lxx. Ezek. xvi. 12, 
xxiii. 42, Prov. xvi. 31. 

καυχήσεως] ‘ wherein we boast, the subject of our boasting.’ 

ἢ οὐχὶ Kal ὑμεῖς) The E. V. following the vulg. (‘nonne’) takes ἢ as 
an interrogative particle ; and this is so far unobjectionable that it fulfils 
the conditions of ἢ interrogative in that it is preceded by another 
interrogative. But this interpretation makes no account of the καὶ. 
Hence it is better to consider ἢ here as a disjunctive particle, ‘or (if 
others are our joy, etc.), are not ye a/so, in other words, ‘if you are not 
our joy, no one else is.’ So St Chrysostom ov γὰρ εἶπεν "ὑμεῖς ἁπλῶς 
ἀλλὰ ‘kai ὑμεῖς, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων. 

ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Κυρίου «.r.d.] refers to the whole of the preceding 
sentence ris yap...vpeis, i.e. ‘in the presence of the Lord, when all things 
will appear in their true light.’ 

ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ] ‘at His advent. For παρουσία see the note on 2 
Thess. ii. 8. 

20. ὑμεῖς γὰρ] ‘ Yes truly, ye are’ For this use of yap introducing 
areply, comp. Acts xvi. 37 οὐ γὰρ ἀλλὰ «.r.d., I Cor. ix. 10, and see Winer, 
§ liii. p. 559. 





CHAPTER IIL. 


1. Avds]‘On which account, i.e. ‘on account of this hai fervent desire, 
which I was unable to gratify.’ 
μηκέτι)͵ The frequent use of μὴ with a participle in later authors, 
where in writers of the classical epoch we should have found ov, is too 
marked to escape notice. We are not however justified on this account 
in saying that later writers are incorrect in their use of the negatives. 
The distinction of ov as the absolute and μὴ as the relative, dependent or 
conditional negative, is always observed, at least in the New Testament. 
Μὴ for instance is never used in a direct, absolute statement. But in 
participial clauses it is most frequently possible to state the matter in 
either way, either absolutely, or in its relation to the action described by 
the finite verb of the sentence. Here, for instance, οὐκέτι στέγοντες might 
easily stand, in which case the sense would be, ‘we could no longer 
contain and we thought fit ;’ whereas μηκέτι στέγοντες is ‘as being able no 
longer to contain, we thought fit.’ This phenomenon of the displacement 
of ov by μὴ in the later Greek may perhaps be explained by the general 
tendency in the decline of a language to greater refining and subtlety in 
contrast to the simplicity of the earlier syntax. In the earlier stages of a 
language, and in languages whose growth has been for some cause 
arrested (the Hebrew, for instance, and in a still greater degree the Chinese), 
as in the talk of children, the sentences consist of a number of absolute, 
finite statements strung together, with little or no attempt to express their 
relation or interdependence by any grammatical expedient. As the 
syntax is developed, it is enabled to express these relations with more or 
less nicety. In the case before us the earliest form of the sentence would 
be οὐκέτι ἐστέγομεν καὶ ηὐδοκήσαμεν, which simply states the two facts side 
by side without expressing any connexion: the next advance is οὐκέτι 
στέγοντες ηὐδοκήσαμεν, which synchronizes the two facts, yet does not 
state any other relation but that of time, though it may suggest such. At 
this stage the language had arrived in the classical period. The.third 
and later form is μηκέτι στέγοντες ηὐδοκήσαμεν, which not only synchronizes 
the two facts, but also expresses that ‘the inability to contain’ was a 
motive which determined the ‘determination.’ See Winer § lv. p. 593 sq., 
Madvig Syntax § 207. 


40 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [III. 1. 


στέγοντες] The verb στέγειν ‘to cover,’ ‘to shelter,’ means primarily 
either ‘to keep in’ or ‘to keep out’ (compare the expression ‘to be water- 
tight, air-tight’); and, like the Latin ‘defendere,’ takes an accusative 
either (1) of the thing protected or (2) of the thing against which the 
shelter is extended. It thus gets two different meanings, (a) ‘to protect, 
contain,’ (4) ‘to ward off, keep out.’ Thus a tower is said στέγειν πόλιν 
(Soph. Gd. Col. 15), and also στέγειν δόρυ (Asch. Sept. c. Theb. 216). In 
the same way the English word ‘leak’ has two senses ‘to let water in,’ 
and ‘to let water out.’ To one or other of these leading ideas all the 
subordinate uses of στέγειν, either with the case or absolutely (i.e. with the 
accusative suppressed as here), may be referred. In the passage before us 
στέγοντες can be taken with almost equal propriety in either of these two 
meanings: (1) ‘no longer able to keep our feelings tight in’: comp. 
Plato Gorg. p. 493 C, where the soul is compared to a sieve unable to 
hold anything in by reason of its fickle and forgetful nature (οὐ δυναμένην 
στέγειν δι’ ἀπιστίαν τε καὶ λήθην, where see Thompson’s note, and comp. 
Ecclus. viii. 17 of the fool οὐ δυνήσεται λόγον στέξαι) ; or (2) ‘no longer able 
to bear up against the pressure of this desire.’ On the whole however the 
usage of the word in later Greek seems decidedly in favour of the sense 
‘to keep off,’ ‘to bear up under’ and so ‘to endure,’ see Philo zz Flacc. §9 
Ρ. 526 (ed. Mangey) μηκέτι στέγειν δυνάμενοι τὰς ἐνδείας : and this agrees 
with St Paul’s use elsewhere, 1 Cor. ix. 12 πάντα στέγομεν, which must, and 
1 Cor. xiii. 7 πάντα στέγει which may bear this meaning, 

εὐδοκήσαμεν] ‘we,’ referring to St Paul and Silvanus: see the note 
above (ii. 4) on St Paul’s use of the plural in his letters. 

καταλειφθῆναι} “20 be left behind; more definite than λειφθῆναι. In 
order to give its proper significance to the compound verb, we must 
suppose that Timotheus had joined St Paul at Athens, though in the Acts 
(xvii. 15) we only read of St Paul’s expecting him there, not of his actual 
arrival; and had been despatched thence to Thessalonica. If Timotheus 
had been sent to Thessalonica from Berea, without seeing the Apostle at 
all at Athens, the proper word would have been μένειν or at most λειφ- 
θῆναι. On the probable movements of the party see the next note. 

2. ἐπέμψαμεν] ‘we,’ 1.6. again Paul and Silvanus. So Bengel rightly. 
In order to reconcile the expressions here with the account in the Acts, 
the occurrences may be supposed to have happened in the following order, 
St Paul is waiting at Athens for Silvanus and Timotheus, having left 
them at Berea, and charged them by message to join him without delay 
(Acts xvii. 15, 16). They join him at Athens. Paul and Silvanus 
despatch Timotheus to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 2). Silvanus is 
despatched on some other mission to Macedonia, perhaps to Berea. 
St Paul goes forward to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1). After he had been in 
Corinth some time, Silvanus and Timotheus return to him from Mace- 
donia (Acts xviii. 4, 5). Thereupon the Apostle writes from Corinth to 
the Thessalonians, in the joint names of himself, Silvanus and Timotheus. 





Ill. 3.}’ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 41 


Though this mission of Timotheus was the joint action of Paul and 
Silvanus, yet St Paul, as might be expected, was the prime mover and 
most urgent promoter of it. See ver. 5 κἀγὼ and the note there. 

τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν] The same phrase is also used of Timotheus, as dis- 
tinguished from ἀπόστολος, in the salutations of 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 
and Philemon, and by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 23). 
He was not therefore, it would seem, an ‘Apostle,’ a term which, while 
applying to others besides St Paul and the Twelve (Acts xiv. 14), would 
appear to be restricted to those who had received their commission 
directly from the Lord. See the note ‘on the name and office of an 
Apostle’ in Galatians, p. 92 sq. 

συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘a fellow worker with God, as the usage of συνεργὸς 
with the genitive elsewhere requires, e.g. Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil. ii. 25, 
iv. 3, Philem. 1, 24. “The same expression occurs in 1 Cor. iii. 9 Θεοῦ γάρ 
ἐσμεν συνεργοί. It was so startling however that the copyists here have 
tampered with the text in order to get rid of it, some (as B) omitting τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, others (as δὰ) substituting διάκονον for συνεργόν. 

παρακαλέσαι] Not to ‘comfort, as E.V.; but rather to ‘exhort’ or 
‘encourage,’ for the opposition to σαίνεσθαι (ver. 3) requires this meaning. 
‘We sent Timotheus,’ the Apostle explains, ‘not only to confirm you in 
your present conduct (στηρίξαι), but also to exhort you to fresh efforts 
(παρακαλέσαι). See the note on ii. 11. 

ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν) ‘for the establishment, furtherance of your 
faith” Here, as in many other passages, the less usual ὑπὲρ has been 
altered by the scribes into wepi. Though ὑπὲρ in the later stages of the 
language approaches nearer to περὶ in meaning, it does not (at least in 
the Greek of the New Testament) entirely lose its proper sense of 
‘interest in.’ See the note on Gal. i. 4 περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. 

3. τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι)] The reading of this passage presents some 
difficulty. Τοῦ, τῷ and τὸ are all possible constructions with the infinitive 
—the genitive expressing the motive, ‘with a view to, the dative ex- 
pressing the instrument, ‘by means of,’ the accusative expressing the end 
or result, ‘that so as a consequence.’ This distinction is in accordance 
with the well-known characteristics of the three cases in Greek, motion 
from, rest at, motion towards. In the present instance the reading of the 
Textus Receptus τῷ, rejected on the ground of Ms. authority, is moreover 
incapable of any satisfactory grammatical explanation. If it could stand 
at all, it must mean ‘in no one’s being moved,’ a sort of dative of the 
manner or means of accomplishment. On the other hand, both τὸ and 
τοῦ give good sense, the difference consisting in this that the genitive 
views the result definitely as the motive of the action, which the former 
does not. Manuscript evidence however is decisive in favour of τὸ μηδένα 
σαίνεσθαι. The expression is sometimes explained as in apposition with 
τὸ στηρίξαι κιτιλ. and so governed by eis. But it is more correctly taken as 
dependent on the clause εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι.. ὑμῶν, or perhaps better the whole 


42 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[III. 3. 


sentence from ἐπέμψαμεν... ὑμῶν describing the result or consequence. 
Translate ‘to the end that, and compare iv. 6 τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν with the 
note. 

σαίνεσθαι] ‘be led astray, allured from the right path’ Zaivew (derived 
from σάω, ceiw, see Blomfield on Set. c. Theb. 378 and Donalds. Craty/. 
§ 473) is originally ‘to shake or wag,’ e.g. Hes. Theog. 771 οὐρῇ τε καὶ 
ovacw of a dog: hence it is used especially of a dog wagging the tail 
(Hom. Od. xvi. 4, 6, το, comp. the words caivovpos, wawovpis in Hesych.), 
and frequently even with an accusative of a person ‘to wag the tail at, to 
fawn upon.’ Hence caivew gets to signify ‘to fondle, caress, flatter, coax, 
wheedle, allure, fascinate, deceive’ (Aisch. Choeph. 186, Pind. Olymp. iv. 7), 
and even ‘to avoid’ (A2sch. Sept. c. Theb. 378, 701). This seems to be 
the meaning here ; ‘that no one, in the midst of these troubles, desert the 
rough path of the truth, drawn aside and allured by the enticing prospect 
of an easier life.’ This is the temptation alluded to in ver. 5. Observe 
also it is ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις, not ὑπὸ τῶν θλίψεων τούτων. Comp. 
Mart. Ign. 9 (p. 356, ed. Dressel) πολὺς ἦν ὑποσαίνων καὶ καταψῶν said of 
Trajan. 

On the other hand it is taken by some in the sense ‘to be disturbed, 
disquieted’ (e.g. Chrysostom and Theophylact θορυβεῖσθαι), with a refer- 
ence to its root σείειν ; but the history of the word, showing that its 
derivation was entirely lost sight of in its later usage, is quite averse to 
this interpretation, nor can any passages be produced where it bears this 
meaning. Those commonly adduced may be otherwise interpreted, e.g. 
Diog. Laert. VIII. 41 cawépevor τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐδάκρυον καὶ ᾧμωζον, cited 
by Ellicott from Elsner, where the sense of ‘under the influence of’ is 
adequate. Again in Eur. Rhes. 55 the idea is rather of encouragement, 
or at least attraction, than of disquietude, and so Soph. Am#fig. 1214. 
Lachmann reads ἀσαίνεσθαι in the sense of ‘to be disgusted,’ a verb 
connected with ἀσάομαι from don fastidium (see Steph. 7hes. s. v. ἀσάομαι). 
Hesychius explains ἀσαίνων as ὑβρίζων, λυπῶν, and doaiver Oa: as λυπεῖσθαι. 
See also Cobet Pref. ad Cod. Vat. p. xc. Severianus in Cramer’s 
Catena explains as τὸ μηδένα ξενίζεσθαι. Theodore of Mopsuestia is here 
translated ‘cedere.’ 

ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις] ‘in the midst of these afflictions which befal us 
and you alike, 

αὐτοὶ] i.e. ‘without my repeating it.’ 

els τοῦτο] i.e. τὸ θλίβεσθαι. 

κείμεθα] ‘we are appointed, ογααϊ,εα," see the note on Phil. i. 16 
κεῖμαι. 

4. πρὸς ὑμᾶς] The use of πρὸς with the accusative is not uncommon 
after verbs implying rest ; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 5, Gal. i. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
Mark vi. 3. 

ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι] ‘we are about to, or perhaps better, for the 
οἴδατε seems to require it, ‘are destined to suffer persecution.’ Μέλλομεν 








——— ἃ 





“ 


ΠῚ. 51] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 43 


is used rather than ἐμέλλομεν; because the Apostle’s words are given in 
the oratio recta, for which we are prepared by ὅτι. See eg. Acts xv. 5 
ἐξανέστησάν τινες λέγοντες ὅτι δεῖ περιτέμνειν and other examples given by 
Winer (8 xli. p. 376). 

For the whole passage compare Acts xiv. 22, where it is said of Paul 


and Barnabas ἐπιστηρίζοντες ras ψυχὰς τῶν μαθητῶν, παρακαλοῦντες ἐμμένειν 


τῇ πίστει καὶ ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. Observe here, beyond the general resemblance to the passage in 
the Thessalonian Epistle, the occurrence of the same words (ἐπι)στηρίζειν, 
παρακαλεῖν, πίστις, θλίψεις, and of ὅτε introducing the direct narrative in 
the same way as here. The completeness of the parallel is an undesigned 
coincidence of no ordinary importance. And it does not stand alone. 
It recurs, with more or less marked emphasis, wherever St Luke reports 
St Paul’s words, showing that he repeats them with the accuracy of an 
ear-witness. In this case, as the Apostle tells us in this verse, the 
language employed had been often used to the Thessalonian converts ; 
St Paul had dwelt on this topic (ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἦμεν προελέγομεν). 

μέλλομεν] i.e. all Christians, as the parallel passage just cited shows. 

καθὼς Kal ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε] ‘as indeed it came to pass and ye have 
fearnt from bitter experience.’ It is better not to take καὶ..«καὶ as cor- 
relative ‘both...and,’ because that would imply a greater distinction 
between ἐγένετο and οἴδατε than the sense of the passage warrants. 

5. ϑιὰ rodro]i.e. ‘ because these persecutions had already befallen you.’ 

κἀγὼ] ‘Zon my part, seeing what you were suffering. Compare the 
note on ii. 13, where καὶ ἡμεῖς is used in the same way. Κἀγὼ here is not 
intended to limit the plural of ver. 1 μηκέτι στέγοντες to St Paul himself, 
but simply to give greater prominence to the part which he took in 
despatching Timothy, though Silvanus acquiesced in and sympathized 
with the project. Exactly in the same spirit he adds ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος καὶ 
ἅπαξ καὶ dis after the plural ἠθελήσαμεν in ii. 18. 

μήπως erel(pacev...cal...yévytrat] For the change of moods compare 
Gal. ii. 2 μήπως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον, where τρέχω is the subjunctive, 
see the note there. The indicative ἐπείρασεν describes a past action, now 
inevitable, which St Paul could not have affected in any way; γένηται a 
possible future consequence of that past action, hence is strictly a 
hypothetical mood. It is unnecessarily harsh to assign different meanings 
to μήπως in the two clauses, as though it meant ‘an forte,’ ‘to see 
whether’ when applied to ἐπείρασεν, and ‘ne forte’ ‘to prevent by any 
chance’ as applied to γένηται (Fritzsche Ofusc. p. 176). Comp. Eur. 
Phen. 92 ἐπίσχες ὡς ἂν προὐξερευνήσω στίβον, Μή τις πολιτῶν ἐν τρίβῳ 
φαντάζεται, Κἀμοὶ μὲν ἔλθῃ φαῦλος, ὡς δούλῳ, ψόγος, Σοὶ δ᾽ ὡς ἀνάσσῃ. Here 
too the first clause represents something out of the control of the speaker, 


_ the second a contingency still future, which could be guarded against. 


See too Arist. Eccles. 495 and Winer ὃ lvi. p. 633 sq. 
εἰς κενὸν γένηται] The expression εἰς κενὸν is not unfrequent in St Paul, 


44 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IIT. 5. 


occurring twice with his favourite metaphor of τρέχειν (Gal. ii. 2, Phil. 
ii. 16), and three times elsewhere (2 Cor. vi. 1 εἰς κενὸν δέξασθαι, Phil. ii. 16 
eis κενὸν ἐκοπίασα and in the present passage). It is found in the LxXx. 
(Is. xxix. 8, xlv. 18, Jer. vi. 29, xviii. 15, Mic. i. 14, Hab. ii. 3), especially 
of fruitless labour (Job xxxix. 16, Is. lxv. 23, Jer. li. 53), and occurs in 
post-classical Greek, e.g. Lucian, Epigr. 32 εἰς κενὸν ἐξέχεας, Heliodor. 
x. 30. For a similar weakening of eis in adverbial expressions compare 
eis κοινόν, εἰς καιρόν (Bernhardy Syzz. V. 2, p. 221). 

6. ἄρτι δὲ ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου] “Apr: denotes simultaneity and may apply 
either (1) to the actual moment of reference, ‘at this very time,’ 1.6. ‘just 
now’ or ‘just then’ (as the case may be), e.g. Matth. ix. 18; 1 Cor. xiii. 
12; or (2) to a preceding moment, ‘a short time ago’ or ‘a short time 
before ;’ but never (3) to a future time, ‘a short time hence or after.’ See 
Lobeck PAryn. p. 18. This limitation pointed out by Phrynichus is 
strictly observed in the New Testament. Ellicott (ad Joc.) appears to 
confine the first of the two meanings given above to later Greek; but the 
word is not unfrequently used of present time by classical writers, e.g. 
Pind. Pyth. iv. 158 σὸν δ᾽ ἄνθος ἥβας ἄρτι κυμαίνει, Esch. Sept. c. Theb. 
534 στείχει δ᾽ ἴουλος ἄρτι διὰ παρηίδων, Soph. 47. 9, occasionally with the 
addition of νῦν, e.g. Arist. Lys. 1008 ἄρτι νυνὶ μανθάνω. 

It is more natural here to take ἄρτι with ἐλθόντος, which immediately 
follows, than with παρεκλήθημεν, which is far distant and has moreover an 
‘adjunct’ (Ellicott) of its own in διὰ τοῦτο. 

It seems to be generally assumed that ἄρτι ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου must 
mean ‘ Timotheus having arrived not long ago,’ i.e. ‘not long before the 
present time, when I am writing this letter,’ thus furnishing a chrono- 
logical datum. But may not it signify ‘Timotheus having just arrived’ 
(comp. μεταξύ, ἅμα etc.), 1.6. ‘as soon as Timotheus arrived we were 
comforted’; for apr: need not be ‘a short time ago’ referring to the actual 
present, but may also be ‘a short time defore’ in relation to some other 
point of time (here that of παρεκλήθημεν) to which everything is referred. 
Cf. Philo, Vit. Moys. i. § 9 (1. p. 88, ed. Mangey) ἄρτι πρῶτον ἀφιγμένος ἂν 
ἐσπούδασεν (cited by Lobeck, 1. c.) and see also Rost and Palm, 5. v. 
And this seems to me the more natural interpretation, as the prominent 
time of reference in the passage is that of παρεκλήθημεν. Perhaps a 
feeling of this awkwardness has led to the substitution of παρακεκλήμεθα 
in A and one or two cursives. 

εὐαγγελισαμένου͵Ἵ This word is not elsewhere used by St Paul in any 
other sense than that of preaching the Gospel; and rarely by any other 
New Testament writer (Luke i. 19 is an exception). Chrysostom remarks 
on this passage οὐκ εἶπεν ἀπαγγείλαντος, ἀλλ᾽ εὐαγγελισαμένου" τοσοῦτον 
ἀγαθὸν ἡγεῖτο τὴν ἐκείνων βεβαίωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην. 

τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην] i.e. yours was not a speculative, intellectual 
faith only, but a working principle of love: comp. Gal. v. 6 πίστις δὲ 


ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. 


IIL. 8.] ~ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 45 


ἀγαθὴν] ‘that ye retain a kindly remembrance of us always; for this 
seems to be the force of ἀγαθήν: comp. 1 Pet. ii. 18, Tit. ii. 5, and Rom. 
v. 7, where the point of the sentence seems to depend on this sense of 
ἀγαθός (see the note on this last passage). 

ἐπιποθοῦντες] Stronger than ποθοῦντες : for though the preposition is 
not strictly intensive, but points out the direction (e.g. Ps. xlii. 1 ἐπιποθεῖ 
ἡ ἔλαφος ἐπὶ ras πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων, and see Fritzsche on Rom. i. 11), still 
the very expression of this direction ‘yearning after’ has the same effect 
as an intensive preposition. The simple words πόθος, ποθεῖν etc. do not 
occur in the New Testament, see the notes on Phil. i. 8, ii. 26. 

7. ϑιὰ τοῦτο] i.e. ‘on account of this good news.’ 

ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει] The same metaphor underlies both of these words; 
ἀνάγκη (a word akin to ἄγχω, ‘angor,’ ‘anxious,’ ‘ Angst,’ etc.) ‘the choking, 
pressing care’ and θλίψις ‘the crushing trouble.’ But ἀνάγκη is especially 
applied to physical privations, while θλίψις refers to persecution, and 
generally to positive sufferings inflicted from without. The inverted 

order of the words in the Textus Receptus, though insufficiently sup- 

ported, is in accordance with 2 Cor. vi. 4, where see Stanley’s note. On 
the difference between θλίψις and another kindred word στενοχωρία, see 
Trench WV. 7. Syn. ὃ lv. The two latter words are perhaps to be dis- 
_ tinguished as the temporary and the continuous. Θλίψις, though ex- 
_ tremely common in the LxxX., occurs very rarely in classical writers even 
of a late date, and in these few passages has its literal meaning. The 
ΟΠ same want in the religious vocabulary, which gave currency to θλίψις, 
: also created ‘tribulatio’ as its Latin equivalent. On the accent of θλέψες 
ἣν 





see Lipsius Gramm. Unters. p. 35. 

8. viv ζῶμεν] ‘For now that we have received good tidings of your 
faith and love, we live, if only you stand firm, do not fall off from your 
present conversation, as thus reported to us.’ Or the meaning of νῦν may 
be ‘now, this being so’; for in a case like this it is almost impossible to 

distinguish the temporal sense of νῦν (‘now’) from the ethical (‘under 
_ these circumstances’), The one meaning shades off imperceptibly into 
the other. 

ζῶμεν] ‘we ive once more’ i.e. in spite of this distress and affliction. 
In his outward trial ‘he died daily’ (1 Cor. xv. 31), but the faith of his 
converts inspired him with new life. Compare Horace Zf7s¢. I. το. 8 
‘vivo ac regno.’ 
ο΄ στήκετε] ‘ stand fast’: comp. Phil. i. 27, iv. 1, Gal. v. 1. Στήκειν, a later 
_ form derived from the perfect ἕστηκα, and not found earlier than the New 
Testament, is a shade stronger than ἑστάναι, involving an idea of fixity— 
_*stehen bleiben,’ not ‘stehen’ simply. This idea however is not always 

very prominent ; see Mark xi. 25 ὅταν στήκετε προσευχόμενοι, the only 
passage out of St Paul in the New Testament where the word occurs, 
“unless, as is probable, ἔστηκεν is to be read for ἕστηκεν in John viii. 44 ἐν 
τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν. The reading στήκετε (for στήκητε) is generally 


a 
2 





τυ σὰν ἂν 


46 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [III. 8. 


regarded as a solecism, but it certainly has overwhelming manuscript 
authority here and in other passages (Acts viii. 31, Luke xix. 40, 1 John 
v. 15), and ἐὰν seems certainly to be found with an indicative in later 
writers, and very probably the usage may have come in before this time : 
_ see Winer ὃ xli. p. 369, and on the similar use of ὅταν with the indicative 
§ xlii. p. 388. 

St Paul speaks with some hesitation here ‘if so be ye stand fast.’ 
Their faith was not complete (ver. Io). There was enough in the fact 
that they had been so recently converted, enough in the turn which 
their thoughts had recently taken, absorbed so entirely in the contem- 
plation of the future state, to make the Apostle alarmed lest their faith 
should prove only impulsive and transitory. Such appears to be the 
connexion of the thought with what follows. 

9. τίνα γὰρ] ‘I call it “fz, for it is our highest blessing. There is 
nothing for which we have greater reason to thank God, nothing for 
which our gratitude must give a more inadequate return.’ 

ἀνταποδοῦναι} “20 give back as an eguivalent’—not ‘to repay’ simply 
(ἀποδοῦναι) but ‘to recompense.’ Comp. Rom. xii. 17 μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ 
κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες with xii. 19 ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, where the 
words in the E. V. would be better if interchanged. The ἀντὶ is im- 
portant, for it implies the adequacy of the return. ‘What sufficient 
thanks can we repay?’ ἀνταπόδοσις is ‘retaliation, exact restitution, the 
giving back as much as you have received.’ Compare especially Arist. 
Eth. Nic. ix. 2 (1X. p. 177, ed. Bekker), where we have δοῦναι, ἀποδοῦναι, 
ἀνταποδοῦναι and Herod. i. 18 οὗτοι δὲ τὸ ὁμοῖον ἀνταποδιδόντες ἐτιμώρεον. 
Philo marks the difference between δοῦναι and ἀποδοῦναι, Vit. Moys. iii. 
§ 31, I. p. 172 (ed. Mangey). See also Luke xiv. 12, 14. 

ἡ xalpopev] As χαίρειν χαρὰν (Matt. ii. 10) is a construction equally 
admissible with χαίρειν χαρᾷ (John iii. 29), we might take ἡ as by at- 
traction for ἥν. But the other construction (with the dative) is perhaps 
better both as being simpler and more forcible, for in 7 χαίρομεν the verb 
dwells anew upon the rejoicing, whereas ἣν χαίρομεν is little more ex- 
pressive than ἣν ἔχομεν. 

δι ὑμᾶς] ‘for your sakes, expressing a less selfish interest in the object 
of their rejoicing than the more common phrase χαίρειν ἐπί tux. Comp. 
John iii. 29 χαρᾷ χαίρει διὰ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ νυμφίου. 

ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘ Our rejoicing is of that,pure and unselfish kind, 
that we dare lay it bare before the searching eye of God.’ 

10. ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ]. The expression ἐκ περισσοῦ or ἐκ περιττοῦ is 
classical and occurs several times in Plato, ‘abundantly, superflucusly,’ 
e.g. Protag. 25 B ὁ yap ὅμοιος ἡμῖν ὅμοια καὶ ποιήσει ὥστε ἐκ περιττοῦ 
ἡρήσεται. The compound ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ occurs once in the LXx., Dan. 
iii. 23 (Theodot.) 9 κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ. The fondness of 
St Paul for cumulative compounds in ὑπὲρ has often been noticed, and is 
especially remarkable in the second chronological group of his Epistles, 





Ill. 1o.}) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 47 


written in what may be regarded as the most intense period of his life. 
Ellicott on Eph. iii. 20 draws attention to the fact that of the twenty- 
eight words compounded with ὑπὲρ found in the New Testament, twenty- 
two occur in St Paul’s Epistles, and twenty of them there alone. Instances 
are ὑπεραυξάνειν (2 Thess. i. 3), ὑπερλίαν (2 Cor. xi. 5), ὑπερνικᾶν (Rom. viii. 
37), ὑπερπερισσεύειν (Rom. v. 20), ὑπερυψοῦν (Phil, ii. 9). See further on 
Rom. v. 20. 

δεόμενοι) is not to be attached to τίνα εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα (ver. 9), but 
to χαίρομεν, with which it is more easily connected in the train of thought 
which may be supposed to have passed through the Apostle’s mind. The 
mention of his joy in his converts reminds him of the prayerful desire he 
has to see them face to face and to assist them. Thus the attachment of 
δεόμενοι to χαίρομεν is.not of an argumentative kind, but is simply due to 
the association of ideas. 

els τὸ ἰδεῖν] “20 the end that’: comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2 eis τὸ μὴ ταχέως 
σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς. 

καταρτίσαι) The prominent idea in this word is ‘fitting together’; 
and its force is seen more especially in two technical uses. (1) It 
signifies ‘to reconcile factions,” so that a political umpire who adjusts 
differences between contending parties is called καταρτιστήρ ; e.g. Herod. 
v. 28 ἡ Μίλητος...νοσήσασα ἐς τὰ μάλιστα στάσι μέχρι οὗ μιν Πάριοι κατήρτι- 
gay’ τούτους γὰρ καταρτιστῆρας ἐκ πάντων Ἕλλήνων εἵλοντο οἱ Μιλήσιοι 
(comp. iv. 161). (2) It is a surgical term for ‘setting bones’: e.g. Galen 
Op. xix. p. 461 (ed. Kiihn) καταρτισμός ἐστι μεταγωγὴ ὀστοῦ ἢ ὀστῶν ἐκ τοῦ 
παρὰ φύσιν τόπου εἰς τὸν κατὰ φύσιν. In the New Testament it is used, 
(1) literally, eg. Mark i. 19 καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα : but (2) generally 
metaphorically, especially by St Paul and the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, sometimes with the meaning of ‘correct, restore,’ the idea of 
punishment being quite subordinate to that of amendment (see the note 
on Gal. vi. I καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι mpairnros), sometimes with 
the sense of ‘prepare, equip’ (Rom. ix. 22, 1 Cor. i. 10, Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, 
xiii. 21), sometimes, as here, in the sense of ἀναπληροῦν, a word which 
either simply or compounded occurs in five other passages closely 
connected with ὑστέρημα (1 Cor. xvi. 17, 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9, Phil. ii. 30, 
Col. i. 24). This sense of completion is borne out by a not uncommon 
application of καταρτίζειν to military and naval preparation, e.g. in 
Polybius, where it is used of manning a fleet (Polyb. i. 21. 4, 29. 1, 
iii. 95. 2), of supplying an army with provisions (i. 36. 5) etc. 

τὰ ὑστερήματα] ‘the short-comings, from ὑστερεῖσθαι ‘to be left behind.’ 
These ὑστερήματα were both practical and spiritual. For the wish ex- 
pressed comp. Rom. i. 11. Ὑστέρημα is opposed to περίσσευμα, 2 Cor. 
viii. 14. 


48 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, | [III. rr. 


v. The Apostle’s prayer for the Thessalonians (iii. 11—13). 


11—13. The first great division of the Epistle closes with a supplica- 
tion suggested by the main topics which have been touched upon. The 
second division likewise concludes in the same way (v. 23, 24), the 
prayer in each instance commencing with the same words Αὐτὸς δὲ 6 
Θεός. In both cases there is a reference to the Lord’s Advent, and a 
wish that the Thessalonians may appear d/ame/ess on that great day. 

II. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεός] Comp. v. 23, 2 Thess. iii. 16, 2 Cor. x. 1, which 
passages show that in αὐτὸς δὲ we are not to look for a strong or direct 
contrast to anything in the context, as for instance to δεόμενοι ; but that it 
is simply an outburst of the earnest conviction which was uppermost in 
the Apostle’s mind of the utter worthlessness of all human efforts without 
the divine aid. ‘But after all said and done, it is for God Himself to 
direct our path’ etc. ‘Opas τὴν μανίαν τῆς ἀγάπης τὴν ἀκάθεκτον τὴν dia 
τῶν ῥημάτων δεικνυμένην; Πλεονάσαι, φησί, καὶ περισσεύσαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ αὐξήσαι. 
‘Qs ἂν εἴποι τις ἐκ περιουσίας πως ἐπιθυμεῖ φιλεῖσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτῶν is the 
comment of Chrysostom. In 2 Thess. ii. 16 on the other hand the 
context supplies a direct antithesis (if such were needed) in ἡμῶν (ver. 15). 
See the note on the passage. 

πατὴρ ἡμῶν] suggesting the divine attribute of mercy (see the note on 
i. 3). 

καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς] It is worthy of notice that this ascription 
to our Lord of a divine power in ordering the doings of men occurs in 
the earliest of St Paul’s Epistles, and indeed probably the earliest of the 
New Testament writings: thus showing that there was no time, however 
early, so far as we are aware, when He was not so regarded, and 
confirming the language of the Acts of the Apostles, which represents 
the first converts appealing to Him, as.to One possessed of divine power. 
The passage in 2 Thess. ii. 16 of the same kind, is even more remarkable 
in that ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν is placed before ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ. The employment 
of the singular (κατευθύναι) here enforces this fact in a striking way; 
comp. παρακαλέσαι 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17 and see the note on the passage. 

κατευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν] ‘direct our path to you, make a straight path 
from us to you, by the levelling or removal of those obstacles with which 
Satan has obstructed it.’ The metaphor here is the same with that of 
ἐνέκοψεν ii. 18 (see note there). 

12. πλεονάσαι kal περισσεύσαι] ‘zzcrease you and make you to abound, 
where περισσεύσαι is stronger than πλεονάσαι, and the two together are 
equivalent to ‘increase you to overflowing.’ Πλεονάζειν has no reference 
to increase in outward numbers, but both it and περισσεύειν refer to 
spiritual enlargement, and τῇ ἀγάπῃ is attached to both. 

Πλεονάσαι and περισσεύσαι are naturally taken as optatives, like 
κατευθύναι. In this case they are both transitives, contrary to ordinary 


III. 13.] ' FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 49 


usage. πΠλεονάζειν however is so found in Lxx. as e.g. Numb. xxvi. 54, 
Ps, xlix. 19, Ixx. 21, 1 Macc. iv. 35 etc. though never in St Paul. 
Περισσεύειν also occurs as a transitive verb in 2 Cor. ix. 8 δυνατεῖ 6 
Θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν περισσεῦσαι, and perhaps in 2 Cor. iv. 15 τὴν εὐχαριστίαν 
περισσεύσῃ, but always with an accus. of the ¢#ing made to abound. 
Otherwise we might accentuate περισσεῦσαι, and take both words to be 
infinitives, understanding ὑμᾶς δὲ δῴη πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεῦσαι---5 1 ἢ an 
ellipse being common in prayers or wishes in classical writers, see Jelf 
§ 671 b, p. 338. But this or any similar use of the infinitive (e.g. χαίρειν 
and Phil. iii. 16 τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν) is too rare in the New Testament to 
encourage the adoption of it here. See Winer, § xliii. p. 397. 

εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας] Had it been εἰς ἀλλήλους only, it would have 
been φιλαδελφία: But,they were to extend their love to all, in St Peter’s 
words (2 Pet. i. 7) to add to ‘their brotherly kindness charity.’ Compare 
the directions on φιλαδελφία given below (iv. 9). 

ἡμεῖς els ὑμᾶς] We may supply the ellipsis by some general word as 
διετέθημεν (Theodoret) ; or more precisely from the context by πλεονάζομεν 
καὶ περισσεύομεν, for in support of the change from the transitive to the 
intransitive meaning in the same passage there is authority in 2 Cor. 
ix. 8 περισσεῦσαι χάριν followed by ἵνα περισσεύητε. But why should we 
attempt in such cases to discuss the exact expression to be supplied, 
when it is at least not improbable that the thought did not shape itself in 
words in the Apostle’s mind? 

13. els τὸ στηρίξαι] “20 the end that He may stablish, i.e. ὁ Κύριος 
above, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 17; not ‘that we may stablish.’ For the 
addition of the words ἔμπροσθεν rod Θεοῦ x.r.A. need not lead us to look 
for a different subject to στηρίξαι in a writer like St Paul, and the whole 
point of the passage requires that Christ should be regarded as the sole 
author of the spiritual advancement of the Thessalonians. 

τὰς καρδίας] ‘your hearts’ Something more than an outward sanctity 


-is required. 


ἀμέμπτους .t.d.] ‘so that they may be blameless in holiness in the sight 
of God at the coming of Christ. For this proleptic use comp. 1 Cor. i. 8 
ἀνεγκλήτους, Phil. iii. 21 σύμμορφον, and below v. 23 ὁλοτελεῖς. 

ἁγιωσύνῃ!]! The correct form, not ἁγιοσύνῃς. In such compounds the 
o is lengthened or not, according as the preceding syllable is short or 
long, thus ἀσχημοσύνη, σωφροσύνη, but ἀγαθωσύνη, μεγαλωσύνη, ἱερωσύνη. 

᾿Αγιότης is the abstract quality (Hebr. xii. 10); ἁγιωσύνη the state or 
condition, i.e. the exemplification of ἁγιότης working; ἁγιασμὸς is the 
process of bringing out a state of ἁγιότης, and sometimes the result, but 
always with a view to a certain process having been gone through. The 
distinction between the three words roughly corresponds to that between 
*sanctitas,’ ‘sanctitudo’ and ‘sanctificatio.? Compare the difference 
between ἀγαθωσύνη and ἀγαθότης. It is worth notice that in the New 
Testament forms in -σύνη are much more frequent than those in -drns. 


L. EP. 4 


50 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, | [IIl. 13. 


There is a reference in ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ to πάντων τῶν ἁγίων, as if he had 
said, ‘in sanctity that ye may be prepared to join the assembly of the 
saints, who will attend the Lord at His coming.’ 

ἔμπροσϑεν τοῦ Θεοῦ x.7.A.] to be attached to ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ ‘that 
your holiness may not only pass the scrutiny of men, but may be 
pronounced blameless by God, Who is all-seeing.’ 

πάντων τῶν ἁγίων] ‘all His saints. Not only the spirits of just men 
made perfect, but the angels of heaven also. For though the angels are 
never called simply of ἅγιοι in the New Testament, yet the term is found 
in Ps. lxxxix. 5, Zech. xiv. 5, Dan. iv. to (13), and the imagery of Daniel 
has so strongly coloured the apocalyptic passages of the Thessalonian 
Epistles, that this passing use of the expression is not surprising. 
The presence of the angels with the returning Christ is expressly 
stated in several passages (Matt. xiii. 41 sq., xxv. 31, Mark viii. 38, 
Luke ix. 26, 2 Thess. i. 7), and in two of these (Mark 1. c., Luke 1. c.) 
the epithet ἅγιοι is applied to them in this connexion. 

αὐτοῦ] 1.6. rod Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, as the close proximity of the word 
demands. Compare 2 Thess. i. 7 per’ ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. 





CHAPTER IV. 


3. HORTATORY PORTION, iv. 1—v. 24. 


i. Warning against impurity (iv. 1—8). 


1. Aourdv οὖν κιτιλ ‘ Now then that I have finished speaking of our 
mutual relations, it remains for me to urge upon you some precepts.’ 
Λοιπὸν ‘for the rest’ here marks the transition from the first or narrative 
portion of the Epistle to the second and concluding part, which is occupied 
with exhortations. On this peculiar province of λοιπὸν and τὸ λοιπὸν thus 
to usher in the conclusion see the note on Phil. iii. 1. In the passage 
before us this conclusion is extended over two chapters ; in the Philippian 
Epistle the Apostle is led on by his affectionate earnestness so far that he 
has, so to speak, to commence his conclusion afresh (Phil. iii. 1 compared 
with Phil. iv. 8). It is strange that the Greek commentators here give a 
temporal sense to λοιπὸν ‘continually,’ ‘from this time forward.’ The 
E. V., which elsewhere rightly renders the word ‘finally,’ translates it 
here ‘furthermore,’ which is misleading. Τὸ λοιπὸν is slightly stronger 
than λοιπόν, as will be seen by a comparison of such passages as 2 Thess. 
iii. 1 and Phil. Il. cc. with 1 Cor. i. 16, 2 Cor: xiii. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 8. On 
the difference between τὸ λοιπὸν and τοῦ λοιποῦ see the note on the latter 
word on Gal. vi. 17. 

οὖν] if indeed the word is not to be omitted with B and some early 
versions, may perhaps be explained by what immediately precedes, 
‘seeing that we shall have to face the scrutiny of an all-seeing God, I 
entreat you etc.’ But inasmuch as the change of subject is very complete 
here, it is better not to attach οὖν to any single clause or sentence, but to 
the main subject of the preceding portion of the Epistle: ‘seeing that 
such has been our mutual intercourse, that we have toiled so much, and 
ye have suffered for the Gospel’s sake, that God has done so much 

for you.’ 
ἐρωτῶμεν] ‘we ask, request you, a signification which éperay never bears 
in classical Greek, being always used of asking a question, ‘interrogare’ 
not ‘rogare.’ Ἐρωτᾶν however in the New Testament is not exactly 
4—2 


52 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IV. 1. 


equivalent to αἰτεῖν, but denotes greater equality, more familiarity, dif- 
fering from αἰτεῖν as ‘rogare’ from ‘petere.’ See Trench WV. 7: Syn. 
§ xl. p. 143. 

ἐρωτῶμεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν] ‘We entreat you as friends, nay, we 
exhort you with authority in the Lord’; ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ perhaps belonging 
only to παρακαλοῦμεν, as Liinemann suggests. 

παρελάβετε] The word is used here of practical precepts, not of 
doctrinal tenets. See the note on 2 Thess. ii. 15 παράδοσις. 

τὸ πῶς] ‘the lesson how. The article ro gives precision and unity to 
the words which it introduces. Compare Acts iv. 21 μηδὲν εὑρίσκοντες τὸ 
πῶς κολάσωνται αὐτούς, Mark ix. 23 εἶπεν αὐτῷ τό εἰ δύνῃ, and Winer § xviii. 
Pp. 135- 

περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ] equivalent to περιπατοῦντας ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, 
‘how ye ought to walk so as to please God.’ 

καθὼς kal περιπατεῖτε!]! The continuity of the sentence is broken after 
ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, and the apodosis is confused. The irregularity is twofold. 
(1) Feeling that the bare command might seem to imply a condemnation 
of the present conduct of the Thessalonians, he alters the sentence from 
οὕτω καὶ περιπατῆτε into καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε with his usual eagerness to 
praise and encourage where praise and encouragement are due. (2) This 
change of form involves the substitution of περισσεύητε for περιπατῆτε in 
the apodosis, and the repetition of ἵνα in order to resume the main thread 
of the sentence, which has been suspended by the lengthening out of the 
parenthesis. For the repetition of iva compare the repetition of ὅτι, 
I John iii. 20 ἐν τουτῷ... πείσομεν τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν ὅτι ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν 
ἡ καρδία ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν, Eph. ii. 11 μνημονεύετε ὅτι 
ποτὲ ὑμεῖς.. ὅτι ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ. The transcribers, not 
appreciating the spirit of the passage, have altered the text in various 
ways to reduce it to grammatical correctness; thus the Textus Receptus 
strikes out the first ἵνα and the sentence καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε. For a 
similar irregularity see Col. i. 6 with the notes. 

περισσεύητε μᾶλλον] SC. ἐν τῷ οὕτω περιπατεῖν --- advance more and 
more in this path of godliness in which you are walking,’ 

2, οἴδατε ydp] ‘The lesson which ye received of us, I say, for ye 
know what precepts we gave you : commands not of our own devising, but 
prompted by the Lord Jesus Himself (διὰ rod Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ)" 

3. τοῦτο γὰρ] ‘For this—this precept which I am going to mention, 
Τοῦτο is the subject and θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ the predicate, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν 
being in apposition with τοῦτο. The following words, ἀπέχεσθαι x.r.X., are 
added in explanation of ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν. 

θέλημα τοῦ [Θεοῦ] ‘a thing willed of God’: comp. Col. iv. 12 ἐν παντὶ 
θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ (with the note). ‘Non subjective facultatem aut 
actionem, qua deus vult [θέλησις}, sed objective id quod deus vult, 
designat,’ Fritzsche on Rom. ii. 18, xii. 2. Both θέλησις and θέλημα are 
words of the Alexandrian period, and are not found in classical authors. 


ee RR τἰςΤ:ξ 


IV. 4)" FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 53 


They are related to each other as the action to the result, and are always 
used in the New Testament with proper regard to their terminations. See 
Lobeck Phryn. pp. 7, 353; Pollux 5. 165. 

The omission of the article before θέλημα is to be explained on the 
ground that the sanctification of the Thessalonians is not coextensive 
with the whole will of God; compare Bengel, ‘multae sunt voluntates.’ 
The grammarians (see Ellicott ad /oc.) notice the fact that the article is 
omitted frequently ‘after verbs substantive or nuncupative,’ but do not 
offer any explanation of this. On the difference between θέλειν and 
βούλεσθαι see the note on Philem. 13. 

ἁγιασμὸς] is used almost as the direct opposite to ἀκαθαρσία (see ver. 7), 
inasmuch as ‘ purity’ is so large an ingredient in holiness of character. 

ἀπέχεσθαι x.t.d.] .This ἁγιασμὸς is explained negatively in the clause 
ἀπέχεσθαι x.7.d., and positively in the phrase εἰδέναι ἕκαστον κ-τ.λ. 

mopvelas] Compare the language of the Apostolic ordinance Acts xv. 
20 τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας x.r.A. The 
Apostolic decree was only issued a year or two before the present Epistle 
was written, and St Paul had subsequently been distributing copies of it 
among the Churches of Asia Minor (Acts xvi. 4). To this fact may 
perhaps be referred the similarity of expression here; it is sufficiently 
natural though to have occurred accidentally. 

In both passages the sin is somewhat unexpected. It is clear that 
those addressed were only too ready to overlook its heinousness. If in 
the Acts we are startled to find it prohibited among things indifferent in 
themselves and forbidden only because the indulgence in them would 
breed dissension, it is scarcely less surprising here to find that the 
Apostle needed to warn his recent converts, whose very adhesion to the 
Gospel involved a greater amount of self-denial than we can well realize, 
against a sin, which the common voice of society among ourselves 
strongly reprobates. 

The contrast to the Christian idea presented by the Roman Empire at 
the time when St Paul wrote can be seen from the passages from classical 
writers quoted by Wordsworth ad /oc., and by Jowett’s Essay ‘On the 
State of the Heathen World, St Pauls Epistles, τι. p. 74 sq. On the 
consecration of this particular sin in religious worship something has 
been said already in the note to ii. 3. 

See too Seneca de /raii. 8, a passage cited by Koch (p. 306) below on 
ver. 5. 

4. εἰδέναι] ‘Zo know, i.e. to learn to know; for purity is not a momentary 
impulse, but a lesson, a habit (μαθήσεως πρᾶγμα, see Chrysostom). Ση- 
μείωσαι καὶ τὸ εἰδέναι" δείκνυσι yap ὅτι ἀσκήσεως καὶ μαθήσεώς ἐστι τὸ σωφρονεῖν, 
Theophylact. 

For this sense of εἰδέναι comp. Soph. Ajax 666 (quoted by Koch) 
τοιγὰρ τὸ λοιπὸν εἰσόμεσθα μὲν θεοῖς Ἐΐκειν. 

τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι) Two interpretations are given of σκεῦος 


54 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IV. 4. 


κτᾶσθαι, between which it is difficult to make a choice, not because both 
are equally appropriate, but because neither is free from serious 
objections. 

(1) Σκεῦος means ‘the body.’ This interpretation is as early as 
Tertullian (de Resurr. Carnis 16 ‘Caro...vas vocatur apud Apostolum, 
quam jubet in honore tractari’; comp. adv. Marc. v. 15), and is 
adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, (Ecumenius, 
Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Rabanus Maurus, Primasius and others. This 
sense of σκεῦος is unobjectionable; for though there is no exact parallel 
to it in the New Testament, the expression in 2 Cor. iv. 7 ἔχομεν τὸν 
θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν (comp. I Cor. vi. 18) is sufficiently 
near, and the term ‘vessel of the soul, vessel of the spirit,’ which is 
commonly applied to the body by moralists (e.g. Lucret. iii. 441 ‘corpus 
quod vas quasi constitit ejus’ sc. animae, Philo guod det. pot. ins.§ 461. p. 
223 τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀγγεῖον τὸ σῶμα, de Migrat. Abrah. § 36 1. p. 467, who 
interprets τοῖς σκεύεσι of 1 Sam. xxi. 5 as bodies, τοῖς ἀγγείοις τῆς ψυχῆς, 
Hermas 777. v. 1, Barnabas Ef. §§ 7, 11 τὸ σκεῦος rod πνεύματος, ὃ 21 
ἕως ἔτι τὸ καλὸν σκεῦος ἐστι μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν), is a fair illustration; nor is a 
qualifying adjective or genitive needed, as the sense suggests itself at 
once. But the real difficulty lies in κτᾶσθαι, which cannot possibly have 
the meaning ‘to possess or keep’ (κέκτησθαι) as the sense would require, 
if σκεῦος were so interpreted. Seeing this difficulty, Chrysostom and 
others have explained κτᾶσθαι as equivalent to ‘gain the mastery over,’ 
‘to make it our slave.’ Ἡμεῖς αὐτὸ κτώμεθα, ὅταν μένῃ καθαρὸν καὶ ἔστιν ἐν 
ἁγιασμῷ, ὅταν δὲ ἀκάθαρτον, ἁμαρτία" εἰκότως, οὐ γὰρ ἃ βουλόμεθα πράττει λοιπὸν 
GAN ἃ ἐκείνη ἐπιτάττει. Comp. Luke xxi. 19 ἐν τῇ ὑπομονῇ ὑμῶν κτήσεσθε 
(‘ye shall win’) τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. This interpretation introduces a new 
difficulty, as ἐν ἁγιασμῷ κιτιλ. is not adapted to such a meaning of 
κτᾶσθαι. 

(2) Σκεῦος means ‘wife.’ This is the interpretation of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, and of Augustine (contra Julian. iv. 56 and other references 
given by Wordsworth), and is mentioned by Theodoret as held by some. 
In favour of this interpretation it is urged (1) that κτᾶσθαι is used of 
marrying a wife, e.g. in the Lxx. Ruth iv. το, Ecclus. xxxvi. 24 ὁ 
κτώμενος γυναῖκα ἐνάρχεται κτήσεως (see Steph. Zhes. 5. v. κτᾶσθαι), and (2) 
that σκεῦος is found in this sense in Rabbinical writers—as Megilla Esther 
fol. 12 (11. p. 827 ed. Schéttgen) ‘vas meum quo ego utor, neque Medicum, 
neque Persicum est, sed Chaldaicum,’ and Sohar Levit. fol. 38, col. 152. 
See Clem. Recogn. p. 39, 1. 14 (Syr.) {42049 Lis, and Shakespeare 
Othello τν. Sc. 2, 1. 83 ‘If to preserve this vessel for my lord’ etc. The 
passage in 1 Pet. iii. 7 ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν 
ought not to be adduced in favour of this interpretation, for the woman is 
there called σκεῦος not in reference to her husband, but to the Holy Spirit 
whose instrument she is. This interpretation certainly clears the general 
sense of the passage, which will then be ‘that ye abstain from illicit 


ee ee ee eee 


" 


IV. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 55 


passions, and that each man among you (who cannot contain) marry a wife 
of his own.’ Compare esp. I Cor. vii. 2 διὰ δὲ ras πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν 
ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω, where marriage is set forth as the appointed remedy 
for incontinence in language closely resembling this. Nor is it any valid 
argument against this interpretation that the Apostle’s precept would 
thus apply to men only: for the corresponding obligation on the part of 
the women is inferentially implied in it. 

The real objection to this view of the passage is that by using such an 
expression as σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι in this sense the Apostle would seem to be 
lowering himself to the low sensual view of the marriage relation, and 
adopting the depreciatory estimate of the woman’s position which 
prevailed among both Jews and heathen at the time, whereas it is his 
constant effort to exalt both the one and the other. 

Possibly however the term σκεῦος did not suggest any idea of deprecia- 
tion or contempt as used in late. writers ; and at least any impression of 
the kind that might be conveyed by it is corrected by the following 
words, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ K.T.d. 

De Wette does not overcome the difficulty, when he says that the wife 
is called rd σκεῦος not as a wife absolutely, ‘sondern vom Werkzeuge zur 
Befriedigung des Geschlechtstriebes.’ For the question then arises, why 
present her in this depreciatory light: 

τιμῇ]! On the other hand ἀτιμάζεσθαι is used of unbridled desire; 
Rom. i. 24 τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς. The honour due to 
the body as such is one of the great contrasts which Christianity offers to 
the loftiest systems of heathen philosophy (e.g. Platonism and Stoicism) 
and is not unconnected with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. 

5. ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας] Lust has at first the guise of a temptation from 
without, but at length the indulgence of it assumes the character of an 
inward habit, ‘a passion,’ or affection of the man’s nature. In this case 
it is πάθος ἐπιθυμίας. Then sin is said ‘to reign in our bodies that we 
obey its lusts’ (Rom. vi. 12). Thus though πάθος and πάθημα are 
generally distinguished from ἐπιθυμία, as the passive from the active 
principle (e.g. Gal. v. 24, Col. iii. 5, where see the notes), here the two are 
combined as is the case frequently, e.g. Athenagoras Legat. 21 πάθη ὀργῆς 
καὶ ἐπιθυμίας of the passions of the heathen gods. 

kal τὰ ἔθνη] The appearance of καὶ is very frequent after comparative 
clauses where a comparison is affirmed or commanded : e.g. Eph. v. 23 
ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 
where Ellicott rightly remarks that the fact of being head is common to 
both ἀνήρ and Χριστός, though the bodies to which they are so are 
different. The insertion however is much more rare where, as here, a 
comparison is prohibited or denied. Compare however iv. 13 ἵνα μὴ 
λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ of μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. 

τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν] ‘that know not God. For the expression 
εἰδέναι Θεὸν see 2 Thess. i. 8, Gal. iv. 8. In what qualified sense the 


56 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ᾿ [IV. 5. 


heathen are said here to know not God appears from Rom. i. 19, 28. 
He was present to them in the works of His creation: and they could 
not but recognize Him there; yet they did not glorify Him as such, they 
turned to idols, did not retain Him in knowledge, and so He gave them 
over to lust and dishonour. The same idea, which is there developed at 
length, is briefly hinted at here: viz. that the profligacy of the heathen 
world was due to their ignorance of the true God, and to their idolatrous 
and false worship. St Paul knows nothing of the common (but shallow) 
distinction of religion and morality. He regards the two as inseparable. 
See Jowett’s Essay ‘On the Connexion of Immorality and Idolatry,’ in 
St Paul's Epistles, τι. p.70sq. ‘Ignorantia impudicitiae origo,’ says Bengel. 

6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν κιτ.λ.} “50 as not to go beyond etc. For this 
use of ro in the sense of ὥστε see the note on iii. 3 above, and comp. Phil. 
iv. 1oand Winer ὃ xliv. p. 406. This is better than taking τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν 
κιτιλ. in apposition with ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν ; for (1) the insertion of the 
article before ὑπερβαίνειν when it is omitted before ἀπέχεσθαι and εἰδέναι 
is not easily explicable, if the clauses are parallel; and (2) the special 
aspect of the sin presented in ro μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν as an act of fraud is much 
more appropriate as an appendage to τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι, than as 
an independent clause brought prominently forward and emphasized by 
the unexpected insertion of the article. 

ὑπερβαίνειν͵] The subject of ὑπερβαίνειν is ἕκαστον ὑμῶν, or rather 
perhaps a subject understood from ἕκαστον ὑμῶν such as twa. Ὑπερβαίνειν 
may either be taken (1) absolutely, in the sense, ‘exceeds the proper 
limit’ or ‘to transgress’ ; compare e.g. Hom. 71. ix. 501 ὅτε κέν ris ὑπερβήῃ 
καὶ ἁμάρτῃ, Soph. Antig. 663 ὅστις δ᾽ ὑπερβὰς ἢ νόμους βιάζεται, or (2) it 
may possibly govern τὸν ἀδελφόν. But ὑπερβαίνειν with an accusative of 
a person has the sense rather of ‘to get the better of, to override.’ 
Compare Demosth. adv. Aristocr. p. 439 ἔτι τοίνυν πεμπτὸν δικαστήριον 
ἄλλο θεάσασθε οἷον ὑπερβέβηκε, Plutarch de Amore, Prol. p. 439. Thus the 
sense of the passage is in favour of the absolute use, though our first 
impulse is to consult the continuity of the sentence and adopt the second 
alternative. The paraphrase of Jerome well gives the meaning of 
ὑπερβαίνειν (on Ephes. v. 3) ‘ transgredi [?] concessos fines nuptiarum.’ 

πλεονεκτεῖν] “20 overreach, ‘defraud’ He who is guilty of fornication 
sins only against the law of purity: but the adulterer in addition to 
this is guilty of a breach of the law of honesty also, for he defrauds 
his neighbour of that which is rightfully his. This connexion between 
πλεονεξία and ἀκαθαρσία is an accidental one arising from the context, 
and there is no ground for the assertion that πλεονεξία is used in 
the sense of impurity. The case is the same in Ephes. iv. 19 ἑαυτοὺς 
παρέδωκαν eis ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳἨᾳ On this whole 
question see the note on Col. iii, 5 τὴν πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, 
and the Yournal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 1. 97. On con- 
nexions of πλεονεξία illustrating the passages in the New Testament see 


ee 


2 


IV.6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 57 


Theoph. ad Avfol. i. 14, where it is named between sins of impurity and 
idolatry, μοιχείαις καὶ πορνείαις καὶ dpoevoxorriais καὶ πλεονεξίαις καὶ ταῖς 
ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρείαις, and Test. xii. Patr. Nepth. 3 μὴ σπουδάζετε ἐν 
πλεονεξίᾳ διαφθεῖραι ras πράξεις ὑμῶν. The position of πλεονεξία in its 
ordinary sense in the catalogue of sins, Eph. v. 3—5, Col. iii. 5, is as 
natural as in other instances (e.g. 1 Cor. v. 10, 11, vi. 10). In Eph. iv. 
19 els ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ and in the passage before us 
the notion of sensuality is, as I have said, contained in the context, not 
in the word itself. Thus it is surely arbitrary to assign here this special 
sense to πλεονεκτεῖν and not to ὑπερβαίνειν. On the assumption that 
conversely ἀκαθαρσία is used for πλεονεξία see the notes above on ii. 3, 5. 
It is strange that several able commentators have supposed that the sin 
of ‘avarice’ is here reproved. 

ἐν τῷ πράγματι] ‘22 the matter; the meaning of which is sufficiently 
defined by the context. This expression is suggested by a delicacy of 
feeling leading to the suppression of a plainer term: see 2 Cor. vii. 11 ἐν 
τῷ πράγματι. A somewhat similar use is cited from Iszeus de Ciron. 
hered. ὃ 44 (p. 116 ed. Schémann) ὃς μοιχὸς ληφθεὶς...οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἀπαλλάττεται 
τοῦ πράγματος. 

The translators of the E. V. at first sight seem to have read τῳ (=ri) 
for τῷ, but there appears to be no support for this except perhaps the 
Armenian version; and it is perhaps better to suppose that both here 
and in 1 Cor. xv. 8 ὡσπερεὶ τῷ (others ὡσπερεί τῳ) ἐκτρώματι the rendering 
arises from an imperfect acquaintance with the Greek article (see On a 
Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, p. 107 sq.). There seems 
to be no instance of του, τῳ for τινος, τινι in the New Testament. See 
Winer, § vi. p. 60 sq. 

τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ] Not ‘his Christian brother, but ‘his neighbour.’ For 
the brotherhood intended must be defined by the context, and this is a 
duty which extends to the universal brotherhood of mankind, and has 
no reference to the special privileges of the close brotherhood of the 
Gospel. 

ἔκδικος] Compare Rom. xiii. 4 ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι. 
In the older Greek writers ἔκδικος is used in the sense of ‘unjust,’ e.g. 
Soph. 2d. Col. 917 οὐ yap φιλοῦσιν ἄνδρας ἐκδίκους τρέφειν. The meaning 
‘an avenger’ occurs first in Diocles efigr. i. 3 ἥξει τις τούτου χρόνος 
ἔκδικος (Antholog. 11. p. 167 ed. Jacobs), followed by Herodian, vii. 4 εἴ 
τινες ἢ στρατιωτῶν ἢ δημοτῶν αὑτοῖς ἐπίοιεν ἔκδικοι τοῦ γενησομένου ἔργου, 
Aristzenet. i. 27 etc. In this sense it is found as a Latin word, e.g. Pliny, 
£p. x. 111 ‘Ecdicus Amisenorum civitatis.’ It is found instead of the 
more usual ἐκδικητὴς in the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, 
Wisd. xii. 12 and Ecclus. xxx. 6. It seems to mean ‘one who elicits 
justice or satisfaction,” and is appropriate here in connexion with the 
words ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν. 


58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {IV. 6. 


περὶ πάντων τούτων] i.e. all these sins, which fall under the general 
head of ἀκαθαρσία. 

For the construction ἔκδικος περὶ compare 1 Macc. xiii. 6 ἐκδικήσω περὶ 
τοῦ ἔθνους pov. 

διεμαρτυράμεθα] ‘carnestly protested’ On the meaning of μαρτύρεσθαι 
and its distinction from μαρτυρεῖν see above ii. 12 and the note on 
Gal. v. 3. 

7. οὐ yap ἐκάλεσεν] ‘Impurity is disobedience to God’s commands: 
Jor He called us etc., and therefore it will bring down His vengeance.’ It 
is better perhaps thus to connect this verse with what immediately 
precedes (ἔκδικος περὶ πάντων τούτων) than with θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ver. 3. 

ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] The change of the preposition is 
significant : ‘not for uncleanness, but in sanctification’ Holiness is 
to be the pervading element in which the Christian is to move. Ἐν 
ἁγιασμῷ after ἐκάλεσεν is a natural abbreviation for ὥστε εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐν 
ἁγιασμῷ, as the sense requires. Compare 1 Cor. vii. 15 ἐν δ᾽ εἰρήνῃ 
κέκληκεν ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεός, Eph. iv. 4, and see Winer, ὃ 1. p. 518 sq. 
Possibly ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. καὶ τιμῇ ver. 4 may be so taken, but see the note 
there. 

8. οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ, ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεὸν] ‘rejecteth not any individual 
man, but the one God.’ On the article comp. Gal. i. 10 ἄρτι γὰρ 
ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν Θεόν; where Bengel pointedly remarks: ‘ ἀνθρώπους, 
homines; hoc sine articulo: at mox τὸν Θεόν, Deum, cum articulo. Dei 
solius habenda est ratio.’ Compare also Gal. iv. 31 οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης 
τέκνα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας with the note. 

τὸν διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα κιτ.λ.} ‘This gift of the Spirit leaves you in a 
different position with regard to God from that which you held before. 
It is a witness in your souls against impurity. It is a token that He has 
consecrated you to Himself. It is an earnest of vengeance, if you defile 
what is no longer your own.’ The appeal is the same in effect here as in 
1 Cor. iii. 16 ‘ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the 
Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him 
shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.’ 
Compare also 1 Cor. vi. 19. 

τὸν διδόντα] i.e. who is ever renewing this witness against uncleanness 
in fresh accessions of the Holy Spirit. 

If τὸν καὶ δόντα be retained, καὶ will refer to ἐκάλεσεν, ‘who not only 
called you to be sanctified, but also gave you His Spirit.’ But the 
manuscript evidence alike and the context are against the reading of 
the Textus Receptus. The gift of the Spirit by one decisive act (δόντα) 
does not suit the argument. 

τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον] St Paul uses this stronger form in prefer- 
ence to the more usual πνεῦμα ἅγιον or τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, as being more 
emphatic, and especially as laying stress on τὸ ἅγιον in connexion with 


SS eee a 


IV. 10.] ’ FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 59 


the ἁγιασμὸς which is the leading idea of the passage. Compare Clem. 
Rom. 30 ‘Ayiou οὖν μερὶς ὑπάρχοντες ποιήσωμεν τὰ τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ πάντα. 

εἰς ὑμᾶς] is better than εἰς ἡμᾶς, for it brings the general statement (ὁ 
ἀθετῶν x.r.A.) more directly home to the Thessalonians themselves. 


ii. LExhortation to brotherly love and sobriety of conduct (iv. 9—12). 


9. φιλαδελφίας] Not ‘brotherly love,’ as E.V., but ‘Jove of the brethren, 
i,e. the Christian brotherhood, and thus narrower than ἀγάπη which 
extends to all mankind. See 2 Pet. i. 7; and comp. Rom. xii. 9, 10 and 
the note on 1 Thess. iii. 12. 

οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε] is, probably the right reading as being the best 
supported, though it may have arisen from v. 1. The very fact that 
éxere introduces a grammatical irregularity is in its favour, for it was less 
likely to be substituted for ἔχομεν than conversely. Comp. Heb. v. 12 
πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς for a somewhat analogous instance ; 
but there the construction of διδάσκειν requires a different subject to be 
understood from that of ἔχετε. In the passage before us, the con- 
struction with τινα supplied before ypadeiv, though irregular, is quite 
tenable, and in a writer like St Paul ought to create no difficulty. 
The more natural usage occurs a few verses lower down, v. I οὐ 
χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν γράφεσθαι. 

αὐτοὶ γὰρ] ‘for of yourselves, without our intervention.’ 

θεοδίδακτοι] ‘Zaught of God. The word occurs Barnab. £#. ὃ 21, 
Athenag. Zeg. ὃ 11, Theoph. ad Aufo/. ii. 9. Compare also the expression 
διδακτοὶ [τοῦ] Θεοῦ in John vi. 45, and 1 Cor. ii. 13 ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος. 

This word θεοδίδακτοι has no reference to any actual saying of our 
Lord, such for instance as that recorded in John xiii. 34, or to any 
external instruction: but it signifies the spiritual teaching of the heart, 
which supersedes all external precepts, though in the first instance it may 
have been conveyed by the medium of such. Both elements of the 
compound are emphatic: (1) the θεο- is brought out by what precedes, 
in contrast to ἡμᾶς understood, (2) the -δίδακτοι by what follows in the 
ποιεῖτε. The prophecy of Isaiah liv. 13 here receives its fulfilment, καὶ 
πάντας τοὺς υἱούς cov διδακτοὺς Θεοῦ : comp. Jer. xxxi. 34. 

els τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους] i.e. to cultivate this φιλαδελφία, for ἀλλήλους 
is applied to the Christian brotherhood. See iii. 12 τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους 
καὶ εἰς πάντας, v. 15 and Rom. xii. 10 τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλό- 
στοργοι. 

10. καὶ γὰρ] ‘for also, for indeed.’ The καὶ marks this statement as 
an advance upon the preceding one. ‘You are not only taught the lesson, 
but you also practise it, and that, to every one of the brethren throughout 
Macedonia, i.e. all the brethren with whom you can possibly come in 


contact.’ 


60 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., _ [IV. to. 


αὐτὸ] 1.6. τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους. 

ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ] The history of the Acts only records the foundation 
of three Churches in Macedonia previously to this time, viz. those of 
Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea. It is probable, however, that in the 
interval between St Paul’s departure from Macedonia and the writing of 
this letter other Christian communities were established, at least in the 
larger towns, such as Amphipolis, Pella, etc., either by the instrumentality 
of the more active of his recent Macedonian converts, such perhaps as 
Aristarchus (Acts xix. 29, xx. 4), or by missionaries of his own sending, 
such as Luke, Silvanus, and Timotheus, all of whom seem to have been 
actively engaged in Macedonia during this interval. See the essay on 
the Churches of Macedonia in Biblical Essays, p. 237 sq. 

περισσεύειν μᾶλλον] See above on ver. I. 

11. καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι] It is clear from the form of the sentence 
(contrast the καὶ here with δὲ ver. 9) that this injunction had some 
close connexion in the Apostle’s mind with that which goes before. 
What this connexion was it is impossible to say. A thorough know- 
ledge of the condition of the early Thessalonian Church would alone 
enable us to supply the missing links in the chain of thought with any 
degree of confidence. We may however conjecture that the large and 
ready charities of the richer brethren had caused some irregularities : 
that there were those who availed themselves of these means of support 
to the neglect of their lawful occupations ; and that thus relieved from 
the necessity of working, they went about preaching fantastic doctrines 
and exciting feverish anxieties and thus disturbing the simpler and purer 
faith of others. It is probable that they asserted the immediate coming 
of Christ (see the notes on ver. 13 and 2 Thess. ii. 2). That there were 
such idlers in the Thessalonian Church appears from the Second Epistle, 
where St Paul condemns in plain terms those ‘which walk among you 
disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies’ (2 Thess. iii. 11 μηδὲν 
ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους), language which seems to imply that 
the evil had gained ground in the interval. And the assumption made 
above in accordance with the requirements of the context that these were 
Spiritual busybodies is very natural in itself, and is further borne out 
by Tit. i. 10, 11 (though the form which the evil assumes there is 
grosser). 

What evils the extensive charity of the early Christians might, and 
probably did, to some extent, give rise to, may be seen from Lucian’s 
satire of Peregrinus, see especially S§ 12, 13 ἥ ye ἄλλη θεραπεία πᾶσα ov 
παρέργως ἀλλὰ σὺν σπουδῇ ἐγίγνετο... εἶτα δεῖπνα ποικίλα εἰσεκομίζετο....Καὶ 
δὴ καὶ τῷ Περεγρίνῳ πολλὰ τότε ἧκε χρήματα παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ προφάσει 
τῶν δεσμῶν καὶ πρόσοδον οὐ μικρὰν ταύτην ἐποιήσατο K.T.d. 

φιλοτιμεῖσθαι] The original idea of φιλοτιμία ‘the pursuit of honour, 
the love of distinction’ (typical of Athens, see Pericles’ speech in Thuc. 
ii. 44 τὸ φιλότιμον ἀγήρων μόνον) is more or less obscured in its later 


= 


IV. 12.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 61 


usages (e.g. Rom. xv. 20, 2 Cor. v. 9) and the verb comes to signify ‘to 
make the pursuit of a thing one’s earnest endeavour,’ ‘to strive restlessly 
after’ a thing, and the substantive ‘restless energy’ (see e.g. Athenag. de 
resurr. ὃ 18 οὐ yap φιλοτιμίας τὸ κατάγειν ἢ διαιρεῖν viv). Thus though the 
meaning ‘ambition’ would well suit the context here, it is unsafe to 
press it. 

The oxymoron however of φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν is equally strong 
whichever meaning we attach to φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, and the verbal paradox 
reminds us forcibly of the Horatian ‘strenua inertia, of Grotius’ 
complaint that he had spent his life ‘operose nihil agendo,’ and of 
Pericles’ estimate of woman’s true ambition (Thuc. ii. 45) μεγάλη ἡ δόξα 
ἧς ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐλάχιστον ἀρετῆς πέρι ἢ Ψόγου ἐν τοῖς ἄρσεσι κλέος ἧ. For other 
examples of παραπροσδοκίαν in St Paul compare Rom. xiii. 8 μηδενὶ μηδὲν 
ὀφείλετε, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀ ἀγαπᾷν, and see the note on Phil. iv. 7 ἡ εἰρήνη 
τοῦ Θεοῦ φρουρήσει Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν. 

πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια] For the juxtaposition compare Plato Rep. 496 D 
ἡσυχίαν ἔχων καὶ τὰ αὑτοῦ πράττων, Dion Cassius lx. 27 τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἄγων 
καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττων. 

ταῖς χερσὶν] The word ἰδίαις has been wrongly inserted by some 
authorities both here and in the parallel passage Eph. iv. 28 ἐργαζόμενος 
ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, where however the authority for its retention 
is somewhat stronger. On this characteristic interpolation see the note 
on ii. 15 καὶ τοὺς προφήτας. 

12. ἵνα περιπατῆτε x.t.A.] This is a precept dictated by prudence, 
and does not fall under the head of φιλαδελφία or ἀγάπη : but it was 
doubtless suggested by this topic, for St Paul was led from it to speak of 
the one flaw which disfigured their ‘love of the brotherhood,’ and hence 
to consider how it would affect their dealings with the heathen. They 
were not to appear as worthless vagabonds and beggars. The precept 
has nothing to do with their conduct towards heathen magistrates, as 
Wordsworth imagines. Luther’s comment, quoted by Koch, is very 
characteristic, ‘ Nahret euch selber und lieget nicht den Leuten auf dem 
Halse, wie die faulen Bettelménche, Wiedertadufer, Landlaufer, denn 
solche sind unniitze Leute und argern die Unglaubigen.’ 

εὐσχημόνως] ‘ decorously’; vulg. ‘honeste.’ The E.V. has ‘honestly,’ 
which is rather an archaism than a mistranslation : comp. Rom. xiii. 13, 
where εὐσχημόνως is similarly rendered. 

τοὺς ἔξω] ‘ the unbelievers, opposed to οἱ ἔσω, ‘the Christian brethren.’ 
See the note on Col. iv. 5. 

μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε] It is not easy to say whether μηδενὸς is neuter 
or masculine here. Perhaps the fact that χρείαν ἔχειν is frequently used 
with a genitive of the thing will turn the scale in favour of the neuter. 
In Rev. iii. 17 however the right reading is πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐδὲν (not 
οὐδενὸς) χρείαν ἔχω. Otherwise it would be a decisive instance, In either 
_ case the meaning is the same. The Apostle is enforcing the necessity of 


Ὕ 


62 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[IV. 12. 


manual labour, in order that his converts may have sufficient for the 
wants of life, and may not appear before the unbelievers in the light of 
needy idlers. 


iii, The Advent of the Lord (iv. 13—Vv. 11). 


(a) The dead shall have their place in the Resurrection (iv. 13—18). 


13. Though there is an apparent change of subject here, the new 
topic is not entirely unconnected with the old. The restlessness which 
agitated the Church of Thessalonica, and led to a neglect of the 
occupations of daily life, was doubtless due to their feverish anticipations 
of the immediate coming of Christ; see Biblical Essays, 264 sq. This 
view can scarcely be considered a mere conjecture, supported as it is by 
2 Thess. ii. 2; but, even if it were, the supposition is so natural as to 
commend itself, and we are not without instances of the disturbing 
effects of such an unchastened anticipation in later ages of the Church. 
In the tenth century for instance the expectation of the approaching end 
of the world in or about the year I000 A.D. was almost universal. This 
event was to usher in the seventh sabbatical period of a thousand years, 
the preceding six millennia being calculated as five between Adam and 
Christ, and one after the Nativity. See on this matter Trithemius 
Chronic. Hirsaug. ad ann. 960, Glaber Rudulphus 72:2. iv. 6. Again, 
amidst the plagues and famines of the fourteenth century the Flagellantes 
were prominent in their announcements of the speedy approach of the 
end. 

The anticipation of Christ’s coming then is the connecting link 
between the former subject and the present. It reminds the Apostle 
that he has to meet a difficulty respecting the position of the dead 
at the coming of Christ. This can scarcely be an imaginary difficulty 
which the Apostle has here started, and yet on the other hand from the 
indirect way in which the subject is introduced it does not seem to have 
been formally propounded to him by the Thessalonians. In this respect 
it presents a contrast to 1 Cor. vii. 1. The intermediate view is the most 
probable, that Timotheus had learnt during his visit to Thessalonica that 
this question agitated the Church, and had reported the fact to St Paul. 
That such questions were propounded in the early Church is evident 
from the interrogation put by Clement to St Peter in the Clem. Recogn. 
(I. 52), ‘Si Christi regno fruentur hi quos justos invenerit ejus adventus, 
ergo qui ante adventum ejus defuncti sunt, regno penitus carebunt?’ 

It is not necessary to suppose any lengthened existence of the Church 
of Thessalonica at the time when this letter was written, in order to 
account for this difficulty. If only one or two of the converts had died 
meanwhile, it was sufficient to give rise to the question. Indeed it is 


2 


IV. 131] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 63 


one much more likely to be started in an early stage of the Church’s 
growth than at a later period. 

Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν] An emphatic expression of St Paul, charac- 
teristic of his earlier Epistles, and used especially when he is correcting 
false impressions, or solving difficult questions (e.g. Rom. xi. 25, 1 Cor. 
x. I, xii. 1), or dwelling on personal matters (e.g. Rom. i. 13, 2 Cor. i. 8; 
comp. Col. ii. 1 θέλω yap ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι) : never it would appear without a 
special reference to something which had occurred. 

It is frequently used with yap ; but it does not even with δὲ necessarily 
imply an abrupt transition, but generally introduces a subject more or 
less connected with what precedes. See the passages above referred to, 
e.g. Rom. i. 13. ., 

κοιμωμένων ‘lying asleep? The reading is somewhat doubtful, ex- 
ternal testimony being divided between κοιμωμένων and κεκοιμημένων. 
However κοιμωμένων is the more probable, for (1) it is favoured by 
the older manuscripts, including NB; (2) it is more likely to have 
been altered into κεκοιμημένων than conversely, the latter being the 
usual expression, comp. Matt. xxvii. 52, 1 Cor. xv. 20; (3) it is a 
more expressive term, pointing forward to the future awakening and 
so implying the Resurrection more definitely than κεκοιμημένων. This 
last consideration no doubt it was which induced the transcriber of D 
to substitute κοιμᾶται for κεκοίμηται in John xi. 12 εἰ κεκοίμηται, σωθήσεται. 
καθὼς καὶ of λοιποὶ] This sentence has been taken, after Augustine 
(Serm. 172) and Theodoret, to express not a total prohibition of grief, but 
only of such excessive grief as the heathen indulged in, and is accordingly 
translated ‘may not grieve to the same extent as the heathen.’ The 
Greek is thus strained to obtain a more humane interpretation. That 
St Paul would not have forbidden the reasonable expression of sorrow 
at the loss of friends we cannot doubt. But here, as elsewhere, he states 
his precept broadly, without caring to enter into the qualifications which 
will suggest themselves at once to thinking men. On καὶ see the note on 
iv. 5 καὶ ra ἔθνη. 

οἱ λοιποὶ] 1.6. ‘the heathen’; as Ephes. ii. 3 καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς 
ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί: comp. Rom. xi. 7. 

οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα] The contrast between the gloomy despair of the 
heathen and the triumphant hope of the Christian mourner is nowhere 
more forcibly brought out than by their monumental inscriptions. The 
contrast of the tombs, for instance, in the Appian Way, above and below 
ground, has often been dwelt upon. On the one hand there is the dreary 
wail of despair, the effect of which is only heightened by the pomp of 
outward splendour from which it issues. On the other the exulting 
psalm of hope, shining the more brightly in all ill-written, ill-spelt records 
amidst the darkness of subterranean caverns. This is a more striking 
illustration than any quotations from literature which could be produced. 


_ Yet such testimony is readily available also. Such is the passage in 


Ἢ 


64 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[IV. 13. 


Catullus v. 4 ‘Soles occidere et redire possunt, Nobis, cum semel occidit 
brevis lux, Nox est perpetua una dormienda,’ or the lament of Moschus 
(iii. 106 sq.) over the death of his friend Bion, if possible even more 
pathetic in its despair, Ai, αἴ, rai μαλάχαι μὲν ἐπὰν κατὰ κᾶπον ὄλωνται, 
*H τὰ χλωρὰ σέλινα, τό τ᾽ εὐθαλὲς οὖλον ἄνηθον͵ Ὕστερον αὖ ζώοντι καὶ εἰς ἔτος 
ἄλλο φύοντι᾽ “Aupes δ᾽, οἱ μεγάλοι καὶ καρτεροὶ ἢ σοφοὶ ἄνδρες, Ὃππότε 
πρᾶτα θάνωμες, ἀνάκοοι ἐν χθονὶ κοίλᾳ Evdoues εὖ μάλα μακρὸν ἀτέρμονα 
νήγρετον ὕπνον. In these and similar passages we cannot fail to observe 
how the very objects in nature, which Christian philosophers, e.g. Butler 
(Analogy, Pt. 1. ch. 1), have adduced as types and analogies of the 
resurrection of man, as for instance the rising and setting of the sun, 
and the annual resuscitation of plants, presented to the heathen only 
a painful contrast, enforcing the inferiority of man to the inanimate 
creation. This triumphant application of natural phenomena by 
Christian writers to support the doctrine of immortality begins at once. 
In a striking passage Clement of Rome employs the succession of day 
and night, the rotation of crops, etc. as analogies pointing to the 
Resurrection (καιροὶ ἐαρινοὶ καὶ θερινοὶ καὶ μετοπωρινοὶ καὶ χειμερινοὶ ἐν 
εἰρήνῃ μεταπαραδιδόασιν ἀλλήλοις x.T.A. § 20). 

Had St Paul been addressing a Jewish population, he could not have 
spoken so strongly. If the doctrine of the Resurrection is not brought 
prominently forward in the Old Testament, still the Messianic hopes, 
there suggested, could not but tend to its taking deep root in the minds 
ofthe people. There was an instinctive feeling that the coming of 
Messias was not a national revival only, but that it must have some 
reference to themselves individually, that they were to partake in it. 
Hence the distinctness, with which the doctrine of the Resurrection 
presented itself to the Jewish people, kept pace with the growth of the 
expectation of a coming Deliverer. 

14. οὕτως kal 6 Θεὸς x.7.A.] The apodosis to be in conformity with the 
protasis ought to have run οὕτως δεῖ πιστεύειν κιτιλ.; but the protasis 
having been stated in a hypothetical form “27 we believe etc.,’ St Paul is 
instinctively led to correct any impression of uncertainty, by throwing 
the apodosis into the form of a direct assertion and thus clinching the 
truth on which he is dwelling. 

διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ] Though there is some difficulty in explaining διὰ if we 
connect these words with τοὺς κοιμηθέντας (as Chrysostom and apparently 
Ambrosiaster), yet the arguments in favour of this connexion are so 
strong that it is to be preferred to the otherwise simpler construction 
attaching them to ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ. For (1) the parallelism of the sentence 
(and consequently the sense which is guided by this parallelism) requires 
that the words should be so taken—"Inaois ἀπέθανε being answered by 
τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, and [Ἰησοῦς] ἀνέστη by ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ. (2) 
It was necessary in some way to limit and define τῶν κεκοιμημένων SO as 
to show that not all the dead were meant, but only ‘the dead in Christ.’ 


IV.15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 65 


How then is διὰ to be explained? Such passages as 1 Cor. xv. 18 
οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ (comp. Apoc. xiv. 13) only illustrate generally 
the meaning: for the difficulty is in assigning its proper signification of 
instrumentality to the preposition. Such expressions as ‘to live through 
Christ, ‘to be raised through Christ’ are natural enough of Him who is 
the Resurrection and the Life ; but ‘to die through Christ’ is startling, for 
He is always represented in St Paul as in direct antagonism to death 
(e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 26). The justification of διὰ however is probably to be 
sought in the fact that κοιμηθῆναι is not equivalent to θανεῖν, but implies 
moreover the idea first of peacefulness, and secondly of an awakening. 
It was Jesus who transformed their death into a peaceful slumber. Or 
it may be the case that διὰ here is not the διὰ of instrument, but the διὰ 
of passage. As a state of spiritual condition is ἐν Χριστῷ, so a transition 
from one state to another is διὰ Χριστοῦ. 

Professor Jowett (on ver. 13) speaks of κοιμᾶσθαι as ‘a euphemism for 
the dead which is used in the Old Testament and sometimes in classical 
writers.’ But indeed it is more than a euphemism in the New Testa- 
ment, which speaks also of their awakening: compare August. Serm. 
93 ‘ Quare dormientes vocantur? nisi quia suo die resuscitabuntur’ cited 
by Wordsworth, and a remarkable passage in Philo Fragm. 11. p. 667 ed. 
Mangey. Photius (Quaest. Amphil. 168) remarks ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
θάνατον καλεῖ, ἵνα τὸ πάθος πιστώσηται᾽ ἐπὶ δὲ ἡμῶν κοίμησιν, ἵνα τὴν ὀδύνην 
παραμυθήσηται. ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ παρεχώρησεν ἡ ἀνάστασις θαῤῥῶν καλεῖ θάνατον " 
ἔνθα δὲ ἐν ἐλπίσιν ἔτι μένει κοίμησιν καλεῖ K.T.d. 

ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ] is best explained by vv. 17, 18, It is not a pregnant 
expression for ‘ will take so as to be with Him’: but ‘ will lead with Him’ 
to His eternal abode of glory. “ἄξει ducet, suave verbum: dicitur de 
viventibus, Bengel. For the general sentiment compare 2 Cor. iv. 14, 
Ign. Trail. 9 ὃς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ vexpadv...xata TO ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ ἡμᾶς 
τοὺς πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ οὕτως ἐγερεῖ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 

15. ἐν λόγῳ Κυρίου] This expression has been explained as a refer- 
ence to some recorded saying of our Lord, transmitted either in writing 
or orally. The nearest approach to the passage here in the canonical 
Gospels is found in Matt. xxiv. 31, where however the similarity is 
not great enough to encourage such an inference. It is perhaps more 
probable that St Paul refers to a direct revelation, which he had himself 
received from the Lord. The use of the phrase ‘the word of the Lord’ 
in the Old Testament is in favour of this meaning. On the expression 
λόγος Κυρίου generally, see the note on i. 8. See also below on v. 2 
ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε. The same question arises with reference to 1 Cor. vii. 10 
οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ Κύριος, and it ought probably to be decided in the same 
way. 

ἡμεῖς of ζῶντες] This expression suggests the question to what extent 
and in what sense it may be said that St Paul and the Apostles generally 


᾿ looked for the speedy approach of the advent of Christ. It is difficult in 


L. EP. 5 


66 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., | [IV. 15. 


attempting an answer to this question to avoid exaggerating on one side 
or the other, but the facts seem to justify the following remarks. 

(1) It should create no difficulty, if we find the Apostles ignorant of 
the time of the Lord’s coming. However we may extend the limits of 
inspiration, this one point seems to lie without those limits. This is indeed 
the one subject on which we should expect inspiration to exercise a 
reserve. It is ‘I, not the Lord, who speaks here. For we are told that 
the angels of heaven—and even the Son Himself, otherwise than as God— 
are excluded from this knowledge (Mark xiii. 32). On this subject then 
we might expect to find the language of the Apostles vague, inconstant 
and possibly contradictory. 

(2) The Apostles certainly do speak as though there were a reason- 
able expectation of the Lord’s appearing in their own time. They use 
modes of expression which cannot otherwise be explained. Such is the 
use of the plural here: comp. 1 Cor. xv. 51 according to the received 
text, which seems to retain the correct reading. Nor does it imply more 
than a reasonable expectation, a probability indeed, but nothing ap- 
proaching to a certainty, for it is carefully guarded by the explanatory 
of ζῶντες, of περιλειπόμενοι, Which may be paraphrased, “ When I say ‘we,’ 
I mean those who are living, those who survive to that day.” Bengel 
says very wisely and truly : ‘Sic τὸ mos hic ponitur, ut alias nomina Catus 
et Zitius: idque eo commodius, quia fidelibus illius aetatis amplum 
temporis spatium usque ad finem mundi nondum distincte scire licuit. 
Témpus praesens in utroque participio est praesens pro ipso adventu 
Domini, uti Act. x. 42, et passim.’ 

(3) On the other hand, they never pledge themselves to a positive 
assurance that He will so come: but on the contrary frequently qualify 
their expression of anticipation by declaring that the time is uncertain 
(as 1 Thess. v. I, 2); and sometimes when pressed even guard against the 
idea that the day is immediate (as 2 Thess. ii. 2), or justify the delay by 
reference to the attributes of God (as 2 Pet. iii. 8). 

(4) With regard to St Paul it is scarcely true to say that the expecta- 
tion grows weaker in his later Epistles, that in these he seems to delay 
the coming of the Lord (for see e.g. Phil. iv. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 22). It is 
rather that the expectation remains about where it was, but is not brought 
so prominently forward, and this for two reasons. First. The Apostle’s 
own dissolution in the ordinary course of things was drawing nearer, and 
therefore his own chance of being alive at the time was diminished. 
Secondly. The doctrine of Christ’s coming, essentially and necessarily 
brought forward in the Apostle’s teaching to the Church in its earliest 
stages in connexion with the Resurrection and the Judgment, resigns its 
special prominence at a later period to other great doctrines of the Faith. 
See the Essay ‘On the chronology of St Paul’s life and Epistles’ in 
Biblical Essays, p. 215 sq. esp. p. 228. 

(5) There is no ground for the assumption that ecclesiastical organi- 


Ps 


2 


IV. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 67 


zation was deferred in the infancy of the Church owing to this belief. 
This organization appears to have kept pace with the growing needs of 
the Church and not to have received any unnatural check. Moreover 
such a supposition would be little in accordance with the tone always 
maintained by St Paul in speaking of the Lord’s coming; for he urges the 
sober application to the ordinary duties of life, and deprecates any 
restless extravagances built upon the supposition of its near approach. 
Whatever the converts may have done, the Apostles themselves seem 
never to have given way to any such feeling. It is significant here for 
instance that obedience to rulers follows after this explanation about the 
Lord’s day. 

(6) The tone and temper exhibited by the Apostles in relation to 
this great event is intended as an example to the Church in all ages. 
She is to be ever watchful for the Advent of her Lord, and yet ever to 
pursue the daily avocations of life in calmness and sobriety. 

οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν] ‘shall in no wise prevent, or be before.’ On οὐ μὴ in 
the New Testament see Winer ὃ lvi. p. 634 sq. 

16. αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος] ‘ The Lord Himself} i.e. not by any intermediate 
agency, but in His own person He will come. “αὐτὸς 7256, grandis sermo’ 
Bengel. 

There is nothing more certain than that the New Testament represents 
the general judgment of mankind as ushered in by an actual visible 
appearance of our Lord on earth. ‘This same Jesus, which is taken up 
from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as (οὕτως ἐλεύσεται ὃν 
τρόπον) ye have seen Him go into heaven’ (Acts i. 11). And the an- 
nouncement of the angels is not more explicit on this point than the 
universal language of the New Testament. Indeed, independently of 
revelation, it would be not unreasonable to infer that, as the redemption 
of mankind had an outward historical realization in His appearance in 
the flesh, so also the judgment of mankind should be manifested out- 
wardly in the same way in time and space by His coming in person— 
that in short there should exist the analogy suggested by the angels’ 
announcement. But in filling in the details of this great event, into which 
even the Apostles themselves saw but dimly, we are apt to be led into 
idle and unprofitable fancies; and in interpreting individual expressions, 
it is perhaps safer to content ourselves with pointing out parallels from 
apocalyptic imagery, than to attempt to realize and define figurative 
language with too great minuteness. 

ἐν κελεύσματι] Κέλευσμα (from κελεύειν ‘to summon’) is a classical 
word used (1) generally of ‘commands’ e.g. Asch. Zum. 226 Λοξίου 
κελεύσμασιν ἥκω, Soph. Antig. 1198, (2) ‘a shout of encouragement’ 
Thuc. ii. 92 ἀπὸ ἑνὸς κελεύσματος ἐμβοήσαντες, with special reference to 
the encouragement of rowers by the κελευστής, e.g. Asch. Pers. 397, or of 
horses, dogs etc., e.g. Xen. Cyrop. vi. 20, (3) ‘a summons for the purpose 
of gathering together,’ e.g. Diod. iii. 15 τὸ πλῆθος ἀθροίζεται καθάπερ ἀφ᾽ 
ἑνὸς κελεύσματος. It occurs once in the LXx. of the marshalling of the 

5—2 


68 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[IV. τό. 


locusts, Prov. xxx. 27 (xxiv. 62) στρατεύει ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς κελεύσματος εὐτάκτως. 
The nearest approach to the meaning of the passage before us is perhaps 
Philo de praem. et poen. § 19, 11. p. 427 ἀνθρώπους ἐν ἐσχατιαῖς ἀπῳκισμένους 
ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἑνὶ κελεύσματι συναγάγοι Θεὸς ἀπὸ περάτων. It would seem then 
that the κέλευσμα of which St Paul speaks is the summons to all, both 
living and dead, to meet their Lord. Such a summons is expressed in 
figurative language in Matt. xxv. 6 ‘Behold the bridegroom cometh, go 
ye out to meet him.’ 

The preposition ἐν signifies the attendant circumstances rather than 
the time (1 Cor. xv. 52 ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι); see Winer ὃ xlviii. p. 482. 

φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου] 1.6. of one of the leaders of the heavenly host. Later 
Judaism busied itself with idle speculation about the number and names 
and functions of the angelic host, see Gfrérer fahrd. der Heil. τ. p. 352 sq. : 
but St Paul gives no encouragement to such speculations, though his lan- 
guage necessarily takes its colour from the imagery which was common 
in his day, e.g. Ephes. i. 21, Col. i. 16. 

ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ] The same figure, if it be a figure, is repeated in 
1 Cor. xv. 52 ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι᾽ σαλπίσει yap κιτιλ. The trumpet was 
the signal of the approach of the Lord at the giving of the law (Exod. 
xix. 16); see also Zech. ix. 14, which suggests the doubt whether the 
expression is more than an image here. 

οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ! The whole phrase is to be kept together. On 
the omission of the article see the notes on i. I ἐν Θεῷ πατρί and ii. 14. The 
question how are the dead raised is touched upon in 1 Cor. xv., where the 
change from corruption to incorruptibility is described as coincident with 
their rising (ver. 52). 

πρῶτον] ‘rst,’ in relation to ἔπειτα which follows. There is no refer- 
ence here to the ‘first resurrection’ (Apoc. xx. 5). 

17. ἅμα] is not to be taken apart from σὺν αὐτοῖς in the sense ‘at the 
same time, together with them’; for the combination ἅμα σὺν is too 
common to allow of the separation of the two words (see v. 10, and comp. 
e.g. Eur. Jom 717 νυκτιπόλοις ἅμα σὺν βάκχαις). The distinction of 
Ammonius (quoted by Ellicott) ἅμα μέν ἐστι χρονικὸν ἐπίῤῥημα, ὁμοῦ δὲ 
τοπικόν may be correct, but does not decide the construction here or in 
Rom. iii. 12. On the other hand Moeris (p. 272) states ὁμόσε, Gua, ὁμόθεν 
τύπου δηλωτικά᾽ τὸ μὲν yap ἅμα ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δηλοῖ, τὸ δὲ ὁμόσε εἰς τὸ αὐτό, TO 
δὲ ὁμόθεν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. In Matt. xiii. 29 the sense seems to require that 
ἅμα αὐτοῖς should be interpreted of place rather than of time, and instances 
of a local meaning are frequent in the classics, e.g. Herod. vi. 138 τοὺς 
ἅμα Θόαντι, Thuc. vii. 57 τοὺς ἅμα Τυλίππῳ, Appian. εξ. vi. 8 ὁ δῆμος 
ἅμα τοῖς κατηγοροῦσιν ἐγίγνετο. 

ἐν νεφέλαις] “27: clouds, on which as on a chariot they would be borne 
aloft. Compare the expression in Acts i. 9 νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ 
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν. Christ is represented as coming ‘on the clouds of 
heaven’ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν (Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64). In Apoc. i. 7 the idea 
is somewhat different (μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν) ; the clouds are the accompani- 





IV. 18] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 69 


ment not the throne, and according to Trench (Commentary on the 
Epistles to the Seven Churches ad loc.) ‘belong, not to the glory and 
gladness, but to the terror and anguish of that day.’ He compares Ps. 
xcviii. 2, Nah. i. 3. 

ἀπάντησιν v. 1. ὑπάντησιν] The distinction commonly given between 
ἀπάντησις and ὑπάντησις, viz. that the former signifies a casual, the latter a 
premeditated meeting (see Bornemann on Xen. Cyrof. i. 4. 22), is only 
approximately true. It would be more correct to say that ἀπάντησις is a 
meeting absolutely, whereas ὑπάντησις involves a notion of ‘looking out 
for,’ ‘waiting for,’ ‘waylaying. In most places where either word 
occurs there is the same variety of reading, συνάντησις being also found as 
a variant. The comparison of authorities shows that ἀπάντησις is to be 
preferred in Matt. xxv. 6, Acts xxviii. 15 and here, ὑπάντησις in Matt. viii. 
34, Matt. xxv. 1 and John xii. 13. The two passages in Matt. xxv. are 
significant of the variety in meaning of the two words. 

εἰς ἀέρα] ‘zto the air’ The distinction in classical writers between 
αἰθὴρ ‘the pure ether, and ἀὴρ ‘the atmosphere with the clouds etc.’ is 
strictly observed. Compare e.g. Hom. 71. viii. 558 οὐρανόθεν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ 
ὑπερράγη ἄσπετος αἰθήρ, xvii. 371 (where εὔκηλοι ὑπ᾽ αἰθέρι is distinguished 
from Od. viii. 562 ἠέρι καὶ νεφέλῃ), Plato Phaedo 111. Β ὃ δὲ ἡμῖν ὁ ἀήρ, 
ἐκείνοις τὸν αἰθέρα, and as late as Plutarch de esur. carn. or. 1 § 2 (p. 230 
ed, Hutten) ἔτι μὲν οὐρανὸν ἔκρυπτεν. So too in Christian writers, e.g. 
Athénag. Leg. 5 τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων ὄψει τῶν ἀδήλων νοῶν τὰ φαινόμενα, 
ἀέρος, αἰθέρος, γῆς. In the New Testament indeed the word αἰθὴρ does 
not occur, but still ἀὴρ seems to be used in its proper sense: e.g. Eph. 
ii. 2 τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, an expression which we cannot 
well explain unless ἀὴρ presented some contrast to the pure heaven, the 
οὐρανός, which is the abode of God and of Christ. Thus then εἰς ἀέρα here 
denotes that the Lord will descend into the immediate region of the 
earth, where He will be met by His faithful people. Of the final abode of 
His glorified saints nothing is said here; for the Apostle closes, as soon 
as he fulfilled his purpose of satisfying his Thessalonian readers that the 
dead will participate in Christ’s coming. The comment however of 
Augustine (de civit. Dei xx. 20. 2) is worth recording: ‘non sic accipien- 
dum est tanquam in aere nos dixerit semper cum Domino mansuros, 
quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit, quia veniens transiturus est; venienti 
quippe ibitur obviam, non manenti’; comp. Origen de princ. ii, 11 (I. p. 
104). 

οὕτως] ‘accordingly, i.e. ‘having thus joined our Lord.’ ‘ Paulus, 
quum quae scribi opus erat ad consolandum scripsit, maximas res hac 
brevitate involvit.’ Bengel. 

18. “ἐν τοῖς λόγοις] ‘with these words, i.e. ‘this my account of the 
Lord’s coming. The instrumental use of ἐν is noticeable, the action 
being ‘conceived of as existing in the means’ (Ellicott ad /oc., who refers 
to Wunder on Soph. Phz/oct. 60). 


CHAPTER V. 


(6) The time however is uncertain (v. 1—3). 


I. τῶν χρόνων kal τῶν καιρῶν] ‘ the times and the seasons.’ Compare Acts 

i. 7 οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστὶν γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιρούς, I Pet. i. 11, and Dan. ii. 21, 
Wisd. viii. 8, Eccles. iii. 1. Also Demosth. Olynth. 3 ὃ 32 τίνα yap χρόνον 
ἢ τίνα καιρόν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι τοῦ παρόντος βελτίω ζητεῖσθε; and Ign. 
Polyc. 3 τοὺς καιροὺς καταμάνθανε" τὸν ὑπὲρ καιρὸν προσδόκα, τὸν ἄχρονον (with 
the notes). The common distinction that χρόνος means a longer, καιρὸς a 
shorter period of time is erroneous, though it contains an element of 
truth. The real difference is correctly given by Ammonius p. 80 6 μὲν 
| καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιότητα, χρόνος δὲ ποσότητα. In fact χρόνος denotes a period 
\ of time whether long or short, and hence in reference to any particular 
event ‘the date.’ Καιρὸς on the other hand applies equally to place as to 
time (perhaps primarily to place rather than to time, as is generally the 
case), and signifies originally ‘the fit measure’ (compare the use of καίριος, 
e.g. AEsch. Agam. 1343 πέπληγμαι καιρίαν πληγήν). Hence in reference to 
time it is ‘the right moment,’ ‘the opportunity for doing, or avoiding to 
do, anything,’ involving the idea of adapiation. Now the opportunity for 
doing a thing is generally of brief duration (Demosth. Fads. Leg. p. 343.1 
πολλάκις συμβαίνει πολλῶν πραγμάτων καὶ μεγάλων καιρὸν ἐν βραχεῖ χρόνῳ 
γίγνεσθαι), and hence καιρὸς may frequently signify ‘a short period of 
| time’; but this is accidental, and it is best distinguished from χρόνος (as 
‘ by Ammonius) as pointing to gua/ity rather than guantity. There are 
some good passages in Trench VV. 7. Syn. p. 209 s. Jv., but he does not 
seem quite to hit off the distinction. Augustine Z/zs¢. 197 (quoted by 
Wordsworth) draws attention to the inadequacy of the Latin language to 
express the distinction between the two words ‘ibi (Acts i. 7) Graece legitur 
χρόνους ἢ καιρούς. Nostri utrumque hoc verbum /emfora appellant, sive 
χρόνους sive καιρούς, cum habeant haec duo inter se non negligendam 
differentiam, καιροὺς quippe appellant Graece tempora quaedam...quae in 
rebus ad aliquid opportunis vel importunis sentiuntur...ypovovs autem 
ipsa spatia temporum vocant.’ Tertullian’s translation (de resur. carn. 
24. 19) ‘de temporibus autem et temporum spatiis’ is utterly misleading. 


ον ἄσσον 


V. 2.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 71 


Here χρόνοι denotes the period which must elapse before and in the 
consummation of this great event, in other words it points to the date : 
while καιροὶ refers to the occurrences which will mark the occasion, the 
signs by which its approach will be ushered in (comp. Matt. xvi. 3 ra 
σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν). 

2. ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε] The resemblance in this passage to the saying of 
our Lord recorded in two of the Evangelists (Matt. xxiv. 43, Luke xii. 39) 
makes it probable that St Paul is referring to the very words of Christ. 
The introductory words ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε seem to point to our Lord’s 
authority. There is no ground however for supposing the existence of a 
written gospel at this time, since the same facts which were afterwards 
committed to writing would naturally form the substance of St Paul’s 
oral gospel. Had stch a written gospel existed and been circulated by 
St Paul, in the manner which has sometimes been supposed, he could 
scarcely have referred to his oral teaching in preference five years later in 
1 Cor. xi. 23 sq., xv. 1, when a reference to the written document would 
have been decisive. There is probably the same reference to our Lord’s 
saying in 2 Pet. iii. 10 ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ws κλέπτης; for several such are 
embedded in St Peter’s Epistles. 

ἡμέρα Κυρίου] In this expression, which is derived from the Old 
Testament, the word ἡμέρα seems originally to have involved no other 
notion than that of “me. It is of frequent occurrence in the prophets to 
designate the time of the manifestation of God’s sovereignty in some 
signal manner by the overthrow of His enemies (e.g. Is. ii. 12, Jer. xlvi. 
10, Ezek. vii. 10), and thus is used specially of the judgment day, of which 
these lesser imitations are but types. So Joel (ii. 31) distinguishes ‘the 
great and terrible day of the Lord’ from ordinary visitations. As the day 
of the Lord was the day far excellence, we find ἡ ἡμέρα (Rom. xiii. 12, 
Heb. x. 25) and 7 ἡμέρα ἐκείνη (2 Thess. i. 10, 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8) 
without the distinguishing Κυρίου or κρίσεως, of the judgment day. From 
this accidental connexion of meaning, ἡμέρα is sometimes used in the 
sense of judgment or verdict: 1 Cor. iv. 3 ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας, a 
meaning the currency of which would be facilitated by the analogy of 
the Latin ‘ diem dicere,’ see Stanley ad /oc. Compare Acts xvii. 31 ἔστησεν 
ἡμέραν «.t.d. i.e. appointed a day to vindicate Himself. On the collateral 
idea which has attached itself to ἡ ἡμέρα, see the note on ver. 4. 

The omission of the article, which the received text has inserted on 
inferior authority, is justified by Phil. i. 10, ii. 16 ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ, where see 
the notes, and 2 Pet. iii. 10 ἡμέρα Κυρίου, where there is the same varia- 
tion of reading as here. 

ἐν νυκτὶ) On the ecclesiastical tradition see Jerome on Matt. xxv. 6 
cited by Liinemann, p. 135, and compare Azb/ical Essays p. 153 for the 
Jewish expectation of the midnight appearance of the Messiah. 

ἔρχεται] ‘ cometh.’ The present tense denotes rather the certainty of 


_ its arrival, than the nearness. Similar instances of this usage are 1 Cor. 


72 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V..2. 


iii. 13 ἀποκαλύπτεται, Heb. viii. 8 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται (cited from Jer. xxxi. 
31), 1 John ii. 18 ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, I John iv. 3. See furtheron 2 Thess. 
ii. 9 οὗ ἐστὶν ἡ παρουσία. It is akin to the prophetic present. See Winer 
§ xl. p. 331 54. 

3. Grav λέγωσιν] It is difficult to explain the δὲ of the Textus 
Receptus before λέγωσιν, supposing it to be genuine. It cannot well 
mark the opposition between the faithful Thessalonians, who were 
waiting for the coming of the Lord, and the careless who would be taken 
by surprise ; for the absence of any expressed subject to λέγωσιν shows 
that the antithesis is not that of persons. If the conjunction is to be 
retained, the meaning is rather this : ‘though men have been warned that 
the Lord cometh as a thief in the night and should therefore be watchful 
and prepared, yet they will be taken by surprise.’ On the whole however 
manuscript evidence is rather in favour of omitting the word. 

If, as seems not unlikely, the sentence is a direct quotation from our 
Lord’s words, the reference implied in the word αὐτοῖς is to be sought for 
in the context of the saying from which St Paul quotes. 

εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια] Compare Ezek. xiii. 10, Jerem. vi. 14. 

τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς κιτιλ.} The resemblance of this passage to one of 
the apocalyptic discourses of our Lord recorded by St Luke (xxi. 34, 36) 
has not escaped observation, προσέχετε éavrois.. μὴ...«ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς 
αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη... ἵνα κατισχύσητε ἐκφυγεῖν ταῦτα πάντα. This is only 
one out of several special points of coincidence between St Paul’s Epistles 
and the Third Gospel, where it diverges from the others. Compare for 
instance the account of the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor. xi. 23—26) 
with Luke xxii. 19, 20, and the Lord’s appearance to St Peter (1 Cor. 
xv. 5) with Luke xxiv. 34 ; also the maxim in 1 Tim. v. 18 with Luke x. 7, 
where St Luke unites with St Paul in reading rod μισθοῦ, as distinct from 
the τῆς τροφῆς of Matt. x. 10. This confirms the tradition that the 
compiler of that Gospel was a companion of St Paul, and committed to 
writing the Gospel which the Apostle preached orally. 

ὠδὶν] ‘ the birth-throe of some new development,’ a frequent metaphor in 
the Old Testament : e.g. Psalm xlviii. 6, Jerem. vi. 24. 

The dissimilarity which this verse presents to the ordinary style of St 
Paul is striking. We seem suddenly to have stumbled on a passage out 
of the Hebrew prophets. This phenomenon appears frequently in the 
New Testament writers where they are dealing with Apocalyptic questions 
and with denunciations of woe, and in fact explains anomalies of style 
which otherwise would create considerable difficulty. The writers fall 
naturally into the imagery and the language. Such is the case in some 
degree with the second chapter of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 
(see also 2 Thess. i. 7); and to a still greater extent with a large portion of 
St Peter’s Second Epistle, where the Apocalyptic portion is so different 
in style from the rest, that some have thought to settle the question of its 
genuineness by rejecting this portion and retaining the remainder. It 


V.-4.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 73 


explains also to a great extent the marked difference in style between the 
Revelation of St John and his other writings. 


(c) Weatchfulness therefore is necessary (ν. 4—11). 


4. ‘Ye are living in the daylight now. Therefore there will be no 
sudden change for you. You will not be surprised by the transition from 
darkness to light, when the secret sins of men shall be revealed.’ 

ὑμεῖς δὲ] ‘ut ye, as opposed to the careless and unbelieving of the 
former verse. Compare Eph. iv. 20 ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν. 
The opposition is still further enforced by the emphatic position of ὑμᾶς 
below, preceding the verb which governs it. 

ἵνα] It is possible to assign to iva here its original force of purpose or 
design, ‘in order that’; and to explain it as used in reference to the 
counsels of God. But the word is better taken here, as simply expressing 
the result or consequence, a meaning which in the decline of the Greek 
language gradually displaced its original signification. An analogous 
case is Gal. v. 17 ταῦτα yap ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα 
ποιῆτε : see also above ii. 16 (with the note). 

ἡ ἡμέρα] ‘the day’ of judgment, ‘the day’ Jar excellence. As we have 
-seen above, the primary meaning of ‘the day’ as applied to the coming of 
the Lord involved only a notion of time (see note on ver. 2): but the 
word came naturally to imply an idea of revelation, enlightenment (1 Cor. 
iv. 5), and thus to suggest a contrast between the darkness of the present 
world and the light of the future—the one being related to the other as 
night to day. This is the predominant notion of ἡ ἡμέρα here. See 
1 Cor. iii. 13 ἡ yap ἡμέρα δηλώσει, Rom. xiii. 12 ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ 
ἡμέρα ἤγγικεν (the whole passage strongly resembling this), compared with 
Heb. x. 25 τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν. In the 
first of these passages the further notion of ‘fire’ comes in (see the note 
on I Cor. iii. 13 ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται). 

κλέπτας] The reading κλέπτας, though perhaps insufficiently supported 
by external authority (being read only by AB and the Egyptian versions), 
has a claim to preference on the ground of its being the more difficult and 
on internal grounds is rendered probable. It is extremely unlikely that 
a transcriber would alter κλέπτης into κλέπτας, while (in face of ver. 2) the 
converse is highly probable, and indeed natural. The inversion of the 
metaphor in κλέπτης, κλέπτας is quite after St Paul’s manner. See the 
note on ii. 7 and the examples collected there. 

The Apostle’s way of dealing with metaphors may be still further 
illustrated by the different lights in which ἡμέρα is presented here, and by 
the double figurative application of γρηγορεῖν, καθεύδειν, first to the 
spiritually watchful and careless in ver. 6, and then to the physically 
living and the dead in ver. 10. Nothing, in short, is farther from his aim 

_ than to present a simple and consistent metaphor. No application which 


74 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. CVs 


suggests itself is discarded on rules of rhetoric. All things are lawful to 
him, if only they are expedient ; and wherever a great spiritual lesson is 
to be enforced, the first instrument which comes to hand is made use of, 
even though it might offend the more refined and exact taste of some. 
This, we may suppose, was one of the characteristics of his eloquence 
which made him appear ‘rude of speech’ (2 Cor. xi. 6) to the critical ears 
of a Greek audience. 

Moreover the reading κλέπτας is better adapted to what follows: 
‘that the day should surprise you as if ye were thieves: for ye are all 
sons of light etc.’ For the whole idea see a remarkable coincidence in 
Euripides (1291. tn Taur. 1025, 6) ΙΦ. ὡς δὴ σκότος λαβόντες ἐκσωθεῖμεν 
ἄν ; ΟΡ. κλεπτῶν γὰρ ἡ νύξ, τῆς δ᾽ ἀληθείας τὸ φώς. 

5. υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε] ‘sons of light, as opposed to the unenlightened, 
whether heathen or Jews; but to the former especially, see Eph. v. 8 
ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ" ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε. For 
the expression υἱοὶ φωτός compare also Luke xvi. 8 (where οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ 
φωτὸς are opposed to οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου), and John xii. 36. Is the 
expression found, and, if found, is it at all common previously to the 
New Testament? In the earliest utterances which usher in the new dis- 
pensation, the songs of Zachariah (Luke i. 78) and of Simeon (Luke ii. 32), 
the idea of the Messiah as a light is impressively dwelt upon ; though there, 
as might be expected, from an Israelite pre-Christian point of view, as 
one ‘to lighten the Gentiles,’ the contrast being rather between the 
Jews and the heathen, than between the believer in Christ and the 
unbeliever. 

viol ἡμέρας] This is a slight advance upon viol φωτός. ‘Not only 
have ye an illumination of your own, but you are also living and 
moving in an enlightened sphere.’ Christ is the φῶς ; the Church or (in 
the frequent language of scripture) the kingdom of God is the ἡμέρα, of the 
believer. 

To the believer the boundary-line between darkness and light is the 
time of his being brought to the knowledge of Christ. Here, rather than 
at the moment of his dissolution, or of the Second Advent of Christ, is the 
great change wrought. From this time forward he is living in the light. 
And the revelation of a future state presents no such contrast of light and 
darkness as that which he had already passed. The view which St Paul 
here presents of ἡμέρα, first in the revelation of Christ at His Second 
Advent, and then as the present illumination of the faithful, is exactly 
akin to the double significance of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ (or τῶν οὐρανῶν) 
which runs through the New Testament. 

vuKrds οὐδὲ σκότους) ‘we belong not to night, neither to darkness, 
σκότους Corresponding to φωτός, and νυκτὸς to ἡμέρας by the figure called 
chiasm. For this diagonal correspondence see §elf Gr. 904. 3, Madvig 
Lat. Gr. 473.4, Winer ὃ 1. p. 511, § lix. p. 658. 

6. In this passage the metaphor of ‘sleep’ is applied to the careless 








V. 8.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 75 


and indifferent, that of ‘drunkenness’ to the reckless and profligate. 
The one is to the other as negative to positive sin. 

ἐσμὲν] In the preceding verse ἔστε had been employed. For a 
similar interchange of the first and second persons see Gal. iii. 25, 26 
ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν" πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ 
ἐστὲ κιτιλ. Other examples are given in the note on Col. ii. 13. Here as 
there St Paul is eager to share with his disciples the responsibilities 
entailed by his Christian privileges. 

ἄρα] in classical usage never commences an independent sentence. 
But in later Greek it assumes a more strictly argumentative sense than in 
the earlier language, and so frequently occupies the first place. The 
combination dpa οὖν is frequent in St Paul, especially in the Romans 
(e.g. v. 18, vii. 3 εἰς.) On the difference between dpa and dpa see the 
note on Gal, ii. 17. 

ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ] See the note on iv. 5. 

yenyopapev kal νήφωμεν] For the collocation see 1 Pet. v. 8 νήψατε, 
γρηγορήσατε. 

7. οἱ γὰρ καθεύδοντες κιτ.λ.}] No figurative meaning is to be attached 
to this verse. It is simply a general explanation of the circumstances 
employed in the metaphor. ‘ Night is the time when men sleep and are 
drunken.’ 

μεθυσκόμενοι...μεθύουσιν] ‘those who get drunk...are drunk. Bengel 
remarks rightly: ‘Me@voxoua notat actum, μεθύω statum vel habitum.’ 
The difference of meaning however between the two words is scarcely 
perceptible and does not affect the sense of the passage. Elsewhere the 
distinction between the action of becoming drunk and the state of being 
drunk is obvious: e.g. Luke xii. 45 πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι, Acts ii. 15 ov... 
οὗτοι μεθύουσιν : and so in the classics Plutarch Symp. iii. qu. 3 (p. 650 A) 
διὰ τί γυναῖκες ἥκιστα μεθύσκονται, τάχιστα δὲ οἱ γέροντες ; Aristoph. Plut. 
1047 μεθύων ὡς ἔοικεν ὀξύτερον βλέπει, 

8. ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα] The train of thought which suggested the 
transition from the mention of sobriety to that of the Christian armour is 
not very obvious. And yet there is exactly the same connexion in Rom. 
xiii. 12, 13 Ἢ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικεν᾽ ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ 
σκότους, καὶ ἐνδυσώμεθα τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός᾽ ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, εὐσχημόνως περι- 
πατήσωμεν. Perhaps the mention of vigilance suggested the idea of a 
sentry armed and on duty. 

With this account of the parts of the Christian armour, compare 
Ephes. vi. 13—17, where the metaphor is more fully drawn out. The 
differences between the two passages are such as to show that it would 
_ be unsafe to lay too much stress on the individual weapons in applying 


δὰ the lesson. Corresponding to the ‘breast-plate of faith and love,’ we 


have in Ephesians ‘the breast-plate of righteousness’ and a little lower 


down ‘the shield of faith,’ love not being mentioned at all. Answering to 


᾿ περικεφαλαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, the Ephesian epistle has περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ 


77 


76 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 8. 


σωτηρίου. Perhaps without attempting any minute application of the 
metaphor, we may still go so far as to recognize the common distinction 
of heart and head, the seat of the feelings and affections, and the seat of 
the intellect. Compare Philo Zeg. AW. i. § 22 1. p. 57, ed. Mangey. 

The base of both passages is to be found in Isaiah lix. 17 ἐνεδύσατο 
δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα καὶ περιέθετο περικεφαλαίαν σωτηρίου ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. 
Compare also a kindred passage, Wisdom ν. 17 sq λήμψεται πανοπλίαν 
τὸν ζῆλον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁπλοποιήσει τὴν κτίσιν εἰς ἄμυναν ἐχθρῶν. ἐνδύσεται 
θώρακα δικαιοσύνην καὶ περιθήσεται κόρυθα κρίσιν ἀνυπόκριτον " λήμψεται 
ἀσπίδα ἀκαταμάχητον ὁσιότητα, ὀξυνεῖ δὲ ἀπότομον ὀργὴν εἰς ῥομφαίαν x.r.A. 
The language οὗ St Paul is loosely imitated by Ignatius Polyc. 6, who 
SayS ἡ πίστις ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ ἀγάπη ὡς δόρυ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ ὡς πανοπλία K.T.A., 
a passage which corresponds more closely to Ephes. vi. than to the verses 
under discussion. 

On the mention of the triad of Christian virtues, and the position 
occupied by ἐλπὶς see the note on i. 3. 

πίστεως Kal ἀγάπης] For faith is not fulfilled except by love. For 
this connexion which exists between faith and love and thus accounts for 
their conjunction here, compare Gal. v. 6 πίστις δὲ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη 
(with the note). 

9. ὅτι] ‘which hope is reasonable, for God appointed us not to wrath 
etc.’ 
εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας] This expression is capable of two interpre- 
tations. 

First. It may mean ‘for the acquisition of salvation, i.e. that we may 
obtain salvation, the περιποίησις being regarded as our own act. This 
has the advantage of simplicity here, as also in 2 Thess. ii. 14, Heb. x. 39, 
in which latter passage perhaps it is necessary. 

Secondly. It may be rendered ‘for the adoption of salvation,’ the 
περιποίησις being the act of God, and σωτηρίας signifying ‘ which consists 
in salvation.’ In favour of this may be urged the almost technical sense 
which the words περιποιεῖσθαι, περιποίησις bear in the New Testament, 
being used to denote the act of God in purchasing, or setting apart, for 
Himself a peculiar people. Compare Acts xx. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
ἣν περιεποίησατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, I Pet. ii. 9 λαὸς els περιποίησιν, 
and Ephes. i. 13,14 ἐσφραγίσθητε...εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως (which 
passage is further useful as illustrating the use of the genitive σωτηρίας 
here, see the note). Thus περιποίησις is almost equivalent to ἐκλογή. 
See the Old Testament usage also, Isaiah xliii. 21 λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιη- 
σάμην, Mal. iii. 17 καὶ ἔσονταί pot...eis περιποίησιν. On the LXX. equivalent 


of mb3p, which is rendered by the two phrases εἰς περιποίησιν and — 


περιούσιος, see the discussion on the words περιούσιος, περιουσιασμὸς in 
Appendix I. of the work On a Fresh Revision of the English New 
Testament p. 260 sq (3rd ed. 1891). 

διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου x.t.d.] to be taken with eis περιποίησιν σωτηρίας. 


, 


“ὐπὸ πυ ὰὰψϑοτέτ το ee 


ee 





V. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 77 


10. This verse is remarkable as enunciating the great Christian 
doctrine of the Redemption, to which elsewhere there is no allusion in the 
Epistles to the Thessalonians, though it forms the main subject of 
St Paul’s teaching in the second chronological group of his Epistles. It 
is presented moreover, as it is there, in its double aspect: /irs/, as 
implying an act on the part of Christ (rod ἀποθανόντος περὶ ἡμῶν); and 
secondly, as involving the union of the believer with Christ (iva...dua σὺν 
αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν). On this double aspect of the scheme of the Redemption, 
and on the position occupied by the doctrine in St Paul’s teaching 
’ generally, see Biblical Essays, p. 229 sq. 

Here the mention of it is important as showing that in his earliest 
writings this doctrine* was present to St Paul’s mind, though he has 
busied himself generally in these Epistles with other matters. It was 
not therefore, as has been maintained, an aftergrowth of his maturer 
reflections. 

τοῦ ἀποθανόντος περὶ ἡμῶν] describing the means by which this sal- 
vation is obtained for us. As the preposition is περί, not ἀντί, the sense 
of a vicarious death cannot be insisted upon here. It is otherwise in 
1 Tim. ii. 6 δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, where see the note. But 
the whole passage points to the death of Christ as being the one essential 
act by which eternal life was purchased for us. On the fundamental 
difference between περὶ and ὑπὲρ see the note on Gal. i. 4 τοῦ δόντος 
ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. Here, as there, there is a strongly sup- 
ported variant ὑπέρ ; but περὶ is read by NB, and should be preferred. 

εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν] i.e. ‘whether we are alive or whether 
we are dead at the time of His appearing.’ In these words St Paul 
again reverts to the difficulty felt by the Thessalonians relative to the 
dead (iv. 13) whence this whole paragraph arose. Thus the resemblance 
to Rom. xiv. 8 ἐάν re οὖν ζῶμεν, ἐάν τε ἀποθνήσκωμεν, τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσμέν is 
rather one of expression than of substantial meaning. 

Observe in γρηγορῶμεν, καθεύδωμεν an entirely different application of 
the metaphor from that which applied to ver. 6. It is not now of the 
Spiritual slumber that the Apostle speaks, but of the slumber of death. 
See the extract from Photius quoted on iv. 14 διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 

εἴτε] The use of εἰ with a subjunctive is extremely rare in Attic 
Greek, but becomes more common at a later epoch. A few authenticated 
instances may be produced from the New Testament : e.g. in the Pauline 
Epistles, Phil. iii. 11 εἴ πως καταντήσω (where see the note) and 1 Cor. 
xiv. 5 ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ Siepunvedn. In other alleged examples the future is 
probably to be read: e.g. Rom. i. 10, 1 Cor. ix. 11. Here however the 
subjunctive may perhaps be explained by a sort of attraction to the 
subjunctive ζήσωμεν of the clause on which this depends. See Moulton 
in Winer § xli. p. 368, who explains the passage here as I have done. 
᾿ς ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ] ‘together with Him. “Aya can scarcely be separated 
from σὺν αὐτῷ : see the note on iv. 17. 


78 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [νι τὰς 


11. διὸ] ‘wherefore, referring to the main lesson of the paragraph 
(iv. 13—v. 11) respecting the condition of the dead at the coming of the 
Christ. This lesson has been accidentally summed up in the concluding 
words of the preceding verse, iva, εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν; ἅμα σὺν 
αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν. 

παρακαλεῖτε] ‘ comfort, not ‘exhort,’ this being in fact a reiteration of 
the precept in iv. 18. 

οἰκοδομεῖτε] ‘edify, butld up, as a temple for the Holy Spirit ; see the 
note on 1 Cor. iii. 12. This metaphor runs throughout the different 
chronological groups of St Paul’s Epistles, the figure of a temple being 
applied sometimes to the individual believer (1 Cor. vi. 19), sometimes to 
the collective church, each individual being a stone in the building 
(Ephes. ii. 2o—22). The passage last cited well illustrates the metaphor : 
see the notes there. 

els τὸν ἕνα] Compare 1 Cor. iv. 6. It is a rather late, though not 
unclassical, expression for ἀλλήλους (iv. 18), than which however it is 
somewhat stronger. The earliest writer in whom any analogous ex- 
pression seems to occur is Theocr. xxii. 65 εἷς vi χεῖρας Getpov. The 
passages cited by Winer (p. 217) from Herod. iv. 50, and by Ellicott 
ad loc. from Plat. Legg. i. p. 626C, are scarcely to the point. The oc- 
currence however of the phrase in classical Greek shows that it is not 
sufficient to explain the expression here and 1 Cor. iv. 6 εἷς ὑπὲρ rod ἑνός 
as an Aramaism with Hoffmann (Gramm. Syr. 111. p. 330) and others; 
though this may account for the kindred phrase, Ezek. xxiv. 23 mapaxa- 


λέσετε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, which is a translation of pny Sy wr, 
and Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 34, quoted in Heb. viii. 11. 

καθὼς kal ποιεῖτε] Compare iv. I, 10, where similar encouragement is 
given to the Thessalonians. St Paul again guards himself against 
seeming to rebuke, while he intends but to exhort. 


iv. LExhortation to orderly living and the due performance 
of social duties (v. 12—15). 


12. The thread of connexion with the last topic, though slender, may 
yet be traced. Having charged his converts to edify one another, the 
Apostle is reminded of those on whom the office of instruction especially 
devolved, and is led to speak of the duty of the whole body of Christians 
towards these their teachers. St Chrysostom however goes too far in 
representing the connexion with the preceding verses as one of contrast, 
as if St Paul would say, ‘while you edify one another, do not usurp the 
functions of your appointed ministers.’ Such an interpretation smacks 
rather of later ecclesiastical feeling, and is scarcely suited to the very 
primitive condition of the Thessalonian Church. The train of thought is 
rather a return to the subject of the restlessness of the Thessalonians 
connected with the immediate expectation of the Second Advent. 


——T 


“δ, δα i tee, πὰ σα, i i ς-06..“ἕἦ. 


a 


V.13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 79 


εἰδέναι] “20 know, with a pregnant meaning, i.e. ‘to see in their 
true character, to recognize the worth of, to appreciate, to value.’ 
Compare the expression εἰδέναι τὸν Θεόν, εἰδέναι τὸν πατέρα, and with the 
same meaning as here 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ἐπιγινώσκετε οὖν τοὺς τοιούτους. 
This sense of ‘appreciation’ probably underlies the verb εἰδέναι in such 
passages as 1 Cor. ii. 2 οὐ yap ἔκρινά τι εἰδέναι ἐν ὑμῖν εἰ μὴ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, 
and 12 ἵνα εἰδῶμεν τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ χαρισθέντα ἡμῖν. A similar phrase is 
found in Ign. Smyrn. 9 καλῶς ἔχει Θεὸν καὶ ἐπίσκοπον εἰδέναι. The 
Hebrew verb Μ᾽ is used in the same sense, e.g. Job ix. 21. 

τοὺς κοπιῶντας... καὶ προϊσταμένους... καὶ νουθετοῦντας] The fact that 
the article is not repeated here before προϊσταμένους and νουθετοῦντας 
makes it probable that some single office is thus designated. If so, it 
can scarcely be any other than that of the presbytery, which would 
involve all the duties specified in κοπιῶντας, προϊσταμένους, νουθετοῦντας, 
Compare especially 1 Tim. v. 17 οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι 
διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λύγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ, 
(for there iseno reason for supposing that the offices of ruling and of 
teaching were in separate hands), and the functions of the ἐπίσκοποι (i.e. 
πρεσβύτεροι) as described in 1 Timothy and Titus. See Philippians 
p. 194 sq on these twofold duties of the presbyters. It is probable also 
that St Paul intended to designate the presbytery collectively in Ephes. 
iv. 11 under the term τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, where again the 
article is not repeated before the second title. See the note on that 
passage, and compare Schaff History of the Apostolic Church, i. p. 134 sq 
(1876). It is much more likely that local officers, such as the presbyters, 
are here intended, than any other spiritual functionaries, such as 
prophets or evangelists (Ephes. iv. 11, 1 Cor. xii. 28). 

We read of ‘presbyters’ in the church of Jerusalem, some seven or 
eight years before this time (Acts xi. 30). And on St Paul’s first Apostolic 
journey we find him ordaining elders in every church (Acts xiv. 23), 
though these churches had been only recently founded during this same 
journey, and can have been in existence only a few months at most. 

κοπιῶντας] is a general term, which is further explained by mpoiora- 
μένους ὑμῶν and vovOerovvras ὑμᾶς, these two functions corresponding 
roughly to those assigned to the presbyters in Ephes. iv. 11 ποιμένας καὶ 
διδασκάλους, the duties namely of ruling and of teaching. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ] to show that he is speaking here of their spiritual, not of 
their political rulers. 

13. Kal ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς κιτ.λ)}] The sentence may be taken in two 
ways, according as ἐν ἀγάπῃ or ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ is attached to ἡγεῖσθαι--- 

(1) Ἡγεῖσθαι ἐν ἀγάπῃ ‘to hold (or to esteem) in love’ This con- 
struction however is deficient in support. For Job xxxv. 2 ri τοῦτο 
ἡγήσω ἐν κρίσει is a parallel in form only and not in meaning, ἡγήσω being 
there equivalent to ‘cogitasti’: and in Thuc. ii. 18 ἐν ὀργῇ ἔχειν τινα the 
parallelism vanishes in the difference of the verbs, for the real difficulty 


80 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ΤΥ. 13. 


here consists in attaching its proper significance to ἡγεῖσθαι (“to hold,’ in 
the sense of ‘to consider, regard’) in connexion with ἐν ἀγάπῃ. 

(2) Ἡγεῖσθαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ‘to esteem very highly’—in which 
case ἡγεῖσθαι assumes something more than a neutral meaning, and 
implies more or less the ‘looking with favour upon.’ Compare Thuc. 
ii. 42 τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι καὶ παθεῖν μᾶλλον ἡγησάμενοι ἢ τὸ ἐνδόντες σώζεσθαι 
‘preferring rather to suffer in self-defence etc.’; where, as here, ἡγεῖσθαι 
is found with an adverb. On the whole this interpretation is perhaps 
better than the former, but it were to be wished that other parallels 
could be produced. 

εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] St Paul here glides off from special precepts 
into a general and comprehensive one. So below, ver. 14 paxpoOupeire 
πρὸς πάντας, Ver. 22 ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ x.r.A. Perhaps the correction 
εἰρηνεύετε ἐν αὐτοῖς, which has the support of ND and was read by 
Chrysostom and Theodoret, arose from not appreciating this fact, and 
from a desire to restrict the precept to the matter in hand. At all 
events it can scarcely mean what it is interpreted by some to mean: ‘ Be 
at peace in your intercourse with them’ (διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν εἰρηνεύετε ἐν 
αὐτοῖς Chrysostom, μὴ ἀντιλέγειν τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτῶν λεγομένοις Theodoret). 

14. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς «.t.A.] The Greek commentators regard 
these exhortations as addressed to the presbyters ; but there is nothing in 
the form of the sentence to indicate this restriction. On the contrary the 
terms of the appeal are exactly the same as in ver. 12. Such a change of 
subject lays an undue stress on ὑμᾶς. 

In illustration of the three special points in this exhortation, we may 
refer (1) for vovOereire τοὺς ἀτάκτους to 2 Thess. iii. 6, 11, and the note on 
iv. 11, where the nature of this ἀταξία is discussed ; (2) for παραμυθεῖσθε 
τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους to iv. 13, 18, and (3) for ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν to 
iii. 3, 5 (see especially the note on σαίνεσθαι). At the same time the 
exhortations do not apply to these alone; for there could be other 
disorderly members, others faint-hearted, and others weak in the faith, 
besides those who are hinted at in these passages. 

ἀτάκτους] is properly a military term, ‘one who leaves his rank.’ See 
the note on 2 Thess. iii. 6 ἀτάκτως. 

ὀλιγοψύχους) Compare Lxx. Is. lvii. 15 ; Ecclus. vii. 10, Prov. xviii. 14. 

ἀσθενῶν] i.e. the spiritually weak ; as in Rom. iv. 19 μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ 
πίστει, xiv. 1, 2, 1 Cor. viii. 7—12, ix. 22. For the difference between 
ἀσθενὴς and πτωχὸς see the note on Gal. iv. 9. 

ἀντέχεσθε] ‘Jay hold of; i.e. ‘remain firm towards, stand by, give 
support to.’ The word is used of the man who endeavours to serve two 
masters ‘he will hold to the one’ (ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται Matt. vi. 24, Luke 
xvi. 13): so of steadfastness to doctrine (Tit. i. 9). 

15. For this passage compare Rom. xii. 17—19, 1 Pet. iii. 9. The 
repetition of the phrase μὴ ἀποδιδόναι κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ in all three passages 
would seem to point to some saying of our Lord as the original. 


“ 





# 


V.17.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 81 


τὸ ἀγαθὸν] Not ‘what is absolutely good, good in a moral point of 
view,’ which would be τὸ καλόν; but what is beneficial, as opposed to 
κακὸν in the sense of injury or harm. See iii. 6, and the note on ἀγαθὴν 
there; also the contrast below, ver. 21 τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε. 

εἰς ἀλλήλους Kal εἰς πάντας] ‘to the Christian brotherhood and to 
mankind generally.’ Compare iii. 12, iv. 9 with the notes. On the 
heathen view of retaliation, of which the exhortation above is the direct 
denial, see Soph. ““γέζρ. 643, 4 ws καὶ τὸν ἐχθρὸν ἀνταμύνωνται κακοῖς, καὶ 
τὸν φίλον τιμῶσιν ἐξ ἴσου πατρί. 


v. Injunctions relating to prayer and spiritual matters 
“generally (v. 16—22). . 


16. πάντοτε χαίρετε] This precept again may have been suggested 
by the preceding, though the connexion between the two is not very 
close. The maxim of universal well-doing just enunciated leads the 
Apostle’s thoughts to the frame of mind which naturally results from it. 

There is something startling in the command πάντοτε χαίρετε. It is 
strange that the disciples of Him, Who was preeminently ‘a man of 
sorrows and acquainted with grief,’ should be bidden to ‘ rejoice always.’ 
Yet ‘joy’ is elsewhere no less distinctly attributed to the Christian 
character—‘joy in the Holy Ghost’ (Rom. xiv. 17). Admitted to a fuller 
insight into the dispensations of providence, the Christian sees the token 
of God’s goodness in all things, even in persecution and sickness. This 
is a never-failing source of joy to him. Onthe other hand, it may be said 
no less truly that sorrow is especially the Christian’s heritage. For with a 
fuller sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, of the fearful significance of 
death, he has more abundant matter for sorrow in the scenes amidst which 
he moves, than those whose convictions are lessdeep. Yet the two attitudes 
are not antagonistic. They may, and do, coexist. How much of the 
purest joy is mingled with the most heartfelt sorrow in the higher types 
of Christian mourning! On this injunction to rejoice see further on Phil. 
ii, 18, iii. 1, iv. 4. 

17. ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσϑε] It is not in the moving of the lips, but 
in the elevation of the heart to God, that the essence of prayer consists. 
Thus amidst the commonest duties and recreations of life it is still 
possible to be engaged in prayer. And in this sense the command to 
pray without ceasing must receive its noblest and most real fulfilment; 
for though from a necessary condition of our nature the duty of expressing 
our aspirations to God in words is laid upon us, yet this is only as a means 
to an end or as the letter to the spirit. It is in the spirit alone that it is 
possible to ‘pray without ceasing.’ Origen remarks characteristically, 
περὶ εὐχῆς 12, ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεται...ὁ συνάπτων τοῖς δέουσιν ἔργοις τὴν 
εὐχὴν καὶ τῇ εὐχῇ τὰς πρεπούσας πράξειςς οὕτω γὰρ μόνως τὸ ἀδιαλείπτως 


L. EP. 6 


82 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 17 


προσεύχεσθε ἐκδέξασθαι δυνάμεθα ὡς δυνατὸν ὃν εἰρημένον, εἰ πάντα τὸν βίον 
τοῦ ἁγίου μίαν συναπτομένην μεγάλην εἴποιμεν εὐχὴν κιτιλ. See the whole 
passage, and compare Tertullian de Oratione, 29. 

ἀδιαλείπτως] This adverb occurs above, i. 2, ii. 13, and Rom. i. 9: the 
adjective, Rom. ix. 2, 2 Tim. i. 3. Both are peculiar to St Paul in New 
Testament writings. The adverb however is found four times in the 
Maccabees (e.g. 1 Macc. xii. 11, 2 Macc. iii. 26), and there only of the 
LXxX. The form, which is a late one, occurs in Plutarch more than once, 
e.g. ad Afoll. το (p. 106 E), 37 (121 E), the adverb being frequently 
applied to military attack, e.g. Josephus .8. F. v. 6. 4,7. 2 etc. St Paul’s 
employment of the words made them popular in early Christian writings, 
and the expression ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθαι is found in Ignatius (21. το, 
comp. Polyc. 1 προσευχαῖς σχόλαζε ἀδιαλείπτοις) and Hermas (.S2m. ix. 11. 7 
ἀδιαλείπτως προσηυχόμην). 

18. ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε] “772 every thing give thanks’; for there is 
no event of our lives, which has not its bright side as well as its dark; 
no incident which may not be turned to good account, and therefore 
nothing for which we have not reason to thank God, if we view it in a 
right spirit. 

This is one form of St Paul’s constant practice of referring all our 
thoughts and actions, all the dispensations of providence, to the glory of 
God, as their ultimate end and aim: e.g. Rom. xv. 6, 7, 1 Cor. x. 31, 
Ephes. i. 6, 12,14. For what is thanksgiving but a recognition of His 
Majesty, and a tribute to His divine power? This is St Paul’s view 
markedly in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. II, 12. On εὐχαριστεῖν see the note 
on i. 2. 

τοῦτο γὰρ] It is difficult to decide whether τοῦτο refers to the three 
preceding precepts, or to the last only. But as these three precepts are 
so closely connected together both in form and in purport, it is perhaps 
better to include them all under τοῦτο. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] ‘For the will of God is manifested in Christ, not 
only by His life and death in the flesh, but also because through Him all 
God’s government of the world (whether moral or physical) is carried on.’ 
See John i. 3, 18. 

εἰς ὑμᾶς] ‘20 you-ward.’ 

19. τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε] Having dwelt on duties which are 
especially of a spiritual character, St Paul naturally turns to speak of 
the obligations of his converts to the Holy Spirit generally. 

It has been thought strange however that the exhortation not to 
‘quench the Spirit’ should be needed. On the contrary, much more 
danger might reasonably be apprehended from an unchastened enthusiasm 
in the first flush of their devotion to the Gospel. To meet this difficulty 
it is supposed that a reaction had taken place among the more sober- 
minded against the spiritual ἀταξία which beset the Church, and that 
among such there was a disposition to disregard the gifts of the Spirit. 

















V. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 83 


It is perhaps better however to give the exhortation a wider signifi- 
cance. We need not assume a direct reference to the special manifes- 
tations (χαρίσματα) of the Apostolic age. The meaning may well be: 
‘Quench not the Spirit, whether by carelessness, or hardness of heart, or 
immorality.’ Compare Ephes. iv. 30 καὶ μὴ Aumeire τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε κιτιλ. In this case we need not seek to account 
for the precept in any special circumstances of the Thessalonian Church, 
and we may compare the Apostle’s injunction to Timothy ἀναμιμνήσκω σε 
ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ (2 Tim. i. 6). Bengel’s view is not quite 
clear. He begins: ‘rd πνεῦμα sfirétum i.e. charismata.’ In the next 
note however he appears to give a wider interpretation to the metaphor: 
‘spiritus, ubi est, ardet: ideo non exstinguendus, nec in nobis, nec in 
aliis.’ 

20. From the general mention of the Spirit, the Apostle passes on to 
speak of one of the special gifts of the Spirit. 

προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε] It would seem that there was the same 
tendency among the Thessalonians to underrate ‘prophecy’ in comparison 
with other more striking gifts of the Spirit, which St Paul condemns in 
writing to the Corinthians. See especially 1 Cor. xiv. 1 ζηλοῦτε ra 
πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ iva προφητεύητε, 2—5, 22, 24, 25, 39. 

In the words πρόφημι, προφήτης, προφητεία etc., according to their 
classical usage, the meaning is that of forth-telling rather than of fore- 
telling. The προφήτης was one who pronounced or enunciated to men 
the will or command of the deity whose minister he was. Though he 
might at times be charged with the prediction of future events, as the 
manifestation of that will, and thus be a ‘prophet’ in the common 
acceptance of the term, still this was only an accident of his office. The 
Hebrew term 7adz (which is translated by προφήτης in the LXX.) originally 
signified nothing more, though the idea of prediction is most frequently 
associated with it. See Gesenius 5. v. δ) and especially Stanley’s 
Jewish Church (first series), Lecture xix. p. 415 sq. In the New 
Testament the notion of foretelling is kept in the background; rarely 
appearing (as Acts xi. 28 of Agabus), except in reference to the prophets 
of the Old Dispensation. When any of these words are used by St Paul 
of the special gift of the Spirit, there is not the slightest allusion to the 
anticipation of future events. ‘Prophesying’ is closely connected with 
‘praying’ (1 Cor. xi. 4, 5). ‘He that prophesieth, speaketh unto men 
edification and exhortation and comfort’ (26. xiv. 3). The conviction of 
sin, the manifestation of the secrets of the heart, are attributed to this 
gift as its work (26. xiv. 24, 25). Prophecy is in short the impassioned 
and inspired utterance of the deep things of God. 

The Greek προφητεία is sometimes rendered in the Authorized Trans- 
lation by ‘prophecy,’ sometimes by ‘prophesying.’ In this passage all 
the early English Versions seem to have ‘prophesyings.’ And the word 
would convey quite the correct idea, as it was used in the English of the 


6—2 





84 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 20. 


time. The religious revivals or ‘prophesyings’ of the reign of Elizabeth 
are a matter of history, and Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying is a store- 
house of information as regards the interpretations put upon the word 
and idea in his own and in earlier times. 

21. πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε] ‘yet at the same time prove, test, all things’: 
i.e. ‘do not be led away by counterfeits.’ The disjunctive particle δὲ is 
almost necessary for the sense; and, where omitted, as in AN, may 
have been absorbed in the following syllable. 

‘The simple fact of a preternatural inspiration is not enough to 
establish the claims of a spirit to be heard. There are inspirations from 
below as well as from above.’ With such a conviction at least the 


, injunction here is given, and St John says more explicitly μὴ παντὶ 


---.. 


πνεύματι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν, ὅτι 
πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον (I John iv. 1). And 
such also is the universal language of the early Church in relation to 
spiritual manifestations. Witness the case of miracles to which Justin 
Martyr makes allusion (AZo/. τ. § 14, Trypho §§ 7, 69, 85). 

— The test, of which St Paul speaks here, however, is not that of an 
intellectual criticism or a balance of evidences. He is contemplating not 
so much a logical as a spiritual criterion. It is by a spiritual standard 
that things spiritual are to be tried (πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συνκρίνοντες 
1 Cor. ii. 13 and see the whole passage in which this expression is 
embedded). The discrimination of spirits (διάκρισις πνευμάτων) was no 
less a spiritual gift of the Spirit than ‘prophesying’ (προφητεία) itself. 
See 1 Cor. xii. Io. 

πάντα] Not πάντα τὰ πνεύματα ‘all spirits,’ or πάντα τὰ τῆς προφητείας ‘all 
kinds of prophesyings’; but ‘all things whatsoever,’ for a general precept 
is required to introduce the following words τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε, ἀπὸ παντὸς 
εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθες. The sentence might be paraphrased thus: 


‘*Quench not the Spirit, nor despise prophesyings: but on the other 


hand do not rashly give heed without testing them, In fact test all 
things. This is an universal law from which spiritual experiences are 
not exempt,’ ‘The possibility of a ψευδοπροφητεία (see Chrysostom) is 
alluded to also in the Second Epistle (2 Thess, ii. 2 μήτε διὰ πνεύματος 
μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε SC ἐπιστολῆς ws δ ἡμῶν). Thus the admonition, 
though called forth to meet the special case of spirits, assumes a general 
form. 
δοκιμάζετε] ‘ Zesz,? a metaphor probably derived from assaying precious 
metal, as the word is frequently used in this sense; e.g. Isocrates Pana- 
then, p. 240 Ὁ τὸν χρυσὸν θεωροῦμεν καὶ δοκιμάζομεν ἕτερα παραδεικνύοντες. 
The metaphorical use also is classical; e.g. Plato Resp. viii. p. 546 E ἄρ- 
xovres οὐ πάνυ φυλακικοὶ καταστήσονται πρὸς τὸ δοκιμάζειν τὰ Ἡσιόδου re καὶ τὰ 
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν γένη, χρυσοῦν τε καὶ ἀργυροῦν καὶ χαλκοῦν καὶ σιδηροῦν, Xen. Cyrop. 
viii. 4. 30 etc. From this notion of ‘proving’ come the further ideas of 
‘approval’ (Plutarch Jor. p. 18 F ταῦτα οὐκ ἐπαινοῦντες οὐδὲ δοκιμάζοντες), 














V. 21.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 85 


of ‘choice, selection’ (Plut. de /ustit. p. 3 D σπουδαίους τίτθας δοκιμαστέον 
ἐστί), and of ‘expression of an opinion’ (Thuc, ii. 35 ἐπειδὴ τοῖς πάλαι 
οὕτως ἐδοκιμάσθη ταῦτα καλῶς ἔχειν). All these senses, except the last, 
occur in the New Testament (see Trench WV. 7. Sym. § Ixxiv. p. 278 sq.) ; 
viz. ‘testing’ (1 Cor. iii. 13), ‘approving’ (1 Thess. ii. 4), ‘ choosing’ (Rom. 
i. 28); and there is perhaps a further sense of ‘ allowing, suffering’ (Rom. 
xiv. 22). See the note on ii. 4 δεδοκιμάσμεθα. 

The passage under consideration has been not inaptly connected by 
early Christian writers with the saying traditionally attributed to our 
Lord, though not contained in the canonical Gospels, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι 
τραπεζῖται, a saying which is well supported by external testimony and 
bears in itself the’marks of genuineness (see Westcott, Jztroduction to 
the Study of the Gospels, p. 453 sq. ed. 5). The one passage is rarely 
quoted without the other, and the two were so closely associated in the 
mind of early writers that Dionysius of Alexandria for instance (in Euseb. 
vii. 7) quotes the second as an ‘apostolic saying’ (ἀποστολικῇ φωνῇ), and 
Cyril of Alexandria (Com. in Isai. iii. 4, p. 56) cites it as from St Paul 
γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται" πάντα δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε (and so again 
Com. in Johan. lib. τν. ch. v. p. 407, though not of. c7t. lib. Iv. ch. iii. 
p- 374). In the same way Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 28. 177, 
Ῥ. 425 Potter), though he does not name the author, connects it with the 
context here. Basil also (Com. im Isat. v. 20, p. 503) with an obvious 
reminiscence of the saying writes δοκίμου τραπεζίτου (ἐστὶ) τὸ καλὸν κατέχειν 
ἀπὸ δὲ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθαι, deriving the context from this 
epistle : compare also zz princ. Proverb. ὃ 6, p. 103, where 1 Thess. v. 
is again quoted. So too Athanasius (Hom. in Matth. xxi. 8, 11, p. 662), 
Ambrose (Com. in Luc. i. 1, p. 1265) and others. Cyril of Jerusalem also 
(Catech. vi. 36), who converts it into the singular γίνου δόκιμος τραπεζίτης, 
continues in the language of the Epistle τὸ καλὸν κατέχων ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους 
πονηροῦ ἀπεχόμενος. On the other hand, Origen ascribes the saying to 
our Lord by name and connects it with St Paul’s teaching (22: Evang. 
Johan. xix. 11. p. 153 ed. Lommatzsch), τηρούντων τὴν ἐντολὴν Ἰησοῦ 
λέγουσαν Δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται γίνεσθε" καὶ τὴν Παύλου διδαχὴν φάσκοντος 
Πάντα δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε, ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε, 
and he is followed in this ascription by Cassianus (Co//az. i. 20, p. 186), 
Czsarius and others. Epiphanius (Haer. xliv. 2, p. 382) gives Apelles 
as his authority for the attribution of the saying to our Lord; while in 
the Pistis Sophia the utterance is our Lord’s to the Virgin Mary, but it is 
followed as usual by the Pauline admonition ‘bonum suscipite, malum 
ejicite’ (ed. Schwartz and Petermann 1851, p. 353). In the Clementine 
Homilies it is quoted no less than three times (Clem. Hom. ii. 51, iii. 50, 
xviii. 20), and in every case is ascribed to our Lord by the interlocutor 
St Peter; in the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum edited by Lagarde 
(p. 42) it is included among the admonitions to bishops, and it reappears 
in the AZostolical Constitutions (ii. 36). 


86 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [Υ. 21. 


τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε] ‘hold fast the good’ The metaphor of assaying 
coin, which was discernible in δοκιμάζετε, is not to be pressed upon these 
or the following words. The expression is quite general, and none of the 
terms used have any connexion with money. 

Τὸ καλὸν is used in Aristotle in two distinct senses arising from the 
twofold aspect of the word physical and moral ; e.g. Arist. Rez. i. 7. 24, 
Pp. 1364 τὸ καλόν ἐστιν ἤτοι τὸ ἡδὺ ἢ τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ αἱρετόν. In the moral 
aspect of the word, with which alone we are concerned here, it differs 
from τὸ ἀγαθὸν in that it regards the good in itself, τὸ ἀγαθὸν rather in its 
results, Arist. Rhet. i. 9. 3, p. 1366 καλόν ἐστιν ὃ ἂν SC αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν ὃν 
ἐπαινετὸν 7. Contrast with this Plato Hifp. Major 296 E τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἄρ᾽ 
αἴτιόν ἐστι τὸ καλόν and the whole passage. This distinction between the 
two adjectives is common in the classics; e.g. Xen. Memzor. iii. 5. 28 καί 
got καλὸν ἔσται καὶ τῇ πόλει ἀγαθόν. Hence the definition of the two 
qualities which combined make up the true gentleman (τὸν καλὸν 
κἀγαθόν), where τὸ μὲν καλὸς ἐπὶ τῆς ἐν σώματι ὥρας" τὸ δὲ ἀγαθὸς ἐπὶ τῆς ἐν 
ψυχῇ (Suidas) has no application here. 

Perhaps it is not merely idle fancy to dwell on the change of expres- 
sion from τὸ καλὸν ‘the good’ to παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ‘every evil form, or 
every form of evil’; for ‘the good’ is one and the same essentially, while 
vice is manifold and variable. The change would suggest itself instinc- 
tively to the writer. Comp. Arist. £7. Wic. ii. § 5, 1X. p. 32 ἔτι τὸ μὲν ἅμαρ- 
rdvew πολλαχῶς ἐστίν (τὸ yap κακὸν τοῦ ἀπείρου, ὡς οἱ ἸΤυθαγόρειοι εἴκαζον, τὸ 
δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ πεπερασμένου), τὸ δὲ κατορθοῦν μοναχώς. 

22. ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ] In the interpretation of this phrase 
two questions arise; /7s¢, what is the meaning of εἴδους, and secondly, is 
πονηροῦ to be taken as an adjective with εἴδους, or as a substantive after 
it? As the answer to the first question seems to depend in some measure 
on the solution of the second, the second will best be considered first. The 
absence of the article before πονηροῦ is in itself no argument against 
the word being taken substantively. Compare Plato Resf. ii. 358 C τρίτον 
εἶδος ἀγαθοῦ, Heb. v. 14 πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ, Gen. ii. 9. But 
though πονηροῦ might without offence be taken as equivalent to πονηρίας 
in the expression πᾶν εἶδος πονηροῦ, the case is somewhat different in 
παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ where such a construction would sever πονηροῦ from 
the preceding genitive with which we instinctively connect it. Πονηροῦ 
is therefore probably an adjective with εἴδους. For the order compare 
Rom, iii. 4 πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, Ephes. i. 3 ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ, 
᾿ ἦν, 29, 1 Tim. v. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 16, 17, Tit. i. 16, iii. 1, and especially 
2 Tim. v. 18 ῥύσεταί pe ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ. For the first 
part of the expression Efist. Vien. e¢ Lyon. πᾶν εἶδος ὀνειδισμοῦ (Routh 
R. S. 1. p. 296). On the whole question of the use of [ὁ] πονηρὸς in the 
New Testament see Appendix II. ‘on the Last Petition of the Lord’s 
Prayer’ printed in 4 Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, 3rd 
ed., 1891, p. 269 sq., especially p. 277 where this passage is referred to. 


Ν᾿. 
Ἧς ΨῈ 


av" 





; ἢ > 3° —~— , ea ee ee ne 
: 
« . 


Γ 
« 





V. 23.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 87 


Εἴδους may mean either (1) ‘the outward form,’ ‘that which is presented 
to view,’ ‘appearance’; in this sense without any notion of unreality, 
comp. Luke iii. 22, ix. 29, John v. 37, and so probably 2 Cor. v. 7, διὰ 
miorews...ov διὰ εἴδους. Or it may mean (2) ‘appearance,’ i.e. semblance, 
as opposed to the reality, as the E. V. seems to take it, i.e. not only were 
they to abstain from any actual evil, but from anything which men might 
consider evil, and which might thus give offence, see 2 Cor. viii. 21 
προνοοῦμεν yap καλὰ ov μόνον ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων. 
This interpretation however lays a stress upon εἴδους which there is 
perhaps nothing in the context to justify. (3) We may translate the 
word ‘sort, kind, species” comparing Joseph. Amz. x. 3. I πᾶν εἶδος 
πονηρίας and the passage from the letter of the Churches of Vienne and 
Lyons quoted above. Eidos will thus be used in its very frequent quasi- 
philosophical sense ; for it would be absurd to assign to the word here its 
strictly technical meaning of ‘species’ as opposed to ‘genus’ (see Grote, 
Pilato τι. 467). In support of the first interpretation is the fact that it is 
more in accordance with the usage of εἶδος elsewhere in the New 
Testament ; and if πονηροῦ is to be taken as an adjective, this seems to 
be decisive in its favour, at least as against the last of the three 
alternatives. 

23. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς] ‘Yet without God all your strivings will be in 
vain: therefore I pray that God Himself may interpose to sanctify you.’ 
The particle δὲ recals the minds of his hearers to the true Author and 
Source of all spiritual progress. For the expression see the note on iii. 11. 

τῆς εἰρήνης] God is further specified as the God of peace, inasmuch 
as peace is the end and fulfilment of all blessings. 

ὁλοτελεῖς] This word is sometimes taken as equivalent to ὅλους, in the 
sense of ‘every part of you.’ But though ὑμᾶς ὅλους might bear this 
meaning, it will not apply equally well to ὑμᾶς ὁλοτελεῖς, for ὁλοτελεῖς not 
only implies entirety (which exhausts the meaning of ὅλους), but involves 
the further idea of completion. It is therefore better to consider ὁλοτελεῖς 
as proleptic, in the sense of dare ὁλοτελεῖς εἶναι ‘may He sanctify you so 
that ye be entire, in a qualitative rather than a quantitative sense. The 
connexion with what follows is then: ‘May God not only make you 
perfect, but keep you so.’ Ὁλοτελεῖς occurs in Plut. Mor. 909 B, and 
ὁλοτελῶς in Aquila’s version of Deut. xiii. 17. 

ὁλόκληρον] The distinction between this word and τέλειος is traced by 
Trench JV. 7. Syn. § xxii. p. 74 sq. The two adjectives occur together in 
James i. 4. While ὁλόκληρος denotes the presence of all the parts, 
τέλειος signifies the full development, perfect growth of the whole. Like 
τέλειος the epithet ὁλόκληρος is applied especially to sacrifices; e.g. Philo 
de Vict. § 4 (11. p. 240 ed. Mangey) θυσίαν ὁλοκλήρῳ καὶ παντελεῖ (θεῷ) μηδὲν 
ἐπιφερομένην τῆς θνητῆς φιλαυτίας ὁλόκληρον καὶ παντελῆ, 16. § 14, p. 250 ὁλό- 
KAnpov καὶ παντελῆ διάθεσιν, ἧς ἡ ὁλόκαυτος θυσία σύμβολον, de Agricult. § 29, 
I. p. 320, Cherub. § 28, in all of which passages ὁλόκληρος and παντελὴς Occur 





: ἂν Ῥι ἐν Εν ..-- 
ὰ . u Ἢ ». 
ὡς 


88 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [Υ͂. 23. 


together. So also de Vict. Of: $1, 11. p.251 and Plato 77m. 44 C ὁλόκληρος, 
ὑγιής τε παντελῶς, and doubtless St Paul had here also the image of a 
sacrifice in his mind. Compare Rom. xii. I. 

“Ολόκληρον is to be taken with τηρηθείη ‘be preserved entire’; not as the 
E. V. ‘your whole spirit, which is objectionable both on account of the 
order of the words and also as identifying ὁλόκληρον in meaning with 
ὅλον. 

The epithet, though applying to the three substantives by a sort of 
attraction, agrees with the first only. This peculiarity of construction, 
together with the fact of the singular verb rypn6ein, expresses the integrity 
of each part separately. 

τὸ πνεῦμα Kal ἡ ψυχὴ Kal τὸ σῶμα] Human nature is most frequently 
spoken of in the New Testament as consisting of two parts—the flesh, or 
body, and the soul, or spirit—i.e. the material and the immaterial part. 
Thus, for example, in Matt. x. 28 the opposition is σῶμα, ψυχή; in. 
Rom. viii. 10, 13, I Cor. v. 3, vii. 34, James ii. 26 σῶμα, πνεῦμα ; in 
2 Cor. vii. 1, Matt. xxvi. 41, John vi. 63, Rom. i. 3, viii. 4 sq., 1 Cor. v. 5, 
Gal. iii. 3, v. 16 sq., vi. 8, Col. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 18 σὰρξ and πνεῦμα; in 
Rom. vii. 25 σὰρξ and νοῦς. But sometimes, as here, a tripartite division 
is recognized, σῶμα, Ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα; the immaterial part being sub- 
divided into the lower part, ψυχή, including the feelings, impulses etc., 
and the ruling faculty, the πνεῦμα (sometimes νοῦς), by which alone 
communication is maintained with God. Ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα are distinguished 
in Hebr. iv. 12 ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος (see also Phil. i. 27), and 
ψυχικὸς is markedly opposed to πνευματικὸς as the natural to the spiritual 
in 1 Cor. ii, 14 sq., xv. 44—46. And not in St Paul only; compare also 
James iii. 15, οὐκ... ἡ copia ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη GAN ἐπίγειος, ψυχική, Jude 19 
οὗτοί εἰσιν ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες : and in the Old Testament, Ecclus. 
ν. 2 μὴ ἐξακολούθει τῇ Ψυχῇ σου καὶ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου; τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις 
καρδίας σου, and xviii. 30. 

Such a threefold division of the nature of man is not peculiar to 
Christianity. It appears in the heathen philosophers, as for instance in 
Plato 7imeus 30 Β νοῦν μὲν ἐν ψυχῇ, ψυχὴν δὲ ἐν σώματι ξυνιστὰς τὸ πᾶν 
ξυνετεκταίνετο (ὁ θεός), and in the Neoplatonists as Plotinus (see Nemesius 
ap. Wetstein) ; and in the Stoics (see Marc. Anton. iii. 16 σῶμα, ψυχή, 
νοῦς" σώματος αἰσθήσεις, ψυχῆς ὁρμαί, vod δόγματα κ.τ.λ.). 

It was familiar also to Jewish speculators, whether of the Rabbinical 
type or of the Alexandrian School. See Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes 
Fudenthum i.,p. 887, cited by Ellicott. Philo indeed sometimes speaks 
of human nature as twofold, body and soul (or mind), e.g. Leg. Adleg. 
iii. § 55, 1. p. 119 M. δύο ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν συνέσταμεν, ψυχή τε καὶ σῶμα KT. 5 
sometimes he subdivides the soul into three parts after Plato, the λογικόν, 
the θυμικὸν and the ἐπιθυμητικὸν (λόγος or νοῦς, θυμός, ἐπιθυμία), e.g. 
Leg. Alleg. i. δδ 22, 23, 1. pp. 57, 58 (where there is a reference to Plato’s 
chariot in the Phedo), de Concupisc. § 2, 11. p. 350; sometimes he makes 





Vz. 24.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 89 


four elements of man’s nature, de Som. i. § 5, 1. p. 624 σῶμα, αἴσθησις, 
λόγος, νοῦς. But he frequently considers the soul as composed of two 
parts, de Vict. § 5, 11. p. 241 τὸ μὲν λογικὸν τῆς ἄῤῥενος γενεᾶς ἐστιν, ὅπερ νοῦς 
καὶ λογισμὸς κεκλήρωται, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον τῆς γυναικῶν, ὅπερ ἔλαχεν αἴσθησις. 
The same is essentially the division in Fragm. τι. p. 668 M., though 
confusedly stated there. This would make human nature threefold. 
The division however is not exactly the same as in St Paul, inasmuch as 
αἴσθησις could scarcely fall under ψυχή, but under σῶμα as in Mare. 
Anton. l.c. On Philo see Gfrérer Philo 1. c. xii. p. 373 sq. and Dahne 
Gesch, Darstell. d. jiid. alexr. Relig. Philos. τ. p. 317 sq. 

Weare not surprised to find that this threefold organization, sanctioned 
by such scriptural authority, was generally recognized by the Early 
Fathers. See especially Iren. v. 6 and Origen Comm. in Foann. ii. p. 433 
ed, Lommatzsch and other passages cited by Ellicott, pp. 169, 170. 
On the use to which Origen applied it see Neander, Church History 11. 
Ρ. 365 sq. (Bohn). When Apollinaris made it subservient to his own 
heresy (see Neander Iv. p. 101), it began to be looked upon with dis- 
favour. 

On the whole question see Ellicott’s Sevmons v. and notes, Delitzsch 
Psychology, English version, p. 109 sq., Beck 3261. Seelenil., Introduction 
to the Epistles by a Bishop’s Chaplain, p. 88, Trench NV. 7. Syn. ὃ Ixxi., 
and especially Olshausen de nature humane trichotomia given in his 
Opusc. p. 157. 

Even if it be granted that the Apostle here had no intention of laying 
down a metaphysical distinction, yet still less are the words here to be 
treated as a mere rhetorical expression. The spirit, which is the ruling 
faculty in man and through which he holds communication with the 
unseen world—the soul, which is the seat of all his impulses and affec- 
tions, the centre of his personality—the body, which links him to the 
material world and is the instrument of all his outward deeds—these 
all the Apostle would have presented perfect and intact in the day of the 
Lord’s coming. 

ἀμέμπτως] is added to strengthen ὁλόκληρον τηρηθείη ‘be preserved 
entire beyond the reach of complaint.’ MéudeoOa (differing from ψέγειν) 
signifies properly ‘to find fault with,’ i.e. ‘to blame as defective,’ and thus 
ἀμέμπτως is appropriately used to define ὁλόκληρον. 

ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳΠ͵ The preposition ἐν, where εἰς might be expected, is 
probably to be explained by a brachylogy, ‘be preserved entire and be 
found so in the day etc’ Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 18 συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν 
ἐκκλησίᾳ. 

24. πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς «.7.A.] ‘The fact that you were called by 
God to a knowledge of the Gospel should be an assurance to you that 
He is ready to sanctify and perfect you to the coming of the Lord, If 
His first work is rendered fruitless, it must be in spite of Him.’ 

ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς] ‘your caller} ὁ καλῶν, not ὁ καλέσας, because the Apostle 





90 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONTANS. [V. 24. 


is dwelling rather on the person, than on the act. See the similar 
expression in Gal. v. 8 (with the note). 

ὃς καὶ ποιήσει] ‘who besides calling you will also do it’? The meaning 
of ποιήσει is to be sought in the whole sentence from ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς to 
τηρηθείη. 


4. PERSONAL INJUNCTIONS AND BENEDICTION, v. 25—28. 


25. This and the remaining verses form a sort of postscript to the 
Epistle. See the note on τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ver. 22. It is questioned whether 
vv. 26, 27 are addressed to the whole Thessalonian Church, or to the 
Elders only. This will depend in part on the meaning assigned to πάντες 
oi ἀδελφοὶ in these verses. If it is restricted to the Christians who were in 
the habit of assembling at Thessalonica, as in the case of the Colossian 
Epistle which was to be read by the Laodiceans (Col. iv. 16), then the 
injunction must be addressed to the Elders only ; if it signifies the whole 
body of Christians, then the entire church of Thessalonica may be 
addressed. But the latter interpretation of πάντες of ἀδελφοὶ seems to 
be excluded by ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ (ver. 26), which implies personal 
intercourse. Thus then, though there is no notification of the restriction, 
ἀσπάσασθε, ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς must refer solely to those to whom the letter was 
’ directly sent, i.e. probably the Elders. See verse 12. 

26. ἀσπάσασθε x.t..] The expression, as found elsewhere, is slightly 
different, ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ (Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor, xvi. 
20, 2 Cor. xiii, 12) or ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης (1 Pet. v. 14); but in all these 
passages it occurs in close juxtaposition with personal salutations sent 
from the writer, or from his friends, to the Church addressed or to 
individual members of it. This fact perhaps points to a pregnant 
meaning in the expression as used here, ‘Salute all the brethren 
Jrom me with a holy kiss, and let this kiss be a token of brotherly 
love among yourselves.’ There seems to be no direct reference to 
any liturgical rite, though the kiss of love would naturally be exchanged 
on the first day of the week, when they met together for prayer and for 
celebrating the Holy Communion. Hence it is not surprising that the 
‘holy kiss,” thus accidentally connected with it in the first instance, 
should in the next age be incorporated in the eucharistic ceremony. 
See Justin Mart. AZo/. i. 65 ἀλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεθα παυσάμενοι τῶν 
εὐχῶν, Tertull. de Orat. 18 ‘osculum pacis, quod est signaculum orationis,’ 
and ad Uxor. ii. 4, Const. Apost. ii. 57 τὸ ἐν Κυρίῳ φίλημα and viii. 11. 
Comp. Cyril of Jerusalem Cazech. xxiii., Myst. v. 3, Chrysost. passim e.g. 
Hom. xx, iz Matth. p. 205, Clem. Alex. Paedag. iii. 11, § 81 (p. 301 ed. 
Potter) ἀγάπη δὲ οὐκ ἐν φιλήματι ἀλλ᾽ ἐν εὐνοίᾳ κρίνεται" of δὲ οὐδὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ 
φιλήματι καταψοφοῦσι τὰς ἐκκλησίας τὸ φιλοῦν ἔνδον οὐκ ἔχοντες αὐτὸ with 


ἢ» 


V. 28.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, ΟΙ 


evident allusion to this custom. See on its use in the Eucharist Bingham 
Ant. viii. το. 9, xv. 3. 3, and Stanley on 1 Cor. xvi. 20. It was also given 
at baptisms (Bingham xii. 4. 5), at the ordination of bishops (Bingham ii. 
II. 10) and priests (Bingham ii. 19. 17), and at espousals (Bingham xxii. 
3. 6). 

27. It has been found difficult to account for the strength of the 
Apostle’s language here. The explanation is perhaps to be sought, not in 
any supposed differences existing between the Elders and the laity of the 
Thessalonian Church (comp. vv. 12, 13) which might lead to the suppres- 
sion of the letter; but in a sort of presentiment or suspicion, which 
St Paul may be supposed to have entertained, that a wrong use might be 
made of his name and authority. Such a suspicion was entirely justified 
by subsequent occurrences (2 Thess. ii. 2; see Biblical Essays, p. 265 sq), 
and doubtless sufficient grounds for it had already appeared. Hence 
it was of infinite importance that his views should be known to all. 
The same feeling is exhibited in the second Epistle in the Apostle’s 
anxiety to authenticate his letter (iii. 17). In its solemnity this closing 
adjuration may be compared with the εἴ ris οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν Κύριον, ἤτω 
ἀνάθεμα of τ Cor. xvi. 21, or τοῦ λοιποῦ, κόπους por μηδεὶς παρεχέτω of 
Gal. vi. 17. 

ἐνορκίζω] This, the better supported reading, is not found elsewhere 
except in a Cephallenian inscription, Boeckh C. Δ G. τι. no. 1933, though 
ἐνορκοῦν occurs in an obscure place (Schol. Lucian. Ca¢af/. 23). In Tobit 
ix. 20 the reading is évopxws. It is probably stronger than ὁρκίζω ‘I 
appeal to you by an oath,’ which occurs twice in the New Testament 
(Mark v. 7, Acts xix. 13) and is read by the bulk of manuscripts here. 
Thus the compound form will signify ‘I bind you by an oath.’ Of the 
forms ὁρκοῦν and ὁρκίζειν, the former is more strictly Attic, the latter 
belongs rather to late Greek. See Lobeck, Phryz. pp. 360, 361. 

τὴν ἐπιστολὴν] ‘ the letter’ ; not ‘this letter’ (τήνδε τὴν), for the Epistle 
is regarded as already concluded, and these words occur in the postscript. 
Compare Rom. xvi. 22 ἐγὼ Téprios 6 γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, Col. iv. 16. On 
the other hand in 1 Cor. v. 9 the sentence ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ Cannot 
refer to the first epistle itself, occurring as it does in the main body of the 
letter. See the notethere. On the significance of 2 Thess. iii. 14 διὰ τῆς 
ἐπιστολῆς see the note on the passage. 

28. The main body of the Epistle would probably be written by an 
amanuensis, and the Apostle would here take up his pen and add the 
benediction (ἡ χάρις rod Κυρίου «.r.A.) in his own handwriting. See the 
note on the conclusion of the Second Epistle. 

The salutation as here given may be regarded as the typical form in 
St Paul’s Epistles. The longest form occurs in 2 Cor. xiii. 13, the 
shortest in most of the later Epistles as Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy and 
_ Titus. In all however the ascription of grace is the leading feature. 
" St Paul seems to have regarded this salutation as his characteristic token 


92 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 28. 


(see 2 Thess. iii. 17); and it was adopted after him by those especially 
who were his companions or disciples, as by the inspired writer of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 25), and by Clement in his Epistle to the 
Romans. Compare likewise the conclusion of the Epistle of Barnabas 
ὁ Κύριος τῆς δόξης καὶ πάσης χάριτος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν. Afterwards it 
became the common salutation or benediction of the Church in her 
liturgies. 


aide EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. 


II. 
THE SECOND APOSTOLIC JOURNEY. 


Ze 


SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 








7 εἰ 
. ~ διὰ ὁ _ ἣ Ὁ *” ᾧ 5 ws 5 A? <= 


ἵν QUIETNESS AND IN CONFIDENCE SHALL BE YOUR § 


fet Sey τῇ Fi LS oo ΓῚ 


PSHAEE SEE FEM Oe ΒΟΥ ΤΟῪΣ | suaLt BEHOLD | 
‘BUT NOT NIGH, . 


: Lis Ἶ ἜΣ GOR ἱ 
7. 
ἰῷ ᾿ Ἶ ty 
᾿ 
: 
fac ; Sa 
> ΕΣ 







ANALYSIS. 





I. SALUTATION.~* i. 1, 2. 


II. THANKSGIVING AND DOCTRINAL PORTION. i. 3—ii. 17. 


A general expression of thankfulness and interest, leading up to the 

difficulty about the Lord’s Advent. 

i. The Apostle pours forth his thanksgiving for their progress in the 
faith; he encourages them to be patient under persecution, 
reminding them of the Judgment to come, and prays that they 
may be prepared to meet it. i. 3—12. 

ii. He is thus led to correct the erroneous idea that the Judgment is 
imminent, pointing out that much must happen first. ii. r—12. 

iii. He repeats his thanksgiving and exhortation, and concludes this 
portion with a prayer. ii. 13—17. 


III. HORTATORY PORTION. iii. I—16. 
i. He urges them to pray for him, and confidently anticipates their 
progress in the faith. iii. 1—5. 
ii. He reproves the idle, disorderly and disobedient, and charges the 
faithful to withdraw from such. iii. 6—15. 
iii. Prayer to the Lord of Peace. iii. 16. 


IV. SPECIAL DIRECTION AND BENEDICTION. iii. 17, 18. 





a λ 


4 
a * ἌΣ 
Ε΄. gist 
— 5 v 

Ὑγ ἃ 
ΩΣ 
ὩΣ 
-- Ὶ 7’ i? 

Υ 

- ᾿ 

eee Ath ett 








f ω7 73 at ἐμ ἱ tae tate 


ΑΝ δ τ} 





7 Un. ine ee 








Wa UD ‘ Σ 
A « tif eed vat af Tee die ia 4 
ah) δ πὶ (6  Σν 
ΠΥ ἐπ ὦ ΠΣ te orn. 4 
Ὁ“ : J 
« 7 
= =, Ὁ 





CHAPTER I. 


1. SALUTATION, i. 1, 2. 


I, 2. The commencement of this Epistle is identical with that of the 
former, except that in the first verse ἡμῶν is inserted here after πατρὶ and 
in the second verse the clause ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is 
more than doubtful in the first Epistle, is genuine here. For the expla- 
nation of these verses see the note on the opening of the first Epistle. 


2. THANKSGIVING AND DOCTRINAL PORTION, i. 3—ii. 17. 


i. Encouragement to patience from thoughts of the Judgment 
to come (i. 3-12). 


3. εὐχαριστεῖν] See the note on 1 Thess, i. 2. 
καθὼς ἄξιόν éorw] The addition of this phrase after ὀφείλομεν illus- 
trates St Paul’s vehemence of language, leading him to accumulate 
cognate expressions, where an ordinary writer would adopt a simple 
form ; compare e.g. Phil. i. 9, 14, 23, ii. 2, iii. 9, iv. I, 2, 17 with the notes. 
Still the sentence is not strictly speaking pleonastic. We may say that 
ὀφείλομεν points rather to the divine, καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστι to the human side 
of the obligation. We may paraphrase thus: ‘It is not only a duty, 
which our conscience prescribes as owed to God; but it is also merited 
by your conduct.” In the words of our Anglican Liturgy, ‘It is very 
meet, right, and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all 
places give thanks.’ As expressed in the Greek Liturgies the original of 
these words does not show much correspondence with the language of 
_ St Paul given above: see Swainson, 7he Greek Liturgies, 1884, pp. 28, 

_ 80, 128, 267. 

_ ὅτι] Two grammatical questions arise here. First, Is ὅτι to be taken 
_ with εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν, or with καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιῦ Secondly, if the 
former construction is to be preferred, has the conjunction a definitely 


L. EP. f 7 


98 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [i.-3. 


causal signification ‘because,’ or is it merely objective describing the 
matter of εὐχαριστεῖν, ‘that’? In answer to the first question, we may 
say that καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστι seems to be parenthetical, so that ὅτε is attached 
to εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν. The flow of the language appears to require 
this connexion. There would be a certain halt in the sentence, if 
εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν, the emphatic clause, were unexplained, and the 
explanation attached to the subordinate καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστι. Besides, the 
construction of εὐχαριστεῖν with ὅτι is confirmed by the parallel passages, 
Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4, 5. 

The second question is more difficult. The causal signification of ὅτι 
runs almost imperceptibly into the objective. By translating the two 
into different words (‘ because’ and ‘ that’) in English, we give a distinct- 
ness to them which a Greek probably would not recognize. The only 
distinction in Greek can have been one of emphasis, the causal being the 
more emphatic, the objective the less so. As ὅτι here seems to be very 
unemphatic, we may assume that it leans to the objective meaning, and 
is best translated by ‘that.’ On the other hand, if ὅτι were attached to 
καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστι, it must signify ‘ because.’ 

imepavédve.] It has been thought that a reproof is implied in ὑπεραυ- 
ξάνει, as if the Apostle would warn his converts that their zeal had outrun 
their discretion. Such however is not the necessary or even the general 
meaning of compounds with this preposition, as used by St Paul, see the 
note on 1 Thess. iii. 10 ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ. Nor indeed would he speak of 
any one as having an excess of faith. The words ὑπεραυξάνει and 
πλεονάζει are carefully chosen ; the former implying an internal, organic 
growth, as of a tree; the other a diffusive, or expansive character, as of a 
flood irrigating the land. For St Paul’s habit of rapid transition in 
metaphor compare the note on Col. ii. 6 περιπατεῖτε ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ 
ἐποικοδομούμενοι. 

Αὐξάνειν is elsewhere a transitive verb in St Paul, though generally 
intransitive in the other New Testament writers. The future intransitive 
αὐξήσω in Ephes. iv. 15 may come from αὔξω, which is also intransitive in 
Ephes. ii. 21. 

εἰς ἀλλήλους] These words are perhaps better taken with πλεονάζει 
than with ἡ ἀγάπη ἑνὸς ἑκάστου πάντων ὑμῶν. Compare the phrase περισ- 
σεύειν εἰς τινὰ in Rom. v. 15, 2 Cor. i. 5, Ephes. i. 8. 

4. ὥστε κιτ.λ.} In this clause St Paul loses sight of πλεονάζει ἡ 
ἀγάπη, and dwells exclusively on the former head ὑπεραυξάνει ἡ πίστις. 
On the collocation of πίστις and ἀγάπη see the note on 1 Thess. i. 3. 

αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς] ‘we ourselves’; i.e. Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus, who, 
as the human instruments through whom this change had been wrought, 
would be backward to sound the praises of the Thessalonians, lest they 
should seem to be boasting of themselves. 

ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι) Though supported by SABP only against the bulk of 
manuscripts, ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι, a word which occurs here only in the New 


I. 5.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 99 


Testament, is the most expressive reading and is certainly to be preferred 
to the simple καυχᾶσθαι. The preposition of the compound corresponds 
to ἐν ὑμῖν, not to ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. In other words it describes the 
sphere of the boasting of St Paul and his companions. Compare ἐνοικεῖν 
ἐν (2 Cor. vi. 16), ἐνδημεῖν ἐν (2 Cor. v. 6), ἐμμένειν ἐν (Heb. viii. 9); but 
ἐνεργεῖν ἐν is somewhat different, see the notes on Phil. ii. 13, Gal. ii. 8. 

ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαι.) As St Paul, after leaving Macedonia, seems not to 
have travelled out of the province of Achaia before writing this letter, he 
must here allude chiefly to the Church of Corinth and the affiliated 
communities, see 2 Cor. i. I τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ σὺν 
τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς, οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαίᾳ, though by letter and by other 
than direct personal communication he may have boasted also to distant 
churches. See the note on 1 Thess. i. 8. 

Polycarp undoubtedly had this passage in mind, when, writing to the 
Philippians, he says ‘Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in 
quibus laboravit beatus Paulus qui estis in principio epistolae eius 
(comp. 2 Cor. iii. 2): de vobis etenim g/oriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quae 
solae tunc Dominum cognoverant’ (PAz/ip. 11). A little lower down he 
quotes 2 Thess. iii. 15. He may have confused the Epistles to Philippi 
and to Thessalonica ; or, as Wordsworth suggests, he may have ‘regarded 
the Epistles to Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia, as addressed to 
all the Macedonian Churches, and therefore to Philippi.’ 

πίστεως] ‘faith, which was especially manifested in their patient 
endurance under affliction. Ὑπομονὴ is generally connected with ἐλπὶς 
(see on 1 Thess. i. 3), but here with πίστις. The line of separation between 
the two is not easily drawn. 

διωγμοῖς, θλίψεσιν] The former is a special term for external persecu- 
tions inflicted by the enemies of the Gospel ; the latter is more general, 
and denotes tribulation of any kind. See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 6, iii. 2, 
Phil. i. 17. 

als ἀνέχεσθε] The construction of ἀνέχεσθαι with a dative is quite 
possible (see Eur. Androm. 980 ξυμφοραῖς δ᾽ ἠνειχόμην) ; but we have here 
doubtless an attraction for as or rather ὧν ἀνέχεσθε, the genitive being the 
case with which the verb is always found in the New Testament; e.g. 
2 Cor. xi. 1, 19, Eph. iv. 2, Col. iii. 13. 

The first Epistle speaks of the persecutions attending their first 
acceptance of the Gospel as past, i. 6, ii. 14. Here the Apostle alludes, 
not perhaps to any fresh definite outbreak of rigorous persecution, but 
rather to the daily trials which as Christians they had to endure. 

5. ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως «.7.4.] For the sentence compare 
Phil. i. 28 καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων: ἥτις ἐστὶν 
αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας; καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ- ὅτι 
ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ 

ὗπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν, another point of coincidence between the Thessa- 
lonian and Philippian Epistles. See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 1 Παῦλος, 2. 


7—2 


100 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.  [I-5.- 


This parallel passage shows that ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως here 
refers not to their being subject to persecution (i.e. not to ais ἀνέχεσθε 
solely), but to their Jatzence under persecution, i.e. to the whole sentence 
ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς... ἀνέχεσθε. It still however remains a question whether 
ἔνδειγμα is a nominative or an accusative case. If it is a nominative, the 
sentence is elliptical, and may be supplied ὅτι (or ὅπερ) ἐστιν ἔνδειγμα on 
the model of the passage from the Philippians. But the word is more 
probably an accusative by a loose sort of construction not without a 
parallel in classical writers, the sentence with which it is in apposition 
having assumed an objective form. Compare Rom. xii. I τὴν λογικὴν 
λατρείαν, τ Tim. ii. 6 τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. Winer however (§ lix. 
-p. 669) prefers to consider ἔνδειγμα a nominative. 

What then is meant by the δικαία κρίσις of God? and what is the 
évderypa of it? The δικαία κρίσις involves (1), and prominently, the law of 
compensation by which the sufferers of this world shall rest hereafter 
and the persecutors of this world shall suffer hereafter. Compare our 
Lord’s saying in the parable (Luke xvi. 25): ‘Thou in thy lifetime 
receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he 
is comforted, and thou art tormented.’ Contrast the offensive form in 
which the thought is expressed in Tertullian (de Sfectac. 30 praesides 
persecutores dominici nominis saevioribus quam ipsi flammis saevierunt 
insultantibus contra Christianos liquescentes, and the whole chapter). 
But (2) the simple suffering does not in itself constitute a claim to future 
joy. The suffering must come of faith. The sufferer must endure for the 
kingdom of God’s sake (ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πάσχετε). 

The ἔνδειγμα, the ‘evidence’ or ‘token’ of this first judgment of God, 
is found in the confident endurance and patient waiting of the Thessa- 
lonians. This strong practical belief in the judgment was 270 ζαγιίο a 
proof of its truth. Compare the parallel expression in the Philippian 
Epistle (l.c.) πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ.. ἥτις ἐστὶν ἔνδειξις κιτιλ. 

ἔνδειγμα)] This word occurs here only in the New Testament. On 
the analogy of other substantives in -μα formed from the passive perfect, 
ἔνδειγμα must have a passive sense. It must signify not ‘a thing proving,’ 
but ‘a thing proved,’ ‘a proof’ See the note on πλήρωμα Colossians 
Ῥ. 257 sq., where other examples of this form are adduced. On the other 
hand ἔνδειξις, which is more usual with St Paul (Rom. iii. 25, 26, 2 Cor. 
viii. 24, Phil. i. 28), lays stress rather on the act or process of proving. 
The E.V., which translates évderypu here ‘a manifest token,’ renders ἔνδειξις 
in Phil. l.c. ‘an evident token.’ So in Acts i. 3 it translates τεκμήριον an 
‘infallible proof.’ ᾿Απόδειξις occurs once in the New Testament, 1 Cor. ii. 4 
ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως. It differs from ἔνδειξις as considering 
the proof rather from the point of view of its acceptance by others, than 
of its inherent truth; thus it means ‘demonstration.’ Compare the 
technical senses of the word both in mathematics and dialectic: Pollux 
iv. 33 μέρη τοῦ ῥητορικοῦ λόγου προοίμιον, διήγησις, πίστις, ἀπόδειξις. 











SS eee see CS 
ων». . : ? 


I. 7.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, ΙΟΙ 


εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι] The only construction which renders the sentence 
logically smooth, though slightly awkward grammatically, is that which 
connects these words with dixaias κρίσεως. If ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως 
τοῦ Θεοῦ is treated as a parenthesis and εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι attached to 
any part of the preceding verse, a new awkwardness is introduced in εἴπεο 
δίκαιον, which is thus deprived of its proper reference to δικαίας κρίσεως. 
The preposition εἰς will therefore denote either the result or the purpose 
(see note on 1 Thess. ii. 16) of the δικαία κρίσις, ‘the first judgment of 
God which contemplates your being counted worthy etc.’ 

τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the hingdom of God, the new order of things 
as established under Christ, though with a special reference to its final 
and perfect development in His future kingdom. 

imp is] Not ‘to gain which,’ but ‘for the establishment, promotion 
and maintenance of which.’ Compare again the passage in the Philip- 
pians (i. 29) cited above, ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ...πάσχειν. 

kal πάσχετε!] The καὶ still further enforces the connexion between 
“rege suffering and future glory. Compare 2 Tim. ii. 12 εἰ wenn 
καὶ Sip γαρρρρ τυραν 

6. εἴὔπερ] 1.6. ‘assuming that it is just in the sight of God.’ The word 
is purely hypothetical and in itself seems to imply neither probability nor 
improbability. So far is it from implying the latter, that wherever it 
occurs in the New Testament, it is used of what the writer regards as the 
true or probable hypothesis : comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, 1 Cor. viii. 5, except 
perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 15 εἴπερ ἄρα νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, where the introduction 
of dpa refers the assumption to the opinion of others, who took it for 
granted. On the difference between εἴπερ and εἴγε see the note on 
Gal. iii. 4 εἴ ye καὶ εἰκῆ, and compare 2 Cor. v. 3, where the reading 
varies. Consult also Hermann ad Viger. p. 834, Klotz Devar. 11. pp. 
308, 528 and Winer § liii. p. 561. 

εἴπερ δίκαιον παρὰ Θεῷ] This clause is to be referred to δικαίας κρίσεως 
τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς x.r.A. Thus the sense of the passage 
will be: ‘the first judgment of God which purposes your admission to his 
kingdom, granting that it is just in the sight of God ete.’ 

ἡ. ἄνεσιν] ‘relief? The word is properly used here, as elsewhere, in 
opposition to θλίψις. See 2 Cor. vii. 5, viii. 13 and compare 2 Cor. ii. 13 
οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματι with ii. 4 ἐκ πολλῆς θλίψεως καὶ συνοχῆς 
καρδίας ἔγραψα. So too Act. Paul. et Thecl. § 37. “Aveors is ‘a slackening, 
relaxation, relief, just as θλέψες is ‘a crushing, a constraint.’ On θλίψις 
and words of similar import such as στενοχωρία, ἀνάγκη, συνοχὴ see the 
note on 1 Thess. iii. 7. 

ped” ἡμῶν] ‘wth us, the writers of the Epistle, Paul, Silvanus and 
Timotheus. Their community in present suffering was an earnest of 
their community in future glory. In the same spirit St Paul elsewhere 


_associates the sufferings of his converts with his own. So especially 


. ΄- a ‘ - 
2 Cor. i. 7 εἰδότες ὅτι ὡς κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων, οὕτως Kai τῆς 


102 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {I. 7. 


παρακλήσεως, and Phil. i. 30 τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, 
a continuation of the passage which has already been quoted on ver. 5 as 
a close parallel to this. 

ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει) On the resemblance of apocalyptic passages in 
point of language and imagery to the Old Testament see the note on 
t Thess. v. 3. 

In the passage before us we have chiefly to notice the fearlessness 
with which the Apostle applies the phenomena represented in the Old 
Testament as the symbols of the divine presence, the attendant angels 
(Ps. lxviii. 17) and the flame of fire (Ex. iii. 2, xix. 18, Deut. iv. 11, 
Ps. civ. 4, Is. Ixvi. 15, Mal. iv. 1, also Dan. vii. 9, 1o where both images 
are found combined), to the Appearing of our Lord. In some cases the 
very expressions used in the Hebrew prophets of God have been adopted 
by St Paul in speaking of Christ. We have a remarkable instance of 
this in the words ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ 
borrowed from Isaiah (ii. 10, 19, 21, xix. 16, cited by Jowett). 

The term ἀποκάλυψις is used here of the Lord’s coming, as 1 Cor. i. 7 
and 1 Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13, in place of the more usual word παρουσία. The 
common term for this great event in the Pastoral Epistles is ἐπιφάνεια (see 
note below on ii. 8), neither ἀποκάλυψις nor παρουσία occurring in them. 

per ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ] ‘with the angels, the ministers of His 
power’ This expression is translated in the E. V. and by others ‘with 
his mighty angels,’ δυνάμεως being made to serve the turn of an epithet 
according to the common Hebrew idiom. Jowett who supports this view 
instances υἱοὶ δυνάμεως (Judges xviii. 2, 1 Sam. xviii. 17, 2 Chron. xxv. 13), 
ἄρχοντες δυνάμεως (1 Kings xv. 20, 2 Kings xxv. 23). But the interpreta- 
tion must be discarded, though the Hebraic tinge of the passage is pro 
tanto in favour of it; for the position of αὐτοῦ would thus be rendered 
extremely awkward. Moreover on this supposition the Apostle would 
dwell rather on the power of subordinate beings than of the Lord 
Himself. 

8. ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς] This is probably the true reading in this passage 
and in Exod. iii. 2 of which it is a reminiscence. On the other hand ἐν 
φλογὶ πυρὸς is on the whole to be preferred in Acts vii. 30. There is 
a similar variation of reading in all three passages. 

Whether these words are to be attached to the preceding or the 
following sentence is doubtful. The flow of the sentence seems to be in 
favour of the second alternative, and the sense is somewhat assisted by 
this construction. In this case the ‘flame of fire’ will be regarded at 
one and the same time as a revelation of the divine presence, and as an 
instrument of vengeance, though ἐν is not to be taken in the instrumental 
sense. Compare Malachi iii. 2, iv. 1, 2. This double aspect will hold 
equally whether the ‘fire’ be taken in a literal or a figurative sense: for 
the revelation of Christ will in itself inflict the severest punishment on the 
wicked, by opening their eyes to what they have lost. 


_ 


I. 9.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 103 


διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν] ‘awarding retribution. Again an expression 
borrowed from the Old Testament and there applied to God. See 
Ezek. xxv. 14 ἐπιγνώσονται τὴν ἐκδίκησίν μου, λέγει Κύριος. 

τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι «.7.A.] That two distinct classes are here meant is 
clear, from the repetition of the article. These classes are generally 
taken to correspond to the unbelieving heathen and the unbelieving Jew 
respectively. But if by τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι Θεὸν are meant the heathen who 
rejected the Gospel when offered to them, they are not distinct from τοῖς 
μὴ ὑπακούουσι ; and if on the other hand the heathen world generally is 
signified, this is opposed to the doctrine which St Paul teaches in 
Romans ii. The classification seems to be somewhat different, viz. ‘ those 
who, not having the Gospel offered to them, yet reject the light of natural 
religion, which in a certain sense reveals God to them ; and those who, 
whether Jews or Gentiles, hearing the Gospel preached yet refuse to 
accept it.’ This seems to give a more adequate explanation of τοῖς μὴ 
εἰδόσι Θεὸν (compare Rom. i. 18, 28); and the two classes will then 
correspond to those condemned in the opening chapters of the Epistle to 
the Romans. On τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι compare Gal. iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 5 with 
the notes, and on εἰδέναι see 1 Thess. v. 12. 

9. οἵτινες] ‘sen who. While the simple of would define the persons 
themselves, οἵτινες regards them as members of a class, and points to 
their class characteristics. It may be paraphrased, ‘for they and such as 
they.’ See further on Gal. iv. 24 ἥτις ἐστὶν “Ayap, Phil. i. 28 ἥτις ἐστὶν 
αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, iv. 3 αἵτινες συνήθλησάν μοι with the notes; and 
comp. Rom. ii. 15, vi. 2, Gal. iv. 26, v. 19, Phil. ii. 20, 1 Tim. i. 4, etc. 

ὄλεθρον] Lachmann’s reading ὀλέθριον, if better supported by external 
authority, would deserve some consideration; for the accumulation of 
epithets compare 1 Tim. i. 17. 

ἀπὸ προσώπου x.t..] It has been questioned what sense should be 
assigned to ἀπό, whether it should be taken ‘by reason of,’ or ‘shut out 
from, removed from.’ The latter is grammatically much more probable, 
and on all accounts to be preferred. The expression is borrowed from 
Isaiah ii. 10, 19, 21 ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου Κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ δόξης τῆς 
ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ ὅταν ἀναστῇ κιτιλ., as was observed by Tertullian (adv. 
Marc. v. 16 ‘quos ait poenam luituros exitialem, aeternam, a facie Domini 
et a gloria valentiae eius’), and there ἀπὸ is clearly in this sense. It is 
thought that the second clause ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης is in favour of the other 
meaning ‘by reason of’; but δόξα is here used, as elsewhere, of the 
visible glory, the bright light which is the symbol of the divine presence. 
Compare 2 Cor. iii. 7 sq., Luke ii. 9 δόξα Κυρίου περιέλαμψεν, τ Cor. xv. 41 
ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, and more especially 1 Kings viii. 11 ἔπλησε δόξα Κυρίου τὸν 
οἶκον. The opinion of some critics that ἀπὸ in the sense of ‘apart from’ 
should be accentuated ἄπο seems not to rest on sufficient grounds. 

The severest punishment of the wicked is here represented to be 
exclusion from the presence of God. Compare Luke xiii. 27 ‘Depart 


104 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [I. 9- 


from me, all ye workers of iniquity,’ and the corresponding phrase in 
St Matthew viii. 12 τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον (so Matt. xxii. 13, xxv. 30). 
The idea is not confined to the New Testament : it is met with in the Old 
Testament also; see Ps. li. 11 and other passages quoted by Liinemann 
ad loc. Whatever may be meant by the ‘worm that dieth not and the fire 
that is not quenched’ (Mark ix. 48 quoted from Isaiah Ixvi. 24), we are 
at least led by such passages as these to hold the essence of the future 
punishment of the wicked, as indeed seems to be the case in the 
present world also, to consist rather in a moral and spiritual condition 
than in any physical sufferings undergone. 

10. ἐνδοξασθῆναι)χ Used with a reference to ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης of the 
preceding verse. ‘The object of His coming is that He may be glorified 
in His saints; and yet from that glory the wicked, your persecutors, will 
be shut out. Thus have they hindered the high purposes of God, and 
been untrue to the end for which they were created.’ 

ἐν tots ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ͵ Not ‘amidst, nor yet ‘by,’ ‘through’ (ἐν instru- 
mental), but ‘zz His saints’ They are the mirror in which His glory 
shines. His infinite perfections are reflected in those finite beings 
exalted and purified through Him. Similarly the Father is said to be 
glorified in the Son (John xiv. 13), though in a far higher sense, because 
there the mirror is perfect, and the reflection is ‘the express image of His 
person’ (Hebr. i. 3). 

That this is the meaning of the preposition is shewn by the com- 
pound ἐνδοξασθῆναι. Though only used in the New Testament here 
and ver. 12, the word is not uncommon in ΤΧΧ.: compare Exod. xiv. 4 
ἐνδοξασθήσομαι é ἐν Φαραώ, Ecclus. xxxviii. 6 ἐνδοξάζεσθαι ἐν τοῖς copa 
αὐτοῦ etc. 

τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦῇ See note on 1 Thess. iii. 13. 

ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς moreboaciv] The preposition ἐν here clearly has the 
same meaning as in the parallel clause ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις. ‘His marvellous 
attributes are displayed in the believers’ But for the parallelism of the 
clauses, a different interpretation might have been assigned to θαυμασθῆναι. 
ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύσασιν. 

πιστεύσασιν] The word πιστεύειν signifies not merely ‘to believe,’ as 
a continuous state of mind, but also ‘to accept the Gospel,’ as a single 
definite act. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 2, 11, 2 Cor. iv. 13 (from LxXx.). Hence 
the past ὁ πιστεύσας is ‘one who has accepted the Gospel, a believer,’ as 
e.g. in Acts iv. 32, xi. 17. It is simpler so to explain it, than to suppose 
that the past tense is used here to denote that faith would then have 
been absorbed in sight and ceased to be. The correction πιστεύουσιν 
adopted by the Textus Receptus probably arose from an inability to 
grasp this meaning of the aorist. Compare similar usages in Madv. 67. 
Syn. § 11. Rem. d@. p. 90, as ἐβασίλευσε, ἐβούλευσε etc., who however 
confines it to the aorist; see also Donaldson G7. Gr., p. 411 sq. (ed. 3). 

ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη] ‘because it was believed’ The sentence is elliptical. 


I.11r.) SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 105 


If completed it would have run, ‘in all them that believed, and therefore 
in you, for our testimony was believed by you.’ The suppressed clause 
naturally supplies itself from what has gone before, the participation of 
the Thessalonians in the glories of Christ’s coming being the leading idea 
of the context; see especially ver. 7 ὑμῖν τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν. More- 
over πᾶσιν points to the ellipsis, as if he had said: ‘for all, you included’; 
and perhaps still further the dead, as well as the surviving, see 
1 Thess. iv. 13 sq. 

ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς] is generally taken strictly with τὸ μαρτύριον ἡμῶν, ‘our 
testimony addressed to you was believed’; but the point of the sentence 
is rather ‘you believed,’ than ‘you had the Gospel offered to you’ as this 
construction would-make it. In other words, we look for a direct con- 
nexion between the Thessalonians and a de/ief in the Gospel rather than 
between the Thessalonians and the Jreaching of the Gospel. Nor is the 
construction ἐπιστεύθη ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς grammatically indefensible. The preposi- 
tion has {a notion of ‘direction towards,’ ‘ belief in our testimony directed 
itself to reach you.’ Compare 2 Cor. ii. 3 πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ 
ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστὶν and the construction ἐλπίζειν ἐπί, 1 Pet. i. 13, 
1 Tim. v. 5. The language of Bengel however ‘ad vos usque, in occidente,’ 
goes too far. 

ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ] ‘22 that day’; to be attached to ἐνδοξασθῆναι x.r.X., 
the clause ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη...ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς being parenthetical. This suspension 
of ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, giving it greater emphasis by making it clinch 
the sentence, is in accordance with the pervading tone and purport of 
the Thessalonian Epistles, which enforce the duty of waiting for the 
Lord’s coming. On the expression ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ see the notes on 
1 Thess. v. 2, 4. 

11. εἰς 8] ‘to which end, i.e. εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς (ver. 5). 

ἵνα ὑμᾶς κιτλ] This still further defines the meaning of εἰς 6. The 
particle ἵνα seems to be used here rather in its classical sense, denoting 
the purpose, ‘in order that,’ than to imply simply the substance of the 
prayers ‘pray that God may etc.’ according to the meaning which it 
bears in later Greek. But the one meaning shades off into the other, and 
it is often difficult to discriminate between them. See the notes on 
1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4. 

τῆς κλήσεως] As the verb ἀξιοῦν never signifies ‘to make worthy,’ but 
always ‘to account worthy,’ τῆς κλήσεως cannot denote ‘calling’ according 
to the accepted meaning of the term (i.e. the being included in the 
fold of Christ), as it is usually found (e.g. 2 Tim. i. 9); but must refer 
to something future. It is in fact capable of the same differences of 
meaning as ἐκλογὴ (see the note on 1 Thess. i. 4), and is here used of ‘final 
acceptance.’ The Apostle’s prayer therefore for his converts is that God 
may deem them worthy to be called to the kingdom of His glory. This 


_ higher and future ‘calling’ differs rather in degree than in kind from the 


calling whereby they have been already called, and therefore is denoted 


106 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.  [L. 11. 


by the same word. Just so the βασιλεία rod Θεοῦ of the future is but a 
higher development of the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ of the present. 

ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν] ‘the God of us all’ By the pronoun the Apostle once 
more asserts his fellowship with his converts. Compare ver. 7, ἄνεσιν 
μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, and the note on 1 Thess. v. 6 ἐσμέν. 

καὶ πληρώσῃ] After the mention of τῆς κλήσεως we might have expected 
some reference to external happiness or to outward glories. But it is not 
so. The essence of their ‘calling’ consisted in their being perfected 
morally and spiritually. The end of it was that the Lord might be 
glorified in them (ver. 12). 

εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης] ‘delight in well-doing.’ If the phrase had stood 
alone, we should naturally have translated it ‘the good pleasure of His 
goodness,’ referring both εὐδοκίαν and ἀγαθωσύνης to God; as the E. V. in 
accordance with the common usage of εὐδοκεῖν, εὐδοκία of the divine will. 
But its parallelism with épyov πίστεως, which cannot be interpreted here 
of God but must apply to the Thessalonians, shows that it must be 
taken in the same way, ‘all delight, all gladness in well-doing.’ It is 
something to do good, but it is a higher stage of moral progress to 
delight in doing good. For the opposite to this compare Rom. i. 32, οὐ 
μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσι τοῖς πράσσουσιν. On ἀγαθωσύνη 
and its difference from ἀγαθότης and χρηστότης see the notes on 
1 Thess. iii. 13 and Gal. v. 22 respectively. On εὐδοκία see the note 
on Phil. i. 15, and compare Eph. i. 5. 

ἔργον πίστεως] ‘work, activity of faith’ It must not be simply a 
passive, dead faith. See James ii. 18, and the note on 1 Thess. i. 3. 

ἐν δυνάμει] ‘Sowerfully, effectively, referring to πληρώσῃ above. 

12. τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου] In this expression we have another instance 
of the adoption of the language of the Old Testament originally referring 
to Jehovah, and its application to our Lord, see vv. 8,9. The name of 
the Lord (nim Dw) is a frequent periphrasis for ‘the Lord.’ In this 
expression, ‘the name’ seems to imply idea of ‘title, dignity, majesty, 
power,’ better than of ‘personality.’ Indeed ‘the name’ (nvm and some- 
times even without the article, DW) is at times found absolutely for ‘the 
Lord,’ e.g. Levit. xxiv. 11, 16; compare also Deut. xxviii. 58, φοβεῖσθαι 
τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἔντιμον καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν τοῦτο, Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου (LXX.). 
From a misinterpretation of these passages of Leviticus came the super- 
stitious fear of the Jews of pronouncing the word Jehovah. See Drusius 
on Ecclus. li. 4 cited by Schleusner Ver. Test. 5. v. ὄνομα. It does not 
appear that a similar periphrasis is used in the Old Testament of any 
other person, or office. Instances like τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ βασιλέως, or τὸ ὄνομα 
τοῦ Δαρείου for ὁ βασιλεύς or 6 Δαρεῖος are not parallels; and so far the 
expression may be regarded as one confined to the Divine Being. On 
the ‘name’ belonging to our Lord compare Phil. ii. 9 ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ 
ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, Heb. i. 4 ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ᾽ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονό- 
μηκεν ὄνομα, and for a remarkable and reiterated use of the periphrasis 


ἦν 
“ 


F 


I.12.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 107 


applied to Him, Acts iii. 16 τῇ πίστει τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ τοῦτον ὃν 
θεωρεῖτε... ἐστερέωσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. For more on this subject see the 
notes on Phil. ii. 9 τὸ ὄνομα and 10 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι. 

kal ὑμεῖς ἐν airg] The similarity in spirit and expression here to 
St John has not escaped notice. Compare John xvii. 1, 10, 21—26. 

κατὰ τὴν χάριν] i.e. ‘the source, whence all glorification springs.’ An 
instance of St Paul’s anxiety to exclude human merit. This desire 
appears frequently (Rom. iv. 16, xi. 5, 6, Ephes. ii. 5, 8). 

Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Since Κυρίου may be regarded as a proper 
name and therefore frequently stands without the article, it is not safe to 
take Θεοῦ and Κυρίου, as referring to the same Person because the article 
is not repeated. The translation of the E. V. is rendered much more 
probable by the common connexion of Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. See the 
matter fully discussed in Middleton ad oc. 


CHAPTER II. 


ii. Much must happen before the Fudgment (ii. I—I2). 


I. "Epwrapev] ‘we beseech you.’ On the sense which this word bears in 
the New Testament, see the note on 1 Thess. iv. I. 

δὲ] The Apostle had spoken of the day, when the Thessalonians 
should be glorified and their persecutors punished. He now turns 
aside (δὲ) to correct any mistakes which his mention of this day may 
have occasioned, to calm any feverish desires which it may have excited. 
He bids his converts be aware that, though come it will, yet it will not 
come yet. Their persecutions must be endured yet awhile. They must 
not give up their patient watchfulness, their sober judgment. 

imp] The E. V., following the Vulgate and the Latin authorities 
generally, translates this as a particle of adjuration, ‘dy the coming.’ 
But there is no support for this sense in the New Testament. “Ymépis here 
almost equivalent to περί, to which however it superadds an idea of 
advocacy (see the note on Gal. i. 3) more or less prominent in different 
passages, and here probably very faint. Roughly and broadly para- 
phrased, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας would be, ‘to correct mistaken notions,’ or ‘to 
advocate the true view of the coming.’ 

ἐπισυναγωγῆς] The verb ἐπισυνάγειν is used in the Gospels of the 
gathering together of the elect at the Lord’s coming (Matt. xxiv. 
31, Mark xiii. 27), and the substantive ἐπισυναγωγὴ seems to have 
acquired a precise and definite meaning in relation to the great event, 
corresponding to that attached to παρουσία. It has this sense in 2 Macc. 
ii. 7, though there the émovvaywy) is regarded from a Jewish point of 
view, as the gathering into a temporal kingdom of Messiah. 

2. ταχέως] Not ‘soon’ (i.e. ‘after so short a time’) in regard to a 
previous point of time, as e.g. their conversion; but ‘hastily, ‘ readily, 
‘unhesitatingly,’ describing the manner of σαλευθῆναι. Compare 1 Tim. v. 
22, and so perhaps the word is used in Gal. i. 6 θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως 
μετατίθεσθε ‘I marvel that ye are so ready in changing.’ See the note 
there. 


ee, ee 


IIl.2.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 109g 


᾿ σαλευθῆναι] ie. ‘not to be driven by feverish expectations from your 

sober senses, as a ship drifts away under a tempest from its moorings.’ 
The E. V. ‘shaken in mind’ is quite wrong. The phrase σαλεύεσθαι ἐπὶ 
ἀγκύρας is not an uncommon one, signifying ‘to ride at anchor. The 
opposite to it is ἀποσαλεύειν ἀγκύρας, or σαλεύειν ἀπὸ ἀγκύρας. Compare 
especially Plut. Of. Mor. ii. p. 493 Ὁ ὄρεξιν τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἀποσαλεύουσαν, 
followed almost immediately by ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀγκύρας τῆς φύσεως σαλεύει. 

τοῦ νοὸς} ‘judgment, reason, sober sense, as opposed to any fit of 
enthusiasm, or any feverish anxieties and desires. Νοῦς is here used ina 
similar sense to 1 Cor. xiv. 15 προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι, προσεύξομαι δὲ καὶ 
τῷ voi. Generally in St Paul πνεῦμα and νοῦς are regarded as closely 
allied, and almost ¢onvertible, being opposed to σάρξ or σῶμα; but in 
1 Cor. l.c., as here, the intellectual element in νοῦς is the prominent one. 
See the note on 1 Thess. v. 23. 

μηδὲ] is the best supported reading. Nor indeed does μήτε suit the 
context, where the disjunctive, not the adjunctive, negative is required. 
There is the same variation of reading, with a similar preponderance 
of authority in favour of the more grammatical particle, in Eph. iv. 27 
μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ. On the difference between οὐδέ, μηδέ, and 
οὔτε, μήτε see the notes on Gal. i. 12, and 1 Thess. ii. 3. The same 
phenomenon of μηδὲ followed by a triple μήτε occurs in the Epistle on 
the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne given in Eusebius H. £. v. 1. 20 ὥστε 
μηδὲ τὸ ἴδιον κατειπεῖν ὄνομα μήτε ἔθνους μήτε πόλεως ὅθεν ἦν μήτε εἰ δοῦλος 
κιτιλ.,) Where again μήτε is found as a variant for μηδέ. 

θροεῖσθαι} “707 yet be confused, without actually losing your mind. 
Θροεῖσθαι seems to be weaker, not stronger, than σαλευθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός ; 
and this we might expect after μηδέ. 

ὡς δέ ἡμῶν] It is questioned whether these words refer to ἐπιστολῆς 
only, or to λόγου and ἐπιστολῆς, or to all the three πνεύματος, λόγου, 
ἐπιστολῆς. The sense seems to require us to extend the reference to 
λόγου as well as ἐπιστολῆς ‘oral tidings no less than the written letter’ ; 
and having done this we are almost forced by the parallelism of the 
clauses to include πνεύματος also. Nor is διὰ πνεύματος incapable of an 
explanation, when connected with ὡς δ ἡμῶν. There are three ways in 
which the pretended authority of the Apostle might be brought forward 
by false or mistaken teachers. They might represent his opinion as 
communicated to them by some spiritual revelation (διὰ πνεύματος) ; or 
they might report a conversation pretended to have been held with him 
(διὰ λόγου) ; or they might produce a letter purporting to come from him 
(8¢ ἐπιστολῆς). In this way διὰ πνεύματος might as well be used of spiritual 
communication, as opposed to διὰ λόγου, δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς the instruments of 
outward intercourse. Nor need this πνεῦμα have been a fabrication of the 
false teachers ; but they may have been deceived themselves by spiritual 
hallucinations which they mistook for true revelations, the διάκρισις 
πνευμάτων being indispensable in the Early Church, and Paul having 


IIo SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[II. 2. 


himself warned the Thessalonians that they must try the spirits, See the 
notes on I Thess. v. 19-21. 

Do the words δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς here refer to the First Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, some passages of which (as iv. 13 sq) being misunderstood 
might not unnaturally give rise to the expectation that the day of the 
Lord was close at hand? Or do they point to a forged epistle circulated 
in the Apostle’s name? The former opinion is maintained and lucidly set 
forth by Paley (Hore Pauline c. x. ὃ 3) who accordingly translates " quasi 
nos quid tale aut dixerimus aut scripserimus.’ But the words will scarcely 
bear this interpretation : for as no mention has gone before of the urpfort 
of the tidings or letter, the expression ὡς δ ἡμῶν, ‘ as if coming from us,’ 
cannot be intended to throw discredit on the interpretation of this 
purport, but on the letter or tidings themselves. The expression is 
different where he confessedly speaks of his own letter as below, ii. 15. 

We have therefore to fall back upon the supposition of a forged 
letter. Whether St Paul actually knew that such a letter had been 
forged, it is impossible to say. If he had, probably he would have spoken 
more strongly ; and the whole sentence is couched in the vague language 
of one who suspected rather than knew. But he must at least have had 
reasons for believing that an illicit use had been made of his authority in 
some way or other: and the suspicion of a possible forgery seems to have 
crossed his mind at an earlier date, when he wrote the first epistle (see 
the note on 1 Thess. v. 27); and he guards against it at the close of this 
epistle also (iii. 17). 

ὡς ὅτι] ‘vepresenting that’ The expression in this passage throws 
discredit on the statement. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 21 xara ἀτιμίαν λέγω ὡς 
ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠσθενήκαμεν, Isocr. Busir. Arg. p. 220 κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ ὡς ὅτι 
καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρει, Xenophon Hell. iii. 2. 14. etc. The idea of misrepre- 
sentation or error is not however necessarily inherent in the combination 
of particles ὡς ὅτε; but the ὡς points to the subjective statement as 
distinguished from the objective fact, and thus this idea of untruth is 
frequently implied. It is not however universal: see 2 Cor. v. 19 ὡς ὅτι 
Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ. 

ἐνέστηκεν] ‘7s imminent. For ra ἐνεστῶτα ‘things present’ as opposed 
to τὰ μέλλοντα ‘things future’ see Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, and for 
ἐνεστὼς in the sense of ‘ present’ compare 1 Cor. vii. 26, Gal. i. 4. 

The Apostle then does not deny that the day of the Lord may be near. 
He asserts that it is not imminent. Certain events must take place before 
it arrives ; and though they may be crowded into a short space of time, 
still they demand the lapse of some appreciable period. 

ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου] See the notes on 1 Thess. v. 2, 4. 

3. κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον] 1.6. whether by the means specified in the 
preceding verse, or in any other way. 

ὅτι} ‘for (the day shall not come). We have here an instance of the 
ellipsis so common in St Paul. Another instance occurs just below, ver. 7 


os 


II.3.) SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 111 


μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι κιτιλ. Other examples are Gal. i. 20 ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ὅτι, ii. 4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους x.7.r., ii. 9 ἵνα ἡμεῖς 
εἰς τὰ ἔθνη (and of ellipse after ἵνα again 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, Rom. 
iv. 16), V. 13 μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί, I Cor. iv. 6 μὴ 
ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, V. I τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Xi. 24 τὸ σῶμα 
τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 2 Cor. ix. 7 ἕκαστος καθὼς προήρηται τῇ καρδίᾳ, Rom. 
xiii. 7 etc. 

Another interpretation attaches ὅτι to ἐξαπατήσῃ ‘let no man deceive 
you by saying that,’ sc. the day will not be delayed. But this is extremely 
harsh, as obviously the words ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ κιτιλ. suggest a different way of 
supplying the ellipsis. { 

ἡ ἀποστασία] ‘ the revolt, rebellion.’ The word implies that the opposi- 
tion contemplated by St Paul springs up from within rather than from 
without. In other words, it must arise either from the Jews or from 
apostate Christians, either of whom might be said to fall away from God. 
On the other hand it cannot refer to Gentiles. This consideration alone 
will exclude many interpretations given of the ‘man of sin.’ The word 
ἀποστασία is a later form for ἀπόστασις. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 528. 

kal ἀποκαλυφθῇ} It is impossible to pronounce on mere grammatical 
grounds whether this ‘revelation’ is spoken of as the consequence and 
crowning event of the ἀποστασία, or is the same incident regarded from 
another point of view. The interpretation will depend mainly on the 
conception entertained of ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας as denoting a person or 
otherwise. 

One of the important features in this description is the parallel drawn 
between Christ and the adversary of Christ. Both alike are ‘revealed,’ 
and to both alike the term ‘mystery’ is applied. From this circumstance, 
and from the description given in ver. 4 of his arrogant assumption, we 
cannot doubt that the man of sin in St Paul is identical with the ἀντίχριστος 
of St John, the preposition in the latter term expressing the idea of 
antagonistic claims. 

ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ vids τῆς ἀπωλείας] The one term expresses the 
intrinsic character, the other the ultimate destination of the person or 
thing intended. The expression 6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας is to be traced 
originally to the Hebrew idiom, where the genitive supplies the place of 
epithet. ‘O vids τῆς ἀπωλείας again is a Hebraism: e.g. ‘the son of 
death, 1 Sam. xx. 31 (LXX. ὅτι vids θανάτου οὗτος i.e. ‘destined to die’), 
‘son of stripes,’ Deut. xxv. 2. 80 arrows are called ‘sons of the quiver,’ 
“sons of the bow,’ Lam. iii. 13, Job xli. 20 (28). 

Yet these expressions, when transferred to the Greek, would have 
a depth and freshness of significance, which from having become 
idiomatic they had probably lost in the original Hebrew. The Apostle, 
we may suppose, would employ them (1) as being more forcible than the 
idiomatic expressions corresponding to them in the Greek ; (2) because 
speaking in a prophetic view he would naturally fall into the language of 


1.2 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [II. 3 


the Hebrew prophets : see especially the note on 1 Thess. v. 3. (3) Itis 
not improbable that St Paul is adopting the recognised phraseology in 
reference to the events of the last day. Thus Judas is called 6 vids rijs 
ἀπωλείας, John xvii, 12. 

Does the Apostle intend an actual person by these expressions, or do 
they represent the impersonation of some evil principle or movement? 
The first is the rimd_ facie view, but there are good reasons for preferring 
the latter. 

(1) The ‘man of sin’ is obviously distinguished from Satan (ver. 9), 
and yet it is difficult to see how any other person could be spoken of in 
such terms. (2) From the interchange of τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων we 
may infer that in this case at least a principle, not a person, is meant, 
inasmuch as it is much more natural to personify a principle than 
conversely. And this suggests that ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας may be a 
personification also. (3) The language which St John uses in 1 Joh. ii. 
18, where he speaks of ‘many Antichrists, apparently as elements of 
ὁ ἀντίχριστος, seems to point to the same result. (4) The ‘man of sin’ is 
spoken of as existing and working at the time when St Paul wrote, 
though still unrevealed (ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος κ.τ.λ.). 

Perhaps St Paul may have seen in some actual adversary of the 
Gospel a type of the antichristian spirit and working ; and this may have 
facilitated the personification. 

“4. ὁ ἀντικείμενος] Not to be taken with ἐπὶ πάντα x.r.X., but absolutely 
‘the adversary.’ It is equivalent to ὁ ἀντίχριστος. 

ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ] Not to be translated as E. V., but ‘exalieth 
himself exceedingly against.’ The verb ὑπεραίρεσθαι occurs in the sense 
‘to be exalted above measure’ in 2 Cor. xii. 7 διὸ ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, ἐδόθη 
μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί. The images and to a certain extent the expressions 
are drawn from Dan. xi. 36 καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται 
ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα κ.τ.λ., referring primarily at least to 
Antiochus Epiphanes. 

πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν] i.e. whether the true God, or so-called gods 
of heathendom. St Paul inserts the word λεγόμενον, where Daniel has 
simply πάντα θεόν, lest he should seem to allow the claim and so derogate 
from the majesty of the true God. Compare 1 Cor. viii. 5 καὶ yap εἴπερ 
εἰσὶ λεγόμενοι Oeol...ddAX ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ κιτιλ. The writer of the 
Clementine Homilies (xi. 12, 13, 15) uses σεβάσματα and λεγόμενοι θεοὶ in 
close connexion, possibly having this passage in his mind. Elsewhere he 
employs the words separately, λεγόμενοι θεοί V. 29, ix. 15, X. 9, I1, σέβασμα 
iv. 8,ix. 18, x. 8, 21, 22. See also Polybius xxxi. 3, 13, Clem. Alex. Strom. 
vii. 1 ὃ 2 (p. 829 ed. Potter), σεβάσματι. 

ἢ σέβασμα] ‘or object of reverence. A more comprehensive expression 
than λεγόμενον θεόν, since it includes things as well as persons. Σέβασμα 
only occurs elsewhere in the New Testament in St Paul’s speech on the 
Areopagus (Acts xvii. 23), which was nearly coincident in point of time 





11.6.1] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 113 


with the writing of this Epistle. In the E.V. of Acts 1. c. σεβάσματα is 
wrongly translated ‘ devotions.’ 

The epithet λεγόμενον does not refer to σέβασμα, but is confined to 
θεόν. 

ὥστε αὐτὸν... καθίσαι] The verb καθίζειν is here intransitive as gene- 
rally in the New Testament. In 1 Cor. vi. 4, Eph. i. 20 it is transitive, 
and possibly in John xix, 13 also. 

ὥστε] denotes here not the purpose of ὑπεραιρόμενος, in which case 
αὐτὸν would be inadmissible; but the result, ‘so that it ends in his 
sitting etc.’ 

els τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] The figure may have been suggested by the insane 
attempt of the emperor Caius to set up his statue in the temple at 
Jerusalem (Joseph. “4222. xviii. 8. 2). But the actual temple can scarcely 
under any circumstances be meant here, as has been supposed by many 
from Irenzeus (Haer. v. 30. 4) downwards. Indeed if the ‘man of sin’ be 
regarded merely as a personification, such a view is at once precluded. 

Naos is properly the shrine, the inner sanctuary, as opposed to ἱερὸν 
which would include all the outer buildings. The expression ὁ ναὸς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ is always figurative elsewhere in St Paul, e.g. 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17 (comp. 
vi. 19), 2 Cor. vi. 16, and see Ephes, ii. 21. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ] After these words the received text adds ὡς Θεόν, which 
however must be rejected on the testimony of the ancient authorities. 

ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν] The word ἀποδεικνύναι is used frequently to 
denote either the nomination of a person to office, or the proclamation of 
a sovereign on his accession. Compare Philo 2 Flacc. ὃ 3 (11. p. 518 ed. 
Mangey) Γαΐου δὲ ἀποδειχθέντος αὐτοκράτορος, together with the passages 
quoted in Wetstein. The word seems to have attained this technical 
sense at a later than the classical period, 

ὅτι ἐστὶν Θεός] The deification of the Roman Emperor may to a certain 
-extent have supplied the image here ; see the note on εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
above. Wetstein mentions a coin of Julius Cesar, having on the one 
side his head with the inscription θεός, on the other the word Θεσσαλονι- 
κέων. 

5. μνημονεύετε] On this verb see the note on 1 Thess. i. 3. 

ἔτι Sv πρὸς ips] That the purport of St Paul’s preaching at Thessa- 
lonica had mainly reference to the second coming of Christ, appears also 
from Acts xvii. 7, ‘These all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying 
that there is another king, one Jesus.’ See more fully in Biblical Essays, 
p. 260 sq. For the construction εἶναι πρός τινα see the note on 1 Thess. 
iii. 4. 

6. καὶ νῦν] The νῦν appears on the whole to be logical and not 
temporal : ‘ We// then, ye know.’ These particles are frequently so used. 
Instances are Acts vii. 34 (LXX.), x. 5, xiii. 11, xx. 22, xxii. 16, 1 John ii. 
28 (in all of which passages the temporal sense of νῦν is more or less 
eclipsed). This usage is particularly noticeable with οἶδα following, e.g. 

L. EP. - 8 





114 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ Π1 6. 


Acts iii. 17 καὶ viv, ἀδελφοί, οἶδα ὅτι κατὰ ἄγνοιαν ἐπράξατε and probably xx. 
25 καὶ viv ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ οἶδα ὅτι οὐκέτι ὄψεσθε k.1.d. 

It is possible however that νῦν may be temporal here as opposed not 
to ἔτι dv, which would give no good sense, but to ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ capo. For 
though in this case we should naturally expect τὸ νῦν κατέχον, the displace- 
ment of νῦν is to be explained by the desire of emphasizing the adverb : 
‘and as to the present time ye know what it is that restraineth.’ Compare 
John iv. 18 καὶ viv ὃν ἔχεις οὐκ ἔστιν σου ἀνήρ, where the more natural 
order would certainly be ὃν viv ἔχεις. See instances of displacement 
especially in temporal adverbs given in Winer ὃ lxi. p. 692 sq. Observe 
this is a very different thing from saying that νῦν τὸ κατέχον is equivalent 
to τὸ νῦν κατέχον. In the case before us the νῦν is taken absolutely. 

τὸ κατέχον] ‘the restraining power, afterwards personified in 6 κατέχων. 
The Apostle seems to intend some intermediate power, between Christ 
and Antichrist, which, without being directly Christian, acts as a check 
upon Antichrist ; such as the principle of law or order, civil government 
and the like. Of this restraining principle he would find a type in the 
Roman Empire. 

εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι] The preposition signifies the purpose of God: 
‘to the end that he, the man of sin, may be revealed at his proper, 
destined, season, and not before it.’ 

7. τὸ γὰρ κιτιλ] ‘Revealed, I say, rather than called into existence ; 
for in fact the evil is already working, though in secret.’ Td μυστήριον τῆς 
ἀνομίας may be contrasted with τὸ μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας in 1 Tim. iii. 16 
and with τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως in I Tim. iii. 9, by which terms St Paul 
describes the Christian dispensation with especial reference to the revela- 
tion of God in the Incarnation. The parallelism between Christ and 
Antichrist is thus kept up: see especially ver. 9. Compare also Joseph. 
8. F. i. 24. 1 τὸν ᾿Αντιπάτρου βίον οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις εἰπὼν κακίας μυστήριον. On 
the word μυστήριον see the note on Col. i. 26. 

évepyetrar] See the note on 1 Thess. ii. 13. 

τῆς ἀνομίας] The genitive is thrown back to the end of the sentence, 
in order to give priority to the words of logical importance in the 
sentence—viz. ‘mystery,’ ‘ already,’ ‘is active’; in antithesis to ‘revealed,’ 
‘in his own time,’ ‘ that which hindereth.’ 

μόνον k.t.4.] The sentence is elliptical, but the ellipsis is supplied in 
the wrong place in the E. V. which renders ‘only he that now letteth 
(will let), until he be taken out of the way.’ The true ellipsis is after μόνον, 
and ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι is connected with what follows as the nominative to 
γένηται. Render: ‘Only it must work in secret, must be unrevealed, 
until he that restraineth now be taken out of the way. For an exact 
parallel both to the ellipsis after μόνον, and to the position of ὁ κατέχων 
ἄρτι before the relative word ἕως for the sake of emphasis, see Gal. ii. 10 
μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν iva μνημονεύωμεν with the note. 

ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι) The hindrance which was before spoken of as a 








II. 8.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 5 


principle (τὸ κατέχον) is here personified. If a person were contemplated, 
it is extremely improbable that the neuter gender would have been used 
in the other passage, whereas conversely it is a natural figure of speech in 
all languages to ascribe a personality toa thing. In this instance the way 
was paved for such personification by the fact that one of the contending 
powers is embodied in a person in Christ. 

On ἄρτι see the note on 1 Thess. iii. 6. 

ἕως γένηται] The omission of ἂν with ἕως and the conjunctive seems 
to be more frequent in later writers than in earlier; see Winer § xli. p. 
370. The distinction which Hermann gives (de Partic. av pp. 103, 109), 
that the insertion of the ἂν makes the time more indefinite and therefore 
in many cases the action less immediate or less certain, is just in principle, 
and the passages in the New Testament, if they do not strongly confirm 
it, seem to be not inconsistent with it. The English expressions ‘ until it 
be removed’ and ‘until it may be removed’ would represent ἕως γένηται 
and ἕως av γένηται here respectively. 

8. ὁ ἄνομος] The same with 6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας of ver. 3, and 
probably a personification like 6 κατέχων. 

ὁ Κύριος] The word Ἰησοῦς is omitted in the received text with BKL 
and several other MSS. The weight of authority however, especially of 
the versions, is in its favour ; it is retained in NA and Ὁ Jpriméd manu, 
and it was perhaps omitted on the supposition that St Paul was quoting 
directly from Is. xi. 4 (see the next note) instead of, as is the case, para- 
phrasing the passage. 

ἀνελεῖ] This reading is much better supported than the received 
ἀναλώσει and is the reading in Is. xi. 4 καὶ πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος 
αὐτοῦ (originally 1% 30} ‘by the scourge of his mouth’) καὶ ἐν πνεύματι 
διὰ χειλέων ἀνελεῖ ἀσεβῆ. Moreover ἀναλώσει is more likely to be a gloss 
than ἀνελεῖ, being the more definite word. It is however worth considera- 
tion whether the ἀναλοῖ of the Sinaitic manuscript be not the original 
reading, since it explains both variants. The Hebrew is ny ‘he shall 
slay.’ It is a question here whether τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ is to be 
taken (1) as a single phrase, ‘by His mere command’: or (2) as an image 
of power, ‘by the breath of His lips.’ The former seems to be certainly 
the sense in the original passage of Isaiah, judging by the parallelism. 
Indeed it was a common Hebrew expression in this sense: see the 
Rabbinical passages cited in Wetstein. On the other hand, the latter is 
the image present to the mind of the Apostle, if we are to be guided by 
the context. The phrases ‘the breath of His lips, ‘the brightness of His 
presence,’ will point to some physical manifestation of the Divine power. 
For the image compare Plautus 47. Glor. i. τ. 16 sq. ‘nempe illum dicis 
cum armis aureis, Quoius tu legiones difflavisti spiritu, quasi ventus folia.’ 

καταργήσει) A word more than once used by St Paul in opposition to 
‘light’ as if with a sense of ‘darkening,’ ‘eclipsing’: e.g. 2 Tim. i. 10 
καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον, φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν, 2 Cor. iii. 


8---2 


116 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [II. 8. 


ἡ διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην, 1 Cor. ii. 7 σοφίαν 
οὐ...τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων" ἀλλὰ. ..σοφίαν...ἣν 
προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς... εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν with the notes on the last passage. For 
the word xarapyeiv generally see Vaughan on Rom. iii. 3. 

τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας airod] The word ἐπιφάνεια is a recognized 
term even in heathen writers for the appearance of a God at a critical 
moment. Compare especially Wesseling on Diod. Sic. i. 25. In the New ~ 
Testament it is used by St Paul alone, and with this single exception only 
in the Pastoral Epistles, referring either to the First (2 Tim. i. 10) or the 
Second Advent (1 Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8, Tit. ii. 13) of our Lord, 
Hence it became a common word with the Fathers in this signification. 
It is moreover sometimes applied in ecclesiastical writers to saints or 
martyrs : see Greg. Naz. Orat. iii. p. 77 A(cited by Wesseling). For more 
on the word ἐπιφάνεια and the corresponding θεοφάνεια (or -νια) see 
Suicer s. vv. 

The word seems always to involve an idea of that which is striking 
and conspicuous, and so ultimately of splendour or glory—an idea to a 
certain extent implied in the compound émaive (comp. Tit. ii. 11 
ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ and iii. 4, of the revelation of God’s purpose 
in Christ). And this is further enforced here by the accumulation of 
words τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας. See the note on καταργήσει above, 
which points to brightness as a prominent idea in the word here. The 
language of Milton (Par. Lost vi. 768) ‘Far off His coming shone’ is 
appositely quoted by Alford. 

παρουσίας] The word παρουσία of the Lord’s Advent occurs in St Paul 
only in the Thessalonian Epistles and possibly 1 Cor. xv. 23. In 1 Cor. 
i. 8 the right reading is ἡμέρᾳς Elsewhere it is found in St James, the 
Second Epistle of St Peter and 1 John. It would seem to be the strictly 
Jewish term; while ἐπιφάνεια appealed more directly to the Greek mind, 
and was used more frequently by St Paul, when he became more 
thoroughly busied with the conversion of the Greeks. 

It will be observed that St Paul here, speaking in prophetic language, 
falls instinctively into the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew poetry. 
For St Paul’s change of style in apocalyptic passages see above on 
1 Thess. v. 3 ὠδίν, 2 Thess. i. 7. 

g. The counterfeit character of the Antichrist, which has been 
alluded to before (especially vv. 3, 4), is still further enforced here. He 
too like the true Christ has an Advent; he too works in obedience to a 
superior power ; he too has his miracles and signs. 

éetlvy] The present tense is used here, as below in πέμπει ver. 11, in 
accordance with the ordinary language of prophecy. See the note on 
1 Thess. v. 2 ἔρχεται. 

Σατανᾶ] See the note on 1 Thess. ii. 18. 

ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει «.t.A.] Both πάσῃ and ψεύδους seem to refer to all the 
three substantives, binding them, as it were, together. For a similar 


II, 11.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 117 


instance see ver. 17 ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ. For the combination of 
terms δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν, compare Acts ii. 22 δυνάμεσι καὶ 
τέρασι καὶ σημείοις and 2 Cor. xii. 12 σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμεσιν, 
Hebr. ii. 4 σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν, Rom. xv. 19 
ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων. Of these three words the first (δύναμις) 
points to the author of the miracle, absolutely ; while the two last relate 
to the impression made on the witness, whether as enlightening his 
understanding (σημεῖα), or as arresting his moral sense (τέρατα). Thus 
σημεῖα and τέρατα are connected closely together where they occur, while 
δύναμις (-εις) is independent of either. For a full discussion of these 
words see Trench On the Miracles ch. 1 and N. T. Syn. ὃ xci. 

10, ἀδικίας] Here used in its most general sense of wrong-doing. 
Any act which disturbs the moral balance is an act of ἀδικία. Compare 
the account of the ὅλη ἀδικία given by the Aristotelian author of Bk v. 
of the Nicomachean Ethics ch. 1 ad fin. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ δικαιοσύνη οὐ μέρος 
ἀρετῆς GAN ὅλη ἀρετή ἐστιν" οὐδ᾽ ἡ ἐναντία ἀδικία μέρος κακίας ἀλλ᾽ ὅλη κακία. 
This comprehensive sense οὗ δικαιοσύνη and ἀδικία would be adopted the 
more naturally in the New Testament from the technical meaning 
attached to δίκαιος as one who fulfilled the law. 

rots ἀπολλυμένοις] The participle is connected closely with ἀπάτῃ, for 
the ἐν of the received text is to be rejected on overwhelming authority. 
For the present tense of ἀπολλυμένοις see the note on 1 Cor. i. 18, where 
the same phrase occurs. 

ἀνθ’ ὧν] ‘decause, the sense which it always bears in the New 
Testament except Luke xii. 3. It will signify either ‘because’ or ‘ where- 
fore,’ according as the relative is supposed to contain the antecedent in 
itself, or is referred to the preceding clause as its antecedent. 

τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας] Stronger than τὴν ἀλήθειαν simply, and 
corresponding therefore to the εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ οἵ ver. 12, For the 
different gradations which would be expressed by τὴν ἀλήθειαν and τὴν 
ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας compare Rom. i. 32 οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν. Not only did they reject the truth, but they 
have no desire to possess it. 

11. Three stages are here described in the downward career of the 
wicked. First, their obstinately setting themselves against the truth : 
this is their own act (τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο). Secondly, the 
judicial infatuation which overtakes them at a certain point: they are 
then scarcely their own masters, it is a divine judgment (διὰ τοῦτο πέμπει 
αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης). Thirdly, their final punishment, for which 
the second stage was an ordained preparation (iva κριθῶσιν πάντες κ-τ.λ.). 

The same three stages are portrayed in the description of the heathen 
world in the first chapter of the Romans, the second being there dwelt on 
with a fearful earnestness and, as here, represented as a visitation from 
God; διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν els ἀκα- 
θαρσίαν (ver. 24). 


118 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [Π1. 11. 


For the discussion of this and similar expressions see the notes on the 
Epistle to the Romans ad oc. 

διὰ τοῦτο] i.e. because they did not welcome the love of the truth. 

πέμπει] the prophetic present (see note on ἐστὶν ver. 9), which not 
having been understood is altered into πέμψει in the received text. 

ἐνέργειαν πλάνη:] A strong expression which it is difficult to render 
adequately in English. It is not only that they resign themselves passively 
to the current of deceit. They are active as the champions of falsehood. 
They begin by closing their hearts to the truth. They end by being 
strenuous promoters of error. 

εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι] The phrase sets forth the immediate purpose of their 
delusion, as iva κριθῶσιν describes its ultimate end and object. It is of 
little consequence here to enquire how far the particular expression εἰς τὸ 
πιστεῦσαι denotes a purpose of the divine agent, and how far merely 
a result (see note on 1 Thess. ἢ. 16 eis τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι). It is clear that 
the main sentence implies a divine leading, and such moreover is the 
language elsewhere used by St Paul of this judicial blindness. 

τῷ ψεύδει] “216 11. The universe is divided between the false and 
the true, the one ranged against the other. Hence τὸ ψεῦδος is opposed to 
ἡ ἀλήθεια. 

The frequency in St Paul, and more especially in St John, of the 
representation of the contrast between belief and disbelief as one of truth 
and falsehood suggests two reflections. (1) Inasmuch as ἡ ἀλήθεια is 
not in itself an obvious term for a particular dispensation or system, its 
adoption is a token of the deep impression which the Gospel made upon 
the Apostles, as answering to their natural cravings and satisfying their 
difficulties, thus producing the conviction of its truthfulness. (2) The 
use of these words is a striking example of the New Testament doctrine 
of the connexion between faith and practice. To believe is to act. 
‘Truth’ and ‘falsehood’ are terms belonging not more to the intellectual 
than to the moral world. Wrong-doing is a lie, for it is a denial of 
God’s sovereignty ; right-doing is a truth, for it is a confession of the 
same. Compare especially for this thought Rev. xxii. 15 πᾶς φιλῶν 
καὶ ποιῶν Wevdos, and again Ephes. iv. 25 διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος, λαλεῖτε 
ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ where the Apostle is speaking 
chiefly of profligacy of life. In short, ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ cover the 
whole domain of morality. So it is here more the moral than the 
intellectual aspect which is contemplated, as the opposition in the next 
verse shows, ‘who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- 
ness.’ 

12. κριθῶσι] ‘be judged, ‘called to account, and so condemned. On 
the Pauline use of κρίνειν and its compounds and the distinction in 
meaning between them see On a Fresh Revision of the English New 
Testament (ed. 3 p. 69 sq.). 

εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ] The weight of authority is in favour of omitting 


II. 13.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 119 


ἐν before τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, and probably it should be omitted. The constructions 
of the word in the Lxx. are r and é τινι frequently, ἐπί τινι (Judith xv. 11) 
and ru (1 Macc. i. 45), these last two constructions apparently only once 
each. In the New Testament we find generally ἔν τινι, εἴς re once 
(2 Pet. i. 17), re twice (Matth. xii. 18 and Heb, x. 6, both being quotations 
from the Old Testament), but never simply τιν. On the other hand 
the simple dative is the common use in profane writers. Thus there 
is no improbability in εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ here, and perhaps the preposi- 
tion was added to conform to the ordinary New Testament usage. 
iii. Thanksgiving and exhortation repeated; a prayer for their 
strengthening in the faith (ii. 13—17). 


13. ‘But far different is our fortune. While they are awaiting their 
condemnation, it is our business to rejoice over your salvation.’ 

ἡμεῖς δὲ] ‘we, i.e. Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus. The more 
natural opposition to τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις would have been ὑμεῖς, yet the 
interests were sufficiently identified with those of their converts to admit 
of the language in the text. 

ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Κυρίου] i.e. ‘the Lord Jesus Christ,’ as seems probable 
both (1) from the fact that the word Κύριος is almost universally so applied 
by St Paul ; and (2) from its occurrence here between τῷ Θεῷ and ὁ Geds. 
If on the other hand in 1 Thess. i. 4 the expression is ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι 
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, this will not weigh strongly, the love of God in giving His own 
Son and the love of Christ in dying for us equally affording matter for 
contemplation, and the latter being introduced even more frequently than 
the former at least by St Paul. Compare Rom. viii. 37, 2 Cor. v. 14, Gal. 
ii. 20, Ephes. iii. 19, v. 2, 25, as against Rom. v. 8, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 
Ephes. ii. 4. 

εἵλατο] The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament in 
this meaning, which is generally expressed by ἐκλέγεσθαι or mpoopifew. 
Indeed αἱρεῖσθαι is a rare word in any sense, being found only in two 
other passages, Phil. i. 22, Heb. xi. 25. It is not common in the LXx. 
either : compare however Deut. xxvi. 18. 

On the Alexandrian form εἵλατο, which is probably correct here, see 
Lobeck Phryn. pp. 183, 724, Winer ὃ xiii. p. 86. Other examples found 
in St Paul are ἐξέλθατε (2 Cor. vi. 17), and the aorist of πίπτειν and its 
compounds ἔπεσαν (1 Cor. x. 8), ἐπέπεσαν (Rom. xv. 3), ἐξεπέσατε 
(Gal. v. 4). 

am’ ἀρχῆς] is perhaps the best supported reading, and on the whole is 
better suited to the context, bringing out the distinction between the 
original purpose of God and the historical fulfilment of that purpose. 
The phrase itself however does not occur elsewhere in St Paul, who 
expresses the eternal decrees of God by such phrases as πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων 
(1 Cor. ii. 7), mpd καταβολῆς κόσμου (Ephes. i. 4) and the like. On the 


» 


120 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE ΤΗΒΒΒΑΙΟΝΊΑΝΘ. [Π. 13. 


other hand, the reading ἀπαρχὴν has very considerable support, including 
B, and is very unlikely to have been substituted for dm’ ἀρχῆς, if the 
latter had stood in the original text. The Thessalonians converted 
on this his first visit (of which he speaks elsewhere as ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
Phil. iv. 15) might fairly be classed among the ‘ firstfruits’ of Macedonia 
or of Europe, no less than those Philippians whose conversion preceded 
that of the Thessalonians by a few weeks. For ἀπαρχὴ (a rather favourite 
word with St Paul) compare 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Αχαίας, and Rom. 
xvi. 5 ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, where the Codex Bezz has an’ ἀρχῆς prima manu 
and is followed in this by some western authorities. 

ἐν ἁγιασμῷ κιτλ.} The sentence is to be connected with εἵλατο eis 
σωτηρίαν, describing wherein the call to salvation consisted. 

ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος] ‘22 sanctification of (or by) the Spirit’: πνεῦμα 
being here the Holy Spirit, an interpretation to which the absence 
of the article will offer no impediment. Such appears certainly to 
be the meaning of the same expression in 1 Pet. i. 2, a passage which has 
many points of resemblance with this, ἀπόστολος...κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ 
πατρός, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος, εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
where the mention of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot fail 
to be noticed. Moreover, if the expression be so interpreted here, the 
difficulty in the order of the words vanishes. The operation of the Spirit 
is first mentioned (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος), then the reception of the truth on 
the part of the person influenced (ἐν πίστει ἀληθείας). 

ἀληθείας] is the objective genitive; ‘the faithful acceptance of the 
truth,’ in contrast to of μὴ πιστεύσαντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ver. 12, thus explaining 
the opposition expressed in ἡμεῖς δέ. 

14. εἰς δ] ‘ whereunto, ‘to which state, referring to the whole expres- 
sion εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ κ.τ.λ. 
τ ἐκάλεσεν] ‘called you} as the fulfilment of the fore-ordained purpose 
expressed in εἵλατο. The Gospel preached by us was the instrument 
whereby He accomplishes His purpose. Compare Rom. viii. 30 οὖς δὲ 
προώρισεν, τούτους Kal ἐκάλεσεν. 

ὑμᾶς] The authority in favour of ἡμᾶς (Lachmann’s reading) is some- 
what strong: but the context so obviously requires ὑμᾶς and the confusion 
between the two words is so frequent, that we can scarcely hesitate to 
retain ὑμᾶς with the received text. Lachmann places a comma after ἡμᾶς, 
and this is necessary if we adopt this reading; but in any case διὰ 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν does not go so well with eis σωτηρίαν κιτιλ. as with 
ἐκάλεσεν. 

τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν] ‘the gospel which we preach.” See the references 
given in the note to 1 Thess. i. 5. The term εὐαγγέλιον seems first to have 
been applied to a written Gospel by Irenzeus (Haer. iii. 11. 8). 

ἡμῶν] i.e. of Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. The different usage of 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον pov and τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν in St Paul is a crucial test of the 
force of his first person plural: see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 4 ras καρδίας ἡμῶν. 


II. 15.) SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 121 


εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης] This may mean either (1) ‘in order that we 
might obtain the glory,’ or (2) ‘in order that He might adopt us into, 
invest us with, the glory.’ For the expression itself see the note on 
1 Thess, v. 9 εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας. 

The three stages here enumerated are (1) the predestination on the 
part of God (εἵλατο) ; (2) the historical fulfilment of that purpose 
(ἐκάλεσεν) ; (3) the glorious consummation (εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης). The 
same gradations occur, with steps interpolated, in Rom. viii. 29, 30 (part 
of which has been already quoted) ots προέγνω καὶ mpodpicer...ovs δὲ 
προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσ εν᾽ Kal ods ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν" οὗς 
δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν. See the notes on Eph. i. 4—11, a pas- 
sage which presents many affinities with the above. 

15. dpa οὖν στήκετε] For dpa οὖν see the note on 1 Thess. v. 6: for 
στήκετε the note on 1 Thess. iii. 8. 

The drift of the Apostle’s ‘therefore’ is best apprehended by Phil. ii. 
12, 13 ‘ work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God 
which worketh in you both to will and to work etc.’ ‘ Your election should 
be an encouragement to you in well-doing, and not an occasion of 
carelessness.’ 

τὰς παραδόσει] The passage before us is a direct negative of the 
distinction which gained ground in later times between the written word 
and oral tradition, as if the authority of the latter were sanctioned by the 
use of παράδοσις in scripture. ‘Tradition’ in the scriptural sense of the 
word may be either written or oral. It is a synonyme for ‘teaching, 
implying on the part of the teacher a confession that he was not expressing 
his own ideas, but delivering or handing on a message that he had 
received from heaven. Compare the use of the words παραδιδόναι, 
παραλαμβάνειν, παραγγέλλειν (the last being used in classical Greek of 
transmitting the word of command); and see especially 1 Cor. xi. 23 ἐγὼ 
yap παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα, of the institution of the 
Eucharist. The prominent idea of παράδοσις then in the New Testament 
is that of an authority external to the teacher himself. The opposition 
between παράδοσις, as ἄγραφος, and γραφὴ does not exist in the word itself, 
and is not sanctioned by the New Testament usage. Such an opposition 
in fact was impossible under the circumstances of the case before the era 
of the written Gospels, when instruction was still mainly conveyed by 
word of mouth. The matter of a παράδοσις would be various. What 
class of subjects were included under the term may be seen from 1 Cor. 
xi. 23, already cited, or 1 Cor. xi. 2 (of certain practical regulations), xv. 3 
(of the facts of the Resurrection). On the ecclesiastical sense of the word 
see Suicer 5, v. Ellicott (ad Joc.) refers to Mihler’s Syméolik § 38, p. 361 54. 
for a defence of the Roman Catholic doctrine. See also his other references. 

εἴτε διὰ λόγου κιτ.λ.}] Not as E. V. ‘whether by word or our epistle,’ 
for ἡμῶν refers to both substantives: render ‘whether by word or by 
letter of ours.’ Ἐπιστολῆς may refer solely to our first Epistle, but in 


~ 


ΤΟΣ SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. Π1. 15. 


itself is quite general. On the question whether any of St Paul’s Epistles 
have been lost see the note on iii. 17 ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ, and a fuller treat- 
ment of the subject in PAi/ippians, p. 138 sq. Observe the difference of 
expression here and ii. 2 ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾿ ἡμῶν. 

16. αὐτὸς δὲ] is opposed to ἡμῶν. The Apostle suddenly checks 
himself. ‘All our instructions,’ he says, ‘ will be in vain, unless the Lord 
Himself stablish you.’ With αὐτὸς δὲ here compare 1 Thess. iii. 11, v. 23, 
and 2 Thess. iii. 16, and see the note on the first of these passages. 

We cannot fail to be struck with the similarity of structure between 
the first and second Epistles. Both are divided into two parts, the first 
being chiefly narrative or explanatory, and the second hortatory: the 
second part in both commences in much the same way (compare 1 Thess. 
iv. I λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ κιτιλ. with 2 Thess. iii. 1 τὸ λοιπὸν προσεύχεσθε, 
ἀδελφοὶ) : and each part in both Epistles concludes with a prayer couched 
in similar language, αὐτὸς δὲ x.r.d. 

There are considerable variations in the MssS., chiefly as to the 
position of the articles: but on the whole the weight of evidence is in 
favour of reading 6 Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν. 
Lachmann still further inserts the article before Χριστὸς on the slenderest 
authority (A and one cursive), apparently for the sake of the parallelism 
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς and Θεὸς 6 πατὴρ. But the chiasm in the reading adopted, 
6 Κύριος ἡμῶν answering to ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν and Θεὸς corresponding to Ἰησοῦς 
Χριστός, is much more after St Paul’s manner. Of the variants the 
insertion of the article before Θεὸς is the most worthy of consideration, 
and has the support of Β K and D Jrimé manu. 

The usual order of the names of the Father and Son is reversed here, 
as in the apostolic benediction ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ 
ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ x.r-d. (2 Cor. xiii. 13). 

ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν] When ἡμῶν is added there seems always to be a more 
emphatic reference to His fatherly tenderness and protection, as here. 

ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς] These words ought probably to be referred to Θεὸς 
ὃ πατὴρ ἡμῶν alone; though it is difficult to see how St Paul could 
otherwise have expressed his thought, if he had intended it to refer to the 
Son, as well as the Father. There is probably no instance in St Paul of a 
plural adjective or verb, where the two Persons of the Godhead are 
mentioned. At least both here and in 1 Thess. iii. 11 the singular verb is, 
as it would seem, designedly employed. See also the note on 1 Thess. 1. Ὁ. 

The aorist ἀγαπήσας (not ἀγαπῶν) refers to the act of His love in giving 
His Son to die for us. Compare John iii. 16 οὕτως yap ἠγάπησεν 6 Θεὸς τὸν 
κόσμον, ὥστε κιτιλ. This act is the source of all our consolation and hope. 

παράκλησιν, ἐλπίδα] ‘consolation and encouragement in the present, 
hope for the future.’ 

αἰωνίαν] ‘ xever-failing, ‘inexhaustible’ Aidwos is generally an adjec- 
tive of two terminations, Hebr. ix. 12 being the only other exception 
in the New Testament. 


Il. 17.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 123 


ἐν χάριτι] ‘as an act of grace, i.e. without any claims or deserving 
on our part. These words refer to the whole clause ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς 
καὶ δοὺς x.r.A. They are used in this sense in Rom. v. 15, 2 Cor. i. 12, 
Gal. i. 6. Other passages however, as Col. iii. 16, iv. 6, 2 Tim. ii. 1, 
2 Pet. iii. 18, perhaps suggest a different interpretation, ‘by the posses- 
sion of grace,’ as a Christian virtue, and possibly the E. V. intended 
this by the rendering ‘through grace.’ The former interpretation how- 
ever is more natural, 

17. στηρίξαι) Α furtherance and confirmation of the work begun in 
παρακαλέσαι. On παρακαλεῖν see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 11. 

παντὶ ἔργῳ kal λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ] Here the adjectives παντὶ and ἀγαθῷ refer 
to both the intervening nouns. For a similar instance of a sentence 
bound together by the first and last words see ver. 9 above. 

The order ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ is much better supported than that of the 
received text which reverses the words, and is capable of an easy explana- 
tion. ‘May the grace of God extend not to your works only, but to your 
words also,’ i.e. be exhibited in minor as in greater matters. 


CHAPTER III. 


3. HORTATORY PORTION, iii. 1—16. 


i. LExhortation to prayer, and anticipation of their progress 
in faith (iii. I—5). 

I. Td λοιπὸν] ‘ Fizally. On the meaning of this phrase and the 
position it occupies in St Paul’s Epistles, as ushering in the conclusion, 
see the note on 1 Thess. iv. I. 

προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν] literally ‘ make us the subject of your prayers’ ; 
and so the phrase becomes equivalent to, though slightly weaker than, 
προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. 

. ὃ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 8. 

τρέχῃ Kal δοξάζηται] ‘may have a triumphant career? Tpéxn ‘may 
speed onward,’ with an allusion apparently to Ps. cxlvii. 15 ἕως τάχους 
δραμεῖται ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. Δοξάζηται ‘may be received with honour.’ See 
Acts xiii. 48 ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the heathen population of the 
Pisidian Antioch. 

2. ἵνα ῥυσθῶμεν] It is surely a mistaken zeal for the honour of the 
Apostle, which refuses to see in this prayer a ‘shrinking of the flesh,’ 
in other words an instinct of self-preservation. No one else would be 
blamed for praying to be delivered from his enemies, irrespectively of 
any great work which depended on his life; and it is not easy to see 
how such a desire is unworthy of an Apostle. That the personal feeling 
does come in here appears from the form of the sentence iva...rpéxp... 
καὶ iva ῥυσθῶμεν. If the Apostle had had no further motive in wishing 
to live than the furtherance of the Gospel, we might expect the words 
to run iva ῥυσθῶμεν...καὶ τρέχη. For the form and purport of this prayer 
compare Rom. xv. 30, 31. 

ἀτόπων] The word signifies ‘out of place,’ and hence in later 
writers ‘impracticable, perverse, irregular, outrageous.’ Hence ἄτοπα 
ποιεῖν and πράττειν is not an uncommon phrase in later Greek for ‘to © 
commit an outrage,’ both in profane writers and in the Lxx. Indeed © 
this moral sense of Gromos seems to be the common one in the later 
Greek. See Philo Leg. Alleg. iii. § 17, 1. p. 97 (ed. Mangey) ἄτοπος 
λέγεται εἶναι ὁ φαῦλος" ἄτοπον δέ ἐστι κακὸν δύσθετον, and other references — 
given in Ellicott. 


11.3.1] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 125 


οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις] ‘for the faith,’ i.e. the Gospel, ‘zs not the 
portion of all’? The ordinary usage of ἡ πίστις in the New Testament 
seems to require this translation here, e.g. Gal. vi. 10 τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς 
πίστεως. See the note there, and for a discussion of the word πίστις, 
Galatians, Ῥ. 154.54ᾳ. The expression ‘not all’ is a common litotes in all 
languages for ‘the few,’ as in the proverbial expression ov παντὸς ἀνδρὸς εἰς 
Κόρινθον ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦς. 

To what enemies does St Paul here allude? The answer must be 
supplied by a comparison of the passage before us with the notices in the 
Acts relating to this period of the Apostle’s life. (1) The enemies here 
spoken of are without the pale of the Church. They are not of ‘the 
household of the faith.” There is no reason to suppose that St Paul had 
much to fear at this early stage from the Judaizing Christians, from whom 
he suffered so much persecution subsequently ; nor is it probable that their 
hostility, though systematically attacking his influence, ever endangered his 
life. It is arbitrary to explain οὐ πάντων ἐστὶν ἡ πίστις ‘all who profess 
Christianity are not genuine believers’; and still more unjustifiable to 
interpret of ἀπειθοῦντες ἐν τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ (Rom. xv. 31) of Judaizing Christians. 
(2) The narrative in the Acts points to the Jews, as the authors of St 
Paul’s sufferings during this visit to Greece. They persecuted him at 
Thessalonica itself (xvii. 5) and Berea (xvii. 13). His preaching at Corinth, 
from which city this letter was written, was likewise interrupted, and his 
life endangered, by them (Acts xviii. 12 sq.). And throughout these 
Epistles it is evident that St Paul regards them, rather than the heathen, 
as the most determined opponents of the Gospel. See 1 Thess. ii. 14 and 
the notes there. 

3. πιστὸς δὲ] Suggested by the foregoing οὐ yap πάντων ἡ πίστις. 


_ Men may be faithless, but God is faithful.’ Compare 2 Tim. ii. 13 εἰ 


! 


ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει, Rom. iii. 3 μὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ καταργήσει ; At the same time, this opposition should not lead us to 
give to ἡ πίστις in the preceding verse the sense of ‘ fidelity,’ while other 
considerations are strongly in favour of the objective sense ‘the faith.’ 
For (1) the Gospel is a life, and the objective (‘the faith’) and subjective 
(‘faith’) are so closely bound together that the one more or less involves 
the other. (2) Even setting aside this indirect antagonism of meaning, 
the appeal to the ear would be sufficient to recommend this paronomasia, 
as a means of riveting attention. For instances of this imperfect 
connexion in sense in St Paul, compare 1 Cor. iii. 17 εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Θεός, xi. 29 κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, μὴ 
διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα. See also the note below on ver. II. 

καὶ φυλάξει] i.e. ‘He will not only place you in a firm position, but also 
Maintain you there against assaults from without.’ 

ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ] It is questioned whether this phrase should be 
rendered ‘ from evil’ or ‘from the Evil One.’ The latter seems the more 
probable rendering, for as in an Attic writer the genius of the language 


~ 


126 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[III. 3. 


would at once point to τὸ πονηρὸν ‘evil’ as a principle; so on the other 
hand in the New Testament the frequency of ὁ πονηρὸς compared with τὸ 
πονηρὸν is strongly in favour of the masculine. There are but two certain 
instances of the neuter, Luke vi. 45 ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ 
πονηρὸν and Rom. xii.g ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, where in both cases it 
is directly opposed to ro ἀγαθόν. On the other hand the masculine is 
certainly employed in no less than eight passages (Matt. v. 37, xiii. 19, 
38, 49, Eph. vi. 16, 1 Joh. ii. 13, 14, iii. 12, v. 18, 19). In Matt. v. 39 μὴ 
ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ (E. V. ‘that ye resist not evil’) the context seems to 
support the rendering ‘the evil man’ (comp. 1 Joh. v. 19), for it goes on 
GAN ὅστις κιτιλ. In John xvii. 15 ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ Tod πονηροῦ, as in the 
present passage, there seems to be an indirect allusion to the Lord’s prayer. 

The rendering adopted in the clause of the Lord’s prayer ought 
probably to decide the meaning in these two last cases ; but here again 
there is an ambiguity. The question must be decided mainly on two 
issues : (1) the comparison of any Jewish formularies, which our Lord 
may be found to have sanctioned and embodied in this compendium of 
prayer ; and (2) the traditional interpretation of the prayer itself, for this 
is exactly an instance in which tradition would be especially valuable and 
might be expected to be tolerably consistent. With regard to Jewish 
formularies the passages collected in Wetstein on Matth. vi. 13 are on 
the whole in favour of the masculine. That the expression ‘the Evil One’ 
was not uncommon in early Rabbinical writings is evidenced from its use 
in such passages as Midrash Shemoth Rabbah c. 21 ‘God delivered me 
over to the Evil One,’ Midrash Debarim Rabbah c. 11 ‘the Evil One, the 
head of all Satanim, and Baba Bathra 16a, where Job ix. 24 is quoted 
‘the earth is given into the hands of the Evil One.’ And this seems also 
to have been the traditional interpretation. Among Greek writers there 
is absolute unanimity on this point: see Clem. Hom. xix. 2, Origen de 
Orat. 30 (I. p. 265), Sel. im Psalm. ii. § 3 (U. p. 661), Dionysius of 
Alexandria Fragm. (p. 1601 ed. Migne), Cyril of Jerusalem Cazech. xxiii. 
19 (p. 331), Gregory of Nyssa de Orat. Dom. § (1. p. 760), Didymus of 
Alexandria iz 1 Johan. v. 19 (p. 1806 ed. Migne), c. Manich. 11 (p. 1100), 
Chrysostom zz Matt. Hom. xix. (VII. p. 253), Isidore of Pelusium Zfzs¢. 
iv. 24 (p. 425). With the Latin fathers there is not the same agreement. 
But the two great ante-Nicene Western fathers treat the word as 
masculine ; e.g. Tertullian in de Ογαΐ. ὃ 8 and de fuga ὃ 2, and Cyprian in 
de Domin. Orat.25. The other interpretation was apparently started by 
Augustine (Zf7s¢. 130, de Serm. Dom. ii. 35 etc.) and spread through his © 
influence. Again, the evidence of early versions (the Syriac and Sahidic © 
certainly, the Memphitic and Old Latin probably) and of the Eastern 
Liturgies points decisively to the masculine rendering. On all these 
grounds therefore it is highly probable that rod πονηροῦ is here ‘ the Evil 
One.’ See the subject treated at length in Appendix 11. of the work On a@ 
Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (ed. 3) p. 269 sq. 


III. 5] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 127 


The ‘Evil One’ is the father of the ‘evil men’ of ver. 2. Their 
assaults are instigated by him. On the manner in which St Paul turns 
from himself to his converts, see Calvin here: ‘de aliis magis quam de 
se anxium fuisse Paulum, ostendunt haec ipsa verba.’ 

4. πεποίθαμεν δὲ] “But if we have enjoined you to pray for us, it is 
not from any distrust of your doing so.’ 

The most common constructions with πεποιθέναι in the New Testament 
are τινι and ἐπί τινι : but the verb also takes ἐπί τινα (2 Cor. ii. 3), εἴς τινα 
(Gal. v. 10) and ἔν τινε (Phil. iii. 3, 4 ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθέναι) of the objects of 
trust. This being»the case, two constructions are possible here. (1) We 
may consider ἐν Κυρίῳ as the more immediate object of trust (compare ἐν 
σαρκὶ Phil. 1. c.), and paraphrase: ‘I put my trust in the Lord, this trust 
being directed towards you.’ Or (2) we may take ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς as giving the 
more immediate object of πεποιθέναι, while ἐν Κυρίῳ describes the element 
in which it is exercised according to the common New Testament usage 
of ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν Χριστῷ, removing trust from the domain of worldly calcula- 
tions and motives. Thus the sentence becomes almost equivalent to ‘my 
trust in you comes from the Lord.’ Compare Rom. xiv. 14 οἶδα καὶ 
πέπεισμαι ἐν Κυρίῳ. The order is perhaps in favour of the former 
connexion : the parallel passage in Gal. v. 10 πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν Κυρίῳ ὅτι 
κιτιλ. supports the latter. 

ἃ παραγγέλλομεν] 1.6. the charge just given that they should pray for 
him. 

The received text is probably correct, except that external authority 
(including »BD) is strongly in favour of the omission of ὑμῖν. Lachmann 
introduces the words ὑμῖν καὶ ἐποιήσατε καὶ in brackets after mapayyéAAopev 
on the strength of two important manuscripts (B and F) ; but the insertion 
is not justified either on external or internal grounds of probability. 

5. ὁ δὲ Κύριος κιτ.λ.}] The force of the particle may be expressed 
somewhat as follows: ‘In this, as in other things, I trust you: only may 
the Lord be your guide.’ 

κατευθύναι] On the metaphor conveyed in this word see the note on 
1 Thess. iii. 11. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ] Are the genitive cases here subjective or 
objective? In other words: does ‘the love of God’ signify ‘the love 
which God has shown towards them,’ or ‘the love which they should feel 
towards Him,’ or something between the two? By ‘the patient waiting of 
Christ’ does the Apostle mean ‘ such patient endurance under persecution 
as Christ exhibited in the flesh,’ or ‘the patient waiting for the coming of 
Christ’? 

May we not say with regard to the first of these expressions ἡ ἀγάπη 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, that the Apostles availed themselves, either consciously or 
unconsciously, of the vagueness or rather comprehensiveness of language, 
to express a great spiritual truth : that they use the expression ‘the love of 
God,’ not only of that which is external to us of the divine attribute itself, 


» 


128 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [IIL 5. 


but also of that same principle as imparted to us and so reflected back on 
its author, as ‘love towards God’: and that these senses are so combined 
and interwoven, that it is very seldom possible, where the expression 
occurs, to separate the one from the other? So only can we explain the 
language of St Paul and St John, where the two senses of ‘the love of 
God,’ as God’s love towards us and our love towards God, are regarded as 
logically convertible. Any one who will compare 1 John ii. 5 ἐν τούτῳ ἡ 
ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται, 15 ἐάν Tis ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη 
τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ, iii. 16 ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην ὅτι, 17 πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη 
τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ ; and especially iv. 7—12, 16—19, v. 3, will feel the 
difficulty of separating between the two usages. A signal instance of this 
we have in St John himself, who, from being ‘the beloved disciple,’ 
became himself the great preacher of love. 

That the same comprehensive significance may attach to the expression 
in St Paul will, I think, appear from Rom. v. 5 ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται 
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις compared with its context, and from Rom. viii. 35, 39. 
Compare also Ephes. iii. 19, 2 Cor. v.14. In the same wide sense should 
probably be taken τ ἀγάπη τοῦ πνεύματος (Rom. xv. 30), and ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ 
Θεοῦ in the benediction (2 Cor. xiii. 13). 

Thus then ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ here will signify ‘the love of God,’ not 
only as an objective attribute of deity, but as a ruling principle in our 
hearts ; including perhaps the idea of love towards God, this however not 
being the most prominent idea. 

Analogously to this, ἡ ὑπομονὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ will be best explained not 
exactly as ‘patience like that of Christ, which would not exhaust its mean- 
ing ; but ‘the patience of Christ,’in which the believer participates. Compare 
the expression in 2 Cor. i. 5 περισσεύει τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς, 
exemplifying the close union of the believer with Christ, ἡ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, and kindred phrases. The interpretation of the E. V. however 
‘the patient waiting for Christ,’ in the same sense as τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς 
ἐλπίδος τοῦ Κυρίου (1 Thess. i. 3), accords well with the tone of the whole 
Epistle, and is not to be hastily rejected. But there is no instance of this 
use of ὑπομονή, the verb employed to express this meaning being ἀναμένειν 
(1 Thess. i. 10), not ὑπομένειν : and the reference to the coming of Christ, 
the leading topic of these Epistles, is implied, though less directly, in 
the more natural interpretation of ὑπομονή. See Ignat. Rom. τὸ (with the 
note) ἔρρωσθε εἰς τέλος ἐν ὑπομονῇ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, where probably the 
expression is derived from St Paul. On ὑπομονὴ in its connexion with ἐλπὶς 
see the note on 1 Thess. i. 3, and on the word generally see on Col. i. 11. 


ii. Reproof of the idle, disorderly and disobedient (iii. 6—15). 


6. The comparison of St Paul’s language here with his brief charge 
on the same subject in the first Epistle (v. 13, 14) is instructive. What 
was at the earlier date a vague suspicion is now an ascertained fact. The 


owe 





III.6.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 129 


disorderly conduct of certain members has become patent. Hence the 
stress laid on the charge here, both in the solemn adjuration with which it 
is introduced, and in the greater length with which he dwells on the 
subject. On the nature of this ἀταξία see the notes on 1 Thess. iv. 
13, and v. 13. 

παραγγέλλομεν] We cannot altogether lose sight of the classical sense 
of παραγγέλλειν here, as referring to ‘the word of command,’ in connexion 
with the ἀτάκτως which follows. Ignatius has this same form of adjuration 
Palye: 5 ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου παράγγελλε ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
ἀγαπᾶν τὰς συμβίους: See the note on ἀτάκτως below. 

' The passage may be paraphrased thus. ‘ Your title of brethren should 
remind you of your mutual obligations. The name of the Lord Jesus 
Christ should be your watchword of unity.’ Compare the note on 
1 Cor. i. 10, where exhorting the Corinthians to unity in the same way he 
Says : παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες. 

στέλλεσθαι) The active verb στέλλειν (and sometimes the middle form 
στέλλεσθαι also), is used especially of furling sails (Hom. 71. i. 433) and of 
girding up a robe (Ap. Rhod. Argon. iv. 45). Thus στέλλεσθαι absolutely 
signifies ‘to gather oneself together,’ ‘to shrink into oneself, and so ‘to 
hold back, withdraw.’ The metaphor then is not directly nautical, 
though ὑποστέλλεσθαι is very common in this sense. It occasionally 
takes an accusative of the object shunned, as in 2 Cor. viii. 20 στελλόμενοι 
τοῦτο, μή Tis ἡμᾶς μωμήσηται : on the other hand ὑποστέλλεσθαι with this 
construction is found not unfrequently in classical writers. For στέλλεσθαι 
ἀπὸ compare Malachi ii. 5 ἀπὸ προσώπου ὀνόματός μου στέλλεσθαι αὐτόν. 

παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ] with a slight reference to ἀδελφοὶ above. ‘ Your duty 
to the brotherhood. requires you to withdraw from a disorderly brother, 
because he is a brother.’ Compare 1 Cor. v. 11 ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος 
ἦ πόρνος... «τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. 

ἀτάκτως] ‘disorderly’; a metaphor borrowed more especially from 
military discipline, ἀταξία meaning ‘insubordination.’ It may be worth 
while to compare the address (παράγγελμα) of Germanicus to the army on 
the occasion of the mutiny related in Tacitus (Amz. i. 43) ‘discedite a 
contactu, ac dividite turbidos: id stabile ad paenitentiam, id fidei vinculum 
erit, where the terms used present affinities to St Paul’s language here. 
The same must be the conduct of the Christian soldier (2 Tim. ii. 3), 
however different the character of his στρατεία (2 Cor. x. 4). 

κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν κ.τ.λ.] For παράδοσις and παραλαμβάνειν see the note 
on ii. 15. 

There is great diversity in reading here, the authorities varying between 
παρελάβοσαν, ἐλάβοσαν, παρέλαβον, παρελάβετε, παρέλαβε. The choice lies 
ultimately between παρελάβοσαν and παρελάβετε, the other readings having 


obviously been derived from one or other of these. Where the weight of 


authority on either side is very evenly balanced, it seems better to choose 
L. EP. 9 


120 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [III. 6. 


the third person παρελάβοσαν, for the frequent occurrence of παρελάβετε 
(e.g. 1 Thess, iv. 1) was likely to suggest the alteration. 

On the form παρελάβοσαν see Winer § xiii. p.91. Other examples in 
the New Testament are εἴχοσαν (John xv. 22, 24), ἐδίδοσαν (John xix. 3) 
and ἐδολιοῦσαν (Rom. iii. 13), the last a quotation from the Lxx., where 
the use is not uncommon. It may perhaps have been suggested by a 
striving after conformity with the first aorist ; though probably it does not 
differ very much from the original termination of the 3rd plur. 2nd aorist, 
the first and second aorists having grown out of the same primary form. 

7. αὐτοὶ γὰρ k.t.A.] ‘For you know of yourselves by your own observa- 
tion, without my urging it upon you.’ The ydp is probably explained by 
ὅτι. For the expression see 1 Thess. ii, 1 with the note. 

πῶς Set μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς] an abridged expression for ‘how ye ought to 
walk, so as to imitate us’ (πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν Wore μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς). 

ὅτι] seems here to be ‘for,’ explaining αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε. This construc- 
tion is simpler than taking the last clause ὅτι οὐκ ἠτακτήσαμεν x.7.A. in the 
sense ‘how that,’ as an explanation of πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς. Perhaps 
however such indirectly analogous instances as 1 Thess. i. 4, 5 εἰδότες τὴν 
ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν ὅτι, which are frequent in St Paul, may seem to favour the 
other construction. 

> 8. οὐδὲ] ‘ we were not disorderly, nor yet were we tdle? 

παρά tivos}] To be taken with the whole sentence δωρεὰν ἄρτον 
epdayouev—an expression equivalent to δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐλάβομεν ὃν ἐφάγομεν 
‘did we receive the bread we ate,’—rather than with either δωρεὰν or ἄρτον 
singly. On δωρεάν see Gal. ii. 21 with the note. 

ἐν κόπῳ kal μόχθῳ] For these words see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 9; as 
also for the order νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν and for the subject of St Paul’s manual 
labour. 

The words here are almost a repetition of the language in that passage. 
The motive however in introducing the subject is different: there the 
Apostle is dwelling on his labour as a sign of his disinterestedness, here, 
as an example to be followed by others. 

νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν͵] The reading νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας has the support of the 
two oldest MSS. (NB); but it may have been introduced to conform to 
1 Thess. ii. 9. The accusative cases are stronger than the genitives, 
implying the uninterruptedness of the labour. 

9. The anxiety with which the writer guards against misapprehension, 
as if the work of the ministry should be gratuitous, is characteristic of St 
Paul. See especially 1 Cor. ix. 3—18, where the assertion of his right, and 


an 


the waiving of his claim in the particular case, are dwelt upon side by t 


side with great force. 

ἐξουσίανῦἹ St Paul speaks of this same right as ἐξουσία in the 
parallel passage referred to in the last note (see 1 Cor. ix. 4, 12). 
The word ἐξουσία, which originally signified merely ‘liberty to act’ 
whether conferred by law or not, shifted its meaning, and as time 


III. 11r.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 121 


advanced obtained more and more the signification of a definite, 
positive and acknowledged right, implying control over others. For 
power over means follows as a necessary consequence upon liberty of 
action. This meaning, which is perceptible in classical writers, is 
more definitely stamped on the word in the New Testament, e.g. Luke 
xxiii. 7. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα] ‘but we watved it that’; another of St Paul’s ellipses. 
See the note on ii. 3, 7, where examples are given. 

τύπον δῶμεν] -In another connexion, and probably with no reference 
to this passage, Clement of Rome (8 5) says of St Paul ὑπομονῆς 
γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. 

εἰς τὸ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς] On the other hand a different preposition is 
used above: πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαι. Something has been said on the 
distinction between the two words in the note on Philemon 5. The 
fact seems to be that, while πρὸς always denotes a purpose (at least in 
the New Testament), eis points to the end of the action; whether as 
implying a purpose (as is frequently the case, here for instance), or not. 
See the note on 1 Thess. ii. 16 εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι. In two passages, 
Ephes. vi. 11, James iii. 3, in both of which a purpose is implied, the 
reading varies between πρὸς and εἰς, πρὸς being more strongly supported 
in the first case, εἰς in the second. This distinction between the two 
prepositions arises out of the composition of the words, since πρὸς 
contains a reference to the source of the action (mpo-r see Mew Crat. 
§ 171) which is not directly involved in εἰς (é-s). Thus Aristotle’s 
category of ‘relation’ (Donalds. Gr. Gr. ὃ 486) is expressed by πρός τι 
not by εἴς τι. 

10. καὶ γὰρ] ‘for also’; i.e. ‘not only did we set before you our own 
example, but we gave you a positive precept to this effect, when at 
Thessalonica.’ 

εἴ τις οὐ θέλει κιτ.λ.}] St Paul seems to be repeating a favourite maxim 
of the Rabbins. See the passages in Wetstein, especially Bereshith R. ii. 
2 ‘ego vero si non edo,’ xiv. 12 ‘ut, si non laborat, non manducet.’ This 
book however dates in the fourth century A.D., and possibly the form 
which the precept has taken may have been derived from St Paul. In 
spirit at least this honorable feature in the teaching of the Rabbins accords 
with St Paul: see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 9 ἐργαζόμενοι, and on τὸν 
ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον below (ver. 12). 

For the change to the direct narrative, the exact words as spoken 
being introduced by ὅτι, compare Acts xiv. 22 παρακαλοῦντες ἐμμένειν τῇ 
πίστει καὶ ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, xxiii. 22, Gal. i. 23 (with the note), and see the examples given in 

Winer ὃ lx. p. 683. 

οὐ θέλει] ‘2s unwilling, refuses’ ‘Nolle vitium est’ is Bengel’s 
comment. ; 

II. μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ meptepyatopévovs] Compare Afer’s saying 


ς 9—2 


132 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., [III. 11. 


reported by Quintilian (vi. 3. 54) of Mallius Sura, a bustling lawyer, 
‘non agere dixit sed satagere’ (quoted by Jowett), and Demosthenes 
Phil. iv. p. 150 σοὶ μὲν ἐξ ὧν ἐργάζῃ καὶ περιεργάζῃ τοὺς ἐσχάτους ὄντας 
κινδύνους. For other instances of this play on words see the note on 
Phil. iii. 3 κατατομή, περιτομή : and add the following examples from 
St Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 31 of χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι, 2 Cor. 
i. 13 ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε ἢ καὶ ἐπιγινώσκετε, ili. 2 γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινωσκο- 
μένη, Vi. 10 ὡς μηδὲν ἔχοντες καὶ πάντα κατέχοντες, X. 12 οὐ τολμῶμεν 
ἐνκρῖναι ἢ συνκρῖναι ἑαυτούς, and from the Epistle to the Hebrews (v. 8) 
ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν (comp. ‘where pain ends, gain ends too’). 

12. καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν] SC. αὐτούς : ‘yea, and we even entreat them.’ 

ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ] This is by far the best supported reading ; 
and as there was no more likelihood of its being substituted for διὰ rod 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ than conversely, it must be adopted in place of 
the reading of the received text. 

ἵνα] See the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4. Παρακαλεῖν and παραγγέλ- 
Xew ἵνα are very frequent combinations, and link together the later use 
of ἵνα with the earlier. Compare 1 Cor. i. 10, xvi. 12, 15, 2 Cor. viii. 6, 
xii. 8,.1 Thess. iv. 1 etc. 

μετὰ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι]. The direct opposite to μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους 
ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους, μετὰ ἡσυχίας being opposed to περιεεργαζομένους. 

τὸν ἑαυτῶν prov] A Rabbinical phrase apparently, like the precept in 
ver. Io. Compare the references in Wetstein and Schéttgen. 

13. ‘On the other hand, we exhort the rest of you, who have hitherto 
lived soberly, to persevere in your honorable course.’ 

μὴ ἐγκακήσητε] Wherever the word ἐγκακεῖν or ἐνκακεῖν occurs in the 
New Testament (Luke xviii. 1, 2 Cor. iv. 1, 16, Gal. vi. 9, Eph. iii. 13), it 
is always with the form ἐκκακεῖν as a various reading ; the same authorities 
substantially being ranged on either side, but the weight of testimony 
being in favour of éyxaxeiv. The form ἐκκακεῖν indeed seems to be later, 
though it was in use in the time of the Greek Commentators, Chrysostom 
etc. (see Tischendorf on 2 Cor. iv. 1); and, it may be conjectured, arose 
in the first instance from a faulty pronunciation, rather than as a distinct 
compound. There can be little doubt that ἐγκακεῖν is correct, and it is 
supported by the analogous use of ἐν in ἐλλείπειν. ᾿Εγκακεῖν occurs in the 
versions of Symmachus (Gen. xxvii. 46, Numb. xxi. 5) and of Theodotion 
(Prov. iii. 11), and in Polybius iv. 19, 10. The word ἀποκακεῖν, which is 
found once in the Lxx. (Jer. xv. 9) as equivalent to ‘ exspiro,’ might seem 
to favour ἐκκακεῖν. 

καλοποιοῦντες] ‘27 well-doing, i.e. ‘in your honorable course’: a ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενον in the New Testament. It must not be rendered, as it is 
sometimes taken, even by Chrysostom and the Greek commentators 
generally, ‘in your charitable course’—a restricted sense which ἀγαθοποιεῖν 
frequently has, but which καλοποιεῖν could not admit. In Levit. v. 4 the 
reading seems to be καλῶς ποιῆσαι. The substantive καλοποιΐα occurs in 


Α11, 14.} ODUVINY ΟΥΔΟΣ ΟΣ, FU ΔΔ LEI OOALUINIAINGs 4335 


Theophyl. ad Autol. i. 3. Compare Gal. vi. 9 τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ 
ἐγκακῶμεν. 

14. ϑιὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς] must be attached to τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν ‘our charge 
conveyed by our letter’ The insertion of the article τῷ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς 
would define the construction more precisely, but its absence is no 
objection to this rendering in the Greek of the New Testament. See the 
note on 1 Thess. i. I ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ and the references given there. On the 
other hand it is proposed by some to attach διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς to what 
follows, ‘mark him in (or ‘by’) your letter.’ But this is doubly objection- 
able, (1) as laying an emphasis on the letter, which is not easy of 
explanation ; and (2) because ‘ your letter,’ where we should expect ‘a 
letter,’ assumes a reply on the part of the Thessalonians, which assumption 
is not borne out by any hint in this Epistle. It is better therefore to 
suppose that ἡ ἐπιστολὴ refers to the present Epistle, as it does elsewhere ; 
though generally, as here, only at the close of the letter (comp. 1 Thess. 
v. 27, Rom. xvi. 22, Col. iv. 16). On the other hand, this explanation will 
not apply to 1 Cor. v. 9 (see the note there). 

The words διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς are added, because the Apostle feared 
that the unruly members might presume on his absence : comp. 1 Cor. v. 
3, 2 Cor. x. 11. His written commands, he would say, are of equal 
authority with his personal commands. The New Testament writers 
nowhere betray any consciousness, either on their own part, or on the 
part of their hearers, that their written teaching was inspired in any 
higher sense than their oral teaching. 

σημειοῦσϑε] ‘set your mark on.’ The word σημειοῦσθαι, in itself neutral, 
got to imply more or less the idea of disapprobation, though not so 
definitely as the corresponding Latin word ‘notare,’ ‘to brand,’ ‘ repro- 
bate.’ Compare Dion. Hal. de adm. vi dic. Dem. p. 1127 ed. Reiske οἱ 
δ᾽ ὡς ἁμάρτημα τοῦ ῥήτορος ἐσημειώσαντο, Polyb. v. 78 of a sinister omen, 
σημειωσάμενοι τὸ γεγονός. The form σημειοῦσθαι is condemned by the 
Atticists (Thomas Mag. p. 791, Herodian p. 420 ed. Koch, these references 
are from Ellicott), who gave ἀποσημαίνεσθαι as the correct Attic word ; 
and probably with justice, for the derivation of σημειοῦσθαι from a 
secondary substantive (σημεῖον from σῆμα) points to a later origin.. 
Compare the old ‘acknow’ with the modern ‘acknowledge.’ Σημειοῦσθαι 
however occurs as early as Theophrastus at least (Caus. Plant. i. 21.7 
προσεπιλέγει τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα σημειούμενος ὅτι x.7.d. if the present 
text may be depended upon). I cannot trace the reference to Hippocrates 
given in De Wette. The language of Aristotle and Theophrastus often 
forms a link between the pure Attic and the κοινὴ of later writers. 

It is difficult to decide between the claims of the readings μὴ cvvavapiy- 
νυσθαι (omitting καὶ) and καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε. The former on the whole 
is the more probable, the weight of external testimony (NABD® copt.) 
being in its favour. The order of the variants would then be (1) σημει- 
'οὔσθε μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι, (2) σημειοῦσθε μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε, the ordinary 


134 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [III. 14. 


error between ¢ and αι, (3) σημειοῦσθε καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε, the καὶ being 
added in order to obviate the abruptness. If this be so, the reading 
of some few MSS. (as D*F) σημειοῦσθε καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι is to be 
regarded as a mere transcriptional error, -σθαι for -σθε, arising out of (3). 
Otherwise it would point to καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε as the original reading. 
μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι] ‘so as not to mix freely with them. The double 
compound is expressive; the first preposition σὺν denoting ‘combination,’ 
the second ἀνὰ ‘interchange.’ It is used in the same connexion in 1 Cor. 
v. 9, II, and never elsewhere in the New Testament. It is found however 
in a quotation from Clearchus given in Athenzeus (Dezpn. vi. 68, p. 256) of 
professional flatterers moving about among the townsfolk (συναναμιγνύμενοι 
τοῖς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν) in order to report what they heard to their patrons. 

15. καὶ] The use of καί, where we should expect ἀλλά, is easily 
explained, if we regard νουθετεῖτε as the leading word of the sentence, and 
the rest as qualifying it. The sense will thus be, ‘and reprove him, but 
as you would reprove a brother, not regarding him as an enemy.’ The 
anxiety of St Paul to soften the severity of his censure has led to a 
confusion in the form of the sentence; the qualifying clause, which ought 
to have been subordinate, taking the first place. Νουθετεῖν implies a 
greater or less shade of blame, meaning ‘to remind another of his duty,’ 
but always with some idea of ‘admonition.’ Compare Tit. iii. 10 μίαν καὶ 
δευτέραν νουθεσίαν, and see Trench WV. JZ. Sy. ὃ xxxii. p. 111 sq. 

For the spirit of the charge given to the Thessalonians here, compare 
the analogous case of the Corinthian offender (2 Cor. ii. 6, 7). The 
συναναμίγνυσθαι seems not itself to mean the absolute ignoring of the 
delinquent, but the refusal to hold free intercourse or have familiar 
dealings with him. In 1 Cor. v. 11 the separation was much more strict, 
and so it is enforced by adding τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. 

Polycarp repeats the words of St Paul when dealing with the case of 
some offenders at Philippi (PAz7. 11 ‘non sicut inimicos tales existimetis, 
sed sicut passibilia membra et errantia eos revocate’). 


iii. Prayer to the Lord of Peace (iii. 16). 


16. αὐτὸς δὲ] ‘only may the Lord of peace Himself’ The disjunctive 
particle δὲ is slightly corrective of the preceding. Itimplies: ‘Yet without 
the help of the Lord all your efforts will be in vain’; see the note on 
1 Thess. v. 23, where the same phrase occurs in the corresponding 
position in the Epistle. 

It is doubtful whether by ὁ Κύριος here is meant ‘God the Father,’ or 
the ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’ In favour of the former may be urged the 
corresponding ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης at the close of the first Epistle (v. 23): 
in favour of the latter the almost universal meaning of Κύριος in St Paul. 

ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ v. 1. τρόπῳ] The external authority is evenly balanced 
between τόπῳ and τρόπῳ, though somewhat favouring the latter reading. 





. 


ee ee ee EE ΣΝ EEE ee ae Wa aeaeaey = 


But on the whole τόπῳ is perhaps to be preferred as suiting the context 
somewhat better, ‘at all times, in all places,’ i.e. ‘wheresoever you are.’ 
For ἐν παντὶ τύπῳ comp. I Cor. i. 2, 2 Cor. ii. 14, 1 Thess, i. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 6. 
On the other hand it may be argued that the original reading was ἐν παντὶ 
τρόπῳ, altered by transcribers into τύπῳ to conform to a common ex- 
pression. The preposition ἐν however is awkward where the simple παντὶ 
τρόπῳ (Phil. i. 18), or even κατὰ πάντα τρόπον (Rom. iii. 2, cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3), 
would be more natural. 

μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν] ‘with you all,’ not excluding those who are walking 
disorderly. 


4. SPECIAL DIRECTION AND BENEDICTION, iii. 17, 18. 


17. St Paul here takes the pen from the amanuensis, and adds the 
two last verses containing the salutation in his own handwriting. ‘By 
this,’ he says, ‘they may know that the letter is his own and not a forgery. 
This is his practice in every Epistle.’ 

ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου] seems to be incorrectly rendered in 
the E. V., apparently as if Παύλου were the genitive with ἀσπασμός. It 
should be ‘dy the hand of me Paul, according to the common Greek 
idiom, ¢.g. Soph. Gd. Col. 344 τἀμὰ δυστήνου κακά, and other references 
given in Matthiz Gr. ὃ 466. 1, Jelf Gr. ὃ 467.4. The same words occur in 
1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18. 

ὅ ἐστιν σημεῖον] What is the token by which his letters may be 
known? Not surely the insertion of the notice ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ 
Παύλου which is found in only three of his Epistles, though this seems to 
be the interpretation put on the words by most commentators ; but the 
fact of the salutation being written by himself, whether he called direct 
attention to the fact, or not. See the following note. 

ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ] Two questions of some interest arise out of this 
expression. 

First. How far does St Paul adhere to this rule in his extant 
Epistles? The case seems to be this. Most of his letters, if not all, 
were written by an amanuensis (see Rom. xvi. 22). It was the practice of 
the Apostle himself to take up the pen at the end, and add a few words in 
his own handwriting to vouch for the authenticity of the letter. The 
salutation was always so written, but the Apostle not unfrequently added 
some words besides. Thus in 1 Cor. xvi. 22 an anathema is appended 
(‘If any man love not’ etc.) ; in Col. iv. 18 an appeal to their compassion 
(‘remember my bonds’); in Galatians vi. 1I—1I7 an earnest protest 
against Judaizing tendencies, and in Romans xvi. 25—27 perhaps the 
ascription of praise as a kind of afterthought. It was only rarely that 
St Paul called attention to the fact that the conclusion was in his 
‘own handwriting (as here, 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, and comp. Gal. 


136 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [III. 17,18. 


vi. 11). When he did so, we may suppose that he had some special 
motive. As here, for instance, he had regard to the forgeries which he 
suspected to have been circulated in his name. See the notes on 
1 Thess. v. 19, 20, 2 Thess. ii. 2, 

It is generally assumed that only those letters contained his autograph 
salutations in which he calls attention to the fact (as here and in 1 Corin- 
thians and Colossians): and an explanation is sought for its absence in 
other cases in the fact that no such attestation was necessary, either 
owing to the circumstances of the letters themselves (e.g. the circular 
character of the letter to the Ephesians, and the letters addressed to 
private individuals): or to their having been delivered by accredited 
messengers (as 2 Corinthians by Timothy, and Philippians by Epaphro- 
ditus) ; or in other ways. But the assumption is in itself unwarrantable, 
and is only consistent with a somewhat strained interpretation of the 
expression ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ. 

Secondly, Is the expression ‘in every letter’ capable of explanation, 
except on the supposition that the Apostle wrote many Epistles which 
have not been preserved to us? This question must be answered in the 
negative. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written A.D. 52, 53. 
See Biblical Essays p.222sq. The active labours of the Apostle must 
have commenced not later than A.D. 45. Yet there is no extant Epistle 
written before the Epistles to the Thessalonians. The First Epistle to 
the Corinthians was written A.D. 57. This was the next in chronological 
order of all the extant letters after those to Thessalonica. Is it to be 
supposed that these two brief Epistles are the sole utterances of the 
Apostle, standing isolated in the midst of a period of twelve years, during 
which the Apostle was holding constant communications with the Gentile 
churches far and wide? If this were conceivable in itself, it is quite 
irreconcilable with the expression in the text. How could he speak of 
‘every letter, if with the single exception of the first Epistle to the 
Thessalonians he had written nothing for the eight years preceding, and 
was destined to write nothing for five years to come? On the whole 
question of lost letters of St Paul see Philippians p. 138 sq. 

οὕτως γράφω] The words probably refer to the handwriting itself: 
‘this is my handwriting. Compare Gal. vi. 11, where he calls attention to 
the size of the characters, Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ 
χειρί. Otherwise οὕτως γράφω might be interpreted either (1) generally: 
‘this is my practice in writing,’ i.e. to add the salutation in my own hand; 
or (2) referring specially to the formula used: ‘these are the words I use.’ 
But in this latter case it ought surely not to be referred to 6 ἀσπασμὸς 
«.r.A., but to the salutation itself. See the note on 6 ἐστιν σημεῖον x.r.A. 

18. On the form of salutation see the note on 1 Thess. v. 28. There 
is only this difference that πάντων is not found in the first Epistle. St Paul 
had a special reason for inserting it here. He would not run the risk of 
seeming to exclude those members whose conduct he had reprobated. 
See the note above on pera πάντων ὑμῶν ver. 16. , 


TTPAEPISTLES OF ST PAUL 


II. 
THE THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY. 


I, 
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


VATA Dee 


“ ἷ + 





ANALYSIS. 


I. INTRODUCTION. i. I—9. 
i. Salutation. i. 1—3, 


ii. Thanksgiving. i. 4—9. 


II. ΒΟΡΥ OF THE LETTER. i. Io—xv. 58. 
i, Divisions. i. 1o—iv. 21. 
(a) He describes and deprecates these divisions. i. 1o—16. 


(2) The unhealthy craving after copia. God’s folly triumphant over 
man’s wisdom. The true and the false wisdom contrasted. The 
wisdom of God spiritually discerned. The Corinthians incapaci- 
tated by party spirit from discerning it. i. 17—iii. 3. 

(c) Their preference of Paul or of Apollos criminal. Paul and Apollos 
only human instruments. Human preferences worthless: the 
divine tribunal alone final. iii. 4—iv. 5. 

- (4) Contrast between the self-satisfied temper of the Corinthians and 
the sufferings and abasement of the Apostles. This said not by 
way of rebuke but of fatherly exhortation. His own intentions 
respecting them. The mission of Timothy and his own proposed 
visit. iv, 6—21. 


li. Zhe case of incest. v. I—vVi. 20. 


(a) The incest denounced. The offender to be cast out of the Church. 
Reference to the Apostle’s letter in which he had recommended 
them to treat similar offences in the same way. v. 1-Ὁ 3. 


(4) [Episode. The Corinthian brethren apply to heathen courts to 
decide their disputes. This is monstrous.] vi. 1—9. 
Altogether their spirit, whether of sensuality or of strife and 
overreaching, is inconsistent with heirship in the kingdom of 
heaven. vi. 10, II. 


140 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(c) The distinction between license and liberty. Fornication and 
Church-membership a contradiction in terms. The members 
of Christ cannot be made the members of an harlot. vi. 
12—20. 

[(i) and (ii) are the result of reports received by St Paul. Now 

follow two answers to questions raised in a letter from the 

: Corinthians. ] 

iii. Marriage. vii. 1—40. 

(α) To marry, or not to marry? The Apostle’s answer. vii. 1, 2. 

(6) About those already married. Mutual duties of husband and wife. 
vii. 3—7. 

(c) About the unmarried, the widows, the separated. Let them 
remain as they are. vii. 8—11. 


(4) On the marriage relations of the believer wedded with the un- 
believer. Let them not do any violence to their conjugal duties. 
vii. 12—16. 

And generally, do not be eager to alter the condition of life in 
which God has placed you. vii. 17—24. e- 

(ὃ) On virgins specially. Are they to be given in marriage or not? 
The case to be decided on the same principles as before. Two 
principles to be kept in view: (1) to preserve continence, (2) to 
keep the soul disentangled ‘because of the present necessity.’ 
vil. 25—38. 

(7) On widows specially. vii. 39, 40. 
iv. Meats offered to idols. viii. 1—xi. 1. 


(a2) Meats offered to idols are indifferent in themselves: they are only 
important as they affect (1) our own consciences, (2) the con- 
sciences of others. viii. 1—13. 

(ὁ) [Episode on Apostolic claims. St Paul asserts (1) his claim to 
support, and his disinterested renunciation of the claim: (2) his 
freedom and yet his accommodation to the needs of all: (3) his 
preaching to others and his discipline of self. ix. 1—27. 

This is an interruption to the argument, suggested we know not 
how. Perhaps the letter was broken off. Something then may 
have occurred meanwhile; some outward event or some inward 
train of thought, of which when the letter was resumed the 
Apostle must first disburden himself, before he took up the 
thread where he had dropped it.] 

(c) The Israelites a type to us. All like you had the same spiritual 
privileges. They all were baptized like you: they all partook of 
their Eucharistic feast. And yet some perished for their fornica- 
tion and idolatry. x. 1—12. 

(4) Therefore be on your guard against the abuse of this liberty. Do 
not entangle yourselves in idolatry. Do not cause offence to any. 
X. I3—xi. I. 


Ι 








ANALYSIS. 141 


v. Regulations affecting Christian assemblies. xi. 2—xiv. 40. 
(a) The women to be veiled. xi. 2—16. 
(4) Disorders at the Lord’s Table to be checked. xi. 17—34. 
(c) Spiritual Gifts. xii. 1—xiv. 40. 


(1) There are different kinds of gifts, each having its proper place. 
But there is one source of all, and we are members of one 
body. xii. 1—31. 


(2) Charity is better than all. xiii. r—13. 
(3) The superiority of prophecy over tongues. xiv. I—25. 


(4) Due regulation in the exercise of spiritual gifts. Edification 
~ the end of them all. xiv. 26—4o. 


vi. Zhe Resurrection of the dead. xv. 1—58. 
(z) Evidence for the Resurrection of the dead. xv. 1—34. 
(1) Testimony to Christ’s Resurrection. xv. I—II. 


(2) Christ’s Resurrection involves man’s Resurrection. xv. 
12—28. 


(3) Testimony of human conduct to a belief in the Resurrection. 
Baptisms for the dead. Sufferings of the Apostles. xv. 


290-34. 
(4) Difficulty as to the manner of the Resurrection. xv. 35---49. 


(c) Triumph of life over death. xv. 50—58. 


III. CONCLUSION. xvi. I—24. 
i. Collections for the saints in Judeea. xvi. I—4. 
ii. The Apostle’s intended visit to Corinth. Mission of his delegates. 
Xvi. 5—I4- 
iii. Recommendations and greetings. xvi. 15—20. 


iv. Farewell charges. xvi. 2I—24. 


CHAPTER I, 


1. INTRODUCTION, i. 1—9. 
i. Salutation (i. I—3). 


BESIDES the standard commentaries on this Epistle, the following 
contributions to the study of some of its problems from German periodical 
literature chiefly will well repay investigation: Klépper exegetisch-kritische 
Untersuchungen iber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu 
Korinth, Gottingen, 1869, Hausrath der Vier-Capitel-Brief an die Ko- 
rinther, Heidelberg 1870, Weizsacker Paulus und die Gemeinde in Korinth 
in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1876 xxi. p. 603 sq., Delitzsch on Light- 
foot’s Hor. Hebraic. in the Zeittsch. f. Luth. Theol. 1877 p. 209 sq., 
Hilgenfeld ae Christus-Leute in Korinth in the Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theol. 
1865 viii. p. 241 sq., 1872 xv. p. 200 sq., die Paulusbriefe und thre neusten 
Bearbeitungen ibid. 1866 ix. p. 337 sq., Paulus und die Korinth. Wirren 
ibid. 1871 xiv. p. 99 sq., Paulus und Korinth ibid. 1888 xxxi. p. 159 sq., 
Holsten zur Erkidrung von 2 Kor. xi. 4—6 ibid. 1873 xvii. p. 1 56.) 
Heinrici Christengemeinde Korinths ibid. 1876 xix. p. 465 sq., Holtzmann 
das gegenseitige Verhaltniss der beiden Korintherbriefe ibid. 1879 xxii. 
Ρ. 455 sq., Curtius Studien zur Geschichte von Korinth in Hermes 1876 
x. p. 215 sq. There are alsoarticles by Dickson in the Academy ii. p. 37, 
and by P. Gardner in the Journal of Hellenic Studies ix. p. 47 sq. 
(Countries and Cities in Ancient Art, esp. p. 61 sq.). 

1. On the general form and special modifications of the super- 
scriptions and greetings of St Paul’s Epistles see the notes on 1 Thess. 
i. I, 2. 

κλητὸς ἀπόστολος) ‘a called Apostle’; i.e. one whose apostleship is 
due not to himself, but to God. The translation of the E. V. ‘called to 
be an Apostle’ is as near as the English idiom will permit. The expres- 
sion is not to be regarded as polemical, that is to say, as directed against 


I. 1] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 143 


those who denied St Paul’s apostleship. For in this case the words 
employed would probably have been much stronger, as in Gal. i, 1 
ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου, That this is so may be 
seen (1) from a comparison with the opening of the Epistle to the 
Romans, where the same expression is used and no polemical meaning 
can be attributed to it, inasmuch as St Paul had no adversaries to attack 
in that Epistle; and (2) from the parallelism with the clause following, 
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις (ver. 2). His apostleship and their churchmembership were 
both alike to be traced to the same source, to the merciful call of God, 
and not to their own merits. There is the same parallelism in the 
opening words of.the Epistle to the Romans, where Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ KAnros ἀπόστολος (ver. 1) is followed by ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ (ver. 6). 

This preliminary consideration disposed of, we may say further that 
the phrase κλητὸς ἀπόστολος is here opposed not so much to human 
authorisation or self-assumption, as to personal merit. Both ideas indeed 
have their correspondences in the Pauline Epistles. For a reference to 
God as the source of all honours and privileges we may compare Rom. 
ix. 16 οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος Θεοῦ. But a 
closer parallel, as it seems to me, occurs in the context of the passage 
from the Romans, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος (Rom. ix. 11). This 
feeling of self-abasement, though pervading all St Paul’s Epistles, is 
especially strong in those belonging to this chronological group. On the 
other hand, a strong polemical sense would be more in place in the 
second group than in the first. The significance of κλητὸς is still further 
enforced by the words following, διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ. See the note on 
Eph. i. 1. 

Bengel sees a double direction in St Paul’s language, combining these 
two last views: ‘Ratio auctoritatis, ad ecclesias; humilis et promti 
animi, penes ipsum Paulum. Namque mentione De? excluditur auctora- 
mentum humanum, mentione voluntatis Dei, meritum Pauli.’ But for 
the reasons above stated, the assertion of authority, if it is to be 
recognized at all, must be quite subordinate and secondary. 

Σωσθένη9)] The mention of Sosthenes naturally takes our thoughts 
back to the scene recorded in the Acts (xviii. 12—17) where the name 
occurs (ver. 17). By identifying the Sosthenes of the Acts with the 
Sosthenes of this Epistle, the notices of him hang together. He was a 
Jew by birth and ruler of the synagogue at Corinth. At the time when 
St Paul was brought before Gallio, he had either actually declared himself 
a Christian, or at least shown such a leaning towards Christianity as to 
incur the anger of his fellow-countrymen, who set upon him and beat 
him. It is not improbable that he retired from Corinth in consequence : 
and it may be conjectured that the hostility with which he was regarded 
there was a special inducement to St Paul to recommend him favourably 

to the Corinthians in this unobtrusive way, by attaching his name to his 
own in the opening salutation. It is of course impossible according to 


144 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. {I. 1. 


this view that he could have been one of the Seventy in accordance with an 
early tradition given by Eusebius(#. £.i.12). But patristic writers exer- 
cised so much ingenuity in making up the list of the Seventy (comp. the 
list published in the works of Hippolytus) that such a tradition is 
worthless. Thus e.g. Silas is distinguished from Silvanus, and Luke is 
included in the number (Hippol. Spur. in Migne P. G. x. Ρ. 955). See 
also Tillemont 1. p. 26, and Baronius, s. am. 33,1. p. 113 (1738). 

We mayat least infer that Sosthenes was well known to the Christians 
of Corinth, both from the position which his name occupies and from the 
designation ὁ ἀδελφός. The definite article implies some distinction, 
something more than ‘one of the brotherhood.’ The term appears to 
have been used in those cases where the person named, though 
distinguished, had no claim to a higher title, as e.g. Apostle. Thus for 
instance it is applied to Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12), Timothy (2 Cor. i. 1, 
Col. i. 1, Philem. 1, Heb. xiii. 23), and Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23). 

Sosthenes may or may not have been St Paul’s amanuensis. The 
fact of his name occurring here proves nothing. For instance, Tertius 
(Rom. xvi. 22) is not named in the heading of the Roman letter. Again 
Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1) were not probably 
amanuenses of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. On the degree of 
participation in the contents of the letter implied by his being thus 
mentioned, see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1. In this letter Sosthenes is 
named and apparently disappears at once. St Paul immediately returns 
to the singular (εὐχαριστῶ ver. 4) and loses sight of him. 

2. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ] On this expression see the notes to 1 Thess. 
i. I, ii, 14. 

ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] The authority of the best Greek Mss. 
must decide the question whether these words shall precede or follow the 
clause τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ. In a case like this, where for purposes of 
interpretation there was every temptation to change the order, no great 
stress must be laid on the versions and citations from the fathers. But even 
if we decide in favour of the more awkward arrangement of interjecting 
ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ between τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ and τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν 
Κορίνθῳ, the dislocation is quite characteristic of St Paul. The mention 
of God as the source of spiritual blessings does not satisfy the Apostle, 
unless supplemented by the parallel mention of Christ as the medium of 
that life. Consequently grammar is disregarded in his anxiety not to 
postpone this reference to our Lord. Again, there was another reason 
for inserting the words thus early. The expression ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ 
might be applied equally well to the Jews; and consequently, whenever 
St Paul uses it, he is careful to guard against this ambiguity. See 
1 Thess. ii. 14, Gal. i. 22. There was therefore a double motive for the 
insertion of some such clause as ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Xp. Ἰησ., and the eagerness 
of the Apostle to bring this in has disturbed the sequence of the sentence. 
This parallel reference to the Source from Whom, and the Means through 


1..2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 145 


Whom is too frequent in St Paul, where he has occasion to use terms like 
ἐκκλησία ἐκλεκτοὶ κλητοὶ and the like, to need special illustration, See 
however the notes on 1 Thess. l.c. 

A somewhat similar instance of the disturbance of grammatical order 
occurs just below in αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν (ver. 2). 

κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] corresponds to κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, as in Rom. i. 7. See 
the note on ver. I. 

On the words κλητός, ἐκλεκτὸς and the corresponding substantives, as 
used by St Paul, see the notes on 2 Thess. i. 11 and Col. iii. 12. In this 
connexion words such as ἡγιασμένοις, ἁγίοις denote the consecrated people, 
the Christians, as they denoted the Jewish people under the old dispen- 
sation. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 9, where many terms formerly applied to the 
Jews are transferred to the Christians. See also the note on Phil. i. 1. 

The ascription of ‘holiness’ to a community guilty of such irregularities 
as that of Corinth, reiterated in the words ἡγιασμένοις ἐν X. Ἶ. κλητοῖς 
ἁγίοις, is strikingly significant of St Paul’s view of the Christian Church, 
and of his modes of appeal. He addresses the brethren not as the few, 
but as the many. He delights to take a broad and comprehensive 
ground. All who are brought within the circle of Christian influences 
are in a special manner Christ’s, all who have put on Christ in baptism 
are called, are sanctified, are holy. Let them not act unworthily of their 
calling. Let them not dishonour and defile the sanctity which attaches 
to them. He is most jealous of narrowing the pale of the Gospel, and 
this righteous jealousy leads him to the use of expressions which to the 
‘unlearned and unstable’ might seem to betoken an excessive regard for 
the outward and visible bond of union, and too much neglect of that 
which is inward and spiritual. 

The same liberal and comprehensive spirit is traced in his remarks 
on the alliance of the believer and unbeliever (vii. 12 sq.), and in his 
illustration drawn from the practice of baptism (xii. 2 sq.). 

σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις] ‘as also to all those who invoke.’ This 
clause cannot be attached to κλητοῖς in the sense of ‘ saints called together 
with all that invoke etc.’ For though this construction would obviate 
considerable difficulty in interpreting what follows, it is grammatically 
harsh, if not untenable, and would require a participle for κλητοῖς, or at all 
events a different order of words. 

There still remains the difficulty of interpreting σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλου- 
μένοις κιτιλ. ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. A comparison with the opening of the second 
Epistle, σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ would suggest the 
restriction of ‘every place’ to ‘all the churches of Achaia’: but though 
the expression ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ elsewhere (e.g. I Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14) 
must be taken with certain natural limitations, still the very definite 
restriction to ‘every place in Achaia’ receives no sanction from such 
examples. We must suppose then that St Paul associates the whole 
Christian Church with the Corinthians in this superscription. This 


L. EP. 10 


~ 


146 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, [I. 2. 


association would refer more especially to the benediction which im- 
mediately follows, but in some degree also to the main contents of 
the letter, which, though more special and personal than perhaps any 
other of St Paul’s Epistles, yet founds its exhortations on great general 
principles applying to all alike, It perhaps arose out of the idea of unity 
prominent in the Apostle’s mind, and was suggested by the dissensions 
which divided the Corinthian Church. 

For a similar superscription compare the Epistle of the Church of 
Smyrna on the death of Polycarp...r7 ἐκκλησίᾳ rod Θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ ἐν 
Φιλομηλίῳ καὶ πάσαις ταῖς κατὰ πάντα τύπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς 
ἐκκλησίας παροικίαις, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη κιτιλ, See also the close 
of St Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ἢ χάρις τοῦ Κ. ἡμῶν “Ine. Xp. 
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ μετὰ πάντων πανταχῇ τῶν κεκλημένων ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ κ-τιλ. (δ 65). 

ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Kupfov] A phrase which in the O. T. e.g. 
Gen. iv. 26, xiii. 4 etc., is applied to Jehovah, and therefore seems to 
imply a divine power and attributes. For the expression τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
Κυρίου see the notes on 2 Thess. i. 12, Phil. ii. 9, 10, and generally for 
the application to our Lord of phrases applied in the O. T. to God see 
on 2 Thess, i, 7,9. The practice is illustrated by the testimony of Pliny 
(ZA. xcvi.) ‘carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.’ 

αὐτῶν Kal ἡμῶν] Is this clause to be taken with ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ or with 
τοῦ Κυρίου nuov? The former is the interpretation adopted by most 
modern commentators after the Vulgate, which translates it ‘in omni loco 
ipsorum et nostro,’ as also do some other ancient versions. But all 
possible interpretations of the words so connected are extremely harsh. 
Thus it is explained by some to mean ‘both in Achaia (αὐτῶν) and in 
Asia’ (ἡμῶν, for St Paul was writing from Ephesus) ; by others ‘in every 
part of Achaia, which Achaia belongs to us, as well as to them, inasmuch 
as we are their spiritual teachers.’ Other interpretations are still more 
arbitrary. 

It is better therefore to attach αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν to rod Κυρίου, as taking 
up the foregoing ἡμῶν. This is the view of all the Greek commentators, 
from a sense, I suppose, of the fitness of the Greek. The words are an 
after-thought, correcting any possible misapprehension of ἡμῶν. * Our 
Lord, did I say—their Lord and ours alike.’ There is a covert allusion 
to the divisions in the Corinthian Church, and an implied exhortation to 
unity. The particle re after αὐτῶν if genuine (as is probably not the 
case) would assist this interpretation ; but even in its absence this is far 
less harsh than the alternative construction. 

3. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη]. See notes on 1 Thess. i. 1. 


ii. Thanksgiving (i. 4—9). 


4. εὐχαριστῶ x.7.X.] On the thanksgivings at the openings of St 
Paul’s Epistles and on the Hellenistic use of the word εὐχαριστῶ see the 


I. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE. CORINTHIANS, 147 


notes on I Thess. i. 2. In this instance St Paul bears in mind a subject 
which will occupy a prominent place in the body of the Epistle, the 
spiritual gifts of the Corinthians. 

δοθείσῃ, ἐπλουτίσθητε)] ‘which was given...ye were enriched’ The 
aorists point back to the time of their baptism into the Christian Church, 
and generally of their admission to the privileges of the Gospel. The 
phrase ὅτι ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε is an epexegesis of ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τῇ 
δοθείσῃ. ; 

ὅτι] “22: that, used after εὐχαριστῶ, as in Rom. i, 8, 2 Thess. i. 3. 

ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Christ Fesus, ‘in Him’ ; not as the E.V. 
‘by Jesus Christ, by Him.’ God is represented here, as generally, as the 
‘ Giver of all good gifts.’ Christ is the medium through whom and the 
sphere in which these gifts are conferred. It is by our incorporation in 
Christ that they are bestowed upon us. 

5. ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ kal πάσῃ γνώσει] The distinction between these 
words is differently given, as follows. (1) Λόγος is the lower, γνῶσις the 
higher knowledge, a distinction which is without sufficient foundation, 
(2) Λόγος refers to the gift of tongues, γνῶσις to that of prophecy, But the 
restriction to ‘special gifts’ seems not to be warranted by the context: 
see the conclusion of the note.. (3) Λόγος is the teaching of the Gospel 
as offered to the Corinthians, γνῶσις their hearty acceptance of the same. 
But against this view it may be urged that the words τῇ χάριτι τῇ δοθείσῃ, 
ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν παντὶ x.t.A., as well as the parallelism of λόγος with γνῶσις, 
point to some personal and inward gift, as the meaning of λόγος. (4) 
Λόγος is the outward expression, γνῶσις the inward conviction ; as the 
E.V. ‘all utterance and all knowledge.’ 

The last is probably the correct interpretation. Not only were the 
Corinthians rich in the knowledge of the truths of the Gospel, but they 
were also gifted with the power of enunciating them effectively. St 
Chrysostom says (ad loc.) καὶ νοῆσαι καὶ εἰπεῖν ἱκανοί, perhaps having in his 
mind the expression which Thucydides uses of his teacher Antiphon 
(viii. 68) κράτιστος ἐνθυμηθῆναι γενόμενος καὶ ἃ ἂν γνοίη εἰπεῖν. This distinc- 
tion of λόγος and γνῶσις is partially illustrated by 2 Cor. viii. 7, xi. 6 εἰ δὲ 
καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ GAN’ οὐ τῇ γνώσει. The order here need not stand in 
the way of this interpretation ; for though γνῶσις is prior to λόγος, and 
so might be expected to stand first, it is reserved for the last as being of 
superior and essential importance. 

St Paul is doubtless alluding in part to the special gifts of the Spirit, 
which seem to have been bestowed so lavishly on the Corinthian Church 
(see chaps. xii, xiv). And thus λόγος would include the gift of tongues, 
γνῶσις the gifts of discerning spirits and interpreting tongues (comp. 
especially 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2 ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων AadrG...Kav ἔχω 
προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν «.t-d.), Thus the 
λόγος of the Corinthians comes prominently forward in speaking of the 
gift of tongues—the γνῶσις in condemning their divisions and rebuking 


- 10---2 


148 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Gg. 


their self-sufficiency. St Paul here gives thanks for their use: he after- 
wards condemns their abuse. 

But it would be a mistake to confine the allusion to these. It is 
obvious from the context that the Apostle is referring chiefly to those 
more excellent gifts, the spiritual graces which make up the Christian 
character. In the same spirit in which he has addressed his Corinthian 
converts ‘as sanctified in Christ Jesus,’ he goes on to express his 
thankfulness for their advance in true holiness. He loses sight for a 
moment of the irregularities which had disfigured the Church at Corinth, 
while he remembers the spiritual blessings which they enjoyed. After all 
deductions made for these irregularities, the Christian community at 
Corinth must have presented as a whole a marvellous contrast to their 
heathen fellow-citizens—a contrast which might fairly be represented as 
one of light and darkness. See further on χάρισμα (ver. 7). On the 
distinction between γνῶσις and σοφία see the note on Col. ii. 3, and 
compare I Cor. xii. 8. 

6. καθὼς] ‘according as, ‘in this respect that,’ ‘inasmuch as,’ and 
so almost equivalent to ‘seeing that.’ It explains the manner of ἐν παντὶ 
ἐπλουτίσθητε κιτλ. For this use of καθὼς introducing an epexegesis of 
what has preceded, compare 1 Thess. i. 5. 

τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘the testimony borne to Christ’ by the 
Apostles and preachers ; and thus equivalent to ‘the Gospel as preached 
to-you,’ Χριστοῦ being the objective genitive. Compare 2 Tim. i. 8 μὴ οὖν 
ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, Rev. i. 2, 9, and see the note on 
ii. 1 below. 

ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν] This might mean either (1) ‘received confirmation 
in your persons,’ i.e. commended itself to others by the effect it produced 
on your character; or (2) ‘was confirmed in you,’ ‘produced a deep 
conviction in your hearts.’ The latter sense is to be preferred, as being 
more in accordance with the use of καθὼς as explained above, and also as 
better adapted to the statement ὃς καὶ βεβαιώσει ὑμᾶς which follows. 

7. ὥστε] is best attached to what immediately precedes. Otherwise 
καθὼς...ἐν ὑμῖν is to be treated as parenthetical, and ὥστε referred to the 
previous clause ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε. But this is not so good. It is 
more in St Paul’s manner thus to string the clauses together one after the 
other. 

μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι] ‘so that ye fall short in no spiritual 
gift” The expression signifies more than μηδενὸς χαρίσματος. The latter 
would mean ‘not to be without any gift’ (comp. Rom. iii. 23) ; the former 
‘not to possess it in less measure than others.’ For the wish compare 
James i. 4, 19, and Ign. Pol. 2 ἵνα μηδενὸς λείπῃ καὶ παντὸς χαρίσματος 
περισσεύῃς. 

χαρίσματι) The term χάρισμα, though sometimes applied especially to 
the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (such as tongues etc.), is not so 
confined. It includes all spiritual graces and endowments. The greatest 


I. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 149 


χάρισμα of all the Apostle declares elsewhere to be eternal life (Rom. vi. 
23). That it is here used in this wider sense, is clear from the context, 
which shows that St Paul is dwelling especially on moral gifts, as for 
instance on holiness of life. 

It would probably be correct to say that St Paul himself was conscious 
of no such distinction as that of the ordinary and extraordinary gifts of 
the Spirit. At all events in his enumeration he classes together those 
endowments which we commonly speak of as miraculous and special, and 
such as belong generally to the Christian character. See chap. xii. 
And in some cases, as for instance the χάρισμα of ‘prophesying,’ it is 
difficult to say where the non-miraculous ceases and the miraculous 
begins ; or to point to any distinction in kind between its manifestation 
in the Apostolic times and its counterpart in later ages of the Church. 

ἀπεκδεχομένους] ‘as you eagerly expect.” The significance of this clause 
in connexion with the context is best illustrated by 1 Joh. iii. 2, 3 ‘we 
know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him...and every man 
that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure’; and 
by 2 Pet. iii. 11, 12 ‘what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy 
conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting the coming of the 
day of God.’ In other words, the very expectation is productive of that 
advance in Christian grace and knowledge which was spoken of before. 
The word ἀπεκδέχεσθαι does not necessarily signify ‘awaiting hopefully, 
desiring’ ; but the double preposition implies a degree of earnestness and 
an intensity of expectation which is quite inconsistent with the careless- 
ness of the godless. Hence it is never used in the New Testament in 
reference to the coming of Christ, except of the ‘faithful.’ See Rom. viii. 
23, 25 (and comp. ver. 19), Gal. v. 5, Phil. iii. 20, and especially Heb. ix. 
28 ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς 
σωτηρίαν. 

8. ὃς καὶ] i.e. ‘Who also will go on with this process of strengthening 
even unto the end, so that ye may be blameless.’ This relative is referred 
either to Θεὸς or to Χριστὸς as its antecedent. The latter is to be preferred, 
as immediately preceding, while Θεὸς must be sought far back in the 
sentence. And then again a new subject seems to be introduced in Θεὸς 
below (verse 9). The repetition of τοῦ K. qu. "Ino. Xp., where we might 
expect αὐτοῦ, is no valid argument against referring ὃς to Χριστός. Such 
a repetition of the substantive has its parallel even in classical Greek, and 
is common in the New Testament. See 1 Thess. iii. 13, 2 Tim. i. 18, Gen. 
xix. 24 ; and compare Winer § xxii. p. 180 sq. There is a special fascina- 
tion in that ‘name which is above every name,’ leading St Paul to dwell 
upon it, and reiterate it. Compare also in this respect ver. 21. 

ὃς καὶ βεβαιώσει] to be referred to ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν, on which see the 
note. Compare also 2 Cor. i. 10 ἐῤῥύσατο ἡμᾶς καὶ ῥύσεται els ὃν ἠλπίκα- 
μεν ὅτι καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται, Phil. i. 18 ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι. 

ἕως τέλους] with a reference to ἀπεκδεχομένους, 


150 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 8 


ἀνεγκλήτους] ‘so that ye may be blameless’: proleptic. See the instances 
given on 1 Thess. iii. 13 ἀμέμπτους. 

ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ!ᾳ: See the notes on 1 Thess. v. 2, 4, and compare iv. 3 
below, ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας. 

9. The sequence of thought is as follows. ‘The fact that you 
have been called through God to a communion with Christ, is an earnest 
assurance to you that Christ will bring this good work to a favourable 
issue. For reliance can be placed on God. This calling was not intended 
to be illusory or vain.’ Here again St Paul takes the broad and compre- 
hensive view of God’s dealings. See the notes above on vv. 2,4. For 
the same thought compare Phil. i. 6 ‘ Being confident of this very thing 
that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the 
day of Jesus Christ’; and see the notes on the verse. 

πιστὸς ὃ Θεὸς] Compare I Cor. x. 13, 2 Cor. i. 18, 1 Thess. v. 24 
πιστὸς ὃ καλῶν ὑμᾶς ὃς καὶ ποιήσει, 2 Thess. iii. 3. 

δι οὗ] ‘through Whom, not as E.V. ‘by whom,’ which is ambiguous, 
‘by’ being here an archaism. We may speak of God the Father, either 
as the source from whom, or the means, instrumentality through which all 
things arise and are. Compare Rom. xi. 36 ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ eis 
αὐτὸν τὰ πάντας He is at once beginning, middle and end. Most 
commonly He is regarded as the Source (ἐξ ov); but sometimes as 
the Means (δι᾿ οὗ) as here and Heb. ii. 10 ἔπρεπεν yap αὐτῷ, δὲ ὃν τὰ πάντα 
καὶ δὲ οὗ τὰ πάντα x.r.A. Compare Gal. i. 1 and note. Whenever God the 
Father and Christ are mentioned together, origination is ascribed to the 
Father, and mediation to Christ in things physical as well as spiritual. 
See especially 1 Cor. viii. 6 εἷς Θεός, ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ Ta πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς 
αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. This 
distinction is as precise in St Paul as in St John, though dwelt upon more 
fully by the latter. We should nowhere find such an expression as ἐξ οὗ 
τὰ πάντα applied to Christ. 

The preceding note suggests two remarks. (1) It is important 
to observe how early and with what exactness the doctrine of the person 
of Christ was maintained. The genuineness of this Epistle is not 
questioned even by the severest negative criticism, and yet here it is as 
distinctly stated as in the Fourth Gospel, which that same criticism 
condemns as the forgery of a later age. (2) We should not fail to 
observe the precision with which St Paul uses the preposition, as a token 
of his general grammatical accuracy. 

κοινωνίαν] including both spiritual communion with Christ in the 
present life and participation in His glory hereafter, without which this 
communion would be incomplete. The κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ is coexten- 
sive in meaning with the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. On the uses of the word in 
St Paul’s Epistles see the note on Phil. i. § ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν eis τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον. 


I, το.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, I5! 


2. BODY OF THE LETTER, i. 1to—xv. 58. 


i, DIVISIONS, i. 10—iv. 21. 


(a) He describes and deprecates these divisions (i. 10—17). 


10. παρακαλῶ δὲ] The participle is slightly corrective. ‘Though I 
have commended your progress in the Gospel, yet I must rebuke you for 
your divisions.’ . 

ἀδελφοὶ] i.e. ‘ye who profess to be held together in the bond of 
brotherhood.’ The repetition of the term in the following verse, ἀδελφοί 
pov, points to its significance here. For the use of this term in similar 
appeals compare Gal. vi. 1, 18 (with the notes). See also especially 1 Cor. 
vi. 5, 6. 

διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κι, ἡμῶν “I. X.] The exhortation to unity is still 
further strengthened. ‘I intreat by that one name which we all bear in 
common, that ye assume not divers names, as of Paul, and Apollos etc.’ 
For the adjuration comp. 2 Thess. iii. 6. 

tva] It is difficult in this passage, as elsewhere, to discriminate 
between the two senses of iva as denoting the purpose, design, or simply 
the object, consequence. Compare the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4. 

τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε] We have here a strictly classical expression. It is 
used of political communities which are free from factions, or of different 
states which entertain friendly relations with each other. Thus τὸ αὐτὸ 
λέγειν is ‘to be at peace,’ or ‘to make up differences’; see Thuc, iv. 20 
ἡμῶν καὶ ὑμῶν ταὐτὰ λεγόντων, V. 31 Βοιωτοὶ δὲ καὶ Μεγαρῆς τὸ αὐτὸ λέγοντες 
ἡσύχαζον, Aristot. Polit. ii. 3.3, Polyb. ii. 62, v. 104 etc. Here the second 
idea to make up differences is the prominent one, and is carried out in 
κατηρτισμένοι below, where the same political metaphor is used. On the 
application of classical terms relating to the body politic to the Christian 
community by the N.T. writers, see the note on τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν I Thess. 
ii. 14. 

The marked classical colouring of such passages as this leaves a much 
stronger impression of St Paul’s acquaintance with classical writers than 
the rare occasional quotations which occur in his writings. Compare 
especially the speech before the Areopagus (Acts xvii.). The question of 
St Paul’s general education is discussed in Biblical Essays, p. 201 sq., see 
especially p. 205 sq. 

σχίσματα] This is said to be the earliest passage in which the word 
occurs of a ‘moral division’ (Stanley Corinthians ad loc.). It is here 
used as almost synonymous with ἔριδες, and in a later passage (1 Cor. xi. 
18) it is distinguished from αἱρέσεις, the latter denoting a more complete 
separation than σχίσματα. See the passage. The word does not occur 


152 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, [I. το. 


elsewhere in the N. T. in this sense, except in St John’s Gospel (vii. 43, 
ix. 16, x. 19). In St Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians it occurs 
frequently, as might be expected, with more or less of reference to this 
Epistle. See §§ 2, 49, 54 and especially ὃ 46 ἵνα ri ἔρεις καὶ θυμοὶ καὶ 
διχοστασίαι καὶ σχίσματα πόλεμός τε ἐν ὑμῖν, where the words are arranged 
in an ascending scale. Θυμοὶ are ‘outbursts of wrath,’ d:yooracia is 
weaker than σχίσμα, as it is stronger than στάσις : as στάσις developes 
into διχοστασία, so διχοστασία widens into σχίσμα. See the notes on this 
passage, and on Gal. v. 20, 21. The word is apparently not found 
elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers. 

κατηρτισμένοι)] On this word see the note on 1 Thess. iii. ro, It 
is especially appropriate here with reference to σχίσματα (Matt. iv. 21, 
Mark i. 19). 

ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ vot καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ] Of these words νοῦς denotes the 
frame or state of mind, γνώμη the judgment, opinion or sentiment, which 
is the outcome of νοῦς. The former denotes the general principles, the 
latter the special applications of those principles. The form voi is peculiar 
to St Paul in the N. T., but not uncommon with him (Rom. vii. 25, xiv. 5 
1 Cor. xiv. 15). It is confined to late writers (Winer § viii. p. 72). 

II. ὑπὸ τῶν Xdéys] The expression may mean either (1) ‘the 
children,’ or (2) ‘ the servants,’ or (3) ‘the relations of Chloe.’ We learn 
a good deal of the social condition of the early Christians from their 
names. Judging from her name, Chloe was probably a freedwoman. At 
least the name does not denote any exalted rank. Compare Horace Od. 
iii. 9. 9 ‘me nunc Thressa Chloe regit.’ Chloe is an epithet of the 
Goddess Demeter (Aristoph. Zysistv. 835, compare εὔχλοος Soph. O. C. 
1600) ; and it is not improbable that, as a proper name, it was derived 
from this use. Slaves and by consequence freedmen seem very frequently 
to have borne the Greek names of heathen divinities. Compare the 
instances of Phoebe (Rom. xvi. 1), of Hermes (xvi. 14), and of Nereus 
(xvi. 15). 

Perhaps however the name is to be referred to the primary meaning of 
the word, as in the case of Stachys (στάχυς) (Rom. xvi. 9) and Chloris, 
On either supposition it would point to a servile origin, from which class 
a large number of the early converts to Christianity appear to have been 
drawn. Compare ver. 26, and see the notes on Czsar’s household in 
Philippians, p. 171 sq. 

The position of importance occupied by women in the Christian 
Church, even at this early date, is a token of the great social revolution 
which the Gospel was already working. See PAilippians, p. 55 sq. for 
the development of this feature in Macedonia especially. 

It is possible that Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (xvi. 17) are 
included in of XAons; but there is no ground for the supposition, and 
all such identifications are hazardous. 

12. λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι] ‘/ refer to the fact that; ‘my meaning ts this 


I. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 153 


that’; not as E.V., ‘now this I say that.’ Compare Gal. iii. 17 
1 Thess. iv. 15, and see [Clem. Rom.] ii. §§ 2, 8, 12 τοῦτο λέγει ‘he 
means this.’ 

ἕκαστος ὑμῶν] i.e. ‘there is not one of you, but has his party leader. 
The whole body is infected with this spirit of strife.’ 

᾿Απολλὼ] +The name Apollos is contracted either from Apollonius, or 
Apollodorus, probably the first. So at least it is written in full in Codex 
D (Acts xviii. 24), and the variation seems to point to some very early 
tradition. Apollos was an Alexandrian (Acts l. c.), and the name Apollo- 
nius was common in Alexandria, probably owing to the fact ‘that the 
first governor left, by Alexander in his African province. was so called’ 
(Arrian Aad. iii. 5). On the contracted names in -ὡς and -as, so frequent 
in the N. T., see Winer ὃ xvi. p. 127, and the note on 1 Thess. 1.1 
Σιλουανός. This particular contraction is found elsewhere, though rarely ; 
see Conybeare and Howson, p. 364. 

We first hear of Apollos residing at Ephesus about the time of St 
Paul’s first visit to Corinth (A.D. 52, 53). Here he is instructed in the 
Gospel by Aquila and Priscilla) From Ephesus he crosses over to 
Corinth, where he preaches to the Corinthians and makes a deep 
impression upon the Corinthian Church. After his departure St Paul 
arrives at Ephesus, and remains there three years (from A.D. 54 to 57). 
See Acts xviii. 24—xix. 1. There is no notice of the return of Apollos 
from Corinth to Ephesus ; but he was with St Paul or in the neighbour- 
hood when this Epistle was written, i.e. about or after Easter 57 (see xvi. 
12). For his subsequent movements see Tit. iii. 13; and on the subject 
generally Heymann in Sachs. Stud. (1843), 11. p. 222 sq., Pfizer de 
Afpollone doctore apostol. Altorf (1718), Bleek Hebr. p. 394 sq., Meyer 
on Acts xviii. 24 and Stanley Corinthians ad loc. 

Κηφᾶ] The Aramaic word p> corresponding to the Greek Πέτρος 
(John i. 42). St Paul seems to have employed both forms indifferently. 
In this Epistle he always speaks of Κηφᾶς ; in the Epistle to the Galatians, 
sometimes of Κηφᾶς (Gal. i. 18, ii. 9, 11, 14) sometimes of Πέτρος (Gal. ii. 
7, 8). Here, as repeating the language of the Judaizers, he would 
naturally use Cephas. 

The question occurs, had St Peter been at Corinth before this time? 
Apollos had been there, but there is no indication that St Peter had been. 
In ix. 5 there is an allusion to him which points to his moving about at 
this time. The Romanist story of St Peter’s twenty-five years episcopate 
at Rome (A.D. 42 to 67), if true, would cover the time of St Paul’s im- 
prisonment at Rome, and also the period of the Epistles to and from 
Rome, so that the entire absence of any allusion to his being at Rome at 
this time is quite inexplicable, if he were there. Besides, St Paul speaks 
(Rom. xv. 20) as though no Apostle had previously visited it. It does not 
‘seem at all necessary that St Peter should have been at Corinth in order 
that his name should be taken by a party. He was naturally head of the 


154 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (I. 12. 


Church of the circumcision. See the essay entitled ‘Saint Peter in Rome’ 
in Apostolic Fathers, Part 1., vol. 11. p. 481 sq. (1890). 

Observe the delicacy evinced by St Paul in treating of this subject. 
His ascending scale is Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ. He places himself 
in the lowest grade, next, that teacher who was especially associated with 
him, and highest of human instructors the Apostle who was represented 
as his direct antagonist. Again, when he wants to enforce the opposition 
between the servant and the master, between the human instrument and 
the divine source, he selects his own name, as the meanest of all, and 
therefore the best antithesis: μεμέρισται 6 Χριστός * μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ; so also in iii, 5 (ri οὖν ἐστὶν ᾿Απολλώς; τί δέ ἐστιν 
Παῦλος ;) there is no mention of Cephas. (His well-known friendly 
relations with Apollos allowed him, both here and in iv. 6, as it were 
to take liberties with his name. ) On the other hand, a true gentlemanly 
feeling led him to abstain from appearing to depreciate Cephas, his 
supposed adversary. This is an instance of his fine appreciation of what 
was due to his fellow-men. 

In the Epistle to the Galatians, where it was necessary for him to 
assert his Apostleship, his language is different. 

13. μεμέρισται ὁ Xpirrdés;] Lachmann omits the note of interrogation, 
as is done apparently in most of the ancient versions. Yet the sentence 
is more forcible taken interrogatively. Nor does the absence of μὴ in one 
clause, whilst it is present in the other, form any objection to this way of 
taking it. The form of the interrogative is purposely varied, because the 
reply suggested in each case is different. Μὴ interrogative implies 
a negative answer, whereas the omission of μὴ allows an affirmative 
answer. ‘Has Christ been divided?’ This is only too true. ‘Was Paul 
crucified for you?’ This is out of the question. On μὴ interrogative as 
implying a negative answer see Winer § lvii. p. 641. The opposition in 
the form of the interrogative would have been still stronger, if St Paul 
had written οὐ μεμέρισται ; 

In what sense did the Apostle mean that Christ had been divided? 
Christ is here identified with the body of believers. Thus ‘Has Christ 
been divided?’ is in effect ‘Have you by your dissensions rent Christ’s 
body asunder, tearing limb from limb?’ Compare 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13 ‘ For as 
the body is one, and hath many members and all the members of that 
one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body.’ Compare also xii. 27. This passage 
seems to leave no doubt as to the interpretation here ; and so Clement of 
Rome evidently understands it, for speaking of the later factions at 
Corinth, he says (ὃ 46) iva ri διέλκομεν καὶ διασπῶμεν τὰ μέλη Tod Χριστοῦ ; 
with an evident reference to St Paul’s language here. Immediately 
afterwards he alludes directly to this Epistle ἀναλάβετε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ 
μακαρίου Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου...ἐπέστειλεν ὑμῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ τε καὶ Κηφᾶ re 
καὶ ᾿Απολλὼ κιτιλ. For an equally strong instance of the use of the 





I. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 155 


metaphor see Hebr. vi. 6 ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ 
παραδειγματίζοντας: 

Some would give to μεμέρισται the sense of ‘assigned as a share’ (‘ Has 
Christ become the badge of a party?’), in which case the words would 
refer solely to the section described as ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. It does not appear 
however that μερίζειν absolutely could well have this meaning ; though in 
certain connexions, as in the construction μερίζειν τινί τι, it would be 
natural enough. 

μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη] ‘surely Paul was not crucified for you.’ The 
appeal is not simply to their gratitude towards one who has laid down his 
life for them, but to their sense of justice. ‘You were not purchased by 
the blood of Paul, you have not become the property of Paul.’ Compare 
1 Cor. vi. 19, 20, vii. 23, where this idea of ownership is brought out. 
The idea will of course be more strongly implied here if the reading 
is ὑπέρ, than if wepi. The balance of evidence is slightly in favour of 
ὑπέρ. 

εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου] “ Ζγεέο the name of, not ‘in the name of’ as in the 
E.V. The preposition implies both ‘subjection to and communion with’ 
another. The phrase is sometimes ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι (Acts ii. 38 v. 1.), some- 
times ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (Acts x. 48), but more frequently the stronger εἰς τὸ 
ὄνομα (Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16, xix. 5). 

It is unsafe to infer from such expressions as this (comp. Acts x. 48, 
xix. 5 and Hermas J, iii. 7. 3 θέλοντες βαπτισθῆναι eis τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου) 
that the formula of baptism in the name of the Trinity (as commanded 
Matt. xxviii. 19) was dispensed with, and the name of Jesus alone 
pronounced. Baptism in or into the name of Jesus is to be regarded as 
an abridged expression to signify Christian baptism, retaining the 
characteristic element in the formula. Justin Martyr at least recognises 
only baptism in the name of the Trinity (AZo/. i. § 61, p. 94) and see 
Clem. Recogn. iii. 67, Tertull. c. Praxean ὃ 27. Certain heretics however 
baptized solely in the name of Christ, and in the discussion on rebaptism 
it was a question whether such baptism was valid. See a full account in 
Bingham’s Christian Antiquities, ΧΙ. c. iii. § 1 and comp. Neander P/. 
u. Leit. § 276, Ch. Hist. (Bohn’s translation) 11. pp. 430, 446 sq., who 
however leans to the opinion that baptism in the name of Christ alone is 
intended in these passages of Scripture, as did St Ambrose also de Sir. 
Sanct. i. 3. 

14. Κρίσπον] The ruler of the synagogue whose whole household 
was converted, probably among the earliest Corinthian converts. Crispus 
(like Cincinnatus, etc. referring originally to the hair) is a common Roman 
cognomen, and occurs frequently also as a Jewish name. See the passages 
cited by Lightfoot and Wetstein here. 

Tatov] St Paul (Rom. xvi. 23) speaks of Gaius as ‘mine host and 
of the whole Church,’ so that he would appear to have lodged with 
him during his (now approaching) third visit to Corinth. Several persons 


I 56 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [1. 14. 


of the name appear inthe N. T. It was an ordinary prenomen among 
the Romans, and being common to several distinguished members of the 
Imperial family, like Julius, Claudius etc., was probably more in vogue than 
ever at this epoch. Whether this is the same with the Gaius addressed in 
3 John, it is impossible to say. They are both commended in similar 
terms for their hospitality : comp. 3 John 5, 6. But the Gaius of St John 
seems to be spoken of as a younger man or at least a young disciple, 
whereas the Gaius of St Paul cannot have been either when St John 
wrote. The correct pronunciation and probably the correct form in Latin 
is Gaius, as it is always written in Greek. The same character in Latin 
originally stood for C and G: comp. Donaldson Varron. vii. § 3, p. 291. 

15. ἵνα μή tis εἴπῃ] is to be connected with the whole sentence 
εὐχαριστῶ... ἐβάπτισα, not with οὐδένα ἐβάπτισα alone. ‘I am thankful it 
was so, that no one may have it in his power to say.’ It is not meant 
that St Paul at the time abstained from baptizing, foreseeing this result, 
but that afterwards he was glad that it was so. ‘ Providentia Dei regnat 
szepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognoscitur’ Bengel. 

els τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα] as certain heretics actually did, or are reputed to 
have done, e.g. Menander (in Pseudo-Tertull. adv. omn. Her. c. 1.) and 
others. See the references in Bingham, XI. c. iii. § 5. 

ἐβαπτίσθητε] the correct reading, not ἐβάπτισα. 

16. The verse was an afterthought. He was perhaps reminded of the 
omission by his amanuensis, who may have been Stephanas himself or one 
of his household, for they were with him at the time (1 Cor. xvi. 15, 17). 
Perhaps Fortunatus and Achaicus were members of his household. The 
house of Stephanas is spoken of in 1 Cor. 1. c. as the first-fruits of Achaia, 
This will account for their being baptized by the Apostle’s own hand. 

On the undesigned coincidences between the Acts and Epistles 
lurking under these names see Paley Hor. Paul. 111. ὃ 8. 

17. οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλε] Baptism might be performed by a subordinate. 
It presupposed no extraordinary gifts on the part of the performer, for 
its efficacy consisted in the spirit of the recipient and the grace of God, ἡ 

γὰρ προαίρεσις τοῦ προσιόντος λοιπὸν ἐργάζεται TO πᾶν, Kai ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις : 
but successful preaching requires special gifts. 

Hence we find that our Lord did not baptize Himself, but left this 
work to His disciples (John iv. 1, 2). And the Apostles followed this 
precedent, as St Peter (Acts x. 48), and St Paul here. St Paul was 
generally attended by one or more of the brethren, who ministered to 
him and on whom this office would devolve (Acts xiii. 5 εἶχον Ἰωάννην 
ὑπηρέτην, Xix. 22 δύο τῶν διακονούντων αὐτῷ Τιμόθεον καὶ "Ἔραστον, both 
phrases pointing to a recognised position, more or less official). 

οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου]: St Paul is eager to obviate any misapprehension 
which might arise from his exaltation of the ordinance of preaching. 
There were many members of the Corinthian Church who would eagerly 
seize hold of this concession as they would regard it. It is not as a mere 








I. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 157 


display of rhetoric, or of logical subtlety that he exalts it. This might 
require special gifts, but not the gifts of the Spirit. 

It is questioned whether ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου refers to the form or the 
matter of the teaching. So far as it is possible to separate the two, this 
question is best answered by determining against which party the implied 
rebuke is directed. We can scarcely be wrong in assuming this to be the 
party which affected to follow Apollos the man of eloquence (ἀνὴρ λόγιος, 
Acts xviii. 24). If so, the reference must be mainly to form, through 
the natural tendency of the Corinthian mind to attach too much import- 
ance to the graces of diction: for the substance of Apollos’ teaching 
cannot have differed from that of St Paul in any such degree as to have 
been exaggerated into a party question. The σοφία λόγου then will refer 
not only to the luxuriant rhetoric, but also to the dialectic subtleties of 
the Alexandrian method, which we find to an exaggerated degree in the 
writings of Philo and some of the Alexandrian fathers. 

κενωθῇ] ‘de emptied,’ i.e. ‘dwindle to nothing, vanish under the weight 
of rhetorical ornament and dialectic subtlety.’ For κενοῦν compare 1 Cor. 
ix. 15, 2 Cor. ix. 3. 


(6) The unhealthy craving after copia. God's folly triumphant 
over man’s wisdom (i. 18—ii. 5). 


18. Through this incidental allusion to preaching St Paul passes to 
a new subject. The dissensions in the Corinthian Church are for a time 
forgotten, and he takes the opportunity of correcting his converts for their 
undue exaltation of human eloquence and wisdom. He returns from this 
digression to his former theme almost imperceptibly at the beginning of 
the third chapter. The link of connexion in both cases is equally subtle. 

ὁ λόγος γὰρ «.t.A.] The connexion is as follows: ‘For the preach- 
ing with which we are concerned—the preaching of the Cross—is the very 
antithesis to σοφία λόγου. It has no triumphs of rhetoric or subtleties 
of dialectic to offer to those whose hearts are set on such trifles. To 
such it appears to be but foolishness : and this is a sign that they are on 
the way of destruction.’ On the repetition of λόγος see note ii. 6 σοφίαν. 

ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ] here used as co-extensive with the preaching of 
the Gospel, just as ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ in the previous verse denotes the 
substance of the Gospel. This expression shows clearly the stress which 
St Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle 
and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the 
ordained instrument of salvation. 

ἀπολλυμένοις, σωζομένοις] ‘those who are in the path of destruction, of 
salvation. ‘In the language of the New Testament salvation is a thing 
of the past, a thing of the present, and a thing of the future. St Paul 
says sometimes “ Ye (or we) were saved” (Rom viii. 24), or “ Ye have been 
saved” (Ephes. ii. 5, 8), sometimes “ Ye are being saved” (1 Cor. xv. 2), 


I 58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, [1. 18. 


and sometimes “ Ye shall be saved” (Rom. x. 9, 13). It is important to 
observe this, because we are thus taught that σωτηρία involves a moral 
condition which must have begun already, though it will receive its final 
accomplishment hereafter. Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. 
And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion 
must be fostered and encouraged by failing to note this, and so laying the 
whole stress either on the past or on the future—on the first call or on 
the final charge.’ On a Fresh Revision, p. 104, ed. 3 (1891). For 
ἀπολλυμένοις Compare 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3, 2 Thess. ii. 10; for σωζομένοις 
2 Cor. ii. 15, Acts ii. 47; see also Luke xiii. 23 εἰ ὀλίγοι of σωζόμενοι. 
Comp. also Clem. Rom. ὃ 58, Clem. Hom. xv. το, Apost. Const. viii. 5, 7, 8. 
The idea of final acceptance or rejection is obviously excluded in the 
present tense : nor is it at all necessarily implied by the past tense, if we 
remember that the knowledge of God is in itself σωτηρία, and those who 
are brought to that knowledge are σεσωσμένοι; just as they are said to 
belong to the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, though they may not attain to the blissful 
consummation of their salvation, and may be excluded from the future 
kingdom of Christ by falling away. For St Paul’s way of speaking 
compare the note on ver. 2 ἡγιασμένοις and ver. 9 κοινωνία. 

τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν] This order, which is somewhat unnatural, is 
adopted in order to bring out the opposition between oi ἀπολλύμενοι and 
οἱ σωζόμενοι Sharply. At the same time it serves to smooth down the 
prominence of ἡμῖν. 

δύναμις Θεοῦ] The direct opposition to μωρία would require σοφία 
Θεοῦ, but the word δύναμις is instinctively substituted to show that it is 
not the intellectual excellence so much as the moral power of the doctrine 
of the Cross on which the Apostle lays stress. At the same time, 
inasmuch as μωρία involves the notion of vainness, inefficiency, δύναμις is 
no unnatural opposition. 

19. ἀπολῶ «.7.d.] A quotation from Isaiah xxix. 14. By this appeal 
to Scripture St Paul enforces the two points, which are brought out in the 
preceding verse: 3752, the opposition between the wisdom of the world 
and the power of God, and secondly, the destruction of the wise of this 
world. Compare ἀπολῶ with τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις of ver. 18. 

The passage is taken from the LXx. with this difference that St Paul 
has substituted ἀθετήσω for κρύψω. In the Hebrew the sentence is ina 
passive form: ‘the wisdom of their wise shall perish etc.’ The spirit of 
the application here is in exact accordance with the original context of 
the passage. The opposition there is between the ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ 
διδασκαλίας (ver. 13, a passage cited by our Lord Matt. xv. 8, 9) and the 
power of God which shall be exerted to the ruin of those who trust 
in human teaching. The original reference however is to a temporary 
calamity, the invasion of Sennacherib; and the application which St 
Paul makes of the passage, in a spiritual and more comprehensive sense, 
is after the common analogy of the New Testament writers. 





I. 20,] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 159 


σοφίαν, σύνεσιν] On the distinction between these two terms see the 
note on Col. i. 9. They are explained in Arist. Eth. Nic, vi. 7, το, The 
first is a creative, the second a discerning faculty, 

20, ποῦ σοφός; κιτ.λ.}] These words area loose paraphrase of Isaiah 
xxxiii, 18. They are certainly not intended as a quotation, for the 
language diverges too much both from the Hebrew and Lxx. The 
original passage describes the overthrow of Sennacherib, who had attacked 
the people of God, It runs in the LXX, ποῦ εἰσιν of ypapparixol; ποῦ 
εἰσιν of συμβουλεύοντες ; ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ ἀριθμῶν τοὺς τρεφομένους μικρὸν καὶ 
μέγαν λαόν ; perhaps translated from a corrupt text. The meaning of the 
Hebrew is given’ in Bishop Lowth’s translation; ‘Where is now the 
accomptant? where the weigher of tribute? where is he that numbereth 
the towers?’ The annihilation of the officers of Sennacherib’s army is 
intended by these words. In place of these St Paul substitutes the 
leaders in the world of thought, who war against the spiritual Israel. 
From this it will be seen that the passage in Isaiah will not aid us to the 
interpretation of the individual words σοφός, γραμματεύς, συνζητητής, the 
form of the sentence only being the same and the general application 
analogous, while the similarity of γραμματικοὶ of the LXx. in Isaiah and 
γραμματεὺς in St Paul is merely accidental, or at best suggested the 
paraphrase by its appeal to the ear. 

σοφός, γραμματεύς, συνξητητής] Two explanations of these words deserve 
consideration. rst, σοφὸς is the general term including both the Jewish 
and Greek teachers, γραμματεὺς is the Jewish scribe, συνζητητὴς the Greek 
philosopher. But against this interpretation it may be urged (1) that 
σοφὸς more fitly designates the Greek philosopher than συνζητητής, being 
the word specially reserved for this meaning among the Greeks themselves ; 
see Theodoret (ad loc.) καλεῖ σοφὸν τὸν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ στωμυλίᾳ κοσμού- 
μενον, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 3. 23, p. 329, and above all Rom. i. 23 φάσκοντες 
εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν. Compare also the Jewish proverb quoted by 
Lightfoot (4. H. ad loc.) ‘ Cursed is he that herdeth hogs, and cursed is he 
that teacheth his son Grecian wisdom.’ (2) This interpretation seems to 
require τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου to be taken with all three words, whereas the 
repetition of ποῦ separates the clauses. For these reasons it is better, 
secondly, to take σοφὸς as the Greek philosopher, γραμματεὺς as the 
Jewish scribe, and συνζητητὴς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου as the comprehensive term, 
a general expression comprehending both, τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου being confined 
to the last of the three. The use of σοφία just below in the phrase τὴν 
σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου, as including both, is not a sufficient reason for 
discarding this interpretation. A stronger argument in favour of this 
explanation might be drawn from ver. 22, where σοφία is used of the 
Greeks alone. , 

Both these senses recognise a special mention of Jew and Greek 
severally, and this seems to be required by the sequel ἐπειδὴ καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι... 
kai Ἕλληνες (ver. 22). This in itself is decisive in favour of rejecting 


160 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 20. 


other distinctions, as for instance that σοφὸς is the ethical and meta- 
physical philosopher, γραμματεὺς the historian and literary man, συνζητητὴς 
the naturalist and man of science—a distinction which has quite a 
modern smack. Moreover γραμματεὺς can only be a learned man when 
applied to the Jewish scribe: in the ordinary Greek vocabulary it denotes 
a civil officer, ‘a town-clerk’ or ‘secretary,’ e.g. Acts xix. 35; Ecclus. 
XXXViii. 24 σοφία γραμματέως ἐν εὐκαιρίᾳ σχολῆς is not an exception. 

The Jewish writers (see the passages in Wetstein) included in their 
general picture of the corruption of the age at the time of Messiah’s 
coming the failing of Rabbinical wisdom, apparently with a reference to 
Isaiah xxxiii. 18. With regard to the heathen, we have here the germ of 
the thought which St Paul afterwards expands so strikingly in the first 
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, especially vv. 21, 22 ἐματαιώθησαν 
ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν kapdia* φάσκοντες 
εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν, καὶ ἤλλαξαν κιτιλ. See also the notes on οὐχὶ 
ἐμώρανεν ὁ Θεὸς below and on ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ in the next verse. For 
a similar instance of an expansion see xv. 56. 

τοῦ αἰῶνος totrov] On this expression, as opposed to ὁ αἰὼν 6 μέλλων 
or αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος ‘ Messiah’s reign,’ compare Usteri Pau/. Lehré. p. 327 sq. 
The phrase had a temporal meaning, as originally employed by the Jews; 
but as St Paul uses it, it is rather ethical in its signification, there being 
no sharp division in time between ‘the age of the world’ and ‘ the age of 
Messiah.’ 

οὐχὶ ἐμώρανεν ὁ Θεὸς] ‘did not God render vain’ ; and this in two ways, 
(1) by exhibiting its intrinsic worthlessness and corrupt results, and (2) by 
the power of the Cross set in opposition to it and triumphing over it, as 
explained in the following verse. The process of this μωραίνειν in the 
case of the Gentiles is portrayed in the passage from the Romans quoted 
above. The hand of God is there distinctly recognised, διὸ παρέδωκεν 
αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καιτιλ. ‘While the reason strove to raise 
itself,’ remarks Neander, ‘above Polytheism, it was betrayed into 
Pantheism only to fall at last into scepticism.” Yet it is rather their 
moral degradation, as resulting from their idolatry, that St Paul must 
have had in his mind, as the passage in the Epistle to the Romans 
shows. 

τοῦ κόσμου] Omit τούτου, which has been introduced to conform to 
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου above ; κόσμος is in itself ‘the existing order of things,’ 
and needs no specification like αἰών. We never find ὁ κόσμος ὁ μέλλων. 
Κόσμος is used as synonymous with αἰών, as in I Cor. iii. 18, 19: compare 
also 1 Cor. ii. 6 with ii. 12 and Eph. ii. 2, where we have xara τὸν αἰῶνα 
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. So far as there is any difference between the two 
words, αἰὼν would seem, like ‘ sazeculum,’ to refer to the prevailing ideas and 
feelings of the present life, and κόσμος to its gross, material character ; 
and the two would be contrasted, though not so sharply, in the same way 
as ‘the world’ and ‘the flesh.’ 


a 








I. 22.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 161 


21. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ] explaining the manner of ἐμώρανεν in the preceding 
verse. 

ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ] is explained in two ways. (1) ‘When the world 
failed to recognise Godin the works of His wisdom’: σοφία denoting the 
wisdom of God as displayed in the works of creation to the Gentiles and 
in the Mosaic dispensation to the Jews. Or (2) ‘when owing to the wise 
dispensation of God the world failed to recognise Him etc.’ The first 
interpretation produces indeed a stronger resemblance to Rom. i. 18 sq. 
of which this passage is the germ; compare especially ver. 20 ra yap 
ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται x.T.r., and 
see Wisd. xiii.1. “But everything else is in favour of the second rendering. 
For frst, it is harsh to attribute to σοφία a concrete sense, as ‘the works 
of His intelligence’: secondly, the position of ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ points 
to it, as giving the explanation of οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος x.r.d.: and thirdly, 
the sense suits the context better, as accounting for ἐμώρανεν 6 Θεὸς which 
idea it assists the following εὐδόκησεν διὰ τῆς μωρίας in carrying out. Even 
the corruption of the world was in a certain sense God’s doing, inasmuch 
as He permitted it with a providential end in view: comp. Rom. xi. 32. 

ὁ κόσμος] here includes Jew as well as Gentile. The Pharisee, no less 
than the Greek philosopher, had a σοφία of his own, which stood between 
his heart and the knowledge of God. 

διὰ τῆς σοφίας] is taken either of ‘the wisdom of God,’ or of ‘the 
wisdom of the world.’ The latter is probably correct, as it presents the 
same opposition to διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος which runs through the 
context. 

τοῦ κηρύγματος] ‘of the thing preached, ‘the proclamation’; not τῆς 
xnpv&ews. It refers therefore to the subject, not to the manner of the 
preaching. There is only the very slightest approach in classical writers 
to this sense of the words κηρύσσειν, κήρυγμα etc., as denoting ‘instruc- 
tion,’ ‘teaching.’ The metaphor, if it can be called a metaphor, is perhaps 
derived from the Jewish theocracy, and involves the notion of heralding 
the approach of a king (Matt. iii. 1, iv. 17), or of proclaiming an edict of 
a sovereign. But it seems to be very rarely used in a sense approaching 
to this, even in the Lxx. 

22. The following verses (22—25) contain a confirmation and ampli- 
fication of the assertion in ver. 21, in its twofold bearing. They maintain 
jirst, that the preaching of the gospel is directly opposed to the wisdom 
of the world, whether displayed in the sign-seeking of the Jews, or the 
philosophical subtleties of the Greeks (the σοφία par excellence); and 
secondly, that this foolishness of God triumphs over the wisdom of the 
world. 

καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι...καὶ “Ἑλληνες] i.e. ‘the Jews no less than the Gentiles 
have gone astray.” Compare Rom. iii. 9 προῃτιασάμεθα γὰρ “Iovdaious re 
καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν elvu. The particles καὶ...καὶ correspond 
to each other, and attach the two sentences together. The absence of a 


L. EP. II 


~ 


162 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, [I. 22. 


μὲν in this clause, answering to ἡμεῖς δέ, is to be accounted for by 
supposing that the Apostle had not cast the form of the latter part of the 
sentence in his mind, when he commenced it. 

Ἰουδαῖοι, “EAAnves] The absence of the article shows that they are 
spoken of rather with a view to their attributes than to their individuality, 
‘Jews as Jews,’ ‘Greeks as Greeks.’ 

σημεῖα] the correct reading, for which the received text has onpeiov. 
The whole force of the passage here comes from the meaning ‘ miraculous 
sign’ as applied to σημεῖον. Compare Matt. xii. 38 sq., xvi. 1 sq., 
John ii. 18, vi. 30, incidents to which St Paul may be alluding indirectly, 
though doubtless the Apostles were frequently met by the Jews with the 
demand ‘give us a sign,’ as our Lord had been. It is not difficult to 
conjecture in what sense the Jews asked for ‘signs.’ Signs were 
vouchsafed in plenty, signs of God’s power and love, but these were 
not the signs which they sought. They wanted signs of an outward 
Messianic Kingdom, of temporal triumph, of material greatness for the 
chosen people. See Biblical Essays, p. 150 sq. for Jewish expectation of 
signs to be wrought by the Messiah, and the references in Wetstein on 
Matt. xvi. 1. With such cravings the gospel of a ‘crucified Messiah’ 
(Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον) was to them a stumbling-block indeed. 

Ἕλληνες σοφίαν] This characteristic of the Greeks was noted by 
Anacharsis in Herod. iv. 77, Ἕλληνας πάντας ἀσχόλους εἶναι πρὸς πᾶσαν 
σοφίην. He excepts however the Lacedaemonians. 

αἰτοῦσιν, ζητοῦσιν] The same accurate appreciation of the difference 
between Jew and Gentile as regards the reception of the Gospel, 
which dictated the whole passage, is visible in these words. All the 
terms are carefully chosen. The importunity of the Jews is expressed 
by αἰτεῖν, the curious speculative turn of the Greeks by ζητεῖν. 

23. An instructive commentary on this passage is furnished by 
the different arguments which Justin Martyr employs in combating 
Jewish and Greek assailants in the Apologies and the Dialogue with 
Trypho. See Blunt Church in the First Three Centuries (1861), p. 120 sq. 

The Jews looked to material, outward privileges, the Greeks sought 
satisfaction for their intellectual cravings. The preaching of the Cross 
commended itself to neither. It is a moral and spiritual power. 

ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν] ‘but we preach, i.e. ‘we do not discuss or 
dispute.’ 

Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον] ‘a crucified Messiah; not as the E. V., ‘Christ 
crucified.’ The expression is a sort of oxymoron. It is not so much 
the person as the office which is denoted here by Χριστός. By suffering 
He was to redeem; by suffering He was to make many perfect. His 
Messiahship and His Cross were necessarily connected. To the Jew 
however Χριστὸς ἐσταυρωμένος was a contradiction in terms: to the Greek 
it would be simply meaningless. The great difficulty of the Jews in 
overcoming the idea of a crucified Messiah appears from the very first. 





1. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 163 


See Acts xxvi. 23, where St Paul states that one of the main theses which 
he had to maintain was that the Christ was to suffer. Consequently we find 
that the Apologists in arguing with the Jews had to explain this difficulty 
(Ariston of Pella in Routh &. S. 1. p. 95, Justin Martyr Dial. c. Tryph. 
c. 69, p. 323 C, Tertull. adv. Judaeos ὃ 10), On this point see further 
in Galatians, p. 152 sq. An illustration of this difficulty we have in 
the fact that the later Jews, recognising the prediction of the prophets 
that the Messiah should suffer, were driven to the expedient of supposing 
two Christs, both a suffering and a glorified Redeemer, called respec- 
tively Ben Joseph and Ben David. There is no trace however of this 
distinction until Christian arguments from prophecy forced it upon 
Jewish apologists. See Bertholdt Chrzstol. § 17, p. 75 sq., Gfrérer Jahr. 
des Hetls τι. p. 318 sq., and compare Stanley, p. 51. With regard to the 
general abhorrence of the Cross by the Gentiles see Cicero fro Radirio, 
c. 5 ‘nomen ipsum crucis absit non modo a corpore civium Romanorum, 
sed etiam a cogitatione, oculis, auribus,’ comp. Verr. v. 64. That this 
‘stumbling-block of the cross’ existed not only in the apostolic age but 
that it continued for generations later appears from many indications. 
Thus Lucian (de morte Peregr. c. 13) speaks of our Lord as ‘ the gibbeted 
sophist,’ τὸν ἀνεσκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστήν; but perhaps the best 
illustration of the popular feeling is the well-known caricature of a 
slave falling down before an ass hanging on a gibbet with the inscription 
Ἀλεξαμενος σεβετε θεον, found in the Paedagogium on the Palatine, and 
now in the Museo Kircheriano. So Celsus (Orig. c. Ce/s. iv. 7) speaks of 
the Christians as ‘actually worshipping a dead man’ (ὄντως νεκρὸν σέβον- 
τας), a reductio ad absurdum in his opinion. The Emperor Julian after 
his apostasy uses similar language. See also the note on Phil. ii. 8. 

σκάνδαλον] Σκάνδαλον corresponds to σημεῖα, μωρίαν to σοφίαν. Instead 
of finding signs or tokens of the approach of Messiah’s Kingdom, 
finger-posts guiding them thereto, they found a hindrance to their belief 
in that approach. 

24. αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς) ‘but to the believers themselves; whatever 
it might be to others. ‘Though they see that those around them regard 
the cross as a stumbling-block or as foolishness, yet they themselves 
know it to be’ etc. This is the force of αὐτοῖς, which is added because 
the passage is expressed from the standpoint of the believer. The 
meaning of αὐτοῖς would have been more clear if St Paul had said αὐτοῖς 
δὲ ἡμῖν, but he avoids the first person because he wishes no longer to 
restrict the application to the preachers (ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν) of 
whom he has been speaking hitherto. Avrois δὲ τοῖς xAnrois cannot 
mean, ‘to them, viz. the called’; first, because this is very question- 
able Greek, and secondly, because there is nothing nearer than 
τοὺς πιστεύοντας (ver. 21) to which to refer the ‘pronoun. On τοῖς 
κλητοῖς see ver. 2 above, 

Χριστὸν] The repetition of this word is emphatic. ‘ Christ crucified’ 


II—2 


Se as, 


164 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (I. 24. 


of the former clause is now ‘ Christ the power of God and the wisdom of 
God.’ 

δύναμιν] corresponds to σημεῖα of ver. 22, as σοφίαν does to σοφίαν. 
The analogy between δύναμις and σημεῖα will appear, if we remember 
that the signs, which the Jews sought, were manifestations of kingly 
power. 

The terms δύναμις and σοφία applied to our Lord are suggested by 
what has gone before. He is the reality of that power of which the Jews 
were pursuing the shadow, of that wisdom for which the Greeks were 
substituting a counterfeit. At the same time they have a deeper meaning. 
They appeal to the theosophy of the day, and declare Christ to be the 
Eternal Word of God. For both δύναμις (Θεοῦ) and σοφία (Θεοῦ) are 
synonyms for Adyos in the phraseology of Jewish speculators. For 
δύναμις in the sense of an emanation of the Godhead see Acts viii. Io, 
for σοφία see Luke xi. 49. 

25. τῶν ἀνθρώπων] St Paul in abridging the comparison is only 
following a common Greek idiom: e.g. Eur. Med. 1342, 3 λέαιναν, οὐ 
γυναῖκα, τῆς Tuponvidos Σκύλλης ἔχουσαν ἀγριωτέραν φύσιν. See Jelf, Gr 
§ 781 d, Winer, § xxxv. p. 3907. At the same time the expression here is 
more forcible than if it had been written in full τῆς σοφίας (τῆς ἰσχύος) 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων. The very foolishness of God is wiser than men and all 
that is in man. 

Tertullian’s comment is ‘Quid est stultum Dei sapientius hominibus, 
nisi crux et mors Christi? Quid infirmum Dei fortius homine, nisi 
nativitas et caro Dei?’ (ὦ Marcion. ν. 5). The separation however in 
this comment is not justified by the text. 

26. ‘Is not this in accordance with your own experience? Thus not 
only in the means of redemption, but in the persons of the redeemed, is 
the weakness of God declared to be stronger than men. Not only is the 
power of God seen in the effect of the preaching of a crucified Messiah : 
it is evidenced also in the fact that preachers and believers alike are 
chiefly drawn from the weak and the despised of the world.’ 

βλέπετε γὰρ] ‘for look at your calling, the circumstances under which 
ye were called to Christianity. Not an indicative but an imperative 
mood: compare viii. 9, x. 12, 18, xvi. 10, Phil. iii. 2 and frequently in 
St Paul. The passage is more vigorous when thus taken : ‘ excitat quasi 
torpentes ad rem ipsam considerandam’ says Calvin. And the emphatic 
position of βλέπετε seems to require it. Otherwise the order would 
probably have been τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν βλέπετε, as in 2 Cor. x. 7 τὰ κατὰ 
πρόσωπον βλέπετε. 

τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν] ‘tie manner of your calling’; here and elsewhere 
with a special reference to their station in life at the time of their calling. 
This idea however is not contained in the word κλῆσις itself, but is 
derived from the context, as also in vii. 20. Κλῆσις in itself never 
signifies a ‘vocation’ or ‘calling in life’ It is the calling to the know- 





I. 28.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 165 


ledge of the Gospel, and it may or may not, according to the context, 
have reference to the circumstances under which the calling took place. 
On the Pauline interchange of κλῆσις and ἐκλογὴ see on Col. iii. 12 ὡς 
ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and compare I Thess. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 11. It will be 
observed here that St Paul uses the verb ἐξελέξατο in ver. 27 as corre- 
sponding to the substantive κλῆσιν. 

ὅτι] ‘how that.’ For this construction compare the note on 1 Thess. 
i. 5 (a passage which is mistranslated in the E.V.), It is the ὅτι, which 
introduces the idea of manner or circumstances into κλῆσις. 

κατὰ σάρκα] should probably be taken with all three words σοφοί, 
δυνατοί, εὐγενεῖς. The position of the qualifying phrase after the first of 
the three is much more in favour of this conjuncture than if it had been 
placed after the last, as for instance in ver. 20. Besides it applies 
equally well to all three. There is a spiritual δύναμις and a spiritual 
εὐγένεια, as well as a spiritual σοφία. The Bereans are examples of this 
spiritual nobility (οὗτοι ἦσαν εὐγενέστεροι τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ Acts xvii. I). 
Lastly, τοῦ κόσμου is repeated with the opposites of all three in the next 
verse. 

οὐ πολλοὶ] ‘ot many.’ The phrase is not equivalent to οὐδείς, for there 
were some few exceptions. In the Church of Corinth Erastus ‘the 
chamberlain of the city’ (Rom. xvi. 23) might perhaps be reckoned 
among the δυνατοί. That the majority of the first converts from heathen- 
dom were either slaves or freedmen, appears from their names. Compare 
especially the salutations in the last chapter of the Roman Epistle (see 
on this Phiéppians, p. 171 sq.), and the remarks of Merivale, History of 

_the Romans (1858), vol. VI. p. 265 sq. 

The sentence is elliptical and a verb must be understood from the 
context. The reference however in οὐ πολλοὶ κιτιλ. is probably to be 
confined neither to the teachers as such, nor to the taught as such (as dif- 
ferent commentators have maintained); but to be extended to the converts 
generally. Accordingly some less precise term is needed than ἐκλήθησαν 
or ἐξελέχθησαν, though in one sense ἐκλήθησαν is applicable, for teachers 
and taught alike are ‘called.’ On the brachylogies of St Paul see the 
note on ver. 31, and on this passage Dr Ainslie in the Yournal of 
Philology (1868) 11. p. 158. 

This fact of the social condition of the early Christians is the constant 
boast of the first Apologists as the glory of Christianity. See especially 
Justin Martyr Afol. ii. 9 Χριστῷ οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι μόνον 
ἐπείσθησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτέχναι καὶ παντελῶς ἰδιῶται καὶ δόξης καὶ φόβου καὶ 
θανάτου καταφρονήσαντες, ἐπειδὴ δύναμίς ἐστι τοῦ ἀῤῥήτου Πατρὸς x.r.A.; and 
Origen c. Cels. 11. 79 καὶ οὐ θαυμαστὸν εἰ τῶν φρονίμων: ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν 
ἀλογωτάτων καὶ τοῖς πάθεσιν ἐγκειμένων... ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ 
Χριστὸς ἦν καὶ σοφία τοῦ Πατρός, διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα πεποίηκεν καὶ ἔτι ποιεῖ 

K.T.A, 
27, 28, ἀλλὰ k.7.A.] Μωρά, ἀσθενῆ, ἀγενῆ καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα are the 


166 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 28. 


opposites of σοφοί, δυνατοί, εὐγενεῖς. See the note on the reading καὶ ra 
μὴ ὄντα below. The omission of the words ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς, καὶ 
τὰ ἀσθενῆ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεὸς in some uncial MSs. probably arises 
out of a confusion due to the repetition of the same words ἐξελ. 6 Θεός. 
Origen is guilty of a different error. He omits from the first to the third 
ἐξελ. ὁ Θεός. The neuters (e.g. τὰ μωρὰ for of μωροὶ) are adopted in 
preference to the masculines, as sinking the individuality and conveying 
an idea of meanness in the objects, and thus bringing out the point of 
the contrast more strongly. 

The repetition of ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεὸς is emphatic. The effect is the same 
as in the reiteration of κλητὸς ver. I (where see the note). St Paul is 
penetrated with the intense conviction that our calling is not of ourselves 
but of God; and expresses himself accordingly. Thus he is already 
preparing us for the precept with which he closes the paragraph, ‘O 
καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. 

28. τὰ μὴ ὄντα] The omission of the particle καὶ before τὰ μὴ ὄντα 
is justifiable on external authority alone, though the evidence in its favour 
(&®BC*D5L) is considerable. It is however not found in SAC'D!FG and 
several of the early fathers. Certainly the sense gains by the omission. 
The three classes which are the opposites to σοφοί, δυνατοί, εὐγενεῖς have 
been already enumerated (though in the last the supplementary clause 
ἵνα- καταισχύνῃ τὰ εὐγενὴ is not expressed and has to be supplied by the 
reader). The strong expression ra μὴ ὄντα is now added as at once a 
climax and a summary of what has gone before. 

The negative μὴ is generally explained here as denoting not the 
objective fact (ra οὐκ ὄντα) but the subjective impression, ‘things reputed 
non-existent.’ So apparently Winer §lv, p. 608. This however would 
weaken the force of the contrast, and it is probable that it denotes 
simply the class-attributes, ‘such things as are not,’ according to its 
ordinary usage. Compare Xen. Amad. iv. 4. 15 οὗτος yap ἐδόκει Kai 
πρότερον πολλὰ ἤδη ἀληθεῦσαι τοιαῦτα, ra ὄντα τε ὡς ὄντα καὶ Ta μὴ ὄντα ὡς 
οὐκ ὄντα, where the sense is obvious and has nothing to do with the 
subjective impression. See also Jelf, Gr. §746. 2, and Eur. Tread. 608 
(cited by Alford) Ὁρῶ ra τῶν θεῶν, ὡς τὰ μὲν πυργοῦσ᾽ ἄνω Ta μηδὲν 
ὄντα, τὰ δὲ δοκοῦντ᾽ ἀπώλεσαν. In fact τὰ μὴ ὄντα is much more usual 
than τὰ οὐκ ὄντα in the sense of ‘things not existing.’ 

καταργήσῃ] ‘annihilate, reduce to non-entity.’ This strong expression 
is substituted for the weaker καταισχύνῃ, as the opposition to ra μὴ ὄντα 
requires. 

29. ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ] ‘that no flesh may boast; ‘ that all 
Jlesh may be prevented from boasting’ Compare Acts x. 14 οὐδέποτε 
ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν ‘I have always avoided eating everything common,’ 
Rom. iii. 20 ov δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. In such cases the 
negative is attached closely to the verb which it immediately precedes. 
This seems to be scarcely a classical usage of πᾶς with the. negative, 


1. 30.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 167 


and the analogy of the classical οὐ πάνυ (with which on the other 
hand compare ov πάντως Rom. iii. 9) is apparent, rather than real. 
It is a common Hebraism, and the corresponding Hebrew (3.93), show- 
ing that πᾶσα σὰρξ are to be regarded as one word, assists to explain how 
πᾶσα is unaffected by the negative which refers solely to the verb. 

ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ] The preposition conveys an idea of boldness and 
independence. As Bengel says; ‘Non coram illo, sed z# illo gloriari 
possumus.’ See ver. 31. 

30. ‘Nay, so far from there being any place for boasting, ye owe 
your existence as Christians to Him, as the Author of your being.’ 

The words ἐξ' αὐτοῦ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ are differently taken. 
Either (1) ‘From Him ye have your being (ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐστὲ), ye are born of 
Him in Christ Jesus,’ ‘ye are His children in Christ Jesus.’ So 
Chrysostom (ἐκείνου παῖδές ἐστε διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦτο γενόμενοι), and in the 
same way the other Greek commentators. Compare xi. 8, 12, xii. 15. 
Or (2) ‘For it is His doing (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) that ye are in Christ Jesus, are 
members of Christ (ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). The latter of these inter- 
pretations is open to two objections; frst, that the sense attributed 
to ἐξ αὐτοῦ is unusual at least in the New Testament, and secondly, the 
emphatic position of ἐστὲ would scarcely be explicable, for the natural 
order would certainly be ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐστε. It was probably from an 
instinctive feeling of the requirements of the Greek that the Greek 
commentators seem all to have adopted the other interpretation. For 
the sentiment and even the form in which it is expressed, compare 
Gal. iii. 26 πάντες yap υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστὲ διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. If 
the idea of a regeneration and spiritual sonship appears most frequently 
in St John, it was certainly not unknown to St Paul. 

ἐστὲ] Possibly an allusion to the preceding ra μὴ ὄντα ‘you, who 
were not, now are.’ But in any case, ἐστε is here best taken as a 
predicate, and accentuated, as in Lachmann’s edition. 

ἐγενήθη] ‘became’ (i.e. by His incarnation); not ‘was made.’ See the 
note on 1 Thess. i. 5 ἐγενήθημεν. ‘He showed us the way to all true 
knowledge, the knowledge of God and of our own salvation. He by 
taking upon Him our nature was manifested to us as the impersonation 
of all wisdom,’ or perhaps better ‘the representative of the wise dispen- 
sation of God.’ 

ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] To be taken with ἐγενήθη σοφία, not with σοφία alone. 
St Paul accumulates words to intensify the leading idea of the sentence 
that everything comes of God. 

δικαιοσύνη τε Kal ἁγιασμὸς Kal ἀπολύτρωσις] ‘ that ἐς to say, righteousness 
and sanctification and redemption.” These three words are an epexegesis 
of codia. Owing to the absence of any connecting particle between 
σοφία and δικαιοσύνη, and especially considering the interposition of ἀπὸ 
Θεοῦ, it is impossible to coordinate the four words, as is done in the 
English version and by many commentators. 


a 


168 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 30. 


The connecting particles re καὶ... καὶ perhaps imply a close connexion 
between δικαιοσύνη and ἁγιασμός, whereas ἀπολύτρωσις stands rather by 
itself. ‘By becoming wisdom He became both righteousness and sancti- 
fication and also redemption.’ Compare Hom. Od. xv. 78 ἀμφότερον, κῦδός 
τε καὶ ayAain, καὶ ὄνειαρ, Herod. vii. I καὶ νέας τε καὶ ἵππους καὶ σῖτον καὶ 
πλοῖα : and see Jelf, Gr. § 758, Hartung, Partikeln. i. 103. 

The order of the words δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμὸς is what might be expected. 
Δικαιοσύνη is used in its peculiar Pauline sense as ‘righteousness before 
God,’ ‘justification’; differing however from δικαίωσις (Rom. iv. 25, v. 18) 
in that the latter is the verdict of God which pronounces a man righteous. 
᾿Αγιασμὸς is the natural following up of δικαιοσύνη and is illustrated by 
Rom. vi. 19 παραστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν. 
On the terminations -σύνη, -σις, -σμὸς see 1 Thess. iii. 13. On the other 
hand we are scarcely prepared to find ἀπολύτρωσις following these words 
which we might expect it to precede, as e.g. Rom. iii. 24 δικαιούμενοι 
δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. But 
‘redemption’ is really used in two ways. Calvin very justly says, 
‘Redemptio primum Christi donum est quod inchoatur in nobis, et 
ultimum quod perficitur’; and here the word is used not so much 
of the initiative act (the death of Christ, cf. Eph. i. 7), as of redemp- 
tion consummated in our deliverance from all sin and misery. In 
this sense it is almost equivalent to ζωὴ αἰώνιος and is therefore rightly 
placed last. For the sense of ἀπολύτρωσις see especially Eph. iv. 30 εἰς 
ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως and compare Rom. viii. 23, Eph. i. 14. 

This is the earliest indication in St Paul’s Epistles of the doctrine 
which occupies so prominent a place in the Epistles to the Romans and 
Galatians, and in St Paul’s teaching generally. See Biblical Essays, 
p. 224 sq. 

31. ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται x.t.d.] ‘22 order that it may be according to 
the language of Scripture.’ The sentence is frequently explained as an 
anacoluthon, as if St Paul had retained the imperative mood of the 
original (καυχάσθω) instead of substituting καυχήσηται. But it is more in 
accordance with St Paul’s usage to regard it as an ellipsis iva (γένηται) 
καθὼς γέγραπται κιτιλ. His ellipses are often very abrupt (see the 
instances collected on 2 Thess. ii. 3), and have occasioned much trouble 
to the transcribers, who are at much pains to supply them. See a note 
in Fournal of Philology iii. p. 85. Of the ellipsis of a verb after a we 
have examples in Rom. iv. 16 διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως iva κατὰ χάριν, Gal. ii. 9 
iva ἡμεῖς els τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν, 2 Cor. viii. 13 οὐ yap wa 
ἄλλοις ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν θλίψις. Whichever explanation is given, the sentence 
in form very much resembles Rom. xv. 3 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται" Oi 
ὀνειδισμοὶ τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σὲ ἐπέπεσον ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ, and 1 Cor. ii. 9 below. 

ὁ καυχώμενος κιτ.λ.}] is not a direct quotation, but abridged from 
Jeremiah ix. 23, 24 μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω 
ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύϊ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ, 


I. 31.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 169 


ἀλλ᾽ ἣ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνιεῖν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἶμι 
Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος, combined with 1 Sam. ii. 10 μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ φρόνιμος 
ἐν τῇ φρονήσει αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ 
καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ 
καυχώμενος συνιεῖν καὶ γινώσκειν τὸν Κύριον καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν 
μέσῳ τῆς γῆς. It will be observed that the three classes, the wise, the 
strong and the wealthy, correspond roughly to the three enumerated in 
the passage above in ver. 26, and the reference is peculiarly apt here. 

St Paul repeats the words 6 καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω in 2 Cor. x. 
17, and St Clement of Rome (§ 13) quotes the passage from the LXx. 
with the conclusion thus ἀλλ᾽ ἢ. ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω, τοῦ 
ἐκζητεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην, words which, though diverging 
considerably from the corresponding passage in Jeremiah, approach 
nearly to the conclusion of 1 Sam. ii. 10 given above. 

The resemblance of St Clement’s language to St Paul may be 
explained in two ways; either (1) St Paul does not quote literally but 
gives the sense of one or other passage (1 Sam. ii. 1o or Jer. ix. 23 sq); 
and Clement, writing afterwards, unconsciously combines and confuses 
St Paul’s quotations with the original text; or (2) a recension of the 
text of Jeremiah (or Samuel) was in circulation in the first century which 
contained the exact words ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. The former 
is the more probable hypothesis. Iren. Haer. iv. 17. 3 quotes Jer. ix. 24 
as it stands in our texts. In neither passage does the Hebrew aid in 
solving the difficulty. In 1 Sam. ii. 10 it is much shorter than and 
quite different from the Lxx. Lucifer de Athan. ii. 2 (Hartel, p. 148) 
quotes it ‘non glorietur sapiens in sua sapientia...nec glorietur dives in 
divitiis suis, sed in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, inquirere me et intelligere 
et scire in Deum gloriari, quia ego sum Dominus qui facio misericordiam 
et judicium et justitiam super terram.’ As Cotelier (on Clem. Rom. § 13) 
remarks, he seems to have read ἐκζητεῖν with Clement, for he has 
‘inquirere’ three times in this context, but the coincidence may be 
accidental. On the other hand Antioch. Palest. Hom. xliii. (Bidz. Vet. 
Patr. p. 1097, Paris 1624) quotes directly from 1 Sam. ii. 1o and betrays 
no connexion with Clement’s language. For St Paul’s quotations see 
further on ii. 9. 


CHAPTER II. 


1. ‘And this divine rule was illustrated in my case also. Just as 
God has ordained the weakness of the cross as the means of salvation 
(i. 22—25), just as He has chosen the weak of this world as the objects of 
salvation (i. 26—31), so I too observed the same rule among you.’ And 
this in two ways (introduced by κἀγώ). ‘Humility characterised my 
preaching (ii. 1, 2). Humility was stamped upon my person and pene- 
trated my feelings (ii. 3).’ 

ἐλθὼν... ἦλθον) Perhaps the aorist ἐλθὼν is to be explained by 
supposing that the sentence was begun with the idea of ending it οὐ καθ᾽ 
ὑπεροχὴν κιτιλ. κατήγγελλον, and the form was abruptly changed after 
ἀδελφοί. For repetitions however somewhat analogous to this see Jelf, 
Gr. §705. 3, and better still Matth. §558, especially the instance from 
Plato Euthyd. p. 288 Ὁ τίνα ror οὖν ἂν κτησάμενοι ἐπιστήμην ὀρθῶς κτησαί- 
μεθα. At all events it is not to be compared with the Hebraism ἐδὼν 
εἶδον. 

οὐ καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας] ‘ot in excess of eloquence or wisdom, 
i.e. not in excellence of rhetorical display or of philosophical subtlety. 
The two are united lower down in ver. 4 ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις. 
‘Corinthia verba’ was a proverbial expression for elaborate language 
(Wetstein on 1 Cor. ii. 4). The phrase here is better taken with καταγ- 
γέλλων than with ἦλθον. 

Katayy&Awv}] A present participle, instead of the future which 
generally accompanies verbs of motion to express the object of the verb 
(Matth. §566. 6). As we find however that this exception occurs so 
frequently in the case of ἀγγέλλειν and its compounds, we are led to look 
for the explanation in the special meaning of this verb, which is not so 
much ‘to announce, declare,’ as ‘to bear tidings.’ Compare Xen. He//. 
ii. I. 29 és τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἔπλευσεν ἀγγέλλουσα τὰ γεγονότα, Thucyd. i. 116 
οἰχόμεναι περιαγγέλλουσαι βοηθεῖν, Eur. Med. 372; and so Acts xv. 27 
ἀπεστάλκαμεν.. αὐτοὺς.. ἀπαγγέλλοντας. 

τὸ μαρτύριον] ‘the testimony. He spoke in plain and simple language, 
as became a witness. Elaborate diction and subtlety of argument would 


: 


Il. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, ΕΣ 


only discredit his testimony. The various reading μυστήριον, though 
strongly supported (NAC Syr. Memph. and some fathers), has probably 
crept in from ver. 7. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ] Τοῦ Θεοῦ here is perhaps the subjective genitive, ‘the 
testimony proceeding from God,’ as τοῦ Χριστοῦ in i. 6 (τὸ μαρτύριον rod 
Χριστοῦ) is the objective genitive, ‘the testimony borne to Christ.’ The 
expression of St John (1 Joh. v. 9) ‘This is the witness of God which 
He hath testified of His Son’ links the two together. It is the testimony 
borne by God (τοῦ Θεοῦ) to Christ (rod Χριστοῦ). 

Μαρτυρία and* μαρτύριον differ as ‘the giving evidence’ and ‘the 
evidence given.’ But it is not easy in this case to separate the ἔργον 
from the ἐνέργεια. 

2. οὐ γὰρ ἔκρινά τι εἰδέναι] ‘7 had no intent, no mind to know any- 
thing’ It does not mean therefore ‘I steadfastly excluded all other 
knowledge,’ but simply ‘I did not trouble myself about the knowledge of 
anything else.’ For this sense of κρίνειν compare vii. 37, 2 Cor. ii. 1, 
Acts xv. 19, Rom. xiv. 13. The other rendering ‘I determined not to 
know’ (E.V.) cannot be supported by the analogy of the common idiom ov 
φημί (‘I non-say it,’ ‘I say no to it’); unless it can be shown that οὐ 
κρίνω is commonly so used. Thus e.g. οὐ λέγω would not be equivalent to 
οὐ φημί. Οὐκ ἐῶ again presents no correspondence, it being simply a 
softened expression for ‘I forbid.’ It is not necessary to understand 
ἐξεῖναι with οὐκ ἔκρινα (‘I did not judge it allowable’), as Lobeck contends 
(Phryn. p. 753). 

τι εἰδέναι] in a pregnant sense, ‘to exhibit the knowledge of, recognise’; 
resembling its use in 1 Thess. v. 12 (see note there) and ver. 12 below. 
The reading of the received text τοῦ εἰδέναι τι is a legitimate construction 
in late Greek (cf. Acts xxvii. 1 ἐκρίθη τοῦ ἀποπλεῖν ἡμᾶς), but is destitute of 
textual support here. 

Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν] i.e. both the Person (Ἰησοῦν) and the office (Χριστὸν) 
of our Lord. 

kal τοῦτον ἐσταυρώμενον] i.e. and Him too not in His glory, but in His 
humiliation; that the foolishness of the preaching might be doubly 
foolish, and the weakness doubly weak. The Incarnation was in itself a 
stumbling-block ; the Crucifixion was much more than this. 

3. κἀγὼ] ‘as in my ministerial teaching, so also in my own person, 
weakness was the distinguishing mark.’ For the repetition of κἀγὼ... 
κἀγὼ compare Juvenal Saz. i. 15, 16 ‘et nos ergo manum ferulae sub- 
duximus, et nos Consilium dedimus Sullae.’ 

ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ), The meaning of ἀσθένεια should not be arbitrarily 
restricted to any one form of weakness. Whatever enhanced in the 
Apostle’s mind the contrast between the meanness and inability of the 
preacher, and the power and efficacy of the Gospel, would be included 
under ἀσθένεια. Thus it would comprehend (1) the physical malady, 
under which he was labouring at the time (see Gal. iv. 13 ἀσθένεια τῆς 


~ 


172 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [II. 3. 


σαρκός), which is in all probability the same as ‘the thorn in the flesh’ 
mentioned 2 Cor. xii. 7 and in reference to which see Galatians p. 186sq: 
(2) the meanness of his personal appearance (2 Cor. x. 10) with which he 
was taunted, and which perhaps was the result of his complaint: (3) his 
inability as a speaker, whether this arose from imperfection of the 
physical organs or from some other cause (see again 2 Cor. x. 10): 
(4) a sense of loneliness, from which we may suppose him suffering 
before the arrival of Silvanus and Timotheus (Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5 ὡς δὲ 
κατῆλθον...συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ i.e. perhaps ‘he grew more bold’), analogous 
to the feelings which oppressed him at a later date during the absence of 
Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13): (5) his unprotected condition, when assailed by 
persecution: and (6) his general inability to deliver his message 
worthily. 

ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόμῳ πολλῷ] Each word is an advance upon the other. 
The sense of weakness produced fear. The fear betrayed itself in much 
trembling. Φόβος καὶ τρόμος is a not unfrequent combination in St Paul, 
2 Cor. vii. 15, Eph. vi. 5, Phil. ii. 12. See the note on the last named 
passage. Here the expression denotes the Apostle’s nervous apprehen- 
sion that he might not fulfil his ministry aright: i.e. fear and trembling 
in the sight of God rather than of man. 

ἐγενόμην] may be taken either (1) with ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ x.r.d. ‘1 manifested 
weakness and fear, in my intercourse with you’; or (2) with πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
‘I arrived among you in weakness and fear.’ There is the same 
ambiguity of construction in 1 Thess. i. 5 (see the note on that passage). 
Here probably the former is the preferable construction, not only as 
being the more usual, but also as better suited to the context. 

4. λόγος, κήρυγμα] are not to be distinguished as his private and 
public instruction respectively: nor yet exactly as the form and the 
matter of his preaching; though the latter is not far from the right 
distinction. While κήρυγμα (not ‘my preaching’ as E.V., which would be 
κήρυξις, See on i, 21) signifies the facts of the Gospel, e.g. the Incarnation, 
Crucifixion, Resurrection etc.; Adyos is the teaching built upon this, 
whether in the way of exhortation or of instruction. 

πειθοῖς] ‘persuasive, plausible. The word πειθός, which is equivalent 
to πιθανός, is not found elsewhere in Greek literature, but was probably a 
colloquial form. Thus the word unconsciously illustrates the very fact 
which the Apostle states. It is formed on the analogy of φείδος (from 
φείδομαι), which is apparently found only in the comic writers, βοσκός from 
βόσκω, etc. Eusebius and Origen (though not consistently) quote the 
passage ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας λόγων, and so apparently do some versions. On 
πειθός see the references in Meyer, also Lobeck Phryn. p. 434, Winer 
§xvi. p. 119. The whole expression includes both the rhetorical (λόγοις) 
and the philosophical (σοφίας) element, the two together producing πειθώ 
(SO ver. I ὑπεροχὴ λόγου ἢ σοφίας). The received text inserts ἀνθρωπίνης 
before σοφίας without sufficient authority. 


II. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 173 


ἐν ἀποδείξει κιτλ Here ἀπόδειξις ‘demonstration’ is opposed to 
πειθώ (in πειθοῖς) ‘plausibility’; and πνεῦμα καὶ δύναμις to λόγοι σοφίας. 
Of these last, πνεῦμα is opposed to λόγος as the inward spirit to the mere 
superficial expression; and δύναμις to σοφία as moral power to intel- 
lectual subtlety. Δύναμις is not to be taken in the sense of ‘ miracle- 
working.’ There is the same opposition, and in very similar language, in 
1 Thess. i. 5 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. 

It is questioned whether πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως is a subjective or an 
objective genitive, 1.6. whether it is ‘the demonstration which comes of 
spirit and of power,’ or ‘the demonstration which exhibits spirit and 
power.’ The former is the more probable meaning ; both because the 
form of the substantive ἀπόδειξις (a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N.T.) rather 
points to this, and also (which is a stronger reason) because the paral- 
lelism with σοφίας λόγοις seems to require it. 

Weare reminded by these words of the criticism of Longinus (Fragment 
I. ed. Weiske p. 113), who describes St Paul as mpdérov...mpoiorduevoy 
δόγματος ἀναποδείκτου. It was moral, not verbal, demonstration at which 
he aimed. See Loesner οὖς. p. 363 on Col. ii. 1, and compare the 
expression of Ignatius (Rom. § 3) οὐ πεισμονῆς τὸ ἔργον ἀλλὰ μεγέθους κ-τ.λ. 

5. ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων] The preposition denotes the object of their 
faith, ‘that your faith may not repose in the wisdom of men.’ For this 
use of πίστις with ἐν compare Rom. iii. 25 διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, 
Gal. iii. 26, Eph. i. 15, 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. i. 13, iii. 15. 


The true and the false wisdom. The former ts spiritually 
discerned (ii. 6—16). 


6. ‘Though we eschew the wisdom of men, yet we have a wisdom of 
our own which we communicate with the perfect.’ For the manner in 
which the word σοφία is taken up here, compare λόγος in i. 17, 18 οὐκ ἐν 
σοφίᾳ λόγου...ὁ λόγος yap ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ K.T.A. 

ἐν τοῖς τελείοις] Τέλειος is properly that of which the parts are fully 
developed, as distinguished from ὁλόκληρος, that in which none of the 
parts are wanting. See James i. 4 where the words occur, Trench V.7. 
Syn. § xxii. p. 7454. and the passages quoted on 1 Thess. v. 23. Hence 
it signifies ‘full-grown,’ and accordingly τέλειος is used by St Paul as 
opposed to νήπιος or παιδία, though in a moral sense as τέλειοι ἐν Χριστῷ. 
Compare xiv. 20 τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶ τέλειοι γίνεσθε, Eph. iv. 
13, Phil. iii. 15, Heb. ν. 14. That it is used in this sense here will appear 
also from iii. I ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ: The distinction is somewhat the 
same as that which St John makes, dividing his hearers into πατέρες and 
γεανίσκοι or παιδία (1 Joh. ii. 13, 14). Pythagoras also is said to have 
distinguished his disciples as τέλειοι and νήπιοι. 

But besides this meaning of ‘ full development,’ the term here most 


174 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, ΠῚ. 6. 


probably bears the collateral sense of ‘initiated’ according to its classical 
usage, illustrating ἐν μυστηρίῳ below. See this side of the question 
treated fully in the notes on Col. i. 28 διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ 
σοφίᾳ iva παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ, a passage where, 
as here, both μυστήριον and σοφία occur in the context. 

These words have been the subject of much dispute. On the one 
hand they have been adduced to justify the distinction of an exoteric 
and an esoteric doctrine, as though there were certain secrets withheld 
from the generality. This idea of a higher and a lower teaching seems 
early to have gained ground even among orthodox writers, and Clement 
of Alexandria (Eus. .£, v. 11) especially says that Christ communicated 
the inner γνῶσις to a few chosen disciples. This distinction became the 
starting-point of Gnosticism : see Lechler AZ. Zeét. p. 500 and note on Col, 
lc. The difference between γνῶσις and σοφία is discussed on Col. ii. 3. 

On the other hand several modern commentators, seeing how entirely 
opposed this system of religious castes is to the genius of Christianity 
and to the teaching of St Paul elsewhere, have avoided any semblance of 
it here, by putting a forced construction on the passage σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν 
ἐν τοῖς τελείοις ‘we teach a doctrine which is wisdom in the judgment of 
the perfect.’ But to say nothing of the harshness of this construction, it 
is clear from the whole context, especially iii. 1, 2, that St Paul was 
speaking of an actual distinction in the teaching addressed to the less 
and the more advanced believer. What is implied by the contrast 
between ‘babes’ and ‘grown men’ may be seen from iii. 1. It is the 
distinction of less or greater spirituality. What is meant by the σοφία 
may be gathered from a comparison of St Paul’s earlier with his later 
Epistles. The σοφία will involve especially the ampler teaching as to the 
Person of Christ and the eternal purpose of God. Such ‘wisdom’ we 
have in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians especially, and in a 
less degree in the Epistle to the Romans. This ‘wisdom’ is discerned 
in the Gospel of St John, as compared with the other Evangelists. 
Compare the note on γάλα οὐ βρῶμα (iii. 2). 

τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου] i.e. the great men of this world, as the 
whole context seems imperatively to demand; the princes whether in 
intellect or in power or in rank, so that of ἄρχοντες κιτιλ. would include 
the σοφοί, δυνατοί, εὐγενεῖς of i. 26. See further the note on ver. 8. 

On the other hand some of the fathers (e.g. Origen Homil. Iv. in 
Matth., 1X. in Genes.) understood it of the powers of evil, comparing 
Eph. vi. 12 πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ 
τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. In this sense the Gnostics availed them- 
selves of it to support their Dualism, see Tert. adv. Marc. v. 6. And it 
would almost seem as if St Ignatius were referring to this passage in 
Ephes. ὃ 19 ἔλαθεν τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἡ παρθενία Μαρίας καὶ ὁ 
τοκετὸς αὐτῆς, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου, τρία μυστήρια κραυγῆς, 
where however ἔλαθεν is probably intended as a paraphrase of οὐδεὶς 


EE i πὰ .... 


Il. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 175 


τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν (ver. 8). At all events, the meaning 
is quite out of place here ; and ‘the princes of this world’ are to be under- 
stood as great men according to the world’s estimate of greatness. 

τῶν καταργουμένων] is best explained by i. 28 ra μὴ ὄντα ἵνα τὰ ὄντα 
καταργήσῃ : 1.6. who are brought to nought by the power of Christ, whose 
glory wanes before the advance of Messiah’s kingdom ; ὁ aid v οὗτος being 
the direct opposite of ἡ βασιλεία rod Χριστοῦ, ‘ Messiah’s kingdom’ in its 
widest sense. Compare Martyr. Vienn. c. 8 (in Routh &.S. I. p. 305) 
καταργηθέντων δὲ τῶν τυραννικῶν κολαστηρίων ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τῆς τῶν 
μακαρίων ὑπομονῆς. See also the note on δόξαν ἡμῶν in the next verse. 

7. Θεοῦ σοφίαν] is the correct order, Θεοῦ being emphatic: ‘a wisdom 
not of this world, but of God.’ The received text has σοφίαν Θεοῦ on the 
slenderest authority. 

ἐν μυστηρίῳ] ‘the wisdom which consists in a mystery” The phrase 
must be taken either (1) with σοφίαν or (2) with λαλοῦμεν. Perhaps the 
former is preferable. For the omission of the article see the note on 
1 Thess. i. 1 ἐν Θεῷ πατρί, and references there. If ἐν μυστηρίῳ is taken 
with λαλοῦμεν, the sense will be much the same; ‘ We speak a wisdom of 
God, while declaring a mystery.’ On the Pauline use of the word 
μυστήριον, as something which would not have been known without 
revelation, and its connexion with words denoting publication (as here 
ἡμῖν yap ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ Θεὸς ver. 10) see the note on Col. i. 26. See also 
the note on 2 Thess. ii. 7: from the passage in Josephus there quoted, 
μυστήριον appears to have the subordinate sense of something extra- 
ordinary and portentous. 

τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην] The article is frequently placed thus between 
the substantive and the accompanying adjective or participle when it is 
intended to give a definite reference to an indefinite statement. ‘A 
wisdom of God, that wisdom I mean, which was etc.’ Compare Gal. iii. 
21 νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος, with the note. 

ἣν προώρισεν] ‘which God foreordained’; absolutely. It is not 
necessary to understand ἀποκαλύψαι or any word of the kind. The 
σοφία Θεοῦ is the scheme of redemption. 

εἰς δόξαν ὑμῶν] i.e. the glory of inward enlightenment as well as of 
outward exaltation; for the word δόξα (like βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ) involves 
the complex idea. Compare 2 Cor. iii. 8—18. Here there is an opposi- 
tion between δόξαν ἡμῶν and τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, τῶν καταργου- 
μένων, ‘Our glory increases, while their glory wanes.’ This use of 
καταργεῖσθαι in connexion with δόξα is illustrated by the passage from 
2 Corinthians already referred to, and by 2 Thess. ii. 8 καταργήσει τῇ 
ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (where see the notes). 

8. ἣν] 1.6. σοφίαν. 

ἔγνωκεν] ‘hath discerned.’ 

τὸν Κύριον... ἐσταύρωσαν] As types and representatives of the princes 
of this world, St Paul takes the Jewish and heathen rulers who crucified 


~ 


176 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [II. 8. 


the Lord (comp. Acts iv. 27). Yet the rebuke is not confined to these; 
and he rightly says οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων, for all alike who oppose them- 
selves to the spread of the Gospel, all the princes of this world, as such, 
do in a certain sense ‘crucify the Lord afresh’ (Heb. vi. 6). 

τῆς δόξης] The contrast present to the Apostle’s mind is that between 
the shame of the Cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the glory of the Crucified, 
between the ignominy which they seemed to be inflicting on Him and 
the honour which was intrinsically His. 

9. ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται] ‘ut zt has come to pass according to the 
words of Scripture” The sentence is elliptical. For an exact parallel in 
form see Rom. xv. 3, and compare the note on 1 Cor. i. 31. 

ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς κιτιλ}] The composition of the sentence is somewhat 
loose. Like 1 Tim. iii. 16 ὃς ἐφανερώθη x.r.A. it begins with a relative, so 
that the construction is broken. The grammar also is irregular, ἃ being 
the accusative after εἶδεν and ἤκουσεν, and the nominative to ἀνέβη; and 
ὅσα (the correct reading for the second a of the received text) in apposi- 
tion with a. Another construction is proposed which makes ἡμῖν δὲ 
ἀπεκάλυψεν (ver. 10) the apodosis, introduced by the particle δέ; but this, 
even if yap is not to be read for δέ, seems not to be after St Paul’s 
manner, being too elaborate and indeed requiring ταῦτα δὲ ἡμῖν. The 
whole of verse Io is best considered to be the Apostle’s own addition to 
the quotation. For ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν, a Hebrew expression (πὸν 
39 by), see Acts vii. 23, Jerem. iii. 16, xliv. 21, li. 50. 

The distinction here is between things perceived by the senses, and 
things apprehended by the understanding. Compare the lines of Empe- 
docles οὕτως οὔτ᾽ ἐπιδερκτὰ τάδ᾽ ἀνδράσιν, οὔτ᾽ ἐπακουστά, οὔτε νόῳ mepi- 
ληπτα in Sext. Empir. adv. Matth. vii. 123 (Ritter and Preller, p. 126). 

The quotation, the words of which are not found in the existing text 
of the Old Testament, is generally considered to be a combination of 
Is. lxiv. 4, which runs in the LXX. ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ of 
ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον Θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σοῦ, ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένου- 
σιν ἔλεον, but more nearly in the Hebrew, ‘From eternity they have not 
heard, they have not hearkened, neither hath eye seen a god [or ‘O 
God’] save thee (who) worketh [or ‘(what) He shall do’] to him that 
awaiteth Him’ (see Delitzsch ad Joc.), and Is. lxv. 16, 17 οὐκ ἀναβήσεται 
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν...οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν. The passage, if 
we may trust St Jerome, occurred as given by St Paul, both in the 
Ascension of Isaiah and in the Apocalypse of Elias (Hieron. in Js. lxiv. 4, 
Iv. p. 761; Prol. in Gen. 1X. Ὁ. 3). And Origen, in Matth. xxvii. 9 
(111. p. 916), says that St Paul quotes from the latter, ‘In nullo regulari 
libro hoc positum invenitur, nisi (εἰ μή, ‘but only’) in Secretis Eliae 
prophetae.’ This assertion is repeated also by later writers (see Fabricius 
Cod. Ps. V. T. 1. p. 1073) doubtless from Origen, but combated by 
Jerome (Il. cc. and 2252. lvii. § 9, 1. p. 314), who refers the quotation to 
Is. lxiv. 4. There does not seem any reason for doubting that the 


II. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 177 


quotation occurs as Origen states, especially as Jerome, making a savage 
onslaught on this opinion, tacitly allows the fact ; see more below. If it 
could be shown that these apocryphal books were prior to St Paul, this 
solution would be the most probable; but they would appear to have 
been produced by some Christian sectarians of the second century, for 
Jerome terms them ‘Iberae naeniae’ and connects them with the 
Basilideans and other Gnostics who abounded in Spain (Il. cc.; see also 
c. Vigil. τι. p. 393, and comp. Fabricius, p. 1093 sq.). If so, they 
incorporated the quotation of St Paul, as also another missing quotation 
(Eph. v. 14, see-below), in order to give verisimilitude and currency to 
their forgeries. At all events both these works appear from the extant 
remains to have been Christian. For the Ajocalypse of Elias see 
Epiphan. Haer. xlii. (p. 372), who says that the quotation in Eph. v. 14 
(which is obviously Christian) was found there; and for the Ascension of 
Isaiah, this same father Haer. lxvii. 3 (p. 712), where he quotes a passage 
referring to the Trinity. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the 
work known to Epiphanius and several other fathers under this name, is 
the same with the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah published first by 
Laurence in an Ethiopic Version and subsequently by Gieseler in a 
Latin. The two versions represent different recensions ; and the passage 
‘Eye hath not seen, etc.’ appears in the Latin (xi. 34) but not in the 
Ethiopic (see Jolowicz Himmelfahrt u. Vision des propheten Iesaia, 
p. 90, Leipzig, 1854). The Latin recension therefore must have been in 
the hands of Jerome; though this very quotation seems to show clearly 
that the A:thiopic more nearly represents the original form of the work 
(see Liicke Offenbdarung d. Johannes, p. 179 sq-). Both recensions alike 
are distinctly Christian. 

Still in favour of Jerome’s view it may be said that St Paul’s quota- 
tions are often very free as e.g. in i. 31, and that there is no instance in 
St Paul of a quotation from an apocryphal writing being introduced by 
καθὼς γέγραπται. The quotation from a Christian hymn in Eph. v. 14 is 
introduced by λέγει, which is quite general. It is just possible moreover 
that some Greek version, with which St Paul was acquainted, gave a 
different rendering from the LXx. and more resembling the quotation in 
the text. 

It is at least remarkable that St Clement of Rome (§ 34) gives the 
quotation in almost the same words, though approaching somewhat 
nearer to the LXx. He reads τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτὸν for St Paul’s τοῖς 
ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, and is followed by the Martyr. Polyc. § 2 ἀνέβλεπον τὰ 
τηρούμενα τοῖς ὑπομείνασιν ἀγαθά, ἃ οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν, 
οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη, passages which seem to suggest an 
original lying somewhere between the present LXX, rendering in Isaiah, 
and the quotation of St Paul, though nearer to the latter. In the other 
places where the quotation occurs, 2 [Clem.] §§ 11, 14, Clem. Ep, ad Virg. 
i. 9, it does not reach the point where Clement and St Paul diverge. 


L. EP. 12 


178 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [II. 9. 


An additional interest attaches to this passage from the words 
ascribed to Hegesippus in a passage of Stephanus Gobarus ap. Photius 
Bibl. 232 (see Routh ΚΑ. S. 1. 219), who after quoting this passage says 
Ἡγήσιππος μέντοι, ἀρχαῖός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ ἀποστολικός, ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν 
ὑπομνημάτων οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι καὶ παθὼν μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα λέγει, καὶ 
καταψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τε θείων γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ κυρίου λεγόντος, 
Μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν οἱ βλέποντες, καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τὰ ἀκούοντα καὶ 
ἑξῆς. Stephanus seems to regard this (at least Baur and Schwegler do so) 
as an attack on St Paul and a proof that Hegesippus was an Ebionite ; 
but he has probably misunderstood the drift of Hegesippus’ words. 
Hegesippus was attacking, not the passage itself, but the application 
which was made of it by certain Gnostics, who alleged it in support of an 
esoteric doctrine (see Routh Δ. S. 1. p. 281 and Galatians p. 334). We 
know from Hippolytus (Haer. v. 24, 26, 27, vi. 24) that it was a favourite 
text with these heretics and that the Justinians even introduced it 
into their formula of initiation. Perhaps the Revelation of Elias may 
have been an early Gnostic work itself, and embodied this quotation 
from St Paul for doctrinal purposes. In favour of this view, it may be 
remarked that Hegesippus elsewhere (af. Euseb. H. £. iii. 32) in 
attacking the Gnostic heresy avails himself of St Paul’s own words 
ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις (1 Tim. vi. 20), and seems to have commended the 
Epistle of Clement and to have been satisfied with the orthodoxy of the 
Corinthian Church (Euseb. 27. £. iv. 22, comp. iii. 16). 

10. ἡμῖν] ‘Zo us who believe’; not to the Apostles specially, but to 
believers generally. 

ἀπεκάλυψεν 6 Θεὸς] This order is perhaps better than that of the 
received text 6 Θεὸς ἀπεκ., and is strongly supported (NABCD). The 
‘revelation’ is the emphatic idea in the sentence. The aorist (dmexd- 
λυψεν) is on a par with many aorists in St Paul. Its force is, ‘revealed 
it to us when we were admitted into the Church, when we were baptized.’ 
᾿Αποκάλυψις implies an extraordinary revelation, while φανέρωσις is the 
general term, including e.g. the revelation of God in nature. 

τὸ yap πνεῦμα] i.e. the Spirit of God givento us. 1f we know the things 
of God, it is only by His Spirit dwelling in us. See Rom. viii. 9—27, 
where the same idea occurs in several forms and with several applications. 

καὶ τὰ βάθη] ‘even the depths, which are manifold, the plural being 
stronger than the singular. On the other hand we have ra βαθέα τοῦ 
Σατανᾶ (Apoc. ii. 24). 

11. ‘For as a man’s self-consciousness reveals man’s nature to him, 
so it can be nothing else but the Spirit of God dwelling in him which 
reveals to him the nature and dealings of God.’ Ta rot ἀνθρώπου are ‘the 
things of man’ generally, of human nature. The emphatic repetition of 
ἀνθρώπων, ἀνθρώπου, ἀνθρώπου and of Θεοῦ, Θεοῦ is intended to enforce 
the contrasts. 

ἔγνωκεν) is the correct reading for the second oidev of the received 


a 


II. 12.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 179 


text. The words are carefully chosen. Οἷδεν ‘knoweth’ denotes direct 
knowledge, while ἔγνωκεν ‘discerneth’ involves more or less the idea 
of a process of attainment. Compare e.g. 1 Joh. ii. 29 ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι 
δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, 
where γινώσκετε implies an inference. In this passage the distinction 
is not so marked, but the ἔγνωκεν seems to place ra τοῦ Θεοῦ a degree 
more out of reach than οἶδεν does τὰ rod ἀνθρώπου. Compare also 
2 Cor. v. 16, and see for γινώσκειν the notes on Gal. iii. 7, iv. 9, for 
εἰδέναι τ Thesswy, 12. 

The examination of the passages, where the two words are found 
in the First Epistle of St John, shows most clearly that they were 
employed with the same precision of meaning as in the classical age. 
While οἶδα is simple and absolute, γινώσκω is relative, involving more or 
less the idea of a process of examination. Thus while οἶδα is used of the 
knowledge of the facts and propositions in themselves, γινώσκω implies 
reference to something else, and gives prominence to either the acquisi- 
tion of the knowledge or the knowledge of a thing in its bearings. It 
surely cannot be by chance, that where St John wishes to place in 
bold relief the fundamental facts of our religious conviction in and by 
themselves, he uses οἶδα (see ii. 20, 21, iii, 2, 5, 14, 15, and especially 
v. 18, 19, 20); that where he speaks of our knowledge not as direct but as 
derived from something prior to it, he almost always employs γινώσκω, 
both in the phrase ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκειν, which occurs repeatedly (ii. 3, 5, 
iii. 19, 24, iv. 2, 13, v. 2, cf. iii. 16 ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν: not once ἐν 
τούτῳ εἰδέναι), and in other expressions (ii. 18 ὅθεν γινώσκομεν, iii. 1 
od γινώσκει ἡμᾶς ὅτι, iv. 6 ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν, cf. iv. 7, 8); and that 
when the two words γινώσκειν and εἰδέναι are found together, as in the 
passage already quoted (comp. John xxi. 17, Eph. v. 5), they stand to 
each other in the relation which the distinction given above would lead 
us to expect. If there are also passages in which the difference of 
meaning is not so plain, the induction seems still to be sufficiently large 
to establish the facts. 

οὐδεὶς...εἰ μὴ] ie. ‘no man, as man, knoweth, but only the Spirit of 
God.’ οὐδεὶς (sc. ἀνθρώπων) as τίς ἀνθρώπων above. For this use of 
εἰ μὴ (ἐὰν μὴ) see on Gal. i. 7, 19, ii. 16. 

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ] Not τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ according to the analogy 
of the preceding part of the verse; for though the spirit of man is in 
him, a similar expression would not correctly apply to the Spirit of God. 
This change of phraseology may be regarded as a caution to us not 
to press the analogy beyond the point to illustrate which it was intro- 
duced. It may be true that the spirit of man takes cognizance of the 
_ things of man, just as the Spirit of God does of the things of God ; but it 
does not follow that the spirit of man has the same relation to man as the 
Spirit of God has to God. 

12. ἡμεῖς δὲ] ‘duct we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit 


= I2—z2 


180 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [11. r2. 


which cometh from God. Ἡμεῖς includes the believers generally, but 
refers especially to the Apostles, as Paul and Apollos: for the reference 
is mainly to the teachers in the following verse. 

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κοσμοῦ] The interpretation of this expression will depend 
on the view taken of τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (ver. 6); see the note 
there. It seems therefore to be simply the spirit of human wisdom, of 
the world as alienated from God. 

ἐλάβομεν] ‘veceived, i.e. when we were admitted to the fold of 
Christ. The aorist τὰ χαρισθέντα below refers to the same time. St Paul 
regards the gift as ideally summed up when he and they were included in 
the Christian Church, though it is true that the Spirit is received 
constantly. 

ἵνα εἰδῶμεν «.7..] 1.6. ‘that we may be conscious of, may realize the 
spiritual blessings and hopes conferred upon us.’ For this sense of 
εἰδέναι See ii. 2 and the note on 1 Thess. v. 12. Here ra χαρισθέντα will 
include miraculous gifts; but, like χάρισμα itself, the expression extends 
to all blessings conferred by the Gospel. See i. 7 above. 

13. ‘Nor do we keep this knowledge to ourselves. As it is revealed 
to us, so also (καὶ) do we communicate it to others. And the manner of 
our communication is in accordance with the matter. Spiritual truths 
are expressed in spiritual language.’ The expression ἃ καὶ λαλοῦμεν is in 
a measure corrective of any impression which might have been left by 
the foregoing words, that the mysteries of the Gospel were the exclusive 
property of a few. The emphatic word in the sentence is λαλοῦμεν, 
as the order shows ; and the mention of the manner of communication 
(οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς x.7.A.) is quite subordinate. 

σοφίας] is the genitive governed by διδακτοῖς, as the form of the 
ellipsis in the corresponding clause ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος shows. Com- 
pare John vi. 45 (from Is. liv. 13) πάντες διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ. This construc- 
tion of the genitive with verbal adjectives of passive force is in 
classical Greek confined to poetry ; e.g. Soph. Electra 343 ἅπαντα γάρ σοι 
τἀμὰ νουθετήματα κείνης διδακτά, Pind. O/. ix. 152 (100) διδακταῖς ἀνθρώπων 
ἀρεταῖς. 

‘There is no display of human rhetoric in our preaching. The 
language, no less than the matter, is inspired.’ Indeed the notion of a 
verbal inspiration in a certain sense is involved in the very conception of 
an inspiration at all, because words are at once the instruments of 
carrying on and the means of expressing ideas, so that the words must 
both lead and follow the thought. But the passage gives no coun- 
tenance to the popular doctrine of verbal inspiration, whether right or 
wrong. 

πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες] ‘combining the spiritual with the 
spiritual, i.e. applying spiritual methods to explain spiritual truths. It is 
excellently explained by Theod. Mops. here : διὰ τῶν τοῦ πνεύματος ἀποδεί- 
Lewy τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος διδασκαλίαν πιστούμεθα. This is the proper meaning 





11.153] | FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 181 


of συγκρίνειν ‘to combine,’ as διακρίνειν is ‘to separate.’ Συγκρίνειν, it is true, 
sometimes gets the sense of ‘ comparing,’ as in 2 Cor. x. 12 ; but it does not 
suit the context here, whether explained, as by Chrysostom and others, of 
comparing the types of the Old Testament with the tidings of the New, or 
more generally. Others again, taking πνευματικοῖς to be masculine, trans- 
late it ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual men,’ Against this it may be 
urged, (1) that though συγκρίνειν is frequently used of interpreting dreams, 
(cf. Gen. xl. 8, 22, xli. 12, Dan. v. 12), yet the leading notion which it 
involves is that of ‘finding out, ‘comparing’ the phenomena of the dream 
with the phenomena of common life (so κρίνειν, éyxpivew are used of 
dreams), which notion is out of place here : (2) the combination πνευματι- 
κοῖς πνευματικὰ points to the neuter gender, as otherwise we should rather 
expect πνευματικὰ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς : (3) the dative is naturally governed 
by the σὺν of συγκρίνοντες, and (4) the qualifications of the recipient seem 
to be introduced first in the following verse by Ψυχικὸς δέ. 

14. ‘Though we communicate our knowledge freely, yet being, as I 
said, spiritual—spiritual in form as well as in matter—it addresses itself 
only to spiritual hearers, and therefore the natural man is excluded from 
it.’ The verse is connected with ver. 12, and St Paul comes round to the 
subject of ver. 6 once more. 

uxixds] “2.4 natural man; as opposed to πνευματικός, and closely 
allied to σαρκικός. See note on 1 Thess. v. 23, where the triple division 
of man’s nature into σῶμα, ψυχή, and πνεῦμα is discussed. 

οὐ δέχεται] ‘rejects, ‘does not receive’ ; not ‘is incapable of’ (a strictly 
classical usage of δέχεσθαι which would be expressed in the N. T. by ov 
χωρεῖ). The meaning which I have given is the universal sense of 
δέχεσθαι in the New Testament and is moreover better suited to the 
explanation μωρία yap «.r.A., which includes more than the incapacity of 
the hearer, and implies a disinclination also. 

ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται] ‘for they’ (sc. ra τοῦ πνεύματος) ‘are 
Spiritually discerned; i.e. the investigation is a spiritual process. This 
is an explanation of the whole sentence from μωρία...γνῶναι, and not of 
the latter clause only. 

15. ‘On the other hand, the spiritual man is placed on a vantage- 
ground. He can survey and duly estimate the relative proportion of all 
things. He has a standard by which to measure others, but they have no 
standard which they can apply to him.’ 

ἀνακρίνει μὲν πάντα] ‘examineth, ‘ sifteth everything, e.g. in the matter 
of meats or of the observance of days. In any case the same translation 
of the verb ought to have been preserved in the English version here, as 
in ver. 14. The leading idea of dvaxpivew is that of examination, investi- 
gation, sifting, while κρίνειν implies more prominently the pronouncing a 

‘verdict. The word adopted by the A. V. as an equivalent is unfortunate ; 
for, besides being a mistranslation of dvaxpiverat, it is quite untrue in fact to 
say that the spiritual man ‘is judged by no one.’ 80. ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς avaxpive- 


~ 


182 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [ΣῈ 15. 


rat means ‘he is a riddle to the natural man ; they can make nothing out 
of him, cannot bring him to book at all.’ 

“St Paul especially delights to accumulate” the compounds of κρίνειν; 
“and thus by harping upon words (if I may use the expression) to empha- 
size great spiritual truths or important personal experiences. Thus, he 
puts together συγκρίνειν, dvaxpivew” here, “ κρίνειν, ἀνακρίνειν, 1 Cor. iv. 3, 
43 ἐγκρίνειν, συγκρίνειν, 2 Cor. x. 12; κρίνειν, διακρίνειν, 1 Cor. vi. I—6; 
κρίνειν, διακρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, Rom. xiv. 22, 23, 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31, 32; 
κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, Rom. ii. 1. Now it seems impossible in most cases, 
without a sacrifice of English which no one would be prepared to make, 
to reproduce the similarity of sound or the identity of root; but the 
distinction of sense should always be preserved. How this is neglected 
in our English version, and what confusion ensues from this neglect, the 
following instances will show. In 1 Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5, the word dvaxpivew is 
translated throughout ‘judge’; while in 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, it is rendered 
indifferently ‘to discern’ and ‘to judge.’ But dvaxpivew is neither ‘to 
judge,’ which is κρίνειν, nor ‘to discern,’ which is διακρίνειν ; but ‘to 
examine, investigate, enquire into, question,’ as it is rightly translated 
elsewhere, e.g. 1 Cor. ix. 3, x. 25, 27; and the correct understanding of 
1 Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5 depends on our retaining this sense. - The ἀνάκρισις, it 
will.be remembered, was an Athenian law term for a preliminary investi- 
gation (distinct from the actual κρίσις or trial), in which evidence was 
collected and the prisoner committed for trial, if a true bill was found 
against him. It corresponded in short mutatis mutandis to the part 
taken in English law proceedings by the grand jury. And this is sub- 
stantially the force of the word here. The Apostle condemns all these 
impatient human /raejudicia, these unauthorised ἀνακρίσεις, which 
anticipate the final κρίσις, reserving his case for the great tribunal where 
at length all the evidence will be forthcoming and a satisfactory verdict 
can be given. Meanwhile this process of gathering evidence has begun ; 
an ἀνάκρισις is indeed being held, not however by these self-appointed 
magistrates, but by One who alone has the authority to institute the 
enquiry, and the ability to sift the facts (ὁ δὲ dvaxpivey pe Κύριός ἐστιν). 
Of this half-technical sense of the word the New Testament itself 
furnishes a good example. The examination of St Paul before Festus is 
both in name and in fact an ἀνάκρισις. The Roman procurator explains 
to Agrippa how he had directed the prisoner to be brought into court 
(προήγαγον αὐτόν) in order that, having held the preliminary enquiry 
usual in such cases (τῆς ἀνακρίσεως γενομένης), he might be able to lay the 
case before the Emperor (Acts xxv. 26). Again, in 1 Cor. xiv. 24 dvaxpiverat 
ὑπὸ πάντων, the sense required is clearly ‘sifting, probing, revealing,’ and 
the rendering of our translators ‘he is judged of all’ introduces an idea 
alien to the passage.” On a Fresh Revision of the English N. T. 
p. 69 sq. (3rd edit.). 

πάντα] The article should be omitted, but the omission does not 


II. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 183 


affect the sense, because πάντα must still be taken as neuter. Τὰ πάντα 
would express with slightly increased force the comprehensiveness of the 
spiritual man. ‘All things whatsoever—even those out of his own sphere— 
not πνευματικὰ only but ψυχικὰ also.’ 

16. ‘For the mind in us is the mind of the Lord. Our spirits are 
- one with His spirit : and we have Scriptural authority for saying that no 
one can penetrate and understand the mind of the Lord.’ 

τίς yap ἔγνω «.7.d.] ‘for who hath perceived or apprehended etc.’ From 
the LXxx. of Is. xl. 13 ris ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου ; καὶ ris αὐτοῦ σύμβουλος ἐγένετο, 
ὃς συμβιβᾷ αὐτόν; The middle clause is omitted in the quotation as being 
somewhat foreign to St Paul’s purpose. On the other hand, in Rom. xi., 
34, where the same quotation occurs, the first two clauses appear and not 
the third, as they bear on his argument there. 

νοῦν Κυρίου) For the distinction between πνεῦμα and νοῦς see Usteri 
Paul. Lehr. p. 384. In aman there might be an opposition between the 
νοῦς and the πνεῦμα (1 Cor. xiv. 14), but in God the νοῦς would be identical 
with, or at least in perfect accordance with, the πνεῦμα. It should be 
observed also that the original here translated νοῦν is M10 which is the 
common word for πνεῦμα. Compare 1 Esdr. ii. 9, where ἐγείρειν τὸν νοῦν 
is equivalent to ἐγείρειν τὸ πνεῦμα of the preceding verse. Thus νοῦς was 
the familiar form in the ears of his hearers owing to the influence of the 
LxXxX. 

ὃς συμβιβάσει] ‘so that he shall instruct him’ Compare Matth. Gr. Gr. 
ὃ 479, Obs. 1. 

Συμβιβάζειν in classical Greek generally means ‘to put together so as 
to draw an inference from, to conclude’; but here it is ‘to instruct,’ the 
sense which it usually bears in the Lxx., where it occurs frequently. It 
thus represents the classical ἐμβιβάζειν. 

νοῦν Χριστοῦ] equivalent to the νοῦν Κυρίου of the preceding verse. 
The ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘ Spirit of Christ’ are convertible terms here 
as in Rom. viii. 9 εἴπερ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ 
οὐκ ἔχει κιτιλ. (cf. Gal. iv. 6). And the substitution of Χριστοῦ for Κυρίου 
in this passage and for Θεοῦ in the Romans has the same point: it 
suggests a practical test. ‘Ask yourselves whether the mind of Christ is 
in you.’ (Compare Phil. ii. 5.) 


CHAPTER III. 


The Corinthians incapable of discerning the wisdom of God (iii. I—3). 


1. The manner in which his readers are brought round after a long 
digression to their dissensions is characteristic of St Paul. One topic 
suggests another and he seems entirely to have lost sight of their subject : 
till accidentally, as one might say, the course of thought brings him 
within the range of its attraction, and he flies back to it at once. Thus 
the mention of party watchwords (in i. 12) leads him to speak of his 
abstaining from baptizing. He was sent not to baptize but to preach. 
What was the nature of his preaching? It was foolishness in the sight 
of the world. Yet it contained the truest wisdom. This wisdom however 
could not be revealed in all its depths, save to the spiritual. ‘But ye are 
not spiritual, so long as these dissensions last.’ And so he comes back to 
what he left. 

κἀγὼ] ‘And I, individually, was subject to the prohibition implied in 
the general rule of ii. 6, σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις. I was obliged to 
withhold from you the treasures of wisdom, which I possessed in myself.’ 

capx(vors] Unquestionably the reading here, as σαρκικοὶ in ver. 3 
where it occurs twice. Considering the strong tendency to alter one or 
other word for the sake of conformity, the consistency of the Mss. is the 
more remarkable and must decide the readings. 

Σάρκινος is ‘ fleshy, made of flesh,’ ‘ carneus’ ; while σαρκικὸς is ‘ fleshly, 
partaking of the characteristics of flesh, associated with flesh,’ ‘ carnalis.’ 
Hence σαρκικὸς is scarcely a classical word, because the idea is not 
classical. As an illustration of the difference of meaning in the two 
terminations -txos and -«vos, compare τὸ δερματικὸν ‘ the tax on hides’ with 
δερμάτινον, which could mean nothing else but ‘ made of hides.’ On these 
terminations cf. Matth. Gr. Gr. ὃ 108, 110, Meyer’s reff. ad Joc. and Buttm. 
§ 119. U1, Fritzsche ad Rom. 11. p. 46. The proper meaning of σάρκινος 
is seen in 2 Cor. iii. 3 οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις capxivas, 
and that of capxixds in 1 Cor. ix. 11 εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν τὰ πνευματικὰ ἐσπείραμεν, 
μέγα εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ θερίσομεν (cf. Rom. xv. 27), in neither of which 
passages there is a various reading, and in neither of which the other 


Il. 2.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 185 


word would be suitable. In Heb. vii. 16, though we should expect σαρκικῆς, 
the νόμος ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης is intelligible because the commandment was, 
as it were, a part of the flesh, and thus of hereditary descent from the 
body of Aaron. See also Rom. vii. 14, where σάρκινος is certainly right. 

ὡς σαρκίνοις] “20 men of flesh” For the vigour of the expression 
compare Matt. xvi. 17 σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι. While σάρκινος 
here points rather to their original nature when St Paul first preached to 
them, σαρκικοὶ (ver. 3) expresses their moral tendencies, their hankerings, 
even after their conversion, and implies more of a rebuke, though the less 
strong word in itself. 

νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ] the opposite to which is τέλειοι ἐν Χριστῷ, Col. i. 28. 
See note on τέλειος ii. 6. 

2. γάλα, οὐ βρῶμα] Apparently a favourite image with the Rabbinical 
teachers, who styled their scholars ‘sugentes’ or ‘lactentes’ (see Wetst 
on I Pet. ii. 2). Compare Heb. v. 12 sq. γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες γάλακτος, 
ov στερεᾶς τροφῆς" mas yap 6 μετεχὼν γάλακτος, ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης" 
νήπιος γάρ ἐστιν" τελείων δέ ἐστιν ἡ στερεὰ τροφή, where the resemblances 
are so close as to suggest that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
had seen this Epistle and 1 Pet. ii. 2. The metaphor however was a 
common one at this time, see Philo de Agricult. § 2, 1. p. 301 (ed. Mangey), 
ἐπεὶ δὲ νηπίοις μέν ἐστι γάλα τροφή, τελείοις δὲ τὰ ἐκ πυρῶν πέμματα, Pinytus 
ap. Routh &. S. 1. p. 184. 

ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα] For the zeugma compare Hesiod, 7heog. 640 
νέκταρ τ᾽ ἀμβροσίην τε, Ta περ θεοὶ αὐτοὶ ἔδουσι, Luke i. 64. 

ἐδύνασθε] is probably to be taken absolutely here, ‘for ye were not 
strong enough,’ a sense in which it appears to be not infrequently used in 
the LXX., e.g. Jerem. v. 4, xxxviii. 5, Ps. cxxviii. 2. 

ἀλλ ‘Why should I say ye were not strong enough ; nay ye are not 
strong enough even now’; for ἀλλά in this sense cf. Winer Gr. ὃ liii. 
Ρ. 551 Sq. 

οὐδὲ ἔτι viv] An interval of about five years had elapsed since St Paul 
first visited them. He seems to make no allusion here to his second 
visit, which was probably of short duration, and in which he had few 
opportunities of instructing them. 

We are led to enquire what teaching St Paul signified by γάλα and 
βρῶμα respectively. Obviously the doctrine of Christ crucified belonged 
to the former, as he himself says that he made the preaching of this his 
sole object on this occasion (ii. 3). This was the basis of his teaching. 
The best comment on this passage is furnished by Heb. v. 11—vi. 2, 
where the writer, laying down the same distinction between γάλα and 
στερεὰ τροφή, describes the former thus : ‘not laying again the foundation 
of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine 
of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and 
of eternal judgment. And thus the teaching of the Thessalonian Epistles, 
which does not go beyond this, may be taken as a sample of the ‘ milk’ 


~ 


186 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [III. 2. 


for babes. The doctrine of justification by faith, which, as lying at the 
foundation of Christian teaching, would fall under the term yada, might 
still in its more complex aspects be treated as βρῶμα, and so it is in the 
Epistle to the Romans. If it be asked again whether St Paul is speaking 
of doctrinal or spiritual truths, our reply is that the two cannot be 
separated in Christianity. Christianity, it is said, is a life, not a creed. It 
could be more truly called ‘a:life in a creed.’ See more on this subject 
in note on σοφία ii. 11. Ἶ 

3. ὅπου] introduces a condition. In itself it puts the case as purely 
hypothetical, and the fulfilment of the condition here is implied from the 
context, as in 2 Pet. ii. 11. 

ζῆλος Kal Epis] ‘ ζῆλος cogitatione; ἔρις verbis, διχοστασίαι opere. Sall. 
Caitil. ix. 2 Jurgia, discordias, simultates,’ Wetstein. A regular sequence : 
‘emulation’ engenders ‘strife,’ and ‘strife’ produces ‘divisions.’ Cf. ii. 3. 
But the words καὶ d:yooracia of the Textus Receptus should be omitted. 
For the terms see the notes on Gal. v. 20; and for a more complete 
sequence Clem. Rom. § 3 ὥλος καὶ φθόνος, καὶ Epis καὶ στάσις, διωγμὸς Kai 
ἀκαταστασία, πόλεμος καὶ αἰχμαλωσία (with the notes). 

It is instructive to observe how ὥλος has been degraded in Christian 
ethics from the high position which it holds in classical Greek as a noble 
emulation (ἐπιεικές ἐστιν ὁ ὥλος καὶ ἐπιεικῶν Arist. Ret. ii. 11), so that it 
is most frequently used in a bad sense of quarrelsome opposition. Compare 
especially Clem. Rom. §§ 4, 5. Similar to this is the degradation of 
εὐτραπελία (Eph. v. 4 contrasted with Arist. Zh. WVic. ii. 7, iv. 14) and the 
exaltation of ταπεινοφροσύνη (e.g. 1 Pet. v. 5 compared with Arist. (?) ΖΑ. 
Eudem. iii. 3 cited by Neander Pf. τε. Let. ii. p. 759). 

κατὰ avOpwrov]‘ with merely human motives or feelings’ : i.e. your walk 
in life conforms to a merely human standard. Compare Rom. iii. 5, 
1 Cor. xv. 32, Gal. i. 11, iii. 15. The expression is confined to the 
Epistles of this group. The preposition denotes the measure or 
standard. 


(ὃ Paul and Apollos human instruments merely (iii. 4—23). 


4. ἐγὼ μὲν, ἕτερος δὴ] Observe the irregular position of the particles 
μὲν and δὲ, which correspond logically though not grammatically. On the 
omission of St Peter’s name here, see the note on i. 12. 

ἄνθρωποί ἐστε] ‘are ye not mere men?’ ‘Is not the divine principle— 
the principle of love and unity—obliterated in you?’ The word is much 
more forcible than σαρκικοί, the reading of the Textus Receptus introduced 
from ver. 3 above, and links on better with the foregoing xara ἄνθρωπον. 
The distinction of meaning between ἄνθρωπος, the lower, and ἀνήρ, the 
higher aspect of man, would be as present to St Paul’s mind, as it would 
to that of a Greek of the classical age. See Xen. Anadb. vi. 1. 26 ἐγώ, 3 
ἄνδρες, ἥδομαι μὲν ὑπὸ ὑμῶν τιμώμενος, εἴπερ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι, Philostratus Vita 





III. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 187 


Abpoll. i. 7. 4 τοὺς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἀνθρώπους ὑμῶν δὲ ἀνδρῶν ὄντων, i. 19. Ανθρω- 
mos is equivalent to the Heb. DIN and ἀνὴρ to WN, as in the Lxx. of 
Is. ii. οὖν. 15, xxxi. 8. 

5. τί οὖν...τί δὲ] ‘Are Apollos and Paul then lords over God’s 
vintage, that you exalt them to party-leaders? No; they are but 
servants.’ Ti is the right reading both times, being much more emphatic 
than ris: it expresses greater disdain. ‘As though Apollos or Paul 
were anything.’ 

᾿Απολλώς, ΙΤαὖλος] This, the correct order, is perhaps to be explained 
as a mark of respect to Apollos; or it may be that St Paul here, as 
elsewhere (e.g. iv. 10), picks up the last word from the preceding verse 
first—‘I am of Apollos, why what is Apollos?’ and then adds ‘and 
what is Paul?’ lest he should seem to exalt himself at the expense of 
Apollos. 

᾿Αλλ᾽ ἢ must be omitted on strong external testimony, though gram- 
matically quite correct. This is one out of many instances where the 
received text enfeebles the style of St Paul, by smoothing his abrupt- 
nesses. 

διάκονοι] ‘ mere servants; not leaders at all. The word is opposed to 
the Great Master (ὁ Κύριος), Who is mentioned just below. 

δι’ ὧν] i.e. the instruments only, not the objects of your faith ; ‘ per quos, 
non in quos,’ as Bengel says. Therefore do not pin your faith on them. 

ἐπιστεύσατε] ‘ye were converted, ye accepted the faith. This use of the 
aorist is common: see the note on 2 Thess. i. 10 morevoacw. 

ἑκάστῳ] The construction is καὶ ἕκαστος (not ἐπίστευσεν but διηκόνει) ds 
6 Kupios ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ : comp. vii. 17, Rom. xii. 3. That the reference is 
here to the teachers and not to the taught, appears from the following 
words explaining the different ministrations assigned to each, ‘I planted, 
Apollos watered,’ and from ἕκαστος below, ver. 8. 

ὁ Κύριος] ‘ ‘he Lord, ‘the Master of the universe and of themselves’ ; 
opposed to οἱ διάκονοι. We have the same play upon the word, so to 
speak, in Col. iii. 22, 23, where δοῦλοι is opposed to τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, 
and then immediately follows φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον and in the next 
verse again τῷ Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ Sovdevere. See also Eph. vi. 5—9. Κύριος, 
which in Attic Greek is chiefly used for ‘a master’ with a technical legal 
meaning, is in the N. T. the common word rather than δεσπότης, which 
occurs comparatively seldom. On both words see Trench WV. 7. Syn. 
§ xxviii. 

6. ἐγὼ ἐφύτευσα x.t.A.] This is entirely in accordance with the 
account given in the Acts of the part taken by St Paul and Apollos 
respectively in the foundation of the Church of Corinth : Acts xviii. 1—18 
with regard to St Paul, xviii. 24—xix. 1 with regard to Apollos. 

The Fathers put a very curious interpretation upon this passage: in 
order to refer ἐπότιζεν to baptism they applied ἐφύτευσα to the work of 
educating the catechumens. Thus Gregory Nyssen c. Zunom. ii. (p. 565) 


188 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [III. 6. 


φυτεύει μὲν διὰ τῆς κατηχήσεως ὁ ἀπόστολος, ποτίζει δὲ βαπτίζων ὁ ᾿Ἀπολλώς, 
Optatus, ‘de pagano catechumenon feci: 116 catechumenon baptizavit,’ 
and Petilianus af. Aug. iii. 53, and Augustine himself, Zfzs¢. 48. The 
interpretation is instructive, as showing a general fault of patristic 
exegesis, the endeavour to attach a technical sense to words in the N. T. 
which had not yet acquired this meaning. 

ngavev] Observe the change of tense from the aorist ἐφύτευσα, 
ἐπότισεν, to the imperfect. ‘God ever gave the increase,’ this being a 
continuous and gradual process. 

7,8. The argument is as follows: ‘Paul and Apollos are nothing: 
therefore you ought not to make them lords over you (ver. 7¥ Again, 
Paul and Apollos are one thing: therefore they ought not to be the 
occasion of dissension among you (ver. 8). Every word, especially in 
these earlier chapters, is charged with meaning. 

7. ὥστε] is explained by ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς ηὔξανεν. It is as if the Apostle 
had said, ‘ What are the planting and watering without the principle of 
growth? Therefore you ought not to regard the planter and waterer 
etc.” The contrast is implied in the adversative ἀλλά. 

ἐστίν m1] For εἶναί τι see Gal. ii. 6, vi. 15, Acts v. 36, viii. 9. 

ὁ αὐξάνων Θεός] i.e. ra πάντα ἐστι. Notice the order: ‘but He that 
giveth the increase, which is God.’ 

8. ὁ φυτεύων 8%] The particle either marks the opposition to ὃ 
αὐξάνων Θεός which has just preceded, or introduces the second application 
‘but again.’ 

ἕν εἰσιν] ‘are one thing, i.e. ‘are working for one and the same end, 
are part of the same administration : and therefore ought not to be the 
cause of divisions.’ Observe how their independence is sunk in the form 
of the expression (ἕν). 

ἕκαστος δὲ] Here the particle is corrective : ‘though they are one, yet 
they will each severally etc.’ Just as their individuality had been ignored 
in ἕν εἰσιν of the former clause, so now it is especially emphasized in this 
new aspect by ἕκαστος and by the repetition of τὸν ἴδιον, ‘congruens 
iteratio, antitheton ad wzum’ Bengel. 

9. Θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί] It is better to refer yap to the first clause 
in the preceding verse and to treat ἕκαστος δὲ..«κόπον as parenthetical. 
‘We are a part of one great scheme, for we are fellow-workers with God.’ 
Observe the emphatic @cod—emphatic both from its position and from its 
repetition. All things are referred to Him. 

συνεργοί] ‘labourers together with God, ‘fellow-labourers with God, 
as the E. V., not, as others take it, ‘ fellow-labourers in the service of God.’ 
See note on 1 Thess. iii. 2, where the transcribers have altered the text in 
order to get rid of so startling an expression as ‘fellow-workers with 
God.’ 

Θεοῦ γεώργιον, Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε] The former of these metaphors has 
been already applied (vv. 6—8): and now the latter is expanded (vv. 





III. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 189 


1to—17). Thus ‘God’s husbandry, God’s building’ is the link which 
connects the two paragraphs together. Of the two images γεώργιον implies 
the organic growth of the Church, οἰκοδομὴ the mutual adaptation of its 
parts. Οἰκοδομὴ is a later form of οἰκοδόμημα: see Lobeck Phryn. 
p. 481 sq., Buttm. Gm ὃ 121. 

10. St Paul had hitherto dwelt on the metaphor of the husbandry ; 
he now turns to that of the building. The former metaphor was best 
adapted to develope the essential unity of the work, the latter to 
explain the variety of modes in which the workmen might carry out 
the labour. 

κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] This is not a mere empty form of words. It 
is emphatic from its position. ‘If I laid the foundation, I cannot take to 
myself the credit of the work. The honour is due to God.’ St Paul is 
still dwelling on the same idea, which he brings out in the thrice repeated 
Θεοῦ of the preceding verse. 

For the expression itself and for the emphatic position in which it is 
placed compare Acts xv. 11 ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ πιστεύο- 
μεν σωθῆναι. Where it is necessary for him to speak of his work, he is 
careful to exclude boasting at the outset. Χάρις is the watchword of St 
Paul. It is the objective element, the divine counterpart, corresponding 
to the subjective element, the human correlative πίστις ; cf. Eph. ii. 8 τῇ 
yap χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως. It is opposed to νόμος (Rom. 
vi. 14), as πίστις is to ἔργα. 

σοφὸς] ‘skilful, the correct epithet to apply to proficiency in any 
craft or art. Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 7 τὴν δὲ σοφίαν ἐν ταῖς τέχναις τοῖς 
ἀκριβεστάτοις τὰς τέχνας ἀποδίδομεν" οἷον Φειδίαν λιθουργὸν σοφὸν καὶ 
Πολύκλειτον ἀνδριαντοποιόν. The expression σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων occurs in 
Is. iii. 3. 

θεμέλιον] The dictum of Moeris θεμέλια καὶ θεμέλιον οὐδετέρως, arrixas’ 
θεμέλιοι καὶ θεμέλιος, κοινῶς (cf. Thom. Magister) is not borne out by its 
usage in extant passages. For an instance of the neuter in the κοινὴ see 
Acts xvi. 26, and of the masculine in Attic see Thucyd. i. 93. The singular 
masculine and neuter seem equally rare in Attic writers (no instances 
given in the common lexicons), though not uncommon in the κοινή (cf. e.g. 
Polyb. I. 40. 9, not cited in the lexx.). The word is properly an adjective 
and therefore when used in the masc. λίθος is understood. Cf. Aristoph. 
_ AV. 1137 γέρανοι θεμελίους καταπεπωκυῖαι λίθους. 

ἔθηκα] the better supported reading, is more appropriate here. The 
more absolute τέθεικα ‘I have laid’ would savour somewhat of arrogance, 
_and would better describe the office of God than of the human agent. 
See the note on κείμενον ver. 11. 

᾿ ἄλλος δὲ] The reference is not solely to Apollos, for he was only one out 
of many teachers who had built up the Corinthian Church. Cf. ἕκαστος 
δέ. At the same time, occurring as it does so soon after the mention of 
Apollos (ver. 6), it suggests the idea that St Paul feared that Apollos 


δὰ. .ι.-. 
4 


190 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [III. το. 


might not be quite free from blame: that he might have conceded too 
much to the cravings of the ears and intellect of the Corinthians. 

mas ἐποικοδομεῖ] ‘what is the character of the building he erects 
thereupon’; including the character of the materials, which are specified 
afterwards, but not restricted to them. ‘ My caution,’ says St Paul, ‘has 
reference to the building up, for the superstructure may be built up in 
many ways (and therefore care is needed): but only one foundation is 
possible,’ 

St Paul refuses to conceive the possibility of any professedly Christian 
teacher laying any other foundation. The foundation is already laid for 
him. In exactly the same spirit he speaks of the impossibility of there 
being more than one Gospel in Gal. i. 6, 7 θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως 
μετατίθεσθε...εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο κιτιλ. The word δύναται 
here must not be emptied of its meaning. 

11. παρὰ τὸν κείμενον] ‘besides that which lieth} stronger than τὸν 
τεθέντα which ἔθηκα (ver. 10) would lead us to expect, or even than τὸν 
τεθειμένον. The foundation is already laid, when the workman begins his 
work, Τὸν κείμενον asserts the position of the foundation stone to be 
absolutely independent of human interference. 

St Paul is here inconsistent in his language only that he may bring 
out the truth more fully. He had before spoken of himself as a skilful 
architect. Now he says that no one could have done otherwise than 
he has done. He had before asserted that he had laid the foundation 
stone. Now he affirms that the foundation stone was already laid for 
him. 

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός) The one only foundation stone is the personal 
Saviour, the historical Christ. Observe that it is not Χριστός alone—no 
ideal Christ—no theories or doctrines about Christ—not faith in Christ— 
but Jesus Christ himself, ‘the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever’ (Heb. 
xiii. 8). 

Our Lord is here represented as the foundation stone (θεμέλιος), else- 
where the chief corner stone, ἀκρογωνιαῖος (Eph. ii. 20). He is the basis on 
which the Church rests, and the centre of her unity. 

12. In the passage which follows there seems to be a clear allusion to 
the prophecy of Malachi iii. 1 sq. ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος 
...kal τίς ὑπομενεῖ ἡμέραν εἰσόδου αὐτοῦ...διότι αὐτὸς εἰσπορεύεται ὡς πῦρ 
χωνευτηρίου.. «καὶ καθιεῖται χωνεύων καὶ καθαρίζων ὡς τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ ὡς τὸ 
χρυσίον, ἵν. 1 διότι ἰδοὺ ἡμέρα ἔρχεται καιομένη ὡς κλίβανος καὶ φλέξει 
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔσονται...οἱ ποιοῦντες ἄνομα καλάμη καὶ ἀνάψει αὐτοὺς ἡ ἡ 
ἡ ἐρχομένη, i.e. the fire shall purify the nobler materials, the silver 
gold, and consume the baser material, the stubble. The application 
of the metaphor of the ‘fire’ and the ‘day’ here however is somewhat 
different. 

εἰ δέ τις] i.e. but on the other hand the character of the superstru 
may vary, and these varieties will be made manifest, 
























III. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. IgI 


χρυσίον x.t.d.] i.e. durable materials as gold, silver and costly stones, 
or perishable materials as wood, hay and stubble. The words go in 
threes, of a palace on the one hand, of a mud hovel on the other. The 
idea of splendour however seems to be included in the first triad. The 
structure is at once a palace adorned with gold and silver and precious 
stones no less than a palace firmly built of gold and silver and costly 
marbles. Tibull. iii. 3. 16 ‘Quidve domus prodest Phrygiis innixa colum- 
nis, Aurataeque trabes, marmoreumque solum.’ 

Χρυσίον, ἀργύριον, which represent the right reading here, differ 
from χρύσος, ἄργυρος (gold and silver simply) in signifying gold or silver 
made up in some way, as in coins, plate etc. The λίθοι τίμιοι are perhaps 
‘costly marbles.’ Perhaps however ‘precious stones, jewels’ may be 
meant, and the description here is not intended to apply to any actual 
building, but to an imaginary edifice of costly materials as the New 
Jerusalem. Cf. Rev. xxi. 18, 19 καὶ ἡ πόλις χρυσίον καθαρὸν...οἱ θεμέλιοι 
τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ κεκοσμημένοι. The LXxX. use of the 
expression appears to vary between these two meanings. Thus in 2 Sam. 
_ ΧΗ, 30 τάλαντον χρυσίου καὶ λίθου τιμίου it is employed of a king’s crown, in 
1 Kings x. 2, 2 Chron. ix. 1,9 of the Queen of Sheba’s gifts. In other 
passages (1 Kings x. 11, 2 Chron. ix. 10) it seems to refer to marbles. 
Cf. also Ezek. xxvii. 12, 22.and esp. Dan. xi. 38. 

ξύλα, χόρτον, καλάμην] A hovel of which the supports would be of 
wood, and the hay and straw would be employed either to bind the mud 
or plaster together, or to thatch the roof. Compare Seneca £#. xc. 10, 
17 ‘Culmus liberos texit...non quaelibet virgea in cratem texuerunt manu 
et vili obleverunt luto, deinde stipula aliisque silvestribus operuere 
fastigium ?’ 

The question is raised here whether ‘the building’ represents ‘the 
body of believers,’ or ‘the body of doctrine taught.’ In favour of the 
first view is the direct statement Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε (ver. 9): in favour of 
the second, the whole context, which certainly has some reference to the 
character of the teaching. Perhaps we should say that neither is 
excluded, that both are combined. The building is the Church as the 
witness of the truth. Thus it is the doctrine exhibited in a concrete 
form, 

From the metaphor is derived the use of οἰκοδομή (-μεῖν -pia -μησις) in 
the sense of ‘instruction,’ ‘edification.’ This meaning seems not to occur 
in the LXx., and probably not in the classical writers. Indeed in the 
New Testament it is not found out of St Paul with the exception of 
Acts ix. 31 (for in Acts xx. 32 it occurs in a speech of St Paul); and 
therefore the prevalence of this metaphor of ‘ edification’ is probably due 
to the influence of his phraseology. See on 1 Thess. v. 11. 

The idea of an allusion in the whole passage to the conflagration of 
Mummius is too far fetched to commend itself. - 

13. ἑκάστου x.t..] The apodosis is framed, as if the protasis had 


192 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [III. 13. 


run otherwise—eire ris ἐποικοδομεῖ χρυσίον k.7.d....€ire ξύλα κιτιλ. whether 
the superstructure has been raised of durable or of perishable materials,’ 

τὸ ἔργον] The plural ra ἔργα is frequently used in a special sense 
of buildings, or ‘works’ as we say. That sense is less defined in the 
singular, but there may perhaps be a tinge of it here. Cf. e.g. Thuc. 
i. 90. 

ἡ ἡμέρα] ‘ze day. See the notes on 1 Thess. v. 2, 4. 

ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται)] The idea of manifestation, which 15 faintly 
involved in ἡμέρα, having been more definitely insisted upon in φανερὸν 
γενήσεται and δηλώσει, the manner of this manifestation is declared: ‘ it is 
revealed in fire’—a reference to Malachil.c. Cf. also 2 Thess. i. 8. 

ἐν πυρὶ] The idea of fire here is the connecting link between the idea 
of illumination which has hitherto prevailed and that of burning which 
now takes its place. By its destructive property the fire will test the 
stability of the work, purifying the better material and consuming the 
baser. The application is thus to a certain extent different from that in 
Malachi l. c. 

ἀποκαλύπτεται) For this use of the present see the note on 1 Thess. 
v. 2 ἔρχεται, and to the references there given add Luke xvii. 30. 

ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον] may either be the accusative case after δοκιμάσει, 
this being the more idiomatic construction; or on the other hand a 
suspended nominative. Rom. xii. 2 eis ro δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα is 
in favour of the nominative here; but a single passage should not 
weigh much, and the order of the words is against this construction. 

αὐτὸ] Though omitted in the T.R., αὐτὸ is probably genuine, the weight - 
of authority slightly preponderating in its favour. It is taken by Meyer 
closely with πῦρ ‘the fire itself,’ but it is not easy to see the force of the 
expression. Rather should it be considered as referring to ἑκάστου τὸ 
ἔργον, the pronoun being added by a pleonasm not uncommon in the 
N. T. ‘The fire shall test it.’ This idiomatic use will account for its 
omission. Similar omissions of the pleonastic pronoun occur in some 
MSS. on Matt. ix. 27, xxvi. 71, Luke viii. 27, xvii. 7. In other passages the 
stumbling block is removed by altering the form of the sentence. 

14. μένει) It is a question whether this verb is present or future. 
Though the future would accord with the following κατακαήσεται, yet on 
the other hand the present is the more forcible here, the notion of 
permanence being better expressed by it. Compare John viii. 35, xii. 34, 
1 Cor. xiii. 13 for μένειν in this tense. 

15. ζημιωθήσεται] ‘shall be mulcted of his reward, sc. τὸν μισθὸν 
understood from the previous verse. Cf. Deut. xxii. 19, Exod. xxi. 22, 
where ζημιοῦν is used with an accusative of the fine inflicted. The 
idea can be illustrated by 2 Joh. 8 iva μὴ ἀπολέσητε ἃ ἠργασάμεθα ἀλλὰ 
μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβητε. 

αὐτὸς δὲ] opposed to μισθόν. His reward shall be lost, but his person 
shall be saved. 








——— 


III. 15.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 193 


οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός] ‘but only as one passing through fire is saved’: 
i.e, with such a narrow escape. ‘Prope ambustus evaserat’ Livy xxii. 35. 
Much has been built on this passage. The Romish doctrine of purgatory 
has been supposed to be supported by it. But we must not press οὕτως 
ὡς as though the expression necessarily implies any actual fire. It is used 
equally to express a fact and a similitude. Thus in 1 Cor. iv. 1 οὕτως 
ἡμᾶς λογιζέσθω ἄνθρωπος ws ὑπηρέτας Χριστοῦ it expresses a fact, they were 
ministers; on the other hand in 1 Cor. ix. 26 οὕτως πυκτεύω ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα 
δέρων it introduces a metaphor. But the context decides the meaning to 
be metaphorical here. From beginning to end we cannot treat any part 
as literal to the exclusion of the rest (the ξύλα, χόρτος, καλάμη. There is 
no stopping at one point. If any further argument were needed, it would 
be found in the fact that a moral and not a physical agency is obviously 
required here. It would be rash to deny that St Paul conceived of the 
Lord appearing amidst an actual flame of fire: but the outward appear- 
ance is only the symbol of a spiritual power. Thus the light which 
accompanies the Lord’s appearing is a symbol of that light which 
He will shed on the thoughts and deeds of all men, the revelation of the 
hidden things of darkness: the flame of fire, which surrounds Him, 
betokens the powerful agency which consumes the inefficient work, and 
spares only the substantial labour. Here St Paul sees the thing symbol- 
ized in the symbol. See the notes on 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. 

Διὰ πυρὸς is here local, not instrumental ; cf. e.g. Rom. xv. 28 8¢ ὑμῶν 
εἰς Σπανίαν, and see Winer § 51, p. 452. For it is clearly an allusion to 
the proverbial expression of ‘passing through fire.’ This expression is 
equally common in classical Greek (compare Eur. Anvdr. 487 διὰ πυρὸς 
ἐλθεῖν, Eur. Electr. 1182 διὰ πυρὸς μολεῖν) and in the Old Testament. See 
Is. xliii. 2, Ps. Ixv. 12 διελθεῖν διὰ πυρός, Zech. xiii. 9 διάγειν διὰ πυρός, and 
for similar phrases Zech. iii. 2 ws δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός, I Pet. iii. 20 
διεσώθησαν δι’ ὕδατος. There is therefore no idea of purifying ‘by means 
of fire’ implied in the passage here. It simply denotes a hairbreadth 
escape. 

That the Apostle does not intend any purgatorial fire by this expres- 
sion will appear from the following considerations. (1) Fire is here 
simply regarded as a destructive agency. There is no trace here of the 
idea of refining or purging, an attribute elsewhere given to it, as in 
Malachi iii. 3, though even there the prophet seems to speak of purging 
the whole nation by destroying the wicked, not of purging sin in the 
individual man. (2) The whole image implies a momentary effect and 
not a slow, continuous process. The Lord shall appear in a flash of light 
and a flame of fire. The light shall dart its rays into the innermost 
recesses of the moral world. The flame shall reduce to ashes the super- 
structure raised by the careless or unskilful builder. The builder himself 
shall flee for his life. He shall escape, but scorched and with the marks 
of the flame about him. 


LEP, 13 





194 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [III. τό. 


16. οὐκ οἴδατε] The warning and the metaphor seem to come in 
somewhat abruptly, but there is a link of connexion, for vads is only a 
definition of the previous metaphor οἰκοδομὴ (ver. 9). The building has 
now become a temple. Compare Eph. ii. 20—22, where we have the 
same transition, first the building (ἐποικοδομηθέντες), then that building 
defined as a temple (eis ναὸν ἅγιον), lastly that temple described as the 
permanent abode (eis κατοικητήριον) of God in the spirit. Here ναὸς is 
more immediately suggested by the passage of Malachi which the 
Apostle has in his mind throughout, the temple there being one of the 
leading ideas (Mal. iii. 1). 

ναὸς Θεοῦ] ‘God’s temple, not ‘a temple of God.’ The Apostle is 
speaking of the community, not of the individual Christian. There is an 
allusion in these verses to the dissensions which are a corrupting of God’s 
temple. The metaphor is not from the many temples of the heathen, but 
from the one temple of Jerusalem. So Philo Monarch. ii. 1 (11. p. 223 
ed. Mangey) προενόησε δὲ ὡς οὔτε πολλαχόθι ovr’ ἐν ταὐτῷ πολλὰ κατασκευ- 
ασθήσεται ἱερὰ δικαιώσας ἐπειδὴ εἷς ἐστὶ Θεὸς καὶ ἱερὸν εἶναι μόνον. 

οἰκεῖ] The ναός, the inward shrine or sanctuary, was regarded as the 
abode of the deity (from vaiew ‘to dwell’). Of course this was the case 
with heathen deities, but in a certain sense it was also true of the temple 
at Jerusalem ; for though God ‘dwelleth not in temples made with hands’ 
(Acts xvii. 24), yet the symbol of His presence, the Shechinah, was there. 
Hence St Luke (xi. 51) calls the inner temple the οἶκος, where another 
evangelist has ναὸς (Matt. xxiii. 35). Observe however that, in the case 
of the Christian community, the word is appropriate not because the 
image of the deity was there, as in heathen temples, nor the symbol, 
as in the Jewish temple, but because the Spirit of God was the 
Indweller. 

17. φθείρει, pOepet] The same word is studiously kept to show that 
the offender is requited in kind. Compare Acts xxiii. 2, 3 ἐπέταξεν τύπτειν 
αὐτοῦ τὸ στόμα...Τύπτειν σε μέλλει 6 Θεός, where we must recollect that St 
Paul is speaking. The same English word then ought to have been 
preserved at all hazards in the A. V. For the metaphor compare Ign. 
Eph. ὃ 16 μὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί μου, οἱ οἰκοφθόροι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ ov KAnpovo- 
μήσουσιν x.t-d., following immediately after § 15 πάντα οὖν ποιῶμεν ὡς αὐτοῦ 
ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικοῦντος, ἵνα ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοί. 

A comparison with vi. 19 is instructive. Here it is a subtle and 
disputatious spirit, there moral impurity, which violates the temple of the 
Spirit. The two passages together condemn the leading vicious tenden- 
cies of the Corinthian character. 

18. δοκεῖ] ‘seemeth to himself? This is the usual (though perhaps 
not the universal) sense of δοκεῖν in St Paul : comp. vii. 40, viii. 2, x. 12, 
XIV. 37 etc. 

ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ] The idea is not temporal, but ethical, moral : the 
mundane order of things as opposed to the eternal, the heavenly. 





111. 22.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 195 


19.΄ ὁ δρασσόμενος x.7.A.] ‘he that seizeth the wise’; a quotation from 
Job v. 13, the only quotation from Job in the N. T. The Apostle however 
translates from the Hebrew himself, substituting two more forcible 
expressions for the LXX. 6 καταλαμβάνων σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ φρονήσει αὐτῶν. St 
Paul’s rendering of D1 by πανουργία is the more correct, as the adjective 
Diy is generally translated πανοῦργος in the LXx. 

The words, it will be observed, are the words of Eliphaz, but they 
are appropriated because of their intrinsic truth. Compare Gal. iv. 
30, where the language of Sarah is cited as Scripture (ἡ γραφή), 
and Matt, xix. 5, where apparently the words of Adam are quoted 
as the voice of God. 

20. καὶ πάλιν] Taken from the Lxx. of Ps. xciv. (xciii.) 11, τῶν σοφῶν 
however being substituted for τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Here the LXxx. follows the 
Hebrew more closely, but ‘there seems to be a reminiscence of the 
original in the next words ἐν ἀνθρώποις᾽ (Stanley). : 

διαλογισμοὺς} ‘the reasonings, ‘thoughts’: not ‘the disputations.’ 
This is the sense of the word in the original and therefore is decisive for 
us here, besides being the usual meaning of διαλογισμοὶ in the N. T. See 
the note on Phil. ii. 14. 

21. ἐν ἀνθρώποις] i.e. ‘in human teachers,’ returning to what he has 
said in i. 31. 

πάντα yap ὑμῶν ἐστίν] The whole universe, as it were, lies at the 
feet of the true disciple of Christ. Compare Rom. viii. 28, where the 
same idea is expressed in not quite such strong language. This mode of 
speaking is perhaps borrowed from Stoic phraseology ; but though the 
Stoics certainly talked in this way, the application is different. Zeno (af. 
Diog. Laert. vii, 1. 25) may say καὶ τῶν σοφῶν δὲ πάντα εἶναι, Cicero (Acad. 
ii. 44) ‘omnia, quae ubique essent, sapientis esse,’ Seneca (de Benef. vii. 
2, 3) ‘emittere hanc dei vocem Haec omnia mea sunt’; but though the 
Stoic and Christian phraseology may be the same, how striking the real 
contrast of sentiment! Instead of assigning all virtues to the wise, it is 
just to the wise that St Paul denies them. They belong, so to speak, to the 
fools (οἱ μωροί). Again, instead of assigning this universal dominion to 
the isolation of self, he bestows it upon the negation of self, the absorption 
or incorporation of self in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ). All things are the believer’s ; 
but they are only his, in so far as he is Christ’s, and because Christ is 
God’s. See Philippians, p. 304 sq. 

22. Παῦλος, ᾿Απολλώς, Κηφᾶς] He begins with the human teachers. 
‘They αἱ belong to you, they are your slaves; you each individually 
take one of them as a party-leader, but they are a@// yours.’ He starts 
from this, as being the point at issue: and then he goes on, ‘ Indeed the 
whole universe, the whole order of things is yours.’ Here κόσμος is best 
taken by itself, the rest hanging together in pairs. ‘Whether life or 
a death.’ Again an exhaustive division, but this time with reference to 

the subjective state. Life and death are antagonistic to each other, are 


13—2 





va 


196 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [III. 22. 


mutually exclusive; yet either state ministers alike to the good of the 
faithful. Compare Rom. viii. 38, Phil. i. 21, and for ἐνεστῶτα, μέλλοντα see 
the note on Gal. i. 4. 

23. ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ] ‘ But this mastery of the universe is only yours 
by virtue of your incorporation in Christ, your participation in His 
sovereignty.’ 

Xpiords δὲ Θεοῦ] It is not the human but the divine nature of Christ 
to which the Apostle alludes. This interpretation is necessary for the 
proper understanding of the Nicene Creed ; necessary for the preservation 
of the Unity of the Godhead, while confessing the divinity of Christ. 
Compare St John xvii. 7, 8, 21—23. 





CHAPTER IV. 


Human preferences worthless: the divine tribunal alone final 
(iv. I—5). 

I. οὕτως] The adverb does not go with what precedes ‘this being 
so,’ ‘therefore’; but is to be taken closely with ὡς : comp. iii. 15, ix. 26, 
2 Cor. ix. 5, Eph. v. 33. The order of the words seems imperatively to 
demand this, because otherwise we can give no account of the position of 
ἡμᾶς, which then becomes the principal word in the sentence. Eph. v. 28 
οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾷν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα 
has a very different order and force. ‘So ought the husbands also to love 
their wives as their own bodies.’ If οὕτως be taken as the principal word 
and joined with ὡς, ἡμᾶς falls at once into insignificance, as the sense 
demands. 4 

οἰκονόμους] ‘stewards of the mysteries, i.e. teachers of the revealed 
truths. The church is the οἶκος (1 Tim. iii. 15), God the οἰκοδεσπότης 
(Matt. xiii. 52), the members the οἰκεῖοι (Gal. vi. 10, Eph. ii. 19, where see 
the notes). See also especially the notes on οἰκονομίαν Col. i. 25, Eph. 


20. 





2. ὧδε] This reading has the vast preponderance of evidence. The 
same change into ὁ δὲ has been made in Luke xvi. 25, where it is quite 
impossible to connect with the previous sentence, as the reading ὁ δὲ 
would require. Compare also Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9. ‘Oe never has any 
other than a local sense in the N. T., ‘here,’ ‘in this matter’; but it must 
be taken with what follows, as is distinctly done by the principal versions 
(Vulg. Pesh. Memph.). 

λοιπὸν κιτ.λ.] ‘for the rest, it ἐς required (generally the force of ζητεῖν) 
that a man be found trustworthy’ (passive, see Galatians, p. 155). 

3. ἐμοὶ δὲ «.r.d.] ‘but to me it amounts to the smallest of all matters 
that I should be examined by you or by man’s day. For eis after εἶναι in 
the sense of ‘it comes to’ compare vi. 16 écovrat...eis σάρκα μίαν. Some- 
what different is the expression in Col. ii. 22 ἅ ἐστιν εἰς φθορὰν ‘ destined 
to,’ where see the note. On the technical sense of dvaxpivew here see 
above on ii. 15. 


I 98 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. {IV. 3. 


ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας] The A. V. somewhat boldly translates ‘man’s 
judgment’; but the word is put here because it is in opposition to ἡ 
ἡμέρα Of iii. 13 ‘the Lord’s day.’ The meaning is ‘by any day fixed by 
man.’ The idea of a day as implying judgment is common in Hebrew, 
and would be directly assisted by such expressions as ‘diem dicere,’ ‘to 
fix a day for judgment.’ Compare the English ‘daysman,’ which contains 
the same idea (Wright’s Bible Word Book s. v.). 

4. οὐδὲν γὰρ x.t.d.] ‘for though I know nothing against myself, yet! 
It is important to see exactly what the Apostle’s meaning is. It is simply 
a hypothetical case. ‘For supposing I am conscious of no guilt in 
myself, yet am I not thereby justified.’ The most saintly of men are the 
most conscious of guilt in themselves, and St Paul would be the last to 
make an absolute statement to the contrary. The sentence means ‘on 
the supposition that I am not conscious, though I am.’ Other instances 
of the second sentence qualifying the first are (1) Rom. vi. 17, where the 
force of the passage is ‘Thanks be to God that though we were slaves to 
sin, we have obeyed,’ (2) Matt. xi. 25 ‘that while thou hast concealed 
these things from the wise and prudent, thou hast revealed them’ etc., 
and (3) John iii. 19, where it is not true to say that the judgment 
consisted in the fact of the light coming into the world, but, light having 
come into the world, the judgment is this that men loved darkness rather 
than light. Here then the sentence is put as a pure hypothesis. 

‘I know nothing by myself’ is simply an archaism: compare 
Cranmer’s letter to Henry VIII. quoted in Wright’s Bzble Word Book, ‘1 
am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen.’ For 
the idea cf. Horace Zfist. i. 1. 61 ‘nil conscire sibi nulla pallescere 
culpa.’ 

᾿ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ] Comp. Ign. Rom. § 5 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι, a 
reminiscence of this passage. 

5. πρὸ καιροῦ] i.e. ‘do not therefore anticipate the great judgment 
(κρίσις) by any preliminary investigation (ἀνάκρισις), which must be futile 
and incomplete.’ 

ὁ Κύριος] There seems to be here a secondary allusion to the 
technical sense of κύριος as the properly constituted authority, e.g. Plato 
Legg. viii. p. 848C κύριος ἔστω τῆς νομῆς, Arist. Pol. ii. 9 (p. 1270 ed. 
Bekker) κύριος εἶναι κρίσεων μεγάλων, ii. 11 (p. 1273) ἀλλὰ κύριοι κρίνειν 
εἰσι. See also the note on iii. 5 and cf. vii. 22. 

ὃς καὶ φωτίσει «.1.d.] i.e. ‘Who will reveal all the facts, bring all the 
evidence to light ; thus superseding the necessity of this human ἀνάκρισις ; 
and will make manifest the counsels of men’s hearts, and then shall his 
due praise accrue to each one from God. ‘O ἔπαινος is ‘the praise due to 
him,’ whether small or great, whether much or none. Compare Rom. ii. 
29 οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, where the force of the 
article is lost in the A. V. 





IV. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 199 


(d).- Contrast between the self-satisfied temper of the Corinthians 
and the sufferings and abasement of the Apostles (iv. 6—21). 


6. ταῦτα δὲ «.7.A.] ‘But though I have spoken only of Paul and 
Apollos, you must not suppose that the remarks refer to these solely 
or chiefly. I used the name of Paul and Apollos : but I alluded especially 
to others’—the Judaizing factions doubtless, with whom probably the 
party-spirit, as such, was strongest. 

μετεσχημάτισα] ‘J transferred by a figure to myself and Apollos, that 
taking us as an illustration ye might learn not to exceed what ts written 
in scripture. ¥ 

We find from both Greek and Latin writers that σχῆμα (schema) was 
used at this time especially (and almost exclusively) to imply a rhetorical 
artifice, by which, either from fear or respect or some other motive, the 
speaker veiled the allusion to individuals under an allegory or a feigned 
name or’in any other way. Thus Quintilian says (ix. 2) ‘Jam ad id genus 
...veniendum est in quo per quandam suspicionem, quod non dicimus 
accipi volumus...quod et supra ostendi jam fere solum schema a nostris 
vocatur et inde controversiae figuratae dicuntur.’ It appears therefore 
that this sense of a ‘covert allusion’ had almost monopolized the meaning 
of schema in Quintilian’s day : compare Martial iii. 68. 7 ‘schemate nec 
dubio sed aperte nominat illam.’ Another Latin term equivalent to 
‘schema’ was ‘figura.’ Suetonius Dom. 10 ‘occidit Hermogenem Tar- 
sensem propter quasdam in historia figuras,’ and this explains the 
‘controversiae figuratae’ above. St Paul therefore says, ‘I have applied 
these warnings to myself and Apollos for the purpose of a covert allusion, 
and that for your sakes, that ye may learn this general lesson.’ 

ἐν ἡμῖν] ‘22 our case, ‘by our example, i.e.‘ by this μετασχηματισμὸς to 
ourselves.’ 

μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται] “ποΐ to go beyond what ts written in scripture’ ; 
apparently a proverb, or at any rate in a proverbial form ; hence its 
elliptical dress : compare Terence Azdr. I. 1. 61 ‘id arbitror Adprime in 
vita esse utile ut ne quid nimis.’ The insertion of φρονεῖν after μὴ in the 
Textus Receptus illustrates the tendency to smooth down these ellipses 
of St Paul by insertions: see v. I ὀνομάζεται, xi. 24 κλώμενον, and the notes 
on 2 Thess. ii. 3 ὅτι, 1 Cor. i. 26 οὐ πολλοί, 31 ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται. 
Passages in the Apostle’s mind would doubtless be those quoted by him 
on i. 19, 31, iii. 19, 20. 

φυσιοῦσθε] For the present indicative after ἵνα comp. Gal. iv. 17 ἵνα 
αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε with the note. It is conceivable however that in both 
these cases we have a dialectic form of the conjunctive of verbs in -oa. 

7. τίς γάρ σε διακρίνει ;] ‘for who ts he that maketh a difference in 
thee 2?’ ‘who differentiates thee from another?’ 

8. The Apostle bursts out in impassioned irony. ‘ You, it appears, are 
to be exalted by the Christian dispensation. You are eager to seize all 


a* 


200 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [IV. 8. 


the advantages, to aim at all the elevation ; but you will leave to us all 
the hard work, all the indignities, all the sufferings. It is a very easy 
thing to claim all the privileges of your calling.’ 

κεκορεσμένοι] An allusion probably to Deut. xxxi. 20 καὶ φάγονται καὶ 
ἐμπλησθέντες κορήσουσι καὶ ἐπιστραφήσονται ἐπὶ θεοὺς ἀλλοτρίους, comp. 
Deut. xxxii. 15. They are filled and (as the Apostle implies) have waxed 
wanton. 

ἐπλουτήσατε, ἐβασιλεύσατε] The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply 
indecent haste. Here we meet with Stoic phraseology once more: see 
the note on iii. 21. 

συμβασιλεύσωμεν] For their triumph, supposing it to be genuine, 
would be his triumph also. They were his στέφανος καυχήσεως. Genuine 
however it was not: this is the force of the aorist after ὄφελον without ἄν. 

9. δοκῶ yap] ‘As it is, so far from being kings, we are the refuse of 
society. For, I fancy, God exhibited us, the Apostles, last of all as 
condemned criminals: for we were made a spectacle to the whole world, 
aye to angels and men.’ 

τοὺς ἀποστόλους] He adds the words not to claim this position for 
himself alone. 

ἀπέδειξεν] a technical word here, like the Latin ‘edere’ (Suet. Aug. 45 
‘edere gladiatores, Livy xxviii. 21 ‘munus gladiatorium’). ‘He brought 
us out in the arena of this world’s amphitheatre.’ We have the same 
metaphor in xv. 32 ἐθηριομάχησα. Tertullian (de pudic. 14) takes up the 
idea ‘velut bestiarios.’ 

ἐσχάτους] ‘last of ail) i.e. to make the best sport for the spectators. 
The Apostles were brought out to make the grand finale, as it were. The 
reference to ἔσχατοι would be to the prophets and martyrs under the Old 
Covenant (Heb. xi. 33 sq., esp. vv. 39, 40). 

ἐπιθανατίους) ‘condemned criminals. In this sense Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus, speaking of the Tarpeian Rock, says (A. &. vii. 35) 
ὅθεν αὐτοῖς ἔθος βάλλειν τοὺς ἐπιθανατίους. 

θέατρον] The Greek word may mean (1) the place, (2) the spectators, 
(3) the actors in the spectacle, or (4) the spectacle itself. The last meaning 
is the one used here and is the rarest (Hesych. @éarpov* θέαμα ἢ civaypa). 

καὶ ἀγγέλοις] Καὶ is not exclusive of what went before, but singles out 
the ἄγγελοι for special attention. Compare ix. 5 of λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ 
ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς, Acts i. 14 σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ Μαριάμ. For the 
angels as interested spectators of man’s doings see xi. 10, 1 Tim. v. 21. 

12. épyatépevor.] He had done this at Corinth before (Acts xviii. 3) ; 
he was doing it at Ephesus when he wrote (Acts xx. 34). 

13. ϑυσφημούμενοι)] A rare word, and like γυμνιτεύομεν, ἀστατοῦμεν 
above and περικαθάρματα, περίψημα below, a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N. T. 
Hence the change in many MSS. to the common word βλασφημούμενοι. 
It occurs however in 1 Macc. vii. 41. 

περικαθάρματα] ‘ sweepings, offscourings’ This is the primary meaning 





IV. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 201 


of the word. But the Apostle is carrying on the metaphor of ἐπιθανατίους 
above. Both περικαθάρματα and περίψημα were used especially of those 
condemned criminals of the lowest classes who were sacrificed as expia- 
tory offerings, as scapegoats in effect, because of their degraded life. It 
was the custom at Athens to reserve certain worthless persons who in 
case of plague, famine or other visitations from heaven, might be thrown 
into the sea, in the belief that they would cleanse away, or wipe off, the 
guilt of the nation. Hence they were called κάθαρμα. The word sometimes 
corresponds to φαρμακοί, those slaves who were sacrificed for the good of 
the state, as being too vile to live (see Hermann Griech. Alterth. 
Gottesdienst. ὃ 60). Though the simple form is more common, περικά- 
θαρμα occurs in Epictetus (iii. 22. 78) of Priam ὁ πεντήκοντα γέννησας 
περικαθάρματα, see also Prov. xxi. 18 περικάθαρμα δικαίου ἄνομος. 

τοῦ κόσμου, πάντων] These genitives refer to the people both from 
whom and for whom the lives are sacrificed. 

περίψημα] On this word see the note on Ign. Eff. 8. It is not 
uncommon in the writings of the sub-apostolic age (Ign. Zp. 8. 18, Ep. 
Barn. 4, 6). 

15. παιδαγωγοὺς] See the note on Gal. iii. 24. 

17. ἔπεμψα] Probably a little before the letter, as xvi. 10 seems to 
imply. The aorist however is not decisive, nor is the notice in Acts xix. 
22. Timothy appears not to have reached Corinth. On his movements 
at this time and those of Titus see Biblical Essays, p. 273 sq. ‘The 
Mission of Titus to the Corinthians’ (especially p. 276 sq.). 

21. ἐν ῥάβδῳ] The Hebraism is the more natural, as it is an O. T. 
phrase, 1 Sam. xvii. 43 od ἔρχῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐν ῥάβδῳ, 2 Sam. vii. 14, xxiii. 21, 
Ps. ii. 9, Ixxxviii. 32. The Apostle offers the alternative: shall he come 
as a father or as a παιδαγωγός ὃ 


CHAPTER δῦ 


ii. THE CASE OF INCEST, v. I—Vi. 20. 


(a) The incest denounced: the offender to be cast out of the Church 
(v. I—13). 


1. We have come now to the main pivot of the letter, the leading 
motive of the Apostle in writing it. The Second Epistle likewise arises 
altogether out of this case and the way in which the Corinthians received 
St Paul’s rebuke. 

Who then was St Paul’s informant? Possibly the household of Chloe 
(i. 11), but more probably Stephanas and his household mentioned in 
xvi. 15 sq. For we notice an evident anxiety to shield them from the 
displeasure of the Corinthians. Hence the suppression of the informants’ 
names here. But this is pure conjecture. 

The connexion of this chapter with what precedes is twofold : (1) the 
condemnation of their vanity, involving the contrast between the spiritual 
pride of the Corinthians and the state of their Church, comp. iv. 18, 19 
with v. 2; and (2) the character of his intended visit, should it be made 
in love or not, comp. iv. 18, 19, 21 with v. 3. 

ὅλως] ‘altogether, ‘most assuredly’: almost equivalent to πάντως, 
‘prorsus. That ὅλως bears this sense in the N. T. appears from vi. 7, 
xv. 29, Matt. v. 34, the only passages where the word occurs. It is nota 
common meaning in itself, but is found in classical writers also, e.g. 
Plato Philebus 36B ἀλγοῦνθ᾽ ὅλως ἢ χαίροντα, Arist. Top. ©. 1. p. 152 1. 24 
ed. Bekker κἂν ὅλως χρήσιμον 7. 

ἀκούεται] ‘zs reported, i.e. is commonly known to exist : ἐν ὑμῖν to be 
connected with ἀκούεται rather than with πορνεία. 

mopveta] The context enables us to form some idea of what the crime 
was. (1) It wasa lasting, not a momentary relation. This is inferred, 
not, as some take it, from πράξας (ver. 2) or κατεργασάμενον (ver. 3), but 
from ἔχειν (ver. 1). It might have been concubinage or marriage. (2) 
The former husband and father was still living: see 2 Cor. vii. 12 rod 
ἀδικηθέντος. (3) There had been a divorce or separation. The crime is 
called πορνεία, not μοιχεία. (4) As no censure is uttered on the woman 











V. 3.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 203 


in either Epistle, it may be inferred that she was not a Christian. Thus 
she was one of ‘those without,’ whom God would judge (v. 13). 

ἥτις οὐδὲ] On this ellipse see iv. 6 above. If a word had to be 
supplied, ἀκούεται would be preferable to ὀνομάζεται of the Textus Receptus ; 
but probably nothing so definite was intended. ᾿Ονομάζξεται comes ap- 
parently from Eph. v. 4. 

ἔθνεσιν] The heinousness of this form of sin among the Gentiles 
is well illustrated from Cicero 27γ0 Cluentio v. 14 ‘nubit genero socrus...o 
mulieris scelus incredibile, et praeter hanc unam...inauditum.’ See other 
passages given in Wetstein ad /oc. We may well ask how was this crime 
possible? It was probably due to the profligacy of the Corinthian 
Church, but it may be accounted for in another way. The Mosaic Law 
was very stringent on this point (Lev. xx. 11, Deut. xxii. 30). But some 
of the Rabbis had invented a subterfuge to escape its stringency. They 
allowed such a connexion in the case of a proselyte. He had, as it were, 
they said, undergone a new birth; he had thus been taken out of his old 
relationships, and thus this intercourse was allowable (so Rabbi Akibah). 
It is quite possible that some subterfuge of this kind may have had its 
influence in excusing this crime to the man himself and to the Church. 

2. ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ] ‘You vaunt your higher wisdom, you are 
proud of your spiritual gifts, you are puffed up ; while this plague-spot is 
eating like a canker at the vitals of the church.’ The ὑμεῖς prepares us 
for the following ἐγὼ μὲν (ver. 3). 

ἐπενθήσατε) ‘ye ought rather to have put on mourning, i.e. when 
it came to your ears. Observe the change of tenses. Ἐπενθήσατε is 
more than éAumyénre. It involves the idea of the outward exhibition 
of humiliation and grief, and is especially used of funerals : see Matt. ix. 
15 and Gen. l. 10 ἐποίησε τὸ πένθος τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. ‘Ye should have 
clothed yourselves with sackcloth: ye should have humbled yourselves 
before God.’ 

τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας] This is the reading, not ποιήσας, which is 
weaker and less technical ; comp. ἐν τῷ πράγματι 1 Thess. iv. 6 (with the 
note). πράξας brings out the moral aspect of the deed. The whole 
expression is a sort of euphemism. 

3: ἐγὼ μὲν γάρ] ‘for 7 for my part. He contrasts his feelings with 
theirs. 

ἀπὼν] ‘albezt absent, i.e. ‘notwithstanding my absence, while you on 
the spot condoned the offence.’ The ὡς of the Textus Receptus is to be 
left out before ἀπών. It enfeebles the sense, and manuscript evidence is 
against it. For παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι comp. Col. ii. 5. 

ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρὼν] ‘have already decided as though I were present. 
The proper punctuation is to put a colon after παρών, and to take τὸν 
κατεργασάμενον as a prospective accusative, governed by παραδοῦναι and 
resumed in τὸν τοιοῦτον. For κέκρικα absolutely ‘I am resolved,’ a 
frequent use, see Pliny Z/. i. 12 ‘dixerat sane medico admonenti cibum 


204 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [V. 3. 


κέκρικα, Epict. ii. 15 etc. The form of the sentence can be illustrated 
by Acts xv. 38 Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίου τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας καὶ 
μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἔργον μὴ συνπαραλαμβάνειν τοῦτον, where we seem 
almost to hear the Apostle’s own words. 

οὕτως] The word aggravates the charge, ‘under circumstances such 
as these.’ 

4. Ofallthe various possibilities enumerated by Meyer, the connexion 
of words suggested by the order appears most natural and best accords 
with the sense. By it ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ K. Ἰ. is to be taken with συναχθέν- 
tev ὑμῶν, and σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ K. ἡμῶν Ἶ. with παραδοῦναι. Thus the 
inauguration of the proceedings, the gathering together, is in the name of 
the Lord, in accordance with Matt. xviii. 20; the action as the result is 
accompanied by His power. In the picture given, an imaginary court is 
formed and the Apostle’s spirit is represented as presiding. That some 
such a tribunal was actually held and the offender condemned appears 
from 2 Cor. ii. 6, where we learn the result in ‘the penalty inflicted by the 
majority.’ The bearing of this passage on the question of direct apostolic 
supervision in the earliest stage of the Church’s history is drawn out in 
Philippians, p. 198. 

5. παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον] ‘that we (or ye) should deliver so rank an 
offender as this.’ He is described in the same vague way in 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. 
The Apostle forbears to give his name. 

τῷ Σατανᾷ] We have just the same expression in I Tim. i.20. Satan 
is here spoken of as the instrument of physical suffering, just as in 2 Cor. 
xii. 7 St Paul’s own malady is described as ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ. This delivery 
to Satan is by virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an 
Apostle, and has its analogy in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira 
(Acts v. 1 54.) and Elymas (Acts xiii. 8sq.). He alludes to this power 
again in 2 Cor. xiii. το. That physical suffering of some kind is implied, 
the purpose being remedial, appears from 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 1 Tim. i. 20, 
2 Cor. xiii. 10 εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ eis καθαίρεσιν. Thus the instrumentality 
of Satan is used for a divine end. Of the two forms, Saray and Saravas, 
the first is the Hebrew word ; the second, a Grecised form of the Aramaic, 
is alone employed by St Paul: see on 1 Thess. ii. 18. 

els ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκὸς] Not merely a crushing of fleshly lusts, though 
this is involved in the expression ; but physical suffering also. 

6. τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν] ‘the subject of your boasting? What St Paul 
means is this: ‘there is nothing in you worth boasting about, as long as 
this plague-spot remains ; all your intellectual insight is worth nothing, is 
no matter of self-congratulation.’ For the contrast with καύχησις see the 
notes on Gal. vi. 4, Phil. i. 26. 

μικρὰ ζύμη] On the application of this proverb see the note on Gal. v. 
9, where it occurs again. That ζύμη here is not the sinner, but the sin or 
sinfulness, appears from ver. 8. Philo de vict. off 6 (1. p. 256 ed. Mangey) 
takes leaven as the symbol of inflation, pride (φυσηθεὶς ὑπ᾽ ἀλαζονείας). 


» tr a 


V. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 205 


This idea however is not present to St Paul’s mind here. Though pride 
is condemned in the context, yet the leaven here represents not the pride 
but the profligacy of the Corinthian Church. Elsewhere (de congr. erud. 
gr. 28 1. p. 542) Philo explains the metaphor otherwise τὸ μὴ oideiv 
καὶ ἀναζεῖν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις, which, he says, constitutes ἑορτὴ διανοίᾳ 
φιλάθλῳ. 

ζυμοῖ] A various reading δολοῖ occurs both here and in Gal. v. 9, 
chiefly in western authorities. Hence Jerome (on Gal. l. c.) says ‘male in 
nostris codicibus habetur modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit. 
The accusation of the Greeks against the Latins (see Mich. Cerul. in 
Tischendorf), that they read φθείρει, seems to be founded on a mistake. 
They retranslated ‘corrumpit,’ which was really a rendering, not of 
φθείρει, but of dodo Tertullian (de pudic. 13, 18, adv. Mare. τ. 2) has 
‘ desipit.’ 

7. ἐκκαθάρατε] A new turn is given to the metaphor, the mention of 
leaven suggesting the Paschal Feast. The reference is to the purging 
out the leaven on the eve of the Passover (Exod. xii. 15, xiii.7). The word 
in Ex. xii. 15 (LXX.) ἀφανιεῖτε ζύμην is very strong, ‘ye shall make it 
to vanish’ With what exactness this injunction was carried out appears 
from a passage in Chrysostom (p. 177 ed. Field μυῶν ὀπὰς περιεργάζονται, 
‘they even scrutinise mouse-holes to see that there is no leaven in them’), 
and is confirmed by statements quoted in Lightfoot H. H. I. p. 953 and 
Edersheim Zempie, p. 188. The passage in Zeph. i. 12 was considered to 
authorise a search with candles on this occasion. 

véov] On the distinction between νέος and καινὸς see the note on 
Col. iii. 10, and for the contrast between the old and the new, comp. also 
2 Cor. v. 17, Eph. iv. 22 sq. 

καθώς ἐστε ἄζυμοι] ‘even as ye are unleavened, i.e. ‘by the very terms of 
your Christian profession’; in other words, ‘that ye may fulfil the idea of 
your being,—may be, as ye profess to be, καινὴ κτίσις." 

Vain attempts have been made to give ἄζυμοι the sense of ‘eating 
unleavened bread.’ These destroy the point of the image. There isa 
double application of the metaphor here. The Corinthians are (1) the 
φύραμα itself, the lump which is leavened (vv. 6, 7), (2) then they become 
the keepers of the festival (vv. 7, 8), and the Apostle characteristically 
passes from the one to the other. Examples of these sudden inversions of 
metaphors have already been given in the note on 1 Thess. ii. 7. So here 
the Apostle has turned the metaphor about to find some new lesson 
which he could draw from it. 

καὶ γὰρ] ‘for besides.’ Here another analogy is introduced. Not only 
is there a Christian putting away of the leaven, but also a Christian 
paschal sacrifice. The passage gains much by the omission (with the 
best authorities) of the words ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, which blunt the point of the 
Apostle’s reference. All we want here is the fact of the sacrifice. 

τὸ πάσχα] ‘the paschal lamb’ : as frequently in the Gospels, Matt. xxvi. 


206 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [V.7. 


17 φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, Mark xiv. 12 τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον.. «ἵνα φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα, 
comp. ver. 14, Luke xxii. 7, 11) 15. 

ἐτύθη] ‘was sacrificed’ on the Cross. The A. V. loses the point 
by translating as a present or perfect. The reference is not to the 
passover as a type of Christ’s sacrifice, but rather to this sacrifice under 
the figure of the Paschal Feast. It is not the old as signifying the new, 
but the Paschal Lamb of the new dispensation. 

Xpriords] ‘even Christ. 

8, ἑορτάζωμεν] ‘et us keep perpetual feast. Chrysostom grasps the point 
when he says (p. 175) ἑορτῆς dpa ὁ παρὼν καιρός...δεικνὺς ὅτι πᾶς ὁ χρόνος 
ἑορτῆς ἐστι καιρὸς τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῶν δοθέντων ἀγαθῶν. 
There is some resemblance to St Paul’s language here in Philo de sacrif. 
Abel. et Cain. 33 (1. p. 184 sq.) τὸ τοίνυν φύραμα.. ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν αὐτοί... μόνος δὲ 
ἑορτάζει τὴν τοιαύτην ἑορτὴν ὁ σοφὸς κιτ.λ.,) but he is not speaking of the 
passover, 

κακίας kal πονηρίας] ‘malice and villainy.’ Kakia is the vicious disposi- 
tion, πονηρία the active exercise of it. The words occur together in Rom. 
i. 29. See Trench WV. 7. Syn. ὃ xi. p. 37 sq. and the note on Col. iii. ὃ 
κακίαν. 

ἀληθείας] In the widest sense of the word: comp. John iii. 21 ὁ ποιῶν 
τὴν ἀλήθειαν. This exercise of truth extends throughout all the domain of 
moral life: see Eph. iv. 15 ἀληθεύοντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ ‘holding the truth’ i.e. 
speaking and doing the truth. We have parallel applications of the 
metaphor in the sub-Apostolic age: Ign. Zag. 10 (where it applies to 
the leaven of Judaism) ὑπέρθεσθε οὖν τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθεῖσαν, καὶ 
ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Just. 
Mart. Dial. 14 p. 114 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύμβολον τῶν ἀζύμων, ἵνα μὴ 
τὰ παλαιὰ τῆς κακῆς ζύμης ἔργα πράττητε x.t.d., Clem. Hom. viii. 17 6 
Θεὸς αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ κακὴν ζύμην ἐξελεῖν ἐβούλετος For εἰλικρινίας see 
on Phil. i. 10 εἰλικρινεῖς. 

It has been suggested with great probability that we have in this verse 
a hint of the season of the year when the Epistle was written. This was, 
we know, towards the end of the Apostle’s stay at Ephesus, which place 
he hoped to leave about Pentecost (1 Cor. xvi. 8). It is thus probable 
that the Jewish Paschal Feast was actually impending. The natural way, 
however, in which the mention of the Passover arises here out of the 
proverb just quoted, deprives this suggestion of much of its force. 
Similarly a passage in the Second Epistle may have been suggested by 
the Feast of Tabernacles. The reference in 2 Cor. v. I sq. seems to be 
a comparison between the removal into their permanent dwellings after 
the destruction of the temporary booths, and our removal to a ‘ house not 
made with hands’ after the destruction of ‘our earthly house of the 
tabernacle.’ If we follow the narrative in the Acts, we see that the Second 


Epistle would probably have been written about the time of the Feast of 
Tabernacles. 


V. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 207 


9. ἔγραψα «.t.d.] ‘7 wrote unto you in my letter’? The Apostle is 
reminded here of general instructions which he had sent them in a former 
communication, and in the spirit of which he asks them now to act. The 
expression imperatively demands the hypothesis of a previous letter. This 
necessity does not lie in the word ἔγραψα, which might stand equally in 
the beginning or middle of a letter as at the end: see the note on 
Gal. vi. 11 πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα, where the question of the 
epistolary aorist is gone into and instances given, Philemon 19, 21 ἔγραψα, 
Col. iv. 8 ἔπεμψα with the notes, and Biblical Essays, p. 275 (note 1). In 
the Martyrdom of Polycarp for example immediately after the salutation 
occurs (§ 1) an epistolary aorist ἐγράψαμεν ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ra κατὰ τοὺς 
μαρτυρήσαντας καὶ τὸν μακάριον ἸΤολύκαρπον x.t.X., giving the purport of 
the letter of which it is the opening sentence. But the theory of a 
previous letter is rendered necessary by the words ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, Which 
are quite meaningless if applied to our extant Epistle. It is true that ἡ 
ἐπιστολή is a phrase used sometimes of the letter itself in which it occurs 
(Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Thess. v. 27, Col. iv. 16, and probably 2 Thess. iii. 14, see the 
notes on the last three passages) ; but in all these cases the expression 
occurs in a postscript, when the Epistle is considered as already at an 
end. These instances therefore are not to the point, and the same can 
be said of Martyrdom of Polycarp ὃ 20 τὴν ἐπιστολὴν διαπέμψασθε, where 
the document is regarded as concluded. But we have no example of the 
phrase occurring in the middle of a letter as here. Nor is the case 
met by the theory propounded by Stanley of a postscript note consisting 
of 1 Cor. v. 9—13 subsequently incorporated in the middle of the Epistle. 
For apart from the awkwardness of this hypothesis, the whole passage 
hangs together in close*connexion of thought: ver. 9 μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι 
mépvos arising naturally out of the mention of the leaven in vv. 6—8, and 
vi. I κρίνεσθαι being directly suggested by the κρίνειν, κρίνετε of vv. 12, 13. 
These links would not exist, if that theory were true. The hypothesis of 
a previous letter is as old as the first Latin commentator Ambrosiaster, 
and is accepted by Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Meyer and 
many others. It is likewise borne out by other expressions of St Paul to 
the Corinthians, viz. 2 Cor. vii. 8 εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, where 
the words cannot refer to the letter which he was inditing, but require a 
previous communication ; and especially 2 Cor. x. 10, 11, where the 
acknowledgement of the Corinthians that his ‘letters are weighty and 
powerful’ together with his own reply ‘Such as we are by letters when 
absent etc.’ cannot be explained quite satisfactorily by the single extant 
Epistle written before this date. See the whole question of lost letters of 
St Paul treated in Philippians, p. 138 sq. There are extant two letters, 
one purporting to be from St Paul to the Corinthians, the other from the 
Corinthians to St Paul, both obviously spurious, but held as canonical by 
the Armenian Church (see Stanley Corinthians, p. 591 sq. and my note 
on vii. 1 below). 


208 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [V. το. 


10. οὐ πάντως] ‘assuredly I did not mean’ The πάντως qualifies the 
οὐ, not the οὐ the πάντως. This is at least an allowable meaning (probably 
the general meaning) in classical Greek, see Cope’s Appendix to Gorgias, 
p. 13954., who however shows that οὐ πάνυ (we may extend the term to οὐ 
πάντως) need not necessarily mean ‘not at all’; and it becomes still more 
prominent in Biblical Greek as coinciding with a common Hebraism 
(Mark xiii. 20, Acts x. 14, 1 Joh. ii. 21, Apoc. vii. 16 etc., and 1 Cor. i 21 
above). Compare Clem. Hom. xix. 9 καὶ ὁ Πέτρος, Οὐ πάντως" ὁρῶμεν γὰρ 
πολλοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθοὺς ὄντας, Epist. ad Diogn. 9 οὐ πάντως ἐφηδό- 
μενος τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασιν ἡμῶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεχόμενος, where it would be impossible 
to give the sentence the meaning that God was ‘not altogether pleased’ 
with sin. Taken by itself the passage before us is not decisive, and 
might imply ‘it was not altogether my meaning’; but with the examples 
cited it is better to render it, as above, in the sense ‘it was altogether not, 
assuredly not, my meaning’: compare Rom. iii. 9. 

ἢ Tots πλεονέκταις Kal ἅρπαξιν ἢ εἰδωλολάτραις] Καὶ is the right reading. 
On the false interpretation of πλεονέκταις here to denote sins of sensuality 
see the note on Col. iii. 5. The καὶ connects πλεονέκταις with dpmwakw, 
which together form one notion; εἰδωλολάτραις introduces another, 
though a kindred, idea, see Col. 1. c. and Eph. v. 5. 

elSwdoAdtpais] Here again Stanley without sufficient reason attempts 
to put into this word a reference to sins of sensuality. The fact is there 
was a strong temptation for Christians living among heathen to play fast 
and loose with idolatrous rites. These rites might be licentious or not, 
but this further idea is not conveyed by the word itself. We have a 
prospective reference here to the discussion which is introduced subse- 
quently (ch. viii.) upon εἰδωλόθυτα (see esp. x. 21 tpamé{ns δαιμονίων). That 
this danger of idolatry even in the Christian Church was not an imaginary 
one appears from the warning given in 1 Joh. v. 21 rexvia, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ 
ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. 

The word εἴδωλον has a curious history. It originally means ‘a 
phantom, shadow,’ and so ‘ unreality’ as opposed to genuine truth. This 
is the sense in which Bacon uses the word ‘idols’ in his Vovum Organum, 
implying idle phantoms which lead men astray. It was then happily 
applied in the LXx. to false gods, as a translation, among other words, of 
the Hebrew bib, ‘nothingness.’ In the next stage, the word was applied 
to anything used as a representation of these false gods, and thus had 
attached to it: an idea the very reverse of its original meaning, viz. a 
tangible, material god as opposed to the Invisible God. The passage 
before us marks the first appearance of the compound εἰδωλολάτρης. 

ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα] The imperfect is the correct reading both from 
a vast preponderance of textual authorities and from the sense. ‘Ye 
ought to have done something, which has not been done,’ is the meaning 
of the imperfect, ‘ye ought to do something,’ of the present. The dpa 
declares the ἐπεὶ to be conditional. ‘Since in that case it would have 


V. 13.} FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 209 


been your duty, which it is not, to leave the world wholly.’ See vii. 14 
below, and comp. xv. 15 εἴπερ Gpa. 

11. νῦν δὲ] is ethical not temporal, ‘as matters stand,’ ‘the world 
being what it is.’ Comp. Rom. iii. 21, and esp. 1 Cor. vii. 14 ἐπεὶ dpa...viv 
δὲ, Heb. ix. 26 ἐπεὶ ἔδει..«νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ. The misinterpretation of ἔγραψα 
(ver. 9) has been partly aided by taking νῦν in its primary temporal 
sense. 

ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος] ‘called a brother, but not really deserving the 
name: comp. Rom. ii. 17 Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ. 

λοίδορος] Here again Stanley (on vi. 10) sees a reference to sins of 
sensuality ; but there is no indication of any such connexion in the N. T., 
see esp. I Pet. iii. 9. 

μέθυσος] This is an instance of the not unfrequent phenomenon of a 
word used first in a comic sense, which in later times becomes part of the 
common ‘stock of language, having lost its original ludicrous character. 
This is what is meant by grammarians who say that in Attic the word is 
never applied to men but to women. Pollux vi. 25 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ μεθύση καὶ 
μεθύστρια παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ τῷ κωμικῷ" ὁ yap μέθυσος ἐπὶ ἀνδρῶν Μενάνδρῳ 
δεδόσθω, which we may illustrate from Meineke Comm. Fragm., Menander 
IV. p. 88 πάντας μεθύσους τοὺς ἐμπόρους ποιεῖ, quoted originally in Athen. x. 
Ρ. 442}. Thus it was originally ‘tipsy,’ rather than ‘a drunkard’—Lucian 
Timon 55 μέθυσος καὶ mapowos οὐκ ἄχρις φδῆς καὶ ὀρχηστύος μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ 
λοιδορίας καὶ ὀργῆς. Other examples of words casting off all mean associa- 
tions in the later language are Ψψωμίζειν (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and χορτάζειν 
(Phil. iv. 12): see also other instances in Lobeck Phryn. p. 151sq. The 
elevation of ταπεινοφροσύνη under Christian influence is noticed in the 
note on Phil. ii. 3. 

12. τοὺς ἔξω] ‘ those outside the pale’ of the Church : see on Col. iv. 5. 

οὐχὶ κιτ.λ.}] Two points in the punctuation of this passage require a 
notice. (1) Is οὐχὶ to be taken separately ‘nay, not so,’ in which case 
κρίνετε would become an imperative? No; for (4) wherever οὐχὶ is so 
taken in the N. T., it is always followed by ἀλλά (Luke xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, 
xvi. 30, Rom. iii. 27): (4) the sentence is not a direct answer to ri γάρ μοι 
κιτλ. Οὐχὶ therefore is best taken with τοὺς ἔσω. (2) Is κρινεῖ to be 
read or κρίνειξ The present tense is probably right, (4) because more 
suited to the context, preserving the parallelism better ; (ὁ) because more 
emphatic and more in accordance with usage, comp. vi. 2 κρίνεται, 
Rom. ii. 16, John viii. 50 ὁ ζητῶν καὶ κρίνων. 

13. édpare «.t.A.] An adaptation of the command given Deut. xvii. 7 
καὶ ἐξαρεῖτε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, and repeated elsewhere (with varia- 
tions ἐξαρεῖς, τὸ πονηρὸν) of sins akin to this (Deut. xxii. 21 sq.). On ἐξ 
ὑμῶν αὐτῶν Bengel remarks ‘antitheton externas.’ 


L. EP. 14 


CHAPTER VI. 


(6) The Corinthian brethren apply to heathen courts to decide 
their disputes (vi. I—9). 


1. The close of the last paragraph suggests a wholly different subject. 
The Apostle had incidentally spoken of the right and wrong tribunals for 
judging offences against purity. Hence he passes to the question of 
litigation in heathen courts. 

Ἰολμᾷ τις ὑμῶν πρᾶγμα ἔχων] “Τολμᾷ grandi verbo notatur laesa 
majestas Christianorum’ says Bengel. Πρᾶγμα is the proper technical 
term for a lawsuit: for its forensic sense see the references in Meyer, 
and compare the technical sense of ‘negotium’ and f res.’ 

κρίνεσθαι] “Ὁ go fo aw,’ as in Matt. v. 40 τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι. The 
propriety of the forensic terms used here by St Paul is noteworthy : it is 
otherwise in Gal. iv. 1 sq., where see the notes. 

τῶν ἀδίκων, τῶν ἁγίων] The word ἄδικοι is borrowed from Jewish 
phraseology, just as δίκαιος was a faithful Israelite. It is chosen here 
rather than any other word, (1) because it enhances the incongruity of the 
whole action of seeking justice at the hands of the unjust : (2) because of 
the alliteration : see the note on Phil. ii. 2. On the rabbinical prohibition, 
which was based on Ex. xxi. 1, see Meyer, p. 163. 

2. τὸν κόσμον κρινοῦσιν] A reminiscence of Wisdom iii. 7, 8 ἐν καιρῷ 
ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν ἀναλάμψουσιν... κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη καὶ κρατήσουσιν λαῶν, of the 
souls of the righteous, which is decisive in favour of the future here: 
compare for the idea Daniel vii. 22 τὸ κρίμα ἔδωκεν ἁγίοις ὑψίστου. This 
office the saints will hold by virtue of their perfected ἐπίγνωσις, their com- 
pleted communion with the judgments of the Great Judge. This is a neces- 
sary part of the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Just as the faithful shall 
reign with Christ as kings (2 Tim. ii. 12, Rev. xxii. 5), so shall they sit with 
Him as judges of the world. The thought is an extension of the promise 
made to the Apostles (Matt. xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30) : comp. Rev. xx. 4. 

ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘defore you, among you, ‘in consessu vestro. This is a 
common use of ἐν when speaking of tribunals: see Aristides de Socrat. 1. 


VI. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 211:ι 


p. 128.ἐν ἡμῖν πρώτοις ὁ Φίλιππος ἐκρίνετο, Thuc. i. 53.1 ἐν δικασταῖς, and 
other references given in Wetstein and Meyer. 

κρίνεται)] The present tense denotes the certainty of the event. With 
Him is no before and no after: see the note on 1 Thess. v. 2 ἔρχεται. 

ἀνάξιοί ἐστε κ-τ.λ.7 i.e. unworthy to sit in the most trivial tribunals. 

κριτηρίων] The word κριτήριον is said by grammarians to have two 
meanings, (1) ‘a tribunal, court of judicature’ (so in the Lxx. Dan. vii. Io, 
Judg. v. 10), (2) ‘a trial’; but no passage quoted appears to demand this 
latter sense. Such instances as Lucian zm accus. 25 οὐδὲν ἡγεῖται κριτήριον 
ἀληθὲς εἶναι can readily bear the meaning of a ‘court of justice.’ St Paul’s 
injunction here is echoed in AZos¢. Const. ii. 45 μὴ ἐρχέσθω ἐπὶ κριτήριον 
ἐθνικόν. 

3. μήτιγε]ϊ An elliptical sentence, ‘let me not say, and so, ‘much 
more.’ See the references collected in Winer ὃ lxiv. p. 746 and Wetstein 
ad loc. Ἡ is frequent in the classics: e.g. Demosthenes Olynth. B. p. 24 
οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἐπιτάττειν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ τι ποιεῖν, μήτιγε δὴ τοῖς θεοῖς. 

βιωτικά] ‘things of this life.’ The word occurs also in Luke xxi. 34 
μερίμναις βιωτικαῖς, comp. Clem. Hom. i. 8 βιωτικὰ πράγματα, Marc. 
Anton. vi. 2 τῶν βιωτικῶν πράξεων. There is an important difference 
between Bios and ζωή. Ζωὴ signifies the principle of life, Bios the circum- 
stances and accidents of life ; thus ζωὴ is vita qua vivimus, βίος vita quam 
vivimus. With Aristotle Bios is the more important word of the two. He 
calls it λογικὴ ζωή : hence it follows that his conception of life was a low 
one. But when we come to the N. T., the principle of life is no longer 
physical but spiritual: accordingly ζωὴ is exalted, while βίος remains at 
its former level. In the N. T. ζωὴ is commonly, but not universally, used 
of the higher spiritual life, Bios is always employed of the lower earthly 
life, e.g. Luke viii. 14 τῶν ἡδονῶν τοῦ βίου, 2 Tim. ii. 4 τοῖς τοῦ βίου mpay- 
parias, τ Joh. ii. 16 ἡ ἀλαζονία τοῦ βίου, that is to say of the external 
concomitants of life. Thus Bios expresses the means of subsistence 
(Luke xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4, and 1 Joh. iii. 17, where it is contrasted with the ζωὴ 
of two verses earlier). For the contrast of the two words compare Origen 
c. Cels, iii. τό περὶ τῆς ἑξῆς τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ ζωῆς προφητεύσαντος, Clem. Hom. 
xii. 14 τοῦ ζῆν τὸν βίον μεταλλάξαι. See also the note on Ign. Rom. 7. 

4. τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους] Several modern commentators take the sen- 
tence as though xa@ifere were an indicative interrogative, and τοὺς 
ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκ. equivalent to ‘the heathen.’ But apart from the 
awkwardness of the interrogative coming at the end of so long a sentence, 
this rendering is open to two serious objections: (1) the force of μὲν οὖν 
‘nay rather’ is obscured, and equally so if we take μὲν merely to corre- 
spond to an unexpressed δέ, (2) rods ἐξουθενημένους is a strong phrase to 
apply to the heathen without any further explanation. It appears best to 
render as the E. V., and to consider the clause to mean ‘ those possessed 
of high spiritual gifts are better employed on higher matters than on 
settling petty wrongs among you, and thus serving tables.’ Compare 


14—2 


—“ 
ep fo 


212 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (VI. 4. 


Origen ς Cels. iii. 29 ad fin. ris yap οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσαι καὶ τοὺς χείρους τῶν 
ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ συγκρίσει βελτιόνων ἔλάττους πολλῷ κρείττους τυγχάνειν 
τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήμοις ἐκκλησιῶν ; and the Jewish dictum (Sanhedr. fo. 32 a) 
‘omnes idonei sunt ut judicent lites pecuniarias.’ 

5. οὕτως] ‘has it come to this that,’ ‘is it to such a degree true that?’ 
The rendering of Meyer and others ‘things being so’ is less forcible. 

tv] ‘is found; stronger than ἐστι: see on Gal. iii. 28. Οὐδεὶς 
σοφὸς ὃς, i.e. ‘no one with sufficient wisdom to.’ 

ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ] “20 decide between his brothers’ The 
sentence is much abridged: ordinary Hebraic usage would require at 
least the insertion of ἀδελφοῦ καὶ after ἀνὰ μέσον. The word τοῦ 
ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ conveys a reproach: ‘must his brothers go before 
strangers?’ This reproach is driven home in the next verse: ‘not 
only this, but brother goes to law with brother.’ Thus the very idea 
of brotherhood is outraged and a scandal caused in the sight of 
unbelievers. 

7. ἤδη] “ὦ degin with, i.e. prior to the ulterior question of the 
fitness of Gentile courts. See Kiihner 1. p. 675, and comp. Xen. 
Cyr. iv. 1. 2 ἐγὼ μὲν ξύμπαντας ὑμᾶς ἤδη ἐπαινῶ. 

μὲν] to be separated from οὖν. It suggests a suppressed clause with 
δέ, which would have run somewhat in this vein, ‘but ye aggravate 
matters by going before the heathen.’ 

ὅλως} ‘altogether; i.e. ‘before whomsoever they are tried’; or 
perhaps ‘under any circumstances,’ i.e. ‘whatever the decision may be.’ 

ἥττημα ὑμῖν ἐστὶν] “12 ἐς a loss to you, a defeat’? ‘You trust to 
overreach, to gain a victory: it is really a loss, a defeat, before the 
trial even comes on.’ In Is. xxxi. 8 the word ἥττημα is equivalent to 
‘clades’: in Rom. xi, 12 it is opposed to πλοῦτος : thus the two ideas 
given above can be predicted of it. 

μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν] ‘with yourselves. The Apostle does not say μετ᾽ 
ἀλλήλων, for though the pronouns are often interchanged, the reciprocal 
ἑαυτῶν differs from the reciprocal ἀλλήλων in emphasizing the idea of 
corporate unity. See the passage from Xen. A/em. (iii. 5. 16) quoted 
on Col. iii. 13. ᾿Αλλήλων here would bring out the idea of diversity of 
interest, ἑαυτῶν emphasizes that of identity of interest: ‘you are 
tearing yourselves to pieces.’ 

8. ὑμεῖς] Emphatic: ‘you, Christians though you are.’ 

9. Θεοῦ βασιλείαν) The order, though unusual, is right here and 
adds to the force of the passage. ‘God is essentially just: unjust 
men may inherit the kingdom of this world, but God’s kingdom they 
cannot inherit.’ A similar transposition for the sake of emphasis 
occurs in Gal. ii. 6 πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει. 











ΗΝ —— “χ᾽ = 
a a ο 


IF cc ini δεῦρ, τ 


- ee ee 





— 





VI. 12.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 213 


Their spirit, whether of sensuality or strife, ts inconsistent with 
heirship in the kingdom of heaven (vi. 10, 11). 


11, ἀλλὰ ἀπελόυσασθε] ‘duet ye washed yourselves’: a reference to 
baptism. They were voluntary, conscious, agents : comp. Acts xxii. 16 
ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου, where St Paul is narrating 
the circumstances of his own conversion. 

Hyde Onre] ‘ye were consecrated, The word is not to be taken in 
the technical theological sense of sanctification; but in that of e.g. 
1 Cor. vii. 14 ἡγίασται γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῇ γυναικί, comp. i. 2. 
This appears from the order of the words. 

ἐδικαιώθητε] ‘ve were justified, i.e. by incorporation into Christ. 
The verb is used in Rom. vi. 7 also in connexion with the initial 
entrance into the Church by baptism. We have put ourselves in a 
new position: we are justified not simply by imputation, but in virtue 
of our incorporation into Christ. 

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, ἐν τῷ πνεύματι) There is a reference here to the external 
and to the internal essentials of baptism. Comp. Acts x. 48, xix. 5, 
πολ ιν 


(c) The distinction between license and liberty applied to sins 
of the flesh (vi. 12—20). 


12. The new subject arises out of the preceding. Certain members 
of the Corinthian Church defend their moral profligacy on the ground 
of Christian liberty. Such a contention seems to us extraordinary ; 
but the glaring immorality of Corinth, where sensuality was elevated 
into a cudtus, may partly account for it. It was thus difficult for converts 
to realize their true position, and they ran into the danger of extending 
the Pauline doctrine of ἀδιάφορα so as to cover these vital questions, The 
case of incest mentioned above obviously did not stand by itself (see 
2 Cor. xii. 21): the sin of sensuality was the scourge of the Corinthian 
Church. In his reply the Apostle opposes the true principle of liberty to 
the false, the Christian to the heathen. 

πάντα μοι terrw] This is the principle pleaded by his opponents. 
The Apostle admits the principle, but qualifies it by the words ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
πάντα συμφέρει. The opponents then return to the charge ; and again the 
Apostle replies ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ κιτιλ, This ἐγὼ points to a different person 
as being supposed to assert the principle. St Paul has an imaginary 
opponent before him. Not that St Paul denies the principle πάντα μοι 
ἔξεστιν : he himself asserts it quite as strongly. But the πάντα, he says, 
are πάντα ἀδιάφορα, and he disputes the application to sins of the flesh by 
examining this qualifying word. 

What then are ἀδιάφορα Two principles, he contends, are to be 
observed with regard to them: (1) scandal to others is to be avoided, 
(2) self-discipline is to be maintained. These are the main, though not the 


214 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VI. 12. 


sole, considerations in the two replies; (1) οὐ πάντα συμφέρει, i.e. expedient 
especially with regard to their effect on others, (2) οὐκ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι 
ὑπό τινος, i.e I shall not allow myself to be tyrannised over by any habit. 
This second idea therefore is the effect produced on one’s own moral 
character by the weakening of self-discipline. In x. 23 the same maxim is 
urged in the same form: but there both συμφέρει and οἰκοδομεῖ refer to the 
effect produced on others, as the context seems to show (he is speaking of 
εἰδωλόθυτα) ; here the words are chosen so as to balance one aspect of the 
question with the other. Similarly, when the case of εἰδωλόθυτα is 
discussed at length (viii. 1—13), neither side is neglected: (1) οὐ συμ- 
φέρει (viii. 9—13), (2) οὐκ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι (viii. I—8). 

ἐξουσιασθήσομαι)] The active ἐξουσιάζω occurs in Luke xxii. 25 with 
a genitive, the active in Lxx. (Neh. ix. 37, Eccles. ix. 17, x. 4). The 
present however is the only place where the passive appears, and in fact 
the use must be regarded as a slight straining of the Greek language. As 
a general rule we only find the passive of verbs which in the active take 
an accusative after them ; but this rule has numerous exceptions in later 
Greek: e.g. διακονεῖσθαι (Matt. xx. 28), δογματίζεσθαι (Col. ii. 20). The 
subtle paronomasia of ἔξεστι, ἐξουσιασθήσομαι should be noticed: ‘All 
are within my power ; but I will not put myself under the power of any 
one of all things.’ 

13. These half-converted Gentiles mixed up questions which were 
wholly different in-kind, and classed them in the same category}; viz. 
meats and drinks on the one hand, and sins of sensuality on the other. 
We have traces of this gross moral confusion in the circumstances which 
dictated the Apostolic Letter (Acts xv. 23—29), where things wholly 
diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be avoided and a 
prohibition of fornication. It was not that the Apostle regarded these 
as the same in kind, but that the Gentiles, for whom the rules were framed, 
did so. St Paul here carefully separates the two classes. The cases are 
quite different, he says. Fzrs¢, as regards meats, there is a mutual 
adaptation, βρώματα and κοιλία, each made for the other and both 
alike perishable. Secondly, as regards fornication, we have on the 
contrary, the body not made for fornication but for the Lord: the body, 
again, not perishable but with an existence after death. 

βρώματα] This may have herea threefold application. (1) To εἰδωλόθυτα 
(chs. viii. ix.). (2) To the Mosaic distinction of meats. These had been 
abrogated for the Christian and he enjoyed liberty. (3) To certain 
ascetic prohibitions which appeared early in the Church, such as 
drinking no wine and eating no flesh (Col. ii. 16, 21 with the notes 
and Colossians, pp. 86sq., 104 sq.). We have other traces of the 
same ascetic tendency at this time in Rom. xiv. 2 λάχανα ἐσθίει, and 
in ver. 21 of that chapter the Apostle deals with it on the principle 
laid down in this Epistle. Which thought then was uppermost in St 
Paul’s mind here? The large space which the εἰδωλόθυτα occupy in 


a τ" 


ee eee προ εν Ψ ee ὐὰὐὰ“ π ΨΠΡΝΝΝΝο α 


VI. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 215 


the latter part of the Epistle points more especially to these, and the 
repetition of the same maxim (x. 23) in connexion with meats sacrificed 
to idols confirms this view. But there is no reason to suppose that 
he is alluding to them solely. There was certainly an appreciable 
section of Judaizers in the Corinthian Church, and possibly there were 
ascetic Essene tendencies also. To all these alike the maxim would 
apply. 

καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα] The same argument is used in Col. ii. 2o—22. 

τὸ δὲ σῶμα x.t.A.] The case, argues the Apostle, is different here. 
It is the body and the Lord which stand to each other in the same 
relation as the βρώματα and κοιλία. They are each for the other. 

The argument depends upon the Christian doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion of the body, and would be discussed more appropriately in con- 
nexion with ch. xv. Two remarks will suffice here. First, the idea of 
the resurrection of the body is in reality not a philosophical difficulty 
but a philosophical necessity to us. As far as we know of man, the 
union of the soul of man with an external framework is essential. We 
cannot conceive of man as not working through some such instrument. 
Hence the Christian doctrine commends itself to true philosophy. But, 
secondly, we must not suppose that the resurrection-body is like our 
present body. St Paul guards against this confusion (1 Cor. xv. 35 sq.); 
but it does add to the difficulty of most people that they cannot 
dissociate the idea of a body from the idea of flesh and blood. The 
resurrection-body need not have any particle the same as the present 
body. All we can say about it is that it must be a body which, if 
not imperishable, is at all events capable of constant renewal. Of its 
form, structure, size etc. we cannot form any conception. But we 
may affirm that it must be an external instrument through which the 
man acts, an instrument which has its position in space. Many of 
our difficulties arise from forgetting that St Paul carefully guards 
against any supposition that it resembles our material body. The 
κοιλία, with its eating and drinking, with its gratification of the senses, 
is perishable : the σῶμα will live on always. 

The moral import of this doctrine of the resurrection of the body 
is sufficiently obvious. It was the fashion of the Platonists and Stoics 
to speak contemptuously of the body, but in Christian theology the 
body is glorified because destined to be conformed to Christ’s glorified 
body (Phil. iii. 21). This moral aspect has had great influence in 
banishing such sins as the Apostle is contemplating here. 

It is noticeable that these three verses (12—14) contain the germ 
of very much which follows in the Epistle: (1) the great principle 
which is to guide the Christian conduct, (2) the question of εἰδωλόθυτα 
involved in βρώματα, (3) the conflict with sensual indulgences, (4) the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. 

τῷ Κυρίῳ] The Apostle does not argue this point. It is an axiom 


216 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, [VI. 13. 


which has its roots in the Christian consciousness. It is involved in’ 
the very profession of a Christian. 

14. καὶ τὸν Κύριον... καὶ ἡμᾶς] corresponding to the καὶ ταύτην καὶ 
ταῦτα of the preceding verse. Ἢ μᾶς ‘and therefore our bodies,’ for 
the body is a part of the man. 

ἐξεγερεῖ] The manuscripts present some interesting variants: (1) 
ἐξεγερεῖ NCD°EKL f vulg. (but see below), Pesh. Harcl. Memph. Arm. 
AZth., Iren. (transl.), Tert. Archel. Method. Athan. etc., (2) ἐξεγείρει 
AD*PQ 37, 93 (but P 37, 93 ἐξεγειρεῖ) ἃ e suscitat. (3) ἐξήγειρεν B 67 
am. fuld. harl. suscitavit (but the confusion with suscitabit was easy). 
The choice must lie between the aorist and the future. If we prefer 
the former, we may compare Eph. ii. 6, Col. ii, 12, 13. This idea 
however, though strictly Pauline, is not the idea wanted here: for 
it is not the past resurrection of the spirit, but the future resurrection 
of the body, on which the argument turns, in accordance with other 
passages (as ch. xv. throughout, 2 Cor. iv. 14, Rom. viii. 11, 1 Thess. iv. 
14). Still ἐξήγειρεν is not impossible in this connexion, The past spiritual: 
resurrection might be regarded here as elsewhere, e.g. Rom. vi. 5, viii. 11, 
as an earnest and an initiation of the future bodily resurrection. But on 
the whole ἐξεγερεῖ is the more likely reading and has the best documentary 
support. 

αὐτοῦ The pronoun probably refers to Christ : comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 
διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (in 2 Cor. iv. 14 the right reading is σὺν Ἰησοῦ). We have 
both δύναμις Θεοῦ frequently, and δύναμις Χριστοῦ (e.g. 2 Cor. xii. 9). The 
use of διὰ here rather points to the mediation of Christ in our resur- 
rection, but it cannot be considered as in any way decisive. 

15. μέλη Χριστοῦ] The earliest application of this metaphor which 
plays so important a part in this and later Epistles. 

ἄρας] Not as the A. V. ‘take’ (which would be λαβών), but ‘ Zake 
away. It is robbing Christ of what is His own. Atpew ‘tollere’ is 
(1) either ‘to take up,’ e.g. Mark ii. 9 ἄρον τὸν κράβαττόν cov, Luke ix. 23 
ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, John xi. 40 ἦραν οὖν τὸν λίθον: or (2) ‘to take 
away,’ e.g. Luke vi. 29 αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον, xi. 52 ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς 
γνώσεως ; but never simply ‘to take.’ 

μὴ yévorro] On this expression see Gal. ii. 17, vi. 14. Like οὐκ οἴδατε 
(of this and the following verse) it is confined to this chronological group 
of St Paul’s Epistles, where it occurs thirteen times; but it is found also in 
Luke xx. 16. 

16. τῇ πόρνῃ! The article marks the fact that she is considered no 
longer as an individual, but as the representative of a class. Compare 
John x. 12 ὁ μισθωτός, τ Tim. iii. 2, Tit. i. 7 ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ete. 

ἔσονται γὰρ x.t.4.] Taken from Gen. ii. 24. Several points require 
notice here. (1) As to the text. St Paul follows the Lxx., for the Hebrew 
text has not the words οἱ δύο nor have the older Targums. The additional 
phrase however appears, not only in the LxXx., but also in the Samaritan 





4 
Ἷ 
᾿ 
ϊ 
! 


VL. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 217 


Pentateuch, the Targum of Jonathan, the Peshito, in Philo (Leg. Adlegor. 
§ 14, I. p. 75 ed. Mangey, de Gigant. § 15, 1. p. 272, Lib. 1 in Genes. § 29. 
22 ed. Aucher), and invariably in the N. T. quotations (Matt. xix. 5, 
Mark x. 8, Eph. v. 31), and perhaps in some Rabbinical quotations also (e.g. 
possibly Beresh. Rad. 18). Still no such variant is at present known to exist 
in any Hebrew manuscript (see De Rossi Var. Lect. Vet. Test. 1. p. 4). 
But from this great number of independent authorities which contain the 
words we are disposed to think that they had a place at some time in the 
Hebrew text. (2) As to the interpretation. It is impossible to weaken 
the meaning of ἔσονται εἰς here so as to make it imply less than the 
Hebrew idiom 5 yn ‘they shall become’: see esp. Matt. xix. 5, 6 ἔσονται 
οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν, where our Lord’s comment is explicit ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν 
δύο ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. (3) As to the application. In Genesis l.c. the words 
are used of man and wife, the legitimate connexion of male and female. 
But, so far as regards the question at issue, there is no difference between 
the two cases. What applies to the one applies to the other also, for as 
Athanasius says ἕν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο τῇ φύσει τοῦ πράγματος. (4) Lastly, 
as to the authority assigned to the passage. What are we to understand 
by φησίν᾽ Is ὁ Θεὸς to be supplied or ἡ γραφή To this question it is 
safest to reply that we cannot decide. The fact is that, like λέγει, φησὶν 
when introducing a quotation seems to be used impersonally. This 
usage is common in Biblical Greek (λέγει Rom. xv. 10, Gal. iil. τό, 
Eph. iv. 8, v. 14: φησὶν Heb. viii. 5, 2 Cor. x. 10 v.1.), more common in 
classical Greek. Alford, after Meyer, objects to rendering φησὶν im- 
personal here, as contrary to St Paul’s usage. But the only other 
occurrence of the phrase in St Paul is 2 Cor. x. 10, where he is not 
introducing scripture, but the objections of human critics and of more 
than one critic. If then φησὶν be read there at all, it must be impersonal. 
The Apostle’s analogous use of λέγει points to the same conclusion. In 
Eph. v. 14 it introduces a quotation which is certainly not in scripture, 
and apparently belonged to an early Christian hymn. We gather there- 
fore that St Paul’s usage does not suggest any restriction here to ὁ Θεὸς 
or ἡ γραφή. But we cannot doubt from the context that the quotation is 
meant to be authoritative. In the original the words are Adam’s ; but 
Adam is here the mouthpiece of God. Compare Gal. iv. 30 where Sarah’s 
words are adopted in the same way, and the quotation from Job v. 13 
given above (ch. iii. 19). 

17. ἕν πνεῦμα] The union is an inner spiritual union (Eph. iv. 4). 
The converse truth appears in Eph. v. 30. 

18. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα] i.e. ‘every other sin” Even drunkenness and 
gluttony are in a certain sense ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος. 

εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα] which is unnatural. See Eph. v. 29. 

19. ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε] Of the ten occasions on which this expression 
is found in this Epistle, six occur in this chapter. The others are 
iii. 16, v. 6, ix. 13, 24. It is used only twice elsewhere by St Paul 


218 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VI. 19. 


(Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2) and then in an Epistle of this group: but it appears 
in James iv. 4. 

The same truth is enunciated in iii. 16 in almost the same words : see 
the note there. The difference in application is mainly twofold: jist, 
here the expression τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν means ‘the body of each one of you’ 
individually, while in iii. 16 the whole Christian brotherhood is regarded 
collectively as the shrine; secondly, there the sins attacked are hatred, 
strife and vainglory, here sensuality. 

20. ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς] ‘for _ye were bought witha price.’ The aorist 
shows that the ransom was paid once for all: compare vii. 23, where the 
metaphor is developed. In the ordinary form of the metaphor, Christ’s 
blood is a λύτρον (Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45) or ἀντίλυτρον (1 Tim. ii. 6); 
and the process of redemption, ἀπολύτρωσις (Rom. iii. 24, Eph. i. 7, 
Col. i. 14, Heb. ix. 15), or simply λύτρωσις (Heb. ix. 12). It is thus a 
ransom from slavery, from captivity, the purchase-money of our freedom, 
Here on the other hand it is spoken of as τιμή, that is to say, a trans- 
ference to another master, the purchase by which a new owner acquires 
possession of us, by which we become his slaves. In Rom. vi. 18, 22 the 
two ideas are combined, ἐλευθερωθέντες δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐδουλώθητε TH 
δικαιοσύνῃ...ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ Θεῷ. 

δὴ] The word is hortatory, ‘now,’ ‘verily, ‘surely’; not ‘therefore’ 
as the A. V. renders it, which would be οὖν in N. T. language. For this 
use of δὴ compare Luke ii. 15 διέλθωμεν δή, Acts xiii. 2 ἀφορίσατε δή μοι, 
xv. 36 ἐπιστρέψαντες δὴ κατηγγείλαμεν. ᾿ 

ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν] So the Apostle’s genuine words end, as his 
argument requires. The addition of the T. R. καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν 
Grwa ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ is condemned by the vast preponderance of ancient 
authority. But how came it to be added? I venture to think from some 
ancient liturgical use of the passage, thus: V. δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν Θεὸν ἐν τῷ 
σώματι ὑμῶν. R. καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν ἅτινά ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The 
response would then be incorporated in the text by scribes who re- 
membered the versicle. The influence of liturgical forms on the reading 
of the N. T. appears in the doxology added to the Lord’s Prayer in 
Matt. vi. 13, and the baptismal formula in Acts viii. 37. The early and 
curious Latin reading ‘glorificate et portate’ (or ‘tollite’) found in g, in 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer and the Vulgate, may perhaps be traced to a 
similar source, or may have arisen from a reading apaye (comp. Acts xvii. 
27, Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26) which was confused with ἄρατε: see Reiche 
Comm. Crit. τ. p. 165, and the reading of Methodius, ἄρά ye dofdcare (δὴ 
omitted), which goes far to justify this suggestion. Chrysostom (é# 1 Cor. 
hom. xviii. § 2, p. 153 E) reads δοξάσατε δὴ ἄρατε τὸν Θεόν, if his text is to 
be trusted (Saville read ἄρα re) ; but lower down (hom. xxvi. § 1, p. 227 Ὁ) 
δοξάσατε δὴ dpa τὸν Θεόν, which probably represents more nearly his true 
text in both passages. 





CHAPTER VII. 
3. MARRIAGE, vii. 1—40. 


(a) To marry or not to marry. (b) Duties of those already married. 
(c) Advice to the unmarried, the widows, the separated (vii. I—11). 


I. Περὶ δὲ dv éypdare] Here we have the first reference to the 
letter written by the Corinthians to St Paul. This letter must obviously 
have reached him later than the date of the Apostle’s letter to the 
Corinthians to which he alludes in v. 9: otherwise it would have received 
an answer in that letter. We may form a fairly complete idea of the 
contents of this letter of the Corinthians. It raised questions relating to 
marriage under various circumstances (see vii. 1); it contained a reference 
to εἰδωλόθυτα, for we may infer from the way in which that topic is 
introduced that they had consulted St Paul about it (comp. viii. 1 περὶ δὲ 
τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων with vii. 25 περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων : it is as though the 
Apostle were taking in detail the heads of their letter); it consulted him 
as to the conduct of women in church (xi. 2 shows that the connecting 
link is an allusion to something which the Corinthians had related); it 
raised the question of spiritual gifts. This also may be inferred from the 
form of the introduction of this topic in xii. 1 (περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν). 
We may suppose that the letter was brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus 
and Achaicus, who by their presence ‘supplemented the deficiency’ of 
the Church (xvi. 17 τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα οὗτοι ἀνεπλήρωσαν), that is, 
explained more fully the condition of things by word of mouth. 

As I have already said (see on v. 9), there is extant in Armenian a 
spurious correspondence consisting of an epistle from the Corinthians to 
St Paul and of an epistle from St Paul to the Corinthians. These are 
included in the canon of the Armenian Church, and the translations 
which we have are made from the Armenian. They are given in Stanley’s 
Corinthians (ed. 4) p. 593 sq. in the English translation made in 1817 
from the Armenian by Lord Byron assisted by Aucher. See also Meyer, 
p. 6 and Fabricius Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 918 sq. It is remarkable that 


220 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (Vil. x. 


though this correspondence consists of two letters, and though St Paul 
mentions just two such letters, yet there is no analogy between the two 
sets of letters. There is no reason at all for believing that the forger 
intended to supply the lack; or at least, if his work was suggested by the 
notices in 1 Corinthians, he has certainly performed it in a most slovenly 
way. 

‘het us first take the spurious letter addressed by the Corinthians to 
St Paul. It begins in the name of Stephanus and the elders with him, 
no doubt intended to represent Stephanas and his companions (1 Cor. 
xvi. 17). They write to consult St Paul about certain heretics who are 
troubling the Church. Of these Simon (probably Magus) and Cleophas 
are mentioned by name. The heresies are described and St Paul’s 
advice asked. The Apostle is supposed to receive the letter at Philippi 
and to be a prisoner at the time. Thus the topics have nothing in 
common with the topics of the real letter of the Corinthians, and the 
circumstances are different, for the real letter must have been received by 
the Apostle at Ephesus. 

The so-called letter from St Paul to the Corinthians exhibits just the 
same divergencies from the real facts of the case. The one topic which 
we know for certain that St Paul’s letter must have contained is the 
direction quoted in 1 Cor. v. 9 μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις. There is 
however no reference whatever to this subject. The spurious letter of 
St Paul is an answer to the spurious letter to St Paul. The writer meets 
the case of the heresies by a declaration of the true doctrine of the 
Resurrection, and concludes with a warning against false teachers. 
Thus not only are the topics quite dissimilar from what we might have 
expected, but the order of the letters is reversed. The lost letter of the 
Corinthians was later in time than the lost letter of St Paul, whereas in 
the forged correspondence the letter of the Corinthians comes first in 
chronological order. 

Yet there is no flagrant anachronism in the Epistles. The heresies 
might very well be those of the end of the first or the beginning of the 
second century. In Zp. Paul. ad Cor. 30 ‘but these cursed men hold the 
doctrine of the serpent,’ there is probably an allusion to the Ophites ; but 
I have given elsewhere reasons for supposing that this form of heresy was 
closely connected with that combated by St Paul in the Pastoral 
Epistles, and if so it must have been widely prevalent in the latter half of 
the first century. See the excursus in Biblical Essays (p. 411 sq.), where 
this question is fully discussed. This spurious correspondence then was 
an early forgery probably of the second century, but a very obvious 
forgery. Its genuineness however is maintained by Rinck (das Sendschr. 
d. Kor. an d. Apost. Paul. Heidelb. 1823) who is answered by Ullmann 
in the Hetdelb. Fahrb. 1823. 

καλὸν] ‘good, ‘right, comp. ver. 26; not ‘convenient.’ There is no 
qualification in the word itself; the qualifications are added afterwards in 


VII. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 22% 


the context. They are twofold. (1) With what limitations is celibacy 
good? These limitations are given in verses 2 and 9. Thus it is not 
good in all cases. (2) For what reasons is it good? These appear in 
vv. 26, 3254. Celibacy therefore is only so far better than marriage in 
proportion as it fulfils these conditions. It may not however fulfil them 
in the case of particular men; and so with them it is not better than 
marriage, but the reverse. Further, the passage must not be taken alone, 
but in connexion with what the Apostle says elsewhere, Eph. v. 22—33, 
where he exalts marriage as a type of the union of Christ with the Church. 
In Heb. xiii. 4 τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν x.t.X. the first clause is an imperative 
‘let marriage be respected among all,’ as appears from the true reading of 
the next sentence πόρνους γάρ; it can therefore only be adduced as an 
argument here by a misinterpretation. In the passage before us καλὸν is 
not employed for καλὸν μέν : the statement is made absolutely and the 
limitation διὰ δὲ x.r.A. Comes in as an after consideration. 

2. τὰς πορνείας] The phrase hints at the profligacy of all kinds which 
prevailed in the dissolute city (2 Cor. xii. 21). 

ἕκαστος, ἑκάστη] An incidental prohibition of polygamy. Such a 
prohibition was by no means unnecessary at this time, when polygamy was 
recklessly encouraged by the Jewish rabbis: see Justin Martyr, Dia/. 134 
and the note on 1 Tim. iii. 2 μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα. The variation of the 
form τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα is noticeable, the husband being, as 
it were, considered the lord of the wife. If this passage stood alone, it 
would be unsafe to build upon it; but this difference of expression 
pervades the whole of the Epistles ; e.g. Eph. v. 28, ras ἑαυτῶν γυν., 31 τὴν 
yur. αὐτοῦ, 33 τὴν ἑαυτοῦ yuv., as contrasted with Eph. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 
1 Pet. iii. 1, 5 τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, 1 Cor. xiv. 35 τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας. 

3. τὴν ὀφειλὴν] Not a classical word in any sense: for though 
stated in Etym. Magn. to be used in Xenophon περὶ πόρων, it does not 
occur in the present text of the treatise: see Steph. Zhes.s.v. It is found 
in Matt. xviii. 32, Rom. xiii. 7. 

5. εἰ μήτι ἂν] If ἂν is to be retained here, we must supply γένηται ‘it 
should take place,’ see Winer ὃ xlii. p. 380. For ἂν for ἐὰν see Winer 
ὃ xli. p. 364, who quotes John xiii. 20, xvi. 23, xx. 23. The use is classical 
also, e.g. Eur. Alc. 181 σώφρων μὲν οὐκ ἂν μᾶλλον, εὐτυχὴς δ᾽ ἴσως, quoted 
by Alford. 

σχολάσητε] ‘ may devote yourselves to, literally, ‘may have leisure for.’ 
Thus the secondary meaning has eclipsed the primary, and σχολὴ which 
originally meant ‘leisure’ becomes ‘work,’ ‘school’ (as in Acts xix. 9). 
Σχολάζειν takes the dative (1) of the subject studied, φιλοσοφίᾳ, στρατείᾳ, 
μαθήμασιν, τοῖς φίλοις, τῇ τοῦ λόγου διακονίᾳ (Chrysost. de sacris) ; or (2) of 
the person teaching, Σωκράτει, Πλάτωνι, etc. It is used absolutely in 
Matt. xii. 44, Luke xi. 25 in its primary sense. 

τῇ προσευχῇ] The words τῇ νηστείᾳ καί, which precede τῇ προσευχῇ in 
the T. R., are to be omitted by the vast preponderance of ancient 


222 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VII. 5. 


authorities. There are three other passages where similar insertions are 
made, supported by varying degrees of evidence. In the case of Matt. 
xvii. 21 the whole verse should be omitted ; it is wanting in NB, some 
old Latin authorities (e ff), the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the 
Thebaic, in manuscripts of the Memphitic, and in the Eusebian Canons, 
a combination of authorities which shows decisively that the passage has 
been transferred from Mark ix. 29. In Acts x. 30 the words νηστεύων καὶ 
are omitted in NBAC etc., the Vulgate, Memphitic, Armenian, etc., and 
where they occur are found in different positions, e.g. in D*, the oldest 
manuscript which contains them, νηστεύων τὴν ἐνάτην τε καὶ προσ. Here 
again there can be not a shadow of a doubt that they are an insertion. 
In Mark ix. 29 the case is somewhat different. The words καὶ νηστείᾳ are 
omitted in Bk, a small but very formidable combination; and here 
again authorities which contain them present them in different positions 
as ἐν νηστεία καὶ προσευχῇ (Pesh. Arm. AEthiop.). Hence, if retained, the 
phrase should certainly be bracketed as doubtful. 

The four passages represent what may be called an ascetic addition of 
later scribes. Yet too much must not be made of this fact. Though the 
tendency of a later age was to exalt fasting to a level with prayer, yet the 
highest authorities for the practice itself still remain in the example 
(Matt. iv. 2) and directions of our Lord (Matt. vi. 16—18), and in the 
custom of the Apostles (Acts xiii. 2, 3, xiv. 23) in pursuance of our Lord’s 
prophecy (Matt. ix. 15, Mark ii. 20, Luke v. 35). We must not however 
adduce in this connexion such passages as 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 27, because 
the context shows that in both cases ἐν νηστείαις denotes involuntary 
fastings, like νήστεις in Matt. xv. 32, Mark viii. 3. Thus the practice of 
fasting has abundant sanction in the New Testament; but it holds a 
subordinate place to prayer, with only a secondary value in so far as it 
promotes self-discipline or conduces to spiritual growth. 

ἀκρασίαν] We must carefully distinguish two words spelt in the 
same way, (1) ἀκρᾶσία, a rare word, derived from κεράννυμε and akin 
to ἄκρατος ‘unmixed,’ ‘untempered,’ used (Theophr. C. P. iii. 2, 5) of 
the climate or sky as opposed to εὐκρασία and equivalent to the Latin 
‘intemperies’; and (2) ἀκρᾶσία, which we have here and in Matt. xxiii. 
25, the character of the ἀκρατής (from κρατεῖν), opposed to ἐγκράτεια, 
and expressed in Latin by ‘impotentia,’ ‘the absence of self-restraint.’ 
That this is the word meant here is evident from the juxtaposition of 
ἐγκρατεύονται (ver. 9). It is common in classical Greek (see Steph. 
Thes. s.v., Wetstein ad loc. Lobeck Phryn. p. 524), and found in 
passages which set at rest the question of its derivation, e.g. Xen. 
Mem. iv. 5. 7 τῷ ἀκρατεῖ.. αὐτὰ yap δήπου τὰ ἐναντία σωφροσύνης καὶ 
ἀκρασίας ἔργα ἐστί, Arist. Eth. Nic. vii. 1 passim where it is contrasted 
again and again with ἐγκράτεια and associated with ἀκρατὴς and dxpa- 
τεύεσθαι. It is apparently the usual form in Aristotle, though ἀκράτεια 
appears also (de virt. et vit. p. 1250 ll. 1, 22 ed. Bekker). It is found 


’ 
* 


by 
J 


; 
: 
Ὶ 
] 


| 


7 
{> 
Pe 
a 


ἮΝ 


VII. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 223 


likewisé in Plutarch (Vor. p. 4468) associated with ἀκρατής. A similar 
form is γυναικοκρασία which occurs side by side with γυναικοκρατία. 
Owing to their similarity of sound and meaning ἀκρᾶσία and ἀκρᾶσία 
are frequently confused: see Steph. 7%es. s.v. 

6. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω] To what does the Apostle refer? Not to the 
previous verse only, or to part of it; but to the general terms of the 
preceding paragraph (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5), especially to verse 2 as involving 
the rest, to the recommendation, that is to say, of the marriage state 
with all its obligations. 

κατὰ συγγνώμην οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν] ‘dy way of concession, not by way of 
command. It is permissive, not imperative. ‘I do not give this as a 
binding rule (e.g. γυναῖκα ἐχέτω). I state it as what is allowable, If 
I had my way, I should desire all men to live a celibate life in continence 
like myself.’ 

The rendering of the A. V. ‘by permission, not by commandment’ 
seems to imply ‘though I have no command from God, yet I am permitted 
by God to speak this’ ; accordingly ver. 25 ἐπιταγὴν Κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω γνώμην 
δὲ δίδωμι is frequently referred to in the margin of English bibles to 
illustrate this verse. It is conceivable that the translators of the Author- 
ised Version intended this to be the meaning, though the passage is 
otherwise and, as I think, correctly explained in a note in the Geneva 
Version. This interpretation however in itself is hardly possible, much 
less probable. True, it has in its favour ver. 25 quoted above, also κατ᾽ 
ἐπιταγὴν used elsewhere (Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. i. 1, Tit. i. 3) of the divine 
commands. But neither the verb συγγινώσκω nor the substantive 
συγγνώμη is used of God in either the Lxx. or the N, T., nor would it be 
an appropriate word to employ, for it contains by implication the notion 
of fellow-feeling and the like. Nor does this meaning suit what follows 
θέλω δὲ «rr. On these grounds therefore it is better to explain the 
passage in the sense given above. 

7. θέλω δὲ] ‘on the contrary I desire.” Δὲ is undoubtedly the correct 
reading, yap being a correction for the purpose of simplification. While 
yap would connect this verse with the whole preceding sentence, δὲ 
attaches it more particularly with the last clause οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν. 

ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτὸν] ‘as myself’: comp. ver. 9 ὡς κἀγώ. The obvious 
interpretation of this and similar passages is that St Paul was unmarried. 

* On the other hand Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 6, p. 535 ed. Potter) 
states the opposite ; but then he gives his reasons. He is arguing against 
the Encratites and referring to Phil. iv. 3 says ἐν τινὶ ἐπιστολῇ τὴν αὐτοῦ 
προσαγορεύειν σύνζυγον : he then goes on to add that though the Apostle 
had a wife, he did not ‘lead her about,’ as he had a perfect right to do 
(1 Cor. ix. 5). It is clear therefore that Clement’s view had no support 
from tradition, but was an inference from St Paul’s own language. 
Tertullian (ad Uxor. ii. 1) and almost all the other fathers speak of St Paul 
as unmarried. Origen (on Rom. 1. p. 461 ed. Delarue) characteristically 


ὌΝ ΣΝ 
| 
7 


224 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (VII. 7. 


gives both explanations (Paulus ergo sicut quidam tradunt cum uxore voca- 
tus est de qua dicit ad Philippenses, etc.) and follows his master Clement 
but with hesitation (si vero ut aliis videtur sine uxore etc.). To say 
nothing of the grammatical difficulty of the masculine form γνήσιε σύνζυγε 
being applied to a woman, the verse we are considering is fatal to that 
interpretation of the passage, and the contention of Clement and Origen 
therefore falls to the ground (see the note on Phil. 1.5... In these latter 
years of his life the Apostle certainly had not a wife living. There is 
however one argument which needs consideration in favour of his having 
been married earlier in life and being at this time a widower. It was a 
maxim of the rabbis, at all events of a later date, that no one could be a 
member of the Sanhedrin or sit in judgment on a capital offence, except 
one who was not only a married man but a father (Sav. fo. 36 δ); because 
such a one was more likely to take a merciful view of an offence. Now 
St Paul says (Acts xxvi. 10) expressly that he recorded his vote against 
those who were condemned to death on the charge of Christianity. Hence 
it is contended that at that time he must have been a married man. But 
this inference depends on two points both very precarious: (1) that 
κατήνεγκα Ψῆφον is to be taken literally, (2) that the regulations laid down 
by the later Talmudists held good at the time of which we are speaking. 
Against this highly precarious hypothesis we may set two considerations, 
(a) that wife and children are never once hinted at, but everything points 
the opposite way: he goes about as one entirely free from such ties: 
(6) the whole passage before us implies that the Apostle lived a celibate 
life throughout, and lived it in continence. 

χάρισμα] It was such, for it was an instrument for preaching the 
Gospel. Others might have other gifts, might serve God in other ways ; 
but this which enabled him to keep himself free from all earthly ties was 
to the Apostle a special grace. Comp. xii. 4, Rom. xii. 6, 1 Pet. iv. το, and 
for the wide use in St Paul the notes on i. 7 above and Rom. i. 11. 

οὕτως, οὕτως] The maxim therefore is thrown into a general form. It 
is quite comprehensive : each man has his own qualifications for serving 
God and it is his business to realize them. On οὕτως οὕτως see 
Judg. xviii. 4, 2 Sam. xi. 25, xvii. 15, 2 Kings v. 4, references given 
in Meyer. 

8. τοῖς ἀγάμοις] i.e. the unmarried of both sexes ; not to be rendered 
‘widowers’ as though corresponding to ταῖς χήραις. 

9. οὐκ éyxparetovrar] The negative belongs closely to the verb and 
the phrase is to be treated as one word; otherwise it would be μή. 
Grammarians tell us that ἀκρατεύεσθαι is a solecism, though used by 
many, as Menander (Lobeck Phryn. p. 442 ἀκρατεύεσθαι" ἀδοκίμῳ ὄντι 
οἵγε πολλοὶ χρῶνται τούτῳ τῷ ὀνόματι καὶ Μένανδρος" Λέγε οὖν οὐκ ἐγκρατ- 
εὐεσθαι). ᾿Ακρατεύεσθαι however occurs several times in Aristotle (see 
index to the Nicomachean Ethics). On the other hand there is no such 
classical authority for ἐγκρατεύεσθαι. St Paul would doubtless have used 





VII. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 225 


ἀκρατεύξσθαι, if it had served his purpose ; but it would have conveyed a 
darker shade of meaning than he intended. ᾿Ἐγκρατεύεσθαι occurs in 
Gen. xliii. 30, 1 Sam, xiii. 12. 

10. οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ Κύριος] The common conception of this phrase 
is quite wrong. It is generally thought that the distinction on which St 
Paul insists is the distinction between Paul inspired and Paul speaking of 
himself, between an utterance ex cathedrd and a private opinion. The 
real difference is between the words of Paul the inspired Apostle and the 
express command of Christ Himself. We are expressly told that our 
Lord did prohibit divorce (Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, Mark x. 9, 11, 12, Luke xvi. 
18). The nearest approach to St Paul’s language is Mark x. 9 ὃ οὖν ὁ 
Θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω. In Matt. v. 32 an exception to the 
tule is allowed παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ; but St Paul does not think it 
necessary to add this qualification, because it would be understood of 
itself. Indeed it is not found in the other Gospel passages, except 
possibly in Matt. xix. 9 where it occurs in the common text. 

μὴ χωρισθῆναι, μὴ ἀφιέναι] For this distinction see the quotation 
from Bengel given on ver. 13. 

II. ἐὰν δὲ... καταλλαγήτω] The sentence is parenthetical: a caution 
being introduced as an afterthought. Compare ver. 15 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος 
χωρίζεται χωριζέσθω, and ver. 21 ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι 
μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, where a great deal depends on the interpretation of this 
one clause: see the note there. 


(4α) On the marriage relations of the believer wedded with the 
unbeliever, and on change of condition generally (vii. 12—24). 


12. τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς), Hitherto St Paul had spoken solely to Christians 
(in vv. 8, 9 to the unmarried, in vv. 10, 11 to the married). Now he 
turns to speak of mixed marriages between Christian and heathen. The 
use οὗ οἱ λοιποὶ here of the Gentiles is akin to the use elsewhere in St 
Paul (Eph. ii. 3, 1 Thess. iv. 13, v. 6). 

λέγω ἐγὼ] This is the right order of the two words; it corresponds 
with what goes before, mapayyéAXo οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ Κύριος (ver. 10), and it 
is more emphatic in itself, comp. Gal. ii. 20. 

αὕτη] is preferable to αὐτὴ here, because of οὗτος which succeeds in the 
next verse. 

συνευδοκεῖ] The compounding preposition shows that the man’s 
consent is assumed. 

13. μὴ ἀφιέτω] ‘Sefaratur pars ignobilior, mulier; démittit nobi- 
lior, vir : inde conversa ratione etiam mulier fidelis dicitur dimizttere: et 
vir infidelis, separari, vv. 13, 15.’ Bengel on ver. 10. 

τὸν ἄνδρα] This, the correct reading, is stronger than αὐτόν. ‘ Let her 
not dismiss him, for he still remains her husband.’ 

14. ἡγίασται] Observe the large and liberal view which the Apostle 


here adopts. The lesser takes its character from the greater, not the 


L. EP. 15 


226 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [ὙΠ]. 14. 


greater from the lesser. God does not reject the better because of its 
alliance with the worse, but accepts the worse on account of its alliance 
with the better. On this feature in St Paul’s theology see the note on i, 2 
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. 

ἐπεὶ ἄρα] i.e. ‘since on the contrary supposition it follows that your 
children are unclean,’ a thing not to be thought of. This argumentative 
ἐπεὶ ‘since otherwise’ (which can stand alone without ἄρα) is not un- 
common in St Paul (xv. 29, Rom. iii. 6, xi. 6, 22) and elsewhere (Heb. ix. 
26, x. 2), and is followed by the indicative. 

νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν] ‘but, as it is, they are holy’ St Paul regards this as 
an axiom. ‘It is allowed on all sides that the children of these mixed 
marriages are holy.’ The sense of the passage is clear enough, but to 
what objective fact does it correspond? Plainly the children of mixed 
marriages were regarded as in some sense Christian children. We 
cannot say more or less than this. 

It has been affirmed that this passage tells against the supposition of 
Infant Baptism as a practice of the Early Church at this time. Thus 
Meyer says, ‘weil darum die ἁγιότης der Christenkinder einen andern 
Grund gehabt habe.’ But this is a mere pefitio principit. How do we 
know that it was not the very token of their ayorns that such children 
were baptized as Christians? This at all events was a definite overt act 
to which the Apostle might well make his appeal, as showing that they 
were regarded as holy. The passage is not to be pressed on either side. 
The Jews indeed had a maxim, that the child of a proselytess need not be 
baptized (Febamoth f. 78, ‘si gravida fit proselyta, non opus est ut bapti- 
zetur infans quando natus fuerit: baptismus enim matris ei cedit pro 
baptismo’). But this proves nothing, because it proves too much. If 
valid at all, it would be valid against ever baptizing one born of Christian 
parents. As a matter of fact, the baptism of the Christian corresponded 
not to the baptism of the proselyte, but to the circumcision of the Jew, 
which was required of all alike. Thus no inference can be drawn here 
against the practice of Infant Baptism. On the contrary the expression 
tells rather in its favour. Certainly it enunciates the principle which leads 


to infant baptism, viz. that the child of Christian parents shall be treated — 


as a Christian. 

15. εἰ δὲ κιτιλ. By parity of reasoning this includes by implication 
the unbelieving woman as well as the unbelieving man. 

ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κιτ.λ.} ‘but in Peace hath God called us. This is not to be 
connected with what immediately precedes, as though it meant, ‘they are 
not bound to a compulsory connexion which would be fatal in their peace.’ 
The words refer to the whole tenour of these directions, the first part of 
ver. 15 being a parenthetical limitation. What St Paul says is this: ‘Do 
not let any jar or conflict in the family relations arise out of your 
Christianity. Live peaceably with the heathen husband or wife who 
wishes to live with you. If a discussion is urged on their part, do not 


ι 








VII. 17.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 227 


refuse it. The Christian is not so enslaved by such an alliance that 
he or she may not thus be set free. But let the liberation be the 
work of another. Do not foster dissensions, do not promote a separation. 
Do nothing to endanger peace: peace is the very atmosphere of your 
calling in Christ, the very air which you breathe as Christians.’ 

16. τί γὰρ οἶδας «.7.A.] This passage again is often wrongly inter- 
preted as though it meant, ‘separate yourself, for you cannot be sure that 
by continuing the connexion you will convert the unbelieving husband (or 
wife)’ Thus Stanley (p. 105) speaks of the injunction as ‘a solemn 
warning against the gambling spirit which intrudes itself even into the 
most sacred matters,’ and ‘a remarkable proof of the Apostle’s freedom 
from proselytism.’ But surely the Apostle would not have admitted this 
interpretation of his words. For (1) such a motive—the conversion of the 
partner—was not likely to be urged by the Corinthian Christians for 
remaining’in this state of enforced wedlock; nor (2) was the Apostle 
likely to give prominence to the uncertainty of the result as a reason for 
seeking freedom. What he is really advising is the sacrificing of much 
for the possible attainment of what is a great gain though an uncertain 
one. If we look at the sense we see that though the possibility of 
succeeding in the conversion would be a highly adequate reason for 
continuing the connexion, yet on the other hand the possibility of failure 
would be a highly inadequate reason for closing the connexion. The 
interpretation of the passage depends upon the meaning to be assigned to 
εἰ in the phrase τί οἶδας, ris οἶδεν etc. As a matter of fact, whether we 
should have expected it beforehand or not, these expressions, so far from 
emphasizing a doubt, express a hope: e.g. 1 Sam. xii. 22 ris οἶδεν 
ἐλεήσει με Κύριος implying that there is a reasonable chance (comp. Esther 
iv. 14, Jonah iii. 9, Joel ii. 14 the only passages in the Lxx. under οἶδα 
which illustrate the meaning). We therefore conclude that the whole 
sentence expresses a hope, and that St Paul’s meaning is that this saving 
of the husband (or wife) is worth any temporal inconvenience. 

17. εἰ μὴ «.t.d.] A general maxim arising out of a special case, and 
illustrated below by the examples, γε, of circumcision (vv. 18, 19), 
secondly, of slavery (vv. 20, 21). These illustrations are a digression 
which arises out of the general maxim. Ei μὴ never stands for ἀλλά ; it 
is here as elsewhere in the sense of πλήν ‘only’: see Rom. xiv. 14, Jelf 
G. G. ὃ 860, Winer § liii. p. 566, and the notes on Gal. i, 7, 19. 

ὡς μεμέρικεν ὁ Κύριος, ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ Θεὸς) Two variations from the 
reading of the T. R. are necessary. (1) The substantives should be 
interchanged in accordance with the vast majority of ancient authorities 
and St Paul’s own usage. For in all cases (1 Thess. iv. 7, Rom. iv. 17, 
Vili. 30, 2 Tim. i. 9) it is God Who calls; on the other hand to assign 
external positions in the Church falls naturally to Him Who is the Head 
of the Church and is elsewhere associated with the distribution of such 
gifts (xii. 5 διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσὶν καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς Kupios, Eph. iv. 11). 


1s—2 


228 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. _ [VII 17. 


(2) Mepépixev, though only read by NB, is preferable to ἐμέρισεν ; as 
balancing the perfect which follows, and as being in itself a rare form. 
The sense also is improved by the change of tense, ‘ has assigned his lot in 
life once for all.’ The word here refers entirely to the external conditions 
of life: Ecclus. xlv. 20 ἀπαρχὰς πρωτογενημάτων ἐμέρισεν αὐτοῖς, 2 Macc. 
viii. 28. 

18. ἐπισπάσθω] ‘become as uncircumcised, efface the signs of his 
Judaism. This was done literally by renegade Jews, e.g. in the time of 
Antiochus (1 Macc. i. 15), comp. Joseph. Amz. xii. 5. 1. See Buxtorf, 
p. 1274 s.v. Tin, Wetstein here and Schéttgen 1. p. 1159 sq. Here 
however the term is used as the symbol of a much wider application, e.g. 
the observance of sabbaths, festivals, etc. 

κέκληται] The change of tense from the aorist of the preceding clause 
may have been guided by the fact that as a rule the conversions of the 
Jews were earlier than the conversions of the Gentiles. 

19. We have the same sentiment expressed in Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. On 
independent grounds we know that our Epistle was the earlier one, and 
this quite accords with the evidence of the three passages considered 
together. The passage before us gives the original form. The maxim is 
two-edged, and both edges are used here. On the other hand, in Galatians 
ll. cc. it is applied only against the Gentiles who would become as Jews. 
Stanley rightly draws attention to the double assertion of the maxim in 
St Paul’s own conduct: the circumcision of Timothy as a child of one 
Jewish parent (Acts xvi. 3), the non-circumcision of Titus as a Greek 
(Gal. ii. 3). In its wider application the maxim reconciles the Apostle’s 
own conduct as a Jew among Jews (Acts xxi. 21 sq.) with his assertion of 
Gentile freedom (e.g.in the Epistle to the Galatians). It condemns those 
in our own time who insist on the absolute rejection of forms and those 
who maintain the absolute necessity of retaining them, as equally opposed 
to the liberty of the Gospel. 

τήρησις ἐντολῶν Θεοῦ] In the corresponding passages the requisites 
are πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (Gal. v. 6) and καινὴ κτίσις (Gal. vi. 15): 
see the notes there. Those who would contrast the teaching of St Paul 
with that of St James, or who would exaggerate his doctrine of justification 
by faith, should reflect on this τήρησις ἐντολῶν Θεοῦ. 

20. ἐν τῇ κλήσει] From this passage comes the common usage of 
the word ‘calling’ or ‘vocation,’ for our profession in life regarded as 
sanctified, as given to us by God. The sentiment which underlies this 
thought is essentially right, but as an interpretation of the Apostle’s words 
here it is quite wrong. Here, as always in the N. T., κλῆσις is the 
summons to the knowledge of God, to membership in the Church, to the 
kingdom of Christ. Κλῆσις is a good classical word, meaning (1) a 
designation or appellation, (2) an invitation, e.g. to a supper, (3) a 
summons Or citation to appear as a witness or advocate in court. These 
last two senses form a connecting link with the N. T. use of the expression. 


VII. 21.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 229 


The calling of Christians into the kingdom is represented under the 
image of an invitation to a feast (Matt. xxii. 3, 4, 8, 11: comp. the 
technical use of καλεῖν in-Luke xiv. 7). But more than this, the language 
of Epictetus i. 29 ὃ 46 μάρτυς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ κεκλημένος and ὃ 49 ταῦτα 
μέλλεις μαρτυρεῖν καὶ καταισχύνειν τὴν κλῆσιν ἣν κέκληκεν [ὁ Θεός reminds us 
forcibly of St Paul’s language here (cf. Eph. iv. 1, 2 Tim. i. 9), which the 
Stoic philosopher seems elsewhere to have caught (see Philippians, 
Pp. 313 sq.), though here he has put another meaning into it. In the N. T. 
the substantive occurs chiefly, but not solely (see Heb. iii. 1, 2 Pet. i. 10) 
in St Paul’s writings, and is applied both to the act and (as here) to the 
circumstances of calling. But the circumstances represent not the external 
condition to which God called us, but the external conditions in which 
God called us to a knowledge of Himself. 

21. GAN εἰ καὶ κιτ.λ.7 ‘but of tt should be in thy power to become a free 
man, the rather avail thyself of the opportunity’ Two opposite interpre- 
tations have been put upon this passage: (1) ‘even though it is in thy 
power to be set free, prefer to continue in slavery’; (2) ‘if it should be in 
thy power etc., prefer this freedom to remaining in slavery.’ In the first 
case the sentence (vv. 21, 22) is continuous; in the latter, the clause ἀλλ᾽ 
εἰ xal...uadAov χρῆσαι is parenthetical, ‘in giving you this injunction I do 
not mean to prevent you from becoming free if opportunity offers.’ 

Of earlier commentators, Origen (in Cramer’s Catena, p. 140) explains 
the slavery metaphorically of marriage and seems to take the phrase as 
recommending liberty. He mentions that of λοιποὶ ἑρμηνευταὶ interpret 
the passage of subjection to the ordinances of the law. Of those who 
explain the sentence literally and naturally, Severianus (in Cramer) takes 
it to recommend liberty ; Photius slavery, and so Theodoret with qualifi- 
cations. Hilary (Ambrosiaster) is doubtful. Chrysostom mentions the 
interpretation which recommends liberty (rivés τὸ μᾶλλον χρῆσαι περὶ 
ἐλευθερίας φασὶν εἰρῆσθαι), but prefers the contrary view. Thus the 
tendency of patristic interpretation is on the side of a continuance in 
slavery ; and this we should expect, for while slavery was an existing 
institution, there would be a temptation to explain the passage as 
recommending the status quo. 

Turning now to the language, we may safely say that εἰ καὶ may bear 
both senses. It may mean ‘although, ‘even though,’ as in Phil. ii. 17 
ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι, Col. ii. 5, Luke xi. 8 etc. ; or it may mean ‘if, as in 
Luke xi. 18 εἰ καὶ 6 Σατανᾶς. ..διεμερίσθη : comp. ἐὰν καὶ (vii. 11, Gal. vi. 1). 
When however we come to consider the phrase μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, it is much 
more natural to supply τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ out of the ἐλεύθερος of the immediate 
sentence, than τῇ δουλείᾳ out of the δοῦλος of a more distant clause. Again 
χρῆσαι in the sense of ‘to avail oneself of an opportunity offered’ is an 
idiomatic usage which occurs elsewhere in this Epistle, ix. 12 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ 
ἐχρησάμεθα τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ ταύτῃ, 15 οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τούτων, and is thus 
characteristic and forcible. 


230 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VII. ar. 


But the main argument in favour of the translation adopted in these 
notes is the extreme improbability that St Paul would have taken any 
other view. From the nature of the case the free man was in a much 
more advantageous position for doing God’s work than a slave who was 
fettered at every turn. Again, the Apostle’s own practice in his own case 
shows how strong was the sense of freedom which he carried with him. 
This he exhibits when he asserts more than once his rights as a Roman 
citizen (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 25 sq.). 

Thus we conclude that the passage is parenthetical, a qualification of 
the Apostle’s general statement which precedes it, added lest he should 
be misunderstood. ‘In saying this, I do not mean but that, if you have 
the opportunity of gaining your freedom, you should avail yourself of the 
more advantageous position in which you will then be placed.’ Whatever 
the nature of the freedom may be, it is generally to be preferred to the 
slavery whatever it may be, if it come in a natural and lawful way. 
Compare the parentheses in vv. II, 15. Thus the substantive to be 
supplied is τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ. 

22. ὁ γὰρ...δοῦλος] ‘for he that is called in the Lord being a slave’; 
comp. ver. 21. The expression ἐν Κυρίῳ καλεῖν, though unusual, occurs in 
1 Pet. v. 10, but not in Eph. i. 11, where ἐκληρώθημεν is the correct reading. 

ἀπελεύθερος] ‘freedman.’ A double process is indicated here. Christ 
first buys us from our old master, sin, and then sets us free. For this 
enfranchisement see Rom. viii. 2, Gal. v. 1. But observe that a service is 
still due from the /zbertus to his atronus. This was the case in Roman 
Law (see Becker and Marquardt, V. p. 211), which required the freedman 
to take his patron’s name, live in his patron’s house, consult his patron’s 
will etc. Compare the language of Ignatius (Rom. 4) ἐκεῖνοι ἐλεύθεροι, 
ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος: ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν πάθω, ἀπελεύθερος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ 
ἀναστήσομαι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐλεύθερος. See the note on vi. 20 ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς 
above, where the double aspect of the Redemption, as an emancipation 
and as a transference of ownership, is drawn out. This second aspect is 
hinted at here in the word Κυρίου representing the great Lord of all (see 
the note on iii. 5, above). But in effect freedom in Christ and slavery 
to Christ merely represent two sides of the same moral truth: for 
subjection to Christ is freedom from sin (Rom. vi. 18, 22). 

23. τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε] See the note on vi. 20. 

μὴ γίνεσθε] ‘ ecome not’: for it would be a change of state if they were 
to become slaves once more. Comp. Gal. iv. 31, v. I. 

δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων] What is the reference here? There is nothing in 
the context which points to the meaning, and we have to look for the idea 
elsewhere in the Epistle. The allusion is probably to the insolent tyranny 
of their party-leaders (i. 12, iii. 4, 21); and if so, it can be well illustrated 
by 2 Cor. xi. 20 ἀνέχεσθε yap εἴ τις ὑμᾶς καταδουλοῖ. 

24. In this verse St Paul repeats again the general maxim formulated 
in ver. 17, emphasizing the saving clause, ‘in the sight of God, mapa Θεῷ. 


VII. 27.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 231 


(e) On virgins specially (vii. 25—38). 


25. περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων] This commences a new subject and (from 
the way in which it is introduced) probably another of the topics of the 
Corinthian letter (see on vii. 1), 

A preliminary question has to be settled. Does παρθένοι include both 
sexes? The use of the word in Rev. xiv. 4 is not decisive ; for obviously 
the term there was not a recognised term: otherwise St John would not 
have said further παρθένοι γάρ eiow—an addition which shows that he used 
the phrase καταχρηστικῶς. There is apparently no indication of this use 
until a much later period, unless Pzstis Sophia, p. 146, be an example in 
Syriac (see Payne Smith, 7hes. Syr. p. 624 sq.). But, it will be said, 
St Paul does immediately afterwards (vv. 26—28, 29—33) speak of both 
sexes. That is true; but the facts seem to be that the Corinthians 
consulted.him about the special case of giving virgin daughters in 
marriage; whereupon St Paul generalised, first stating the guiding 
principle (ver. 27), then applying it to both sexes (vv. 28—35), and finally 
dealing with the special point which the Corinthians had put to him 
(vv. 36—38). 

ἐπιταγὴν Κυρίου] i.e. an express command, whether a directly recorded 
saying of our Lord (as in ver. 10), or a direct intimation to the Apostle by 
revelation. 

ἠλεημένος] Compare I Tim. i. 13, 16. 

26. τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν] “7.25 is good to begin with” It is thus the 
fundamental axiom, the starting-point, of the discussion that follows. 
Καλὸν is used in the same sense as in ver. I, and the sentiment is nearly 
the same. ᾿Ανθρώπῳ here includes both sexes. 

ἐνεστῶσαν] ‘resent, not ‘imminent.’ On this word see on Gal. i. 4, 
where this passage is referred to. 

ἀνάγκην] Persecution was impending. There were signs of a coming 
storm. The man, who kept himself free from the entanglement of 
earthly ties, would save himself from many a bitter conflict: he would 
not have to face the terrible alternative—the most terrible to sensitive 
minds—between duty to God and affection to wife and children. He was 
altogether more free to do and to suffer for Christ. A man who is a hero 
in himself becomes a coward when he thinks of his widowed wife and his 
orphaned children. The ἀνάγκη, of which the Apostle speaks, might or 
might not be the beginning of the ἀνάγκη μεγάλη (Luke xxi. 23). 

ὅτι καλὸν κιτιλ.} Governed, like the preceding clause, by νομίζω, but a 
new construction. 

οὕτως] ‘just as he ts, i.e. ‘unmarried,’ for he is speaking of them. For 
οὕτως Compare ver. 40, Rom. ix. 20, John iv. 6. 

27. λέλυσαι] ‘art thou set free from a wife’: not implying that the 
person addressed was ever married. It is complementary to δέδεσαι 


232 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VII. 27. 


above. That this sense is legitimate appears from Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 4 
(quoted by Meyer) ἔτι καὶ viv αὐτόνομα εἶναι λέγεται Kat λελύσθαι ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων. 

28. γαμήσῃς, γήμῃ! If this distinction is intentional, it certainly is 
not the distinction of classical usage between γαμεῖν for the man and 
γαμεῖσθαι of the woman (Lobeck Phryn. p. 742, Porson on Medea 1. 264, 
Pollux iii. 45); for here the aorist active is used of the woman also 
ἐὰν γήμῃ ἡ παρθένος. So too ver. 34 ἡ γαμήσασα, τ Tim. v. II γαμεῖν 
θέλουσιν (χῆραι), 14 βούλομαι νεωτέρας γαμεῖν. In all these cases the verb 
is used absolutely, but in Mark x. 12 ἐὰν αὐτὴ γαμήσῃ ἄλλον (the right 
reading) it governs an accusative. On the other hand the classical 
distinction is preserved below in ver. 39 ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι. 
There is a tendency in scribes to alter the voice in order to bring it into 
conformity with the classical idiom; see Mark l.c. and Ign. Pol. 5 where 
πρέπει δὲ τοῖς γαμοῦσι καὶ ταῖς γαμούσαις has been corrected by the inter- 
polator into πρέπει δὲ τοῖς γαμοῦσι καὶ ταῖς γαμουμέναις (see the note there). 
"Eynpa (from γάμω) is an older form than ἐγάμησα (from γαμέω), which 
however is found in Menander and Lucian; both occur elsewhere in the 
N. T., ἔγημα in Matt. xxii. 25, Luke xiv. 20, ἐγάμησα in Matt. xix. 9, 
Mark vi. 17, x. 11, and ver. 9 above. For the occurrence of an older and 
a later form side by side in the N. T., comp. κερδήσω, κερδανῶ (1 Cor. ix. 
21, 22), ἐλεῶντος, ἐλεεῖ (Rom. ix. 16, 18), and see Lobeck de orthograph. 
Graec. inconst. (Path. τι. 341 sq.-). 

ἡ παρθένος] taken as a typical case: comp. vi. 16 τῇ πόρνῃ. But the 
article here is doubtful. 

ἐγὼ δὲ κιτιλ!] 1.6. ‘my object in giving this advice is to spare you 
suffering as far as possible.’ 

29. συνεσταλμένος] The verb συνστέλλεσθαι is commonly used of 
persons to signify ‘to be depressed,’ ‘dejected’; as in 1 Mace. iii. 6 
συνεστάλησαν of ἄνομοι ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου αὐτῶν, ν. 5 συνέστειλεν αὐτούς, 
2 Macc. vi. 12 μὴ συνστέλλεσθαι διὰ τὰς συμφοράς, see also examples in 
Steph. Zhes. s.v. The question then arises, is συνεσταλμένος here 
temporal or moral, of the contracted time or of the pressure of calamity ? 
Perhaps both ideas are implied in the phrase, but in the light of the 
context the temporal cannot be excluded (comp. Rom. xiii. 11). For 
στέλλεσθαι see the note on 2 Thess. iii. 6, and for the Apostle’s views as to 
the approach of the Second Advent the note on 1 Thess. iv. 15. 

ἐστίν, τὸ λοιπὸν] This is the right reading: not τὸ λοιπόν ἐστιν, nor 
λοιπόν ἐστιν. How then is the expression τὸ λοιπὸν to be taken, with what 
precedes or with what follows? To connect it with what follows in the 
sense given by the A. V. ‘it remains therefore that’ becomes impossible 
as soon as the true reading τὸ λοιπὸν for λοιπὸν is established. Two 
possibilities therefore remain : (1) to connect with the preceding sentence 
‘the season is short henceforth, which is flat and unmeaning; or (2) to 
consider the phrase as belonging to the subordinate clause ἕἵνα.. ὦσιν, 
but misplaced for the sake of emphasis, ‘the season is short, so that 


VII. 34.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 233 


henceforth’ etc. Such an anticipation of words for purposes of emphatic 
statement is characteristic of St Paul (see Winer ὃ lxi. p. 685sq.), 
especially with clauses introduced by iva: see Rom. xi. 31, 2 Cor. ii. 4, 
Gal. ii. 10, Col. iv. 16 and comp. John xiii. 29: and is on the whole to be 
preferred here. 

30. Sorrows and joys alike are temporary, are transient. In a 
moment all may be changed. Therefore to one who judges rightly, 
earthly grief is not over grievous and earthly joy not over joyous. 

ὡς μὴ κατέχοντες] ie. as not sure of absolute ownership. Compare 
2 Cor. vi. 10, and for the metaphor Lucr. iii. 971 ‘ Vitaque mancipio nulli 
datur, omnibus usu.’ 

31. of χρώμενοι κιτ.λ.}] The accusative (roy κόσμον) is very rare after 
χρᾶσθαι except in quite late writers (Malalas p. 5, Theophan. p. 314): it 
has very slight support in Acts xxvii. 17 Bon@eias (v. 1. -as) ἐχρῶντο, but 
occurs in Wisdom vii. 14 θησαυρὸς...ὃν of χρησάμενοι (where the variant 
κτησάμενοι is rejected by Tischendorf and Fritzsche). The construction 
however is found in a Cretan inscription of the second or third century 
B.C. (Boeckh C. ἢ G. τι. p. 405). In the passage before us the accusative 
may have been influenced by the καταχρώμενοι which follows ; καταχρᾶσθαι 
often taking an accusative (A. Buttmann p. 157, Meyer ad /oc.), even in 
classical writers. It occurs however below with a dative, ix. 18 εἰς τὸ μὴ 
καταχρήσασθαι τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ pov. 

καταχρώμενοι] ‘using up, ‘using to the full,’ comp. ‘abuti’ in Latin, 
which often takes this meaning. ‘Misusing’ would be παραχρώμενοι : 
‘abusing’ of the A. V., though an archaism, well preserves the alliteration. 

33,34. The interesting question of the reading of this passage falls 
under two heads. (1) καὶ μεμέρισται καὶ is undoubtedly the reading at the 
end of ver. 33, the omission of the first καὶ in some manuscripts having 
been assisted by the fact that γυναικὶ immediately precedes it. (2) As 
regards ver. 34 three groups of reading present themselves : (4) ἡ γυνὴ ἡ 
ἄγαμος Kat ἡ παρθενος ἡ ayayos supported by SAF 17, Memph., (δ) ἡ γυνὴ 
ἢ ayapos Kat ἡ παρθενος, BP Vulg. Bashm. Euseb. and others, (¢) ἡ γυνὴ και 
ἢ mapOevos ἡ ayapos DFG 37, 47 fuld. Pesh. Harkl. Method. These 
variants originated probably in the accident that in some very early 
manuscript, through the carelessness of the scribe or amanuensis, the 
words ἡ ayayuos were written above the line or in the margin, and so were 
inserted subsequently in different places of the text. The choice seems 
to lie between (4) and (c). If we choose the first of these two alternatives, 
then we punctuate after καὶ μεμέρισται and render ‘and he is distracted,’ 
i.e. his allegiance is divided ; a rendering for which Achilles Tatius v. 24 
Ρ. 343 may be quoted ἐμεμέριστο πολλοῖς ἅμα τὴν ψυχήν, αἰδοῖ καὶ ὀργῇ καὶ 
ἔρωτι καὶ ζηλοτυπίᾳ. The γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος is then ‘the widow,’ one who was 
once married and remains unmarried. If however we prefer the second 
alternative, we punctuate after γυναικὶ and after παρθένος : and in this case 
μεμέρισται has a different meaning ‘there is a distinction between’ (as the 


234 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. _ [ΡΠ]. 34. 


A. V. renders it). I venture to prefer this latter reading, though sup- 
ported chiefly by Western authorities, from internal evidence; for the 
sentences then become exactly parallel. There is just the same dis- 
tinction between the married woman and the virgin, as between the 
married and the unmarried man. The other view throws sense and 
parallelism into confusion, for καὶ μεμέρισται is not wanted with ver. 33 
which is complete in itself. It also necessitates the awkward phrase 
ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος μεριμνᾷᾳἈἩ. The reading ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ayapos και ἡ παρθενος 
ῃ ayapos illustrates the habitual practice of scribes to insert as much as 
possible, and may be neglected. 

35. βρόχον ἐπιβάλω] The rendering of the A. V. ‘cast a snare” 
conveys a false impression as to the Apostle’s meaning, because it 
suggests temptation instead of constraint: St Paul’s desire is not to 
fetter their movements, the metaphor being that of the halter. Compare 
Prov. vi. 21 (quoted by Meyer) ἐγκλοίωσαι ἐπὶ σῷ τραχήλῳ and. Philo Vita 
Moys. iii. 34 (Il. p. 173) βλέπω (τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ βοήθειαν) βρόχους τοῖς αὐχέσε 
περιβάλλουσαν κατὰ τῶν ἀντιπάλων ἕλκει κατὰ τῆς θαλάσσης κ.τ.λ. 

εὐπάρεδρον] A rarer word than εὐπρόσεδρον of the T. R., and better 
supported here. Similarly παρεδρεύοντες is the right reading in ix. 13. 
The form πάρεδρος occurs in Wisd. ix. 4 τὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον 
σοφίαν ‘the wisdom which is attendant on thy throne.’ Like ἀπερισπάστως 
it is found here only in the N. T. 

36. ὑπέρακμος] ‘of full age, rather than ‘ past the flower of her age.’ 

37. These directions of St Paul must be judged in the light of two 
considerations. First, the recognized power of the father over his 
daughter, the ‘patria potestas,’? on which see Becker and Marquardt, 
v. 354. Secondly, the way in which St Paul makes the question depend 
not on the wishes of the daughter but of the father, points doubtless 
to the form in which the matter was submitted to him in the letter of 
the Corinthians, viz. with special reference to the attitude of the father in 
such cases. 


(f) On widows specially (vii. 39, 40). 


39, 40. It is impossible to say what led St Paul to add these last two 
verses. It is conceivable that we have here an answer to a question 
raised in the Corinthian letter, or the subject may have sprung from 
something which has gone before. But however this may be, we have 
here the origin of the metaphor which was worked out a few months 
later in the Epistle to the Romans (vii. 1—3). A parallel case has been 
noted already on ver. 19 with regard to the Epistle to the Galatians. 
The influence of the passage in the Roman letter is traceable in the 
interpolation of νόμῳ after δέδεται from Rom. vii. 2, where it comes in 
naturally, the legal aspect underlying the whole passage. 


ν. 








VII. 40.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 235 


39.- μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ] This expression is generally interpreted to imply 
that she must marry a Christian husband, if she marry at all. But the 
expression cannot be so pressed. It will only signify that she must 
remember that she is a member of Christ’s body; and not forget her 
Christian duties and responsibilities, when she takes such a step. 
Marriage with a Christian only does not seem to be contained in the 
words, though that might be the consequence of her attempt to fulfil 
those duties. 

40. οὕτως] For οὕτως see on ver. 26: for δοκῶ the note on iii. 18 
δοκεῖ. 


4 


= 
a) 





ta i oer 
a a. “he Mh) eee ὦ “ἢ eae Ἰὰς το βήν ὩΣ 





a aig” - 
> 
᾿ pe "ἢ 

J “ 
a, 2 
-“ 
* 1 Z 
- 
? 
an ΜΕ 
ΠΣ 

Ν 

μὴν 





tie LPISTLES OF ST PAUS. 


II. 
THE THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY. 


4. 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 





II. 


ANALYSIS. 


INTRODUCTION. i. I—I5. 


i. 


ii. 


Salutation. i. I—7- 

Paul called to be an Apostle to the Romans called as believers. 
Grace and peace in Jesus Christ. 
Personal explanations. i, 8—15. 

His thanksgivings for them and his interest in them. His desire to 
see them and to impart some spiritual gift to them. His obligation to 
preach the Gospel to all men. He is not ashamed of the Gospel. 


DOCTRINAL PORTION, i. 16—xi. 36. 


i. 


What is the Gospel? i. 16—18. 


A righteousness of God to every one that believeth, to the Jew first 
and then to the Greek. A righteousness by faith, just as the wrath of 
God falls on all impiety and unrighteousness. 

State of the Gentile world. i. 19—32. 

They might have seen God through His works. They refused to see 
Him. They disputed, and they blinded their hearts. They worshipped 
men and beasts. 

Therefore they were delivered over to impurity. Their shameless 
lusts. Their violent and unruly passions. Their lack of all natural 
affection. They not only did these things; but they took delight in 
those who did them. 

State of the Fewish people. ii. 1—29. 

The Jews condemn the Gentiles and yet do the same things. Their 
wrong-doing and stubbornness will be equally punished. As the Jew 
has a priority of knowledge, so also he has a priority of condemnation. 
Those without the law and those under the law will both be judged by 
the standard under which they lived. The natural conscience is to the 
heathen as a rule. 

The Jew has God’s law, and is proud of his privileges. Yet he 
violates the law. Thus his circumcision is no better than the uncircum- 
cision of the heathen. The mere outward token is worth nothing. 


240 


iv. 


vii. 


viii. 


vs 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


But if so, what is the meaning of the covenant? iii. 1—20. 

In other words, in what does the privilege of the Jew consist? It is 
great in many ways. First of all, the oracles of God were entrusted to 
the Jews. 

But what if they disbelieved? Do you say that then the Jews have 
no preference? No, none at all. Their own Scriptures condemn them, 
as having sinned one and all. By the works of the law no flesh shall be 
justified before Him. 


To meet this universal failure, a universal remedy ἐς found. iii. 21—31. 
This remedy is ‘a righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ,’ 


- accorded to all, to Jew and Gentile alike. Past sins of the world have 


been overlooked, that now God might shew His righteousness, 
We do not annihilate law by this: we confirm law. 


But our father Abraham—what is the meaning of the covenant made 
with him? iv. 1—25- 

He is an example of this very principle, for he was justified through 
faith. For he that believeth in God Who justifieth the impicus—his 
faith is counted for righteousness. Such is the language of the Psalms. 
Remember that Abraham was still uncircumcised at this time. It was 
not through circumcision, still less through law, that he was justified. 
Law worketh wrath, for it creates transgression. 

Thus Abraham is the father of the faithful. He hoped against 
hope, and so was justified. This was written for our sakes, who believe 
on Him Who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. 


The results of this position of righteousness through faith. v. I—t11. 

(az) Peace before God. 

(2) Confident boasting. 

(c) Patience under affliction. 

The love of God has been manifested through the death of Christ: 
and this is an assurance that, as we have been reconciled through 
Christ’s death, so we shall be saved, shall live, in Christ’s life. 

The terms ‘life’ and ‘death’ explained. v. 12—21. 

The parallel of the First and Second Adam. Through the First 
Adam death came into the world: through the Second, life. The death 
passed over all: so ὦ fortiori the life. 

The law only interposed to heighten the sense of sin, and so to 
increase the effect of grace. 


What is to be the influence of all this on our conduct? vi. 1—14. 


Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? This is a contra- 
diction of the very conception of our position. We have been crucified, 
have died, with Christ, to sin; we have risen, have been made alive to 
God, to righteousness. 

Therefore we must recognize this death, this life, in our conduct. 
Sin shall be no longer your master, for ye are not under law, but under 
grace,’ 


Xe 


xii. 


xiv. 


xvi. 


L. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 241 


But if so, if we are under grace, and not under law, shall we commit 
sin? vi. 15—23- 

No: you were slaves once to sin: now you are slaves to righteous- 
ness. What came of your former slavery? Death. What of your 
present slavery? Eternal life. 


The assertion substantiated, ‘Ve are not under law.’ vii. 1—6. 

The obligation of the law in the case of a contract is cancelled by 
death. The wife is free to marry when her husband dies. 

So in Christ’s body, death has interposed between you and the law, 
the law is dead to you and you to the law. The newness of the Spirit 
is substituted for the oldness of the letter. 


But is not all this tantamount to saying that the law is sin? vii. 7—24. 


On the contrary, sin is revealed and condemned by the law. Sin is 
dormant and dead, until it is quickened by the law. Sin is then revived 


“and Iam slain. But the purpose of the law is life, though the actual 


result may be death to me. The object of the law is to deepen sin; and 
the conflict within myself vindicates the spirituality, the holiness, of 
the law. 

True, I sin through the law; but I sin against my conscience, and 
therefore I testify to the holiness of the law. The holiness of the law 
is thus vindicated ; but woe is me, wretched sinner, how shall I be 
rescued ? 


Thanks to God through Christ, there is no condemnation to those in 
Christ. vii. 25—Viii. 11. 

Through Christ, God has freed us from sin and death. We have 
been transferred from the domain of the flesh to the domain of the Spirit. 
It is the Spirit of Christ that quickens our spirits, and it will quicken our 
mortal bodies also. 


Therefore we are bound to live after the Spirit. viii. 12—39. 

The Spirit witnesses that we are sons and heirs. Thus present 
afflictions sink into insignificance: while we yearn for the future 
redemption. We hope and we trust, even where we cannot see. 

For God hath foreknown and foreordained us; and if He is with us, 
who can oppose us? No sufferings, therefore, no sorrows, shall separate 
us from the love of God in Christ. 


But what about the Fews? ix. 1—13. 


I have unspeakable sorrow on their behalf, bearing in mind their 
great privileges. Yet God’s word is true: not all Israel shall be saved. 
The Scriptures always speak of a part, e.g. in Isaac, and again in 
Jacob. 

It is as God foreordains, not as man likes. ix. 14—-33. 

So in Pharaoh’s case. Yet what man shall impugn the purpose of 
God, Who moulds us as the potter his clay? The gathering-in of the 
Gentiles as well as the saved remnant of the Israelites is foretold by the 


EP. 16 


242 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


prophets. Heathendom has attained unto righteousness, Israel has 
stumbled on the rock of offence. 


xvii. Zhus the zeal of the Fews has been ineffectual, for they have sought 
righteousness in a false way. X. I—21. 


Righteousness is of faith, which believes in Christ’s death and 
Christ’s ascension. Here Jew and Gentile are on a level. The Gospel 
must be preached to all, but all will not listen to the preaching. This 
too was foretold by the prophets. The Gentiles, it was predicted, 
should excite Israel to emulation. 


xviii. Has God then rejected His people? xi. 1—16. 


No, it is now as of old. The faithful are few, and the apostates 
many. But their apostasy has brought salvation to the Gentiles. And 
ultimately the faith of the Gentiles will re-act and draw the Jews into 
the fold. 


xix. Meanwhile the Gentiles have no ground for boasting. xi. 17—36. 


They are simply the wild graft on the cultivated tree. Their super- 
iority is but for a time. Israel at length will be saved with them. Thus 
God hath concluded all under unbelief that He may have mercy upon 
all. Marvellous is the wisdom of God, to Whom be glory for ever. 


III. PRACTICAL EXHORTATIONS. xii. I—xv. 13. 


Present your bodies a living sacrifice. Ye are limbs of Christ’s body. 
The metaphor implies diversities of functions. Let each do his own 
work. 

Observe charity in all forms. Overcome evil with good. 

Be obedient to the temporal powers. They are God’s delegates. 
Render to all their due, i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself. Love is 
the fulfilling of the law. 

Let each man look to himself, and each respect the conscience of 
another. 

So in the observance of days. So also in the observance of meats. 

Let the strong especially deal tenderly with the scruples of the weak, 
and put no stumblingblock in his way. 

We must not please ourselves, but each his neighbour. 

God grant that you may so live in harmony, that with one accord 
with one mouth ye may glorify God. 

Receive one another therefore, as Christ received you. For Christ 
came as a minister of the circumcision, that through Him the Gentiles 
also might be brought into the fold; and the prophecies might be 
fulfilled which spoke of the joint tribute of praise of Jews and Gentiles. 

This do, and God will fill you with all joy in believing. 





EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 243 


IV. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS. xv. 14—xvi. 27. 


a 


iii. 


iv. 


The Apostle’s motive in writing the letter. xv. 14—121. 


This I am persuaded you will do; but I have written to remind you, 
as your Apostle, as the Apostle of the Gentiles. As such I have 
preached the Gospel far and wide, not building on other men’s foun- 
dations. 


His intention of visiting them. χν. 22—33. 


For this reason I have been prevented from visiting you. But I 
hope to see you on my way to Spain. At present I am bound to 
Jerusalem, as bearer of alms for the poor brethren. Pray that I may 
be delivered from the unbelieving Jews there and may be free to visit 
you. Iam persuaded that the blessing of God will attend my visit. 


Greetings. xvi. I—20. 


.* I commend you to Phebe, the bearer of this letter. 


Salute all the saints by name. The Churches of Christ salute you. 

I charge you to avoid divisions and offences. So will the God of 
peace crush Satan under your feet. 

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 


Postscript. xvi. 21—27. 


Timothy, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater salute you. 

I, Tertius, the amanuensis, salute you. 

Gaius, my kind host, salutes you: so do Erastus and Quartus. 
The Doxology. 


16—2 


CHAPTER I. 


I. INTRODUCTION, i. 1—15. 


I. ϑοῦλος] This is the earliest Epistle in which St Paul styles 
himself a ‘bond servant’ in the opening sentence. But in the Epistle 
which immediately precedes this (see Galatians p. 36 54), the note of 
bondage is struck early (Gal. i. 10 Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην) and is 
repeated at the close (Gal. vi. 17 ra στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ). In the ‘brands’ 
which are the badges of ownership we see the marks which he bore of 
persecution undergone in the service of Christ. Perhaps his late suffer- 
ings have something to do with the prominence here given to the word 
δοῦλος. 

KAyntés] The word is a protest not against those who denied his 
Apostleship, but against those who upheld human merit : see the note on 
1 Cor. i. 1. As such it sounds the keynote of the Epistle, for it has its 
counterpart in the spiritual position of his hearers also (vv. 6, 7 κλητοὶ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις). ‘To the calling of God I owe my office, 
to the same calling you owe your place within the Christian fold’: comp. 
Rom. ix. 11) 12, 16. 

ἀφωρισμένος] The word may refer either (1) to the fore-ordained 
purpose of God as in Gal. i. 15, or (2) to the conversion and potential 
call to the Apostleship (Acts ix. 15), or again (3) to the actual call and 
consecration to the Apostleship (Acts xiii. 2); or lastly it may include all 
three ideas. The word is actually used elsewhere of the first (Gal. i. 15) 
and of the third (Acts xiii. 2) of these events. Probably however the 
first idea would be more prominent in the Apostle’s mind when he used 
the expression here: carrying out as it does the sense of κλητὸς above, 
the origination as derived from God. 

εἰς εὐαγγέλιον] i.e. to learn and to teach the Gospel : for the two were not 
separated in the minds of the earliest disciples and ought not ever to be. 

2. ὃ προεπηγγείλατο] The two leading ideas, as regards the results, 
in what follows are (1) the fulfilment of the Jewish expectations, and 
(2) the comprehension of the Gentiles. These two thoughts run through 
the Epistle in various forms and are gathered up in the final doxology 
(xvi. 25—27), where the words διά re γραφῶν προφητικῶν are inserted 





I, 4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 245 


almost-out of place in order to bring in the first, the fulfilment of the 
promise to the Jews. They are thus introduced in the salutation to show 
the purpose of the Epistle, which is conciliation, see Biblical Essays, 
p. 315. The description begins with a recognition of God’s special office 
as regards the Jews, and expands into a declaration of this relation to 
the Gentiles (comp. i. 16, ii. 9, 10). 

The force of the word προεπηγγείλατο lies in its prepositions, which 
show that salvation is something quite independent of human merit, the 
promise being at once previous and absolute. On ἐπαγγελία in the N.T. 
and its distinction from ὑπόσχεσις see the note on Gal. iii. 14. 

διὰ τῶν προφητῶν] The preposition (διὰ) implies the divine source, 
the substantive (προφήτης not μάντις) the conscious, human agent. As 
connected with the words which follow (ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις), διὰ signifies the 
immediate vehicle, ἐν the permanent repository. 

3. περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ] to be connected closely with εὐαγγέλιον. 

τοῦ γενομένου] Compare the contrast in the language of Phil. ii. 6, 7 ἐν 
μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.. ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, where see the notes. 
Here then the word γενόμενος implies a prior existence of the Son before 
the Incarnation. 

ἐκ σπέρματος AavelS κατὰ σάρκα] i.e. Who on His human side fulfilled 
the condition, as the promised Messiah of the Jews; Who on His divine 
side etc. His Messiahship was after all only the lower aspect of His 
Person (κατὰ σάρκα). His personality as the Divine Word, the Teacher of 
Gentile as well as Jew, was His higher aspect. The reference to the 
descent from David occurs, as we might expect, most frequently in the 
Judaic Gospel (Matt. i. 1, 6, 20: ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, xxi. 9, 
15, xxii. 42 sq.); and in that part of St Luke’s narrative which from 
internal evidence and external probability must have been derived from 
Jewish information (Luke i. 27, 32, 69, ii. 4, 11); but it is also found 
elsewhere, though rarely (John vii. 42, Acts xiii. 23, 2 Tim. ii. 8). 

4. τοῦ ὁρισθέντος] ‘determined, not absolutely but relatively; that is 


to say, with regard not to God’s counsels, but to man’s understanding; | 


not ‘constituted,’ but ‘ defined,’ ‘ declared.’ 

ἐν δυνάμει] i.e. power over the moral and the physical world, with a 
reference to His miracles (δυνάμεις) but not confined to these. The A.V. 
‘with power’ is somewhat misleading. 

κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) Is this expression to be taken as the anti- 
thetical clause to κατὰ σάρκα above? Probably; for though the parallelism 
is somewhat obscured by the interposition of ἐν δυνάμει and by the 
addition of ἁγιωσύνης, yet it is the emphatic part of the sentence, at least 
as antithetical to κατὰ σάρκα. In any case πνεῦμα is here not objective but 
subjective, and ‘a spirit of holiness’ would be a better rendering than 
that of the A.V. 

ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν] The force of the preposition is ‘out of” and 
therefore ‘owing to,’ ‘by reason of.’ Though St Paul singles out this 


246 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [I.-4. 


one incident, he cannot mean to exclude other exhibitions of power. 
The Resurrection was the one crowning, decisive act which manifested 
His Sonship. It is also the crowning spiritual agency. Hence it sums 
up both the preceding phrases ἐν δυνάμει and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. 
See the note on Phil. iii. 10 τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ. This 
prominence given to the doctrine of the Resurrection is a leading idea of 
the Roman letter (iv. 24, vi. 4, viii. 11, x. 9), and of St Paul elsewhere 
(Acts xvii. 31, xxvi. 23). The phrase here however is not ἐξ ἀναστάσεως 
αὐτοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν, but the general resurrection of the dead is meant, 
which was implied in His Resurrection and of which His Resurrection 
was the firstfruits and the assurance. The expression is to be explained 
by St Paul’s conception that the truth of man’s resurrection stands or 
falls with the truth of Christ’s Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 12 sq.). 

5. 8 οὗ] not ἀφ᾽ ov. It is the preposition used of Christ, as the 
Logos, the expression of the Father (see on Gal. i. 1). "Awd is however 
used of the Son when the names of Father and Son are attached together 
(see ver. 7 below), and so conversely is διὰ (Gal. Lc.). 

ἐλάβομεν] we, 1.6. the Apostles. St Paul never uses the epistolary 
plural: see on 1 Thess. ii. 4. The plural here forms a double purpose, 
excluding egotism, and forming a contrast to ὑμεῖς in the next verse. 

χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν]λ The conjunction may be regarded as epexe- 
getical, ‘the gracious privilege of the Apostleship,’ or ‘the grace which fits 
for the Apostleship.’ The Apostleship is itself the χάρις, as in Gal. ii. 9, 
Eph. iii. 2, 7, 8. 

els ὑπακοὴν πίστεως] ‘unto obedience which springs from faith’ 
Compare xvi. 26, where again the doxology is suggested by the intro- 
duction. The rendering of the two passages in the A.V. is inconsistent, 
‘obedience to the faith’ (here), but ‘the obedience of faith’ (xvi. 26). 
Another instance of the subjective genitive after ὑπακοὴ in this Epistle 
occurs in xv. 18 εἰς ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν. For the meaning here compare 
Heb. xi. 8 πίστει καλούμενος ᾿Αβραὰμ ὑπήκουσεν. The expression is chosen 
to describe the true character of the Gospel: thus πίστις, like χάρις and 
kAnros (-rol), is a keyword, 

ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] 1.6. extending far beyond the Jews, by virtue of 
the higher personality of our Lord. 

ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ Involving the idea of person, dignity, 
authority: see on Phil. ii. 9 τὸ ὄνομα. 

6. κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘called to be Fesus Christ's’; not ‘called by 
Jesus Christ,’ for the call is always ascribed to God the Father. 

7. πᾶσιν] An allusion perhaps to the extensive and straggling 
character of the Church of the metropolis; or an endeavour to bind 
together the two sections of that Church (see on Phil. i. 4, and Biblical 
EL ssays, p. 312 sq.): ‘to all, whether Jews or Gentiles; I make no difference.’ 

ἐν Ῥώμῃ] On the omission of these words in some texts and the 
inferences therefrom see Bidlical Essays, p. 287 sq. 





1. 11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 247 


ἀγαπητοῖς] The variant ἐν ἀγάπῃ has apparently arisen out of a com- 
bination of the two readings τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ and τοῖς οὖσιν 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ: see Biblical Essays, p. 288. For ἁγίοις see the notes on 
Phil. i. 1, Col. i. 2; for χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη the note on 1 Thess. i. 1. 

8. πρῶτον piv] The antithetical clause which should commence 
ἔπειτα δὲ (Heb. vii. 2), or at least ἔπειτα (James iii. 17), is lost in the 
_ crowd of thoughts which clamour for expression in the Apostle’s mind; 
as e.g. Rom. iii. 2, 1 Cor. xi. 18, in both which cases the subsequent 
clauses are strung together continuously, as here, chiefly by the connect- 
ing particle yap. For a similar example in sub-apostolic literature see 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. § 3 πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἡμεῖς of ζῶντες κιτιλ. where there is no 
balancing sentence. 

εὐχαριστῶ] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 2. 

τῷ Θεῷ pov κιτ.λ} For the sense of close personal relationship 
expressed in the singular pov, see the notes on Phil. i. 3, Gal. ii. 20, For 
the difference between περὶ (which is the reading here) and ὑπὲρ see on 
Gal. i. 4. For the hyperbole ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ compare 1 Thess. i. 8 ἐν 
παντὶ τόπῳ with the note. 

9. μάρτυς γάρ κιτ.λ.}] The same force of attestation occurs in Phil. 
i, 8: see also 2 Cor. i. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 5, 10. 

λατρεύω] St Paul contrasts the formal and the spiritual λατρεία here 
and elsewhere in this epistle (Rom. xii. 1 τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν). For 
the technical sense of the terms λατρεία, λατρεύειν see the note on Phil. 
iii. 3, where, as here, πνεύματι occurs in the immediate context. 

ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳγ The first ἐν denotes the subjective 
atmosphere, the second the external sphere. For the repetition of ἐν, 
which is frequent in St Paul, see Phil. i. 20, 26, iv. 19, Col. i. 29, ii. 7, 
iii. 16 etc. ‘My λατρεία; says the Apostle, ‘is not a ritual, but a spiritual 
service ; a service rendered not through the works of the law, but through 
the preaching of the Gospel. I am not less diligent than the straitest of 
my fellow-countrymen, but the sphere and the spirit of my diligence are 
different.’ 

ds ἀδιαλείπτως «.7.A.] As πάντοτε cannot stand in the same clause 
with ἀδιαλείπτως, the stop must be placed after ποιοῦμαι. For ἀδιαλείπτως 
and μνείαν ποιοῦμαι see the notes on 1 Thess. v. 17 and 1 Thess. i. 2 
respectively. The two phrases occur together in this latter passage. 

10. εὐοδωθήσομαι}] ‘ay way shall be made plain” The word is 
always found in the N.T. in the passive (1 Cor. xvi. 2, 3 Joh. 2). It soon 
loses its literal sense and becomes a metaphor. Here however, con- 
sidering the subject, the primary meaning can hardly be obliterated: 
comp. Gen. xxiv. 21, 40, 42, 56 where it takes the cognate accusative τὴν 
ὁδόν, but elsewhere (Gen. xxiv. 27, 48) it governs the accusative of the 
person directed. 

11. ἐπιποθῶ7] See the notes on Phil. i. 8, ii. 26. St Paul frequently 
uses the verb with ἐδεῖν following, 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 4. 


248 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [1- 11 


χάρισμα πνευματικὸν] What gifts and graces may be included under 
this term may be seen from 1 Cor. xii. sq. They include (1) moral and 
spiritual (as πίστις, προφητεία), (2) intellectual (as λόγος σοφίας, ἑρμηνείαι 
γλωσσῶν), (3) physical gifts (as χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων). 
They are thus comprehensive alike in character and in the domain in 
which they are exercised. St Paul makes no difference between the 
natural and supernatural: ‘all these,’ he tells us, ‘worketh the one and 
the same Spirit.’ See further on 1 Thess. i. 7. There is nothing in the 
context which strictly limits χάρισμα here. It might include ἐνεργήματα 
δυνάμεων, supposing the Apostles had power to communicate such (Acts 
viii. 14 sq.). The spirit of the passage however points rather to moral 
and spiritual gifts in a stricter sense: comp. εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς, διὰ 
τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως, and such are enumerated below, xii. 6. 

12. τοῦτο 8 ἐστιν] ‘/ would rather say.’ This, not τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, is 
the true reading here. The difference is important. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν is 
corrective as well as explanatory, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is explanatory merely. 
St Paul wishes to substitute something more appropriate for what he has 
just said. On second thoughts, he seems to himself to have arrogated 
too much in desiring to communicate some spiritual gift, to strengthen 
them. He has put himself in a position of superiority, from which he 
hastens to depose himself. ‘I should not speak so,’ he says in effect: 
‘you are not the only gainers, I the only benefactor; the gain, the 
benefaction, is mutual.’ Whereas τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν occurs frequently in the 
N.T. (Rom. vii. 18, Philem. 12, Heb. ix. 11, xi. 16, xiii. 15 etc.), τοῦτο de 
ἐστιν is found here only. 

συνπαρακληθῆναι] sc. ἐμέ. The subject cannot be either (1) ὑμᾶς, as 
the construction of the preceding στηριχθῆναι would suggest, or (2) ἡμᾶς 
(1.ἃ. ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐμὲ) as Dr Vaughan takes it. The ἐν ὑμῖν excludes both 
alike. The former would require ἐν ἐμοί, the latter ἐν ἑαυτοῖς or ἐν 
ἀλλήλοις. The force of the prepositions is, ‘that I may be comforted 
(strengthened, encouraged) with and in you,’ the συν- preparing the way 
for διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως. 

ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ] Added to emphasize the mutual character of the 
benefit. This is introduced in the ovp-, still further enforced in the ἐν 
ἀλλήλοις, and finally emphasized by ὑμῶν re καὶ ἐμοῦ. And not only so, 
the addition rectifies the balance in another way. The usual Greek 
order would be ἐμοῦ re καὶ ὑμῶν (for in classical language grammar 
swayed the order, just as on the other hand in modern parlance courtesy 
overrules the grammar). St Paul however departs from the natural 
order, that so he may give superior prominence to the faith of the 
Romans over his own. 

13. οὐ θθλω] The variant οὐκ οἴομαι (D*G) is perhaps connected with 
the abridgment of the Epistle: see Bidlical Essays, p. 319. 

πολλάκις προεθέμην] The first indication of this purpose is to be 
found in Acts xix. 21, perhaps half a year or more before this Epistle 


I. 14] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 249 


was written ; but the expression there (δεῖ με καὶ Ῥώμην ἰδεῖν) implies a 
fixed, and probably a long-cherished, intention of visiting Rome. This 
intention may have gained definiteness from the moment when he fell in 
with Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth, six or seven years before he wrote 
this Epistle. They had left Rome because of Messianic disturbances 
there (Acts xviii. 2). 

Kal ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο] I prefer to take this sentence indepen- 
dently and parenthetically, and not to connect it with οὐ θέλω : ‘albeit I 
was prevented.’ Compare 1 Thess. ii. 18. The καὶ thus becomes a 
quasi-Hebraism. The hindrance of which he speaks was the necessity 
of completing his work in Greece and the East (Rom. xv. 22, 23). 

τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ] For the metaphor compare Phil. i. 22, 1 Cor. iii. 
6sq., John iv. 36. 

καθὼς kal] For the repetition of καὶ see on Col. iii. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 14, 
and comp. Eph. v. 23. 

14. “Ελλησίν τε καὶ BapBdpors] A comprehensive description of the 
Gentile world. St Paul does not here mention the Jew; for the Jew was 
the special charge of the Apostles of the Circumcision: he only fell 
incidentally to St Paul. Therefore we need not ask whether in the 
Apostle’s mind the Jew is reckoned as Ἕλλην or βάρβαρος. He employs 
the latter word twice elsewhere. In Col. iii. 11 (where its exaggeration 
is Σκύθης) the Jew is obviously not included: in 1 Cor. xiv. 11 the word 
is used of a person speaking an unintelligible tongue and contains no 
idea of nationality. If it be asked under which head St Paul classes the 
Romans, we may reply that doubtless, had the question been put to him, 
he would have included them under Ἕλληνες: but perhaps he did not 
put the question definitely to himself. The circumstances of the Roman 
Church, which for two centuries was mainly Greek-speaking, did not 
require him to do so. For a full discussion of the word βάρβαρος see 
Col. iii. 11. 

σοφοῖς τε καὶ dvorjros] This division is almost coincident with the 
former (comp. 1 Cor. i. 22): but while that regards civilisation as the 
line of demarcation, this makes intellectual progress the criterion of 
distinction. 

ὀφειλέτης εἰμί] Another way of expressing the ἀνάγκη of 1 Cor. ix. 16. 

οὕτω τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον] ‘22 Pursuance of this principle (or in fulfil- 
ment of this obligation), my part ts ready. πρόθυμον cannot be taken as a 
substantive, and rendered, ‘there is readiness on my part.’ The absence 
of the article and of the substantive verb is fatal to this interpretation. 
For τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ compare ra κατ᾽ ἐμὲ Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, Phil. i. 12, 
Tobit x. 8, Esdr. i. 22. 


250 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [I. 16. 


II. DOCTRINAL PORTION, i. 16—xi. 36. 


i. What is the Gospel? (i. 16—18). 


16. οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι κιτ.λ.} The motive of ἐπαισχύνομαι here is 
explained by 1 Cor. i. 21, the context of which passage contains the 
expression δύναμις Θεοῦ twice used, as here, of the Gospel (1 Cor. i. 18, 24). 
The words rod Χριστοῦ of the Textus Receptus after εὐαγγέλιον should be 
omitted, and ἐν αὐτῷ in the next paragraph referred to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. 

᾿Ιουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον] Compare ii. 9, 10, where the same phrase occurs. 
Here however the word πρῶτον is suspicious, as it is omitted in BG and 
Tertullian, and may have been interpolated from ii. 9, 10. If it be 
retained, it must refer to priority of time; for absolutely there is no 
distinction, as St Paul elsewhere states (ch. x. 12). Thus it will be 
explained by St Paul’s language to the Jews at Antioch (Acts xiii. 46 
ὑμῖν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ) and by his con- 
stant practice everywhere. Even at Rome itself he did not act otherwise 
(Acts xxviii. 17, 28). In verse 17 of that passage τοὺς ὄντας τῶν Ἰουδαίων 
πρώτους is translated in the A.V. ‘the chief of the Jews,’ and this seems to 
be the universal interpretation. But may it not be ‘he called together 
first those who were of the Jews’? in which case for the use of the genitive 
we may compare Acts v. 17, ix. 2, 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. i. 15, ii. 17. 

17. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ] The expression is common in St Paul (see 
iii. 5, 21, 22, x. 3, 2 Cor. v. 21: comp. James i. 20). The genitive should 
be rendered ‘coming from God,’ compare the phrase ὀργὴ Θεοῦ in the 
next verse, to which it is opposed. Similarly in the passage cited from 
St James ὀργὴ ἀνδρὸς is the antithesis to δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. In ch. x. 3 it 
is opposed to τὴν ἰδίαν (δικαιοσύνην) and must bear this meaning (see also 
a similar phrase and contrast in Phil. iii. 9, and Luke xvi. 15). The 
contrast then is between a righteousness appointed by God and a 
righteousness of our own making, and it may be illustrated by the 
parable of the publican and the Pharisee (esp. Luke xviii. 14). It cannot 
therefore mean here ‘righteousness in the sight of God,’ which is the 
meaning in iii. 20. 

ἐκ πίστεως els πίστιν] Faith is the starting point, and faith the goal. 
For the phrase compare 2 Cor. iii. 18 ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, Rom. vi. 19 
τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν, John i. 16 χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος. 

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος κιτλἢ. From Habak. ii. 4. The passage is quoted also in 
Gal. iii. 11 (where see the notes), and Heb. x. 38. I cannot doubt that 
ἐκ πίστεως is to be taken with ζήσεται, not with ὁ δίκαιος. For (1) the 
original seems certainly so to intend it; and in the Lxx., whether we 
read μου ἐκ πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως pou (see Galatians, p. 156 note 4), it 





I. 18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 251 


appears’ so to be taken. This is also the construction in the Targum 
Jonathan. (2) Ἔκ πίστεως here corresponds to ἐκ πίστεως in the former 
part of the verse, where it belongs, not to the predicate, but to the subject. 
It is here separated from ὁ δίκαιος, as it is there separated from δικαιοσύνη. 
(3) Ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως is not a natural phrase, and, I think, has no 
parallel in St Paul. (4) The other construction takes the emphasis off 
‘faith,’ which the context shows to be the really emphatic word, and lays 
it on the verb ‘live.’ In Gal. iii, 11 the context is still more decisive. 
For the Old Testament meaning of faith'see Galatians, p. 154sq., where 
this passage is discussed with others. The construction ζῆν ἐκ may be 
illustrated from 2 Cor. xiii. 4, where the phrase occurs twice. 

18. ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ] ‘A righteousness of God is revealed, being 
required for the state of mankind; for a wrath of God is revealed and 
extends to all.’ Thus the opening words of this verse correspond to the 
opening*.words of the last. Here however ἀποκαλύπτεται is placed first, 
and is emphatic, ‘for there has been also another revelation.’ In the 
individual, as in the race, this revelation must precede the other. The 
sense of sin, the sense of God’s displeasure at sin, the sense that God 
will not overlook sin—this is the revelation of the ὀργὴ Θεοῦ. 

ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ] to be taken with ἀποκαλύπτεται. It is added to give 
solemnity to the facts. The heavens open, as it were, and reveal the 
Righteous Judge (2 Thess. i. 7). 

πᾶσαν] Extending to Jew as well as Gentile (comp. ii. 1, 9, 10), 
though the remaining part of the chapter refers specially to the Gentiles. 

ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν] ᾿Ασέβεια against God, ἀδικία against men. The 
first precedes and entails the second: witness the teaching of this 
chapter. 

τὴν ἀλήθειαν] The word involves two ideas; first, the confession of 
the One True God, as opposed to idols; secondly, the acknowledgment 
of Christ, as the manifestation of God the Father. The first is the 
prominent idea here; the second perhaps in St John. 

κατεχόντων] ‘grasping, possessing’: comp. 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 2, Luke 
viii. 15, and see the antithesis of ἔχειν, κατέχειν in 2 Cor. vi. 10. The 
preposition xara is no objection to this rendering. The strength of the 
word is its recommendation. They did grasp, did possess the truth 
potentially. Compare καθορᾶται below (ver. 20) and γνόντες (ver. 21). 
There was no doubt about the truth: at least there ought to have been 
none. They could not plead that it was slippery, that it eluded their 
grasp. Thus the preposition is really expressive here. Against the 
other interpretation, ‘restraining, keeping down,’ I would urge, first 
that τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ is an awkward expression in this sense; and 
secondly, that we want some statement here of the fact that they had 
the truth. 


252 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [I. 19. 


ii, State of the Gentile world (i. 19—32). 


19. διότι) I say possessing, because’ etc. 

τὸ γνωστὸν] This may mean either ‘known’ or ‘knowable.’ The 
word however seems always to have the first sense in the N.T. For 
this passage compare Acts xv. 18. There are unseen truths behind all 
this, but the one essential thing was a known thing. 

ἐν αὐτοῖς] ‘among them’; rather than ‘in them,’ in the sense of ‘in 
their hearts.’ Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 19 ἵνα of δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. 

20. τὰ yap ἀόρατα x.t.A.] All which follows in this chapter shows a 
remarkable correspondence with Wisdom chs. xiii.—xv., a passage which 
St Paul must have had in his mind. See especially Wisdom xiii. 1, 5, 7, 
10, 13, 14, Xiv. 11, 12, 15, 23—27, Xv. II, xvi. I. We must remember 
that the Book of Wisdom was written in Egypt where animals were 
worshipped. The general thought is well illustrated in ps.-Aristotle de 
Mundo 6 πάσῃ θνητῇ φύσει γενόμενος ἀθεώρητος ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων θεω- 
ρεῖται ὁ Θεός. 

ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου] i.e. ‘from the very beginning’; to be taken with 
καθορᾶται, not with ra ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. For ‘the invisible things,’ i.e. His 
Person and attributes, are in themselves independent of time. On the 
vicissitudes of the word κόσμος see the note on Eph. ii. 2; on κτίσις the 
note on Col. i. 15. 

καθορᾶται] ‘are clearly discerned’: the only passage where the word 
occurs in the N.T. The force of the preposition is shown in Job x. 4 ἢ 
ὥσπερ βροτὸς ὁρᾷ καθορᾷς; ‘or is Thy clear vision like the vision of a 
mortal ?’ 

᾿θειότης) On this word and its distinction from θεότης see the note on 
Col. ii. 9. 

εἰς τὸ εἶναι] ‘50 that they are” The proper distinction between εἰς τὸ 
and πρὸς τὸ seems to be that eis denotes ‘result,’ πρὸς ‘design’ or ‘ pur- 
pose’: but of course purpose may be indirectly implied in εἰς here. 

ἀναπολογήτους] Arraigned before the bar of divine justice they have 
nothing to say. The same word is applied also to the Jew (ii. 1). It 
is a forensic term, not uncommon in the age of Polybius and later; 
but it is not found elsewhere in the Lxx. and N.T. Cicero uses it 
(ad Ait. xvi. 7) ‘sed hoc ἀναπολόγητον." 

21. ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν) The first term denotes the objective 
worship, the second the reflexive feeling. On the duty of εὐχαριστία, as 
the crown of Christian worship in St Paul’s teaching, see on 1 Thess. 
i. 2, v. 16. 

ἐματαιώθησαν] See 2 Kings xvii. 15, Jerem. ii. 5, passages which the 
Apostle may be supposed to have had in his mind. At all events the 
train of thought is the same here. ‘They followed foolishness (τὰ μάταια) 
and became foolish (μάταιοι) themselves.’ Comp. Wisdom xiii. 1 μάταιοι 


I. 23.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 253 


μὲν yap πάντες ἄνθρωποι φύσει οἷς παρῆν Θεοῦ ἀγνωσία, Ps. xciv. 11 (quoted 
on 1 Cor, iii. 20, an Epistle written not long before this) Κύριος γινώσκει 
τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν ὅτι εἶσι μάταιοι, where the correspondence to ἐν 
τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν is noticeable. 

διαλογισμοῖς) Here ‘inward questionings’: as generally in the N.T.; 
though not universally, see 1 Tim. ii. 8 and the note on Phil. ii. 14. 

ἐσκοτίσθη] Of the three forms found in the LXxX. σκοτάζω, σκοτίζω and 
σκοτόω, the second is the more usual in the N.T. (Matt. xxiv. 29, 
Mark xiii. 24, Rom. xi. 10, all however quotations, here and Rev. viii. 12); 
but the last is found (Eph. iv. 18 the true reading, Rev. ix. 2). Σκοτάζω 
does not occur. The celebrated passage in Clement of Rome (ὃ 36) δια 
τούτου ἡ ἀσύνετος καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ φῶς is a 
combination of this passage with Eph. iv. 18: accordingly we are not 
surprised to find a diversity of reading ; ἐσκοτωμένη being read there, but 
the passage from Clement as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
iv. 16, p. 613) having ἐσκοτισμένη. See A. Jahn’s Methodius τι. p. 77, 
note 453. 

23. ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν ἐν ὁμοιώματι) An embedded quotation from 
Ps. cvi. (cv.) 20 (comp. Jer. ii. 11). The variant ἠλλάξαντο seems to have 
come from the original passage, which, as being in the Psalms, would be 
well remembered. For a similar embedded quotation involving a similar 
motive see Phil. ii. 15. The whole context here is full of Old Testament 
phraseology, ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία (comp. Ps. Ixxvi. 6), σοφοὶ ἐμωράν- 
θησαν (comp. Is. xix. 11). 

δόξαν] i.e. His attributes as manifested to men in His works, whether 
by the revelation of nature, or by the revelation of grace. On the other 
hand, the great manifestation, the culminating exhibition of His δόξα, in 
the Person and Life of Christ (John i. 14), was not vouchsafed to them. 

ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος] For the difference between these words, ὁμοίωμα 
implying a resemblance which may be accidental, εἰκὼν presupposing an 
archetype of which it is a copy, see on Col. i. 15. The distinction how- 
ever has no very important bearing on this passage, and the genitive is 
the genitive of apposition or explanation, ‘a likeness which consists in an 
image or copy.’ 

φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου κιτ.λ.] ᾿Ανθρώπου as in the mythologies of Greece 
and Rome, including the worship of the Emperor; πετεινῶν, τετραπόδων, 
ἑρπετῶν as in Assyria and especially Egypt. For this latter class of 
idolatry see Deut. iv. 17 sq., and Wisdom xiii. 1]. cc. which was probably 
the composition of an Alexandrian Jew. The cult of the crocodile, ibis, 
cat etc. was a theme of ridicule for Roman satirists (like Juvenal Saz. xv. 
1 sq. ‘qualia demens AZgyptus portenta colit? crocodilon adorat Pars 
haec, illa pavet saturam serpentibus ibim’ etc.), as well as for Jewish 
writers (like Philo who is very severe Legatio ad Caium § 20 (II. p. 566) οἱ 
κύνας καὶ λύκους καὶ λέοντας καὶ κροκοδείλους καὶ ἄλλα πλείονα θηρία καὶ ἔνυδρα 
καὶ χερσαῖα καὶ πτηνὰ θεοπλαστοῦντες, ὑπὲρ ὧν βωμοὶ καὶ ἱερὰ καὶ ναοὶ καὶ 


254 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [I. 23. 


τεμένη κατὰ πᾶσαν Αἴγυπτον ἵδρυνται, $25 Θεοῦ κλῆσις οὕτως ἐστὶ σεμνὸν παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῖς ὥστε καὶ ἴβεσι καὶ ἰοβόλοις ἀσπίσι ταῖς ἐγχωρίοις καὶ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις 
τῶν ἐξηγριωμένων αὐτῆς θηρίων μεταδεδώκασιν), and Christian (as the Sibyl- 
line Oracles see 2γοδηί. vv. 60, 65 Sq., ili. 29, 30 ματαίως δὲ πλανᾶσθε 
προσκυνέοντες ὄφεις τε καὶ αἴλούροισι θύοντε:). 

24. ϑιὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς] So ver. 26 διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτούς, and 
again ver. 28 παρέδωκεν αὐτούς. Two facts must be noticed here. (1) This 
delivering up, this hardening the heart, is the second stage in the down- 
ward fall, not the first, in the language of Scripture. The first is inthe | 
man’s own power. (2) This is not. represented as a negative result of 
God’s dealings, not as a permissive act, a passive acquiescence on His 
part. There is a stage in the downward course when by God’s law sin 
begets more sin and works out its own punishment in the degradation of 
the whole man. Thus there are moral laws of God’s government just as 
there are physical laws. This fact was perceived by thoughtful men even 
without the assistance of Christian teaching. See the celebrated passage 
of Persius Safir. iii. 35 sq. ‘Magne pater divum, saevos punire tyrannos 
Haud alia ratione velis, quum dira libido Moverit ingenium, ferventi 
tincta veneno: Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta,’ and compare 
the Jewish proverb Pirke Adoth iv. 5 ‘Merces praecepti praeceptum est 
et transgressionis transgressio.’ Quite apart from revelation, all experi- 
ence shows that this is a moral law. | 

ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις] ‘22 their lusts’; not ‘to their lusts,’ which Dr 
Vaughan suggests as a possible rendering. True the LXx. by a common 
Hebraism has the construction παραδιδόναι ἐν as equivalent to παραδιδόναι 
eis: but here we have the thing to which the deliverance over is made 
expressed in a separate phrase εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν. Ἔν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις must 
therefore represent ‘the field or region in which the abandonment acted,’ 
as Vaughan prefers to take it. 

ἀτιμάζεσθαι] Compare in this sense ver. 26 εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας and 
1 Thess. iv. 4 τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῃ.Γ. On the 
Christian reverence for the body see note on 1 Cor. vi. 13. 

αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς] The correct reading, not αὑτῶν ἐν αὑτοῖς. On the 
other hand ἐν αὑτοῖς is the reading three verses below. 

25. τῷ ψεύδει] ‘the lie, the falsehood. An expression used for an idol, 
both in thé-Old Testament (Hab. ii. 18) and in the New Testament 
(Rev. xxi. 27, xxii. 15). The idol is a lie in two senses ; for it professes to 
be what it is not, and it leads others astray. 

ἐσεβάσϑησαν] ‘Zook as the objects of their devotion’ (their σεβάσματα, 
comp. Acts xvii. 23). Σεβάζεσθαι is thus stronger than σέβεσθαι. For 
the connexion of idolatry and profligacy see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3. 
It was the necessary consequence of deifying human passions. Fetish 
worship produces fetish morality. Unbelief or wrong-belief in religious 
matters will ultimately degrade morality. 

26. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘for this reason it was. Very emphatic, taking up 





I. 29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 255 


and emphasizing the διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς of ver. 24. A later stage in the 
downward course is reached in ver. 28. 

27. Karepyatépevo.] A very strong and a favourite word with St Paul 
at this time, occurring in this Epistle no less than eleven times, and 
eight times in the Epistles to the Corinthians. 

28. ἐδοκίμασαν] On this word see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 4, v. 21. 
The metaphor is that of testing coin, and the counterpart appears in 
ἀδόκιμον below. Just as they would not accept the knowledge of God as 
standard coin, so God refused to accept their minds. Compare Jerem. 
Vi. 30 ἀργύριον ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον καλέσατε αὐτούς, ὅτι ἀπεδοκίμασεν αὐτοὺς 
Κύριος. ᾿Αδόκιμον thus becomes equivalent to κίβδηλον, and the two 
adjectives are found in close connexion elsewhere, e.g. Greg. Naz. Orat. 
iv. 10 (I. p. 82) οὐ κίβδηλον ὠδὴν οὐδὲ ἀδόκιμον. For the construction of 
ἔχειν after δοκιμάζειν ‘so as to have,’ comp. I Thess. ii. 4. 

mapéSwxev αὐτοὺς] There are two stages, not three, described in God’s 
abandonment of the wicked. irs, they persisted in worshipping false 
gods, whereupon God let them follow their own flagitious passions (ver. 
24 repeated in ver. 26). Secondly, they steeped themselves in flagitious 
passions, whereupon God suffered their mind to be wholly perverted and 
reprobate (ver. 28). 

γοῦν] As ἀδόκιμον corresponds to the preceding ἐδοκίμασαν, so does 
νοῦν to the preceding ἐν ἐπιγνώσει. Vaughan well quotes Tit. i. 16. This 
is the aggravation of their moral state. This is the second and final 
stage in their abandonment by God. The higher part of their nature is 
gone. 

29. πεπληρωμένους, perros] The wrong-doing, the degrading passion, 
is not now occasional. It is they, and they are it. Comp. Plato Gorgias 
8 8ο, p. 525A ὑπὸ ἐξουσίας καὶ τρυφῆς καὶ ὕβρεως καὶ ἀκρατίας τῶν πράξεων 
ἀσυμμετρίας τε καὶ αἰσχρότητος γέμουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν εἶδεν, Respudl. ix. ὃ 6, 
P- 579 E φόβου γέμων διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου, σφαδασμῶν τε καὶ ὀδυνῶν πλήρης. 

πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ κιτλ} There are many variants in the list of sins which 
follow. The word πορνείᾳ at all events ought to be struck out of the text 
for two reasons. (1) It seems to have been introduced as an explanation 
(and a wrong one) of πλεονεξίᾳ. (2) It is out of place here. The sins 
here enumerated are of a different kind. In the former part St Paul had 
spoken of passions which degrade the man himself. Here he speaks of 
vices which make him intolerable to others. The resemblance in form to 
movnpia which precedes, assisted in the corruption of the text. The most 
probable reading is πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, or possibly the 
order of the last two terms should be reversed. Thus we obtain a 
natural grouping. First come the outward acts, ἀδικία, πονηρία, πλεο- 
veéia ‘injustice, rascality, graspingness.’ Then follows the inward dis- 
position, κακία ‘viciousness.’ Kaxia denotes the pleasure taken in 
injuring others, where vice has become habitual, and where injury is 
done to others, not for the sake of gain but for its own sake. For the 


256 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [I. 29. 


distinction between κακία and πονηρία see on Col. iii. 8, and for πλεονεξία 
Col. iii. 5. Πλεονεξία is the disposition which is ever ready to sacrifice 
one’s neighbour to oneself in all things, not in money dealings merely. 

φθόνου, φόνου] See the note on Gal. v. 21 φθόνοι, φόνοι where φόνοι is 
of doubtful authority. The alliteration decided the juxtaposition here, as 
in ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους (ver. 30). 

ψιθυριστάς, karadddovs] The secret and the open detractors respec- 
tively. See Tac. Amz. vi. 7 ‘cum primores senatus infimas etiam 
delationes exercerent, alii propalam, multi per occultum. It seems 
probable that St Paul here had the ‘delatores’ in his mind. He is 
especially dwelling on heathen vices, and at this time ‘delatio’ was 
among the most prominent and crying vices of Rome. For the com- 
bination comp. 2 Cor. xii. 20, 1 Pet. ii. 1. 

30. θεοστυγεῖς] ‘hateful to God,’ rather than ‘God-haters.’ There 
seems indeed to be no authority for the active meaning. The phrase is 
explained in Clement of Rome § 35 ταῦτα yap οἱ πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ 
Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν, a passage which is a reminiscence of Rom. i. 29 sq., and 
can be illustrated from Wisdom xiv. 9 μισητὰ Θεῷ καὶ ὁ ἀσεβῶν καὶ 7 
ἀσέβεια αὐτοῦ, a work of which (as I have remarked before, see on ver. 20) 
the context is full. Philo, af. John Damasc. Sacr. Parail. p. 436D, 
speaking of informers calls them διάβολοι καὶ θείας ἀπόπεμπτοι χάριτος 
θεοστυγεῖς τε καὶ θεομισεῖς πάντη. 

ὑβριστάς, ὑπερηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας] The first term implies disregard for 
others, the second and third terms exaltation of self; with this distinction 
however that ὑπερηφάνους means ‘arrogant in thought,’ ἀλαζόνας ‘ brag- 
garts in words and gestures.’ 

The rendering of ὑβριστὰς in the A.V. by ‘despiteful’ is an archaism 
rather than a mistranslation for ‘insolent’: comp. the rendering in 
Heb. x. 29 ἐνυβρίσας ‘done despite unto.’ 

ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν] i.e. inventors of new forms of vice. Comp. Tac. Azz. 
vi. 1 ‘ignota antea vocabula reperta sunt’; and the consequences were 
what the Apostle describes here, see the letter of Tiberius (ch. 6) which 
commences ‘quid scribam vobis, patres conscripti, aut quomodo scribam, 
aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore, di me deaeque peius perdant 
quam perire me quotidie sentio, si scio’; to which the historian adds the 
words, ‘adeo facinora atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium ver- 
terant. neque frustra praestantissimus sapientiae firmare solitus est, si 
recludantur tyrannorum mentes posse aspici laniatus et ictus quando ut 
corpora verberibus ita saevitia, libidine, malis consultis animus dila- 
ceretur. quippe Tiberium non fortuna, non solitudines protegebant 
quin tormenta pectoris suasque ipse poenas fateretur.’ 

γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς] Comp. 1 Tim. i. 9, 2 Tim. iii. 2. 

31. derépyovs] The insertion of ἀσπόνδους after ἀστόργους in the 
T.R. may have arisen either as a gloss on ἀσυνθέτους, or as a reminiscence 
of 2 Tim. iii. 3 where ἄσπονδοι follows ἄστοργοι. 


a 


I. 32.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 257 


32. οὕτινες x.t.d.] ‘men who knowing well the ordinance of God.’ 
‘Ordinance,’ rather than ‘judgment’ (A.V.), is the meaning of δικαίωμα 
here: the former implies a general legal enactment, the latter an in 
dividual verdict. 

πράσσοντες] ‘Practise. This is the staple of their conduct. A different 
word ποιοῦσιν is used below, where simple ‘doing’ is intended to be 
implied. The same contrast is found in ii. 3. The word θανάτου is best 
explained here of spiritual death. 

οὐ μόνον κιτ.λ.} Jowett takes this as an anticlimax, and declares that 
it cannot ‘be maintained, as a general proposition, that it is worse to 
approve than to do evil.’ Surely this is a mistake. Many a man from 
passion or self-interest will do what his conscience does not approve ; 
but to instigate others to do, to take pleasure in doing, what is sinful, is 
an aggravation of his state. 

συνευδοκοῦσιν] ‘sympathize with, and so stimulate and encourage by 
their sympathy. The variants ποιοῦντες, συνευδοκοῦντες found in B, and 
some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and known to Origen, Isidore 
of Pelusium and Epiphanius, seem to have been read by Clement of 
Rome ὃ 35 οὐ μόνον δὲ of πράσσοντες αὐτὰ ἀλλὰ καὶ of συνευδοκοῦντες αὐτοῖς : 
and the attempts to complete the construction discernible in the inser- 
tion of οὐκ ἐνόησαν of D and the οὐκ ἔγνωσαν of G after ἐπιγνόντες above, 
point in the same direction. But if, as is possible, this was the original 
reading, it may have been an error of Tertius the amanuensis, in the 
hurry of writing what was dictated to him. Clement of Rome appears 
to have taken the words ποιοῦντες, συνευδοκοῦντες to refer to of ra τοιαῦτα 
πράσσοντες k.t.A., but this is surely wrong. Still Clement’s testimony to 
the reading is of the highest importance, as he may have had the 
Apostle’s autograph before him, when he wrote. 


1, EP, 17 


CHAPTER II. 


iil. State of the Jewish people (ii. 1—29). 


IT is worth while to observe the identity of plan discernible in this 
chapter and in the last. As in the last section (i. 18—32) St Paul 
began with a general proposition, and made no direct reference to the 
Gentiles, this general proposition however involving the condition of the 
Gentiles as a class; and thence proceeded to the special sins of the 
Gentiles as a class: so here he starts from a general statement, which 
implicitly contains a description of the condition of the Jews as a class, 
though there is no mention of the Jews; and goes on to condemn the 
Jew through this general statement, though he does not refer directly to 
him till ver. 17. 

Again the universality of the statement is emphasized in each case 
(i. 18 ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν, ii. I πᾶς ὁ κρίνων). The Jew, who falls into 
Gentile profligacy, falls under Gentile condemnation ; and the Gentile, 
who indulges in Jewish pride and self-righteousness, will be punished as 
if he were a Jew. As a last point of coincidence the two general ordi- 
nances are bound together by the repetition of the word ἀναπολόγητος 
(i. 20, ii. 1). There is no escape either for the one or for the other. 

I. 6 κρίνων] The parable of the Pharisee and Publican is the best 
commentary on this whole section : compare especially ii. 17—19 with the 
terms in which the parable is introduced (Luke xviii. 9). 

kataxplveis] For St Paul’s frequent use of compounds of κρίνειν see 
the note on 1 Cor. ii. 15. 

2. ἐστὶν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν]! The verb is slightly emphatic, as its position 
shows. It implies the absolute character of God’s judgment. Kara 
ἀλήθειαν may be illustrated from John vii. 24. 

3. σὺ] The pronoun is emphatic; ‘thinkest thou that thou shalt 
prove an exception to the general rule?’ The Jews held that the judg- 
ment was for the Gentiles only, not for the Israelites, the true servants of 
Messiah. The Apostle’s reminder is an echo of the Baptist’s language 
(Matt. iii. 8, 9). 

4. ἢ] This isthe alternative. ‘If you do not trust your own powers 
of evasion, it follows that you must despise the lavish mercy of God.’ 
Thus vv. 3, 4 set forth the two grounds on’ which his hearers hoped to go 
unpunished. 


i 
, 





II. 8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 259 


χρηστότητος, ἀνοχῆς, μακροθυμίας] The distinction between χρηστότης, 
neutral, ‘a kindly disposition towards one’s neighbours’ not necessarily 
taking an active form, and μακροθυμία, Passive, ‘ patient endurance under 
injuries inflicted by others,’ is set forth in the note on Gal. v. 22, where 
the two words work up to the active correlative, ἀγαθωσύνη, ‘ goodness, 
beneficence’ as an energetic principle. There however the terms are 
applied to human agents; here as applied to God the distinction is 
somewhat different, χρηστότης implying His ‘gracious dealings, ἀνοχὴ 
His ‘forbearance,’ His ‘suspension of judgment,’ μακροθυμία His ‘long- 
suffering.’ Thus avoyn, which in classical Greek signifies a suspension of 
arms, ‘indutiae,’ represents a transient state of things which ‘after a 
certain lapse of time...unless other conditions intervene, will pass away’ 
(Trench N.7. Syn. 811. p. 199). Accordingly in one of the two passages 
in which it occurs in the N.T. it is connected with the πάρεσις ἁμαρτημάτων 
(Rom. iti. 25) anterior to the knowledge of the atoning work of Christ. 

τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘not knowing that the true purpose of God’s 
goodness is the very reverse of this, intended not to encourage you to 
sin, but to lead you to repentance.’ 

5. θησαυρίζεις] ‘storest up.’ The idea of θησαυρίζειν is gradual accu- 
mulation : ‘irae divinae judicia paulatim coacervari, ut tandem universa 
promantur’ Wolf (Cur. Phil. iv. 38). The words ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς contain an 
abridged expression, with the meaning ‘so that they will be accumulated 
upon you in the day of wrath’: see the notes on 1 Thess. iii. 13 ἀμέμ- 
mrovs, where other examples are given, and Phil. iv. 19 ἐν δόξῃ. This 
appears to be the true sense in James v. 5 also ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς. On this 
Pauline use of ἡμέρα see the notes on 1 Thess. v. 2, 4. 

6. ὃς ἀποδώσει x.7.A.] From the Lxx. of Prov. xxiv. 12, a favourite 
quotation in the N.T., occurring in St Paul here and 2 Tim. iv. 14, in 
Matt. xvi. 27 and Rev. xxii. 12. Clement of Rome (δ 34) cites it, probably 
from Rev. l.c., and characteristically combines it with other Old Testa- 
ment passages. His namesake of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 22, p. 625) 
copies it from the Roman Clement. 

κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ Explained by the words which follow καθ᾽ 
ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ. St Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith must 
be qualified and interpreted by such expressions as these. 

7. ἴωὴν αἰώνιον] sc. ἀποδώσει. This must be the construction, for the 
accusatives δόξαν, τιμήν, ἀφθαρσίαν cannot be separated from ζητοῦσιν. 

8. τοῖς δὲ ἐξ épifelas] Instead of the usual explanation ‘those whose 
starting-point is party-feeling’ (comp. iv. 14 of ἐκ νόμου, Gal. iii. 7 of ἐκ 
πίστεως), it is perhaps better to supply πράσσουσιν ‘those who act from 
party-feeling.’ Certainly where the expression occurs again (Phil. i. 17 
oi ἐξ ἐριθείας), it is not, as some suppose, elliptical, but καταγγέλλουσιν 
has to be supplied: see the note on ἐξ ἀγάπης there. For ἐριθεία see on 
Gal. v. 20, Phil. ii. 3. The phrase is especially appropriate to the 
Judaizing tendencies, where party was set before truth (Phil. i. 17). 


17—2 


260 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [II. 8. 


ὀργὴ καὶ θυμὸς κιτλ.] The construction of the sentence presents certain 
difficulties, owing to three main peculiarities of structure. (1) There is 
a change, the nominatives ὀργὴ x.r.A. occurring where the parallel to 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον would require accusatives. We must not however remedy this 
by placing a full stop after ἀδικίᾳ ; for, though this would simplify the con- 
struction, it would be harsh and not at all after St Paul’s manner. (2) The 
expression ἐπὶ πᾶσαν Ψψυχὴν.. Ἕλληνος ‘extending to every soul of man’ 
etc. is a sort of afterthought. The first idea of the sentence ἐξ ἐριθείας 
refers mainly to the Jew; but, as in other cases, the Apostle hastens to 
make the proposition universal. (3) Lastly, the change of form in the 
sentence and its extension lead to the addition δόξα δὲ.. “Ἕλληνι, which 
finally destroys whatever symmetry remained. 

9. θλίψις Kal στενοχωρία] We gather from 2 Cor. iv. 8 θλιβόμενοι 
ἀλλ᾽ ov στενοχωρούμενοι that στενοχωρία is the stronger word. The terms 
are perhaps to be distinguished as the temporary and the continuous. 
More strictly, we may say that the opposite to θλέψες ‘compression’ is 
ἄνεσις ‘relaxation’ (on which word see 2 Thess. i. 7), the opposite to 
στενοχωρία is πλατυσμὸς Or evpvxwpia ‘enlargement, room to move in.’ 
Here, and in viii. 35, both expressions are derived from Is. viii. 22. On 
θλίψις and kindred words see the note on 1 Thess. iii. 7 ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει. 

κατεργαζομένου] ‘who worketh out, worketh deliberately” Below (ver. 
10) it is τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ simply. 

πρῶτον] As the Jew has priority of privilege, so he has also priority of 
penalty. 

11. οὐ γὰρ] referring to παντὶ τῷ ἐργ. The πρῶτον is overlooked, as 
being merely incidental and not affecting the ἀπροσωπολημψία of God. 
On προσωπολημψία see the note on Gal. ii. 6 πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν. 

12. ὅσοι γὰρ] ‘ All alike, for whether under law or not under law, they 
shall be judged according to their condition.’ 

13. ov γὰρ of ἀκροαταὶ «.r.A.] The sentence is connected with ἐν νόμῳ 
ἥμαρτον. ‘For the mere facts that they are under law, that they are 
children of Abraham, that Moses is read among them every Sabbath-day 
(Acts xv. 21), will not rescue them.’ Compare James i. 22, 23,25. For 
ἀκροαταὶ of hearing without action see the description given by Cleon of 
the character of the Athenians (Thuc. iii. 38) εἰώθατε θεαταὶ μὲν τῶν λόγων 
γίγνεσθαι, ἀκροαταὶ δὲ τῶν ἔργων. 

νόμου, νόμου] The article is omitted because a general principle is 
stated. The reference is doubtless to the Mosaic law; but the Apostle 
divides mankind into two classes—those under law, and those not under law. 

δικαιωθήσονται)] The change of expression from δίκαιοι is perhaps in- 
tentional. The one are not iso facto just: the others will be made just. 

14. ὅταν γὰρ] The fourth γὰρ in succession. ‘The doers of the law, 
I say; for the principle must be wide enough to admit Gentiles also. 
They too in a certain sense have a law (νόμος) and so they have a capacity 
of fulfilling it (of being ποιηταὶ νόμου). 


Il. 17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 261 
ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα] ‘ Gentiles, classes, that is to say, who have not 
? 


ἑαυτοῖς εἰσὶν νόμος] They have a standard of right and wrong in their 
own consciences which acts as a law to them. Many parallels have been 
adduced (by Wetstein and others) from classical authors, e.g. Arist. Eth. 
Nic. iv. 8. (14) ὁ δὴ χαρίεις καὶ ἐλευθέριος οὕτως ἕξει οἷον νόμος dv ἑαυτῷ, 
Polit. τττ. xiii. 14 κατὰ δὲ τῶν τοιουτῶν οὐκ ἔσει νόμος" αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσι νόμος, 
Manilius v. 495 ‘ipse 5101 lex est.’ But in all these passages the sense 
is different. In these it denotes independence, and even (as in the last 
quoted) self-will. Whereas here the expression implies self-restraint. 
More to the point is Philo de Adrah. ὃ 46 (11. p. 40 ed. Mangey) οὐ γράμ- 
μασιν ἀναδιδαχθεὶς ἀλλ᾽ ἀγράφῳ τῇ φύσει σπουδάσας ὑγιαινούσαις Kai ἀνόσοις 
ὁρμαῖς ἐπακολουθῆσαι. περὶ δὲ ὧν ὁ Θεὸς ὁμολογεῖ, τί προσῆκεν ἀνθρώπους ἣ 
βεβαιότατα πιστεύειν ; τοιοῦτος ὁ βίος τοῦ πρώτου καὶ ἀρχηγέτου ἐστὶ τοῦ 
ἔθνους, ὡς μὲν ἔνιοι φήσουσι, νόμιμος" ὡς δὲ ὁ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ λόγος ἔδειξε, νόμος 
αὐτὸς ὧν καὶ θεσμὸς ἄγραφος. 

15. γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν] For the metaphor see Jerem. 
χχχὶ. 33, 2 Cor. iii. 3, It is sustained throughout. ‘Their heart is their 
statute-book ; their conscience is their witness; their reflexions are their 
prosecutors or their advocates ; God Himself is their Judge.’ 

ἢ καὶ] ‘or, ἐξ may happen’—implying that it is a comparatively rare 
case. Compare 2 Cor. i. 13 ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε ἢ καὶ ἐπιγινώσκετε, Matt. vii. 
10, Luke xviii. 11. 

16. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ote] The process is now going on; but the summing up, 
the verdict, will take place then. On this brachylogy of ἐν see above on 
ver. 5 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς. Of the various readings in this clause ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε 
is the best supported, but ἐν 7 ἡμέρᾳ perhaps the most probable on in- 
ternal grounds. Kpive. however is certainly to be read for κρινεῖ, in 
accordance with St Paul’s usual preference of the present in similar 
cases for the sake of vividness: see the instances collected on 1 Thess. 
i. 10 τῆς ἐρχομένης, ν. 2 ἔρχεται, 2 Thess. ii. 9 ἐστίν, 1 Cor. v. 13 τοὺς δὲ 
ἔξω ὁ Θεὸς κρίνει, and comp. Luke xvii. 30 7 ἡμέρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
ἀποκαλύπτεται, a good parallel to this passage. 

τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pov] The phrase occurs also ch. xvi. 25, 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
So τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν 2 Cor. iv. 3, 1 Thess. i. 5, where he associates others 
with himself. He appeals to the preaching of the Second Advent and 
the Judgment, the topic of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and of his 
speech before the Areopagus (Acts xvii.), the characteristic of the first 
stage of his teaching (see Biblical Essays, p. 224 sq.). It is an idle fancy 
which sees in the phrase an allusion to St Luke’s Gospel. 

17. ἐπονομάζῃ] ‘thou art surnamed’; as an honourable distinction, 
with perhaps a notion of its not being their proper name (see vv. 28, 29). 
The word occurs here only in the New Testament. 

τὸ θέλημα] i.e. ‘the divine will.’ It is used thus absolutely by St Paul 
here with the definite article, elsewhere (1 Cor. xvi. 12 πάντως οὐκ ἦν θέλημα 


262 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, : iia 


ἵνα νῦν ἔλθῃ) without it. Examples of both kinds appear frequently in the 
Ignatian Epistles, Polyc. 8 ὡς τὸ θέλημα προστάσσει, Eph. 20 ἐὰν...θέλημα 
ἦ, Rom. τ ἐάνπερ θέλημα ἢ τοῦ ἀξιωθῆναί με, Smyrn. 1 υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα 
καὶ δύναμιν, ἐδ. § τι. So too Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 18 (p. 826) θελήματι 
θέλημα καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν ἐθίζοντες. On the other 
hand, of the devil Heracleon said that he μὴ ἔχειν θέλημα ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας, 
Orig. 72 Joann. xx. ὃ 20 (IV. p. 339). In the passage before us this abso- 
lute use is obscured by the proximity of Θεῷ, and in 1 Cor. l.c. θέλημα 
is almost universally misunderstood as applying to Apollos himself. 
Compare the absolute use of ἡ ὀργὴ (1 Thess. ii. 16, Rom. v. 9, xii. 19), 
τὸ ὄνομα (ῬΉ]]. ii. 9). These instances ‘indicate, as I believe, the true read- 
ing in Rom. xv. 32 iva ἐν χαρᾷ ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς διὰ θελήματος, where various 
additions appear in the MSS. Θεοῦ in AC, Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ in B, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
in δὲ, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in DFG, but where θέλημα appears to be used abso- 
lutely’ (On a Fresh Revision of the English N. Test., 1891, p. 118). 

18. ϑοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα] Not ‘things which are opposed, as good 
and bad (so for instance Fritzsche Rom. 1. p. 129), for it requires no keen 
moral sense to discriminate between these—but ‘ things that transcend,’ 
‘ex bonis meliora’ in Bengel’s words. The phrase occurs also Phil. i. το. 

κατηχούμενος] ‘ instructed.” For the word see on Gal. vi. 6. 

19. ὁδηγὸν τυφλῶν κτλ] The Apostle uses with a latent irony just 
the terms in which the Jew would describe himself. For ὁδηγὸν τυφλῶν 
see Wetstein on Matt. xv. 14, for παιδευτὴν ἀφρόνων Prov. xvi. 22, Heb. 
xii. 9, for νηπίων in this sense, Heb. v. 13. 

20. τὴν μόρφωσιν] Compare 2 Tim. iii. 5, where the word occurs 
again. The μόρφωσις is something different from the μορφή. It is the 
rough-sketch, the pencilling of the μορφή. Hence it signifies (1) the out- 
line, the framework as it were, like ὑποτύπωσις in St Paul’s Epistles ; 
(2) the outline without the substance (2 Tim. L.c.). In μορφὴ is involved 
the idea of ‘reality, ‘substance.’ This may appear incidentally in pop- 
φωσις, but it is not inherent in the word. 

22. ὁ βδελυσσόμενος κιτλ} Had anything occurred which suggested 
this contradiction to St Paul? Wetstein refers to Josephus Azé. xviii. 
3, 5, where it is related that certain Jews appropriated some gifts destined 
by Fulvia, a proselytess, for the Temple at Jerusalem. This took place 
in the reign of Tiberius. The incident however does not meet the case 
here, Obviously St Paul refers to robbing an idol’s temple, making gain 
out of the very things which they professed to abominate. Doubtless 
some instance had occurred, in which Jews, under pretence of detestation 
of idolatry, had plundered some heathen temples and gained booty 
thereby. See Acts xix. 37, a passage which seems to show that such 
outbreaks were not unusual, arising sometimes perhaps from sincere 
fanaticism, sometimes from sordid avarice. 

Somewhat similarly Josephus, when expounding Jewish law to his 
Gentile readers, says (Ant. iv. 8. 10) βλασφημείτω δὲ μηδεὶς θεοὺς οὖς πόλεις 





II. 29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 263 


ἄλλαι νομίζουσι" μὴ συλᾶν ἱερὰ ξενικά, μηδ᾽ ἂν ἐπωνομασμένον 7 τινι θεῷ 
κειμήλιον λαμβάνειν. This is a comment on Exod. xxii. 28 θεοὺς οὐ κακο- 
λογήσεις, Deut. vii. 25, 26 ra γλυπτὰ τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν καύσετε πυρί᾽ οὐκ ἐπι- 
θυμήσεις ἀργύριον οὐδὲ χρυσίον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν οὐ λήψῃ σεαυτῷ. . ὅτε βδέλυγμα 
Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ σου ἐστί, to which latter passage St Paul (like Josephus) 
would seem to refer. Philo is no less explicit (Vita Moys. iii. 26, 11. 
p- 166) ξοάνων yap καὶ ἀγαλμάτων καὶ τοιουτοτρόπων ἀφιδρυμάτων ἡ οἰκουμένη 
μεστὴ γέγονεν, ὧν τῆς βλασφημίας ἀνέχειν ἀναγκαῖον ἵνα μηδεὶς ἐθίζηται τῶν 
Moitcéws γνωρίμων συνόλως θεοῦ προσρήσεως ἀλογεῖν. Similarly Origen 
(c. Cels. viii. 38) quotes the passage in Exodus already referred to against 
Celsus’ contention that the Christians are accustomed to boast that they 
reviled heathen gods with impunity, and supports his statement by the 
general teachings of St Paul (Rom. xii. 14, 1 Cor. vi. 10) in this direction. 

23. ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι)ῦ Compare Ecclus. xxxix. 8 ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης 
Κυρίου καυχήσεται. 

24. τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα κ-τ.λ.} From the Lxx, of Isaiah 11]. 5 δ ὑμᾶς δια- 
παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. In the Hebrew however 
there is nothing to correspond either with 80 ὑμᾶς or ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ; and 
the sentiments in the original seem to be different from St Paul’s appli- 
cation, alluding as it does to the persecution of the Jews in captivity. 
This persecution however and this captivity were a punishment for their 
sins ; thus the additions give correct sense. The purport of St Paul’s 
language here is found in Ezek. xxxvi. 20—23, though the expression 
there is different. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 1, Tit. ii. 5, perhaps reminis- 
cences of the same text; Clement of Rome, ὃ 47 ὥστε καὶ βλασφη- 
plas ἐπιφέρεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι Κυρίου διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀφροσύνην, which is 
certainly based on St Paul’s words. It is to be remarked however that 
here alone of passages cited by St Paul καθὼς γέγραπται follows, instead 
of preceding, the quotation. By this peculiarity and by the introductory 
yap the Apostle seems to indicate that he disengages the sentence from 
its context, and so from the circumstances of its original application. 

25. πράσσῃς] i.e. ‘if the law be the standard of your conduct.’ The 
phrase is unique. 

27. τὸν διὰ γράμματος] Διὰ denotes the circumstances at the time of 
the act, ‘passing through’ which the act takes place. Compare Rom. 
xiv. 20 τῷ διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι, 2 Cor. ii. 4 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν διὰ πολλῶν 
δακρύων, and perhaps 1 Thess. iv. 14 τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (where 
see the note). 

28, 29. οὐ yap «.t.A.] For the grammar of the passage it is necessary 
to supply Ἰουδαῖος before Ἰουδαῖος (twice), περιτομὴ and ἡ ἀληθῶς περιτομη 
before the first and second περιτομὴ respectively, and ἐστὶν after περιτομή, 
Ἰουδαῖος and καρδίας. 

29. οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος] i.e. ‘whose proper praise.’ The antecedent is of 
course Ἰουδαῖος. For the idea comp. Gal. vi. 16 τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


CHAPTER III. 


iv. The covenant-privileges of the Jew (iii. I—20). 


THIS chapter divides itself into three parts: (1) certain objections 
are stated and answered (vv. 1—8); (2) the position that the Jews also 
are under sin is established from Holy Scripture (vv. g—20); (3) asa 
general conclusion from the results of ch. i. 16—iii. 20, viz. the universal 
failure of mankind both Jew and Gentile, a universal remedy is necessary, 
and it is found in Christ (vv. 21—31). 

The first of these three sections may be expanded somewhat as 
follows, as St Paul meets the objections which arise in his mind. 
Objection: ‘This view deprives the Jew of his advantages.’ Answer: 
‘Not at all: these remain as before. For instance, he is the keeper of 
the sacred archives.’ Odjection: ‘ But if some were unfaithful to their 
trust, their unfaithfulness impugns the good faith of God.’ Answer: ‘No: 
throughout we must assume that God is true. So far from impugning, 
it establishes God’s good faith. As the Psalmist says, I have sinned 
that God may be justified.’ Odjection: ‘ But if so, if it redounds to God’s 
glory, if it does a good work, why should I be punished? How is it 
just in God to visit me with His wrath?’ Amswer: ‘Whatever come, 
God must be just: for He is the Judge of all the world. The objection 
in fact amounts to this, that the means justifies the end, a maxim with 
which I myself have been falsely charged.’ 

2. πρῶτον μὲν] See i. 8, 1 Cor. xi. 18. Only one privilege is here 
mentioned. This however was enough for a sample. So the enume- 
ration is stopped that the argument may not be interrupted. The fuller 
enumeration occurs later, ix. 4. 

ἐπιστεύθησαν] ‘they were entrusted with? The A.V. rendering ‘unto 
them were committed the oracles of God’ is ambiguous as regards the 
construction, which is common in the Pauline Epistles: see the note 
on 1 Thess. ii. 4 πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. 

3. ‘For granted that some were unfaithful to their trust, what fol- 
lows? Not surely that their unfaithfulness destroys, nullifies the faith- 
fulness of God. Away with the thought.’ 





ΠῚ. 4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 265 


The sentence is to be connected with the general argument, and so 
to be attached to πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. There is no connexion here 
between ἐπιστεύθησαν and ἠπίστησαν. The force of the passage appears 
from the parallel in ix. 6. God’s promise stands firm, notwithstanding 
their infidelity. This promise was only conditional, it applied only to 
the true Israel. And therefore it is not infringed by the rejection of 
the faithless. 

ἠπίστησαν] i.e. were ἄπιστοι, were untrue to their trust. This meaning 
seems to be required both by the τὴν πίστιν of the context, and by the 
parallel, 2 Tim. ii. 13 εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει, ἀρνήσασθαι γὰρ 
ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται. The verb ἀπιστεῖν (2 Tim. 1. c.) and the substantive 
α᾽ πιστία (Wisdom xiv. 25 ἀπιστία ταραχὴ ἐπιορκία---ἃ book constantly in 
St Paul’s mind, see above on i. 20 sq., 30) are capable of the double mean- 
ing of ἄπιστος, which is applied not merely to the ‘disbeliever’ but to 
the ‘unfaithful,’ ‘untrustworthy’ (see Luke xii. 46, Rev. xxi. 8). The 
substantive is constantly used in this sense in classical writers, e.g, Xen. 
Anab. iii. 2. 4 ὁρᾶτε τὴν Τισσαφέρνους ἀπιστίαν ὅστις...ἐπὶ τούτοις αὐτὸς 
ὀμόσας ἡμῖν... αὐτὸς ἐξαπατήσας συνέλαβε τοὺς στρατηγούς 720. ii. 5. 21, and 
so Philo Leg. ad Caium § 16 (11. p. 562) ἀπιστίαν ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀχαριστίαν πρὸς 
τὸν τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς εὐεργέτην. See further Galatians p. 154 sq. 

μὴ] Dr Jowett’s assertion here that ‘yu is used in the N.T. indiffe- 
rently in questions intended to have either an affirmative or negative 
answer’ appears to me to arise from a misconception of the Apostle’s 
standpoint. 

The fact is that St Paul, as it were, keeps the objection in his own 
hands. He is not so much arguing with some outward antagonist, as 
answering difficulties which arise in his own mind. Hence, at the very 
moment of stating his objection, he negatives it. For mere argumentative 
purposes it would have run οὐκ ἡ ἀπιστία κατ.λ. But the Apostle cannot 
bear to make even hypothetically and momentarily a statement which 
involves blasphemy. Therefore he negatives the supposition even while 
suggesting it. Compare 1 Cor. i. 13. This somewhat injures the clear- 
ness of the argument, but it preserves the Apostle’s reverence. 

4. γινέσθω] ‘be found, i.e. become, relatively to our apprehension. 
This sense is frequent in the imperative; see the references given in 
Vaughan, and add Rev. ii. 10-yivov πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου, iii, 2 γίνου γρηγορῶν, 
2 Pet. i. 20. 

ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε] ‘when Thou pleadest’; certainly not, ‘when Thou art 
judged, asthe A. V. The subject of the verb is God, and the κρίνεσθαι 
of the Lxx. which St Paul reproduces, is the middle voice, used, as in 
1 Cor. vi. 6 ἀδελφὸς μετὰ ἀδελφοῦ κρίνεται, of a partyin atrial. By a figure 
common in the Old Testament prophets, perhaps derived originally from 
Joel iii. 2, God and the sinner are regarded as two parties in a suit (see 
the references given in Vaughan). At the same time it is highly probable 
that ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί oe here must be regarded as a mistranslation on the 


266 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [III. 4. 


part of the LXx., the pronominal suffix being made the object instead of 
the subject ; for in the Hebrew text of Ps. li. 4, as we now have it, the 
word is ΘΟ, which is κρίνειν, not κρίνεσθαι, and the distinction between 
the two voices is as clearly observed in the LXX. as in classical Greek. 
Symmachus translates correctly νικᾶν κρίνοντα, and we need not suppose 
that the Septuagint translators had a different Hebrew text before them. 
St Paul, though aware of the mistranslation, would not think it necessary 
to correct the LXxX. in a point which did not affect his argument. 

5. τί ἐροῦμεν] This expression is used again vi. I, vii. 7, ix. 14, 30. 
In all these places the argument seems to have lodged the hearers in 
some difficult position from which they need extricating. Here the case 
of David raises the difficulty. 

μὴ ἄδικος] The explanation of the μὴ here is the same as in ver. 3. 

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω] ‘Pardon me such language, the very use of which 
needs apology. It is but a foolish, ignorant, human mode of speaking.’ 
On the phrase, which is peculiar to this group of Epistles, see Gal. iii. 15. 

6. ἐπεὶ] ‘ since on this supposition, and so equivalent to ‘otherwise,’ 
‘if it were not so. The phrase is sometimes strengthened by the 
addition of ἄρα : see on 1 Cor. vii. 14. 

κρίνει] ‘otherwise how doth God judge the earth?’ It is perhaps best 
here (as in ii. 16) to read the present rather than the future (κρινεῖ). The 
reference is probably to Gen. xviii. 25 ὁ κρίνων πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν οὐ ποιήσεις 
κρίσιν; rather than to Ps. ix. 8, Ixvii. 4, or xcvi. 13. The judgment 
alluded to is going on day by day. The attempt to restrict the term τὸν 
κόσμον to the heathen world gains no countenance either from the context 
or from St Paul’s usage elsewhere (see on Eph. ii. 2). 

7. εἰ δὲ] This, not εἰ yap, is the true reading here. It refers back to 
εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν x.r.A. (ver. 5), and is in fact the same objection starting 
up again. 

τί ἔτι) The ἔτι is probably argumentative, ‘this being the case,’ as in 
Rom. ix. 19, Gal. v. 11. 

8. καὶ μὴ καθὼς) Some suppose a confused construction here καὶ [ri] 
μή, καθὼς... «φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν, ποιήσωμεν x.t.A., the sense being 
dislocated by the introduction οὗ καθὼς as in 1 Thess. iv. 1, Col. i. 6, 
where see the notes. It is however simpler to understand γένηται 
after μή. 

τινες] Either the Judaizing antagonists who wished to bring St Paul’s 
doctrine into disrepute as leading to antinomianism, or professed 
followers who degraded it by their practice (cf. vi. 1 sq., Phil. iii. 18). 

ὧν τὸ κρίμα] meaning not ‘our revilers,’ but all who draw these 
antinomian inferences. St Paul does not argue against the cavil, but 
crushes it by an appeal to moral instincts; compare Phil. iii. 19 ὧν τὸ 
τέλος ἀπώλεια. 

9. τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα ἢ Having regard to the usual sense of 
προεχόμεθα, we shall be led to take ri οὖν προεχόμεθα; together, and 


So οὧὖἷὖἷἱν τὰν. 


III. 10.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 267 


render either ‘What privilege do we exhibit?’ or ‘What excuse do we 
offer, what defence do we make?’ (see below). But this construction is 
forbidden by the following οὐ πάντως. Προεχόμεθα therefore must be 
taken alone. The exact meaning of the word here is uncertain. The 
active προέχειν is not found in the LXx., nor elsewhere in the N. T. In 
classical usage the middle προέχεσθαι is frequent in the sense of ‘to hold 
out before one as a πρύσχημα. This πρόσχημα may be either (a) a defence, 
protection, (2) a pretence, excuse, or (3) a decoration, boast (e.g. Herod. 
v. 28 where Miletus is described as τῆς Ἰωνίης πρόσχημα). Accordingly 
some would take it here as a middle, and render ‘ Have we any protection 
or shield?’ But προέχεσθαι does not appear to be so used absolutely in 
the middle. Turning therefore to the passive voice, we might adopt 
Vaughan’s rendering ‘Are we preferred?’ which would give excellent 
sense, if there were any instance of this rendering, but I can find none. 
On the, other hand the active προέχειν ‘to excel’ is found with the 
accusative of the thing excelled (e.g. Xenoph. Azad, iii. 2. 17 ἑνὶ μόνῳ 
προέχουσιν ἡμᾶς οἱ ἱππεῖς), and the passive προέχεσθαι is used once at least 
(Chrysippus ap. Plutarch Mor. p. 1038 Ὁ οὕτω τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς πᾶσι ταῦτα 
προσήκει, κατ᾽ οὐδὲν προεχομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός) in the sense ‘to be excelled.’ 
And to this rendering I must adhere, until I find instances of the use 
which Vaughan adopts. 

‘What then,’ argues the Jew, ‘do you mean to tell me that others 
have the advantage over us?’ St Paul’s answer is, ‘Not at all. We said 
before that Jews and Gentiles all were under sin. But if we do not give 
them any advantage over you, neither do we give you any advantage 
over them. Your Scriptures show that you are not exempted.’ 

οὐ πάντως] ‘vot at all’? As usual the πάντως qualifies the ov, not the 
ov the πάντως (see on 1 Cor. v. 10). 

προῃτιασάμεθα] ‘awe before laid to the charge’; not ‘we have before 
proved,’ as the A. V. renders it in its text. 

10. καθὼς γέγραπται] Several passages are here strung together. 
The first of these is taken from Ps. xiv. (xiii.) I—3, after which in the 
Prayer Book Version of the Psalms all the rest are added, i.e. τάφος 
ἀνεῳγμένος...αὐτῶν, though they find no place there in the Hebrew, the 
Targums, the Chaldee, the Syriac, or the other Greek versions (excluding 
the Lxx.), see Field Hexaf/a, 11. p. τος. The verses are omitted in some 
manuscripts of the LXx. (including A), and are bracketed by the second 
hand of x, but are found in B. Was then this insertion made in the 
LXxX. from St Paul here, or had St Paula Ms. of the LXx. in which the 
words occurred together? The former supposition is doubtless the true 
one. For, first, St Paul does not quote literally in the first part of the 
quotation, as we shall see ; and there is therefore no a friori reason that 
we should expect to find the passage as a whole in any one place in the 
Lxx. Secondly, the absence of the verses in the Hebrew is a strong 
presumption that they would be absent in the Lxx. also. Thirdly, it is 


268 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [III. 10. 


very likely that St Paul’s quotation would be inserted in the margin and 
afterwards in the text of the Lxx. of Ps. xiv. (xiii.), on the hypothesis that 
the words were originally wanting. On the other hand, it is extremely un- 
likely that, if originally there, they would afterwards have been omitted. 

The evidence respecting the text of the Lxx. leads to the same result. 
Origen (in Cramer’s Catena, p. 18) speaks of St Paul’s ‘gathering together 
passages’ (ῥητὰ συναγαγεῖν) to show that all were under sin, and refers 
each severally to its proper place. There is no mention of a text where 
the passage occurs as a whole. Rufinus however in his translation 
(Origen, of. IV. 504) says ‘Illud etiam necessario ducimus admonendum 
quod in nonnullis Latinorum ea quae subsequuntur testimonia in tertio 
decimo psalmo consequentes ex integro posita inveniuntur: in Graecis 
autem pene omnibus non amplius in tertio decimo psalmo quam usque 
ad illum versiculum ubi scriptum est ‘Non est qui faciat bonum non est 
usque ad unum.’ The mention of the Latin Mss. shows that the earlier 
part of this sentence was Rufinus’ own interpolation: and probably the 
latter part was also, as there is no trace of it in the fragment in the Cavena. 
If however the latter clause were Origen’s own, it would show that in his 
time a very small proportion of the Mss. of the Lxx. contained the 
passage. Eusebius (zz Psalmos, v. p. 145 ed. Migne) does not mention 
the insertion, but comments on the passage without it. Jerome (Prag. 
in Comm. in Isaiam, lib. xvi. quoted by Field 1. c.) in reply to a question 
raised by Eustochium declares that all the Greek commentators (omnes 
Graeciae tractatores) mark the passage with an asterisk and pass it 
over (veru annotant atque praetereunt) as not contained in the Hebrew, 
though the question of Eustochium clearly implies that the passage was 
found in the Latin copies ordinarily in use. 

᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν κιτιλ.] The words of Ps. xiv. (xiii.) 1—3 are taken from the 

LXX., as the exact coincidences of language in the latter part show. I 
cannot however attribute to a lapse of memory the variation at the 
commencement which in the Psalm runs as follows, Κύριος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
διέκυψεν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρῴπων τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ ἔστιν συνιὼν ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν 
θεόν, especially as the words occur in the parallel passage also 
Ps. liii. (lii.) 3, and the rest of the quotation is accurate. I believe 
therefore that the Apostle gave rather the substance than the words at 
the beginning, so changing the form, as to adapt it to his context and 
make a fit introduction. And this is Origen’s opinion, as expressed 
through Rufinus, ‘puto dari in hoc apostolicam auctoritatem ut cum 
scripturae testimoniis utendum fuerit, sensum magis ex ea quam verba 
capiamus. Hoc enim et in Evangeliis factum frequenter invenies.’ For 
parallel instances see 1 Cor. i. 31, 1 Cor. xv. 45, both introduced by 
καθὼς γέγραπται. 

12. ἠχρειώθησαν] The idea of the original nox seems to be ‘to go 
bad or sour’ like milk (see Gesen. Zhes. p. 102). The Greek word 
ἀχρειοῦν occurs twice in the Scholiast to A2schines (p. 10, 3, p. 28. 7). 








III. 19.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 269 


13. τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος] And thus at once a danger and a pollution 
(comp. Luke xi. 44). 

The quotation as far as ἐδολιοῦσαν is from Ps. v. 9: then follows 
Ps. cxl. 3: verse 14 represents Ps. x. 7, and the next three verses 
Is, lix. 7, 8. Lastly, verse 18 gives us the last half of Ps. xxxv. (xxxvi.) 1, 
αὐτοῦ being changed into αὐτῶν to conform to the plurals which precede. 

The Jews boasted in the law. They prided themselves that they were 
children of Abraham. They made a distinction between themselves and 
the Gentiles. The Gentiles had fallen away from God, were out of the 
pale of salvation. St Paul shows that their own prophets and teachers 
had used the strongest possible language about themselves ; had thus 
given the lie direct to their pride and self-sufficiency. Accordingly the 
condemnation applies equally to them as to the Gentiles. 

The Apostle’s words however must not be pressed to mean more than 
he meant by them. Ps. xiv., which contains the strongest condemnation, 
at the same time speaks of a remnant (ver. 4). And this is St Paul’s own 
language elsewhere (Rom. xi.). He insists on the fact of there being a 
remnant. Still his main position remains as before. The law in itself 
did not justify. Else this universal depravity would have been im- 
possible at any epoch. 

19. οἴδαμεν] ‘It is an obvious truth, it needs no argument to show, 
that the scriptures were addressed to those whom alone they could reach.’ 
The expression οἴδαμεν is a favourite one in this Epistle (ii. 2, vii. 14, 
viii. 22, 28) when used of propositions that commend themselves. It was 
the tendency of Rabbinical teachers in St Paul’s time and afterwards to 
apply all such passages to the heathen. Hence the Apostle’s οἴδαμεν as 
if to preclude this forced reference. 

ὁ νόμος] This can only mean one thing. Those who are ad- 
dressed in the Old Testament, are the people under the Old Testament 
dispensation, i.e. the Israelites themselves. The Old Testament speaks 
to Jews, not to Gentiles, and therefore to Jews this severe language 
applies. 

λαλεῖ] ‘uttereth. The general difference between λαλεῖν and λέγειν is 
that the former lays stress on the enunciation, the latter on the meaning. 
Λαλεῖν is loqui, ‘to talk’; λέγειν is dicere, ‘to speak.” Hence ἡ λαλιά σου 
‘thy speech’ (Matt. xxvi. 73, Mark xiv. 70) implies not the thoughts or 
the words themselves, but the mode of utterance. When λαλιὰ is 
opposed to λόγος, as in John viii. 43 διὰ τί τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ 
γινώσκετε; ὅτι οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν, it represents the form, 
the way of speaking, the language, which was unintelligible to the Jews 
who had incapacitated themselves from understanding the substance, the 
underlying truth of the message delivered.. Thus λαλεῖν here (comp. 
Heb. i. 1) has a closer connexion with the hearer than λέγειν, and the 
distinction between the two verbs is evident when we consider that to 
interchange them would be intolerable. 


270 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [III. το. 


ὑπόδικος γένηται] ‘may be brought under the cognizance’ of God’s 


tribunal. Ὑπόδικος, though a good classical word, does not occur in the 


LXX., or elsewhere in the N. T., its place being taken by ἔνοχος. 

20. ἐξ ἔργων νόμου x.t.A.] A free citation from Ps. cxliii. (cxlii.) 2, to 
which St Paul has added ἐξ ἔργων νόμου as his own interpretation justified 
by what he has said before, ὅσα ὁ νόμος x.r.A, See the note on Gal. ii. τό, 
where the same passage is quoted and the same comment appears. 

διὰ γὰρ νόμου κιτιλ. This idea of law creating and multiplying sin is 
first thrown out in 1 Cor. xv. 56. There the mention is casual, and has 
no very obvious relation to the context, though beneath the surface we 
discern.a close connexion. A few months later the thought is worked 
out in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans (see vii. 7—25). 
Law is the great educator of the moral conscience. Restraint is 
necessary in order to develope the conception of duty. This is equally 
the case with the individual and with the world at large. With the 
latter, as with the former, there is a period of childhood, of non-age, a 
period in which external restraints represent the chief instrument of 
education. The law says, ‘Do not, or thou shalt die. Thus the 
character of the Law is negative : of the Gospel, positive. 


v. A universal remedy to meet this universal failure (iii. 2I—31). 


21. νυνὶ δὲ] ‘dut¢ now, when the world has come of age (comp. 
Gal. iv. I sq.). 

δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ] The idea conveyed in this expression seems to be 
twofold ; first, something inherent in God; secondly, something com- 
municated to us; compare below δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα (ver. 26). There 
is thus both the external act, what is done for us, and the inherent 
change, what is done in us. To describe this second sphere I would use 
the term ‘communication’ rather than ‘impartation,’ because the latter 
word seems to exclude the need of a moral change in ourselves ; whereas 
in St Paul the idea of this change is very prominent. There is the 
external act, what has been done for us, our purchase, the atoning 
sacrifice ; Christ died for us. But there must be also the internal change, 
what is to be done in us: We must have died with Christ. Christ’s 
righteousness becomes our righteousness by our becoming one with 
Christ, being absorbed in Christ. See Biblical Essays, p. 230 54. 

μαρτυρουμένη κιτ.λ.} In what sense does St Paul mean that this 
righteousness of God is borne witness to by the law and the prophets? 
We may answer, By types and special predictions, but here especially by 
the foreshadowings of the mode and scheme of man’s redemption both in 
the law (e.g. Gen. xv. 6, quoted Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iii. 6) and in the prophets 
(e.g. Habakk. ii. 4, quoted Rom. i. 17, Gal. iii. 11). It is perhaps to such 
passages as these, rather than to any direct types or predictions of the 
Messiah, that the Apostle refers ; except so far as these latter bear witness 
to Him in His character of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. 


III. 25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 271 


22. Sxaortvy δὲ] The δὲ restricts or defines; comp. Rom. ix. 30, 
1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 15. 

διὰ πίστεως] ‘communicated, made available by faith. 

εἰς πάντας] If xai ἐπὶ πάντας of the Textus Receptus be preserved after 
εἰς πάντας, the prepositions will denote attainment and comprehension 
respectively, and the whole phrase may be rendered ‘reaching unto and 
extending over all.’ But the doubtful words should almost certainly be 
omitted. 

23. τῆς ϑόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ] This glory of God is the revelation of God to 
the pure and upright of heart through faith, with perhaps the idea of 
communication also. It is no objection to this view that this glory is 
evidently something present here (and 2 Cor. iv. 6), and that elsewhere 
(e.g. Rom. v. 2, Tit. ii. 13) it is spoken of as future. This revelation of 
God is a present revelation to the faithful; and just as ‘the kingdom of 
heaven’ is at once a present and a future kingdom, so there is a present 
and a future glory of God. The idea conveyed in the words is twofold: 
(1) the manifestation of God’s Person and attributes, the knowledge of 
God in Himself (John xi. 40, Acts vii. 55); (2) the transformation of the 
faithful into the same image. Thus Meyer is wholly wrong in taking the 
expression to mean ‘the honour which God gives.’ Even in John xii. 43, 
where it is apparently so taken in the A. V., the context (see ver. 41) 
points to the other meaning. Where the sense which Meyer gives to it 
is intended, the form is otherwise: John v. 44 τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ 
μόνου Θεοῦ (comp. Rom. ii. 29 ὁ ἔπαινος...ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). Still less can it be 
explained to mean ‘glory in the sight of God, as others render it. 

24. ϑικαιούμενοι)] The nominative is grammatically connected with 
πάντες (ver. 23); but logically with πάντας (ver. 22). 

ἀπολύτρωσις)] On this word see the note on Eph. i. 7. The idea 
contained here is twofold: (1) a price paid (1 Cor. vi. 20, 1 Tim. ii. 6); 
(2) a deliverance thereby obtained, especially from a bondage or 
captivity, a deliverance not only from the consequences of sin but from 
sin itself. For, though the objective element is especially prominent in 
this passage, as the argument requires, the subjective element must not 
be ignored. 

25. προέθετο] ‘set before Himself; and so ‘purposed.’ The force of 
the preposition is not temporal, but local. Comp. Eph. i. το, with the note. 

ἱλαστήριον] ‘a fropitiatory offering. The word is of course an 
adjective originally, eg. Joseph. Amz. xvi. 17, I ἱλαστήριος θάνατος, 
4 Macc. xvii. 22 χεῖρας ixernpious εἰ δὲ βούλει ἱλαστηρίους ἐκτείνας Θεῷ (See 
Wilkins C/av. 5. ν., Steph. Thes. 5. ν. and Meyer here). This usage of the 
neuter of adjectives in -npws is frequent as applied to victims, e.g. 
καθαρτήριον, χαριστήριον, διαβατήριον, νικητήριον etc. A good example of 
the word in this sense is Dion Chrysost. Or. xi. p. 355 ed. Reiske 
ἱλαστήριον ᾿Αχαιὸν τῇ ᾿Αθηνᾷ τῇ Ἰλιάδι: and this seems to be the meaning 
here. : 


272 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [III. 25. 


On the other hand Vaughan prefers the rendering ‘mercy-seat.’ The 
word is used in the LXx. to translate M753, i.e. the lid of the ark of the 
Testimony, translated ‘mercy-seat’ in the A. V. (see esp. Exod. xxv. 17 sq., 
xxvi. 34, xxxi. 7). Now the root 13 means (1) in Kal ‘to cover,’ (2) in 
Piel (a) ‘to forgive’ or (4) ‘to expiate,’ ‘appease’ (comp. James v. 20, 
1 Peter iv. 8 where ‘covering’ implies ‘ forgiveness’). Thus the LXx. use 
of the word ἱλαστήριον is a rendering of this secondary meaning, and is 
an example of the Alexandrian tone of thought which sees symbolical 
meanings everywhere, and which derives from homonymes theological 
lessons. Compare at a later period Philo de Zrof. 19 (1. p. 561) τῆς δὲ 
ἵλεω δυνάμεως, τὸ ἐπίθεμα τῆς κιβωτοῦ, καλεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ ἱλαστήριον, Vit. Moys. 
iii. 8 (11. p. 150) ἧς (τῆς κιβωτοῦ) ἐπίθεμα ὡσανεὶ πῶμα τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν ἱεραῖς 
βίβλοις ἱλαστήριον... ὅπερ ἔοικεν εἶναι σύμβολον φυσικώτερον μὲν τῆς ἵλεω τοῦ 
θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἠθικώτερον δὲ διανοίας πάλιν ἵλεω δὲ ἑαυτῇ αὐτῆς. Sometimes 
N53 is translated ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα (Exod. xxv. 17, xxxvii. 6), which is a 
double rendering of the word; but elsewhere ἱλαστήριον only. Thus we 
can see how the first part of the English word ‘mercy-seat’ has its 
origin ; but there is nothing either in the Hebrew or its Greek equivalent 
to represent the idea of a ‘seat,’ a figure borrowed doubtless from such 
passages as Lev. xvi. 2, Numb. vii. 89, Ps. Ixxx. 1, xcix. 1, Heb. ix. 5, 
where the symbol of the Divine Presence is spoken of as appearing above 
the Cherubim which shadowed the mercy-seat. The term ‘mercy-seat’ 
came through the ‘Gnadenstuhl’ of Luther's translation, and the ‘ seat of 
grace’ of Tyndal and Cramner. On the other hand Wyclif, followed by 
the Geneva Bible, adopts the ‘ propitiatorium’ of the Latin versions and 
translates ‘ propitiatory,’ adding on the first occasion on which it occurs, 
the note, ‘a propitiatory, that is a place of purchasing mercy,’ where 
‘purchase’ is used in its old sense of ‘ pursue after, obtain, acquire.’ 

The explanation of ἱλαστήριον here in the sense of ‘mercy-seat’ is as 
old as Origen (Comm. ad Rom. Lib. 111. 8), to whom it gives a handle for 
much of his favourite mode of exegesis. Our Lord would then be spoken 
of as the mercy-seat, just as elsewhere (e.g. John i. 14) He is compared to 
the Shekinah. But there is something abrupt and unsuitable in such 
imagery here, ‘God purposed Him to be a mercy-seat’—abrupt, as the 
phrase itself shows ; unsuitable, because the mercy-seat is, as it were, the 
source and abode of mercy, not the mediator by whom it is obtained. 
Moreover, it throws the other imagery of the passage into confusion, e.g. 
ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ. Different applications of the same illustration indeed ; 
are very frequent in St Paul (see on 1 Thess. ii. 7 νήπιοι), but perhaps 
there is no parallel to a confusion of metaphor like this. Still this last 
argument must not be pressed too far. 

els ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης airod] Inasmuch as sin required so great a 
sacrifice. It is better not to go beyond the language of scripture. All 
the moral difficulties connected with the Atonement arise from pressing 
the imagery of the Apostolic writers too far. Thus nothing is-said here 








ΠῚ. 27.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 273 


about appeasing divine wrath, nor is it stated to whom the Sacrifice of 
Christ is paid. The central idea of that Sacrifice is the great work done 
for us, whereby boasting is excluded. 

διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν] ‘dy reason of the praetermission. The A. V. renders 
this ‘for the remission’ (as though ἄφεσιν), but in the margin ‘ or passing 
over’—the marginal rendering being doubtless due to the Cocceian 
controversy (though Cocceius himself wrote later), on which see Trench, 
ΜΝ. T. Syn. § xxxiii. p. 115. But this change is not enough: for the 
preposition itself must be altered from ‘for’ into ‘owing to, by reason of.’ 

The distinction between ἄφεσις the revocation of punishment and 
πάρεσις the suspension of punishment, though denied by Schleusner and 
others, is borne out by classical usage, Xenoph. H7zPf. vii. 10 ἁμαρτήματα 
οὐ χρὴ παριέναι ἀκόλαστα, Joseph. Ant. xv. 3. 2 παρῆκε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, of 
Herod anxious to punish a certain offence which however for other 
considerations he passed over, as well as by the writers of the Apocrypha, 
see Ecclus. xxiii. 2 ἵνα...οὐ μὴ παρῇ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν ὅπως μὴ πληθύνωσιν 
αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου, comp. Wisdom xi. 24 παρορᾷς ἁμαρτήματα ἀνθρώπων εἰς 
μετάνοιαν, a passage which may well have been in the Apostle’s mind (see 
note on i. 20 above). The best commentary on the passage is St Paul’s 
own language in Acts xvii. 30, where the term ὑπεριδὼν expresses the idea 
exactly (comp. Acts xiv. 16). To substitute ἄφεσιν for mapeow here would 
entirely destroy the sense. It was because the sins had been passed over 
and had not been forgiven, that the exhibition of God’s righteousness in 
the Incarnation and Passion of Christ was necessary. Till Christ came, 
the whole matter was, as it were, kept in abeyance. 

ἁμαρτημάτων] ᾿Αμάρτημα is related to ἁμαρτία as the concrete to the 
abstract. It is thus an individual offence, a wrong deed done. But on 
the other hand, whereas ἁμαρτία may be used of an individual sin, 
ἁμάρτημα never can mean sin regarded as sinfulness. 

ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ] For ἀνοχὴ see above on ii. 4. The idea is 
holding back, forbearance, suspension, thus enforcing the conception of 
mapeois. There is no idea of forgiveness contained in the word: it is a 
temporary withholding of judgment. ‘ Indulgentia (i.e. ἀνοχὴ) eo valet ut 
in aliorum peccatis conniveas, non ut alicui peccata condones, quod 
clementiae est,’ Fritzsche. 

26. πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν] resuming the previous εἰς ἔνδειξιν in a little 
stronger form; for πρὸς implies more definitely than εἰς the idea of 
purpose, inasmuch as εἰς only looks to the object, while πρὸς connects the 
agent with the object. Hence such a use as Rom. viii. 18 πρὸς τὴν 
μέλλουσαν δόξαν. The insertion of the article here draws attention to the 
fact that ἔνδειξις has been mentioned already. For εἰς τὸ εἶναι see i. 21; 
for τὸν ἐκ πίστεως see ii. 8 τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας. 

27. ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις ;} ‘what then has become of the boasting; of 
which he spoke above (ii. 17), and which has been present to his mind 
throughout. For ποῦ οὖν see on Gal. iv. 15. 


L. EP. 18 


274 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Π|. 27, 


ἐξεκλείσθη] The aorist represents the consequences as instantaneous: 
‘it is excluded ipso facto. See on Gal. v. 4 κατηργήθητε, ἐξεπέσατε. 

διὰ νόμου πίστεως] Strictly speaking, it is not a law, but a principle. 
The Gospel is never called a law in itself ‘proprie’ (see Gal. v. 23), but 
only καταχρηστικῶς to distinguish it from another law, and then always 
with some word appended which deprives νόμος of its power and produces 
a verbal paradox: as here νόμος πίστεως, viii. 2 ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς 
ζωῆς, James i. 25, ii. 12 νόμος ἐλευθερίας. In these three cases πίστις, 
πνεῦμα, ἐλευθερία correct and, as it were, contradict νόμος, thus creating an 
oxymoron. Comp. I Cor. ix. 21 ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὧν ἄνομος Θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ Evvopos 
Χριστοῦ. 

30. εἴπερ x.t.d.] ‘seeing that God is one and immutable, governing 
all on the same principle, no respecter of persons with one rule for one 
class, another for another.’ In Gal. iii. 20 ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν the meaning, 
though not quite the same, is yet closely allied to this. On the amount 
of certainty conveyed in εἴπερ (which is to be read here, not ἐπείπερ) see 
on 2 Thess. i. 6. 

ὃς δικαιώσει) ‘and therefore He will justify. in other words ὃς 
δικαιώσει is logically consequent on the oneness of God. 

ἐκ πίστεως, διὰ τῆς πίστεως] Many commentators contend that there 
is no difference of meaning between these two phrases, and that this 
is one of the many instances where St Paul delights to interchange 
prepositions for the sake of variety. Other alleged examples of this 
usage are 2 Cor. iii. 11 διὰ δόξης...ἐν δόξῃ, Eph. i. 7, and Gal. ii. 16, where 
the same expressions διὰ πίστεως, ἐκ πίστεως occur, as here, in connexion 
with δικαιοῦν. Prof. Jowett extends this theory, and to illustrate this 
‘awkwardness of expression’ cites Rom. v. 7 ὑπὲρ δικαίου, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, 
‘where, as here, different words appear to be used with the same meaning.’ 
{ hope to show, when we come to that passage, that to take ἀγαθὸς as 
equivalent to δίκαιος is virtually to destroy the Apostle’s meaning, the 
whole force of which depends upon the distinction of the terms. To 
confine ourselves now to the question of prepositions, even if it were true, 
which it is not, that St Paul elsewhere scatters his prepositions in- 
discriminately, it is very plain here from the form of the sentence that a 
distinction was intended, the antithesis emphasizing the change of 
preposition. The exact nature of this distinction I have endeavoured to 
point out in the note on Gal. ii. τό. Faith is strictly speaking only the 
means, not the source, of justification. The one preposition (διὰ) ex excludes 
this latter notion, while the other (ἐκ) might imply it. The difference will 
perhaps best be seen by substituting their opposites ov δικαιώσει περιτομὴν 
ἐκ νόμου, οὐδὲ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τοῦ νόμου ; when, in the case of the Jews, the 
falsity of their starting-point, in the case of the Gentiles, the needlessness 
of a new instrumentality, would be insisted on. The circumcision must 
not trust to works; the uncircumcision have no occasion ‘to ‘put them- 
selves under the coke of the law. | 








TIT. 31.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 275 


The Greek fathers (see Cramer’s Ca/ena) start from the assumption 
that there must be a difference of meaning here. Origen says ov νομιστέον 
ὡς ἔτυχε (ie. at random) ταῖς προθέσεσι (the prepositions) διαφόρως 
(Δ. ἀδιαφόρως) κεχρῆσθαι, and instances 1 Cor. xi, 12 (ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός...διὰ τῆς 
γυναικός) and other passages, e.g. Rom. xi. 36, 2 Cor. xii. 8, where, as he 
points out, it is absolutely necessary to preserve the distinction. He 
interprets the difference here as follows, ‘qui ex fide justificantur, initio 
ex fide sumpto, per adimpletionem bonorum operum consummantur; et 
qui per fidem justificantur, a bonis operibus exorsi per fidem summam 
perfectionis accipiunt.’ 

31. νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν] Dr Vaughan seems to me to be wrong in 
his interpretation of this passage, which he takes to mean ‘ Do we abolish 
all restraint on moral conduct?’ Surely it does not refer to setting 
men free from a rule of duty; but signifies ‘Do we stultify law, do we 
deny the significance, the value, the effect of law? Was law a mistake 
from beginning to end?’ with a special reference to the Mosaic Law. In 
other words ‘law’ here is not equivalent to regulated moral conduct, but 
to an external system of restraints. The idea is the same as that which 
is developed on vii. 7sq. and is not unconnected with our Lord’s own 
words (Matt. v. 17, 18). Here the objection is thrown out, and negatived 
but not argued. It is reserved in fact for discussion in its proper place 
(ch. vii.). We have already observed the same treatment of the ob- 
jection, that St Paul’s doctrine denies the privileges of the chosen race 
(iii. 1, 2). This in like manner is briefly stated, negatived and dismissed, 
being reserved for a later occasion. 

ἱστάνομεν] On the form of the verb see Winer ὃ xv. p. 106. 


18—z2 


CHAPTER IV. 


vi. The meaning of the covenant with Abraham (iv. 1—25). 


.1. THERE are several points relating to the text of this verse which 
need elucidation. 

(a) Are we to read πατέρα or mporaropa? Undoubtedly the latter. 
External authority is vastly in its favour: but the correction was made 
(1) because προπάτωρ is an unusual word, occurring only here in the N. T. 
or LXX.; (2) on the other hand πατέρα occurs below, vv. 11, 12, and the 
expression ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν is common elsewhere (Luke i. 73, 
John viii. 39, 56, Acts vii. 2, James ii. 21). 

(6) What is to be the position of εὑρηκέναι, if retained? External 
authority is decidedly in favour of placing the word immediately after 
ἐροῦμεν, and not after ἡμῶν as in the Textus Receptus. The change is 
probably due to the fact that the other was in itself the natural order, so 
long as regard is paid to the meaning which the context requires us to 
assign to κατὰ σάρκα. 

(c) But should εὑρηκέναι be retained at all? It is omitted in B 47 
Chrysostom. This perhaps is one of those instances in which B almost 
alone preserves the right reading. Its unsupported authority would not 
be sufficient to reject the word; but it receives confirmation here (1) from 
the varying positions of εὑρηκέναι in the other MSS., (2) from the well-known 
tendency of scribes to supply an elliptical expression (see 1 Cor. iv. 6 
φρονεῖν, ν. I ὀνομάζεται, xi. 24 κλώμενον and other examples given in the 
Fournal of Philology, τι. p. 85). 

Thus εὑρηκέναι must be regarded as at least suspicious. If it is 
omitted, we shall take the passage thus: ‘ What then shall we say of our 
forefather Abraham?’ For the same construction after ἐρεῖν we may 
refer to Plato Crito 48 A πάνυ ἡμῖν οὕτω φροντιστέον τί ἐροῦσιν οἱ πολλοὶ 
ἡμᾶς, Eur. Alc. 954 ἐρεῖ δέ μ᾽, ὅστις ἐχθρὸς ὧν κυρεῖ, τάδε and the passages 
accumulated by Stallbaum on Plato Ago/. 23a. A somewhat analogous 
construction with λέγειν occurs John viii. 54 (ix. 19) ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε 
followed by ὅτι. On the whole, the sense gains by the omission of 
εὑρηκέναι; the idea being ‘ Does not the history of our forefather Abraham 
contradict this view?’ For the question is really not what advantage he 








IV. 5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 277 


gained, but in what relation he stood to St Paul’s position. If however 
εὑρηκέναι be retained, the tense expresses, as Dr Vaughan says, the 
permanence of the result; and xara σάρκα must be taken with τὸν 
mporaropa ἡμῶν, whatever position of εὑρηκέναι be adopted. These words 
ἡμῶν ‘of us Jews,’ κατὰ σάρκα ‘according to the flesh,’ are chosen with a 
view to what comes after. Abraham is not only a father of the Jews, but 
πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας (ver. 11), πολλῶν ἐθνῶν (ver. 18); 
not only κατὰ σάρκα, but τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς.. πίστεως (ver. 12), 
τῷ ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Αβραάμ (ver. 16). 

2. ἔχει καύχημα] ‘he has a subject of boast, ground for boasting’ ; 
καύχημα is the matter of καύχησις ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ἡ yap καύχησις ἡμῶν 
αὕτη ἐστὶν x.r.d. with i. 14 ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμέν; and the passage before 
us with iii. 27 above. 

ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς Θεόν] This is added to avoid the blasphemy, though it 
has nothing to do with St Paul’s argument: comp. iii. 4,6. ‘Even then 
let him keep his boasting to himself or to his fellowmen. For “merit 
lives from man to man, And not from man, O Lord, to Thee.’” 

3. τί γὰρ] Verse 2 having been regarded as parenthetical, it follows 
that the γὰρ of ver. 3 has no reference to ov πρὸς Θεόν, but is connected 
with ri οὖν ἐροῦμεν κιτιλ., and introduces the answer to that question. 
‘What account then are we to give of Abraham our forefather? Why, 
what does the scripture say?’ For the yap see εἰ yap in iii. 7, where in 
like manner the yap refers, not to what immediately precedes, but to 
ver. 5. 

ἡ γραφὴ] ‘the passage of scripture.” See the note on Gal. iii. 22. 
Dr Vaughan takes a different view and instances examples from St John. 
The usage of St John may admit of a doubt, though personally I think 
not (see Gal. l.c.); St Paul’s practice however is absolute and uniform. 
On the faith of Abraham see Galatians, p. 156. 

4. τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ, κιτλ] The connexion is somewhat as follows. 
‘Scripture lays stress on Abraham’s faith: this language is inconsistent 
with the idea of wages earned by work done.’ 

λογίζεται] ‘zs reckoned.’ Passive, as in ver. 5 (ver. 24 is more doubt- 
ful), ix. 8, Ecclus. xl. 19 ὑπὲρ ἀμφότερα γυνὴ ἄμωμος λογίζεται. The first 
aorist ἐλογίσθην (Xen. Hell. vi. 1. 19, Plato Tim. ὃ 8, 34 A) and first future 
λογισθήσομαι (Rom. ii. 26, Niceph. ἀεί. vii. 22) are always passive 
according to Veitch. On the other hand, the present is only once 
(Herod. iii. 95) used by classical writers in the passive sense. 

5. μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δὲ] ic. who does not work for wages, does 
not obtain it by his work, but believes etc. It is by pressing the letter, 
and neglecting the spirit, of such passages as these, that antinomianism 
in its stronger and in its feebler forms is deduced from St Paul’s language. 
As a matter of fact Abraham did work, he could not helping working ; 
but it was his transcendent faith which justified him, the faith out of 
which all the works arose. 


278 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [IV. 5. 


τὸν ἀσεβῆ] A very strong word used again, v. 6, to place the gratuity 
of the gift in the strongest light. Comp. Barnabas fist. ὃ 5, who says 
of the Apostles τοὺς ἰδίους ἀποστόλους τοὺς μέλλοντας κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
αὐτοῦ ἐξελέξατο, ὄντας ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους. The parable of the 
publican and the Pharisee is the best commentary upon St Paul’s doctrine 
of justification by faith ; which, like 1 John i. 7 (quoted by Vaughan) 
when taken in connexion with St John’s universal language, implies a 
subjective process, a change in the person, side by side with the Atoning 
Sacrifice. 

6. λέγει τὸν μακαρισμὸν] ‘Pronounces the felicitation. For μακαρισμὸς 
see on Gal. iv. 15. Clement of Rome (ὃ 50) employs the word with 
obvious reference to this passage, for he quotes Ps. xxxi. (xxxii.) I, 2 in 
the immediate context. 

7,8. μακάριοι x.r.A.] A quotation from Ps. xxxi. (xxxii.) 1,2. Here 
again (see on iii. 10 sq.) St Paul’s use of the language of the Psalms shows 
that he did not mean to exclude the moral element in the reconciliation 
of the believers to God. The sins indeed are freely forgiven; but a moral 
change is wrought in the man himself; for the psalmist goes on οὐδέ ἐστιν 
ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ δόλος. Though the idea of the passage quoted is the 
blessedness of a free pardon, still the latter part of the psalm (esp. 
vu. 5, 8, 9) was doubtless not absent from St Paul’s mind. He does not 
however quote the whole: he gives the opening words as a reference 
trusting to his readers’ memories to supply the rest. 

8. ot] In the Lxx. οὗ is read by N*AB, 6 by x* and by the second 
hand of the early Verona Psalter: but ᾧ was probably the original 
reading of the 1ΧΧ. to translate the Hebrew yb. In the text of the 
Epistle the authorities are very much divided: SBDG giving οὗ, the rest 
ᾧ. In Clement of Rome (ὃ 50), where the passage is quoted (see the last 
note but one), A reads οὗ, the Constantinople Ms. and the Syriac version ᾧ. 
It is difficult to say which St Paul wrote. Certainly ᾧ would better suit 
the order of words: on the other hand, οὗ is more likely to have been 
altered into 6, and should perhaps on the whole be preferred. 

9. ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν] It is idle here, as elsewhere (see the note on 
1 Cor. i. 31), to enquire what particular verb is to be supplied in the 
ellipse. 

II. σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς] The genitive is better supported than 
the accusative (περιτομήν) ; and the absence of the article, urged by Meyer 
as an argument against περιτομῆς, cannot outweigh the external testimony. 
But in reality the article here would interfere with the sense, which is 
‘a sign which consisted in circumcision,’ a genitive of apposition, like 
Col. i. 12 τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου. The confusion in reading would be 
helped by the accidental omission of the final σ of περιτομῆς before the 
initial o of σφραγῖδα with the result that περιτομὴ would be considered an 
abbreviation for περιτομήν. The word σημεῖον is used of circumcision in 
the ΧΧ, of Gen. xvii. 11 εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης. 





IV. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 279 


σφραγῖδα] ‘a seal’; i.e. not a preliminary condition, but a final 
ratification. So the Epistle of Barnabas has (ὃ 9, 6) ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖς - καὶ μὴν 
περιτέτμηται ὁ λαὸς εἰς σφραγῖδα, connecting the term, as here, with 
circumcision. Though it may be questioned whether St Paul (2 Cor. i. 22 
σφραγισάμενος, comp. Eph. iv. 30) or St John (Rev. ix. 4 τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων) used the image with any direct reference to 
baptism, the Christian equivalent to circumcision, it is indisputable that 
the term was early applied to that rite: Hermas Sis. viii. 6 εἰληφότες τὴν 
σφραγῖδα καὶ τεθλακότες αὐτὴν καὶ μὴ τηρήσαντες ὑγιῆ K.T.A., S772. ix. 16 ὅταν 
δὲ λάβῃ τὴν σφραγῖδα...ἡ σφραγὶς οὖν τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν κιτιλ. ; also Sim. viii. 2, 
ix. 17, 31, 2 [Clement] 7 τῶν γὰρ μὴ τηρησάντων, φησίν, τὴν σφραγῖδα com- 
pared with ὃ 6 ἐὰν μὴ τηρήσωμεν τὸ βάπτισμα, § ὃ τηρήσατε τὴν σφραγῖδα 
ἄσπιλον, Clem. Hom. xvi. 19 τὸ σῶμα σφραγῖδι μεγίστῃ διατετυπωμένον (with 
the context), dct. Paul. et Thecl. 25 μόνον δός μοι τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ σφραγῖδα, 
Hippol, Antichr. 42 (p. 119, Lagarde), Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Docu- 
ments, Ὁ. 44. Suicer s.v. quotes Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 39 (p. 957); 
Strom. ii. 3 (p. 434) and later writers. 

Indications are not wanting to show that the writer of the Epistle of 
Barnabas was acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans. Witness this 
use of σφραγὶς (ὃ 9) and the phrase τῶν πιστευόντων δι᾽ ἀκρυβυστίας (ὃ 13, 6, 
see next note), both taken from Rom. iv. 11, κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ (ὃ 20) 
compared with Rom. xii. 9, and the passage quoted above on Rom. iv. 5, 
which may have been suggested by Rom. v. 8. 

δι ἀκροβυστίας] The preposition points, not to the instrumentality, but 
to the condition: uncircumcision was the stage through which they 
passed into belief. See the note on ii. 27 διὰ γράμματος. The passage in 
Barnabas ὃ 13 is combined with two Old Testament quotations 
(Gen. xv. 6, xvii. 5), ἰδοὺ τέθεικά σε, ᾿Αβραάμ, πατέρα ἐθνῶν τῶν πιστευόντων 
δι’ ἀκροβυστίας τῷ Ged. 

12. πατέρα περιτομῆς] To be attached to εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν (ver. 11), 
the intervening clause εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι κιτιλ. being dependent on the 
preceding εἰς τὸ εἶναι. 

The genitive περιτομῆς does not describe Abraham’s progeny, as many 
commentators take it, but his own condition. In other words, the phrase 
means, not ‘a father of a circumcised progeny,’ but ‘a father belonging 
to circumcision, himself circumcised.’ The meaning is, ‘though himself 
belonging to the circumcision, yet his fatherhood extends beyond the 
circumcision to all who imitate his faith. Compare xv. 8, where a 
similar expression διάκονον περιτομῆς is followed by a similar expansion. 
The parallel is exact in the two cases, viz. the widening of the circle 
from the Jewish centre. The prerogative is with the Jew, but otherwise 
there is equality (Rom. i. 16). 

τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς .t.A.] Literally ‘to those who are, I do not say, 
of circumcision only, but also to those who walk.’ Two different forms of 
sentence have been confused; as in 1 Cor. xv. 51 πάντες ov κοιμηθησόμεθα 


280 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [IV. 12. 


πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, where the confusion is between οὐ πάντες Kot. 
πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγ. and πάντες οὐ κοιμ. ἀλλαγ. δέ. Here the two sentences 
would run (1) τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν, (2) οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐκ 
περιτομῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν. A somewhat similar combination is 
observable in Phil. i. 29. There is no occasion therefore to alter the text 
either by changing καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν into καὶ αὐτοῖς στοιχοῦσιν, or by 
transposing καὶ and τοῖς, as has been proposed. 

τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν] ‘who walk by the steps. Comp. Gal. vi. 16 
ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, V. 25 πνεύματι Kai στοιχῶμεν. The dative 
with στοιχεῖν, περιπατεῖν etc. marks the line or direction ; see the notes on 
Gal. ll.ce. Hence ‘by’ is a better rendering here than ‘in.’ 

13. od γὰρ διὰ νόμου] St Paul turns from ἡ περιτομὴ to 6 νόμος. 
Circumcision and Law were separate in time and in origin. But from the 
moment of the institution of the Law they were co-extensive in their 
operation: for those under the Law were under the Circumcision. The 
point of the promise not being by law is more lightly touched upon here 
than the fact of its not being of circumcision. On the other hand in 
Gal. iii. 7 sq. this converse truth is enlarged upon. 

κόσμου] I cannot agree with Dr Vaughan that the absence of the 
article here (and elsewhere xi. 12, 15, Gal. vi. 14, 1 Cor. iii. 22, 2 Cor. v. 19) 
with κόσμος ‘gives the sense of such a thing as the world, so vast, so 
magnificent.’ Like οὐρανός, γῆ, βασιλεὺς etc., κόσμος can be used 
anarthrous, because it is a quasi-proper name. The same rule applies to 
numerals (see note on Phil. i. 5, ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας), because a numeral is 
sufficiently definite in itself without the addition of the article. 

14. The argument, here briefly stated, is elaborated in Gal. iii. Ga 
Thus the verse must be taken as parenthetical, and verse 15 attached 
directly to verse 13. ‘The law cannot work out the fulfilment of the 
promise. The effect is just the opposite: it works out as its consequence 
wrath,’ 

16. ϑιὰ τοῦτο] i.e. because law, as law, can only result in transgression 
and punishment. For the idea of κατὰ χάριν ‘by way of a favour,’ see 
Eph. ii. 5, 8; for the ellipse after iva, the notes on Gal., ii. 9, 1 Cor. i. 31. 

βεβαίαν] ‘zatified. On the derivation of βέβαιος see Curtius, Greich. 
Etym. pp. 415, 416; for this special meaning compare διαθήκη ἐπὶ νεκροῖς 
βεβαία (Heb. ix. 17), BeBaiwors (Phil. i. 7, Heb. vi. 16), βεβαιοῦν (Rom. 
xv. 8, 1 Cor. i. 6, Heb. ii. 3). 

τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου] ‘who springs from the law, ‘who is born, as it i 
by the law to Abraham.’ 

17. πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν] We have already arrived at something: more 
than the statement with which the objection started (ver. 1 τὸν προπάτορα 
ἡμῶν, i.e. ‘of us Jews’). 

ὅτι πατέρα κιτ.λ.} In the original text (LXx. Gen. xvii. 5 ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά 
σου ᾿Αβραὰμ ὅτι x.r.d.) the ὅτι signifies not ‘that,’ but ‘because’; and if 
we take ὅτι as part of the actual quotation, we must so render it. Here 


——— 








IV. 19.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 281 


however, as in iii. 10, viii. 36 and frequently, it probably introduces the 
words quoted. 

κατέναντι ov κιτ.λ.} I prefer to connect these words with els τὸ εἶναι 
βεβαίαν... σπέρματι rather than with what immediately precedes, and to 
consider the intervening clause οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ... τέθεικά σε as a parenthesis, 
explaining the meaning and substantiating the truth of παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι. 
This seems to be the only suitable connexion. Where it is a question of 
verification, of confirmation, this reference to the presence of God is 
common (2 Cor. iv. 2, Gal. i. 20, 1 Tim. v. 21, vi. 13 etc.). 

On the grammatical construction of κατέναντι οὗ see Winer, ὃ xxiv. 
pp. 204, 206. 1 do not however agree with Winer and Meyer in resolving 
the sentence into κατέναντι Θεοῦ κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσε, because (1) πιστεύειν 
κατέναντι τινος is not a natural phrase, and (2) the passage itself which 
St Paul has in mind (Gen. xv. 6) has the dative (ἐπίστευσε τῷ Θεῷ). I 
follow Pritzsche in resolving into κατέναντε Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσε: comp. for 
the dative Matt. xxiv. 38 ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας (for ἄχρι τῆς ἡμέρας 7) εἰσῆλθεν Noe. 
The attraction is made more easy by the fact that the relative precedes 
the substantive, as in Matt. 1. c., Luke i. 4. 

τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος «.t.A.] This quickening of the dead and evoking 
something out of nothing refers frimarily to Abraham and Sarah (comp. 
the phrases σῶμα νενεκρωμένον, τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας, ver. 19) and 
the birth of Isaac (τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα); secondarily, to their spiritual 
descendants, i.e. the Church and more especially the Gentile Church 
(Eph. ii. 1, 5, 10, Col. ii. 12, 13). See also the baptismal formula given 
hymn-wise in Eph. v. 14. The Gentile Church rises from the dead with 
the risen Christ. In the passages from Ephesians and Colossians, the 
resurrection of the Gentile Church is connected with the resurrection of 
Christ ; and so here, ver. 24. Thus, as at once (womomOévres νεκροὶ and 
καινὴ κτίσις (comp. Eph. ii. 10 κτισθέντες), Christians can truly be called 
τὰ μὴ ὄντα become ὄντα. For the phrase καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα κιτιλ. aS a 
description of the creative work of God see 2 [Clement] ὃ 1 ἐκάλεσεν γὰρ 
ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας καὶ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι ἡμᾶς, Philo de Creat. Princ. 7 
(II. p. 367) τὰ γὰρ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι, Hermas Vis. i. 1. 6 κτίσας 
ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος τὰ ὄντα, Mand. i. 2 ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ 
πάντα, Clem. Hom. iii. 32 τῷ τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι συστησαμένῳ. 

18. ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι] ‘on the strength of hope’; not governed by ἐπίστευσεν, 
but independent, as in v. 2: ‘contrary to hope he believed under the 
condition,’ or ‘upon the ground, of hope.’ The variant ἐφ᾽ Amid (read 
by CDF) is not sufficiently well supported either here or v. 2 (DF) to find 
a place in the text : but it should be read in viii. 20 (NBDF). On similar 
aspirated forms see the notes on Phil. ii. 22 ἀφίδω, Gal. ii. 14 οὐχ 
᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς. 

οὕτως «.t.A.] Only a part of the quotation (Gen. xv. 5) is given: as 
above (ver. 8), his readers would mentally continue it. 

19. μὴ ἀσθενήσας «.7.A.] ‘without any weakness in his faith he faced 


282 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [IV. 19. 


the facts of? The removal of the οὐ (of the Textus Receptus) before 
xarevonoev which external evidence demands, brings out the idiomatic 
character of the μὴ before ἀσθενήσας and the true significance of κατενόησεν 
which is a strong term (e.g. James i. 23, 24 ‘sees every lineament of his 
face in a glass’), ‘he clearly perceived,’ ‘discerned,’ and did not flinch 
before the fact. Abraham did face the fact: see Gen. xvii. 17 where he 
is represented as referring to his age, and esp. Heb. xi. 19 λογισάμενος ὅτι 
καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς ὁ Θεός, a passage which may perhaps be 
taken to show that the writer of that Epistle was acquainted with the 
Epistle to the Romans (see νενεκρωμένον in this verse compared with 
Heb. xi. 12). 

ἑκατονταετής που] ‘ about a hundred years old” ‘The addition of που 
qualifies the exactness of the preceding numeral’ (Vaughan). The first 
promise of a son from whom the chosen race was to spring was made 
(Gen. xv. 3 sq.) we cannot say exactly when, but before the birth of 
Ishmael which took place when Abraham was eighty-six years old 
(Gen. xvi. 16). The second promise of a son Isaac was given when 
Abraham was ninety-nine (Gen. xvii. 1), and is associated with the 
, institution of circumcision (Gen. xvii. 24); but Abraham at that time by 
a natural exaggeration speaks of himself as a hundred (Gen. xvii. 17 εἰ τῷ 
ἑκατονταετεῖ γενήσεται vids ;). 

20, εἰς δὲ] The connecting particle shows that the true reading must 
have been κατενόησεν without the negative: ‘he clearly saw, but yet 
he did not doubt.’ 

τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, τῇ πίστει) For the article comp. 2 Cor. i. 17 τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ 
‘the fickleness with which ye charge me.’ It is perhaps best to consider 
both τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ and τῇ πίστει as instrumental datives. 

᾿ἐνεδυναμώθη] A characteristic word of St Paul (Eph. vi. το, Phil. iv. 13, 
1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17), peculiar to him and to St Luke 
(Acts ix. 22) in the N. T. The simple verb δυναμοῦν is rarer (Col. i. 11, 
Heb. xi. 34). Ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι is here used absolutely, as in Acts lec.: 
comp. the absolute use of ἐνεργεῖσθαι (e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 12, Gal. v. 6). 

δοὺς δόξαν͵ The leading idea here is the recognition of God’s 
almighty power and goodness; not the feeling of thanksgiving on 
Abraham’s part. 

21. ὃ ἐἔπήγγελται] ‘what He has promised” The word for ‘to 
promise’ is necessarily not émayyeAXew ‘to announce,’ but ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι 
middle ‘to announce on one’s part.’ Thus ὃ ἐπήγγελται here may be 
either ‘what has been promised’ or ‘what He has promised’; for 
instances of the perfect and pluperfect passive in a middle signification 
are common in the N. T.; e.g. Acts xiii. 2 προσκέκλημαι, Xvi. 10 προσκέ- 
«Anat, XXV. 12 ἐπικέκλησαι, John ix. 22 συνετέθειντο, 1 Pet. iv. 3 πεπορευ- 
μένους. The perfect of ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι occurs in the active sense Heb. 
xii. 26 νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελται λέγων, in the passive sense probably Gal. iii. 19 


ες 


ᾧ ἐπήγγελται and certainly 2 Macc. iv. 27 τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων τῷ βασιλεῖ 





IV. 25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 283 


xpnearey;-comp. Clement of Rome ὃ 35 ὅπως μεταλάβωμεν τῶν ἐπηγγεὰ- 
μένων δωρεῶν. Here the proximity of δυνατός rather points to the active 
sense. For the N. T. meaning of ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, ἐπαγγελία implying 
always a free proffer, a spontaneous gift on God’s part, see the note on 
Gal. iii. 14 τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. 

24. λογίζεσθαι] probably passive, as in ver. 4, where see the note. 

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] “20 us, J mean, believers’ etc. The rendering of the 
A. V. ‘if we believe’ cannot stand. For the expression here comp. 
Eph. i. 19, 1 Thess. ii. 10, 13. The Resurrection was at that time 
especially the cardinal article of the Christian faith (x. 9); I have set 
forth some of the practical bearings of the doctrine in the note on 
Phil. iii. 10 τὴν δύναμιν κ-τ.λ. 

25. ὃς παρεδόθη κι-τ.λ.] A reference to Is. liii. 12. There is an oppo- 
sition between παρεδόθη and ἠγέρθη, as between παραπτώματα and δικαί- 
aow. Christ consented to die because we were dead; He rose to life 
that we might be made alive by our acquittal. In His betrayal and 
death we die to sin; in His resurrection we rise to new life. Thus the 
two clauses represent the negative and the positive side of the same 
operations. This is another way of expressing the idea of dying with 
Christ which is so common in St Paul (Rom. vi. 5, 6, 10, 11, viii. 10). 


CHAPTER V. 


vii. The results of this position of righteousness through faith (v. 1—11). 


I. ἔχωμεν] If external authority is to be regarded, this (not ἔχομεν) is 
unquestionably the right reading. In the New Testament generally, as 
here, it is man who is regarded as at enmity with God, not God at 
enmity with man. The death of Christ is represented as reconciling man 
to God, not God to man. I would not say that it would be theologically 
wrong to speak of God as estranged from us; but the reverse is the 
usual practice in the New Testament, and the case is exactly represented — 
in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. For God loves us with a fathers 
love, even though we have turned our backs upon Him; just as that 
father yearned for his son’s return: 

The force of the phrase is this: ‘let us be at peace, let us not 
continue to fight against God (Acts v. 39 θεομάχοι). Potentially we are 
justified: let us appropriate our privileges, let us make them actual’ 
(comp. Col. i. 20sq.). Hence the imperative. For the phrase employed — 
here Wetstein appositely quotes Herodian viii. 7 ἀντὶ πολέμου μὲν εἰρήνην 
ἔχοντες πρὸς θεούς. 

2. τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν] ‘we have gained our access, entrance. 
Christ is considered no longer as the door, but as the introducer. To 
realise the force of the metaphor we must recal the formalities with 
which an Eastern monarch is surrounded. The idea is still further 
brought out in Eph. ii. 18, and Eph. iii. 12 (where it is strengthened by the 
phrase τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ προσαγωγήν, ‘freedom of speech as well as right 
of admittance’). See Tholuck and Meyer here, and compare Plutarch 
Moral. p. 522 Ὲ. 

καυχώμεθα κιτ.λ.} Καυχώμεθα is best taken as an indicative and con- 
nected with ἐσχήκαμεν : ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι ‘on the strength of the hope’ (as in 
iv. 18), giving the conditions under which we boast. On the expression 
τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ and what it implies, see the note on iii. 23. 

3. οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ] This ellipse occurs five times in St Paul, in 
all cases in Epistles of this period (Rom. v. 3, 11, viii. 23, ix. 10, 
2 Cor. viii. 19). 





V. 6.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 28 5 


καυχώμενοι] The irregularity of the construction recommends this 
reading. It is more probable that καυχώμενοι should have been changed 
into καυχώμεθα for grammatical reasons and by mechanical repetition 
from the preceding verse, than that the indicative should have been 
changed into the participle to conform with ver. 11. Otherwise the 
authorities somewhat favour the indicative (καυχώμεθα NADFL Chrys. 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Cyprian; καυχώμενοι BC Origen, Tertull.). 

δοκιμήν] The substantive means in the N. T. either (1) ‘the process 
of testing or proving,’ 2 Cor. viii. 2; or (2) ‘the state or disposition so 
ascertained, the tested quality,’ ‘value,’ Phil. ii. 22, 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, 
xiii. 3, though in all these passages the first meaning might stand. This 
latter is probably the signification here. This sense approaches very 
close to τὸ δοκίμιον (James i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 7) and the metaphor of assaying 
by fire is frequent under other terms also (πύρωσις, πυροῦσθαι, τ Pet. iv. 12, 
Rev. iii. 48, Ps. Ixvi. 10). Compare the double sense of δοκιμάζειν (see 
the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 4, v. 21). 

5. οὐ καταισχύνει) Very probably St Paul had in his mind Ecclus. 
ii. 10 τίς ἐν ἐπίστευσεν Κυρίῳ καὶ κατῃσχύνθη, for in the immediate context 
occurs ἐν πυρὶ δοκιμάζεται χρυσὸς καὶ ἄνθρωποι δεκτοὶ ἐν καμίνῳ ταπεινώσεως 
(ver. 5), which illustrates δοκιμὴν above. 

ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ] Primarily ‘God’s love towards us,’ as the context 
requires (1 John iv. 10); but this (see Vaughan) ‘awakens a response of 
love in us’ (1 John iv. 19) towards Him and towards our fellow-man. 

ἐκκέχυται)] The word denotes both abundance and diffusion. 

6. Two points regarding the text of this verse require consideration. 

(1) The ἔτι after ἀσθενῶν must certainly be retained. The pre- 
ponderance of authority is enormously in its favour. Moreover there 
was every temptation in a scribe to omit it (see Reiche Comm. Crit. 
Ῥ. 38). 

(2) The more difficult question remains. At the beginning of the 
verse are we to read (a) ἔτε yap with NACD*K, the Syriac (except the 
Peshito), Marcion, Chrysostom and Theodoret, (4) εἰς ri yap with D*FG, 
Irenzeus (Lat.) and the Latin versions, (c) εἰ yap (ἔτι) with % of the Old 
Latin, the Codex Fuldensis of the Vulgate, Isidore of Pelusium and 
Augustine, or (4) εἴ ye with B alone? There are also several other 
variations with but slight support (as εἰ δὲ 1, Peshito) which may be 
neglected. The choice seems to lie between the two extremes ἔτι yap and 
εἴγε. I should adopt ἔτι yap and consider εἰς ri yap, εἰ yap to have been 
corrections made to avoid the double ἔτι, and εἴ ye to be a further 
correction. Possibly however the series of changes began at the other 
end with εἴ ye as the original reading. In Gal. v. 11 εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι 
κηρύσσω τί ἔτι διώκομαι, the first ἔτι is (wrongly) thrown out by the 
same manuscripts (DFG) which read εἰς ri yap here. 

If we read ἔτι yap and so preserve the double ἔτι, the second ἔτι must 
not be taken in the sense of ‘moreover’; but must be explained by the 


286 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [V. 6. 


trajection in the first ἔτι (Winer § xi. p. 692) which gives occasion for the 
insertion of the word later on to clear the sense. For a repetition of ἔτι 
in the same member of the sentence comp. Pindar Vem. ix. 47 (111) 
οὐκέτ᾽ ἔστι πόρσω θνατὸν ἔτι σκοπιᾶς ἄλλας ἐφάψασθαι, but it is undoubtedly 
rare. On the other hand, if ef ye be adopted, we may compare Eph. iii. 2 
εἴγε ἠκούσατε : but the construction is not much after St Paul’s manner here. 

κατὰ καιρὸν] ‘at the proper time’: comp. Eph. i. 10, Gal. iv. 4 (with 
the note), Tit. i. 3. Christ came when the law had fulfilled its work, 
when the race had attained its majority. 

ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν] A strong expression (as in iv. 5) to emphasize the 
greatness of the boon. Such language may have given rise to the 
extraordinary statement in the Epistle of Barnabas ὃ 5 quoted above 
(iv. 5), an exaggeration only to be accounted for by passages like these 
where the Apostles depreciate themselves in order to enhance the grace 
of God. Failing absolutely to understand St Paul’s motive, Celsus wields 
this saying against the Christians. 

7. μόλις γὰρ] ‘Died for the impious. This is the strongest proof of 
His love. For you will scarce find one willing to die for a just man; 
though for the good man persons might be found ready to die.’ 

The more recent commentators generally make the two expressions 
ὑπὲρ δικαίου and ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as equivalent or nearly so ; and consider 
that ὑπὲρ yap τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ is a justification of the Apostle’s use of μόλες 
‘hardly’ in place of ov ‘not’: as if he had meant ‘I say Aardly, for 
exceptional cases there are.’ So Meyer, Jowett, Vaughan (if I understand 
him aright). Alford is an honourable exception, but he does not quite 
see the force of the passage. 

_ The fact is that the δίκαιος and the ἀγαθὸς represent two distinct types 
of character, as the following passages will show. 

Clem. Hom, xvii. 5 ὁ δὲ ἐκδικοῦντα καὶ ἀμειβόμενον λέγων Θεὸν δίκαιον 
αὐτὸν τῇ φύσει συνίστησιν καὶ οὐκ ἀγαθόν... ποτὲ μὲν ἀγαθὸν λέγων, ποτὲ δὲ 
δίκαιον, οὐδ᾽ οὕτως συμφωνεῖ, xviii. I εἰ μὲν οὖν νομοθέτης ἐστίν, δίκαιος 
τυγχάνει, δίκαιος δὲ ὧν ἀγαθὸς οὐκ ἔστιν...καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἔφη" πρῶτον 
ἡμῖν εἰπέ, ἐπὶ ποίαις πράξεσι δοκεῖ σοι ὁ ἀγαθὸς εἶναι, ἐπὶ ποιαῖς δὲ 6 δίκαιος... 
καὶ ὁ Σίμων: σὺ πρῶτον εἰπέ, τί σοι δοκεῖ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἢ καὶ τὸ δίκαιον. There 
is much argument between the two on this point, in the course of 
which (§ 3) St Peter says ὅτι δὲ τὸ δίκαιον ἄλλο ἐστιν καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἕτερον 
καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογῶ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ δίκαιον, 
ἀγνοεῖς, and again § 14 πῶς ἐστὶ τοῦτο ἀγαθόν, ὃ μὴ δίκαιον ἐστιν κιτιλ. So 
ii, 13 χωρὶς πάσης ἀντιλογίας 6 Θεὸς ἀγαθὸς ὧν καὶ δίκαιός ἐστιν, and iv. 13 
τῇ φύσει ἀγαθὸν καὶ δίκαιον: ἀγαθὸν μὲν ὡς μεταμελομένοις χαριζόμενον τὰ 
ἁμαρτήματα, δίκαιον δὲ ὡς ἑκάστῳ μετὰ τὴν μετάνοιαν κατ᾽ ἀξίαν τῶν πεπραγ- 
μένων ἐπεξιόντα. 

Irenzeus i. 27. 1 of Cerdon’s teaching of two Gods, καὶ τὸν μὲν δίκαιον 
τὸν δὲ ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν. 


Ptolemzus Efist. ad Flor, § 4 (in Epiphan. Her. xxxiii. 7) εἰ ὁ τέλειος 





V. 7.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 287 


Θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ diow...€are δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς τοῦ ἀντικειμένου 
φύσεως κακός τε καὶ πονηρός... τούτων οὖν μέσος καθεστώς, καὶ μήτε ἀγαθὸς ὦν, 
μήτε μὴν κακός, μήδε ἄδικος, ἰδίως τε λεχθείη ἂν δίκαιος. This is exactly 
what we want. The δίκαιος falls short of the ἀγαθός, but yet he is neither 
κακὸς nor ἄδικος. 

Athenagoras Lega?. 34 quoted by Wetstein (p. 38 A) οὐ γὰρ ἀπαρκεῖ 
δίκαιον εἶναι (ἔστι δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἴσα ἴσοις ἀμείβειν), ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἀνεξι- 
κάκοις εἶναι πρόκειται. 

In Clement of Alexandria Pedag. i. 8. 62 (p. 135 sq. Potter) there is a 
whole chapter πρὸς rods ἡγουμένους μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθὸν τὸ δίκαιον. He says 
(δ 63) τὸ δὲ ἀγαθὸν ἣ ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ποιεῖ ἢ ὅτι ὠφελεῖ (p. 136) 
with much more to the same effect, καὶ κατὰ Πλάτωνα ὁμολογεῖται ἀγαθὸν 
εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον (§ 67, p. 138), ὅτι μὲν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ + dmavrest ὁμολογοῦσιν 
οἱ πάντες" ὅτι δὲ καὶ δίκαιος ὁ αὐτὸς Θεὸς οὔ μοι χρὴ πλειόνων ἔτι λόγων 
(δ 71, Ρ.:840), and see also the following chapter. 

In classical literature one example will suffice, though many could be 
adduced. 

Plato Resp. i. p. 350C ὁ μὲν ἄρα δίκαιος ἡμῖν ἀναπέφανται ὧν ἀγαθός τε 
καὶ σοφός. 

Thus the distinction between δίκαιος and ἀγαθὸς is very much the same 
as the Aristotelian distinction between the ἀκριβοδίκαιος and the ἐπιεικής 
(Eth. Nic. v. 14), between the man, that is to say, who is scrupulously 
just, and the man who is prepared to make allowances. Shylock might 
be δίκαιος, but he was not ἀγαθός. The ‘summum jus’ may become 
‘summa injuria.’ 

And for the matter in hand, there is all the difference in the world 
between the ἀγαθὸς and the δίκαιος. The ἀγαθὸς, as such, is full of 
sympathy and consideration for others. The well-being of others is his 
first concern. He is beneficent and kind. This is the idea of ἀγαθότης. 
On the other hand the δίκαιος, as such, puts out of sight the feelings of 
others. He is absolutely without sympathy. Now sympathy elicits 
sympathy. Consequently the ἀγαθὸς will be met with sympathy : others 
will be ready to do and to suffer for him in their turn: but the δίκαιος will 
evoke no such love, no willingness to make sacrifices in return. 

Hence St Paul’s language here. ‘For a good man some perchance 
may have courage to die; for a just man you will hardly, if at all, find 
any one ready to sacrifice his life: yet though we were not only not good, 
were not even just, yea, were worse than unjust, worse than sinners 
(ἁμαρτωλοί), were even ἀσεβεῖς (recklessly and contemptuously set the will 
of God at defiance), yet Christ died for us.’ 

τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ] The definite article is added to throw a little more 
emphasis on the word. Tov ἀγαθοῦ here cannot be neuter, as some take 
it: for, frst, the context requires a person; secondly, as a matter of fact, 
people are not so ready to die for a good principle as for a good person, 
because in the latter case their personal sympathies are excited. 


288 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [V. 9. 


9. οὖν] The οὖν should be retained, its omission in some texts being 
connected with the manipulation of the reading of the beginning of 
ver. 6, from a desire to form a suitable apodosis to such readings as εἰ yap, 
el ye. If however εἴ ye be read, εἴ γε... ἀπέθανεν is not the protasis of a 
new sentence, but is to be connected with what precedes: οὖν therefore 
must stand in any case. 

σωθησόμεθα] “In the language of the New Testament salvation is a 
thing of the past, a thing of the present, and a thing of the future. 
St Paul says sometimes ‘Ye (or we) were saved’ (Rom. viii. 24), or ‘Ye 
have been saved’ (Eph. ii. 5, 8), sometimes ‘Ye are being saved’ 
(1 Cor. xv. 2), and sometimes ‘ Ye shall be saved’ (Rom. x. 9, 13). It is 
important to observe this, because we are thus taught that σωτηρία 
involves a moral condition which must have begun already, though it 
will receive its final accomplishment hereafter. Godliness, righteousness, 
is life, is salvation. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of 
morality and religion must be fostered and encouraged by failing to note 
this and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future— 
on the first call or on the final change” (Ox a Fresh Revision, 1891, 
p. 104). The moral condition, not the physical, is the leading idea in 
σωτηρία, and binds all the meanings together. 

ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς] ‘/rom the wrath’ of God: comp. iii. 5, ix. 22, where 
however 6 Θεὸς occurs in the context. Compare therefore Rom. xii. 19 
δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, and 1 Thess. i. 10 (with the note), where the word 
(like ro θέλημα, τὸ ὄνομα) is used absolutely. 

10. κατηλλάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ] In accordance with the universal language 
of the New Testament which speaks of mankind as reconciled in Christ 
to God, not God as reconciled to man. See 2 Cor. v. 18 sq., Col. i. 21. 
It is true that New Testament writers do use the expression ‘the wrath 
of God’ borrowed from the O. T., employing it xara ἄνθρωπον and 
καταχρηστικῶς; but when they speak at length upon the subject, the 
hostility is represented not as on the part of God, but of man. And this 
is the reason why the Apostles never use διαλλάσσειν in this connection, 
but always καταλλάσσειν ; because the former word denotes mutual 
concession after mutual hostility (Matt. v. 24 and LXxx. frequently), an 
idea absent from καταλλάσσει. Thus the New Testament is the 
revelation of the higher truth that God is love. 

Prof. Jowett strangely states in his note that ‘the comparison of 
Col. i. 21...shows that ἐχθροὺς may have an active as well as passive 
meaning.’ But surely the common meaning of ἐχθρὸς ἐς active, at least 
from the Attic age onward, and in prose; and it is the universal use in 
the New Testament. 

ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ] ie. rising in His resurrection and living in His life. 

II. οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ] See on ver. 3 above. 

viv] i.e. under the present dispensation. 











V. 12} EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 289 


viii. Zhe terms ‘life’ and ‘death’ explained (ν. 12—21). 


12. ϑιὰ τοῦτο] ‘This being so—since we have been already reconciled 
in Christ and look forward to eternal salvation, it comes to pass that as 
one man brought death into the world, so one man also brought life.’ 

ὥσπερ] The apodosis should have run, ‘so also through one man 
came righteousness, and through righteousness, life.’ Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22, 
which contains the germ of this passage, as elsewhere that epistle 
anticipates this. Thus the apodosis would have expressed the analogy 
between the First and the Second Adam. But it is lost sight of in a 
number of dependent clauses, beginning with καὶ οὕτως x.r.A.; and instead 
of the resemblance, the contrasts of the two come prominently forward in 
vv. 15 sq. The apodosis disappears; and the sentence is resumed with 
another protasis in ver. 18, where ἄρα οὖν marks the fact of the re- 
sumption, Ρι 

ἀ ov] The word is more or less emphatic, because the parallel 
points from the humanity of Adam to the humanity of Christ: see ver. 15. 

ὁ θάνατος] Physical death in the first instance and in the Mosaic 
narrative: but spiritual death as further implied therein; just as in the 
correlative both physical and spiritual life are included. In the Apostle’s 
mind the two ideas are inseparable. 

διῆλθεν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κιτιλ.] Sin passed, as it were, from the one frontier to the 
other of humanity. The disease was communicated to the whole race, 
not inasmuch as all were descendants of Adam, but inasmuch as all 
sinned. . 

13. ἄχρι γὰρ «.7.A.] This is to justify the assertion that all sinned. 
An objection starts up in the Apostle’s mind, ‘What about the time 
before Moses, when there was no law?’ and this objection he proceeds to 
deal with. Yes: sin was there, even when there was no law to make the 
items appear in black and white. 

οὐκ ἐλλογᾶται] ‘zs not reckoned in the account?’ The sin is there; but 
it did not take the form of transgression and so is not set down. On the 
two forms ἐλλογᾶν, ἐλλογεῖν and similar pairs of verbs, see the note on 
Philemon 18 ἐλλόγα. 

14. ἐβασίλευσεν] ‘vezgned, dominated, carried all before it; see ver. 21 
below. 

καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας)] The omission of μὴ is at least as early 
as Origen (see Reiche Comm. Crit. p. 42); but it is the true reading, (1) as 
being the better supported, (2) as required by the context, more especially 
by the καὶ and the πάντες ἥμαρτον. (3) The omission of μὴ if genuine, was 
more natural than the insertion of μὴ if spurious. It would appear to 
scribes to be reasonable that Adam’s punishment should fall on those 
only who followed Adam’s sin. 

The question of the reading being thus decided, it remains to consider 
what interpretation should be put on the expression ἐπὶ rods μὴ ἁμαρτή- 


L. EP. 19 


290 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [V. 14. 


gavras x.r.A. The interpretations which make the penalty of death fall on 
those who did not actually sin are mainly twofold. The first takes ἐπὶ τῷ 
ὁμοιώματι closely with ἐβασίλευσεν, explaining the phrase to mean “by 
reason of the likeness of the sin’; that is, the likeness only, for, where no 
law is, there is no direct imputation of sin. But this view is distinctly 
excluded by the words πάντες ἥμαρτον above. According to St Paul’s 
teaching, all did sin. The other explanation is to disconnect μὴ from ἐπὶ 
τῷ ὁμοιώματι and by giving a somewhat strained meaning to ἐπὶ τῷ 
ὁμοιώματι to arrive at the result, ‘they did not commit sin, in the sense in 
which Adam committed sin,’ 1.6. they were not guilty of actual, but only 
of imputed sin. The passage however distinctly implies that they did 
commit actual sin; though it was sin not according to the likeness of 
Adam’s sin. In what way then did their sin differ from his? Calvin 
replies; ‘quia non habebant, ut ille, revelatam certo oraculo Dei volun- 
tatem,’ thdt is, did not sin against an express command, had not 
transgressed a definite precept, but only the law within (Rom. ii. 14). 
But this is not quite satisfactory, and a wider application ought probably 
to be given to the whole passage. 

ὅς ἐστιν τύπος] ‘ Inasmuch as all were involved in the consequences of 
the sin in the one case, of the righteousness in the other case.’ But 
observe that in both cases the descendants are involved in these conse- 
quences by participation and communication, not by imputation. 

τοῦ μέλλοντος] Christ is future as regards Adam and Eve and the 
Jewish world, though not as regards St Paul. The Apostle doubtless has _ 
in his mind the Messianic titles ὁ μέλλων, ὁ ἐρχόμενος, on which see 
Biblical Essays, p. 149. Strictly speaking, the life, death and resurrection 
of Christ are the proper counterpart and counteraction to the sin of 
Adam, and these are past from the Apostle’s standpoint. The fact that 
Christ μέλλει κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς (2 Tim. iv. 1 quoted by Vaughan) 
has no bearing on the matter in hand, since the grace, the righteousness 
and the life, which exist already, are alone under consideration. Thus 
the past tense ἐπερίσσευσεν (not the future) is used in the next verse. 

15—17. St Paul has stated the fact of the analogy (és ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ 
μέλλοντος). He now goes on to speak of the contrasts (vv. 15, 16), and 
returns to the analogy again (ver. 18 ἄρα οὖν. The contrasts are intro- 
duced as a corrective to the impression which might be left by the 
analogy alone. They are prompted by the overwhelming sense of God’s 
goodness and mercy. These contrasts are two, and are introduced in 
similar terms (ver. 15 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς... going on ver. 15 εἰ γὰρ...) ver. 16 Kat 
οὐχ ὡς... going on ver. 17 εἰ ydp...). First, there is a contrast in 
character: on the one side τὸ παράπτωμα resulting in θάνατος, on the other 
τὸ χάρισμα (ἡ χάρις), ἡ δωρεὰ and all that is implied thereby. Secondly, 
there is a contrast in result: in the one case from the one to the many, in 
the other from the many to the one. 


15. παράπτωμα, χάρισμα] The mere fact that the one is παράπτωμα 








V. 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 291 


and the other χάρισμα, the one an act of rebellion bringing death, the 
other an act of mercy bringing life, sets the two cases as wide as the poles 
apart. 

τοῦ ἑνός, τοὺς πολλούς] “In Rom. v. 15—19 there is a sustained 
contrast between ‘Zhe one (ὁ eis)’ and ‘the many (οἱ πολλοὶ), but in the 
English Version the definite article is systematically omitted: ‘If through 
the offence of one many be dead,’ and so throughout the passage, closing 
with, ‘ For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by 
the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ In place of any 
comment of my own, 1 will quote Bentley’s words. Pleading for the 
correct rendering he says (Works, lll. p. 224 ed. Dyce), ‘ By this accurate 
version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute 
reprobation had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then 
seen, what several of the fathers saw and testified, that of πολλοὶ he many, 
in an antithesis to the one, are equivalent to πάντες a// in ver. 12 and 
comprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive 
only of the one” In other words the benefits of Christ’s obedience 
extend to all men potentially. It is only human self-will which places 
limits to its operation.” On a Fresh Revision, 1891, p. 108. 

ἀπέθανον] ‘ died, i.e. with Adam’s transgression; not ‘be dead’ (A. V.) 
which would require τεθνήκασι and would be as untrue to facts as to 
grammar. In many cases they died and are alive again in Christ 
(Rev. 1. 18 ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν eipi). 

πολλῷ μᾶλλον] Why ‘much more’? How comes this @ fortiori 
argument? The reason is not expressed, but it underlies all St Paul’s 
theology, as indeed all the N. T. theology; that God is a God of love, 
that He delighteth not in the death of a sinner, that His will is towards 
mercy and pardon. Therefore if the effects of sin extended to all, we 
may be much more sure that the effects of grace will extend to all and 
this abundantly. There is a similar implication in xi. 15. For πολλῷ 
μᾶλλον introducing an @ fortiori argument see above wv. 9, Io, and below 
ver. 17, 1 Cor. xii. 22, 2 Cor. iii. 9, II. 

ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι] ‘the boon which consists in a favour’ The dis- 
tinction between δωρεά, δῶρον on the one hand and δόσις, δόμα on the 
other is drawn out by Philo de Cherud. 25 (I. p. 154 ed. Mangey) τῶν 
ὄντων τὰ μὲν χάριτος μέσης ἠξίωται, ἣ καλεῖται δόσις, τὰ δὲ ἀμείνονος ἧς ὄνομα 
οἰκεῖον δωρεά, Leg. Ali. iii. 70 (1. p. 126) δῶρα δομάτων διαφέρουσι. Τὰ μὲν 
γὰρ ἔμφασιν μεγέθους τελείων ἀγαθῶν δηλοῦσιν, ἃ τοῖς τελείοις χαρίζεται ὁ 
θεός, τὰ δὲ εἰς βραχύτατον ἔσταλται ὧν μετέχουσιν οἱ εὐφυεῖς ἀσκηταὶ οἱ 
προκόπτοντες. The former pair of words therefore represents something 
much higher and more excellent than the latter. We are thus able to 
appreciate St James’ distinction, which some have deemed meaningless, 
πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον (James i. 17); and we may notice 
that while δόσις is only called ‘good,’ the epithet ‘ perfect’ is applied to 
δώρημα. Consequently as τέλειον is an advance upon ἀγαθή, so is δώρημα 


19—2 


292 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [V. t5- 


upon δόσις. Thus δωρεά is rightly applied by St Paul here and ver. 17 to 
the gift of righteousness and reconciliation. 

τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου] The word ἀνθρώπου is emphatic. It was necessary 
to introduce the idea of the Second Adam here, just as in 1 Tim. ii. 5 a 
similar stress is laid on the humanity of Christ to show the necessity that 
the mediator should be a man. ᾿Ανθρώπου is therefore added in this 
second clause, though omitted in the first. 

ἐπερίσσευσεν] For the tense compare ἀπέθανον above. The sin of the 
race was potentially bound up in the sin of Adam: the restoration of the 
race in the life and death of Christ. 

16. καὶ ody κιτ.λ.}] An abridged expression requiring the addition of 
6 θάνατος τῶν πολλῶν after ἁμαρτήσαντος, and οὕτω καὶ before τὸ δώρημα. 
The starting-point was not one act extending to many; but conversely 
many acts leading to one. Again the underlying thought is the abundant. 
mercy of God, which counteracts many transgressions by one righteous 
deed. 

ἁμαρτήσαντος] For the form of this first aorist see Lobeck Phryn- 
p- 732. The v. l. ἁμαρτήματος has some support, but not sufficient. 
Δώρημα is rightly substituted for δωρεὰ of the preceding verse; for there 
the act of giving was the prominent idea, here the boon granted. 

ἐξ ἑνός] probably neuter here, as ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων suggests : 
comp. διε ἑνὸς δικαιώματος (ver. 18). 

δικαίωμα] This word has three senses, all of which are represented in 
this Epistle; (1) ‘an ordinance’ (i. 32, ii. 26, viii. 4), its common sense in 
the New Testament; (2) ‘a righteous deed’ (v. 18, comp. Rev. xv. 4, 
xix. 8); (3) ‘a sentence, verdict, here of acquittal. Thus it refers to 
legislation, to conduct, and to jurisdiction. The second of the meanings 
given above can be well illustrated from Aristotle: see Ref. i. 13. I τὰ 
ἀδικήματα πάντα καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα (comp. i. 3. 9), Eth. Nic. ν. 7. (10) καλεῖταε 
δὲ (δικαίωμα) μᾶλλον δικαιοπράγημα τὸ κοινόν" δικαίωμα δὲ τὸ. ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ 
ἀδικήματος. In this signification therefore, besides its ordinary accep- 
tation of ‘a just act’ equivalent to διαιοξβέγηναι the word has a special 
force ‘the making right of what is wrong,’ and this sense of ‘the 
rectification of an act of injustice’ (see Aristotle’s Rhetoric, ed. Cope and 
Sandys, I. p. 56) may well come in in the passage v. 18. 

17. Observe the accumulation of words, πολλῷ μᾶλλον, τὴν περισσείαν 
τῆς χάριτος balancing the πολλῷ μᾶλλον, ἡ χάρις, καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι Of 
ver. 15. 

τῆς Swpeds τῆς δικαιοσύνης) Though this is the reading of the majority 
of manuscripts, τῆς δωρεᾶς is omitted by B Origen (in two places), Chry- 
sostom, Ireneus and Augustine, τῆς δικαιοσύνης by C Origen (in one 
place), while several versions (Vulgate, Peshito and Harklean) smooth 
the passage down by the insertion of καὶ between the two substantives. 
These phenomena, when tested by internal evidence, render τῆς δωρεᾶς 
highly suspicious; and suggest that the phrase was originally intended as 








V. 20.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 293 


a gloss or a substitute for the seemingly awkward expression τῆς δικαιο- 
“σύνης, but subsequently crept into the text and was either added to or 
displaced the original reading τῆς δικαιοσύνης. 

18. ἄρα οὖν] ‘well then” The contrasts being disposed of, dpa οὖν 
‘introduces and sums up the analogy, the resemblance, between the First 
and the Second Adam. It is a favourite collocation of particles in 
St Paul under similar circumstances (vii. 3, 25, viii. 12, ix. 16, 18, xiv. 12, 
19, Gal. vi. 10, Eph. ii. 19, 1 Thess. v. 6, 2 Thess. ii. 15). 

ὡς 8¢ ἑνός] To supply the ellipse we require τὸ κρίμα ἐγένετο, τὸ χάρισμα 
«ἐγένετο. This elliptical form for the sake of emphasis is not unusual in 
the case of two antithetical clauses, e.g. x. 17, Gal. ii. 9, 1 Cor. vi. 13, 
Rev. vi. 6, Clement of Rome, 42 ὁ Χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ of ἀπόστολοι 
«ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς] ‘to justification consisting in life, the genitive of 
apposition. 

19. ὑπακοῆς] On the ὑπακοὴ of Christ comp. Phil. ii. 8, Heb. v. 8. 

20. νόμος δὲ] It is not his main subject; but he has been obliged 
incidentally to speak of law in order to obviate an objection; and he 
‘therefore proceeds now to explain the function of law in reference to the 
universal sin and the universal redemption. 

παρεισῆλθεν] Sin entered in boldly (εἰσῆλθεν), death passed over all 
humanity, over all ages (διῆλθεν); but law only came in by the way, by a 
‘bye-path (παρεισῆλθεν), had only a temporary application, a partial 
dominion. For the metaphor see Gal. ii. 4 παρεισάκτους, παρεισῆλθον. 

πλεονάσῃ] Like περισσεύειν, the verb πλεονάζειν has a transitive as 
well as an intransitive use (see the note on 1 Thess. iii. 12). Here 
@eovacyn is probably intransitive, as being in accordance with St Paul’s 
general usage, and corresponding more closely to ἐπλεόνασεν of the next 
clause. 

τὸ παράπτωμα, ἡ ἁμαρτία] The words παράπτωμα and παράβασις (ver. 14) 
are closely allied, referring respectively to the consequences on the agent 
and to the line transgressed. But both imply a definite rule broken, 
a definite line stepped beyond. In other words they presuppose the 
existence of a law or rule (νόμος). ‘Where there is no law, neither is 
there transgression’ (Rom. iv. 15). 

In this they differ from sin (ἁμαρτία). There will be sin where there is 
no law (Rom. v. 13, 14), albeit the sin is not imputed (οὐκ ἐλλογᾶται, see 
the note on the passage). Thus, though men sinned before the law was 
given, they did not sin ‘after the likeness of Adam’s transgression’ 
(v. 14 ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως ᾿Αδάμ). Hence, though St Paul 
declares that law multiplies transgression (as here, see also Gal. iii. 19), 
he says on the other hand that it reveals sin (iii. 20 διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις 
«ἁμαρτίας, Vii. 7, 13). It does not create, but it evokes sin. 

So here: the law came not that the sin might abound, but that the 
transgression might abound. The sin did abound all the time (see the 


294 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [V. 20. 


next verse); and the law, making the transgression abound, brought out 
this fact patently, forced it upon the conscience. For while transgression 
is the violation of some special precept, sin is a violation of an eternal 
principle, higher and wider than any code of definite rules. 

21. ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν] ‘abounded more exceedingly” A very strong 
word. πΠλεονάζειν represents the comparative, ‘to increase,’ περισσεύειν 
the superlative, ‘to abound’; see 1 Thess. iii. 12, where they are so 
translated in the A. V. But here St Paul is not satisfied with περισσεύειν; 
he doubles the superlative (as in 2 Cor. vii. 4). On St Paul’s fondness. 
for cumulative compounds in ὑπὲρ especially in the second chronological 
group of his Epistles, see the note on 1 Thess. iii. 10, where examples are 
given. Compare also 2 Cor. iv. 17 καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολήν. 

ἐβασίλευσεν, βασιλεύσῃ] ‘established its throne, might establish its 
throne. This is the force of the aorist in both cases: comp. Rev. xi. 17, 
xix. 6, and e.g. Herod. ii. 2 ἐπειδὴ δὲ Yappireyos βασιλεύσας ἠθέλησε εἰδέναι 
οἵτινες γενοίατο πρῶτοι. The sense in v. 14 is somewhat different : see the 
passage. 








CHAPTER VI. 


ix., x. Zhe influence of our spiritual position upon our conduct 
(vi. I—23). 
. 


I. ἐπιμένωμεν], The right reading unquestionably (not ἐπιμενοῦμεν) ; 
so below, ver. 15 ἁμαρτήσωμεν (ποῖ ἁμαρτήσομεν).. The conjunctives are 
stronger than the futures, and represent the indignant rejoinder of some 
objector, ‘ Has it come to this that we are obliged to continue in sin? Is 
nothing left but this?’ The antinomian inference, if it hold good at all, 
must be obligatory, not permissive. 

τί ἁμαρτίᾳ] Perhaps ‘she sin, and ἡ χάρις ‘the grace,’ referring to 
ν. 20,21. For ἐπιμένειν τινὶ in the sense of ‘to cling to,’ see the note on 
Phil. i. 24. 

2. μὴ γένοιτο] The thought is abhorrent to the Apostle. The fact is, 
as he goes on to show, that this is not only a wrong precept, but an 
actual impossibility. A thing cannot be dead and alive at the same time 
and from the same point of view. The very conception of the δικαιοσύνη, 
the χάρις of which he has spoken, is a death to sin—a death ideally 
complete, but actually more or less imperfect. 

οὕτινες ἀπεθάνομεν] ‘as men who died’; either potentially in Christ’s 
death (see vv. 15, 19), or personally when we were baptized. Probably 
the latter thought is uppermost ; compare ver. 3 ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν. 

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ] “2 sin’; the dative of reference, see vi. 10, 11, vii. 4, 
Gal. ii. 20, 1 Pet. ii. 24. 

πῶς] interrogatively with the future introduces an impossibility, as in 
iii. 6, viii. 32, 1 Cor. xiv. 7, 9, 16 etc. ‘The idea is not merely absurd, 
inconsistent; it is absolutely impossible.’ 

3. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε] ‘Such a supposition betrays the grossest ignorance.’ 
Compare vii. 1, ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε (2 Cor. xiii. 5), and the common Pauline 
phrase ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε (xi. 2, 1 Cor. vi. 2, 9, 16, 19). 

εἰς Χριστὸν Ιησοῦν] The preposition conveys the notion of incor- 
poration into, both here and in the words below εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ; 
comp. Gal. iii. 27 ὅσοι eis Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, 1 Cor. 
xii. 13 εἰς ἐν σῶμα, an idea expanded more fully in the expression εἰς τὸ 


296 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [VI. 3. 


ὄνομα (Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts xix. 5, comp. 1 Cor. i. 13, 15). Similarly in 
1 Cor. x. 2 els τὸν Μωυσῆν ἐβαπτίσαντο the reference is to incorporation 
into the Mosaic covenant. On the other hand in Mark i. 4 εἰς ἄφεσιν 
ἁμαρτιῶν the meaning of the preposition is different, and signifies the 
purpose and result of the baptism. 

4. συνετάφημεν] As Prof. Jowett rightly observes, the Apostle intro- 
duces the phrase ‘were buried’ instead of ‘died’ in order to recall the 
image of baptism, a parallelism which disappears in our present practice 
of baptism by aspersion. See the idea again more clearly brought out in 
Col. ii. 12, Eph. v. 14, 1 Cor. x. 2. Perhaps Gal. iii. 27 Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε 
may be an image taken from another part of the baptismal ceremony, but 
this is not so certain. In the same way, a lesson drawn elsewhere by the 
Apostle from the celebration of the Eucharist (1 Cor. x. 16, 17) is 
impaired by our common practice, which has destroyed the vividness of 
the image. 

els τὸν θάνατον] It is better to connect these words with συνετάφημεν 
than with διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, as Jowett does. 

ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς] ‘22 a new state, which is life’: for before they had 
been dead (vexpoi). To render, as the A. V., ‘in newness of life’ would 
suggest that the old had been in some sense life also. Ignatius EPA. 19 
Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου εἰς καινότητα ἀϊδίου ζωῆς is an evident allusion 
to this passage. Ζωῆς is the genitive of apposition; comp. i. 23 ἐν 
ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος, iv. 11 σημεῖον περιτομῆς, Vii. 6 ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος and 
Winer ὃ lix. p. 666. The idea uppermost in καινότης is ‘strangeness,’ and 
therefore a change (comp. 2 Cor. v. 17). See the note on Col. iii. 10, 
where καινὸς is distinguished from νέος. 

5. τῷ ὁμοιώματι] is to be taken closely with σύμφυτοι ‘connate with 
the likeness’; for the connexion is at once suggested by the συν-, and is 
required by the ellipse. The rendering of the A. V. ‘planted together in 
the likeness’ is obscure and looks like a compromise. The meaning is, 
‘If the likeness of His death has been coincident with our birth, has been 
a part of us from our birth’—the birth here spoken of being of course the 
dvayévynots, the new birth in Christ by baptism. Τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου 
αὐτοῦ is substituted for τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, because it was not Christ’s 
actual, physical death which was spoken of; but only His death 
mystically considered, the likeness of His death. 

ἀλλὰ καὶ] For ἀλλὰ in the apodosis after εἰ compare Mark xiv. 29, 
2 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 6, xiii. 4, Col. ii. 5; in these passages however the 
apodosis is in opposition to the protasis, ‘though’; ‘ yet.’ Here the force 
is a fortiori, ‘if...then certainly’; and ἀλλὰ is used to show that there is 
a distinction in favour of the proposition stated in the apodosis. For 
ἀλλὰ καὶ comp. Luke xvi. 21, xxiv. 22 ‘nay more.’ 

6. τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας] Prof. Jowett rightly interprets this as ‘a 
continuation of the figure of the old man who is identified with sin and 
has a body attributed to him.’ Dr Vaughan’s explanation is hardly 





VI. 13.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 297 


satisfactory, but he justly draws attention to the exact parallel, τὸ σῶμα 
τῆς σαρκὸς in Col. ii. 11, 12. 

7. ὁ ἀποθανὼν] 1.6. the dead in this mystical sense, Death is a 
release ; it liberates from all claims: comp. vii. 1 ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον (ἢ and 
Ecclus. xviii. 22 μὴ μείνῃς ἕως θανάτου δικαιωθῆναι, where however the 
meaning is different. 

δεδικαίωται)] All claims against him are #fso facto cancelled: such is 
the force of the perfect. Comp. Acts xiii. 39 (where St Paul is the 
speaker), Ecclus. xxvi. 29 οὐ δικαιωθήσεται κάπηλος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας, quoted by 
Vaughan. This passage throws much light on St Paul’s idea of δικαίωσις 
and δικαιοσύνη, and would repay a deeper study. 

10. ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν] ‘for the death which He died’; comp. Gal. ii. 20 
ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί. 

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ] i.e. to the temptations and the sufferings inflicted on Him 
by sin Christ died to a sinful world, died to a life in which He was 
€very moment bearing the consequences of sin. The dative only so far 
differs in meaning from the dative τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ of the next verse, in that 
He was sinless, we are sinful: but grammatically it is the same. 

τῷ Θεῷ] ‘unio God, and therefore eternally: comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4. 

12, ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι) Two interpretations are suggested of 
θνητῷ here. Some take it as though equivalent to νεκρῷ, τεθνηκότι, with 
reference to νεκροὺς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ above (ver. 11). But θνητὸς seems never to 
have this meaning, not even in Rom. viii. 11, 2 Cor. iv. 11; it always 
signifies ‘subject to death,’ never ‘dead,’ as such, We must therefore 
give θνητῷ its proper meaning of ‘ mortal,’ and explain the force of the 
epithet thus: ‘If ye are thus living an eternal life to God, why should ye 
show deference to your bodies which are but mortal, by humouring their 
passions? The mortal life is not worthy of consideration in comparison 
with the immortal.’ 

13. τὰ ὅπλα] ‘arms’ (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 7), rather than ‘instruments’ 
(A. V.); see the next note. 

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ] ‘for sin,’ i.e. to wage warfare in its service. The rendering 
of the A. V. ‘unto sin’ is at least obscure. Sin is regarded as a sovereign 
(μὴ βασιλευέτω ver. 12), who demands the military service of subjects (εἰς 
τὸ ὑπακούειν ver. 12), levies their quota of arms (ὅπλα ἀδικίας ver. 13), and 
gives them their soldier’s-pay of death (ὀψώνια ver. 23). For the metaphor 
comp. 2 Tim. ii. 4 τῷ στρατολογήσαντι. 

ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας] ‘alive, after being dead. A common classical ex- 
pression, 6.5. Demosthenes de Coron. 131, p. 270 ἐλεύθερος ἐκ δούλου καὶ 
πλούσιος ἐκ πτωχοῦ γεγονώς. Dr Vaughan prefers to take the phrase in 
the usual sense ‘from the dead’; but though frequently so found with 
ἀνάστασις, ἐγείρειν etc., it does not occur with ζῆν. It may be a question 
whether even Rom. xi. 15 εἰ μὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν ought not to be taken as 
above. Compare Luke xv, 32 ὁ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἔζησεν, 
which Vaughan quotes on that passage. Here the order ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας, 


298 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, [VI. 13- 


where ἐκ νεκρῶν is emphatic and isolated, seems decisive in favour of the 
more idiomatic usage. 

15. Again, as in vi. 1, the Apostle puts a question. The difference 
of form has been suggested by what has immediately preceded. The 
nature of the answer too is somewhat different. In ch. vi. 1 the objector 
asks, ‘Shall we sin more that grace may be more?’ St Paul replies, 
‘The thing is impossible, a contradiction in terms. Sin and grace, life 
and death, cannot coexist.’ Thus the answer starts from the nature of 
the case. Here the objector asks, ‘Are we to sin, because we are not 
under law, not bound by any definite precepts, but under a higher 
principle, grace?’ The reply is, ‘No; because, if you sin, you will 
become slaves to sin; you will bring on yourselves the penalties of sin,’ 
The answer therefore arises from the effects, the consequences of this 
course of action. 

16. οὐκ οἴδατε] ‘Is not this self-evident? You cannot but obey the 
master to whom you have surrendered yourselves: you become his 
slaves.’ The argument is the same as in Matt. vi. 24. 

ἤτοι... ἢ] The only instance of ἤτοι in the New Testament. I should 
not say with Vaughan that ro expresses the greater probability of the 
alternative to which it is prefixed; but rather that it throws greater 
emphasis upon it. Jelf (Gr. 777. 5) properly says that ro: thus added 
has the effect of increasing the disjunctive force: comp. Winer § liii. 
P- 549. 

ὑπακοῆς] Here used in a different sense of the true obedience, sub- 
mission to the will of God. So elsewhere absolutely, v. 19, xvi. 19, 
1 Pet. i. 2, 14. 

17. ὅτι ἧἦτε.. ὑπηκούσατε δὲ] ‘One sentence resolved grammatically 
into two,’ is Winer’s observation (8 Ixvi. p. 785), who instances Matt. xi. 25, 
Luke xxiv. 18, John iii. 19, vii. 4. 

εἰς ὃν κιτιλ.] This should be resolved into τύπῳ διδαχῆς εἰς ὃν παρε- 
δόθητε rather than into εἰς τύπον διδαχῆς ὃν παρεδόθητε, which is open to 
two objections, (1) the harshness of the expression ὃν παρεδόθητε, (2) the 
improbable construction ὑπακούειν eis. For the attraction compare 
Acts xxi. 16, where ἄγοντες παρ᾽ 6 ξενισθῶμεν Μνάσωνί τινι stands for 
᾿ ἄγοντες Μνάσωνά τινα παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν. 

19. ἀνθρώπινον λέγω] The Apostle apologizes for the use of the word 
δουλεία in connexion with δικαιοσύνη. For the phrase see on Gal. iii. 15 
κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. God's service is not δουλεία but ἐλευθερία (1 Cor. 
ix. 19, 2 Cor. iii. 17, Gal. v. 13, passages which show that the thought was 
very prominent in St Paul’s mind at this time). 

21. ovv...rére] The single ‘then’ of the A. V. does double duty here, 
as in John xi. 14; and is employed to represent ‘then’ temporal as well 
as ‘then’ argumentative. 

τίνα οὖν kapmdv...7d γὰρ τέλος] St Paul never uses καρπὸς of the results 
of evil-doing, but always substitutes ἔργα: see Gal. v. 19, 22, Eph. v. 9, 11. 





VI. 23.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 299 


Here the yap which follows shows that the expression is equivalent to 
‘Ye had no fruit.’ 

23. ὀψώνια] The word ὄψον ‘condiment’ is defined by a Scholiast 
on Homer //iad xi. 630 as ‘ whatever is eaten with bread.’ Thus Plutarch 
says (Moral. 99 Ὁ) that boys are taught τῇ δεξιᾷ λαμβάνειν τοῦ ὄψου, τῇ δὲ 
ἀριστερᾷ κρατεῖν τὸν ἄρτον. So Plato carefully distinguishes the two. 
After mentioning the ἄλφιτα and ἄλευρα, which are to be the staple of the 
diet in his ideal republic, he continues (Respud/. ii. p. 372 C) ἐπελαθόμην 
ὅτι καὶ ὄψον ἕξουσιν: ἅλας τε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐλάας καὶ τυρὸν καὶ βολβοὺς καὶ 
λάχανα, specifying various kinds of ὄψον. The word however was used 
especially of ‘fish,’ as Symmachus states in Plutarch Symfos. iv. 4, 
p- 667 E πολλῶν ὄντων ὄψων ἐκνενίκηκεν ὁ ἰχθὺς μόνον ἢ μάλιστά ye ὄψον 
καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ πολὺ πάντων ἀρετῇ κρατεῖν. Hence the names φίλοψοι and 
ὀψοφάγοι (AZlian V. H. i. 28) were given to those who preferred this kind 
of dairity, and fish were called θαλάττης ὄψα, ra ἐκ θαλάττης ὄψα 
(Plutarch 7. ¢.), θαλάττια ὄψα (Hippocrates, p. 606. 10), πόντια ὄψα 
(Euripides fragm. apud Athenzus xiv. p. 640 B) and sintply ὄψον (Pollux 
vii. 7, where the word is interchanged with iy@vésov). Diodorus (xi. 57) 
explains the fact of the assignment of the city Myus to Themistocles 
(Thuc. i. 138) as ὄψον, from the reason of its situation (ἔχουσαν θάλατταν 
εὔϊχθυν). So ὀψάριον is used for ‘a fish’ (John vi. 9; comp. Luke ix. 13, 
John xxi. 9, 10, 13), and the Latin ‘obsonium’ also (Juvenal Sav. iv. 64). 
From ὄψον is derived ὀψώνιον ‘soldier’s-pay,’ which is the general, 
perhaps the universal, use of the word (see however ps.-Aristeas, p. iii. 
ed. Hody), and is the Greek equivalent of the Latin ‘stipendia’; for the 
word ‘obsonia’ in Latin (see above) seems never to have acquired this 
meaning. The derivation of the word explains its use. The soldier's 
reward for his service was twofold; (1) a ration in kind, which was an 
allowance of corn (σιτομέτρημα) for making bread, and (2) a small payment 
in money (ὀψώνιον), by which he might purchase a relish (ὄψον) to be 
eaten with his bread. Compare Dionys. A. 2. ix. 36. 5 τό τ᾽ ὀψώνιον τῇ 
στρατιᾷ καὶ τὸ ἀντὶ τοῦ σίτου συγχωρηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Μαλλίου κατενέγκαντες 
ἀργύριον (where the rations could not be supplied in kind). A Smyrnean 
inscription (Boeckh C. Δ G. 3137) runs as follows, προνοῆσαι τὸν δῆμον 
ὅπως αὐτοῖς διδῶται ἐκ βασιλικοῦ τά τε μετρήματα καὶ τὰ ὀψώνια, which is 
explained by a passage in Polybius (vi. 39. 12) ὀψώνιον δ᾽ οἱ μὲν πεζοὶ 
λαμβάνουσι τῆς ἡμέρας δύο ὀβολοὺς...σιτομετροῦνται δ᾽ of μὲν πεζοὶ πυρῶν 
᾿Αττικοῦ μεδίμνου δύο μέρη μάλιστά πως. The word occurs in the 1 ΧΧ. 
(1 Macc. iii. 28, xiv. 32, 1 Esdras iv. 4, 56) always in its technical sense, 
and in Luke iii. 14, 1 Cor. ix. 7, 2 Cor. xi. 8. From it is derived the 
Latin ‘obsonium’; from ὀψωνεῖν, ‘obsono,’ ‘obsonor,’ ‘obsonator.’ The 
word occurs in Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp in a passage replete with 
military metaphors (ὃ 6) dpéoxere ᾧ στρατεύεσθε, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὰ ὀψώνια 
κομίσεσθε. μήτις ὑμῶν δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῇ" τὸ βάπτισμα ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα, 
ἡ πίστις ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ ἀγάπη ὡς δόρυ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ ὡς πανοπλία" τὰ δεπόσιτα 
ὑμῶν τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν ἵνα τὰ ἄκκεπτα ὑμῶν ἄξια κομίσησθε. 


CHAPTER VIL. 


xi. Our freedom from law illustrated by the analogy of a 
contract (vii. 1—6). 


I. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε] Connected with οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον (vi. 14). St Paul’s 
thoughts are recalled to this statement, which requires justification, by the 
expression τὸ χάρισμα just before. 

γινώσκουσιν yap νόμον] He is addressing Romans, to whom at all 
events the conception of law ought not to be unknown. 

ὁ νόμος] Here not the Mosaic Law but rather the law generally, 
St Paul having especially in his mind the law which would be known to 
his hearers, i.e. the Roman law. 

τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] ‘the person.’ The phrase has nothing to do with ὁ ἀνὴρ 
*the husband’ in the next verse. ‘O ἄνθρωπος includes both sexes; and 
indeed the statement is not confined to the law of marriage. It is a 
general principle of the law that death cancels engagements. 

2. The passage should be compared with 1 Cor. vii. 39, where νόμῳ 
has been inserted after δέδεται from the verse before us. ‘The woman 
who is subject to a husband’ (ὕπανδρος occurs in Polybius and later 
writers, as well as in the Lxx.) ‘is bound by law to her living husband’ 
{the rendering of the A. V. ‘to her husband as long as he liveth’ is 
misleading); ‘but if her husband be dead, she has been iso facto set 
free from the law of her husband, that is, from the law which gave her 
husband authority over her and claims upon her.’ Κατήργηται ἀπὸ is 
equivalent to κατήργηται καὶ ἐκχώρισται ἀπό: comp. Gal. v. 4 κατηργήθητε 
ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ and ver. 6 below; and for similar phrases, 2 Cor. xi. 3 φθαρῇ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, Col. ii. 20 ἀπεθάνετε ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων. 

3. χρηματίσει)] From the primary meaning of χρηματίζειν ‘to do 
business, negociate’ spring two secondary uses of the verb, (1) ‘to act 
the part of, ‘to be called’ (e.g. Acts xi. 26, Joseph. B._//. ii. 18. 7 ᾿Αντίοχον 
τὸν ᾿Επιφανῆ χρηματίζοντα) ; (2) ‘to give an answer,’ ‘to deliver an oracle,’ 
and so in the passive ‘to be advised’ (Matt. ii. 12, 22). 

ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ] ‘if she attach herself to another husband? The 
rendering of the A. V. ‘man,’ both here and later on in this verse, is 
unfortunate, because ἄνθρωπος is rendered ‘man,’ ἀνὴρ ‘husband,’ in the 








VII. 5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 301 


context. . For this sense of γένηται, γενομένην compare Hosea iii. 4 οὐδὲ μὴ 
γένῃ ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ. 

4. ὥστε] ‘ therefore, to apply this rule in your case. 

καὶ ὑμεῖς] The instance produced in ver. 3 is an instance of a release 
from the authority of the marriage bond by death. So is this. Thus it 
is a case in point. Beyond this however the similitude cannot be pressed. 
There the wife was released by the husband’s death. Here the wife 
(i.e. the body of believers) is released by her own death, released from 
the law, which was her spouse. In the natural marriage relations no 
strict analogy presented itself to this which was possible in the mystical 
marriage relations, i.e. that the wife should die, and yet live to marry 
another. 

ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ] In order that the previous instance might 
be an exact parallel, we should have 6 νόμος ἐθανατώθη ὑμῖν (comp. 
Col. ii. 14, Eph. ii. 15, in which passages the death of the law is more or 
less connected with the death of the believer to the law, in the Cross of 
Christ). This however does not accord with St Paul’s way of speaking 
here; for it does not include his idea of the believer dying in Christ, on 
which he lays so much stress here (vi. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 11) and elsewhere. 
He therefore prefers sacrificing the perfect exactness of the parallel (it 
was sufficiently exact, as an illustration of the statement ὁ νόμος κυριεύει... 
2) for the sake of retaining the image, which had so deep a moral and 
theological significance to him, and which occupies so prominent a place 
in the context. Other examples of images doubly applied by St Paul are 
given in the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 7, v. 4. The phrase καὶ ὑμεῖς implies a 
large number of Jews or proselytes among the Roman converts. 

Sid τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ] Compare Col. i. 22, Eph. ii. 16. The 
idea is : ‘Christ’s death in His natural body on the Cross’; as in Col. Lc. 
ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου. The σῶμα here is not the 
Church of Christ, as the body; this must not be regarded even as an 
accessory idea (Jowett): for the reference is obviously to a definite act 
and a definite time, when they passed from the old state to the new, 
before the body of Christ in this sense could be said to exist. 

γενέσθαι ἑτέρῳ] ‘be wedded to another. ‘The first indications of this 
image of the Church as the Spouse of Christ occur in 1 Cor. vi. 13sq., 
Gal. iv. 26, but both cases represent ideas leading up to this image, rather 
than the image itself. For the image in all its fulness, see Eph. v. 22—33. 

καρποφορήσωμεν] This seems hardly to be a continuation of the same 
metaphor, ‘bear offspring.’ Otherwise some more definite word would 
have been preferred. It is rather in a general sense: see the next verse. 

5. ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί] i.e. under the law. For the law and the Gospel 
are distinguished as flesh and spirit: the one being a system of external 
precepts, the other a principle of inward growth. Compare Gal. iii. 3, 
v. 18, 19 etc., Col. ii. 18, Phil. iii. 3, 4, Heb. vii. 16 νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης. 

τὰ παθήματα K.t.A.] Observe that it is not αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ai διὰ τοῦ νόμου. 


302 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (VII. 5. 


See the note on v. 20. Jowett gets into much confusion here and else- 
where, because he does not distinguish ‘sin’ and ‘transgression.’ 

6. νυνὶ δὲ] ‘as things are, under this new dispensation. 

κατηργήθημεν] See above, ver. 2. 

ἀποθανόντες ἐν @] The reading of the Textus Receptus ἀποθανόντος has 
only the very slenderest support; otherwise the inversion of the metaphor 
would be quite after St Paul’s manner: see on 1 Thess. ii. 7. The 
sentence means that we were liberated by our death (ἀποθανόντες) from 
the law in which we were held fast. This is the only satisfactory way of 
taking the passage, which should be punctuated after, not before, 
ἀποθανόντες, and it makes excellent sense. To explain it, as some do, by 
supplying τῷ νόμῳ after ἀποθανόντες is very harsh grammatically, because 
ἀποθανόντες does not suggest the missing dative, as e.g. in Acts xxi. 16 
ἄγοντες suggests the missing accusative. 

ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος] For the phrase see on vi. 4 above, and for the 
distinction between πνεῦμα and γράμμα comp. ii. 29. 


xii. Zhe objection ‘the law is sin’ met (vii. 7—24). 


7. ἀλλὰ] The conjunction here does not qualify (‘ nevertheless,’ ‘ but 
still it is true’); it opposes the previous proposition. ‘So far from this, 
it revealed to me the true character, the heinousness, of sin,’ as in ver. 13 
iva γένηται κ-τ.λ, 

οὐκ ἔγνων] “7 did not recognize’; not as the A. V. ‘I had not known,’ 
for (1) this would anticipate the οὐκ ἤδειν which follows, and (2) an 
imperfect rather than an aorist would be expected, as e.g. ix. 3 ηὐχόμην. 
Comp. Winer ὃ xli. p. 352. Ἤιδειν just below is a quasi-imperfect and 
satisfies this condition. 

τήν τε yap ἐπιθυμίαν] The reference is to the tenth commandment 
(Ex. xx. 17), a single precept being taken as a sufficient example: hence 
the re. See above, iii. 2 πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι κιτιλ., where again a single 
example is specified, the rest being tacitly suggested. St Paul however 
has instinctively chosen the commandment which is the best typical 
instance for his purpose. The use of re here is quite conclusive against 
the view that οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις is intended as a general and comprehensive, 
and not as a special, precept. 

οὐκ ἤδειν] 1.6. ‘I had not known what lust meant, its sinful nature: 
with the law it became at once a desire after the forbidden.’ Οὐκ ἔγνων 
‘I did not recognize it,’ though it was preexistent: οὐκ ἤδειν ‘I had no 
acquaintance with it’; it might, or it might not, preexist (here the 
supposition is that it does not preexist). 

8. νεκρὰ] i.e. οὐ καρποφορεῖ. As the apparently lifeless stock of a 
tree, it gives no signs of activity. This of course is relative to the 
conscience of the man. Definite prohibition is necessary in order to 








VII. 17.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 303 


produce definite transgression, in whatever form this definite prohibition 
may be given. 

9. ἐγὼ] The pronoun represents either humanity at large (Gal. 
iv. 1 sq.), here personified (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 6); or the individual, so far as 
from the incapacity of infancy or from external circumstances he could 
be said to have passed through this earlier stage, when he did not know 
the law. To St Paul himself the circumstances would apply less than to 
any man living. 

ἔζων] The life here spoken of is not spiritual life, for the awakening 
of the conscience, the conviction of sin, is a condition of this; but the 
freedom, the carelessness, which does not paralyse the will, nor trouble 
the soul. It is the Greek temper, or the temper of a child. 

11. ἐξηπάτησέν pe] A reference to the temptation of Adam and Eve, 
when the first divine precept appears. The nature of the deception 
practised may be ascertained from the narrative in Genesis: where it 
was at once negative ‘ Ye shall not surely die,’ and positive ‘ Your eyes 
shall be opened and ye shall be as gods.’ So throughout the ages sin 
makes a double promise to her victims; first, that no evil consequences 
will ensue; secondly, that their view of life will be enlarged and that on 
this increased knowledge will follow increased happiness. The same 
word ἐξαπατᾶν is used by St Paul in two other passages where he speaks 
of the temptation of our first parents (2 Cor. xi. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 14). 

12. ὁ μὲν νόμος] should have been followed by ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία; but the 
digression which ensues upon the introduction of the word ἀγαθὴ wrecks 
the sentence. For the interrupted μὲν compare Acts i. 1, xxvi. 4, 
2 Cor. xii. 12, and Winer § lxiii. p. 720. 

ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή] “Ayia ‘holy,’ that is to say, having God’s 
sanction, coming from God ; δικαία ‘righteous,’ that it is in itself; ἀναθὴ 
‘beneficent, this it is intended to be in its effects. On the last two words 
see the note on v. 7, and comp. 1 Thess. iii. 6 (with the note). 

14. σάρκινος] On this word and its distinction from σαρκικὸς see the 
note on 1 Cor. iii. 1. Here σαρκικὸς might stand, but σάρκινος is stronger 
and more emphatic. 

πεπραμένος] ‘so/d, and therefore its bond-slave (comp. vi. 16). ‘Sin is 
‘my task-master, compelling me to do what I would not do of myself.’ 

15. οὐ γινώσκω] i.e. I do it in blind obedience. Sin is so imperious a 
‘task-master that he does not allow me time to think what I am doing.’ 
This inference is explained in the next verse, ‘This must be so; otherwise 
I should not be doing what I hate, and omitting to do what I desire.’ 

16. εἰ δὲ κιτ.λ.7 1.6. ‘if at the very time that I do it, my better nature 
protests against it.’ 

καλὸς] Not ἀγαθὸς (ver. 12), for this would not be in place here. 

17. γυνὶ δὲ] ‘his being so.” ‘As we have arrived at this result that 
by my protest against my own actions I bear testimony to the goodness 
οὗ the law, then it follows from this’ etc. Both νυνὶ δὲ and οὐκέτι are 


304 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (VII. 17. 


logical rather than temporal: for νῦν in this sense comp. 1 Cor. v. 11, 
vii. 14, xii. 18, 20; for οὐκέτι Rom. xi. 6, Gal. 111. 18. 

ἡ ἐνοικοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ] Xenophon Cyr. vi. 1. 41 δύο γάρ, ἔφη, ὦ Κῦρε, 
σαφῶς ἔχω ψυχάς...οὐ γὰρ δὴ μία γε οὖσα ἅμα ἀγαθή τέ ἐστι καὶ κακή, οὐδ᾽ ἅμα 
καλῶν τε καὶ αἰσχρῶν ἔργων ἐρᾷ καὶ ταὐτὰ ἅμα βούλεταί τε καὶ οὐ βούλεται, 
Plato Phedrus 14, p. 237 Ὁ ἡμῶν ἐν ἑκάστῳ δύο twé ἐστον ἰδέα ἄρχοντε καὶ 
ἄγοντε... ἡ μὲν ἔμφυτος οὖσα ἐπιθυμία ἡδονῶν, ἄλλη δὲ ἐπίκτητος δόξα, ἐφιεμένη 
τοῦ ἀρίστου κιτιλ., Respubl. iv. 12, p. 436, iv. 14, Ρ. 439. 

18. οἶδα γὰρ] ‘Sin, I say, is the indweller: for I am conscious by 
experience that it is not good which thus dwells in me.’ 

ἐν ἐμοὶ] ‘2 me’; ‘When I say me, 1 mean my flesh. For my better 
self is at war with this indweller.’ 

τὸ γὰρ θέλειν] The γὰρ explains οἶδα above. Τὸ καλὸν is to be supplied 
after θέλειν, a fact not clearly brought out in the A. V. . 

παράκειται] ‘2s present, ts available’: ‘1 can summon the will to my 
aid when I want, but not the performance.’ 

οὔ] SC. παράκειται; the received text substitutes ody εὑρίσκω, doubtless 
a grammatical gloss, and lacking in force. 

21. τὸν νόμον] here has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law (as 
Fritzsche 11. p. 57 and others take it). It is ‘the law of my being.’ 
‘Experience teaches me that this is habitually the case; that the 
phenomena recur.’ 

ἐμοὶ, ἐμοὶ] i.e. ‘my better self, my true personality, repeated for the 
sake of emphasis. ἷ 

22. συνήδϑδομαι γὰρ] ‘for while 7 rejoice with’ etc.; in classical Greek 
the sentence would be introduced with μέν. For συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ we 
may compare such expressions as 1 Cor. xiii. 6 συγχαίρει τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, 
Phil. i. 27 συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 2 Tim. i. 8 συγκακοπάθησον 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, 3 Joh. 8 συνεργοὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, where, as here, the preposition 
governs the case. 

νόμῳ] The different senses in which νόμος is used in this passage 
must be carefully distinguished. First, there is the comprehensive law 
of my being, which includes the two antagonistic principles (ver. 21 
εὑρίσκω τὸν νόμον. Then these two principles are considered and 
described from an objective and a subjective standpoint. The good 
principle is called objectively ‘the law of God’ (ver. 22 τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ), 
subjectively ‘the law of my mind, of my rational nature’ (ver. 23 τῷ νόμῳ 
τοῦ νοός μου); the wrong principle is termed objectively ‘the law of sin’ 
(ver. 23 τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας), subjectively ‘the law in my limbs’ (ver. 23 
τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου). ‘It is the law of my being that these two 
opposing laws should be in constant conflict in me.’ ‘O νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ is 
used here with a special reference to the Mosaic Law (as in vv. 12, 14, 16), 
but it is more comprehensive than, and not confined to, this idea. 

κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον] i.e. ‘the hidden man, my very self, my true 
personality’; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16, Eph. iii. 16. It denotes that part of 








VII. 25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 305 


me which holds communication with the divine, which is immortal and 
free from the accidents of external circumstances. 

23. ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας] This law is the same with ἕτερον νόμον 
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν pov, so that ἐν ἑαυτῷ might have stood. But the metaphor 
is diversely applied. The νόμος is first the victor who takes the captives 
(αἰχμαλωτίζοντα), and secondly, the chain which binds them (this is the 
force of ἐν, comp. Eph. vi. 20, Philem. 10). For such variations of 
metaphor in St Paul see on 1 Thess. ii. 7; and for a similar repetition of 
the substantive comp. Acts iii. 16 καὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ... 
ἐστερέωσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 

24. ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου]]ἡἩ The sense would be simple if 
τούτου could be taken with σώματος, but the order of words is against this 
connexion. Combining therefore τούτου with θανάτου, we must explain 
σῶμα by the preceding phrases ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ (ver. 18), ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου 
(ver. 23), of the actual body, regarded as the seat of evil passions, and 
thus as an antagonistic power to the law of God. Τοῦ θανάτου τούτου may 
mean either ‘ of this death’ which St Paul has described (e.g. ver. 13), or 
‘of this death everywhere present’; the former interpretation being on 
the whole the more probable. The whole phrase then will signify, ‘the 
body in which this death finds a lodgment.’ Though σῶμα is to be 
taken literally, θάνατος on the other hand is figurative, implying not 
physical, but moral death. 

25. χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ κιτλ.}] This thanksgiving comes out of place. 
But St Paul cannot endure to leave the difficulty unsolved ; he cannot 
consent to abandon his imaginary self to the depths of this despair. 
Thus he gives the solution parenthetically, though at the cost of 
interrupting his argument. 

ἄρα οὖν] ‘to sum up then, 

αὐτὸς ἐγὼ] ‘J of myself, i.e. ‘I by myself, I left alone, I without Christ.’ 
The converse appears in Gal. ii. 20 ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός. 
Otherwise we must suppose that αὐτὸς ἐγὼ refers only to the first clause, 
that in fact we have a confusion of two forms, αὐτὸς ἐγὼ δουλεύω νόμῳ 
Θεοῦ ἡ δὲ σάρξ «.7.d., and (omitting αὐτὸς ἐγὼ) τῷ μὲν vot δουλεύω νόμῳ 
Θεοῦ τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ «.r.A.—in other words that τῷ μὲν voi is an epexegesis of 
αὐτὸς ἐγὼ and that the insertion of the μὲν has changed the form of the 
sentence. It is however better to take αὐτὸς here in the sense of ‘alone’; 
and though this interpretation is hardly borne out by the usage of αὐτὸς 
ἐγὼ in St Paul (eg. ix. 3, xv. 14, 2 Cor. x. I, xii. 13), we must remember 
that elsewhere the Apostle is speaking of himself personally, not as the 
typical man, and therefore the interpretation would not be applicable. 


L. EP. 20 







“χε 


᾿ἰνῷ ζοέοι ΠΣ vet 


¥ 


vs 


alia καὶ BPA) vere we _ foetal variant ἤληε, ἐλ τ oh oad 
joy yee! ty pale nade ΠΣ ΒΡ Gee 


Γ 
᾿ 































εν ava Pun 
ΠΝ τὺ» og τὴ 
τα sweat εἴ δ γενὸν A ae 
Ate tales ΡΝ 

εἶ ἀκ αν} ne 
ἘΠῚ τω, de apts 

fT ite esa ΔῊ 
Da de A ee δα 


dant mecsay 34 


ἣν 
Ps 


sae 


obo dee Gee owed ete 
Pe ee er 13 ᾿ 
its ἢ Drone: ἀπο ἐβμον “fod 
22 Ὁ w Abe ca υπό ὉΠ tage a 
“ i adn * het ὙΠ yas 
Magis elo yn ἄτας 
«δ, αι σια sda 
ἡ ΒΕ δνοξι  β[4) ce 
Ὑ ΒΩ ε στολὴ τ 
ited ᾿κΊσεδ᾽ ἢ 
rrpa” ise Het it} line oe 
ot αὐ δι toned ἸῸΝ 
Ricoh ol: oe Ube ρα πε yah fat ae - 
yet mi} 28 
deanna dg 


shun icy bo wa ae yc at Brey | 


flee : Wor ᾧ δὰ ὰ ges 52 GUE ae 
νοῦ & ove ae 
oo re τ ον Oe Ata wren: 
ἀξ αν νᾶμα cree © otf oe 
μὲν ὁ martes “δι. hed εἶμ 

a 1 pat acon, At ᾿ 
hid σὶ othe ii anit dai 
IOUS WL oh ἡμὰ 
, )/ Oo aoe ae 
συ φϑω ot saorai nue 


i ! rm 
> 


i 


᾿ 
Εν Ὁ} 


Ps te τ: at an ᾿ 


ier “Ft 


sewers ' vi 


tA yy Li pats Δ ft ty ‘on 
id 


mthl oie 


> 
vers ὃ 


miter ePriISTLES OF.ST PAU 


ΠῚ. 
THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY. 


4. 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


20—2 











vo Viel) oT 


=> 
nd 
= 
- 
= 
. 
᾿ 
᾿ 


Cu: 4 ee 





ek ες 


a ‘s 
- — a 
is ' 
ἂ ἢ 
Wyle 
+ 
a5 
= 
dist 
"δ 
4 
acd 
γε 


CHAPTER I. 


1. Παῦλος] The Apostle abstains from associating any other name 
with his own, because he is writing a circular letter, from which all 
personal matters are excluded. No argument therefore can be drawn 
against the synchronism of the three Epistles from the fact that Timothy 
is mentioned in the opening of the Epistles to the Colossians and to 
Philemon, but not here. The only other letter addressed to any church 
in which St Paul’s name stands thus alone is the Epistle to the Romans. 
For the “general parallel between the Epistles to the Romans and 
Ephesians with respect to motive and destination, see Biblical Essays, 
pp- 388, 395 sq. For the chronological order of the Epistles of the 
Captivity see PAziippians, p. 30sq. and on the circular character of the 
Ephesian letter, Biblical Essays, p. 377 54. 

Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ] In all those Epistles which St Paul commences in 

this way (Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Phil., Col., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Tit.), the 
authorities vary between Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. On the 
whole it seems probable that the Apostle was uniform in his mode of — 
designation, ‘an Apostle’ or ‘a servant of Christ Jesus.’ The variations 
would then be due to the fact that the other order is much more usual 
elsewhere, though not in this particular connexion. The amount of 
authority on either side differs very considerably in the different 
passages. 

διὰ θελήματος x.t.A.] 1.6. ‘by God’s grace, not by individual merit.’ 
The other antithesis which the expression might suggest, ‘by God’s 
appointment, not by self-assumed title,’ or ‘by human authority,’ is 
inappropriate here, as there is no polemical bearing in the context. See 
the note on Col. i. 1. 

τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘to the saints,’ i.e. to the consecrated people of God, the 
holy race under the new dispensation: see the note on Phil. i. 1. On 
this form of address, as a chronological mark in St Paul’s Epistles, see 
the note on Col. i. 2. 

ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ] That copy of the circular letter which was addressed to 
the Ephesians is here given. See Biblical Essays, p. 377 54. 

πιστοῖς] ‘faithful, i.e. trustworthy, stedfast. The word has here its 


310 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. {L. 1. 


passive force. The active sense ‘believing’ would add nothing to the 
foregoing ἁγίοις. The words πιστοῖς κιτιλ. do not limit the persons 
addressed, but express the charitable assumption that all those into 
whose hands the letter will fall are true to their allegiance. See the 
notes on Col. i. 2. 

ἐν Χριστῷ] For the expression ‘stedfast (πιστὸς) in Christ, ‘in the 
Lord, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17, and see the note on Col. i. 2. 

2. χάρις ὑμῖν κιτιλ.] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 1. 

3. εὐλογητὸς κιτλ The Apostle begins as usual with a thanks- 
giving, which however in this instance takes a more general form, 
corresponding to the character and destination of the letter, and expands 
gradually into its main theme. In expression too it differs from St 
Paul’s ordinary type. For the more usual εὐχαριστῶ, εὐχαριστοῦμεν, x.t-A., 
he substitutes εὐλογητὸς... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which form he employs else- 
where only in 2 Corinthians (i. 3). It is copied by St Peter (1 Pet. i. 3), 
this being the first of several coincidences which St Peter’s First Epistle 
presents to this Epistle of St Paul. 

The opening salutation in the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians 
shows the influence of St Paul’s letter, in the following expressions : τῇ 
εὐλογημένῃ, πληρώματι, τῇ προωρισμένῃ πρὸ αἰώνων, εἰς δόξαν, ἐκλελεγμένην ἐν 
θελήματι τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ἀμώμῳ χαρᾷ, and lower down (§ 1) εὐλογητὸς ὁ 
χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν. 

εὐλογητὸς κιτ.λ.] ‘Blessed ἐς the God.’ Throughout the New Testament 
εὐλογητὸς is said only of God, while εὐλογημένος is used of men; e.g. 
Luke i. 42 εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν, but ver. 68 εὐλογητὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεός. 
Hence in Mark xiv. 61 ὁ εὐλογητὸς is used absolutely as a synonym for 
‘God’ in accordance with Jewish usage, which adopted the formula ‘ the 
Holy One, Blessed is He,’ to avoid pronouncing the Sacred Name (see 
Schéttgen on Rom. ix. 5). This limitation of εὐλογητὸς to God is 
commonly, though not universally, observed in the LXx. also, where for 
every ten examples in which it is applied to God, it is used once only of 
men. The exceptions are Gen. xii. 2 (v.1), Deut. vii. 14, Ruth ii. 20, 
1 Sam. xv. 13, xxv. 33. The same distinction appears also in the 
expressions of Ignatius quoted above, εὐλογημένη, εὐλογητός. In Mart. 
Polyc. 14 εὐλογητὸς is said of Our Lord. This distinction of usage arises 
from the distinction of meaning in the two words: for, while εὐλογημένος 
points to an isolated act or acts, εὐλογητὸς describes the intrinsic 
character. Comp. Philo de Migr. Aér. τὸ (I. p. 453), who, commenting 
on Gen. xii. 2 (where he reads εὐλογητός, but where A has εὐλογημένος), 
writes εὐλογητός, ov μόνον εὐλογημένος" τὸ μὲν yap ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν δόξαις 
τε καὶ φήμαις παραριθμεῖται, τὸ δὲ τῷ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν εὐλογητῷ" ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ 
ἐπαινετὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι διαφέρει κατὰ τὸ κρεῖττον, τὸ μὲν γὰρ τῷ 
πεφυκέναι τὸ δὲ τῷ νομίζεσθαι λέγεται μόνον, φύσις δὲ ἡ ἀψευδὴς δοκήσεως ὀχυρώ- 
τερον, οὕτως καὶ τὸ εὐλογεῖσθαι πρὸς ἀνθρώπων, ὅπερ ἦν, εἰς εὐλογίαν ἄγεσθαι 
διδασκόμενον τῷ πεφυκέναι εὐλογίας ἄξιον, καὶ ἂν πάντες ἡσυχάζωσι, κρεῖττον, 





I. 2.} EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. Ree! 


ὅπερ εὐλογητὸν ἐν τοῖς χρησμοῖς ἄδεται, where the text is apparently corrupt 
and at all events τὸ εὐλογεῖσθαι should be changed into τοῦ εὐλογεῖσθαι. 
Hence, where we have εὐλογητός, as here, the sentence should probably 
be taken as affirmative, not imperative : e.g. contrast Ps. cxviii (cxix). 12 
εὐλογητὸς εἶ, Κύριε, with 2 Chron. ix. 8 ἔστω Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου εὐλογημένος 
and Job i. 21, Ps. cxiii (cxii). 2 εἴη τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου εὐλογημένον. 
_ Winer (Gramm. § Ixiv. p. 733) quotes such passages as these in favour of 

supplying εἴη or ἔστω, rather than ἐστὶν here; but for the reason stated 
they tell against him. It expresses a thanksgiving for an actual fact, not a 
prayer for a contingent result. In other words God is blessed, as being 
the absolute and proper object of blessing: Theod. Mops. εὐλογητὸς ἀντὶ 
τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι ἄξιος (Cramer, Caz. p. 104). 

ὁ Θεὸς κιτ.λ.] ‘the God and Father of our Lord’ εἴς. : comp. Rom. 
xv. 6, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31. From the time of the fathers it has been 
questioned whether τοῦ Κυρίου is dependent on Θεὸς as well as on πατήρ. 
The question is entertained by Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (Cram. Cav. p. 104), and others. It is most natural to regard 
the two substantives as linked together by the vinculum of the common 
article; and in this passage we are confirmed in preferring this con- 
struction by the fact that the first predication is made separately lower 
down : ver. 17 6 Θεὸς rod Κυρίου ἡμῶν κιτιλ. The whole phrase will then 
correspond to another expression, which occurs several times in St Paul, 
ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, Gal. i. 4, 1 Thess. i. 3, iii. 11, 13. We are thus 
reminded of our Lord’s words in John xx. 17 “1 ascend unto my Father and 
your Father, and to my God and your God.’ On the sense in which the 
Father can be said to be the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, see below, on 
ver. 17. 

ὁ εὐλογήσας K.7.A.] ‘who blessed us, i.e. when He called us to Himself 
in Christ. The point of time contemplated in the tense here is not the 
conception of the purpose in the Eternal Mind, but the actual fulfilment 
of that purpose in the call of the believers. This is the force of the 
following καθώς, ‘As He selected us in His eternal counsels, so, when 
the time came, He called us to the blessings of the Gospel’: comp. 
Rom. viii. 30 ots δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν. The active εὐλογήσας 
corresponds to the passive εὐλογητός. It is a case of reciprocation. The 
dispenser of blessings has a right to receive blessings. So we have 
conversely, Is, xv. 16 εὐλογηθήσεται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εὐλογήσουσι yap τὸν Θεὸν 
ἀληθινόν. There is however this difference in the two cases, that whereas 
our blessings are confined to words, His extend to deeds. It is not that 
εὐλογεῖν itself has two distinct meanings ; but that with God every word 
is a fat. Hence, when used of God, or of one who is armed with the 
authority of God, εὐλογεῖν is not merely ‘to speak well of’ but ‘ to do well 
to.’ 

ἐν πάσῃ «.t.d.] For the preposition see Zest. xi. Patr., Joseph. 18 
εὐλογήσει ἐν ἀγαθοῖς εἰς αἰῶνας. Compare such expressions as μετρεῖν ἐν 
μέτρῳ, ἁλίζειν ἐν ἅλατι,; and see Winer, ὃ xlviii. p. 485. 


312 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, [1. 3. 


πνευματικῇ] The character of the blessing corresponds to the sphere 
of the recipient. He is a citizen of heaven, and therefore his privileges 
are spiritual. The carnal promises of the Old Covenant are exchanged 
for the spiritual of the New. There is no promise here of material 
blessings. The Christian has no right to expect such; for this is no 
part of God’s covenant with him. 

ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις] ‘22 the heavenly places’ The same expression, τὰ 
ἐπουράνια, occurs in four other places in this Epistle (i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, 
vi. 12) in this sense, but not elsewhere in the New Testament with quite 
the same meaning (e.g. John iii. 12, Heb. ix. 23). The words would 
naturally be connected with εὐλογήσας; and this obvious connexion is 
doubtless correct. The believer, in the language of this Epistle, has 
been already seated in heaven with Christ (ii. 6). He is an alien upon 
earth, but a citizen of God’s kingdom (ii. 19). There is his πολίτευμα 
(Phil. iii. 20). There consequently he enjoys his privileges and receives 
his blessings. The heaven, of which the Apostle here speaks, is not 
some remote locality, some future abode. It is the heaven which lies 
within and about the true Christian. See especially the notes on 
Col. i. 13, iii. 1sq. The promise under the Old Covenant was prosperity, 
increase, blessing, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (e.g. Is. xv. 16), but under the New it is ἐν 
τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. 

ἐν Χριστῷ] i.e. ‘by virtue of our incorporation in, our union with, 
Christ.’ As God seated us in heaven ‘in Christ’ (ii. 6), so also He 
bestowed His blessings upon us there in Him. In the threefold 
repetition of the same preposition here, we may say roughly that at the 
first occurrence it is instrumental (ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ), at the second local 
(ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις), at the third mystical (ἐν Χριστῷ). We are united 
to God zz Christ; so united we dwell zz heavenly places ; so dwelling we 
are blessed 27: all spiritual blessings. 

4. καθώς] ‘ according as.’ The bestowal of blessings was the fulfil- 
ment, the realization, of the election in the eternal counsels of God. On 
this word see the note on Gal. iii. 6. 

ἐξελέξατο] ‘chose us out for Himself? The word involves three ideas : 
(1) the telling over (λέγειν) ; (2) the rejection of some and the accept- 
ance of others (ex); (3) the taking to Himself (middle voice). The 
ἐκλογή here is not election to final salvation, but election to the sonship in 
Christ and the privileges of the Gospel; see the note on the use of the 
words in St Paul on Col. iii. 12. 

ἐν αὐτῷ] i.e. ἐν Χριστῷς In God’s eternal purpose the believers are 
contemplated as existing in Christ, as the Head, the Summary, of the 
race. The ἐκλογή has no separate existence, independently of the 
ἐκλεκτός (Luke ix. 35, xxiii. 35). The election of Christ involves 
implicitly the election of the Church. 

πρὸ καταβολῆς κιτ.λ.] i.e. ‘from all eternity.’ Comp. John xvii. 24, 
1 Pet. i. 20. So elsewhere, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (e.g. Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26). 
Neither phrase occurs in any other passage of St Paul. 


I. 5.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 313 


ἁγίους κιτιλ.] The same two adjectives are combined, v. 27, Col. i. 22. 
They involve a sacrificial metaphor. The first word ἁγίους denotes the 
consecration of the victim; the second ἀμώμους its fitness for this 
consecration.; The meaning of the latter in the Hellenistic dialect is 
slightly changed from its classical sense. It signifies rather ‘without 
blemish’ than ‘without d/ame.’ This more definite sense it owes to the 
fact that μῶμος is adopted in the Lxx. as the rendering of the similarly 
sounding Hebrew word Di ‘a blemish,’ just as σκηνή becomes the 
recognized equivalent of Shechinah (123). Hence ἄμωμος is most 
commonly used in the LxXx. (e.g. Exod. xxix. 1, Lev. i. 3, 10, iii. 1, 6, 9, 
etc.) to denote victims which are without fault or blemish, as required by 
the law. So too, Heb. ix. 14 ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ Θεῷ, I Pet. i. 19 
τιμίῳ αἵματι ds duvod ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ : comp. Philo de Profug. 3 
(1. p. 548) τέλεια καὶ ἄμωμα ἱερεῖα ai ἀρεταί, de Cherub. 25 (1. p. 154) 
ἄμωμον καὶ κάλλιστον ἱερεῖον οἴσει τῷ Θεῷ, Quis rer. div. her. 23 (1. p. 489) 
ἀσινῆ τε καὶ ἄμωμα τέλειά τ᾽ αὖ καὶ ὁλόκληρα, etc.; Test. xit. Patr. Jos. 19 
ἐξ αὐτῆς προῆλθεν ἀμνὸς ἄμωμος. 

κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] ‘22 the sight of Him, i.e. ‘of God’; see the note on 
Col. i. 22. God Himself is thus regarded as the great μωμοσκόπος, who 
inspects the victims and takes cognizance of the blemishes; comp. 
Philo de Agric. 29 (I. p. 320) τίνας Sei καὶ ὅσους ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο χειροτονεῖν 
τὸ ἔργον, ods ἔνιοι μωμοσκόπους ὀνομάζουσιν, ἵνα ἄμωμα καὶ ἀσινῆ προσάγηται 
τῷ βωμῷ τὰ ἱερεῖα, Polyc. Phil. 4 γινωσκούσας ὅτι εἰσὶν θυσιαστήριον Θεοῦ, 
καὶ ὅτι πάντα μωμοσκοπεῖται καὶ λέληθεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲν κιτιλ. See also the 
note on Clem. Rom. 41 μωμοσκοπηθέν. 

ἐν ἀγάπῃ] to be taken with the preceding ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους : Comp. 
Clem. Rom. 50 ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ εὑρεθῶμεν δίχα προσκλίσεως ἀνθρωπίνης 
ἄμωμοι. So too Jude 24 ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, 2 Pet. iii. 14 ἀμώμητοι.. «ἐν 
εἰρήνῃ. The words ἐν ἀγάπῃ stand after the clause to which they belong, 
as below, iv. 2, 15, 16, v. 2 (perhaps also iii. 18), Col. ii. 2, 1 Thess. v. 13 
(comp. 1 Tim. iv. 12, 2 Tim. i. 13). The general usage of St Paul seems 
therefore to be almost decisive as regards the connexion. Holding this 
position, love is emphasized as the fulfilment of the law, the totality of 
Christian duty. Otherwise the words ἐν ἀγάπῃ have been connected 
either with (1) ἐξελέξατο, which is too far distant, or (2) with mpoopicas, in 
which case the emphasis is hardly explicable. In the two latter con- 
nexions the ἀγάπη would be God’s love as shown in His predestination or 
election. The different connexions are discussed by the early patristic 
commentators. 

5. προορίσας] Giving the reason of ἐξελέξατο, ‘seeing that He had 
Joreordained us’; comp. Rom. viii. 29 οὖς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμ- 
μόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 30 ovs δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν. 
Here προορίσας is prior to ἐξελέξατο ; but prior only in conception, for 
in the eternal counsels of God, to which both words alike refer, there is 
no before or after. The word προορίζειν ‘to predetermine,’ wherever it 


314 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [I. 5. 


occurs in the New Testament, refers to the eternal counsels of God; 
comp. ver. 11, Acts iv. 28, Rom. viii. 29, 30, 1 Cor. ii. 7; see also Ignat. 
Ephes.inscr. It is not found in the LXX., nor apparently in any writer 
before St Paul. In Demosth. p. 877 it is a false reading. The substan- 
tive προορισμὸς however appears in a work wrongly ascribed to Hip- 
pocrates, Of. 1. p. 79 (ed. Kiihn). 

υἱοθεσίαν] ‘adoption, not ‘sonship,’ which would be vidryra. Christ 
alone, the μονογενής, ἐς Son by nature; we decome sons by adoption and 
grace. Thus viofecia never loses its proper meaning: see the note on 
Gal. iv. 5. The full adoption however can only be then (at the end of 
the ages) when the bondage of corruption, the bondage of the flesh, is 
ended and we are called to the liberty of sons. In this sense we look 
forward to it still, Rom. viii. 23 υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 
τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν. 

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] We become sons through incorporation into the 
Sonship of Christ; see Gal. iii. 26, iv. 6, 7, and especially Heb. ii. 10 sq. 

els αὐτὸν] to be connected with υἱοθεσίαν, ‘adoption unto Him, i.e. to 
God the Father, ‘as His sons. As διὰ describes the channel, so εἰς 
expresses the goal; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6 eis Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ...καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς 
αὐτόν" καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός... καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. So John xiv. 6 
‘No man cometh to the Father but through Me.’ For the personal 
pronoun αὐτόν, used where we should expect the reflexive ἑαυτόν, when 
referring to the principal subject of the clause, see the note on Col. i. 20. 
The contracted form of the reflexive pronoun αὑτόν, which some editors 
would introduce here, has no place in the Greek Testament. 

κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν] ‘7% accordance with the purpose” For the various 
meanings of εὐδοκία see the note on Phil. i. 15. Here it has the sense 
of ‘purpose’ rather than of ‘benevolence,’ so that the whole phrase 
corresponds to xara τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ver. 11. The word 
εὐδοκία, of which the central idea is ‘satisfaction,’ will only then mean 
‘benevolence’ when the context points to some person ¢owards whom 
the satisfaction is felt (comp. Matt. iii. 17 ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα). Otherwise the 
satisfaction is felt in the action itself, so that the word is used absolutely, 
and signifies ‘good-pleasure, in the sense of ‘desire, ‘purpose,’ 
‘ design.’ 

6. εἰς] The end of redemption, as of all creation and all history, is 
the praise and glory of God. This same phrase εἰς ἔπαινον (τῆς) δόξης is 
twice again repeated in the context, vv. 12, 14, as if the Apostle could not 
too strongly reiterate this truth. As ‘thanksgiving’ is the crowning duty 
and privilege of man (see the notes on Col. i. 12, ii. 7, iii. 15, etc.), 50 
‘praise’ is the ultimate right of God. 

δόξης] i.e. ‘the magnificent display,’ ‘the glorious manifestation.’ 
For this sense of δόξα see the notes on Col. i. 11, 27. 

τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ] ‘ His grace,’ i.e. ‘His free gift,’ ‘His unearned and 
unmerited bounty.’ Herein lies the magnificence, the glory, of God’s 





I. 6.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 315 


work of redemption, that it has not the character of a contract, but of a 
largess. The word points to the central conception of St Paul’s 
teaching on redemption; see the note on Col. i. 6. It occupies a very 
prominent place in this Epistle. The Apostle is not satisfied with once 
using the expression here, but he repeats it again in the next verse with 
greater emphasis, ‘the wealth of His grace.’ Even this strong phrase is 
inadequate to express his whole mind, and, when he recurs to the 
subject, he employs language stronger still, ii. 7 ‘the surpassing wealth 
of His grace.’ Twice over in the same context he declares parenthetically 
to his readers that ‘by grace they are saved,’ ii. 5, 8; three times in the 
same context, when he is speaking of his own work and mission, he 
reminds himself that it was an act of God’s ‘grace bestowed upon him,’ 
iii. 2, 7, 8. 

ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν κ-τ.λ.] ‘which He graciously bestowed upon us, where ἧς 
stands by attraction for ἣν, the cognate accusative; comp. iv. I τῆς 
κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε, 2 Cor. i. 4 διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα 
αὐτοί, where the constructions are precisely similar, and see Winer, 
ὃ xxiv. p. 203. The various reading ἐν 7 has inferior support, and is 
obviously a scribe’s correction of ἧς for the sake of greater clearness. 

The word χαριτοῦν signifies ‘to bestow grace upon,’ ‘to endow with 
grace’; and, as the prominent idea in χάρις may be either (1) the 
objective bestowal, ‘the free gift,’ ‘the gracious favour, or (2) the 
subjective endowment and appropriation, ‘gracefulness,’ ‘ well-favoured- 
ness,’ ‘ attractiveness,’ so the verb may have two corresponding meanings. 
Chrysostom takes the latter sense, interpreting it ἐπεράστους ἐποίησεν, 
ἐπιχάριτας ἐποίησεν, and he is followed by others. But this meaning 
would draw us off from the leading idea of the passage, which is the 
unmerited bounty of God. It is better therefore to adopt the former 
sense, in which case χαριτοῦν χάριν will be a stronger expression for 
χαρίζεσθαι χάριν (which occurs e.g. Eurip. and Lycurg. ας. Leocr. 
§ 100, Isocr. c. Demon. § 31), the greater strength being due to the 
termination which, as in χρυσοῦν, etc., denotes ‘to overlay, to cover, 
with favour.’ The word is used elsewhere in both senses : (1) ‘to bestow 
favour on,’ ‘to be gracious to,’ as here; Test. xii. Pair, Jos. 1 ἐν 
φυλακῇ ἤμην καὶ 6 σωτὴρ ἐχαρίτωσέ pe, and so probably Luke i. 28 χαῖρε, 
κεχαριτωμένη : (2) ‘to endow with graces,’ ‘to render attractive,’ Ps. xvii. 26 
(Symm.) pera τοῦ κεχαριτωμένου χαριτωθήσῃ, Ecclus. xviii. 17 (LXX.) ἀνδρὶ 
κεχαριτωμένῳ, Clem. Alex. Pad. iii. 11 (p. 302) ἀπόστρεψον τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν 
ἀπὸ γυναικὸς κεχαριτωμένης (a loose quotation of Ecclus. ix. 8, where the 
word is εὐμόρφου in the text). This second sense naturally prevails 
in the passive voice, where the bestower of the grace is lost sight of. 

ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ] God, when He gave us His ‘ Beloved,’ gave us all 
graces with Him; if He withheld not His Son, there is nothing which He 
will withhold ; Rom. viii. 32 πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται ; 
The expression ὁ ἠγαπημένος is unique in the New Testament. See 


316 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. {I. 6. 


however Ps. xxviii. 6 (LXx.), Is. v. 1. It occurs in the Apostolic Fathers 
more than once of our Lord: Ignatius Smyrz. inscr. Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ 
ἠγαπημένου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Clem. Rom. 59 τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ, τοῦ 
ἠγαπημένου παιδός σου, and, as here, without a substantive, Ezst. Barnab. 
3 ὃν ἡτοίμασεν ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ αὐτοῦ, 2b. 4 ἵνα ταχύνῃ ὁ ἠγαπημένος 
αὐτοῦ. This title ‘ Dilectus’ is the common designation of the Messiah 
in the Ascensio Isaiae, e.g. i. 4, 5, 7, 13, iii. 13, 17, 18, iv. 3, 6, ete. 

7. ἔχομεν] There is a various reading ἔσχομεν here, as in the 
parallel passage, Col. i. 14. It is more probable however that ἔσχομεν 
should stand in the text there, than here: see Colossians, Ὁ. 251. 

τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] It is a ransom, a redemption, from the captivity to 
sin. See the note on Col. i. 14, where the metaphor is enforced by the 
context. So Origen here; ᾿Απολύτρωσις ἡ λύτρωσις γίνεται τῶν αἰχμαλώτων 
καὶ γενομένων ὑπὸ τοῖς πολεμίοις᾽ γεγόναμεν δὲ ὑπὸ τοῖς πολεμίοις, τῷ 
ἄρχοντι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου καὶ ταῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν πονηραῖς δυνάμεσιν... ἔδωκεν οὖν ὁ 
Σωτὴρ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν λύτρον κιτιλ. The ἀπολύτρωσις may be twofold : (1) It 
may be ΖγΖέζαί and zmmediate, the liberation from the consequences of 
past sin and the inauguration of a new and independent life, as here ; 
so Rom. iii. 24, 1 Cor. i. 30, Col. i. 14, Heb. ix. 15; or (2) future and 
Jinal, the ultimate emancipation from the power of evil in all its forms, as 
in Luke xxi. 28 ἐγγίζει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις ὑμῶν, Rom. viii. 23 υἱοθεσίαν 
ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν; comp. Heb. xi. 35. In 
this latter sense it is used below, ver. 14, and iv. 30 εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπο- 
λυτρώσεως. 

διὰ τοῦ αἵματος κιτ.λ}] This is the ransom-money, the λύτρον (Matt. 
xx. 28, Mark x. 45), or ἀντίλυτρον (1 Tim. ii. 6), comp. Tit. ii. 14; the 
price τιμὴ (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23) for which we were bought. This 
teaching is not confined to St Paul and the Pauline Epistle to the Hebrews, 
but is enunciated quite as emphatically by St Peter (1 Pet. i. 18, 19 
ἐλυτρώθητε...τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου x.t.A.) and St John (Rev. v. 9 
ἠγόρασας τῷ Θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί cov: comp. i. 5, vii. 14). So also Clem. 
Rom. 12 διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν 
κιτιλ. 

τὴν ἄφεσιν κιτιλ.] See the note on Col. i. 14. 

κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος k.t.X.] The large ransom paid for our redemption is 
a measure of the wealth of God’s bounty: comp. ii. 7 τὸ ὑπερβάλλον 
πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι x.t.A. (comp. iii. 8), Rom, ii. 4 
τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. For the neuter τὸ πλοῦτος, which has 
the highest support here and which St Paul uses interchangeably with 
the masculine ὁ πλοῦτος, see the note on Col. i. 27. 

τῆς χάριτος] See the note on ver. 5. 

8. ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν] ‘which He made to abound? It is perhaps best 
to take περισσεύειν transitively, as in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8, and 1 Thess. iii. 
12 (where see the note). Hence the passive περισσεύεσθαι, which is 
correctly read in Luke xv, 17 ; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 (v.1.). In this case ἧς 





1. 8.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 317 


will stand for ἣν by attraction : see the note on ver. 6. The construction 
περισσεύειν twos however is quite possible; as in Ignat. Po/. 2 παντὸς 
χαρίσματος περισσεύης, Luke xv. 17 (v. L). For περισσεύειν εἰς comp. 
Rom. v. 15, 2 Cor. i. 5, ix. 8. 

ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ x.1.d.] ‘22 all wisdom and prudence. These are the 
attributes not, as some take it, of God the dispenser, but of the Christians 
the recipients. This will appear from several considerations. (1) The 
predication, thus elaborate and definite, would be an unmeaning truism, as 
applied to God. It differs wholly in character from ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία 
τοῦ Θεοῦ iii. 10, which is quite appropriate. (2) The main idea in the 
context is the knowledge with which the Christian is endowed, γνωρίσας 
ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον κιτιλ. (see the note on these words). (3) The parallel 
passage, Col. i. 9 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ 
σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει k.t.X., points very decidedly in this direction. See also 
Col. Hi. 16 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. Indeed it is in strict accordance with the 
general tenour of this and the companion Epistle to the Colossians, in 
which the higher knowledge of the Christian occupies a conspicuous 
place ; comp. e.g. ver. 17 below, and see Colossians, p. 98 sq. with the 
notes on Col. i. 9, 18, ii. 3, and on Philem. 6. 

σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει] ‘wisdom and prudence.” While σοφία is the 
insight into the true nature of things, φρόνησις is the ability to discern) =" 
modes of action with a view to their results : while σοφία is theoretical, \ 
φρόνησις is practical: comp. Prov. x. 23 ἡ δὲ σοφία ἀνδρὶ τίκτει φρόνησιν. | 
For this distinction see Aristot. Eth. Nic. vi. 7 (p. 1141) ἡ σοφία ἐστὶ καὶ | 
ἐπιστήμη καὶ vous τῶν τιμιωτάτων τῇ φύσει...ἡ δὲ φρόνησις περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα 
καὶ περὶ ὧν ἔστι βουλεύσασθαι (with the whole context), £th. Magn. i. 35 
(p. 1197) ἡ μὲν yap σοφία ἐστὶ περὶ ra per’ ἀποδείξεως καὶ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ὄντα, 
ἡ δὲ φρόνησις οὐ περὶ ταῦτα ἀλλὰ περὶ τὰ ἐν μεταβολῇ ὄντα... περὶ δὲ τὰ 
συμφέροντά ἐστιν ἡ φρόνησις, ἡ δὲ σοφία ov, Philo de Prem. et Pen. 14 
(Il. p. 421) Σοφία μὲν γὰρ πρὸς θεράπειαν Θεοῦ, φρόνησις δὲ πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνου 
βίου διοίκησιν, Plut. Mor. p. 443 F τὸ μὲν περὶ τὸ ἁπλῶς ἔχοντα μόνον 
ἐπιστημονικὸν καὶ θεωρητικόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἐν τοῖς πῶς ἔχουσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς 
βουλευτικὸν καὶ πρακτικόν" ἀρετὴ δὲ τούτου μὲν ἡ φρόνησις, ἐκείνου δὲ ἡ σοφία 
κιτιλ., Cic. Of: i. 43 ‘Princeps omnium virtutum est illa sapientia quam 
σοφίαν Graeci dicunt ; prudentiam enim, quam Graeci φρόνησιν dicunt, 
aliam quandam intelligimus, quae est rerum expetendarum fugiendarum- 
que scientia: illa autem sapientia, quam principem dixi, rerum est 
divinarum atque humanarum scientia.’ See also the different accounts of 
the two words in [Plat.] Defin. p. 411 D, 414 B. While σοφία was defined by 
the Stoics to be ἐπιστήμη θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων (see the note on Col. i. 9), 
the common definition of φρόνησις was ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν (Plut. 
Mor. 1066 Ὁ, Diog. Laert. vii. 92, Galen, Of. v. p. 595 Kiihn, Stob. Zc/. 
ii. 6, p. 103, Sext. Empir. p. 720). Thus the serpent in Genesis (iii. 1) and 
the unjust steward in the parable (Luke xvi. 8) are credited with a high 
degree of φρόνησις, but they could hardly be called σοφοί. On the other 


318 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [I. 8. 


hand God is never designated φρόνιμος in the New Testament, though 
φρόνησις is sometimes ascribed to Him in the Old (Prov. iii. 19, Jer. x. 12, 
where it is used in antithetical clauses to balance σοφία). The two words 
σοφία, φρόνησις (σοφός, φρόνιμος) occur together also 1 Kings iii. 12, 
iv. 29, Prov. i. 2, viii. 1, Dan. i. 17, ii. 21 (Theod.), 23 (LXx.), besides the 
instances already quoted. For the relation of σοφία to other words see 
the notes on Col. i. 9, ii. 3. 

9. γνωρίσας] ‘ix that He made known. This explains and justifies 
the strong expression which has preceded, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ κιτλ. The 
possession of the whole range of wisdom, theoretical and practical, was 
involved in the participation in this one mystery. Here is the great 
storehouse of all truth; comp. Col. ii. 3 εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες of θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπό- 
κρυφοι, with the note. 

τὸ μυστήριον] The subject of this mystery appears from the context. 
It is Christ as the Great Reconciler, not only of Jew and Gentile, but of 
heaven and earth. On the signification which this term more especially 
bears in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians as implying the 
comprehensiveness, the universality, of the redemption in Christ, see the 
note on Col. i. 26. See also the same note for the general meaning of the 
term in St Paul, denoting ‘a truth which was once hidden but now 
is revealed.’ This meaning is brought out here by the participle yo- 
picas. For the expression comp. Judith ii. 2 τὸ μυστήριον τῆς βουλῆς 
αὐτοῦ, where however it is used in a lower sense. 

κατὰ τὴν κιτιλ] To be connected not with τὸ μυστήριον, but with 
γνωρίσας ; Comp. iii. 9 sq. τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου.. «ἵνα γνωρισθῇ 
νῦν.. κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων x.r.r., Col. i. 26 τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμ- 
pévov...viv δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς γνωρίσαι K.T.A. 
It is not the mystery itself, so much as the revelation of the mystery 
after God’s long reserve, which fills the Apostle’s mind with awe; see 
also Rom, xvi. 25./ For εὐδοκίαν ‘purpose, design,’ see the note on 
ver. 5. Ἶ 

προέθετο] ‘set before Himself,’ and so ‘ purposed, planned, not ‘pre- 
ordained’; comp. Rom. i. 13, iii. 25. The corresponding substantive 
πρόθεσις occurs, of God’s eternal purpose, just below, ver. 11, also iii. 11, 
Rom. viii, 28, ix. 11, 2 Tim. i. 9, and of a human purpose, Acts xi. 23, 
xxvii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 10. The preposition in this word is not temporal, as 
ἴῃ προέγνω, προώρισεν, but local. In the expression ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως 
(Matt. xii. 4) the preposition is obviously local ; and all usage points to a 
local meaning in the connexion in which it occurs here. The verb 
signifies sometimes ‘to propose,’ sometimes ‘to expose,’ but never ‘to fix 
beforehand.’ Its meaning is shown by its correspondence in meaning to 
προκεῖσθαι, e.g. Arist. Top. i. 1 (p. 100) ἡ μὲν πρόθεσις τῆς πραγματείας... 
κατὰ τὴν προκειμένην πραγματείαν. 

ἐν αὐτῷ] i.e. ‘in Christ’; comp. ver. 4, iii. 11. This first ἐν αὐτῷ is an 





I. 10.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 319 


anticipation of the ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ below, just as the second ἐν αὐτῷ (ver. 
10) is a resumption of the same. The reading ἐν αὑτῷ (for ἐν ἑαυτῷ) 
is quite inadmissible in the Greek Testament (see the note on εἰς αὐτὸν, 
ver. 5); but even if it could stand, it would yield an inferior sense. 

10, εἰς οἰκονομίαν] ‘for the carrying out of a dispensation’; not ‘the 
dispensation,’ for the Apostle contemplates it, as it were, ab extra, as a 
thing hitherto unknown. On the two meanings of οἰκονομία, as (1) the 
system or method of administration, and (2) the office of an administrator 
or steward, see the note on Col. i. 25. Here it has the former sense. 
The same metaphor occurs in various relations elsewhere in the New 
Testament. God is the great οἰκοδεσπότης in not less than five parables 
(Matt. xiii. 27; Matt. xx. 1, 11; Matt. xxi. 33; Luke xiii. 25 ; Luke xiv. 
21); the Church is the household of God (οἶκος [rod] Θεοῦ, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 
Heb. iii. 2 sq., x. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 17); the believers are the members of this 
household (οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, Ephes. ii. 19 ; comp. Gal. vi. 10); the ministers 
are the stewards or dispensers (οἰκονόμοι, 1 Cor. iv. 1 sq., Tit. i. 7). 
Accordingly the mode or plan of administering it is called οἰκονομία, 
dispensatio. In the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke xvi. 1 sq.) the 
steward seems to be regarded as a freeman ; in Luke xii. 42 sq. however 
the case is different (ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος, ὁ φρόνιμος, ὃν καταστήσει. ..μακάριος 
ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος κιτ.λ.), and this is the conception of his position adopted 
by St Paul in 1 Cor. ix. 17 εἰ yap ἑκὼν τοῦτο πράσσω, μισθὸν ἔχω. εἰ δὲ ἄκων, 
οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, ‘1 am God’s slave entrusted with an important 
office : and a rigorous account will be required of me.’ The οἰκονόμοι, 
‘villici,’ ‘actores, ‘dispensatores,’ of the ancients were generally slaves 
(Marquardt Rdm. Alt. Vv. τ, p. 143, comp. Becker Charicles 111. p. 23 sq.)- 
The connexion of the different parts of the metaphor is illustrated 
by Ign. Ephes. 6 πάντα ὃν πέμπει 6 οἰκοδεσπότης εἰς ἰδίαν οἰκονομίαν. 

But not only is the way paved for this application of the word in 
other applications of the metaphor by our Lord and His Apostles. 
The extended use of οἰκονομία in classical writers was also a further 
preparation. It had been commonly applied to the administration, more 
especially the financial administration, of a state, regarded as a great 
οἰκία (Aristot. Pol. iii. 14, p. 1285 ὥσπερ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ βασιλεία τις οἰκίας 
ἐστιν, οὕτως ἡ βασιλεία πόλεως καὶ ἔθνους ἑνὸς ἢ πλειόνων οἰκονομία), to say 
nothing of other more remote uses (e.g. of military government, Polyb. 
vi. 12. 5; of the arrangement of topics in a speech or a poem or any 
other literary production, Dion. Hal. de Jsocr. 4, Quintil. Just. iii. 3, 
Aristot. Poet. 13; of the adjustment of the parts in a building, Vitruv. i. 2; 
of the diffusion of nourishment through the human body, Aretzus, p. 305, 
ed. Kiihn; and of administration or of distribution generally). The 
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν had also its own οἰκονομία, its system or plan of 
administration by which its goods—its gifts and graces—were ad- 
ministered and dispensed. The central feature of this system was the 
Incarnation and Passion of the Son. Viewed objectively, and with 


----- 


320 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [I. το. 


regard to the Giver, this was a dispensation of grace: viewed subjectively, 
and with regard to the recipient, it was a dispensation of faith (1 Tim. i. 4 
οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει). The “ Word made flesh’ was the pivot of 
the world’s history,.the key to the Divine administration of the universe. 
This was ‘the dsfensation of the mystery which had been hidden from 
the beginning’ (iii. 9). Hence the fathers, starting from this application 
in St Paul, employ the word with a more and more direct and exclusive 
reference to the /ucarnation and its attending consequences, till at 
length it becomes a technical term of patristic theology with this 
meaning ; Ignat. Ephes. 18 ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν [Θεοῦ], 
comp. ὃ 20 ἧς ἠρξάμην οἰκονομίας εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν ; 
Justin 2 έαϊ. 45 γεννηθῆναι σαρκοποιηθεὶς ὑπέμεινεν ἵνα διὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας 
K.t.A., 120 κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τὴν διὰ τῆς παρθένου (comp. c. 67, 103); 
Athenag. Supf/. 21 κἂν σάρκα Θεὸς κατὰ θείαν οἰκονομίαν λάβῃ ; Iren. I. 6.1 
ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς οἰκονομίας περιτεθεῖσθαι σῶμα; 70. I. 10, 3 τὴν...οἰκονομίαν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενομένην (comp. i. 7. 2, i. 14. 6, i. 15. 3); 
Origen c. Cels. ii. 9 ἕν γὰρ μάλιστα μετὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν γεγένηται... ἡ ψυχὴ 
καὶ τὸ σῶμα Ἰησοῦ, 20. ii. 26 τίς γὰρ ἂν... ὀνειδίσαι ἐδύνατο ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τῷ τὸν Ἰησοῦν 
τοιαῦτα παρὰ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ λελαληκέναι ; 2b, ii. 65 λαμπροτέρα γὰρ τὴν οἰκονομίαν 
τελέσαντος ἡ θειότης ἦν αὐτοῦ ; Clem. Alex. Strom. ti. 5 (p. 439) Ἰσαάκ... 
τύπον ἐσόμενον ἡμῖν οἰκονομίας σωτηρίου. So ata later date Theodoret can say, 
Dial. ii. (IV. p. 93) τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου καλοῦμεν οἰκονομίαν. 
Hence we often find ἡ οἰκονομία used absolutely for ‘the Incarnation.’ 
Accordingly ἡ οἰκονομία is opposed to ἡ θεότης, when the human nature of 
Christ is contrasted with the Divine; e.g. Chrysost. ad 1 Cor. Hom. 
xxxix. (X. p. 368) ἄλλως, ὅταν περὶ τῆς θεότητος διαλέγηται μόνης, φθέγγεται, 
καὶ ἑτέρως, ὅταν εἰς τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐμπέσῃ λόγον. So also this same 
writer ad Matt. Hom. i. (vu. p. 6) says of the first three Evangelists in 
contradistinction to St John that ἡ σπουδὴ γέγονεν τῷ τῆς οἰκονομίας évdia- 
τρῖψαι λόγῳ καὶ τὰ τῆς θεότητος ἐκινδύνευεν ἀποσιωπᾶσθαι δόγματα. 
Similarly elsewhere θεολογία and οἰκονομία are opposed, as the two main 
divisions of theology in its wider sense, the former relating to the divine 
nature in itself, the latter to the incarnation and work of Christ, the 
dispensation in time; e.g. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxviii. 8 (I. p. 668) ὅτε μὴ 
θεολογία τὸ προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀλλ᾽ οἰκονομία. See Suicer, Thes. s.vv. θεολογία 
and οἰκονομία for examples. In this connexion the word is almost 
universally used by the fathers, where it occurs in a technical sense; and 
of this usage we have the germ in this passage of St Paul. During the 
Monarchian and Patripassian controversies however it was for a short 
time invested with a wholly different meaning, which had no connexion 
with its use in St Paul. As μοναρχία was used to express the absolute 
unity of the Godhead, so οἰκονομία designated the relations of the Divine 
Persons in the Godhead; e.g. Tertull. adv. Prox. 2 ‘nihilominus custo- 
diatur οἰκονομίας sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit,’ 
26. 8 ‘Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et 











I. 10.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 221 


monarchiae nihil obstrepit et οἰκονομίας statum protegit,’ Hipp. c. oer. 8 
ὅσον μὲν κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν εἷς ἐστι θεός, ὅσον δὲ κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τριχὴς ἡ 
ἐπίδειξις ; comp. Tatian ad Grec. 5. On this point see especially Gass, 
Das patristische Wort οἰκονομία in Zettschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XVI. p. 478 sq. 
(1874). This application however was momentary and exceptional ; and 
does not disturb the main current of usage which runs continuously in 
the channel cut for it by St Paul. 

τοῦ πληρώματος] ‘which belongs to, which was brought about in, she 
Julness’ etc. For the genitive expressing the time comp. Jude 6 εἰς 
κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας : comp. Plat. Leg. i. p. 633C χειμώνων ἀνυποδησίαι 
καὶ ἀστρωσίαι (with Stallbaum’s note). The absolute genitive of time, 
which is so common, e.g. νυκτός, ἡμέρας, etc., is only an extension to 
sentences of its rarer connexion with individual substantives which we 
have here. On the meaning of πλήρωμα as ‘the full complement,’ ‘ the 
complete tale,’ see the detailed note on Co/ossians, p. 257 sq. On the 
sense in which the time of the Advent could be regarded as the πλήρωμα 
τῶν καιρῶν (Or τοῦ χρόνου) see the note on Gal. iv. 4. 

τῶν καιρῶν] ‘of the seasons, not τοῦ χρόνου as in Gal. iv. 4; comp. 
Mark i. 15 πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Each 
season had its proper manifestation ; till at length, when all the seasons 
had run out, the crowning dispensation itself was revealed. The summing 
up (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις) was impossible, until the πλήρωμα of the seasons had 
arrived, The idea involved in τῶν καιρῶν, as distinguished from τοῦ 
χρόνου, is substantially the same as in Heb. i. 1 πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως 
πάλαι ὁ Θεὸς Aadnoas...em ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν 
υἱῷ. For the meaning οὗ καιρός, as superadding to χρόνος the idea of 
adaptation or propriety, see the note on 1 Thess. v. 1. 

The words which follow show that in this expression, τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν 
καιρῶν, No separation is made between the first and second Advent. The 
Incarnation is regarded as the beginning of the end. The dispensation, 
contemplated as a wmity, is contrasted with the several seasons which 
preceded. This mode of speaking accords with the language of the 
Apostles generally ; the Gospel belongs to the end of the ages; it is the 
closing scene of the world’s history : comp. e.g. Acts ii. 17, 1 Cor. x. 11, 
Heb. i. 2, 1 Pet. i. 20, 1 Joh. ii. 18, Jude 18. The dvaxedadaiwors began 
when the Word was made flesh, though the completion is still delayed. 

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι] ‘so as to gather up in one. ‘The infinitive intro- 
duces the consequence : see notes on Col. i. 10, iv. 3,6. In this compound, 
while the preposition (ἀνὰ) refers to the prior dispersion of the elements, 
the substantive (κεφάλαιον) describes the ultimate aggregation in one. 
Thus the whole compound involves the idea of unity effected out of © 
diversity. It differs from συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι (the two words occur 
together in Iren. v. 29. 2) only in the emphasis which is thus thrown on 
the several parts before the union is effected. The preposition has the 
same force as in ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀνακρίνειν, ἀνακυκᾶν, ἀναλογίζεσθαι, ἀνα- 

L. EP. 21 


322 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [I. ro. 


μανθάνειν, ἀναμετρεῖν, ἀναπεμπάζειν, ἀνασκοπεῖν, ἀναστρέφεσθαι, etc., or in the 
distributive ἀνὰ μέρος, ἀνὰ δυὸ, etc., and implies the process of going over 
the separate elements for the purpose of uniting them. Others attribute 
to it the idea of restoration, reunion ; and Tertullian insists strongly on 
this point ; de Monag. 5 ‘adeo in Christo omnia revocantur ad initium,’ 
76. 11 ‘affirmat omnia ad initium recolligi in Christo,” adv. Marc. v. 17 
‘recapitulare, id est, ad initium redigere vel ab initio recensere, etc.’ 
So interpreted, it was a serviceable weapon against the dualism of 
Marcion, who maintained a direct opposition between the work of the 
Demiurge and the work of Christ. He had a right to press this idea in 
the corresponding word ἀποκαταλλάσσειν of the parallel passage, Col. i. 
20, 21 (see the note there); but the sense of the preposition ἀνὰ here 
seems to be quite different. The verb ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι has the following 
senses : (1) ‘to sum up,’ ‘to recapitulate’; Aristot. Fragm. 123 (p. 1499) 


᾿ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν : comp. Quint. Just. vi. 1. 1 ‘Rerum 
| repetitio et congregatio, quae Graece dicitur ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, a quibusdam 


Latinorum enumeratio, et memoriam judicis reficit et totam simul causam 
ponit ante oculos, etc.’ (2) ‘To comprise,’ Rom. xiii. 9 εἴτις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν 
τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται ; (3) ‘ To exhibit in a compendious form,’ and 


“so ‘to reproduce, Protev. Fac. 13 μήτι εἰς ἐμὲ ἀνεκεφαλαιώθη ἡ ἱστορία 


7 


> 


Αδάμ; But in none of its senses does it involve the idea of bringing 
back to a former state. Ti ἐστιν, writes Chrysostom, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ; 
Συνάψαι. The word cannot however contain any immediate reference 
to the headship of Christ, as this father goes on to suggest, since it is 
derived from κεφάλαιον, and not directly from κεφαλή. Thus the expres- 
sion implies the entire harmony of the universe, which shall | no longer 
contain. alien and discordant t elements, but « but of which all the parts shall — 
find their centre and. bond of _of union in Christ, Sin an and death, sorrow 
and failure and suffering, shall cease. There shall be a new heaven and . and 
a newearth. Ps.-Hippol. c. Beron. 2 (p. 59 Lagarde), arde), evidently atly referring to to 
this passage, speaks of τὸ μυστήριον τῆς αὐτοῦ σωματώσεως, ἧς ἔργον ἡ τῶν 
ὅλων ἐστὶν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνακεφαλαίωσις. There is also an obvious reference 
to it in a fragment of Justin Martyr’s Treatise against Marcion, quoted 
by Irenzus (iv. 6, 2) ‘Quoniam ab uno Deo, qui et hunc mundum fecit 
et nos plasmavit et omnia continet et administrat, unigenitus Filius 
venit ad nos, suum plasma zx semetipsum recapitulans etc.’ The earlier 
fathers lay great stress on this idea, that the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις is effected by 
the Divine Word taking upon Himself the nature of His own creature ; 
comp. e.g. Iren, iii. 21. 10sq. Thus creation returns, as it w unto 
Him from whom it issued forth. He is not only the δὲ οὗ, e 
«is dv; see the note on Col. i. i. 16, -where other ‘similar ae ; in 
St Paul are given. 

By this same term, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, and with an obvious allusion to 
St Paul’s language, Irenzeus describes the work of the Antichrist, who 
shall concentrate and summarize in himself all the elements of evil, all 

















I, 14.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 323 


the idolatry and all the wickedness, which have been since the beginning : 
Vv. 29. 2. 

14. ἀρραβὼν] ‘an earnest, as in 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5 τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ ff. 
πνεύματος, where the word is used in the same connexion; comp. Polyc. ἡ ¢/< 
Phil. 8, Act. Thom. 51. It is a genuine Shemitic word 112} (derived from 
ay ‘to entwine,’ and so ‘to pledge’), and occurs in the Hebrew of 
Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18, 20, where it is transliterated, rather than translated, 
ἀρραβών, in the LxxX. We might have imagined therefore that its use 
was derived from the Hebrew through the Lxx. But it occurs at an 
earlier date in classical authors, e.g. Iseus de Cir. her. 23, Aristotle , 
Pol. i. 11 (p. 1259), Antiphanes Fragm. Com. 111. p. 66 (Meineke), 
Menander, 2. Iv. p. 268, 283; and we must therefore suppose that | 
the Greeks derived it from the Phcenicians, as the great trading and 
seafaring people of antiquity (comp. Ezek. xxvii. 13). Though (so far as 
I can discover from the latest authorities) there is no trace of the word in 
extant Phoenician remains, yet the close alliance of this language with 
the Hebrew renders its Phoenician source highly probable. The rela- 
tions between the Hebrews and the Greeks at an early age were too 
slight to suggest that the Greeks borrowed it from the Hebrews. Greece 
was chiefly known to the Hebrews as the great slave market, where 
the Phcenician traders sold their sons and daughters (Joel iii. 6, Is. Ixvi. 
19, Zech. ix. 13). The word was also introduced early into Latin 
(whether through the Greeks or through the Carthaginians, it is im- 
possible to say), and occurs several times in Plautus. In earlier Latin 
there was a tendency to clip it at the beginning (Plaut. 7rwc. iii. 2. 20 
A. ‘ Perii, rabonem! quam esse dicam hanc beluam? Quin tu arrabonem 
dicis?’ S. ‘Ar facio lucri’); whereas in the fashionable dialect of a 
later age it was systematically clipped at the end (A. Gell. xvii. 2 ‘Nunc 
arrabo in sordidis verbis haberi coeptus ac multo videtur sordidius arra, 
quamquam arra quoque veteres saepe dixerint et compluriens Laberius’). 
In this latter form it appears in the law books ; and so it has passed into 
the modern_ Romanic languages, arra, arrhes. The former mutilation 
may be be compared with dus for omnibus; the latter with mod, photo, etc. 
The word is also found in the Egyptian ἀρηβ. 

It must be observed that the expression is not ἐνέχυρον ‘a pledge,’ but 
ἀρραβών ‘an earnest.’ In other words the thing given is related to the 
thing | assured—the present to the hereafter—as a part to the whole. 
It is the same in kind. So Varro de L. L. iv. p. 41 ‘Arrabo sic dicta, ut 
reliquum reddatur. Hoc verbum a Graeco ἀρραβών reliquum ex eo 
quod debitum reliquit’; comp. Clem. Alex. Κα. Proph. 12, p. 992 
οὔτε yap πᾶν κεκομίσμεθα οὔτε παντὸς ὑστεροῦμεν, ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἀρραβῶνα 
««προσειλήφαμεν, Tertull. de Resurr. Carn. 53 ‘non arrabonem, sed 
plenitudinem’; see Pearson On the Creed, p. 615, note (ed. Chevallier). 
The patristic commentators on the passages in St Paul insist strongly on 
this force of ἀρραβών, and St Jerome more especially on this passage 


21-2 


ee mt 


324 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, {I. 14. 


complains that it is obliterated in the rendering of the Latin Version, 
though he himself has left ‘pignus’ in his own revision in all the three 
passages where the word occurs. Of the Latin fathers Tertullian gives 
*arrabo’ (Resurr. Carn. 51; adv. Hermog. 34, adv. Marc. v. 12); and 
Vigilius Thapsensis ‘arra’ (de Trin. xii.). The others give ‘pignus,’ in 
quoting the passages of St Paul. In Iren. v. 8. 1, though the translator 
gives ‘pignus,’ the meaning of Irenzus himself is clear; ‘Quod et 
pignus dixit Apostolus (hoc est Jars ejus honoris, qui a Deo nobis 
promissus est) in Epistola quae ad Ephesios est.’ Thus the expression 6 
ἀρραβὼν τοῦ πνεύματος includes the idea, which is elsewhere expressed by 
ἡ ἀπαρχὴ Tov πνεύματος (Rom. viii. 23), the frst-fruits of a harvest to be 
reaped hereafter.’ The actual spiritual life of the Christian is the same 
in kind as his future glorified life; the kingdom of heaven is a present 
kingdom ; the believer is already seated on the right hand of God: 
comp. the note on Col. i. 13, ii. 13, ili. I—4, and see below, ii. 6. Never- 
theless the present gift of the Spirit is only a ssad/ fraction of the future 
endowment. This idea also would be suggested by the usual relation 
between the earnest-money and the full payment; comp. Theophrast. in 
Stob. Flori/. xliv. 22 (11. p. 168, Meineke) πολλαπλασία ἡ τιμὴ τοῦ dppa- 
βῶνος. 

But the metaphor suggests, and doubtless was intended to suggest, 
another idea. The recipient of the earnest-money not only secures to 
himself the fulfilment of the compact from the giver, but he pledges 
‘himself to accomplish his side of the contract. By the very act of 
‘accepting the part payment, he has bound himself over to a certain 
reciprocation. The gift of the Spirit is not only a privilege, but also 
an obligation.; This idea of an obligation is enforced in the context 
here; and in 2 Cor. i. 22, by the mention of the seading ; and in the latter 
passage it is still further emphasized by the reference to the security (6 
βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς...εἰς Χριστόν). The same idea appears again in iv. 30 μὴ 
λυπεῖτε τὸ πνεῦμα...ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε κιτλ. The Spirit has, as it were, 
a lien upon us. 








INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


ἀγαθός, 45, 81; and δίκαιος, 286, 303 

ἀγαθωσύνη, 106, 259 

ἀγάπη, τοῦ Θεοῦ, 127; ἐλπίς, πίστις, το 

ἀγαπητός, 26, 247 

ἀγγέλλειν, after verbs of motion, 170 

ἄγειν, 65 

ἁγιασμός, 49, 53, 58, 167 

ἅγιος, 7, 50, 104, 145, 225, 226, 303, 
309, 313 

ἁγιότης, ἁγιωσύνη, 49, 226 

ἀγών, 20 

ἀδελφός, 7, 41, 57, 129, 151, 209, 212 

ἀδιαλείπτως, 10, 82, 247 

ἀδιάφορα, 213 

ἀδικία, 117, 251 

ἄδικος, 210 

ἄζυμος, 205 

ἀήρ and αἰθήρ, 69 

αἴρειν and λαμβάνειν, 216 

αἰτεῖν, 52, 162 

αἰών, 160, 174, 194 

αἰώνιος, 122 

ἀκαθαρσία, 20 

ἀκοή, 30 

ἀκρασία, 222 

ἀκρατεύεσθαι, 224 

ἀκροατής, 260 

ἀλαζών, 256 

ἀλήθεια, 206, 251 

ἀληθινός, τό 

ἀλλά, 302; in apodosis, 296 

dua, 68, 77 

ἁμάρτημα, ἁμαρτία, 273, 293 

ἀμέμπτως, 28, 89 

ἄμωμος, 313 

ἀνάγκη, 45, 231 


dvalpew, 115 
ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, 321 
dvaxplvew, 181, 197 
ἀνάκρισις, 182, 198 
ἀναπληροῦν, 34 
ἀναπολόγητος, 252 
ἀνέγκλητος, 150 
ἄνεσις, 101, 260 
ἀνέχειν, 99 
ἀνήρ, 300 
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, 117 
ἀνθρώπινος, 198, 298 
ἄνθρωπος, 186, 289, 292, 300; ὁ ἔσω, 
304; τῆς ἀνομίας, LIT 
ἀνοχή, 259, 273 
ἀνταποδιδόναι, 46 
ἀντέχειν, 80 
ἀντίχριστος, 111 sq., 116 
ἀπάντησις, 69 
ἀπαρχή, 120 
ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, 149 
ἀπελεύθερος, 230 
ἄπιστος, 265 
ἀπό, 103; and ἐκ, 23; applied to God, 
246 
ἀποδεικνύναι, 113, 200 
ἀπόδειξις, 173 
ἀποκαλύπτειν, 192 
ἀποκάλυψις, 102, 178 
ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, 322 
᾿Απολλώς, 153, 187, 195 
ἀπολύτρωσις, 271, 316 
ἀπορφανίζειν, 36 
ἀποστασία, 111 
ἀπόστολος, 142 


ἄρα, 75 


326 


dpa οὗν, 293, 305 

ἀργύριον, I9I 

ἀρραβών, 323 

ἄρτι, 44, 115 

ἀρχάγγελος, 68 

ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 174 
ἀσέβεια, ἀσεβής, 251, 278, 286 
ἀσθένεια, 171 

ἀσθενής, 8ο 

ἄστοργος, 256 

ἄτακτος, 80, 129 

ἀτιμάζειν, 254 

ἄτοπος, 124 

αὐξάνειν, 98 

αὐτός, 305 

ἀφιέναι and χωρισθῆναι, 225 
ἀφορίζειν, 244 

axpeoty, 268 


βάθος, 178 

βαπτίζειν, constructions with, 155 
βάρβαρος and “Ἕλλην, 249 

βάρος, 24 

βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, 30, 101, 106, 212 
βασιλεύειν, 289, 294 

βέβαιος, 280 

βιωτικός, 211 

βρόχος, 234 

βρώμα, 185, 214 


Taios, 155 

γάλα, 185 

γαμεῖν, γαμεῖσθαι, 232 

γάρ, 260, 286 

γεώργιον, 188 

γίγνεσθαι, 245, 300, 301; els, 12; ἐν, 
23, 172; with adverb, 28; and εἶναι, 
14, 167 

γινώσκειν and εἰδέναι, 179, 302 

youn, 152 

γνῶσις, 147 

νωστός, 252 

γραμματεύς, 159 

γραφή, 277 


δέχεσθαι, 30, 181 
διά, 263, 279; applied to God, 150, 
246; and ἐκ, 274 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


διαλλάσσειν, 288 
διαλογισμός, 195, 253 
διαφέρειν, 262 

δίκαιος and ἀγαθός, 286, 303 
δικαιοσύνη, 168; Θεοῦ, 250, 270 
δικαιοῦν, 213 

δικαίωμα, 292 

δικαίως, 27 

διότι, 37 

διωγμός, 99 

δοκεῖν, 194 

δοκιμάζειν, 21, 84, 255, 262 
δοκιμή, 285 

δόξα, 30, 103, 253, 271, 314 
δόσις, δόμα, 291 

δοῦλος, 244 

δράσσεσθαι, 195 

δύναμις, 13, 102, 158, 164 
δυσφημεῖν, 200 

δωρεά, δῶρον, 291 


ἐγκακεῖν, ἐκκακεῖν, 132 

ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι, ο8 

ἐγκόπτειν, 37 

ἐγκρατεύεσθαι, 224 

ἔγραψα, 207, 219 

el, with subj. 77; ef καί, 229; εἰ μή, 
227 

εἰδέναι, 53, 55, 79, 103, 1713 and 
γινώσκειν, 179, 302 

εἶδος, 87 

εἰδωλόθυτος, 213 56. 

εἴδωλον, 208 

εἰκών, 253 

εἵλατο, form, 119 

εἴπερ, IOI, 274 

els and πρός, 13, 131, 252; after εἶναι, 
γινώσκειν, 12, 197, 217 

els τέλος, 35 

els τὸν ἕνα, 78 

εἴσοδος, 16 

ἐκ, 245, 297; and did, 274 

ἔκδικος, 57 

ἐκδιώκειν, 33 

ἐκκλησία, 32, 99; Θεοῦ, 7, 144 

ἐκλέγειν, 312 

ἐκλογή, 12, 105, 312 

ἔλεος, 8 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. Ω 


Ἕλλην and βάρβαρος, 249 

ἐλλογᾶν, 289 

ἐλπίς, 10 

ἐν, 68, 89, 210; instrumental, 69; 
repeated, 247 

ἔνδειγμα, ἔνδειξις, 100, 272, 273 

ἐνδοξάζειν, 104 

ἐνδυναμοῦν, 282 

ἐνέχυρον, 323 

ἐνέργεια πλάνης, 118 

ἐνεργεῖν, 31 

ἐνιστάναι, 110 

ἐνορκίζειν, Qt 

ἐνώπιον, 167 

ἐξαπατᾶν, 303 

ἐξεγείβῥειν, 216 

ἐξέρχεσθαι, τό 

ἐξηχεῖσθαι, 15 

ἐξουθενεῖν, 211 

ἐξουσία, 130 

ἐξουσιάζειν, 214 

ἑορτάζειν, 206 

ἐπαγγέλλειν, 282 

ἐπιθανάτιος, 200 

ἐπικαλεῖσθαι, 145, τ46 

ἐπιποθεῖν, 45, 247 

ἐπισπᾶν, 228 

ἐπιστολή (ἢ), 91, 109, 133, 135) 207 

ἐπισυναγωγή, 108 

ἐπιταγή, 223, 231 

ἐπιφάνεια, 116 

ἐποικοδομεῖν, 190 

ἐπονομάζειν, 261 

ἐπουράνιος, 312 

ἐργάζεσθαι, περιεργάζεσθαι, 131 

ἔργον and καρπός, 298; and κόπος, 11 

ἐρεῖν, 276 

ἐριθεία, 259 

ἔρις and ζῆλος, 186 

ἐρωτᾶν, 51, 108 

εὐαγγελίζειν, 44 

εὐαγγέλιον, 120, 244; μου, 261 

εὐγενής, 165 

εὐδοκεῖν, 26 

εὐδοκία, 106, 314 

εὐλογεῖν, 311 

εὐλογητός, εὐλογημένος, 310 

εὐοδοῦσθαι, 247 


327 


εὐπάρεδρος, 234 

εὐσχημόνως, 61 

εὐχαριστεῖν, 8, 9, 81, 146, 247, 252, 
310 

ἐφευρετὴς κακῶν, 256 

ἐχθρός, 288 

ἕως, 115 


ζῆλος and ἔρις, 186 
ζημιοῦν, 101 

ζητοῦν and αἰτεῖν, 162 
ζύμη, 204 

ζωὴ and βίος, 211 


ζωοποιεῖν, 281 


ἤ, 38, 195; ἢ καί, 261 

ἠγαπημένος (δ), 315 

ἤδη, 212 

ἡμέρα (ἢ), 71, 73» 105, 192; ἀνθρωπίνη, 
198 

ἤπιος, 25 

ἤτοι, 298 

ἥττημα, 212 


θέατρον, 200 

θέλημα, 52, 261 

θεμέλιον, 189 

θεοδίδακτος, 59 

θεολογία and οἰκονομία, 320 
Θεὸς καὶ Πατήρ, 12, 48, 311 
θεοστυγής, 256 

θεότης, 320 

θησαυρίζειν, 259 

θλίψις, 45, 99, IOI, 260 
θνητὸς and νεκρός, 297 
θροεῖσθαι, 10g 

θώραξ, 75 


ἴδιος, 33, 61 

ἱλαστήριον, 271 

ἱμείρεσθαι, 25 

ἵνα, 34, 73, 1323 present indicative 
after, 199; ellipses after, 111, 168 


καθίζειν, 113 

καθορᾶν, 252 

καὶ inserted, 63; after comparative 
clauses, 55 


328 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


καινότης, 296, 302 λοίδορος, 209 ; 
καιρὸς and χρόνος, 37, 70, 321 λοιποί (οἱ), 63, 75, 225 
κακία, 206, 255 λοιπόν, 51, 124, 232 
καλοποιεῖν, 132 λύτρον and kindred words, 218, 271, 
καλός, 220, 303; τὸ καλόν, 86 316 
καρπός, 298 
καρποφορεῖν, 301 μακαρισμός, 278 
κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον, 186, 266 μακροθυμία, 259 
καταβολὴ κόσμου, 312 μαρτύρεσθαι, μαρτυρεῖσθαι, 29, 58 
κατάλαλος, 256 μαρτυρία, μαρτύριον, 171 
καταλλάσσειν, 288 μάταιος, 18, 252 
καταργεῖν, Γ15, 166, 175, 300, 302 μεθύειν, μεθύσκεσθαι, 75 
καταρτίζειν, 47, 152 μέθυσος, 209 
καταχρᾶσθαι, 233 a μέλλειν, 42, 290 
κατενώπιον, 313 μερίζειν, 155 
κατεργάζειν, 255, 260 μετασχηματίζειν, 199 
κατευθύνειν, 48, 127 μὴ for οὐ, 39, 166, 265 
κατέχειν, 114, 251 μηδέ, μήτε, τοῦ 
καύχημα, 204, 277 μήπως, 43 
κεῖσθαι, 42 μήτιγε, 211 
κέλευσμα, 67 μνεία, μνήμη, 9 
κενὸς and μάταιος, 18; εἰς κενόν, 43 μοναρχία and οἰκονομία, 320 
κήρυγμα, 161, 172 μόνον, ellipse after, 114 
Κηφᾶς, 153, 195 μορφή, μόρφωσις, 262 
κλέπτης, 73 μόχθος and κόπος, 26, 130 
κλῆσις, 105, 164, 228 μυστήριον, 175, 318 
Κλητός, 142, 145, 163, 244, 246 
κοιλία and σῶμα, 215 ναός, 113, 194 
κοιμᾶσθαι, 63, 65 νεκρὸς and θνητός, 297 
κοινωνία, 150 νήπιος, 24, 36, 173, 185 
κολακεία, 23 νόμος, 260, 261, 269, 270, 274, 293» 
κόπος and ἔργον, 11; and μόχθος, 26, 300, 304, 305 
130 νοῦς, 88, 109, 152, 183 
κόσμος, 160, 161, 252, 280 νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, 27, 130 
κρίνειν and its compounds, 118, 181, viv, νυνί, 45, 113, 209, 302, 303 
182, 210, 258, 265, 266 

Κρίσπος, 155 οἰκοδομεῖν, 78 
κριτήριον, 211 ; οἰκοδομή, 189 
Κύριος, 187 οἰκονομία, 319 

οἰκονόμος, 197, 319 
λαλεῖν and λέγειν, 269; ἵνα after, 34 ὄλεθρος, 103 
λαμβάνειν and αἴρειν, 216 ὀλιγόψυχος, 80 
λέγει, impersonal, 217 ὁλόκληρος, 87, 173 
λέγειν and λαλεῖν, 269; τὸ αὐτό, 151 ὁλοτελής, 87 
λογίζειν, 277, 283 ὅλως, 202, 212 


λόγος and γνῶσις, 147; and κήρυγμα, ὁμείρεσθαι, 25 
172; and δύναμις, 13; τοῦ Κυρίου, ὁμοίωμα, 253, 296 
15; ἀκοῆς, 30 ὄνομα, 106, 246, 262 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


ὅπλα, 207 

ὀργή (nh), 17, 35) 262, 288 

ὀρφανός, 36 

ὁσίως, 27 

ὅστις, 103, 295 

ὅτι, after εἰδέναι, 12; causal and ob- 
jective senses of, 97 

ov πάντως, 208, 267 

οὐρανός, plural of, 17 

οὕτως, 22, 69, 212, 224, 231, 235 

ὀφειλή, 221 

ὀψώνιον, 299 


πάντοτε, 35 

παράβασις, παράπτωμα, 293 
παραγγέλλειν, 120 

παράδοσις, 121, 120 
παρακαλεῖν, 20, 41, 78 
παρακεῖσθαι, 304 

παράκλησις, 20 

παραλαμβάνειν, 30, 121, 129 
παραμυθεῖσθαι, 29 

παράπτωμα, παράβασις, 290, 293 
παρεισέρχεσθαι, 203 
παρελάβοσαν, form, 129 
πάρεσις, 273 

παρθένος, 231 

παρουσία, 38, 116 
παρρησιάζεσθαι, 19 

πάσχα, 205 

Παῦλος, 6, 37, 309 

πείθειν, constructions with, 127 
meds, 172 

πένθειν, 203 

περί, 41, 77, 124 
περιεργάζεσθαι, 131 
περικάθαρμα, 200 

περιποίησις, σωτηρίας, 76; δόξης, 121 
περισσεύειν, 48, 293, 316 
περισσοτέρως, 37 

περίψημα, 201 

πιστεύειν, 104 

πιστεύεσθαι, with acc., 21, 264 
πίστις (ἡ), το, 125 

πιστός, 300 

πλάνη, 20 

πλεονάζειν, 48, 203 
πλεονεκτεῖν, πλεονεξία, 21, 56, 255 


329 


πληροφορία, 13 

πλήρωμα, 351 

πλοῦτος, 31τ6 

πνεῦμα, 88, 109, 181, 183, 245 
πολλοί (ol), 291 

πονηρία, 206, 255 

πονηρός, πονηρόν, 125 
πορνεία, 53, 202, 221, 255 
που, 282 

πρᾶγμα, 57, 203, 210 
πράσσειν and ποιεῖν, 257, 263 
προαιτιάζειν, 267 
προεπαγγέλλειν, 244 
προέχειν, 267 

πρόθεσις, 318 

προιστάμενοι (ol), 79 
mpoopifew, 313 

προπάσχειν, 19 

προπάτωρ, 276 

πρός, 42; and els, 13, 131, 252 
προσαγωγή, 284 

προτιθέναι, 271, 318 
πρόφασις, 23 

προφήτης, προφητεία, 83 
πυρός, διά, 193 


ῥυόμενος (5), 17 


σαίνειν, 42 

σαλεύειν, 109 

σαρκικός, σάρκινος, 184, 303 

σάρξ, 88 

Σατανᾶς, 37, 204 

σβεννύειν, 82 

σέβασμα, 112 

σέβεσθαι, σεβάζεσθαι, 254 

σημεῖον, 162 

σημειοῦσθαι, 133 

Σιλουανός, 6 

σκεῦος, 53 

σκοτίζειν, σκοτοῦν, 253 

σοφία, 157, 159, 161, 164, 174; and 
φρόνησις, 317 

σοφός, 159, 189, 249 

oréyew, 40 

στέλλειν, 129 

στενοχωρία, 260 

στέφανος, 38 


330 


OTHKEW, 45, 121 
στηρίζειν, 123 
στοιχεῖν, 280 
συγγνώμη, 223 
συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι, 321 
συγκρίνειν, 181 
συμβιβάζειν, 183 
συμπαρακαλεῖν, 248 
συμφυλέτης, 32 
συναγωγή, 32 
συναναμίγνυσθαι, 134 
συνεργός, 41, 188 
συνευδοκεῖν, 225, 257 
συνζητητής, 159 
συνήδεσθαι, 304 
συνθάπτειν, 296 
συνστέλλειν, 232 
σφραγίς, 279 

σχῆμα, 199 

σχίσμα, 151 
σχολάζειν, 221 
σωζόμενος, 157 


σῶμα, 88, 218, 301, 305; and κοιλία, 


215 
Σωσθένης, 143 | 
σωτηρία, 288 


ταχέως, 108 
τέλειος, 173, 185 
τί ἔτι, 266 

τιμή, 55, 218, 316 
Τιμόθεος, 7 

τίς olde, 227 


τὸ for ὥστε, 41, 56; giving precision, 52 


τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, 249 
τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν, 248 
τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι, 85 
τρέχειν, 124 

τρόμος, 172 

τροφός, 25 


ὑβρίζειν, τῷ 

ὑβριστής, 256 
υἱοθεσία, υἱότης, 314 
υἱοὶ φωτός, ἡμέρας, 74 
ὑπακοή, 246, 293, 298 
ὕπανδρος, 300 
ὑπάντησις, 69 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


ὑπέρ, 41, 77, 108, 124; words com- 


pounded with, 47, 294 
ὑπεραίρεσθαι, 112 
ὑπέρακμος, 234 
ὑπεραυξάνειν, 98 
ὑπερβαίνειν, 56 
ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, 46 
ὑπερήφανος, 256 
ὑπερπερισσεύειν, 294 
ὑπόδικος, 270 
ὑπομονή, 11, 993 τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 128 
ὑποτύπωσις, 262 
ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν, 148 
ὑστέρημα, 27, 47 


φαρμακός, 201 

φησίν, impersonal, 217 
φθάνειν, 35 

φιλαδελφία, 59 

φίλημα ἅγιον, 90 
φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, 60 

φόβος, 172 

φρόνησις and σοφία, 317 
φυτεύειν, 187 


χαίρειν, 81 

χάρις, 8, 146, 314 

χάρισμα, 148, 180, 224, 248, 290 
χαριτοῦν, 315 

χήρα, 234 

Χλόη, 152 

χρᾶσθαι, 233 

χρηματίζειν, 300 

χρηστότης, 259 

Χριστὸς ἐσταυρωμένος, 162, τ7τ 
Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, 300 

χρόνος and καιρός, 37, 70, 321 
χρυσίον, 191 


ψεῦδος (τό), 118, 254 
ψιθυριστής, 256 
ψυχή, 88 

ψυχικός, 181 


ὠδίν, 72 
ὥρα, 37 
ὡς ἐάν, 25 
ὡς ὅτι, [10 





INDEX OF 


Achaicus, 152, 156, 219 

Acts of the Apostles; confirm the facts 
of the Pauline Epistles, 16, 17, 19, 
43» 48; 53, 112, 125, 151, 206, 250; 
reports of St Paul’s speeches in, 43 

Adam, the Second, 289 sq 

Advent, the Second; the topic of the 
Thessalonian Epistles, 38, 60, 62, 66, 
78; actual, 67; attendant angels in, 
50, 68, 102; other accompaniments 
of, 102, 192, 193 ; the Apostles’ idea 
of its nearness, 65 sq, 108 sq, 116; 
periodical anticipations of, 62 ; Pauline 
terms to designate, 108, 116; ‘the 
day, 71, 73» 74, 105, 192, 2593 
character of the punishments of the 
wicked at, 102, 103 

Anacolutha in St Paul, 52 

Anarthrous terms in St Paul, 280 

Angels; accompanying Christ at the 
Second Advent, 50, 68, 102; Jewish 
speculations about, 68 

Antichrist, 111, 112, 114, 3223; parallel- 
isms between Christ and, 114, 116 

Antinomianism alleged in St Paul’s 
teaching, 277 

Apocalypsis Eliae, 176, 178 

Apocalyptic passages in N.T.; style of, 
72, 116; based on O.T., 50, 72, 102 

Apollos; his history, 153, 187, 189; 
his friendly relations with St Paul, 
154, 187; characteristics of his party 
at Corinth, 157; the name, 153 

Aristotle; quoted, 19, 23, 86, 117, 189, 
211, 222, 261, 287, 292, 317, 318, 
319; his Greek, 133 


SUBJECTS. 


Armenian correspondence between St 
Paul and Corinth, 207, 219 sq 

Armour, the Christian, 75 

Ascensio Isaiae, 176, 316 

Ascetic additions of scribes, 222 

Aspirates, anomalous, in manuscripts of 
the Pauline Epistles, 26 

Atonement, the doctrine in St Paul; 
see Soteriology 

Authorised Version; archaisms in the, 
61,198, 223, 256; renderingscriticised, 
12, τό, 18, 37, 38, 41, 46, 51, 57» 59s 
100, 102, 108, 109, I12, 113») 114, 
135, 147, 153, 162, 167, 171, 172, 
181, 194, 198, 216, 223, 232, 234, 
245, 246, 250, 257, 264, 273, 291, 
296, 297, 298, 300, 302, 304 


Baptism ; form of primitive, 155; often 
performed by subordinates, 156; 
references of St Paul to, 213, 226, 
295 sq; kiss of peace at, 91; called 
σφραγίς, 279 

Barnabas, Epistle of; quoted, 11, 59; 
92, 279, 316; on the moral character 
of the Apostles, 278, 286; acquainted 
with the Ep. to the Romans, 279 

Baur, 31 

Bengel, 40, 53, 58, 65, 66, 67, 69, 75, 
83, 131, 143, 156, 167, 187, 188, 
207, 209, 210, 225, 262 

Bentley, 291 

Bethany, perhapsthenameofa district, 23 

‘ by’ meaning ‘ against,’ 198 


Cabiri worshipped in Thessalonica, 20 


332 


Caligula’s statue in Jerusalem, 113 

‘Calling’ and kindred words in St 
Paul’s Epistles, 12, 14, 105, 121, 
145, 164, 227, 228, 312, 318 

Calvin; quoted, 127, 164, 168, 290; 
on a lost letter of St Paul to Corinth, 
207 

Celibacy, St Paul on, 221, 231 

Celsus, 163, 286 

Cephas, the name in St Paul’s Epistles, 
153 : 

Chloe; her social status, 152; her 
household, 152, 202; the name, 152 

Christian ministry in St Paul’s time, 
79 

Christianity; and the human body, 
553 sensualised by some early con- 
verts, 21 

Christians; social conditions of early, 
165; treatment by St Paul of offen- 
ders among, 134 

Chrysostom, 8, 11, 29, 38, 42, 44, 48, 
53» 54. 64, 78, 80, 84, 90, 132, 147, 
167, 181, 206, 218, 221, 229, 311, 
320, 322 

‘Church’; St Paul’s use of the term, 7, 
32, 144; his comprehensive view of, 
1453 see also ἅγιος 

Clement of Alexandria, 25, 85, go, 
112, 159, 174, 223, 253, 259, 262, 
287, 315, 320, 323 

Clement of Rome; quoted, 8, 18, 20, 
28, 59, 64, 92, 146, 154, 169, 186, 
257, 259, 283, 293, 313, 316; shows 
acquaintance with St Paul’s Epistles, 
169, 177, 253, 263, 278; with 1 Peter, 
8 


Cocceian controversy, 273 

Conybeare and Howson, 22 

Corinth, Church of ; its character, 145, 
148, 203 sq, 213; its constitution, 
215; schisms at, 152 sq; probably 
never visited by St Peter, 153; lost 
letters of St Paul to, 207; the lost 
letter to St Paul from, 207, 219; ex- 
tant spurious correspondence, 207, 
219 54 

Corinthia verba, 170 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Corinthians, First Epistle to the; ana- 
lysis, 139 Sq; time of year of writing, 
206; known to Clement of Rome, 
154 

Corinthians, Second Epistle to the, 
time of year of writing, 206 

Crispus, 155 

Cumulative compounds in St Paul’s 
Epistles, 46, 98, 294 


Death; the Christian idea of, 65; 
literal and spiritual in St Paul, 289, 
305 

delatores, reference by St Paul to, 256 

Divinity of our Lord emphasized in the 
earliest of St Paul’s Epistles, 48 


ecdicus, 57 

‘Election’ in St Paul’s system; see 
Calling 

Ellicott, Bishop, 42, 445 47» 53» 55» 68, 
69, 78, 88, 121, 124, 133 

Ellipses in St Paul’s Epistles, 28, 49, 
104, 110, 114, 165, 168, 199, 203, 
276, 278, 284, 293 

Ephesians, Epistle to the; a circular 
letter, 309; presents coincidences 
with 1 Peter, 310 

Epistolary aorist, 207 

Epistolary plural never used by St Paul, 
22, 37; 98, ΤΟΙ, 119, 246 


Esoteric doctrine, no trace in St Paul — 


of, 174, 185 
Ethical terms affected by Christianity, 
186, 209 


Faith, hope and charity in St Paul’s 
Epistles, to 
Fortunatus, 152, 156, 219 


Gaius, persons of the name mentioned 
in the N.T., 155 

Genitives, the subjective and objective 
blended in, 127 

Gospel; no evidence in St Paul’s 
writings of a written, 71; ‘my gos- 
pel,’ 120, 261 

Greece ; its connexion with Phoenicia and 





INDEX OF 


Palestine in early times, 323 ; its divi- 
sion into Roman provinces in St Paul’s 
time, 15 


Heathen world, immorality of the, in 
St Paul’s day, 20, 53, 56, 214, 252 sq 

Hebrews, Epistle to the; perhaps in- 
fluenced by 1 Corinthians, 185; by 
Romans, 282 

Hermas, the ‘Shepherd’ of, 26, 82, 
155, 279, 281 

Holy Spirit; its gifts, 82 sq, 147, 
148 sq, 248; include the testing 
of spirits, 84, 109 


‘Idol,’ the word, 208 

Ignatian Epistles, 8, 11, 65, 76, 82, 
128, 129, 148, 173, 174, 206, 230, 262, 
296, 299, 310, 316, 317, 319, 320 

Immorality of the heathen world in 
St Paul’s day, 20, 53, 56, 214, 252 56 

Incarnation, the doctrine of the, called 
ἡ οἰκονομία, 319 sq 

Incest, the case at Corinth of, 202 sq, 
213 

Irenzeus, 25, 113, 120, 169, 286, 320, 
322, 324 


Jerome, 6, 15, 56, 71, 176, 205, 268, 
311, 323 

Jews; the opinion of Tacitus and St 
Paul on the, 34; condemned by their 
crucifixion of Jesus Christ, 35 sq ; the 
crucified Messiah a stumbling-block 
to, 163; St Paul’s love for the, 31, 
250; his description of their state, 
258 sq; of their privileges, 264 sq; 
persecute St Paul at Thessalonica, 16, 
33, 38, 64, 125; and elsewhere, 125; 
doctrine of the resurrection among 
the, 64; see also Rabbinical teaching 

John (St), coincidences with St Paul’s 
teaching in, 107, 111, 118, 128, 278, 
316 

Josephus, 6, 23, 36, 82, 87, 113, 175, 
228, 262, 273 

Jowett, 7, 8, 53, 56, 65, 102, 257, 265, 
274, 286, 288, 296, 302 


SUBJECTS. 333 

Julius Ceesar, 17, 113 

Justification by faith, the Pauline doc- 
trine of, 168, 186, 259, 278 

Justin Martyr, 84, 90, 155, 162, 163, 
165, 206, 221, 320, 322 


Kingdom of Christ, its meaning in St 
Paul, 30, 101, 106, 175, 312, 319 


Lachmann, 42, 154, 167 

Last Judgment ; see Advent, the Second 

Law; the word in St Paul, 304; asso- 
ciated with the circumcision, 280; 
multiplies sin, 270 sq 

Law terms in St Paul’s Epistles, 210, 
234 

Light a symbol of the Messiah, 74 

Litotes in St Paul’s Epistles, 57, 125 

Liturgical forms, as affecting readings 
in the N.T., 97, 218 

Lobeck, 26, 27, 33, 35» 44, 53) 110, 
171, 209, 224, 232 

Longinus on St Paul’s style, 173 

Lucian, 29, 60, 163, 209, 211 

Liinemann, 52, 71, 104 


Macedonia, evangelisation of, 60 

Man of sin, 119 sq 

Marriage, St Paul’s views on, 55, 221, 
225 Sq; 231, 234 

‘Martyrdom of Polycarp,’ 146 

‘ Mercy-seat,’ the word, 272 

Messiah ; stumbling-block of a suffer- 
ing, 162, 163, 175 sq; how met by 
the Jews, 163; titles used by St 
Paul, 17, 74, 290, 316; the Jewish doc- 
trine of the resurrection and of the, 64 

Metaphors; inversions in St Paul of, 
73, 205, 272; transition in St Paul 
of, 98; special Pauline, military, 75, 
80, 129, 297, 299; nautical, 109, 
129; sacrificial, 313; the amphi- 
theatre, 200; the athlete, 20; the 
builder, 78, 188 sq, 101, 194; coin- 
testing, 21, 84, 255, 285; the body and 
members, 216; the herald, 161; the 
husbandman, 187 sq; the nurse and 
the father, 29; the steward, 194, 319 


334 


Meyer, 192, 204, 207, 212, 226, 234, 
271, 278, 281, 284, 286 

Miracles, how expressed in the N.T., 
117, 162, 164 


obsonium, 299 

C£cumenius, 31 

Offenders, St Paul’s treatment of Chris- 
tian, 134 

Old Testament; style in apocalyptic 
passages of the N.T., 72, 102; titles 
of Jehovah appropriated to our Lord, 
102, 106 

‘On a Fresh Revision of the English 
New Testament’, 57, 76, 86, 118, 
126, 182, 262, 288, 291 

Origen, 25, 69, 81, 85, 89, 165, 172, 
174, 176, 211, 223, 229, 263, 268, 
272, 275, 320 

Oxymoron in St Paul, 61 


Paley, 32, 110, 156 

Paradoxes in St Paul’s Epistles, 61 

Paronomasia in St Paul’s Epistles, 131, 
187, 198 

Passover imagery adopted by St Paul, 
205 sq 

Paul (St); his movements, 40, 99, 206 ; 
illustrated from the Acts of the 
Apostles; see Acts of the Apostles ; 
persecuted at Thessalonica, 14, 33, 
38; his manual labours, 27; his 
needs supplied, 24, 27; probably 
unmarried, 223; his physical infir- 
mity, 38, 171; his power to work 
miracles, 13; prefatory salutations in 
his Epistles, 5, 97, 142, 244, 3093 
concluding salutations, 91, 135 sq; 
lost letters of, 122, 136, 207; for- 
geries circulated in his name, 109, 
110, 136; his style; see Anacolutha, 
Cumulative compounds, Ellipses, Epis- 
tolary plural, Litotes, Metaphors, 
Oxymoron, Paronomasia; testimony 
of Jerome, 15; of Longinus, 173; 
his acquaintance with classical au- 
thors, 151; his teaching on bap- 
tism, 213, 226, 295 sq; on Christian 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


liberty, 213, 230; on circumcision, 
228; on divorce, 225; on justifica- 
tion by faith, 168, 186, 259, 278; on 
marriage, 55, 221, 225 Sq, 231, 2343 
on non-essentials in religion, 213; 
on predestination, etc., 12, 14. 105, 
121, 145, 164, 227, 228, 313, 3183 
on the scheme of salvation; see 
Soteriology; on thanksgiving, 8, 18, 
81, 82, 146, 3143; his comprehensive 
spirit, 145, 225, 228; his delicacy of 
feeling, 57, 154, 187, 248; his desire 
for life, 124; his disinterestedness 
and yet his claims, 24, 130; his love 
for the Jews, 31, 250; his pride in 
Roman citizenship, 230; his sym- 
pathy, 1o1; his teaching compared 
with St James, 31; with St John, 
107, 111, 118, 128, 278, 316; his 
coincidences with St Luke’s Gospel, 72 

Pelagius, 8, 27, 29 

Persius, 254 

Peter (St); his movements, 153; pro- 
bably -never at Corinth, 153; his 
teaching and St Paul’s, 316; his 
first Epistle imitated_by Clement of 
Rome, 8 

Peter, Second Epistle of, apocalyptic 
passages in, 72 

Philippi; persecutions at, 19 ; supplies 
to St Paul from, 24 

Philippians, Epistle to the; shows co- — 
incidences with 1 Thess., 8; with 
2 Thess., 99, 100, t02 ; with τ Cor., 
150 

Philo, 28, 65, 68, 76, 87, 88, 113, 124, 
157, 185, 205, 217, 234, 253, 256, 
261, 263, 265, 272, 281, 291, 310, 
313 

Philostratus, 34 

Polycarp, the Epistle of, 11, 313; the 
author acquainted with 2 Thess., 99, 
134 

Prepositions, St Paul’s careful use of, 274 

Presbyters, duties of, 79 

Proper names, contracted forms of Greek, 
6 

* Prophecy,’ the word, 83, 149 





INDEX OF 


Psychology of St Paul, 88, 183 

Purgatory, the Romish doctrine not in 
St Paul’s Epistles, 193 

Pythagoras, 173 


Quotations in St Paul’s Epistles; in- 
exact, 176 sq, 216, 266, 270; their 
application, 195, 217 


Rabbinical teaching ; on baptism, 226 ; 
on Greek culture, 159; on going to 
law, 210, 212; on marriage, 203, 
2243; on polygamy, 221; on moral 
lapse, 254; on the duty of work, 27, 
131, 132 

Resurrection, the doctrine of the; pro- 
minent in St Paul’s teaching, 63 sq, 
246, 283; connected with moral 
resurrection, 281; moral import of 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
body, 215 

Roman Church; its constitution and 
character in St Paul’s day, 246, 249, 
301 ; his desire to visit it, 248 

Roman Emperor, possible allusions in 
St Paul to, 113, 253, 256 

Roman Empire, as the restraining 
power upon Antichrist, 114 

Romans, Epistle to the; analysis, 
239 sq; leading ideas and purpose 
of, 244, 245; known to the author 
of the Epistle of Barnabas, 279; of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 282 


Salutations in St Paul’s Epistles ; open- 
ing, 5, 97, 142 54. 244, 309; closing, 
91, 135 Sq 

Salvation, St Paul’s doctrine of; see 
Soteriology 

Sayings of our Lord preserved by St 
Paul, 65, 71, 80,85 ᾿ 

schema, 199 

Sentences, effect of the growth of lan- 
guage on the formation of, 39 

Silas; the name, 6; see Silvanus 

Silvanus ; his history and journeys, 6, 
19, 40, 60, 172; a Jewish Christian 
and a Roman citizen, 7; his con- 


SUBJECTS. 335 
nexion with the Thessalonian Church, 
5; his importance, 6; legendary 
bishop of Thessalonica, 6 

Sin, words used by St Paul to connote, 
293 

Sosthenes; his history, 143; his con- 
nexion with the Corinthian Church, 
5. 143 

Soteriology, St Paul’s doctrine of, 77, 
157, 168, 218, 230, 272, 288 sq, 
314 Sq, 316 

Stanley, Dean, 151, 195, 207, 208, 209, 
227 

Stephanas, 152, 156, 202, 219 

Stoic phraseology adopted by St Paul, 
195, 200, 229 


Tabernacles, Feast of, and 2 Corin- 
thians, 206 

Tacitus on the characteristics of the 
Jews, 34 

Tertullian; quoted, 54, 90, 103, 164, 
223, 320, 322, 323, 3243 criticised, 
33, 70, 100 

Thanksgiving, its prominence in St 
Paul’s teaching, 8, 81, 82, 146, 247, 
252, 314 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 42, 54, 180, 311 

Theodoret, 54, 63, 80, 159, 229 

Theophrastus, the Greek of, 133 

Thessalonian Church ; its founders, 5; 
its history, 7, 62, 120; its character- 
istics, 46, 60, 62, 78, 128, 133; its 
constitution, 16; St Paul’s affection 
for, 38; no letter to St Paul from, 
133 

Thessalonians, First Epistle to the; 
analysis, 3; divisions, 48; resem- 
blances to 2 Thess., 122; to the 
Epistle to the Philippians, 8; post- 
script, 90 sq; prominence given in it 
to thanksgiving, 8, 30 sq; to hope, 
10; to the Second Advent, το, 16 sq, 
50, 62 sq 

Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the; 
analysis, 95 ; resemblancesto 1 Thess., 
122; to the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians, 99, 100, 102 


336 


Thessalonica; its important position, 
15; Jews at, 33, 125; St Paul’s stay 
at, 27; persecutions there, 14, 32, 
33: 38, 99» 125 

Timothy ; his movements, 40, 60, 172, 
201; his circumcision, 228; associ- 
ated with St Paul in his Epistles, 7, 
40, 309; his title ἀδελφός, 41 

Titus; movements of, 201; why not 
circumcised, 228 

‘ Tradition’ in the New Testament, 121 

Truth and -falsehood, St Paul and St 
John on, 118, 251, 254 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Vaughan, Dr, 116, 248, 255, 265, 267, 
275, 277, 280, 282, 286, 290, 296, 
297, 298 


Waddington, 6 

Wicked; stages in the downward career 
of the, 117, 254sq; character of their 
final punishment, 102, 103 

Wisdom, Book of; its birthplace, 252, 
253; shows correspondences with 
the Epistle to the Romans, 252 

Women, important position in the 
Early Church of, 152 

Worship of animals satirised, 253 





CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. ἃ C, Ε. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 





MESSRS MACMILLAN AND C0.’S THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 


By the Late Bishop Lightfoot, D.D. 


NOTES ON EPISTLES OF ST PAUL FROM UN- 
PUBLISHED COMMENTARIES. 


ST PAUL'S. EPISTLE. TO THE GALATIANS, A 


Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 20th Thousand. 
8vo. 125. 


ST PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A 
Revised Text, with Introduction, ἄς. 19th Thousand. 8vo. 125. 


ST PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND 
TO PHILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, and Disser- 
tations. 14th Thousand. svo. 12s. 


DISSERTATIONS ON THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Re- 
printed from the editions of St Paul’s Epistles. 8vo. 145. 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. PArTI. ST CLEMENT 
OF ROME. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and 
Translations. Second Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 329. 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. PartIl. STIGNATIUS 
—ST POLYCARP. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, 
and Translations. 2nd Thousand. 3 vols. 8vo. 48s. 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. With 
short a eee Greek Text, and English Translations. 3rd Thousand. 
8vo. 16s 


ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED “SUPER- 
NATURAL RELIGION.” Second Edition. 8vo. τος. 6d. 


ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW 
TESTAMENT. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 


LEADERS IN THE NORTHERN CHURCH. Durham 


Sermons. 5th Thousand. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


ORDINATION ADDRESSES AND COUNSELS TO 
CLERGY. 3rd Thousand. Crown 8vo, 6s. 


CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. 3rd Thousand. Crown 8vo. 
6s. 
SERMONS PREACHED IN ST PAUL'S. 3rd Thousand, 


Crown 8vo. 6s. 


SERMONS ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS, 2nd.-Thousand, 


Crown 8vo. 6s. 


BIBLICAL ESSAYS. 2nd Thousand. 8vo. 12s. 


MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. 


MESSRS MACMILLAN AND C0.’S THEOLOGICAL WORKS, 


By Bishop WESTCOTT, D.D. 


THE INCARNATION AND COMMON LIFE. Crown 
8vo. 95. 


THE GOSPEL OF LIFE: Thoughts introductory to the 
Study of Christian Doctrine. Second Edition. 6s. 


ESSAYS— THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS 
THOUGHT IN THE WEST. 4th Thousand. 55. 


A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE 
CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR 
CENTURIES. Sixth Edition, revised. τος. 6d. 


THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH: A popular account of the 


Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches. 
15th Thousand. Pot 8vo. 45. 6d. 


INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR 
GOSPELS. Eighth Edition. τος. 6d. 


THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. Thoughts 


on its Relation to Reason and History. Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


THE REVELATION OF THE RISEN LORD. Fifth 


Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


THE HISTORIC FAITH. Short Lectures on the Apostles’ 
Creed. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. Short 


Lectures on the Titles of the Lord in the Gospel of St John. Second 
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR and other Sermons. Third 


Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL. Crown 
8vo. 1s. 6d. 


SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. Second 


Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
THE VICTORY OF THE CROSS. Second Edition. 3s. 6a. 
GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for 


Ordination. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, 
with Notes and Essays. Second Edition. 8vo. 14s. 


THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. The Greek Text, with 
Notes and Essays. Third Edition, 8vo. 12s. 6d. 


THOUGHTS ON REVELATION AND LIFE. Being 
Selections from the Writings of Bishop Westcott. Arranged and Edited 
by Rev. STEPHEN PHILLIPS, 2nd Thousand. Crown 8vo. 


MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. 














μὰ 





μὰ 
oy,® 


ee Ψ. "| Ὗ . 
> ἮΝ i ' ἀπε 














jad 
* 














BINVING SECT. ALO SO [99 


PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET 





UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY 











Bible Lightfoot, Joseph Barber 
Comment Notes of Epistles of 
(N.T) St. Paul 






























































a iob il 
posateh